See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317037288

The Method of Quadrant Based Algorithmic

Nomographs for Hybrid/Electric Aircraft Pre-
design

Article in Journal of Aircraft · July 2017

DOI: 10.2514/1.C034355

CITATIONS READS

0 104

1 author:

Askin T. Isikveren
SAFRAN A.S. group
115 PUBLICATIONS 627 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MORPHing wingLET (MORPHLET) Funded by Airbus UK View project

Morphlet View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Askin T. Isikveren on 21 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Method of Quadrant Based Algorithmic Nomographs
for Hybrid/Electric Aircraft Pre-design

Askin T. Isikveren1
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, 78772, France

Nomenclature

a,b = arbitrary exponent values

AUM = All-Up Mass, kg

EF = Electrical [ducted] Fan, or, generically represents electrically powered propellers, or, rotors

PPS = Propulsion and Power System

EPPS = Electrified Propulsion and Power System

ESAR = Energy Specific Air Range, nm/kWh

g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2

GSE = Gravimetric Specific Energy, Wh/kg

GT = Gas-Turbine, or, generically represents any type of thermal engine

HEPPS = Hybrid-Electric Propulsion and Power System

H = degree-of-hybridization

k1 = coefficient of proportionality, typically representing Manufacturer’s Weight Empty

k2 = coefficient of proportionality, representing combined payload, interiors allowance and operational

items mass

L/D = lift-to-drag ratio

LH2 = Liquid Hydrogen

m = mass, kg

MEW = Manufacturer’s Empty Weight, kg

MTOW = Maximum Take-Off Weight, kg

PAX = passengers

PGTA = Projected Tube-and-Wing Gas-Turbine-only Aircraft

PGT070 = 70 PAX Projected Tube-and-Wing Gas-Turbine-only Aircraft

1
Head, Energy-Efficient Aircraft Architectures, Dept of Energy and Propulsion, SAFRAN Tech; AIAA Member.
R = range, or, stage length, nm

ti = total elapsed time from zero at step i during mission operational profile

TEPPS = Turbo-Electric Propulsion and Power System

x,y = arbitrary independent variable

z = arbitrary dependent variable

 = absolute incremental change of a given variable

 = Supplied Power Ratio

 = Activation Ratio

 = individual energy source or combined gravimetric specific energy, Wh/kg

 = individual motive power system or combined overall propulsion system efficiency

 = normalized power control parameter value

 = fractional (percentage) change of a given variable

Subscripts

AU = All-Up (mass)

BENR = total block energy

BLF = block fuel

BLK = block operation, includes: start-up, taxi-out (where applicable), take-off, initial climb, three-phase en

route climb/cruise/descent, approach, landing, taxi-in (where applicable)

E = stored energy

EL = electrical source

MEc = mechanical to electrical energy conversion

o = represents a seed/reference condition or value

P = power

PAY = payload

REF = reference energy source, typically taken to be kerosene

sec = secondary energy source, taken to be electrical, options include electro-chemical, chemical and

electrical

SUP = supplied
TO = Take-Off

TOT = total

use = useful

I. Introduction

F ROM an international perspective one can compare and contrast emissions and external noise objectives set for

future civilian aircraft by perusing publications like Flightpath 2050 by the European Commission (EC) [1] and

associated Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) [2], the US National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) Aeronautics Strategic Implementation Plan [3-6], targets espoused by the International Air

Transport Association (IATA) [7] by way of the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) [8], and the International

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) [9]. Irrespective of the agenda or governmental office in question the

conclusion is all these targets call for a dramatic reduction in CO 2-emissions (in relation to contemporary

hydrocarbon based motive power systems), NOx-emissions as well as external noise over the interim-to-long term.

Increasing evidence shows based upon the evolutionary development of current technologies combined

improvements to airframe (aerodynamics, structures and non-propulsive systems) and Propulsion and Power

Systems (PPS) the year-2035 target espoused by [2] will not be delivered, but something up to around 32%

compared to year-2000 datum is feasible [10-12]. Even factoring in an aggressive development strategy for

innovative combustion based PPS something like over and above 28% efficiency improvement is necessary in order

to deliver CO2 reduction targets by year-2035 [2,4,5]. Tellingly, it can be concluded that Electrified PPS (EPPS)

could be one plausible pathway, and, in order to achieve ultra-low in-flight emissions levels of energy hybridity

tending towards a much higher proportion of electrification would appear to be necessary.

As an explicit recognition of EPPS as a tangible means the US has published the NASA Aeronautics Research

Mission Directorate Strategic Thrust (ARMD ST) 4: Transition to Low-Carbon Propulsion [6]. The strategy calls for

development of integrated electrical components and technology promoting flight-weight compatible artefacts by

way of electrical machines with increased gravimetric specific power, the adoption of super-conducting

technologies, advanced batteries and fuel cells, power electronics, fault protection devices and other enablers such as

flight controls.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have produced an agenda for reducing CO 2-

emissions from commercial aviation [13]. The report focuses on propulsion and energy technologies in reducing the
carbon emissions from commercial aircraft, which includes single-aisle and twin-aisle vehicles carrying 100 or more

passengers. Recommended high-priority research initiatives that could be introduced into service years 2025-2050

are stated as:

 Advances in aircraft-propulsion integration

 Improvements in Gas-Turbine (GT) engines

 Development of Turbo-Electric Propulsion and Power Systems (TEPPS)

 Advances in sustainable alternative jet fuels

The report authors concluded turbo-electric systems are the only approach for developing EPPS for a large

passenger aircraft that could be feasibly achieved by year-2050. Combined with other technologies, the report states

TEPPS could potentially reduce fuel burn by 20% or more compared to aircraft in service today.

Although the term “hybrid/electric” is loosely used to encompass all EPPS solutions, some clarity is required

when attempting to distinguish between different architectural approaches. In accordance with the convention given

in [13], EPPS can be categorized broadly into three domains: hybrid-electric, turbo-electric and all-electric. Gleaned

from [13], Fig. 1 displays six possible architectures in schematic form arising from the three domains.

Fundamentally, Hybrid-Electric PPS (HEPPS) utilizes thermal engines in combination with batteries. The batteries

can either be exchanged during aircraft turn-around, or, recharged on-ground and/or in-flight via generators coupled

to the thermal engine and/or through some form of energy recovery. It is highlighted to the reader that apart from

electro-chemical (Voltaic Piles such as batteries), other options for electrical energy storage include chemical

(Grove Cells such as fuel cells) and electrical (Capacitors). HEPPS architectures can be further defined according to

strategies arising out of series and parallel combinatorial arrangements. The distinctions are tied to the nature of the

power node between the system constituents: in a series hybrid arrangement, the node is electrical, whereas, in a

parallel hybrid, it is mechanical. An All-EPPS is considered to be the zenith of hybrid-electric development in the

sense batteries that are rechargeable/exchangeable provide the complete set of propulsive and non-propulsive energy

needs for all modes of aircraft operation. In contrast, turbo-electric architectures involve utilization of electrical

generators. Full-TEPPS architectures employ thermal engine(s) as a means of providing solely electrical energy to

drive electric motor driven fans or propellers or rotors. A subset called Partial-TEPPS assigns some proportion of

vehicular motive power delivery to the thermal engine(s).

 Fig. 1 Electric propulsion architectures [13].

Figure 2 reproduces information presented in [14]; one can appreciate the scope of conceptual design

investigations hitherto published from an international perspective. It is highlighted Fig. 2 displays the information

using a so-called “Onion Curves” chart [15] extended to include visualization of associated conceptual aircraft

morphologies. The reader is referred to Section II for a full explanation of the non-dimensional parametric quantities

presented in the Onion Curves chart.

NASA LEAPTech 4 PAX

SAF PACIFYC 19 PAX

ONERA AMPERE 4 PAX Airbus VoltAir ~ 70 PAX BHL Ce-Liner 189 PAX

R T
UTC-NASA hGTF 154 PAX BHL Quad-Fan 180 PAX
B
D F BHL Twin-Fan 180 PAX
S
RR Config 1 154 PAX

C NASA N3-X 300 PAX UCran. BW-11 555 PAX

I
Bo SUGARVolt 154 PAX

SAF PACIFYC 19 PAX

N

SAF HEX-ROTOR 4 PAX O

RR Case 1.2 154 PAX
E Airbus/RR DEAP 100 PAX RR DORA 100 PAX
A G

P
L M
SAF-BHL Tri-Fan 70/180 PAX
ESAero TeDP 150 PAX
H
NASA STARC-ABL

K
J

references corresponding to annotations: A[16], B[17,18], C[16], D[19], E[20-22], F[23], G[17,18], H[11], I[24], J[25],
K
[26], L[27], M[28], N[29], O[30], P[31], Q[32], R[33], S[34], T[35]
Fig. 2 International studies related to Hybrid/Electric Aircraft [14].
 In order to comprehend the impact any type of integration strategy, i.e. related to propulsion and/or airframe

aerodynamics and/or structures and/or non-propulsive systems, would have on the aircraft level outcome a

simplified yet sufficiently versatile sizing algorithm needs to be utilized during the pre-design phase, thus,

necessitating quick-turn around methods. One approach is inspection of so-called Quadrant based algorithmic

Nomographs (referred to as “QuadNoms”). Although the foundation of QuadNoms is analytical in nature, the author

recommends a graphically based approach for sake of maximizing transparency to the designer/analyst. QuadNoms

is considered to be an expedient method that indicates what combination of values for a selected array of macro-

level design variables and parametric functions is necessary to deliver a given block fuel (or emissions) reduction

result. All such representations are independent of aircraft type, aircraft size, mission role, and stage length, thus,

can be construed as being universally applicable to most aeronautical vehicle integrated performance problems.

II. Algebraic Descriptors and Figures-of-Merit

The degree-of-hybridization employed in advanced electrically based motive power systems cannot be suitably

represented by a single parametric descriptor. As argued in [15,36] a full account of any generic EPPS requires two

descriptors involving account of both the alternative energy [source] and that of the entire EPPS: one ratio

comparing each of the maximum installed (or useful) powers (HP); and, a second ratio comparing the extent of

energy storage (HE) for each:

PEL E EL
HP  and H E  (1)
PTOT E TOT

For any EPPS, PEL represents the maximum installed (or useful) electrical power, and PTOT the total EPPS

installed (or useful) power (motor+thermal engine), EEL the total stored electrical energy, and ETOT the total stored

energy of the entire EPPS (e.g. electrical+kerosene). In order to elucidate why such a dual set of parametric

descriptors is necessary, consider the corner-points of the bounded hybrid/electric motive power systems design-

space:

 Conventional (e.g. kerosene based) thermal engine propulsion system – here, HP = 0 and HE = 0; or,

 Full-TEPPS where only electrical power is provided at the propulsive device(s) but energy storage is solely

kerosene based – here, HP = 1 and HE = 0; or,

 All-EPPS where energy storage is via batteries (or fuel cells or capacitors) only – here, HP = 1 and HE = 1.
 The reader should be mindful about terminology the author uses when it concerns power: “installed” indicates

supplied power (what the battery or fuel cell or capacitors or kerosene fuel delivers) corrected for energy conversion

efficiency; and, “useful” is taken to be installed power additionally corrected for transmission and propulsive

efficiencies. Furthermore, the convention adopted for HE in this technical article refers to the total block energy

(HE,BLK) required by the aircraft, i.e. the ratio of total electrical energy utilized for all phases of block operation

normalized by the total energy comprising block fuel and electrical energy utilized for all phases of block operation.

A. Fundamental Parametric Descriptors

As summarized in [11], an algebraic basis for the quantification of HP and HE was established in [15] using

special purpose non-dimensional parametric quantities: the Supplied Power Ratio and the Activation Ratio. The

Supplied Power Ratio, Φ, is defined as the ratio of total power supplied from an electrical source (PSUP,EL, like a

battery or fuel cell or capacitor or generator) to the total supplied power from all sources (PSUP,TOT), whether

chemical, electro-chemical or electrical. It is expressed analytically as

PSUP, EL
 (2)
PSUP, TOT

The Activation Ratio, , represents a comparison of time weighted averages of normalized power control parameter

settings (, varies from zero to unity) between all electrical machines providing useful (motive) power sourced from

a secondary energy device, and, that of the combined propulsion system (for instance, GT and Electric Fan – EF).

As shown in Eq. (3) this equates as the product of activation time, t, and (t) of the EF divided by the sum of each

propulsion system type (GT and EF). All activation times and corresponding normalized control power settings

could cover block and/or diversion-contingency segments, as exemplified by the power profile time history shown

in Fig. 3. It should be noted by the reader that EF could alternatively be electric motor driven propellers or rotors; –

here, EF is only used for illustrative purposes.

 En route Climb
GT Profile EF Profile

En route
Take-off
Take-off

Climb
Diversion
1.0 1.0
Power Control Parameter

Power Control Parameter

Approach and Landing

Diversion
Cruise
Cruise

Hold
Taxi-out

Taxi-in
Descent

0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 T 0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t6 t6+ T
Operating Time Operating Time

Fig. 3 Power profiles of a generic hybrid-electric propulsion system covering block and reserves-contingency
operational phases [23]; GT – gas turbine, EF – electric fan.

Algebraically,  is quantified as

T
1 n

T 0 
 EF (t ) dt ti
 EF EF,i
   i 1
(3)
 GT   EF 1  T 
    EF,i ti
T n
  GT (t ) dt   EF (t ) dt 
T  0  GT, i
0  i 1

The parameter  varies between zero (denoting utilization of an energy source based upon a GT only) and unity

(denoting utilization of an energy source based upon an EF only). Furthermore, it should be recognized that the

Activation Ratio is directly linked with HP for all hybrid/electric architectures, and for Partial/Full-TEPPS

architectures it is mutually exclusive in relation to HE, which is equal to zero.

For a given dual-energy propulsion system, first principles theoretical derivation work presented in [15] found

the parametric descriptor of degree-of-hybridization for useful power, HPuse, to be a function of Φ, and upon

rearrangement, thus, making the Supplied Power Ratio the subject it reads as

H Puse
 (4)
sec  REF   H Puse 1 sec  REF 
The quantity sec /REF represents the ratio of complete exergetic chain efficiencies between a secondary nominated

propulsion system (subscript “sec”) and that of a kerosene based propulsion system (subscript “REF”). For sake of

clarification, the methods presented in this technical article do not stipulate only kerosene based propulsion as

“REF”. Actually, “REF” and “sec” could be represented by any form of energy source as well as any form of motive

power. In contrast, HE,BLK was found to be a more complex synthetic function described by comingling of Φ and .

Making HE,BLK an independent variable,  as the subject produces

H E , BLK 1   
 (5)
  H E , BLK 1  2 

Upon inspection of Eqn. (4) and Eqn. (5), it is readily observed that provided input values are given for HPuse,

sec /REF and HE,BLK, the parametric descriptor quantities Φ and  can be computed.

B. Quantifying Combined Quantities

The parametric descriptor quantities are important when establishing the combined overall propulsion system

efficiency of any dual-energy storage-propulsion-power system [15]. As shown in Eq. (6) the combined overall

propulsion system efficiency, , is a linear combination comprising constituent overall propulsion system

efficiencies weighted by Φ

  REF   sec REF  (6)

Furthermore, the combined Gravimetric Specific Energy (GSE), , of any dual-energy storage system is given

by [15] as

 REF sec  1   1       

 (7)
sec 1   1      REF  

The quantity  can be computed for EPPS architectures that are hybrid-electric (0 < Φ < 1 and 0 <  < 1), or, All-

EPPS (Φ = 1 and  = 1), or, Partial/Full-TEPPS (0 < Φ  1 and 0 <   1) with sec  MEc REF, where MEc denotes

the conversion efficiency when transforming from kerosene based chemical energy to electrical energy for motive

power applications.
C. Vehicular Level and Integrated Performance Figures-of-Merit

For aircraft concepts utilizing EPPS architectural approaches an equitable comparison calls for examining the

Energy Specific Air Range (ESAR), which is a universally applicable vehicular efficiency metric, together with the

relative block fuel reduction outcome.

The ESAR figure-of-merit is fashioned to quantify distance travelled per unit of expended energy [37], viz.

dR η L D 
ESAR   (8)
dE mAU g

The parameter dR/dE, which can also be pertinent for the evaluation of an overall block segment, represents the

change in aircraft range (R) for given change in expended system energy, L/D is the aircraft lift-to-drag ratio, mAU is

the aircraft All-Up Mass (AUM, or instantaneous gross mass), and g is acceleration due to gravity.

An aircraft sizing algorithm, together with an ability to predict relative block fuel for given stage length, payload

and flight technique assumptions can be based upon methods developed in [15], utilizing full, non-linear analytical

fractional change transformations suitably verified against results posted in [11,23,24,38,39]. The fractional change

prediction method is based upon a combination of analytical correlations, as well as synthetic, intermediary and

macro-objective functions with fractional change analytical constructs [40]. The analytical component of the

fractional change method operates with an underlying premise that the designer/analyst begins with a seed condition

or any type of reference aircraft/system. By considering an increment in variable x as dx or x, a fractional change to

a new value, x, small or otherwise, from a seed parameter xo is defined as

x x  xo x
x   1 (9)
xo xo xo

A special set of rules of operation must be defined before a treatment of functional transformations can be

considered. For the purposes of quantifying fractional changes in block fuel, mBLF, rules of operation related to

functions comprising product and/or quotient terms need to be applied. In general, a function comprising the product

and/or quotient of multiple independent variables expressed in exponent form is transformed to read [40]

zx y
a b
 z
1  x 
a
1
1  y  b
(10)
 Now, in order to derive the quantity mBLF one begins with an expansion of HE,BLK, namely,

E EL, BLK sec msec,BLK

H E, BLK   (11)
E TOT, BLK  REF mBLF  sec msec,BLK

where the mass of the secondary stored energy, msec,BLK, reflects what is consumed for the block operation only.

Next, after rearranging Eqn. (11) to make msec,BLK the subject, then dividing the outcome by the seed block fuel,

mBLFo, produces

msec,BLK  m BLF    REF   H E, BLK 

       (12)
1 H 
m BLFo  m BLFo   sec  E, BLK 

Introducing the notion of the total block energy mass, mBENR, as the summation of mBLF and msec,BLK, and then

transforming the result as a fractional change operator according to Eqn. (9), the expression becomes

m BENR m BLF  msec,BLK

  (1  m BENR ) (13)
m BLFo m BLFo

The fractional change transformation ESAR for the block operation can be produced, which also includes further

elaborations [11,15]

(1  R) (1  R )
 ESAR  1  1
(1  E ) (1  mBENR ) (1  )
(14)

(1   ) (1  L D)
 ESAR  1
(1  mAU )

with the inference being variables , L/D and mAU represent weighted average values indicative of the block

operation, which is taken to be appropriate for most integrated performance problems.

Focusing upon the combined overall propulsion efficiency of the EPPS, as given by Eq. (6), using the rule

defined in Eq. (9), and introducing the notion of an increment, REF, to the overall propulsion system efficiency,

the fractional change transformation yields

    REF   sec   REF    REF
 (15)
  1
 REF
 
     sec  1   REF
  REF 

where REF represents any modifications to the overall thermal engine efficiency; for instance, an increased

efficiency via adoption of one optimized engine rating associated with specific types of HEPPS. The parameter

REF could also account for any other sources of improvement, such as, aero-propulsive improvements afforded by

Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI) or Wake Ingestion and/or Wake-Filling. It is highlighted Partial/Full-TEPPS

architectures including any aero-propulsive benefits could be suitably represented using the sec parameter alone – in

such instances REF would be set to zero.

The fractional change in GSE, i.e.  = ( /REF) – 1, is computed by comparing what has been calculated

using Eqn. (7) to the reference value for kerosene, REF (typically taken to be 11.9 kWh/kg). Algebraically, the

expression becomes


sec  REF  1   1         1 (16)
sec  REF 1   1      
Although the quantity  would normally be used in the context of combined attributes arising from HEPPS

architectures, i.e. kerosene based chemical energy source and/or a battery based electro-chemical energy source

and/or alternative non-drop-in chemical energy source (e.g. for fuel cells), it can also be used to equivalently

represent a combined value indicative of Partial/Full-TEPPS architectures. In such circumstances, an expression to

account for any type of TEPPS would read as

   (MEc  1) H Puse (17)

where 0 < HPuse < 1 accounts for Partial-TEPPS and HPuse = 1 represents Full-TEPPS. It is highlighted the

designer/analyst has two approaches when attempting to account for presence of TEPPS architectures: either Eqn.

(15) alone, or, Eqn. (17) and if necessary in combination with a pseudo-value outcome from Eqn. (15) in order to

capture other attributes like standalone aero-propulsive benefits.

Finally, upon substitution of Eqn. (18), which comprises the substitution of Eqn. (12) into Eqn. (13)
  mBLF 
1  mBENR  1 (18)
   H E , BLK 
1   REF   
 
 sec   1  H E , BLK 

into Eqn. (14), the fractional change in block fuel for a given stage length, payload and identical flight technique

becomes

1
1  mAU     REF   H E ,BLK 
 
 mBLF  1   1 (19)
1   1  L D 1     sec   1  H E ,BLK 
Eqn. (19) exhibits explicit functional sensitivity to any changes in mAU, , L/D, , REF, sec and HE,BLK. An

implicit functional sensitivity to HPuse together with sec /REF is also captured. In principle, all of the aforementioned

quantities can be manipulated as free-variables, thus allowing for multi-parametric trade-studies to take place in an

expedient manner and with a measure of transparency. Although the above mentioned variables are open to use in

quantifying instantaneous properties, e.g. for purposes of conducting mission analyses using numerical integration

schemes, such variables also lend themselves to representing weighted averages of any integrated mission. It is the

latter premise that applies to the verification examples and case-studies presented in Section III.

D. Suggested Algorithm for Predicting Maximum Take-off Mass

It should be noted as discussed in [40], mAU can be construed in an approximate sense equivalent to mTO,

where mTO is the aircraft take-off gross mass, or, as a fractional change in the Maximum Take-off Weight, mMTOW,

for a block operation of given stage length, payload and identical flight technique. In view of this, a suitable method

needs to be offered in capturing an appropriate variation in mAU. One simple method is to utilize the Kuchemann

transcendental formulation [12,41], which is a suitable model for structural, systems, cabin outfitting and operational

items mass prediction. The equation for mMTOW is given as

mMTOW  k1 mMTOW  k2 mPAY  mBLF (20)

where k1 mMTOW normally represents the Manufacturer’s Empty Weight (MEW) with reserves and contingency fuel

considered as part of “systems”, and, k2 mPAY accounts for the design payload, operational items plus

interiors/outfitting allowance including associated cabin structure. For any advanced studies involving the

examination of novel technological approaches (aerodynamics, structures, non-propulsive systems, and, propulsion)
Eq. (20) can be employed in order to quickly predict to good effect the mMTOW outcome. In the absence of a

sufficiently detailed weights breakdown of a known baseline the coefficients of proportionality, k1 and k2, can be

established using non-linear regression techniques using a general dataset of aircraft [12]. If a fractional change

transformation is to be performed on Eq. (20) rules of operation governing linear combinations of multiple

independent variables need to be applied. As presented in [40] it is

z  x  y   z  x  x   y  y (21)

The associated partial fractions x and y denote varying magnitudes of influence with respect to the fractional

change in independent variables x and y for the result of z. Their respective analytical definitions are

 xo  yo
x    y  (22)
 xo  yo  xo  yo

Now, the target for mMTOW, can be expressed in closed-form as

k2  PAY  mPAY   BLF  mBENR

 mMTOW  (23)
1  k1

where the partial fractions PAY and BLF denote varying magnitudes of influence the fractional change in variables

mPAY, and, mBENR (replaces mBLF) as defined in Eqn. (13), have on the result of mMTOW. Their respective definitions

are

mPAYo and  BLF  mBLFo

 PAY  (24)
mMTOWo mMTOWo

Assuming the payload remains fixed, i.e. mPAY = 0, the closed-form algorithm of Eqn. (23) becomes

 BLF  mBENR
 mMTOW  (25)
1  k1

III. Verification Examples and Case-studies

This section is devoted to presenting verification cases in the use of QuadNoms charts, which is based upon the

simplified yet sufficiently versatile prediction algorithm described in Section II. It is highlighted localized charts in

each quadrant do not necessarily need to only reflect batteries as a secondary energy source. Bespoke charts

representing HEPPS utilizing fuel cells or Partial-TEPPS arrangements could also be fashioned. The QuadNoms
approach is not prescriptive in the sense it will explicitly offer a detailed architectural description, or,

component/sub-systems technology selection, or, provide a detailed weights build-up strategy, or, indicate how one

might realize a target aerodynamic performance level. Nonetheless, it is a quick means of setting macro-level

performance targets, and subsequently allows the gauging of functional sensitivities. All such representations are

independent of aircraft type, aircraft size, mission role, and stage length, thus, can be construed as being universally

applicable to most aeronautical vehicle integrated performance problems, whether fixed-wing or rotary-wing. The

verification cases are complemented by an exemplar advanced engineering trade-study that compares and contrasts

HEPPS and TEPPS architectures for a target block fuel reduction outcome.

A. Verification of QuadNoms against the PACIFYC Study

In an effort to check the validity of the pre-design methods presented in this technical note, an appropriate

QuadNoms chart was constructed and verified against outcomes presented for a HEPPS based 19-passenger (PAX),

fixed-wing commuter transport aircraft called Propulsive ArChItecture For hYbrid Commuters, or PACIFYC

[17,18]. Using the 19 PAX, year-2030 projected state-of-the-art, tube-and-wing, turbo-prop-only aircraft, dubbed

“REF2030” [17,18], values of k1 = 0.5525 (includes reserves and contingency allowance) and BLF = 0.0927 were

derived for an aircraft sized for Max PAX, 700 nm (1296 km) maximum design range. Figure 4 displays a bespoke

QuadNoms chart reflecting a system-level battery assumption of sec = 500 Wh/kg, and the baseline or seed aircraft,

i.e. fractional change in all variables equal to zero, is declared as the REF2030. Two HEPPS candidates, ARCH 1 –

with Electrical Booster, and, ARCH 4 – Electrical Booster with Exchangeable Battery Pack were presented in

[17,18], and as such, QuadNoms analysis reflecting these are shown in Fig. 4. From [17,18] analysis ARCH 1 and

ARCH 4 attributes are given in Table 1. The mMTOW algorithm in the lower right quadrant of the QuadNoms found in

Fig. 4 reflects an iso-line corresponding to mBLF = -10.3% representing ARCH 4 – in line with application of Eqn.

(25). An algorithm for a mMTOW iso-line of mBLF = -3.0% was not generated since ARCH 1 is a self-contained

HEPPS concept, namely, installed batteries are recharged in flight. ARCH 4 assumes batteries are replaced prior to

commencement of the block operation.

 PACIFYC
ARCH 1
MTOW
PACIFYC
ARCH 4
MTOW

PACIFYC
ARCH 4
430 nm

PACIFYC
ARCH 1
430 nm

ARCH 4 MTOW algorithm

k1 = 0.5525, BLF = 0.0927
WBLF = -10.3%

Fig. 4 QuadNoms chart mimicking outcomes of the PACIFYC Study [17,18].

Table 1 Various parameter results of the PACIFYC Study [17,18].

mMTOW
HEPPS Range HPuse HE,BLK  L/D mBENR  ESAR mBLF
or mTO
Architecture (nm) (-) (-) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
700 0.010 0 +6.9 +3.9 -2.5 -0.5 +7.8 +3.1 -3.0
ARCH 1
430 0.084 0 +12.0 +6.7 -9.8 -0.9 +6.8 +11.8 -10.6
700 0.284 0.081 +28.7 +11.2 +178 -64.8 +39.8 +2.4 -10.3
ARCH 4
430 0.427 0.160 +44.1 +11.2 +314 -78.3 +43.6 +11.6 -24.7

It should be noted in Table 1 above that the mMTOW sizing case corresponds to a 700 nm Max PAX design range,

and the 430 nm (796 km) stage length, which represents an 85-percentile case of all life-cycle departures, assumes

Max PAX accommodation with corresponding mTO. For ARCH 1, HE,BLK is zero; thus recognizing the design

philosophy of a self-contained HEPPS architecture. The parameter HPuse denotes values corresponding to en route

operation, and, sec /REF = 2.8 [17,18]. In addition, both ARCH 1 and ARCH 4 have the potential of an
improvement in thermal engine efficiency, i.e. REF = +6.3%, due to the fact that the thermal engines are

optimized for one specific rating and the batteries deliver supplementary energy during the block operation [17,18].

B. Example Worked Case-studies using QuadNoms

As an example as to how one could utilize the QuadNoms approach in formulating a pertinent strategy, consider

identification of scenarios that would deliver -20% block fuel due to the application of HEPPS and Partial/Full-

TEPPS.

Upon perusal of Fig. 5 (assuming sec = 400 Wh/kg battery at system-level) and tracking the blue colored lines,

if one starts with an arbitrary value of HPuse = 0.500 (see “A” in Fig. 5) and adopting a value of 1.90 from the

relation sec /REF = 0.730/0.385, it can be seen that  = +31% (see “B” in Fig. 5) compared to a year-2035

Projected Tube-and-Wing Gas-Turbine-only Aircraft (PGTA) would result. Next, if an arbitrary value of mBENR =

+200% compared to PGTA is taken (see “C” in Fig. 5, green colored line), this selection generates a block HE,BLK =

0.085 and  = -71% (see “D” in Fig. 5) compared to kerosene only. In order for this design candidate to meet the

goal of mBLF = -20%, ESAR needs to be +14% (see “E” in Fig. 5).
 arbitrary
HPuse = 0.500
known
arbitrary
sec / REF = 1.9
B
target WBLF = -20%
f WBENR = +200%
a H I
g C
Target
Full-TEPPS
REF = +10%

Partial-TEPPS
sec/REF = 1.04
A

MTOW algorithm
For typical max. range
c k1 = 0.5005, BLF = 0.1163
WBLF = -20%
e d b G
D E F
MTOW algorithm
for short-haul
k1 = 0.5128, BLF = 0.0717
WBLF = -20%

Fig. 5 QuadNoms chart assuming batteries with system-level performance of 400 Wh/kg.

Using the 70 PAX, year-2035 projected tube-and-wing gas-turbine only aircraft given by [11], dubbed

“PGT070”, values of BLF = 0.0717 and k1 = 0.5128 (includes reserves and contingency allowance) for aircraft sized

for dedicated short-haul operations, and, BLF = 0.1163 and k1 = 0.5005 (includes reserves and contingency

allowance) for aircraft sized for typical maximum design range were adopted. In this particular example, mPAY

remains fixed, and thus, mPAY = 0. For a dedicated short-haul aircraft, assuming arbitrarily mBENR = +200%, and

recalling a requisite ESAR = +14%, the target mMTOW would need to be no greater than mMTOW = +30% (see “F”

in Fig. 5, grey coloured dashed line). In addition to this an aerodynamic improvement of L/D = +13% (see “H” in

Fig. 5) is associated with such an integrated systems solution. Alternatively, if sizing caters for typical maximum

design range, then requisite values of mMTOW = +47% (see “G” in Fig. 5) and L/D = +28% apply (see “I” in Fig.

5).

In order to appreciate what a minimalistic integrated systems set of solutions would be, consider the absence of

airframe aerodynamic improvement and the target mBLF = -20% is realized via an overall propulsion system
efficiency improvement of  = +31% (see “a” in Fig. 5). In such a case, the target mMTOW would need to be no

greater than mMTOW = +8% (see “b” in Fig. 5) and mMTOW = +7% (see “c” in Fig. 5) for aircraft sized for

dedicated short-haul and typical maximum design range respectively (black colored line in Fig. 5). In view of the

rather low HE,BLK values (track “b-d-f” for short-haul and “c-e-g” for maximum design range, black colored line in

Fig. 5), further detailed studies would need to be conducted in order to establish if the critical sizing case threshold

for the portion of mBENR related to batteries is due to power and not just stored energy, e.g. power requirements

needed for One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) during low-speed and en route phases, or, Go-Around. The current sizing

algorithm assumes the battery mass is sized by energy storage requirements.

As a another scenario in order to again meet the target of mBLF = -20%, consider a Full-TEPPS arrangement

producing a complete exergetic chain efficiency equal to that of thermal engine(s) only providing motive power, or,

a Full-TEPPS arrangement is not adopted and a conventional mechanical power transmission approach is utilized.

As depicted in Fig. 5, for such an integrated systems solution the necessary block ESAR = +25% can be met when

 = +10% is taken as the target due to, for instance, BLI and Wake-Filling, with corresponding values of mMTOW

= -3% with L/D = +11%, and, mMTOW = -5% with L/D = +8% compared to the PGT070 assuming sizing for

dedicated short-haul and typical maximum design range respectively. If however, one considers an aircraft candidate

configured utilizing Partial-TEPPS exploiting BLI and Wake-Filling similar to that of the Propulsive Fuselage

morphology [10], for assumed values of HPuse = 0.300 and MEc = 0.945, sec /REF was calculated to be 1.04 (with

sec = 0.385 x 0.945 x 1.10) after taking into consideration an adjustment for mechanical to electrical energy

conversion and for the aero-propulsive benefit. For this scenario, when using Eqn. (15),  = +1%, and for the

same required mMTOW given above, L/D = +20% is indicative of the dedicated short-haul aircraft, and, for a typical

maximum design range case L/D = +18% is needed compared to the PGT070.

A bespoke QuadNoms chart applicable for sec = 600 Wh/kg at battery system-level is presented in Fig. 6. By

way of visual inspection between Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, the designer/analyst has, with immediate transparency, the

ability of understanding the differences and trade-offs associated when altering battery GSE values.
 arbitrary
HPuse = 0.500
known
sec / REF = 1.9
arbitrary
target WBLF = -20% WBENR = +200%

Target
Full-TEPPS
REF = +10%

Partial-TEPPS
sec/REF = 1.04

MTOW algorithm
For typical max. range
k1 = 0.5005, BLF = 0.1163
WBLF = -20%

MTOW algorithm
for short-haul
k1 = 0.5128, BLF = 0.0717
WBLF = -20%

Fig. 6 QuadNoms chart assuming batteries with system-level performance of 600 Wh/kg.

The final study involved examining another type of HEPPS configuration assuming fuel cells as the secondary

energy source. Although the energy carrier in this instance is deemed to be Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) with GSE

attribute of sec = 39.4 kWh/kg, for sake of simplicity the author recommends treating the installed energy source

akin to a battery, as depicted in the QuadNoms analyses given in Fig. 4-6. As advocated in [42] a system level GSE

(including the LH2 chemical energy carrier, stack and balance-of-plant) was taken to be sec = 1000 Wh/kg, and Fig.

7 displays the corresponding QuadNoms chart representation. Assuming sec /REF = 0.425/0.385 = 1.10 and HPuse =

0.500, it can be observed  = +5% compared to the PGT070. Through inspection of Fig. 7 it is evident a HEPPS

utilizing fuel cells requires a L/D greater than around +15%. Arbitrarily assuming L/D = +20%, (black colored

line in Fig. 7) this produces a block ESAR requirement of +14% and +19% with corresponding values of mMTOW

= +10% and +5% compared to the PGT070 assuming sizing for dedicated short-haul and typical maximum design

range respectively.
 arbitrary
target WBLF = -20% WBENR = +200%

Target
Full-TEPPS
REF = +10% arbitrary
HPuse = 0.500
known
sec / REF = 1.1
Partial-TEPPS
sec/REF = 1.04

MTOW algorithm
For typical max. range
k1 = 0.5005, BLF = 0.1163
WBLF = -20%

MTOW algorithm
for short-haul
k1 = 0.5128, BLF = 0.0717
WBLF = -20%

Fig. 7 QuadNoms chart assuming fuel cells with LH2 as energy carrier; system-level GSE assumed to be
1000 Wh/kg.

Table 2 provides a summary of the results discussed above. The purpose here is to give an indication concerning

relative sensitivities of variables when examining different types of HEPPS and Partial/Full-TEPPS candidates. All

values for mMTOW quoted in Table 2 should be taken as targets that cannot be exceeded. This means once a detailed

weights build-up is completed, if the mMTOW value given in Table 2 is exceeded, the candidate is not viable.
 Table 2: Summary of outcomes for Hybrid-Electric, Partial/Full Turbo-Electric and conventional mechanical
power transmission approaches that meet 20% block fuel reduction compared to a year-2035 Projected
Tube-and-Wing Gas-Turbine-only Aircraft
sec sec/REF HPuse HE   mBENR ESAR Mission L/D mMTOW
(Wh/kg) (-) (-) (-) (%) (%) (%) (%) Sizing (%) (%)
400 0.032 -47 +58 +21 short-haul +8
battery 0.022 -38 +32 +22 max range +7
1.90 +31 0
600 0.062 -54 +83 +18 short-haul +11
battery 0.035 -40 +38 +21 max range +8
1000* 0.087 -48* +70 +14 short-haul +10
1.10 +5 +20
fuel cell 0.044 -33* +24 +19 max range +5
0.500
400 short-haul +13 +30
0.085 -71 +14
battery max range +28 +47
1.90 +31 +200
600 short-haul +9 +30
0.122 -69 +10
battery max range +23 +47
1000* short-haul +25 +30
1.10 0.186 -67* +5 +200* +2
fuel cell max range +42 +47
short-haul +20 -3
N/A 1.04 0.300 +1
max range +18 -5
turbo- 0 0 -20 +25
short-haul +11 -3
electric 1.00 0 +10
max range +8 -5
Quantities marked in bold denote input values
* pseudo values for fuel cell, i.e. does not only consider LH2, includes LH2 chemical energy carrier, fuel cell
stack and balance of plant

IV. Conclusion

This technical note has presented a simplified yet sufficiently versatile sizing algorithm well suited for

application during the pre-design phase when considering advanced aircraft concepts. Emphasis has been placed

upon having the ability to gauge the merits of electrically based propulsion and power systems solutions, including

those categorized as hybrid-electric and turbo-electric. Although well anchored in an analytical sense the author

strongly recommends inspection of so-called Quadrant based algorithmic Nomographs (referred to as

“QuadNoms”). The graphical based approach allows for maximizing transparency to the designer/analyst. It is

considered to be an expedient method that indicates what combination of values for a selected array of design

variables and parametric functions is necessary in delivering a given block fuel (or emissions) reduction result. All

such representations are independent of aircraft type, aircraft size, mission role, and stage length, thus, can be

construed as being universally applicable to most aeronautical vehicle integrated performance problems.

References

[1] European Commission, “Flightpath 2050 Europe’s Vision for Aviation - Report of the High Level Group on Aviation

Research”, Luxembourg, 2011.

[2] Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE), “Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda

(SRIA) - Volume 1”, Brussels, 2012.

[3] NASA ARMD Strategic Implementation Plan, https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/aero/pdf/armd-strategic-implementation-

plan.pdf, accessed 09 April 2017.

[4] NASA ARMD Strategic Thrust 3: Ultra-Efficient Commercial Vehicles Subsonic Transport,

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/armd-sip-thrust-3a-508.pdf, accessed 09 April 2017.

[5] NASA ARMD Strategic Thrust 3: NASA Vertical Lift Strategic Direction,

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/armd-sip-thrust-3b-vertical-lift-508.pdf, accessed 09 April 2017.

[6] NASA ARMD Strategic Thrust 4: Transition to Low-Carbon Propulsion,

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/armd-sip-thrust-4-508.pdf, accessed 09 April 2017.

[7] International Air Transport Association (IATA), “A Global Approach to Reducing Aviation Emissions”, 2009.

[8] Air Transport Action Group (ATAG), “A Sustainable Flightpath Towards Reducing Emissions”, 2012.

[9] International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), “ICAO Environment Report”, 2010.

[10] Isikveren, A.T., Seitz, A., Bijewitz, J., Mirzoyan, A., Isyanov, A., Grenon, R., Atinault, O., Godard, J.L. and Stückl, S.,

“Distributed Propulsion and Ultra-high By-Pass Rotor Study at Aircraft Level”, The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 119, No.

1221, 2015, pp. 1327-1376.

[11] Isikveren, A.T., Pornet, C., Vratny, P.C. and Schmidt, M., “Optimization of Commercial Aircraft Utilizing Battery-based

Voltaic-Joule/Brayton Propulsion”, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2016, pp. 246-261.

[12] Isikveren, A.T., Schmidt, M., “Future Transport Aircraft Ultra-Low Emissions Technology Options”, GARS Workshop Air

Transport and Climate Change, Worms, Germany, 4 April 2014.

[13] Committee on Propulsion and Energy Systems to Reduce Commercial Aviation Carbon Emissions, Aeronautics and Space

Engineering Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine, “Commercial Aircraft Propulsion and Energy Systems Research: Reducing Global Carbon Emissions”, ISBN 978-

0-309-44096-7, DOI: 10.17226/23490, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2016.

[14] Isikveren, A.T., “Progress in Hybrid/Electric Transport Aircraft Design”, 2017 More Electric Aircraft, Bordeaux, France,

01-02 February 2017.

[15] Isikveren, A.T., Kaiser, S., Pornet, C. and Vratny, P.C., “Pre-design Strategies and Sizing Techniques for Dual-Energy

Aircraft“, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology Journal, Vol. 86, Iss. 6, October 2014, doi: 10.1108/AEAT-08-

2014-0122.

[16] Raffaelli, L., Chung, J.-H. and Popovic, I., “Optimisation of a High Bypass Turbofan Engine Using Energy Storage”, Paper

060, Greener Aviation 2016, Brussels, Belgium, October 2016.

[17] Fefermann, Y., Maury, C., Level, C., Zarati, K, Salanne, J.-P., Pornet, C., Thoraval, B. and Isikveren, A.T., “Hybrid-Electric

Motive Power Systems for Commuter Transport Applications”, ICAS-2016-0438, 30th ICAS, Daejeon, Republic of Korea,

September 2016.

[18] Isikveren, A.T., Fefermann, Y., Maury, C., Level, C., Zarati, K, Salanne, J.-P., Pornet, C. and Thoraval, B., “Pre-design of a

Commuter Transport Utilising Voltaic-Joule/Brayton Motive Power Systems”, The Aeronautical Journal, in-review, AEROJ-

S-16-00310, December 2016.

[19] Lents, C., Hardin, L., Rheaume, J. and Kohlman, L., “Parallel Hybrid Gas-Electric Geared Turbofan Engine Conceptual

Design and Benefits Analysis”, AIAA 2016-4610, 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA Propulsion

and Energy Forum, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 25-27 July 2016.

[20] Bradley, M. K. and Droney, C. K., “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research: Phase II – Volume II – Hybrid Electric Design

Exploration”, NASA/CR–2015-218704/Volume II, Boeing Research and Technology, Huntington Beach, California, 2015.

[21] Bradley, M. K. and Droney, C. K., “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research: Phase I Final Report”, NASA CR-2011-

216847, 2011, Boeing Research and Technology, Huntington Beach, California, 2011.

[22] Bradley, M. K. and Droney, C. K., “SUGAR Phase II: N+4 Advanced Concept Development”, NASA/CR-2012-217556,

Boeing Research and Technology, Huntington Beach, California, 2012.

[23] Pornet, C. and Isikveren, A. T., “Conceptual Design of Hybrid-Electric Transport Aircraft”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences,

Vol. 79, November 2015, pp. 114-135, doi: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.11.002.

[24] Pornet, C., Kaiser, S., Isikveren, A. T., and Hornung, M., “Integrated Fuel-Battery Hybrid for a Narrow-Body Sized

Transport Aircraft,” Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 86, Iss. 6, pp. 568-574, vol. 86, 2014, DOI

10.1108/AEAT-05-2014-0062.

[25] Welstead, J.R. and Felder, J.L., “Conceptual Design of a Single-Aisle Turboelectric Commercial Transport with Fuselage

Boundary Layer Ingestion”, AIAA SciTech, January 2016.

[26] Schiltgen, B., Gibson, A., Green, M., and Freeman, J., “More Electric Aircraft: Tube and Wing Hybrid Electric Distributed

Propulsion with Superconducting and Conventional Electric Machines,” SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-2306, 2013.

[27] Miller, P., “Potential Propulsion Solutions for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft”, Disruptive Green Propulsion Technologies

Conference, Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London, United Kingdom, 2014.

[28] Parker, R., “Large Aircraft Propulsion for the Future: Evolution and Revolution”, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum,

Cleveland, USA, 28 July 2014.

[29] Kim, H.D., L. Felder, J., T. Tong, M., J. Berton, J., and J. Haller, W., “Turboelectric Distributed Propulsion Benefits on the

N3-X Vehicle”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, vol. 86, Sep. 2014, pp. 558–561.
 [30] Smith, H., “Airframe Integration for an LH2 Hybrid-Electric Propulsion System”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace

Technology, vol. 86, Sep. 2014, pp. 562–567.

[31] Lambert, P.-A., Alejo, D., Fefermann, Y., Maury, C., Thoraval, B., Salanne, J.-P., Isikveren, A.T., “Long-Term Hybrid-

Electric Propulsion Architecture Options for Transport Aircraft”, Paper 087, Greener Aviation 2016, Brussels, Belgium,

October 2016.

[32] Stoll, A. M., Bevirt, J., Moore, M. D., Fredericks, W. J., and Borer, N. K., “Drag Reduction Through Distributed Electric

Propulsion”, 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 2014.

[33] Hermetz, J., Ridel, M. and Doll, C., “Distributed Electric Propulsion for Small Business Aircraft: A Concept-Plane for Key-

Technologies Investigations”, 30th ICAS, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, September 2016.

[34] Stückl, S., van Toor, J. and Lobentanzer, H., “VOLTAIR - The All Electric Propulsion Concept Platform – A Vision For

Atmospheric Friendly Flight”, 28th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS, Brisbane, 2012.

[35] Isikveren, A.T., Seitz, A., Vratny, P.C., Pornet, C., Plötner, K.O. and Hornung, M., “Conceptual Studies of Universally

Electric System Architectures Suitable for Transport Aircraft”, Paper 1368, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2012,

Berlin, Germany, September 2012.

[36] Lorenz, L.C., Seitz, A., Kuhn, H. and Sizmann, A., “Hybrid Power Trains for Future Mobility”, Paper 1316, Deutscher Luft-

und Raumfahrtkongress 2013, Stuttgart, Germany, September 2013.

[37] Seitz, A., Schmitz, O., Isikveren, A.T. and Hornung, M., “Electrically Powered Propulsion: Comparison and Contrast to

Gas Turbines”, Paper 1358, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2012, Berlin, Germany, September 2012.

[38] Piperni, P., Abdo, M., Kafyeke, F., Isikveren, A.T., “Preliminary Aerostructural Optimization of a Large Business Jet”,

AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2007, pp. 1422-1438.

[39] Kling, U., Empl, D., Bögler, O. and Isikveren, A.T., “Future Aircraft Structures Using Renewable Materials”, Paper 370118,

64. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2015, Rostock, Germany, September 2015.

[40] Isikveren, A., “Parametric Modeling Techniques in Industrial Conceptual Transport Aircraft Design”, 2003 World Aviation

Congress, Montreal, SAE Paper 2003-01-3052, September 2003.

[41] Green, J.E., “Greener by Design, Innovative Configurations and Advanced Concepts for Future Civil Aircraft Lecture Series

2005-06”, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Brussels, Belgium, 6-10 June, 2005.

[42] Gradwohl, G., “Conceptual Design of a Fuel Cell Powered All Electric Regional Aircraft”, Diploma Thesis Registration No.

LAV 07 10 111 007, Luftfahrt/Aviation FH Joanneum, Graz, Austria, 01 September 2011.

View publication stats