d4.1 – report on proposed future retrofit · pdf fileproprietary rights statement this...

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS STATEMENT

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION, WHICH IS PROPRIETARY TO THE RETROFIT CONSORTIUM. NEITHER THIS

DOCUMENT NOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL BE USED, DUPLICATED OR COMMUNICATED BY ANY MEANS

TO ANY THIRD PARTY, IN WHOLE OR IN PARTS, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE RETROFIT

CONSORTIUM THIS RESTRICTION LEGEND SHALL NOT BE ALTERED OR OBLITERATED ON OR FROM THIS DOCUMENT

D4.1 – Report on proposed future retrofit programs

WP / Task N°: D4.1

Lead Contractor (deliverable responsible): FS

Due date of deliverable: 31/03/2011.

Actual submission date: 04/11/2011.

Report Period: 6 month □ 12 month □ 18 month □

Period covered: from: Month 2 to: Month 7

Grant Agreement number: 265867

Project acronym: RETROFIT

Project title: Reduced Emissions of Transport aircraft Operations by Fleetwise Implementation of new Technology

Funding Scheme: Support Action

Start date of the project: 01/11/2010 Duration: 16 months

Project coordinator name, title and organisation: M. Knegt, Fokker Services

Tel: +31 252 627211

Fax:

E-mail: [email protected]

Project website address:

ID: RETROFIT _D4.1_FS_V1.0_20111104.doc Date: 04-11-11

Version: 1.0 Security: PUBLIC

/24

List of authors

Full Name Company Information

Emile Kroon Fokker Services

Dave Chilton Fokker Services

Auke Nouwens Fokker Services

Erik Baalbergen NLR

Johan Kos NLR

Evert Jesse ADSE

Ad de Graaff AD Cuenta

Harry Tsahalis PARAGON

Document Information

Document Name:

Document ID: D4.1

Version: V1.0

Version Date: 04-11-2011

Author: D. Chilton

Security: PUBLIC

Approvals

Name Company Date Visa

Coordinator Knegt FS

WP leader Kroon / Nouwens FS

Documents history

Version Date Modification Authors

0.1 27-06-11 Initial final version, submitted to partners for supplements and comments

R. Pronk D. Chilton

0.2 01-09-11 Partner suggested points of interest for retrofit D. Chilton

0.3 28-09-11 Extra suggestions and comments added D. Chilton

1.0 04-11-11 Final comments from partners added D. Chilton



/24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................................................... 7

1.4 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT ........................................................................................................... 7

1.5 INTENDED READERSHIP ............................................................................................................. 8

2 CONSORTIUM PARTNERS SELECTION FROM RETROFIT LONG LIST ................. 9

2.1 SELECTION AS RECEIVED FROM CONSORTIUM PARTNERS ....................................................... 9

2.2 RE-ENGINING: ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 ALTERNATIVE FUELS: ............................................................................................................. 11

2.4 AERODYNAMICS: ..................................................................................................................... 12

2.5 CABIN: ..................................................................................................................................... 14

2.6 STRUCTURES: .......................................................................................................................... 15

2.7 AVIONICS: ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.8 EQUIPMENT: ............................................................................................................................ 17

2.9 SECURITY & SAFETY TECHNOLOGY: ..................................................................................... 18

2.10 OTHER: .................................................................................................................................. 19

3 CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD ............................................................................ 20

3.1 PROPOSALS FOR COST – BENEFIT ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 20

3.2 THE THREE CHOSEN PROPOSALS ............................................................................................ 21

4 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX 1 .................................................................................................................................. 24



/24

Glossary

Acronym Signification

ADS-B Automatic Dependant Surveillance - Broadcast

AFC Active Flow Control

AHMS Advanced Health Monitoring System

APU Auxiliary Power Unit

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ATA Air Transport Association of America

ATAG Air Transport Action Group

ATM Air Traffic Management

CAAFI Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative

CMS Communication Management System

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CPDLC Controller Pilot Data Link Communication

CTL Coal To Liquid

DCDU Datalink Control and Display Unit

DOP Data Over Power

DoW Description of Work

EC European Commission

ECGA European Commission Grant Agreement

FDM Flight Data Management / Monitoring

EIB European Investment Bank

EU European Union

FMS Flight Management System

GEnx General Electric next generation

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

GTL Gas To Liquid

HLFC Hybrid Laminar Flow Control

HULD Hardened Unit Load Device

HUMS Health and Usage Monitoring System

HVO Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil

IATA International Air Transport Association

MRO Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul

NEO New Engine Option



/24

Acronym Signification

NOx Generic term for the mono-nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) [Wikipedia]

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

POD Power Over Data

RETROFIT Reduced Emissions of TRansport aircraft Operations by Fleetwise Implementation of new Technology

RIFD Radio Frequency IDentification

ROI Return On Investment

RTD Research and Technology Development

STF Shear Thickening Fluid

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SHM Structural Health Monitoring

STC Supplementary Type Certificate

TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TSO Technical Standard Order

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

VTP Vertical Tail Plane

WAIC Wireless Avionics Intra Communication



/24

1 Introduction

1.1 Context

The RETROFIT project analyses the possibilities and attractiveness of retrofitting new technical solutions into the large existing fleet of commercial airliners. A new generation of airliners is only at the horizon. Existing aircraft still have a long life to serve, whereas the operational environment is changing. Airlines are confronted with emission trading limits, new noise regulations, increasing fuel prices, new safety and security demands, new ATM environment where older aircraft cannot comply with the new ATM standards, and passenger expectations of enjoying the highest levels of comfort possible.

The project first addresses the reference group requirements and also the consortium member’s interests by investigating current and future technology options to retrofit existing aircraft. Next, it addresses the need to perform additional research to make retrofits attractive as well as the question if specific research activities should be integrated in the EC framework programs. It also makes a cost-benefit analysis based on existing airline fleets and potential applications of new technical solutions.

1.2 Background

The European aeronautical industries and their supply chains, the research centres, and the universities are continuously developing, integrating and validating new technologies and processes in order to ensure industrial competitiveness in answering the needs of its customers and of the European society.

Aeronautical research and technology development has been stimulated for many years by the European Commission through Framework Programmes. The Transport Programme in the 6th and 7th Framework funds a large number of projects addressing the need for more environmentally friendly, passenger friendly, and cost effective air transport, involving both small and targeted (i.e., level 1) projects and integrated (i.e., level 2) projects. In addition, the public-private joint technology initiatives Clean Sky and SESAR have started. There are also numerous national programmes in the member states also stimulating the development of aeronautical technologies and processes.

The fleet-wise application of the new technologies and processes through retrofits would enable societal and economic benefits earlier and on a much larger scale, since a large portion of the future transport fleet will be aircraft that are in service today.

The project, and in particular work package 4, refines the opportunities for retrofitting that existing and new technologies offer as in the “initial long list”. The inventory includes input from literature investigation, research knowledge, as well as inputs from experts in several technology areas.

The wishes and input of all of the consortium members have been sought to give a balanced impression of the available technology. This combined with a realistic knowledge of certification requirements involving new technology and the risks involved has resulted in a close scrutiny by the members.



/24

In keeping with the Co-operation document ECGA no 265867 all of the initial aspects listed in the scope have been incorporated in the initial long list, these possible technologies have been thoroughly scrutinised to produce this proposal for future retrofit programs.

One of the main drivers is the observation that airframes with high remaining cycles are retired due to outdated engines, instruments or cabins. To extend the useful lives of these airframes is ultimately the goal of this project. Bearing that in mind it is also expected that current practices and their drivers as represented by existing re-engining projects and winglet programmes will be considered a key element of this study and addressed accordingly.

1.3 Purpose of this document

This document contains the results of the assessment and profiles the systems selected for further cost benefit analysis.

The scope of the analysis of is to identify technically and economically viable technologies for retrofits. This is in accordance with the WP3 objectives and the task 4.1 description (‘In order to direct the inventory towards retrofit applicability the inventory will include an assessment of the potential for application in retrofit’). The prime purpose is to bring the application of technologies in retrofits to a cost-benefit analysis, to allow an assessment for the possible industry consortia participants and the estimated impact thereof.

1.4 About this document

By using the guidelines of the European commission the following areas were identified as being important to the seventh framework programme:

• Environmental performance;

• Cost-effectiveness of the aircraft;

• Operational improvements;

• Passenger and Crew well being (safety, comfort).

The following aspects were further identified by the consortium partners and the stakeholders during the initial retrofit orientation as being important to airlines and aircraft owners:

• Emission trading limits;

• New noise rules;

• Increasing fuel prices;

• New safety and security demands;

• New ATM environment where older aircraft cannot comply with new ATM standards;

• Passenger expectations to enjoy the highest level of comfort as possible.



/24

To provide a matrix of technologies that could be considered for RETROFIT it was decided to group these in the following technology areas (cf. [Retrofit-D25]):

• Re-engining: engine replacement and modifications to reduce emissions and noise, and to improve fuel and cost efficiency;

• Alternative fuels: to reduce emissions (e.g., reduce net CO2 emissions and reduce SO2 emissions due to reduction or elimination of sulphur contents of current aviation fuel), costs and dependence on fossil fuels;

• Aerodynamics: reduction of drag and noise;

• Cabin: improvements of passenger comfort and crew workspace / environment during flight (cabin, cockpit), e.g., thermal, noise, ride comfort, global / local solutions, design;

• Structures: New / Replacement of components and/or parts (benefits per performance, weight, maintenance, costs), Structural Health Monitoring technologies and solutions (sensing networks, software, optimisation) - not integrated to main avionics;

• Avionics: New systems to improve flight efficiency in current and future ATM environments;

• Equipment: to improve flight efficiency, to manage energy, to reduce weight;

• Security & Safety technology: to improve on-board security and safety of aircraft and passengers;

• Other: Out of the box approaches, technology for passenger efficiency, life cycle costs.

1.5 Intended readership

This report is targeted towards the project consortium only. It may be used for the EC as background information for the identified retrofit needs.



/24

2 Consortium Partners Selection from retrofit long list

2.1 Selection as received from consortium partners

The consortium decided to allow each organisation to provide a list of retrofit technologies that were considered of interest to them as potential retrofit solutions.

To try to ensure that the goals of RETROFIT are achievable it was decided to promote technology with TRL levels of 6 and above to produce realistic solutions. All other technology that requires further investigation or development has been highlighted in report D2.2 of RETROFIT.

The chosen technologies are presented in this report in terms of the following categories:

- Technology;

- Economic benefit;

- Environmental benefit;

- Costs/technical risks;

- Result/comment.

To give a summary of the consortium members proposed technologies all of the proposals have been included even the ones requiring RTD and included in recommendations to D2.5 of RETROFIT.

The consortium members delivered their specific selections; this is shown by the keyword for each partner in the category technology. After version 0.1 the lead contractor of D4.2 proposed a number of technologies to be used as the cost-benefit choices. Within the consortium consensus was reached regarding the proposals and these are to be found in para. 3.1 of this report. The following list gives an indication of the interests and areas of expertise of the consortium members:

CO1 FOKKER SERVICES

CC2 AD CUENTA

CC3 NLR

CC4 PARAGON

CC5 ADSE

CC6 L-UP SAS



/24

2.2 Re-engining:

Technology Economic benefit Environmental benefit Costs / Technical risks Result / Comments

CC3: Re-engining / High-pressure system

performance & durability upgrades

(The scope of a high-pressure system upgrade

is engine design specific and may include: 1)

advanced coating systems, 2) advanced cooling,

3) advanced materials, 4) advanced air-air seals,

5) improved aerodynamics and 6) active

control.).

Better cooling, aerodynamics and

seals as well as active control help to

reduce the thrust specific fuel

consumption and CO2 emission of the

engine. Improved coatings, materials

and cooling help to extend component

lives, which results in reduced

maintenance cost and extended time

on wing.

Emissions reduced

proportional to fuel savings.

High-pressure system durability

upgrades have proven to be

technologically and economically

feasible. The risk involved with a high-

pressure system durability upgrade

depends on its scope and the current

engine design.

(Details in corresponding entries in the long list.)

TRLs for most techniques are 6-9. Cost sources

are: purchase; downtime aircraft; more complex

maintenance; certification & qualification. Control

system redesign may be major cost source and

certification may be difficult. (Retrofitting engine

control system is difficult due to the centralised

architecture and the required certification.)

Considering retrofits is an optimisation of

performance increase, cost reduction and many

other issues.

CC5: Replace whole engines by new ones. Large fuel saving: 10 to 20%. Large, proportional to fuel

savings.

Costs high, risks moderate. Potentially very attractive for large scale retrofit

programs.

CO1: The choice of new engines and the related

technology is in itself the single most effective

factor related to reduction in fuel burn and the

related emissions.

Relative to initial cost and cycles

available per airframe / fleet.

Beneficial on all emission

levels CO2, NOX and Noise.

Engineering and integration skills that is

not present at MRO level. Some STC

accredited companies would be able to

realize certain aspects of the required

engineering and integration the OEM

responsible for the Aircraft and the OEM

of the Engine are integral in any project

to re-engine during retrofit.

All of the technology is proven and available, there

is however multiple challenges related to

integration / certification, one of these being the

prototype path and the downtime related to it.

CO1: combustor replacement and to a lesser

extent fan replacement is already developed for

the CMF-56, GEnx and Trent 1000 engines.

Reduction in fuel burn. Beneficial on all emission

levels CO2, NOX and Noise.

Cost and risk is known downtime should

be planned to be concurrent with

planned maintenance.

Cost is relatively simple to calculate however this

solution is not available for the full range of

airframes covered by retrofit.

Possible MRO involvement for third parties.



/24

2.3 Alternative fuels:


CC3: Alternative fuels / Use of synthetic fuel (GTL, CTL) or bio-fuel as "drop in" jet fuel in existing engines, without modifications.

Benefits are: increase of engine

performance, flying longer distances

due to energy “content”, reduces CO,

NOx emissions.

Reduction of pollutive

emissions.

RTD needed into reduction of required system modifications; certification and testing with respect to short-term and long-term effects; scaling up and cost-effective production;

Optimisation of fuel control system; monitoring for maintenance.

Once certified (ASTM std. group), can

be used as "drop in" fuel without

modifications.

(Details in corresponding entry in the long list and in D2.2 section 3.2.)

Bio-fuels in particular considered potentially

attractive at the workshop.

CO1: IATA and ATAG are promoting the second generation of bio-fuels, several tests are underway and it is now just a question of time before bio-fuels will be formally approved. First generation bio-fuels deplete the land resources and contribute to the “greenhouse effects”. Bio-fuels such as palm oil, tallow and rapeseed critically need land normally used for forestry or food production which impairs their actual sustainability.

At this moment in time with the fossil

fuel prices so much lower than bio-

fuel the economic benefit is not

apparent.

Some first generation bio-

fuel properties actually

create more pollutants than

fossil fuel due to their

chemical composition.

Second generation bio-fuels

however do not have these

properties and will result in a

major reduction of CO2 and

NOX.

High cost of production at this time mean

that there is considerable financial risk

for airlines at this time. Biological -

Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK)

is being cleared for certification by the

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) which has already

confirmed that there are no more

technical issues for certification.

Self sustainability of bio-fuel production methods

using the second generation of production

commodities of Algae, Jatropha and Cametina is

widely expected around 2020. At that time the

yield should be approximately 1% of the total fuel

burn of the aviation industry.

The promotion of development in bio-fuels is not

considered retrofit due to lack of modification

required for drop in fuels.

See appendix 1 for EU Flightpath.



/24

2.4 Aerodynamics:


CC3: Aerodynamics / nacelle serrated trailing

edges.

(An interesting topic for RTD is the application of

“controllable serration” to noisy older aircrafts

[D2.2].)

No money saving for the airliner

(unless airport noise would be charged

extra). Even increase in fuel use in

case of a static solution. Old existing

a/c is already certified with the noise it

makes today.

Reduced jet noise and hence also

airport noise. Static serration

reduces noise but increases fuel

use; controllable serration, which

is switched on during takeoff and

landing to reduce the airport noise

and switched off during cruise, to

avoid the extra fuel use.

Costs but no technical risk. (Details in entry ‘Serrated trailing edges’ in the

long list.)

Potential large scale retrofit for almost all old

aircraft types if airport noise becomes an issue.

CC3 / CC4: Aerodynamics / Active or passive

suction laminar flow: HLFC (Hybrid Laminar

Flow Control, an active drag reduction

technique) on VTP (Vertical Tail Plane) leading

edge.

1% fuel saving due to less drag. Emissions reduced proportional to

fuel savings.

Costs of replacing a VTP nose are

probably too high in comparison

for the 1% fuel saving. Currently

being tested on B787-9.

(Details in corresponding entry in the long list.)

Probably less interesting for retrofit.

CO1: Winglets, are being retrofitted to Boeing

737 aircraft from the 300 series onwards, this is

an initiative from Aviation Partners Boeing.

Airbus has recently announced that they are to

start retrofitting “Sharklets” to the A320 fleet.

Almost 85% of all new 737’s are fitted with

winglets at production. For A320 NEO the

sharklets are basic configuration.

Depending on the flight segments

used by the airlines there can be up to

4% fuel saving. Increased options for

airlines flying longer segments.

Emissions reduced proportional to

fuel savings. Reduction in noise

emissions and obstacle limited

runway profile.

Costs are relatively high;

technology is proven and has

been applied at retrofit prototype

level.

MRO chances for industry to fit both Boeing 737

and Airbus A320 in retrofit market. Fokker have

participated in a collaboration retrofit action to fit

Winglets / Sharklets to Airbus A320 flight test

aircraft and produced an extra set for Airbus UK,

producer of Airbus wings.

CC5: Riblets in paint surface and other drag

reducing coatings.

Significant fuel consumption reduction,

increased maintenance costs.

Engine related emissions reduced

proportional to fuel savings.

Application costs probably

relatively low, durability uncertain.

Very promising, applicable to most transport

aircraft.



/24


CC4: Aerodynamics / Active flow control (active

drag reduction technique) on wing.

Beneficial, yet no definitive % fuel

saving figure established (public

knowledge) from large-scale airframe

OEM projects/tests. AFC/HLFC

economic benefits cannot entirely be

numerated as a stand-alone solution;

the % benefit must be taken as a sum

of parts with other aerodynamic

improvements that are currently

developed or available for aircraft,

e.g., see B737 MAX (RE) configuration

with 737 NG features and HLFC

solution on VTP.

Emissions reduced proportional to

fuel savings.

Costs mainly related to replacing

leading, trailing edge segments

with integrated electronics and

power supply. In practical

deployment the configuration and

extent of configuration is reduced

as target performance is

correlated in association with other

aerodynamic improvements

(through design optimization

phase).

Reduced or lower low cost and

risk in so far as avionics

integration is concerned. The

performance control mode of AFC

is more or less straightforward and

adaptive behaviour is not complex.

Main technical risks involved are

related to Sensor and Actuator

robustness, reliability and

protection. However this

substantially depends on specific

types of hardware used.

Technology RTD and performance issues have

been investigated, e.g., projects AVERT

(AIRBUS), CleanSky etc, as also similar

implementation examples in USA by Boeing.

(Boeing presentation at Aerodays 2011

conference: The Next Decade in Commercial

Aircraft Aerodynamics - A Boeing Perspective).

Retrofit candidate as mentioned in association with

other existing aerodynamic improvements.

Remaining issues with respect to integration

aspects (but addressable through design

optimization phase), performance benchmarking,

and corresponding maintenance practices.



/24

2.5 Cabin:


CO1: Zonal Dryers, with the operating cycle

in aviation: ascending to height, temperature

difference between exterior and interior, the

cabin environment, descending through

humid air and landing. The resulting

condensation in the aircraft increases the

overall weight. The secondary damage

through, corrosion, degradation of

soundproofing effectiveness and possible

electrical problems make this a RETROFIT

opportunity.

Increased Aircraft reliability.

Reduced aircraft weight.

Reduced fuel burn.

Emissions reduced

proportional to fuel

savings. There is an

improvement in the cabin

air quality when the zonal

dryer system including a

humidifier is used.

There are systems available for almost the complete

Airbus and Boeing range of aircraft. Costs are

relatively low. The technology is mature and tested.

ROI could be positive. Systems are relatively simple to

install and situate.

These are some of the benefits:

No frozen emergency exits or frozen

emergency slides, no water or ice in

insulation blankets, reduced change rate

and sustained performance. No fungus

or bacteria build up. Less corrosion /

electrical problems. No "rain in plane" or

wet seats / carpets. No brown or fogging

windows. Boeing, 787 first model to be

designed using zonal dryers with

moisture control.

CC4: Cabin Operation, Functioning, Safety

Network and CMS (hard-lined or wireless).

Increased-Full aircraft cabin monitoring, management, control primarily for maintaining-improving i. travel environment offering vs. holistic and power usage rationalization, ii. Cabin safety (fire-smoke safety, air quality- contaminants, articles integrity-see Boeing recent introduced-retrofit RFID network solution),

iii. Cabin security (visual, audio, etc).

One integrated network vs. separate stand-alone networks (current) provides common base (reduced development time and costs), scalability, and reduced V&V requirements for multiple systems applications-services introduction.

Increased aircraft reliability.

Increased aircraft functionalities-services and safety (either for operator and/or passenger).

Increased pro-active maintenance capability and scheduling.

Reduction in weight (% of reduction depending on data and power transmission technique(s) employed).

Technical risks in so far as sub-components and systems are near negligible. Advances in technologies and robustness for sensing, actuation articles already achieved and available on market. Costs in so far as these components are concerned vary from low-cost bulk produced to medium-price interchangeable.

Technical risk in so far as network(s) configuration, i.e., in the form of integrated multi-functional networks for reduction in size and complexity are near negligible. This is addressed by “Other” category solutions with respect to advancements in ICT design tools (trade-off design), middleware for on-board sensory, actuation processing and control, and network maintenance management.

Technical risks exist in so far as specific power and data transmission mode is concerned. Technical risks are lower for integrated hard-wired solutions (POD, DOP, etc); however risks are higher with respect to wireless transmission solutions – mainly due to potential interference and certification issues.

See EC projects TAUPE, (one example

for case) and Boeing Wireless Avionics

Intra Communication (WAIC) project

(RETROFIT D2.2) for short-range radio

technology, and applications to safety

applications (i.e., low-data rate interior

applications - cabin pressure, smoke

detection, EMI incident detection,

structural health monitoring,

humidity/corrosion detection; emergency

lighting, cabin functions).

Topic also related and relevant to Health

Monitoring and SHM aspects and retrofit

possibilities.



/24

2.6 Structures:


CC3: Structures / Exchange of secondary structures

by composite parts for weight reduction.

Improving basic efficiency of

flight, reduction of weight and

fuel burn.

Reduction of airport

noise and pollutive

emissions.

Costs required for integration and

validation of new parts (RTD and/or

engineering).

High costs for Engine cowling made

from composites (with micro

perforations).

(Details in long list entry ‘Exchange of secondary structures by composite parts for weight reduction’ as well as other entries concerning such replacements, such as: ‘Engine cowling made from composites (with micro perforations)’;

‘Composite fan casing’; ‘High lift devices’; ‘Use of composite interior [panels] with natural fibres and micro perforations’; ‘Replace / improve landing gear (& components)’.

Especially recommended for fatigue-sensitive parts. For aluminium sheets Glare is an alternative.

CC5: Exchange of secondary structures by

composite parts for weight reduction: new interior,

carbon floor panels, composite fairings.

Payload/range improvement.

Small fuel burn gain (0.05%

per 100 kg structure

exchanged on100 seater).

Probably zero (Including

premature recycling

effects).

Low technical risks, cost effectiveness

strongly dependent on particular item

and aircraft.

Could be cost effective with sufficiently large scale

replacement programme.

CO1: Exchange of secondary structures by

composite parts for weight reduction: there have

been tremendous improvements in durable

lightweight composite and it is expected to improve

further in the coming years.

At this time the application of

advanced composites is a

limited design feature of

newer aircraft as composites

are expensive to design and

produce.

Difficult to quantify as the

applications are not self

evident at this time.

Low technical risk. Application of

composite in areas of the aircraft that

are only accessible during C or D

checks is a limiting factor.

The development and implementation of the use of

these technologies is only on a limited scale at this

moment, the idea of major contemporary application

is relatively immature.

CO1: In-flight or on ground Advanced Health

Monitoring Systems (AHMS) measure the relative

“safety” of systems and also measure the structural

safety of the airframe. In the future AHMS will be

central to maintenance planning for aircraft and the

optimizing of the required maintenance.

Specialist monitoring with the

ability to dictate optimum

performance and efficiency

has the ability to reduce

emissions and optimize

maintenance efforts.

Optimizing emissions

and planned

maintenance will reduce

the effect on the

environment.

High cost and high technical risk as the

systems are not mature and need more

research. In individual systems there are

dedicated units that monitor systems or

groups of like systems, not able to direct

aircraft maintenance requirements.

New Aircraft are incorporating the latest innovations

with regards to advanced systems. Unfortunately

older aircraft are often not equipped to incorporate

the new technology.



/24

2.7 Avionics:

Technology Economic benefit Environmental

benefit

Costs / Technical risks Result / Comments

CC3: Avionics / FDM monitoring & improvement: Advanced

flight data analysis (using advanced recorders with many

parameters and good analysis possibilities. Some technology

is still in development; e.g. EC SVETLANA project.

Positive effects on safety, maintenance,

ATM compatibility, fuel consumption,

training.

Emissions

reduced

proportional to

fuel savings.

TRL is 3; challenge is data mining:

designing good automated search

algorithms for the improved

detection of abnormal situations.


TRL is still low, but yet considered as potentially

attractive at the workshop.

CC3: Avionics / New FMS for compatibility with SESAR ATM

Satellite communication for ATM. Anticipating on

developments in SESAR, the ATM world needs alternative

communication means, to solve the congestion in the currently

used frequencies and hence to enable the digital information

exchange required for 4D NAV.

ATM and SESAR compatibility.

Reduction of operational losses.

Positive effects on safety.

Limited. The technology is available, is no

rocket science. Satcom technology

is considered yet expensive, but

large scale application may reduce

the costs for the end users.


The challenge is to streamline the different

opinions and thoughts about the technologies.

CC5: New FMS for compatibility with SESAR ATM. Time and fuel savings due to more

efficient ATM procedures.

Emissions

reduced

proportional to

fuel savings.

Cost benefit uncertain, but no real

technical risks.

Potentially large scale retrofit scheme.

Introduction of SESAR benefits for the EU

earlier.

CC5: Other upgrades for future ATM environment. Time and fuel savings due to more

efficient ATM procedures.

Proportional to

fuel savings.

Cost benefit uncertain, but no real

technical risks.

Potentially large scale retrofit scheme.

CC5: Glass cockpit to replace analogue instruments. Reduced weight, lower maintenance

costs, and better crew interface for new

ATM systems?

Very limited. Costs uncertain, probably

prohibitive stand alone.

Attractive in combination with ATM related

retrofits.

CO1: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) is

the basis of the future surveillance system in Europe

augmented by the current RADAR system. Controller pilot data

link communication (CPDLC) is a new form of communication

between controller and pilot. Using the Air Traffic Service Unit,

this displays it on the Data link Control & Display Unit (DCDU).

Both systems are mandatory and will

facilitate flight safety and effective flight

duration parameters with as result

savings in fuel and flight time.

Proportional to

fuel savings.

No technical risks, choice of early

introduction will improve efficiency.

These are mandatory in 2015 and 2017

respectively.



/24


CO1: Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is the future

positional awareness tool which is required to facilitate the

entire upcoming SESAR programme. SESAR depends on

GNSS equipped aircraft, to keep older aircraft current in the

future.

Through optimisation of the ATM higher

safety and potential fuel and time

savings of between 10 & 20%, with

reduced maintenance and possible

longer effective life of the airframe.

Proportional to fuel savings,

efficient use of resources will

benefit the environment.

Some aspects are expensive

but the benefits are also

considerable. TRL is mature

and should reduce the risks.

If done in large retrofit action for all types

of aircraft the benefits mentioned in

column 2 could be achieved earlier.

CO1: Electronic (digital) Instrument Displays are the newest

innovation in the cockpit, analogue instrument displays are

being replaced by flat panel units that can display all of the

information the pilot requires. The weight savings, increased

functionality and features are indications of the possibilities

offered.

Less weight and energy use, also less

prone to mechanical erosion or

obsolescence.

Less downtime and

proportional fuel savings.

Safety and reliability are

improved by the failsafe and

backup provisions.

Single case or small

production runs will be very

expensive. Technology risks

limited, integration and

certification risks are higher.

For some aircraft the transition to EID is

not feasible because of the system

signals generated.

2.8 Equipment:


CC5: Taxi by internal power "Wheeltug" (powering nose wheel

with an electric motor).

Taxi fuel reduction. Increased weight of

the system may lead to cruise fuel burn

penalties.

Reduced Emissions during

taxi (low throttle settings =

high VOC).

Probably low risk. Promising, system would be relatively

common for different aircraft reducing

NRC.

CO1: Taxi by internal power is being developed by Wheeltug, Meisser-Bugatti, Honeywell-Safran and Taxibot. Three different approaches are being explored; one system centred on the nose wheel bogey, others on the main gear bogey and a third where a tug is controlled by the pilot of the aircraft. All of the systems enable forward and reverse motion.

Estimates for a 747, A380 are 700 kg

fuel during taxi. For 737, A320 saving of

13 to 21 lbs / min. Reduced brake wear,

engine runtime and fuel burn. Some

systems may result in heavier basic

weight and more intensive electrical

loading of the APU.

Noise and CO2 NOx

reduction at airport. Dispatch

reliability will increase as no

tug service is required.

Costs are relative to the

savings per segment that an

aircraft uses as high frequency

will mean more time taxying

and greater savings. Wheeltug

and Taxibot are in

development towards

certification the other two

manufacturers are in a

preliminary phase.

Some of the developments are designed

specifically for future aircraft

manufacture while others are being

developed as retrofit and manufacturing

solutions. Wheeltug is in the process of

certification specifically for Boeing

737NG and Airbus 320. Most of the

systems are based around electric

motors built around the wheel bogey of

the nose or main landing gear.



/24


CC5: Lithium batteries for secondary power. Interesting weight saving over standard

batteries = fuel and payload-range

improvements.

Emissions reduced in

proportion to fuel savings.

Non-recurring costs for safety

aspects, but recurring costs

probably limited.

Apart from the required capacity this

application would be independent of the

particular aircraft: potentially large scale

retrofit programme.

2.9 Security & Safety technology:


CO1: The Shear Thickening Fluid (STF) bag, developed for single aisle aircraft; named the Fly-Bag, is designed to be filled with passenger luggage and then placed in the hold. Then, if there were a bomb in the luggage somewhere - and it exploded during the flight - the resulting blast would be absorbed by the bag, preventing damage to the plane.

There is no obvious direct return on

investment, how-ever all damage

containment preventing injury and or

loss of life is beyond fiscal boundaries.

Passenger safety is increased

by this technology and it will

be used to combat levels of

explosives that are not

normally detectable by

standard sensors.

Certification of the Fly-Bag is expected to take one to two years. Cost would depend on a range of variables, including the structure of the plane. Hardened luggage containers (HULD) have been developed, but are heavier and more costly than conventional equivalents.

STFs are unusual in that they increase in viscosity in response to impact. In general, STFs are colloidal systems that are dispersions of hard particles in a liquid. Under normal circumstances, the particles repel each other slightly. But under sudden impact, the extra energy in the system overwhelms these repulsive forces, causing the particles to clump together.

CC4: Automatic Fire-Suppression System (FSS). The system is designed to improve safety during international flights overwater. One such system uses infrared thermal sensors to detect heat and upon discovering heat, pierces the carrying container with a foam injection nozzle and fills the container with foam restricting the fire, providing containment and finally extinguishes the fire.

Negative effect on performance by

installation of detection system and

foam injector apparatus. Crew and

cargo safety is increased. How-ever all

damage containment preventing injury

and or loss of life is beyond fiscal

boundaries.

The foam used in the system

is an argon-based

biodegradable and non

corrosive. Resulting in a

status-quo on the

environmental side.

The technology risk is minimal as the system is already certified. With this proprietary system the costs revolve around the intellectual property rights, the down time and the estimated 700 man hours per aircraft.

The system certification covers the classes: A - paper or lumber,

B - flammable fluids including gasoline or kerosene.

D - Combustible metals that burn at extremely high temperatures.

CC4: Lightweight surveillance system that enables crew members to monitor cockpit access, cabin and cargo areas.

Minimum weight penalty while

improving aircraft safety.

No benefit. As the technology used is based around software the need for extra hardware is negated. An ECB, cabin terminal or other portable device can be used.

This application is part of Lufthansa Technik’s “NICE” cabin management and entertainment suite. All segments are modular and the system structure is mature having been initially certified in 2003.



/24

2.10 Other:


CO1: Aircraft exchange: the number of relatively

new aircraft being stored in desert storage

facilities has risen dramatically over the past few

years as the economic recession continues to

affect the aviation community. During the

workshop a proposal was made to exchange

third world (old) aircraft with more modern

aircraft from storage facilities as a considerable

number of relatively old aircraft are in use in third

world countries.

MRO work to bring aircraft up to required standards.

Aircraft type training for pilots and engineering staff.

Higher safety for European travellers in third world countries. Reduction in all emission rates in third world countries.

Initial investment is high and support

from investment bodies such as

European Investment Bank will be

required.

The result is not retrofit or even of direct benefit to the European Union however the secondary benefits could be significant.



/24

3 Conclusions and way forward

The results from the assessment are not at all surprising as the most mature technology is highlighted. Technology is indicated by the need to reduce engine emissions whether CO2, NOx or noise. The next step in this project is the “Report on Cost – Benefit Analyses” which will result in a ”Report on Industrial Consequences” from the proposals for Cost –Benefit Analysis.

With regards to proposed technologies covered by retrofit one of the main drivers is the current practice represented by re-engining projects and winglet / sharklets programmes as noted in the objectives of project RETROFIT.

While alternative fuel (bio-fuel) is a definite future technology and is being promoted by the European Commission parallel to the retrofit program, it falls outside of the project objectives to define and investigate different options to upgrade existing aircraft to be environmentally friendly and passenger friendly.

The proposed replacement of third world old aircraft with modern aircraft is excluded from the retrofit program as the benefit is secondary. The support and assistance of third world countries could possibly be provided as a form of development aid or an initiative from the European Investment Bank, also it has been suggested that the employment in European MRO companies could receive a major boost by being part of consortia preparing and performing the work to make the aircraft conform to the service standard.

3.1 Proposals for Cost – Benefit Analysis

To choose the three retrofit candidate cost-benefit technologies a proposal was made by the lead contractor and agreed upon by the members of the consortium. All of the technologies were considered including but not exclusively the following:

- Replace whole engines with new ones;

- Combustor / high pressure system performance and durability upgrade;

- Alternate fuels, not considered retrofit by consortium;

- Nacelle serrated trailing edges;

- Active or passive suction laminar flow;

- Winglets / Sharklets for Boeing 737, Airbus A320;

- Riblets in paint surface and other drag reducing coatings;

- Zonal dryers;

- Exchange of secondary structures by composite parts for weight reduction;

- Cabin Operation, Functioning, Safety Network and CMS (hard lined or wireless);

- In-flight or on ground Advanced Health Monitoring Systems (AHMS);

- FDM monitoring & improvement: Advanced flight data analysis;



/24

- Upgraded FMS to meet SESAR requirements;

- Taxi with internal power;

- Lithium batteries for secondary power;

- The Shear Thickening Fluid (STF) luggage Fly-bag;

- Automatic Fire-Suppression System (FSS);

- Lightweight surveillance system for cockpit access, cabin or cargo surveillance;

- Aircraft exchange.

3.2 The three chosen proposals

The agreed proposals to be given a cost-benefit analysis by the lead contractor of D4.2 are:

- Avionics for SESAR compatibility.

Reasoning: If only new aircraft would be suitable for the future SESAR ATM concept the full benefit will only be reaped when much of the current fleet in Europe would be replaced. This could take 10 years or more. With retrofitting the benefits for the community will be available much earlier. The cost-benefit analysis should indicate under what conditions retrofitting of existing aircraft would be cost effective, and how the EU could stimulate retrofitting if the direct benefits for candidate aircraft would not be sufficient.

- New high bypass ratio engines to existing A320 aircraft.

Reasoning: the A320 is one of the most numerous narrow body aircraft, burning a large fraction of the air transport fuel. The A320 NEO will be developed to use the latest state of the art Pratt & Whitney and GE engines. Assuming Airbus involvement a relatively low threshold retrofit programme can be envisaged, where these engines are retrofitted to a significant percentage of the fleet of A320 aircraft. This promises a fuel saving of between 10 to 15% per flight, which will have a large economic and environmental benefit. This tradeoff study aims also to indicate how the EU can stimulate such a programme

- Taxying by internal power.

Reasoning: although the actual gain per aircraft movement will be relatively small, the accumulated benefits can be significant for the European and global air transport industry. This particular study is interesting because it involves benefits for the operators, benefits for the airports and benefits for the community as a whole. The challenge will be to find a modus to let every party that profits help pay for the investments.



/24

4 References

[ADSE-1] E. Jesse, “Fleet upgrade possibilities. An investigation into the possibilities of

upgrading the existing transport aircraft fleet to reduce the climate effects of

air transport”, ADSE Report 07-RA-053, June 2007

[CleanSky] www.cleansky.eu

[TAUPE] http://www.taupe-project.eu/

[IATA-TRR] The IATA Technology Roadmap Report, 3rd edition, issued June 2009

[Eurocontrol] ADS-B for Aircraft Operators

http://www.eurocontrol.int/cascade/public/standard_page/ads_b_ao.html

[Wikipedia] Controller Pilot Data Link Communications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_Pilot_Data_Link_Communications

[Retrofit-DoW] Retrofit DoW, Support actions, FP7-AAT-2010-RTD-1, including Grant

Agreement Number 265867.

[Retrofit-D11] “Retrofit orientation”, Retrofit project deliverable D1.1, version 5, d.d. 10-Jan-

2011

[Retrofit-D12] “Stakeholder Interviews”, Retrofit project deliverable D1.2.

[Retrofit-D13D24] “Reference group meeting”, Retrofit project deliverable D1.3 & D2.4.

[Retrofit-D21] “Report on initial long list”, Retrofit project deliverable D2.1.

Flightpath biofuel

development

A performing biofuels supply chain for EU aviation:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/initiatives/doc/20110622_biofuels_fligh

t_path_technical_paper.pdf

[Wikipedia] http://en.wikipedia.org/

ATAG Biofuel

guide

Beginners guide to aviation bio fuels:

http://www.enviro.aero/Content/Upload/File/BeginnersGuide_Biofuels_WebR

es.pdf

Fire Suppression

System (FSS)

http://about.van.fedex.com/node/14869



/24

Lightweight

surveillance

system

http://www.nice-system.com/aerosight-camera-system.html and

http://www.lufthansa-

technik.com/applications/portal/lhtportal/lhtportal.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLa

bel=Template5_6&requestednode=294&action=initial

[SVETLANA] "Safety (and maintenance) improVEment Through automated fLight data ANAlysis".

http://cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=proj.document&PJ_RCN

=11657846

[FLY-BAG] http://www.euronews.net/2011/01/25/bomb-proof-textiles-take-off/

AVERT Aerodynamic Validation of Emissions Reducing Technologies

[Retrofit-D25] “Report on Technology Inventory”, Retrofit project deliverable D2.5.



/24

Appendix 1

This information is related to para. 2.4 alternative fuels.

Flight path

Time horizons Action Aim/Result

Aim/Result

Short-term

(next 0-3

years)

Announcement of action at

International Paris Air Show.

To mobilize all stakeholders including Member

States.

High level workshop with financial

institutions to address funding

mechanisms.

To agree on a "Biofuel in Aviation Fund".

> 1,000 tons of Fisher-Tropsch biofuel

become available.

Verification of Fisher-Tropsch product quality.

Significant volumes of synthetic biofuel become

available for flight testing.

Production of aviation class biofuels in the

hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) plants

from sustainable feedstock.

Regular testing and eventually few regular flights

with HVO Bio-fuels from sustainable feedstock.

Secure public and private financial and

legislative mechanisms for industrial

second generation biofuel plants.

To provide the financial means for investing in

first of a kind plants and to permit use of aviation

biofuel at economically acceptable conditions.

Biofuel purchase agreement signed

between aviation sector and biofuel

producers.

To ensure a market for aviation biofuel

production and facilitate investment in industrial

2nd

generation biofuel (2G) plants.

Start construction of the first series of 2G

plants.

Plants are operational by 2015-16.

Identification of refineries & blenders

which will take part in the first phase of

the action.

Mobilise fuel suppliers and logistics along the

supply chain.

Mid-term

(4-7 years)

2000 tons of algal oils are becoming

available.

First quantities of algal oils are used to produce

aviation fuels.

Supply of 1.0 M tons of hydrotreated

sustainable oils and 0.2 tons of synthetic

aviation biofuels in the aviation market.

1.2 M tons of biofuels are blended with kerosene.

Start construction of the second series of

2G plants including algal biofuels and

pyrolytic oils from residues.

Operational by 2020.

Long-term

(up to 2020)

Supply of an additional 0.8 M tons of

aviation biofuels based on synthetic

biofuels, pyrolytic oils and algal biofuels.

2.0 M tons of biofuels are blended with kerosene.