Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:22:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from rhombus.bright.net ([209.143.0.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 1173751 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:38:53 -0400 Received: from bright.net (paul-cas4-cs-25.dial.bright.net [216.201.47.182]) by rhombus.bright.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g3NCcapm021596; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:38:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <3CC555D1.F92C00A7@bright.net> X-Original-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:38:41 -0400 From: J H Webb X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: pdavis@bmc.com, "(Lancair Mailing List)" Subject: Brakes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi There is another airplane in recent times that had nosewheel brakes and I have flown it both before and after the removal. That airplane is the 727 as several others have said. The primary reason that they removed the nosewheel brakes was cost and minimal improvement in stooping distance. You have an easy way to improve stopping distance without nosewheel brakes and that is to add up elevator (pull the stick back) as you add the brakes and it makes a substantial difference. You get aerodynamic drag from the full up elevator (must have brakes on hard) and significantly better braking with the improved weight on the main tires. I worked in experimental flight test for a major manufacturer and the measured distance was in the 15% range comparing forward pressure, neutral, and full aft, but I don't have the figures anymore. Jack Webb ATP L 360, L IV