Philip Halsmer
Kwan Chan
Tyler Hall
Sirisha Bandla
Adam Edmonds
Chris J. Mueller
Stephen Hashins
Shaun Hunt
Jeff Intagliata
1
Outline of Presentation
 Mission Statement
 Markets, Customers and Competitors
 CONOPS
 System Design Requirements
 Technologies and Advanced Concepts
 Initial Sizing Tools
2
Mission Statement
 Bring aircraft developments into the modern age of
environmental awareness by means of innovative
design and incorporating the next generation of
technologies and configurations to meet NASA’s ERA
N+2 guidelines.
 Reduce operating cost in face of rising fuel prices and
consumer pressures to reduce fares.
3
Market Opportunity
 Market niche
 Creating an aircraft that can replace large portions of major airlines’ aging
fleets such as MD-80, Boeing 757, 767 due to evolving market and
economic needs
 Potential customers include airlines such as Delta, American, and
Continental
4
Target Markets
 North America
 Europe
 Predicted second most in demand
 Predicted third most in demand of
of new aircraft between 2010-2029
*(7200 new a/c)
 78% of single aisle purchases are for
airline fleet replacement
 Single aisle a/c market is predicted
to grow from 56% to 71% in next 20
years
new aircraft between 2010-2029
*(7190 new a/c)
 Single aisle a/c are forecasted to
make up 75% of new purchases in
next 20 years
 According to Boeing market
forecast, only 4% of current a/c in
current use will still be flying in
2029
 The European domestic air routes
are all short enough that our a/c can
cover them
* Airlines in both the North American
and European markets are looking
for more fuel efficient and less
pollutant a/c.
*References: Boeing future market forecast, Airbus future market forecast
5
North American O-D pairings
 Busiest O-D pairings





Los Angeles (LAX)-New York (JFK)
New York (LaGuardia)-Chicago (Midway)
Atlanta (Hartsfield)-Miami International
Miami International-New York (JFK)
Seattle (Tacoma)-Miami International
Seattle
Chicago
New York
 Longest Range


Seattle (Tacoma)-Miami International
Distance: 2387 nm
Atlanta
Los Angeles
 Max Runway Lengths







Los Angeles (LAX)
New York (JFK)
New York (LaGuardia)
Chicago (Midway)
Atlanta (Hartsfield)
Miami International
Seattle (Tacoma)
12,100 ft.
14,500 ft.
7,000 ft.
6,500 ft.
11,900 ft.
13,000 ft.
11,900 ft.
Miami
*Picture reference: Google Earth
*Reference: Jackson, Laura (31 July 2008) “Air Service Top 10- The World’s Busiest City-Pairs”,
Google Earth
6
North American/European Market Customers
 North American Target
Customers
 American Airlines
 Continental Airlines
 Delta Airlines
 Southwest Airlines
 European Target Customers
 Lufthansa
 Air France
 British Airways
Reference: IATA World Air Transport Statistics
7
Middle East
 Dubai, UAE is in the heart of the Middle East
 Largest Population on Arabian Peninsula
 Dubai International
 15th busiest in world by passenger traffic
 6th busiest in world by international pax traffic
 Al Maktoum International Airport
 Fully operational by 2017
 10 times larger than Dubai International
 Surpass Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International by 70
million passengers per year
8
Middle East: Background
Customers/Competition
 Lack of railway connections on
Arabian Peninsula
 Transportation mainly by road
 Vehicle growth exceeds
infrastructure growth
• Emirates Airline is
national airline


Serves 101 destinations in 61
countries across 6 continents
14% increase in 200+ passenger
aircraft in 2009
9
Middle East: City-Pairs
City-Pairs from Largest
Hub
 Dubai to
 New Delhi (1,200 nm)
 Mumbai (1,056 nm)
 Rome (2400 nm)
 Istanbul (1,800 nm)
 Zurich (2,550 nm)
 Moscow (1983 nm)
 Cairo (1500 nm)
 Jerusalem (1300 nm)
Other Popular Routes
 Mumbai > New Delhi (650 nm)
*Estimated Distances
Runway Lengths (feet)
 Atatürk Int. (Istanbul)
9,843
 Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino (Rome)
12,795
 Zürich Int.
 Domodedovo Int. (Moscow)
 Andria Gandhi Int. (New Delhi)
12,139
12,467
14,534
 Chhatrapati Shivaji Int. (Mumbai)
11,302
 Cairo Int.
 Ben Gurion Int. (Jerusalem)
13,124
11,998
10
Asia Pacific
 China and India Lead in Growth Among Emerging
Markets
 Over the next 20 years, average growth is projected to be
significantly greater than the rest of the world
 Beijing Capital International Airport
 Located in the capital city of the People’s Republic of
China
 2nd busiest in the world by passenger traffic
 Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport
 Primary airport in Mumbai, India
 South Asia's busiest airport in term of passenger traffic
11
Asia Pacific: Background
Customers/Competition
 China Southern Airlines
 World’s 5th largest airline by
passengers carried
 Asia’s largest by both fleet
size and passengers carried
 High speed rail will pass from
Southern China through Laos
to Thailand, and then to the
border of Malaysia
 GDP growth rates in China
and India are expected
ranged from around 8 to 11%
per annum
12
Asia Pacific: City-Pairs
City-Pairs
 Beijing to:
 Narita, Japan (1,150nm)
 Delhi, India (2,018nm)
 Mumbai, India (2,505)
 Changi, Singapore (2,351nm)
 Bangkok, Thailand (1,751nm)
Runway Lengths (ft.)
 Narita Int.




13,000
Delhi Airport
12,000
Mumbai Int.
10,000
Changi Airport
12,750
Suvarnabhumi (Bangkok) 12,850
13
Latin America
 Bogota, Colombia
 Considered a main international and domestic air
gateway
 El Dorado International
 It is the largest Latin American airport in terms of cargo
movements
 Guarulhos International Airport
 São Paulo-area the busiest airport system in Latin
America in terms of passenger numbers and traffic
movements
14
Latin America: Background
Customers/Competition
 Avianca Airways
 Largest Latin American Fleet
 Alternate forms of
transportation through some
rural areas can be dangerous
 South America is expected to
see average economic growth
of 4% per year for next 20
years
15
Latin America: City-Pairs
City-Pairs from Largest
Hub
 Bogota, Colombia to:
 Sao Paulo, Brazil (2,280nm)
Runway Lengths (ft.)
 Guarulhos Int. (Brazil)
 Aeroparque Jorge Newbery
 Buenos Aires, Argentina (2,450nm)  Cayenne-Rochambeau Airport
5,500ft
6,250ft
10,240ft
 Cayenne, French Guiana (1,300nm)  Comodoro Arturo Merino
 Pudahuel, Chile (2,240nm)
 Callao, Peru (1,000nm)
 Montevido, Uruguay (2,513nm)
*Estimated Distances
Benítez Int.
 Jorge Chavez Int.
 Carrasco Int.
10,200ft
11,250ft
8,600ft
16
NASA ERA Compliance Matrix
Goals
*Boeing 777NASA Goals
200LR
Compliance
Target
Threshold
**Emissions Indices (GE90-110B1) 2
Take-off (Nox (g/kg_fuel)/engine)
44.44
-75%
11.11
-50%
Climb-out (Nox (g/kg_fuel)/engine)
33.85
-75%
8.4625
-50%
Approach (Nox (g/kg_fuel)/engine)
15.78
-75%
3.945
-50%
Idle (Nox (g/kg_fuel)/engine)
5.11
-75%
1.2775
-50%
Noise (Overhead + Sideline + Approach) 1
Overhead (dB)
87.50
Sideline (dB)
96.70
Approach (dB)
97.9
***Total (dB)
282.10
-42
240.10
-20
Fuel Performance (lb_pay.nm/lb_fuel) 3
3513.00
-50%
5269.5
-35%
Take-Off length (ft) 3
11600.00
-50%
5800
<7000
*Project
specificIndex
reference
aircraft.
**Relative to CAEP 6
***Relative to Stage 4
Aircraft Noise
Rating
– 3/9/05
2ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank: Subsonic Engines –GE90-110B1– 12/04/05
3 Courtesy of Boeing online documentation
1ACI
Benchmarking Process
Goal: Comparing Target Mission Profile to Existing Aircraft Performance
Process
Mission Profile
• Determine Take-Off Gross
Range: 3500 nmi
Weight
Capacity:200 pax min. @ 250 lbs. ea.
• Passengers
• Fuel as Remaining Payload
• Determine Max Zero Wind
Range w/ Payload-Range Charts
• Determine Take-Off Distance
w/Runway Req. Charts
Requirement Benchmarking Matrix
Mission Specific
Parameters
Boeing
Boeing
Boeing
737-9001 757-2001 777-200LR1
MD-831
A3212002
A330Threshold
3002
Cruise Mach
0.785
0.8
0.85
0.76
0.78
0.82
>0.7
Maximum Passenger
Capacity
215
234
440
172
220
335
>200
MTOGW w/ 200
passengers (lb)
174200
255000
766000
160000
200000
460765
-
Max Range at MTOGW
w/ 200 pax (nm)
*n/a
3600
9200
*n/a
2500
5800
>3500
Take-Off Length at Sea
Level at MTOGW (ft)
*n/a
9500
14200
*n/a
7500
6800
<7000
*cannot exceed 200 passengers w/o exceeding MTOGW
1 Courtesy
2 Courtesy
of Boeing online documentation
of Airbus online documentation
Design Mission Concept1
Cruise > 0.7 M
Direct
Climb
Descent
Loiter
Design Range≈ 3300 nmi
<7000 ft
Taxi and Take Off
≈ 200 nmi
Land and Taxi
Missed Approach
Land and Taxi
(0) -> (4) : ‘Basic Mission’ (5) -> (9) : ‘Reserve Segments’
1Extrapolated
from Raymer, Daniel Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Fig. 3.2
Advanced Concepts and Technologies in Consideration
Blended Wing Body

The blended wing body (BWB) is an aircraft
technology that incorporates both a fuselage and
the concept a flying wing.

Potential Benefits




Significant reduction in drag, structural
weight, increase in lift characteristics.
Spacious cabin with increased options for
customers
Easy embedding of engines in body for
decreased noise generation
Costs



Analysis is very different than conventional
aircraft
Design is favorable for larger aircrafts
http://www.twitt.org/bldwing.htm#more
Representation in our design

10-15% decrease in empty weight, 10% decrease
in drag and 10% lower direct operating cost
http://www.twitt.org/BWBBowers.html
Image courtesy of NASA
21
Advanced Concepts and Technologies in Consideration
Laminar Flow Technologies

Extending laminar flow across areas of the aircraft will decrease skin friction
drag and increase aerodynamic efficiency. The wing and the fuselage offer the
highest potential for friction drag friction.
Potential Benefits



A 50% increase in laminarity translates to a 5-7% reduction in friction drag .
Costs


Requires intricate structures within the body to implement.
Requires increased maintenance which will increase operating costs.
Image courtesy of Clean Sky
22
Advanced Concepts and Technologies in Consideration
Laminar Flow Technologies

Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC)


Suction can be implemented at the leading edge of the
body to allow for longer attached flow.
Laminar Flow Control (LFC)


Suction can be implemented along the entire airfoil.
Discrete Roughness Elements (DRE)


These can be implemented on the wings to increase the
extent of laminar flow. NASA believes that this could
sustain natural laminar flow to almost 60% of the
chord length.
Model Representations



HLFC will result in a 10-15% less fuel consumption
whereas LFC will be 20-25%.
2% increase in operating cost
Overall empty weight increase will depend on the
material for the technologies.
http://www.aviationweek.com
Image courtesy of NASA
23
Advanced Concepts and Technologies in Consideration
Spiroids

A spiroid is placed on the end of the wing to eliminate wing tip vortices. It
differs from the conventional blended wing tip because it curves over and
adjoins to the wing again
Potential Benefits



Eliminates the concentrated wingtip vortices generated at a wing tips, these wing tips
account for nearly half the induced drag generated during cruise.
Model Representation


10% improvement in fuel burn
Costs will be represented as the cost of a conventional blended wingtip.
http://www.flightgobal.com
24
Advanced Concepts and Technologies in Consideration
Composites

Potential Benefits




Decreased empty operating weight of overall
structure.
Increased strength and higher resistance to corrosion.
Can be molded to create a variety of shapes which will
decrease the use of rivets and increase aerodynamic
efficiency.
Costs


The price of composite material is still very high at
this time.
Model Representation



10% improvement in fuel burn
1-2% decrease in in the operating empty weight
10-15 % increase in overall cost
Image courtesy of NASA
25
Advanced Concepts and Technologies in Consideration
Quiet Drag Applications

Devices such as the engine air brake currently being developed can produce ‘quiet
drag’ that can replace the function of flaps with much lower noise generation.
Potential Benefits



Increase the glide slope for aircraft during approach with much less dB of noise
generated.
Costs


Relatively new technology that has never been implemented on a known aircraft fleet.
Model Representation

These applications could result in up to about a 25dB decrease of cumulative noise as
compared to the conventional aircraft of today.
Image courtesy of ATA Engineering
26
Counter Rotating Propfan / Unducted Fan
What is it?
 A customized turbofan engine, and form of
the ultra-high bypass engine
 The fan is placed exterior the nacelle and
on the axis of the compressor blades.
 A second blade row has been developed
and placed creating the counter-rotating
propfan.
 This in effect doubles the rpm of the turbine
allowing for a smaller and more efficient
engine.
 Feasible by allowing the second blade row
to offset the swirl effects from the first row.
Reference: NASA Glenn Research Center
 In comparison to a single rotating propeller
this straightens the thrust and increases the
efficiency.
27
Counter Rotating Propfan / Unducted Fan
 Benefits:
 Increased Fuel Efficiency
 Reduce Emissions
 Disadvantages:
 Increased Noise
 Decreased Mach Range
 Implementation:
Reference: airforceworld.com
 Improve model fuel burn by 25-30 %
 Lower Mach than commercial jet at around 0.72
 Increase engine noise level to 93 dB
 Study of emission reduction still in progress
28
Partial Electric Assisted Take-Off
What is it?
 A means to conserve a portion of energy and
fuel during takeoff and time on runway
 Electrically powered ground based towing
vehicles
 Method #1: Amass energy in a bank of
flywheels by means of ceramic-batteries or
ultra capacitors
 Method#2: Conduit collection of power
such as utilized by the streetcars of
Washington (DC)
Reference: Inekon Trams

Buried conduits on side of runway

Towing vehicles outfitted with equipment
extending to edge that access electrical
power
 Able to accelerate a series of aircraft to their
take-off speed
29
Partial Electric Assisted Take-Off
 Benefits:
 Conserve Amount of Fuel from Take-Off and
Time on Runway
 Reduce Emissions
 Disadvantages:
 Initial Cost of Outfitting the Necessary
Airports with the Required Equipment
 Implementation:
 Conserve 25 % of fuel that would be consumed on the runway
which is 3% of GTOW.
 Data into the amount of possible reduction of exhaust
emissions is still being researched and cannot be given
30
Sizing Algorithm
 Currently using
empirical estimators
 Power curve fit for
empty weight

OEW = .4723*GTOW1.0086
 L/D and SFC estimates
for cruise and loiter fuel
fractions

f =e(-SFC/LD*t_segment)
 Historical values for TO,
land, taxi, and climb
Reference: Raymer
31
Calibration and Future Plans
 Predicted weights were
well within error bounds of
inputs (L/Dmax, SFC, etc)
 Calibration unnecessary
due to large uncertainties
in inputs
 Future plans
 OEW and Drag build ups
 Include Wave Drag
 Get away from ‘historical’
fractions approach for fuel
fractions
757-200
RB211-53E9
767-200
2-class
Pax
200 PAX
40000 lbs
224 PAX
44800 lbs
OEW
127,520 lbs
176,100 lbs
GTOW
243,743 lbs
317,000 lbs
Max Fuel
for GTOW
76,225 lbs
96,100 lbs
Range
3700 NM
3800NM
Predicted
GTOW
264,570 lbs
321,900 lbs
Predicted
EOW
139,100 lbs
169,540 lbs
Predicted
Fuel
85,400 lbs
107,540 lbs
Reference: Boeing
32
Summary
 Design goal has been set
 Markets and customers have been identified
 Performance gains from new technologies and
concepts are being considered
 Initial sizing code is completed
33
Future Plans
 More detailed design of aircraft will be conceived.
 Trade study on new technologies and concepts will be
done.
 Add detail to performance gains from new
technologies.
 Start on the next phase of the sizing code.
34