Normal brakes are much cheaper & more the norm for most airlines especially low cost airlines & older planes. The down side is that they get hot very quick & cause some serious heat transfer to the wheels themselves. On large road vehicles like buses & lorries(trucks) they have devices to assist braking like-exhaust gas brakes & electro magnetic brakes so that the driver can reduce speed or control speed on steep hills without over heating the brakes themselves. Aircraft can use reverse thrust if fitted which assists the slowing of the aircraft. I have seen wheels cracked due to metal fatigue caused by heat. If you use PMDg's 747 & land at an airport with short runways you will get brake temp warning & I've seen a few with wheels on fire during taxi in. In fact it's normal procedure to warn ground crews of the risk of fire. For certification most aircraft have to get up to vr speed then apply full brakes come to a stop & then wait for several minutes to see if a fire breaks out. For me normal brakes make landing more challenging into shorter fields & I'm going to be very interested in PMDG's modelling in their new release.

Brembo ? It is a Saint who protects all motor bikers

Gents,Carbons are better no doubt, Although not typically used by many airlines as the expense over the steel brakes is quite large.. Ive been told by many who are in the know, that when in doubt use the steel brake option.

Just a FYI to everyone. Most of the recent planes that Boeing has delivered have had carbon brakes on them. Now i cant say that for certain on the 737 but on the 767, 777 it is true. Also I have no idea what happens to them when they get delivered. So it seems to me very possible that companies prob have both on their fleet. So id say choose the one you like best.

i'm currently watching a DVD of transavia airlines 737-700/800 and i got a lot of info out of that.i can't wait any longer for the NGX but i have to. like we all have to thanks

Just a FYI to everyone. Most of the recent planes that Boeing has delivered have had carbon brakes on them. Now i cant say that for certain on the 737 but on the 767, 777 it is true. Also I have no idea what happens to them when they get delivered. So it seems to me very possible that companies prob have both on their fleet. So id say choose the one you like best.

That may or may not be true.... However at the company I work for, we are still getting new NG deliveries from Boeing and I can assure you ours has always been steel, and still remain to delivered with the steel. We pride ourselves on fleet commonality, its not in our interest to have to stock two seperate types of parts just for certain specific aircrafts of our fleet, we are similer to southwest in that regard. Any cost conscience company would do the same.

That may or may not be true.... However at the company I work for, we are still getting new NG deliveries from Boeing and I can assure you ours has always been steel, and still remain to delivered with the steel. We pride ourselves on fleet commonality, its not in our interest to have to stock two seperate types of parts just for certain specific aircrafts of our fleet, we are similer to southwest in that regard. Any cost conscience company would do the same.

Very true if i was running an airline i would try and keep all the parts the same. However I was only commenting on what I see in the course of my work, and like I said I don't know about the 737's. Every airplane is different though, has different parts, assemblies etc. based on problems occurring during manufacturing. So in some respects when you are looking at maintenance on your fleet you have to see every plane as separate. I could see having different brakes being just one of those things that could be different from plane to plane. But again i would totally understand wanting to keep things as similar as possible to help mechanics and repairs.

That may or may not be true.... However at the company I work for, we are still getting new NG deliveries from Boeing and I can assure you ours has always been steel, and still remain to delivered with the steel. We pride ourselves on fleet commonality, its not in our interest to have to stock two seperate types of parts just for certain specific aircrafts of our fleet, we are similer to southwest in that regard. Any cost conscience company would do the same.

You have a piont there, i think a company should either stick with steel or replace the fleet into carbon otherwise it would be a to much expance for an airliner to have both in stock but replacing a fleet with carbon is also a big big cost price, but he that's the airline industry right?

KLM uses carbon brakes on their NG's

KLM uses carbon brakes on their NG's

when the NGX comes out i want to fly how KLM operate their NG's so thanks for that.

Indeed, guess my point is its one or the other, usually not both..Lets say a aircraft needs a brake change at a non line maintance base, they now how to fly out a brake clamshell case to swap the one, but lets say the closest maintaince base only has a steel brake available, and the aircraft has carbon, you now cant swap out the unservicable brake because the good one is carbon. Logistial disasters ensue when you have same aircraft types that require different types of parts. The carriers that tend to make good profits have risks like this mitigated. I think the trend is to move to carbon brakes, but its usually all or nothing with carrers regarding this stuff.

If I use Carbon Brakes, Julia Gillard may get an idea for her Carbon Tax...