7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference (ATIO)<BR>2nd Centre of E AIAA 2007-7752

18 - 20 September 2007, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Design and analysis of a hydrogen fuelled turboprop

airliner
T. A. Snijders,∗ Dr. R. Slingerland†
Delft University of Technology,
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering,
Department of Design, Integration and Operations of Aircraft and Rotorcraft,
P.O.Box 5058 2600 GB, Delft, The Netherlands

In order to investigate the possibilities of a hydrogen fuelled turboprop airliner a design

and analysis algorithm is developed based on empirical and analytical relations. The design
parameters of 7 different aircraft concepts are determined from the requirements and the
lowest resulting operating cost. The results show that the use of modern turboprop engines
is beneficial for fuel consumption and cost regardless of the fuel used. A hydrogen fuelled
aircraft using these engines shows no significant additional benefits despite its reduced tank
size. Two unconventional aircraft featuring external hydrogen tanks and using turboprop
engines are shown to perform as well as a conventional design with the tanks inside the
fuselage. A blended wing-body aircraft powered by turbofans uses more fuel than the
other concepts and its empty and take-off mass and operating cost are higher than the
other concepts. It is also shown that cruising at a reduced altitude with a hydrogen fuelled
turboprop aircraft in order to lower the net greenhouse effect is possible without extra
operating cost.

Nomenclature
A Aspect ratio
a Rate of climb, m/s
b Wing span, m
CD Total drag coefficient
CDi Induced drag coefficient
CD0 Zero-lift drag coefficient
Cf Friction coefficient
CLcruise Cruise lift coefficient
CLmax Maximum lift coefficient
e Oswald factor
L/D Lift-to-drag ratio
mf uel Fuel mass, kg
mmto Maximum take-off mass, kg
moe Operating empty mass, kg
P Power, W
S Wing area, m2
T Thrust, kN
t/caver Average wing thickness
t/cr Root wing thickness
Vappr Approach speed, m/s
γ Flight path angle, rad
∗ Graduate Student, Tim.Snijders@gmail.com
† Assistant Professor, R.Slingerland@TUDelft.nl

1 of 12

American
Copyright © 2007 by R. Slingerland, TU Delft, The Netherlands. PublishedInstitute of Aeronautics
by the American Institute of and Astronautics
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
ηp Propulsive efficiency
Λ1/2 Half-chord sweep, deg
Λ1/4 Quarter-chord sweep, deg
ρ Density of air, kg/m3

I. Introduction
Hydrogen is considered as one of the main possibilities as a replacement for kerosene in aviation in the
future. Research into hydrogen fuelled aircraft showed that the storage of the fuel will be the main challenge
in the design of these aircraft. The hydrogen will have to be stored at extremely low temperatures and
at elevated pressure, necessitating sufficiently insulated fuel tanks in the form of pressure vessels.1 Still
hydrogen will need approximately four times as much storage volume than kerosene, calling for large fuel
tanks that will not fit in the wings. Different fuel tank configurations are possible,2 all having their penalties
on aircraft performance and cost.
Any fuel burn reduction measure will have the extra effect that the penalties induced by the large tank
volumes, mainly drag and mass, are reduced, leading to even less fuel consumption. One of the possible
measures is to use more fuel-efficient propulsion concepts than the turbofan. Modern, high-speed turboprops
and especially contra-rotating propfans are expected to have up to 30% better propulsive efficiency than
current generation turbofans3, .4 However, in earlier research into hydrogen fuelled aircraft, the high-speed
turboprop was not considered,5 which is the main reason for this research.
The turboprop engines will show their full fuel-efficient capability at lower cruise speed than turbofans,6 and
a Mach number of 0.75 will be a better choice than the currently used 0.78-0.82. Therefore an application
is investigated for the short- to medium-haul aircraft category, where cruise speed has a lower impact on
direct operating cost.
Designs for several different conventional and unconventional aircraft are made, based on the size and
performance of the Airbus A320. Using a design algorithm these designs are optimized with respect to oper-
ating cost. The resulting basic designs are compared in terms of fuel consumption, cost and environmental
impact to show the effects of combining hydrogen fuel with propfans.
This paper is a summary of the graduation thesis of the author,7 a full version of which can be requested.

II. Concepts
A. Conventional designs
In order to investigate the effects of combining propfan engines with hydrogen fuel on an airliner, four
conventional concepts are used. Each of these concepts form a different combination of fuel and engines.
Table 1 shows the four combinations, where concept A is basically the A320. All concepts have underwing
engines, which, in the case of the propfan aircraft necessitates the use of a high wing. Together with this
high wing a T-tail is used. Figure 1 shows a simple model of concept D, revealing the aforementioned
characteristics.

Table 1. Conventional concepts

Fuel Engine
Turbofan Propfan
Kerosene Concept A Concept B
Hydrogen Concept C Concept D

In the case of hydrogen fuelled aircraft using a conventional design, the fuel will have to be stored inside
the fuselage. The fuel tanks can be placed in several different ways. From a flight dynamics point of view
the tanks can best be placed close to the center of gravity, which means placement of tanks in the middle of
the passenger cabin. But these tanks will split the passenger cabin in two parts, each needing the standard
facilities like galleys and lavatories, thus increasing mass and size of the aircraft. Another possibility is to use

2 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Figure 1. Concept D

a large fuel tank in the rear fuselage and several smaller tanks on top of the fuselage. The small tanks are an
inefficient way of storing a large volume and again extra mass is added. A last possibility is the placement
of tanks in front of and behind the passengers. The front tank will disconnect the cockpit from the cabin,
so that an extra door for the cockpit crew or a connection through the tank is needed, once more leading to
a mass penalty. Furthermore, as these tanks will have a large diameter, they will become nearly spherical.
In terms of mass, that is an advantage, but there is a considerable loss of space around the tank ends.
Since no obvious best solution exists, a mass estimate of the fuel tanks and needed adaptations to the aircraft
revealed that the last option is the most promising and this one will be used. The concept that was shown in
figure 1 shows the large fuselage needed to accommodate these fuel tanks. As the addition of the fuel tanks
to the fuselage of the A320 would stretch it to a length considerably longer than the fuselage of an A321, it
is decided to use a wide-body fuselage with the same diameter and seat layout as the A330.

B. Unconventional concepts
Next to the 4 conventional designs, which have the disadvantage of placing the fuel tanks inside the cabin,
several unconventional hydrogen fuelled aircraft have been considered. From a set of possible aircraft con-
figurations three were chosen for further analysis.

1. External tanks
Two of the unconventional configurations feature fuel tanks that are completely separated from the fuselage.
Both aircraft use underwing propfan engines which again necessitate a high wing. As the fuel is not stored
inside the fuselage, a wide-body fuselage is not necessary and the normal A320 fuselage dimensions are used.
The structure of the fuselage will differ from the A320 since a high wing is used and the undercarriage will
have to be placed on the fuselage.
The first of the external tanks configurations, concept E, simply comprises fuel tanks under the wing outboard
of the engines, as shown on the left in figure 2. This way the fuel can be situated close to the center of
gravity. On the other hand special care has to be taken to prevent damage to the tanks after an engine
failure and aero-elastic problems might occur due to the large masses outboard on the wing.
The second configuration, concept F, decreases the drag penalty of placing the tanks outside the fuselage
by combining the engine nacelle and the fuel tanks. The rear of the fuel tanks is connected to the fuselage
through the horizontal tail plane with a reduced bending moment on the wing as a result. The disadvantage
is that the center of gravity is placed further backwards, leading to a wing that is placed far aft and to

3 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

short and thick fuel tanks and large tail planes. Furthermore structural problems are likely to arise due to
interconnections between the wing, tanks, stabilizer and fuselage.

Figure 2. Concept E, underwing tanks and concept F, connected tanks

2. Blended wing-body
A third unconventional aircraft analyzed in this study is a blended wing-body aircraft, where the large
volume needed for fuel is readily available. A concept was developed with a passenger cabin forward of the
aft spar with up to 18 passengers in a row. On the port and starboard sides of the cabin the fuel tanks are
placed, thus ensuring that no large shift in the center of gravity occurs, which is important as trim drag
would be very high on a blended wing-body.
A weight penalty follows from the non-cylindrical tanks, but creating a more efficient pressure vessel would
result in a larger local wing thickness and chord with corresponding increase in weight and drag. The
placement of propfan engines was found to be very impractical considering the clearance of the fan blades.
Placement at the wing leading edge is difficult due to large leading edge sweep, whereas placement at the
trailing edge results in a large nose-down moment during take-off. It was therefore decided to further analyst
this concept with turbofan engines. These engines are placed on the rear part of the center wing close to
the center line in order to minimize the yawing moment after engine failure. Figure 3 shows a simple model
of this concept.

Figure 3. Concept G, blended wing-body

4 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 III. Design and analysis model
Several design features of the different configurations, like cabin size, follow directly from the requirements
and some configuration specific parameters, but most parameters still have to be determined. It would need
a very complex model to find all these parameters and it was decided to use some of the parameters from the
A320 to simplify this design. For example the wing and tailplanes’ taper ratios and the wing profiles were
fixed. The remainder of the parameters for each design were found using a cost-based optimization method
made in Microsoft Excel.
The design algorithm follows a method based on analytical and empirical relations8 as no simulations or
numerical methods were deemed necessary in this concept design phase. These relations were combined with
a cost model applicable to short- to medium range aircraft9 where operating cost are determined for a range
of 2000km and an 83% full aircraft. As both the design relations and the cost estimate are based on early
1980s cost levels, the cost for liquid hydrogen is corrected from an expected value of $2.50/kg to half that
price in the 1980s.
The model follows an iterative process where wing sweep and wing span are varied and all other parameters
are determined from the requirements like range and stability. The interdependency between many parame-
ters is incorporated so that no discrepancy exists between different values. For example, in the model, the
wing area is determined through the wing loading derived from the approach speed:
m 2
= CLmax 0.5ρVappr (1)
S
Where the A320 values for CLmax and Vappr are used. As other wing dimensions can be found from the
wing area, sweep and span, the wing drag can now be determined:

CDwing = 2Cf · (1 + 2.75(t/c)aver · cos2 Λ1/2 ) (2)

The friction coefficient Cf if determined with the Reynolds number. Subsequenetly the wing mass is calcu-
lated using an empirical relation based on aircraft mass, wing span, thickness and sweep. The same type of
equations is used to determine drag and mass of other aircraft parts. With drag and mass of the aircraft
known, the necessary engine size is determined for turbofans:
 
T  p 
= g γ + 2 CD0 /πAe (3)
m min
or for turboprops: !
  1/4 r
P a C CD mg
=g + 2.217 3/4
(4)
m min ηp a (πAe) pS
Several flight path angles γ and rate of climbs a are used for different climb requirements following from
regulations. Using the previous equations and many more, the characteristics of the design are found. Finally
the fuel volume is determined from the payload-range requirements using the Breguet range equation, leading
to a new aircraft mass. As the aircraft mass influences many parameters, see equations 1, 3 and 4, a feedback
loop runs until a set of values is achieved that is in equilibrium. Next to the determination of this set of
values, the Breguet range equation is also used to calculate the fuel needed for the given typical range and
payload. Using the cost model together with this fuel quantity the operating cost are determined and the
local optima for both wing sweep and span are found. In other words, within the current set of design
parameters, the wing sweep and span are selected such that both lead to the lowest cost. These values are
used again to find a new set of values until the results converge. The variation of cost with wing sweep and
span is depicted in figure 4.

3. Model validation
The basic model was checked against the A320 itself and the errors of several parameters obtained from the
model are shown in table 2. The maximum difference found is 7.7% for the thrust, which is acceptable in a
conceptual design stage.

Furthermore the sensitivity and validity of the model is checked by varying the fuel cost and the design
range. Results for the fuel cost are given in table 3 for constant design range, while the variation of design

5 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Figure 4. Variation of cost with aspect ratio and with sweep, concept A.

Table 2. Model results for the A320

Parameter Unit Model A320 Difference

moe kg 40891 42400 -3.6%
mmto kg 76706 77000 -0.4%
mf uelmax kg 25512 24384 -0.4%
S m2 124.1 122.4 +4.6%
b m 33.1 33.9 -2.4%
A - 8.80 9.40 -6.4%
Λ1/4 deg 26 25 +4.0%
t/cr % 15.4 15.2 +1.3%
L/D - 15.0 16.0 -6.3%
Ttotal kN 239.5 222.4 +7.7%

range with constant fuel cost is given in table 4. It is seen that general trends are as can be expected.
With increasing fuel price and design range aspect ratio is increased to save fuel. However, the results show
that the design is heavily dependent on the fuel price, which brings some uncertainty in the results of this
investigation as the fuel price for hydrogen is an estimate.

4. Model changes
Every configuration needs some changes in the design method which is applicable to conventional aircraft
using normal fuel. Obviously, one of the main changes to the method is the addition of the fuel tanks.
Considering the aerodynamics, external tanks are analyzed in much the same way as the fuselage. In case
the engines are placed in front of the fuel tanks the elevated velocity of the propwash over the tanks is
taken into account. Furthermore the influence of the fuel tanks on the aerodynamic center is taken into
account. The mass of the fuel tanks is calculated considering both the pressure vessel and the insulation.1 A
double wall fuel tank is used with multi layer insulation in between. The inner tank wall is made from steel
because of its low permeability for hydrogen whereas Glare is used on the outer wall as impact resistance is
an important factor.

6 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Table 3. Model results for varying fuel price, A320, design range 2000km

Parameter Unit 0.20$/kg 0.30$/kg 0.40$/kg 0.50$/kg

moe kg 42016 41273 40891 40590
mmto kg 79377 77698 76706 75873
mf uel kg 7613 7394 7256 7135
S m2 129.3 125.6 124.1 122.9
b m 32.0 32.5 33.1 33.6
A - 7.90 8.40 8.80 9.20
Λ1/4 deg 27 26 26 26
t/cr % 15.7 15.4 15.4 15.4
L/D - 14.56 14.81 15.01 15.21
T kN 259 247 239 233
Cost/km $/km 7.64 7.89 8.17 8.45

Table 4. Model results for varying design range, A320, fuel cost $0.40

Parameter Unit 500 km 1000 km 1500 km 2000 km 2500 km 3000 km

moe kg 42160 41571 41071 40891 40731 40590
mmto kg 79720 78292 77180 76706 76272 75873
S m2 129.9 127.7 124.9 124.1 123.5 122.9
b m 31.8 32.5 32.7 33.1 33.3 33.6
A - 7.80 8.25 8.60 8.80 9.00 9.20
Λ1/4 deg 27 27 26 26 26 26
t/cr % 15.7 15.7 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4
L/D - 14.50 14.75 14.92 15.01 15.11 15.21
T kN 261 251 243 239 236 233
Cost/km $/km 18.36 11.56 9.28 8.17 7.51 7.08

The blended wing-body configuration asks for more changes in the calculations because the method used
is mainly applicable to conventional aircraft. An important change is the calculation of the mass of the
aircraft. For this purpose a more applicable mass estimate for the center part of the aircraft is used.10 The
outer wing is treated as a normal wing.

IV. Results
The results of the calculations described in the previous section will be discussed in two parts. First the
effects of combining hydrogen and propfan engines is shown by comparing the four conventional aircraft,
concepts A to D. In the second part the results for the unconventional designs are explained.

A. Conventional designs
An objective comparison between the four engine-fuel combinations can only be made when these aircraft
are flying at the same altitude. It was found that, when engine sizing was based on climb requirements,
the ceiling of the propfan powered aircraft was only around 9500m. It was decided to increase the engine
power on the two propfan aircraft, concepts B and D until a ceiling of 10668m (35000ft) was reached, and all
concepts were designed for this cruise altitude. This way the mass of the propfan powered aircraft increases

7 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

but this is compensated by the higher L/D at higher altitude, while lowering the cruise altitude of the
turbofan powered aircraft will only lower their L/D without changing the aircraft.
The comparison of the engine-fuel combinations is done in three steps. First the effect of using a propfan in
a kerosene fuelled aircraft is discussed, followed by the transition from kerosene to hydrogen on a turbofan
powered aircraft. Finally the differences between these steps and the corresponding steps resulting in the
hydrogen-propfan combination are analyzed. Table 5 shows the main parameters of the four aircraft.

1. Turbofan-propfan change
The most obvious results shown for the change from turbofans to propfans on a kerosene fuelled aircraft
(concept A to B) are the much lower take-off mass and the somewhat lower empty mass of the propfan
powered aircraft. This is expected since the lower fuel mass resulting from more efficient engines has a
cumulative effect on empty and take-off mass through for example the wing sizing. Furthermore a small
decrease in wing sweep can be observed, which is also normal since the propfan powered aircraft has a lower
cruise speed. An increase in induced drag is observed as the cruise lift-coefficient is higher and the aspect
ratio is lower. The higher cruise lift-coefficient is expected because the propfan aircraft cruises at a lower
speed. The lower aspect ratio seems to be caused by the balance between the importance of mass and drag,
which in the case of more fuel efficient engines tips over in the direction of mass.
It was expected that zero-lift drag would be higher for the propfan aircraft due to a larger tail fin needed for a
propeller aircraft, but because of the lower mass the wing size is decreased and the drag area is reduced. Still
due to the higher induced drag a raised total drag area was found while because of the higher lift-coefficient
an small increase in lift-to-drag ratio resulted for the propfan aircraft. Overall the use of propfans leads to a
fuel mass reduction of around 20% for the typical 2000km range and a reduction in operating cost of 8.3%.

Table 5. Main parameters for conventional designs

Parameter Unit Concept

A B C D
Fuel Kerosene Kerosene Hydrogen Hydrogen
Engine Turbofan Propfan Turbofan Propfan
M - 0.78 0.75 0.78 0.75
S m2 124.1 115.1 111.2 107.8
Λ1/4 deg 26 25 28 27
t/cr % 15.4 16.1 15.4 16.6
C D0 - 0.0219 0.0220 0.0266 0.0266
C D0 S m2 2.72 2.53 2.96 2.87
b m 33.1 30.5 30.7 30.7
A - 8.80 8.10 8.50 8.75
C Di - 0.0105 0.0161 0.0125 0.0144
C Di S - 1.30 1.85 1.39 1.55
CD - 0.0333 0.0390 0.0400 0.0419
CD S - 4.13 4.49 4.45 4.52
CLcruise - 0.499 0.593 0.535 0.583
L/D - 14.98 15.20 13.38 13.91
ML/D - 11.68 11.40 10.44 10.43
mf ueltyp kg 7256 5890 2632 2122
moe kg 40891 39608 39394 38620
mmto kg 76706 70955 64424 62514
Cost/pax/km $/km 0.060 0.055 0.060 0.055

8 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Concept

2. Kerosene-hydrogen change
When changing from kerosene to hydrogen fuel (concept A to C) it was expected that, because of the lighter
fuel the take-off mass was reduced but due to the heavy fuel tanks the empty mass remains equal or increases
somewhat. Table 5 reveals that the maximum take-off mass is indeed lowered by 19% but the empty mass
is also reduced a bit. Apparently the take-off mass was reduced to such extent that the structural mass
of the aircraft was reduced as well. It was expected that aspect ratio would become more important for
a hydrogen fuelled aircraft as less drag lowers fuel consumption, but the reduced mass of the wing proved
more important, the same way it happened in the change from concept A to B.
Zero-lift drag is increased for the hydrogen fuelled aircraft because of the larger fuselage containing the
hydrogen tanks although again this increase if reduced by the smaller wings. In total the lift-to-drag ratio
was reduced, of course a result of the increased drag from the fuel tanks. Consequently, in terms of energy
the fuel used was increased, but because of the reduction in empty mass, the resulting cost are approximately
equal.

3. Hydrogen-propfan combination
It was expected that the reduction in fuel tank size when using a hydrogen fuelled propfan (concept D) instead
of a turbofan (concept B) would increase the lift-to-drag ratio. Indeed table 5 shows a larger increase of L/D
between concepts C and D than between concepts A and B. Although indeed the zero-lift drag area of the
hydrogen configurations is reduced due to the application of the propfan, as expected, this is less than in the
kerosene case and it must be concluded that the fuel tank size reduction does not have a large influence in
this case. The larger increase in lift-to-drag ratio can be explained by an increase in the cruise lift-coefficient,
again a result of the lower cruise speed.
When considering the fuel-, empty- and take-off mass a different result is found. The change from a kerosene
fuelled turbofan aircraft to propfan engines yielded a large reduction in take-off mass because of the large
mass of the fuel saved. In the case of low density hydrogen the fuel reduction in terms of mass is not as
large and the take-off mass is lowered only a few percent. The reduction in empty mass between concepts
C and D is equal to that of the kerosene concepts A and B because the smaller fuel tanks save some mass.
The fuel mass is reduced with the same percentage in both kerosene and hydrogen cases.
The cost of the hydrogen fuelled propfan aircraft is equal to its kerosene fuelled counterpart, so no large
differences are found here either. It must therefore be concluded that no significant extra reduction in fuel
consumption or cost can be expected from combining hydrogen with propfans other than those also present
with kerosene aircraft.

4. Lower cruise altitude

As mentioned earlier, the engines of the propfan aircraft had to be enlarged to achieve the same cruising
altitude as currently in use by airliners which increased aircraft mass and price. Furthermore, as shown
in figure 5 the impact of burning hydrogen can be reduced greatly by flying below 10km altitude. It was
therefore considered to fly at lower cruise altitudes than current aircraft. The effect of this lower altitude is
found when comparing the propfan powered hydrogen fuelled aircraft designed for the higher cruise altitude
with one without the more powerful engines. It was found that a lower altitude of 9500m instead of 10668m
and the consequently higher drag leads to an increase in fuel consumption of 9.1%. But since the engine can
be lighter some mass was saved and the aircraft acquisition price was lowered. From these changes results
only a negligible change in the cost. Thus although more fuel is burned and the aircraft emissions are higher,
the aircraft can be flown lower to keep the emissions away from the stratosphere without additional cost.

B. Unconventional designs
Figures 2 and 3 showed three unconventional alternatives for the placement of the fuel tanks in the fuselage.
These concepts have been analyzed like the conventional concepts in the previous sections and are compared
to the hydrogen fuelled propfan aircraft, concept D. Table 6 shows the main parameters for the four concepts.

9 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Figure 5. Comparison of relative net greenhouse effects for hydrogen and kerosene (source:11 ).

1. External tanks
When concepts E and F are compared to the conventional aircraft it is quickly seen that no large differences
exist. Both external tanks concepts show a larger aspect ratio with corresponding lower induced drag since
in the case of external tanks the drag reduction for smaller fuel tanks is more important. On the other hand,
the increase in mass due to the longer and less efficient fuel tanks compensates for the lower induced drag and
a negligible difference in fuel consumption and aircraft mass is found between the conventional concept and
the underwing tanks concept. In the case of concept F, the propwash over the tanks and the large tailplanes
lead to some extra losses which are found in the higher zero-lift drag. As a result this concept uses a few
percent more fuel while mass and cost are raised correspondingly. Still both concepts with external tanks
exhibit such small differences with the conventional aircraft that concepts E and F can be considered good
alternatives for placing the tanks inside the fuselage. It must be noted that the preliminary tools within this
project do not allow for an accurate estimate of the structural problems that have been mentioned earlier,
which might become crucial in this comparison.

2. Blended wing-body
The blended wing-body concept was fitted with turbofan engines for practical reasons and it was to be
expected that these have a negative influence on fuel consumption, aircraft mass and cost. Indeed it is seen
that concept G has worse results than the other aircraft. Although the induced drag is lower because of the
large wing area and correspondingly low lift coefficient, zero-lift drag and wave drag are higher and total
drag area rises considerably. On the other hand, when taking into account the wing area it is found that
concept G has a relatively high lift coefficient and as a result the lift-to-drag ratio is only a few percent lower
that that of concepts D and E. It is remarkable that the blended wing-body does not fulfil the promise of
increased L/D due to the absence of a separate fuselage and tail surfaces.

Looking at the fuel consumption it is seen that the blended wing-body concept performs less than the
other concepts, but when considering that the change from turbofans to propfans leads to a reduction in
fuel consumption of 20% as shown earlier, this concept shows rather good results. If a practical solution was
found for the placement of the propfan engines, this concept would most likely have a lower fuel consumption
that the other concepts. Unfortunately the mass of concept G is higher than the other concepts due to the
large wing area and as a result the cost have risen more than the difference shown between turbofans and
propfans. This makes this concept less attractive for commercial use.

V. Conclusions
In the investigation of the effect of combining hydrogen with propeller engines it was found that no
significant extra fuel, mass or cost reductions can be expected from this combination. The change from a

10 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Table 6. Main parameters for unconventional hydrogen fuelled designs

Parameter Unit Concept

A B C D
Engine Propfan Propfan Propfan Turbofan
M - 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.78
S m2 107.8 107.7 107.4 287.1
Λ1/4 deg 27 27 26 26
t/cr % 16.6 16.6 16.3 20.1
C D0 - 0.0266 0.0267 0.0295 0.0113
C D0 S m2 2.87 2.88 3.17 3.24
b m 30.7 31.6 31.5 37.1
A - 8.75 9.25 9.25 4.80
C Di - 0.0144 0.0137 0.0138 0.0047
C Di S - 1.55 1.48 1.48 1.35
CD - 0.0419 0.0413 0.0443 0.0184
CD S - 4.52 4.45 4.76 5.28
CLcruise - 0.583 0.584 0.589 0.246
L/D - 13.91 14.14 13.30 13.37
ML/D - 10.43 10.61 9.98 10.03
mf ueltyp kg 2122 2102 2243 2463
moe kg 38620 38688 38921 44926
mmto kg 62514 62508 63051 70782
Cost/pax/km $/km 0.055 0.055 0.056 0.063

turbofan to a propfan engine leads to a fuel consumption decrease of approximately 20% regardless which
fuel is used. Furthermore the cost per passenger-km is reduced by about 10% for the propfan aircraft. Thus
it can be concluded that using propfans on an airliner is beneficial for both environment and flying cost,
both on kerosene fuelled aircraft and on hydrogen fuelled aircraft.

The change from kerosene to hydrogen leads to a decrease in aircraft mass because of the much lower
fuel mass. In terms of energy the fuel consumption was increased slightly, but under the assumed fuel cost
for hydrogen the operating cost remain equal to those of kerosene fuelled aircraft.
In the case of concept D, the hydrogen fuelled propfan powered aircraft, it was found that flying at a lower
cruise altitude to avoid most of the emissions influencing the greenhouse effect was possible at no extra cost.

Some unconventional aircraft configurations were considered and compared to concept D. It was found that
two configurations with external fuel tanks, concepts E and F, do not have significantly less performance
than concept D. Thus, if passenger-fuel separation becomes a problem and fuel tanks cannot be placed inside
the fuselage, these concepts will be acceptable designs as an alternative. Structural analysis must be carried
out to assess the effects of the connections between the external tanks and the airframe.
It was also shown that a blended wing-body aircraft powered by turbofans uses more fuel than the other
concepts, but less so than expected from the use of turbofans. However, the empty and take-off mass of this
concept are higher than the other concepts and as a result the operating cost of this concept are higher as
well. Therefore this concept is not a good option in the currently used payload-range combinations.

11 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 References
1 Brewer, G. D., Hydrogen Aircraft Technology, CRC Press Inc., 1991.
2 Westenberger, A., “Hydrogen Fuelled Aircraft,” Aiaa paper 2003-2880, July 2003.
3 Mikkelson, D. C., Mitchell, G. A., and Bober, L. J., “Summary of recent NASA propeller research,” Aerodynamics and

Acoustics of Propellers, AGARD, Washington, DC, 1984, pp. 12–1–12–24.

4 Metzger, F. B., “The state of the art in Prop-fan and Turboprop Noise,” Aerodynamics and Acoustics of Propellers,

AGARD, Wa shington, DC, 1984, pp. 30–1–30–20.

5 Westenberger, A., “Liquid Hydrogen Fuelled Aircraft System Analysis, Final technical Report,” Tech. Rep. GRD1-1999-

10014, European Union, 2003.

6 Saravanamuttoo, H. I. H., “Development of modern turboprop engines,” Aerodynamics and Acoustics of Propellers,

AGARD, Washington, DC, 1984, pp. 23–1–23–9.

7 Snijders, T. A., Hydrogen fuelled turboprop, Master’s thesis, 2007.
8 Torenbeek, E., Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Delft University Press, 1982.
9 Association of European Airlines, Requirements for short/medium range aircraft for the 1980’s, 1981, G.2110/R2.
10 Bradley, K. R., “A Sizing Methodology for the Conceptual Design of Blended-Wing-Body Transports,” Nasa report

cr-2004-213016, Sept. 2004.

11 Penner, A., Lister, D. H., Griggs, D. J., Dokken, D. J., and McFarland, M., Aviation and the Global Climate, Cambridge

University Press, 1999.

12 of 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics