Master Thesis

Dennis Camilo

Comparing Aircraft Wake Turbulence

Categories with Induced Power Calculation

Fakultät Technik und Informatik Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science

Department Fahrzeugtechnik und Department of Automotive and

Flugzeugbau Aeronautical Engineering
 2

Dennis Camilo

Comparing Aircraft Wake Turbulence

Categories with Induced Power Calculation

Master Thesis submitted as part of the master examination

in the degree course Aeronautical Engineering

at the Department of Automotive and Aeronautical Engineering
of the Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science
at Hamburg University of Applied Sciences

First examiner: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter Scholz

Second examiner: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Wagner

Submitted: 30.12.2022
 3

DOI:
[Link]

URN:
[Link]
Associated URLs:
[Link]

© This work is protected by copyright

The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0

International License: CC BY-NC-SA
[Link]

Any further request may be directed to:

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dieter Scholz, MSME
E-Mail see: [Link]

This work is part of:

Digital Library - Projects & Theses - Prof. Dr. Scholz
[Link]

Published by
Aircraft Design and Systems Group (AERO)
Department of Automotive and Aeronautical Engineering
Hamburg University of Applied Science

This report is deposited and archived:

• Deutsche Nationalbiliothek ([Link]
• Repositorium der Leibniz Universität Hannover ([Link]
• Internet Archive ([Link]
Item: [Link]

This report has associated published data in Harvard Dataverse:

[Link]
 4

Name of student
Dennis Camilo

Title of the report

Comparing Aircraft Wake Turbulence Categories with Induced Power Calculation

Keywords (LCSH)
Aeronautics, Airplanes, Aerospace engineering, Airplanes--Performance, Aerodynamics,
Drag (Aerodynamics), Airplane--Wings, Vortex shedding

Abstract

Purpose – Definition of new Wake Turbulence Categories (WTC) based on the calculation of
induced power of aircraft on approach. This requires the parameters aircraft mass, span,
approach speed, air density, and Oswald factor (calculated from wing aspect ratio, wing
sweep, wing taper ratio, winglet height, and fuselage diameter). This is considerably more
detailed than other metrics based on aircraft mass only or aircraft mass together with wing
span.
Methodology – 89 different aircraft are selected which vary significantly in their parameters.
Parameters are determined from the Internet; Oswald factor and induced power is
calculated. Suitable boundaries of the new WTC (CAT I, II, III, IV) are determined based on
induced power. Aircraft with their new categories are presented and compared to FAA,
EUROCONTROL, CAA and ICAO WTCs.
Findings – Induced power can be derived not only from induced drag (as a function of lift),
but also from the energy in the vortex. When compared to FAA, EUROCONTROL, CAA and
ICAO WTC, the new Wake Turbulence Categories seems to offer categorization with more
consistency.
Research Limitations – New (reduced) wake separation minima are not considered.
Physics based separation minima would need a double classification of each aircraft: a)
classification related to wake vortex generation as done here and b) classification related to
rolling resistance. Wake separation minima would then be allocated from a pairwise
comparison.
Practical Implications – Physics based WTC may categorize more reliable, which increases
safety when applied to given separation minima.
Originality – Induced power has not been used as metric for wake turbulence before.
 5

Name des Studierenden

Dennis Camilo

Thema der Masterarbeit

Vergleich von Wirbelschleppen-Kategorien von Flugzeugen mit der Berechnung der
induzierten Leistung

Stichworte (GND)
Luftfahrt, Luftfahrzeug, Flugmechanik, Aerodynamik, Passagierflugzeug, Wirbelschleppe,
Leistung, Flügel, Spannweite

Kurzreferat

Zweck – Definition neuer Wake Turbulence Categories (WTC) basierend auf der
Berechnung der induzierten Leistung von Flugzeugen beim Anflug. Dazu werden die
Parameter Flugzeugmasse, Spannweite, Anfluggeschwindigkeit, Luftdichte und Oswald-
Faktor (berechnet aus Flügelstreckung, Flügelpfeilung, Flügelzuspitzung, Winglethöhe und
Rumpfdurchmesser) benötigt. Dies ist erheblich detaillierter als andere Metriken, die nur auf
der Flugzeugmasse oder der Flugzeugmasse zusammen mit der Spannweite basieren.
Methodik – Es werden 89 verschiedene Flugzeuge ausgewählt, die sich in ihren Parametern
stark unterscheiden. Parameter werden aus dem Internet ermittelt, Oswaldfaktor und
induzierte Leistung werden berechnet. Geeignete Grenzen der neuen WTC (CAT I, II, III, IV)
werden basierend auf der induzierten Leistung bestimmt. Flugzeuge mit ihren neuen
Kategorien werden vorgestellt und mit WTCs von FAA, EUROCONTROL, CAA und ICAO
verglichen.
Ergebnisse – Die induzierte Leistung kann nicht nur aus dem induzierten Widerstand (als
Funktion des Auftriebs), sondern auch aus der Energie im Wirbel abgeleitet werden. Im
Vergleich zu FAA, EUROCONTROL, CAA und ICAO WTC scheinen die neuen Wake
Turbulence-Kategorien eine konsistentere Kategorisierung zu bieten.
Grenzen der Anwendbarkeit – Eine neue Staffelung mit reduzierten Abständen wird nicht
betrachtet. Eine physikalisch basierte Staffelung würden eine doppelte Klassifikation jedes
Flugzeugs erfordern: a) eine Klassifikation bezogen auf Wirbelschleppenerzeugung wie hier
durchgeführt und b) eine Klassifikation bezogen auf dem Beharrungsvermögen hinsichtlich
des Rollens um die X-Achse. Eine Staffelung würde sich dann aus einem paarweisen
Vergleich ergeben.
Bedeutung für die Praxis – WTCs auf Basis der Physik können eine zuverlässigere
Einteilung bringen. Das erhöht die Sicherheit, wenn die Einteilung auf gegebenen
Mindestabständen beruht.
Originalität – Induzierte Leistung wurde bisher nicht als Maß für Wirbelschleppen
verwendet.
 6

DEPARTMENT OF AUTOMOTIVE AND AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

Comparing Aircraft Wake Turbulence Categories with

Induced Power Calculation

Task for a Master Thesis

Background
Aircraft produce wake turbulence or wake vortex turbulence. The whole topic is covered here
with many articles. Depending on their vortex strength, aircraft are put in categories. The
criteria for the categories vary. ICAO goes by aircraft mass and lists aircraft by category.
EUROCONTROL goes by aircraft mass and wing span (Figure 6) and also lists aircraft by
category (Table 2). Also, the FAA lists aircraft by category (Table A-1). Flight mechanics on
the topic can be quite simple. The vortex strength can be calculated with what we call
"induced power". I have explained it here.

Task
Your task is
• to perform a small systematic literature review on the term "induced power" (you may not
find much),
• to select a number of aircraft that are sufficiently different in maximum take-off mass,
wing span and other characteristics (include in your list also aircraft that are known to have
special characteristics like B757 and A380, include in your list aircraft that are in the list of
ICAO, FAA, and EUROCONTROL),
• to determine the relevant parameters for your aircraft (as they are necessary to calculate
"induced power"), e.g. maximum landing mass, wing span, approach speed, and estimate
the Oswald factor,
• to calculate "induced Power" of the selected aircraft on approach,
• to compare the calculated "induced Power" with the official categories from ICAO, FAA,
and EUROCONTROL,
• to draw your conclusions,
• to define your own Wake Turbulence Categories (WTC).

The report has to be written in English based on German or international standards on report
writing.
 7

Table of Contents Inhalt (Dipl-Überschrift 1)

page
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 9
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ 10
List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................ 11
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 12

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 13
1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................. 13
1.2 Title Terminology.................................................................................................. 13
1.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................. 14
1.4 Literature Review .................................................................................................. 15
1.5 Structure ................................................................................................................ 15

2 Literature Review ................................................................................................ 16

3 Theoretical Basics ................................................................................................ 18

3.1 Creation of Wake Turbulence ............................................................................... 18
3.2 Influencing Factors ................................................................................................ 20
3.3 Wake Vortex Encounter Scenarios........................................................................ 21
3.4 Vortex Models ....................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Wake Turbulence Classification ........................................................................... 24
3.5.1 ICAO Categorization ............................................................................................. 24
3.5.2 EUROCONTROL Categorization (RECAT-EU) ................................................. 25
3.5.3 FAA Categorization .............................................................................................. 27
3.5.4 CAA Categorization .............................................................................................. 28
3.6 Wake Vortex Separation ....................................................................................... 28

4 Methodology......................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Induced Power Calculation ................................................................................... 30
4.2 Estimation of the Oswald Factor ........................................................................... 33
4.2.1 Calculation of the Oswald Factor without Input of CD0 ........................................ 33
4.2.2 Calculation of the Oswald Factor with Input of CD0 ............................................. 34
4.3 Aircraft Selection .................................................................................................. 35

5 Results................................................................................................................... 37
5.1 Recommended WTC Classification ...................................................................... 37
5.2 Comparison with Conventional Classification ...................................................... 39
5.3 Evaluation of A380 and B757 WTC ..................................................................... 42

6 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................. 43

7 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 44
 8

List of References ................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A – Induced Power Calculation ........................................................................... 50

Appendix B – Calculation of the Oswald Factor without Input of CD0 ............................. 51

Appendix C – Calculation of the Oswald Factor with Input of CD0 .................................. 52

 9

List of Figures Verzeichnis der Bilder (Dipl-Überschrift 1)

Figure 3.1 The vortex wake behind a lifting wing (McLean 2005) .............................. 18
Figure 3.2 Visible vortices behind a flying aircraft (Rill 1996) .................................... 19
Figure 3.3 Stages of the vortex wake behind an aircraft (Breitsamter 2010) ................ 19
Figure 3.4 Factors affecting wake encounters (Liu 2007)............................................. 20
Figure 3.5 Three different vortex encounter scenarios (De Kat 2007) ......................... 21
Figure 3.6 Schematic of the Rankine vortex velocity profile (Aboelkassem 2005) ..... 22
Figure 3.7 Superposition of two counter-rotating Lamb-Oseen vortices
(Breitsamter 2010) ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.8 Wake turbulence categorization according to Eurocontrol
(Eurocontrol 2018) ....................................................................................... 25
Figure 5.1 Examined aircraft sorted according to induced power in descending order 37
Figure 5.2 Induced power according HAW Hamburg WTC ........................................ 39
Figure 5.3 Induced power according ICAO WTC ........................................................ 40
Figure 5.4 Induced power according EUROCONTROL WTC .................................... 40
Figure 5.5 Induced power according FAA WTC .......................................................... 41
Figure 5.6 Induced power according CAA WTC.......................................................... 41
 10

List of Tables Verzeichnis der Tabellen (Dipl-Überschrift 1)

Table 3.1 Aircraft types assigned to wake turbulence categories (Eurocontrol 2018) 26
Table 3.2 Aircraft types assigned to wake turbulence categories (FAA 2019) ........... 27
Table 3.3 ICAO wake turbulence categories and separation minima
(Eurocontrol 2018) ....................................................................................... 28
Table 3.4 RECAT-EU WT separation minima on approach and departure
(Eurocontrol 2018) ....................................................................................... 29
Table 4.1 Values for the correction factor k_e_D0 (Scholz 2012) .............................. 33
Table 4.2 Examined aircraft models ............................................................................ 35
Table 5.1 HAW Hamburg Wake Turbulence Categories ............................................ 38
Table 5.2 Aircraft types assigned according to HAW Hamburg WTC ....................... 38
 11

List of Symbols Liste der Symbole (Dipl-Überschrift 1)

A aspect ratio
b wing span
𝐶𝐷,0 zero drag coefficient
𝐶𝑓𝑒 skin friction coefficient
𝐶𝐿 lift coefficient
𝐷𝑖 induced drag
𝑑𝐹 fuselage diameter
𝐸𝑘 kinetic energy per unit length
𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 theoretical Oswald factor
e Oswald factor
g gravitational acceleration
h winglet height
𝐼𝑥 moment of inertia about the x-axis
𝑘𝑒,𝐷0 correction factor (viscous drag)
𝑘𝑒,𝐹 correction factor (fuselage)
𝑘𝑒,𝑀 correction factor (compressibility)
𝑘𝑒,𝑊𝐿 correction factor (winglets)
𝐿𝑅 rolling moment
L lift force
m aircraft mass
𝑃𝑤𝑎𝑘𝑒 induced power
𝑝̇ roll acceleration
𝑟𝑐 vortex core radius
𝑆𝑊 reference wing area
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 wetted aircraft area
S wing area
V airspeed

Greek Symbols

𝜑25 quarter chord sweep

𝛤 circulation
𝜆 taper ratio
𝜌 air density
 12

List of Abbreviations Liste der Abkürzungen (Dipl-Überschrift 1)

AVOSS Aircraft Vortex Spacing System
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
HAW Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg (Hamburg University of
Applied Sciences)
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight
MW Megawatt
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PCDL Pulsed Coherent Doppler Lidar
WSVBS Wirbelschleppen-Vorhersage- und -Beobachtungssystem (Wake Vortex
Prediction and Monitoring System)
WTC Wake Turbulence Category
 13

1 Introduction

1.1 Motivation

One of the biggest challenges for aviation in the upcoming years will certainly be the
increasing number of passengers and, consequently, the increasing number of aircraft
movements. Airspace and, above all, airport capacities are limited.

At the same time, aircraft must maintain a certain separation to avoid encountering wake
vortices from aircraft flying ahead, which in the worst case can endanger flight safety. Wake
vortices are an unavoidable consequence of an aircraft generating lift and must thus always be
considered.

The challenge therefore is to categorize aircraft into wake turbulence categories as precisely
as feasible to enable as many aircraft movements as possible, but at the same time to ensure
that flight safety is always the utmost priority.

The criteria for categorizing aircraft wake turbulence differ. Most commonly, aircraft mass
and wingspan are considered to classify aircraft into wake turbulence categories. In this thesis
the objective is to use other variables related to flight mechanics and aircraft design to
calculate induced power and to categorize aircraft into new wake turbulence categories based
on these calculations.

With improved categorization, minimum separation distances can be optimized in the ideal
case, allowing the number of flight movements to be increased. However, this thesis only
aims to improve wake turbulence categorization and does not address the reduction of wake
separation minima.

1.2 Title Terminology

The title of this thesis is “Comparing Aircraft Wake Turbulence Categories with Induced
Power Calculation”. Following is a definition of each of the terms found in the title.

Comparison
Longman 2022a defines the term comparison as follows:

The process of comparing two or more people or things.

 14

Aircraft
The term aircraft is defined in Longman 2022b as follows:

A plane or other vehicle that can fly.

Wake Turbulence
SKYbrary 2022b defines wake turbulence as follows:

Wake … Turbulence is defined as turbulence which is generated by the passage of an

aircraft in flight.

Categories
In Merriam-Webster 2022 the term categories is defined as follows:

Any of several fundamental and distinct classes to which entities or concepts belong.

Induced Power
In Scholz 2022 the term induced power is defined as follows:

The power an aircraft continually contributes to its wake vortex.

Calculation
Longman 2022c defines the term calculation as follows:

When you use numbers in order to find out an amount, price, or value.

1.3 Objectives

The objective of this thesis is to define new Wake Turbulence Categories based on induced
power calculation and compare them to the categories which are used by EUROCONTROL,
FAA, CAA, and the ICAO to classify wake turbulence.

For this purpose, the induced power of several aircraft that vary significantly in mass,
wingspan and other characteristics will be calculated. Based on the results of these
calculations new Wake Turbulence Categories will be defined and compared to conventional
Wake Turbulence Categories.
 15

1.4 Literature Review

One important reference source is the master’s thesis from Liu 2007. Information about wake
encounter scenarios, parameters affecting the wake encounter and vortex models have been
obtained from this thesis.

The paper Breitsamter 2010 was used to obtain information about the generation of wake
vortices, encounter scenarios and the stages of wake vortex lifespan.

The equation for the calculation of induced power is derived from Scholz 2022. The equations
and methods for the estimation of the Oswald factor are obtained from Nita 2012.

Various sources were used for the required input parameters for the calculations in this thesis,
which are indicated in the Excel file containing the calculations.

1.5 Structure

This thesis consists of seven chapters with the following structure:

Chapter 2 A review of the research on wake vortices is presented in this chapter.

Chapter 3 This chapter explains the theoretical basics of wake turbulence. It is addressed
how wake turbulence is generated, and which factors influence a wake
encounter. Also, an insight is given into wake turbulence classification systems
and vortex models.
Chapter 4 In this chapter the methodology for the calculation of induced power is
explained.
Chapter 5 The results of the induced power calculation are presented in this chapter. The
new wake turbulence categories defined based on this calculation are then being
compared to conventional wake turbulence classification systems.
Chapter 6 The main results of this thesis are summarized and concluded.
Chapter 7 This chapter presents recommendations for further research and another
possible categorization for wake turbulence based on the induced power
calculation.

Additional research data for this thesis is separately available at Harvard Dataverse which can
be accessed here: [Link]
 16

2 Literature Review
For the literature research within this thesis, the search term “induced power” was initially
used. The only noteworthy literature found through this search is Anderson 1999 which
explains the fundamentals of induced power. Apart from this paper the search did not provide
any significant literature related to wake turbulence; therefore, the search was expanded to
include the search term “wake vortex”. The search for wake vortex leads to extensive
literature resources on wake vortex research, which are presented below.

A significant research subject within wake vortex research covers the generation and
dissipation mechanisms of wake vortices. In Rossow 1999 a comprehensive overview of
research on wake vortex generation and dissipation mechanisms by conducting numerous
experiments and observations is presented.

In Holzäpfel 2003b a probabilistic two-phase wake vortex decay model (P2P) is proposed
which predicts the behavior of wake vortices depending on environmental and aircraft
parameters. In another paper Holzäpfel 2003c studies wake vortex evolution and decay
mechanisms in various atmospheric conditions. This includes the research on the turbulent
decay of wake vortices in thermally stably stratified environments in Holzäpfel 2001.

Another research subject addresses the topic of wake encounters and the safety assessment of
wake encounters for following aircraft which is covered in Rossow 1999 as well. In
Bienik 2007 different wake encounter scenarios, which are defined by using various
parameters, are analyzed. Speijker 2007 also analyzes wake encounters and in addition
provides a safety assessment for aircraft encountering wake turbulence. In Liu 2007 wake
encounters are also being analyzed using a self-programmed code based on the Vortex Lattice
Method (VLM) to calculate the rolling moment induced on an aircraft flying through the
wake of another aircraft.

Furthermore, another subject within wake vortex research addresses the prediction and
monitoring of wake vortices. In Holzäpfel 2009 the wake vortex prediction and monitoring
system WSVBS is presented which aims to increase airport capacity with closely spaced
parallel runways by adjusting aircraft separations depending on environmental conditions. In
Gerz 2009 this wake vortex prediction system is applied in practice on the example of
Frankfurt Airport. Another wake vortex prediction system called Aircraft Vortex Spacing
System (AVOSS) was developed by NASA and is described in Robins 2002. Like WSVBS,
AVOSS aims to determine safe aircraft separations based on actual environmental and vortex-
detection data.
 17

In order to establish a wake vortex prediction and monitoring system it is necessary to obtain
valid wake-detection data. In Holzäpfel 2003a methods to detect wake vortices are presented
using Lidar. In Liu 2021 a pulsed coherent Doppler lidar (PCDL) is used to observe wake
vortex evolution under crosswind conditions.

With ever advancing research, continuous efforts are being made to reduce wake separation
minima with the objective of enabling as many aircraft movements as possible. Pan 2022
analyses to which extent wake separation can be reduced and how the reduction of separation
effects the safety of succeeding aircraft encountering the wake turbulence.

It is also important to mention the specialty regarding the Wake Turbulence Category of the
A380 discussed in Scholz 2022. Due to its large weight, the A380 is assigned by ICAO to the
specially created WTC Super which is explained in Section 3.5.1. Following aircraft must
therefore maintain a greater separation distance compared to aircraft in the WTC Heavy.
Before the A380 had its first flight, there were efforts by various stakeholders, like airlines,
pilots, or airports, to ensure that the A380 would be assigned to the existing WTC Heavy. An
assignment to WTC Super results in a decrease of an airport’s approach capacity due to the
larger separation. The expected advantage of being able to fill slots with a maximum number
of passengers is therefore relativized by this classification. Within this thesis it shall be
discussed how the decision of ICAO to define a new WTC for the A380 is to be evaluated.

Another notable specialty is the classification of the B757 into a Wake Turbulence Category.
According to the ICAO categorization, the WTC Medium is assigned. However, explained in
SKYbrary 2022a, some states use the WTC Heavy for the B757 being the only narrowbody
aircraft with this classification. The FAA also has a separate WTC category for the B757.
Therefore, also evaluated in this thesis is the extent to which the different treatment of the
B757 is appropriate.

The literature review proves that in recent years substantial research has been conducted and
is still being done on the subject of wake vortices. There is a good understanding of the
generation and dissipation mechanisms of wake vortices. It is also possible to provide precise
assessments regarding the hazards of wake encounters. Through wake-detection and
utilization of real-time weather data wake vortices can be predicted and monitored
extensively. Despite this far advanced research, the categorization of aircraft into Wake
Turbulence Categories, which is covered in the next chapter, is rather rudimentary. The
objective of this thesis will therefore be categorizing aircraft into WTC more precisely,
considering other variables than just the aircraft mass or wing span.
 18

3 Theoretical Basics
Wake turbulence is defined in SKYbrary 2022b as disturbance in the atmosphere which is
generated by the passage of an aircraft in flight. This turbulence in the wake of an aircraft in
flight is principally caused by wing tip vortices. In the following section, the physical
fundamentals of wake vortices are described further, as well as the categorization of wake
turbulence.

3.1 Creation of Wake Turbulence

As described in Breitsamter 2010 wake turbulence is a direct and natural consequence of the
generation of lift by a wing. The fundamental principle for generating lift is that the airflow
along the bottom of the wing is less accelerated than the flow on the upper side of the wing.
According to Bernoulli’s principle that the pressure in a fluid is reduced as the speed of the
flow is increased this results in the pressure on the bottom side being greater relative to the
upper side of the wing.

Since the span of the wing is finite there is a flow around the wing tip as a result of the
pressure difference and the subsequent aim to equate this state. This results in a strong vortex,
which is referred to as “wing tip vortex”. Between both counter-rotating wing tip vortices a
vortex sheet with downward velocities or downwash develops.

Depending on the ambient conditions, these vortices last for up to several minutes spreading
laterally from the aircraft while they continue to descend and decay gradually due to
instability and atmospheric effects. The wake vortex behind a lifting wing is depicted in
Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.1 The vortex wake behind a lifting wing (McLean 2005)
 19

Figure 3.2 Visible vortices behind a flying aircraft (Rill 1996)

According to Breitsamter 2010 the wake of an aircraft can be divided into four sections. The
near field is the area in which highly concentrated vortices form. The second region is the
extended near field. Here the wake vortices begin to roll up. Also, different co-vortices merge
in this area leading to two counter-rotating vortices at the end of the extended near field. In
the mid and far field the vortices begin to descend and gradually decay in the atmosphere. In
the decay or dispersion region the two vortices finally fully decay and collapse due to
instabilities. The different stages of the vortex wake are shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Stages of the vortex wake behind an aircraft (Breitsamter 2010)
 20

3.2 Influencing Factors

There are several factors to be considered when assessing the impact of wake vortices on
following aircraft. Figure 3.4 shows the different correlations according to Liu 2007. The
aircraft design and operational characteristics of the generating or leading aircraft, like
weight, span, span load and stall speed, determine the generation of the wake vortices and
their roll-up. The flight conditions of the leading aircraft, specifically the velocity and air
density, also influence the roll-up of wake vortices.

Weather conditions, like wind direction, wind speed, turbulence, and temperature profile,
have an impact on the vortex aging and the duration wake vortices persist. Slow windspeeds
and stable weather conditions favor an extended survival duration.

The characteristics of the aged wake vortex and the properties of the following aircraft,
including speed, wing span, intercept route, aspect, and taper ratio, eventually determine the
impact of wake vortices on the trailing aircraft. In this thesis, in order to recategorize wake
turbulence, only the characteristics of the leading aircraft are considered. External factors, like
weather conditions or the air traffic management, are not taken into account.

Figure 3.4 Factors affecting wake encounters (Liu 2007)

 21

3.3 Wake Vortex Encounter Scenarios

Figure 3.5 shows three different vortex wake encounters in which a following aircraft flies
through the vortex wake of a leading aircraft according to ICAO 1984 (page II-5-3-2), which
is also visualized in De Kat 2007:

Scenario 1: The aircraft flies into the wake perpendicular to the vortex wake of an aircraft.
This could cause high structural dynamic loads and increased turbulence during the wake
vortex encounter.

Scenario 2: The aircraft flies parallel and between the trailing counter-rotating wing tip
vortices. Due to the downwash in this region a wake encounter for a following aircraft can
either reduce its rate of climb or increase its rate of descent, which can especially be a serious
threat for aircraft during final approach.

Scenario 3: The aircraft flies along the vortex axis. This wake vortex encounter scenario is the
most dangerous because the airplane flies into a velocity field which induces a roll moment on
the following aircraft. This threat is especially of significance for aircraft flying in close
proximity to the ground during approach in case the induced moment exceeds the roll control
capability of the aircraft.

Figure 3.5 Three different vortex encounter scenarios (De Kat 2007)
 22

3.4 Vortex Models

Several models are used to describe the velocity distribution in a wing tip vortex. Liu 2007
gives an overview of historical models and recent models that try to resemble measured
velocity distributions. The Rankine vortex is the basic vortex model. The Lamb-Oseen vortex
combines two vortices each similar to the Rankine vortex to a flow system as it is shed from
the wing.

Rankine Vortex

The inner part of the vortex is in rotation like a solid body. At the center the flow is at rest.
The rotational velocity is proportional to the radius. This holds true up to the core radius, 𝑟𝑐
where the velocity, 𝑉 is at its maximum. From here on the circulation, 𝛤 is constant, and the
1
velocity profile is reduced hyperbolically with .This vortex model has been used to describe
𝑟
wind velocities in a hurricane and is shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 Schematic of the Rankine vortex velocity profile (Aboelkassem 2005)
 23

Lamb-Oseen Vortex

Also, the Lamb-Oseen vortex has its inner part in rotation like a solid body. At the center the
flow is at rest. The rotational velocity is proportional to the radius. At the core radius, 𝑟𝑐 the
velocity, 𝑉 is at its maximum. From here on the velocity is reduced with increasing radius as
given by

Γ𝜐 𝑟 2
−𝑎∙(𝑟 )
𝑉𝜃 (𝑟) = ∙ [1 − 𝑒 𝑐 ] (3.1)
2𝜋𝑟

with a = 1.256431, which puts the peak of velocity at the core radius, 𝑟𝑐 . Figure 3.7 shows
two counter-rotating Lamb-Oseen vortices of equal strength. The vortex cores are separated
𝜋
by the distance 𝑏0 = 𝑠 ∙ 𝑏 with 𝑠 = 𝑠0 = 4 and 𝑏 being the wing span. Hence the distance of
the vortices is less than wing span. The circulation based on the elliptical loaded wing is given
by

𝑚𝑔
Γ𝜐 = (3.2)
𝜌𝑠0 𝑏𝑉

Figure 3.7 Superposition of two counter-rotating Lamb-Oseen vortices (Breitsamter 2010)

 24

3.5 Wake Turbulence Classification

3.5.1 ICAO Categorization

The ICAO classifies wake turbulence based on the maximum take-off mass of the aircraft into
the following wake turbulence categories according to ICAO 2016 (page 4-12):

• J – SUPER: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 560000 kg

• H – HEAVY: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of less than
560000 kg but more than 136000 kg
• M – MEDIUM: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of less than
136000 kg but more than 7000 kg
• L – LIGHT: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 7000 kg or less

Variants of an aircraft type with different take-off masses might be classified within different
wake turbulence categories. Civil aviation authorities of individual states may also make
further changes to the classification and, for example, introduce additional categories.
ICAO 2022a contains designators for almost every aircraft. With ICAO 2022b it is possible to
search for a specific aircraft and obtain the aircraft type designator and the WTC associated
with it.
 25

3.5.2 EUROCONTROL Categorization (RECAT-EU)

The European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation, also known as Eurocontrol, has
developed a re-categorization of the ICAO wake turbulence categorization, called “RECAT-
EU” described in Eurocontrol 2018. In contrast to the ICAO categorization presented above,
in this approach Eurocontrol also considers the wingspan. The aim of this re-categorization is
to increase airport capacity by redefining wake turbulence categories and separation while
adhering to safety standards. The criteria and rules for assigning wake turbulence categories
according to Eurocontrol 2018 are presented in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8 Wake turbulence categorization according to Eurocontrol (Eurocontrol 2018)

Eurocontrol uses categories from CAT-A to CAT-F. CAT-F (Light) is used for aircraft with a
maximum certified take-off mass of less than 15000 kg. Aircraft with a take-off mass up to
100000 kg are classified in the medium category. If the wingspan is less than 32 m CAT-E
(Lower Medium) is used. Otherwise, if the wingspan is larger than 32 m the aircraft is
classified as CAT-D (Upper Medium). Aircraft with a take-off mass greater than 100000 kg
are considered as heavy. If the wingspan is less than 52 m CAT-C (Lower Heavy) is used. For
wingspans between 60 m and 72 m CAT-B (Upper Heavy) is applied. In case the wingspan is
larger than 72 m the aircraft is classified as CAT-A (Super Heavy). Should the wingspan
range between 52 m and 60 m either CAT-C or CAT-B is assigned depending on a further
analysis.
 26

Table 3.1 contains aircraft types assigned to wake turbulence categories classified by
Eurocontrol.

Table 3.1 Aircraft types assigned to wake turbulence categories (Eurocontrol 2018)
Super Heavy Upper Heavy Lower Heavy Upper Lower Light
Medium Medium
CAT-A CAT-B CAT-C CAT-D CAT-E CAT-F
A388 A332 A306 A318 AT43 FA10
A124 A333 A310 A319 AT45 FA20
A343 B703 A320 AT72 D328
A345 B752 A321 B712 E120
A346 B753 AN12 B732 BE40
A359 B762 B736 B733 H25B
B744 B763 B737 B734 JS32
B748 B764 B738 B735 JS41
B772 C135 B739 CL60 LJ35
B773 DC10 C130 CRJ1 LJ60
B77L DC85 IL18 CRJ2 SF34
B77W IL76 MD81 CRJ7 P180
B788 MD11 MD82 CRJ9 C650
B789 MD83 DH8D C525
IL96 MD87 E135 C180
MD88 E145 C152
MD90 E170
T204 E175
E190
E195
F70
F100
GLF4
RJ85
RJ1H
 27

3.5.3 FAA Categorization

The Federal Aviation Administration classifies wake turbulence in FAA 2019 by using the
following categories mainly focusing on the maximum takeoff weight:

Category A – A388
Category B – Pairwise Upper Heavy aircraft
Category C – Pairwise Lower Heavy aircraft
Category D – Non-Pairwise Heavy aircraft
Category E – B757 aircraft
Category F – Upper Large aircraft excluding B757 aircraft
Category G – Lower Large aircraft
Category H – Upper Small aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of more than
15400 pounds up to 41000 pounds
Category I - Lower Small aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 15400 pounds or less

Table 3.2 contains aircraft types assigned to wake turbulence categories classified by the
Federal Aviation Administration according to FAA 2019.

Table 3.2 Aircraft types assigned to wake turbulence categories (FAA 2019)
Super Upper Lower Non-Pairwise B757 Upper Large Lower Large Upper Lower
Heavy Heavy Heavy Small Small
A B C D E F G H I
A388 A322 A306 A124 DC85 B752 A318 C130 AT43 E170 ASTR BE10
A333 A30B A339 DC86 B753 A319 C30J AT72 E45X B190 BE20
A343 A310 A342 DC87 A320 CVLT CL60 E75L BE40 BE58
A345 B762 A3ST E3CF A321 DC93 CRJ1 E75S B350 BE99
A346 B763 A400 E3TF B712 DC95 CRJ2 F16 C560 C208
A359 B764 A50 E6 B721 DH8D CRJ7 F18H C56X C210
B742 C17 AN22 E767 B722 E190 CRJ9 F18S C680 C25A
B744 DC10 B1 IL62 B732 GL5T CRJX F900 C750 C25B
B748 K35R B2 IL76 B733 GLEX DC91 FA7X CL30 C402
B772 MD11 B52 IL86 B734 GLF5 DH8A GLF2 E120 C441
B773 B703 IL96 B735 GLF6 DH8B GLF3 F2TH C525
B77L B741 K35E B736 MD82 DH8C GLF4 FA50 C550
B77W B743 KE3 B737 MD83 E135 SB20 GALX P180
B788 B74D MYA4 B738 MD87 E145 SF34 H25B PAY2
B789 B74R R135 B739 MD88 LJ31 PA31
C5 B74S T144 MD90 LJ35 PC12
C5M B78X T160 LJ55 SR22
BSCA TU95 LJ60 SW3
C135 VMT SH36
C141 SW4
 28

The term pairwise in this context means according to FAA 2019 that “Each aircraft was
addressed as both a leader and a follower in each pair”. Wake-based data was considered for
the definition of FAA WTCs.

3.5.4 CAA Categorization

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the British aviation authority, uses categories
based on those of ICAO. The difference to ICAO is that there is the additional category S
(Small), and the ICAO category M (Medium) is divided into UM (Upper Medium) and LM
(Lower Medium). The following six categories apply for approach according to CAA 2022:

• J – SUPER: Only assigned to specific aircraft types: A388, A225, A124

• H – HEAVY: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 136000 kg or
more
• UM – UPPER MEDIUM: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of
less than 136000 kg but more than 104000 kg
• LM – LOWER MEDIUM: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of
104000 kg or less but more than 40000 kg
• S – SMALL: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 40000 kg or
less but more than 17000 kg
• L – LIGHT: Aircraft types with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 17000 kg or
less

3.6 Wake Vortex Separation

In ICAO 2016 and Eurocontrol 2018 the following separation minima presented in Table 3.3
based on the assigned wake turbulence category are defined.

Table 3.3 ICAO wake turbulence categories and separation minima (Eurocontrol 2018)
Aircraft categories Separation minima
Leading aircraft Following aircraft
SUPER HEAVY 6 NM
MEDIUM 7 NM
LIGHT 8 NM
HEAVY HEAVY 4 NM
MEDIUM 5 NM
LIGHT 6 NM
MEDIUM LIGHT 5 NM
 29

Table 3.3 indicates that the WTC of the following aircraft is just as relevant as the WTC of
the leading aircraft for the determination of separation minima. This can be explained by the
fact that heavier aircraft are less at risk from wake vortices since they are more inert.
Accordingly, in Figure 3.4, among the parameters of the follower aircraft, the aircraft mass is
to be found missing.

In the context of RECAT-EU, in addition to new WTCs, new distance-based separation

minima on approach and departure, shown in Table 3.4, were developed with the aim of
improving airport capacity without compromising safety.

Table 3.4 RECAT-EU WT separation minima on approach and departure (Eurocontrol 2018)
Following aircraft SUPER UPPER LOWER UPPER LOWER LIGHT
HEAVY HEAVY HEAVY MEDIUM MEDIUM
Leading aircraft CAT-A CAT-B CAT-C CAT-D CAT-E CAT-F
SUPER CAT-A 3 NM 4 NM 5 NM 5 NM 6 NM 8 NM
HEAVY
UPPER CAT-B 3 NM 4 NM 4 NM 5 NM 7 NM
HEAVY
LOWER CAT-C 2.5 NM 3 NM 3 NM 4 NM 6 NM
HEAVY
UPPER CAT-D 5 NM
MEDIUM
LOWER CAT-E 4 NM
MEDIUM
LIGHT CAT-F 3NM
 30

4 Methodology
As explained in Scholz 2018 when lift is generated, the wing presses the air it encounters in a
downward direction. The air beyond the wingtips moves upward and then inward, which,
together with the air flowing downward and then outward, results in the formation of two
counter-rotating vortices.

Regardless of which vortex model from Section 3.4 is used, certain energy is required to
generate wake vortices, which is represented in the induced drag of the aircraft. The induced
power is hence the power induced into the wake of an airplane while generating lift.
Consequently, lots of lift implies lots of induced power put into an aircraft's wake vortex.
According to Anderson 1999 “the power needed to lift the airplane is proportional to the load
(or weight) times the vertical velocity of the air”. With increasing speed more air can be
deflected downwards, decreasing the required power for lift. Furthermore, it can be concluded
from the above-mentioned correlation that the required power for lift increases with higher
mass. In the following, the equation for induced power is derived from induced drag (as a
function of lift), and also from the energy in the vortex.

4.1 Induced Power Calculation

The approach used in this paper to categorize wake vortex strength according to Scholz 2022
considers the induced power contributed by the respective aircraft to its wake vortex. The
induced power, 𝑃𝑤𝑎𝑘𝑒 results from the induced drag, 𝐷𝑖 and the airspeed, 𝑉

𝑃𝑤𝑎𝑘𝑒 = 𝐷𝑖 𝑉 (4.1)

The induced drag, 𝐷𝑖 is calculated by using following formula:

1
𝐷𝑖 = 𝜌 𝑉 2 𝐶𝐷𝑖 𝑆 (4.2)
2

For the calculation of the induced drag the drag coefficient, 𝐶𝐷𝑖 is required

𝐶𝐿 2
𝐶𝐷𝑖 = (4.3)
𝜋𝐴𝑒

By further transformations the lift coefficient is determined and then used in the previous
formulas

1
𝑚𝑔=𝐿= 𝜌 𝑉 2 𝐶𝐿 𝑆 (4.4)
2
 31

2𝑚𝑔
𝐶𝐿 = (4.5)
𝜌 𝑉2 𝑆

The result is a formula for the calculation of the induced drag:

2 𝑚2 𝑔2
𝐷𝑖 = (4.6)
𝜋 𝐴 𝑒 𝜌 𝑉2 𝑆

By multiplication of the induced drag with the airspeed the following expression results for
the induced power

2 𝑔2 1 𝑚 2
𝑃𝑤𝑎𝑘𝑒 = (4.7)
𝜋 𝑏2 𝑒 𝜌 𝑉

The formula is split into three factors. The first factor contains constants, such as the
gravitational acceleration, 𝑔. The second factor includes the wing span, 𝑏 and the Oswald
factor, 𝑒. The third factor consists of parameters, which are determined from flight operations:
aircraft mass, 𝑚, approach speed, 𝑉 and air density, 𝜌, which depends on the airfield altitude.

All parameters from Figure 3.4, which influence the roll-up of wake vortices are reflected in
Equation 4.7. The span loading mentioned in Figure 3.4 is considered by using the Oswald
factor as a correction factor for a non-elliptical span loading.

From the derived formula it becomes evident that with increasing aircraft mass the induced
power increases. This may be explained by the fact that a larger mass requires more lift and
consequently more induced power is contributed to the aircraft’s wake. Simultaneously, as
stated in Scholz 2018, the induced power decreases with increasing wing span and approach
speed since by increasing the wing span, a larger mass of air can be affected using a smaller
amount of speed to generate a certain amount of lift, resulting in less energy in the wake.

It is also possible to derive the induced power from the energy of Lamb-Oseen vortices shed
from the wing. This is shown in Liu 2007.

𝑃𝑤𝑎𝑘𝑒 = 𝐷𝑖 𝑉 = 𝐸𝑘 𝑉 (4.8)

where 𝐸𝑘 is the kinetic energy divided by the distance flown. Since energy or work is force
times distance, the energy, 𝐸𝑘 has the unit of force. 𝐸𝑘 multiplied with the flight speed, 𝑉
yields also induced power. The circulation based on the elliptical loaded wing is given by

𝑚𝑔
Γ𝜐 = (4.9)
𝜌𝑠0 𝑏𝑉
 32

As a good approximation and under the assumption that the vorticity fields of the left and
right vortex do not overlap, an approximation of the exact crossflow kinetic energy can be
written as

Γ𝜐 2 𝑠0 𝑏
𝐸𝑘 = 𝜌 {ln ( ) + 𝐶} (4.10)
2𝜋 𝑟𝑐

where C is a constant that depends only on the particular circulation profile. For the Lamb-
Oseen vortices C = 0.05617. However, we obtain the value of the braced term as

(2𝑠0 )2 𝑠0 𝑏
≈ ln ( ) + 𝐶 (4.11)
𝑒 𝑟𝑐,0

𝜋
with 𝑠0 = .
4

Substituting (4.11) in (4.10), inserting (4.9) and multiplying with 𝑉 as in (4.8) yields induced
power, 𝑃𝑤𝑎𝑘𝑒 as in (4.7).

The power in the fluid endangers an aircraft following behind in the axis of the vortex. The
following aircraft experiences a rolling moment, 𝐿𝑅 ,which causes an acceleration in roll, 𝑝̇ .
The aircraft can counter the roll with aileron input, but if aileron authority is insufficient, the
aircraft will continue to roll and bank. The aircraft's roll acceleration depends on its moment
of inertia, 𝐼𝑥 about the x-axis

𝐿𝑅
𝑝̇ = (4.12)
𝐼𝑥

The rolling moment, 𝐿𝑅 is proportional to air density, speed square, wing area, and span. The
moment of inertia is roughly proportional to the aircraft mass and span square. After all, it is
less clear how an aircraft will resist flying into a vortex. But rolling resistance will increase
𝑚
with aircraft wing loading, and span, 𝑏. Larger aircraft have clearly an advantage. Rolling
𝑆
resistance will decrease with aircraft speed, 𝑉 and air density, 𝜌.

Aircraft wake turbulence categories (WTC) first of all group aircraft depending on their
parameters generating a danger if flying ahead. The same WTCs are much less useful
predicting rolling resistance of a following aircraft. Both characteristics are needed, if advice
about aircraft separation is in question.
 33

4.2 Estimation of the Oswald Factor

To calculate the induced power according to the equation shown in the preceding section, it is
necessary to use the Oswald factor. In Nita 2012 two methods for estimating the Oswald
factor are presented, which are described in the following.

4.2.1 Calculation of the Oswald Factor without Input of CD0

The equation to calculate the Oswald Factor without using the zero drag coefficient is:

𝑒 = 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 ∙ 𝑘𝑒,𝐹 ∙ 𝑘𝑒,𝐷0 ∙ 𝑘𝑒,𝑀 ∙ 𝑘𝑒,𝑊𝐿 (4.13)

The correction factor, 𝑘𝑒,𝑊𝐿 is only used for aircraft with winglets and is calculated with
following equation:

2 ℎ 2
𝑘𝑒,𝑊𝐿 = (1 + ) (4.14)
𝑘𝑊𝐿 𝑏

ℎ is the winglet height and for 𝑘𝑊𝐿 the average value of 2,83 can be used.

𝑘𝑒,𝐷0 is a correction factor which considers the viscous drag due to lift and depends on the
aircraft category. Different values for this correction factor are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Values for the correction factor k_e_D0 (Scholz 2012)
Aircraft category 𝑘𝑒,𝐷0
Jet 0,873
Business Jet 0,864
Turboprop 0,804
General Aviation 0,804

𝑘𝑒,𝐹 is a correction factor which considers the losses due to the fuselage and is calculated with
following equation:

𝑑𝐹 2
𝑘𝑒,𝐹 = 1 −2( ) (4.15)
𝑏

𝑑𝐹
𝑑𝐹 is the diameter of the fuselage, is the ratio of the fuselage diameter and the wingspan.
𝑏
 34

𝑘𝑒,𝑀 is a correction factor which considers compressibility effects on induced drag. Since this
thesis only considers the Mach numbers of aircraft on approach, and they are below the
compressibility Mach number, this factor for estimating the Oswald factors is not considered
further.

𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 is the theoretical Oswald factor which can be calculated for unswept wings with the
following equations:

1
𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 = (4.16)
1 + 𝑓(𝜆 − ∆𝜆) ∙ 𝐴
with

∆𝜆 = −0,357 + 0,45 ∙ 𝑒 −0,0375∙𝜑25 (4.17)

and

𝑓(𝜆 − ∆𝜆) = 0,0524(𝜆 − ∆𝜆)4 − 0,15(𝜆 − ∆𝜆)3 +

(4.18)
0,1659(𝜆 − ∆𝜆)2 − 0,0706(𝜆 − ∆𝜆) + 0,011

𝜆 is the taper ratio, A is the Aspect ratio and 𝜑25 is the sweep angle in degrees measured at a
quarter of the chord length.

4.2.2 Calculation of the Oswald Factor with Input of CD0

The equation to calculate the Oswald Factor with using the zero drag coefficient is as follows:

𝑘𝑒,𝑀
𝑒= (4.19)
𝑄 + 𝑃𝜋𝐴

with

1
𝑄= (4.20)
𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 ∙ 𝑘𝑒,𝐹

and

𝑃 = 0,38 ∙ 𝐶𝐷,0 (4.21)

 35

As mentioned in the previous section 𝑘𝑒,𝑀 is not considered due to the low approach speeds,
therefore the value of 1 is assumed for 𝑘𝑒,𝑀 . The theoretical Oswald factor, 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 and the
correction factor, 𝑘𝑒,𝐹 are used from the previous calculation.

The zero drag coefficient is calculated according to Scholz 2015 with following equation:

𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡
𝐶𝐷,0 = 𝐶𝑓𝑒 ∙ (4.22)
𝑆𝑊

with 𝐶𝑓𝑒 = 0,003. 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 is the wetted aircraft area and 𝑆𝑊 is the reference wing area. Both
values are used from Schlueter 2006.

Due to the relatively high effort to calculate the wetted area, the Oswald factors are calculated
using the second method for only 12 of the total 89 aircraft considered. The comparison of the
Oswald factors from both methods shows no significant deviation.

4.3 Aircraft Selection

A total of 89 different aircraft models are used for the calculation of the induced power. The
selected airplane models differ significantly in wingspan, airplane mass, approach speed,
which are the parameters required for the calculation of the induced power.

The selection of aircraft is based on the Eurocontrol categorization. All aircraft that are listed
in the Eurocontrol categorization in Section 3.5.2 are examined. Some of these aircraft are not
included in the FAA categorization. Instead, the FAA categorization contains other aircraft
that are not included in the Eurocontrol categorization. These were not considered for the
calculation, as the Eurocontrol categorization contains sufficient different aircraft which
significantly differ from each other. For all aircraft from Table 4.2, the CAA and ICAO
provide a WTC depending on the aircraft mass which can be found using ICAO 2022b (for
ICAO WTC). The order in which the aircraft are listed corresponds to the one used by
Eurocontrol.

Table 4.2 Examined aircraft models

Aircraft model Type Aircraft model Type
Designator Designator
Airbus A-380-800 A388 McDonnell Douglas MD-88 MD88
Antonov An-124 A124 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 MD90
Airbus A-330-200 A332 Tupolev Tu-204 T204
Airbus A-330-300 A333 ATR-42-300 AT43
Airbus A-340-300 A343 ATR-42-500 AT45
 36

Cont.: Table 4.2 Examined aircraft models

Aircraft model Type Aircraft model Type
Designator Designator
Airbus A-340-500 A345 ATR-72 AT72
Airbus A-340-600 A346 Boeing 717-200 B712
Airbus A-350-900 XWB A359 Boeing 737-200 B732
Boeing 747-400 B744 Boeing 737-300 B733
Boeing 747-8 B748 Boeing 737-400 B734
Boeing 777-300 773 Bombardier Challenger 650 CL60
Boeing 777-200LR B77L Canadair CRJ-100 CRJ1
Boeing 777-300ER B77W Canadair CRJ-200 CRJ2
Boeing 787-8 B788 Canadair CRJ-700 CRJ7
Boeing 787-9 B789 Canadair CRJ-900 CRJ9
Ilyushin Il-96-300 IL96 De Havilland DHC-8 Q400 DH8D
Airbus A-300-600 A306 Embraer ERJ-135 E135
Airbus A-310 A310 Embraer ERJ-145 E145
Boeing 707-320B B703 Embraer ERJ-170 E170
Boeing 757-200 B752 Embraer ERJ-175 E175
Boeing 757-300 B753 Embraer ERJ-190 E190
Boeing 767-200 B762 Embraer ERJ-195 E195
Boeing 767-300 B763 Fokker 70 F70
Boeing 767-400ER B764 Fokker 100 F100
Boeing C-135 C135 Gulfstream 4 GLF4
McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 DC10 Avro RJ-85 RJ85
Douglas DC-8-50 DC85 Avro RJ-100 RJ1H
Ilyushin Il-76 IL76 Dassault Falcon 10 FA10
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 MD11 Dassault Falcon 20 FA20
Airbus A-318 A318 Dornier 328 D328
Airbus A-319 A319 Embraer EMB-120 E120
Airbus A-320 A320 Beechcraft Beechjet 400A BE40
Airbus A-321 A321 Raytheon Hawker 800 H25B
Antonov An-12 AN12 BAe 32 JS32
Boeing 737-600 B736 BAe 41 JS41
Boeing 737-700 B737 Learjet 35 LJ35
Boeing 737-800 B738 Learjet 60 LJ60
Boeing 737-900 B739 Saab 340 SF34
Lockheed C-130J C130 Piaggio P-180 Avanti P180
Ilyushin Il-18 IL18 Cessna 650 C650
McDonnell Douglas MD-81 MD81 Cessna 525 C525
McDonnell Douglas MD-82 MD82 Cessna 180 C180
McDonnell Douglas MD-83 MD83 Cessna 152 C152
McDonnell Douglas MD-87 MD87
 37

5 Results

5.1 Recommended WTC Classification

The equation derived in Section 4.1 is used to calculate the induced power of 89 different
aircraft models. The result is presented in Figure 5.1.

25

20
Induced Power [MW]

15

10

0
T204

F100

JS41

JS32
F70
MD11

MD90

MD83

MD81
MD88
MD82

MD87

LJ60
LJ35
DH8D
DC10

DC85

AN12

CRJ9

CRJ7

GLF4
CRJ2

CRJ1
IL76

IL96

IL18

BE40
C135

C130

AT72
FA20
CL60
AT45
D328
AT43
FA10
SF34
H25B

C650

C525
C180
C152
A388
A124
B748
B744
A346
A345

B773
B77W

B77L
B772

A343
A333
A359
A306
A332
B789

B764
B763
A310
B788
B762
B753

B752
B703
A321

B734
B739

B738
A319
B733
B735
A320
A318
B732
B737

B736

B712
RJ85
E195
E190

E175

E170

E135
E145

E120

P180
RJ1H

Figure 5.1 Examined aircraft sorted according to induced power in descending order

The examined aircraft have been sorted in descending order according to the induced power
they respectively contribute to their wake vortices. Based on the results of this calculation, the
following “HAW Hamburg Wake Turbulence Categories” (HAW Hamburg WTC) listed in
Table 5.1 are proposed.

Following ICAO and to avoid complexity, four different categories have been defined. The
lowest WTC contains mainly aircraft from business and general aviation. For the definition of
CAT II and CAT III, the distinction between narrow body and wide body aircraft is used as a
reference. For the lower threshold of CAT I, the induced power value of 15 MW for the B744
has proven to be a clearly identifiable limit. The different wake turbulence categories are
indicated using different colors in Figure 5.1.
 38

Table 5.1 HAW Hamburg Wake Turbulence Categories

HAW Hamburg WTC Induced Power [MW]
CAT I > 15
CAT II 5 – 15
CAT III 1–5
CAT IV <1

The categorization of the aircraft from Table 4.2 according to the HAW Hamburg WTC
results as given in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Aircraft types assigned according to HAW Hamburg WTC

CAT I CAT II CAT III CAT IV
A388 A346 B703 GLF4
A124 A345 A321 CRJ2
B748 DC10 DC85 E135
B744 B773 T204 E145
B77W B734 CRJ1
MD11 B739 AT72
B77L C130 FA20
B772 B738 CL60
IL76 A319 AT45
A343 B733 D328
A333 B735 AT43
A359 A320 FA10
A306 A318 SF34
A332 B737 H25B
B789 AN12 E120
IL96 B736 JS41
B764 B712 LJ60
B763 RJ85 LJ35
A310 E195 BE40
B788 E190 C650
B762 F100 JS32
B753 IL18 P180
C135 MD90 C525
B752 CRJ9 C180
MD83 C152
F70
MD81
MD88
MD82
E175
CRJ7
MD87
 39

5.2 Comparison with Conventional Classification

In Figure 5.2 to Figure 5.6 the wake turbulence classification is indicated with a dot versus the
calculated induced power of each aircraft from Table 4.2. Figure 5.2 shows the HAW
Hamburg WTC. Since they are defined by induced power, the dots jump in clear steps with
increasing induced power.

In contrast to HAW Hamburg WTC the ICAO, FAA, CAA and Eurocontrol wake turbulence
categorization occasionally assign a smaller WTC to an aircraft with larger induced power.
This is indicated by an overlap of categories when plotted against induced power. Most
inconsistency (and thus the most overlaps) is in the categorization of the FAA. With regard to
the Eurocontrol categorization the main inconsistency is found between CAT-B and CAT-C.
When categorizing Wake Turbulence, Eurocontrol also considers wing span. Aircraft with
larger wing span are assigned to higher WTC. This is in contradiction to the fact that the
induced power decreases with increasing wing span and thus the aircraft would have to be
classified in a lower WTC.

For the ICAO categorization, the greatest overlap exists between the wake turbulence
categories H (Heavy) and M (Medium). Regarding the CAA categorization the greatest
overlap is visible between the categories H (Heavy) and UM (Upper Medium) and between
LM (Lower Medium) and S (Small).

Figure 5.2 Induced power according HAW Hamburg WTC

 40

Figure 5.3 Induced power according ICAO WTC

Figure 5.4 Induced power according EUROCONTROL WTC

 41

Figure 5.5 Induced power according FAA WTC

Figure 5.6 Induced power according CAA WTC

 42

5.3 Evaluation of A380 and B757 WTC

In Section 2 it is mentioned that ICAO created a separate WTC for the A380 due to its large
mass. As derived in Section 4.1 the aircraft mass has the greatest influence on the induced
power, evident by the fact that the mass is squared.

Considering the results of the induced power calculation presented in Figure 5.1, the decision
of ICAO to introduce a new WTC for the A380 can be agreed with, since the significantly
higher mass causes a considerably larger induced power compared to all other examined
aircraft.

Another aspect mentioned in Section 2 is the categorization of B757 aircraft. According to the
ICAO classification the B757 is assigned to the WTC Medium. Nevertheless, some states
apply a higher WTC to the B757.

With regard to the results in Section 5.1, it is evident that the B757 is assigned to the second-
highest WTC and is thus classified higher than other narrowbody aircraft. In this respect, from
the perspective of induced power, the decision of some countries to apply the WTC Heavy to
B757 aircraft is justified.
 43

6 Summary and Conclusions

The objective of this thesis was to define new Wake Turbulence Categories based on induced
power calculation and compare them to the categories which are used by Eurocontrol, FAA,
CAA, and the ICAO to classify wake turbulence.

The literature review has shown that much research has been done on the subject of wake
turbulence, hence today there is a lot of knowledge about it. Nevertheless, the classification of
wake turbulence is still rather rudimentary. Induced power was considered as the relevant
factor for the categorization of aircraft into WTC, since it describes how much energy per unit
of time is induced into the wake of an aircraft when generating lift.

The calculation of the induced power for the different aircraft models resulted in four Wake
Turbulence Categories: For an induced power greater than 15 MW the highest category
CAT I is assigned. CAT II is used for aircraft with an induced power ranging from 5 to 15
MW. If the induced power is between 1 and 5 MW the aircraft is assigned to CAT III. The
lowest category CAT IV is assigned to aircraft with induced powers smaller than 1 MW.

The comparison to conventional wake turbulence classification systems showed that ICAO,
FAA, CAA and Eurocontrol frequently assign smaller WTC to aircraft with larger induced
powers. In contrast, the recommended categories are based on a clear assignment according to
the induced power calculation.

Regarding the categorization of the A380, it has been shown that the definition of the WTC
Super by ICAO is correct. It has also been proven that the B757 is rightly assigned to the
WTC Heavy by some states.

The impact and different wake encounter scenarios for aircraft flying into the wake of a
leading aircraft was presented in Section 3. The greater the induced power an aircraft
contributes to its wake vortex, the more hazardous the wake encounter is for following
aircraft. Therefore, and to conclude this thesis the recommended HAW Hamburg WTC
should be used instead of the established WTC to categorize Wake Turbulence.
 44

7 Recommendations
In this thesis, the minimum separation distances have not been examined nor the extent to
which the consideration of induced power may reduce minimum separation distances. Physics
based separation minima would need a double classification of each aircraft: a) classification
related to wake vortex generation as done in this thesis and b) classification related to rolling
resistance. The wake separation minima would then be allocated from a pairwise comparison.

Also, the idea of a division into six different categories analogous to RECAT-EU could be
discussed. The limits for the different categories could be based on the categories proposed by
RECAT-EU. Thus, RECAT-EU could be referred to when considering the optimization of
separation minima. In Eurocontrol 2018 it is mentioned that the proposed re-categorization
optimization of separation minima is not based on calculations, but on “structured arguments
with supporting evidence“. Hence, the consideration of induced power, presented in the
context of this thesis, for the evaluation of wake turbulence, could be used as a convincing
argument.
 45

List of References

ABOELKASSEM, Yasser, VATISTAS, Georgios, ESMAIL, Nabil, 2005. Viscous

Dissipation of Rankine Vortex Profile in Zero Meridional Flow. In: Acta Mechanica
Sinica, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 550-556.
Available from: [Link] (Closed Access)
Open Access at: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

ANDERSON, David, EBERHARDT, Scott, 1999. How Airplanes Fly: A Physical

Description of Lift. In: Sport Aviation.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

BIENIEK, David, LUCKNER, Robert, 2007. Parametric Study & Simplified Approach to
Wake Vortex Encounter Offline Simulation. In: European Air and Space Conference
(Berlin, 10. - 13. September 2007).
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

BREITSAMTER, Christian, 2010. Wake Vortex Characteristics of Transport Aircraft. In:

Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 89-134.
Available from: [Link] (Closed Access)

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, 2022. Manual of Air Traffic Services – Part 1.

Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

DE KAT, Roeland, 2007. Vortex Decay behind a Generic Wing-Flap-Jet Aircraft Model: A
Time Dependent Vortex Model. Master Thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 2019. Consolidated Wake Turbulence (CWT)

Separation Standards.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]
 46

GERZ, Thomas, et al., 2009. The Wake Vortex Prediction and Monitoring System WSVBS
Part II: Performance and ATC Integration at Frankfurt Airport. In: Air Traffic Control
Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 323-346.
Available from: [Link]

HOLZÄPFEL, Frank, GERZ, Thomas, BAUMANN, Robert, 2001. The Turbulent Decay of
Trailing Vortex Pairs in Stably Stratified Environments. In: Aerospace Science and
Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 95-108.
Available from: [Link] (Closed Access)
Open Access at: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

HOLZÄPFEL, Frank, et al., 2003a. Strategies for Circulation Evaluation of Aircraft Wake
Vortices Measured by Lidar. In: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, vol. 20,
no. 8, pp. 1183-1195.
Available from: [Link]

HOLZÄPFEL, Frank, 2003b. Probabilistic Two-Phase Wake Vortex Decay and Transport
Model. In: Journal of Aircraft, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 323-331.
Available from: [Link] (Closed Access)
Open Access at: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

HOLZÄPFEL, Frank, et al., 2003c. Analysis of Wake Vortex Decay Mechanisms in the
Atmosphere. In: Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 263-275.
Available from: [Link] (Closed Access)
Open Access at: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

HOLZÄPFEL, Frank, et al., 2009. The Wake Vortex Prediction and Monitoring System
WSVBS Part I: Design. In: Air Traffic Control Quartley, vol. 17, no. 4.
Available from: [Link] (Closed Access)
Open Access at: [Link]

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION, 1984. Air Traffic Services

Planning Manual (Doc 9426-AN/924). Montréal.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]
 47

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION, 2016. Doc 4444, Procedures for

Air Navigation Services — Air Traffic Management. Montéal.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION, 2022a. Doc 8643, Aircraft Type

Designators. Montéal.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION, 2022b. DOC 8643 - Aircraft

Type Designators.
Available from: [Link]

LIU, Chao, 2007. Wake Vortex Encounter Analysis with Different Wake Vortex Models Using
Vortex-Lattice Method. Master Thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

LIU, Xiaoying, et al., 2021. Observation of Aircraft Wake Vortex Evolution under Crosswind
Conditions by Pulsed Coherent Doppler Lidar. In: Atmosphere, vol. 12, art. 49.
Available from: [Link]

LONGMAN, 2022a. Comparison.

Available from: [Link]

LONGMAN, 2022b. Aircraft.

Available from: [Link]

LONGMAN, 2022c. Calculation.

Available from: [Link]

MCLEAN, Doug, 2005. Wingtip Devices: What They Do and How They Do It. Performance
and Flight Operations Engineering Conference, Boeing, Article 4.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

MERRIAM-WEBSTER, 2022. Category.

Available from: [Link]
 48

NIŢĂ, Mihaela, SCHOLZ, Dieter, 2012. Estimating the Oswald Factor from Basic Aircraft
Geometrical Parameters. In: Publikationen zum DLRK 2012 (Deutscher Luft- und
Raumfahrtkongress, Berlin, 10. - 12. September 2012).
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

PAN, Weijun, WANG, Jingkai, XU, Yaxing, 2022. Research on Optimization of Wake Safety
Interval for Domestic ARJ21 Aircraft during Take-Off and Landing. In: 2022 3rd Asia-
Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics (IPEC’22) (Dalian, 14. - 16. April
2022)
Available from: [Link] (Closed Access)

RILL, Stefan, 1996. Einleitung: Abwind und induzierter Widerstand. In: Aerodynamik des
Flugzeugs. Hochschule Bremen.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

ROBINS, Robert, DELISI, Donald, 2002. NWRA AVOSS Wake Vortex Prediction Algorithm
Version 3.1.1. Langley Research Center. Bellevue, Washington.
Available from: [Link]

ROOSELEER, Frederic, TREVE, Vincent, 2018. “RECAT-EU” European Wake Turbulence

Categorisation and Separation Minima on Approach and Departure. EUROCONTROL.
Brussels, Belgium.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

ROSSOW, Vernon, 1999. Lift-Generated Vortex Wakes of Subsonic Transport Aircraft. In:
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 507-660.
Available from: [Link] (Closed Access)

SCHLÜTER, Andre John, 2006. Maximale Gleitzahl, Streckung und Benetzte Fläche. Project.
Hamburg: Hamburg University of Applied Sciences.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

SCHOLZ, Dieter, 2015. Drag Prediction. In: Aircraft Design. Hamburg Open Online
University.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]
 49

SCHOLZ, Dieter, 2018. Definition and Discussion of the Intrinsic Efficiency of Winglets.
In: INCAS BULLETIN, vol. 10, 1/2018, pp. 117-134.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

SCHOLZ, Dieter, 2022. Airbus A380 - Ein Nachruf. Report. Hamburg: Hamburg University
of Applied Sciences, Aircraft Design and Systems Group (AERO).
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

SKYBRARY. 2022a. ICAO Wake Turbulence Category.

Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

SKYBRARY. 2022b. Wake Vortex Turbulence.

Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

SPEIJKER, Lennaert, et al., 2007. ATC-Wake: Integrated Wake Vortex Safety and Capacity
System. In: Journal of Air Traffic Control, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 17-32.
Available from: [Link]
Archived at: [Link]

All online resources have been accessed on 23.12.2022 or later.

 50

Appendix A – Induced Power Calculation

Index Type Designator Model WTC (EC) WTC WTC WTC max. landing wing span approach speed Oswald Induced Induced
(ICAO) (FAA) (CAA) weight [kg] [m] (VAT) [m/s] Factor [-] Power [W] Power [MW]
1 A388 Airbus A-380-800 CAT-A J A J 394000 79,75 72,01646091 0,845065 20044459,8 20,04445982
2 A124 Antonov An-124 CAT-A H D J 330000 73,3 72,01646091 0,841753 16710479,6 16,71047957
3 A332 Airbus A-330-200 CAT-B H B H 182000 60,3 69,44444444 0,840949 7796256,89 7,796256885
4 A333 Airbus A-330-300 CAT-B H B H 187000 60,3 69,95884774 0,840719 8172231,12 8,172231116
5 A343 Airbus A-340-300 CAT-B H B H 192000 60,3 69,95884774 0,840698 8615298,5 8,615298499
6 A345 Airbus A-340-500 CAT-B H B H 246000 63,45 71,50205761 0,843913 12450188,4 12,45018836
7 A346 Airbus A-340-600 CAT-B H B H 265000 63,45 74,07407407 0,843913 13946003,3 13,9460033
8 A359 Airbus A-350-900 XWB CAT-B H B H 207000 64,75 72,01646091 0,87448 8110822,4 8,110822401
9 B744 Boeing 747-400 CAT-B H B H 285764 64,44 78,18930041 0,83775 15004716 15,00471603
10 B748 Boeing 747-8 CAT-B H B H 312072 68,4 74,58847737 0,840181 16601157,9 16,60115791
11 B772 Boeing 777-200 CAT-B H B H 201800 60,93 72,01646091 0,841267 9048982,2 9,048982205
12 B773 Boeing 777-300 CAT-B H B H 237680 60,93 76,64609053 0,841267 11794633,6 11,79463363
13 B77L Boeing 777-200LR CAT-B H B H 223168 64,8 72,01646091 0,843328 9760469,29 9,760469289
14 B77W Boeing 777-300ER CAT-B H B H 251290 64,8 76,64609053 0,843328 11627839,7 11,62783971
15 B788 Boeing 787-8 CAT-B H B H 172365 60,12 74,58847737 0,839557 6560297,64 6,560297642
16 B789 Boeing 787-9 CAT-B H B H 192776 60,12 78,7037037 0,839557 7776924,4 7,7769244
17 IL96 Ilyushin Il-96-300 CAT-B H D H 175000 55,57 77,16049383 0,835544 7688053,43 7,68805343
18 A306 Airbus A-300-600 CAT-C H C H 140000 44,84 71,50205761 0,829161 8217745,45 8,217745446
19 A310 Airbus A-310 CAT-C H C H 124000 43,9 71,50205761 0,826372 6748470,74 6,748470737
20 B703 Boeing 707-320B CAT-C H D H 97500 44,42 65,8436214 0,845458 4325452,99 4,325452987
21 B752 Boeing 757-200 CAT-C M E UM 95250 38,05 70,47325103 0,842451 5275175,61 5,275175608
22 B753 Boeing 757-300 CAT-C M E UM 101610 38,06 73,04526749 0,84246 5788676,61 5,788676606
23 B762 Boeing 767-200 CAT-C H C H 123377 47,57 68,41563786 0,839657 5852346,27 5,852346273
24 B763 Boeing 767-300 CAT-C H C H 136078 47,57 72,01646091 0,839657 6763337,25 6,763337245
25 B764 Boeing 767-400ER CAT-C H C H 158757 51,92 77,16049383 0,842741 7186092,66 7,18609266
26 C135 Boeing C-135 CAT-C H D UM 106600 39,9 77,16049383 0,832549 5553275,82 5,553275819
27 DC10 McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 CAT-C H C H 186427 47,35 76,64609053 0,831873 12151116,5 12,15111646
28 DC85 Douglas DC-8-50 CAT-C H D H 98431 43,4 70,47325103 0,847866 4302472,41 4,302472415
29 IL76 Ilyushin Il-76 CAT-C H D H 152000 50,5 61,72839506 0,840387 8728216,76 8,728216756
30 MD11 McDonnell Douglas MD-11 CAT-C H C H 195048 51,97 81,79012346 0,878331 9799495,1 9,799495099
31 A318 Airbus A-318 CAT-D M F LM 57500 34,1 64,30041152 0,833181 2652522,2 2,652522197
32 A319 Airbus A-319 CAT-D M F LM 62500 34,1 66,87242798 0,829596 3026375,88 3,026375884
33 A320 Airbus A-320 CAT-D M F LM 66000 35,8 70,47325103 0,911656 2643943,1 2,643943103
34 A321 Airbus A-321 CAT-D M F LM 77800 34,1 72,5308642 0,830165 4320646,52 4,32064652
35 AN12 Antonov An-12 CAT-D M / LM 58000 38 62,75720165 0,770438 2408091,12 2,408091116
36 B736 Boeing 737-600 CAT-D M F LM 55111 34,32 64,81481481 0,834203 2383534,05 2,383534053
37 B737 Boeing 737-700 CAT-D M F LM 58604 34,32 67,90123457 0,834203 2572740,07 2,572740074
38 B738 Boeing 737-800 CAT-D M F LM 66361 34,32 73,04526749 0,834203 3066569,57 3,066569574
39 B739 Boeing 737-900 CAT-D M F LM 66814 34,32 72,5308642 0,834203 3130625,77 3,13062577
40 C130 Lockheed C-130J CAT-D M F LM 75000 40,41 66,87242798 0,834629 3084534,03 3,084534031
41 IL18 Ilyushin Il-18 CAT-D M / LM 52600 37,4 66,87242798 0,843379 1752845,41 1,752845407
42 MD81 McDonnell Douglas MD-81 CAT-D M / LM 58061 32,85 42,45923913 0,839681 4379225,12 4,379225121
43 MD82 McDonnell Douglas MD-82 CAT-D M F LM 58567 32,85 69,95884774 0,839681 2704355,4 2,7043554
44 MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-83 CAT-D M F LM 63276 32,85 70,47325103 0,839681 3133676,67 3,133676666
45 MD87 McDonnell Douglas MD-87 CAT-D M F LM 58060 32,85 72,01646091 0,839681 2581800,87 2,581800874
46 MD88 McDonnell Douglas MD-88 CAT-D M F LM 58567 32,85 66,87242798 0,839681 2829171,8 2,829171803
47 MD90 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 CAT-D M F LM 64410 32,87 70,98765432 0,839702 3219469,72 3,219469724
48 T204 Tupolev Tu-204 CAT-D M / LM 89500 40,3 72,01646091 0,8968 3816754,3 3,816754297
49 AT43 ATR-42-300 CAT-E M G L 16000 24,57 61,72839506 0,762121 450511,724 0,450511724
50 AT45 ATR-42-500 CAT-E M / S 18300 24,57 56,58436214 0,762121 642919,906 0,642919906
51 AT72 ATR-72 CAT-E M G S 22350 27,05 61,72839506 0,76669 720943,083 0,720943083
52 B712 Boeing 717-200 CAT-E M F LM 46269 28,4 71,50205761 0,834372 2223570,21 2,223570209
53 B732 Boeing 737-200 CAT-E M F LM 48534 28,35 66,87242798 0,826355 2650680,89 2,650680892
54 B733 Boeing 737-300 CAT-E M F LM 52889 28,88 69,44444444 0,827962 2915236,11 2,915236108
55 B734 Boeing 737-400 CAT-E M F LM 56245 28,88 71,50205761 0,827962 3202062,71 3,202062715
56 B735 Boeing 737-500 CAT-E M F LM 49895 28,88 65,32921811 0,827962 2757954,68 2,757954675
57 CL60 Bombardier Challenger 650 CAT-E M G S 17237 19,6 66,87242798 0,895555 645442,191 0,645442191
58 CRJ1 Canadair CRJ-100 CAT-E M G S 20276 21,23 69,44444444 0,902878 727082,356 0,727082356
59 CRJ2 Canadair CRJ-200 CAT-E M G S 21319 21,23 72,01646091 0,902878 775101,241 0,775101241
60 CRJ7 Canadair CRJ-700 CAT-E M G S 30391 23,25 69,44444444 0,902315 1362805,45 1,362805454
61 CRJ9 Canadair CRJ-900 CAT-E M G S 33340 23,24 69,44444444 0,902996 1640291,99 1,640291993
62 DH8D De Havilland DHC-8 Q400 CAT-E M F S 28123 28,4 62,24279835 0,768027 1025194,61 1,025194607
63 E135 Embraer ERJ-135 CAT-E M G S 18500 20,04 66,87242798 0,837542 760466,133 0,760466133
64 E145 Embraer ERJ-145 CAT-E M G S 18700 20,04 69,44444444 0,837773 748013,451 0,748013451
65 E170 Embraer ERJ-170 CAT-E M G S 33300 26 66,87242798 0,926725 1322906,9 1,322906902
66 E175 Embraer ERJ-175 CAT-E M / S 34000 26 66,87242798 0,926725 1379109,18 1,37910918
67 E190 Embraer ERJ-190 CAT-E M F LM 44000 28,72 67,38683128 0,9234 1885197,02 1,885197024
68 E195 Embraer ERJ-195 CAT-E M / LM 45800 28,72 69,44444444 0,923752 1981320,52 1,981320518
69 F70 Fokker 70 CAT-E M / LM 34020 28,076 66,35802469 0,835732 1323192,95 1,323192952
70 F100 Fokker 100 CAT-E M / LM 38780 28,076 66,35802469 0,835732 1719373,27 1,719373267
71 GLF4 Gulfstream 4 CAT-E M G S 26535 23,7 72,01646091 0,934444 930983,479 0,930983479
72 RJ85 Avro RJ-85 CAT-E M / LM 38555 26,21 64,30041152 0,815803 2061645,21 2,061645213
73 RJ1H Avro RJ-100 CAT-E M / LM 40143 26,21 64,30041152 0,815803 2234972,41 2,234972408
74 FA10 Dassault Falcon 10 CAT-F M / L 8000 13,08 56,58436214 0,825275 400363,714 0,400363714
75 FA20 Dassault Falcon 20 CAT-F M / L 12580 15,4 56,58436214 0,816236 722093,203 0,722093203
76 D328 Dornier 328 CAT-F M / L 14390 20,98 56,58436214 0,751814 552699,622 0,552699622
77 E120 Embraer EMB-120 CAT-F M H L 11700 19,78 64,81481481 0,762111 354007,13 0,35400713
78 BE40 Beechcraft Beechjet 400A CAT-F M H L 7120 13,3 61,72839506 0,816393 284222,227 0,284222227
79 H25B Raytheon Hawker 800 CAT-F M H L 10590 16,6 64,30041152 0,82941 381397,519 0,381397519
80 JS32 British Aerospace Jetstream 32 CAT-F M / L 7080 15,85 59,1563786 0,759903 221836,786 0,221836786
81 JS41 British Aerospace Jetstream 41 CAT-F M / L 10569 18,42 61,72839506 0,767484 347312,011 0,347312011
82 LJ35 Learjet 35 CAT-F M H L 6940 12,04 64,30041152 0,809681 318950,926 0,318950926
83 LJ60 Learjet 60 CAT-F M H L 8845 13,4 72,01646091 0,916056 330078,682 0,330078682
84 SF34 Saab 340 CAT-F M G L 12930 21,44 59,1563786 0,768456 399863,773 0,399863773
85 P180 Piaggio P-180 Avanti CAT-F L I L 4965 14,03 61,72839506 0,811408 124963,786 0,124963786
86 C650 Cessna 650 CAT-F M / L 8618 16,31 66,87242798 0,827866 252048,071 0,252048071
87 C525 Cessna 525 CAT-F L I L 4445 14,3 56,58436214 0,829715 102856,48 0,10285648
88 C180 Cessna 180 CAT-F L / L 1275 11 33,43621399 0,771108 26042,826 0,026042826
89 C152 Cessna 152 CAT-F L / L 760 10,2 28,29218107 0,767968 12770,343 0,012770343
 51

Appendix B – Calculation of the Oswald Factor without Input of CD0

Index Model wing span [m] fuselage diameter [m] winglet height [m] taper ratio [-] sweep angle [deg] aspect ratio [-] k_e_F [-] k_e_WL [-] e_theo [-] Oswald Factor [-]
1 Airbus A-380-800 79,75 7,14 0 0,225240521 30 7,79 0,983969 1 0,983773 0,845065387
2 Antonov An-124 73,3 6,4 0 0,286 27 8,79 0,984753 1 0,979136 0,841752911
3 Airbus A-330-200 60,3 5,64 0 0,232954545 29,7 9,26 0,982503 1 0,980441 0,840949446
4 Airbus A-330-300 60,3 5,64 0 0,237689394 29,7 9,26 0,982503 1 0,980172 0,840718659
5 Airbus A-340-300 60,3 5,64 0 0,238095238 29,7 9,26 0,982503 1 0,980149 0,84069844
6 Airbus A-340-500 63,45 5,64 0 0,219211823 31,1 8,56 0,984198 1 0,982203 0,843913405
7 Airbus A-340-600 63,45 5,64 0 0,219211823 31,1 8,56 0,984198 1 0,982203 0,843913405
8 Airbus A-350-900 XWB 64,75 5,96 2,88 0,384558278 31,9 11,84339689 0,983055 1,0638556 0,957801 0,874479965
9 Boeing 747-400 64,44 6,5 0 0,275 38 7,39 0,979651 1 0,979555 0,837749634
10 Boeing 747-8 68,4 6,5 0 0,221088435 38 8,644789357 0,981939 1 0,980108 0,840180637
11 Boeing 777-200 60,93 6,2 0 0,149 31,6 8,67 0,979291 1 0,984028 0,841266981
12 Boeing 777-300 60,93 6,2 0 0,149 31,6 8,67 0,979291 1 0,984028 0,841266981
13 Boeing 777-200LR 64,8 6,2 0 0,149 31,6 8,67 0,981691 1 0,984028 0,843328431
14 Boeing 777-300ER 64,8 6,2 0 0,149 31,6 8,67 0,981691 1 0,984028 0,843328431
15 Boeing 787-8 60,12 5,77 0 0,18 32,2 10,58 0,981578 1 0,979741 0,839557264
16 Boeing 787-9 60,12 5,77 0 0,18 32,2 10,58 0,981578 1 0,979741 0,839557264
17 Ilyushin Il-96-300 55,57 6,08 0 0,279 30 7,89 0,976058 1 0,980572 0,835543948
18 Airbus A-300-600 44,84 5,64 0 0,292553191 28 7,73 0,968359 1 0,980818 0,829161302
19 Airbus A-310 43,9 5,64 0 0,283 28 8,8 0,966989 1 0,978904 0,826372405
20 Boeing 707-320B 44,42 3,76 0 0,259 35 6,96 0,98567 1 0,982531 0,845458322
21 Boeing 757-200 38,05 3,76 0 0,243 25 7,82 0,98047 1 0,984229 0,842451298
22 Boeing 757-300 38,06 3,76 0 0,243 25 7,82 0,980481 1 0,984229 0,842460115
23 Boeing 767-200 47,57 5,03 0 0,207 31,5 7,99 0,977639 1 0,983806 0,83965736
24 Boeing 767-300 47,57 5,03 0 0,207 31,5 7,99 0,977639 1 0,983806 0,83965736
25 Boeing 767-400ER 51,92 5,03 0 0,207 31,5 7,99 0,981229 1 0,983806 0,84274071
26 Boeing C-135 39,9 4,2 0 0,35483871 36 7,044292035 0,977839 1 0,975277 0,832548918
27 McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 47,35 6,02 0 0,22 35 6,91 0,967672 1 0,984724 0,831872657
28 Douglas DC-8-50 43,4 3,73 0 0,181 30 7,52 0,985227 1 0,985773 0,847866195
29 Ilyushin Il-76 50,5 4,8 0 0,290322581 25 8,5 0,981931 1 0,980356 0,840386944
30 McDonnell Douglas MD-11 51,97 6 1,93 0,239 35 7,91 0,973342 1,053179 0,981469 0,878331364
31 Airbus A-318 34,1 3,95 0 0,247116969 25 9,500081699 0,973164 1 0,980707 0,833181345
32 Airbus A-319 34,1 3,95 0 0,247116969 25 11,6281 0,973164 1 0,976487 0,829596102
33 Airbus A-320 35,8 3,95 2,43 0,24 25 12,8164 0,975652 1,0982404 0,974595 0,911655574
34 Airbus A-321 34,1 3,95 0 0,247116969 25 11,28941748 0,973164 1 0,977156 0,830164642
35 Antonov An-12 38 3,9 0 0,391304348 8,5 10,6 0,978934 1 0,978878 0,770437997
36 Boeing 737-600 34,32 3,76 0 0,278 25 9,44 0,975994 1 0,979062 0,834203033
37 Boeing 737-700 34,32 3,76 0 0,278 25 9,44 0,975994 1 0,979062 0,834203033
38 Boeing 737-800 34,32 3,76 0 0,278 25 9,44 0,975994 1 0,979062 0,834203033
39 Boeing 737-900 34,32 3,76 0 0,278 25 9,44 0,975994 1 0,979062 0,834203033
40 Lockheed C-130J 40,41 4,34 0 0,512820513 1,5 10,07383159 0,976931 1 0,978623 0,834629159
41 Ilyushin Il-18 37,4 3,23 0 0,363636364 2,5 10 0,985083 1 0,9807 0,843379349
42 McDonnell Douglas MD-81 32,85 3,35 0 0,195 24,5 9,62 0,979201 1 0,982264 0,839680721
43 McDonnell Douglas MD-82 32,85 3,35 0 0,195 24,5 9,62 0,979201 1 0,982264 0,839680721
44 McDonnell Douglas MD-83 32,85 3,35 0 0,195 24,5 9,62 0,979201 1 0,982264 0,839680721
45 McDonnell Douglas MD-87 32,85 3,35 0 0,195 24,5 9,62 0,979201 1 0,982264 0,839680721
46 McDonnell Douglas MD-88 32,85 3,35 0 0,195 24,5 9,62 0,979201 1 0,982264 0,839680721
47 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 32,87 3,35 0 0,195 24,5 9,62 0,979226 1 0,982264 0,839702419
48 Tupolev Tu-204 40,3 4,1 1,91 0,228 28 8,8169924 0,979299 1,0681106 0,982086 0,896799558
49 ATR-42-300 24,57 2,865 0 0,533333333 2 11,07678716 0,972806 1 0,97441 0,762121046
50 ATR-42-500 24,57 2,865 0 0,533333333 2 11,07678716 0,972806 1 0,97441 0,762121046
51 ATR-72 27,05 2,865 0 0,47 3,5 11,99512295 0,977564 1 0,975481 0,766690243
52 Boeing 717-200 28,4 3,4 0 0,196 24,5 8,68 0,971335 1 0,983957 0,834371662
53 Boeing 737-200 28,35 3,76 0 0,266 25 8,83 0,96482 1 0,981085 0,826355442
54 Boeing 737-300 28,88 3,76 0 0,24 25 9,17 0,966099 1 0,98169 0,827962137
55 Boeing 737-400 28,88 3,76 0 0,24 25 9,17 0,966099 1 0,98169 0,827962137
56 Boeing 737-500 28,88 3,76 0 0,24 25 9,17 0,966099 1 0,98169 0,827962137
57 Bombardier Challenger 650 19,6 2,41 1,29 0,333333333 28 8,456086287 0,969762 1,0951901 0,975941 0,895554795
58 Canadair CRJ-100 21,23 2,69 1,29 0,288 24,75 7,72 0,96789 1,0877282 0,982354 0,902877538
59 Canadair CRJ-200 21,23 2,69 1,29 0,288 24,75 7,72 0,96789 1,0877282 0,982354 0,902877538
60 Canadair CRJ-700 23,25 2,69 1,29 0,26 26,5 7,655608271 0,973228 1,07996 0,983381 0,902314801
61 Canadair CRJ-900 23,24 2,69 1,29 0,25 26 7,59951597 0,973204 1,079995 0,984114 0,902995646
62 De Havilland DHC-8 28,4 2,96 0 0,38 3,1 12,7822504 0,978274 1 0,976472 0,768027156
63 Embraer ERJ-135 20,04 2,28 0 0,25 21,5 7,8 0,974112 1 0,98488 0,837541698
64 Embraer ERJ-145 20,04 2,28 0 0,231 22,73 7,8 0,974112 1 0,985152 0,837772786
65 Embraer ERJ-170 26 3,01 2 0,29 22,5 8,6 0,973195 1,1116805 0,981198 0,926724794
66 Embraer ERJ-175 26 3,01 2 0,29 22,5 8,6 0,973195 1,1116805 0,981198 0,926724794
67 Embraer ERJ-190 28,72 3,01 2 0,27 25 8,1 0,978032 1,1008501 0,982414 0,92340046
68 Embraer ERJ-195 28,72 3,01 2 0,28 22,5 8,1 0,978032 1,1008501 0,982788 0,923751646
69 Fokker 70 28,076 3,3 0 0,235 17,45 8,43060723 0,97237 1 0,984513 0,835731762
70 Fokker 100 28,076 3,3 0 0,235 17,45 8,43060723 0,97237 1 0,984513 0,835731762
71 Gulfstream 4 23,7 2,21 2 0,357142857 28 6,361155153 0,982609 1,1228333 0,980264 0,934443673
72 Avro RJ-85 26,21 3,56 0 0,356 15 8,89 0,963103 1 0,98039 0,815802583
73 Avro RJ-100 26,21 3,56 0 0,356 15 8,89 0,963103 1 0,98039 0,815802583
74 Dassault Falcon 10 13,08 1,42 0 0,342857143 30 7,099020747 0,976428 1 0,978238 0,825275092
75 Dassault Falcon 20 15,4 1,98 0 0,386 30 6,5 0,966939 1 0,977019 0,816235622
76 Dornier 328 20,98 2,17 0 0,7 2,5 11,00401 0,978604 1 0,955537 0,751814008
77 Embraer EMB-120 19,78 2,28 0 0,55 3,5 9,922607152 0,973427 1 0,973776 0,762111018
78 Beechcraft Beechjet 400A 13,3 1,76 0 0,368 20 7,827 0,964977 1 0,979193 0,816392616
79 Raytheon Hawker 800 16,6 1,83 0 0,322 20 7,057 0,975694 1 0,98388 0,829410471
80 British Aerospace Jetstream 32 15,85 1,98 0 0,33 0,7 10,01684609 0,968789 1 0,975602 0,759903114
81 British Aerospace Jetstream 41 18,42 1,98 0 0,347826087 1 10,41105861 0,976891 1 0,977163 0,767483666
82 Learjet 35 12,04 1,5 0 0,655172414 14 6,160713982 0,968957 1 0,967153 0,809680598
83 Learjet 60 13,4 1,81 1,15 0,419354839 16,5 7,631109222 0,96351 1,1249801 0,978155 0,916056397
84 Saab 340 21,44 2,31 0 0,4 4,5 11,65796602 0,976783 1 0,97851 0,768456404
85 Piaggio P-180 Avanti 14,03 1,85 0 0,34 1 11,96 0,965226 1 0,972964 0,811408196
86 Cessna 650 16,31 1,5 0 0,344827586 26 8,94 0,983084 1 0,974666 0,82786586
87 Cessna 525 14,3 1,47 0 0,346153846 2 9,1 0,978865 1 0,981052 0,829714651
88 Cessna 180 11 1,07 0 0,64 0 7,487623762 0,981076 1 0,977589 0,771107946
89 Cessna 152 10,2 1,02 0 0,692307692 0,5 6,936 0,98 1 0,974678 0,767968195
 52

Appendix C – Calculation of the Oswald Factor with Input of CD0

Index Model e_theo [-] k_e_F Aspect ratio [-] S_wet [m^2] S_ref [m^2] C_D_0 [-] Q Oswald Factor M2 [-]
1 Airbus A-300-600 0,980818 0,9794 7,73 1569,11 260 0,018105 1,041 0,827760132
2 Airbus A-310 0,978904 0,9824 8,8 1342,81 219 0,018395 1,03985 0,810965162
3 Airbus A-320 0,967854 0,9809 16,329681 791,13 122,4 0,01939 1,05334 0,698642049
4 Airbus A-321 0,976867 0,9735 11,43555728 874,15 122,4 0,021425 1,05154 0,744029465
5 Airbus A-340-300 0,980149 0,9842 9,26 2033,09 363,1 0,016798 1,03663 0,818110979
6 Boeing 737-300 0,98169 0,9657 9,17 645,85 105,4 0,018383 1,05481 0,796146667
7 Boeing 757-200 0,984229 0,9889 7,82 1113,79 185,25 0,018037 1,02741 0,836259419
8 Boeing 767-300 0,983806 0,9737 7,99 1580,69 283,3 0,016739 1,04387 0,830888593
9 Fokker 100 0,992049 0,9458 4,295204278 581,47 93,5 0,018657 1,06582 0,860968907
10 McDonnell Douglas MD-11 0,981469 0,9503 7,91 2051,8 338,9 0,018163 1,0722 0,80404312
11 McDonnell Douglas MD-87 0,982264 0,9845 9,62 742,27 112,3 0,019829 1,03413 0,79248343
12 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 0,982264 0,9731 9,62 818,79 112,3 0,021873 1,04621 0,770765055