7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference (ATIO)<BR>2nd Centre of E AIAA 2007-7848

18 - 20 September 2007, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Bleed Air versus Electric Power Off-takes from a Turbofan

Gas Turbine over the Flight Cycle

Dr. Ronald Slingerland 1 and Sijmen Zandstra 2

Technical University of Delft, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft, 2629 HS

[Abstract] In this paper the performance of the gas turbine engines of a commercial
passenger aircraft is evaluated for both bleed air off-take and electric power off-take. As
these types of engine power off-takes are not directly comparable, an exergy analysis is used
to establish the most efficient type of off-take. From this analysis appears that it is indeed
more efficient to bleed air from the engine instead of generating the equivalent amount of
exergy in terms of electric power. However, when also taking into account the performance
of the largest pneumatic power consumer, the Environmental Control System (ECS) it
appears that about 2% thrust specific fuel consumption can be saved, by using a More-
Electric ECS instead of a conventional bleed air powered ECS.

Nomenclature

EW kW Physical exergy
EQ kW Thermal exergy
I kW total exergy
H J/kg specific enthalpy
M kg mass
P N/m2 pressure
S J/K specific entropy
T K Temperature
Ε kW Specific exergy

ECS = Environmental Control System

GSP = Gas Turbine Simulation Program
HPC = High Pressure Compressor
ISA = International Standard Atmosphere
TSFC = Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
XWB = Extra Wide Body

I. Introduction
Recent times have shown different technical strategies within the wide-body market segment between Boeing
and Airbus. Boeing with its latest design, the B787, has adopted a radical approach of an all-CFRP airframe as well
as a more-electric on-board power system layout, including the ECS system. Boeing claims lower weight and cost
for its new ECS configuration. Airbus on the other hand is more cautious and stays with a more conventional ECS
supplied by bleed air from the engines. This paper seeks to investigate the possible advantages of such a novel
scheme on a medium- haul airplane by comparing two different generic designs in terms of specific fuel
consumption. For that purpose a model is set up that combines a turbofan with an ECS system.

As we are specifically interested in the comparison between the B787 and the A350, the A330, on which the
A350 will be based, is taken as a reference. The A330-200 is a medium sized, 250 passengers, twin engine, long
range commercial transport aircraft and uses two CF6-80E1 engines each delivering 72,000 pounds of thrust.

1
Assistant Professor, Chair of Design of Aircraft and Rotorcraft, R.Slingerland@tudelft.nl, AIAA Member.
2
M.Sc. Student, Chair of Design of Aircraft and Rotorcraft, s.j.zandstra@student.tudelft.nl.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2007 by R. Slingerland, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 II. The Basic Quantities for exergy analysis
The first consideration is how to compare the two strategies. This is not immediately clear, since shaft power is
measured in [kW] and bleed air in [kg/s]. Therefore we need to find a relationship between the two. This can be
done in terms of energy, or in terms of available energy, also called exergy. The second approach will be more
helpful as it takes into account the amount of “dead” energy, or energy that cannot be used.

First, we will discuss the basic mathematical relations related to exergy of a flowing stream of matter: Consider a
flowing stream of matter at temperature (T), pressure (p), mass (m), specific enthalpy (h) and specific entropy (s). A
conceptual environment is considered in an equilibrium state with intensive properties at T0, p0. The environment is
taken to be large enough that its intensive properties are negligibly affected by any interactions with the system.
With the above considerations, the specific exergy of a flowing stream of matter can be expressed as:

ε = (h − h0 ) + To (s − s 0 ) (1)

The physical exergy is the maximum available work extracted from a flowing stream as it is brought to the
environmental state. So mathematically:

EW = W (2)

The amount of thermal exergy transfer associated with heat transfer (Qr) across a system boundary (r) at constant
temperature (Tr) is:

⎛ T ⎞
EQ = ⎜⎜1 − 0 ⎟⎟Qr (3)
⎝ Tr ⎠

Finally, the amount of exergy consumed due to irreversibilities during a process is:

I = T0 S gen (4)

Exergy is always defined with respect to some kind of reference state. The reference environment is in stable
equilibrium, acts as an infinite system, is a sink or source for heat and materials, and experiences only internally
reversible processes in which its intensive properties (i.e. temperature T0, pressure P0 and chemical potentials)
remain constant [Moran and Shapiro, 1998]. This makes it difficult to unambiguously find a relation for all
subsystems at once. So, in order to find accurate results, a generic model was created for the main subsystem
powered by bleed air in today’s commercial aircraft, namely the environmental control system. This will allow us to
draw conclusion on the total system performance in terms of fuel consumption

III. The gas turbine simulation program (GSP)

Figure 1. The CF6-80E1 and its GSP model [NLR, 2005]

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The second consideration is how to simulate the performance losses of the gas turbine due to exergy off-takes by
bleeding of air or electrical power off-take. It can be expected that the differences of these energy bleeds are quite
subtle, so an accurate simulation is required to obtain reliable results.

Fortunately, it can be assumed that the effects of bleed air and shaft power off-takes from the future engines will
be comparable to existing engine types. This assumption allows us to use GSP, a state-of-the-art gas turbine
simulation program developed at the Dutch NLR [NLR, 2005]. It is a 1D gas turbine simulation program, which
means that the gas turbine is looked at as a collection of black boxes that represent the main components. This
allows us to do a preliminary off-design analysis with a generic model of the CF6-80E1. This model has been shown
in Fig. 1.

IV. Bleed air vs. Electrical power off-take w.r.t. performance at design point Operation
Next GSP is used to analyze the effect of different power off-takes during design point operation of the gas
turbine. This is done to get an idea of the behavior of the gas turbine when energy is tapped off. To this end the drop
in maximum performance in terms of thrust and specific fuel consumption (TSFC) at design conditions is analyzed
for constant fuel flow per percent high-pressure compressor (HPC) bleed (bled at the end of the high-pressure
compressor). It is noted that a simpler generic model of a high bypass ratio gas turbine was used to obtain these
results, as its inputs can be controlled more directly. When the simulation for some percentage of bleed air is done
the total amount of exergy, extracted from the engine can be determined using:

Exergy = m& ⋅ ε = m& ⋅ [(h − h0 ) + To (s − s0 )] (5)

where the enthalpy (h) and entropy (s) are obtained from the tables in [Moran and Shapiro, 1998], as the pressure
and temperature of the bleed air is known. Furthermore, 280 K is taken as a reference temperature, as both the anti-
icing and the environmental system operate at an environment temperature around this value. This allows us to
apply the equivalent electrical energy off-take, as electrical energy is equal to exergy.

Figure 2. Effect of 0 to 7500 kW Exergy off-take in the form of bleed air or electrical
energy, on the thrust and specific fuel consumption, assuming constant fuel flow

Now the bleed control is used to set the fraction of air bleed from the high-pressure compressor from 0% to 10%.
In Fig. 2 the thrust and specific fuel consumption is plotted versus these bleed fractions, together with the effect of
the equivalent electrical power off-take.

From these graphs appears that the correlation between thrust and bleed air fraction is linear, as well as with
respect to electrical power off-take. Furthermore, it appears that bleeding from the HPC is more efficient than
electrical power off-take from the second turbine, as the loss of thrust is larger and the increase in thrust specific fuel
consumption (TSFC) is larger than for bleeding. It is noted that the thrust specific fuel consumption is defined as:

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 60 ⋅ 60 ⋅ m& fuel
TSFC = (6)
FN
where FN is the thrust the engine delivers and mfuel is the fuel mass flow. Furthermore, two times the factor 60 is
introduced to get a result in hours instead of seconds.

Figure 3. Effect of 0 to 7500 kW Exergy off-take in the form of bleed air or electrical energy,
on the thrust and specific fuel consumption, assuming constant turbine entry temperature

Next, the turbine entry temperature is kept constant, such that the engines limits are not exceeded [Houtman,
Visser, and Van Buijtenen, 2003]. Then the bleed air fraction is increased again from 0 to 10%. In Fig. 3 the thrust
and specific fuel consumption is plotted versus these bleed fractions, together with the effects of generating the
equivalent amount of electrical power with the second turbine stage.

From these graphs appears that the correlation between thrust and bleed air fraction is not linear anymore,
because of the decreasing fuel flow to keep the turbine entry temperature constant. However we can assume that the
thrust and specific fuel consumption are more or less linear up to 5000 kW, which is more than enough for our
purposes. From inspection of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 it can be noticed that a significantly greater decrease in performance
results when the temperature instead of the fuel flow is kept constant.

Figure 4. Turbine entry temperature increase due to bleeding

up to 10% and equivalent power generation at design point fuel flow

Obviously it is necessary to determine whether or not the two situations are acceptable with regards to the engine
limits. To answer this question we need to look at the two proposed methods described: constant fuel flow and
constant turbine entry temperature. For the first method it is unknown if the turbine entry temperature does not
exceed the engine limits. In Fig. 4 the increase of the temperature due to bleeding up to 10% is shown.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 5. Low pressure compressor map, showing steady state operating point shift due to bleeding and due
to electrical power off-take (full line: constant fuel flow and dotted line: constant temp.)

Figure 6. High pressure compressor map, showing steady state operating point shift due to bleeding and
due to electrical power off-take (full line: constant fuel flow and dotted line: constant temp.)

Figure 4 shows that the turbine entry temperature increases linearly with increasing power off-takes at constant
fuel flow. The temperature increases by 11.13K per percent air bled from the HPC. It is quite possible that the
engine limits are exceeded and therefore it shall not be possible to keep the fuel flow constant while increasing the
bleed air fraction up to 10%.

Secondly, the effect of power off-takes on the operation of the compressors is checked. This is done by drawing
the low- and high-pressure compressor maps, which are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, respectively.
From Fig. 5 and Fig 6 it can be seen that the pressure ratio and the rotational speed decreases while increasing
the bleed air fraction for both methods, so in this respect there should be no problems when using bleed air.
However, for the electrical power off-take the pressure ratio increases, as well as the rotational speeds for the low-
pressure compressor, in the case of constant fuel flow. It does not look like engine limits are exceeded, but when
designing a gas turbine, which is going to operate on a fully electrical aircraft, this behavior should definitely be

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
analyzed in more detail to make sure that engine pressure limits and rotational speed limits are not exceeded during
any operating scenario.

Concluding it can therefore be stated that the safest way of bleeding and electrical power off-take is using the
constant turbine entry temperature method, such that the engine limits are not exceeded. Unfortunately this goes at
the cost of higher performance losses as opposed to constant fuel flow bleeding. Furthermore, it can be concluded
that the off-take of electrical power leads to larger performance losses as opposed to bleeding, during design point
operation. However, it is imperative to simulate the exergy off-take during off-design operation before any
conclusions can be made on which type of off-take is more efficient for an aircraft.

V. Simulation of the flight cycle

This brings us to the next consideration, the flight cycle. The energy to be tapped off is expected to vary during
the flight cycle. For example the environmental system will be used to cool the cabin when it is on the ground in
summer while it needs to heat up the cabin, as the temperature drops to around –50 degrees at 11 km altitude. To
simulate the operation of the ECS over the complete flight cycle, ISA standard atmosphere was assumed, which is
based on the temperature profile shown in Fig.7.

Figure 7. ISA Standard Atmosphere Temperature and the flight cycle [Ruijgrok and Paassen, 2005]

It is noted that it is imperative to run the simulation over the complete flight cycle to make sure the worst-case
situation is found, as well as to allow for the evaluation of the overall performance of the system. Unfortunately, the
generic GSP model does not suffice for the complete flight cycle simulation, so use was made of a more detailed
GSP model of the CF6-80E1, which is the engine from which the gas turbine engine for the B787 will probably be
derived.

VI. Bleed air vs. Electrical power off-take over the Complete Flight Cycle
In order to make a good comparison it is important to know the total amount of exergy that is tapped off in the
form of bleed air. An analysis of the temperature at the entry and exit of the HPC confirms that the bleed air
temperature changes continuously with the engine power settings. However the total change during large portions of
the flight are quite small. It can therefore be said that the tapped off exergy can be subdivided in the climb and cruise
segment, the flight idle segment and the ground idle segment. Then we can calculate the exergy using formula 5 and
the gas property tables in [Moran and Shapiro, 1998]. For the climb and cruise segment the exergy of the bleed air
flow at the end of the HPC and at half the enthalpy rise the calculation is shown. The results for the other two
segments have been summarized in Table 1.

Exergyend = 4.73 ⋅ [(767.29 − 280.13) + 283.15 ⋅ (2.6574 − 1.6328)] = 3677 kW

(7)
Exergyhalf = 4.73 ⋅ [(575.59 − 280.13) + 283.15 ⋅ (2.3553 − 1.6328)] = 2365 kW

Table 1: Exergy of the bleed flows in the different flight segments

Bleeding 4.73 kg/s: Climb and Cruise Flight idle Ground idle
Temp Exergy Temp Exergy Temp Exergy
at end of HPC 750 K 3677 kW 610 K 2658 kW 480 K 1686 kW
half way from HPC 3 570 K 2365 kW 470 K 1609 kW 400 K 1052 kW
3
Half way the from HPC in this respect means half the enthalpy rise given by the HPC

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 In order to make a honest comparison between bleed air off-take and electrical energy off-take, it is imperative to
have the same amount of thrust for each setting. Therefore the power settings while bleeding air from the HPC was
increased, and was decreased while taking off electrical power from the second turbine. In this way it is possible to
match the thrust exactly such that we can quantify the efficiency differences in terms of specific fuel consumption.
In this way it becomes possible to simulate the thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) variation for the different
off-take strategies. The results of this simulation are shown in Fig. 8 and have been summarized in Table 2.

Figure 8. Effect of bleeding air (4.73 kg/s) and electrical power off-take on the performance of the CF6-
80E1 over the complete flight cycle

Table 2: Bleed air & electrical power off-take effect on thrust specific fuel consumption during cruise
Power Setting TSFC (kg/Nh) Percentage
No power off-take 35.0 0.06275 100.0%
Bleed air at the end of HPC (4.73 kg/s) 36.5 0.07020 111.9%
Bleed air half way HPC from (4.73 kg/s) 36.0 0.06845 109.1%
Electrical power off-take (3500 kW) 34.0 0.07240 115.4%
Electrical power off-take (3000 kW) 34.0 0.07098 113.1%
Electrical power off-take (2000 kW) 34.3 0.06824 108.7%

From Fig. 8 it immediately appears that the TSFC increases significantly for bleeding air and electrical power
off-take, and that bleeding air is somewhat more efficient than electrical power off-take during cruise. It can also be
seen that at “full blast” the differences between the two strategies become very small. This is due to the high thrust,
making power off-takes less significant with respect to the thrust specific fuel consumption. It is also noted that for

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
this engine it appears to be possible to tap off electrical energy at “full blast”, however from inspection of the HPC
map it was found that the engine limits are approached much closer than when bleeding. Therefore, this nicely
complies with the earlier found results in chapter IV. Furthermore, we see that the thrust specific fuel consumption
decreases much more for bleed air than for electrical power off-take at low power settings. It should be noted
however that at low power settings, the amount of exergy extracted in the form of bleed air is halved with respect to
the cruise phase, but even then it is still more efficient than extracting the same amount of exergy in the form of
electrical power.

From Table 2, appears that bleeding 4.73 kg of air per second from the end of the HPC results in an increase of
TSFC of 11.9% as opposed to an increase of 15.4% when taking off the equivalent amount of electrical power from
the second turbine during cruise. This means that it is more efficient to tap off bleed air from the HPC than tapping
off the same amount of exergy from the second turbine. Looking at Figure , we find that indeed the same goes for
the rest of the flight cycle. So in this respect bleed air is favored over electrical energy off-take.

Furthermore, using the results for electrical power off-take at 2000 and 3000 kW it becomes possible linearly
interpolate to find the electrical power off-take, which matches the efficiency, in terms of TSFC, of bleeding 4.73 kg
of air per second from the end of the HPC and at half the enthalpy rise, during cruise, respectively:

111.9 − 108.7
ETSFC const = ⋅ (3000 − 2000) + 2000 = 2727.3 kW (8)
113.1 − 108.7

109.1 − 108.7
ETSFC const = ⋅ (3000 − 2000) + 2000 = 2090.9 kW (9)
113.1 − 108.7
This means that only 78% of the equivalent electrical power (in terms of exergy) can be tapped off from the
second turbine to obtain the same efficiency in terms of TSFC if bleed air is tapped of at the end of the HPC.
However, when bleed air is tapped of at half the enthalpy rise of the flow in the HPC we find that the equivalent ( in
terms of TSFC) electrical power is 2090.9 kW which is 89% of the bleed air exergy. Therefore it should be noted
that due to the non-linear relation between electrical power off-take and TSFC these percentages will not be the
constant at different power settings. However we do see that in order for an electrical subsystem to be more efficient
than a bleed air subsystem during cruise, the electrical subsystem should be 10-25% more efficient as the equivalent
bleed air powered subsystem.

Concluding, it can be said that power off-takes have a significant detrimental effect on the performance of a gas
turbine and should be limited as much as possible. However, energy is of course needed for all kinds of subsystems
onboard the aircraft. In this respect bleeding air has some major advantages over electrical power off-takes, as it is
more efficient over the complete flight cycle, most importantly during cruise and ground idling. Furthermore, it has
additional benefits, like providing a reduction of the internal pressure and rotational speeds when operating at
maximum thrust, especially with respect to electrical power off-take and it allows for increasing the stall margin,
making the engines run more safely and more efficiently at ground idle. These advantages are probably the reason
why up till now bleed air powered subsystems are preferred over electrically powered subsystems

Still, before rushing into any conclusions, the subsystems need to be modeled as well, as significant efficiency
gains can be expected for the electrically powered systems compared to the pneumatically powered system.
Furthermore, it is required to review the behavior of the system over the complete flight cycle as the reference state,
which was already stated to be very important for the exergy analysis, changes during flight.

VII. The Bleed Air Subsystems

From the preceding analysis appears that in principle bleeding air from a gas turbine is more efficient than
generating the equivalent amount of electrical power (in terms of exergy). Therefore the only reason, which can still
validate using electricity instead of bleed air, is when the advantages of bleeding air power extraction from the gas
turbine are negated by the inefficiency of bleed air-powered subsystems with respect to electrically powered
subsystems. In this respect the four systems onboard an aircraft, that most commonly use high pressure compressor
bleed air are:

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 • Turbine cooling
• Environmental control subsystem (ECS)
• Anti-icing
• Engine stall prevention at low power setting

The ECS is the most energy consuming subsystem, powered by bleed air on today’s commercial aircraft and
therefore the most important subsystem to be replaced. Therefore, it was decided to model this system as its effect
on the performance of the gas turbine engine will be the largest.

VIII. The Environmental Control System Requirements

The first step in the modeling of the ECS is to determine the requirements. So, to start with the human comfort
conditions are given [Astori, 2004]:

• Pressure higher then 750 mbar (normal pressure at 8000 ft or 2400 m, altitude)
• Temperature between 18 and 23 °C
• Relative humidity between 20% and 70%
• CO2 volume concentration lower than 0.5%
• CO volume concentration lower than 0.005%
• O3 volume concentration lower than 0.25 ppm

To ensure the oxygen and contaminant levels remain acceptable a mass flow of at least 0.25 kg/min per
passenger is needed.

More importantly however, the passengers create a significant amount of heat, which needs to be taken into
account. Usually an average of 70 watt per passenger is taken as a good approximation [Committee on Air Quality
2002]. Using the assumption of 250 passengers, 17.5 kW of heat is produced by the passengers. Furthermore other
sources like the TV screens and avionic systems also create additional heat. Here we assume an additional 30 kW of
heat generation.

Q = passengers ⋅ 70 + Other heat sources = 17.5 + 30 = 47.5 kW (10)

The following formula can be used to determine the mass flow and air temperature that an environmental control
system (ECS) must supply to match the human comfort levels. Usually Tecs is taken to be around 10°C [Astori,
2004]. Then the mass flow needed to keep the cabin temperature at 20°C can be calculated as follows:

Q 40.5 ⋅ 103
m& = = = 4.73 kg / s (11)
c p (Tc − Tecs ) 1005 ⋅ (20 − 10)

This means that for our case a mass flow of 4.73 kg/s would be sufficient to ensure comfortable conditions in the
cabin. Of course this air has to come from the aircrafts surroundings. This air however has a much lower
temperature and pressure during cruise flight (up to -60°C), and can have a much higher temperature on the ground
(up to 50°C). Therefore bleed air or electrical power is used to obtain the required cooled (or heated) and pressurized
air flow.

IX. The Environmental Control System Model

Next, a generic ECS was modeled on the basis of a thermodynamic bootstrap cycle, which is shown
schematically in Fig. 9 [Astori, 2004]. To the right the process is shown thermodynamically in a volume versus
pressure plot.

From station one to six we see that ambient air is sucked in, after which it passes through the engine in the case
of a bleed air powered ECS or through the first electric load compressor in the case of an electrical powered ECS.
Then the pressurized, hot air is cooled down in the first heat exchanger, after which it is compressed again in the

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
second compressor and cooled down again in the second heat exchanger. Subsequently, any water present in the
airflow is separated to prevent ice formation and then the air is expanded in a turbine to the required cabin pressure,
while doing useful work.

1Æ2, Isentropic compression in the engine (bleed air) or APU (electrically driven)
2Æ3, Isobaric cooling in the pre-cooler, that uses the external air as a coolant
3Æ4, Second isentropic compression in a specific compressor
4Æ5, Second isobaric cooling in a heat exchanger using external air as coolant
5Æ6, Isentropic expansion through a turbine

Figure 9. The environmental system: The bootstrap cycle [Astori, 2004]

Using the one-dimensional approach, looking at these components as black boxes, allows us to calculate the state
of the flow at the input and output sides of each component within the process and verify the results using enthalpy-
entropy diagrams. To make a simulation possible the general thermodynamic relations that apply to the
thermodynamic cycle have been rewritten for the two main configurations, such that a required output can be
translated directly into the operation and power consumption of the system. Then the power and cooling system
requirements for the intercoolers and for the electric ECS as well as for the power electronics and electric motor can
be derived, such that the overall power usage is known.

X. Comparison of the bleed air powered ECS with the electric ECS
Analysis shows that the electric ECS is potentially much more efficient than a bleed air powered ECS, because
the energy required to operate the system can be delivered exactly. This is not the case for the pneumatic ECS
system, because during off-design conditions the airflow exiting the ECS pack is cooled to a too large extent.
Therefore, bleed air is bypassed from station 2, through a pressure reducing valve, to station 6 to heat up the cooled
airflow to the required cabin entry temperature. This renders the pneumatic ECS much more inefficient during off-
design operation.

In Fig. 10 the GSP simulation result over the complete flight cycle is shown in terms of specific fuel
consumption of the CF6-80E1. The case for no power off-take has been chosen as a reference. This figure clearly
shows that it is significantly more efficient to power the electric ECS electrically instead of pneumatically. Further
analysis of both the pneumatic ECS and the electric ECS shows that the electric ECS system is at least 4% more
efficient over the complete flight cycle in terms of thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC). It is noted that 0% cabin
air recirculation was assumed so the cabin air mass flow and therefore the power levels are approximately a factor 2
too high, but this does not affect the relative efficiency of either system. Furthermore, the thrust levels of the gas
turbine have been kept constant for all three scenarios, to ensure a good basis for comparison.

Another point of attention is that during this simulation the same temperature output was required from the
electric ECS as from the pneumatic ECS. However, the electric ECS is much more flexible due to the fact that the
work done by the first compressor can be controlled directly, providing much better possibilities for optimization,
leading to an even more efficient design.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 10. Effect on the TSFC of the CF6-80E1, of bleed air (4.73 kg/s) and electrical power off-take to
power the bleed air and electrically powered ECS, respectively, over the complete flight cycle

From Fig. 10 appears that the electric ECS is significantly more efficient than its pneumatic, bleed air powered
counterpart. Even to such extent that it negates the efficiency advantages of tapping off bleed air with respect to the
off-take of electric power.

XI. Conclusions

The electrically powered ECS system combined with a turbofan provides a gain of at least 2% in terms of thrust
specific fuel consumption during cruise, when taking into account 50% cabin air recirculation. These benefits are the
caused by the more efficient electrical bleed air system and not by the electrical off-takes within the engine itself.

Using the Breguet Range equation [Obert, 1989], it can be shown that for maximum range 2% additional fuel
has to be taken aboard when using the pneumatic ECS system, compared to the electric ECS system. Therefore,
these small percentages will have a significant impact on the direct operating cost of the aircraft. At today’s rate of
$82.1/barrel 4 this means a saving of $1030 per maximum range flight. If we assume a utilization of 3000 flight
hours per year, we arrive at a total saving of approximately $300,000 per annum per aircraft.

Therefore, this research concludes that the replacement of the bleed air powered subsystems like the
environmental control system with electrically powered subsystems has the potential of significant improvements in
terms of TSFC. Other benefits such as lower operating weight, less mechanical complexity and cost remain to be
investigated.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the NLR for enabling us to use their gas turbine simulation program (GSP). We are also
indebted to MSc. Savad Shakariyants and MSc. Francesco Montella for the use of their GSP model of the CF6-
80E1.

References
Books
1
C.J.Houtman, W.P.Visser, J.P. van Buijtenen, Gasturbines, TU Delft press, Delft, The Netherlands, 2003
2
Committee on Air Quality in Passenger Cabins of Commercial Aircraft, The Airliner Cabin Environment and the Health of
Passengers and Crew, ISBN: 0-309-08289-7, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., USA, 2002, Chap 2
3
E. Obert, Vormgeving en gebruik van Vliegtuigen, TU Delft press, Delft, The Netherlands, May 1989

4
Source: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 4
G.J.J. Ruijgrok and D.M. van Paassen, Elements of aircraft pollution, TU Delft press, Delft, The Netherlands, 2005, Chaps.
3 and 11
5
Michael J. Moran and Howard N. Shapiro, Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., Chichester, England: 1998, pp. 289
6
Paolo Astori, Aircraft systems, version 2003, TU Delft press, Delft, The Netherlands, 2004, Chap. 9

Software
Mathsoft Engineering & Education, Inc., MathCAD 11, USA, 2003
NLR (www.gspteam.nl), Gasturbine Simulation Program (GSP 10.0.2.4), The Netherlands, 2005

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics