Strand 1

Liam Strand

Dr. Suran

History of Science and Technology - E

20 November 2019

How High-Bypass Turbofans Democratized Air Travel

As high-bypass turbofans supplanted turboprops and low-bypass turbofans in commercial

air travel, the increased efficiency of these engines decreased the cost of air travel, leading to

decreased ticket prices for consumers, and thereby increasing the accessibility of air travel.

Turbofan engines in the 1970s were generally one of two varieties: high-bypass or low-

bypass. The F101 (low-bypass) and TF34 (high-bypass) engines were both introduced to military

service in the early 1970s. Their juxtaposition provides an excellent example of the advantages

of high-bypass turbofans over their low-bypass counterparts for civil aviation (Worsham 2520).

Turbofan engines are classified as either high-bypass or low-bypass based on their bypass

ratio. The bypass ratio describes how much air goes through the jet’s combustion chamber as

opposed to around, through the fan. If the bypass ratio is high, more air bypasses the jet and goes

through the fan. If the bypass ratio is low, more air goes through the jet. The specific number

compares the mass of the air bypassing the jet to the mass of the air going through the jet. If the

bypass ratio is 2, two kilograms of air bypass the jet for every kilogram of air that goes through

the jet. The higher the bypass ratio, the more efficiently the engine performs at subsonic speeds

(Worsham 2520).

The TF34 was designed for the Lockheed S-3A, an airplane built not for speed but for

targeting submarines. Prior to the development of high-bypass turbofans, this type of aircraft
 Strand 2

would have been powered by turboprops (Worsham 2520). Given that the TF34 was designed to

replace a turboprop, its most important attribute was its subsonic efficiency, meaning that a high

bypass ratio was necessary. The TF34 ended up with a bypass ratio of 6.2, similar to the bypass

ratios of the engines powering many modern airliners.

In comparison, the F101 turbofan was designed for the B-1 Strategic Bomber, a

supersonic bomber with nuclear capabilities. An engine for the B-1 needed to be efficient and

powerful both at subsonic and supersonic speeds, a tall order for any propulsion system

(Worsham 2521). Given the large variance in cruise speeds of the B-1, the F101 was designed to

have a variable geometry system that would maximize efficiency at different speeds (Worsham

2521). The flexibility of the engine was achieved not only by using variable geometry, but also

by using a moderate bypass ratio of 2, allowing it reasonable efficiency both at supersonic

speeds (where extremely low-bypass engines are most efficient) and at subsonic speeds (where

high-bypass engines are most efficient) (Worsham 2520).

The mission profile defines how the engine should be designed. If an aircraft needs to

spend large amounts of time at supersonic speeds, a low-bypass turbofan is the best option

because it maximizes efficiency at those extremely high speeds. On the other hand, if an aircraft

is designed never to come close to breaking the sound barrier, as modern airliners are, a high-

bypass turbofan is by far the best option because if its increased efficiency at more moderate

speeds.

The physical differences between high-bypass and low-bypass engines can be seen in the

figure below:
 Strand 3

Low-bypass (F101, left) and high-bypass (TF34, right) turbofan cross-sections

Source: (Worsham 2521)

The low-bypass turbofan is much narrower because the fan at the front of the engine is

only wide enough to suck air through the compressor and into the combustion chamber at the

back. The compressor section and the combustion chamber are known together as the “core” of

the turbofan. The high-bypass turbofan has a fan that is much wider than the core, sucking in

substantially more air than can be consumed in the combustion chamber. This excess air is

channeled around the core through the vent that can be seen in the figure above.

High-bypass turbofans have not always been available as an option for airlines to

purchase. In the 1960s and 1970s, the engine used in Boeing’s 727 and the original 737 was the

JT8D, a low-bypass turbofan. These two aircraft were on the smaller side and were generally

used for “medium-to short-range routes” (Wells 3168). Although the original 737 was popular,

carrying “over one billion passengers […] well over 1000 billion passenger-miles” by 1973, it

never was able to do long-range routes because its engines weren’t efficient enough to stretch its

limited fuel more than around 2000 miles, making nonstop transcontinental trips impossible

(Wells 3168).

Until the 737 was updated with more efficient engines, the 747 was Boeing’s primary

transcontinental and transoceanic aircraft. The 747’s primary purpose was to shuttle huge

numbers of passengers between distant hubs (Wells 3168). The “hub-and-spoke” airline model

became extremely popular in the 1970s because of new wide-body aircraft like the 747 (Cook
 Strand 4

Source: (Cook 52)

51-52). A hub-and-spoke airline model is designed to have passengers fly from a regional airport

to the hub airport on a small airplane (like the 727 or 737), then fly from that hub to a distant hub

on a large airplane (like the 747), and finally fly from that hub to their regional destination on a

smaller plane (again, like the 727 or 737) (Cook 52). This model means that the large aircraft fly

between hubs very frequently, and usually with full cabins (Cook 53-54). The 747 was extremely

well utilized in this manner, racking up “over 100 billion passenger-miles” between its launch in

1969 and 1973 (Wells 3168). The issue was that the airplane didn’t make financial sense on low-

volume or short-range routes. In those cases, 747 would fly with numerous empty seats, wasting

huge amounts of money.

When the Boeing 747 was first conceptualized in 1965, the proposed weight was 550,000

pounds, making it the largest commercial airliner in the world by far (Connors 404). An aircraft

of this magnitude would require a new engine, demanding a max thrust of 33,000 pounds. But,

Pan American, the first 747 customer, signed a contract with Boeing to purchase 25 new 747s

with a gross take-off weight of 680,000 pounds. This meant the engine would need to provide

41,000 pounds of thrust, an increase of 8,000 pounds from the original design!
 Strand 5

A team known as “The Incredibles” tested 87 different engine configurations, “resulting

in the failure of 60 engines” (Banham 141). Only the Pratt and Whitney JT9D, the first high-

bypass turbofan, would work. According to Boeing, “The unique engine delivered double the

power of earlier turbofan engines yet consumed less than a third of the fuel” (Banham 141).

Unfortunately for GE, a competitor in the turbofan industry, after they secured the C-5 military

contract, GE’s engineers were so invested in the TF39 engine program that they were unable to

provide Boeing with an alternative to the JT9D (Garvin 39).

The JT9D was a revolutionary engine. Its bypass ratio of 5 – meaning that for every

pound of air that went through the core engine, five pounds of air went through the fan around

the outside – was unparalleled in the commercial market (Connors 409). One of the JT9D’s

biggest differences from Pratt & Whitney’s other engines (the JT3D and the JT8D) is that it did

not originate from a military contract (Connors 410). This meant it could be tuned properly, from

the very beginning, for high-efficiency at subsonic speeds. The JT9D also was designed for easy

and infrequent maintenance, further driving costs down for the operator. All replacement rotating

parts were pre-balanced, allowing the engine to be disassembled and reassembled without

needing to go through the lengthy rebalancing process (Connors 411). Furthermore, the engine

was built with numerous borescope inspection points to allow for easy inspection of the engine’s

internal components without a costly disassembly (Connors 411).

Pan American continued to increase their planned gross take-off weight from the

proposed 550,000 pounds past 680,000 pounds, finally settling at 710,000 pounds in 1967

(Connors 406). Without the JT9D’s power excess, the 747 would have never gotten off the

ground, as the final thrust requirement was 43,500 pounds, over 10,000 pounds greater than the
 Strand 6

original design (Connors 406). It was not a simple task to re-tune the earlier version of the JT9D

to produce 43,500 pounds of thrust, but Pratt & Whitney did it because they had sunk an

enormous amount of money into the JT9D program and could not afford to lose the contract

(Connors 407).

As the 747 grew in popularity, GE realized that they had to do something to get back into

civil aviation. They saw an opening when “some of the big carriers in the United States

expressed a need for a 250-passenger airliner with the same direct operating cost per seat-mile as

that of the larger 747” (Garvin 41). This would be a real challenge for GE because Boeing had

the advantage of scale; the cost of single items was spread across more passengers in the 747

than in any other aircraft. GE needed to build an engine that was even more efficient than the

JT9D to fulfill this need. Luckily, the airlines agreed with GE’s view that “new high bypass

turbofans would give much lower specific fuel consumption and, for their size, less

noise” (Garvin 41). GE went on to develop the CF6 high-bypass turbofan based on the tried-and

-true TF39 core (Garvin 42).

Douglas began work on their DC-10 around this time. It would be a wide body trijet

capable of transporting between 200 and 250 people, a perfect application for the CF6. After the

original DC-10 launched with CF6-6 engines, Douglas brought GE a proposal for an even

bigger, transcontinental version of the DC-10, the DC-10-30 (Garvin 47). Since the aircraft was

larger than the original DC-10, the thrust requirement for the new CF6 would be greater than the

CF6-6 could produce (Garvin 48). When small tweaks could not produce the thrust required, a

crack team of engineers came together to find a solution. With modifications to the low-pressure

compressor and an increase in engine airflow, chief engineer Arthur Adamson believed that the
 Strand 7

CF6 could produce the 50,000 pounds of takeoff thrust required (Garvin 48). He was right. When

the DC-10-30 launched, it was the first commercial airliner in the world to be powered by

engines in the 50,000 pound thrust class (Garvin 48).

When it was produced in the early 1970s, the CF6 was the most maintainable turbofan in

the world. Not only was it easy to remove the shroud to gain access to the engine, but there were

borescope ports all over both the low-pressure turbine and the high-pressure turbine sections.

These borescope holes allowed maintenance engineers to look inside the engine without

disassembling it completely (Hevener 2603). This dramatically decreased diagnosis times

because mechanics didn’t need to pull apart the engine just to see what the problem was. Once

they had identified the issue, they could then take apart the engine and address the issue quickly.

The actual treatment of the mechanical problem was also accelerated because “the CF6

engine [was] designed to separate into several modules and structural units” (Hevener 2606).

Thus, if a full disassembly of one of these modules was required, it could be completed without

disturbing the other modules. Furthermore, regular maintenance operations within those modules

could be performed with relative ease. A single fan blade replacement, for example, could be

completed in about fifty minutes, without disturbing the other fan blades (Hevener 2607). The

veins and blades within the high-pressure compressor and the low-pressure turbine could also be

replaced without a “complete disassembly of the module and/or engine” (Hevener 2607).

In 1981, the Boeing 737 received a major update, replacing the previous JT8D low-

bypass turbofans with CFM56 high-bypass turbofans and updating numerous electronics. With

these new engines, the 737 could fly further than ever before. The 737 engine options were not
 Strand 8

updated again until 2014, when the 737 MAX was released, powered by two CFM LEAP-1B

high-bypass turbofans.

Although the 737 was popular before the engines were updated in 1981, popularity

skyrocketed after the update because it enabled airlines to switch from a hub-and-spoke model to

a point-to-point model, meaning that most passengers fly smaller aircraft directly from their

origin to their destination (Cook 55). A point-to-point model requires smaller airplanes with long

ranges because the number of passengers who want to fly from a specific origin to a specific

destination in a point-to-point model is smaller than the number of passengers who want to fly

from the origin to a hub in a hub-and-spoke model (Cook 55).

In 2014, there were over 8000 737s in service. In 2015, the 737 was the best-selling

airliner of all time. Boeing suggests that “more than 2000 737s are in the air at any given

time” (Banham 116). Furthermore, The Federal Aviation Administration’s approval of the 737 to

fly “120-minute extended-range twin-engine operations” – or ETOPS – only further increased

the 737’s flexibility (Banham 164). With this new rating, the 737 could fly even more point-to-

point routes. Instead of being required to stay within 60 minutes of an airport while in-route,

737s now had the flexibility to fly anywhere

within 120 minutes of an airport. This allowed

the aircraft to fly far more direct routes. This

reduced the amount of time that the aircraft

spent in flight, and thus the cost of fuel

(Banham 164). For a visual representation of

this concept, see the figure on the right. Source: (Vladsinger)

 Strand 9

Furthermore, the point-to-point model has several inherent advantages over the hub-and-

spoke model. First, the point-to-point model reduces both total travel time and flight time for the

passenger and the employees of the airline. The time is greater for the hub-and-spoke model

because of the time that is necessary to deplane, move through the terminal, and board; and

because the airplanes are not taking the shortest possible route to the final destination, they must

deviate to the hub airport (Cook 54). Second, the point-to-point model is cheeper than the hub-

and-spoke model because of the reduced cost of landing fees, gate fees, and airport personnel; “a

non-stop flight is the least expensive means” to serve markets that can fully utilize the aircraft

(Cook 55).

The bypass ratios (and therefore efficiency) of turbofans increased from the 1950s to the

1970s (Pearson 1893). In total, these improvements saved over one billion man-hours in flight,

eight billion dollars in passenger fare savings, and one billion dollars in cargo tariff (Pearson

1893). Since the engines “contribute […] about 45% of the direct operating cost” of the aircraft,

they were responsible for a huge percentage of the savings (Pearson 1893). As the engines get

more powerful and efficient, the aircraft travel faster and with less fuel, leading to decreasing

costs per passenger per mile.

Although minimizing cost was the most important factor influencing turbofan

development in the 60s and 70s, airport congestion also played a role. As air travel became

cheeper, it became more popular. This increased popularity led to more flights being scheduled,

which created a problem as airports and air traffic controllers couldn’t handle the number of

airplanes required to meet economic demands. The solution was for aircraft to increase in size.

These new large aircraft, like the 747, required new engines that could provide more thrust and
 Strand 10

were more efficient (Pearson 1895). Modern “air transport [in the 60s and 70s was] characterized

by a beneficial spiral of improved economics, increased traffic, larger aircraft leading to still

further improvements in economics and so on” (Pearson 1895).

Although the most prevalent modern use-case for high-bypass turbofans was in large

high-altitude airliners that fly at high subsonic speeds, these engines might also be usable in

smaller, slower general aviation aircraft. In fact, if the turbofan were thoughtfully designed for a

small, general aviation aircraft (as opposed to a commercial airliner), its performance could

handily beat other propulsion methods.

The primary concern for small turbofans’ competitiveness is their cost. Multiple

proposals for reducing engine cost have been provided, but “almost without exception, methods

to reduce engine cost result in increased weight” (Waters 1346). A few optimizations, however,

can reduce cost without a drastic increase in weight. For example, the use of “precision

investment casting of blades and disks in an integral configuration” as opposed to forged disks

and individually manufactured blades has a small weight penalty, but dramatically decreases the

cost of the engine (Waters 1346). Furthermore, additional heavy cost reduction measures can be

offset by the use of titanium components which are somewhat more expensive, but have a

“weight advantage of up to 4:1 over steel” (Waters 1346).

What makes turbofans so great for general aviation use is that they can be extremely

efficient at low altitudes and speeds. In light airplanes of equal performance, turbofans have

between two and “22 times lower exhaust emissions than piston engines.” (Waters 1347). This is

because turbofans at low speed “produce substantially more thrust per quantity of fuel burned”

when compared to a piston engine, or even a turbofan at high-speed (Waters 1347).

 Strand 11

To demonstrate the applicability of turbofans to general aviation, engines were designed

for three fictional airplanes: a two seat trainer, a four seat utility aircraft, and a four seat high-

performance aircraft. The performance of any of these airplanes does not approach that of a

modern airliner, but turbofans are still useful. Across all three engines, the most notable figure

was that of cruise fuel consumption: 8 gallons per hour for the two-seater and 11 for the four-

seater (Waters 1365). These shockingly low statistics have two major implications. First, fuel is

less of a burden for the end consumer. Second, fewer pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere.

Although it is unlikely that turbofans will be used as described in this article for general

aviation aircraft in the near future, it is still valuable to note that use of this technology is not

limited to multi-billion dollar airlines, private pilots might use them too.

Since the 1950s, air travel has gone from an extreme luxury available only to the wildly

affluent to a relatively commonplace mode of transportation for a large portion of the population.

Just between 1955 and 1973, the percentage of people in the United States with experience flying

nearly doubled (Gleditsch 84). The high-bypass turbofan is responsible for this change. It drove

down fuel consumption and therefore drove down airline and ticket costs. As these costs fell,

passenger demand increased, allowing for more frequent flights, in turn driving costs down

further as the economics of scale took effect.

The democratization of air travel beginning in the late 80s and 90s has its roots in the

early high-bypass turbofans that powered the 747 and the DC-10. These legendary engines, the

JT9D and the CF6, allowed larger aircraft to be built, ferrying more people around the world

much more affordably. Soon after, this same technology was applied to the smaller 737, allowing
 Strand 12

it to become the most popular airliner in the world, shifting airlines from hub-and-spoke models

to point-to-point models, just as the 747 did the opposite a decade earlier.

Prior to the advent of the high-bypass turbofan, regular air travel was a luxury reserved

for the wealthy. A trip on an airplane would be an extremely rare occurrence for the average

family. Now, because of the new efficiency of high-bypass turbofan engines and the increased

size of commercial airliners, air travel can be a regular occurrence for the average person.
 Strand 13

Works Cited

Banham, Russ. Higher: 100 Years of Boeing. Chronicle Books, 2015.

"Boeing Company." Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History, edited by Thomas Carson and

Mary Bonk, Detroit, Gale, 1999. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/

EJ1667500778/UHIC?u=athe67392&sid=UHIC&xid=578947a8. Accessed 26 Aug.

2019.

Connors, Jack, and Ned Allen. The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History. American

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central,

ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/shschools-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3111680. Accessed

4 Sept. 2019.

Cook, Gerald N., and Jeremy Goodwin. "Airline Networks: A Comparison of Hub-and-Spoke

and Point-to-Point Systems." Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Journal of Aviation/

Aerospace Education & Research, vol. 17, no. 2, Winter 2008, pp. 51-60,

commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&context=jaaer. Accessed 19 Nov.

2019.

Garvin, R. V. Starting Something Big: The Commercial Emergence of GE Aircraft Engines.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999.

Gleditsch, Nils Petter. "Slow Is Beautiful. the Stratification of Personal Mobility, with Special

Reference to International Aviation." Acta Sociologica, vol. 18, no. 1, 1975, pp. 76-94.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4194048.

Hevener, R. W. "The CF6 Engine – Designed to Improve Operational Effectiveness." SAE

Transactions, vol. 80, 1971, pp. 2598-611. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44650345.

 Strand 14

"Modern Airplane Technology: 1950-1999." Science and Its Times, edited by Neil Schlager and

Josh Lauer, vol. 7, Detroit, Gale, 2001. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/

apps/doc/CV2643450830/UHIC?u=athe67392&sid=UHIC&xid=dd63492a. Accessed 26

Aug. 2019.

Pearson, Harry. "The Development of Propulsion Systems for Air Transport." SAE Transactions,

vol. 81, 1972, pp. 1891-901. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44722846.

Van Der Linden, F. Robert. "Boeing Company." America in the World, 1776 to the Present: A

Supplement to the Dictionary of American History, edited by Edward J. Blum, vol. 1,

Farmington Hills, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2016, pp. 138-41. Gale In Context: U.S.

History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3630800083/UHIC?

u=athe67392&sid=UHIC&xid=7a216387. Accessed 26 Aug. 2019.

Vladsinger. "ETOPS Rating Flight Path." commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?

curid=58730562.

Waters, Mark H. "Summary of Systems Design Studies of Turbofan Powered Light Aircraft."

SAE Transactions, vol. 84, 1975, pp. 1343-68. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44718022.

Wells, Edward C. "Potentials for Advanced Civil Transport Aircraft." SAE Transactions, vol. 82,

1973, pp. 3162-73. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44721363.

Worsham, J. E. "New Turbofan Engines - F101 and TF34." SAE Transactions, vol. 81, 1972, pp.

2520-24. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44716256.