Conceptual Designofthe PEGASUSConcept
Conceptual Designofthe PEGASUSConcept
Conceptual Designofthe PEGASUSConcept
net/publication/318144795
CITATIONS READS
79 1,413
2 authors, including:
Kevin Antcliff
NASA
13 PUBLICATIONS 581 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin Antcliff on 14 May 2021.
In this paper, a novel hybrid electric regional aircraft is presented that strategically
locates multiple electric and hybrid electric propulsors to obtain aerodynamic benefits.
This concept is called the Parallel Electric-Gas Architecture with Synergistic Utilization
Scheme (PEGASUS) aircraft. The use of the alternative propulsive systems coupled with
their potential aerodynamic benefits presents modeling challenges for conventional aircraft
analysis tools. These challenges are addressed by two methods that quantify the potential
benefits of the PEGASUS concept. The results of both methods suggest that when com-
pared to other hybrid electric regional aircraft, the PEGASUS concept has the potential
to decrease the total energy required to complete a mission while also reducing the vehicle
gross weight.
I. Introduction
Electric propulsion enables increased freedom to locate aircraft propulsors wherever a synergistic benefit
can be achieved. Unlike conventional gas turbines, the scale invariance of electric motors with respect to
efficiency and power-to-weight ratio allows this flexibility. In past years, NASA has proposed and studied
different hybrid electric aircraft configurations with a goal to decrease operational cost, carbon footprint, and
noise. In particular, Antcliff et al.1 showed that the use of parallel hybrid electric regional aircraft has the
potential to reduce operational costs by decreasing the total propulsive energy used. This paper builds on
that work by presenting a year 2030 parallel hybrid electric aircraft concept that uses multiple propulsors in
an attempt to provide synergistic benefits that could further decrease operational cost through lower energy
required to complete a given mission. The proposed vehicle was given the moniker: the Parallel Electric-Gas
Architecture with Synergistic Utilization Scheme (PEGASUS) concept.
The PEGASUS concept is based on the parallel hybrid electric version of the ATR-42-500 aircraft dis-
cussed by Antcliff et al.1 PEGASUS consists of parallel hybrid electric and electric propulsors located
strategically to provide increased aerodynamic benefits. PEGASUS uses parallel hybrid electric propulsors
at the wingtips to decrease downwash effects. Two electric propulsors providing additional thrust for takeoff
and climb are located inboard on the wing. These propulsors are capable of folding mid-flight to decrease
windmilling effects during cruise. Lastly, recent research suggests that adding a final electric propulsor to the
tail of the aircraft will provide a benefit due to boundary layer ingestion.2 To better envision the concept,
an artist’s depiction of PEGASUS is shown in Fig. 1.
∗ Aerospace Engineer, Aeronautics Systems Analysis Branch, 1 N Dryden Street M/S 442, Hampton VA 23681, AIAA
Member.
1 of 15
The multiple propulsors, parallel hybrid electric propulsion architecture, and unique synergistic effects
of the PEGASUS configuration present various modeling challenges. In this work, we propose two methods
to perform the analysis. The first method (Method A) uses the Flight Optimization System (FLOPS)3 as
the main analysis component in a ModelCenter framework.4 FLOPS is an aircraft design and analysis tool
that has been developed at NASA Langley Research Center for over 30 years. It was designed to analyze
conventional vehicles (e.g., gas turbine-powered aircraft) and it has no proper mechanism to handle hybrid
electric propulsion systems. Method A is an extension of previous work done by Antcliff et al.1 and contains
workarounds to overcome some of the limitations of FLOPS. A second method (Method B) uses parts of
different aircraft analysis tools to capture the different flight configurations and synergistic effects of multiple
propulsors.
This paper discuss the PEGASUS concept and the two methods used for its analysis. Section II presents
background information on the research that has led to the PEGASUS vehicle. Section III provides the
details of the PEGASUS vehicle and its design assumptions. Section IV provides details regarding the
mission requirements for PEGASUS. Section V covers both methods used to analyze PEGASUS. Section VI
provides the results obtained by using both methods and Section VII presents the conclusions.
II. Background
Concept studies that are focused on the benefits of future vehicles require a current baseline vehicle
for comparison. The current baseline vehicle selected for this study was the 48-passenger ATR 42-500,
which was chosen based on a market and demand study.5 Due to the complexities of the unconventional
concept analyzed in this study, an intermediate, year 2030, hybrid electric baseline was also developed. The
intermediate baseline used the conventional propulsion-airframe integration of the ATR 42-500, but replaced
the turboprop engines with parallel hybrid electric propulsors. Only pertinent information regarding the
intermediate baseline will follow; for more in-depth analysis and results refer to Ref. 1.
The development of the intermediate baseline required a thorough modification of the PW127E, the
engine of the ATR 42-500, to a future hybrid electric version. Initially, this three shaft, two-spool engine was
modeled in the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS)6 to match state-of-the-art (SOA) publically
available data. Individual components of the engine were then upgraded in order to predict the performance
of a PW127E-like engine in the year 2030. The performance of this engine model was then estimated over a
range of altitudes, Mach numbers, and throttle settings. The standard power output for this engine is 2400
shp. Reduced power versions of the advanced engine model were also created at 1800 shp (25% electric),
1200 shp (50% electric), and 600 shp (75% electric). The estimated dimensions and weights of these parallel
hybrid electric engines are shown in Table 1.
2 of 15
A Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) framework capable of analyzing and designing hybrid
electric aircraft was developed for the intermediate baseline. FLOPS allows two separate propulsion systems
with different energy sources to operate during separate segments of the mission, but does not allow different
energy sources for a single mission segment. Therefore, external analyses, including battery weight (Wbatt )
estimation, were coupled with the FLOPS mission analysis core to determine the performance of advanced,
parallel hybrid electric vehicles. Figure 2 gives a graphical representation of this framework developed for
the intermediate baseline, which is used as the foundation for the analysis of the unconventional PEGASUS
concept.
Figure 2. Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) framework for a parallel hybrid electric concept.
3 of 15
Figure 3. Turboelectric, series hybrid electric, parallel hybrid electric, and all electric propulsion architecture
comparison.7
Both turboelectric and series hybrid electric propulsion architectures are burdened by the conversion of
fuel to electricity. This conversion adds the complexity of a generator and additional power conditioning
before reaching the propulsor. These extra steps create efficiency (and weight) penalties that reduce the
overall efficiency of the system. This efficiency loss is important because it impacts the amount of energy,
and thus energy cost, needed for a given mission. Despite the high volatility of fuel prices, fuel has historically
been the highest source of operating costs for airlines.8
Specific energy versus overall efficiency is the main trade that must be considered in the design of
electric/hybrid electric vehicles. Regardless of the range or size, the overall efficiency of the propulsion
system will remain relatively constant. However, the weight of the vehicle is highly dependent on the range
and the specific energy of the energy sources that are utilized. For electric or hybrid electric propulsion, the
range must be minimized in order to reduce the impact of the heavy electric energy source. In the design
of PEGASUS, we ensure that the range is no greater than what is needed to capture the majority of the
airport origin and destination pairs as discussed in further detail in Section IV.
4 of 15
Figure 4. Baseline (ATR 42-500), Intermediate Baseline, and PEGASUS concept comparison.
C. Wingtip Propulsor
Snyder documented the use of end-plates and tip tanks to increase lift near wingtips and decrease the
induced drag/downwash effects for low Reynolds numbers in 1967.9 Snyder noticed that these benefits were
severely limited at higher speeds. Therefore, he proposed a new solution:“by placing the propellers which
propel the aircraft at the wingtips... the rotational component of the propeller slip-stream is available for
attenuating the wing vortex system.” The impact of this wingtip propeller slip-stream was quantified by
Patterson as power reduction in relation to the cruise lift coefficient.10 This quantification of the wingtip
propulsor effect for a low aspect ratio, high cruise speed vehicle was compared to a study performed for
the SCEPTOR project (or Maxwell X-57 concept), which is a high aspect ratio, low cruise speed concept.11
Comparison of the two cases enabled an estimation of the potential power reduction for the PEGASUS
concept as shown in Fig. 5. Wingtip propulsion integration takes advantage of the vortex flow field and
results in an estimated 18 percent increase in effective propulsive efficiency for the wingtip propulsors on the
PEGASUS concept.
5 of 15
Figure 6. Simulated effects of wing-mounted propellers on lift distribution. The effect of inboard propellers
(left) and wingtip propellers (right) on the lift distribution of the LEAPTech wing.12
Folding propellers are common in sailing yachts, model airplanes, and small motor gliders. They were
introduced for future advanced electric propulsion aircraft concepts in 2014 as a part of the LEAPTech
study,12 and are currently being developed for the X-57 Maxwell concept. Based on analysis of these studies,
removal of inboard turboprop propulsion effects results in a 10% reduction in the induced drag.
6 of 15
Figure 7. Regional jet and turboprop cumulative trip distribution versus mission range.
B. Mission Profile
A total of five propulsors will be used on this aircraft: two parallel hybrid electric wingtip propulsors, two
inboard all-electric propulsors, and one BLI all-electric propulsor (as shown in Fig. 4). The only difference
between the all-electric and hybrid electric missions will occur at the wingtip where the hybrid electric
propulsor will solely use electric power on missions less than 200 nautical miles. For both the 200 and 400
nautical mile missions, all five propulsors will be used for takeoff and climb. Then, the inboard propulsors
will be powered off and folded for cruise leaving the wingtip and BLI propulsors to provide efficient thrust
for the aircraft as depicted in Fig.8.
7 of 15
V. Method Development
Two methods were considered to analyze the PEGASUS concept. Method A extends the use of well
accepted and computationally efficient conventional design tools to capture the potential synergistic benefits.
Method B attempts to avoid some of the modeling limitations inherent in the use of conventional tools by
using a flexible framework that combines customized analysis tools.
A. Method A
The following are some of the current assumptions and computations required. The design of this method
was partially driven by some of the features and limitations of FLOPS.
The propulsion system and the handling of the five propulsors (three propulsor classes) is one of the most
important considerations. The PW127E-like engine in the year 2030 (discussed in Section II) was used as
the reference engine and was adjusted appropriately to cover the three different propulsor classes. The first
8 of 15
Mach = 0.5
Altitude = 20, 000 ft
Thrust = 1320.8 lbs
Power = 1603.6 shp
The percent of total power for the wingtip propulsor provided by the gas turbine (%GT ) as well as
the thrust distribution between the wingtip (W T ) and aft propulsor at cruise are inputs that are used to
determine the power required for the wingtip and aft propulsors at the cruise condition. These are given by
PW T cruise and Paftcruise respectively. A propulsion sizing parameter is used to define the propulsive efficiency
at a given operation point,
P
rP T = (1)
T
where the power is given by P and thrust is given by T .
When placing the main source of propulsion at the wingtip, the one-engine-out yawing moment must be
taken into consideration. This methodology assumes that the PEGASUS one-engine-out yawing moment,
Cnreq, PEGASUS is not allowed to exceed the yawing moment of the ATR 42-500, Cnreq, ATR42 . This consideration
is shown below:
Cnreq, ATR42 ≥ Cnreq, PEGASUS (2)
" # " #
(Tnreq + Dewn )le (Tnreq + Dewn )le
≥ (3)
qSref b qSref b
ATR42 PEGASUS
where the thrust required by the propulsor is given by Tnreq and the length between the propulsor and the
centerline is given by le . Then, assuming a similar wing span, b, reference area, Sref , dynamic pressure, q,
and drag of engine when non-operational, Dewn , this yields:
This limits the amount of thrust that is placed at the tip propulsor. The thrust at the wingtip for different
Mach, altitude, and power conditions is given by:
PW T cruise
TWT = min , Tnreq (5)
rP T · eW T
where rP T is a function of Mach, altitude, and power and eW T represents the efficiency factor at the tip.
The thrust of the aft propulsor is also calculated at multiple Mach and altitude conditions based on the
sizing point at cruise.
Paftcruise
Taft = (6)
rP T · eaft
Lastly, the inboard propulsors are utlized at low and slow conditions when additional thrust is required. The
inboard thrust is computed using the following equation:
The fuel flow, thrust, and power at different Mach and altitude conditions for the three propulsor classes
(five propulsors in total) are combined to generate a single ”engine deck” that is fed to FLOPS. All the
components of the model were linked together by using ModelCenter. The entire methodology is shown in
Fig. 9. This methodology uses the all-electric mission (see section IV) to provide the initial sizing of the
batteries. The initial battery size is used to update the component weights and is fed into the hybrid electric
mission analysis. This process is repeated until the weights have converged.
9 of 15
B. Method B
This method expands Method A by addressing some of the limitations observed with FLOPS. Method
B entails a mixture of different analysis tools to provide a flexible method capable of sizing each propulsor
independently. This capability enhances the analysis and expands the design space considered by Method
A.
Method B consists of three different modules: mission analysis, aerodynamics, and weight sizing. These
modules are coupled together by using the Python scripting language. The mission analysis module can
handle different propulsion systems working independently. Capristan and Welstead17 discussed in detail
the characteristics of this module. The Python-based SUAVE18 aircraft analysis tool was used to provide
the aerodynamics needed by the mission analysis module. Finally, FLOPS provided the operating weight of
the aircraft because its weight estimation capabilities have been extensively used to size vehicles similar to
the ATR-42-500 aircraft.
10 of 15
Method A Method B
Engine deck approach Mission oriented Propulsor oriented
Cruise conditions Optimal (FLOPS) Fixed
300 ft/min (all propulsors on)
Cruise ceiling 300 ft/min
100 ft/min (tip and aft propulsors on)
Computational time per iteration < 30 seconds > 2 minutes
The following subsections discuss the differences provided in the Table above.
2. Cruise Conditions
As discussed in the previous sections, Method A uses FLOPS to analyze the aircraft. The mission analysis
capabilities in FLOPS allow the user to quickly optimize the flight conditions (Mach and altitude) during
cruise to minimize fuel or maximize range. In contrast, the mission analysis approach used in Method B is
not able to provide optimum flight conditions during cruise unless an external optimization process is used.
3. Cruise Ceiling
The cruise ceiling has been defined as the altitude at which the maximum rate of climb for the aircraft
is 300 ft/min. This definition is easily applied to aircraft that are designed to operate with all engines
providing thrust during cruise. A question arises regarding the applicability of this definition when the
aircraft is designed to have certain propulsors completely off during cruise as in the case of PEGASUS.
Methods A and B consider the cruise ceiling as an operational constraint, but due to modeling assumptions,
they differ on how this operational constraint is implemented.
The engine deck used in Method A is designed to ensure that at cruise the inboard propulsors are off
and folded, decreasing drag penalties due to non-optimal spanwise lift (see Section III). For this reason, the
maximum thrust at cruise inferred from the engine deck is less than the actual maximum thrust capability
of the vehicle. This has a direct impact on the cruise ceiling determination (altitude where maximum rate of
climb equals 300 ft/min). Method A ensures that at cruise PEGASUS can climb 300 ft/min with the inboard
propulsors off and folded. In contrast, Method B is not limited to a simple engine deck with a single mode
of operation having the inboard motors turned off during cruise. This method identifies that the maximum
thrust happens when the inboard propulsors are at full power. Therefore, Method B assumes that at cruise
the aircraft should be able to climb at 300 ft/min with all engines at full power, and 100 ft/min with the
inboard propulsors off (service ceiling).
11 of 15
Figure 10. Method B tools used to simulate modeling constraints in Method A (one engine deck for all
propulsors) with contours showing the takeoff gross weight. Constraint lines include electric mission rate of
climb at cruise (blue), hybrid mission rate of climb at cruise (green), and reserves altitude (red). The dashed
line next to the solid lines indicate the area where the constraints are not satisfied.
The results in Fig. 10 indicate that the methods have different behaviors due to the fact that they use
different aerodynamic and mission analysis modules. In fact, the mission analysis methodology in Method A
(FLOPS) is able to automatically select the appropriate cruise conditions to minimize fuel while meeting the
rate of climb constraint, whereas Method B uses a fixed cruise profile (Mach and altitude). The characteristics
of Method A are seen in the small difference in the rate of climb constraint for the hybrid (green line) and
the electric (blue line) missions. On the other hand for Method B, the rate of climb constraints for the
hybrid and electric mission are offset. This is due to the fact that the cruise altitude is not adjusted during
the mission evaluation. This characteristic is also evident in the reserve mission altitude constraint (>2,000
ft) being active for low wing areas in Method A. The initial comparison highlights the importance of the
rate of climb constraints and the reserve mission altitude in sizing the vehicle.
B. Potential Benefits
The vehicle was optimized using both methods in order to assess the potential benefits. The objective
function selected was the takeoff gross weight. Method A has three design parameters: wing area, one thrust
scaling parameter for all propulsors, and the percent of tip propulsor power provided by the gas turbine
(%GT ). Method B uses five design parameters: wing area, three thrust scaling parameters, one for each
12 of 15
Figure 11. Distance Normalized Energy for the Intermediate Baseline (IB) and PEGASUS vehicle using
Method A (PA) and Method B (PB). The distance is normalized due to varying design ranges: Intermediate
Baseline (600 nm), PEGASUS Hybrid (400 nm), and PEGASUS All-Electric (200 nm).
Figure 12 shows the benefits of synergistic propulsion-airframe integration and operations in terms of
weight. Both Methods A and B indicate similar weight reduction for PEGASUS when compared to the
intermediate baseline. On average, Methods A and B estimate a 30 percent reduction in takeoff gross weight
and a 20 percent reduction in operating empty weight.
13 of 15
Building on the discussion in Section IV regarding reserves, for the 400 nautical mile mission of the
PEGASUS concept, Method A estimates more fuel is needed for the all-fuel reserve mission than for the
hybrid mission itself: 850 lb and 710 lb, respectively. Even when including the electric energy used during
the mission, 44 percent of the total energy stored onboard is for the reserve mission. A similar result is
obtained with Method B, for which the reserve mission uses 792 lb of fuel and the hybrid mission 554 lb.
VII. Conclusion
This study focuses on the design and analysis of the Parallel Electric-Gas Architecture with Synergistic
Utilization Scheme (PEGASUS) concept. The PEGASUS concept was designed to fly a 200 nm electric
only mission and a 400 nm parallel hybrid electric mission. The PEGASUS concept was analyzed with two
methods to assess its potential benefits while addressing some of the modeling complexities due to the novel
propulsion architecture.
The design space of the PEGASUS concept was evaluated using a FLOPS-based method (Method A)
and a combination of parts of different tools integrated to overcome the analysis constraints observed in
Method A. Results from both methods show that the constraint on rate of climb at cruise plays a crucial
role in determining the proper size of the vehicle and its propulsion system. This is also true for the reserve
mission. It was found that the reserve mission will have a direct influence on the size of the gas turbine used
at the tip propulsor.
The discrepancies seen in the PEGASUS energy consumption with Methods A and B are primarily due
to the different rate of climb constraints at cruise. The vehicle obtained with Method A is capable of a rate
of climb of 300 ft/min when the inboard propulsors are off and folded. In contrast, the vehicle obtained with
Method B is designed to be capable of a rate of climb of 300 ft/min with all the propulsors operating at
full power and a rate of climb of 100 ft/min when the inboard propulsors are off and folded. Therefore, the
wingtip propulsors sized with Method A are considerably more powerful than the ones sized with Method
B. This extra power results in a larger propulsor weight. It is important to note that in Method A the rate
of climb during the cruise segment (reserve mission) is an active constraint, and thus it sizes the percent of
gas turbine at the wingtips. This is not an issue in Method B because the vehicle is still able to gain thrust
from the other propulsion systems if required.
Total energy, fuel energy, and battery energy decrease significantly when the propulsors are arranged on
the airframe to provide a synergistic benefit. In other words, high energy, and thus energy cost, savings can
be realized when the scalability and flexibility of electric motors is exploited in the design of an electric or
hybrid electric aircraft.
14 of 15
VIII. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mark Guynn and Ty Marien for their contributions and guidance in
the development and analysis of this concept. This work was supported by the Advanced Air Transport
Technology (AATT) project.
References
1 Antcliff,
K. R., Guynn, M. D., Marien, T., Wells, D. P., Schneider, S. J., and Tong, M. J., “Mission Analysis and Aircraft
Sizing of a Hybrid-Electric Regional Aircraft,” 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, January 2016, doi:10.2514/6.2016-1028.
2 Welstead, J. and Felder, J. L., “Conceptual Design of a Single-Aisle Turboelectric Commercial Transport with Fuselage
Boundary Layer Ingestion,” 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, January 2016, doi:10.2514/6.2016-1027.
3 McCullers, L. A., “Aircraft Configuration Optimization including Optimized Flight Profiles,” NASA. Langley Research
Center Recent Experiences in Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Part 1., Hampton, VA, 1984.
4 Malone, B. and Papay, M., “ModelCenter: an integration environment for simulation based design,” Simulation Interop-
Meeting, AIAA SciTech, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, January 2016, doi:10.2514/6.2016-1283.
6 Claus, R. W., Evans, A. L., and Follen, G. J., “Multidisciplinary Propulsion Simulation Using NPSS,” 4th Symposium
A., Bevirt, J., Gibson, A. R., Foster, T. J., and Osterkamp, P. G., “Design and Performance of the NASA SCEPTOR Distributed
Electric Propulsion Flight Demonstrator,” 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, AIAA
Aviation, Washington, D.C., June 2016, doi:10.2514/6.2016-3920.
12 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, GA, 2014, doi:10.2514/6.2014-
2851.
13 Smith Leroy H., J., “Wake Ingestion Propulsion Benefit,” Journal of Propulsion and Power , Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1993,
pp. 74–82.
14 Hardin, L. W., Tillman, G., Sharma, O. P., Berton, J., and Arend, D. J., “Aircraft System Study of Boundary Layer
Ingesting Propulsion,” 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, August 2012, pp. 1–12,
doi:10.2514/6.2012-3993.
15 Trani, A., Baik, H., Hinze, N., Ashiabor, S., Viken, J., and Cooke, S., “Integrating Air Transportation System De-
mand Predictions in Preliminary Aircraft Design,” AIAA 5th ATIO and16th Lighter-Than-Air Sys Tech. and Balloon Systems
Conferences, Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conferences, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, September 2005, doi:10.2514/6.2005-7425.
16 Federal Aviation Administration, “FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.167,” 2000.
17 Capristan, F. M. and Welstead, J. R., “LEAPS: An Initial Assessment Towards a Multi-Order Approach to Air Vehicle
An Open-Source Environment for Multi-Fidelity Conceptual Vehicle Design,” 16th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis
and Optimization Conference, January 2015, pp. 1–56, doi:10.2514/6.2015-3087.
19 Gray, J., Moore, K., and Naylor, B., “OpenMDAO: An Open Source Framework for Multidisciplinary Analysis and Op-
timization,” 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference, Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization
Conferences, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, September 2010, doi:10.2514/6.2010-9101.
15 of 15