Airliners.net

Just wondering why all Embrear 135's/145's don't have reverse thrust, but some do, like in the pics below:

This 135 doesn't:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Gary Stewart


And this 135 does:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Gary Watt - AirTeamImages


This 145 doesn't:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Gary Stewart


And this 145 does:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Gary Watt - AirTeamImages


Cheers for any feedback

Stu...

I'm pretty sure they all do, just that some don't use it so the nacelles don't get stained. The hatches hard to make out unless you're standing pretty close since they're flush with the nacelle. different operators have different paint jobs on the nacelle. Some leave the rear unpainted.

They probably all do, just the more they are used the more dirty and therefor the more visible they get, and going by yer example it looks like once again the french just dont keep things as clean as the British which makes their reversers more visible....



CanadianNorth

Not all Embraer jets have reverse thrust - it's an optional extra the airlines have.

The reason is that many operators that fly into a lot of airports with noise restrictions, and the extra weight that this carries just wouldn't prove economical for a lot of operators.

I think that the airlines that don't have them fitted are mainly the European operators who have a lot of noise restrictions at many airports they fly into - particularly the smaller regional airports.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,
Noel.

It's an option on the 145/135. Some operators took and some didn't.

NightFlyer

It's mainly European Operators that do not have T/R's. A few have made their way over to the US with Trans States Airlines, but those aircraft all came from Swiss. The weight savings is right at 700lbs.

[Edited 2004-08-20 23:11:44]

Wow! Learn something new every day!

Thanx guys,

for your input, very informative  

Wow, 700lbs? That is pretty substaintial for an aircraft of that size...

So by having no reverse thrust, wouldnt these aircraft have to use the brakes only, which probably wears them out quicker than normal, thus increasing cost?

So by having no reverse thrust, wouldnt these aircraft have to use the brakes only, which probably wears them out quicker than normal, thus increasing cost?

Not really, with the brake technology of today, there's much less wear per landing than there used to be. I have seen suggestion of reverse thrust not being used at all on future airliners, or offered as an option at the very least, as with current, and indeed future brake technology, it isn't really needed any more.

Cheers,

Jeff

don't forget guys, its breaks that stop aircraft and not reversers. many times i have seen american eagle landing without using the TRs. much quieter compared to other cariers. on a side note, the EMB-130/140 is pretty damn loud for it's size.

I have seen suggestion of reverse thrust not being used at all on future airliners, or offered as an option at the very least, as with current, and indeed future brake technology, it isn't really needed any more.

We still need reverse thrust in slippery conditions. Even landing distances are calculated without T/R, those still give you good safety margin. When the runway is icy/snowy/wet it is better to use T/R because it decrease the possibility to overrun the runway. Even if you have anti-skid system installed that doesn't help you a lot on slippery runway because the friction coefficient is lower. During the winter times many airlines use brakes here hardly at all or only after the speed has decreased enough (50-60KTS), just because of the better safety. Even better brake technology can't change that.

Best Regards,
FinnWings

Just saying it like i heard it (was either in this forum or somewhere at the Boeing website), the 135/145's, along with the increasing number of flights i travel on and hear about that don't use reverse are testiment that reverse thrust is not needed in the majority of cases. And as you correctly said, all perf calculations are done without taking into account the effect of reverse. As brake and anti skid technology improve further as time goes by, i should think the day will come when reverse thrust is a thing of the past.

Cheers,

Jeff

JeffDCA wrote:

So by having no reverse thrust, wouldnt these aircraft have to use the brakes only, which probably wears them out quicker than normal, thus increasing cost?

Not really, with the brake technology of today, there's much less wear per landing than there used to be. I have seen suggestion of reverse thrust not being used at all on future airliners, or offered as an option at the very least, as with current, and indeed future brake technology, it isn't really needed any more.

Cheers,

Jeff

Jeff this is still manual braking. No autobrakes.

johnwest wrote:

JeffDCA wrote:

So by having no reverse thrust, wouldnt these aircraft have to use the brakes only, which probably wears them out quicker than normal, thus increasing cost?

Not really, with the brake technology of today, there's much less wear per landing than there used to be. I have seen suggestion of reverse thrust not being used at all on future airliners, or offered as an option at the very least, as with current, and indeed future brake technology, it isn't really needed any more.

Cheers,

Jeff

Jeff this is still manual braking. No autobrakes.

Cheers

Reverse might seem like an 'option' until you're sliding instead of stopping with the red lights approaching fast, then its priceless.