Case Studies in Initial Sizing For Hybrid-Electric General Aviation Aircraft

AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum 10.2514/6.
2018-5005
July 9-11, 2018, Cincinnati, Ohio
2018 AIAA/IEEE Electric Aircraft Technologies Symposium
Case Studies in Initial Sizing for

Hybrid-Electric General Aviation Aircraft
D. Felix Finger1, Carsten Braun2

Department of Aerospace Engineering, FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Aachen, Germany
Cees Bil3
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Downloaded by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics on October 2, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-5005
This paper showcases the potential influence of hybrid-electric propulsion systems on the
performance of general aviation aircraft. Using the Cirrus SR-22 as a baseline, parallel- and
serial-hybrid propulsion configurations are explored. For these case studies a high level ap-
proach is chosen, using an innovative initial sizing methodology to determine weight or energy
consumption of new aircraft concepts. Mission parameters and aerodynamic performance are
varied and the impact on aircraft fuel and energy consumption, as well as on take-off mass is
studied. The studies’ results indicate that hybrid-electric aircraft consume less energy than
conventionally propelled designs for certain missions. However, the aircraft’s design point, in
terms of wing loading and installed power must be changed: Hybrid-electric aircraft should
be sized with a higher power-to-weight ratio and a higher wing loading than their conventional
counterparts.
Nomenclature
alt = cruise altitude MSL = mean sea-level

c = cruise distance MTOM = maximum take-off mass
cd = zero-lift drag coefficient nc = non-consumable
CD0 = zero-lift drag coefficient NOx = nitrogen oxides
CL,α = lift curve slope P = power
DoH = degree of hybridization P/W = power-to-weight ratio
e = battery energy density PH = parallel-hybrid
E = energy s = cruise speed
E* = battery energy density SFC = specific fuel consumption
EM = electric motor SH = serial-hybrid
FAR = federal aviation regulations TAS = true airspeed
GA = general aviation TLAR = top-level aircraft requirement
HE = hybridization of energy v = velocity
HP = hybridization of power W/S = wing loading
ICE = internal combustion engine Δ = difference
m = mass ε = stopping criteria
I. Introduction
A viation is changing. The environmental awareness of both lawmakers and the general public increased steadily
over the past decades. Aircraft manufactures have already been confronted with tightened emissions regulations.
In the future, the pressure from legislation to improve efficiency will further increase, as total emissions will rise due
to the expected growth in passenger numbers [1]. The European Commission defines aggressive technological goals
1
Research Engineer and PhD Student, FH Aachen UAS, f.finger@fh-aachen.de, AIAA Student Member
2
Professor, FH Aachen UAS, c.braun@fh-aachen.de, AIAA Member
3
Professor, RMIT University, cees.bil@rmit.edu.au, AIAA Associate Fellow
Copyright © 2018 by D. Felix Finger. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on October 26,2020 at 02:44:33 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
in the context of Flightpath 2050 [2]. The aim is to reduce C02 emissions by 75%, NOx emissions by 90% and the
perceived noise emission of aircraft by 65% until the year 2050, compared to a year 2000 technology baseline. Addi-
tionally, aircraft taxi-movements are supposed to happen emission-free. NASA put forward similar goals, with their
N+2, N+3 and N+4 projects, which refer to new aircraft that are two, three or four generations ahead of a year 2005
technology baseline [3].
General aviation (GA) aircraft are not yet addressed in these programs. The reason is simple: While there is a much
larger number of GA aircraft flying than large transports, the Part 25 aircraft make up about 92% of the fuel consump-
tion in the US aviation sector [4]. Thus the impact of GA is significantly less. However, GA will not be able to ignore
the trend to cleaner and more efficient aviation forever. Acceptance of “dirty” private aircraft will decrease, especially
high noise levels during take-off and landing will likely not be tolerated anymore by the public. While it is unlikely
that GA will have to adhere to the same strict standards as commercial aviation, significant improvements over today’s
technologies will be required. Efficiency and noise targets are unlikely to be reached by evolution of current technol-
ogy, instead new, disruptive solutions will be required. Electric propulsion could be such a technology. Electric motors
are generally considered highly efficient [5] and potentially offer a far superior power to weight ratio when compared
to combustion engines [6]. Electric aircraft are seen as the future, for both commercial aviation and GA, alike.
However batteries, to “fuel” the electric motors, are still heavy and negate many of the possible advantages of
electric motors. For this reason, hybrid-electric aircraft, that use a propulsion system comprised of both combustion
engine(s) and electric motor(s), are considered to be a stopgap that will probably be around for many years. This thesis
is also supported by industry. As an example, Slovenian light aircraft maker Pipistrel is researching hybrid-electric
propulsion and plans to offers their new aircraft “Panthera” (Fig. 1) with a serial-hybrid powertrain [7].
Fig. 1 Pipistrel Panthera
Hybrid-electric transport aircraft have been studied in depth, e.g. in [8], [9] or [10]. GA aircraft have not received
such a thorough treatment, with respect to hybrid-electric propulsion, yet. This research gap will be addressed by this
paper.
A great possible way to assess the performance of hybrid-electric aircraft is a high level approach, using an initial
sizing methodology to determine weight or energy consumption of new aircraft concepts. The initial sizing does not
require a detailed geometry and is therefore particularly suited to determine the influence of new technologies. Clas-
sical sizing algorithms (e.g. [5] [11] [12]) have recently been modified to be applicable to aircraft with fully electric
propulsion systems (e.g. [13] [14]). Because these methods can only consider single source energy propulsion systems,
and not hybrid-electric aircraft, a new methodology was required.
The authors developed and published such a new initial sizing algorithm specifically for general aviation air-
craft [15]. It is able to consider hybrid-electric propulsion systems including both serial-hybrid and parallel-hybrid
approaches (see Fig. 2). This initial sizing methodology covers point performance (often referred to as the constraint-
or matching diagram), the mission performance analysis and the weight estimation process.
In this paper, the new initial sizing algorithm is applied and several case studies are conducted. These studies
explore the design space for a typical general aviation aircraft. The well-known Cirrus SR-22 single engine, piston,
general aviation aircraft is used as a baseline to validate the methodology and to compare various hybrid-electric
configuration against it. Two different missions, two different cruising speeds, two different cruise altitudes and three
different drag levels are explored, for both the parallel-hybrid and serial-hybrid propulsion configuration. Addition-
ally, two different battery technology levels are investigated to assess the impact of future technologies. The results
will help aircraft designers to decide how to best apply the new propulsion technology.
Special focus is put on the determi-
nation of the optimal degree of hybridi-
zation. The split between the installed
power of a combustion engine and an
electric motor is of central interest for
the designer, because this factor drives
the size of the propulsion system’s com-
ponents. While in serial-hybrid power-
trains electric motors of equal or higher
power compared to the combustion en-
gine are used, parallel hybrid power-
trains usually employ lower power elec-
tric motors to improve system perfor-

mance. However, clear guidelines re-
garding the meaningful selection of a
hybridization ratio are missing. There-
fore, this case study is conducted to find
trends that indicate how future hybrid-
electric aircraft should be designed from
an aircraft initial sizing point of view.
This paper is structured the follow-

ing way: Following this introduction, an Fig. 2 Hybrid electric powertrains [15]
overview of the initial sizing methodol-
ogy for hybrid-electric aircraft is provided in section II. That section is a summary of [15], intended to provide the
proper context for this paper. Then, in section III, the new method is applied and the design space for a typical general
aviation aircraft is explored. The results are carefully assessed and the findings are explained. Finally, Section IV
gives a comprehensive conclusion.
II. Initial Sizing Methodologies
The sizing process for conventional aircraft, as well as the new, energy based sizing methodology for hybrid-
electric aircraft is presented in detail in [15]. However, the core elements of the method will be repeated in this chapter,
as this will help to understand the fundamental differences between the conventional sizing approach and the new
sizing methodology for hybrid electric aircraft. For detailed information, the reader is referred to the original paper.
A. Overview of Conventional Initial Sizing Methodologies
In aircraft conceptual design, the initial sizing process is used to determine values for maximum take-off weight
(MTOM), wing reference area and thrust of a new aircraft concept based on certain top-level aircraft requirements
(TLARs), prescribing a required level of performance. The results from the initial sizing will be used to draw the first
design. Then, a more detailed sizing process is started, which leads to a refined design. It is important to note, that the
initial sizing is usually done without detailed knowledge of the new aircraft’s geometry
The classical sizing is split into two major parts – the point performance and the mission performance. When
analyzing point performance, the best combination of power-to-weight ratio (P/W) and wing loading (W/S) is selected.
In this first step of the initial sizing, these ratios are used instead of absolute values for power and wing area, since the
actual MTOM is calculated afterwards during the mission performance analysis.
The aim of the mission performance is to estimate the MTOM of a new aircraft, while the ratios of P/W and W/S
are already known from the point performance. Using the resulting MTOM, computed in this second step of the initial
sizing, the total values for maximum thrust or maximum power and wing area can be calculated. The classical sizing
assumption is that the MTOM of an aircraft can be split into its empty mass, fuel mass and payload mass (Eq. 1).
= + + (1)
The payload mass is known, since it is usually defined as part of
the TLARs. However, the empty mass (including the aircraft’s struc-
ture, engines, landing gear, fixed equipment, avionics and other sys-
tems), as well as the fuel mass have to be calculated. Both of these
masses are dependent on the MTOM, so that an iterative process must
be conducted (see Fig. 3), which starts with a guess of the MTOM.
The empty mass is usually selected on the basis of statistical data. To
determine the fuel burn during taxi, take-off, climb, descend and
landing statistics are used, as well. The fuel for the cruise and loiter
portions of the mission is often calculated using Breguet’s range and
endurance equations (see [16] or [17]).
The classical approach for the calculation of the fuel mass is not
applicable for unconventional propulsion aircraft. This is due to the

possible use of propulsion systems based on non-consumable energy
sources like batteries, which do not lead to a loss of mass during the Fig. 3 Mission performance sizing [15]
flight mission of an aircraft. Thus a new approach was needed.
B. New Sizing Methodology for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft
The new sizing methodology was developed to deal with hybrid-electric aircraft. Its goal is the identification of
the optimal design point (P/W and W/S) of such aircraft and, in addition to this, the corresponding degree of hybridi-
zation. Analogue to the classical methods, the methodology is separated into two major parts: Point performance, also
referred to as the matching diagram, and mission performance, also known as the weight estimation.
For both parts certain input parameters are necessary, representing the top level aircraft performance requirements,
which are defined for the individual aircraft. These requirements specify the TLARs, including the flight mission, the
aerodynamics and the propulsion system (number of engines, conventional, serial- or parallel-hybrid, etc.) and its
corresponding efficiencies.
An overview of this process is presented graphically in Fig. 4 and the methodology will be explained in the fol-
lowing subchapters.
Fig. 4 Sizing methodology
1. Adaption of Hybrid-Electric Technology
Hybrid-electric propulsion systems have additional degrees of freedom, one of which is the degree of hybridiza-
tion. The new method attempts to derive a starting point for the optimization of this factor from the matching diagram.
Degree of Hybridization of Power

HP is the degree of hybridization (DoH) of power, which is the ratio of the installed propulsion power of all electric
motors to the total installed propulsion power at the propeller shaft (see Eq. 2). It is defined and fixed for any aircraft
and propulsion system configuration.
For parallel-hybrid aircraft, values of the HP,PH are determined by the ratio of the power requirement of the electric
motor specified by the split point to the overall power demand arising from the design point (see Fig. 6).
, ,
, = = (2)
+
, ,
Note that for serial hybrid-electric powertrains, the DoH of power HP,PH, as it is defined in Eq. 2, is always equal
to one, since the EM must be able to solely deliver the total installed power. To differentiate between the all-electric
powertrain and to size the Range Extender, a DoH of power for serial hybrids, H P,SH, is introduced by Eq. 3.
,
, = (3)
,
Degree of Hybridization of Energy

Another helpful parameter, when assessing hybrid-electric aircraft is the DoH of energy HE. HE is specified as the
ratio of the required transport energy delivered by batteries (non-consumable - Enc) to the total required transport
energy E (Eq. 4). It is defined for every flight phase of a mission and determines the power request of EM and ICE in
each phase. For the initial sizing, the different values of the HE for every flight phase are determined by the ratio
between the power requirement of the electric motor, which is defined by the split point (see next subsection), and the
power demand of each phase, which is represented by its appropriate constraint.
∆
, = (4)
∆
HE can also be calculated for the entire flight. This is helpful, because even if an aircraft with a high DoH of Power
is designed, the electric boost might be used for only take-off or take-off and climb, and the corresponding DoH of
Energy is still very low. Thus, HE indicates how much the electric part of the propulsion system is used.
2. Point Performance – A New Use of the Matching Diagram for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft
The matching diagram (Fig. 5.) is generated first, to analyze the design space with regards to the power-to-weight
ratio (P/W) and wing-loading (W/S). This method is performed similarly to the process shown in [17], with updated
constraint equations, as presented in [15].
Fig. 5 Classical matching diagram
For any given W/S, there is a specific design point, with a corresponding P/W, where all constraints are just met.
This is the boundary that gives the lowest P/W and lowest aircraft mass for a specific W/S.
This boundary is referred to as the “design line” and also indicated in the picture above. For the analysis of hybrid-
electric aircraft the matching diagram will be used in a new way: The space below the design line was previously
unavailable to the designer, since at least one performance constraint was not met. This space in the matching diagram
will now be used to indicate the degree of hybridization. In the following, the space below the design line will be
referred to as the “P/W-split space”. This methodology is the core of the new method.
Parallel-Hybrid Propulsion Configurations

A graphical representation of the constraint diagram and the design space, as well as the P/W split space is shown
in Fig. 6 for parallel-hybrid propulsion configurations.
Fig. 6 Design space of parallel-hybrid aircraft
Following the assumption that, for a given W/S, the lowest design weight will be found for the lowest P/W that
satisfies all constraints, an arbitrary design point “i” on the design line can be selected. An aircraft designed at this
P/W and W/S combination is expected to fulfill all constraints at the lowest weight possible for this W/S.
We must now introduce a new parameter, the “split point”, which indicates the degree of hybridization of power
HP, or rather the power split between ICE and EM. Each split point in the split space corresponds to a certain combi-
nation of HP, P/W and W/S. For each split point a corresponding aircraft can be sized. For parallel-hybrid aircraft, the
split point indicates how much P/W the ICE supplies to the total P/W.
Serial-Hybrid Propulsion Configurations

For serial-hybrid aircraft, just as for parallel hybrid aircraft, the split point indicates how much P/W the ICE sup-
plies to the total P/W. However, serial-hybrids are fundamentally different, because the EM will always supply the
total P/W at the design point. The ICE and a generator simply serve as a converter, transforming chemical energy to
electric energy (Fig. 2). Therefore, the ICE has no mechanical connection between its crankshaft and the propeller.
A graphical representation of the constraint diagram for serial-hybrid aircraft is shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 Design space of serial-hybrid aircraft
3. Mission Performance – Weight Estimation of Hybrid-Electric Aircraft
The mission performance analysis is based on a classical iterative process, as presented in Fig. 3. However, to
cover the mix of consumable (carbon based fuels) and non-consumable (batteries) energy sources on board, the masses
are not treated as fractions, as it is usually done in sizing, but as absolute values.
Additionally, the classical endurance and range equations of Breguet are not used. Instead, the mission is broken
into a large number of short segments and simulated, using a universally valid, energy-based approach.
To calculate the energy carrier masses, the required powers and thus the required transport energy during the whole
mission have to be identified. This is done by determining the needed energy in every time step of a flight phase,
considering all energy requirements which may occur in this phase. Energy demands can arise from aerodynamic
drag, acceleration (kinetic energy), altitude change (potential energy).
The formula for the calculation of the total transport energy in every time step during flight is given by Eq. 5.
∙ ∙ ∙∆
∆E = ∙∆ + + ∙ ∙ ∙∆
2
(5)
ΔEAero. Drag + ΔEKinetic + ΔEPotential
The transport energy is divided into energy from consumable sources (fuel) and non-consumable sources (battery)
by the DoH of Energy HE (given in Eq. 4).
As the mission is simulated incrementally, the energy is converted to fuel mass and battery mass using efficiency
models (not presented here). Then the mass estimation of all powertrain components, as well as the aircraft’s empty
mass, is possible. As now a complete weight build-up is available (mempty + mpropulsion + menergy + mpayload), the MTOM
is calculated. Based on this MTOM, the next iteration step is started. The iteration stops, when a certain mass conver-
gence, defined by the stopping criteria ε, is reached (compare Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).
Electric motors can boost the total available power significantly, for a comparatively small weight increase – as
long as they are used for a small fraction of the total flight time, because today’s batteries are still prohibitively heavy.
Because of the complex interaction of mission performance and point performance, a prediction of the best design
point is very difficult. However, it is possible to analyze the entire design space of the matching diagram, using the
fast initial sizing analysis, and use such an analysis for more detailed design work. This means that the whole design
space is analyzed for varying values of P/W and W/S, as well as for different values of H P and HE. Such an analysis
(data from [15]) is shown in Fig. 8 for parallel-hybrid designs and for serial-hybrid designs.
Parallel-Hybrid Design Serial-Hybrid Design
Fig. 8 Design space exploration [15]
These Figures link the matching diagram and its constraints to the sized MTOMs of different sized aircraft. Such
a plot also exists for classical designs and is sometimes called a “performance thumbprint” [18].
In the context of this new methodology, the thumbprint plots are used as follows: Every design on such a plot
fulfills all constraints. Basically, any split point on the plot indicates how much of the P/W is provided by the com-
bustion engine.
If a point is below the design line, it will have a certain degree of hybridization, and an electric motor will be used
to provide the remaining P/W to get the total P/W of EM and ICE up to the design line. Those split points determine
the degree of hybridization of power.
Similarly to the contour plots that link each design point to MTOM, similar plots can be created that link each
design point to the required energy for each flight. The required energy is based on the total transport energy (see
Eq. 5). It is converted to the total required energy using efficiency models and thus includes the losses of the entire
powertrain, as shown in Fig. 2. Losses for electric components are typically much lower than the losses of combustion
engines [19].
In the following chapter, this new methodology will be applied to a sizing study. For each set of requirements a
design space exploration, as shown in Fig. 8, is performed. This way, the optimum degree of hybridization for each
set of requirements can be determined. In all cases, MTOM was used as the measure of merit, since the thumbprint
plots were created with MTOM contours.
III. Sizing Studies
In this section the new methodology is applied to study the implications that hybrid-electric powertrain have on
general aviation aircraft design.
A. Conventional Baseline Configuration
To clearly illustrate the differences – the positives and the negatives – between conventional designs and designs
that incorporate a hybrid-electric propulsion system, an existing aircraft will be modeled, first. This allows a mean-
ingful comparison of the new and old technologies.
The Cirrus SR-22 is chosen as a baseline for mission specification and top level design requirements used for the
sizing process. This aircraft is described in numerous sources (e.g. [17] [20] [21]) and well known in the aviation
community. It is a single propeller, general aviation aircraft, sized for a typical cruise mission, including 45 minutes
of FAR dictated reserve energy (Total flight time: ~4h 10min). These parameters are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Top level requirements

Requirements Mission
Take-off Ground Roll [m] 340 Taxi & Take-off at MSL
Rate of Climb at MSL [m/s] 5 Climb to 3000m
Stall Speed [m/s] 32 Cruise for 1150km
Cruise Speed (TAS) [m/s] 90 Loiter for 45 min
Payload [kg] 380 Descend, Landing, Taxi MSL
Technology
E-Motor Spec. Power [kW/kg] 5.00 Battery Specific Energy [Wh/kg] 250 Cirrus SR-22
ICE Spec. Power [kW/kg] 1.18 SFCICE [kg/kW/h] 0.314
CD0 [counts] 254 Induced Drag Factor k [-] 0.0402
Aerodynamic data for this aircraft was obtained from [17], propulsion system data was obtained from manufacturer
data and the SR-22’s pilot operating handbook [22]. First, the SR-22 is sized, using the method presented before. The
results are given in Table 2.
Table 2 Sizing results SR-22 baseline
Conventional ICE MTOM W/S P/W mfuel Energy
Propulsion System [kg] [N/m²] [W/g] [kg] [MJ]
1558.8 1230 147.5 190.1 7691.8
Lowest MTOM
Conv. Design Point 1577.9 1136 132.1 223.4 9042.3
SR-22 W/S 1573.6 1150 135.0 216.8 8772.4
SR-22 W/S & P/W 1589.2 1150 140.0 214.8 8691.5
Actual SR-22 Data 1633.0 1150 141.0
The actual MTOM of the SR-22 is 1633 kg [21], which gives the aircraft a wing loading of 1152 N/m² and a P/W
of 141 W/kg. For the set of requirements used here, the sizing code returned several answers:
1. The lowest MTOM of 1558.8 kg (-4.5% difference) is reached for a slightly higher wing loading and slightly lower
P/W, compared to the actual data.
2. The conventional design point (highest power loading) gives an MTOM of 1577.9 kg (-3.4% difference).
3. If the SR-22’s actual wing loading is used, the lowest MTOM (1573.6, -3.6% difference) is reached at a slightly
lower P/W (-4.2%).
4. For the SR-22’s actual design point, the MTOM reached 1589.2 kg, a -2.6% difference.
All baseline results give an MTOM which is slightly low, but since the absolute error is below 5% the validity of
the methodology is shown, especially for an initial sizing method. The difference between the sized MTOM at the
actual design point and the actual MTOM at 2.6% is actually smaller than what could be expected for such a method.
Having established a reference point for mission performance and aircraft mass, detailed sizing studies will be
performed in the following subchapters.
B. Baseline Mission – 1150 km Cruise
1. Parallel-Hybrid Propulsion System
Parallel-hybrid propulsion systems will be investigated first. Because these systems are designed to always operate
the combustion engine and electric motor in a way that overall system performance is best, they are expected to show
the largest performance improvements, if parallel- and serial-hybrids are compared to a conventional system on a 1:1
basis [15]. For the following studies, 1 through 3, no benefits are taken into account that might result from a favorable
propulsion airframe interaction. Parallel-hybrids and conventional aircraft are compared on a 1:1 basis.
Study 1: CD0 = 254 counts
The first analysis (Table 3) is the reference set of data, to which the other results can be compared. This table –
and every subsequent data table – is structured in the following way: The columns contain the sizing results for a set
of requirements that are specified in the top row. The aircraft’s CD0 (cd) is fixed at 254 counts and the mission’s cruise
segment (c) is 1150 km – just as for the SR-22. The aircraft is flown either at an altitude (alt) of 3000 m or 1000 m.
Furthermore, the cruise speed (s) is changed between 90 m/s and 75m/s. Also, to investigate the influence of battery
technology, the specific energy (e) is varied from 250 Wh/kg (today’s technology) to twice that value (500 Wh/kg).
This way, for a fixed cruise segment and CD0, eight different parameter configurations are possible. The sized weights,
design points and energy usage for these parameters are presented in the corresponding rows of each column.
A conventional baseline aircraft is sized to these requirements for comparison. Its cruise altitude is always fixed
at 3000 m. As the battery’s specific energy does not influence the conventional aircraft, its data only changes when
the cruise speed is changed.
In the bottom section of the table, the relative changes of the hybrid-electric aircraft compared to the conventional
baseline aircraft are indicated.
Table 3 Sizing results – parallel-hybrid – long mission – cd 254
Parallel Hy-
brid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 1150
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 254
MTOM [kg] 1537.7 1591.6 1554.9 1283.2 1276.3 1237.4
design outperformed
W/S [N/m²] design outperformed 1324 1324 1324 1324 1324 1324
no parallel-hybrid
no parallel-hybrid
the conv. baseline
the conv. baseline

P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 163.5 163.5 163.5 163.5
HPPH [-] 29.7% 28.1% 32.7% 54.1% 54.1% 57.2%
HEaverage [-] 1.57% 0.52% 0.60% 3.29% 1.20% 1.26%
Energy [MJ] 7903.3 8868.4 8975.9 5075.5 5208.0 5222.5
mfuel [kg] 194.5 218.8 221.4 124.3 128.2 128.6

mbattery [kg] 23.3 18.0 10.2 32.4 25.4 13.0
Corresponding conventional baseline (at 3000m altitude)
MTOM [kg] 1558.8 1308.5
W/S [N/m²] 1230 1010
P/W [W/kg] 147.5 112.5
Energy [MJ] 7691.8 5683.7
mfuel [kg] 190.1 140.5
Relative change compared to conventional baseline
ΔMTOM -1.4% 2.1% -0.3% -1.9% -2.5% -5.4%
ΔW/S 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 31.1% 31.1% 31.1%
ΔP/W 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 45.3% 45.3% 45.3%
ΔEnergy 2.7% 15.3% 16.7% -10.7% -8.4% -8.1%
Δmfuel 2.3% 15.1% 16.5% -11.5% -8.8% -8.5%
For the baseline technology and mission parameters, no parallel-hybrid-electric design could be found that per-
formed superior in terms of MTOM or energy and fuel consumption to the conventional, ICE driven baseline. For this
reason, the second column of Table 3 remains empty.
Also, for variations in cruise altitude and specific energy of the batteries (columns three through five), data indi-
cates that the conventional baseline is the superior aircraft. Only little influence on the MTOM can be observed, and
total energy consumption is actually increased. For this set of requirements the parallel-hybrid powertrain offers no
performance increase for any of the observed metrics. The aircraft flies fast (90 m/s) and high (3000 m), with the ICE
operating very close to its best point. It appears that this design point was carefully traded between take-off distance,
climb- and cruise performance by Cirrus Aircraft.
Since high and fast travel was achieved best by the conventional design, the impact of lowering cruising speed is
investigated next (columns six through nine): If the cruise speed constraint is relaxed to 75 m/s, a significant reduction
in consumption can be achieved. The conventional aircraft sized to this speed constrained is 16% lighter and uses
36.5% less energy than the 90 m/s baseline. While all parallel-hybrid low speed designs can only achieve a slight
MTOM reduction, they actually consume between 8% and 10% less energy than the baseline. This is a significant
reduction and shows that if the cruise speed does not drive the engine power, a fuel burn advantage can be obtained
with a hybrid-electric propulsion system – even though all optima are limited in W/S by the stall speed constrained.
Here, the hybrid-propulsion results at low altitude indicate slightly worse performance, but a detail stands out: The
design with a high battery specific energy density (column nine) performed worse from an energy standpoint, than the
design with today’s battery technology (column eight) – even though its MTOM is lower. This unusual behavior is
attributed to the split-point selection. The split points for this study are selected with regards for minimum MTOM.
There are hybrid-electric designs that are even more energy efficient – however at a slightly larger mass. In this special
case the design point is shifted to a larger ICE and a smaller EM, compared to the design with a lower battery energy
density. For this case the result is a slight MTOM reduction at the cost of slightly reduced efficiency. However, re-
peating this study with energy consumption as the selection metric for the split points was beyond the scope of this
paper. This is a point that needs to be addressed in future work.

Parallel Hy-
brid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 1150
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 200
MTOM [kg] 1346.5 1366.7 1327.9 1235.6 1186.9 1171.9 1134.4
design outperformed
W/S [N/m²] 1324 1324 1324 990 1260 1324 1324
no parallel-hybrid
the conv. baseline

P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 163.5 109.1 152.5 163.5 163.5
HPPH [-] 43.4% 43.4% 46.5% 17.5% 59.0% 63.3% 64.8%
HEaverage [-] 2.67% 0.97% 1.03% 1.23% 4.11% 1.68% 1.72%

Energy [MJ] 5558.8 6092.9 6095.5 4477.5 3984.6 3888.3 3840.4
mfuel [kg] 136.4 150.2 150.2 110.2 97.3 95.6 94.4
mbattery [kg] 28.2 23.2 12.1 22.7 31.9 26.7 13.2
MTOM [kg] 1377.7 1254.2
W/S [N/m²] 1090 990
P/W [W/kg] 125.0 110.0
Energy [MJ] 6142.4 4882.2
mfuel [kg] 151.8 120.6
ΔMTOM -2.3% -0.8% -3.6% -1.5% -5.4% -6.6% -9.6%
ΔW/S 21.5% 21.5% 21.5% 0.0% 27.3% 33.7% 33.7%
ΔP/W 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% -0.8% 38.6% 48.6% 48.6%
ΔEnergy -9.5% -0.8% -0.8% -8.3% -18.4% -20.4% -21.3%
Δmfuel -10.1% -1.1% -1.1% -8.6% -19.3% -20.7% -21.7%
Compared to the previous results, only the zero-lift drag coefficient is changed. A significant reduction from 254
to 200 counts (-21%) is assumed. This could be the result of a significant drag cleanup (e.g. using a retractable gear)
or even a configuration change. Altitude, battery energy density and cruising speed are varied as before. The structure
of the table is retained. The two conventional baseline aircraft (for 90 m/s and 75 m/s cruise speed) were also resized
under the assumption of a 54 count drag reduction. The new data is presented in Table 4.
Just as before, the conventional baseline for the fast (90m/s) mission is lighter than parallel-hybrid aircraft and
very close in terms of energy and fuel consumption, if today’s technology is used. However, a significant reduction
in energy and fuel consumption (~10%) can be expected, if battery technology progresses to 500 Wh/kg. This reduc-
tion can only be observed for a cruising altitude of 3000 m. At 1000 m, changes compared to the baseline are marginal.
The wing loading of these hybrid designs is right at the stall boundary, with the corresponding 30% increase in P/W.
However, the added complexity does not pay off.
If the cruising speed is reduced to 75 m/s, the hybrid-electric setup shows very significant improvements. Flying
at low altitudes (1000 m) offers the highest benefit. Then, while the reduction in sized MTOM is only between 6.6%
and 9.6%, energy and fuel consumption are decreasing by about 20% compared to the baseline. For this set of require-
ments parallel-hybrid propulsion systems are very well suited.
The best results for this set of data are obtained by employing the best battery technology, however, just as before,
the maximum benefit cannot be obtained, since the stall speed constraint limits the wing loading to 1324 N/m².
Compared to the previous results, only the zero-lift drag coefficient is changed again. Once more, a magical re-
duction from 200 to 150 counts (-25%) is assumed. Such a result could not be expected from a drag reduction program,
but to cover the extremes of the design space, this analysis is performed anyway. Altitude, battery energy density and
cruising speed are varied as before. The two conventional baseline aircraft (for 90 m/s and 75 m/s cruise speed) were
also resized under the assumption of a CD0 of 150 counts. The results for these assumptions are shown in Table 5.

Parallel Hy-
brid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 1150
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 150
MTOM [kg] 1537.7 1205.6 1167.2 1158.8 1101.2 1086.6 1052.4
design outperformed
W/S [N/m²] 1324 1324 1324 970 1070 1230 1310

the conv. baseline
no parallel-hybrid
P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 163.5 106.4 121.4 147.4 161.1

HPPH [-] 29.7% 58.7% 60.2% 34.2% 54.7% 67.8% 73.6%
HEaverage [-] 1.57% 1.65% 1.7% 2.80% 4.43% 2.14% 2.41%
Energy [MJ] 7903.3 4186.3 4134.1 3316.5 3141.2 2967.3 2878.1
mfuel [kg] 194.5 103 101.7 81.3 76.6 72.9 70.6
mbattery [kg] 23.3 26.9 13.4 38.4 27.5 25.8 13.6
MTOM [kg] 1227.2 1196.8
W/S [N/m²] 980 980
P/W [W/kg] 107.5 107.5
Energy [MJ] 4546.1 4017.3
mfuel [kg] 112.3 99.3
ΔMTOM -1.9% -1.8% -4.9% -3.2% -8.0% -9.2% -12.1%
ΔW/S 35.1% 35.1% 35.1% -1.0% 9.2% 25.5% 33.7%
ΔP/W 52.1% 52.1% 52.1% -1.0% 12.9% 37.1% 49.9%
ΔEnergy -14.6% -7.9% -9.1% -17.4% -21.8% -26.1% -28.4%
Δmfuel -15.6% -8.3% -9.4% -18.1% -22.9% -26.6% -28.9%
The trends that were observed previously continue at this very low drag level, but the parallel-hybrid designs gain
a clear advantage. For every mission variation, except high and fast, the hybrid-electric propulsion systems offers a
decrease in MTOM and consumption. For the fast mission, the wing loading is limited by the stall speed constraint
and thus no true optimum. A higher stall speed limit would probably allow for a further weight and energy reduction.
For the slow mission, this constraint is not reached, and consequently better performance can be observed. For this
mission, a reduction of ~10% MTOM and ~ 1/4 less energy and fuel consumption is feasible.
2. Serial-Hybrid Propulsion System
Parallel- and serial-hybrid propulsion systems will not be compared on a 1:1 basis, because this would not be a
fair comparison. As shown in [15], the serial-hybrid will always perform worse than the parallel-hybrid for a similar
set of parameters. This is caused by the additional mass that the generator system will add to the aircraft, the corre-
sponding reduction on propulsive efficiency, and the fact that the electric motor must be sized to the maximum P/W.
The advantage of serial-hybrid systems is their geometric flexibility. The electric motor(s) can be installed inde-
pendently of the location of the combustion engine(s). This gives way to distributed propulsion layouts (see e.g. [23],
[24] or [25]), which can take advantage of favorable aero-propulsion interaction. Thereby, the weight increase of the
propulsion system is traded against improved aerodynamic efficiency.
This trade study, additional mass vs. improved aerodynamics, will be investigated in this chapter. The aerodynamic
improvement will be represented by a CD0 reduction. While it is possible to improve the lift-induced drag as well with
such systems, this effect will not be investigated within the scope of this chapter and the lift-induced drag factor k
remains at the baseline value of 0.0402.
First, the baseline for this comparison is established. The corresponding data is shown in Table 6. With the baseline
CD0 of 254 counts, the same mission and technology variations as for the parallel-hybrid propulsion systems are per-
formed.
Table 6 Sizing results – serial-hybrid – long mission – cd 254

Serial
Hybrid
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 1150
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 254
MTOM [kg] 2429.2 2238.9 2354.7 2269.7 1722.5 1564.3 1541.1 1483.2
W/S [N/m²] 1324 1324 1324 1324 1320 1324 1324 1324
P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 163.5 163.5 162.8 163.5 163.5 163.5
HPSH [-] 142.1% 142.1% 148.6% 148.6% 217.0% 218.0% 242.2% 242.2%
HEaverage [-] 1.64% 1.64% 0.65% 0.65% 3.30% 3.32% 1.31% 1.31%
Energy [MJ] 14341.0 13217.2 15639.8 15075.2 7832.6 7095.4 7618.3 7332.4
mfuel [kg] 353.0 325.4 385.9 372.0 192.0 173.9 187.7 180.6
mbattery [kg] 75.7 34.9 33.3 16.1 86.2 39.2 33.0 15.9
MTOM [kg] 1558.8 1308.5
W/S [N/m²] 1230 1010
P/W [W/kg] 147.5 112.5
Energy [MJ] 7691.8 5683.7
mfuel [kg] 190.1 140.5
ΔMTOM 55.8% 43.6% 51.1% 45.6% 31.6% 19.5% 17.8% 13.4%
ΔW/S 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 30.7% 31.1% 31.1% 31.1%
ΔP/W 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 44.7% 45.3% 45.3% 45.3%
ΔEnergy 86.4% 71.8% 103.3% 96.0% 37.8% 24.8% 34.0% 29.0%
Δmfuel 85.7% 71.2% 103.0% 95.7% 36.7% 23.8% 33.6% 28.5%
As expected, for the same baseline parameters, the serial-hybrid designs perform much worse than their conven-
tional counterparts. While better energy density of the batteries improves the results somewhat, the fast mission re-
quires serial-hybrid aircraft to be about 50% heavier with the corresponding negative impact on fuel and energy con-
sumption.
This behavior is mirrored for the slower mission, however the speed reduction lessens the impact somewhat. An
interesting observation can be made of the design point: It is the always the same for the serial-hybrid designs
(1324 N/m² - 163.5 W/kg), regardless of mission or technology level. However, different altitudes influence the split
point and thus the HP. All hybrid-electric aircraft achieve their minimum weight at the stall speed constraint.
To account for the benefits of serial-hybrid propulsion, the zero-lift drag coefficient is reduced. A significant re-
duction from 254 to 200 counts (-21%) is assumed. The baseline aircraft remain the same, their CD0 remains un-
changed at 254 counts since the discussed CD0 improvement is supposed to be attributed to integration benefits of
the hybrid-electric system and therefore not applicable to the conventional baseline aircraft. The results are show-
cased in Table 7.

Serial
Hybrid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 1150
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 200
MTOM [kg] 1895.5 1735.1 1763.1 1698.3 1512.3 1379.8 1344.2 1295.0
W/S [N/m²] 1324 1324 1324 1324 1260 1290 1324 1324
P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 163.5 163.5 152.5 157.6 163.5 163.5
HPSH [-] 176.7% 176.7% 186.8% 186.9% 244.0% 252.2% 297.3% 297.3%
HEaverage [-] 2.73% 2.73% 1.07% 1.07% 4.14% 4.25% 1.77% 1.77%
Energy [MJ] 8987.1 8226.7 9311.7 8969.6 5822.5 5225.0 5347.1 5151.2
mfuel [kg] 220.7 202.0 229.5 221.1 142.4 127.8 131.6 126.7
mbattery [kg] 79.8 36.5 32.7 15.8 80.7 37.4 31.8 15.3
Corresponding conventional baseline (CD0 0.0254 at 3000m altitude)
MTOM [kg] 1558.8 1308.5
W/S [N/m²] 1230 1010
P/W [W/kg] 147.5 112.5
Energy [MJ] 7691.8 5683.7
mfuel [kg] 190.1 140.5
ΔMTOM 21.6% 11.3% 13.1% 8.9% 15.6% 5.4% 2.7% -1.0%
ΔW/S 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 24.8% 27.7% 31.1% 31.1%
ΔP/W 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 35.6% 40.1% 45.3% 45.3%
ΔEnergy 16.8% 7.0% 21.1% 16.6% 2.4% -8.1% -5.9% -9.4%
Δmfuel 16.1% 6.3% 20.7% 16.3% 1.4% -9.0% -6.3% -9.8%
The results show the same tendencies as those for the parallel hybrid: At slower speeds and lower altitudes, the
best results are obtained. Also, the expected efficiency benefits of the serial-hybrid can be observed: Even though
MTOM slightly increases with today’s batteries, fuel consumption and energy usage for the flight reduces slightly.
Again, the design points are right at the stall boundary, indicating, that a better high lift system or a relaxed stall
speed requirement could help the performance of these designs.
For the low and slow missions, the EM is significantly larger than the ICE. The H P reaches almost a factor of 3x,
indicating a large spread in power requirements over the course of the mission.
Finally, an even more significant zero-lift drag reduction to 150 counts is analyzed. The baseline aircraft remain
at a CD0 of 254 counts. The data is presented in Table 8.

Serial
Hybrid alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 1150
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 150
MTOM [kg] 1558.7 1422.1 1418.5 1365.6 1341.5 1233.7 1199.0 1155.9
W/S [N/m²] 1324 1324 1324 1324 1010 1210 1320 1324
P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 163.5 163.5 112.0 144.1 162.8 163.5
HPSH [-] 233.6% 288.1% 251.5% 251.5% 203.7% 288.1% 383.0% 384.7%
HEaverage [-] 4.28% 4.28% 1.72% 1.72% 4.12% 5.40% 2.44% 2.45%
Energy [MJ] 5770.4 5264.7 5780.0 5564.7 4613.8 3861.7 3745.0 3601.6
mfuel [kg] 141.2 128.8 142.3 137.0 112.9 94.2 92.0 88.5
mbattery [kg] 81.2 37.1 32.5 15.6 63.1 35.3 30.9 14.9
MTOM [kg] 1558.8 1308.5
W/S [N/m²] 1230 1010
P/W [W/kg] 147.5 112.5
Energy [MJ] 7691.8 5683.7
mfuel [kg] 190.1 140.5
ΔMTOM 0.0% -8.8% -9.0% -12.4% 2.5% -5.7% -8.4% -11.7%
ΔW/S 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 0.0% 19.8% 30.7% 31.1%
ΔP/W 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8% -0.4% 28.1% 44.7% 45.3%
ΔEnergy -25.0% -31.6% -24.9% -27.7% -18.8% -32.1% -34.1% -36.6%
Δmfuel -25.7% -32.2% -25.1% -27.9% -19.6% -33.0% -34.5% -37.0%
This final drag reduction allows the serial-hybrid to become a viable option even for the high speed mission. Even
though no weight reduction can be observed for the fast and high mission with a low battery energy density, the fuel
and energy consumption is still reduced by 25%. This shows that a very significant reduction in drag is required to
make up for the added weight of such a serial-hybrid propulsion system. Also, weight savings might be the wrong
metric to judge such aircraft, as overall emissions must be observed.
For the slower mission, again, it is advisable to fly at lower altitudes, where savings are maximized.
C. Short Mission – 575 km Cruise
To assess the influence of the mission length on the results, the analysis were repeated for a half as long (575 km)
cruise segment. The same variations of the propulsion system (parallel- vs. serial-hybrid), altitude, battery energy
density and cruising speed as for the 1150 km mission were performed.
1. Parallel-Hybrid Propulsion System
This first analysis (Table 9) will be considered the reference set of data, to which the other results can be compared.
Table 9 Sizing results – parallel-hybrid – short mission – cd 254

Parallel Hy-
brid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 575
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 254
MTOM [kg] 1284.1 1258.4 1136.9 1118 1086.4
design outperformed
design outperformed
design outperformed
W/S [N/m²] 1324 1324 1120 1310 1324
no parallel-hybrid
no parallel-hybrid
no parallel-hybrid
the conv. baseline
the conv. baseline
the conv. baseline

P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 129.3 161.1 163.5
HPPH [-] 32.7% 32.7% 36.2% 58.1% 58.7%
HEaverage [-] 1.11% 1.11% 3.77% 2.30% 2.34%
Energy [MJ] 4102.7 4020.6 2915.1 2729 2625
mfuel [kg] 101.1 99.1 71.3 67 64.4
mbattery [kg] 17.0 8.3 20.6 23.9 11.7
MTOM [kg] 1285.9 1148.9
W/S [N/m²] 1136 1010
P/W [W/kg] 132.1 112.5
Energy [MJ] 4216.5 2939.2
mfuel [kg] 104.2 72.6
ΔMTOM -0.1% -2.1% -1.0% -2.7% -5.4%
ΔW/S 16.5% 16.5% 10.9% 29.7% 31.1%
ΔP/W 23.8% 23.8% 14.9% 43.2% 45.3%
ΔEnergy -2.7% -4.6% -0.8% -7.2% -10.7%
Δmfuel -3.0% -4.9% -1.8% -7.7% -11.3%
For the baseline fast and high mission, no hybrid design could be found that performed better than the conventional
baseline. However, as the cruise altitude was lowered to 1000 m, a small reduction in consumption and MTOM is
realized. The corresponding design points are right at the stall speed constraint, like for the longer mission.
A significant reduction in energy consumption is achieved by reducing cruise airspeed by 16%. The energy savings
of the conventional baseline amount to 30% and the low altitude hybrid designs improve upon this further. The savings
are maximized for low cruise altitudes, and the design point in the matching diagram moves right and up. The ad-
vantage of hybrid-electric aircraft over conventional designs seems clearer for the shorter mission.
The results for the zero-lift drag reduction to 200 counts are presented in Table 10 and discussed below.
At a CD0 of 0.020, the necessity to operate parallel-hybrid aircraft at lower altitudes, higher wing loadings and low
power loadings, is showcased again. With the CD0 reduction, the gap between the low speed and high speed mission
is becoming smaller. At the same time, fuel and energy consumption reductions in excess of 10%, compared to the
corresponding baseline, are observed.
Parallel Hy-
brid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 575
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 200
MTOM [kg] 1174.4 1144.8 1116 1074.6 1058.2 1028.2
design outperformed
design outperformed
W/S [N/m²] 1320 1324 990 990 1200 1280
no parallel-hybrid
no parallel-hybrid
the conv. baseline
the conv. baseline

P/W [W/kg] 162.8 163.5 109.1 109.1 142.4 155.9
HPPH [-] 46.3% 46.5% 17.5% 33.6% 59.6% 64.7%
HEaverage [-] 1.88% 1.89% 2.15% 3.96% 2.68% 3.01%
Energy [MJ] 3019.2 2932.6 2420 2448.7 2222.1 2073.6
mfuel [kg] 74.2 72.1 59.4 59.9 54.5 50.8

mbattery [kg] 21.3 10.4 20.5 18.1 22.7 12
MTOM [kg] 1182.4 1119.4
W/S [N/m²] 1024 850
P/W [W/kg] 114.2 107.5
Energy [MJ] 3424.5 2673.8
mfuel [kg] 84.6 66.1
ΔMTOM -0.7% -3.2% -0.3% -4.0% -5.5% -8.1%
ΔW/S 28.9% 29.3% 16.5% 16.5% 41.2% 50.6%
ΔP/W 42.6% 43.2% 1.5% 1.5% 32.5% 45.0%
ΔEnergy -11.8% -14.4% -9.5% -8.4% -16.9% -22.4%
Δmfuel -12.3% -14.8% -10.1% -9.4% -17.5% -23.1%

Parallel Hy-
brid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 250
e 500
c 575
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 150
MTOM [kg] 1098.4 1085.2 1053.3 1074.4 1018.9 1003.1 976.3
design outperformed
W/S [N/m²] 1200 1320 1320 970 1000 1010 1160

no parallel-hybrid
the conv. baseline
P/W [W/kg] 142.4 162.8 162.8 106.4 110.5 112 135.8

HPPH [-] 47.3% 60.1% 60.1% 36.5% 50.2% 55.4% 66.9%
HEaverage [-] 5.88% 3.04% 3.04% 5.09% 6.86% 2.8% 3.63%
Energy [MJ] 2241.5 2172 2108.3 1861.2 1814.1 1834 1633.5
mfuel [kg] 54.5 53.2 51.7 45.3 44 45 40
mbattery [kg] 24.6 24.9 12.1 37.9 23.9 19.5 11.4
MTOM [kg] 1105.4 1090.1
W/S [N/m²] 980 840
P/W [W/kg] 107.5 105.0
Energy [MJ] 2431.5 2284.7
mfuel [kg] 60.1 56.5
ΔMTOM -0.6% -1.8% -4.7% -1.4% -6.5% -8.0% -10.4%
ΔW/S 22.4% 34.7% 34.7% 15.5% 19.0% 20.2% 38.1%
ΔP/W 32.5% 51.4% 51.4% 1.3% 5.2% 6.7% 29.3%
ΔEnergy -7.8% -10.7% -13.3% -18.5% -20.6% -19.7% -28.5%
Δmfuel -9.3% -11.5% -14.0% -19.8% -22.1% -20.4% -29.2%
The results for the zero-lift drag reduction to 150 counts are presented in Table 11.
The trends remain very similar to those in Table 10, even the magnitude of the relative changes compared to the
conventional baseline is very close. However, since the analysis of aircraft with such a large drag reduction is more
of academic nature than a real engineering problem, these numbers just prove that the trends previously observed are
also valid and do not reverse for such aircraft.
2. Serial-Hybrid Propulsion System
In this section the trade study for serial-hybrids, additional mass vs. improved aerodynamics, will be investigated,
again, for the short range 575 km mission. Again, the aerodynamic improvement will be represented only by a CD0
reduction. The results for CD0 = 254 counts are given in Table 12, with the results for CD0 = 200 counts and for
CD0 = 150 counts are given in Table 13 and Table 14, respectively. The same variations of altitude, battery energy
density and cruising speed as for the 1150 km mission are performed.
The reduced range requirement is favorable to the serial-hybrid configurations, just like for the parallel system
assessed before. While the comparison with the same 254 count zero-lift drag coefficient shows that a 1:1 replacement
of a conventional propulsion system with a serial-hybrid one is not advisable from a pure performance standpoint, the
technology shows merit if a sizable drag reduction is obtained. A large MTOM decrease will not be obtainable with
such systems, rather, as Table 13 shows, the aircraft might be heavier. However, fuel efficiency is significantly im-
proved, as is ride quality, because of the increase in wing loading that is observed for the best performing serial-hybrid
designs. Still, all parallel-hybrid designs performed better than the serial-hybrid designs for the same set of require-
ments.
Table 12 Sizing results – serial-hybrid – short mission – cd 254

Serial
Hybrid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 575
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 254
MTOM [kg] 1813.8 1701.5 1687.3 1637.6 1433.9 1333.5 1288.9 1247.4
W/S [N/m²] 1324 1324 1324 1324 1010 1310 1310 1324
P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 163.5 163.5 112 161.1 161.1 163.5
HPSH [-] 142.2% 142.2% 148.6% 152.1% 124.5% 214.7% 238.6% 242.2%
HEaverage [-] 2.92% 2.92% 1.21% 1.67% 2.19% 5.63% 2.32% 2.36%
Energy [MJ] 6197.7 5813.9 6198.2 6048.4 4542 3568.3 3618.7 3466.1
mfuel [kg] 152.1 142.7 152.7 148.9 111.7 87 88.9 85.2
mbattery [kg] 56.8 26.6 24 16.1 31.7 33.2 27.5 13.4
MTOM [kg] 1285.9 1148.9
W/S [N/m²] 1136 1010
P/W [W/kg] 132.1 112.5
Energy [MJ] 4216.5 2939.2
mfuel [kg] 104.2 72.6
ΔMTOM 41.1% 32.3% 31.2% 27.4% 24.8% 16.1% 12.2% 8.6%
ΔW/S 16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 16.5% 0.0% 29.7% 29.7% 31.1%
ΔP/W 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% 23.8% -0.4% 43.2% 43.2% 45.3%
ΔEnergy 47.0% 37.9% 47.0% 43.4% 54.5% 21.4% 23.1% 17.9%
Δmfuel 46.0% 36.9% 46.5% 42.9% 53.9% 19.8% 22.5% 17.4%
Serial
Hybrid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
c 575
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 200
MTOM [kg] 1558.9 1448 1423.3 1374.9 1308.2 1221.9 1180.4 1142.8
W/S [N/m²] 1310 1310 1324 1324 990 1250 1280 1280
P/W [W/kg] 161.1 161.1 163.5 163.5 109.1 150.8 155.9 155.9
HPSH [-] 174.1% 174.1% 186.8% 192.3% 150.5% 241.3% 283.4% 283.4%
HEaverage [-] 4.65 4.65 1.96 2.4 4.05 7.01 3.03 3.03
Energy [MJ] 4371.2 4060.2 4192.7 4083.3 3423.3 2780.6 2738 2650.6
mfuel [kg] 106.9 99.3 103.1 100.3 83.8 67.6 67.2 65

mbattery [kg] 64.8 30.1 26.6 15.7 44.6 32.6 27.3 13.2
MTOM [kg] 1285.9 1148.9
W/S [N/m²] 1136 1010
P/W [W/kg] 132.1 112.5
Energy [MJ] 4216.5 2939.2
mfuel [kg] 104.2 72.6
ΔMTOM 21.2% 12.6% 10.7% 6.9% 13.9% 6.4% 2.7% -0.5%
ΔW/S 15.3% 15.3% 16.5% 16.5% -2.0% 23.8% 26.7% 26.7%
ΔP/W 22.0% 22.0% 23.8% 23.8% -3.0% 34.0% 38.6% 38.6%
ΔEnergy 3.7% -3.7% -0.6% -3.2% 16.5% -5.4% -6.8% -9.8%
Δmfuel 2.6% -4.7% -1.1% -3.7% 15.4% -6.9% -7.4% -10.5%

Serial
Hybrid
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
alt 3000
alt 1000
alt 1000
e 250
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 250
e 500
e 500
c 575
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 90
s 75
s 75
s 75
s 75
cd 150
MTOM [kg] 1367 1262.4 1234.7 1193.9 1205.1 1126.4 1091.1 1055.7
W/S [N/m²] 970 1320 1320 1324 1000 1090 1270 1270
P/W [W/kg] 106.4 162.8 162.8 163.5 110.5 124.5 154.2 154.2
HPSH [-] 118.2% 232.6% 250.4% 251.5% 200.9% 237.2% 362.8% 362.8%
HEaverage [-] 2.16% 7.25% 3.08% 3.1% 6.93% 7.98% 4.12% 4.12%
Energy [MJ] 3797.2 2775.9 2842 2738.9 2462.7 2190.7 1998.6 1933.8
mfuel [kg] 93.4 67.4 69.7 67.2 59.9 53.1 48.9 47.3
mbattery [kg] 25.2 32.9 28.4 13.7 56.2 29.3 27.6 13.3
MTOM [kg] 1285.9 1148.9
W/S [N/m²] 1136 1010
P/W [W/kg] 132.1 112.5
Energy [MJ] 4216.5 2939.2
mfuel [kg] 104.2 72.6
ΔMTOM 6.3% -1.8% -4.0% -7.2% 4.9% -2.0% -5.0% -8.1%
ΔW/S -14.6% 16.2% 16.2% 16.5% -1.0% 7.9% 25.7% 25.7%
ΔP/W -19.5% 23.2% 23.2% 23.8% -1.8% 10.7% 37.1% 37.1%
ΔEnergy -9.9% -34.2% -32.6% -35.0% -16.2% -25.5% -32.0% -34.2%
Δmfuel -10.4% -35.3% -33.1% -35.5% -17.5% -26.9% -32.6% -34.8%
D. Result Assessment
In this chapter, the data presented in the previous chapters shall be assessed and summed up. Because a large
number of parameter configurations were assessed this is only intended as a general overview and not every result
will be assessed in detail.
In total, 96 unique parameter combinations were assessed, as shown in Table 15. These combinations resulted in
12 different matching diagrams and 96 unique thumbprint-plots of the matching diagram and the corresponding iso-
MTOM lines. As these raw results are of limited use to the reader, this data will not be presented in this publications.
Rather, a high level overview is presented.
Table 15 Parameter combinations

Parameter Type Hybrid Mission Length CD0 Cruise Altitude Cruise Speed E*battery
variation 1 Parallel 1150 km 0.0254 3000 m 90 m/s 250 Wh/kg

variation 2 Serial 575 km 0.0200 1000 m 75 m/s 500 Wh/kg
variation 3 - - 0.0150 - - -
The sizing studies, presented in the previous subchapters, show a clear trend for all hybrid electric designs: The
design point is shifted to the right, to higher wing loadings, and up, to a higher power-to-weight ratio. This is true for
both parallel- and serial-hybrid designs, regardless of mission length, cruising airspeed, altitude variations, aerody-
namic performance or battery technology level. The only outlier from this rule can be observed for the serial-hybrid
designs for the short-range, high and slow mission. As these designs are not considered best for their particular set of
requirements, they can be disregarded.
Moving the design point right and up has several consequences that can be observed in Fig. 9. Overall installed
power is increased and typically the take-off distance constraint becomes the dominating constraint line.
Fig. 9 Matching diagram
The increase in power and wing loading has consequences on the aircraft’s characteristics:
x As installed power is increased beyond the rate-of-climb constraint, the achievable climb rate is increased, as
well.
x The higher wing loading demands a higher take-off speed (limited by the stall speed constraint). To achieve
the required take-off distance, the acceleration during the take-off ground roll has to be higher.
x The higher wing loading gives the aircraft a better ride in turbulent air. As the sensitivity to turbulence is
inversely proportional to W/S, as shown in Eq. 6. (A minimal wing loading for transport aircraft is suggested
in [26].)
∙ ,
∆ ~ (6)
/
x The approach speed is increased, as is the landing field length. Since these parameters are limited by the stall
speed constraint, they are directly influenced by the designer.
x As the aspect ratio is held constant for the sizing process, the increase in wing loading and the corresponding
decrease in wing area causes a reduction in wing span and chord length. The higher the wing loading, the
smaller the wing, which can reduce the required hangar space. This might be significant, if maximum span is
limited by hangar size.
An evaluation of all hybrid-electric design points revealed that their split points is always situated right above the
cruise constraint. This is caused by the characteristics of the combustion engine: The general assumption is that the
combustion engine is most efficient in its cruise design point. In hybrid-electric aircraft, for short period peaks in the
power profile, such as take-off and climb phases, the electric system can boost the overall power. This allows the
combustion engine to be sized to cruise constraints, while the electric system is sized with respect to the remaining
delta in required power. This is highly beneficial, as electric motors offer a 3-5 times higher specific power than
combustion engines, this reducing the propulsion system’s mass. The downside is that the energy for the electric
motors is carried in batteries which are heavy. Battery weight prohibits continuous use of electric motors during cruise
flight.
Because the batteries’ energy is only used during take-off and climbs for this kind of hybrid-electric set-up, dou-
bling the batteries’ energy density from 250 Wh/kg to 500 Wh/kg had less effect than one might have expected. While
better batteries naturally result in lighter and better performing designs, they do not change the design point dramati-
cally. This is, of course, fundamentally different for fully-electric aircraft.
While reviewing the studies’ data, it was found that the minimal mass aircraft was often not the aircraft with the
lowest energy consumption. If a reduction of energy consumption is the main goal, the study must be re-run with
lowest consumed energy – instead of lowest MTOM – as the key performance metric. Combining both metrics in a
cost function will be looked at in future work.
IV. Conclusion
This case study shows that the traditional methods used to determine the size of an aircraft in conceptual design
are not valid for aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion systems. Instead, the lowest weight design is achieved by
using smaller wings and higher installed power. Parallel-hybrid powertrains appear particularly suited to improve
climb performance while reducing the gross weight, as long as the cruise power requirements do not drive the design.
As a direct link between aircraft weight and aircraft cost can be established, these studies allow to assess the
economic feasibility of aircraft as well as the necessity of further development regarding technology standards. This
is especially important for hybrid-electric aircraft, to identify the factors that lead to a future with more efficient
aircraft.
Since the degree of hybridization dictates the size of the propulsion system’s components, it is of central interest
for the designer. When analyzing the results it was observed that the DoH should be chosen as such that the combustion
engine provides at least the required power during cruise flight. This allows for small engines and the battery weight
is kept at a minimum, because the battery is just used for take-off and climb phases. Because the main advantages of
hybrid-electric aircraft arise from the design of the ICE to cruise conditions, mission parameters, which increase the
difference between the maximum required power and the power needed in cruise, very much favor the hybrid-electric
propulsion layout.
Compared to the baseline, today’s Cirrus SR-22, aircraft with parallel-hybrid propulsion systems have a hard time
competing on a similar performance level. This is, because the aircraft’s engine is sized by the cruise speed constraint.
However, if a small decrease in cruise speed is accepted, a significant reduction in energy consumption is possible. A
similar result can be obtained by a significant drag reduction. It is expected, that improvements in battery specific
energy and motor specific power will further increase the benefits of the hybrid-electric propulsion systems. While
the additional complexity of the powertrain is an issue, this case study shows that hybrid electric powertrains must be
seriously considered for future general aviation aircraft.
References
[1] Airbus, "Growing Horizons - Global Market Forecast 2017 / 2036," Airbus , Blagnac, 2017.
[2] European Commission, "Flightpath 2050: Europe’s Vision for Aviation," Publications Office of the European,
Luxembourg, 2011.
[3] K. L. Suder, "Overview of the NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project’s Propulsion Technology
Portfolio," NASA, Washington, D.C., 2012.
[4] FAA, "FAA Aerospace Forecast - Fiscal Years 2017-2037," Federal Aviation Administration, Washington,
D.C., 2017.
[5] D. P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 5. ed., Virginia: AIAA, 2012.
[6] M. D. Moore and B. Fredericks, Misconceptions of Electric Propulsion Aircraft and their Emergent Aviation
Markets, Virgina: AIAA, 2014.
[7] Pipistrel, "Pipistrel Panthera," [Online]. Available: http://www.panthera-aircraft.com/. [Accessed 01 June
2018].
[8] A. T. Isikveren, A. Seitz, P. C. Vratny, C. Pornet, K. O. Plötner and M. Hornung, "Conceptual Studies of
Universally-Electric Systems Architectures Suitable for Transport Aircraft," in 61. Deutscher Luft- und
Raumfahrtkongress DLRK2012, Berlin, 2012.
[9] C. Pornet, C. Gologan, P. C. Vratny, A. Seitz, O. Schmitz, A. T. Isikveren and M. Hornung, "Methodology for
Sizing and Performance Assessment of Hybrid Energy Aircraft," Journal of Aircraft, p. 341–352, 2015.
[10] C. A. Perullo, D. Trawick, W. Clifton, J. C. M. Tai and D. N. Mavris, "Development of a Suite of Hybrid Electric
Propulsion Modeling Elements using NPSS," in ASME Turbo Expo, Düsseldorf, 2014.
[11] J. D. Mattingly, W. H. Heiser and D. T. Pratt, Aircraft Engine Design, 2nd ed., Virginia: AIAA, 2002.
[12] D. F. Finger, "Comparative Performance and Benefit Assessment of VTOL and CTOL UAVs," in 65. Deutscher
Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress DLRK 2016, Braunschweig, 2016.
[13] J. R. Smith, P. G. Batish, S. A. Brandt and S. A. Morton, "A Student Developed Sizing Methodology for Electric
Powered Aircraft Applied to Small UAVs," in 2000 World Aviation Conference, San Diego, 2000.
[14] J. Lückhof and E. Stumpf, "Performance Estimation of Differenct UAV-Configurations in Preliminary Design,"
in 66. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress DLRK 2017, Munich, 2017.
[15] D. F. Finger, C. Braun and C. Bil, "An Initial Sizing Methodology for Hybrid-Electric Light Aircraft," in AIAA
Aviation, Atlanta, 2018.
[16] L. M. Nicolai and G. E. Carichner, Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design - Volume I - Aircraft Design,
Virginia: AIAA, 2010.
[17] S. Gudmundsson, General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and Procedures, Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2014.
[18] E. Torenbeek, Advanced Aircraft Design - Conceptual Design, Analysis and Optimization of Subsonic Civil
Airplanes, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 2013.
[19] M. Hepperle, "Electric Flight – Potential and Limitations," in AVT-209 Workshop, Lisbon, 2012.
[20] M. D. Patterson, B. J. German and M. D. Moore, "Performance Analysis and Design of On-Demand Electric
Aircraft Concepts," in 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations (ATIO) Conference,
Indianapolis, 2012.
[21] P. Jackson, Jane's All the World's Aircraft - Development & Production 2017-2018, Coulsdon: IHS Markit,
2017.
[22] Cirrus Design, Pilot's Operating Handbook for the Cirrus Design SR-22, Duluth: Cirrus Design, 2010.
[23] D. F. Finger, C. Braun and C. Bil, "A Review of Configuration Design for Distributed Propulsion Transitioning
VTOL Aircraft," in Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Aerospace Technology - APISAT2017, Seoul,
Korea, 2017.
[24] A. Ko, J. A. Schetz and W. H. Mason, "Assessment of the Potential Advantages of Distributed-Propulsion for
Aircraft," in XVI International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines (ISABE), Cleveland, 2003.
[25] N. K. Borer, M. D. Patterson, J. K. Viken, M. D. Moore, J. Bevirt, A. M. Stoll and A. R. Gibson, "Design and
Performance of the NASA SCEPTOR Distributed Electric Propulsion Flight Demonstrator," in 16th AIAA
Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Washington, D.C., 2016.
[26] D. Howe, Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis, London: Professional Engineering Publishing Limited, 2000.

Case Studies in Initial Sizing For Hybrid-Electric General Aviation Aircraft

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

Case Studies in Initial Sizing For Hybrid-Electric General Aviation Aircraft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum 10.2514/6.

Case Studies in Initial Sizing for

D. Felix Finger1, Carsten Braun2

alt = cruise altitude MSL = mean sea-level

Fig. 1 Pipistrel Panthera

tric motors to improve system perfor-

This paper is structured the follow-

II. Initial Sizing Methodologies

A. Overview of Conventional Initial Sizing Methodologies

applicable for unconventional propulsion aircraft. This is due to the

B. New Sizing Methodology for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft

Fig. 4 Sizing methodology

Degree of Hybridization of Power

Degree of Hybridization of Energy

Fig. 5 Classical matching diagram

Parallel-Hybrid Propulsion Configurations

Fig. 6 Design space of parallel-hybrid aircraft

Serial-Hybrid Propulsion Configurations

Fig. 7 Design space of serial-hybrid aircraft

ΔEAero. Drag + ΔEKinetic + ΔEPotential

Parallel-Hybrid Design Serial-Hybrid Design

Fig. 8 Design space exploration [15]

III. Sizing Studies

A. Conventional Baseline Configuration

Table 1 Top level requirements

B. Baseline Mission – 1150 km Cruise

1. Parallel-Hybrid Propulsion System

Study 1: CD0 = 254 counts

the conv. baseline

mfuel [kg] 194.5 218.8 221.4 124.3 128.2 128.6

Table 4 Sizing results – parallel-hybrid – long mission – cd 200

the conv. baseline

HEaverage [-] 2.67% 0.97% 1.03% 1.23% 4.11% 1.68% 1.72%

Table 5 Sizing results – parallel-hybrid – long mission – cd 150

W/S [N/m²] 1324 1324 1324 970 1070 1230 1310

P/W [W/kg] 163.5 163.5 163.5 106.4 121.4 147.4 161.1

Study 1: CD0 = 254 counts

Table 6 Sizing results – serial-hybrid – long mission – cd 254

Study 2: CD0 = 200 counts

Table 7 Sizing results – serial-hybrid – long mission – cd 200

Table 8 Sizing results – serial-hybrid – long mission – cd 150

1. Parallel-Hybrid Propulsion System

Study 1: CD0 = 254 counts

Table 9 Sizing results – parallel-hybrid – short mission – cd 254

the conv. baseline

the conv. baseline

Study 2: CD0 = 200 counts

the conv. baseline

mfuel [kg] 74.2 72.1 59.4 59.9 54.5 50.8

Table 11 Sizing results – parallel-hybrid – short mission – cd 150

W/S [N/m²] 1200 1320 1320 970 1000 1010 1160

the conv. baseline

P/W [W/kg] 142.4 162.8 162.8 106.4 110.5 112 135.8

2. Serial-Hybrid Propulsion System

Table 12 Sizing results – serial-hybrid – short mission – cd 254

mfuel [kg] 106.9 99.3 103.1 100.3 83.8 67.6 67.2 65

Table 14 Sizing results – serial-hybrid – short mission – cd 150

Table 15 Parameter combinations

variation 1 Parallel 1150 km 0.0254 3000 m 90 m/s 250 Wh/kg

Fig. 9 Matching diagram

You might also like