On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:24:39 +1000, "Graeme Hogan"
<ghogan01@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"JB" <jb0767@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:vcVNa.687$pg6.14882@no-spam
>> The aircraft cannot reverse themselves. I understand that this was
>possible
>> on aircraft fitted with core reversers - in which there is no residual
>> forward thrust, but this was before my time.
>>
>
>Sorry JB, but what about the C117 - GlobeMaster.
>It landed and reversed at Avalon.
It is C17, but it certainly can back up, in fact just about all
versions of 737 and D9/MD80/90 can do it. OK, early 737's do have
core reversers on the JT8D's, but the CFM56's don't.
The C17 uses a PW F117 engine, which is the military version of the
PW2000 used on the 757 , which also has the capability to back up.
I suspect the unwillingness to back up a 767 or 747 is related to
potential problems with the Jet Blast from sheer size of the engines,
rather than a technical issue. That's why 747's get towed in to most
gates at the Bradley Terminal at LAX. Risks from the Jet Blast are
simply to high in relatively close quarters.
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:06:55 +1000, Peter Creswick
<ventus45@no-spam> wrote:
>Be fair hoges. The C17 is not a civil airliner with standard cheap engines, it is a military
>tactical air lifter with special expensive fancy engines,
Wrong. Take a good look at the specifications for the F117 engine. It
is a PW2040 with a military label. The fact that MTU has exactly the
same share in the F117 as they have in the PW2000 should tell you that
these engines have more than just a little in common.
The fact that dimensionally the PW117 is the same as a 2040, has the
same Overall Pressure ratio, same internal configuration, and same SFC
should tell you just how 'special and fancy' the F117--PW-100 engine
is.