747- 400 Thrust Reverser Question ??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
13,093
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Astro,

I know you have a lot of stick time in this airplane. On a heavily rain soaked runway, (when it would seem you would need reverse thrust the most), the reverser on the inboard engine blows a lot of water into the intake of the outboard engine. Like this video shows. Does that create a problem? It also makes me wonder about dry runway operation as well. Where the inboard engine would blow all the dust and dirt into the outboard intake. Does that increase the risk of causing damage?

Also, when you see the reverser deployed, what is actually taking place inside the engine, when you see the side of the cowling slide back like it does? How it actually works is not so apparent like on a clamshell type of reverser. Thanks in advance.
 
Our Gulfstream does much the same thing, ingest it's own reverse thrust debris. It's quite visible when landing in snowy conditions. There is no mystery when the titanium fan blades get a few chips and dings.

Full reverse thrust actually pushes air under the wing, at any speed under about 100Kts, where the flow can clearly be seen entering the engine inlet. The line guys always love our snowy landings.
 
Originally Posted by rekit
They fly in the rain...........




A good point. A lot of aircraft fly in very heavy rain. Astro can share his expert opinion on this.
 
Most of them I have flown have been in/out of London … that's pretty wet … others to SE Asia, Netherlands, W. Africa, etc … All pretty wet places …
05.gif

My next 744 booking is LHR …
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
Most of them I have flown have been in/out of London … that's pretty wet … others to SE Asia, Netherlands, W. Africa, etc … All pretty wet places …
05.gif

My next 744 booking is LHR …





Enjoy the ride. As the Queen gradually disappears from fleets each trip on board one is special.
 
A lot of that water is spun out by centrifugal force through the first fan section and never makes it's way to the "Core engine"
 
Originally Posted by Linctex
A lot of that water is spun out by centrifugal force through the first fan section and never makes it's way to the "Core engine"


Many modern fan blades have a little additional "twist" or a reverse shape near the inboard trailing edge to help channel water outboard of the core engine.


[Linked Image]
 
Last edited:
Bill - just landed from Manchester, so just saw this...

The reverser on that engine type operates by placing several small blocker doors in the fan exhaust when the sleeve slides back. That fan flow is directed forward through the grating that you see in the picture. Core exhaust is still directed rearward.

Reverse thrust is useful at high speed, but not very effective at low speed. Additionally, it's generally hard on the engines, as folks have mentioned, it tends to throw up runway debris and that is sucked in by an engine. The slower you are, the more debris is thrown up...

I'm not aware of any restrictions on 4 engine airplanes. The 747-400 had no restrictions dealing with engine reverse, save the same restriction that exists on every airplane I've flown: the engines must be at idle reverse by 80 Knots. Below that speed, ingestion of the turbulent backflow can cause compressor stalls.

I tend to use the minimum reverse that's needed.

Here's an interesting datapoint: airlines that had 747-400s equipped with carbon brakes had very, very different in service life on those brakes. Airlines that used MINIMUM reverse thrust got 4,000 cycles (landings) from their brake sets. Airlines that used MAXIMUM reverse thrust got 2,000 cycles.

Yes, you read that right.

The harder the engines worked to stop the airplane, the faster the brakes wore out.

Here's why. Carbon brakes were very temperature and wear resistant. The hotter they got, the better they resisted wear/abrasion of the carbon brake pads. So, land, use minimum reverse, and heat those brakes up nice and warm, and you're rewarded with lower wear as you taxi in. When I say nice and warm, I mean about 300C.

But, beat up your engines by using full reverse, and your brake wear suffers too...as the cold carbon pads wear quickly.

So, ask a Bendix engineer for a better explanation, but airlines started using a lot less reverse thrust when carbon brakes had been in service for a while.

Now, land on a runway that's wet, or short, or has snow, etc. and you're going to use full reverse to maximize the ability of the airplane to stop. Nobody cares about engine wear or brake wear if the airplane leaves the runway...
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by 4WD
Most of them I have flown have been in/out of London … that's pretty wet … others to SE Asia, Netherlands, W. Africa, etc … All pretty wet places …
05.gif

My next 744 booking is LHR …



Enjoy the ride. As the Queen gradually disappears from fleets each trip on board one is special.


I know, the B748i and existing infrastructure made pretty good sense, but when the 8i launch customer expects Houston to modify for one A380 I knew testosterone had taken over … Twins I get it … but …
Anyway … booked a seat up in the hump for old times sake …
 
Originally Posted by Astro14

Here's why. Carbon brakes were very temperature and wear resistant. The hotter they got, the better they resisted wear/abrasion of the carbon brake pads. So, land, use minimum reverse, and heat those brakes up nice and warm, and you're rewarded with lower wear as you taxi in. When I say nice and warm, I mean about 300C.

But, beat up your engines by using full reverse, and your brake wear suffers too...as the cold carbon pads wear quickly.


So if I get this right, you have to ride the brakes to control taxi speeds ?
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
Bill - just landed from Manchester, so just saw this...The reverser on that engine type operates by placing several small blocker doors in the fan exhaust when the sleeve slides back. That fan flow is directed forward through the grating that you see in the picture. Core exhaust is still directed rearward.

I wondered about that, but wasn't sure. So, at full reverse thrust, the fan portion of the thrust output is required to "fight" the non redirected core jet thrust, which continues rearward. On a large turbofan engine like the 747 uses, about what percentage of the core jet thrust accounts for the total thrust of the engine?

Looking at those big turbofans it doesn't look like there is any way they could incorporate any type of clamshell to redirect it.
 
Originally Posted by Astro14
The 747-400 had no restrictions dealing with engine reverse, save the same restriction that exists on every airplane I've flown: the engines must be at idle reverse by 80 Knots. Below that speed, ingestion of the turbulent backflow can cause compressor stalls....

That's interesting as well. I've seen a lot of videos of C-17 Globemaster's using reverse thrust to back up at airshows and such..... And sure enough there is one suffering a compressor stall doing it. Can that damage the engine? It looks pretty violent.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by Astro14
Bill - just landed from Manchester, so just saw this...The reverser on that engine type operates by placing several small blocker doors in the fan exhaust when the sleeve slides back. That fan flow is directed forward through the grating that you see in the picture. Core exhaust is still directed rearward.

I wondered about that, but wasn't sure. So, at full reverse thrust, the fan portion of the thrust output is required to "fight" the non redirected core jet thrust, which continues rearward. On a large turbofan engine like the 747 uses, about what percentage of the core jet thrust accounts for the total thrust of the engine?

Looking at those big turbofans it doesn't look like there is any way they could incorporate any type of clamshell to redirect it.


Yeah, a clamshell only works on a narrow engine, like a turbojet or low bypass turbofan.

I know the bypass ratio on the P&W 4056 (which our 747-400 were powered by) is about 5:1, so the airflow through the fan is 5 times that of the core, but I don't know if that means the ratio of fan/core airflow, or ratio of fan/core thrust, is anywhere near that during reverse.

I suspect the ratio of thrust far lower, as the core is still a straight path, while the fan is directed at a 45 degree angle around the engine, and I don't know the effect of the reverse blockers on N1 vs. N2 speed. An engineer who works on these could tell you.

Still, in all, it's a net reverse thrust. But it's nowhere near as effective as forward thrust.

Compressor stalls can cause damage. Fundamentally, a compressor stall happens when the smooth airflow through the engine is disrupted. Each of those blades, be they big, in the fan, or smaller in the later stages of the compressor, is a wing. Turbulent airflow causes those little wings to experience a stall, they don't create the pressure that they did, and the air stops moving in the direction it was moving (and supposed to be moving).

When the airflow is disturbed, you get all sorts of negative things happening. The turbine is subjected to uneven heating, and parts of it can greatly exceed the limit temp, damaging it. The compressor and fan experience shockwaves as the flow reverses, and that shock can damage them.

Most compressor stalls are caused by the ingestion of turbulent air. During reverse thrust. In a heavy crosswind at low speed. Very high, or very low AOA. During missile or gun firing in a fighter. Anything that causes the normally smooth flow through the inlet to the face of the engine to be disrupted. Turbine engines like smooth air at the compressor face. It has to be subsonic as well, which is why you see complex inlets on high speed airplanes.

Compressor stalls can be caused by mechanical problems in the engine itself. Variable stair vanes that fail to respond to changing airflow, the wiring amount of fuel for the operating conditions, that sort of thing.

Often, in a modern, FADEC engine, normal engine operation can be restored by reducing thrust to idle. Reduced fuel flow greatly reduces the pressure, and the amount of airflow, inside the engine, and those blades come out of stall.

Sometimes, though, you have to shut the engine down. Removing combustion allows the air to simply move through the engine (assuming in flight), cooling it and re-establishing a normal rotation relationship between N1 and N2 and a normal flow through the engine.

So, from a pilot perspective, if you have a compressor stall, you start by moving the throttle to idle. If it works, you slowly advance the throttle towards desired power. If it doesn't work, you shut the engine down, and let it cool/stabilize. Then you restart and see if it runs.

If there was no damage, it should run normally. If there was damage, it will let you know, and you either operate it at reduced power or shut it off completely.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom