Julian Moxon/PARIS

It is often said that the commercial success of Airbus Industrie has been largely due to the marketing edge gained through the use of advanced technologies. Fly-by-wire flight controls, composite materials and computerised manufacturing techniques have already contributed to the consortium's success and will soon be followed by other new technologies such as laminar flow surfaces and new lightweight aluminium/composite materials.

Similarly, the technologies employed in European helicopters, business jets, satellites and their launchers and numerous other corners of aeronautics have helped ensure that Europe has not only maintained, but improved its competitive position against the USA.

Today, there is no clearly visible source of the European research that has made this possible. The technologies that have kept Europe competitive have been developed by the industrial partners - often, it is true, with strong government support. It is also true that government funding for specific Airbus programmes has been provided on a reimbursable basis. Since the end of the Cold War, however, much of the funding for military programmes that supported developments in the civil arena has dried up.

"European research buys a lot - you could say we have been flying on a first class ticket for Apex prices," says Herbert Allgeier, chairman of the European Commission's (EC) aeronautics task force, and also charged with coordinating the EC's aeronautics and space research programmes.

The USA often puts the argument that the European aeronautics industry is entirely state-funded, the reply from Europe being that money channelled through NASA and the US Department of Defense adds up to the same thing. The dispute has lost some of its teeth since the two sides agreed on a formula limiting government aid, and as the Airbus partners have begun paying back the launch aid to their respective governments.

Comparisons on aeronautics spending in the USA and Europe are subject to doubts as to exactly how much of the funding is directed specifically to civil aeronautics. But a recent EC report found that US pre-competitive research and development added up to around ECU1.5 billion ($1.8 billion) for 1996, whereas the comparable figure for Europe, including funding by the EC, industry and other bodies, was closer to ECU600 million. Allgeier says that advances in European research to date have been achieved in the face of minimal cooperation between states. Airbus wings, for example, are built using mainly UK-derived technology, while cockpit displays are developed in the laboratories of Sextant Avionique, near Paris, and flight control technology by Aerospatiale in Toulouse.

He explains that, while the national research establishments have been central to the development of European programmes, their priority is to use national money for national programmes. "We need more cooperation," he says, "because there remains a lot of duplication, which is extremely wasteful of Europe's limited R&T [research and technology] resources."

"There has never been a better moment for refocusing the European research effort," he says. As the European aerospace industry itself restructures to become more competitive against that of the USA"-there is an opportunity to do more than just add money".

The EC's support for aeronautics research has traditionally come from within its overall R&T budget, and has grown from ECU35 million in the 1987-1991 Second Framework programme to ECU265 million in the 1995-8 Fourth Framework plan. This is now set to more than double, to around ECU700 million, in the 1999-2002 Fifth Framework period, recognising what Allgeier says is a growing understanding that aerospace has a "-political and economic dimension" that cannot be ignored. "We have a competitor that relies on this industry to ensure it remains the number one world superpower. In the last two years this has led us to an strong feeling that there should be a European dimension to R&T".

For the first time, aeronautics has, in the curious parlance of the EC, been labelled a "key action". This aims to "-help the community consolidate its position in aeronautics by developing its mastery, in an environmentally friendly manner, of the most advanced aeronautical technologies".

Any effort to integrate R&T under a European umbrella - implying the eventual disappearance of national establishments, is doomed, says Allgeier, for four main reasons: competitive, because European companies are not only competing with the USA but with each other, and the sharing of knowledge is therefore a "very sensitive issue"; national interests, because aeronautics has a "-strong military dimension which encourages member states to retain an independent across-the-board aeronautics capability; globalisation, in which national companies form independent relationships with those of other countries; and the sheer inertia involved in pushing through any scheme intended to integrate the activities of several countries.

Allgeier contends that none of these is insuperable, but he agrees it will be a "very long time" before anything approaching a "Euro-NASA" sees the light of day. "As with all matters European, evolution is the best way forward."

He has therefore begun promoting what he clearly hopes will be the seedcorn of such an enterprise, which he calls a "virtual NASA". Initially, this would provide a new operating system for R&T acquisition.

It would be a common reference frame "-around which all of the national establishments can orient themselves", with responsibility to "-push people in the right direction and provide some coordinated management of programmes". Eventually, once its "moral authority" had been established, a more legally binding authority could arrive whereby, for example, national programmes would only be approved if it could be shown that the work was not being carried out elsewhere. "Specialisation is only acceptable through cooperation," he says. "The 'virtual Nasa' puts strong pressure on sharing knowledge".

A new "office for coordination and strategic planning" would be created, consisting of four or five permanent staff, with a similar number of temporary attachés from industry or research establishments "-who would bring to the group fresh experience and direct personal contacts with others in the European research network". It would be a "European policy think-tank for aeronautics-Free from day-to-day responsibilities in industry or in research, it would be able to undertake a deeper analysis of European aeronautics research needs than has hitherto been possible". The body would judge which projects, software packages and so on are competitive on a European scale and could become a prototype for European reference efforts. It would be endorsed by member states as a whole "-but would be independent enough to resist pressure from individual states".

Allgeier sees the office being charged with three main tasks:

to carry out an inventory of technologies crucial for maintaining a competitive European industry; to produce a "road map" showing how capability on those areas can best be matured; to outline a mechanism to keep the plan updated in the light of technological advances.

The idea of a central coordinating office receives broad acceptance from the European Association of Aerospace Industries (Aecma). It stresses, however, that such a scheme would only be workable if there was "clear support" from the EC, backed by member governments. The industry organisation says that while it is "-certainly time for a more coordinated framework, the question is - how will it be funded?"

AECMA stresses the growing need for an initiative to enable Europe to stand up to the "severe, unrelenting competition from the USA", which it says has been accentuated by recent mergers such that US Government support of $2 billion a year is focused on just "two or three large companies".

Last January the organisation produced its own European Integrated Aeronautics Plan (EIAP), which became the basis of the projected Fifth Framework programme. The plan has been costed at ECU1,900 million over the 1999-2002 period, which is the minimum thought necessary to achieve what AECMA terms a "a critical funding mass". The money would be divided equally between five basic technology programmes and "large-scale integrated programmes", the latter being an innovative approach to pulling together 13 priority research areas targeting overall aircraft efficiency, environmental concerns and safety.

The EIAP has already been largely incorporated into the EC's working paper, called New perspectives in aeronautics (see New Perspectives box) to produce a final document leading to the EC's call for proposals to industry in January.

NEW PERSPECTIVES

The European Commission's (EC) research and technology directorate (DG12) has produced a working paper, New perspectives in aeronautics. Considered to be the most comprehensive review of aeronautics research needs ever to come out of Brussels, the paper points to the direction it wants its EC aeronautics research funding to go over the next 8-10 years. It forms the basis of the call for proposals that will be issued to industry in January for programmes to be carried out under the ECU700 million ($820 million) Fifth Framework programme.

"The European aeronautical industries hold around 33% of the worldwide market, with over ECU32 billion in annual exports," says the paper. "Nonetheless, the industry needs to accelerate its restructuring and strengthen its competitive position."

The work programme is divided into two major strands - critical technologies, and technology integration and validation.

CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES

Reduction of aircraft development cost and time to market:

Improved concurrent engineering practices should, says the paper, contribute to "substantial gains in time to market and production costs". Objectives should include using advanced design tools to cut development time by 15-30% and costs by 35% "-while ensuring improved response to market and society's needs". Manufacturing costs should also be cut by around 30%, with emphasis also on the methodologies used in evaluating product quality control.

Aircraft efficiency:

This aims to improve direct operating costs through substantial reductions in fuel consumption while ensuring and improving safety aspects. In aerodynamics, the objective is for a 20% cut in drag over the next 10 years coupled with improvements in overall efficiency in all flight phases.

Aircraft structural weight should be reduced by 20% over the same period, "at no extra manufacturing cost and without reduction of structural life", while fuel consumption should be cut by a similar percentage and engine thrust-to-weight ratio increased by 40%. Greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by the same factor. On systems and equipment, the working paper says the objectives are "-to reduce power take-up of onboard systems by 10% and weight by 20% with at least the current levels of safety, reliability and maintainability".

Lower pollution and noise emissions:

New combustor concepts should be developed with the aim of reducing NOx emissions by 80% during the landing and take-off cycles, along with research directed at improving knowledge of the nature and effects of emissions. Further work should aim towards lowering external perceived noise by 10dB. The cabin environment should also become quieter, with work directed at achieving a 5-10dB reduction for turbofans and a 10-15dB cut for turboprops.

Operational capacity and safety

"Satellite based navigation, communications and new flight management systems have the potential for changing significantly the way airspace is managed," says the working paper. Work should also be directed towards "more autonomous operation of the aircraft consistent with the future European air traffic management concept", while operational maintenance costs should be reduced by 40% over the next 10 years. Accident rates should be cut by "at least the same factor as the growth of traffic", and survivability improved.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AND VALIDATION

This takes the form of "targeted platforms" which would integrate a range of technologies "-representing a priority capability to develop the future aircraft that the market and society demand". After the systems and technologies definition phase, test articles would be built, tested and validated.

A full-sized fuselage section of a representative passenger aircraft, probably around 25 frames long, and including windows, doors and subpassenger floor structures would be built. In addition, a representative section of wing, containing centre wing box, inner and outer wing boxes and wing-to-body and engine pylon fittings would be constructed, the aim with both structures being to "-prove the feasibility of achieving a 20% reduction in airframe first price and weight, resulting in a 15% reduction in direct operating costs".

Efficient and environmentally friendly aero-engine:

A two-pronged approach is suggested, the first to prove the technical feasibility of the best available component technologies with a conventional performance cycle, the second targeted on specific emissions reductions through the full-scale validation of an advanced cycle using an intercooled and recuperated engine core. Both of these programmes stem from previous EC-funded work.

For the conventional engine cycle, the targets are specific fuel consumption reductions of 10% amd emissions of NOx by 60% compared to the current ICAO-96standard, a lowering of the cost of ownership of the propulsion system by 20%, and of propulsion-related delays and cancellations by 60%. Time to market should be cut by 50%. For the advanced engine cycle, reductions of "in excess of 20%" on specific fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are sought, with an 80% cut in emissions of NOx and other major and minor exhaust gas species.

Tiltrotor technology:

Intended to "-overcome the limitations of current rotary winged aircraft through the tiltrotor concept". A full scale ground test article would be used to integrate the relevant technologies at component level as an essential step towards flight demonstration. The structure should relate to aircraft having a maximum take-off weight of less than 10t, a range greater than 1,400km (750nm) and maximum speed of greater then 300kt (550km/h).

Autonomous aircraft:

Focusing on the airborne side of air traffic management (ATM), this programme would integrate a selection of communications, navigation and surveillance technologies into an avionics platform, defining avionics architectures and human-machine interface aspects. The work would follow up on previous European studies but would be directed specifically at the economics of ATM-related airborne systems in existing transport aircraft as well as looking at certification issues.

Minimum aircraft separation during take-off and landing:

This work would look at ways of integrating recent advances in aerodynamic design and related technologies as well as in remote sensing and signal processing technologies to improve prediction and control of wake-vortex generation mechanisms.

Source: Flight International