JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Vol. 57, No. 2, March–April 2020

Initial Sizing Methodology for

Hybrid-Electric General Aviation Aircraft

D. Felix Finger∗ and Cees Bil†

RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3083, Australia
and
Carsten Braun‡
FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, 52064 Aachen, Germany
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035428
Electric and hybrid-electric propulsion offer unique possibilities to improve aircraft efficiency and performance.
The potential advantages are fuel savings, lower emissions, and reduced noise. Because hybrid-electric aircraft
generally apply multiple power sources, they can be designed to sustain flight if certain parts of the propulsion system
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428

fail. However, their additional degrees of freedom increase the complexity of the design process. This paper describes
a methodology of an initial sizing algorithm that considers aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion systems. A central
element is a modified constraint diagram, which matches the power-to-weight ratio, wing loading, and the
hybridization of power HP . It is coupled with a mission performance analysis that is capable of dealing with multiple
energy sources and defines the mass and size of all relevant aircraft components. The modified constraint diagram
also allows a visual assessment of the sizing results, and thereby greater insight into the design space.

Nomenclature W∕S = wing-loading

AR = aspect ratio x = design variables
C = cruise Δ = difference
cD = drag coefficient Δt = time step
cL = lift coefficient ε = stopping criteria
E = energy η = efficiency
Enc = energy (nonconsumable sources) ηBtT = efficiency chain, battery-to-thrust
E
= mass specific energy ηStT = efficiency chain, shaft-to-thrust
F = optimization function μ = ground friction coefficient
g = gravitational acceleration ρ = air density
g = design constraints
HE = hybridization of energy Subscripts
HP = hybridization of power
PH = parallel hybrid
k = induced drag factor
SH = serial hybrid
L = lift
TO = takeoff
L∕D = lift-to-drag ratio
TOD = takeoff distance
m = mass
P = propeller
P = power
P
= mass specific power
P∕W = power-to-weight ratio I. Introduction
p = fixed variables
q
S
=
=
dynamic pressure
area
T HE reduction of greenhouse gases is a relevant topic in every field
of today’s research. For land-, water-, and air-based traffic,
electric propulsion is a potential solution to achieve reductions in
sG = ground run distance emissions and minimize the use of fossil fuel. Fully electric cars and
T = thrust ships are already in mass production (e.g., Refs. [1,2]), but only a small
T∕W = thrust-to-weight ratio number of experimental aircraft currently use electric propulsion
tf = trapped fuel fraction technology. This is mainly due to current battery technology that
v = velocity limits flight endurance and range [3]. Until battery technology is
vy = best rate of climb velocity mature enough [4], hybrid-electric powered aircraft could help reduce
emissions and fuel burn. However, design procedures and best
Presented as Paper 2018-4229 at the 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration,
practices for hybrid-electric aircraft have yet to be developed [5].
and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, 25–29 June 2018; received 18 One of the main challenges is the initial sizing of hybrid-electric
January 2019; revision received 28 June 2019; accepted for publication 3 aircraft. Classical sizing algorithms (e.g., Refs. [6–8]) can estimate
October 2019; published online 9 November 2019. Copyright © 2019 by preliminary dimensions like wing area and takeoff mass for aircraft
D. Felix Finger. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and with conventional propulsion configurations (e.g., piston engines or
Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests for copying and permission to jets). Recently, these algorithms have been modified for aircraft with
reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the eISSN fully electric propulsion systems (e.g., Refs. [9,10]). However, these
1533-3868 to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions methodologies are only applicable to aircraft with a single energy
www.aiaa.org/randp. source and not for designs with hybrid-electric propulsion systems.
*Ph.D. Candidate, School of Engineering; f.finger@fh-aachen.de. Student
Member AIAA. This paper describes a new methodology suitable for initial
†
Professor, School of Engineering; cees.bil@rmit.edu.au. Associate Fellow sizing of light aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion systems,
AIAA. including both serial-hybrid and parallel-hybrid configurations. This
‡ methodology is designed to provide a first analysis of the available
Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering; c.braun@fh-aachen.de.
Member AIAA. design space for a set of top-level requirements and to determine
245
 246
the aircraft’s power-to-weight ratio (P∕W), wing loading (W∕S),
and hybridization of power (H P , which is the split between electric
power and combustion engine power), such that a certain objective
function is optimized. The split between the installed power of a
combustion engine and an electric motor is of interest because it
drives the size of the propulsion system components. Although, in
serial-hybrid powertrains, electric motors of equal or higher power
as compared to the combustion engine are used, parallel-hybrid
powertrains usually employ lower-power electric motors to improve
system performance. However, clear guidelines for the selection
of the hybridization ratio do not exist. The proposed method closes
this gap by extending the classical constraint diagram approach.
Because a hybrid-electric propulsion system is made up of an
electric branch and a combustion engine branch, the total loss of
thrust does not necessarily occur if one of these branches fails.
Moreover, each of these branches can be sized such that enough
propulsive power is provided to continue safe flight to the nearest
airfield even if the other power branch fails. Therefore, one engine
inoperative (OEI) constraints, which are typically applied to
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
conventional multiengine aircraft, can be applied to hybrid-electric
aircraft with a single propeller. This paper will answer the question
of how the design space changes as OEI constraints are introduced.
An overview of the classical initial sizing and a discussion on
the associated challenges for hybrid-electric propulsion systems are
provided in Sec. II, followed by the presentation of the new
methodology in Sec. III. Finally, Sec. IV includes a discussion and
conclusions.
II. Initial Sizing Process
Aircraft design is an optimization task. To find the best aircraft for a
set of requirements, different design parameters must be varied in
such a way that a minimum of a particular cost function is attained.
For example, design trades can be carried out for the P∕W and W∕S,
the aspect ratio and the taper ratio, wing sweep, the airfoil thickness,
propulsion parameters, the fuselage fineness ratio, even configura-
tion trades, and many other parameters [8].
To investigate the aircraft design space, the following design
optimization problem can be formulated:
1: Minimize Fi x; p [e.g., maximum takeoff mass (MTOM),
cost, E, mfuel , : : : ]
2: with x: design [e.g., Sref , AR, sweep, lengthfuselage , : : : ,
regard to variables number of propulsion devices (NODs),
PICE , PEM , : : : ]
p: fixed (e.g., mpayload , vC )
variables
3: subject to gx; p: design (e.g., performance, aerodynamics,
constraints stability, and control, : : : )
Consequently, a large number of variables must be chosen such that
an objective function is minimized while satisfying performance and
mission constraints. Such “everything optimization” would require
an extremely large number of data points and is not reasonable,
especially in the early stages of design.
To make the optimization applicable to the aircraft conceptual
design process and limit computational time, the optimization task is
carried out with a significantly reduced set of variables. Only variables
that have high interdependency are selected for the optimization
process.
Initial sizing is usually the first step in the conceptual design
process, but it is also an optimization task. As it is the very first step, it
is typically carried out with the lowest number of design variables and
design constraints. This reduces accuracy but increases efficiency.
This is crucial because a large number of different designs must be
evaluated.
Traditionally, the optimization problem during the initial sizing
can be stated as follows: minimize the MTOM by varying the P∕W
and W∕S while satisfying performance and mission constraints.
These parameters are selected because the installed power and wing
reference area are the main design drivers of conventional aircraft.
Hence, P∕W and W∕S are chosen such that the optimization
FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
objective is minimized. Typically, mass is chosen as the measure of
merit [11] because it can also be a substitute for cost. For conventional
aircraft, the lowest MTOM is usually obtained by the smallest wing
and installing the lightest and smallest propulsion system possible.
The wing size strongly influences the aerodynamics, and the pro-
pulsion system is the main driver of the fuel mass.
For hybrid-electric aircraft, propulsive power is one of the central
design parameters as well. However, the initial sizing optimization of
hybrid-electric aircraft requires a third parameter to determine the
size of the propulsion system: the level of hybridization of power H P
(definition in Sec. II.B). H P determines the size of the electric system
in relation to the combustion engine. Therefore, the optimization
problem during the initial sizing for hybrid-electric aircraft must be
stated as follows: minimize the MTOM by varying P∕W, H P , and
W∕S while satisfying performance and mission constraints.
An important advantage of the conventional two-parameter initial
sizing optimization is that the design space and the constraints can
be visualized by using a constraint diagram (see Sec. III.B). This
graphical representation allows the visualization of the optimization
task and gives important insight into the design process.
For that reason, the same approach was chosen for the initial sizing
of hybrid-electric aircraft: in this paper, a novel methodology is
presented that can be used to select the best parameter combination to
minimize or maximize a certain measure of merit and, at the same
time, allows us to visualize the design space of hybrid-electric
aircraft. Thereby, the advantages of the traditional approach are
retained, whereas the capabilities are expanded.
A. Propulsion Architectures for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft
Before the new methodology of hybrid-electric aircraft is dis-
cussed, a brief overview of the four most significant propulsion
systems for light propeller aircraft is presented in the following.
More detailed information on hybrid-electric propulsion architec-
tures was provided in Ref. [12].
1) For the conventional powertrain, an internal combustion engine
(ICE) drives a propeller: sometimes with a gearbox in between.
2) For the fully electric powertrain, an electric motor (EM) with a
power supply from batteries drives the propeller.
Between those two types of powertrains, which represent the
extrema of the powertrain spectrum, there are partially electrified
hybrid powertrains (see Fig. 1).
3) For the parallel hybrid, where the ICE and EM work in con-
junction, either the ICE and the EM are coupled to the same propeller
by a gearbox (variant 1) or both systems work independently along-
side each other (variant 2).
4) For the serial hybrid, the ICE is used to generate electricity for
the electric system. In a serial-hybrid system, the propeller(s) are
driven by the EM(s) only. Sometimes, the unit of the ICE and the
generator is referred to as a range extender.
In the parallel-hybrid powertrain, an electric motor and an ICE are
mechanically connected to a propeller shaft, often via a gearbox,
when both are connected to one propeller shaft (variant 1). An
implementation where an electric motor drives one propeller and an
ICE drives another propeller is also considered a parallel hybrid
(variant 2). Just as for the serial-hybrid case, the design with multiple
propulsion units for one aircraft is possible.
In the serial-hybrid powertrain, the propeller is solely driven by
an EM, which is sized according to all performance requirements. A
multiple propeller layout, where each propeller has a dedicated EM,
is also possible. The electric power for an EM is delivered either
by batteries or a fuel-burning ICE driving an electric generator.
If a serial-hybrid powertrain is designed without a battery, and all
power to the EM is provided by the engine/generator, it is often
referred to as a turboelectric propulsion architecture.
B. Initial Sizing of Conventional Aircraft
The conventional aircraft sizing process is split into two major
parts: the point performance, and the mission performance. When
optimizing the point performance, the required power-to-weight
ratio (P∕W) is selected for a certain wing loading (W∕S) by using
 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
Fig. 1 Hybrid-electric powertrains.
the constraint diagram. The aim of assessing mission performance
is to estimate the maximum takeoff mass; whereas the T∕W
(respectively, P∕W and W∕S) is derived from the point performance
optimization. Using the resulting MTOM, the maximum required
thrust or maximum required power and wing area can be calculated.
Subsequently, a more detailed sizing process is started, which leads
to a refined design.
The MTOM is the sum of the empty mass, the fuel mass, and the
payload mass [Eq. (1)]:
MTOM  mempty  mfuel  mpayload (1)
The payload mass is known, but the empty mass (including the
aircraft’s structure, engines, landing gear, fixed equipment, avionics,
and other systems) as well as the fuel mass have to be calculated. As
they are dependent on the MTOM, this is an iterative process, which
starts with an educated guess for the MTOM.
The empty mass is usually derived from statistical data. To
determine the fuel burn during taxi, takeoff, climb, descend, and
landing, typical fuel fractions are used. The fuel mass fraction for the
cruise and loiter is often calculated using Breguet’s range and
endurance equations (see Ref. [13] or Ref. [14]).
The aforementioned approach for the calculation of the fuel mass
fraction is not applicable for unconventional propulsion aircraft
because energy sources like batteries do not reduce aircraft mass
during flight. For certain battery types (e.g., lithium air), it is possible
that the mass of the battery grows as it is discharged [15]. Therefore,
a new approach is also needed for the mass estimation of hybrid-
electric aircraft.
III. New Initial Sizing Methodology
The new sizing methodology was developed to deal with aircraft
that employ hybrid-electric propulsion systems. Its goals are 1) the
sizing of an aircraft’s mass, wing area, and propulsion system for a
given set of top-level requirements; 2) the visual analysis of the
available design space with respect to performance constraints;
247
and 3) the selection of the optimum design point (P∕W and W∕S) and
the corresponding H P for a given metric.
Although the method is developed for hybrid-electric aircraft,
it is applicable to aircraft with conventional propulsors or fully
electric propulsion systems as well. Therefore, the algorithm can be
integrated into existing design or analysis tools. As an analog to the
conventional methods, this methodology is separated into two major
parts: point performance, and mission performance.
For both parts, certain input parameters are necessary, representing
the top-level performance requirements. These requirements specify
the flight mission, the aerodynamics, and the propulsion system
(number of engines, conventional, serial-hybrid, or parallel-hybrid,
etc.) and their corresponding efficiencies.
An overview of this process is presented in Fig. 2 and will be
further explained in the following sections (Secs. III.A–III.E).
A. Point Performance: Constraint Diagram
The constraint diagram (compare to Ref. [14]) is generated first to
analyze the design space with regard to the power-to-weight ratio
(P∕W) and wing loading (W∕S). Here, constraints like the required
rate of climb (ROC), the required takeoff distance (TOD), the
required cruise airspeed, and the required stall are considered to
determine the minimum power loading required for a given wing
loading. Other constraints, like the turn rate, a service ceiling
requirement, or specific excess power can be added as required. For
brevity, only the basic four design constraints will be considered in
this paper. In Sec. III.C, the constraint diagram is amended with one
engine or one motor inoperative constraints, which are an extension
of the basic climb constraints.
The constraint lines separate the diagram into a feasible region and
an infeasible region. The design points in the infeasible region do
not meet one or more of the performance constraints. The feasible
region (called the conventional design space in Fig. 3) contains all
combinations of the thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading, which
meet all the performance requirements.
For a given W∕S, there is a corresponding minimum P∕W where
all constraints are met. This is the boundary that gives the lowest
 248 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428

Fig. 2 Hybrid-electric sizing methodology.

P∕W and the lowest aircraft mass for a specific W∕S. It is referred to a. Takeoff Distance Constraint. This constraint is used to determine
as the “design line” (compare Fig. 3). the T∕W needed to achieve a desired ground run distance during
Classical methods would use the constraint diagram to typically takeoff. Therefore, constraint Eq. (5) is simplified to the constraint
select the lowest T∕W or P∕W in combination with the highest given in Eq. (7), taking into account that the liftoff speed is a function
possible W∕S for the lowest mass solution [14]. This design point of the W∕S, the lift coefficient cL during takeoff, and the elevation of
usually results in the minimum required power and a smaller, the start airfield [see Eq. (6)]:
lighter powerplant with lower fuel consumption. As will be shown


in Sec. III.E, these assumptions do not apply for hybrid-electric T v2TO q ⋅ cD;TO q ⋅ cL;TO
  μ⋅ 1− (5)
aircraft. W TOD 2 ⋅ g ⋅ sG W∕S W∕S

1. Constraint Functions with

Although the minimum performance requirements are either s
specified by the customer or certification authorities, the W∕S and 2 ⋅ W∕S
P∕W are design parameters that can be optimized. With all the con- vTO  1.1 ⋅ (6)
ρ ⋅ cL;TO
straints presented in a diagram, the design point and its correspond-
ing propulsion system can be determined based on the design
simplified to
objectives.
In the following, the most important constraint functions are

T W∕S c
briefly presented. These are based on the equations by Gudmundsson  1.21 ⋅  1.21 ⋅ D;TO − 0.21 ⋅ μ (7)
[14] but extended by the usage of an advanced drag model [Eqs. (2) W TOD g ⋅ sG ⋅ ρ ⋅ cL;TO cL;TO
and (3)]:
b. Cruise Speed Constraint. The cruise airspeed constraint gives the
cD  cD;min  k ⋅ cL − cL;0 2 (2) required T∕W for a desired airspeed at a defined cruising altitude. It
gives the T∕W that is needed to remain a specific energy level of zero:
k
1


2 
π ⋅ AR ⋅ e
(3) T q W∕S
 ⋅ cD;min  k ⋅ − cL;0 (8)
W cruise W∕S q
The introduction of the advanced drag model improves the
accuracy of the results, especially for aircraft cruising at high lift c. Rate of Climb Constraint. The rate of climb (ROC) constraint
coefficients. High lift coefficients are often found for distributed delivers the T∕W necessary for a desired value for the ROC in
propulsion designs, like NASA’s X-57 Maxwell [16]. dependence on the W∕S. The basic equation [Eq. (9)] is an extension
In the following, the constraint functions are presented in their of the basic cruise speed constraint.
simplest forms for clarity, and therefore relate T∕W to W∕S. The extension on the advanced drag model requires the calculation
However, because piston engines and electric motors are rated of the best ROC velocity using Eqs. (12) and (13) while assuming a
in power rather than thrust, it is necessary to convert the results of lift-to-drag ratio (L∕D) that is 86.6% of the maximum L∕D for
the constraint equations from a thrust-to-weight ratio to a power- propeller-driven aircraft. To receive the maximum L∕D, a calculation
to-weight ratio. This is done by assuming a propeller efficiency (as a of the velocity at this ratio is essential [see Eq. (10)] before it can be
function of airspeed) and using Eq. (4) [14]: determined using the basic lift and drag polar formulas [see Eq. (9)]:



2 
T⋅v T ROC q W∕S
P (4)   ⋅ cD;min  k ⋅ − cL;0 (9)
ηP v W ROC vy W∕S q
 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
m⋅g
cL 
ρ∕2 ⋅ v2 ⋅ S

2 1∕4
m⋅g k
vL∕D;max  ⋅ (11)
ρ∕2 ⋅ S cD;min  k ⋅ c2L;0 
m ⋅ g ⋅ 2 ⋅ k ⋅ L∕D ⋅ cL;0  1
H
L∕D ⋅ ρ ⋅ S ⋅ cD;min  k ⋅ c2L;0 
q
v2  H − H2 − v4L∕D;max
The rate of climb constraint can be modified to give the necessary
T∕W for a service ceiling. For OEI conditions of multiengine or
multimotor aircraft, the T∕W must be adjusted as shown in Eq. (14):



T NOD T each phase. For initial sizing, the different values of H E for every
 ⋅
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
W OEI NOD − 1 W ROC
d. Stall Speed Constraint. The stall speed is the only constraint that is
not a function of the T∕W but has a value for the W∕S as an outcome.
This is due to the fact that it represents the upper limit of the W∕S that
has to be complied with to achieve the desired stall speed. In the
constraint diagram, it can be observed as a vertical line at the right
edge of the design space:


W ρ
 ⋅ v2 ⋅ c
S stall 2 stall L;max
2. Power Normalization
Aircraft engines are expected to work at different ambient
conditions. The temperature, pressure, and density changes strongly
affect naturally aspirated internal combustion engines. As the
pressure and density decrease, the engine’s power decreases as well
because the power an engine produces is proportional to the mass
flow of air into the intake manifold. To cover this effect, the
normalization method of Gagg and Ferrar [17] is used.
Electric motors do not suffer this disadvantage and can produce
their rated power at any altitude. Although this is favorable from a
sizing perspective, it also creates cooling problems for air-cooled
motors because the cooling mass flow reduces as the density of air
decreases, Thus, the climb power at altitude is likely to size the
motor’s cooling system. This effect is usually not covered within
initial sizing, but it must be addressed in detail design. The same
problem affects the design of the battery system. Batteries have a
narrow band of operational temperatures, which must be closely
monitored [18]. However, these issues are beyond the scope of the
early stages of conceptual design.
B. Point Performance: Adaption of Hybrid-Electric Technology
Hybrid-electric propulsion systems have additional degrees of
freedom in design: one of which is the level of hybridization. For the
design optimization process, the proposed method derives a starting
point for this factor from the constraint diagram.
1. Level of Hybridization of Power
HP is the level of hybridization of power, which is the ratio of the
installed propulsion power of all electric motors to the total installed
propulsion power at the propeller shaft [see Eq. (16)]. It is defined and
fixed for any aircraft and propulsion system configuration.
For parallel-hybrid aircraft, H P;PH defines the split point between
the ICE and the EM, relative to the overall power demand arising
from the design point (see Fig. 3):
PEM;max
H P;PH 
Pmax
249
Note that, for serial-hybrid-electric powertrains, H P;PH as defined
(10)
in Eq. (16) is always equal to one because; only the EM delivers the
total installed power. To differentiate between the all-electric
powertrain and to size the range extender, H P;SH is introduced by
Eq. (17). Using this definition, the inverse of the split point is
calculated (see Fig. 4):
PEM;max
(12) H P;SH  (17)
PICE;max
(13)
2. Level of Hybridization of Energy
Another helpful parameter is the level of hybridization of energy
H E . This parameter is specified as the ratio of the required transport
energy delivered by batteries (nonconsumablenc ) to the total required
transport energy E [Eq. (18)]. It is defined for every flight phase of a
mission and determines the power demand from the EM and ICE in
(14)
flight phase are determined by the ratio between the power
requirement of the electric motor, which is defined by the split point
(see next subsection), and the power demand, which is represented by
its appropriate constraint (see Figs. 3 and 4):
ΔEnc
HE;i  (18)
ΔE
H E can also be calculated for the entire flight. This is helpful because,
for an aircraft with a high HP , electric boost might only be used for
(15) takeoff or takeoff and climb; therefore, the corresponding H E might
still be very low. Thus, H E indicates how much of the propulsion
system’s electric part is used.
3. Constraint Diagram for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft
For the three-parameter optimization (P∕W, W∕S, and H P ) of
hybrid-electric aircraft, the constraint diagram is used in a novel way:
The area below the design line, representing the infeasible region for
aircraft with conventional propulsion systems because at least one
performance constraint is not met, will now be used to indicate HP . In
the following, the space below the design line will be referred to as the
hybrid-electric design space.
This methodology is the core of the new method. It will first be
explained with the help of the constraint diagram for parallel-hybrid
aircraft, and it will then be extended to serial-hybrid aircraft.
a. Parallel-Hybrid Aircraft. A graphical representation of a
constraint diagram and the hybrid-electric design space is shown in
Fig. 3 for parallel-hybrid propulsion configurations.
Assuming that, for a given W∕S, the lowest design mass
corresponds to the lowest P∕W that satisfies all constraints, an
arbitrary design point “i” on the design line can be selected. An
aircraft designed with this P∕W and W∕S combination fulfills all
constraints with the lowest MTOM.
We now introduce a new parameter, called the “split point,” which
indicates the degree of hybridization of power HP, or rather the power
split between the ICE and EM. Each split point corresponds to a
certain combination of HP , P∕W, and W∕S. For parallel-hybrid
aircraft, the split point indicates how much P∕W the ICE supplies to
the total P∕W.
In Fig. 3, four split points are indicated, corresponding to the same
design point on the design line as described in the following:
Circle. The circle is on the design line, and hence corresponds with
the design point. Therefore, 100% of the P∕W is supplied by the ICE
(H P;PH  0). This point represents a conventional aircraft.
Triangle. The triangle indicates a one-third by two-thirds split.
Sixty-seven percent of the design point’s P∕W is supplied by the ICE,
and 33% is supplied by the EM (HP;PH  0.33). This aircraft
satisfies the cruise performance constraint on the ICE alone; but, to
(16) achieve the climb performance and the takeoff distance, an additional
boost of the EM is needed.
 250 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
Fig. 3 Design space of parallel-hybrid aircraft.
Diamond. The diamond indicates a two-thirds by one-third split.
Thirty-three percent of the design point’s P∕W is supplied by the
ICE, and 67% is supplied by the EM (HP;PH  0.67). This aircraft
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
cannot satisfy any constraint on only the ICE. However, it is also not
able to satisfy climb or takeoff performance on the EM alone.
Therefore a larger battery, as compared to the triangle split point, is
needed.
Square. The square corresponds to H P;PH  1 and represents a
fully electric aircraft. No ICE is needed to achieve any performance
constraint.
b. Serial-Hybrid Aircraft. For serial-hybrid aircraft, just as for
parallel-hybrid aircraft, the split point indicates how much P∕W the
ICE supplies to the total P∕W. However, serial hybrids are
fundamentally different because the EM will always provide the total
P∕W. The ICE is just a generator and has no mechanical connection
between the crankshaft and the propeller.
In Fig. 4, four split points are indicated, all corresponding to
the same design point on the design line as described in the
following:
Circle. The circle is directly on the design line, and hence
corresponds with the design point. Therefore, the EM is supported by
an ICE that can deliver 100% of the required P∕W (H P;SH  1).
Consequently, the ICE’s P∕W is equal to the P/W of the EM. The
aircraft does not need a battery to complete its mission because any
power requirements of the EM can be supplied by the ICE.
Triangle. The triangle indicates a one-third reduction of the ICE’s
P∕W as compared to the EM. Sixty-seven percent of the design
point’s P∕W can be supplied by the ICE (H P;PH  1.49). Like the
parallel-hybrid equivalent, this aircraft still satisfies the cruise
performance constraint on ICE power; but, to achieve the climb
performance and the takeoff distance, an additional boost of power
must be supplied by a battery.
Diamond. The diamond indicates a two-thirds reduction of the
ICE’s P∕W as compared to the EM. Thirty-three percent of the
design point’s P∕W can be supplied by the ICE (HP;SH  3.03).
Fig. 4 Design space of serial-hybrid aircraft.
This aircraft cannot satisfy any constraint on only ICE power.
A larger battery is needed as compared to the triangle split point.
Square. The square indicates a P∕W of the ICE of zero. This
represents a fully electric aircraft (HP;SH  ∞). This aircraft needs
the largest battery and is the heaviest.
C. Engine Failure Constraints for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft
1. Methodology for Evaluating Hybrid-Electric Power System Failures
According to 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 23
regulations, any multiengine aircraft above a 2721 kg (6000 lb)
MTOM must perform basic maneuvers (takeoff, climb, and landing),
even if one engine fails. Certain performance criteria must be met by
the aircraft for it to be certified. These criteria are known as one
engine inoperative criteria. The condition where one of the engines
has failed is called the OEI condition. The typical sizing criteria is a
minimum climb rate or gradient (see Sec. III.A.1 for the constraint
definition).
Hybrid-electric aircraft can be considered as multiengine designs,
even if one of the engines is technically an electric motor. To keep the
terminology familiar, the distinction between “engine inoperative”
and “motor inoperative” is not made in this paper. Also, only the
simplest multiengine hybrid designs with a single propulsor, as
shown in Fig. 1, are assessed here: a fuel-based system and an electric
system, joined to drive a single propeller. If multipropulsor
arrangements are required, the new ways of using the OEI constraints
that are presented in the following can be easily extended using
traditional methods [e.g., Ref. [19], as shown in Eq. (14)].
If OEI is considered for parallel-hybrid designs, this could be the
failure of the combustion engine and/or its fuel system, or it could be
the failure of the electric motor and/or its battery. Only the propeller
and gearbox are single points of failure.
Serial-hybrid designs cannot allow a failure of the electric motor.
However, the OEI nomenclature can be extended to a battery failure, a
generator failure, and a combustion engine/fuel system failure.
The OEI condition for hybrid-electric aircraft can be thought of as
a failure of one of the energy supply branches. In the following
 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
Fig. 5 Serial-hybrid design space: OEI climb constraint.
subsections, the methodology of integrating these failure cases into
the hybrid-electric design space of the constraint diagram (see
Sec. III.C) is explained.
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
2. Serial-Hybrid OEI Constraints
Serial-hybrid aircraft require only a slight modification of the
constraint diagram, which is shown in Fig. 5. The OEI climb
constraint is a very shallow climb, and the required constraint line is
added to the diagram. It indicates the minimum power that either
branch of the hybrid propulsion system must provide. Thus, it
indicates the bottom boundary for the design space. The electric
motor is still sized by the total power requirement given by the design
line, but no combustion engine smaller than indicated by the OEI
climb constraint must be used.
Thus, the main components can be sized with this reduced design
space, and the battery system is sized during the mission analysis part
of the sizing.
3. Parallel-Hybrid OEI Constraints
The constraint diagram is more restricted for parallel-hybrid
aircraft. The new design space is shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Again, the
OEI climb constraint marks the bottom of the design space.
Figure 6 shows a simplified design space if the design is only
driven by OEI requirements. Because the OEI constraint is valid for
both the ICE and EM, both lines need to be added. The ICE and EM
need to be of the same size. The addition gives the new design line.
However, the design space is reduced to a line, and therefore only a
single H P value (H P  50%) is possible.
Figure 7 shows a more typical and complex representation of the
design space for parallel-hybrid aircraft. In this example, the upper
boundary is not set by the OEI climb constraint. Instead, a mix of
requirements defines the design line, including an all engines
operating (AEO) climb constraint. In this case, the OEI climb
constraint must be subtracted from the design line. This new
constraint is the upper boundary of the design space.
The lower boundary ensures that the ICE is large enough for the
aircraft to fly on its power alone, whereas the upper boundary ensures
that the ICE does not get too large, thereby downsizing the EM too
much for the aircraft to fly on the EM alone. The result is a significant
reduction in the available design space if OEI constraints are
observed.
Fig. 6 Parallel-hybrid design space: OEI climb constraints.
251
Fig. 7 Parallel-hybrid design space: extended OEI climb constraints.
Further restrictions might apply. Exemplarily, it is considered most
efficient to fly the cruise part of the mission only on the power of the
ICE. This would make the cruise line the lower boundary of the
design space, reducing the design space to the small area in the right
third of the constraint diagram, as indicated by the green area
in Fig. 8.
The impact of the OEI constraints on aircraft size was discussed
in Ref. [20].
D. Mission Performance: Mass Estimation
The mission performance analysis is based on an iterative process.
However, to cover the mix of consumable (carbon-based fuels) and
nonconsumable (batteries) energy sources, absolute mass values are
used rather than mass fractions.
Also, the Breguet endurance and range equations [21] are not used.
Instead, the mission is broken into short segments and simulated
using an energy-based approach. The fuel mass and battery mass are
determined by estimating the necessary energy for each flight phase.
After each phase, the consumed fuel is subtracted from the current
mass of the aircraft.
During the mass estimation process, based on a first estimate for
the MTOM, the masses that make up the gross mass are calculated.
Using the results of the point performance analysis, the propulsion
system is sized because its engine, motor, and integration mass are
estimated.
1. Propulsion System Mass Estimation and Wing Sizing
For a given MTOM and P∕W, the maximum power is calculated
with Eq. (19):
P
Pmax  ⋅ MTOM (19)
W
Using this maximum power, the propulsion system is sized,
including all powertrain components, according to the selected
propulsion system layout. The powertrain includes the engines,
motors, motor controllers, gearboxes, generators, power distribution
systems, and cooling systems, as well as cables, linkages, and other
conduits.
Because a wide variety of different mass estimation methods can
be used for this step, no models will be presented in this paper
Fig. 8 Parallel-hybrid design space: OEI and cruise power constraint.
 252 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
because they are described in detail in the literature. It is possible to
add specific methodologies for the sizing of the propulsion system’s
components based on empirical and physical modeling. The simplest
model could be based on the mass specific powers of the propulsion
system components. Based on regression analysis or technological
projections, assumptions on the mass per unit power (P
in
kilograms per kilowatt) could be made. Higher-order methods can be
implemented as well.
Also, in this first step, the wings are sized by their reference area,
using the W∕S, as shown in Eq. (20):
MTOM ⋅ g
S
W∕S
2. Mass Estimation of the Energy Carrier
To calculate the energy carrier masses, the required powers, and
thus the required transport energy during the whole mission, must be
identified. This is done by determining the required energy in every
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
time step of a flight phase, considering all energy demands: for
example, from aerodynamic drag, acceleration (kinetic energy), and
altitude change (potential energy).
The equation for the calculation of the total transport energy in
every time step during flight is given by Eq. (21). For cruise, the only
energy demand arises from aerodynamic drag. During acceleration,
the change in kinetic energy is added. For climb or descend, the
corresponding potential energy is added or subtracted, respectively.
The energy during takeoff is calculated under the assumption that the
engine is operating at maximum power for a specified time. Taxi
energy is calculated based on rolling resistance (not shown here):
m⋅g⋅v m ⋅ Δv2
ΔE  ⋅ Δt   m ⋅ g ⋅ ROC ⋅ Δt
L∕D 2 |{z}
|{z} |{z} ΔEPotential
ΔEAero:Drag ΔEKinetic
The transport energy is divided into energy from consumable
sources (fuel) and nonconsumable sources (battery) for a given H E
[given in Eq. (18)].
After the energy split, the required power in a time step of a mission
phase is computed for each ICE and EM using Eqs. (22) and (23). In
this context, it is essential to include the efficiency η and the losses
from the ICE or EM shaft through to the thrust force:
ΔEc
PICE  (22)
ηSTT;ICE ⋅ Δt ⋅ NOD
ΔEnc
PEM 
ηSTT;EM ⋅ Δt ⋅ NOD
Fig. 9 Efficiency chains: ICE/EM shaft → thrust.
In Fig. 9, the efficiency chains for every power specific propulsion
system type are illustrated (where BMS denotes battery management
system and ESC denotes electronic speed controller). Of course, these
are easily adaptable for differing propulsion system requirements. As
for the mass estimation methods, a wide variety of efficiency models
can be used in this step, and specific models are not presented in this
paper. The simplest model could be using fixed efficiencies for the
components, regardless of the changing operating conditions.
Higher-order models will give more accurate results, but they will
also increase the calculation time.
In this methodology, specific consumption is used to define the
efficiency of combustion engines. Although this introduces an
(20)
additional parameter, the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC;
used fuel per unit power and time) is much easier to compare than
efficiency values. For this reason, different models are required; and
the calculation of the fuel mass and the battery mass differs slightly.
The required fuel and the additional allowance for trapped fuel in a
time step of a flight phase can be calculated by Eq. (24):
ΔmFuel;ICE  1  tf ⋅ PICE ⋅ NOD ⋅ BSFC ⋅ Δt (24)
The required battery mass, resulting from the required battery
capacity to store the battery energy, is given by Eq. (25). There, a
margin called the deep discharge protection (DDP) is added to avoid
damaging the battery by depleting its charge completely:
ΔEnc
ΔmBattery  1  DDP ⋅ (25)
ηBtT ⋅ EBattery
Although the efficiencies of the shaft to thrust are necessary to
(21) compute the required power of the ICE and EM from the transport
energy in a mission segment, the efficiency of the battery to thrust
(Fig. 10) is used for the determination of the battery energy and
battery mass.
The effect of mass reduction due to fuel burn and the consequences
on the overall transport energy demand are included in the energy
calculations. The mass of burned fuel per unit time is subtracted from
the current mass of the aircraft in every time step, and the masses of
the energy carriers are subsequently summed up and used for the final
mass buildup.
3. Estimation of the Empty Aircraft Mass and Mass Buildup
In this step, the empty mass is determined. The empty mass, as it is
defined within the scope of this sizing approach [Eq. (26)], is the
mass that remains when the energy carrier masses, the propulsion
system mass, and the specified payload mass are subtracted from the
(23) MTOM. It includes the structural mass and the system and avionics
mass.
 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
Fig. 10 Efficiency chain: battery → thrust.
MTOM  mempty w∕o engine  mproplsion system  mfuel
 mbattery  mpayload (26)
Because the empty mass cannot be calculated in the early design
stage, it has to be estimated (compare to Ref. [8]). This estimation
makes use of a regression analysis that establishes a relation between
the MTOM of an aircraft and its empty mass fraction without an
engine, which is defined as the empty mass without an engine and the
integration mass divided by the MTOM. As the focus of this research
is light general aviation aircraft, only the regression analysis for this
aircraft class has been performed [Eq. (27)]. However, the basic
methodology remains the same for all kinds of aircraft.
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
mempty;without engine
 0.743 ⋅ MTOM−0.06 (27)
MTOM
As complete mass build-up is available (mempty  mpropulsion 
menergy  mpayload ), the new MTOM is calculated. Based on this new
MTOM, the next iteration step is started. The iteration stops when a
certain mass convergence, defined by the stopping criteria ε, is
reached (compare to Fig. 2).
E. Determination of Optimal Parameter Combinations
When the initial sizing of a conventional combustion-engine-
driven aircraft is performed, one initial sizing run is sufficient.
Typically, the conventional design point is chosen; and this makes it
unnecessary to analyze more than one parameter combination. Once
the geometry of the new aircraft is defined using the initial sizing
result as a baseline, higher-order methods for the refined sizing of
components can be used, and more advanced analysis methods are
used. Typically, sizing matrix plots or carpet plots are drawn by
varying certain parameters of the baseline aircraft, and the aircraft is
then resized [8]. Usually, using these analysis data, some form of
multidisciplinary optimization is carried out.
Unfortunately, the conventional design point is merely the right
design point for conventional aircraft. Because electric motors offer
three to five times higher specific power than combustion engines, the
propulsion system mass (neglecting the energy source) is reduced
[22]. Additionally, the efficiency of electric motors is very high,
and much less dependent on the power setting, as compared to
Fig. 11 Thumbprint plot: design space exploration.
253
combustion engines. This allows electric motors to be run at very
low-power settings: levels which would be uneconomical for
combustion engines [23]. Consequently, there is an incentive to shift
the design point to higher wing loadings and higher power loadings
for fully electric aircraft designs.
The situation is similar for hybrid-electric aircraft. Electric motors
can boost the total available power significantly for a comparatively
small mass increase, as long as they are used for a small fraction of
the total flight time because today’s batteries are still prohibitively
heavy. Because of the complex interaction of mission performance
and point performance, a prediction of the best design point is very
difficult.
To determine the combination of P∕W, W∕S, and HP , which leads
to an optimum for a defined objective function for a specific flight
mission, the hybrid-electric design space, limited by performance
constraints, must be analyzed. This requires that, for combinations
of P∕W, W∕S, and HP , the value of the objective function has to be
determined. This is done by applying a mission performance analysis
to compute parameters that are relevant to calculate the value of the
objective function (e.g., MTOM, fuel mass, battery mass, energy,
etc.) using the fast initial sizing analysis, as well as using the result
for the following more detailed design work.
The design optimization can be performed using numerical tools,
or by populating the entire design space and plotting the result. The
former method gives a fast result, and the latter allows the user to gain
further understanding of the design space.
1. Thumbprint Plots for Visualization
To gain this visual insight, the whole design space must be
analyzed for varying values of P∕W and W∕S, as well as for different
values of HP and H E . The resulting MTOMs are then plotted and
superimposed with the performance constraints. Such a figure is
shown in Fig. 11 as a hybrid-electric initial sizing example. Figure 11
links all performance constraints to the MTOMs of differently sized
aircraft: each with a different parameter combination.
Such a plot also exists for classical designs and is sometimes called
a “performance thumbprint” [24].
For aircraft without hybrid-electric propulsion, such a thumbprint
plot would be the result of unconstrained optimization. Then, the
designs below the design line would not meet one or more of the
 254 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
performance constraints. As an example, such plots could be used for
requirement trades.
In the context of this new methodology, the thumbprint plot
is used differently: Every design on such a plot fulfills all constraints
because each P∕W is sized up to the design line. Basically, any
point on the plot indicates how much of the P∕W is provided by
the combustion engine: W∕S  1324 N∕m2 ; P∕W  163 W∕kg;
HP;SH  2; 45 → P=WEM  163 W∕kg; P∕W ICE  66.5 W∕kg;
and corresponding MTOM  1574 kg.
2. Example: How to Apply the Hybrid-Electric Initial Sizing Methodology
The sizing of a single-propeller serial-hybrid aircraft needs to be
performed.
1) The top-level requirements are specified.
2) Based on the requirements, point performance constraints are
calculated, and the constraint diagram is drawn.
3) The hybrid-electric design space is evaluated for valid parameter
combinations of P∕W, HP , and W∕S.
4) Using these parameters as inputs, the mission analysis is carried
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
out to determine the measure of merit (in Fig. 11, MTOM) for all valid
combinations.
5) The MTOM of each parameter combination is plotted in the
constraint diagram (compare Fig. 11).
6) The best parameter combination can be chosen from the
thumbprint plot (Fig. 11).
As this method is intended for general aviation aircraft, sized gross
masses of more than 5670 kg (the limit specified in 14 CFR Part 23
[25] for the normal, utility, or aerobatic category) are dismissed in
Fig. 11. This is important because the models for the propulsion
system and the empty mass fraction are often based on statistics.
These are only applicable to a certain range of aircraft (general
aviation in this case), and they will not yield meaningful results
outside of the intended regime.
The results will not be discussed at this point because only
exemplary data are presented. Actual design examples are presented
in Refs. [20,26–28].
IV. Conclusions
The methodology outlined in this paper allows the sizing of aircraft
with numerous conventional, hybrid-electric, and fully electric
propulsion configurations to find the best propulsion solution for a
given set of requirements. The results indicate that the traditional
methods used to determine the size of an aircraft in conceptual design
are not valid for aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion systems.
The level of hybridization is of particular interest because it dictates
the size of the propulsion system’s components. A new approach
is presented, which can be used to find the optimum level of
hybridization.
This novel method allows a graphical representation of the design
space, and therefore provides a level of insight that numerical
optimization methods do not provide. Nevertheless, if this insight is
not required, the design procedure can be carried out with a numerical
optimization scheme for improved speed.
Hybrid-electric aircraft can be considered multiengine because
two individual branches of the propulsion system contribute to the
total installed power. Therefore, it is desirable to continue safe
flight, even if one branch of the system fails. This requires a new
methodology to size for the OEI conditions.
The presented OEI methodology for constraint diagrams allows
consideration of serial-hybrid and parallel-hybrid propulsion con-
figurations. The OEI constraints significantly reduce the design space
and reduce the number of parameter combinations.
If the reader is interested in results that were obtained by applying
this methodology, they are referred to some of the authors’ other
publications. Reference [27] studied the impact of hybrid-electric
propulsion systems on the design of general aviation aircraft, using
the Cirrus SR-22 as a baseline to compare the new technology
against. Reference [28] analyzed the performance of conventional,
electric, and hybrid-electric vertical take-off and landing (VTOL)
aircraft for on-demand air mobility missions. In Ref. [20], the impact
of OEI constraints on the MTOM is evaluated. In these publications,
the authors assessed in what manner different mission factors (e.g.
payload, range, speed), or how technology factors (e.g. battery
energy density, efficiencies or specific power of combustion engines)
influence the gross mass, and total energy consumption of an aircraft.
These trade studies are performed to identify key technologies that
can lead to a future with more efficient aircraft.
References
[1] Cobb, J., “The World Just Bought Its Two-Millionth Plug-In Car,”
Jan. 2017, https://www.hybridcars.com/the-world-just-bought-its-two-
millionth-plug-in-car/ [retrieved 18 Oct. 2019].
[2] De Breucker, S., Peeters, E., and Driesen, J., “Possible Applications of
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Ships,” 2009 IEEE Electric Ship Technologies
Symposium, IEEE Publ., Piscataway, NJ, 2009, pp. 310–317.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ESTS.2009.4906530
[3] Hepperle, M., “Electric Flight—Potential and Limitations,” NATO MP-
AVT-209-09, Energy Efficient Technologies and Concepts of
Operation, Lisbon, Portugal, Oct. 2012.
[4] Warwick, G., “Electric Potential—Are Battery Technologies Advancing
Fast Enough to Enable eVTOL,” Aviation Week and Space Technology,
Vol. 179, Aug. 2017, pp. 38–41.
[5] Moore, M. D., and Fredericks, B., “Misconceptions of Electric
Propulsion Aircraft and Their Emergent Aviation Markets,” AIAA
Paper 2014-0535, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-0535
[6] Mattingly, J. D., Heiser, W. H., and Pratt, D. T., Aircraft Engine Design,
2nd ed., AIAA, Reston, VA, 2002.
[7] Loftin, L. K., Jr., “Subsonic Aircraft: Evolution and the Matching of Size
to Performance,” NASA Langley Research Center, NASA-RP-1060,
1980, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19800020744.
[8] Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 6th ed., AIAA,
Reston, VA, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2514/4.104909
[9] Smith, J. R., Batish, P. G., Brandt, S. A., and Morton, S. A., “A Student
Developed Sizing Methodology for Electric Powered Aircraft Applied
to Small UAVs,” 2000 World Aviation Conference, AIAA Paper 2000-
5536, 2000.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2000-5536
[10] Lückhof, J., and Stumpf, E., “Performance Estimation of Different
UAV-Configurations in Preliminary Design,” 66. Deutscher Luft- und
Raumfahrtkongress DLRK 2017, DGLR, Bonn, Germany, 2017, Paper
0150, http://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/754268/files/754268
.pdf.
[11] Jensen, S. C., Rettie, I. H., and Barber, E. A., “Role of Figures of Merit in
Design Optimization and Technology Assessment,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 18, No. 2, 1981, pp. 76–81.
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.57468
[12] Finger, D. F., Goetten, F., Braun, C., and Bil, C., “On Aircraft
Design Under the Consideration of Hybrid-Electric Propulsion
Systems,” The Proceedings of the 2018 Asia-Pacific International
Symposium on Aerospace Technology (APISAT 2018), edited by X.
Zhang, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 459, Springer,
Singapore, 2019, pp. 1261–1272.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3305-7_99
[13] Nicolai, L. M., and Carichner, G. E., Fundamentals of Aircraft and
Airship Design–Volume I–Aircraft Design, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.2514/4.867538
[14] Gudmundsson, S., General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods
and Procedures, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, U.K.,
2014.
[15] Kraytsberg, A., and Ein-Eli, Y., “Review on Li–Air Batteries—
Opportunities, Limitations and Perspective,” Journal of Power Sources,
Vol. 196, No. 3, 2011, pp. 886–893.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.09.031
[16] Borer, N. K., Patterson, M. D., Viken, J. K., Moore, M. D., Bevirt, J.,
Stoll, A. M., and Gibson, A. R., “Design and Performance of the NASA
SCEPTOR Distributed Electric Propulsion Flight Demonstrator,” 16th
AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference,
AIAA Paper 2016-3920, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-3920
[17] Gagg, R., and Farrar, E., Altitude Performance of Aircraft Engines
Equipped with Gear-Driven Superchargers, SAE TP 340096,
Warrendale, PA, 1934.
https://doi.org/10.4271/340096
[18] Waldmann, T., Wilka, M., Kasper, M., Fleischhammer, M., and
Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, M., “Temperature Dependent Ageing Mechanisms
 FINGER, BIL, AND BRAUN
in Lithium-Ion Batteries—A Post-Mortem Study,” Journal of Power
Sources, Vol. 262, Sept. 2014, pp. 129–135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.112
[19] Roskam, J., Airplane Design Part I–VIII, Roskam Aviation and
Engineering Corp., Ottawa, KS, 1985.
[20] Finger, D. F., Braun, C., and Bil, C., “Impact of Engine Failure
Constraints on the Initial Sizing of Hybrid-Electric GA Aircraft,” AIAA
SciTech Forum, AIAA Paper 2019-1812, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-1812
[21] Traub, L. W., “Range and Endurance Estimates for an Electrically
Powered Aircraft,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2011,
pp. 703–707.
10.2514/1.C031027
[22] Finger, D. F., Braun, C., and Bil, C., “Impact of Electric Propulsion
Technology and Mission Requirements on the Performance of VTOL
UAVs,” CEAS Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, Sept. 2019,
pp. 828–843.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-018-0352-x
[23] Finger, D. F., Braun, C., and Bil, C., “A Review of Configuration Design
for Distributed Propulsion Transitioning VTOL Aircraft,” Asia-Pacific
International Symposium on Aerospace Technology—APISAT2017,
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY on October 25, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035428
Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI), Daejeon, South Korea,
2017.
255
[24] Torenbeek, E., Advanced Aircraft Design—Conceptual Design,
Analysis and Optimization of Subsonic Civil Airplanes, Wiley,
Chichester, England, U.K., 2013, pp. 263–264.
[25] “Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 23—Airworthiness Standards:
Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes,”
Electronic CODE of Federal Regulations. U.S. Government Publishing
Office, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=685dc1ae97ae3f5e
5569e47880fab01e&mc=true&node=pt14.1.23#se14.1.23_13 [ac-
cessed 16 Oct. 2019].
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-018-0352-x
[26] Finger, D. F., Braun, C., and Bil, C., “An Initial Sizing Methodology for
Hybrid-Electric Light Aircraft,” 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration,
and Operations Conference, AIAA Paper 2018-4229, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-4229
[27] Finger, D. F., Braun, C., and Bil, C., “Case Studies in Initial Sizing for
Hybrid-Electric General Aviation Aircraft,” 2018 AIAA/IEEE Electric
Aircraft Technologies Symposium, AIAA Paper 2018-5005, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-5005
[28] Finger, D. F., Goetten, F., Braun, C., and Bil, C., “Initial Sizing for
a Family of Hybrid-Electric VTOL General Aviation Aircraft,” 67.
Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress DLRK2018, DGLR, Bonn,
Germany, 2018, Paper 0102.
https://doi.org/10.25967/480102