Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T10:23:06.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Enhanced cruise range prediction for narrow-body turbofan commercial aircraft based on QAR data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2020

V.E. Atasoy*
Affiliation:
Eskişehir Technical University Eskişehir Turkey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aircraft performance parameters play a critical role in maintaining economic and environmental sustainability in aviation. Furthermore, the ability to calculate aircraft performance parameters accurately for the cruise range contributes to aviation in areas such as the preliminary design of aircraft and air traffic management. This study is focused on cruise range performance, as this is critical to both the evaluation and understanding of the economic and environmental impacts of commercial aircraft. Quick Access Recorders (QAR) data were used for more accurate analysis of the cruise range. The QAR data used in this study included 6,574 short-distance domestic flights by narrow-body turbofan commercial aircraft between 31 different city pairs. To obtain a more accurate cruise range equation, parameters affecting the cruise range performance were determined and studied. First, the drag polar model was improved to take the cambered profile, compressibility effects and cruise airspeeds of commercial aircraft into consideration using the real flight data. Second, Thrust-Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC) models were compared and the most suitable one for the cruise phase was selected. After these steps, cruise range values were calculated using the Breguet range equation with these improved parameters. When the results of this enhanced range model were compared with the real flight data, the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was found to be 2.5% for all the Aircraft and Engine Type Groups (AETGs) considered in the data. This figure corresponds to a 7.9% smaller error than provided by previous range models based on simple parabolic drag polar and TSFC models. According to these results, the application of a simple parabolic drag polar and TSFC is not appropriate for cruise range calculations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
Figure 0

Figure 1. Typical flight profile.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Lift and drag coefficient curves for symmetrical and cambered wing profiles(37).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Frequency of aircraft and engine type groups and in the QAR data.

Figure 3

Figure 4. City pairs and frequency in the QAR data.

Figure 4

Table 1 The parameters in the QAR data and their descriptions

Figure 5

Table 2 Cruise range values in the QAR data

Figure 6

Table 3 Altitude distribution in the QAR data

Figure 7

Table 4 Cruise Mach number distribution in the QAR data

Figure 8

Table 5 Final to initial weight ratio (W1/W0) distribution in QAR data

Figure 9

Figure 5. Block diagram for selection between TSFC models (Steps 1–3.1).

Figure 10

Table 6 Performance characteristics of engines

Figure 11

Figure 6. Block diagram for the drag polar model (Step 3.2).

Figure 12

Table 7 Thrust value distribution

Figure 13

Figure 7. Values for the TSFC models for all aircraft and engine type groups.

Figure 14

Table 8 Comparison of the TSFC models

Figure 15

Figure 8. Comparison of the estimated and real fuel flow rates.

Figure 16

Table 9 Aerodynamic model coefficients and adjusted R2 values

Figure 17

Figure 9. CD versus CL and cruise Mach number for A1E1.

Figure 18

Figure 10. CD versus CL and cruise Mach number for A2E2.

Figure 19

Figure 11. CD versus CL and cruise Mach number for A3E3.

Figure 20

Figure 12. CD versus CL and cruise Mach number for A4E4.

Figure 21

Figure 13. CD versus CL and cruise Mach number for A5E5.

Figure 22

Figure 14. CD versus CL and cruise Mach number for A6E6.

Figure 23

Table 10 Comparison of real range values and range calculations for A1E1

Figure 24

Table 11 Comparison of real range values and range calculations for A2E2

Figure 25

Table 12 Comparison of real range values and range calculations for A3E3

Figure 26

Table 13 Comparison of real range values and range calculations for A4E4

Figure 27

Table 14 Comparison of real range values and range calculations for A5E5

Figure 28

Table 15 Comparison of real range values and range calculations for A6E6

Figure 29

Figure 15. The variations of MAPE with range calculations for A1E1.

Figure 30

Figure 16. The variations of MAPE with range calculations for A2E2.

Figure 31

Figure 17. The variations of MAPE with range calculations for A3E3.

Figure 32

Figure 18. The variations of MAPE with range calculations for A4E4.

Figure 33

Figure 19. The variations of MAPE with range calculations for A5E5.

Figure 34

Figure 20. The variations of MAPE with range calculations for A6E6.

Figure 35

Table 16 Mean absolute percentage error for range calculations