Motivation

Global air travel is expected to

grow by 3 fold over the next 3 decades

Aviations contribution to global warming
is expected to grow to 20% by 2050
Source: Lee et al., Aviation and Global Climate Change in the 21
st
Century , 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t

B
u
i
l
t

Airbus A330/A340 Development
Market penetration
Study
Launch
Delivery
Objective

Use formation ight to improve the energy
efciency and economic performance of todays aircraft
Design Studies
Route Optimization
Conclusion
Formation Flight
Policy Considerations
Formation Flight
Photo Source: John Benson, V is for Vamoose, Creative Commons
Bird Migration:
190 BPM when flying solo; 160 BPM when in formation
(Weimerskirch, Martin, Clerquin, Alexandre, and
Jiraskov, 2001)
NASA Autonomous Formation Flight Experiment
demonstrated14-18% fuel savings (Ray et al. 2002)
Photo source: NASA
Apply formation flight to an airline schedule and
demonstrate 7.7% fuel or 2.6% cost savings

1
2
0

W


1
0
0

W

8
0

W

60

W 40

W
2
0

W

0

2
0

E


2
0

N


4
0

N


6
0

N


1
2
0

W


1
0
0

W

8
0

W

60

W 40

W
2
0

W

0

2
0

E


2
0

N


4
0

N


6
0

N

Baseline Schedule
Optimized Formation
Flight Schedule
Xu, Ning, Bower, Kroo, Aircraft Route Optimization for Formation Flight, Journal of Aircraft, In Press
When an aircraft produces lift it also creates
energetic and persistent wake vortices




The wake vortices create regions of
downwash and upwash
Ning, Aircraft Drag Reduction Through Extended Formation Flight, 2011




A trailing aircraft flying through the upwash
can reduce its drag at fixed lift

This can lead to reduced fuel burn or longer
range
(Lissaman, 1970, Weimerskirch et al. 2001, Blake and Multhopp, 1998)
Close formation flight may not be safe or
practical for commercial aviation
Wake vortices can persist for many miles before
being dissipated by viscous forces

Extended formation flight can achieve most of
the savings of close formation flight
5 to 40 wing spans
5 to 40 wing spans
Trailing aircraft see all of the savings

Wake evolution is an important
consideration
Design Studies
Route Optimization
Conclusion
Formation Flight
Policy Considerations
Route Optimization
(Lal
2
, Lon
2
)
(Lal
8
, Lon
8
)
o
a
o
o
Departure
ArrIvaI
(Lal
1
, Lon
1
)
(Lal
4
, Lon
4
)
Hendezvous
SeperatIon
Mission Level

Continuous domain aircraft
mission performance
optimization

Gradient-based method

1
2
0

W


1
0
0

W

8
0

W

60

W

40

W
2
0

W




0

2
0

E


2
0

N


4
0

N


6
0

N

(Lal
2
, Lon
2
)
(Lal
8
, Lon
8
)
o
a
o
o
Departure
ArrIvaI
(Lal
1
, Lon
1
)
(Lal
4
, Lon
4
)
Hendezvous
SeperatIon
Mission Level

Continuous domain aircraft
mission performance
optimization

Gradient-based method
System Level

Find the best schedule of
optimized missions

Integer programing
All possible solo and
formation missions
n candidate solo and
formation missions
Heuristic filter to eliminate
bad routes
n optimized missions
Integer programming to
optimized schedule
Optimized schedule
Optimize
mission 1

Optimize
mission 2
Optimize
mission 3
Optimize
mission n
Flight schedule
All possible solo and
formation missions
n candidate solo and
formation missions
Heuristic filter to eliminate
bad routes
n optimized missions
Integer programming to
optimized schedule
Optimized schedule
Optimize
mission 1

Optimize
mission 2
Optimize
mission 3
Optimize
mission n
Flight schedule
Baseline ight
schedule
Optimized formation
ight schedule
All possible solo and
formation missions
n candidate solo and
formation missions
Heuristic filter to eliminate
bad routes
n optimized missions
Integer programming to
optimized schedule
Optimized schedule
Optimize
mission 1

Optimize
mission 2
Optimize
mission 3
Optimize
mission n
Flight schedule
Combinatorial set of
all possible
formations
All possible solo and
formation missions
n candidate solo and
formation missions
Heuristic filter to eliminate
bad routes
n optimized missions
Integer programming to
optimized schedule
Optimized schedule
Optimize
mission 1

Optimize
mission 2
Optimize
mission 3
Optimize
mission n
Flight schedule
Reduce the size of the
problem
All possible solo and
formation missions
n candidate solo and
formation missions
Heuristic filter to eliminate
bad routes
n optimized missions
Integer programming to
optimized schedule
Optimized schedule
Optimize
mission 1

Optimize
mission 2
Optimize
mission 3
Optimize
mission n
Flight schedule
Gradient-based
mission
optimizations
All possible solo and
formation missions
n candidate solo and
formation missions
Heuristic filter to eliminate
bad routes
n optimized missions
Integer programming to
optimized schedule
Optimized schedule
Optimize
mission 1

Optimize
mission 2
Optimize
mission 3
Optimize
mission n
Flight schedule
Integer programing
to nd the best
schedule of ights
! For n ights there are:
! n solo routes
! n(n-1) two-aircraft formation routes
! n(n-1)(n-2) three-aircraft formation routes
! NP-hard problem
! But only a small subset of formations is practical
! Filters formations based on spatial and temporal
proximity





















d
dij
+d
aij
d
i
+d
j
<
d


































|
a
i

a
j
| <
ij
|
d
i

d
j
| <
ij































































t
overlap
t
elapsed
=
min (t
ai
, t
aj
) max (t
di
, t
dj
) +t
dmax
+t
amax
max (t
ai
, t
aj
) min (t
di
, t
dj
) t
dmax
t
amax
>
t
! Objectives
! Fuel burn
! Direct operating cost (DOC)
! Variables (4-D trajectory)
! Altitudes, weight and Mach numbers
! Formation rendezvous longitudes, latitudes and altitudes
! Departure and arrival times
! Constraints
! Rendezvous time and ight state compatibility
! Segment range
! Thrust margins
! Flight time
Induced drag is sensitive to the offset between vortex
and wing tip as well as the longitudinal position

Model accounts for wake roll-up and viscous decay

C
D
i
= f(C
L
, S
ref
, b, x, y, z, formation type)
y
tip
z
tip
y
z
Aircraft of different types are optimally arranged in
formation according to relative weight and fuel
efciency (Ning and Kroo, 2011, Xu, Ning, Bower and
Kroo , 2013)
CHAPTER 2. FORMATION FLIGHT FUNDAMENTALS 18
like the weights of the aircraft, specic fuel consumption of the engines, and stage
length of the mission. However, examining the formations more fundamentally, we
see that the echelon and V formation are essentially simple extensions of the 2-aircraft
formation, whereas the inverted-V formation oers some unique characteristics.
V Formation Echelon Formation nverted-V Formation
Figure 2.8: The three dierent types of 3-aircraft formations.
In the inverted-V formation the trailing aircraft ies in nearly symmetric loading
conditions (Figure 2.9), whereas the trailing aircraft in the other formations have
signicant induced rolling moments from the upstream wake. Also, both the V and
echelon formation have two aircraft that realize signicant drag savings. However, in
the inverted-V formation, almost all of the formation drag savings are realized by one
aircraft. These dierences present both advantages and disadvantages.
The nearly symmetric loading of the inverted-V is advantageous because it reduces
the amount of control surface deection required to trim the aircraft in roll. This may
be particularly important at transonic speeds where large control surface deection
can cause not only more signicant increases in drag, but also buet or other aeroe-
lastic eects. The symmetric conditions also make the inverted-V a statically stable
formation which may allow for simpler control schemes, whereas the other two for-
mations are not statically stable [14]. Symmetric loading can also be structurally
advantageous, as aircraft are designed to y in symmetric load conditions.
However, there are some disadvantages to this arrangement. It may be more
C
D
i
= f(C
L
, S
ref
, b, x, y, z, formation type)
(a) vortex inow (b) top down view
Figure 19: (a) streamwise vorticity contours depict the incoming vortex on the trail aircraft. The other
wingtip vortex is not displayed. (b) planform view of the CRM colored by streamwise vorticity contours.
Mesh renement proceeds around the body as well as upstream to the inow plane to capture the incoming
vorticies.
3.4 Mach Number Sensitivity
A key component of transonic ight is the drag divergence which occurs at a critical Mach Number. Fig. 20
(a) shows sensitivity of inviscid drag to Mach Number at constant C
L
of the wing-body CRM geometry.
At Mach of 0.79, the wing is essentially shock free, and at 0.85 a strong shock sits on the aft section of
the wing. Fig. 20 (b) gives the inviscid drag (on lead and trail aircraft) as a function of Mach Number
at transonic conditions when the incoming vortex is positioned at the wingtip. Without trimming in roll,
savings of nearly 50% in inviscid drag is achieved. When roll-trim is accounted for, this savings is decreased
to about 35%. Overall, trim accounts for about a 15% erosion of formation ight benets in transonic ight.
In addition, this delta remains fairly insensitive to Mach Number for the range tested.
(a) out-of-formation (b) in-formation
Figure 20: (a) Mach sensitivity of CRM for out-of-formation ight (lead aircraft). At Mach of 0.79, the wing
is essentially shock free, while at Mach of 0.85, a strong shock sits on the aft section of the wing. (b) Mach
Sensitivity with roll-trim. Transonic trim accounts for about 15% erosion of formation ight benets.
16
! Drag buildup
! Induced drag from the formation drag model and
elliptic load assumptions
! Parasite drag from modied at plate methods
! Compressibility drag from the method of Shevell
(1983)
! Engine model included in the analysis
! Balance formation cost and fuel savings
! Direct operating cost model (Liebeck et al. 1995)
! $/block hour (crew)
! $/ight hour (airframe and engine maintenance)
! $/gal of fuel and $/lb of oil
! Neglect landing fees, insurance and depreciation

D
T
< 0.88
Compute aircraft drag, fuel flow and performance at the 4 flight states

d
k
< r
k
Integrate for the segment range using the Breguet equation

The fuel burn objective falls out of the weight

J = W
4
W
1
+W
f
c
(Lal
2
, Lon
2
)
(Lal
8
, Lon
8
)
o
a
o
o
Departure
ArrIvaI
(Lal
1
, Lon
1
)
(Lal
4
, Lon
4
)
Hendezvous
SeperatIon
Segments represent great circle routes




h
4
M
4
,W
4
h
8
M
8
,W
8
M
1
,W
1
h
1
h
2
M
2
,W
2
Lal
2
, Lon
2
Lal
8
, Lon
8
^l
o
^l
a
Foinalion Sognonl
Middle segment is flown in formation
Rendezvous and separation longitude and latitudes are design variables
h
2
i
= h
2
h
3
i
= h
3
M
2
i
= M
2
M
3
i
= M
3
t
2
i
= t
2
t
3
i
= t
3
! Formation Flight Fuel Reserve
! Models the worst case scenario where an aircraft ies
the longer formation mission but gets no drag savings
! The aircraft must still carry enough fuel to reach its
destination
! The additional weight from the reserve fuel cut
formation ight savings by 25%
! Our conservative model of formation ight
reduces the fuel burned, but not the fuel carried
! Find the best combination of individually
optimal solo and formation missions
! Integer-programming solver with branch and
bound algorithms
minimize J
schedule
=
3
X
k=1
J
mission
T
k
x
schedule
k
w.r.t. [x
schedule
1
, x
schedule
2
, x
schedule
3
]
s.t.
3
X
k=1
A
schedule
k
x
schedule
k
= e
minimize J
schedule
=
3
X
k=1
J
mission
T
k
x
schedule
k
w.r.t. [x
schedule
1
, x
schedule
2
, x
schedule
3
]
s.t.
3
X
k=1
A
schedule
k
x
schedule
k
= e
Objective: total fuel burn or cost for the entire ight schedule
minimize J
schedule
=
3
X
k=1
J
mission
T
k
x
schedule
k
w.r.t. [x
schedule
1
, x
schedule
2
, x
schedule
3
]
s.t.
3
X
k=1
A
schedule
k
x
schedule
k
= e
Variables: which solo and formations routes are own
minimize J
schedule
=
3
X
k=1
J
mission
T
k
x
schedule
k
w.r.t. [x
schedule
1
, x
schedule
2
, x
schedule
3
]
s.t.
3
X
k=1
A
schedule
k
x
schedule
k
= e
Constraints: all scheduled ight must y once
Design Studies
Route Optimization
Conclusion
Formation Flight
Policy Considerations
Design Studies
! 150 eastbound Star Alliance transatlantic flights
! Airbus A330 and A340
! Boeing 737,747,757,767 and 777

1
2
0

W


1
0
0

W



8
0

W

60

W

40

W
2
0

W




0

2
0

E


2
0

N


4
0

N


6
0

N

! Restrictive heuristic lters
! The departure and arrival heading differences are less
than 30 degrees
! 6 minutes of departure and arrival time exibility
! Optimize 2,500 of the 3.3 million possible
formations
! 1-week runtime on a laptop

1
2
0

W


1
0
0

W



8
0

W

60

W

40

W
2
0

W




0

2
0

E


2
0

N


4
0

N


6
0

N

-6.9% Fuel
-2.6% Cost
Minimum Cost Minimum Fuel
Solo Missions 37 23
2-Aircraft Formations 22 26
3-Aircraft Formations 23 25
Distance in Formation 61.1% 67.5%
Change in Flight Time 4.9% 7.4%
Change in Departure Time 5.0% 4.8%

1
2
0

W


1
0
0

W



8
0

W

60

W

40

W
2
0

W




0

2
0

E


2
0

N


4
0

N


6
0

N

-7.7% Fuel
-2.2% Cost
Minimum Cost Minimum Fuel
Solo Missions 37 23
2-Aircraft Formations 22 26
3-Aircraft Formations 23 25
Distance in Formation 61.1% 67.5%
Change in Flight Time 4.9% 7.4%
Change in Departure Time 5.0% 4.8%
Design Studies
Route Optimization
Conclusion
Formation Flight
Policy Considerations
Conclusion
! Formation ight can signicantly reduce airline
fuel burn and cost:
! 7.7% fuel or 2.6% cost savings for a large transatlantic
alliance schedule
! Results includes the effects of conservative fuel
reserves
Boeing 787
Finalist, 2009 Airbus Fly Your Idea (FYI) Competition
Proposed formation flight at the 2009 Paris Airshow
Inspire public interest and discussions on formation flight
and sustainable aviation
Air Force/DARPA/NASA Experiment

Test flight from Edwards AFB to Hawaii in July,
2013 demonstrated10% fuel savings at
longitudinal separations of 2000 to 6000 ft
Photo source: USAF
Pahle, et. al, A Preliminary Flight Investigation of Formation Flight
for Drag Reduction on the C-17 Aircraft, 2011
Design Studies
Route Optimization
Conclusion
Formation Flight
Future Work Future Work
! Alternative formation reserve fuel requirements
! Cost sharing for multi-airline formations
! Model multi-stage ights with delay
! Incorporate wake tracking sensors constraints
! Formation ight can benet from next
generation air trafc control systems
! Next Generation Air Transport System (NextGen)
! Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR)
! Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
(ADS-B)
Photo source: Boeing
Photo source: Boeing
GNSS provide high resolution
position and velocity data

Replaces legacy ground-based
radar tracking
Photo source: Boeing
Ground-based transmission
towers and data networks relay
aircraft state and trajectory to
ATC

Replaces legacy voice-based
coordination procedures
GNSS provide high resolution
position and velocity data

Replaces legacy ground-based
radar tracking
Photo source: Boeing
In-flight network share time-
sensitivity spacing and collision
avoidance data
Ground-based transmission
towers and data networks relay
aircraft state and trajectory to
ATC

Replaces legacy voice-based
coordination procedures
GNSS provide high resolution
position and velocity data

Replaces legacy ground-based
radar tracking
! NextGen and SESAR provide the infrastructure
for optimized formation ight:
! Allow aircraft to select optimal trajectories (altitude
and cross-track)
! Reduce separation requirements, which improves
formation ight savings
! Provide accurate, high-frequency update of aircraft
position and trajectory
! Support coordinated, 4-D ight planning
! Formation ight can boost the policy argument
for NextGen and SESAR
! The FAA expects NextGen to reduce aviation fuel
consumption by 1.4 billion gallons by 2018
! Formation ight can boost these savings by 800
million gallons
! Design formation ight technology
demonstrations for NextGen and SESAR
! Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce
Emissions (AIRE)
! Incorporate formation ight requirements into
next generation ATC development
The Department of Defense is the largest
institutional petroleum user in the world

DoD requests $1.4 billion in FY2013 budget to
improve energy efficiency
The Air Force accounts for 53% of DoD
energy consumption

The Air Mobility Command accounts for 64%
of Air Force fuel consumption
Boeing C-17

16-year, $40 billion program

C-X Concept Study: 1979
First Flight: 1991
IOC: 1995
Airbus A-400M

35-year, EUR 20 billion+ program

FIMA Concept Study: 1982
First Flight: 1991
IOC: 2017+
Military Air Mobility
High quality station-
keeping systems

High risk tolerance

Reduced ride quality
requirement
Air Cargo
Simplified mission
planning around major
hubs

Older air cargo fleet
stand to benefit

No passenger
acceptance issues
Military Air Mobility
High quality station-
keeping systems

High risk tolerance

Reduced ride quality
requirement
Military Air Mobility
High quality station-
keeping systems

High risk tolerance

Reduced ride quality
requirement
Air Cargo Single Airlines
Simplified mission
planning around major
hubs

Older air cargo fleet
stand to benefit

No passenger
acceptance issues
No cost/benefit sharing
issues

Depends on the success
of next generation Air
Traffic Control systems
Military Air Mobility
High quality station-
keeping systems

High risk tolerance

Reduced ride quality
requirement
Air Cargo Single Airlines Airline Alliances
Simplified mission
planning around major
hubs

Older air cargo fleet
stand to benefit

No passenger
acceptance issues
No cost/benefit sharing
issues

Depends on the success
of next generation Air
Traffic Control systems
Institutional framework
for cost/benefit sharing

More flights; more
savings
Use formation flight to moderate the design tradeoffs
among persistence, stealth and speed
D
i
=
L
2
qb
2
e
i
Induced drag accounts for 30-40% of aircraft drag in cruise

Large wing span minimizes induced drag
Use variable geometry to reconcile the conflicting
requirements posed by different flight segments
Munks Stagger Theorem
The induced drag of a lifting system is
unchanged as its elements move in the
streamwise direction*
Munks Stagger Theorem
The induced drag of a lifting system is
unchanged as its elements move in the
streamwise direction*
Use virtual variable geometry to increase
the effective span of low observable UAVs
Fo
rm
a
tio
n
in
g
re
ss
Fo
rm
a
tio
n
in
g
re
ss
Formation orbit
Fo
rm
a
tio
n
in
g
re
ss
Formation orbit
Individual and formation
ISR orbits
Fo
rm
a
tio
n
in
g
re
ss
Strike
Formation orbit
Individual and formation
ISR orbits
Fo
rm
a
tio
n
in
g
re
ss
Strike
Formation orbit
Individual and formation
ISR orbits
! Pahle, J et. al, A Preliminary Flight Investigation of Formation Flight for Drag Reduction on the C-17
Aircraft, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
! Ray, R. J., Cobleigh, B. R., Vachon, M. J., and John, C. S., Flight Test Techniques Used to Evaluate
Performance Benets During Formation Flight, TP-2002-210730, NASA, 2002
! Bower, G. and Kroo, I., Multi-Objective Aircraft Optimization for Minimum Cost and Emissions
Over Specic Route Networks, ICAS Congress, 2008
! Bower, G., Flanzer, T., and Kroo, I., Formation Geometries and Route Optimization for Commercial
Formation Flight, AIAA Paper, 2009
! Betz, A., Behavior of Vortex Systems, TM-713, NACA, 1933
! Holzapfel, F., Probabilistic Two-Phase Wake Vortex Decay and Transport Model, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 40, No. 2, March 2003
! King, R. M. and Gopalarathnam, A., Ideal Aerodynamics of Ground Eect and Formation Flight,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 42, No. 5, September 2005
! Ning, S. A., Aircraft Drag Reduction Through Extended Formation Flight, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford
University, 2011
! Xu, J. Ning, A. Bower, G. Kroo, I. Aircraft Route Optimization for Formation Flight, Journal of
Aircraft, In Press
! Moshe, S. Blakeley, K. ORourke, R. Department of Defense Energy Initiatives: Background and
Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2012
! Weimerskirch, H., Martin, J., Clerquin, Y., Alexandre, P., and Jiraskova, S., Energy Saving in Flight
Formation, Nature, Vol. 413, No. 6857, 10 2001, pp. 697698, doi:10.1038/35099670.
! David S. Lee, David W. Fahey, Piers M. Forster, Peter J. Newton, Ron C.N. Wit, Ling L. Lim, Bethan
Owan, and Robert Sausen. Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century. Atmospheric
Environment, 43:35203537, 2009.