# Cost Analysis of CO2

- Reducing Technologies

for Aircraft Submitted to: 

## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



# March 17 , 2015

Submitted by: 

# ICF International

© 2013 1 ICF INTERNATIONAL

# P REFACE

This report has been composed for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study the costs of developing and implementing Carbon dioxide ( CO 2 

### )

- reducing technologies on new in

production aircraft as measured by CAEP’s CO 2 

### metric. The Interna tional Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Committee for Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) is working to establish an aircraft CO 2 

### emission standard for new aircraft designs by 2016 1 

### . However, further work is needed to support future decisions abo ut the applicability of the CO 2 

### standard to n ew in

production aircraft. ICF ’s study examines the technologies applicable to new in

- production aircraft and the projected costs to research and apply them to existing designs. ICF gathered data on some 70 te chnologies from a combination of public sources and confidential interviews, then applied an expected value methodology to develop projected CO 2 

### metric values and costs. ICF is grateful to its reviewers Dr. Nick Cumpsty of Imperial College, Rich Golaszews i of GRA, Incorporated, Adam Klauber of ICF, Dr. Ian Poll of Cranfield Un i versity , and Fay Collier of NASA for their feedback. This report was prepared by Peter Zimm, Glenn McDonald, and Kevin Michaels of ICF, Mike Dill, and Dr. Joaquim Martins of the Uni versity of Michigan.

© 2013 2 ICF INTERNATIONAL

# A SSESSMENT OF 

# CO 2 

# - REDUCING TECHNOLOGIE S

1.1 

### I NTRODUCTION



### GROWTH OF AVIATION

- PRODUCED CO 2 

### AND THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

In 20 12, global aircraft CO 2 emissions were 2% of total global aggregate CO 2 output, 2 (and 13% of global transportation CO 2 emissions in 2011 3 , which is the most recent year that global transportation CO 2 emissions data is available)

. A ircraft CO 2 emissions are receiving increasing scrutiny because they have steadily increased due fleet growth and higher utilization. Globally, c ivil aircraft generated an estimated
1.44 trillion pounds 4 of CO 2 in 2012. Commercial air transport aircraft

— encompassing the Very Large Aircraft, Large Twin Aisle, Small Twin Aisle, Single Aisle, and Regional Jet aircraft categor ies

— generated approximately 96% of this total 5 . Furthermore, global commercial air transport CO 2 output will increase at an estimated 3.5% per annum over the next 10 years. 6 ICF estimates that global air transport CO 2 emissions will grow to 1.8 trillion pounds in 2021. The air transport aircraft categories will continue to
dominate CO 2 output, and the output of two categories in particular

— Single Aisle and Large Twin Aisle

— will outpace the overall CO 2 emissions growth.
In response to this issue

, the ICAO ’s CAEP has been working for over four years to establish an aircraft
CO 2 emissions standard by 2016 7

. ( At the 8th meeting of CAEP in February 2010, CAEP agreed to a future work program to establish aircraft CO 2 standards. ) In November 2010, CAEP agreed that the standard would apply to subsonic jets and turboprops. More specifically, the criteria were an applicability weight
threshold of maximum takeoff w eight ( MTOW ) >5700kg (12,566lb) for subsonic jet aircraft and a weight
threshold of MTOW> 8618kg (19,000lb) for propeller

- driven multi

- engine aircraft ( e.g., turboprops). 8 It was also agreed that the scope of applicability should include “new” 9 aircraft types, but not “in

- service”,
and that “new in

- production” 10 aircraft types shoul d not be rule d out at this time. In February 2013, CAEP

2 ICF International analysis.

3 Climate Data Explorer of the World Resources Institute http://cait.wri.org

. Accessed October 31, 2014. International Energy Agency, Data Services http://data.iea.org

. Accessed October 22, 2014.

4 ICF International analysis.

5 ICF International analysis.

6 ICF International analysis.

7 It is expected that aircraft CO 2 standards will be adopted at the tenth meeting of CAEP in February 2016.

8 ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification Requirement for the Aeroplane CO 2 Emissions Standard , Circular (Cir) 337, AN/192, Available at www.icao.int

. 9 “New” aircraft types

- If airworthiness considers an aircraft to be a “new” type, then this same perspective will be adopted by the CO 2 requirement and the latest standard will be applied. This is a same approach to the current aircraft noise requirements.

10 “In

- production” aircraft types

- aircraft types which have already received a Type Certificate, and appropriate Production Certificate, and for which manufacturers either have existing undelivered sa les orders or would be willing to accept new sales orders.

© 2013 3 ICF INTERNATIONALagreed to a requirement that new aircraft be certified for their CO 2 emissions using a CO 2 metric system
that measures these emissions.

The Metric Value ( MV ) is based on an instantaneous measure of the fuel burn per distance flown that is then adjusted by accounting for usable aircraft floor area. Three test points are considered in the calculation of the MV for each aircraft, representing flight at high, medium, a nd low gross weights. T he fuel burn per unit dist ance of each aircraft is evaluated at these three points and then averaged to obtain the MV. 11 A more detailed description of the MV can be found in Section 1.3 . For regulation purposes, the maximum allowed MV increases with the maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) of the aircraft, according a stringency
function. Currently, CAEP is expected to set a CO 2 stringency standard that will go into effect in 2020 or 2023.
This study examines the applicability of the CO 2 standard to new in

- production aircraft. In particular, it

assesses the technological improvements to new in

- production aircraft that are feasible , and the potential
CO 2 emission reductions they could produce. The stringency function implications for 2020 and 2023 are also examined in light of th e projected CO 2 emission reductions . Finally, we project the costs of realizing the projected CO 2 emission reductions

. 

### DATA SOURCES

This study was conducted over a seven month period and ICF gathered data from a wide variety of sources to support this an alysis. In general, four types of sources were used to develop technology cost and performance data:

1. secondary research

2. interviews

3. domain knowledge from past work/engagements

4. internal aircraft cost and performance modeling frameworks

Secondary Research

Se condary research provided a wealth of information about individual technologies and ongoing research programs. This was captured in the industry press, supplier and Original Equipment Manufacturer ( OEM ) press releases, conference proceedings, and news arti cles. University publications and websites also provided much information.

11 ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification Requirement for the Aeroplane CO 2 Emissions Standard , Circular (Cir) 337, AN/192, Available at www.icao.int

.

© 2013 4 ICF INTERNATIONALMarket Interviews

ICF conducted a broad and thorough market interview program to gather feedback on technology performance, modeling approach and methodology, and commercial feasibi lity. Over 40 interviews were
conducted with a wide cross

- section of key individuals from throughout the industry

– airframe, engine, and systems manufacturers, aircraft operators, and university and research organizations provided input and
feedback on me thodology, technology performance, and costs. 

### Current and former employees were interviewed from the following organizations:

Exhibit 1

- 1 . Organizations Interviewed by ICF
Organizations Interviewed

• Aerion

• Aerodynamic Solutions

• Airbus

• ATR

• Boeing

• Bombardier • GE

• Honeywell

• Mitsubishi

• MTU

• NASA

• Parker • PATS

• Pratt & Whitney

• Rolls

- Royce

• Volvo

• United Airlines

• United Technologies

Domain Knowledge and ICF Internal Cost and Performance Models

The ICF team was able to leverage knowledge gained through past consulting engagements, as well as cost and performance models that had been developed to support market knowledge and ongoing project work. In some cases, knowledge was available from in depth cost and performance models used for particular technologies.
Through a combination of these s ources, ICF was able to create comprehensive profiles of both the fuel burn impact and cost of a wide variety of technologies.



### KEY ASSUMPTIONS

It is also important to note that the assumptions underlying this fuel burn reduction forecast include: fuel prices remaining at their current levels, no wholesale business model changes by aircraft, engine, or component manufacturers or airlines, and the current pace of technol ogy development is not significantly changed. These assumptions are critical, since the pace of technology development will strongly depend on degree of improvement mandated by CO 2 emissions regulations, as well as programs offered to incentivize
research and development.

© 2013 5 ICF INTERNATIONALAircraft fuel consumption varies greatly depending on flight

- specific operating conditions. Different payload weights (including passengers, cargo, and fuel) affect fuel burn metrics such as fuel burn per passenger mile. Air traffic contro l sophistication and efficiency also play an important role in driving fuel consumption. Excessive loitering, a “stepped” approach to climb and descent, and sub

- optimal altitude or speed assignments all have the potential to significantly increase overall trip fuel consumption

Owing to the magnitude of analysis performed by ICF in this process, substantial sensitivity analysis was not performed on these assumptions. ICF expects that the final results of cost and fuel consumption impacts
of individual techno logies will be sufficiently accurate for the purposes of analyzing forecasting the cost and impact of CO 2 stringencies on the air transport market.



### MAGNITUDE AND SOURCES OF HISTORICAL CO 2 

### REDUCTIONS

Since the advent of gas turbine engine powered air tr ansport in 1958, aircraft fuel efficiency has improved about 1.5% per annum thro ugh a combination of major re designs and incremental improvements. Major redesigns refer not only to completely redesigned aircraft, but also to significant partial redesigns

– redesigned wings (re

- winging) and re

- engined aircraft. Incremental improvements are less extensive changes to the production standard of the aircraft, such as wi nglets or performance improvement packages ( PIPs ) that are introduced into airframes or engines mid

- life. ICF research indicates that major re designs
account for as much as two

- thirds of historical fuel burn reduction. By implication, incremental improve ments account for about one

- third of reductions, or about 0.5% per year. Furthermore, it appears more of the incremental reductions in recent times are due to improvements in aerodynamics than in engines. In contrast, engine technology has been t he prima ry driver of major redesign aircraft efficiency improvements. Secondary research and interview input point to a 0.8 to 1.0% annual improvement in

en gine efficiency from major redesign technology while incremental improvements yield about 0.2% better
fuel burn per annum.



### THE NATURE OF TECHNOLOGY INSERTION

Major re designs yield large fuel burn reductions

– 10% to 20% over the prior generation they replace. As one might expect, the significant fuel burn red uctions of major redesigns do not happen frequently. One of the best examples of this is the Boeing 737 program. Debuting in 1968 with two variants and powered by low bypass JT8D engines, the airplane has undergone major redesigns three times

– they entered service in 1984, 1998, and will enter in 2017, respectively, or about every 16 years.

© 2013 6 ICF INTERNATIONALExhibit 1

- 2 . Major Redesign History of the Boeing 737

Insofar as we are goin g through a wave of major re design and service entry now, prospect s for further step

function improvements will be low in the coming 10

- 15 years. The outlook for major re designs is described
below in the Exhibit 1

- 3 :

Exhibit 1

- 3 . Outlook for Major Red esigns by Aircraft Category

Photo Example Aircraft Category Entry Into
Service Major Redesign Major Redesign Outlook

Very Large 747

- 100 (1969) A380 ( 2007) 747

- 400 (1989)
747

- 8 (2011 ) This category is experiencing sluggish sales.
No other major re design until after
2025.

Large
Twin
Aisle 777

- 200/300 (1995) 777

- 200LR (2004)
A350

- 900 (2015) 777

- 9X (2020)
777

- 8X (2020 )

No other major re design until after
2030

© 2013 7 ICF INTERNATIONALSmall
Twin
Aisle 767 (1982)
A330 (1994)
787

- 8 (2011) 767

- 400ER (2000) A330neo (2017)
No other major re design until after
2030

Single
Aisle 737

- 100 (1968) A320 (1988) 737 Classic (1984) 737NG (1998) CS100 (201 5) , CS300 (2016 ) A320neo (2015) 737MAX (2017)

C919 (201 8 )
MS

- 21 (2018) The decision by Boeing and Airbus

to re

- engine the 737 and A320 will delay int roduction of a major redesign western single

- aisle until well beyond 2025

Regional
Jet CRJ

- 100 (1992 ) E 170 (2004) CRJ

- 700 (2001) The regional jet categ ory was ripe for new major re designs ARJ21 (2015)

MRJ (2017) Embraer E2 (2018) Major re designs can be expected in
the 2025

- 2030 timeframe

Large Bizjet Gulfstream V(1995) G550 (2004) Contrary to all other aircraft size segments, business jets undergo

frequent minor changes and somewhat frequent m ajor redesigns

Small Bizjet Learjet 40/45 (1998) Learjet 70/75 (2013) Contrary to all other aircraft size segments, business jets undergo

frequent minor changes and somewhat frequent major redesigns

© 2013 8 ICF INTERNATIONALTurbo

prop Saab 340 (1983) Q400 (1997) Saab 2000 (1994) ATR 72 (1989 ) ATR 42 (1985 ) Q400 Next Gen Major redesign expected by early 2020s, ATR 90 12 turboprop derivative possible before then

Furthermore, increasingly, techno logies developed for major re designs eventually make their way onto
mature aircraft

– first technologies are researched to technology readiness level ( TRL ) 6, 13 then they are incorporated into development programs where they are thoroughly tested and developed for applications on the aircraft. Lastly, they can be chosen to be incorporated into a PIP 14 on an existing aircraft. Finally, new development cycles are very lengthy. It is not unusual for new aircraft and engine designs to take 8

- 10 years to develop, from preliminary design to entry into service.

If past trends continue into the future, we can expect:

• Overall fuel ef ficiency to improve by 1.5% per annum

• Major redesign activities will contribute about two

- thirds of this improvement; incremental technology introductions will reduce emissions by 0.5% per annum

• Engine technologies will drive major redesign aircraft impro vements but aerodynamics will be a larger contributor of incremental improvements

• Major redesign activity will be infrequent and will not be seen for 10

- 15 years for most aircraft categories after the current redesign wave has passed

• Technologies researche d and developed during the current wave of major redesign aircraft will be ripe for incorporation onto existing mature platforms (i.e., new in

- production aircraft)

• The coming drought of major redesigns means incremental improvements to new in

- production aircraft will be the primary lever for CO 2 reductions for the next 10

- 15 years.

12 ATR 9 0 refers to the ATR 90

- seater turboprop.

13 Technology readiness level 6 represents when the system/subsystem model or true dimensional test equipment is validated in a relevant environment. See the technology readiness section of the appendices for more i nformation.

14 Occasionally, PIP’s are referred to at technology insertion packages or TI’s.

© 2013 9 ICF INTERNATIONAL1.2 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### F UEL 

### B URN IMPACT



### METHODOLOGY

ICF developed a detailed methodological framework to analyze the potential impact of new technology introduction on aircraft fuel efficiency and CO 2 emissions. This framework involved five basic steps. First, we identified the technologies that could reduce CO 2 emissions of new in

- production aircraft. Second, we then assessed each technology for the magnitude of potential CO 2 reduction and the mechanisms by which reduction is achieved. Both of these were analyzed by aircraft category. Third and fourth, the technologies were passed through technical success probability and commercial probability success screens, respectively. Last, individual aircraft differences were considered within aircraft category to develop a CO 2 emissions reduction forecast by techn ology by aircraft model. This entire methodological framework
detailed above will be referred to he n ceforth as the expected value methodo lo gy.

ICF identified and evaluated some 70 engine and airframe technologies for their ability to reduce CO 2 emissions 15 on new, in

- production aircraft.

15 Or fuel burn. The terms are used interchangeably throughout this report.

Exhibit 1

- 4. ICF Technology Impact Methodology

Exhibit 1

- 5. ICF Airframe & Systems Technologies List

© 2013 10 ICF INTERNATIONAL16

Exhibit 1

- 6 . ICF Engine Technologies List
Engine Technologies

16 Please refer to Appendix 2 for more information on these technologies Airframe Technologies

Aerodynamic Structural Systems

• Adaptive Trailing Edge

• Advanced Wingtip Devices

• Variable Camber Trailing

Edge

• Re

- Wing

• Riblet Coatings

• Laminar Flow Control

− N atural and Hybrid

− Nacelle

, Empennage , and

Wing

• Advanced C onfig urations

• E nvironmental C ontrol

S ystem (ECS) Inlet

• Stab Control Law

• Gap Reductions

• Aft Body Redesign

• Light Profile • Advanced Metal s

• Increased Composite

Application

• Advanced Composites

• Re

- Wing

• Advanced C onfig urations

• Ti tanium Landing Gear

• Lightweight Paint / Surface

Treatment • Lightweight Lightening
Strike Protection

• More Electric Systems

• On demand Environmental

Control Systems

• Fuel cell Auxiliary Power

Unit ( APU )

• Light interior

• Fly By Wire

• Carbon brakes

© 2013 11 ICF INTERNATIONALMaterials Architecture Systems

• Titanium Aluminide ( TiAl )

turbine airfoils

• TiAl compressor airfoils

• Ceramic

- matrix composites

( CMC ) turbine shrouds/
O uter A ir S eal (OAS)

• CMC High Pressure

Turbine ( HPT ) blades/

vanes

• CMC Low Pressure ( LP )

blades/ vanes

• O rganic M atrix C omposite

(OMC) fan blades

• OMC case

• CMC exhaust nozzle

• Ceramic bearings

• Turbine coatings

• OMC stator

• OMC comp. cases • U ltr a H igh B y P ass(UHBP) engine (above 10 Bypass Ratio (BPR))

• UHBP (above 20 BPR)

• Open rotor

• Variable cycle

• Intercooled compressors

• Integrated propulsion

system

• Lightweight component fab

techniques

• Reduced hub

- tip ratio fan

• Fan drive gear

• Next gen load sharing

architecture • Bleedless engines

• Electric engine start

• High Pressure Compressor

(HPC) mod. Clearance
control

• Turbine mod. Clearance

control

• Clearance control w/

fee d back

• High Pressure (HP)/LP

power extraction sharing

• High eff. Oil/air cooler

• Recuperative exhaust

Aerodynamics Sealing Coating / Cooling

• Next gen engine airfoil

designs

• Optimized fan root fairing

• Scalloped fan exhaus t

• Low Pressure Ratio (PR)

fan

• Low drag inlet/nacelle • Compressor blisks

• Turbine blisks • Compressor airfoil coating

• Turbine air cooling air

cooling

• Next gen. turbine airfoil

cooling design

© 2013 12 ICF INTERNATIONAL

### RESULTS

Introduction to Results

Using the modeling framework described in the preceding section, ICF was able to develop a fuel consumption improvement forecast by both aircraft category an d aircraft model. This forecast covers the
twenty

- year period from 2013

- 2033. This section presents a comprehensive view of both the current state of the fuel efficiency of aircraft, as well as the forecast by aircraft category and by select aircraft model

. Detailed profiles of the technologies supplying the largest contributions to fuel efficiency gains are also presented here. The fuel burn numbers presented here were derived from the expected value methodology, and thus include the impact of both the tec hnical and commercial feasibility percentages in the final results. While this provides a good overall forecast of fuel burn improvement percentage per year by aircraft category, the contributions by individual technology must be taken in the context of th is expected value methodology. If a technology is actually fully implemented, however, it will of course provide the full benefit, and not the benefit discounted by the commercial feasibility percentage. This is part of the purpose of the expected value me thodology; it decreases the model’s reliance on the entry into service projections for specific technologies, and instead looks at the fuel burn forecast holistically, and thus, realistically.

Summary Results

Impact of Technologies

Based on its analysis of the pipeline of technologies that can incrementally reduce fuel consumption of new,
in

- production aircraft, ICF projects aircraft fuel consumption will decrease 0. 50

- 0.65% per annum over the next 20 years for air transport categories (Regional Jet through Very Large Aircraft), result ing in a total
decrease of 10

- 13% by 2033. For air transport turboprops and business jets, fuel consumption is expected
to decrease 0.35

- 0.4 0 % per annum, res ulting in a total decrease of 7

- 8% by 2033.

Projected cumula tive fuel burn reductions by 2020 and 2023 differ by aircraft category. A summary of the
resul ts is shown below in Exhibit 1

- 7

.

© 2013 13 ICF INTERNATIONALExhibit 1

- 7 . Cumulative Fuel Burn Reduction Forecast Summary

Aircraft Category Cumulative Fuel Burn % Reduction By:

2020 2023
Very Large Aircraft 4.2% 6.3%

Large Twin Aisles 4.0% 6.0%

Small Twin Aisles 3.7% 5.5%

Single Aisles 3.1% 4.6%

Regional Jets 3.2% 4.7%

Air Transport Turboprops 2.5% 3.7%

Large B&GA 17 Aircraft 3.3% 4.8%

Small B&GA Aircraft 3.0% 4.4%

Of the approximately 70 technologies evaluated, 80% of this projected improvement was generated by
twelve airframe technologies. Because engine technologies are incorporated as a package and because no individual engine technology made the 80% group, they are treated as a package in the analysis. These top
techno logies are detailed in Exhibit 1

- 8

.

17 B&GA= Busines s and General Aviation

© 2013 14 ICF INTERNATIONALExhibit 1

- 8

. Most Impactful Fuel Burn Improvement Technologies b y Aircraft Category

Technology Cumulative Fuel Burn Reduction % by 2020
Very Large Large
Twin Small
Twin Single
Aisle Reg ion

al Jet Large Bizjet Small Bizjet Turbo

prop
Engine Technologies 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 0.7%
Lighter Interiors 0.8 % 0.8 % 0.8 % 0.6 % 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.3 %
Advanced Wingtip Devices 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 %
Aft Body Aerodynamics 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.4 %

HLFC 18

– Empennage 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 %

ECS Aero and On

- Demand ECS 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 %
Adaptive Trailing Edge 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % 0.1 % N/A < 0. 1 %
Titanium Landing Gear 0.1 % N/A 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 %
Composites

– Current State N/A 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 %
More Electric Systems 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 %

Carbon / Ceramic Brakes N/A N/A 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % 0.1 %
Riblet Coatings 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 %
All Other Technologies 19 0.4 % 0.2 % N/A N/A 0.2 % 0.3% 0.2 % N/A

Total Average Reduction 4.2% 4.0% 3.7% 3.1% 3.2 3.3% 3.0% 3.2%

18 HLFC = Hybrid Laminar Flow Control

19 Note: totals are aircraft category averages, while not all technologies apply to every aircraft in category, thus “Other” is sometimes redundant, and listed technologies will have sum greater th an “Total Average Reduction”

© 2013 15 ICF INTERNATIONALResults by Aircraft Category and by Aircraft
Due to the different magnitude of fuel burn reductions realized by different aircraft categories for each technology, meaningful differences in expected fuel burn benefit emerge for different categories. There are
several different reasons for thi s scaling by aircraft category. Namely, the fuel burn benefits of many technologies scale with both aircraft size/weight and range. For instance, weight

- saving technologies have a greater impact on cruise fuel efficiency for heavier/longer range aircraft, since weight (and the fuel required to carry that extra weight) has a compounding effect with greater distance.
Production forecasts were developed by aircraft model for the twenty year forecast period for the air transport aircraft, while ten year forecas ts were developed for the Business and General Aviation ( B&GA ) aircraft. The expected fuel burn improvement percentage per year, especially the total fuel burn percentage improvement possible by 2020 and 2023, will be used as input into the future stringen cy line determination
recommendations.
We profiled each of the aircraft categories, but for illustration purposes, we show the Single Aisle category
in this report . For each of the Aircraft Categories, we profiled:

• The current in

- production aircraft in the category and projected future build rates,

• Recent technology introductions that reduced fuel burn,

• Future fuel burn reduction forecast, and

• The top technical contributors to fuel burn reduction

Single Aisle Airc raft

Current single aisle aircraft include the Boeing 737NG family and the Airbus A320 family. The 737 family
first entered service in 1968 with the 737

- 100. This was intended to be an aircraft for short haul domestic routes. It was shortly followed by the 737 Advanced. A major upgrade, the 737 Classic, was introduced in 1984. This featured new wings, high bypass engines, and new avionics. Another significant upgrade, the 737NG, entered service in 1998. This again featured a new wing, new engines, stretched airframe variants, and new avionics. The A320 first entered service in 1988, followed by the shortened A319 and the stretched A321 in 1996 and 1994, respectively. It was developed to incorporate advanced technology for the time to compete with the 737 Cla ssic, including new high bypass engines, fly

- by

- wire flight controls, and advanced
avionics.
This sector of the market will see a significant number of introductions of new or upgraded aircraft over the next several years. These include the 737 MAX, A320n eo, Comac C919, Irkut MS

- 21 20 , and Bombardier CSeries. Somewhat uniquely, except for the 737 MAX and A320neo, t hese aircraft are all clean sheet designs . This aircraft category is a prime target for manufacturers aspiring to enter the air transport

20 Comac is a division of AVIC, the state

- owned Chinese aviation conglomerate, and MS

- 21 is manufactured by United Aircraft, the Russian aviation conglomerate

.

© 2013 16 ICF INTERNATIONALspace, due to their high production rates, strong demand, and relatively modest development costs when compared to new twin

- aisle aircraft. The C919, MS

- 21, and CSeries all make use of new technologies, including advanced engines, varying degrees of struct ural composites, and advanced systems. Due to the introduction of the 737 MAX and the A320neo, Boeing and Airbus are unlikely to introduce clean sheet single aisle aircraft before the end of the 2020s.

Because the 737NG and A320 compete intensely for most of the same customers, both have had several in

production upgrades developed. The 737NG was offered with blended winglets in 2001, first as an aftermarket retrofit option, then as a production option. These improved fuel burn by approximately 4

- 6%.
Carbo n brakes were offered on the 737NG in 2007, which saves weight and reduced fuel burn by 0.5%. In addition to these standalone items, a suite of fuel burn reducing technologies was introduced in 2011, call ed the 737 Enhancement Package (or PIP

– Performance Improvement Package ). This combined several aerodynamic and systems improvements to provide approximately 1% in fuel burn savings, in addition to greater than 1% savings offered by a simultaneous engine upgrade program, the CFM56

- 7BE. The A320
has also un dergone numerous upgrades for fuel efficiency, as well as passenger comfort, maintenance cost reduction, and avionics capability.
Fuel efficiency is projected to improve 0. 5 % per year, on average, until 2033

. By 2020 , the fuel efficiency could be improved by 3.1 %, while the projected improvement by 202 3 is 4. 6 %.

- 2.2%

- 3.1%

- 4.6%

- 7.0%

- 9.5%

-20% -18% -16% -14% -12% -10%

-8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2018 2020 2023 2028 2033Cumulative % Reduction vs.Baseline Single Aisle Fuel Burn Reduction Exhibit 1

- 9. Single Aisle Fuel Burn Reduction Forecast

© 2013 17 ICF INTERNATIONALThe major technologies that contribute to this fuel consumption reduction are Engine Technology, Lighter Interiors, and Advanced Wingt ip Devices.

Exhibit 1

- 10 . Single Aisle Fuel Burn Reduction by Technology

Technology 2020 Reduction
% 2023 Reduction
%

• Engine Technology • 1.4% • 2.0%

• Advanced Wingtip Devices

- • 0.5% • 0.7%

• Lighter Interiors • 0.6% • 0.8%

• Aerodynamic APU Fairing / • 0.4% • 0.5%

• ECS Aero and On Demand • 0.2% • 0.3%

• Control Surface

- Optimal • 0.1% • 0.1%

• Adaptive Trailing Edge • 0.1% • 0.1%

• Riblet Coatings • < 0. 1 % • 0.1%

• Control Surface

- Optimal

Control Laws for horizontal • 0.1% • 0.1%

• Carbon / Ceramic Brakes • 0.1% • 0.1%

© 2013 18 ICF INTERNATIONAL1.3 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### M ETRIC 

### V ALUE IMPACT



### INTRODUCTION

The ultimate purpose of this report is to evaluate the cost of reducing aircraft CO 2 emissions, which are proportional to fuel burn . Experts at OEMs, airlines and in academia routinely report fuel burn numbers, so
this was a natural metric to start with. ICF began its analysis by evaluating the impact of technologies on relative fuel burn reductions . The reductions listed in this repo rt are those of a representative mission for the particular aircraft.

However, the CAEP certification procedure does not use fuel burn directly, but instead, defines a Metric Value (MV) that is related to fuel burn.

The MV is defined based on an instantaneous measure of fuel burn per distance flown and represents an attempt to develop a metric that correlates with fuel burn, while being independent of aircraft type, weight and utilization. The MV is based on the specific air range (SAR), which is an instantaneous measure of the distance flown per unit weight of fuel. The MV is obtained by inverting SAR (which yields the fuel weight required to travel a unit distance), and then dividing it by a non

- dimensionalized floor area raised to an
exponent, r esulting in the following equation: 21

MMMM = 1
SSSSSS × ( FF RR ⁄ ) 0

. 24

Where FF is the floor area, and RR is a reference area related to the fuselage planform. Since SAR depends on the instantaneous weight, which varies during flight and has a wide range de pending on the mission. SAR can vary by as much as a factor of 2 for a given aircraft. Given this wide range of variation, the MV is highly dependent on the weight used in its calculation. To address this issue, CAEP defined three weight
values over which the MV should be averaged to obtain a final value that is representative 22

, 23

. When converting fuel burn reductions t o reductions in the MV, ICF assumed that the MV is based on SAR s at a representative set of weights

. T herefore, a 1% fuel burn reduction corresponds to 1% MV reduction.

One important characteristic regarding the MV is that reductions in aircraft empty weight 24 would not impact the MV. The rationale for this was that any reduction in empty weight would be canceled out by a corresponding incr ease in payload, fuel, or both. Thus, even though weight saving technologies and

21 ICAO, 2013: CAEP/9 Agreed Certification Requirement for the Aeroplane CO 2 Emissions Standard , Circular (Cir) 337, AN/192, Available at www.icao.int

. 22 Ibid

. 23 [ICCT2013], “International Civil Aviation Organization’s CO 2 Certification Requirement for New Aircraft”, The Internat ional Council on Clean Transportation, Aug. 2013. http://www.theicct.org/co2

- requirement

- new

- aircraft

24 Refers to Operating Empty Weight is the basic weight of an aircraft including the cr ew, all fluids necessary for operation such as engine oil, engine coolant, water, unusable fuel and all operator items and equipment required for flight but excluding us able fuel and the payload

.

© 2013 19 ICF INTERNATIONALimprovements increase the aircraft efficiency, this is not reflected in the MV. Therefore, ICF post

- processed all the fuel burn reductions to remove the reductions due to weig ht. Across technologies, about 2/3 of the fuel burn impact is reflected in the MV, although this varies depending on the technology and the aircraft
category.



### RESULTS SUMMARY

Based on its analysis, ICF projects MVs for new, in

- production aircraft will decrease 0 .4

- 0.5 % per annum over the next 20 years for air transport categories (Regional Jet through Very Large Aircraft), resul ting in
a total decrease of 8

- 10 % by 2033. For air transport turboprops and business jets, fuel consumpt ion is expected to dec rease 0.3

- 0.4 % per annum, resulting in a total decrease of 6

- 8% by 2033. Projected
cumulative MV reductions by 2020 and 2023 differ by aircraft category. A summary of the resul ts is shown
below in Exhibit 1

- 1 1

.

Exhibit 1

- 11

. Metric Value Reduction Sum mary

Aircraft Category Cumulative Metric Value % Reduction By:

2020 2023
Very Large Aircraft 3.0 % 4.5 %

Large Twin Aisles 2.8 % 4.3 %

Small Twin Aisles 2.6 % 4.0 %

Single Aisles 2.5 % 3.6 %

Regional Jets 2.7 % 3.9 %

Air Transport Turboprops 2.0 % 2.9 %

Large B&GA Aircraft 2.7 % 4.0 %

Small B&GA Aircraft 2.5 % 3.6 %

Technologies with the most beneficial impact on Metric Va lues are summarized in Exhibit 1

- 1 2

.

Exhibit 1

- 12

. Technologies Having Highest Impact on Metric Value Improvement by Aircraft Category

Technology Cumulative Metric Value % Reduction by 2020
Very Large Large
Twin Small
Twin Single
Aisle R e gion

a l Jet Large Bizjet Small Bizjet Turbo

prop

© 2013 20 ICF INTERNATIONALEngine Technologies 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 0.7%
Lighter Interiors N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Advanced Wingtip Devices 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 %
Aft Body Aerodynamics 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.4 %

HLFC 25

– Empennage 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 %

ECS Aero and On

- Demand ECS 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 %
Adaptive Trailing Edge 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % 0.1 % N/A < 0. 1 %
Titanium Landing Gear N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Increased use of composite parts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
More Electric Systems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Carbon / Ceramic Brakes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Riblet Coatings 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 % < 0. 1 %
All Other Technologies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total Reduction 3.0 % 2.8 % 2.61% 2.5 % 2.7 % 2.7 % 2.5 % 2.0 %

25 HLFC = Hybrid Laminar Flow Control

© 2013 21 ICF INTERNATIONAL

### RESULTS BY AIRCRAFT CATEGORY

Single Aisle Aircraft

Sin gle Aisle aircraft MVs are projected to decrease at 0.38% per year, or 2.40% by 2020 and 3.59% by
2023.

- 1.7%

- 2.4%

- 3.6%

- 5.5%

- 7.5%

-20% -18% -16% -14% -12% -10%

-8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2018 2020 2023 2028 2033Cumulative % Metric ValueReduction vs. Baseline

SA Metric Value Reduction Exhibit 1

- 13. Single Aisle Metric Value Reduction Forecast

© 2013 22 ICF INTERNATIONALEngine Technologies, Advanced Wingtip Devices, and Aft Body Aerodynamics contribute most to Single
Aisle Metric Value reductions.

Exhibit 1

- 14 . Single Aisle Metric Value Reduction Forecast by Technology

Technology Cumulative Metric Value
Reduction %

2020 2023 Engine Technologies 1.4 % 2. 0%
Advanced Wingtip Devices 0.5 % 0.7%

Aft Body Aerodynamics 0.4 % 0.5 %

ECS Aero and On

- Demand Schd. 0.2 % 0.3 %

All Other Technologies < 0. 1 % 0.1 %

Total 2.4% 3.6%

© 2013 23 ICF INTERNATIONAL

# D EVELOPMENT 

# C OST S OF 

# CO 2 

# - REDUCING TECHNOLOGIE S

1.4 T ECHNOLOGY 

### D EVELOPMENT 

### C OST



### INTRODUCTION

High fuel prices are the primary driver of current fuel burn reduction efforts

Despite the slow recovery from the global downturn, oil prices have risen to over $100/barrel 26 . Jet fuel prices now exceed 30% of airline total cost and exceed 5 0% of airline operating cost. Consequently, fuel burn reducing technologies are much more valuable now than they were when fuel prices were much lower.

T he result of high fuel costs has been a flurry of recent and upcoming new program launches as well as incremental upgrades. New program launches incl ude completely new “Major redesigns” such as the 787
and A350XWB to re

- winged aircraft (with new engines as well) such as the 777

- X and EMB

- 175/190 E2

to re

- engine programs such as the A320 Neo and 737 MAX. These major redesign and significant redesign

p rogram launches are delivering sizable fuel burn improvements on the order of 10

- 20 %+ per seat

- mile

. As has been discussed earlier in this paper, incremental technology insertions have also been made. Typic al incremental upgrades include PIPs such as those released for the 737NG and the 777. As shown below, these PIPs include such discrete items as engine upgrades, weight reductions, and minor aerodynamic changes

.

26 Since this report was completed, oil has fallen to $55/barrel. However, it's too early to tell if this condition will be long

- lived. For the time being, airlines are holding to their fleet renewal plans (indeed, due to hedging, airlines will not begin to realize substantial b enefits from this reduction for another 18 months). Should these low prices endure, fuel would remain a substantial airline operating cost, but older air planes would likely be flown longer (as before) and fleet renewal would slow.

© 2013 24 ICF INTERNATIONALExhibit 1

- 1 5

. Example of Incremental Technology Insertion

– 737NG

Source ICF analysis, Boeing

Changes included in performance improvement packages offered in the aftermarket are typically adopted in the new production standard. Improvements in fuel burn from these incremental upgrades typically range
from 0.5

- 4.0%. In some instances, a series of improvements or PIPs are grouped together into larger changes that yield up to 8

- 10% fuel burn reduction on a particular aircraft family.

© 2013 25 ICF INTERNATIONALAircraft development activity is expensive

Aircraft d evelopment programs are expensive. Analysts estimate a new sin gle aisle would have cost $10

- 12B to develop. The A380 and 787 are estimated to each have cost around $20B to develop; the A350 is
estimated to have cost $15B , excluding engine development . Due to th e large development cost of a totally
new aircraft desi gn , manufacturers are opting to re

- wing or just re

- engine their aircraft. Boeing is said to have budgeted $5B for the re

- wing of the 777 and Airbus and Boeing have budgeted $1

- 2B each for the re

engine of the A320 and the 737, respectively (excluding engi ne development costs). Embraer has publically stated they will need to spend $1

- 2B to re

- wing the EMB

- 175 and variants.

Large fuel burn reductions require large investments; a 15

- 25% improvement is required to trigger a brand new aircraft design

The obv erse of expensive development programs is also true: Given the time, expense and risk of new technology development, a high level of potential improvement is required to trigger such significant investment. Thus, a pipeline of technologies has to be like ly to deliver fuel burn reductions commensurate
with the level of research and development ( R&D ) expense required to commercialize them. In total, airframe and engine manufacturers spent over $8.6B in 2012 year on R&D, $4.5B by the top 4 airframe
manufact urers and $4.1B by t he top 4 engine manufacturers. Some industry analysts have noted that the cost to develop new aircraft and engines may be rising.



### METHODOLOGY

Introduction

ICF developed an independent bottom

- up cost curve especially focused on categorizing the non

- recurring cost of implementing minor (0

- 10% metric value) improvement on existing aircraft platforms. This area is of particular importance for determining the cos ts of compliance with a number of proposed stringency options, and was also an area neglected by previous non

- recurring cost ( NRC ) methodologies. The results of the ICF curve were a supply

- curve of available technology options and associated non

- recurring costs for each aircraft platform. For most aircraft, this methodology was limited to predicting improvements in
the 0

- 10% range. Also, ICF’s research indicated that, given the lack of verifiable publically available cost data for small metric value improv ements, it would be most effective to create bottom

- up technology applicability and cost analyses by aircraft model, and then validate these through case studies, secondary research, and targeted interviews.

Metholodogy Overview

ICF developed the followi ng methodology to estimate the non

- recurring costs (NRC) by aircraft:

1. Categorize incremental technologies into groupings by impactful

- ness

– either Minor PIP or Large Incremental Update

© 2013 26 ICF INTERNATIONAL2. Identify the elements of non

- recurring cost
3. Develop baseline NRC ele ment proportions by incremental technology category for single

- aisle
aircraft
4. Scale the baseline NRC elements to the other aircraft categories
5. Determined the NRC costs for single aisle aircraft and applied the scaled costs to the other aircraft categories
6. Compiled technology supply curves by aircraft model

Categorizing Incremental Technologies

Incremental technologies fall int o two categories: minor PIPs and large incremental updates. Minor PIPs are aerodynamic cleanups (e.g., redesigned fairings, APU i nlets, ECS exhausts, etc.) and other improvements that often can be certified by analysis without dedicated flight test aircraft, and with only minor ground, wind tunnel, and flight tests . Minor PIP costs scale only incrementally with aircraft size.
Most of the technologies ICF researched were minor PIPs, providing in the range of 0

- 2% fuel burn improvement.

Large incremental updates are s ignificant aerodynamic or structural improvements ( e.g., winglets) that require flight test programs

– usually with production aircraft . These types of improvements, singly or grouped into a large package, can provide from 2

- 10% fuel burn reduction. T ooling and facilities costs are not driving factors for these improvements. Large incremental upgrades scale highly wit h aircraft size

.

Elements of Non

- Recurring Cost

Non

- recurring cost is fundamentally driven by three elements: engineering and integration, testing (flight and ground) and tooling, capital equipment, and infrastructure. Engineering and Integration (Engr g)
includes the engineering and Research & Development ( R&D ) required to progress a given technology
from its current TRL so it can be integrate d on to a production airframe . It also includes all airframe a nd technology integration costs.

Flight and Grou nd Testing (Testing) i ncludes fixed costs for test instrumentation, infrastructure, and
program management and variable costs 27 related to the degree of flight and ground testing required

. Tooling, Capital Equipment, and Infrastructure (Capital) i ncludes tooling required to modify the production line to support the PIP , i ncorporates any capitalized changes to plant, property, and equipment , and includes

o ther miscellaneous costs such as Information Technology ( IT ) system, supply chain system, and other

cos ts associated with a particular design change

.

Baseline Non

- Recurring Cost Element Proportions

27 Variable costs refe r to the costs of flight and ground testing that scale with the amount of time spent testing. For instance, fuel costs and crew/test engineer salaries directly scale with the amount of time spent in flight and ground test

.

© 2013 27 ICF INTERNATIONALFor incremental technologies applicable to single aisle aircraft, the proportion of engineering and integration, flight and ground testing, and tooling, capit al equipment, and infrastructure varies depending on whether it is an airframe or an engine technology and, for airframe technologies, whether the technology is a minor PIP or a large incremental update. Exhibit 1

- 1 6 illustrates the cost element proportio ns for single aisle aircraft. In general, engine PIP development costs are heavily driven by both flight and ground testing. This includes the cost of test hardware, recurring flight and ground test costs, test engineering and analysis,
and the like. Small airframe PIPs, on the other hand, are dominated by engineering costs. This is because small airframe PIPs generally do not require a dedicated flight testing program. Therefore, costs are concentrated on the engineering design and analysis required to ana lytically verify the safety and performance of the PIP. Large airframe PIPs do require a flight test program, and therefore have a large portion of their total costs allocated to the testing effort.

Non

- Recurring Cost Scaling Factors

Non

- recurring costs exhibit different scaling behavior with aircraft size. Engineering and integration cost for a given technology and metric value improvement is not strongly correlated with aircraft size; rather, it scales with a 5% differential of aircraft complexity. ICF used aircraft realized sale price to scale this element. Flight and ground testing scales with aircraft operating costs. ICF used direct block hour average operating costs to scale this elemen t. Lastly, for Minor PIPs, tooling, capital equipment, and infrastructure costs are not strongly correlated with aircraft size. As with engineering, a verage realized aircraft sale price
was used to scale this element. Exhibit 1

- 16. Single Aisle NRC Cost Element Proportion s

© 2013 28 ICF INTERNATIONALICF used independently verifiable data to calculate the NRC scaling factors, shown in Exhibit 1

- 1 7

. Average realized sale price is the scaling parameter used for Engineering, as well as for Capital NRC. Average operating cost was used as the scaling parameter for Testing NRC. Testing scales with 100% of the operating cost differential, using single aisle as the baseline. Engineering and Capital scale by 15% of the differential in average realized sale price, using single aisle as the baseline

.

Source: Block hour operating cost and averaged realized price data from The Airline Monitor

The end result was factors that were used to scale the cost elements in reference to the baseline single aisle aircraft to every aircraft c ategory, illustrated in Exhibit 1

- 1 8

. Exhibit 1

- 17. Aircraft Cost Element S caling Factor Sources

Exhibit 1

- 18. Non

- Recurring Cost Element Scaling Factors

© 2013 29 ICF INTERNATIONAL© 2013 30 ICF INTERNATIONALCost Calculations

Applying the scaling factors, NRC was calculated for every technology across every aircraft category. An example is provided below.

Example: Large Incremental Update NRC (Wingtip Devices)

Wingtip devices are a “Large Incremental Update”

– level technolo gy

. For the baseline single aisle aircraft, total cost is composed of 3% baseline fixed costs, 52% engineering & integration, 40% testing, and 5% capital equip ment. The calculation a ssumes a minimum $5M fixed cost

. (We used this amount for all of
the in cremental upgrade s. It does not vary by technology or aircraft category.) This fixed cost is an allowance for basic program management overhead that accompanies any level of design change at an aircraft OEM. An example of this approach in practice is show n below in Exhibit 1

- 1 9 , which in this case represents winglets. For this technology, interview input and secondary research indicated a total non

recurring cost for winglet implementation of $173M for single aisle aircraft. Given this known data point,
IC F used the cost element breakdown shown in Exhibit 1

- 18 above to split the total NRC into the constitu ent
elements. Note in Exhibit 1

- 1 9 below that E ngineering and Capital NRCs exhibit only minor scaling
factor s.

© 2013 31 ICF INTERNATIONALExhibit 1

- 19. Large Incremental Update Cost Scaling by Aircraft Category

© 2013 32 ICF INTERNATIONAL

### RESULTS

Introduction

ICF calculated cost curves for individual aircraft, taking into account the costs of each technology applicable to that category of aircraft. The cost curve depic tions are not intended to state that all these insertions will happen; rather, they are a menu of potential technology insertions organized from most cost effective to least based on our analysis. Note also that ICF’s r esults are valid from 0

- 10% for most aircraft
types . Technology improvements above 10% tend to take the form of significant redesigns such as re

engines or re

- wings, often in combination with additional incremental technology insertion.

We use the A330 program to illustrate the presentatio n of the results of ICF’s cost analysis for key aircraft platforms. The cost curve shown here are comprised of the costs and metric value improvement benefits for individual technologies. As discussed earlier in the technology evaluation methodology, each aircraft has a certain set of airframe and engine technologies that can be applied to it. This technology applicability matrix drives the cost curves and other results. Using the methodology described above, the cost of every technology is scaled to each a ircraft size category. These costs are then applied to each aircraft as appropriate to develop the cost curves. In addition to using these curves to calculate an individualized cost curve for each aircraft model, these analyses can be used to generate a se ries of data points that can be used to generate a cost curve in the 0

- 10% metric value range.

© 2013 33 ICF INTERNATIONALCost Results for Selected Aircraft Models

EMB 170/190 Family

The EMB

- 170/190 is a family of large regional jets manufactured by Embraer. The family has four in

production models of different sizes, the E

- 170, E

- 175, E

- 190, and E

- 195. The smaller E

- 170 and E

- 175
models have the GE CF34

- 8 engine, while the larger E

- 190 and E

- 195 models have the GE CF34

- 10 engine. ICF analyzed the current state o f technology on the in

- production EJet family, and then determined that nearly a dozen technologies could be incrementally applied to the current aircraft. The

most cost

- effective upgrades include advanced wingtip devices, engine technology insertion, and other aerodynamic and systems improvements. As a validation of the ICF analysis, Embraer announced in early 2013 that they would proceed with an EJet “enhanced” series of upgrades covering maintenance costs, passenger comfort, and fuel burn. Among the fuel burn

- reducing devices proposed were advanced wingtip devices, gap reductions, ECS and APU optimization, and others systems and aerodynamics modifications. In total, these will yield between 3.5

- 5.5% fuel burn savings depending on the specific family model . ICF estimates that, in total, it would be economically feasible to improve the EJets ~10% ~$700M using only incremental technology. If a greater level of improvement was desired, it would be more economical to simply re

- wing and re

- engine the aircraft, i nstead of relying on incremental improvements. Indeed, this is what Embraer has decided to do with the EJet family, with a re

- engined
model planned for a 2018 EIS.

© 2013 34 ICF INTERNATIONALExhibit 1

- 20. EJets Incremental Improvement Supply Curve

© 2013 35 ICF INTERNATIONAL767 Family

The Boeing 767 family was introduced in the early 1980s and included a variety of models. Current in

production models include the 767

- 300ER passenger and freighter variants. While future production of the 767 will be focused on military tanker transport variants, the commercial versions are still available for sale. There are several available technologies that could make an immediate impact, including advanced wingtip devices, engine upgrades, reduced light profiles, ECS aerodynamics, and an adaptive tra iling edge. These technology insertions could improve the 767 family’s metric value by approximately 10% for an NRC of $1.3B. Some of the technologies listed here, such as winglets and engine upgrades, have been tested successfully but are not part of the current production standard. With the relatively slow sales of the commercial 767, it is understandable that these upgrades are not being undertaken.

Exhibit 1

- 21. 767 Incremental Improvement Supply Curve

© 2013 36 ICF INTERNATIONALA330

The Airbus A330 has been in service since the early 1990s. Many different incremental improvements have been introduced over the years, namely increased maximum takeoff weights. ICF estimated that a variety of incremental improvements could be applied to the A330, yielding an esti mated 8

- 10% improvement for approximately $1.4B in NRC. ICF estimated that achieving improvements above this level would require
a more substantial re

- engining program. In July 2014, Airbus announced that they were proceeding with a

re

- engined version of t he aircraft, the A330neo. It will achieve 12%

- 14% fuel burn reductions with an Airbus initial cost estimate of “between $1B

- $2B Euros” ($1.4

- 2.7B). This subsequent Airbus

announceme nt validates ICF cost projections

.

Exhibit 1

- 22. A330 Incremental Impr ovement Supply Curve

© 2013 37 ICF InternationalCost Results Data Points

By running cost curve analysis for many aircraft platforms, ICF was able to develop a comprehensive set of data points to better inform the non

- recurring cost curve for metric value improvements in the 0

- 10% range. Eight aircraft were analyzed, yielding fifty

- six discrete data points 28 . These are shown below in
Exhibit 1

- 2 3

Exhibit 1

- 2 3 . ICF Metric Value and NRC Data Points

E

- 175 CSeries A320 767 787

- 8 A330 777

- 300ER A380

MV% NRC

($B) MV% NRC

($B) MV% NRC

($B) MV% NRC

($B) MV% NRC

($B) MV% NRC

($B) MV% NRC

($B) MV% NRC

($B)

< 0. 1 % < $0 1 < 0. 1 % < $0. 1 < 0. 1 % < $0. 1 < 0. 1 % < $0. 1 < 0. 1 % < $0. 1 < 0. 1 % < $0. 1 < 0. 1 % < $0. 1 < 0. 1 % < $0. 1

3.5% $0.1 3.5% $0.2 3.5% $0.2 3.5% $0.2 3.5% $0.2 3.5% $0.3 3.5% $0.3 3.5% $0.3

5.5% $0.2 5.5% $0.3 5.5% $0.3 5.5% $0.5 5.5% $0.5 5.5% $0.6 5.5% $0.6 5.5% $0.7

5.7% $0.2 5.7% $0.3 5.7% $0.3 5.7% $0.5 8.5% $0.9 5.7% $0.6 5.7% $0.6 5.7% $0.7

7.2% $0.3 6.3% $0.4 6.3% $0.4 6.3% $0.6 10.0% $1.2 6.3% $0.7 8.7% $1.1 6.3% $0.8

7.8% $0.4 8.0% $0.7 8.0% $0.7 9.3% $1.0

- - 9.3% $1.2 10.7% $1.5 9.3% $1.4

8.8% $0.5 9.3% $0.9 9.3% $0.9 11.3% $1.3

- - 11.3% $1.6

- - 11.3% $1.9

10.0% $0.7 10.3% $1.1 10.5% $1.2

- - - - - - - - - -

28 The number of data points for each aircraft depends on the maximum potential for improvement and the specific mix of available technologies

.

© 2013 38 ICF International

# C ONCLUSIONS

EFFECTIVENESS OF INCREMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INSERTIONS ON FUEL BURN

• ICF analyzed over 70 incremental technologies that can incrementally reduce fuel consumption of new, in

- production aircraft

.

• For the air transport categories (Regional Jet through Very Large Aircraft), ICF projects incremental technologies will decreas e aircraft fuel consumption 0.50

- 0.65% per annum (depending on the aircraft category) over the next 20 years, resulting in a total decrease of 10

- 13% by 2033.

• For air transport turboprops and business jets, incremental technologies are expected to reduce fuel consumption 0.35

- 0.4 0 % per annum, resulting in a total decrease of 7

- 8 % by 2033.

• Of the approximately 70 technologies evaluated, 80% of the projected improvement was generated by twelve airframe technologies plus the engine technologies ( they are treated as a package in the analysis ):

o Engine Technologies

o Lighter Interiors

o Advanced Wingtip Devices

o Aft Body Aerodynamics

o HLFC

– Empennage

o ECS Aero and On

- Demand ECS

o Adaptive Trailing Edge

o Titanium Landing Gear

o Composites

– Current State

o More Elec tric Systems

o Carbon / Ceramic Brakes

o Riblet Coatings

© 2013 39 ICF International

### EFFECTIVENESS OF INCREMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INSERTIONS ON METRIC VALUE

• For the air transport categories (Regional Jet through Very Large Aircraft), ICF projects incremental technologies will decrease aircraft metric value 0.4

- 0.5% per annum (depending on the aircraft category) over the next 20 years, resulting in a total dec rease of 8

- 10 % by 2033.

• For air transport turboprops and business jets, incremental technologies are expected to reduce fuel consumption 0.3

- 0.4% per annum, resulting in a total decrease of 6

- 8% by 2033.

• Six technologies accounted for the metric value improvements:

o Engine Technologies

o Advanced Wingtip Devices

o Aft Body Aerodynamics

o HLFC

– Empennage

o ECS Aero and On

- Demand ECS

o Adaptive Trailing Edge

o Riblet Coatings



### COST TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES

• T he cost to develop and incorporate new technologies varies depending on aircraft size category and the particular technology employed

• For regional jets, we estimate development costs to be $30

- 70M per 1% reduction in metric value

• For Single Aisle and Sma ll Twin Aisle aircraft, we estimate development costs to be $60

- 120M per 1% reduction in metric value

• For Large Twin Aisle and Large Quad aircraft, we estimate development costs to be $90

- 170M per
1% reduction in metric value 29

29 ICF expects that the cost per 1% metric value improvement would increase substantially above 10% total improveme nt, as more extensive changes to the airframe or engine would be required

.

© 2013 40 ICF International

# 2 A PPENDIX

2.1 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### R EADINESS 

### L EVELS

30

30 “ Definition Of Technological Feasibility In The Context Of Considering Revised Engine Exhaust Emissions Standards And Transition Goals To Standards”, CAEP/7

- WP/09, November 10, 20 06

© 2013 41 ICF International2.2 

### C OMPLETE 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### P ROFILES

Engine Technologies

Major engine OEMs are continually adding to their technology portfolio. Big Four OEMs are spending between $800M and $1.2B on R&D, so these types of upgrades are part of the ongoing business model to keep competitive in the aero

- engine market. Engine tech nology insertion is targeted to address TSFC (Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption), Propulsion System Weight Reduction, Maintenance Cost reduction, Performance Improvem ent, or System Reliability. Engine technologies embody a range of innovations, including m aterials (e.g., ceramic matrix composite parts), architecture (e.g., optimizing thermal efficiency versus propulsive efficiency), airfoil aerodynamics, sealing (e.g., blade tip clearances), cooling (i.e., blade cooling to enable higher operating temperatur es), and systems technologies (e.g., electric engine start). In practice, however, it is airfoil aerodynamics and sealing te chnologies that are applied to new in

- production aircraft. The engine is a highly integrated set of systems that leaves little roo m for modifications post

- entry into service (EIS).

Exhibit 2

- 1 . Representative Engine "Tech Insertion" Packages

© 2013 42 ICF InternationalFurthermore, engine technologies rarely buy their way on individually; rather, engine OEM’s create technology insertion (TI) “packages” that improve fuel burn, reduce maintenance cost, and/or improve p erformance (representative TI packages are illustrated in Exhibit 2

- 1). If fuel burn is the competitive requirement, a minimum of 0.5 to 1.0% fuel burn improvement is necessary to justify the development and certification costs i n order to be marketable t o airline customers. Integration of a suite of TRL

- 6 technologies into a propulsion system can cost the OEM in the ballpark of $100M per 1% fuel burn reduced, excluding any potential additional certification costs. Lower TRL technologies can add another $100 to $150M, and require additional years in development. These TI packages normally become the new production standard, and are sold for incorporation during normal eng ine maintenance activities. As stated by a major engine OEM executive “....there is 2 to 4 year financial return requirement (for technology insertion packages).....anything that gets repaired or replaced (during normal maintenance) buys its way in....”. Another consideration, e specially for lessors, is residual value. Technology insertion i s not only a short term cost/benefit analysis, but a consideration in future residual value of the aircraft and/or engine at future sale.

Traditionally, technology development generally revealed itself in mid

- life upgrades to engine programs. With the ple thora of new engine development going on, technologies developed for new engines (such as LEAP

- X and Trent XWB) are being migrated back to prior versions of existing engines (e.g., technology developed for the Trent 1000 and 700EP were incorporated into a TI package for the Trent 900 31 ). While TI packages will vary from engine to engine, technologies developed and tested in recent new engine programs (e.g., GEnx, Trent 1000/XWB, GTF, LEAP

- X, etc.) will be incorporated into current engines. ICF projects eng ine upgrade packages will continue to be developed throughout the forecast period regardless of the source of technology development. While ICF forecasted 0.2% improvement per annum, some sources indicate that there is substantial upside to this number, wi th Pratt and Whitney claiming an average fuel burn improvement of 0.5%

- 1% for the geared turbofan (Warwick, Pratt and Whitney's Geared Turbofan)

.

31 “Rolls

- Royce Reveals Trent 900 Enhancement Package”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 28, 2009, p. 41.

© 2013 43 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn • Primary reduction mechanisms are Airfoil Aerodynamics and Sealing

• Engine OEMs typically do not charge a premium for engine technology improvements

• Based on interview feedback, ICF modeled this as a fixed percentage per year, rather than using commercial or technical probability built up from individual technologies = 32 =
- = = = = =

0.2%

/yr 0.2% /yr 0.1% /yr 

### 0.2% /yr 0.2% /yr 0.2% /yr 0.2% /yr 0.2% /yr

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility N/A 

### N/A N/A N/A N/A

Technical Feasibility N/A 

### N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cost Impact • Engine OEMs typically do not charge a premium for engine technology improvements

• Interviews indicated $100M o f N on

- Recurring Engineering Cost (NRE) for every 1% improvement (on single aisle

- sized engines) for TRL 6+

• This was scaled by ICF (as described in the “methodology” section) to estimate the NRE required for other engine sizes Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$21 $86 $20 $71 $141 $277 $396 $440

32 =: Technology has maximum benefit of average of minimum and maximum for that category

- : Technology has maximum benefit of 100% of minimum for that category

© 2013 44 ICF InternationalVariable Camber Trailing Edge

The idea of the variable camber trailing edge is to tailor the aerodynamics of the wing in flight to improve the performance over a range of flight conditions. Ideally aircraft would fly mostly at the nominal cruise flight condition for which the wing was designed for, but in practice, aircraft end up flying at a range of conditions dictated by operations. The air traffic control restriction that requires flight at a constant altitude in 2,0 00 ft. increments is particularly limiting. The drag penalty due t o this restriction over the complete cruise segment can be as high as 7%. If these restrictions were to be reduced or eliminated in the future, as planned under F ederal A viation A dministration (FAA) ’s NextGen program, the penalties could reduce dramaticall y, and this technology might no longer be worthwhile.

Variable camber trailing edge technolog y is currently implemented in the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350. In these implementations, both ailerons and flap positions are optimized for each flight conditio n to minimize the drag ( (Norris, Boeing Unveils Plans for Trailing Edge Variable Camber on 787 to Reduce Drag, Save Weight) ) . The aileron mechanisms are similar to conventional ones, but the flap mechanisms had to be adapted t o enable the required adjustments. This includes the ability of the spoilers to deflect downwards to close gaps opened when the flaps are slightly drooped. There is also the possibility of morphing the trailing edge without resorting to hinged surfaces, wh ich we cover in the “ Adaptive Morphing Trailing Edge ” section.

© 2013 45 ICF International33 X: Technology doesn’t apply to category for technical or economic reasons +: Technology has maximum benefit of maximum for that category SourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn • In service on 787, could be improved to provide further
benefit on other aircraft

• Greatest applicability to large/long

- range aircraft

• Fuel burn benefit determined from interview input from
airframe OEMs

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: drag reduction X 33 +

- - = + + +

0.0% 2.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 0% 4% 10% 20%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Used initial costs from ICF intellectual property ( IP ) (Aircraft Value Database), and assumed 20% additional unit cost to actuation and flight control system

• 20% figure gained from interview input and ICF team

consensus

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to I CF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.1 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.6 $0.8 $1.2

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$135 $180 $180 $180 $230 $270 $270 $270

© 2013 46 ICF InternationalAdvanced Wingtip Devices

Wingtips devices are an effective way of increasing the lift

- to

- drag ratio of an aircraft. These can be winglets (single or split)

, or span extensions. Increasing the span or the vertical extent of the wing reduces the lift

- induced drag by spreading the vorticity, weakening the adverse effect that this vorticity has on the rest of the wing. At the global level, this is expressed as a reduction in the kinetic energy associated with the vortex system. Adding wing ti p d evices also
increases the lift , which improves field and climb performance. The penalty for adding a wing t ip device is added viscous drag and weight. The degree to how much weight is added is highly dependent on how much margin there is in the structural design of the original wing. For an over

- designed wing, it is possible to add wingtip devices with no structural reinforcement, but usually reinforcements are re quired in the rest of the wing.

The tradeoffs between extending the wing horizontally versus ad ding a winglet involve a careful multidisciplinary analysis. Aerodynamically, a wing horizontal extension is more effective in reducing the induced drag than an equivalent increase in the vertical extent of the wing. The fact that the equivalent
horizontal extension can be made smaller for the same induced drag reduction further decreases the viscous drag penalty. However, the ho rizontal extension induces larger bending moments on the wing and thus leads to a heavier wing. This makes it more challenging to incorporate in a wing that has already been designed.

Given the trend to retrofit in

- production aircraft with winglets, one must question why this was not done in the original design. After all, winglets are relatively mature technology. The reason has to do with the tradeoff between fuel burn and aircraft cost. Fuel burn depends on both weight and drag, but it is more sensitive to drag, while aircraft cost depends primarily on the weight and has no dependence on drag. Hence, as fuel prices increase, there is more incentive to decrease the fuel burn at the cost of a more expensive aircraft. This is a major factor when determining the opt imal span and wingtip devices of
an aircraft.

This trend can be seen in two of the most recent aircraft, the Boeing 787 an d the Airbus 350, which exhibit significantly higher spans when compared to aircraft of the same weight. Further, the 777X is rumored to feature higher span wings, and Embraer just announced that they would extend the span of the

E

- 175 (Caldas)

Gate code constraints play a major role in the decision of span and wingtip devices. It is no coincidence that the Airbus A35 0 has winglets while the Boeing 787 does not: the A350’span is just under the ICAO gate code E constraint, while t he Boeing 787 is well under this constraint. An interesting note on this is

© 2013 47 ICF Internationalthat the 777X is rumored to feature folding wingtips in order to increase its span while fitting in code E gates, further rei nforcing the fact that we are now willing to trade high er penalties in weight and cost for lower drag and hence lower fuel burn.

The design of wing tip extensions is still progressing, as evidenced by the novel shape of the split winglets introduced by B oeing on the 737 MAX. Raked wingtip are also becoming m ore common and their shape is changing, as can be seen in the evolution of the original 777

- 200LR/300ER tips to the shape in the 787. Thus, further gains are expected from the shaping of wingtip devices.

SourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn • According to OEM statements, blended winglets realize
3

- 5% fuel burn improvements over non

- winglet aircraft

• New winglet technologies, such as split wingtips and Aviation Partners Boeing “Scimitar” winglets can yield
1

- 3% improvement compared to current generation winglet technologies

• Winglets on 737MAX will offer 1

- 1.5% better fuel burn than 737NG blended winglets, depending on results of investigations into natural laminar flow = = = = = = = =

3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 1% 10% 14% 20% 50%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Used publically available pricing and interview input to determine price of current technology winglets

• Assumed next

- generation winglets will have 10% increased price

• NRE estimated based on interview input and some scaling relative to aircraft size

• Advanced wingtip device NRE was used as a data point to scale other technology NREs Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.1 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.6 $0.8 $1.2

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$105 $135 $135 $135 $175 $205 $205 $205

© 2013 48 ICF InternationalAdaptive Trailing Edge

The motivation for this technology is exactly the same as the one for the variable camber trailing edge described previously: to tailor the wing so as to minimize the drag at the various flight conditions. Instead of relying on hinged surfaces to alter the shape of the wing, morphing changes the shape of the structure continuously by using piezoelectric materials or by internal mechanisms. The result is a smooth variation in the sh ape with no need for gaps that would otherwise contribute to the overall drag . On the other hand, gaps are a desirable feature in the high

- lift system (slats and flaps), since they enable higher maximum lift. This technology has been tested in the Boeing 737 ecoDemonstrator (Wilsey and Stoker)

.

The mai n tradeoff to be considered when employing morphing is whether the performance improvement is worth the added weight, cost, c omplexity and actuation energy. Morphing technology has been progressing in all these fronts and it is expected that this trade wil l become favorable at some point in the next 10 years. There are two possibilities to deploy the morphing trailing edge: one could have local morphing on the trailin g edge or conventional moving surfaces to augment or replace the conventional adaptive trai ling edge technology, or one could replace all control surfaces with morphing. The latter would have the advantage of eliminating the drag due to gaps, and it also allows for a finer control of the spanwise distribution o f the trailing edge camber, which
i s very limited when using a conventional adaptive trailing edge.

© 2013 49 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • A full variable camber trailing edge would allow reduced structural weight due to load alleviation, as well as reduced control sizing and more efficient cruise configurations

• Scaled benefit from adaptive trailing edge given aircraft OEM input and ICF team analysis

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: induced drag redu ction X +

- - = + + +

0.0% 3.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.8% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 0% 2% 3% 8%

Technical Feasibility 0% 0% 50% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Used initial costs from ICF IP (Aircraft Value Database),
and assumed 50% additional unit cost to actuation and flight control system

• 50% figure gained from ICF team consensus, and assumption of greater material and component costs in actuation system

• Relative scaling “check” to reflect value of increased fuel savings

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.1 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.5 $1.5 $1.9 $3.0

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$135 $180 $180 $225 $280 $340 $340 $340

© 2013 50 ICF InternationalRiblet Coatings

Riblets are a pattern of tiny ridges that are aligned in the direction of the flow. They have been shown to reduce the skin friction due to a turbulent boundary layer by about 6.5% for the flight regime that is typical of commercial transport aircraft. Riblets wo rk by reducing the turbulence at the surface in the direction perpendicular to the flow, reducing the skin friction drag. Although this is a well understood way of reducing skin friction drag, the issue with the use of this technology hinges on the cost of manufacturing, the curability in service and maintenance issues. Lufthansa Technik is currently researching riblet paint coatings (Gubisch)

. Given the increasing value of decreasing drag, there is a chance that this technology is deployed within the next 10 years.

© 2013 51 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Not currently in production, but has had concept
validated

• Potential issues with increased maintenance and cleaning costs, and practicality in field

• Sources for information included publically available documents, secondary research, and confirmation from
airframe OEM interview sources (Gubisch)

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: skin friction drag
reduction - - - - = + + +

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 0% 5% 10% 20%

Technical Feasibility 0% 25% 80% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Riblet coatings would primarily affect manufacturing costs, after initial design NRE is performed to validate
concept

• Estimates from interviews/ICF team consensus

• Unknown impact on maintenance costs

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE sca le according to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.1 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.6 $0.8 $1.2

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$135 $180 $180 $180 $230 $270 $270 $270

© 2013 52 ICF InternationalNatural Laminar Flow Control

- Nacelle

Skin

- friction drag is one of the primary sources of drag on an aircraft, usually accounting for just over 50% of the total drag at cruise. As mentioned previously, this drag is due to the friction caused by the boundary layer . Boundary layers can be either laminar or turbulent, and the former generate less friction, and thus lower drag. Laminar boundary layers are also thinner, contributing to a decrease in pressure drag as well. Due to the combination of high speed and scale of the aircraft, the boundary layers on transport aircraft all almost completely turbulent. It is particularly difficult to a chieve a laminar boundary layer in this flow regime through passive means, especially in lifting surfaces that are swept. Although they start as laminar at the leading edges, they will quickly transition to turbulent unless the right technology is used.

Natural laminar flow (NLF) relies solely on the careful design of the aerodynamic shape so as to delay the transition of the boundary layer from laminar to turbulent as much as possible. This technology has been used in high

- performance sailplanes for several decades, but the higher the speed and the longer the dimensions, the more difficult it is to achieve. Furthermore, wing sweep has an adverse effect. As a result, NLF is currently not feasible on wings of commercial transports flying at high subsonic speeds.

However, recent progress has made it possible to achieve NLF for a significant portion of engine nacelles, as is the case in th e Boeing 787. NLF requires especially tight manufacturing tolerances as well as attention to the paint material and thickness. The 777X will also feature nacelles with NLF. (CITE Boeing PAS Widebody presentation).

© 2013 53 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Portion of 787 nacelle was designed for natural laminar flow, but full potential benefit is not currently being
realized (Norris, Boeing Plans Plain Grey Natural
Laminar Flow Nacelles for 787s in Bid to Reduce Fuel Burn)

• Natural laminar flow easier to design into lower speed aircraft (regional jets, turboprops)

• Interviews indicated <0.5% fuel burn benefit realized on 787, estimates scaled fr om that data point and internal team analysis

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: skin friction drag
reduction - - + + = = = =

0.1% 0.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 0% 1% 3% 8%

Technical Feasibility

80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Used initial costs from ICF IP (Aircraft Value Database),
and assumed 75% additional unit cost to nacelle

• 75% estimate created from ICF team consensus, and assumption of greater design NRE and material finishing/processing costs

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment

• Assumed much greater design/engineering NRE in the form of aerodynamic analysis, as well as additional testing to validate concept Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.2 $1.0 $0.1 $1.0 $1.1 $3.1 $3.4 $4.1

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$265 $355 $355 $310 $390 $470 $470 $470

© 2013 54 ICF International

### Hybrid Laminar Flow Control

– Empennage

As mentioned above, it is possible to achieve a significant amount of NLF on nacelles. However, the boundary layer will event ually transition when the streamwise distance is long enough. To increase the extent of laminar flow beyond what is possible with the passive means of NLF, or to ensure laminar flow with an adverse shape or flight condition, it is possible to use hybrid laminar flow control (HLFC).

HLFC uses suction to delay the transition from laminar to turbulent and thus create areas with a laminar boundary layer. This technology has been tested for
the 787

- 9 vertical tail and will represent the first commercial application of HLFC. Usually, the suction is created by mechanical me ans and requires a source of power. The patent filed by Boeing seems to show a system that does not require mechanical power: it sucks the boundary layer in through tiny holes in the skin to a plenum, or hollow chamber, inside the leading edge vertical tail that is then connected to an area of lower pre ssure elsewhere . This reduces the complexity of the system and eliminates the power requirement, making it commercially more viable.

© 2013 55 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Public sources indicate implementation on very small portion of vertical stabilizer would yield ~0.5% fuel savings on 787

- 9, assumed that application to larger area of empennage would be possible

• Possible issues with practicality (HLFC requires small ports in air craft skin that may become frequently clogged in practice)

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: skin friction drag
reduction - - - - = + + +

0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 1.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 3% 6% 10% 20%

Technical Feasibility 0% 80% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Used initial costs from ICF IP (Aircraft Value Database), and assumed 25% additional unit cost to empennage

• 25% estimate created from ICF team consensus, and assumption of greater design NRE and greater system

costs

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.4 $1.4 $0.8 $1.2 $1.6 $6.0 $6.9 $7.6

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$265 $355 $355 $310 $390 $470 $470 $470

© 2013 56 ICF InternationalHybrid Laminar Flow Control

– Nacelle

As mentioned above, it is possible to achieve a significant extent of NLF on nacelles. However, there might be desirable to increase the extent of laminar flow even further than it is possible with passive means. Given the possible application of HLFC to the empennage of the 787

- 9, and as this technology matures, it is likely that this will be applied to other components of the aircraft, including nacelles. The application to wings, however, remains a very challenging proposition for the reasons that were already mentioned.

© 2013 57 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Fuel burn benefit depends on degree of implementation, this assumes implementation on as much of the nacelle as practical/cost effective

• Public sources indicate implementation on small area of vertical stabilizer would yield ~0.5% fuel savings on
787

- 9, this data was scaled to nacelle implementation area and confirmed through aircraft OEM & aerodynamics expert interview input

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: skin friction drag
reduction - - - - = + + +

0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 3% 6% 10% 20%

Technical Feasibility 0% 80% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Used initial costs from ICF IP (Aircraft Value Database),
and assumed 75% additional unit cost to nacelle

• 75% estimate created from ICF team consensus, and assumption of greater design NRE and greater system

costs

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment

• Assumed much greater design/engineering NRE i n the form of aerodynamic analysis, as well as additional testing to validate concept Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.1 $0.3 $0.1 $0.3 $0.4 $1.0 $1.2 $1.4

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$265 $355 $355 $270 $335 $405 $405 $405

© 2013 58 ICF InternationalAdvanced Metallic Technologies

– Al

- Li, etc.

Although the use of carbon reinforced composite materials in primary structures has increased dramatically, and is seen as th e way of the future, metal manufacturers have developed new metal alloys to remain competitive in the airframe material market. The most prominent of these new alloys is aluminum lithium (Al

- Li), which is less dense than standard aluminum alloys, more durable, and less susceptible to corrosion. Alcoa claims that th e use of Al

- Li can reduce the aircraft structural weight by 10%. Howeve r, this alloy is currently much more expensive than conventional aluminum, and the manufacturing process is different enough from that of standard alloys that previous tooling cannot be reused. Bombardier selected Al

- Li for the fuselage of the CSeries,
and Boeing is rumored to be considering it for the fuselage of the 777X. In the future, we can also expect even more advanced met al technologies, including hybrid materials that combine metals with non

- metallic fibers. Titanium

- graphite hybrid composites, for example, promise to save weight in heavy attachment areas in the primary structure.

© 2013 59 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Technical challenges associated with increasing Al

- Li raw material production, but technical feasibility will increase quickly with new facility investment taking place

• Commercial feasibility remains low due to low
cost/benefit for direct material substitution

• Assumes direct material substitu tion, which gives 1

- 3% weight benefit vs. conventional Al alloys

• Sources for fuel burn benefit include interviews with raw material OEMs and a previous comprehensive ICF study on the lifecycle costs and performance benefits of
advanced metallic vs. composites

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: weight reduction - - - - - + + +

1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 3% 4% 5% 10%

Technical Feasibility 25% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Costs developed from bottom’s up model of aerostructures manufacturing costs by material from previous ICF study

• Assumed direct material substitution for density

- based weight savings, and used estimated Al

- Li per pound material pricing

• Assumed very little NRE required for direct material substitution (assuming material is qualified) Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.5 $1.9 $1.0 $1.7 $2.3 $6.0 $10.6 $13.0

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$50 $50 $100 $100 $200 $200 $200 $200

© 2013 60 ICF InternationalTitanium Landing Gear

Traditionally, commercial aircraft landing gear have been made from steel. Steel is a heavy, but strong, metal, and large ste el forgings are using for landing gear main beams and supporting braces. Titanium is much lighter than steel (up to 45% lighter for equivalent strength). It is also more resistant to corrosion. These properties, however, come with a steep price penalty, as titanium can be three to four times more expensive than titani um, by weight.

Titanium landing gear have long been found in milita ry aircraft, but have only started to be incorporated recently in select large commercial aircraft. The 777 was the first aircraft to incorporate Ti landing gear, followed by new

- generation aircraft such as the 787 and A350. Although there are no examples yet of titanium landing gear being retrofitted, it is conceivable that they could be applied to other aircraft categories as part of a block upgrade package.

© 2013 61 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Obtained current landing gear system prices from ICF
Aircraft Value Database

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: weight reduction - - - - = + + +

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 5% 7% 10% 20%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Obtained current landing gear system prices from ICF
Aircraft Value Database

• Assumed material/machining costs were 40% of total landing gear system price, and assumed this portion of total cost would increase proportionally to ratio of titanium/steel material prices (gives a price increase of 3X)

• To fully take advantage of new material, redesign of landing gear would be required, so NRE reflects this Estima ted Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.2 $0.8 $0.6 $0.6 $1.2 $3.6 $4.2 $7.2

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$105 $135 $135 $135 $175 $205 $205 $205

© 2013 62 ICF InternationalLightweight Lightning Strike Protection

Aircraft are struck by lightning every 1,000 to 3,000 flight hours, on average (Black) . This is an average of more than once per year for air transport aircraft. This is Traditional aircraft with metallic primary aerostructures can easily deal with lightning strikes, since the fuselage provides a natural conduit for the high current caused by a lightning strike. Since composite aircraft skins are poor conductors, a lightning strike to a carbon fiber or other composite part could result in significant structural heat damage and costly repairs, or more significant damage that could compromise the safety of the aircraft in flight. Thus, composite aircraft utilize several methods to account for this problem. Often, a thin metal foil or copper mesh is placed below the first layer of composite laminate, which provides an electrical conduit around the fuselage, and prevents any excessive heating or burn

- through. These methods, however, are accompanied by a weight penalty, which can be qu ite significant.

Because of this weight penalty, many suppliers are looking for alternative methods to increase conductivity of composite stru ctures, including metallic fibers interwoven with composite weave, conductive spray coatings, and other solutions . These have the potential to take a few percent of weight out an aircraft with composite primary aerostructures.

© 2013 63 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Applies only to composite aircraft

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism is weight reduction = = = = = = = =

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 6% 7% 10% 20%

Technical Feasibility 0% 80% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Unit cost data from bespoke ICF study on advanced (Lightning Strike Protection) LSP concepts

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.2 $0.8 $0.6 $0.6 $1.2 $3.6 $4.2 $7.2

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$105 $135 $135 $135 $175 $205 $205 $205

© 2013 64 ICF InternationalMore Electric Systems

– Weight Reductions

Many modern aircraft have begun replacing mechanical equipment with electrical systems. These design philosophies are collectively known as the “more electric aircraft” paradigm. Specific examples of “more electric” designs and technologies include:

• higher pressure hydraulic systems that enable re duced conveyance equipment weight

• replacement of pneumatics with electric systems, allowing the removal of ducting and tubing weight

• electric actuation, especially for secondary, utility and backup actuation systems

• utilizing electric anti

- ice systems, whe re possible

Many new aircraft are incorporating various elements of this design philosophy, especially in the actuation system. Air trans port and large business aircraft generally have at least three redundant actuation and hydraulic systems for safety rea sons. Many large air transport aircraft incorporate electric or electro

hydrostatic backup actuation systems. Electric brake actuation is becoming more common on new generation aircraft, such as th e 787 and C

- Series.

© 2013 65 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Further refinements to more electric systems, including high pressure hydraulic systems, electric bleed air control, elimination of one hydraulic system, Includes electric ECS, electric anti

- ice; electric hydraulic pumps; electric p r imary, secondary, and high lift actuation;
electric brake actuation

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: weight reduction = = = = = + + +

1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 3% 6% 10% 20%

Technical Feasibility 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Assumed that using more electric systems to reduce weight results in substantial increases in unit costs due to
both NRE and use of more expensive components

• Assumed resultant cost increases of approximately 2% of realized aircraft price

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.20 $0.80 $0.50 $0.60 $0.90 $2.60 $3.30 $3.90

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$105 $135 $135 $135 $175 $205 $205 $205

© 2013 66 ICF InternationalECS Aerodynamic Cleanup and On

- Demand ECS Scheduling

The environmental control system (ECS) of an aircraft provides air supply, thermal control and cabin pressurization for the c rew and passengers. Avionics cooling, smoke detection and fire suppression are also commonly considered part of an aircraft’s envir onmental control system. The Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 have made both aerodynamic and power

- saving improvements to the ECS system (Sinnett) . The inlet and outlet ducts to the system’s compressor have been optimized to reduce t he pressure drag. In addition, on

- demand ECS scheduling now allows engines to power the system only when needed as opposed to an entire flight (Boeing Co.)

.

SourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism is drag reduction ( (Thomson) = = = = = = = =

0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 20% 28% 40% 80%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Assumed that refining ECS system would result in minor charges equal to 0.25% of realized aircraft sale price

• Changes are mainly from amortized NRE and additional
control electronics

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment

• NRE is aerodynamics and software design engineering Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$40 $50 $50 $50 $65 $75 $75 $75

© 2013 67 ICF InternationalLighter Aircraft Interiors

Airplane seats, bathrooms, kitchens, and cabin bins are a large portion of aircraft interiors. Companies like Rockwell Collin s and Zodiac Aerospace have been designing lighter furnishings to help decrease aircraft takeoff weight while maintaining size. Eve n smaller interior components such as flight manuals have been replaced by more efficient Electronic Flight Bags (EFB’s). There have also been some initiatives towards replacing traditional electronic entertainment systems with mobile devices and using wir eless streaming, which would not only reduce the weight (in both the device and the wiring), but reduce energy consumption as well. With a lighter plane, less fuel is burned because of a lower lift and thus lower induced d rag, which translates into lower

t hrust. Alternatively, airlines can replace the saved weight with payload.

© 2013 68 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: weight reduction - - - - = + + +

1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 20% 28% 40% 80%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Baseline aircraft interiors costs obtained from ICF
aircraft value database

• Assumed that interiors were made lighter through heavy use of composites, resulting in over 100% increase in material/processing costs

• This results in 50% increase in total aircraft interiors cost

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data p oints on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment

• Relatively low NRE involved in seat/galley/interiors design and certification Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.1 $0.3 $0.5 $0.5 $1.0 $4.6 $5.5 $8.4

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$105 $135 $135 $95 $120 $140 $140 $140

© 2013 69 ICF InternationalFuel Cell APU Replacement

Aircraft auxiliary power units (APUs) are small gas turbine engines used to provide electrical power, air conditioning, hydra ulic power, and pneumatic power both on the ground as a backup in flight. Several companies are conducting research to enable APUs to be replaced with fuel cells. Fuel cells take advantage of a chemical reaction of some hydrogen

- based compounds with air to produce electricity. While this would likely not produce a direct weight reduction benefit, fuel cell APUs are an important elemen t to enable further development of the “more electric aircraft” architecture discussed earlier in the report, as well as reducing fuel consumption and emissions for ground operations. Fuel cell APUs would have many ancillary be nefits, including production of nitrogen as a byproduct, which could be used for the fuel tank inerting system. Fuel cells also produce water as a byprodu ct of the chemical reaction, which would allow airlines to begin a flight with less stored water for lavatories, further reducing w eight (Breit)

.

© 2013 70 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Fuel burn benefit estimate from interview with Tier 1 34 systems supplier

• Many ancillary benefits to fuel cell APU, but probably
will have little effect on cruise fuel burn = = = + + - - -

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 0% 0% 20% 45%

Technical Feasibility 0% 0% 0% 25% 100%

Cost Impact • Fuel cell APU cost information obtained from interviews with Tier 1 aircraft system OEM involved in fuel cell
research

• Fuel cell APUs are projected to be less expensive to
manufacture

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$135 $180 $180 $180 $230 $270 $270 $270

34 Tier 1 suppliers are companies that provide major systems and usually have de sign authority.

© 2013 71 ICF InternationalControl Surface

– Optimal Control Laws for Horizontal Stabilizer Trim

Maintaining trimmed flight efficiently requires clean, accurate, and dynamic control laws. There is room for improvement with contemporary control systems with regards to overshoot, rise time, and steady

- state error. This technology complements the adaptive trailing edge technology, since if the trailing edge geometry changes, the trim settings should change at the same time

.

SourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Reduces trim drag

• Fuel burn reduction estimate from airframe OEM interview, and team expert input

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: reduced induced/trim drag X = = = = = = =

0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 10% 14% 20% 75%

Technical Feasibility 25% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Costs associated with new control laws are mainly in software development and new certification costs

• Assumed 0.25% premium in aircraft realized price

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M ) by Aircraft Category

$0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$105 $135 $135 $135 $175 $205 $205 $205

© 2013 72 ICF InternationalFly

- By

- Wire

Historically, aircraft flight controls have been actuated through a direct linkage between cockpit flight controls and the control surface actuators. This involves lengthy stretches of steel cable, pushrods, and linkages, which add weight to the aircraft. Fly

- by

- wire systems, on the other hand, use electrical signals to t ransfer inputs from the pilot’s controls to control surface actuators. This approach removes much of the cabling, but require s very expensive design and certification efforts.

SourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Fly by wire weight savings available through secondary research and publically available documents

• Translation from weight savings to fuel savings made from ICF previous project experience

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: weight savings X = - - = = = =

0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 20% 28 40% 80%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • These costs (and benefit) represent installing fly

- by

- wire in limited applications in originally non fly

- by

- wire aircraft (rudder, spoilers, partial primary control surfaces)

• Assumed 0.5% premium in aircraft realized price

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NR E scale according to ICF team judgment

• Primary NRE costs are certification, to a lesser extent software development costs Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.1 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.7 $0.8 $1.0

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$265 $355 $355 $270 $335 $405 $405 $405

© 2013 73 ICF InternationalGap Reductions & Aerodynamic Cleanup on Slats/Spoilers/Ailerons/ etc.

Hinged control surfaces such as ailerons, elevators and rudders, leave gaps on the aerodynamic surface that need to be sealed as much as possible to reduce drag. While some effort has been made to minimize this type of drag, this is an area of continuous improvement.

Spoilers and slats also incur some drag if their trailing edges are not perfectly flush with the shape of the wing. By making these trailing edges thinner, this source of drag can be reduced, as demonstrated in a recent next

- generation 737 performance improvement package (Tesch, Next

- Generation 737 Fuel Performace Improvement)

.

© 2013 74 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Basic aerodynamic cleanup on control surfaces and
across aircraft (Thomson)

• Fuel burn estimate from ICF team analysis

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: drag reduction - - = = = = = =

0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 25% 35% 50% 90%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Assumed minor changes resulted in 0.25% increase in aircraft realized price

• Majority of unit change costs are production related, not
amortized NRE

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment

• Low NRE costs, mostly related to aerodynamic analysis Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$40 $50 $50 $50 $65 $75 $75 $75

© 2013 75 ICF InternationalReducing Profiles of Lights, Antennae, Sensors, etc.

Although the additional the lights, antennae and sensors protruding from the aircraft have relatively small dimensions, they can collectively add up to a significant amount of drag. It is well known that circular cross sections (such as those used in some anti

- collision lights) exhibit a drag that is ten times higher of that of a streamlines shape with the same width. Therefore, several in

- productio n aircraft have modified these details for in

- production aircraft (Tesch, Next

- Generation 737 Fuel Performace Improvement)

, (Caldas) . Although the drag reductions are modest, they are generally low cost modifications.

SourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Fuel burn estimates developed from ICF team estimates and checked by interview input from airframe OEM

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: reduced excrescence drag = = = = = = = =

0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 25% 35% 50% 95%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Assumed minor changes resulted in 0.25% increase in aircraft realized price

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment

• Very low NRE costs, related to suppliers changing production standards and docume ntation Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$5 $5 $5 $5 $10 $10 $10 $10

© 2013 76 ICF InternationalCarbon/Ceramic Brakes

Aircraft brake friction material has historically been made out of steel. Newer carbon/ceramic brake material is much lighter , as well as more wear

- resistant. Ceramic brakes are easily retrofitted onto new in

- production aircraft, and in fact are optional f or most single aisle aircraft, and standard on twin aisle and large aircraft. For those aircraft that do not currently offer ceramic brakes, they can be installed with minimal recertifica tion and testing effort.

SourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism is through reduced weight (Milller, Allen and Preston)

• Weight savings estimates available from public
documents - - = = = = = =

0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 20% 28% 40% 80%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Changing brake material results in 0.25% increase in
aircraft realized price

• Change is due to increased material and production costs of carbon ceramics, compared to traditional steel brakes

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment

• NRE costs are relat ed to testing and qualification of the new material’s strength and wear characteristics Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$70 $95 $95 $50 $65 $75 $75 $75

© 2013 77 ICF InternationalAft Body Redesign for Aerodynamics

There is room for aerodynamic improvements on the aft body of many contemporary aircraft. Understandably, the majority of aer odynamic analysis and design effort targets the wings. However, with recent skyrocketing fuel prices, opportunities for drag reduction on non

- lifting parts such as the fuselage have
also become a focus of aircraft OEMs. This has been seen on the 737 MAX (Boeing Co.)

For in

- production aircr aft, it is not feasible to perform a major re design of the aft body, but it is possible to make modifications on the existing shape. The area where the horizontal and vertical tails join the fuselage is particularly critical when it comes to interference drag, and is a good target for redesign.

© 2013 78 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Fuel burn benefit estimated from publically
announcements about 737MAX fuel burn reduction technologies ( (Boeing Co.)

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: induced drag reduction - = = = = = = =

1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 20% 28% 40% 80%

Technical Feasibility 50% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Significant design and production change for an aircraft

program

• ICF estimated that this would result in a 2% increase in realized price

• Cost increase data scaled relatively to other known modification and checked through interview feedback

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale according to ICF team judgment

• Significant NRE related to design and changing production process Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.2 $0.8 $0.5 $0.6 $0.9 $2.6 $3.3 $3.9

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$170 $225 $225 $225 $280 $340 $340 $340

© 2013 79 ICF InternationalComposites

– Current State, Increased Application

Decreasing aircraft weight without compromising drag is a sure way of reducing aircraft fuel burn. Composite materials have b een known for decades and have been used in military airplanes for a long time, and exhibit strength to weight ratios higher than t hose of metals. However, composites have only recently been used in the primary structures of commercial transport aircraft (in the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350). In spi te of the knowledge gained over the years in the military applications, the current g eneration of composite structures in these new commercial aircraft has much room for improvement. For both airplanes, the predicted weight advantages of composites have not been fully realized and there have been growing pains in the development of these

s tructures. This is due in part to complications in the fastening of the various parts (especially when interfacing composite parts with metal ones) and also due to the use of conservative design procedures to mitigate the risks in using a new material. Des ign and manufacturing techniques that enable a more detailed tailoring of the composite ply angles have the potential to reduce the weight further. There is room for improvement when it comes to reducing the cost of manufacturing composites. In addition to the weight reduction, composites a much less susceptible to corrosion and should reduce the maintenance cost in the long run. Finally, composites enable more freedom in the manufacture shape, which could improve the aerodynamics of wings.

© 2013 80 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Fuel burn benefit information came from detailed ICF study on enabling technologies for both weight reduction and cost of composites - - - - = + + +

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 20% 28% 40% 80%

Technical Feasibility 50% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • ICF estimated that manufacturing costs would remain the same, but NRE would be needed to develop and implement new production systems

• NRE estimated from relative scaling Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

- - - - - - - -

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$200 $270 $270 $270 $335 $405 $405 $405

© 2013 81 ICF InternationalLightweight Paint/Surface Treatments

SourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Fuel burn reduction information from ICF team analysis and secondary research

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: weight reduction = = = = = = = =

0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 10% 14% 20% 40%

Technical Feasibility 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • ICF estimated that this would not result in an increase in realized aircraft price

• Cost increase data scaled relatively to other known modification and checked through interview feedback

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE sca le according to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$70 $95 $95 $95 $120 $140 $140 $140

© 2013 82 ICF InternationalZonal Drying

Zonal drying systems act to remove moisture that accumulates in the aircraft insulation after a series of flights. The interi or of an aircraft is usually kept at a very low humidity to reduce the risk of corrosion. Due to the cold exterior skin of an aircr aft at cruise, remaining moisture tends to condense and accumulate on the interior of the aircraft skin, and then gets trapped in the adjacent insulation blankets. Over time, this accumulated water adds a significant amount of weight to the aircraft, which negatively affects performance and fuel burn. Zonal drying systems are targeted dehumidifiers that expel this excess water fr om the aircraft. This weight decrease is hard to quantify, since it will not change any certificated weights, such as operating em pty weight or maximum takeoff weight. It will, however, reduce real

- world fuel burn in operation, which is why ICF felt it important to include.

© 2013 83 ICF InternationalSourcesSmallBGALargeBGATurbo-propRegional JetSingleAisleSmallTwinLargeTwinLargeQuad

Fuel Burn Applicability • Fuel burn benefit from derived from public sources regarding weight savings potential, interview input from airlines currently using zonal dryers, and ICF analysis

• Fuel burn reduction mechanism: weight savings = = = = = = = =

0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

2013 2018 2020 2023 2033

Commercial Feasibility 0% 10% 14% 20% 40%

Technical Feasibility 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost Impact • Significant design and production change for an aircraft

program

• ICF estimated that this would not result in a 0.25% increase in realized aircraft price

• Cost increase data scaled relatively to other known modification and checked through interview feedback

• NRE estimates scaled relatively from known data points on program NRE scale ac cording to ICF team judgment Estimated Unit Cost Increase ($M) by Aircraft Category

$0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5

Estimated Total NRE ($M) by Aircraft Category

$70 $95 $95 $95 $120 $140 $140 $140

© 2013 84 ICF International2.3 

### T ECHNOLOGY 

### D EVELOPMENT 

### C OST

In the following subsection are examples of the types of data points and accompanying analysis that were used to validate the ICF cost curves.

© 2013 85 ICF InternationalAs noted above, ICF relied on non

- public information to develop its analysis. However, the publicly available data inputs corroborate our results.

767

- 300 Winglet

Situation / Facts Assumptions

• 767

- 300 winglets were developed by Aviation Partners Boeing and entered service in 2008

• These winglets deliver 4.0

- 5.8% f uel burn improvement

• ICF estimates NRC of $250M for a 4% improvement

• 767

- 300 winglet shipset list price is $2.35M (excluding installation cost)

• 767

- 300 fleet in 2005 was 557 AC and was growing by 10 per year • A reasonable b usiness case would only assume partial penetration of
the fleet

• ICF assumed 25% penetration (139 AC)

Results

• ICF estimates winglet per shipset NRC is ~$1.2M

- about 50% of list price

© 2013 86 ICF International757

- 200 Winglet

Situation / Facts Assumptions

• 757

- 200 winglets were developed by Aviation Partners Boeing and entered service in 2005

• These winglets deliver 3.5

- 5.2% fuel burn improvement

• ICF estimates $150M NRC for 3.5% improvement

• 757

- 200 winglet shipset list price is $1.1M (excluding installation cost)

• 757

- 200 fleet in 2005 was 1,016 AC and production had ceased in 2004 • A reasonable b usiness case would only assume partial penetration of
the fleet

• ICF assumed 25% penetration ( 254 AC)

Results

• ICF estimates winglet per shipset NRC is ~$0.6M

- 50% of list price

© 2013 87 ICF InternationalAviation Partners Boeing engineering employment

Situation / Facts Assumptions

• In 2008, Aviation Partners Boeing had 100 people involved in product design and development activities

• At the time, they were likely working on two narrowbody winglets and one widebody winglet

• Average US aerospace engineering salary was $100K/year in 2013

• Overhead allocation for engineering

- focused organizations ranges from 150

- 300%

• Per ICF NRC analysis, engineering and integration is 55% of Large Incremental Update
NRC

• ICF estimates $150M NRC for 3.5% improvement • $ 100K average salary at a 300%
overhead burden rate (conservative)

• 3 year development period for each winglet design and all development staff 100% focused on one design (very conservative)

• Single Aisle Large Incremental Update (wing let) NRC cost

s tructure

– 55% Engineering, 40% Test, and 5% Tooling

Results

• T otal design, development, and integration cost of $90M

• I mplies total NRC of $164M

© 2013 88 ICF InternationalGE90

- 115B PIP

Situation / Facts Assumptions

• GE has steadily improved the GE90

- 115B from
2004

- 2011

• “GE and program partners combined have spent average of $50M per year to improve GE90

- 115B, including many improvements for reliability and maintenance cost”

• From simple analysis of stated improvements, likely that 1/3 to 1⁄2 of improvements were actually to improve maintainability, cost, or durability

• Investments yielded 3.6% improved fuel burn over 7 years (possibly fewer)

• ICF cost estimates indicate $506M to achieve a
3.5% MV reduction on the 777

- 300ER • 100% of stated cost was used for
fuel burn

- reducing technologies (conservative)

Results

• $350M total investment ($50M/yr over 7 years) is lower than ICF
estimate

© 2013 89 ICF International737NG PIP

Situation / Facts Analysis

• 737NG PIP implemented between 2011 and 2013 improved fuel economy ~2%

• Aerodynamic improvements (~1%)

• Redesigned ECS exhaust inlet, wheel well fairings, control surface aerodynamics efficiency improvements, and streamlined engine nozzle
and nacelle

• CFM56

- 7B Evolution (>1%)

• ICF estimates $100M NRC for a 2% improvement to the 7 37NG family • A 2% fuel savings has an net present value to airline operators of approximately +$1.4M over the
aircraft lifetime

• Boeing’s giveaways apply to complete 737 PIP

Results

• Some value

- creating incremental technologies are being given away
for free

© 2013 90 ICF International

# 3 B IBLIOGRAPHY

"Analysing the options for 757 replacement." Aircraft Commerce 42 (2005): 6. Aviation Partners Boeing. "Split Scimitar Winglets." 2013. Aviation Partners Boeing. Document. 5 June 2013. Black, Sara. " Lightning Strike Protection Strategies for Composite Aircraft." 1 May 2013. www.compositesworld.com. 1 June 2013. Boeing Co. "Operational Efficiency and Environmental Performance." Aero Magazine (2009). Boeing Co. "The 737 Max advantage." Technical Report. 2012. Breit, Joe. "BCA Perspective on Fuel Cell APUs." 2010. Caldas, Tobias. "Commercial Aviation Update." Business Overview. Embraer, 2013. Cervenka, Michael. "The Rolls Royce Trent Engine." Presentation. Rolls Royce, 2 000

. Clark, Stephen. "787 Propulsio n System ." Aero Magazine (2012). Dodson, Brian. ""Superjet" variable cycle jet engine could power future fighter aircraft." 6 January 2013. Gizmag. <http://www.gizmag.com/ge

- aviation

- develop

- advent

- variable

cycle

- jet

- engine/25556/>. Duco Golhof, Allard de Groot, Jotham Hensen, Judie Ibrahim, Sander Mestemaker, Erik Portman, Iris Prinsen, Wouter Seignette. 737 Flight Control Modifications . Design Report. Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. Amsterdam, 2011. Ebanga, Jean

- Paul. "LEAP: Proven Breakthrough ." Business Overview. CFM International, 2013. GE Aviation. "Breaking the Mold: GE Makes Technology Review's Global List of Most Innovative Companies, Again." GE Reports (2013). Gubisch, Michael. "Aircraft Paint Suppliers Explore Sharskin Coating." 31 Janu ary 2013. Flightglobal.com. Hawker Beechcraft. "Introducing the factory completed Hawker 400XPr." Brochure. n.d. Honeywell. "Advanced Materials & Processes." Technology Factbook. n.d. ICF . "Fleet Forecasting with the Turkeys." 2012. Jeffrey Berton, Willia m Haller, Douglas Thurman, Kenneth Fisher. "Ultra High Bypass Ratio Propulsion Systems Studied." Press Release. NASA Glenn Research Center, 2013. Kaminski

- Morrow, David. "A380 near

- term refinements include higher MTOW." Flight Global 12 May 2009. Leeham Ne ws. Boeing Refreshes 787 . 2009. 2012. <http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/boeing

- refreshes

- 737/>. Milller, Trent, Tim Allen and Evan Preston. "Operational Advantages of Carbon Brakes." Boeing AERO QRT_03 2009. Electronic. Nagpal, Dr. Vinod. "Cooled Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) High Pressure Turbine Vanes." n.d. NASA Glenn Research Center. 23 May 2013. <https://technology.grc.nasa.gov/techdays2012/TechDays_TOPsheets/PS

- 00921

- 1112_B117_AS.pdf>. Norris, Guy. "Boeing May Boost MAX Fan As Battle With NEO Heats Up." Aviation Week & Space Technology (2012).

© 2013 91 ICF International

### — . "Boeing Plans Plain Grey Natural Laminar Flow Nacelles for 787s in Bid to Reduce Fuel Burn." 11 July 2006. www.flightglobal.com. 15 April 2013.

— . "Boeing Starts 787 Drag Reduction Tests." 10 June 2011. Aviation Week. 23 May 2013. <http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e

- b3dd

- 4fa6

- ae6e

dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3A7a78f54e

- b3dd

- 4fa6

- ae6e

dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3A060d6b30

- ea24

- 4dd7

- acd7

- 791949121fab>.

— . "Boeing Tests 747

- 8 Engine and Fuel System Updates." Aviation Week & Space Technology 21 May 2013.

— . "Boeing Unveils Plans for Trailing Edge Variable Camber on 787 to Reduce Drag, Save Weight." 12 June 2006. www.flightglobal.co m. 1 March 2013. "Proven Techniques to Reduce Fuel Burn." Aicraft Commerce 69 (2010): 5. Russell, Edward. "PARIS: Embraer claims double

- digit efficiency gains with E

- Jet E2." FlightGlobal (2013). Sinnett, Mike. "787 No Bleed Systems: Saving Fuel and Enhanc ing Operational Efficiencies ." Aero Magazine (2008). Tesch, Dennis. "Next Generation 737 Fuel Performance Improvement." Boeing AERO December 2012: 12

- 17. Electronic.

— . "Next

- Generation 737 Fuel Performace Improvement." Aero Magazine (2012): 5. Thomson, Ken. "Delivering Fuel and Emissions Savings for the 777." Boeing AERO QTR_03 2009. Electronic. Warwick, Graham. "Clean Sheet." Aviation Week (2012).

— . "Pratt and Whitney's Geared Turbofan." 1 July 2013. Aviation Week. 15 July 2013.

— . "Putting it Together." Aviation Week (2013): 2.

— . "Riblets

- Back in the Groove." 7 June 2010. Aviation Week. 6 June 2013. <http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417

- 3364

- 4fbf

- a9dd

4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3Aa68cb417

- 3364

- 4fbf

- a9dd

4feda680 ec9cPost%3Ab5065dcb

- 10d0

- 447c

- 9b85

- cf91c64363f1>. Wilhelm, Steve. "Aluminum

- lithium alloys may be used for Boeing 777X." Pudget Sound Business Journal (2013). Wilsey, Craig and Robert Stoker. "Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Technolog ies Development." Presentation. 2010. Document.

© 2013 92 ICF International