Airbus A340 600

Diploma Thesis
Performance assessment of a hybrid electric -powered long-range

commercial airliner
Thomas Zöld
June 2012
Thomas Zold Diploma Thesis Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan
This diploma thesis is presented within the framework of the T.I.M.E. double-degree programme
between the Technical University Munich and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.
Technical University Munich

Department of Aircraft Design
Boltzmannstrasse 15
DE - 85748 Garching bei München
Germany
Examiner TUM: Professor Dr.-Ing. Mirko Hornung
Examiner KTH: Arne Karlsson, Senior Lecturer
Supervisor: Dipl.-Ing. Malte Schwarze
ii
ABSTRACT
Despite the recent increase in the amount of smaller electric general aviation aircrafts, a fully
electric airliner is not likely to fly in the near future. Partially inspired by the automotive industry’s
success with the hybrid car, this thesis investigated the feasibility of an electric-hybrid propulsion
system for an Airbus A340-600 on a long-haul flight and its effect on the aircraft’s performance.
First, an analysis was done of the reference aircraft, A340-600, using conventional propulsion.
Second, a 5700 nautical miles flight was modelled to determine performance data such as the
power and thrust requirements during the different flight phases. Third, the flight phases where
electric propulsion would be implemented were identified and an optimum ratio between
conventional and electric propulsion was calculated. Finally, a detailed performance analysis of
the new hybrid electric aircraft comparing it to a conventional aircraft was conducted.
The maximum available conventional thrust was reduced to a certain percentage of the maximum
thrust. Primarily conventional thrust is used, however when it is no longer sufficient, additional
thrust is gained through electric propulsion. Conventional thrust ratio of 69.5%, 63.5% and 59.5%
of total thrust was investigated yielding 8680 kg, 10500kg and 8585kg of payload decrease
respectively. Net energy of 6.70MWh, 11.71MWh and 31.06MWh is required and the electric
engines need to provide 21.3 MW, 25.5 MW and 28.3 MW of net power respectively.
Partial electric propulsion will result in increased weight; however, it will also give room for
further performance optimisation and technical innovations. On the one hand, the conventional
engines will run at a constant speed throughout the flight allowing for better optimisation at a
specific design point. On the other hand, electric engines are more reliable and require less
maintenance than conventional engines. Furthermore, lower fuel consumption means less
carbon-dioxide emissions. An exemption from CO2-taxes, similar to measures implemented for
hybrid cars in certain countries, could financially justify use of the aircraft by airlines and
compensate for the decrease in payload. Since a fully electric propelled airliner is not likely to fly
for several decades, a hybrid-airliner would be a suitable alternative for the transition period from
fossil fuels to electric energy.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. iii
Table of contents ............................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables....................................................................................................................................... ix
Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................... xi
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2 The Airbus A340-600 .................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 History and Background ..................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Development of the Airbus A340-600 ............................................................................... 3
2.3 Data .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Rolls-Royce Trent 556 ........................................................................................................ 6
2.5 The Thrust Lever................................................................................................................. 7
2.6 High Lift Devices ................................................................................................................. 8
3 Performance............................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Zero lift drag ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Wing Reference Area ................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Wetted area ............................................................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Component Buildup Method ................................................................................... 12
3.1.4 Howe's Method ........................................................................................................ 16
3.1.5 Equivalent Skin Friction Method .............................................................................. 16
3.1.6 Result, Comparison and Conclusion......................................................................... 17
3.2 -factor ............................................................................................................................ 17
3.2.1 Raymer: Oswald Span Efficiency Method ................................................................ 17
3.2.2 Howe's Method ........................................................................................................ 18
3.2.3 Frost and Rutherford method .................................................................................. 18
3.2.4 Result Comparison Conclusion................................................................................. 19
3.2.5 Polar break ............................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Airspeed ........................................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Initial Climb Speed............................................................................................................ 22
iv
3.5 Thrust Lapse Rate ............................................................................................................. 23
3.5.1 Reference Values...................................................................................................... 24
3.5.2 Models...................................................................................................................... 25
3.5.3 Evaluation................................................................................................................. 26
3.5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 27
3.6 Maximum Climb Thrust .................................................................................................... 28
3.7 Optimum Cruise Altitude ................................................................................................. 31
3.8 Fuel planning .................................................................................................................... 32
3.9 Payload Range Diagram ................................................................................................... 35
4 Model ....................................................................................................................................... 37
4.1 Taxi and Take-off (T/O) .................................................................................................... 39
4.2 Climb (CLB) ....................................................................................................................... 39
4.3 Cruise (CRZ) ...................................................................................................................... 43
4.4 Descent (DES) ................................................................................................................... 46
4.5 Go-Around (GA)................................................................................................................ 47
4.6 Flight to alternate............................................................................................................. 47
4.7 Hold (HLD) ........................................................................................................................ 47
4.8 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 48
5 Electric Propulsion.................................................................................................................... 51
5.1 Electric Flight .................................................................................................................... 51
5.2 The Electric Propulsion System ........................................................................................ 52
5.2.1 Fan ............................................................................................................................ 53
5.2.2 Electric Engine .......................................................................................................... 53
5.2.3 Control unit and wiring ............................................................................................ 54
5.2.4 Power Supply............................................................................................................ 55
5.2.5 Efficiency .................................................................................................................. 57
6 The Hybrid Electric Powered Long Range Airliner ................................................................... 58
6.1 Analysis............................................................................................................................. 58
6.2 Electric Engine Ratio Optimization ................................................................................... 62
6.3 Performance Analysis....................................................................................................... 71
6.3.1 Payload Range .......................................................................................................... 76
v
7 Financial Justification ............................................................................................................... 79
8 General Conclusion and Outlook ............................................................................................. 82
9 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 84
10 Appendix A – Thrust Model ................................................................................................. 86
11 Appendix B – Matlab Code................................................................................................... 87
12 Appendix C – Colour Plots .................................................................................................... 89
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. The Airbus A340-300........................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2-2. Airbus A340-600 3-view drawing with dimensions. ........................................................ 4
Figure 2-3. The Rolls Royce Trent 556................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2-4. Thrust Lever ..................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3-1. Engine dimension definitions......................................................................................... 11
Figure 3-2. Pie chart of the wetted areas of the different components. ......................................... 12
Figure 3-3. R factor for the Frost and Rutherford method. ............................................................. 18
Figure 3-4. Stalling speeds Airbus A340-642.................................................................................... 20
Figure 3-5. Maximum lift coefficient for different settings of the high lift devices, weights and altitude. .. 21
Figure 3-6. CLα as a function of Mach number.................................................................................. 22
Figure 3-7. Example of manufacturers uninstalled engine performance data for a subsonic turbofan . ..... 23
Figure 3-8. Maximum Climb Thrust according to BADA. ................................................................. 24
Figure 3-9. Comparison of thrust Lapse rate models....................................................................... 27
Figure 3-10. Change of thrust with Mach number during take-off ................................................. 28
Figure 3-11. Thrust lapse rate after T/O. ......................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-12. Maximum climb thrust as a function of Mach number and altitude. ......................... 30
Figure 3-13. Error in Maximum Climb Thrust model ....................................................................... 30
Figure 3-14. Optimum Cruise Altitude @ M0.83. ............................................................................ 31
Figure 3-15. Optimum altitude is presented at any given velocity and weight. .............................. 32
Figure 3-16. Payload Range diagram. .............................................................................................. 36
Figure 4-1. Flight profile for model. ................................................................................................. 37
Figure 4-2. 5700NM great circle range from Munich (EDDM), Germany ........................................ 38
Figure 4-3. Climb profile for a climb to FL320 with speed profile 250/320/M0.82 and cruise at
M0.85. .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 4-4. Velocity, fuel flow (all engines), altitude and mass during the climb phase. ................ 43
Figure 4-5. Step-climb profiles. ........................................................................................................ 44
Figure 4-6. Velocity, fuel flow, altitude and mass during cruise. ..................................................... 45
Figure 4-7. Altitude for entire flight. ................................................................................................ 48
Figure 4-8. Fuel flow entire flight for all engines. ............................................................................ 49
Figure 4-9. Climb angle during beginning and end of flight. ............................................................ 49
Figure 4-10. Lift coefficient during entire flight. .............................................................................. 50
Figure 5-1. The e-Genius. ................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 5-2. The EADS VoltAir and Boeings SUGAR Volt ................................................................... 52
Figure 5-3. Simplified schematic and segmentation of the electric propulsion system. ................. 52
Figure 5-4. Power out-put per engine for model flight.................................................................... 53
Figure 5-5. Selected volumetric and weight energy densities. ........................................................ 55
Figure 5-6. Energy density vs. power density. ................................................................................. 56
vii
Figure 6-1. Maximum available Thrust and the Thrust Required. ................................................... 58
Figure 6-2. Electric energy required EElec for different electric propulsion ratios. ........................... 60
Figure 6-3. Fuel saved for different electric propulsion ratios. ....................................................... 60
Figure 6-4. Required electric power................................................................................................. 61
Figure 6-5. Required electric power for T/O, Step Climb and Go-Around. ...................................... 61
Figure 6-6. Power Setting Conventional Engines ............................................................................. 62
Figure 6-7. Electric engine mass....................................................................................................... 64
Figure 6-8. Example of Battery and Capacitor use depending on characteristics of power curve. . 65
Figure 6-9. Battery and capacitor mass. .......................................................................................... 67
Figure 6-10. Mass change from electric propulsion......................................................................... 68
Figure 6-11. Additional weight required to increase electric propulsion with 1 percentage point. 69
Figure 6-12. The two design points for electric to conventional thrust ratio. ................................. 70
Figure 6-13. Mass distribution with electric propulsion. ................................................................. 70
Figure 6-14. Comparison of Altitude profile for conventional and hybrid aircraft. ......................... 73
Figure 6-15. Climb performance comparison of conventional and hybrid aircraft. ........................ 73
Figure 6-16. Thrust produced by electric and conventional engines at 30.5% electric. .................. 74
Figure 6-17 Thrust produced by electric and conventional engines at 36.5% electric. ................... 74
Figure 6-18. Thrust produced by electric and conventional engines at 40.5% electric. .................. 74
Figure 6-19. Detailed view of thrust produced by electric and conventional engines during......... 75
Figure 6-20. Power setting of electric and conventional engine. .................................................... 75
Figure 6-21. Hybrid Airliner Payload Range Diagram....................................................................... 77
Figure 6-22. Detailed view of Hybrid Airliner Payload Range Diagram ........................................... 78
Figure 12-1. Comparison of thrust Lapse rate models..................................................................... 89
Figure 12-2. Climb profile for a climb to FL320 with speed profile 250/320/M0.82 and cruise at M0.85. .. 89
Figure 12-3. Step-climb profiles. ...................................................................................................... 90
Figure 12-4. Required electric power............................................................................................... 90
Figure 12-5. Required electric power for T/O, Step Climb and Go-Around. .................................... 91
Figure 12-6. Power Setting Conventional Engines ........................................................................... 91
Figure 12-7. Mass change from electric propulsion......................................................................... 92
Figure 12-8. Mass distribution with electric propulsion. ................................................................. 92
Figure 12-9. Comparison of Altitude profile for conventional and hybrid aircraft. ......................... 93
Figure 12-10. Power setting of electric and conventional engine. .................................................. 93
Figure 12-11. Hybrid Airliner Payload Range Diagram..................................................................... 94
Figure 12-12. Detailed view of Hybrid Airliner Payload Range Diagram ......................................... 94
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Basic Aircraft Data ............................................................................................................. 5

Table 2-2. RR Trent 556 Engine data. ................................................................................................. 6
Table 2-3. Flaps and slats configurations ........................................................................................... 8
Table 3-1. Reference values for zero-lift-drag calculations ............................................................... 9
Table 3-2. Wetted area of each aircraft component. ...................................................................... 11
Table 3-3. Input variables and results for calculating the skin friction coefficient. ......................... 14
Table 3-4. Raw data, equations and results of form factor calculations. ........................................ 15
Table 3-5. Component interference factor. ..................................................................................... 15
Table 3-6. In-data for zero-lift-drag coefficient calculations according to Howe. ........................... 16
Table 3-7. Results for Zero-lift-drag calculated using different methods. ....................................... 17
Table 3-8. Results for K-factor.......................................................................................................... 19
Table 3-9. Altitude and Mach number for BADA Model .................................................................. 24
Table 3-10. Constants for calculating the thrust lapse rate according to the method by Howe. .... 26
Table 3-11. Thrust lapse rate model error. ...................................................................................... 27
Table 3-12. Division of thrust spectrum. .......................................................................................... 29
Table 3-13. Equation coefficients for the maximum climb thrust model. ....................................... 29
Table 3-14. Fuel Reserves. ............................................................................................................... 34
Table 3-15. Summary of fuel on-board. ........................................................................................... 35
Table 3-16. Numerical values for initial and final masses for payload vs. range calculations. ........ 35
Table 4-1. Climb 1 parameters. ........................................................................................................ 40
Table 4-2. Acceleration 1 parameters. ............................................................................................. 41
Table 4-8. Time, distance flown, fuel burnt and mass after climb phase. ....................................... 43
Table 4-9. Cruise parameters ........................................................................................................... 45
Table 4-10. Step climb parameters .................................................................................................. 45
Table 4-11. Time, distance flown, fuel burnt and mass after cruise phase. .................................... 45
Table 4-12. Descent parameters. ..................................................................................................... 46
Table 4-13. Time, distance flown, fuel burnt and mass after descent phase. ................................. 46
Table 4-14. Go-around parameters ................................................................................................. 47
Table 4-15. Hold climb parameters .................................................................................................. 47
Table 4-16. Time, distance flown, fuel burnt during Holding. ......................................................... 48
Table 6-1. Engine and Energy/Power source weights...................................................................... 71
Table 6-2. Fuel Reserves................................................................................................................... 71
ix
Table 6-3. Summary of fuel on-board and the Top of Descent weight. ........................................... 72
Table 6-4. Basic Performance Data comparing the Hybrid and Conventional Airliner. ................... 72
Table 6-5. Energy and Power required from electric engines. ........................................................ 76
Table 6-6. Hybrid Airliner TOW and TOD mass for Payload Range calculations .............................. 76
Table 6-7. Hybrid Airliner Payload Range numerical values ............................................................ 77
Table 7-1. Cost of replacing 1kg kerosene with batteries ................................................................ 80
x
NOMENCLATURE
Symbol Unit
A Area m²
A Aspect Ratio -
b0 Specific Fuel Consumption kg/Ns
c Cord m
c Speed of sound m/s
c0 Speed of sound at mean sea level m/s
cD Drag coefficient -
cD0 Zero-lift-drag coefficient -
cL Lift coefficient -
CLα Lift coefficient curve gradient -
d Diameter m
D Drag N
E Energy Ws
F Fuel kg
FF Fuel Flow kg/s
FL Flight level -
g Gravitational constant m/s²
h Altitude m
l Length m
L Lift N
M Mach number -
m Mass kg
p Air Pressure at current altitude Pa
P Payload kg
P Power W
p0 Reference air pressure at mean sea level Pa
Re Reynolds number -
S Area m²
Sref Wing reference area m²
Swet Wetted Area m2
(t/c) Airfoil Relative Thickness -
T Thrust N
T0 Thrust at mean sea level (ISA) N
VIAS Indicated Airspeed m/s
VTAS True Airspeed m/s
W Weight N
xi
Wf Final weight N
Wi Initial weight N
Greek Unit
γ Climb angle °
δT Power setting -
η Efficiency -
θ Temperature °K
θ0 Reference temperature at mean sea level °K
λ Taper ratio -
Λ Wing Sweep °
μ Dynamic viscosity Ns/m2
ρ Air density kg/m³
ρ0 Reference air density at mean sea level kg/m³
Indices
( )50% ½ chord line
( )CLB Climb
( )cont Continuous
( )conv Conventional
( )CRZ Cruise
( )DES Descent
( )e Engine
( )elec Electric
( )em Engine mount
( )f Fuselage
( )ftf Flap track fairing
( )HLD Hold
( )hs Horizontal stabiliser
( )lam Laminar
( )max Maximum
( )MCL Maximum Climb Thrust
( )min Minimum
( )r Root
( )t Tip
( )T/O Take-off
( )turb Turbulent
( )vs Vertical stabiliser
( )w Wing
( )wl Winglet
xii
()wet Wetted
Abbreviations
A/C Aircraft
C-Eng Conventional Engine
CLB Climb
CRZ Cruise
DES Descent
E-Eng Electric engine
GA Go-Around
HLD Holding
ISA International Standard Atmosphere
KCAS Knots calibrated airspeed
KIAS Knots indicated airspeed
KTAS Knots true airspeed
lam Laminar
MAC Mean Aerodynamic cord
MTOW Maximum Take-off Weight
MZFW Maximum Zero Fuel Weight
OWE Operating Weight empty
SEP Specific excess power
T/O Take-Off
TOC Top of Climb
TOD Top of Descent
turb Turbulent
xiii
1 INTRODUCTION
Fully electric propulsion can already be seen in operation in a handful of smaller aircrafts flying in
the skies today. The concept of electric propulsion would also be an appealing technology in
commercial aviation considering its various advantages with regard to sustainability,
environmental impact, reliability and maintenance. However, the current state of technological
advancement in the field of batteries and energy storage makes the concept of fully electrical
airliners feasible only in the far future. Conversely, the automotive industry has successfully
launched several hybrid propulsion systems on to the market. These electric-hybrid systems could
serve as a great concept and inspiration for the future in aviation. The scope of this thesis is to
investigate the feasibility of an electric-hybrid propulsion system for an Airbus A340-600 on a
long-haul flight and its effect on the aircraft performance.
At first, an analysis will be done of the reference aircraft, A340-600, using conventional propulsion
to determine required data to model and analyse a long-haul mission of the aircraft. Next, a
5700 nm flight will be modelled to determine performance data such as the power and thrust
requirements during the different flight phases. Thereafter, the flight phases will be identified
where electric propulsion would be plausible. Also, the amount of additional weight from the
hybrid system has to be determined and the ratio between conventional and electric propulsion.
Further, possibilities for the incorporation of the hybrid electric system with the conventional
system will be investigated. Once an optimal ratio of electric to conventional thrust has been
determined, a detailed performance analysis of the new hybrid electric aircraft will be conducted.
1
2 THE AIRBUS A340-600
2.1 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The idea for the Airbus Industry consortium came to be from a decision to challenge the American
domination of the airliner market. The idea arose in the mid-1960s after major European airlines
had shown interest for a short to medium range airliner that could carry over 100 passengers at
low costs. In 1967, ministers from Germany, France and the United Kingdom had agreed at a
meeting that “for the purpose of strengthening European co-operation in the field of aviation
technology and thereby promoting economic and technological progress in Europe, to take
appropriate measures for the joint development and production of an airbus”1. The official birth of
the Airbus programme took place on the 29th of May 1969 at Paris Le Bourget Airshow, when the
German economics minister, Karl Schiller, and the French transportation minister, Jean Chamant,
signed an agreement for the go-ahead of the A300 programme. This aircraft would be the first
twin-engine wide-body passenger jet aircraft and was sought to satisfy the recent interest shown
by European airlines. The construction of the aircraft was to be done by the German-French
consortium and also involve the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Airbus industry was officially founded as Groupement d’Interet Économique (Economic Interest
Group) on the 18th of December 1970 by a government initiative between France, Germany and
the United Kingdom. The name Airbus was coined by the industry for passenger aircrafts or an
airliner of a certain range and size. Initially, about three quarters of the share of the production
work were divided between Deutsche Airbus and Aérospatiale. Hawker Siddeley, in turn, acquired
one fifth and the rest went to Fokker-VFW. These four companies would deliver their sections as
fully equipped ready-to-fly parts. In 1971, the Spanish company CASA and in 1977, British
Aerospace joined as shareholders.
The A300 completed its maiden flight in 1972 and the first production model, the A300B2,
entered commercial service in 1974. Initially, the consortium had little success, but by 1979
eighty-one of their aircrafts were being flown world-wide. Soon thereafter, Airbus launched the
A310, a shortened version of the A300. Following the success of the A300 and the A310, Airbus
decided to get into direct competition with its American rivals. The launching of the short- and
midrange single-aisle airliner, the A320, was a major success with over 400 units sold even before
the aircraft took to the air. It was also the first commercial aircraft fitted with a fly-by-wire
system. With this new technology in place, Airbus subsequently introduced several developments
of the A320, the shortened A319 as well as the A318, the elongated A321 and various corporate
1
Airbus Mission Statement, "Airbus history". Flight International (Reed Business Publishing). 29 October
1997.
2
jet models. Airbus became particularly known for their fly-by-wire technology and their concept
of cockpit communality, making crew training easier.
2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE AIRBUS A340-600

The first surveys were conducted in 1981 and in 1987 the A340 project was launched. Its goal was
to develop a long-range airliner complementing the mid-range A300 and the short-range A320. A
series of factors motivate the development of this new aircraft. On one hand, the 60 minute
ETOPS regulation of that time meant a large disadvantage for Airbus’ twin-engine aircrafts
compared to its three- and four-engine competitors. On the other hand, the popular Douglas
Corporation DC-10 and Lockheed Tristar L1011 were being phased out and airlines were looking
for replacements.
The A340 and the A330 were designed concurrently. They received the same fuselage and wing,
but also much of the avionics originally designed for the A320. The first prototypes of both
aircrafts, which were also the first ones built with composite materials, were manufactured on the
same production line.
The first A340 completed its maiden flight on the 25th of October 1991 and the A340-200 and -
300 entered into service in 1993 in the colours of Lufthansa and Air France. Due to the high
similarities between the cockpits of A320, A330 and A340, pilots, who had previously flown the
A320, could be retrained to fly on the new models at a minimal cost and time.
Figure 2-1. The Airbus A340-300
The A340-600 was initially designed as a competitor to the Boeing 747. It possessed similar
passenger capacity as its Boeing rival, but could carry more payload and had lower operating
costs. It was an enhancement of the A340-300 with an extra twelve metres in length and an
additional four-wheel under-carriage on the centreline of the fuselage, in order to cope with the
additional weight.
The aircraft is powered by four Rolls-Royce Trent 556 turbofan engines, described in section 2.4
below. After its maiden flight in 2001, the A340-600 entered into service in 2002 for Virgin
3
Atlantic Airways. In terms of length of fuselage, it is the second longest commercial airliner only
recently surpassed by the Boeing 747-8i. A total of 97 units of the A340-600s have been delivered
until now. In November 2011 Airbus announced that it would cease production of the Airbus A340
family but assured that it would continue to fully support the current global fleet.
2.3 DATA
The focus of this thesis will be on Airbus A340-642. Since different variations exist even within this
model specification, significant data used throughout the project is presented in this section. The
figure below shows a three-view drawing2 of the aircraft with the most important measurements.
Figure 2-2. Airbus A340-600 3-view drawing with dimensions.
2
Airbus A340-600 Flight Crew Operating Manual, 1.20.20 P1
4
In the table below significant numerical data is summarised of the aircraft.
Length 75.24 m
Fuselage
Width 5.64 m
Cockpit Crew 2
Maximum Seats (w/ over-wing exit) 475
Area 437.3 m2
Span (w/o winglets) 61.20 m
MAC 8.35 m
Aspect Ratio 8.56
Taper Ratio 0.22
Wing
(t/c)tip 8.2 %
(t/c)average 10 %
(t/c)root 13.2%
Leading Edge Sweep 31.1°
¼ Chord Sweep 28°
Area 93 m2
Horizontal stabiliser
Span 21.5 m
Aspect Ratio 4.97
Taper Ratio 0.36
Leading Edge Sweep 30°
¼ Chord Sweep 27°
Area 47.65 m2
Vertical stabiliser
Height 9.44 m
Aspect Ratio 1.87
Taper Ratio 0.350
Leading Edge Sweep 45°
¼ Chord Sweep 40°
Maximum Take-off Mass 368 000 kg
Maximum Zero Fuel Mass 245 000 kg
Operating Mass Empty 177 000 kg
Mass
Maximum Fuel Capacity 193 925 l

Maximum Payload 68 000 kg
Maximum Landing Mass 256 000 kg
Maximum Payload Range 5700 NM
Design Range 7500 NM
Range
Maximum Fuel Range 7800 NM

Ferry Range 8800 NM
Table 2-1. Basic Aircraft Data
5
2.4 ROLLS-ROYCE TRENT 556

In 1995, as Airbus was developing the two new long-range derivatives of the A340 aircraft, the
A340-500 and A340-600, it started a search for a new engine. The existing CFM International
CFM56 engine, which had powered the A340-200/-300, was at the limit of its developmental
capability and would not be sufficient for the power requirements of the new -500 and -600
models. Despite first signing an agreement with General Electric in 1996 to develop a suitable
engine, Airbus subsequently decided to withdraw, after that GE demanded an exclusivity deal for
the new aircraft. At the 1997 Paris Airshow, Airbus announced that it had selected the Trent 500
to power the A340-500 and -600 over a Pratt & Whitney model that was also under consideration.
The first test run of the Trent 500 was conducted in May 1999 and certification was achieved in
December 2000. It entered service with the inaugural commercial flight of the A340-600 with
Virgin Atlantic Airways in July 2002.
Figure 2-3. The Rolls Royce Trent 556.
The Airbus A340-500 and A340-600 are powered by the Trent 500 engines, which were certified
for 270 kN thrust, but derated to 249 kN as the Trent 556 for the A340-600.
In the table below the most important engine data is summarised.
Length 4.689 m
Width 3.374 m
Size
Fan Diameter 2.474 m

Dry Weight (excl. Nacelle) 4990 kg
Maximum Take-off Thrust 260 000 N
Thrust
Maximum Continuous Thrust 197 300 N

Specific fuel consumption in cruise b0 1.62∙10-5 kg/Ns
Overall Pressure Ratio 36.3:1
Bypass Ratio 7.6:1
Turbine Gas Temp. Max. T/O 900 °C
Turbine Gas Temp. Max. Cont. 850 °C
Table 2-2. RR Trent 556 Engine data.
6
2.5 THE THRUST LEVER

The thrust produced by each power-plant is controlled by a Full Authority Digital Engine Control
(FADEC) system. This is a digital control system that is in charge of the complete engine
management. Generally, when the aircraft is flown, the pilot does not set a specific power setting
using the thrust lever, but instead uses the thrust lever to set a specific range for the thrust and
the FADEC system then freely regulates the thrust within this upper and lower limit. There are
four main setting:
- TO GA - Take Off, Go Around

- FLX/MCT - Flex, Maximum Continuous
- CL - Climb
- IDLE - Idle
In the figure below, the settings and the ranges within which the FADEC can vary the thrust, are
visualised.
Figure 2-4. Thrust Lever
7
2.6 HIGH LIFT DEVICES

On each of its wings, the A340-600 is fitted with two flap surfaces and seven slat surfaces and also
has the ability to droop its ailerons. There are five settings that can be chosen from the flaps lever
in the cockpit: 0, 1, 2, 3 and FULL. Depending on the speed of the aircraft, when flaps setting 1 is
selected, the high lift devices will either go into configuration 1 or in configuration 1 + F. The table
below shows the different slats, flaps and aileron settings of the aircraft.
Lever
Slats Flaps Ailerons Indication Flight Phase
Position
0 0 0 0 0 CRZ
0 0 1 HLD
1 21
17 10 1+F T/O
24 17 10 2
2
24 22 10 2 T/O APPR
3 24 29 10 3
LDG
FULL 24 34 10 FULL
Table 2-3. Flaps and slats configurations
Further reference to a specific flap setting will be done naming the indication, i.e. 0, 1, 1+ F, etc....
8
3 PERFORMANCE
3.1 ZERO LIFT DRAG

For accurate performance calculations it is important to calculate a value for the
zero-lift-drag (CD0). This is done using several different methods for redundancy. In order to allow
for a comparison of the different methods used, a reference state is defined where the aircraft is
cruising at FL 390 with Mach 0.83 under standard atmospheric (ISA) conditions; reference values
for this specific state are given in the table below.
VTAS M h ρ p T Μ
244.9 m/s 0.83 39000 ft 0.3162 kg/m3 19664 pa -56.5 °C 1.4323∙10-5 Ns/m2
Table 3-1. Reference values for zero-lift-drag calculations
3.1.1 Wing Reference Area

The wing reference area is calculated from a three-view drawing using the Airbus Method, which
approximates the contribution from the fuselage to the wing reference area as a rectangle. The
wing reference area is:
Sref = 440 m2.
3.1.2 Wetted area

The total wetted area of the aircraft is calculated to be:
Swet = 2460.5 m2
The method for calculating the contributions from the different aircraft components is described
below.
Fuselage
The fuselage's wetted area is given by3:
⁄
( ) ( ) (3-1)
where .
3
(Torenbeek, 1982) eq. B-6
9
Wing
The wetted area of the wing is given by4:
( ( ) ) (3-2)
where ⁄ and ( ⁄ ) ⁄( ⁄ ) . The exposed wing area Sw is measured from a

three-view drawing of the aircraft.
Horizontal stabiliser
As for the wing, equation (3-2) is used to calculate the wetted area of the horizontal stabiliser.
However, it is assumed that λ = τ = 1 since no accurate values where obtained for the relative
thickness of the airfoil's tip and root. This gives the following equation:
( ( ) ) (3-3)
The exposed horizontal stabiliser area Shs is measured from a three-view drawing of the aircraft.
Vertical stabiliser
The wetted area of the vertical stabiliser is calculated in the same way as for the horizontal
stabiliser – using equation (3-3). The exposed vertical stabiliser area Svs is measured from a three-
view drawing of the aircraft.
Winglet
The wetted area of the winglets is calculated in the same way as for the horizontal stabiliser –
using equation (3-3). The exposed winglet area Swl is measured from a three-view drawing of the
aircraft.
Engine
The wetted area of the engine (excluding the engine pylon) is found using the following formula5:
[ ( ) ]
(3-4)
[ ( ) ( ( ) )]
4
(Torenbeek, 1982) eq. B-11
5
(Torenbeek, 1982) eq. B-13, B-14, B-15,
10
The symbols and engine dimensions are defined in the figure below.
Figure 3-1. Engine dimension definitions.
Engine mount
The wetted area of the engine mount is measured from a three-view drawing of the aircraft.
Flap track fairing

The wetted area of the flap track fairing is measured from a three-view drawing of the aircraft.
Summary
Component Raw data Swet
Fuselage lf = 73.46 m 1033.7 m2
df = 5.64 m
Wing Sw = 370.96 m2 764.78 m2
(t/c)t = 0.0822
(t/c)r = 0.1323
Horizontal stabiliser Shs = 98.1 m2 200.52 m2
(t/c) = 0.088
Vertical stabiliser Svs = 51.4 m2 105.06 m2
(t/c) = 0.088
Engine Dn = 2.90 m 57.33 m2
(each) Dh = 3.40 m
ln = 5.30 m
lg = 1.50 m
lp = 1.25 m
β = 0.302
Dp = 1.00 m
Deg = 1.50 m
Dg = 2.10 m
Def = 2.90 m
Winglets Swl = 2.15 m2 8.79 m2
(t/c)r = 0.087
Engine mount 17.01 m2
(each)
Flap track fairing 4.4 m2
(each)
TOTAL 2460.5 m2
Table 3-2. Wetted area of each aircraft component.
11
The figure below shows the ratios of the wetted areas of the different components.
10%
Engine 8% Horizontal Stabiliser
4% Vertical Stabiliser
42%
Fuselage
3% Engine Pylon
1% Flap Track Fairing
< 1% Winglets
Wing
31%
Figure 3-2. Pie chart of the wetted areas of the different components.
3.1.3 Component Buildup Method

The first method used is the component buildup method6. A flat‐plate skin friction coefficient
Fuselageis
Wing
calculated for each component of the aircraft along with a form factor FF that incorporates the
Winglets
Flap Track Fairing
pressure drag caused by viscous separation. The product of these two terms, the wetted area and
Eingne Pylon
a component interference factor , estimating interference effects, gives the components
Vert. Stabiliser
Horiz. Stabiliser
contribution to the total drag. An additional term, takes into account additional drags
Engine
caused by un‐retracted landing gear, flaps, etc. Further, CDL&P incorporates additional drag due to
leakage and protuberances. The zero lift drag is given by:
∑( )
( ) (3-5)
where the subscript c means the value is component specific.
The aircraft is divided into the following components for the calculations:
- Fuselage
- Wing
- Horizontal stabiliser
- Vertical stabiliser
- Engine
- Winglets
- Engine mount
- Flap track fairing
6
(Raymer, 2006) chapter 12.5
12
3.1.3.1 Flat-Plate Skin Friction Coefficient (Cf)

The flat-plate skin friction coefficient for laminar flow is expressed by:
(3-6)
√
and for turbulent flow:
(3-7)
( ) ( )
where is the non-dimensional Reynolds number defined as:
(3-8)
where is the characteristic length defined for each component in the 2nd column of Table 3-3.
The dynamic viscosity µ is given by Sutherland's formula as follows:
( )
( ) (3-9)
where
T is the input temperature
µ0 is the reference viscosity at reference temperature T0, µ0 = 18.27∙10-6 Ns/m2
T0 is the reference temperature, T0 = 291.15 °K
C is the Sutherland's constant, C = 120
Since the flat-plate skin friction coefficient is also affected by surface roughness, the value for Cf
might be inaccurate for very rough surfaces if is defined by equation (3-8). Consequently, a cut‐
off Reynolds number, which takes into account the skin roughness, is calculated and the smaller of
the two Reynolds numbers is used. The cut‐off Reynolds number for subsonic flight is defined as:
(⁄ ) (3-10)
where is the skin roughness value. For a smooth paint surface it is given as7 .
Since the flow over the different aircraft components can be both laminar and turbulent the final
skin friction coefficient is defined taking into account the ratio between the laminar and the
turbulent flow.
( ) (3-11)
7
(Raymer, 2006) Table 12.4
13
where is defined as the fraction of the length of the component that has laminar flow over
it.
The numerical calculated values for the flat plate skin-friction coefficient for the different
components are presented in the table below.
Characteristic R Rcutoff klam Cflam Cfturb Cf

Component [106] [106] [10-3] [10-3] [10-3]
length
Fuselage Length 73.46 m 397.16 986.31 0.1 0.0666 1.661 1.661
Wing MAC 8.37 m 45.23 100.11 0.3 0.1975 2.242 2.038
Horizontal MAC 4.63 m 25.01 53.63 0.2 0.2656 2.449 2.231
stabiliser
Vertical MAC 6.27 m 33.89 73.87 0.2 0.2281 2.340 2.129
stabiliser
Engine Length 6.69 m 36.14 79.05 0.0 0.2209 2.318 2.318
Winglets MAC 1.50 m 8.11 16.39 0.2 0.4663 2.922 2.676
Engine mount Length 6.54 m 35.36 77.24 0.0 0.2233 2.325 2.325
Flap track fairing Length 5.75 m 31.087 67.45 0.0 0.2382 2.370 2.370
Table 3-3. Input variables and results for calculating the skin friction coefficient.
It can be noted that the Reynolds number was smaller than the cut‐off Reynolds number for every
component and was hence used in the calculation.
3.1.3.2 Component Form Factor (FF)

The form factor is given by the following equations for the corresponding components:
- wing, horizontal & vertical stabiliser, strut, pylon
[ ( ) ( ) ] [ ( ) ] (3-12)
( ⁄ )
- fuselage and smooth canopy
( ) (3-13)
- Nacelle and smooth external store
( ) (3-14)
where
(3-15)
√( ⁄ )
where Amax is the maximum cross-section area, ( ⁄ ) is the relative point of maximum thickness
of the airfoil along its cord and Λm is the wing sweep at the line of maximum thickness.
14
The numerical calculated values for the form factor along with the relevant in-data and the
equations used are presented in the table below.
Component Raw data Equation FF

Fuselage lf = 73.46 m (3-13) 10.597
df = 5.64 m
Wing (x/c)max = 0.3 (3-12) 15.017
(t/c) = 0.1
Λm = 31°
Horizontal (x/c)max = 0.3 (3-12) 14.716
Stabiliser (t/c) = 0.088
Λm = 29.9°
Vertical (x/c)max = 0.3 (3-12) 14.244
Stabiliser (t/c) = 0.088
Λm = 39.5°
Engine lf = 6.685 m (3-14) 11.623
df = 3.1 m
Winglets (x/c)max = 0.3 (3-12) 14.188
(t/c) = 0.087
Λm = 40°
Engine mount lem = 6.54 (3-14) 1.021
dem = 0.6
Flap track lftf = 5.75 (3-14) 10.457
fairing dftf = 0.75
Table 3-4. Raw data, equations and results of form factor calculations.
Since, data concerning the point of maximum thickness could not be obtained; this value was
approximated to 0.3, which is a common value for subsonic airfoils.
3.1.3.3 Component interference factor (Q)

The component interference factor Q incorporates the additional drag resulted by the
interference effect components have on each other. Interference factors for the different
components are displayed in the table below.8
Component Fuselage Wing Horizontal Vertical Engine Winglets Engine Flap track
stabiliser stabiliser mount fairing
Interference
1.0 1.0 1.03 1.03 1.3 1.03 1.5 1.5
factor
Table 3-5. Component interference factor.
3.1.3.4 Result
Substituting the results from the sections above into equation (3-5) yields a zero-lift-drag
coefficient for the reference state of CD0 = 0.0146.
8
(Raymer, 2006) p. 332
15
3.1.4 Howe's Method

The second method used approximates the zero-lift-drag as9:
√ ( ⁄ )
( ) (3-16)
( )
[ [ ] ]
where,
Af is an airfoil factor dependent on the airfoil design
cl is the fraction of chord of the wing over which the flow is laminar
Λ1/4 is the wing sweep at the ¼ cord line
Rw is a factor given by the ratio of Sref and Swet
Tf is a factor incorporating deviation from the streamlined ideal shape
τ is a correction factor for wing thickness given by the following equation:
⁄
[ ( ( ) )] (3-17)
The type factor variable is given as10 Tf = 1.1. The fraction of chord of the wing over which the flow
is laminar has been approximated to be 10%. The airfoil factor is given as11:
(3-18)
where, AF is 0.95 for a modern airfoil12 and the lift-coefficient is calculated for the current cruise
flight conditions using equation (3-49) to be CL = 0.523.
The numerical values of the variables used in the equation (3-18) above are given in the table
below.
Af M cl Sref Λ1/4 t/c Rw Tf

2
0.90 0.83 0.1 440 m 28° 0.1 5.20 1.1
Table 3-6. In-data for zero-lift-drag coefficient calculations according to Howe.
The above values substituted into formula (3-17), (3-18) and then (3-16) yield CD0 = 0.0145.
3.1.5 Equivalent Skin Friction Method

The equivalent skin friction method approximates the zero-lift-drag using the following formula:
(3-19)
For a commercial airliners Cfe= 0.003013. Using Sref and Swet calculated in section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2,
the equation above yields CD0=0.0167.
9
(Howe, 2000) eq. 6.13a
10
(Howe, 2000) Table 6.4
11
(Howe, 2000) p 118
12
(Howe, 2000) p 118
16
3.1.6 Result, Comparison and Conclusion

The results from the three different methods above are summarized in the table below.
Component Buildup Method Dennis Howe Equivalent skin friction method

0.0146 0.0145 0.0167
Table 3-7. Results for Zero-lift-drag calculated using different methods.
The component buildup method and the equation by Denis Howe give surprisingly similar result.
Both methods take into account Mach number and component buildup method also takes into
account change with altitude. Therefore for future calculations the component buildup method
will be used. The Equivalent skin friction method is an exceptionally simplified method, which
may explain why its result deviates from the other two methods.
3.2 -FACTOR
The -factor was determined using four different methods. Due to the high velocity of the aircraft
the polar break also has to be taken into consideration.
3.2.1 Raymer: Oswald Span Efficiency Method

This method utilizes the Oswald span efficiency factor, e, and defines as:
(3-20)
where the Oswald span efficiency factor is given by:
( ) (3-21)
and for swept wings ( > 30°) by:
( )( ) (3-22)
Equation (3-21) yields e = 0.795, which in turn gives = 0.0468 and equation (3-22) yields
e = 0.516 and = 0.072.
13
(Raymer, 2006) Table 12.3
17
3.2.2 Howe's Method

The -factor is given by the following equation14:
( ) ( ) ( ⁄ ) ( )
[ ] (3-23)
( ) ( )
⁄
where,
Ne is the number of engines that are located over the top surface of the wing
f(λ) is a Taper ratio function given by:
( ) [ ( ) ] (3-24)
As the A340-600 has no engines above the top surface of its wing, Ne = 0, the equations above
yields = 0.0494.
3.2.3 Frost and Rutherford method

This method uses the following formula to calculate the Oswald span efficiency factor15:
⁄
(3-25)
( )
Where CLα can be calculated as described in section 3.2.5.2 and the suction factor R is given as a
function of (Aλ/cos(Λ)) in the figure below, where Λ is the wing sweep.
Figure 3-3. R factor for the Frost and Rutherford method.
Given that (Aλ/cos(Λ)) = 2.13, R = 0.94. Equation (3-31) gives CLα = 5.45, which in turn gives an
Oswald factor of e = 0.902 using equation (3-25). Using equation (3-20) we get that = 0.0412.
14
(Howe, 2000) eq. 6.14a
15
(Donus, Kirchner, Myrczik, Schubert, & Schwarze, 2006), p33 eq. 4.17
18
3.2.4 Result Comparison Conclusion

The results from the four different methods above are summarized in the table below.
Raymer I Raymer II Howe F&R

0.0468 0.0700 0.0488 0.0412
e 0.7951 0.5312 0.7624 0.9021
Table 3-8. Results for K-factor
If considering the two Raymer methods, the first one is for aircrafts with straight wings, while the
second one is for aircrafts with a larger wing sweep, as the A340. However, the result from the
first method seems more accurate while the value obtained with the second method is
inconsistent with the other values. The method by Howe gives a reasonable answer while offering
simple application into the model being developed in the next section. For further calculations the
method according to Howe will be used.
3.2.5 Polar break

In order to compensate for change in the k-factor at high CL-values the polar break has to be taken
into consideration. The k-factor will increase when the lift coefficient exceeds a specific value CL,PB.
This is approximated by16:
(3-26)
With an average relative thickness of (t/c) = 0.1 the boundary value becomes CL,PB = 0.65. For
cases where the lift coefficient is above this boundary value, the following formula is used in
17
order to calculate the accurate -factor, which is denoted as :
[ ] (3-27)
Where k is the k-factor calculated without taking the polar break effect into account. How CLmax
and CLα are calculated is described in the following two sections below.
3.2.5.1 Maximum lift coefficient CLmax

The maximum lift coefficient CLmax is derived from the aircrafts stall speed.
16
(Hornung, Flugzeugentwurf Vorlesungsskript, 2010), slide 5.30
17
(Hornung, Flugzeugentwurf Vorlesungsskript, 2010), slide 5.31
19
18
Figure 3-4. Stalling speeds Airbus A340-642.
Due to the construction of the fly-by-wire system and the inability to stall the aircraft, instead of
the stall speed, the VS1G speed is given in the charts above. The ratio between the given value and
the true stalling speed is:19
(3-28)
Data points where taken from the figure above and a line of best fit was calculated for the
approximation of stall speed at different aircraft weights and configurations. This is presented in
the equations below:
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] (3-29)
[ ] [ ]
Where conf. refers to the different flap and slat configurations, see section 2.6. The maximum lift
coefficient can then be calculated by:
(3-30)
⁄
The maximum lift coefficient has been plotted in the figure below for different settings of the high
lift devices, weights and altitude.
18
19
20
CLmax
400
Conf. 0 @ 360t
350 Conf. 0 @ 240t
Conf. 1 @ 360t
Conf. 1 @ 240t
300 Conf. 1+ F @ 360t
Conf. 1+ F @ 240t
250
Altitude [FL]
200
150
Conf. 0 Conf. 1 Conf. 1 +F

100
50
0
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8
CLmax
Figure 3-5. Maximum lift coefficient for different settings of the high lift devices, weights and altitude.
For configurations when flaps or slats are extended, the maximum lift coefficient is not calculated
for all altitudes since the aircraft normally only flies at lower altitudes when they are extended.
3.2.5.2 Gradient of Lift coefficient curve CLα

The gradient of the lift-coefficient vs. angle of attack curve CLα is approximated using Polhamus
equation. This equation was chosen because it yields accurate answer at subsonic speeds and the
aircraft is most likely to exceed CL,PB during the climb phase where speeds are low. It defines CLα as:
⁄ (3-31)
√ ( )
where,
η airfoil efficiency, approximated20 to η = 0.95
β is a compressibility factor given by:
√ (3-32)
The figure below shows the calculated values of CLα for Mach numbers for 0 to 0.85 using the
equation above.
20
(Raymer, 2006) page 312
21
1.5
1.49
1.48
1.47
L
C
1.46
1.45
1.44
1.43
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Mach number
Figure 3-6. CLα as a function of Mach number.
3.3 AIRSPEED
Due to the construction and method used to measure the airspeed of the aircraft, there is
deviation between the airspeed indicated to the pilot in the cockpit (VIAS) and the true airspeed of
the aircraft (VTAS). This is due to deviation in air density with altitude and a buffer effect at high
velocity. There is also a slight instrumental error, however that has been neglected in this case,
hence VIAS = VCAS. The conversion between indicated and true airspeed is done using the following
formula:
[ ( ) ] (3-33)
( )
√ [ ]
where,
c is the speed of sound [m/s]
c0 is the speed of sound at MSL [m/s]
p is the air pressure [pa]
p0 is the air pressure at MSL [pa]
VIAS is the indicated airspeed [m/s]
3.4 INITIAL CLIMB SPEED

After take-off, according to the FCOM21, the aircraft should fly with a speed of V2 + 10kts. Further,
V2 is defined22 as V2 = 1.2∙VS. It is assumed that at this stage the high lift devices of the aircraft are
in the 1 + F configuration (see section 2.6). The stall speed has already been calculated in section
3.2.5.1, thus we can define V2 as a function of the aircrafts mass as:
21
Airbus A340-600 Flight Crew Operating Manual, 3.03.62
22
Airbus A340-600 Flight Crew Operating Manual, 3.04.10
22
( [ ] [ ])
(3-34)
[ ] [ ]
3.5 THRUST LAPSE RATE

The thrust that can be produced by a turbofan aircraft engine is a function of altitude and Mach
number. In the figure below the general tendency of this change can be seen for a subsonic
turbofan engine.
23
Figure 3-7. Example of manufacturers uninstalled engine performance data for a subsonic turbofan .
Since no exact performance data could be obtained for the Trent 556 engines, a model has to be
generated to predict the maximum available thrust at different altitudes and Mach numbers. In
the figure above it can be seen that at low altitudes there is a higher dependency on Mach
number, while at higher altitudes thrust is only slightly influenced by the Mach number. Literature
provided very few and also very different methods for modelling the thrust lapse rate. There was
also great difference in complexity. Several different methods are investigated to find the most
suitable one.
23
(Roskam, 1990)
23
3.5.1 Reference Values

Two set of values will be used as reference based upon which the models will be evaluated. It is
assumed that the maximum climb thrust has the same general relation to the Mach number and
altitude as the maximum available thrust and will therefore be used as reference. The first set of
values are the maximum climb thrust values defined in section 3.6. The second reference is the
maximum climb thrust model for ISA conditions24 according to the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA):
( ) ( ) (3-35)
where the aircraft specific coefficients are as given below25,
CTc1 = 0.54497 ∙ 106

CTc2 = 0.57703 ∙ 105
CTc3 = 0.20155 ∙ 10-10
These values are defined for a specific set of Mach numbers given in the table below.
FL 0 5 10 15 20 30 40 60 80
Mach 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.39 0.42 0.44
FL 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Mach 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.70 0.73 0.75
FL 280 290 310 330 350 370 390 410 415
Mach 0.78 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Table 3-9. Altitude and Mach number for BADA Model
In the figure below the thrust lapse rate defined by equation (3-35) above can be seen.
450
400
350
300
Altitude [FL]
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
T/T0
Figure 3-8. Maximum Climb Thrust according to BADA.
24
EUROCONTROL EXPERIMENTAL CENTRE, BASE OF AIRCRAFT DATA (BADA) AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
MODELLING REPORT, EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 2009-009, Issued: March 2009, table 3-2
25
BADA, Aircraft Performance Operational File, File name: A364__.OPF
24
3.5.2 Models
Below five different methods are presented for calculating the change of thrust with altitude.
I.
One of the most common approximations is given by:
( ) (3-36)
where,
nρ lapse rate factor
No literature gives an exact value for the lapse rate factor but generally states that the values lies
in the range of 0.75-1 depending on engine type. nρ = 0.85 was assumed.
II. - Nikolai
The following method is similar to the previous one but instead of a lapse rate factor a
temperature coefficient is used. Thrust lapse rate is given by26:
( ) ( ) (3-37)
where
θ is the outside temperature [°K]
θ0 is the air temperature at sea level [°K]
III. - Raymer
According to Raymer the lapse rate is a linear function that assumes 100% thrust at sea level and
0% thrust at 55000 ft. It is defined as:
(3-38)
where
C is the thrust gradient, C = 1.8 ∙ 10-5

h is altitude in feet
26
(Nicolai, 2010) eq. 14.11 p 370
25
IV. - Howe
According to Howe27, the lapse rate is defined as:
( ( ) ) ( ) (3-39)
where the constants K1τ, K2τ,K3τ, K4τ and s are given in the table below for a turbofan with a
bypass ratio of 8.
M K1τ K1τ K1τ K1τ h s

M < 0.4 1 0 -0.595 -0.03 h < 36100ft 0.7
M > 0.4 0.89 -0.014 -0.3 0.005 h < 36100ft 1
Table 3-10. Constants for calculating the thrust lapse rate according to the method by Howe.
V. - Torenbeek
The following equation is an alteration of an equation by Torenbeek28. It yields results with an
error below 1% for Mach numbers below 0.429. It defines the thrust lapse rate as:
( )
( √ ) (3-40)
√( )
where
( )
( )
( )
and G is the gas generator function, which is given as30 G = 1.1 for high bypass ratios.
3.5.3 Evaluation
Methods I, II and III don't take the effect of Mach number in account. Since it is known that the
accuracy of equation (3-40) is high for the low speeds it will be used to calculate the maximum
thrust for the take-off and methods I-III will only be used to calculate the thrust after this stage,
where Mach number has a less significant effect.
27
(Howe, 2000) eq. 3-7 & table 3.2
28
Assessment of Numerical Models for Thrust and Specific Fuel Consumption for Turbofan Engines, Oliver
Schulz, 13.März 2007
29
Assessment of Numerical Models for Thrust and Specific Fuel Consumption for Turbofan Engines, Oliver
Schulz, 13.März 2007
30
(Torenbeek, 1982) appendix H
26
The average is taken of the two reference data's and plotted in the figure below along with the
calculated values using the models above.
450
Refernce
400 I
II - Nikolai
350 III - Raymer
IV - Howe
V - Torenbeek
300
Altitude [FL]
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thrust 5
x 10
Figure 3-9. Comparison of thrust Lapse rate models.
The mean absolute error for each method is shown in the table below
I. II. III. IV. V.

2.36 % 1.26 % 3.84 % 21.97 % 22.14 %
Table 3-11. Thrust lapse rate model error.
The most accurate values are given by equation (3-37) when combined with equation (3-40) for
the take-off.
It should be noted that reference values are defined for a specific altitude and Mach number. The
range of speeds in which an airliner operates at a specific altitude is small; this might be the
reason why a simpler model is sufficient and more accurate. While the more complex models
might not be very accurate in the altitude and speed ranges where the aircraft normally flies, it
gives somewhat accurate values in the whole spectrum of speeds and altitudes. The simpler
models are accurate in the ranges where the aircraft normally flies but presumably, due to their
simplicity, give very inaccurate results in other areas, such as low altitude – high Mach number or
high altitude – low Mach number flight. However, since these are not of interest the simpler
methods become a better choice.
3.5.4 Conclusion
For the model in chapter 4, the thrust during take-off will be calculated using equation (3-40). The
figure below shows the change in thrust with Mach number.
27
0.95
0.9
0
T/T
0.85
0.8
0.75
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Mach number
Figure 3-10. Change of thrust with Mach number during take-off
After take-off the thrust lapse is modelled using equation (3-37) using the value obtain from
equation (3-40) at the end of take-off as reference. The thrust lapse rate and the temperature
effect as well as the air density effect are shown in the figure below.
450
Thrust Lapse Rate
400 Temperature Effect
Air Density Effect
350
300
Altitude [FL]
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
T/T0
Figure 3-11. Thrust lapse rate after T/O.
3.6 MAXIMUM CLIMB THRUST

A model has to be made to determine the maximum climb thrust TMCL. Raw thrust data was
obtained from a software called Piano X. Piano X is a performance software that gives fuel
consumption, environmental emissions, drag and performance characteristics at any range and
payload combination of a specific aircraft. After identifying that the values change with altitude
and Mach number a matrix was created with values for the maximum climb thrust at different
altitudes and Mach numbers (see Appendix A – Thrust Model). After analysis of the nature of
28
data, it was divided into 6 blocks restricted by the conditions shown in the table below. A
separate model would be generated for each of the six blocks in order to increase accuracy.
Mach Number
0 < M < 0.6 0.6 ≤ M
Altitude FL 0 ≤ h < FL 110 I. IV.
FL 110 ≤ h < FL 245 II. V.
FL 245 ≤ h III. VI.
Table 3-12. Division of thrust spectrum.
The model is generated by doing multiple linear regressions using the least square method for
each block of data. The general equation of the plane that is fitted to the data is given by:
(3-41)
where the coefficients a, b, c and d have to be found and FL is the flight level. Using Matlab, the
values are found for the coefficients and presented in the table below.
a b c d
h M
[N] [N/100ft] [N] [N/100ft]
I. FL 0 ≤ h < FL 110 0 < M < 0.6 67515 -127 -36461 136
II. FL 110 ≤ h < FL 245 0 < M < 0.6 70742 -158 -34088 116
III. FL 245 ≤ h 0 < M < 0.6 57115 -105 -13252 34
IV. FL 0 ≤ h < FL 110 0.6 ≤ M 62863 -122 -28708 128
V. FL 110 ≤ h < FL 245 0.6 ≤ M 65628 -143 -25566 91
VI. FL 245 ≤ h 0.6 ≤ M 56516 -108 -12253 40
Table 3-13. Equation coefficients for the maximum climb thrust model.
In the figure below the raw data points are displayed along with the calculated plane of best fit.
29
550
500
450
400
Thrust [kN]
350
300
250
200
150
0
50 0.8
100 0.75
150 0.65 0.7
200 0.6
250 300 0.55
350 0.45 0.5
400 0.4
Mach Number
Altitude [FL]
Figure 3-12. Maximum climb thrust as a function of Mach number and altitude.
The figure below shows the per cent error of the mathematical model compared to the raw data.
1.5
Error [%]
0.5
0
0.8
0.75
0.7 400
0.65 350
0.6 300
250
0.55 200
0.5 150
0.45 100
50
0.4 0
Mach Number Altitude [FL]
Figure 3-13. Error in Maximum Climb Thrust model
It can be seen that the model is matched well with data with a maximal error of roughly 1.5%.
30
3.7 OPTIMUM CRUISE ALTITUDE

The required thrust for cruise is given by:
(3-42)
Since cruise is done at a constant Mach number, the only variables are weight and air density. The
required thrust was calculated for a range of altitude and weights, and for each weight the
altitude at which the required thrust was a minimum was found. The optimum cruising altitude
where the minimum thrust is required is plotted as a function of aircraft mass in the figure below.
Optimal Cruise Altitude @ M0.83

420
400
380
Altitude [FL]
360
340
320
300
Actual Model
280
360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180
Mass [t]
Figure 3-14. Optimum Cruise Altitude @ M0.83.
The data points above can be described by a line of best fit with the following function that has
also been plotted in the figure above:
[ ] [ ] [ ] (3-43)
In the figure below the optimum altitude is presented at any given velocity and weight.
31
450
400
350
Altitude [FL]
300
250
200
150
100
300
280 360
340
260 320
300
240 280
260
220 240
220
200
200 180
Speed [m/s] Weight [t]
Figure 3-15. Optimum altitude is presented at any given velocity and weight.
3.8 FUEL PLANNING

The boundary condition for when the cruise phase of a flight has to end at the latest is
determined by when the aircraft reaches a specific Top of Descent weight
W = WTOD
At this weight, the aircraft will still have enough fuel to descend and land and still have the
required amount of reserve fuel on-board upon landing. The WTOD is calculated backwards from
the landing weight. During flight the only cause of weight change of the aircraft is due to the
consumption of fuel. The fuel aboard an aircraft is a sum of the following:
- Trip Fuel (TF)

- Contingency Fuel (CF)
- Alternate Fuel (AF)
- Final Reserve Fuel (FR)
- Additional Fuel (ADD)
- Extra Fuel (XF)
These fuel amounts are defined in the COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 859/2008 also known
as the EU-OPS 1.
Trip Fuel
The trip fuel is the necessary fuel from break release at the departure airport to touchdown at the
destination airport. Included in this is the fuel required for the following segments:
- Take-off
- Climb to TOC
32
- Cruise from TOC to TOD including step-climbs

- Descent from TOD to approach
- Approach
- Landing at destination airport
Contingency Fuel
For the type of missions flown by the aircraft in question the most relevant definition of
contingency fuel is 5% of trip fuel. However, if an en-route alternate airport is available according
to the conditions defined below then the contingency fuel can be reduced to 3% of the trip fuel.
“The … aerodrome shall be located within a circle having a radius equal to 20 % of

the total flight plan distance, the centre of which lies on the planned route at a
distance from the destination aerodrome of 25 % of the total flight plan distance,
or at least 20 % of the total flight plan distance plus 50 nm, whichever is greater,
all distances are to be calculated in still air conditions”31
Generally this requirement is fulfilled unless the flight takes place over very remote areas, such as
the south pacific.
Alternate Fuel
Alternate fuel incorporates fuel for:
- Fuel for a go-around at the destination airport to missed approach altitude

- Fuel for climb from missed approach altitude to TOC altitude
- Fuel for cruise from TOC to TOD at alternate airport
- Fuel for approach and landing at alternate airport
Final Reserve Fuel

Final reserve fuel is the fuel required for a 30 minute holding at 1500 ft above the alternate
airport, in the case that no alternate is required for the flight then at the destination airport.
Additional Fuel
The minimum additional fuel is the fuel required for:
- “the aeroplane to descend as necessary and proceed to an adequate alternate aerodrome

in the event of engine failure or loss of pressurisation, whichever requires the greater
amount of fuel based on the assumption that such a failure occurs at the most critical
point along the route, and
 hold there for 15 minutes at 1 500 ft (450 m) above aerodrome elevation in
standard conditions; and
31
Appendix 2 of EU-OPS 1.255
33
 make an approach and landing, except that additional fuel is only required, if the
minimum amount of fuel calculated in accordance with subparagraphs 1.2. to 1.5.
above is not sufficient for such an event, and
- Holding for 15 minutes at 1 500 ft (450 m) above destination aerodrome elevation in
standard conditions, when a flight is operated without a destination alternate
aerodrome;”32
Generally, for the aircraft in question, the additional fuel will be covered by reserve fuels added in
accordance to the clauses concerning contingency fuel, alternate fuel and final reserve fuel.
Extra Fuel
Extra fuel shall be added at the discretion of the Capitan.
Calculating the Top of Descent Weight

To calculate WTOD all fuel amounts have to be known along with the fuel required for the descent.
Descent and reserve fuel estimations are shown in the table below.
Segment Reserve fuel category Fuel amount

Descent from FL390 Trip Fuel 660 kg
Go-around + CLB to FL80 Alternate Fuel 2060 kg
Flight to alternate at FL80 Alternate Fuel 3700 kg
Holding 30 min at FL15 Final Reserve 3700 kg
Table 3-14. Fuel Reserves.
The above values where calculated using an iterative method by assuming a value for W TOD from
which the descent and reserve fuels could be calculated and a new WTOD could be determined.
Then using the new value for WTOD the process was repeated; this was done until the value
converged.
Assuming 3% contingency fuel, the amount of fuel required can be calculated as follows:
( )
(3-44)
( )
Using the equation above for TF and knowing the fuel required for the descent FDES, the fuel
required for flight until TOD will be:
32
Appendix 1 to EU-OPS 1.255, 1.6
34
( )
(3-45)
Having a total fuel of Ftotal = 123 t on-board and using the reserve fuel values from the table above
it can be calculated that FTOD = 109.6 t. Since the only change in aircraft weight occurs due to fuel
burn, the mass at TOD will be
(3-46)
Assuming take-off at MTOW we get that mTOD = 258.4 t, the WTOD can then be calculated by
multiplying mTOD with the gravitational constant g. The table below shows a summary of the fuel
on-board.
Trip Fuel Contingency Fuel Alternate Fuel Final Reserve

110 233 kg 3307 kg 5760 kg 3700 kg
Table 3-15. Summary of fuel on-board.
3.9 PAYLOAD RANGE DIAGRAM

In order to have a ground for comparison in later stages of the study, a payload range diagram is
generated. The range is given by the following formula:
( ) (3-47)
The weights for the four corner point in the diagram are given in the table below.
1 2 3 4
Wi OWE + Pmax MTOW MTOW OWE + Fmax
245 000 kg 368 000 kg 368 000 kg 336 000 kg
Wf OWE + Pmax OWE + Pmax MTOW-Fmax OWE
245 000 kg 245 000 kg 209 000 kg 177 000 kg
Table 3-16. Numerical values for initial and final masses for payload vs. range calculations.
Cruise speed is set to be M0.83 at 36000 feet, which gives a true airspeed of VTAS = 245m/s. For
the current altitude and velocity the zero-lift drag coefficient and K-factor where calculated to be
CD0 = 0.0144 and K = 0.0494 (See section 3.1 & 3.2). The lift to drag ratio is given as:
(3-48)
35
However for cruise flight we have that:
(3-49)
⁄
When substituting this into equation (3-48) above, we get:
[ ] (3-50)
For the predefined flight conditions and assuming mass of 358 t (weight at start of cruise) we get
that CL/CD = 18.60. Substituting this value into equation (3-47) along with the initial and final
weights from Table 3-16 the following graph can be generated.
Payload vs. Range

400
Fuel 2. 3.
Payload
350 OWE 4.
. .
300 123 t .
1. Fuel
250 159 t
.
Weight [t]
200
Payload 68t
150
100
177t OWE
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Range [NM]
Figure 3-16. Payload Range diagram.
The result generated above assumes that aircraft is in constant cruise climb to achieve maximum
range. Also, it does not take into account any flight segments other than cruise; hence the values
for ranges given will be slightly more than those in reality. However, since the main purpose of
this graph is to have a mean for comparing the Hybrid-Electric airliner with the conventional one,
the error will arise in both cases and can therefore be neglected. Though, it should be noted that
the deviation from the range given by the manufacturer is still not greater than 10%.
36
4 MODEL
In order to be able to determine the power required by the electric engines a flight model is
generated. The aircraft's performance is determined each second during a flight with the
following phases:
- Take off
- Climb
- Cruise (with step-climb)
- Descent
- Go around
- Flight to alternate
- Hold
- Landing
Figure 4-1. Flight profile for model.
The configuration with maximum payload and maximum take-off weight is chosen, which gives a
range of 5700 nm. This means that the aircraft will have a take-off mass of mTO = 368t and be
carrying a payload of mPayload = 68t. The figure below shows cites that can be reached using an
aircraft with such a range flying out from Munich (MUC), Germany. The goal is that the hybrid
electric airliner will have close to the same range. It can be seen the except for southern South-
America and Oceania, countless areas with major cities can reached.
37
Figure 4-2. 5700NM great circle range from Munich (EDDM), Germany
The model is done using Matlab. Through-out the flight the following performance data is
monitored:
- Time, t [s]
- Speed, V [m/s]
- Altitude, h [ft]
- Thrust, T [N]
- Fuel flow, FF [kg/s]
- Weight, W [N]
- Rate of climb/climb angle, γ [rad]
- Lift coefficient, CL [-]
- Specific Excess Power, SEP [m/s]
The values above are calculated each second in a while loop until a specific boundary condition is
reached that ends current the flight segment and prompts the next one to start. These specific
boundary conditions are explained for each segment in the corresponding section below.
Calculating values each second allows for certain simplifications: for example, the change in
altitude of the aircraft Δh in m will be calculated for a 1 second interval and therefore be same as
its vertical speed in m/s. Thus,
Similar equalities are made in several different places in the calculations below.
A standard atmospheric condition according to the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) with
no winds and standard barometric pressure is assumed. Therefore, all altitudes will be written as
38
flight levels (FL). Take-off and landing are conducted from mean sea level. Available cruise
altitudes are FL 290, FL 330, FL 370 and FL 410.
4.1 TAXI AND TAKE-OFF (T/O)

The taxi and take-off phase is assumed from departure position on the apron to lining up on the
runway and then from break release to FL 0.35 (35 ft).
For warm up and taxi, Airbus states a fuel-consumption33 between 140kg and 420kg for the A346
depending on number of engines used and length of taxi. An intermediate value of mf,taxi = 280kg
is assumed.
For the take-off it is assumed that the aircraft uses maximum take-off thrust for 1 minute until
reaching FL 0.35 where the take-off segment ends and the climb segment starts.
Assuming that thrust varies with Mach number as described in section 3.5, the fuel flow can be
calculated taking into account the specific fuel consumption. Integrating the fuel flow over the
duration of the take-off gives a total fuel burn of mf,T/O = 815kg.
4.2 CLIMB (CLB)

The climb phase goes from FL 0.35 to the top of climb (TOC) altitude. TOC is first available flight
level that is closest to the optimum cruise altitude at the current weight. How the optimum cruise
altitude is calculated was discussed in section 3.7. For the chosen configuration, the climb phase
ends at hTOC = FL 290. The climb phase itself is divided into several sub-phases consisting of climb
and acceleration segments. The speed profile used is one that is suggested by Airbus34. It dictates
an initial climb at 250 KIAS until FL 100, then an acceleration phase at constant altitude to
320 KIAS. Thereafter comes another climb with constant KIAS until a Mach number of M0.82 is
reached, after which the climb is done at that constant Mach number until TOC is reached. This
altitude at which aircraft crosses over from flying with constant KIAS to constant Mach number is
called the Crossover Altitude or Crossover Flight Level. Finally, the aircraft accelerates from its
climb speed to its cruise speed. In the figure below, this climb profile is shown, however to better
visualize each segment; the climb portrayed in the figure is conducted to FL 320 and a cruise
speed of Mach 0.85.
33
Airbus – Getting to Grips with Fuel Economy, p18
34
Airbus – Getting to Grips with Fuel Economy
39
Climb Profile
350
300
Transition
Constant IAS
250
Constant Mach
A/C speed
Crossover Flight Level
Altitude [FL]
200
150
100
50
0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Speed [KTAS]
Figure 4-3. Climb profile for a climb to FL320 with speed profile 250/320/M0.82 and cruise at M0.85.
(Note: Actual climb in model is to FL290 with cruise at M0.83)
Through-out the climb phase the throttle setting of the aircraft is at maximum climb thrust. The
thrust developed at maximum climb thrust is described in section 3.6. Knowing the thrust, the fuel
flow is calculated as:
(4-1)
and the change in weight, which solely depends on the consumption of fuel, is given by:
(4-2)
where t is time, however since the calculations are done for one second intervals, t = 1.
Below the different segments of the climb phase are described in detail.
Climb 1 - FL 0.35 -> FL 15

For the initial climb the following parameters were set
T CD V Boundary Condition
TMCL 0.127 V2+ 10kts h = FL 15
Table 4-1. Climb 1 parameters.
In the current model the aircraft weighs about 367 t and flies with 186 kts during this climb phase.
Since the aircraft is still not in a clean configuration, additional drag is present giving a drag
coefficient of CD = 0.12735. Knowing the available thrust the climb angle is calculated as:
35
Software: PianoX
40
(4-3)
Assuming that γ is small, the rate of climb for the 1 second interval is given as:
(4-4)
Acceleration 1 – V2 + 10kts -> 250KIAS

For the first acceleration segment the following parameters were set
h T Boundary Condition
FL 15 TMCL VIAS = 250
Table 4-2. Acceleration 1 parameters.
Using equation (4-6), SEP is calculated and the resulting acceleration is calculated from it. Since
the velocity change is calculated for a time unit of 1 second, the change in velocity will equal to
the acceleration, ΔV = a, and therefore:
Δ (4-5)
Climb 2 - FL 15 -> FL 100

For the second climb segment the following parameters were set
VIAS T Boundary Condition

250 KIAS TMCL h = FL 100
The SEP is calculated as:
(4-6)
[ ]
The change in altitude is then given by:
(4-7)
Since Δh = Vv, the climb angle is:
( ) (4-8)
For this segment the polar break described in section 3.2.5 has to be considered. For this the lift
coefficient is calculated by:
41
(4-9)
⁄
Further calculations for the polar break are done as described in section 3.2.5.
Acceleration 2 - 250KIAS -> 320KIAS

For the first acceleration segment the following parameters were set
h T Boundary Condition
FL 100 TMCL VIAS = 320
Using equation (4-6), SEP is once again calculated; however this time the resulting acceleration is
calculated from it. Since the velocity change is calculated for a time unit of 1 second, the change
in velocity will equal to the acceleration, ΔV = a, and therefore:
Δ (4-10)
Climb 3 - FL 100 ->FLCrossover

For the third climb segment the following parameters were set

320 KIAS TMCL V = M0.82
Analogously to the second climb segment, the SEP is calculated using equation (4-6), the change
in height is calculated using equation (4-7) and the climb angle is obtained from equation (4-8).
Once the altitude is reached where the boundary condition is fulfilled the third segment of the
climb ends. This altitude at which aircraft crosses over from flying with constant KIAS to constant
Mach number is called the Crossover Altitude or Crossover Flight Level
Climb 4 - FLCrossover -> TOC

For the fourth climb segment the following parameters are set
VIAS T Boundary Value

M0.82 TMCL h = hTOC
The calculations in this segment are the same as in the previous, except with a boundary
condition that ends the iterations when the aircraft reaches the top of climb altitude. As top of
climb altitude the closest available flight level to the optimum cruise altitude is chosen (see Figure
3-14).
42
Acceleration 3 – M0.82 -> MCRZ

For the second acceleration segment the following parameters were set
h T Boundary Value
TOC TMCL V = MCRZ
Analogously to the first acceleration segment, the SEP is calculated using equation (4-6) and the
change in velocity is calculated using equation (4-10).
Summary
The change in velocity, fuel flow, altitude and mass with time is presented in the figure below for
the whole climb phase.
500 300
400
Speed [KTAS]
Altitude [FL]
200
300
200
100
100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [m] Time [m]
20 368
366
Fuel Flow [kg/s]
15
Mass [t]
364
10
362
5
360
0 358
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [m] Time [m]
Figure 4-4. Velocity, fuel flow (all engines), altitude and mass during the climb phase.
Further numerical results are presented in the table below.
Time Distance Fuel Burnt Mass

0.39 h 135.9 nm 9 401 kg 358 599 kg
Table 4-8. Time, distance flown, fuel burnt and mass after climb phase.
4.3 CRUISE (CRZ)

The cruise phase is divided into two main parts: level flight and the step-climb. The boundary
condition for when the cruise phase ends is determined by when the aircraft reaches a specific
Top of Descent weight
W = WTOD
43
Calculation of this weight has been described in detail in section 3.8. Through-out the cruise the
lift coefficient is monitored using equation (4-9) to know if the polar break has to be taken into
account.
Cruise
During cruise the predetermined parameters are velocity and altitude. Assuming steady level
flight, the required thrust can then be calculated by:
⁄ (4-11)
⁄
Equations (4-1) and (4-2) then give the fuel flow and the change in weight.
Optimally the aircraft should fly an equal distance above and under the optimal cruise altitude
during the cruise segment between two step-climbs. This is a so called mid profile step climb and
is clarified in the figure below. It should also be noted that it is still more favourable for the
A340-600 to fly under the optimum altitude rather than above it36.
Figure 4-5. Step-climb profiles.
The boundary condition for the end level flight segment, i.e. when the aircraft goes into the step-
climb, is given by:
Treq.current alt.>Treq.current alt+step
Meaning that when the thrust required at the next available flight level, is less than the thrust
required at the current altitude, the aircraft commences with the step-climb. Ideally, at this point
the aircraft should be that same altitude above the optimal altitude after the step-climb as it was
under the optimal altitude before the step-climb. Since the step-climb takes time the aircraft will
be slightly under this mid profile, this is however favourable to the fuel consumption. In this
model the hstep = 4000 ft and the available flight levels are FL 290, FL330, FL370 and FL410.
36
Airbus - Getting to Grips with Fuel Economy, Table p 39
44
For cruise the following parameters are set
V h Boundary Condition
VCRZ hCRZ Treq.currentalt.>Treq. currentalt+step
Table 4-9. Cruise parameters
Step Climb
For the step-climb the following parameters are set
V T Boundary Condition
VCRZ TMCL h = hnext flight level
Table 4-10. Step climb parameters
Analogously to the climb segments, the SEP is calculated using equation (4-6) and the change in
height is calculated using equation (4-7).
Summary
If at any time during the cruise phase the boundary weight WTOD is reached, the aircraft will go
into the descent phase immediately. The change in velocity, fuel flow, altitude and mass with time
is presented in the figure below for the whole cruise phase.
495 380
360
490
Speed [KTAS]
Altitude [FL]
340
485
320
480 Actual
300 Ideal
475 280
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [h] Time [h]
4 360
340
3.5
Fuel Flow [kg/s]
320
Mass [t]
3 300
280
2.5
260
2 240
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [h] Time [h]
Figure 4-6. Velocity, fuel flow, altitude and mass during cruise.
Further numerical results are presented in the table below
Time Distance Fuel Burnt Mass

11.31 h 5471 nm 99 171 kg 259 428 kg
Table 4-11. Time, distance flown, fuel burnt and mass after cruise phase.
45
4.4 DESCENT (DES)

The descent phase starts at the top of descent altitude and last until final approach altitude. Until
approach altitude is reached power is set to idle. For the approach a slight higher power setting is
used. The LTO-cycle was used as reference for the descent. Until 3000 ft thrust is assumed to be
7 % of the maximum thrust; under 3000 ft thrust is assumed to be 30 % of maximum thrust37.
Similarly to the climb, a predefined speed profile is followed. This is the same as by climb except
in the reverse order, i.e M0.82/320KIAS/250KIAS.
For the descent segments the following parameters were set

I. M0.82 0.07∙TMAX V = 320 KIAS
II. 320 KIAS 0.07∙TMAX h = FL 100
III. 250 KIAS 0.07∙TMAX h = FL30
IV. 250 KIAS 0.30∙TMAX h =happ
Table 4-12. Descent parameters.
The sink angle is calculated using the following equation:
( )
(4-12)
Assuming γ is small the change in altitude is defined by:
(4-13)
The thrust, the fuel flow and change in aircraft mass are calculated using equation (4-1) and
equation (4-2).
Any time during the descent the aircraft can go into a hold. After the hold descent continues as
before.
Time Distance Fuel Burn Mass

0.44 h 159.9 nm 1666 kg 257768 kg
Table 4-13. Time, distance flown, fuel burnt and mass after descent phase.
There is no need to put large emphasis on the descent phase since little effective propulsion is
needed and therefore has little relevance for this project.
37
(Hornung, Luftfahrtsysteme Vorlesungsskript, 2010)
46
4.5 GO-AROUND (GA)

Since the aircraft is at a far lower weight than at take-off when the go-around is done, applying
full thrust for the climb would result in a too large climb angle (>30°). Hence, it is assumed that
once positive climb has been achieved and the flaps have been set to go-around configuration,
the aircraft will climb with 2500 ft/min, which is roughly the same as by a normal take-off at
MTOW. This is approximated with 30 seconds maximum take-off thrust.The drag coefficient is
obtained from the software Piano-X for the initial climb segment.
For the go-around the following parameters are set
V Vv CD Boundary Condition
V2 +10 kts 2500 ft/min 0.127 h = FL 15
Table 4-14. Go-around parameters
For the current model, at the time of the Go-Around the aircraft weighs 256.5 t and will have a
velocity of 160 kts. Climb speed is calculated as describe in section 3.4. The climb angle can be
calculated by:
( ) (4-14)
The thrust can then be calculated using the following formula.
(4-15)
Then using equation (4-1) and equation (4-2) the fuel flow and the change in weight can be
calculated.
After the go-around, it is assumed that the aircraft climbs to FL 80. This is done at a constant
speed of 250 KIAS and done as explained in section 4.2 - Climb 2.
4.6 FLIGHT TO ALTERNATE

In the case that landing at the destination airport is not possible a diversion to an alternate airport
is done. This is assumed to be a 30 minute flight at FL 80, flying with 250 KIAS and is calculated in
the same way as cruise described in section 4.3. At the alternate airport, descent is done as
described in section 4.4.
4.7 HOLD (HLD)

For the hold phase the following parameters are set
V h Boundary Condition
VHLD hHLD t = tHLD
Table 4-15. Hold climb parameters
47
The holding phase is restricted by a predefined amount of time, in this model tHLD = 30 min and
hHLD = FL 15. These are in accordance to the reserve requirements defined in EU-OPS 1. Holding
speed according to the FCOM should be at the green dot speed, which is the speed with the best
lift-to-drag ratio. This is around 252 KTAS for the current configuration.
Calculations are done similar to the cruise segment. Required thrust is calculated using
equation (4-11), which in turn, using equation (4-1) and equation (4-2), gives the fuel flow and
weight decrease.
Time Distance Fuel Burnt

0.5 h 125 nm 3588 kg
Table 4-16. Time, distance flown, fuel burnt during Holding.
4.8 SUMMARY
The ordinary flight time, i.e. not including go-around and diversion is 12h 09m and a distance of
5768 nm is covered. This can compared to 5700 nm, which is the given value from the
manufacturer for the same configuration. It should be noted that calculated value only deviates
close to 1% from the given value.
The altitude profile for the entire flight including a go-around, diversion and holding, is shown in
the figure below.
400
350
300
250
Altitude [FL]
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 4-7. Altitude for entire flight.
48
The fuel flow for all engines during the flight is shown in the figure below.
16
14
12
10
Fuel Flow [kg/s]
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 4-8. Fuel flow entire flight for all engines.
The climb angle γ is shown for the beginning and the end of flight. During the cruise, γ = 0 except
during the step-climbs.
T/O + CLB DES + GA + Diversion + HLD

20 20
15 15
10 10
 [°]
 [°]
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5
Time [h] Time [h]
Figure 4-9. Climb angle during beginning and end of flight.
The graph below shows the lift-coefficient CL during the entire flight. The limit for when the polar
brake has to be taken into account CL,PB is show with a red line.
49
1.5
CL
CL,PB
1
L
C
0.65
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time [h]
Figure 4-10. Lift coefficient during entire flight.
It can be concluded that polar-brake affects only the take-off, go-around and climb segments. For
all other flight phases the lift-coefficient is under the critical value.
50
5 ELECTRIC PROPULSION
5.1 ELECTRIC FLIGHT

The concept of a hybrid electric aircraft is a relatively new and unconventional idea in the aviation
industry, especially when it comes to larger airliners. To this date several smaller fully electric
aircrafts exist along with some concepts for larger fully electric airliners.
The first electric manned aeroplane, which was the second electric aircraft to fly, was a solar cell
powered bi-plane called the Mauro Solar Riser, which first flew in 1979. It was a modified hang-
glider fitted with solar panels on the top wing that charged a Nickel-cadmium battery pack. One
and a half hour charge would only be enough for a 3-5 minute flight, however in this time the
aircraft could reach a height from which soaring was possible while the batteries recharged. A
handful of solar powered electric aircrafts were developed in the years to come until the first
flight of the LF20 by Lange Flugzeugbau GmbH in 1999. This glider did not use solar cells, instead
it had a Nickel-metal hydride (NiMh) battery powered engine that could take it to 1725m in one
charge. Development has led to that today's electric aircrafts are more than just self-launching
motor gliders; more small electric general aviation aircraft concepts are emerging that use electric
engines as their main mode of propulsion. The e-Genius is an electric aircraft being developed at
the institute of Aircraft Design at the University of Stuttgart. It uses lithium-ion batteries with a
total capacity of 56kWh and a Sienton electric engine with a maximum continuous power of about
58kW (peak power 100kW). On June 15, 2011, the aircraft flew 341 km with an average speed
above 160km/h.
Figure 5-1. The e-Genius.
These performance values are still far from what would be required by an airliner. However, both
Airbus and Boeing are working on developing a fully electric powered airliner concept for the
future. The EADS VoltAir is fully electric propelled airliner that would use superconducting
engines. According to the developers, similar concept should be plausible within the next 25 year.
51
Boeing's Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Volt concept is airliner with an electric
battery gas turbine hybrid propulsion system that is designed to reduce fuel burn by more than 70
per cent38. Just like the VoltAir, it is expected that such a concept could be realisable within the
next 3 decades.
Figure 5-2. The EADS VoltAir and Boeings SUGAR Volt
5.2 THE ELECTRIC PROPULSION SYSTEM

In order to fulfil the goal of the project, a certain fraction of the conventional propulsion has to be
replaced by an electric alternative. The figure below shows a simplified schematic and
segmentation of the electric propulsion system.
Figure 5-3. Simplified schematic and segmentation of the electric propulsion system.
The propulsion system consists of four main components: the fan, the electric engine, the wiring
and control unit and the power supply. Each will be discussed in detail below. Integration of the
system and its effect on performance will be discussed in more detail in section 6.
38
(Stephenson, 2010) (Girishkumar, McCloskey, Luntz, Swanson, & Wilcke, 2010)
52
5.2.1 Fan
The power produced by the electric engine will be converted into thrust using a ducted fan. It will
function similarly to a conventional turbofan engines except the core turbine, that powers the
fan, will be replaced by an electric engine. The efficiency of such a fan is approximately39:
ηFan = 0.90
5.2.2 Electric Engine

To get a rough estimate of required power out-put of the electric engine, the power developed by
the conventional engines are calculated for a flight according to the model described in section 4.
Knowing the thrust, power is given by:
(5-1)
In the figure below, the power produced by a single engine is shown.
Power out-put per Trent 556 Engine

20
18
16
14
Power per engine [MW]
12
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 5-4. Power out-put per engine for model flight.
A maximum power out-put close to 20MW can be observed during the initial climb phase.
Knowing the weight of the engines, the engine power to weight ratio can be calculated:
which gives a power to weight ratio of about,
4 kW/kg.
39
Dr.-Ing. Andreas Hupfer TU Munchen LS für Flugantriebe & NASA
53
It should however be noted that the value above is for the entire engine. Since the electric engine
would only replace the turbine core of the turbofan engine, it is important to take into
consideration the efficiency of the fan, which converts the energy from the turbine core into
propulsive thrust. Thus, depending on the efficiency of the fan, to be able to replace the turbine
core the specific power produced by the electric engine has to be larger than 4 kW/kg.
Conventional electric motors, limited by the heat generated in copper windings, generate a
specific power of 0.5 kW/kg40. These engines would therefore be too heavy and not suitable for
aircraft propulsion. A technology that is available today is superconducting machines, which have
the ability to produce a specific power similar to turbine engines and have the potential of being
three times lighter41.It has been proven in detailed studies supported by experimental validation
that High Temperature Superconducting propulsion motors today can achieve power densities of
3-8 kW/kg42. Work is however still required to adapt these engines for use in aviation. Since the
choice of engine is outside the scope of this thesis, this topic will not be discussed in any further
detail. Information above was presented as a mean of justifying the plausibility of the value
presented below.
For further calculations it will be assumed that the complete electric engine assembly has a power
density of:
8.6 kW/kg
The efficiency of the electric motor is assumed to be
ηE-Motor = 0.98
These values were obtained from Dr. Holger Kuhn at Bauhaus Luftfahrt e.V.
5.2.3 Control unit and wiring

Connecting the engine with the power supply a control unit and wiring is required. It is assumed
that the wiring has an efficiency of:
ηWire = 1.00
The efficiency of the control unit is assumed to be:
ηControl = 0.98
The weight of the control unit and wiring is assumed to roughly equal the weight of the fuel pipes
and engine electronics that can be removed as a result of reducing the conventional portion of
the trust.
40
(Luongo, et al., 2009)
41
42
54
5.2.4 Power Supply

The battery plays an important role in the hybrid electric airliner concept. The weight of the
battery is most likely to be the largest contributor to the additional weight of hybrid electric
aircraft. Looking at the figure below it can be seen that energy density of everyday batteries is a
fraction of what is available in fossil fuels.
Figure 5-5. Selected volumetric and weight energy densities.
The energy density of jet fuel is 43 MJ/kg or 12 kWh/kg and 33 MJ/l or 9.2 kWh/l43, which can be
compared to 1.3 MJ/kg for lithium-ion batteries found in portable electronic devices. This still
leaves a lot a room for improvement for future batteries. In recent years an increased emphasis
has been laid on research for batteries with a higher energy density in order to meet a rising
demand coming from the electric car industry. Currently, one of the most promising technologies
that could provide sufficient power is the so called lithium-air or lithium-oxygen batteries44. The
primary battery chemistry during discharge is the electrochemical oxidation of lithium metal at
the anode and reduction of oxygen from air at the cathode45. A known issue with the lithium-air
batteries have been the low amount of charge cycles they can handle in a lifetime and long
recharge duration. However, recent claims from IBM state they have done good progress in
solving this problem though they are still secretive as to how46. The theoretical limit of the energy
density of lithium-air batteries is given by the oxidation of lithium, where 11kWh/kg is released. In
practical use it is assumed that an energy density of 3kWh/kg can be reached in the future47.
However a major issue is the low specific power that the batteries produce. It is vital to assure
that during take-off and climb sufficient power can be delivered to the engines. Assuming the
power peek given in Figure 5-4 the weight of the battery required would not only be a huge
additional weight, but also be ineffective in the sense that it would store a lot more energy than is
43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
44
(Girishkumar, McCloskey, Luntz, Swanson, & Wilcke, 2010)
45
(Girishkumar, McCloskey, Luntz, Swanson, & Wilcke, 2010)
46
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328466.200-air-battery-to-let-electric-cars-outlast-gas-
guzzlers.html
47
http://www.mendeley.com/research/review-on-liair-batteriesopportunities-limitations-and-
perspective/#page-1
55
required since it would dimensioned to full-fill the power requirement and not energy
requirement. This problem can be solved by introducing capacitors. Opposite to lithium-air
batteries, capacitors have a high power density and a low energy density. The combination of the
two would permit an optimal energy to power balance. Super- and Ultra capacitors have a specific
energy in the range of 4-9 Wh/kg, a specific power of 3-10 kW/kg and an efficiency around 95%48.
The figure below shows energy density and power density for different types capacitors and
batteries.
Figure 5-6. Energy density vs. power density.
Since the choice of batteries is outside the scope of this thesis, this topic will not be discussed any
further detail. Information above was collected as a mean of justifying the plausibility of the value
presented below.
For further calculations it will be assumed that the batteries have an energy density of:
1900 Wh/kg.
For further calculations it will be assumed that the batteries have a power density of:
1640 W/kg.
The efficiency of the batteries in an ideal case is assumed to be:
ηBattery = 0.75-0.9.
These values were obtained from Dr.Holger Kuhn at Bauhaus Luftfahrt e.V..
For further calculations it will be assumed that the capacitors have an energy density of:
150 Wh/kg.
For further calculations it will be assumed that the capacitors have a power density of:
48
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelschichtkondensator
56
6560 W/kg.
The values above where obtained by assuming that the ratio between batteries and capacitors
remain constant. Today, comparing a lithium-Ion battery to a lithium capacitor one gets that the
specific energy of the capacitor is 8% of the battery while the specific power is 600% of batteries.
The efficiency of the capacitor is assumed to be:
ηCapacitor = 0.95.
5.2.5 Efficiency
The efficiency of the electric ducted fan engine is given by:
(5-2)
Using the values for efficiency defined in the sections above, the engine efficiency is calculated to
be ηEngine = 0.88.The combined efficiency is for the entire system is given by:
(5-3)
This value depends on many factors but for the calculations a value of η = 74% is used.
57
6 THE HYBRID ELECTRIC POWERED LONG RANGE AIRLINER
The application of the electric propulsion will now be discussed. The following key points have to
be determined:
- What percentage of the propulsion should be electric

- When should electric propulsion be used
- How can the electric propulsion system be integrated with the current propulsion
configuration
Following this a detailed analysis is made to determine the aircrafts performance with the new
configuration.
6.1 ANALYSIS
All data shown in the figures below are based on the model described in chapter 4. They assume
only conventional propulsion. This data will be used to help determine the proportion of electric
thrust. Following this a more exact analysis will be done of the hybrid electric airliner.
The maximum available thrust and the thrust required is given in the figure below. Values are
totals for the thrust produced by all four engines.
1200 1200
Thrust Used
Max Thrust Available
1000 1000
800 800
Thrust [kN]
Thrust [kN]
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [s] Time [h]
Figure 6-1. Maximum available Thrust and the Thrust Required.
The maximum thrust is given by the maximum continuous thrust except during take-off and go
around when it is given by the maximum take-off thrust, see Table 2-2. How the available
maximum thrust was adjusted for altitude is described in section 3.5.
58
The power required is given by:
(6-1)
The energy required is then given by:
∫ (6-2)
The energy required for the entire flight is (view from outside) Ereq = 504.27 MW.
Now, it is assumed that a certain percentage of the conventional thrust is replaced by electric
thrust.
T = TConv + TElec
P = PConv + PElec
E = EConv + EElec
The maximum available electric and conventional thrust is then defined as:
(6-3)
( )
where kElec is the ratio between the total thrust and electric thrust.
The required thrust is firstly produced through conventional propulsion. If the conventional thrust
is not enough electric propulsion is used. The amount conventional and electric propulsion can
thus be defined as:
(6-4)
The required electric power is then given by:
(6-5)
59
The energy required from the batteries is then given by:
∫ (6-6)
The amount electric energy required EElec for different electric to conventional propulsion ratios is
shown in the graph below.
9
10
8 Power Required
10
Power Installed
7
10
Energy [Wh]
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Per cent of Electric Thrust [%]
Figure 6-2. Electric energy required EElec for different electric propulsion ratios.
By replacing conventional propulsion with electric, less fuel will be need. The figure below shows
the fuel saved for different electric to conventional propulsion ratios.
6
Fuel Saved due to Electric Propulsion
10
5
10
4
10
Fuel Save [kg]
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percantge of Electric Thrust [%]
Figure 6-3. Fuel saved for different electric propulsion ratios.
60
The figures below show the required electric power, calculated using equation (6-5), for the full
flight for different amounts of electric propulsion.
Required Power Output of the Electric Engines

45
45% Elec.
40 40% Elec.
35% Elec.
30% Elec.
35
25% Elec.
20% Elec.
30 15% Elec.
Max
Power [MW]
25
20
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
time [h]
Figure 6-4. Required electric power
In the figure below, the required electric power can be seen in more detail for take-off and climb,
step climb and go-around.
T/O + CLB Step Climb Go-Around
45 Maximum 45 45 45% Elec.

40% Elec.
40 40 40 35% Elec.
30% Elec.
35 35 35 25% Elec.
20% Elec.
30 30 30 15% Elec.
Power [MW]
Power [MW]
Power [MW]
25 25 25
20 20 20
15 15 15
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 12.15 12.16 12.17 12.18 12.19 12.2
time [h] time [h] time [h]
Figure 6-5. Required electric power for T/O, Step Climb and Go-Around.
61
The power setting for the conventional engines is given by:
(6-7)
( )
where both Tconv and Tmax,continous are adjusted for altitude. The figure below shows the required
power setting for the conventional engines during flight.
160
45% Elec.
140 40% Elec.
35% Elec.
30% Elec.
% of Max Available Cont. Thrust
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 6-6. Power Setting Conventional Engines
It can be seen that with lower amounts of conventional thrust, engines will be running
continuously at the same power setting most of the time. Having engines that run at a constant
power setting is advantageous since they will run longer at or close to their design point, where
they are most efficient. This can compared to gas turbines that utilise the fact that their efficiency
is dependent on their power setting will therefore be run constantly at the single power setting
where they are the most efficient. Today, this can already be seen by the development of gas
turbines that function similar to jet engines, except they are run at a constant predefined speed.
Since they are optimised for a single design point, they are more efficient than their flying
counterparts. The efficiency of a conventional jet engine will depend on the current power setting
and how close this is the design point.
6.2 ELECTRIC ENGINE RATIO OPTIMIZATION

The goal of the optimization is to determine how much of the conventional thrust can be replaced
by electric thrust. The main goals have been defined to be:
- Maintaining aircraft performance

- Maximizing electric propulsion
- Minimizing increase in costs (production & operational)
62
The most important factors influencing the variables that relate to the goals defined above are
shown in the figure below.
Battery mass/size
 Energy density
Capacitor mass/size
 Power density
Range
Engine mass/size
 Power required Speed
Control unit + wiring mass Fuel efficiency

Influence
Additional drag Operational cost
 Induced drag
Maintenance cost
 Mass
 Zero-lift drag
Turnaround time
Cost of components
Production time/cost
 Complexity
The influencing factors can be divided up into three main categories: mass, drag and cost. For the
optimization, initially the mass will be considered. The induced drag is a function of the lift
coefficient, which during cruise is quadratic-proportional to the mass of the aircraft; thus
minimising the mass will minimise the induced drag. Additions to the zero-lift drag are assumed to
be minimal since, with the exception of the engines, majority of the electric propulsion system
will be inside the fuselage of the aircraft. The additional drag caused by the engines will be
assumed to be compensated by the reduction of drag as a result of reducing the amount of
conventional thrust and thereby the size of the conventional engines. Therefore, it can be
assumed that the drag contribution from the engines will remain the same.
The mass of the engine is determined by the maximum required powered. The peak value for the
required power has to be divided by the power density of the engine (see section 5.2.2) and
multiplied by the efficiency of the electric engine and the fan (see section 5.2). The figure below
shows the mass of the engine for differ rent percentages of electric propulsion.
63
Electric engine mass

11
10
7
Mass [t]
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Electric Thrust [%]
Figure 6-7. Electric engine mass
The weight of the capacitor and battery have to be found such that a series of requirements are
fulfilled while keeping the total weight of the two down to a minimum. These requirements
ensure that both enough energy and power can be delivered to the engines. Since the batteries
being used have a high specific energy and high specific power on contrary to the capacitors
which have low specific energies the approach taken is the following: primarily batteries will be
used to provide the necessary power and energy, however in certain cases with high peak power
requirements capacitors will be added to give additional power and reduce the overall weight.
The two basic conditions are defined below:
( )
(6-8)
These ensure that the sum of energy delivered by the batteries and capacitors is more or equal to
the energy required; and that the batteries and capacitors can provide the peak power required.
However, special caution has to be taken when considering the capacitors. They have a large
specific power but a low specific energy, which means that when delivering full power they can
discharge within matter of minutes. The two conditions above do not take this into account.
Therefore a further condition has to be added to make certain that for the while where capacitors
are used, that they are delivering enough energy. This condition can be defined as:
(6-9)
The next step is to find out ideal combination of batteries and capacitors for every electric to
conventional thrust ratio. To ease understanding, it will first be explained why the use of
capacitors is at all advantageous. The figure below shows required power over time. Since
64
dE = P∙dt, the area under the curve represents energy. Since capacitors have four times higher
specific power than batteries, if there is a power peak where little energy but a lot of power is
required, one can get the required energy and power from less capacitors than batteries. Vice
versa, for a more constant power requirement but for a longer period of time, batteries are more
suitable.
Figure 6-8. Example of Battery and Capacitor use depending on characteristics of power curve.
It can be seen that depending on the shape of the curve either batteries or capacitors are
advantageous and preferably an ideal mix of the two have to be found. As already mentioned
above, batteries will be providing the energy with the supplement of capacitors where high power
peaks require a lot of power.
In the steps below it is explained how the ideal ratio between batteries and capacitors was found.
1. Assume that only batteries are used, i.e. Wc = 0. Now, to find out how much batteries are
required the battery weight has to be found so that both the Energy and Power
requirement are fulfilled. Since no capacitors are present the third condition defined in
equation (6-9) can be neglected. The battery weight can then be defined as:
(6-10)
( ⁄ )
{
2. Assume that 1 kg of batteries are removed

3. Now the weight of the capacitor has to be calculated so that it can provide enough
energy and power to fill in the gap left by the lack of 1kg battery.
65
⁄ ⁄
(6-11)
( ⁄ ) ( ⁄ )
{
The figure below shows a graphic representation of the energy and power required from
the capacitor.
4. The weight of the capacitor and battery now have to be recorded and steps 2-4 repeated
until battery weight reaches 0.
5. Now one will have list of weights from the batteries and corresponding weight for the
capacitor. Looking at the sum of the two, the point can be determined where the added
weight of the capacitor and battery will be the lowest.
The above process has to be repeated for all electric to conventional power ratios.
66
The figure below shows the battery and capacitor weights so that their sum is minimized for all
amounts of electric thrust.
Battery + Capacitor Mass

25
Capacitor
20
Battery
Total Mass
15
Mass [t]
10
Capacitor
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Percent Electric Thrust [%]
Figure 6-9. Battery and capacitor mass.
The mass of the conventional engines are assumed to be linearly proportional to the amount of
available conventional thrust. Thus, 20 t of convention engines are assumed for only conventional
propulsion and 10 t for 50% conventional and 50% electric propulsion.
Taking in account the amount fuel saved by adding electric propulsion (see Figure 6-3) the change
in the aircrafts overall weight for a given electric to conventional propulsion ratio is given by the
formula below:
(6-12)
There will be an increase in weight from the batteries, the capacitor and the electric engines.
Since, some of the propulsion will be electric there will be a decrease in amount of fuel that is
required on board and also the mass of the conventional engines will decrease since they will be
replaced by electric ones. The change in mass of the aircraft for different levels of electric
propulsion is shown in the figure below. The total change in the mass is given by the thick blue
line, while all other components of equation (6-10) are also shown.
67
25
Total  m
Bat. m
20 Cap. m
E-eng. m
15  C-eng. m
 Fuel m
10
 mass [t]
-5
-10
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
% Electric Thrust
Figure 6-10. Mass change from electric propulsion.
It can be seen that around 40% there is a drastic increase in the total mass change. This is the
point where conventional thrust is no longer enough during cruise and electric thrust has to be
used during cruise as well. Even though little electric power is needed, the long duration of the
cruise phase (~12h) means that a lot of energy is required and therefore results in the sudden
increase in battery weight. The small ‘hump’ between 35-40% is a result of that with the increase
of portion of electric thrust, the required battery weight also increases - this means that the
weight of capacitors can decrease since the batteries can produce enough power. Also, the
decreasing weight of the required fuel on board with the increase in electric propulsion means
that around 33% to 38% the total mass change will decrease with additional amount of electric
propulsion.
An optimum point has to be found where the weight specific performance of the electric
propulsion system is the highest. Displayed in the figure below is the first derivative with respect
to mass of the ∆m curve displayed in Figure 6-10. Essentially, it shows how much additional
weight has to be added in order to increase the electric propulsion by an additional percentage
point.
68
3500
 kg / 1 percentage point change electric thrust
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
-500
-1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
% electric thrust
Figure 6-11. Additional weight required to increase electric propulsion with 1 percentage point.
Keeping in mind that the goal is to maximise the amount of electric propulsion, the ideal point
would be 37.5 % electric thrust. This is the point with the largest amount electric thrust but still
with a reasonable weight increase. The risk with using this point is however that it is very sensitive
to error. In case the conventional engines cannot deliver the required thrust and additional thrust
is required from the electric engines, then substantially more batteries and capacitors would be
needed. A one percentage point increase in electric thrust from this point would result in close to
30% increase in additional weight. Considering a safety margin of 3 % would give 33.5 % electric
thrust. This point can also be considered a “worst-case scenario” since it has the largest additional
weight in the range of 0 % to 37.5 % i.e. moving small steps either to lower or higher electric
thrust will result in lower overall weight change. In the figure below, the two points are marked
with red and green circles.
69
11
Total  m
30.5%
10.5 36.5%
40.5%
10
 mass [t]
9.5
8.5
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
% Electric Thrust
Figure 6-12. The two design points for electric to conventional thrust ratio.
The figure shows the mass distribution between the battery, capacitor, the electric and
conventional engines, fuel and the payload for different amounts of electric thrust.
Figure 6-13. Mass distribution with electric propulsion.
70
6.3 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Considering aircraft performance, one of the most significant differences of the hybrid electric
airliner is that the there is a lower decrease in weight through-out the flight. This is due to the fact
that the weight of the batteries does not change as they are being used up, while the weight of
fuel does decrease as it being burnt. This means that a new Top of Descent weight (WTOD) has to
be calculated.
Total Fuel Batteries Capacitors Electric Engine Conventional Total additional

Engine weight
0% 123 000 kg 0 kg 0 kg 0 kg 20 000 kg 0 kg
30.5 % 120 441 kg 13 457 kg 1 005 kg 2 816 kg 13 900 kg 8 680 kg
36.5 % 119 288 kg 18 206 kg 921 kg 3 369 kg 12 700 kg 10 500 kg
40.5% 115 304 kg 19 773 kg 855 kg 3 739 kg 11 900 kg 8 585 kg
Table 6-1. Engine and Energy/Power source weights.
Calculating the Top of Descent Weight

For the case of the hybrid-electric airliner the presence of batteries will mean that reserves will
have to be partly stored as extra kerosene in the fuel tanks and partly as energy in the batteries.
The different reserve fuels are described in section 3.8, as well as the process for calculating these
and the top of descent weight.
The biggest change will be in the trip fuel aboard the aircraft. Since electric thrust is not used
during descent, the fuel required for descent will remain the same. The reserve fuel required for
Go-around and climb will be change since electric propulsion is used here. Fuel for flying to
alternate and holding will presumably not change since electric propulsion is not used here. It
should be noted these values are only estimates. In the table below the descent and reserve fuel
estimations are summarised.
Segment Reserve fuel category Fuel amount

Descent from FL390 Trip Fuel 660 kg
Go-around + CLB to FL80 Alternate Fuel 2060 kg
Flight to alternate at FL80 Alternate Fuel 3700 kg
Holding 30 min at FL15 Final reserve 3700 kg
Table 6-2. Fuel Reserves.
Assuming 3% contingency fuel, and take-off at MTOW we get that mTOD as described in
section 3.8. WTOD can then be calculated by multiplying mTOD with the gravitational constant g. The
table below shows a summary of the fuel on-board and the Top of Descent weight.
71
Total Contingency Alternate Final

Trip Fuel FTOD mTOD
Fuel Fuel Fuel Reserve
0% 123 000 kg 110 233 kg 3307 kg 5760 kg 3700 kg 108 570 kg 259 430 kg
31 % 120 441 kg 107 749 kg 3233 kg 5760 kg 3700 kg 106 086 kg 261 915 kg
36.5 % 119 288 kg 106 629 kg 3199 kg 5760 kg 3700 kg 104 966 kg 263 034 kg
40.5 % 115 304 kg 102 762 kg 3083 kg 5760 kg 3700 kg 101 098 kg 266 905 kg
Table 6-3. Summary of fuel on-board and the Top of Descent weight.
The table below shows summary of performance data comparing the electric hybrid airliner to the
conventionally propelled counterpart.
0% 30.5 % 36.5 % 40.5 %

Range 5768 nm 5705 nm 5699 nm 5688 nm
Endurance 12:09 12:00 11:59 11:57
Fuel consumption 110 229 kg 107 125 kg 105 899 kg 101 960 kg
Fuel saved 0 kg 3104 kg 4330 kg 8269 kg
Energy required 0 Wh 6.70 MWh 11.71 MWh 31.06 MWh
Cruise Speed M 0.83 M 0.83 M 0.83 M 0.83
Maximum Payload 68 000 kg 59 320 kg 57 500 kg 59 415 kg
MTOW 368 000 kg 368 000 kg 368 000 kg 368 000 kg
* Energy required assuming 100% efficiency.
Table 6-4. Basic Performance Data comparing the Hybrid and Conventional Airliner.
It can be seen that the most significant and relevant effect is on the maximum payload. This will
decrees by about 8-10%. The figure below shows the altitude profile of both the conventional and
hybrid airliner. It can be seen that their range is close to equal, however since the weight of the
hybrid aircraft decreases at a slower rate than for the conventional aircraft, the step climbs are
done at later stages.
72
400
Conv.
30.5%
350
36.5
40.5
300
250
Altitude [FL]
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 6-14. Comparison of Altitude profile for conventional and hybrid aircraft.
The figure below shows that the climb performance is not substantially affected either. Once
again the slight difference between the conventional and hybrid aircraft is a result of the slower
decreasing aircraft weight that makes the climb slightly shallower.
300
Conventional Δh = ~400 ft
Hybrid
250
Δt = ~30 s
200
Altitude [FL]
150
100
50
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Time [h]
Figure 6-15. Climb performance comparison of conventional and hybrid aircraft.
The figure below shows the thrust output of the electric and conventional engines through-out
the flight for the case of 37.5% electric thrust.
73
T/O + CLB GA
1000
800
Thrust [kN]
Thrust [kN]
600
500 400
200
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 11.9 11.95 12 12.05 12.1
Time [h] Time [h]
CRZ + Step Climb
250
Electric
Thrust [kN]
200 Conventional
150
100
0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time [h]
Figure 6-16. Thrust produced by electric and conventional engines at 30.5% electric.
T/O + CLB GA
1000 800
Thrust [kN]
Thrust [kN] 600

500 400
200
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 11.9 11.95 12 12.05 12.1
Time [h] Time [h]
CRZ + Step Climb
250
Electric
Thrust [kN]
200 Conventional
150
100
0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time [h]
Figure 6-17 Thrust produced by electric and conventional engines at 36.5% electric.
T/O + CLB GA
1000 800
Thrust [kN]
Thrust [kN]
600
500 400
200
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 11.9 11.95 12 12.05 12.1
Time [h] Time [h]
CRZ + Step Climb
250
Electric
Thrust [kN]
200 Conventional
150
100
0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time [h]
Figure 6-18. Thrust produced by electric and conventional engines at 40.5% electric.
74
A more detailed view of the above graph for the Take-off + Climb, the Step climb and the
Go-around phases can be seen in the figure below.
T/O + CLB GA
1000
800
800
Thrust [kN]
Thrust [kN]
600
600
400
400
200 200
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 12.2 12.22 12.24 12.26 12.28 12.3 12.32 12.34
Time [h] Time [h]
CRZ + Step Climb
250
Electric
Conventional
Thrust [kN]
200
150
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time [h]
Figure 6-19. Detailed view of thrust produced by electric and conventional engines during
The figure below shows the power setting of the conventional and electric engine.
Electric
0.5
0%
30.5%
0.4 36.5%
40.5%
0.3
tot
/T
elec
T
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Conventional
1
0.8
0.6
tot
/T
conv
T
0.4
0%
30.5%
0.2
36.5%
40.5%
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 6-20. Power setting of electric and conventional engine.
75
It can be seen that the conventional engines are running at close to 100 % through-out the flight
except after descent.
k T/O CLB CRZ DES+APP Total

elec
Total 69.9 MW 78.9 MW 62.3 MW 39.2 MW 78.9 MW
Power Required
30.5 % 21.3 MW 17.7 MW 11.9 MW 0 MW 21.3 MW

30.5 % 22.4 % 19.1 % 0% 27.0 %
(max)
36.5 % 25.5 MW 22.8 MW 16.3 MW 0 MW 25.5 MW

36.5% 28.9 % 26.1 % 0% 32.3 %
40.5 % 28.3 MW 26.3 MW 19.2 MW 0 MW 28.2 MW
40.5% 33.3 % 30.8 % 0% 35.9 %
Total 0.65 MWh 25.8 MWh 452.8 MWh 5.0 MWh 484.2 MWh
Energy Required
30.5 % 0.199 MWh 5.907 MWh 0.375 MWh 0 MWh 6.489 MWh
30.6 % 22.9 % 0.1 % 0% 1.3 %
(total)
36.6 % 29.5 % 0.6 % 0% 2.2 %
40.6 % 34.0 % 4.1 % 0% 5.7 %
Table 6-5. Energy and Power required from electric engines.
There are no major changes in the performance of the aircraft, nor can it be said that an electric
propulsion system coupled with a conventional would be less reliable than conventional aircrafts.
Neither are any major external or structural changes made to the aircraft. Therefore it can be said
that all safety regulations concerning aircraft performance that are fulfilled by the conventional
aircraft would be fulfilled by the electric hybrid airliner too.
6.3.1 Payload Range

As a further mean of comparing performance a Payload Range diagram was generated for the
hybrid aircraft. To get an accurate range taking into account all the factors that come with using
partially electric propulsion, the range by each point of the payload range diagram was calculated
using the model described in section 4. For each point a take-off weight is given and a top of
descent mass. The top of descent mass is calculated from the total fuel aboard as has already
been described in the beginning of this section. The table below summarises the weights used in
the model to calculate the ranges.
0% 30.5% 36.5% 40.5%

TOW mTOD TOW mTOD TOW mTOD TOW mTOD
1 245000 245000 245000 245000 245000 245000 245000 245000
2 368000 259430 368000 261915 368000 263034 368000 266902
3 368000 224479 368000 226963 368000 228082 368000 231905
4 336000 192479 343155 202118 343825 203907 338091 202041
Table 6-6. Hybrid Airliner TOW and TOD mass for Payload Range calculations
The resulting ranges for the payload range calculations are shown in the table below
76
1 2 3 4
0% 0 nm 5768 nm 8158 nm 9101 nm
30.5% 0 nm 5705 nm 8058 nm 8754 nm
36.5% 0 nm 5699 nm 8042 nm 8684 nm
40.5% 0 nm 5688 nm 8022 nm 8731 nm
Table 6-7. Hybrid Airliner Payload Range numerical values
A graphical representation of the payload range diagrams can be seen in the figure below.
400
conv.
30.5%
350 36.5%
40.5%
300
250
Weight [t]
200
150
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Range [NM]
Figure 6-21. Hybrid Airliner Payload Range Diagram
The figure below shows a more detailed view of certain points from the payload range diagram
above.
77
372
420
371
Weight [t]
400
Weight [t]
370
380
369
con
260
368 360
31%
36.
40.
367
250
340
366
240
320
5650 5700 5750 5800 80005850 8500
5900 9000
5950 6000 9500
230 Ran
Range [NM]
Weight [t]
220
210
200
190
180
7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500

Range [NM]
Figure 6-22. Detailed view of Hybrid Airliner Payload Range Diagram
It can be seen that there is only a slight change in the performance of the hybrid electric airliner
compared to the conventional airliner.
78
7 FINANCIAL JUSTIFICATION
Below, a rough calculation will be done estimating the cost that would be incurred operating the
hybrid electric airliner. For a flight the following assumptions are made:
- The aircraft is configured for 380 passengers49

- The aircraft is flying a route of 5700 NM
- The load factor on the flight is 85%
- A passenger with luggage weighs 100 kg
- 22 000 kg of freight is on-board
- The trip fuel for the flight is 110 000 kg
- The Dry Operational Weight of the aircraft is 185 000 t50
The following assumptions are made with regards to revenue
- The average price of one ticket is EUR 1000

- Freight revenue is EUR 1.8/kg
- The profit margin is 5%
The following prices where assumed for the calculations
- Jet fuel is EUR 0.839 / kg

- Electricity is EUR 0.025 / kWh
The revenue for a flight is given by the profit from passengers and from freight
The Dry Operational Weight of the aircraft is 185 t from which the Operational Empty Weight can
be subtracted giving that the non-revenue generating payload is 8 t. The total payload is then
given by:
By multiplying the revenue with the profit margin we get the profit
49
(Airbus, 2011) 2-4-1 p2
50
Airbus A340-600 Flight Crew Operating Manual,
79
Dividing the profit with the mass of the payload we get the average specific profit for the flight.
The amount of fuel required to transport 1 kg of payload is
To compare electric and conventional propulsion, their specific energy is considered
⁄
⁄
Thus, to replace 1 kg of kerosene, 6.154 kg of batteries are needed.
To account for losses during charging, the amount of energy used to charge a battery is multiplied
by 1.2. The price of the electricity to charge the battery can then be calculated as:
We can now calculate the price for transporting the payload using the kerosene and electricity.
Now a scenario is assumed where 1 kg fuel is replaced by batteries.
Change in mass Unit price Change in price

Fuel - 1 kg 0.839 €/kg - 0.839 €
Batteries + 6.154 kg 0.0585 €/kg + 0.360 €
Payload - 5.154 kg 0.3023 €/kg + 1.558 €
1.079 €
Table 7-1. Cost of replacing 1kg kerosene with batteries
The increase in cost for the airline per kilogram reduced payload is
For the three chosen design points the cost of the additional weight is displayed in the table
below.
80
30.5% 36.5% 40.5%

Additional weight 8 680 kg 10 500 kg 8 585 kg
Total price EUR 1 817 EUR 2 198 EUR 1 797
PAX 331 321 332
Price per PAX EUR 6.46 EUR 8.06 EUR 6.37
Recently, carbon dioxide taxes have been introduced worldwide for air travel and in general are
higher per passenger than above calculated values. An exemption from these taxes for the hybrid
electric airliner would therefore mean that there would not be an increased cost of operation for
the airlines.
It should be noted that the above assumes that an equal amount of cargo and passengers are ‘left
behind’ to compensate for the additional weight. However, cargo is assumed to yield about a fifth
of the revenue that passengers yield. Thus assuming that the passengers stay as before and only
the amount of cargo is reduced, the specific profit will be
Using this unit price for payload would mean that the gains and cost of using electric propulsion
would nearly totally cancel out resulting in no additional operating costs.
81
8 GENERAL CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
The aim of this thesis was to analyse the feasibility of a hybrid electric airliner by investigating
how performance of such an aircraft compares to one with conventional propulsion. It can be
concluded that with a 12-14% decrease in payload, an A340-600 could be configured to operate
as a hybrid airliner. With an electric thrust ratio of 30.5%, 36.5% and 40.5% of the total thrust
there would be a payload decrease of 8680 kg, 10500kg and 8585kg respectively. Net energy of
6.70MWh, 11.71MWh and 31.06MWh would be required and the electric engines would need to
provide 21.3 MW, 25.5 MW and 28.3 MW of net power respectively.
A critical factor in this concept is the energy density and the power density of the energy storage
units. Though with advances in battery technologies in recent times, it is hoped that a hybrid
electric airliner will fly within the next two decades. Since fully electric propelled airliners are not
likely to fly for several decades, a hybrid-airliner would be a suitable alternative for the transition
period from propulsion by fossil fuel to propulsion by electric energy. There is still great room for
improvement in the field of batteries, even to reach a level for a hybrid electric airliner, although
requirements are still much less demanding than for a fully electric one. At the same time, certain
advantages that come with electric propulsion can already be enjoyed with a hybrid electric
airliner. Transitioning from fossil fuels to electricity and thereby reducing dependency on oil is a
tendency that is spreading widely throughout all branches of industry. Airlines offering more
environmentally friendly alternative to passengers is also a great way in today’s Western markets
to improve the image of a company and thereby attracting the increasingly environmentally
conscious consumers. With a fairly saturated market for air travel, there is a tough competition
for passengers. Rising concerns over the negative impact of CO2 emissions on the environment
are driving governments to increasingly impose restrictions mainly of a financial nature such as
the carbon emission tax on air travel. Similar to the automotive industry, chances are that taking
the initiative for greener aviation will be rewarded by subsidies or exemptions from, for example,
emission taxes. Such measures would mean that the hybrid airliner could also be a financially
justifiable options for the airlines with no economic losses compared to its conventionally
propelled counterpart.
Technically speaking, the implementation of partly electric propulsion will result in increased
weight, however, it will also give room for further performance optimisation and technical
innovations. For example, having the conventional engines run at a constant power setting nearly
throughout an entire flight, will allow for the possibility of better optimising engine performance.
Engines will no longer have to be designed to be efficient in a range of power settings, as for
airliners flying today, but can be optimised for a specific setting at which it is run the entire flight,
allowing for improved efficiency. Also, having less fuel on board will result in the fact that the
82
weight of the aircraft will change less during flight. As was demonstrated in this thesis, the range
of the hybrid electric aircraft in comparison to the conventional aircraft does not change
significantly. On one hand, this will result in the problem that the aircraft is more likely to land
heavy. On the other hand, however, the future outlook is good that improvements in the
materials, structures and technologies used, will allow for better designs to accommodate a
heavier landing weight.
Further technical innovations that could be investigated for future improvements include in-flight
charging of batteries. This could be done by using a generator and utilising the change in potential
energy of the aircraft during descent. Though in the distant future technological advancements in
solar panels and/or fuel cell design could also make them feasible to be considered for this
purpose.
In the presented concept of the hybrid electric airliner, only the improvement in battery and
capacitor capacity was taken into account. Realistically, other areas in the field of aircraft design
and aircraft construction will also improve in the years to come. However, knowing that an
aircraft flying today could be converted into a hybrid electric aircraft with merely improved
energy storage capabilities and electric engines, demonstrates that the idea of a hybrid electric
airliner is a viable and feasible concept that has every potential to succeed.
83
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Airbus. (2002). Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance. Airbus.
Airbus. (2011). AC_A340-500_600_Dec11.

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC_A340-
500_600_Dec11.pdf
Airbus. (n.d.). A340 - 600 Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM). Airbus.
Airbus. (Jan 01/12). A340-500/-600 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning. Blagnac: Airbus
S.A.S. Customer Services.
Airbus. (July 2004). Getting to Grips with Fuel Economy. Airbus Customer Services.
Donus, F., Kirchner, D., Myrczik, M., Schubert, H., & Schwarze, M. (2006). Entwurf
Wasserstoffverkehrsflugzeug: HIGHLINER HL170. Stuttgart: IFB – Institut für Flugzeugbau,
Universität Stuttgart.
Eurocontrol Experimental Centre. (March 2009). Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) Aircraft
Perpormance Modelling Report, EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 2009-009.
Fielding, J. P. (2000). Introduction to Aircraft Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Girishkumar, G., McCloskey, B., Luntz, A. C., Swanson, S., & Wilcke, W. (2010). Lithium-Air Battery:
Promise and Challenges. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letter, pp. 2193-2203.
Hornung, M. (2010). Flugzeugentwurf Vorlesungsskript. München: Lehrstuhl für Luftfahrtsysteme

Technische Universität München.
Hornung, M. (2010). Luftfahrtsysteme Vorlesungsskript. München: Lehrstuhl für Luftfahrtsysteme

Technische Universität München.
Howe, D. (2000). Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis. London and Bury St Edmunds, UK:
Professional Engineering Publishing.
Küchemann, D., & Weber, J. (1953). Aerodynamics of propulsion. London: McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Ltd.
Luongo, C. A., Masson, P. J., Nam, T., Mavris, D., Kim, H. D., Brown, G. V., et al. (2009). Next
Generation More-Electric Aircraft: A Potential Application for HTS Superconductors. IEEE
Transaction on Applied Superconductivity 19, No. 3, Part 2, pp. 1055-1068.
84
Nicolai, L. (2010). Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design: Volume I--Aircraft Design.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Ojha, S. K. (1995). Flight Performance of Aircraft. Washington DC: American Institute of Aeronatics
and Astronautics, Inc.
Raymer, D. P. (2006). Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Reston, Virginia, USA: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Roskam, J. (1990). Airplane Design Part VI: Preliminary Calculation ofAerodynamic, thrust and
Power Characteristics. Lawrence, Kansas: The University of Kansas.
Schulz, O. (2007). Assessment of Numerical Models for Thrust and Specific Fuel Consumption for
Turbofan Engines. Hamburg: Department Fahrzeugtechnik und Flugzeugbau Hamburg
University of Applied Sciences.
Stephenson, D. (2010, 08 16). Envisioning tomorrow's aircraft. Retrieved 05 31, 2012, from
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/06/corp_envision_06_14_10.html
The Commission of the European Communities. (2008). EU - OPS 1, Commission Regulation (EC)
No 859/2008. Brussels.
Torenbeek, E. (1982). Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design. Delft: Delft University Press / Kluwe
Academic Publishers.
Figures
Cover http://www.airliners.net
Conclusion http://www.airliners.net
Engine http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/brochure_Trent500_tcm92-5737.pdf
85
10 APPENDIX A – THRUST MODEL
The table give raw data values for the maximum climb thrust for different Flight Levels and Mach
numbers. These values where obtained from the Piano X software.
T Mach number
[N] 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
15 518471 501263 484054 466845 449636 436244 422852 409460 396068
40 500409 484902 469396 453890 438384 426595 414806 403017 391228
60 485958 471814 457670 443526 429382 418875 408368 397862 387355
80 471508 458726 445944 433162 420380 411155 401931 392707 383483
100 457058 445638 434218 422798 411377 403436 395494 387552 379611
120 436674 426553 416432 406311 396190 388969 381748 374527 367306
140 416289 407467 398646 389824 381002 374502 368002 361502 355002
150 406097 397925 389752 381580 373408 367268 361129 354989 348849
160 394656 387043 379430 371818 364205 358553 352902 347251 341599
180 371774 365280 358786 352292 345798 341124 336449 331774 327099
200 348891 343517 338142 332767 327392 323694 319995 316297 312598
220 326009 321753 317497 313242 308986 306264 303542 300820 298098
FL
240 303127 299990 296853 293716 290579 288834 287088 285343 283597
250 291686 289108 286531 283954 281376 280119 278862 277604 276347
260 282063 279700 277336 274972 272609 271553 270497 269440 268384
280 262819 260883 258947 257010 255074 254420 253767 253113 252459
300 243574 242066 240557 239048 237539 237288 237037 236785 236534
320 225900 224769 223639 222509 221379 221671 221963 222256 222548
340 208225 207473 206721 205970 205218 206054 206890 207726 208562
350 199387 198825 198263 197700 197138 198246 199354 200462 201569
360 190550 190177 189804 189431 189058 190437 191817 193197 194577
370 181505 181188 180870 180553 180236 181635 183034 184433 185832
380 172439 172165 171891 171616 171342 172736 174129 175523 176917
390 163374 163142 162911 162680 162448 163836 165225 166613 168001
400 154308 154120 153931 153743 153554 154937 156320 157703 159086
86
11 APPENDIX B – MATLAB CODE
Calculations were done using MATLAB and a series a MATLAB code files and functions were
written. These will be described below.
ISA.m – function
Input: alt
Output: rho,T,p,c
This function calculates:
- density of air (rho) in kg/m3

- air temperature (T) in °K
- air pressure (p) in Pa
- speed of sound (c) in m/s
according to the International Standard Atmosphere at the altitude (in feet) given as input.
I2T.m – function
Input: IAS, alt
Output: TAS
This function calculates the true airspeed (TAS) in m/s for the input indicated airspeed (IAS) in m/s
and altitude (alt) in feet. See section 3.3 for calculations.
TMCL.m – function
Input: FL, M
Output: T
This function calculates maximum climb thrust (T) delivered by all four engines for a given flight
level (FL) and Mach number (M). See section 3.6 for calculations.
dynvis.m – function
Input: T
Output: mu
This function calculates the dynamic viscosity (mu) in # for a given temperature (T) in °K.
CLM.m – fucntion
Input: W, alt, conf
Output: C_Lmax
87
This function calculates the maximum lift coefficient (C_Lmax) for given aircraft weight (W) in
tons, a given altitude (alt) in feet and a given flap configuration (conf) that can be ‚0‘, ‚1‘, or ‚1+F‘.
See section 3.2.5.1 for calculations.
CD.m – function
Input: V, alt
Output: C_d0, K
This function calculates the zero lift drag coefficient and the K-factor for a given speed (V) in m/s
and altitude (alt) in feet. See section 3.1 and 3.2.
segement.m
This file contains the calculations for the flight model and electric propulsion system. Performance
values are calculated each second in loops for each segment of the flight. See chapters 0, 5 and 6.
Drag_Coef.m
This file contains the calculations for the drag coefficient and the K-factor. See section 3.1 and 3.2.
Range Payload.m
This file contains the calculations for the Payload-Range diagram. See section 3.9.
thrust_LR.m
This file contains the calculations for the thrust lapse rate. See section 3.5.
88
12 APPENDIX C – COLOUR PLOTS
The following plots should be printed in colour.
450
Refernce
400 I
II - Nikolai
350 III - Raymer
IV - Howe
V - Torenbeek
300
Altitude [FL]
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thrust 5
x 10
Figure 12-1. Comparison of thrust Lapse rate models.
Climb Profile
350
300
Transition
Constant IAS
250
Constant Mach
A/C speed
Crossover Flight Level
Altitude [FL]
200
150
100
50
0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Speed [KTAS]
Figure 12-2. Climb profile for a climb to FL320 with speed profile 250/320/M0.82 and cruise at M0.85.
89
Figure 12-3. Step-climb profiles.
Required Power Output of the Electric Engines

45
45% Elec.
40 40% Elec.
35% Elec.
30% Elec.
35
25% Elec.
20% Elec.
30 15% Elec.
Max
Power [MW]
25
20
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
time [h]
Figure 12-4. Required electric power
90
T/O + CLB Step Climb Go-Around
45 Maximum 45 45 45% Elec.

40% Elec.
40 40 40 35% Elec.
30% Elec.
35 35 35 25% Elec.
20% Elec.
30 30 30 15% Elec.
Power [MW]
Power [MW]
Power [MW]
25 25 25
20 20 20
15 15 15
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 12.15 12.16 12.17 12.18 12.19 12.2
time [h] time [h] time [h]
Figure 12-5. Required electric power for T/O, Step Climb and Go-Around.
160
45% Elec.
140 40% Elec.
35% Elec.
30% Elec.
% of Max Available Cont. Thrust
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 12-6. Power Setting Conventional Engines
91
25
Total  m
Bat. m
20 Cap. m
E-eng. m
15  C-eng. m
 Fuel m
10
 mass [t]
-5
-10
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
% Electric Thrust
Figure 12-7. Mass change from electric propulsion.
Figure 12-8. Mass distribution with electric propulsion.
92
400
Conv.
30.5%
350
36.5
40.5
300
250
Altitude [FL]
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 12-9. Comparison of Altitude profile for conventional and hybrid aircraft.
Electric
0.5
0%
30.5%
0.4 36.5%
40.5%
0.3
tot
/T
elec
T
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Conventional
1
0.8
0.6
tot
/T
conv
T
0.4
0%
30.5%
0.2
36.5%
40.5%
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time [h]
Figure 12-10. Power setting of electric and conventional engine.
93
400
conv.
30.5%
350 36.5%
40.5%
300
250
Weight [t]
200
375
conv.
150 conv. 460
31%
374 31%
36.5%
36.5%
40.5%
40.5%
100
373 440
372
50 420
371
0
Weight [t]
400
Weight [t]
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
370 Range [NM]
Figure 12-11. Hybrid Airliner Payload Range Diagram 380
369
con
260
368 360
31%
36.
40.
367
250
340
366
240
320
5650 5700 5750 5800 80005850 8500
5900 9000
5950 6000 9500
230 Ran
Range [NM]
Weight [t]
220
210
200
190
180
7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500

Range [NM]
Figure 12-12. Detailed view of Hybrid Airliner Payload Range Diagram
94

Airbus A340 600

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Airbus A340 600

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diploma Thesis

Performance assessment of a hybrid electric -powered long-range

Technical University Munich

Examiner TUM: Professor Dr.-Ing. Mirko Hornung

Examiner KTH: Arne Karlsson, Senior Lecturer

Supervisor: Dipl.-Ing. Malte Schwarze

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. iii

Table of contents ............................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... vii

2 The Airbus A340-600 .................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 History and Background ..................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Development of the Airbus A340-600 ............................................................................... 3

2.3 Data .................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Rolls-Royce Trent 556 ........................................................................................................ 6

2.5 The Thrust Lever................................................................................................................. 7

2.6 High Lift Devices ................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Zero lift drag ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Wing Reference Area ................................................................................................. 9

3.1.2 Wetted area ............................................................................................................... 9

3.1.3 Component Buildup Method ................................................................................... 12

3.1.4 Howe's Method ........................................................................................................ 16

3.1.5 Equivalent Skin Friction Method .............................................................................. 16

3.1.6 Result, Comparison and Conclusion......................................................................... 17

3.2 -factor ............................................................................................................................ 17

3.2.1 Raymer: Oswald Span Efficiency Method ................................................................ 17

3.2.2 Howe's Method ........................................................................................................ 18

3.2.3 Frost and Rutherford method .................................................................................. 18

3.2.4 Result Comparison Conclusion................................................................................. 19

3.2.5 Polar break ............................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Airspeed ........................................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Initial Climb Speed............................................................................................................ 22

3.5 Thrust Lapse Rate ............................................................................................................. 23

3.5.1 Reference Values...................................................................................................... 24

3.5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 27

3.6 Maximum Climb Thrust .................................................................................................... 28

3.7 Optimum Cruise Altitude ................................................................................................. 31

3.8 Fuel planning .................................................................................................................... 32

3.9 Payload Range Diagram ................................................................................................... 35

4.1 Taxi and Take-off (T/O) .................................................................................................... 39

4.2 Climb (CLB) ....................................................................................................................... 39

4.3 Cruise (CRZ) ...................................................................................................................... 43

4.4 Descent (DES) ................................................................................................................... 46

4.5 Go-Around (GA)................................................................................................................ 47

4.6 Flight to alternate............................................................................................................. 47

4.7 Hold (HLD) ........................................................................................................................ 47

4.8 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 48

5.1 Electric Flight .................................................................................................................... 51

5.2 The Electric Propulsion System ........................................................................................ 52

5.2.1 Fan ............................................................................................................................ 53

5.2.2 Electric Engine .......................................................................................................... 53

5.2.3 Control unit and wiring ............................................................................................ 54

5.2.4 Power Supply............................................................................................................ 55

5.2.5 Efficiency .................................................................................................................. 57

6 The Hybrid Electric Powered Long Range Airliner ................................................................... 58

6.2 Electric Engine Ratio Optimization ................................................................................... 62

6.3 Performance Analysis....................................................................................................... 71

6.3.1 Payload Range .......................................................................................................... 76

7 Financial Justification ............................................................................................................... 79

8 General Conclusion and Outlook ............................................................................................. 82

10 Appendix A – Thrust Model ................................................................................................. 86

11 Appendix B – Matlab Code................................................................................................... 87

12 Appendix C – Colour Plots .................................................................................................... 89

Figure 2-1. The Airbus A340-300........................................................................................................ 3