When I first heard the word air brakes it came to me that maybe the engine start rotating in the opposite direction for that, but since that's not possible, why can't we have an extra engine for air braking?
Did I just invent a new braking paradigm?
When I first heard the word air brakes it came to me that maybe the engine start rotating in the opposite direction for that, but since that's not possible, why can't we have an extra engine for air braking?
Did I just invent a new braking paradigm?
Planes with a variable pitch propeller can have a pitch range which twists the blades such that they provide reverse thrust. This started to become a common feature on high-performance airplanes in the 1930s.
Not all variable-pitch propellers can produce reverse thrust, however. The constant speed props on small propeller aircraft usually don't, because the energy of the plane after touchdown would be too small to justify the added complexity. On big airplanes which need short landing distances (the C-130, for example), they are a standard feature.
In 1936, Heinkel produced a sleek dive-bomber, complete with retractable landing gear and a reversible pitch propeller which could be used as a dive brake. The He-118 was test-flown by Ernst Udet, who did not pay attention at the briefing and went on to overspeed the airplane in a dive, destroying the prototype in the process. Thus, the clumsy, fixed-gear Ju-87 was chosen to be the "Stuka" and the He-118 would end as an inspiration for Japanese aircraft designers.
The Pilatus PC-6 Turbo Porter is a favorite with skydivers because it can put the propeller into reverse even in flight. This allows for spectacular descents and enables it to be safely back on the ground before the skydivers it dropped a moment before have landed.
As usual, Wikipedia covers the topic well, so here ist the link.
Peter Kämpf's answer covers the systems that prop planes actually use for reverse thrust. The alternative presented in the question is a total non-starter for several reasons.
It's a complex and very heavy system.
Unless there was somewhere on the centreline you could mount this engine and prop, you'd need not just one of these things but two, for balance.
It causes drag while it isn't being used, which is all the time except immediately after landing.
For certification, aircraft have to be able to stop using just the wheel brakes, anyway, since the complexity of reverse thrust systems makes them likely to fail.
Jet aircraft (especially large transports) are often equipped with thrust reversers. Not a requirement for landing, but takes some of the load and wear off the wheel brakes and tires. They have them because of the high landing speeds and large masses they have to bring to a stop in a limited amount of space.
Propeller aircraft don't fly as fast, so landing speeds are not as high; for the most part, braking requirements are easily met with wheel brakes.
Even if reverse thrust was beneficial, reversing the engine's rotation would be totally infeasible; engines are simply not designed to run either way round, and any system which would decouple the engine from the propeller (as would be needed if you wanted to implement a "reverse gear") would be a safety/reliability nightmare, not to mention heavy and expensive.
Engines are a significant part of the total weight and cost of an airplane. Carrying around an extra just for reverse thrust would be impractical for cost/weight reasons.
Many propeller-driven aircraft are equipped with variable-pitch propellers, including many light aircraft; in theory, any of them could have a "reverse" setting, but (as described in one of the other answers) you would only see it on larger aircraft designed for operation on short runways.
Most jet airliners and some propeller-driven aircraft (chiefly those designed for short-field operations) do in fact have some sort of thrust reversal system already. There is no need for an extra engine for this purpose, which if fitted would be a weight problem and a maintenance nightmare.
The thrust reversers on jet airliners are pairs of ducts which, when deployed, intercept the normal jet exhaust and redirect it forwards. The reverse thrust produced is somewhat less than the forward thrust available, but it's plenty to permit a powerful deceleration, and it's particularly valuable on wet and icy runways where wheel brakes aren't very effective.
The Harrier "jump jet" fighter is nearly unique in its ability to take off and land vertically, and is capable of using the same thrust-vectoring control in combat. By suddenly turning the thrust backwards, the aircraft can decelerate very sharply in midair, potentially moving it from a defensive position in front of an enemy to an offensive position behind it.
The Piaggio Avanti is a particularly interesting civilian turboprop, with an unusual "three surface" wing layout, pusher propellers, and very clean aerodynamics. It can also land and come to a halt within 500m of runway, thanks in part to reversible-pitch propellers. This short-field capability contributes to its lower operating costs versus corporate jets of similar size and performance.