• Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Every time I hear of an all electric aircraft of any size, I always wonder what they’re going to do about landing weight.

    Every modern transport category jet has a higher takeoff weight than landing weight, because of the simple unavoidable fact that landings are rougher than takeoffs. Taking off, the load gradually comes off of the landing gear, on landing it’s suddenly applied. Jets burn tons, literally tons, of fuel enroute, so they’re considerably lighter on approach. It’s why aircraft have dump valves to jettison fuel overboard in case of forced landing early in the flight.

    Batteries don’t get lighter as they’re discharged, so…?

    • Dave.@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Batteries don’t get lighter as they’re discharged, so…?

      JETTISON ZE PACKS!! PREPARE FOR LANDING!!!

    • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      You can rethink the engineering with electric motors.

      The planes you are describing are designed assuming they will be lighter on landing because of fuel. So why design them for take off weight?

      Electric motors are condusive of blown wing design for example, and would have a unique landing profile. (The plane can land at much slower velocity)

      Edit: yeah they’ve moved the engine shroud which allows for lower speeds. Given the same runway you would be able to trim vertical speed.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        That ain’t gonna happen on a civilian airliner.

        Blown wings are basically powered lift. You’re planning on bringing a civilian passenger plane down final approach at a speed it can’t glide at if the power plant fails?

        I could see that for a carrier based aircraft where STOL is a factor but no you’re not doing that in airline operations.

        • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Why couldn’t it actually be safer since you could have distributed power centers, across multiple motors?

          You could also have hybrid approaches - there is space between not being able to glide and smashing your landing.

          I’m just getting at it being a different system so some old assumptions can be reexamined.

          Bigger challenge than landing is energy density.

          Regardless it’s a very interesting space.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You can rethink the engineering with electric motors.

        One of the other limitations is that you’re stuck with propellers if you’re using electric motors, so your top speed is going to be significantly slower than jets. Unless you do the Tu-95 thing with contra-rotating props whose tips exceed the speed of sound, and then you have monstrous noise problems.

    • jaschen306@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fun fact, batteries DO become lighter when they discharge. But obviously not like fuel. But it’s still a fun fact.

    • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s ridiculous. No one on final gives a crap about take-off weight. What you need is a ride in a glider or parachute. Learn to land on your ride’s minimal weight. Dropping stuff is only an extra measure if possible, not a necessity.