AIAA SciTech Forum 10.2514/6.

2018-0105
8–12 January 2018, Kissimmee, Florida
2018 AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference

A Vehicle Design and Optimization Model for

On-Demand Aviation
Arthur Brown1 and Wesley L. Harris2
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139

On-demand aviation refers to an envisaged air taxi service, using small, autonomous,
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

vertical-takeoff-and-landing, battery-powered electric aircraft. A conceptual design and op-

timization tool for on-demand aviation is presented in this paper. The tool uses Geometric
Programming, a class of optimization problems with extremely fast solve times and for which
global optimality is guaranteed. The optimization model consists of a vehicle, a sizing mis-
sion, a revenue-generating mission, and a deadhead (non-passenger-carrying) mission. Cost
per trip, including the additional cost due to the deadhead mission, is used as the objective
function. Vehicle noise is computed during post-processing using a semi-empirical method.
The tool is used to conduct a trade study between several different on-demand aircraft config-
urations. Four case studies are presented: one on a sizing plot useful for vehicle preliminary
design; one on New York City airport transfers; one on technological assumptions in the near-
and long-term; and one on low-noise design techniques. A series of sensitivity studies are also
performed. Vehicle configurations with a higher lift-to-drag ratio, but a higher disk loading,
generally weigh less and cost less to operate; configurations with a lower lift-to-drag ratio,
but a lower disk loading, are quieter. An on-demand air service, even in the near term, is
far superior in terms of cost per trip as compared to current helicopter air taxi operations.
In the long term, costs become competitive with current car ridesharing services, indicating
that on-demand aviation may one day become a widespread commute system for the masses.
Technological assumptions and vehicle requirements, especially mission range, battery energy
density, vehicle autonomy level, battery manufacturing cost, and reserve requirements, have
significant impacts on vehicle weight and cost. Vehicle noise can be reduced through the care-
ful selection of key design parameters. However, envisaged noise requirements cannot easily
be met, even with the most generous long-term technological assumptions. Vehicle noise is
therefore a critical issue for on-demand aviation; substantial engineering effort to reduce noise
will be required.

Nomenclature

A Rotor disk area

Ab Rotor blade area
A(f ) A-weighting frequency response function
AR Aircraft wing aspect ratio
ATC Air Traffic Control
a Speed of sound
B Number of rotor blades
BVI Blade-Vortex Interaction
C Battery energy used
C1 Vortex-noise interpolation constant 1

1 Master’s Candidate, Aerospace Computational Design Laboratory, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue. Student member AIAA.
2 Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue. Fellow AIAA.

Copyright © 2018 by Arthur Brown. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 C2 Vortex-noise interpolation constant 2
CD 0 Aircraft 3D zero-lift drag coefficient
Cd 0 Rotor blade 2D zero-lift drag coefficient
CL Aircraft wing 3D lift coefficient
Cl Rotor local blade lift coefficient, referenced to V0.7
Cl Rotor mean lift coefficient
CP Rotor power coefficient
CP i Rotor induced power coefficient
CP p Rotor profile power coefficient
CQ Rotor torque coefficient
CT Rotor thrust coefficient
c Average rotor blade chord
cd Cost of flying 1 deadhead mission
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

cr Cost of flying 1 revenue-generating mission

dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEP Distributed Electric Propulsion
DNL Day Night Average Sound Level
DOC Direct Operating Cost
dr Deadhead ratio
EASA European Aviation Safety Administration
EPNL Effective Perceived Noise Level (in dB)
e Oswald efficiency
eVTOL Electric VTOL
FAA Federal Aeronautics Administration
F OM Rotor figure of merit
f Frequency
fpeak Vortex-noise peak frequency
fr Frequency ratio
GP Geometric Program
h Rotor blade projected thickness
IOC Indirect Operating Cost
JmB Bessel function of the first kind, of order mB
6
K Noise constant (6.1 × 10−11 fst8 )
−2 3
K2 Noise constant 2 (1.206 × 10 s /f t3 )
k Aircraft induced power factor
ki Rotor induced power factor
LAeq A-weighted Equivalent Continuous Sound Level
LAE A-weighted decibels, sound exposure level
Ldn Day Night Average Sound Level
L/D Vehicle lift-to-drag ratio
Mtip Rotor tip Mach number
M M H/F H Maintenance man-hours per flight hour
MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight
m Harmonic number
N Number of rotors
Nd Number of deadhead missions
Nr Number of revenue-generating missions
NPV Net Present Value
ODA On-Demand Aviation
ODM On-Demand Mobility
PNL Perceived Noise Level (in dB)
p Effective sound pressure
p0 Static air pressure
pmL Root-mean-square loading pressure
pmT Root-mean-square thickness pressure
pref Reference sound pressure (2 × 10−5 Pa)
ptotal Total air pressure
p(t) Acoustic pressure
Q Rotor torque

2
 R Rotor radius
Re Effective rotor radius (0.8R)
RMS Root Mean Square
r Rotor blade radial location
SP L Sound pressure level (in dB)
St Strouhal number
s Rotor solidity
T Thrust generated by 1 rotor
T /A Rotor disk loading
t Rotor blade thickness
tmission Time to complete mission
t/c Rotor blade thickness-to-chord ratio
V Cruising flight speed
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

V0.7 Rotor blade velocity at a radial location r/R = 0.7 (i.e. 0.7VT )
VT Rotor tip speed
Vcruise Cruising flight speed
Vloiter Loiter flight speed
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VTOL Vertical Takeoff and Landing
W Vehicle weight
y Observer ground location
z Vehicle height above ground
α Rotor blade angle of attack at a radial location r/R = 0.7
∆S Distance from noise source to observer
(∆S)ref Reference distance (500 ft)
η System efficiency
θ Observer azimuthal angle
ρ Air density
Ω Rotor angular velocity

I. Introduction
A. Background

On-Demand Aviation (ODA), also known as On-Demand Mobility (ODM) or eVTOL (Electric Vertical
Takeoff and Landing), is an envisaged air taxi service. The service would use small, 1-4 place aircraft
for trips of approximately 200 nautical miles or less [1]. Most proposed aircraft concepts are fully electric,
although some are hybrid-electric. In general, multiple motors and propellers are used; this design strategy is
known as Distributed Electric Propulsion, or DEP. DEP is enabled because electric motors, unlike internal-
combustion engines, are efficient at a wide range of sizes. The aircraft are capable of VTOL (Vertical
Takeoff and Landing). On-demand aviation offers a number of advantages over existing transport solutions,
including:

• Greatly reduced commute times and/or greatly increased Mobility Reach (accessible land area with a
given commute time [1]), by avoiding gridlock
• Lower energy costs, due to the use of electricity instead of gasoline
• Reduced environmental impact (in terms of noise, climate change, lead, and other emissions), also due
to the use of electric propulsion
• Lower (or no) pilot operating costs, due to autonomy

Uber published a white paper in October 2016 outlining their vision for an on-demand aviation service,
which they call Uber Elevate [2]. In it, they describe what they see at the key market feasibility barriers,
including battery technology, vehicle efficiency, air traffic control, cost, safety, noise, and emissions. Uber
also held a summit in Dallas in April 2017 to bring together stakeholders from industry, academia, and
government [3].

3
 An image of Uber’s vision is shown in Figure 1.
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Fig. 1 The envisaged Uber Elevate service [2].

B. Research Goals

The goal of this research is to conduct a trade study between various proposed vehicle configurations.
Dozens of companies are working on eVTOL aircraft designs, including Joby Aviation, Terrafugia, Lilium
Aviation, A3 by Airbus, and Aurora Flight Sciences. A variety of fundamentally different design approaches
are employed. For example, Joby Aviation’s S4 and Terrafugia’s TF-X are both tilt-rotor designs; Lilium
Aviation uses a tilt-duct design; and Airbus’ Vahana concept is a tilt-wing design. In addition, Aurora Flight
Sciences presented a lift + cruise design (i.e. a design with separate rotors for cruise and for hover, with
no folding or tilting components) at the Uber Elevate summit [3]. Other postulated configurations include
the multirotor, the autogyro, the conventional helicopter, the tilt duct, the coaxial-rotor helicopter, and the
compound helicopter [4]. This research aims to provide guidance to vehicle designers on the strengths and
weaknesses of each configuration, with a particular focus on vehicle noise. A series of sensitivity studies are
also conducted, to evaluate the influence of key design parameters and vehicle requirements on the results.

II. Methodology
An optimization tool was developed to conduct a top-level trade study between the various configura-
tions, as well as to determine sensitivities. The tool is formulated as a geometric program (GP), a type of
constrained optimization problem. Geometric programs require that the objective function and constraints
be posed in a special form. In return, they offer extremely fast solve times, require no initial guesses, and
guarantee a globally optimal solution. See Reference [5] for a discussion of geometric programming, and
Reference [6] for an example of its application to aircraft design.
The tool uses vehicle and mission models similar to those used by McDonald & German [4]. Some key
vehicle parameters, such as empty weight fraction and battery energy density, are held constant between

4
 vehicle configurations. Other parameters, such as cruising speed, cruise lift-to-drag ratio, and hover disk
loading, are varied between configurations, using representative values for a given configuration.
However, in this study, optimization is used instead of sizing. Instead of assuming a fixed vehicle weight
and empty weight fraction, then computing the range, this work assumes a fixed empty weight fraction and
mission range, then computes the required vehicle weight during the optimization process. This means that
all configurations have the same range, enabling comparisons between them.

A. Vehicle Model
1. Components

The vehicle model is divided into five components: structure, battery, electrical system, avionics, and
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

rotors. The structural model assumes an empty weight fraction, relative to the maximum takeoff weight;
the battery model assumes a battery specific energy and specific power, and sizes the battery accordingly.
20% of the battery energy is unusable (even for reserves), to prevent current spikes at low charge levels and
also to extend battery life. This is in accordance with the practice of Reference [4].
The electrical system applies a constant efficiency to the power coming from the batteries in both hover
and cruise; the avionics model is only used for cost modeling if vehicle autonomy is enabled (discussed in
Section II D); and the rotor model is only used in hover. The structure and battery have their own weight
models; the weight of the other three components are bookkept under empty weight.

2. Cruise Performance

The range and endurance of an electric aircraft in cruise can be computed using Equations 1 and 2
respectively:

L C
Range = η (1)
DW

L C
Endurance = η (2)
DVW
L
D is the vehicle lift-to-drag ratio in cruise, C is the battery energy used, W is the vehicle weight, and
V is the cruising speed. η is the system efficiency, equal to the product of electric and propulsive efficiency.
Electrical efficiency accounts for losses due to the wires, controller, and motors; a value of 90% is used in
both cruise and hover. For a propeller-driven aircraft, propulsive efficiency is equal to propeller efficiency; a
value of 85% is used.

3. Hover Performance

In hover, the rotors must produce thrust equal to vehicle weight; the power required to generate this
thrust must be computed. The rotor model developed for this purpose uses an extension of actuator-disk
theory, using equations from Chapter 3 of Reference [7]. The effects of non-uniform downwash and blade
profile drag are included.
The rotor thrust coefficient is defined in Equation 3:

T
CT = 1 2 (3)
2 ρVT A

CT is the rotor thrust coefficient, T is the thrust generated by the rotor, ρ is the air density, VT is the
rotor tip speed, and A is the rotor disk area (πR2 , where R is the rotor radius).
The power coefficient is defined in Equation 4:

P
CP = 1 3 (4)
2 ρVT A

5
 CP is the power coefficient, while P is the power required to turn the rotor. CP is related to the ideal
and profile power coefficients through Equations 5, 6, and 7:

CP = ki CPi + CPp (5)

1 3/2
CPi = CT (6)
2

1
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

CPp = sCd0 (7)

4
CPi is the ideal power coefficient. If profile drag is neglected and the blade lift distribution is elliptical,
then CPi is equal to CP . The induced power factor ki accounts for non-uniform lift distribution, while the
profile drag coefficient CPp accounts for profile drag. s is the rotor solidity, computed using Equation 8:

Ab BcR
s= = (8)
A πR2
Ab is the rotor blade area, equal to the product of the number of blades B, average blade chord c, and
blade radius R.
Figure of merit F OM is defined as the ratio of ideal to actual power required in hover. It can be
computed using Equation 9:

CPi
F OM = (9)
CP
While not required by the optimization model, torque is required for the purpose of computing noise
during post-processing. Equation 10 relates torque Q and torque coefficient CQ :

Q
CQ = 1 2 (10)
2 ρVT AR

Torque and power coefficients are equal.

Finally, "[the rotor] mean lift [coefficient] is that which, applied uniformly across the blade span, would
give the same thrust as the total blade" [7]. Rotor mean lift coefficient, denoted as Cl , can be calculated
using Equation 11:

3CT
Cl = (11)
s
Rotor tip speed is a design variable. The upper limit on tip speed is a limit on the tip Mach number,
while a lower limit is set by limiting the blade mean lift coefficient.
Calculations are performed on a per-rotor basis. Standard sea-level values for ρ (air density) and a
(speed of sound) are used.
The rotor aerodynamic model was validated using experimental data from Bagai & Leishman [8], as
given by Leishman [9]. The data was obtained using a series of experiments conducted on a four-bladed
model helicopter rotor, with a radius of 32.5 inches and a solidity of 0.098. Results are shown in Figure 2.

6
 Rotor Aerodynamic Model Validation (s = 0.098; Cd0 = 0.01)
0.8 Figure of Merit 0.0020 Power Coefficient
0.7

0.6 0.0015

Power coefficient
Figure of merit

0.5

0.4 0.0010

0.3
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

0.2 GP model (ki = 1.15) 0.0005 GP model (ki = 1.15)

0.1 GP model (ki = 1.20) GP model (ki = 1.20)
Test data Test data
0.0 0.0000
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Thrust coefficient Thrust coefficient
Fig. 2 Validation of the rotor aerodynamic model.

Values of ki and Cd0 of 1.15 and 0.01 respectively are recommended by Leishman. Figure 2 shows that
using this set of parameters results in a reasonable approximation of the experimental data. However, most
of the optimized designs in this study have thrust coefficients in the range of 0.025-0.035, higher than the
data in Figure 2. On-demand air vehicles are capable of higher thrust coefficients relative to helicopters.
This is due to the higher limits on blade mean lift coefficient (discussed in Section III A), directly leading to
higher thrust coefficients through Equation 11. A value of ki = 1.2 was used to better match the available
data at higher thrust coefficients.
Parameters used by the rotor model are given in Table 2.

Table 2 Rotor model parameters.

Parameter Symbol Value
Induced power factor ki 1.2
Blade zero-lift drag coefficient Cd0 0.01
Rotor solidity s 0.1
Tip Mach number (upper limit) Mtip 0.9

B. Noise Model

A model for vehicle noise is developed in this section. The model is not compatible with geometric
programming, so it was not integrated into the optimization model. Instead, vehicle noise is computed
during post-processing.

1. Importance of Noise

Low noise is essential in order to achieve community acceptance for on-demand aviation. Community
opposition to increased noise is already an important consideration for commercial airliners [10], supersonic
jet concepts [11], and helicopters [12]. Both the Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) and European
Aviation Safety Administration (EASA) already have noise limits in place for various types of aircraft, but
Uber anticipates that a much stricter standard will be required for on-demand aviation.
A significant portion of the Uber Elevate paper is devoted to defining a set of quantitative noise goals.
They eventually select a target noise level of 62 dBA (A-weighted decibels) with the vehicle hovering 500 ft

7
 overhead. This is half the noise generated by a medium-size truck at 50 ft, and comparable to a Prius at 25
ft [2]. A-weighting is discussed further in Section II B 7.

2. Noise Metrics

Metrics for aircraft noise measurement can be divided into five categories and/or steps, with each
category building upon the previous one. The first and simplest category is unweighted sound pressure
level, or SPL. SPL is defined in Appendix A; it is measured in decibels (dB).
Humans are capable of hearing sounds at frequencies between about 20 Hz and 20 kHz; also, human
ears have different responses at different frequencies [13]. For example, humans will perceive a 2.5-kHz tone
as being much louder than a 40-Hz tone if the two tones have identical sound pressure levels. The second
step is therefore to introduce noise exposure levels, noise metrics that takes human response into account
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

[14]. Examples include A-weighted decibels (dBA) and perceived noise level (PNL). dBA is designed such
that the average human will perceive two sounds with the same noise exposure level as being equally loud,
regardless of frequency. Meanwhile, PNL is based upon annoyance criteria rather than equal loudness.
The third step is to introduce effective noise levels. Metrics in this category adjust the noise exposure
level to account for the length of time of the noise event. [14]. Examples include Single Event Level (SEL),
which when applied to A-weighted decibel measurements is typically referred to as LAE . “[LAE ] is the
[equivalent] A-weighted sound pressure level lasting one second that contains the same energy as an entire
aircraft event such as takeoff or overflight” [2]. Meanwhile, Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) is based
upon PNL, and is the standard metric for aircraft noise regulations [14].
The fourth step is to introduce noise indices, which adjust the effective noise level to account for the
number of noise sources present. Variation of noise levels with time is also accounted for. Examples include
the A-weighted Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (LAeq ) and the Day Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or
DNL).
The final step is to introduce noise criteria. A simple example is the percentage of the population in a
given area that experiences noise above a certain level [14].
This work is concerned with metrics in the first and second category; all noise data uses either unweighted
or A-weighted decibels. However, two additional noise metrics (in addition to A-weighted sound pressure
level) are defined in the Uber white paper: long-term annoyance (measured in terms of the DNL) and short-
term annoyance (measured in terms of the SEL). Future work should focus on incorporating these metrics,
as well as metrics in the other categories listed above.

3. Sources of Noise

Lowson and Ollerhead conducted a comprehensive review of the helicopter noise prediction problem.
[15]. A list of helicopter noise sources, in decreasing order of importance, is included in that reference:

• Blade slap (when it occurs)

• Piston-engine exhaust noise

• Tail-rotor rotational noise

• Main-rotor vortex noise

• Main-rotor rotational noise

• Gearbox noise

• Turbine engine noise

The noise problem for an on-demand aircraft is more straightforward than that of a helicopter, because
gearbox noise and turbine engine noise are absent. Piston-engine exhaust noise is also absent, unless the
vehicle is a hybrid. Therefore, the noise model in this report accounts for blade slap, rotational noise, and
vortex noise.

8
 4. Blade Slap

Blade slap is the most significant source of noise for a helicopter. Three causes of blade slap are identified
in Reference [16]. The first is shockwave formation, which typically occurs at high rotor blade tip Mach
numbers. It is shown in Section III B that optimized tip Mach numbers for on-demand electric aircraft are
typically in the range of 0.35-0.55, significantly lower than values typical for helicopters [7]. Therefore, this
form of blade slap is neglected. Blade stall is also cited as a cause of blade slap, but this problem can be
mitigated by the selection of appropriate constraints on blade mean lift coefficient. In addition, blade stall
tends to be a problem in cruise, rather than in hover. Therefore, concepts that use wings instead of rotors
in cruise should not suffer from blade stall.
The final form of blade slap is known as blade-vortex interaction (BVI); it occurs when one rotor blade
passes through the bound vortex emanating from another blade. This form of blade slap is common during
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

descent to landing. Helicopters can avoid this form of noise using correct approach and departure procedures,
examples of which are given in Reference [17]. It is hypothesized in this work that on-demand electric aircraft
can take advantage of similar procedures. Therefore, BVI noise is neglected as well.

5. Rotational Noise

Rotor noise in the absence of blade slap can be divided into two main components: rotational noise,
which occurs at integer multiples of the blade passage frequency (blade rotational frequency × number
of rotor blades); and vortex noise, which is broadband in nature. Rotational noise is also referred to as
harmonic noise.
Rotational noise can be divided into two categories: loading noise, which is a direct consequence of
thrust generation; and thickness noise, caused by finite rotor blade thickness. These two forms of noise can
be modeled by the Gutin and Deming formulae respectively. They are derived in equivalent-radius form in
Appendix C. The resulting noise model is repeated here as Equations 12, 13, and 14:

   
mBΩ a mBΩ
pmL = √ T cos θ − Q JmB Re sin θ (12)
2 2πa(∆S) ΩRe2 a

−ρ(mBΩ)2 B
 
mBΩ
pmT = √ ctRe JmB Re sin θ (13)
3 2π(∆S) a

" !#
p2mL + p2mT
SP L = 10 log10 N (14)
p2ref

pmL and pmT are the root mean square (RMS) sound pressures for loading and thickness noise respec-
tively. m is the harmonic number (a positive integer), N is the number of rotors, B is the number of rotor
blades, Ω is the rotor angular velocity, a is the speed of sound, and ∆S is the distance between the rotor
and the observer. T is the rotor thrust, Q is the rotor torque, and θ is the observer azimuthal location. ρ is
the air density, c is the blade chord, and t is the blade maximum thickness. JmB is a Bessel function of the
first kind of order mB. A diagram showing ∆S and θ is given in Figure 3.
An effective rotor radius of Re = 0.8R is recommended by Reference [18], and is used throughout this
work. Blade chord is estimated using the definition of solidity (Equation 8). Since the NACA 0012 airfoil
is a traditional choice for helicopter rotor blades [7], the blade thickness is calculated using an assumed
thickness-to-chord ratio of 12%. Finally, pref is the reference pressure, equal to 2 × 10−5 Pa.
Unless otherwise stated, all rotational noise calculations assume a five-bladed rotor. Combined with the
solidity value from Table 2, this results in a blade aspect ratio of 15.9, a reasonable compromise between
blade efficiency and structural integrity for helicopters [7].
Note that θ = 180◦ directly underneath an on-demand aircraft, so JmB mBΩ


a Re sin θ = 0. Therefore,
rotational noise is negligible for an observer underneath the aircraft, something that is not true for vortex
noise. Because the Uber noise requirement is for an observer 500 ft underneath the aircraft, all studies
(unless otherwise noted) neglect rotational noise. This assumption is investigated further in Section III B 2.

9
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Fig. 3 Azimuthal angle diagram.

6. Vortex Noise

A model for vortex noise is derived in Appendix D A, and is repeated here as Equation 15:

" s  #
VT NT T
SP L = 20 log10 K2 (15)
ρ(∆S) s A

T /A is the rotor disk loading; K2 is a constant, equal to 1.206 × 10−2 s3 /f t3 .

All of the non-constant parameters in Equation 15 both provide a benefit to vehicle sizing and reduce
noise. For example, K2 , ρ, and ∆S are constants. Meanwhile, lowering tip speed, increasing rotor solidity,
and decreasing rotor disk loading all result in sizing benefits. Finally the product of number of rotors and
rotor thrust is equal to vehicle weight; a lighter vehicle both costs less (see Section II D) and is quieter.
Equation 15 was validated using data in Reference [19] for two different helicopter main rotors: the
CH-3C and the CH-53A. Results are given in Appendix D A. It is shown that the model is accurate to
within 3 dB of test data.
Although vortex noise is broadband in nature, it has a peak frequency (frequency at which the amplitude
is highest). It can be estimated using Equation 16 [16]:

(V0.7 )St
fpeak = (16)
h
fpeak is the vortex-noise peak frequency (in Hz), St is the Strouhal number, V0.7 is the blade velocity
at a radial location r/R = 0.7 (i.e. 0.7 times the tip speed), and h is the projected blade thickness (see
Appendix D B). An estimate of St = 0.28 is used; this is a reasonable value for a helicopter [16].
Once peak frequency is known, the vortex-noise frequency spectrum can be obtained using the method
in Appendix D B. This is required if noise weighting schemes are to be applied.

7. A-Weighting Scheme

As discussed in Section II B 2, human ears have different responses at different frequencies. Various
decibel weighting schemes have been proposed to account for this, the most widely used of which is the
A-weighting scheme. This scheme applies a response function to a given sound pressure level, in order to
compensate for the frequency response of the human ear. The A-weighting response function A(f ) as a
function of frequency is plotted in Figure 4.
Figure 4 reveals that A(f ) is maximized at a frequency of approximately 3 kHz, indicating that humans
are particularly sensitive to sounds at this frequency. In order to reduce subjective annoyance, the designer
should strive to avoid sound frequencies near 3 kHz as much as possible.

10
 5 A-Weighting Response
Relative response (dB) 0

10

15
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

20 A(f)
A(fpeak , vortex)
25 2
10 10 3 10 4
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 4 The A-weighting response function.

The Gutin and Deming model for rotational noise produces a discrete array of frequencies and sound
pressure levels. Therefore, the A-weighted sound pressure level can be obtained by applying A(f ) to the
sound pressure level for each harmonic, then adding the results using the method in Appendix B. This
method cannot be applied to vortex noise because the resulting frequency spectrum is continuous. Instead,
an approximate procedure for applying A-weighting to vortex noise is derived in Appendix D C.
It is shown in Appendix D B that the vortex-noise frequency spectrum ranges from 0.5fpeak to 16fpeak .
Therefore, most of the sound produced is at frequencies higher than the peak frequency; the peak frequency
at which human ears are most sensitive is therefore somewhat lower than 3 kHz. Figure 4 also shows A(f )
as a function of fpeak , revealing a maximum around fpeak = 600 Hz. The designer should therefore strive
to obtain a peak frequency as far away from 600 Hz as possible.
A-weighted sound pressure level is known to be far from perfect in predicting human perception of
loudness, in part because of its bias against low frequencies [13]. It is used in this study for two primary
reasons. First of all, it is by far the most common metric for noise prediction, allowing comparisons with
data from other noise sources such as cars and helicopters (see Section II B 1). Secondly, it is often used for
regulatory purposes. Therefore, it forms a reasonable starting point, and is used throughout this study.

8. Limitations

The noise model is not immediately applicable to all vehicle configurations. For example, a coaxial
helicopter will produce additional noise due to the interaction of the flow field between the rotors. This
effect was not taken into account.
Conventional and compound helicopters have tail rotors, to counteract the torque of the main rotor.
According to Lowson and Ollerhead, helicopter tail rotors are subjectively louder than main rotors [15].
Many modern helicopters use shrouded tail rotors, which substantially reduce noise [20]. Therefore, it is
assumed that the conventional and compound helicopters use shrouds, and tail-rotor noise is neglected. This
approximation should be treated with extreme caution.

C. Mission Model

The mission model is also similar to that in Reference [4], with three different mission profiles:

• A sizing mission, which the aircraft must be capable of flying.

• A revenue mission, in which the aircraft is carrying paying passengers.

11
 • A deadhead mission, in which the aircraft is merely being repositioned for its next revenue-generating
flight and no passengers are carried.

The sizing mission includes a longer hover time relative to the revenue and deadhead missions; it also
includes a reserve. Three reserve options are available. The first is a 20-minute loiter time, required by the
FAA for helicopter VFR (Visual Flight Rules) operations [21]. This requirement applies both during the day
and at night, and would be applicable if on-demand vehicles are certified as helicopters. The second reserve
option is a 30-minute loiter time, required for the FAA for aircraft VFR (Visual Flight Rules) operations
during the day [20]. This requirement would be applicable if on-demand vehicles are certified as aircraft.
The final option is a 2-nmi diversion distance, included in case a special regulatory class is created for eVTOL
aircraft. A similar option was used by Reference [4]; this option is hereafter referred to as the Uber reserve
requirement.
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Two crew options are available: piloted and autonomous. If the mission is piloted, the pilot is assumed
to add 190 lbs to the vehicle weight. If the mission is autonomous, no weight penalty is applied. 200 lbs per
passenger is assumed.
Mission-profile descriptions are given in Table 3.

Table 3 Mission profiles.

Segment Sizing (FAA aircraft) Sizing (FAA helicopter) Sizing (Uber reserve) Revenue and Deadhead
1 120s hover 120s hover 120s hover 30s hover
2 Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise
3 30-minute loiter 20-minute loiter 2-nmi diversion 30s hover
4 120s hover 120s hover 120s hover Time on ground

Segment 4 of the revenue-generating and deadhead missions (i.e. time on ground) includes a segment
time constrained by one of two factors. Firstly, the time has to be greater than 5 minutes, to allow for
passenger loading/unloading, safety checks, etc. Secondly, the vehicle is assumed to be charging at the same
time; all of the energy used during the mission is replenished. A 200 kW charger is assumed for the purposes
of computing charging time.
Cruising speed and cruise lift-to-drag ratio were provided as input parameters for each configuration.
These numbers are used in cruise, and also for the reserve segment if the Uber reserve requirement is used.
However, the FAA reserve requirement is a loiter requirement, as opposed to a cruise requirement. For this
reason, the optimal lift-to-drag ratio and flight speed differ from the cruise values.
If a parabolic drag polar is assumed, Equations 1 and 2 can be written as Equations 17 and 18 respec-
tively:

CL C
Range = η 2 (17)
CD0 + kCL W

 1/2
ρSCL CL C
Endurance = η (18)
2W CD0 + kCL2 W

CL is the wing three-dimensional lift coefficient, CD0 is the aircraft three-dimensional zero-lift drag
coefficient, and k is the aircraft induced power factor. All values are referenced to the wing area S. k is
1
equal to πeAR , where e is the Oswald efficiency and AR is the wing aspect ratio.
The conditions for maximum range and endurance can be obtained by differentiating Equations 17
and 18 respectively, with respect to lift coefficient. This yields the values for lift coefficient, airspeed, and
lift-to-drag ratio in Table 4.

12
 Table 4 Flight conditions for maximum range and endurance.
Lift coefficient Airspeed Lift-to-drag ratio
h C i1/2 h i1/2 h i1/4 h i1/2
Max range CL = D k
0
V = 2W ρS
k
CD0
L
D
= 12 kC1D
h 3C i1/2 i1/2 h i1/4 0 i
h h 1/2
D0 2W k L 1 3
Max endurance CL = k
V = ρS 3CD D
= 4 kCD
0 0

Therefore, if the cruising speed and lift-to-drag ratio for a given configuration are known, the loiter
speed and lift-to-drag ratio can be estimated using Equations 19 and 20 respectively:

 1/4
1
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Vloiter = Vcruise (19)

3

  √  
L 3 L
= (20)
D loiter 2 D cruise

The net effect of Equations 19 and 20 is to reduce power consumption (and by extension, energy use)
during the loiter segment. This in turn provides a benefit to battery sizing. These adjustments were
implemented in the optimization tool.

D. Cost Model

The cost model uses both the revenue mission and the deadhead mission. Costs are divided into two
categories: capital expenses, and operating expenses. Key input parameters for the cost model are given in
Table 5.

Table 5 Parameters used by the cost model.

Parameter Value
Vehicle cost per unit empty weight $350 per lb
Avionics cost per aircraft (assuming vehicle autonomy is enabled) $60, 000
Battery cost per unit energy capacity $400 per kWh
Pilot wrap rate $70 per hour
Pilots per aircraft (assuming a piloted mission) 1.5
Aircraft per bunker pilot (assuming an autonomous mission) 8
Mechanic wrap rate $60 per hour
Price of electricity $0.12 per kWh
Maintenance man-hours per flight hour 0.6
Deadhead ratio 0.2

1. Capital Expenses

Capital expenses are subdivided into three categories: vehicle purchase price, battery purchase price,
and avionics purchase price. Vehicle purchase price is computed using a fixed price per unit empty vehicle
weight, while battery purchase price is computed using a fixed price per unit energy capacity. If vehicle
autonomy is enabled, the avionics add a fixed amount per aircraft. Avionics cost is neglected if vehicle
autonomy is not enabled. These last two assumptions are identical to those in Reference [2].
First-order estimates for vehicle cost per unit empty weight were obtained for several different vehicle
categories, ranging from business jets to electric cars. A summary of the results is in Table 6.

13
 Table 6 Weight and cost estimates for several representative vehicles. Battery weight and cost were
deducted from the Model S estimates by assuming a vehicle curb weight, purchase price, battery
weight, battery energy density, and battery cost of 4,749 lbf, $70,000, 1,200 lbf, 200 Wh/kg, and $200
per kWh respectively.
Vehicle Vehicle type Empty weight (lbf) Price ($US) Price per unit empty weight
Cessna Citation Mustang Very light jet 5,600 $3,350,000 $598.2
Robinson R44 Light helicopter 1,450 $425,000 $293.1
Cessna 172R General-aviation aircraft 1,691 $274,900 $162.6
Ferrari 488 Sports car 3,362 $272,700 $81.1
Tesla Model S (75D) Electric car 3,549 $48,182 $13.6
Honda Accord Sedan 3,170 $22,455 $7.1
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Table 6 shows that cost per unit empty weight varies widely depending on the vehicle type. Therefore,
a relatively conservative estimate of $350 per lb is used. However, if production rates increase to levels ap-
proaching those typical in the automotive industry, Table 6 shows that significant cost savings are expected.
Meanwhile, battery prices per unit energy capacity are based upon Department of Energy projections, as
referenced in [2].
Capital expenses are then amortized over the mission, in order to estimate their effects on the cost
of providing air taxi service. In financial terms, this is analogous to straight-line depreciation with zero
salvage value. Vehicle and avionics costs are amortized using a 20,000-hour vehicle life, while the battery is
amortized using a 2,000-cycle battery life.

2. Operating Expenses

Operating expenses are divided into direct operating cost (DOC) and indirect operating cost (IOC).
Direct operating cost is further divided into three categories: pilot cost, maintenance cost, and energy
(electricity) cost.
Pilot and maintenance costs are estimated using wrap rates, which include salary payments as well as
benefits, overhead, training, administrative costs, etc [20]. Wrap rates of $50-150 per hour for pilots and
$53-67 per hour for mechanics are typical [22].
Pilot and maintenance cost per mission are then computed using Equations 21 and 22 respectively:

P ilot cost = (P ilot wrap rate) × (P ilots per aircraf t) × (tmission ) (21)

M aintenance cost = (M echanic wrap rate) × (M M H/F H) × (tmission ) (22)

tmission is the mission time (including time spent on the ground), while M M H/F H is the number of
maintenance man-hours required per flight hour. Values of 0.25-1 are typical for light aircraft [20].
Equation 21 assumes a piloted mission. If the mission is flown autonomously, the pilot cost model uses
“bunker pilots” (pilots who remain in a control center on the ground, ready to provide assistance remotely
if need be) instead [2]. Pilot cost is then instead computed using Equation 23:

(P ilot wrap rate) × (tmission )

P ilot cost = (23)
Aircraf t per bunker pilot
Energy cost is computed by multiplying the amount of electricity used during the mission by the price of
electricity: $0.12 per kWh, the average price of electricity in the United States [2]. A 90% charging efficiency
is assumed. Finally, indirect operating cost is estimated as a fixed 12% fraction of direct operating cost.

14
 3. Effect of Deadhead

Some missions flown by the air taxi service will inevitably be deadhead missions: missions in which the
aircraft is merely being repositioned for its next revenue-generating flight and no passengers are carried. In
order to account for the effect of deadhead missions on cost, the aircraft is “flown” over both missions, and
costs are computed for both.
The total cost of flying Nr revenue-generating missions at a cost cr per mission and of flying Nd deadhead
missions at a cost cd per mission can be calculated using Equation 24:

T otal cost = Nr cr + Nd cd (24)

The cost per trip (including the effect of deadhead) is therefore calculated using Equation 26, obtained
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

after some algebraic manipulation:

T otal cost Nd
Cost per trip = = cr + cd (25)
Nr Nr

dr
Cost per trip = cr + cd (26)
1 − dr
dr is the deadhead ratio: number of deadhead flights as a percentage of total number of flights.

4. Limitations

A number of important effects are not included in the cost model. For example, the same vehicle cost per
unit empty weight is used for all configurations. This may not be an accurate assumption. For example, the
lift + cruise configuration is aeromechanically quite simple as compared to configurations with more moving
parts like the tilt wing and tilt rotor. It should therefore benefit from lower development, certification, and
manufacturing costs, resulting in a reduced cost ratio. Taxes, insurance, landing fees, air traffic control
(ATC) fees, and profit margin are all neglected by the cost model as well.

III. Results
In this section, a configurational trade study is presented, along with case studies, design requirements
sensitivities, and vehicle parameter sensitivities.

A. Inputs

Input parameters are divided into two categories: generic inputs, for which the same value is used for
all configurations; and configuration-specific inputs, where different values are used for each configuration.
Generic input parameters are given in Table 7.

Table 7 Generic vehicle input parameters.

Parameter Value
Battery specific energy 400 Wh/kg
Battery specific power 3 kW/kg
Vehicle autonomy enabled? Yes

Mission parameters are given in Table 8. Inputs specific to the cost model were previously given in
Table 5.

15
 Table 8 Mission input parameters.
Mission Sizing Revenue Deadhead
Mission type Piloted Piloted Autonomous
Mission range 50 nmi 30 nmi 30 nmi
Number of passengers 3 2 0
Reserve type FAA helicopter VFR None None

In practice, the deadhead mission cannot always be autonomous, as pilots will need to be relocated
along with their aircraft in order to fly piloted revenue missions. Autonomous deadhead missions are used
here to demonstrate the utility of the methodology; a sensitivity analysis is conducted as part of the case
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

study on technology assumptions (Section III C 3).

Representative images of each configuration are shown in Figure 5.

(a) An example lift + cruise aircraft: (b) An example compound helicopter: (c) An example tilt wing aircraft: the
the Aurora Flight Sciences prototype the Carter & Mooney SR/C [24]. A3 Vahana [25].
[23].

(d) An example tilt rotor: the Joby S2 (e) An example conventional heli- (f) An example coaxial helicopter: the
[26]. copter: the Robinson R44 [27]. Kamov Ka-32 [28].

(g) An example multirotor: the Ehang (h) An example autogyro: the (i) An example tilt duct: the Lilium
184 [29]. Magni M16 [30]. Jet [31].

Fig. 5 Configuration representative images. Note that the example conventional helicopter, coaxial
helicopter, and autogyro are gasoline-powered; they do not represent eVTOL concepts.

Configuration-specific input data is given in Table 9. Cruising speed values were taken from Reference
[4]. Reference [4] also gives a range of values for cruise lift-to-drag ratio and hover disk loading; the median
values are used in this study. Values for number of rotors were taken from the vehicles in Figure 5.
As discussed in Section II A, a constant empty weight fraction is assumed for each configuration. A

16
 recent study by Boeing [32] used configuration-specific structural, propulsion-system, and fixed-equipment
weight models. Three eVTOL configurations were evaluated: a helicopter, a stopped rotor (lift + cruise),
and a tilt rotor. Empty weight fraction estimates of 0.43, 0.53, and 0.55 were respectively obtained, and
used here to estimate the values in Table 9.
As discussed in Section II A 3, rotor tip speed is a design variable. The optimizer tended to reduce the
tip speed as much as possible, to reduce blade profile drag. Because the lower limit on tip speed is set by
blade mean lift coefficient, understanding of this constraint is critical.
Helicopters typically operate with Cl between 0.3 and 0.6 [7]. This is because helicopters with higher
values of Cl would be prone to retreating blade stall in forward flight. For this reason, Cl is constrained to
below 0.6 for the conventional and coaxial helicopter.
Retreating blade stall is only an issue for configurations that use their rotors to provide lift in cruise.
Therefore, configurations like the tilt rotor and lift + cruise, which do not use their rotors to provide lift in
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

cruise, use a Cl constraint of 1.0. In theory, values as high as 1.5-1.6 could be used before the rotor stalls;
the value of 1.0 provides a margin for control in hover. The compound helicopter uses its rotor to provide
some (but not all) lift in cruise; a Cl constraint of 0.8 is used. The same value is used for the autogyro.

Table 9 Input data for each configuration [4].

L T
(lb/f t2 ) Empty weight fraction Cl (upper limit) N


Configuration Vcruise (mph) D cruise A

Lift + cruise 150 10 15 0.53 1.0 8

Compound helicopter 150 9 4.5 0.5 0.8 1
Tilt wing 150 12 15 0.55 1.0 8
Tilt rotor 150 14 15 0.55 1.0 12
Conventional helicopter 100 4.25 4.5 0.43 0.6 1
Coaxial heli 150 5.5 7 0.43 0.6 2
Multirotor 50 1.5 3.75 0.43 0.6 8
Autogyro 100 3.5 3.75 0.5 0.8 1
Tilt duct 150 10 40 0.55 1.0 36

Although Table 9 includes parameter estimates for the autogyro and the tilt duct, they were not included
in the trade study. This is because the vehicle performance model does not accurately describe these two
configurations. For example, all three mission profiles include hover segments, but an autogyro is incapable
of hover. Instead, the main rotor is unpowered, and autorotates in flight. Meanwhile, the tilt duct uses
multiple ducted fans to provide lift in hover. These ducts provide an efficiency and noise benefit, relative to
an unducted rotor [20]. In the absence of a model for taking these two benefits into account, the tilt duct
was neglected.
The conventional and compound helicopters both have tail rotors, which consume additional power.
The tail rotor of a typical helicopter consumes approximately 10-15% of the power consumed by the main
rotor [7]. This adjustment can be applied to the conventional helicopter in both cruise and hover. However,
the wing of a compound helicopter unloads the main rotor in cruise, causing it (and by extension, the tail
rotor) to consume less power. As the wing and rotor power for the compound helicopter in cruise cannot be
separated by the mission model, the additional power percentage applied to the compound helicopter was
reduced.
Power increase assumptions for both configurations are given in Table 10.

Table 10 Power increase percentages for configurations with a tail rotor.

Configuration Power increase (hover) Power increase (cruise)
Conventional helicopter 15% 15%
Compound helicopter 15% 10%

Sound pressure level is computed during post-processing with the vehicle hovering 500 ft overhead (i.e.
z = ∆S = 500 f t). This is in accordance with the Uber noise requirement (see Section II B 1).

17
 B. Configuration Trade Study
1. Results Overview

A bar chart with some key results from the configurational trade study is shown in Figure 6.

Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2

3500 Maximum Takeoff Weight 900 Battery Weight

3000 800
700
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

2500
600
Weight (lbf)

Weight (lbf)
2000 500
1500 400
300
1000
200
500 100
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
mp

mp
+

+
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
Cost per Trip, per Passenger Sound Pressure Level in Hover
li

li
70 80
Unweighted
60 A-weighted
75
50
Cost ($US)

40
SPL (dB)

70
30
65
20

10 60
0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
li

li

Fig. 6 Results of the configurational trade study. SPL values are from the sizing mission; the horizontal
line represents the 62-dBA Uber noise requirement [2].

Several things are apparent from Figure 6. First of all, the multirotor, conventional helicopter, and
coaxial helicopter are all missing. In the case of the multirotor, the optimizer returns Primal Infeasible; i.e.
a solution for this configuration that satisfies all of the requirements and constraints does not exist. The
conventional and coaxial helicopters do close, but at significantly higher weights: above 10,000 lbf and above
6,000 lbf respectively. Costs are also significantly higher. They were therefore dropped from consideration.
The four remaining configurations are the lift + cruise aircraft, the compound helicopter, the tilt wing,
and the tilt rotor. These four configurations all have a relatively high lift-to-drag ratio, but also (with the
exception of the compound helicopter) a relatively high disk loading. Since a high lift-to-drag ratio translates
to increased efficiency in cruise, while a low disk loading translates to increased efficiency in hover, this means
that cruise efficiency takes precedence over hover efficiency for the mission under consideration.

18
 The sound pressure level varies widely between configurations, with unweighted values ranging from a
low of about 63 dB for the compound helicopter to above 73 dB for the lift + cruise aircraft. A-weighting
affects the results by at most 1-2 dB.
The compound helicopter is the most expensive configuration, but it is also the quietest. However, recall
from Section II B 3 that tail rotor noise, potentially the dominant source of noise for this configuration, is
neglected. Furthermore, no configuration is capable of meeting the 62-dBA Uber noise requirement. This
indicates that vehicle noise is a critical issue for on-demand aviation.
Additional results from the configurational trade study are given in Figure 7.

Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Energy Use 600 Power Consumption

140 Cruise Cruise
Hover 500 Hover
120
Energy (kWh)

Power (kW)
100 Reserve 400 Reserve
80 300
60 200
40
20 100
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
Rotor Tip Speed Rotor Tip Mach Number
li

li
700 0.60
600 0.55
Tip Mach number
Tip speed (ft/s)

500 0.50
400 0.45
0.40
300 0.35
200 0.30
100 0.25
0 0.20
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
m

m
+

+
po

po
ing

ing
tor

tor
cru

cru
un

un
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli

10 4 Vortex-Noise Peak Frequency 0.80 Rotor Figure of Merit

FOM (dimensionless)
Peak frequency (Hz)

0.78
0.76
10 3
0.74
0.72
10 2 0.70
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
li

li

Fig. 7 More results from the configurational trade study. All data presented is from the sizing mission.
Energy use in hover is the sum from all four hover segments.

Figure 7 shows that significant amounts of energy are consumed during all three categories of mission
segment (cruise, hover, and reserve). Reserve power is lower than cruise power, due to the loiter adjustments
discussed in Section II C. Also, all four aircraft consume significantly more power in hover than in cruise.
Helicopters may experience tip Mach numbers in forward flight approaching 0.9 [7]. Compressibility
and thickness effects (which adversely impact both vehicle efficiency and noise) pose significant problems in

19
 this regime. However, from Figure 7, rotor tip Mach numbers range from below 0.35 to slightly above 0.55.
As discussed in Section II B 4, tip Mach effects are therefore not a problem for on-demand aircraft.
Note from Figure 6 that the compound helicopter actually becomes slightly louder if A-weighting is
considered. This is because the compound helicopter has a vortex-noise peak frequency of about 300 Hz. It
can be seen from Figure 4 that applying A-weighting to a sound at this frequency increases the sound pressure
level. The other configurations have peak frequencies above 2,000 Hz; applying A-weighting therefore lowers
the sound pressure level.
A cost breakdown is shown in Figure 8.

Aircraft parameters: aircraft cost ratio = $350 per lb; battery cost ratio = $400 per kWh; autonomy enabled
Pilot wrap rate = $70/hour; mechanic wrap rate = $60/hour; MMH per FH = 0.6; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Cost per Seat Mile Acquisition Costs
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Cost per seat mile ($US/mile)

2.0 1.2
Vehicle
1.0

Cost ($millions US)

1.5 Avionics
0.8 Battery
1.0 0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.0 0.0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
m

m
+

+
po

po
ing

ing
tor

tor
cru

cru
un

un
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli
Revenue and Deadhead Costs Cost breakdown (revenue mission)
Revenue cost 160 Capital expenses (amortized)
Cost per mission ($US)

150 140
Cost per trip ($US)

Deadhead cost Operating expenses

120
100 100
80
60
50 40
20
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
o

o
cru

cru
un

un
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli

Capital Expenses (revenue mission) Operating Expenses (revenue mission)

120
Vehicle Pilot
Cost per mission ($US)

Cost per mission ($US)

50
Avionics 100 Maintanance
40 Battery Energy
80
30 IOC
60
20 40
10 20
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
li

li

Fig. 8 Cost breakdown. Cost per seat mile is given in terms of statute miles, instead of nautical miles.

Figure 8 shows that cost per seat mile does not vary widely between configurations. Values range from
as low as $1.50 per seat mile for the tilt rotor, to about $2.00 per seat mile for the compound helicopter.
Operating expenses account for a somewhat larger share of revenue mission cost than capital expenses.
Interestingly, the deadhead mission cost is not very large as compared to the revenue-generating mission
cost. This is partly because of the low deadhead ratio (Table 5); it is also because the deadhead mission is
flown autonomously, with correspondingly lower pilot costs.

20
 Despite the relatively small share of acquisition costs attributable to the battery, the battery accounts
for a much larger share (about two-thirds) of amortized capital expenses. This is because the battery is
amortized differently as compared to the vehicle and avionics. The latter two items are amortized using a
20,000 hour service life, while the battery is amortized using a 2,000-cycle life (i.e. 2,000 missions). Within
operating expenses, pilot cost is dominant as compared to maintenance cost, energy cost, and indirect
operating cost. Therefore, the keys to reducing the cost per trip are to 1) reduce battery manufacturing cost
and increase cycle life (which lowers battery amortized cost) and 2) implement vehicle automation (which
lowers pilot cost). This is discussed further in Section III C 3.

2. Noise Analysis

Example noise spectra, for an altitude z = 500 ft and observer ground location y = 982 ft, are presented
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

in Figure 9. The resulting azimuthal angle is θ = 117◦ . See Figure 3 for definitions of y, z, and θ. Only the
first harmonic of rotational noise is shown; the other harmonics are negligibly small by comparison.

Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2

70 Lift + cruise (y = 982 ft) 5 60 Compound heli (y = 982 ft) 10

60 50 0
0
50 10
40
SPL offset (dBA)

SPL offset (dBA)

40 5 20
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)

30
30 10 30
20
20 40
Vortex noise 15 Vortex noise
10 10 50
Rotational noise Rotational noise
A-weighting offset A-weighting offset
0 2 20 0 1 60
10 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 10 2 10 3 10 4
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
70 Tilt wing (y = 982 ft) 5 70 Tilt rotor (y = 982 ft) 5

60 60 0
0
50 50
5
SPL offset (dBA)

SPL offset (dBA)

40 5 40
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)

10
30 10 30
15
20 20
Vortex noise 15 Vortex noise
10 10 20
Rotational noise Rotational noise
A-weighting offset A-weighting offset
0 2 20 0 2 25
10 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 10 3 10 4 10 5
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 9 Example noise spectra. Both rotational and vortex noise values are unweighted.

Figure 9 reveals that (with the exception of the compound helicopter) rotational and vortex noise are

21
 comparable in magnitude. However, rotational noise occurs at a much lower frequency. The A-weighting
frequency response function A(f ) is also plotted. Much of the vortex noise occurs in a regime between
1 and 7 kHz, where A(f ) is maximized. Meanwhile, rotational noise occurs at a much lower frequency,
with a corresponding large negative weight. This suggests that A-weighted rotational noise is negligible for
on-demand aircraft as compared to vortex noise.
A plot showing noise as a function of observer ground location y (z = 500 ft) is presented in Figure 10.
Rotational noise values included the first 10 harmonics.

Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Lift + cruise Compound heli
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

80
70
70
60
60
50
50
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)
40
40
30
30
20 20
Rotational noise (A-weighted) Rotational noise (A-weighted)
10 Vortex noise (A-weighted) 10 Vortex noise (A-weighted)
Total noise (A-weighted) Total noise (A-weighted)
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
y (feet) y (feet)
Tilt wing 80
Tilt rotor
80
70 70

60 60

50 50
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)

40 40

30 30

20 20
Rotational noise (A-weighted) Rotational noise (A-weighted)
10 Vortex noise (A-weighted) 10 Vortex noise (A-weighted)
Total noise (A-weighted) Total noise (A-weighted)
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
y (feet) y (feet)

Fig. 10 Noise as a function of observer location, for constant z = 500 ft.

Figure 10 shows that A-weighted vortex noise dominates the spectrum for all values of y. Total noise
(including both rotational and vortex noise) is plotted to show this more clearly. It can therefore be
concluded from this section that rotational noise is negligible not just directly underneath the vehicle, but
for all relevant observer positions while the vehicle is in hover. Also, because vortex noise is independent
of azimuthal angle, noise directly underneath the vehicle at z = ∆S = 500 ft is useful as a benchmark by
which different vehicles can be compared.

22
 C. Case Studies
1. Sizing Plot

Recall from Section III B that the compound helicopter is the most expensive configuration, but it is
also the quietest. Table 9 shows that this configuration has the lowest cruise lift-to-drag ratio, but also the
lowest disk loading. Therefore, a tradeoff between cruise and hover efficiency is hypothesized, depending on
whether low cost or low noise is the priority. One way of illustrating this is with a carpet plot (hereafter
called a sizing plot), in which optimized cost per trip and sound pressure level are plotted as a function of
cruise lift-to-drag ratio and hover disk loading.
An example sizing plot is shown in Figure 11. Three configurations from Table 9, as well as two
configurations from the aforementioned Boeing eVTOL study, are also shown. The Boeing lift + cruise
configuration assumes a cruise lift-to-drag ratio of 9.1 and a disk loading of 7.3 lbf/ft2 ; the Boeing tilt rotor
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

assumes a cruise lift-to-drag ratio of 11.0 and a disk loading of 12.8 lbf/ft2 . These values were obtained from
Reference [32]. Aside from these two parameters, all other assumptions are consistent with those previously
described for the lift + cruise configuration.

Aircraft parameters: empty weight fraction = 0.53; battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; cruising speed = 150 mph
8 rotors; 5 rotor blades; mean lift coefficient = 1.0; autonomy enabled. Lift + cruise configuration.
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter)
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
76
Lift + cruise
Tilt wing
Tilt rotor
74 Lift + cruise (Boeing)
Tilt rotor (Boeing)

72
T/A = 16.0 lbf/ft2
70 T/A = 13.6 lbf/ft2
T/A = 11.2 lbf/ft2
68
SPL (dBA)

T/A = 8.8 lbf/ft2

66
T/A = 6.4 lbf/ft2
64
L/D
=
7.0

62
L/D
=
L/D 11.8

8.6

T/A = 4.0 lbf/ft2

L/D = 1315.0

=
L/D/D =

10
L

= .4

.2

60

$20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00

Cost per trip, per passenger
Fig. 11 Sizing plot for the lift + cruise configuration. An intersection between any two lines on the
plot represents an optimized vehicle design, for that combination of cruise lift-to-drag ratio and hover
disk loading.

23
 Figure 11 shows that cost primarily depends on cruise lift-to-drag ratio; it is relatively insensitive to
hover disk loading. However, the opposite is true for noise, implying that vehicle configuration selection
may be driven by whether cost or noise is a primary requirement. As an example, take the tilt rotor and the
Boeing lift + cruise configuration. The tilt rotor has a higher lift-to-drag ratio (14 vs. 9.1), which translates
to lower power and energy requirements in cruise. This makes the tilt rotor significantly less expensive.
However, the tilt rotor has a much higher disk loading (15 vs. 7.3 lbf/ft2 ), resulting in greater noise.
The sizing plot is limited in the sense that it technically only applies to one configuration. While
lift-to-drag ratio and disk loading can be varied, other inputs must be held constant. For example, the
compound helicopter is not shown, because it has a lower empty weight fraction (Table 9) and greater power
requirements due to its tail rotor (Table 10). The sizing plot is therefore better suited to making trades
between similar configurations than to compare helicopters with winged vehicles. However, it does provide
a simple yet powerful view of the eVTOL design space.
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

24
 2. New York City Airport Transfers

New York City was selected as an example city in which to implement an on-demand aviation service.
Air taxi services already exist in the city, provided by companies such as Blade [33] and New York Helicopter
[34]. New York Helicopter provides airport transfer services between downtown helipads and local airports.
Three downtown helipads are listed on their website: East 34th Street, West 30th Street, and Pier 6.
Transfers are provided to three airports: John F. Kennedy (JFK), LaGuardia (LGA), and Newark (EWR).
The trip distance between each helipad and each airport was computed using Google Maps. Two sets of
assumptions were used: a direct route, and an overwater-only route. As-the-crow-flies routes are generally
not permitted in New York City. Instead, the city has defined routes that helicopters must follow. The
direct route was selected as the shortest of the existing helicopter routes, as obtained from the maps in
Reference [35].
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

The longest direct route is shown in Figure 12.

(a) The longest direct route: West 30th Street to JFK. (b) The longest overwater route: East 34th Street to
JFK.

Fig. 12 New York City helicopter routes (black lines). Note that the direct route passes over Brooklyn.
While this is in accordance with the established helicopter route [35], an overwater-only route is also
included in case this route is shut down for noise reasons.

Overwater-only routes were included in case on-demand aircraft are not permitted to fly over populated
areas for noise reasons. Given the current controversy in New York City centered on noise generated by
helicopter tour operators [12], overwater-only flights may become a necessity.
Computed trip distances are presented in Table 11. Note that in some cases, no direct route exists that
is shorter than the overwater route. In these cases, direct and overwater route distances are identical.
The longest direct and overwater routes in Table 11 are West 30th Street to JFK (16.3 nmi) and East
34th Street to JFK (25.7 nmi) respectively. They are shown in Figure 12.
Based on Table 11, trip distances of 19 nmi for the direct flight and 30 nmi for the overwater flight were
selected. A comparative study was conducted, using three sets of assumptions:

1. A 19 nmi sizing mission and a 19 nmi revenue mission. This corresponds to a vehicle that is solely
capable of flying the direct route.

2. A 30 nmi sizing mission and a 19 nmi revenue mission. This corresponds to a vehicle that typically
flies the direct route, but has the range to fly the overwater route if necessary.

3. A 30 nmi sizing mission and a 30 nmi revenue mission. This corresponds to a vehicle that always flies
the overwater route.

25
 Table 11 Trip distance for the airport transfer routes, computed using Google Maps.
Heliport Airport Distance (direct, nm) Distance (overwater, nm)
West 30th Street JFK 16.3 24.4
LGA 14.2 14.2
EWR 13.3 13.3
East 34th Street JFK 9.9 25.7
LGA 6.4 6.4
EWR 14.3 14.3
Pier 6 JFK 10.3 21.7
LGA 10.0 10.0
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

EWR 10.6 10.6

The deadhead mission range is the same as the revenue mission range. Results are in Figure 13.

Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Maximum Takeoff Weight Cost per Trip, per Passenger
19 nm sizing mission; 19 nm revenue mission 19 nm sizing mission; 19 nm revenue mission
3500 30 nm sizing mission; 19 nm revenue mission 70 30 nm sizing mission; 19 nm revenue mission
30 nm sizing mission; 30 nm revenue mission 30 nm sizing mission; 30 nm revenue mission
3000 60
2500 50
Weight (lbf)

Cost ($US)

2000 40
1500 30
1000 20
500 10
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
mp

mp
+

+
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he

Sound Pressure Level (sizing mission) Sound Pressure Level (revenue mission)
li

li

80 19 nm sizing mission; 19 nm revenue mission 80 19 nm sizing mission; 19 nm revenue mission

30 nm sizing mission; 19 nm revenue mission 30 nm sizing mission; 19 nm revenue mission
30 nm sizing mission; 30 nm revenue mission 30 nm sizing mission; 30 nm revenue mission
75 75
SPL (dBA)

SPL (dBA)

70 70

65 65

60 60
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
li

li

Fig. 13 Results from the New York City study.

26
 Figure 13 shows that an on-demand electric air service will cost significantly less to operate than an
equivalent helicopter service. The compound helicopter, the most expensive of the configurations in Figure
13, costs approximately $55 per passenger for an overwater flight. For comparison, New York Helicopter
quotes a price of $1,900 per airport transfer, or $875 per passenger for a 2-passenger trip [34]. These two
prices cannot be directly compared, as the New York Helicopter quote includes costs neglected by the model
(see Section II D 4). However, an order-of-magnitude cost reduction illustrates that on-demand aviation has
the potential to supplant existing services.
Vehicle weight and noise are not strongly affected by the mission assumptions. In particular, there is no
difference between Options 2 and 3. However, the effect on cost per trip is much more significant. Flying
a direct route results in substantial cost savings, even if the vehicle is sized to fly the overwater mission;
this is mainly due to the reduced pilot and maintenance costs. Note that the noise level is somewhat lower
during the revenue mission, as compared to the sizing mission. This is because fewer passengers are carried,
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

resulting in a lighter aircraft.

As was noted in Section III B, the compound helicopter is the quietest configuration (if tail rotor noise
is neglected), but is outperformed on cost. For this reason, a two-tiered service should be considered. Under
such a model, compound helicopters can be used for flights over populated areas, where noise requirements
are expected to be much more stringent. Other configurations can be used for overwater flights, where noise
is less of a concern.
New York City would be a difficult place to roll out an on-demand air service, because the primary
restrictions on market size are particularly acute there. Vascik and Hansman [36] identified three primary
constraints on on-demand aviation market size: availability of ground infrastructure, interaction with air
traffic control, and community acceptance of aircraft noise. New York City has some of the highest real-
estate prices in the world, so obtaining space for additional helipads, charging stations, and maintenance
facilities would be very expensive; with three large international airports and numerous smaller ones in the
area, the airspace ranks among the world’s busiest (second only to London); and community opposition to
noise is already a major issue for the city’s helicopter tour operators [12]. On-demand aviation operators
must take these factors into account.

3. Technological Assumptions by Time Frame

Uber includes economic forecasts in their white paper, for three different time frames: initial, near term,
and long term. They show that costs are strongly affected by the technological assumptions associated with
each time frame. In this section, further investigations into this phenomenon are carried out.
Input parameters for each time frame are given in Table 12. Vehicle cost per unit empty weight ranges
from business-jet levels at the high end, to current general-aviation levels at the low end (see Table 6).
Battery cost per unit energy capacity is assumed to drop in accordance with US Department of Energy
projections [2]. Deadhead ratios are reduced and use of autonomy is increased as on-demand aviation
becomes more acceptable to consumers and regulators respectively, while battery specific energy is assumed
to improve somewhat as well.

Table 12 Input parameters for the different time frames.

Time frame Initial Near term Long term
Vehicle autonomy enabled? No Yes Yes
Battery specific energy 400 Wh/kg 450 Wh/kg 500 Wh/kg
Sizing mission type Piloted Piloted Piloted
Revenue mission type Piloted Piloted Autonomous
Deadhead mission type Piloted Autonomous Autonomous
Deadhead ratio 0.5 0.35 0.2
Vehicle cost ratio $600 per lb $400 per lb $200 per lb
Battery cost ratio $400 per kWh $200 per kWh $100 per kWh

Figure 14 contains an overview of the results.

27
 Aircraft parameters: 5 rotor blades
Sizing mission: range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission: range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission: range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve
Maximum Takeoff Weight 900 Battery Weight
3500 Initial Initial
Near term 800 Near term
Long term Long term
3000 700
2500 600
Weight (lbf)

Weight (lbf)
500
2000
400
1500
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

300
1000
200
500 100
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
n

n
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli
140 Cost per Trip, per Passenger 85 Sound Pressure Level in Hover
Initial Initial
120 Near term Near term
Long term 80 Long term
100
75
Cost ($US)

SPL (dBA)

80
70
60

40 65

20
60
0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
m

m
+

+
po

po
ing

ing
tor

tor
cru

cru
un

un
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli

Fig. 14 Time frame study results.

Figure 14 shows that vehicle weight and battery weight decrease in accordance with technological as-
sumptions associated with each time frame. Cost per trip decreases even more dramatically: by a factor
of 5-6 between Initial and Long Term, depending on configuration. Recall from Section III B that the two
main cost drivers are pilot salary and battery amortization. These costs are greatly reduced via vehicle
automation and reduced battery manufacturing costs respectively.
However, the effect on noise is not nearly as large. Furthermore, even in the long term, no configuration
is capable of meeting the Uber 62-dBA noise requirement. Therefore, a substantial amount of engineering
effort should be expended on reducing vehicle noise, since simply relying on technology improvements will
not suffice.
A cost breakdown is shown in Figure 15.

28
 Aircraft parameters: 5 rotor blades
Sizing mission: range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission: range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission: range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve
Acquisition Cost Cost per Seat Mile
1.2 Initial 3.5 Initial
Near term Near term
Long term Long term
1.0 3.0
Cost ($millions US)

Cost ($US/mile)
2.5
0.8
2.0
0.6
1.5
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

0.4
1.0
0.2 0.5
0.0 0.0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
n

n
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli
100 Capital Expenses per Trip Operating Expenses per Trip
Initial 160 Initial
Near term Near term
80 Long term 140 Long term

120
60
Cost ($US)

Cost ($US)

100
80
40
60

20 40
20
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
m

m
+

+
po

po
ing

ing
tor

tor
cru

cru
un

un
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli

Fig. 15 Cost breakdown from the time frame study. Capital and operating expenses are per trip; i.e.
the effect of deadhead is included. Cost per seat mile is given in terms of statute miles.

Figure 15 shows that all costs decrease substantially depending on the time frame assumption. In the
case of the compound helicopter (the most expensive configuration), cost per seat mile decreases from almost
$3.50 per mile initially, to as little as $0.60 per mile in the long term. For comparison, the average prices
of UberX (car ridesharing, where the ride is paid for by one passenger) and UberPool (in which the ride
is shared between multiple paying passengers) rides in the United States in 2016 were $2.34 per mile and
$1.38 per mile respectively [2]. Recall again from Section II D 4 that a number of costs are neglected, so
a direct comparison is not possible. However, it appears as if the proposed on-demand air service has the
long-term potential to compete on price not just for expensive New York City airport transfers, but for
everyday commutes as well.

29
 4. Low-Noise Design

Five parameters were identified as having a significant impact on vehicle noise, without substantially
affecting vehicle sizing: number of rotors, number of rotor blades, rotor solidity, blade thickness-to-chord
ratio, and maximum mean lift coefficient. It was discovered during sensitivity analysis (not shown here) that
number of rotors does not affect vehicle weight or cost, as long as disk loading is held constant. The goal
of this case study is to investigate the design space formed by these five parameters, and try to determine
combinations that reduce noise.
Three design categories were created. The first is the baseline, in which the same parameters from
the configuration trade study (Section III B) are used. The second category is called Rotor Replacement.
Here, the vehicle rotors are replaced with a different set, designed specifically for low noise. Only number of
rotor blades and blade thickness-to-chord ratio are modified; rotor solidity is left unchanged. In the third
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

category, called Aircraft Redesign, the entire vehicle is aggressively redesigned to reduce noise. All five
identified parameters are modified.
The goal of the Rotor Replacement category is to design rotors that reduce noise, without affecting
vehicle sizing. This requires a distinction to be drawn between the compound helicopter and the other
configurations. Recall from Section III B that the compound helicopter has a vortex-noise peak frequency of
around 300 Hz, below the value (600 Hz) at which the A-weighting response function is maximized. In this
regime, reducing the peak frequency will decrease A-weighted sound pressure level. Towards this end, the
number of blades was reduced from 5 to 3 (while holding solidity constant), and the rotor blade thickness-to-
chord ratio was increased from 12% to 15%. Both changes have the effect of increasing the blade projected
thickness, which in turn decreases the peak frequency (see Appendix D B).
The three other configurations have peak frequencies well above 600 Hz. In this regime, Figure 4 shows
that the opposite rule applies: increasing the peak frequency will decrease A-weighted sound pressure level.
Therefore, the number of blades was increased from 5 to 7, and the rotor blade thickness-to-chord ratio was
decreased to 10%. Both changes have the effect of decreasing the blade projected thickness, which in turn
increases the peak frequency. Note that this selection of blade count results in a blade aspect ratio of 22.3,
which is quite high for a helicopter [7]. The resulting rotors may suffer from structural issues.
In the Aircraft Redesign category, a more aggressive approach is employed. The number of rotors is
increased for all configurations except the compound helicopter. Although this does not affect vehicle weight,
cost, or unweighted sound pressure level, it results in smaller rotors with correspondingly lower projected
thicknesses. This in turn increases peak frequency.
Rotor mean lift coefficient is increased for all configurations. This results in a small benefit to vehicle
weight and cost, but a large benefit to unweighted sound pressure level due to reduced tip speed (see the
discussion in Section III A). However, it requires accepting smaller control margins in hover.
Finally, rotor solidity is increased to 0.14 for all configurations except the compound helicopter. This
has a small, beneficial effect on vehicle sizing and a significant, beneficial effect on unweighted sound pressure
level. (see Equation 15). Blade aspect ratio is maintained at a more-reasonable value of 15.9. Rotor solidity
for the compound helicopter is unchanged, resulting in a reduced blade aspect ratio (9.6).
Parameter selections are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13 Input parameters for the low-noise design study. While the Aircraft Redesign category uses
all five parameter values, the Rotor Replacement category only uses the values for number of rotor
blades and blade thickness-to-chord ratio. Number of rotors, rotor solidity, and maximum mean lift
coefficient for Rotor Replacement are the same as those from the configurational trade study.
Configuration Number of rotors Number of rotor blades Rotor solidity Rotor blade t/c Cl (upper limit)
Lift + cruise 12 7 0.14 0.1 1.2
Compound heli 1 3 0.1 0.15 1.0
Tilt wing 12 7 0.14 0.1 1.2
Tilt rotor 16 7 0.14 0.1 1.2

Figure 16 contains an overview of the results.

30
 Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nmi; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nmi; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nmi; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Maximum Takeoff Weight Cost per Trip, per Passenger
4000 Baseline Baseline
Rotor replacement 70 Rotor replacement
3500 Aircraft redesign Aircraft redesign
60
3000
50
Weight (lbf)

Cost ($US)
2500
40
2000
30
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

1500
1000 20

500 10
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
mp

mp
+

+
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
Unweighted SPL (sizing mission) A-Weighted SPL (sizing mission)
li

li
80 Baseline 80 Baseline
Rotor replacement Rotor replacement
Aircraft redesign Aircraft redesign
75 75
SPL (dBA)
SPL (dB)

70 70

65 65

60 60
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
m

m
+

+
po

po
ing

ing
tor

tor
cru

cru
un

un
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli

Fig. 16 First set of results from the low-noise design study.

Figure 16 shows that the Rotor Replacement strategy does not affect vehicle weight, cost, or unweighted
sound pressure level. However, A-weighted sound pressure level is reduced by about 1 dBA on average.
Meanwhile, the Aircraft Redesign strategy has a tiny, beneficial effect on weight and cost, but a significant
effect on both unweighted and A-weighted sound pressure level. Therefore, while some noise benefits can
be obtained by replacing the rotors, redesigning the aircraft with noise as a primary concern results in
significantly larger reductions in noise.
Some design choices made as part of this design study may not be feasible. For example, a blade aspect
ratio of 22.3 (used for the Rotor Replacement category) is very high for a helicopter. The feasibility of such
a rotor must be verified using structural analysis.
Increasing mean lift coefficient and increasing rotor solidity both result in significant noise reductions, but
the upper limit on these parameters is at present unclear. Mean lift coefficient is expected to be constrained
by control margins in hover; additional analysis is required to determine the mean lift coefficient above
which control margins cannot be maintained. Similarly, solidity is limited by blade interference; an upper
limit is required.
Additional data is shown in Figure 17.

31
 Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nmi; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nmi; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nmi; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Vortex-Noise Peak Frequency 16 Rotor Radius
Baseline Baseline
Rotor replacement 14 Rotor replacement
Aircraft redesign Aircraft redesign
104 12
Frequency (Hz)

10

Radius (ft)
8
103 6
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

4
2
102 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
mp

mp
+

+
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
3000 Rotor Angular Velocity (sizing mission) Rotor Tip Speed (sizing mission)
li

li
Baseline 800 Baseline
Rotor replacement Rotor replacement
2500 Aircraft redesign 700 Aircraft redesign
Angular velocity (rpm)

600
2000
Tip speed (ft/s)

500
1500 400

1000 300
200
500
100
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
m

m
+

+
po

po
ing

ing
tor

tor
cru

cru
un

un
ise

ise
dh

dh
eli

eli

Fig. 17 Second set of results from the low-noise design study.

Figure 17 shows that the Rotor Replacement strategy produced the intended effect: vortex-noise peak
frequency decreased for the compound helicopter, but increased for all other configurations. This was
achieved without affecting rotor radius or tip speed, indicating that rotor replacement works as a drop-in
solution for noise reduction. The Aircraft Redesign strategy results in more substantial design changes.
The only configuration that meets the 62-dBA noise requirement is the compound helicopter. This is only
achievable with the Aircraft Redesign approach; also tail-rotor noise is neglected. Substantial engineering
effort to reduce noise will therefore be required. A number of ideas for reducing noise were not investigated
in this work, including: ducted rotors; swept, pointed, and/or split rotor blade tips; serrated rotor blade
edges; and asynchronous blade design (used on the MacBook Pro cooling fan [37]). In addition, a number
of new methods of reducing rotor noise are enabled by Distributed Electric Propulsion. Reference [38] cites
two examples: motor digital control synchronization, and asynchronous RPM. These techniques should be
investigated as part of a more detailed study.

32
 D. Sensitivity Studies

In this section, the sensitivity of the optimized designs to various design requirements and vehicle
parameters is explored. Each point on each plot represents an optimized design.

1. Mission Range

A sweep was conducted to determine the importance of mission range. The same range requirement is
used for the sizing, revenue, and deadhead missions. Results are shown in Figure 18.

Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): same range as sizing mission; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): same range as sizing mission; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

5000 Maximum Takeoff Weight 1800 Battery Weight

1600
4000 1400
1200
Weight (lbf)

Weight (lbf)
3000
1000
800
2000
600

1000 Lift + cruise 400 Lift + cruise

Compound heli Compound heli
Tilt wing 200 Tilt wing
Tilt rotor Tilt rotor
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Mission range (nm) Mission range (nm)
Cost per Seat Mile Sound Pressure Level in Hover
75
2.0
70
Cost ($US/mile)

1.5
SPL (dBA)

65
1.0

0.5 Lift + cruise 60 Lift + cruise

Compound heli Compound heli
Tilt wing Tilt wing
Tilt rotor Tilt rotor
0.0 55
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Mission range (nm) Mission range (nm)
Fig. 18 Sensitivity to mission range. Cost per seat mile is plotted instead of cost per passenger.

Figure 18 shows that some configurations are more sensitive to mission range than others. The defining
L
parameter input appears to be the cruise lift-to-drag ratio. The compound helicopter ( D = 9, the lowest
L
value) weighs and costs the most at longer ranges, while the tilt rotor ( D = 14, the highest value) weighs
and costs the least. Cost per seat mile is minimized at a mission range of about 30 nmi. On-demand aviation
is at its most cost-competitive at this range; it may therefore be wise to use 30 nmi as a design requirement.

33
 2. Number of Passengers

On-demand vehicle concepts produced by different companies vary in terms of number of passengers.
For example, the A3 Vahana carries one passenger and no pilot [25]. Meanwhile, the Uber white paper
assumes a vehicle with four seats. If the vehicle is piloted, then three seats are available for passengers; all
four seats can be occupied by passengers if the vehicle is autonomous [2].
A sweep was conducted to determine the importance of number of passengers carried on the sizing
mission. The load factor was set to 2/3; i.e. the number of passengers carried on the typical mission was set
equal to 2/3 times the number of passengers carried on the sizing mission. Results are shown in Figure 19.

Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nm; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nm; load factor = 0.67; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
7000 Maximum Takeoff Weight 1400 Battery Weight
1 passenger 1 passenger
6000 3 passengers 1200 3 passengers
5 passengers 5 passengers
5000 1000
Weight (lbf)

Weight (lbf)
4000 800

3000 600

2000 400

1000 200

0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
mp

mp
+

+
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
Cost per Trip, per Passenger Sound Pressure Level in Hover
li

li
160 1 passenger 1 passenger
3 passengers 80 3 passengers
140 5 passengers 5 passengers
120 75
Cost ($US)

100
SPL (dBA)

80 70

60
65
40
20 60
0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
li

li

Fig. 19 Sensitivity to number of passengers carried on the sizing mission.

Figure 19 shows that weight and noise increase significantly with number of passengers. Cost per
trip decreases, although diminishing returns are encountered beyond 3 passengers. Therefore, although 3
passengers seems reasonable, a decision on number of passengers must consider both cost and noise.

34
 3. Reserve Requirement

On-demand aircraft companies are faced with a choice: should they certify their aircraft as airplanes
or as helicopters? The FAA definitions are as follows [21]: “[airplane] means [a] fixed-wing aircraft...that
is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings”, while “[helicopter] means [an]
aircraft that depends principally for its support in flight on the lift generated by one or more rotors.” For
configurations with wings as well as rotors, either definition applies, and so a choice must be made.
From a certification perspective, the most important difference is in the reserve requirement: 30 minutes
for airplanes vs. 20 minutes for helicopters (see Section II C). A study was conducted to determine the
importance of this requirement. A 2-nmi diversion requirement was also included, in case a special regulatory
class is created for eVTOL aircraft. Results are in Figure 20.
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Aircraft parameters: battery energy density = 400 Wh/kg; 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled
Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time
Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Maximum Takeoff Weight Battery Weight
5000 Uber (2-nm diversion) 1600 Uber (2-nm diversion)
FAA helicopter VFR (20-min loiter) FAA helicopter VFR (20-min loiter)
FAA aircraft VFR (30-min loiter) 1400 FAA aircraft VFR (30-min loiter)
4000
1200
Weight (lbf)

Weight (lbf) 1000

3000
800
2000 600
400
1000
200
0 0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t

t
mp

mp
+

+
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he

Cost per Trip, per Passenger Sound Pressure Level in Hover

li

li

80
100 Uber (2-nm diversion) Uber (2-nm diversion)
FAA helicopter VFR (20-min loiter) FAA helicopter VFR (20-min loiter)
FAA aircraft VFR (30-min loiter) FAA aircraft VFR (30-min loiter)
75
80
Cost ($US)

SPL (dBA)

60 70

40 65

20
60
0
Lif

Co

Til

Til

Lif

Co

Til

Til
tw

t ro

tw

t ro
t+

t+
mp

mp
ing

ing
tor

tor
ou

ou
cru

cru
nd

nd
ise

ise
he

he
li

li

Fig. 20 Sensitivity to reserve requirement.

Figure 20 shows that the reserve requirement is critical. Vehicle weight, cost, and noise are all strongly
affected. It seems as first glance that the logical choice is the helicopter requirement. This choice takes
advantage of the existing certification framework, while providing a sizing benefit relative to the aircraft
requirement. However, helicopter pilots are in short supply relative to aircraft pilots. In 2016, approxi-

35
 mately 96,000 pilots held commercial ratings in the US; an additional 158,000 pilots held airline ratings [39].
By contrast, only 16,000 pilots held rotorcraft ratings. Barring full vehicle autonomy (impossible under
current regulations), a pilot shortage would seriously impair the widespread adoption of on-demand avia-
tion. Therefore, unless the regulations are changed, the choice of certification pathway should be carefully
considered.

4. Battery Energy Density

A sweep was conducted to determine the importance of battery energy density. Results are shown in
Figure 21.

Aircraft parameters: 5 rotor blades; autonomy enabled

Sizing mission (piloted): range = 50 nm; 3 passengers; 120s hover time; reserve type = FAA helicopter VFR (20-minute loiter time)
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Revenue mission (piloted): range = 30 nm; 2.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; charger power = 200 kW
Deadhead mission (autonomous): range = 30 nm; 0.0 passengers; 30s hover time; no reserve; deadhead ratio = 0.2
Maximum Takeoff Weight 1800 Battery Weight
5000 1600
1400
4000
1200
Weight (lbf)

3000 Weight (lbf) 1000

800
2000
600
Lift + cruise 400 Lift + cruise
1000 Compound heli Compound heli
Tilt wing 200 Tilt wing
Tilt rotor Tilt rotor
0 0
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Battery energy density (Wh/kg) Battery energy density (Wh/kg)
100 Cost per Trip, per Passenger 78 Sound Pressure Level in Hover
Lift + cruise
76 Compound heli
Tilt wing
80 Tilt rotor
74

60 72
Cost ($US)

SPL (dBA)

70
40 68

66
20 Lift + cruise
Compound heli
Tilt wing 64
Tilt rotor
0 62
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Battery energy density (Wh/kg) Battery energy density (Wh/kg)
Fig. 21 Sensitivity to battery energy density.

Figure 21 shows that all four configurations are quite sensitive to battery energy density below around
400 Wh/kg, but less so above this point. Similar results have been obtained for other types of electric
aircraft; ex. see Reference [38]. A battery energy density of 400 Wh/kg can therefore be seen as a critical
enabling value for on-demand aviation.

36
 IV. Future Work
Future work should primarily be focused on vehicle noise. It was shown in Section III C 3 that the
62-dBA Uber noise requirement cannot be met by any vehicle configuration, even with the most generous
long-term technological assumptions. Vehicle noise is therefore a critical issue for on-demand aviation.
Noise research can be divided into four main areas. First of all, the noise model should be validated
using higher-fidelity methods and/or experimental data. In particular, the value of the leading coefficient
K2 in Equation 15 for vortex noise was determined experimentally from helicopter data (see Appendix
D A). K2 is expected to vary between vehicle configurations. An accurate value for this parameter, for each
configuration under examination, is required.
Secondly, it was hypothesized in Section II B 4 that blade slap can be avoided by careful selection of
approach and departure procedures. While true for helicopters, this hypothesis must be verified for on-
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

demand aircraft. The vortex ring state (which would result in a sudden, dangerous loss of lift) must also be
avoided during approach and departure [7].
Thirdly, as discussed in Section II B 7, A-weighted sound pressure level is far from ideal as a noise metric,
even for its stated goal of predicting human response to loudness. Furthermore, A-weighting cannot account
for perceived annoyance. Examples of noise metrics designed to reflect annoyance include Perceived Noise
Level (PNL) and Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL). EPNL is currently the standard metric for aircraft
noise regulations [14], although its suitability for on-demand aviation has not been established. The use of
PNL and EPNL, as well as the other noise metrics discussed in Section II B, should be explored.
Finally, a number of design opportunities for reducing noise were discussed in Section III C 4. However,
the extent to which these opportunities can be exploited remains uncertain. Studies on rotor structural
analysis (needed to limit blade aspect ratio), control margin requirements in hover (needed to limit rotor
mean lift coefficient), and rotor blade interference (needed to limit rotor solidity) are required, in order to
determine the extent to which noise can be reduced. Additional ideas for reducing noise (ex. ducted rotors,
swept/pointed/split rotor blade tips, serrated rotor blade edges, asynchronous blade design, motor digital
control synchronization, and asynchronous RPM) should also be explored.

V. Conclusions
A conceptual design and optimization tool for on-demand aviation was developed, using geometric
programming. This tool was used to conduct a trade study between various aircraft configurations. For
the selected mission, only four configurations are viable: the lift + cruise configuration, the compound
helicopter, the tilt wing, and the tilt rotor. Configurations with a higher lift-to-drag ratio, but a higher
disk loading, cost less to operate but are louder; carpet plots provide a valuable means of visualizing this
tradeoff. The two most important costs are pilot salary and battery amortization; the key to lowering the
price of on-demand aviation is therefore to implement vehicle autonomy and reduce battery manufacturing
costs. The 62-dBA Uber noise requirement cannot be met by any vehicle configuration.
The New York City case study shows that an on-demand air service, even in the near term, is far superior
in terms of price per trip as compared to current helicopter air taxi operations. Also, vehicle design may be
impacted by design requirements specific to a given city. In the case of New York City, an overwater-only
flight restriction, imposed for community noise reasons, would adversely affect costs and cannot be ignored
by vehicle designers.
The case study on time frames shows that costs are strongly affected by technological assumptions. In
particular, expected improvements in vehicle autonomy and battery manufacturing result in greatly reduced
costs. In the long term, on-demand aviation becomes competitive with current car ridesharing services. This
indicates the potential for on-demand aviation to become a commute system for the masses, as opposed to
merely a high-priced service for the wealthy. However, the 62-dBA noise requirement is not met, even
with the most generous long-term technological assumptions. This underscores the necessity of substantial
engineering effort to reduce noise.
The case study on low-noise design shows that substantial opportunities exist for noise reduction. Five
parameters were identified as having a strong effect on noise, without substantially affecting vehicle sizing:
number of rotors, number of rotor blades, rotor solidity, blade thickness-to-chord ratio, and maximum mean

37
 lift coefficient. A better knowledge of the limits on these parameters is required, in order to fully exploit
the opportunities for noise reduction. While some noise benefits can be obtained merely by replacing the
rotors, larger benefits are possible if the aircraft are redesigned with noise as a primary concern.
Vehicle weight, cost, and noise are strongly affected by all three design requirements for which sensitivity
information was computed: mission range, number of passengers, and reserve requirement. Finally, a battery
energy density of 400 Wh/kg was found to be a critical enabling value for on-demand aviation, a finding in
accordance with the wider literature on electric aircraft.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank all those who contributed their insights to this work. In particular, Parker
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Vascik, Edward “Ned” Burnell, Bjarni Kristinsson, Prof. Warren “Woody” Hoburg, and Prof. John Hansman
of MIT; Carl Dietrich of Terrafugia; Martin Kearney-Fischer and Diana Siegel of Aurora Flight Sciences;
Michael Duffy of Boeing; and Michel Merluzeau of AirInsightResearch; are acknowledged. The authors
would also like to thank Ned and Prof. Hoburg for developing and maintaining GPkit, the open-source
software package for solving geometric programs that was used throughout this research.
This work was funded in part by the Arthur Gelb graduate fellowship, and also by the AIAA William
T. Piper, Sr. General Aviation Systems Graduate Award.

38
 Appendices
A. Noise Definitions
Sound is a pressure wave; it consists of fluctuations in pressure in a medium. In air, pressure waves can
be considered as follows [13]:

ptotal (t) = p0 + p(t) (27)

ptotal (t) is the total air pressure, equal to the sum of the static (time-independent) pressure p0 and the
acoustic pressure p(t). p(t) is typically much smaller than p0 . For example, the standard-sea-level static
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

pressure is approximately 100,000 Pa, while acoustic pressure is typically on the order of ±1 Pa [13].
Effective sound pressure is the root-mean-square (RMS) value of the acoustic pressure p(t). p is calcu-
lated by time-averaging over a period T , as shown in Equation 28:

" #1/2
Z T
1 2
p= p(t) dt (28)
T 0

Sound pressure level is the most commonly used sound metric, and is abbreviated as SPL. It is calculated
using Equation 29:

" 2 #  
p p
SP L = 10 log10 = 20 log10 (29)
pref pref

pref , the reference sound pressure, is typically set to 2 × 10−5 Pa. This represents the effective sound
pressure at which an average adult can hear a 1 kHz tone [13].

B. Decibel Arithmetic
Obtaining the sum of two different sounds is not as simple as adding their respective sound pressure
levels [13]. For example, the sum of two 60-dB sounds is not 120 dB. Instead, the laws of decibel arithmetic
must be applied. The sum of n sounds, each with sound pressure level SP Li , can be computed using
Equations 30 and 31:

 2
p
= 10SP Li /10 (30)
pref i

" n  2 #
X p
SP L = 10 log10 (31)
i=1
pref i

Equation 31 only holds for independent, random sounds, or else sounds with different frequencies [13].
When adding multiple sounds with the same frequency, their relative phase must be considered.

C. Rotational Noise Derivation

As discussed in Section II B 5, rotational noise is divided into loading noise and thickness noise. The
root-mean-square (RMS) sound pressures can be predicted using the classical Gutin and Deming formulae
(Equations 32 and 33 respectively) [40]:

39
 Z tip    
mBΩ dT dQ a mBΩ
pmL = √ cos θ − JmB r sin θ dr (32)
2 2πa(∆S) hub dr dr Ωr2 a

tip
−ρ(mBΩ)2 B
Z  
mBΩ
pmT = √ ctJmB r sin θ dr (33)
3 2π(∆S) hub a

pmL and pmT are the RMS sound pressures for loading and thickness noise respectively. m is the
harmonic number, B is the number of rotor blades, Ω is the rotor angular velocity, a is the speed of sound,
and ∆S is the distance between the rotor and the observer. T is the rotor thrust, Q is the rotor torque, r
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

is the rotor radial location, and θ is the observer azimuthal location (see Figure 3). ρ is the air density, c is
the blade chord, and t is the blade maximum thickness. JmB is a Bessel function of the first kind of order
mB.
The form of the Gutin and Deming formulae given in Equations 32 and 33 requires discretized values
of rotor radius, thrust and torque. This form is used in Reference [40] in order to employ the outputs from
blade-element analysis in acoustic calculations. However, in order to employ the simpler rotor model used
in this work, an equivalent-radius approximation is used. All integrals are evaluated at an effective rotor
radius Re . The resulting alternate forms of the Gutin and Deming formulae are given in Equations 34 and
35 respectively:

   
mBΩ a mBΩ
pmL = √ T cos θ − Q JmB Re sin θ (34)
2 2πa(∆S) ΩRe2 a

−ρ(mBΩ)2 B
 
mBΩ
pmT = √ ctRe JmB Re sin θ (35)
3 2π(∆S) a

Once the loading and thickness pressures are known, sound pressure level SP L can be computed using
Equation 36:

" !#
p2mL + p2mT
SP L = 10 log10 (36)
p2ref

pref is the reference pressure, equal to 2 × 105 Pa.

Equation 36 only applies to one rotor. If multiple rotors are present, each operating under the same
conditions, then Equation 31 must be employed. Therefore, the square of the pressure ratio is multiplied by
the number of rotors N , resulting in Equation 37:

" !#
p2mL + p2mT
SP L = 10 log10 N (37)
p2ref

As discussed in Appendix B, relative phase must technically be considered when adding multiple sounds
with the same frequency. The technique used here assumes slightly different frequencies for each rotor; it
serves as a reasonable first approximation. The propeller noise prediction method in SAE Standard 1407
[41] uses a similar technique.

40
 D. Vortex Noise Derivation
A. Unweighted Sound Pressure Level

The vortex noise model used in this work was developed from the model in Schlegel et al. [19], as given
in Reference [16]. Vortex noise in hover can be estimated using Equation 38, accurate to within ±2 dB of
experimental data [16]:
   
Cl ∆S
SP L = 10 log10 KAb V0.7 6 + 20 log10


− 20 log10 (38)
0.4 ∆Sref
SP L is the sound pressure level at an observer distance ∆S from the source. K is a constant, equal to
6
6.1 × 10−11 fst8 . V0.7 is the blade velocity at a radial location r/R = 0.7 (i.e. 0.7 times the tip speed). Cl is
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

the local blade lift coefficient, referenced to V0.7 . ∆Sref is equal to 300 ft.
Solve for the square of the pressure ratio using Equation 29 to obtain Equation 39:

 2  2  2
p 6 Cl ∆Sref
= KAb V0.7 (39)
pref 0.4 ∆S
Substitute the expression for blade area (Ab = BcR), and let Cl = Cl . Cl is equal to Cl if constant
downwash is assumed. This is a reasonable approximation, from Reference [7].
Once this approximation is made, combine Equation 3 (thrust coefficient) and Equation 11 (mean lift
coefficient) to obtain Equation 40 for mean lift coefficient:

CT 6T
Cl = 3 = (40)
s ρsVT2 A
Substitute Equation 40 into Equation 39, substitute for tip speed (V0.7 = 0.7VT ), rearrange, and cancel
terms to obtain Equation 41:

2 2 2
T2
  
p 6 6 ∆Sref
= 0.7 K VT2 (41)
pref 0.4 ∆S ρ2 As
The next step is to multiply by N, to account for the effect of multiple rotors. As with the rotational
noise model (Appendix C), it is assumed that the rotors are operating at slightly different frequencies.
Equation 31 can therefore be employed. We also combine the constants into one term: K2 .
s  2
6 2
K2 = 0.76 K (∆Sref ) (42)
0.4
2
VT2 N T 2

p
= K22 (43)
pref ρ (∆S)2 As
2

The final result is Equation 44 for the sound pressure level:

" s  #
VT NT T
SP L = 20 log10 K2 (44)
ρ(∆S) s A
Equation 44 was validated using data in Reference [19] for two different helicopter main rotors: the
CH-3C and the CH-53A. Results are given in Figure 22. See Reference [19] for a more detailed description
of the experimental setup.
Figure 22 shows that with an (experimentally determined) value of K2 = 1.206 × 10−2 s3 /f t3 , Equation
44 is accurate to within 3 dB of test data. This is technically only valid for the helicopters under considera-
tion. Therefore, Equation 15 serves as a reasonable first approximation, and should also work for predicting
noise trends. However, it is recommended in Reference [16] that K2 be calibrated using higher-fidelity
methods and/or experimental data for a given class of vehicle and/or experimental conditions.

41
 Noise Model Validation (∆S = 300 ft)
84 CH-3C (183 rpm; max error = 2.9 dB) 87 CH-53A (166 rpm; max error = 2.0 dB)
83 86
82 85
81 84
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)
80
83
79
78 82
77 81
Calculated Calculated
76 Measured 80 Measured
75 79
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Thrust (lbf × 103 ) Thrust (lbf × 103 )
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

85 CH-3C (203 rpm; max error = 1.4 dB) 89 CH-53A (186 rpm; max error = 1.3 dB)
88
84
87
83 86
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)
85
82 84
83
81 Calculated Calculated
Measured 82 Measured
80 81
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Thrust (lbf × 103 ) Thrust (lbf × 103 )
85 CH-3C (213 rpm; max error = 0.7 dB) 91 CH-53A (215 rpm; max error = 1.5 dB)
90
84 89
83 88
SPL (dB)

SPL (dB)

87
82 86
85
81
Calculated 84 Calculated
80 Measured 83 Measured
82
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 25 30 35 40 45
Thrust (lbf × 103 ) Thrust (lbf × 103 )
Fig. 22 Validation of the rotor vortex noise model. Note that the experimental data was rounded to
the nearest decibel in Reference [19].

B. Frequency Spectrum

Although vortex noise is broadband in nature, it has a peak frequency (frequency at which the amplitude
is highest). It can be estimated using Equation 45 [16]:

(V0.7 )St
fpeak = (45)
h
fpeak is the vortex-noise peak frequency (in Hz), St is the Strouhal number, and h is the projected blade
thickness. An estimate of St = 0.28 is used; this is a reasonable value for a helicopter [16]. h is computed
using Equation 46:

h = t cos α + c sin α (46)

t is the average blade thickness, α is the blade angle of attack (at r/R = 0.7), and c is the average blade
chord. Two-dimensional airfoil theory is used to approximate the angle of attack:

42
 Cl
α= (47)
2π
The blade chord is estimated using the definition of solidity (Equation 8). Since the NACA 0012 airfoil
is a traditional choice for helicopter rotor blades [7], the blade thickness is calculated using an assumed
thickness-to-chord ratio of 12%.
Once the peak frequency is known, the frequency spectrum can be drawn. Figure 23 shows the vortex-
noise frequency spectrum for an unweighted sound pressure level of 0 dB. This figure was originally Figure
10 from Reference [16].
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

Fig. 23 Plot used to draw the vortex-noise frequency spectrum, obtained from Reference [16].

For each frequency value in Figure 23, the corresponding sound pressure level weight was obtained.
Spectrum (a) is used, since it is assumed that the rotor is below stall. The weights are given in Table 14.

Table 14
1
Frequency f
2 peak
fpeak 2fpeak 4fpeak 8fpeak 16fpeak
SPL weight 7.92 4.17 8.33 8.75 12.92 13.33

The procedure for drawing the frequency spectrum is then as follows. First, calculate the overall SPL
and peak frequency, using Equations 44 and 45 respectively. Then obtain the sound pressure level for
each frequency in Table 14, by deducting the corresponding weight from the overall SPL. Finally, plot the
resulting array of sound pressure level vs. peak frequency. Note that the interpolation between frequencies
is only linear if the frequency axis uses a logarithmic scale.

C. A-Weighting Procedure

Because the frequency spectrum for vortex noise is continuous rather than discrete, the A-weighting
technique for rotational noise discussed in Section II B 7 will not work. Instead, the approximate technique
developed and used in this work replaces the summation in Equation 31 with an integral.
Recall from Figure 23 that the interpolated vortex-noise sound pressure levels are linear in log-space.
Therefore, the sound pressure level in the interval between any two f -SP L pairs in Table 14 can be inter-
polated using Equations 48, 49, 50, and 51:

43
 SP L = C1 log10 (f r) + C2 (48)

f
fr = (49)
fpeak

SP L2 − SP L1
C1 = (50)
log10 (f r2 ) − log10 (f r1 )
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

C2 = SP L2 − C1 log10 (f r2 ) (51)

f r is the frequency ratio; it is introduced in order to render the interpolation dimensionless. C1 and C2
are interpolation constants, while the pairs (f r1 , SP L1 ) and (f r2 , SP L2 ) represent the frequency-sound
pairs defining the upper and lower limits on the interpolation interval under consideration.
According to the laws of decibel arithmetic, adding sounds of different frequencies is analogous to adding
the squares of the RMS sound pressure ratios. Therefore, the goal is to obtain the sound pressure ratio, and
integrate it over each frequency interval. Writing Equation 48 in terms of pressure ratio yields Equation 53:

" 2 #
p
SP L = C1 log10 (f r) + C2 = 10 log10 (52)
pref

 2
p C2 C1
= 10 10 f r 10 (53)
pref

Integrating over the interval and assuming C1 6= −10 yields Equation 54:

2 C1
f r2
2
f r 10 +1 
Z 
p C2
= 10 10
C1
(54)
pref

1 10 + 1

f r1

Finally, the total sound pressure level over n − 1 intervals can be computed using Equation 55:

n−1
"Z 2 #!
2 
X p
SP L = 10 log10 (55)
i=1 1 pref

The procedure for obtaining the A-weighted vortex-noise sound pressure level can be summarized as
follows:

• Obtain the peak frequency and the frequency spectrum array, as described in Appendix D B.

• Apply the A-weighting offset function A(f ) to each sound pressure level in the frequency spectrum
array.

• For each frequency in the spectrum array, obtain the corresponding frequency ratio using Equation
49.

• For each interval in the spectrum array, obtain the constants C1 and C2 using Equations 50 and 51
respectively.

• For each interval in the spectrum array, solve for the pressure ratio integral using Equation 54.

44
 • Obtain the total A-weighted sound pressure level by adding the pressure ratio integrals using Equation
55.

Ideally, if step 2 is skipped (i.e. if A-weighting is not applied), then the resulting sound pressure level
should be identical to that obtained from Equation 44. However, due to the approximations made in drawing
the frequency spectrum, the obtained answer is approximately 1.3 dB higher than that predicted by Equation
44. This technique is therefore somewhat conservative.

References

[1] Moore, M. D., “Concept of Operations for Highly Autonomous Electric Zip Aviation,” Conference Paper, 14th
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

AIAA Aviation Technology and Integration and and Operations (ATIO) Conference, 2012.
[2] Holden, J. and Goel, N., “Fast-Forwarding to a Future of On-Demand Urban Air Transportation,” White Paper,
Uber, 2016.
[3] “Uber Elevate: Fast-Forwarding to the Future of On-Demand, Urban Air Transportation,” https://www.uber.
com/info/elevate/summit/, 2017.
[4] McDonald, R. and German, B., “eVTOL Stored Energy Overview,” Presentation Slides, 2017. Uber Elevate
summit.
[5] Hoburg, W. and Abbeel, P., “Geometric Programming for Aircraft Design Optimization,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 52,
No. 11, 2014, pp. 2414–2426.
[6] Burton, M. J. and Hoburg, W. W., “Solar-Electric and Gas Powered, Long-Endurance UAV Sizing via Geometric
Programming,” Conference Paper, AIAA AVIATION Forum, Denver, CO, 2017.
[7] Seddon, J. and Newman, S., Basic Helicopter Aerodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 3rd ed., 2011.
[8] Bagai, A. and Leishman, J. G., “Experimental Study of Rotor Wake/Body Interactions in Hover,” Journal of
the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1992, pp. 48–57.
[9] Leishman, J. G., Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2nd ed.,
2006.
[10] Woolhouse, M., “Officials will study plane noise after complaints about Logan,” https://www.bostonglobe.
com/business/2016/10/07/faa-massport-agree-study-airplane-noise-after-rising-complaints/
hIVSjqJnk5vwv6gAHzk0eI/story.html, 2016.
[11] Choi, S., Alonso, J. J., and Kroo, I. M., “Multifidelity Design Optimization of Low-Boom Supersonic Jets,”
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2008, pp. 106–118.
[12] Moorman, R. W., “Noise In the Cities - Revisited,” Vertiflite, 2016.
[13] Fahy, F. and Thompson, D., Fundamentals of Sound and Vibration, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca
Raton, FL, 2nd ed., 2015.
[14] Zaporozhets, O., Tokarev, V., and Attenborough, K., Aircraft Noise: Assessment, Prediction, and Control, CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2011.
[15] Lowson, M. and Ollerhead, J., “A Theoretical Study of Helicopter Rotor Noise,” Journal of Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 9, No. 2, 1969, pp. 197–222.
[16] Marte, J. E. and Kurtz, D. W., “A Review of Aerodynamic Noise from Propellers, Rotors, and Lift Fans,”
Technical Report 32-1462, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, 1970.
[17] “Fly Neighborly Guide,” Technical Report, Helicopter Association International, Alexandria, VA, 2013.
[18] Johnson, W., Helicopter Theory, Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1994.

45
 [19] Schlegel, R., King, R., and Muli, H., “Helicopter Rotor Noise Generation and Propagation,” Technical Report,
US Army Aviation Material Laboratories, Fort Eustis, VA, 1966.
[20] Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 5th Edition, AIAA, 2012.
[21] FAA, “14 CFR 91.151 - Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/
text/14/91.151, 2017.
[22] Gudmundsson, S., General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and Procedures, Butterworth-Heinemann,
2013.
[23] “Aurora Flight Sciences Showcases New eVTOL Aircraft,” http://www.auvsi.org/blogs/auvsi-news/2017/
04/25/aurora-flight-sciences-showcases-new-evtol-aircraft, 2017.
Downloaded by MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECHNOLOGY (Cambridge) on May 16, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-0105

[24] “Carter partners with Mooney for Uber Elevate air taxi concept,” https://www.verticalmag.com/
press-releases/carter-partners-mooney-uber-elevate-air-taxi-concept/, 2017.
[25] “Airbus has a secret flying-car project called Vahana,” https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/21/13357690/
airbus-flying-car-vahana-a-cubed-autonomous-taxi, 2016.
[26] “Joby S2,” http://www.jobyaviation.com/S2/, 2016.
[27] “R44 Raven Series,” http://www.robinsonheli.com/rhc_r44_raven_series.html, 2016.
[28] “Kamov Ka32,” https://barrieaircraft.com/kamov-ka32.html, 2017.
[29] Bennett, J., “EHang Wants You to Fly in Their Autonomous Drone,” http://www.popularmechanics.com/
flight/drones/a18865/ehang-184-fly-in-autonomous-drone/, 2017.
[30] “M-16 Tandem Trainer,” http://www.magnigyro.com/models/m16.html, 2017.
[31] “Lilium Aviation,” https://lifeboat.com/blog/2016/05/lilium-aviation, 2016.
[32] Duffy, M. J., Wakayama, S. R., Hupp, R., Lacy, R., and Stauffer, M., “A Study in Reducing the Cost of
Vertical Flight with Electric Propulsion,” Conference Paper, 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and
Operations Conference, Denver, CO, 2017.
[33] “BLADE - The Sharpest Way to Fly,” https://www.flyblade.com/, 2017.
[34] “New York City Helicopter Tours,” https://www.newyorkhelicopter.com/, 2017.
[35] “SkyVector: Flight Planning / Aeronautical Charts,” https://skyvector.com/, 2017.
[36] Vascik, P. D. and Hansman, R. J., “Evaluation of Key Operational Constraints Affecting On-Demand Mobility
for Aviation in the Los Angeles Basin: Ground Infrastructure, Air Traffic Control and Noise,” Conference Paper,
17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, Denver,
CO, 2017.
[37] Campbell, M., “Patent filings detail Retina MacBook Pro’s quiet asymmetric fans,” http://appleinsider.com/
articles/12/12/20/patent-filings-detail-retina-macbook-pros-quiet-asymmetric-fans, 2012.
[38] Moore, M. D. and Fredericks, B., “Misconceptions of Electric Propulsion Aircraft and Their Emergent Aviation
Markets,” Conference Paper, AIAA SciTech, 2014.
[39] FAA, “U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics,” https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/
civil_airmen_statistics/, 2016.
[40] Herniczek, M. K., Feszty, D., Meslioui, S.-A., and Park, J., “Applicability of Early Acoustic Theory for Modern
Propeller Design,” Conference Paper, 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum,
Denver, CO, 2017.
[41] “Prediction Procedure for Near-Field and Far-Field Propeller Noise,” Technical Standard AIR1407, Society of
Automotive Engineers, 1977.

46