Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL
DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
&
AIRBUS
FUTURE PROJECTS OFFICE

DESIGN PROJECT
2005/2006
TECHNICAL REPORT
Group 5 The Strut Braced Wing Aircraft
Chapter 10: Aircraft Economics
27th February, 2006
Issue 1

Author:
Standard
Configuration:
Reviewers:

Pete Monson
Yuval Polushko
Jenny Neil

Group 5

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

ITEM
Maximum Take-Off Weight
Operators Weight Empty
OWE/MTOW
OWE per PAX
Fuel for Design Range (7300 nm)
Specific Air Range for Design Range
Fuel Fraction for Design Range (Fuel/MTOW)
Fuel for 4000 nm
Payload for Mission
Max PAX in High Density Layout
Range for High Density Layout
Maximum Landing Weight
MLW/MTOW
Maximum Zero Fuel Weight
Maximum Payload per Std PAX
Maximum Payload per High Density PAX
Maximum Fuel Capacity
Cruise Speed
VC/MC (VC normally in kts CAS)
Initial Cruise Altitude, ISA
L/D (start of Cruise)
Take-Off Field Length, ISA, sea level
Landing Field Length, ISA, sea level
Approach Speed
Fuselage Length
Fuselage Width (or Diameter if circular)
Fuselage Height or Depth
Fuselage Slenderness Ratio 3Lfuse/(2H+W)
Wing Area
Span, Excluding Winglets
Aspect Ratio
Wetted Aspect Ratio
Thickness of Wing outer wing (t/c)
Taper Ratio
Mean Aerodynamic Chord
Sweep 1/4 Chord
High Lift System (Flap type)
High Lift System (Slats)
Clmax (Landing)
Nose to wing MAC quarter chord / fuselage length
Tailplane Area
Span
Aspect Ratio
Sweep 1/4 Chord
1/4 C(wing) to 1/4 C(tailplane)
Volume Coefficient
Fin Area
Span
Aspect Ratio
Sweep 1/4 Chord
1/4 C(wing) to 1/4 C(fin)
Volume Coefficient
Number of Engines
Wing or Fuselage Mounted or Other
Engine Type i.e. scale of TF80 or..
Sea Level Static Thrust (per Engine)
Thrust at Initial Cruise Altitude (per Engine)
TSFC at Cruise
Wing Loading
Thrust-to-Weight, AEO
Main Landing Gear Tyre Size
Main Landing Gear Geometry for ACN
ACN
Height of Fuselage Datum above Ground
CG range at MTOW
CG range at OWE
Aircraft NRC
Aircraft RC
Programme Breakeven Year
Manufacturer's Study Price
Price/(Std PAX.OWE)
Engine Price (per engine)
Aircraft DOC
Aircraft COC
Turnaround time
Refuel time
Trim Tank yes/no
Flight Control System Philosophy & Design
Flight control Actuation Method
Minimum Static Margin
Electronic Flight Instrument System architecture

Nav-Flight Management System architecture

Electrical Power System architecture
Hydraulic System architecture
Fuel System tank arrangement

Aircraft Economics 10
VALUE
UNITS
VALUE
UNITS
Additional Comments
263000
kg
578600
lb
128504
kg
282709
lb
0.489
357.0
kg/PAX
785.3
lb/PAX
88900
kg
195580
lb
Total Fuel
0.082
nm/kg
0.037
nm/lb
0.338
55080
kg
121176
lb
Total Fuel
78152
kg
171934
lb
Max allowable for 4000nm
550
PAX
4931
nm
223104
kg
490828
lb
0.848
172124
kg
378672
lb
105
kg/PAX
231
lb/PAX
105
kg/PAX
231
lb/PAX
90900
kg
199980
lb
0.83
Mach
KTAS
573.1
VC - kts
295.8
VC - m/s
KCAS
35000
ft
21
1264
m
4146.98
ft
1202
m
3943.57
ft
150
KCAS
Knots
67.5
m
221.46
ft
7.2
m
23.62
ft
7.2
m
23.62
ft
9.375
2
389
m
4187.20
sq.ft
74
m
242.78
ft
14
12.6
0.06
0.25
5.85
m
14.82
ft
19
degs
Double slotted Fowler Flaps
Full span vented slats
2.6
0.55
93.3
m2
1004.28
sq.ft
21
m
68.90
ft
5.3
30
deg.
30.01
m
98.46
ft
0.98
122
m2
1313.208
sq.ft
14
m
45.93
ft
6.4
38.9
deg.
27.6
m
90.55
ft
1.45
2
60% Chord
Wing
Scaled version of TF80
373.6
kN
84000
lb.f
107.8
kN
24229
lb.f
15.933
mg/Ns
0.563
lb/lb.hr
2
673.0
kg/m
138.0
lb/sq.ft
0.14
49
Diameter
17
Width
inches
55.3 at CBR = 10 and 263t
5.9
m
19.36
ft
27-54
% MAC
25.18
% MAC
9128
Million $
38558
Million $
2024
yr
9 years to breakeven
240
Million $
5.1879E-06
$M/PAX.kg
2.35813E-06
$M/PAX.lb
14
Million $
109709
$/trip
4000 nm trip with Std PAX
48085
$/trip
4000 nm trip with Std PAX
90
min.
35
min.
yes
FBW system with control law envelope management
EHA Tailplane, EBHA and EHA Ailerons, Hydraulic Slats and flaps with EMA backups and Hydrulic
Spoilers with EBHA backup
0.55
%MAC
10 LCD displays, comprising 2 PFDs, 2 NDs, 2 ECAMS, 2 MCDUs and 2 EFBs. Integrated
Surveillance System and ADIRS equipped. AFDX Ethernet architecture
Galileo compatible, WAAS and LAAS ready... FANS equipped... Airport Navigation through pilot
EFBs
115 V AC Variable Freqency; 28 V DC
2 segregated lines, blue and green
2 per wing, 3 Centre Tanks, Trim tank in tail

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

CONTENTS
10.1 INTRODUCTION

10.2 PROGRAM COST (Baseline up until Entry-into-Service)

10.2.1 Recurring and Non-Recurring Cost Calculations
10.2.2 Derivation of Engine and Avionics Cost
10.2.3 Derivation of Manufacturers Study Price
10.2.4 Target for Break-Even Year

10.3 DIRECT/CASH OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN

6
10.3.1 DOC & COC / Seat-mile and Aircraft Mile cost with Comparison over
Design Range.
10.3.2 Freighter Comparison
10.3.3 Airframe and Engine Maintenance Factors
10.3.4 DOCs Breakdown Pie Charts
10.3.5 Technologies Breakdown
10.3.6 COC Pie Charts of Range Variations
10.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
10.4.1 Aircraft Price Vs Fuel Price
10.4.2 Manufacturers Weight Empty Vs Block Fuel
10.4.3 Airframe Weight Airframe Price SL Static Thrust
10.4.4 Family Concept: PAX Fuel Price Range

14

10.5 TECHNICAL TRADE STUDIES

10.5.1 Aircraft Produced Vs % Composites
10.5.2 Wing Area Vs Span

17

10.6 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

20

10.7 CONCLUSIONS

22

10.8 STANDARD CONFIGURATION

22

10.9 APPENDIX

23

10.10 REFERENCES

25

10-ii

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

List of Tables
No.
Title
Page
10.2.1 NRCs and RCs Variables...1
10.2.2 Summary of NRCs and RCs..3
10.2.3 Table of relative Engine Data......3
10.2.4 Table of relative Avionics Data...4
10.2.5 Table showing competitor Weights and MSPs........4
10.2.6 Airframe Price Competitor characteristics..6
10.2.7 Break-Even Analysis.......6
10.3.1 DOC/COC summaries..7
10.3.2 Freighter Summary.....9
10.3.3 Detailed Technology Breakdown......11
10.3.4 Block Fuel Summary of Range Variation..13
10.5.1

Table of Variables for Composite Study...17

10.6.1 Possible Emission Charges Summary....20

A1

Spreadsheet Outputs for NRC calculations...22

A2

Spreadsheet Outputs for RC calculations......23

A3

Spreadsheet Inputs for Direct Operating Cost calculations...24

A4

Spreadsheet Outputs for Direct operating Cost calculations......25

10-iii

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

List of Figures
No.
10.2.1

Title
Page
Production Rate Vs Aircraft Produced...2

10.2.2

Competitor Aircraft Pricing Analysis..5

10.2.3

Program Cash Flow....7

10.3.1

Commercial Competition Comparison...8

10.3.2

Freighter Competition Comparison....9

10.3.3

DOC Pie Chart Breakdown..10

10.3.4

DOC Savings over 777-300ER..........10

10.3.5

COC breakdown over 1000nm Range..12

10.3.6

COC breakdown over 4000nm Range..13

10.3.7

COC breakdown over 7300nm Range..13

10.3.8

Cost / seat nm %age Savings, Range Comparison....14

10.4.1

Aircraft Price Vs Fuel Price......15

10.4.2

Manufacturers Weight Empty Vs Block Fuel...16

10.4.3

AFW/AFP/SLST Study...17

10.4.4

PAX / Fuel Price / Range....18

10.5.1

Aircraft Produced Vs Composites study...19

10.5.2

Wing Area Vs Span..20

10.5.3

Wing Area Vs Span iteration 2......21

10.6.1

Possible Emission tax & charges COC Breakdown 2015..22

10.6.2

NOx / Noise / CO2 Trade off example....23

10.8.1 Engine Price derivation Graph..25

10-iv

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

10.1 INTRODUCTION
In an age where conventional aircraft configurations have almost reached a plateau a
need has been realised to investigate the potential of novel configurations. The Strut
Braced Wing was identified as a possibility because of the promise of dramatic weight
savings and advanced fuel efficiency due to its high wing morphology. An emphasis on
fuel efficiency is considered throughout the design process as this will be a key selling
point for future aircraft projects due to impending increases in fuel prices.
10.2 PROGRAM COST
10.2.1 Recurring and Non-Recurring Cost Calculations
In order to estimate the development and manufacturing costs Roskams method
of Airplane Cost Estimation was assumed [1]. This required analysis of the Strut Braced
Wings design considerations in order to ascertain certain variables that were necessary to
perform the calculations. They are shown along with a brief justification in table 10.2.1:
Variable

Symbol

Complexity Rating

Fdiff

Value
1.5

new concept Roskam recommends 1.5

Justification

CAD capability
Cost Adjustment Factor

Fcad
Ftsf

1.2
0.15

using learning cad technicians - recommended value 1.2

Some extra facilities for new concept but not as extensive as military

Interest Rate Factor

Ffinm

0.1

Average interest rate assumption according to Roskam

Interior Cost factor

Fintm

2000

Material Correction Factor

Fmatm

2.5

Engineering Hourly rate

Rem

105

Roskam AAA graphic method

Manufacturing Hourly Rate

Rmm

59

Roskam AAA graphic method

Roskam value for Jet Transports

Roskam recommends 2.5 (same as current aircraft use of Conventional
Carbon composites)

Tooling Hourly Rate

Rtm

76

Cost Escalation Factor

CEF

6.04

Roskam AAA graphic method

Craft produced in RDTE Phase

Nrdte

From research - A380 use 4 test aircraft

1 structural testing & 1 static testing

From graphic found in AAA (more up to date graphic than Roskam)

Number of static Test airplanes

Nst

RDTE Production Rate

Nrr

0.33

Roskam typical rate

Production Rate
Airplanes produced to production
Standard

Nrm

1.8

Nm

250

Conservative Roskam AAA estimation (A380 up to 4 per month)

Conservative estimate from Market research (747=1200, 777-300/200=468,
A330=365, A340=319)

Table 10.2.1

Some variables require further justification due to the sensitivity of their effect on
recurring costs, non-recurring costs and hence a manufacturers study price.
Fdiff (Complexity Rating). This factor will account for the level of novel and advanced
technology being implemented during the production of our aircraft. The main
contributors to designating this factor were first and most importantly the strut braced
wing morphology. Other key elements affecting the complexity were the use of avionics
and composites. The use of composites and avionics will be talked about in more detail
later in the report but it was decided that the level of both should be similar to what is
currently in existence in order to minimise the risk and subsequent cost during the
R.D.T.E. phase. This means that this factor is primarily based around the difficulty in
testing the high wing, strut braced morphology. The factor has therefore been given a
rating of 1.5. This figure is higher than that recommended for conventional aircraft (1.0)

10-1

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

but less than that recommended for military aircraft (2.0) which will undoubtedly include
more innovative and novel technology advancements.
FMATm (Material Correction Factor). This factor represents the use of composites and
advanced materials on our aircraft. This has been assigned a value of 2.5 which
represents the fact that we intend to use the same amount of composites as currently
employed by Airbus aircraft (A380, A350). A trade off study is performed later in the
report to investigate the effect of the overall use of composites on the total seat-mile
cost.
NrM (Production Rate). This can be a particularly difficult factor to summarise as a
stabilised production volume will only arise after about six years from the start of the
production process. Market research indicates that the A380 will produce up to 4 aircraft
per month when the production process is up to speed however the average will be
much lower and in the case of the Strut Braced Wing will be affected by the novel
configuration. A conservative estimate was derived using the AAA software which
resulted in a production rate of 1.8 aircraft per month average. The following study
investigates the sensitivity of this factor together with the amount of aircraft produced in
order to make a more informed estimation.
Break Even Analysis
16
1.5

14
12
Years Break Even

Production Rate/month
10

2
3

4
200

6
250
4
300

Aircraft Produced

350

2
0

Figure 10.2.1

Nm (Aircraft Produced to production Standard). As shown on the figure above this

factor has a very sensitive effect on the break even year and so must be accurately judged.
Research into other similar competitor aircraft produced allowed an estimation to be
drawn up. Our aircraft is intended to be a direct replacement for the 747-400 which has
sold over 1200 aircraft in its long life but with such a variety of aircraft available on the
market it is expected that sales will be less than this. A figure of 250 aircraft was
established as a very conservative estimation. There is a strong belief that this figure
could rise due to the exceptional marketability of the Strut Braced Wing which is
described throughout this document.

10-2

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Using these variables and those of the Strut Braced Wings Configuration Non-recurring
costs and recurring costs could be outlined:
Non-Recurring Cost (US million $)
Total Manufacturing Cost (US million $)

9127.54
38558.01

Table 10.2.2

10.2.2 Derivation of Engine and Avionics Cost

The following table shows the basic costing characteristics and corresponding prices of
engines that are currently in operation on competitor aircraft. Using this data an
approximate engine price could be derived.
777-300ER
GE 90115B [2]
Engine weight

tonnes

Engine price ENP

($m)

BPR
SL static thrust
OAPR
Compressor stages
(Nc)

lb

8.5

A340-600
Trent 560
[2]

A320-200
CFM56-5
[2]

4.6

747-400
CF6
80C2B5F [2]

3.5

4.2

747-8
Genx
2B67 [3]
4.5

SC
Trent
892 [4]
7.5

SBW
???
8.8

23

12

11.5

12

14

8.6

7.5

4.75

5.3

9.5

5.8

???
7.4

115000

56000

26500

63490

66500

91300

84100

42

36.71

27.4

31.1

23

42.7

42

12

14

14

18

16

18

13

Table 10.2.3

In comparison with the GE 90-115B it can be seen that our engine is of similar weight
but produces significantly less sea level static thrust. A fair price is difficult to derive from
this so it was necessary to find an engine whose characteristics closely resembled our
own. It is easy to see from this table that the Strut Braced Wings engine requirements are
most comparable to the Trent 892 (Suggested engine for the Standard configuration
study). Although we incur slightly more weight penalties due to our pylon structure and
nacelle requirements our comparative SLST is still approximately seven thousand pounds
less. Due to the aforementioned it was decided to assume an engine price of 14 million
US $.
This price is further justified by using the method presented in L.R. Jenkinsons Civil Jet
Aircraft Design [5]
Using the equation:
Value Factor = (cruise thrust) 0.88
(SFC)2.58 x 1000
Using
SFC = 0.53
Cruise thrust = 20,000 lbs
Gives Value Factor = 31.4
Which when applied to an extrapolated version of Figure 10.8.1 (seen in the appendix)
gives an engine price of between 13-14 million US $
The following table shows the relative cost of avionics on our competitor aircraft the
777-300ER and on the A380. These are rough estimations acquired from research into
the market by avionics specialists.

10-3

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

777-300ER

A380

SBW

28.9

40

???

Cost of Avionics (US million $)

Table 10.2.4

The A380 has been included as most of the avionics suggested for the SBW is currently
being tested and used on board this aircraft. This will reduce the overall risk of the
program as all systems will be tried and tested. It is expected that the cost of avionics to
us will be significantly less than the A380 due to the effects of depreciation but will still
be higher than the 777-300ER as they are more advanced. It is worth mentioning that the
SBW is a considerably lighter aircraft than the A380 and will require less constituent
avionic systems such as metal-polymer hybrid signal wiring and hydraulic systems. It is
therefore estimated that the cost of avionics will be 35 million US $.
10.2.3 Derivation of Manufacturers Study Price
Manufacturers Study Price should reflect what airlines will be willing to pay for an
aircraft. Price is driven by the market and is dependent on an aircrafts capabilities. It is
of major importance as a DOC input due to its sensitive affect on the financial costs of
operating an aircraft in an inflationary economic climate. It is therefore essential that an
accurate price reflects the aircraft in question. The price of an aircraft has little direct
relationship to the design and production costs of the vehicle. A low price may be set in
order to gain market penetration. [5]
The following table lists the manufacturers weight empty values for a variety of
competitor aircraft together with their respective maximum take off weights and their
corresponding Prices.
MWE (tonnes)

Price (US m$)

149
160
157.8
181
137.7
111

777-300ER
A340-600
747-400
747-8 [6]
A350-800
SBW

MTOW (tonnes)

231.5
201
212
250
160
???

351.5
380
396.9
435.5
245
262.8

Table 10.2.5

The information from this table is more clearly portrayed in the following figure
showing the aircraft price against the manufacturers weight empty.
300

747-8

Aircraft Price (US m$)

250
777-300ER

SBW

747-400

200

A340-600

A350-800

150

100

50
100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Manufacturersl Weight Empty (tonnes)

10-4

180

190

200

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Figure 10.2.2

Although the strut braced wing configuration sees a massive reduction in weight
compared to its competitors it is still a novel and relatively untested concept therefore it
was thought necessary to be conservative with our pricing. Due to our conservative use
of composites and the use of advanced avionic systems we can assume that they will be
of relatively low risk to the program. A new concept will undoubtedly incur substantial
penalties in the R.D.T.E. phase and it was necessary to plan for this eventuality when
predicting a price for the Strut Braced Wing. If the R.D.T.E. phase were to go well due
to our lightweight structure then there would be exceptional profit margins to be
capitalised on. Specific capabilities such as range, speed and passenger/freight payload
are all similar to the competitor aircraft studied above (this is summarised in the table
below). It is, however, the belief that the Strut Braced Wing offers superior comfort to its
passengers and greatly reduced direct operating costs to the airlines through reduced
weight and fuel efficiency. This makes it a lucrative and rewarding addition to any fleet.
Setting a seemingly high price can therefore be easily justified through the aircrafts
performance benefits. It is for these reasons that a price of 240 million US $ has been set.
Aircraft
777-300ER
A340-600
A350-800
747-400
747-8
SBW

Airframe
Price (m$)
185.5
153
136
166
202
212

Range
(nm)
7880
7883
7500
7259
8000
7300

Payload
(PAX)
327
325
253
366
400
360

Speed
0.84
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.855
0.83

Level of
Composites (%)
15-20
10
30-40
5-10
50-60
30

Table 10.2.6

10.2.4 Target for Break-even Year

Having performed the necessary calculations, set an MSP and estimated a production
rate, analysis could now be performed in order to establish a break even year.
Non-Recurring Cost (US million $)
Total Manufacturing Cost (US million $)
Total Cost
Cost/Aircraft
MSP
Profit per Aircraft
Aircraft per year
Profit per Year
Years to Break Even
Break Even Year
Aircraft Required to Break Even

9127.54
38558.01
47685.54
190.74
240.00
49.26
21.60
1063.97
8.58
2024
185

Table 10.2.7

From the table above a break even year of 2024 is predicted having produced 185
aircraft. Following this the program will start to make profits and a positive cash flow is
finally seen. This is clearly defined in the following figure:

10-5

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Program Cash Flow

Aircraft Produced
10

10

50

100

200

250

Cash Flow (US Billion $)

6
4

Break-Even Year

2
0
-2

4
5
6
Certification

10

11

12

-4
-6
-8
-10
Years into Project

Figure 10.2.3

The data in this figure is an accurate prediction of the Strut Braced Wing. As suggested it
has accounted for small prepayments from airlines during the design and early
manufacturing phase. It also accounts for the rapid increase in cash flow just before
certification from the delivery of initial aircraft produced waiting for certification. [7]
10.3 DIRECT/CASH OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN
10.3.1 DOC & COC / Seat-mile and Aircraft Mile cost with comparison over
design Range.
The following table is a summary of the total DOC and COC trip costs and their
respective Cost/seat nmile over the study mission of 4000nm and assuming a fuel price
of 1 US$ /gal. These were calculated using the AEA method outlined in the design
manual. Other methods were considered, notably those outlined in Roskam VIII [1],
Raymer [8] and L.R. Jenkinsons Civil Jet aircraft Design [5] but were disregarded due to
a lack of detail or being outdated. The AAA program which is based on Roskam's
methods was also considered and will be discussed later. A list of inputs and detailed cost
breakdown can be found in Spreadsheet A3/A4 in the appendices of this report.

Aircraft Trip Cost (US$) (2 class) DOC

Aircraft Trip Cost (US$) (2 class) COC
Cost/seat nmile (cents) (2 class) DOC
Cost/seat nmile (cents) (2 class) COC

777300ER
117,338
57,065
8.97
4.36

A340600
114,041
60,636
8.77
4.66

A320200
9,206
4,652
12.27
6.20

747400
121,883
66,753
8.33
4.56

747-8
137,660
72,644
8.60
4.54

SBW
109,652
48,028
7.61
3.34

Table 10.3.1

This equates to a 15.07% reduction in Direct Operating Costs /seat nmile over our
main competitor aircraft the 777-300ER. The relative savings in relation to other
competitor aircraft are depicted on the following seat mile comparison figure.

10-6

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

777-300ER (datum aircraft)

-10.00

0.00
-5.00
0.00
-2.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.0

DOC per seat %

A340-600
320 pax

-4.00

360 pax

747-8

-6.00
747-400

-8.00

400 pax

-10.00
-12.00
-14.00
SBW

-16.00
DOC per trip %

Figure 10.3.1

[9]

This figure shows the Strut Braced Wing clearly outperforms all competitor aircraft over
the design range. It is worth noting the 747-400 performs admirably due to low financial
costs as it is nearing the end of its planned program life and its selling price is relatively
cheap in comparison to others.
10.3.2 Freighter Comparison
Just over a third of output for the international airline industry is generated by freight. [ 10 ]
It is therefore of prime importance that the Strut Braced Wing can compete with other
freighter versions in the market. The following is a summary of the overall trip costs of a
variety of competitors each carrying different payloads. The study is performed over
4000 nautical miles with a fixed fuel price of 1 US$/gal.

777F
A380F [11]
747-400F
SBW
747-8F

Trip Cost
(US$)
112,026
149,931
129,818
103,896
114,080

Max Payload (tonnes)

103
150
113
106
140

Table 10.3.2

From this it can be seen that the Strut Braced Wing operates with the lowest trip cost
however this is not a fair comparison as it carries a reduced payload. Therefore a
tonne-mile comparison was produced in order to analyse how the aircraft compare to
each other. This is displayed in the following figure.

10-7

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Tonne-mile Saving Relative to

B777F

777 F (baseline)

0.00
100000
-2.00

110000

120000

130000

140000

150000

160000

-4.00
-6.00
-8.00

747-400F

SBW

-10.00

A380F
110 tonnes
130 tonnes

-12.00

150 tonnes

-14.00
747-8F

-16.00

Trip Cost (US$)

Figure 10.3.2

This study showed the future 747-8 freighter version to be the most cost
effective. The Strut Braced Wing still performs positively in comparison to its Boeing
counterparts and shows the family concept possibilities of this aircraft adding to the
marketability of this concept. The Strut Braced Wings range allows it to tap into the
more lucrative freighter markets such as Europe to Asia, north/mid Atlantic and
north/mid Pacific.
10.3.3 Airframe and Engine Maintenance Factors
It was thought necessary to investigate the effects improved avionics had on
airframe and engine maintenance. To do this, maintenance costs had to be calculated
using AAA software. These calculations took into account the maintenance manhours required per flight and the attained hours between engine overhaul, two aspects
that the AEA method does not accurately account for. With the help of the avionics
specialists it was decided that improved reliability, maintainability and self diagnostic
capabilities of avionic systems would cut airframe maintenance man-hours by
approximately two and a half hours. In order to produce a factor that could be
incorporated into AEA costing spreadsheet a percentage difference in maintenance
costs was calculated:
MHRmflthr Number of maintenance man-hours required per flight
777-300ER = 27.50 hours
DOCm
Therefore

= 10.98

SBW = 25 hours
= 10.92

10.98-10.92 = 0.06
(0.06/10.98)*100 = 0.55%

It was decided however that any positive effects due to avionics would be offset
by the additional maintenance required by the new Strut Braced Wing concept.
(No other inputs were changed for these calculations in order that only the effects due to
avionics were accounted for)

10-8

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Hengm Attained hours between engine overhaul

The same procedure was followed to ascertain an engine maintenance factor.
It was decided that the self diagnostic capabilities of the improved electronic engine
controls and Variable Frequency (VF) Electrical Power Generation would reduce
maintenance man-hours per flight by half an hour and also increase the attained hours
between engine overhaul from 4000 hours to 4200 hours. These changes yielded the
following results:
DOCm
777-300ER = 10.92

SBW = 10.75

Therefore 10.92-10.75 = 0.14

(0.14/10.92)*100 = 1.55%
This factor appears in the Strut Braced Wings direct operating costs
spreadsheet in engine labour under the Symbol ME. It equates to a 0.68% overall
saving in engine maintenance.
10.3.4 DOCs Breakdown Pie Charts
The following pie chart shows the percentage breakdown of the Strut Braced
Wings Direct Operating Costs (over a range of 4000nm, with a fuel price of 1 US $/gal
and operating with a 2 class 360PAX internal configuration). Financial costs are by far
the most influential factor. This was evident following sensitivity analysis which shall be
discussed later. Due to the new concept involved, financial penalties were always going to
be incurred. Therefore it is necessary that a Cash Operating Cost Breakdown was looked
at and this is discussed later in the report.
Fuel Cost
Total Engine 14%
Depreciation
32%

Maintenance
3%
Airframe
Maintenance Costs
10%
Navigation Charges
8%
Landing Fees
1%
Cabin Crew
5%
Cockpit Crew
3%

Interest
22%
Insurance
2%

Figure 10.3.3

The following is a pie chart to show the breakdown of savings made over the
777-300ER in there respective areas. (over a range of 4000nm, with a fuel price of 1 US
$/gal and operating with a 2 class 360PAX internal configuration).

10-9

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Fuel Saving
5%
Engine Maintenance Saving
1%

Fuel Cost
13%

Depreciation
29%

Total Engine Maintenance

3%
Airframe maintenance Saving
1%
Airframe Maintenance Costs
9%
Depriciation Loss
1%

Navigation Saving
1%
Navigation Charges
7%
Landing Fees Saving
< 1%
Landing Fees
1%
Cabin Crew Loss
<1%

Interest
20%

Cabin Crew
5%

Cockpit Crew
3%

Interest Loss
<1%
Insurance
2%

Figure 10.3.4

Engineers have relatively little control over insurance and interest costs as they are set by
the international economies of the world and by external factors. Depreciation is similar
but there are ways to influence this aspect of the financial costs. By pushing up annual
utilisation through improved turn around times and reduced block time, the depreciation
costs can be reduced. Through our use of sophisticated aircraft systems we aim to reduce
turn around time by reducing the time taken for routine maintenance checks. The
financial penalties incurred due to a higher MSP are clearly evident on the above pie
chart. There is also a small cabin crew loss as the Strut Braced Wing will carry
approximately 33 more passengers in a 2 class configuration and therefore will require an
additional cabin crew member. It can be clearly seen that most savings are a result of the
Strut Braced Wings superior fuel efficiency which is due to the morphology and overall
weight savings achieved. This is particularly important as fuel price is a volatile variable in
an ever changing time dependent market. This will be discussed in further detail in
chapter 6 of this report. Engine Maintenance, Airframe Maintenance and Navigation
Charges also see a significant saving over the 777-300ER.
These savings have been broken down further and shown on the following table. This
shows the contribution of each technology and specific aspect of the strut braced wing
morphology and their effect on DOCs. It also shows the inherent risk associated with
each technology. Each saving is a function of weight, fuel efficiency and positive effects
to reduce time spent on maintenance. The percentage weight and fuel savings are relative
to the 777-300ER.

10-10

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

10.3.5 Technologies Breakdown

Technology

Risk

Strut Braced Wing morphology

High Aspect Ratio Wing
Airframe Structural Savings
Undercarriage
Tail

13
11
13
11

Engines
High Wings Structural Weight Savings
Block Fuel Required

6
18
15

Composites Savings
Wing
Tail
Fuselage

Avionics Savings
Electro hydrostatic actuation
Variable Frequency (VF) Electrical Power generation
Electrically Powered Thrust Reversers
Hydraulic system 5000psi

% MWE
Saving
16.23

% Fuel
Saving

Landing
Fee's

Navigation
Charges

Eng Maintenance
Saving

23.55
5.00
0.30
1.25
1.00

0.35

0.89

0.03
0.02

0.07
0.06

-0.20
12.00

5.00
6.50
4.50

0.00
0.21
0.09

0.00
0.53
0.23

0.56

4.50
1.35
0.25
2.90

2.20
0.70
0.12
1.38

0.05

0.12

2.3
0.30
0.15
0.10
0.20

0.05

0.12

6
6
6
6

4.50
1.10
0.00
0.75
0.85

2.43
2.00

Airframe Maintenance
Saving

0.56

0.43

0.22

0.09
0.09
-

4.22
0.89
0.06
0.22
0.22

0.47

0.89
1.13
0.81

0.00

0.16

0.39

0.01

0.18
0.045

0.42

0.0075
0.02
0.02

Electronic Engine Controls

Tail plane fully independent of Central Hydraulic
System
High Performance metal polymer hybrid signal
wiring

0.05

0.10

0.35

0.30

0.01

1.10

0.30

0.045

FANS tailored approaches

Airport Moving Maps on NSS

6
6

0.25
0.05

0.75
0.10

0.01

25.23

28.05

Total % DOC Saving

DOC Saving
(Fuel)

0.0025

0.45

1.13

0.57

0.91

5.03
8.09

Table 10.3.3

10-11

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

An overall saving of 8.09% of Cost/seat nmile over the 777-300ER is achieved

due to the Strut Braced Wing morphology, composites and avionic systems. The table
clearly shows the contribution of each technology and the effect it has on landing fees,
navigation charges, engine maintenance, airframe maintenance and fuel costs. This table
also accounts for the effect of improved reliability, maintainability and self diagnostic
capabilities of avionics systems on engine and airframe maintenance.
It is worth noting that the greatest savings come from the high wing structural
weight savings. This has therefore achieved the highest risk rating as it is an area that
requires further research and testing as its effects are relatively unknown for this size of
aircraft. Composite savings are relatively low risk as the amount used is very similar to
current Airbus models (A380 & A350). The effects will therefore be known and will not
require much if any additional testing. The avionics systems on board the Strut Braced
Wing will be largely the same as those used on the A380 and will therefore be minimum
risk as their performance under actual conditions will be more clearly understood.
This was part of the Design Strategy of the Strut Braced Wing. As this is a
relatively new and untested morphology for this scale of aircraft the need to minimise
risk in other areas was realised. Therefore the focus could be centred on achieving a
greater understanding of the strut and high wing configuration.
10.3.6 COC Pie Charts of Range Variations

1000 nm
Fuel Cost
26%

Cockpit Crew
7%

Cabin Crew Cost

11%

Landing Fee's
9%
Total engine
Maintenance
8%

Figure 10.3.5

Navigation charges
13%
Airframe
Maintenance Costs
26%

4000 nm
Cockpit Crew
7%
Cabin Crew
12%

Fuel Cost
31%

Total Engine
Maintenance
7%

Landing Fees
3%

Navigation Charges
18%

Airframe
Maintenance Costs
22%

Figure 10.3.6

10-12

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

7300 nm
Cockpit Crew
7%
Cabin Crew Cost
12%

Fuel Cost
32%

Landing Fee's
2%
Navigation charges
19%

Total engine
Maintenance
7%
Airframe Maintenance
Costs
21%

Figure 10.3.7

These pie charts help convey the increase in fuel and navigation charges as the mission
range increases. They become more of a dominating factor and have been addressed
accordingly when considering areas for potential savings over competitor aircraft. If the
Strut Braced Wing can achieve substantial savings over a variety of ranges it will possess
a superior marketability.
The Savings achieved at these ranges are further conveyed in the following table and
figure. It is worth noting here that block fuel values for the 777-300ER are only
estimations and therefore the results reflect the correct trends but are not subject to a
high level of accuracy.
Range (nm)
SBW Block Fuel (lbs)
777-300ER Block Fuel (lbs)
1000
28559
32250
4000
101454
141000
7300
174557
220000
Table 10.3.4
777-300ER

A340-600

DOC Comparison due to Range Variation

200,000

747-400

SBW

13.93%

180,000
DOC (US$) per trip

160,000
140,000

15.07%

120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000

12.49%

40,000
20,000
0

1000

4000

Range (nm)

10-13

7300

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Figure 10.3.8

These results reflect the design characteristics of the Strut Braced Wing. The aircraft has
been designed to produce greatest savings over a study mission of 4000nm. From the
data presented it can be seen that the Strut Braced Wing still achieves substantial savings
over competitor aircraft over a variety of ranges. Financial overheads start having a
greater influence on direct operating costs when the aircraft operates over a longer range.
A lower percentage saving is achieved over a range of 1000nm as costs such as airframe
maintenance, engine maintenance and landing fees remain the same for each range and
therefore become more of an issue over shorter ranges.
10.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
(All sensitivity and trade studies are performed over a range of 4000nm and with a fixed
fuel price of 1 US$ unless otherwise stated)
10.4.1 Aircraft Price Vs Fuel Price
The following figure is a price variability study to show the sensitivity of the Strut Braced
Wing to factors which are outside of the manufacturers control. Fuel price is a highly
volatile variable and has seen dramatic increases over recent years and therefore its effect
on direct operating costs must be looked at. Manufacturers study price has relatively
little to do with the manufacturer but is also an important variable.
25.00

Aircraft Price (USm$)

260

20.00
250

15.00

240

% DOC Change

230

10.00

5.00
1.5

0.00
1

-5.00

Fuel Price (US$)

-10.00

0.5

-15.00

Figure 10.4.1

As expected there are dramatic changes in direct operating costs subject to the change in
variable. As financial costs account for roughly half of the total direct operating costs
even a small change in MSP will incur severe penalties. MSP to a certain extent will be set
by the market and it is therefore necessary to look at reducing costs to the manufacturer
in order to maximise the profit potential of the aircraft without reducing performance.
Similarly fuel price accounts for approximately a quarter of direct operating costs and any
increase in fuel price will add significant cost to the airline trip costs. The Strut Braced
Wing has highlighted this as one of its key design drivers. With fuel prices set to rise
dramatically over the coming years, fuel efficiency will be the key to reducing airline costs
in the future. Demand for fuel efficient aircraft will be high.

10-14

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

10.4.2 Manufacturers Weight Empty Vs Block Fuel

The following pie chart is a further display of the positive effects of increased fuel
efficiency. This was easy to display as it shows simple relationships of increased block
fuel and manufacturers weight empty (as the two main parameters in COC calculations)
and their effects on direct operating costs. The maximum point here represents the 777300ERs characteristics.
8.00

% DOC change relative to baseline

6.00

4.00
141000

2.00

125000
149

0.00
130

Block Fuel (lbs)

111000

-2.00

110
100000

M.W.E. (tonnes)

90

-4.00

Figure 10.4.2

The two variables used in this carpet plot are heavily affected by the engineers and
designers. As seen earlier they affect roughly half of the direct operating costs with block
fuel affecting fuel costs and MWE affecting maintenance costs, landing fees and
navigation charges. This is quite evident from the very sensitive effect they both have on
the % DOC change. This was straight forward to display as it shows clear trends
resulting from aspects of the aircraft that each discipline could relate to. An increase in
drag would consequently push the block fuel up and similarly from a structural point of
view a reduction in sizing and weight of the wing would result in a lighter overall MWE.
A trade off was therefore required in order to meet with the constraints of both
aerodynamics and structures. This will be discussed in detail later.
In a study performed by aerodynamics specialists (technical report 5) it was found that
the drag penalties of flying at a higher mach number were unfeasible. An increase in
speed to Mach 0.84 would increase drag penalties by 23% compared to those calculated
at Mach 0.83. It was therefore decided to operate with an optimum cruise speed of Mach
0.83.
10.4.3 Airframe Weight - Airframe Price - SL Static Thrust
The following carpet plot shows the effects of three variables. It is a generalised plot to
show the simple relationships of Airframe Price, Airframe Weight and Sea Level Static
Thrust on direct operating costs.

10-15

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

4.00

3.00

213

2.00

Airframe Price (USm$)

% DOC Saving over Baseline

1.00
208
Baseline

0.00
203
-1.00

-2.00

198
134

-3.00
124

95200 (lbs)

-4.00
114
-5.00

Airframe Weight
(tonnes)

84100 (lbs)
104

SLST

73000 (lbs)

-6.00

Figure 10.4.3

The effects of airframe price and airframe weight have to a certain extent already been
discussed using previous carpet plots of Aircraft Price and MWE. It is to be noted that
the effects of altering engine variables in relation to engine maintenance have not been
investigated. The range of Sea Level Static Thrust values used above, reflect three
possible engine designs that could be employed on board the Strut Braced Wing. From
the plot it is clear that between the two extreme values there is a difference of 1% in
relation to DOC savings. A baseline value was included to represent the current values at
the time the plot was presented. It was decided that although the Strut Braced Wing
could operate with a 73000 lbs thrust engine, a more powerful engine would reduce the
need for alterations to the wing configuration on family concepts. This would reduce
time and capital expense in designing for further family strategy.
As this is a generalised plot it does not account for weight penalties that will undoubtedly
occur in the wing and pylons due to a heavier engine. It assumes that the engine size is
exactly matched to the aircraft requirements (rubber engines) [12]. An accurate
multidisciplinary trade off is required here in order to optimise the wing further. It is a
specific feature of this configuration that engine positions and size should be looked at
and assessed in detail. At present engine position and placement are in line with studies
performed by Virginia Institute of Technology [13] and are further discussed in Section
6: Propulsion of the supporting technical reports.
10.4.4 Family Concept: PAX Fuel Price Range
A need to display the family concepts and potential of the Strut Braced Wing was realised
in order to show its full potential as a versatile and lucrative aircraft.

10-16

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

9.50

360 PAX
9.00

Study Mission
8.50

417 PAX

Seat mile cost (cents)

8.00

Fuel Price (US$)

1.5

7.50

7.00

6.50

0.5

528 PAX

6.00

5.50

3500
5.00

Range (nm)

4000
4500

5000

4.50

Figure 10.4.4

This plot shows the potential for three possible passenger configurations which the
aircraft internal layout has been designed to accommodate. Up-market airlines may prefer
the option of a 2 class layout in a standard (360 PAX) or stretched (417 PAX) version
aircraft. If the airline can sustain demand for a 417 PAX aircraft then there are
exceptional operating cost savings that can be achieved. Budget airlines will concern
themselves with the maximum amount of passengers they can squeeze into an aircraft at
minimum expense. From this plot it is clear to see the spread of costs over the different
ranges are smaller for an all economy layout (528 PAX) compared with a 2 class layout
(360 PAX). The change in seat mile cost is also less varied with fluctuations in fuel price
with an increased capacity. This is because there are more passengers to spread the
resulting costs over.
10.5 TECHNICAL TRADE STUDIES
10.5.1 Aircraft Produced Vs % Composites
The following trade study investigates the effects of the overall use of composites on an
aircraft against the total number of aircraft produced to production standard. This study
was deemed necessary to fully understand the cost implications of an extensive use of
composites. In order to construct this graph the NRCs and RCs spreadsheet found in
appendices was required to estimate a new aircraft cost for each level of composites with
each number of aircraft produced. (Cost + profit method incorporated)
Overall Use of Composites
(%)
30
40
50
60
Table 10.5.1

MTOW
(tonnes)
262
258.2
255.6
252.9

Fmat (material
correction factor)
2.5
2.6
2.75
3

Fdiff (complexity
rating)
1.4
1.42
1.45
1.5

(Cost + profit also varies with number of aircraft produced)

10-17

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

12.00
10.00

250

8.00
6.00

Total Seat-mile Cost

4.00
2.00

300

0.00
-2.00

Aircraft
Produced

-4.00

350

-6.00
-8.00

400

60
50

-10.00

40

30

% Composites

-12.00

Figure 10.5.1

Starting with a baseline of 30% overall composite use (similar to current Airbus models:
A380 &A350) the value was increased up to a maximum of 60%. As the level of
composites increases so too does the material correction factor and the difficulty factor
of implementing such composites. This will increase the cost to the manufacturer in the
R.D.T.E. Therefore a trade off is required against the weight reductions due to
composites as a measure of their respective effects on direct operating costs. It can be
seen from the plot above that any increase in composites will have an undesirable effect
on total seat-mile costs. This effect is accentuated depending on how extensive the use of
composites is. The effects are also seen to be more dramatic the less aircraft that are
produced. This in turn will produce more risk to the manufacturer if sales do not go as
well as had been previously forecasted. Therefore it was decided that the Strut Braced
Wing would only incorporate the currently used and fully understood levels of
composites to reduce overall risk of the project and to reduce costs to the manufacturer
and therefore reducing DOCs. This study has not incorporated the desirable effects
composites may have on maintenance costs due to reliability and maintainability. This
would be extremely complex to estimate and any benefits may be offset by the
unpredictable nature of extensive composite use.
10.5.2 Wing Area Vs Span
The following was a multidisciplinary study into the effects of different wing geometry
configurations. This required structures specialists to calculate accurate weights,
aerodynamics specialists to calculate lift and drag values for each configuration studied
and finally performance specialists were required to work out accurate block fuels for
each configuration. Each configuration was measured against its effect on percentage
direct operating cost change. It is worth noting here that the Strut Braced Wing has been
designed to store most of its fuel in a wing centred tank and in the fuselage fuel tanks
above the passengers. This enables the wing structure to be designed to an optimum
with minimum constraints caused by the need to locate fuel in the wings. (Cost +
profit method incorporated)

10-18

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Wing Area Vs Span Trade off

AR = 12.5
1.00

450
0.80

Wing Area
(m^2)
0.60

350
80
400

% DOC Change

0.40

0.20

70
Span (m)
0.00

60

-0.20

-0.40

-0.60

Figure 10.5.2

Constraint lines have been applied to the plot in order to show the span limit. The limit
appears due to the optimum positioning of the strut and engine. Usually a higher aspect
ratio wing is structurally inefficient but due to the presence of the strut these effects are
reduced. Both weight and block fuel are affected by increasing and decreasing around the
optimum area. These characteristics are a result of structural inefficiencies and increases
in drag. It is clear to see from this graph that the optimum wing area is somewhere
between 380 and approximately 400 m2. This required a second, more refined iteration in
order to determine the optimum wing area.
2nd iteration
The study was refined to the region suggested above in order to determine the optimum
wing area. Wing span was a very sensitive issue as the true effect of altering the engine
position and strut inclination are not fully known. The following is a graphical
representation of the results. The same multidisciplinary procedure was followed as the
1st iteration.
0.10

75
0.00

% DOC Change

-0.10

Span (m)
-0.20

70

AR = 12.5

-0.30

-0.40

-0.50

65

400
380

390
Wing Area m^2

-0.60

Figure 10.5.3

10-19

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

From the plot above it is easy to see that the optimum wing area is between 388 and
390m2. This study had a significant influence on the Strut Braced Wings decision to
operate with a wing area of 389m2 which was down from the original value of 410m2
giving an estimated 0.2% further DOC saving. Further studies are needed in this field as
the effects of the strut on the wing need to be modelled in more detail. More accurate
wing weights can be calculated and a third iteration could be achieved given sufficient
time and expense.
10.6 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
With the impending arrival of environmental penalties and the rapid increases in fuel
price over the recent years, fuel and engine efficiency have become key design drivers for
the future. It was necessary to investigate the possible taxes, charges and standards that
may be imposed on aircraft emission and noise.
Currently the Chicago Convention Ruling prohibits any tax on aviation fuel on
international flights. There is, however, increasing pressure for this to change. The
European Commission & UK Government have considered introducing a 1 US$/gal
additional tax on fuel. However this system may lead to airlines tankering fuel and any
tax imposed could be avoided by larger more global airlines. This solution would have to
be implemented worldwide for it to work. Any tax on fuel will subsequently be paid for
by the passengers. [14]
Also suggested are emissions trading schemes where industries buy emissions certificates
and trade with each other in order to put a cap on emission contributions. This would
bring more benefits and be more cost efficient to the airlines. [15] [16] There are other
such emissions and noise charges currently in use in airports around the world:
Heathrow Airport imposes an additional landing charge due to the noise certification of
the aircraft and the airlines record on track keeping. As the Strut Braced Wing uses a
smaller more efficient engine than the 777-300ER it will incur less penalties. Advanced
avionics will also help the Strut Braced Wings track keeping record. In order to relate
these benefits in terms of operating costs a percentage charge is assumed for both the
777-300ER and the SBW. The maximum possible charge is 25% of landing fees. If the
777-300ER is assumed to incur a charge of 20% then we can assume the SBW will incur
penalties of 11% due to the reasons mentioned above. [17]
Zurich, Geneva & Bern airports all operate similar emissions based charging schemes.
This tackles the problem of NOx and Hydrocarbon emissions which are the largest
concern for environmental groups. An emissions charge is based on engine efficiency
and performance. This is aimed to promote and accelerate the introduction of the best
available aircraft technology. So there are incentives for engine manufacturers to design
more efficient engines and for the aircraft manufacturers to implement them on their
aircraft. A charge of between 0 - 40% of landing fees has to be paid. The same procedure
as for noise is followed, assuming the 777-300ER is charged 30% then a charge of 22%
is imposed on the SBW (this is a conservative estimate). [17]
The resulting effects have been summarised in the table below with the potential DOC
savings over the 777-300ER. The final column is the most extreme condition where all
three possible charges talked about could be implemented.

10-20

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

Current %
saving

Cost/seat nm (cents) 2 class

DOC
Aircraft Trip Cost (US$)
Cost/seat nmile (cents) (2 class)
DOC % saving

Emissions
Tax

Heathrow
Noise

Zurich Emissions
Scheme

Potential
2015 (All)

6.52

9.79

6.71

6.73

10.03

109,709

124,833

109,864

110,037

125,353

15.09

18.06

15.26

15.28

18.28

Table 10.6.1

The following pie chart helps express just how important fuel efficiency will be in the
future as fuel costs account for roughly half of the total cash operating costs.

Possible Noise and Emissions Effect on COC

Breakdown (Range 4000nm)
Cockpit Crew Costs
5%
Cabin Crew Cost
9%
Landing Fee's
3%
Fuel Costs
49%

Navigation Charges
13%

Engine Maintenance
5%

Airframe Maintenance
16%

Figure 10.6.1

With this in mind airlines will be looking to superior fuel efficient aircraft like the
Strut Braced Wing in order to reduce their operating costs. As NOx, CO2 and noise
are interrelated and a reduction in one does not constitute a reduction in the others a
trade off must be performed in order to determine the minimum emission penalties.

Figure 10.6.2

[18]

10-21

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

As minimum NOx performance inevitably sacrifices some fuel consumption and noise
and Minimum CO2 will occur at maximum NOx emission, it will be necessary to
perform a specific trade off like this one displayed above should any such emission
charges be imposed.
Another point that is worth noting is that due to the Strut Braced Wings limited use of
composites less pollution will be created during the manufacturing process. This is
because, as developers are increasingly finding, composite production is relatively energy
intensive therefore producing more CO2 during the manufacturing phase [19]. This could lead to
an increase in development and manufacturing costs if charges were applied to this
industry.
10.7 CONCLUSIONS
It certainly seems evident from the direct operating cost analysis that the Strut
Braced Wing configuration can compete and better any competitor aircraft for its
proposed mission range. Its design strategy has addressed key elements for future aircraft
production including the need for fuel efficiency and comfort standards. It is an
extremely marketable aircraft as proven by the extreme savings achieved over rival
aircraft.
The potential for a family strategy has been realised and investigated providing
more options to the airlines. The manufacturers study price has been chosen to reflect
the superior DOC and comfort performance of this aircraft. It reflects a need to spend
extra capital in the early development stages in order to ensure the program is fully tested
and understood. This is important due to the risk involved in producing a novel
configuration. Further work is undoubtedly required and areas highlighted during this
study include further studies into the effects of the strut on the wing weight and
aerodynamics. This will help further optimize the wing geometry. Also noted for further
analysis was the positioning of the struts along the span and indeed the position of
engines on the wing. These aspects were hard to model conceptually and accurate testing
models would be required in order to further our understanding and to minimise the risk
involved.
10.8 STANDARD CONFIGURATION
Research conducted into the possibilities of designing a standard configuration
aircraft to meet the requirements set out by the requirement spec. produced very
interesting results. With a reduced block time compared to the B777-300ER, utilisation
of the aircraft naturally increases. This will in turn reduce the depreciation cost of the
aircraft, which affects roughly a quarter of the total direct operating costs, thus making it
a factor of extreme importance.
Compared to the B777-300ER the reduced MTOW of both possible standard
configuration aircraft would reduce the landing fees, navigation charges and maintenance
costs. The more modest of the two, with and MTOW of 340 tonnes, brings about a
reduction in DOC's of approximately 11%. This is achieved mainly by a reduction in
block time.
The standard configuration aircraft uses an increased overall composite structure
similar to that of the 787, which gives it a lower OWE than the SBW. With a reduced
stability, and a very bold design this could produce savings of approximately 16%.
However, the SBW can still be redesigned to incorporate more composite materials, thus
reducing weight further. This concludes the fact that the SBW still possesses the

10-22

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

versatility of further weight reductions without jeopardising stability. (The results for the
Standard Configuration study are displayed in the Spreadsheets in the following
appendices)
10.9 APPENDIX A
The following spreadsheets are the main basis of all studies for the aircraft economic
analysis. All spreadsheets were derived from these original four to enable investigations
into variations in range, emissions charges, sensitivity analysis and trade Studies. Inputs
for the following program cost spreadsheets have been discussed in section 10.2 of this
report.
A1:
Spreadsheet outputs for Non-Recurring costs
B

A
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

OUTPUTS

37
38
39
40
41

AMPR Weight
Engineering Man-hours Required
Manufacturing Man-hours Required
Tooling Man-hours Required
Cost of engines and avionics RDTE
Manufacturing cost of fta
Materials cost to manufacture fta
Tooling cost to manufacture fta
Quality Control Cost fta
Flight test Operations Cost
Flight test Airplanes Cost
Airframe Engineering and design
Cost
Development & Testing Cost
Test & Simulation Facilities Cost
RDTE Profit
Cost to finance RDTE Phases

42

Total RDTE Cost

Wampr
MHRaedr
MHRmanr
MHRtoolr
C(e+a)r
Cmanr
Cmatr
Ctoolr
Cqcr
Cftor
Cftar

lbs
Hrs
Hrs
Hrs
m$
m$
m$
m$
m$
m$
m$

SBW
149821
18301533
19058673
19345741
126
1124
329
1470
146
166
3196

Caedr
Cdstr
Ctsfr
Cpror
Cfinr
CRDTE

m$
m$
m$
m$
m$

1922
650
1369
913
913

m$

9128

Table 10.8.1

A2:

Spreadsheet Recurring Cost outputs:

A

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

OUTPUTS

SBW

AMPR Weight
Engineering Man-hours Required
Manufacturing Man-hours Required
Tooling Man-hours Required
Total Materials cost building Nprogram
Airplanes
Cost of engines and avionics
Airplane interior Cost
Labour cost for Manufacturing
Materials cost to manufacture Nm airplanes
Tooling cost to manufacture
Quality Control Cost
Airplane Program Production Cost
Airframe Engineering and design Cost

10-23

Wampr
149821
MHRaedprogram
28203207
MHRmanprogram 149342541
MHRtoolprogram
37358803
Cmatprogram
C(e+a)m
Cintm
Cmanm
Cmatm
Ctoolm
Cqcm
Capcm
Caedm

7704
15750
356
7687
7375
1369
999
33536
1040

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

44
45
46

Cftom
Cfinm
CMAN

Production flight test operations Cost

Cost to Finance Manufacturing Phase
Total Manufacturing Cost

126
3856
38558

Table 10.8.2

A3:

Spreadsheet of inputs for direct operating cost calculations:

A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

777300ER

A320200

SBW

J
SC low
comp

SC

MTOW

tonnes

351.5

75.5

262.8

291

340

MWE

tonnes

149

38

111

106

137.5

Aircraft price MSP

($m)

231.5

60

240

240

230

327

150

360

360

360

7880

500

7300

7300

7300

8.5

3.5

8.84

7.5

8.5

No. of PAX 2
Range PAX 2

nm

NE
Engine weight

tonnes

Engine price ENP

($m)

BPR
SL static thrust

lb

23

14

14

23

8.6

4.75

7.4

5.8

8.6
110000

115000

26500

84100

91300

OAPR

42

27.4

42

42.7

42

Compressor stages (Nc)

12

14

13

18

12

Airframe Weight AFW

tonnes

Airframe Price AFP

($m)

Fuel Price

US$/gal

Stage Length

nm

132

31

93.32

91.00

120.50

185.5

48

212

212

184

4000

500

4000

4000

4000

Stage Length

Km

7408

926

7408

7408

7408

Block Fuel

141000

7189

101454

91689

135678

Block fuel

lb
US
gallon

21045

1073

15142

13685

20250

Block Time t

hours

8.72

1.60

8.72

8.60

8.60

Labour Rate

US $/gal

66

66

66

66

66

Total flying Hours (tfh)

hours

6500

4000

6500

6500

6500

Turnaround time tt

hours

3.0

0.5

3.0

3.0

3.0

Table 10.8.3

A4:
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Spreadsheet of outputs for direct operating costs:

777300ER
Utilisation U
Airframe spares
Engine spares

A320200

SBW

SC Low
Comp

SC

554.61

1,902.95

554.61

560.34

560.34

18.55

4.8

21.2

21.2

18.4

13.8

3.6

8.4

8.4

13.8

Total Investment TI

263.85

68.4

269.6

269.6

262.2

Depriciation (DEP) ($m)

0.0340

0.0026

0.0347

0.0344

0.0334

Interest (INT)

0.0238

0.0018

0.0243

0.0241

0.0234
0.0025

($m)

Insurance (INS) ($m)

0.0025

0.0002

0.0026

0.0026

Cockpit Crew CPC ($)

3313.6

608.76

3313.6

3268

3268

5232

480.6

5755.2

5676

5676

Cabin Crew Cost CAC 2c ($)

Landing Fee's LAF ($)
Navigation charges (NAV) ($)

2109

453

1576.8

1746

2040

9,820.84

568.94

8,491.78

8,935.78

9,658.85

Airframe labour

7,311.89

702.21

5,636.55

5,464.73

6,735.90

Airframe materials

4235.707

344.3712

4840.808

4784.84

4152.88

Airframe Maintenance Costs AFM

11,547.60

1,046.58

10,477.36

10,249.57

10,888.78

C1

0.962

0.997

0.972

0.986

0.962

C2

1.449

1.002

1.449

1.472

1.449

C3

0.954

1.018

0.986

1.146

0.954

10-24

Aircraft Economics 10

Group 5

49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

SL Static Thrust T

52.16

12.02

38.15

41.41

Labour (engine maintenace) LT

62.36

39.26

56.42

68.70

60.06

142.21

40.18

113.88

132.44

137.34

Material (engine m) MT
Total engine Maintenance EMC
Fuel Cost FC

Aircraft Trip Cost (2 class)

DOC
Aircraft Trip Cost (2 class)
COC
Cost/seat nmile (cents) (2
class) DOC
Cost/seat nmile (cents) (2
class) COC

49.90

3,997.36

421.36

3,327.54

3,881.85

3,809.72

21,044.78

1,072.99

15,142.39

13,684.93

20,250.45

117,338

9,206

109,709

108,435

114,874

57,065

4,652

48,085

47,442

55,592

8.97

12.27

7.62

7.53

7.98

4.36

6.20

3.34

3.29

3.86

Table 10.8.4

Figure 10.9.1

10.10 REFERENCES
[1] Dr. Jan Roskam Part VIII Airplane Cost Estimation
[2] Keith Macgregor Airbus Future Projects Office
[3] Boeing Website www.boeing.com
[4] http://books.elsevier.com/companions/034074152X/appendices/data-b/table-4/default.htm
[5] L.R. Jenkinson, P. Simpkin, D Rhodes Civil Jet Aircraft Design
[6] http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FR747-8.htm
[7] AIAA Publications and Papers, Electronic Journals (AIAA-86-2667) A.L. Jacobson, D.G. Murphy
Douglas Aircraft Company The Designers Impact on Commercial Aircraft Economics
[8] Raymer Aircraft design and conceptual approach
[9] Aircraft Operations Lecture notes Chp. 3 Direct Operating Costs
[10] Rigas Doganis Flying off Course third edition the economics of international Airlines
[11] Airbus Website www.airbus.com
[12]L. R. Jenkinson, J.F. Marchman III Aircraft Design Projects for engineering students
[13] http://www.aoe.vt.edu/research/groups/tbw/reports/joel/tbwreport.pdf
[14] Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution The Environmental Effects of Civil Aircraft in
Flight (2001)
[15] Flight International Magazine
[16] Airline Business Magazine
[17] Parliamentary office of Science and Technology Aviation and the Environment April 2003
[18] Aircraft Operations guest Lecturer Peter Newton Civil Aviation Growth and Emissions: A Global
Environment Perspective
[19] Peter Newton, Assistant Director, Dept. of Trade and Industry UK

10-25