Also keep in mind your weight. The higher your weight, the higher your airspeed on approach. Landing distances are based on max performing aircraft, which we seldom do. If the landing distance is 4000, its based on being on speed, on path, down 1000ft down and standing on the brakes. When i was flying DC10s to short runways, we watched the weight and used full flaps. 40 vs 30 should cut 5 kts. I operate to short fields all the time in the G5/550. We do whats called a min run landing. At 300ft, we shift our aimpoint to the end of the runway, slight flare and it puts us down 500 to 1000ft down the runway. Practice makes perfect.

guys, it's not flair, it's flare.

guys, it's not flair, it's flare.

 

My spelling is bad sorry.

Of all the knowledgeable people here, many apparently have not noticed that he is speaking of the Boeing 737 and his problem is with that specific aircraft, and not some arcane airplane that spews it reverse thrust out to the side. And no one seems to have thought (except one) to check  on how much fuel is in the plane. As an ignorant amateur who can only call on his poor memory, I seem to remember that airliners cannot land with a full load of fuel and passengers, and if they have to land in an emergency, they have to dump some fuel first. Could that be the problem? Also would not pushing on the joystick after the rear wheels touch the ground not force the front wheels to go down faster?

Of all the knowledgeable people here, many apparently have not noticed that he is speaking of the Boeing 737 and his problem is with that specific aircraft, and not some arcane airplane that spews it reverse thrust out to the side. And no one seems to have thought (except one) to check  on how much fuel is in the plane. As an ignorant amateur who can only call on his poor memory, I seem to remember that airliners cannot land with a full load of fuel and passengers, and if they have to land in an emergency, they have to dump some fuel first. Could that be the problem? Also would not pushing on the joystick after the rear wheels touch the ground not force the front wheels to go down faster?

 

I didn't think dumping fuel was possible on a 737?  Maybe they have to hold for a while to burn off?

 

If there is a engine out the plane has to land with a cleaner configuration, flaps 15. This would be a lot faster landing than normal, and the aircraft would be still very heavy.

 

The poster hasn't really given much detail on his weights, but like you say it's a good idea not to have too more fuel than is needed.

Incendentally I also experienced something odd about the autobrakes today. I was coming in to land at ESSA 19R with autobrakes 3 because I wanted to turn off the runway quite early. After I touched down I was surprised about the deceleration rate that was lower than what I'm used to. It took me around 15 seconds to get it to 60 KTS, doesn't that seem longer than normal? I can remember being able to stop my 737-700 some time ago within 1500 ft landing in EHRD 24, being able to turn off the first exit. In case of ESSA I was flying the 800 though, do the deceleration rates differ a lot?

Good subject.

 

In my limited flight in reality It always seemed that reverse thrust slows the aircraft and makes a big contribution to the amount of runway required for stopping.   The Panavia Tornado's rev thrust is amazingly powerful.

 

The Rev pitch on turbo props stuns the braking distance with great strength.

 

So, I go along with the opinions that rev thrust on our jet liner simulations is totally wrong.

 

Wasn't it possible as well that some airports permitted rev thrust instead of push-back in the past but was changed due to the possible ingress of fod?     In the simulation none of them move rearwards when this is applied.

Edited December 22, 201312 yr by G7USL

Good subject.

 

In my limited flight in reality It always seemed that reverse thrust slows the aircraft and makes a big contribution to the amount of runway required for stopping. The Panavia Tornado's rev thrust is amazingly powerful.

 

The Rev pitch on turbo props stuns the braking distance with great strength.

 

So, I go along with the opinions that rev thrust on our jet liner simulations is totally wrong.

 

Wasn't it possible as well that some airports permitted rev thrust instead of push-back in the past but was changed due to the possible ingress of fod? In the simulation none of them move rearwards when this is applied.

Well reversers on a 737 does brake quite effectively. Its just that when using autobrakes you wont notice it as the autobrake aims for a specific negative accelleration. Even max autobrake is a fixed decelleration factor. When using max manual brake the added thrust reverser will reduce the landing role significantly compaired to using only the brakes.

Of all the knowledgeable people here, many apparently have not noticed that he is speaking of the Boeing 737 and his problem is with that specific aircraft, and not some arcane airplane that spews it reverse thrust out to the side. And no one seems to have thought (except one) to check  on how much fuel is in the plane. As an ignorant amateur who can only call on his poor memory, I seem to remember that airliners cannot land with a full load of fuel and passengers, and if they have to land in an emergency, they have to dump some fuel first. Could that be the problem? Also would not pushing on the joystick after the rear wheels touch the ground not force the front wheels to go down faster?

The OP already gave us the Vref he was flying (145 knots) We don't need to know the weight of the aircraft, just the Vref.

 

it has also been explained that reverse doesn't affect stopping distance combined with Autobrake.

 

Aircraft do have a certified max landing weight, the heavier the aircraft the higher Vref must be flown.

T/R can affect stopping distance if the brakes alone aren't giving you the selected deceleration rate. Think of slippery runways and you want AUTOBRAKES MAX. You're sliding along with 3000psi at the wheels doing you not much good.

T/R can affect stopping distance if the brakes alone aren't giving you the selected deceleration rate. Think of slippery runways and you want AUTOBRAKES MAX. You're sliding along with 3000psi at the wheels doing you not much good.

Yes, most definitely on a wet/contaminated or slipery runway. in the OP's case, On a dry runway the T/R's are just keeping his brake temps down.

Fact is that a sim T/R would not stop any jet aircraft not using brakes when it should.   Slow to say, 30 knots and the T/R doesen't stop anything except make a noise.

 

On the other hand Rev Pitch does!

 

Reasons?

Fact is that a sim T/R would not stop any jet aircraft not using brakes when it should. Slow to say, 30 knots and the T/R doesen't stop anything except make a noise.

 

On the other hand Rev Pitch does!

 

Reasons?

That's a pretty random statement. have no idea how the NGX reversers work since I don't fly it. All other addons I use work exactly how they should within the confines of the sim.

 

Trying to stop an airliner on reverse thrust alone will end in a bad day, no if's or but's about it unless you have an incredibly long runway.

 

Airliners have an accumulator system along with a primary and backup braking system. If everything fails you still get a certain amount of pumps from the parking brake until, the accu pressure is gone.

 

Unless very light and following a strict guideline using reverse thrust at 30knots will achieve a few things, making a huge amount of noise, burn fuel, suck up everything & anyone It's path - give your company a big maintenance/inspection bill.

As far as I know the moment you touchdown and use reverse is to kill the lift from the wings. After that it slows the plane down but loses energy and the brakes takes over in intensity to stop.

 

With my PMDG NGX, I can't get over 26 N1 on reverse and is not very helpfull...

 

John

Fact is that a sim T/R would not stop any jet aircraft not using brakes when it should.   Slow to say, 30 knots and the T/R doesen't stop anything except make a noise.

 

On the other hand Rev Pitch does!

 

Reasons?

If you think about a propeller as a wing (essentially it is an airfoil) and said airfoil (Propeller) being placed into a negative pitch angle. Remember Lift/Weight, Thrust/Drag still apply to an airfoil, doesn't matter if it's rotating at 1700rpm. That's the reason it's so pronounced on a prop and still effective below 30 kts.