Tom Zettel
Mike Bociaga
Jon Olsten
Jamie Rosin
Hayne Kim
Brandon Washington
Marques Fulford
1
Outline







Mission Statement
Market/Customers
Competitors
Mission Scenarios
System Design Requirements
Summary
Next Steps
2
Mission Statement
 To create an innovative and cost effective
commercial aircraft capable of take-off and
landing in extremely short distances, making
it available to a larger number of runways, in
order to open up more airports, primarily to
relieve the continuous growing congestion of
large hubs.
3
“Next-Generation DC-3”
 An aircraft that is going to see very large
scale production to fill a popular and
profitable niche in the market
 One that is going to revolutionize air travel
4
Market Outlook


Economic growth yielding traffic growth.
Domestic fleet average seat size growth is dramatic.
5
Market Outlook



17,650 new single aisle airplanes
will be delivered over the next
20 years.
This will make up 48% of the total
airplanes in service in 2026.
By the year of 2058, 61,604 single
aisle airplane will be in service.
6
Primary Customer: Airlines
 Currently, over 20% of all flights from O’Hare, LaGuardia, &
Newark are Delayed
– Bureau of Transportation Statistics
source: U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration
 Customer Needs
–Carry out short, mid-range missions
–Reduced flight delays
–Low cost
 Proposed missions include flights
from Gary Chicago to Dallas Love Field, …693 nmi
7
Customer Benefits

“Flight delays cost the U.S. economy $15 billion a year”
Mary E. Peters, United States Transportation Secretary, January 22nd, 2008
 Maximize profits
– Maximize Total Revenue
 Reduce flight delays through direct flights to secondary
airports
 More flight services and availabilities increase the
revenue for airlines.
–Reduce Costs
 Operation cost
– Less idle time saves
aircraft fuel burn.
8
Competitors
 Types of Transportation
– Automobiles
– Airplanes
– Trains
– Personal aircraft/ Skycars
 Airplane Manufactures
– Range 1500-2000 nmi
– 150-170 passenger capacity
– Single isle
9
Airplane Manufacturers
 Aircraft within our size and
range requirements
– single aisle planes
 Competition includes
– N generation Boeing 737NG
family and its replacement, the
737RS (Y1)
– the Airbus A320 series and its
replacement (NSR)
– Embraer’s E-Jets (spec. E-190
and E-195)
– the N+1 generation C110 and
C130 CSeries jets from
Bombardier (Canadair)
10
Airplane Manufacturers
 ARrival looked at aircraft
within our size and range
requirements (e.g. single
aisle planes)
 Competition includes the N
generation Boeing 737NG
family, the Airbus A320
series, Embraer’s E-Jets
(spec. E-190 and E-195),
and the N+1 generation
C110 and C130 CSeries
jets from Bombardier
(Canadair)
11
Other Competitors
 Personal Air Vehicles
– The Skycar
– Family Commuters
12
Why High-Speed Trains are Not
a Competitor
 Too Expensive
– Portugal estimates that the high speed rail line "connecting Lisbon
with Madrid and with Porto, due to be operational by 2013, is
estimated to cost around 7.2 billion Euros”, according to Forbes.
Compare the costs to the new international airport near Lisbon,
estimated at 3 billion Euros, and you can see why people are
questioning the need.
–
http://goeurope.about.com/b/2005/12/09/the-cost-of-high-speed-rail.htm
13
Mission Scenarios
 Relieve over congested airport hubs
– Land at secondary airports
 Near and around major hubs
 Cutting travel time for passengers
– Half-runway landings and takeoffs
 Double number of takeoffs and landings on one
runway
14
Most Congested Airports
 Chicago O’Hare
 Newark International
 New York LaGuardia
Airport
Late
Flights
Average
Departure
Delays
Average
Taxi-Out
Average
Scheduled
Departure
to Take-off
Cancelled
Flights
Percent
Flights
Late
O’Hare
7,093
55.14 min
21.79 min
76.93 min
485
22.17%
Newark
3,137
69.87 min
32.69 min
102.56 min
320
24.35%
LaGuardia
2,218
59.40 min
32.92 min
92.33 min
415
21.15%
*Data taken from www.bts.gov
15
Representative City-Pairs
 Chicago, IL to Dallas, TX
– Approx 697 nmi
 Newark, NJ to Charlotte, NC
– Approx 460 nmi
 New York, NY to Miami, FL
– Approx 935 nmi
16
Chicago, IL to Dallas, TX
 Using secondary airports
 Gary Chicago
– Runway 7,003 ft
– 42 mi from Chicago O’Hare
 Dallas Love Field
– Runways 8,800 ft and 7,752 ft
– 21 mi from Dallas International
 Airport distance 693 nmi
17
Initial Mission Scenario
Cruise
Landing Descent
Climb
Take off Gary
Chicago
Land Dallas Love
Field
 Will have additional fuel in case of any
necessity to loiter or land at alternate airport
18
New York, NY to Miami, FL
 LaGuardia to Miami International
 Non-interfering spiral descent and landing
on half-runway at each airport
 Airport distance 935 nmi
19
Initial Mission Scenario
Cruise
Landing Descent
Loiter
Climb
Take-Off
LaGuardia
Land Miami
International
 Want extra loitering time in case of traffic on
runways
20
Charlotte, NC to Newark, NJ
 Take off from Charlotte with half-runway
takeoff
 Land at secondary airport in Newark
– Essex County Airport (CDW)
 20 mi from Newark International
 Takeoff from Essesx
– Without refueling
 Non-interfering spiral descent and landing
on half-runway at Charlotte
 Airport distance 460 nmi
21
Initial Mission Scenario
Cruise
Cruise
Climb
Take off
Charlotte
Climb
Land
Essex
County
Take off
Essex
County
Land
Charlotte
 Round trip without refueling
22
Aircraft Payload/Passenger Capacity
 Passenger capacity and payload still under
discussion
– Based on sizing
– Approximating 150 passengers
 Weight limits on shorter runways
– 3,000-5,000ft average limit 30,000 lbs
23
Significant Wants





STOL/ESTOL capability
Ability to operate in secondary airports
Reasonable cruise Mach number
Mid-size passenger, payload capacity
Cost effective
24
Mission Requirements
Mission Requirements
Descriptor
Target
Threshold
Takeoff Runway Length
LTE
2500 ft
3000 ft
Landing Runway Length
LTE
2500 ft
3000 ft
Height to Passenger Door Sill at
OWE
LTE
5 ft
9 ft
Height to Baggage Door Sill at
OWE
LTE
4 ft
6 ft
Typical Cruise Mach Number
GTE
0.80
0.76
Range w/ Max Payload
GTE
2000 nmi
1500 nmi
Max Take-Off Weight
LTE
Max Passengers (single class)
GTE
170 pax
150 pax
Operating Cost ($US 2007)
LTE
0.08 $/seat-mile
0.12 $/seat-mile
lb
lb
25
New Technologies
 Advanced materials such as
CFRP which give a projected
weight reduction of about
15% over N generation
competitors from Airbus and
Boeing and 13% over
Embraer’s E-Jets*
 Advances in propulsion such
as the geared turbofan (GTF)
and the Unducted Fan (UDF)
for fuel efficiency and noise
reduction
 High lift through blown flaps,
potential use of thrust
vectoring
 Benchmarking with the
EasyJet “EcoJet” concept for
“Green” technologies
*Based off of Boeing 787 weight savings
vs. its competitors
26
New Technologies - CFRP
Empty Weight Fraction Material Comparison
Empty Weight Fraction Comparison
0.70
0.7
y = 233.08x -0.5017
0.60
y = 3853.1x -0.6833
0.5
y = 549.16x -0.5221
Airbus A330
Boeing 777
0.4
Boeing 787
0.3
Pow er (Boeing 787)
Pow er (Boeing 777)
0.2
0.1
Empty Weight Fraction
Empty Weight Fraction
0.6
y = 851.58x -0.6321
0.50
Boeing/Airbus Current
0.40
Boeing/Airbus CFRP
0.30
Power (Boeing/Airbus
Current)
Power (Boeing/Airbus CFRP)
0.20
0.10
0
0
20000 40000 60000 80000 1E+06
0
0
0
0
TOGW
0.00
0
50000
100000 150000
200000
250000
TOGW [lb]
Assuming the 787’s CFRP construction becomes the industry standard,
ARrival applied the weight saving factor of the 787’s design over its peers
to current generation Boeing and Airbus single aisle jets.
27
Benchmarking
 Based off of ARrival’s projected requirements and the data
from our main competitors, ARrival found the competitors
that closely matched our aircraft’s preliminary
specifications
 Weight savings data from Boeing 787 family over the 767
family, 777 family, and Airbus A330 family used to project
weight savings of a CFRP single-aisle plane vs. the
737NG, A320 family, and the larger Embraer E-Jets
 Bombardier CSeries aircraft match our projected range
requirements however, data for this type is sketchy as it is
an N+1 generation aircraft still in planning
28
Benchmarking with N Gen and N+1 Gen Competing A/C
Aircraft
W0 [lb]
We/W0
pax
R [nmi]
Boeing 737-600
124000
0.66
110
3050
Boeing 737-700
133000
0.63
126
3260
Boeing 737-800
155500
0.58
162
2940
Boeing 737-900
164000
0.57
177
2745
Airbus A318
149900
0.58
107
3200
Airbus A319
166500
0.54
124
3700
Airbus A320
169800
0.55
150
3000
Airbus A321
206100
0.52
185
3050
Embraer 190
105359
0.57
106
2300
Embraer 195
107564
0.58
118
2100
Canadair C110-STD
118800
N/A
110
1800
Canadair C130-STD
129300
N/A
130
1800
29
Summary
 System requirements driven by customer
wants and market outlook
 Use new technologies to meet system
requirements
 Mission is to create an aircraft that will
relieve traffic and congestion at major hubs
30
Next Steps





Finalize major design requirements
Plan out specific phases of missions
Size aircraft
Design aircraft interior layout
Determine the use of advanced
technologies
31