JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Engineering Notes
Method of Quadrant-Based Algorithmic REF = reference energy source, typically taken to be kerosene
SUP = supplied
Nomographs for Hybrid/Electric sec = secondary energy source, taken to be electrical:
Aircraft Predesign options include electrochemical, chemical, and
electrical
TO = takeoff
Askin T. Isikveren∗ TOT = total
SAFRAN, S.A., 78772 Magny-Les-Hameaux, France use = useful

DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355

I. Introduction
Nomenclature
F ROM an international perspective, one can compare and contrast
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355

a, b = arbitrary exponent values emissions and external noise objectives set for future civilian
g = acceleration due to gravity, m∕s2 aircraft by perusing publications like the Flightpath 2050 report by
H = degree of hybridization the European Commission [1] and the associated Strategic Research
k1 = coefficient of proportionality, typically representing and Innovation Agenda [2], the U.S. National Aeronautics and
manufacturer’s weight empty Space Administration (NASA) Aeronautics Strategic Implementa-
k2 = coefficient of proportionality, representing combined tion Plan [3–6], targets espoused by the International Air Transport
payload, interiors allowance, and operational items Association [7] by way of the Air Transport Action Group [8], and the
mass International Civil Aviation Organization [9]. Irrespective of the
L∕D = lift-to-drag ratio agenda or governmental office in question, the conclusion is that
m = mass, kg all these targets call for a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2 )
R = range or stage length, nm emissions (in relation to contemporary hydrocarbon-based motive
ti = total elapsed time from zero at step i during mission power systems) and NOx (nitric oxide, NO, and, nitrogen dioxide,
operational profile NO2 ) emissions, as well as external noise over the interim to
x, y = arbitrary independent variable long term.
z = arbitrary dependent variable Increasing evidence shows (based upon the evolutionary
Δ = absolute incremental change of a given variable development of current technologies) that combined improvements
η = individual motive power system or combined overall to the airframe (aerodynamics, structures, and nonpropulsive
propulsion system efficiency systems) and propulsion and power systems (PPSs) by the year 2035
Θ = individual energy source or combined gravimetric target espoused by [2] will not be delivered; however, something up
specific energy,
W ⋅ h∕kg to around 32% as compared to year 2000 data is feasible [10–12].
Φ = supplied power ratio Even factoring in an aggressive development strategy for innovative
ϕ = activation ratio combustion-based PPSs, something above 28% efficiency improve-
ϖ = normalized power control parameter value ment is necessary in order to deliver CO2 reduction targets by year
⊲ = fractional (percentage) change of a given variable 2035 [2,4,5]. Tellingly, it can be concluded that electrified PPS
(EPPSs) could be one plausible pathway; in order to achieve ultralow
Subscripts in-flight emission levels of energy hybridity tending toward a much
higher proportion of electrification would appear to be necessary.
AU = all up (mass) As an explicit recognition of EPPSs as a tangible means, the
BENR = total block energy United States has published the NASA “Aeronautics Research
BLF = block fuel Mission Directorate Strategic Thrust 4: Transition to Low-Carbon
BLK = block operation, including startup, taxi out (where Propulsion” [6]. The strategy calls for development of integrated
applicable), takeoff, initial climb, three-phase en route electrical components and technology promoting flight-weight
climb/cruise/descent, approach, landing, and taxi in compatible artifacts by way of electrical machines with increased
(where applicable) gravimetric specific power, the adoption of superconducting
E = stored energy technologies, advanced batteries and fuel cells, power electronics,
EL = electrical source fault protection devices, and other enablers such as flight controls.
MEc = mechanical to electrical energy conversion The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
o = seed/reference condition or value have produced an agenda for reducing CO2 emissions from
P = power commercial aviation [13]. The report focused on propulsion and
PAY = payload energy technologies in reducing the carbon emissions from
commercial aircraft, which included single-aisle and twin-aisle
vehicles carrying 100 or more passengers. Recommended high-
Received 4 January 2017; revision received 19 May 2017; accepted for priority research initiatives that could be introduced into service
publication 19 May 2017; published online 18 July 2017. Copyright © 2017 years 2025–2050 were stated as 1) advances in aircraft propulsion
by Askin T. Isikveren. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics integration, 2) improvements in gas-turbine (GT) engines,
and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests for copying and 3) development of turboelectric propulsion and power systems
permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.
com; employ the ISSN 0021-8669 (print) or 1533-3868 (online) to (TEPPSs), and 4) advances in sustainable alternative jet fuels.
initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa. The authors of the report [13] concluded that turboelectric systems
org/randp. were the only approach for developing EPPSs for a large passenger
*Head, Energy-Efficient Aircraft Architectures, Department of Energy and aircraft that could be feasibly achieved by the year of 2050.
Propulsion, SAFRAN Tech. Member AIAA. Combined with other technologies, the report states TEPPSs could
Article in Advance / 1
 2 Article in Advance
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355
Fig. 1 Electric propulsion architectures [13].
potentially reduce fuel burn by 20% or more as compared to aircraft
in service today.
Although the term “hybrid/electric” is loosely used to encompass
all EPPS solutions, some clarity is required when attempting to
distinguish between different architectural approaches. In accor-
dance with the convention given in [13], EPPSs can be categorized
broadly into three domains: hybrid/electric, turbo electric, and all
electric. Gleaned from [13], Fig. 1 displays six possible architectures
in schematic form arising from the three domains. Fundamentally, a
hybrid/electric PPS (HEPPS) uses thermal engines in combination
with batteries. The batteries can either be exchanged during aircraft
turnaround or recharged on ground and/or in flight via generators
coupled to the thermal engine and/or through some form of
energy recovery. It is highlighted to the reader that, apart from
electrochemical (voltaic piles such as batteries), other options for
electrical energy storage include chemical (grove cells such as fuel
cells) and electrical (capacitors). HEPPS architectures can be further
defined according to strategies arising out of series and parallel
combinatorial arrangements. The distinctions are tied to the nature of
the power node between the system constituents: in a series hybrid
arrangement, the node is electrical, whereas in a parallel hybrid, it is
mechanical. An all EPPS is considered to be the zenith of hybrid/
electric development in the sense that batteries that are rechargeable/
exchangeable provide the complete set of propulsive and
nonpropulsive energy needs for all modes of aircraft operation. In
contrast, turboelectric architectures involve utilization of electrical
generators. Full-TEPPS architectures employ thermal engine(s) as a
means of providing solely electrical energy to drive electric motor-
driven fans, propellers, or rotors. A subset called partial TEPPSs
assigns some proportion of vehicular motive power delivery to the
thermal engine(s).
Figure 2 reproduces information presented in [14]; one can
appreciate the scope of conceptual design investigations hitherto
published from an international perspective. Figure 2 displays the
information using a so-called “onion curves” chart [15] extended to
include visualization of associated conceptual aircraft morpholo-
gies [11,16–34]. The reader is referred to Sec. II for a full
explanation of the nondimensional parametric quantities presented
in the onion curves chart.
/ ENGINEERING NOTES
To comprehend the impact any type of integration strategy (i.e.,
related to propulsion and/or airframe aerodynamics and/or structures
and/or nonpropulsive systems) would have on the aircraft level
outcome, a simplified yet sufficiently versatile sizing algorithm needs
to be used during the predesign phase, thus necessitating quick
turnaround methods. One approach is the inspection of so-called
quadrant-based algorithmic nomographs (referred to as “quad-
noms”). Although the foundation of quadnoms is analytical in nature,
the author recommends a graphically based approach for the sake of
maximizing transparency to the designer/analyst. Quadnoms are
considered to be an expedient method that indicates what
combination of values for a selected array of macrolevel design
variables and parametric functions is necessary to deliver a given
block fuel (or emissions) reduction result. All such representations
are independent of aircraft type, aircraft size, mission role, and stage
length; thus, they can be construed as being universally applicable to
most aeronautical vehicle integrated performance problems.
II. Algebraic Descriptors and Figures of Merit
The degree of hybridization employed in advanced electrically
based motive power systems cannot be suitably represented by a
single parametric descriptor. As argued in [15,35], a full account of
any generic EPPS requires two descriptors involving an account of
both the alternative energy [source] and that of the entire EPPS: one
ratio comparing each of the maximum installed (or useful) powers
H P , and a second ratio comparing the extent of energy storage H E
for each:
PEL EEL
HP  and H E  (1)
PTOT ETOT
For any EPPS, PEL represents the maximum installed (or useful)
electrical power, and PTOT represents the total EPPS installed
(or useful) power (motor-plus-thermal engine); EEL repreents the
total stored electrical energy, and ETOT represents the total stored
energy of the entire EPPS (e.g., electrical plus kerosene). To elucidate
why such a dual set of parametric descriptors is necessary, consider
the corner points of the bounded hybrid/electric motive power
 Article in Advance
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355
Fig. 2 International studies related to hybrid/electric aircraft [14] (Airbus, airbus SAS; BHL, Bauhaus Luftfahrt e.V.; Bo, The Boeing Company;
ESAero, Empirical Systems Aerospace; NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; ONERA, Office National d'Etudes et Recherches
Aérospatiales; RR, Rolls Royce; SAF, SAFRAN SA; UCran., Cranfield University; UTC, United Technologies Corporation).
systems’ design space: 1) conventional (e.g., kerosene based) thermal
engine propulsion system (here, H P  0 and HE  0); 2) full
TEPPS, where only electrical power is provided at the propulsive
device(s) but energy storage is solely kerosene based (here, HP  1
and HE  0); or 3) all EPPS, where the energy storage is via batteries
(or fuel cells or capacitors) only (here, H P  1 and HE  1).
The reader should be mindful about the terminology the author uses
when it concerns power: “installed” indicates supplied power (what the
battery, fuel cell, capacitors, or kerosene fuel delivers) corrected for
energy conversion efficiency; and “useful” is taken to mean installed
power additionally corrected for transmission and propulsive
efficiencies. Furthermore, the convention adopted for H E in this
Technical Note refers to the total block energy HE;BLK required by the
aircraft, i.e., the ratio of total electrical energy used for all phases of
block operation normalized by the total energy comprising the block
fuel and electrical energy used for all phases of block operation.
A. Fundamental Parametric Descriptors
As summarized in [11], an algebraic basis for the quantification of
HP and HE was established in [15] using special-purpose
nondimensional parametric quantities: the supplied power ratio, and
the activation ratio. The supplied power ratio Φ is defined as the ratio
of total power supplied from an electrical source PSUP;EL (like a
battery, fuel cell, capacitor, or generator) to the total supplied power
from all sources PSUP;TOT , whether chemical, electrochemical, or
electrical. It is expressed analytically as
PSUP;EL
Φ (2)
PSUP;TOT
The activation ratio ϕ represents a comparison of time-weighted
averages of normalized power control parameter settings (ϖ varies
from zero to unity) between all electrical machines providing useful
(motive) power sourced from a secondary energy device and that of
the combined propulsion system [for instance, GT and electric fan
(EF)]. As shown in Eq. (3), this equates as the product of activation
time t and ϖ
t of the EF divided by the sum of each propulsion
system type (GT and EF). All activation times and corresponding
/ ENGINEERING NOTES 3
normalized control power settings could cover block and/or
diversion-contingency segments, as exemplified by the power profile
time history shown in Fig. 3. It should be noted by the reader that the
EF could alternatively be electric motor-driven propellers or rotors;
here, the EF is only used for illustrative purposes.
Algebraically, ϕ is quantified as
R
ϖ
 EF
1∕T 0T ϖ EF
t dt
ϕ   
ϖ
 GT  ϖ  EF
1∕T R T ϖ
t dt  R T ϖ
t dt
0 GT 0 EF
Pn
i1 ϖ EF;i Δti
 Pn (3)
i1
ϖ GT;i  ϖ EF;i Δti
The parameter ϕ varies between zero (denoting utilization of an
energy source based upon a GT only) and unity (denoting utilization
of an energy source based upon an EF only). Furthermore, it should
be recognized that the activation ratio is directly linked with HP for all
hybrid/electric architectures; for partial-/full-TEPPS architectures, it
is mutually exclusive in relation to HE , which is equal to zero.
For a given dual-energy propulsion system, the first principles
theoretical derivation work presented in [15] found the parametric
descriptor of the degree of hybridization for useful power HPuse to be
a function of Φ. Upon rearrangement, thus making the supplied
power ratio the subject it reads as
H Puse
Φ (4)

ηsec ∕ηREF   H Puse 1 −
ηsec ∕ηREF 
The quantity ηsec ∕ηREF represents the ratio of complete exergetic
chain efficiencies between a secondary nominated propulsion system
(subscript “sec”) and that of a kerosene-based propulsion system
(subscript “REF”). For the sake of clarification, the methods
presented in this Technical Note do not stipulate only kerosene-based
propulsion as REF. Actually, REF and sec could be represented by
any form of energy source, as well as any form of motive power. In
contrast, H E;BLK was found to be a more complex synthetic function
described by the comingling of Φ and ϕ. Making HE;BLK an
independent variable, ϕ as the subject produces
 4 Article in Advance / ENGINEERING NOTES

En Route Climb

En Route
GT Profile EF Profile

Takeoff
Takeoff

Climb
Diversion
1.0
Power Control Parameter 1.0

Power Control Parameter

Approach and Landing

Diversion
Cruise
Cruise

Hold
Taxi Out

Taxi In
Descent

0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 T 0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t6 t6+ T
Operating Time Operating Time
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355

Fig. 3 Power profiles of a generic hybrid/electric propulsion system covering block and reserves-contingency operational phases [23].

HE;BLK
1 − Φ An aircraft sizing algorithm, together with an ability to predict

ϕ (5)
Φ  HE;BLK
1–2Φ relative block fuel for a given stage length, payload, and flight
technique assumptions, can be based upon methods developed in [15]
Upon inspection of Eqs. (4) and (5), provided input values are using full, nonlinear analytical fractional change transformations
given for H Puse, ηsec ∕ηREF , and H E;BLK , the parametric descriptor suitably verified against results posted in [11,23,24,37,38]. The
quantities Φ and ϕ can be computed. fractional change prediction method is based upon a combination of
analytical correlations, as well as synthetic, intermediary, and
B. Calculating Combined Quantities
macroobjective functions with fractional change analytical
constructs [39]. The analytical component of the fractional change
The parametric descriptor quantities are important when method operates with an underlying premise that the designer/analyst
establishing the combined overall propulsion system efficiency of begins with a seed condition or any type of reference aircraft/system.
any dual-energy storage propulsion power system [15]. As shown in By considering an increment in variable x as dx or Δx, a fractional
Eq. (6), the combined overall propulsion system efficiency η is a change to a new value x (small or otherwise) from a seed parameter xo
linear combination comprising constituent overall propulsion system is defined as
efficiencies weighted by Φ:
Δx x − xo x
η  ηREF  Φ
ηsec − ηREF  (6) ⊲x    −1 (9)
xo xo xo
Furthermore, the combined gravimetric specific energy (GSE) Θ A special set of rules of operation must be defined before a
of any dual-energy storage system is given by [15] as treatment of functional transformations can be considered. For the
purposes of quantifying fractional changes in block fuel ⊲ mBLF ,
ΘREF Θsec 
1 − Φ
1 − ϕ  Φϕ rules of operation related to functions comprising product and/or
Θ (7)
Θsec
1 − Φ
1 − ϕ  ΘREF Φϕ quotient terms need to be applied. In general, a function comprising
the product and/or quotient of multiple independent variables
The quantity Θ can be computed for EPPS architectures that are expressed in exponent form is transformed to read [39]
hybrid/electric (0 < Φ < 1 and 0 < ϕ < 1), all EPPS (Φ  1 and
ϕ  1), or partial/full TEPPS (0 < Φ ≤ 1 and 0 < ϕ ≤ 1) with
1  ⊲ xa
Θsec ≡ ηMEc ΘREF , where ηMEc denotes the conversion efficiency z  xa y−b ⇒ ⊲ z  −1 (10)

1  ⊲ yb
when transforming from kerosene-based chemical energy to
electrical energy for motive power applications. Now, in order to derive the quantity ⊲ mBLF, one begins with an
expansion of H E;BLK , namely,
C. Vehicular Level and Integrated Performance Figures of Merit
For aircraft concepts using EPPS architectural approaches, an EEL;BLK Θsec msec;BLK
HE;BLK   (11)
equitable comparison calls for examining the energy specific air ETOT;BLK ΘREF mBLF  Θsec msec;BLK
range (ESAR), which is a universally applicable vehicular efficiency
metric, together with the relative block fuel reduction outcome. where the mass of the secondary stored energy msec;BLK reflects what
The ESAR figure of merit is fashioned to quantify distance is consumed for the block operation only. Next, after rearranging
travelled per unit of expended energy [36], viz., Eq. (11) to make msec;BLK the subject and then dividing the outcome
by the seed block fuel mBLFo produces
dR η
L∕D    
ESAR   (8) msec;BLK mBLF ΘREF H E;BLK
dE mAU g  (12)
mBLFo mBLFo Θsec 1 − H E;BLK
The parameter dR∕dE, which can also be pertinent for the
evaluation of an overall block segment, represents the change in Introducing the notion of the total block energy mass mBENR as the
aircraft range R for given change in expended system energy; L∕D is summation of mBLF and msec;BLK , and then transforming the result as
the aircraft lift-to-drag ratio; mAU is the aircraft all-up mass (AUM, or a fractional change operator according to Eq. (9), the expression
instantaneous gross mass); and g is the acceleration due to gravity. becomes
 Article in Advance
mBENR mBLF  msec;BLK
 
1  ⊲ mBENR  (13)
mBLFo mBLFo
The fractional change transformation ⊲ ESAR for the block
operation can be produced, which also includes further elaborations
[11,15]:

1  ⊲ R
1  ⊲ R
⊲ ESAR  −1 −1

1  ⊲ E
1  ⊲ mBENR 
1  ⊲ Θ

1  ⊲ η
1  ⊲ L∕D
⊲ ESAR  −1 (14)

1  ⊲ mAU 
with the inference being variables η; and L∕D and mAU represent the
weighted average values indicative of the block operation, which is
taken to be appropriate for most integrated performance problems.
Focusing upon the combined overall propulsion efficiency of the
EPPS [as given by Eq. (6)], using the rule defined in Eq. (9), and
introducing the notion of an increment ΔηREF to the overall propulsion
system efficiency, the fractional change transformation yields
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355
η  ηREF  Φ
ηsec − ηREF   ΔηREF
η construed in an approximate sense as equivalent to ⊲ mTO , where
⊲η  −1
ηREF
 
η of given stage length, payload, and identical flight technique. In view
⊲ η  Φ sec − 1  ⊲ ηREF (15)
ηREF
where ⊲ ηREF represents any modifications to the overall thermal
engine efficiency: for instance, an increased efficiency via adoption of
one optimized engine rating associated with specific types of HEPPSs.
The parameter ⊲ ηREF could also account for any other sources of
improvement, such as aeropropulsive improvements afforded by
boundary-layer ingestion (BLI) or wake ingestion and/or wake filling.
It is highlighted that partial-/full-TEPPS architectures including any
aeropropulsive benefits could be suitably represented using the ηsec
parameter alone; in such instances, ⊲ ηREF would be set to zero.
The fractional change in GSE [i.e., ⊲ Θ 
Θ∕ΘREF  − 1] is
computed by comparing what has been calculated using Eq. (7) to the
reference value for kerosene ΘREF (typically taken to be
11.9
kW ⋅ h∕kg). Algebraically, the expression becomes

Θsec ∕ΘREF 
1 − Φ
1 − ϕ  Φϕ
⊲Θ  −1 (16)

Θsec ∕ΘREF 
1 − Φ
1 − ϕ  Φϕ
Although the quantity ⊲ Θ would normally be used in the context
of combined attributes arising from HEPPS architectures [i.e.,
kerosene-based chemical energy source, a battery-based electro-
chemical energy source, and/or an alternative non-drop-in chemical
energy source (e.g., for fuel cells)], it can also be used to equivalently
represent a combined value indicative of partial-/full-TEPPS
architectures. In such circumstances, an expression to account for any
type of TEPPS would read as
⊲ Θ 
ηMEc − 1HPuse (17)
where 0 < H Puse < 1 accounts for partial TEPPS, and HPuse  1
represents full TEPPS. It is highlighted that the designer/analyst has
two approaches when attempting to account for the presence of
TEPPS architectures: either Eq. (15) alone, or Eq. (17) alone if no
aeropropulsive contribution is considered, and, if necessary in
combination with a pseudovalue outcome from Eq. (15) in order to
capture other attributes like standalone aeropropulsive benefits.
Next, Eq. (18) is produced by substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (13),

1  ⊲ mBENR 
⊲ mBLF  −1 (18)
1 
ΘREF ∕Θsec 
H E;BLK ∕
1 − H E;BLK 
Finally, when substituting Eq. (18) into Eq. (14), the fractional
change in block fuel for a given stage length, payload, and identical
flight technique becomes
/ ENGINEERING NOTES 5

1  ⊲ mAU 
⊲ mBLF 

1  ⊲ η
1  ⊲ L∕D
1  ⊲ Θ
   −1
ΘREF HE;BLK
× 1 −1 (19)
Θsec 1 − H E;BLK
Equation (19) exhibits explicit functional sensitivity to any
changes in ⊲ mAU , ⊲ η, ⊲ L∕D, ⊲ Θ, ΘREF , Θsec , and H E;BLK . An
implicit functional sensitivity to H Puse together with ηsec ∕ηREF is also
captured. In principle, all of the aforementioned quantities can be
manipulated as free variables, thus allowing for multiparametric trade
studies to take place in an expedient manner and with a measure of
transparency. Although the aforementioned variables are open to use
in quantifying instantaneous properties (e.g., for purposes of
conducting mission analyses using numerical integration schemes),
such variables also lend themselves to representing weighted
averages of any integrated mission. It is the latter premise that applies
to the verification examples and case studies presented in Sec. III.
D. Suggested Algorithm for Predicting Maximum Takeoff Mass
It should be noted, as discussed in [39], that ⊲ mAU can be
mTO is the aircraft takeoff gross mass or a fractional change in the
maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) ⊲ mMTOW for a block operation
of this, a suitable method needs to be offered in capturing an
appropriate variation in mAU . One simple method is to use the
Kuchemann transcendental formulation [12,40], which is a suitable
model for structural, systems, cabin outfitting, and operational items
mass prediction. The equation for mMTOW is given as
mMTOW  k1 mMTOW  k2 mPAY  mBLF (20)
where k1 mMTOW normally represents the manufacturer’s empty
weight, with the reserves and contingency fuel considered as part of
“systems”; and k2 mPAY accounts for the design payload and
operational items plus interiors/outfitting allowance, including the
associated cabin structure. For any advanced studies involving the
examination of novel technological approaches (aerodynamics,
structures, nonpropulsive systems, and propulsion), Eq. (20) can be
employed in order to quickly predict to good effect the mMTOW
outcome. In the absence of a sufficiently detailed weights breakdown
of a known baseline, the coefficients of proportionality (k1 and k2 )
can be established using nonlinear regression techniques using a
general dataset of aircraft [12]. If a fractional change transformation
is to be performed on Eq. (20), the rules of operation governing linear
combinations of multiple independent variables need to be applied.
As presented in [39], it is
z  x  y ⇒ ⊲ z  χ x ⊲ x  χ y ⊲ y (21)
The associated partial fractions χ x and χ y denote varying
magnitudes of influence with respect to the fractional change in
independent variables ⊲ x and ⊲ y for the result of ⊲ z. Their
respective analytical definitions are
xo yo
χx  χy  (22)
xo  yo xo  yo
Now, the target for ⊲ mMTOW can be expressed in closed form as
k2 χ PAY ⊲ mPAY  χ BLF ⊲ mBENR
⊲ mMTOW  (23)
1 − k1
where the partial fractions χ PAY and χ BLF denote varying magnitudes
of influence that the fractional change in variables mPAY and mBENR
(replacing mBLF ) as defined in Eq. (13) have on the result of
⊲ mMTOW . Their respective definitions are
 6 Article in Advance / ENGINEERING NOTES
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355

Fig. 4 Quadnoms chart mimicking outcomes of the PACIFYC study [17,18].

mPAYo mBLFo most aeronautical vehicle integrated performance problems, whether

χ PAY  and χ BLF  (24)
mMTOWo mMTOWo
Assuming the payload remains fixed (i.e., ⊲ mPAY  0), the
closed-form algorithm of Eq. (23) becomes
χ BLF ⊲ mBENR
⊲ mMTOW  (25)
1 − k1
III. Verification Examples and Case Studies
This section is devoted to presenting verification cases in the use of
quadnoms charts, which are based upon the simplified yet sufficiently
versatile prediction algorithm described in Sec. II. It is highlighted that
localized charts in each quadrant do not necessarily need to only reflect
batteries as a secondary energy source. Bespoke charts representing
HEPPSs using fuel cells or partial-TEPPS arrangements could also be
fashioned. The quadnoms approach is not prescriptive in the sense that
it will explicitly offer a detailed architectural description or component/
subsystems technology selection, provide a detailed weights buildup
strategy, or indicate how one might realize a target aerodynamic
performance level. Nonetheless, it is a quick means of setting
macrolevel performance targets, and it subsequently allows the
gauging of functional sensitivities. All such representations are
independent of aircraft type, aircraft size, mission role, and stage
length; thus, they can be construed as being universally applicable to
fixed wing or rotary wing. The verification cases are complemented by
an exemplar advanced engineering trade study that compares and
contrasts HEPPS and TEPPS architectures for a target block fuel
reduction outcome.
A. Verification of Quadnoms Against the Propulsive Architecture
for Hybrid Commuters Study
In an effort to check the validity of the predesign methods
presented in this Technical Note, an appropriate quadnoms chart
was constructed and verified against outcomes presented for a
HEPPS-based 19 passenger (PAX) fixed-wing commuter transport
aircraft called the propulsive architecture for hybrid commuters, or
PACIFYC [17,18]. Using the 19 PAX, year 2030 projected state-of-
the-art tube-and-wing turboprop-only aircraft, dubbed “REF2030”
[17], values of k1  0.5525 (includes reserves and contingency
allowance) and χ BLF  0.0927 were derived for an aircraft sized for a
maximum-PAX 700 nm (1296 km) maximum design range. Figure 4
displays a bespoke quadnoms chart reflecting a system-level battery
assumption of Θsec  500
W ⋅ h∕kg, and the baseline or seed
aircraft (i.e., fractional change in all variables equal to zero), is
declared as the REF2030. Two HEPPS candidates, ARCH1
(Architecture Number 1, with electrical booster) and ARCH 4
(electrical booster with exchangeable battery pack) were presented in
[17,18]; as such, a quadnoms analysis reflecting these is shown in
Fig. 4. From [17] analyses, ARCH 1 and ARCH 4 attributes are given

Table 1 Various parameter results of the PACIFYC study [17]

HEPPS Architecture Range, nm HPuse HE;BLK ⊲ η, % ⊲ L∕D,% ⊲ mBENR , % ⊲ Θ, % ⊲ mMTOW or ⊲ mTO, % ⊲ ESAR, % ⊲ mBLF , %
ARCH 1 700 0.010 0 6.9 3.9 −2.5 −0.5 7.8 3.1 −3.0
430 0.084 0 12.0 6.7 −9.8 −0.9 6.8 11.8 −10.6
ARCH 4 700 0.284 0.081 28.7 11.2 178 −64.8 39.8 2.4 −10.3
430 0.427 0.160 44.1 11.2 314 −78.3 43.6 11.6 −24.7
 Article in Advance
in Table 1. The mMTOW algorithm in the lower-right quadrant of the
quadnoms found in Fig. 4 reflects an isoline corresponding to
⊲ mBLF  −10.3%: representing ARCH 4, in line with application
of Eq. (25). An algorithm for a mMTOW isoline of ⊲ mBLF  −3.0%
is not generated because ARCH 1 is a self-contained HEPPS concept,
namely, installed batteries are recharged in flight. ARCH 4 assumes
batteries are replaced before commencement of the block operation.
It should be noted in Table 1 that the mMTOW sizing case
corresponds to a 700 nm maximum-PAX design range; and the
430 nm (796 km) stage length, which represents an 85th-percentile
case of all life-cycle departures, assumes a maximum-PAX
accommodation with corresponding mTO . For ARCH 1, H E;BLK is
zero, thus recognizing the design philosophy of a self-contained
HEPPS architecture. The parameter H Puse denotes values
corresponding to en route operation, and ηsec ∕ηREF  2.8 [17]. In
addition, both ARCH 1 and ARCH 4 have the potential of an
improvement in thermal engine efficiency (i.e., ⊲ ηREF  6.3%)
due to the fact that the thermal engines are optimized for one specific
rating and the batteries deliver supplementary energy during the
block operation [17,18].
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355
B. Example Worked Case Studies Using Quadnoms
As an example as to how one could use the quadnoms approach in
formulating a pertinent strategy, consider identification of scenarios
that would deliver −20% block fuel due to the application of HEPPS
and partial/full TEPPS.
Upon perusal of Fig. 5 (assuming Θsec  400
W ⋅ h∕kg battery
at system level), if one starts with an arbitrary value of H Puse  0.500
(see “A” in Fig. 5) and adopts a value of 1.90 from the relation
ηsec ∕ηREF  0.730∕0.385, it can be seen that ⊲ η  31% (see “B”
in Fig. 5) as compared to a year 2035 projected tube-and-wing gas-
turbine-only aircraft (PGTA) result. Next, if an arbitrary value of
⊲ mBENR  200% as compared to a PGTA is taken (see “C” in
Fig. 5), this selection generates a block of HE;BLK  0.085 and
⊲ Θ  −71% (see “D” in Fig. 5) as compared to kerosene only. For
Fig. 5 Quadnoms chart assuming batteries with system-level performance of 400 W ⋅ h∕kg.
/ ENGINEERING NOTES 7
this design candidate to meet the goal of ⊲ mBLF  −20%, ⊲ ESAR
needs to be 14% (see “E” in Fig. 5).
Using the 70 PAX, year 2035 projected tube-and-wing gas-
turbine-only aircraft given by [11], dubbed “PGT070,” values of
χ BLF  0.0717 and k1  0.5128 (including the reserves and
contingency allowance) for aircraft sized for dedicated short-haul
operations, as well as χ BLF  0.1163 and k1  0.5005 (includes
reserves and contingency allowance) for aircraft sized for typical
maximum design ranges, were adopted. In this particular example,
mPAY remains fixed, and thus ⊲ mPAY  0. For a dedicated short-
haul aircraft, assuming, arbitrarily, ⊲ mBENR  200% and
recalling a requisite ⊲ ESAR  14%, the target mMTOW would
need to be no greater than ⊲ mMTOW  30% (see “F” in Fig. 5;
dashed line). In addition to this, an aerodynamic improvement of
⊲ L∕D  13% (see “H” in Fig. 5) is associated with such an
integrated systems solution. Alternatively, if sizing caters for typical
maximum design range, then requisite values of ⊲ mMTOW  47%
(see “G” in Fig. 5) and ⊲ L∕D  28% apply (see “I” in Fig. 5).
To appreciate what a minimalistic integrated systems set of
solutions would be, consider the absence of airframe aerodynamic
improvement; the target ⊲ mBLF  −20% is realized via an overall
propulsion system efficiency improvement of ⊲ η  31% (see “a”
in Fig. 5). In such a case, the target mMTOW would need to be no
greater than ⊲ mMTOW  8% (see “b” in Fig. 5) and ⊲ mMTOW 
7% (see “c” in Fig. 5) for aircraft sized for a dedicated short-haul
and a typical maximum design range, respectively (Fig. 5). In view of
the rather low HE;BLK values (track “b-d-f” for short haul and “c-e-g”
for maximum design range; Fig. 5), further detailed studies would
need to be conducted in order to establish if the critical sizing case
threshold for the portion of mBENR related to batteries is due to power
and not just stored energy, e.g., power requirements needed for one-
engine inoperative during low-speed and en route phases, or go-
around. The current sizing algorithm assumes the battery mass is
sized by energy storage requirements.
As a another scenario in order to again meet the target of
⊲ mBLF  −20%, consider a full-TEPPS arrangement producing a
 8 Article in Advance / ENGINEERING NOTES
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355

Fig. 6 Quadnoms chart assuming batteries with system-level performance of 600
W ⋅ h∕kg.

Fig. 7 Quadnoms chart assuming fuel cells with LH2 as an energy carrier; system-level GSE assumed to be 1000
W ⋅ h∕kg.
 Article in Advance / ENGINEERING NOTES 9

Table 2 Summary of outcomes for hybrid/electric, partial/full turboelectric, and conventional mechanical power transmission
approaches that meet 20% block fuel reduction compared to a year 2035 projected tube-and-wing gas-turbine-only aircraft
Θsec ,
W ⋅ h∕kg ηsec ∕ηREF HPuse HE ⊲ Θ, % ⊲ η, % ⊲ mBENR , % ⊲ ESAR, % Mission sizing ⊲ L∕D, % ⊲ mMTOW , %
400 battery 1.90 0.500 a
0.032 −47 31 58 21 Short haul 0a 8
400 battery 1.90 0.500a 0.022 −38 31 32 22 Maximum range 0a 7
600 battery 1.90 0.500a 0.062 −54 31 83 18 Short haul 0a 11
600 battery 1.90 0.500a 0.035 −40 31 38 21 Maximum range 0a 8
1000b fuel cell 1.10 0.500a 0.087 −48b 5 70 14 Short haul 20a 10
1000b fuel cell 1.10 0.500a 0.044 −33b 5 24 19 Maximum range 20a 5
400 battery 1.90 0.500a 0.085 −71 31 200a 14 Short haul 13 30
400 battery 1.90 0.500a 0.085 −71 31 200a 14 Maximum range 28 47
600 battery 1.90 0.500a 0.122 −69 31 200a 10 Short haul 9 30
600 battery 1.90 0.500a 0.122 −69 31 200a 10 Maximum range 23 47
1000b fuel cell 1.10 0.500a 0.186 −67b 5 200ab 2 Short haul 25 30
1000b fuel cell 1.10 0.500a 0.186 −67b 5 200ab 2 Maximum range 42 47
N/Ac turboelectric 1.04 0.300a 0 0 1 −20 25 Short haul 20 −3
N/Ac turboelectric 1.04 0.300a 0 0 1 −20 25 Maximum range 18 −5
N/Ac turboelectric 1.00 0 0 0 10 −20 25 Short haul 11 −3
N/Ac turboelectric 1.00 0 0 0 10 −20 25 Maximum range 8 −5

a
Input values.
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355

b
Pseudovalues for fuel cell, i.e., does not only consider LH2 but includes LH2 chemical energy carrier, fuel cell stack, and balance of plant.
c
N/A denotes “not applicable.”

complete exergetic chain efficiency equal to that of thermal engine(s)
but only providing motive power; or, a full-TEPPS arrangement is not
adopted and a conventional mechanical power transmission approach
is used. As depicted in Fig. 5, for such an integrated systems solution,
the necessary block ⊲ ESAR  25% can be met when ⊲ η 
10% is taken as the target due to, for instance, BLI and wake filling,
with corresponding values of ⊲ mMTOW  −3% with ⊲ L∕D 
11% and ⊲ mMTOW  −5% with ⊲ L∕D  8% as compared to
the PGT070, assuming sizing for a dedicated short haul and a typical
maximum design range, respectively. If, however, one considers an
aircraft candidate configured using partial TEPPS exploiting BLI and
wake filling similar to that of the propulsive fuselage morphology
[10], for assumed values of H Puse  0.300 and ηMEc  0.945,
ηsec ∕ηREF is calculated to be 1.04 (with ηsec  0.385 × 0.945 × 1.10)
after taking into consideration an adjustment for mechanical to
electrical energy conversion and for the aeropropulsive benefit. For
this scenario, when using Eq. (15), ⊲ η  1% and, for the same
required mMTOW given previously, ⊲ L∕D  20% is indicative of
the dedicated short-haul aircraft; for a typical maximum design range
case, ⊲ L∕D  18% is needed as compared to the PGT070.
A bespoke quadnoms chart applicable for Θsec  600
W ⋅ h∕kg
at battery system level is presented in Fig. 6. By way of visual
inspection between Figs. 5 and 6, the designer/analyst has, with
immediate transparency, the ability of understanding the differences
and tradeoffs associated when altering battery GSE values.
The final study involved examining another type of HEPPS
configuration assuming fuel cells as the secondary energy source.
Although the energy carrier in this instance is deemed to be liquid
hydrogen (LH2 ) with the GSE attribute of Θsec  39.4
kW ⋅ h∕kg,
for the sake of simplicity, the author recommends treating the
installed energy source akin to a battery, as depicted in the quadnoms
analyses given in Figs. 4–6. As advocated in [41], a system-level
GSE (including the LH2 chemical energy carrier, stack, and balance
of plant) was taken to be Θsec  1000
W ⋅ h∕kg, and Fig. 7
displays the corresponding quadnoms chart representation.
Assuming ηsec ∕ηREF  0.425∕0.385  1.10 and H Puse  0.500, it
can be observed that ⊲ η  5% as compared to the PGT070.
Through inspection of Fig. 7, it is evident that a HEPPS using fuel
cells requires a ⊲ L∕D greater than around 15%. Arbitrarily
assuming ⊲ L∕D  20% (Fig. 7), this produces a block ⊲ ESAR
requirement of 14 and 19%, with corresponding values of
⊲ mMTOW  10% and 5% as compared to the PGT070 assuming
sizing for a dedicated short haul and a typical maximum design range,
respectively.
Table 2 provides a summary of the results discussed previously.
The purpose here is to give an indication concerning relative
sensitivities of variables when examining different types of HEPPSs
and partial-/full-TEPPS candidates. All values for ⊲ mMTOW quoted
in Table 2 should be taken as targets that cannot be exceeded. This
means that once a detailed weights buildup is completed, if the
⊲ mMTOW value given in Table 2 is exceeded, the candidate is not
viable.
IV. Conclusions
This Technical Note has presented a simplified yet sufficiently
versatile sizing algorithm well suited for application during the
predesign phase when considering advanced aircraft concepts.
Emphasis has been placed upon having the ability to gauge the merits
of electrically based propulsion and power systems solutions,
including those categorized as hybrid/electric and turboelectric.
Although well anchored in an analytical sense, inspection of
so-called quadrant-based algorithmic nomographs (referred to as
quadnoms) is strongly recommended. The graphical-based approach
allows for maximizing transparency to the designer/analyst. It is
considered to be an expedient method that indicates what
combination of values for a selected array of design variables and
parametric functions is necessary in delivering a given block fuel
(or emissions) reduction result. All such representations are
independent of aircraft type, aircraft size, mission role, and stage
length, and thus can be construed as being universally applicable to
most aeronautical vehicle integrated performance problems.
References
[1] “Flightpath 2050: Europe’s Vision for Aviation—Report of the High
Level Group on Aviation Research,” European Commission,
Luxembourg, 2011. doi:10.2777/50266
[2] “Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA),” Vol. 1, 2017
Update, Advisory Council for Aviation Research, and Innovation in
Europe, Brussels, Belgium, 2017, http://www.acare4europe.org/sites/
acare4europe.org/files/attachment/acare-SRIA-volume-1-interactive%
20%28web%29_0.pdf [retrieved 25 June 2017].
[3] “NASA Aeronautics Strategic Implementation Plan,” NASA
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, https://www.hq.nasa.
gov/office/aero/pdf/armd-strategic-implementation-plan.pdf [retrieved
09 April 2017].
[4] Collier, F., and Wahls, R., “ARMD Strategic Thrust 3: Ultra-Efficient
Commercial Vehicles Subsonic Transport,” Aeronautics R&T
Roundtable [online presentation], NASA Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, May 2016, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/
files/atoms/files/armd-sip-thrust-3a-508.pdf [retrieved 9 April 2017].
[5] Gorton, S., and Wahls, R., “ARMD Strategic Thrust 3: NASA Vertical
Lift Strategic Direction,” Aeronautics R & T Roundtable [online
presentation], NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate,
May 2016, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/armd-
sip-thrust-3b-vertical-lift-508.pdf [retrieved 9 April 2017].
 10 Article in Advance
[6] “ARMD Strategic Thrust 4: Transition to Low-Carbon Propulsion,”
Aeronautics R&T Roundtable [online presentation], NASA Aeronautics
Research Mission Directorate, May 2016, https://www.nasa.
gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/armd-sip-thrust-4-508.pdf [retrieved
9 April 2017].
[7] “A Global Approach to Reducing Aviation Emissions,” International
Air Transport Association, 2009, http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/
environment/Documents/global-approach-reducing-emissions.pdf [re-
trieved 09 April 2017].
[8] “A Sustainable Flightpath Towards Reducing Emissions,” Air Transport
Action Group, 2012, www.atag.org/component/downloads/downloads/
203.html [retrieved 09 April 2017].
[9] “ICAO Environment Report,” International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion, 2016, https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/
ICAO%20Environmental%20Report%202016.pdf [retrieved 09 April
2017].
[10] Isikveren, A. T., Seitz, A., Bijewitz, J., Mirzoyan, A., Isyanov, A.,
Grenon, R., Atinault, O., Godard, J. L., and Stückl, S., “Distributed
Propulsion and Ultra-High By-Pass Rotor Study at Aircraft Level,”
Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 119, No. 1221, 2015, pp. 1327–1376.
doi:10.1017/S0001924000011295
[11] Isikveren, A. T., Pornet, C., Vratny, P. C., and Schmidt, M.,
Downloaded by LAVAL UNIVERSITY on August 5, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355
“Optimization of Commercial Aircraft Utilizing Battery-Based Voltaic-
Joule/Brayton Propulsion,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2017,
pp. 246–261.
doi:10.2514/1.C033885
[12] Isikveren, A. T., and Schmidt, M., “Future Transport Aircraft Ultra-Low
Emissions Technology Options,” GARS Workshop Air Transport and
Climate Change, Worms, Germany, April 2014, https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/274704723_Future_Transport_Aircraft_
Ultra-Low_Emissions_Technology_Options [retrieved 09 April 2017].
[13] Commercial Aircraft Propulsion and Energy Systems Research:
Reducing Global Carbon Emissions, Committee on Propulsion, and
Energy Systems to Reduce Commercial Aviation Carbon Emissions,
Aeronautics, and Space Engineering Board, Division on Engineering,
and Physical Sciences, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2016,
pp. 6, 59.
doi:10.17226/23490
[14] Isikveren, A. T., “Progress in Hybrid/Electric Transport Aircraft
Design,” 2017 More Electric Aircraft, Bordeaux, France, Feb. 2017,
https://www.see.asso.fr/en/e-see1/eventbyyear/all [retrieved 09 April
2017].
[15] Isikveren, A. T., Kaiser, S., Pornet, C., and Vratny, P. C., “Pre-Design
Strategies and Sizing Techniques for Dual-Energy Aircraft,” Aircraft
Engineering and Aerospace Technology Journal, Vol. 86, No. 6,
Oct. 2014, pp. 525–542.
doi:10.1108/AEAT-08-2014-0122
[16] Raffaelli, L., Chung, J.-H., and Popovic, I., “Optimisation of a High
Bypass Turbofan Engine Using Energy Storage,” Greener Aviation
2016, 3AF—Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France,
Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 2016, Paper 060.
[17] Fefermann, Y., Maury, C., Level, C., Zarati, K., Salanne, J.-P., Pornet,
C., Thoraval, B., and Isikveren, A. T., “Hybrid-Electric Motive Power
Systems for Commuter Transport Applications,” 30th ICAS,
International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences Paper ICAS-2016-
0438, Daejeon, ROK, Sept. 2016.
[18] Lambert, P.-A., Alejo, D., Fefermann, Y., Maury, C., Thoraval, B.,
Salanne, J.-P., and Isikveren, A. T., “Long-Term Hybrid-Electric
Propulsion Architecture Options for Transport Aircraft,” Greener
Aviation 2016, 3AF—Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de
France, Brussels, Belgium, 2016, Paper 087.
[19] Lents, C., Hardin, L., Rheaume, J., and Kohlman, L., “Parallel
Hybrid Gas-Electric Geared Turbofan Engine Conceptual Design and
Benefits Analysis,” 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, AIAA Paper
2016-4610, July 2016.
[20] Bradley, M. K., and Droney, C. K., “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft
Research: Phase II—Volume II—Hybrid Electric Design Exploration,”
NASA CR-2015-218704, Huntington Beach, CA, 2015.
[21] Bradley, M. K., and Droney, C. K., “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft
Research: Phase I Final Report,” NASA CR-2011-216847, 2011.
[22] Bradley, M. K., and Droney, C. K., “SUGAR Phase II: N  4 Advanced
Concept Development,” NASA CR-2012-217556, 2012.
[23] Pornet, C., and Isikveren, A. T., “Conceptual Design of Hybrid-Electric
Transport Aircraft,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 79,
/ ENGINEERING NOTES
Nov. 2015, pp. 114–135.
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.09.002
[24] Pornet, C., Kaiser, S., Isikveren, A. T., and Hornung, M., “Integrated
Fuel-Battery Hybrid for a Narrow-Body Sized Transport Aircraft,”
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 86, No. 6, 2014,
pp. 568–574.
doi:10.1108/AEAT-05-2014-0062
[25] Welstead, J. R., and Felder, J. L., “Conceptual Design of a Single-Aisle
Turboelectric Commercial Transport with Fuselage Boundary Layer
Ingestion,” AIAA SciTech, AIAA Paper 2016-1027, Jan. 2016.
[26] Schiltgen, B., Gibson, A., Green, M., and Freeman, J., “More Electric
Aircraft: Tube and Wing Hybrid Electric Distributed Propulsion with
Superconducting and Conventional Electric Machines,” Soc. of
Automotive Engineers TP 2013-01-2306, Warrendale, PA, 2013.
[27] Miller, P., “Potential Propulsion Solutions for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft,”
Disruptive Green Propulsion Technologies Conference, Inst. of
Mechanical Engineers, London, U.K., Nov. 2014.
[28] Parker, R., “Large Aircraft Propulsion for the Future: Evolution
and Revolution,” AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, Cleveland,
OH, July 2014, http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/AIAA-
PropulsionEnergy_Site/Homepage/Presentations/Ric%20Parker%20
Cleveland%202014%20Large%20aircraft%20engines%20of%20the%
20future.pdf [retrieved 09 April 2017].
[29] Kim, H. D., Felder, J. L., Tong, M. T., Berton, J. J., and Haller, W. J.,
“Turboelectric Distributed Propulsion Benefits on the N3-X Vehicle,”
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 86, No. 6,
Sept. 2014, pp. 558–561.
doi:10.1108/AEAT-04-2014-0037
[30] Smith, H., “Airframe Integration for an LH2 Hybrid-Electric Propulsion
System,” Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 86,
No. 6, Sept. 2014, pp. 562–567.
doi:10.1108/AEAT-04-2014-0045
[31] Stoll, A. M., Bevirt, J., Moore, M. D., Fredericks, W. J., and Borer, N. K.,
“Drag Reduction Through Distributed Electric Propulsion,” 14th AIAA
Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, AIAA
Paper 2014-2851, 2014.
[32] Hermetz, J., Ridel, M., and Doll, C., “Distributed Electric Propulsion for
Small Business Aircraft: A Concept-Plane for Key-Technologies
Investigations,” 30th ICAS, International Council of the Aeronautical
Sciences, ICAS Paper 2016-0461, Daejeon, ROKo, Sept. 2016.
[33] Stückl, S., van Toor, J., and Lobentanzer, H., “VOLTAIR—The All
Electric Propulsion Concept Platform—A Vision for Atmospheric
Friendly Flight,” 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical
Sciences, ICAS Paper 2012-0521, Brisbane, Australia, Sept. 2012.
[34] Isikveren, A. T., Seitz, A., Vratny, P. C., Pornet, C., Plötner, K. O., and
Hornung, M., “Conceptual Studies of Universally Electric System
Architectures Suitable for Transport Aircraft,” Deutscher Luft- und
Raumfahrtkongress 2012, DGLR—Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und
Raumfahrt, Berlin, Sept. 2012, Paper 1368.
[35] Lorenz, L. C., Seitz, A., Kuhn, H., and Sizmann, A., “Hybrid Power
Trains for Future Mobility,” Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress
2013, DGLR—Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt,
Stuttgart, Germany, Sept. 2013, Paper 1316.
[36] Seitz, A., Schmitz, O., Isikveren, A. T., and Hornung, M., “Electrically
Powered Propulsion: Comparison and Contrast to Gas Turbines,”
Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2012, DGLR—Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Berlin, Sept. 2012, Paper 1358.
[37] Piperni, P., Abdo, M., Kafyeke, F., and Isikveren, A. T., “Preliminary
Aerostructural Optimization of a Large Business Jet,” Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2007, pp. 1422–1438.
doi:10.2514/1.26989
[38] Kling, U., Empl, D., Bögler, O., and Isikveren, A. T., “Future Aircraft
Structures Using Renewable Materials,” Deutscher Luft- und
Raumfahrtkongress 2015, DGLR—Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft-
und Raumfahrt, Rostock, Germany, Sept. 2015, Paper 370118.
[39] Isikveren, A., “Parametric Modeling Techniques in Industrial
Conceptual Transport Aircraft Design,” 2003 World Aviation Congress,
Soc. of Automotive Engineers Paper 2003-01-3052, Warrendale, PA,
Sept. 2003.
[40] Green, J. E., “Greener by Design, Innovative Configurations and
Advanced Concepts for Future Civil Aircraft Lecture Series 2005–06,”
von Kármán Inst. for Fluid Dynamics, Brussels, June 2005.
[41] Gradwohl, G., “Conceptual Design of a Fuel Cell Powered All
Electric Regional Aircraft,” Diploma (Masters) Thesis Registration
No. LAV 07 10 111 007, Luftfahrt/Aviation FH Joanneum, Graz,
Austria, Sept. 2011.