Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Future aircraft concept in terms of energy efficiency and

environmental factors
Eren Baharozu a, *, Gurkan Soykan b, M. Baris Ozerdem c
a
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Currently, the importance of aircraft efficiency has increased with the rise in jet fuel prices. Due to high
Received 14 October 2016 fuel prices and compelling pressures to address environmental concerns, different aircraft concepts have
Received in revised form been taken into consideration in recent years. These concepts not only include the usage of varied fuel
15 August 2017
types but also the usage of more electricity. According to the literature on the topic, the most conspic-
Accepted 2 September 2017
Available online 4 September 2017
uous alternative fuel type is hydrogen. In this paper, traditional aircraft, more electric aircraft, and liquid
hydrogen-fueled aircraft are compared by using a multi criteria scoring method. As a result of this
comparison, a future aircraft concept for long distance flights is proposed combining the more electric
Keywords:
Aircraft energy efficiency
concept and the liquid hydrogen fueled concept. The suggested future aircraft concept is better than the
Hybrid aircraft traditional aircraft with regard to efficiency, cost, and environmental impact. In conclusion, the proposed
Hydrogen fueled aircraft aircraft concept for long range is an unavoidable choice for the future of the aviation sector to increase
More electric aircraft energy efficiency and decrease harmful environmental effects.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 80%, is consumed by civil aviation activities [3]. According to

The usage of aircraft has been increasing rapidly in recent years.
Every year, over six billion people travel around the world by
aircraft [1]. In the aviation industry, there are three range types
known as short, medium and long range transportation. With the
growth of the aviation industry, energy consumption and detri-
mental environmental impacts also have increased day by day. In
order to prevent the increment of energy consumption, the energy
efficiency issue for aircraft has become more significant for any
range of transportation. However, long range transportation has
priority over other ranges of transportation due to the higher fuel
consumption and fuel cost. Energy efficiency in aviation is mainly
known as fuel efficiency due to high fuel prices. About 3% of the
total worldwide fossil fuel usage corresponds to fuel consumption
in aviation. As a result, aircraft emissions have caused 3% of the total
CO2 emissions [2]. To reduce this amount, not only investments in
more fuel-efficient aircraft, but also a modification of existing ones
should be carried out. A larger percentage of this usage, as much as
research, the depletion of fossil fuels is inevitable in upcoming
decades. This situation has led to seeking new alternatives by
looking at their costs, efficiencies, and hazards. Aircraft designers
and engineers have worked in order to improve the fuel efficiency
by changing aircraft systems and fuel types. Especially, using less
fuel is an essential aim for commercial aircraft. The longer the range
of the transportation, the bigger the importance of efficiency of an
aircraft because of the higher fuel consumption ratios. Reducing
fuel usage not only provides economic advantages but also envi-
ronmental benefits. A reduction of 3.15 tons of CO2 emission occurs
with saving each tone of fuel [4].
The Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe
(ACARE) was established to improve the Strategic Research Agenda
dealing with accomplishing the targets of vision 2020. It has
announced its 2020 targets as follows [5];

Reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 50%.

Reduce NOx emissions by 80%.

Reduce perceived noise by 50%.

* Corresponding author. In 2011, ACARE identified its new long term aims for 2050. It
E-mail addresses: e.baharozu@gmail.com (E. Baharozu), gurkan.soykan@eng. increased its expectations for the previous three aims to 75%, 90%,
bau.edu.tr (G. Soykan), baris.ozerdem@ieu.edu.tr (M.B. Ozerdem).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.09.007
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377
and 65%, respectively [6]. Moreover, it added some new goals such
as emission free movements when aircraft is taxing and estab-
lishing a center focusing on sustainable alternative fuels. In this
regard, a More Electric Aircraft (MEA) system that is one of the
options for electric aircraft and hydrogen usage as a fuel source in
aircraft has come to the forefront in last few years.
The MEA aims to substitute pneumatic, mechanical and hy-
draulic systems with electrical ones [7]. If the MEA is compared
with traditional aircraft, its benefits far exceed the ones of the
traditional aircraft. Their detailed evaluation was revealed in many
studies [8e10]. Depending on those studies, it can be said that the
general efficiency of the MEA is better than the traditional aircraft
due to the usage of electrical systems. The maintenance of electrical
systems is simpler than that of hydraulic and pneumatic systems
[11]. Moreover, fuel consumption in such systems is lower than in
traditional aircraft. Besides the MEA concept, all electric aircraft
(AEA) is the other main option for electric aircraft systems. How-
ever, AEA will not be considered to determine the future aircraft
concept because the vital enhancements on fuel cells, batteries and
solar cells technologies will be needed [12,13].
Because of exhaustion of traditional fuel resources and envi-
ronmental concerns, hydrogen is considered as an alternative fuel
in the aviation industry [14]. By using hydrogen as a fuel, the aim of
reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gases emissions can be
achieved. The latest research on liquid hydrogen usage has pro-
vided significant background to advance the implementation of
liquid hydrogen (LH2) fueled aircraft. The advantage of hydrogen as
a fuel source is its light weight, which is especially important for
long distance flights. In other words, hydrogen has high energy
content as compared to its weight. For long flight range, a light-
weight fuel like hydrogen has become very important in the last
decade. Fuel weight has a major impact on the maximum take-off
weight (MTOW) of an aircraft [15e18]. Although hydrogen is the
most suitable fuel for future aircraft when compared with existing
jet fuels, it has some disadvantages. The crucial one is that the
usage of hydrogen in the aircraft requires ingenious technology and
design [18].
Besides these aircraft, three different energy sources are being
investigated as main power sources in the new aircraft designs
which are solar powered aircraft, fuel-cell powered aircraft, and
biofuels powered aircraft. A solar powered aircraft is an important
aircraft system to handle alternative energy sources in the aircraft
industry [19]. It will not be used in the near future for long range
flights because of the current status of the solar cell and battery
technologies [20]. On the other hand, fuel cell technologies have
been studied with the aim of providing power to the aircraft after
the 20th century [21]. Currently, all of the aircraft models with fuel
cell are small aircraft with short range [22]. To use fuel-cell tech-
nology as the main energy source for long range flight, more
intense investigation and improvement are needed. Therefore, both
solar powered aircraft and fuel-cell powered aircraft concepts are
not considered as the future aircraft concept. On the other hand,
biofuels are another alternative fuel types in order to reduce
emissions in the world. However, the price difference between
biofuel and conventional jet fuel should be decreased by policies in
order to be used by aircraft [23]. Up to now, in aircraft, the differ-
ence of biofuel from other fuel types is that the usage of biofuels
requires a mix of them with kerosene [24,25]. That's why it could
not be considered as a new fuel type. For this reason, biofuels are
also not investigated in this study.
There are a few studies about the future aircraft concepts
considering the fuels and environmental factors in the literature.
The assessment of conventional jet-fuel and liquid hydrogen
regarding to greenhouse gas emissions were conducted in 2008
and 2009 [26,27]. The results show that LH2 is a good alternative
1369
fuel to decrease harmful emissions. In order to reduce pollutant
emissions and noise, the different aircraft designs and propulsions
that were proposed for future aircraft technology were evaluated in
2014 [28]. The outcome of this study indicates that changing the
aircraft structures is not enough to achieve the ACARE goals for
2050. By taking into consideration the life cycle of CO2 and NOx
emissions, an evaluation of potential fuels for aircraft was done in
2017. In this study, also the current cost of alternative fuels is
mentioned. The results of this study suggest that liquid hydrogen as
an aircraft fuel is the most preferable option [29]. In all of these and
similar comparative studies found in the literature, comparisons
are mainly made either by considering environmental effects via
changing the propulsion of aircraft or changing the fuel type of
aircraft, separately. The main differences between other studies and
the current study is that in this study, the main aim is to find the
best future aircraft concept by suggesting both changing the fuel
types and propulsion of aircraft by considering not only the ACARE
targets but also fuel costs and H2O emissions. Additionally, beside
the cruise operation, the present study evaluated taxi operations, as
well. The specific contributions of this paper can be listed as
follows:

Evaluating three selected aircraft concepts simultaneously in
terms of energy efficiency and environmental effects,

Using multi-criteria scoring method in order to choose the best
available aircraft concept,

Suggesting a future aircraft concept to reach the ACARE's pur-
poses considering the cruise and taxi stages.
In the light of the literature review outlined above, a future
aircraft concept is proposed in terms of its energy efficiency and
effect on the environment. Firstly, traditional, MEA and LH2 fueled
aircraft are evaluated in the cruise phase of a long-range flight and
compared with one another. The multi-criteria scoring method is
preferred to compare the existing aircraft concepts considering the
ACARE performance criteria, H2O emission, and fuel prices.
Depending on the results of such a comparison, a future aircraft
concept is suggested and is investigated for the cruise period.
Furthermore, taking into account the goals established by ACARE in
2011, the taxing phase of a flight is also considered.
1.1. Selected aircraft concepts
To determine the future aircraft concept, currently used aircraft
and newly tested aircraft concepts should be investigated and
compared with each other. For such a comparison, a traditional
aircraft together with MEA and LH2 fueled aircraft concepts were
chosen.
1.2. Traditional aircraft
An aircraft can be basically defined as a machine that is capable
of flying with the help of air. Until the 19th century, scientific
studies related to the idea of heavier-than-air flight were not given
attention. Sir George Cayley, in 1799 [30], focused on this area and
he set the fundamental concept of the traditional airplanes as a
flying machine that has fixed wings, propulsion and a control
system. For this reason, he is known as the father of the traditional
aircraft. Later on, the Wright brothers not only built but also flew
with the first controlled aircraft in 1903 [31]. The first commercial
flight was carried out in 1952. Since then, thanks to the develop-
ment of technology, basic changes in aircraft have been imple-
mented to increase efficiency and customer satisfaction. However,
the main concepts remained the same in the aircraft, such as fuel
and power types.
1370 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377
Nowadays, traditional aircraft use kerosene/Jet A as a jet fuel. It
is a derivative of crude oil and, like all fossil fuels, has a negative
environmental impact. When kerosene is burnt, not only NOx and
H2O but also CO2 are emitted into the air. Emission rates of CO2 and
H2O are usually constant for kerosene, which are 3.18 gCO2/g of fuel
and 1.23 gH2O/g of fuel, respectively [17]. Beside emission rates,
other main characteristics, including molecular weight, calorific
value, and energy density per volume of kerosene, are given in
Table 1 [32].
In terms of cost, kerosene has advantages over other fuels.
Currently, the price of kerosene per kilogram is 0.43 USD [33].
However, crude oil production is expected to slow down gradually
over time and the price of kerosene will inevitably increase in
future decades.
On the other hand, the NOx emission value of the traditional
aircraft was taken as 12 g/kg of fuel [34]. This NOx emission is
accepted for long range transport aircrafts like Boeing 747-400,
Airbus A340 and Airbus A330-200. For the purpose of further
comparison, the Boeing 747-400 was chosen as the traditional
aircraft and its data, fuel efficiency and noise, were used in the
methodology and comparison section. The fuel efficiency of the
traditional aircraft was taken as 1210 kJ/(seat km) in this study
[34,35]. For the noise data, departure and approach phases of a
flight were considered. In order to make comparison easily, the
arithmetic mean of these two noise levels was calculated. The noise
level for the departure phase of the Boeing 747-400 was 91.6 dBA
and its noise level for approach phase was 88 dBA. The average
noise level was found to be 89.8 dBA [36].
1.3. More electric aircraft (MEA)
Traditional aircraft are driven by different types of non-
propulsive power such as pneumatic, hydraulic, mechanical and
electrical [8]. Because of the combination of these different types of
power, the general efficiency of the aircraft decreases and the
aircraft system is more complicated. Furthermore, when leakage
occurs in the pneumatic and hydraulic systems, it is difficult to find
and repair them [37]. In the MEA concept, to avoid system
complexity and to increase the efficiency and reliability of the
aircraft, hydraulic and pneumatic systems are replaced with elec-
trical ones. The MEA concept has been under consideration since
World War II [38]. The main aim of the MEA is to create an aircraft
with low cost, but high efficiency and sustainability. In order to
achieve these goals, power system components should be reliable
and have tolerance to faults.
Moving forward from traditional aircraft to the MEA has become
easy by inventing and embedding new electric devices as a result of
rapidly increasing technological developments. MEAs use kerosene
as a fuel like traditional aircraft and the most popular example for
MEA is Boeing 787-8 (Dreamliner). It was introduced in 2007 and
came into use in 2011 in All Nippon Airways. According to Boeing
Company, Boeing 787-8 has key features related to ACARE and
NASA expectations. When it is compared with other aircraft of the
same size such as Boeing 767, it comes to the forefront. A fuel
reduction of 20%, CO2 emission reduction and smaller noise foot-
print are achieved. Also, the NOx emission of Boeing 787-8 is 28%
Table 1
Characteristics of kerosene/Jet A.
Characteristics Kerosene/Jet A
Molecular Weight (g/mol) 168
Calorific Value (kJ/g) 46.36
Energy Density per Volume (kJ/cm3) 36.86
lower than the 2008 industry limits [39]. Boeing 787-8's fuel con-
sumption is 2.26 L/100 km per seat and Boeing 767's fuel con-
sumption is 2.74 L/100 km per seat [40,41]. This comparison was
done for medium range flights. In terms of long range, the fuel
consumption of the MEA was taken as 2.77 L/100 km per seat or
1021 kJ/(seat km) [42]. NOx emission of Boeing 787-8 was 11.88 g/
kg of fuel [43]. Noise levels of Boeing 787-8 were 81 dBA and 77.7
dBA for departure and approach phases, respectively. The average
noise level for MEA was computed as 79.35 dBA, relying on previ-
ous data [44].
By adopting the MEA in future aircraft, the following gains can
be achieved.

Installation and operating-maintenance costs are reduced.

System reliability and durability under any fault conditions are
improved, which prevents unexpected delays.

Weight, complexity and fuel consumption of the aircraft are
reduced.

General efficiency of an aircraft is increased.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions are
reduced.
By looking at these gains, it can be said that MEAs are more
beneficial than traditional aircrafts with regards to efficiency,
general cost and greenhouse gases emission for any range of
transportation.
1.4. Liquid hydrogen (LH2) fueled aircraft
To fulfill the expectations of ACARE, possible substitute fuels are
being tested. Hydrogen (H2) takes priority as the best alternative
fuel for future aircraft. It is the most abundant element in nature.
However, it cannot be found freely in nature and it must be pro-
duced by methods such as gasification and electrolysis. Natural gas
reforming is the most commonly used method of producing H2 and
it will probably remain popular in coming decades due to economic
reasons. The main characteristics of LH2 are given in Table 2 [45].
Hydrogen as a fuel was first used in a balloon in the 18th cen-
tury. At the end of the 19th century, a Zeppelin was flown as the
first dirigible using hydrogen [46]. At the end of the 20th century,
studies were accelerated regarding LH2 as an aircraft fuel [47].
LH2 was used in many projects and the main challenge was the
volume of the tanks in these studies. Size, shape and thermal
insulation of storage tank are crucial when liquid hydrogen is used.
Also, the tank insulation system must be very efficient to prevent
heat and boil-off losses. According to the Cryoplane project, iso-
lated LH2 tanks cause a rise in drag. Depending on the circum-
stances, energy consumption increases about 9e14% [47]. On the
other hand, LH2 needs larger tanks than traditional aircraft, thus
requiring different tank configurations. An integral cylindrical
shape tank with hemi-spherical ends is the most suitable alterna-
tive due to its easy installation and higher efficiency [34].
Unfortunately, when the most suitable tank configuration is
adopted, the empty weight of the tank and aircraft increase.
However, according to studies done in the Cryoplane project,
depending on the range of transportation, the take-off gross weight
Table 2
Characteristics of LH2.
Characteristics LH2
Molecular Weight (g/mol) 2.016
Calorific Value (kJ/g) 142
Energy Density per Volume (kJ/cm3) 12.7
 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377 1371

can be changed between þ4.4% and 14.8% due to the high energy
content of hydrogen. Furthermore, the ratio of the weight of stored
LH2 to the weight of the storage tank is increased with size and/or
travel distance of the aircraft. Thus, when transportation distance
becomes longer, the negative effects of hydrogen tanks can be
eliminated.
Another problem with LH2 is its delivery process and refueling
time. A traditional aircraft can be refueled easily in the airport but
when the fuel type is changed to LH2, not only its transportation but
also its storage in airports create a new set of issues. New storage
structures for LH2 should be replaced with the older ones used for
kerosene. Also, when comparing LH2 with kerosene, the refueling
process takes longer [48].
From the environmental point of view, the only concern of the
authorities is the NOx and CO2 emissions in aircraft. That is exactly
why hydrogen caught their attention. During hydrogen combus-
tion, a smaller amount of NOx and water vapor (H2O) occur because
carbon is absent. Water vapor is accepted as one of the strongest
greenhouse gases and, the H2 fueled aircraft can produce almost 2.6
times more H2O than traditional, kerosene-using aircraft [47].
However, it does not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, the
latter remains in the air almost one hundred years, while for H2O,
this period is only a couple of weeks. Also taking into consideration
the measurements related to NOx, emissions indicate that up to 80%
reduction can be achieved as compared to kerosene. On the other
hand, to make reasonable comparison among aircraft concepts, the
NOx emission value was taken from the same study that was used
to obtain data related to fuel efficiency and noise. The NOx emission
value was accepted as 4.28 g/kg of fuel [34]. Although greenhouse
gas emissions of hydrogen are much less than that of kerosene, still,
H2O and NOx emission ratios can become smaller by decreasing the
altitude of the aircraft and improving combustor design,
respectively.
Another subject which is taken into consideration in the aircraft
industry is noise. However, no difference has been found in studies
between traditional aircraft and hydrogen fueled aircraft in terms
of noise level [2].
Using liquid hydrogen as a fuel in the aircraft has many benefits
with respect to kerosene usage such as:

Higher energy content per weight (3 times) [2].

Almost 22% more efficient flights for long range transportation
[35].

Determine
aspects.

Decide scoring End.

scale range.

Create linear scoring Compare the total

function for each aspect by scores (higher value is
assigning the worst value of better and lower value
aspect to min scale value is worse) and choose
and the best value of the best option.
aspect to max scale value.

Convert the real

Sum all weighted
values of chosen
scoring values for
aspects to scoring
each alternative.
values by using
scoring functions.

Multiple weights with

Assign weight for each scoring values of
selected aspect. selected aspects for
each alternative.

Fig. 1. Flowchart of multi-criteria scoring method.

1372 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377

Table 3 2. Methodology and comparison

Technical specifications of Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 787-8.

Technical specifications Boeing-747-400 Boeing-787-8 Dreamliner Proposing the future aircraft concept considering especially the
Range (km) 13449 13621
criteria that were mentioned in the ACARE's goals depends on the
Propulsion 4 turbofan engines 2 turbofan engines situation of the selected aircraft that are given in the above section.
Max Cruise speed (km/h) 982 902 Because of this dependency, the given aircraft are to be assessed by
Passenger capacity (maximum) 660 359 using a multi-criteria scoring method called multi-criteria decision
Wing Span (m) 64.40 60.12
analysis method. The multi-criteria decision analysis method is
Empty Weight (kg) 184567 104099
used to assist when deciding on different preferences in many
engineering problems [50e52]. This method was first introduced in
1970's [53]. This technique is preferred mainly for environmental

Less take-off gross weight obtained for both medium and long
projects such as disposal and restoration sites [54e56]. Kim and
range transportation [16].
Bridges described its detailed procedure [57].

Slightly less direct operating cost [16].
In order to better understand the methodology, the flowchart of

Life cycle of engines improved; thus, maintenance costs
the process is given below in Fig. 1. The main concept of this applied
decreased [17].
method is to convert the values of crucial aspects of the selected

If LH2 bursts into the flames, it is handled more easily [2].
subject into a common scale. The first step is deciding on the

Zero CO2 emissions and less NOx emissions.
scoring scale range for the selected aspects. Depending on the
range taken into consideration, linear scoring functions are created
Despite all of these benefits, LH2 has also disadvantages when
for each aspect. The real values of crucial aspects are converted into
compared with the kerosene; such as having lower energy content
scoring values with the use of these functions. After that, a weight
per volume, having a higher price per same energy content and
should be assigned for each aspect in order to determine the
difficulties related with handling in storage and expensive price for
importance of aspects for the subject in question. If all aspects have
the insulation system of storage. Moreover, not only the design of
the same importance, the value of weights should be equal to 1
the aircraft but also the fuel supply substructure should be changed
divided by the number of selected aspects or criteria. This means
due to the usage of LH2. The cost of LH2 mostly depends on the
that the summation of all weights should be equal to 1. Finally, all
production method. It can be produced from renewable energy
aspects for each alternative have a new value in the selected range.
resources, petroleum, electrolysis, coal and natural gas. When the
The weighted values must be added together in order to find the
cost of LH2 is calculated, initial investment costs and operating
total score for each alternative. All total scores should be compared
costs should be considered. By changing production method, CO2
to figure out the best option among the alternatives. Generally, the
emission rates which occurred in the production process of LH2 can
largest value of the selected range is accepted as the best option and
be reduced. However, the price of LH2 per kg is higher for renew-
the lowest value is accepted as the worst option. In terms of
able energy-based production. Its minimum cost is 1.2 USD/kg and
mathematical formulation, a total score can be calculated by using
it is obtained with natural gas-based production [49]. Yet it is still
Equation (1). In that equation, Si represents the scoring value of ith
three times more expensive than kerosene prices. Besides these
criteria, wi demonstrates the weight of ith criteria and TSj shows
considerations, the efficiency of an aircraft using hydrogen is
the total score of each alternative. m is equal to the number of al-
smaller than the one that uses kerosene for short and medium
ternatives and n is equal to the number of selected criteria or
range at present.
aspects.
In the light of results mentioned above, it is obvious that LH2 is
more advantageous than kerosene for long range transportation X
n
from the point of cost, environmental and efficiency aspects. TSj ¼ wi Si ; j ¼ 1 to m (1)
However, it has no benefits for short and medium range trans- i¼1
portation but for the environmental aspects.
In this study, the evaluation of three aircraft concepts is inves-
tigated under three different cases by using the multi-criteria
scoring method. As mentioned above, Boeing 747-400 and Boeing

Table 4
Scoring criteria explanations for ACARE aspects.

Score Selected Criteria

CO2 emission NOx emission Fuel efficiency Noise

1 High risk (Traditional aircraft and MEA) High risk (Traditional aircraft) High consumption (Traditional aircraft) High level sound (LH2 and Traditional aircraft)
2 Medium risk Medium risk Medium consumption Medium level sound
3 Zero emission/No risk Low risk (LH2 fueled aircraft) Low consumption (LH2 fueled aircraft) Low level sound (MEA)

Table 5
All data for selected aircraft concepts.

Traditional Aircraft MEA LH2 Fueled Aircraft

CO2 emission (gCO2/g of fuel) 3.18 3.18 0

H2O emission (gH2O/g of fuel) 1.23 1.23 3.14
NOx emission (gNOx/kg of fuel) 12 11.88 4.28
Fuel efficiency (kJ/seat km) 1210 1021 950
Fuel cost (USD/kg) 0.43 0.43 1.2
Noise (dBA) 89.8 79.35 89.8
 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377 1373

787-8 are chosen to compare the traditional aircraft and MEA. The
technical specifications of these aircrafts are given in Table 3 [58]. A
commercial aircraft with LH2 fuel is not available for the time being.
Therefore, the necessary data for the comparison of the concepts
are used from the results of Cryoplane project that is mentioned in
the above section. The differences between the cases are the
number of selected criteria and the assigned weight values. The
first case consists of four criteria and the weight factors are
assigned as being equal. The second and third cases cover six
criteria. However, the weight values of selected criteria are taken
differently for both the second and the third case. The score for each
criterion ranges between 1 and 3 in all cases. 1 presents the least
desirable condition whereas 3 refers to the most desirable condi-
tion. Scoring criteria explanations for ACARE aspects are given in
Table 4. Depending on scaling, scoring functions are created and
scores are assigned based on numerical data which are summarized

3 3

Score
Score

1 1
5
79.35 89.8 4.28 12
Noise (dBA) NOx Emission (gNOx/kg of fuel)

(a) (b)

3 3
Score

Score

1 1
1.23 3.14
3 0 3.18
H2O Emission (gH2O/g of fuel) CO2 Emission (gCO2/g of fuel)

(c) (d)

3 3
Score
Score

1 1
3
0.43 1.2 950 1
1210
Fuel Cost (USD/kg) Fuel Efficiency (kj/seat km)

(e) (f)

Fig. 2. Scoring functions for all cases (a) Noise (b) NOx emission (c) H2O emission (d) CO2 emission (e) Fuel cost (f) Fuel efficiency.
1374 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377

Table 6 H2O emission. Weighted scoring values for the third case are given
Scoring values of the first case for all aircraft concepts. in Table 10. According to these values, traditional aircraft again
Traditional Aircraft MEA LH2 Fueled Aircraft receives the last place with a 1.4 total score value. The new total
CO2 emission 1 1 3
score value of LH2 fueled aircraft is 2.2 and receives the first place.
NOx emission 1 1.08 3 On the other hand, MEA has gathered a close value to LH2 fueled
Fuel efficiency 1 2.45 3 aircraft with a value equal to 2.1.
Noise 1 3 1 With regard to different criteria and weights, three aircraft
concepts are evaluated above by using the multi-criteria scoring
method. As the main step of the multi-criteria scoring method,
Table 7 scoring values and weighted scoring values are obtained for
Weighted scoring values of the first case for all aircraft concepts.
different cases by considering all three aircraft concepts. These
Traditional Aircraft MEA LH2 Fueled Aircraft scoring and weighted scoring values are combined into a single
CO2 emission 0.25 0.25 0.75 table, respectively as Tables 11 and 12, for clarity. The results ob-
NOx emission 0.25 0.27 0.75 tained for each of those cases are compared in Fig. 3. In each case,
Fuel efficiency 0.25 0.612 0.75 MEA and LH2 fueled aircraft compete with each other. Besides this,
Noise 0.25 0.75 0.25 when these aircraft concepts are compared with the traditional
Total Score 1 1.88 2.50
aircraft concept, their performance is better than the traditional
one. The figure asserts that MEA and LH2 fueled aircraft should be
taken into account to suggest a future aircraft approach.
in Table 5. Traditional aircraft values are accepted as a reference.
Moreover, scoring functions of CO2 emission, NOx emission, fuel
efficiency, noise, H2O emission and fuel cost are illustrated in Fig. 2 3. Future aircraft concept
for all three cases. After the assignment, the total score is calculated
for each type of aircraft. Depending on energy efficiency and environmental issues, the
In the first case, the first four crucial aspects are considered and future aircraft concept is suggested based on existing aircraft con-
investigated for each aircraft concept to achieve the ACARE targets. cepts. The future aircraft concept is defined by using qualitative and
Depending on the scoring functions, the score values for the four quantitative results that are given above. Because of the results in
aspects are given in Table 6. The weight factor is chosen as 1/4 for Tables 9 and 10, total scores for MEA and LH2 fueled aircraft con-
the first case due to the fact that they are all ACARE targets and have cepts are acceptable in terms of efficiency and environmental ef-
the same importance. Each aircraft concept has different favorable fects. Separately, both of LH2 fueled aircraft and MEA concepts have
characteristic. For example, the LH2 fueled aircraft has no CO2 their own pros and cons. However, when liquid hydrogen fuel
emission, the lowest NOx emission value is 4.28, and the lowest combines with the MEA, the advantages are amplified. Their
energy utilization is 950 kJ/seat-km [35]. Also, MEA has the lowest
noise. However, among these three concepts, the hydrogen fueled
Table 8
aircraft has the highest total score with 2.5. MEA gets the second
Scoring values of the second and third cases for all aircraft concepts.
place with 1.88. As expected, the traditional aircraft has the last
place with 1 total scoring value. Table 7 shows these results for the Traditional Aircraft MEA LH2 Fueled Aircraft

first case. The first case results show that traditional aircraft should CO2 emission 1 1 3
be replaced with either MEA or LH2 fueled aircraft to fulfill ACARE H2O emission 3 3 1
NOx emission 1 1.08 3
expectations.
Fuel efficiency 1 2.45 3
Although ACARE criteria are crucial and these expectations Fuel cost 3 3 1
should be fulfilled, another two significant norms also exist within Noise 1 3 1
the structure of the future aircraft concept. These are H2O emission
and fuel prices. While H2O affects global warming, fuel prices are
considered by aviation companies. For that reason, these two as- Table 9
pects are counted in with other four aspects for the second and Weighted scoring values of the second case for all aircraft concepts.
third cases. The scoring values of six criteria are given in Table 8. Traditional Aircraft MEA LH2 Fueled Aircraft
In the second case, weight factors are accepted the same for all
CO2 emission 0.16 0.16 0.5
six aspects and assigned as 1/6. For assessment, their weighted
H2O emission 0.5 0.5 0.16
score values are indicated in Table 9. Due to the higher price of LH2 NOx emission 0.16 0.18 0.5
fuel, and a larger amount of H2O emission, the total score value of Fuel efficiency 0.16 0.41 0.5
LH2 is low, i.e. 1.98. The MEA concept takes first place with 2.25. Fuel cost 0.5 0.5 0.16
Noise 0.16 0.5 0.16
Even though the traditional aircraft total value is 1.64 which is
Total Score 1.64 2.25 1.98
closer to the LH2 fueled aircraft value, the cost of liquid hydrogen is
expected to go down in the upcoming decades. Some forecast in-
dicates that fuel prices of kerosene and liquid hydrogen could
Table 10
become equal to each other in 2040 [17]. Then, the LH2 total score Weighted scoring values of the third case for all aircraft concepts.
value will be as good as MEA.
For the last case, six aspects are considered as in the second case. Traditional Aircraft MEA LH2 Fueled Aircraft

The difference between the last two of them is the value of the CO2 emission 0.2 0.2 0.6
weight factors. The different weight factors are used in the third H2O emission 0.3 0.3 0.1
NOx emission 0.2 0.2 0.6
case. The larger weight factors are added to the four ACARE criteria
Fuel efficiency 0.2 0.5 0.6
for a more realistic comparison. Values equal to 0.2 and 0.1 are Fuel cost 0.3 0.3 0.1
chosen as weight factors. A value of 0.2 is assigned to ACARE criteria Noise 0.2 0.6 0.2
and 0.1 is assigned to the other two criteria, which are fuel cost and Total Score 1.4 2.1 2.2
 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377 1375

Table 11
Scoring values of the all cases for all aircraft concepts.

Case Aircraft concepts CO2 emission H2O emission NOx emission Fuel efficiency Fuel cost Noise

First Case Traditional Aircraft 1 NC 1 1 NC 1

MEA 1 NC 1.08 2.45 NC 3
LH2 Fueled Aircraft 3 NC 3 3 NC 1
Second and Third Case Traditional Aircraft 1 3 1 1 3 1
MEA 1 3 1.08 2.45 3 3
LH2 Fueled Aircraft 3 1 3 3 1 1
*
NC means not considered.

Table 12
Weighted scoring values of the all cases for all aircraft concepts.

Case Aircraft concepts CO2 emission H2O emission NOx emission Fuel efficiency Fuel cost Noise Total Score

First Case Traditional Aircraft 0.25 NC 0.25 0.25 NC 0.25 1

MEA 0.25 NC 0.27 0.612 NC 0.75 1.88
LH2 Fueled Aircraft 0.75 NC 0.75 0.75 NC 0.25 2.50
Second Case Traditional Aircraft 0.16 0.5 0.16 0.16 0.5 0.16 1.64
MEA 0.16 0.5 0.18 0.41 0.5 0.5 2.25
LH2 Fueled Aircraft 0.5 0.16 0.5 0.5 0.16 0.16 1.98
Third Case Traditional Aircraft 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.4
MEA 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.6 2.1
LH2 Fueled Aircraft 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 2.2

*NC means not considered.

combination creates the proposed future aircraft concept. In the
remainder of this paper, hybrid aircraft is used to indicate the future
aircraft system. In this type of aircraft, not only the negative effects
of individual systems can be reduced but also their positive effects
can be magnified. Although MEA and LH2 fueled aircraft are a good
option by themselves, the hybrid aircraft seems to be the best op-
tion to satisfy current and future targets of ACARE. Depending on
the range of transportation, the effects of hybrid aircraft change due
to LH2 usage as a fuel. However, with the benefits of more electric
aircraft, the hybrid aircraft would be the best option for not only
long range but also for the short and the medium range of
transportation.
A comparison of such a hybrid system with the traditional
aircraft for any range of transportation is given in Table 13. This
table is created based on the advantages and disadvantages of the
MEA and LH2, as indicated above.
As it can be understood from Table 13, with the adaptation of
hybrid systems, negative environmental impacts can be remarkably
reduced. System maintenance costs and fuel consumption can be
decreased, as well. The weight of the aircraft also can be reduced
due to the effect of wing designs when LH2 is used and the removal
of the pneumatic and hydraulic systems when the more electric
concept is applied. Moreover, the reliability of the aircraft can be
improved thanks to the electrical construction of the MEA and
easily controllable LH2 fires. These advantages are valid for any type
of range transportation. Even though its efficiency and total cost,
which consists of maintenance, operating and fuel costs, are better
than traditional aircraft, the MEA system has better values than the

2.5

2
Total Score

1.5

0.5

0
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Traditional Aircraft MEA LH2 Fueled Aircraft

Fig. 3. The comparison of total scoring values among aircraft concepts.

1376 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377
Table 13
The comparison between traditional and hybrid aircraft.
Traditional Hydrogen fuel with
Aircraft the MEA (Hybrid Aircraft)
CO2 Emission Higher No Emission
NOx Emission Higher Less
Weight of Aircraft Higher Less
Operating Cost Higher Less
Maintenance Cost Higher Less
Fuel Storage Easy to handle Hard to handle
Noise Higher Less
Fuel Cost (per kg) Less Higher
Fuel Efficiency Less Higher
Aircraft Reliability Less Higher
hybrid aircraft system for short and medium range transportation.
The only difficulties about the hybrid system are its design and the
integration of electrical components. With regard to CO2/NOx
emissions, it is obvious that greenhouse gas emissions can be
minimized in any range of transportation by implementing the
hybrid aircraft system. Yet, looking at the cost and efficiency as-
pects, the hybrid system is valuable for long range transportation in
the current conditions of the aviation industry.
The future aircraft concept is proposed considering the cruise
period. Beside this, the taxi phase of a flight is considered in the
future aircraft concept based on the ACARE's goals established in
2011. Taxing is also important for the aviation industry. Because
when aircraft is taxing, the main engines of the aircraft are used in
order to move the aircraft along the airport runways. This condition
is unwanted due to the considerable amount of fuel consumption
[59]. In order to decrease the fuel consumption in the taxing phase,
fuel cell technology can be used to supply the necessary power. To
achieve this, fuel cell systems could be replaced with APU or used
together with APU. When it is used together with APU, the weight
of APU can be decreased. Moreover, one of the 2050 targets of
ACARE is the emission free taxing period. To eliminate CO2 emission
during the taxing period, the fuel cell technology is the best
application. The usage of the fuel cell in aircraft concepts not only
increases energy efficiency both also reduces the harmful emissions
into the environment. In light of these explanations, the proposed
aircraft concept offers the usage of fuel-cell technology during the
taxing period.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, different aircraft concepts are evaluated by
considering both their environmental effects and their efficiency.
Multi-criteria scoring method is applied in order to find the most
promising aircraft concept by taking into consideration the ACARE's
targets. In the light of the information obtained by the multi-
criteria scoring method, it is obvious that selected aircraft con-
cepts - MEA and LH2 fueled aircraft - have better scoring values
than the traditional aircraft. It can be deduced that both of them are
suitable for the future aviation industry. Likewise, the proposed
hybrid system outperforms traditional aircrafts in terms of energy
efficiency, total cost and environmental aspect for any range
transportation. For medium and short range, the MEA concept
comes to the forefront. Although minor disadvantages of such a
hybrid system exists, these will be minimized with future tech-
nologies. In 2040, it is expected that while the cost of kerosene will
continue to increase, the cost of hydrogen fuel will have decreased
by almost 50%. This development will have noticeable effects on the
hybrid system from the point of view of the total cost so that the
hybrid system will outperform the traditional aircraft in all ranges
of transportation. Moreover, fuel cell technology should be
considered to reach emission free taxing period for future aircraft
design. This further enhances the importance of the hybrid aircraft
concept. The hybrid aircraft concept is the inevitable solution for
the future of aviation industry. Further studies are needed that
investigate the future aircraft concept in relation to short and
medium range transportation considering energy efficiency and
environmental issues.
References
[1] Airport Council International (ACI). World airport traffic report. 2013. Avail-
able at: http://www.aci.aero/News/Releases/Most-Recent/2014/09/16/ACI-
releases-2013-World-Airport-Traffic-Report-Airport-passenger-traffic-still-
going-strong-air-cargo-inches-along-after-third-year-of-weak-growth. 2013
(Accessed 25February 17).
[2] Khandelwal B, Karakurt A, Sekaran PR, Sethi V, Singh R. Hydrogen powered
aircraft: the future of air transport. Prog Aerosp Sci 2013;60:45e59.
[3] Lee JJ, Lukachko PS, Waitz IA. Aircraft and energy use. Encycl Energy 2004:
29e38.
[4] Zhang H, Saudemont C, Robyns B, Petit M. Comparison of technical features
between a more electric aircraft and a hybrid electric vehicle. In: IEEE vehicle
power and propulsion conference (VPPC); 2008.
[5] Report of the group personalities European Aeronautics: a vision for 2020
Meetings society's needs and winning global leadership. 2001. http://www.
acare4europe.org/sites/acare4europe.org/files/document/Vision%202020_0.
pdf (Accessed 07.July 2017).
[6] Flightpath 2050 Europe’s Vision for Aviation Available at: https://ec.europa.
eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/air/doc/flightpath2050.pdf; 2011
(Accessed 07 July 17).
[7] Soykan G, Baharozu E. Power flow application on an air vehicle electrical
power systems. In: 1th international symposium on sustainable aviation;
2015.
[8] Abdelhafez AA, Forsyth AJ. A review of more-electric aircraft. In: 13th inter-
national conference on aerospace sciences & aviation technology; 2009.
[9] Howse M. All electric aircraft. Power Eng 2003;17:35e7.
[10] Jones RI. The more electric aircraft: the past and the future?. In: IEE collo-
quium on electrical machines and systems for the more electric aircraft; 1999.
[11] Ounis H, Bareni B, Roboam X, Andrade AD. Multi-level integrated optimal
design for power systems of more electric craft. Math Comput Simul
2015;130:223e35.
[12] Wheeler P. Technology for the more and all electric aircraft of the future. In:
IEEE international conference on automatica (ICA-ACCA); 2016.
[13] Hepperle M. Electric flight-potential and limitations. In: Workshop on energy
efficient technologies and concepts of operation; 2012.
€
[14] Contreras AS, Ozay YK, Veziroglu TN. Hydrogen as aviation fuel: a comparison
with hydrocarbon fuels. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1997;22:1053e60.
[15] Noll TE, Brown JM, Perez-Davis ME, Ishmael SD, Tiffany GC, Gaier M. Inves-
tigation of the Helios prototype aircraft mishap. Tech. Rep. NASA Langley
Research Center; 2004.
[16] Verstraete D. Long range transport aircraft using hydrogen fuel. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2013;38:14824e31.
[17] Janic M. Greening commercial air transportation by using liquid Hydrogen
(LH2) as a fuel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(29):16426e41.
[18] Godula-Jopek A, Westenberger A. Hydrogen-fuelled aeroplanes. Compend
Hydrogen Energy 2016:67e85.
[19] Rizzo E, Frediani A. A model for solar powered aircraft preliminary design.
Aero. J 2008:57e78.
[20] Abbe G, Smith H. Technological development trends in solar-powered aircraft
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60(C):770e83.
[21] Edelman S, Poza DPI, Krieg T. Fuel cell APU's in commercial aircraft e an
assessment of SOFC and PEMFC concepts. In: 24th international congress of
the aeronautical sciences; 2004.
[22] Kallo J, Flade S, Schirmer J, Stephan T, Werner C, Busemeyer L, et al. Beneficial
fuel cell and battery concepts in aviation. In: Fuel Cells Science and Tech-
nology Conference; 2016 .
[23] International Renewable Energy Agency. Biofuels for aviation technologhy
brief. 2017. Available at: https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/
Publications/IRENA_Biofuels_for_Aviation_2017.pdf (Accessed 15 July 17).
[24] Azami MH, Savill M. Comparative study of alternative biofuels on aircraft
engine performance. J Aerosp Eng 2017;231(8):1509e21.
[25] Mazlan NM, Savill M, Kipouros T. Evaulating NOx and CO emissions of bio-SPK
fuel using a simplified engine combustion model: a preliminary study to-
wards sustainable environment. Kournal Aerosp Eng 2017;231(5):859e65.
[26] Janic M. The potential of liquid hydrogen for the future ‘carbon-neutral’ air
transport system. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2008;13(7):428e35.
[27] Nojoumi H, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Greenhouse gas emissions assessment of
hydrogen and kerosene-fueled aircraft propulsion. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2009;34(3):1363e9.
[28] Graham WR, Hall CA, Vera Morales M. The potential of future aircraft tech-
nology for noise and pollutant emissions reduction. Transp Policy 2014;34:
36e51.
[29] Bicer Y, Dincer I. Life cycle evaluation of hydrogen and other potential fuels for
 E. Baharozu et al. / Energy 140 (2017) 1368e1377
aircrafts. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:10722e38.
[30] Britannica Academic. Sir George Cayley. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at:
https://global.britannica.com/biography/Sir-George-Cayley; 2016 (Accessed
25 February 17).
[31] Johnson MA. On the aviation trail in the Wright brothers' west side neigh-
borhood in dayton, Ohio. Following in the Footsteps of the Wright Brothers:
Their Sites and Stories. 2001.
[32] Gofman E. Energy density of aviation fuel. 2003. Available at: http://
hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml (Accessed 01 September
16).
[33] Jet fuel monthly price. Available at: http://www.indexmundi.com/
commodities/?commodity¼jet-fuel; (Accessed 01 September 16).
[34] Brewer GD. Hydrogen aircraft technology. CRC Press; 1991.
[35] Williams LO. An end to global warming. Elsevier Science Ltd; 2002.
[36] Rhoder D. Airbus A380 noise measurements, civil aviation authority. 2012.
Available at: http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/55783371/airbus-
a380-noise-measurements (Accessed 25 February 17).
[37] Rosero JA, Ortega JA, Aldabas E, Romeral L. Moving towards a more electric
aircraft. IEEE Aerosp Electron Syst Mag 2007;22(3):3e9.
[38] Maldonado MA, Shah NM, Cleek KJ, Walia PS, Korba G. Power management
and distribution system for a more-electric aircraft (MADMEL)-program sta-
tus. In: Proceedings of the 31st intersociety energy conversion engineering
conference; 1996.
[39] Karimi KJ. Future aircraft power systems-integration challenges. Fourth
annual carnegie mellon conference on the electricity industry, future energy
systems: efficiency, security, control. Carnegie Mellon University; 2008.
[40] Hamilton S, Fehrm B. 747 max 8 could be enabler for some LCC long haul.
2014. Available at: https://leehamnews.com/2014/12/08/737-max-8-could-
be-enabler-for-some-lcc-long-haul (Accessed 01 September 16).
[41] 767 performance summary. Boeing Company. 2006. Available at: http://www.
mdc.com/assets/pdf/commercial/startup/pdf/767_perf.pdf (Accessed 01
September 16).
[42] Bhaskara V. Analysis the Boeing 797-8 and Airbus A380-800neo are far from
dead. 2016. Available at: http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2016/01/17/boeing-
787-8-a330-800neo-far-from-dead (Accessed 01 September 16).
[43] Boeing 787-8 (Dreamliner) sample analysis. 2005. Available at: http://www.
lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ (Accessed 01 September 16).
[44] Civil Aviation Authority. Noise data for the first 17 Months of boeing 787
operations at heathrow airport. 2014. Available at: https://publicapps.caa.co.
uk/docs/33/CAP1191_Noise_Data_for_Boeing787_Heathrow.pdf (Accessed 01
September 16).
[45] Bossel U, Eliasson B. Energy and the hydrogen economy. 2003. Available at:
1377
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf
(Accessed 01 September 16).
[46] Eckener H. Count Zeppelin: the man and his work. London: Massie Publishing
Company, Ltd.; 1938.
[47] Westenberger A. Liquid hydrogen fueled aircraft-system analysis. Final tech-
nical report (publishable version), Cryoplane project. 2003.
[48] Krishna R, Titus E, Salimian M, Okhay O, Rajendran S, Jose G, et al. Hydrogen
storage for energy application. In: Liu J, editor. Hydrogen storage, intech;
2012. p. 243e66.
[49] DOE hydrogen and fuel cell technical advisory committee. Current hydrogen
cost. 2013. Available at: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/htac_oct13_
10_bonner.pdf (Accessed 01 September 16).
[50] Kucukali S. Finding the most suitable existing hydropower reservoirs for the
development of pumped-storage schemes: an integrated approach. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;37:502e8.
[51] Kittur J, Poornanand C, Prajwal R, Pavan RP, Pavankumar MP, Vishal P, et al.
Evaulating optimal generation using different multi-criteria decision making
methods. In: International conference on circuit, power and computing
technologies; 2015.
[52] Sara J, Stikkelman RM, Herder PM. Asssesing complexity of carbon capture
and storage using multi-criteria decision-making methods. In: 9th annual
IEEE internatıonal systems conference; 2015.
[53] Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value
tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley; 1976.
[54] Yoe C. Trade-off analysis planning and procedures guidebook. Institute of
Water Resources Document No. IWR 02-R-2; 2002. Available at: http://www.
iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/02-R-2.pdf (Accessed 01
September 16).
[55] Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Linkov I, Varghese A, Seager T. Application of multi-
criteria decision analysis in environmental decision-making. Integr Environ
Assess Manag 2005;1(2):95e108.
[56] Zardari NH, Ahmed K, Shirazi SH, Yusop ZB. Weighting methods and their
effects on multi-criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources
management. Springer; 2015.
[57] Kim JB, Bridges TS. Risk, uncertainty, and decision analysis applied to the
management of aquatic nuisance species. ANSRP Technical Notes Collection.
ERDC/TN ANSRP-06e1. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center; 2006.
[58] Aircraft types. Available at: http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_en.php; 2017
(Accessed 17 July 17).
[59] Sarlioglu B. More electric aircraft: review, challenges, and opportunities for
commercial transport aircraft. IEEE Trans Transp Elect. 2015;1(1):54e64.