Reverse thrust!

[-RanZ-]

Jet engines have reverse thrust... that is... win!

Is it 100% of the thrust in reverse? According to the right click menu it is

[ShawnPhillips]

I once was using a mod engine with trust reversal that could do a slow dive and shot strait done at its target. Now I may be able to recreate that jet stock.

[Findthepin1]

wait so the engine pulls stuff towards it?

[Alshain]

wait so the engine pulls stuff towards it?

No, it thrusts in the opposite direction. Good for braking, and it's a real world technology.

[ShawnPhillips]

I am going to put one on the front of a plane with reversed thrust.

[spikeyhat09]

How I'll use it:

How I'll feel while using it:

[panzer1b]

How I'll use it:

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-10-2015/K1ksRs.gif

How I'll feel while using it:

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-10-2015/n7M4rJ.gif

i DOUBT the high bypass turbojet actually works in space...

that said, i used to have a banking clan frigate or whatever the heck that thing in your 2nd pic is back in the old days, an engine like that would be PERFECT!

That said, im kinda sad about the cool massive turbojet......because ill NEVER have any legit use for that thing besides screwing around. Given that 95% of everything i make is space capable and has to go to space, that jet (and the jumo, the old basic jet, and the panther are just useless for me, with the only 2 good ones being the turbojet and the rapier).

[Red Iron Crown]

Much thrust. Very reverse.

[sardia]

i DOUBT the high bypass turbojet actually works in space...

that said, i used to have a banking clan frigate or whatever the heck that thing in your 2nd pic is back in the old days, an engine like that would be PERFECT!

That said, im kinda sad about the cool massive turbojet......because ill NEVER have any legit use for that thing besides screwing around. Given that 95% of everything i make is space capable and has to go to space, that jet (and the jumo, the old basic jet, and the panther are just useless for me, with the only 2 good ones being the turbojet and the rapier).

I suppose you could mod it into a rapier that also works in space? Reverse thrusters are nice.

[Xyphos]

How I'll use it:

+100 cool points if you do a successful vertical nose-dive docking maneuver

[Streetwind]

Much thrust. Very reverse.

That is like the muscle car of jet aircraft

[ShawnPhillips]

[Gaarst]

Wait, so the engines can actually thrust backwards, or just slow down the plane ?

If it is the first option, then I have an idea

[Red Iron Crown]

They actually thrust backwards.

[Gaarst]

They actually thrust backwards.

Yep, I noticed

And I think they thrust backwards as strong as they do forwards: this thing pulls out 4g when thrust reversing at >Mach 1.

Flies surprisingly good also, even for me, considering I never succeeded in properly flying a plane in KSP.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Gaarst
Syntax

[paul23]

To show how they are often employed in real life, here you see a fokker-100 with it's thrust reversal on:

Thrust reversal is quiet effective, though the airworthiness regulations state that the specification (minimum landing distance etc) may not depend on active braking such as thrust reversal. (Consider a landing when the engine's have failed, it would be a shame to land succesfully and then notice you drop in the sea at Singapore due to no thrust reversals).

Thrust reversal should obviously be at most Thrust / sqrt(2) - aerodynamically one can't turn a jet airstream more than 45 degrees. Also gimballing should be disabled at thrust reversal mode.

[Stoney3K]

In real life, it's not very wise to reverse thrust when you're already standing still because you can suck in a lot of unwanted junk (and birds, or Kerbals) through the huge, fast-moving grinders at the front which are supposed to suck air.

But in KSP, why not? I mean, we can *finally* back up our jets on the apron so we can parallel park!

[AlexisBV]

found this on reddit. good example of reverse thrust done right.

http://gfycat.com/FlickeringThoroughJumpingbean#?speed=2

Well the exhaust animation obviously needs to be bugfixed

In real life, it's not very wise to reverse thrust when you're already standing still because you can suck in a lot of unwanted junk (and birds, or Kerbals) through the huge, fast-moving grinders at the front which are supposed to suck air.

But in KSP, why not? I mean, we can *finally* back up our jets on the apron so we can parallel park!

Actually, you can very well ingest stuff even with regular forward thrust. That's why gravel kits exist:

And, for the record, you were allowed to use static reverse thrust on some older planes. Check this one out:

[paul23]

Actually, you can very well ingest stuff even with regular forward thrust. That's why gravel kits exist:

And that's why japanese aren't allowed to the airport tutorial. They always want to make pictures and then start moving backwards, out of the pathway and get sucked up by an engine of a taxiing b737.

(Yes that happened once, I believe 2006).

Edited November 10, 2015 by paul23

[AeroGav]

Don't think real thrust reversers work like this btw.

1. Airliners have rather poor thrust weight ratio

2. The reverser is only certified for use at less than max power

3. Only part of the exhaust stream is diverted

4. The diverted exhaust goes in a mostly outward direction with only a small forwards component.

The amount of retrograde thrust is barely able to reverse the jet out of it's parking bay, so why does it give such powerful retardation?

The answer is that this stream of exhaust coming out perpendicular to the direction of motion disrupts the normally smooth airflow over the airframe and creates huge turbulence. The aircraft experiences drag as if it were shaped like a barn door, and it also destroys residual lift making wheel brakes more effective.

Below 80 knots, this "virtual airbrake" effect dies down and the risk of re-ingesting exhaust gas is increasing , so they are usually stowed at this point.

[Temeter]

Don't think real thrust reversers work like this btw.

1. Airliners have rather poor thrust weight ratio

2. The reverser is only certified for use at less than max power

3. Only part of the exhaust stream is diverted

4. The diverted exhaust goes in a mostly outward direction with only a small forwards component.

The amount of retrograde thrust is barely able to reverse the jet out of it's parking bay, so why does it give such powerful retardation?

The answer is that this stream of exhaust coming out perpendicular to the direction of motion disrupts the normally smooth airflow over the airframe and creates huge turbulence. The aircraft experiences drag as if it were shaped like a barn door, and it also destroys residual lift making wheel brakes more effective.

Below 80 knots, this "virtual airbrake" effect dies down and the risk of re-ingesting exhaust gas is increasing , so they are usually stowed at this point.

Just about point 1, don't most Airliner need to be able to do a full flight with half their engines? I know some only use 4 engines because of security regulations, while two would be perfectly fine (while others use 2 when 1 is enough to lift-off).

That said, I don't think the current translation very realistic, but it's a lot more interesting and I'd personally to prefer it to stay that way. Reverse thrust is really good at slowing down and turning big boats!

[Findthepin1]

I'm using this to power my whale. Literally, there's a big jet engine in the whale's mouth (newly added ramp) that I'm propelling it with.

[Tourist]

found this on reddit. good example of reverse thrust done right.

http://gfycat.com/FlickeringThoroughJumpingbean#?speed=2

I'm no big city Rocket Surgeon or anything, but I'm going to take a wild stab and say that may not be entirely realistic. At least, I've never been in a commercial plane and had the captain announce they were going to have to hover vertically over the runway, until landing clearance was granted.

[federicoaa]

Much thrust. Very reverse.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61004449/KSP/1.0.5/screenshot25.png

I hope you called it dogeplane

[paul23]

Just about point 1, don't most Airliner need to be able to do a full flight with half their engines? I know some only use 4 engines because of security regulations, while two would be perfectly fine (while others use 2 when 1 is enough to lift-off).

That said, I don't think the current translation very realistic, but it's a lot more interesting and I'd personally to prefer it to stay that way. Reverse thrust is really good at slowing down and turning big boats!

FAR-25 indicates that any 4 engine yet does indeed need to be able to take off with only 2 engines - so long as not 2 engines on the same wing have failed.

Typically though aircraft have a TWR of 0.15-0.25. With fighter jets (due to increase in manouvrability) a TWR of slightly less than 1.