52 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Actually, we have on the EFB and performance data tables where you can compute the landing distance with or without reversers.

And you will notice that the calculated difference with or without them is next to 0 on dry runways.

Edited May 2, 20251 yr by Farlis

2 hours ago, Shug said:

Well I've tried 4 flights and 3 of them have resulted in CTDs. The only successful one was 1 hr 38 minutes long. Last flight was just 3 minutes 15 seconds before the CTD. No clues in the Event Viewer other than just the simulator .exe failed.

Looks like this is heading into the hangar behind the A350. Another expensive mistake on my part.

Sounds like a possible issue on your end, because I'm currently 11.5 hours into a flight, no issues. This is my first flight too, I didn't even do a short test flight.

Maybe you have a conflicting addon or something.

Edited May 2, 20251 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

Of course because phyiscs. If you use reverse thrust standing still you produce between 25% to 50% of forward thrust. Which will make you reverse. But at VApp that effect is negligble in comparism to what the brakes are doing. 

Bypass reversers do not really “reverse” the thrust vector the way that older clamshell reversers that redirect the exhaust flow did. Those older style reversers could actually be used to back the airplane out of a gate.

With a bypass reverser, most of the air that comes out when in reverse comes out sideways, not forward.

The bypass reverser does two things: It stops the rearward movement of fan air through the bypass duct, which has the effect of cutting engine foward thrust by more than half, since the majority of thrust in high bypass engine comes from the fan. Some operators only use idle reverse on landing, but that is still effective at reducing the energy that must be dissipated by the brakes.

At higher ground speeds (right after touchdown) with “full” reverse, the blocked/redirected fan bypass air causes the fan itself to produce a tremendous amount of aerodynamic drag that acts like a speed brake of sorts. That drag is less effective as the aircraft slows down in the landing roll, but at initial landing speeds, the fan drag is significant.

28 minutes ago, Farlis said:

And you will notice that the calculated difference with or without them is next to 0 on dry runways.

I understand that you got your "information." Contrary to that, this is how we use it. There are differences between what you claim and we get from dispatch and what is on ACARS and charts. You are more than welcome to argue, but what we do IRL is quite different.

It would really help when people are having issues if they made it clear which sim it was happening in... Are the lockups/ctd's in 2020 or'24?

1 hour ago, btacon said:

Tried again, still no good and then tried to delete the vector leg with no success.  I then realized the FMC was stone cold frozen.  Plane was flying, engines running, on course but the FMC was locked up solid.

Sounds like a WASM crash

13 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Sounds like a WASM crash

Agreed. My thoughts also

-B

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

Yes, it will, but it is not authorized for that kind of operation. 

What kind of throttles are you using?

15 hours ago, fra147 said:

The first PMDG product for MSFS 2024 has been released 

https://pmdg.com/msfs-2020-2024/

Was a straight forward and fast download for me. Plus I downloaded all liveries.

11 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

What kind of throttles are you using?

747 Throttletek. But it has nothing to do with backing up the airplane, activating the reversers in this case.

29 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Sounds like a WASM crash

Other developers have this. Is there a cure or maybe a restart in flight option to recover?

Michael Moe 

2 hours ago, Farlis said:

And you will notice that the calculated difference with or without them is next to 0 on dry runways

I presume here you are looking at the on board EFB performance tool ?

If, and I presume they have, being PMDG, simulated this correctly as a replica of the the Boeing on board performance tool, there will be 2 landing calculators available, LDG dispatch and LDG en route.

The LDG dispatch calculator is certified performance data and so carries no credit for reverse thrust use on a dry runway, even if you have it selected in the tool. So you will see no difference in landing distance required with REV selected.

LDG enroute data however is operational advisory information which includes a 1.15 performance increment and allows for reverse thrust credit.

In short the use of reverse thrust will decrease landing distance required.

Edited May 2, 20251 yr by jon b

Don't see the liveries included on their site.

Don't suppose they have a Delta liverie.

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

Sorry, absolutely incorrect. Actually, we have on the EFB and performance data tables where you can compute the landing distance with or without reversers.  What is true is that below 80 kts, it is not as efficient and just makes noise. What is correct is that modulating reverse thrust will modulate the autobrakes, more reverse, less brake strength on the respective settings. Also, an incorrect statement about wet runways. What you are referring to about landing distance being affected on wet runways depends on whether your antiskid is operational or not. 

Why would reversers be less efficient under 80 knots? The lower the speed the more impactful the reverse thrust.

3 minutes ago, alanw2005 said:

Why would reversers be less efficient under 80 knots? The lower the speed the more impactful the reverse thrust.

It’s actually the opposite. Higher effect at higher speeds. Otherwise they would wait till aircraft slowed to 80 before pulling them on. It’s physics.