Journal Pre-proof

Conceptual design of small aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion systems

David Sziroczak, Istvan Jankovics, Istvan Gal, Daniel Rohacs

PII: S0360-5442(20)31044-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117937
Reference: EGY 117937

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 10 January 2020

Revised Date: 18 May 2020
Accepted Date: 20 May 2020

Please cite this article as: Sziroczak D, Jankovics I, Gal I, Rohacs D, Conceptual design of small
aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion systems, Energy (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2020.117937.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Credit Author Statement
David Sziroczak: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Investigation, Data Curation,
Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization

Istvan Jankovics: Methodology, Validation, Resources, Visualization

Istvan Gal: Methodology, Validation, Resources, Visualization

Daniel Rohacs: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Project administration,

Funding acquisition
 Conceptual design of small aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion
systems

David Sziroczak, Istvan Jankovics, Istvan Gal, Daniel Rohacs

Department of Aeronautics, Naval Architecture and Railway Vehicles
Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehicle Engineering
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Corresponding author: dsziroczak@vrht.bme.hu
Received: date; Accepted: date; Published: date

Abstract: Stakeholders envision the introduction of electric and hybrid-electric aircraft into operation by 2035.
First developments of such aircraft have demonstrated that the existing technologies do not allow realization of
hybrid-electric aircraft matching the performance of traditional aircraft with the same load factors. The major
challenge of future hybrid-electric aircraft development is the considerable improvement of the energetic
efficiencies. This paper evaluates the (i) problems and barriers (ii) emerging and required future technologies of
effective hybrid-electric propulsion systems and (iii) adaptation of the aircraft conceptual design process for the
development of hybrid-electric aircraft. The developed methodology is applied to the conceptual design of a
small aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion system. The results demonstrate that the adapted conceptual design
methods with (i) constrains on mass fraction adapted to new technologies and solutions, (ii) constraints defined
for energy fractions for flight mission legs, (iii) considering radically new elements and technologies in aircraft
design and (iv) developing unconventional aircraft, aircraft operations may allow the development of small
hybrid-electric aircraft with acceptable performance.
Keywords: hybrid-electric aircraft, aircraft conceptual design, unconventional aircraft, energy fractions

Highlights:
• Technology, challenges, barriers and future directions for hybrid-electric aircraft
• Conceptual design methodology adapted to small hybrid-electric aircraft
• Constraints, improved mass and energy fractions for flight mission legs
• Feasibility and performance design studies for small hybrid-electric aircraft
• Unconventional hybrid-electric aircraft concepts and solutions using design method
1 Introduction1
Nowadays, the aeronautical industry faces a non-classical market pull-technology push
innovation situation[1]. The market pull appears as society needs greener, more efficient and
on demand transportation, which is supported by visions and actions taken by the policy
makers and regulators [2][3][4][5]. These visions intend to define the possible directions and
areas of technology development; the technology push. The system is non-classical as
aeronautics, including air transportation is about to initiate its third technological development
“S”-curve. This new phase is reached with the development of several emerging technologies
and radically new solutions such as lightweight materials, ultra-flexible structures, morphing,
active flow control or biomimicry. The historic visions published near the millennium (Vision
2020 [2]) could not have possibly predicted the introduction of electric aircraft concepts. For
example, NASA BluerPrint [5] and other documents only mention electric propulsion,
advanced fuel cells, high efficiency electric motors on the list of revolutionary aircraft. Later,
the IATA Technology Roadmap [6] published in 2013 predicted that electric aircraft will
enter service by 2020. Also, mid-size full electric aircraft were predicted to be introduced by
2035, provided battery energy density could be tripled compared to current technology levels
[7].
The policy makers, regulatory bodies and stakeholders define rather ambitious goals for the
future of air transportation. These goals include the reduction of NOx emissions by 90% and
CO2 emissions by 75% [3][4]. Other international and national organizations are taking
similar positions [8][9][10]. Using “simple” innovative solutions alone, the gradual
enhancement of existing technologies and solutions, it appears that the targeted goals cannot
be achieved. These solutions include the use of lighter materials, advanced aerodynamics,
increasing current engine and propulsion system efficiencies, enhanced engine-airframe
integration, new ATM procedures, operational concepts and novel ground and flight
operations. Therefore, radically new technologies, original and unconventional solutions are
required, based on the “out of the box” thinking principle [11]. Unconventional new solutions
could include features which would radically change the current air transportation systems,
like the MagLev assisted take-off and landing of undercarriage-less aircraft [12] or the
cruiser-feeder concept [13]. The general reception of these ideas show that the stakeholders
are afraid of using revolutionary new solutions, and even be against the operation of such new
technologies [14].

1
Abbreviations:
• ACARE: Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe
• AIAA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
• ATM: Aerospace Traffic Management
• FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
• ICE: Internal Combustion Engine
• MTOM: Maximum Take-Off Mass
• OEM: Operating Empty Mass
• UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
At the same time, ACARE and the research policy makers of the European Commission have
turned towards supporting high risk new research ideas and disruptive technologies, which
could potentially benefit society. Example of these are shown by the Create project
developers [15] and also appeared in recent H2020 calls [16], along with the calls for
disruptive technologies [17][18]. Disruptive technologies, as defined by Clayton [19][20],
destroy (disrupt) existing systems and by introducing new solutions or products, build up new
systems and new markets. These new systems and markets will have considerable higher
performance than the old systems. The evaluation of disruptive technologies [21] shows that
introducing hybrid-electric propulsion systems into the aircraft development process is a clear
example of disruptive technology deployment. Probably the most promising solution to
achieve the targeted emissions reduction is the development of new aircraft with hybrid-
electric propulsion systems. In this study, hybrid-electric refers to both fully electric systems
and hybrids with arbitrary levels of electrification and all architectures.
In addition to the engineering challenges there are also operational and business aspects to be
considered for the introduction of hybrid-electric systems. The topic is relevant not just to
aviation, but surface and hybrid solutions, collectively referred to as E-mobility. Orbulov[22]
investigated the service design for electric (surface) vehicles specifically for Central European
countries. The study concludes that as of today, the main reason for the purchase of electric
vehicles in this reagon is the associated and perceived prestige, not necessarily environmental
consciousness. Mobility and urban mobility follows at 2nd and 3rd place, and range and
performance took only the 4th and 5th place of importance based on the answers of the focus
groups. E-mobility is also interesting from an electricity distribution system operator’s
perspective. Vokony et al. investigated the questions of controlled charging in E-mobility.
While the paper focuses on road transports, the research highlights the issues related to
providing adequate infrastructure for the charging of high-capacity batteries required for
transportation use and the requirement for regulations and control.
Unfortunately, a series of problems and barriers pose a serious challenge for the development
of successful hybrid-electric aircraft. The key element of these problems is the energy storage
system, most often the battery, used in hybrid-electric aircraft. The greatest challenges include
the low specific energy, thermal instability, limited life (charge-discharge cycles) and long
charging time [24][25].
A second source of problems is due to the methods used to design aircraft. The first step of
aircraft design, after evaluating the requirements is the conceptual design phase. The
conceptual design phase defines the major elements and properties of the aircraft, and
practically determines the future achievable performance and to a very large extent the total
lifecycle cost. Almost all the current available methods for conceptual design, but certainly all
the well-known ones, are based on the statistical evaluation of historical aircraft data. These
methods are often referred to as traditional conceptual design methods and they had been the
baseline for any new aircraft development or modification in the past.
[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Arguably the most important part of these design
methods are the introduction of mass fractions, the relative mass of various aircraft parts and
components relative to the total aircraft mass, most often the Maximum Take-Off Mass
(MTOM). These fractions depend on the aircraft type, configuration, its intended use,
materials used, manufacturing technology, production systems and structural solutions. These
equations were defined based on data and technology about 30-50 years old. Despite this, they
generally provide acceptable estimations for modern aircraft, but mostly by applying various
correction factors, which are not necessarily validated, potentially compromising the integrity
of the method. Furthermore, these prediction methods can’t apply to radically new or different
aircraft concepts using significantly different shapes, propulsion, materials or structural
solutions. New, disruptive solutions require the reconsideration on development of new mass
fraction equations.
This paper introduces a new conceptual design methodology adapted to the development of
new small aircraft supported by hybrid-electric propulsion systems. The new methodology
had been applied to develop a small 4-seater concept, a small unmanned cargo aircraft with
hybrid-electric propulsion systems, and its sub-scale technology demonstrator.
The paper (i) deals with the short analysis of the existing methodology of aircraft conceptual
design, (ii) discusses problems and barriers related to the electric and hybrid-electric
propulsion systems, (iii) describes the improved and adapted conceptual design process for
the development of the new small electric and hybrid-electric aircraft and (iv) demonstrates
the usability of the developed new methodology.
This paper shows results from the Hungarian IDEA-E project[35], which includes the efforts
of nine departments of three universities.

2 Traditional conceptual design method

From a generalized and theoretical point of view, aircraft conceptual design can be
described as general optimization problem. The mathematical representation can be given in a
simple form. The canonical description of a generalised optimization problem is shown in
Equation (1).
( )
: ( ) ≤ 0 for each ∈ 1, 2, … , #
$ % ℎ' ( ) = 0 for each ∈ 1, 2, … , )#
(1)

*ℎ + ∈,
Where:
• : the vector of input variables
• ( ): fitness or objective function
• ( ): non-equality constraint functions
• ℎ' ( ): equality constraint functions
• ,: the design space of the variables
The aircraft design process more specifically is a multi-disciplinary, multivariable, non-linear,
constrained optimization problem. The further specifics of this problem are:
• ( ) is a very complex function in itself
• , can be very large
• the number of constraints, ( ), ℎ' ( ) is very large
The first bullet calls the attention to the complexity of the optimization problem. For example,
see the total life cycle cost estimation methods [36][37][38][39]. In order to achieve the
minimal cost, the cost of operation, the direct cost associated with supporting the required
safety and security levels, the environmental impact and even external costs caused by
emissions, etc. must be minimized. In most cases total cost is expressed as cost to one flying
hour. Principally, as Raymer [28] has underlined already: “Aircraft cost estimation occupies
the fuzzy gray area between science, art, and politics.” Estimating cost is very challenging,
requires significant knowledge outside the engineering domain and is by nature subject to
large uncertainty as future trends need to be predicted. As a substitute most aircraft design
processes tend to minimize aircraft mass. Aircraft MTOM tends to show good correlation
with total lifecycle cost, so in most cases minimising mass, within the defined constraints,
will result in close-to-minimum achievable total lifecycle cost. As such MTOM is the most
often used objective function in aircraft conceptual design processes.
Based on Raymer’s definition, the MTOM of a hybrid-electric aircraft, -. can be given in a
simplified form, as a sum of e (empty), pl (payload), f (fuel) and b (battery) masses as shown
in Equation (2).
-. = / + 12 + 3 + 4 (2)

By introducing the mass fractions (relative masses, mass of i-th element related to take-off
mass) for fuel and battery masses, the MTOM equation can be further written as Equation (3).

= + + +
3 4
-. / 12 -. -. (3)
-. -.

Equation (4) can be used to determine the take-off mass with the estimated fuel and battery
masses.
+
=
/ 12
-.
1− −
3 4 (4)
-. -.

This is often called the weight budget formula that uses the weight breakdown defined by
Equation (2), which can also be given in a more generalized form shown in Equation (5).

-. = 6 + 78 + 17 + 3 + 4 + 12 +⋯ = -. : ; (5)

where ; is the mass fraction of the i-th component. Subscripts such as a, sy, ps, refer to the
airframe, systems (excluding propulsion) and propulsion system (excluding fuel or batteries),
respectively.
The mass fraction calculations are the central element of the traditional aircraft design
process. The mass fractions are defined as the semi-empirical formulas used based on the
geometrical characteristics, material properties, technological and structural solutions. They
can also be determined using analytical (theoretical) [40] or knowledge based methods but
these methods are less common and less widely validated.
As the mass fractions can be defined as functions of the available scientific, technological and
production levels, Equation (5) can be called as mass-fraction balance equation or mass
balance equations. Torenbeek [32] defined it as the “weight balance or unity equation”,
expressed in Equation (6).
: ; =1 (6)

envelope of the aircraft. It is the aircraft existence (or life) equation. If ∑ ; > 1 then the
In a more general form, the equation represents the possible implementation (existence)

aircraft with the predefined performance cannot be built in the given production environment
(in the given production culture of the given country) by using the available materials and
technologies for given production systems. The ∑ ; < 1 condition shows that even better
aircraft with better performance might be built, while ∑ ; = 1 means that the best aircraft is
built. So, the constraint based on equation (6) defines the best possible solution of the aircraft
with the defined or required performance.
The aircraft design process starts with the requirements analysis and specification definition.
This describes the aircraft operation from the user’s point of view, based on identification of
the market needs. The second important part is the preliminary definition of the constraints
[28][30][32][34], which will be later used for optimisation. The constraints are derived from
airworthiness requirements, aerodynamics, flight safety, structural integrity, control aspects,
etc., including the economic and societal requirements. This is a very important step as the
designs are created to satisfy these requirements; not capturing requirements correctly results
in solutions not addressing the problems.
The definition of all the constraints is often not specified by the user (customer), rather the
aircraft designer needs to have the necessary understanding and experience to know what is
applicable to the problem. For instance, legal constraints are defined by the airworthiness
requirements as mechanical (stress, weight) constraints or as flight performance, stability and
control criteria. As it was outlined [24][25], very light airplanes (MTOM < 750 kg and stall
speed < 83 km/h) need to have a take-off distance less than 500m [41]. (The take-off distance
is defined as the horizontal part of flight path from the start up until reaching 11 m of altitude
above the take-off surface). According to the Certification Specification, CS 23 [42], the
normal, utility and aerobatic category reciprocating engine powered aeroplane of 2 722 kg or
less maximum weight must have a steady gradient of climb at sea level of at least 8.3% for
landplanes and 6.7% for seaplanes and amphibians with retracted landing gears and flaps in a
take-off position. The analogical aeroplanes with gas turbines and extended landing gear
should have 4 % steady gradient of climb after the take-off. The CS documents specify a large
system of constraints that the aircraft must meet in order to be certified and be allowed to
operate.
The second step based on the requirements analysis is the conceptual design phase. The
modern approach to aircraft conceptual design shown in Figure 1 can be divided into two
parts:
• traditional approach, determining the shape, size, weight and performance of the
planned aircraft and
• applying optimisation methods, checking constraints and iterating the sizing step
 Figure 1: Aircraft conceptual design traditional methodology and use of optimisation methods

The first part, the traditional conceptual design of aircraft includes the development of the
operational concept. The operational concept is based on the market needs, airworthiness
requirements and available inputs based on the existing aircraft. It also includes new available
and emerging technologies, materials, solutions. This step defines the constraints and layout
of the aircraft, preliminary calculations (aerodynamics characteristics, flight performance,
etc.) selection of the propulsion system, aircraft performance calculations, mass breakdown of
the major parts (based on mass fractions). Finally, the performance and weight balance along
other constraints are checked.
As it can be understood, the traditional conceptual design of aircraft is based on three major
study areas: aerodynamic design (including creating the form and layout), propulsion system
selection and preliminary structural solution (forms, configurations). It seems strange, but at
this stage of a new aircraft development, the controls, manufacturing, supportability and cost
do not have important roles traditionally. Of course, aircraft designed should be controllable,
and producible, however the number of unknowns at this stage is vast and incorporating
everything into the conceptual design phase can result in too many variables to consider. This
is often referred to as the “curse of dimensionality” as increasing the number of variables
exponentially increases the computational requirements when running optimisation loops. It is
worth mentioning, that aspects of manufacturing, maintenance, control and similar have been
integrated into conceptual design processes, but most often done for conventional aircraft
configurations only.
When looking for radically new, unconventional solutions, forms, the implementation of new
available and emerging technologies, new structural or operational solutions, evaluating the
fundamental aspects of aircraft design is the most often used approach. This facilitates the
exploration of the aircraft design space better than rigorously evaluating all aspects of a
conceptual level design. Art, using imagination, and out of the box solutions may play greater
role in conceptual design than rigorous engineering approaches. As Anderson [29] defined: it
is “… both an art and a science. In that respect it is difficult to learn by reading a book; rather,
it must be experienced and practiced.”
The second part of conceptual design stage utilizes the available supporting technologies for
optimizing the layout, structural and operational solutions. Such optimization is supported by
a series of user-friendly software. These software are for example the widely used AAA -
Advanced Aircraft Analysis developed by Roskam [43] based on his famous series of books.
The RDSwin [44] based on Raymer’s method is recommended by AIAA for students and
SimSAC - Simulating Aircraft Stability And Control Characteristics for Use in Conceptual
Design [45] was created by a special European consortium. All the aircraft producers are
working together with famous universities and innovative companies to develop software for
the optimisation of future aircraft designs right from the start of their conceptual design. For
example, EMBRAER collaborates with Stanford University in developing the SUAVE
platform, an open-source environment for multi-fidelity conceptual design [46] which can be
applied to existing and unconventional aircraft design. This software allows the creation and
introduction of new constrains and the development of small aircraft with electric or hybrid-
electric propulsion systems as well.
Generally, there are specialist books describing the design methods of different types of
aircraft. The before mentioned conceptual design methods are all applicable to civil passenger
aircraft, but there are also methods for small (general aviation) aircraft [47][48], or even
UAVs [49] and more, special types of aircraft.
Due to the sheer number of calculations, aircraft design is not done by hand anymore, but
with the assistance of computerised tools. These tools can range from spreadsheets of various
complexities to design environments. These modern computerised design methods are usually
based on two classes of methods. They either use semi-empirical formulas, essentially a
digitised version of the design methodologies. The second approach is to determine the
required parameters as digital approximation of shape, mass fractions of the aircraft structure
elements, aerodynamic characteristics, flight performance, loads, etc. using lower fidelity
numerical tools. Even today high-fidelity tools, such as Navier-Stokes 3D CFD are
prohibitively expensive computationally to use for most conceptual design applications.
Automatization and optimization are often part of the design tools and many early methods
were developed integrating these into the design process [50][51][52]. The first practical
results appeared when applied to aircraft aerodynamic design [53][54] and in optimisation of
elements [55][56][57], as wings, fuselage or engine airframe integration.
Today several European projects and universities created and continue developing new
software applications for aircraft conceptual design [58][59][60].

3 Problems and barriers

Analysis of hybrid-electric propulsion systems identified a series of problems and barriers
relating to the development of hybrid-electric aircraft. These problems are shortly described in
the following chapter.
As it is known, the most important problem is caused by the low specific energy of the
available battery technologies [24][25][61][62][63][64]. One kg of kerosene contains about
43 MJ energy (11,94 KWh). The other forms of aviation fuels used today (AVGAS primarily)
are close to this value as well, so the demonstration is relevant to all airplane categories. The
highest specific energy of today’s state of the art batteries is about 400 Wh/kg. So, the
specific energy of kerosene is about 30 times greater than the specific energy of available
batteries.
Different propulsion systems can be compared by comparing their total efficiencies. The total
efficiency is a product of thermal efficiency or electric efficiencies (electric storage,
conversion and distribution), mechanical efficiencies (internal losses, transmission,
gearboxes, etc), power off-take (electric generation, air conditioning, coolant pumps, etc.) and
propeller efficiency. Pure thermal efficiency of combustion engines range between 24-50%,
while modern electric motors can be operated at 92-96% electric efficiency. The power
distribution system from batteries to motor usually have 98-99% efficiency or higher. Modern
propellers in cruise operate usually between 82-86% efficiency; they can be further optimised
for specific flight conditions but that results in significantly decreased efficiency in all other
flight regimes and as such rarely considered. Considering the other mentioned efficiencies in
the propulsion system, conventional ICE propulsion operates at 20-36%, while electric
propulsion systems can be operated at 75-83% efficiency. As such, electric propulsion can be
considered to be roughly 3 times more efficient than ICE systems. The efficiencies and
energy flows of two particular examples of these systems are shown in Figure 2. It can be
seen, that even after considering the significantly higher efficiency of the electric propulsion
system, 1 kg of kerosene equals to about 10 kg of state-of-the-art batteries when propulsive
power output is considered.

Figure 2: Efficiency comparison of kerosene and battery powered propulsion systems

This low specific energy of the available and emerging batteries prevents the development of
electric aircraft with similar performance to the traditional ICE (internal combustion engine)
driven aircraft. This will be demonstrated later in the paper using the conceptual design
methodology developed. Generally, the full-electric aircraft might be successfully developed
in the following cases:
• limited range is acceptable: 25-50% compared to aircraft with ICE propulsion
• significantly increased battery specific energy levels (minimum 1 kWh/kg)
• unconventional structures and operational methods are developed
Range (and endurance) limitation is currently the only way to develop electric aircraft with
the existing battery technology. Future, better batteries may provide the most promising
solution. According to the analysis of the IDEA-E Project team [35], there are many research
articles dealing with the evaluation and development of the future battery
technologies[62][63][64][65][66][67][68]. The battery developers generally estimate the
availability of batteries with specific energy greater than 750 Wh/kg by around 2035. Until
then, unconventional concepts could provide solutions.
In addition to the specific energy, the battery packs also have other problems. Main issues
identified are thermal instability, life (charge/discharge cycles), charging time, and so on. The
mitigation of these issues requires further studies and technology development.
More challenges are initiated by the requirements of new propulsion systems and their
elements. On one hand, the required elements, such as electric engines, generators, inverters,
conductors, etc. are available because they are widely used in road transport, large marine
vessels and hybrid-electric trains. On the other hand, their weight, energetic performance,
specifically the specific power (power per kg), are too low for direct implementation for
aerospace use. The propulsion systems; all electric, serial, parallel and mixed hybrids,
turboelectric systems and their major elements including power generation, conversion and
distribution are already described well in technical literature [69][70][71].
The two-seater Pipistrel Alpha Electro was the first full electric trainer aircraft which received
FAA airworthiness certification [73]. This means that new technologies like the electric
propulsion systems can possibly be certified within the existing system of airworthiness
requirements.
At the same time, there is little information about more unconventional solutions, such as the
electrically driven (heated) “jet” engines or distributed propulsion systems [74][75][76][77].
Henke et al. [72] cite that the mass of the Pratt and Whitney PW 305A turbofan engine can be
reduced by 470 kg in case of developing an electric driven engine on its basis. However little
other information available on electric driven „jet” engines.
Large number of papers deal with the possible reduction of the chemical emissions and total
operational cost by introducing the electric or hybrid-electric propulsion systems. Regarding
this, there are two important aspects that need to be considered. First, the cost significantly
depends on the price of fuel (including electricity as fuel), which is defined by governments
and the applied taxation systems. Second, the total emission, specifically greenhouse gas
emissions, of hybrid-electric aircraft is determined by evaluating a mix of energy sources.
Nowadays most countries, including developed (US, Germany) and developing (China, etc.)
have electric power generation systems, that emit more greenhouse gases (with respect to the
produced power) than aircraft gas turbines, based on total emission calculation approaches
[78][79].

4 New conceptual design methodology

There has been already considerable work done by several institutions and universities
towards adapting the conventional aircraft conceptual design methodology to hybrid-electric
aircraft [62][63][64][65][66][69][71][72] The approach and findings of many methodologies
are similar, for example identifying the constraints posed by the low battery specific energy.
However, the mitigation steps for the identified problems can be different and new. The
aircraft conceptual design methodology adapted and applied by the team of the IDEA-E
project [24][25][35][80][90][91] include the following novelties:
(i) adaptation of the existing conventional aircraft conceptual design methods towards the
design of hybrid-electric aircraft, using the available information, from both research
and industrial sources on electric, hybrid-electric propulsion systems, and elements,
including electric motors, batteries, inverters, fuel cells, etc.,
(ii) introduction of the analysis of energy fractions of flight mission legs into the
conceptual design process,
(iii)correction of the constraints on mass fractions of aircraft elements and introduction of
new constraints on the energy fractions of flight mission segments and
(iv) integrating the hybridisation factor (ratio of electric energy to the total energy stored)
and power split (ratio of electric power to the total power) [81][82] into the conceptual
design process.
Figure 3 shows the proposed improved conceptual design methodology for electric and
hybrid-electric aircraft. It is based on three major steps, each containing several sub steps:
1. Operational concept and technology assessment:
a. develop the operational concept
b. define the required inputs, including the relevant databases
c. characterisation of the features of new technologies and solutions
d. definition of the constraints
e. creation of the conceptual aircraft layout
2. The first iteration circle:
a. estimation of the aerodynamic characteristics
b. selection and definition of propulsion system
c. mass fractions estimation, satisfy life equation constraint
d. point and field flight performance calculation
3. The second iteration circle:
a. flight segments weight and energy balance assessment
Generally, the first iteration contains the realization of the life (unity) equation (Equation (6))
by estimating the mass fractions of different aircraft elements. The second is iteration based
on the energy unity equation. The energy unity equation defines the sum of the relative energy
use of flight mission segments. Equation (7) shows the energy unity equation while Equation
(8) represents it in a compact sum form.

/3? = -@ + -. + A + AB + CD + E. + @E + BD = /3? : ̅ (7)

1=: ̅ (8)

In Equation (7) e refers to energy, ̅ depicts the energy fraction, the flight mission segment
energy use to the total energy use. The subscripts, efm, TA, TO, C, CR, DE, LO, AL, RE
define the following: energy used in the entire flight mission, and the energy used in the
appropriate segments such as taxiing, take-off, climb, cruise, descent, loiter, approach/landing
and the energy reserves left. Similarly to the aircraft life equation, the energy unity equation
defines a constraint, as the mission total energy use must be equal to the available energy. If it
is more, the aircraft is incapable of performing its mission. If it is less, then there is
unnecessary excess energy stored on board the aircraft during the mission, which implies the
design can be further optimised potentially for better performance or for lower cost.

Figure 3: The conventional conceptual design methodology adapted to the electric and hybrid aircraft configurations

Figure 4 shows the analytical approach that can be used to determine the required power and
to evaluate the mass and energy balance equations. It also lists a series of recommendations
for the use of energy fractions. The analytical expressions can be further developed or
replaced with the appropriate numerical methods, such as the simulation of the appropriate
flight segments. The simple analytical equations however help to understand the underlying
physics.
 Figure 4: Analytical approach for the calculation of mass and energy balance equations and energy coefficients

The analytical formulas used are primarily derived from the flight energy balance shown in
Equation (9).
% KN
GH − (I + I/ )J K = L Mℎ + O
% 2
(9)

The equation defines the equality of the specific excess power (left side of the equation) to the
change in the potential and kinetic energy of the aircraft. It is a type of constraint equation,
that can be defined in a more general form shown in Equation (10), as proposed by [82] and
[84]. The analytical approach showed in Figure 4 is based on Equation (10), substituting the
appropriate flight conditions with the recommended coefficients.
H P ST P L-. P L-. N I/ % KN
= R UVCW + XY Z [ + XY Z [ + \ + Mℎ + O]
L-. Q PL-. S T S T ST % 2
(10)

where the I/ takes into account the extra drag generated by the aircraft elements, q is the
dynamic pressure. The power (or thrust) lapse ratio, α, relates the power (or thrust) of the
aircraft engines in the given flight mode or flight condition to the reference power (or thrust).
The reference for most aircraft is the sea level static thrust (power). β is the weight fraction,
the ratio of the actual weight of aircraft in a given flight mode compared to the MTOM. n is
the normal load factor. The aircraft drag coefficient is most often approximated by Taylor
series expansion and expressed as Equation (11).
P L-. P L-. N
VC = VCW + XY Z [ + XN Z [
S T S T
(11)

As the unique features of electric or hybrid-electric aircraft are mostly related to the
propulsion system, the required coefficients can be estimated based on the proven
conventional aerodynamics estimation methods available in aircraft design books. For more
unconventional forms simple numerical estimation methods can be used, vortex-lattice or
panel methods.
A key part of the performance calculations is the estimation of the aircraft range. To enable
the range estimation of different aircraft propulsion systems the hybridised range equation
(Equation (12)) was developed at the department [90].
(•‚ƒm )„jklmn ‚(•…„)jwxy
zDyeyxn q†m q†fn
vwxy vklmn
^_84` a = u ln € ‡
bcdef jwxy jklmn
jklmn †m q†fn
cr z{(YqAm )|vklmn q(Yp|)vwxy }
(12)
MghiA (Ypgh)q O
o sft
m

Where:
• ^_84` a : Range achievable with the propulsion system [m]
• ˆg`‰1 : Propeller efficiency
• ŠT‹V: Power specific fuel consumption [N/W/s]
• Œ3•/2 : Specific heat of fuel used [J/kg]
• Œ46ŽŽ : Specific energy of batteries used [J/kg]
• ŠT: Power split; ratio of electric to total power
• ˆ17 / : Total efficiency of electric powertrain
• V/ : Additional weight coefficient due to electric system installation
• •: Hybridisation factor: ratio of electric energy stored to total energy stored
• •Ž‰Ž62 : Total stored energy [J]
• L/ : Aircraft operating empty weight [N]
• L12 : Weight of payload [N]
The hybrid range equation is based on the Breguet range equation, but considers the power
and energy split, and the differing efficiencies of the internal combustion and electric
propulsion systems. When evaluating the purely internal combustion engine powered aircraft,
the equation reverts to the classic Breguet range equation.
This methodology was already applied by the IDEA-E project members to aircraft
development [24][25][35][80]. A series of connected research topics were also investigated to
understand the design and operation of electric and hybrid-electric propulsion system
elements and their integration into the aircraft. These topics include a novel actuator disc
model based CFD method for efficiently evaluating propeller performance [85][86], the
development of methodologies for small aircraft companies to cost-effectively utilise high-
fidelity numerical modelling and analysis tools [87] and the introduction of the normalized
range factor for the comparison of conventional and hybrid-electric aircraft. [88]
The following chapter shows the application of the aircraft design methodology through a
series of studies and concept design demonstrations.

5 Application of the new methodology

This chapter demonstrates the application of the developed electric/hybrid conceptual design
methodology. This is done through a selected aircraft category, which is the 4-seater general
aviation aircraft; the Cessna 172 is a typical example. The study investigates the applicability
of the methodology to the electrification of the Cessna 172 size aircraft concept. The baseline
aircraft is modified to use an electric propulsion system instead of the ICE, but no
optimisation is performed on the concept.
Following that further studies are performed on aircraft concepts in the same class, but with
modifications to the geometry and the propulsion system, and the effect of hybrid powertrains
on the design and performance. Finally, an innovative cargo UAV concept study is presented,
along with the sub-scale demonstrator model development.
The implementation of the methodology relies predominantly on an analytical approach. A
part of the calculation tools and equations are based on Howe’s method (highlighted in the
appropriate chapter), while the more common calculations are based on analytical equations
commonly used in aerospace, such as Equation (10). The only part of the study which relies
on numerical approaches is the estimation of the propeller efficiencies. Schmitz’s method is
based on the blade element theory, which is analytical, but it is iterated over the flow angles
until convergence is achieved. In this study the convergence of the propeller efficiency is
achieved when the iterative change is less than 1E-6. As it can be seen in the propulsion
efficiency maps (Figure 8 and Figure 9), the gradients of the map at cruise condition are
small, further reducing the effects of numerical errors. As a result, no appreciable amount of
numerical error is introduced into the analysis, there are no experimental results directly
utilised, and as such no further error analysis of the methods is presented.
5.1 Geometry
The conventional ICE powered Cessna 172 concept as generated by the conceptual design
software in develeopment at the department is shown in Figure 5. This model is used as the
benchmark for the study, and it is referred to as the baseline.

Figure 5: Cessna 172 class aircraft geometry

The key parameters of the baseline aircraft are the following:

• Wingspan: 10.92 m
• Gross wing area: 16.2 m2
 • Length: 8.2 m
• MTOM: 1043 kg
• OEM: 600 kg (without the pilot)
• Payload: 343 kg
• Fuel mass: 184 kg
• Cruise speed: 62.58 m/s
• Cruise altitude: 3048 m
• Engine max power: 160 BHP (120 kW)
• Propeller diameter: 1.9 m
5.2 Propulsion
To model the electric motor, an existing motor with similar power characteristics to the piston
engine of the baseline aircraft was selected. The 160 kW YASA P400 electric motor was
chosen as the comparable sized powerplant. This motor can operate at 96% peak efficiency,
with speeds up to 8000 RPM. There are available power, torque and efficiency maps
published by the supplier, shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: YASA P400 R Series E-Motors performance maps

The available efficiency map was processed, and the contour lines digitised, to which a
polynomial loss model was fitted based on the work of McDonald.[89] Using the polynomial
loss model, an accurate performance representation of the electric motor capabilities is
achieved. This is compared to a classic piston engine conceptual modelling representation that
is created using Howe’s method.[30] Note that Howe’s model doesn’t generate the expected
efficiency islands, rather parallel efficiency curves. However, Howe’s method includes the
empirical corrections based on similar sized aircraft, which likely results in better
approximation of the performance and efficiency. Figure 7 shows the compared maximum
torque curves and the corresponding powerplant efficiency for both piston and electric motor.
The maximum torque of the piston engine is set as 500 Nm based on characteristics of similar
aircraft engines.
It can be clearly seen that the efficiency of the electric motor is significantly higher, as it was
already demonstrated (refer to Figure 2). However, these can be only achieved at higher
speeds; peak efficiency is between 7000 and 8000 RPM. These speeds are too high for a
reasonably sized and efficient propeller for an aircraft of this size, so the electric propulsion
systems must include a further redactor gearbox. In this study a gearbox ratio of 1:3 was
selected.
 Figure 7: Left: ICE, right: electric motor map as generated with the aircraft design tool

The propeller is selected as a two blade, variable pitch propeller. The propeller performance
was estimated using Schmitz’s method, the optimal blade setting angle and RPM calculated
using numerical optimisation software tool developed at the department. This method offers a
good compromise between accuracy and computational speed, and as such it is deemed to be
acceptable for conceptual level design. The aerofoil characteristics were estimated based on
available data of historical aerofoils. As such it might not be perfectly appropriate for a more
modern propeller, but the dataset is consistent and has been validated before. It is expected
that the propeller efficiency is slightly lower than what would be achievable using a modern
set of aerofoils.
The conceptual design tool used can match the propeller maps to the powerplant maps under
arbitrary flight conditions. From the matching procedure, the propeller pitch setting
corresponding to the highest efficiency is automatically selected. Figure 8 and Figure 9 shows
the matched points as operating curves representing the achievable speed range of the baseline
aircraft, using piston engine (ICE) and electric motor respectively. The curves were all
generated at MTOM condition and assuming the baseline cruise altitude (3048 m). In the case
of the piston engine plot, the max speed point (catalogue data) of the aircraft lies just outside
the performance map. The reason for this is the lower performance of the propeller as it was
discussed. As this study focuses on the cruise performance primarily, it is not investigated or
corrected further.
 Figure 8: ICE map with operating speed curve

Figure 9: Electric motor map with the operating speed curve

5.3 Aerodynamics
The aerodynamic performance estimation of the aircraft investigated in this part of the study
is based on Howe’s estimation method. Since both the conventionally powered and the
electric aircraft have conventional geometric forms, the method is deemed appropriate to
estimate the aerodynamic characteristics.
The calculated lift and drag curves were compared to various available sources, both open and
previous departmental research projects and in the normal operating ranges they provide good
match.
5.4 Mass breakdown
The mass breakdown of the baseline configuration, along with similar sized general aviation
aircraft was investigated in previous departmental studies. [80] Based on the studies, most
known aircraft design methods produce good estimates of mass breakdown when compared to
actual available data. In this study, the mass breakdown is based on Howe’s method. The
mass breakdown of the baseline is shown in Figure 10. As it can be seen, the largest
component of the mass breakdown is the payload (at 30%). The fuel amount to only 16% of
the total mass. In the first part of the study, the design is modified to include electric
propulsion, but keeping the same airframe, and MTOM. The resulting mass breakdown
characteristics are also shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Mass breakdown comparison for baseline and electrified baseline concepts

The electrical power plant for the same power can be significantly lighter than the piston
engine. The propulsion system mass also includes the propeller which is assumed to be the
same in this study, but it could be further optimised considering the different optimum speeds
for each powerplant. The mass difference between the propulsion systems was allocated to the
battery mass. As such the mass ratio of energy storage increased from 16% to 25%. The
performance implications, and further studies on mass breakdown are discussed in the next
section.
5.5 Performance
Using the hybrid range equation, the flight performance of the two aircraft can be calculated.
In this design study, the full achievable cruise range was compared, so no warm-up, taxi,
climb, descent or reserve fuel is considered. This was selected to minimize the differences
between the operational specifics of different propulsion systems and concentrate on the flight
characteristics. The specific heat of the aircraft fuel was set to 42.8 MJ/kg, which is the value
normally used for kerosene, slightly lower than the usual listed values for 100LL Avgas 44.0-
47 MJ/kg. The battery specific energy to 200 Wh/kg (0.72 MJ/kg), which is a reasonable
assumption for today’s battery technology at package level. Table 1 shows the summary of
the calculated data.

Table 1: Comparison of baseline and electrified results

Characteristic Baseline Electrified baseline

k [-] 10.03957 10.65397
‘’“”
•
Not applicable 0.77555

PSFC (‘’“” ’•) 8.5320E-8 (0.27384) Not applicable

Total energy stored [MJ] 7875.2 199.44

Range [km] 2329 187

The achievable range of the modelled baseline configuration requires some discussion. The
comparison of the flight performance characteristics of the baseline aircraft to the Cessna 172
is used to validate the design methodology, because that is the only concept with operational
data available as of today. The Cessna 172 is built in many configurations, with or without
additional fuel tanks, so quoted figures for range and fuel capacity vary. Usual range for the
most common model with additional 45 min fuel reserves is most often listed as 1289 km,
including the aircraft manual. The figure in this study assumes 184 kg of fuel and pure
theoretical cruise performance. Excluded are the fuel used during warm-up, taxi, take-off,
climb, descent, the model further neglects wind and trim losses, and it gives the range without
reserves. The Cessna 172 Skyhawk’s quoted fuel consumption is 0.43 lbm/hp/hr (7.27E-08
kg/W/s), which is lower than the estimated PSFC using Howe’s method. The maximum glide
ratio k is quoted between 9-10.9, so the estimated 10 is a reasonable result. Since the aircraft
manual needs to provide safe operation for the pilot, it can be reasonably assumed that there is
some safety applied to the achievable range. Considering these, the calculated range was
accepted for the baseline configuration.
In the case of the electric version, the only difference in the design is the electric motor used
for the propulsion system. As it is shown in chapter 5.2, the electric motor model replicates
the published characteristics of the YASA P400 electric motor, and as such it is validated to
the extent of the available data. As a conclusion, the design methodology is able to produce
valid aircraft conceptual designs and based on that the methodology is assumed to be
validated to a sufficient extent to explore further aircraft concept designs of the same class.
It can be seen that simply replacing the ICE with an electric motor would result in about a
magnitude lower range. The glide ratio is similar for both cases, the electrified aircraft has
about 3 times the efficiency, but the stored energy (in fuel or in battery) is about 39 times
more, even though the electrified version has more battery mass than the baseline has fuel.
Investigating the effect of the battery specific energy, so the potential improvement in battery
technologies, and the cruise speed is the next part of the study. Figure 11 shows the results of
running the design code assuming battery specific energy values from 200 to 1000 Wh/kg.
The cruising speed was varied from 0.5-1.0 of the current baseline cruise speed. The internal
combustion engine baseline version is shown for reference.

Figure 11: Effect of battery specific energy and crusie speed on aircraft range

Even very high specific energies would result in only about half the current range, and even
that would only be achievable at the expense of reduced cruise speed. The results can also be
shown as the flight endurance of the aircraft concepts, as plotted in Figure 12.
 Figure 12: Effect of battery specific energy and crusie speed on aircraft endurance

Based on the results it can be concluded, that at the current technology levels, batteries can
provide very low endurance. Considering the usual mandatory half an hour reserve, this
means that a flight time of about 20 min would be achievable with the electrified concept.
This would be further reduced depending on the manoeuvres performed with the aircraft,
including take-off and climb. This is consistent with most experimental electric aircraft flying
today. The specific energy of current batteries needs to double in order to achieve about 1
hour of flight endurance (and have the appropriate reserve energy). It is not possible to match
the endurance of the baseline with the predicted battery technology of the near future.
The second part of the study investigates the effect of increasing the stored electric energy by
adding larger batteries on-board and increasing the size of the aircraft to compensate for the
increased weight. The configuration of the aircraft is kept similar to the baseline, the wing
planform, empennage and fuselage length is scaled up to maintain similar aerodynamic,
stability and flight performance characteristics. The propulsion system elements are not
changed in this study, specifically the electric motor and propeller was kept the same as the
baseline. This was chosen to keep the electric motor to which measured characteristics are
available. Changing the size of the propulsion system would require the regeneration of the
efficiency maps, which would introduce a series of uncertainties and significant added
complexity to the problem. At the same time the design of each resized electric motor would
have significant effect on the calculated range, and the study is primarily aimed at estimating
the effect of additional battery mass.
 Figure 13: Mass breakdown comparison of electric aircraft of varying size

Figure 13 shows the mass breakdown of a set of generated concept aircraft. The mass fraction
of the batteries can increase as the aircraft MTOM increases, but only at diminishing returns.
Based on further studies the maximum achievable mass fraction of batteries is about 63%.
The payload ratio however drops, so significantly increasing the size of the aircraft to increase
the battery mass is questionable from a practical point of view. The study was performed up
to 2000 kg MTOM; above that size the achievable propeller thrust starts to constrain the
further growth of the aircraft. The relative range of the electric concept aircraft compared to
ICE version was investigated.

Figure 14: Relative range of electric aircraft concepts compared to ICE baseline

Figure 14 shows the results of the parametric study as relative range of electric aircraft
concepts compared to ICE baseline. Even doubling the mass of the aircraft concept would not
result in the same range performance as the baseline version, unless very high, about 1000
Wh/kg battery specific energy is achieved. The white area in Figure 14 shows the region,
where the baseline range could be achieved and even surpassed, although as it can be seen
only at the expense of reduced cruise speed.
Similar studies were performed at the department [90] regarding electric aircraft, however
using a different, more generic electric propulsion system model. Figure 15 shows the
outcome of one such study, showing the mass breakdown of various Cessna 172 derived
electric concept aircraft, using different sized batteries containing 200-800 kWh energy. The
energy density is assumed to be 400 Wh/kg, a reasonable achievable value in the near future.

electric 800 Vcr

electric 800
electric 600
electric 400
electric 200
conventional
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Take-off mass [kg]

airframe propeller engines fuel electric motor battery banks commercial load

Figure 15: Comparison of electric aircraft concepts

In this study, the powerplant was also modified. The concepts marked electric x00 were
evaluated at lower cruising speed, and the electric 800 Vcr was evaluated at the same speed as
the baseline. The outcome of the study shows, that the MTOM of these aircraft increased
significantly, up to 330% of the baseline version, however the performance characteristics of
the baseline aircraft were still not achieved. This is in agreement with the findings of the
current study. However, these performance figures can be acceptable from a user’s point of
view. Sacrificing a small fraction of the range and speed for less energy use might be
acceptable in a predictably energy constrained future. Also, zero local emissions might be a
significant advantage or even an operational constraint; a feature that only the fully electric
aircraft can provide. On the other hand, increasing MTOM has other implications, like the
increased design, manufacturing and maintenance cost. These all need to be assessed in a total
lifecycle analysis if the use of the electric aircraft is to be justified from an economic point of
view.
Further studies were performed considering hybrid propulsion systems for the same aircraft
concept. [91] The hybrid concepts named 15 and 45 correspond to 15% and 45% power split
respectively. The specific range and speed reductions, along with the mass growth and the
ratio of fuel or battery stored energy for all studies are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Results summary of electric aircraft design studies

Concept Mass ratio Relative speed Relative range Energy ratio

Baseline 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Electric 200 1.43 0.88 0.28 0.09

Electric 400 2.07 0.88 0.40 0.18

Electric 600 2.71 0.88 0.59 0.27

Electric 800 3.31 0.88 0.83 0.37

Electric 800 Vcr 3.31 0.88 0.62 0.37

Hybrid 15 1.13 0.88 1.00 0.85

Hybrid 45 1.43 0.88 1.00 0.94

Based on the results of the study it can be reinforced, that it is not possible to reach the same
performance as the baseline ICE concept using today’s and the near future’s battery
technology. In the case of hybrid propulsion systems, light hybridisation can guarantee the
same range performance, but at the expense of slightly reduced speed and increased mass.
Higher amount (45%) of hybridisation also provides the required range, however the aircraft
mass significantly increases for the same amount of payload, which will likely offset the fuel
savings when total lifecycle cost and impact are considered.
The described studies examine the first two points of the identified design success criteria,
specifically the acceptance of limited range and the effect of battery specific energy levels.
The last part of the study describes a use case of the development of unconventional
structures and solutions.
In the IDEA-E project[35] a market need for a cargo UAV was identified. It was envisioned
that the aircraft has to carry 150kg payload to 100km distance in 90 minutes.[24] In order to
achieve this performance, the following set of requirements were defined:
• Airframe mass fraction 0.2 or less
• Battery mass fraction 0.1 or less
• Payload mass fraction 0.4 or more
• Operation under 500m altitude must be performed in fully electric mode
• Hybridisation factor must be 0.2 or less
• Batteries need to be fully recharged during cruise
The requirements posed towards the aircraft concept are radically different from the
conventional requirements. As such the unconventional requirements require unconventional
solutions. The final, innovative solution to this question found by the project team is shown in
Figure 16.
Figure 16: CAD model of the unconventional hybrid cargo UAV concept (left: 1.- fuselage, 2.- engine air inlet, 3.- avionics
box, 4.- batteries, 5.- gas turbine with electric generator, 6.- propellers, 7.- fixed part of wing, 8.- morphing part of wing, 9.-
exhaust gas outlet, 10.- payload, 11.- payload cover; right: 1.- propellers, 2.- electric motors, 3.- fixed (composite) wing
section, 4.- batteries, 5.- tubular main spar, 6.- fabric actuator mechanism, 7.- flexible (composite), morphing tip rod, 8.-
flexible morphing part of wing (fabric))

The required performance was reached, and the constraints satisfied due to the envisioned
unconventional form and structural solutions. The aerofoil of the aircraft was selected to be a
morphing solution, with a fabric covered section as the rear part of the aerofoil. By morphing
the fabric, the effect of high-lift devices and control surfaces can be replicated. Also, due to
the morphing mechanism, the wing area can be reduced during cruise to reduce aircraft drag.
With this solution the airframe mass fraction can be kept within the constraints. However due
to the configuration, zero lift drag is 40% higher than similar sized aircraft. To mitigate this
issue, the cruise speed of the aircraft needs to be kept fairly low to maintain aircraft drag at an
acceptable level.
The propulsion system is a light hybrid system. As it was already shown in Table 2, a light
hybrid system can provide ranges equivalent to ICE solutions at the expense of slightly lower
speed. This satisfies the below 500 m electric operation constraint. The system is built up
from 4 electric motors driving propellers mounted on the wing, while the electric power is
generated by a small sized gas turbine in the fuselage. The aircraft does not have a
conventional fuselage or cockpit.
The designed aircraft concept has the following characteristics:
• MTOM: 350kg
• Payload: 150kg
• Wingspan: 7.6m
• Gross wing area: 9.4m2
• Length: 4.7m
 Figure 17: Mass breakdown of unconventional hybrid cargo UAV

The mass breakdown of the unconventional hybrid cargo UAV is shown in Figure 17. It can
be seen that the defined constraints are all met. The total mass of energy storage (fuel and
battery) is 18% which is comparable to ICE powered traditional aircraft.
To demonstrate the fabric covered morphing technology, a small sized demonstrator UAV
model is under development at the department. The aircraft has a modular mixed carbon
composite and wood construction and is propelled by 4 electric motors. Due to the modular
build, the concept can be used to test a hybrid version of the demonstrator as well. The
internal structure of the UAV wing is similar to the full-scale cargo aircraft, it is designed
using the mass boom philosophy, with a single, tubular, load carrying main spar.
Due to the morphing, the chord length of the outer parts of the wing is variable, –30%
compared to the nominal chord length. The morphing section acts as both flaps and ailerons
as required. The demonstrator model is under construction at the moment. Upon completion,
it will be used for the development of the morphing fabric wing technology and to act as
modular platform for other research projects. The aircraft is shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Morphing fabric wing cargo demonstrator UAV

The key characteristics of the aircraft are the following:

• MTOM: 2kg
• Wingspan: 1.4 m
• Wing area: 0.28-0.31 m2
• Speed range: 32-80 km/h

6 Conclusions
This paper investigated the conceptual design of small aircraft with hybrid-electric propulsion
systems.
The novel situation in today’s technological development process was identified; new market
pull forces appeared, the demand for greener aviation. This demand appears at policy maker
and society level; the average citizen feels more responsibility and concern towards
sustainable technology. This demand takes form in ambitious goals set for the future of
aviation; significantly reduced emissions. Gradual improvements to current technologies will
not be enough to reach the defined goals, disruptive change is required. Hybrid-electric
propulsion, novel technologies, configurations and solutions seem to be the most likely
answer towards reaching the goals.
The traditional aircraft conceptual design process was investigated, the role of optimization
and computer aided tools highlighted. The mass fraction analysis and other critical areas were
introduced, and the usable approaches and tools briefly summarised.
The key challenges towards successful hybrid-electric propulsion system development were
described. The problem of low battery specific energy was theoretically demonstrated; in
small aircraft 1kg of fuel provides the same amount of propulsive power as 10 kg of state-of-
the-art battery packs in the foreseeable future, about 400 Wh/kg. Acceptable levels, about 750
Wh/kg won’t be available before about 2035. Other issues regarding battery technology and
other propulsion system elements and technologies were highlighted.
A novel conceptual design methodology adapted to hybrid-electric aircraft development was
described. The novelties of this method are the evaluation of state-of-the-art technologies, use
of energy fractions in conceptual design, adaptation of mass fractions to novel configurations
and the introduction of the hybridisation factor and power split into the conceptual design
process. A hybridised range equation was developed to enable comparison of different
propulsion systems.
The developed methodology was applied to the analysis of the small general aviation aircraft
category. The concept is based on the Cessna 172 aircraft. The electric propulsion was based
on available technology. A propeller-powerplant matching tool was used to estimate
efficiencies in arbitrary flight conditions. The theoretical findings of the technology challenge
chapter were confirmed in the design study.
Simply replacing the ICE with fully electric motors and the fuel with batteries would provide
only fractional range at today’s technology level. Even at 1000 Wh/kg future levels, the
concept aircraft could only achieve half the current range and only at the expense of reduced
cruise speed.
Increasing the amount of stored energy and thus size and mass of the baseline concept, with
current battery technology can only reach fractional ranges, even at 100% mass growth.
Considering at least 800 Wh/kg specific energy, double mass and reduced speed is required to
achieve near baseline range. At 1000 Wh/kg, the range of the baseline can even be surpassed,
but only at the expense of speed. At 330% of the baseline mass, slightly over 80% of the
baseline range can be achieved, but only at 88% of the baseline speed. The used energy is
about 1/3 compared to the baseline and there are no local pollutant emissions. In a predictably
energy constrained future, or in a low emission environment, a full electric aircraft with such
characteristics might be desirable, or acceptable, also considering the total lifecycle cost, as
the massively increased weight have other cost implications on top of the price of energy
storage. In the case of hybrid aircraft, low level of hybridisation results in little mass increase,
baseline range and reduced energy use, but only achievable at the expense of reduced speed.
Such aircraft would be able to operate fully electrically near airports reducing the emissions
where it would affect the most people.
A disruptive cargo UAV with innovative structural and configuration solutions was described.
The aircraft was designed based on an identified market need of carrying 150kg payload to
100km distance within 90 minutes. The aircraft features full electric take-off and landing,
minimising pollutant emissions near airfields. The concept is achievable due to the
unconventionally low airframe weight and the morphing wing technology. The morphing part
of the wing uses fabric covered composite structure to mass-effectively replace high-lift
devices and control surfaces. The sub-scale UAV technology demonstrator version of the
hybrid cargo aircraft was also introduced. The technology demonstrator can prove the
feasibility of the fabric covered morphing structure and assist in the development of the full-
size UAV model.
The paper has shown the development of the hybrid-electric aircraft conceptual design
process from the market assessment through the evaluation of existing methods and
technologies to the description of the method. The demonstrated design studies and concepts
generated with the methodology quasi-validates the design approach and confirms the
findings of theoretical studies.
7 Acknowledgement
This work was supported by Hungarian National EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00014 project titled
“Investigation and development of the disruptive technologies for e-mobility and their
integration into the engineering education” (IDEA-E).

8 References
[1] Horbach J, Rammer C, Rennings K. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of
environmental impact, The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull,
ZEW, Centre for European Economic Research, 2011, Discussion Papers, No. 11-027, p.
39.
[2] Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe. European Aeronautics A vision
2020. Report of the Group of personalities, Brussels, 2011, p. 26,
https://www.acare4europe.org/sites/acare4europe.org/files/document/Vision%202020_0.
pdf; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[3] European Commission. Flightpath 2050. Europe’s Vision for Aviation. Report of the
High Level Group on Aviation Research, Directorate-General for Research and
Innovation, Directorate General for Mobility and Transport, 2011, p. 28.
https://www.acare4europe.org/sites/acare4europe.org/files/document/Flightpath2050_Fin
al.pdf; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[4] Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe, Strategic Research and Innovation
Agenda (SRIA) vol.1., 2011 2017 update,
https://www.acare4europe.org/sites/acare4europe.org/files/attachment/acare-strategic-
research-innovation-volume-1-v2.7-interactive-fin_0.pdf; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[5] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Aeronautics Blueprint: Towards
a Bold New Era in Aviation, Washington, D.C., 2002. p. 39,
http://www.icas.org/media/pdf/Workshops/2003/REF2%20-
%20Overview%20presentation%20NASA%20Aeronautics%20Blueprint.pdf; [accessed
20 April 2020]
[6] International Air Transportation Association. IATA Technology Roadmap 2013,
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/Documents/technology-roadmap-2013.pdf;
[accessed 20 April 2020]
[7] Hornung M, Isikveren AT, Cole MA, Sicmann A. Ce-Liner - Case Study for eMobility in
Air Transportation, 2013 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference,
AIAA AVIATION Forum, (AIAA 2013-4302), p. 11., https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-
4302
[8] International Air Transport Association. A Global Approach to Reducing Aviation
Emissions, June 2009, p. 8, http://docplayer.net/35906467-A-global-approach-to-
reducing-aviation-emissions.html; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[9] International Civil Aviation Organization. ICAO Environment Report, 2010, p. 260,
https://www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/Documents/Publications/ENV_Report_2010.pdf [accessed 20 April 2020]
[10] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Environmentally Responsible
Aviation N+2 Advanced Vehicle Study, Final Technical Report, NASA/CR – 2013 –
 218304, 2013, p. 167,
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140008953.pdf; [accessed 20
April 2020]
[11] Truman T, de Graaff A. Out of the box, Ideas about the future of air transport, Part 2,
EC Directorate-general for research, ACARE, Brussels, 2007, p. 92,
[12] Rohacs D, Rohacs J. Magnetic levitation assisted aircraft take-off and landing
(feasibility study – GABRIEL concept) Progress in Aerospace Sciences 85 (2016), pp.
33-50. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2016.06.001
[13] RECREATE - REsearch on a CRuiser-Enabled Air Transport Environment,
http://www.cruiser-feeder.eu/project/index.html; [accessed 14 June 2018]
[14] Rohacs J, Rohacs D. Problems and Barriers Impeding the Implementation of MagLev
Assisted Aircraft Take-Off and Landing Concept, Journal of Transportation
Technologies, Vol.8 No.2, 2018, pp. 91 – 118.
[15] Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe. CREating innovative Air
transport Technologies for Europe, Final report of the CCREATE Eu FP7 project, ASD
brussels, 2010, p. 96,
https://www.acare4europe.org/sites/acare4europe.org/files/document/Create-Final-
Report-October-2010.pdf; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[16] European Commission. Horizon 2020,
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020; [accessed 20 April
2020]
[17] European Parliament. Why should interdisciplinary high-risk research on disruptive
technologies be supported?, Discussions, during workshop “European Parliament
European Leadership through Disruptive Technologies: Future and Emerging
Technologies Towards 2030” organized by the European’s Parliament ITRE Committee
and the EFFECT project., https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/digital4science/why-should-
interdisciplinary-high-risk-research-disruptive-technologies-be-supported; [accessed 20
April 2020]
[18] European Commission. Another 27 excellent FET-Open proposals for research on
future disruptive technologies invited to Grant Agreement preparation,
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/another-27-excellent-fet-open-
proposals-research-future-disruptive-technologies-invited-grant; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[19] Christensen CM. The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms
to fail, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.
[20] Christensen CM. The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption, J. Product.
Innov. Manag. 23 (2006) 39–55.
[21] Amstrong P. Disruptive Technologies: Understand, Evaluate, Respond, Kogan Page
ltd. P. 206
[22] Orbulov V, Lógó E. Assessment of Applicability of the Service Design Method on
Electric Vehicles, Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 48(1), 2020, p. 52-
56
[23] Vokony I, Hartmann B, Kiss J, Sőrés P, Farkas Cs. Business Models to Exploit
Possibilities of E-mobility: An Electricity Distribution System Operator Perspective,
Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 48(1), 2020, p. 1-10.
[24] Gal I, Rohacs D, Rohacs J. Developing the unmanned unconventional cargo airplanes
with hybrid propulsion system, 31st Congress of the International Council of
Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), Belo Horizonte, Brazil, Sept. 09 – 14, 2018
[25] Rohacs J, Rohacs D. Conceptual design method adapted to electric/hybrid aircraft
developments, International Journal of Sustainable Aviation, 2019 Vol. 5. No. 3. pp. 175
– 189, DOI: 10.1504/IJSA.2019.103498
[26] Бадягин АА, Егер СМ, Мишин ВФ, Склянский ФИ, Фомин НА. Проектирование
самолетов, Машиностроение, Москва, 1972. 515 с.
[27] Шейнин ВМ, Козловский ВИ. Весовое проектирование и эффективность
пассажирских самолетов, Машиностроение, Москва, 1984. 552 с.
[28] Raymer PD. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Washington, D.C., AIAA
Education Series, 1992, p. 391.
[29] Anderson JD. Aircraft performance and design, McGraw-Hill, 1999, p. 580.
[30] Howe D. Aircraft conceptual design synthesis, Professional Engineering Publishing,
London, 2000
[31] Corke TC. Design of aircraft, Prentice hall, 2003, p. 391, ISBN 978-0130892348
[32] Torenbeek E. Advanced Aircraft Design: Conceptual Design, Analysis and
optimization of Subsonic Civil Airplanes, Wiley, 2013, p. 410, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-118—
56811-8
[33] Sforza P. Commercial airplane design principles, Elsevier, 2014, p. 622, ISBN:
9780124199538
[34] Roskam J. Airplane design, DARcorporation, 2017
[35] IDEA-E. Investigation and development of the disruptive technologies for e-mobility
and their integration into the engineering education, Hungarian national project supported
by the Human Resource Development Operative Programme (EFOP), Contract number.
EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00014, Budapest, Kecskemét, Szeged, 2017 - 2020
[36] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Systems Engineering Handbook,
NASA, SP-2007-6105, Washington D.C., 2007
[37] Galloway TL, Mavris DN. Aircraft Life Cycle Cost Analysis (ALCCA) Program,
NASA Ames Research Center, September 1993
[38] North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Methods and Models for Life Cycle Costing,
Final Report of Task Group SAS-054, 2007, p. 226
[39] Thokala P, Scanlan J, Chipperfield A. Life cycle cost modelling as an aircraft design
support tool. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, 224(4), 2010 p. 477–488.
https://doi.org/10.1243/09544100JAERO574
[40] Ardema MD, Chambers MC, Patron AP, Hahn AS, Miura H, Moore MD. Analytical
Fuselage and Wing Weight Estimation of Transport Aircraft, NASA Technical
Memorandum 110392, 1996, p. 56
[41] European Aviation Safety Agency. Certification Specification for very light
aeroplanes (CS-VLA), 2003, p. 130.
[42] European Aviation Safety Agency. Certification Specifications for Normal, Utility,
Aerobatic, and Commuter Category Aeroplanes (CS-23), 2003, p. 427
[43] DARcorporation. AAA - Advanced Aircraft Analysis,
https://www.darcorp.com/Software/AAA/; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[44] Raymer D. RDSwin 6.0 Software for Aircraft Design, AIAA, Multimedia CD, Reston,
US. 2012.
[45] CEASIOM. Simulating Aircraft Stability And Control Characteristics for Use in
Conceptual Design, STREP EU project, https://www.ceasiom.com/; STREP EU Project
[46] Lukaczyk T, Wendorf AD, Botero E, MacDonald T, Momose T, Variyar A, Vegh M,
Colonno M, Economon TD, Alonso JJ, Orra TH, da Silva, CI. SUAVE: An Open-Source
Environment for Multi-Fidelity Conceptual Vehicle Design, 16th AIAA/ISSMO
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Dallas, TX, 2015, AIAA, p. 56.
doi:10.2514/6.2015-3087
[47] Бадягин, АА, Мухаммедов ФА. Проектирование легких самолетов,
Машиностроение, Москва, 1978, 208 с.
[48] Gudmundsson S. General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and Procedures,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Elseiver, 2014
[49] Gundlach J. Designing Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comprehensive Approach,
Second Edition, AIAA Education Series, 2014, p. 805, ISBN: 978-1-62410-261-5,
https://doi.org/10.2514/4.102615
[50] Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT. Multidisciplinary aerospace design
optimization: survey of recent developments, Structural Optimization, vol. 14, 1977, no.
1, pp. 1–23.
[51] Егер СМ. Основы автоматизированного проектирования самолетов,
Машиностроение, Москва, 1986, 232 с
[52] Kroo I, Altus S, Braun R, Gage P, Sobieski I. Multidisciplinary optimization methods
for aircraft preliminary design, AIAA-94-4325, 5th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO
Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Panama City, Beach, FL,
Sept. 7-9, 1994. Vol. I, pp. 697-707.
[53] Anderson DJ Jr. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. St. Louise, New York: McGraw-Hill
Inc.; 1991. 792 p, ISBN: 978-0073398105
[54] Sóbester A, Forrester AIJ. Aircraft aerodynamic design: geometry and optimization,
John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 2015, p. 262
[55] Liebeck RH. Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic Transport, Journal of
Aircraft Vol. 41, No. 1, January–February 2004, pp. 10 - 25
[56] Cavagna L, Ricci S, Riccobene L. Structural Sizing, Aeroelastic Analysis, and
Optimization in Aircraft Conceptual Design, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 48, No. 6.
November-December, 2011, pp. 1840 – 1855 https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031072
[57] Vecchia PD. Development of Methodologies for the Aerodynamic Design and
Optimization of New Regional Turboprop Aircraft, Tech. Rep, 2014
[58] CEASIOM. CEASIOM - Conceptual Aircraft design tool,
https://www.ceasiom.com/wp/; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[59] AGILE. AGILE - Aircraft 3rd Generation MDO for Innovative Collaboration of
Heterogeneous Teams of Experts, 2015 - 2018, https://www.agile-project.eu/; [accessed
20 April 2020]
[60] Smith H, Sziroczak D, Abbe GE, Okonkwo P. The GENUS aircraft conceptual design
environment, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, 2018, Volume: 233 issue: 8, page(s): 2932-2947
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410018788922
[61] Nam T, Soban DS, Marvis DN, Power Based Sizing Method for Aircraft Consuming
Unconventional Energy, 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Aerospace
Sciences Meetings, 2005, p. 13, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-818
[62] Pornet C, Gologan C, Vratny PC, Seitz A, Schmitz O, Isikveren AT, Hornung M.
Methodology for Sizing and Performance Assessment of Hybrid Energy Aircraft, Journal
of Aircraft, Vol. 52, No. 1, 2015, pp. 341-352, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C032716
[63] Antcliff KR, Guynn MD, Marien T, Wells DP, Schneider SJ, Tong MJ. Mission
Analysis and Aircraft Sizing of a Hybrid-Electric Regional Aircraft, 54th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, AIAA 2016-1028,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-1028
[64] Stückl S. Methods for the Design and Evaluation of Future Aircraft Concepts Utilizing
Electric Propulsion Systems, Doktor-Ingenieurs dissertation, Technische Universitat
München, 2016, p. 173
[65] Hoelzen, J, Liu Y, Bensmann B, Winnefeld C, Elham A, Friedrichs J, Hanke-
Rauschenbach R. Conceptual Design of Operation Strategies for Hybrid Electric Aircraft,
Energies, 11(1), 217; https://doi.org/10.2514/1.15816
[66] Adelhelm P, Hartmann P, Bender CL, Busche M, Eufinger C, Janek J. From lithium to
sodium: cell chemistry of room temperature sodium–air and sodium–sulfur batteries,
Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, (6) 2015 pp. 1016–1055
[67] Zu CX, Li H. Thermodynamic analysis on energy density of batteries, Energy and
Environmental Science, Vol. 4., 2011, 2614, pp. 100.
[68] Wang C, Yu Y, Niu J, Liu Y, Bridges D, Liu X, Pooran J, Zhang Y, Hu A. Recent
Progress of Metal–Air Batteries—A Mini Review, Applied Sciences, 2019, no. 9., pp.
doi:10.3390/app9142787
[69] Brelje BJ, Martins JRRA. Electric, hybrid, and turboelectric fixed-wing aircraft: A
review of concepts, models, and design approaches, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 104,
2019, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2018.06.004
[70] Bowman CL, Felder JL, Marien TV. Turbo-and Hybrid-Electrified Aircraft Propulsion
Concepts for Commercial Transport, 2018 AIAA/IEEE Electric Aircraft Technologies
Symposium (EATS), 2018, p. 1-8
[71] Kuhn H, Seitz A, Lorenz L, Isikveren AT, Sizmann A. Progress and Perspectives of
Electric Air Transport, Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of the
Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), 23-28, September, Brisbane, Australia, 2012, p. 14
[72] Smith H. Airframe integration for an LH2 hybrid-electric propulsion system, Aircraft
Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 30 September 2014
[73] Lambert F. First all-electric trainer plane gets airworthiness certification from the FAA
in the US, https://electrek.co/2018/04/27/all-electric-trainer-plane-airworthiness-
certification-faa-us/; [accessed 20 April 2020]
[74] Seltz A, Schmitz O, Isikveren AT, Hornung M. Electrically powered propulsion:
comparison and contracts to gas turbines, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2012,
DocumentID: 281358, p. 14.
[75] Henke H, Narjes G, Hoffmann J, Wohlers C, Urbanek S, Heister C, Steinbrink J,
Canders WR, Ponick B. Challenges and Opportunities of Very Light High-Performance
Electric Drives for Aviation, Energies 11 344, 2018, p. 25.
[76] Kim HD. Distributed propulsion vehicles, Proceedings of the 27th International
Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2010, p. 11.
[77] Clarke S, Redifer M, Papathakis KV, Samuel A, Foster T. X-57 power and command
system design, 2017 IEEE Transportation and Electrification Conference and Expo, ITEC
2017, 2017, pp. 393–400, https://doi.org/10.1109/ITEC.2017. 7993303
[78] Chester MV, Horvath A. Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should
include infrastructure and supply chains, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 4. No. 2.
4, [024008], 2009, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008.
[79] Wangai A, Kinzhikeyev S, Rohacs D, Rohacs J. Total impact estimation to support
sustainability of small hybrid aircraft, International Journal of Sustainable Aviation,
Vol.5 No. 4, 2019
[80] Gál I, Jankovics I, Bicsák Gy, Veress Á, Rohács J, Rohács D. Conceptual design of a
small 4-seater aircraft with hybrid propulsion system, Proceedings of the Innovation and
Sustainable Surface Transport, IFFK 2017, Budapest, 2017. aug. 30 – sept. 1., ISBN 978-
963-88875-3-5, pp. 143 – 150
[81] Lorenz L, Seitz A, Kuhn H, Sizmann A. Hybrid Power Trains for Future Mobility,
Paper 1316, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrt Kongress, Stuttgart, Germany, 2013, p.1–17.
[82] Pornet C, Isikveren AT. Conceptual design of hybrid-electric transport aircraft,
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 79, 2015, pp. 114 – 135,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.09.002
[83] Nita MF. Aircraft Design Studies Based on the ATR 72, PhD thesis, Hamburg
University of Applied Sciences Hamburg, 2008. p. 166.
[84] Mattingly JD, Heiser WH, Pratt DT. Aircraft Engine Design. AIAA Education Series,
second ed., 2002, p. 696, ISBN: 978-1-56347-538-2, https://doi.org/10.2514/4.861444
[85] Bicsák Gy, Veress A, New Adaptation of Actuator Disc Method for Aircraft Propeller
CFD Analyses, Acta Politechnica Hungarica, 14 : 6, 2017, p. 95-114.
[86] Molnár IT, Ailer P, Veress Á. Hibrid kisrepülőgép propulziós rendszer-elemeinek
modellezésére alkalmas módszer kidolgozása, Repüléstudományi Közlemények,
XXIX : 3, 2017 p. 317-336
[87] Bicsák Gy. Cost Efficient Solutions for Small Aircraft Development Processes using
Numerical Modelling Tools, PhD thesis, BME, 2018, p. 119
[88] Moreno G, Veress Á. Normalized Range Factor Analysis of a 4-Seat Light Aircraft by
Means of Conventional and Hybrid Propulsion System, Proceedings of International
Symposium on Electric Aviation and Autonomous Systems 2019, 2019, p. 77-80.
[89] McDonald, R. Electric Motor Modeling for Conceptual Aircraft Design, 51st AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, 2013, 10.2514/6.2013-941
[90] Rohacs J, Rohacs D. Energy coefficients for comparison of aircraft supported by
different propulsion systems, Energy, 116391, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116391
[91] Rohacs, J, Rohacs D. Effect of energy balance evaluation on conceptual design of
electric and hybrid aircraft, Energies, under publication, doi:
10.20944/preprints201808.0391.v1
 Highlights:
• Technology, challenges, barriers and future directions for hybrid-electric aircraft
• Conceptual design methodology adapted to small hybrid-electric aircraft
• Constraints, improved mass and energy fractions for flight mission legs
• Feasibility and performance design studies for small hybrid-electric aircraft
• Unconventional hybrid-electric aircraft concepts and solutions using design method
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: