Technology

Evaluator
Clean Sky 2
Second Global Assessment 2024

TECHNICAL ANNEX
Contents
List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... 15
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 20
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 23
2 Technology Evaluator .................................................................................................................... 25
2.1 Overall assessment timeline ................................................................................................. 25
2.2 Differences to the 1st assessment ......................................................................................... 26
2.3 Second assessment – key indicators and metrics ................................................................. 28
3 A Vision for the Future .................................................................................................................. 31
3.1 Concept Aircraft .................................................................................................................... 35
3.2 Reference Aircraft ................................................................................................................. 39
4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 40
4.1 Assessment at three Levels: Mission, Airport and Global Fleet ............................................ 40
4.2 Passenger and Flight Forecast ............................................................................................... 40
4.2.1 TE overall forecast and assumptions including capacity constraints ............................ 41
4.2.2 Comparison of the DLR constrained and unconstrained global forecasts with other
global forecasts ............................................................................................................................. 49
4.2.3 Global DLR Forecasts in Detail ....................................................................................... 54
4.2.4 The "People Mover" ...................................................................................................... 61
5 Environmental Impact ................................................................................................................... 65
5.1 Mission Level ......................................................................................................................... 65
5.1.1 Fixed-Wing Aircraft........................................................................................................ 66
5.1.1.1 Advanced Long Range Aircraft Concept (LR+) ....................................................... 67
5.1.1.2 Advanced Short-Medium Range Aircraft Concept (SMR+) ................................... 73
5.1.1.3 Ultra-Advanced Short-Medium Range Aircraft Concept (SMR++) ........................ 78
5.1.1.4 Advanced Regional Turboprop 90 pax Aircraft Concept ....................................... 83
5.1.1.5 Innovative Regional Turboprop 130 pax Aircraft Concept .................................... 89
5.1.1.6 Regional Multi-Mission Turboprop 70 pax Aircraft Concept................................. 95
5.1.1.7 Regional Geared TurboFan – ADORNO ............................................................... 101
5.1.1.8 SAT 19 pax Commuter Aircraft Concepts ............................................................ 115
5.1.1.9 Advanced Low Sweep Business Jet Aircraft Concept .......................................... 131
5.1.1.10 People Mover Concept ........................................................................................ 136
5.1.2 Fast Rotorcraft ............................................................................................................. 146
5.1.2.1 Compound Helicopter Concept: RACER .............................................................. 149
2
 5.1.2.2 VTOL Aircraft Concept: Next Generation Civil Tilt-Rotor (NGCTR) ...................... 157
5.2 Airport Level ........................................................................................................................ 164
5.2.1 Mainliner and regional fleet ........................................................................................ 164
5.3 Fleet Level (ATS) .................................................................................................................. 169
5.3.1 Fleet Replacement....................................................................................................... 169
5.3.2 ATS environmental impact: Emissions ........................................................................ 171
6 Societal Impact ............................................................................................................................ 188
6.1 Connectivity and Mobility (Aircraft) .................................................................................... 188
6.1.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 188
6.1.2 Results ......................................................................................................................... 190
6.2 Connectivity and Mobility (Rotorcraft) ............................................................................... 196
6.2.1 Methodology: MOBILITY IMPACT MODEL................................................................... 196
6.2.2 Results NGCTR ............................................................................................................. 199
6.2.3 Results RACER .............................................................................................................. 202
6.3 Macroeconomic Effect ........................................................................................................ 204
6.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 204
6.3.2 Results ......................................................................................................................... 206
6.4 Competitiveness and Societal Impact ................................................................................. 215
7 Contribution of CFP projects ....................................................................................................... 220
7.1 TEDIMO ............................................................................................................................... 220
7.2 TRANSCEND ......................................................................................................................... 223
7.3 Oasys ................................................................................................................................... 225
7.4 GLIMPSE 2050 ..................................................................................................................... 228
7.5 REIVON ................................................................................................................................ 230
8 Final Global Impact ...................................................................................................................... 234
9 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 239

3
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
a/c Aircraft

AC Alternating Current

ACARE Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe

ACT Additional Central Tank

ADS Airbus Defence and Space

AEO All Engines Operative

AHF Airport Hub Feeder

AIA US Aerospace Industries Association

AIP Aeronautical Information Publications

AIR Clean Sky 2 Airframe ITD

ALM Additive Layer Manufacturing

ANSP Air Navigation Service Providers

AP Approach

ASBU Aviation System Block Upgrade

ASD Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe

ASK Available Seat Kilometres

ATAG Air Transport Action Group

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATR Avions de Transport Régional

ATS Air Transport System

BEA US Bureau of Economic Analysis

BJ Business Jet

BLG Body Landing Gear

4
Acronym Definition
BLS US Bureau of Labor Statistics

BPR By-Pass Ratio

CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (ICAO)

CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate

CAS Calibrated Air Speed

CDR Critical Design Review

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

CfP Call for Proposals

CFRP Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic

CGT Cargo Transport

CIT Commercial Intercity Transportation

CMC Ceramic Matrix Composite

CMO Commercial Market Outlook (by Boeing)

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CONF Confidential

CORSIA Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation

CP Core Partner

CROR Contra-Rotating Open Rotor

CS2 Clean Sky 2

CS2JU Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

dB decibel

dB(A) decibels on the A Scale

DC Direct Current

DEA Data Envelopment Analysis

DESAT Demand for European Small Air Transport model

5
Acronym Definition
DLR German Aerospace Center

DLR CON DLR Constrained Forecast

DLR UC DLR Unconstrained Forecast

DOC Direct Operating Costs

DOE Design Of Experiments

DTD Door To Door

EASA European Union Aviation Safety Agency

EC2S Environment Control Secondary System

ECO Clean Sky 2 Eco-Design Transversal Activity

ECS Environmental Control System

EEA European Economic Area

EIS Entry into Service

EMA Electro-Mechanical Actuation

EMMA European Multi-Modal Analysis

EMS Emergency Medical Services

ENG Clean Sky 2 Engine ITD

EPGDS Electrical Power Generation and Distribution System

EPNL Effective Perceived Noise Level in decibels (EPNdB)

E-STOL Electrical/hybrid Short Take-Off and Landing aircraft concept

EU-ETS European Union Emissions Trading System

FADEPC Full Authority Digital Engine and Propeller Control

FBW Fly By Wire

FCS Flight Control System

FL Flight Level

FLC Fast Large Compound (Rotorcraft)

6
Acronym Definition
FLT Fast Large Tiltrotor

FMS Flight Management System

FO FlyOver

fpm Feet per Minute

FR Frequency Reduction

FRC Clean Sky 2 Fast RotorCraft IADP

FSW Friction Stir Welding

ft Feet

FTB Flying Test Bed

GAM Grant Agreement for Members

GAP Grant Agreement for Partners

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GLA Gust Load Alleviation

GMF Global Market Forecast (by Airbus)

GPS Global Positioning System

GTF Geared TurboFan

GVA Gross Value Added

HEP Hybrid-Electric Powertrain

HLD High Lift Device

HLFC Hybrid Laminar Flow Control

HPC High Pressure Compressor

HPT High Pressure Turbine

HTP Horizontal Tail Plane

HV High-Voltage

HVDC High-Voltage Direct Current

7
Acronym Definition
IADP Innovative Aircraft Demonstration Platform

IATA International Air Transport Association

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

ICCT International Council on Clean Transportation

ICE Internal Combustion Engine

IDS Integral Drive System

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

IPPS Integrated Power Plant System

ISA International Standard Atmosphere

ISC In-Situ Consolidation

ISO Intermediate Stop Operations

ITD Integrated Technology Demonstrator

kft kilo-feet

kg kilogram

km kilometer

KPI Key Performance Indicator

KTAS Knots True Air Speed

LA Lateral

LAMAX A-weighted maximum sound Level

LC&A Load Control & Alleviation

LCC Low-Cost Carrier

LCM Low-Cost Manufacturing

Lden Day-evening-night acoustic level

LE Leading Edge

LFL Landing Field Length

8
Acronym Definition
LG(S) Landing Gear (System)

LH Long Haul

LHD Leonardo Helicopter’s Division

LHP Loop Heat Pipe

LMD Laser Metal Deposition

LMO Longterm Market Outlook (by Boeing)

Lnight Night acoustic level

LP Low Pressure

LPA Clean Sky 2 Large Passenger Aircraft IADP

LR Long Range

LRI Liquid Resin Infusion

LTF Long Term Forecast (by ICAO)

LTO Landing and Take-Off

m meter

Ma Mach number

MARs Multi Airport Regions

MDAO Multidisciplinary Design Analysis and Optimization

MEA More-Electric Aircraft

MEW Manufacturer’s Empty Weight

MI Market Intelligence

MLA Maneuver Load Alleviation

MLW Maximum Landing Weight

MMO Mach Maximum Operating

MRO Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul

MTOW Maximum Take-Off Weight

9
Acronym Definition
MZFW Maximum Zero Fuel Weight

n/a not available

Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté

NACE
Européenne

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NAV Navigation System

NB Narrow Body (Aircraft)

NBAA National Business Aviation Association

NDI Non-Destructive Inspection

NG Next Generation

NGCTR Next Generation Civil Tilt-Rotor

NLF Natural Laminar Flow

NLG Nose Landing Gear

NLR Netherlands Aerospace Centre

NM Nautical Miles

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NUTS Nomenclature des Unités territoriales statistiques

nvPM Non volatile Particulate Matter

OAG Oil And Gas

OAG Official Airline Guide

OBS On-Board Systems

OD Origin-Destination

OE Oxford Economics

OEI One Engine Inoperative

OEW Operative Empty Weight

10
Acronym Definition
OGV Outlet Guide Vane

OoA Out of Autoclave

OPR Overall Pressure Ratio

ORAS Open Rotor And Stator

PAT Passenger Air Transport

Pax Passenger

PDR Preliminary Design Review

PEC Power Electronic Component

PGB Planetary Gear Box

PM People Mover

PMSG Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator

PPS Power Plant System

PR Pressure Ratio

PSU Passenger Service Unit

PT Power Turbine

RACER Rapid and Cost-Effective Rotorcraft

RB Roland Berger

R&D Research & Development

REG Clean Sky 2 Regional IADP

RM Rear Mounted engine

RPK Revenue Passenger Kilometres

RQL Rich-burn Quick-mix Lean-Burn

SAF Sustainable Aviation Fuels

SAR Search And Rescue

SAT Clean Sky 2 Small Air Transport Transversal Activity

11
Acronym Definition
SATCOM Satellite Communication

SEL Sound Exposure Level

SELA Sound Exposure Level A-weighted – dB(A)

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SFC Specific Fuel Consumption

SH Series-Hybrid

SHM(S) Structural Health Monitoring (System)

SID Standard Instrument Departure (Route)

SL Sea Level

SME Small and Medium-sized Entreprise

SMH Short-Medium Haul

SMR Short-Medium Range

SoA State-of-the-Art

SOx Sulfur Oxides

SPD Clean Sky 2 Strategic Platform Demonstrator

SPL Sound Pressure Level

SSBJ SuperSonic Business Jet

SSM Static Stability Margin

SST Supersonic Transport

STAR Standard Arrival Route

STOL Short Take-Off and Landing

STT Shortest Travel Time

SYS Clean Sky 2 Systems ITD

TA Clean Sky 2 Transversal Activity (SAT – ECO – TE)

TAS True Air Speed

12
Acronym Definition
TD Technological Demonstrator

TE Clean Sky 2 Technology Evaluator

TE Turbo-Electric

TEH Twin-Engine Heavy

TESM Twin-Engine Super Medium

TIT Temperatur Inlet Turbine

TLAR Top Level Aircraft Requirements

TMS Thermal Management System

TO Take-Off

TOC Top Of Climb

TOFL Take-Off Field Length

TP TurboProp engine

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TSFC Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption

UAM Urban Air Mobility

UHBR Ultra-High Bypass Ratio

UHPE Ultra-High Propulsive Efficiency

UK United Kingdom

UM Under-wing Mounted engine

US DoT US Departement of Transportation

USF Unducted Single Fan engine

VMO Velocity Maximum Operating

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VPF Variable Pitch Fan engine

VTOL Vertical Take-Off and Landing

13
Acronym Definition
VTP Vertical Tail Plane

VTTS Value of Travel Time Savings

WB Wide Body (Aircraft)

WEG World Geodetic Model

WHO World Health Organization

WIOD World Input-Output Database

WIOT World Input-Output Table

WIPS Wing Ice Protection System

WP Work Package

14
 List of Figures
Figure 1 – Schematic Structure of the Clean Sky 2 Programme. ........................................................... 24
Figure 2 – Forecast and scenarios from 1st Assessment Report (2020) ............................................... 26
Figure 3 - Metrics, levels and dimensions of the TE assessment. ......................................................... 30
Figure 4 – Clean Sky 2 Flagship Demonstrators .................................................................................... 32
Figure 5 – Illustrations of the main Clean Sky 2 aircraft concepts. ....................................................... 34
Figure 6 - Assessment levels.................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 7 – Overview of the passenger and fleet forecast model. ......................................................... 43
Figure 8 – Comparison of real average GDP per capita forecasts between 1st and 2nd Assessment.. 45
Figure 9 – Aircraft retirement curves. ................................................................................................... 46
Figure 10 – Comparison of the DLR CON and DLR UC global RPK forecasts with the global forecasts of
Airbus, Boeing, IATA and ICAO (CAGR: Compound annual growth rate). ............................................. 50
Figure 11 – Comparison of DLR CON and DLR UC global RPK forecasts with Airbus GMF, Boeing CMO
and ICAO LTF. ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 12 – Comparison of the DLR UC global new aircraft delivery forecasts with Boeing and Airbus
global forecasts (NB = Narrowbody Jet, WB = Widebody Jet). ............................................................. 52
Figure 13 – Comparing the worldwide number of new aircraft of the Airbus GMF and DLR forecast 1st
and 2nd Assessment. .............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 14 – Comparison of the DLR CON and DLR UC worldwide new forecast delivery forecasts with
global Embraer and ATR forecasts. ....................................................................................................... 54
Figure 15 - Results of the DLR forecasts: Global passenger volume until 2050 .................................... 57
Figure 16 - Results of the DLR forecasts: Global RPK volume until 2050 .............................................. 58
Figure 17 - Results of the DLR forecasts: Global flight volume until 2050 ............................................ 59
Figure 18 – Results of the DLR forecasts: Global seat class distribution (passenger volume) until 2050
in the "DLR CON" forecast. .................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 19 – Results of the DLR forecasts: Global seat class distribution (flight volume) until 2050 in the
"DLR CON" forecast. .............................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 20 – Global fleet evolution of widebody seat classes up to 2050 (passenger volume, 2019-23
actual data, >2023 forecast values). ..................................................................................................... 62
Figure 21 – Global fleet evolution of widebody seat classes up to 2050 (flight view, 2019-23 actual
data, >2023 forecast values). ................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 22 – Potential for worldwide number of People Mover aircraft up to 2050. ............................ 64
Figure 23 Overview of the Aircraft Concept Design Process. Courtesy of Airbus ................................. 66
Figure 24 – Technology insertion and expected engine performance improvements for LR+ before
aircraft integration (Rolls-Royce UltraFan). .......................................................................................... 69
Figure 25 – Rolls-Royce UltraFan engine concept (left), and comparison of fan diameter with A320
fuselage diameter (right), courtesy Rolls-Royce & Airbus. ................................................................... 70
Figure 26 – Emissions and noise performance evolution vs year 2000
and ACARE 2050 targets (courtesy Rolls-Royce). .................................................................................. 71
Figure 27 – Noise levels in “certification ICAO annex 16 conditions”. .................................................. 71
Figure 28 – Technology insertion and expected engine performance improvements for SMR+. ........ 76
Figure 29 – UHBR (VPF) for SMR Aircraft. ............................................................................................. 76
Figure 30 – Open Fan (ORAS) concept demonstrator, Safran Aircraft Engines. ................................... 80

15
Figure 31 – Technology insertion and expected engine (ORAS) performance improvements for SMR++
(Safran Aircraft Engines)........................................................................................................................ 80
Figure 32 – CROR ground test demonstrator at Safran Aero Engines’ ground testing facility
for Open Rotors and Ultra High By-Pass Ratio engines (Istres, France) – Courtesy SAFRAN. ............... 81
Figure 33 – Innovative Riblets & Natural Laminar Flow. ....................................................................... 86
Figure 34 – Hybrid ECS (Environmental Control System). ..................................................................... 87
Figure 35 – Main Characteristics of the NextGen TP for 90-pax Regional Aircraft. .............................. 88
Figure 36 Fowler Flap & Morphing Droop Nose.................................................................................... 91
Figure 37 – Unducted Single Fan (USF) Key Technologies. ................................................................... 93
Figure 38 – Expected qualitative engine performance improvements for the Innovative TP 130 pax
(EIS 2035) before aircraft integration (GE Avio) – IRON USF engine (REG – CS2 IRON WP1.1.2). Total
impacts for the overall aircraft concept against the 2014 SoA. ............................................................ 93
Figure 39 – C-295 landing on a grass strip in Kenya, courtesy Airbus Defense & Space....................... 97
Figure 40 – Airbus C295, purchased by the Government of Canada for the Royal Canadian Air Force’s
(RCAF) Fixed Wing Search and Rescue Aircraft Replacement (FWSAR) programme, October 2019,
courtesy Airbus Defense & Space. ........................................................................................................ 98
Figure 41 – Technology lines integrated in the Regional Multi-Mission TP 70 pax aircraft concept. ... 99
Figure 42 – New Propeller provided by GE-Dowty: Efficiency & Thrust. ............................................ 100
Figure 43 – New Propeller provided by GE-Dowty: Noise – Installation in Future Regional MM
Aircraft................................................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 44 – Example of parametric study on cycle selection performed by MTU for the definition of
the adv. GTF engine of ADORNO. ........................................................................................................ 106
Figure 45 – Flowpath of the adv. GTF engine designed by MTU for ADORNO. .................................. 106
Figure 46 – Optimization workflow for the ADORNO target UM GTF A/C.......................................... 108
Figure 47 – Mission block fuel and total DOC results for the ADORNO target UM GTF A/C optimization
process on block fuel, including the constraint on the wing span and an ACT in the lower deck of the
fuselage. .............................................................................................................................................. 109
Figure 48 – MDAO workflow for the target RM A/C. .......................................................................... 113
Figure 49 – Pareto front used to define the target RM A/C final layout. ............................................ 113
Figure 50 – Comparison of overall dimensions and weight of 19 pax reference and concept aircraft.
............................................................................................................................................................. 118
Figure 51 – List of technologies and overall impact at aircraft level for the SAT 19 seat concept. .... 119
Figure 52 – Expected engine performance (MAESTRO) improvements for 19 pax Commuter concept
before aircraft integration................................................................................................................... 119
Figure 53 – CO2 and NOx reductions achieved for various mission ranges for the 19-seat Commuter
concept (@10kft, 230 KTAS, IFR Reserve). .......................................................................................... 120
Figure 54 – Comparison of Noise Certification point for concept 19 seat aircraft. ........................... 120
Figure 55 – Calendar of CDRs (Critical Design Reviews) for the technologies selected
within the ENG, AIR, and SYS ITDs for the 19 pax Commuter concept. .............................................. 121
Figure 56 – SAFRAN TechTP. ............................................................................................................... 123
Figure 57 – Expected a/c performance with alternative engine TechTP for 19 pax Commuter concept.
............................................................................................................................................................. 123
Figure 58 – Schematic view of Serial-Hybrid (SH) and Turbo-Electric (TE) powertrain configurations.
............................................................................................................................................................. 125
16
Figure 59 – Future E-STOL (Electrical/Hybrid Short Take-Off and Landing) 19 seat commuter concept,
EIS 2032. .............................................................................................................................................. 127
Figure 60 – Architectures of the EIS2028 Concept (left) and the EIS2032 E-STOL airplane concept
(right). .................................................................................................................................................. 127
Figure 61 – Comparison between E-STOL, reference aircraft and Green Loop2 for CO2 emissions at
different range mission for cruise speed = 230 KTAS.......................................................................... 128
Figure 62 – Comparison between E-STOL, reference aircraft and Green Loop2 for NOx emissions at
different range mission for cruise speed = 230 kts. ............................................................................ 128
Figure 63 – Artistic impression of a 19-seater with liquid hydrogen hybrid propulsion technology
(based on preliminary sizing evaluation), courtesy Pipistrel, https://www.pipistrel-
aircraft.com/unifier19-2...................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 64 – Technology insertion and expected overall performance impacts for the business jet
concept. SFC performance at engine level only before integration. .................................................. 133
Figure 65 – Engine data and scale factors for BJ2014 (with SN2000) and BJ2035 (with SN2020). ..... 134
Figure 66 – Market opportunity (red square) for a large passenger aircraft optimized for short haul
operations based on the “First Global Assessment 2020” market forecast for the year 2050. ......... 138
Figure 67 – Proposed single-class seat layout for the People Mover aircraft..................................... 139
Figure 68 – Three-view of the People Mover concept. ....................................................................... 142
Figure 69 – People Mover trajectory of the 2000nm representative short-range mission in
comparison to SMR2014 and LR2014. ................................................................................................ 143
Figure 70 – The Airbus Helicopters first compound prototype X3...................................................... 146
Figure 71 – RACER Flight Test Demonstration. 25 April 2024. Courtesy of Airbus Helicopters........... 147
Figure 72 – LHD’s AW609 Tilt-Rotor development aircraft prototype. .............................................. 147
Figure 73 – Airbus Helicopters RACER concept. X-Ray type image of internal components layout.
Courtesy Airbus Helicopters. ............................................................................................................... 150
Figure 74 – Key design drivers for Hover, RACER, Airbus Helicopters. ............................................... 152
Figure 75 - Key design drivers for Cruise, RACER, Airbus Helicopters................................................. 153
Figure 76 – Key design drivers for Acoustics, RACER, Airbus Helicopters. .......................................... 153
Figure 77 – Key assessment criteria versus mission goals for the RACER. .......................................... 155
Figure 78 – Area covered within 1 hour for SAR interventions at 140kts and 220kts. ....................... 156
Figure 79 – Reduction of the number of heliports required to serve a given area based on the RACER
performance. ....................................................................................................................................... 156
Figure 80 – Environmental impact of the 5 technologies for the Tilt-Rotor flight test demonstrator
(2024) and the EIS 2035 concept on 632nm passenger transport mission. ....................................... 160
Figure 81 – Increased coverage area for SAR missions based on NGCTR performance. .................... 162
Figure 82 – A fleet of three NGCTR vehicles is sufficient to cover the same area guaranteed
by eight reference vehicles. ................................................................................................................ 163
Figure 83 – CAEPport runway throughput (per rolling hour) in Clean Sky 2 and Reference scenarios
‘CON’ for 2050 (Blue surface: Departures Clean Sky 2 scenario; cyan line: Departures Reference
scenario; yellow surface: Arrivals Clean Sky 2 scenario; orange line: Arrivals Reference scenario)... 166
Figure 84 – CAEPport 60 dB(A) Lden noise contour for year 2050 ‘CON’ scenario: Reference in blue
and Clean Sky 2 in green. .................................................................................................................... 167
Figure 85 – Evolution of fleet replacement by CS2 aircraft up to 2050 (ASK volume) based upon the
DLR CON forecast. ............................................................................................................................... 169
17
Figure 86 – Evolution of fleet replacement by CS2 aircraft up to 2050 (number of aircraft ) based
upon the DLR CON forecast w/o People Mover.................................................................................. 170
Figure 87 – Overview of Air Transport System (ATS) level Emissions Calculation. ............................. 172
Figure 88 – Cumulative distribution of RPKs versus distance flown as historical data for year 2023
(Sabre Market Intelligence). ................................................................................................................ 174
Figure 89 – RPK Volume Distribution per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2019. ..................... 175
Figure 90 – RPK Volume distribution Projection per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2050 in an
airport capacity constrained scenario (DLR CON). .............................................................................. 175
Figure 91 – RPK Volume Projection per Aircraft Category until 2050 in an airport capacity constrained
scenario (DLR CON). ............................................................................................................................ 176
Figure 92 – Flight Volume Projection per Aircraft Category until 2050 in a capacity constrained
scenario (DLR CON). ............................................................................................................................ 177
Figure 93 – Flight Volume Distribution per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2019. .................. 178
Figure 94 – Flight Volume distribution Projection per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2050 in an
Airport Capacity Constrained Scenario (DLR CON). ............................................................................ 178
Figure 95 – Global CO2 Emissions Distribution per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2019. ...... 179
Figure 96 – CO2 Emissions Projections until 2050 per Aircraft Category in an Airport Capacity
Constrained Scenario (DLR CON): Reference CON Scenario (No Action – 2019 frozen technology
insertion), Kerosene-based CS2 Technology Insertion (Clean Sky 2). ................................................. 180
Figure 97 – Global CO2 Emissions distribution Projection per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in
2050 in an airport capacity constrained scenario (DLR CON) and with Clean Sky 2 Technology
Insertion (CS2 Design Fleet). ............................................................................................................... 181
Figure 98 – Share of total CO2 emissions in 2019. .............................................................................. 182
Figure 99 – Share of total CO2 emissions in 2035 (Clean Sky 2 scenario). .......................................... 182
Figure 100 – Share of total CO2 emissions in 2050 (Clean Sky 2 scenario). ........................................ 183
Figure 101 – Delta CO2 distribution matrix CS2 PM versus Ref scenario. .......................................... 185
Figure 102 – Delta CO2 distribution matrix CS2 versus Ref scenario. ................................................. 185
Figure 103 – CO2 emissions in 2050 CS2, CS2 + DLR PM scenarios compared to ref scenario. .......... 186
Figure 104 – NOX emissions in 2050 CS2, CS2 + DLR PM scenarios compared to ref scenario. .......... 186
Figure 105 – CO2 distribution on the globe for the CS2 scenario in 2050. .......................................... 187
Figure 106 – NOx distribution on the globe for the CS2 scenario in 2050. ......................................... 187
Figure 107 – Average accessible population in EEA on NUTS3 regions level within 4h – taking into
account a 2h SAT flight time................................................................................................................ 191
Figure 108 – Accessible population in EEA from capitals <4h in 2050. Comparison of conventional
air/car transport (base case 2019) and additional SAT determined by DESAT demand forecast. Sorted
by highest gain in percentage points over base year (2019). ............................................................. 193
Figure 109 – SAT demand, flights and fleet size of full-/hybrid-electric mode. .................................. 194
Figure 110 – EMMA model structure. ................................................................................................. 196
Figure 111 – PR4 (in millions) for each NUTS 3 region of the European baseline network. ............... 198
Figure 112 – Increase in average PR4 for the NGCTR: comparison between different world regions.
............................................................................................................................................................. 200
Figure 113 – Brazil case: new optimal NGCTR routes chosen to maximise PR4 (left) and corresponding
percentage increment in PR4 (right). .................................................................................................. 201

18
Figure 114 – Reduction in node Shortest Travel Time for the RACER: comparison between different
world regions (X1:100; X5:500; X25:2500 new routes)....................................................................... 202
Figure 115 – China and South-east Asia case: new optimal RACER routes chosen to minimise STT as a
function of cruise design speed and number of new routes. ............................................................. 203
Figure 116 – Gross value added (GVA) created by aviation in 2019 (in billion €). .............................. 207
Figure 117 – Employment created by aviation in 2019 (in thousand jobs). ....................................... 207
Figure 118 – Gross value added (GVA) and employment created by aviation between 2019 and 2050
(high scenario) ..................................................................................................................................... 208
Figure 119 – Studies on the economic impact of aviation in the EU27+UK. ....................................... 210
Figure 120 – Development of CS2 Scientific Publications (2014-2023). ............................................. 217
Figure 121 – Patent applications per SPD from 2014-2023. ............................................................... 218
Figure 122 – Overall development of patents generated in the scope of the Clean Sky 2 programme
from 2014 to 2023............................................................................................................................... 218
Figure 123 – Fleet development over 30 years for seat class 100-150 PAX (reference case). ........... 221
Figure 124 – Aircraft score variation depending on CO2 emissions. .................................................. 221
Figure 125 – Fleet development over 30 years for seat class 100-150 PAX, Demand: Reference case +
5%. ....................................................................................................................................................... 222
Figure 126 – Artist impression of SMR single aisle H2-powered configuration, showing the LH2 tanks
(aft of the cabin) and fuselage extension. ........................................................................................... 223
Figure 127 – Simulated global aircraft gross CO2 emissions under high or low traffic development, and
with (solid lines) or without (dashed lines) hydrogen-powered aircraft. ........................................... 224
Figure 128 – Total Daily Flights & Emissions resulting from Commercial SST Network for both
Scenarios. ............................................................................................................................................ 226
Figure 129 – Number of SSBJ Routes Served Progression. ................................................................. 227
Figure 130 – Annual UAM Passenger Trip for the High / Low Demand Scenario. .............................. 227
Figure 131 – Overview of impacts of REIVON measures to relevant stakeholder groups. ................. 230
Figure 132 – CO2 reduction through FR (up) and ISO (down), per flight leg distance band. .............. 231
Figure 133 – Impact of ISO and FR on movements at FRA airport, per seat category. ....................... 232
Figure 134 – Impact of ISO and FR on NOx emissions at FRA airport, per aircraft category. ............. 233
Figure 135 – Comparison of CO2 emission reduction potential of aviation until 2050 based from
different studies and scenarios (Source: Own Figure). ....................................................................... 235
Figure 136 – Global CO2 Emission reduction potential until 2050 by considering Aviation Technology
(Clean Sky 2 Results), Improved ATM & Operations, and Sustainable Aviation Fuels (Refuel EU SAF
shares). ................................................................................................................................................ 237

19
 List of Tables
Table 1 – List of CS2 new aircraft concepts versus reference aircraft, with projected entry-into-service
(EIS), environmental results and Technology Readiness Level (TRL) at programme close. .................. 38
Table 2 – Assumptions of the main forecast scenarios. ........................................................................ 56
Table 3 – Advanced Long Range LR+ Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance Improvements,
and Technology Enablers. ..................................................................................................................... 68
Table 4 - Noise reduction achievements for LR+ Concept. ................................................................... 72
Table 5 – Advanced Short-Medium Range SMR+ Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers. ............................................................................................ 74
Table 6 – Noise reduction achievements for SMR+ Concept. ............................................................... 77
Table 7 – Ultra-Advanced Short-Medium Range SMR++ Concept: Environmental Benefits,
Performance Improvements, and Technology Enablers. ...................................................................... 79
Table 8 – Noise reduction achievements for SMR++ Concept. ............................................................. 82
Table 9 – Advanced Regional Turboprop TP90: Environmental Benefits, Performance Improvements,
and Technology Enablers. ..................................................................................................................... 84
Table 10 - Comparison of TLARs for conceptual and reference 90 pax regional aircraft. .................... 85
Table 11 – Innovative Regional Turboprop TP130 Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers. ............................................................................................ 90
Table 12 – Comparison of TLARs for conceptual and reference 130 pax regional aircraft. .................. 91
Table 13 – Unducted Single Fan (USF) Key Technologies...................................................................... 92
Table 14 – Regional Multi-Mission Turboprop TP70 Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers. ............................................................................................ 97
Table 15 – Characteristics in terms of payload and range for the baseline (C-295)
and future multi-mission regional aircraft concept. ............................................................................. 98
Table 16 – Regional Geared Turbofan – ADORNO – Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers. .......................................................................................... 102
Table 17 – List of top-level aircraft requirements (TLARs) adopted for ADORNO. ............................. 103
Table 18 – List of advanced airframe technologies considered in ADORNO for the design of the target
GTF A/C................................................................................................................................................ 103
Table 19 – Main characteristics of the adv. GTF engine designed by MTU for ADORNO. .................. 106
Table 20 – Main characteristics of the ADORNO target regional UM GTF A/C. .................................. 109
Table 21 – Block fuel burn and emissions comparative between the ADORNO reference UM GTF A/C
and the target UM GTF A/C on the 3100 nm design mission at 14,462 kg of payload (design payload).
............................................................................................................................................................. 110
Table 22 – Block fuel burn and emissions comparative between the ADORNO reference UM TF A/C
and the target UM GTF A/C on the 1080 nm typical mission at 18,711 kg of payload (max. payload).
............................................................................................................................................................. 110
Table 23 – Noise levels at certification points comparative between the ADORNO reference UM TF
A/C and the target UM GTF A/C. ......................................................................................................... 110
Table 24 – Set of design variables for the MDAO process of the target RM A/C................................ 111
Table 25 – Main characteristics of the ADORNO target regional RM GTF A/C. .................................. 114
Table 26 – Block fuel burn and emissions comparative between the ADORNO reference UM GTF A/C
and the target RM GTF A/C on the 3100 nm design mission at 14,462 kg of payload (design payload).
............................................................................................................................................................. 114
20
Table 27 – Block fuel burn and emissions comparative between the ADORNO reference UM GTF A/C
and the target RM GTF A/C on the 1080 nm typical mission at 18,711 kg of payload (max. payload).
............................................................................................................................................................. 114
Table 28 – Noise levels at certification points comparative between the ADORNO reference UM GTF
A/C and the target RM GTF A/C. ......................................................................................................... 114
Table 29 – 19-seater Commuter Twin Turboprop (MAESTRO) Concept: Environmental Benefits,
Performance Improvements, and Technology Enablers. .................................................................... 117
Table 30 – Breakdown of technology contributions to the overall emissions reductions at aircraft
level. .................................................................................................................................................... 121
Table 31 – 19-seater Commuter twin turboprop concept with alternative Tech-TP engine:
Environmental Benefits, Performance Improvements, and Technology Enablers. ............................ 123
Table 32 – 19-seater Serial Hybrid-Electric Turboprop Commuter Concept – E-STOL: Environmental
Benefits, Performance Improvements, and Technlogy Enablers. ....................................................... 125
Table 33 – Advanced Low Sweep Business Jet Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers. .......................................................................................... 132
Table 34 – Integrated technologies and expected benefits for the business jet concep ................... 133
Table 35 – Breakdown of technology contributions to the overall gain in performance for the BJ2035.
............................................................................................................................................................. 135
Table 36 – Advanced & Reference Business Jets Top Level Aircraft Requirements (TLARs). ............. 135
Table 37 – People Mover Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance Improvements, and
Technlogy Enablers.............................................................................................................................. 137
Table 38 – List of vehicles assessed in this report. .............................................................................. 138
Table 39 – Top-level aircraft requirements of the reference aircraft and the People Mover design. 140
Table 40 – Technology assumption for the People Mover design for a 2035 scenario. ..................... 141
Table 41 – Comparison of the emissions of the People Mover aircraft to the SMR2014 and LR2014
reference aircraft [3] on the 2000nm evaluation mission. ................................................................. 144
Table 42 – Compound Helicopter Concept – RACER: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technlogy Enablers. ............................................................................................ 150
Table 43 – Main flight performance characteristics of RACER and TESM generic reference helicopter.
............................................................................................................................................................. 151
Table 44 – Clean Sky 2 technology streams contributing to the RACER concept. ............................. 152
Table 45 –results for CO2 and NOx emissions reduction for a few typical RACER missions. ............. 154
Table 46 –results for CO2 and NOx emissions reduction for a few typical RACER missions with ECO
MODE. ................................................................................................................................................. 154
Table 47 – Next Generation Civil Tilt-Rotor Helicopter Concept – NGCTR: Environmental Benefits,
Performance Improvements, and Technlogy Enablers. ...................................................................... 158
Table 48 – Technology mapping and targets for the NGCTR concept. ............................................... 159
Table 49 – Main flight performance characteristics of NGCTR and AW139 reference helicopter. .... 161
Table 50 – Aircraft Replacement Table for future fleet scenarios with CS2 advanced & ultra-advanced
technologies and associated 2019 Reference aircraft. Regional (REG): Class 2 – 5; Narrowbody (NB):
Class 6 – 9; Widebody (WB): Class 10 – 12.......................................................................................... 173
Table 51 – SAT cruise speed and range scenarios. .............................................................................. 190
Table 52 – Domestic SAT trips per inhabitant and year in 2050 in selected countries (SAT range of
159nm and speed of 195 ktas). ........................................................................................................... 192
21
Table 53 – EMMA network waiting and connection times. ................................................................ 197
Table 54 – Aviation industry stakeholders .......................................................................................... 205
Table 55 – Countries covered by WIOT ............................................................................................... 206
Table 56 – Studies on the economic impacts of aviation .................................................................... 208
Table 57 – Gross value added created by aviation in 2019 (in million euro). ..................................... 211
Table 58 – Employment created by aviation in 2019 (number of jobs). ............................................. 212
Table 59 – Gross value added created by aviation between 2019 and 2050 (in million euro)........... 213
Table 60 – Employment created by aviation between 2019 and 2050 (number of jobs)................... 214
Table 61 – Overview publications reported by 31 December 2023. ................................................... 216
Table 62 – Aircraft scores for seat class 100-150 PAX (reference case). ............................................ 221

22
1 Introduction

Clean Sky is the largest European research programme developing innovative, cutting-edge technology
aimed at reducing CO2, other gas emissions and noise levels produced by aircraft. Funded by the EU’s
Horizon 2020 programme, Clean Sky contributes to strengthening European aero-industry
collaboration, global leadership and competitiveness by delivering innovative solutions for the aviation
sector.

The Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking was established by Council Regulation (EU) No 558/2014 of 6 May
2014 to develop cleaner air transport technologies for earliest possible deployment, and in particular
the integration, demonstration and validation of technologies capable of:

(i) increasing aircraft fuel efficiency, thus reducing CO2

emissions by 20 to 30 % compared to ‘state-of-the-art’
aircraft entering into service as from 2014;

(ii) reducing aircraft NOx and noise emissions by 20 to 30 %

compared to ‘state-of-the-art’ aircraft entering into service
as from 2014.

Besides improving the environmental impact of aeronautical technologies, including those related to
small aviation which refers to aircraft up to 19 seats, the objective of Clean Sky 2 is also to develop a
strong and globally competitive aeronautical industry and supply chain in Europe.

The structure of the programme is as shown in Figure 1. It is composed of three IADPs – Innovative
Aircraft Demonstration Platforms – operating demonstrators at vehicle level for Large Passenger
Aircraft, Regional Aircraft and Fast Rotorcraft, and three ITDs – Integrated Technology Demonstrators
– demonstrating key Airframe, Engines and Systems technologies at system level. Besides, three
Transverse Activities (TAs) related to Small Air Transport (SAT), Eco-Design and the Technology
Evaluator were conducted. They are relevant to several ITDs and/or IADPs and require coordination
and management across the ITDs and/or IADPs.

23
Figure 1 – Schematic Structure of the Clean Sky 2 Programme.

24
2 Technology Evaluator

The Technology Evaluator, as a Transverse Activity, is an independent Technology Evaluator for the
entire duration of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking, i.e. until 30th June, 2024. It is led by the German
Aerospace Center (DLR). The DLR has already been Coleader in the 1st Technology Evaluator (TE)
project. The main idea of the TE is to integrate all mission level results of the Clean Sky 2 programme
at fleet level, i.e. for airport and global fleets. DLR´s field of expertise in future fleet modelling and
forecasting of future passenger demand is here of specific relevance.

2.1 Overall assessment timeline

To monitor and assess the progress of the ongoing technology developments across all Clean Sky 2
activities, two major reporting milestones have been set: a 1st Global Assessment by end of 2020, i.e.
approximately at programme mid-term, and the 2nd Final Global Assessment by mid-2024, at
programme closure. In addition to the quantification of the expected improvements on the overall
noise, greenhouse gas and air polutants emissions from the aviation sector in future scenarios using
the technology developed in Clean Sky 2, together with its potential societal impact, the Technology
Evaluator has the following specific tasks:

(i) providing feedback to ITDs and IADPs in order to enable the optimisation of their
performance against their respective goals and objectives;

(ii) providing input, through the Executive Director, to the Governing Board on
environmental and societal impacts across Clean Sky activities to enable the Governing
Board to take all actions necessary to optimise benefits across all Clean Sky
programmes, against the respective programmes’ high-level goals and objectives;

(iii) providing regular information, through the members, the Executive Director and other
bodies of the Joint Undertaking, on the impact of the technological results of the ITDs
and IADPs.

The 1st Global Assessment results have been published in 20211. The detailed results are available
under the form of a technical report and in an executive summary. The present public report covers
the 2nd Global Assessment as an update to the 1st Assessment Report, including progress made in
technology maturation and integration at aircraft level, airport and fleet forecast assessments.

1
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Technology Evaluator, First Global Assessment 2020, Technical Report, May 2021.
https://www.clean-aviation.eu/clean-sky-2-is-well-on-track-says-technology-evaluator-first-global-assessment
25
2.2 Differences to the 1st assessment

Departing from work performed during the 1st assessment of the Technology Evaluator, the concept
models for fast rotorcraft, commuter, regional, business jet, short medium-range and long-range
aircraft were updated by each Systems & Platform Demonstrators (SPDs) during this second
assessment and used by DLR for the 2nd assessments at airport and ATS level. The LR++ concept (Ultra-
Advanced Long Range) has been abandoned as the perspectives of performance improvements versus
the LR+ concept were considered limited. The LR++ has been replaced by a preliminary assessment by
DLR of a “People Mover" concept, i.e., a short/medium-range widebody aircraft (with 590 seats), as a
consequence of the main conclusion of the first assessment, i.e. to meet the growing passenger
demand below 4000 km, alleviating also the issue of critical airport congestion in the near future.

At ATS level the main difference to the 1st Assessment is the new base year 2019 (previous: 2014), the
new definition of the forecast(instead of High/Low scenarios of the 1st Assessment starting in 2035
there are two forecasts from 2019 on, a realistic and a pessimistic one), the new fleet model and the
People Mover aircraft and multi-airport regions scenarios. In the 1st Assessment, predictions have
been broken down into a forecast from 2014 until 2035 followed by two scenarios (high and low) up
to 2050 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Forecast and scenarios from 1st Assessment Report (2020)

26
In the 2nd Assessment, the scenarios start immediately from the new updated base year 2019, which
was the last typical year before the COVID-19 pandemic.The years after 2019 can still not be considered
to be typical in the sense that they serve well for a long-term comparison of air traffic developments.
Especially the years up to 2022/23 are still heavily influenced by the pandemic in terms of structure
and volume of air traffic and thus are thus do not qualify as a representative base year.
The "DLR UC" forecast is the base forecast which is comparable with most industry forecasts like Airbus
and Boeing in case of no particular constraint and the “DLR CON” forecast is the base forecast with
airport capacity constraints included.The "Low" forecast was born in the COVID-19 pandemic and
serves as a worst-case scenario with very unfavorable conditions for air transport demand
development. The COVID-19 crisis led to an unprecedent short-term decline of air transport volume.
There have been various crises before, like 9/11, but the impact has never been that substantial. During
the pandemic and especially during the 1st Assessment, a “return to normal” was hardly imaginable
because of its severity and it was believed that there were substantial long-term changes in air travel
behavior. This is essentially reflected in the low scenario. However, since 2023, there is an indication
that the air transport sector will recover from the pandemic as it has recovered from prior crises. The
air transport sector again has proven to be very resilient in the long run. Nevertheless, the original low
scenarios serve as a future worst-case from which valuable insights can be gained. Even under very
unfavorable conditions like a far weaker economic development and change of behavior in air travel,
i.e., less flying, there will still be an increase in air transport demand and flights until 2050. Therefore,
it is unrealistic to achieve the ambitious environmental goals of the air transport sector without
technology advances. Even in such a pessimistic growth case, passenger demand is seen to
substantially increase anyway, which is an important result and one that is driven largely by growth in
developing markets in China and South-East Asia.

Finally, there are the People Mover scenario and a scenario where excess demand because of limited
airport capacity is redistributed in multi-airport-regions (MARs). While MARs have only a small effect
and thus are not explored in more detail, the people mover scenario is the subject of a more detailed
analysis. For MARs, only the forecast is shown, and it is very evident that they have only a very limited
effect on passenger and flight volume as well as the fleet, so that the results of the DLR CON forecast
apply as well.

Since the initial assessment was released, there have been improvements made in the modelling of air
transport and fleet forecast methodology. In the 1st Assessment, existing aircraft was fixed to its
original airport pair and could not be moved until it was retired. In fast-growing markets like Asia this
caused very large aircraft to enter the market to serve the demand. As a result, there was in some
cases a large variety of aircraft (over 400 seats) operating on such airport pairs. In the new fleet model
for the 2nd Assessment, existing aircraft can be allocated to different airport pairs according to the
individual capacity needs. This results in a more compact aircraft size distribution with less need for
very large aircraft which also has a positive effect on emissions reduction.

Input data was updated to cover the latest global developments, which have a significant effect on the
GDP development. GDP is a major driver of air transport demand, so a lower GDP growth means a
lower growth of air transport demand which leads to lower growth of flights.

27
At connectivity level for the mainliner and regional fleet, the calculations and analyses from the 1st
Assessment were supplemented by the high unconstrained mainliner/regional forecast to assess the
benefits in connectivity and mobility to passengers due to new potential connections in Europe up to
2050. Furthermore, manufacturer-based values for the range and speed of an all-electric and hybrid-
electric SAT configuration are considered, and a SAT demand model for connectivity choices in Europe
up to 2050 is integrated. For fast rotorcraft connectivity assessments, scenarios were applied for
Europe and additionally for four global regions (USA, Mexico/Caribbean, Brazil, China/Southeast).

In summary the following main differences to the 1st assessment were applied:
• Concept models from the SPDs were updated, the DLR people mover included
• Base year was changed to 2019 due to Covid
• The forecast scenarios start immediately from the year 2019
• Update in the fleet modelling in terms of aircraft allocation

2.3 Second assessment – key indicators and metrics

Following the scope of the 1st assessment the

scope of the 2nd assessment covers the RPK

environmental (CO2, NOX, noise) and societal Revenue Passenger Kilometers (RPK) or
impact (mobility, connectivity and socio- Revenue Passenger Miles (RPM) is an airline
economic impact) while improved air traffic industry metric that shows the number of
management and infrastructure use or the kilometers traveled by paying passengers. It
potential contribution from alternative fuels is calculated as the number of revenue
passengers multiplied by the total distance
and impact of offsetting mechanisms were not
traveled. Since it measures the actual
considered. demand for air transport, it is often referred
to as airline “traffic.”
The key indicators, levels and dimensions of the
RPK is often compared to ASK, the available
TE assessment are outlined in Figure 3 .
seat kilometers, a measure of the airline’s
passenger carrying capacity. It is equal to the
In terms of environmental key indicators, number of seats available on a given aircraft
gaseous emissions are evaluated at the level of multiplied by the number of kilometers
CO2 and NOx released during the aircraft flown on a given flight, i.e. the total
mission. Sulfur oxides (SOx), water vapour (H2O), maximum number of passenger kilometers
volatile organic compounds (VOC), nvPM that could be generated. An available seat
(particles), have not been assessed in the mile is the fundamental unit of production
for a passenger-carrying airline.
present study. The aircraft (and engine) models
are currently not able to provide this level of Comparing RPK and ASK allows to determine
information about pollutant emissions. the amount of revenue that comes in
Therefore, local air quality (LAQ) at airport level compared to the maximum amount.
could also not be assessed. Noise was evaluated

28
through the indicators day-evening-night acoustic level (Lden) and night acoustic level (Lnight) as well
as population exposed (but not population affected).

The corresponding metrics are:

• Fuel burn: in kg per mission and normalised to kg per seat-kilometer, correlation with CO2
emissions.
• Gaseous emissions:
o CO2 and NOx in kg per mission and normalised to kg per seat-kilometer, identical to
the fuel burn metrics. At ATS level, this is equivalent to referencing to Revenue-
Passenger-Kilometer (RPK).
o When the reference aircraft has different TLARs, i.e., different passenger capacity or
range2, or in the case of specific missions, emissions are normalized as follows:
▪ Passenger Transport: kg of emissions/pax/NM
▪ Freight Transport: kg of emissions/ton/NM
▪ SAR missions: kg of emissions/time on station(hr)/tons of payload
• Noise emissions:
o for fixed-wing aircraft: cumulated perceived noise levels as measured at ICAO noise
certification points (according to ICAO annex 16) during take-off and landing.

o for rotorcraft: noise contour area reduction along defined flightpaths. Noise levels will
be compared in terms of area above specific noise thresholds in dB SELA. SELA is an
integration of the continuous noise level during the whole duration of the event, it
sums the different events over a certain observer giving an indication of the total
acoustic energy received

Concerning societal impact, mobility and connectivity benefits are derived at airport and fleet level
from the evaluation of aircraft productivity (available seat-kilometres per aircraft per day) at mission
level.

Within this assessment, economic impact is evaluated through GDP impact, job creations and
competitiveness. A few additional aspects, which are not addressed within the socio-economic study,
are health impacts, safety and security and stakeholders (i.e. passengers, airlines, ANSPs3 and airports).

2
Cruise speed of the reference and concept vehicle may still differ. This is the only parameter which is not
taken into account in the current metrics.
3
ANSP: Air Navigation Service Provider
29
Figure 3 - Metrics, levels and dimensions of the TE assessment.

30
3 A Vision for the Future

The current fleet has been analysed and divided into several market segments out of which several
new aircraft concepts have been defined with the aim of meeting the high-level goals of Clean Sky 2.
It involves incorporating, or more accurately, integrating new technologies onto a new aircraft
platform as part of the concept.

First of which is the mainliners (LPA – Parge Passenger Aircraft), responsible today for the major part
of civil aviation emissions (cfr. Chapter 5.3 – Fleet Level (ATS)). It represents the Long Range segment,
mainly served today by widebody aircraft (> 236 passengers), as well as the Short-Medium Range
segment, mostly served today with narrowbody aircraft (< 236 passengers). Three aircraft concepts
have been modelled and analysed under the lead of Airbus Commercial Aircraft, integrating and
evaluating the associated CS2 technologies: the advanced Long Range LR+ concept, the advanced
Short-Medium Range SMR+ concept and the ultra-advanced short-medium range SMR++ concept.

Second, the regional aircraft (< 100 passengers) were analysed through three concepts integrating CS2
technologies: two clean sheet concepts led by Leonardo Aircraft (advanced 90-seater & 130-seater
turboprops) and a 70-seater multi-mission regional turboprop (advanced TP70) led by Airbus Defence
& Space.

Furthermore, the business jets market was considered with an advanced low sweep business jet
concept led by Dassault Aviation, and three commuter concepts (SAT – Small Air Transport; < 19
passengers) were developed by Piaggio Aerospace: two high-TRL conventional configurations with
innovative engines (MAESTRO & Tech-TP) and one less mature serial hybrid-electric configuration (E-
STOL).

Beside the aforementioned tube-and-wing concepts enabling to evaluate the potential of the
developed technologies together with their maturity, two mature fast rotorcraft concepts were
developed under CS2: the RACER (Rapid And Cost-Effective Rotorcraft) under the lead of Airbus
Helicopters and the NGCTR (Next Generation Civil Tilt-Rotor) led by Leonardo Helicopters. On top of
offering substantial reduction in emissions and noise, the designs have been created to fly 50% faster
(RACER), or nearly doubling the speed of a traditional helicopter (NGCTR). The RACER first flew in April
2024 (TRL 6) and the NGCTR flight test is planned for 2024.

In addition to the aforementioned concepts led by the industry, there have been more theoretical
studies carried out within the framework of CS2 that were led by Universities and Research centres.
ADORNO is an academic advanced concept performed on the basis of the work performed by MTU
Aero Engines to increase the performance of GTF engines. The People Mover is an academic study led
by DLR aiming to estimate the potential impact of a widebody aircraft specifically designed for short-
to medium-haul operations, rather than its traditional long-haul mission. Its significance lies in
addressing potential airport capacity shortage at major hub airports and serves as an initial analysis to
assess the potential benefits of this new approach in terms of reducing emissions and improving
economics.

31
Each concept is associated to a set of technologies developed and matured in the frame of Clean Sky
2. Overall, 32 flagship demonstrations were performed to evaluate the main technologies (Figure 4)
and a total of 107 demonstrations were conducted overall. These demonstrations lie in the fields of:
• Breakthroughs in Propulsion Efficiency (including propulsion-airframe integration).
• Advances in Wings, Aerodynamics and Flight dynamics.
• Innovative Structural/Functional Design and Production System.
• Novel Aircraft Configurations and Capabilities.
• Aircraft Non-Propulsive Energy and Control Systems.
• Next Generation Cockpit Systems and Aircraft Operations.
• Optimal Cabin and Passenger Environment.

The aircraft concepts (Figure 5) are further detailed in the mission analysis in section 5.1 of the present
document.

Figure 4 – Clean Sky 2 Flagship Demonstrators.

32
 Advanced Long Range LR+ Advanced Short/Medium Range SMR+

Ultra-Advanced Short/Medium Range SMR ++

Innovative Turboprop 130 pax Advanced Turboprop 90 pax

Regional Multi-Mission TP 70 pax

Regional Geared Turbofan (Under wing-Mounted UM & Rear-Mounted RM) – ADORNO

33
Commuter Aircraft (MAESTRO & Tech-TP) Hybrid-Electric Commuter Aircraft E-STOL

Advanced Low Sweep BizJet

People Mover

Next Gen Civil Tilt-Rotor (NGCTR) Compound Helicopter (RACER)

Figure 5 – Illustrations of the main Clean Sky 2 aircraft concepts.

34
3.1 Concept Aircraft

Each Systems & Platform Demonstrator (SPD) has defined one or more aircraft concepts (see Figure
5) to be accurately modelled in terms of environmental performance based on a set of technology
bricks (key enabling technologies), which have been developed within the Innovative Aircraft
Demonstrator Platforms (IADPs) or Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs).

Each aircraft concept or concept vehicle has been attributed a set of specific objectives, as well as a
projected Entry-Into-Service date or window (based on all key enabling technologies reaching TRL6
four to seven years before EIS). All concepts result from a multi-objective and multi-dimensional
optimisation process incorporating a set of technologies developed under the CS2 programme. Based
on demonstrators results (IADPs or ITDs), the maturity of the concepts is estimated through TRL levels,
both at aircraft and engine level and a TRL 6 date is projected at aircraft level, accounting for the
complex integration process of the developed technologies. An overview of the concept results can be
seen in Table 1 and are further detailed together with their associated technologies in section 5.1. The
TLARs (Top Level Aircraft Requirements) in terms of range, cruise speed and number of passengers
(PAX) are given both for the concept and the reference vehicle.

Most concepts have been defined as “advanced concepts” with potential entry-into-service (EIS)
between 2030 and 2035. An “ultra-advanced” version of the short-medium range mainliner concept
(SMR++) was defined as well4, with lower maturity expected at the end of the programme and hence
later entry-into-service (EIS as of 2035) but higher environmental performance objective.

It must be noted however, that several concepts have a very short-term EIS target date, shortly after
closure of the CS2 programme, i.e., by 2030. This is the case for the 19-seater Commuter aircraft (EIS
between 20285 and 20306), as well as the 90-seater advanced turboprop regional concept (TP90 – EIS
2030) and the high-speed compound helicopter (RACER – EIS 2030).

A number of technologies under development since the programme’s start (2014) have been
integrated into these new aircraft concepts. These technologies are stemming from work within the
ITDs (Engines, Systems and Airframe) or directly from the IADPs at Platform level (LPA, REG, SAT, FRC).

The technology selection and integration choice was performed as early as 2022 by each platform
owner before running the performance simulation for each model. The definition of each aircraft
concept was based on the available technologies with sufficient maturity level and the integration at
overall aircraft level was performed accordingly, considering mainly weight and volume impact of
components and systems, efficiency and weight of the propulsion system and aerodynamic
performance of the aircraft. Each SPD has used their own in-house tools for this, which are proprietary
performance simulation tools.

4
The Ultra-Advanced Long Range concept (LR++) was abandoned after the 1st Assessment of the Technology
Evaluator as the perspectives of performance improvements versus the LR+ concept were considered limited.
The LR++ has been replaced by a preliminary assessment by DLR of a “People Mover" concept.
5
MAESTRO engine.
6
Tech-TP engine.
35
Research & Technology objectives need to be calibrated at a sufficiently high ambitious level to take
into account the unavoidable performance waivers associated with various limitations, constraints,
trade-offs and overall optimization resulting in particular from combined feasibility, viability,
certification and safety requirements, during the whole technology, manufacturing and overall
development maturation and integration processes, in particular from TRL 5-6 to TRL 8. It is very
challenging to quantify in advance what the “research target margins” should be (sometimes called
“realization factors”), both in terms of level and timing, to protect future product performance
predictions, since it is very dependent on each specific case. In general, it can be expected that the
margins should be larger when very advanced/disruptive technologies and revolutionary
configurations are involved.

36
 Final
Concept Aircraft Reference Aircraft A/C TRL Propulsion
Assessment Results
@CS2 TRL @CS2
EIS A/C TRL 6
Range Cruise # Reference Range Cruise # ∆CO2 ∆NOx (1) closure = Closure =
Concept Vehicle EIS ∆ Noise Assessment range
[NM] speed PAX Vehicle [NM] speed PAX [kg/pax/NM] [kg/pax/NM] 2024 2024
19 PAX Commuter Twin
-19.6% -28% -19% TO 6
TurboProp 2028 6 2024
Generic 19- [-18%;-20%] [-27%;-29%] TO: -2.8 dB 300 NM MAESTRO
- Loop2 (MAESTRO) 800 max op. range SoA
0.34 Ma 19 seater 800 0.34 Ma 19 [200-800]
Piaggio Aero

19 PAX Commuter Alternative 2 x 300 w/o refuel 2014

Conventional TP -17.3% -51.5% -31% TO 230kTAS 5
SAT Twin TurboProp - Loop2 2030 5 2025
[-17.4%; -17%] [-51%; -52%] TO: -5.2 dB TechTP
(TechTP)
19 PAX Commuter 600 max op. range Generic 19- 300 NM
SoA -47.5% -53.5% -53% TO
E-STOL Hybrid/Electric TP 160 NM full 0.34 Ma 19 seater 800 0.34 Ma 19 [200-600 NM] 2032 3 3 2028
2014 [-68%; -23%] [-66%; -25%] TO: -10.5 dB
(Serial) electr. Conventional TP 230kTAS
Dassault

-25% LTO
Advanced Low Sweep SoA -18.5% -16.5% 2900 NM
AIR 2900 0.78 Ma 12 BJ 2014 2900 0.75 Ma 12 AP: -4.9 dB 2035 4 N/A 2027
Business Jet 2014 [-25%; -12%] [-10%; -23%] 8 PAX - 0.78M
FO: -3.7 dB
Regional Transport
Defence & Space

1000 300kTAS 70 step 1 COTs

Multi Airline -44% LTO Average within
EADS/CASA technos: 6 engines. Step 1
Airbus

Mission 1000 260 SoA -35% AP 400 - 1400NM

AIR Transport Freighter 1400 300kTAS -- C295 50 -22% -60% 2035 step 2 Propeller GE- technos:
Turbopro 1400 kTAS 2014 TO: -10 dB (3.73t - 6.65t
civil technos: 5 Dowty 2022
p Search And Rescue 15- AP: -6.4 dB payload)(2) (3)
400 300kTAS 4
70 PAX (SAR) 25
-40% LTO Ref
-20.8 dB Ref
Average set of
Advanced Turboprop 0.56 Ma at ATR 72 0.52 Ma SoA -32.5% -44% AP: -6.9 dB 5
1200 90 1000 90 ranges within 2030 5 2026
90 PAX (update) 20 kft up-scaled at 20 kft 2014 [-35%; -30%] [-46%; -41%] LA: -7.2 dB NextGen TP
[300; 1200 NM]
Leonardo Aircraft

FO: -6.7 dB
-15 dB Ch 14
REG
+14% LTO Ref
+7.0 dB Ref
Bombardier Average set of
Innovative Turboprop 0.62 Ma at 0.78 Ma -25% -55% AP: +1.7 dB 4
1600 130 CS300-like 3000 130 2016 ranges within 2035 3 2030
130 PAX (update) 30 kft at 35 kft [-25%; -24%] [-57%; -53%] LA: +4.7 dB USF
(A220-like) [400; 1600 NM]
FO: +0.6 dB
-9 dB Ch 14

-8% LTO 3100 NM(4)

Regional GTF - Under Wing
-20.9% -29.4% AP: -0.7 dB [540; 3510 NM] 5
Mounted 2032 5 2026
[-12.8%;-30.2%] [-9.0%;-37.7%] LA: -2.6 dB [18.7; 8.7 t] GTF
(MTU-ADORNO) Regional
0.78 Ma at 0.78 Ma FO: +0.3 dB payload
MTU

ENG 3100 140 turbofan close to 3100 140 2014

37k ft at 37 kft -20% LTO 3100 NM(4)
Regional GTF - Rear Wing A220
-18.1% -24.7% AP: -2.0 dB [540; 3510 NM] 5
Mounted 2035 4 2029
[-9.6%;-49.2%] [-5.5%;-50.5%] LA: -5.4 dB [18.7; 13.1 t] GTF
(MTU-ADORNO)
FO: -2.3 dB payload

37
 -16.3% LTO
-25.8%
Advanced SMR 2014 -2.3% AP: -1.4 dB 3
Airbus / Safran
3000 0.78 Ma 250 3000 0.78 Ma 200 2016 [-25.4%; - Average & 2032 3 2026
Short-Medium Range SMR+ A321neo-like [+0.7%; -9.4%](5) LA: -3.2 dB UHBR
26.9%](5) extremum values
FO: -3.1 dB
set of ranges
-11.5% LTO
-30.4% within 3 mid-2023
Ultra-Advanced SMR 2014 -5.1% AP: -2.9 dB
3000 0.75 Ma 250 3000 0.78 Ma 200 2016 [-30.2%; - 500-3000 NM 2035 3 5 2026 2029
LPA Short-Medium Range SMR++ A321neo-like (5) [-1.9%; -12.7%](5) LA: -0.9 dB
31.3%] ORAS
FO: -1.5 dB
Average &
-20.1% LTO
Airbus / RR

-18.2% -44.9% extremum values 5 2024

Advanced LR 2014 AP: -2.5 dB
7000 0.85 Ma 332 7000 0.85 Ma 315 2015 [-15.6%; - [-43.3%; - set of ranges 2034 5 UltraFan FT 2028
Long Range LR+ A350-900-like (5) (5) LA: -4.6 dB
19.4%] 46.2%] within 2027
FO: -2.6 dB
4000 - 7000 NM
SMR 2014 -31% (65m)(6)
3000 0.78 Ma 200 2016 -40% (65m)(6) -- 5
People Mover - D590 A321neo-like -18% (52m)
DLR

TE 2160 0.78 Ma 590 2000 NM 2034 5 UltraFan FT 2028

(65m span)
LR 2014 -49% (65m)(6) (6) 2027
7000 0.85 Ma 315 2015 -62% (65m) --
A350-900-like -40% (52m)

Set of missions
(TEH) Generic 135 SoA -98% SELA 80dB(7)
448 24 -48% to -54% -40% to -46% within
Helicopters
Leonardo

Helicopters kTAS 2010 -92% LAmax 70dB

Leonardo Helicopters Tiltrotor [311; 450 NM]
<1000 250 kTAS 24 2035 6 5 2025
(NGCTR)
Leonardo Set of missions
145 SoA -97% SELA 80dB(7)
Helicopters 570 15 -48% to -57% -51% to -59% within
FRC kTAS 2014 -93% LAmax 70dB
AW139-like [310; 450 NM]

-36% to -43% Extremum values

Helicopters

(7) set of missions

Airbus

Airbus Helicopters Compound (TESM) generic 136 SoA SELA 70dB

400 220 kTAS 12 400 12 [-6%; -20%] [-44%; -56%] within 2030 6 4 2024
(RACER) helicopter kTAS 2010 -94%
(7)
51 - 339 NM (180 -
SELA 80-85dB 220 kTAS)

Table 1 – List of CS2 new aircraft concepts versus reference aircraft, with projected entry-into-service (EIS), environmental results and Technology Readiness
Level (TRL) at programme close.
(1) Noise reduction calculated under ICAO Annex 16 conditions for fixed-wing aircraft (Chapter 10 for CS-23 aircraft & chapter 14 for CS-25 aircraft).
CS-23: Single Certification Point representative of Take-Off (TO).
CS-25: Averaged Perceived Sound Volume (EPNLdB) Reduction against the reference aircraft over Landing (AP - Approach) & Take-Off phases (Average between FO - Flyover & LA - Lateral ICAO
certification levels).
20% of Noise reduction is equivalent to 3dB reduction. 30% of Noise reduction is equivalent to 5dB reduction.
(2) Aircraft Usage Rule: 10% Airline; 65% Freighter; 25% SAR.
(3) Step 1 technologies: Subset of technologies that were flown in ADS in-flight demonstrator in 2021/2022 - TRL 6; Step 2 technologies: Subset of technologies that were demonstrated on-ground in
2023 - TRL5.
(4) Design Mission at 14.46t payload.
(5) Lower bound & upper boud for the considered set or ranges. Unlike the other fixed-wing aircraft concepts, the emission reduction values in bracket for LPA are not corresponding to the lower and 38
upper bound of the assessment ranges.
(6) Concept Model with 2 span lengths configurations: 65m & 52m.
(7) Reduction of impacted area on ground levels hearing above a 70dB peak noise level (SELAMAX) & 70 or 80dB sustained noise level (SELA).
3.2 Reference Aircraft
In order to assess the improvement in terms of environmental performance, a ‘most relevant’
reference vehicle (“best in class”) has been defined for each new aircraft concept for fair comparison
purposes, see Table 1. A note has to be made here regarding the difficulty of an appropriate choice for
the reference aircraft.

For mainliners, this reference aircraft is fairly easy to identify as year 2014 state-of-the-art (SoA):
A321neo-like for the SMR concept and similar to an A350-900 aircraft for the LR concept, although
these effectively entered into service respectively in 2016 and 2015.

However, in other cases, due to different passenger capacity (i.e., REG-90 or REG-130 pax), range or
cruise speed, there is no exact match in terms of existing aircraft. For the Advanced Regional TP
concept, this required to choose the closest aircraft (ATR-72) and up-scale it to 90 pax.

For regional turboprop aircraft in general (ATR-72, C-295, etc.), the latest SoA regional aircraft in
service in 2014 are based on technology standards of year 2000, whereas regional jets (Bombardier
CS300 or A220-300) are using recent geared turbofan technology (and are approaching the lower end
of the SMR market, i.e. A319 (in terms of range (3000nm) and cruise speed (Ma=0.78)).

In cases where the technologies are intended to be flight-tested on a given aircraft (e.g., the Multi-
Mission TP 70 pax technologies have been flown on a C-295 aircraft within the framework of the REG
FTB#2 demonstration), the flying testbed aircraft has been selected naturally as the reference,
requiring an appropriate re-scaling methodology, well known by the aircraft manufacturers.

For Small Air Transport (SAT), all existing aircraft in service have technology standards well prior to
year 2000, which required to develop a “generic” 19-seater model with SoA technologies of 2014. The
same holds for the business jet.

Finally, the identification of an appropriate reference for the fast rotorcraft concepts was the most
difficult as the cruise speed of the new concepts is almost twice that of any existing helicopter, closer
to an aircraft in terms of cruise speed and altitude, but with Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL)
capability. Some of these reference aircraft have been updated for the second assessment, by adding
a comparison to the generic CS1 Twin-Engine Heavy (TEH) helicopter additionally to the AW139-like
reference for the NGCTR.

39
4 Methodology

4.1 Assessment at three Levels: Mission, Airport and Global Fleet

For the set of concept aircraft, the Clean Sky 2 Technology Evaluator has performed two assessments
(1st assessment published in 2021, 2nd assessment in 2024) based on three major pillars:

Innovation potential at Mission level

Clean Sky 2 Concept Aircraft are compared with
2014 Reference Aircraft on relevant missions
regarding emissions and noise. The results are the
basis to quantify the success level versus the CS2
environmental goals.

Realistic impact at Airport level

A typical day at representative EU-airports (fleet
mix from 2014 historical and 2035/2050 forecast
data) is compared for a fleet with and without Clean
Sky aircraft and analysed regarding emissions and
noise.
Aviation footprint at Air Transport System (ATS)
level
One year with all global flights (fleet mix from 2014
historical and 2035/2050 forecast data) is
compared for a fleet with and without Clean Sky
aircraft and analysed regarding emissions and
noise.

Figure 6 - Assessment levels.

4.2 Passenger and Flight Forecast

Based on forecasts of wealth (GDP), population and air ticket price development, the CS2 Technology
Evaluator has elaborated for each market segment (Mainliner, Regional Aircraft, Business Jet, Small Air
Transport and Rotorcraft) four different forecasts (high and low, which are further subdivided by
conventional jet fuel and SAF assumptions) up to 2050. The SAF assumptions are based on the timeline
of SAF introduction according to the ReFuel strategy of the European Union, which assumes an
increase of SAF share to 70% in 2050, which lies between the ATAG scenarios of the Waypoint 2050
study (SAF share in 2050 between 39% and 90%). However, assessed globally to achieve a meaningful
comparison regarding the impact of SAF on the forecast and evaluate globally the potential impact of
such regulation if adopted worldwide. Vehicle-specific developments are considered for CS2 concept
aircraft (commuter, regional, short medium range, long range) and the People Mover, which is a short-
to medium-range aircraft with high seating capacity.

40
The forecast and scenarios include a global mobility demand projection for air travel (see also the
forecasts of ICAO7 and IATA8) along with a flight network projection to derive an outlook of a global
fleet. The originality of this outlook is that it includes the impact of airport capacity constraints, an
assumption generally not made in other currently available forecasts. Of course, there are further
constraints, e.g. aircraft production capacity and investment capacity. However, airport capacity
constraints are a major limitation on further development, because they are difficult to realise,
especially at large airports in highly developed countries. These airports are typically crucial for the
global air transport network.

4.2.1 TE overall forecast and assumptions including capacity constraints

The worldwide model is complex and a detailed description is beyond the scope of the report. Full
details can be found in the book of Gelhausen, Berster and Wilken (2019)9. Including limited airport
capacity explicitly is a major concept of the model, as it has a significant impact on passenger and flight
volume development as well as the fleet structure. This can for example observed at London Heathrow
airport, which operates since the early 2000’s at its capacity limit of about 480,000 aircraft movements
per year. The discussion about a third runway is still not finished since about 20 years. As a result of
the scarce capacity, numbers of passengers per flight increased over time and passenger volume grew
slower than at other airports. As airport availability is not unlimited at other airports as well, more and
more airports might be affected from limited airport capacity in the long term. This, of course, depends
on local circumstances like the affected population and the model takes such considerations into
account. The model, however, does not fix capacity to current limits but evolves it according to the
demand development within realistic limits. These limits are forecast by an econometric model.

Figure 7 illustrates the model approach. In the first step, the unconstrained,i.e., without consideration
of limited airport capacity, passenger and flight forecast is established. This includes new nonstop
flights, which become viable due to the increase in demand. There is, for example, some potential for
new nonstop flights in the long-haul market, on routes that are currently served only by stopover
flights (Wilken et al., 2016; Grimme et al., 2021). On the other hand, shorter routes of say up to 600
km may be also served by high-speed train instead. In Figure 7, boxes with blue frames refer to
unconstrained models, while boxes with red frames refer to constrained models that include the
effects of limited airport capacity and related aircraft up-gauging, i.e., more seats per aircraft. The box
with blue and red frames (aircraft upgauging) refers to both categories. Passenger and flight volume
per airport pair is modelled by a gravity model. The three major drivers of passenger demand are:

• Real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita: the use of the term ‘real’ means that it is
inflation-adjusted to reflect actual purchasing power and is a measure of the wealth or income of the

7
ICAO Long-Term Traffic Forecasts – Passenger and Cargo, Montreal, July 2023.
8
IATA 20 Year Passenger Forecast, Montreal, 2021.
9
Wilken, D., Berster, P. and Gelhausen, M.C., 2019. Airport Capacity Constraints and Strategies for Mitigation:
A Global Perspective. Elsevier, New York.

41
population per capita that can for example be spent on air travel. It is split into GDP per capita for the
origin and the destination of a journey, to allow for more complex relationships.
• Population: the larger the population, the larger is the potential for air travel demand at a
particular wealth or income level (i.e. real GDP per capita). Real GDP per capita and population taken
together for origin and destination is the typical real GDP variable that appears in many air transport
demand models.
• Real airfare development: the development of real, i.e., inflation-adjusted, airfares have a
direct effect on passenger demand volume. Increasing real airfares reduce demand volume, while
decreasing real airfares have a positive effect on passenger demand volume. In the past, real airfares
declined by about 1.5 % per year on a global level (Gelhausen et al., 2019) due to organisational and
technological innovations, i.e., better organisation, and the employment of more efficient aircraft. It
is difficult to assess if this assumption will hold for the future, especially in the light of increases in
kerosene and SAF prices. Fuel costs make up about 15 % to 30 % of the ticket price (IATA, 2021b;
Traveller, 2018; US DOT, 2019).

The elasticities of these major drivers determine the overall unconstrained passenger volume
development. Real GDP, i.e., real GDP per capita times population, has an elasticity of 1.31, so that an
increase of 1 % of real GDP increases passenger volume by 1.31 %. Real airfares have an elasticity of -
1.11, so that a decrease of 1% increases passenger volume by 1.11 %. Both real GDP and airfares are
thus elastic so that passenger volume reacts over-proportionally to changes in real GDP. However,
there is one caveat: these drivers are measured in real terms, so effects of inflation need to be
considered. One could argue that inflation reduces real airfares (given nominal airfares remain the
same or rise more slowly than inflation), which is positive for demand development, but the GDP also
needs to be considered. Inflation burns purchasing power, i.e., real GDP (if that nominal GDP remains
the same, or rises more slowly than inflation), which is negative in terms of demand development. Real
GDP has a greater impact on passenger volume than real airfares (1.31 compared to 1.11 in absolute
values), so the total effect on demand is negative. An exact forecast of inflation over the next 20 to 30
years is not possible, even estimations are difficult to make and coupled with high uncertainties. Thus,
it is assumed that inflation will return to its steady state (2.0-2.5% global inflation) in the long term.
This assumption is of course debatable, and therefore needs to be kept in mind when discussing the
forecast results. However, the discussion shows that a long-term high-inflation scenario would most
likely lead to lower passenger volumes.

After obtaining the unconstrained passenger and flight volume forecast for each airport pair, airport
capacity constraints and aircraft upgauging are applied. The airport capacity constraints model
contains an element that calculates current airport capacity for each airport using data envelopment
analysis (DEA) and regression models and, based on discrete choice theory, offers a model that
estimates the probability of airport capacity expansion, if capacity is not sufficient to handle the
forecast demand. Based on this probability, an expected delay in the realisation of a new runway is
derived, if indeed and if it is possible at all. Generally, airport expansion projects are more difficult to
realise in highly developed countries with a high level of participation, like in Europe, especially, if the
airport is already large or close to agglomerations with a lot of affected people. In more emerging

42
countries like in Asia, enlargements are easier to realise, however, even there is some opposition from
the neighbouring population to be expected.

Aircraft upgauging depends not only on the level of airport capacity constraints but also on various
other factors such as passenger demand volume, flight distance, and others. It affects both constrained
as well as unconstrained airports because of interdependencies in the global air traffic network
(Berster et al., 2015). The upgauging model belongs to both the unconstrained and constrained models
(blue & red frames). The model is implemented using DEA and regression models, and incorporates
factors such as passenger volume, flight distance and the constraints’ situation at airports. The forecast
result is the average number of passengers per flight (“aircraft size”) for each airport pair. Combining
the future airport capacity and aircraft size per airport pair with the unconstrained passenger forecast
yields the constrained forecast model. The forecast results are the constrained passenger and flight
volume as well as the lost passenger demand and restricted flight volume due to limited airport
capacity.

• GDP per capita

• Population Passenger &
• Airfares flight forecast
• …
• Gravity models model
• Passenger volume
• Welfare level
• Flight distance
• Aircraft movements
• Constraints situation
• Population
• Traffic mix
• Traffic mix
• Airport infrastructure
Unconstrained passenger & • …
flight volume per airport pair • DEA & regression
• …
models
• DEA, discrete choice
& regression models

Airport
Aircraft
capacity
upgauging
constraints Constraints model
model situation

• Blue frame:

Future airport Future aircraft size Unconstrained models

capacity per airport per airport pair • Red frame:

Constrained models

Constrainted
Constrained passenger Lost passenger demand
forecast
& flight volume & flight volume
model

• Base year fleet

• Specification of current
and future aircraft
Aircraft fleet • Entry into service
• ...
model • Optimisation models
• Stochastic retirement
models
• Aircraft utilisation models

Aircraft fleet by airport

pair
Figure 7 – Overview of the passenger and fleet forecast model.

43
The passenger and flight volume per airport pair, whether from the constrained (with airport capacity
limitations) or unconstrained (without airport capacity limitations) forecast are passed to the fleet
model. Input into the fleet model are the base year fleet and the specification of current and future
aircraft, which can be concept aircraft as well. For future aircraft, entry into service (EIS) is needed.
The model is based upon up to 14 ICAO seat class categories, but not limited to it. An example table is
provided in Table 50 of section 5.3.2, which assigns an aircraft type to each ICAO seat class employed
and includes the EIS and out-of-production of each aircraft type. Table 50 only shows one aircraft type
per ICAO seat class (one reference and one concept for each seat class) as performed for the
Technology Evaluator analysis, but the model is not limited to this use case. In this project, only one
reference and concept aircraft per ICAO seat category was agreed to be considered. However, in
reality, there is more than one aircraft in each seat category and possibly even more than one concept
aircraft, such as liquid hydrogen, electric and SAF-powered aircraft. This can be handled by the model
and is already being done in other projects. The assignment of different aircraft of a seat class to airport
pairs can be based on factors like minimum and maximum flight ranges, cost-based rules, or any other
rule like equal market share.

Of course, the model results depend on the assumptions made, the underlying data, etc. A sound
sensitivity analysis with meaningful results, i.e. especially intervals that are not too wide is hardly
possible because of the complexity of the model. Therefore, we have only made a point forecast
(instead of an interval forecast), which is quite common for such forecasts, see e.g. Airbus and Boeing.

The passenger, flights, and fleet forecasts rely on some basic assumptions, which are listed as follows:

• The scope of the forecasts presented is global unless otherwise stated.

• Income per capita, population and airfare development are the key drivers of air transport
demand. Available real gross domestic product per capita and population development for
each country were taken from S&P Global10. The airfare development is forecasted by a
separate model of DLR which is based upon the real gross domestic product per capita and
real oil price development. Compared to the 1st Assessment, the economic outlook has
worsened: Real average GDP per capita is expected to grow by 1.79% per year globally
between 2019 and 2050 in the 2nd Assessment, while it was expected to grow by 1.97% per
year between 2014 and 2050 in the 1st Assessment (Figure 8). This factor alone is responsible
for about 0.2 percentage points lower passenger demand growth per year.

10
IHS Markit, 2023. Global Economy – Forecast of Selected Socio-economic Measures.
44
 Figure 8 – Comparison of real average GDP per capita forecasts between 1st and 2nd Assessment.

• As Clean Sky 2 does not cover all aircraft seat classes, additional “virtual” aircraft were inserted
into the fleet using technology diffusion models between neighbouring seat classes five years
after an initial entry into service. A dedicated project (TeDiMo11) was completed in April 2021
to study the assumptions and validity of these technology diffusion models from an explorative
point of view within and across the aircraft categories to assess future aircraft fleet
compositions. The outcome of this study is described in detail in section 7.1.
• In the 1st Assessment, existing aircraft was fixed to its original airport pair and could not be
moved until it was retired. In fast-growing markets like Asia, this caused very large aircraft to
enter the market to serve the demand. There was in some cases a large variety of aircraft (new
over 400 seaters and existing very small aircraft) operating on such airport pairs, leading to
very wide range of aircraft sizes that was not plausible. In the new fleet model for the 2nd
Assessment, existing aircraft can be allocated to different airport pairs according to the
individual capacity needs. This improvement in the fleet modelling results in a more compact
aircraft size distribution with less need for very large aircraft, and consequently in lower
emissions than in the first assessment.
• Aircraft retirements were based on the empirical model used by ICAO CAEP. Aviation is known
to be characterized by extremely long aircraft life cycles, as shown in Figure 9, where the
average age of aircraft lies between 20 years (regional jets) and 29 years (turboprops), with
narrow- and wide-bodies between 22 and 25 years. It is important to note that this average

11
TeDiMo, “Technology Diffusion Model”, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/821354
45
 age of aircraft corresponds to a so-called “survival rate” of 50%, meaning that 50% of the
aircraft are still in service after that period, which is an economic necessity resulting from a
need to recoup the high purchase price (which in turn simply reflects the high manufacturing
cost of a safe, high performance aircraft).

Figure 9 – Aircraft retirement curves.

• Passenger load factors (the relation of passenger kilometres to seat kilometres, i.e., aircraft
occupation rate) were assumed by DLR to increase from 80.4% in 2014 to about 90% in 205012.
Compared to the time before the pandemic and less large widebody aircraft available for the
future, e.g., discontinuation of the A380, higher load factors up to 2050 can be expected from
our empirical analyses. DLR assumes that cost pressure on airlines and improved revenue
management systems, enhanced by AI for instance, will make higher load factors viable and
economically attractive in the long term. However, varying maximum load factors by a few
percentage points of about 5 to 6 over a time horizon of 30 years has only a very small effect
on demand, flights and fleet that is hardly noticeable. Of course, the value of future maximum
load factors is debatable and, represents the view of DLR in this report. In the end, the
potential of mitigating the capacity crunch by increasing load factors is rather limited in the
long run, especially at constrained airports with already high load factors.
• The future development of aircraft sizes was forecasted based on a model derived from
empirical data13. The model is based upon data envelopment and regression analysis and
forecasts viable maximum aircraft sizes per airport pair. The viable maximum aircraft size
between two airports depends on the airport capacity situation, the flight length and the

12
The passenger load factors were assumed by DLR to increase to about 88% by 2050 during the 1st Assessment.
13
Wilken, D., Berster, P. and Gelhausen, M.C., 2019. Airport Capacity Constraints and Strategies for Mitigation:
A Global Perspective. Elsevier, New York.
46
 passenger volume. The higher these factors are, the higher is the maximum viable aircraft size.
For each airport pair therefore there is a forecast of average passengers per flight and, in
conjunction with the load factor, the average number of seats per flight. Aircraft is then
assigned by an optimisation algorithm according to the average seats per flight, so that aircraft
is distributed compact around the mean value of each airport pair. Retirement curves then
drive the evolution of the fleet, by retiring old aircraft and taking appropriate new aircraft into
service. By employing aircraft utilisation values, the number of required aircraft can be
calculated.
• Airport capacity was forecasted for the potentially capacity-critical airports of 4000 airports
worldwide which is about 200 airports. The number of required runways is based on the traffic
forecast and reflects the capacity required to satisfy the demand, while the number of
expected runways is based on probabilities, considering technical and political barriers such as
the opposition of the neighbouring population fearing increased noise emissions and reduced
local air quality. As a result, DLR found that less than 100 airports, the major hubs however,
are expected to be the main driver for the limitations introduced by this constraint. DLR
focused in this respect on the runway capacity, as other components of airport capacity like
terminal or parking slots can be enhanced in the long run without an official plan approval
procedure, which includes the public who are typically opposed to such enlargements because
of the increase of noise and emissions. The runway capacity is typically the major bottleneck
in the long term14.
• The global flight network considered the airports worldwide, assuming the hub structure to
remain unchanged and assuming additional direct connections – especially in intercontinental
travel if served by aircraft with about 200 to 300 seats15 – to contribute to accommodating the
demand.
• The continuous product improvement through the introduction of (CS2) technologies, by
means of retrofit in operational aircraft or introduction in the production line of pre-CS2
aircraft, were not considered.

Airport capacity constraints are an assumption generally not explicitly considered in other existing
forecasts, other than through historical data trends on increasing load factors and increasing aircraft
size. The DLR forecast includes a forecast model for airport capacity enlargements which forecast the
average time to realise an additional runway based on the demand pressure and the population
surrounding the airport, that typically opposes such enhancements because of the increase in noise
and air pollution.

In the past decades there has already been a trend towards larger and especially economically more
efficient aircraft. This is not only about very large aircraft like the A380, but of the whole spectrum of
aircraft sizes, so that the passenger and flight volume distribution of seat classes moves to the right

14
Wilken, D., Berster, P. and Gelhausen, M.C., 2019. Airport Capacity Constraints and Strategies for Mitigation:
A Global Perspective. Elsevier, New York.
15
Wilken, D., Berster, P. and Gelhausen, M.C., 2016. Analysis of demand structures on intercontinental routes
to and from Europe with a view to identifying potential for new low-cost services, Journal of Air Transport
Management, 56B, 79-90.
47
and, not only the top end (the definition of seat classes is of course fixed). This is not only limited to
the large hub airports with capacity constraints, but applies also to smaller airports which are
connected to these hubs. With increasing capacity constraints, the pressure on fleet development
increases further. A popular example is London Heathrow airport, which can only handle about
480,000 movements per year16. For the last 20 years the number of annual aircraft movements has
been more or less constant, however, passenger volume still has increased by almost 20%. While there
is a need for more capacity at London Heathrow, there is still no consensus on a third runway. The
need for airport and aircraft capacity is reflected in the forecast in a realistic way, i.e., to what extent
airport capacity, especially adding runway capacity, can be expected to be enlarged over a certain time
horizon. Furthermore, DLR assessed to what extend larger aircraft with more seat capacity can be
employed to mitigate the capacity crunch at airports. Cost factors of airlines, like fuel costs, crew costs
or landing charges, are modelled, so that the development of airfares can be forecasted, which are
besides the GDP growth a main driver of air transport demand. Airfare development depends mainly
on the cost development of airlines. Nevertheless, the consideration of airport capacity constraints is
the biggest difference of the DLR forecast to other forecasts, because it has a fundamental effect on
demand and fleet development. This is reflected in the difference between the constrained and
unconstrained forecasts of DLR presented below.

The largest 120 airports (3% of all airports) handle about half of the total global traffic, however,
enlarging the capacity of big hubs with large traffic numbers, for example London Heathrow, Paris
Charles de Gaulle or Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson is very difficult because of the opposition of the
neighbouring population fearing increased noise emissions and reduced local air quality16.
The difficulty of enlarging a smaller airport with one or two runways varies according to the region of
the world. Opposition is high in countries with high welfare and participation level. However, most of
those small airports handles only a small share of the global flight volume.

Furthermore, adding additional runway capacity at an airport produces less and less capacity gains the
larger the airport. For example, adding a second independent runway to an airport with just one
runway typically doubles runway capacity, while adding a new runway to a multi-runway airport with
three or more runways yields in a far smaller capacity gain because of increased interference between
runways.

As a result, the capacity problems of the large hubs (which are very important for the global air traffic
system) also impact the traffic of smaller airports, which do not have a capacity shortage of their own
but are limited by the capacity problems of the hubs.

In conclusion,
• the analysis focused on new (additional) runways without considering technical or operational
measures, which increase the capacity by only a few movements per hour.

16
Wilken, D., Berster, P. and Gelhausen, M.C., 2019. Airport Capacity Constraints and Strategies for Mitigation:
A Global Perspective. Elsevier, New York.
48
 • the realisation probability of a runway expansion project was modelled differently across
Europe (Region 1), North/Central America, Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, Japan, South
Korea, Taiwan and Singapore (Region 2) and Others (Region 3) including China.
• new airports are not considered, but are modelled as part of existing airports, like Peking
Daxing as an extension of Peking Capital City.

Therefore, considering the huge effect of this particular assumption, DLR has performed both the high
and low forecasts with and without the airport capacity constraint, i.e. referred to in the next as the
constrained and unconstrained forecasts.

4.2.2 Comparison of the DLR constrained and unconstrained global forecasts with other global
forecasts

Most global air transport forecasts report on future revenue passenger kilometre volume (RPK),
therefore this is selected as a measure to compare different forecasts. In later sections of this report,
other measures like passenger and flight volume are discussed in more detail, however, these statistics
are not always reported in all forecasts and thus lend themselves not for comparison.

Neglecting airport capacity constraints, global RPK volume between 2019 and 2050 was estimated to
grow at 4.0% p.a. in the DLR unconstrained forecast ("DLR UC"). Taking airport capacity constraints
into account, RPK volume is expected to grow by 3.3% p.a. ("DLR CON").

The global DLR forecasts correspond quite well with global industry forecasts of Airbus and Boeing as
well as the global forecasts of IATA and ICAO, as Figure 10 illustrates. Airbus17 and Boeing18 forecast
3.6% and 3.7% RPK volume growth per year for the time 2019 to 2042. The IATA forecast is a bit lower
with 3.3% p.a. for the time 2019 to 2040. The ICAO Post Covid LTF range between 2.9% and 4.2% p.a.,
with the mid-version forecasting 3.6% p.a. RPK volume growth19. The “DLR LOW” forecast scenarios,
which are characterised by extremely unfavourable economic conditions, still achieve a RPK CAGR of
about 0.5% to 0.8% between 2019 and 2050 and thus traffic levels are expected to be higher than
actual RPK values from 2019, the last year before the pandemic. This means that even in the “DLR
LOW” forecast scenarios RPK in 2050 are between 16% and 29% higher than in 2019. Therefore, it is
very unlikely that traffic can be held more or less constant in the long term and substantial growth is
to be expected, even with such pessimistic growth assumptions.

17
Anon. Global Market Forecast 2023. Airbus. Global Market Forecast | Airbus
18
Hulst D. Commercial Market Outlook 2023. Boeing. PowerPoint Presentation (boeing.com)
19
Anon. Working Paper. Report on the updated Long-term Traffic Forecasts with Post-Covid-19 pandemic
scenarios. A41-WP/14. EC/4. International Civil Aviation Organization 2022.
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a41/Documents/WP/wp_014_en.pdf
49
 Figure 10 – Comparison of the DLR CON and DLR UC global RPK forecasts with the global forecasts of
Airbus, Boeing, IATA and ICAO (CAGR: Compound annual growth rate).

As a result, the "DLR CON" and "DLR UC" forecasts fit well with the other air transport forecasts: the
unconstrained forecast results are at the top end of the values of Airbus, Boeing, IATA and ICAO, while
the constrained forecast is slightly lower in terms of RPK volume. RPK volume is mostly affected by the
fleet structure, which is itself directly dependant on the capacity constraints of the main airports (main
hubs). This fleet structure therefore tends to lean towards larger aircraft to mitigate the airport
capacity crunch of the main critical hubs expected in the future.

50
 Figure 11 – Comparison of DLR CON and DLR UC global RPK forecasts with Airbus GMF, Boeing CMO
and ICAO LTF.

Figure 11 shows a comparison of the DLR CON and DLR UC forecasts with the aforementioned current
and past Airbus, Boeing and ICAO forecasts, as well as the forecasts from the 1st Assessment. Growth
rates of Figure 10 are applied to 2019 values up to 2050 to illustrate the differences between the
forecasts in absolute RPK values. The curve is plotted without the Covid 19 pandemic in a smooth
fashion for better comparison. The non-DLR forecasts typically do not provide more than an average
growth rate over the forecast period, the year-for-year recovery after the pandemic cannot be plotted
for those forecasts. This will be done for the DLR forecasts later in this chapter.

There is a difference between the highest and lowest ICAO LTF of about 50% in 2050, so that these
forecasts form the upper and lower bounds of all those forecasts in Figure 11. The DLR UC forecast is
a slightly lower than the highest ICAO LTF (upper bound) and slightly higher than the Airbus GMF and
Boeing CMO, which are quite similar. The DLR CON forecast, which includes airport capacity
constraints, is naturally lower than the Airbus, Boeing and ICAO LTF Mid forecasts as the latter
forecasts do not include an airport capacity constraint model at airport pair level20, but still higher than
the lowest ICAO LTF. Overall, therefore, the two main DLR forecasts (constrained and unconstrained)
are trusted to produce very sensible results.

Figure 12 to Figure 14 show a comparison of the DLR forecasts with the new aircraft delivery forecasts
of Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, and ATR. Comparing aircraft delivery forecasts is always difficult, because

20
The innovation of DLR’s model lies in its fleet model accounting for capacity at airport pair level, whereas most
forecasts usually include capacity constraint at regional level or replicate historical level of constraint.
51
of assumptions regarding aircraft retirement and aircraft productivity, i.e. the number of aircraft
needed to serve a given flight schedule. The DLR model is based on ICAO CAEP retirement curves which
are currently the gold standard and aircraft productivity has been calculated from data such as Cirium
Fleets Analyzer, OAG, and Sabre MI. Nevertheless, the results presented in Figure 11 shows, that the
DLR fleet results fit very well with that of the established industry forecasts. Compared to Airbus and
Boeing total deliveries and the split between narrowbody and widebody aircraft is more or less the
same as in the unconstrained DLR forecast (DLR UC). Airbus and Boeing forecast 40,840 and 39,860
aircraft with 100+ seats until 2042, of which 8,220 and 7,440 are widebodies. The corresponding DLR
forecast values are 38,388 aircraft with 100+ seats until 2042, of which 6,775 are widebodies.

Figure 12 – Comparison of the DLR UC global new aircraft delivery forecasts with Boeing and Airbus
global forecasts (NB = Narrowbody Jet, WB = Widebody Jet).

The constrained DLR forecast (DLR CON) in Figure 13 is a substantial different because of the inclusion
of limited airport capacity and thus leaning towards less but larger aircraft across the whole spectrum
of aircraft sizes, not only the top end of very large aircraft, especially not on short distances. Airport
capacity is forecast according to the demand pressure for more airport capacity and the opposition of
the population surrounding the airport against such plans. In comparison to the unrestricted Airbus,
Boeing, and DLR (DLR UC) forecasts, the findings of the restricted DLR forecast (DLR CON) are logical.
It is shifted more towards widebody aircraft and overall less aircraft delivered until 2042. In DLR CON
we forecast 29,521 new 100+ seats aircraft up to 2042, of which 10,730 are widebodies.

52
The “High” forecast from the 1st Assessment, which is also a constrained forecast, is lower and leaning
more towards widebody aircraft than DLR CON. DLR CON has an improved fleet modelling (as
described in 4.2.1), resulting in less need for very large aircraft, but more for smaller. As a result, DLR
CON is more in line with the old and the new Airbus forecast, which remained almost unchanged.
Because of less widebody and more narrowbody aircraft in the 2nd compared to the 1st Assessment,
there is more new aircraft delivered in the 2nd Assessment.

Figure 13 – Comparing the worldwide number of new aircraft of the Airbus GMF and DLR forecast 1st and
2nd Assessment.

The results for aircraft up to 85 seats are a bit optimistic, but this is due to the fact that the ATR forecast
only comprises turboprop aircraft while the DLR forecast does not differentiate between different
engine types in that detail (nevertheless, there are reference aircraft in each seat class in the DLR
forecast). DLR UC is also a bit optimistic compared to the Embraer forecast, however, in a constrained
situation DLR CON sees less potential for new aircraft of up to 150 seats compared to Embraer.
However, there is not enough information about the Embraer forecast to track down the differences
in detail.

53
 Figure 14 – Comparison of the DLR CON and DLR UC worldwide new forecast delivery forecasts with
global Embraer and ATR forecasts.

As a result, we can conclude, that the most-likely forecasts of DLR, the "DLR CON" and "DLR UCC"
forecasts, match with the established forecasts very good in terms of RPK/passenger volume, as well
as fleet structure/new aircraft deliveries. In the next section we look at the various forecast scenarios
in more detail.

4.2.3 Global DLR Forecasts in Detail

In this section we take a closer look at the DLR global passenger, flight and RPK forecasts. For an
efficient notation of the different forecasts, we have created a system of abbreviations as follows:
• DLR CON: This is the main forecast scenario including capacity constraints according to the
forecast of airport capacity available in the future. If nothing else is mentioned, it is always
the DLR CON forecast.
• DLR UC: This is the main forecast scenario excluding capacity constraints.
• LOW: This abbreviation refers to extreme unfavourable conditions to establish a lower bound
of air transport development of the pessimistic forecast scenario. If there is no “LOW”
included in the forecast abbreviation, it is always the realistic scenario, e.g. “DLR CON” or “DLR
UC”.

54
 • SAF: This abbreviation refers to hypothetical global SAF introduction according to the ReFuel
strategy of the European Union, e.g., “DLR CON SAF” is a forecast including capacity
constraints and SAF or "“DLR UC SAF" is a forecast excluding capacity constraints but including
SAF (which is not limited in volume). A SAF share development as outlined by the ReFuelEU
proposal is assumed globally, so that SAF shares will be 6 % in 2030, 34 % in 2040 and 70 % in
2050. On average, we assume a 20 % share of fuel costs with regard to the airfare. In real
terms, airfares will increase by 0.4 % in 2025, rising to 13.2% in 2050 compared to kerosene
jet fuel without any SAF (the development is proportional to the SAF shares according to the
ReFuelEU proposal). The passenger demand elasticity with regard to the ticket price is -1.1121.
Of course, there are many studies with a great deal of variation of forecasts on SAF prices. The
higher SAF price is, the lower is the passenger demand according to the fare elasticity of -1.11.
It is not the intent of this report to give a full SAF scenario in detail, but to show that the
introduction of SAF according to the ReFuelEU strategy of the European Union, i.e. to start
with lower shares when SAF prices are still high and increase them progressively when SAF
prices are expected to fall (but are still higher compared to traditional kerosene) minimises
the impact on passenger demand development and does not overtax the air passenger. A
more detailed study on this topic is certainly desirable.
• MARs (Multi Airport Regions): This is a "DLR CON" forecast which includes rerouting excess
flights due to limited airport capacity to neighbour airports within 100 km distance. The 100
km distance is a plausible assumption from a European perspective with its relatively high
population density, but this might be different in other parts of the world, like North America
or Asia. However, there is not enough information available on global level to make more
differentiated assumptions.
• DLR CON PM: This is a specific "DLR CON" forecast scenario with a new aircraft concept by
DLR called "People Mover" which is introduced in 2034, which has a seating capacity of 590
passengers and a flight range of 4000 km. Passenger and RPK volume are identical to the "DLR
CON" forecast, but with less flights due to higher seating capacity compared to the
corresponding Reference and CS2 aircraft. Thereby, forecasts are better comparable because
of the same underlying passenger and RPK volume. The people mover is an aircraft concept
by DLR and is not the main forecast.
Table 2 describes the main forecast scenarios, which are the realistic scenarios, along with the “LOW”
assumptions to test for a lower bound in future air transport development. The two forecast scenarios
differ significantly in terms of the impact of the COVID-19 and further global crisis alike, etc. on demand
and supply, i.e.:
• demand for trips (leisure/business),
• airfare development, and
• the recovery of flights (domestic/international).

21
Wilken, D., Berster, P. and Gelhausen, M.C., 2019. Airport Capacity Constraints and Strategies for Mitigation:
A Global Perspective. Elsevier, New York.
55
 Table 2 – Assumptions of the main forecast scenarios.

In the realistic forecast we see a "back to normal" in the long term, which also corresponds with other
forecasts (see Figure 10). The "Low" forecast, which has its origins in a pessimistic outlook of the
COVID-19 crisis is not the most likely view of the future (which is the realistic forecast). However, the
"Low" forecast has an important function: it simulates future air traffic development under very
unfavorable conditions, be it the COVID-19 pandemic, or any other major crisis that might happen in
the future and has happened in the past, like 9/11, the global financial crisis 2008/09, etc. As we will
see further below, even under such pessimistic assumptions we see a long-term growth of air
passenger and traffic volume compared to 2019 levels, so that we can be sure that enlarging or the
lack of airport capacity and the employment of aircraft with high seating capacity will be an important
topic in the future again.

Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the results of the different forecasts in terms of passenger,
RPK22 and flight volume. The values for 2019-23 are actual figures, and as explained earlier, there is a
strong tendency towards normal after 2022. We then expect a gradual return to the original pre-2019
growth path until 2035. Many regions have almost returned to 2019 levels and the global recovery
89% in terms of passengers/RPK and 86% in terms of flights. We model the return to the pre-COVID-
19 growth path by analyzing the recent development in terms of passengers and flight volume
relatively to 2019 and extrapolate it into the future and forecast a full return to the original pre-COVID-
19 growth path latest until 2035.

In 2019, there were 4.5 billion air passengers transported worldwide (source: IATA). Until 2050 the
passenger volume increases up to between 12.1 (DLR CON SAF, CAGR 3.3%) and 16.5 billion (DLR UC,
CAGR23 4.4%) passengers in the different realistic forecasts. The "Low" forecasts are between 6.0 (DLR
CON Low SAF, CAGR 1.0%) and 6.6 billion (DLR CON LOW, CAGR 1.3%) passengers in 2050. They serve
as a worst-case scenario and show that there is still a small passenger volume growth in the long term
despite the very unfavorable assumptions.

22
Revenue Passenger Kilometres
23
Compound Annual Growth Rate
56
The "DLR UC" is only for comparison purposes with other unconstrained forecasts as has been written
in earlier sections of this report. The base forecast, "DLR CON", has 13.2 billion passengers in 2050
(CAGR 3.6%). As can be seen from Figure 15, the constrained forecasts (DLR CON, DLR CON SAF, DLR
CON PM and DLR CON MARs are rather close in passenger volume in 2050. "DLR CON SAF" is only 9%
lower than "DLR CON" in 2050, which is a strong result and shows that introducing SAF has not a too
severe effect on demand development if done slowly. "DLR CON MARs" is only 3% higher than "DLR
CON", because there is only limited potential for re-routing given the assumption of 100 km re-routing
distance. Often, the problem is the destination airport (especially in Asia) which has insufficient
capacity and no re-routing option. For example, there is enough airport capacity in the London region,
but not enough at the destination airports in Asia24. As a result of the lower opposition of the
neighbouring population in Asia compared to western countries (especially in EU & in the US), Asian
airports can be more easily enlarged. However, this advantage is overcompensated by the
exceptionally strong demand growth in this part of the world.

Figure 15 - Results of the DLR forecasts: Global passenger volume until 2050

The same applies to the RPK volume development until 2050. In 2019, there were 8.2 trillion RPK
globally. Until 2050, RPK volume is expected to increase to 20.4 (DLR CON SAF, CAGR 3.0%) and 27.4
trillion (DLR UC, CAGR 4.0%) RPK in the "DLR CON" and to 9.5 (DLR CON LOW SAF, 0.5%) to 10.5 (DLR

24
Wilken, D., Berster, P. and Gelhausen, M.C., 2019. Airport Capacity Constraints and Strategies for Mitigation:
A Global Perspective. Elsevier, New York.
57
CON LOW, 0.8%) trillion in the "Low" forecasts. The base forecast, "DLR CON", has 22.4 trillion RPK in
2050 (CAGR 3.3%). Otherwise, the same as for passenger volume applies for RPK development in 2050,
since RPK and passenger volume developments are directly proportional and evolve closely.

Figure 16 - Results of the DLR forecasts: Global RPK volume until 2050

In 2019, there were 36 million flights worldwide. Until 2050, flight volume is expected to increase to
between 55.1 (DLR CON SAF, CAGR 1.4%) and 89.1 million (DLR UC, CAGR 3.0%) flights in the "DLR
CON" and DLR UC forecasts and to 38.1 (DLR CON LOW SAF, CAGR 0.2%) and 40.3 million (DLR CON
LOW, CAGR 0.4%) in the "Low" forecasts. For DLR CON, the main forecast, we expect 58.0 million flights
(CAGR 1.5%). Again, the same as for passenger and RPK volume development applies for the future
number of flights, however, the spread between the "DLR CON" and "DLR CON SAF is slightly lower,
only 5%. The "DLR CON PM" has significantly less flights (-1.3 million flights or -7% in 2050) due to the
increased passenger capacity of the People Mover.

58
 Figure 17 - Results of the DLR forecasts: Global flight volume until 2050

In the following chapters of the report, the focus is on the "DLR CON" forecast, which is considered by
DLR as an important risk scenario and the base future development. Indeed, fleet level studies for
demand and fleet development forecasting accounting for airport capacity are only possible when
performing an airport-level approach. From DLR’s perspective, it is important to move from a lower to
a higher resolution forecast in order to capture such effects correctly. DLR contributed to
advancements in this field through the Technology Evaluator (TE) Transverse Activity (TA). In a special
analysis, we will also look at the "DLR CON PM" forecast, because of its potential to mitigate future
capacity and environmental problems. SAF and MARs have only a limited impact on demand
development (less than 10%, see Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17) and especially in case of the MARs,
the assumptions can be challenged. From our empirical analysis, the 100 km assumption is rather
optimistic regarding the re-routing potential, which is still low. The "DLR UC" forecasts simply cannot
be handled with the current or expected airport capacity in the future. For example, at London
Heathrow we need roughly to double the current capacity. Even with the third runway, which is
discussed for more than 20 years, capacity would only increase by 50% at best. Here, we need a heavy
shift towards a substantially more decentralized air transport network, which would increase the
number of flights even more, because a point-to-point network needs much more flights compared to
a hub-and-spoke system given the same number of origin-destination connections. This is not only
economically less efficient but also from an ecological point of view questionable. Furthermore, there
are no signs of such a trend, in the last 20 years about 120 airports (of around 4000 with scheduled
commercial traffic) handled 50% of the global flights.

59
Figure 18 and Figure 19 illustrate the aircraft seat class distribution between 2022 and 2050 in the "DLR
CON" forecast. While there is still some demand for smaller aircraft in the regional and small
narrowbody range (especially 71 to 125 seats), there is an increasing need for large narrowbody and
widebody aircraft, i.e. 176 seats per aircraft and more. This is because of the growth of air travel
demand which cannot be served by current and expected airport capacity. Thus, on average larger
aircraft, i.e. more seats and more passengers per flight, needs to be employed, which means that
passenger and flight volumes distribution of Figure 18 and Figure 19 shift to the right compared to an
unconstrained forecast. However, even then, it is not possible to serve the unconstrained demand,
because that what is actually realistic according to our forecast model falls back behind what is needed
to serve the DLR UC demand. The “DLR UC” forecast is still 24% higher compared to the "DLR CON"
forecast (16.5 vs. 13.2 billion passengers in 2050). The airport capacity and aircraft size forecast is
based on empirical evidence and a sound forecast and not a scenario of what airport capacity and
aircraft size is needed to serve the unconstrained demand. As a result, our forecast regarding fleet
development do not meet the need of the unconstrained forecast. But as Figure 18 displays, an aircraft
fleet with higher seat capacity that can transport more passengers plays an important role to mitigate
the airport capacity shortage and serve future air travel demand.

5
Billion
Global passenger volume by seat class for all aircraft

4
(2019-23 actual data, >2023 forecast values)

0
1- 20 51 71 86 10 12 15 17 23 30 40 50
19 -5 -7 -8 -1 1- 6- 1- 6- 6- 1- 1- 1-
0 0 5 00 12 15 17 23 30 40 50 60
5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Figure 18 – Results of the DLR forecasts: Global seat class distribution (passenger volume) until 2050 in
the "DLR CON" forecast.

60
 14
Million
Global flight volume by seat class for all aircraft

12
(2019-23 actual data, >2023 forecast values)

10

0
1- 20 51 71 86 10 12 15 17 23 30 40 50
19 -5 -7 -8 -1 1- 6- 1- 6- 6- 1- 1- 1-
0 0 5 00 12 15 17 23 30 40 50 60
5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0
Seat class

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Figure 19 – Results of the DLR forecasts: Global seat class distribution (flight volume) until 2050 in the
"DLR CON" forecast.

4.2.4 The "People Mover"

The People Mover aircraft is a well-known academic concept designed to carry large numbers of
passengers over short distances, optimized for short-haul operations. In the past, the aircraft design
of the People Mover concept has been focused on economics, but with regard to the European Green
Deal, this study was regarded from an environmental perspective, in order to evaluate the potential
impact of such concept for emissions reduction at mission and fleet (ATS) level.
During the first global assessment 2020 of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Technology Evaluator, a
shift towards larger capacity aircraft was identified when comparing flight data from 2019 with the
market forecast for 2050. Furthermore, the majority of flights in 2050 (about 80%) are expected to be
concentrated on shorter routes (< 2,000 km) and 95% of flights are expected on routes below 4,000
km25. Because of airport capacity constraint, whereas in 2019 the share of widebodies (> 236
passengers) flights between short-medium haul (< 4,000 km) and long haul (> 4,000 km) was even, it
is expected that 90% of widebodies will be used for short-medium routes by 2050 (cfr. section 5.3 –
Fleet Level (ATS)). Thus, for large aircraft with more than 300 seats, the majority of flights are expected
to be less than 4000 km by 2050 although today’s widebody aircraft are traditionally designed to fly at
least 6,000 km and more. In order to satisfy the air traffic demand and to serve the operational

25
Although the demand and hence the total flight volume will increase by 2050 for each scenario, the share of
total flights per flight distance stays relatively constant between 2019 and 2050.
61
missions in 2050 the People Mover, a wide-body aircraft designed for shorter distances, offers a
significant potential, which will be evaluated in the People Mover academic study conducted by the
DLR.
Figure 15 to Figure 17 already included the People Mover forecast scenario. It has the same passenger
and RPK volume forecast as DLR CON, but about 7% lower flight volume forecast because of the higher
seating capacity compared to the aircraft it replaces (seat class 301-400 and 401-500). The shift of
traffic towards widebody aircraft is shown in more focus in Figure 20.

The trend of employing larger aircraft has existed already in the past but is expected to accelerate in
the future because of capacity constraints at major airports. Between 1990 and 2019 the average
number of seats per flight has increased from 99 to 144, i.e. by 1.3% per year. This trend is apparent
over recent years when considering the growing success of the A320 and A321 versions versus the
smaller A319 or even A318 with similar range.

Figure 20 – Global fleet evolution of widebody seat classes up to 2050 (passenger volume, 2019-23 actual
data, >2023 forecast values).

Figure 20 shows the fleet evolution for widebody aircraft seat classes of the DLR CON forecast in terms
of passenger volume and share of total passengers. With the return to the original growth path after
2035, passenger volume as well as overall passenger share increases steadily. 64% of all passengers
are transported with aircraft of at least 236 seats and this value rises to 69% in 2050. Values for the
501-600 seat class are relatively low and vanish after 2030 due to the discontinuation of the A380.

62
 Figure 21 – Global fleet evolution of widebody seat classes up to 2050 (flight view, 2019-23 actual data,
>2023 forecast values).

Figure 21 displays the fleet evolution for widebody aircraft seat classes of the DLR CON forecast (PM
not yet included) in terms of flight volume and share of total flights. Here, the share of widebodies
reaches values of 38% in 2040 and 49% in 2050. As a result, there is large potential for large capacity
aircraft.

Therefore, DLR has introduced a new academic concept aircraft from 2034 onwards, the "People
Mover" (PM). Concretely, the PM of DLR has 590 seats and up to 4,000 km of range26. It is intended for
short to medium routes with high passenger volume to mitigate the capacity shortage at airports and
improve the ecological footprint of air transport. The PM is introduced after 2034, cap seen by DLR as
appropriate for the seat classes 301-400 and 401-500 (seat class 501-600 is empty because of
discontinued A380 after 2030). Figure 18 and Figure 21 illustrate the big potential of this aircraft which
lies in the 301-400 and 401-500 seat class.

The impact of such doubling of seat capacity per flight in order to exploit size effects on top of
technology effects is assuming that the aviation market would adopt such offer, irrespective of the
impact on average seat load factor under seasonal fluctuation and competitive situation on the
respective citypairs and capital cost.

26
Cf. section 5.1.1.10 for more explanation on the choice of the concrete design parameters.
63
 Figure 22 – Potential for worldwide number of People Mover aircraft up to 2050.

Figure 22 displays the potential quantity of PM aircraft in the "DLR CON" forecast without additional
assumptions beyond those in the DLR CON forecast, particularly excluding production limits. As
described earlier, passenger volume demand is the same as in the "DLR CON" forecast to compare
apples with apples, but flight volume is about 1.3 million or 7% less in 2050 due to higher seat capacity
per flight. Overall, there is a big potential for PM aircraft and the number of these aircraft produced
would be quite significant, even if the potential were not fully realized. Share of widebody aircraft
flights in the PM scenario in Figure 21 is 42% in 2050 due to 7% less flights. The number of PM steadily
rises from 55 in 2034 to 3421 in 2050, i.e. on average by 29% per year. We have not taken any annual
production limits into account to show the potential of the PM, but if we take e.g. a maximum
production rate of 300 PM per year, there would be less PM available from 2047 onwards, but not
much. More severe production limits would have a bigger impact, e.g. 200 PM per year would lower
the production already from 2043 onwards.

64
5 Environmental Impact

5.1 Mission Level

In the following section, the performance achieved for the various aircraft concepts is reviewed at
mission level when compared to a relevant reference aircraft of year 2014 technology standards,
whenever possible.

While environmental performance is reported in terms of percentage reduction of CO2, NOx, and noise,
aircraft performance is reported in terms of SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption), impact on weight and on
aircraft drag. Technologies for CO2 and NOX reduction can be categorised mainly as Aerodynamics
(considering both low and high-speed performance), Structures (airframe, composite versus metallic,
…), Systems and Engines (propulsion system).

Each type of technology will affect these performance indicators (SFC, weight, and drag), although, this
does not always result in simultaneous positive impacts on all indicators. A typical example is the
substantial improvement in fuel burn reduction provided by a new engine design (e.g., increased By-
Pass Ratio), which will inevitably introduce penalties in terms of weight and drag because of the
increased size of the engine, despite having a much better propulsive efficiency.

Similarly, noise reduction technologies may be effective and also have a positive effect on drag, but
may come at a cost of increased weight of the aircraft; reducing fuel burn of the engine would require
increasing combustion temperature to improve cycle efficiency, which is exactly what must be avoided
to reduce NOx.

It must be noted, therefore that it is extremely difficult to optimise the aircraft for all environmental
objectives simultaneously (e.g. CO2, NOx, and noise) because of the conflicting requirements inherent
to each of those objectives individually. This is a well known issue which has also been addressed at
ICAO level by the Independent Expert Integrated Technology Goals Assessment and Review for Engines
and Aircraft report from CAEP (ICAO Doc 10127 – 2019), where a complex optimisation modelling
process was successfully developed and implemented.

The performance presented for the following concepts is therefore the result of a complex
optimisation to balance at best the positive and negative effects of integrating a given technology on-
board of the aircraft (Figure 23). This optimisation cycle takes about a year (including trade-off studies
and generation of models).

65
 Figure 23 Overview of the Aircraft Concept Design Process. Courtesy of Airbus

5.1.1 Fixed-Wing Aircraft

The European aviation industry is dedicated to making every effort to reduce the overall environmental
impact of aircraft emissions and noise. In this regard, Airbus, and more broadly, the industry, is
exploring every possible aircraft technology solution and aircraft configuration that can help to
minimize the environmental impacts of future flight.

Within this report, it is reminded that the feasibility of integrating such new technology bricks on an
industrialised aircraft is not only subject to their Technological Readiness Level (TRL) maturity. Critical
aspects such as the certifiability, safety compliance, manufacturability, operationality and
maintainability of such technologies must be taken into consideration and may lead to lower overall
improvements due to potential performance trade-offs between technology bricks after integration
onboard aircraft. Commercial and economical constraints are not considered either.

Within the Clean Sky 2 Programme, Airbus prepared three aircraft models for short-middle and long
range missions with the purpose to reflect the potential benefits of the studied technologies.

The aim of the technical evaluations performed in Large Passenger Aircraft (LPA) by Airbus, was to
evaluate the best combinations of the enabling technologies developed and matured in Clean Sky 2
for standard missions once integrated onto representative aircraft architectures and platforms.

These platforms are supposed to reflect achievable performance in the study conditions of the CS2
programme. Radical changes or evolutions of the specific architectures were not addressed in Clean
Sky 2. The technologies were evaluated and selected according to their maturity at the time of the
aircraft designs and according to their eligibility with the selected aircraft architectures, being similar
to the reference aircraft. The final concepts proposed are only models inspired from these CS2 studies,
but not fully reflecting the Airbus product strategy and the commercial aircraft potentially entering
into service in the future.

66
5.1.1.1 Advanced Long Range Aircraft Concept (LR+)

Clean Sky 2 TE – LR+ (Advanced Long Range)

EIS TIMEFRAME 2034

Concept Aircraft: 332 pax – 7000 NM – Mach 0.85 – MTOW 265t
Reference Aircraft: LR 2014 (A350-900-like) – 315 pax – 7000 NM – Mach 0.85 – MTOW 275t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOx [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
-18.2% -44.9% -20.1% LTO Average &
[-15.6%; -19.4%] [-43.3%; -46.2%] LA: -4.6 dB extremum values
AP: -2.5 dB set of ranges
FO: -2.6 dB within
[4000; 7000]
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @7000 NM; 332 pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Drag [%] TRL @CS2 closure
(2024)
-10.5% +2.9t -2% TRL 5
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion ENG WP5-6 • UltraFan® (Lean Burn Comb. Chamber)
➔ SFC  (-9.7% at FL350 & Mach 0.85) / Weight  (+30%
vs 2014)
➔ Drag increase on Nacelle  (+1.2% aircraft drag due to
increased engine size → Nacelle wet area increased →
induced compressibility effects)
• Components improvements: -1.5% SFC & -400kg
(optimised composite LP System, Advanced Thrust Control,
New HPC Aero Improvement, CMC HPT2 vane, Modulated
Turbine Cooling)
Aerodynamics LPA Platform • Advanced Rear End → Fuselage Length +1.6% (drag )
1 • HLFC on wing (partially) & HTP/VTP
• NLF27 on nacelle
• UltraFan Integration

27
Operational Limitation.
67
 • Internal Airbus Research: Riblets, New acoustic treatments
& liners, advanced load alleviation, wing design
Airframe LPA Platform • Metallic Composite trade-offs → Weight :
2 & ITD ▪ NG Fuselage, Cabin & System Integration
Airframe ▪ NG Cabin & Cargo Functions (new platform,
Universal Cabin Interface, Printed Electrics, new
PSU)
Systems LPA Platform • Internal Airbus Research: LG fairing + low noise design,
3 & ITD electrical integration
Systems • Enhanced Cockpit (avionics, FMS function, layout)
• New FMS functions (vert. trajectory, no weather)
• Electrical Wires converters → Weight 
• Cabin & Cargo, New Water Waste → Weight  (-210kg)
• Halon Replacement Solution → Weight 
• New Nose Landing Gear
• LG: Lighter Composite Primary Struct. Parts → Weight 
Table 3 – Advanced Long Range LR+ Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance Improvements, and
Technology Enablers.

The advanced Long Range LR+ aircraft configuration has been elaborated and modelled by Airbus
under the LPA IADP, along with the SMR+ and SMR++ concepts presented in the following sections. All
models are derived from internal software, in production today for commercial aircraft programmes,
and aero/engine data are extracted from performance data libraries. The final aircraft performances
and emissions result from the convergence of the designers along various trade-offs with the Rolls-
Royce and the technology owners. They are computed via these models all encapsulated in the PANEM
software (v2.0.0) developed for the purpose of Clean Sky.
The relevant technology inputs were given from technology streams developed under CS2 research
since 2015. The technologies or the associated components were only considered for integration at
aircraft level once they had reached a minimum of TRL3 maturity level and a performance advantage.

The technologies developed under the CS2 research programme have also been complemented by
additional technology inputs from Airbus internal research, i.e., on noise reduction technologies
(landing gear fairing and low noise design, flap side edge treatment and slat gap optimisation) or
electrical integration, advanced load alleviation, and wing design.

The overall impact of these technologies at aircraft level is presented in the Technology Mapping
presented in Table 3.

Significant benefits on the overall aircraft performance are brought by the propulsion system efficiency
improvement. The technical objectives of the UltraFan® development are to achieve a ~ 10% reduction
in Specific Fuel Consumption and CO2 emissions at engine level relative to year 2014 baseline
(corresponding to a 23% fuel burn and CO2 reduction relative to the year 2000 baseline). The major
challenge is the introduction of a gearbox into the engine architecture, yielding an additional 5% fuel
burn reduction relative to equivalent direct drive engines.

68
The performance targets of the power plant envisaged for the LR+ (the Rolls-Royce UltraFan) are given
in Figure 24, i.e., -11.2% SFC and -33.6% to -43% NOX emissions.

The introduction of a gearbox into the engine architecture is a key enabler to ultra-high by-pass
ratios with a low-speed fan which is a significant contributor to reducing fuel burn and reducing
noise by its lower rotational speed and pressure ratio. The by-pass ratio will exceed 15, with a fan
diameter of around 3.5 m (see Figure 25), almost equivalent to the fuselage diameter of an A320
mainliner.

This clearly underlines the increasing challenge at the level of aircraft integration for Ultra-High
Bypass Ratio engines.

Figure 24 – Technology insertion and expected engine performance improvements for LR+ before aircraft
integration (Rolls-Royce UltraFan).

69
 Figure 25 – Rolls-Royce UltraFan engine concept (left), and comparison of fan diameter with A320
fuselage diameter (right), courtesy Rolls-Royce & Airbus.

Figure 26 shows the emissions and noise performance evolution since year 2000, as well as the targets
for the Clean Sky 2 demonstrators (Advance3® and UltraFan) that are on the way to achieving the
ACARE 2050 targets.

In terms of noise reduction technologies and metrics, noise levels are provided to the TE in certification
ICAO annex 16 conditions28 representative of noise certification (EPNL, EPNdB) in addition to the
PANEM evaluations in operational conditions.

These noise levels aim at evaluating the noise technology benefits whereas the PANEM noise
footprints in SEL (or EPNL) allow to assess the noise in operation.

28
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2016). Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
Environmental Protection. Volume I – Aircraft Noise. (8th ed.).
70
 Figure 26 – Emissions and noise performance evolution vs year 2000
and ACARE 2050 targets (courtesy Rolls-Royce).

Noise levels in “certification ICAO annex 16 conditions” are assessed by Airbus as described in Figure
27, using an internal and validated static to flight transposition tool and were provided to the TE in the
mission report. It’s accepted in CS2 that a noise reduction of -20% is equivalent to -3 EPNdB and -30%
is equivalent to -5 EPNdB on each certification point.

The technical objectives of the UltraFan are to achieve a significant step forward towards the ACARE
2035 targets, i.e., -11 EPNdB per operation relative to year 2000 situation, -4 to -8 EPNdB versus year
2014 baseline.

Figure 27 – Noise levels in “certification ICAO annex 16 conditions”.

71
A CO2 reduction of -18.2% is achieved together with an unexpected NOx reduction of -44.9% versus the
LR2014 reference aircraft (Airbus A350-900-like). This aircraft had its first flight in June 2013 and
entered into service in January 2015, a very recent, very advanced and highly optimised aircraft. These
numbers are an average over the long-range missions considered (4000 – 7000 NM). The aircraft
demonstrates significant reduction at all range with CO2 reduction ranging from -15.6% up to -19.4%
as well as better than -43% NOx reductions.

The result regarding NOx reduction (-44.9%) originates from early work in Clean Sky 1 under the SAGE
6 Lean Burn work package, continued under Clean Sky 2 with the ALECSYS development by Rolls-Royce,
and which is now integrated in the UltraFan concept.

Additionally, substantial noise reduction is achieved with -3.6 EPNdB at Take-Off (averaged from
Flyover & Lateral – ICAO annex 16 conditions), hampered mainly by the higher speed of the LP turbine
in the geared UltraFan concept, and up to -2.5 EPNdB in Approach, which is significant considering
once again the compromise to be made versus weight and drag increase of the noise reduction
technologies (see Table 4). The overall benefits equal to -20.1% of noise reduction compared to the
reference.

Noise reductions
“certification ICAO annex 16 conditions” LR+ impact on EPNL
(negative value = noise reduction versus Ref 2014)
Approach -2.5 EPNdB

Take-Off -3.6 EPNdB

Table 4 - Noise reduction achievements for LR+ Concept.

The LR+ aircraft concept was defined according to the current design rules, also did exploit some of
the preliminary studies performed on SMR+ and the available matured technologies to enable a
potential entry into service in 2034.

72
5.1.1.2 Advanced Short-Medium Range Aircraft Concept (SMR+)

Clean Sky 2 TE – SMR+ (Advanced Short-Medium Range)

EIS TIMEFRAME 2032

Concept Aircraft: 250 pax – 3000 NM – Mach 0.78 – MTOW 93.7t
Reference Aircraft: SMR 2014 (A321neo-like) – 200 pax – 3000 NM – Mach 0.78 – MTOW 93.5t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOx [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
-25.8% -2.3% -16.3% LTO Average &
[-25.4%; -26.9%] [+0.7%; -9.4%]LA: -3.2 dB extremum values
AP: -1.4 dB within
FO: -3.1 dB [500; 3000]
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @3000 NM; 250. pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Drag [%] TRL @CS2 closure
(2024)
CONF +4.4t -9% TRL 3
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion ENG • Under-wing UHBR: UHPE (VPF) High-Wing Configuration
(Rich Burn Comb. Chamber)
➔ SFC  / Weight 
➔ Drag increase on Nacelle 
➔ OPR & TiT  → Core Size & Fuel Burn  but NOx 
Aerodynamics LPA Platform • Advanced Rear End T-Tail
1 • Laminarity (NLF) on HTP, VTP & on nacelle
• UHBR SR Integration
• NPE
• Common Techno Bricks for future engines
• Innovative movables & flaperon
• Internal Airbus Research: Riblets, Optimised slat gap,
Advanced Load Alleviation, Wing Design
Airframe LPA Platform • Metallic Composite trade-offs: Ultra Low-Cost Metal
2 & ITD fuselage with sections in CFRP – Thermoplastic/ High
Airframe Allowable CFRP Wing → Weight :

73
 ▪ NG Fuselage, Cabin & System Integration
▪ NG Cabin & Cargo Functions (new platform,
Universal Cabin Interface, Printed Electrics, new
PSU)
• Innovative movables & flaperon
• UHBR integration
• Laminarity (HLFC, NLF)

Systems LPA Platform • Internal Airbus Research: LG fairing + low noise design,
3 & ITD electrical integration
Systems • Enhanced Cockpit
• New FMS functions (vert. trajectory, no weather)
• Eq./Syst. For Cockpit & Cabin
▪ Electrical Wires – Power Converters
▪ Water Waste → Weight  (-20% water)
▪ Halon Replacement Solution → Weight 
• Smart Integrated Wing
• BLG, New Nose Landing Gear
• NLG wiring & Optimized Wheels & Tires
• LG: Lighter Composite Primary Struct. Parts & Electrical
Control → Weight 
• Innovative Power Generation & Conversion
• Innovative Electrical Ctrl/Com. Networks for Distr. Syst.
• HVDC Network Power Management
Table 5 – Advanced Short-Medium Range SMR+ Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers.

Most of the technology inputs described in the LR+ section apply to the Advanced Short-Medium
Range SMR+ concept and are summarized in the Technology Mapping in Table 5. Here as well, this
concept has been elaborated and modelled by Airbus under the LPA IADP. The aircraft performance
presented are the final results reflecting the convergence along various trade-offs to the best emission
reductions.

A CO2 reduction of -25.8% is achieved versus the SMR2014 reference aircraft (A321neo-like). This
aircraft first flew in February 2016 and entered service in May 2017. Part of the A320neo family, and
re-engined with the CFM LEAP-1A or Pratt & Whitney PW1100G and fitted with sharklets as standard,
it is 15% to 20% more fuel efficient than the A320ceo family. Achieving an additional 25.8% CO 2
reduction is therefore a substantial step forward.

The UHBR engine is shown in Figure 29, equipped with enabling technologies such as a Low Speed Fan,
Power Gearbox, High Speed Booster and Low Pressure Turbine.

The NOx emissions were also reduced, with a limited impact in cruise operations, but a strong
environmental impact at low altitudes. The combustion technologies for the SMR+/SMR++ engines
were selected against their maturity, performance and physical integrability within a small-size core

74
engine deriving from the Ultra High Bypass ratio (UHBR) requirement. An aggressive thermodynamic
cycle has been considered enabling more margin (45%) in regards to the CAEP/8 Standard limit.

Despite this significant reduction in LTO NOx certification metric value29 by 34% on ground, the benefits
in cruise remain weak and more visible for the longer ranges. As an outcome of the design studies that
have been performed for the last years, the aircraft concepts exploiting UHBR configurations show
significant improvements of the fuel efficiency and Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) than for legacy
current engines. Moreover, these aircraft configurations fly at cruise conditions with higher specific
power.

Substantial noise reduction (from engine technologies, nacelle treatments and engine integration
improvements) is achieved with -16.3% reduction overall (Table 6), which is significant considering
once again the trade penalty with CO2. Indeed, there is a compromise to be made between best
performance and noise reduction because of the weight and drag increase induced by the noise
reduction technologies.

The SMR+ aircraft concept was designed based on technology maturity adequate to enter into
service in 2032.

The final emission results obtained by the SMR+ concept are illustrated in Figure 28 and given as
averages computed per passengers and kilometres over a set of flight ranges (from 500 to 3000NM).
The relative noise reduction is also expressed in percentage of the cumulated reductions obtained on
the three certification points (i.e., the Lateral and Flyover points for Take-off, and the Approach as
documented in the ICAO annex 16 conditions” and assessed on computed certification trajectories).

This improvement stems for a large part from the strides made in engine technology. The performance
targets of the power plant envisaged for the SMR+ are given in Figure 28. The UHBR engine, is targeting
a -9.5% CO2 reduction mainly through an increase of the by-pass ratio above 15, and a -7.7 EPNdB
cumulative noise reduction at aircraft level.

29
Certification metric value for LTO NOX in [g/kN].
75
Figure 28 – Technology insertion and expected engine performance improvements for SMR+.

Figure 29 – UHBR (VPF) for SMR Aircraft.

76
 Noise reductions
SMR+ impact on EPNL
“certification ICAO annex 16 conditions”
(negative value = noise reduction versus Ref 2014)
Approach -1.4 EPNdB

Take-Off -3.2 EPNdB

Table 6 – Noise reduction achievements for SMR+ Concept.

77
5.1.1.3 Ultra-Advanced Short-Medium Range Aircraft Concept (SMR++)

Clean Sky 2 TE – SMR++ (Ultra-Advanced Short-Medium Range)

EIS TIMEFRAME 2035

Concept Aircraft: 250 pax – 3000 NM – Mach 0.75 – MTOW 96.7t

Reference Aircraft: SMR 2014 (A321neo-like) – 200 pax – 3000 NM – Mach 0.78 – MTOW 93.5t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOx [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
-30.4% -5.1% -11.5% LTO Average &
[-30.2%; -31.3%] [-1.9%; -12.7%]LA: -0.9 dB extremum values
AP: -2.9 dB within
FO: -1.5 dB [500; 3000]
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @3000 NM; 250 pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Drag [%] TRL @CS2
closure (2024)
CONF +5.4t -11% TRL 3
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion ENG • ORAS Rear End Configuration (Rich Burn Comb. Chamber)
➔ SFC  / Weight 
Aerodynamics LPA Platform • Advanced Rear End T-Tail
1 • Open Rotor

78
 • Laminarity (NLF, HLFC) on HTP, VTP & on wing
• NPE
• Common Techno Bricks for future engines
• Innovative movables & flaperon
• Internal Airbus Research: Riblets, Optimised slat gap,
Wing Design
Airframe LPA Platform • Metallic Composite trade-offs: Ultra Low-Cost Metal
2 & ITD fuselage with sections in CFRP – Thermoplastic/ High
Airframe Allowable CFRP Wing → Weight :
▪ NG Fuselage, Cabin & System Integration
▪ NG Cabin & Cargo Functions (new platform,
Universal Cabin Interface, Printed Electrics, new
PSU)
Systems LPA Platform • Internal Airbus Research: LG fairing + low noise design,
3 & ITD electrical integration
Systems • Disruptive Cockpit
• New FMS functions (vert. trajectory, no weather)
• Eq./Syst. For Cockpit & Cabin
▪ Electrical Wires – Power Converters
▪ Water Waste → Weight  (-20% water)
▪ Halon Replacement Solution → Weight 
• Smart Integrated Wing
• Body LG Installation, New Nose Landing Gear→ Weight 
• NLG wiring & Optimized Wheels & Tires
• LG: Lighter Composite Primary Struct. Parts & Electrical
Control → Weight 
• Innovative Power Generation & Conversion
• Innovative Electrical Ctrl/Com. Networks for Distr. Syst.
• HVDC Network Power Management
Table 7 – Ultra-Advanced Short-Medium Range SMR++ Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers.

The Ultra-Advanced Short-Medium Range SMR++ concept differs from the Advanced SMR+ concept
by a slightly lower cruise Mach number (0.75 instead of 0.78) to allow for the integration of an open-
rotor type of engine and facilitate the NLF (Natural Laminar Flow) wing technology, all other top level
aircraft requirements being kept the same (range, passenger capacity and MTOW). An overview of the
SMR+ environmental benefits, performance improvements, and technology enablers is presented in
Table 7.

The power plant envisaged for the SMR++ is the Safran Open Rotor and Stator engine configuration
(ORAS), Figure 30, as a the most advanced evolution of the Contra Rotating Open Rotor (CROR)
configuration, largely based on earlier work from the Clean Sky 1 programme within the SAGE2 ITD.
Ground tests on CROR completed in 2017 (Figure 32) have confirmed a -30% SFC reduction versus
reference year 2000 and compliance with Chapter 14 noise limit with margin. ORAS performance
targets for application to the SMR++ concept are given in Figure 31 versus reference year 2014.

79
 Figure 30 – Open Fan (ORAS) concept demonstrator, Safran Aircraft Engines.

Figure 31 – Technology insertion and expected engine (ORAS) performance improvements for SMR++
(Safran Aircraft Engines).

80
 Figure 32 – CROR ground test demonstrator at Safran Aero Engines’ ground testing facility
for Open Rotors and Ultra High By-Pass Ratio engines (Istres, France) – Courtesy SAFRAN.

The superior performance of the Open Rotor and Stator engine configuration (ORAS), also known as
the Open Fan engine, in terms of Specific Fuel Consumption, combined with additional substantial
gains in terms of aerodynamic/airframe technologies leads to an overall CO2 reduction of -30.4% at
aircraft level even with some integration penalties.

81
This major performance improvement comes indeed at the cost of a totally redesigned fuselage rear
end, and increased weight due to shielding in case of blade-off event. The benefit in terms of
performance is the result of the extremely large by-pass ratio achieved with unducted fans, with a
slight penalty on noise, especially at Take-Off, as depicted the following table:

Noise reductions
SMR++ impact on EPNL
“certification ICAO annex 16 conditions”
(negative value = noise reduction versus Ref 2014)
Approach -2.9 EPNdB

Take off -1.2 EPNdB

Table 8 – Noise reduction achievements for SMR++ Concept.

The SMR++ aircraft concept was designed based on technology maturity adequate to enter into service
as of 2035.

As for the SMR+ concept, the NOx emissions were also reduced, with a limited impact in cruise
operations and without achieving the initial -30% reduction target despite the various trade-offs
performed.

Indeed, the Clean Sky 2 engine concepts focus on UHBR configurations (Ultra-High Bypass Ratio, i.e.,
high dilution rate and high overall pressure ratio) and the new aircraft concepts are designed to take
benefit from the SFC improvements and for the best compromise between CO2 (fuel burn), NOx and
Noise (influenced by thrust at take-off). NOx emissions are the direct consequence of the engine
design, mostly driven by the fuel consumption, the overall engine efficiency, and the choice of the
combustion technology. These aircraft concepts are designed to respect the aircraft design laws and
the certification rules which constraint the ground and low-altitude operations.

These certification rules address particularly Noise and NOx emissions, where measurements on
ground and low altitudes are performed by the manufacturer for the aircraft certification.

Finally, the CO2 emission reductions along the standard trajectories are significant and above the
expectations (lower than -30%). Landing/take-off (LTO) NOx metric value has been reduced by 26%.
The resulting margin in regards to the CAEP/8 Standard limit is high (+45% additional margin). Full flight
NOx reductions are below the expectations (in the range: -1.9 to -12.7% of reduction along a mission),
as a function of the range).

The CS2 results represent the initial milestones on the path to decarbonizing aviation. CO2, NOx and
Noise targets are by default antagonistic factors requiring trade-offs in the design. Better NOx results
might be expected in the future through evolutions of the combustion technologies. NOx
improvements can at this moment only be reached at the expense of significant penalties on the CO 2
emission reductions.

82
5.1.1.4 Advanced Regional Turboprop 90 pax Aircraft Concept

Clean Sky 2 TE – Advanced Turboprop 90 pax

EIS TIMEFRAME 2030

Concept Aircraft: 90 pax – 1200 NM – Mach 0.56 – MTOW 32.4t

Reference Aircraft: ATR 72-500 up-scaled – 90 pax – 1000 NM – Mach 0.52 – MTOW 35.8t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOx [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
-32.5% -44% -40% LTO Ref Average set of
[-35%; -30%] [-46%; -41%] -20.8 dB Ref ranges within
LA: -7.2dB [300; 1200]
AP: -6.9dB
FO: -6.7dB
-15 dB Ch 14
Performance Improvements Evaluation @ 300-1200NM; 90 pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Aero-Efficiency TRL @CS2
L/D [%] closure (2024)
-18% -1.65t (-7.9%) +8% TRL 5
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
83
 CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion REG-IADP: • NextGen TP: Advanced TP engine
IRON Core o 8 bladed low-noise composite propeller Loop 2
Partner (16ft/4.87m diameter)
Project o 9 bladed Loop 3 (16.5ft/5.03m diameter)
→ TSFC  (-0.66% vs. Loop 2)
Aerodynamics REG-IADP • Advanced HLD, Morphing, LC&A (Load Control &
Alleviation), NLF (Natural Laminar Flow) → +8% of aero
efficiency
• Riblets → + 2% aero efficiency in climb/cruise
Airframe REG • Advanced Multifunctional Materials (fuselage)
ITD Airframe • LCM (Low-Cost Manufacturing), NDI processes (fuselage)
→ Costs  (- 4% costs reduction w.r.t. CS1)
• Innovative Cabin Design (Human Centred Approach)
• Green Low Weight Material → Weight 
• Liquid Resin Infusion (wing)
• Low-Cost Assembly (wing) → - 4% costs reduction
• SHM System
→ Total Weight Reduction for structural items (fuselage +
wing): -660 kg
Systems REG-IADP • Advanced Electrical Power Generation and Distribution
System (A-EPGDS)
• Advanced (Partial Bleed) ECS
• E-LGS (Electrical Landing Gear System)
• SHM System (maintenance)
• Low Power WIPS (Ice Protection System)
• EMA (Electro-Mechanical Actuation) for Wing
Load/Wing Torsion & Aileron (primary flight control)
Table 9 – Advanced Regional Turboprop TP90: Environmental Benefits, Performance Improvements, and
Technology Enablers.

The 90-seater advanced regional turboprop TP90 concept (as well as the Innovative Regional
Turboprop 130 pax concept – TP130) was designed by Leonardo S.p.A. (Aircraft Division).

Technologies have been developed and evaluated in all technical aspects of the aircraft as depicted in
the technology mapping in Table 9. The environmental impact was evaluated with respect to a
reference aircraft which was determined by means of a re-sizing process of the ATR72-500 up to the
Clean Sky 2 specifications listed in Table 10. This platform is not an existing airplane but it allows for
an homogeneous and consistent comparison with respect to fuel burn and community noise reduction.

84
 Range Cruise Time to EIS* TRL Target**
Aircraft # PAX T.O.F.L. L.F.L.
nm speed Climb Window @ CS2 close
Advanced < 13 min 1400 m 1300 m
0.56 Ma 90
Concept Turboprop 1200 1500-20000 ft MTOW MLW 2025+ 5
at 20 kft @32"
90 PAX @MTOW ISA ISA SL ISA SL
< 13 min 1400 m 1300 m 1996
ATR 72-500 0.52 Ma 68
Reference 1000 1500-20000 ft MTOW MLW upscaled n/a
up-scaled at 20 kft @31"
@MTOW ISA ISA SL ISA SL SoA 2014

Table 10 - Comparison of TLARs for conceptual and reference 90 pax regional aircraft.

The selected technology inputs come from technology streams that have been developed under CS2
research since 2015, mainly from the REG IADP and the AIR ITD:

➢ REG IADP:
o Aerodynamics: Advanced HLD, Morphing LC&A, NLF outer wing, Riblets
o On board systems architecture: Advanced Electrical Power Generation and
Distribution System (A-EPGDS), Partial Bleed ECS, EMA Electro-Mechanical Actuation
for Primary Flight Control, Low Power Ice Protection System, Electrical Landing Gear
System (E-LGS).

➢ ITD Airframe:
o Structural Configuration: Low-Cost Manufacturing, Green Low Weight Material
(Cabin), Liquid Resin Infusion, Advanced Multifunctional Materials, SHM Systems

➢ REG IADP: IRON Core Partner project (GE Avio)

o Advanced turboprop engine: new power plant with innovative features in terms of
both specific fuel consumption and community noise. The final design loop has been
performed considering a new 9-blades propeller. A completely new engine database
has been generated including new noise data also in terms of near field. This has
allowed also to calculate cabin noise.

A summary of the overall performance achieved for the Advanced Regional TP 90 pax concept is
shown at the beginning of this section (Table 9), illustrating the contribution of the various key
technologies integrated into the model.

A substantial CO2 reduction of -32.5% is achieved together with a substantial NOx reduction of -44%
versus the resized ATR-72-500 as a reference.

In terms of noise, a -20.8 EPNdB cumulative noise reduction is obtained versus ICAO/CAEP Chap14.
This is mainly due to the very large propeller diameter (16.5 ft / 5.03 metres), possible only thanks to
the high-wing architecture, with very low rotational speed, which increases efficiency and decreases
external noise. Further studies performed in the final loop have allowed to optimize both fuel
consumption together internal noise with the adoption of a new 9-blades propeller.

The Advanced Regional TP90 aircraft concept was designed based on technology maturity adequate
to enter into service as of 2030. The set of main technology enablers is summarised in Table 9 along
with their impact at aircraft level.

85
The first key technological domain regards an adaptive electric wing. The innovative wing structure
enabled weight reduction that has been applied to the airplane conceptual sizing process. The main
effect of this reduction is on the OEW and was enabled through advanced design methodologies,
advanced materials, automated manufacturing and assembling processes, NDI/SHM techniques and
“economolic” processes minimizing costs, structural weight and environmental impact.

In addition, air vehicles technologies were further developed for improvements in aero-efficiency.
Namely, advanced architectures for wing control surfaces were developed, including seamless droop
nose, morphing trailing edge flap, movable winglet, and innovative wingtip. Load Control & Alleviation
technology perform “adaptive” wing function combining wing control surface functions and improving
wing aerodynamic effectiveness and load alleviation. The wing was aerodynamically designed with NLF
at the outer wing and with innovative riblets (Figure 33).

Figure 33 – Innovative Riblets & Natural Laminar Flow.

The second main technological domain was to address innovative on-board systems technologies for
the regional aircraft through an all/more-electric design concept toward demonstrators. Green
features of these technologies derive mainly from the engine interface. They require a reduced energy
to the engine compared to the conventional architecture and induce therefore fuel saving in any
mission profile phase. The main contributors to this energy optimisation domain are:

• Innovative Low Power WIPS (Wing Ice Protection System) assuring protection against
maximum allowable ice accretion at low power. This device is composed by a composite LE
structure with integrated electric heater layer (heater PADS), a heater layer control and power
supply as well as power (HV) and sensor cables from RACKS to heater elements.

86
 • Electromechanical actuators for enhanced landing gear (main & nose) system (Electrical
Landing Gear System). Retraction/extension and lock operations are included on a single unit.

• Thermal Management analyses for aircraft overall heat transfer optimization (through thermal
conductance reduction) and for aircraft thermal load management, including new air
distribution concepts and cabin airflow recovery (EC2S).

• Advanced Electrical Power Generation and Distribution System (EPGDS). Main target studies
were the design and maturation of an innovative strategy for highly decentralised, modular
and flexible “smart grid”-based distribution network, along with the verification of enhanced
Electrical Energy Management functionalities (E2-EM), including local super-capacitors as
energy buffers during high and rapid transitory energy requests.

• Hybrid Environmental Control System (ECS). This system works using both pneumatic energy
coming from the engine compressor and from a compressor supplied by the electrical system
(Figure 34).

Figure 34 – Hybrid ECS (Environmental Control System).

• Innovative propeller that has been selected through a preliminary selection, made among 5
candidates, to obtain results in terms of design improvement, noise reduction (-6 dB, near
field) and fuel burned for a Regional Aircraft (references documents KO-2.3.6-13 and KO-1.1.2-
06). In particular, the propeller rotational speeds have been modified for some flight
conditions (MCR, Cutback, Flyover, etc.) to better exploit the new GEDE propeller design.
Propeller module weight is increased by +60 lbs (+27kg) relative to baseline propeller,
accounting for the 9-blades GEDE design (vs 8-blades baseline). The overall axial length is 3.45
m (135.8 in). The propeller diameter is 5.03 m (16.5 ft).

• Innovative Flight Control Systems (FCS), including sub-systems for primary (Aileron) and
secondary (Winglet & Wingtip) flight control surfaces. The aileron actuation sub-system is
operated with EMA’s powered at 280 Vdc in active-active configuration to be installed in
reduced-space envelope and with strong safety constraints. The winglet & wingtip actuation
sub-system was designed and validated up to TRL6 based on innovative EMA’s, with strong
constraints in terms of weight and space envelope and capable to support LC&A functions.

Finally, the main characteristics of the NextGen turboprop can be found in Figure 35. The NextGen
turboprop is a two-spool architecture intended for conventional installation on a 90 PAX regional
aircraft. The architecture features two spools: one connects the high-pressure compressor with

87
optimized 3D aerofoils to the nickel-based superalloys HPT, the second links the PT to the next-gen
composite Dowty propeller by means of a planetary PGB module.

• Composite material
1 9-Bladed propeller by Dowty
• Embedded Ice protection technologies
Optimized planetary PGB • Very high gear ratio
2
module • Mg alloy casing & First-gen hybrid bearings
• Optimized 3D aero compressor
3 Highest-in-class Compressor PR • Axial-centrifugal configuration
• Materials selection enabling high exit temperatures
• Low loading / moderate PR
4 Power Turbine • Advanced cooling and sealing, aspirated seals at key locations
• Additive manufacturing - Metal hollow blades technology
Full Authority Digital Engine and
5 • Single lever operation - Cockpit load reduction
Propeller Control FADEPC
Low pressure bleed system • Advanced compressor operability management
6
optimization • Casing offtakes weight optimization
Figure 35 – Main Characteristics of the NextGen TP for 90-pax Regional Aircraft.

88
5.1.1.5 Innovative Regional Turboprop 130 pax Aircraft Concept

Clean Sky 2 TE – Innovative Turboprop 130 pax

Concept Aircraft: 130 pax – 1600 NM – Mach 0.62 – MTOW 54.5t

Reference Aircraft: Bombardier CS300 (A220-300-like) – 130 pax – 3000 NM – Mach 0.78 – MTOW
67.5t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOx [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
-25% -55% +14% LTO Ref A/C Average set of
[-25%; -24%] [-57%; -53%] +7.0 dBRef A/C ranges within
LA: +4.7 dB [400; 1600]
AP: +1.7 dB
FO: +0.6 dB
-9.0 dBICAO Ch14
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @ 400-1600 NM; max. pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Aero-Efficiency TRL @CS2
L/D [%] closure (2024)
-20% 33.6t (-9.2% OEW) +6% TRL 3
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
89
 Propulsion REG • Advanced Engine (Unducted Single Fan – USF) → SFC:
0.44 lbm/lb/hr; Weight: 2809 kg (SFC & W )
Aerodynamics REG • NLF on wing
• Advanced HLD, Morphing, LC&A
• Riblets → Drag 
Total improvement: +9% Aero-efficiency
Airframe REG • Advanced Multifunctional Materials (fuselage) → Weight:
-7%
• LCM (Low-Cost Manufacturing), Assembling, NDI
processes (fuselage) → Costs  (-4% costs reduction)
• SHM System → Direct Costs Reduction (-2%)
• Innovative Cabin Design (Human Centred Approach)
→ Fuel Reduction due to all interior elements: -1%
• Green Low Weight Material → Weight  (-2%)
Weight Reductions due to structure technologies:
• Fuselage: -7%
• Wing: -4%
• Tails: -2%
Systems REG • Innovative cabin interiors technologies
• A-EPDGS (Advanced Electrical Power Distribution &
Generation System)
• Advanced ECS (electrical)
• E-LGS (Electrical Landing Gear System)
• Low Power WIPS (de-icing syst.)
• FBW (Fly-by-Wire) with EMA (Electro-Mechanical
Actuation)
Table 11 – Innovative Regional Turboprop TP130 Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers.

The conceptual Innovative Regional TP 130 pax is shown in the Table 11 and has the following
technological assumptions:

• Intensive composite material

• All electrical on-board systems architecture
• Laminar flow wing, advanced high lift device
• USF – Unducted Single Fan engine

The 130 seats concept is mainly an aero-propulsive design. The objective was to understand the
efficiency of a large turboprop aircraft with a high number of passengers.

The conceptual A/C has been designed following the technical specifications of Table 12. Compared
to the reference aircraft (similar to the Bombardier CS-300 – now A220-300 – which entered service
end of 2016), the Innovative Regional Turboprop 130 pax has been designed for shorter range
missions (1600 NM instead of 3000 NM), with a slightly lower cruise speed (Ma=0.62 at 30,000 ft
versus Ma=0.78 at 35,000 ft). The original aircraft is a jet airliner, powered by two geared turbofans

90
(P&W 1500G) whereas the conceptual aircraft is a turboprop airliner, but with shorter take-off and
landing field lengths.

Range Cruise Time to EIS* TRL Target**

Aircraft # PAX T.O.F.L. L.F.L.
nm speed Climb Window @ CS2 close
Innovative <13 min 1400 m 1300 m
0.62 Ma
Concept Turboprop 1600 130 @MTOW MTOW MLW 2035+ 4
at 30 kft
130 PAX up to FL250 ISA SL ISA SL
12.5 min 1524 m 1463 m
Bombardier CS300 0.78 Ma
Reference 3000 130 @MTOW MTOW MLW 2016 n/a
(A220) at 35 kft
up to FL250 ISA SL ISA SL

Table 12 – Comparison of TLARs for conceptual and reference 130 pax regional aircraft.

For on-board systems, an all-electric architecture was selected, adapting it to aircraft size and flight
operation (pax, altitude, speed, etc.). For structural design, a full composite material was adopted for
the fuselage, wing and tail planes and the weight has been derived following these assumptions. On-
board systems architecture features and structural design were directly derived from results already
obtained in Clean Sky 1 about these technologies. The aerodynamic design was conducted having, as
target, the demanding objectives both in terms of low speed (stall performance) and high speed (high
efficiency at Mach=0.62).

In the second part of the CS2 programme, the analysis focused more specifically on the aerodynamics
aspects of the design both for low- and high-speed conditions and wind tunnel tests were undertaken
to better evaluate the impact of the innovative technologies. Besides, safety analyses were conducted
with regards to engine burst events.

Aerodynamic Design: Natural laminar – High Lift Device – Canard Surface

A full laminar wing has been designed with proper section and planform in order to meet the
challenging cruise efficiency target. Besides, the flap system includes a fowler flap and morphing
droop nose (Figure 36) in order to achieve desired maximum CL to meet the demanding requirements
for take-off and landing while limiting the wing surface.

A Canard surface introduction was however necessary as a result of stability analyses in order to
provide the required manoeuvre capability at low speed. Canard surfaces contribute to improve the
longitudinal manoeuvrability of aircraft at the expense of an increase in weight and aerodynamic drag.

Figure 36 – Fowler Flap & Morphing Droop Nose.

91
USF – Unducted Single Fan

The USF (Unducted Single Fan) architecture can suit a variety of applications such as the IRON
Innovative regional 130 PAX aircraft. The IRON’s USF features an unducted 12” diameter fan,
composed by 12 variable-pitch solid CFRP blades and a static OGV stage with 10 variable-pitch blades.
The engine architecture is made of two spools: one for the engine core while the second connects the
high speed LPT to the booster and, by means of an integral drive system (gearbox), to the rotor fan.

Optimal performance is retained across diverse flight speeds thanks to the propulsive efficiency
retention that the USF architecture concept can deliver recovering the swirl downstream the fan rotor
at contained complexity and weight relative to architectures with two rotating unducted stages.

The key technologies of the unducted engines are presented in Table 13 and Figure 37. An overview of
the engine performance and the integrated impact of all technologies at aircraft level is present in
Figure 38.

Advanced unducted fan system • Unducted rotor+stator: new engine class

1
architecture • Low thickness-high sweep pitch variable Rotor & Vanes
• 3D aero-optimised HPC & HPT
• Metallic/non-Metallic Hi-Temp core alloys
2 Wide body class core technologies
• Counter rotating spools
• Low-losses secondary airflows & cooling
• Hi-strength alloys + Adv bearings
3 IDS (Integral Drive System)
• Optimized IDS gear ratio & Thermals
Optimized High speed/high pressure • Optimized SFC and Acoustics through RPMs, PR and fan diameter
4
booster/ LPT design space exploration
• RQL Technology
5 Low emissions combustor • All-Additive manufacturing
• Adv cooling enabled by additive
6 Optimized bleed-less core • Compressor & casing integration
• 3D CFD aero optimization
7 Circumferential intake
• More Streamlined nacelle vs Turboprop
8 Weight optimized mount links • Turbofan-like, simpler than turboprop
Table 13 – Unducted Single Fan (USF) Key Technologies.

92
 Figure 37 – Unducted Single Fan (USF) Key Technologies.

Figure 38 – Expected qualitative engine performance improvements for the Innovative TP 130 pax (EIS
2035) before aircraft integration (GE Avio) – IRON USF engine (REG – CS2 IRON WP1.1.2). Total impacts
for the overall aircraft concept against the 2014 SoA.

93
A summary of the overall performance achieved for the Innovative Regional TP 130 pax concept is
shown in Table 11, illustrating the contribution of the various key technologies integrated into the
model.

Due to the USF engine, a substantial CO2 reduction of -25% is achieved together with a substantial NOx
reduction of -55% versus the CS-300 / A220-like as a reference (Figure 38).

This performance increase turns out to be less than for the Regional TP90 concept which can be easily
explained by the engine selection which strongly depends on the architectural choices.

The two platforms have two different specifications.

The 90 seats concept is the most stretched evolution of the ATR-72 with more passengers (from 68 to
90), faster speed (Mach from 0.52 up to 0.56) and with underfloor baggage compartment. Maintaining
the same architecture common to the ATR family (high wing and landing gear in fuselage) allows to
have very large propellers (diameter=16.5ft, 5.03m) with limited propeller rotational speed that
increases efficiency and reduces external noise. The high-wing architecture is a possible architectural
choice up to 90-100 pax, as above this aircraft size, it is no longer possible to accommodate the
increase of the landing gear length due the available space for retraction in the fuselage bay. For
aircraft with higher passenger capacity (>100 seats) the high-wing architecture has to be abandoned
due to insufficient propeller-ground clearance and a low-wing architecture becomes a mandatory
choice.

The 130 seats concept is therefore based on this configuration, however with a rear fuselage engine
installation in order to explore an advanced laminar concept for the wing and also advanced low speed
devices (fowler flap + droop nose). A rear engine installation, in turn, also allows to have high internal
comfort but limits the maximum diameter of the propellers. This is where the USF engine becomes the
most attractive as it has a more compact arrangement but with two blade rows (one rotating, one
fixed), the propeller rotating at a higher speed which slightly decreases engine efficiency and penalises
the noise performance. The noise performance for the Innovative TP 130 pax is therefore slightly lower
than for the Advanced TP 90 pax due to the higher propeller speed of the USF and the interaction noise
of the fan with the second fixed blade row (-9 EPNdb against Chap. 14 for the 130-seater concept
versus -15 EPNdb against Chap. 14 for the 90-seater concept) in an unducted configuration, however
with a similar or better propulsive efficiency than a single propeller turboprop engine.

This concept illustrates nevertheless the fact that substantial gains can be achieved by reducing range
and cruise speed to cover most of the regional (e.g., intra-European) missions operating from regional
airports with shorter runway lengths.

The Innovative Regional TP 130 pax aircraft concept was designed based on technology maturity
adequate to enter into service as of 2035.

94
5.1.1.6 Regional Multi-Mission Turboprop 70 pax Aircraft Concept

Clean Sky 2 TE – Regional Multi Mission Turboprop 70 pax

EIS TIMEFRAME 2035

Concept Aircraft: Regional MM – 300 kTAS – MTOW 29 000 kg

Transport Airline (70 pax – 1000 NM)
Transport Freighter (6.65t Payload – 1400 NM)
Search & Rescue – SAR (3.73t Payload – 400 NM)
Reference Aircraft: EADS/CASA C295 civil – 50 pax – 1400 NM – 260 kTAS – MTOW 21 000 kg
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOx [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
REG MM Transport -8% -50% Take-Off: -9.7 dB (-54%) 1000
Airline Approach: -5.6 dB (-33%) (70 pax – 6.65t)
REG MM Transport -16% -58% Take-Off: -10.5 dB (-58%) 1400
Freighter Approach: -5.7 dB (-33%) (6.65t payload)
REG MM SAR -45% -71%Take-Off: -9.0 dB (-50%) 400
Approach: -8.7 dB (-48%) (3.73t payload)
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @ nominal ranges & max. payloads
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – Aero-Efficiency L/D [%] TRL @CS2 closure
MEW [t] (2024)
REG MM Transport CONF 29 t MTOW +2.5% Step 1
Airline (-5.6% technologies30: 6
REG MM Transport MEW) Step 2
Freighter technologies31: 5
REG MM SAR
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers

30
Step 1 – Technologies flow in ADS in-flight demonstration in 2021.
31
Step 2 – Technologies ground-tested in 2023.
95
 CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion WP B (D2- • LHP Anti Ice Nacelle31 (2 phase) → Ice wind tunnel tests
16) o Anti ice performance as expected
o W reduction →  -8 % (also with induction)
• GE-Dowty Propeller (TRL 4): Propeller efficiency & low
speed thrust , noise 
Aerodynamics WP B (D1- • Morphing Winglet30 → Drag  (-5% at A/C level)
4/5/7; D2-18 • Intelligent Loads Alleviation System:
o MLA (maneuver load alleviation) up to 25 %
reduction due to aileron and inner flap tab
o GLA (gust load alleviation) up to 23 % reduction
depending on sensors sensitivity
• Multifunctional Flap30 → Drag  (-5% at A/C level).
CLmax target achieved and tested in flight. Semi-
continuous flap settings targets achieved and tested in
flight
• Impact (L/D) in cruise: +2.5%; lower than expected
(+5%), Wind Tunnel Tests
• Maximum Lift in landing configuration as expected in
terms of CLmax: Wind tunnel tests and Flight tests
Airframe WP B (D1-6); • Advanced Composite External Wing Box (Out-of-
WP C (D4-8) autoclave INFUSION LRI & ISC Thermoplastics)31 → Wing
Weight  (-13%)
• Assisted Composite manufacturing by collaborative
robots → 40% waste of materials (w.r.t. SoA 2014)
• Composite Techs “one shot” at fuselage31 → Weight 
(-6.7%)
• New Manufacturing Technologies (jig-less assembly,
additive manufacturing, one-shot-drilling) → applied to
in flight and on ground Regional Multi mission
demonstrators (AIRFRAME and REGIONAL)
Systems WP B (D1- • All Electrical Wing: HVDC31, SATCOM, spoiler & aileron
8/9; D2-19); driven by EMAs31
WP C (D4- • All Electrical Wing: Anti-Ice Induction LE Wing31 → 92%
9/10/11) efficiency; no effect on the aero shape of the profile
o Ice wind tunnel tests
o Anti ice performance as expected
o Weight reduction →  -8 % (also with LHP)
• Highly integrated Cockpit → tested on ground: impacts,
electromagnetic isolation, SHMS
• Future Leakage identification system31 → on ground
test, performance as expected.
• Integration of testing systems on Digital Environment
→ 54% GWP
96
 • Automated Testing Technologies → 83% GWP
• Improved A/C SATCOM connectivity30 (embedded
antenna in fuselage structure) → -100% drag. Fully
tested in flight. Extremely high performance in terms of
satellite connectivity
• Affordable FCS30 → fully tested on ground and in flight.
Table 14 – Regional Multi-Mission Turboprop TP70 Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers.

Airbus Defence & Space (CASA) is responsible for the Regional Multi-Mission aircraft concept within
the Regional IADP in Clean Sky 2. The Regional Multi-Mission aircraft’s purpose is not only to be an
airline aircraft that competes with many other aircraft in the passenger regional transport market, but
also to be capable of reliably operating in extreme airport conditions providing a truly multi – mission
capability to the operators (Figure 39):

• in remote areas,
• with poorer aero infrastructures,
• with short and non-prepared fields, or
• located within mountainous regions

Figure 39 – C-295 landing on a grass strip in Kenya, courtesy Airbus Defense & Space.

The Future Regional Multi-Mission aircraft shall be ideal for any kind of civic/humanitarian mission for
the benefit of society: robust, solid, rugged, and with outstanding low level flight and short take-off
and landing characteristics from unprepared rough, soft and short airstrips.

These ’civic’ activities shall include surveillance and control activities such as search and rescue,
monitoring of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, piracy, illegal fishery, maritime pollution control and
deterrence, wild deforestation, bringing supplies to people living in remote locations (isolated islands,
deserts, etc) with a flying endurance of more than 11 hours.

From an internal market assessment, expecting a growth in the regional market in the next 20 years,
and the evaluation of the main world zones where the operational concept of the current Baseline
97
Regional Multi-Mission aircraft (the EADS-CASA C-295 shown in Figure 40) best fits in terms of type of
missions and geographical location, leads to a regional aircraft in the range of 20 to 30 tons of
Maximum Take-off Weight. The Baseline and the Future Regional Multi-Mission aircraft cover the
lower and upper range extremes respectively.

Figure 40 – Airbus C295, purchased by the Government of Canada for the Royal Canadian Air Force’s
(RCAF) Fixed Wing Search and Rescue Aircraft Replacement (FWSAR) programme, October 2019,
courtesy Airbus Defense & Space.

Performance, emissions and noise results are evaluated on a basis of three characteristic mission
profiles:

• Passenger Transport / Combi Transport

• Pure Freighter
• SAR (Search And Rescue, First aid to people delivering medical supplies, food, etc.)

The range, mission profile and type of cruise will be in accordance with the specific role of the regional
aircraft in each moment. Each role may also include different items to define the internal and external
configuration of the aircraft providing the Operative Empty Weight for each mission. Differences
between baseline and concept Regional Multi - Mission Aircraft missions will only be in performance
capabilities but not in the mission profile.

The target for concept aircraft in terms of transported payload (passengers, cargo or both) compared
with the current baseline aircraft capability is shown in Table 15.

Table 15 – Characteristics in terms of payload and range for the baseline (C-295)
and future multi-mission regional aircraft concept.
98
Other than the increase in payload or passenger capacity (from 50 to 70 pax), the future aircraft will
be designed for a cruise Mach number of 0.5 instead of 0.4.

A brief summary of the technologies related to the Future Regional Multi – Mission configuration
coming from REGIONAL IADP, LPA IADP, AIRFRAME ITD and SYSTEMS ITD are detailed in Figure 41:

Figure 41 – Technology lines integrated in the Regional Multi-Mission TP 70 pax aircraft concept.

The two main objectives for the development and implementation of these technologies are:

• To minimise the impact on the environment (gaseous emissions and far field noise). This is
evaluated by taking into account the reduction of weight and the improvement in
aerodynamics resulting from the implementation of these technologies.
• To improve the manufacturing, maintenance and the lead time of the aircraft. These aspects
are directly related with the cost savings (recurring costs, maintenance costs).

Analysis of results is done considering all the missions and the mission mix based on fleet estimated
utilisation that allows global comparison with Clean Sky 2 global targets.

The results are presented at the beginning of this section in Table 14 together with the overall aircraft
performance improvement and aircraft key technologies for the three representative missions:
passenger transport over a 1000 NM mission, freighter transport over 1400NM, and a typical SAR
mission of 400 NM.

The Airliner mission will yield a CO2 reduction of -8% which is to be attributed mainly to aerodynamic
(-2.5%) and weight improvements (-0.8t).

This aircraft concept has been elaborated with a short EIS target (2035). This strategic choice resulted
in the use of a commercially available engine, the P&W 150 series versus the P&W 127G installed on
the C295. Only a moderate SFC improvement can therefore be accounted for whereas a more
substantial NOx reduction (-50%) comes out as a result of the updated engine model provided.

99
The Search and Rescue mission yields a CO2 reduction of -45% and a NOx reduction of -71%, as a result
of reduced speed of the aircraft in the surveillance or observation part of the mission. The Freight
Transport missions were estimated to provide a CO2 reduction gain of -16% and a NOx reduction gain
of -58%.

Applying a typical utilisation share of 10% airliner, 65% freighter and 25% SAR/surveillance missions,
a weighted average CO2 reduction of -22% and NOx reduction of -60% is obtained.

During the second half of Clean Sky 2 the effort in noise emissions has been significant. The
collaboration between Airbus DS and GE-Dowty resulted in a new propeller design applicable to the
future Regional Multi-mission configuration. Figure 42 and Figure 43 illustrate the performance
improvement of this new innovative propeller, in terms of efficiency, thrust and noise reduction. The
noise reduction in a typical airliner mission of 1000 NM is -54% at take-off and -33% during approach.
Considering the average mission mix, more than -33% noise reduction of the future configuration with
respect to the baseline regional multi-mission aircraft is expected.

Figure 42 – New Propeller provided by GE-Dowty: Efficiency & Thrust.

Figure 43 – New Propeller provided by GE-Dowty: Noise – Installation in Future Regional MM Aircraft.

100
5.1.1.7 Regional Geared TurboFan – ADORNO
Clean Sky 2 TE – UM & RM Regional Geared Turbofan (GTF) (MTU-ADORNO)

Concept A/C: Under-wing Mounted (UM) & Rear Mounted (RM) Regional GTF A/C – 140 pax –
3100 NM – Mach 0.78 – MTOW 63.6 t (UM) & 64.1 t (RM)
Reference A/C: Regional UM GTF A/C (close to A220-300) – 140 pax – 3100 NM – Mach 0.78 –
MTOW 67.3 t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
CO2 [%] NOx [%] Range Payload 1
Aircraft Level Noise [%]
[kg/pax/NM] [kg/pax/NM] [NM] [kg]
-12.8% -9.0% 540 18,700
-16.9% -19.3% 1080 18,700
-8% LTO
-18.5% -23.5% 1620 18,700
LA: -2.6 dB
UM GTF Aircraft -19.0% -24.8% 1840 18,700
AP: -0.7 dB
-17.5% -25.6% 2430 16,635
FO: +0.3 dB
-20.9% -29.4% 3100 14,460
-30.2% -37.7% 3510 8700
-9.6% -5.5% 540 18,700
-14.0% -14.4% 1080 18,700
-15.7% -18.7% 1620 18,700 -20% LTO
LA: -5.4 dB
RM GTF Aircraft -16.2% -19.9% 1840 18,700
AP: -2.0 dB
-15.2% -21.2% 2430 16,750 FO: -2.3 dB
-18.1% -24.7% 3100 14,460
-49.2% -50.5% 3510 13,140
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @3100 nm; 140 pax; Mach 0.78
TRL @CS2 closure
Aircraft Level Mass – OEW [t] Fuel Flow [%] 2
(2024)
UM GTF Aircraft -0.4 t -23.0% TRL 5
RM GTF Aircraft -0.3 t -20.8% TRL 4
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD
Enablers Description & Results
Contribution

101
 Propulsion WP4 • MTU notional adv. GTF engine (TWK20-01)
• Hybrid laminar flow control (HLFC) system
o Drag: -35.0 to -50.0% of skin friction drag;
o Weight: +1 to +5.0% of aircraft components weight,
+3.1 to +3.5% of propulsion system weight, +4% of
systems weight.
o SFC: +3.1 to +3.5% due to power off-takes.
o Costs: +5.0% of maintenance costs, +11% of aircraft
acquisition price.
Aerodynamics
• Riblets
o Drag: -7.0 to -7.5% of skin friction drag.
o Costs: +5.0% of maintenance costs, +1.1% of aircraft
acquisition price.
• Variable camber wing
o Drag: -2.5 to -4.9% of aircraft drag.
o Costs: +4.0% of maintenance costs, +1.1% of aircraft
acquisition price.
• Composite primary structures
o Weight: -18.75% of fuselage structural weight.
o Costs: +2.5% of maintenance costs, +0.6 to +0.7% of
aircraft acquisition price.
• Advanced alloys
Airframe o Weight: -30.0% of landing gears weight.
o Costs: +0.5% of maintenance costs, +0.1% of aircraft
acquisition price.
• Advanced tail concept 3
o Weight: +4% of tail structural weight;
o Noise: -38% 4.
• More-electric aircraft (MEA) systems architecture
Systems o Weight: -1.65% of systems weight.
o Costs: +0.1% of aircraft acquisition price.
Notes:
1
100% load factor, i.e., max. admissible payload for given range.
2
Difference in fuel flow at cruise start.
3
Only for the RM concept aircraft.
4
Of environmental cumulative EPNL at certification points.
Table 16 – Regional Geared Turbofan – ADORNO – Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers.

The results reported in this document originate from the design and the analysis activities carried out
for ADORNO, a CS2 project involving UNINA and LeadTech with MTU Aero Engines as topic manager.
The high-level objective of ADORNO was to allow a fast and reliable estimation of aircraft noise and
emission in terms of CO2 and NOx at different mission phases, through the implementation of a flexible
aircraft model which provides requirements for the engine platform in terms of thrusts and off-takes
at different power settings and flight conditions.

102
Two advanced, 2030+ entry into service (EIS), regional geared turbofan (GTF) A/C, have been designed
for ADORNO: one with under wing-mounted (UM) engines, and one with rear mounted (RM) engines.
These concept models implements both innovative airframe technologies and adv. high-bypass ratio
(HBPR) turbofan (TF) engines. The dataset for the latter was produced by MTU starting from
requirements and trade-off studies provided by UNINA.
Table 17 provides the list of top-level A/C requirements (TLARs). This set of TLARs was adopted for the
design and definition of both the reference and the target A/C models of ADORNO. This set was
established mainly starting from requirements for the Airbus A220-300.

Table 17 – List of top-level aircraft requirements (TLARs) adopted for ADORNO.

Requirement Value Unit

Design payload 14462 kg
PAX 140 @103.3 kg -
Range 3100 nm
Alternate range 200 nm
Holding duration 30 min
Take-off field length (TOFL) <1890 m
Cruise altitude 37,000 ft
Cruise Mach number 0.78 -
Fuel reserve 5 %

To define the reference UM turbofan A/C model, a dedicated multi-disciplinary design and
optimization (MDAO) workflow was set up with JPAD, an API/set of tools for aircraft design developed
at UNINA. A baseline A/C model was generated from a statistical basis starting from the set of TLARs
listed in Table 17. Then a full-factorial parametric analysis involving main aircraft geometric
parameters, such as wing planform area, aspect ratio, leading edge sweep angle, and longitudinal
position, and including automatic engine thrust updates as well in order to match ground and flight
performance set by the TLARs, was carried out. The results of this parametric study in terms of
response surface were provided to the JPAD module for optimization, to perform a multi-objective
optimization on mission block fuel and cumulative effective perceived noise level (EPNL) at ICAO
certification points.

UNINA carried out the definition of the list and the modelling in the JPAD analysis and design
framework of the advanced airframe technologies to be equipped on the target A/C. Their selection
was performed starting from the list of technologies to be developed and demonstrated during CS2.
Table 18 provides the complete list of airframe technologies examined in ADORNO.

Table 18 – List of advanced airframe technologies considered in ADORNO for the design of the target
GTF A/C.

Airframe technology Impacted aircraft component(s)

Hybrid laminar flow control (HLFC) Wing, tails, nacelles
Riblets Wing, tails, fuselage
Variable camber wing Wing
More-electric aircraft (MEA) architecture OBS
Composite primary structure Fuselage
Advanced alloys Landing gears

103
To implement each technology in the UNINA A/C design framework, an approach making use of
calibration factors and calibration offsets was elaborated, to consider their impact on aerodynamics,
weights, engines power off-takes, and direct costs.

The MEA architecture that was selected for the target A/C stems from a PhD thesis performed at the
Politechnico di Torino32. The main characteristics of this architecture are:

• Bleed-less configuration, with external compressors, powered by the electric system, feeding
the environmental control system, while the ice protection system is totally electrified.
• The electric system powers the electric pumps of the hydraulic system, which in turn supplies
the flight control system, the actuators for the landing gears, and the wheel brakes.
For the wing morphing technology, a system concept similar to the one presented by Carter and al.33,
i.e., variable camber wing with trailing edge devices, was assumed. Dealing with the aerodynamics,
assumptions were made on the impact of this technology starting from the work of Lyu and Martins34.
No assumptions were made in terms of impact on weights and power off-takes.

Dealing with HLFC devices, assumptions regarding the impact on aerodynamics were gathered from
reports of actual flight tests, performed both on business jets and short to medium-haul airliners35 36
37
. Hypotheses on the effects on weights were made starting from data reported in Lange’s report38,
a study performed by Lockheed to evaluate the applicability of the HLFC technology to a global range
military transport aircraft. For power off-takes, instead, indications were retrieved from Young and
Fielding39, in which a computer performance model for an aircraft similar to the Boeing 757 had been
used to study the application of a HLFC system.

32
L. Boggero, “Design techniques to support aircraft systems development in a collaborative MDO environment”,
PhD thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 2018.
33
D.L. Carter, R.F. Osborn, J.A. Hetrick, S. Kota, “The Quest for Efficient Transonic Cruise”, 7th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, 18-20 September 2007, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
34
Z. Lyu, J.R.R.A. Martins, “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of an Adaptive Morphing Trailing-Edge Wing”,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 52, No. 6, November-December 2015.
35
R.D. Joslin, “Overview of Laminar Flow Control”, NASA/TP-1998-208705, October 1998, Langley Research
Center, Hampton, Virginia.
36
V. Schmitt, J.P. Archambaud, K.H. Horstmann, A. Quast, “Hybrid Laminar Fin Investigations”, RTO AVT
Symposium, 8-11 May 2000, Braunschweig, Germany.
37
P. Meyer, “Application of HLF Technology to Civil Nacelle”, Proceedings of the CEAS/DragNet European Drag
Reduction Conference, edited by P. Thiede, vol. 76, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001, pp. 107-114.
38
R.H. Lange, “Application of Hybrid Laminar Flow Control to Global Range Military Transport Aircraft”, NASA
Contractor Report 181638, 1988.
39
T.M. Young, J.P. Fielding, “Flight Operational Assessment of Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC) Aircraft”,
Proceedings of the CEAS/DragNet European Drag Reduction Conference, edited by P. Thiede, vol. 76, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 2001, pp. 99-106.
104
For riblets, impact on aerodynamics was assumed starting from indications provided in several
reports40 41 42 43, which included results from flight and wind tunnel tests. Effects on aircraft
components weights were assumed to be negligible.

Assumptions on weight reduction linked to the use of carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) for the
fuselage and for the lifting surfaces were made starting from public data44 45. A 25% weight reduction
was assumed for the fuselage with respect to a conventional, full-alloy one, and a 20% for the wing
and for the tail group. A 30% weight reduction for the landing gears was assumed starting from the
data given in Gialanella and Malandruccolo report46, assuming that advanced titanium-based alloys
were used instead of conventional steel.

MTU generated a dataset (size, weights, performance and emissions) for an adv. GTF engine optimized
for the boundary conditions given by UNINA (50 % confidence level, conceptual design level) to be
applied on the ADORNO target A/C models. To enable MTU to perform this task, a trade factor analysis
on mission fuel burn was preliminarily performed by UNINA. This trade factor analysis was carried out
on the reference UM GTF A/C model considering the following parameters: a) single engine dry mass,
b) engine thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC).

In addition to the trade factor analysis, the definition of the A/C on-board systems (OBS) architecture
(implying the setting of base values for power off-takes and customer bleed air per flight phase) as well
as thrust requirements and maximum dimensions constraints were also provided to MTU (Figure 44
and Figure 45).

Table 19 provides the main characteristics of the adv. GTF engine designed by MTU. In addition to the
information included in this table, MTU also provided a dimensional engine performance deck,
according to the JPAD-required formatting.

The engine dataset also included information on scale factors for TSFC and powerplant system (PPS)
mass, that were used by UNINA to include the effect of additional power off-takes, linked to the
application on the target A/C of advanced airframe technologies.

40
P. Catalano, D. de Rosa, B. Mele, R. Tognaccini, F. Moens, “Effects of riblets on the performances of a regional
aircraft configuration in NLF conditions”, AIAA SciTech Forum, 8-12 January 2018, Kissimmee, Florida.
41
J.D. McLean, D.N. George-Falvy, P.P Sullivan, “Flight-test of turbulent skin friction reduction by riblets”,
Proceedings of International Conference on Turbulent Drag Reduction by Passive Means, Section 16, London
Royal Aeronautical Society, 1987, 1-17.
42
M. Walsh, W. Sellers, C. McGinley, “Riblet drag reduction at flight conditions”, 6th Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, June 1988.
43
E. Coustols, V. Schmitt, “Synthesis of experimental riblets studies in transonic conditions”, Proceedings of the
45th European Drag Reduction Meeting, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 1990, pp. 123-140.
44
M. Achtembosch et al., “Material flow analysis – A comparison of manufacturing, use and fate of CFRP-Fuselage
components versus Aluminium-Components for commercial airliners”, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, January
2003.
45
C. Soutis, “Carbon fiber reinforced plastics in aircraft construction”, Materials Science and Engineering: A, Vol.
412, Issues 1-2, 5 December 2005, pp. 171-176.
46
S. Gialanella, A. Malandruccolo, “Aerospace Alloys”, Springer Nature, 2019.
105
 Table 19 – Main characteristics of the adv. GTF engine designed by MTU for ADORNO.

Powerplant characteristic Value Unit

Bypass ratio 13.4 -
Single engine static thrust 116.6 kN
TSFC calibration per 100 kW additional power off-takes 1.0157 [lb/(lbf*h)]/kW
PPS mass calibration per 100 kW additional power off-takes 1.0157 kg/kW

Figure 44 – Example of parametric study on cycle selection performed by MTU for the definition of the
adv. GTF engine of ADORNO.

Figure 45 – Flowpath of the adv. GTF engine designed by MTU for ADORNO.

The design of the ADORNO target UM GTF A/C was carried out through an optimization process on
block fuel. The optimization was performed by assuming the requirements listed in Table 17 as
constraints. Additional constraints were considered to ensure ground operability and stability,
aerodynamic static stability, minimum safety speeds, hangar limitations (assuming to keep all the
designed concept aircraft in the ICAO C category), and maximum fuel tank capacity. The last two
constraints were alternatively switched off, simulating, in the last case, the inclusion of an additional

106
central tank (ACT) in the lower deck of the fuselage, granting an additional fuel mass of around 2100
kg.

Wing planform parameters, such as the wing area and the wing aspect ratio, as well as different
combinations of airframe technologies, guided a parametric study first, and the subsequent
optimization (block fuel minimization) process. The complete workflow is reported in Figure 46.

For each possible combination of airframe technologies (336 in total, based on those listed in Table
18), a different response surface was generated, containing the results of multi-disciplinary analyses
on 25 different A/C models. These combinations were obtained by combining 5 values of wing
planform surface and 5 values of wing aspect ratio.

For each response surface (i.e., for each combination of airframe technologies) a single-objective
optimization on fuel burn was carried out, for each of the following four combinations of constraints:
a) constrained wing span, no ACT in the lower deck of the fuselage; b) unconstrained wing span, no
ACT; c) unconstrained wing span, one ACT; d) constrained wing span, one ACT. For each of these sets
of constraints, three possible solutions were highlighted: a) one for minimum block fuel, b) one for
minimum direct operating costs (DOC), c) a balanced solution, seeking the best compromise. A plot
like the one reported in Figure 47 was produced for each combination of constraints. Each point in this
plot represents the best (i.e., minimum) block fuel solution for a certain combination of advanced
airframe technologies, and it is the result of an optimization performed on the basis of a 25-points
response surface. The three possible solutions, mentioned above, are all highlighted in this plot, as
well as the baseline one, i.e., the ADORNO reference UM GTF A/C.

To align with the CS2 objectives in terms of emissions reduction (> 20% with respect to 2014 best
aircraft) only minimum block fuel solutions should have been considered. In particular, the minimum
block fuel solution provided by the optimization process with constrained maximum wing span and an
ACT in the lower deck of the fuselage was selected, defining the final configuration for the target UM
GTF A/C. The UM configuration provided, with respect to the baseline, a block fuel/CO2 emissions
reduction greater than 20% on the design mission. Concerning NOx, a reduction close to 30% was
obtained for block emissions on the reference mission, also in line with CS2 environmental objectives.
The set of airframe technologies equipped on this model is the one including all the technologies listed
in Table 18.

It is worth mentioning that the minimum block fuel solutions of the optimizations with no limitations
on the wing span would have granted even higher emissions reductions. However, it was concluded
that it would have been preferrable to make the final model compliant with current limitations in terms
of maximum allowable wing span for category C airplanes.

107
Figure 46 – Optimization workflow for the ADORNO target UM GTF A/C.

108
 Figure 47 – Mission block fuel and total DOC results for the ADORNO target UM GTF A/C optimization
process on block fuel, including the constraint on the wing span and an ACT in the lower deck of the
fuselage.

The main characteristics of the target UM GTF A/C and its performance compared to the reference UM
GTF are reported in Table 20, Table 21, Table 22, and Table 23.

Table 20 – Main characteristics of the ADORNO target regional UM GTF A/C.

Geometry
Element Parameter Value Unit
Area 91.34 m2
Span 36.0 m
Wing
Aspect ratio 14.19 -
Leading edge sweep angle 27.0 deg
Overall length 38.7 m
Fuselage Maximum width 3.7 m
Maximum height 3.7 m
Abreast 2+3 -
Cabin
Overall cabin length 28.0 m
Weights
Item Value Unit
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) 63,617 kg
Operating empty weight (OEW) 35,715 kg
Main performance indicators
Phase Item Value Unit
Take-off Take-off field length (TOFL) 1820 m
All engines operative (AEO) time to climb 15.2 min
Climb AEO Service ceiling 46,700 ft
One engine inoperative (OEI) service ceiling 29,200 ft
Cruise Lift-to-drag at Mach 0.78, FL370 20.9 -
Landing Landing field length (LFL) 1700 m

109
 Table 21 – Block fuel burn and emissions comparative between the ADORNO reference UM GTF A/C and
the target UM GTF A/C on the 3100 nm design mission at 14,462 kg of payload (design payload).

Reference UM Target UM Relative

Emission
GTF A/C GTF A/C difference
type
kg g/(seat*nm) kg g/(seat*nm) % [kg] % [g/(seat*nm)]
Fuel burn 13,867 32.0 10,977 25.3 -20.9% -20.9%
CO2 43,849 101.0 34,711 80.0 -20.9% -20.9%
NOx 218.8 0.5 155.0 0.4 -29.4% -29.4%

Table 22 – Block fuel burn and emissions comparative between the ADORNO reference UM TF A/C and
the target UM GTF A/C on the 1080 nm typical mission at 18,711 kg of payload (max. payload).

Reference UM Target UM Relative

Emission
GTF A/C GTF A/C difference
type
kg g/(seat*nm) kg g/(seat*nm) % [kg] % [g/(seat*nm)]
Fuel burn 5104 33.8 4244 28.1 -16.9% -16.9%
CO2 16,140 106.7 13,419 88.7 -16.9% -16.9%
NOx 91.0 0.6 73.9 0.5 -19.3% -19.3%

Table 23 – Noise levels at certification points comparative between the ADORNO reference UM TF A/C
and the target UM GTF A/C.

Reference UM Target UM
Change
Phase GTF A/C GTF A/C
EPNL [dB] EPNL [dB] ΔEPNL [dB]
Approach 92.6 91.9 -0.7
Flyover 82.4 82.7 +0.3
Sideline 86.7 84.1 -2.6
Cumulative 261.7 258.7 -3.0

Starting from the same set of TLARs reported in Table 17, a baseline RM GTF A/C model was generated
using the same statistical approach briefly explained previously. Then, starting from this baseline, a
complete MDAO process was carried out, to find out the best set of A/C design parameters with
respect to both block fuel and cumulative environmental noise.

By leveraging the outcomes derived from the target UM GTF A/C design activities, the best set of
advanced airframe technologies was adopted (i.e., the full set), to maximize the reduction of block fuel
on the 3100 nm design mission.

To investigate the possibility to further reduce the noise footprint of the target RM A/C model, an
unconventional tail plane was adopted. In particular, a U-Tail concept was considered. Such a
configuration was already investigated within the context of the European New Aircraft Concepts
Research (NACRE) integrated project47.

It should be noted that the U-Tail configuration was not the only tail layout initially considered for the
design tasks on the target RM A/C of ADORNO. A V-tail concept was also investigated as a feasible
solution. However, this was excluded in the early stages of conceptual design, due to several
considerations. First, since the advanced engine designed by MTU featured a remarkably high BPR and
a large fan diameter, it raised several problems in terms of installation of the engines in the space

47
Final Report Summary – NACRE. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/516068/reporting
110
comprised between the fuselage tail cone and the upper surface of the V-Tail panels. In order to match
a dihedral angle for the V-tail close to the optimum value, the engines should have been mounted
significantly high with respect to the fuselage, to grant minimum clearance with respect to the tail.
This would have led to installation issues related to the necessity to stiffen both the tail cone and the
engines pylons, which in turn would have implied a substantial increase of structural weight of the
airplane. On the other side, a U-Tail configuration would have provided a much wider design space,
thus allowing to install at the best the adv. GTF engines of ADORNO. Moreover, preliminary tests
carried out by using ATTILA++ suggested that the U-Tail solution would have been more effective in
terms of noise shielding effect too, in relation to the abovementioned constraints.

Tree main aspects needed to be addressed in order to modify the multi-disciplinary analysis workflow
implemented by JPAD to support the analysis of unconventional A/C configurations featuring a U-Tail:
• The impact of the U-Tail on the A/C structural weight;
• The characteristics of the U-Tail in terms of centre of gravity position.
• The consequences on the aerodynamics of the entire A/C due to the adoption of this tail
layout.
Concerning the weight of the U-Tail architecture, an empirical approach was elaborated by UNINA
thanks to experience gathered while participating to past European projects. To correctly model the
effect on the aerodynamics of the A/C provided by the implementation of a U-Tail configuration, a
preliminary parametric investigation was carried out by using the open-source solver VSPAERO48, a
vortex lattice solver which can be easily coupled with A/C geometries generated in OpenVSP 49. This
investigation allowed to build a surrogate aerodynamic model and to consequently determine non-
linear correction factors for the horizontal tail plane lift curve coefficient slope depending on the
geometric characteristics of the U-Tail.

The list of design parameters provided in Table 24, along with lower and upper boundary values and
the number of equally spaced values considered in the range, were used to drive a full-factorial design
of experiments (DOE). The set of design variables initially selected also included the wing span and the
longitudinal position in the body reference frame of the engines. But, following a preliminary sensitivity
analysis, they were discarded, since: a) they provided, in combination with the remaining variables,
unfeasible solutions (wing span); b) the gain provided in terms of environmental noise reduction by
moving the engines to a more backward position was completely offset by the detrimental impact on
block fuel and static stability margin (SSM) of the A/C.

Table 24 – Set of design variables for the MDAO process of the target RM A/C.

Baseline Lower bound Upper bound Number of values

Wing AR 11.126 11.126 14.190 5
Wing apex X position (BRF) [m] 17.300 17.300 19.000 6
U-Tail first panel span [m] 6.215 5.000 7.450 4
U-Tail second panel span [m] 3.225 2.600 3.850 4
A/C combinations 480

48
VSPAERO. https://openvsp.org/wiki/doku.php?id=vspaerotutorial
49
OpenVSP. http://openvsp.org/
111
Figure 48 provides a visual representation of the MDAO workflow implemented to generate the target
RM A/C. From the set of design variables listed in Table 24, a response surface was generated in terms
of aerodynamic characteristics, performance, fuel consumption, gaseous emissions, and
environmental noise for 480 different A/C, by using the MDAO module of JPAD.

This response surface was later used to carry out a multi-objective optimization, targeting both the
lowest block fuel and the lowest environmental noise in terms of cumulative EPNL at certification
points. In addition to the response surface, the MDAO module of JPAD was also provided with a set of
constraints, to ensure the feasibility of each analysed A/C. This set of constraints almost coincides with
the one adopted for the UM A/C and is also provided in Figure 48.

The optimization process was used to determine a Pareto front, from which to extract the final
configuration of the target RM A/C. A visual representation of this Pareto front is provided in Figure
49. As shown by this figure, three solutions were selected and compared to define the final target RM
A/C: one for minimum block fuel, one for minimum cumulative EPNL, and a balanced solution,
representing a compromise between the two objectives. The balanced solution actually appeared to
be the most promising one and was indeed selected, since it allowed to reach an additional reduction
of 155 kg of block fuel with respect to the minimum noise solution, adding less than 0.6 dB to the
cumulative EPNL. On the other hand, if compared with the minimum block fuel solution, the balanced
solution allowed to reduce the cumulative EPNL of about 0.6 dB, with a penalty on block fuel of only
30 kg.

It should be noted that the values related to cumulative EPNL derive from calculations carried out by
UNINA considering an engine noise contribution estimated by means of a semi-empirical approach.
The final assessment in terms of cumulative EPNL for the target RM A/C was carried out by using an
engine noise deck representative of the characteristics of the adv. GTF engine designed by MTU for
ADORNO.

112
 Figure 48 – MDAO workflow for the target RM A/C.

Figure 49 – Pareto front used to define the target RM A/C final layout.

The main characteristics of the target RM GTF A/C are recapped in Table 25, Table 26, Table 27, and
Table 28.
113
 Table 25 – Main characteristics of the ADORNO target regional RM GTF A/C.

Geometry
Element Parameter Value Unit
Area 109.04 m2
Span 36.0 m
Wing
Aspect ratio 11.89 -
Leading edge sweep angle 27.0 deg
Overall length 38.7 m
Fuselage Maximum width 3.7 m
Maximum height 3.7 m
Abreast 2+3 -
Cabin
Overall cabin length 28.0 m
Weights
Item Value Unit
Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) 64,104 kg
Operating empty weight (OEW) 35,777 kg
Main performance indicators
Phase Item Value Unit
Take-off Take-off field length (TOFL) 1685 m
All engines operative (AEO) time to climb 16.6 min
Climb AEO Service ceiling 45,200 ft
One engine inoperative (OEI) service ceiling 27,400 ft
Cruise Lift-to-drag at Mach 0.78, FL370 20.5 -
Landing Landing field length (LFL) 1600 m

Table 26 – Block fuel burn and emissions comparative between the ADORNO reference UM GTF A/C and
the target RM GTF A/C on the 3100 nm design mission at 14,462 kg of payload (design payload).

Reference UM Target RM Relative

Emission
TF A/C GTF A/C difference
type
kg g/(seat*nm) kg g/(seat*nm) % [kg] % [g/(seat*nm)]
Fuel burn 13,867 32.0 11,350 26.2 -18.1% -18.1%
CO2 43,849 101.0 35,888 82.7 -18.1% -18.1%
NOx 218.8 0.5 164.9 0.4 -24.7% -24.7%

Table 27 – Block fuel burn and emissions comparative between the ADORNO reference UM GTF A/C and
the target RM GTF A/C on the 1080 nm typical mission at 18,711 kg of payload (max. payload).

Reference UM Target RM Relative

Emission
GTF A/C GTF A/C difference
type
kg g/(seat*nm) kg g/(seat*nm) % [kg] % [g/(seat*nm)]
Fuel burn 5104 33.8 4392 29.0 -14.0% -14.0%
CO2 16,140 106.7 13,888 91.9 -14.0% -14.0%
NOx 91.0 0.6 78.36 0.5 -14.4% -14.4%

Table 28 – Noise levels at certification points comparative between the ADORNO reference UM GTF A/C
and the target RM GTF A/C.

Reference UM Target RM
Change
Phase GTF A/C GTF A/C
EPNL [dB] EPNL [dB] ΔEPNL [dB]
Approach 92.6 90.6 -2.0
Flyover 82.4 80.1 -2.3
Sideline 86.7 81.3 -5.4
Cumulative 261.7 252.0 -9.7

114
5.1.1.8 SAT 19 pax Commuter Aircraft Concepts
19-seater Commuter Twin Turboprop – Conventional – MAESTRO

Clean Sky 2 TE – 19 pax Commuter Twin Turboprop (Conventional-TP-GE Avio) – Loop 2

EIS TIMEFRAME 2028

Concept Aircraft: 19 pax – 800 nm (2 x 300 w/o refuel) – Mach 0.34 – MTOW 7.8t
Reference Aircraft: Generic 19-seater Conventional TP – 19 pax – 800 nm – Mach 0.34 – MTOW
8.4t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOx [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
-19.6% -28% -27% (SpL) 300
[-18%; -20%] [-27%; -29%] -19% TO [200-800]
TO: -2.8 dB(A) 230 kTAS
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @300 NM; 230KTAS @10000ft Mach; max. pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Drag [%] TRL @CS2
closure (2024)
-19.6% -0.195 t -2.5% TRL 6
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
115
 CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion WP 8 • Advanced Turboprop – MAESTRO → -15.2% CO2; -22%
NOx; -2.8dB Noise
Aerodynamics • Drag reduction due to technology bricks (-2.5%)
Airframe WP B • Composite wing box → W  (-20% resp. to equiv. metal.)
• Nacelle Composite Structures → W  (-15% resp. to
equiv. metal.)
• Aileron, nose fuselage jigless assembly → W  (-7% resp.
to equiv. metal. assembled with fasteners)
• Cabin Parts → W  (-12% resp. to conventional parts)
WP 3 • Smart composite wing integrating technologies for health
monitoring
o Full Scale Composite Wing Box
o Smart Health Monitoring
Systems WP 3 • More Electric Systems
o Electrical Power & Generation Distribution
System
o Fly-by-Wire
o Landing Gear
• Safe & comfortable cabin
o Safe & Comfortable Structures
o Avionic for Sate & Comfortable Operation
WP 7 • Fly-by-Wire for SAT
o EMA (Electro-Mechanical Actuator)
o Digital Multi-Functional Air Data Probe
o Integrated Modular Avionics
• Electrical Power Generation & Distribution for SAT
o High Voltage Electrical Generation
o Electrical Distribution
• Electrical Landing Gear for SAT
o Landing Gear EMA
o Electrical Brake
• Lower-Power (hybrid electro-expulsive) de-icing system
• Comfortable & safe cabin
o Effective Noise-Thermal Insulation
o Crashworthy Passenger Seat
• Affordable future avionic solutions
o Tactical Separation System
o Advanced Weather Awareness System
o Flight Reconfiguration System
o Global Navigation Satellite System
o Low-Cost Integrated Navigation System (NAV)
o Affordable Surveillance System
o High Integrated Electronics
116
 o Compact Computing Platform
o Integrated Mission Management System
Table 29 – 19-seater Commuter Twin Turboprop (MAESTRO) Concept: Environmental Benefits,
Performance Improvements, and Technology Enablers.

The 19-seater commuter turboprop concept has been developed and modelled by Piaggio Aero
Industries with the support of Evektor by using a Clean Sky simulation model to assess aircraft
performance.
The preliminary sizing of the aircraft was performed by using classical rules for aircraft preliminary
sizing, based on an available database of similar aircraft. An overview of the environmental benefits,
performance improvements, and technology enablers of the commuter concept is presented in Table
29.

SAT focuses on market innovations to reduce operational cost and environmental impact (-20% CO2
and NOX emissions, -10 dB(A) noise reduction), ensuring good operational safety levels as well, to
unlock the potential offered by small regional airports, which are closer and more accessible to the
travelling society.

Since the operation of small aircraft needs only little or no additional infrastructure investments, it
opens many opportunities for regional growth and employment, especially in remote areas far from
big airports or with limited or absent road and railway connections to bigger cities.

To assess CS2 technology benefits, two different platforms have been designed inside the SAT
Transversal Activity: a Reference and a Concept aircraft. The Reference aircraft is a virtual aircraft
designed considering 2014 technologies with an existing engine assuring the requested take-off power
(also of year 2014 SoA technology).

The Concept aircraft, which has the same TLARs (Top Level Aircraft Requirements) as the Reference
aircraft, integrates the following technologies addressed in the frame of Clean Sky 2 ITDs (Integrated
Technology Demonstrators):

• Low cost composite wing box and engine nacelle using OoA (Out of Autoclave) technology, LRI
(Liquid Resin Infusion) and advanced automation process.
• Innovative high lift devices, allowing aircraft operations from short airfields (<800m).
• Affordable small aircraft manufacturing of metallic fuselage by means of FSW (Friction Stir
Welding) and LMD (Laser Metal Deposition).
• Affordable fly-by-wire architecture for small aircraft (CS23 certification rules).
• More electric systems replacing pneumatic and hydraulic aircraft systems (high voltage EPGDS
-Electrical Power Generation and Distribution System-, low power de-icing system, landing
gear and brakes).
• Advanced avionics for small aircraft, to reduce pilot workload, paving the way to single pilot
operations for 19 seats.
• Advanced cabin comfort with new interior materials and more comfortable seats.

117
 • New generation of turboprop engine with reduced fuel consumption, emissions, noise and
maintenance costs for 19 seats aircraft.

Overall dimensions and weights of both the Reference and Concept aircraft are shown in Figure 50.

Figure 50 – Comparison of overall dimensions and weight of 19 pax reference and concept aircraft.

Figure 51 shows the overall qualitative effect of CS2 technologies on SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption),
aircraft mass and drag of the concept aircraft, while Figure 52 depicts the engine breakdown of
technologies impact on emission reductions.

118
 Figure 51 – List of technologies and overall impact at aircraft level for the SAT 19 seat concept.

Figure 52 – Expected engine performance (MAESTRO) improvements for 19 pax Commuter concept
before aircraft integration.

Technologies coming from AIR, ENG and SYS ITDs evaluated at PDR level have been integrated at
aircraft level to assess their impact on the environment for different mission ranges (200, 300, 400,
600 and 800 nm) and cruise speed (195 and 230 KTAS), see Figure 53. In particular, CO2 and NOx
emissions have been derived on the basis of the knowledge of the amount of pollutant released per
unit of fuel burn, with the emission indexes provided by engine manufacturers for the requested
conditions: max take-off, max climb, cruise (at several engine ratings) and ground idle.

119
 Figure 53 – CO2 and NOx reductions achieved for various mission ranges for the 19-seat Commuter
concept (@10kft, 230 KTAS, IFR Reserve).

Noise emissions have been evaluated for both the certification point and community noise around the
airport. Figure 54 shows the methodology of measuring noise at take-off, showing a 2.8 dB(A)
reduction, and the noise footprint area reduction between reference and concept 19 seat aircraft
(green loop 1).

Figure 54 – Comparison of Noise Certification point for concept 19 seat aircraft.

120
The results to date show that original CS2 SAT goals have been reached with the designed
configuration. The next step is to review the SAT EIS2028 a/c performances, based on CS2 Technologies
CDR outcomes from each ITDs, which are in completion phase (see Figure 55).

The airliner mission of the 19 pax Commuter concept yields a CO2 reduction of -21% and a NOx
reduction of -27%, the breakdown of technology contribution being shown in Table 30.

Emissions reduction
vs Ref
Technology (800 nm @ 195 kts)
CO2 NOX
Advanced Engine 16% 20%
More-Electric Systems (bleedless) 2% 3%
Airframe Technologies 3% 4%
Total Reduction 21% 27%

Table 30 – Breakdown of technology contributions to the overall emissions reductions at aircraft level.

This aircraft concept has been elaborated with an extremely short EIS target (2028) and achieves
remarkable gains considering the small aircraft size. These improvements are reported for a typical
800 nm mission @ 195 KTAS - 360 km/h. However the versatility of the aircraft permits faster flying
(230 KTAS – 425 km/h) or to perform two consecutive missions of 300 nm without refuelling, thereby
maximising its potential to serve as a “miniliner” or commuter aircraft, improving mobility and
connectivity (see Section 6.1.).

Figure 55 – Calendar of CDRs (Critical Design Reviews50) for the technologies selected
within the ENG, AIR, and SYS ITDs for the 19 pax Commuter concept.

50
A Critical Design Review (CDR) is a multi-disciplinary technical review to ensure that a system can proceed
into fabrication, demonstration, and test and can meet stated performance requirements within cost,
schedule, and risk.
121
19-seater Commuter Twin Turboprop – Conventional – Tech TP

Clean Sky 2 TE – 19 Pax Commuter Twin Turbo Prop (conventional – Tech TP)

EIS TIMEFRAME 2030

Concept Aircraft: 19 pax – 800 NM (2 x 300 w/o refuel) – Mach 0.34 – MTOW 7.8t
Reference Aircraft: Generic 19-pax conventional TP – 19 pax – 800 NM – Mach 0.34 – MTOW 8.4t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOX [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
-17.3% -51.5% -50% (SpL) 300
[-17.4%; -17%] [-51%; -52%] -31% TO [200-800]
TO: -5.2 dB(A) 230 kTAS
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @300 NM; 230 KTAS @10000ft; max. pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Drag [%] TRL @CS2
closure (2024)
-17.3% -0.205 t -5.6% TRL 5
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers

122
 CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion WP 3 • Advanced Turboprop – Tech-TP → -13.5% CO2; -39% NOx;
-5.2 dB(A) Noise
Aerodynamics • Drag reduction due to technology bricks (-4%)51
Airframe WP B – WP 3 Loop 2 Technology bricks

Systems WP 3 – WP 7 Loop 2 Technology bricks

Table 31 – 19-seater Commuter twin turboprop concept with alternative Tech-TP engine: Environmental
Benefits, Performance Improvements, and Technology Enablers.

An alternative engine (Figure 56) has been studied (SAFRAN TechTP WP3 ENG ITD) and integrated in
Green Loop 2 configuration (Table 31). Due to different engine architecture the balance between CO2
and NOx emissions saving are different from previous solution, as shown in Figure 57.

Figure 56 – SAFRAN TechTP.

Figure 57 – Expected a/c performance with alternative engine TechTP for 19 pax Commuter concept.

51
The difference in drag reduction between the MAESTRO and Tech-TP configurations stems from the difference
in engine architecture. Compared to the MAESTRO engine, the Tech-TP configuration has a shorter air intake, its
exhaust is straight and integrated into the nacelle which is shorter as well.
123
19-seater Commuter E-STOL – Serial Hybrid-Eletric TP

Clean Sky 2 TE – 19 Pax Commuter E-STOL Serial Hybrid-Electric TP

EIS TIMEFRAME 2032

Concept Aircraft: Hybrid-Electric – 19 pax – 600 NM (160 full electric) – Mach 0.34 – MTOW 12.8t
Reference Aircraft: Generic 19-pax conventional TP – 19 pax – 800 NM – Mach 0.34 – MTOW 8.4t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOX [%] Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/nm Range [NM]
-47.5% -53.5% -101% (SpL) 300
[-68%; -23%] [-66%; -25%] -53% TO [200-600]
TO: -10.5 dB 230 kTAS
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @300 nm; 230 KTAS @10000ft; max. pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Drag [%] TRL @CS2
closure (2024)
-47.5% +0.951 t w/o -48% TRL 3
batteries
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion WP 8 • Advanced Turboprop – MAESTRO → -16% CO2; -20% NOx;
-10dB Noise; -39kg; -17% TOC (costs)
• Hybrid Propulsion (serial hybrid w/ 1 MAESTRO engine +
4 Electric Motors) → -28% CO2
124
 Aerodynamics • Blown flap → reduced wing area -86%
Airframe WP B – WP 3 Loop 2 Technology bricks & hybrid-electric airframe
technologies
Systems WP 3 – WP 7 Loop 2 Technology bricks & hybrid-electric systems
technologies
Table 32 – 19-seater Serial Hybrid-Electric Turboprop Commuter Concept – E-STOL: Environmental
Benefits, Performance Improvements, and Technlogy Enablers.

Furthermore, in parallel to the development of this EIS 2028 concept, advanced studies of an
innovative E-STOL (Electrical/Hybrid Short Take-Off and Landing) 19 seats commuter with a planned
market entry in 2032 have been initiated to assess a potential further reduction of emissions.
A hybrid propulsion system has been received as input from the engine supplier consortium (ENG WP8,
MAESTRO Core Partner project), which re-scoped the planned activities inside Engine ITD, on the basis
of a trade-off activity. In particular, two architectures have been traded (see Figure 58):

• Series-Hybrid (SH): electric power generated by both a thermal powerplant and a battery pack.
• Turbo-Electric (TE): electric power generated by two thermal powerplants.

Figure 58 – Schematic view of Serial-Hybrid (SH) and Turbo-Electric (TE) powertrain configurations.

Both architectures, although increasing aircraft MTOW, provide additional reductions in CO2
emissions. In particular, the series-hybrid architecture has been down-selected, since preliminary
assessments show a potential reduction of about 27% CO2 emissions with respect to concept aircraft
(Green Loop 1, EIS 2028).

In Figure 59, the list of selected technologies (relative assumptions follows) for the EIS2032 E-STOL
concept is shown.

For EIS2032 E-STOL aircraft, the considered electric energy carrier are the lithium-sulphur batteries
with solid-state electrolytes due to advantages in safety, energy density, and fast-charging capability,
showing a clear superior performance to current battery generations.

It was concluded that battery packs suitable for flight with specific energy approaching 400-Watt hours
per kilogram may be achievable in the next decade (cell level 500Wh/kg) given sufficient investment
targeted at aeronautical applications and would make technically possible to fly a full electric E-STOL
125
for at least 300 Km. Hereafter the main technology assumption for the battery pack used in the current
study:

Battery Pack Main assumption Li-S Solid State

Specific Energy (Wh/Kg) 400
Energy Density (Wh/L) 800
Cycle life up to 85% full charge (cycles) 1000

Furthermore, the battery packs are chosen to be placed in the nacelles instead than in the aircraft
radome. This choice allows for:

- More inertia relief on high aspect ratio wing, which is necessary for low drag configurations.
Anyway, this aspect leads to consider struts between wing and fuselage for bending moment
alleviation
- Higher safety, since battery packs are physically separated: any fire onset can be easily
isolated, without affecting the other energy sources.

The MAESTRO engine, developed in the Clean Sky2 activities frame, rated at maximum power 1.1 MW,
is considered as The Internal Combustion Engine (ICE), for the hybrid powertrain.

The hybrid electric powertrain (HEP) is composed by several items, as electric motor, power electronic
(PEC) and electric generators. For each of them, considered EIS 2032, it has been chosen the most
promising foreseen technology in a time frame of 5-10 years. Consequently:

- Electric motors for aeronautical application should have high specific power (KW/kg) and high
specific torque (KNm/kg). The chosen electric motor are permanent magnetic AC axial flux motors,
forecasted to have an efficiency of 96% and a specific power of 6.7 KW/kg, by EIS 2032.

- Electric generators, in the serial architecture scheme, are those coupled with the ICE to
produce electric energy. Because of its power density, high efficiency and well-established control
strategies, the electric generator type is permanent magnet synchronous generator (PMSG), forecast
to have an efficiency up to 99% by EIS 2032.

- PECs are essential components to combine the different power sources and drives on a HEP
architecture and must be high-flexible and lightweight, still maintain all the protecting standard for a
fail-safe and flight-critical operations. They are chosen to be Silicon carbide (SiC) devices, allowing a
mature technology capable of 18 kW/kg and 99% of efficiency by 2032 EIS.

The thermal management system is one of the most crucial systems: high power, conversion and
transportation involve a lot of losses: great amount of heat that must be dissipated and TMS related
capabilities directly influence the aircraft weight. The inputs for a TMS sizing are the utilities maximum
managed power (experienced at take-off for each utility) and the efficiency. For safety reason and to
maintain separately the different specific power TMS, which is dependent on the kind of electrical
items to be cooled down, there are three different independent systems:

1. Main circuit cooling systems:

126
 • AC/DC Converter
• E-generator
2. The primary nacelles circuit:
• Battery
• DC/DC Converter
3. The secondary nacelles circuit:
• Electrical motor
• DC/AC Converter

Figure 59 – Future E-STOL (Electrical/Hybrid Short Take-Off and Landing) 19 seat commuter concept,
EIS 2032.

A comparison of the different architectures of the EIS2028 Concept and the EIS2032 E-STOL airplane
concept is shown in Figure 60 with an overview of the hybrid configuration.

Figure 60 – Architectures of the EIS2028 Concept (left) and the EIS2032 E-STOL airplane concept (right).

127
Figure 61 and Figure 62 show block fuel, CO2 and NOX emissions per mission for both the considered
speeds. E-STOL percentages are referred to Green Loop2, while Green Loop 2 is compared with respect
to the reference aircraft.

Figure 61 – Comparison between E-STOL, reference aircraft and Green Loop2 for CO2 emissions at
different range mission for cruise speed = 230 KTAS.

Figure 62 – Comparison between E-STOL, reference aircraft and Green Loop2 for NOx emissions at
different range mission for cruise speed = 230 kts.

128
These conceptual studies benefited from the participation of Piaggio Aero in the Advisory Boards of
three CS2 thematic projects (HECARRUS52, ELICA53 and UNIFIER1954).

These projects started mid or late 2019 focussing on novel concepts for innovative small commuters
up to 19 seats targeting near zero emissions by means of hybrid/electric technologies, or even fuel
cells and hydrogen.

These projects were targeted to deliver a full preliminary design of a selected aircraft configuration up
to CDR, including aerodynamic and structural calculations, and concluded at the end of 2022.

An example of preliminary concept is shown in Figure 63, using on-board hydrogen storage and hybrid
propulsion including fuel cells.

Figure 63 – Artistic impression of a 19-seater with liquid hydrogen hybrid propulsion technology (based
on preliminary sizing evaluation), courtesy Pipistrel, https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/unifier19-2.

Small aircraft, such as 19-seaters, are most likely to be the first to adopt new hybrid-electric propulsion
technologies taking the advantage offered by cleaner aviation. As conclusions of this study, it is
possible to highlight the following points:

- Hybrid Electric 19 Seat commuter a/c is feasible with next generation battery as energy storage

52
HECARRUS, “Hybrid ElectriC smAll commuteR aiRcraft conceptual deSign”,
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/865089 , https://www.hecarrus.eu
53
ELICA, “Electric Innovative Aircraft”, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864551
54
UNIFIER19, “Community Friendly Miniliner”, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864901 ,
https://www.unifier19.eu
129
- Certification path for electrification is already established

- Capability to perform full electric mission under 200NM

- With hybrid electric mode is it possible to reach CO2 reduction target using SAF (for missions
in a range of 200-400NM)

Clearly there are still some challenges to face before EIS of this a/c, such as the cost-efficiency, as
currently the operation of hybrid electric regional aircraft with 19 seats has relatively high costs, still
today comparable to Twin TP a/c. In addition, further technologies development will be required to
cut costs up to a point where it is commercially viable to operate small regional aircraft in future
transport system.

130
5.1.1.9 Advanced Low Sweep Business Jet Aircraft Concept

Clean Sky 2 TE – Low Sweep Business Jet

Concept Aircraft: 12 PAX – 2900 NM – Mach 0.78 – MTOW 18.7t

Reference Aircraft: Dassault bizjet SoA 2014 – 12 PAX – 2900 NM – Mach 0.75 – MTOW 19.6t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
CO2 [%] – NOX [%] – Assessment
Noise [%]
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
Aircraft Level -25% LTO 2900
-18.5% -16.5%
AP: -4.9 dB (8 PAX – 0.78
[-12%; -25%] [-10%; -23%]
FO: -3.7 dB Mach)
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @2900 NM; 0.78 Mach; 12 PAX – MTOW 18.8t
Aircraft Level TRL @CS2
SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Drag [%]
closure (2024)
-2% to -9% -1.0 t -8 to -13% TRL 4
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD
Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion Internal • IPPS: High BPR, more efficient components

131
 ➔ SFC  9% (highest gain taken into account) (~5%
due to BPR increase, ~4% on component efficiency)
WP 1 – LPA – AIR
→ -3% to -11% CO2
• Scarfed Nozzle → -1dB Noise
• NLF Laminar Wing → Drag  [-8% -13%] → -18% CO2 at
Mach 0.78
Aerodynamics TS A
• Noise shielding tail plane → -6dB noise
• Laminar Nacelle → Drag  [-0.5 to -1.15%] / -1% CO2
• Composite Wing Box → 5% to 10% of overall wing
weight
Airframe TS A-3 – WP1
• Innovative design for Cabin Noise Mitigation → Weight
 (-0.1% MTOW – innovative window area & MF panel)
• Flight Control Load Alleviation → weigh reduction
• EWIPs integration on BJ slat → Enabler for high AR wing
Systems WP1 – LPA – WP3 (protected wingspan increase)
• IMA/RDPC (Integrated Modular avionics/ Remote & Data
Power Cabinet) → Weight  (-0.2% MTOW)
Table 33 – Advanced Low Sweep Business Jet Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance
Improvements, and Technology Enablers.

Two Business Jets models have been elaborated by DASSAULT AVIATION and submitted by the
AIRFRAME ITD to the Technology Evaluator:

• the BJ reference aircraft (BJ 2014), which represents a SoA 2014, classical business jet
• the BJ conceptual aircraft (BJ 2035), which represents what could be a 203555 business jet with
new technologies for the airframe, systems and propulsion, in order to:
o Increase overall cruise efficiency by a better L/D,
o Decrease weight and specific fuel consumption (SFC)
o Decrease the community noise levels

An overview of the environmental benefits, performance improvements, and technology enablers of

the advanced low sweep business jet concept (BJ 2035) against its reference (BJ 2014) is presented in
Table 33.

5.1.1.9.1 Description of integrated Technologies

The selected technology inputs come from Technology Streams developed under both CLEAN SKY 1
(Smart Fixed-Wing Aircraft – SFWA) and CLEAN SKY 2 research since 2015, having reached a
sufficient maturity level (>TRL3) already in 2018, see Table 34 :

Principle
Integrated technology Coming from Expected benefit over conventional technology
effect
CS SFWA
High aspect ratio Natural 8% to 13% of drag reduction, depending of laminarity
CS2 AIR TS A-2 Drag reduction
Laminar Flow wing LPA WP 1.4.6 extension and feasible aspect ratio
U tail CS SFWA Noise Shielding Reduction up 6 dB on fly over, 2.5 dB on approach

55
Many technologies have sufficient maturity for 2025-2030 EIS, progress on noise and CO2 in the 15-20% class
would be possible by then.
132
 Principle
Integrated technology Coming from Expected benefit over conventional technology
effect
CS2 AIR TS A-1
5% to 10% of overall wing weight reduction (12% of
Wing weight wing box, i.e. ~6% of total wing weight taken into
Composite wing CS2 AIR TS A-3
reduction account) – enables more aggressive wing planform
(sweep angle + aspect ratio)
Flight control load CS SFWA weight
alleviation CS2 AIR TS A-4 reduction
IPPS : High BPR, more 9% highest gain taken into account (~5% due to BPR
Internal Research SFC reduction
efficient components increase, ~4% on component efficiency)
LPA WP1.5.4
Scarfed Nozzle Noise reduction 1 dB expected at overall aircraft noise
CS2 AIR TS A-1
Integrated Modular
Weight
Avionic/Remote and Data LPA WP 3.2 (0.2% reduction of MTOW)
reduction
Power Cabinet
Innovative design for cabin Weight (0.1% reduction of MTOW)
LPA WP 1.5.4
noise mitigation reduction
CS2 AIR TS A-2
Laminar Nacelle Drag reduction 1% of drag reduction achievable
EWIPS integration on a BJ Enabler for high AR wing (protected wingspan
CS2 AIR A-4.1.1 Wing enabler
slat increase)
Table 34 – Integrated technologies and expected benefits for the business jet concep

Figure 64 shows the key technologies which were applied (stemming mainly from research under the
AIRFRAME ITD) and their impact in terms of SFC, weight and drag. Based on the information from
Table 34, it can be observed that the new engine will provide a -2 to -9% reduction in SFC, while other
Airframe and Aerodynamic technologies will provide respectively a MTOW reduction of ~ 1 ton and a
-8% to -13% in drag reduction.

REF. BJ 2014 > 2900 nm - Mach 0.75 – 12 PAX – MTOW 19.6 t

Figure 64 – Technology insertion and expected overall performance impacts for the business jet concept.
SFC performance at engine level only before integration.
133
The conceptual Business Jet (compared to its reference counterpart) indicates substantial reductions
in population impacted. On average this reduction is 40% for departures and 48% for arrivals (while
noting the noise-contour areas generally concern already thinly populated areas). These results
followed from a noise assessment of a set of individual departures and arrivals (provided by DASSAULT
AVIATION) for Le Bourget Airport, Geneva Airport, and Zurich Airport. This noise assessment assessed
the population impacted for noise levels 55, 60 and 65 dB LAmax.

In terms of engine contribution, Figure 65 depicts raw engine data on both the 2014 reference airplane
(using the SN2000 engine data) and 2035 concept airplane (using the SN2020 engine data). The SFC
reduction of -9% is attributed for -5% to BPR increase and -4% to improvements in component
efficiencies.

Figure 65 – Engine data and scale factors for BJ2014 (with SN2000) and BJ2035 (with SN2020).

The conceptual aircraft achieves a -25% reduction in CO2 and a -23% reduction in NOx. Laminarity is
one of the key technologies that enables the observed gain. Achieving this is more feasible on a
business jet due to the aircraft's compact size and its capability to operate at high altitudes. Even if the
empty weight does not decrease, it is important to note that the key feature of a composite wing is to
permit the design of higher aspect ratio without large decrease of the sweep angle, thus permitting
an acceptable cruise speed and a better overall cruise efficiency.

In terms of aircraft efficiency, it is difficult to isolate independent contributions from each technology
after integration because of their interactions and interdependencies at overall aircraft level.

Concerning CO2 reduction between reference and concept airplane, Table 35 gives nevertheless an
estimate of a detailed breakdown of each technology contribution and an explanation supporting the
anticipated CO2 and SFC reductions, highlighting these interactions and interdependencies.

134
 Impact on
Item changed Impact on aircraft efficiency cruise
consumption

Engine Change Gain up to SFC -9%, weight change neglected -3% to -11%
Aspect Ratio increased
Lift to drag ratio: +6%
from 9.4 (with winglet
Weight: +1.5% of Empty Weight (limited to this value thanks to -3% to -4.5%
aerodynamic
load alleviation and use of a CFRP wing)
efficiency) to 11
Lift to drag ratio:+2%, reduction of minimal static margin to 0
Static Margin reduction 0% to -2%
thanks of use of fly-by-wire
Keep lift to drag ratio unchanged while increasing cruise Mach
Airfoil Design 0% to -2 %
Number from 0.75 to 0.78.
Lift to drag ratio: up to +8%
Natural Laminar Flow Fuel reserve to obtain the range in case of laminarity not
-4% to -6%
on Wing Upper Surface achieved during mission (due to leading edge pollution for
example) : equivalent to 2% of OEW
Table 35 – Breakdown of technology contributions to the overall gain in performance for the BJ2035.

Regarding noise, the conceptual aircraft shows a -5 dB gain on the approach point and about -4 dB on
overflight. The overall noise footprint shows a significant reduction of around 40%. The two major
contributors for this result are the higher engine BPR and the shielding empennage (U-tail).

The top level aircraft requirements for the advanced and reference business jet concepts are presented
in Table 36.

BJ 2014 aircraft BJ 2035 conceptual

AIRCRAFT
(reference) A/C
Passenger capacity (twin lounge) 12 pax 12 pax
Payload @ Full Fuel (kg)
1500 kg 1500 kg
(Crew, operating items, pax)
Range capability (1) (NM) 2900 NM 2900 NM

Mach number cruise M 0.75 M 0.78

VMO / MMO (kt / -) not a constraint not a constraint
Configuration constraints
Wing span (incl. winglets) (m) not a constraint not a constraint
TOFL (MTOW, SL, ISA) (m) 5000 ft 4500 ft
Initial cruise altitude (ft) (500ft/mn, max climb) 43000 ft 43000 ft
Time to climb to initial crz alt (ISA) (min) 23 mn 23 mn
Max operating altitude (ft) 51000 ft 51000 ft
Approach speed (TLW, SL, ISA) (kt) 110 kt 111 kt
(1): Range with 8 pax, Mach 0.75, NBAA IFR fuel reserve 200NM. Seat kilometer metric assumes an 8 passengers
payload (cabin layout up to 12 passengers is possible)

Table 36 – Advanced & Reference Business Jets Top Level Aircraft Requirements (TLARs).

135
5.1.1.10 People Mover Concept

Clean Sky 2 TE – People Mover – D590

Concept Aircraft: 590 pax – 2000 NM – Mach 0.78 – 65m & 52m span versions (MTOW 225.5t &
230.8t respectively)

Reference Aircraft: (1) SMR 2014 (MTOW 93.5t) – (2) LR2014 (MTOW 275t) – (3) D369 (A350-
1000 similar aircraft; MTOW 319t)

Environmental Benefits (Results)

Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOX [%] – Noise [%] Range for
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Assessment [NM]
65m 52m 65m 52m 65m 52m 2000
Span Span Span Span Span Span [nm]
Ref: SMR2014 -31% -18% -40% N.A. N.A. N.A.
Ref: LR2014 -49% -40% -62% N.A. N.A. N.A.
Ref: D369 – A350- -43% -33% N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
1000 similar
aircraft
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @2000 NM; max. pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW [t] Drag [%] TRL @CS2 closure
(2024)
65m 52m 65m 52m 65m 52m N.A.
Span Span Span Span Span Span
Ref: D239 – SMR N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
2014 – A321neo-
like
Ref: D315 – LR N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
2014 – A350-900-
like
136
 Ref: D369 – A350- -7.6% -7.4% -13.1% -13.4% -4.6% +11.2%
1000 similar
aircraft
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers – Evaluation vs. D369 Aircraft @ 2000NM, 65m span limit
CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion LPA ENG • UltraFan – Rolls Royce (Lean Burn Comb. Chamber)
WP5-6 ➔ SFC  / Weight 
➔ Drag increase on Nacelle 
➔ Mach  / SFC 
Aerodynamics LPA Platform • UltraFan Integration
1
Airframe LPA Platform • Composite advancements → Weight :
2 & ITD ▪ NG Fuselage
Airframe ▪ NG Tail
▪ NG Wing
Systems N.A. -
Table 37 – People Mover Concept: Environmental Benefits, Performance Improvements, and Technlogy
Enablers.

Motivation

The People Mover aircraft is a recognized concept tailored for transporting significant passenger
volumes over short distances, specifically optimized for short-haul operations. Historically, the aircraft
design of the People Mover concept has prioritized economic considerations. However, in alignment
with the European Green Deal, forthcoming aircraft designs must also prioritize reducing their
environmental impact to ensure sustainability.During the first global assessment 2020 of the Clean Sky
2 Joint Undertaking Technology Evaluator56 [1], a shift towards larger capacity aircraft was identified
when comparing flight data from 2019 with the market forecast for 2050. Furthermore, the majority
of flights in 2050 (about 80%) are expected to be concentrated on shorter routes as depicted in Figure
66. Thus, for larger aircraft with more than 300 seats, the majority of flights are expected to be less
than 4000km. In order to satisfy the air traffic demand and to serve the operational missions in 2050
the People Mover, a wide-body aircraft designed for shorter distances, offers a significant potential,
which will be evaluated in the People Mover study conducted by the DLR.

For this assessment, the People Mover aircraft is designed and optimized according to the derived top-
level aircraft requirements and airport constraints described by Wöhler at all57. In the following,
rationales of the People Mover design and results of the mission level assessment are summarized,
and the emissions assessment is presented in detail. An overview of the DLR concept’s potential

56
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Technology Evaluator, First Global Assessment 2020, Technical Report, May
2021.
57
Wöhler, S., Walther, J.-N., Grimme, W.: „ Design of a People-Mover Aircraft under Airport Constraints and
Comparison to Single-Aisle Aircraft Efficiency”, 33rd ICAS Congress, September 2022, Stockholm, Sweden.
137
environmental benefits and performance improvements is presented together with the CS2
technologies considered in Table 37.

Figure 66 – Market opportunity (red square) for a large passenger aircraft optimized for short haul
operations based on the “First Global Assessment 2020” market forecast for the year 2050.

The People Mover aircraft is designed to transport large numbers of passengers on short to medium
range routes up to 4000 km, as derived from the 2050 market forecast. As noted in the first global
assessment in 2020, traffic in this market segment is expected to increase from 2019 to 2050 due to
but not limited to, the airport capacity constraints. Based on today's fleet composition, large
widebodies optimized for long-range operations would have to replace smaller single-aisle aircraft to
increase traffic at airports operating at full slot capacity. On the other hand, widebodies are already
being deployed on high-frequency routes. Therefore, the People Mover aircraft is intended to replace
both today's and future single-aisle and widebody flights in this specific part of the market and is
therefore compared to the long-range reference LR2014 as well as to the short-medium-range
reference the SMR2014 (summarized in Table 38) on the 2000 NM evaluation mission, defined by
Airbus as the representative mission of the short-range sector.

Table 38 – List of vehicles assessed in this report.

Concept model Corresponding reference model

People Mover aircraft LR2014 and SMR2014

138
To assess the potential of the People Mover concept, the highest possible number of seats was
evaluated based on the LR2014 reference aircraft, an A350-900 similar aircraft. The design is therefore
inspired from an Airbus A350-1000 aircraft and compared to the SMR2014 and LR2014 reference
aircraft to determine the potential CO2 and NOX emissions savings per passenger seat. In order to
achieve the short haul comfort standard of the SMR2014 aircraft, a study was conducted to identify
the maximum number of passengers that could be accommodated within a cabin geometry inspired
from the Airbus A350-1000 while maintaining a comparable comfort standard for short haul
operations. As the result, a cabin layout for 590 passengers is derived with respect to the certification
specifications and the advised comfort standard as depicted in Figure 67.

Figure 67 – Proposed single-class seat layout for the People Mover aircraft.

Top-Level Aircraft Requirements

Once the market and size of the People Mover design are established, the top-level aircraft
requirements (TLAR) of the widebody aircraft will need to be adjusted for high frequency, short range
operations and the associated airport infrastructure. As previously mentioned, the People Mover will
be designed for a range of 4000km and 590 passengers in single class layout with a maximum payload
of 60t. The maximum payload compared to the design payload is only increased by small margin since
the capability to carry additional cargo is less relevant for short-haul than for long-haul operations.
Thus, the People Mover is optimized for passenger transport only. The flight Mach number and the
maximum operating altitude will be adapted to the characteristics of the SMR2014 in order to
integrate into the established short-haul operations and airspace restrictions.

The People Mover aircraft is intended to operate primarily at slot-restricted airports. Therefore, a
seamless integration into today’s operations is required in terms of separation and noise restrictions
during approach, resulting in an approach speed comparable to the reference. The maximum take of
field length (TOFL) has to be reduced due to the available airport infrastructure for the advised market.
Extension of the runway length at certain airports for the foreseeable future is not considered in the
study.

Table 39 summarizes the TLARs for the People Mover together with the TLARs for the SMR 2014 and
LR2014.

139
 Table 39 – Top-level aircraft requirements of the reference aircraft and the People Mover design.

SMR2014 LR2014 D590

Design Range [nm] 3000 7000 2160

Design PAX [-] 200 315 590

Mass per PAX [kg] 95 95 95

Design Payload [kg] - - 56050

Max. Payload [kg] - - 60000

Cruise Mach number [-] 0.78 0.85 0.78

Max. operating altitude [ft] 40000 43000 40000

TOFL (ISA +0K SL) [m] 2400 2800 2500

Rate of Climb @ TOC [ft/min] >300 >300 >300

Approach Speed (CAS) [kt] <140 <140 <140

Wing span limit [m] 36 65 65

Description of Integrated Technologies

The purpose of the PM study is to compare the People Mover design with the two reference aircraft.
The SMR2014 is an aircraft similar to the Airbus A321neo and was originally designed during the 1980s
with an engine upgrade in 2015, while the LR2014, an Airbus A350-900 similar aircraft, was designed
for entry into service in 2015, introducing the application of carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP)
for wing and fuselage manufacturing. Thus, deriving the People Mover aircraft from a reference
inspired by the Airbus A350-1000 only allows for minor technological improvements compared to the
SMR2014 reference. In order to be introduced with significant market penetration by 2050, the People
Mover aircraft is designed for a technology scenario anticipated for 2035. Table 40 elaborates the main
assumptions for the technology factors applied to the People Mover design with regard to the A350-
like 2015 state-of-the-art technology. The assumptions are derived from various projects and are
applied at the overall aircraft design level.

140
 Table 40 – Technology assumption for the People Mover design for a 2035 scenario.

Expected benefit over

Integrated technology Principle effect
conventional technology

UHBR Engine Improved thermal efficiency and 11% engine performance

optimization for Mach 0.78 improvement

Advanced CFRP on wings Advanced manufacturing and assembly 5% structural mass savings
and fuselage methods and improved material on wing and fuselage
characteristics
3% structural mass savings
on VTP and HTP

No improvement on Potential mass reductions are -

aircraft level for onboard mitigated by new requirements and
systems, furnishing and certification rules as well as additional
operator items modularity and increased complexity

People Mover Design

The following design assumptions are made for the design of the people mover aircraft:

The fuselage geometry is kept constant for consistency with the A350. Furnishings, operator items as
well as the environmental control system (ECS) and auxiliary power unit are adapted to accommodate
590 passengers on short-haul operation. As a result, fewer galleys are integrated and less catering is
required. The crew rest compartment, inflight entertainment system and the business class seats are
redundant for high-density short-haul operations. Liquids, such as unusable fuel, oil and water, and
the emergency equipment are adapted to the new tank size and higher seat count. To supply the ECS
and galleys, the engine bleed and power offtakes must be increased and are scaled for the number of
passengers.

The wing area is resized for take-off and landing performance and for fuel capacity, while maintaining
the wing span to the 65m box limit. Adjustments to the planform designs are made with respect to the
lower flight Mach number and altitude for the profiles, relative chord thickness, wing sweep and taper
ratio. As a result of the A350-like calibration, a comparatively low maximum landing coefficient of 2.25
is identified. This leads to the conclusion, that the wing area was mainly driven by the need for tank
volume among other factors and not by low speed performance. Therefore, for the People Mover, the
high-lift system is adapted to achieve a higher maximum landing coefficient by adjusting the movable
layout resulting in a reduced wing area and higher achievable aspect ratio.

The overall changes to the aircraft design require a redesign of the engines. A new thermodynamic
model is developed to incorporate the thrust requirements for take-off, end of field, top of climb and
mid-cruise conditions. The engine is modeled as a geared turbofan with a bypass of 15.5. Based on this

141
architecture, the engine performance deck, geometry and masses are derived and utilized in the design
of the People Mover.

The empennage is resized according to the revised wing keeping the volume coefficient constant.
Finally, the new set of TLARs and the technology factors are applied.

Figure 68 depicts the People Mover design in three views.

Figure 68 – Three-view of the People Mover concept.

Chemical Emissions and Fuel Burn

After integration of the engine map including emission indices, the detailed mission calculation is
performed. For the aircraft mission calculation, the equation of motion is solved for each time or mass
step as a function of the aerodynamic polars and the engine performance maps, and thus the fuel
consumption for evaluation and corresponding reserve emissions is calculated. A step-climb optimized
for engine performance is calculated for the trajectory, while optimization of the initial cruise altitude
for maximum specific range is also performed.

The indices for nitrogen oxides emissions (NOX) depend not only on the fuel, but also on the
combustion chamber technology used, the thermodynamic boundary conditions and the quality of the
combustion chamber design. These emissions are modelled using correlation-based models, which
were calibrated using data of existing combustion chambers. In this project, an RQL combustor design
was assumed. The model calibration was based on the emission characteristics of the Talon X
combustor of the PW1100G with data from the ICAO database. A 5% reduction in NOX emissions is

142
assumed for EIS=2035. NOX emissions are calculated using the P3-T3 method. The load-dependent
emission characteristics are provided as part of the engine map.

Mission Level Assessment

The emission of the People Mover is compared to the SMR2014 and LR2014 reference aircraft on the
representative evaluation mission of 2,000 NM to determine the potential CO2 and NOX emissions
savings in total and per passenger seat with 100% load factor for all aircraft.

Figure 69 visualizes the trajectories of the People Mover aircraft and the SMR2014 and LR2014
reference aircraft on the 2,000 NM evaluation mission.

Figure 69 – People Mover trajectory of the 2,000 NM representative short-range mission in comparison to
SMR2014 and LR2014.

Due to the maximum altitude constraint of 40,000 ft imposed on the People Mover aircraft (cfr. TLARs
in Table 39), its resulting flight level for the 2,000 NM mission is similar to the cruise altitude of the
SMR2014 aircraft for short-haul operations: around FL350, as seen on Figure 69. Since the 2,000 NM
mission range is closer to the design mission of the People Mover design (Design Mission of the PM:
2,160 NM – see Table 39) than the SMR2014 design mission (3,000 NM), the PM tends to fly slightly
lower as it is closer to its maximum take-off mass compared to the SMR2014. The LR2014 is relatively
light with respect to its maximum take-off mass and tends to climb near its maximum operating
altitude because it flies a short mission compared to its design range.

143
 Table 41 – Comparison of the emissions of the People Mover aircraft to the SMR2014 and LR2014
reference aircraft [3] on the 2000nm evaluation mission.

Mission CO2 total NOX total CO2 total NOX total

range mission mission mission mission
per PAX per PAX
People Mover vs SMR2014 2000nm +104% +78% -31% -40%
People Mover vs LR2014 2000nm -5% -28% -49% -62%

Table 41 summarizes the CO2 and NOX emissions of the People Mover aircraft on the 2,000 NM
evaluation mission compared to the SMR2014 and LR2014 reference aircraft, both in total and per
passenger seat. Compared to the SMR2014, the CO2 and NOX emissions of the People Mover aircraft
are almost twice as high since it is designed to carry almost three times the number of passengers,
which already indicates a high efficiency of the People Mover design. CO2 emissions per seat are
reduced by 31% and NOX emissions are reduced by 40% due to the advanced engine design and
technologies applied, along with the higher efficiency of the concept to carry a larger number of
passengers over roughly the same design range. Compared to the LR2014 aircraft, overall CO2
emissions are similar, with a slight reduction of 5%, while NOX emissions are reduced by 28% while
carrying nearly double the number of passengers. On a per-seat basis, the People Mover's savings
potential is even more significant than that of the SMR2014, with a 49% reduction in CO2 and a 62%
reduction in NOX emissions. The per-seat savings potential over the LR2014 is even greater, as the long-
haul aircraft is flown in a highly off-design condition on the very short evaluation route.

Conclusions

This report presents the design of a People Mover aircraft based on the DLR market forecast for 2050
under capacity constraints of the prospective airport infrastructure. The People Mover academic
aircraft concept was inspired from the state-of-the-art on long range design, and derived to carry 590
passengers over a range of 4,000km for an anticipated technology scenario in 2035. The assumptions
made for the adaptions of the TLARS, the selection of technology factors and the rationales for the
aircraft design decisions are introduced and discussed. Subsequently, the emission assessment was
carried out and presented. Since the People Mover aircraft is expected to replace both, single-aisle
and widebody aircraft, the comparison with the SMR2014 and LR2014 is performed.

At mission level, the results demonstrate the advantage of the People Mover concept over the
SMR2014 and LR2014 reference in terms of the emission savings potential. Due to the advanced engine
design and technologies applied, as well as the higher efficiency of the concept to carry a larger number
of passengers, a CO2 reduction of approximately 30% is predicted compared to the SMR2014 and about
50% with respect to the LR2014 reference. For NOX, even higher reductions of up to approximately
40% and 60% compared to the SMR2014 and LR2014 respectively are predicted.

144
The People Mover academic concept was designed and analysed with DLR’s own aircraft modelling
tool openAD58. The tool uses analytical, empirical and physics-based methods to determine the
properties (e.g., aerodynamics, flight performance) of an aircraft. These methods either stem from
established literature or are DLR-internal developments, which have a proven track-record for their
applicability for overall aircraft design.

For the People Mover the design assumptions with regard to the technologies employed in the LR+
concept aircraft have been aligned with Airbus, such that they correspond to their modelling
assumptions. In this process openAD has been calibrated slightly to match the LR2014 reference
aircraft, with data available in the respective Mission Level report.

With regard to both design tools – Airbus uses PANEM in Clean Sky2 – no details have been shared
between DLR and Airbus, as PANEM relies on Airbus’ proprietary design and performance data.

Further studies will be needed to confirm the viability and performance of a People Mover concept, in
order to increase the maturity of these first academic results and through more detailed comparative
analyses, against closer reference aircraft, such as an aircraft similar to the A350-1000 at maximum
seating configuration (A350-1000 certified for 480 seats in single class).

58
Wöhler, S., et. Al. Preliminary Aircraft Design within a Multidisciplinary and Multifidelity Design Environment;
Aerospace Europe Conference 2020, 25th -28th Feb. 2020, Bordeaux, France.
145
 5.1.2 Fast Rotorcraft
Besides the fixed-wing aircraft concepts described in the previous section, the Clean Sky 2 programme
also features two fast rotorcraft concepts and demonstrators: the compound helicopter and the tilt-
rotor.

These concepts represent two different approaches to provide vertical take-off and landing capability
to an air vehicle.

The first approach, proposed by Airbus Helicopters (AH), is to add forward thrust propellers to an
existing helicopter in order to almost double its cruise speed. This concept is based on the Eurocopter
X3 first prototype, shown in Figure 70. An average helicopter can reach a top speed of somewhere
between 130 and 140 kts, which comes out to about 260 km/h. The Eurocopter X 3 targets a cruise
speed somewhere in the neighbourhood of 220 kts (407 km/h) in stable and level flight. First flown in
2010, the X3 achieved in 2013 an unofficial helicopter speed record of 255kts (472km/h) in level flight
and 268 kts (491 km/h) in descent, showing a safe behaviour all across the flight envelope.

Figure 70 – The Airbus Helicopters first compound prototype X3.

Airbus Helicopters has completed the development phase of the RACER59 technology demonstrator,
a unique research aircraft.. The final assembly of the RACER prototype was performed at the end of
2023 and its first flight took place in April 2024 (Figure 71).

59
RACER: Rapid and Cost-Efficient Rotorcraft.
146
 Figure 71 – RACER Flight Test Demonstration. 25 April 2024. Courtesy of Airbus Helicopters.

The second approach, proposed by Leonardo Helicopters, is to provide tilting capability to the
propellers of an aircraft, which must be therefore designed as large lifting rotors for vertical take-off
and hover. The aircraft AW609 (see Figure 72), first flown in 2003, is a concept which answers the need
for an aircraft with the speed, range and altitude of a fixed-wing turboprop airplane and the vertical
take-off and landing versatility of a helicopter.

Figure 72 – LHD’s AW609 Tilt-Rotor development aircraft prototype.

147
Leonardo’s NGTCR60 concept is targeting its first flight in 2024 and is also an outstanding example of
an extended European collaboration on innovative aeronautical projects. The collaboration includes
over 70 organizations such as major aerospace companies, SMEs, research institutes and universities
with over 25 different partnerships from 14 countries comprising Italy, Germany, The Netherlands,
France, Austria, Switzerland, Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the
UK therefore creating all new synergies.

These vehicles are most appropriate for vertical operations and hovering in many missions, in
particular, oil and gas, construction or transport, mountainous operations but especially for life-saving
missions such as search and rescue (SAR), or fast medical evacuation/emergency medical services
(EMS). In the latter cases, time is most precious and for serious traumatic injuries, increasing the
statistical chances of survival by enabling prompt medical or surgical intervention within “the golden
hour” is the key factor, the “raison d’être” for this type of machines.

Aeromechanical engineers have long grappled with the challenge of making a vehicle able to take off
and land vertically, hover, and achieve very fast cruise speeds—an almost-mythic combination of lift
and forward thrust. Advances in the field of V/STOL61 aircraft have given rise to scores of variations.
Many models succeeded in experimental stages, some achieved production status—most at a
significant cost or for a limited market.

Airbus Helicopters’ RACER demonstrator and Leonardo Helicopter’s NGCTR demonstrator both aim to
go further, by showing that these particular concepts are the answer to cost-efficient, fast flight.

60
NGCTR: Next Generation Civil Tilt-Rotor.
61
V/STOL: Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing.
148
5.1.2.1 Compound Helicopter Concept: RACER

Clean Sky 2 TE – RACER Airbus Helicopters Compound

>400 nm EIS TIMEFRAME 2030

Concept Aircraft: 12 pax – > 400 NM – 220 kTAS – MTOW 7-8T class
Reference Aircraft: TESM generic helicopter – 12 pax – 400 NM – 160 kTAS – MTOW 7-8T class
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOX [%] – Noise [%] Assessment
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Range [NM]
-6% to -20% -49% to -55% -36 to - 43% 51 to 339
(70dbA contour)
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @279 NM; 180kts; max. pax.
Aircraft Level Fuel Burn [%] Mass – MTOW Drag [%] TRL @CS2
[t] closure (2024)
-6% to -20% 7-8t class -45% TRL 6
Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
149
 Propulsion • ECO-MODE → SFC - 12% fuel burn on explored mission
(power plant) scenarios
➔ CO2: -12%
➔ NOx: -50%
➔ Noise: n/a
Aerodynamics • Landing gear system: retractable + doors → -1.6% CO2
• Rotorless tail for fast rotorcraft → -0.9% CO2
• Rotor Head Fairing → -2% CO2
• Lateral Rotors → -1.6% CO2
• Low drag fuselage → -2% CO2
Airframe • Mechanical Drive → n/a
Systems • n/a
Table 42 – Compound Helicopter Concept – RACER: Environmental Benefits, Performance Improvements,
and Technlogy Enablers.

The RACER (Rapid and Cost-Effective Rotorcraft) is a high-speed compound helicopter concept
developed by Airbus Helicopters based on the Eurocopter X³ prototype. Optimised for a cruise speed
of 220 kts (~ 400 km/h), 50% faster than a conventional helicopter, the objectives are to consume 20%
less fuel per distance at 180 kts (333 km/h) than a helicopter of equivalent weight at 130 kts
(241 km/h), and aims for a 25% cost reduction per distance.

The lateral pusher propellers generate thrust and are isolated from passengers during ground
operations by the box wings, which also serve to generate lift at cruise velocity. This allows the main
rotor to be slowed down by up to 15% as the vehicle air speed increases and prevents the rotor blades
breaking the sound barrier, which would reduce performance. An overview of the environmental
benefits and performance improvements of the concept is presented in Table 42 together with its key
integrated technologies.

Figure 73 – Airbus Helicopters RACER concept. X-Ray type image of internal components layout.
Courtesy Airbus Helicopters.

150
Driven by two Safran Aneto-1X engines, of which one is capable of shutting down and restarting once
inflight to save fuel and increase range (the so-called Safran’s “eco-mode”), it will have a low weight
and low maintenance hybrid metallic-composite airframe and lower weight high voltage direct
current electrical generation.

Most of the technologies integrated in the TE concept model of the RACER (Figure 73) come from the
FRC IADP or from the Airframe ITD, see Table 44. The key design drivers for hover, for cruise and for
acoustics are illustrated in Figure 74, Figure 75, and Figure 76, with major contributions from the Clean
Sky Core Partner projects NACOR, PROPTER and NAFTI.

As to the performance evaluation of this concept, comparison has been made so far versus a generic
helicopter of equal passenger capacity (12 pax) and typical rotorcraft characteristics, the TESM (Twin-
Engine Super Medium Baseline, that has a comparable MTOW and capacity (Table 43). It has a best
range speed (VBR) of 135 kts vs 180kts for the RACER and a similar range of 741km/400nm. Two
2,500 hp (1,900 kW) Safran Aneto-1X were selected to power the RACER (over the RTM322 initially
considered), being 25% more compact for the same power.

Best range speed

TRL target
Range (Vbr) EIS
Aircraft #Pax MTOW Power @CS2
nm Max cruise speed window
close
(Vh)
High Speed 400
180 kts (333 km/h) 7-8 t
Concept Compound (741
220kts (407 km/h)
12 2x2500shp 2030+ 6
Helicopter (RACER) km) class
400
Twin Engine Super 135 kts (240 km/h) 7-8 t
Reference
Medium
(741
168 kts (311 km/h)
12 2x1700shp 2010 n/a
km) class
Table 43 – Main flight performance characteristics of RACER and TESM generic reference helicopter.

SPD WP FRC FRC platform Technology Integrated

providing interfacing to int TE
input TE concept
model

FRC 2B.2 4 RACER Canopy: light weight composite allow yes

structure

FRC 2B.2 4 RACER Windshield: polycarbonate yes

windshield bird strike resistant for
high speed

FRC 2B.3 4 RACER Landing system: doors included in yes

the landing gear

AIR B4.1 4 RACER Rotorless tail yes

FRC 2C.4 4 RACER Lifting rotor yes

FRC 2C.5 4 RACER Lateral rotors yes

151
FRC 2C.6 4 RACER Mechanical drive yes

FRC 2C.7 4 RACER Engines including ECO-mode yes

FRC 2C.9 4 RACER Lateral rotors actuator, lateral pitch yes

control system

FRC 2D.8 4 RACER Electrical system: including high yes

voltage

FRC 2D.9 4 RACER New sensors for lateral rotors pitch yes
command

FRC 2D.12 4 RACER Flight Management System no

including: Low noise procedure

Table 44 – Clean Sky 2 technology streams contributing to the RACER concept.

Figure 74 – Key design drivers for Hover, RACER, Airbus Helicopters.

152
 Figure 75 - Key design drivers for Cruise, RACER, Airbus Helicopters.

Figure 76 – Key design drivers for Acoustics, RACER, Airbus Helicopters.

The current emission indicators which were used for the comparison were the normalized metrics
kg(CO2)/passenger/km, kg(NOx)/passenger/km and the noise footprint maps. The equivalent overall
travel time was used as the current mobility criteria.

153
The analysis covered a number of simulated missions, always at maximum payload (12 pax) except
for SAR and EMS, see some examples in Table 45 and Table 46:

• Search and Rescue (SAR),

• Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
• Airport Hub Feeder (AHF),
• Passenger transport DTD and CIT (Door To Door and Commercial Intercity Transport)

Intermediate mission Clean Sky 2

SPD Concept vehicle level Improvements
CO2 NOx CO2 NOx
SAR 2 -11 % -59%
EMS 5 -13 % -62%
Airbus Helicopters:
FRC PAT -DTD 2 -8% -55% 20% 20%
Compound (220kts)
PAT – AHF 5 -9.5% -56%
PAT – CIT 4 -6% -44%
Table 45 –results for CO2 and NOx emissions reduction for a few typical RACER missions.

Additionally, the impact of ECO-Mode has been assessed of few relevant missions:

Intermediate mission Clean Sky 2

Concept vehicle level Improvements

SPD CO2 NOx CO2 NOx

Airbus Helicopters: PAT -DTD 2 - 17% -51%
Compound (180kts ECO PAT – AHF 5 - 20% -51% 20% 20%
MODE)
Table 46 –results for CO2 and NOx emissions reduction for a few typical RACER missions with ECO
MODE.

When comparing the RACER with a conventional helicopter of similar MTOW class, it is obvious that
higher cruise speed and performance characteristics can be achieved only through higher power
installed for the power train. Nevertheless, with innovations/enhancements proposed on the RACER
and integrating the fuel consumption and NOx emissions over the complete mission, significant
improvements can be observed. The fuel and CO2 metric (kg/pax/km) was seen to decrease by 6% to
13% over all calculated missions. NOx emissions were reduced by 44 % to 62%.

While the NOx emissions objectives are achieved, even largely exceeded mainly thanks to the engine
low NOx combustor characteristics.

The effect of Eco-mode utilization was explored and quantified for the PAT scenarios where the RACER
may utilize its Eco mode feature. This resulted in fuel/CO2 reductions between 18-20%, NOx emissions
up to 50% and mission time reductions between 23 and 24%.
With the ECO-MODE the RACER is able to reach the initial CS2 objective. The benefits being affected
by the mission scenario range, the gains are significantly increased for higher range missions

154
For SAR and EMS missions in particular, emissions reduction may not be considered as the key
criterion. Here, the key performance indicators are the area covered in less than 1 hour for SAR, and
for EMS, a direct criterion is the distance reached in 1 hour or an indirect criterion is the survival rate
of victims of accidents. It is clear that all missions which the RACER concept is able to cover provide an
attractive solution for mobility, in terms of range, speed and payload (see Figure 77). Another interest
of the ECO-mode in SAR missions is the significant reduction of fuel consumption (-27%) during the
loiter phase (around 90 kts). Here also, this advantage can be used either for reduction of emissions
or for improvement of mission efficiency.

In all cases simulated, the overall mission time was reduced by 25.9% to 43.5% and the RACER allows
to double the area covered in 1-hour for SAR missions (Figure 78), and save more people with
eventually lower infrastructure needs, i.e. the number of required rescue bases (Figure 79).

This new vehicle concept has been designed with a target EIS of 2030+. The flight demonstration
campaign of the prototype started in 2024.

Figure 77 – Key assessment criteria versus mission goals for the RACER.

155
 Figure 78 – Area covered within 1 hour for SAR interventions at 140kts and 220kts.

Figure 79 – Reduction of the number of heliports required to serve a given area based on the RACER
performance.

156
5.1.2.2 VTOL Aircraft Concept: Next Generation Civil Tilt-Rotor (NGCTR)

Clean Sky 2 TE – NGCTR (Next Gen Civil Tilt Rotor) Leonardo Helicopters Tilt-Rotor

EIS TIMEFRAME 2035

Concept Aircraft: NGCTR – 24 pax – 1000 NM – 250 kTAS – MTOW 17t

Reference Aircraft: (1) TEH Generic Helicopter – 24 pax – 448 NM – 135 kTAS – MTOW 10.4t
(2) Leonardo Helicopters AW139-like – 15 pax – 570 NM – 145 kTAS – MTOW 6.4t
Environmental Benefits (Results)
Aircraft Level CO2 [%] – NOX [%] – Noise [%] Range for
kg/pax/NM kg/pax/NM Assessment
[NM]
v.s. TEH -48% to -54% -40% to -46% -98% SELA 80dB Extrema within
-92% LAMAX 70dB [311; 450]
v.s. AW139 -48% to -71% -52% to -59% -97% SELA 80dB Extrema within
-93% LAMAX 70dB [310; 450]
Performance Improvements – Evaluation @362 NM; max. pax.
Aircraft Level SFC [%] Mass – OEW Drag [%] TRL @CS2
[kg] vs 2014soA closure (2024)
-13.5% -510kg -4.5% TRL 6
157
 Technology Mapping – Key Enablers
CS2 SPD Enablers Description & Results
Contribution
Propulsion WP 2.7 • Fixed Engine – Split Gearbox Drivetrain Concept → +0.8%
MTOW; -13.4% SFC → -12.5% CO2; -12.7% NOX
Aerodynamics WP 2.2 • Advanced Aerodynamic Wing Architecture → -4.5% Drag
• Aerodynamic Optimized V-Tail Configuration → -0.3%
Drag → -0.2% CO2; -0.3% NOX
• Tilting Prop-rotors
• Efficient Nacelle for new Engine → +0.2% Empty Weight;
+3.3% Drag → +2.0% CO2; +3.5% NOX
Airframe WP 2.3/5 & • Advanced Structural Wing Architecture → Weight 
WP B4-2 (-1.2% MTOW)
• Advanced Materials for Tail
• Drivetrain, fixed engine & conversion actuators
• Efficient Nacelle Architecture (+0.2% Empty Weight)
Systems WP 2.6 • Scalable Modular Distributed FCS → -0.1% CO2 & NOX
Table 47 – Next Generation Civil Tilt-Rotor Helicopter Concept – NGCTR: Environmental Benefits,
Performance Improvements, and Technlogy Enablers.

Leonardo Helicopters Division (LHD) responded to the CS2 challenge by proposing the Next Generation
Civil Tilt Rotor (NGCTR), with the purpose of increasing performance and operational capability over
current tilt-rotor configurations. It envisions a substantial increase in productivity and operational
capability for various civil missions and public service scenarios, thanks to a cruise speed in the order
of 280 kts – about twice the typical helicopter speeds and closer to that of a turboprop aircraft – and
a maximum operating range of about 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km).

This aircraft will have dimensions comparable to those of a helicopter and will operate in all weather
conditions and comfort level similar to those of an airliner thanks to its pressurized cabin and very high
maximum ceiling (25,000 ft), that of an aircraft. This will allow to expand the opportunities to ensure
people’s mobility and freight transportation, reaching remote geographical areas that today
helicopters and airplanes cannot reach easily. This will be achieved by minimizing the environmental
impact through reduced emissions (CO2, NOx, noise) and without the need to create large and
expensive infrastructures.

The NGCTR concept involves several technological demonstrators of the main systems, as well as a
full-scale Technological Demonstrator (NGCTR TD) necessary to perform the experimental flights and
the validation of architectures and new technologies. Its first flight is planned in 2024. An overview of
the environmental benefits and performance improvements of the concept is presented in Table 47
together with its key integrated technologies.

5.1.2.2.1 NGCTR’s 5 Enabling Technologies

The demonstrator activities within CS2 are aimed at validating five enabling technologies which are
the main features of the concept vehicle:

158
 • Split gearbox drivetrain concept and non-tilting engine installation (referred to as static
engine)
• Advanced modular, distributed and scalable flight control system
• Advanced wing architecture
• Efficient nacelle architecture
• Optimized tail configuration
A mapping of the different enabling technologies and their respective targets is shown in Table 48.

NGCTR CS2 enabling

SPD Technologies’ targets
technologies
• Expand the choice of non-tilting engines
with more efficient SFC
• Transmit torque, from the engines to
Fixed-Engine, Split Gearbox –
the proprotors, by two engine fixed
Drivetrain Concept
gearboxes, two proprotor tilting
gearboxes, one mid wing gearbox and
the interconnecting driveshaft system
• Provide satisfactory handling qualities
• Ensure increased safety
Advanced Modular
• Minimize crew workload
Distributed Scalable FCS
FRC • Implement approach maneuvers for
noise minimization
• Guarantee optimal accessibility of all
Efficient Nacelle Architecture systems
• Reduce overall drag in cruise
• Generate force to share aircraft lift with
rotors during conversion
Advanced Wing Architecture
• Guarantee high aerodynamic efficiency
• Reduce rotor download
Optimized • Vee type configuration to ensure
Aerodynamics Tail longitudinal and lateral, stability and
Advanced Configuration controllability, and to sustain flight and
AIR
Materials ground loads
Table 48 – Technology mapping and targets for the NGCTR concept.

The impact of the technologies has been assessed using specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
which enable to assess how much a single system/subsystem, part of an enabling technology, affects
each performance driver (e.g., mass, drag, SFC, noise) at aircraft level and, consequently, how much a
modification of a single technology affects the entire aircraft’s performance driver.

When assessing technologies, a challenge arises in comparing the benefits of tiltrotor technology with
those of a traditional helicopter, as they have inherently different components. A one-to-one
comparison was finalized to quantify the technological leap guaranteed by enabling technologies with
respect to a 2014 technological state-of-the art. A set of KPIs were defined to address the 2014
technological state-of-the-art in terms of SFC, mass and drag. Then the deltas were calculated to

159
quantify the deviation from the NGCTR-C computational model. The findings (Figure 80) were obtained
by analysing the contribution of each technology group calculated on a reference mission of 362NM
from Dortmund to Lyon Saint Exupery Airport, which was selected for the evaluation.

III) Nacelle and

I) Advanced Wing V) Flight control
II) Optimized Tail IV) Drivetrain
Configuration sys. concept
concept
Enabling technologies
benefits on NGCTR-C

ΔCO2 ΔNOx ΔCO2 ΔNOx ΔCO2 ΔNOx ΔCO2 ΔNOx

-2.8% -4.9% -0.2% -0.3% -10.4% -9.2% -0.1% -0.1%
Figure 80 – Environmental impact of the 5 technologies for the Tilt-Rotor flight test demonstrator (2024)
and the EIS 2035 concept on 632nm passenger transport mission.

The environmental impact on the reference passenger mission shows a CO2 decrease of 51.3%
compared to the reference vehicle, which represents the helicopter fleet in 2014. According to the
previous figure, the 5 enabling technologies provide a 13.5 % benefit. In the first instance, we can
therefore state that a CO2 reduction of 13.5% in the reference mission is due to the technological
improvements themselves compared to the state of the art in 2014, while the remaining is attributable
to the tiltrotor architecture itself. This demonstrates how the effort to ensure the performance of a
fast rotorcraft in order to improve manufacturing efficiency and, hence, costs have not jeopardised
the environmental impact of the different technologies, which, when combined, show an
improvement in both CO2 and NOx.

5.1.2.2.2 NGCTR Conceptual Aircraft

Regarding the performance assessment of the NGCTR, the difficulty arises of comparing the benefit of
a tiltrotor versus a reference helicopter which has, by nature, very different specifications or
characteristics. A sensitivity analysis has been performed on a reference mission representative of all
the scenarios considered for the environmental assessment (OAG, PAT-AHF, PAT-CIT and CGT).

The environmental impact has been initially calculated with respect to a reference 2014 state-of-the
aircraft: an intermediate class helicopter, with a payload capability of up to 15 passengers, the AW139
(Table 49). This reference helicopter was chosen also because it represents a large portion of the
current OAG fleet, and the NGCTR specifically targets fleet replacement in this market segment.

Typical mission results show that in general the NGCTR performs better at longer distances flown. At
ATS level, mobility benefits were found to be mission-dependent. For Oil and Gas missions, time
benefits between 23.2% and 36.5% have been observed, depending on the average mission distance:
the longer the mission, the higher the benefits. A 100% replacement of current OAG fleet with tilt-
160
rotor aircraft would lead to a 30% to 70+% increase in transport capacity (i.e., in terms of ASK). Mission
times for passenger transport were found to be reduced by 32% to 39%.

Table 49 – Main flight performance characteristics of NGCTR and AW139 reference helicopter.

Even by using normalised fuel burn by passenger and nautical miles, the comparison turns out to
provide a very wide range of results depending on the missions and the payload-range diagram of both
vehicles. For the longest missions selected, more similar in distance to an optimal usage of the tiltrotor,
CO2 reductions up to -90% can be reached. These are missions which are clearly out of the typical
design range of the AW139, which needs an intermediate stop for refuelling. At the lower end, for the
short missions (i.e. PAT-AHF-1, 162 nm), where both vehicles fly at max payload (15 pax for AW139
and 24 pax for NGCTR), the performance of the NGCTR is nearly equivalent to the AW139 (+0.53%
CO2), but with a reduction of the flight time by 40% and an increase in productivity of 60% (in terms of
passengers transported.

5.1.2.2.3 Reference Vehicles

The Leonardo Helicopters AW139 is used as one of the two reference aircraft to compare against the
NGCTR. This helicopter features a 5-bladed main rotor and a 4-bladed tail rotor, powered by two Pratt
& Whitney PT6C-67C engines. The Twin Engine Heavy - Baseline (TEH-B) conceptual helicopter was
defined within Clean Sky Green Rotorcraft ITD and represents a generic twin-engine heavy helicopter
model that is representative of the commercial helicopter fleet in the year 2000 [Ref. 4]. The model
was constructed using fleet data from the most frequently flown helicopter types within the twin-
engine heavy category. The TEH-B can carry up to 29 passengers at a cruise speed of 135 knots.

5.1.2.2.4 NGCTR-C Environmental Impact

The NGCTR performance is compared against two reference rotorcraft, the AW139 and TEH-B. Four
different mission types are considered: oil and gas mission, two passenger air transport missions and
a cargo mission. The following results show the benefits of the NGCTR compared to the reference
models in terms of mission time, normalized fuel burn and emissions. For the ATS level missions, the
NGCTR mission time is 33-39% shorter when compared to the AW139 and 38-44% shorter compared
to the TEH-B. The NGCTR normalized fuel burn (kg fuel/payload/range) is 48-57% lower compared to
the AW139 and 48-54% lower compared to the TEH-B. Similar results are found for the normalised CO2
emissions (kg CO2/payload/range) due to the direct link between fuel flow and CO2. The NGCTR
normalized NOx emissions (kg NOx/payload/range) are 51-59% lower compared to the AW139 and 40-
46% lower compared to the TEH-B.

161
Noise levels were compared in terms of area or population impacted above specific noise thresholds
using two metrics: LAMAX, the peak A-weighted sound pressure level; and SELA, the A-weighted sound
exposure level. Additionally, impact on population were compared in terms of number of people
exposed to the same noise thresholds in LAMAX and SELA.

NGCTR significantly reduces the noise impact in terms of both contour area and affected number of
persons. To provide conclusive insights concerning the noise reduction of the NGCTR, a representable
case is presented for the airport hub feeder ATS mission. The metrics used are reduction in area [%]
impacted by 70 dBA LAMAX and 80 dBA SELA. This describes the reduction of impacted area on ground
levels hearing >70 dBA peak noise level and >80 dBA sustained noise during the event coming from the
passing aircraft. Comparing the NGCTR against the AW139, a -92.7% reduction in LAMAX was found
and a -97.4% reduction in SELA. When compared to the TEH-B, a -91.9% reduction in LAMAX was found
and a -98.0% reduction in SELA.

This difference mainly comes from the higher cruise altitude of the NGCTR, in combination with a
more favourable source noise condition i.e., lower blade loading.

5.1.2.2.5 Search&Rescue Assessment

Emission reduction, on the other hand, may not be considered as the key criterion for SAR missions.
Here, one of the key performance indicators is the area covered in less than 1 hour. The latter time
interval is often referred to as the Golden Hour, the window within which a fast intervention including
take-off, patient pick up and fly back to the nearest hospital for treatment has shown to be effective
to save lives. The NGCTR is capable of doubling the coverage area when compared with a 2014 state-
of-the-art reference helicopter.

Figure 81 – Increased coverage area for SAR missions based on NGCTR performance.

162
The advantage of these enhanced capabilities is twofold: to cover in a shorter time the actual
helicopters coverage area and to extend the actual coverage area capabilities. The latter can be
translated into a fleet substitution rate, that is assessing the number of conceptual vehicles required
to serve the same SAR coverage area of a reference/existing fleet.

Figure 82 – A fleet of three NGCTR vehicles is sufficient to cover the same area guaranteed
by eight reference vehicles.

The fleet substitution rate has been evaluated in a reference scenario for a mission aimed at rescuing
1 person; for both the aircraft (reference helicopter and concept vehicle) a dedicated SAR equipment
is considered as part of the configuration. The picture shows how a fleet of three NGCTR vehicles is
sufficient to cover the same area guaranteed by eight reference vehicles. The increase in productivity
in this case means safety and social benefits.

In general the NGCTR performs better over longer range missions, but time and fuel benefits are
attained for all missions assessed.

Due to its significantly higher cruise speed and cabin capacity, it is expected that the tiltrotor concept
vehicle will yield much higher productivity.

This new vehicle concept has been designed with a target EIS of 2035. The flight demonstration
campaign of the prototype is planned to start in 2024.

163
5.2 Airport Level

The following chapter provide an overview on the results at airport level for regional and mainliners
fleets at representative European airports (GREENPORT2050 project). Fast rotorcraft missions flown
around heliports were fully addressed by FASTRIP, as detailed in section 5.1.2.

5.2.1 Mainliner and regional fleet

At mainliner and regional fleet level the Airport Level assessment came from the project
GREENPORT205062, aiming to quantify the environmental impact at airport level of technologies
developed in Clean Sky 2 for fixed-wing aircraft from LPA and REG. This impact includes noise on
ground and population exposed to noise, and emissions and their contribution to air quality. The
considered aircraft are concept aircraft integrating new Clean Sky 2 technologies. Therefore, the
results show the potential impact and its environmental improvements.

The GREENPORT2050 project conducted environmental-impact assessments at two levels:

• Microscopic level
At this level, GREENPORT2050 carried out environmental-impact assessments by addressing
aircraft traffic at the level of individual aircraft movements for a representative set of European
airports (viz. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Rome Fiumicino Airport, Stockholm Arlanda Airport,
Hamburg Airport, and Toulouse Blagnac Airport) as well as for the generic airport CAEPport63.
• Macroscopic level
At this level, GREENPORT2050 carried out environmental-impact assessments for all major
European airports (viz. the airports covered in EUROCONTROL’s tool IMPACT) at aggregated level
by addressing aircraft traffic at the level of groups of similar aircraft movements.
For simulating aircraft traffic at and around an airport, GREENPORT2050 used AirTOp (the current
industry standard, commercial off-the-shelf, fast-time airport simulation platform). The underlying
airport models in AirTOp are in accordance with the relevant Aeronautical Information Publications of
the five European airports considered and with the specification of the generic airport from ICAO-
CAEP. GREENPORT2050 builds on the airport models from CLAIRPORT, which consist of:
• Airport and airspace layout, which comprises the airport infrastructure and the various airspace
control areas;

62
GREENPORT2050, “Clean Sky 2 Technologies for Greener Airports by 2050 “.
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101007858
63
CAEPport has been defined by ICAO-CAEP; a description can be found in e.g. CERC (2020), ADMS-Airport: An
Airport Air Quality Management System – User Guide. https://www.cerc.co.uk/environmental-
software/assets/data/doc_userguides/CERC_ADMS-Airport5.0_User_Guide.pdf

164
• Airport and airspace operations, which relate to flight procedures and rules, including the way
aircraft are handled at the ground and in the air by airport and air-traffic control64;

• Specific modifications, such as new SIDs and STARs for Rome Fiumicino Airport.
Based on AirTOp’s simulated aircraft traffic output, reference and concept aircraft models from the
LPA and REG as well as the NLR Tuna and LEAS-iT models for other aircraft than those reference and
concept aircraft were used to calculate the noise and emission outputs for all considered airports.
For every airport flight schedule, the noise and emissions results per flight were aggregated to obtain
the overall noise and emissions indicators for the environmental impact of the airports under study:
• Noise indicators
The individual noise results expressed in SEL were aggregated to generate Lden and Lnight contours.
For each contour, its surface area and, using the JRC 2016 population density database65, the
associated population exposed were determined. Furthermore, using the dose-response
relationships recommended by WHO-Europe66 the population highly annoyed and highly sleep
disturbed were obtained.
• Emissions indicators
The emissions results of individual flight movements were aggregated to determine the total
amount of CO2 and NOX emitted below 3,000 ft (i.e. to derive at "Landing and Take-Off (LTO)
emissions").
Results Airport capacity

For every combination of year (i.e. 2035, 2040, 2045 or 2050) and airport, the airport simulation
outcomes of the traffic scenario with reference-technology aircraft in the relevant seat classes
(Reference scenario) are compared with those of the corresponding traffic scenario in which Clean Sky
2 concept aircraft replace their reference-technology counterparts (Clean Sky 2 scenario). More
specifically, the total runway throughput per rolling hour of these two scenarios is compared. The aim
of this comparison is to investigate whether Clean Sky 2 concept aircraft can be introduced and
accommodated smoothly into daily airport operations.

64
Based on the SESAR Deployment Programme 2021 (SESAR Deployment Programme 2021: Delivering ATM
modernisation in Europe together) and an outlook for SESAR 2020 solutions and technologies,
GREENPORT2050 assessed groups and families of ATM functionalities/capabilities that may be relevant to it.
The overall conclusion is that, at present, specific information regarding all these functionalities/capabilities for
the airports or airspaces is not available. So, the local implementations are too unclear that making
assumptions is not realistic.
65
Freire S., Halkia, M., and Pesaresi, M. (2016), GHS population grid, derived from EUROSTAT census
data (2011) and ESM R2016 (European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)) ([Dataset]
PID: data.europa.eu/89h/jrc-ghsl-ghs_pop_eurostat_europe_r2016a).
66
WHO/Europe (2018), Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region (Copenhagen:
World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe).
165
Figure 83 displays the runway throughput (per rolling hour) of the year 2050 reference and Clean Sky
2 scenario ‘CON’ for the generic airport CAEPport. The throughput in these scenarios appears to be
very well matched.

Figure 83 – CAEPport runway throughput (per rolling hour) in Clean Sky 2 and Reference scenarios ‘CON’
for 2050 (Blue surface: Departures Clean Sky 2 scenario; cyan line: Departures Reference scenario;
yellow surface: Arrivals Clean Sky 2 scenario; orange line: Arrivals Reference scenario).

This tendency is also observable for the five European airports assessed. Thus, it can be acknowledged
that the deployment of Clean Sky 2 technologies into new fixed-wing aircraft from LPA and REG does
not indicate any obstruction in the introduction and accommodation of these concept aircraft into
daily airport operations, although impacts to airline schedules from operating slower flying aircraft at
the beginning and the end of the operational day may require a case-by-case analysis, especially for
routes cross timezones.
Results Noise assessment

The provisional results of the calculations indicate potential noise benefits thanks to the integration of
Clean Sky 2 technologies into concept aircraft: The reductions for 2050 in surface area of Lden contours
for significant noise levels (60-65 dB(A)) are about 8-17% for the European airports considered. For the
generic airport CAEPport these reductions are comparable. Figure 2 depicts the 65 dB(A) Lden noise
contour for CAEPport in the year 2050 ‘High’ Reference and Clean Sky 2 scenario.

For the same noise levels (i.e. 60-65 dB(A) Lden) the provisional noise results also point to significant
reductions in 2050 of population exposed and population highly annoyed. These reductions are
roughly in the range 8-17% as well. Further, the population exposed to 65 dB(A) Lden in the Reference
scenario roughly corresponds to the population exposed to just under 64 dB(A) Lden or lower in the
Clean Sky 2 scenario. As the percentage of the population that is highly annoyed gets lower for lower
noise levels, this suggests the percentage of population highly annoyed is more than 2 percentage
points lower.

166
Also the provisional results based on Lnight indicate a substantial reduction potential, although its
magnitude differs more between airports than for the results based on Lden. In 2050 the surface area
reduction of Lnight contours for noise levels 50-55 dB(A) are globally in the range 5-15%. For the same
Lnight noise levels, the results suggest significant reductions in 2050 of population exposed and
population highly sleep disturbed. These reductions are roughly up to 20%.
The figure below shows the noise contour results for the the generic CAEPport.

Figure 84 – CAEPport 60 dB(A) Lden noise contour for year 2050 ‘CON’ scenario: Reference in blue and
Clean Sky 2 in green.

Results emission assessment

The calculations of CO2 and NOX emissions concentrate on aircraft operations during the landing and
take-off cycle (i.e. below 3,000 ft, including ground operations). The provisional results of these
calculations point to reductions in the amount of CO2 and NOX emitted, herewith contributing to an
improved local air quality. In 2050, reductions of NOX emissions amount to about 10.5-14.5% for the
European airports considered, while the associated CO2 reductions are more modest and roughly in
the range 11.5-15%.

Conclusion Greenport 2050

The GREENPORT2050 project quantifies the environmental impact at airport level of technologies
developed in the Clean Sky 2 Programme for fixed-wing aircraft. At the level of individual aircraft
movements (i.e. microscopic level), the provisional results for the European airports considered,
suggest substantial benefits up to 2050 that Clean Sky 2 technologies for fixed-wing aircraft from LPA
and REG can bring:
• Reductions in surface area of Lden noise contours for relevant noise levels are about 8-17% and
reductions in population exposed to these noise levels in the same range;

167
• Reductions in surface area of Lnight noise contours for relevant noise levels are roughly 5-15% and
reductions in population exposed to these noise levels are up to 20%;Reductions in total amount
of CO2 and NOX emitted up to 3,000 are about 11.5-15% and 10.5-14.5%, respectively.
• There are no indications pointing to obstructions in the introduction and accommodation of Clean
Sky 2 concept aircraft into daily airport operations.

168
5.3 Fleet Level (ATS)

5.3.1 Fleet Replacement

With its strong focus on pre-competitive technology demonstration, targeting a highly regulated
aviation market characterized by extraordinary long life cycles, Clean Sky 2 achievements will become
noticeable within the global fleet only after 2035, the earliest entry into service being 2034 for the
most mature mainliner aircraft concept (LR+). For a more realistic fleet replacement, only the ultra-
advanced SMR++ (EIS 2035) was inserted into the fleet in place of the advanced SMR+ concept (EIS
2032), for the benefit of improved emissions reduction despite slightly later entry-into-service. As a
result of the advancements made in the commuter and regional segment, the most mature commuter
twin turboprop (with MAESTRO engine) could enter service as of 2028 and advanced turboprop (TP90)
as of 2030.

The concept aircraft inserted in the fleet replacement model comprise advanced technology aircraft
(SAT 19-seater loop2 – MAESTRO, Regional i.e. 70, 90, 130 seater, and Long Range) which represents
about 55% of the total ASK in 2050 (Figure 85) from which the most prominent part (54%) is coming
from the long range section of the fleet. The ultra-advanced technology aircraft (Short-Medium Range
SMR++) represent about 16% of the total ASK in 2050. Concerning the number of aircraft in 2050 about
40% will be of advanced technology with about 36% in the long range section of the fleet and about
21% will be of ultra-advanced technology (Figure 86).

Figure 85 – Evolution of fleet replacement by CS2 aircraft up to 2050 (ASK volume) based upon the DLR
CON forecast.

169
In the "DLR CON" forecast ASK increase up to 23,679 billion ASK in 2050. In 2050, the base year fleet
(operated by aircraft with 201967 reference technologies and older legacy aircraft) accounts for only
6.0%, 2019 reference aircraft for 22.6%, advanced CS2 aircraft for 55.9% and ultra-advanced CS2
aircraft for 15.5% of total ASK. Naturally, base year aircraft ASK decrease in absolute and relative terms
until 2050. For the retirement of aircraft, the coefficients used by ICAO CAEP have been applied.

Figure 86 – Evolution of fleet replacement by CS2 aircraft up to 2050 (number of aircraft ) based upon the
DLR CON forecast w/o People Mover.

Figure 86 illustrates the fleet development in terms of the number of aircraft. This development is
quite different from the ASK volume development for two reasons:

• During the COVID-19 pandemic and the recovery there was less need for aircraft because of
reduced flight volume compared to pre-pandemic levels. When traffic increased again, existing
aircraft was employed instead of new. As a result, the increase in the number of aircraft was
delayed and gradual. Furthermore, supply of new aircraft is smoothened over several years.
• With increasing capacity constraints after the 2030ies, smaller aircraft is replaced by larger
one, so although ASK still increase substantially, the number of aircraft increases only slightly.

In 2050, the base year fleet accounts for only 6.0%, 2019 reference aircraft for 32.4%, advanced CS2
aircraft for 40.4% and ultra-advanced CS2 aircraft for 21.2% of total aircraft.

67
The year 2014 was chosen as SoA for all reference aircraft. It is the technology SoA date representative of the
latest actual aircraft that have already entered service in 2019 or are about to enter service (latest aircraft
families: Airbus A220, A320neo, A330neo, A350, ATR72, Embraer E2, Boeing 777X, 737MAX, etc.). At fleet level,
the year 2019 is therefore considered as the reference year for air traffic data.
170
Several conclusions may be drawn at this stage based on the fleet replacement forecast of Figure 85:

• Considering the long development times of a new aircraft as a commercial product (between
5 to 10 years), their extremely long service life, and the inertia in production rates increase
(despite some substantial ramp-up in recent years), it is crucial to target the earliest entry into
service date for the next generation of aircraft.
• Historically, the time between two aircraft generations has been typically 15 to 20 years. The
difference of entry-into-service of 5 years between the advanced (2030+) and ultra-advanced
(2035+) Clean Sky concept aircraft is therefore artificial and stems from initial assumptions
about the time to reach sufficient maturity or readiness of some “ultra-advanced”
technologies at TRL6, at least 5 years before market entry.
• This underlines the urgent need to accelerate the technology maturation process by promoting
and supporting research investments, to “skip a generation”. To this end, not only advanced
technologies but possibly also ultra-advanced technologies should be applied simultaneously
onto the next aircraft generation by 2030, if not, by 2035 at the latest.
• Still, several Clean Sky concept aircraft already have a short-term EIS (2025+), but in market
segments which have less impact on the global share of CO2 produced across the global fleet
(Commuter and Regional segments).

5.3.2 ATS environmental impact: Emissions

Methodology

Figure 87 shows the general setup of the emissions modelling at Air Transport System (ATS) level. The
major inputs include the DLR fleet forecast with the global flight list and the emission profiles from SPD
models and Piano-X. The DLR flight list contains all flown airport pairs for the future fleets up to the
year 2050 indicating for every airport pair the number of flights, the distance flown and the aircraft
type. The emission profiles are produced through the SPD models and Piano-X. Piano-X calculates all
existing aircraft whereas the SPD models produce the outputs for the conceptual aircraft that include
advanced technologies developed by the manufacturers in the Clean Sky 2 program as well as their
related 2014 technology reference aircraft.

171
 Figure 87 – Overview of Air Transport System (ATS) level Emissions Calculation.

The aircraft models contain encrypted databases from the manufacturers concerning engine
thermodynamic and aerodynamic data as well as engine NOx and fuel flow values. For the calculation
of NOx the Boeing Fuel Flow Method II is used. The aircraft performance module computes first a
trajectory from which then the emission outputs are derived.

The final step is to calculate the global emission inventory using the inputs from the aircraft models
for every flown airport pair distance.

Table 50 shows the aircraft replacement table for the future fleet scenarios. The Reference (in grey)
and concept (light green for advanced and dark green for ultra-advanced technology) aircraft for each
seat ICAO seat class are given. Also, the entry into service years for both reference and concept aircraft
are provided. The SPD concept models were delivered for the seat classes 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11. The
DLR people mover was applied in the seat classes 11 and 12 as a specific scenario. The Clean Sky 2
environmental improvement in terms of average CO2 and NOx reduction from the SPD concept aircraft
was applied for the aircraft in their neighbouring seat classes, i.e. for seat classes 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12
with an entry into service of these aircraft 5 years later than the SPD concept aircraft. For the
replacement of aircraft, no production limitations were assumed. For the future fleet scenarios, the
advanced SMR aircraft was not considered as the entry into service gap between the ultra-advanced
configuration of 3 years (2032 versus 2035) is too short.

In this Air Traffic System (ATS) level analysis, based on the ICAO seat class system, seat class 1 is defined
as Commuter, seat class 2 – 5 are defined as Regional (REG: 20 – 100 seats), 6 – 9 as Narrowbody (NB:
101 – 235 seats), and 10 – 12 as Widebody (WB: > 236 seats). It is interesting to note that, although
seat class 10 – 12 are typically widebodies in the ICAO seat class system, the ultra-advanced SMR++
concept (250 seats, ICAO seat class 10) is a narrowbody-designed concept. The same holds for the TP
130 concept (130 seats, ICAO seat class 7), lying in between a narrowbody concept (higher seating

172
capacity than traditional regional aircraft, above 100 seats) and a regional concept (shorter nominal
range – 1600 NM – compared to current narrowbody aircraft).

The fleet analysis (ATS level analysis) is performed on the constrained forecast (DLR CON) to show the
impact of this risk scenario on the demand, flights, and emissions distribution while introducing future
CS2 technology into the fleet (CS2 Design Fleet scenario). The results are presented for the main
aircraft class (REG; NB; WB) per flight distance. Short-medium haul operation is defined between 0 &
4,000 km, long haul operation above 4,000 km. The potential impact of the People Mover has been
analysed as well at fleet level, introducing this concept in seat class 11 & 12 (> 300 seats) for short-
medium haul operations (CS2+DLR PM Fleet scenario).

Model
Seat class SEAT Aircraft tech type EIS
provided by
1-19 19-Pax Reference Aircraft 2014 SPD
1
1-19 19-Pax loop2 Commuter A 2028 SPD
20-50 ATR42-500 2014
2
20-50 ATR42-500 Advanced A 2040
51-70 CASA C295 Civil (2014 Multi-Mission) 2014 SPD
3
51-70 Regional Multimission TP 70 seats A 2035 SPD
71-85 Bombardier Dash-8-400 2014
4
71-85 Bombardier Dash-8-400 Advanced A 2040
86-100 ATR72 Resized to 90 seats 2014 SPD
5
86-100 Advanced regional TP90 A 2030 SPD
101-125 Embraer E195 E2 2016
6
101-125 UA-SMR-Embraer E195 E2 UA 2040
126-150 Airbus A220-300 2016 SPD
7
126-150 Innovative Regional Turboprop 130 A 2035 SPD
151-175 Airbus A320neo 2016
8
151-175 UA-SMR-Airbus A320neo UA 2040
176-235 Airbus A321neo (SMR 2014 ref) 2016
9
176-235 Ultra-Advanced SMR UA 2040
235-300 Airbus A321neo (SMR 2014 ref) 2016 SPD
10
235-300 Airbus A321neo-like (stretched to 250 seats) - Ultra Advanced UA 2035 SPD
301-400 Airbus A350-900 (LR 2014 ref) 2015 SPD
11
301-400 Airbus A350-900neo (Advanced Long Range) A 2034 SPD
401-500 Boeing 779 2015
12
401-500 Boeing 779 advanced A 2039
Airbus A350-900 (LR 2014 ref) 2015
11/12*
DLR People Mover A 2034

Advanced tech.
UltraAdvanced tech.
* For the People mover (PM) scenario, replacement of the PM in seat classes
11 and 12 in the 0 to 4000 km range

Table 50 – Aircraft Replacement Table for future fleet scenarios with CS2 advanced & ultra-advanced
technologies and associated 2019 Reference aircraft. Regional (REG): Class 2 – 5; Narrowbody (NB):
Class 6 – 9; Widebody (WB): Class 10 – 12.

173
Towards Shorter Range and bigger aircraft

Already today, a considerable number of aircraft are used on shorter mission distances than the actual
aircraft design range, at the expense of more energy inefficiency versus the benefit of airline flexibility,
notably the ability to place any one of several aircraft onto the long routes in their network (and then
subsequent savings from fleet commonality). Figure 88 shows the historical data of year 2023. It can
be seen that 50% of traffic in RPK is on routes with a distance of less than 2,748 km (~ <1,500 NM),
corresponding to almost 90% of the flights. This is almost the same as 2019 (50%: 2,695 km, 90%:
9,370km).

Today, 95% of flights are on routes of less than 4,000 km. This segment uses 61.5% of the total amount
of aviation fuel produced worldwide (~290Mt), hence produces 61.5% of aviation’s CO2 emissions
(Figure 88). The remaining 5% of flights for long-haul (> 4,000 km) represent the remaining 38.5% of
fuel/emissions.

Figure 88 – Cumulative distribution of RPKs versus distance flown as historical data for year 2023 (Sabre
Market Intelligence).

The trend towards shorter ranges with bigger aircraft is also reflected in the projection results of the
CON scenario. First, the future passenger demand results are presented through the RPK volume
projections in the capacity constrained scenario. Second, for this scenario, the corresponding fleet
distribution serving this demand is addressed. Third, the resulting total CO2 emissions with CS2
technology insertion at fleet level are presented.

174
Passenger Demand

In terms of passenger demand (RPK), aviation is expected to reach volumes of about 22,000 Billion
RPKs, almost 3 times (2.75) the passenger volumes of today (8,000 Bn RPKs in 2019) despite airport
capacity constraints (see Figure 89, Figure 90, Figure 91).
Figure 89 and Figure 90 show a relatively steady increase in RPK volume per route distance, with a
slightly more important increase in the demand for short to medium haul routes. Whereas in 2019,
routes below 4,000 km represented 61% of the total RPK volume, this portion will increase towards
65% in 2050.

Figure 89 – RPK Volume Distribution per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2019.

Figure 90 – RPK Volume distribution Projection per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2050 in an
airport capacity constrained scenario (DLR CON).

As shown in Figure 91, today’s fleet covers 56% of RPKs with SMR aircraft (< 236 seats, typically 45 to
150 minutes flight missions) and 40% of RPKs with LR aircraft (> 236 seats, typically > 150 minutes flight
missions). The regional market (20-100 seats, typically 30-90 minutes flight missions) covers
approximately 4% of RPKs.

175
Whereas the SMR demand remains relatively constant in absolute terms (small decrease from 5,000
to 4,000 billion RPKs by 2050), the SMR share of the total RPK volume strongly decreases (from 56% in
2019 towards 17% in 2050) as a result of the threefold increase in total RPKs in a capacity constrained
context that will require an important increase in widebodies use to absorb the new demand,
especially for short-medium haul (SMH) operations. In 2050, 82% of the passenger demand (in RPK)
will need to be covered by widebody aircraft, up from 40% in 2019 (Figure 91).

Today, 18% of the widebody aircraft RPK volume is already used on the short-medium haul
(Widebodies < 4,000 km represented 7.5% of the total RPK volume in 2019, as seen on Figure 91). The
short-medium haul widebody contribution is expected to rise to 48% of the total RPK volume in 2050
(i.e., 59% of the widebodies RPK volume is expected on short-medium haul by 2050 because of capacity
constraint), eighteen times the 2019 RPK volume served with widebodies on short-medium haul.
Regarding LR (widebody) aircraft serving the future long haul (LH) demand (> 4,000 km), its share stays
relatively constant, about 34%, although the long haul demand served with widebodies will increase
by a factor three as well as a consequence of the threefold increase of the total demand.

Figure 91 – RPK Volume Projection per Aircraft Category until 2050 in an airport capacity constrained
scenario (DLR CON).

The share of regional passenger demand (typically flights of 30-90 minutes on 50-100 seats aircraft)
is expected to remain fairly constant (< 300 billion RPKs).

176
Flight Volumes

In terms of flight volumes, the conclusions from the passenger demand evolution are confirmed.

The volume of SMR (narrowbody) flights shows a slight decrease of -15%. LR (widebody) long haul
flights share stays relatively constant, 4% to 5% (Figure 92).

Figure 92 – Flight Volume Projection per Aircraft Category until 2050 in a capacity constrained scenario
(DLR CON).

LR (widebody) flights on short-medium haul are absorbing most of the growth, from 1 million flights in
2019 (4% of total flights in 2019) to more than 12 million flights in 2050 (45% of total flights in 2050).
The short haul segment below 2,000 km is the most impacted by this increase (Figure 93 & Figure 94).

Although the flight volumes increase less (x1.6) than the passenger deman (x2.75) as a result of the
replacement of narrowbody aircraft by widebody aircraft primarily on the short-medium haul, the total
amount of flights in 2050 will reach almost 60 million flights per year versus 35 million in 2019, a
challenge to be anticipated by adequate ATM and Operations measures.

177
 Figure 93 – Flight Volume Distribution per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2019.

Figure 94 – Flight Volume distribution Projection per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2050 in an
Airport Capacity Constrained Scenario (DLR CON).

178
Fleet Level Emissions Results

In 2019, the distribution of emissions at fleet level shows that the majority of flights are on short-
medium haul routes (95% of total flights) and generate 58% of the total CO2 emissions (Figure 95), i.e.
585 Mt, whereas the long haul is responsible for 42% of the CO2 emissions although only serving 5% of
the flights (325 Mt).

Figure 95 – Global CO2 Emissions Distribution per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2019.

The total aviation emissions in 2019 were 910 Mt and this study estimates this to rise up to 1308 Mt
in 2050 in the No Action scenario with 2019 frozen technology insertion and to 1119 Mt, thanks to the
effect of Clean Sky 2 technologies (Figure 96).
While this situation is forecasted to remain unchanged in terms of flight share by 2050 (95% of short-
medium haul flights, 5% of long haul flights), the share of CO2 emissions from short-medium haul will
increase from 58% to 65% and the long haul CO2 emissions share will decrease from 42% to 35%. The
short-medium haul CO2 emissions will rise from 585 Mt in 2019 to 732 Mt in 2050, an increase of 25%.
The long haul CO2 emissions will rise from 325 Mt to 387 Mt, an increase of 19% (Figure 95 & Figure
97).

179
Figure 96 – CO2 Emissions Projections until 2050 per Aircraft Category in an Airport Capacity Constrained
Scenario (DLR CON): Reference CON Scenario (No Action – 2019 frozen technology insertion), Kerosene-
based CS2 Technology Insertion (Clean Sky 2).

180
Figure 97 – Global CO2 Emissions distribution Projection per Flight Distance & Aircraft Category in 2050
in an airport capacity constrained scenario (DLR CON) and with Clean Sky 2 Technology Insertion (CS2
Design Fleet).

The following carpet plots provide an additional level of detail on these forecasts, providing for each
aircraft class (commuter with 0-19 seats, regional “extra-small” class with 20-100 seats, narrowbody
“small” class with 101-235 seats, and widebody “medium” with 236-300 seats & “large” with 300 and
more seats) and for each flight distance routes category, the share of total CO2 emissions and
associated share of flights and passenger demand (in RPK).

Figure 98, Figure 99 and Figure 100 show the results for the years 2019, 2035 and 2050 in an airport
capacity constrained scenario (DLR CON) with CS2 technology insertion (CS2 Design Fleet). It can be
seen that in 2019 (Figure 98) the biggest share in terms of the total fleet CO2 emissions was in the
101 to 235 seats fleet segment with 52%. On the other hand, it can also be seen that in the large fleet
segment, i.e. over 300 seats, the overall CO2 emission share is only 23%. Additionally, in the 0 to
4,000 km range in the large fleet segment the share represents only 3.8 % of the CO2 total fleet
emissions.

181
 Flight distance km
1000- 2000- 3000- 4000- 5000- 6000- 7000- 8000- 9000- Pax-
Aircraft Class Seats 0-1000 >10000 CO2 Flights
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 km

Commuter 0-19 0% 3% 0%
0,10% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Extra-Small 20-100 5% 22% 3%

3,06% 1,35% 0,32% 0,02% 0,01% 0,01% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Small 101-235 52% 67% 56%

11,95% 18,71% 9,55% 5,26% 1,95% 0,89% 0,74% 0,63% 0,56% 0,46% 0,86%

Medium 235-300 21% 4% 19%

0,56% 1,29% 1,07% 1,15% 1,12% 2,07% 2,74% 2,53% 2,52% 2,23% 3,31%

Large >300 23% 3% 22%

0,50% 1,01% 1,09% 1,21% 1,69% 2,52% 2,36% 2,22% 2,12% 2,99% 5,26%

CO2 16% 22% 12% 8% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 9%

Flights 53% 29% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Passenger-km 13% 25% 14% 9% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 5% 8%

Share of total CO2 emissions 2019

0% 0%-0.1% 0.1%-2% 2%-5% 5%-10% 10%-20%

Figure 98 – Share of total CO2 emissions in 2019.

When looking at the year 2035 forecast (Figure 99) one can see the small fleet segment will diminish
to 33% of the total CO2 emission with a decrease in the medium fleet segment (medium widebodies)
from 21% in 2019 to 18% of the total CO2 in 2035. Additionally, the large fleet segment will augment
to 45% CO2 emissions instead of 23% in 2019. Also, in the large fleet segment the 0 to 4,000 km ranges
part will increase to 10.4 %.

Flight distance km
1000- 2000- 3000- 4000- 5000- 6000- 7000- 8000- 9000- Pax-
Aircraft Class Seats 0-1000 >10000 CO2 Flights
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 km

Commuter 0-19 0% 2% 0%
0,04% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Extra-Small 20-100 3% 17% 2%

2,42% 0,78% 0,06% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Small 101-235 33% 51% 31%

9,85% 12,20% 6,18% 3,03% 1,07% 0,40% 0,10% 0,11% 0,10% 0,08% 0,13%

Medium 235-300 18% 21% 24%

3,34% 6,70% 2,99% 1,46% 0,59% 0,43% 0,49% 0,46% 0,45% 0,40% 0,60%

Large >300 45% 9% 43%

1,33% 3,30% 2,92% 2,87% 2,44% 3,63% 5,85% 5,30% 5,08% 4,91% 7,86%

CO2 17% 23% 12% 7% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 9%

Flights 54% 29% 8% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Passenger-km 14% 25% 14% 8% 4% 5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 8%

Share of total CO2 emissions 2035 (Clean Sky 2 scenario)

0% 0%-0.1% 0.1%-2% 2%-5% 5%-10% 10%-20%

Figure 99 – Share of total CO2 emissions in 2035 (Clean Sky 2 scenario).

182
Observing the year 2050 forecast (Figure 100) the trend towards bigger aircraft with shorter ranges
culminates. The small fleet segment will decrease to 18% of the CO2 emissions. The medium segment
will diminish to 11%. Instead the large fleet segment share is expected to increase to 69% of the total
fleet CO2 emissions in 2050. Also, the 0 to 4,000 km ranges share within the large fleet segment will
achieve 35.7% of the CO2 emissions.

Flight distance km
1000- 2000- 3000- 4000- 5000- 6000- 7000- 8000- 9000- Pax-
Aircraft Class Seats 0-1000 >10000 CO2 Flights
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 km

Commuter 0-19 0% 1% 0%
0,02% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Extra-Small 20-100 2% 12% 1%

1,32% 0,30% 0,01% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Small 101-235 18% 38% 17%

6,75% 6,32% 2,65% 1,26% 0,52% 0,17% 0,04% 0,01% 0,01% 0,01% 0,02%

Medium 235-300 11% 19% 17%

2,32% 4,14% 2,57% 1,31% 0,44% 0,27% 0,05% 0,05% 0,05% 0,04% 0,07%

Large >300 69% 31% 65%

7,56% 14,98% 8,00% 5,15% 3,17% 3,94% 5,29% 4,94% 4,73% 4,38% 7,14%

CO2 18% 26% 13% 8% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% 7%

Flights 54% 29% 8% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Passenger-km 16% 27% 15% 9% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% 7%

Share of total CO2 emissions 2050 (Clean Sky 2 scenario)

0% 0%-0.1% 0.1%-2% 2%-5% 5%-10% 10%-20%

Figure 100 – Share of total CO2 emissions in 2050 (Clean Sky 2 scenario).

In conclusion, in 2050, 46% of the CO2 emissions will come from the medium to large fleet segment
(widebody aircraft) in the range from 0 to 4,000 km. This is mainly due to the consideration of airport
capacity constraint which requires more widebodies, especially “Large” widebodies above 300 seats
whose contribution will increase from 3% of flights and 23% of CO2 in 2019 to 31% of flights and 69%
of total CO2 in 2050. “Medium” widebodies (236-300 seats) CO2 contribution will decrease between
2019 and 2050 as a result of the important increase in “Large” widebodies. Moreover, as a result of
the improved emissions reduction enabled by the ultra-advanced SMR++ concept with EIS as of 2035,
although the total amount of flights in that category (“Medium” 236-300 seats) is increased by a factor
7 (from about 1.5 million flights in 2019 to almost 11 million flights in 2050), the absolute CO2 emissions
are still decreased from 187 Mt in 2019 to about 127 Mt in 2050.

For the “Large” aircraft category (> 300 seats), the total amount of flights in that category is expected
to be increased by a factor 15 (from about 1.2 million flights in 2019 to almost 18 million flights in
2050), because of the important increase in demand, especially for short to medium haul routes.
Despite the emissions reduction enabled by the advanced LR+ with entry-into-service as of 2034, CO2
emissions for that category are still expected to be multiplied by almost a factor 4 (from 210 Mt in
2019 to 775 Mt in 2050) as a result of this increase in demand. Indeed, whereas the “Large” category
(> 300 seats) only emitted 35 Mt (less than 4% of the total 2019 CO2 emissions) CO2 emissions for short-

183
medium haul (< 4,000 km) in 2019, it is expected to emit about 400 Mt (35.7% of the total 2050 CO2
emissions) in an airport capacity constrained context (DLR CON scenario).

For this reason, the DLR developed the people mover academic concept (see section 5.1.1.10) in order
to improve the fleet emission performance especially in the large fleet segment for the over 300 seats,
where the 0 to 4,000 km range CO2 share is the biggest (35.7%).

CO2 and NOX impact at fleet level (Clean Sky and DLR People mover)

The total CO2 and NOX reduction is measured in the following way:
The total emissions of the CS2 fleet in 2050 are compared with the emissions of the Reference fleet of
the same year for the CON scenario. For both fleets, i.e. CS2 fleet (including CS2 technology a/c) and
for the reference fleet (reference technology), the 2050 traffic and fleet composition is the same. That
means also that the total number of ASKs and passengers for both fleets are the same.

Based on the high demand constraint forecasts (CON), two fleet scenarios have been analysed in the
2nd TE assessment for the emissions performance of the fleet.

1) In the 1st scenario, the Clean Sky 2 scenario (CS2 Design Fleet Scenario), all mainliner and
regional conceptual aircraft as described in the mission level section (see section 5.1) have
been introduced into fleet the according to the DLR fleet replacement model (See Figure 85)
until the year 2050.

2) In the 2nd scenario (CS2 + DLR PM Fleet Scenario), the same applies as in 1) with the only
difference, that in the seat classes above 300, the DLR People Mover (PM) mostly replaced in
those classes in the ranges of 0 to 4,000 km the Advanced long range technology aircraft in
order to improve the overall fleet emissions performance. From 2034 to 2050, 3,421 People
Mover aircraft will have been introduced in the fleet which corresponds to about 8% of the
total number of aircraft.

Both scenarios 1) and 2) have been compared to their Reference scenarios (Ref) with fleets containing
only reference technology aircraft.

In the “CS2 Design Fleet” scenario (see bullet #1 above) the total CO2 reduction amounts to around
14.5% and around 29% for the NOX reduction. In the “CS + DLR PM Fleet” scenario (see bullet #2 above)
the CO2 reduction yields around 17.5% and the NOX around 33%. So, this means that the inclusion of
the People Mover aircraft leads to an overall improvement of the total fleet emissions performance.
The total amount of CO2 reduction in the “CS2 Design Fleet” scenario is about 190 million tons. For the
“CS + DLR PM Fleet” scenario this amount is about 225 million tons, which means that the introduction
of the DLR People Mover in the fleet improves the reduction by about 35 million tons.

184
Figure 103 and Figure 104 show the CO2 and NOX results for the fleet in 2050 in comparison to the
reference scenario. The respective CO2 and NOX figures show that the improvement through the
People Mover is done in Seat classes 400-600.
Figure 101 and Figure 102 show the delta effect for every cell in the distance class to seat class
matrix.
Figure 101 shows that the CO2 delta effect (CO2 reduction) of the People Mover in the 0 to 4,000 km
range in the above to 300 seat classes is significant and goes as maximum up to around to 31.5%.
Figure 102 shows the delta effect for the CS2 scenario which goes only up to 15%.

Figure 105 and Figure 106 give an illustration of the CO2 and NOX distribution on the globe for the CS2
2050 fleet scenario.

Flight distance km
1000- 2000- 3000- 4000- 5000- 6000- 7000- 8000- 9000-
Aircraft Class Seats 0-1000 >10000
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Commuter 0-19
-7,92% -7,37% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Extra-Small 20-100
-13,57% -17,81% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Small 101-235
-9,83% -11,00% -11,76% -12,53% -11,95% -6,38% -4,66% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Medium 235-300
-16,56% -16,59% -16,60% -16,60% -16,61% -16,60% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Large >300
-15,95% -23,39% -29,51% -31,59% -13,56% -13,47% -13,38% -13,48% -13,46% -13,50% -13,94%

Delta CO2 emissions 2050 (Clean Sky 2 PM scenario)

0% 0%-5% 5%-10% 10%-15% 15%-20% 20%-35%

Figure 101 – Delta CO2 distribution matrix CS2 PM versus Ref scenario.

Flight distance km
1000- 2000- 3000- 4000- 5000- 6000- 7000- 8000- 9000-
Aircraft Class Seats 0-1000 >10000
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Commuter 0-19
-7,92% -7,37% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Extra-Small 20-100
-13,57% -17,81% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Small 101-235
-9,83% -11,00% -11,76% -12,53% -11,95% -6,38% -4,66% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Medium 235-300
-16,56% -16,59% -16,60% -16,60% -16,61% -16,60% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Large >300
-15,05% -15,03% -15,06% -15,11% -15,13% -15,12% -15,11% -15,12% -15,12% -15,13% -15,20%

Delta CO2 emissions 2050 (Clean Sky 2 scenario)

0% 0%-5% 5%-10% 10%-15% 15%-20% 20%-35%

Figure 102 – Delta CO2 distribution matrix CS2 versus Ref scenario.

185
Figure 103 – CO2 emissions in 2050 CS2, CS2 + DLR PM scenarios compared to ref scenario.

Figure 104 – NOX emissions in 2050 CS2, CS2 + DLR PM scenarios compared to ref scenario.
186
Figure 105 – CO2 distribution on the globe for the CS2 scenario in 2050.

Figure 106 – NOx distribution on the globe for the CS2 scenario in 2050.
187
6 Societal Impact

Besides the environmental impact of new technologies benefits for the society played a significant role
in the CS2 programme. In this respect, the following section describes which benefits can be expected
in terms of connectivity and mobility through the introduction of advanced aviation technologies and
a generally prosper development of the aviation sector that is also responsible for creating significant
overall societal value in terms of jobs and economic growth.

6.1 Connectivity and Mobility (Aircraft)

The following section provides analyses on connectivity and mobility impacts at ATS level with a special
focus on small air transport (SAT). While connectivity and mobility gains from larger aircraft are also
significantly ensured through the CS2 programme in a sustainable way by fostering technologies that
are focused on a reduction of CO2, NOX and noise, the SAT market segment has the advantage that it
can improve connectivity on smaller distances and with more flexible airport usage. In addition,
increased flight speed can be an important gamechanger in this context making SAT a contributor to
network expansion and also strengthening its role with regard to feeder flights for the benefit of
operators which operate medium- to long-distance routes. Thus, the wider effects allow to develop
the civil air traffic market further in order ensure more accessible and frequent air travel across Europe,
benefitting the EU economy and citizens.

Therefore, the focus on the following analysis up to the year 2050 is on the potential of more
innovative transportation concepts in the field of SAT, which might be expected to change the air
transport market as well as traditional travel chains. The potential future propulsion type of SAT must
also be taken into account, which will be further developed through research and development in the
direction of new types of (hybrid) electric energy architecture. These new propulsion concepts offer
an innovative impetus for climate-friendly connections and contribute to reducing emissions in air
traffic. Thus, they can gain rising importance as alternative of or part of traditional travel chains
compared to journeys by public transport or car only especially if the fast connection guarantee of air
transportation is considered. Objectives such as the ACARE 4-hour target and similar postulates for
improved mobility are nevertheless likely to remain justified, especially as more environmentally
friendly propulsion systems will provide more options for a more efficient design of the air transport
network and new opportunities for realizing mobility and connectivity gains in the future. The
following analysis considers mainliner/regional aircraft and SAT.

6.1.1 Methodology
This study is explicitly a concept study. This means that it is clearly focused on the connectivity gains
from extensions of SAT routes throughout Europe. Cost assumptions could not be made as they are
difficult to estimate for such a broad network as investigated. Furthermore, it has to be considered
that the development of costs for other transport modes up to the year 2050 is hardly predictable and
costs of other transport modes partially also differ significantly throughout Europe. Finally, transport
operators decide about pricing depending on changing demand and other variables as well as policy
conditions that may vary over time. This was not considered in the analysis to reduce the uncertainty

188
with regard to the results and to investigate the full substitution benefits from operating more SAT
flights in Europe up to the year 2050.

Based on these framework conditions the calculations and analyses from the 1st Assessment were
supplemented by using potential and manufacturer-based values for the range and speed of an all-
electric and hybrid-electric SAT (small air transport) configuration, and a SAT demand model for
connectivity choices in Europe up to 2050.

As in the 1st Assessment, the mobility and connectivity gains are evaluated based on the percentage
of the population that can be reached within four hours.

The focus is on the European Economic Area (EEA) plus Switzerland and the UK, which is divided into
around 1,500 NUTS-3 regions and sub-regions. The population centre of each region has always been
set as the geographic start and end of such a trip. The quickest option, by car only or by public transport
only and a combination of car-air-car was compared and selected to model the entire door-to-door
journey. Where the mode of transportation "air" is either conventional scheduled/regional air
transport or SAT.

A real summer flight schedule of the year 2019, a current road and public transport network formed
the basis for the calculation. Due to the lack of data, the European high speed rail schedule and
network was not included in the connectivity analysis. In order to make statements for future mobility
and connectivity development, the Mainliner/Regional Forecast High Unconstraint up to 2050 and the
development of potential SAT connections up to 2050 are taken into account. Road and public
transport network did not undergo any development, but the basic data was retained.

When choosing the mainliner/regional flight, all airports located 300 km away from the population
centre were considered as possible connection. Here, availability was not considered i.e. if a weekly
connection was available, it was included in the calculation, regardless of the start time of a trip or the
capacity of the aircraft used. However, this must be considered if qualitative statements should be
made between the modes of individual transport (car) and air traffic. Furthermore, due to the lack of
a complete real data set of processing times concerning all affected airports, a minimum constant
processing time of 60 minutes inbound and 30 minutes outbound was assumed for each air
connection. The compared air segments could consist of up to 2 stops.

The DESAT model was used to identify potential SAT connections in Europe. The development of the
DESAT model was part of the Clean Sky 2 Technology Evaluator. It was developed by TRT Transporti e
Territirio Srl in Milan and SEO Amsterdam Economics with the DLR as consortium leader. The model
provides an assessment and forecasts for SAT services at the air transportation system (ATS) level, with
an assessment of passenger volumes, fleet and aircraft movements for business and personal purposes
at NUTS 3 level for Europe for the past years and an outlook for the coming years until 2050. The model
can cover different scenarios, which differ mainly in terms of market specifications (i.e. SAT on demand
versus SAT regular traffic) and the range and technology of SAT aircraft. In this sense, scenarios
covering new potential propulsion concepts like full-electric and hybrid-electric SAT can be constructed
and analysed.

189
When choosing the SAT flight, only airports with runway length above 800 meters have been
considered. Here also, availability was not considered i.e. if demand was forecasted on a connection
by the DESAT model on, this connection was included in the calculation. Potential start times or
frequencies of a SAT flight were not considered.

In the following case study, two types of SAT propulsion types are considered:

• Full-electric (battery)
• Hybrid-electric (battery and combustion engine)

The aircraft of this concept study is capable of flying a mission partly full-electric and extend the range
by an internal combustion engine in a hybrid-electric mode. In order to examine the effects of a full-
electric mission and a hybrid-electric mission in terms of connectivity, demand, flights and fleet size,
both types of propulsion are analysed in separation. For reasons of passenger comfort, a SAT flight will
not exceed a flight time of 2 hours due to the small cabin size. Stopovers, e.g. to recharge the batteries,
are not included in this case study. For the aircraft, two scenarios are assumed for the cruising speeds
of the full-/hybrid-electric mission by Piaggio Aerospace:

Table 51 – SAT cruise speed and range scenarios.

Propulsion mode Cruise speed scenario

a) 195 KTAS b) 426 km/h (230 KTAS)

Max. Full-electric range 159 NM 140 NM

Max. Hybrid-electric range 665 NM 600 NM
2h Hybrid-electric range 390 NM 450 NM

SAT entry into service for both propulsion modes and cruise speed scenarios is assumed for 2032,
followed by a ramp-up phase of 10 years until the SAT service is fully launched on the European market.
In addition to the impact on connectivity and mobility, the following chapter also presents the
associated SAT demand, the number of SAT flights and the fleet size up to 2050, whereby the number
of flights and the fleet size fully cover the forecast demand.

6.1.2 Results

By applying the methodology as outlined above, the fastest connection between all NUTS-3 regions by
car, public transport, conventional scheduled aviation (based on the mainliner/regional “DLR UC”
forecast) and SAT have been calculated. While the “DLR UC” relies on future flight schedules and
focuses more on established connections, for SAT, it is assumed that not all OD pairs (NUTS-3 region
pairs) are potentially available from the beginning of entry into service in 2032. In the first year of the
ramp-up phase, the potential opening of SAT services is only considered for attractive OD pairs with a
population of more than 500,000 inhabitants and a distance of less than 1110 km. After 5 years, the
potential opening of SAT services is based on all OD pairs with a distance of less than 1110 km. After
10 years, the model assumes the potential opening of SAT services for all OD pairs even above 1110
km.

190
The following diagram shows the average accessible population in EEA on NUTS-3 regions level within
4 hours, taking into account that the SAT flight does not exceed 2 hours flight time. It must be pointed
out that the accessible population is a theoretical value for connectivity, as it does not reflect the actual
travel demand. However, the theoretically accessible population is a very good indicator showing the
potentials of SAT, particularly for regions not well connected by scheduled aviation today.

Average accessible population in EEA on NUTS3 regions level within 4h –

taking into account a 2h SAT flight time
Average accessible population in % of total

28%
26%
24%
22%
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
Door-to-door connections incl. high unconstrained mainliner/regional forecast,
car, public transport (excl. SAT):
Excluding SAT
Including SAT (2h range: 159 nm , crusing speed: 195 ktas)
Including SAT (2h range: 450 nm , crusing speed: 230 ktas)

Figure 107 – Average accessible population in EEA on NUTS3 regions level within 4h – taking into
account a 2h SAT flight time.

Figure 107 demonstrates the results of average accessible population in 4 hours of the total European
population. The purple curve indicates the development of average accessible population only by
considering transportation changes due to the unconstrained forecast for mainliners/regional aircraft.
In this case car and public transport connections remain unchanged until 2050 and SAT has not been
considered at all. Only a marginal increase in average accessible population in 4 hours is notable
between 2025 and 2050. This means that additional direct flights with mainliner/regional aircraft are
likely to add only a small contribution to improvements in connectivity. Greatest improvement without
SAT is in NUTS3 regions located near London, due to the increasing number of connections at airports
in the Greater London area. The green curve indicates the percentage including exemplary an
additional full-electric SAT service from 2032 onwards. Since in this case study, the maximal flight time
in limited to 2 hours and the full electric SAT with a cruising speed of 195 ktas and a maximum distance

191
of 159 NM does not contribute significantly when looking at the average number of accessible
population in Europe in total. Including the hybrid electric SAT with 230 ktas and a max range of 450
NM in 2 hours, the average accessible population can be increased significantly. Between entry into
service in 2032 and after the ramp-up phase, the average accessible population increases by up to 27%
in 2050.

Greatest improvement from full- or hybrid-electric SAT exists in the Alp region, which is characterized
by a remote but central location in Europe. Other remote but less central located regions, for example
in the Baltic countries or Scandinavia also improve their accessibility. Due to the greater distances
connecting these regions with the more populous regions of Central Europe, the increase in accessible
population is minor.

This analysis shows that range has a decisive influence on accessibility. By operating a hybrid-electric
SAT with a higher range, a larger proportion of the population in Europe can be reached, resulting in
connectivity benefits. All-electric SAT concepts with their shorter range connect points in the
immediate vicinity and support connectivity especially on shorter routes where sufficient ground
transport infrastructure for direct connections is not available, in particular due to geographical
barriers. Table 52 shows that for the all-electric SAT with the lowest maximum range, domestic trips
per inhabitant in 2050 are highest in Norway, followed by Estonia. In countries such as Germany and
the United Kingdom, on the other hand, the number of trips per inhabitant is five times lower than in
Norway.

Table 52 – Domestic SAT trips per inhabitant and year in 2050 in selected countries (SAT range of 159NM
and speed of 195 ktas).

Country Domestic SAT trips per inhabitant and year in 2050

Norway 0.025

Estonia 0.010

Switzerland 0.009

France 0.007

Germany 0.005

United Kingdom 0.005

In addition, all-electric SAT concepts can be the launch pad for new zero-emission technologies. They
will provide an innovative impulse for climate-friendly connections in regional air transport.

192
 Accessible population in EEA from capitals <4h in 2050
Accessible population in % of total / Gain in

70%
60%
50%
percentage points

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Zagreb

Rome

Riga
Luxemburg

Bratislava

London

Oslo
Sofia
Bern

Budapest

Lisbon
Prague

Paris
Brussels

Tallinn

Valletta
Amsterdam

Warsaw
Berlin

Kopenhagen

Dublin

Helsinki
Vilnius

Athens
Ljubljana

Stockholm

Madrid
Vienna

Bucharest
Base 2019
Excluding new SAT, 2050
Including hybrid-electric SAT (2h range: 450 nm , crusing speed: 230 ktas), 2050
Gain in percentage points between 2019-2050

Figure 108 – Accessible population in EEA from capitals <4h in 2050. Comparison of conventional air/car
transport (base case 2019) and additional SAT determined by DESAT demand forecast. Sorted by highest
gain in percentage points over base year (2019).

Figure 108 demonstrates the results in connectivity gains for the European capitals. The gain for large
cities, as the capitals selected show, is a bit smaller because in most cases the connectivity is at a high
level already. But the advantage is not insignificant. It shows smaller capitals with central location have
the most advantages too. As an example, Luxembourg shows with a gain of 35 percentage points (by
including a hybrid electric SAT with a max. flight time of 2 hours and cruise speed of 230 ktas) the
highest improvement in connectivity (reached population parameter). From Luxembourg, with the
help of SAT, 62% of the European population could be reached within 4 hours with the selected SAT
propulsion type.

Followed by the assessment of accessible population in the European Economic Area, the DESAT model
has been applied for calculating the corresponding SAT demand, movements and fleet size in five-year
steps from 2035 until 2050. Total SAT trips are shown in the Figure 109.

Each bar depicts the number of trips for SAT service including the specific SAT configuration with entry
into service in 2032. Private and business use cases are added up and presented in a single SAT trip
number. From 2035 until 2050, the number of SAT trips increase steady throughout the full- and
hybrid. electric configurations considered. SAT trips including the full-electric SAT (cruise speed of 195
ktas and range of 195 NM in 2 hours) increase by 63% to nearly 2 million SAT trips per year in 2050,
and up to 69% including the hybrid-electric SAT (cruise speed of 230 ktas and range of 450 NM in 2
hours). Differences in the number of trips between SAT with the same speed but different range are
rather small. One reason for this is that general demand on longer routes is generally lower than on
shorter routes, with the exception of connections between densely populated regions/cities, and that
193
SAT competes with conventional scheduled air traffic on longer routes, which can lead to passengers
choosing the already existing connections of conventional air traffic instead of SAT service.

The number of SAT flights is derived directly from SAT demand by applying the seat load factor per
aircraft to the number of SAT trips, held constant across SAT configurations and time period, assuming
a 75% load factor per 19-seat SAT. This leads to around 140 thousand SAT flights including the full-
electric SAT (cruise speed of 195 ktas and range of 195 NM in 2 hours) and almost 160 thousand flights
including the hybrid-electric SAT (cruise speed of 230 ktas and range of 450 NM in 2 hours).

Figure 109 – SAT demand, flights and fleet size of full-/hybrid-electric mode.

SAT fleet size is derived from the number of SAT flights by applying an assumption on utilization hours
per aircraft to the number of flights. Due to assumed technology advances, the number of utilization
hours increases from 1140 hours in per aircraft and year in 2032 up to 1500 hours in 2050. SAT fleet
size is considerably low if comparing it to the conventional air transport. In 2050, 120 to 135 SAT
aircraft are expected to be operating in the EEA. The number of SATs differs slightly from one another.
Comparing the different propulsion systems as well as the assumed ranges and cruising speeds, there
are differences in the fleet size of around 15 aircraft in 2050 if all-electric and hybrid-electric SAT are
included.

194
The results of this case study show that the average rate of reachable population in the EEA from 2040
onwards can be improved by up to 27% with the chosen assumptions. However, the improvements
differ significantly depending on whether SAT is used in terms of range and cruising speed. While SATs
with a considerably short range of 159 nautical miles make only an insufficient contribution to
increasing the average reachable population. However, the benefits for individual NUTS3 regions differ
considerably – regions which are already today well connected to air transport, can benefit less from
SAT, while centrally located NUTS3 regions. Regions in the Alpes regions with no immediate access to
airports with commercial operations have the highest potential. Also, Scandinavia and the Baltic
countries profit from the introduction of SAT service. Due to the limited range of SAT, the most
populous regions of Europe are only connected to a certain extent, but the potential for domestic SAT
trips in Norway or Estonia marks the highest per capita in Europe.

SAT demand and the resulting movements and fleet size is expected to be a fraction of the overall air
transport market in Europe, resulting in low numbers regarding SAT demand, flights and fleet size with
regard to the assumptions made in this case study. While the European high-speed trains are
integrated in the DESAT tool and therefore considered in the SAT demand analysis, their integration in
the connectivity analysis could in some cases lead to faster connections even without the use of SAT
and reduce the SAT potential in terms of gain in reachable population within four hours.

195
6.2 Connectivity and Mobility (Rotorcraft)

6.2.1 Methodology: MOBILITY IMPACT MODEL

The EMMA (European Multi-Modal Analysis) tool, developed by UNIPD in the framework of
DEPART2050 project68, has been extensively used to analyse the impact of new concept aircraft and
rotorcraft in the European intermodal network. EMMA assesses the mobility benefits arising after the
introduction of a new aircraft network inside the current intermodal transport network. Additionally,
it is capable of minimising overall travel time by determining the optimal intermodal transport
combination for a given location pair.

The model operates by integrating a geography module, containing the network locations, with various
travel-time matrices related to the different transport modes: car, train, aeroplane, and new FRCs. The
new aircraft network is built by simulating the FLC and FLT on selected routes using a flight route
model.

Figure 110 – EMMA model structure.

Geography Module. The EMMA software discretises the geographical region of interest into
elements, in Europe for example a total of 1 399 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
(NUTS) 3 regions are used to build the intermodal transport network. For practical reasons it is
necessary to a unique geographical point that represents each element: the most populous city of a
region is employed as the node of the network following the approach implemented by Grimme et
al. [42]. In addition to city nodes, there are also airport nodes. For simplicity the train station nodes
coincide with the city nodes.

68
Anon. Design Evaluation and Performance Assessment of Rotorcraft Technology by 2050. CORDIS. Design
Evaluation and Performance Assessment of Rotorcraft Technology by 2050 | DEPART2050 | Project | Results |
H2020 | CORDIS | European Commission (europa.eu)
196
Car Network. The car network nodes are represented by all the cities and the travel times between
them are calculated using the online open source OpenStreetMap routing service.

Train Network. Again, the nodes are all cities with the travel-time matrices obtained from a web
service that provides train timetables, i.e., Eurail (available at www.eurail.com) is used in the
European region. The calculated time is computed based on the existing real connections (2019 data
for Europe); if there are more options with different travel times, the one that provides the minimum
time is chosen. For the cities that do not have a train station, travel time by road (car mode) is added
to reach the nearest train station.

Aircraft Network. The air network is the union of two distinct networks:

• Flight network (airplane mode): composed of all airports within a given region that have
scheduled flights as nodes. Flight-mode travel-time matrices are computed as the sum of
flight time, waiting time at the origin airport, waiting time at the destination airport, and
connection time (where applicable). The algorithm establishes a connection regardless of the
actual flight schedules: it represents thus the best potential travel time of the flight network.
In comparison, the real travel time for the flight network depends on a range of variables
which are difficult to predict.
• City-airport connection network (car mode): origin nodes are all cities and its arrival nodes all
the airports. The travel time is calculated in the same way as the car network.
Intermodal Network. The union of the car, train and aircraft networks, allows the creation of the
baseline intermodal network. Table 53 details the waiting and connection times employed in the
model for different transport modes. The Dijkstra algorithm is used to find the minimum travel time
related to all the possible network paths.

Table 53 – EMMA network waiting and connection times.

Waiting time (minutes)

Node type
Pre-departure Connection Post-arrival

Airport 60 45 30

Heliport 20 25 10

Train Station 15 15 10

Flight Route Model. The World Geodetic Model of 1984 (WGS 84) has been employed for the
representation of new aircraft geographical location to estimate the distance travelled for each
mission. WGS 84 is the reference coordinate system utilised by Global Positioning Satellite (GPS). A
flight path model is necessary for estimation of the travel time for all concepts on every route. The
typical mission can be simplified in the following phases: warm-up, take-off, climb, cruise, descent,
landing, and idle. The travel time related to some of these phases can be considered fixed (taxi, take-
197
off, and landing), while the duration of others will vary depending on route distance (cruise, climb,
and descent).

The methodology can be summarised as follows:

• Calculation of performance parameters related to the baseline network, considering car, train,
and aeroplane modes;

• Choice of the network optimisation parameter, either shortest travel time or population
reached in less than four hours;

• Choice of the number of new routes for the new aircraft network, selected from the best
performing routes with respect to the optimisation parameter. These routes are then added
to the baseline network to build the improved network;

• Calculation of the intermodal travel times and performance parameters of the improved
network and compare them with the baseline network.
Mapping the population reached in less than four hours (PR4) level across Europe for the current
baseline network (Figure 111) highlights several key aspects. For this map, each NUTS 3 region is
assigned a PR4 value calculated as the total population in regions that can be reached within the 4-
hour travel time limit. This method means that highly populated regions, for example as the Île-de-
France area, score highly. In addition, geographical proximity has a strong influence. This is most clearly
demonstrated by the relatively low score for the Catalan region of Spain compared to the Côte-d’Azur
region of France, where both regions have similar population densities. Furthermore, large cities and
NUTS 3 regions in central Europe are generally well connected to airports and are surrounded by
regions with high population densities. This means that large populations are accessible with small
increments in travel time. Finally, the peripheral and remote regions of Europe return low scores due
to both low population densities and the time required to reach central transport hubs. These include
Scandinavian regions close to the Arctic Circle, some Baltic regions, and isolated islands.

Figure 111 – PR4 (in millions) for each NUTS 3 region of the European baseline network.
198
The best performing regions in Central Europe present PR4 values between 100 and 230 million
people, which for the selected countries account between 20% and 45% of the total European
population of slightly more than 500 million. However, the average PR4 value for Europe is lower at
approximately 58.7 million.

In the second assessment FASTRIP 2050 performed additional mobility studies for global scenarios (The
European scenario had been analysed in the 1st assessment). Four world regions of interest have been
identified:

• United States: the world’s biggest rotorcraft market;

• Mexico and Caribbean islands: the former is characterised by important natural barriers
(mountains) that separate two relatively close coastal areas, while the latter have very limited
ground transport connectivity;

• Brazil: very large country with low transport connectivity, especially due to natural barriers;
• China and South-east Asia: the former is the world’s second largest economy, while the latter
is characterised by extremely scattered islands, where air transport can have an important
impact in benefitting the transport network.

6.2.2 Results NGCTR

Mobility performance improvements at a network level have been clearly observed, in the following
global and European scenarios (see Figure 112 and Figure 113 with the example of Brazil for new
routes):

• US: maximum average PR4 increase of 7.6 million (+48.7%) obtained with 5 000 new routes;

• Mexico and Caribbean: maximum average PR4 increase of 17.1 million (+78.2%) obtained with
2 500 new routes;

• Brazil69: maximum average PR4 increase of 17.3 million (+124.7%) obtained with 2 500 new
routes;
• China and South-east Asia: maximum average PR4 increase of 44.5 million (+56.9%) obtained
with 5 000 new routes;
• Europe (for reference): maximum average PR4 increase of 18.4 million (+31.4%) obtained with
5 000 new routes.
At a node level, the highest gains in PR4 are obtained in the North-west regions of Brazil (more than
5 000% increase) which in the baseline network are characterized by a very low connectivity.

69
Brazil and South-East Asia were chosen to show the potential of the NGCTR in significantly growing markets in
comparison to other regions of the world.
199
Figure 112 – Increase in average PR4 for the NGCTR: comparison between different world regions.

200
Figure 113 – Brazil case: new optimal NGCTR routes chosen to maximise PR4 (left) and corresponding
percentage increment in PR4 (right).

201
 6.2.3 Results RACER

For the racer Mobility performance improvements at a network level have been clearly observed, in
the following global and European scenarios (see Figure 114 and Figure 115 with South East Asia as
an example for new routes):

• US: maximum average travel time reduction of 0.52 hours (-6.8%) obtained with 5 000 new
routes;
• Mexico and Caribbean: maximum average travel time reduction of 0.47 hours (-6.8%)
obtained with 2 500 new routes;
• Brazil: maximum average travel time reduction of 2.5 hours (-24.4%) obtained with 2 500 new
routes;
• China and South-east Asia maximum average travel time reduction of 0.5 hours (-9.1%)
obtained with 5 000 new routes;

• Europe (for reference): maximum average travel time reduction of 0.42 hours (-6.8%)
obtained with 5 000 new routes.
At a node level, the highest shortest travel time reductions are obtained in the northern and central
regions of Brazil (more than 70% reduction on average) which in the baseline network are
characterized by a very low connectivity.

Figure 114 – Reduction in node Shortest Travel Time for the RACER: comparison between different world
regions (X1:100; X5:500; X25:2500 new routes).

202
Figure 115 – China and South-east Asia case: new optimal RACER routes chosen to minimise STT as a
function of cruise design speed and number of new routes.

203
6.3 Macroeconomic Effect

6.3.1 Methodology

The TE assesses the socio-economic impact of global aviation in addition to the technological and
environmental impact of Clean Sky 2 technologies. The indicators used to measure the socio-economic
impact are the gross value added (GVA) and employment created by aviation. GVA describes the value
of the goods and services produced as output minus the value of the inputs used in the process. The
GVA of an industry is therefore a measure of its contribution to gross domestic product (GDP). While
the GVA impact of the aviation industry is measured in monetary terms, its employment impact is
measured in the number of jobs created. This analysis is limited to the economic effects of global
aviation and does not consider the additional economic effects of Clean Sky 2 alone. Although the
Clean Sky 2 programme undoubtedly accelerates the development of more efficient and
environmentally friendly aircraft, some technological progress in aviation can be expected even
without the programme, which leads to a certain degree of uncertainty about the size of the additional
economic effects of Clean Sky 2.

The global aviation industry has different kinds of effects on GVA and employment:

• Direct effects that arise from the economic activity within the aviation industry (i.e. airlines,
airport operators, air navigation service providers (ANSPs), ground handlers, MRO firms,
aircraft and component manufacturers).
• Indirect effects that result from the economic activity of upstream suppliers (e.g. suppliers of
aircraft fuel, manufacturers of metals for aircraft construction).
• Induced effects that arise from the spending of labor income generated either directly or
indirectly by the aviation industry. The directly and indirectly employed spend part of their
labor income on consumer goods, whose production leads to these economic effects.

In addition, there are so-called catalytic effects, which describe economic activity that is only made
possible by the connectivity function of air transport. These effects include, in particular, the activities
of the tourism industry and those of globally orientated companies. However, it is difficult to delineate
these effects, as passenger and freight transport can at least in principle also take place via other
modes of transport and digital communication tools such as videoconferencing can be used instead of
face-to-face meetings. In contrast to the direct and indirect effects, there is therefore a certain degree
of subjective judgement as to which economic activities air transport is essential for. Hence, the TE
assessment refrains from providing a quantitative estimation of the catalytic effects of air transport.
However, the touristic-catalytic effects identified by Roland Berger and Oxford Economics70 in the
independent study on the socioeconomic impact of the European Union’s Clean Sky 2 programme are
discussed in section 6.4.

70
Anon. Towards climate-neutral Aviation – An independent study on the socio-economic impact of the
European Union’s Clean Sky 2 Programme. Roland Berger/Oxford Economics. Socioeconomic Impact of Clean Sky
2 (clean-aviation.eu)
204
Direct effects

Direct effects are determined for four groups of aviation industry stakeholders, which are derived from
international industry classification standards. These groups are: (1) airlines; (2) airport operators and
related service providers including ANSPs and ground handlers; (3) maintenance, repair, and overhaul
(MRO) firms, and (4) aircraft and component manufacturers. (see Table 54).

Table 54 – Aviation industry stakeholders

Stakeholder group European Union industry classification North American industry classification
(NACE Rev. 2) (NAICS 2002)
1 Airlines Air transport (Code H51) Air transportation (Code 481)
2 Airport operators and related Service activities incidental to air Air traffic control (Code 488111)
service providers (ANSPs, transportation (Code H5223) Other airport operations (Code
ground handlers) 488119)
3 MRO firms Repair and maintenance of aircraft and Other support activities for air
spacecraft (Code C3316) transportation (Code 488190)
4 Aircraft and component Manufacture of air and spacecraft and Aerospace product and parts
manufacturers related machinery (Code C303) manufacturing (Code 3364)
Notes: NACE (for the French term ‘Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne’)
and NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) are standardized coding systems to classify and categorize
economic activities and industries. The codes in parentheses in the table are the corresponding industry classification codes
in these systems.

For most European countries71 and the United States, data on direct GVA and employment can be
obtained from official statistics for the individual stakeholder groups. Data sources are Eurostat for
Europe, and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for
the US. However, while the US BLS provides employment figures for each of the stakeholder groups in
the US, the economic data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) are in part not sufficiently
disaggregated, so that GVA has to be estimated for stakeholder groups (group 2 and 3). For this
purpose, the GVA per employee is calculated for the parent industry from the BEA data and multiplied
by the actual number of employees from the BLS. In addition, official data on aircraft manufacturing
in Europe and the US includes civil as well as military aircraft production. To determine the civil share,
revenue shares from annual reports of the Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of
Europe (ASD) and the US Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) are used.

For countries in the rest of the world, direct GVA and employment are estimated for all stakeholder
groups using a regression model, with the exception of aircraft manufacturing. For this purpose, the
known Eurostat data on GVA and employment in the European countries are used. For each
stakeholder group, the number of departing flights per country and year is regressed once on the
corresponding employment figures and once on the corresponding GVA figures. The data source for
the flight volumes is the Sabre Market Intelligence (MI) database. The number of departing flights in
2019 is then used to estimate GVA and employment for all three stakeholder groups in countries in
the rest of the world. For aircraft manufacturing, a different approach is taken. Employment data for

71
EU member states, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland.
205
large firms72 producing commercial turbojets and turboprops are obtained from company reports. GVA
is then estimated by multiplying the employment figures with the GVA per employee of the parent
industry sector from the WIOD World Socio Economic Accounts.

Indirect and induced effects

Indirect and induced effects are estimated using an input-output model and an input-output table.
Input-output models link the gross output of an industry with the intermediate demand of other
industries and the final demand of consumers. Input-output tables provide data on transactions of
goods and services between industries.

In the TE assessments, the World Input-Output Table (WIOT) of the World Input-Output Database
(WIOD) for the year 2014 is used, which is the latest available. The WIOT covers 43 countries, which
include most developed and major developing countries (see Table 55), and 56 industry sectors per
country including the air transport industry.

Table 55 – Countries covered by WIOT

Australia Estonia Latvia Russia

Austria Finland Lithuania Slovakia
Belgium France Luxembourg Slovenia
Brazil Germany Malta Spain
Bulgaria Greece Mexico Sweden
Canada Hungary Netherlands Switzerland
China India Norway Taiwan
Croatia Indonesia Poland Turkey
Cyprus Ireland Portugal United Kingdom
Czech Republic Italy Korea United States
Denmark Japan Romania

The input-output model produces multipliers that link the direct employment or GVA with
indirect/induced employment or GVA. The direct effects are then multiplied with the corresponding
multipliers to obtain the indirect and induced effects.

Forecast up to the year 2050

The effects are projected up to the year 2050 based on different scenarios of the TE flight movement
forecast. For stakeholder groups (1) airlines, (2) airport operators and related service providers, and
(3) MRO firms, it is assumed that the economic effects grow proportionally with the air traffic of the
respective country. For stakeholder group (4), aircraft manufacturing, it is assumed that the effects
grow proportionally with the total global air traffic volume. This implicitly assumes constant market
shares for the individual manufacturing regions such as Europe or the US.

6.3.2 Results
The direct, indirect, and induced economic effects of the aviation industry are shown for the EU27+UK
and the world in Figure 116 and Figure 117. The majority of direct GVA is generated by airlines,

72
Antonov, Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), Bombardier Aviation, Comac, Embraer, Mitsubishi
Aircraft Corporation, United Aircraft Corporation (UAC).
206
followed by airports and ANSPs, then manufacturers and lastly MRO companies. In terms of
employment, the picture is very similar, with the difference that in the EU27+UK manufacturers
employ more people (399 thousand) than airports and ANSPs combined (338 thousand). This highlights
the importance of Europe as a key location for aircraft manufacturing. This is also evident from the fact
that in the EU27+UK the aviation industry makes a particularly large contribution to GDP (3.1%) and
employment (2.4%). In comparison, globally the contribution of the aviation industry to GDP is 3.0%
and to employment 0.9%.

Note: Percentages in parentheses indicate shares of total gross value added in the economy.

Figure 116 – Gross value added (GVA) created by aviation in 2019 (in billion €).

Note: Percentages in parentheses indicate shares of total employment in the economy.

Figure 117 – Employment created by aviation in 2019 (in thousand jobs).

The forecasted development of the economic effects based on the high scenario of the TE Air Transport
Forecast is shown in Figure 118. The results indicate strong positive growth in aviation-related
employment in Europe and the world as well as a significant increase in gross value added created by
aviation. Aviation-related employment in the EU27+UK amounts to an estimated 7 million direct,
indirect, and induced jobs in 2050 in the high scenario, compared to 5.2 million jobs in 2019. Global
aviation-related employment is expected to increase by about 51% between 2019 and 2050.
Employment growth is particularly strong in emerging economies due to strong air traffic growth in
these countries.
The direct, indirect, and induced real GVA created by aviation would reach € 565 billion in the EU27+UK
by 2050, compared to 431 € billion in 2019. Global aviation-related GVA is expected to rise by about
57% between 2019 and 2050.
Although a significant driver is the strong air traffic growth in emerging economies such as China, India,
and Indonesia, the EU27+UK and the US will see both their employment and GVA from aviation roughly
207
increase by 35-40% by 2050 versus 2019, thus maintaining a significant share of the world’s global
aviation-related employment and GVA.

Figure 118 – Gross value added (GVA) and employment created by aviation between 2019 and 2050
(high scenario).

Comparison with the CS TE 1st Global Assessment and other studies

Finally, we compare the methodology and results with the TE’s 1st Global Assessment and other studies
on the global economic impacts of aviation. These other studies include the independent study on the
socioeconomic impact of the European Union’s Clean Sky 2 programme by Roland Berger and Oxford
Economics73 (RB/OE) as well as the Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders study74 by the Air Transport
Action Group (ATAG). Table 56 provides a comparison of the methodologies of these different studies.

Table 56 – Studies on the economic impacts of aviation.

Study Geographic Direct effects Indirect effects Induced Catalytic

scope (included industries) (included industries) effects effects1
Clean Sky 2 TE Global, but Airlines Yes No
Suppliers including
1st Global including only
- Airports (aeronautical)2
Assessment most
- ANSPs
developed and
- MRO
major
- Aircraft manufacturers
developing
- Other suppliers3
countries

73
Roland Berger, Oxford Economics (2022). Towards climate neutral aviation – An independent study of the
socioeconomic impact of the European Union’s Clean Sky 2 programme. Study commissioned by the Clean Sky
Joint Undertaking. Socioeconomic Impact of Clean Sky 2 (clean-aviation.eu)
74
ATAG, Air Transport Action Group (2020). Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders. Study prepared by Oxford
Economics. aw-oct-final-atag_abbb-2020-publication-digital.pdf (aviationbenefits.org)
208
 Clean Sky 2 TE Global Airlines Other suppliers3 Yes No
2nd Global Airports (aeronautical)2
Assessment ANSPs
MRO
Aircraft manufacturers
Roland Berger, Global Airlines Other suppliers3 Yes Yes,
Oxford Airports (all activities)2 partly
Economics ANSPs (inbound
(2022) Aircraft manufacturers tourism)
MRO (at airports)
ATAG (2020) Global Airlines Other suppliers3 Yes Yes,
Airports (all activities)2 partly
ANSPs (inbound
Aircraft manufacturers tourism)
MRO (at airports)
1 Thiscolumn indicates whether the respective study identifies effects that can be interpreted as catalytic effects. There is however no
universally accepted definition of catalytic effects and the methods used to determine them are controversial.
2 Airports include aeronautical activities (airport operation, ground handling, fire service, customs, immigration, security), core non-

aeronautical activities (restaurants, retail shops, car parks, car rentals), and other non-aeronautical activities (hotels, office parks).
3 Other suppliers include e.g. fuel suppliers, construction companies, material producers, manufacturers of computers and office

equipment, IT service providers, law offices, accounting firms, and consultancies.

The TE 2nd Global Assessment extends the 1st Global Assessment by covering the whole world. Although
the 1st Global Assessment already covered most developed and major developing countries, which
together account for more than 90% of global air traffic, some countries were not included. Another
extension of the 2nd Global Assessment is that it includes data on the economic activities of all
stakeholders in the aviation industry. In the 1st Global Assessment, only airlines activities were included
as direct effects and the activities of other aviation industry stakeholders had to be estimated as
indirect effects. In terms of methodology, the 2nd Global Assessment is therefore comparable in these
aspects to the RB/OE (2022) and ATAG (2020) study. A comparison of the results of the studies for the
EU27+UK shows that the 2nd Global Assessment delivers results of a similar order of magnitude to the
RB/OE (2022) and the ATAG (2020) study (Figure 119). In contrast, the 1st Global Assessment indicates
significantly lower effects. This is due to the fact that by only including the airline industry as a direct
effect, it is apparently not possible to capture all of the activities of the aviation industry and its
upstream suppliers.
The studies also differ in that the RB/OE (2022) and ATAG (2020) studies additionally consider tourism
as a catalytic effect of air travel. However, the delineation of these effects is difficult, as discussed in
the previous chapter. Air transport is undeniably important for international tourism, but without air
transport at least part of the trips would be made by other modes of transport. Furthermore, the
tourism industry constitutes a separate industry, and aggregating a large share of its economic effects
with those of the aviation industry can be misleading. For example, according to ATAG (2020), the
tourism industry accounts for 51% of global aviation-related jobs. Therefore, in the TE’s 1st and 2nd
Global Assessment, catalytic tourism effects of aviation were not estimated.

209
Figure 119 – Studies on the economic impact of aviation in the EU27+UK.

210
 Table 57 – Gross value added created by aviation in 2019 (in million euro).

Country Direct Indirect Induced Total % GVA Economy

Australia 11,729 17,200 8,881 37,811 3.0%
Austria 1,911 4,051 2,086 8,047 2.0%
Belgium 2,869 6,678 3,247 12,794 2.7%
Brazil 14,269 18,980 11,778 45,028 2.7%
Bulgaria 391 821 416 1,627 2.6%
Canada 19,608 31,978 14,088 65,674 4.2%
China 80,882 146,711 51,715 279,308 2.2%
Croatia 754 1,164 642 2,561 4.7%
Cyprus 226 370 174 771 3.3%
Czech Republic 849 1,990 904 3,743 1.7%
Denmark 1,786 2,863 1,549 6,198 2.0%
Estonia 204 473 183 860 3.1%
Finland 1,495 2,938 1,314 5,747 2.4%
France 22,063 28,737 16,101 66,901 2.7%
Germany 17,614 33,972 19,192 70,779 2.0%
Greece 1,233 2,221 1,102 4,555 2.5%
Hungary 1,621 1,461 706 3,788 2.6%
India 20,325 15,624 10,972 46,921 1.9%
Indonesia 16,423 16,894 8,616 41,933 4.2%
Ireland 2,011 3,406 1,766 7,183 2.0%
Italy 8,946 35,382 17,244 61,572 3.4%
Japan 18,437 22,311 14,038 54,786 1.2%
Korea 7,105 13,906 6,658 27,669 1.9%
Latvia 458 747 318 1,523 5.0%
Lithuania 248 568 294 1,110 2.3%
Luxembourg 317 966 417 1,699 2.7%
Malta 254 178 111 542 3.8%
Mexico 10,424 19,340 6,304 36,068 3.2%
Netherlands 5,405 13,443 5,547 24,395 3.0%
Norway 1,456 6,499 1,933 9,888 2.7%
Poland 2,619 5,669 2,787 11,075 2.1%
Portugal 2,170 2,357 1,528 6,055 2.8%
Romania 1,273 2,805 1,085 5,163 2.3%
Russia 13,262 38,543 14,162 65,968 4.4%
Slovakia 144 716 387 1,246 1.3%
Slovenia 121 398 229 748 1.5%
Spain 10,769 11,604 7,955 30,328 2.4%
Sweden 1,314 4,734 1,973 8,021 1.7%
Switzerland 4,204 10,685 5,845 20,735 3.2%
Taiwan 3,977 6,778 5,452 16,207 2.7%
Turkey 9,428 11,045 4,427 24,900 3.7%
United Kingdom 25,114 34,123 22,233 81,470 3.2%
United States 277,071 274,408 197,837 749,316 3.9%
World 748,682 1,024,384 550,561 2,323,627 3.0%
EU27+UK 114,179 204,835 111,488 430,502 3.1%

211
 Table 58 – Employment created by aviation in 2019 (number of jobs).

Country Direct Indirect Induced Total % Jobs Economy

Australia 105,304 125,891 78,332 309,527 2.4%
Austria 19,292 38,217 21,207 78,716 1.8%
Belgium 18,858 55,156 24,140 98,154 2.0%
Brazil 140,257 408,397 303,279 851,933 0.9%
Bulgaria 10,482 41,281 22,891 74,655 2.3%
Canada 181,344 220,962 128,551 530,857 2.8%
China 772,436 3,094,818 1,750,598 5,617,852 0.7%
Croatia 5,275 9,386 6,397 21,058 1.3%
Cyprus 2,665 5,185 2,845 10,695 2.6%
Czech Republic 19,421 54,861 22,835 97,117 1.8%
Denmark 14,697 22,387 12,036 49,120 1.7%
Estonia 2,053 9,394 3,541 14,987 2.2%
Finland 17,305 34,993 14,490 66,788 2.6%
France 212,230 431,126 222,542 865,898 3.2%
Germany 245,992 481,643 258,759 986,393 2.3%
Greece 12,153 25,942 16,275 54,370 1.5%
Hungary 11,231 29,959 16,437 57,627 1.3%
India 182,478 679,200 756,249 1,617,926 0.4%
Indonesia 147,443 578,798 508,170 1,234,411 0.9%
Ireland 18,382 22,044 13,586 54,011 2.3%
Italy 94,283 275,101 142,127 511,511 2.2%
Japan 166,338 326,310 186,962 679,610 1.0%
Korea 63,785 166,681 92,639 323,105 1.2%
Latvia 4,513 11,424 5,586 21,524 2.4%
Lithuania 4,494 11,706 6,575 22,775 1.7%
Luxembourg 3,180 5,797 2,118 11,094 3.8%
Malta 4,378 3,359 1,839 9,575 3.8%
Mexico 93,584 167,016 122,937 383,537 0.7%
Netherlands 45,094 125,201 55,412 225,707 2.5%
Norway 16,793 31,137 10,619 58,549 2.2%
Poland 44,076 120,635 66,761 231,472 1.4%
Portugal 26,396 57,706 38,496 122,598 2.5%
Romania 16,184 72,020 40,516 128,719 1.5%
Russia 137,581 692,065 400,982 1,230,628 1.7%
Slovakia 2,874 14,591 7,139 24,603 1.0%
Slovenia 2,140 8,172 4,295 14,607 1.5%
Spain 95,909 163,858 112,592 372,359 1.9%
Sweden 16,268 41,982 15,710 73,961 1.4%
Switzerland 35,143 83,212 40,779 159,134 3.4%
Taiwan 35,709 112,948 99,538 248,195 2.2%
Turkey 84,641 214,750 117,171 416,562 1.5%
United Kingdom 242,475 412,722 245,436 900,634 2.8%
United States 1,235,872 1,577,179 1,293,673 4,106,724 2.6%
World 5,747,641 14,682,699 10,157,500 30,587,839 0.9%
EU27+UK 1,212,298 2,585,849 1,402,584 5,200,731 2.2%

212
 Table 59 – Gross value added created by aviation between 2019 and 2050 (in million euro).

Country 2019 2035 2050 Ø Annual growth rate

(high scenario) (high scenario) 2019-50
Australia 37,811 46,406 58,429 1.4%
Austria 8,047 8,601 10,278 0.8%
Belgium 12,794 14,883 17,335 1.0%
Brazil 45,028 61,492 88,666 2.2%
Bulgaria 1,627 1,624 1,843 0.4%
Canada 65,674 75,044 89,549 1.0%
China 279,308 413,339 579,244 2.4%
Croatia 2,561 2,321 2,666 0.1%
Cyprus 771 866 1,039 1.0%
Czech Republic 3,743 4,096 4,840 0.8%
Denmark 6,198 7,403 8,745 1.1%
Estonia 860 1,038 1,182 1.0%
Finland 5,747 5,941 7,234 0.7%
France 66,901 76,290 92,936 1.1%
Germany 70,779 80,584 97,844 1.1%
Greece 4,555 4,265 4,821 0.2%
Hungary 3,788 3,741 4,382 0.5%
India 46,921 59,200 75,005 1.5%
Indonesia 41,933 55,676 72,009 1.8%
Ireland 7,183 8,742 9,364 0.9%
Italy 61,572 64,206 73,771 0.6%
Japan 54,786 60,218 69,803 0.8%
Korea 27,669 32,429 44,810 1.6%
Latvia 1,523 1,495 1,738 0.4%
Lithuania 1,110 1,200 1,326 0.6%
Luxembourg 1,699 1,580 1,788 0.2%
Malta 542 472 522 -0.1%
Mexico 36,068 41,901 52,967 1.2%
Netherlands 24,395 28,082 34,275 1.1%
Norway 9,888 10,850 12,434 0.7%
Poland 11,075 12,100 14,592 0.9%
Portugal 6,055 6,087 7,036 0.5%
Romania 5,163 5,815 6,731 0.9%
Russia 65,968 62,290 72,159 0.3%
Slovakia 1,246 1,424 1,586 0.8%
Slovenia 748 848 966 0.8%
Spain 30,328 31,477 37,455 0.7%
Sweden 8,021 9,500 11,051 1.0%
Switzerland 20,735 22,954 26,528 0.8%
Taiwan 16,207 18,092 23,493 1.2%
Turkey 24,900 35,269 45,557 2.0%
United Kingdom 81,470 89,447 107,186 0.9%
United States 749,316 849,702 1,034,068 1.0%
World 2,323,627 2,775,992 3,511,697 1.3%
EU27+UK 430,502 474,131 564,532 0.9%

213
 Table 60 – Employment created by aviation between 2019 and 2050 (number of jobs).

Country 2019 2035 2050 Ø Annual growth rate

(high scenario) (high scenario) 2019-50
Australia 309,527 379,899 478,323 1.4%
Austria 78,716 85,087 102,307 0.8%
Belgium 98,154 114,655 135,327 1.0%
Brazil 851,933 1,145,746 1,630,025 2.1%
Bulgaria 74,655 75,817 87,084 0.5%
Canada 530,857 609,051 730,742 1.0%
China 5,617,852 7,983,316 10,997,956 2.2%
Croatia 21,058 20,581 24,355 0.5%
Cyprus 10,695 12,033 14,450 1.0%
Czech Republic 97,117 108,469 130,327 1.0%
Denmark 49,120 58,669 69,540 1.1%
Estonia 14,987 18,086 20,700 1.0%
Finland 66,788 69,374 84,597 0.8%
France 865,898 1,002,912 1,237,399 1.2%
Germany 986,393 1,126,853 1,372,240 1.1%
Greece 54,370 51,897 59,271 0.3%
Hungary 57,627 60,029 71,983 0.7%
India 1,617,926 2,012,993 2,549,272 1.5%
Indonesia 1,234,411 1,625,110 2,098,279 1.7%
Ireland 54,011 65,719 70,607 0.9%
Italy 511,511 558,449 664,360 0.8%
Japan 679,610 747,574 867,327 0.8%
Korea 323,105 379,030 521,696 1.6%
Latvia 21,524 21,466 25,144 0.5%
Lithuania 22,775 24,787 27,633 0.6%
Luxembourg 11,094 10,544 12,068 0.3%
Malta 9,575 8,453 9,405 -0.1%
Mexico 383,537 447,402 565,603 1.3%
Netherlands 225,707 260,806 319,496 1.1%
Norway 58,549 64,363 73,924 0.8%
Poland 231,472 258,528 315,618 1.0%
Portugal 122,598 124,782 145,271 0.5%
Romania 128,719 146,736 173,114 1.0%
Russia 1,230,628 1,185,408 1,385,056 0.4%
Slovakia 24,603 28,432 32,738 0.9%
Slovenia 14,607 16,684 19,312 0.9%
Spain 372,359 396,184 476,942 0.8%
Sweden 73,961 87,631 102,306 1.1%
Switzerland 159,134 177,251 206,447 0.8%
Taiwan 248,195 281,289 363,100 1.2%
Turkey 416,562 578,497 745,552 1.9%
United Kingdom 900,634 1,012,391 1,232,364 1.0%
United States 4,106,724 4,675,454 5,707,167 1.1%
World 30,587,839 37,468,687 48,218,866 1.5%
EU27+UK 5,200,731 5,826,055 7,035,960 1.0%

214
6.4 Competitiveness and Societal Impact

Over the last decades the air transport sector has grown significantly. This growth is expected to
continue over the long-term including important economic benefits for industry and society as outlined
in the preceding section.

However, in order to foster the economic growth linked to aviation and to balance it with the need of
mitigating aviation’s negative environmental impacts in a sustainable way intense effort in research
and development is needed. In this context, the independent study on the socioeconomic impact of
the European Union’s Clean Sky 2 programme has investigated the contribution of the programme and
the underlying European effort of industry and politics to address this challenge.75

The corresponding effects are significant. In the framework of the growth projections for aviation
demand as outlined in section 4 of this report the total GDP contribution of the European aviation
sector to the overall European economy is estimated to reach a level of between EUR 1.3 trillion to 1.8
trillion up to the year 2050. In the same year up to 18.5 million jobs in Europe will depend on aviation
activities and improved air connectivity can additionally turn out into productivity increases by EUR
4,000 to EUR 5,300 per employee.76 These estimates of GDP and employment contributions are
notably higher than the TE results presented in section 6.3.2, as they also include aviation-enabled
tourism in addition to the direct, indirect and induced effects. In 2050, aviation-enabled tourism is
expected to contribute between EUR 430 billion and 570 billion to European GDP and between 5.3 and
6.9 million jobs to European employment.

Looking at the Clean Sky 2 programme in the light of these results, short-term and long-term impacts
can be differentiated. In the short-term, the Clean Sky 2 programme has contributed to Europe’s GDP
with EUR 350 million per year for the time span from 2015 to 2024. In the same time about additional
4,900 jobs were created as direct outcome of the Clean Sky 2 activity. For the EUR 1.7 billion public
funding in the programme additional private R&D investments of EUR 2.3 billion are also estimated
meaning that the programme is a clear driver of innovativeness. Starting from this calculation the total
economic benefit of the Clean Sky 2 programme can be expected to be 3.4 times higher than the
original investment over the long-term.77 This includes the role of the Clean Sky 2 programme as boost
for strengthening Europe’s overall competitiveness and innovativeness by delivering patents,
applications and innovative solutions that can also be used in other industries (so called “spill-over
effects”) as well as by the considered catalytic effects including foreign investment and increasing
efficiency along the entire aviation supply chain. Especially those effects include manifold benefits
contributing to increased prosperity all over Europe with a sustainable impact in the long-term.

Additional socio-economic benefits arise from the primary objectives of the Clean Sky 2 programme
with regard to the reduction of gaseous emissions and aircraft noise. These benefits have to be
evaluated with highest priority as climate-neutrality of aviation is the top-level goal of industry, politics

75
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking, Towards Climate Neutral Aviation – An independent study on the socio-
economic impact of the European Union’s Clean Sky 2 Programme, Brussels, 2022.
76
Cf. Ibid., p. 7.
77
Cf. Ibid.
215
and society. The transformation of the sector is not only needed. It is also urgent to find a way to
harmonise growing aviation demand on one hand, and to mitigate the negative impacts on the other.
This enables more people to profit from the growth of the aviation sector from a socio-economic point
of view by ensuring that this growth is sustainable.

With regard to the Clean Sky 2 programme Clean Sky 2 technologies might provide a benefit by
incorporation in the global fleet with a value of around EUR 320 billion up to the year 2050. This
calculation is based on a 60% CO2 reduction of Clean Sky 2 technologies and a corresponding 40% NOx
reduction.78

In terms of connectivity the Clean Sky 2 programme indirectly contributes to an overall connectivity
increase for the European Union by ensuring that this growth is managed in a more sustainable
manner. Based on the TE high traffic scenario, this connectivity increase might result in 5.3% higher
European GDP in 2050 compared to a base case where connectivity is assumed to be stable from 2025
onwards.79 In addition, the Clean Sky 2 programme plays a very important role in terms of
competitiveness. Between 2015 and 2024 the R&D activities funded by the Clean Sky 2 grants and
related in-kind operational contributions amounted to EUR 315 million per year on average including
direct, indirect and induced effects. Within the same time span 100 jobs directly supported by Clean
Sky 2 activities created additional 150 jobs along the supply chain each year.80 Knowledge sharing in
R&D was additionally fostered by generated publications and patents in the scope of the Clean Sky 2
programme.

With regard to publications the following table presents the total dissemination outcomes as reported
by 31 December 2023.

Table 61 – Overview publications reported by 31 December 2023.

Publications GAM GAP Total Dec Total Increase Comparison with

2023 Dec 2022 in %
2022
Peer Reviewed 499 990 1489 1202 287 23.88%
Paper

Technical Paper 229 375 604 491 113 23.01%

Book 16 22 38 35 3 8.57%

Thesis 20 89 109 97 12 12.37%

Other 333 466 799 655 144 21.98%

78
Cf. Ibid., p. 4.
79
Cf. Ibid., p. 13.
80
Cf. Ibid., p. 21.
216
 Total 1097 1942 3039 2480 559 22.54%

The overall progress against the yearly targets for the Joint Undertaking KPI in terms of scientific
publications (peer-reviewed and technical papers only) is presented in the following graph. The total
scientific publications produced by the end of 2023 exceeded the KPI target by more than 45%.

Figure 120 – Development of CS2 Scientific Publications (2014-2023).

Similar success could be reported in terms of patents. The following graphs presents the total
submitted patent applications between 2014 and 2023 as reported by each SPD.

217
 Figure 121 – Patent applications per SPD from 2014-2023.

The overall progress against the yearly targets for the JU KPI for Patents has also been very positive,
largely exceeding the KPI target, as presented in the following graph.

Figure 122 – Overall development of patents generated in the scope of the Clean Sky 2 programme from
2014 to 2023.

With regard to general spill-over effects concrete figures on the long-term impact of all of those
activities are more difficult to estimate as they rely on manifold assumptions. Nevertheless, based on
the diverse indicators analysed in the study from Roland Berger and Oxford Economics, it can be
assumed that the total net economic contribution of Clean Sky 2 R&D to the European economy
amounts to EUR 8.6 billion. This includes potential productivity gains in the aerospace industry,
spillover-effects with regard to related industries and increased foreign investment in aerospace.
Taking into account the initial Clean Sky 2 grants and related in-kind operational contributions the

218
economic benefits of the Clean Sky 2 programme can be estimated as 3.4 times higher than the Clean
Sky 2 initial funding.81

To conclude the analysis of the impact of the Clean Sky 2 programme on societal effects and the
European competitiveness, it has to be stated that the Clean Sky 2 programme is a very important
pillar in order to reach climate-neutrality in aviation. The described benefits and a sustainable way of
growth which depends on the transformation of the whole aviation sector can finally only be realized
by a common effort of industry, politics and society. In this respect, the Clean Sky 2 programme is a
perfect role model to show the effect of actively fostering cooperation and innovation and brings
Europe in a position to become a driving force in providing the pathway for a future sustainable
aviation system with important socio-economic benefits in manifold dimensions.

81
Cf. Ibid. P. 27.
219
7 Contribution of CFP projects

Within the frame of the TE a number of call for proposal projects were performed. The following
sections provide an overview of these projects and their results, which allowed to complement the TE
work with very valuable inputs.

7.1 TEDIMO

The main objective of the TeDiMo project was to establish a technology diffusion model in the context
of the Technology Evaluator which enables the investigation of the propagation of new technologies
developed in Clean Sky 2. Within TeDiMo the following three-step approach was adopted to set up
and test the model:

1. Identification of the motivational background of the introduction and application of new

technologies into present and future air vehicles: The diffusion pattern of recently introduced
technologies to other air vehicles shall be investigated and all parameters ascertained that
have a significant influence on the technology diffusion process.

2. Development of a diffusion model based on previous findings that allows for a time-discrete
prediction of technology diffusion in air vehicles.

3. Application of the prior developed diffusion model to the Clean Sky 2 world fleet scenario in
the context of the air transportation system assessment. An analysis of the technology
diffusion into the aviation market (within specific concept air vehicles) shall be delivered
considering time-relevant aspects. Hence, the future composition of the world fleet shall be
determined and the impact of propagated technology estimated on vehicle level.

The sophisticated agent-based approach developed in TeDiMo was used for a proof-of-concept
application (step 3). The model requires a set of input parameters: A list of airlines (including
information on their carrier type and their current fleet), a list of aircraft that are currently in the
market (including the respective performance data) and annual demand and retirement rates for each
aircraft category. For the reference case a list of airlines and aircraft in the market in 2019 including
the CS2 reference aircraft was used. Annual demand rates were calculated from a fleet forecast
provided by DLR and the discard rate was assumed to be 3.5% per year. The resulting fleet
development for an exemplary seat class (100-150 passengers) is shown in Figure 123 and the
corresponding aircraft score values (used in the model to assess aircraft performance capabilities) are
shown in Table 62.

220
 Figure 123 – Fleet development over 30 years for seat class 100-150 PAX (reference case).

Table 62 – Aircraft scores for seat class 100-150 PAX (reference case).

A score sensitivity study showed that the developed model behaves as intended. The changes of scores
caused by changes in aircraft parameters were as expected. In general, the scores are influenced by
the formula used for conversion of performance parameters to scores and the weightings resulting
from airline surveys (exemplary application: see Figure 124).

Figure 124 – Aircraft score variation depending on CO2 emissions.

The fleet development analysis also showed expected behaviour of the model. With increasing
threshold value, the demand become concentrated on fewer aircraft models and in extreme cases
demand is not fulfilled. With increasing discard rate, the start fleet retires early and there is no change

221
to the overall fleet size. With increasing demand, fleet sizes grow, and the start fleet is retired early
(example: see Figure 126).

Figure 125 – Fleet development over 30 years for seat class 100-150 PAX, Demand: Reference case + 5%.

222
7.2 TRANSCEND

Scope

Following the COVID-19 pandemic global air travel is expected to rise significantly in the coming
decades. At the same time, climate neutrality by 2050 is a major objective of the European Green Deal
to which aviation will have to contribute. Therefore, reducing greenhouse gas emissions during flight
is one of the main challenges for the development of future commercial aircraft. The development of
hydrogen (H2) powered aircraft has recently become a topic of major interest as it presents the
opportunity to eliminate CO2 emissions. In particular the use of Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) is under
investigation.

In the EU Clean Sky 2 (CS2) Coordination and Support Action TRANSCEND (Technology Review of
Alternative and Novel Sources of Clean Energy with Next-generation Drivetrains) the potential of
aircraft propulsion based on H2 was studied, both at aircraft and fleet level. For three different ICAO
seat classes in the 20-300 seats range, H2-powered configurations – with future entry into service (EIS)
– were conceptually sized and assessed in terms of mission energy consumption and emissions:

1. A Regional turboprop configuration, seat class 20-50, for missions up to 1000 kilometres, with
EIS 2035 – based on ATR 42;

2. A Short Medium Range (SMR) single aisle turbofan configuration, seat class 151-175, for
missions up to 2000 nautical miles, with EIS 2035 – based on Airbus A320neo (Figure 126);

3. A twin aisle turbofan configuration, seat class 211-300, for SMR missions up to 2000 nautical
miles, with EIS 2040 – based on Boeing 787-8.

Propulsion based on H2 combustion in gas turbines (configuration 3), on H2 fuel cell electric power
(configuration 1) and on combinations of these two (configuration 2) using parallel hybrid electric
propulsion (HEP), was addressed. Specific focus was given to NOX emissions, H2O emissions and energy
consumption. The modelling of H2-powered aircraft was extended to other seat classes as well, within
the 20-300 seats range, using the (relative) gross energy and emission results from the three seat
classes described above.

Figure 126 – Artist impression of SMR single aisle H2-powered configuration, showing the LH2 tanks (aft
of the cabin) and fuselage extension.

223
The aircraft modelling results were applied in a global fleet level analysis (for the period 2020 - 2050).
H2-powered aircraft were introduced on the aforementioned missions and from the aforementioned
EIS onwards.

Two traffic development scenarios – originating from the first assessment of the CS2 Technology
Evaluator (Clean Sky 2, 202182) – were used as input. The two scenarios mainly differ in terms of traffic
growth and are marked as low (constrained – DLR CON LOW 1st Assessment) and high (constrained –
DLR CON 1st Assessment). Besides a different number of flights, the low scenario contains more aircraft
in the lower seat ranges than the high scenario. Therefore, the low scenario allows for introduction of
(slightly) more H2-powered aircraft, which were modelled up to 300 seats.

Results

In the simulations, the relative number of flights with H2-powered aircraft has increased from 2035 to
2050: up to 38% in the low traffic scenario and up to 35% in the high scenario. This leads to a fleet level
reduction of 20% (low traffic scenario) and 16% (high traffic scenario) in global gross CO 2 emissions in
2050 compared to the case without introducing H2-powered propulsion – see

Figure 127 below - whereas global gross energy consumption and NOX emission slightly increase and
H2O emission increase significantly.

2.0
1.8
CO2 emission (Gt)

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6 High traffic development, with H2-aircraft
0.4 High traffic development, without H2-aircraft
Low traffic development, with H2-aircraft
0.2 Low traffic development, without H2-aircraft
0.0
2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 127 – Simulated global aircraft gross CO2 emissions under high or low traffic development, and
with (solid lines) or without (dashed lines) hydrogen-powered aircraft.

82
Anon. Clean Sky 2 Technology Evaluator: First Global Assessment 2020 - Technical Report. Clean Sky 2 Joint
Undertaking. 2021.
224
7.3 Oasys

Objectives of the project

The environmental impact of future advanced configurations like Urban Air Mobility (UAM) vehicles
and Supersonic Transport (SST) aircraft is attracting increasing attention. The EU-funded OASyS
(Overall Air Transport System Vehicle Scenarios) project forecasted future scenarios for these vehicles
(UAM, Commercial SST & Supersonic Business Jet) in the 2035-2050 timeframe. The sub-goals can be
subdivided between the three reporting deliverables83.

Report on Forecasts
The objective of the work for this deliverable is to conduct a literature review to assess existing aviation
forecasts for a broad set of vehicle classes to identify previous methods, data, and drivers for
forecasting aviation demand.

Forecasting Capability Developments Report

The objective of the work for this deliverable was to develop the forecasting capability required to
generate scenarios for aviation that include urban air mobility (UAM) and supersonic vehicles. The
team’s ambition for this work package was to identify data gaps, expand any baseline or reference
capabilities to scope, and develop approaches to fill the data gaps.

Forecasting Data and Final Results Report

The objective of this work package was to develop the scenarios for urban air mobility (UAM) and
supersonic vehicles based on the approach developed and on the data identified and refined. Further,
this work package seeks to generate the scenarios that are developed for the drivers and parameters,
all which are computed and verified. The scenarios forecast the future markets for the three classes of
vehicles and their associated emissions inventories.

Main Results

Commercial SST
The high demand scenario (switching factor 30 %, induced demand 20 %) outcomes for future forecast
years 2035 and 2050 provide a meaningful network with enough yearly operations to support a total
estimated fleet of 150 – 400 SST aircraft, respectively. The CO2 emissions from the high demand
scenario (7 MT in 2035 and 17 MT in 2050, see Figure 128) are not insignificant, but they will represent
a small portion of global aviation emissions. However, although the carbon footprint is relative
negligible it has high political visibility and low societal acceptability. The network in the low demand
scenario (switching factor 15 %, induced demand 5 %) is quite small, yielding less than one hundred
daily flights until 2050 and a negligible carbon footprint associated with the network.

83
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864521/results
225
Supersonic Busines Jet (SSBJ)
Figure 129 shows the estimated number of routes served by SSBJ at airport level from 2030 to 2050.
It can be seen that the network will be much less significant if the supersonic over-land flight ban
remains in place (due to the low number of routes served for the low demand scenario in 2035).
Looking at the high demand scenario, the number of routes served by gen. 1 SSBJ (Mach Cut-Off
overland flights, Mach 1.15) and gen. 2 low-boom SSBJ (supersonic overland flight, Mach 1.4) are listed
separately.

Urban Air Mobility (UAM)

The results for annual UAM passenger trips for the high demand scenario (UAM speed of 240 km/h;
VTTS 60/120 for personal/business; 120 sq. km vertiport network density) is generated in Figure 130.
The estimated demand for services for each five-year interval in the high demand scenario results
grows by a factor of ~1.2 reflecting a large market for the UAM services in future years if the
prerequisites are obtained. These prerequisites include UAM vehicle production, vehicle safety, and
certification standard development, and regulatory processes, among other challenges in getting the
services to market.
Annual UAM passenger trips for 2035 to 2050 in the low demand scenario (UAM speed of 120 km/h;
VTTS 35/80 for personal/business; 300 sq. km vertiport network density) are also reproduced in Figure
130. From the figure, it is observed that the annual passenger estimates increase every year over the
five-year intervals. Annual passenger trips for the low demand scenario in 2035 is around 60 billion.
On an interval of five years, the annual passenger trips demand increases to 85 billion and continue to
increase for the remaining future years. Decreasing the price of UAM services leads to exponential
UAM demand growth.

Figure 128 – Total Daily Flights & Emissions resulting from Commercial SST Network for both Scenarios.

226
 Figure 129 – Number of SSBJ Routes Served Progression.

Figure 130 – Annual UAM Passenger Trip for the High / Low Demand Scenario.

227
7.4 GLIMPSE 2050

The aviation industry in Europe and worldwide has long recognised the challenge to accommodate air-
traffic growth in a sustainable way. To this end, efforts are made in the development of new aircraft
technology, in air traffic management, in sustainable aviation fuels, and in policies and regulations.
Building on the significant gains made in the first Clean Sky Programme (2008-2016), the Clean Sky 2
Programme aims to make a substantial contribution to the ACARE 2050 environmental goals by
accelerating the introduction of new aircraft technology in the timeframe 2025-2035. The objective of
the Clean Sky 2 TE project GLIMPSE2050 (Global Impact Assessment of Regulations and Polices of
Sustainable Aviation by 2050) was to evaluate at global level the potential effects up to 2050 of
regulations and policies that are currently discussed and potentially introduced until 2040 to reduce
the environmental impact of aviation. It expands the aircraft technology-oriented focus of the Clean
Sky 2 Programme as it estimates which environmental reductions (focusing on CO2 and NOX) can be
achieved through new regulations and policies in addition to those brought by Clean Sky 2
technologies.
To achieve its objective, GLIMPSE2050 applied a four-steps approach. The first step is the selection of
regulations and policies for its assessment. The second step is to select the environmental-
performance indicators to quantify. The third step is to select and enhance the assessment method to
quantify these indicators. The fourth step is to assess the environmental impact of the selected
regulations and policies in terms of the selected indicators by means of the selected (and enhanced)
method. More specifically:
1. Selection of regulations and policies
GLIMPSE2050 conducts a comprehensive and structured literature review and a systematic
selection of (candidate) regulations and policies for its assessment. This review is based on
publications from governmental organisations (e.g. EU and ICAO) and non-governmental and trade
organisations (e.g. IATA, ATAG, and ICCT) as well as publications in media (e.g. Aviation Week,
EURACTIV, and Flight Global). The selected (candidate) regulations and policies are classified into
technological regulations and policies (e.g. ICAO Independent Expert goals), sustainable aviation
fuels (e.g. uptake mandates and targets), operational regulations and policies (e.g. ATM
modernisation through SESAR, NextGen and ASBUs; wake-energy retrieval; and ban on domestic
flights), and economic or market-based regulations and policies (e.g. EU-ETS, CORSIA, and fuel and
ticket-based taxation).
2. Selection of environmental-impact indicators
Based on EU Directives, international standards and best practices, GLIMPSE2050 selects
environmental-impact indicators, such as the total amount of CO2 and NOX emitted by aircraft
worldwide.
3. Set-up of assessment approach
The GLIMPSE2050 assessment approach starts with the fleet and movements forecast up to 2050
provided by DLR. This forecast is based on autonomous economic, demographical and
technological developments but without any of the selected regulations and policies.
228
 GLIMPSE2050 fine-tunes EASA’s and ICAO-CAEP endorsed tool AERO-MS to match this fleet and
movements forecast, and subsequently uses AERO-MS to generate the fleet and movements
scenarios with selected regulations and policies implemented.
4. Assessment
GLIMPSE2050 carries out the environmental-impact assessment of the selected regulations and
policies. Every regulation and policy is assessed individually first, and then as part of selected
groups of regulations and policies. The results of this assessment indicate a reduction of about 11%
in CO2 and 14% in NOX that the selected regulations and policies can jointly bring in the various
timeframes up to 2050 on top of the reductions brought by Clean Sky 2 technologies. As the
geographical scope of a few regulations and policies differ, there are variations per world region.
The selected regulations and policies on ATM modernisation, wake-energy retrieval, and fuel and
ticket-based tax appear to be the dominant contributors to these reductions. Further, the results
suggest a reduction in the number of flights and number of flown aircraft-kilometres, a reduction
in fleet size (with an increased share of Clean Sky 2 concept aircraft), and an increased share of
long-haul flights. Nevertheless, these results hint at a relatively modest impact on stakeholders.

GLIMPSE2050 results were presented at the GLIMPSE2050 Dissemination Workshop, with participants
mainly representing Clean Sky 2 JU, various EC DGs (viz. DG-ENV, DG-CLIMA, DG-MOVE, and DG-RTD),
leaders of Clean Sky 2 IADPs, ITDs and TAs, and EASA.

229
7.5 REIVON

The TE project REIVON (Reduction of the Environmental Impact of aviation Via Optimisation of aircraft
size/range and flight Network) aimed at investigating the potential of CO2 emissions reduction through
a combination of fleet and flight network optimisation. Two main concepts were considered: (1)
Intermediate Stop Operations (ISO), whereby long-haul flights are split into shorter legs, and (2)
Frequency reduction (FR) of flights on busy routes using higher-capacity aircraft. In both cases the
optimal combination of aircraft size and range for each flight is selected, which includes new aircraft
types not existing today (e.g., high-capacity short-range), noting that current aircraft are used to a
large extent for flights significantly below their design range, i.e. are over-dimensioned.

Both the ISO and the FR concept as well as the introduction of new aircraft types have a significant
impact on stakeholders (airports, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, ANSPs, passengers, see Figure 131).
These impacts were studied qualitatively and quantitatively, based on the modelling scenario
calculations above as well as input from the REIVON Advisory Board and other stakeholder experts.
Furthermore, for a representative selection of 10 airports affected by ISO and/or FR, the impact on
noise, local air quality and capacity was modelled in detail.

Figure 131 – Overview of impacts of REIVON measures to relevant stakeholder groups.

Scenarios including only ISO, only FR and a combination of both were modelled, starting from the DLR
unconstrained high growth demand and flight forecast for 2050 as the baseline. Optimisation was
applied to flight routes ≥ 3000 NM for ISOs and ≥ 500 000 seats/year for FR. For each flight, the optimal
aircraft size-range combination was selected. For relevant size-range combinations, aircraft designs
were generated by the NASA FLOPS model, fuel burn was modelled with the PIANO model and
emissions inventories generated with the FAST model. Two modelling runs were done, differing in
aircraft design refinement vs optimal fit of the tool chain. In the modelled scenarios for 2050, routes
suitable for ISO and/or FR represent 76% of all aviation CO2 emissions (routes suitable for ISO only:
28%, for FR only: 65%). Average CO2 reduction potentials on relevant routes relative to the baseline
were estimated to be between 7% and 25% for ISO and 10% to 24% for FR (Figure 132), depending on
the modelling runs and assuming no implementation constraints.

230
 Figure 132 – CO2 reduction through FR (up) and ISO (down), per flight leg distance band.

In the modelling, a very significant reduction of 36.7% in the global aircraft movements was found
through FR, significantly contributing to mitigating airport capacity constraints and ATC congestion,
with the number of airports with more movements than the expected maximum capacity in 2050
dropping from 93 in the unconstrained high growth baseline scenario to 12 airports in the FR scenario
with size and range-optimised aircraft. The demand for high-capacity aircraft strongly increases (to
over 12 000 in 2050) as well as the number of airports needed to accommodate these aircraft. About
50% of the 2050 fleet is range-optimised in the model. However, building a very large number of
aircraft variants with different ranges is uneconomic for manufacturers as development costs are high
and the market per variant is small. Therefore, for each optimisation scenario the aircraft variants with
most potential for a large market are identified.

Airlines would clearly benefit from reduced fuel costs. This has to be traded against the reduced
operational flexibility of range-limited aircraft in case of emergency replacement of another aircraft or
of extension of the airline’s route network. For passengers, longer travelling times in case of ISO (14%
on average) and reduced time flexibility in case of FR will not be the most favourable option as long as
other options exist, and therefore would require international regulations to support or mandate their
use. This might generate a competitive disadvantage for airlines practising ISO or FR.

231
Candidate airports for ISO stopovers are often located in sparsely populated areas or small oceanic
islands with very little traffic today. They would see a very strong relative increase in movements as
well as local emissions and noise; however, compared to large commercial airports, the impact would
still be small in absolute terms. FR would create significant free capacity at congested airports through
the reduced number of movements (Figure 133). Local emissions and noise would in many cases also
go down although less strongly than the movements, due to the shift to larger average aircraft size
(Figure 134).

The stakeholder impact analysis has identified the main barriers to implementation of the REIVON
concepts. A set of operational and policy measures to overcome these barriers was proposed and a
qualitative assessment was done including stakeholders’ expert views.

Due to the character of REIVON as a theoretical feasibility study, various questions related to the real-
world implementation of the ISO and FR concepts had to remain open. A larger follow-on project with
manufacturer involvement for the aircraft design aspects would be needed to quantify the impacts
investigated only qualitatively investigated so far.

Figure 133 – Impact of ISO and FR on movements at FRA airport, per seat category.

232
Figure 134 – Impact of ISO and FR on NOx emissions at FRA airport, per aircraft category.

233
8 Final Global Impact

Emission Reduction Outlook of Normative Aviation Scenario

In order to enable a sustainable aviation growth in the future common efforts are needed by all
aviation stakeholders as well as by different parts of the aviation industry. In order to estimate the full
impact of the Clean Sky 2 programme in this regard, further aviation scenarios not considering Clean
Sky 2 technologies were identified to compare them with the potential contribution the Clean Sky 2
programme can deliver over the next decades.

Although some limitations in relation to this comparison exist due to the different assumptions and
input data the studies under investigation have used, the comparison of different available normative
aviation scenarios (with a Net Zero CO2 Emission Goal in 2050) provides some interesting results. All
organizations that published scenario studies indicate in their scenarios a high uncertainty referring to
future emission reduction potentials in the aviation industry until 2050. For a more detailed analysis
the five aviation scenarios from ATAG, which were part of the “Waypoint 2050” study, were selected
which represent global outlooks of emission reductions in aviation under different assumptions. Next
to these scenarios also the global “Net Zero Carbon 2050 Resolution” from IATA was considered in this
normative aviation scenario comparison. On European Level the “Base Scenario” from EUROCONTROL,
the “Destination 2050 Roadmap” from NLR as well as the “Breakthrough Scenario” from ICCT were
considered in this comparison analysis.

These normative aviation scenarios with a Net Zero CO2 Emission Goal in 2050 were finally also
compared with the global so-called “Integrated Scenarios” from ICAO, which (in contrary to the
normative scenarios) do not consider any market-based measures for emission reductions. These
Integrated Scenarios show the emission reduction potential of aviation in 2050 under pessimistic
assumptions (IS I), medium assumptions (IS II) and maximum possible assumptions (IS III).

The following figure shows the emission reduction potentials for aviation in 2050 for the mentioned
normative scenarios and integrated scenarios subdivided between the four following different
emission reduction categories: Aviation Technology, Air Traffic Management & Operations,
Sustainable Aviation Fuels and Market-Based Measures. Although the considered studies are based on
different assumptions and input data some general trends can be derived from the comparison of the
research findings.

234
 Figure 135 – Comparison of CO2 emission reduction potential of aviation until 2050 based from different
studies and scenarios (Source: Own Figure).

On the one hand it can clearly be seen that Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) play in almost all scenarios
by far the most important role for reducing the CO2 emissions from aviation in 2050. The average value
of the emission reduction potential of SAF in 2050 is 48% with a maximum value of 71% and a minimum
value of 5%.

The average value of the emission reduction potential of Aviation Technology in 2050 is 20%, with a
maximum value of 38% and a minimum value of 10%. The value range regarding emission reduction
potential of ATM/Infrastructure/Operations in 2050 spans from 3% to 17% percent with an average
value of 9%.

Secondly, in all normative aviation scenarios the need of market-based measures for theoretical
reaching a net zero CO2 emission goal in 2050 can be seen. Thus, the average value of emission
reduction potential of market-based measures in 2050 is 23%, with a maximum value of 76% and a
minimum value of 3%.

Thirdly, a comparison with the Integrated Scenarios from ICAO show that the emission reduction
assumptions in the normative aviation scenarios are quite optimistic. Thus, some normative scenarios
show even higher emission reduction potentials than the Integrated Scenario III with maximum
possible emission reduction potentials of in total 87% in 2050.

235
Global Emission Reduction potentials of Clean Sky 2 Technologies until 2050

After describing the emission reduction outlook of available aviation scenario studies, in the following
section the global emission reduction potentials of Clean Sky 2 until 2050 should be analysed and
discussed.

Without any emissions reduction measures the total global CO2 emissions of the aviation sector would
increase to around 1,309 Mt in 2050 (Figure 136). To prevent this development different measures will
be needed. Next to Aviation Technology (here: Clean Sky 2 Technology) also improved ATM &
Operations (based on GLIMPSE & REIVON CS2 projects, and ICAO, ATAG, ICCT, ECT, IATA, and NLR
studies), Sustainable Aviation Fuels (ReFuel EU SAF shares are assumed), and possibly further market-
based measures, are possible ways and solutions to continuously reduce CO2 emission reduction from
aviation.

The difference between the emission results of the 1st and the 2nd assessment comes from the new
fleet modelling and the slightly increased load factors up to 2050. In the 1st Assessment, existing
aircraft was fixed to their original airport pair and could not be moved until it was retired. In fast-
growing markets like Asia this caused very large aircraft to enter the market to serve the demand. As
a result, there was in some cases a large variety of aircraft (both rather small and very large aircraft)
operating on such airport pairs, leading to an inefficient allocation of aircraft, especially on short to
medium distance routes. This was a point of concern in the ICAO CAEP work and this issue was
addressed with an improved, more flexible model. In the new fleet model for the 2nd Assessment,
existing aircraft can be allocated to different airport pairs according to the individual capacity needs
and flight distances. This results in a more compact aircraft size distribution with less need for very
large aircraft, especially on short to medium distance routes, which has a positive effect on emissions
reduction.
Predictions on the total aviation emissions in 2050 differ between forecasts. The consideration of
airport capacity constraint has an important effect on the demand and fleet development (1600 Mt in
2050 in the DLR reference unconstrained scenario v.s. 1,309 Mt in 2050 in the DLR reference
constrainted scenario) as well as the complex model structure and socio-economic growth
assumptions. The benefits of the worldwide DLR model lie in the possibility to account for and forecast
airport capacity constraint thanks to an airport-level based model. This model contributes to
advancements in demand and fleet development forecasting, contributing to a shift from lower to
higher resolution forecasts, although further studies will be needed to confirm and mature such model.
The reference “No Action” scenario is a forecast in which no new post-2019 technology is considered
(2019 “frozen” technology) but that still accounts for the impact of the latest 2019 technology being
currently inserted in the fleet, mainly up to 2035. It is not a scenario in which the 2019 fleet fuel
efficiency is frozen. It includes the ongoing insertion of the latest generation of aircraft (A320neo,
A321neo, A330 neo, A350, B777X, Embraer E2, etc.) that is currently replacing the older generation
(A320ceo, A321ceo, A330ceo, Embraer E1, etc.), as forecasted in the DLR constrained scenario (cfr.
fleet replacement figures in section 5.3.1). It only disregards the advancements made under the Clean
Sky 2 programme but comprises the current latest known technology benefits. However, it does not

236
account for retrofit and future upgrades of the latest aircraft generation due to lack of robust data.
The impact of the latest generation of aircraft replacing the older one has not been calculated.

Figure 136 – Global CO2 Emission reduction potential until 2050 by considering Aviation Technology
(Clean Sky 2 Results), Improved ATM & Operations, and Sustainable Aviation Fuels (Refuel EU SAF
shares).

After the introduction of Clean Sky 2 Technology in 2030 the global emission reduction potential
continuously increases to 7.1% in 2040 and to 14.5% in 2050 against the reference scenario (No Action,
with capacity constraints). It means 200 Mt CO2 saved in 2050, assuming performance improvement
from CS2 technologies in all aircraft types as of 2035, but with 61% fleet replacement (cfr. section
5.3.1). The Clean Sky 2 technologies are not including SAF contributions and cover fossil fuel only. The
gain in fuel production would be of the order of 60 Mt, 20% of 2019’s kerosene production (290Mt).

The introduction of the DLR People Mover concept, which is intended for short to medium routes with
high passenger volume to mitigate the capacity shortage at airports and improve the ecological
footprint of air transport (see section 4.2.4), would increase the global emission reduction potential of
Aviation Technology from 14.5% to 17.5% in 2050 (see section 5.3.2).

237
Another 9% emission reduction in 2050 could be achieved by improved ATM and operations on top of
the improvements enabled by CS2 technologies. Upgraded aircraft navigation systems are already
taken into account in the current fleet forecast as the network routes are flown by the great circle
distance. Load factor improvements have been accounted for as well. Benefits under this category may
thus come from improved/alternative ATM and operations such as formation flight (wake energy
retrieval, a potential for 5% fuel savings on long haul flights as evaluated in the CS2 GLIMPSE study),
Intermediate Stop Operations (ISO) and/or Frequency Reduction (FR) network strategies (cfr. CS2
REIVON projects), or decarbonized on-ground operations (e-taxi and less carbon intensive ground
operations). Some of those benefits also require specific technologies such as modified flight control
systems to position the follower aircraft safely in the wake updraft of the leader aircraft allowing it to
reduce engine thrust and fuel consumption, and electric drive landing gear for e-taxi.

Finally, further 43% emission reduction potential in 2050 could be realized by the continuous increase
of SAF use in aviation. This SAF assumption is oriented on the Refuel EU initiative and assumes a global
increase of SAF share in aviation from 6% in 2030 to 34% in 2040 to finally 70% in 2070. It is important
to point out that the actual net CO2 emission reduction potential from SAF differs between the
scenarios although the assumed SAF shares are the same. Thus, for the first synopsis a 70% SAF share
in 2050 would lead to a 43% emission reduction because the 70% SAF share is applied on the remaining
emissions after considering Aviation Technology and ATM & Operations. In total, this would lead to a
net CO2 emission reduction of 66.5% in 2050.

Although SAF will be very important in reducing CO2 emissions in Aviation it should be highlighted that
especially technology improvements will play a key role in the future. Thus, it should be considered
that SAF do not eliminate fully emissions in Aviation (net CO2 reduction). A reduced SAF consumption
will also make economic factors more favourable, especially considering the effects of SAF costs.
Finally, also the problems linked to SAF availability will be relatively less critical when emission will
already significantly reduced by technology improvements.

The gap to net zero remaining after all previous levers have been applied is still around 440 Mt of net
CO2. Any further improvement in aircraft efficiency and new energy source such as batteries or
hydrogen will result into an absolute reduction of emissions. The ongoing Clean Aviation programme
(2021 – 2027) is participating to increase this emission reduction potential through technologies by
2050. Other market-based measures or future policies could as well accelerate the path to aviation
decarbonization.

238
9 Conclusions and Recommendations

The scope of this 2nd TE Global Assessment of the Clean Sky 2 programme covers two major aspects:
the environmental impact assessment of the technologies developed under CS2 research and the
socioeconomic impact assessment of the programme. This work has been performed by the German
Aerospace Center (DLR) based on the inputs from all SPDs within the framework of the Technology
Evaluator as a transversal activity.

The environmental impact assessment covers the achieved results to date in terms of CO 2, NOX and
Noise reductions based on a number of aircraft concept models received from the various SPDs
including the DLR people mover. These models have been used to estimate performance
improvements versus a reference aircraft (SoA year 2014) at mission level, at airport level (including
noise footprint) and at fleet level (Air Transport System) in a forecast up to 2050, with a constrained
scenario. The study uses a forecasting model based on various economic growth assumptions,
technology diffusion models and fleet replacement rates. It introduces an important novelty, as
compared to other models dealing with air transport: airport capacity constraints. Due to insufficient
adjustment of infrastructure to air transport, demand growth is endogenized and its effects on fleet
mix evolution is captured. For the future airport noise as an airport capacity limitation could be
included as well to as this is also an important airport operational constraint for some major airports.
Future studies could explore constraints at airports which have noise capacity limits, especially where
concept aircraft have a significantly reduced LTO noise profile. Comparisons are provided with the
results of other models (such as ICAO and Airbus). To strengthen the credibility of this forecast, DLR
has performed the same calculations without this assumption (i.e. an unconstrained forecast) for
comparison. A constrained forecast is likely to show an overall reduction of about 53% in terms of flight
volumes to be expected by 2050 versus an unconstrained forecast, with direct consequences on
aircraft in service, hence deliveries.

At airport level noise impacts were estimated by comparing the noise performance of future airport
traffic scenarios with and without CS2 technologies in the year 2050 for a set of representative airports.
The reductions for 2050 in surface area of Lden contours for relevant noise levels (60-65 dB(A)) are
about 8-17% and point out significant reductions of population exposed and population highly
annoyed in the range of 8-17%. Reductions in surface area of Lnight noise contours for relevant noise
levels are expected to be in the range of roughly 5-15% and reductions in population exposed to these
noise levels would be up to 20%. In 2050, reductions of CO2 emissions will amount to about 11.5-15%
for the European airports considered, while the associated NOX reductions will be in the range 10.5-
14.5%.

At fleet level (Air Traffic System), according to the present forecast, approximately 71% of global
available seat kilometres (ASK) will be operated with aircraft expected to carry CS2 technologies in
2050, while 29% of global ASKs will still be operated by aircraft with 2014 reference technologies, not
yet retired. By applying the performance improvements of the SPD aircraft models, an overall
reduction of CO2 and NOX emissions of about 14.5% and 29%.0% per seat kilometre can be expected
for the year 2050 high fleet scenario as compared to a 2050 global traffic scenario incorporating only
239
2014 reference technology. These values increase with the insertion of the people mover concept
aircraft in the 2050 fleet in ranges up to 4,000km yielding 17.5 % CO2 and about 33% NOX reduction.

The global economic impact of aviation in 2050 is driven significantly by the strong growth of air
transport in current developing countries such as China, India and Indonesia. The direct, indirect, and
induced real GVA created by aviation would reach € 565 billion in the EU27+UK by 2050, compared to
431 € billion in 2019. Global aviation-related GVA is expected to rise by about 57% between 2019 and
2050. Aviation-related employment in the EU27+UK amounts to an estimated 7 million direct, indirect,
and induced jobs in 2050 in the high scenario, compared to 5.2 million jobs in 2019.

At mission level, a high-level description is provided of the nine proposed fixed-wing concept aircraft
according to the market segments (commuter, regional, short, medium and long range) and two fast
rotorcraft concept vehicles with their respective links to the IADPs and ITDs, together with their chosen
reference vehicle for comparison. The results are presented based on detailed descriptions of the
concepts and their technology insertions. Most of the concepts achieve their target or even exceed it.
Those mission level performance results are the basis for the airport and fleet level calculations. Thanks
to the progress in noise reduction technologies, the airport level assessment also shows substantial
improvements.

The initial People Mover research study has indicated the potential benefits for introducing, via
comparison, shorter range higher capacity aircraft to support passenger operations over reduced
operational ranges (2,000 – 4,000km) for constrained airports with high passenger demand routes.
Consideration should be given to extending this study to assess the benefits using existing certified
aircraft operating with similar maximum PAX (combined + individual). In this respect assessment of the
certified A350/1000 (480 PAX) with A321Neo (single class configuration, 244 PAX) should be
undertaken. This comparative study could then be extended to include comparisons with the SMR++
and LR+ CS2 aircraft to present a fuller picture incorporating industry generated concepts. A more
detailed investigation of more PM configurations could be beneficial, with different ranges (4,000-
5,000 km), different cruise Mach numbers (0.60, 0.65, 0.70) to investigate the effects on potential fuel
burn/emissions and travel time, as well as to explore the economic viability/fuel burn/emissions. A link
with Clean Aviation Highly Efficient SMR with a range smaller than 4,000 km could also be a future
avenue. The initial Glimpse and REVION studies could be enhanced in a follow-up to consider assessing
the CS2 industrial future concepts (SMR +, SMR++, LR+) together with current best in class certified
aircraft to provide a better understand of ISO and frequency effects and the environmental benefits
that could be achieved. Finally, future studies could be helpful to investigate optimisation of design
range, operational range and cruise Mach number to fully utilise the potential of the CS2 Technology
Bricks.

240
 2050 Clean Sky 2 DLR CON network

As for fleet evolution, in the case of mainliners, the model predicts a major shift towards larger aircraft
(301-500 seats) mainly to be used to fly short range (< 4,000km). It is thus expected that the
discrepancy between design range and operational use will considerably increase in importance.

Funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, Clean Sky contributes to strengthening European
aviation industrycollaboration, global leadership and competitiveness by delivering innovative
solutions for the aviation sector. The socio-economic impact assessment of this study covers societal
aspects like e.g. mobility, connectivity, and economic aspects such as employment, GDP growth and
competitiveness. Clean Sky’s long-term vision is to enable the EU aviation sector to reach complete
climate neutrality by 2050. Achieving such an ambitious goal requires sector-wide cooperation, and
Clean Sky engages SMEs, universities, research centres and the aviation industry to continue to deliver
ground-breaking results.

241
242
Published by Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking in November 2024
www.clean-aviation.eu