Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:00:32.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pre-design of a commuter transport utilising Voltaic-Joule/Brayton motive power systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2017

A. T. Isikveren*
Affiliation:
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, France
Y. Fefermann
Affiliation:
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, France
C. Maury
Affiliation:
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, France
C. Level
Affiliation:
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, France
K. Zarati
Affiliation:
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, France
J.-P. Salanne
Affiliation:
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, France
C. Pornet
Affiliation:
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, France
B. Thoraval
Affiliation:
SAFRAN S.A., Magny-Les-Hameaux, France

Abstract

This investigation surveyed the potential and established outcomes for future 19-passenger fixed-wing commuter transport aircraft concepts employing battery-based Voltaic-Joule/Brayton motive power systems with no additional electrical energy drawn from generators mechanically coupled to thermal engines. The morphological approach was that of a tri-prop (two on-wing podded turbo-props and one aft-fuselage mounted electric motor configured as a pusher-on-pylon installation). A Battery System-level Gravimetric Specific Energy (referred to as “battery energy density”) of at least 500 Wh/kg yielded 39%, 25% and 10% block fuel reductions for 150-nm (Design Service Goal), 430-nm (85th percentile) and 700-nm (maximum range) stage lengths, respectively. All quoted comparisons are against a suitably projected turbo-prop only year-2030 aircraft. In contrast to the reference Beech 1900D, block fuel reductions of up to 44-49% were predicted, which could facilitate a significantly lower deficit in relation to the Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE) Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (STRIA) 55% target for year 2030. This investigation also indicated that, in the future, suitably flexible hybrid-electric architectures could be fashioned allowing possibility for the aircraft to complete any required city-pair operations (within the legitimate payload-range working capacity) irrespective of exchangeable batteries being available at a given station. Finally, it was also established, assuming such a tri-prop morphology, Normal conducting machines delivering maximum shaft power output of 1.1 MW would be required.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. European Commission Flightpath 2050 Europe's Vision for Aviation – Report of the High Level Group on Aviation Research, 2011, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
2. Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE) – Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) – 2017 Update – Volume 1, 2017, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
3. NASA ARMD Strategic Implementation Plan. http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/armd-strategic-implementation-plan.pdf, accessed 23 August 2016.Google Scholar
4. NASA ARMD Strategic Thrust 3: Ultra-Efficient Commercial Vehicles Subsonic Transport. http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/ARMD-SIP-Thrust-3a-508.pdf, accessed 23 August 2016.Google Scholar
5. NASA ARMD Strategic Thrust 4: Transition to Low-Carbon Propulsion. http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/ARMD-SIP-Thrust-4-508.pdf, accessed 23 August 2016.Google Scholar
6. International Air Transport Association (IATA) A Global Approach to Reducing Aviation Emissions, 2009. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/Documents/global-approach-reducing-emissions.pdf, accessed 13 July 2015.Google Scholar
7. Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) A Sustainable Flightpath Towards Reducing Emissions, 2012. http://www.atag.org/our-publications/latest.html, accessed 13 July 2015.Google Scholar
8. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) ICAO Environment Report, 2010. https://www.icao.int/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=wfMrWi3WIndlaW-QdAlUzpQ2i1Vvh6Nuks52f7PLhrM, accessed 13 July 2015.Google Scholar
9. Isikveren, A.T., Pornet, C., Vratny, P.C. and Schmidt, M. Optimization of commercial aircraft utilizing battery-based Voltaic-Joule/Brayton propulsion, AIAA J Aircr, 2017, 54, (1), pp 246261, DOI 10.2514/1.C033885.Google Scholar
10. Pornet, C. And Isikveren, A.T. Conceptual design of hybrid-electric transport aircraft, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2015, 79, pp 114135, DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.009.002.Google Scholar
11. Pornet, C. Electric drives for propulsion system of transport aircraft. Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering. Chomat, M. (Ed.). New Applications of Electric Drives. Rijeka: In Tech; 2015. pp 115141, DOI: 10.5772/61506. Google Scholar
12. Isikveren, A.T., Kaiser, S., Pornet, C. And Vratny, P.C. Pre-design strategies and sizing techniques for dual-energy aircraft, Aircr Engineering and Aerospace Technology J, 2014, 86, (6), DOI: 10.1108/AEAT-08-2014-0122.Google Scholar
13. Pornet, C., Kaiser, S., Isikveren, A.T. and Hornung, M. Integrated fuel-battery hybrid for a narrow-body sized transport aircraft, Aircr Engineering and Aerospace Technology J, 2014, 86, (6), pp 568574, DOI 10.1108/AEAT-05-2014-0062.Google Scholar
14. Pornet, C., Gologan, C., Vratny, P.C., Seitz, A., Schmitz, O., Isikveren, A.T. and Hornung, M. Methodology for sizing and performance assessment of hybrid energy aircraft, AIAA J Aircr, 2015, 52, (1), pp 341352, DOI 10.2514/1.C032716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Bradley, M.K. and Droney, C.K. Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research : Phase I Final Report, 2011, Huntington Beach, California, US.Google Scholar
16. Banning, T., Bristow, G., Level, C., Sollmann, L., Calderon-Fernandez, J., Wells, D., Olson, M., Davis, N., DU, C. And Ambadpudi, S. 2012–2013 FAA Design Competition for Universities Electric/Hybrid-Electric Aircraft Technology Design Category – NXG-50, 2013, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, Georgia, US.Google Scholar
17. Miller, P. Potential Propulsion Solutions for Hybrid-Electric Aircraft Disruptive Green Propulsion Technologies Conference, 2014, Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
18. Raytheon Aircraft (2001) Beech 1900D Airliner Performance/Specifications http://altairva-fs.com/fleet/poh/AVE%20Beechcraft%20B1900D%20POH.pdf, accessed 15 January 2016.Google Scholar
19. Raytheon Aircraft Beech 1900D Airliner Section III Systems Description, August 2000. http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Raytheon_Beechcraft_1_00D-SYSTEMS_DESCRIPTION.pdf, accessed 11 December 2015.Google Scholar
20. Miess, J.C., Robbins, R.D., Yamakawa, G.M. and Gould, W.P. Preliminary Airworthiness Evaluation of the RC-12K, AEFA Project No 88-03, August 1989, Edwards Air Force Base, California, US.Google Scholar
22. Isikveren, A.T. Design and Optimisation of a 19 Passenger Turbofan Regional Transport, Paper 1999-01-5579, 1999 SAE World Aviation Congress, October 1999, San Francisco, California, US.Google Scholar
23. Biber, K. Effect of Slipstream Drag on Estimating Performance of a Single-Propeller Airplane, 8th Ankara International Aerospace Conference, Paper AIAC-2015-085, 10-12 September 2015, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
24. Campbell, F.C. Structural Composite Materials, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, USA, November 2010.Google Scholar
25. Siochi, M. Enabling Technologies for Aerospace Missions – The Case for Nanotubes, FEL Users/Laser Processing Consortium Meeting, Jefferson Lab, 11 March 2004.Google Scholar
26. Kebrau, S. Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Novel Non-Rectangular Stiffening Concepts in Comparison to Conventional Rectangular Stiffened Fuselage Structures, CEAS 2007, 2007, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
27. Flinn, B.D. Improving Adhesive Bonding of Composites through Surface Characterization, Federal Aviation Administration Joint Advanced Materials and Structures (JAMS) 5th Annual Technical Review Meeting, CECAM, Wichita State University, 21-22 July 2009.Google Scholar
28. PROOSIS, Propulsion Object-Oriented Simulation Software http://www.ecosimpro.com/products/proosis/, accessed 06 July 2016.Google Scholar
29. Type Certificate Data Sheet E26NE, Pratt and Whitney, US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Rev. 14, 04 November, 2011.Google Scholar
30. 2002 Aerospace Source Book, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Vol. 156, No. 2 mcgraw-Hill, 14 January, 2002.Google Scholar
31. Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft 2001–2002.Google Scholar
32. Jane's Aero-Engines 2000.Google Scholar
33. Flight International World Aircraft and Systems Directory, 3rd Edition, Taylor, M. J. H. (Editor). Flight International Directories, 2002.Google Scholar
35. Isikveren, A.T., Seitz, A., Bijewitz, J., Mirzoyan, A., Isyanov, A., Grenon, R., Atinault, O., Godard, J.-L. And Stueckl, S. Distributed propulsion and ultra-high by-pass rotor study at aircraft level, Aeronautical J, 2015, 119, (1221), pp 13271376.Google Scholar
36. Mistree, F., Lewis, K. And Stonis, L. Selection in the Conceptual Design of Aircraft, 32nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA-94-4382-CP, 10–13 January 1994, Reno, Nevada, US.Google Scholar
37. Brown, G.V. Weights and efficiencies of electric components of a turboelectric aircraft propulsion system 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, AIAA 2011-225, 2011, Orlando, Florida, US.Google Scholar
38. Galea, M. Aerospace machines and drives – towards more power density, reliability and efficiency, Electric and Hybrid Aerospace Technology Symposium, Cologne, Germany, 8–9 November 2015.Google Scholar
39. Barchasz, C. Développement d'accumulateurs Li/S, PhD Thesis, Université de Grenoble, Grenoble, France, 25 October 2011.Google Scholar
40. Piancastelli, L. And Pellegrini, M. The bonus of aircraft piston engines, an update of the Meredith effect, Int J Heat and Technology, 2007, 25, (2), pp 5165.Google Scholar
41. Association of European Airlines (AEA) Operating Economy of AEA Airlines, 2007.Google Scholar
42. Transport Studies Group (TSG) Aircraft Crewing – Marginal Delay Costs, 2008, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
43. Aircraft Operating Costs and Statistics Turboprop Aircraft, Market Briefing, Aviation Week Intelligence Network, 16 July 2012, p 7.Google Scholar
44. Ploetner, K.O., Wesseler, P. And Phleps, P. Identification of key aircraft and operational parameters affecting airport charges, Int J Aviation Management, 2013, 2, (1/2), pp 91115.Google Scholar
45. Khan, K. And Houston, G. Design Optimization using Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Low Operating Costs, 2000, Bombardier Aerospace, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
46. Rupp, O.C. Vorhersage von Instandhaltungskosten bei der Auslegung ziviler Strahltriebwerke, Dissertation, 2000, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
47. Majeed, O. Beechcraft 1900D: Fuel, Emissions and Cost Savings Operational Analysis, Document Ref: SRS-TSD-007 Rev. 0, 21 February 2012. http://www.srs.aero/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SRS-TSD-007-Rev-0-1900D-Fuel-Emissions-Cost-Savings-Operational-Analysis.pdf, accessed 19 January 2016.Google Scholar
50. Baranowski, D. Development of an Operating Cost Model for Electric-Powered Transport Aircraft, Diploma Thesis, 2012, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
52. http://www.openvsp.org/, accessed 19 March 2016.Google Scholar