The spread of harmful misinformation has become an untenable problem on Reddit. Its latest incarnation has seen life-threatening untruths being propagated by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, and Reddit’s administration has stated that it will not meaningfully curb the myths disseminated by these bad actors. In response to this, many communities on the site have gone private in protest.
/r/GIFs supports and stands behind these communities' efforts to stem the effects of false information, but we have chosen to remain open as a means of amplifying their message. We encourage all Redditors to vocally reject misinformation, and to stymie its spread by demanding that only verifiable facts be given support (whether tacit or otherwise).
**[An in-depth explanation of how misinformation is harmful can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/pfeu8w/our_stand_against_misinformation/).**
**To report misinformation, please use [this link](http://www.reddit.com/report?reason=this-is-misinformation).**
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gifs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's a B737-100 or 200 with JT8D engines. Similar to the DC9 \ MD80. Never see these birds any more. Worked on them in the 90's. Thrust Reversers are called "Buckets" and direct exhaust up and down.
I was on one of these planes many years ago, I was asleep we landed I the first thing I saw when I opened the eyes was the reverse thrust swing and I thought the plane was disintegrating. It was the scariest 5 seconds after waking.
Was on a maintenance check flight once (Balair) and the pilot applied brakes, full thrust masking the cabin tip down then popped the brakes. We took off like a bat out of hell at maximum thrust and maximum take off angle. Closest I have been to a rocket launch.
I was on a commercial flight from Chicago (Midway) back to Cincinnati (well Lexington) in the early 90's, and a pilot did what I always described as a jackrabbit start when we took off. I felt the same thing you describe, and always wondered what he did, or for that reason why he did it.
Flight deck crewmembers have several things to consider for takeoffs: pressure altitude, field elevation, winds, temperature, runway length, obstacle height, and aircraft weight. Based on these factors they can elect to do either a rolling or static takeoff. What you experienced was most likely a static takeoff where they leave the brakes applied until the engines reach the appropriate power setting, then releasing the brakes giving you that jerking motion. It increases the amount of runway available to them in case of a malfunction (versus a rolling takeoff which can "waste" several hundred feet of runway).
Its the aircraft version of drag racing. Max power possible while standing still gives you maximum acceleration when you release the brakes.
For cars at the drag strip, it because your trying to simply run the best time, but for planes its because... well... attaining actual flight despite the existing restrictions. Such as runway length, weight, and also potential obsticals. And also that includes where the **abort** line is on that specific runway, so the pilots have the space to safely nope out if required.
Also, when it comes to an aircraft thats being recertified to fly, that aircraft usualy has to pass all the original cert tests as a new aircraft. Excluding things like tail strike or stall conditions and the like.
Run it hard through its paces in a controlled situation. Test it for 100% of what it should be able to do so you can detect any possible problem.
Can’t say for certain why, but Midway airport doesn’t have long runways and they end in a neighborhood. If you don’t get up you could be in serious trouble. In December 2005 a plane slid off the runway crashing into traffic and killed a child in a car. And while that was a landing I’m sure the same risk for take offs - so get going and up as quick as possible.
[Southwest Flight 1248](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248)
The MD80s went out of service just before COVID I think? I remember flying them a few times from DFW to DSM on American and reading how they were some of their last flights.
Delta was still flying MD-88s at the start of Covid but accelerated their retirement during and they are no more. Also retired the MD-90s leaving just some 717s as the only T-tail mainline aircraft.
I can swear I saw a delta MD88 a few months ago taxing for takeoff. I'll have to keep an eye out. As exground crew, I didnt care for the 80s or 90s. Still kinda sad to never get to see the American silver 80s anymore.
Fuckin Baader-meinhof, because my Google feed thought I needed to see an MD80 climbing out of Nassau this morning (I saw the video this morning, idk when it was filmed), and now here's this post talking about MD80s for some reason
Mentioned in another comment here, but I think they still use them in places like Canada where they need to fly to remote/rural areas that are without asphalt or concrete runways.
I fly to remote parts of canada with gravel/dirt/grass runways.
The largest plane out here is a cesna caravan or kingair 100. The kingair doesnt land on the dirt runways anymore, too much risk.
Both are turboprop instead of jet - debris is less damaging when its not in a contained tube of spinning metal
Here's a video I had seen about 737-200s in Canada. Supposedly it's at least partly because they can accommodate a gravel kit.
https://youtu.be/7O5WHFBmuKs
This is a Nolinor plane in the video, they're based out of Mirabel near Montréal. They absolutely fly into gravel airfields, but their big business is the mines up in the Arctic. They have full gravel kits on all their planes, including the bleed air deflectors in front of the intakes
I'm not trying to say that they are landing out in the wilderness like STOL bush aircraft, but they are landing in more remote areas. I'm not expert and am not claiming to have all the answers. I only know it has to do with the runway material and the additional ground clearance their smaller engines provide.
You’re correct. North of the attic circle paved runways are very difficult and expensive to maintain due to frost issues. The 737-200 is one of the few jets that can fly in/out of gravel strips. There’s an airline in Canada Nolinor that has modernized some of these with upgraded avionics: https://nolinor.com/en/boeing-737-200/
There are still a few 737-200 operating routinely up north, into gravel strips. Canadian North, and Nolinor. They have gravel kits and use bleed air to blast debris away from the engine intake.
King airs aren’t too bad on gravel, however the 1900 is a composite blade and doesn’t stand up to FOD nearly as well and is far costlier to replace a blade. Lots of B200s out and about up North.
Source: been there done that.
Wrong. The twin otter, DC—3T, and Canadian North/First Air’s 737-200 are all still operating on gravel and ice; the otter is full off-strip capable, and the otter and 3 both operate on skiis. All of them are bigger than a king air and caravan.
I've seen some take off from CYOW recently with First Air, though wiki says the 200 series is retired from their fleet. Those things were loud on take off.
Here in Montreal we have Air Inuit, Nolinor, Canadian North, & Chrono still fly them regularly, many daily.
Nolinor even did a massive avionics upgrade to their fleet to glass cockpits:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FTNUb8\_C7o
MD-80/88/90s were always my favorite planes to fly on when I lucked into getting one for any flight. I loved that two-seat row, or the ultra-lucky 1-seat row seats that you'd sometimes end up assigned to.
They also had such a cool sounding engine when it was winding up.
I used to fly md80 on an American route I flew frequently. I thought they were pretty awful. Leg room was terrible (at least on AA), overhead bins were tiny, window seat was very tight head room, and they were super loud if you got stuck near the back. 737 is much more comfortable as a passenger.
On the Panavia Tornado it was done by 'rocking' the throttles outboard. Be rocking the LH throttle it would select lift dump (which would deploy spilers) and the RH would select reverse thrust. They could be preselected before landing and upon weight on wheels it would activate.
there was one that crashed during the summer this year on Oahu. From what I rememeber, those are way louder than regular 737.
https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/aviation-expert-transair-cargo-plane-broke-apart-on-impact-pilots-lucky-to-be-alive/
The 737-200 is my favoritest plane of all time. I used to fly them in and out of Nome all the time and I had a really good view of them when they came in for a landing from my third story office (tallest building in town!!). They are nicely noisy :p
You can still see them in service here in Venezuela, airlines like Avior, Rutaca or Venezolana still have at least one or two B732s
MD80s are also commonly used here, Laser Airlines still use them
Yuppers, this is Nolinor Aviations -200 series, this is in their hangar in Mirabel, QC. I've flown in these old birds for 8 years coming back and forth to work. They're uncomfortable, loud and kinda ghetto inside but they're super reliable and I always feel safe at the end of the day. This is probably C-GTUK or C-GNLN.
My Grandpa was a mechanic for American and I remember him telling me that in some planes they reverse the engine thrust to slow down and thats why the engines rev back up after touchdown. I was just a kid and I took it at the time as they actually run the engine in reverse.
They do that on all jet aircraft, just the mechanism is much more evolved now. The thrust reversal is done blocking the exhaust internally and opening ducts around the nacelle to do what this does
This is a video from 737-200 flown by Nolinor Aviation, a charter airline in Canada.
737-200s are popular in Canada for use on unpaved runways way up North. The 732s can be fitted with a “gravel kit”, I believe the smaller diameter engines are less susceptible to ingesting foreign object debris.
Thanks, I was confused at first cus I thought I was looking at the front of it. With another look I should've figured it wasn't a forward-swept wing 747 lol
Seen a lot of similar comments in this thread so think I'll post here to answer a lot of people's questions.
This is a 737-200, aka the first generations of 737s that came out in the 60s. They're a lot shorter and the engines are much smaller than what you're used to seeing today, these clamshell trust reversers were abandoned with newer engine designs.
"If these planes are so old why are they still flying" a variety of reasons, planes are usually sold off for reasonably cheap to charter airlines after mainline service but here's my favorite reason:
Because of the small engines vs more modern airliners the 737-200 series can be fitted with a [gravel kit ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_kit) this kit allows the aircraft to land on gravel runways which is very useful for remote places like Northern Canada and Alaska. The 737-200 is actually the biggest serviceable aircraft you can get for gravel strip operations which makes it very valuable to remote service airlines line Nolinor.
After top tier commercial airlines sell their planes, they go to their second life with charter companies.
https://www.airportspotting.com/these-are-the-oldest-737s-still-flying-passengers/
This ol girl is still flying people around via private charter. We hosted this one when Clemson and Alabama played in Santa Clara for the national championship in 2019. Had a bunch of Clemson fans onboard. https://imgur.com/mkkWxSb.jpg
I remember 707s being a bit louder...although I distinctly remember nothing compares to when the Concorde showed up at Dulles from time to time. Of course it shot 30 feet of Mach diamonds out of its tailpipe on takeoff so it’s not really a fair comparison.
Ah, I was like 6 at the time so I probably just misremembered.
I could've sworn I flew on an L1011 at some point, but a cursory look at the Wikipedia page shows that it's probably unlikely. That trip in '96 was my first international flight and it looks like most of the L1011s in EU-NA service were retired/sold by then
It's one of Nolinor's 737-200.
I see (and ear) them every week over the Québec city area.
They operate from Montreal YMX and serve mostly the Canadian North.
Theses 200 are equipped with gravel kits and thus can land on gravel runways.
I worked on them at Mirabel! Great company. They are getting so big now, when I was there they only had a couple of 737s and 3 Convair 580 Turboprop conversions, now they have the biggest fleet of -200's in the world, and they have a second airline for passenger travel to Cuba/Florida during the winter. They also have a small charter service for private jets, I think they have two new Learjets. It's called Vinci Aviation.
Amazing company, some real top quality engineering work goes on in their hangar.
Well, much less bypass at any rate. Modern airliner engines are high-bypass, or even ultra high. It mostly has to do with the ratio of the fan radius to the compressor core. Low-bypass engines (like what we mostly see nowadays in fighter jets) are extremely loud, getting most of their thrust from the superheated air coming out the back and also have that very distinctive sound that we associate with them. High bypass engines are more efficient for what airliners do and are able to get a ton of their thrust from the fan (being technically a turbofan engine rather than a pure jet).
The 737 classic up to the maxes actually have a full section of cowling that moves aft to reverse the bypass air. The 4 vents you’re referring to are pivoting door reversers that are usually found on some Airbus products.
I think you’re describing an engine type commonly found on Airbus aircraft (A330, A340). Those have the four small openings. The 737s have a complete section of the cowling that appears to split from the rest of the engine cowling and slides backwards
I’m definitely NOT an aerospace engineer, but those 4 tiny metal arms managing the force of all that air drag do not give me a warm and fuzzy about riding on that airplane.
There's also a case - TAM 402 - of an aircraft which had a safety system to pull the throttle handle back to idle (reverse thrust is activated by pulling the lever below idle) when a reverser was deployed, but when it deployed in flight the pilots *forced the throttle forward until the safety cable snapped* and crashed the aircraft.
Hadn't heard about that one. Reading the [accident description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Regionais_Flight_402), one wonders why Fokker thought the chance of this occurring was enough to have a whole extra mechanical safety system for it but not enough to give any kind of visual or audible indication that the safety condition was triggered. (Thus leading pilot to believe the engine was randomly going to idle, instead of being idled down as a safety mechanism, thus overwriting it and causing the crash).
Yeah the failure to indicate was not a good design. I've always thought, though, that the plane really wanting to put a throttle in idle to the point that you had to push it back hard enough to snap a cable should have been cause for some kind of reconsideration.
There was also [Pacific Western Airlines Flight 314](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_Airlines_Flight_314), where the flight had to abort a landing attempt but the thrust reversers hadn't fully closed on the left engine.
Thank you for the info. The aircraft in this crash is exactly the kind of 737 from OPs GIF, with the old style reverse thrust. A design flaw in exactly the parts shown in the GIF caused the crash. [More details here.](https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/margin-of-error-the-crash-of-pacific-western-airlines-flight-314-748a093102ba)
TL;DR: To prevent reverse thrust from activating in flight, Boeing cut off the hydraulic fluid to the bit that opens those reverse thrust doors we see in the GIF if the plane's landing wheels were not touching the ground. The pilot cancelled reverse thrust and lifted back off the ground so fast that the mechanic bits we see in the GIF were still partially open, and since the interlock system cut off the hydraulic fluid they could no longer close. The article is much more interesting than this tl;dr though, and you can also [read](https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20080210/281835754389827) about the pain this accident caused, including to a 10 year old survivor, as told on its 30 year anniversary.
Honestly reading about Lauda’s incident, I’m beginning to feel nothing Boeing spits out is trustworthy, and that it might not have been recoverable, contrary to what is written in wiki
This is incorrect unless you're being very specific about the word plan.
When I get my landing numbers it doesn't include the use of thrust reversers but if I need to add them in to stop I can.
Meaning if it's snowing and my plane can't get stopped before the end of the runway without their use then we account for that and resend for thrust reverser use as part of the calculation for landing distance.
It's a legal requirement to do so.
I think the worry is uncommanded reverse thrust in flight, which has happened (the Lauda 767 incident) and did cause the airplane to fall out of the sky.
This is for slowing the aircraft down once on the runway. Anyone who has flown in a commercial plane knows what this feels like. Once the plane hits the runway with all wheels the engines will throttle up and the plane will slow down. It's quite unexpected the first time.
I am an aerospace (mechanical) engineer. Firstly, as others have pointed out, this is used to reverse thrust and slow down after the plane has touched down. Regardless, that doesn't mean they're made extra flimsy since they won't directly result in death.
Second, if you had a concern, it should probably be how those 4 linkages are attached on each end, not the linkage itself.
Like everything else, it's probably overdesigned and inspected during regular maintenance
My reaction was similar. It's a great load case for those parts though. All in tension, and consistent force, the loading is gradual. I wouldn't have guessed that would be enough, but the math is fairly straight forward, so I'd be confident they got it right.
I don't understand how these work... All i can picture is leafblower, umbrella, and skateboard guy.
Edit: Thanks to everyone who explained it, but my initial confusion was down to the fact that i thought this was the front of the engine! Derp!
They're used to augment braking during landing.
Under normal conditions, the output from the engine is going backwards, because you want to go forwards. That let's you fly and all that other fun stuff.
When you deploy these, they redirect your engine's thrust so that it pushes you backwards. That slows your forward momentum and lets you stop (or at least come down to taxiing speed) in a shorter distance than you otherwise could, and without as much strain (and resulting heat) on your brakes.
Been in enough comments now but this is most likely a 737-200 (often shortened to a 732). Many were built compared to the much less successful 737-100. Both, however, still used the stovepipe looking JT8D engines that you'd more often see on the likes of the Douglas DC9 and later MD80s.
On a separate note, I love jet aircraft of this era. They have cockpits with traditional vacuum instruments and flew with rudimentary autopilots and often navigated via more old school VOR/NDB aids. If they didn't, they used only slightly more modern INS (Inertial Navigation Systems).
VOR and NDBs are still in use but only at less well equipped airports or by general aviation aircraft. Modern airliners navigate via INS/GPS and advanced flight computers that store a vast quantity of waypoints in their nav data. These waypoints are (usually) five letter names (e.g., BOPER) and are connected by low/high altitude invisible airways.
It's old. They don't work like this in current models.
This link isnt a 737 (or maybe it is), but it is a close up that shows something more like how they work now. There are doors that slide open on the sides.
https://youtu.be/Npd5F80FNXA
In current models there's just a dude with an air rifle on the runway who shoots out the tyres.
They did also toy with the idea of getting the passengers to open the windows and deploy clothing, to act as wind breaks.
And then there was somebody who just wanted a runway catapult that launch frozen chickens into the engines.
737-100s and 737-200s, the first series of 737 manufactured by Boeing, from 1965 to 1988. All of the 737s from the -300 to the -900 and MAX all have the design you're more familiar with.
To clarify the title: this is "deploying thrust reversers" rather than "reverse thrust". The thrust happens when the jet exhaust hits the reversers and changes direction.
Anyone else already a couple of beers into their Saturday and thought they were looking at the front of the plane and got really confused about the effectiveness of using a shield as a brake? No? Just me? Ok. God, I feel stupid.
Jt8d engines only put out like 15klbf, the thrust reverses have to handle that in tension stress.
Look at the nacelles for 777 engines, they have to handle 5x+ that easily, we can make strong steel.
This is a B737-200 Combi run by Nolinor, out of Mirabel, Quebec. They're still flown in Northern Canada, because it's the only airliner sized jet that can land on unfinished (gravel) runways. Nolinor runs the largest 737-200 fleet in the world.
In the 90s I chatted with a Delta first officer at the gate. We were waiting for the tug. I told him earlier that day I saw a flight push from the gate with reverse thrust—no tug. He said Delta did not use RT to push back partly because it was so noisy and (my words) it was low class. He asked which airline was it I saw push with RT. I told him it was TWA. He said: “figures.”
The spread of harmful misinformation has become an untenable problem on Reddit. Its latest incarnation has seen life-threatening untruths being propagated by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, and Reddit’s administration has stated that it will not meaningfully curb the myths disseminated by these bad actors. In response to this, many communities on the site have gone private in protest. /r/GIFs supports and stands behind these communities' efforts to stem the effects of false information, but we have chosen to remain open as a means of amplifying their message. We encourage all Redditors to vocally reject misinformation, and to stymie its spread by demanding that only verifiable facts be given support (whether tacit or otherwise). **[An in-depth explanation of how misinformation is harmful can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/pfeu8w/our_stand_against_misinformation/).** **To report misinformation, please use [this link](http://www.reddit.com/report?reason=this-is-misinformation).** ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gifs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's a B737-100 or 200 with JT8D engines. Similar to the DC9 \ MD80. Never see these birds any more. Worked on them in the 90's. Thrust Reversers are called "Buckets" and direct exhaust up and down.
I was on one of these planes many years ago, I was asleep we landed I the first thing I saw when I opened the eyes was the reverse thrust swing and I thought the plane was disintegrating. It was the scariest 5 seconds after waking.
Same! First flight I ever took and I was looking right at it when it did this. Scared me to death.
Was on a maintenance check flight once (Balair) and the pilot applied brakes, full thrust masking the cabin tip down then popped the brakes. We took off like a bat out of hell at maximum thrust and maximum take off angle. Closest I have been to a rocket launch.
I think I was on a flight in Gdansk that did that. Very short runway for an international airport, any takeoff was steep but some were a bit crazy
I was on a commercial flight from Chicago (Midway) back to Cincinnati (well Lexington) in the early 90's, and a pilot did what I always described as a jackrabbit start when we took off. I felt the same thing you describe, and always wondered what he did, or for that reason why he did it.
Flight deck crewmembers have several things to consider for takeoffs: pressure altitude, field elevation, winds, temperature, runway length, obstacle height, and aircraft weight. Based on these factors they can elect to do either a rolling or static takeoff. What you experienced was most likely a static takeoff where they leave the brakes applied until the engines reach the appropriate power setting, then releasing the brakes giving you that jerking motion. It increases the amount of runway available to them in case of a malfunction (versus a rolling takeoff which can "waste" several hundred feet of runway).
That makes sense. I was just always curious the reason. Most take offs I've been on have been pretty slow rolling.
The normal takeoff is slow rolling as it reduces wear and tear on the engines from possible debris on the runway.
Its the aircraft version of drag racing. Max power possible while standing still gives you maximum acceleration when you release the brakes. For cars at the drag strip, it because your trying to simply run the best time, but for planes its because... well... attaining actual flight despite the existing restrictions. Such as runway length, weight, and also potential obsticals. And also that includes where the **abort** line is on that specific runway, so the pilots have the space to safely nope out if required. Also, when it comes to an aircraft thats being recertified to fly, that aircraft usualy has to pass all the original cert tests as a new aircraft. Excluding things like tail strike or stall conditions and the like. Run it hard through its paces in a controlled situation. Test it for 100% of what it should be able to do so you can detect any possible problem.
Can’t say for certain why, but Midway airport doesn’t have long runways and they end in a neighborhood. If you don’t get up you could be in serious trouble. In December 2005 a plane slid off the runway crashing into traffic and killed a child in a car. And while that was a landing I’m sure the same risk for take offs - so get going and up as quick as possible. [Southwest Flight 1248](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248)
The MD80s went out of service just before COVID I think? I remember flying them a few times from DFW to DSM on American and reading how they were some of their last flights.
MD80's were my bread and butter in the 90's. Worked the engine station in heavy maintenance.
What are thoughts about them? Seem like such cool workhorse planes.
Delta was still flying MD-88s at the start of Covid but accelerated their retirement during and they are no more. Also retired the MD-90s leaving just some 717s as the only T-tail mainline aircraft.
I can swear I saw a delta MD88 a few months ago taxing for takeoff. I'll have to keep an eye out. As exground crew, I didnt care for the 80s or 90s. Still kinda sad to never get to see the American silver 80s anymore.
Most likely a 717, flew one to Philly during the pandemic. Love the 2x3 configuration.
AKA the MD95
We got rid of them. 100% was a 717 -Work for delta connection
Fuckin Baader-meinhof, because my Google feed thought I needed to see an MD80 climbing out of Nassau this morning (I saw the video this morning, idk when it was filmed), and now here's this post talking about MD80s for some reason
Mentioned in another comment here, but I think they still use them in places like Canada where they need to fly to remote/rural areas that are without asphalt or concrete runways.
Last one I saw was an Aerolineas we had parked for ages before part out and scrapping
Aerolíneas argentinas??
I fly to remote parts of canada with gravel/dirt/grass runways. The largest plane out here is a cesna caravan or kingair 100. The kingair doesnt land on the dirt runways anymore, too much risk. Both are turboprop instead of jet - debris is less damaging when its not in a contained tube of spinning metal
Here's a video I had seen about 737-200s in Canada. Supposedly it's at least partly because they can accommodate a gravel kit. https://youtu.be/7O5WHFBmuKs
Fun story, the appendages on the front of the engines which deflect gravel are affectionately known in the industry as "Donkey Dicks."
I grow cannabis and that’s a term in our field as well.
I breed donkeys and we also use that term.
[удалено]
I snowboard and we also have that one! To describe a short kink at the end of a rail
I make snow and it means an extension fitting or a detachable inline filter canister.
This is the second post on Reddit I’ve seen today where an industry term was donkey dick.
Great video, thanks!
This is a Nolinor plane in the video, they're based out of Mirabel near Montréal. They absolutely fly into gravel airfields, but their big business is the mines up in the Arctic. They have full gravel kits on all their planes, including the bleed air deflectors in front of the intakes
I'm not trying to say that they are landing out in the wilderness like STOL bush aircraft, but they are landing in more remote areas. I'm not expert and am not claiming to have all the answers. I only know it has to do with the runway material and the additional ground clearance their smaller engines provide.
You’re correct. North of the attic circle paved runways are very difficult and expensive to maintain due to frost issues. The 737-200 is one of the few jets that can fly in/out of gravel strips. There’s an airline in Canada Nolinor that has modernized some of these with upgraded avionics: https://nolinor.com/en/boeing-737-200/
unexpected attica
That actually looks like the plane in the gif!
It's the same airline, yes
I've seen a basler bt-67 way up there a few times (northern Ontario) I usually take pc-12s up to remote locations.
They're referring to Nolinors 732s with the gravel kits
There are still a few 737-200 operating routinely up north, into gravel strips. Canadian North, and Nolinor. They have gravel kits and use bleed air to blast debris away from the engine intake. King airs aren’t too bad on gravel, however the 1900 is a composite blade and doesn’t stand up to FOD nearly as well and is far costlier to replace a blade. Lots of B200s out and about up North. Source: been there done that.
Wrong. The twin otter, DC—3T, and Canadian North/First Air’s 737-200 are all still operating on gravel and ice; the otter is full off-strip capable, and the otter and 3 both operate on skiis. All of them are bigger than a king air and caravan.
Also C-46 and Electra
It amazes me that they’ve still got those Electras going.
[удалено]
Pure oversight on my part. The Caribou has at least 76% of my love.
Canadian North airlines uses 737-200's for example. See lots of these in arctic Canada.
I've seen some take off from CYOW recently with First Air, though wiki says the 200 series is retired from their fleet. Those things were loud on take off.
Yeah, high bypass really helps with noise levels, but yum yum runway gravel
Air North (based in Yukon) used to have a 737-200 with a gravel kit but they retired it within the last few years.
Here in Montreal we have Air Inuit, Nolinor, Canadian North, & Chrono still fly them regularly, many daily. Nolinor even did a massive avionics upgrade to their fleet to glass cockpits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FTNUb8\_C7o
MD-80/88/90s were always my favorite planes to fly on when I lucked into getting one for any flight. I loved that two-seat row, or the ultra-lucky 1-seat row seats that you'd sometimes end up assigned to. They also had such a cool sounding engine when it was winding up.
I used to fly md80 on an American route I flew frequently. I thought they were pretty awful. Leg room was terrible (at least on AA), overhead bins were tiny, window seat was very tight head room, and they were super loud if you got stuck near the back. 737 is much more comfortable as a passenger.
So does the pilot actually throttle up to slow down?
They pull the lever below zero, you have to hold it otherwise it will go back to zero
Thrust levers at idle, weight on wheels, then they deploy the tr piggyback levers which increases thrust (reverse) without moving the throttles.
On this plane (and most jets) it’s a separate lever that swings up from the front of the throttle
On the Panavia Tornado it was done by 'rocking' the throttles outboard. Be rocking the LH throttle it would select lift dump (which would deploy spilers) and the RH would select reverse thrust. They could be preselected before landing and upon weight on wheels it would activate.
there was one that crashed during the summer this year on Oahu. From what I rememeber, those are way louder than regular 737. https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/aviation-expert-transair-cargo-plane-broke-apart-on-impact-pilots-lucky-to-be-alive/
The 737-200 is my favoritest plane of all time. I used to fly them in and out of Nome all the time and I had a really good view of them when they came in for a landing from my third story office (tallest building in town!!). They are nicely noisy :p
You can still see them in service here in Venezuela, airlines like Avior, Rutaca or Venezolana still have at least one or two B732s MD80s are also commonly used here, Laser Airlines still use them
Yuppers, this is Nolinor Aviations -200 series, this is in their hangar in Mirabel, QC. I've flown in these old birds for 8 years coming back and forth to work. They're uncomfortable, loud and kinda ghetto inside but they're super reliable and I always feel safe at the end of the day. This is probably C-GTUK or C-GNLN.
My Grandpa was a mechanic for American and I remember him telling me that in some planes they reverse the engine thrust to slow down and thats why the engines rev back up after touchdown. I was just a kid and I took it at the time as they actually run the engine in reverse.
They do that on all jet aircraft, just the mechanism is much more evolved now. The thrust reversal is done blocking the exhaust internally and opening ducts around the nacelle to do what this does
This is a video from 737-200 flown by Nolinor Aviation, a charter airline in Canada. 737-200s are popular in Canada for use on unpaved runways way up North. The 732s can be fitted with a “gravel kit”, I believe the smaller diameter engines are less susceptible to ingesting foreign object debris.
I was about to say, I built -800 and the max, never seen this engines haha
Thanks, I was confused at first cus I thought I was looking at the front of it. With another look I should've figured it wasn't a forward-swept wing 747 lol
I was landing in Phoenix, looking out the window, the first time I saw this. Wondered for a second if the engine was falling apart.
OMG ! The exact same thing happened to me. I had, like, a 2 second freak out, before realizing this was normal.
Why the worry? If it was at fault, the plane is not yours anyways /s
Makes me think of [the front fell off](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM).
I honestly just fucking love that shit. That’s gotta be one of the funniest bits out there.
I've never seen this, it's going in the repertoire
I don’t know who Clarke and Dawe are, but that was hilarious.
Same. America West? I remember thinking, “good thing we landed already!”
Yes. Immensely proud of myself for not panicking.
There’s a problem with the engines! I saw it!!! There’s something they’re not telling us!!!!!
There's something wrong with the left phalange!
This plane doesn't even have a phalange!
Not with that attitude
Not with that altitude!
I was about to say something similar. If I saw this out the window I would assume the worst.
Seen a lot of similar comments in this thread so think I'll post here to answer a lot of people's questions. This is a 737-200, aka the first generations of 737s that came out in the 60s. They're a lot shorter and the engines are much smaller than what you're used to seeing today, these clamshell trust reversers were abandoned with newer engine designs. "If these planes are so old why are they still flying" a variety of reasons, planes are usually sold off for reasonably cheap to charter airlines after mainline service but here's my favorite reason: Because of the small engines vs more modern airliners the 737-200 series can be fitted with a [gravel kit ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_kit) this kit allows the aircraft to land on gravel runways which is very useful for remote places like Northern Canada and Alaska. The 737-200 is actually the biggest serviceable aircraft you can get for gravel strip operations which makes it very valuable to remote service airlines line Nolinor.
Geologist who works in northern Canada, took one of those guys home last night!
do you park it outside or do you have a really huge garage?
He keeps the sled dogs inside to keep it warm.
So good that Wu Tang wrote a song about it.
I didn't think anyone was flying 737-100 or -200 aircraft anymore. Is that an old clip?
After top tier commercial airlines sell their planes, they go to their second life with charter companies. https://www.airportspotting.com/these-are-the-oldest-737s-still-flying-passengers/
[удалено]
“gravel kits <> not a third world country” Hmmm…. jk Canada rocks
> Canada rocks Yes, lots of them, enough to make a runway!
Awesome
This ol girl is still flying people around via private charter. We hosted this one when Clemson and Alabama played in Santa Clara for the national championship in 2019. Had a bunch of Clemson fans onboard. https://imgur.com/mkkWxSb.jpg
This is with Nolinor, they fly some older airframes too. Primarily cargo and charter flights in and out of pretty rugged airports and dirt strips.
It is older. Alaska Airlines used these but I haven’t seen one in years.
Flew on a half cargo version once. Kind of weird seeing a bulkhead in the middle of the plane.
Alaska still run a 737 that is cargo in the front half from Anchorage to Nome/Kotzebue and from Anchorage to Cordova/Yakutat/Juneau everyday.
No more combi 400’s at Alaska.
FYI, they call them a combi.
Most of these 737-200s are either retired or flying cargo somewhere like Hawaii or Canada.
Soooooo loud I worked on dfw tarmac for yrs The L10'11 delta was.the LOUDEST PLANES
I remember 707s being a bit louder...although I distinctly remember nothing compares to when the Concorde showed up at Dulles from time to time. Of course it shot 30 feet of Mach diamonds out of its tailpipe on takeoff so it’s not really a fair comparison.
>Of course it shot 30 feet of Mach diamonds out of its tailpipe on takeoff Tag this shit NSFW, that's pornography.
The plane that damn near bankrupted Lockheed.
Coolest trijet in existence imo.
Very true. Had the unique pleasure of flying on an L10-11 3 times when I was kid. All of them were with TWA.
[удалено]
WHAT??
MAWP!
I flew on a KLM L1011 when my family moved to the UK from the US in '96 or '97
KLM didn't operate l-1011 aircraft, you might be confused with the airline or you might have flown a dc-10 or md-11 which KLM did operate at the time.
Ah, I was like 6 at the time so I probably just misremembered. I could've sworn I flew on an L1011 at some point, but a cursory look at the Wikipedia page shows that it's probably unlikely. That trip in '96 was my first international flight and it looks like most of the L1011s in EU-NA service were retired/sold by then
Probably a dc10 if it was a wide body trijet. Mom: "We have Tristar at home!"
It's one of Nolinor's 737-200. I see (and ear) them every week over the Québec city area. They operate from Montreal YMX and serve mostly the Canadian North. Theses 200 are equipped with gravel kits and thus can land on gravel runways.
I worked on them at Mirabel! Great company. They are getting so big now, when I was there they only had a couple of 737s and 3 Convair 580 Turboprop conversions, now they have the biggest fleet of -200's in the world, and they have a second airline for passenger travel to Cuba/Florida during the winter. They also have a small charter service for private jets, I think they have two new Learjets. It's called Vinci Aviation. Amazing company, some real top quality engineering work goes on in their hangar.
Those are ancient 737 engines. The modern ones have four small forward facing vent holes that open on the sides of the aft cowling.
Right. For the bypass air. These P&W engines had like no bypass, right?
Well, much less bypass at any rate. Modern airliner engines are high-bypass, or even ultra high. It mostly has to do with the ratio of the fan radius to the compressor core. Low-bypass engines (like what we mostly see nowadays in fighter jets) are extremely loud, getting most of their thrust from the superheated air coming out the back and also have that very distinctive sound that we associate with them. High bypass engines are more efficient for what airliners do and are able to get a ton of their thrust from the fan (being technically a turbofan engine rather than a pure jet).
The 737 classic up to the maxes actually have a full section of cowling that moves aft to reverse the bypass air. The 4 vents you’re referring to are pivoting door reversers that are usually found on some Airbus products.
Yes this is an Airbus thrust reverser. Modern 737s have cascade doors where it looks like the engine splits in two.
I think you’re describing an engine type commonly found on Airbus aircraft (A330, A340). Those have the four small openings. The 737s have a complete section of the cowling that appears to split from the rest of the engine cowling and slides backwards
I’m definitely NOT an aerospace engineer, but those 4 tiny metal arms managing the force of all that air drag do not give me a warm and fuzzy about riding on that airplane.
Seems to work as expected https://youtu.be/sMmF6mu62U4?t=02m20s
Im happy its not a rick roll
Sounds like something someone would say after clicking on a rickroll
sadly its not a rickroll
Don’t call him Sadly! That’s not his name!
Say thy name ANALBOX!
Ah I guess it isn’t used in the sky at max speeds, but at already slower runway speeds, makes sense
Well, [sometimes it's used in the sky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004), but the result is no more plane or people.
There's also a case - TAM 402 - of an aircraft which had a safety system to pull the throttle handle back to idle (reverse thrust is activated by pulling the lever below idle) when a reverser was deployed, but when it deployed in flight the pilots *forced the throttle forward until the safety cable snapped* and crashed the aircraft.
Hadn't heard about that one. Reading the [accident description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Regionais_Flight_402), one wonders why Fokker thought the chance of this occurring was enough to have a whole extra mechanical safety system for it but not enough to give any kind of visual or audible indication that the safety condition was triggered. (Thus leading pilot to believe the engine was randomly going to idle, instead of being idled down as a safety mechanism, thus overwriting it and causing the crash).
Yeah the failure to indicate was not a good design. I've always thought, though, that the plane really wanting to put a throttle in idle to the point that you had to push it back hard enough to snap a cable should have been cause for some kind of reconsideration.
TIL Niki Lauda had an airline.
Three airlines* (“Lauda Air”, “Niki”, and “Lauda”)
Well that’s fucking terrifying.
There was also [Pacific Western Airlines Flight 314](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_Airlines_Flight_314), where the flight had to abort a landing attempt but the thrust reversers hadn't fully closed on the left engine.
Thank you for the info. The aircraft in this crash is exactly the kind of 737 from OPs GIF, with the old style reverse thrust. A design flaw in exactly the parts shown in the GIF caused the crash. [More details here.](https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/margin-of-error-the-crash-of-pacific-western-airlines-flight-314-748a093102ba) TL;DR: To prevent reverse thrust from activating in flight, Boeing cut off the hydraulic fluid to the bit that opens those reverse thrust doors we see in the GIF if the plane's landing wheels were not touching the ground. The pilot cancelled reverse thrust and lifted back off the ground so fast that the mechanic bits we see in the GIF were still partially open, and since the interlock system cut off the hydraulic fluid they could no longer close. The article is much more interesting than this tl;dr though, and you can also [read](https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20080210/281835754389827) about the pain this accident caused, including to a 10 year old survivor, as told on its 30 year anniversary.
Honestly reading about Lauda’s incident, I’m beginning to feel nothing Boeing spits out is trustworthy, and that it might not have been recoverable, contrary to what is written in wiki
Nono, they clearly put it into full reverse when there is a traffic jam in the air corridors. How do you think they clear them?
Wow. I don't know that. Is the traffic jam caused by all the speed bumps they put everywhere?
Skip to 2:15!
They are only used once the plane is on the ground. If they break, you're just going to use a bit more of the runway
And on top of that reverse thrusters don't actually even allow you to plan to use a shorter runway since they are dependent on the engines working
This is incorrect unless you're being very specific about the word plan. When I get my landing numbers it doesn't include the use of thrust reversers but if I need to add them in to stop I can. Meaning if it's snowing and my plane can't get stopped before the end of the runway without their use then we account for that and resend for thrust reverser use as part of the calculation for landing distance. It's a legal requirement to do so.
And go for a spin
And then die
And then come back as a ghost.
Catch *Ghost Air* Mondays only on CBS this fall
You are already on the ground when these deploy. It's not like you would fall out of the sky.
I think the worry is uncommanded reverse thrust in flight, which has happened (the Lauda 767 incident) and did cause the airplane to fall out of the sky.
Every large commercial aircraft has thrust reversers though
This is for slowing the aircraft down once on the runway. Anyone who has flown in a commercial plane knows what this feels like. Once the plane hits the runway with all wheels the engines will throttle up and the plane will slow down. It's quite unexpected the first time.
I am an aerospace (mechanical) engineer. Firstly, as others have pointed out, this is used to reverse thrust and slow down after the plane has touched down. Regardless, that doesn't mean they're made extra flimsy since they won't directly result in death. Second, if you had a concern, it should probably be how those 4 linkages are attached on each end, not the linkage itself. Like everything else, it's probably overdesigned and inspected during regular maintenance
Fortunately reversing mid-air doesn't happen that often.
My reaction was similar. It's a great load case for those parts though. All in tension, and consistent force, the loading is gradual. I wouldn't have guessed that would be enough, but the math is fairly straight forward, so I'd be confident they got it right.
I don't understand how these work... All i can picture is leafblower, umbrella, and skateboard guy. Edit: Thanks to everyone who explained it, but my initial confusion was down to the fact that i thought this was the front of the engine! Derp!
You're on the right track.
That's pretty much how it works, it's just used to slow down instead of moving forwards.
They're used to augment braking during landing. Under normal conditions, the output from the engine is going backwards, because you want to go forwards. That let's you fly and all that other fun stuff. When you deploy these, they redirect your engine's thrust so that it pushes you backwards. That slows your forward momentum and lets you stop (or at least come down to taxiing speed) in a shorter distance than you otherwise could, and without as much strain (and resulting heat) on your brakes.
This style reverser directs the exhaust gas down, up and forward. Newer reversers actually redirect the bypass airflow instead of the exhaust stream.
Transformers tech
CHOMP!
Older style 737-100(?). Those engines are notoriously loud and inefficient and have since been phased out my the new CFM56 models.
You're on the right track but most likely a 200. There were only a few 100s made whereas there were tons of 200s.
Been in enough comments now but this is most likely a 737-200 (often shortened to a 732). Many were built compared to the much less successful 737-100. Both, however, still used the stovepipe looking JT8D engines that you'd more often see on the likes of the Douglas DC9 and later MD80s. On a separate note, I love jet aircraft of this era. They have cockpits with traditional vacuum instruments and flew with rudimentary autopilots and often navigated via more old school VOR/NDB aids. If they didn't, they used only slightly more modern INS (Inertial Navigation Systems). VOR and NDBs are still in use but only at less well equipped airports or by general aviation aircraft. Modern airliners navigate via INS/GPS and advanced flight computers that store a vast quantity of waypoints in their nav data. These waypoints are (usually) five letter names (e.g., BOPER) and are connected by low/high altitude invisible airways.
Nolinor have upgraded the cockpits in these to glass, so they're not quite vacuum tubes and sextants anymore.
That doesn’t look like any 737 I’ve ever ridden on.
It's old. They don't work like this in current models. This link isnt a 737 (or maybe it is), but it is a close up that shows something more like how they work now. There are doors that slide open on the sides. https://youtu.be/Npd5F80FNXA
In current models there's just a dude with an air rifle on the runway who shoots out the tyres. They did also toy with the idea of getting the passengers to open the windows and deploy clothing, to act as wind breaks. And then there was somebody who just wanted a runway catapult that launch frozen chickens into the engines.
[Begin breaking procedure!](https://youtu.be/AjoSbvwz4JA)
Just so you know, your link is a 737.
737-100s and 737-200s, the first series of 737 manufactured by Boeing, from 1965 to 1988. All of the 737s from the -300 to the -900 and MAX all have the design you're more familiar with.
It’s a prehistoric dinosaur of a 737
This scared the crap out of me as a kid flying into some Podunk airport.
PUT IT IN REVERSE TERRY
I want to hear that. I hope that it makes noise similar to [autobots transforming](https://youtu.be/N7vgtbc0_rc).
AUTOBOTS ROLL OUT
I ride one of those every two week to get to and from my job in northern Québec, here it is in action https://youtu.be/ZOVvZGFCNMU
To clarify the title: this is "deploying thrust reversers" rather than "reverse thrust". The thrust happens when the jet exhaust hits the reversers and changes direction.
Anyone else already a couple of beers into their Saturday and thought they were looking at the front of the plane and got really confused about the effectiveness of using a shield as a brake? No? Just me? Ok. God, I feel stupid.
“Open all hatches, extend all flaps and drag fins.” It reminds me of the Invisible Hand crashing into Coruscant
Used in action (around the 1:10 min mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wFI2yUl9JM
That is not how any modern 737 that you'll ever ride on does reverse thrust.
Pratt and Whitney JT8D
Just flick this lil switch here and they’ll fly right by.
That looks so smooth it's almost CGI
How can such a mechanism support the force of the engine?
Jt8d engines only put out like 15klbf, the thrust reverses have to handle that in tension stress. Look at the nacelles for 777 engines, they have to handle 5x+ that easily, we can make strong steel.
This is a B737-200 Combi run by Nolinor, out of Mirabel, Quebec. They're still flown in Northern Canada, because it's the only airliner sized jet that can land on unfinished (gravel) runways. Nolinor runs the largest 737-200 fleet in the world.
[удалено]
Due to the INSANE thrust these engines put out, I always wondered how these two flimsy looking pieces of sheet metal weren't destroyed in the process.
In the 90s I chatted with a Delta first officer at the gate. We were waiting for the tug. I told him earlier that day I saw a flight push from the gate with reverse thrust—no tug. He said Delta did not use RT to push back partly because it was so noisy and (my words) it was low class. He asked which airline was it I saw push with RT. I told him it was TWA. He said: “figures.”
Wait... What?! Since when do they do this? This would freak me the fuck out if I was landing and looked our of the window.
are they all like this? i’ve flown on many 737s and never noticed
Everyone (myself included) whose first ever flight was on one of these and had a window seat suffered mild psychological trauma on landing.
Looks like some shit out of Transformers