Hacker News Reader

Comment by ythn | Hacker News Reader

I wonder though if you could do "regenerative braking" in electric planes, i.e. spin up a flywheel anytime you descend, and then tap that energy next time you want to ascend. Doesn't really make sense for planes that cruise at altitude, but could make sense for hobby craft.

View on HN

This very same airplane mentioned in the top article does in fact capture energy from descent, and it's only viable because the application is assumed to be training, where the point of the airplane is to do a lot of takeoffs and landings.

Another reference: https://newsline.kitplanes.com/2017/07/26/alpha-electro-an-e...

I think there's plenty of viability for recovering energy during a descent. Any aircraft that has spoilers for use during descent could instead use the energy extraction from the prop windmilling to reduce the need for spoilers and thus get some "free" energy during descent. It isn't going to be a ton of energy, but it might be enough to get a "free" taxi to the gate/hangar/tie-down out of the deal.

It's not quite that direct. Many aicraft use flaps to boost lift during descent (better low-speed control) and steepen the fuselage pitch relative to the direction of flight (better visibility of the ground). Putting that energy into the propeller doesn't help with either of those. Also, some of the speed brakes are deployed so that the engine can stay warm by producing power instead of being "shock cooled". Otherwise stress builds in the engine and results in the engine wearing out earlier than it otherwise would if it were consistently cooled slowly. So this also doesn't directly translate; the pilot of the electric plane simply pulls back all the power and is coasting, which for many airplanes (not gliders!) results in a satisfactory sink rate and no need for additional braking. The pilot could engage more braking, but then the sink rate would be "emergency" class.

Flaps and speed brakes are separate. You wouldn't be using regenerative braking for the same purposes as speed brakes/spoilers. You use spoilers specifically when you want to kill speed, or more often when you want to quickly lose altitude. Sucking potential (and kinetic) energy up and putting it in the battery would accomplish a lot of the same goals.

You're not likely to have shock cooling issues in an electrically powered aircraft. Shock cooling is a piston aircraft thing, and is mostly an issue on turbocharged aircraft. You're not worried about shock-cooling the engine, you're worried about shock-cooling the hot side of the turbocharger. So in the use-case of spoilers being used to keep the engine spooled up, you're right that it wouldn't be necessary here.

And as far as pulling the throttles to idle and more-or-less gliding during the descent, that's the ideal, but in the real world spoilers are used to drop more quickly all the time for non-emergency reasons. If you have favorable winds up high, you might choose to stay up high until absolutely necessary and then quickly descend to make better time. In trainer class aircraft you don't typically have spoilers to help this, so you end up cross controlling the aircraft to increase the sink rate. If I could have a big ol windmill in front of me in a 172 to do that, it'd be pretty darn nice.

The aircraft in the article uses the propeller as a windmill during descents to charge the battery.

It's actually precisely the opposit. Altitude is your battery.

When power is surplus, climb to your service ceiling. When not, descend. Utilise battery when at minimum altitude.

This was the technique used by Solar Impulse 2 on its round-the-world (though not nonstop) flight. At a cruse speed of 70 kph (43 mph).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse

The problem is that you'd have to descend rather steeply for any sort of "braking" to work. In practice, you're unlikely to get more range by descending steeply and then using the power gained from that to fly level than you would get by descending at best glide angle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com