any idea why the a380 uses engines 2 & 3 for thrust reversers? its a heavy aircraft equivalent to a 747 that has reversers on all 4 engines. shouldn't the landing run increase by only using 2?regards

If so it's presumably its designers believe that using only 2 engines provides adequte stopping distance.

Thrust reversers on engines which are not over the runway, but over the grass/ rocks have a great chance of throwing up rocks, etc and ruining / damaging engines.I've seen a couple articles about B747 into small fields where using only the inboard thrust reversers was mentioned.At a few airports where VQ-1 would land our C-121 or P-3 (1972-74), they would only reverse props on the inboard engines due to the FOD danger.Yes the landing rollout will be a bit longer with only two reversers.I assume, haven't checked, the aircraft has reversers on all engines - that it's just practice to use the inboard engines only.

>>I assume, haven't checked, the aircraft has reversers on all>engines - that it's just practice to use the inboard engines>only.The reversers are installed only on 2 & 3.

i'm sure there are levers for all.however there is probably something in the checklist or on a placard saying only to use inboard reversers if the runway is narrow then say 200 feet

There are definitely only 2 thrust reversers for this aircraft because of the reasons above, i.e. the outboard engines extend over the grass. See the following photos http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1046607/L/http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1196540/L/

but then I wonder why the famous overland a380 model for fs9 shows reversers only in the inner engines

>but then I wonder why the famous overland a380 model for fs9>shows reversers only in the inner engines Look at the second picture from the post above yours - the cockpit view one. You'll find your answer :-)

Airbus didnt want to put any thrust reversers on.Testing had shown that the A380s brakes alone would be ample. However the FAA didnt agree and demanded that thrust reversers be added. To please the FAA Airbus added 2 reverers.Also, as others have said, having reversers on the ooutboard engines would blow alot of dust and muck around.Dave

Fact is that all 4 A380 engines have full reversers but on the outside engines they are disabled as some control components got removed from them. Based on maintenance costs it's cheaper to install all engines with reservers.

>Fact is that all 4 A380 engines have full reversers but on>the outside engines they are disabled as some control>components got removed from them. Based on maintenance costs>it's cheaper to install all engines with reservers.If you think it about it.. it makes much more sense to have a common engine design.. means that if an engine is removed for servicing it can go back onto any pilon.. Plus if the engines are used for other aircraft then the reversers might be required..CheersCraig

>Testing had shown that the A380s brakes alone would be ample.>However the FAA didnt agree and demanded that thrust reversers>be added. To please the FAA Airbus added 2 reverers.Indeed, it was after consultation with the airlines too.The idea of them being dropped simply to potential FOD damage is a common myth.To refence a book I've got on the A380, the original plan to drop the thrust reversers came about as part of a drastic weight cutting and cost saving program circa 1998 since the aircraft at that time was no where near close to achieving the ~20% cost reductions that Airbus wanted (and needed) over the 747-400."Another cost and weight saving change discussed at great length with the airlines involved reducing or eliminating the use of engine thrust reversers. As the name suggests, these devices redirect the engine power - or some of it - forward to help slow the aircraft after touchdown. Whereas some early low bypass engines redirected all thrust by blocking the entire flow out of the exhaust, the later generation and much larger high bypass ratio engines deflected only the bypass stream. This limited but valuable reverse thrust was generally seen as a supplement to the stopping forces and helped reduce break wear on landing.In itself, cutting wear and tear on brakes was a major cost saver, and the decision to eliminate some of even all the reversers was not to be taken lightly.Airbus canvassed airlines on the proposals about November 1998, emphasizing potential weight saving and performance improvement from the the move. In the end, a compromise was reached and the reversers were dropped on the outside engine pair only, particularly since most airlines agreed that the increased braking thrust, from the improved efficiency engines to be used on the A3XX would help achieve a predicted stopping distance similar to, or better than the A340."