I just tried it, but couldn't spin around fast enough. Maybe I was too heavy? Don't have time to give it a go again. There's always the possibility some tinkering was done in the aircraft maker. Plus, to R&R's credit, they DID say they were focused on simulating normal procedures. I wouldn't exactly call that normal. :lol:

I guess because of the lack of any grond physics he was able to do what he did, but even then, you would think that after the waltz the ground speed would have droped to taxi levels.

 

Bob

I like how he managed to keep it on the runway.

Other than that this looks like correct physics to me.

 

It does to me, too. Besides, it's funny as anything.

 

I'm not even sure the landing gear stress, tire robustness and side friction aren't correct. Someone posted a video of several airliners landing in extreme crosswinds, and the aircraft touched down still at a high crab angle, maybe 20 degrees, and straightened up after the mains were on the runway and before the nose wheel came down.

 

Hook

A couple of thoughts...

 

First, a shout out for the guy who made the video. I was laughing HARD!

 

As for the physics? I'm less convinced. The 777 engines in reverse are powerful, but not so much so to get to a speed in which you could literally spin the aircraft and then spin the engines into forward thrust to achieve the V speed even at a minimum takeoff weight (which would be the only way this could even begin to be conceivable). Second, while I agree that the real airplane is incredibly robust and the main landing gear can take a whopping side load, it can't physically take the load of the entire aircraft sideways. Plus would it be even possible to achieve that degree of spin with one engine in full thrust reverse and one in full thrust forward plus full rudder input and asymmetrical braking AND keeping the wings level?

 

Don't get me wrong. I love the video. However, for flying purposes, I'll wait for the PMDG 777...thank you.

 

Cheers to all,

Dave Lamb

I know, right? Because I want an aircraft that takes into consideration that one day I might want to go insane and do a full reverse j-turn take-off, but I need the aircraft to tell me I can't. Otherwise, it's garbage.

The REALLY funny thing....I can rig the default 777 in about 15 minutes to behave like that.

The REALLY funny thing....I can rig the default 777 in about 15 minutes to behave like that.

 

IMO, you don't have to. I thought the video was entertaining. But, it didn't bug me at all, as far as flight dynamics are concerned. It was something that was way out of the normal operating envelope for a Boeing 777. Therefor, I don't believe that any programmer needs to go to the extent of programming all of the pitfalls, that this type of maneuvering would involve. As previously said............it didn't takeoff backwards! Had it done so...........then yes, I'd start worrying about XP FD.

 

L.Adamson

I laughed so hard I had tears.

That is hilarious.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

As for the physics? I'm less convinced. The 777 engines in reverse are powerful, but not so much so to get to a speed in which you could literally spin the aircraft and then spin the engines into forward thrust to achieve the V speed even at a minimum takeoff weight (which would be the only way this could even begin to be conceivable).

 

When I really think about it...............the engines are fan/jets, and not internal combustion. With the airflow reaching takeoff speeds, entering from the rear end, I do believe there would be some mass airflow disturbance (as in flame out). But then, I'm not an engineer putting one of these on a test stand, mounted to a truck, to find out.

When I really think about it...............the engines are fan/jets, and not internal combustion. With the airflow reaching takeoff speeds, entering from the rear end, I do believe there would be some mass airflow disturbance (as in flame out). But then, I'm not an engineer putting one of these on a test stand, mounted to a truck, to find out.

 

The airflow would actually come from the front then is forced out the cowl by the use of cascade vents that open when reverse thrust is applied, forcing bypass air (which generates 80% of the thrust of the engine) in a forward direction. If the airflow were suddenly forced through the engine, as you correctly stated, we wouldn't want to find out.

 

Hence my comment about physics...and come to think about it...mechanics. Only can it work in the sim world...which is why I can laugh about it.

 

Cheers,

Dave Lamb