2012-2013 FAA Design Competition for Universities

Electric/Hybrid-Electric Aircraft Technology Design Category

University Name Advisors: 3

Georgia Institute of Technology
Graduate Team Members: 7
Tim Banning
Grant Bristow
Clelia Level
Leslie Sollmann
Jorge Calderon-Fernandez
Doug Wells (Distance Learning)
Matthew Olson (Distance Learning)
Dr. Dimitri Mavris (Academic)
Dr. Jimmy Tai (Technical)
Christopher Perullo (Technical)
Undergraduate Team Members: 4
Nicole Davis
Clarence Du
Sudhanshu Ambadpudi
Jacob Paulson
Executive Summary
The NXG-50 hybrid-electric aircraft is presented in response to Challenge V of the 2012-

2013 FAA Design Competition for Universities by GT Aircraft, Inc consisting of seven graduate

students, two of whom were distance learning, and four undergraduate students from the Georgia

Institute of Technology. The Next Generation Air Transportation System provides a driving

force for the development of new aircraft requiring technology infusion to address green

aviations reduced emissions and energy consumption objectives; offering a feasible and viable

solution in closing the gap between current aviation operations and NextGen 2025 goals. The

Georgia Tech Integrated Product and Process Development decision-making process and a

compatibility driven down-selection approach was used to investigate numerous concept

alternatives and obtain the optimum-compromised design solution, as well as allow for the

inclusion of abstract design disciplines, such as safety and risk management. The final

architecture, the NXG-50, is a 50 passenger, short to medium range regional transport, powered

by a hybrid-electric propulsion system. Balancing the benefits of conventional fuel and high

energy density batteries, the aircraft provides an environmentally feasible solution while still

meeting cruise speed and balanced field length requirements. Through more reliable electric

systems and decreased fuel burn, the NXG-50 reduces life cycle cost by 4.2% in comparison to a

baseline CRJ200 regional jet. Turnaround time, airport electric demand, airport infrastructure,

and personnel skills and training are minimally impacted through the integration of more electric

components requiring less maintenance and servicing. The innovative technology suite

implemented on the NXG-50 provides a future regional jet with expected reductions of 15% for

life-cycle energy consumption, 13 EPNL reduction for aircraft noise certification levels, and

21% reduction for life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to the baseline.

i
Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv
Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................ v
Problem Statement and Background .......................................................................................... 1
PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND AND CURRENT CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 1
DESIGN ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 2
STATE OF THE ART APPROACHES ................................................................................................. 3
Literature Review and Problem Solving Approach .................................................................. 4
CURRENT MARKET OUTLOOK AND FUTURE SCENARIO ............................................................... 4
TECHNOLOGY FORECAST ............................................................................................................. 5
PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACH.................................................................................................... 6
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ...................................................................................................... 25
Safety Risk Assessment............................................................................................................... 31
AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT ASSESSMENT..................................................................... 32
REQUIRED SKILLS AND TRAINING .............................................................................................. 34
Implementation and Financial Analysis ................................................................................... 36
IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................................... 36
BUSINESS SCENARIO .................................................................................................................. 37
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix A List of Complete Contact Information ........................................................... A-1
Appendix B Georgia Institute of Technology ...................................................................... B-1
Appendix C Non-University Partners .................................................................................. C-1
Appendix D Design Submission Form ................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E Educational Evaluation .................................................................................... E-1
Appendix F References ...........................................................................................................F-1
Appendix G Additional Documentation .............................................................................. G-1

ii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Airline Industry Dynamics [14] ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Problem Solving Approach ............................................................................................. 7
Figure 3: IRMA and Morphological Matrix (Red=Incompatible) ................................................ 11
Figure 4: Selected Aircraft Architectures ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Selected Propulsion Architectures................................................................................. 12
Figure 6: Primary and Secondary Constraint Diagrams ............................................................... 16
Figure 7: Shifting Design Space ................................................................................................... 17
Figure 8: Design Mission Profile [27] .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 9: Final Concept Architecture ........................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: Top and Front View of Cabin Layout ......................................................................... 19
Figure 11: Propulsion Integration System .................................................................................... 21
Figure 12: Battery Technology Chart [96].................................................................................... 22
Figure 13: Empennage Configuration ........................................................................................... 23
Figure 14: Electrical Sub System Schematic ................................................................................ 24
Figure 15: Different Mission Segment Electrical Load Profiles .................................................. 24
Figure 16: Noise Contour Plot for NXG-50 Aircraft .................................................................... 28
Figure 17: Mission Lifecycle GHG Emissions Trade Study ........................................................ 30
Figure 18: Airline vs. Manufacturer ROI ..................................................................................... 39
Figure 19: Compliance Matrix ...................................................................................................... 40
Figure 20: Georgia Tech [95] ..................................................................................................... B-1
Figure 21: Top Level Requirement Flowdown ........................................................................... G-2
Figure 22: Notional IRMA With Compatibility (Red=Incompatible) ........................................ G-3
Figure 23: Physical vs Functional Decomposition ..................................................................... G-3
Figure 24: Bombardier CRJ200 [90] .......................................................................................... G-4
Figure 25: Design Exploration and Modeling and Simulation Architecture .............................. G-5
Figure 26: Scatterplot Matrix (Visual Analytics) ....................................................................... G-5
Figure 27: Detailed Mission Profile ............................................................................................ G-6
Figure 28: Energy Weight Trade Study ...................................................................................... G-6
Figure 29: V-n Diagram .............................................................................................................. G-7
Figure 30: NXG-50 Weight Breakdown ..................................................................................... G-8
Figure 31: Center of Gravity Excursion Diagram....................................................................... G-8

iii
Figure 32: Component and Total Drag Breakdown .................................................................... G-9
Figure 33: Theoretical Cruise Drag Polar ................................................................................... G-9
Figure 34: Payload/Range Capability ....................................................................................... G-10
Figure 35: Subsystem Layout ................................................................................................... G-11
Figure 36: Lifecycle GHG Emissions per Unit of Energy [39] ................................................ G-14
Figure 37: Manufacture Return on Investment and Breakeven Unit Number .......................... G-15
Figure 38: Operating Cost Breakdown ..................................................................................... G-15
Figure 39: Airline Return on Investment .................................................................................. G-16
List of Tables
Table I: Metrics of Interest ............................................................................................................. 8
Table II: Steps for Creating an IRMA ............................................................................................ 9
Table III: TOPSIS Weighting Breakdown .................................................................................... 13
Table IV: Aircraft Architecture TOPSIS Results ......................................................................... 13
Table V: Propulsion TOPSIS Results ........................................................................................... 13
Table VI: Final Architectures ....................................................................................................... 14
Table VII: Wing Geometry ........................................................................................................... 20
Table VIII: Empennage Geometry................................................................................................ 23
Table IX: Single Aircraft Environmental Benefits Summary....................................................... 27
Table X: Fleet Environmental Analysis Summary ....................................................................... 29
Table XI: SRM Five Phase Approach to Safety Mitigation ......................................................... 32
Table XII: Calculated Energy per NXG-50 (60% Discharge) ...................................................... 32
Table XIII: Aircraft Acquistion Price ........................................................................................... 37
Table XIV: Direct, Indirect & Total Operating Cost ($ 2012 / Trip) ........................................... 38
Table XV: Industry Experts ........................................................................................................ G-1
Table XVI: Technology Readiness Levels ................................................................................. G-1
Table XVII: Aircraft and Propulsion Architecture Concepts ..................................................... G-4
Table XVIII: Fuselage Trade Study............................................................................................ G-7
Table XIX: Regional Jet Best In Class ....................................................................................... G-7
Table XX: Flying Quality Assessment ..................................................................................... G-10
Table XXI: Operating Cost Breakdown Per Trip ..................................................................... G-17
Table XXII: Evaluation Criteria Compliance Matrix ............................................................... G-19

iv
Nomenclature
Acronyms
ALCCA Aircraft Life Cycle Cost Analysis TOFL Takeoff Field Length
ANOPP Aircraft Noise Prediction Program TOGW Takeoff Gross Weight
APU Auxiliary Power Unit TOPSISTechnique for Ordered Preference
CAEP Committee on Aviation by Similarity to Ideal Solutions
Environmental Protection RDT&E Research, Development, Testing
CFD Computation Fluid Dynamics and Evaluation
CLEEN Continuous Lower Energy, RFP Request for Proposal
Emissions, and Noise RoI Return on Investment
e-fan Electric Fan RPM Revenue Passenger Mile
FAA Federal Aviation Administration USAF United States Air Force
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations VSP Vehicle Sketch Pad
FLOPS Flight Optimization System
GHG Greenhouse Gas Regular Symbols
GREAT Global and Regional Aspect Ratio
Environmental Aviation Trade-off cg Center of Gravity
GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Aircraft Zero Lift Drag Coefficient
Emissions, and Energy Use in Compressibility Drag Coefficient
Transportation Model Induced Drag Coefficient
HEV Hybrid-Electric Air Vehicle
Pressure Lift Drag Coefficient
HTS High Temperature
Superconducting Aircraft Drag Coefficient
ICAO International Civil Aviation Aircraft Lift Coefficient
Organization Ci Closeness to Ideal
INM Integrated Noise Model kVA Kilo Volt-Amps
IRMA Interactive Reconfigurable Matrix kW Kilowatt
of Alternatives kWh Kilowatt-Hour
LE Leading Edge L/D Lift to Drag Ratio
LTO Landing and Takeoff MJ Mega Joule
MAC Mean Aerodynamic Chord MW Megawatt
MADM Multi-Attribute Decision Making N Load Factor
P/W Power Loading
MOI Metric of Interest S* Ideal Positive Separation
MSL Mean Sea Level S- Ideal Negative Separation
MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight Time to double amplitude (sec)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Equivalent Velocity (knots)
Administration Take-off Weight (lbs)
NextGen Next Generation Air W/S Wing Loading (lbs/ft)
Transportation System Greek
NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Time to half amplitude (sec)
Systems Damping Ratio
R&D Research and Development

v
Problem Statement and Background
Problem Statement
In an effort to reduce carbon emissions, energy consumption, and noise to meet the goals

of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), this particular design challenge

requires the design of a 25-50 passenger regional aircraft using electric or hybrid-electric

propulsion with a cruise Mach regime of 0.72-0.8, at least a 500 nautical mile range, and service

entry by 2025 [1]. Current regional aircraft are capable of ranges on the order of 1,500 nautical

miles and are comprised of turbo propeller aircraft capable of carrying 9-78 passengers and jet

powered aircraft carrying 30-108 passengers [2].

In addition to the passenger, speed, and range requirements defined by the Request for

Proposal (RFP), assumptions for technology readiness and timeframes as well as estimates of

production, operation, and maintenance costs are required [1]. Road blocks to implementation

regarding power generation and power management will require assessment [1]. Furthermore, a

multitude of specialists, from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) including inspectors,

trainers, and certifiers, as well as airport operators, service and, maintenance personnel will need

training on this new system [1]. Life-cycle emissions and environmental impacts including noise,

particulate emissions, and fuel burn at the single level and fleet level will be estimated assuming

total replacement of existing same-class aircraft by 2025 [1]. Finally, the metrics for comparison

to existing aircraft must be based on energy consumption and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions

rather than traditional metrics such as gallons of fuel [1].

Background and Current Conditions

NextGen is a broad overhaul of the National Airspace System which currently consists of

excessive delays, adverse environmental impacts, and safety risks [3]. The changes associated

with NextGen provide an opportunity to improve the nations economy and reduce overall

1
carbon footprint [3]. These changes are achieved through better use of the national airspace,

airports and the integration of more environmentally responsible aircraft [3]. NextGen is driving

the advancement of the airspace infrastructure which includes: positively impacting overall

economic health and the global environment, restoring flexibility to the system for future growth,

and enhancing airspace safety [3]. Despite its many expected benefits, NextGen is not without

limitations as stringent environmental constraints on new aircraft must be satisfied to sustain

future growth. The FAAs Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) goals of

reducing fuel burn by 33% and oxides of nitrogen by 60% impose environmental design

constraints for competitive NextGen systems [3]. The environmental goals outlined by CLEEN

cannot be achieved by existing conventional aircraft, making new technology such as electric or

hybrid-electric propulsion imperative for NextGen implementation.

Design Issues
Currently, no electric or hybrid-electric aircraft exist to service the US regional passenger

transport market, presenting a variety of design issues [2]. GT Aircraft, Inc recognizes that the

propulsion system is the source of many of these issues. The design of the propulsion system

must decrease noise, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions while still providing a

cost-effective solution for service entry in 2025 [4]. Thus, the aircraft design becomes a balance

between new system technology integration for efficiency, as well as minimizing complexity and

weight associated with respective new technologies. For example, using batteries and/or fuel

cells may increase efficiency and reduce fuel burn, but have prohibitive characteristics such as

increased weight and complexity [5].

One of the biggest technical hurdles for new aircraft is energy storage (energy density) in

the form of batteries for an aircrafts electrical needs [6]. Recent studies indicate the maturation

2
of energy storage methods could accelerate based on demand from commercial electronics and

automobiles [7]. Despite the expected energy storage technology maturation, little is known

about future capabilities and expected timelines; therefore, the inclusion of advanced energy

storage options in the aircraft design must rely on appropriate predictions and expert opinions.

GT Aircraft, Inc understands that one of the more important challenges in this design is

minimizing additional requirements to the airport infrastructure due to the implementation of a

new electric or hybrid-electric aircraft. Simplifying implementation is essential for integration

into NextGen and to inspire interest from airlines; resulting in a successful and profitable modern

aircraft [3]. To accurately assess these issues, industry experts and airline operators

professional judgments (as catalogued in Appendix G, Table XV) and safety issues will be

considered.

Finally, electric or hybrid-electric aircraft have been conceptualized to satisfy NextGen

requirements. In conjunction with new technology, new design practices must be implemented to

provide more efficient aircraft. Currently, regional passenger transports are designed for long

ranges to enable more capability; however, these aircraft rarely fly distances greater than 1000

nautical miles [8]. The one size fits all design approach has shown inferior environmental

performance and from an energy consumption perspective designing the aircraft for the

economical range mission is critical to increasing its efficiency [9].

State of the Art Approaches

In order to address these design issues, state of the art methodologies and tools were

reviewed. The Georgia Tech Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) design

decision support process is a state of the art management methodology, incorporating a

systematic approach to the early integration and concurrent application of all the disciplines that

3
play a part throughout a systems life cycle[10]. This approach ensures maximum flexibility for

optimization and proactive identification and management of risk[10].

The Interactive Reconfigurable Matrix of Alternatives (IRMA) is a qualitative,

systematic, structured decision matrix used to integrate objective and implicit knowledge into the

concept selection process [11]. The use of compatibility matrices ensure that interrelationships

between concept options are captured and displayed [11]. Due to the interdependencies of

engineering disciplines, options chosen based on convenience, familiarity, or aesthetics rather

than objective information may lead to an inferior result [11].

The Architecture-Independent Aircraft Sizing Method (AIASM) is a proposed solution

by Nam to the additional design complexity imposed by electric/hybrid-electric aircraft sizing

[12]. Current sizing methods assume coupling between propulsion system sizing and aircraft

sizing, are limited to certain types of fuel, and assume a decrease in weight of the aircraft during

flight proportional to fuel flow [12]. Nams method addresses these shortcomings through a

generalized propulsion system model, the concept of multiple power paths, use of multiple

energy sources, and generalized weight decomposition [12].

Literature Review and Problem Solving Approach

Current Market Outlook and Future Scenario
Prior to understanding the market outlook, one must understand the current state of the

airline industry to help define future design decisions. The airline operating environment is

driven by challenging, hard to predict pressures including volatile fuel prices, a continually

shifting world economy, regulatory policies, large scale events such as the attacks on September

11th, 2001, changing traffic growth, and environmental pressures [13]. Global economic growth

drives air travel and in turn airline fleet growth which can be seen in Figure 1 [14].

4
 The 2011 FAA Aerospace Forecast

predicts 550 million more passengers to be

on U.S. carriers by 2031 with an average

annual growth rate of 3% domestically

[15]. Due to this expected passenger

growth and the need for improved airspace FIGURE 1: AIRLINE INDUSTRY DYNAMICS [14]

utilization and reduced aviation environmental impact, approximately 34,000 airplanes are

forecasted to replace older, less efficient models, stimulating innovation in airline business [13].

Specifically, significant 50-seat jet retirements and a regional jet growth rate of 2% annually

through 2031 are expected in the domestic market [15]. These expectations result in the need for

the commercialization of new, greener regional aircraft to better serve passengers.

One way in meeting passenger needs is improving airline commercial service access

because only 63% of the population is conveniently located near commercial service airports

even though 98% of the US population is within 20 miles of the 3,330 existing National Plan of

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airports [16]. By increasing flight frequency to these under-

utilized airports through affordable, regional aircraft the supply-demand gap is bridged,

improving profitability while maximizing airspace utilization. This improvement is achieved

through a balance of point-to-point and hub-to-point services. This scenario imposes design

constraints, such as reduced field length, increased emission concerns, and airline load factor.

Technology Forecast
In order to address imposed design constraints and ensure a feasible design space, a

specific set of technologies are required. There exist fundamental requirements for any

technology used in aircraft applications, namely high reliability, high availability and high power

5
density, while reducing weight, complexity, fuel consumption, operational costs, and

environmental impact [17]. Although there exist airframe technologies that address design goals,

as seen in Cal Polys AMELIA report, other studies including the Boeing SUGAR report place

importance on propulsion technologies which is in alignment with this design challenge[14] [18].

One such potential enabling technology is High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) Electric

Motors due to their high specific power. However, high operating temperatures and immaturity

in cryogenic cooling systems exclude HTS technology from the design study [19]. Another

significant limiting factor regarding electric propulsion is energy density, which currently is an

order of magnitude lower than existing fossil fuels [20]. Currently lithium air (Li-Air) batteries

hold the key to bridging the gap between fossil fuels and batteries [21]. For the timeframe of this

design challenge Li-Air batteries will not be deemed an enabling technology due to the infancy

of the associated programs [21]. The exclusion of these enabling technologies renders purely

electric propulsion infeasible, requiring a hybrid-electric propulsion architecture. For this design

challenge, GT Aircraft, Inc identified all technologies possessing technology readiness levels

(TRLs) of 6 or higher to be potential enablers by 2025. A summary of technologies and their

respective TRLs are shown in Appendix G, Table XVI.

Problem Solving Approach

Based on the design issues and literature review, GT Aircraft, Inc followed the Georgia

Tech Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) design decision support process in

order to address the broad scope of this design challenge. Following the IPPD process, a Concept

Development and Systems Engineering (CDSE) approach was taken to enable full exploration of

the problem definition, concept development, and concept selection prior to system definition

and design. This approach provided the ability to determine the best design through a process

6
that trades requirements, technologies, and

concepts. Figure 2 outlines the problem solving

approach.

Requirement Analysis
In order to fully define the design

problem, the aircraft system was broken down

into a set of requirements that must be satisfied.

The design challenge has defined several

requirements including a range of 500 nautical

miles and a cruise speed of 0.72-0.80 Mach. FIGURE 2: PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACH

NextGen implementation imposes additional requirements derived from environmental standards

and objectives, and federal regulations. Based on the FAA CLEEN initiative the environmental

requirements are: a cumulative noise reduction of -32 EPNL below Stage IV, LTO NOx

emissions reduction of 60% below CAEP 6, and a 33% reduction in energy consumption relative

to 2005 best in class [19]. In order to operate at a majority of the NPIAS airports the design will

require a balanced field length of 5,400 feet. A summary of requirements can be found in

Appendix G, Figure 21, and were mapped to a set of metrics in order to establish value in the

IPPD process ladder.

Establish Value
Based on the design challenge requirements and motivation, and in alignment with the

NextGen initiatives [22], a set of Metrics of Interest (MOIs) were chosen and weighted, shown

in Table I, in order to evaluate the goodness of each the alternative solutions. These drivers

simplified decisions that had inherent bias and assisted in the resolution of conflicts during the

progression of the design.

7
 TABLE I: METRICS OF INTEREST

Metric of Interest Reason Chosen Weighting

Balanced field length is important to enabling the aircraft to operate at smaller,

Balanced Field underutilized airports and in turn increasing capacity. In addition, it considers
15%
Length minimization of empty weight as an enabling parameter which also directly relates
to minimizing cost.

Improvement upon energy consumption and emissions prevents the aircraft from
Energy
being a constraint to the airspace systems growth. Energy consumption and
Consumption/ 35%
emissions were incorporated into one MoI to avoid biasing the design due to the
Emissions
existence of a strong correlation.

Noise improvement is particularly important to this challenge because it is an

enabling requirement for integration into NextGen. This metric also incorporates
Noise 25%
minimization of cost to external entities due to noise, passenger and community
comfort as well as considers aerodynamic properties of the system.

Reduction of life-cycle cost considers reduction in operations and maintenance cost

Life-Cycle Cost as well as reduction in production costs to enable economic growth in NextGen and 10%
a marketable aircraft.

Not only must this aircraft be designed to certification requirements to join the
Safety 15%
airspace system, but it must also be deemed safe and reliable for public acceptance.

Generate Alternatives (Concept Selection)

The Morphological Matrix of Alternatives is a concept development systems engineering

technique for functionally or physically decomposing an existing system into a set of

components [14]. The NXG-50 concept selection used the Interactive Reconfigurable Matrix of

Alternatives (IRMA) developed by the Georgia Tech Aerospace Systems Design Lab (ASDL)

which uses the Morphological Matrix of Alternatives [23]. Due to the complexity of advanced

systems, the IRMA captures the entire design space where there may be upwards of billions of

possible solutions and outputs concept architectures (alternatives) through a manageable design

space down-selection process enabled by compatibility relationships. Compatibility relationships

describe whether one morphological matrix component alternative is compatible with another

matrix component alternative. This can be seen in the notional IRMA in Appendix G, Figure 22

when the selection of an electric energy source removes the ability to select Brayton cycle,

8
piston, and fuel cell power generation. These compatibility relationships drive the down-

selection and output an architecture upon completion. Before selecting a set of architectures to be

considered, several steps in the creation of the IRMA were performed. With the help of technical

advisors, the following steps described below (Table II) were completed to construct the notional

IRMA in Appendix G, Figure 22.

TABLE II: STEPS FOR CREATING AN IRMA

Step I Identify a set of customer requirements. Shown in Appendix G, Figure 21.
Step II Define problem in terms of requirements: Mapped requirements to MOIs (Table I).
Step III Decompose architecture requirements in terms of functional/physical taxonomy. Shown in
Figure 3.
Step IV Identify alternatives to compose morphological matrix. Shown in Figure 3.
Step V Establish compatibility relationships among all matrix component alternatives. Shown in
Figure 3.
Step VI Verify compatibility and ensure comprehensiveness of matrix decomposition. Completed
through literature reviews and guidance from technical advisors.
Step VII Select baseline system for comparison, decision making, and frame of reference.

In reference to Step III above, the IRMA can use a strictly functional or physical

taxonomy. An example of functional vs. physical decomposition can be seen through an analogy

in Appendix G, Figure 23. The analogy selects a reference design and shows that through a

physical decomposition the output designs are relatively similar to traditional designs, but in

order to achieve a revolutionary design a functional decomposition is required. Drastic changes

in the airframe architecture would be unrealistic to implement in accompaniment with drastic

changes to the propulsion architecture due to timeframe viability and associated risk. Because of

this, a physical taxonomy was used for the airframe architecture decomposition and a functional

taxonomy was used for the propulsion architecture decomposition which can be seen in Figure 3.

Step VII requires the establishment of a baseline aircraft. The Bombardier CRJ200 was

chosen by GT Aircraft, Inc as a frame of reference and for benchmarking purposes. The CRJ200

is a 50 passenger aircraft that can fly more than 500 nautical miles and operates in the 0.72-0.8

9
Mach regime [24]. The CRJ200 not only aligns perfectly with this design challenge, but it also

accounts for 33% of the US regional jet market and over 55% of 50 passenger regional jet

operations [2]. The CRJ200 is shown in Appendix G, Figure 24. It should be noted that analysis

methods used by GT Aircraft, Inc produce a model of the Bombardier CRJ200, but not the actual

aircraft. The modeled aircraft will be referred to as the baseline aircraft and offers a departure

point for the design.

Upon creation of the IRMA, concept alternatives were generated following the steps

outlined below:

IRMA Step 1 - Metric Impact and Order Selection: The first step was to map the impact of each

matrix component (None-Low-Med-High scale) to each metric of interest. This was done

through a review of literature and with the expertise of technical advisors. Once each component

was mapped to each metric, the order of selection was determined logically beginning with the

high impact components as to allow compatibility effects of the most important components to

drive the design. This can be seen in Figure 3.

IRMA Step 2 - Score Matrix of Alternatives: GT Aircraft, Inc investigated each Metric of

Interest and scored the matrix alternatives within each taxonomical component (row) based on

their value to the specific metric where 1 was very low, 3 was low, 5 was average, 7 was high,

and 9 was very high. This was completed for each MOI. An example can be seen in Figure 3

where a single fuselage scored a 5 whereas a two fuselage configuration scored a 3 due to the

associated increase in weight and drag having a detrimental effect on energy consumption.

10
 FIGURE 3: IRMA AND MORPHOLOGICAL MATRIX (RED=INCOMPATIBLE)

IRMA Step 3 - Down-Select Group Concepts: GT Aircraft, Inc began selecting alternatives with

respect to each metric of interest following the order of selection based on the highest scored

option. However, the highest scored option was not always the selection due to mission

capabilities and matrix compatibility effects. Upon completion, a set of architectures would be

down-selected. Figure 3 displays a mapping of a notional concept through the IRMA and its

respective sketched architecture.

11
IRMA Step 4 - Sketch Selected Architectures: Based on the aircraft architecture selections,

sketches for the aircraft system were created in Vehicle Sketch Pad (VSP) [25]. Similarly,

propulsion architecture sketches were created for the propulsion architecture selections.

Ultimately, a handful of aircraft architectures and propulsion architectures were

established for further investigation which can be seen in Appendix G, Table XVII, respectively.

The set of airframe and propulsion architectures from the IRMA process are shown in Figure 4

and Figure 5.

Balanced Field Length: Energy Consumption: Noise: Cost: Safety:

Architecture 1 Architecture 2 Architecture 3 Architecture 4 Archtitecture 5

Shorter landing Increased Noise shielding Lower operation Maintains baseline

distance efficiency with with U-tail cost through easier airframe
No prop wash open rotor maintenace (low
effects Increase stability wing, engine
below)
FIGURE 4: SELECTED AIRCRAFT ARCHITECTURES

Balanced Field Length: Energy Consumption: Noise: Cost: Safety:

Architecture 1 Architecture 2 Architecture 3 Architecture 4 Archtitecture 5

Full Electric Open

Hybrid Geared Fan Full Electric-Fan Electric-Fan Hybrid Turbofan
Rotor
Electric Motor Open Rotor Fan powered by Fan powered by Turbofan
coupled with geared powered by electric electric motor via electric motor via coupled with an
turbofan engine and motor from stored a gearbox a gearbox coupled electric motor
batteries battery energy powered only by to a turboelectric and batteries
batteries generator and
batteries
FIGURE 5: SELECTED PROPULSION ARCHITECTURES

The physical decomposition of the airframe architecture resulted in a set of evolutionary down-

selected concepts depicted in Figure 4. In contrast, the functional decomposition of the

12
propulsion architecture resulted in a set of revolutionary down-selected concepts depicted in

Figure 5.

Evaluate Alternatives
A Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) method, Technique for Ordered Preference

by Similarity to Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS) was used to rank concept alternatives through the use

of relative weights, MOI weightings, to represent preference information. TOPSIS includes

qualitative trade study effects such as wing mounted engine vs. fuselage mounted engine or

speed regime effects on open rotors. These types of effects are taken into account in the

alternative scoring. By investigating a range of weightings (Table III), GT Aircraft, Inc was able

to establish the sensitivity of the changes due to weighting bias. The final configuration was

shown to be the most robust solution for the weighted metric ranges.

TABLE III: TOPSIS WEIGHTING BREAKDOWN

Weighting Ranges
Energy
TOFL Noise Cost Safety
Consumption
Weighting 15% 35% 25% 10% 15%
Valid Range 0% - 25% 0% - 50% 25% - 50% 0% - 20% 10% - 50%

This MADM process of establishing the closeness to the ideal solution through the weighting of

normalized raw scores ensured the selection of the optimal-compromise solution. The summary

of airframe and propulsion architectures TOPSIS results are shown in Table IV and Table V

respectively.

TABLE IV: AIRCRAFT ARCHITECTURE TOPSIS RESULTS

Ranking Concept 3 Concept 2 Concept 1 Concept 5 Concept 4

Ci 0.6107 0.5201 0.4485 0.3893 0.3589

TABLE V: PROPULSION TOPSIS RESULTS

Ranking Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 1 Concept 3 Concept 2
Ci 0.7781 0.6819 0.6729 0.4061 0.4061

13
Based on GT Aircraft, Incs process, airframe architecture Concept 3 and propulsion system

architecture Concept 4, electric-fan (e-fan) powered by turboelectric generators and batteries,

were selected as the final architectures (Table IV) due to their closeness to the ideal solution.

Sizing and further analysis was performed using an integrated modeling and simulation

environment.

TABLE VI: FINAL ARCHITECTURES

Airframe Architecture Propulsion Architecture
Concept 3 Concept 4

Modeling and Simulation

Applying a traditional sizing and synthesis method to a hybrid-electric air vehicle (HEV)

poses unique challenges. The most significant challenge is the introduction of an additional

degree of freedom(s) and the alternate fuel source(s). Traditional formulations assume a single,

homogeneous fuel source that reduces in weight when consumed. This may not hold true for the

fuel source(s) of a HEV. Existing legacy tools incorporate traditional sizing approaches in their

design routines.

To address this concern, a generalized sizing method outlined in Nam [12], was

implemented to allow for the use of multiple power paths within a HEV. This allowed for the

integration of multiple fuel sources, whose weight(s) may or may not change as a function of

time. Similar to a traditional sizing and synthesis formulation, constraint analysis was performed

to ensure the HEV met the mission performance requirements. Due to the existence of multiple

power paths, multiple constraint plots were constructed, each unique to a specific power path.

There exists no closed form solution to finding the optimum power mix (portion of primary

14
power), and thus the objective of the modeling and simulation environment, in addition to sizing

the aircraft, was to determine the optimum power mix between turboelectric generators and

batteries, ensuring the maximum feasible design space.

An existing Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) code and a Numerical Propulsion

System Simulation (NPSS) analysis code, both developed by NASA, were used to form the

foundation of the modeling and simulation environment [26]. A synthesis tool was then

developed, encompassing the formulations outlined in Nam [12], to augment the mission

analysis and performance calculations. Due to the conventional aircraft airframe, modification to

the weight and aerodynamic modules of FLOPS was not required. Using the calibrated baseline

model as a departure point, the aircraft underwent preliminary sizing by FLOPS and the primary

and secondary power path efficiency maps were determined using NPSS, and passed to the

synthesis code. The synthesis code, using Nam's formulation, determined the design point based

on constraint analysis and performed the mission analysis for a preselected power mix. The

sizing loop was then closed by feeding back the post mission analysis sized aircraft and

comparing it with the post FLOPS sized aircraft. If the comparison was not equivalent within

specified tolerances the propulsion size and required energy data was updated within FLOPS and

another sizing iteration performed. The described method illustrates the sizing routine for a

single power mix case. In order to establish a design space in which to investigate, the above

process was run for multiple power mixes, which was determined using the design of

experiments methodology. This described process is depicted in Appendix G, Figure 25.

Mission Analysis and Constraint Diagram

The constrained mission space for the NXG-50 was determined by plotting the contours

of each of the limiting mission requirements, shown in Figure 6. These requirements were both

15
derived and defined, and include requirements stated in the RFP, in conjunction with Federal

Aviation Regulations (FARs) [27].

FIGURE 6: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONSTRAINT DIAGRAMS

Due to the presence of multiple power paths, there exist three ideal power loading and

wing loading configurations at which to evaluate. These correspond to minimum primary power

loading, minimum secondary power loading and maximum wing loading. Through the use of the

established integrated design environment and visual analytic methods, shown in Appendix G,

Figure 25 and Figure 26, it was determined that maximizing the wing loading was preferable to

minimizing power loading, in order to obtain the most robust design. Ensuring a large feasible

design space is paramount allowing for growth or deviation from the selected design point, while

still being able to satisfy the design requirements. The feasible space is depicted as the white

region in Figure 7.

16
 Power Mix @ Climb

Power Mix @ Climb

Power Mix @ TO = 85% Power Mix @ TO = 95%

Power Mix @ Cruise Power Mix @ Cruise

FIGURE 7: SHIFTING DESIGN SPACE

The design mission profile depicted in Figure 8 is a forecasted NextGen regional aircraft

mission profile and is detailed in Appendix G, Figure 27. A traditional mission profile for this

class of aircraft consists of a takeoff, climb, step cruise, descent, loiter, and divert segment. This

traditional profile was augmented for use in a future environment, and takes into account

improved airway management and spacing. These modifications include an optimized climb

profile, as well as a continuous descent approach.

FIGURE 8: DESIGN MISSION PROFILE [27]

Using the integrated design environment, the power mix of the primary and secondary

power paths were explored, shown in Figure 7. Through the use of the above described physics

17
based sizing and synthesis environment and visual analytics techniques, the optimum mission

profile and power mix schedule was determined, see Figure 8, the primary and secondary power

paths were appropriately sized and the required wing loading determined.

The environment was then used to perform multivariate trade studies to ensure an

optimum wing and empennage configuration. This was achieved by performing sensitivity

studies to determine key design variables. Once the key variables were identified, trade studies

were performed to establish the optimal compromised solution. An example of this process can

be seen in Appendix G, Figure 28.

Final Sized Concept Architecture

The Concept 3 airframe architecture

includes aft mounted hybrid engines along with

a low wing and a U-tail empennage

configuration which has shown evidence of

noise reduction benefits [28]. The Concept 4

propulsion architecture coupled an electric FIGURE 9: FINAL CONCEPT ARCHITECTURE

motor fan with a generator. The combined architectures, the NXG-50, are shown in Figure 9.

Vehicle Definition
Once the NXG-50 concept architecture was selected and conceptual sizing performed, the

preliminary vehicle was defined. The preliminary design phase focused on important commercial

aircraft components such as fuselage, propulsion system, wing, and aircraft subsystems.

Fuselage
The fuselage must not only meet the design challenge requirement of 25-50 passengers,

but also support cabin pressurization and all subsystems, while concurrently abiding by Part 25

and Part 121 of the FARs [27]. A circular cross section fuselage was chosen as it provides a
18
strong pressure vessel that is easy to manufacture while minimizing drag and weight and

therefore cost which can all be seen in Appendix G, Table XVIII.

To provide the end user (the passenger) with a higher level of comfort, the seating

arrangement was designed not only to meet FAR minimums, but to exceed all competitive

aircraft in todays regional jet fleet as shown in Appendix G, Table XIX, with an additional 3

inches in seat pitch, an additional 1.2 inches in seat width, and an additional 2 inches for aisle

width. The fuselage layouts are shown in Figure 10.

FIGURE 10: TOP AND FRONT VIEW OF CABIN LAYOUT

Further structural analysis was performed to ensure structural loading requirements

outlined in FAR Part 25 were met. Figure 29 in Appendix G depicts the required maximum

design load factor of 2.58. In addition to structural constraints, component weights were

calculated as seen in Appendix G, Figure 30 where fuselage and hydraulics weights were

reduced. Using information provided in Figure 30 and component locations, a center of gravity

excursion diagram (Appendix G, Figure 31) shows a 0.6% change in mean aerodynamic chord

from forward most to aft most location.

Wing
From the initial airframe selection a cantilevered, low wing was selected due to

advantages regarding maintenance and ground operations, accommodating maximum cabin

space for passenger comfort, and incorporating dihedral to increase stability [29]. Due to the

19
 airframes conventional design the wing layout was based on the CRJ200 wing and

optimized using FLOPS for the NXG-50 nominal mission, the wing geometry can be seen in

Table VII. Based on this geometry the NASA supercritical airfoil series was selected for its

cruise aerodynamic efficiency. Finally, double

TABLE VII: WING GEOMETRY
slotted fowler flaps and leading edge slats
Parameter Value
were engineered to meet the required Wingspan 81 ft
Aspect Ratio 9.7
Avg. Thickness/Chord 0.12
additional lift for takeoff and landing per
Taper Ratio 0.3
Root Chord 12ft
Roskam [30]. The lateral control layout is
Tip Chord 3.4 ft
MAC 8.4 ft
shown in the top view of the 3-view provided Dihedral 2.1
Sweep, c/4 35
on page G-18.

In addition to selecting the airfoil shape and determining the wing configuration, drag

calculations were performed to ensure optimum cruise efficiency, seen in Figure 32 and Figure

33 in Appendix G. With this optimum cruise efficiency, the NXG-50 meets the 500 nautical mile

range requirement as depicted in the payload-range diagram (Appendix G, Figure 34), satisfying

point-to-point and hub-to-point capabilities with a design range of 1,000 nautical miles.

Propulsion Design and Analysis

The propulsion system plays a fundamental role in the aircraft electric power system. The

propulsions main turboelectric generators drive the e-fan motors to generate the required thrust.

However, these generators also recharge the high density batteries of the aircraft and generate

power for the subsystems. The e-fan units are connected to the aircraft main body through pylon

structures as is standard in the industry. In this case however, the pylon only needs to allow

space for a high energy density cables instead of the bleeding ports and fuel pipes that are

traditionally hosted. The pylon is structurally optimized without the piping restriction and

20
considering the reduced weight of the e-fan
Aircraft
engines, the propulsion integration saves weight
Batteries >
Aircraft
with respect to traditional propulsion systems. This Subsystems

Power
integration is shown in Figure 11. Management

Electric generator Propulsion System

The turboelectric generator power e-fan
Gas Generator

requirements according to the mission profile

simulations are 8,200 horsepower per generator FIGURE 11: PROPULSION INTEGRATION
SYSTEM
excluding efficiency losses. A typical turboelectric

generator is comprised of a compact gas turbine that powers a set of generators. Modern

Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) found in the civil aviation industry fulfill current electric

generator requirements for aircraft. They generate electricity from jet fuel in an efficient manner

with variable generators that adapt to the power demands. They also have reduced levels of noise

and emissions. A modern APU normally generates between 670 and 1340 horsepower [31]. For

our application a new 8,200 horsepower turboelectric unit is required for the NXG-50.

Electric-Fan and Motor

The e-fan is a ducted advanced fan powered by a lightweight electric motor via a gearbox

[14]. The power required per electric motor is 9,300 horsepower at maximum power (8,200

horsepower from turboelectric generator and 1,100 horsepower from batteries). The electric

motor is required to provide the desired power for a wide range of shaft speeds within efficiency

limits. The electric motor will be required to meet all FAA certification requirements such as fan

blade off, water ingestion, and extreme weather conditions. There is no precedent for commercial

e-fans in the aviation industry; therefore, an e-fan type electric motor will need to be developed

21
for this specific application. The electric motor technology is well understood; however, an

advanced lightweight, high efficiency motor needs to be developed [14].

Battery
The battery selection considered several types of battery technologies. One of the main

key metrics for battery selection was energy density since it had an important influence on the

performance of the aircraft. The chart presented in Figure 12 considers different battery

technologies used in aviation. Li-ion

technology achieves the best specific power

and specific energy. This translates to the

best specific discharge ratios and specific

energy storage respectively. Battery and jet

fuel are the two sources of energy in the

propulsion system. The reference value of

FIGURE 12: BATTERY TECHNOLOGY CHART [96]

specific energy for jet fuel is approximately 18,550 British thermal unit per pound (44 MJ/kg)

[32]. It is clear that jet fuel presents a specific performance advantage; however, the use of power

from batteries brings a series of environmental benefits by reducing particulate.

The safety and reliability of the battery is crucial for a robust design. Lithium batteries

based on cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) offer higher energy density; however, are less thermally robust

than other lithium battery types. The Boeing 787 battery incident has set the precedent on battery

certification, in particular for lithium batteries based on cobalt oxide. Although thermal related

concerns exist regarding battery usage, Boeings solution, based on the redesign of the batterys

internal components, proves that this type of battery is feasible within the aviation industry [33].

For these reasons and the great scope of future evolution of this technology, the cobalt oxide

based lithium batteries were selected for the propulsion system.

22
Empennage
The U-tail configuration seen in Figure 13 was sized to meet the stability and control

requirements of the NXG-50 as well as attenuate noise emissions associated with e-fans [28].

The empennage geometry provided in Table VIII meet the static stability requirements as well as

the dynamic stability requirements. With GT Aircraft, Incs design, the resulting static margin is

10% which is above the value of 5% suggested by Roskam [30] for longitudinal static stability.

Additionally, the directional static stability meets the minimum requirement of 0.001 per degree

suggested by Roskam [30]. A complete flying quality assessment can be found in Appendix G

Table XX.

TABLE VIII: EMPENNAGE GEOMETRY

U-Horizontal U-Vertical
Stabilizer Fins
Span 16 ft 13 ft
Aspect Ratio 2.3 2.8
Root Chord 8.7 ft 6.7 ft
Sweep, LE 13 28
Dihedral 0 57
FIGURE 13: EMPENNAGE CONFIGURATION
Subsystems
The NXG-50 was designed to incorporate both hybrid-electric propulsion and electric

subsystems to result in a more efficient and environmentally friendly regional jet. The NXG-50

subsystem layout is shown in Appendix G, Figure 35, and in comparison to a traditional regional

jet in Figure 14, all power for the subsystems is provided by the electric generators. The removal

of all hydraulic systems was found to reduce weight, operating cost, maintenance, and eliminate

contamination problems [34]. Similarly, the removal of engine bleed, as already proven in the

B787, improved engine efficiency, fuel consumption, reliability, and reduce maintenance costs

[34][35].

23
 FIGURE 14: ELECTRICAL SUB SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

The expected power load for the subsystems at various flight conditions was based on a

study completed for an all-electric aircraft concept for approximately 130 passengers [36]. This

study used a statistical approach with current referenced subsystem voltage requirements to

calculate expected power required for the electric subsystems [36]. Figure 15 shows the expected

power load for various electric subsystems at different conditions in the mission profile.

Actuation
Landing Gear
Total Power
External Lighting Condition
Load (kW)
Starter & Fuel Pump Ground Ground 195
Cabin Equipment Takeoff Takeoff 90
Climb 224
Avionics Cruise
Cruise 276
Ice Protection Descent 234
Environmental Control Loiter 231
Landing 96
0 50 100 150
Power (kW)

FIGURE 15: DIFFERENT MISSION SEGMENT ELECTRICAL LOAD PROFILES

24
Environmental Benefits
Four metrics were used to track the environmental impact of the NXG-50: energy

consumption, noise, landing-takeoff (LTO) cycle nitric oxides (NOx) emissions and life cycle

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These metrics were used to compare between the baseline

benchmark aircraft (CRJ200-based model) and the NXG-50. Several software tools, described in

the following sections, were used to model the environmental impacts of the baseline aircraft and

the NXG-50.

Single Aircraft Assessment

Acoustics
The Aircraft Noise Prediction Program (ANOPP) was used to assess the noise for the

baseline and NXG-50 aircraft [37]. The baseline aircraft was modified from a model calibrated

to the Bombardier CRJ200. The calibration of the baseline aircraft is explained in Appendix G in

the Acoustics section (G-11). The baseline model was then modified to the NXG-50 aircraft.

Suppression factors were used in ANOPP to appropriately model the reduction in core due to the

use of the electric propulsion system. The results (in dB below Stage IV) of the noise assessment

can be seen in Table IX.

Landing and Takeoff Emissions

LTO NOx emissions were calculated using the resulting engine parameters from the

sizing and mission analyses. The analysis is based on the rated output thrust at sea level static

and four operating points defined in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

Emissions Databank [38]. The NXG-50 electric contribution to the propulsion system did not

contribute to the LTO NOx analysis. Table IX shows the results of the LTO NOx analysis with a

reduction of 71% over the baseline and 58.2% below CAEP 6. Details of the analysis are found

in Appendix G (G-12).

25
Life Cycle GHG Emissions
Well-to-wake GHG emissions (including the emissions from energy production and

transportation) from fuel burn and electricity used for charging were determined using Argonne

National Laboratorys GREET 1 (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in

Transportation Model) Excel-based software (2012 rev2) [39]. Life cycle GHG emissions for the

battery only were estimated using the GREET 2 (2012) vehicle cycle model. Unless specified,

default inputs were not changed. These emissions results required fuel burn, distance travelled,

and payload to determine emissions in an emission weight/distance-payload weight or emission

weight/energy use metric for a specified type of aviation fuel. A hypothetical future US

electricity generation mix in 2025, based on the 2013 U.S. Energy Information Administrations

Outlook (0.83% Oil, 37.61% Coal, 19.88% Nuclear, 14.39% Renewables, and 27.28% Natural

Gas) was input to determine emissions due to electricity generation at the wall outlet, assuming a

6.5% transmission loss [39] [40]. This electricity mix represents the U.S. electricity generation

on the average and does not take into account regional generation biases. Finally, life-cycle

emissions due to the manufacture and recycling of Li-Ion batteries were determined from the

battery weight and assuming typical Li-Ion chemistry, as well as 48% emissions from original

manufacture to recycle and reconstruct the battery [41][42]. Estimating the number of battery

packs over the life of an aircraft, and then applying that to each mission give the share of battery

GHG emissions per mission. The total emissions from these three processes are added together

for the total lifecycle GHG emissions of the NXG-50. GHG emissions due to manufacture and

disposal of the actual aircraft were neglected and assumed similar to baseline for comparison

purposes. The results from this process are in Table IX where the reduction over the baseline

aircraft with a US mix is 10.24% and 21% for a clean energy mix.

26
Energy Consumption
NASAs FLOPS was used for the baseline aircraft mission analysis. The FLOPS baseline

model was calibrated to Bombardier CRJ200 data [24]. The geometry and design mission were

used to calibrate to the design maximum weights and then to the fuel required to make the design

range. The calibration details are shown in Appendix G in the baseline aircraft calibration energy

consumption section. The aircraft was then flown with the NXG-50 mission. The fuel required

for the mission excluding the reserves is called the block fuel and is typically used to assess the

fuel burn efficiency. The block fuel burn for the baseline aircraft is 2,922 pounds for a 500

nautical mile mission. FLOPS mission analysis was supplemented with energy analysis for a

hybrid-electric propulsion system to analyze the NXG-50. The NXG-50 block fuel burn is 2,296

lbs for the 500 nautical mile mission, with a supplemental requirement of 930 kWh electric

energy from Lithium-Ion batteries. The batteries can be fully charged on the ground from an

outside source and are discharged to 40% capacity to improve battery lifespan [43]. Given the

mission, GREET is able to determine the required well to wake energy used for each aircraft.

Using conventional Jet A as a basis of comparison for each aircraft with an assumed lower

heating value (LHV) of 43.2 MJ/kg [39], additional energy from the battery was added to the

fuel energy (assuming 90% charging efficiency [44]) to determine the overall energy required.

The results of the single mission energy analysis in Table IX show a reduction in energy

consumption over the baseline of 14.6%.

TABLE IX: SINGLE AIRCRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS SUMMARY

Environmental Parameter Baseline: CRJ200 Concept: NXG-50 Concept Reduction
Noise (dB below Stage IV) 27.7 40.8 -13.1
LTO NOx Emissions (lb/Mission) 118.59 34.35 -71%
Life-Cycle GHG Emissions 0.416 (US Mix) -10.24% (US Mix)
0.463
(lb CO2e/pax-nm) 0.366 (Clean) -21.0% (Clean)
Life-Cycle Energy Consumption
18,968 16,201 -14.6%
(kWh)

27
Fleet Level Aircraft Assessment
Acoustics
Integrated Noise Model (INM) software was

used to assess the cumulative airport noise [45]. The

Global and Regional Environmental Aviation Trade-off

(GREAT) tool and the FAA TAF 2011-2040 were used

to determine the number of operations in an average

day for the 25-50 passenger aircraft size. Based on the

airport with the most operations, 80 flights per day

were selected. Because noise impact increases with

FIGURE 16: NOISE CONTOUR PLOT
number of operations, this is a worst case number of FOR NXG-50 AIRCRAFT

operations for this analysis. That data along with the aircraft noise results from ANOPP were

input to INM. The resulting contours for the baseline and NXG-50 appear identical due to the

small difference in noise applied over many operations in a given day. Figure 16 shows a sample

noise contour plot for the aircraft. The contours show that the light blue area (55 dB DNL)

extends slightly outside 2 miles from the center of the airport area. Each ring in the figure

represents mile increments from the center of the airport.

Life Cycle GHG Emissions

Fleet level analysis of GHG emissions consisted of extrapolating single-aircraft mission

performance, and then comparing the concept to the baseline as in the single aircraft analysis. As

a result, relative performance improvements are the same, but now a tangible performance metric

is realized. Significant reduction in the 25-59 passenger class (assumed 25-50 passenger) global

fleet size is expected, from 3,600 aircraft in 2011 to 1920 aircraft (est.) in 2025 [46].

Assumptions included both aircraft would be used at the same average rate as a CRJ200 (2096

28
flight cycles/year [47]), the average mission was the design mission, and comparisons were made

for a notional total fleet replacement in 2025 at the projected fleet size, the results of which are in

Table X. GHG reduction was on the order of several million tons of CO2e per year for the fleet,

regardless of energy mix.

Energy Consumption
Fleet energy consumption was calculated similarly to the fleet GHG emissions, with the

same assumptions for fleet size. Energy consumption was compared for the baseline aircraft and

the NXG-50 with similarly sized 2025 fleets. Results are in Table X, and show nearly a 15%

decrease in life-cycle energy used throughout the fleet.

TABLE X: FLEET ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Environmental Parameter Baseline: CRJ200 Concept: NXG-50 Reduction

Life-Cycle GHG Emissions (Mil 25.5/21.9 (2026, US 2.3/5.9 (US mix/Clean,
27.8 (2026)
Ton CO2e/year) mix/Clean) 2026)
Life-Cycle Energy Consumption,
76,000 65,000 11,000
2025 (GWh/year)

Reduced Emissions vs. Power Plant Emissions Trade Study

A trade study was performed to determine the trade-off between increased power plant

emissions due to recharging the battery at the airport compared with emissions from aviation

fuel, as shown in Figure 17. Six different energy sources were compared to the baseline design

and represented as a percent change relative to the baseline. In general, electricity generated from

oil, coal, or natural gas, to include the US average energy mix (projected in 2025) led to higher

GHG emissions overall as the share of energy from the battery increased. However, generating

electricity using clean sources (wind/solar/hydro), nuclear, or biomass yielded a significant

decrease in GHG emissions (reference Figure 36 for the actual emission per unit of energy). GT

Aircraft, Incs current design point is shown as well, overlaid on the various sources. No attempt

29
was made during this trade study to adjust the different energy required due to changing energy

weights, although this may yield a specific optimal design point with respect to greenhouse gas

emissions that considered the rapidly increasing weight and increased energy required of more

battery. The energy density of the battery was assumed to be 0.07 kWh/lb, (which incorporates a

minimum energy depletion of 40%), and that of Jet A to be 5.45 kWh/lb. That is a significant

difference that cannot be ignored, and is depicted on the right axis in Figure 17. There exists a

point where the percentage of energy supplied by a battery/fuel combination will not overcome

the energy required by the mission, which was not explored. Until energy storage approaches the

energy density of jet fuel, it should be noted that the battery energy weight would be significant

in comparison to pure jet fuel, and that unless the electricity that goes to recharging the batteries

comes from clean sources, no real GHG emission benefit would materialize with increased

emphasis on batteries.

350% 7000% US Average

Electricity Mix
300% 6000%
Oil
GHG Emissions (% of Baseline)

Energy Weight (% of Baseline)

Natural Gas
250% 5000%
Coal
200% 4000%
Biomass

150% 3000% Current Design

100% 2000% Baseline

Nuclear/Clean
50% 1000%
Energy Weight
0%
100%
0%
7.82% Energy Weight
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Baseline
Percent Energy from Battery

FIGURE 17: MISSION LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS TRADE STUDY

30
Safety Risk Assessment
The incorporation of any new aircraft into the national airspace is a delicate balance

between production and safety [48]. The FAA Safety Management System Manual introduces

Safety Management Systems (SMS) for airport operators to manage and mitigate safety risks

through the implementation of policy, architecture, assurance, and the promotion of safety

[48][49]. One of the key processes incorporated in SMS is Safety Risk Management (SRM)

which includes [49]:

Identifying associated risk

Concluding severity and probability of risks
Establishing mitigation approaches
Executing and monitoring mitigation strategies
Evaluating and adapting strategies when necessary

The safety risk factors of interest for SRM include the type of aircraft and performance

characteristics, systems and/or subsystems intended to function in flight or on the ground; traffic

density and distribution; airspace complexity and classification; airport layout; type of air-ground

communication; type and capability of surveillance and automation system; human factors; and

local or regional weather phenomena [49]. Using the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-37, SRM

was applied to the NXG-50 design and the five phase analysis is outlined below in Table XI [48].

Two risk areas were identified that are unique to the NXG-50 design. These include: (1) the

failure of the battery responsible for providing power to the electric subsystems and the hybrid-

electric propulsion system, and (2) the high electric loads to be delivered to the airport apron for

plug-in charging of the aircraft batteries.

31
 TABLE XI: SRM FIVE PHASE APPROACH TO SAFETY MITIGATION

Conventional airframe with all-electric subsystems and hybrid-electric

Phase 1: Describe System
Phase 2: Identify Hazards
Phase 3: Determine Risk
Phase 4: Assess and Analyze Risk
Phase 5: Treat the Risk
propulsion (fuel and battery)
High electric loads delivered to apron for plug-in charging of battery
Battery failure
High electric loads
Battery fire or failure on ground/during flight
Worker harm
Complete battery failure or fire is considered remote [50]
Injury of workers handling high electric loads is extremely improbable
[51]
Continual battery monitoring, timely replacement, follow discharge
(60%) guidelines
Additional high electric load training and sufficient management

By service entry in 2025, it is assumed that NXG-50 will incorporate advanced batteries

that more closely reflect the successful Chevy Volt battery which has experienced no undetected

or catastrophic failure [50]. Analysis of risk associated with airport operators responsible for

handling high electric loads was derived from injuries of electrical workers which remained less

than 0.003% from 2003 2010; making the injury of airport operators for the NXG-50 extremely

improbably [51]. Table XI shows the inclusion of the NXG-50 design into the national airspace

in 2025 will include minimal risk provided that risk is treated as outlined in Phase 5 (Table XI).

Airport Infrastructure Impact Assessment

Infrastructure Requirements
The maximum electricity required to fully charge the 13,800 lbs of lithium-ion batteries

was calculated based on a maximum 60% discharge of the battery, similar to the Chevy Volt

battery which is designed to improve battery life [43]. Using the energy density and weight of

the battery, the energy required to charge the batteries for one NXG-50 was calculated to be 940

kWh as seen in Table XII [52].

TABLE XII: CALCULATED ENERGY PER NXG-50 (60% DISCHARGE)

Energy Density Battery Energy Per Discharge Total Power Per 2025 Charge Time
(kWh/kg) Weight (lbs) Aircraft (kWh) (%) Plane (kWh) (min)
0.25 13,800 940 60 930 40

32
 Assuming a supply of 180 kVA of apparent power which is currently used to support the

Airbus A380 while on the apron, the expected time required to charge the batteries for one NXG-

50 is approximately 11 hours at a charging current of 43 amps [53]. However, based on research

published in the Advanced Energy Materials Journal by Dr. Harold Kung, rechargeable batteries

with new electrodes could charge up to 10 times faster than current batteries [54][55]. As this

technology is expected to reach the marketplace in three to five years, the battery charge time for

the NXG-50 could be as low as 30-40 minutes by 2025 [54][56]. The rapid charge rates will

allow the NXG-50 to be charged at the apron by simply plugging the aircraft into ground power

units or the airport electric grid. Due to rapid charging, the turnaround time for the NXG-50 will

be approximately 40 minutes, only modestly higher than the average 25 minutes [57].

The daily power requirements will be different for small, medium, and large size airports

where the arrival rate can vary from 1 180 aircraft per hour [58]. Assuming the number of

NXG-50 hybrid-electric aircraft is only 30% of the arriving aircraft (most constraining case) in

2025, the daily electrical demand could vary from 6,800 1.2 million kWh [59]. To determine

the impact on the electric grid, the maximum daily electricity for the busiest airport, Atlantas

Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport was used as a sample case. Introducing the NXG-50 to

Hartsfield-Jackson would result in an additional annual energy requirement of 445 GWh, only

1.3% of the City of Atlantas electricity in 2007 [60]. This implies that introducing the NXG-50

would have a feasible impact on the electric grid and local community life; similar minimal

impacts on the electric grid have been projected for electric cars [59]. As the batteries for the

NXG-50 will require a significant amount of energy while parked at the apron, improvements in

the airport power management system will likely need to occur. These improvements should

prevent stringent surge requirements from being enforced. Unlike the potential surge hazards

33
with electric cars where the majority of the vehicles will be charged in the evening, the power

requirements for airport battery charging is expected to be more consistent [61].

Using a projected electricity cost of $0.08/kWh and the daily airport cost for an airport

could range from $740 - $170,000 which is less than the displaced fuel ranging from $2,000 -

$8.7 million per day (2013 jet fuel prices)[62][63]. As the NXG-50 is a hybrid-electric aircraft,

all current airport infrastructure would have to remain with the addition of a battery maintenance

facility and an upgrade to the apron power supply for rapid battery charging. After speaking with

industry expert Dr. John Joyner from Delta Airport Consultants, it was concluded that an

additional off-site facility would be required for battery handling and maintenance [64]. The

expected cost for the additional battery related improvements would vary based on airport size,

but could be as high as $600,000 based on functional space requirements for an electro-

environment shop of 12,500 square feet and an average warehouse construction cost of $48.35/sq

ft [65][66]. The average time to build a warehouse in the U.S. is a mere 30 days, making the time

to implement the new required infrastructure very minimal [67].

Required Skills and Training

With the inclusion more electric aircraft in the national airspace, no matter what the

architecture, the necessity for increased skills and training for personnel in the aircraft industry

must increase alongside technology. Complementary to this will be the requirement of skills and

training to be tailored to the specific aircraft that select personnel will be required to interact

with. Based on the NXG-50 all-electric subsystems and hybrid-propulsion system the only

changes in operations, maintenance and servicing are intended to occur at the terminal apron and

any airline offsite maintenance facilities. While GT Aircraft, Incs design is essentially

conventional to todays regional jets it does have three large differences which include the

34
enhanced electronic network, more batteries, and a hybrid-electric propulsion system. In these

particular areas, additional skills and training will be required.

FAA Personnel
Part of the responsibility for successful implementation of new aircraft into NextGen is

handled by FAA personnel. With a new aircraft, inspectors, trainers, and certifiers must all gain

additional skills and knowledge specific to the aircraft. The NXG-50 is essentially an advanced

derivative aircraft where specific skills and knowledge of electric subsystems, electric power

management, thermal management, electric motors, and the interaction of fuel and electric power

generation systems will be necessary. Inspectors, trainers, and certifiers will require proficient

knowledge and experience in these areas in order to fulfill their required duties. The timeframe

for these skills and training objectives will be determined by a safety system analysis plan that

will occur in concurrence with the certification of this design to 2025 and after in order to

provide continued safety and develop for the future.

Airport Personnel
Airport personnel are expected to grow to over 600,000 technicians worldwide by 2029

[68] which are why it is important to understand the required skills and training for these

technicians. Airport personnel that do not directly interact with the aircraft will not require any

additional skill sets or training as the differences associated with the NXG-50 are all internal.

Airport operators will require additional knowledge and training of the airport electrical grid in

order to be able to provide power to the NXG-50 when necessary. With the help of John Greaud,

Vice President of Operations at Memphis International Airport, it was determined that personnel

requiring additional skills and training will be Aircraft Electronics Technicians (AETs) and

Aircraft Mechanics. AETs currently receive approximately 1,000 hours in classroom training

specifically for avionics and electric system operations and maintenance as well as additional
35
refresher courses and aircraft specific courses as required by manufacturers and airport

administration. It is reasonable to assume that training hours will increase minimally as the

training content changes to meet the additional NXG-50 design needs. Also, Aircraft Mechanics

currently receive approximately 3,000 hours of training and similar to the AETs, will only

require a minimal increase in time in the classroom to adhere to the enhanced systems of the

NXG-50. The actual skill sets, training requirements, and timeframes are under constant state of

fluctuation and depending on a more in depth analysis beyond the timeframe of this design

challenge and the future state of the aviation industry the requirements for personnel will adapt

and evolve as technology does.

Implementation and Financial Analysis

An important aspect of any aircraft design is its affordability and effective

implementation into an ever changing environment. Many performance benefits come at a great

price and it requires a balance of performance and affordability to ensure a successful aircraft.

Acquisition cost and operating cost are two important cost metrics. Acquisition cost is important

to both aircraft manufacturers and airline operators, and directly affects the return on investment

(RoI) of both sectors; whereas the operating cost directly affects only the airline operators. Using

the Aircraft Life Cycle Cost Analysis program (ALCCA) acquisition cost and operating costs

were determined for both the baseline CRJ200 type aircraft and the NXG-50.

Implementation
Effective implementation of the NXG-50 was an integral part of the design process. It

had a large impact on the selection of the metrics of interest, which included noise and GHG

emissions, as well as constrained the technologies available due to unfeasible technology

readiness levels. As identified early the NXG-50 caters for a niche market, operating into smaller

airports that are closely surrounded by urban dwellings. Thus noise and emissions are important,
36
as they are stringently enforced to ensure continued operations at these smaller regional airports

[69]. To ensure maximum noise and emission mitigation within the airport airspace, all ground

operations with the exception of takeoff utilizes only power provided from the batteries, as well

as descent and approach maximize battery use, enabling one of the turboelectric generators to be

powered down, reducing both noise and particulate emissions.

In conjunction with more preliminary and detailed aircraft design, several

implementation and commercial activities must be undertaken. These activities include, but are

not limited to: maturation of the required technologies, establishment of an aircraft certification

plan, development of required infrastructure to support operations, coordination between

manufacturers, airlines, and the FAA for required skills and training to operate aircraft.

Business Scenario
The aircraft weight breakdown in Appendix G, Figure 30, along with aircraft dimensions

and propulsion architecture were used to determine the acquisition cost of the NXG-50. The

NXG-50 acquisition cost was compared to the baseline aircraft (Table XIII). As expected there

was an increase in cost due to an increased takeoff gross weight as well as implementation of

new materials and technology, driving research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E)

costs. A plot depicting the acquisition cost as a function of manufacturer RoI can be found in

Appendix G, Figure 37.

TABLE XIII: AIRCRAFT ACQUISTION PRICE

Return on Investment ($ 2012)
0% 2.90% 5.50% 7.80%
CRJ200 Type $49.0 M $53.9 M $58.8 M $63.7 M
NXG-50 $54.0 M $59.4 M $64.8 M $70.2 M
(%) Change 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2%

The operating cost analysis (Table XIV) takes into account a large number of sub-costs,

including maintenance, passenger service, crew salaries, etc. A detailed breakdown of the

37
operating costs can be found in Appendix G, Table XXI. Due to the implementation of batteries,

enabling the use of alternate forms of energy, the direct operating cost was greatly reduced,

Appendix G, Figure 38. It should be noted, although there was a decrease in fuel cost, an

additional operating cost had to be included for the NXG-50. This being the cost to charge the

batteries, as well as the amortized cost of replacing the batteries every year or 4,000 charge

cycles. The Chevy Volt was used to determine the cost amortization. The Volt Li-Ion battery has

a maximum number of charge cycles of 4000, weighs 435 pounds and costs approximately

$8,000.00 to replace [70] [71] [72].

TABLE XIV: DIRECT, INDIRECT & TOTAL OPERATING COST ($ 2012 / TRIP)
DOC IOC TOC
CRJ200 Type $7,661 $2,580 $10,241
NXG-500 $7,118 $2,617 $9,814
(%) Change -6.1% 1.4% -4.2%

Due to the improved operating cost of the NXG-50, even with a larger acquisition cost, airline

operators will be able to operate at a lower revenue passenger mile ($/RPM) and still experience

a favorable return on investment. A figure depicting the airline operators RoI as function of

acquisition cost and $/RPM can be found in Appendix G, Figure 39.

It can be seen in Figure 18 that even though the NXG-50 has a higher acquisition cost, by

reducing the direct operating cost the airlines can still offer competitive airfares and obtain an

acceptable return on investment.

38
 Airline Manufacturer Return on Investment (RoI)
0 2 4 6 8 10
120
Aircraft Price (M$ 2012) 110
100
90
80
70
$/RPM = 0.435
60
$/RPM = 0.435 $/RPM = 0.395
50
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Airline Operator Return on Investment (RoI)

Manufacturer CRJ200 Type NXG-50 Airline Operator

FIGURE 18: AIRLINE VS. MANUFACTURER ROI

In addition to aircraft related costs, there exist additional infrastructure and training costs

due to the implementation of the NXG-50. Based on electric motor vehicle charge station

projects and in consulting with Steve Debban from the FAA, it was estimated that an investment

of $1,500,000 is required to make an apron electric charging compatible [73][74]. Additional

training of ground staff and flight crew, including new safety protocols, will require a budget

increase of $13,704 per technician required for hybrid-electric aircraft [75]. This additional

training cost was amortized and included under indirect maintenance operating cost detailed in

Table XXI.

Conclusion
Utilization of hybrid-electric propulsion coupled with all electric subsystems, the NXG-

50 provides enhanced environmental benefits and more reliable technology leads to savings in

operating costs. The infrastructure required to support the NXG-50 is minimal and only requires

additional battery maintenance facilities and easily modified aprons for battery charging. The

39
skills and training required to integrate, operate, and maintain the NXG-50 are minimal. The

unique design of the NXG-50 addresses all requirements imposed by the NextGen initiative and

this design challenge as seen in Figure 19, and helps the aircraft industry strive for a much

needed movement toward more efficient vehicles.

FIGURE 19: COMPLIANCE MATRIX

Requirements CRJ200 NXG-50

Seating Capacity 25 - 50 50 50
Typical Empty Weight Minimize 30,900 lbs 37,804 lbs
Maximum TOGW Minimize 53,000 lbs 67,989 lbs
Takeoff Field Length at MTOW <5,400 ft 6,290 ft 5,379 ft
Cruising Speed 0.72 0.84 0.74 0.74
Range Fully Loaded >500 nmi 1,700 nm 1,000 nm
Fuel Load Minimize 14,305 lbs 7,103 lbs
Electric/Hybrid-
Engines 2 x CF34-8C5 2 x Notional e-fan
Electric
Max Thrust 9,220 lbs 11,423 lbs
2
W/S Maximize 91.5 lbs/ft 100 lbs/ft2
T/W 0.359 0.336
Noise (cum below Stage IV) -32 EPNL -27.7 EPNL -40.8 EPNL
LTO NOx Emissions (lb/Mission)
-60% 0% -58.2%
(below CAEP 6)
Life-Cycle GHG Emissions -10.24% (US Mix)
Minimize 0%
(lbCO2e/pax-nm) (relative to B.I.C) -21.0% (Clean)
Life-Cycle Energy Consumption
-33% 0% -14.6%
(kWh) (relative to B.I.C)
Acquisition Cost Minimize 0% 10.2%
Operating Cost (/per trip) Minimize 0% -4.2%

40
Appendix A List of Complete Contact Information
Advisors
Academic Advisor
Dr. Dimitri N. Mavris
Boeing Professor of Advanced Aerospace Systems Analysis, School
of Aerospace Engineering
Director, Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory
275 Ferst Drive NW
Atlanta, GA 30332-0150
404.894.1557
dimitri.mavris@aerospace.gatech.edu
Technical Advisors
Dr. Jimmy Tai
Senior Research Engineer
Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory
School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
275 Ferst Drive NW
Atlanta, GA 30332-0150
404.894.0197
jimmy.tai@aerospace.gatech.edu
Chris Perullo
Research Engineer II
Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory
School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
275 Ferst Drive NW
Atlanta, GA 30332-0150
404.894.5404
christopher.perullo@ae.gatech.edu

A-1
Graduate Team Members
Timothy Banning Grant Bristow
Project Manager Chief Engineer
10672 Creeknoll Ct. 1820 Peachtree Rd #1103
Montgomery, OH 45242 Atlanta, GA 30309
770.862.6220 512.473.9040
tcbanning@gmail.com bristow.g@gatech.edu

Clelia Level Leslie Sollmann

Structures Lead Subsystems Lead
67 rue Ghesquieres 1539 Woodland Trail
59260 Hellemmes Xenia, OH 45385
France
404.917.9594 937.781.6262
clelia.level@gatech.edu lsollmann3@gatech.edu

Jorge Calderon-Fernandez
Propulsion Lead
c\Bolivia, 4, 6D
Valladolid 47014
Spain
770.309.9736
jorgecalderon@gatech.edu

Distance Learning Graduate Members

Douglas Wells Matt Olson
Performance Lead Environmental Lead
225 Woodburne Ln 11017 W Elm St
Newport News, VA 23602 Phoenix, AZ 85037
616.334.7656 651.334.6956
douglas.p.wells@gmail.com molsonafmn@hotmail.com

A-2
Undergraduate Team Members
Nicole Davis
207 Mill Pond Chase
Warner Robins, GA 31088
937.367.6224
nydavis56@gmail.com

Sudhanshu Ambadpudi
3437 E Glacier Pl
Chandler AZ 85249
602.881.9623
sudhanshu.ambadipudi@gmail.com

Clarence Du
75-08 Utopia Pky
Fresh Meadows, NY 11366
347.341.3015
cdu35@gatech.edu

Jacob Paulson
121 Merilyn Dr.
Ringgold, GA 30736
706.618.1357
jpaulson3@gatech.edu

A-3
Appendix B Georgia Institute of Technology
The Georgia Institute of Technology is consistently

recognized as one of the top research universities in the nation

[76]. Established on October 13, 1885 as the Georgia School of

Technology, the school began with the goal of transforming the

South into an industrial authority [76]. The schools name

changed to the present day name of Georgia Institute of

Technology in 1928 to echo an emergent focus on the

advancement of technology and research [76].

FIGURE 20: GEORGIA TECH [95]

Georgia Techs campus includes over 400 acres in the heart of Atlanta, Georgia, but is

well known for its welcoming campus with substantial greenery [77]. Georgia Tech is home to

more than 20,000 undergraduate and graduate students, all studying technology focused fields

[77]. Georgia Tech is regularly ranked in U.S. News & World Reports top ten public universities

in the United States [77]. Georgia Techs College of Engineering is currently 5th for both

undergraduate and graduate programs according to U.S. News & World Report [78]. Georgia

Techs Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering was established in 1930 and is

ranked 2nd for Aerospace Engineering Undergraduate Programs and 4th for Graduate Aerospace

Programs in the nation by U.S. News & World Report [79][80]. The School of Aerospace

Engineering receives annually research funding from NASA, the FAA, NSF, and the U.S. Air

Force, Navy, and Army; totaling over $32 million [79][81]. The School of Aerospace

Engineering has approximately 750 undergraduate students and 550 graduate students with 36

academic faculty and 80 research faculty [81]. Georgia Tech continues to grow as one of the top

universities in the nation.

B-1
Appendix C Non-University Partners

John E. Greaud, P.E., A.A.E

John Greaud is Vice President of Operations at Memphis International Airport. He

specializes in airport management and planning, specifically: airfield operations, planning,

design, environmental management, facility maintenance, and vehicle maintenance. His

guidance on this design challenge allowed GT Aircraft, Inc to gain a better understanding of

airport personnel and airport operations, including: airport apron challenges with respect to

electric/hybrid-electric aircraft and battery charging. His assistance and experience was

invaluable to this designs development.

Steve Debban, P.E.

Steve Debban is a Civil Engineer working for the Federal Aviation Administration in the

National Airports Engineering Division. He is involved with Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED). Mr. Debban shared his professional experience with GT

Aircraft, Inc to help establish a first approximation of the expenses necessary to make aprons

compatible with electric/hybrid-electric aircraft. He also provided advice on finding reliable

sources to estimate the cost of additional training required for ground staff and crew of hybrid-

electric aircraft.

John E. Joyner III, Ph.D.

Dr. Joyner manages electrical and NavAid design for Delta Airport Consultants. Dr.

Joyner provided advice for the battery design and location inside the aircraft as well as the

integration of the hybrid-electric aircraft into a traditional airport. He also suggested research

topics and areas of interest to modern/advanced batteries. The advice provided by Dr. Joyner

was essential to generating a design that could be reasonably integrated into current airports.

C-1
Appendix D Design Submission Form

D-1
Appendix E Educational Evaluation
Student Evaluation
1. Did the FAA Design Competition provide a meaningful learning experience for you?

Why or why not?

The competition provided each team member a unique learning experience by: providing

a true, meaningful test as project manager or chief engineer of a team, applying newly gained

knowledge as a graduate and undergraduate student, and learning to work as a diverse, multi-

experienced team. This competition emphasized leadership, responsibility, and accountability at

every level throughout the project. Ultimately, this competition provided each member of the

team a great conduit for applying their skills in a real world project.

2. What challenges did you and/or your team encounter in undertaking the Competition?

How did you overcome them?

One of the biggest challenges that the team encountered was the composition of the team

itself. The team was challenged by two members (not included in final team) that held the

progress of the team back by not upholding their responsibilities and withdrew from the team

part way through the competition. In addition, two additional members joined the team with only

several months left in the competition that provided the challenge of acquainting themselves to

the project. The four undergrads on the team had little knowledge and experience in aircraft

design. In addition, two of the graduate students were distance learning and provided the

additional challenge of no face to face participation. Finally, while the team diversity was a large

challenge the project approach and design environment provided a difficult obstacle due to the

uniqueness of the design competition. Despite the many challenges, the resulting team of

graduate and undergraduate students was able to bond over the difficulties and found the unique

E-1
perspectives from each student to be essential to the final success of the project.

3. Describe the process you or your team used for developing your hypothesis.

GT Aircraft, Inc used the top-down design decision making process known as the

Georgia Tech Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) decision-making process, a

thorough literature review process, and industry experts for developing the hypothesis. The IPPD

process used systems engineering methods for concept selection, and a computer-integrated

environment for sizing and synthesis of the aircraft. The environmental assessment was

developed using a combination of tools including: GREET, INM, ANOPP, FLOPS, and

GREAT. Finally, assessment of infrastructure impacts was substantiated by the guidance of

industry experts and in depth literature review.

4. Was participation by industry in the project appropriate, meaningful and useful? Why

or why not?

Participation by industry was extremely meaningful for this project. This design

challenge was unique in the fact that it is based on future technology and future scenarios which

make industry information invaluable for estimates on its future state due to inherent uncertainty.

In addition, industry experts were important for providing information in areas where detailed

analysis could not be performed based on the scope and time of this design challenge.

5. What did you learn? Did this project help you with skills and knowledge you need to be

successful for entry in the workforce or to pursue further study? Why or why not?

Each member viewed this project as a great learning opportunity for applying new design

processes for the first time and learning aspects from all of the aircraft design disciplines. Not

only were technical skills developed, but time management, team participation, and problem

solving were also honed. Skills taught in the classroom were heavily emphasized and application

E-2
of these skills gave invaluable experience for future endeavors. Not only does the applicability of

this design challenge provide an opportunity to discover ground breaking technology in the

aerospace industry, but it also helped prepare team members for future study and entry in the

workforce.

Faculty Evaluation
1. Describe the value of the educational experience for your student(s) participating in this

Competition submission.

This competition forced the students to extend their conventional knowledge of aircraft

and sizing by applying it to a relatively new problem in aerospace. The use of batteries in a

hybrid-electric configuration expands the number of degrees of freedom greatly, both from an

operational and sizing perspective. This forced the team to discover, possibly modify, and

implement methods applicable for the problem at hand. From an academic perspective, this

taught them how to do research, filter large amounts of information, and be creative enough to

apply a solid engineering solution.

2. Was the learning experience appropriate to the course level or context in which the

competition was undertaken?

Yes. The project required synthesis of existing sizing methods along with developing

new models, simulation environments, and algorithms. This goes beyond the level of many

projects where only a cursory analysis is paid to generating detailed performance information.

3. What challenges did the students face and overcome?

The students had to:

Develop and implement a method to size a hybrid-electric vehicle

Explore a large range of potential concepts and down-select

E-3
 Create performance models for the airframe and engine modeling

Overcome technical challenges relating to predicting fleet level implications of a

nonconventional, fuel burning vehicle.

4. Would you use this Competition as an educational vehicle in the future? Why or why

not?

Yes, it is an open ended problem currently missing a well-established design process and

solution. The students were unbiased in their approach and often provide new insight into the

problem. This is also a good learning experience for graduate and undergraduate level students

since one primary purpose of a university academic program is to teach students how to solve

problems independently.

5. Are there changes to the Competition that you would suggest for future years?

The scope might be reduced. Given the time available it was hard to fully assess the

aircraft design, environmental impacts (fuel burn, noise, and emissions), infrastructure and

training implications. Future competitions could exclude the requirements that training and

maintenance issues be addressed.

E-4
Appendix F References
[1] FAA, FAA Design Competition for Universities, V. Electric/Hybrid-Electric Aircraft
Technology, Federal Aviation Administration, 2012.
[2] RAA, 2012 Annual Report, Regional Aircraft Association, 2012.
[3] FAA, NextGen: Implementation Plan, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
D.C., 2012.
[4] I. Kroo, Aircraft Design: Synthesis and Analysis [Online], Chapter 12.1, Desktop
Aeronautics, May 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/AircraftDesign.html.
[5] S. Bruner, S. Baber, C. Harris, N. Caldwell, P. Keding, K. Rahrig, L. Pho and R. Wlezian,
NASA N+3 Subsonic Fixed Wing Silent Efficient Low-Emissions Commercial Transport
(SELECT) Vehicle Study, NASA/CR-2010-216789, 2010.
[6] P. Patel, Electric Power Technologies For All Electric Aircraft, GE Aviation Systems,
2010.
[7] M. A. Manzo, Battery and Fuel Cell Development Overview, Battelle Energy Storage
Roadmap Workshop, NASA, Seattle, 2011.
[8] A. Mozdzanowska and R. J. Hansman, Evaluation of Regional Jet Operating Patterns in
the Continental United States, International Center for Air Transportation, 2004.
[9] M. Zeinali and D. Rutherford, Trends in Aircraft Efficiency and Design Parameters,
International Council on Clean Transportation, 2008.
[10] D. P. Schrage, "Technology for Rotorcraft Affordability Through Integrated
Product/Process Development," 1999.
[11] W. Engler III, P. Biltgen and D. Mavris, "Concept Selection Using an Interactive
Reconfigurable Matrix of Alternatives (IRMA)," AIAA, 2007.
[12] T. Nam, A Generalized Sizing Method For Revolutionary Concepts Under Probabilistic
Design Constraints, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.
[13] Boeing, Current Market Outlook: 2012-2031, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2011.
[14] M. K. Bradley and C. K. Droney, "Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research: Phase I Final
Report," NASA/CR-2011-216847, 2011.
[15] FAA, FAA Aerospace Forecast: Fiscal Years 2011-2031, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2011.
[16] FAA, Report To Congress: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 2013-
2017, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012.
[17] W. Cao, B. C. Mecrow, G. J. Atkinson, J. W. Bennet and D. J. Atkinson, Overview of
Electric Motor Technologies Used for, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol.
59, no. 9, 2012.
[18] K. K. Jameson, D. D. Marshall, R. Ehrmann, E. Paciano, R. Golden and D. Mason, "Design
and Wind Tunnel Testing of Cal Poly's AMELIA 10 Foot Span Hybrid Wing-Body Low
Noise CESTOL Aircraft," ICAS, 2010.
[19] C. A. Luongo, J. P. Masson, T. Nam, D. Mavris, H. D. Kim, G. V. Brown, M. Waters and
D. Hall, Next Generation More-Electric Aircraft: A Potential Application for HTS

F-1
 Superconductors, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, vol. 19, no. 3, 2009.
[20] B. Collum, Soaring Tech., Soaring Society of America, pp. 16, 18 -21, 2010.
[21] I. Kowalczk, J. Read and M. Salomon, Li-Air batteries: A Classic Example of Limitations
Owing to Solubilities, Pure Applied Chemistry, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 851 - 860, 2007.
[22] FAA, Portfolio of Goals, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012.
[23] Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, "History," Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory,
2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.asdl.gatech.edu/History.html.
[24] Bombardier Aerospace, Regional Aircraft, Bombardier CRJ200, Bombardiar Inc., 2006.
[25] NASA, "OpenVSP: NASA open source parametric geometry," [Online]. Available:
http://www.openvsp.org/.
[26] L. McCullers, FLOPS FLight Optimization System - FLOPS User Manual, NASA.
[27] Federal Aviation Administration, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2013.
[28] J. J. Berton, "Empennage Noise Shielding Benefits for an Open Rotor Transport," NASA,
2012.
[29] D. P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach 4th Edition, Reston, Virginia:
AIAA, Inc., 2006.
[30] D. J. Roskam, Airplane Design, Part II: Preliminary Configuration Design and Integration
of the Propulsion System, Lawrence, KS: DARcorporation, 2004.
[31] J. Hale, "Boeing 787: From the Ground Up," Boeing, 2006. [Online]. Available:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_06/AERO_Q406_article4.
pdf.
[32] Alternative Fuels Data Center, U.S. Department of Energy, 2013. [Online]. Available:
www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicle/electric_basics_hev.html.
[33] Boeing, "FAA approves the certification plan for a battery solution," Boeing, 2013.
[Online]. Available: http://787updates.newairplane.com/Certification/FAA-approves-
plan?gclid=COSesavaw7YCFRRbnAodCksAPA.
[34] A. Abdel-Hafez, Power Generation and Distribution System for a More Electric Aircraft -
A Review, Recent Advances in Aircraft Technology, vol. InTech, no. ISBN: 978-965-51-
0150-5, 2012.
[35] M. Sinnett, 787 No-Bleed Systems: Saving Fuel and Enhancing Operational Efficiencies,
Aero Magazine, 2007.
[36] X. Xia, Dynamics Power Distribution Management for All Electric Aircraft, Cranfield
University, 2011.
[37] R. Gillian, "Aircraft Noise Predition Proram User's Manual," NASA TM 84486, 1982.
[38] International Civil Aviation Organization, "ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Data Bank,"
2013. [Online]. Available: http://noisedb.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr. [Accessed Mar 2013].
[39] Argonne National Laboratory, "GREET 1 2012 rev2".
[40] U.S. Energy Information Administration, "AEO2013 Early Release Overview," 5 Dec 2012.
[Online]. Available: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm.
[41] Argonne National Laboratory, "GREET 2 2012 Vehicle Cycle Model".

F-2
[42] J. B. Dunn, J. Sullivan and M. Q. Wang, "Impact of Recycling on Cradle-to-Gate Energy
Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Automotoive Lithium-Ion Batteries,"
Environmental Science and Technology, 17 Oct 2012.
[43] General Motors, 2013 Chevolet Volt Boosts EV Range to 38 Miles, GM News, 7 June
2012. [Online]. Available:
http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Jun/
0607_volt.html.
[44] M. a. T. M. Eberhard, "The 21st Century Electric Car," 2006.
[45] H. D. E. B. E. He, "Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0 User's Guide," 2007.
[46] Bombardier Aerospace, "Commercial Aircraft Market Forecast 2012-2031," 2012. [Online].
Available:
http://www2.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_8/market_forecast/BCA_2012_Market_Forecast.pd
f. [Accessed Mar 2013].
[47] Bombardier Aerospace, "Commercial Aircraft Update," [Online]. Available:
http://read.uberflip.com/i/68865/7. [Accessed Mar 2013].
[48] US Dept of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, "Advisory Circular AC
150/5200-37," 2007.
[49] Federal Aviation Administration, "Safety Management System Manual," 2004.
[50] B. Wojdyla, "The Straight Story on the Chevy Volt Battery Fire," Popular Mechanics, 28
November 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-
fuel/hybrids/the-straight-story-on-the-chevy-volt-battery-fire-6601217. [Accessed April
2013].
[51] Electrical Safety Foundation International, "Workplace Electrical Injury and Fatality
Statistics, 2003-2010," Electrical Safety Foundation International, 2010. [Online].
Available: http://www.esfi.org/index.cfm/page/Facts-and-Figures/pid/11743. [Accessed
April 2013].
[52] Argonne National Lab Ramping Up Lithium-Air Research and Development: Li-Ion as EV
'Bridge Technology', Green Car Congress: Energy, Technology, Issues, and Policies for
Sustainable Mobility, December 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/anl-air-20091221.html. [Accessed March 2013].
[53] Power Systems International, 400 Hz Aircraft Ground Power Frequency Converters, May
2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.powersystemsinternational.com/documents/library/doc_20111007144411.pdf.
[54] Fellman, Megan; Sarah Ostman, "Better Batteries: New Technology Improves Both Energy
Capacity and Charge Rate in Rechargable Batteries.," Northwestern University, 14
November 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/11/batteries-energy-kung.html.
[Accessed April 2013].
[55] D. Coldewey, "Battery Breakthrough Could Improve Capacity and Reduce Charge Time by
a Factor of Ten Each," Tech Chrunch, 14 November 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/14/battery-breakthrough-could-improve-capacity-and-
reduce-charge-time-by-a-factor-of-ten-each/. [Accessed April 2013].
[56] D. Levitan, "For Electric Car Batteries, The Race for a Rapid Charge," Yale
F-3
 Environment360, 06 September 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/for_electric_car_batteries__the_race_for_a_rapid_charge/2569/
. [Accessed April 2013].
[57] F. Malarkey, "Policy Analysis," Regional Airline Association, 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://www.raa.org/Portals/0/Presentations/demand_management_deck_final.pdf.
[Accessed April 2013].
[58] Air Traffic Atlanta, Atlanta Airport's Expansion, 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://airtrafficatlanta.com/atlexpansion.html.
[59] Predicting Effects of Electric Vehicles on the Electricity Grid, European Commission:
Science for Environment Policy, July 2010. [Online]. Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/203na1.pdf. [Accessed
March 2013].
[60] Borin, Seth, Joy Wang, and Valerie Thomas, City of Atlanta Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory, Georgia Institute of Technology: School of Industrial and Systems Enginering,
ans School of Public Policy., March 2009.
[61] J. S. John, Electric Car Boom Could Deliver a Surge in Grid Power, Gigaom, 29 April
2011. [Online]. Available: http://gigaom.com/2011/04/29/electric-car-boom-could-deliver-
a-surge-in-grid-power/. [Accessed March 2013].
[62] R. Hudson, Energy Projections 2006-2030: Price and Policy Considerations, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 2006.
[63] "Jet Fuel Daily Prices," Index Mundi, March 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=jet-fuel. [Accessed April 2013].
[64] J. E. Joyner III Ph.D., Interviewee, Manager-Electrical & NavAid Design, Delta Airport
Consultants. [Interview]. March 2013.
[65] Aircraft Industrial Support Facilities Design Guide, Air Mobility Command, [Online].
Available: <http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFDG/aircraftindustrial.pdf. [Accessed March
2013].
[66] The DCD Industrial Building Cos Per Square Foot Analysis, Design Cost Data Magazine,
p. 1, July-August 2011.
[67] Time Required to Build a Warehouse (Days), The World Bank, [Online]. Available:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.WRH.DURS. [Accessed March 2013].
[68] Boeing Commercial Airplanes, "Training: Pilot & Technician Outlook," Boeing, 2012.
[69] L. L. Blackman and R. P. Freeman, "The Environmental Consequences of Muncipal
Airports: A Subject of Federal Mandate?," Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol. 53, no.
375, 1987.
[70] G. Motors, "Chevy Volt Specifications," [Online]. Available: http://gm-volt.com/full-
specifications/. [Accessed 11 April 2013].
[71] J. Voelcker, "Lithium Batteries for Hybrid Cars," IEEE Spectrum, January 2007. [Online].
Available: http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/lithium-batteries-for-hybrid-
cars. [Accessed 11 April 2013].
[72] T. Murphy, "The Battery Performance Deficit Disorder," 31 August 2012. [Online].
Available: http://gigaom.com/2012/08/31/the-battery-performance-deficit-disorder/.

F-4
 [Accessed 11 April 2013].
[73] CNN, "Public charging stations fuel desire for electric cars," October 2012.
[74] PWC Challenge, "La vrit sur la consommation des voitures lectriques," August 2012.
[Online]. Available: http://automobile.challenges.fr/dossiers/20120807.LQA3178/la-verite-
sur-la-consommation-des-voitures-electriques.html.
[75] Boeing, "Electrical and Avionics Initial - Courses," 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.myboeingtraining.com/Courses/63/electrical-and-avionics-initial.
[76] About Tech, History and Traditions, Georgia Tech, [Online]. Available:
http://www.gatech.edu/about/history.html. [Accessed March 2013].
[77] About Tech, About Georgia Tech, Georgia Tech, [Online]. Available:
http://www.gatech.edu/about/. [Accessed March 2013].
[78] Georgia Tech College of Engineering, Stats & Rankings, Georgia Tech, [Online].
Available: http://www.coe.gatech.edu/content/stats-rankings. [Accessed March 2013].
[79] The Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Welcome to the Daniel
Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech College of Engineering,
[Online]. Available: http://www.ae.gatech.edu/outreach. [Accessed March 2013].
[80] US News & World Report, Grad Schools Rankings, 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-
schools/aerospace-rankings.
[81] The Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Quick Facts about the School
of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech College of Engineering, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ae.gatech.edu/outreach/quickfacts. [Accessed March 2013].
[82] C. Amos, "Surface Passivation of Lithium-Ion Electrodes: A Path to High-Performance
Energy Storage," NASA, 16 Feburary 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/strg/2012_nstrf_amos.html.
[83] J. Fitzgerald and N. O'Bryan, "Fuel Cells: A Better Energy Source for Earth and Space," 11
February 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/fuel_cells.html.
[84] G. V. Brown, R. H. Jansen, T. P. Dever, A. S. Nagorny and J. J. Trudell, "Specific Power of
Cryogenic Motor Increased 50 Percent," 26 November 2007. [Online]. Available:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2006/RX/RX51S-brown.html.
[85] Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Handbook for Evaluating
Emissions and Costs of APUs and Alternative Systems, National Academy of Sciences,
2012.
[86] NASA, "The Supercritical Airfoil," Dryden Flight Research Center, 3 March 2008.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-13-
DFRC.html.
[87] General Electric, "GE and NASA to Test Open Rotor Jet Engine Systems," GE Reports, 12
June 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.gereports.com/ge-and-nasa-to-test-open-rotor-
jet-engine-systems/.
[88] M. R. Khorrami, "Airframe Noise Reduction Status and Plans," National Aeronautics and

F-5
 Space Administration, 2011.
[89] H. Pfaender, H. Jimenez and D. Mavris, "Fleet Assessment of Fuel Burn and NOx
Emissions for NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Technologies and
Concepts," AIAA, Indianapolis, 2012.
[90] Virtual Aircraft Musuem, [Online]. Available:
http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/canada/bombardier_crj-200.gif.
[91] Sun Airlines Team, Bombardier CRJ200 Specifications, Sun Airlines, 12 June 2012.
[Online]. Available: http://www.flysunairlines.com/bombardier-crj200/bombardier-crj200-
specifications. [Accessed 23 March 2013].
[92] Delta Air Lines, Embraer ERJ145, Delta, 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/airports-and-
aircraft/Aircraft/embraer-erj145.html. [Accessed 23 March 2013].
[93] J. Roskam, "Airplane Design Part VII: Determination of Stability and Control and
Performance Characteristics: FAR and Military Requirements," Design Analysis &
Research, 1991.
[94] I. Delta Airlines, "United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K," 2012.
[95] Modak Illustrations, [Online]. Available:
http://www.kmodak.com/images/TechTower_orig.jpg.
[96] Aviation Week Research, [Online]. Available:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Images/commercial/787_Slideshow/Lithium-
ionChart-AWST.jpg.

F-6
 Appendix G Additional Documentation
Problem Statement and Background
TABLE XV: INDUSTRY EXPERTS

Name Position Organization Subject Matter Reference Location

Civil Engineer Federal Aviation Airport Facilities and
Steve Debban 44
Airports Administration Operations
Memphis
Vice President of Personnel Training and
John Greaud International 41
Operations Airport Operations
Airport
Manager Airport Electricity
Delta Airport
John E Joyner III, Ph.D. Electrical & Requirements/ 32
Consultants
NavAid Design Integration

TABLE XVI: TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS

Technology TRL level Expected Year (TRL = 9) Reference

High Performance Lithium-Ion Battery 8 2018 [82]
Lithium-Air Battery 1 2040 [21]
Fuel Cells 7 2020 [83]
Cryogenic Electric Motor 4 2030 [84]
High Power/Capacity APU 7 2020 [85]
Supercritical Airfoil Profile 9 N/A [86]
Open Fan 6 2022 [87]
Airframe Noise Shielding 8 2018 [88]
NextGen ATM Capable 6+ 2020 [14]
Natural Laminar Flow 4 2030 [14]
Active Noise Control/Fluidics 3 2035 [14]
Airframe Acoustic Technologies 4 2025 [14]

G-1
Literature Review and Problem Solving Approach
Design Challenge Requirements
II.B Passengers: 25-50
II.G Cruise Speed: 0.72-0.8
II.G Economic Range: 500 nmi
II.G Electric/Hybrid-Electric
Derived Requirements
II.A Crew: 3
II.A Aisle Width: 15 in
II.A Seats Abreast: 3 max
II.B Balanced Field Length: 5,400 ft
II.C All Electric
II.D NextGen Compliant
II.G Design Range: 1,000 nmi
II.G Noise: -32 dB cum.
II.G LTO NOx Emissions: -60% FAA/CLEEN Initiative Goals[89]
II.G Energy Consumption: -33%
FIGURE 21: TOP LEVEL REQUIREMENT FLOWDOWN
G-2
FIGURE 22: NOTIONAL IRMA WITH COMPATIBILITY (RED=INCOMPATIBLE)

FIGURE 23: PHYSICAL VS FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION

G-3
 FIGURE 24: BOMBARDIER CRJ200 [90]

TABLE XVII: AIRCRAFT AND PROPULSION ARCHITECTURE CONCEPTS

Components Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5

No. of Fuselages 1 1 1 1 1
Structure and S&C

Wing-Body Blend Fairing Fairing Fairing Fairing Fairing

Horizontal Stabilizer Conv. Horizontal Conv. Horizontal Conv. Horizontal Conv. Horizontal Conv. Horizontal
Vertical Stabilizer T-Tail T-Tail U-Tail Conv. Vertical T-Tail
Wing-Fuse Wing-Fuse Wing-Fuse Wing-Fuse Wing-Fuse
Landing Gear
Junction Junction Junction Junction Junction
Primary Material Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid
No. of Wings 1 1 1 1 1
Aerodynamics

Wing Location High High Low Low Low

Wing Support Structure Cantilevered Cantilevered Cantilevered Cantilevered Cantilevered
Wing Shape Tapered Tapered Tapered Tapered Tapered
Winglet Type Raked Raked Raked Raked Raked

Energy Source Hybrid Electric Electric Hybrid Hybrid

Power Generation Brayton Stored Power Stored Power Brayton Brayton

Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric
Propulsion

Power Transmission
Motor/Gearbox Motor/Gearbox Motor/Gearbox Motor/Gearbox Motor/Gearbox
Augmentation Batteries Batteries Batteries Batteries Batteries
Thrust Effector Fan Open Rotor Fan Fan Fan
No. Thrust Devices 2 2 2 2 2
Location Under Wing Under Wing Aft Fuselage Under Wing Aft Fuselage

G-4
FIGURE 25: DESIGN EXPLORATION AND MODELING AND SIMULATION ARCHITECTURE

FIGURE 26: SCATTERPLOT MATRIX (VISUAL ANALYTICS)

G-5
 FIGURE 27: DETAILED MISSION PROFILE

FIGURE 28: ENERGY WEIGHT TRADE STUDY

G-6
 TABLE XVIII: FUSELAGE TRADE STUDY

Configuration Fineness CD [10-4] Score Weight [lbs] Score Total

Ratio (65%) (1-10) (35%) (1-10) Score
A Circle 2-2 9.32 79.2 1 10200 1 100
B Oval 2-2 7.57 82.2 5 11300 4 465
C Oblong 2-2 8.89 79.7 3 10700 2 265
D Wide 2-2-2 6.05 88.6 8 12200 5 695
TABLE XIX: REGIONAL JET BEST IN CLASS

Specification Best in Class [91][92] NXG-50 Regulations [27]

Cabin Length (ft) 40.5 (CRJ200) 46.9 N/A
Total Fuselage Length (ft) 87.8 (CRJ200) 82.0 N/A
Cabin Floor Width (ft) 7.16 (CRJ200) 8.47 N/A
Maximum Diameter (ft) 8.25 (CRJ200) 9.90 N/A
Ceiling Height (ft) 6.08 (CRJ200) 6.55 N/A
Aisle Width (in) 16.0 (CRJ200) 18.0 15.0
Seat Pitch (in) 31.0 (ERJ-145) 34.0 N/A
Seat Width (in) 17.3 (ERJ-145) 18.5 N/A
Number of Seats 50 (ERJ-145) 50 50
Seating Configuration 2-2 (CRJ200) 2-2 3-3 max

FIGURE 29: V-n DIAGRAM

G-7
 Weight Breakdown
CRJ Type NexGen

ANTI-ICING
AIR CONDITIONING
FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT
AVIONICS
ELECTRICAL
HYDRAULICS
INSTRUMENTS
AUXILIARY POWER
SURFACE CONTROLS
PROPULSION TOTAL
LANDING GEAR
FUSELAGE
VERTICAL TAIL
HORIZONTAL TAIL
WING
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Weight (lbs)

FIGURE 30: NXG-50 WEIGHT BREAKDOWN

Fuselage Station (ft)

36.92 37.02 37.12
70,000
65,000 Fuel+Bat.+Pax+
Bag
60,000
Fuel+Bat. Pax+Bag+Fuel
Weight (lbs)

55,000
50,000
Fuel
45,000
Pax+Bag.
40,000
OEW
35,000
Empty Weight
30,000
12.3% 12.5% 12.7% 12.9% 13.1% 13.3%
C.G. Location (%M.A.C.)

FIGURE 31: CENTER OF GRAVITY EXCURSION DIAGRAM

G-8
 Component Zero-Lift Drag Overall Drag Breakdown
0.0005, 5%
0.0006, 6%
0.025
0.0005, 5%
Wing
0.02
Horizontal Tail CDP
0.0038, Vertical Fins 0.015 CDI
37%
Fuselage CDC
0.0031, 0.01 CD0
30% Nacelle
Nacelle 0.005

0.0010,
Misc
0.0007, 7%
10%
0
Cruise

FIGURE 32: COMPONENT AND TOTAL DRAG BREAKDOWN

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
CL

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
CD

FIGURE 33: THEORETICAL CRUISE DRAG POLAR

G-9
 16,000
14,000
12,000

Payload (LB)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Range (NMI)

Operating Point (60% Discharge) Design Point (100% discharge)

FIGURE 34: PAYLOAD/RANGE CAPABILITY

Digital DATCOM, built from the USAF Stability and Control prediction method derived

from flight test data, was used to estimate the stability derivatives for the NXG-50. Using the

methods provided in Roskam [93] the NXG-50 was evaluated and found to meet all of the Level

I handling quality requirements based on the MIL-F-8785B Military Specification. This analysis

is summarized in Table XX.

TABLE XX: FLYING QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Takeoff Cruise Landing

Mode Level 1
CG For. CG Aft CG For. CG Aft CG For. CG Aft
Phugoid 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 > 0.04
Short
0.91 0.72 0.49 0.40 0.88 0.68 0.35 < <1
Period
Dutch Roll 0.50 0.35 0.23 0.16 0.41 0.29 > 0.08
< 1 sec (TO, L)
Roll 0.65 0.65 1.35 1.35 0.95 0.95
< 1.4 sec (Cruise)
Spiral T2 = 1.7 T2 = 2.7 T2 = 3.3 T2 = 5.1 T2 = 3.0 T2 = 5.0 T2 > 20 sec

G-10
 FIGURE 35: SUBSYSTEM LAYOUT

Environmental Benefits
Baseline Aircraft Calibration

Acoustics
Certification Noise Prediction

NASAs ANOPP was used to assess the noise for the baseline configuration [25]. The

suppression module was used to calibrate to the certification levels. The sideline, approach, and

takeoff trajectories that were used for the noise assessment are defined in the FAA Federal

Aviation Regulations, Part 36 [30].

Initial Results and Calibration

The initial results from the ANOPP analysis were compared with the certification levels

of the Bombardier CRJ200. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Certification

Database contained a Bombardier CRJ200 with a GE CF34-3B1 engine and takeoff weight of

53,000 pounds [24]. The baseline aircraft is similar in size to the CRJ200, but has slightly less

thrust and a lower gross weight. The differences are very small between the CRJ200 and the

G-11
baseline aircraft, so there was no difference in the noise certification levels. The baseline aircraft

does meet the Stage IV noise requirements with a cumulative noise margin of 27.7 dB, shown in

Table XV. Table XVI shows the noise results for each of the three trajectories. The baseline

aircraft ANOPP input files were modified to reflect the NXG-50 geometry. The results are

shown in Table XVII.

TABLE XV: AIRCRAFT CUMULATIVE NOISE RESULTS.

Cumulative Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB)

Baseline Aircraft NXG-50
Aircraft Noise 253.3 240.2
Stage IV Limit 281.0 281.0
Margin to Stage IV 27.7 40.8

TABLE XVI: BASELINE AIRCRAFT NOISE RESULTS.

Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB)

Sideline Cutback Approach
Baseline Aircraft 82.4 78.8 92.1
Stage IV Limit 94.0 89.0 98.0
Margin to Stage IV 11.6 10.2 5.9

TABLE XVII: NXG-50 AIRCRAFT NOISE RESULTS.

Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB)

Sideline Cutback Approach
Baseline Aircraft 78.8 75.1 86.3
Stage IV Limit 94.0 89.0 98.0
Margin to Stage IV 15.2 13.9 11.7

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

LTO NOx emissions were calculated using the rated output thrust and four operating

points defined in the ICAO Emissions Databank [38]. Figure 42 shows the results of the baseline

aircraft LTO NOx analysis. Figure 43 shows the results of the NXG-50 LTO NOx analysis.

G-12
 FIGURE 42: BASELINE AIRCRAFT LANDING AND TAKEOFF NOX ANALYSIS.

FIGURE 43: NXG-50 LANDING AND TAKEOFF NOX ANALYSIS.

Mission Analysis
The FLOPS baseline model was calibrated to Bombardier CRJ200 data [24]. The

geometry and design mission were input into the FLOPS model. The model was calibrated to the

design maximum weights and then to the fuel required to make the design range by varying the

wing area and the takeoff thrust. The calibration results are shown in Table XVIII.

TABLE XVIII: BASELINE AIRCRAFT CALIBRATION SUMMARY.

CRJ200 Baseline Aircraft % Difference

Range (nmi.) 1,700 1,700 0.00%
Takeoff Gross Weight (lbs) 53,000 55,095 3.95%
Mission Fuel (lbs) 10,728 11,226 4.64%
Zero Fuel Weight (lbs) 42,272 43,869 3.78%
Payload (lbs) 11,372 11,372 0.00%
Operating Empty Weight (lbs) 30,900 32,497 5.17%
Wing Area (ft2) 531.4 534.9 0.66%
Takeoff Thrust (lbs) 8,729 8,774 0.51%

G-13
 TABLE XIX: INDIVIDUAL AIRCRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY.

Baseline Aircraft NXG-50 % Reduction

Fuel Burn (lbs) 2,922 2,296 -21%
Energy Consumption (kWh) 17,103 13,438 -16%
Noise (Cumulative EPNdB) 253.3 240.2 -13.1
LTO NOx (g/kN) 53.79 15.58 -71%
0.416 (US Mix) -10.24% (US Mix)
Life Cycle GHG Emissions (lb CO2e/pax-nm) 0.463
0.366 (Clean) -21.0% (Clean)

FIGURE 36: LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS PER UNIT OF ENERGY [39]

Business Case
Using ALCAA and the Delta Airlines, Inc. 2012 annual report [94], a baseline cost analysis was

established, which is representative of the Bombardier CRJ200.

G-14
 75 450
70

Aircraft Price (M$ 2012)

400

Breakeven Unit #
65
60 350

55 300
50
250
45
40 200
0 2 4 6 8 10
Return on Investment (%)

CRJ200 Type NXG-500 Breakeven Unit #

FIGURE 37: MANUFACTURE RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND BREAKEVEN UNIT NUMBER

$12,000
$10,000
Cost ($/Trip)

$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0

CRJ200 Type NXG-500

FIGURE 38: OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN

G-15
 125
$/RPM =
115 0.395

Aircraft Price (M$ 2012)

105 $/RPM =
0.435
95

85
$/RPM =
75 0.425
$/RPM =
65 0.465
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Return on Investment (RoI)

CRJ200Type NXG-500

FIGURE 39: AIRLINE RETURN ON INVESTMENT

G-16
 TABLE XXI: OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN PER TRIP

CRJ200 Type NXG-50

Direct Operating Cost $/Trip
Flying Operations Cost
Flight Crew $1,137 $1,169
Fuel and Oil $2,953 $1,521
Battery $0 $470
Total $4,090 $3,160
Direct Maintenance Cost
Airframe: Labor $131 $136
Burden $261 $272
Material $259 $292
Engine: Labor $42 $44
Burden $85 $87
Material $385 $465
Total $1,163 $1,296
Investment Cost
Depreciation* $1,080 $1,229
Financing** $1,244 $1,416
Hull Insurance*** $84 $96
Total $2,408 $2,741
Total Direct Operating Cost $7,661 $7,197
Indirect Operating Cost $/Trip
Maintenance $373 $444
Aircraft Servicing $319 $319
Passenger Service $671 $671
Traffic Servicing $544 $544
General and Admin. $673 $639
Total Indirect Operating Cost $2,580 $2,617
Total Operating Cost $/Trip
Total Operating Cost $10,241 $9,814
* 20 years, 10% Residual
** 100% @ 8% Interest
*** 0.35% Aircraft Cost

G-17
G-18
 TABLE XXII: EVALUATION CRITERIA COMPLIANCE MATRIX

Page #
Introductory Material
Executive Summary i
Table of Contents ii
Problem Statement and Background
Design Challenge Statement 1
Current Conditions, Approaches and Design Issues 1
Literature Review and Problem Solving Approach
Understanding of Current and Future Issues 4
Evidence of thorough Design Process 8
Design Support (Drawings, Computer Codes, Charts, etc.) 6, 15,
Evidence of Understanding of Regulatory and Certification
15, 25, 25, 28,
Issues
Supported Conclusion 39
Safety Risk Assessment
Safety Risk Assessment of Proposed Design 31
Appropriate FAA documents (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-
25, 31
37, etc.)
Effective Interaction with Airport Operators and Industry Experts
Effective Interaction with an Airport Operator G-17
Effective Interaction with Industry Experts G-1
Practicality and Feasibility of the Proposed Design
Proposed Design meets Identified National Needs i, 27, 39
Solid Cost-Benefit Analysis 37
Potential Real-World Impact of Proposed Solution 36
Description of Process required for Implementation 36
Overall Quality of Design Package
A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1,
Required Appendices Present and Complete
E-1, F-1, G-1
Solid Evaluation of Educational Experience E-1

G-19