See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/309311189

Comparative Performance and Benefit Assessment of VTOL and CTOL UAVs

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

21 6,651

1 author:

D. Felix Finger
Airbus Defence and Space
39 PUBLICATIONS 489 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aircraft Design Under Consideration of Hybrid-Electric Propulsion Technology View project

UAV Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by D. Felix Finger on 20 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE AND BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF
VTOL- AND CTOL-UAVS
D. F. Finger
FH-Aachen, Institute of Aircraft Engineering
Hohenstaufenallee 6, 52064 Aachen, Deutschland

Abstract
At present, the UAV market is rapidly expanding. Technological innovation and progress makes new aircraft
and mission concepts feasible, which would be literally unable to take-off, employing conventional, manned
design approaches. One of the biggest challenges in aviation is the design of vertical take-off and landing
(VTOL) aircraft. A market study, conducted within the scope of this work, showed a supply gap for VTOL UAVs.
A VTOL requirement is often cited but there exist very few successful designs. A reason for this is the lack of
published research in VTOL UAV configuration design.
This paper aims to explore the design space for VTOL UAVs and to evaluate the performance by a direct
comparison with conventional aircraft. This is done by developing a model for propulsion and flight
performance, which can represent the impact of VTOL systems on aircraft characteristics. The influence of
key variables is discussed and the costs and benefits of a VTOL requirement are assessed.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Methods for VTOL

In the rapidly growing field of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles The simplest method to enable VTOL capability for any
(UAVs), Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft take aircraft is to add lift engines to the airframe (Figure 1a). This
a special place. A VTOL aircraft combines a helicopter’s takes up internal volume, requires some effort to avoid
ability to take-off and land almost anywhere, with the speed, excess drag in cruise, and causes a considerable weight
range, endurance and load carrying capability of a fixed increase. However, the big advantage lies in the possibility
wing aircraft. These exclusive capabilities are highly to size the main propulsion system for efficient cruise or
desirable, for both civilian and military operators. Yet, there loiter – thus reducing the fuel fraction for that part of the
are only a very limited number of VTOL UAVs on the market flight. Consequently, also the lift engines can be designed
and in operation, because good VTOL designs are quite for a single high power operating point.
challenging and thus expensive. Another extreme method to enable VTOL capability for
This goes in hand with a lack of detailed, published design aircraft is to use the same propulsion system for both cruise
space investigations in VTOL UAV configuration design. and hover (Figure 1b).This eliminates the need for an
The published studies that have been performed on the additional propulsion system, which would only represent
configuration of VTOL aircraft, have either taken a very dead weight during the cruise or loiter part of the flight.
qualitative approach to determining an "optimal" Unfortunately, the powerful engines cause low efficiency
configuration, or have focused on developing a specific and high fuel consumption during forward flight.
design right away. Additionally, UAVs are rarely used on missions requiring
This paper seeks to understand the effects of the VTOL very high speeds or very high climb rates, so the excess
requirement on aircraft performance. An increasing number power cannot be coined into an advantage.
of customers ask for VTOL capabilities, but it is hard to A middle ground is represented in Figure 1c. The cruise
quantify the consequences regarding flight performance. engines are used for both forward flight and hover, but
Therefore, the aim is to develop a sizing tool, which is able supplemented by some sort of dedicated powered lift
to compare VTOL designs to Conventional Take-off and system. This is usually considered the best way to achieve
Landing (CTOL) designs in terms of mission capabilities VTOL for any aircraft – unmanned or manned. This way,
and endurance performance under the consideration of key the massive weight and volume increase for a dedicated
variables. Payload and endurance are typically used as the propulsion system is minimized, and the efficiency loss of
measures of merit for unmanned aircraft, and therefore the the cruise propulsion system is kept in reasonable bounds.
analysis concentrates on these particular parameters. For best performance, the ratio of lift between the lift
Basic research is conducted for all classes of fixed wing engine(s) and the cruise engine(s) has to be carefully
UAVs, excluding very small aircraft (< 2 kg MTOM), investigated and optimized. This optimization depends
expendable aircraft, and optionally piloted aircraft (OPAs). heavily on the given design mission and is therefore not
Analysis is limited to UAVs typically categorized as small, carried out in the scope of this paper.
tactical or small MALE UAS, more exactly to MTOMs
between 20 kg and 1100 kg. The design of helicopters and
other kinds of rotorcraft is not treated in this paper. While 2. DATABASE FOR STATISTICAL SIZING
these vehicles are sometimes referred to as “VTOL A thorough market study of UAVs and engines suited for
aircraft”, the abbreviation is coined for fixed wing aircraft UAVs was conducted. This was necessary, because sizing
that can transition between hovering and wing-borne flight. equations used for manned aircraft must be adapted to the
unique characteristics of small UAVs. The complete study
 for small engines. Also, the applicability of methods in-
tended for general aviation aircraft design is doubtful,
because size, weight and power of general aviation (GA)
powerplants can differ by two orders of magnitude from
those intended for small UAV use.
For these reasons a comprehensive internet investigation
was conducted to gain a market overview of engines suited
for UAVs and to adapt the existing models.
Emphasis is put on engine weight and fuel consumption
figures. The market study is split by the four surveyed
engine types: two-stroke engines (92 engines, 2–75 kW),
four-stroke engines (29 engines, 3–118 kW), rotary engines
(11 engines, 23–88 kW) and small turbojet engines (20
engines, 24–3100 N). Small jet engines are included only
for purposes of powered lift.
Methanol fueled glow engines are not included in this study.
These engines are often poorly optimized and methanol
based fuel is of limited availability and high cost.
The results are presented in section 3.4.4 and 3.4.5.

3. MODELLING FLIGHT PERFORMANCE

Because CTOL and VTOL aircraft shall be compared, both
systems must be modeled. First, a basic model to derive
flight endurance for conventional aircraft will be described,
then, in section 3.5, the modifications to calculate VTOL
aircraft are presented.

3.1. CTOL Endurance Performance

The endurance of any aircraft can be approximately

calculated according to equation (1):
Figure 1 - Methods for VTOL 𝑚𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙
(1) 𝑡𝑙𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 =
𝑚̇𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙
is presented in [1]. There, “payload vs. endurance”
diagrams, fuel fractions, as well as engine weight and The fuel mass flow ṁFuel is not a constant, however. It varies
consumption are analyzed in detail. However, in this paper, (amongst other things) in dependence of the engine itself,
only the scope of the study will be explained briefly, as it is the required power, the engines operating environment, the
the basis for the data presented in the later chapters. propeller design, the aircraft’s weight, aerodynamics, flight
altitude, speed, etc.
The goal of this chapter is to outline all relevant effects, and
2.1. UAV Database their respective models, to accurately predict fuel flow and
A total of 247 unmanned aircraft are included in this market therefore the flight endurance. The basic approach to the
study. The basis of this work is HIS Jane’s All the World’s problem is outlined in Figure 2.
Aircraft: Unmanned 2015-2016 [2]. This data is extended by The basic aircraft parameters include the aircraft’s MTOM,
a comprehensive internet investigation. the specification of the propulsion system and the engine
Data includes MTOM, empty weight, speed, size, range type, a payload requirement, and all required inputs for the
endurance and payload data, as well as engine information. aerodynamic model. The aircraft’s flight conditions (altitude,
This data is used to develop statistical relationships to temperature and corresponding density) are calculated
explore the performance of the “average” UAV. from the ISA atmospheric model.
The scope of this study is limited to fixed wing aircraft that The mass fraction model is explained in section 3.2. For a
use a propeller to convert the propulsion system’s power given MTOM the empty weight is estimated. When adding
into thrust power. Jet propelled systems are not a given payload weight, the mass remaining for fuel can be
investigated, as these high speed aircraft can operate in determined.
very different physical regimes when compared to propeller The propulsion system model (section 3.4) incorporates
driven aircraft. Also, the selection is limited by mass. The thrust requirements from the aerodynamic model.
lower boundary is set at 2 kg MTOM to exclude micro air The actual endurance calculation is an incremental process
vehicles, while the upper boundary is set by the heaviest based on the fuel consumption in all flight stages.
propeller driven UAV in development: The 9 t BAE Mantis. For the CTOL model, fuel burn between engine start and
the end of climb out, as well as the fuel used for descend,
2.2. Engine Database landing and shutdown is estimated using statistics. The
author uses and recommends values from Roskam [3]. For
To accurately predict an aircraft’s performance – especially the VTOL model, these fuel fractions are calculated with the
with respect to endurance and range – a precise engine procedure described in section 3.5.
model is highly important. Very few information is published The iterative process begins with the fuel remaining after
 1,0
Aircraft Data
(MTOM, Engine Type, Geometry, etc.) 0,9 y = 0,86x-0,06
0,8 y = 2,48x-0,18

Emty Mass Fraction [/]

0,7
Mass at Mission Start 0,6 y = 1,53x-0,16
Initialization 0,5
mFuel, [Link] 0,4 y = 0,699x-0,051
0,3 UAV Market Study
Pot. (UAV Market Study)
0,2
Current Mass Pot. (Raymer Small UAV)
0,1 Pot. (Raymer Tac Recce & UCAV)
Pot. (Raymer High Altitude UAV)

(Airspeed, Altitude, etc.)

0,0

Flight Conditions
Aerodynamic 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Current Drag
Model MTOM [kg]

Figure 3 - Empty Weight Fractions for UAVs

Propulsion
Current ṁFuel Model
out of 249 UAVs (30 %).
When compared to the data gathered by the market study,
Raymer’s equations give an upper boundary. Especially
Δ mFuel aircraft with a design weight of less than 300 kg see the
Mass Fraction
penalty of an empty mass increase of ~10 % of the MTOM
Model
when compared to the results of the author’s market study.
current mFuel The data points suggest, that the average empty weight
fractions found by the means of the market study are not
overly optimistic, and Raymer’s equations might kill a valid
YES  mA/C - ΔmFuel design due to conservatism.
mFuel > [Link] Data scatter is significant, especially for UAVs below 300
kg MTOM, however it is also impossible to assess the
NO accuracy of Raymer’s data. Therefore, it is decided to use
Max. Endurance Time the following coefficients to determine the empty mass
fraction for UAVs with a design weight below 1100 kg:
Figure 2 - Endurance Calculation Flowchart 𝑊𝑒
(4) = 0.699 𝑊0−0.051
𝑊0
climb out and is ceased when only the fuel for landing and
shutdown, as well as the necessary reserve for contingency For any given design weight W 0 (in kg), the empty weight
and trapped fuel remains. No endurance credit is given for fraction can now be determined. Inversely, for any given
any flight stage but loitering flight. payload mass and fuel fraction, the classical sizing process
During loitering flight, at any given weight, the drag of the as described in [4] or [5] can be performed for UAVs with
aircraft is determined by the aerodynamic model. Then, the good accuracy.
propulsion system model calculates the fuel flow for that
certain moment in flight. The fuel flow multiplied with the
time-step is subtracted from fuel mass and the process is 3.3. Aerodynamic Modelling
repeated until just the reserve fuel and the fuel for descend
At this time, the aerodynamic model is limited to either a
and landing remain. fixed lift-to-drag ratio the user can specify, or a simple drag
polar. Because no turning flight or side-slipping is included,
3.2. Mass Fraction Model these simple models are sufficient to represent
unaccelerated longitudinal motion.
An unmanned aircraft’s weight in the conceptual design
phase is usually split in three parts:
3.4. Propulsion System Modelling
(2) 𝑊0 = 𝑊𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 + 𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 𝑊𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙
In aerospace engineering scaling equations are often used
In the conceptual design stage the aircraft’s components to determine performance and mass properties of a system
and structural mass is not yet known, making it necessary for preliminary design purposes. Although well-developed
to rely on statistical data. In contrast, the payload weight is scaling equations have long been used for propulsion
known, as this is usually a design requirement. For a given systems of manned aircraft, none can be applied to the low
design mass W 0, the fuel mass can then be calculated. power regime found in UAV operations. To be able to
For the empty mass fraction (the ratio between W empty and confidently assess the endurance performance of an
W0), Raymer [4] gives a relationship based on historical aircraft, the best possible model for fuel consumption and
trends for multiple classes of UAVs in the form: power delivery is necessary. Since no method available in
literature provided adequate results, an independent
𝑊𝑒
(3) = 𝐴 𝑊0𝐶 propulsion system model is developed based on the data
𝑊0
provided by the engine market study.
These equations are displayed in alongside the results of The approach for this model is outlined in Figure 4, and
the market study, where the empty weight is stated for 75 explained below:
 Aerodynamic Model Flight Conditions The Gagg and Ferrar [8] model is used for four-stroke
engines, as well as rotary engines.
For neither kind of engine was the effect of a forced
induction system modeled.
Calculate Required Propeller
Power Loss Model
Thrust Efficiency Model Jet engines are only considered as means of hover
propulsion, therefore static thrust is the only consideration.
As a first approximation, it is assumed that static jet thrust
Set is directly proportional to the density ratio.
min.
Maximum Power Power
Engine Band Calculate Required Power
Power Model 3.4.3. Propeller Efficiency
(MSL) To find the propeller efficiency at any given airspeed, the
Fuel Consumption quadratic interpolation method (presented in [9]) is used.
Model The thrust variation between zero airspeed and maximum
level speed is approximated by using a quadratic
Propulsion System Model polynomial. As user input, an airspeed for best propeller
efficiency Vηp,opt is assumed. At this speed a certain “best”
ṁFuel
propeller efficiency is achieved. Best performance is
obtainable if this speed is also the design speed of the
Figure 4 - Propulsion System Model Flowchart aircraft, for UAVs this is usually the speed for best range or
best endurance – depending on the operational
After the basic aircraft parameters and the aircraft’s flight requirements. A relationship between cruise speed and
conditions are defined, this data is used by the propulsion aircraft size is derived from the results of the market study,
system model to determine the fuel mass flow ṁFuel. and used as input for generic design space explorations.
For stationary flight, drag equals thrust. This thrust force Static thrust is derived by applying momentum theory.
must be provided by the propulsion system. Because no jet Since the propeller size is required, results of the market
engines are considered at this stage, all available kinds of study are used to statistically link aircraft size and propeller
engines are only capable of providing shaft power. This diameter.
shaft power is converted to a thrust force using a propeller.
The corresponding model is explained in section 3.4.3.
Because altitude and temperature effects affect engine 3.4.4. Fuel Consumption
performance in a negative way, a power loss model is The sound modeling of the engine’s fuel consumption is
incorporated and explained in section 3.4.2. paramount. However, the desired accuracy is not easily
It is not sufficient to just model the upper power boundary. achievable. Manufacturer data on fuel consumption at rated
Combustion engines cannot be throttled back without power is only rarely published, let alone SFC curves for the
losses and do not provide usable power output over the entire power band.
entire power band. The corresponding effects are displayed The author used the following approach to establish a basic
in Figure 4 under the caption “Power Band Model” and fuel consumption model:
discussed in section 3.4.4. With the key variables
determined it is possible to calculate the required power for 1) Determining a relationship between rated power
stationary flight. Of course, this directly influences the fuel and fuel consumption
consumption – which in turn is coupled to the engine’s
scale, or maximum power. 2) Establishing the width of the usable power band

3) Estimating the change of SFC at the minimum

3.4.1. Maximum Engine Power
usable power compared to the SFC at rated power
To avoid the step of sizing with arbitrary requirements, the
data from the market study is used to establish a 4) Linear interpolation between these two values
relationship between MTOM and rated engine power. For
137 out of 249 UAVs (55 %) this data is available. The best- The model is illustrated in Figure 5 and described in detail
fit curve gives equation (5), with power in kW and W 0 in kg: in the following paragraphs.

(5) 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑀𝑆𝐿 = −7.97 ∙ 10−5 ∙ 𝑊0 ² + 0.17268 ∙ 𝑊0

3.4.2. Power Loss Models

Aircraft engines are expected to work at different ambient
conditions. Temperature, pressure and density changes
strongly affect naturally aspirated internal combustion
engines. As pressure and density decrease, the engines
power decreases as well, because the power an engine
produces is proportional to the mass flow of air into the
intake manifold. This behavior is represented by the power
loss models.
For two-stroke engines the power loss model is based on
Figure 5 - SFC and Power Band Model
[6], with a slight modification as presented in [7].
1) Relationship Between Maximum Power and Fuel 3.4.5. Engine Weight
Consumption
The engine weight model uses the data from the market
Fuel consumption figures are rarely given in manufacturer study. All of the engines in this study are intended for
data, especially when dealing with small engines intended aircraft use and not for helicopters. This has to be kept in
for hobbyist usage. If any information is provided, very often mind, especially with concern to cooling requirements. An
only the consumption at maximum power is quoted. For this additional weight penalty for certain configurations or
reason, it is the best practice to build the basic equations prolonged hover times is not incorporated at this time.
for the fuel consumption model around this value. When using specifically designed lift engines for a
Using the results of the market study the following dedicated VTOL propulsion system, a benefit in terms of
equations are developed. They give the SFC in kg/kW/h for weight usually cannot be realized for a single operation
piston- and rotary engines, and in kg/kg/h for jet engines. point optimization, but a benefit in SFC is possible.
However, for components off the shelf, no benefit must be
Two-stroke engines: applied. Engine weight is extrapolated from manufacturer
0.974∙𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑀𝑆𝐿0.838
(6) 𝑆𝐹𝐶𝑃.𝑚𝑎𝑥,2𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑘𝑒 = ∙ 𝜌𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 data to a function depending on the engine’s power. Mass
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑀𝑆𝐿
is given in kg and power in kW or thrust in N.
Four-stroke engines
1.447∙𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑀𝑆𝐿0.679
Two-stroke engines:
(7) 𝑆𝐹𝐶𝑃.𝑚𝑎𝑥,4𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑘𝑒 = ∙ 𝜌𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (10) 𝑚2𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑘𝑒 = 8.804 ∙ 10−7 ∙ 𝑃 4 − 1.577 ∙ 10−4 ∙ 𝑃 3 +
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑀𝑆𝐿
8.233 ∙ 10−3 ∙ 𝑃² + 0.504 ∙ 𝑃
Rotary engines
(8) 𝑆𝐹𝐶𝑃.𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 = (−6.387 ∙ 10−4 ∙ 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑀𝑆𝐿 + 0.481) ∙ Four-stroke engines:
𝜌𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (11) 𝑚4𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑘𝑒 = 8.733 ∙ 10−7 ∙ 𝑃 4 − 2.858 ∙ 10−4 ∙ 𝑃 3 +
2.363 ∙ 10−2 ∙ 𝑃² + 0.46 ∙ 𝑃
Jet engines
Rotary engines
(9) 𝑆𝐹𝐶𝑇,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 5.332 ∙ 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑀𝑆𝐿 −0.234
(12) 𝑚𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 = 9.331 ∙ 10−4 ∙ 𝑃² + 0.625 ∙ 𝑃
Power is entered in kW, thrust in N and density in kg/m³. Jet engines
(13) 𝑚𝑗𝑒𝑡 = (0.00968 ∙ 𝑇 0.0598 ) ∙ 𝑇
2) Width of the Usable Power Band
While combustion engines have a large range of operating
[Link]. Engine Integration Weight
speeds, the engine can only be operated efficiently in a
smaller range. The area of efficient operation is called the Because all weight equations only give the basic dry engine
“power band”. At low rotational speeds combustion engines weight, additional weight must be allowed for integration.
tend to run roughly and even stall when put under load [10]. Also, each engine’s propeller/rotor and spinner, as well as
As power curves ranging lower than 30-35 % of the a throttle servo must be accounted for.
maximum power could not be found, it is recommended to Data concerning installed engine weight for single and
not select a lower value of P min/Pmax, the ratio between multiengine general aviation aircraft is available in [3]. With
minimum- and maximum power. this data a relationship between dry engine mass and the
mass required for a typical engine installation is established
3) SFC at the Minimum Usable Power (SI units):
At low power settings the difference in specific consumption (14) 𝑊𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.25 ∙ 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 ∙ 𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 0.6
must be specified in comparison with the SFC at maximum
power. Unfortunately, there is no way to find a general For this case W engine integration is defined in the following
model that fits all engines. Some engines become more fuel context: 𝑊𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝.𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = 𝑊𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 + 𝑊𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
efficient at partial loads, some keep their efficiency constant
and some are less efficient at partial loads. The last case is Because all weight equations only give the basic engine
found more often, however. Smaller engines tend to be weight (including ECU and fuel pump), additional weight
optimized for best performance at maximum power and must be allowed for integration.
suffer from losses at low power settings. The author A meaningful equation that estimates this integration weight
proposes a factor of 1.35 for the ratio between low power is formulated in Raymer’s book, for the purposes of light
SFC and high power SFC. This is conservative. aircraft an additional factor of safety of 1.5 provides
If an actual SFC curve is available, the characteristics can conservative results.
be adapted with ease. 𝑇𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 0.579
(15) 𝑊𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑠 = (0.013 ∙ 𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 0.795 ∙ ∙
𝑔∗0.4536
4) Linear Interpolation 𝑁𝑧 ) ∙ 0.4536 ∙ 1.5
With the boundaries for the available minimum and
maximum power and the corresponding SFC established, it
is now possible to linearly interpolate between these values 3.5. VTOL Performance
and calculate the fuel consumption at all usable power
settings. The basic approach to determine the endurance of VTOL
aircraft is the same as for CTOL aircraft: Fuel flow for
This fuel consumption model will be used for all intermitted loitering flight is established and after deducting the fuel
combustion engines. While it is not highly sophisticated, it used during takeoff and landing, the flight time can be
gives a good first order estimation and is readily adaptable calculated for a given fuel mass. However, the fuel mass
for a multitude of engine characteristics. used during vertical take-off and vertical landing cannot be
estimated based on historical values, as there is no
sufficient data available. Also, because the entire aircraft’s First, the additional thrust force for hover must be
weight is supported by the propulsion system, fuel flow is determined. The process depends on several concept-
very significant and highly depending, first, on the specific dependent variables.
kind of propulsion system, and second, on the type of VTOL For engines driving a propeller, this thrust force requirement
system employed. must be translated into a power requirement. This (and for
There is no simple solution to the question of the actual certain circumstances ambient influences) sizes the hover
weight increase due to VTOL. The actual determination of propulsion system. The engine’s weight, including an
the empty mass and its corresponding mass fraction is allowance for installation is then calculated. Fuel
complicated by the employed construction technology. consumption is determined by applying the specified hover
More complex methods are expensive, but might offer time given by the requirements. This allows to estimate a
weight savings. total weight penalty for VTOL capability.
For jet engines the process is similar. However, as jets
For the comparative purpose of this work it is decided to deliver a thrust force rather than shaft power, this thrust
use the CTOL aircraft of a certain mass (and the force must just be corrected for ambient effects, and then
corresponding mass fraction), and add the mass of the gives the required size of the engine. Afterwards, weight,
additionally required VTOL propulsion system to it. The fuel consumption and total weight can be calculated in the
maximum mass stays the same, consequently the mass same way as done for shaft-power propulsion systems.
remaining for fuel and payload is reduced. If the influence Accordingly, equation (2) is modified for VTOL concepts:
of a certain empty weight fraction improvement (e.g. 5 %
less than average) shall be explored, the equations can be (16) 𝑊0 = 𝑊𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 + 𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 𝑊𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 + 𝑊𝑉𝑇𝑂𝐿 𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚
easily adapted.
with
Basically, the weight increase only depends on the required
power to lift the aircraft at zero airspeed and the flight (17) 𝑊𝑉𝑇𝑂𝐿 𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = 𝑊𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 + 𝑊𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 +
duration spent hovering. The way the absolute weight 𝑊𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑉𝑇𝑂𝐿
increase is determined is outlined in Figure 6. The process
is briefly explained in the following paragraph. If W 0 is kept constant for a certain concept and no reduction
of the empty weight fraction is allowed, it is obvious that
VTOL capabilities require a reduction of either payload or
Set Mission Hover Requirements
fuel or both. If this is not an option, then the aircraft has to
 (Duration, Density Altitude, etc.) be resized at a higher gross weight.
Set Required Number of Engines
Set Required Surplus Power 4. VALIDATION
Define Lift Contribution of Cruise Engines The validation of such an extensive tool is always difficult,
because for precise results, detailed input information are
necessary. The tool is meant to estimate performance
Calculate the Required Thrust parameters with reasonably accuracy for aircraft for which
little information are available. If it is supplied with “real
world” data, the correlation should be excellent.
Propeller / Jet For CTOL aircraft it is easier to find a set of data to validate
against. The author chose the German UAV “KZO”. For
VTOL UAVs no appropriated set of data could be obtained
Set Disk Loading for production aircraft. Instead a VTOL concept called “Jet-
Set Figure of Merit Falcon II”, developed and analyzed by Götten [11] and the
author [12] had to be used.
(Propeller only) The KZO is a tactical UAV with a MTOM of 168 kg used by
the German Armed Forces with a published endurance of
5.5 h. The airspeed for loiter, propeller efficiency data and
SFC values are determined by the statistical methods
Calculate the Required
based on the market study. The tool gives an endurance
Power
value of 5.65 h – compared to the official figure of 5.5 h. The
(Propeller only)
prediction is 9 min too optimistic, the relative error is 2.7 %.
This is a very good correlation.
JetFalcon II was designed in 2013 to a German Army
Engine Weight specification calling for a VTOL-UAV with extended loiter
Model Engine capabilities and a maximum take-off weight of 150 kg. The
Fuel design uses the L + C approach, relying on two gas turbines
Engine Consumption for hover propulsion. The tool gives an endurance of 3.05 h
Integration Model for the VTOL calculations. The error is quite small (0.25 h –
Weight Model
7.6 %), and the tool proves its reliability. The calculated
mass fractions are off by only 2.1 percent points.
While the validation procedure is not perfect and the tool
Calculate Total Weight should be validated with more configurations in the future,
these results indicate that the tool can be used to reliably
Figure 6 - VTOL Impact Modeling Flowchart predict endurance performance of UAVs.
5. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT lines are caused by a change in the hover propulsion
system. At 450 kg the required power is larger than the
In this chapter the performance of the “average UAV” is power range allowed by the engine model. In this case, the
assessed. The tool is used to calculate the endurance number of engines is increased. This causes a further mass
performance, while boundary conditions are varied. The increase of the hover propulsion system.
goal is to show the magnitude impact of key variables on This plots must be considered as a “best case” scenario.
CTOL and VTOL performance. The main focus is of course No power band of the cruise engine is considered, the lift-
on the VTOL configuration, but to establish a baseline to to-drag ratio is rather optimistic and hover time is kept at a
compare against, the CTOL configuration is explored and minimum. The cruise engine supports the lift engine(s).
discussed first. Also, no additional strain is placed on the hover system, as
For the discussion of the tool’s results, the influence of the calculation is not performed under hot and high
configuration design is eliminated by comparing results at a conditions. Nevertheless, the impact of VTOL requirements
constant lift-to-drag ratio (L/D). For any given L/D and on endurance are already massive. Because flight time is
payload fraction (PLF) at a specified density altitude, the essentially transferable to range, this is the core reason why
endurance can then be determined in dependence of the VTOL aircraft have not superseded conventional aircraft.
propulsion system variables. Additionally, for heave control VTOL configurations’ flight times suffer from reduced
a fixed surplus power (SP) multiplier of 1.3 is used. The endurance at constant mass and PLF, due to the additional
most significant variables are always displayed below the weight of the lift propulsion system. It can be observed that
headlines of the figures in this chapter. the impact of VTOL requirements is largest for lighter
aircraft.
5.1. CTOL – Baseline Performance Meaningful VTOL flight times that reach at least 50 % of the
CTOL flight times are not reached for PLFs beyond 15 %.
For conventional aircraft, with an L/D of 14, the influence of This value seems to offer a considerate balance between
the engine type is assessed first and shown in Figure 7. acceptable payload capacity and endurance capabilities.
It is very visible that the four-stroke engine performs best, For this reason, this PLF is chosen as the basis for all
except for very low weights where two-stroke engines offer further evaluations.
a slight endurance advantage and for the weight class of
150-220 kg where rotary engines allow longer flight times. Payload Fraction vs. Endurance vs. MTOM
4-stroke cruise engine; L/D=14; ηPmax=70%, Pmin/Pmax=0%; MSL
When interpreting this result, one has to be aware of the VTOL - 2min for VTO + 2min for VL; L+LC; SP=1.3; DL=60 kg/m²; MSL
limitations of the tool. The difference in weight for the
different engine types, as explained in Chapter 8.3.2, is not
considered for this plot, because the empty weight fraction
is solely based on statistics. The empty weight fraction is
not adjusted for differences in propulsion system weight.
For the VTOL model, the weight of the engines is
considered, for CTOL, it is not.
Therefore, only the SFC for each plot of engine type is
different. This, together with the fuel fraction, determines
the curves’ gradients.
Endurance CTOL vs. MTOM – correlated with SFC
L/D=14; PLF=0,2; ηPmax=70%, Pmin/Pmax=35%; MSL
24 0,6
SFC

22
20 0,5
18
Endurance [h]

16 0,4
14
12 0,3
10
8 0,2
6
4 Endu. 2-Stroke Endu. 4-Stroke 0,1
Endu. Rotary SFC 2-Stroke
2
0
SFC 4-Stroke SFC-Rotary
0
Figure 8 - Payload Fraction Sweep
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Mass [kg]
Figure 7 - Endurance for All Cruise Engine Types 5.3. VTOL – Influence of Hover Time
The influence of the time spent in hover (hover time: HT) is
shown in Figure 9. The hover time is varied between a total
5.2. VTOL - Influence of Payload Fraction
of 2 and 16 minutes and split evenly between vertical
Figure 8 displays a hypersurface quantifying the influence takeoff (VTO) and vertical landing (VL) phases. For better
of the payload fraction (PLF) on the endurance scaling, the plot shows the result of varying the HT as the
performance of CTOL and VTOL configurations. All plots difference of endurance, compared to the reference
are calculated at a disk loading of 60 kg/m². No power band baseline: 4 min hover time at a disk loading of 60 kg/m².
limitation is given and the cruise propulsion system At lower weights, the influence is higher, an effect that can
supplements the lift propulsion system. The remaining key be attributed to the degradation of SFC at smaller engine
variables are given in Figure 8. sizes. The jaggedness of the iso-endurance lines can be
The “breaks” or “jumps” observed in the iso-endurance- linked to the general accuracy of the endurance calculation.
 Hover Time vs. Endurance VTOL vs. MTOM Disk Loading vs. Endurance VTOL vs. MTOM
4-stroke cruise engine; L/D=14; PLF=0.15; 4-stroke cruise engine; L/D=14; PLF=0.15; ηPmax=70%; Pmin/Pmax=0%;
ηPmax=70%; Pmin/Pmax=0%; MSL; L+L/C; SP=1.3 MSL; L+L/C; SP=1.3; 2min for VTO + 2min for VL

Figure 9 - Hover Time Sweep Best VTOL Propulsion System

The calculation is exact to 0.05 h. Because the delta-

endurance value is used, the error margin is doubled to
0.1 h. However, this is well within the accuracy band of the
entire method.
The overall relationship is quite linear, and the author
observed the following rule of thumb: “Ten minutes in
hover, at a disk loading of 60 kg/m², reduces the total
endurance by one hour.”

5.4. VTOL – Influence of Disk Loading

Hover efficiency [kg/kW] relates the weight of an aircraft
with the power to lift it in hovering flight. This efficiency is
linked to the rotor disk loading [kg/m²], the rotorcraft
equivalent of the wing loading, where force is divided by the
area over which it is produced.
The relationship is shown exemplarily in Figure 10.

2-Stroke 4-Stroke Rotary Jet

Figure 11 - Disk Loading Sweep

The hover lift efficiency is proportional to the square root of

the disk loading. Therefore, it is quite obvious, that the
easiest way to diminish hover efficiency is to increase the
disk loading.
In theory, the designers should strive for very low disk
loadings, to minimize power requirements. This is, in fact,
done for heavy lift helicopters and any applications where
extended hover times are required, but in turn, leads to very
large rotors. These have several drawbacks: Rotor weight
becomes prohibitively high, as does overall size, and low
disk loadings increase the gust sensitivity.
This relationship is quantified and depicted in Figure 11.
The disk loading is varied in 5 steps between 30 and 150
kg/m². The lower boundary is found on lightly loaded
Figure 10 - Hover Lift Efficiency as a Function of Disc helicopter rotors, and the upper disk loading boundary is
Loading (adapted from [13]) found on tilt rotor aircraft. The disk loadings for highly
loaded propellers of tilt wing aircraft can reach twice the hard to integrate on smaller vessels. Even though the US
upper boundary. The jet engine is always considered as an Navy uses the Boeing/Insitu ScanEagle and Blackjack and
alternative – regardless of the chosen disk loading. equipped vessels with launchers and recovery poles, the
The hypersurface shows the expected behavior – at least solution is not optimal. On the other hand, a VTOL UAV is
for disk loadings between 30 and 90 kg/m². At the higher able to operate off existing helicopter decks without
disk loadings of 120 and 150 kg/m² an impact is largely non- interfering with existing operations.
existing. The reason for this is visible in the lower plot, This much higher efficiency of space usage allows to launch
where the chosen propulsion system for each weight is and recover VTOL aircraft where the operator wants to, and
displayed: For most weights, up to a disk loading of not where infrastructure allows it.
90 kg/m² (at least for the chosen parameter combination),
the two-stroke engine with a propeller is the lightest
propulsion system solution. At higher disk loadings the loss 6.2. Endurance and Mobility
of efficiency necessitates larger engines of much higher The disadvantage of shortened endurance times can – at
weight, and jet engines, which offer a superior thrust-to- least partially – be made up for by increased ground
weight ratio but higher consumption, are the lighter solution mobility of VTOL aircraft. For a very simple surveillance
overall. These engines are obviously not in the 120 or 150 mission, a CTOL aircraft must be launched at a base, cruise
kg/m² disk loading class (typically jet engines have a DL of to the target area, loiter over the target and cruise back to
more than 5000 kg/m²) and hence obtain a much lower base.
hover efficiency. However, when factoring in the total Because of significantly reduced dependence on ground
installed weight, jet engines offer the best solution for this infrastructure, VTOL aircraft can be launched much closer
set of requirements. For this reason, the endurance will not to the target zone, eliminating two extended cruise
change if the disk loading parameter is increased further, segments and getting a relative improvement of time over
making an analysis of highly loaded rotors unnecessary. the target.
Both plots would look different if the hover time is increased. Time on station might also be extended by employing a
Most of the total VTOL propulsion system weight for “stakeout” approach. A VTOL aircraft can land close to a
intermittent combustion engines is the dry engine mass. target, shut down the engines and function as a highly
Fuel consumption is moderate. The situation is reversed for mobile ground post. Communications and surveillance data
jet engines. The engine offers great T/W, but the high fuel can be transmitted while on the ground, with minimal power
consumption prohibits continuous operation. consumption. If a theater view from altitude is required, the
vehicle can be launched and commence loitering flight. This
6. BENEFIT ASSESSMENT greatly expands mission capabilities for VTOL UAVs in
relation to the traditional CTOL aircraft.
VTOL aircraft are capable of hovering. This is the enabling
achievement that causes practically all the benefits
described in this chapter. But the technology necessary for 6.3. Top Speed and Aerodynamic Performance
this achievement causes practically all the problems A sample of 20 unmanned helicopters and multirotors
described in this chapter. between 4.4 kg and 2950.0 kg MTOM was investigated by
The aim of this final discussion is to showcase to benefits the author with regards to the top speed. At the same
of both VTOL and CTOL aircraft, to point out their individual design weight, unmanned helicopters reach approximately
strengths and weaknesses. The arguments presented in 30 km/h less top speed than CTOL UAVs. The helicopter is
this chapter are discussed in no particular order. also less efficient with a typical maximum lift-to-drag ratio of
4.5 [14]. A typical L/D for fixed wing aircraft reaches
6.1. Supporting Infrastructure and Economy of 2-4 times this value. VTOL concepts usually cause a slight
degradation of aerodynamic performance, but still requires
Space Usage
vastly less power for cruising flight. This is the main reason,
A CTOL aircraft needs a runway for launch and recovery. why VTOL systems are even considered in the first place.
For small UAV operations this runway may be relatively Additionally, because the overall installed T/W must be
short, but automatic landing systems typically require a flat larger than 1.0, VTOL aircraft designs that are able to use
(3°) glide path, which causes runway requirements in the lift systems also during forward flight (e.g. the L = C
excess of 350 m even for small UAVs (below 50 kg MTOM). approach) are able to attain much greater top speeds than
This puts landing distances on par with light manned their CTOL counterparts. This comes at the price of
aircraft. CTOL aircraft can be launched by catapults or increased fuel consumption, but for missions where
rockets (Rheinmetall’s KZO uses RATO as the standard response time is critical this is a distinct advantage.
launch method) but, because rockets are expensive and
also hazardous, and catapults are large and heavy, these
are not suited concepts to reduce support infrastructure.
6.4. Safety
Vertical recovery of CTOL aircraft is possible using a Because the relative speed between the airplane and the
parachute, but, because typical parachutes are unguided, ground is inversely proportional to the safety increase,
a large landing field and – depending on the aircraft’s size VTOL operations improve safety greatly, especially on
– retrieval vehicles are necessary. approach and landing [15]. However, VTOL aircraft face a
VTOL aircraft can be launched from any reasonably flat great problem when it comes to the probability of engine
surface. Typically, a clear area the size of a helicopter failure. For a two-engine aircraft, the engines need to be
landing pad (15 m x 15 m) is more than sufficient. powerful enough for the aircraft to remain airborne if an
For shipborne operations (excluding the combination of engine fails after the take-off decision speed. For VTOL
very large UAVs and aircraft carriers) CTOL UAVs are aircraft this means that the aircraft must be capable of
entirely unsuited. They require dedicated launch and hovering on either engine (if two engines are used). This
recovery systems (often catapults and nets), which are very
 kind of redundancy imposes a large mass disadvantage. With technological advancement, better performing aircraft
VTOL transport aircraft like the V-22 Osprey achieve this by are possible. It is likely that battery systems will very much
a massive surplus of power and a complex and heavy improve, opening up the field of electric or hybrid-electric
driveshaft and gearbox system. For UAV operations this propulsion, which was completely neglected in this paper.
requirement is typically dropped. If an engine fails in hover, This subject must be addressed in future work. Also,
the UAV is lost. The benefit is a reduction in aircraft size additional methods for jet propulsion systems should be
and cost, at the price of reduced reliability. integrated, to further generalize the applicability of the tool.
Another safety issue is the high fuel consumption during
vertical landings. This is especially a problem for aircraft
with a low hover efficiency. Because hovering time
influences endurance extremely (see section 5.3), 8. REFERENCES
practically no adequate fuel reserve can be provided.
Consequently, a missed approach cannot be tolerated and
a VTOL aircraft is practically committed to the landing once [1] D. F. Finger, Comparative Performance and Benefit
transition to hover is completed. Again, this might be Assessment of VTOL and CTOL UAVs, Aachen: FH
tolerable for a UAV. Aachen, 2016.
As Figure 12 shows, if hover time requirements can be kept [2] M. Streetly, IHS Jane´s All the World´s Aircraft:
to a minimum, the total efficiency of the powered lift system Unmannd 2015-2016, London: Jane´s Information
is greatest for the highest disk loadings, because the weight Group, 2015.
of the propulsion system is increased, as the disk loading is [3] J. Roskam, Airplane Design Part I-VIII, Kansas:
lowered. To translate the inherent increase in efficiency into Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corp., 1985.
fuel savings, a certain time needs to be spent in hover.
[4] D. P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Consequently, a careful tradeoff between performance and
Approach, 5. ed., Virginia: AIAA, 2012.
safety must be performed.
[5] L. K. Loftin Jr., Subsonic Aircraft: Evolution and the
Matching of Size to Performance, Virgina: NASA
Langley, 1980.
[6] R. Harari and E. Sher, The Effect of Ambient Pressure
on the Performance Map of a Two-Stroke SI Engine,
Michigan: SAE International Congress & Exposition,
1993, pp. 115-123.
[7] T. D. Husaboe, Effects of Temperature on the
Performance of a Small Internal Combustion Engine
at Altitude, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio:
USAF, 2013.
[8] R. Gagg and E. Farrar, Altitude Performance of
Aircraft Engines Equipped with Gear-Driven
Superchargers, Michigan: SAE Technical Paper
Figure 12 - Hover Performance of various VTOL 340096, 1934.
configurations (adapted from [15])
[9] S. Gudmundsson, General Aviation Aircraft Design:
Applied Methods and Procedures, Oxford:
7. CONCLUSION Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014.
In this paper the effects of the VTOL requirement on aircraft [10] A. K. Rowton, Measuring Scaling Effects in Small
performance were thoroughly assessed. The influence of Two-Stroke Internal Combustion Engines, Wright-
key variables on flight performance was calculated and Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: USAF, 2014.
discussed. [11] F. Götten, Weiterführender Flugzeugentwurf eines
Further investigations and specific calculations are possible unbemannten VTOL-Fluggeräts - Struktur und
with the spreadsheet tool developed for this work. Its core Systemintegration, Aachen: FH Aachen, 2014.
functionality is the design space exploration for VTOL, as [12] D. F. Finger, Weiterführender Flugzeugentwurf eines
well as CTOL UAVs. A sophisticated sizing method for unbemannten VTOL-Fluggeräts - Aerodynamik und
hover propulsion systems is included and allows the rapid Flugmechanik, Aachen: FH Aachen, 2014.
evaluation of advanced designs and quick trade studies.
[13] M. D. Maisel, D. J. Giulianetti and D. C. Dugan, The
The employed methods and models were either developed
History of The XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft:
for this tool or integrated from other publications. They
From Concept to Flight, Washington D.C.: NASA
proved to be sound and the tool shows good accuracy.
History Division, 2000.
The design space of CTOL and VTOL UAVs was explored
in detail. It is now possible to evaluate future concepts [14] J. G. Leishman, Principles of Helicopter
against a “state of the art” baseline. It is also possible to Aerodynamics, 2. ed., New York: Cambridge
conduct a reality check of advertised performance data for University Press, 2006.
the entire UAV market (limited to MTOMs between 20 kg [15] D. L. Kohlman, Introduction to V/STOL Airplanes,
and 1100 kg). Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1981.

This work shows, that with today’s technology VTOL UAVs

are certainly feasible. However, their design remains
challenging and comes with certain limitations. One goal
has to be traded off against another.

View publication stats