Reverse vs brakes

Nark

Macho Superpilot
So there I was deep in thought.

I can remember a guy telling me gas is cheap and brake pads are expensive.

However after aircraft ownership, and a few annuals later, brake pads aren't expensive. I got to thinking. For the amount of short field landings that I do on my bird, I use a lot of brakes, however I've only replaced the pads once.

Translating this to the transport jets and turbo props I've flown, how much gas am I burning from touchdown, using max reverse until 70 knots?
Multiply that across hundreds if not thousands of landings when brakes need to be replaced.

It is really cheaper over all?
@Roger Roger how often did you replace brake pads when we flew together?
 
So there I was deep in thought.

I can remember a guy telling me gas is cheap and brake pads are expensive.

However after aircraft ownership, and a few annuals later, brake pads aren't expensive. I got to thinking. For the amount of short field landings that I do on my bird, I use a lot of brakes, however I've only replaced the pads once.

Translating this to the transport jets and turbo props I've flown, how much gas am I burning from touchdown, using max reverse until 70 knots?
Multiply that across hundreds if not thousands of landings when brakes need to be replaced.

It is really cheaper over all?
@Roger Roger how often did you replace brake pads when we flew together?
What is the cost of carbon brakes over reduced lifespan of an engine? I think that might be a good start in your quest to find out what's cheaper. Fuel costs don't factor much when it comes to engine wear and tear.
 
Our old 145ep had the steel and it would overheat crazy fast. The carbon are more expensive but does a better job. Plus most of our 145 didn't have TR.
 
There is a reason cycles on reverers are tracked. That being said, I always use reverse on landing. Long non-contaminated runway, less (cracked and just above reverse). Short field and contaminated, full. Same with brakes.. Long non-contaminated, don't get on them hard and don't use them until 100kts or so and slower as reverses are stowed. Contaminated and short, all in quickly. Honestly, not sure the costs, but when you know what works where, it's all used appropriately. It's easy to say the costs, the problem is each flight is different and both factors are utilized in deciding what is NEEDED for safe operation. That's hard to forecast. Common sense must prevail. Trying to do a short field landing (full reverse, full braking) to make an early taxiway on a long and un contaminated runway may help the commute, but doesn't help either system. On the other hand a short field, contaminated runway landing doesn't justify the risks to be "gentle".
 
So there I was deep in thought.

I can remember a guy telling me gas is cheap and brake pads are expensive.

However after aircraft ownership, and a few annuals later, brake pads aren't expensive. I got to thinking. For the amount of short field landings that I do on my bird, I use a lot of brakes, however I've only replaced the pads once.

Translating this to the transport jets and turbo props I've flown, how much gas am I burning from touchdown, using max reverse until 70 knots?
Multiply that across hundreds if not thousands of landings when brakes need to be replaced.

It is really cheaper over all?
@Roger Roger how often did you replace brake pads when we flew together?

And what's the cost of a runway excursion on an MD-80?
 
You could take a page from skyweezy on the 175 and they use auto-brake only every landing, seems like they feel brakes are cheaper.

Personally i bring TR's into min reverse on most landings and apply moderate braking. Seems like a nice balance and most 10k foot runways we use theres no need for all the TR's racket, especially at night.
 
So there I was deep in thought.

I can remember a guy telling me gas is cheap and brake pads are expensive.

However after aircraft ownership, and a few annuals later, brake pads aren't expensive. I got to thinking. For the amount of short field landings that I do on my bird, I use a lot of brakes, however I've only replaced the pads once.

Translating this to the transport jets and turbo props I've flown, how much gas am I burning from touchdown, using max reverse until 70 knots?
Multiply that across hundreds if not thousands of landings when brakes need to be replaced.

It is really cheaper over all?
@Roger Roger how often did you replace brake pads when we flew together?

Is your place trying to be cute again?
 
So there I was deep in thought.

I can remember a guy telling me gas is cheap and brake pads are expensive.

However after aircraft ownership, and a few annuals later, brake pads aren't expensive. I got to thinking. For the amount of short field landings that I do on my bird, I use a lot of brakes, however I've only replaced the pads once.

Translating this to the transport jets and turbo props I've flown, how much gas am I burning from touchdown, using max reverse until 70 knots?
Multiply that across hundreds if not thousands of landings when brakes need to be replaced.

It is really cheaper over all?
@Roger Roger how often did you replace brake pads when we flew together?
At Eaglevoy, they found when they stopped using reverse on the vast majority of landings, they actually saved money on the brake pads, along with saving wear and tear on the engines. This obviously makes sense when you consider carbon brakes are more efficient when they are heated up.
 
All this talk is silly.

If you depart the paved surface of the runway if you don't use brakes but use reverse you will be asked why didn't you use brakes as well as your reverse. If you don't use reverse but use brakes you will be asked why didn't you use reverse with your brakes.
 
Last edited:
All this talk is silly.

If you depart the paved surface of the runway if you don't use brakes but use reverse you will be asked why didn't you use reverse as well as your brakes. If you don't use reverse but use brakes you will be asked why didn't you use reverse with your brakes.
1446465972741
 
All this talk is silly.

If you depart the paved surface of the runway if you don't use brakes but use reverse you will be asked why didn't you use reverse as well as your brakes. If you don't use reverse but use brakes you will be asked why didn't you use reverse with your brakes.
Well, sometimes you just have to be an aviator and use your judgement.
 
I find on the jet I fly even popping the buckets provides pretty substantial drag. It's rare that we use full reverse though, unless the obvious situations.
 
You could take a page from skyweezy on the 175 and they use auto-brake only every landing, seems like they feel brakes are cheaper.

Personally i bring TR's into min reverse on most landings and apply moderate braking. Seems like a nice balance and most 10k foot runways we use theres no need for all the TR's racket, especially at night.

I (and my company) think that reverse should always be in at least idle, even if you have zero plans to use them. If you suddenly realize you need them, they'll already be out.
 
Both airlines I've worked for the standard was idle reverse....

I'd guesstimate that in 10 yrs I've used max reverse 25 times?

The ERJ came in pretty slow and had awesome brakes (the EPs not so much).

The Airbus does fine as well.

Shorter contaminated runways I see their value. On a dry runway getting on the brakes early and more forcefully is where you save distance.
 
Back
Top