Thrust Reverser vs Drag Chute

Correct me if Im wrong but wasn't the Viggen the ONLY Single Seat supersonic strike jet aircraft that had a thrust reverser installed? That in and of itself says a lot about its STOL capability and the ability to operate from imrpovised road bases.

I have never heard of another NATO or Soviet/Russian aircraft that had that capability. The only other jet that beats it in that ability is the Harrier, but the Harrier is definitely not Mach1+ capable.

Correct me if Im wrong but wasn't the Viggen the ONLY Single Seat supersonic strike jet aircraft that had a thrust reverser installed? That in and of itself says a lot about its STOL capability and the ability to operate from imrpovised road bases.

 

I have never heard of another NATO or Soviet/Russian aircraft that had that capability. The only other jet that beats it in that ability is the Harrier, but the Harrier is definitely not Mach1+ capable.

That should be correct. The only other jet with thrust reverser I can think of is the very similar Tornado, but it's a two seater.

Correct me if Im wrong but wasn't the Viggen the ONLY Single Seat supersonic strike jet aircraft that had a thrust reverser installed? That in and of itself says a lot about its STOL capability and the ability to operate from imrpovised road bases.

 

I have never heard of another NATO or Soviet/Russian aircraft that had that capability.

Use of improvised road bases was pretty common in the Warsaw pact countries. You don't need thrust reversers for that, brake chutes can do a similar job.

Thrust reversers are significantly more efficient than chutes. They should also be safer, since chutes can get tangled up, dropped prematurely, etc.

One other thing, you can basically taxi backwards without ground assistance. This should not be underestimated on road bases with limited resources and space.

I don't think they are that efficient either, do you have any sources? They also add more weight and complexity to the airplane. There's a reason why thrust reversers are so rare in this class of aircraft.

Taxiing back in limited space using thrust reverser is really asking for trouble. I don't see it practical, especially on a road base with close proximity to ground crew and equipment.

I don't think they are that efficient either, do you have any sources? They also add more weight and complexity to the airplane. There's a reason why thrust reversers are so rare in this class of aircraft.

 

Taxiing back in limited space using thrust reverser is really asking for trouble. I don't see it practical, especially on a road base with close proximity to ground crew and equipment.

Actual experience on the Tornado here. Yes, those things are frakking efficient.

So to speak.:music_whistling:

if they weren't efficient they wouldn't have been put on nearly every commercial airliner/freight liner since the dawn of jet turbine commercial aircraft.

Actual experience on the Tornado here. Yes, those things are frakking efficient.

The same I was told by a MiG-29 pilot about the chute.

So to speak...

So if I'm told pretty authoritatively by a guy on the forums that thrust reversers are significantly more efficient than chutes, then I'm politely asking for a source.

if they weren't efficient they wouldn't have been put on nearly every commercial airliner/freight liner since the dawn of jet turbine commercial aircraft.

Sigh, I thought it's pretty obvious we talk about thrust reversers in small, supersonic aircraft. Which are very rare for some strange reason. :music_whistling:

Because not every fighter has the need to stop short and taxi backwards.

Drag Chute's Drag is Linear to the Aircraft's Speed, below a certain speed, they are useless.

Thrust Reverser is Linear to the Aircraft's Thrust Output, they can ride the reverser to 0 Knots, and then back into their parking space.

Sigh, I thought it's pretty obvious we talk about thrust reversers in small, supersonic aircraft. Which are very rare for some strange reason. :music_whistling:

Probably, at least partly, because they would add weight and are not really needed enough to balance out for the added weight, maintenance, etc.

More Weight, More Moving Parts, More Maintenance.

And that's exactly what I posted here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3101028&postcount=76

Next time please try to read the whole discussion before responding to the last post (which was a rhetorical question). EOT.

And think of the design criteria behind the Tornado and Viggen. NATO confronting the Warsaw Pact. Strike aircraft needing to utilize smaller fields when the larger ones are bombed out or so far behind the lines, they arent practical.

And think of the design criteria behind the Tornado and Viggen. NATO confronting the Warsaw Pact. Strike aircraft needing to utilize smaller fields when the larger ones are bombed out or so far behind the lines, they arent practical.

+1. This.

And that's exactly what I posted here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3101028&postcount=76

 

Next time please try to read the whole discussion before responding to the last post (which was a rhetorical question). EOT.

You point was that they were inefficient. Which they are not.

You other points are not wrong- added weight, maintenance and stuff- it's just that it's all due to Operational Requirement. Some planes need to land in short distance and do their own push-back. Some planes need variable geometry wings.

Some need landing gears to land on Aircraft Carriers or refueling systems...

Awesome update! Can't wait for the F-14. It's looking pretty good.

Love the Viggen too, you guy did a great job on it (and of course the Mig-21).

Keep up the good work!!

You point was that they were inefficient. Which they are not.

I did not say that. I responded to OnlyforDCS who claimed that reversers are significantly more efficient than chutes, saying that I don't think they are that efficient, and asking for a source of his claim. So far he did not respond.

I don't know, maybe it's a language barrier or you guys just like to argue...

I did not say that. I responded to OnlyforDCS who claimed that reversers are significantly more efficient than chutes, saying that I don't think they are that efficient, and asking for a source of his claim. So far he did not respond.

 

I don't know, maybe it's a language barrier or you guys just like to argue...

Maybe I do like to argue but you're playing with semantic.

Whatever, I'm not here to change any opinion.

But by first hand experience with the Tornado I can assure you that Thrust Reverse is very powerful/efficient and can be used more times than the single use Chute.

It's not something that needs to be on any plane but it's there to satisfy a specific need- hence the limited amount of military jet with it.

Just as limited amount of jets had Harrier-like VTOL qualities.

Cheers.

I did not say that. I responded to OnlyforDCS who claimed that reversers are significantly more efficient than chutes, saying that I don't think they are that efficient, and asking for a source of his claim. So far he did not respond.

 

I don't know, maybe it's a language barrier or you guys just like to argue...

The only one who likes to argue (even when his point is completely demolished) is you.

Thrust reversers are more efficient than chutes. End. Of. Story. Im not going to argue basic physics with someone who keeps arguing his point even when he is presented with the facts that prove the opposite in this very thread. Here is a hint though:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3101183&postcount=80

So far I've seen only opinions here, not facts. You know, a "fact" would be for example a comparison of minimum landing distance between Viggen and MiG-29 with a chute, taking the difference in weights into account. Or some calculations between thrust available in reverse versus drag provided by a chute in a function of speed. No a link to a random post which says that Chute drag is linear to speed (Hint: drag is NOT linear to speed).

Anyway, I think you try so hard to argue with me because you think I said that reversers are less effective that chutes, and I did not mean that. (as I previously said, probably a language barrier). I just don't see them as super-effective magic device that would stop your airplane on a dime, and which Swedes were so genius to put on their plane. Maybe they are somewhat more efficient than chutes, maybe not, I see them as two different designs to solve the same problem, each with it's own advantages and drawbacks.

Oh you never said that?

I don't think they are that efficient

Yes they are. Read the post that I linked in my previous post for an explanation.

Yes, I've said "not that efficient" as in "not significantly more efficient". Which I explained in the previous post already.

Read the post that I linked in my previous post for an explanation.

Oh, I've read that, but I don't think you've read my previous post. Or you didn't understand it.

While it is fun to watch, can we get back on topic and stop poluting this very good thread :).

Thrust Reverser is Linear to the Aircraft's Thrust Output

Not true

Much like drag chutes, thrust reversers are much more effective at high speeds, partially because of greater engine power but mostly because of the higher airspeed difference between the relative airflow and the engine output.

I understand how a drag chute would generate more drag the faster you are moving, but how so for a thrust reverser? To me it seems as simple as putting my head out the window and blowing, and since it is harder for my lungs to move air out of my lungs the faster I am moving then it would stand to reason that you would need a big enough reverser to slow a however many ton plane down, i.e. engine thrust.

Educate me!!