NASA CR-159584 R79AE G274

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

ENERGY EFFICIENT ENGINE

FLIGHT PROPULSION SYSTEM

AlRCRAFT/ENGINE INTEGRATION EVALUATION

by

GENERAL ELECTRIC COWANY

P r e p a r e d For

Watioral Aerorartlcr ard Space Adairittration

NASA-Lewis Research C e n t e r
Contract NAS3 -20643
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. ' 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA CR-159584
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
ENERGY EFFICIENT ENGINE FLIGHT PROPULSION SYSTEM -
AIRCRAFT/ENGINE INTEGRATION EVALUATION

7. Author($) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

R.F. Patt R79AEG274
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
General Electric Company
Aircraft Engine Group 11. Contract or Grant No.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45215 NAS3-20643
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name md Address
NASA Lewis Research Center Topical Jan 1978 - Nov 1978
21000 Brookpark Road 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Cleveland , Ohio 44135
I
15. Supplementary Notes
Project Manager - Neal T. Saunders, NASA

16. Abstract

Aircraft/engine integration studies were conducted with Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed
Aircraft Companies as subcontractors to General Electric's Energy Efficient Engine
Program. Economic evaluations of the preliminary design indicated that all NASA
goals will be met or exceeded. Installed sfc, DOC, noise and emissions were evaluated.
Aircraft installation considerations and growth were reviewed. Supplemental reports
by Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed are included.

17. Key Words (Suggested by Author($) ) 18. Distribution Statement

Turbofan Engines
Aircraft Installation
Energy Efficiency
Unclassified - Unlimited

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. NO. of pages 22. Rice'
Unclassified Unclassified
 This report presents the results of aircraft integration analyses
of an advanced Flight Propulsion System (FPS) conducted by the General
Electric Company. This work was performed for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), Lewis Research Center, under Contract
NAS3-20643 as part of -theAircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) Program,
Energy Efficient Engine (E3 ) Project. Mr. Neal T. Saunders is the NASA
E3 Project Manager; Mr. Lawrence E. Macioce is serving as NASA Assistant
Project Manager. Mr. Roger Chamberlin and Mr. Anthony C. Hoffman were the
NASA Project Engineers responsible for the effort associated with Energy
Efficient Engine Propulsion System-Aircraft Integration reported here. Mr.
Martin C. Hemsworth is Manager of the E3 Project for the General Electric
Company.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sect i o n Page

1.0 SUMMARY 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION 3

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE E3 FPS 5

3.1 Design F e a t u r e s 5
3.2 Design Requirements 11

4.0 CYCLE AND PERFORMANCE 12

4.1 D e r i v a t i o n of FPS Cycle 12
4.2 FPS Cycle D e s c r i p t i o n 14
4.3 FPS Performance P r e d i c t i o n Versus B a s e l i n e CF6-50C 15
4.4 Improved Performance R e t e n t i o n 17
4.5 Thrust F l e x i b i l i t y and Growth 17

5.0 PROPULSION SYSTEM AIRCRAFT INTEGRATION EVALUATIONS 22

5.1 Economic S t u d i e s-D i r e c t Operating Cost 23
5.2 Economic S t u d i e s-Return on Investment * 38
5.3 Aircraft Company Comments on FPS Economics 47

6.0 NACELLE DESIGN 48

6.1 Fan Reverser 50
6.2 Engine Mount System 53
6.3 Accessory Package 53
6.4 A i r c r a f t Company Comments 57

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 62

7.1 Acoustics 62
7.2 Exhaust Emissions 65

8.0 PROBABILITY OF MEETING PROGRAM GOALS 70

8.1 Performance Goal 70
8.2 Weight, P r i c e , and Maintenance P r o j e c t i o n s 70
8.3 DOC Goal 70
8.4 Noise Goals 77
8.5 Emissions Goals 77

V
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conc luded )

Sect ion Page

9.0 CONCLUSIONS 83
9.1 I n s t a l l e d SFC 83
9.2 De t e r i o r a t i o n 83
9.3 D i r e c t Operating Cost 83
9.4 Noise 83
9.5 Emissions 83
9.6 Commercial Engine P r a c t i c e s 84

REFERENCES 85

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS 86

APPENDIX A - Aerodynamic A n a l y s i s o f GE E3 Model Scale

Nacelle S i m u l a t o r , Boeing 89

APPENDIX B - Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine Component Development

and I n t e g r a t i o n Study, Lockheed 16 7

APPENDIX C - F i n a l Report on Study T r a n s p o r t s Powered by

GE Energy E f f i c i e n t Engines, Douglas 227

vi
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. I n s t a l l e d E 3 FPS F e a t u r e s . 7

2. U n i n s t a l l e d FPS F e a t u r e s . 8

3. I n s t a l l e d Engine P i p i n g and Mount Details. 11

4. E3 Cycle S e l e c t i o n . 13

5. Long Term Performance R e t e n t i o n . . 18

6. Block Fuel Savings. 24

7. D i r e c t Operating Cost (DOC) Improvement. 31

8. F r a c t i o n a l Fuel Cost. 32

9. F r a c t i o n a l D e p r e c i a t i o n Cost. 33

10. F r a c t i o n a l C r e w Cost. 34

11. F r a c t i o n a l Airframe Maintenance Cost. 35

12. F r a c t i o n a l Engine Maintenance Cost. 36

13. F r a c t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e Cost. 37

14. Fuel C o n t r i b u t i o n . 40

15. Depreciation Contribution. 41

16. Engine Maintenance C o n t r i b u t i o n . 42

17. Airframe Maintenance C o n t r i b u t i o n . 43

18. C r e w Cost C o n t r i b u t i o n . 44

19. I n s u r a n c e Co s t Cont r i b u t ion. 45

20. Nacelle General Arrangement. 49

21. Thrust Reverser Actuation . 51

22. O v e r a l l Engine Reverser T h r u s t Comparison. 52

23. Engine Mount System. 54

vi i
 LIST OF ILUSTRATIONS (Concluded)

Figure Page

24. Mount React i o n Schematic . 55

25 e P r e l i m i n a r y E3 O v a l i z a t i o n . 56

26. Accessory Package. 60

27. Accessory Package. 61

28. Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine - Low Noise Design F e a t u r e s . 63

29. Noise Exposure Areas f o r Lockheed T r i j e t Near Chicago

O'Hare A i r p o r t , 90 EPNdB. 66

30. E3 Double Annular Combustor P r e d i c t e d Emission

Characteristics. 68

31. P r o b a b i l i t y o f Achieving SFC Goals. 71

32. P r o b a b i l i t y of Achieving FPS Weight P r o j e c t i o n . 72

33. P r o b a b i l i t y of Achieving FPS P r i c e P r o j e c t i o n s . 73

34. P r o b a b i l i t y of Achieving FPS Maintenance Cost P r o j e c t i o n s . 74

35. P r o b a b i l i t y o f Meeting P r o j e c t e d DOC. 75

36. P r o b a b i l i t y of Meeting DOC Goal. 76

37. P r o b a b i l i t y of Meeting CO Emissions Goal. 78

38. P r o b a b i l i t y o f Meeting HC Goal. 79

39. P r o b a b i l i t y o f Meeting NO, Goal. 80

40. P r o b a b i l i t y o f Meeting Smoke Goal. 81

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. E3 F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System S t a t u s Engine and N a c e l l e

Dimensions. 6

11. Comparison of E 3 FPS S t a t u s t o Reference CF6-50C. 10

111. Nominal Customer Bleed and Power E x t r a c t i o n , 10,668 m/0.8

M/Standard Day (35,000 f t / 0 . 8 M/Standard Day). 10

IV . E3 FPS Cycle D e f i n i t i o n . 14

V. FPS Cycle - Maximum C r u i s e Component Performance. 15

VI. E3 FPS/CF6-50C Reference Maximum C r u i s e SFC Comparison. 16

VII. E 3 Growth C a p a b i l i t y . 19

VIII. Growth Component Changes. 20

IX . Economic B e n e f i t s , Block 'Fuel. 23

X. A i r p l a n e P r i c i n g Functions. 26

XI. Engine Weight Estimate by Module - KG (lb). 27

XII. Estimated Engine P r i c e - K$ (1977 D o l l a r s ) . 27

XIII. Estimated Engine Maintenance Cost, 2-Hour Mission, No

Derate. 28

XIV. Major Engine I n p u t s t o DOC A n a l y s i s . 29

xv . Economic B e n e f i t s , D i r e c t Operating Cost (NASA - Coordi-

nated Rules). 30

XVI . D i s t r i b u t i o n of DOC Elements, E3 Engine w i t h C r e d i t f o r

Improved Performance Re t e n t i o n . 30

XVII. C o n t r i b u t o r s t o DOC Improvement, E 3 w i t h C r e d i t f o r

Improved Performance R e t e n t i o n Versus CF6-506. 39

XVIII. Improvement in Return on Investment f o r E3 Versus CF6-50C

Proprilsion Technology (NASA-Coordinated Rules) . 47

XIX . Comparison of Accessory L o c a t i o n , Economic Summary. 58

ix
 LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)

Table Page

XX. Nonquantitative Factors in Accessory Package Selection. 59

XXI. Flight Noise Estimates for E3 Advanced Aircraft. 64

XXII. E3 Combustor -
Emission Goals (EPA 1981 Standards) for
Newly Certified Engines. 65

XXIII. E3 Combustor - Key Performance/Operating Requirements. 67

XXIV. Probabilities of Meeting FAR 36 (1978) Noise Rule Without

Trades. 77

X
 1.0 SUMMARY

The NASA-GE Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine (E3) program i s t h e l a t e s t i n a

series of p r o g r e s s i v e e f f o r t s t o develop and demonstrate fuel-saving tech-
nology f o r f u t u r e commercial t r a n s p o r t engines. During t h i s p
vanced compressors, f a n s , t u r b i n e s , combustors, and exhaust m i
designed and run e x p e r i m e n t a l l y as t e s t hardware, t h e n ined i n a c o r e
engine t e s t v e h i c l e and f i n a l l y a s an i n t e g r a t e d - c o r e , s p o o l veh i c le.

Program d e s i g n g o a l s f o r a f u l l y developed F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System (FPS)

a r e a s follows:

Installed sfc

2 1 2 % improvement o v e r CF6-50C a t Mach 0.8 10,668 m

(35,000 f t ) , maximum c r u i s e c o n d i t i o n s

SFC D e t e r i o r a t i o n Rate

5 0.5 of CF6-50C
D i r e c t Operating Cost

1 5 % improvement o v e r a s c a l e d CF6-50C w i t h same advanced

aircraft

Noise

Meet FAR-Part 36 (March 1978) w i t h p r o v i s i o n f o r engine growth

Emissions

Meet EPA-proposed 1981 Standards

Commercial Design P r a c t i c e s

In o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e E3 F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System (FPS) repre-

sented a p r a c t i c a l d e s i g n f u l l y c a p a b l e of i n s t a l l a t i o n on advanced a i r c r a f t ,
a i r c r a f t / e n g i n e i n t e g r a t i o n s t u d i e s were, included i n t h e program. Through
s u b c o n t r a c t s with t h e major commercial a i r c r a f t companies (Boeing, Douglas,
and Lockheed), m i s s i o n e v a l u a t i o n s o f E3 v e r s u s c u r r e n t (CF6-50C) technology
were performed i n advanced s t u d y a i r c r a f t t o determine t h a t t h e program eco-
nomic g o a l s would be m e t . An important p a r t of t h e s u b c o n t r a c t e f f o r t d e a l t
with review and c r i t i q u e of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n d e s i g n t o e s t a b l i s h s u i t a b i l i t y
of t h e E 3 engine f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n on advanced commercial a i r c r a f t of t h e
l a t e 1980's-early 1990's. Elements o f t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n such a s t h e i n l e t ,
t h r u s t r e v e r s e r , mount system, a c c e s s o r y package, and a f t cowling were re-
viewed and, i n many c a s e s , changed t o r e f l e c t a i r c r a f t company comments on
aerodynamic and s t r u c t u r a l d e s i g n of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n .
 The E3 FPS s t a t u s performance showed a n improvement i n u n i n s t a l l e d s f c
o f 13.3% o v e r t h e CF6-5OC, and a n i n s t a l l e d (no customer b l e e d or power ex-
t r a c t i o n , b u t i n c l u d i n g i s o l a t e d n a c e l l e d r a g ) s f c improvement o f 14.2%. In
a d d i t i o n , a f u l l y i n s t a l l e d ( i n c l u d i n g nominal customer b l e e d and power ex-
t r a c t i o n ) s f c b e n e f i t o f 0.4%was i d e n t i f i e d by means o f a r e g e n e r a t i v e f u e l
h e a t e r t h a t would e x t r a c t waste h e a t from t h e customer Environmental Control
System b l e e d a i r and r e t u r n t h a t h e a t t o t h e f u e l system. The f u l l y - i n s t a l l
s f c b e n e f i t would t h e n be 14.6% v e r s u s t h e CF6-50C. Over and above t h i s ,
r e a l i z a t i o n of improved performance r e t e n t ion (50% of t h e performan
o r a t i o n rate o f t h e CF6-50C) would provide a f u r t h e r 1% e q u i v a l e n t
over t h e s e r v i c e l i f e of t h e engine, for a t o t a l improvement o f 15.6%.

The m i s s i o n e v a l u a t i o n s by t h e a i r c r a f t companies showed improvements i n

block f u e l of from 15.5% t o 21.7% w i t h o u t c r e d i t f o r t h e improved performance
r e t e n t i o n and 16.3% t o 22.9% w i t h c r e d i t . Using a uniform set o f DOC c a l c u -
l a t i o n ground r u l e s t o provide c o n s i s t e n c y o f comparison a c r o s s t h e range o f
s t u d y a i l c r a f t , improvements o f 5 . 0 t o 11.6% i n DOC were c a l c u l a t e d from E3
technology without improved performance r e t e n t i o n c r e d i t , and 5 . 3 t o 12.4%
with c r e d i t .

2
 2.0 INTRODUCTION

E f f e c t i v e f u e l s a v i n g technology i s i n c r e a s i n g l y important t o our

n a t i o n a l g o a l of energy s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . Improvements i n energy e f f i c i e n c y
have i n c r e a s i n g p r i o r i t y i n commercial a v a i a t i o n as f u e l p r i c e s c o n t i n u e t o
escalate, and f u e l c o s t s r e p r e s e n t an i n c r e a s i n g p a r t o f t h e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s
of commercial transpo'rt a i r c r a f t .

The purpose o f t h e NASA-Sponsored Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine (E3) program

i s t o develop and demonstrate t h e technology base f o r a c h i e v i n g h i g h e r thermo-
dynamic and p r o p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y i n f u t u r e commercial t u r b o f a n engines. T h i s
technology must be r e a l i s t i c a l l y a p p l i c a b l e i n p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s i n o r d e r
t o c o n t r i b u t e m a t e r i a l l y t o f u e l s a v i n g s i n commercial t r a n s p o r t s e n t e r i n g
s e r v i c e beginning i n the l a t e 1 9 8 0 . ' ~ - e a r l y 1990's t i m e p e r i o d . Within t h i s
framework, t h e General E l e c t r i c Company, under c o n t r a c t w i t h NASA, h a s under-
taken t h e d e s i g n of advanced e n g i n e components which w i l l be demonstrated
i n d i v i d u a l l y as component t e s t v e h i c l e s and c o l l e c t i v e l y i n a c o r e engine t e s t
and as a f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d core-low s p o o l t u r b o f a n v e h i c l e (ICLS). The b a s i s
f o r t h e d e s i g n of t h e s e components is t h e E3 F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System (FPS),
t h e p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n of which w a s reviewed by NASA i n November 1978 and ap-
proved by NASA s h o r t l y a f t e r w a r d .

The FPS r e p r e s e n t s a commercial d e s i g n t h a t c o u l d be c e r t i f i e d f o r com-

m e r c i a l s e r v i c e i n t h e l a t e 1980's-early 1990's t i m e p e r i o d . The conceptual
d e s i g n w a s evolved i n NASA-sponsored s t u d i e s o v e r t h e 1974-1977 t i m e p e r i o d
and i s intended t o s a t i s f y t h e NASA-E3 program d e s i g n goals.

Installed sfc

212% improvement o v e r CF6-50C a t Mach 0 . 8 10,668 m

(35,000 f t ) , maximum c r u i s e c o n d i t i o n s

SFC D e t e r i o r a t i o n Rate

2 0 . 5 o f CF6-50C

D i r e c t Operating Cost

25% improvement o v e r a s c a l e d CF6-50C w i t h same

advanced a i r c r a f t

Noise

Meet FAR-Part 36 (March 1978) w i t h p r o v i s i o n f o r engine growth

Emissions

Meet EPA-proposed 1981 Standards

Commercial Design P r a c t i c e s

3
 A s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t of t h e d e s i g n e f f o r t f o r t h e FPS w a s a i r c r a f t / e n g i n e
i n t e g r a t i o n . This work h a s been c a r r i e d o u t t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e FPS d e s i g n
took i n t o account t h e p r a c t i c a l requirements f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n on advanced
commercial a i r c r a f t a s t h e major a i r c r a f t companies foresaw t h e s e r e q u i r e -
ments i n t h e E3 a p p l i c a t i o n t i m e frame. The economic b e n e f i t s of E3 tech-
nology over c u r r e n t technology were a l s o e v a l u a t e d u s i n g t h e General E l e c t r i c
CF6-50 production engine and n a c e l l e as a c u r r e n t technology b a s e l i n e . I n
o r d e r to enhance t h e realism of t h i s work, s u b c o n t r a c t s were e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h
Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed A i r c r a f t Companies t o perform advanced a i r c r a f t
s i z i n g and m i s s i o n e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s u s i n g s c a l e d E3 and CF6-50C e n g i n e s and
t o review and c r i t i q u e t h e E3 i n s t a l l a t i o n d e s i g n . The Boeing s t u d y was based
on an advanced domestic twin-engined a i r c r a f t w i t h a d e s i g n payload of 196 pas-
s e n g e r s . The Douglas and Lockheed s t u d i e s were based on advanced d e r i v a t i v e s
of t h e i r DC-10 and L l O l l t r i f a n s . These t r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t were s i z e d
f o r d e s i g n payloads of 458 and 500 passengers, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n addition,
Lockheed s t u d i e d an i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l quad-fan v e r s i o n of t h e i r advanced a i r -
c r a f t w i t h a 500-passenger d e s i g n payload. These s t u d i e s arid reviews provided
t h e b a s i s f o r e v a l u a t i n t h e economic b e n e f i t s and s u i t a b i l i t y of t h e i n s t a l -
l a t i o n d e s i g n f o r t h e E$ FPS. These r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s r e p o r t .

4
 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE E' FPS

The E3 FPS d e s i g n i s d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n t h e P r e l i m i n a r y Analysis and

Design Report t h a t r e s u l t e d from t h e November 1978 PDR. A compact summary of
t h e d e s i g n i s p r e s e n t e d h e r e . Those i n t e r e s t e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l can o b t a i n
t h i s from Reference 1.

The FPS d e s i g n d e p a r t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e i n t h a t much

of t h e n a c e l l e d e s i g n i s s t r u c t u r a l l y i n t e g r a l w i t h what i s normally c a l l e d
t h e "bare engine".
I This i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e of t h e f a n cowling which i s incor-
p o r a t e d i n t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e f a n frame. The n a c e l l e wrap ( i n l e t , r e v e r s e r ,
a f t cowling and t a i l p i p e , and engine b u i l d u p k i t ) i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e FPS de-
s i g n which i s , t h e r e f o r e , a complete p r o p u l s i o n system t h a t i n c l u d e s e v e r y t h i n g
below t h e s t r u t on a pylon-mounted i n s t a l l a t i o n .

3.1 DESIGN FEATURES

The b a r e engine h a s many advanced d e s i g n and performance f e a t u r e s . A

l i g h t w e i g h t h y b r i d composite f a n containment system h a s been i n t e g r a t e d i n t o
t h e composite vane/frame assembly t o reduce weight, enhance f a n c a s i n g s t i f f -
n e s s , and improve f a n t i p c l e a r a n c e s .

Active c l e a r a n c e c o n t r o l h a s been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e a f t p o r t i o n of
t h e compressor and f o r a l l s t a g e s of t h e h i g h and low<p r e s s u r e t u r b i n e s .
S t a r t i n g and o f f - d e s i g n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e h i g h p r e s s u r e r a t i o c o r e com-
p r e s s o r w i l l be enhanced through t h e p r o v i s i o n s of v a r i a b l e geometry vanes
and a s t a r t i n g bleed system. Off-design automatic flow matching of t h e c o r e
and q u a r t e r - s t a g e b o o s t e r i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e q u a r t e r - s t a g e design configura-
t i o n due t o t h e l a r g e f a n duct bypass flow of t h e q u a r t e r s t a g e . No moving
p a r t s w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o achieve s a t i s f a c t o r y flow matching under a l l oper-
ating conditions.

Control of t h e engine i s through a f u l l a u t h o r i t y d i g i t a l e l e c t r o n i c

c o n t r o l (FADEC) t h a t w i l l more a c c u r a t e l y provide a l l t h e c u r r e n t engine
c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n s p l u s many o t h e r f u n c t i o n s such a s c l e a r a n c e c o n t r o l , e t c .
Emissions of t h e FPS w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower from c u r r e n t e n g i n e s through
t h e u s e of a double a n n u l a r combustor design. This d e s i g n employs two co-
a n n u l a r sets of b u r n e r s t o provide p r o p e r f u e l / a i r r a t i o s from i d l e t o maxi-
mum power.

Core-mounted a c c e s s o r i e s have been employed f o r t h e FPS t o reduce n a c e l l e

drag. The a c c e s s o r i e s are enclosed from t h e i n n e r engine cowl volume by a
thermal i s o l a t i o n compartment. This compartment i s i s o l a t e d from t h e c o r e
engine and s e p a r a t e l y v e n t i l a t e d t o ensure r e l i a b l e s e r v i c e and i n c r e a s e d s a f e t y .
The b a s i c engine d e s i g n c a n a c c o m o d a t e a fan-casemounted a c c e s s o r y package
i f desired.

5
 The major i n s t a l l e d and u n i n s t a l l e d FPS f e a t u r e s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n
F i g u r e s 1 and 2. Extensive u s e of composites has been assumed i n t h e n a c e l l e
b o t h f o r c o s t and weight r e d u c t i o n . The n a c e l l e i s s l e n d e r , r e l a t i v e t o cur-
r e q t p r a c t i c e , with a h i g h l i g h t d i a m e t e r t o maximum diameter r a t i o of 0.86.
Because of t h e compact d e s i g n of t h e turbomachinery, t h e n a c e l l e i n s t a l l e d
d r a g i s reduced r e l a t i v e t o t h e CF6-5OC b a s e l i n e engine. Important engine
and n a c e l l e dimensions are given i n T a b l e I.

Table I. E3 F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System S t a t u s
Engine and N a c e l l e Dimensions.

TO T h r u s t , SLS, kN ( l b ) 162.4 (36,500)

Fan Diameter, cm ( i n . ) 210.8 (83.0)

Max Nacelle Diameter, cm ( i n . ) 248.9 (98.0)

I n l e t Length from Fan Face, em ( i n . ) 159 .O (62.6)

Turbomachinery Length, Fan F r o n t 318.0 (125.2)

Flange t o LP Turbine A f t Frame
Flange, cm ( i n . ) i

Overall Nacelle Length, c m ( i n . ) 603.3 (237.5)

Exhaust Nozzle Diameter, em ( i n . ) 159 .O (62.6)

The long-duct mixed-flow i n s t a l l a t ion not o n l y enhances t h e i n s t a l l e d

performance through an i n c r e a s e d s l e n d e r n e s s r a t i o and i n c r e a s e d thermodynamic
e f f i c i e n c y , it e l i m i n a t e s t h e need f o r a c o r e t h r u s t r e v e r s e r . T h i s is be-
c a u s e deployment of t h e fan-stream-only r e v e r s e r r e s u l t s i n a sudden c o r e j e t
expansion and consequent c o r e t h r u s t s p o i l i n g .

Acoustic s u p p r e s s i o n i s provided by a combination of s u p p r e s s i o n mate-

r i a l and d e s i g n c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Advanced Kevlar-based bulk a b s o r b e r s are u t i -
l i z e d throughout t h e low temperature p o r t i o n s of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n s such a s i n
t h e i n l e t and f a n duct r e g i o n s . Fan blade-to-vane s p a c i n g w a s e s t a b l i s h e d t o
minimize f a n n o i s e . The i n l e t i s a c o u s t i c a l l y t r e a t e d and s i z e d t o minimize
forward-radiated f a n n o i s e . Turbine a c o u s t i c t r e a t m e n t i s provided by care-
fully-chosen blade-to-vane spacing and s e l e c t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e numbers of
t u r b i n e b l a d e s . A s t r o q u a r t z sound t r e a t m e n t i s a p p l i e d i n t h e h i g h tempera-
t u r e c o r e exhaust. The mixed flow d e s i g n a l s o r e s u l t s i n a reduced j e t ex-
haust noise.

6
 rn
w
a
e,
I-l
I4
(d
U
cn
H
c

I4
Q)
Fc
1
M
d

J I
i Ir

7
 (d
u
rn
E
r(
E
3

8
 R e s i s t a n c e of t h e compression p o r t i o n of t h e engine t o f o r e i g n o b j e c t
damage (FOD) h a s been enhanced by t h e use of t h e q u a r t e r - s t a g e c o n f i g u r a t i o n
which b l e e d s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n (-40%) i n t o t h e f a n d u c t , t h u s bypassing
around t h e c o r e compressor t h e a i r most l i k e l y t o have d u s t p a r t i c l e s .

A r e g e n e r a t i v e f u e l h e a t e r i s proposed t o e x t r a c t h e a t from t h e customer

Enviornmental Control System (ECS) a i r as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e engine
thermodynamics. This system makes use of waste h e a t o f t h e ECS a i r and re-
i n j e c t s i t i n t o t h e engine i n t h e form o f h e a t e d f u e l . The proposed system
a l s o h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l of p o s s i b l y e l i m i n a t i n g c u r r e n t ECS f a n a i r c o o l e r s
and f u e l a n t i - i c i n g heaters.

Table If compares t h e E3 FPS and t h e CF6-50C on t h e b a s i s o f some im-

p o r t a n t c y c l e parameters, i n s t a l l e d performance, and i n s t a l l e d e n g i n e weight.
The i n s t a l l e d performance i s g i v e n two ways: i n c l u d i n g i s o l a t e d n a c e l l e d r a g
b u t w i t h and without nominal customer b l e e d , and power e x t r a c t i o n .

The assessment o f performance p e n a l t i e s f o r nominal bleed and power ex-

t r a c t i o n is based on t h e assumption t h a t 'engines w i t h t h e same a l t i t u d e climb
t h r u s t would be c a l l e d upon t o d e l i v e r t h e same q u a n t i t i e s o f customer bleed
and power f o r a i r c r a f t s e r v i c e s . To a r r i v e a t t h i s e q u a l i t y , t h e CF6-50C w a s
s c a l e d t o t h e E3 FPS f u l l y i n s t a l l e d maximum climb t h r u s t a t t h e 10,668 m
(35,000 f t ) / 0 . 8 Mach f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e l e v e l s of customer
bleed and power a p p l i e d t o both e n g i n e s . These r e s u l t s , s c a l e d t o E3 s i z e ,
are shown i n Table 111.

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e l e v e l s o f customer bleed and p o w e r e x t r a c t i o n a r e de-

s c r i b e d f o r each o f t h e advanced s t u d y a i r c r a f t i n t h e appendices t o t h i s
r e p o r t . Although t h e r e i s some v a r i a t i o n i n a i r c r a f t requirements among t h e
s t u d y a i r c r a f t , t h e nominal l e v e l s shown i n Table I11 are w i t h i n t h e range of
requirements and are, i n f a c t , somewhat on t h e h i g h s i d e o f t h e range.

The major d i f f e r e n c e between t h e E3 FPS and CF6-506 c y c l e s i s t h e re-

duced s p e c i f i c t h r u s t of t h e FPS as r e f l e c t e d i n t h e l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n f a n
p r e s s u r e r a t i o and f a n bypass r a t i o . This r e s u l t s i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d
propulsion e f f i c i e n c y . Thermodynamic engine e f f i c i e n c y h a s been improved
through u s e of more e f f i c i e n t components, a h i g h e r o v e r a l l e n g i n e p r e s s u r e
r a t i o , a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r c r u i s e t u r b i n e r o t o r i n l e t temperature and t h e
mixed exhaust flow. On a comparable b a s i s , a f u l l y i n s t a l l e d c r u i s e s f c
r e d u c t i o n of 14.6% h a s been p r o j e c t e d f o r a f u l l y developed FPS over t h e
r e f e r e n c e d CF6-50 e n g i n e .

Figure 3 i l l u s t r a t e s what t h e engine would look Like suspended from a n

a i r c r a f t pylon and w i t h some of t h e r e q u i r e d p i p i n g exposed. Use i s made o f
the a f t mounting r i n g t o conduct s t a r t e r a i r around t h e engine t o t h e s t a r t e r .
Mounting of t h e e n g i n e i s a t t h r e e a x i a l l o c a t i o n s . The forward mount p o i n t
t a k e s t h r u s t , s i d e , and v e r t i c a l l o a d s ; t h e middle mount p o i n t s u p p l i e s r o l l
r e a c t i o n o n l y ; w h i l e t h e a f t mount p o i n t t a k e s v e r t i c a l and s i d e l o a d s . The
mount is e s s e n t i a l l y nonredundant under normal f l i g h t l o a d s . This mount ar-
rangement h a s been analyzed i n a p r e l i m i n a r y manner and r e s u l t s i n v e r y low

9
Table 11. Comparison of E3 FPS Status to Reference CF6-50C
-
CF6-50C E3
- b

10,668 mI0.8 MIStandard Day

Maximum Climb Cycle Pressure Ratio 32 38

Maximum Climb Bypass Ratio 4.2 6.8
Maximum Cruise Cycle Pressure R a t i o . 30.1 36.0
Maximum Cruise Bypass Ratio 4.34 6.93
Maximum Cruise Turbine Rotor I n l e t 1093 1188
Temperature, C F) (2000) (2170)
Maximum Cruise s f c
-I n s t a l l e d , No Customer Bleed 0.667 0.572 -14.2%
or Power Extraction

- Fully I n s t a l l e d , Nominal
Customer Bleed and Power Extraction
0.701 0.599 -14.6%
(See Table 111)

SLS/30' C (86" F) Day

Turbine Rotor I n l e t Temperature 1340 1343

@ TO, C ( " F) (2445 1 (2450)
Redline Temperature, C ('' F) 1441 1421
(2625) (2590)
I n s t a l l e d Engine Weight*, kg ( l b ) 447 2 4082
(9860) (9000)

*CF6-50 Scaled t o E3 FPS Maximum Climb Thrust.

Table 111. Nominal Customer Bleed and Power Extraction,

10,668 m10.8 M/Standard Day
(35,000 ft/0.8 M/Standard Day).

Engine :F6-50C (Sca1ed)l E3

SLTO l ' h r u s t - kN 174.0 162.4

(39,110) (36,500)

-
(lb)

Fully I n s t a l l e d
MCL T h r u s t -
kN Same
(lb)

Customer Bleed - kg/sec 0.95 0.95

(lb/ s e e ) (2.1) (2.1)

Customer Power
E x t r a c t i o n - kw
(hp)

Customer b l c c d and power e x t r a c t i o n l e v e l s are set e q u a l

f o r the E3 FPS and the CF6-50 s c a l e d t o E 3 maximum c l i m b
t h r u s t , f u l l y i n s t a l l e d a t 10,668 m (35,000 f t ) , 0.8 M.
 Start B l e e d

customer B l e e d /

Figure 3. I n s t a l l e d Engine P i p i n g and Mount Details.

l e v e l s of c a s i n g o v a l i z a t i o n and bending. Analysis of t h i s and o t h e r mount

c o n f i g u r a t i o n s i s c o n t i n u i n g i n o r d e r t o determine t h e optimum c o n f i g u r a t i o n
f o r t h e FPS.

3.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

The d e s i g n of t h e FPS has been conducted i n accordance w i t h General Elec-

t r i c ' s commercial engine p r a c t i c e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e h o t s e c t i o n ( i . e . , com-
b u s t o r , HI? t u r b i n e b l a d e s , e t c . ) d e s i g n l i v e s have been i n c r e a s e d t o h e l p r e -
duce engine maintenance c o s t s . P a s t e x p e r i e n c e has shown t h a t a l a r g e propor-
t i o n of engine maintenance c o s t s i s d i s t r i b u t e d among r e l a t i v e l y few hot sec-
tion parts.

The growth requirements f o r t h e FPS were accommodated i n t h e f o l l o w i n g

manner. P r o v i s i o n s were made f o r a n t i c i p a t e d growth i n t h e r o t o r and s t a t o r
s t r u c t u r e ; b u t t h e m a t e r i a l s , c o o l i n g and aerodynamic d e s i g n s were optimized
f o r t h e FPS s i z e and c y c l e . When e v a l u a t i n g FPS weight and c o s t , a l l pro-
v i s i o n s f o r growth a r e s u b t r a c t e d .

11
 4.0 CYCLE AND PERFORMANCE

4.1 DERIVATION OF FPS CYCLE

The E3 FPS p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n c y c l e i s based on t h e r e s u l t s of a number

of NASA Programs i n v o l v i n g component and c y c l e t e c h n o l o s t u d i e s (Kefer-
ence 2 ) . A s shown i n F i g u r e 4 , t h e development of t h e
1974 with t h e STEDLEC (Study of Turbofan Engine Designed f o r Low Energy Con-
8 c y c l e began i n

sumption, Reference 3) s t u d y . This was an e x t e n s i v e c y c l e and technology

study of t u r b o f a n e n g i n e s which c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e - and mixed-flow exhaust
system, boosted aiid nonboosted, s i n g l e s t a g e HP t u r b i n e ; and d i r e c t - d r i v e
and geared f a n c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . A l l engines were s t u d i e d a s i n s t a l l e d on
advanced t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t f o r e v a l u a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e NASA performance and
economic, g o a l s .

This was followed by t h e USTEDLEC (Unconventional STEDLEC, Reference 4 )

program which continued t h e t u r b o f a n s t u d i e s along w i t h turboprop engine and
r e g e n e r a t i v e c y c l e s . This study narrowed t h e c a n d i d a t e s t o f o u r e n g i n e t y p e s
with s e p a r a t e - and mixed-f low exhaust v e r s i o n s of d i r e c t - d r i v e and geared
fan configurations. Concurrent w i t h t h i s s t u d y w a s t h e AIWC program which
d e f i n e d an advanced, 10-stage, 23:1 p r e s s u r e r a t i o compressor. This compressor
was t o be used w i t h a two-stage, h i g h p r e s s u r e t u r b i n e i n a nonboosted d i r e e t -
d r i v e t u r b o f a n engine.

The E3 P M I ( P r e l i m i n a r y Design and I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s , Reference 2)

program e v a l u a t e d f o u r engine t y p e s u s i n g advanced componeuts, c y c l e s , and
m a t e r i a l t e c h n o l o g i e s a g a i n s t t h e % M A g o a l s on o p e r a t i n g economics, f u e l
e f f i c i e n c y , and environmental f a c t o r s . Mission s t u d i e s were conducted by
a i r f r a m e c o n t r a c t o r s based on advanced t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t d e s i g n s . T h e ’ f i n a l
c y c l e from t h i s s t u d y was s e l e c t e d a s t h e proposal c y c l e f o r t h i s c o n t r a c t .

The c y c l e s e l e c t i o n process involved two phases. The f i r s t phase devel-

oped a family of engines which provided performance f o r a range of v a l u e s of
t h e s i g n i f i c a n t c y c l e parameters. These were f a n p r e s s u r e r a t i o , bypass r a t i o ,
c y c l e p r e s s u r e , HP t u r b i n e i n l e t temperature, and e x h a u s t s y s t e m type. These
engines were t h e n e v a l u a t e d i n t h e second phase by a i r f r a m e s u b c o n t r a c t o r s
on a v a r i e t y of m i s s i o n s which i n c o r p o r a t e d advanced concepts i n t r a n s p o r t
a i r c r a f t d e s i g n s . The a i r c r a f t d e s i g n s included twin, t r i j e t , and q u a d j e t
c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . The mission s t u d i e s were e v a l u a t e d a g a i n s t t h e NASA g o a l s
f o r : economics (DOC), s p e c i f i c f u e l consumption ( s f c ) , f u e l burned (Wf),
emissions, and a c o u s t i c s . The e n g i n e s were s c a l e d t o meet s p e c i f i c t h r u s t
requirements .
The t h r u s t s i z e f o r t h e E 3 FPS d e s i g n was s e l e c t e d by General E l e c t r i c
based on t h e s e mission s t u d i e s and c o r p o r a t e e v a l u a t i o n s of l i k e l y market
requirements. The b a s i c engine d e s i g n and a s s o c i a t e d technology a r e s c a l a b l e
over a wide range of t h r u s t requirements.

12
Figure 4. E3 Cycle Selection.

13
4.2 FPS CYCLE DESCRIPTION

The E3 c y c l e parameters are shown i n Table IV f o r t h e t h r e e key r a t i n g

p o i n t s at maximum climb, maximum c r u i s e , and SLS t a k e o f f . The climb and
c r u i s e p o i n t s are shown f o r a 10,668 m (35,000 f t ) , 0.8 Mach f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n .
All p o i n t s are d e f i n e d f o r d r y a i r , z e r o bleed and power e x t r a c t i o n , and 100%
i n l e t r a m recovery.

Table I V . E3 FPS Cycle D e f i n i t i o n .

Parameter Maximum Climb qaximum C r u i s e Takeoff

U n i n s t a l l e d s f c (Std. Day), 0.0557 (0.546) 1.0553 (0.542) I .0300 (0.294)

kg/N-hr( lbm/lb f-hr)

Overall Pressure Ratio 37.7 36.1 29.7

Bypass R a t i o 6.8 6 .!I 7.3

Fan Bypass P r e s s u r e R a t i o 1.65 1.61 1.50

Fan Hub P r e s s u r e Ratio 1.67 1.63 1.51

Compressor P r e s s u r e Ratio 23.0 22.6 20 .o

HPT Rotor I n l e t Temp. "C ( " F) 1281 (2340) 1244 (2272) 1343 (2450)

The engine t h r u s t is f l a t - r a t e d over a range of ambient temperatures sub-

j e c t t o a maximum HP t u r b i n e i n l e t temperature as shown below:

0 Standard Day +15' C (+27" F) f o r t a k e o f f

0 Standard Day +lo" C (+18" F) f o r climb and c r u i s e

The temperatures shown i n Table IV f o r each r a t i n g are a t t h e f l a t - r a t i n g t e m -

perature condition.

The u n i n s t a l l e d s f c v a l u e s shown are f o r a s t a n d a r d day ambient tempera-

t u r e . The maximum c r u i s e s f c i s t h e r e f e r e n c e p o i n t f o r t h e NASA goal. This
v a l u e i s a d j u s t e d f o r a n i s o l a t e d n a c e l l e d r a g t o determine t h e i n s t a l l e d s f c
g o a l of t h e E3 program.

The c y c l e d a t a shown are c a l c u l a t e d from t h e General E l e c t r i c c y c l e model

computer program system used on a l l engine programs. These are l a r g e s c a l e
computer programs which c o n t a i n mathematical models of t h e engine components

14
as thermodynamic maps, c o o l i n g and p a r a s i t i c flows, p r e s s u r e l o s s e s , Reynolds
number e f f e c t s , and e x h a u s t system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Steady s t a t e performance
i s c a l c u l a t e d w i t h momentum b a l a n c e , energy, and flow c o n t i n u i t y maintained
from s t a t i o n - t o - s t a t i o n i n t h e engine. The model a l s o c o n t a i n s models of t h e
1962 U.S. s t a n d a r d atmosphere and thermodynamics u s i n g real gas e f f e c t s in-
cluding dissociation e f f e c t s .

Table V shows t h e component e f f i c i e n c i e s a t t h e maximum c r u i s e c o n d i t i o n .

Table V. FPS Cycle -

Maximum C r u i s e
Component Performance.

Component Performance

Fan Bypass, q 0.887

Fan Hub, q 0.892

Compressor , q 0.861

Combustor, q 0.995

HP Turbine, q 0.924

LP Turbine, q 0.917

Mixing E f f e c t i v e n e s s 0.75

4.3 FPS PERFORMANCE PREDICTION VERSUS BASELINE CF6-SOC

The E3 s f c improvement g o a l of -12% is e v a l u a t e d a g a i n s t a General Elec-

t r i c CF6-50C engine. The comparison i s made f o r maximum c r u i s e t h r u s t a t
10,668 m (35,000 f t ) , 0.8 Mach at s t a n d a r d day ambient teinperature w i t h z e r o
b l e e d and power e x t r a c t i o n and 100% i n l e t ram recovery.

Table V I shows t h a t t h e E3 s f c improvement i s -13.3% u n i n s t a l l e d and

-14.2% i n s t a l l e d as a n i s o l a t e d n a c e l l e .
The d a t a i d e n t i f y t h e s o u r c e of t h e
s f c improvement based on a c y c l e parameter comparison of t h e t w o e n g i n e s .

I n i t i a l e v a l u a t i o n of t h e d a t a shown could l e a d t o m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
how t h e E 3 engine d e s i g n provides t h e s f c improvement. For example, of t h e
-4.1% improvement a t t r i b u t e d t o a d i a b a t i c e f f i c i e n c i e s , -3% r e s u l t s from an
improved f a n . However, when c o n s i d e r i n g a comparison of t h e t w o compressors,
t h e E 3 engine has a component w i t h a much h i g h e r p r e s s u r e r a t i o (23:l v e r s u s

15
 Table V I . E3 FPS/CF6-5OC Reference Maximum C r u i s e SFC Comparison.

FPS X A sfc

0 Component E f f i c i e n c i e s - 4.1
0 Mixed Plow Exhaust - 3.1
6 P r o p u l s i v e E f f i c i e n c y (FPR-BYR) - 2.5
6 I n c r e a s e d Cycle P r e s s u r e R a t i o (+20%) - 1.0
a I n c r e a s e d HP Turbine I n l e t Temperature, - 1.5
79" C (+175" F )

e Cooling and P a r a s i t i c Flows - 1.0

a Flowpath P r e s s u r e Losses - 0.1
Unins t a1l e d A sf c Improvement - 13.3%
6 Reduced I s o l a t e d Nacelle Drag - 0.6
a I n t e g r a t e d A i r c r a f t Generator Cooler - 0.3
I n s t a l l e d A s f c Improvement - 14.2%
0 Bleed, HP E x t r a c t i o n + 0.4

e Fuel Heater, Customer A i r - 0.8

F u l l y I n s t a l l e d A s f c Improvement - 14.6%

16
13:l) and r e p r e s e n t s a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n p o l y t r o p i c e f f i c i e n c y . With
a h i g h e r p r e s s u r e r a t i o compressor and advanced c o o l i n g flow technology, a
h i g h e r thermal e f f i c i e n c y c y c l e c a n be o b t a i n e d as evidence by t h e improve-
ments due t o c y c l e p r e s s u r e r a t i o and HP t u r b i n e i n l e t temperatures. The pro-
p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y improvement r e s u l t s from the lower f a n p r e s s u r e r a t i o and
h i g h e r bypass r a t i o . The s i g n i f i c a n t mixed flow improvement r e s u l t s from t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e CF6-50C h a s a s e p a r a t e d flow e x h a u s t system.

4.4 IMPROVED PERFORMANCE RETENTION

It i s an important g o a l of t h e E3 program t h a t t h e h i g h l e v e l of engine

performance be r e t a i n e d over t h e long term as t h e e n g i n e i s used i n commercial
s e r v i c e . Current t u r b o f a n s e x h i b i t a s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r i o r a t i o n in performance
w i t h t i m e i n service. The E 3 engine h a s a d e s i g n g o a l of h a l v i n g t h e long-term
performance l o s s rate e x h i b i t e d by t h e b a s e l i n e CF6-50C engine. T h i s g o a l i s .
i l l u s t r a t e d by F i g u r e 5 . The n e t b e n e f i t t o m i s s i o n performance f o r improved
performance r e t e n t i o n w a s a s s e s s e d a t a 1% e q u i v a l e n t long-term s f c improvement
over t h e c u r r e n t technology CF6-50C. Mission e v a l u a t i o n s were made both w i t h
and w i t h o u t t h i s b e n e f i t t o i l l u s t r a t e i t s impact on program g o a l s . The c r u i s e
s f c improvement over t h e CF6-50C d i d n o t i n c l u d e c r e d i t f o r t h i s , however.

4.5 THRUST J?LEXIBILITY AND GROWTH

The d e s i g n of t h e FPS b a s e l i n e engine c o n s i d e r e d growth requirements t o

p r o p e r l y assess t h e impact on t h e component d e s i g n changes. S t u d i e s were
conducted f o r balanced growth up t o 20% i n t h r u s t w i t h t h e c o n s t r a i n t t h a t
t h e engine flowpath would remain unchanged. F l e x i b i l i t y f o r growth i n s t e p s
was enhanced by t h e f a n hub q u a r t e r - s t a g e t h a t could be modified t o i n c r e a s e
c o r e engine boost.

Thrust growth l e v e l s of +5%, +lo%, and +20% were e v a l u a t e d and are sum-
marized i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s . Table VI1 p r e s e n t s a summary of t h e major
c y c l e parameters f o r t h e maximum climb and SLS t a k e o f f c o n d i t i o n s .

Table VI11 i d e n t i f i e s t h e components t h a t r e q u i r e m o d i f i c a t i o n . Note

t h a t a l l t h e t h r u s t growth c o n f i g u r a t i o n s i n c l u d e ' a c o o l i n g flow m o d i f i c a t i o n
t o maintain constant t u r b i n e blade l i f e .

The +20% growth engine r e q u i r e s changes t o most of t h e components i n t h e

engine b u t not t o t h e flowpath. The major i t e m s include: a new f a n b l a d e
w i t h h i g h e r t i p speed and p r e s s u r e r a t i o ; a h i g h flow compressor modifica-
t i o n which w i l l r e q u i r e some r e b l a d i n g and a new s t a t o r schedule; and some
t u r b i n e aero changes. (The i n t e r i m growth s t e p s w i l l overspeed t h e FPS
f a n b l a d e t o a t t a i n t h e r e q u i r e d e n g i n e a i r f l o w . ) The h i g h e r f a n speed w i l l
permit a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n hub boost of about 23%. These changes t o t h e
f r o n t of t h e engine r e q u i r e changes i n t h e t u r b i n e diaphragms and mixer area
s p l i t . The HP and LP t u r b i n e flow f u n c t i o n s w i l l be i n c r e a s e d 3% and 13%, re-
spectively. The mixer t o t a l a r e a w i l l remain unchanged i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n
t h e same n a c e l l e s i z e . The exhaust n o z z l e area w i l l be decreased by approxi-
mately 2%.
17
 o E 3 V s CF6-50C
I I I I

I Average f o r 6,000 h r s
A sfc 2.4% (Includes
I n i t i a l On-Wing Loss)

E3 Projected Integrated
Average for 6,000 h r s -
A sfc 1.2%

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Engine Hours

Note:
of CF6-50C) w i l l r e s u l t i n additional -
Improvement i n performance r e t e n t i o n ( h a l f the d e t e r i o r a t i o n
1% improvement i n
f l e e t f u e l consumption over the operational l i f e of t h e engine.

Figure 5 . Long Term Performance Retention.

18
 Table VII. E3 Growth C a p a b i l i t y .

Maximum Climb - 10,668 m (35,000 f t ) / 0 . 8 M

N e t Thrust
Throttle
Push
-
FPS . +5% +5% - -
+I0% +20%"

U n i n s t a l l e d SFC ( S t a n d a r d Day) 0.0557 0.0564 0.0562 0.0570 0.0574

kg/N-hr ( lbm/lb f -hr 1 (0.546) (0.553) (0.551) (0.559) (0.563)

O v e r a l l P r e s s u r e Ratio 37.7 39 .O 42.3 42.7 45.0

Bypass R a t i o 6.8 6.7 6.1 6.1 5 e4

Fan Bypass P r e s s u r e Ratio 1.65 1.68 1.70 1.70 1.75

Fan Hub P r e s s u r e R a t i o 1.67 1.70 1.90 1.87 2.05

Takeoff - SLS/30" C (86°F)

Net T h r u s t , kN ( l b ) 162.36 170.50 170.50 178.60 194.83

(36,500) (38,330) (38,330) (40,150) (43,800)

HPT Rotor I n l e t Temperature, 1343 1367 1353 1394 1443

C (' F ) (2450) (2493) (2467) (2541) (2630)

*A l a r g e r fan might be c o n s i d e r e d f o r b e t t e r s f c .

19
 Table VIII. Growth Component Changes*.

Throttle Push
Component Change Required +5% -
+5 % +lo% -
+20 %

New Fan Blade X

New Booster Blading X X X
High Flow Compressor X
Larger HPT Nozzle Area X
Increased Cooling Flows x x X X
Larger LPT Flow Function X X X
New Mixer - Same Total Area X
Smaller Exhaust Nozzle X’

*F lowpath Unch anged

20
 The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a +20% t h r u s t growth p a t h w a s a program r e q u i r e -
ment. The b a s i c FPS r o t o r s and s t a t i c s t r u c t u r e s were designed t o accommodate
growth l e v e l s of p r e s s u r e and r o t o r speed, a l t h o u g h c o o l i n g flow a l l o t m e n t s
were based on FPS gas path temperatures. The +20% growth engine performance
w a s poorer t h a n t h e FPS i n c r u i s e s f c as a r e s u l t of t h e c o n s t r a i n t of con-
s t a n t flowpath. The most s e r i o u s consequence of t h a t c o n s t r a i n t w a s t h a t only
a small (2.4%) i n c r e a s e i n t o t a l a i r f l o w w a s a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e FPS fan d i a -
meter. A s a r e s u l t , most of t h e t h r u s t i n c r e a s e w a s o b t a i n e d from tempera-
t u r e and e x h a u s t pressu;e r a t i o i n c r e s e s which l e d t o a d e g r a d a t i o n i n pro-
p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y and a 2.7% c r u i s e s f c i n c r e a s e o v e r t h e FPS l e v e l . Another
consequence w a s an e s t i m a t e d e n g i n e n o i s e i n c r e a s e of 3 t o 3.5 EPNdB a t take-
o f f and 1 t o 1.5 EPNdB a t approach.

Exhaust emission c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a l s o change when t a k e o f f t h r u s t h a s grown

by 20% as evidenced by t h e r e s u l t i n g d e l t a v a l u e s shown below:

co -1.05 EPAP
HC -0.02 EPAP
NOX +1.32 EPAP
Smoke +4 SN

The primary cause of t h e changes i n e x h a u s t e m i s s i o n s i s t h e i n c r e a s e i n over-

a l l p r e s s u r e r a t i o from 37.7 i n t h e b a s e l i n e e n g i n e t o 45.0 i n t h e growth
e n g i n e ( a t maximum climb c o n d i t i o n s ) . This i n c r e a s e i n o v e r a l l p r e s s u r e r a t i o
r e s u l t s i n i n c r e a s e d combustor i n l e t p r e s s u r e and t e m p e r a t u r e a t t h e pre-
s c r i b e d EPA l a n d i n g - t a k e o f f c y c l e c o n d i t i o n s which c a u s e s carbon monoxide and
r unburned hydrocarbons e m i s s i o n s t o d e c r e a s e and o x i d e s of n i t r o g e n and smoke
emissions t o i n c r e a s e .
Although s i g n i f i c a n t t h r u s t growth w i t h i n t h e same f l o w p a t h / i n s t a l l a t i o n
envelope is d e s i r a b l e , i t i s by no means t h e only p r a c t i c a l l y u s e f u l way t o
o b t a i n e n g i n e growth. I f i t is d e s i r e d t o a c h i e v e growth w i t h o u t s f c o r n o i s e
p e n a l t i e s , a l a r g e r f a n w i t h g r e a t e r a i r f l o w c a p a c i t y could be used. In t h i s
case, c r u i s e s f c and e n g i n e n o i s e margin as t h e b a s e l i n e FPS.

21
 5.0 PROPULSION SYSTEM AIRCRAFT INTEGRATION EVALUATIONS

The a i r c r a f t i n t e g r a t i o n e f f o r t w a s i n t e n d e d t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e E3 F l i g h t
P r o p u l s i o n System (FPS) d e s i g n was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a n t i c i p t e d r e q u i r e -
ments of advanced commercial a i r c r a f t i n t h e l a t e 1980's - e a r l y 1990's. For
t h i s purpose, s u b c o n t r a c t s were e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h t h e Boeing, Douglas, and
Lockheed A i r c r a f t Companies. Using a p p r o p r i a t e p r o j e c t i o n s of t h e i r advanced
t r a n s p o r t d e s i g n s , t h e a i r c r a f t companies e v a l u a t e d t h e E 3 FPS a g a i n s t t h e
b a s e l i n e - CF6-5OC current-technology engine n a c e l l e t o determine t h e advantage
o f f e r e d by E3 technology i n mission f u e l consumption. The advantage i n d i r e c t
o p e r a t i n g c o s t (DOC) due t o E3 technology was t h e n e v a l u a t e d by GE u s i n g , c a l -
c u l a t i o n procedures c o o r d i n a t e d by NASA t o ensure a c o n s i s t e n t e v a l u a t i o n f o r
a l l t h e a i r c r a f t t h a t were s t u d i e d .

In a d d i t i o n t o t h e d i r e c t m i s s i o n economic e v a l u a t i o n s t h a t were per-

formed, t h e a i r c r a f t company s u b c o n t r a c t s provided f o r review and c r i t i q u e of
t h e n a c e l l e d e s i g n , i n c l u d i n g i n l e t and af terbody aerodynamics, engine mount-
i n g , a c c e s s o r y gearbox arrangement, and t h r u s t r e v e r s e r and cowling mechanical
d e s i g n . R e s u l t s of t h i s e f f o r t w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 5.0.

The s u b c o n t r a c t s w i t h Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed c a l l e d f o r evalu-

a t i o n of t h e E3 FPS and t h e b a s e l i n e CF6-50C e n g i n e s a p p r o p r i a t e l y s c a l e d
i n t h r u s t s i z e on advanced commercial t r a n s p o r t d e s i g n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of each
company'h p r o j e c t i o n s i n t o t h e l a t e 1980's -
e a r l y 1990's. Boeing s t u d i e d a
twin-engined, 196-passenger a i r p l a n e with a d e s i g n range of 3704 km (2000 nmi).
Douglas e v a l u a t e d a three-engined, 458-passenger advanced d e r i v a t i v e of t h e i r
DC-10 a i r c r g f t with a 5556 km (3000 nmi) d e s i g n range. Lockheed s t u d i e d two
aircraft: a three-engined, 500-passenger a i r c r a f t w i t h a 5556 km (3000 nmi)
d e s i g n range; and a four-engined, 500-passenger a i r c r a f t with a 12,038 lun
(6500 nmi) d e s i g n range, both advanced d e r i v a t i v e s of t h e i r L l O l l a i r c r a f t .
A l l of t h e s t u d y a i r c r a f t i n c o r p o r a t e d advanced technology f e a t u r e s as pro-
j e c t e d b t h e r e s p e c t i v e a i r c r a f t companies f o r commercial t r a n s p o r t s t u d i e s
3
i n the E t i m e period.

The a i r c r a f t companies provided d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e i r study a i r c r a f t and

a s s o c i a t e d technology f e a t u r e s i n r e p o r t s t h a t a r e appended t o t h i s r e p o r t .
The r e a d e r may r e f e r t o t h o s e r e p o r t s f o r d e t a i l s concerning t h e advanced
a i r c r a f t s t u d i e d by each a i r c r a f t company.

The a i r c r a f t companies were provided w i t h engine performance, weight,

dimensions, . p r i c e , and maintenance c o s t d a t a f o r t h e b a s e l i n e CF6-50C and E3
e n g i n e s , along w i t h s c a l i n g d a t a t o permit them t o scale both engines t o
match t h e d i f f e r e n t power requirements of t h e i r a i r c r a f t . They performed
t h e i r s i z i n g and m i s s i o n e v a l u a t i o n s f o r each a i r c r a f t a t d e s i g n payload/
range and f o r of f-design payloadlrange combinat i o n s s e l e c t e d as t y p i c a l by
each a i r c r a f t company. These r e s u l t s i n t u r n were used as i n p u t s t o t h e
economic a n a l y s i s performed by General E l e c t r i c . The E3 FPS e v a l u a t i o n s

22
were made with and without t h e 1%improvement i n long-term average s f c due
t o improved performance r e t e n t i o n , which was a goal t h a t was added t o t h e E3
requirements.

The block f u e l improvement f o r E3 technology i s shown i n Table I X . Im-

provements from 15.5 t o 21.7% were r e a l i z e d without c r e d i t f o r improved per-
formance r e t e n t i o n . With c r e d i t f o r improved performance r e t e n t ion, savings
from 16.3 t o 22.9% were r e a l i z e d .

Table I X . Economic B e n e f i t s , Block Fuel.

W/O P e r f . W/Perf.
R e t . Benefit Ret. Benefit
Range . %A %A
Miss ion km (nmi) Block Fuel Block Fuel

Boeing Twin Fan Des ign 3704 (2000) -17.4 -18.3

Typical 1852 (1000) -16 .O -16.9
Typical 1232 (665) -15.5 -16.3

Douglas T r i f a n Design 5556 (3000) -18.7 -19.8

Typical 1852 (1000) -17.2 -18.3

Lockheed T r i f a n Design 5556 (3000) -17.3 -18.3

Typical 2593 (1400) -16.3 -17.3

Lockheed Quadf an Design 12038 (6500) -21.7 -22.9

Typical 5556 (3000) -20.1 -21.2

The f u e l savings r e s u l t s v e r s u s f l i g h t l e n g t h are shown g r a p h i c a l l y i n

Figure 6. The b e n e f i t s show a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e
and consequent i n c r e a s e i n TOGW f u e l f r a c t i o n .

5.1 ECONOMIC STUDIES DIRECT OPERATING COST

The r e s u l t s of t h e a i r c r a f t company mission e v a l u a t i o n s were used a s in-

p u t s t o a DOC a n a l y s i s . The ground r u l e s were e s t a b l i s h e d under NASA coordi-
n a t i o n t o provide a c o n s i s t e n t comparison of E3 v e r s u s CF6-50 technology f o r
a l l t h e d i f f e r e n t a i r c r a f t t h a t were s t u d i e d . The study ground r u l e s , which
drew h e a v i l y from t h e Boeing Company economic method f o r e v a l u a t i n g o p e r a t i n g
c o s t s , a r e summarized as follows:

23
 O E3 VS CF6-50C
. .
Distance, n a u t i c a l miles
0 1400 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

-0 Douglas, 3 Engines/458 Passengers

0Lockheed # 3 Engines/SOO Passengers

-ALockheed, 4 Engines/500 Passengers

0 1850 3700 5555 7410 9260 11,110 12 I 965

Distance, k i l o m e t e r s

Figure 6 . Block Fuel Savings.

24
 E 1ement Calculated Method

Price Escalation A l l c o s t s i n 1977 d o l l a r s

F l i g h t C r e w Cost Boeing 1977 method - three-man crew f o r

all flights

Fue 1 1 0 . 6 ~ / l i t e r ( 4 0 ~ / g a l . ) Domestic
11.9 $ / l i t e r (45C/gal. ) I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Block Time Boeing 1977 method

Insurance 0.5%

A i r c r a f t Maintenance Boeing 1977 method - include nacelle i n airframe

ma in t enance

Maintenance Burden 200% on l a b o r only airframe and engine

Engine Maintenance GE methods based upon mature engine -

no d e r a t e s .
Include bare engine, engine a c c e s s o r i e s and
reverser

Depreciation S t r a i g h t l i n e , 15 y e a r s t o 10%

Spares Airframe 6%, engine 30% ( t o t a l propulsion system

i n c l u d i n g n a c e l l e and r e v e r s e r )

Utilization Boeing 1977 method, as modified i n December 1977,

provides a constant number of t r i p s per year as
a f u n c t i o n of range

Ground Time Domestic Trunk - 15 Minutes

U.S. I n t e r n a t i o n a l - 20 Minutes
Fue 1 Weight 802.7 kg/m3 (6.71 l b s / g a l . )

Oi 1 I n c l u d e o i l c o s t a t $ 2 , 6 4 / l i t e r ($lO/gal.),
970.4 kg/m3 (8.1 l b / g a l . ) usage, 0.061
kg/hr/engine (0.135 lb/hr/engine)

Airframe Weight WAF = -

% ( b a r e engine + r e v e r s e r + engine
access. + n a c e l l e )

Engine Maturity A l l engines are mature

Labor Rate $9.70/hr i n 1977 $

Landing Fees Not included i n DOC

25
 Element C a l c u l a t e d Method

Average Range Using t y p i c a l m i s s i o n range s u p p l i e d by t h e air-

frame companies

Average Load F a c t o r Use l o a d f a c t o r s u p p l i e d by a i r f r a m e companies

Interest There are no borrowed funds

A i r c r a f t Price P e r Table X

NOTE: A 2% nonrevenue f l i g h t t i m e s h a l l apply t o f u e l and maintenance

costs.

Table X. Airplane P r i c i n g F u n c t i o n s .

Airplane P r i c e Bare Airframe + F u r n i s h i n g + Avionics + Engines

Bare Airframe P r i c e

. C u r r e n t , New and D e r i v a t i v e Wide Body = 0.5 (Waf/1000)0.7

WAF = OWE - (Bare Engine + Reverser + Engine A c c e s s o r i e s + Nacelle)

Furnishing P r i c e

Domestic A i r c r a f t = 0.0080 Nseat - 0.284

International Aircraft = 0.0089 Nseat - 0.315

Avionics P r i c e

D e r i v a t i v e and Wide Body Domestic = 0.0022 Nseat + 1.54

D e r i v a t i v e and Wide Body Over Water =: 0.0022 N s e a t + 1.81

Above Values i n M i l l i o n s 1977 $.

S i g n i f i c a n t engine i n p u t s t o t h e DOC c a l c u l a t i o n s included s f c and weight

(as they a f f e c t e d mission f u e l and a i r c r a f t w e i g h t ) , engine p r i c e and mainte-
nance c o s t . Table X I shows t h e s t a t u s weight of t h e FPS engine by element f o r
a 162.4 kN (36,500 l b ) t a k e o f f t h r u s t s i z e .

26
 T?ble X I . Engine Weight E s t i m a t e by Module.

FPS S t a t u s W t . N o Margin
Bare Engine -
kg -
lb
Fan 1066 2350
LP Turbine 753 1660
Core 1007 2220
Other
T o t a l Bare Engine
-46 3
3289
1020
7250

I n s t a1l a t i o n

Inlet 161 355

Reverser and Duct 304 6 70
Core Cowl and T a i l p i p e 124 2 75
Engine Buildup
Total Installation
-204
793
450
1750

T o t a l I n s t a l l e d Weight -
4082 . 9000

Table X I 1 shows t h e s t a t u s engine estimated s e l l i n g p r i c e , by element,

i n 1977 d o l l a r s . The p r i c e was e s t a b l i s h e d on t h e b a s i s of CF6-50C engine
manufacturing c o s t s , p r o j e c t e d t o a mature engine s c a l e d t o t h e E3 engine
design s i z e and a d j u s t e d t o account f o r design and manufacturing d i f f e r e n c e s
between t h e two engines.

Table X I I . Estimated Engine P r i c e - K$

(1977 D o l l a r s ) .

FPS S t a t u s

Fan Module $ 520

LP Turbine Module 483
Core Module 715
Other Bare Engine 237
Bare Engine T o t a l $1955

Inlet $ 95
Fan Reverser and Duct 240
Core C o w l and T a i l p i p e 71
Engine Buildup 172
Installation Total $ 578

I n s t a l l e d Engine T o t a l -
$2533

27
 Table X I 1 1 shows the s t a t u s . e s t i m a t e d engine maintenance cost by ele-
ment, i n 1977 d o l l a r s , f o r a 162.4 kN (36,500 l b ) t a k e o f f t h r u s t s i z e . As
w i t h s e l l i n g p r i c e , t h e maintenance c o s t s were d e r i v e d by comparison t o a
mature CF6-50C b a s e l i n e .

Table X I I I . Estimated Engine Maintenance C o s t , 2-Hour Mission,

No Derate.

Materials by Module $/Engine F l i g h t h r (1977 D o l l a r s )

Fan $. 1.55
LP Turbine 3.63
Core 14.32
Other 8.55

T o t a l Materials $28.05
D i r e c t Labor (9.00/Hour) 12.73

Labor Burden (200%) 25.47

T o t a l Maintenance Cost $66.25

Table X I V compares t h e economic elements of t h e DOC a n a l y s i s f o r t h e base-

l i n e CF6-50C and t h e E3 FPS a t i t s hardware d e s i g n s i z e and s c a l e d t o t h e
same i n s t a l l e d t h r u s t a s t h e CF6-506 e n g i n e a t 35,000 f t / 0 . 8 M maximum climb
r a t e d power. The CF6-50C v e r s u s t h e s c a l e d E3 p r o v i d e s a d i r e c t comparison
of t h e s e engines f o r a i r c r a f t w i t h s i m i l a r c r u i s i n g power requirements.

The s c a l e d E3 engine i s somewhat lower i n i n s t a l l e d weight and s i g n i f i -

c a n t l y lower i n maintenance c o s t , which c o n t r i b u t e t o lower DOC. However, t h e
u n i t p r i c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r , which r a i s e s DOC. The impact of t h e s e
e f f e c t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s h o r t l y .

Table XV shows t h e DOC improvements c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h e E3 technology i n

a l l t h e s t u d y a i r c r a f t . The r e s u l t s a r e shown w i t h and w i t h o u t c r e d i t f o r im-
proved performance r e t e n t i o n and are a l s o p r e s e n t e d g r a p h i c a l l y i n F i g u r e 7.

The major elements t h a t c o n s t i t u t e DOC a r e f u e l and o i l c o s t s , d e p r e c i -

a t i o n , crew c o s t , a i r f r a m e maintenanc’e, engine maintenance, and i n s u r a n c e .
The f r a c t i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of each element t o t o t a l DOC are shown i n Table
X V I f o r t h r e e t y p i c a l a i r c r a f t / m i s s i o n combinations. There is a n o t i c e a b l e
i n c r e a s e i n f u e l c o s t f r a c t i o n w i t h i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e , a s one would e x p e c t .
These r e s u l t s a r e a l s o p r e s e n t e d g r a p h i c a l l y f o r a l l s t u d y a i r c r a f t i n F i g u r e s
8 through 13.

28
 0
n 0
n 0 0
0 In 0 co m 9
m rl rl h m h P
Cn n VI
N
n
QI
W
I4
W
Cn
N
.
I
I4
m 2 00
cv 2

u
0
In
I
9
tc
u
rn
(0

a
0)
I4
I4
(0
U
2
.d

d d
30
0
0 0
n n 0 1
0 0 n 0 0 0 0
VI 0 rl 0 m 0 VI h
csn I- 00 U
n csn d VI d h w
0 co m I4 m QI
VI W N 0
W 0
0
In 9 VI
4 m
m QI W
N .*
m
N
B
I-
O
I4

*I,
c *.Y U
(d

rn
c *k
k
a
lil c
W
\ fa

-
I 4
I4 a- A
‘
0 \
n n
a-
h H n
.h 0 a,
QI 0 o
d e4 E
W Q
n
p1 E
u a U
.d a c
k
s
I, .d
n.4 3
a,
m
E k I4
.d 0 a
M P u
c (d 0
w cl

29
 Table XV. Economic Benefits, Direct Operating Cost
(NASA-Coordinated Rules).

W/O Perf. W/Perf.

Retention Retention
Range Benefit Benefit
Mission km (nmi) % DOC % DOC

Boeing Twin Fan Design 3,704 (2000) -6.6 -6.9

Typical 1,852 (1000) -5.4 -5.6
Typical 1,232 (665) -5 .0 -5.3 .

Douglas Trifan Design 5,556 (3000) -9.0 -9.5

Typical 1,852 (1000) -6.7 -7.1

Lockheed Trifan Design 5,556 (3000) -7.4 -8.0

Typica1 2,593 (1400) -6.2 -6.8

Lockheed Quadfan Design 12,038 (6500) -11.6 -12.4

Typical 5,556 (3000) -9.9 -10.7

Table XVI. Distribution of DOC Elements, E3 Engine with Credit

for Improved Performance Retention.

Domestic Domestic Intercontinental

Aircraft Type Twin Fan Trifan Quad fan

Distance - km (nmi) 1232 (665) 1852 (1000) 5556 (3000)

Load Factor - % 55 60 55

Fuel and Oil - % 23.5 31.7 33.0

Depreciation - % 31.1 29.3 27.2

Crew - X 20.2 16 .O 19 .o

Airframe Maintenance - % 14.0 12.9 10.4

Engine Maintenance - % 8.9 7.9 8.4

Insurance -% 2.3 2.2 2 .o

30
 E3 VS CF6-50C

Distance, nautical m i l e s
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
16

14 -Includes B e n e f i t of Improved Performance

Retention (1%Better Long-Term Average sfc)\

c,
12
c
a
0
k
a
a 10
I

c,
c hout B e n e f i t s
Q)

g 8
$k
g
H 6
I ~ 96 Passengers
0 Boeihg, 2 Engines/l

4 c1 Douglas, 3 Engknes/458 P a s s e n g e r s -
O L o c k h e e d , 3 Engines/500 P a s s e n g e r s
2 -
O L o c k h e e d , 4 Engines/500 Passengers

0
0 1850 3700 5555 7410 9260 11,110 12,965
Distance, kilometers

Figure 7 . Direct O p e r a t i n g Cost (DOC) Improvement.

31
 In
CD
3¶
-.
N
-4

0
0
2d
0 I

(0 d
d

0 0
0. co
8 @a
m
.
c,
m
0
u
0 rl
0
0-
0
- m m
r4
d
b
E
X
3
Er
cn k k
d rn
k
k a,
M
Q)
M
.. rl
8l al cd
a,
M
E
a,
E
a,
m
E
a,
m
m
E
a,
v1
m
:
cd
E
0
.rl
c, c,
m m m
c,
m
m
m
m PC E m
d
0
m
0 E
a, - P,
P,
0 0 10 n k
g m In Fr

.
0-
0 0 0 10
m r
w
l
(0
QI
PI
*
In
\
In
\
rn
In
\
rn
In
m
\
m
m
a,
a,
E s
8"
w
a,
C
d
bo
E
d
M
E
1-I
M
c
w
.rl
M
C
w
a,
5M
4
0 @ E w 0 Fr
0-
E
-w m
m 9 0
b
@a cv L a
m
4 a 'Et
c, a m a,
M m
P
.rl
1 E
.rl
rl
bD
2X
a,
c,
k
m
0
a 70
f2
0
0
I4
0 .rl 0
0- tl -0 0 0 u)
00
2 0 rl

0
0 0
In

32
8
0
tc

0
0
0
co

0
0
0
tn

0
E
8-t Y
-
Q)
u
E
cd
+-’
m
.d

:
C
C
P

C
C
2

C
C
C
F

C
0

33
 0
0
0
pc I
rn
m
k
rn
k
k
3 "ka, a,
P)
M
a,
M

z M
E
a,
rn
E
$
rn
E
a,
0
m
0 -rnma, m Q
PI g--
0
0
tD
Q
PI
d 0 0
Q) 0 0
In
>
In In
v \
m
2a, a,
E
a,
E
E d .rl
0 d M M
0 M E E
0
In
E
w w w-
m
a
m
a
- v
P
a
c,
rn
0
u
rn a, a,
Q a, a,
rl
M
c
X
.e
X
Ek
0
0 8 5: u
0 n 4 4- rl
b( Q
0 0 0
.I4
c,
u
Ld
k
R
0
0
0
m 4
a,
k
5
bo
-I4
R
0
0
0
cu

0
0
4

34
 0
0
0
r-

0
0
0
co
c,
u1
Q
u

0
0
0
In

0
.rl 0
E 0
E w
.
a,
201 rn
k
rn
k
.
I,
a, 0)
rn ho M
d 0
E r:
a, a,
l=l 0 rn v1-
0 rn rn
*3 a
PI
0 0
0 0 rl
10 v) rl
\ \
u1 rn
0
0
a,
E
.rl
z
d-
a,
k
7
M
2 M
E
M
E d
w w &I

m *
a
. a
*
a, a,
a,
0 c
X
2
X-
0
El 8
J
8
I4
0 0

35
 0
0
Q
I?

0
0
8

0
0
8

e*( 0
B o

Q,
0
c
rd
-M
UJ
d
a 0
8
M

0
0
0
N

0
0
0
Pi

36
m
k
a,
3
a,
m
m
k
0
5:
\
m
a,
E
rl
M
E
w

.
€0

-8
a,
,G
YI
0
0
A
0
 The c o n t r i b u t i o n of each element of DOC t o t h e t o t a l improvement f o r E3
v e r s u s CF6-5OC technology i s shown i n Table X V I I f o r t h e same t h r e e t y p i c a l
a i r c r a f t / m i s s i o n combinations. The l a r g e s t c o n t r i b u t o r t o DOC improvement is
f u e l and o i l c o s t s . Maintenance c o s t a l s o p r o v i d e s a s i g n i f i c a n t b e n e f i t f o r
the E3 technology. However, t h e h i g h e r engine p r i c e f o r t h e E3 engine re-
s u l t s i n an o f f s e t i n f a v o r of t h e CF6-50C. These r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d
g r a p h i c a l l y f o r a l l s t u d y a i r c r a f t i n F i g u r e s 14 through 19.

5.2 EC3NOMIC STUDIES - RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Return on Investment (ROI) , u s u a l l y d e f i n e d as t h e d i s c o u n t r a t e t h a t

e q u a t e s cash flows t o i n i t i a l investment, i s a n i n d i c a t o r of t h e o v e r a l l
economic worth of a change i n technology. I n o r d e r t o e v a l u a t e t h e E3 tech-
nology from t h e s t a n d p o i n t of t h e t o t a l economic system, NASA e s t a b l i s h e d a
set of ground r u l e s f o r a n ROI c a l c u l a t i o n t o be performed on t h e advanced
s t u d y a i r c r a f t u s i n g b a s e l i n e CF6-50C and E3 e n g i n e s . These ground r u l e s ,
i n v o l v i n g t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of I n d i r e c t O p e r a t i n g Cost (IOC) and R O I , a r e as
f 01lows :

INDIRECT OPERATING COST

Element C a l c u l a t i o n Method

Maximum Loading Weigh t Use v a l u e s u p p l i e d by a i r f r a m e company o r

i f none s u p p l i e d , u s e t h e e q u a t i o n-Max Ldg.
W t . = TOGW x (0.95 - 5 x loW5 x Rn Des.)
where Rn Des. = Design Range i n N a u t i c a l
Miles.
Seat S p l i t Use s p l i t s u p p l i e d by a i r f r a m e company.

Enplaned R a t i o For passengers and c a r g o u s e Boeing 1977 c u r v e

1-08.
Cargo Use cargo s u p p l i e d by a i r f r a m e company - use
powered l o a d i n g .
Cash DOC Defined as cash DOC = DOC - depreciation.

38
a
$
0
I,

H
8 Go 00
I-

O
ul I- 0 N
I,
0 ul I + I
d
I
%I

U
.rl
71
Q)
I,
V
t
5
.d
a)
% I n
0
3G I , o
m o
W u l
I
- z
0 w
.d
U N
ul
d 0 4. m . 9 d d

i z 0
w
VI
I +
rl N
I
0
I
0
I PI r-
I
n0

m W N m e 4 m
ul
vl ‘if d
+ N
I
0
I
0
I
21
+ vl
I

M
w
w I
I
I Q)

8 9)
0
C

D
W
2 bs
0
!Ei
(D
E
Q)
w I I U w
H
z- I Q) c M
X
d C U -4 I
I, .d 0 E (d l
Q)
0 0 .r( .d E u
x Ei
a,
rl
U
0 a
U
a 2
f a
@I 2 .d
0 a, a)
- ? Q) C I, d
a r( I
.
! .d 3 a
al a M rn U
a)

3 3
&4 x C
w
C
W
0
E-,

39
 v)
(0
0
0
a .
I

CJ
?i rl

0
r-l
0 4
0 "
0 rl
(D rl

0 0
0 W
0
m m m
10 Q,
m k k
k at at
at M bn
M E E
E 0 at
Q) m 111
m m m
m
a d 0
a
P4
d ?I 0
rl
E 0 0 0- TY
E 0 00 0 0 t-
.. TY In If2
\
v)
\
Q,
0
E
f
at
m
at
E
m
at
E
cd E .rl .rl
c, .rl M bo
rn M E c
.d
n 0
E
w w w v)

-
v)
0 m q-
0
M
Cr)
a a
. v)
M

cn at at
m
c, 4 2 BA
E
0
ho
50 8
0
E n GI Gl 0
0
0
bk 0 0 0- 0
t-
M
a a
E
W

8
n
0 yt 0
0 0 Q
4 m
a,
00
rl
0
k
3
0
rn
e
0 0

aI

40
 v)

-
CD
Q)

m
d

rn
rn k
k Q,
a, M
M E
c: a,
rn
0
r4
a,
rn rn d.
rn (D
d
&
d 0
d

m
v)
TF
%
\ ‘s;
rn
8
4
a,
c:
4
bo
0
CD
.
c:
M c m 0
E
W
w Q, d
c,

- a.
m 1
m 5k
rn Q, c,
0 a, E
4 c 0
0
u
M
1.I
7
0
30 *
d
E E
E
E
*
CI
0
84
0
b X
-
a,
0
d
+,
cd
a, t) .rl
0 E 0
E a a,
cd c, k
c,
rn
M
4
a
v)

a“ In
v)
!a $
In
v)
d
a,
k
2
.rl
0 R
0
t-
o

0
In
a0
d

41
42
 b
rg
0 h
0
8 v1 m
m k k
k a, Q,
a, bo bl
M E c
c a, a,
Q, m rn
m m rn
m
0
0
0
d d
d 0
(0 0
00 0 0
v)
-a
2al 2 2
al a,
E: E
E 4 d
4 M bf
M
0
0
0
c
w wE E
w
VJ m
c3
I

" a P
m a, a,
m a, Q,
d
A
M X 5
0
0 El
8 0"
la A
*
0
0 0 a

-k
0
0
m

0
0 - -
0
N

0
0
5:

0
CD
.
0
I

43
 In
0 rD
0 a3
0
h

m
I k
m m
k
CJ
rl

k a, Q,
Q,
M
E:
2
a,
bo
c
4)
0 a, rn m 2
0
rn m rn
m a¶ d
0
to a
PC
PI E- d
I

0 O d
OD 0 0
ln In 10
1J( \ \
\ m rn
m
4)
E:
2
.I4
2
.rl
rl M
0 M E 2 0
0
0
In
d
w
w
m
w-
*
ED
Fi
cn .
m
LI a
"
d
.. E
0
.d
rn al a, c,
Q 5
rl
M
2 2
a .x 3k
0
0 0" 2-
0
4 c,
*
0 Ca rl 1
E:
0
u
0 0 b
c,
m
0
0

0
In
In
Ek
In u
8
m
In

OD
rl
a,
5M
0 0 d
0 0 Fr
0 PI
m

0 0
0 In
0 00
f-4 rl

0 0
CD dr CU 0
0 0 0
I 1 i

44
I
mk
k a,
a, M
M E
E a,
a, m
I I
rn
(D
PI
d
0 0
a 0 0

.
In In v)
-9
\
\
m 2a,
s z
m E
E
- 0
TI .d
rl M c,
M E 1
E w
w
m 2k
m 9 c,
m
9
a P
a, Q)
u
m a,
rl
M
r!
24
2- E
4: c,
I m
0 8 0
u
n 4 8E
0 0 a cd
a,
0
c,
m
d
9k
n 2
E
w

*
m
rl
a,
k
I
M
.I4
Frc

45
 RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Element C a l c u l a t i o n Method

Depreciation S t r a i g h t l i n e 15 y e a r s t o 10%r e s i d u a l
Quantity Block Feed

I n i t i a l Investment 100% o f a i r c r a f t , e n g i n e s , and s p a r e s

Interest - Discounted
of Return
Rate Eased on no borrowed funds

Revenues Domestic P a s s e n g e r s - $/Trip = 20.88 + 0.0582 x

D i s t . St. M i .
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Passengers - 23.42 + 0.0653 x
D i s t . St. M i .
Cargo (Wide Body) $/Ton - St. Mi. =:

- 131.6
D i s t . St. Mi.
+ 0.142.

Average Range Use t y p i c a l mission s u p p l i e d by a i r f r a m e company .

Cash Flow No p r i n c i p a l payment
T axe s 50%
NOTE: A 2% nonrevenue f l i g h t t i m e s h a l l apply t o f u e l and maintenance c o s t s
f o r both DOC and R O I .

Return on investment l e v e l s c a l c u l a t e d by t h i s method would d i f f e r sig-

n i f i c a n t l y from ROI c a l c u l a t e d by any p a r t i c u l a r a i r l i n e , as t h e assumptions
a f f e c t i n g c o s t s and revenues are v e r y o p e r a t o r - s p e c i f i c i n p r a c t i c e . No air-
l i n e would c a l c u l a t e R O I on t h e b a s i s of no borrowed funds, f o r example. How-
e v e r , t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n R O I f o r competing t e c h n o l o g i e s would be i n d i c a t i v e of
t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e economic values. Hence, t h e r e s u l t s t h a t are p r e s e n t e d i n
t h i s r e p o r t are t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n R O I between advanced a i r c r a f t u s i n g CF6-50C
and E3 propulsion t e c h n o l o g i e s .

Table XVIII shows t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r a domestic twin

f a n , a t r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l t r i f a n and a n i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l quadfan with t y p i c a l
m i s s i o n l e n g t h s and payloads,

46
 Table X V I I I . Improvement i n Return on Investment f o r E3 Versus CF6-50C
P r o p u l s i o n Technology (NASA-Coordinated Rules).

Aircraft Domestic Transcontinental Intercontinental

Twin Fan Trifan Quadfan

Design Range 3704 5556 12,038

km (nmi) (2000) (3000) (6500)

Typical Range 1232 1852 5556

km (nmi) (665) (1000) (3000)

Typical Load 55 60 55
Factor X-
Fuel P r i c e 10.6 10.6 11.9
C I A tc/gal.> (40) (40) (451
A ROI -
Improvement f o r +0.7 +0.5 +1.0
E3 Technology

5.3 AIRCRAFT COMPANY COMMENTS ON FPS ECONOMICS

Although a l l a i r c r a f t company s t u d i e s showed s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n s i n

mission f u e l consumption f o r t h e E3 technology, t h e Boeing Company q u a l i f i e d
t h e i r results i n t h e a r e a s of n a c e l l e i n s t a l l a t i o n weight and engine p r i c e .
They f e l t t h a t t h e n a c e l l e weight r e p o r t e d by General E l e c t r i c f o r t h e E3 sys-
t e m was l i g h t e r t h a n t h e y would have e s t i m a t e d f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n technology
a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e l a t e 1980's-early 1990's. They a l s o noted t h a t t h e E3
engine p r i c e was high r e l a t i v e t o t h e i r Economics Department p r o j e c t i o n s of
f u t u r e market r e q u i r e m e n t s .

For a d i s c u s s i o n of n a c e l l e weights, see S e c t i o n 5 . The p r i c e d i f f e r e n c e

of 20% was reviewed by General E l e c t r i c and no obvious grounds were d i s c o v e r e d
t o lower t h e GE p r o j e c t i o n a t t h i s t i m e . However, t h e s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e of
engine p r i c e on economic b e n e f i t s i s f u l l y noted and e f f o r t s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o
be made throughout t h e program t o a r r i v e a t a f a v o r a b l e b a l a n c e between c o s t ,
weight , and performance .

47
 6.0 NACELLE DESIGN

The E3 FPS was designed w i t h an i n t e g r a t e d n a c e l l e t o permit a s i g n i f i -

c a n t weight r e d u c t i o n f o r t h e t o t a l i n s t a l l e d system. Major elements of t h e
n a c e l l e d e s i g n included:

I n t e g r a l , composite c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e f a n frame, t h e o u t e r p o r t i o n
of which forms t h e o u t e r s u r f a c e of t h e n a c e l l e .

S u b s t a n t i a l u s e of composite materials i n t h e i n l e t and a f t cowling

and i n a c o u s t i c t r e a t m e n t of t h e e x h a u s t flowpath.

Lightweight f a n containment based on t h e u s e of Kevlar f i b e r s t o

t r a p and h o l d engine-generated d e b r i s i n t h e event of f a n damage.

A long-duct mixed-flow e x h a u s t s y s t e m t o enhance p r o p u l s i v e e f f i -

c i e n c y , a c h i e v i n g a h i g h e r l e v e l of e n g i n e performance with a smaller
f a n and low p r e s s u r e t u r b i n e than would be r e q u i r e d f o r a comparable
s e p a r a t e flow system.

A r e v e r s e r contained e n t i r e l y i n t h e o u t e r w a l l of t h e n a c e l l e with-
o u t need f o r b i f u r c a t i o n and cross-duct l i n k a g e . Extensive a p p l i c a -
t i o n of composite materials was made i n t h e r e v e r s e r t o achieve l i g h t
weight i n t h e d e s i g n .

The engine-mount system chosen with p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o minimi-

z a t i o n of engine d e f l e c t i o n s due t o mount l o a d s i n o r d e r t o promote
c l o s e c o n t r o l of turbomachinery c l e a r a n c e s .

The aerodynamic l i n e s of t h e ’ n a c e l l e chosen f o r s l i m n e s s and low

c r u i s e drag. To achieve as s m a l l an e x t e r n a l n a c e l l e p r o f i l e as pos-
s i b l e , t h e a c c e s s o r y package was i n s t a l l e d i n t h e c o r e compartment.

For e a s e of maintenance a c c e s s t o t h e c o r e engine and a c c e s s o r i e s ,

t h e r e v e r s e r designed i n two h a l v e s hinged a t t h e pylon attachment
and l a t c h e d a t t h e bottom. I n t h i s way, t h e r e v e r s e r provided a c c e s s
t o t h e c o r e component. The c o r e cowl p a n e l s were hinged t o t h e pylon
t o form a s e p a r a t e i n n e r door system.

The a g g r e s s i v e u s e of advanced s t r u c t u r a l d e s i g n and low-drag aerodynamics

was e s t a b l i s h e d t o c o n t r i b u t e a 0.6% c r u i s e d r a g r e d u c t i o n ( o u t of 6 % ) and a
1 5 t o 20% i n s t a l l a t i o n weight s a v i n g r e l a t i v e t o t h e c u r r e n t technology of t h e
CF6-SOC n a c e l l e t h a t i s t h e E3 program b a s e l i n e .

The g e n e r a l arrangement of t h e E 3 n a c e l l e i s shown i n Figure 20.

48
 Integral Composite
Inlet Fan Frame

F i g u r e 20. N a c e l l e General Arrangement.

49
6.1 FAN REVERSER

The p r e l i m i n a r y f a n t h r u s t r e v e r s e r d e s i g n i s of t h e f i x e d cascade,
t r a n s l a t i n g s l e e v e / b l o c k e r door c o n f i g u r a t i o n .

The r e v e r s e r i s made i n symmetrical c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l h a l v e s , each h a l f

b e i n g hinged t o t h e a i r c r a f t pylon and l a t c h e d t o t h e o t h e r h a l f along t h e
bottom c e n t e r l i n e a l l o w i n g ready a c c e s s t o t h e engine. The r e v e r s e r c o n s i s t s
of t h e f i x e d support s t r u c t u r e , i n c l u d i n g t h e cascade s e c t i o n , t h e o u t e r
t r a n s l a t i n g s l e e v e , t h e b l o c k e r doors and l i n k a g e mechanism and t h e a c t u a t i o n
system. As t h e a c t u a t i o n system i s l o c a t e d outboard o f t h e c a s c a d e s , t h e
cascade s e c t i o n i s made i n c i r c u l a r a r c s e c t o r s w i t h passageways ( s l o t s )
between them f o r t h e b l o c k e r door l i n k s t o pass through.

The reverser i s contained e n t i r e l y i n t h e o u t e r duct w a l l . There i s no

attachment t o t h e c o r e cowl which is independently hinged t o t h e pylon t o pro-
v i d e a c c e s s t o t h e c o r e compartment, There are no l i n k s between t h e blocker
doors and t h e c o r e c o w l - t r a n s l a t i o n , and swingdown of t h e b l o c k e r doors is
c o n t r o l l e d by l i n k a g e s contained i n t h e o u t e r cowl s t r u c t u r e . The cascades
a r e covered e x t e r n a l l y by t h e o u t e r t r a n s l a t i n g s l e e v e which i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e
r e v e r s e r s e a l i n g arrangement.

F i g u r e 21 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e r e v e r s e r d e s i g n i n i t s stowed and deployed posi-

t ions.

The aerodynamics of t h e r e v e r s e r were based on previous General E l e c t r i c

e x p e r i e n c e with t h e l a r g e t u r b o f a n r e v e r s e r d e s i g n s . The d e s i r e d f a n oper-
a t i n g l i n e f o r reverse o p e r a t i o n is 4% lower i n p r e s s u r e r a t i o a t c o r r e c t e d
a i r f l o w t h a n t h e normal forward t h r u s t mode f a n o p e r a t i n g l i n e at s t a t i c oper-
a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . This was chosen i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l s t a l l margin
i f r e q u i r e d and t o p r o v i d e a r e d u c t i o n i n core engine speed and t u r b i n e tem-
p e r a t u r e a t f a n speed compared t o forward mode o p e r a t i o n .

O v e r a l l t h r u s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e f a n r e v e r s e r i s improved by t h e c o r e
t h r u s t s p o i l i n g of t h e mixed e x h a u s t system. I n t h e r e v e r s e mode, t h e absence
of bypass flow i n t h e t a i l p i p e c a u s e s a r e d u c t i o n i n low p r e s s u r e t u r b i n e back
p r e s s u r e which a l l o w s t h e c o r e speed t o be reduced r e l a t i v e t o forward mode
o p e r a t i o n . This " r o t o r matching" e f f e c t c a u s e s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n i n c o r e
stream t h r u s t p o t e n t i a l which i s reduced s t i l l f u r t h e r by t h e aerodynamic
s p o i l i n g e f f e c t of dump-diffusion o u t of t h e mixer c o r e c h u t e s i n t o t h e t a i l -
pipe. These e f f e c t s , which were e v a l u a t e d i n a c y c l e computer model, a r e
based on p r e v i o u s s c a l e model exhaust mixer t e s t s .

The o v e r a l l system r e v e r s e t h r u s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s shown i n F i g u r e 22 com-

pared t o a CF6-50C w i t h and w i t h o u t t h e t u r b i n e r e v e r s e r . The E3 50 k n o t s e f -
f e c t i v e n e s s of 45% compares c l o s e l y t o t h e 51% e f f e c t i v e n e s s achived w i t h t h e
CF6-50C w i t h t u r b i n e reverser and exceeds t h e -5OC l e v e l w i t h o u t t u r b i n e r e v e r -
ser.

50
REVERSER STOWED

Actuators

REVERSERACTUATED
Blocker Doors

Figure 21. Thrust Reverser Actuation.

51
 E3 VS CF6-50C

knots
0 50 100 150 200
100

c,
c 80
a,
0
k
a,
a
.
u1
VI 60
a,

3
.rl
c,
0
a,
+I 40
+I
w
k
a
rn
k
cu
P 20
a,
fz

0
0 92.5 185.0 277.5 370.0
km/hr

Figure 22. Overall Engine Reverse Thrust Comparison.

52
6.2 ENGINE MOUNT SYSTEM

The mount system d e s i g n w a s s e l e c t e d t o a c h i e v e t h e f o l l o w i n g important

objectives :

0 C o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h a i r c r a f t pylon s t r u c t u r a l d e s i g n r e q u i r e -
ment s.

0 Reduction or e l i m i n a t i o n of c o n c e n t r a t e d "punch" l o a d s i n t o
t h e engine s t r u c t u r e .

0 Reduction of engine o v a l i z a t i o n and bending l o a d s due t o mount

reactions.

The mount system chosen f o r t h e E 3 engine i s shown i n F i g u r e 2 3 . It con-

s i s t s of a f r o n t mount w i t h twin t h r u s t l i n k s and a u n i b a l l t o t a k e v e r t i c a l
and s i d e l o a d s , a midmount t o t a k e o u t r o l l and s i d e l o a d s , and a n a f t mount
t a k i n g v e r t i c a l l o a d s only. The mount r e a c t i o n s are shown s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n
Figure 2 4 .

The f r o n t mount w a s d e r i v e d from t h e improved CF6-50C mount w i t h addi-

t i o n a l emphasis on lowering t h e t h r u s t r e a c t i o n l i n e t o be c l o s e r t o t h e
engine c e n t e r l i n e t o reduce t h e t h r u s t - i n d u c e d moment. The t w o l i n k s were
made s e l f - a d j u s t i n g by means of a w h i f f l e t r e e arrangement, and t h i s a l s o
helped t o reduce l o a d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a t t h e f a n frame attachment p o i n t s .

The mid and a f t mounts were a r r a n g e d t o t a k e o u t r o l l , s i d e , and v e r t i -

c a l f o r c e s . Reactions were d i s t r i b u t e d t o avoid c o n c e n t r a t e d punch l o a d s
i n t o the engine s t r u c t u r e .

S t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s of t h e FPS engine i n r e s p o n s e t o t y p i c a l t h r u s t ,
aerodynamic and maneuver l o a d s shows encouragingly low engine d e f l e c t i o n s .
Figure 25 shows maximum l o c a l d e f l e c t i o n s v e r s u s engine a x i a l l e n g t h f o r a
t a k e o f f r o t a t i o n c o n d i t i o n where t h e s e loads are r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e . The maxi-
mum d e f l e c t i o n of approximately 0 . 2 3 mm ( 9 m i l s ) w a s found t o occur over t h e
t u r b i n e area. These d e f l e c t i o n s would be i n a d d i t i o n t o c l e a r a n c e changes
r e s u l t i n g from thermal and e l a s t i c behavior of t h e engine.

Although t h e mount system d e s c r i b e d h e r e a c h i e v e s t h e g o a l s e s t a b l i s h e d

f o r t h e FPS, t h e r e w a s some concern expressed by t h e Boeing Company over pos-
s i b l e redundancy problems w i t h t h e arrangement. I n response t o t h i s , General
E l e c t r i c i s c o n t i n u i n g t o work on an alternate arrangement t h a t could e l i m i n a t e
t h a t concern and s t i l l achieve t h e d e s i g n g o a l s .

6.3 ACCESSORY PACKAGE

The a c c e s s o r y package f o r t h e FPS was designed t o h e l p reduce f u e l con-

sumption and d i r e c t o p e r a t i n g c o s t (DOC).

53
 Figure 23. Engine Mount System.

54
 Vertical

Thrust Side

Figure 24. Mount ,Reactions Schematic.

55
 0
0 T cM?
0
m 0
N

9
M
m
rl

Eo
N
Eo
rl

O U 3 Q O O O
r i r l N N
? .
0 0 0 0 0
I I I I 1

56
 The p r i n c i p a l c h o i c e s f o r a c c e s s o r y arrangement were:

0 Fan c a s e bottom-mounted a i r c r a f t and engine a c c e s s o r i e s .

0 Core-mounted a i r c r a f t and e n g i n e a c c e s s o r i e s , t h e r m a l l y i s o l a t e d
i n a s h i e l d e d and vented compartment.

0 Pylon-mounted a i r c r a f t a c c e s s o r i e s w i t h e n g i n e a c c e s s o r i e s
i n t h e c o r e compartment.

E v a l u a t i o n of t h e s e systems i n c l u d e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s i n
i n s t a l l a t i o n d r a g and p r e s s u r e losses, weight, maintenance c o s t , and t h e im-
p a c t of t h e s e on m i s s i o n f u e l and DOC. Summaries of t h e s e r e s u l t s are shown
i n T a b l e s X I X and XX. As t h e s e r e s u l t s tend t o f a v o r t h e c o r e compartment
arrangement, t h i s w a s chosen as t h e b a s e l i n e c o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r t h e E3 engine.
However, t h e engine d e s i g n r e t a i n s t h e a b i l i t y t o be modified t o o t h e r ar-
rangements i f d e s i r e d by u s e r s .

F i g u r e s 26 and 27 show f r o n t and bottom views o f t h e core-mounted acees-

s o r y package chosen f o r t h e E3 FPS. A s i d e view i s shown on F i g u r e 23.

6.4 AIRCRAFT COMPANY COMMENTS

I n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e E3 FPS d e s i g n w a s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n s t a l -
l a t i o n requirements of advanced commercial t r a n s p o r t s, t h e a i r c r a f t subcon-
t r a c t s w i t h Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed included reviews and c r i t i q u e s of t h e
n a c e l l e d e s i g n . As a r e s u l t , t h e major elements of t h e n a c e l l e d e s i g n , in-
c l u d i n g c h o i c e of e x t e r n a l aerodynamic l i n e s , mount system, a c c e s s o r y arrange-
ment, t h r u s t r e v e r s e r , and maintenance a c c e s s p r o v i s i o n s , were reviewed w i t h
t h e a i r c r a f t cqrnpanies and many of t h e i r recommendations were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n
t h e design.

The Boeing Company expressed t h e view t h a t t h e General E l e c t r i c i n s t a l -

l a t i o n weight g o a l s were o p t i m i s t i c f o r commercial s e r v i c e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n
t h e l a t e 1980's-early 1990's. It was t h e i r view t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l develop-
ment e f f o r t t h a t i s not now i n p l a c e would be r e q u i r e d t o a c h i e v e t h e tech-
nology r e q u i r e d t o meet t h o s e g o a l s . General E l e c t r i c concurs t h a t t h e E3
n a c e l l e weight g o a l s r e q u i r e a g g r e s s i v e development work i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e
them. However, based on i t s e x p e r i e n c e i n d e s i g n i n g and b u i l d i n g r e v e r s e r s
f o r t h e TF39 and CF6 e n g i n e s , t h e composite n a c e l l e s t r u c t u r e e x p e r i e n c e on
t h e QCSEE program and ongoing programs i n n a c e l l e s t r u c t u r a l development,
General E l e c t r i c b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e E3 technology p r o j e c t i o n s are r e a l i s t i c .

57
 h
b
3e
1
Fn \
U
0 C
.d aJ
8
0
e
U
c b
0 m a J 9 )
0 a a m
w m m
.
) u8 G a m
E
0 aJ
.d 1-I
U 0
m u
;
4
h
8
cc)

1-I
9)

4 5:
M
.d
w 3:
0
I-
O
I
m
0

X
H
X
9)
Fl
s
m
H

58
 Table XX. Nonquantitative Factors in Accessory Package Selection.

Fan Case Mount

0 Must be Designed to Comply with FAA Wheels-Up Landing Regulation.
0 Accessory Fairing Tends to Block Reverser if Side-Mounted.
0 Aircraft Asymmetry or Left-Hand/Right-Hand Engines if Side-Mounted
0 Best Accessibility of Candidate Configurations

Core Compartment Mount

0 Some Airline Disfavor from Maintenance, Accessibility Aspect

Pylon Mount
0 Airline Disfavor from Accessibility Aspect
0 May have Significant Drag Penalty in Ciose Nacelle-Wing Placement
0 Access and Mounting Problem with DACO-Type Tail Engine Installation

59
 rd
P
4
h

co
N

60
I
i
II
i
Ii
!
I
I
!

i b
I N

i
1

61
 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

P a r t of t h e a i r c r a f t / e n g i n e i n t e g r a t i o n e f f o r t provided f o r e v a l u a t i o n
of t h e FPS d e s i g n a g a i n s t t h e program g o a l s f o r n o i s e and e x h a u s t e m i s s i o n s
l e v e l s . For t h i s purpose, a i r c r a f t n o i s e c o n t r i b u t i o n s were e s t i m a t e d by t h e
a i r c r a f t companies and combined w i t h e n g i n e n o i s e p r o j e c t i o n s by General
E l e c t r i c . The exhaust e m i s s i o n s estimates were based on tests made w i t h t h e
double-annular combustor on o t h e r NASA-funded programs which are p r e s e n t e d
i n *References 5 and 6.

7.1 ACOUSTICS

Recent m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e FAR P a r t 36 n o i s e r e g u l a t i o n s have s i g n i f i - '

c a n t l y reduced t h e c u r r e n t n o i s e l i m i t s f o r t h e next g e n e r a t i o n of commercial
a i r c r a f t . In l i g h t of such changes, powerplants f o r t h e s e new g e n e r a t i o n air-
c r a f t must be designed employing advanced a c o u s t i c technology.

The Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine (E3) a c o u s t i c s program h a s , as i t s primary

o b j e c t i v e , t h e a c o u s t i c d e s i g n and d e m o n s t r a t i o n of an advanced e n g i n e which
w i l l m e e t FAR P a r t 36 (1978) w i t h a minimum 3 EPNdB margin a t each m o n i t o r i n g
c o n d i t i o n on an advanced a i r c r a f t . To ensure t h a t t h i s o b j e c t i v e i s achieved,
t h e a c o u s t i c s program w i l l monitor t h e d e s i g n and development of each major
engine component, i n c o r p o r a t i n g advanced low n o i s e d e s i g n f e a t u r e s c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h program performance g o a l s . I n a d d i t i o n , s u p p o r t i n g component t e s t pro-
grams a r e i n p l a c e t o e v a l u a t e t h e i n t e g r a l vane-frame d e s i g n and t h e m i x e r
from an a c o u s t i c p o i n t of view.

The a c o u s t i c d e s i g n of t h e Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine i s summarized i n

Figure 28 which shows t h e p e r t i n e n t low n o i s e d e s i g n f e a t u r e s , i n c l u d i n g :

e High Bypass R a t i o

e Low V e l o c i t y , Mixed Flow J e t

e Moderate T i p Speed Fan

e I n t e g r a l Vane-Frame w i t h Wide Blade-to-Vane Spacing

0 Long Duct N a c e l l e

e Reduced Turbine Source Noise

0 Advanced Bulk Absorber A c o u s t i c Treatment

The b a s i c c y c l e and bypass r a t i o r e s u l t e d from p r e v i o u s f u e l e f f i c i e n t

e n g i n e s t u d i e s f o r NASA (Reference 2 ) . The a c o u s t i c d e s i g n , w h i l e drawing on

62
 n
m
a,
rl
4
3:
w
a,
0 0
co
Q,
W

l
a,
C
d
M
C
w
U

.rl
-3
d
w
w
w
3\
M
&
2
w
.
co
cu
a,
k
3
M
.d
Fr

63
 Table XXI. F l i g h t Noise Estimates f o r E3 Advanced A i r c r a f t .

Boeing Lockheed Lockheed Douglas

Twin J e t Trijet Quadjet Trijet

TOGW - kg 110,524 205,416 284,335 225,370

(lb) = (243,660) (452,857) (626,841) (496,850)

SLS Fn -N 167,734 181,287 167,988 183,391

(lb) = ( 37,710) ( 40,757) ( 37,767) ( 41,230)

TAKEOFF

Level EPNdB 88.7 93.7 98.3 94.4

Margin
Re: FAR 36 (1978) -5 .O -6.7 -5.9 -6.5

SIDELINE

Level EPNdB 89.0 91.6 92.8 92.2

Margin
Re: FAR 36 (1978) -9.2 -8.9 -8.9 -8.7

APPROACH
( W i t h F Noise)

Level EPNdB 99.3 100.8 101.1 97.9

Margin
Re: FAR 36 (1978) -2.6 -3.2 -3.9 -6.6

AIRFRAKE SUPPLIED
( A i r c r a f t Noise)

Level EPNdB 93.2 95.9 96.0 92.3

64
previous s t u d i e s , evolved as t h e d e t a i l e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e advanced
s t u d y a i r c r a f t became b e t t e r d e f i n e d . System n o i s e s t u d i e s w e r e c a r r i e d o u t i n
areas such as f a n i n l e t and t u r b i n e t o e v a l u a t e v a r i o u s methods of reducing
t o t a l system n o i s e and p e r m i t t h e v a r i o u s advanced engine a i r c r a f t systems t o
m e e t t h e program o b j e c t i v e .

I n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e r e s u l t s of t h e v a r i o u s component n o i s e r e d u c t i o n s t u d -
ies, t h e f l i g h t n o i s e l e v e l s f o r v a r i o u s advanced a i r c r a f t powered by t h e FPS
were e s t i m a t e d . The a i r c r a f t performance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n c l u d i n g a i r f r a m e
n o i s e a t approach, were provided by t h e Boeing C o m e r c i a 1 A i r c r a f t Com any and
t h e Douglas A i r c r a f t Company as p a r t of a s u b c o n t r a c t t o t h e o v e r a l l E pro- P
gram. These a i r c r a f t , t h e r e f o r e , r e p r e s e n t a wide spectrum of d e s i g n p h i l o s -
o p h i e s and a t y p i c a l c r o s s s e c t i o n of what is a n t i c i p a t e d f o r t h e f u t u r e needs
of t h e commercial a i r c r a f t market. Table XXI shows t h e r e s u l t a n t system n o i s e
l e v e l s f o r each a i r c r a f t , and t h e a s s o c i a t e d margin r e l a t i v e t o FAR 36 (19781,
i n c l u d i n g t h a t a l l a i r c r a f t meet FAR 36 (1978) w i t h a t least 3 EPNdB margin a t
each p o i n t , e x c e p t t h e Boeing twin j e t which h a s 2 . 6 EPNdB margin a t approach.

Figure 29 shows a comparison of n o i s e f o o t p r i n t c o n t o u r s f o r a t y p i c a l

c u r r e n t and f u t u r e t r i j e t a i r c r a f t n e a r a major m e t r o p o l i t a n a i r p o r t . The
advanced e n g i n e / a i r c r a f t system o f f e r s a 50% r e d u c t i o n i n noise exposure area
when compared t o c u r r e n t a i r c r a f t . This r e d u c t i o n i n n o i s e exposure area sig-
n i f i c a n t l y d i m i n i s h e s t h e community n o i s e problem n e a r h i g h d e n s i t y a i r p o r t s .

In c o n c l u s i o n , i n c o r p o r a t i o n of advanced low n o i s e design f e a t u r e s , in-

c l u d i n g b u l k absorber a c o u s t i c t r e a t m e n t , reduced t u r b i n e n o i s e , and i n t e g r a l
vane-frame, permit advanced a i r c r a f t powered by t h e General E l e c t r i c Energy
E f f i c i e n t Engine t o meet t h e FAR 36 (1978) n o i s e r e g u l a t i o n g o a l w i t h a 3
EPNdB margin.

7.2 EXHAUST EMISSIONS

The o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e s and g o a l s of t h e combustion system f o r t h e E3 a r e

t o d e s i g n and develop an advanced combustor c o n f i g u r a t i o n which w i l l meet t h e
E3 program g o a l s f o r CO, HC, and NO, emissions which a r e e q u i v a l e n t t o
t h e c u r r e n t requirements proposed by t h e Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency
(EPA) f o r Class T2 a i r c r a f t engines newly c e r t i f i e d a f t e r 1981. These re-
quirements are shown i n Table XXII.

Table X X I I . E3 Combustor - Emission Goals (EPA 1981

S t a n d a r d s ) f o r Newly C e r t i f i e d Engines.

0 Carbon Monoxide (CO) \ 3.0

0
Hydrocarbons

Nitrogen Oxides (NO,))

(HC) I lb/1000 lb Thrust
H o u r s Per Cycle
- 0.4

3..0

0 Smoke SAE Smoke :!umber 20 .o

65
 a

0
a3

ck;'
0
a
k
z

k
(d

k
Q
w

Q
k
20
a
wX

66
 The major emphasis i n t h e combustion s y s t e m d e s i g n i s d i r e c t e d at meeting
t h e t e c h n i c a l l y c h a l l e n g i n g emissions and l i f e g o a l s of t h e program; however,
t h e combustion system a l s o must provide t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e q u i r e d f o r oper-
a t i o n of a t y p i c a l modern t u r b o f a n engine.

The performance parameters g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d most import a n t i n a com-

b u s t i o n system are shown i n Table X X I I I . It should be noted t h a t not o n l y i s
h i g h combustion e f f i c i e n c y r e q u i r e d a t SLTO c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h i s d e s i g n , b u t
must be maintained a t a l e v e l g r e a t e r t h a n 99.5% a t i d l e i n o r d e r t o meet t h e
CO and EIC e m i s s i o n s g o a l s of t h e program.

Table X X I I I . E3 Combustor - Key Performance/Operat ing Requirements.

0 Combustion E f f i c i e n c y @ SLTO ( % > 99.5 (Min.

0 T o t a l P r e s s u r e Drop @ SLTO (%> 5.0 (Max.

0 E x i t Temperature P a t t e r n F a c t o r @ SLTO 0.250 (Max.

0 Exit Temperature P r o f i l e F a c t o r @ SLTO 0.125 (Max.

0 Altitude Relight Capability, m ( f t ) 9,144 (30,000) (Min.

0 Ground I d l e T h r u s t (% of SLTO) 6.0 (Max.

The d e s i g n c o n d i t i o n g e n e r a l l y s e l e c t e d f o r e v a l u a t i n g combustor p e r f o r -
mance i s t h e sea l e v e l t a k e o f f c o n d i t i o n . However, i n t h e c a s e of e m i s s i o n s ,
t h e d e f i n i t i o n of d e s i g n c o n d i t i o n s i s much more complicated. The EPA re-
quirements are based on a p r e s c r i b e d landing-takeoff c y c l e c o n s i s t i n g of
s p e c i f i c o p e r a t i n g t i m e s a t i d l e , approach, c l i m b o u t , and t a k e o f f power set-
t i n g s . The emissions are t h e n based on t h e t o t a l weight of p o l l u t a n t s emit-
t e d p e r u n i t of t h r u s t p e r hour over t h e p r e s c r i b e d c y c l e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e
d e s i g n c o n d i t i o n s s e l e c t e d f o r e v a l u a t i n g emissions are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o
t h e c y c l e c o n d i t i o n s which e x i s t a t each of t h e p r e s c r i b e d power s e t t i n g s .

The p r e d i c t e d emissions l e v e l s f o r t h i s double-annular dome combustor

d e s i g n are shown i n F i g u r e 30. These p r e d i c t i o n s were based on e x i s t i n g d a t a
developed i n t h e NASA-GE ECCP (Reference 5 ) and NASA-GE QCSEE (Reference 6)
double-annular dome combustor programs w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e a d j u s t m e n t s made t o
t h e d a t a t o account f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n combustor s i z e and i n l e t o p e r a t i n g con-
d i t i o n s f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t engine c y c l e .

These estimates were based p r i m a r i l y on d a t a from component t e s t s of

development combustors where dimensional t o l e r a n c e s and combustor i n l e t oper-
a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s c a n be c o n t r o l l e d t o t h e p r e s c r i b e d c y c l e c o n d i t i o n s . For

67
 111
-0
k
cd
a
E:
cd
c,
m

2W
rl
Go
Ql
rl

111
.-I
(d

8
m
W
I
I
I
rl rl cn 0
Go a b ( .

rl 0 0

68
t h e case of a p r o d u c t i o n e n g i n e , some added margin e q u i v a l e n t t o 2 s t a n d a r d
d e v i a t i o n s i s r e q u i r e d t o account f o r engine-to-engine v a r i a t i o n as w e l l as
measurement v a r i a t i o n s . Based on v a r i a b i l i t y d a t a o b t a i n e d a t General E l e c t r i c ,
a v a r i a b i l i t y margin of about 20% i s c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y f o r CO e m i s s i o n s ,
whereas a much l a r g e r v a r i a b i l i t y margin of about 40% is c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y
f o r HC e m i s s i o n s . The e m i s s i o n s of NO, a r e somewhat more r e p e a t a b l e and are
expected t o v a r y o n l y a b o u t 10% from t h e average l e v e l .
I

Even a f t e r a p p l y i n g t h e s e v a r i a b i i t y f a c t o r s t o t h e E3 e m i s s i o n s e s t i -
mates, based on p r e v i o u s development t e s t r e s u l t s , it i s expected t h a t , at
completion of t h e i n i t i a l E3 combustor development program, t h e GO and HC
emissions l e v e l s w i l l meet o r c l o s e l y approach t h e E 3 program e m i s s i o n s
g o a l s with a p r e s c r i b e d ground i d l e t h r u s t of 4% t a k e o f f t h r u s t . For ground
i d l e o p e r a t i o n with 6% t a k e o f f t h r u s t , ample margin would be a v a i l a b l e f o r
both GO and HC emissions compared t o t h e program g o a l s . However, i n t h e c a s e
of NO, emissions, although t h e average e n g i n e would be expected t o meet
t h e g o a l s , t h e r e would be a small p e r c e n t a g e of e n g i n e s under a d v e r s e condi-
t i o n s which would n o t m e e t t h e program g o a l s . Smoke i s expected t o meet t h e
s t a n d a r d even when t h e l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y i n smoke l e v e l s is t a k e n i n t o
c o n s i d e r a t ion.

69
 8.0 PROBABILITY OF MEETING PROGRAM GOALS

P r o b a b i l i t y of meeting program g o a l s w a s a s s e s s e d p r e v i o u s l y i n Refer-

ence 2. The p r o b a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s d e a l t p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e p r o j e c t e d perform-
ance of engine components and t h e r e s u l t a n t performance of t h e e n g i n e system.
The a n a l y s i s was updated t o r e f l e c t t h e p r o j e c t e d performance'of t h e FPS and
ICLS v e h i c l e s a t t h e t i m e of t h e November 1978 PDR, and expanded t o i n c l u d e
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of meeting t h e o t h e r program g o a l s f o r DOC,
n o i s e , and emissions.

8.1 PERFORMANCE GOAL

The p r o b a b i l i t y assessment of t h e E3 engine performance l e v e l is shown

i n F i g u r e 31. Two curves are shown; one f o r t h e p r o g r a m e d e f f o r t culminat-
i n g i n t h e running of t h e ICLS v e h i c l e i n 1982, and one p r o j e c t e d f o r f u l l
development and c e r t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e l a t e 1980's-early 1 9 9 0 ' s . These c u r v e s
show a 90% p r o b a b i l i t y of a c h i e v i n g t h e ICLS performance p r o j e c t i o n of 12.2%
s f c improvement i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e c u r r e n t E3 program, and a n e q u a l c e r -
t a i n t y of a c h i e v i n g t h e FPS p r o j e c t i o n of 14.6% i n a follow-on f u l l - s c a l e de-
velopment program.

8.2 WEIGHT, PRICE, AND MAINTENANCE PROJECTIONS

F i g u r e s 32 through 34 show t h e p r o b a b i l i t y assessment f o r a c h i e v i n g t h e

FPS weight, p r i c e , and maintenance c o s t p r o j e c t i o n s through a f u l l - s c a l e de-
velopment program. Curves f o r t h e ICLS are not shown, a s t h e s e g o a l s f o r a
s e r v i c e - t y p e engine can only t r u l y be demonstrated by proceeding t o f u l l de-
ve l opme n t and c er t i f ic a t i on.

8.3 DOC GOAL

The p r o b a b i l i t i e s of meeting performance, weight, p r i c e , and maintenance

p r o j e c t i o n s can be combined t o a s s e s s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of a c h i e v i n g t h e FPS
DOC p r o j e c t i o n s , u s i n g DOC s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s . As h a s been shown, t h e DOC
improvement f o r E3 technology i s dependent s t r o n g l y on average f l i g h t d i s -
tance. So, t o o , are t h e s e n s i t i v i t i e s of DOC t o performance, weight, p r i c e ,
and maintenance c o s t . To s i m p l i f y t h e p r o j e c t e d p r o b a b i l i t y of meeting t h e
E3 program g o a l of 5% DOC improvement f o r a f u l l y developed service engine, t h e
DOC s e n s i t i v i t i e s were a p p l i e d f o r a s h o r t - r a n g e domestic twin f a n , a medium-
range domestic t r i f a n , and a long-range i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l quadfan. These re-
s u l t s are shown i n F i g u r e 35. T h i s p r e s e n t s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of each of t h e s e
a i r c r a f t t o d e v i a t e from t h e i r FPS p r o j e c t e d ADOC. When t h e s e d e v i a t i o n s are
superimposed on t h e FPS p r o j e c t i o n f o r each a i r c r a f t , t h e r e s u l t i s shown i n
Figure 36.

70
 100

80

c,
E
at
0 60
k
a,
n
h
..
c,
d
d
d
P
(d
P 40
0
k
PI

20

-10 -12 -14 -16 -18 -20

%AsfcVS CF6-50C

Figure 31. P r o b a b i l i t y of Achieving SFC Goals.

71
 100

80

60

20

0
-1-600 MOO 4-200 0 -200 -400
AWeight. from S t a t u s FPS, l b

F i g u r e 32. P r o b a b i l i t y of Achieving FPS Weight P r o j e c t i o n .

72
 +400,000 C200,OOO 0 -200,000 -400 ,000
APrice from Status FPS, dollars

Figure 33. Probability of Achieving FPS Price Projections.

73
 100

80

.lJ
E
8k 60
Q)
De
.
$24

h
c,
.r(
rl
-4
2 40
P
0
k
p1

20

0
+4 +2 0 -2 -4
haintenance from Status FPS, dollars/EF hr

Figure 34. Probability of Achieving FPS Maintenance C o s t

Projections.

74
100

80

60

40

20

0
+2 i1 0 -1 -2 -3

ADOC from FPS

Figure 35. P r o b a b i l i t y of Meeting Projected DOC.

75
 -I
I

N
-I
I

2I

u
7 2I
\o
kl
u
s
8

v
I

N
I

0
0 0 0 0
c4 a dc

76
8.4 NOISE GOALS

The probability of mettin the noise goals has been calculated for the
9
various aircraft used in the E acoustics evaluations. The. calculation
assumed standard deviations of 1.3, 1.4, and 1.7 EPNdB at takeoff, sideline,
and approach, respectively. These are based on past experience and include:

0 Measurement scatter
0 Treatment effectiveness
0 Air attenuation
0 Prediction accuracy
0 Source features
0 Sideline shielding.

A Monte Carlo simulation (Reference 7 ) was further used to model noise level
distribution. The resulting probabilities of meeting FAR 36 (1978) Noise
Rules are shown in Table XXIV.

Table XXIV. Probabilities of Meeting FAR 36 (1978)

Noise Rule Without Trades.

Probability of Certification
Aircraft Without Trades (%I

Being Twin Jet 94

Lockheed Trijet 97
Lockheed Quadjet 99
Douglas Trijet 99

8.5 EMISSIONS GOALS

Estimated probabilities for meeting emission goals are presented in

Figures 37 through 40. These curves were developed using the following
standard deviations:

eo 10%
€IC 20%
NO, 5%
Smoke 12.5%

77
 100

80

60

40

20

Environmental Protection Agency Parameter Carbon Monoxide, GO,

l b / 1 0 0 0 Ib Thrust/Cycle

Figure 37. Probability of Meeting CO Emissions Goal.

78
 In
0

U
0

4
(d
0
c3
u
X

m
0

(d
P
N 0
&I
0 pc

00
m
0)
k
3
M
rl
Fr
ri
0

0
0 0
fil

79
 100

80
E3 Goal

-ig I

60

40

20

0 u

Environmental Protectlon Agency Parameter Nitrogen Oxide, NO,

lb/1000 lb Thrust/Cycle

Figure 39. Probability of Meeting NOx Goal.

80
100

80

60

-
I
40

20

0
10 15 20 25

Smoke Number, SN

Figure 40. Probability of Meeting Smoke Goal.

81
 The above s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s were d e r i v e d from a v a i l a b l e engine and
component t e s t d a t a and i n c l u d e engine-to-engine v a r i a t i o n s and measurement
variations.

The r e s u l t s of t h e s t u d y i n d i c a t e ( F i g u r e 37) t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of
meeting t h e CO g o a l i s 90% f o r a 4% ground i d l e requirement and 100% f o r a
6% ground i d l e requirement. The HC and smoke g o a l s are expected t o be m e t
w i t h 100% p r o b a b i l i t y as shown i n F i g u r e s 38 and 40. The p r o b a b i l i t y of
meeting t h e NO, g o a l , however, is e s t i m a t e d t o be 50% ( F i g u r e 3 9 ) .

82
 9.0 CONCLUSIONS

P r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n of t h e E3 F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System h a s i n d i c a t e d
t h a t a l l NASA program g o a l s w i l l be met o r exceeded. However, t h e n o i s e
l e v e l margin on t h e Boeing t w i n j e t w a s 2.6 EPNdB i n s t e a d of t h e d e s i r e d 3,
and t h e NOx margin f o r t h e double a n n u l a r combustor i s s l i g h t l y less than
desired f o r production v a r i a b i l i t y . An item-by-item d i s c u s s i o n follows.

9.1 INSTALLED SFC

The i n s t a l l e d s f c of t h e FPS, without customer bleed o r power e x t r a c -

t i o n , w a s p r o j e c t e d t o be 14.2% b e t t e r than t h e b a s e l i n e CF6-50C v e r s u s t h e
NASA g o a l of 12%. In a d d i t i o n , w i t h customer b l e e d e x t r a c t i o n , t h e u s e of
a r e g e n e r a t i v e f u e l h e a t e r w a s p r o j e c t e d t o provide an a d d i t i o n a l n e t 0 . 4 %
improvement r e l a t i v e t o t h e b a s e l i n e engine, f o r a t o t a l p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t
of 14.6%.

The improvement i n s f c t r a n s l a t e d i n t o improvements i n mission f u e l

burned of 15.5 t o 21.7% o v e r t h e range of s t u d y a i r c r a f t and m i s s i o n s .

9.2 DETERIORATION

The NASA g o a l i s a 50% r e d u c t i o n i'n performance d e t e r i o r a t i o n r a t e i n

s e r v i c e r e l a t i v e t o t h e CF6-506. It w a s p r o j e c t e d t h i s g o a l w i l l be m e t . T h i s
t r a n s l a t e d i n t o an e q u i v a l e n t 1%improvement i n average, i n - s e r v i c e s f c over
t h e usage l i f e of t h e engine. C r e d i t f o r t h i s improvement r a i s e d t h e m i s s i o n
f u e l s a v i n g s t o 16.3 t o 22.9% over t h e range of s t u d y a i r c r a f t and m i s s i o n s .

9.3 DIRECT OPERATING COST

The NASA g o a l was a 5% improvement i n DOC. The improvements shown were

5 t o 12.3% depending on t h e study a i r c r a f t , m i s s i o n , and whether c r e d i t w a s
given f o r improved performance r e t e n t i o n .

9.4 -
NOISE

The NASA g o a l w a s t o meet FAR 36 (1978) s t a n d a r d s . Acoustic e v a l u a t i o n s

showed t h e E3 e n g i n e i n t h e advanced s t u d y a i r c r a f t has a t least 3 EPNdB
margin r e l a t i v e t o t h e s t a n d a r d , e x c e p t f o r t h e Boeing twin j e t which has 2.6
EPNdB margin.

83
9.5 EMISSIONS

The NASA g o a l was t o meet t h e EPA-proposed 1981 Standard. The E3 engine

:&!as p r o j e c t e d t o meet CO, HC, and Smoke requirements w i t h margin and NO, w i t h
less margin than i s needed € o r p r o d u c t i o n engine v a r i a t i o n .

9.6 COMMERCIAL ENGINE PRACTICES

The NASA g o a l was t h a t t h e d e s i g n had t o meet commercial o p e r a t i n g re-

quirements. The E3 F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System was designed according t o
General E l e c t r i c commercial design p r a c t i c e s t o meet t h i s g o a l .

84
 REFERENCES

1. Johnston, R.P. , e t a l . , "Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System,

P r e l i m i n a r y A n a l y s i s and Design Report," C o n t r a c t NAS3-20643, CR-159583,
February 1979.

2. "Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine P r e l i m i n a r y Design and I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s , "

C o n t r a c t NAS3-20627, CR-135444, September 1978.

3. N e i t z e l , R.E., Hirschkron, R. , and Johnston, R.P., "Study o f Turbofan

Engines f o r Low Energy Consumption," C o n t r a c t NAS3-19201, CR-135033,
August 1976.

4. "Study o f Unconventional A i r c r a f t Engines Designed f o r Low Energy Con-

sumption," C o n t r a c t NAS3-19519 , CR-135136, December 1976.

5. Gleason, C.C., Rogers, D.W., and Bahr, D.W., "Experimental Clean Combus-
t o r Program," C o n t r a c t NAS3-18551, CR-134971, August 1976.

6. Bahr, D.W., Burrus, D.L., and S a b l a , P.E., "Quiet Clean Short-haul Experi-
mental Engine (QCSEE) Double Annular Clean Combustor Technology Develop-
ment," C o n t r a c t NAS3-18021, CR-159483, J u l y 1978.

7. C h a r l e s , Lipson and S h e t h , Narendra J . , S t a t i s t i c a l Design and A n a l y s i s

of Engineering Experiments, McGraw-Hi11 I n c . , 1973.

85
 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A i r € r ame

AMAC Advanced M u l t i s t a g e Axial Flow Compressor

BPR Bypass R a t i o

CD&I Component Development and I n t e g r a t i o n

cm Centimeter

co Carbon Monoxide

DHL Nacelle H i g h l i g h t Diameter

Dmax Nacelle Maximum Diameter

DOC D i r e c t O p e r a t i n g Cost

DS Directionally Solidified

E3 Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine

ECCP Experimental Clean Combustor Program

ECS Environmental C o n t r o l System

EPA Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency

EPAP EPA Parameter (measure of e m i s s i o n s )

EPNdB E f f e c t i v e P e r c e i v e d Noise i n Decibels

EPNL E f f e c t i v e P e r c e i v e d Noise Level ( i n D e c i b e l s )

FADEC F u l l Authority D i g i t a l E l e c t r o n i c Control

FAR Federal Airworthiness Regulations

FOD Foreign O b j e c t Damage

FPR Fan P r e s s u r e R a t i o

FPS F l i g h t P r o p u l s i o n System

fPS F e e t p e r Second

ft. Feet

86
 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont h u e d )

gal. Gallon

HC Hydrocarbon

HPC High P r e s s u r e Compressor

HPT High P r e s s u r e Turbine

hr Hour

ICLS I n t e g r a t e d Core - Low Spool Vehicle

in. Inch

IOC I n d i r e c t O p e r a t i n g Cost

kg Kilogram

km Kilometer

kn Knots

K S Thousands of D o l l a r s

R Liter

lb Pound

LPT Low P r e s s u r e Turbine

m Meter

MCL Maximum Climb

M Mach Number

N Newton

NO, Oxides of N i t r o g e n

runi Naut i c a1 M i l e

OEW Operating Weight Empty

OWE Operating W e igh t Empty

PD R P r e l i m i n a r y Design Review

87
 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cone luded)

PD6 I P r e l i m i n a r y Design and I n t e g r a t i o n

QCSEE Quiet Clean Short-haul Experimental Engine

RO I Return on Investment

sfc S p e c i f i c F u e l Consumption

sLS Sea Level S t a t i c

SLTO Sea-Leve 1-Ta keo f f

SN Smoke Number

STEDLEC Study o f Turbofan Engine Designed for Low Energy Consumption

St Mi. S t a t u t e Mile

TO Takeoff

TOGW Takeoff Gross Weight

T/R Th r u s t Reve rse r

USTEDLEC Unconventional STEDLEC

VSCF V a r i a b l e Speed Constant Frequency (Generator)

WAF A i r f tame Weight

wf Fue 1 Weight

n Efficiency

A Change i n

88
 APPENDIX A

Appendix A i s a r e p r o d u c t i o n of r e p o r t D6-48069 s u p p l i e d by Boeing

A i r c r a f t Company as t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o a i r c r a f t i n t e g r a t i o n . The

format and p r i n t i n g have been a l t e r e d t o c o o r d i n a t e w i t h t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n .

89
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE COMPANY
A DIVISION OF THE BOEING COMPANY
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

ENERGY EFFICIENT ENGINE

AND
AIRPLANE INTEGRATION STUDY

PURCHASE 0RDE R 200-4XX-14N43049

UNDER
NASA CONTRACT NAS3-10643

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

AIRCRAFT ENGINE GROUP
EVENDALE, OHlO
 APPENDIX A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMNARY 95

2.0 INTRODUCTION 98

3.0 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS 100

4.0 AIRPLANE AND MISSION DEFINITION 101

4.1 Mission S e l e c t i o n 101
4.2 Advanced Technology F e a t u r e s 103
4.2.1 Aerodynamics 103
4.2.2 Weight and S t r u c t u r e s 103
4.3 A i r p l a n e Geometry G u i d e l i n e s 103
4.4 Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n 103
4.4.1 Engine Placement ’ 103
4.4. 2‘ Nacelle Drag 111
4.4.3 Engine Bleed and Power E x t r a c t i o n 111
4.5 Preliminary Airplane Configuration 111
4.5.1 Airplane Description 111
4.5.2 Engine D e s c r i p t i o n 111
4.6 Procedures € o r Determining Direct Operating
Cost (DOC) and Return on Investment (ROI) 113
4.6.1 Direct Operating Cost 113
4.6.2 Return on Investment 113

5.0 AIRPLANE PERFORMANCE AND SENSITIVITY 119

5.1 Airplane Sizing 119
5.1.1 A i r p l a n e Performance and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 119
5.1.2 A i r p l a n e Weight 119
5.1.3 Airframe Noise and FAR 36 F l i g h t Conditions 119
5.1.4 Engine and A i r f r a m e Noise 130
5.1.5 Airplane Drawings of Sized A i r p l a n e 123
5.1.6 Airplane Drag P o l a r s 123

91
 APPENDIX A

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)

Section Page

5.2 Airplane Sensitivity Factors 123

5.3 Takeoff Gross Weight and Fuel Burned Comparison 123
5.4 Typical Mission DOC and ROI 130

6.0 AIRCRAFT ENGINE INTEGRATION 138

6.1 Nacelle Arrangement and Construction 138
6.2 Airframe Accessory Requirements and Location 141
6.3 Maintainability, Accessibility, and
Safety Requirements 146
6.4 Fuel Heater System 146
6.5 Nacelle Mount System 146
6.6 Nacelle Design 149
6.7 Nacelle Weight Evaluation 157

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 164

REFERENCES 165

92
 APPENDIX A
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

A-1. Domestic Passenger J e t Fuel Consumption as a Function o f

Range. 102
A-2 Typical Mission P r o f i l e . 104
A-3. Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine C o n f i g u r a t i o n (General Arrangement) -
Model 768-865. 105
A-4. Airplane Geometry G u i d e l i n e s . 107
A-5. Nacelle Placement G u i d e l i n e s . 108
A-6. Engine Placement Ground Rules. 109

A-7. I n s t a l l a t i o n Cornparison. 110

A-8. A i r p l a n e Bleed Airflow Requirement. 112
A-9. Fw F a c t o r f o r C r e w Pay. 116
A-10. Crew Utilization. 117
A-11. Airplane Performance Trades. 120

A-12. Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine C o n f i g u r a t i o n (General Arrange-

ment) -
Model 768-869. 126
A-13. Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine C o n f i g u r a t i o n (General Arrange-
ment) -
Model 768-868. 127
A-14. Block Fuel Comparison. 129
A-15. November 1978 PDR S t a t u s Fuel Saving. 131
A-16. P e r c e n t Block Fuel by Mission P r o f i l e Segment. 132
,
A-17. November 1978 PDR S t a t u s Direct Operating Cost Copparison. 136
A-18. General E l e c t r i c Energy E f f i c i e n t ’ Nacelle. 139
A-19. T h r u s t Reverser Concerns. 142
A-20. Hydraulic Loads. 143
A-21. E l e c t r i c Loads. 144
A-22. E3 Fuel Heater System ( G E ) . 1 47
A-23. E3 Fuel Heater System (Boeing M o d i f i c a t i o n ) . 148
A-24. Long Duct Nacelle Mount. 150
A-25. Airloads - Maximum Takeoff. 152
A-26. Airloads - Maximum Dynamic P r e s s u r e . 153
A-27. Airloads - 0-deg F l a p , 1 . 3 V s t a l l . 154
A-28. Airloads - 10-deg F l a p , 1 . 3 V s t a l l . 155
93
 APPENDIX A
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

A-I. A i r p l a n e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c and Performance. 96

A-11. Nominal Noise Estimates. 97

A-I11 Advanced Airframe S t r u c t u r e f o r E3 S t u d i e s . 106

A-IV. DOC Elements. 114

A-V. Basic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Boeing 1977 C o e f f i c i e n t s . 114

A-VI. Domestic Direct Operating Cost Formulas. 115

A-VII. Return on Investment Method. 118

A-VIII. A i r p l a n e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Performance. 121

A-IX. Weight Statement f o r General E l e c t r i c E3 A i r p l a n e s . 122

A-X. F l i g h t Conditions f o r FAR 36 Noise C a l c u l a t i o n s - 77" F. 124

A-XI. Nominal Noise E s t i m a t e s . 125

A-XII. Domestic A i r p l a n e S e n s i t i v i t y F a c t o r s - Model 768-868. 128

A-XIII. Domestic A i r p l a n e S e n s i t i v i t y F a c t o r s - Model 768-868. 128

A-XIV. I n i t i a l Economic Analysis. 131

4

A-XV. November 1978 PDR S t a t u s Economic A n a l y s i s . 134

A-XVI. November 1978 PDR S t a t u s Economic A n a l y s i s (Boeing

Engine P r i c e ) . 135

, A-XVII. E3 Engine Gearbox Location. 145

A-XVIII. Nacelle and S t r u t Design Load F a c t o r s . 151

A-XIX. Engine Nacelle A i r l o a d s . 156

A-XX. GE Advanced Nacelle E v a l u a t i o n . 158

A-XXI. General E l e c t r i c Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine Estimated Weights. 159

A-XXII. Reduction F a c t o r s f o r Advanced Technology A p p l i c a t i o n . 160

A-XXIII. Boeing Weight Analysis Summary. 161

94
 1.0 SUMMARY

NASA o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h e Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine (E3) program a r e t o

develop technology t o a c h i e v e : (1) a 12% r e d u c t i o n i n c r u i s e s p e c i f i c f u e l
consumption, (2) 5% r e d u c t i o n i n d i r e c t o p e r a t i n g c o s t (DOC), and (3) re-
d u c t i o n o f engine performance d e t e r i o r a t i o n common t o c u r r e n t technology
high-bypass-ratio e n g i n e s . Future n o i s e and e m i s s i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s m u s t a l s o
be m e t . Boeing's r o l e i n t h e E3 program was f i r s t t o h e l p d e t e r m i n e i f t h e
GE Advanced Technology Engine (ATE) m e t NASA performance g o a l s and secondly
t o e n s u r e t h a t E 3 n a c e l l e met a i r p l a n e requirements and o b j e c t i v e s , a i r c r a f t
m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s d e s i g n p r a c t i c e , and FAA c e r t i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s . In t h i s
c a p a c i t y , Boeing d e f i n e d an advanced technology a i r p l a n e and provided m i s s i o n
performance , economics, n o i s e , and n a c e l l e assessment d a t a w i t h E3 and c u r r e n t
technology e n g i n e s i n s t a l l e d .

An advanced technology one-stop t r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l a i r p l a n e w a s s e l e c t e d

f o r t h e Boeing s t u d y . S c a l a b l e ATE and CF6-50C e n g i n e d a t a s u p p l i e d by GE
were c y c l e d w i t h t h e a i r p l a n e t o a c h i e v e t h e most f u e l - e f f i c i e n t and economical
a i r p l a n e € o r each e n g i n e i n s t a l l a t i o n . Table A-I shows t h e a i r p l a n e d e s i g n
p o i n t performance and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The d e s i g n - m i s s i o n f u e l burned f o r
t h e ATE w a s 18.3% lower t h a n f o r t h e CFG-50C e n g i n e . Based on GE s u p p l i e d
maintenance c o s t and e n g i n e p r i c e d a t a , t h e ATE a l s o had 6% lower d e s i g n -
mission DOC t h a n t h e CF6-50C-powered a i r p l a n e .

Table A-I1 shows t h a t n o i s e l e v e l s f o r t h e ATE-powered a i r p l a n e m e e t

FAR 36 - Amendment 8 requirements f o r a twin-engine a i r p l a n e . A 3 EPNdB
margin between nominal n o i s e estimates and t h e FAR 36 - Amendment 8 r e q u i r e
ments i s achieved e x c e p t a t approach where t h e margin i s 2 EPNdB. Since no
a t t e m p t w a s made i n t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y e s t i m a t e t o r e f i n e t h e n a c e l l e t r e a t -
ment t o t h e lowest n o i s e l e v e l s , i t was concluded t h a t refinement of n o i s e
t r e a t m e n t could a t t a i n t h e 3 EPNdB margin Boeing g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r s a c c e p t a b l e
t o assure c e r t i f i a b l e noise levels.

The f u e l burned, economics, and n o i s e r e s u l t s based on e n g i n e d a t a

s u p p l i e d by GE f o r t h e ATE show t h a t t h e NASA g o a l s f o r t h e GE E3 c y c l e
could be m e t . However, Boeing's assessment o f t h e engine d a t a and n a c e l l e
d e s i g n i n d i c a t e d a number of unresolved i s s u e s . These i s s u e s and t h e r e s u l t s
o f t h e Boeing e v a l u a t i o n f o l l o w .

BOeing p r e l i m i n a r y e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e ATE n a c e l l e weights i n d i c a t e d

t h e n a c e l l e t o be over 1000 l b h e a v i e r than t h e GE e s t i m a t e d w e i g h t .
Boeing's weight e s t i m a t e was based on methods r e f l e c t i n g low
t e c h n i c a l r i s k f o r commercial o p e r a t i o n . A 1000 l b weight
i n c r e a s e reduces f u e l burned s a v i n g s from 18.3% t o about 17%
and reduces t h e d e s i g n - m i s s i o n DOC advantage from 6 t o 5 . 8 % .

e The ATE e n g i n e p r i c e s u p p l i e d b y GE i s too high a c c o r d i n g t o Boeing

p r o j e c t i o n s . Boeing's assessment i n d i c a t e d an engine p r i c e 22%
l e s s than t h e GE e s t i m a t e . The Boeing e s t i m a t e d p r i c e i n c r e a s e d
t h e Design Mission DOC advantage of t h e ATE from 6% t o 7 . 5 % .

95
 0
00
0 4
0
o m
N O
e
\
5,
m
4

0
co
0 4
0
o m
N O
u
\
5,
m
4

96
 Nacelle assessment and evaluation requires continual review as the
design evolves to ensure that the nacelle design meets airplane
requirements and objectives, aircraft manufacturer's design practice,
and airline and FAA certification requirements. During the Boeing
assessment, several versions of the ATE nacelle design were reviewed.
In GE's nacelle layouts, however, material callouts and construction
details were too incomplete to conduct an indepth evaluation.
Concerns based on a critique of the nacelle design were developed
and coordinated with GE. Some nacelle design problems were identified.
Much additional effort would be required to ensure a flight-acceptable
nacelle installation.

To ensure that the E3 program results in an engine configuration that

meets the program goals and that can be installed in a nacelle acceptable to
the airframer and airlines, it is important for the airframer to be actively
involved in the installation design and evaluation.

Table A-11. Nominal Noise Estimate

ATE FAR 36 (1978) Margin

EPNdB Req uirement EPNdB

EPNd B

Takeoff 90.o 93.8 -3.8

Side1ine 90.0 98.2 -8.2

1 Approach 100.0 102.0 -2 .o

97
 2.0 INTRODUCTION

The NASA A i r c r a f t Energy program (ACEE) h a s t h e o b j e c t i v e of improving

t h e energy e f f i c i e n c y o f f u t u r e U.S. a i r c r a f t s o t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l f u e l s a v i n g s
and economics can be a c h i e v e d .

The "Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine (E3> P r e l i m i n a r y Design and I n t e g r a t i o n

Study" i s one o f t h e elements o f t h i s program. The recommended advanced
technology p r o p u l s i o n system r e s u l t i n g from t h i s s t u d y i s p r o j e c t e d f o r u s e
on a i r p l a n e s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o s e r v i c e i n t h e l a t e 1980's o r e a r l y 1 9 9 0 ' s .
NASA g o a l s f o r t h e E3 program are a 12% improvement i n i n s t a l l e d c r u i s e
s p e c i f i c f u e l consumption, a 5% improvement i n DOC, and performance r e t e n t i o n
of 50% o r more as compared w i t h a c u r r e n t technology high-bypass-ratio
turbofan engine.

The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s a follow-on t o work performed f o r t h e General

E l e c t r i c Company (GE) under s u b c o n t r a c t N o . P.O. 200-4X X 1 4 K 40096 i n s u p p o r t
o f t h e GE prime c o n t r a c t NAS3-20627. O b j e c t i v e o f t h e GE prime c o n t r a c t was
t o e v a l u a t e advanced technology e n g i n e c y c l e s and t o s e l e c t a n advanced
c y c l e t h a t b e s t f u l f i l l e d t h e NASA E3 program g o a l s . O b j e c t i v e o f t h e c u r r e n t
s t u d y w a s t o e v a l u a t e t h e advanced technology t u r b o f a n engine comparing i t
w i t h a c u r r e n t technology r e f e r e n c e e n g i n e t o d e t e r m i n e i f NASA g o a l s w i l l
be m e t when t h e s e e n g i n e s are i n s t a l l e d on commercial a i r p l a n e s o f t h e l a t e
1980's.

The t a s k s d e s i g n e d t o accomplish t h i s o b j e c t i v e i n c l u d e d :

Task 1 - A i r c r a f t and Mission D e f i n i t i o n . Under t h i s t a s k a n advanced

technology t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t w a s d e f i n e d w i t h a d e s i g n
r a n g e , performance passenger c a p a c i t y , and m i s s i o n a p p r o p r i a t e l y
f o r domestic u s e .

Task 2- A i r c r a f t Performance and S e n s i t i v i t y . This t a s k e v a l u a t e d a

c u r r e n t technology r e f e r e n c e e n g i n e , t h e CF6-50C (Ref. 3 )
s c a l e d t o t h e a i r p l a n e requirements and a s i m i l a r l y s c a l e d
advanced technology e n g i n e , t h e ATE (Ref.3) a s i n s t a l l e d
i n t h e advanced technology a i r p l a n e . The a i r c r a f t s i z e was
optimized f o r e a c h engine f o r t h e d e f i n e d m i s s i o n . A i r c r a f t
performance and m i s s i o n s e n s i t i v i t i e s were t h e n g e n e r a t e d
f o r t h e a i r c r a f t power w i t h t h e advanced e n g i n e .

Task 3 - A i r c r a f t and Engine I n t e g r a t i o n . Under t h i s t a s k a GE n a c e l l e

Subtask A w a s e v a l u a t e d f o r n a c e l l e c o n s t r u c t i o n , n a c e l l e aerodynamics
a i r f r a m e a c c e s s o r y requirements and l o c a t i o n , m a i n t i n a b i l i t y ,
a c c e s s i b i l i t y and s a f e t y r e q u i r e m e n t s . R e s u l t s o f t h e a e r o -
dynamic s t u d y were r e p o r t e d i n Reference 5 .

Task 3 - Long Duct Wind Tunnel Study. I t was intended t h a t Boeing

Subtask B a s s e s s and comment o n wind tiinnel t e s t s o f a GE-designed
n a c e l l e s i m u l a t o r t e s t model. Because of d e l a y i n model
98
 f a b r i c a t i o n t h e t e s t s could n o t be completed i n t h e
c o n t r a c t s c h e d u l e . Boeing t h e r e f o r e e x p e c t s t o complete
t h i s t a s k on a c o n t r a c t e x t e n s i o n and r e p o r t on t h i s
task in a l a t e r report.

Task 4 - Reports

S e c t i o n 4 . 0 of t h i s r e p o r t reviews and u p d a t e s t h e m i s s i o n s e l e c t i o n
and a i r p l a n e d e f i n i t i o n s t u d i e s accomplished i n e a r l i e r E3 s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d
i n Reference 5. Mission d e f i n i t i o n d i f f e r e d from t h e s e e a r l i e r s t u d i e s
p r i m a r i l y i n i t s r e d u c t i o n of t a k e o f f f i e l d l e n g t h (TOFL) requirement from
7500 f t . t o 6000 f t . The major a i r p l a n e - c o n f i g u r a t i o n change w a s a n a f t
r e l o c a t i o n of t h e e n g i n e e x h a u s t p l a n e t o 40% wing chord. The l a t t e r change
was made a s a r e s u l t of a f l u t t e r w e i g h t p e n a l t y t r a d e s t u d y .

S e c t i o n 5.0 summarizes t h e s i z i n g s t u d i e s o f t h e CF6-50C and ATE-powered

a i r p l a n e s and compares t h e r e s u l t i n g performance, n o i s e , and economics o f
t h e two a i r p l a n e s . These s t u d i e s were based on t h e GE-supplied e n g i n e
performance, .engine w e i g h t , e n g i n e n o i s e , and e n g i n e economic d a t a . DOC and
ROI s e n s i t i v i t y t o f u e l p r i c e w a s determined by u s i n g f u e l p r i c e s o f 35, 40
and 45C/gal. Also, a n a d d i t i o n a l DOC and ROI c a l c u l a t i o n shows t h e impact
of a Boeing e s t i m a t e d e n g i n e p r i c e t h a t was about 22% lower t h a n G E ' s e s t i m a t e .

S e c t i o n 6 . 0 comments on t h e Boeing assessment and e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e GE- ,

designed n a c e l l e i n s t a l l a t i o n . Design comments, a c c e s s o r y requirements and

l o c a t i o n , d e s i g n l o a d s , mount s t r u c t u r e , and a weight assessment a r e i n c l u d e d
i n t h e c r i t i q u e o f t h e GE n a c e l l e d e s i g n .

99
 3.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

A/P a ir p l ane
AR aspect r a t i o
ATE advanced technology e n g i n e
BLKF b l o c k f u e l , pounds
BLKT b l o c k t i m e , hours
C l o c a l chord
CL wing l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t , L/qSmF
CLR CL r a t i o
CD d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t D/qSREF
CDNAC n a c e l l e d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t , DNAC/qSNAC
CET combustor e x i t t e m p e r a t u r e , O F
D a i r p l a n e d r a g , pounds
dB(A) weighted sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l , d e c i b e l s
DNAC n a c e l l e d r a g , pounds
DOC d i r e c t operating cost
E3 e n e r g y e f f i c i e n t engine
EPNL e f f e c t i v e perceived noise l e v e l
EPNdB e f f e c t i v e perceived n o i s e , d e c i b e l s
VB n a c e l l e v e r t i c a l bending frequency, Hertz
FN n e t t h r u s t , pounds
FSPP f u l l s t a n d a r d s p r e d i c t i o n procedure
GL ground l i n e
ICAC i n i t i a l cruise altitude capability, feet
LE l e a d i n g edge
M f l i g h t machine number
MCR maximum c r u i s e
MEW m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s empty weight, pounds
OEW o p e r a t i o n a l empty w e i g h t , pounds
4 dynamic p r e s s u r e , l b [ f t 2
P DR p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n review
P NL perceived n o i s e l e v e l
SFC s p e c i f i c f u e l consumption l b / h r - l b
SLST sea l e v e l s t a t i c t h r u s t ( u n i n s t a l l e d )
SREF wing r e f e r e n c e a r e a , ft2
SNAC nacelle wetted a r e a , f t 2
t/c wing thickness-to-chord r a t i o , measured streamwise
TE t r a i l i n g edge
TOGW t a k e o f f g r o s s weight, pounds
TOFL takeoff f i e l d length, f e e t
WCP wing chord p l a n e
WE@ wing r e f e r e n c e p l a n e
VAPP approach s p e e d , keas
VD d e s i g n d i v e speed
J\, 0.26C sweepback a n g l e a t wing q u a r t e r chord, d e g r e e s

100
 4.0 AIRPLANE AND MISSION DEFINITION

S e l e c t i o n o f t h e d e s i g n m i s s i o n and a corresponding d e s i g n payload and

range was based on a p r o j e c t i o n o f t h e commercial a i r p l a n e market o f t h e
1990's and c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f p o t e n t i a l f u e l s a v i n g . Various d e s i g n r e q u i r e m e n t s ,
wing geometry, and advanced technology f e a t u r e s were e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a 1990
domestic s e r v i c e a i r p l a n e .

4.1 MISSION SELECTION

Examination o f t h e p o s s i b l e 1990 market s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e f u t u r e

a i r l i n e market would be s i m i l a r t o t h e e x i s t i n g m a r k e t p l a c e . T h i s p r e d i c t i o n
w a s based on t h e assumption t h a t t h e a i r t r a v e l i n g community i n t h e 1990's
w i l l c o n s t i t u t e approximately t h e same percentage of t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n a s
t o d a y ' s a i r t r a v e l e r s , w i t h a 4 t o 6% annual growth. The a i r c a r g o market
should e x p e r i e n c e s i m i l a r growth.

Many o f t h e c u r r e n t narrow body a i r c r a f t w i l l be r e t i r e d from a c t i v e

s e r v i c e by t h e major a i r l i n e s i n t h e l a t e 1980's. These i n c l u d e t h e i n t e r -
c o n t i n e n t a l range 707-320B .and -320C models, t h e DC-8 S i x t y s e r i e s a i r p l a n e s ,
and some of t h e e a r l y 727-200 model domestic a i r p l a n e s . Hence, t h e r e should
be a market i n t h e l a t e 1980's f o r a l a r g e number o f replacement a i r c r a f t i n
t h e 180 t o 220 passenger s i z e r a n g e .

S t a t i s t i c s of a i r p l a n e f u e l consumption f o r v a r i o u s s t a g e l e n g t h s have
shown t h a t over 85% of t o t a l domestic p a s s e n g e r - j e t f u e l consumption o c c u r s
a t s t a g e l e n g t h s a t or below 2000 s t a t u t e m i l e s . Furthermore as Figure A-1
shows, t h e s h o r t e r ranges account f o r t h e bulk of t h e f u e l u s e d .

Considering t h e p o t e n t i a l market and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o r f u e l s a v i n g a t

s h o r t e r r a n g e s t h e d e s i g n m i s s i o n and s i z i n g c o n s t r a i n t s s e l e c t e d f o r t h e E3
study a r e :
Domes t i c A i rp l a n e

Design r a n g e , nmi 2000

Nominal payload, 196
p a s s e n g e r s (15/85% mix)
Cruise Mach number 0.8
TOFL, f e e t (max) 6000
VAPP, k n o t s (max) 125
IcAc, f e e t (min) 33 000 ____.----
Reserves ATA Domestic

The f o l l o w i n g o f f - d e s i g n m i s s i o n s were a l s o s e l e c t e d for economic

assessments :
Domes t i c A i r p lane

Range, nmi 665 1000

Payload, 108 108
passengers ( 15 /85% mix)
C r u i s e Mach number 0.8 0.8
J 101
 40

35

2 ENGINE STANDARD BODY

30 ci 3 ENGINE STANDARD BODY
4 ENGINE STANDARD BODY
2 & 3 ENGINE WIDE BODY
25 4 ENGINE WIDE BODY

2u

1Q

c
0 zooo. 2000 3ooo 4o005OOo
RANGE - STATUTE MIUS
F i g u r e A-1. Domestic Passenger J e t F u e l Consumption as
a Function o f Range
102
 A t y p i c a l m i s s i o n p r o f i l e i s shown i n F i g u r e A-2.

4.2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FEATURES

An a v a i l a b l e aerodynamic and s t r u c t u r a l technology d a t a base was used

as a b a s e l i n e f o r p r o j e c t i n g advanced a i r p l a n e technology f o r t h e E3 program.
Reviews i n each technology i d e n t i f i e d advanced technology f e a t u r e s assumed
t o be a v a i l a b l e f o r a 1986 program s t a r t and f o r i n - s e r v i c e u s e i n t h e e a r l y
1990's. The advanced technology f e a t u r e s are summarized on a i p l a n e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s
drawings ( F i g . A-3).

A f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f aerodynamics, w e i g h t , and s t r u c t u r a l advanced

technology f o l l o w s .

4.2.1 Aerodynamics

A b a s e l i n e d r a g l e v e l was d e r i v e d from r e p r e s e n t a t i v e wind t u n n e l model

data. Improvements t o t h i s b a s e l i n e d r a g d a t a base were a p p l i e d as f o l l o w s :

a. Cruise--2% r e d u c t i o n i n c r u i s e d r a g was t o be achieved by improved

w i n g - a i r f o i l d e s i g n and improved component i n t e g r a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n ,
i t was assumed t h a t an advanced a c t i v e c o n t r o l system would produce
zero t r i m drag.

b. Takeoff and Landing--a 5% improvement i n l i f t - d r a g r a t i o w a s

assumed f o r t h e domestic two-engine a i r p l a n e . This r e f l e c t e d t h e
f o l l o w i n g changes: s e a l e d l e a d i n g edge ( L E ) f l a p s , seals between
n a c e l l e s t r u t s and l a t e r a l edges o f t h e LE f l a p s , and a i l e r o n
droop f o r h i g h l i f t .

4.2.2 Weight and S t r u c t u r e s

P o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f advanced aluminum a l l o y s and advanced composite

s t r u c t u r e s on a i r f r a m e conponents i s shown w i t h p o t e n t i a l weight s a v i n g s on
Table A-111.

4.3 AIRPLANE GEOMETRY GUIDELINES

The a i r p l a n e geometry g u i d e l i n e s shown i n Figure A-4 were adopted t o

e n s u r e adequate ground c l e a r a n c e d u r i n g t a x i , t a k e o f f , and Landing. These
a r e t h e same g u i d e l i n e s used i n t h e e a r l i e r s t u d y under s u b c o n t r a c t
NO. P.O. 200-4XX-14K40096.

4.4 ENGINE INSTALLATION

4.4.1 Engine, Placement

Engine placement g u i d e l i n e s w e r e r e v i s i o n s o f t h o s e used i n t h e c y c l e

s e l e c t i o n s t u d i e s . The r e v i s e d g u i d e l i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r chordwise engine
placement ( F i g s . A-5 and A-6) provided balance between i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g and
f l u t t e r weight p e n a l t y . Figure A-7 compares t h e ATE and CF6-50C i n s t a l l a t i o n s
using t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s .

103
 * (NO SCALE)

c
Y

F i g u r e A-2. T y p i c a l Mission P r o f i l e

104
 IC f

1
.r:

..4
/ / *?.

.- 1

in

105
 Table A - 1 1 1 . A d v a n c e d A i r f r a m e S t r u c t u r e f o r E3 S t u d i e s

NEW TECHNOLOGY

MATERIAL MATERIAL STRUCTURAL WEIGHT SAVING

COMPONENT % OF
COMPONENT
WEIGHT

iSTANDARD
ALUMINUM
ALLOYS
(CURRENT 747)

CONVENT IONAL
ALUMINUM
ADVANCED
ALUMINUM
ALLOYS

ADVANCED
COMPOSITE
WING BOX
FUSELAGE
EMPENNAGE
BOX

CONTROL
SURFACES
6%
4%
6%

25%

CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE LANDING GEAR

( GRAPHITE 1 DOORS

CARBON MAIN LANDING 40%

GEAR BRAKES

T I TAN I UM LANDING GEAR 20%

FITTINGS SUPPORT
S I D E OF BODY R I B
EMPENNAGE
BODY ATTACH
ENGINE STRUT
ATTACH
FLAP SUPPORT

106
u
w
t
v)
w
ZE
0 w w
B u 0
m z z U
w a
QL
.ez
U k
I4
QL a
w
a
w
9)
&
d d 1
w 0 0
M
CI z 4
ih
3 2
0 0
0 N
S
x
a
c

107
 3 w
;z
w
2
S
eZ
S

108
I

109
 rn
E
H

110
 Spanwise e n g i n e l o c a t i o n was based on c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f wing f l u t t e r ,
engine-ouf c o n t r o l , and l a n d i n g g e a r l e n g t h .

4.4.2 Nacelle Design

I n s t a l l e d e n g i n e performance i n c l u d e d cowl scrubbing d r a g where a p p l i c a b l e .

E x t e r n a l d r a g o f t h e n a c e l l e and i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g e f f e c t s among wing, s t r u t ,
and n a c e l l e were i n c l u d e d i n a i r p l a n e d r a g p o l a r s .

4.4.3 Engine Bleed and Power E x t r a c t i o n

Engine bleed a i r e x t r a c t i o n v a l u e s allowed c a b i n a i r v e n t i l a t i o n a t

d e s i g n c r u i s e w i t h s u f f i c i e n t margin f o r c a b i n a l t i t u d e c o n t r o l . Recircu-
l a t i o n reduced e n g i n e b l e e d r e q u i r e m e n t s and f u e l consumption due t o a i r -
c o n d i t i o n i n g by about 50%. Cabin b l e e d a i r r e q u i r e m e n t s are shown i n
F i g u r e A-8.

Engine s h a f t power e x t r a c t i o n w a s based on l o a d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e s t a b l i s h e d

by p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e . Power e x t r a c t i o n i s s p l i t between a i r p l a n e opera-
t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s and passenger l o a d i n g . O p e r a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s i n c l u d e b a s i c
h y d r a u l i c a n d e l e c t r i c l o a d s f o r o p e r a t i n g t h e a i r p l a n e s y s t e m s . Passenger
l o a d i n g d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s g a l l e y l o a d s and passenger l i g h t i n g . . This s t u d y
used a base l o a d of 180 h p / a i r p l a n e , which i s a d e q u a t e f o r 200 p a s s e n g e r s .

Engine power e x t r a c t i o n f o r a i r p l a n e o f f - d e s i g n o p e r a t i o n ( e . g . , o p e r a t i o n
i n i c i n g conditions) w a s not required f o r the a i r p l a n e parametric s t u d i e s .
System d e s i g n s , however, c o n s i d e r e d o f f - d e s i g n r e q u i r e m e n t s .

4.5 PRELIMINARY AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION

4.5.1 Airplane D e s c r i p t i o n

For t h e p r e l i m i n a r y a i r p l a n e , t h i s s t u d y s e l e c t e d a twin-engine wide-

body c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i t h d o u b l e - a i s l e seven-abreast s e a t i n g . Wing geometry
(AR = l O , A 0 . 2 5 c = 30 d e g ) was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c r u i s e speed and t a k e o f f
and l a n d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The lower l o b e c a r g o space w a s configured t o
accommodate 1 7 LD-3 c o n t a i n e r s s i d e by s i d e .

A prelimnary drawing o f t h e b a s e l i n e a i r p l a n e i s shown i n Figure A-3.

4.5.2 Engine D e s c r i p t i o n

S c a l a b l e CF6-50C and ATE t u r b o f a n e n g i n e s (Ref. 3 ) were used f o r s i z i n g

t h e advanced technology a i r p l a n e s . Both t h e c u r r e n t technology engine and
advanced engine were i n s t a l l e d t o e n s u r e o n l y t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n e n g i n e s
were r e f l e c t e d i n t h e performance improvements r e s u l t i n g from t h i s s t u d y .
The CF6-50C e n g i n e w a s i n s t a l l e d i n a s h o r t - f a n - d u c t n a c e l l e similar t o t h e
Boeing model 747 e n g i n e i n s t a l l a t i o n ; t h e ATE was i n s t a l l e d i n a long-duct
n a c e l l e t h a t included a f o r c e d mixer.

Main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e two e n g i n e s a t maximum climb t h r u s t , 0 . 8

Mach, and an a l t i t u d e of 35 000 f t a r e :

111
 25'

2oa AIR CONDITIONING

+WING 8, ENGINEINLET TAI*

15
L
10
r AIR CONDlTlONlNG + WlNG TAl*

AIR CONOlTlONlNG WlTH RECfRCUfATION

5 (ALL AMBIENT TEMPERATURES 1

AIRPLANE ALTITUDE, 1000 FEET

* IClNG CONDITlONS DEFINED BY FAR 25.1419

Figure A-8. Airplane Bleed A i r f l o w Requirement

112
 ATE CF6-50C

Bypass r a t i o 6.8 4.2

I n s t a l l e d SFC 0.546 0.629
Fan p r e s s u r e r a t i o 1.65 1.76
Overall p r e s s u r e r a t i o 38 32
Maximum t u r b i n e r o t o r i n l e t temp. 23400F --
(SLS hot-day t a k e o f f )

4.6 PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING DIRECT OPERATING COST (DOC)

AND RETURN OF INVESTMENT ( R O I )

The f o l l o w i n g method was used f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e DOC and R O I of t h e

a i r p l a n e powered by t h e CF6-50C and t h e ATE advanced e n g i n e . The a i r p l a n e s
were s i z e d t o minimize f u e l burned and a i r p l a n e g r o s s weight f o r t h e g i v e n
e n g i n e . Then a i r p l a n e block f u e l and block t i m e f o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m i s s i o n
were used t o determine t h e DOC and R O I based on 1977 d o l l a r s .

4.6.1 D i r e c t Operating Cost

The Boeing DOC method has evolved over s e v e r a l y e a r s from t h e formulas

published by t h e A i r T r a n s p o r t A s s o c i a t i o n of America i n 1967. The DOC
c a l c u l a t i o n i n c l u d e s c o s t o f crew, f u e l , a i r f r a m e maintenance, engine main-
t e n a n c e , d e p r e c i a t i o n , and i n s u r a n c e . U t i l i z a t i o n of t h e a i r p l a n e i s d e t e r -
mined from t h e block t i m e d e r i v e d by m i s s i o n a n a l y s i s . The DOC c a l c u l a t i o n
method i s d e t a i l e d i n Tables A-IV, A-V, and A-VI and i n F i g u r e s A-9 and A - 1 0 .

4.6.2 Return on Investment

The Boeing economic a n a l y s i s o f t h e E3 program used t h e d i s c o u n t e d c a s h

flow R O I method t o e v a l u a t e each e n g i n e . R O I i s t h e d i s c o u n t r a t e t h a t
makes t h e sum of t h e p r o j e c t e d annual c o s t s a v i n g s e q u a l t o t h e i n i t i a l
i n v e s t m e n t s . It i s t h e b e s t comparator of a l t e r n a t i v e investment o p p o r t u n i t i e s
i n a g e n e r a l b u s i n e s s c o n t e x t . R O I r e c o g n i z e s t h e v a l u e of money o v e r t i m e ,
and i t c a n be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o any a i r l i n e ' s c o s t of c a p i t a l t o show how
much a m o d i f i c a t i o n i s above o r below t h e h u r d l e r a t e , I n t h i s s t u d y ' s
c o n t e x t , t h e h u r d l e rate i s t h e R O I r e q u i r e d b e f o r e an a i r l i n e would c o n s i d e r
undertaking an investment o p p o r t u n i t y . Cash flows were c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g
c o n s t a n t (1977) d o l l a r s t o e n s u r e c o n s i s t e n t comparison of each c o n c e p t .

It should be n o t e d t h a t t h e r e i s an i n h e r e n t u n c e r t a i n t y i n any g e n e r a l -
i z e d f i g u r e of m e r i t a p p l i e d t o a s p e c i f i c a i r l i n e due t o c o n s i d e r a b l e v n r i a -
t i o n i n i n d i v i d u a l a i r l i n e o p e r a t i o n s , r u l e s , and e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a . S p e c i f i c
R O I a n a l y s i s should be made u s i n g a n a i r l i n e ' s i n d i v i d u a l r u l e s and h u r d l e
c r i t e r i a . A h u r d l e r a t e of 15% a f t e r t a x e s i s considered a n a c c e p t a b l e
criterion.

In t h e E3 s t u d y , t h e average range flown by domestic medium-range

a i r p l a n e s was determined, and a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e average range of 665 nmi was
s e l e c t e d as a base f o r economic c a l c u l a t i o n s . With a m i s s i o n p r o f i l e d e f i n e d
f o r t h e s e l e c t e d r a n g e , t h e i n i t i a l investment, o p e r a t i o n a l c o s t s , and cash
inflows w e r e c a l c u l a t e d f o r th'is p r o f i l e and a i r p l a n e u t i l i z a t i o n . The R O I
was c a l c u l a t e d w i t h t h e method d e f i n e d by Table A - V I I .
113
 Table A-IV. DOC Elements

Crew Cost - f(TOGW, cruise speed, mission type)

+ Fuel - fuel burn and fuel price specified

+ Airframe maintenance = specified (Boeing)

+ Engine maintenance = specified (engine manufacturer)

+ Depreciation - f(usefu1 life, residual value, utilization,
initial price, spares price)
+ Insurance - f(initia1 flyaway'price)

- DOC per trip

Utilization f(block time)

Table A-V. Basic Characteristics of Boeing 1977 Coefficients

Applicability New airplanes, domestic trunk

Mission profile 1967 ATA with revised taxi, air maneuver, and airway
distance factors

Utilization Function of average block time, maximum of 15 trips/day

Cruise procedure Minimum cost constant mach, step climb

Crew expenses Function of gross weight, speed and airplane utilization

Fuel price 35 C/gal. U.S. domestic and local service

Maintenance Mature-level maintenance based on current level with

material escalation of 8% over 1976.
Labor rate = $9.70/man-hour
Burden = 200% of direct labor

Depreciation New-15 yr. to 10% residual on airplane and spares

Insurance rate 0.5% of new airpLnne price

Assumed spares 6% of airframe price

30% of total engine price

Nonrevenue factor 2% added to fuel and maintenance for nonrevenue flying

114
 n
U
v)
k 0
v) a, u
U n P
+
a
E
9
d
I 3C
a
E
a
v)
3
k
5
v) 5 2
E a,
k v> u v)
0) I .d .d
U al U 1
W
0 m k
.d U 0 (0
0 k v) k
a a 3
v) I4 9) 0 v)
a,
-4 :
al
z
al
a
v)
.F:
U
k
3
0
U
W
k I4 c f
.rl

.d
E k
.rl
(0
al
5
.d
M
.rl
I4 s
v) W 4 v3 X c4 5:
a
4
3
8
X X
E c4 z

m
00 I.r? E
..
coh
mm
W
z
4
0
u) :
A N z ‘9 x
+ + w f
E + l n
-3.
3 0
A + - -
4
C

12
4
0
h
a m
00
0
0
0
a n
V

* . i3;

3
a m 0 0
* +4 &
u
a r
L
2
0
l n C J I1
m. o.
0 4
3

n
X
E
\
v)
W

w
3
d
0
m
3
W
u
z
-4
z
w
E
z
w
<
-5:
115
n

8
3: 9
'38
 w
2

- * CLe
z

117
 Table A-VII. Return on Investment Method

kfinition: ROI i s t h e d i s c o u n t r a t e a t which t h e n e t p r e s e n t v a l u e o f

f u t u r e cash inflows ( c o s t savings) is equal to the i n i t i a l cash
o u t l a y (investment)

useful l i k e

N e t p r e s e n t v a l u e (NPV) = -COUT + c
n - 1 CIN/(l+r)n

When NPV = 0, 1: = ROI = d i s c o u n t r a t e

?,al c u l a t ions.,: 1. Before t a x c a s h outflows (COUT)

Incremental a i r p l a n e p r i c e o r m o d i f i c a t i o n c o s t
A d d i t i o n a l spares i n v e n t o r y

2. Before t a x c a s h i n f l o w s ( a n n u a l ) (GIN)
Cash o p e r a t i n g c o s t s a v i n g s
0 Fuel
Maintenance

3. After t a x equivalence

0 Depreciation t a x e f f e c t s
0 Investment t a x c r e d i t ( i f a p p l i c a b l e )

118
 5.0 AIRPLANE PERFORMANCE AND SECURITY

5.1 AIRPLANE SIZING

Both t h e CF6-50C and t h e ATE powered a i r p l a n e s were s i z e d t o meet t h e

same d e s i g n m i s s i o n . The e f f e c t o f engine technology on a i r p l a n e s i z e and
performance i s shown i n Figure A-11. The wing l o a d i n g f o r t h e s e a i r
w a s chosen f o r minimum block f u e l (BLKF) and t a k e o f f g r o s s weight (
but w i t h ah 84OF day s e a - l e v e l t a k e o f f f i e l d l e n g t h (TOFL) c o n s t r a i n t o f
6000 f t d e t e r m i n i n g t h e t h r u s t l o a d i n g . S e l e c t e d wing l o a d i n g s (w/s) were
100 l b / s q . f t . € o r t h e ATE-powered a i r p l a n e and 105 l b / s q . f t . f o r t h e CF6-
50C-powered a i r p l a n e . Engine t h r u s t t o weight (T/W) d i f f e r e n c e a t g i v e n
wing l o a d i n g shown i n Figure A-11 were due t o d i f f e r e n c e i n BPR between t h e
two e n g i n e s .

5.1.1 A i r p l a n e Performance and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and performance of t h e CF6-50C and t h e ATE-powered

a i r p l a n e s are compared i n Table A - V I I I . Each a i r p l a n e w a s designed t o m e e t
a i r p l a n e and m i s s i o n requirements (Sec. 4 . 1 ) . The BLKF and TOGW shown i n
Table A - V I 1 1 a r e based on a n a i r p l a n e s i z i n g program.

5.1.2 Airp 1ane Weight

Table A-IX shows r e s u l t s o f a weight a n a l y s i s on domestic E3 a i r p l a n e s

w i t h t h e ATE and CF6-50C e n g i n e s . These weights r e f l e c t t h e advanced t e c h -
nology f e a t u r e s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 4 . 2 . The n a c e l l e weights were s u p p l i e d
by GE and s c a l e d t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t h r u s t l e v e l . A p r e l i m i n a r y balance
analysis indicated acceptable loadability f o r both airplanes.

5.1.3 Airframe Noise and FAR 36 F l i g h t Conditions

The a i r f r a m e n o i s e p r e d i c t i o n method a p p l i e d i s p a r t of t h e Boeing

s t a n d a r d aircraft-community n o i s e p r e d i c t i o n procedure. This method w a s
based on a i r f r a m e n o i s e being predominantly g e n e r a t e d by t u r b u l e n t flow a t
t h e edges o f a i r f o i l s , c a v i t i e s , and l a n d i n g g e a r members. Q u a n t i t a t i v e
v a l u e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e method were determined from f l i g h t t e s t s of i n -
s e r v i c e Boeing a i r c r a f t . A l l methods a r e under c o n t i n u a l review t o m a i n t a i n
a technology l e v e l c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r s t a t u s a s v a l i d a t e d Boeing s t a n d a r d s .

Noise was p r e d i c t e d as 1 / 3 o c t a v e band sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l s having

d i r e c t i v e l y d e f i n e d by a 150-ft p o l a r a r c from 10 t o 170 deg a t 10 deg i n t e r v a l s .
The s p e c t r a were e x t r a p o l a t e d f o r t h e r e q u i r e d f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n i n o r d e r t o
g e n e r a t e a i r p l a n e f l y o v e r t i m e h i s t o r i e s of sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l and weighted
n o i s e v a l u e s (SPL, dB(A)). The perceived n o i s e l e v e l (PNL) t i m e h i s t o r y was
c a l c u l a t e d and converted t o e f f e c t i v e perceived n o i s e l e v e l (EPNL).

In normal u s e , t h e p r e d i c t e d a i r f r a m e n o i s e component i s added t o o t h e r

n o i s e components a t t h e s p e c t r a l l e v e l f o r e x t r a p o l a t i o n and d e r i v a t i o n o f
t o t a l a i r p l a n e EPNL. I n a d d i t i o n , a s used h e r e , a i r f r a m e n o i s e can be p r e -
d i c t e d and e x t r a p o l a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . 119
 PAYLOAD * 196 PASS (40180 LB 1

ALT-
1oOoFr 35
. SAR 2900 N.M1.

TOR
8

CRUISE MACH
= 6ooo FI
= 0.80
(SI. 8@F)
DESIGN POINT
v Mom 768-869 (CFbW=)
265 - A MODEL 7688-868 (ATE)

1Mx) L8
l55

45

lrn &.3
35

F i g u r e A-11. A i r p l a n e Performance Trades

120
 v)
3

0
co
04 0
0 co
0 n . N n
N O
4.
\
9
0
E
H
Q\ w
4 3

0
co
04 0 n 00000 000 0 4 0
0
0
N O
n -m
co
0
k
w
v)
p c\ m
Q m 4m. 4m. m
uJ n n 9
P I A N ...
hmco
4.
1
9-
Q\
4

a
il

..
W
W
0
z

121
 Table A-IX. Weight Statement for GE E3 Airplanes

Weight (LB)

Model 768-868 Model 768-869

(ATE 1 ( CF6-5 OC

Wing 30,280 31,820

Empennage 4,440 4,470

Body 33,430 33,710

Nacelle;'! 6,870 9,060

Gear 12,700 12,630

Total structure (87,630 (91,690)

Propulsion system ( 15,600) (15,280)

Fixed equipment and opt ions (42,300) (42,5701

Standard and operational items (1 1,400) (11.400)

OEW 156,930 160,940

JrGE provided nacelle weight plus Boeing estimated pylon and mount weight.

122
 Table A-X g i v e s f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s a t FAR 36 measuring p o i n t s f o r t h e
CF6-50C and ATE-powered a i r p l a n e s . T h i s t a b l e a l s o shows nominal a i r f r a m e
n o i s e component EPNL v a l u e s . For a s t u d y e n g i n e , i t i s s t a n d a r d Boeing
p r a c t i c e t o add an u n c e r t a i n t y margin o f 3 EPNdB t o t h e t o t a l p r e d i c t e d
noise l e v e l . This ensures t h a t a i r p l a n e noise w i l l f a l l within c e r t i f i a b l e
limits.

5.1.4 Engine and Airframe Noise

I n t h e Boeing a n a l y s i s , t h e a c o u s t i c a l d e s i g n p o i n t was an 80% l e v e l o f

confidence of c e r t i f i c a t i o n . T h i s g o a l could be achieved w i t h c u r r e n t and
n e a r - f u t u r e l i n i n g technology. The e s t i m a t e d n o i s e l e v e l s f o r t h e ATE
(Table A-XI) were based on a nominal a c o u s t i c treatment t o t h e engine and
n a c e l l e , n o t on a f u l l y i t e r a t e d l i n i n g d e s i g n s t u d y . It w a s concluded t h a t
w i t h f u r t h e r refinement t h e approach n o i s e could a t t a i n t h e 3 EPNdB margin
generally considered acceptable f o r assuring c e r t i f i c a b l e noise l e v e l s .

Because q u i e t o p e r a t i o n was n o t t h e prime o b j e c t i v e i n c o n f i g u r i n g t h i s

a i r p l a n e , no a d j u s t m e n t s were made t o t h e performance o r f l i g h t c o n f i g u r a t i o n
f o r t h e purpose o f lowering n o i s e l e v e l s . Optimization o f l i n i n g s , f l a p
s e t t i n g s , and. t h r u s t l e v e l s could improve t h e margin f o r t h e approach c a s e .

5.1.5 Airplane Drawings of Sized A i r p l a n e s

F i g u r e s A-12 and A-13 show drawings o f t h e CF6-50C and ATE-powered

airplanes.

5.1.6 A i r p l a n e Drag P o l a r s

The a i r p l a n e d r a g p o l a r s were d e r i v e d from wind t u n n e l t e s t d a t a o b t a i n e d

from a model c l o s e l y resembling t h e s t u d y c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . Beyond t h a t , d r a g
optimism a s s o c i a t e d w i t h advanced technology w a s i n c o r p o r a t e d as d i s c u s s e d
i n S e c t i o n 4.2. Estimated d r a g o f i s o l a t e d n a c e l l e s and d r a g caused by
i n t e r f e r e n c e between t h e n a c e l l e s and t h e a i r f r a m e were i n c l u d e d i n t h e
airplane polars.

5.2 AIRPLANE SENSITIVITY FACTORS

S e n s i t i v i t i e s f o r a i r p l a n e s a r e shown i n Table A - X I 1 and A - X I I I . The

a i r p l a n e s a r e s i z e d by TOFL and t h e s e n s i t i v i t y r e s u l t s a r e n o n l i n e a r f o r
some parameters. I n some c a s e s , b e t t e r a i r p l a n e s o l u t i o n s t i . e . , lower TOGW
o r BLKF) can be o b t a i n e d by s i z i n g t o more s t r i n g e n t performance c o n s t r a i n t s
T h i s , however, r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l d i a g n o s t i c p o i n t d e s i g n s t h a t a r e time-
consuming and c o s t l y . It i s recommended t h a t t h e s e n s i t i v i t i e s b e used w i t h
c a u t i o n and n o t o u t s i d e t h e amount of change shown.

5.3 TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT AND FUEL BURN COMPARISON

Figure A-14 shows BLKF and BLKT v e r s u s range f o r both CF6-50C and ATE-
powered a i r p l a n e s . For t h e domestic a i r p l a n e on t h e average m i s s i o n , t h e
a i r p l a n e w i t h ATE e n g i n e s u s e s 15.5% less f u e l t h a n t h e CF6-50C a i r p l a n e .
For t h e d e s i g n m i s s i o n without performance r e t e n t i o n , t h e s a v i n g f o r t h e
ATE-powered a i r p l a n e i s 17.6%. These s a v i n g s r e p r e s e n t about 3% improvement

123
 Table A-X. Flight Conditions for FAR-36 Noise Calculations--770F

Domestic Airplane Takeoff Sideline Approach

Model 768-868 (1) (21 (3)

(ATE Engine)

% of takeoff thrust at flight condition 100 100 100

Speed, knots 153 153 134

Altitude, feet 2 200

y 900 394

Bleed (lb/sec)/HPX (per engifle1 (0.0/1601 (O.O/160) (0.0/160) '

Engine angle relative 7.7 7.7 5.5

to flight path, degrees

Climb angle, degrees 7.3 7.3 -3

Airframe noise EPNdBJE 72.5 72.6 93 .O

(1) 6500111 from brake release at maximum takeoff weight

(2) 200Om from touchdown at design mission landing weight

(3) 450m sideline distance

JE Nominal noise estimate shown -- appropriate design/demonstration

I tolerances are required for certifiable/guarantee levels.

124
 Table A-XI. Nominal Noise Estimates

FAR 36-8

ATE Jc Requirement Notes

Takeoff 90 .o 93.8 dB No cutback

650Om point

Side 1ine 90 .o 98.2 dB Sideline distance

450m point

Approach 100 .o 102.0 dB 200Om from

threshold (two
extended flap
segments, 3 deg
glide slope)

*Note: Nominal noise estimates are shown -- appropriate design/demonstration

tolerances are required for certifiable/guarantee levels.

125
 . -0
LC::?'S

.
I

a
I

I
I

i I
I I 1
t
M
4
Irr
i

126
I
. t t

,
0

1
p

127
 Table A-XII. D o m e s t i c A i r p l a n e S e n s i t i v i t y Factors - Model 768-869

MODEL 769-869
(CF6-5OC ENGINES)
5% CHANGE
~~ ~

5% OEW 5% FFNTO
+/-
+6. w 5 . 7 -0.5/+0.8

+8.5 1-7.9 -1 .0/+1.3

+8.7/-8.1 -1.0/+1.4

+3.9 /-3.5 -0.3/+1.1

+5.6/-5.2 -5.2/+6.2

196 PASSENGERS
2000 N.MI. RANGE
TOFL 60GO FT
WING LOADING = 105 LB/SQ FT

Table A - X I I I . D o m e s t i c A i r p l a n e S e n s i t i v i t y Factors - Model 768-868

MODEL 768-868
(G.E. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ENGINES)
5% CHANGE

BASED
CYCLE I 5% FNCR
+/- I 5% S F C
+/-
243600 -0.1 /+0 . 3 +1/4/-1.4

156930 -0.1/+0.1 + O . 7/-0.7

145530 -0. :/+o. 2 +0.8/-0.7

B LKF 34400 -0.6/+1.3 +4.6 /-4.5

SLST . 37710 -0.1/+0.2 t l .3/-1.2

L.
128
196 PASSENGERS
2000 N . M I . RANGE
TOFL = 6000 FT
WING LOADING = 100 LS/SQ FT
 5.0

4.0

s
=’, 3.0 8tKT FOR G.L MiMS
AT 55% AND 100%P I L
4
m

20

LO

6.E. CFb-%, S5% P I 1

G.E. ADV. TECH.,
lm P I L
6.E. ADV. TECH.,
5% PIL

AT SAR = 445 ADV. ENG A I ? USES U.7k

LESS NELTHAN CFEMC AIP, 100% P I L ’
(15.5% E 5 5 AT 55% P I L I
str, ldoo m m
SAR - NMI
Figure A-14. Block Fuel Comparison

129
over t h e e a r l i e r s t u d y . This improvement i s e x p l a i n e d by a more a c c u r a t e
accounting o f s p e c i f i c f u e l consumption (SFC) r e d u c t i o n f o r t h e ATE e n g i n e
d u r i n g climb and d e s c e n t m i s s i o n segments. Allowing a 1%TSFC improvement
over t h e l i f e t i m e o f t h e engine f o r performance r e t e n t i o n improves t h e s e
s a v i n g s by about 0.9% as shown i n F i g u r e A-15.

A breakdown i n f u e l used d u r i n g v a r i o u s m i s s i o n segments i s shown i n

Figure A-16. The l a r g e percentage o f f u e l burned d u r i n g climb f o r t y p i c a l
s t a g e l e n g t h s shows t h e importance o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e advance-engine SFC
improvement a t climb power s e t t i n g .

O v e r a l l f u e l burned improvement f o r t h e ATE-powered a i r p l a n e was about

15% t o 18%f o r a l l payload-range combinations. Reduced engine-out windmilling
d r a g could improve t a k e o f f performance o r reduce t h e engine s i z e a t a g i v e n
TOFL c o n s t r a i n t .

5.4 TYPICAL MISSION DOC AND R O I

R e s u l t s of t h e economic a n a l y s i s f o r t h e GE E3 program are p r e s e n t e d i n

Tables A-XIV, A-XV, and A-XVI. The i n i t i a l economic a n a l y s i s (Table A-XIV)
was based on t h e May 8, 1978 engine d a t a of Reference 3. T h i s a n a l y s i s con-
s i d e r e d ' t h r e e f u e l prices of 35, 40 and 45 / g a l and used a t y p i c a l range of
665 nmi. GE updated t h e engine d a t a p r i o r t o t h e November 20-21, 1978 p r e -
l i m i n a r y d e s i g n review (PDR). This l a t e r d a t a w a s used t o update t h e economic
a n a l y s i s summarized i n Table A-XV. T h i s updated a n a l y s i s w a s f o r 40 / g a l
f u e l and m i s s i o n s t a g e l e n g t h s of 665, 1000, and 2000 nmi. Also considered
i n t h i s a n a l y s i s was t h e e f f e c t o f a 1%TSFC improvement allowance f o r
performance r e t e n t i o n o v e r t h e e n g i n e l i f e .

In comparison w i t h c u r r e n t h i g h bypass r a t i o engine p r i c e s G E ' s ATE

engine p r i c e appeared h i g h e r than could be supported by a competitve m a r k e t .
Based on t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n Boeing p r o j e c t e d an e n g i n e p r i c e approximately
22% lower t h a n t h e GE-estimated p r i c e . The e f f e c t of t h i s lower p r i c e on
DOC and ROI i s shown i n Table A-XV.

A summary of DOC improvement f o r t h e November 20-21, 1978 PDR s t a t u s i s

shown i n Figure A-17. A t t h e d e s i g n m i s s i o n t h e NASA 5% DOC improvement
g o a l i s exceeded f o r a l l ranges when t h e lower Boeing e s t i m a t e d engine p r i c e
i s used; however, when t h e GE p r i c e i s used o n l y t h e d e s i g n - m i s s i o n DOC
exceeds t h e g o a l .

The DOC and R O I c a l c u l a t i o n s were based on methods d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n

4 . 6 . I n a d d i t i o n t h e following assumptions were used i n t h e a i r p l a n e ROI
calculations:

a. Airplane ROI i s t h e r a t e t h a t makes t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e of f u t u r e

n e t annual cash inflows e q u a l t o t h e o u t f l o w a t t h e t i m e of
equipment purchase.
b. Cash flows and t h e i r timing a r e c o n s i d e r e d a s f o l l o w s :
Time p r i o r t o d e l i v e r y Percent ( % ) of p r i c e paid

15 mo. 20
12 mo. 5
9 mo. 5
130 6 mo. 5
0 mo. (delivery) 65 + s p a r e s
7

w
w +
7
0
W
d
a
7 -
>
E
pi
3
CY 0
w l-

0
N
Ln 0

131
 I

500 2000
RANGE, N.M1.

,DESCENT+ APPROACH + TAX[

F i g u r e A-16. P e r c e n t Block Fuel by Mission

P r o f i l e Segment

132
 him
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
~ ~ l 1 1 I 1 l l1 f- 00
l n 4
2 a

m o
a m 1 I I I I I I I
O h l l l l l l l l l 4 m
4 VI
4

z
scn zt
v)

!2 0
4

r;l
4
H
&

m l n
E l n l
W
L
4
o 4
n
-
l
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I I
1
0
4
H 4
c
i
ln
\n
9

ln
VI
4
4

ffi
0
Pa
s h
w N
Ei
c3
W

H
z
W
0
d

133
 0 cJ
a . m
z”
H
4 4

0
2
W m I-
m
W m al
I 4

W
G m hl
4 PI
4

0 a2
a m
4 4

b
VI
4

U
0
VI
I 4
a m
Fu
u 4

x3
0
a,
4 4
P 4
I

;ri

2
W 0
H
5c3 w
z 3
w V
W
p:
F4
W
cl
V
0
n
134
 0
0 \o 0-
0 \o 3
N
S-I m
W
5
c3
-
z
W
m 0
W 0
0
I 4

W
ei -
m
\o
\o

-
b
m
4

V
0
m
I
\o 4
yzc
V m
4

W
u
W
p:
F4
W
Ec3 0
4
z
W
4

m -
w
t3
EW
0
$ in
c-7
4
H
4 W
a,
e
Et3 p:
w
4
P
s
z
W 3
W
z
H
u
z
W

-
 t
m
d
1,
a
a
5
u

0
U
m
u0
M
E
d
U
a
&I
aJ
a
0
U
U
aJ
1,
.rl
n
v1
3
L)
a
L)
VI

136
1N33t13d ‘.I.N3\/”\lAOddW I 3Oa
 c. Investment t a x c r e d i t o f 10% spread o v e r t h e f i r s t t h r e e years
of operation.
d. Annual o p e r a t i n g c o s t s and revenue a t s t a t e d m i s s i o n s and load
factors.
0 A c c e r l e r a t e d d e p r e c i a t i o n f o r t a x purposes
(sum o f y e a r s d i g i t s method)
Income t a x e s a t 48%
e. A i r p l a n e l i f e i s 15 y e a r s and r e s i d u a l v a l u e i s 10% o f p r i c e
p l u s s p a r e s (new a i r p l a n e ) .

S i n c e a i r p l a n e R O I i s based on a i r p l a n e p r o f i t a b i l t i y compared t o t o t a l
a i r p l a n e c o s t s , i t measures t h e v a l u e o f i n v e s t i n g i n t h e t o t a l a i r p l a n e
system. On t h e o t h e r hand, i n c r e m e n t a l ROI, as shown i n Tables A-XIV, A-XV,
and A-XVI, was based on s a v i n g s r e a l i z e d by u s i n g t h e ATE compared t o i t s
increased p r i c e . Incremental R O I t h u s shows r e t u r n on o n l y t h e money i n v e s t e d
i n t h e e n g i n e . Because t h e a i r p l a n e performance and c o s t d i f f e r e n c e s between
t h e CF6-50C and ATE-powered a i r p l a n e s are minimal, t h e improved economics
are g e n e r a t e d p r i m a r i l y by engine improvements. It i s t h e r e f o r e more r e a l i s t i c
t o use i n c r e m e n t a l R O I f o r d e c i d i n g t h e economic v a l u e of t h e new e n g i n e .

137
 6.0 ENGINE/AIRPLANE INTEGRATION

This s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s t h e Boeing assessment and e v a l u a t i o n of t h e GE

designed ATE e n g i n e h a c e l l e i n s t a l l a t i o n d e f i n e d by GE drawings, References
6, 7, 8 and 9 . Comparison of n a c e l l e f e a t u r e s w i t h Boeing s t a n d a r d s and
a i r l i n e requirements i s covered where a p p r o p r i a t e .

6.1 NACELLE ARRANGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION

The i n l e t and major n a c e l l e dimensions were g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

Boeing p r a c t i c e . Aerodynamic l i n e s f o r a n a c e l l e s i m u l a t o r model w e r e
e v a l u a t e d , and r e s u l t s i n Reference 5 .

Being p r e l i m i n a r y , t h e GE drawings lacked numerous c o n s t r u c t i o n d e t a i l s ,

and in-depth c r i t i q u e of d e t a i l c o n s t r u c t i o n w a s n o t p o s s i b l e . Comments
were provide on areas where some d e t a i l w a s shown. Figure A-18 r e p r e s e n t s
t h e GE designed n a c e l l e .

a. Inlet

Apparently t h e attachment between i n l e t and cowl/engine s t r u c t u r e

i s provided by means of b o l t s i n s t a l l e d i n a c l e v i s w i t h t h e
b o l t i n s t a l l e d i n a r a d i a l d i r e c t i o n . To m a i n t a i n i n t e r n a l and
e x t e r n a l c o n t o u r c o n t r o l , t h e c l e v i s s u r f a c e s must be machined
v e r y a c c u r a t e l y , o t h e r w i s e t h e c o n t o u r s w i l l be s u b j e c t t o s t e p s and
gaps which are n o t aerodynamically a c c e p t a b l e . The p o t e n t i a l for
b o l t t o h o l e misalignment i s a l s o v e r y h i g h . Access t o t h e
b o l t heads i s n o t a p p a r e n t . The load p a t h between t h e i n l e t and
engine/cowl s t r u c t u r e appeare t o be v e r y s o f t and s u b j e c t t o
d e f l e c t i o n , which w i l l also i n c r e a s e t h e gaps on both i n n e r and
o u t e r flow s u r f a c e s . The i n l e t bulkhead form i s n o t conducive
t o attachment o f bulkhead c o n n e c t o r s f o r e l e c t r i c a l , pneumatic,
or h y d r a u l i c l i n e s , so p a s s i n g s e r v i c e s through t h e bulkhead w i l l
be d i f f i c u l t .

b. Fan Case and Cow?.

Due t o t h e i n t e g r a t e d n a t u r e of t h e f a n c a s e and f a n cowl i t i s

important t o examine t h e i n t e r f a c e d e t a i l s t o e n s u r e c o m p a t i b i l i t y .
Comments have a l r e a d y been made r e l a t i v e t o t h e i n l e t attachment.
The i n t e r f a c e a t t h e forward tongue and groove j o i n t m u s t p a s s
r a d i a l l y upward t o g a i n a c c e s s t o t h e c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r . i e s ,
b u t i t i s n o t c l e a r where t h e break i n t h e o u t e r s h e l l i s l o c a t e d .
The s e c t i o n of honeycomb forward of t h e r e v e r s e r s e a l appears t o
be an e x t e n s i o n of t h e o u t e r fan case/cowl, y e t t h e i n n e r w a l l of
t h e r e v e r s e r i l l u s t r a t e s s e a l s and means f o r opening t h e d u c t s .
More c l a r i f i c a t i o n i n t h i s a r e a i s needed.

I n t h e absence of a primary r e v e r s e r t h e d i f f u s i n g primary gas

w i l l tend t o flow forward when t h e f a n flow i s b e i n g r e v e r s e d .
For t h i s reason t h e m a t e r i a l s in t h e f a n duct/cowl must be chosen
c a r e f u l l y t o prevent i n a d v e r t e n t s t r u c t u r a l damage from h o t g a s e s
or provide some c o n t r o l l e d leakage through t h e b l o c k e r do0.r a r r a y .
138
 139
I
 The c o n t r o l l e d leakage concept must be e v a l u a t e d v e r y c a r e f u l l y
because f o r each pound of forward t h r u s t g e n e r a t e d t h e system
i s p e n a l i z e d 3 pounds o f r e v e r s e t h r u s t .

The seal and V groove between t h e f a n duct/cowl and t h e t a i l p i p e

i s n o t c o n t i n u o u s a t t h e t o p and t h u s hoop l o a d s must be c a r r i e d
around t h e s l o t made by t h e s t r u t p e n e t r a t i o n . T h i s c a n cause
s e r i o u s s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a t t h e a f t end o f t h e s l o t , as w e l l
as problems w i t h s u p p o r t i n g t h e p r e s s u r e load on t h e f l a t s i d e s
o f t h e s t r u t and n o z z l e .

The d u c t i n n e r w a l l c o n t o u r shown does n o t provide room f o r

a longeron o r l a t c h e s a t t h e bottom c e n t e r l i n e . Minimum a c c e p t a b l e
c l e a r a n c e between a c c e s s o r y items and cowl s t r u c t u r e i s 0.375
i n c h e s . This c o n t o u r a l s o i s t o o t i g h t f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n of a n
a c c e s s o r y d r a i n system, o r cowl v e n t i n g p r o v i s i o n s .

The a i r seal ( g a r l o c k t y p e ) a t t h e forward end o f t h e f a n d u c t

i n n e r w a l l a p p e a r s t o be backwards, u n l e s s t h e 'accessory compaFt-
ment i s p r e s s u r i z e d t o a l e v e l g r e a t e r t h a n f a n d u c t p r e s s u r e .
I f t h e compartment p r e s s u r e i s h i g h e r t h a n f a n d u c t p r e s s u r e ,
d r a i n a g e and v e n t i n g of t h e compartment w i l l be d i f f i c u l t i f
e x t e r i o r aerodynamic l o s s e s a r e t o be a v o i d e d . Since no lower
b i f u r c a t i o n i s shown c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h e v e n t and d r a i n system
i s needed.

A t t h e a f t end of t h e f a n d u c t o u t e r w a l l o f t h e V groove j o i n t
should be i n v e r t e d t o f a c i l i t a t e opening t h e main cowl f o r a c c e s s
t o t h e a c c e s s o r i e s . The c o n f i g u r a t i o n as shown has no lower
b i f u r c a t i o n , and t h u s t h e system r e q u i r e s t h e f o l l o w i n g sequence
of operation t o gain access t o the a c c e s s o r i e s .

1. Unlatch and remove t h e t a i l p i p e .

2. Unlatch and remove o r hinge o u t e r f a n d u c t w a l l and r e v e r s e r
up and o u t o f t h e way.
3. Remove t h e i n n e r f a n d u c t w a l l by u n l a t c h i n g and removing.

T h i s i s n e c e s s a r y t o g a i n a c c e s s each t i m e a mechanic wishes

t o check t h e o i l o r any o t h e r r o u t i n e maintenance t a s k . This
would not be a c c e p t a b l e t o most a i r l i n e s .

c. Fan T h r u s t Reverser

Location of t h e a c t u a t i o n mechanism f o r t h e r e v e r s e r i s n o t
a p p a r e n t . The space between i n n e r and o u t e r f a n c a s e w a l l s
a p p e a r s marginal f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n o f an a c t u a t i o n system f o r t h e
r e v e r s e r . The l o g i c a l p l a c e f o r a c t u a t i o n i s occupied by t h e
c a s c a d e s and t h e s t r u c t u r a l t h i c k n e s s o f t h e f a n cowl l i m i t s
p u t t i n g t h e a c t u a t o r i n t h e l i n e w i t h t h e s l e e v e . The a x i a l
l e n g t h provided i n t h e o u t e r fan d u c t ahead o f t h e c a s c a d e s
and a f t o f t h e sweep plane f o r d u c t opening i s not adequate
f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n of an a c t u a t o r w i t h 29-inch s t r o k e .

140
 F u r t h e r concerns r e l a t i v e t o t h e t h r u s t r e v e r s e r i n c l u d e t h e
method o f p r o v i d i n g p o s i t i v e l o n g i t u d i n a l s e a l i n g i n t h e stowed
p o s i t i o n , t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e of t h e door l e a d i n g edge w i t h d u c t
s t r u c t u r e d u r i n g t r a n s l a t i o n , and t h e blockage door a n g l e i n
t h e deployed p o s i t i o n .

These concerns are i l l u s t r a t e d by F i g u r e A-19. With r e g a r d

t o t h e door a n g l e , Boeing d a t a show a 90 degree door a n g l e ( i . e . ,
p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e d u c t w a l l ) t o g i v e t h e most e f f e c t i v e t h r u s t
r e v e r s i n g and h i g h e s t e f f e c t i v e area.

d. Mixer

Details o f t h e mixer attachment are l a c k i n g . It a p p e a r s t h a t

t h e e n g i n e plug i s a t t a c h e d and supported from t h e o u t e r engine
exhaust case.

The purpose o f t h e l i n k between t h e p l u g and lobe v a l l e y i s n o t

c l e a r . It appears t o be f o r s u p p o r t of t h e lobe o f t h e mixer,
b u t as drawn i t could impose l o a d s on t h e mixer and change t h e
p r i h a r y / s e c o n d a r y area r e l a t i o n s h i p . Since t h e p l u g is always
bathed i n primary flow up t o t h e l i n k and t h e l o b e is bathed by
b o t h f a n and primary flow, t h e plug w i l l grow t h e r m a l l y more than
t h e mixer. When t h i s happens t h e l i n k w i l l move a f t a t t h e p l u g
a t t a c h e d end and t h u s p u l l t h e lobe inward. To be n e u t r a l i n
i t s motiori t h e l i n k should be more n e a r l y p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e
plug c o n t o u r . The l i n k must a l s o be p o s i t i o n e d such t h a t i t
does n o t change t h e a r e a r a t i o .

c. Tailpipe

The j o i n t between t h e t a i l p i p e and t h e f a n duct should be i n v e r t e d

t o a l l o w f o r t h e s i m p l e s t and l i g h t e s t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e t a i l p i p e .

6.2 AIRFRAME ACCESSSORY REQUIREMENTS AND LOCATION

Hydraulic and e l e c t r i c l o a d s a r e shown i n F i g u r e s A-20 and A-21. These

loads can be handled by one h y d r a u l i c pump and one a l t e r n a t o r on each e n g i n e
g e a r box.

Gearbox and a c c e s s o r y l o c a t i o n s t u d i e s g e n e r a l l y have shown t h e c o r e

mounting t o have t h e least weight and b e s t performance; however, a c c e s s -
i b i l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y i n a long d u c t n a c e l l e , i s n o t as good a s f o r t h e c h i n -
mounted a c c e s s o r i e s .

Table A-XVII p r e s e n t s a g e n e r a l s t u d y of a c c e s s o r y l o c a t i o n . A numerical

r a t i n g system, where 0 i s unacceptable and 5 i s t h e b e s t o r m o s t a c c e p t a b l e ,
was used t o o b t a i n an o v e r a l l f i g u r e of m e r i t . Recent surveys of Boeing
customers showed t h a t c h i n mounting and c o r e mounting had w i d e s t a c c e p t a n c e .
There a l s o appeared t o be a s t r o n g f e e l i n g a g a i n s t s p l i t gearboxes. Gear-
boxes a p p a r e n t l y a r e h i g h m a i n t e n a n c e i t e m s and a i r l i n e s b e l i e v e t h a t s p l i t t i n g
a gearbox i n c r e a s e s i t s maintenance problems s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Another important
c o n s i d e r a t i o n was t h e f u e l s p i l l requirement (DOT/FAA o r d e r S l l 0 . 1 9 > t h a t
141
T
6

i
a
E
s
s"
Y
 I
' 0
v)

143
 I
r
-I i

144
 Table A-XVII. E3 Engine Gear Box Location Study

Split Fuel Pump Fan

Core Mount Fuel Pump Bottom Frame at Fan Chin Top Only
TOP 60Oand2 7Oo

Fuel Spill per 5 5 0 5 0 5

DOT/FAA order
8110.19

Accessibi1ity 4 3 3 5 5 1
to accessories

Heat rejection 2 5 5 5 5 5

Accessibility 2 5 5 5 5 5
to variable IGV

Compatibility 5 5 5 5 5 5
with load
reduction

Compatibility 2 5 5 5 5 5
with zero
moment mount

Customer 4 0 0 0 5 0
Acceptance

24 2810 2310 35 /O 30/0 2610

Note: Rating 0 to 5, with 5 most acceptable and 0 not acceptable

145
s p e c i f i e d t h a t no f u e l may be s p i l l e d d u r i n g a wheels-up l a n d i n g . The c h i n -
mounted gearbox and e n g i n e f u e l pump would be d i f f i c u l t t o c e r t i f y t h i s
r eq u ireme n t .

Table A-XVII r e f l e c t s t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and shows t h e core-mounted

gearbox t o be t h e most a c c e p t a b l e l o c a t i o n .

6.3 MAINTAINABILITY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND SAFETY

M a i n t a i n a b i l i t y , a c c e s s i b i l i t y , and s a f e t y p r o v i s i o n s were reviewed and

found t o be g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e . The r e f e r e n c e l a y o u t s d i d n o t c o n t a i n
s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l , nor w a s i t s u f f i c i e n t l y complete, t o w a r r a n t d e t a i l e d
study o f t h e s e f e a t u r e s .

6.4 FUEL HEATER SYSTEM

GE has proposed t h a t engine f u e l be used a s a h e a t s i n k f o r c o o l i n g t h e

ECS bleed a i r . This s y s t e m w i l l improve engine TSFC by r e t a i n i n g thermal
energy i n t h e e n g i n e c y c l e r a t h e r t h a n dumping h e a t overboard by t h e conven-
t i o n a l u s e of f a n a i r f o r ECS a i r c o o l i n g . GE e s t i m a t e s a n e t TSFC improve-
ment a s h i g h . a s 0.8% when b o t h r e t a i n e d h e a t and e l i m i n a t i o n of f a n - a i r
bleed are c o n s i d e r e d . I n t h e proposed system h e a t i s t r a n s f e r r e d from t h e
ECS a i r - t o - w a t e r p r e c o o l e r t o a w a t e r - t o - f u e l h e a t exchanger l o c a t e d i n t h e
f u e l system between t h e boost-and high-pressure fuel-pump e l e m e n t s . The GE
f u e l - h e a t e r s y s t e m i s shown i n Figure A-22.

A s proposed t h e f u e l - h e a t e r system becomes inadequate a s a h e a t s i n k

d u r i n g maximum a n t i - i c i n g o p e r a t i o n . For such a c o n d i t i o n one engine i s
considered i n o p e r a t i v e , and using t h e h e a t s i n k from the- remaining e n g i n e ,
t h e p r e c o o l e r i s r e q u i r e d t o have s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y t o provide cooled a i r
f o r one a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g pack and thermal a n t i - i c i n g a i r f o r one i n l e t cowl
and both wings. The r e q u i r e d c a p a c i t y w a s provided by modifying t h e
GE f u e l - h e a t e r s y s t e m a s shown i n Figure A-23 t o i n c l u d e an a i r - t o - a i r h e a t
exchanger t o supplement t h e f u e l h e a t s i n k . In t h e Boeing m o d i f i c a t i o n , a
c o n t r o l v a l v e opens t o permit fan a i r f l o w through t h e c o o l s i d e o f t h e
supplemental h e a t exchanger a s t h e f u e l temperature approaches i t s upper
l i m i t o f 275OF. During t h e maximum a n t i - i c i n g c o n d i t i o n t h e h e a t r e j e c t i o n
r a t e of t h e bleed a i r i c r e a s e s t o 26000 BTU/min compared t o 3900 BTU/min
d u r i n g maximum c r u i s e a t 35000 f t . For s a f e t y t h e maximum temperature of
t h e bleed a i r c i r c u l a t e d through t h e a i r p l a n e i s 450°F and f o r o p e r a t i o n a l
r e a s o n s t h e minimum i s 300OF.

The f u e l - h e a t e r system has p o t e n t i a l f o r f u e l saving and should be

f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e d . Wtih a d d i t i o n a l s t u d y c o n s i d e r a t i o n could be given t o
e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e f l u i d between t h e f u e l and a i r and t o r e -
c i r c u l a t i o n of f u e l t o t h e f u e l t a n k s d u r i n g a n t i - i c i n g o p e r a t i o n when a
l a r g e r h e a t s i n k is r e q u i r e d .

6.5 NACELLE MOUNT SYSTEM

The GE n a c e l l e d e s i g n and mount systems were c o n t i n u o u s l y reviewed

d u r i n g t h e course of t h e c u r r e n t E3 s t u d y t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e GE d e s i g n

146
 Excess Vdume Digitd ECS Bled Air
cmd 2 . 4 ~ ~
552OF .
Fifth %age 52 p i a
Air
52 p i a
(1) Values shown for 35,000 maximum cruise with 2.4 pps ECS Bleed.

(2) Lube oil/fuel HX would be downstream of main pump when ECS

heat provides all fuel anti-ice heating.

Figure A-22. E3 - Fuel Heater System (GE)

147
 FUEL
TEMP-

I
L, -TO
DIGITAL
i CONTROL

ACCUMULATOR

EXCESS VOWME ECS BLEED AIR

1.16 PPS
55PF
FIFTH STAGE 52 PSIA
AIR
52 PSlA

(11 Values shown for 35,000 maximum cruise with 1.16 PPS ECS Bleed.

(21 Lube oib'fuel HX would be downstream of main pump when ECS

heat provides all fuel anti-ice heating.

F i g u r e A-23. E3 - Fuel Heater System (Boefng M o d i f i c a t i o n )

148
would meet Boeing c r i t e r i a and d e s i g n p r a c t i c e s . The mount system i l l u s t r a t e d
i n Figure A-18 r e f l e c t s GE's a t t e m p t a t r e s o l v i n g t h e i s s u e s t h a t were r a i s e d
d u r i n g Boeing's review. Figure A-24 shows t h e GE mount s y s t e m adapted t o a
Boeing-designed pylon s t r u c t u r e .

The GE mount system d e p a r t s from Boeing p r a c t i c e by u s i n g a four-point

r a t h e r t h a n a t h r e e - p o i n t s u p p o r t . . T h i s t y p e o f s u p p o r t must be designed t o
accommodate t o l e r a n c e b u i l d u p and t o avoid p r e l o a d i n g and i n d e t e r m i n a n t l o a d
p a t h s . Because o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y n a t u r e o f t h e mount d e s i g n Boeing d i d n o t
a t t e m p t a d e t a i l s t r u c t u r a l assessment.

Boeing would p r e f e r a t h r e e - p o i n t s u p p o r t system; however, t h e f o u r -

p o i n t system w i t h p r o p e r d e s i g n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w i l l m e e t Boeing c r i t e r i a . A
d e f i n i t e advantage of t h e f o u r p o i n t s u p p o r t system is t h a t i t h a s a p o t e n t i a l
f o r r e d u c i n g e n g i n e bending, one o f t h e c a u s e s o f performance d e t e r i o r a t i o n
i n c u r r e n t e n g i n e s . The GE mount system may t h u s a i d i n meeting performance
r e t e n t i o n g o a l s of t h e E3 program.

The l o a d s shown on Table A-XVIII g i v e Boeing e n g i n e mount d e s i g n c r i t e r i a .

Table A-XIX summarizes r e s u l t a n t a i r l o a d s t h a t o c c u r once p e r f l i g h t . F i g u r e s
A-25, A-26, A-27, and A-28 i l l u s t r a t e t h e a i r l o a d s on t h e n a c e l l e from which
t h e r e s u l t a n t s of Table X I X were d e r i v e d . These l o a d s were e s t i m a t e d u s i n g
d a t a from f l i g h t t e s t , wind t u n n e l t e s t , and a n a l y s i s . They were based on a
45,500 l b SLST e n g i n e and must b e s c a l e d t o t h e E3 t h r u s t levels f o r u s e i n
d e s i g n i n g E3 n a c e l l e components.

6.6 NACELLE MATERIAL

Boeing w a s i n g e n e r a l agreement w i t h t h e t y p e o f n a c e l l e materials

s e l e c t e d by GE. Boeing had good r e s u l t s w i t h Kevlarlaluminum containment
s t r u c t u r e s i n l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s , and based on t h i s e x p e r i e n c e t h e f a n
containment concept shown a p p e a r s f e a s i b l e . Boeing used Dyna Rohr i n t h e
i n l e t cowling o f t h e 737 f o r about two y e a r s and e x p e r i e n c e was a c c e p t a b l e .

Graphite/Kevlar f a b r i c s k i n s , w i t h a m e t a l c o r e on t h e e x t e r i o r of t h e
i n l e t cowl, would be p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e t o l i g h t n i n g s t r i k e s ; however
t h e GE materials l i s t shows c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l i g h t n i n g p r o t e c t i o n system.
Use of aluminum brazed t i t a n i u m honeycomb f o r t h e c o r e cowl s $ r u c t u r e would
be s a t i s f a c t o r y provided cowl s k i n temperatures do n o t exceed' 800°F. Because
t h e t a i l p i p e could be s u b j e c t e d t o temperatures above 10000F, aluminum brazed
t i t a n i u m honeycomb i s n o t recommended. Inconel would be a l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l
selection f o r the t a i l p i p e .

I n Boeing p r a c t i c e , new materials s e l e c t e d f o r a p p l i c a t i o n t o f l i g h t

s t r u c t u r e s a r e s u b j e c t e d t o a r i g o r o u s t i m e consuming t e s t and e v a l u a t i o n
program. This e v a l u a t i o n c o n s i s t s o f l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s of c a n d i d a t e m a t e r i a l s ,
d e s t r u c t i v e t e s t s t o determine a l l o w a b l e s , n o n c r i t i c a l s e r v i c e t e s t i n g of
l i g h t l y loaded s t r u c t u r e , and n o n c r i t i c a l s e r v i c e t e s t s o f loaded s t r u c t u r e .
This e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s may t a k e s e v e r a l y e a r s , t h e a c t u a l t i m e depending on
t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e i n t e n d e d a p p l i c a t i o n . Candidate materials .may be dropped
a t any time d u r i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s .

149
150
 Table A-XVIII. Nacelle and Strut Design Load Factors

The nacelle, nacelle strut and primary engine mounts shall be designed for the
following inektia load conditions which are assumed to occur only once in the
lifetime of the airplane :

Condition Ultimate load factors

Vertical 6.5
6.5 + 1.5 T(c)

-3.5
-3.5 + T(c)

Thrust 3.0 T(max) + 3.0 verti’cal

3.0 T(max) + 1.5 vertical

3.0 T(R)
3.0 T(R) + 3.0 vertical

Side + 3.0
-
Gyroscope -+ 2 . 2 5 radfsec yaw + l.ST(c) + 1.5 vertical
-+ 2.25 rad/sec. pitch + 1.5T(c) + 3.75 vertical
Engine seizure Torque equivalent to stopping rotating mass in
approximately 0.60 sec

T(max = maximum takeoff thrust at sea level

Where: T(C) = cruise thrust (maximum or minimum, whichever

is critical)
T(R) 3 reverse thrust

Note: For design purposes, these ultimate factors shall be applied at the
nacelle and content weight and C.G. exclusive of thrust and contents.

151
 0
c

152
153
 I

M
al
If
I
0
I
I
m
a
(d
0
l-l
$4
74
4

154
155
 L
UCZZ

m
a
m
0
d
L.r
.rl
c
9)
I d
I4
9)
0
zm 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9) o \ D r r 7 a
C \
m
o- m m a
l - 4
*rl
M
t
w

-t
0
0

-
0
0
h -
0
0
0
4

CY
0
~ V

156
6.7 NACELLE WEIGHT EVALUATION

Table A-XX compares Boeing and GE weight estimates o f s e l e c t e d components

o f t h e E3 l o n g - d u c t mixed-flow n a c e l l e . Due t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e method by
which t h e v a r i o u s n a c e l l e components were f u n c t i o n a l l y accounted f o r by
Boeing and GE, it was not p o s s i b l e t o provide a weight comparison f o r a l l
i t e m s . Consequently, comparisons were made f o r o n l y t h o s e components on
which GE provided weight d a t a . Table A-XXI p r e s e n t s t h e weight d a t a r e -
c e i v e d from GE.

D i f f e r e n c e s i n Boeing and GE e s t i m a t e d weight l e v e l s were p r i m a r i l y due

t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n assumptions. An i n - d e p t h weight e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e GE
composite n a c e l l e r e q u i r e d more d e t a i l e d d e s i g n and s t r u c t u r a l s i z i n g t h a n
could be accomplished w i t h i n t h e a i r f r a m e r ' s funded a c t i v i t y ; t h e r e f o r e ,
Boeing used e x i s t i n g n a c e l l e s and advanced d e s i g n s as a b a s i s f o r e s t i m a t i n g
n a c e l l e weight and p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s due t o u s e o f composites. The weight
d i f f e r e n c e s between Boeing and GE r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n nacelle d e s i g n
and l e v e l s of t e c h n i c a l r i s k . Table A-XXII summarizes t h e a d v a n c e d . t e c h -
nology weight r e d u c t i o n f a c t o r s used i n t h e Boeing a n a l y s i s . These f a c t o r s
were based on advanced technology a p p l i c a t i o n . Weight a n a l y s i s d e t a i l s c a n
be found i n Table A - X X I I I .

For t h e November 1978 PDR GE r e v i s e d t h e n a c e l l e weight downward and

i n c r e a s e d t h e ATE e n g i n e weight. The n e t r e s u l t was a weight d e c r e a s e of
over about 495 l b . / n a c e l l e compared t o Reference 3 d a t a f o r a s i z e d n a c e l l e
and e n g i n e .

157
 Table A-XX. GE Advanced Nacelle Evaluation

Nace 1l e Nacelle Weight Weight Difference

Component (Ib/pod 1 i(GE minus Boeing)
SLST = 46900 Lb

Boe i n g GE lb %
Estimate E s th a t e

Inlet 770* 5 10 -260 -33.8

Fan Cowl 180 Included i n

Fan Module

Fan Duct, Reverser 2188 1469 -7 19 -32.9

And Core Cowl

Mixer 118 Inc 1ude d

In
Plug 96 LPT Module

Tail Pipe 549 19 1 -358 -65.2

(3901 ** 9,* **

* Includes 90 l b b u r s t containment allowance.

*$< T o t a l n o t computed due t o weight d i s t r i b u t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s between

Boeing and GE.

158
 T a b l e A-XXI. G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c Energy E f f i c i e n t E n g i n e
E s t i m a t e d Weights

E3 ENGINE ESTIMATED WEIGHTS

ESTIMATED 46,900 LBS. 36,500 LBS.

ENGINE WEIGHT T.O. THRUST T.O. THRUST

FAN MODULE 2316 LBS.

LPT MODULE* 1950 LBS 1360 LBS.

Engine
CORE 1745 LBS.

C&A, SUMPS & DRIVES (975 LBS 680 LBS.

i
INLET 510 LBS 385 LBS.

FAN REVERSER & DUCT+;* 1265 LBS 958 LBS.

CORE COWL 204 LBS 154 LBS.

2825 l b
TAILPIPE 191 LBS 145 LBS.

ENGINE BUILD-UP 655 LBS 495 LBS.

*INCLUDES REAR FRAME, MIXER AND EXHAUST CENTERBODY.

**INCLUDES PYLON WALLS INTERNAL TO THE BYPASS DUCT.

159
 Tab le A-XXI I .

Nacelle Component Weight Reduction Factor(%)

Xnle t 5

Fan Cowl 20

Fan duct, r e v e r s e r , core cowl 4.6

Mixer 0

Plug 0

Tai Ip i p e 0

160
 C
.d

M
c
.d
ai
0
m
..al
L
0
u
b
2
C
H

U
C
al
C
0 r)
a 3 d

E
u
0
u 3
0
'3
U
al
d
cu
-4
C
rl C E4
al P'
u
2
161
 k
w

5
E

W
H
w
x
7e
a,
r(
A
m
b

U
E
al
C
0

f
W
a
d
d
aJ
u
m
z
162
cn
2d
bl

Ga
W
9)
..
M
C c
Y 'rl
0 bl
-4
Jz v
4J C
I m
aJ
r( m
M U
C 1
.rl
VI

U
C a
al C
C m
0
a
u5
al
4
d
a,
u
a
z
163
 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. NASA's s t a t e d f u e l consumption g o a l i s a 12% r e d u c t i o n o f c r u i s e TSFC.

For t h e Boeing s t u d y , t h i s w a s i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean a 12% r e d u c t i o n o f
a i r p l a n e BLKF. Under t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e ATE as i n s t a l l e d i n t h e
Boeing Model 768-868 would s u r p a s s t h e d e s i g n m i s s i o n f u e l consumption
g o a l by over 6% i f i t could be developed as assumed.

2. Boeing's e v a l u a t i o n being more c o n s e r v a t i v e t h a n GE's i n d i c a t e d t h e ATE

n a c e l l e t o be over 1000 l b . h e a v i e r than t h e GE weight estimate. A
weight i n c r e a s e of 1000 l b / n a c e l l e ( i . e . , 2000 l b . t o t a l ) i n c r e a s e s
f u e l burned by about 1%;however, DOC i n c r e a s e s o n l y 0 . 3 % .

3. The NASA g o a l o f 5 % DOC r e d u c t i o n i s b e t t e r e d by 1% u s i n g GE s u p p l i e d

e n g i n e performance, w e i g h t , and economic d a t a . However, Boeing c o n s i d e r s
t h e e n g i n e p r i c e quoted by GE u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y h i g h f o r E3 technology
l e v e l s . When t h e 20% lower Boeing p r i c e estimate i s a p p l i e d , t h e DOC
improvement i n c r e a s e s from 6 . 4 t o 7.5%. The DOC improvement w i t h t h e
h i g h e r Boeing weight and lower p r i c e is about 7.2%.

4. Engine n o i s e estimates based on a p r e l i m i n a r y e n g i n e n o i s e t r e a t m e n t

show t h a t FAR 36 amendment 8 could m e t . Since no a t t e m p t was made t o
r e f i n e t h e n a c e l l e t r e a t m e n t f o r lowest n o i s e l e v e l s , i t was concluded
t h a t c u r r e n t and n e a r - f u t u r e n o i s e t r e a t m e n t technology c o u l d a t t a i n
t h e 3 EPNdB margin Boeing g e n e r a l l l y c o n s i d e r s a c c e p t a b l e f o r a s s u r i n g
c e r t i f i c a b l e noise levels.

5. To e n s u r e t h a t t h e E3 program r e s u l t s i n a n engine c o n f i g u r a t i o n t h a t
meets program g o a l s a n d ' t h a t c a n be i n s t a l l e d i n a n a c e l l e a c c e p t a b l e
t o t h e a i r f r a m e r and a i r l i n e s , t h e a i r f r a m e r should be a c t i v e l y involved
i n t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n d e s i g n and e v a l u a t i o n . It i s t h e r e f o r e recommended
t h a t t h e balance o f t h e E 3 program i n c l u d e c o n t i n u i n g a c t i v e p a r t i c i -
pation by the airframe c o n t r a c t o r s .

164.
 REFERENCES

1. EEE Component Development and I n t e g r a t i o n Program, General E l e c t r i c

Purchase Order No. 200-4XX-14N43049.

2. EEE Component Development and I n t e g r a t i o n Program, General E l e c t r i c

Purchase Order No. 200-4XX-14K40096.

3. Study d a t a f o r Advanced Technology and Reference engines. NASA Energy

.
E f f i c i e n t Engine Program, General E l e c t r i c Co A i r c r a f t Engine Group,
May 5, 1978.

4. Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine and I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s f o r General E l e c t r i c

Company, D6-44690, December 6 , 1977.

5. Aerodynamic Analysis o f GE E3 Model Scale Nacelle Simulator (Unnum-

bered r e p o r t submitted t o GE by l e t t e r August 9 , 1978).

6. General' E l e c t r i c Drawing No. 4013237-857.

7. General E l e c t r i c Drawing No. 4013267-002.

8. General E l e c t r i c Drawing No. 4013267-810.

9. General E l e c t r i c P r e s e n t a t i o n "E3 Mount Configuration".

165
 APPENDIX B

Appendix B is a reproduction of report LR 28933 supplied by Lockhead-

California Company as their contribution to aircraft integration. The format

and printing have been altered to coordinate with this publication.

167
 FINAL REPORT

GY EFFICIENT E
T DEVELOP

AND

I ~ T E G ~ A STUDY
~IO~

Purchase Order 200-4XX-14N43062

Prepared for: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

AIRCRAFT ENGINE GROUP
Cincinnatti, Ohio

LOCKHEED-CALIFORNIA COMPANY * BURBANK

A DIVISION O F L O C K H E E D C O R P O R A T I O N
 APPENDIX B
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 172

2.0 STUDY EFFORT 183

2.1 A i r c r a f t and Mission D e f i n i t i o n 183
2.2 A i r c r a f t Performance and Mission S e n s i t i v i t y 183
2.2.1 S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis 183
2.2.2 Performance R e t e n t i o n 190
2.3 Aircraft/Engine Integration 190
2.3.1 Nacelle C o n f i g u r a t i o n 190
2.3.2 Nacelle - Wing I n t e r f e r e n c e 193
2.3.3 Accessory Location 193
2.3.4 Access P r o v i s i o n s 193
2.3.5 T h r u s t Reverser 199
2.3.6 Center Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n 199
2.3.7 Engine Bleed Requirements and Power E x t r a c t i o n 199
2.3.8 Engine F i r e P r o t e c t i o n 199
2.4 Performance and Economic Comparisons 202

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 206

SUPPLEMENT A ' 207

SUPPLEMENT B 224

169
 APPENDIX B
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

B-1 . Three-View Drawing o f Domestic A i r c r a f t With E3 Engine. 177

B-2. Three-View Drawing o f I n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l A i r c r a f t With E3

Engine. 178

3-3. Wing Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n Layout With E3 Engine. 179

B-4. Center Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n Layout With E3 Engine. 180

B-5. Wing Engine L o c a t i o n - E 3 Engine. 181

B-6. Three-View Drawing of Domestic A i r c r a f t With CF6-50C Engine. 185

B-7. Three-View Drawing o f I n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l A i r c r a f t With

CF6-50C Engine. 186

B-8. ASSET S y n t h e s i s Cycle. 187

B-9. F a i l - s a f e Design Concepts E3 Engine Mount System. 195

B-10. Pylon-Mounted A i r c r a f t A c c e s s o r i e s - E3 Wing Engine

I n s t a1 l a t i o n . 196

B-11 . E3 Engine With Fan Case-Mounted A c c e s s o r i e s . 197

B-12. Thrust Reverser Flow D i r e c t i v i t y . 200

B-13. Layout of F i r e Zones f o r E 3 Engine. 201

B-14. Block Fuel Savings With E3 Engine. 203

B-15. DOC Savings With E 3 Engine. 204

B-16. A i r c r a f t S i z e Advantage With E3 Engine. 205

170
 APPENDIX B
LIST OF TABLES

-
Table Page

B-I . Reference A i r c r a f t Design and Performance C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 174

B-11. E3 A i r c r a f t Design and Performance C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 175

B-I 11. Design and Technology F e a t u r e s - 1990's T r a n s p o r t A i r c r a f t . 184

B-IV . A i r c r a f t Block Fuel and DOC. 188

B-V . Airframe Noise Estimates (E3 Engine). 189

B-VI . Sensitivity Factors - Domestic A i r c r a f t - E3 Engine. 191

B-VI I. Sensitivity Factors - Intercontinental Aircraft - E3

Engine. 191

E-VI 11. I n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l A i r c r a f t Performance C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 192

B-IX. . Domestic A i r c r a f t Performance C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 192

B-X. E3 Accessory Location. 194

171
 1.o INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

This s t u d y was accomplished by t h e Commercial Advanced Design D i v i s i o n

of t h e Lockheed-California Company f o r t h e General E l e c t r i c Company i n s u p p o r t
of t h e i r "Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine component Development and I n t e g r a t i o n "
Program w i t h NASA-Lewis Research C e n t e r . The e f f o r t r e q u i r e d w a s i n accordance
w i t h General E l e c t r i c Company Purchase Order 200-4XX-14N43062 and c o n s i s t e d
o f t h e f o l l o w i n g Tasks :

e TASK 1 - A i r c r a f t and Mission D e f i n i t i o n

TASK 2 - A i r c r a f t Performance and Mission Sensitivity
e TASK 3 - Aircraft/Engine Integration
e TASK 4 - Reporting
This e v a l u a t i o n i s an update o r follow-on t o t h e p r e v i o u s Lockheed
s t u d y e f f o r t i n s u p p o r t o f t h e "Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine P r e l i m i n a r y Design
and I n t e g r a t i o n Study", General E l e c t r i c Purchase Order number 200-4XX-14K43170,
which i n c l u d e d :

D e f i n i t i o n of a i r p l a n e d e s i g n and technology f e a t u r e s
e A i r c r a f t and m i s s i o n d e f i n i t i o n
A i r c r a f t performance and m i s s i o n s e n s i t i v i t i e s
e Aircraft - engine i n t e g r a t i o n evaluation

During t h e p r e v i o u s s t u d y e f f o r t , Lockheed Report LR 28377, two a i r c r a f t

c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were developed; one f o r a domestic m i s s i o n and one f o r an
i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l m i s s i o n . These domestic and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t ,
using t h e CF6-5OC t u r b o f a n e n g i n e , were c h a r a c t e r i z e d f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g
technology f e a t u r e s and m i s s i o n c r i t e r i a :

e Technology F e a t u r e s

S u p e r c r i t i c a l wing
e Active c o n t r o l s
Advanced Composite s t r u c t u r e

Mission C r i t e r i a

Domes t i c In te r c o n t i n e nt a 1

Besign Range (n . m i . 3,000 6,500

No. Passengers . 400 400
Cruise Speed M 0.8 M 0.8
Typical Range (n.mi. 1,400 3,000 -
Configuration 3 Engine 4 Engine
Wide Body Wide Body

A t t h e s t a r t of t h i s study e f f o r t , a r e - e v a l u a t i o n o f a i r c r a f t tech-
nology f e a t u r e s and m i s s i o n c r i t e r i a was accomplished. T h i s r e s u l t e d i n
r e t e n t i o n of t h e p r e v i o u s l y s e l e c t e d c r i t e r i a , e x c e p t t h a t t h e payload c a p a c i t y
of 100,000 pounds (500 p a s s e n g e r s ) was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n liew o f 80,000 pounds
(400 p a s s e n g e r s ) p r e v i o u s l y u s e d . This change r e s u l t e d f r o m review by
172
Lockheed's Marketing Development D i v i s i o n r e l a t i v e t o p o t e n t i a l market demand
i n t h e 1990's t i m e frame. Reference a i r c r a f t d e s i g n and performance charac-
t e r i s t i c s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n c r e a s e d payload c a p a c i t y a r e included i n
Table B-I. These c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were e s t a b l i s h e d a s b a s e l i n e a i r c r a f t t o be
used f o r comparison w i t h a i r c r a f t i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine.

The Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine c y c l e s e l e c t e d by General E l e c t r i c f o r

i n s t a l l a t i o n on t h e domestic and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t i s a mixed flow,
d i r e c t d r i v e high-bypass t u r b o f a n w i t h t h e following'characteristics, a s
compared t o t h e c u r r e n t CF6-50C e n g i n e :

CF6 -5 OC E3

Technology Level Current 1990's

Fan Drive Direct Direct
Exhaust Separate Mixed
Bypass R a t i o 4.2 6.8
Overall Ratio 32 38
Turbine I n l e t Temp. 2445OF 2450OF

Table B - I 1 i s a t a b u l a t i o n of t h e a i r c r a f t d e s i g n and performance

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e domestic and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t w i t h t h e E3
engine. Comparison o f t h i s d a t a with t h e r e f e r e n c e a i r c r a f t (CF6-50C e n g i n e )
i n d i c a t e s m i s s i o n f u e l and d i r e c t o p e r a t i n g c o s t (DOC) s a v i n g s w i t h t h e E3
engine as f o l l o w s :

Fuel Savings DOC Savings

Design Typical Design Ty p i c a 1

Domes t i c 18.3% 17.3% 8% 6.8%

In t e r c on t i n e n t a 1 22.9% 21.2% 12% 10.5%

General arrangement drawings, d e p i c t i n g t h e domestic and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l

a i r c r a f t w i t h t h e E3 e n g i n e , a r e included as F i g u r e s B-I and B-2. The s i z e
of t h e E3 e n g i n e , as s u p p l i e d by General E l e c t r i c , i s w e l l matched ( t h r u s t -
both t a k e o f f and c r u i s e , r e v e r s e t h r u s t l e v e l , and power e x t r a c t i o n ) w i t h
t h e Lockheed s p e c i f i e d mission/payload c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t h e 1990's a i r c r a f t .

I n s t a l l a t i o n l a y o u t drawings o f t h e E3 e n g i n e on t h e domestic a i r c r a f t
(wing and c e n t e r mounted e n g i n e ) a r e included as F i g u r e s B-3 through B-5,
and d e p i c t l o c a t i o n o f t h e l a i r c r a f t a c c e s s o r i e s i n t h e engine c o r e a s w e l l
as placement of t h e n a c e l l e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e w i n g . c o n s i s t e n t w i t h minimization
of i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g p e n a l t i e s .

The r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y a r e as f o l l o w s :

e The NASA d e f i n e d g o a l s f o r minimum f u e l and DOC s a v i n g s of 12%

and 5%, r e s p e c t i v e l y , a r e a t t a i n e d w i t h t h e E3 e n g i n e

e Nacelle aerodynamic and mechanical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( i n l e t , n a c e l l e

c o n t o u r , and mount systems) a r e a c c e p t a b l e f o r a i r c r a f t i n s t a l l a t i o n

173
 Table B-I. Reference Aircraft Design and Performance Characteristics

Domestic Intercontinental

I Mission Characteristics

Design Range (n.mi.1 3000 6500

Typical Range (n.mi. ) 1400 3000
Cruise Speed M0.8 MO. 8
No. Passengers 500 500
Init. Cruise Altitude (ft) 37 ,000 32,000
Field Length (ft) 6837 9369
Approach Speed (kt) 135 133

I Design Characteristics

Configuration 3 Engine-Trijet - 4 Engine-Quadjet

Power Plant CF6-50C CF6-50C
Sweep (..25C) 30° 30°
W/S (lb/ft2) 118 145
T/W 0.274 0.248
AR 10 10
t/c ( X I 13 13
TOGW (lb) 478,622 709,664
OEW (lb) 261,795 303 ,963
Wing Span (ft) 201.4 221.2
Body Length (ft) 228.3 229.5
Body Diameter (ft) 19.6 . 19.6

Performance Characteristics

Thrust/Eng. (SLS,lb) 43,714 43,999

Block Fuel - Design (lb) 98,116 266 ,136
Block Fuel - Typ. (lb) 42 ,629 103,425
DOC - Design (C/ASM) 1.262 1.449
DOC - Typ. (C/ASM) 1.360 1.435

174
 Table B-11. E3 AIRCRAFT AND PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS

Domestic Intercontinental

Mission Characteristics

Design Range (n.mi.1 3000 6500

Typical Range (n .mi. 1400 3000
Cruise Speed NO. a- MO. 8
No. Passengers 500 500
Init. Cruise Altitude (ft) 37,000 32,000
Field Length (ft) 6837 9369
.Approach Speed (kt 135 133

Design Characteristics

Configuration 3 Engine-Trijet 4 Engine-Quadjet

Power Plant E3 E3
Sweep (.25~) 3Oo 30°
W/S (lb/ft2) 113 135
T/W 0.270 0.241
AR 10 10
t/c ( % ) 13 13
T O W (lb) 453,652 624,577
OEW (lb) 256,767 283,672
Wing Span (ft) 200.2 215.6
Body Length (ft) 228.3 229.5
Body Diameter (ft) 19.6 19.6

Performance Characteristics

Thrust/Eng. (SLS,lb) 40,a32 37,631

Block Fuel - Design (lb) 80,158 205,221
Block Fuel - Typ. (lb) 35,254 81 ,504
DOC - Design (GIASM) 1.161 1.290
DOC - Typ. (C/ASM) 1.269 1.299

175
'-dp'
P

Y
U

2
&
4
c
(i
Y
4

I
8
1

Y- I
4

t
a
m
h
rl

P
1'

181
 I n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e E3 e n g i n e w i t h mixed e x h a u s t a p p e a r s f e a s i b l e
without a penalty f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e drag
o The t h r u s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e E3 e n g i n e , s u p p l i e d by General
E l e c t r i c , are compatible w i t h 1990's commercial a i r c r a f t .
I n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e E3 e n g i n e r e s u l t s i n a i r c r a f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n ,
s i z e d f o r long range and l a r g e payload c a p a c i t y , which are compatible
w i t h e x i s t i n g a i r p o r t f a c i l i t i e s ( f i e l d l e n g t h , wing s p a n , body
l e n g t h , and g r o s s w e i g h t ) .

182
 2.0 STUDY EFFORT

The s t u d y e f f o r t accomplished by Lockheed i n s u p p o r t o f General E l e c t r i c

companys Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine Component Development and I n t e g r a t i o n pro-
gram c o n s i s t e d of t h e f o l l o w i n g major t a s k s :

o Task 1 - A i r c r a f t and Mission D e f i n i t i o n

e Task 2 - A i r c r a f t Performance and Mission Sensitivity
o Task 3 - Aircraft/Engine Integration
2.1 AIRCRAFT AND MISSION DEFINITION

Mission and d e s i g n d e f i n i t i o n s , a l o n g w i t h a p p l i c a b l e advanced technology

f e a t u r e s , were e s t a b l i s h e d f o r both t h e domestic and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t
d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s s t u d y e f f o r t (Lockheed Report LR 28377). On i n i t i a t i o n
of t h i s e f f o r t , t h o s e d e f i n i t i o n s were reviewed, and updated where a p p l i c a b l e ,
f o r t h e purpose o f e s t a b l i s h i n g r e f e r e n c e ( b a s e l i n e ) c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and p e r -
formance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r comparison o f t h o s e a i r c r a f t w i t h t h e E3 e n g i n e .
D e f i n i t i o n of. t h e domestic and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t m i s s i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
and technology l e v e l s i s included as Table B - 1 1 1 . General arrangement drawings
are i n c l u d e d a s F i g u r e s B-6 and B - 7 , and t h e procedures f o r c a l c u l a t i n g DOC
a r e i n c l u d e d as Supplement B.

2.2 AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AND MISSION SENSITIVITY

Performance, w e i g h t , and p e r t i n e n t i n s t a l l a t i o n d a t a f o r b o t h t h e c u r r e n t
CF6-50C e n g i n e and t h e advanced technology E3 e n g i n e w a s s u p p l i e d by General
E l e c t r i c f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o t h e r e f e r e n c e a i r c r a f t . Each a i r c r a f t w a s
s i z e d f o r minimum m i s s i o n f u e l and DOC u s i n g t h e Lockheed P a r a m e t r i c A n a l y s i s
(ASSET) program, d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e B-8. The ASSET A n a l y s i s Program i s a
Lockheed P r o p r i e t a r y s y n t h e s i s model t o s i z e p a r a m e t r i c a l l y and determine
t h e weight, performance, and c o s t o f a i r c r a f t s i z e d t o m e e t given m i s s i o n
p r o f i l e s , payload c a p a c i t y , and s t r u c t u r a l c r i t e r i a u s i n g a p r e - s e l e c t e d
o p t i m i z a t i o n c r i t e r i a . A i r c r a f t f u e l usage, and DOC f o r both t h e d e s i g n and
average m i s s i o n s , a l o n g w i t h e s t i m a t e s of t h e a i r f r a m e n o i s e f o r t h e FAR 36
measuring p o i n t s i s i n c l u d e d i n T a b l e s B-IV and B-V. Supplement A i n c l u d e s
t h e computer p r i n t o u t s f o r t h e domestic and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t w i t h
t h e E3 e n g i n e .

2.2.1 S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis

S e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each a i r c r a f t (domestic and

i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l ) w i t h t h e E3 e n g i n e t o a s s e s s t h e e f f e c t s of changes i n
SFC, engine w e i g h t , e n g i n e i n t i a l p r i c e , and engine maintenance c o s t on
a i r c r a f t performance (TOGW, f u e l usage, and DOC). The following s e n s i t i v i t y
factors w e r e calculated:

+5% SFC
- -+ l o 0 0 lb -+9 ~520 K -+20%
TOW X X
Fuel W t X X
DOC X X X x 183
 Table B - I L L . DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY FEATURES-1990's TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT

mrne s t ic Intercontinental

A i r c r a f t Type Wide body t r i j e t Wide body q u a d j e t

235 i n . f u s e . dia. 235 i n . f u s e . d i a .
9 abreast seating 9 abreast seating

No. Engines and Location Z-wing mounted 4-wing mounted

I - c e n t e r mounted

Payload Capacity ( l b ) 100,000 (500 pax) 100,000 (500 pax)

TOW Class ( l b ) 500,000 750,000

Engine T h r u s t (lb) 45,000 46,000

Mission Characteristics

Design Range (n.rni.1 3,000 6,500

T y p i c a l h n g e (n.mi.1 1,400 3,000
Typ. Range L.F. 0.55 0.55
C r u i s e Speed MO. 8 M0.8
.
C r u i s e A l t (ft) 35,000 35,000
TOFL ( f t ) 7,000 20,000
App. Speed ( k t ) 135 135

Advanced Technology

S u p e r c r i t . Wing Q 3 % reduction of 5 3 % r e d u c t i o n of
wing w t - increased wing wt - increased
t h i c k n e s s of a i r f o i l t h i c k n e s s of a i r f o i l

a AR 2 10 0 AR = 10
t / c = 13% K/C 13%
Sweep = 30° Sweep = 30°

Active C o n t r o l s -5.5% wing w t . -5.5% wing w t .

Load Relief -I% body wt. -1% body w t .
Relaxed S t a b i l i t y -28% t a i l s i z e -28% t a i l s i z e

Advanced Composites - 8 . 7 % M.E.W. - 9 . 2 % M.E.W.

0 Primary Struct.
Secondary S t r u c t .

184
 n
w
n

'$' 1
I
 PROPULSION

BODY 0 GROSS 0 FLIGHT HISTORY 0 RDTBE 0 SIOELINE

WING 0 EMPTY e BLOCK FUEL 0 INVESTMENT 0 FLYOVER
0 TAIL 0 STRUCTURAL 0 6 L X U TIME PRODUCTION 0 FOOTPRINTS
0 ENGINES 0 MATERtALS 0 RESERVES TOOLING 0 TAKEOFF
0 GEOMETRY OISTRIBUTION 0 C U M 8 L TRANSONIC SPARES 6SSE UNOtNG
0 FUEL CAPACITY 0 PROPULSION PERFORMANCE
0 SUBSYSTEMS 0 FAA BAL. TAKEOFF
A N 0 LANOING

Figure B-8. ASSET Synthesis Cycle

187
 T a b l e B-IV. A i r c r a f t Block Fuel and DOC

Fuel - Design Range (100% L . F . )

Domes t i c Intercontinental
Segment CF6-50C E? CF6-50 C E3

Takeoff 1089 776 1462 959

C 1imb 14520 11417 19185 15514
Cruise 81228 66610 243746 186963
Decent 67 5 845 9 17 1055
Land 600 5 10 8 25 730

Total 98112 80158 266 135 204221

Domes t i c I n t e r c on t i n e n t a 1
Segrnen t CF6-50C E3 CF6-50C E3

Takeoff 1089 776 1462 959

C 1 imb 10818 8350 11709 95 29
Cruise 29529 24886 88584 69315
Decent 65 1 80 1 879 1001
Land 540 44 1 791 700

I Total 1 42627 35254 103425 8 1504

A i r c r a f t D.O.C. ( /ASMI

Domes t i c I n te r c on t i n e n t a 1
CF6-506 E3 CF6-50C E3

DOC - Design 1.262 1.161 1.449 1.290

DOC - Typical 1.360 1.269 1.435 1.299

188
 Table B-V. AIRFRAME NOISE ESTIMATES ( E 3 ENGINE)

Condition lome s tic Intercontinental,

Approach (42O Flap, Geardown, 3O Glide)

Landing Weight (lb) 371,635 418,209

Approach Speed (knots) 135 133
Altitude (ft) 394 394
Airframe Noise (EPNdB) 95.9 96

Takeoff (25O Flap, Gear up)

Climb Angle 5.96O 4.66O

TOW (lb) 452 ,857 626,841
Altitude (ft) 1668 1128
Distance (n.mi.1 3.5 3.5
Speed (knots 150.55 160.6
Airframe .. No i se ( EPNdB 84.1 89.6

Sideline Point

Airframe Noise (EPNdB) 80.0 83.2

189
 Table B-VI and B - V I 1 d e p i c t t h e s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s f o r t h e E3 a i r c r a f t
( w i t h advanced technology e n g i n e ) .

2.2.2 Performance R e t e n t i o n

A s s p e c i f i e d by NASA, one o f t h e major g o a l s f o r t h e E3 program i s t o

i n c o r p o r a t e t h o s e d e s i g n f e a t u r e s i n t o t h e advanced technology e n g i n e which
w i l l e n s u r e t h a t d e t e r i o r a t i o n of SFC c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h t i m e ( e n g i n e
c y c l e s ) w i l l be less t h a n 50 p e r c e n t o f t h a t c u r r e n t l y e x p e r i e n c e d on t h e
CF6-50C e n g i n e . T h i s improvement w a s a s s e s s e d t o p r o v i d e a n a d d i t i o n a l 1%
i n SFC r e d u c t i o n , e f f e c t i v e l y o v e r t h e s e r v i c e l i f e o f t h e e n g i n e .

An assessment o f t h e impact on a i r c r a f t performance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

t h e E3 e n g i n e , w i t h and w i t h o u t c r e d i t f o r improved performance r e t e n t i o n
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , w a s accomplished u s i n g t h e e n g i n e SFC and weight c h a r a c t e r -
i s t i c s s u p p l i e d by General E l e c t r i c . Table B - V I 1 1 and B-IX d e p i c t t h e r e s u l t s
of t h i s a s s e s s m e n t . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e a n a d d i t i o n a l i n c r e a s e i n a i r c r a f t
f u e l s a v i n g s of approximately 1%i s a t t a i n e d w i t h performance r e t e n t i o n
i n c o r p o r a t e d . The f u e l s a v i n g s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s r e p o r t a r e t h o s e v a l u e s
o b t a i n e d w i t h performance r e t e n t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e E3 e n g i n e .

2.3 AIRCRAFT/ENGINE INTEGRATION

2.3.1 Nacelle Configuration

The nacelle dimensions and weight f o r t h e E3 e n g i n e were s u p p l i e d by

General E l e c t r i c . The E3 e n g i n e u s e s a mixed flow e x h a u s t which r e q u i r e s a
f u l l length nacelle.

Use o f t h e f u l l l e n g t h n a c e l l e r e q u i r e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
i n s t a l l a t i o n items:

0 P o t e n t i a l o f i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g p e n a l t y p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r wing
mounted e n g i n e .
I n c r e a s e d i n wetted a r e a of t h e n a c e l l e and subsequent i n c r e a s e i n
drag.
P o t e n t i a l o f i n c r e a s e d n a c e l l e weight due t o f u l l l e n g t h cowl.
Access t o e n g i n e h o t s e c t i o n and t o e n g i n e and a i r c r a f t a c c e s s o r i e s .

A s p a r t of t h i s s t u d y e f f o r t , an assessment w a s made of t h e n a c e l l e
d e s i g n , s u p p l i e d by General E l e c t r i c , f o r a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f aerodynamic and
mechanical c h a r a c t e i s t i c s . This assessment included n a c e l l e c o n t o u r and
envelope dimensions ( b o t h i n t e r i o r and e x t e r i o r ) , i n l e t geometry, e n g i n e
mount system, n a c e l l e s t r u c t u r a l arrangement and m a t e r i a l s , and n a c e l l e
w e i g h t . The r e s u l t s of t h i s e v a l u a t i o n w e r e s u p p l i e d t o General E l e c t r i c
f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n d u r i n g t h e i r p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n phase o f t h e E3 f l i g h t
p r o p u l s i o n system. Assessment o f t h e f l i g h t p r o p u l s i o n s y s t e m d e s i g n used a s
t h e b a s e l i n e f o r t h e NASA/CE P r e l i m i n a r y Design Review ( P D R ) , November 1978,
r e s u l t s i n the following conclusions:

Nacelle c o n t o u r s provide a c c e p t a b l e aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o t h e E3 a i r c r a f t .

190
 Table B-VI. S e n s i t i v i t y Factors - Domestic Aircraft - E 3 Engine.

-
Base 1.161/1.269 453,652 80,158/35,254

ADOC ATOGW AFuel

( C/ASM) (lb) (lb)

ASFC
+5% +0.021/+0.01~1~ + 8526 + 5114 6.38%
0 0 0 0 ---
-5% -0.021/-0.0181% -
8337 - 4994 6.23%
AEngine Weight a t 40,000 lb/FN
+lo00 l b +0.006/+0.052% + 5677 + 876 ---
0 0 0 0 ---
-1000 l b -0.006/-0.052% - 5514 - 851 ---
AEngine Cost
+ $250K +0.021/+0.0181% NA NA
0 0
- $250K -0.021/-0.0181%
AEngine Maint .
+20% +0.023/+0.0190%
0 0
-20% -0.024/-0.0207%

Table B - V I I . S e n s i t i v i t y Factors - Intercontinental Aircraft - E3 Engine.

-
Base 1.290/1.299 624,577 205,221/81,504

ADOC ATOGW AFuel

WASMI (lb) (lb)

ASFC
+5% +0.042/+0.033% +254i9 +i6505 8.04%
0 0 0 0 ---
-5 % -0.042/-0.033% -24321 -15732 7.67%
AEngine Weight a t 37,600 Ib/FN
+lo00 l b +0.009/+0.007% + 8952 + 2643 ---
0 0 0 0
-1000 l b -0.009/-0.007% - 8395 - 2476 ---
AEngine Cost
+ $250K +O. 024 NA NA
0 0
- $250K -0.025
AEngine Maint .
+20% +O. 027
0 0
-20% -0.028
191
 N h

a,
C
.d
M

c
C
0 - -m - - I I
C
w
0
0
m
LT
I
\c
5I I
9
Er a Er
c V
a,
4
P
m
E-c
n n

n n
 I n l e t geometry i s a c c e p t a b l e and is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r p r e v i o u s
e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h i s s i z e o f engine on t h e L-1011 commercial a i r c r a f t
0 The e n g i n e mount system i s s t r u c t u r a l l y adequate and compatible w i t h
pylon mounting t o t h e a i r c r a f t . E v a l u a t i o n of t h e mount system,
w i t h r e s p e c t t o f a i l - s a f e c a p a b i l i t i e s , and t h e d e s i g n approach
n e c e s s a r y , are included i n Figure B-9
e Nacelle s t r u c t u r a l arrangement, s t r u c t u r a l m a t e r i a l s , and weight
estimates made by General E l e c t r i c appear t o be r e a s o n a b l e and
acceptable.

Use o f composite materials i n t h e n a c e l l e r e s u l t s i n a weight s a v i n g s

o f aproximately 15 p e r c e n t as compared t o a n a l l metal n a c e l l e . This estimate,
s u p p l i e d by General E l e c t r i c , is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Lockheed's e f f o r t s f o r
Advanced Acoustic Composite N a c e l l e s , NASA Report CR 132649.

2.3.2 Nacelle - Wing Interference

Figure B-5 d e p i c t s i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e E3 e n g i n e t o t h e wing o f t h e

domestic a i r c r a f t . Pla'cement o f t h e engine w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e wing i s con-
s i s t e n t w i t h Lockheed e x p e r i e n c e on t h e L-1011 f o r e l i m i n a t i o n o r minimization
o f i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g p e n a l t i e s . Aerodynamic assessments of t h i s i n s t a l l a t i o n
i n d i c a t e no d r a g p e n a l t y imposed by w i n g / n a c e l l e i n t e r f e r e n c e . Development
t e s t i n g (wind t u n n e l t e s t s ) and t a i l o r i n g w i l l be r e q u i r e d p r i o r t o a c t u a l
i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e E3 mixed flow e n g i n e on t h e a i r c r a f t . For t h e a i r c r a f t
performance a n a l y s i s , z e r o i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g was used, which i s compatible
w i t h e x p e r i e n c e on t h e L-1011 commercial a i r c r a f t .

2.3.3 Accessory Location

During t h i s s t u d y , v a r i o u s a i r c r a f t a c c e s s o r y l o c a t i o n s were c o n s i d e r e d .
Table B-X p r e s e n t s a q u a l i t a t i v e asessment of t h e advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s
of each l o c a t i o n . F i g u r e €3-10 d e p i c t s l o c a t i o n o f a i r c r a f t a c c e s s o r i e s f o r
t h e wing mounted e n g i n e s i n t h e p y l o n . Locating t h e a i r c r a f t a c c e s s o r i e s i n
t h e e n g i n e pylon i s d e s i r a b l e f o r minimization of n a c e l l e d r a g and improved
maintainability/reliability due t o t h e improved environment (lower t e m p e r a t u r e ) .
A t t e m p t s t o pylon mount a l l a c c e s s o r i e s (both e n g i n e and a i r c r a f t ) , f o r b e s t
n a c e l l e aerodynamic s h a p e , r e q u i r e s a n i n c r e a s e i n pylon s i z e and p r o b a b l e
adverse e f f e c t on i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g . Figure B - 1 1 d e p i c t s t h e o t h e r a c c e s s o r y
l o c a t i o n s s u b j e c t e d t o d e s i g n l a y o u t s d u r i n g t h i s s t u d y . These d e s i g n l a y o u t s
show t h a t a c c e s s o r i e s l o c a t e d i n t h e engine c o r e o r e x t e r n a l t o t h e f a n c a s e
a r e p r a c t i c a l f o r t h e E3 e n g i n e . Since l o c a t i o n of engine and a i r c r a f t
a c c e s s o r i e s w i l l u l t i m a t e l y depend on t h e d e s i r e s o f t h e E3 e n g i n e u s e r , i t
i s important t o provide a n e n g i n e h a c e l l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n which i s a d a p t a b l e
t o t h e u s e r r e q u i r e m e n t s . The E3 e n g i n e s , as c o n f i g u r e d , accomplishes t h i s
g o a l . A c c e s s o r i e s c a n be c o r e mounted, f a n c a s e mounted, o r pylon mounted
without r e q u i r i n g changes t o t h e b a s i c engine d e s i g n .

2.3.4 Access P r o v i s i o n s

The E3 e n g i n e / n a c e l l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s e l e c t e d a s t h e b a s e l i n e f o r t h e
f l i g h t p r o p u l s i o n s y s t e m PDR u s e s c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r i e s ( b o t h engine and
a i r c r a f t ) . This c o n f i g u r a t i o n r e q u i r e s a c c e s s t o t h e e n g i n e c o r e which w i l l
be provided by h i n g i n g t h e t h r u s t r e v e r s e r and i n t e r i o r ( c o r e ) cowl. I n t h e
event t h a t pylon mounted a i r c r a f t a c c e s s o r i e s a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n f u t u r e

193
 Y
k
x o
P 0
n
3
l-l
4
g
.4
U
a,
M
m
U

cm3
a
m
m
.4
13

e . . . e . . . e .

I
. e . . .
m 1 m m I X
.rl 0
P
$a, k
m
a,
M
a, l-l
M m
m k
U M
C aJ
m U
? C
a .H
4

e . . . e . . .
m
3;m: a,
.4
U U
&
0 U U C C
a, m c 3 1
t 4
n m 2 3
2
A a,
u 2 2 l-l a,
2 C
0
a,
k 0
3 k
0
a, l-l 0
W
c? 0
C h
-4 al
M
G
W

m
a,
-4
k
0
m
m U U U U U
al C C C C C
0 1 3 3 3 3
8 0
;4"
0
c 2:
0
2
U C C C I4 P)
ICC 0 0 0 3 k
a I4 4 r( 0
V
0
k h h h V
0 c4 c4 ni
k
-4

- 4

194
Y

a
-\

i t
e n g i n e s , a c c e s s would be provided by removing t h e t o p of t h e pylon t o p r o v i d e
ready a c c e s s t o components. Since t h e pylon s k i n i s s u b j e c t e d t o aerodynamic
loads o n l y , w i t h t h e pylon s t r u c t u r a l arrangement shown i n F i g u r e B-10,
removal o f p a n e l s f o r a c c e s s can be accomplished w i t h n o n - s t r u c t u r a l , q u i c k
t u r n type o f f a s t e n e r s . An a d d i t i o n a l work s t a n d s i m i l a r t o t h a t c u r r e n t l y
r e q u i r e d f o r t h e c e n t e r e n g i n e on t h e L-1011 w i l l a l s o be r e q u i r e d f o r pylon
mounted a c c e s s o r i e s .

2.3.5 Thrust Reverser

Reverse t h r u s t i s provided by a s e t of c a s c a d e s , l o c a t e d i n t h e e n g i n e
f a n stream, which are uncovered by a t r a n s l a t i n g cowl d u r i n g t h e r e v e r s e
t h r u s t o p e r a t i n g mode. Required l e v e l s of r e v e r s e t h r u s t f o r t h e E3 a i r c r a f t
a r e a proximately 35 p e r c e n t of e n g i n e forward t h r u s t . As c u r r e n t l y s i z e d ,
5
t h e E e n g i n e w i l l p r o v i d e r e v e r s e t h r u s t s t a t i c e f f e c t i v e n e s s of 34 p e r c e n t
of forward t h r u s t , which i s s l i g h t l y l e s s t h a n t h e CF6-50C w i t h both t h e f a n
and t u r b i n e r e v e r s e r . The l e v e l of r e v e r s e t h r u s t e s t i m a t e d f o r t h e E3
engine i s c o n s i d e r e d a c c e p t a b l e f o r both t h e domestic and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l
a i r c r a f t d e s i g n s . Flow d i r e c t i v i t y o f t h e t h r u s t r e v e r s e r i s r e q u i r e d ' t o
minimize impingement on t h e a i r c r a f t c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s and t o minimize,
r e i n g e s t i o n i n t o t h e e n g i n e . A schematic o f t h e expected flow d i r e c d i v i t y
requirements i s shown i n Figure B-12.

2.3.6 Center Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n

Primary concern f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e mixed flow n a c e l l e i n t h e c e n t e r

engine l o c a t i o n i s t h e n a c e l l e o v e r a l l l e n g t h and t h e p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t on
i n t e r f e r e n c e and p o s s i b l e s c r a p e of t h e n a c e l l e d u r i n g t a k e o f f r o t a t i o n . For
t h e domestic a i r c r a f t d e s i g n t h e E3 c e n t e r e n g i n e w a s l o c a t e d such t h a t
ground c l e a r a n c e of t h e a f t end d u r i n g t a k e o f f r o t a t i o n w a s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
t h e c u r r e n t L-1011 i n s t a l l a t i o n . Also, t h e "S" d u c t i n l e t c o n f i g u r a t i o n of
t h e L-1011 was r e t a i n e d . As i s t h e c a s e w i t h t h e wing engine i n s t a l l a t i o n ,
f u t u r e aerodynamic development t e s t i n g and p o s s i b l e t a i l o r i n g w i l l be r e q u i r e d
t o minimize i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s . For t h i s s t u d y e f f o r t , z e r o i n t e r f e r e n c e
d r a g p e n a l t y , which i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h L-1011 e x p e r i e n c e , w a s used for t h e
c e n t e r engine i n s t a l l a t i o n .

2.3.7 Engine Bleed Requirements and Power E x t r a c t i o n

For t h i s s t u d y e f f o r t , e n g i n e b l e e d and power e x t r a c t i o n requirements

were included i n t h e engine performance d a t a s u p p l i e d by General E l e c t r i c , -
E s t i m a t e s of t h e b l e e d and power e x t r a c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a 500 passenger
a i r c r a f t f o r t h e e a r l y 1990's a r e :

Bleed a i r -9 l b l s e c f o r ECS and a n t i - i c i n g ( T o t a l f o r a l l e n g i n e s )

Power e x t r a c t i o n - 370 hp f o r h y d r a u l i c pumps and g e n e r a t o r ( T o t a l
for a l l engines)

2.3.8 Engine F i r e P r o t e c t i o n

Figure B-13 d e p i c t s t h e a p p l i c a b l e f i r e zones e s t a b l i s h e d by Lockheed

f o r t h e E3 e n g i n e . The following c r i t e r i a was used t o e s t a b l i s h t h e E 3
engine f i r e p r o t e c t i o n c r i t e r i a :
199
200
 in:

1
I \II I
 F i r e P r e v e n t i o n : Compartmentation used for c o n t a i n m e n t and t o
p r o v i d e maximum s e p a r a t i o n between c o m b u s t i b l e s and i g n i t i o n s o u r c e s .
F i r e p r o o f b u l k h e a d s s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d i n t h e more c r i t i c a l areas.
Flameproof b u l k h e a d s s h o u l d be provided i n t h e more c r i t i c a l areas
Flameproof b a r r i e r s are r e q u i r e d t o p r o t e c t primary s t r u c t u r e and
e n g i n e s u p p o r t s t r u c t u r e . F i r e zones w i l l r e q u i r e v e n t i l a t i o n and
o v e r b o a r d d r a i n s l o c a t e d a t low p o i n t s . V e n t i l a t i o n o f t h e com-
p a r t m e n t s s h o u l d be a minimum o f t h r e e volume changes p e r m i n u t e
and c a n b e p r o v i d e d by f a n a i r o r ram a i r d u r i n g i n - f l i g h t con-
ditions.
F i r e Detection: F i r e d e t e c t i o n i s p r o v i d e d by a u d i o and v i s u a l
i n d i c a t i o n a t t h e f l i g h t s t a t i o n f o r e n g i n e compartments as w e l l
as t h e APU and main wheel w e l l s . T h e r m i s t o r t y p e , c o n t i n u o u s s e n s i n g
e l e m e n t s are used as t h e s e n s o r s t o a c t i v a t e a p p r o p r i a t e warning
i n d i c a t o r s on f l i g h t s t a t i o n c o n t r o l p a n e l s . Each f i r e zone con-
t a i n s i t s own s e n s o r s and c o n t r o l l o o p s .
F i r e E x t i n g u i s h i n g System: High r a t e o f d i s c h a r g e (HRD) system
is n o r m a l l y p r o v i d e d f o r e n g i n e a c c e s s o r y compartment and APU
compartment. On t h e L-1011 a i r c r a f t , t h e f i r e e x t i n g u i s h i n g material
is Bromo-trifluoromethane and two f i r e e x t i n g u i s h e r b o t t l e s are
p r o v i d e d f o r e a c h e n g i n e f i r e zone. B o t t l e s are o p e r a t e d ( d i s -
c h a r g e d ) from c o n t r o l s l o c a t e d i n t h e f l i g h t s t a t i o n .

2.4 PXRFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC COMPARISONS

The p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s for t h e Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine Program

w i t h r e g a r d s t o f u e l and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s a v i n g s are:

Reduction i n s p e c i f i c f u e l consumption o f 1 2 p e r c e n t minimum.

0 Reduction i n d i r e c t o p e r a t i n g c o s t s o f 5 p e r c e n t minimum.

F i g u r e s B-14 and B-15 show t h e s a v i n g s i n b l o c k f u e l and DOC, o f t h e

d o m e s t i c and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t w i t h t h e E3 e n g i n e when compared t o
t h e r e f e r e n c e a i r c r a f t ( C F 6 - 5 0 C e n g i n e ) . The r e s u l t s show s i g n i f i c a n t
s a v i n g s f o r t h e E 3 e n g i n e as f o l l o w s :

F i g u r e B-16 d e p i c t s t h e a d v a n t a g e s i n a i r c r a f t s i z e when t h e E3 e n g i n e
is used. Incorporation of t h e energy e f f i c i e n t engine provides an a i r c r a f t
d e s i g n , f o r l a r g e payload c a p a c i t y and long r a n g e c a p a b i l i t y , which i s well
w i t h i n t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f c u r r e n t a i r p o r t f a c i l i t i e s and a l s o p r o v i d e s s i g -
n i f i c a n t f u t u r e growth c a p a b i l i t y .

2 02
 Y
c
d
M
c
w
i-l
w
5
d
3
a
M
c
rl
z
en
rl
aJ
3
r
a

20
rl
m

4
rl
I
m
aJ
k
1
M
1-I
k 4

w
a 309-9d3 I

203
 1 305943

1 t

I t

I 305-943

u, 0
0

2 04
 309933 533

309-9d3

0
ON
N 8

G I r
z
8a
W
t 309-943
3

II E3

I 305-933

2 05
 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y , accomplished w i t h t h e advanced technology,

d i r e c t d r i v e , mixed flow E3 e n g i n e , w i t h t h e d e s i g n and performance c h a r a c -
t e r i s t i c s s u p p l i e d by General E l e c t r i c , show t h a t :

The NASA s p e c i f i e d o a l s f o r minimum f u e l and DOC s a v i n g s are

5
exceeded w i t h t h e E e n g i n e
Nacelle aerodynamic and mechanical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are a c c e p t a b l e
for aircraft installation
,e I n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e mixed e x h a u s t E 3 e n g i n e on both t h e domestic
and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l a i r c r a f t appears f e a s i b l e w i t h o u t a p e n a l t y
f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e drag
0 T h r u s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e E3 e n g i n e are compatible w i t h t h e
1990's commercial a i r c r a f t s e l e c t e d by Lockheed
I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e E3 e n g i n e r e s u l t s i n a i r c r a f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ,
s i z e d f o r long range and l a r g e payload c a p a c i t y , which a r e com-
p a t i b l e with existing a i r p o r t f a c i l i t i e s .

2 06
 SUPPLEMENT A

0 Asset Computer P r i n t o u t - Domestic A i r c r a f t w i t h E3 Engine

0 Asset Computer P r i n t o u t - I n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l A i r c r a f t w i t h E3 Engine

207
 b
y1 0 0 * ~ 0 * * 0 o0 OI cr I o* *e O ?* ?g???0
g 0000 0 0 oi+% -
0

8
~ 0 0 0 0 00
0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: 0

Q
rF - O6
r)
0
*
*00000
0
ooooooqo
0 0 . * . . *
0

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o o 0
.
q 0 o o oa G0&0o ?
0
0

0
? 0 . ~ 0~ ~ c J ~
0 000
0000 0

9 3
0 0 0 0 0
0

0 0
s o 0 0 0 0 0 ;9??oo3 0000 0 0 0500
4 ooooooqo
0 0 . * . . * ? O O O * * O ?
0
4a;Tyqo'
0
0
*ooooo 0
90 09
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '

0
ooooooqo
O O . . . . .
.O 0 0 0 0 0
0
*GOO
0 0

ooo;;09
- 0 0
0
0
q;:??;
0
0000 0 0
0
.
OOGO

- 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0
9
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0300
3 d o3 o9 o3 .0
0 *0 o4 o 0 0. 0
0 0
0 OOOOOOqO 0
0
0 0 . . . * 0
.ooooo
0
0
0
0 ;d0;;;o 0 0 .
3 09
0
0 a .O 0 0 0 0 0 * G O O 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 . e . 0 0 . 0
G09?3??050 0 ooo.*co q g o0 o. o. O
? 0
vl 0
' 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O 0 c; 0 0 0 0 9 9
0 0
m
Y)

>
9
O
* O
O O O ~ O O O O
O . . . 0 0
* 0 0 0 0 0
9 0
*GGO
.
e 0 0
0
0 0 0 * . 0 0
0 0
O * O O O .
. o * . . o
0 0 0 0 0 0 oqoo
0
0
.00000 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3 9
-1 0 0
< .O 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oquo
a!
4 ooooooqo 0 . . * O O 0 0
0

<
1
O O . . . . .
0
.00000 0
0.
0
0 0 0 . . 0 0
0 0 ;o ' 0 ; ; ; o
0 . 0 0 0
S ?
0 . 0 0
0 0 -
00. 0 0 0 0 0 * G O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oqco
O Q U 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 b O
0 * 0 0 0 0
0
r
gum
* w
o o. O* O* O
0
*O*O
r 0'
c
0
e
0
.
uz 0 0
(L
0000 0 0 oqoo
c '35 9
.CUIC
oocoooqo
o b . . . . c ooo.*oo
0 0
O * O C O . 0
c.?
.
m a. w U . 0
. 0 0 C 0 0 0
c
00
0 0
* O * b a O
O G O
I r + Q 0 0
4 YIUlY
7-u. 0 Q O C O O O4
O O.O 0 0 0 0 0 &qC;qO09 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 e500
O O . . . . .
9 ?;yc.?d c
(L

e
LI
o v x
7d3
b)
;oocoo d 0
ooo.
0*0oq
c, 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
.

a
UI Y i 2
0 . .C ocooo . O O C 0 O O O C 0
0
0
0

.
0 0 0 0

I-
oocooooo
G O . . . . .
0'00000 0
0
c
0 .
OOO..OO
. 0 0 .
0 0
0
. 0 0
O e O C O r
0
.O.
od6O 0
. ?
0

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. .c 0 0 0 0 0
4 0
.oco
. * . 0 0 .
0
0 0
O O G O 0
0
0
0
O?OO
O O . . . . .

0
. 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
o C C * * O ~
oc
0
C33?\9;
0 oco
0
. . 0
0

.
0 0
.O 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 coo0
9 ooooooqo
eo.....
0
. 0 0 0 0 0 0
c
c
0 * . .OO
0 0 0 .
0 0
*oq
0 0
.O
0

O C C
..
0 . O t O .
.o
0
0
e
0
.
G

.... .
0 0

c. .C occ,o c .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OC.
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ococc
* .
c
3
C
0... 0 0
000 .
oc
s o 0

0
0
0
.0
0 0
. 0 0 0 .
O C O
.o 0

. ooooo
*
.C rcr-
mr-a,
m N m
~i
0
Y'

0 0 N e w
m u r
v i u
u?
el
w
(r -
a
4-- U
w .
X- I
e-
*.- h
4 %
-
P
u
y1

208
 Y) VI
0 I
84 8 0
* e

ul
Y)
si 2"
L
L
L L
0 c c
Y u. Y
Ui Y)

500 . a
0 0
M .
e? -I
0 0
20
0 .
40

a-
w o o
-t
U
- 0
- 0
a m
Y) N
0 ';
N
0.
Y) t- c (..
.a I r >
c Q
a n
ui W O t-0
0
0 r W 6
10 L?
*0 0
VI.
0
ui e*
u
u
d
0
0
Q
u
2
h 0
u
\Oc!
I
hr-
z? 24 + ? ? tf;?
0 d 0
c
A N "3
c m
U.
UJ
8
P
a a
*
e rr
c
u. -
.
a
.
CL
* C I U E
uu
O c0
K 9
3 c 0 .
u o & e mr-
\ 0 13 u o - 0 Oh, 0
t- u cr- v)O V
rl
)I
U, Y2 vi-
c Y LI
U X ul
YI I
2 v)
c
(L C c.
4 t-a .c
a u
U
IL.
0 9
a 0 0
c v
).?
-u
4

F.
*
u1
a
4b

IU
*
I I 1
I
I
I
v1
f
I
I
hl
I
c.
I
N I
I
I
I
0 a 0 I J 2 v)
z UJ z I .
I c Y

.
C 7 I UA 4 L 7
3 4 I W c V. 4
a .r c a
U J J 3 lu
LI u .
I
c
UA
ar
8- a -1 c
c
v) 7 VI Q
*
a
I
3
c,
I-
3
U
O
I
U
d
>
C
CI
a
u1
3
U
UJ
P

2 09
 0
-
4
0
? 2
a

VI
L
2 ur
0
U
c
L
VI c
V
U <
t P
lb
0 a
a
!i a
-I *
-I
I 0, 3: 2P c
UJ 3 0
t 3 Y c
\
.
.I
,
IC
2
0 c
0
m
0 2
Y
\ 0
r- t
VI N
VI W
a 0
a c
8 0
6
Y, c
F
\

.. .
c. VI
”
0
9 I-0 r-
8- m
0,
0
I
0 :-; .no.
no
m o
9F-0 COONm
. . .”, .
u-
Y,
. . .d
- m * o
D.
c i ..
0 0
9P. N X
- Q 0 0 WON^
L. O r 1cu- n
m c Wv) N
c. W L I r - N

Y,
J
J
Y,

U
4
2
t
I .
.
P
2

r
UI
c
v1
a-
VI
-1
LLI
3
U

210
 0
s. ?
0
4
0
%,
0
4
0
y5
0 f
e
0
2
0
c
0

0'
N
c
n
n
d .
Q'
0
H
0
e
9
in
0'
m
0
m
p'
n
0

0'
? 9
0 0
.2 2 F! * g
2 m 0
0,

0,
P,
m
m

0
CI

. ............
0 0
*
0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O d d
.
O
.
O
*
O
.
O
.
O
e
O

. . . - . :. . . . . . . . . . . K. . . . .. .
r(
0
m
0
c.
0
I .
I m
0
CI L 0 0 .
I
0
.
I I I
0
" 0'
0
c.
0
in n
0 0
0, B 0
m 2 0 0
0 m L 0
a

ii N 0 .
I N N I
a 0
E R
a
N
0 0
8 0 0
N R 0
N
m m
8 a 0 a
* *
. . *. 7. . . . . . . . *. *. *. . . . . . . .
N N 0 0 N 0 0 (Y N
N N N
J N N
f 1 N
f 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a
4 7
0
.* .
.
I
p.
o
N
F,
m
(Y

Q
Q
?
0
G
N
0
c
m m m

.
4

n
2
4 3 0
? * N, 3
X *
v) 0 a N I
I
LI
n
0
a c1 m
n
s
0
9 0
. 0
.. c
c
ul 0 .r
F
-.
z N f c.
I
N F
Q
c
C
L

n
a
\
LI
0
. .
0
.
e
E. ul
Q
E.

n-
Lh
N

ul
h
-4

9
t ul
w N

"
I
7
0
0
4 0
. ...
G
e
IC
r m
0 0
Q 0
ul .L
c
c F. LI Q 0 0
\ 0 N c 9 d

..
L )r c e
VI
Y)
4
P 0 G c. c 0 rl

s
e -4
c
9 CI -4
0 p. c 0
0 N k m
ul 5

.
c
\

e t CI 0 .c F I-
c
ul
1u
cu
Q
Lc,
r4
.
f4 U
9
m
s
c
0
0
ul
8ul
Lc, Lc, J U U e c
.? U U .c U m r.

u 0
-.
0
9
0
m
0
0
m
8
a3
c
C.
(I:

0 0 0 0 0 0 C
c
U
*
a
0 0 0 0 0
0 8 C
0
. . . . . . . . .
0
C
0
O
c
C
0 0 0
. . . . .
U C 0 c. G 0 c o c C O c I O G C O . I \ C ?
5 n
0 r
0 c- 0 0 c o - 0
~ c0 0
, , 0
c o0
- , 9 - or,
-
bID

-
(c r P r U 9
I N
rn
F- F. 4
c
-
&a a e c
Ly Llu Ly W 2 7 y1 2 z W v) In
C!X 1 -I -I c -I -. -1 w m
no c)
a
Y
U
P VI
I
u1
V
U Y
U
W
u-
U lu VI
U
m
3
W
U Ly
U
U -.
3
c
yl

3
Y)

3
r
a a U
I

d
3
U v. In Y
Y)
y. U 0.
Y)
Y v.
v)
U U (z a
c rl U U p. n r a U a a n U U U

211
 ,.
B
0
9
0 0
?
0
9 i3
0 0 0
r5e 8 $ 4 ? & 8 'a ?
0 0 0 0 0 a' d 0 0
t s
0 0

c
0
w
d
(r
e
2
(P
9
n
8 cf
(r
t-
n
1E -
Q
0

p' i i
0
0
N
(L
0
1
0
?
0 E
el
*
9

6
(r
r-
2
p.
0
n
n
R Q
P
n
d d c,
? 1
I
I
0
Q
(L
H
I
0
* 3
.
)

2 2
n
m
n
d

90 30
0
I
*
0
CI
0
N
0
.
.
0

I
3
2
. 0.
N
a
9
c)
9

m
I
9
Q, 8
OD
c1
0
O
0
0
N
0
I
.
c) 9
N
(D
I
* 0 mm n
&

a
m
0f *
5 m 0 - I
.
LI
n
R
a
0

CI
on
r:
m
c
n
6
m
0
3
p.
m

0 0
1
0 d 0
a .
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
*
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b
0 0
0
0

a
CI
0
CI
0
0
c
0
CI
..
c1 c1 r
0 *
a 0
. e; U
0
I
. I
* 4
r.
0
e
b 0
U
0
CI L
b
I
b
a
.
0
n n
0
0
N
0
0
C
0
m
m
0
0
0
n
n
0
M
0
N R 0
iu 0, m
rn
0,
m
0
c)
0
.
I 0
c Q,
0 0 0 0
N R IC It m
0 6
R 0
iu N
*
N RJ 0 0 0
* * ? 0 0 N hl
4

0
0
4

r; d
.. 0
0
. ..?
0
0
N

0
N

0
N

0
0
0
. . .
j.
0 0
U

0 0 0 0
*
N

0
0
N

0
N

0
. 'I 1 'I
0
*
0 0

3
0 -
n
P
4
Q.
9
? c;
(I> Q
m
0
n
N

9
* 2
m
m
0
?
9
m
0
. .. .
L.

0
I

0
W

I-
Q
a
L

N
#

-J
:m I
m
m
n
?
OD
LI N n.
c 2 m r; 0.
L 2 P, 0, 0, 2 O
N
1
hr
N
N *
-4 N
N N N
rr) -4
(c

4
0
'? L
m0
n
I
n
P
4
N
Q
.. n
m
0

0
5 3 3 9
c1

2 ce. n 0 0
9
N
c. *m
0
0
a
*
m
y:
8
5
0
n
n
0
9
n
0 9N 9
n
.
d

0
... C m
& 9
b
f- 0
. .
v\
n
F
CI
OD
(1
c
N
0
0
0
0
rt
0 0
. 0
c
0
n
*
CI
$
Q
....
0
0
* 0
n
0
n
r,
f-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

c1 c. -. a 4 c c N nI nI

. . . . . . R. .
r r c c c r

* 0
0 0 n r n n 9 OD
Q
c. 0 0 C m C a
N
9 0 0 u- 0 0
f- a# e N n 0 r m t-4
0 c J
L.

. I
0 e . . d ..
-
0 9 0 Q 0 c e 0 c N cy cy m F 1c m a,
I- 0 N
c
n e m U
r
9 0 0 0 0
0-
C n n g
n
(F
0.
In
m
w
0 0
f- Q
0 0
0.
0
0
c 0, d
F
-4
0
v\ 0
ul 2 rt
Q
.
I
c ? N
0 0 0
0
0 IT, a
0

.. .. . *.
F n n m (r. m in n *I c e. U .
I U U .f .r .t

c
0 9
I-
I-
*
N
N
N
Q
n
L1
N
(c
0
w
0
0
b
L.
N
c
U
0 0 n
0
0 Q
U
c
r-
5
N
f-
-0 n
0
PI
m
r, I-
n
0
0
I%
n N
OD
r
N
0
N -4
2 c)
c) Q 9
f-

L . 0. In c a a 0 f-
.
r- P c r .c r a
. n -.
0 0
E 9
PI c
s
-
n n a v\
N
F N c,
rt N c In m
U m
PI v\ 0 A YI v\ n 64 ul
c e. YI 0 J n 9 r1 a- OD c r- r- .r (9 rt
m m m m
0 0
Q l$
#
0
c w
n
F
I?
ul
c,
c
v\
el
0
N
n
0
N
Pl
RFL, N
m
14
c
N
r
YI
h
In
F
-4
c\
F
-4
m
A
N
pi
0
N
rn
0
N
A
0.
c
c-l
2
rl
0
9.
m F
0
c
P-

*
.
0 0 a Q N U. w n?
0,
b 0 c)
0 0 8 0 0 0.
C I- In c
v\
0 0
c
"> m 0 c 0
c 0 PI m m m e
2 (D N
9 0 .f U r- f U -3 f- F f-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 G G 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 C 0 C O
W
0
3- 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 C c G

-
I- 0
-*I- 0 0 G C c 0 C 0 0 0 c 0 C C 0
7 - u 0 0 C) C c 0 'P C c c 0 c 0
-*- ... C il y\

0
F. 0 E c c 0 0 0 c t
0, 0 c 0
-1 4 4 P In \I m PI c PI r,
d

e e'

-
u a U t r c t-
z
-
u u. UI W 2 W d W 2 2 ul (L u1
c e
E!P 3
c r
ir
Ip
VI
" W -1 W c.
v1 +
W
I- -1
y. c
r "
v) y1 -I W ul
c e
Y)
V.

.
u. u U: Ui U n U
x a a " 3
U
v)
U
In
3 I ?,4 Ll. L U M 3 v U v) I3 3 9
-1 4 U y. U "l I 0 W YI -1 U 4 (I Y. W W a (I 0
c V u U C c C U -I a e u U U 0 n 0 U U V

212
 c+ a m
9
-4
s 2
N
c;
N
m a a tr
t N 4 a
" n a
+
c
H
n 0 c
-1
U u 2
Y
H I
-1 Y
WS
u-0
<
o! 2
UC h $
I J P
.r
. e
W
n
H
I
c
" *
-1
t
. e
*
1 0
I c

..
nn
0.
0
s
4
NO
?2
no
n
c
U
N
-.
N

0
c
Q e
CIN
4 0
e
0. Oc
Q
a
Y
N
z
U
c.
h

4 00

c
n

.....
n
-1 0 e m Q
" .ooonne
e....
0-0

a ~ 0 0 0 m r n ~ 0 r 0
Ly m e
c
a
r

--
a c
u
"8
mu
0 P
V I
z
42
I * s
c
F BF
u cc z
.I
r P
Y. P
> a
Y. 1

w
U
U

213
 0 0 m I
9 0 a
* e I t
g y -
ut
m
f
w
CI
CI
.r
t;
d
m
$ CI
X
e
; r r 5$5
t I P

<
c
..
a a
C
*t
u
VI
l
1

E #
CI
0 L
e a
% I
A
u
VI z E VI
I
c a
'T: E
U
t
I
Y
* u c)
I
I 8%
Q:
** I t-z
UJ *w
I as
w x
V I * I a w
0
I
I
I
1
I
c 0 b m I + +

. . -.
0 U O I
z
w
(v e m 0 0 m u 0
c
Em * . . . .
4 9 9 0
V
c.l
c m U
a)
m r m 9 1 2
a c m m
w
0
5 m w m
0
0
1 ut
u W
a N 0 0 N O * - - I W a
N U L 0
1 w
a I
-
I
w 0
* > m
E
*r h r
CI
m
9
a
O
m
0
6 Rn Z P
0 0
i : 0
m
; I
! i
. .d
ut

.
c. (F U 0 OL
4
I- n 0 m 0 N m N O a N ut
VI VI V I 0 0 0 N c C I O 0 0 0
* 0 I z
\ e e a .
G
I
0
U u o 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 I I fut n t
0
W I > U
I E r
P a
0
W * 0, K
VI'
$I
I
I
CL
UJ
a z
a
YI c3
a
x m
u I a 0
a
0 -I
7
I
UI 2
W I *
w t;
c
U
U.
OL
I
0
K
c
2
0
0
s a .
w
W
z
UI
m
X
w
0
W
I
I
I r,
t
0
c
E
0
a
3
L.
c-
K
c
a
u1
4
a
OL
.
(
V
8
m
I E
L 4 I K
U J a a 2 OL -1 UI
t e u c) n UJ .
( I >
m u d.
c (D 0 I I- 0
t t 4 0 c C I
VI d e u U 0 t L1
I 0
kY
I
r
I u
C
C I
5 I
0
0
e I

0
P 9 5 5 Y 5 c: =. 0,: 5
0 oocrrocccoo
(? -c
c'!
r

I
c

U
C
n
I
I
I
I
I
c u w
7 u Z a
a I-
o v a IY
> a 3 >
r - C
*
-
.-. . . . . . .
F ~ C . O O G ~ O q C
9 9 O O O C C O O C
rv ~ r h ,(v cu N c

-I
< I n
c 9
c I U
c >

214
 I
W I

c
*
W
$
I
H
I
a
u) t
P
I

E
W
1
I
u
I
I
I
.) I
I
I
1
1
I
I
c
z
m *t- )L
N
N
0
0
c
m 0
n
0 I
w
c(
e U
00
.
c

.
01 N (E 0 Q I
U U 0 0 m 0 N N
a N 0 w N 0 I
a 9 'p. ?
UI
0 0 9
L
0
L
b
a .*
(rr
0 I- 2 I
I
e
2
Y)
z
0
0
a m
b

I
Yr
Y)
2
s
*
W

YI
d

P * aw*
(1
c
2
c Y) ln ur
z 0 > I L L olno
z

.
a
w
w
m
c . . I
m a m
U I
c m a -
c c
* 0z
U
0
LI
I
W
C ***
Y
4 4 I S
a
u
a
E 0
d
a I
(0 a c
*
c.. 4
U
0
LL
0
c
I
I
I
I
c
z
VI
I
V :
a
u I
a
I c
u e
I IC ' Z a
.
a&-( ?????c.?4c.?
c
Y
VI
\
U
I
I
I
I
-
uoo$lu
aa3>
-*c
uoo~ocoaoo
LIC

c
I
I
1
CU.0
7 04 -z4a
O U
>a5?
..........
w VI 0 0 0
9u?oooc0
c
cy N cy "r
0 0
0 0 0
(u
c. 0
C A N

215
 u
'? *e 00000 e 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 oqoo
oeooeoqo
2 0 0 0 0r *o.oo*q
Y
L) 00.ea..
*ooooo 0
SQ
$ q q i d0 0
a 0 0 00 4 3
0 0 000 0 0
0000 0 0 oqoo
0
a ? 4
O Q
0000 0 0 0 ~ 0 0
0
0
9 4
* I 0 0
.!22
uc 4 0 0 0 0 0 0e q 90 0 00000 e o 0 0
0 e e 0 0 0 e
0
3 0
0000 0 0 oqoo
e 00...e* 9 000.*OO O * 0 0 0 * 0
sa
r p
.00000
0
0
0 00 d ;o$go'O S ?
0 0

3 ooooooqo
S O . . . . .
.30000
.O

0
00000
0
*
.eo0
0 rn
OJe..oO
e e o 0
a0
0
*
0
a
?O'Y39S
0
0000 0

G
0

O
.
coo5
0
0 0 0 0 000 a .
0 0
ooouo
4 o a o o o o o oe o SOGO

9 0 Oe O Os.0o.000 0e
0 OOOU 0 0 O?O"

O?;;da'd
0
d 0 0 c.? 0

.
3 1
*e noooo 0030 o QO'2C c 0 -1300
0 * .00 0 0
4 0 0 0 . 0
0
0 j 0 *ooo 0
0
* a O Q O O 0
0
JC
0 0
a 0 a
003
a 0
? ?
0 0
vo500 .JOC)
.JB
0
>
e003 0 0 00.30
4 u 300..oq
30
9 8
0.a
3
. o o0 o.a
. 0
G J o r-ou 24.
a 3
0 .O 4000
e OooOooqo
03 * 8 0 a e
.10aov 0
0

v r, u

3000

c
Y
.a 0533
? 6 0 0
'-23.. 0.
0
.*
Y)
0

0
* 0 \7 .3 0
4

G330

I, 3 53

3
2
I
X
-
d

c
n
3
A

216
 -'?
n
c
Y
( 0
C .
C O ON
u1 et-
a m
m
3 0

n
2
0
ou
e
G .
2 0
c
-
E a

Y)
L .'J
50'
*
0

a
40
r U 0
1 0
n.
0
t m > .-4 1
3
d 0

.L.
Y ti-
e..
irm
ma3
3.mB-
x .v N
Y

I
I

217

.
 1

-
.
I
0 N
4.
m
4.
1
d
0

*I
L

4
4
n
...
nh
-4
.x
-c1
a*-
*--

218
 3% OL
? ? ? 3 5 3 ? ? 4 4 ?
O O O O O O O O O O O

e
o
m
o
*
o ~ ~
.........
O ~ O O O O O O O

..r * i
.
c
. r r 9.. .J *.
.-.
-
Y -f

-
r. c m ? n P m
*
.
-3 J
c
CI a a z
4
c 'j .? -.
c n c a. c. .Y
h '3
Y
ad
c
-4. Y
-J **
-J ..Y-. -9
.Y P) nt
l

.c L

; .
3 +-. L
f I-
. %.
a
-4
a
*
'4
a
t
4

r
J
9
a
t
?
9
r'
T
.
3- *.

* I L.

-
+ I C UJ 2.
7
x
0 a a n u
4 d
m r J
3
Y
0 -. U
-I
U
a
*. A
c)
c)
'U
0
Ivl
UA
1
m

219
 ?
0
? ?
0 0
a:0 3
0
?
0
3 9
0 s o
9
0
9
0

m *
m
m f 8 3 r)
I
(I
a, 3
CI
0
R
e
8
3
9 3
0
G 0 I
4
0 i LI
I
0

3
r.
? anJ
4 ? P
!2 f 2 d
0
0
0 .
n
m
(L
c;
0
I
3
9
r)

2 0
e
0
a
0 d e
0 0
e
a
* 0

d
N
0
e e
L)

z
a
a
r)
0
I
0
. *
0 a
Y
I
0
c
0
-.
.e
m m n 0 r
N
0 0 0
0
*)
n 0, 0 J
e
* N 0 0
*
N
*
N

0
. . Q
N

0
*
N

0
e
N

0 0
*
0
N

0 U

9 Ml
. I
* as? 4 ff 0
. e
n
a c
n
t 9
m
Q n
0
n
n
a
n
0
ff
s n
r
*
n.a . .
?
0
ff
IC
m
4
0
c
0
d
?
Q
2
3
9
1
m

a
n
. * *.
3 J
n
-4 J a ?
f-4 c *

a
r )
. . . z.
3
G
N

0
Y
%
.

4
v

'
3
0 >
.
>
a
n( 0

. ? 4
.
r c C
&

- -
?
4.l
F
.v
a .- N
P 4 eJ
d
.P
.n .va-
3
c
r-
r- .- Q
5
c
0 a
n
r

P
m
i
("
d
0
c 3

-.i
n
a

n
3
c
" -. .-
c
.n
8

.-
I
.
Y
"
P
-
a
i
n
n
?
Fi
4
4
r.
a
7
CY

* *7
v 0 4 L) c
Y n
Q a P 3 a ?
U J

3
0

3
. 7

0
3

3
3

7
?
* ; r:
0 3

-%

r
?
L

-r
u
A
'Y -
42
m
3
ry
U
a
c
y1
U
Y

A
Y

:
:
*> U
Jc x U4
a a

220
 n
2V ;t ?a ? 4 4 t 2 24 ?
n a 00 m
%
5
a
n
rl
rl
0
n
0
CI
*
" 0
II
L1
0
m
0
* 4 1
a
f c
4
x 3
s
c J
Y H Y) lnc
* a
.(

8 H
z
sc
0 s UC
t 3 2 I I
4
4
* a
.z L, Y) Y
H
c c L n m
0

.
0
n
N
I
n
(Y
-a
h)
n
r

om a *I
~ o ~ ~ a m o o a a
...
Y
.)

"
a
Dr
r C
4-4

* I
0
.
.ac 0
. . . . .
c) 0a
. .
I) 0
.
4
0 -
C 6

I 0"
-.
r P rn
N

4
r
r
a
n

c
*I

f
J

n
J
-1

-
4
c
0
n
c
iJ

4 *
E
41
C f 3
* 2
I

*
c
3
c

221
 a
Y
M

aa
*
u
P

L
I
I
al m n 0 1
m a 9 0
k
Q
I-
0
9
0
n 9 c
5
n
0,
:4
0
3
0
c.
I
I ru
n
I
3
0
ru
G
r)
OI
QI
P.
N
9
N
X
n
6
.n
0
I
I
ui
a -
m
w

'01 3
¶
0
.Y
s
0
I
I
1
I
I
V

I
I
I
I
-
-4

I <
I
I I
4
I u,
t

222
 1
Ir
2
Y)

P
a

a c
f
U I I oc
n
m a
9
B y1
Q
t ul
a
r
c
a
Y
a
e
u
5 .z

-.
W

z
Y)
L y1 J
X t
Y, m YI 0 *
I Q c u u
n *
c
a
s
rl % n U i
u U
sm 0
4
m
u
z
*
I
t
I
I
e o t
f
PD 0

.
N
0 ? I
N 0 1
0
rn - 1
I
d. .
.I a P I f
nr. m c
e + A I n 8 2
Y
a
- I T *.
c
0 0 (u
O
e
N
. 4 ,
0 0 3 r l v r
Y)
I >
7:
I -

'a4
'x3
JJ
>
'A
aa
1
.
L

n
P n e
I
t .
2

.
33
.Y
c I
v *
P T
*
LI

2a Ir
r(
I
Y
.
? -. j. 3
a
r.
t
I
b
I
1
t
t
I
I
1
t
c)
0 I
¶
Y I
z I
a I

223
 SUPPLEMENT B

DIRECT OPERATING COST (COD) CALCULATIONS - E3 AIRCRAFT

The f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s and formulas were used i n c a l c u l a t i n g D i r e c t

Operating Cost (DOC) f o r t h e E3 a i r c r a f t . A l l c o s t s a r e i n January 1976
dollars :

3-Engine Domestic 4-Engine Intercont .

C r e w Cost $397 /blk-hr $476/blk-hr
Fuel Cost
Cost of Fuel $0.308/gal $0.387 / g a l
Cost of O i l $1.00/lb $l.QO/lb
Non Revenue F l y i n g F a c t o r 1.0123 1 .a123
Salvage Value (SV) 4% 4%
Life 16 YRS 16 YRS
Insurance Rate ( I R ) 0.304% 0.304%
Labor Rate (LR) $9.OO/hr $9.00/hr
Maint. Burden F a c t o r (MBF) 2.23 2.23
Airframe Labor/Cycle (AFLC) 0.52 0.52
Airframe Labor/Flt-Hr (AFLH) 0.52 0.52
Airframe Matl/Cycle (AFMC) 0.68 0.68
Airframe Matl/Flt-Hr (AFMH) 0.68 0.68
Engine Labor/Cycle (ELC) 0.62 0.62
Engine Labor/Flt-Hr fELH) 0.62 0.62
Engine Matl/Cycle (ELC) 1.31 1.31
Engine Matl/Flt-Hr CEMH) 1.31 1.31

224
n
rl
.rl
0
W
0
X
U cl
e
0
u 3
X
ln
m PI
d I3
U
W
c
0 X aJ
a Q
X k
L)
u w k
e k
x
.rl
‘rl
4
bo W
E 0
W

+
n

II II II 11 II I1 II I1 II I1 II I1 I1 II II I1 II I1

n
U
tr
U

U
e
8
rl
aJ
1
k

225
 APPENDIX C

Appendix C i s a r e p r o d u c t i o n o f r e p o r t ACEE-15-FR-9735 A supplied

by Douglas A i r c r a f t Company as t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o a i r c r a f t i n t e g r a t i o n .

The format and p r i n t i n g have been a l t e r e d t o c o o r d i n a t e w i t h t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n .

A p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t w a s t h e i n s t r u m e n t used by General E l e t r i c Company f o r

a i r c r a f t integration analysis. The p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t extended through

S e c t i o n 4 . 3 , t h e f i n a l complete r e p o r t is p r e s e n t e d h e r e .

227
 SEPTEMBER 1979

FINAL REPORT ON STUDY TRANSPORTS

POWERED BY G.E. ENERGY EFFICIENT ENGINES

GENERAL E t ECTR iC PURCHASE 0R D ER 200-4XX- 14N44386

DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY

MCUONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION
 FINAL REPORT ON

STUDY TRANSPORTS POWERED

BY G.E. ENERGY EFFICIENT ENGINES

This f i n a l r e p o r t summarizes work done under General E l e c t r i c Purchase

Order 200-4XX-14N44386 as p a r t of General E l e c t r i c ' s prime c o n t r a c t Energy
E f f i c i e n t Engine (E3) Component Development and I n t e g r a t i o n Program w i t h t h e
NASA L e w i s Research Center.

This r e p o r t completes s u b m i t t a l o f f i n a l r e p o r t i n p u t s f o r Task 1, 2 and 3

i n compliance w i t h t h e Task 4 Reporting requirements.

229
 PREFACE

This r e p o r t p r e s e n t s r e s u l t s o f a s t u d y conducted by t h e Douglas

A i r c r a f t Company a s a s u b c o n t r a c t o r t o General E l e c t r i c t o i n v e s t i g a t e
a p p l i c a t i o n s of e n g i n e s based on u s e of NASA supported Energy E f f i c i e n t
Engine (E3> Technology. This work w a s done under Purchase Order
200-4XX-14N44386 as a p a r t of t h e General E l e c t r i c prime c o n t r a c t from t h e
NASA L e w i s Research Center on Energy E f f i c i e n t Engine Component Development
and I n t e g r a t i o n program.

The s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d h e r e i n were conducted t o i d e n t i f y commercial

t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t which could p o s s i b l y u s e e n g i n e s based on technology from
t h e NASA sponsored E 3 program, p r o v i d e d e s c r i p t i o n s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
such a i r c r a f t and i n v e s t i g a t e a i r f r a m e / p r o p u l s i o n i n t e g r a t i o n .

The s t u d y r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n were conducted from May 1978

through August 1979.

230
 APPENDIX C
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

1.o INTRODUCTION 235

2.0 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FEATURES 238

2.1 Aerodynamics 238
2.1.1 Advanced Wing Design 238
2.1.2 Advanced High-Lift System 240
2.2 Materials 240
2.2.1 Advanced Composites 242
2.2.2 Metals 242
2.3 Systems 242
2.3.1 L o n g i t u d i n a l S t a b i l i t y Augmentation System
(aLSAS) 242
2.3.2 Wing Load A l l e v i a t i o n 243
2.3.3 Other 243

3.0 AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTIONS 244

3.1 Aircraft Characteristics 244
3.2 D i r e c t Operating C o s t s 244
3.3 Drag 249
3.4 Weight 249
3.5 Sensitivity Factors 249
3.6 Noise 249
3.7 Secondary Power 249

4.0 AIRFRAME/PROPULSION SYSTEM INTEGRATION 266

4.1 N a c e l l e Placement 266
4.2 P r e l i m i n a r y 1990 P r o p u l s i o n System Requirements 266
4.2.1 Maintenance 266
4.2.2 T h r u s t Reversers 266
4.2.3 Ozone 269
4.2.4 Bleed A i r C l e a n l i n e s s 269
4.2.5 Bleed P o r t Locations 269
4.2.6 Containment 270
4.3 I n s t a l l a t i o n Studies 270
4.3.1 F i n a l Study C o n f i g u r a t i o n s 281
4.3.1.1 Core Mounted Accessory C o n f i g u r a t i o n 282
4.3.1.2 Fan Case Mounted Accessory C o n f i g u r a t i o n 283
4.3.2 Maintenance Cost Comparison 283
 APPENDIX C
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Sect i o n
\

4.4 Regenerative Fuel Heat System Study 292

4.4.1 Design Philosophy 2 92
4.4.2 Aircraft Configuration Studied 295
4.4.3 Fuel Temperature C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 295
4.4.3.1 Descent and Start o f Cruise 295
4.4.3.2 Regenerative System Operation a t
Cr u i se 295
4.4.3.3 Engine Throttliag E f f e c t s 2 95
4.4.4 Cruise SFC Savings Calculations 300
4.4.5 Regenerative Fuel Heat Study Conclusions 301

232
 APPENDIX C
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

e-1. Energy E f f i c i e n t T r a n s p o r t . 236

C-2. A i r c r a f t Design Concept. 237

c-3. Advanced F e a t u r e s - Aerodynamics 239

C-4. Advanced F e a t u r e s - Materials. 241

c-5. Domestic A i r c r a f t . 247

C-6. C o m p r e s s i b i l i t y Drag Rise C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 254

c-7 Sgh-Lift P o l a r s Gear-Up. 255

C-8. A i r c r a f t Compressor Bleed Air Required. 264

c-9. NacelleIWing R e l a t i o n s h i p . 267

C-10. DAC L a y o u t s f o r GE E 3 Study. 271

e-11. Study Layout f o r GE E3 Engine Wing I n s t a l l a t i o n . 273

6-12. Study Layout f o r GE E3 Engine Wing I n s t a l l a t i o n Aft

of Wing. 274

C-13. Study Layout f o r GE E3 Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n , Fan Case-

b u n t e d Accessories. 275

C-14. Study Layout f o r GE E3 Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n , Core-Uounted

A c c e s s o r i e s , 0% Chord Exhaust P o s i t i o n . 276.

C-15. Study Layout f o r GE E3 Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n , Fan Case-

h u n t e d A c c e s s o r i e s , 0% Chord Exhaust P o s i t i o n . 277

C-16. Study Layout f o r GE E3 Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n , Core-Mounted

Accessories, 15% Chord Exhaust P o s i t i o n . 278

C-17. Study Layout f o r GE E3 Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n , Core-Mounted

Accessories, 105-Inch-Diameter Nacelle. 279

C-18. Study Layout f o r GE E3 Engine I n s t a l l a t i o n , Fan Case-

b u n t e d A c c e s s o r i e s , 102-Inch-Diameter Nacelle. 280

c-19. O v e r a l l F u e l Heating System Schematic. 293

c-20. P r e l i m i n a r y Fuel Heating System Schematic. 294

c-21. F u e l I E n g i n e O i l Temperature P r o f i l e . 296

c-22. E f f e c t o f T h r o t t l i n g Back on Fuel Flow. 298

C-23. E f f e c t o f T h r o t t l i n g Back on Fuel Temperature. 299

 APPENDIX C
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

c-I . A i r c r a f t Design Requirements. 245

c-I I. Aircraft Characteristics. 2 46

c-I 11. D i r e c t Operating Costs T r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l Range Domestic

Trijets. 250

c-IV * DAC DOC Method f o r GE E3 Study. 251

c-v A i r c r a f t Drag. 253

c-VI . A i r c r a f t Weight Breakdowns. 256

c-VI I. Sensitivity Factors . 257

c-VIII. Airframe Generated Noise. 258

c-IX. Nonpropulsive Noise Study. 259

c-x. Accessory Gearbox Power Requirements . 263

c-XI . I n s t a l l a t i o n Elapsed T i m e Goals. 268

c-XII. Replacement Labor Study f o r Core-Mounted Engine

Accessories. 284

c-XIII. Replacement Labor Study f o r Fan Core-Mounted Engine

Accessories. 287

c-XIV Unscheduled Removals f o r Fan Case-Mounted Accessories

Versus Core Mounted A c c e s s o r i e s . 291

c-xv * Performance Summar f o r Regenerative Fuel Heating System

on DAC Candidate E 4 Engine Transport. 297

234
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This s t u d y is based on an a i r p l a n e which i s an advanced technology

d e r i v a t i v e of t h e DC-10 as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e C-1. This s e l e c t i o n w a s
a r r i v e d a t from a s o l i c i t a t i o n of t h e views of Douglas marketing and e n g i -
n e e r i n g personnel on a l o g i c a l and l i k e l y new a i r f r a m e .

Taking i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t r a f f i c growth f o r e c a s t s , a i r l i n e f l e e t
compositions and technology d e v e l o ment a c t i v i t i e s , t h e l o g i c a l t r a n s
t o u t i l i z e e n g i n e s based on NASA Eg technology i n t h e e a r l y 1990 t i m e
appeared t o be a i r c r a f t w i t h i n c r e a s e d s e a t i n g c a p a c i t y r e l a t i v e t o t h e
DC-10 and d e s i g n emphasis on reduced f u d l consumption. The need t o minimize
new development c o s t s r e s u l t e d i n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f s t r e t c h e d DC-lo's employ-
i n g advanced t e c h n o l o g i e s . A domestic v e r s i o n i n c o r p o r a t i n g a 65-foot f u s e -
l a g e s t r e t c h w i t h a wing area compatible w i t h a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l v e r s i o n w a s
c o n f i g u r e d . This a i r c r a f t growth would f o l l o w an i n i t i a l s t r e t c h i n t h e
e a r l y 1980's as i n d i c a t e d i n Figure 6-2.

235
 44
5
.I4

0
.r4
w
w
w
1
h
bo

23 6
 I-
LL
a
a
0
U
.
I

a
m
* w

U
a
Q)
U
c
0
V

al
k
3
M
.i
Eu

Zain
o z w
u e m

237
 2.0 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FEATURES

The s e l e c t i o n o f advanced technology f e a t u r e s was based on r e s u l t s from

r e c e n t s t u d i e s and on-going technology development programs i n c l u d i n g t h e
NASA A i r c r a f t Energy E f f i c i e n c y program a c t i v i t i e s on Composites and t h e
Energy E f f i c i e n t T r a n s p o r t .

2.1 AERODYNAMICS

Advancements i n aerodynamics p r o v i d e a major improvement i n a i r c r a f t

e f f i c i e n c y . F i g u r e C-3 l i s t s t h e major e l e m e n t s .

2.1.1 Advanced Wing Design

One o f t h e prominent f e a t u r e s o f t h e advanced a i r p l a n e i s t h e new h i g h

a s p e c t r a t i o wing u s i n g s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l s e c t i o n s and w i n g l e t s . Funda-
m e n t a l l y , t h e s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l g e n e r a t e s g r e a t e r amounts o f l i f t f o r a
g i v e n t h i c k n e s s and d r a g t h a n a c o n v e n t i o n a l a i r f o i l . The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g
geometric c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e a s l i g h t l y b l u n t e r n o s e , a f l a t t e r upper s u r -
f a c e a n d ' a hi$ghly cambered t h i n t r a i l i n g edge r e l a t i v e t o a c o n v e n t i o n a l
airfoil.

The b e n e f i t s provided by t h e s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l f o r wing d e s i g n c a n

be u t i l i z e d i n s e v e r a l ways. From p u r e l y aerodynamic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e
c r u i s e speed and l i f t i n g c a p a b i l i t y ( b u f f e t boundary) could be i n c r e a s e d f o r
t h e same wing sweep and t h i c k n e s s . Because o f t h e emphasis on f u e l e f f i c i e n c y ,
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l technology t o t h e E3 a i r c r a f t h a s
been t o i n c r e a s e wing t h i c k n e s s w h i l e s t i l l a c h i e v i n g some b e n e f i t s i n b u f f e t
boundary. The i n c r e a s e d wing t h i c k n e s s p r o v i d e s a s t r u c t u r a l weight advantage
a s w e l l a s an i n c r e a s e i n t a k e o f f and l a n d i n g C b a x . The i n c r e a s e d C h a x ,
improved b u f f e t boundary and weight r e d u c t i o n due t o t h e t h i c k n e s s i n c r e a s e ,
r e s u l t i n a r e d u c t i o n i n wing area (and t h u s f u r t h e r weight r e d u c t i o n ) . '
P a r t of t h i s weight r e d u c t i o n h a s been u t i l i z e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e wing a s p e c t
r a t i o t o reduce induced d r a g . Winglets i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e moderately
h i g h wing a s p e c t r a t i o w i l l p r o v i d e a l a r g e induced d r a g r e d u c t i o n w i t h o u t
t h e e x c e s s i v e wing span and t h e consequent large a i r p o r t g a t e space r e q u i r e -
ments t h a t r e s u l t from t h e use of v e r y high a s p e c t r a t i o s .

The wing d e s i g n i n c o r p o r a t e s a i r f o i l shape and t h i c k n e s s v a r i a t i o n s

c r o s s t h e span t o c o u n t e r a c t wing-fuselage i n t e r f e r e n c e and o t h e r t h r e e -
dimensional planform e f f e c t s and t o m a i n t a i n as much of t h e two-dimensional
drag-divergence Mach number c a p a b i l i t y of t h e advanced a i r f o i l s a s p o s s i b l e .
The wing t w i s t and t a p e r r a t i o a r e s e l e c t e d t o produce minimum induced d r a g ,
c o n s i d e r i n g t h e t r a d e o f f s i n wing weight and s t a l l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

NASA h a s done e x p l o r a t o r y development o f t h e s e advanced a i r f o i l s i n c l u d i n g

f l i g h t t e s t i n g on a n F-8 r e s e a r c h a i r p l a n e . Douglas has d e s i g n e d , developed
and f l i g h t t e s t e d s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l s on two d i f f e r e n t wings on t h e YC-15
AMST p r o t o t y p e a i r c r a f t . R e s u l t s from r e c e n t Douglas/EET wind t u n n e l programs
have s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h a t these advanced a i r f o i l s w i l l provide t h e d e s i r e d
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r a h i g h a s p e c t r a t i o wing a p p l i c a t i o n .

238
 X
z3

n
z
4

1
pe:
W
u
w
3
5 cd
%
I cr)
I
u
2 pe:
F4
sFrr Q)

:
W &.I
cl 3
4
H I
u w
z
M
.A
Er,
w
E
pe:
rn
w 8
-4 w
2W W
c-7
u
v3
I
PI z 0
3
m
H
3 E
u * *
z,3

239
 The w i n g l e t concept as w e l l a s t h e s u p e r c r i t i c a l wing were wind t u n n e l
t e s t e d by D r . Whitcomb of NASA Langley, and have been under s t u d y f o r a
number of a i r c r a f t a p p l i c a t i o n s . A r e c e n t l y completed Douglas/EET t a s k
generated a n optimized h i g h a s p e c t r a t i o s u p e r c r i t i c a l wing which Considered
t h e w i n g l e t as p a r t o f t h e o r i g i n a l d e s i g n . A j o i n t USAF/NASA program is
c u r r e n t l y p u r s u i n g w i n g l e t i n s t a l l a t i o n on a KC-135A a i r c r a f t . I n p r e p a r -
a t i o n f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y , e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g a t c r u i s e speed and
low-speed h i g h - l i f t c o n d i t i o n s h a s been conducted.

A w i n g l e t development program f o r p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e Douglas

DC-10 i s c u r r e n t l y a c t i v e . The w i n g l e t d e s i g n h a s taken i n t o account t h e
e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s of D r . Whitcomb. This d e s i g n , i n v a r i o u s forms accord-
i n g t o t h e s p e c i f i c model o f DC-10, w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y wind t u n n e l t e s t e d a t
c r u i s e speed i n t h e NASA Langley e i g h t - f o o t wind t u n n e l i n 1978 as p a r t o f
t h e NASA ACEE program, and demonstrated t h e performance p o t e n t i a l compared
t o wing t i p e x t e n s i o n s . The program w i l l c o n t i n u e development through 1979
i n t h e low-speed h i g h - l i f t regime and w i l l e v a l u a t e t h e s t a b i l i t y and con-
t r o l characteristics. Other c o n c u r r e n t work a t Douglas i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e
s t r u c t u r a l and o t h e r f a c e t s o f t h e w i n g l e t i n s t a l l a t i o n . C o n t i n u a t i o n of
on-going e f f o r t s forms t h e b a s i s f o r t h e advanced wing d e s i g n i n t h e E3
airplanes.

2.1.2 Advanced High-Lift System

The h i g h l i f t system f e a c u r e s two-segment t r a i l i n g edge f l a p s i n con-

j u n c t i o n w i t h a v a r i a b l e camber Keueger l e a d i n g edge. The two-segment f l a p
p r o v i d e s h i g h e x t e n s i o n c a p a b i l i t y and t h e l a r g e chord forward segment and
smaller chord a u x i l i a r y f l a p p r o v i d e an optimum camber d i s t r i b u t i o n . The
f l a p i s continuous from t h e s i d e of t h e f u s e l a g e t o 80 p e r c e n t of t h e wing
span, a v o i d i n g t h e high-speed ( i n b o a r d ) a i l e r o n c u t o u t and t h e a s s o c i a t e d
l o s s of l i f t and i n c r e a s e i n d r a g . The f u l l - s p a n l e a d i n g edge Krueger f l a p
w i l l a l l o w f o r t a i l o r i n g t o provide good s t a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and c o n t r o l
s t a l l p r o g r e s s i n a c r o s s t h e span.

This h i g h - l i f t system d e s i g n w i l l provide e x c e l l e n t C L c a~p a b ~i l i t y~

and v e r y h i g h l i f t - t o - d r a g r a t i o s a l l o w i n g t h e u s e of small wing a r e a and
engine t h r u s t s i z e . Maximum f l a p d e f l e c t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o 30 degrees t o
reduce approach n o i s e by minimizing both approach t h r u s t and a i r f r a m e gener-
a t e d n o i s e . An a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t i s reduced f u e l consumption.

Development work on t h i s h i g h - l i f t s y s t e m d e s i g n i s proceeding, l e a d i n g

t o a p p l i c a t i o n i n t h e next g e n e r a t i o n Douglas t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t . Extensive
two dimensional wind t u n n e l t e s t i n g and a n a l y t i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t u d i e s
have been conducted - i n t h e l a s t few y e a r s . An e x t e n s i v e wind t u n n e l program
which a s p a r t o f t h e Douglas/EET e f f o r t was r e c e n t l y completed u s i n g a f u l l
span high a s p e c t r a t i o s u p e r c r i t i c a l wing w i t h s e v e r a l combinations of h i g h
1i f t sy s t em.

2.2 MATE RIALS

M a t e r i a l improvements expected a r e shown i n Figure C-4. Improvements i n

metal a l l o y s and s t r u c t u r e f a b r i c a t i o n techniques a s w e l l a s t h e major use
o f advanced composites a r e v i s u a l i z e d . The a p p l i c a t i o n of advanced
composites t o primary s t r u c t u r e i s dependent on major technology development
sponsored by NASA.
240
 m
rn
w
cl

a
a,
0
C
m
w s
a
3
3
m
4

rr:
0
0
Cll
tr,

241
 2.2.1 Advanced Composites

Major advanced composite technology development a c t i v i t i e s have been

underway f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . Douglas composite programs, w i t h major funding
support from NASA, are l e a d i n g t o widespread a p p l i c a t i o n o f composites i n
f u t u r e t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t . Current NASA sponsored advanced composite programs
a t Douglas i n c l u d e development of t h e DC-10 r u d d e r , v e r t i c a l t a i l and a wing
study .

Expected a p p l i c a t i o n areas f o r composite m a t e r i a l s i n t h e n e x t g e n e r a t i o n

o f t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t i n c l u d e c o n t r o l s u r f a c e s , f l o o r beams, f a i r i n g s , l a n d i n g
g e a r doors and carbon b r a k e s . I f emphasis i s p l a c e d on c o n t i n u e d composite
technology development, by t h e e a r l y 1 9 9 0 ' ~d e~s i g n , f a b r i c a t i o n and r e p a i r
techniques should have advanced t o t h e p o i n t t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n areas may be
expanded t o i n c l u d e wing and empennage primary s t r u c t u r e . Use o f composites
i n primary s t r u c t u e s f o r t h e E3 s t u d y a i r c r a f t i s assumed. The f u s e l a g e
p r e s s u r e s h e l l w i l l s t i l l be o f metal c o n s t r u c t i o n and w i l l n o t have changed
n o t i c e a b l y from c u r r e n t DC-10 d e s i g n s e x c e p t f o r t h e i n c r e a s e d use o f bonded
metal s t r u c t u r e and improved a l l o y s . Composite advantages i n c l u d e s i g n i f i -
c a n t s t r u c t u r a l weight r e d u c t i o n , and w i t h t h e f a l l i n g p r i c e o f composite
materials r e l a t i v e t o m e t a l s , minimum p r i c e e s c a l a t i o n due t o i n f l a t i o n .

2.2.2 Metals

Improved a l l o y s are expected as w e l l a s t h e use o f bonded s t r u c t u r e s

r e s u l t i n g from t h e PABST program p r e s e n t l y being conducted under A i r Force
sponsorship.

The forward f u s e l a g e s e c t i o n o f a C-15 a i r f r a m e has been f a b r i c a t e d

u s i n g bonded s t r u c t u r e and t e s t i n g h a s been underway.

2.3 SYSTEMS

2.3.1 L o n g i t u d i n a l S t a b i l i t y Augmentation System (CLLSAS)

The proposed E3 a i r c r a f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s i n c l u d e a s t a t i c s t a b i l i t y
augmentation system t h a t allows o p e r a t i o n a t a c e n t e r - o f - g r a v i t y range a f t
of t h a t o f an unaugmented a i r c r a f t . The CLLSAS system p r o v i d e s angle-of-attack
s t a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i m i l a r t o those o f t h e DC-10. The more a f t c e n t e r -
o f - g r a v i t y l o c a t i o n reduces t h e aerodnamic b a l a n c i n g down load c a r r i e d by
t h e h o r i z o n t a l t a i l . T h i s r e s u l t s i n lower t r i m d r a g and a weight s a v i n g s
due t o t h e smaller h o r i z o n t a l t a i l and wing r e q u i r e d . The aLSAS system
provides p o s i t i v e s t a b i l i t y f o r a l l f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s , e n s u r i n g t h e proper
f e e l f o r c o n t r o l column motions and f o r c e s r e q u i r e d f o r manuevering t h e
a i r c r a f t . The system employs p i t c h r a t e , p i t c h a t t i t u d e and normal a c c e l -
e r a t i o n as feedback parameters t o independent augmentation computers which
provide c o n t r o l i n p u t s i n s e r i e s w i t h p i l o t commands t o t h e f o u r e l e v a t o r
segments and t h e h o r i z o n t a l s t a b i l i z e r .

I n o r d e r t o e x p l o r e thoroughly t h e requirements and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s

of a i r c r a f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n , f l y i n g q u a l i t i e s , s a f e t y and r e l i a b i l i t y , c o n t r o l
s y s t e m d e s i g n and economics, Douglas has embarked on a study u t i l i z i n g an
advanced d e r i v a t i v e of t h e DC-10 t r a n s p o r t . A s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of t h i s
t a s k i s proceeding under t h e ACEE program. During 1977 an e x t e n s i v e p i l o t e d
242
s i m u l a t i o n , t o e x p l o r e a i r c r a f t f l y i n g q u a l i t i e s on t h e Douglas s i x - d e g r e e
o f motion s i m u l a t o r , w a s conducted. This s t u d y w a s expanded i n 1978 t o
i n c l u d e t h e e f f e c t o f c o n t r o l system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n c l u d i n g f a i l u r e c a s e s
and t r a n s i e n t phenomena.

2.3.2 Wing Load A 1 l e v i a t i o n

The use of c o n t r o l s u r f a c e movement t o r e g u l a t e t h e n e t load and i t s

d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e wing s t r u c t u r e can be used t o reduce bending moments and
t h e r e f o r e reduce weight.

An a d d i t i o n a l advantage i s t h a t r i d e q u a l i t y w i l l be improved. P r i n c i -
p a l l y , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e s e f u n c t i o n s w i l l be a p p l i e d t o t h e c o n t r o l o f
manuever l o a d s and g u s t l o a d s .

The u s e of a c t i v e systems f o r f l u t t e r s u p p r e s s i o n , which a l t e r s t h e

apparent mass o r s t i f f n e s s , o r aerodynamic damping, i s expected t o be employed
t o provide a p p r o p r i a t e f l u t t e r speed margins. Even i n t h e extremely u n l i k e l y
e v e n t o f complete system f a i l u r e , t h e a i r c r a f t w i l l n o t be f l u t t e r c r i t i c a l
w i t h i n t h e normal o p e r a t i n g e n v e l o p e .

The use of c o n t r o l d e v i c e s t o l i m i t load i s n o t uncommon. However, t h e

f u l l a p p l i c a t i o n of wing load a l l e v i a t i o n i n a t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t i n v o l v e s
c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n n o t o n l y of t h e t e c h n i c a l f a c t o r s , b u t a l s o t h e regu-
l a t o r y requirements and o p e r a t i n g f a c t o r s such as d i s p a t c h r e l i a b i l i t y .
Advanced techniques t o improve t h e d e s i g n p r o c e s s e s are under development,
f o r example, by NASA i n t h e ACEE program. I n t h i s program, l a r g e - s c a l e
d r o n e s , u s i n g a h i g h a s p e c t r a t i o s u p e r c r i t i c a l wing w i t h a c t i v e c o n t r o l s ,
w i l l be t e s t e d t o c o r r e l a t e d e s i g n t e c h n i q u e s . A number of o t h e r a p p l i c a -
t i o n s a r e a l s o under s t u d y o r development. I n t h e t r a n s p o r t f i e l d , a s i g -
n i f i c a n t i n t e r e s t h a s developed i n t o a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r c u r r e n t t r a n s p o r J s o r
t h e i r d e r i v a t i v e s . The Lockhead L-1011 e x p e r i m e n t a l development, conducted
p a r t l y under t h e ACEE program, i s now f l y i n g . A t Douglas, d e s i g n i s pro-
ceeding f o r a s y s t e m r e l a t e d t o t h e DC-10. Activity in t h i s field is a l s o
t o be pursured i n combination w i t h t h e ACEE program.

2.3..3 Other

Improvements i n o t h e r a i r c r a f t systems a r e e x p e c t e d . Some of t h e s e

are :

e D i g i t a l a v i o n i c s - reduced weight and improved r e l i a b i l i t y and

capab i 1i t y .
F l i g h t performance management - reduced a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n a l f u e l
consumption.
e A i r c o n d i t i o n i n g - reduced engine bleed r e q u i r e m e n t s .
0 APU - reduced weight and f u e l consumption.
e Advanced c o c k p i t d i s p l a y s - reduced weight and improved performance.

These improvements, r e l a t i v e t o c u r r e n t a i r c r a f t s y s t e m s , can be i n c o r - I

porated i n t o f u t u r e a i r c r a f t d e s i g n s and a r e assumed t o be u t i l i z e d i n t h e

E3 a i r c r a f t .

243
 3.0 AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTIONS

Using t h e advanced t e c h n o l o g i e s d e s c r i b e d w i t h r e s u l t s from on-going

s t u d i e s and technology development programs, a i r c r a f t s i z i n g s t u d i e s were
conducted u s i n g Douglas computer programs. The d e s i g n r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e
a i r c r a f t i n c l u d e t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a common wing s i z e t o s a t i s f y t h e needs o f
both a domestic t r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l and i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l range v e r s i o n . The
r e q u i r e m e n t s shown on Table C-I are based t o a g r e a t e x t e n t on t h e DC-10-10
t r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l and t h e DC-10-30 i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l range a i r c r a f t . Design
c r u i s e Mach number w a s reduced from t h e DC-10 l e v e l s t o r e d u c e f u e l consump-
t i o n . The domestic a i r c r a f t i s shown i n F i g u r e C-5. An i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l
range v e r s i o n would r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l t h r u s t and a four-wheel c e n t e r l i n e
main l a n d i n g g e a r assembly t o accommodate t h e h i g h e r g r o s s w e i g h t .

3.1 AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS

The a i r c r a f t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are shown i n Table C - I 1 compared t o t h o s e

which would r e s u l t from t h e u s e o f s c a l e d CF6 e n g i n e s . The a i r c r a f t i n c o r -
p o r a t e s a DC-10 f u s e l a g e s t r e t c h e d 65 f e e t , a new h i g h a s p e c t r a t i o wing
w i t h s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l s and w i n g l e t s , a new empennage and advanced
a i r c r a f t systems. The b a s i c mixed c l a s s s e a t i n g c a p a c i t y i s 458 p a s s e n g e r s
i n t h e domestic v e r s i o n w i t h lower deck g a l l e y . Oversize c a r g o doors p e r m i t
t h e accommodation o f p a l l e t s i n b o t h t h e forward and c e n t e r c a r g o compart-
ments. The a f t b u l k c a r g o compartment i s t h e same s i z e a s i n t h e DC-10-30.
The f l i g h t crew c o n s i s t s of a t h r e e man c o c k p i t crew and 15 c a b i n a t t e n d a n t s .

The wing area w a s set by t h e requirement f o r a 31,000 f o o t i n i t i a l

c r u i s e a l t i t u d e c a p a b i l i t y f o r a n i n t e r c o n t i n e n t a l range v e r s i o n . The wing
d e s i g n i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e l a t e s t wind t u n n e l t e s t s and a n a l y t i c a l
s t u d i e s . L a t e r a l c o n t r o l i s provided by s p o i l e r s and t h e a l l - s p e e d o u t b o a r d
a i l e g o n . This a l l o w s t h e f l a p t o e x t e n d from t h e s i d e of t h e body t o 80
p e r c e n t span w i t h o u t i n t e r r u p t i o n , and w i t h t h e l i m i t e d f l a p d e f l e c t i o n o f
30 d e g r e e s , r e s u l t s i n lower r e q u i r e d t h r u s t l e v e l s and less n o i s e . Wing
load a l l e v i a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of maneuver and g u s t load a l l e v i a t i o n i s used t o
reduce wing w e i g h t .

H o r i z o n t a l t a i l a s p e c t r a t i o h a s been i n c r e a s e d compared t o t h e c u r r e n t
DC-10 t o reduce t r i m d r a g .

The wing, h o r i z o n t a l t a i l and v e r t i c a l t a i l u t i l i z e composites i n p r i -

mary and secondary s t r u c t u r e s t o minimize w e i g h t .

The s c a l e d t h r u s t s i z e o f t h e G . E . s t u d y e n g i n e was s e t by t h e t h r u s t
l i m i t e d i n i t i a l c r u i s e a l t i t u d e requirement o f 33,000 f t . The r e s u l t i n g
t a k e o f f f i e l d l e n g t h i s 7400 f t . compared t o t h e requirement of n o t t o ex-
ceed 8000 f t . , i n d i c a t i n g a r e a s o n a b l e match between a i r f r a m e and e n g i n e
characteristics.

3.2 DIRECT OPERATING COST

The d i r e c t o p e r a t i n g c o s t f o r tho advanced a i r p l a n e was determined

u s i n g e n g i n e c o s t s s u p p l i e d by G . E . For comparative p u r p o s e s , t h e d i r e c t
o p e r a t i n g c o s t was a l s o determined f o r t h e same a i r f r a m e technology b u t
244
 0 0 0 0 m
m
e
o c
m
vr-
o
-
0
o
4
4
-
0
m
d
I
d
m

m
m
m

W
I
U
0) cr w
rl 0 n C 3
a 4
P
d a
H
z
W S
22
-m
W

2
2
a
0
z
c;la
W
m
n H
m W
a
c z
I4 z
U
ca
W
4z
Hcr
W
x, z-
z
W

245

I'
 Table C-11. GE E3 A i r c r a f t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

Domestic T r a n s c o n t i n e n t a l Range

Engine Scaled CF6-50C Advanced

Mixed Class S e a t s 458 45 8

Design Range ( N a u t i c a l M i l e s ) 3 ,000 3 ,000

Engine T h r u s t S i z e (LB/Engine) 44 630 4 1 ,360

Adjusted Wing Area (SQ FT) 5,190 4,680

Weights:

Maximum Takeoff (LB) 539,000 499 ,000

Maximum Landing (LB) 475,000 459,000

O p e r a t o r ' s Empty (LB) 303 240 289,950

Performance :

C r u i s e Mach Number 0.80 0.80

Takeoff F i e l d Length, MTOGW, SL 6 ,900 7 ,400

8 4 O ~(FT)

Approach Speeds, 120 124

P a s s e n g e r s , Bags , Reserves
(KEAS

T h r u s t Limited I n i t i a l C r u i s e 33 000 33 ,000

A l t i t u d e (FT)

B u f f e t Limited I n i t i a l Cruise 37,lCO 36 ,500

A l t i t u d e (FT)

Fuel Burned A t Design Range (LB) 123,060 98,650

(100% Passenger Load F a c t o r )

Typical Stage Length ( N a u t i c a l 2 ,000 1,000

Miles)

Fuel Burned A t Typical Range (LB) 39,940 32,630

(60% Passenger
(30% Cargo
} Load F a c t o r s )

246
e'

*
e
s c a l e d CF6 e n g i n e s . The comparison i s shown i n Table C - I 1 1 and t h e DOC
c a l c u l a t i o n method i n Table C-IV.

The a i r p l a n e p a r a s i t e and induced d r a g a r e shown i n Table C-V. Nacelle

d r a g i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e engine d a t a . The c o m p r e s s i b i l i t y d r a g increment i s
shown i n Figure C-6. The t a k e o f f and l a n d i n g d r a g p o l a r s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n
Figure C-7.

3.4 WEIGHT

Airframe weight breakdowns are shown i n Table C-VI. The weights are
based on technology advancements i n c l u d i n g t h e widespread u s e o f advanced
composites.

3.5 SENSITIVITY FACTORS

S e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r s were g e n e r a t e d and are shown i n Table C - V I I . These

f a c t o r s provide a means t o assess t h e impact o f p e r t u r b a t i o n s i n s p e c i f i c
f u e l consumption, e n g i n e weight and n a c e l l e d r a g on a i r c r a f t w e i g h t s , e n g i n e
s i z e , and f u e l burned f o r t h e s t u d y m i s s i o n s .

3.6 NOISE

The a i r f r a m e o r non-propulsive n o i s e w i t h f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s and e n g i n e

power s e t t i n g s a t t h e FAR n o i s e measuring p o i n t s a r e shown i n Table C - V I I I .
Sound p r e s s u r e l e v e l s by frequency band and d i r e c t i o n a t t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s
are shown i n Table C-IX.

3.7 SECONDARY POWER

The secondary power requirements have been e s t i m a t e d and t h e mechanical

power requirements are shown i n Table C-X. For h y d r a u l i c power, t h e t i m e
average c r u i s e requirement i n s t i l l a i r (without t u r b u l e n c e ) i s 31 h o r s e -
power p e r e n g i n e . This i s based on h y d r a u l i c pumps i n average c o n d i t i o n
w i t h nominal a i r c r a f t h y d r a u l i c system leakage. The maximum o r s i z i n g
requirement f o r h y d r a u l i c power i s f o r two pumps p e r engine o p e r a t i n g a t
f u l l c a p a c i t y . One hundred s e v e n t y f i v e horsepower p e r e n g i n e i s r e q u i r e d
f o r pumps t h a t have had c o n s i d e r a b l e usage.

The t i m e average a c c e s s o r y gearbox power r e q u i r e d by t h e g e n e r a t o r s i s

75 horsepower p e r e n g i n e . This i s based on a survey made on power usage i n
t h e DC-IO. The DC-10 average power usage was s c a l e d up t o provide f o r t h e
i n c r e a s e i n number of passengers i n t h i s s t u d y . The maximum o r s i z i n g
requirement i s 257 horsepower p e r e n g i n e .

The average pneumatic power r e q u i r e d i n t h e form of compressor b l e e d i s

shown i n Figure C-8.

The maximum b l e e d c a s e i s f o r one pneumatic s y s t e m o u t and an engine

o u t , under i c i n g c o n d i t i o n s . For t h i s c a s e , a t a 15,000 f o o t hold c o n d i t i o n ,
i t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t one engine m u s t provide 0 . 7 pounds/second i n l e t cowl
a n t i - i c e bleed with a temperature g r e a t e r than 500°F p l u s 5 pounds/second
249
 OI 0 0 PI
C 0 vz 00
.I4 0 9
bo 0 co 9
c m
w **
*
I-

0 m
m vz
e
N N
m

a,
bo

5
Q
U

3C
.rl
U
C u 0 0 4
0 0 0 9 C o
0
2rd
k
VI
a
k
u
I
m
*
.
0
m
0
m
N
4
a
-
m -
a p 0

E-c 9
a *
m a,
U rl 0 0 4
m m o o v z
0 0 o m
u m 4 c o N
bo
C
.A
U
m
k
a,
a
0
U
u
aJ n

W
W
W
k
.I4
n
-
z
€0

m
m
4
W

I
u
a,
rl
n
rd h
E-c a
3
U
VI
u
w
rd

250
 Table C-IV. DAC DOC Method For GE E3 Study

D i r e c t o p e r a t i n g c o s t s f o r t h e GE domestic E3 a i r c r a f t a r e i n 1978 d o l l a r s
and c o n s i s t o f t h e f o l l o w i n g components:

Cockpit Crew ( 3 man crew)

TOW
$ / f l i g h t = t b x (280 + 3 0 . 3 X 1ooooo )

where: t b = block t i m e (hours)

TOW = maximum t a k e o f f weight ( l b )

Airframe D e Drec i a t i o n

$/flight (1-R) x CA x ( 1 + SA) x D/DA/P

where: R = r e s i d u a l v a l u e r a t i o = 0.10

CA = a i r c r a f t p r i c e less b a r e e n g i n e p r i c e (1978 $1
SA = a i r f r a m e s p a r e s r a t i o = 0.08

D = t r i p distance (nautical miles)

DA = d e p r e c i a t i o n p e r i o d = 16 years

P = annual p r o d u c t i v i t y = 1200000 n a u t i c a l m i l e s / y e a r

Engine D e p r e c i a t i o n

$ / f l i g h t = (1-R) x C e x N e x ( 1 + SEI x D/DA/P

where: Ce = p r i c e o f one b a r e engine (1978 $1

Ne = number of e n g i n e s = 3

Se = e n g i n e s p a r e s r a t i o n = 0.25

Insurance

$ / f l i g h t = I x (CA + Ne x Ce) x D/P

where : I = annual i n s u r a n c e r a t e = 0.0075

Landing Fees

$ / f l i g h t = L x TOW/1000

where: L = l a n d i n g f e e r a t e p e r 1000 l b o f maximum t a k e o f f

weight = 0.75 $/lo00 lb
251
-
Fue 1

$ / f l i g h t = Cf x FB / 6.7

where : Cf = f u e l p r i c e = 0.50 $ / g a l l o n

FB block f u e l

Airframe Maintenance

$/flight = t F X [162 X 334 X X (WA - 240000.)]

+ 400 + 40 x x (WA - 240000.

where : t F = flight t i m e (hr) = t g - 0.167

WA = a i r f r a m e weight ( l b )

= m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s empty weight - bare e n g i n e weight

Engine Maintenance

$ / f l i g h t = 223 x t~ X Gf o r advanced e n g i n e

= 260 X t F X@& for CF6-50C

where: E, = engine t h r u s t s c a l e f a c t o r

252
 n
m
U
N n 0
U m 4
W 4 W
4 W
4 d a,
m 4
hl
.j
.. 0
2
U
4
d
M
II m E
*rl
VI 3
co
rA
0 a,
4 a
1
II rl
0
d c
.rl
P
l a w
.rl
0 m
hl in
4 o\
a
nf 0
h
II
a
4
PGU
4: 4

2
3
a
4
5
.d
3
LI
W
nf
k
0
k
.rl
4

.. ..
cd
a, M
cd
..
M
7 E cd
k
Gl
a,
U
.rl
a
9)
u)
cd
u5
k a
nf c
Q4 H

253
 VI
0
d
U
VI
d
k
a,
U
0
cd
k
(d

6
a,
VI
.I4
pc:
M
(d
k
n

d m 0
8 8
2 54
t t

n
=:
k
a
J
rn
k
(d
4
0
pc
U
w
rl
G
l
I
c
M
rl
X

h
I
u
Q)
k
3
M
.rl
F4

255
 Table C-VI. Aircraft Weight Breakdowns

Domestic Transcontinental Range Trijets

Scaled
CF6-50 Advanced
Weights (lb) Engines Engines

Wing 61,260 55,250

Horizontal Tail 4,980 4,250

Vertical Tail 2 ,320 1,990

Fuse1age 62,720 61,950

Landing Gear 22,120 20 ,360

Propuision* 38,640 36,480

APU 1,435 1,435

Fuel System 2,240 2,130

Flight Controls and Hydraulic 11,880 10 ,540

System

Instruments 1,750 1,750

Air Conditioning and Pneumatics 4,965 4 ,965

Electrica1 6,460 6,460

Avionics 2,700 2,700

Furnishings 53,290 53,290

Ice Protection 730 650

Handling Gear 60 6Q

Manufacturer's Empty Weight 277,550 264,260

Operator's Items 25,690 25,690

Operator's Empty Weight 303 ,240 289,950

*Includes lower vertical tail

256
 \ o m
0 0 0 0 0 0 .
0 0
+ +

9 -
0 0 0 0 0 0 .
0 0
+ +

w o
w
m m m
C l
.rl
M
0
O
+ +# -
+I d
+ O +O 0
+ 0
+ 0
+

O N OW O N
u w In rr) 0
Eu In
v3 + cv
+ \o
+ 07
+
.d
U E
U c
M
& C C
M -4 M
.rl *d 0 Q)
0 80
0 C
h
U
4
2 *d

W
z U
m C
M
E
c
a
-
111
k
Q)
c
k
.A
111
p1
0
0
4

w 5E 0
U
m
3
m L)
m
u
a
s"
4
.d
X
k
0) u
V m 0
x 0" n
IJ
4 a a d a a a a a
Eu H
4 0 3

257
 O d m N
o m +
o m tn
f- I
ln
4

h d O I-
QI -4
U

I-

0 0 I- 0
OI
4
0
2 5 N

c?

2
.rl n
M cn
wc
Qt
a,
n k
k (A M

;8
a, h U
PI w
w W
u 0
(A Q) v
1 3 a,
k a *I4 (A
?i a, u .A
i5 w
Q)
a
0
a, 2
c a n 0 (A 4
w
0
.rl w
U U
w
a, a k
Cll M
U
.rl
a
k k
a
D
r-4
rl
a
W v
.A
-4 8 ..
-a V 0 E u I I aJ a w
C k k .4 (A 3 a h
0 -4 *rl rl C k r-l 0
V 4 4 V H H Err z
258
 0
UI
n
C
0
C
N

H
yr
0

0
0 ...
ooc
000
k 1;
0
9
d

n
a
L

U
e
C
.
VI
4

0
0

0
.+
d

0
0
0
m
d

-
0
2
8
0
c
e

N
cl
LL'
V d
z e 0 . 0
U c) m.?m
-4 lrmr
c ,
11
C
Q 0
* U! L 0
C K z 0
z U c
-J
0.4

n u1 0
U C 0
-I U 0
CL v: 0'

0
0
C
o\

C
e
0
h

o-,
E . ( c
0
C
0

.c

0
3
tr
.
o c
f i u 0
C
t
.
c 3
0
oeo
..a
3 CCCJ
F'

c
d
ni
...
eo0
rccc
4

c
c
 0
*
0
N

0
UJ
II

v)
0
.
c'
9
...
coo
coo
=r 0 0 4
W
c v:
< i
C
n
c

d
0

@
.
Lc\
...
Ni0
Q6C
t d
a
a
I
0
.
lnc
S Z

a.
VI
C L U O
u1
a C 0
.
rn
t - 4
u o
0
n
P
a,
treurd
7 w (v
N 29.4
E:
*rl
c,
E:
0
u
N
M
N
. U .
r n c - 0
m z
N u d o
.
v

h
C
1.

- .II
b-
VI c
.-I
d

... ......
P
7
Z $ c
.
It
a
IL'
C l L O
UI t- c)
rzIWIp
cr,cclA?

cr- 4-c
(cr-;rc-d
z

a,
*A L
m .

4k . L
a
8
2
C'
2
C
2 .-3
.
L
r
. c .1F

a,
rt 1..
P Z
e
C
.
cn
rF

-
L
z
c
U
c
c
ir
.
3
c
(r

>
s .
V
U' I
c
2
 0
W
C
0
0
N
.
II
lr
0
C
0 ...
000
oco
ri:
c a
a = &

r
c z
m u
t ...
uuu
0?4C
0 . .
o=o
cv
I 2

U!
b . c o
3 m
. ...
uurp
UOQ
Uem
c V d
u a
n
P w
0
o
.
sc: zrr
N

.rl

.
c, . . a
-NO
0 u-lncn
v C
If
II
U

cc-
'3 0 . a .
L u G c CJT!
a2 F- P.

h
-' c c
0

ccc.
8 . 0
c5c-

c
c
 90b
c - l e..
c 3 mC?m
c
0

c z
a
n
LL
J L L C

u a c
.
m
18 4L ?
.

.
u, C
n
z 0
c* 3
a (r! t w o

.
a,
a m N
'f N z.4
4
u
E:
0
u
w
bin
d y r
.
N N
U
v - c
2
U
I-
A O
4
.
C V C t . 4

II
. L
t
II

a
d
c
C L L C

U'c 0
, z s
z
.
a,
...
+. 0,+.
.c 4-?
.
r-fir-
* *
F-
O k - 0
C
U L L O
Ec
.
. - I
C
zc?
B-c
. +,

ur u
...
c ?*

r 4JIJ.G
9

y ' E C
k
C P
.
r i = .c
LI

-
H c

.
P
d
I? 3 e

C
C
CII
.
=!
262
 2
.rl
a)
C
'4
M M
C
W
\
E
\
24
E! X
ln 14
14 m
4 N

aJ a)
c
.rl
C
.rl
M M
t: c
W W
\ \

E2 E2
4 m
CI) 14

W
2
3
0,

2 63
264
wing a n t i - i c e flow a t a temperature g r e a t e r t h a n 400°F p l u s 2 . 7 pounds/
second t o provide a i r t o d r i v e one a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g pack. The s i z i n g c a s e
t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e s a t o t a l of 8.4 pounds/second w i t h t h e engine a t 40 t o 60%
of climb t h r u s t .

The above v a l u e s r e f l e c t p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s e s of a c u r r e n t t e s t program

t o reduce bleed flow requirements f o r wing a n t i - i c i n g .

F u r t h e r e v a l u a t i o n s may r e s u l t i n requirements t o r e v i s e t h e wing a n t i -

i c i n g flow r e q u i r e m e n t s . In- a d d i t i o n , p o t e n t i a l means t o reduce b l e e d flow
requirements have been i d e n t i f i e d b u t s u f f i c i e n t work h a s n o t been done t o
r e f l e c t these reductions i n t h i s study.

265
 4.0 AIRFRAME/PRO,PULSION SYSTEM INTEGRATION

P r e l i m i n a r y p r o p u l s i o n system i n t e g r a t i o n requirements have been i n v e s t i -

g a t e d . Study e n g i n e i n s t a l l a t i o n s provided by General E l e c t r i c have been
reviewed; Douglas conducted n a c e l l e l a i r c r a f t i n t e g r a t i o n s t u d i e s and r e q u i r e -
ments f o r e n g i n e i n s t a l l a t i o n i n t h e E3 s t u d y a i r c r a f t have been determined.
R e s u l t s o f t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e r e p o r t e d below.

4.1 NACELLE PLACEMENT

.
The nacelle/pylon/wing r e l a t i o n s h i p must be e s t a b l i s h e d t o minimize
i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g . Wind t u n n e l t e s t s are r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s rela-
tionship. Such t e s t s have been underway a s a p a r t of Douglas a c t i v i t i e s on
t h e NASA Langley Energy E f f i c i e n t Transport Program. F u r t h e r development i s
r e q u r i e b . Figure C-9 shows t h e c u r r e n t r e l a t i o n between n a c e l l e / pylon/wing
r e f l e c t i n g t h e b e s t e s t i m a t e t o d a t e . T e s t r e s u l t s t o d a t e i n d i c a t e a more
a f t l o c a t i o n would have e x c e s s i v e i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g . F u r t h e r , s t u d i e s o f
t h e flow e f f l u x p a t t e r n d u r i n g r e v e r s e t h r u s t shows a more a f t l o c a t i o n
would hsve a problem from impingement on t h e inboard s e c t i o n of t h e v a r i a b l e
camber Kreuger l e a d i n g edge d e v i c e on a s w e p t wing.

4.2 -
PR.ELIMINARY 1990 PROPULSION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

Hew e n g i n e s are introduced because they r e s u l t i n a major improvement

i n economics, p r o v i d e t h e t h r u s t requirement f o r a new a i r p l a n e s i z e , o r
both. I n t h e 199O's, a new e n g i n e based on E3 technology w i l l be expected
t o improve economics because t h e t h r u s t f i z e s o f i n t e r e s t are expected t o be
a v a i l a b l e from c u r r e n t and d e r i v a t i v e v e r s i o n s of CF6, CFM56, JT8D r e f a n ,
JTgD, JTlOD, and €33211 e n g i n e s . Since t h e E3 g o a l i s t o reduce s p e c i f i c
f u e l consumption by 12% and DOC by 5%, o t h e r c o s t components cannot i n c r e a s e ,
and may have t o d e c r e a s e t o p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t i n c e n t i v e f o r development of
a new e n g i n e . It i s t h e r e f o r e expected t h a t o t h e r c o s t s should improve, o r
a t worse, remain t h e same. This needs t o be accomplished w h i l e meeting more
s t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t i o n s and r e q u i r e m e n t s .

4.2.1 Maintenance

The i n s t a l l a t i o n m a i n t a i n a b i l i t y-~ g o a l s should be comparable t o t o d a y ' s

s t a n d a r d s . This r e q u i r e s a c c e s s t o a l l borescope p o r t s w i t h o u t removal of
any component. Elapsed time g o a l s are shown i n T b l e C-XI.

4.2.2 T h r u s t Reversers

Thrust r e v e r s e r s should be improved. compared t o c u r r e n t d e s i g n s . S p e c i f i c

needs a r e l i s t e d below.

1. Fan t h r u s t r e v e r s e r s w i t h e f f l u x d i r e c t i v t y t h a t minimizes d e b r i s
kickup w h i l e e n a b l i n g- r o u t i n e u s e down t o z e r o speed a r e d e s i r e d .
D i r e c t i v i t y t a i l o r i n g c a p a b i l i t y must e x i s t t o match a i r f r a m e re-
quirements t o m a i n t a i n a i r p l a n e c o n t r o l and d r a g .
2 . The o v e r a l l r e v e r s e r e f f e c t i v e n e s s goal i s 40% f o r t h e primary
p l u s f a n on wing e n g i n e s . T a i l engine r e v e r s i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s
can be lower to prevent a i r c r a f t p i t c h u p .
266
t

267
 Table C-XI. I n s t a l l a t i o n Elapsed Time Goals

DESCRIPTION ELAPSED TIME

(Minutes 1

Engine

Build Up N e u t r a l QEC from Basic Engine 2000

Build Up N e u t r a l QEC t o Wing QEC 45
Build Up N e u t r a l QEC t o T a i l QEC 30
Convert Wing QEC t o T a i l QEC 45
Convert T a i l QEC t o Wing QEC 45
Change Wing Engine 60
( I n c l u d i n g Access T i m e and GSE)
Change T a i l Engine 90

Components/Accessories Remove and Replace

I n t e g r a t e d Drive Generator 35
Hydraulic Pump 15
F i r e Detector 15
Main Fuel C o n t r o l 25
Fuel Pump 60
Fuel Heater 30
Primary Nozzle 90
Exhaust Plug w i t h Primary Nozzle Removed 10
Exhaust Plug w i t h Primary Nozzle I n s t a l l e d 15
Fuel Heater A i r Shutoff Solenoid Valve 10
Anti-Icing A i r Shutoff A c t u a t o r Valve 20
D i f f e r e n t i a l P r e s s u r e Switch 6
Nose Cowl Anti-Icing P r e s s u r e Regulator and 7
Shutoff Valve
Starter 20
S t a r t e r Shutoff Valve 5
Hydraulic F i l t e r s 5
Fuel Flow T r a n s m i t t e r 11
Ignition Exciter 7
I g n i t i o n Plugs 7
P r e s s u r e R a t i o Bleed Control 8
Compressor S t a t o r Control 23
Fan+Air Case Cooling S h u t o f f Valves 7
Bleed ( A i r /Fuel 1 Converter Valve 12
Bleed Control Valves 7
Pneumatic P r e s s u r e Regulating Valves 7
Bleed Check Valves 4

268
 3 . Current f a i l - s a f e d e s i g n p r a c t i c e f o r ground o n l y r e v e r s i n g w i l l
be m a i n t a i n e d . The r e v e r s e r s w i l l m a i n t a i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n t h e
e v e n t o f an a c t u a t i o n s y s t e m f a i l u r e .
4. A h y d r a u l i c a c t u a t i o n system i s p r e f e r r e d w i t h r e v e r s e r h y d r a u l i c
f l u i d i s o l a t e d from o t h e r a i r f r a m e h y d r a u l i c f l u i d .

4.2.3 Ozone

C o n s i d e r a t i o n should be given t o p r o v i d i n g b l e e d a i r f o r c a b i n a i r
c o n d i t i o n i n g t h a t h a s an ozone c o n c e n t r a t i o n of less than 0 . 1 ppm. Since
e l e v a t i n g t h e t e m p e r a t u r e of a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g ozone w i l l d e s t r o y t h e ozone,
h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g t h e bleed a i r may be a v i a b l e way t o reduce t h e ozone
c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n t h e c a b i n . Cabin a i r r e c i r c u l a t i o n w i l l reduce ozone
contamination.

4.2.4 Bleed A i r C l e a n l i n e s s

Bleed p o r t s must be designed t o p r e v e n t t h e i n g e s t i o n of s o l i d p a r t i c l e s

t h a t e n t e r t h e e n g i n e i n l e t , o r l i q u i d s (such a s might be g e n e r a t e d w i t h i n
t h e e n g i n e by f l u i d l e a k a g e ) , w i t h o u t u n n e c e s s a r i l y s a c r i f i c i n g t o t a l p r e s -
sure recovery.

Because’an e n g i n e compressor a c t s as a c e n t r i f u g a l s e p a r a t o r , c l e a n a i r
may be e x t r a c t e d a t t h e compressor i n s i d e d i a m e t e r w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t l o s s
of ram p r e s s u r e . The a s s o c i a t e d d i s a d v a n t a g e s are t h e c o s t of making hollow
s t a t o r vanes s u i t a b l e f o r conducting t h i s a i r t o t h e o u t s i d e diameter of t h e
e n g i n e , and t h e p r e s s u r e d r o p of t h e flow t r a v e r s i n g t h e s e r e l a t i v e l y small
passages .
Outside d i a m e t e r p o r t s t h a t are p r o t e c t e d by l o c a t i n g them i n a shadow
zone s a c r i f i c e r a m p r e s s u r e but may be designed t o provide c l e a n a i r as long
as t h e e n g i n e i s r u n n i n g . When t h e e n g i n e i s s t o p p e d , f l u i d s can draw i n t o
such openings i f they occur a t a l o w p o i n t .

4.2.5 Bleed P o r t Locations

Bleed a i r must be a v a i l a b l e from t h e e n g i n e a t f l i g h t i d l e power t o

supply t h e a i r c r a f t pnematic system.

For economy r e a s o n s , bleed must be a v a i l a b l e a t t h e lowest s t a g e t h a t

w i l l s a t i s f y a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g system p r e s s u r e requirements a t maximum a l t i -
tude w i t h t h e lowest engine power u s e f u l f o r c r u i s e . I f t h e maximum a l t i -
tude f o r t h e b a s e l i n e a i r p l a n e i s 39,000 f e e t , a bleed p r e s s u r e o f 20 p s i g
would permit u s i n g DC-10 type components. P r e s s u r e s a s low as 15 p s i g could
be c o n s i d e r e d i f t h e a s s o c i a t e d economy improvement would j u s t i f y t h e develop-
ment o f new and p o s s i b l y more complicated a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g components.

An a d d i t i o n a l , lower s t a g e p o r t l o c a t e d so t h a t t h e d i s c h a r g e tempera-
t u r e c l o s e l y approached b u t d i d n o t exceed 4500F on a h o t day a t s e a l e v e l
w i t h t a k e o f f t h r u s t would e l i m i n a t e t h e need f o r p r e c o o l i n g . Complete e l i m -
i n a t i o n of p r e c o o l i n g could o n l y be j u s t i f i e d by a thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
Changing from DC-10 t o DC-9 pneumatic system concepts f o r p r o v i d i n g s u i t a b l e
i c e p r o t e c t i o n b l e e d temperatures would probably be r e q u i r e d . The i n v e s t i -
would have t o i n c l u d e a s t u d y of t h e p r e s s u r e s u i t a b i l i t y o f t h e next lower

269
s t a g e p r e s s u r e whenever h i g h s t a g e bleed exceeds 450°F a t i d l e power on a
h o t day. Any p r e s s u r e above 25 p s i g a t t h i s lower s t a g e would be s a t i s f a c t o r y .

A completely independent p o r t f o r engine i n l e t i c e p r o t e c t i o n a i r supply

i s d e s i r e d , l o c a t e d a t compressor d i s c h a r g e , o r p r e f e r a b l y a lower s t a g e i f
i t would provide 400°F a t engine i d l e power w i t h ambient temperatures a t t h e
low l i m i t o f t h e FAA i c i n g envelope.

4 . 2 .6 Con t a inme n t

I n a d d i t i o n t o r o t o r b l a d e containment requirements of FAR P a r t 3 3 , any

blade fragment e x i t i n g from t h e e n g i n e s h a l l n o t have s u f f i c i e n t energy t o
p e n e t r a t e n a c e l l e s t r u c t u r e o r systems.

4.3 INSTALLATION STUDIES

I n s t a l l a t i o n s t u d i e s were made reviewing t h e G . E . i n s t a l l a t i o n f o r

a i r f r a m e c o m p a t a b i l i t y . A l i s t i n g of t h e l a y o u t s made i s shown i n Figure C-10
w i t h a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n . The e i g h t l a y o u t s l i s t e d i n Figure C-10 are shown
as F i g u r e s C-11 through (2-18.

Various f o r e and a f t placement o f t h e n a c e l l e r e l a t i v e t o t h e wing were

s t u d i e d i n c l u d i n g l o c a t i o n on t h e t r a i l i n g edge o f t h e wing. The c u r r e n t
study l o c a t i o n w i t h t h e n o z z l e t r a i l i n g edge a t 15% o f t h e wing chord i s
judged t o o f f e r t h e b e s t promise of a t t a i n i n g a d e s i g n which h a s no f a n
r e v e r s e r impingement on wing h i g h l i f t d e v i c e s u r f a c e s w i t h o u t i n c u r r i n g t h e
high r i s k s of n a c e l l e t o wing i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g p e n a l t i e s f o r a f t mounted
n a c e l l e s o r wing f l u t t e r p e n a l t i e s which a r e expected f o r more forward
nacelle positions.

The r e f e r e n c e base G.E. i n s t a l l a t i o n d e s i g n u t i l i z e s a c o r e mounted

accessory arrangement i n o r d e r t o r e t a i n a c i r c u l a r n a c e l l e c r o s s s e c t i o n
which would produce a minimum f r o n t a l and wetted s k i n a r e a w i t h consequent
minimum performance loss due t o n a c e l l e e x t e r n a l d r a g . This approach,
however, r e s u l t s i n reduced a c c e s a b i l i t y t o e n g i n e mounted components and a
more compact and d i f f i c u l t t o m a i n t a i n a c c e s s o r y arrangement. Performance
v e r s u s maintenance c o s t t r a d e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e e f f e c t s on d i s p a t c h d e l a y and
c a n c e l l a t i o n r a t e s are needed. A s a p a r t o f e v a l u a t i o n / a c c e s s o r y arrangement,
t h r e e d i f f e r e n t l a y o u t s t u d i e s were made from which t h e d r a g p e n a l t i e s a s s o -
c i a t e d w i t h f a n c a s e mounted a c c e s s o r i e s could be a s s e s s e d r e l a t i v e t o equiv-
a l e n t n a c e l l e s designed f o r c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r i e s . The f i r s t t w o of
t h e s e s t u d i e s were made u s i n g v e r y p r e l i m i n a r y e s t i m a t e s of a c c e s s o r y package
c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and were l a t e r found t o be v e r y o p t i m i s t i c i n r e g a r d t o a c c e s -
s o r y package volume requirements. A s g r e a t e r d e s i g n d e t a i l concerning t h e
c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r y package w a s received from G . E . , i t was observed t h a t
e a r l i e r s t u d i e s p e r t a i n i n g t o e n g i n e f a n c a s e and o v e r a l l d i a m e t e r s d i d n o t
provide r e a l i s t i c c o r e compartment volumes t o house c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r i e s
without imposing unacceptable f l o w r e s t r i c t i o n s i n t h e f a n e x h a u s t d u c t s
(DAC layout PP-SK-GEE3-006) shown a s Figure C-16. Since t h i s problem d i d
not impact t h e f a n c a s e mounted a c c e s s o r y d e s i g n , d i f f e r e n t engine c a s e and
n a c e l l e b a s i c d i a m e t e r s a r e shown i n t h e f i n a l s t u d y l a y o u t s f o r t h e c o r e
mounted and f a n c a s e mounted a c c e s s o r y arrangements ( R e f . PP-SK-GEE-007 and
PP-SR-GEE3-008 shown a s Figures C-17 and C-18 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .
270
 m

. e * * a

.. .-
In In H
W Q 0
h h h W
mco a h
m
Nmh N h N I
0 1 0 1 n*
-4m -m -IN
0 1 0 1 0 1
urn uco

Y yi Y y ne:
o n
0 W 0 0 x a

Q
-4
0
N
0
m
0
*
0
m
0
\o
0
h
0
a?
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
l a
0 -
l e 0
O h
I
O h
W t m
nh
I W
nh
8,
O h
I O \
m h
W W I W I W I W I W I W I W I
w m rym w n w-l
W
W UN
1 1
8I 2
1
W N
I I
Wr-
W N
I 1
W-l
W N
I I
W N
I 1
urn
I f
271
x YIW Y m S O X N x- X-l
m
1
m
I
m
I
m-4
I
g2 mn.-r
I
m
I
VI
& & & & a a & &
LL & a & a & & a
4
I
I
 m

/\
N
I?

‘I
I

b’

. .

bo

mY
Y
W
a
U

. ... -
 I
I

I
1i
\ !

I
i E
 .
l

i
I
?

! rf
-1-
I
 I-
.N
t

!
I
I

i
I
!
I
!
I
I
!

I 6

5:
b

!
ii
 /;A,
I
I
!

OD
n
I-

! \ I

I
 ..

!
 8
Po

i
rl
U

5
M
L
4.3.1 F i n a l Study C o n f i g u r a t i o n s

The t w o f i n a l e n g i n e i n s t a l l a t i o n s t u d y l a y o u t s (Ref. PP-SK-GEE-007 and

PP-SK-GEE-008) were prepared w i t h t h e primary purpose of comparing t h e c o r e
mounted a c c e s s o r y d e s i g n with a f a n c a s e mounted a c c e s s o r y arrangement. Both
l a y o u t s were s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d i n r e g a r d t o e n g i n e a c c e s s o r i e s and a s s o c i -
a t e d plumbing systems so t h a t a s s e s s m e n t s could be made w i t h r e s p e c t t o
n a c e l l e space a l l o c a t i o n s and m a i n t a i n a b i l i t y . To s e r v e t h i s purpose, s u f f i c i e n t
d e t a i l of e n g i n e and a c c e s s o r y plumbing and w i r i n g r u n s h a s been shown t o
p e r m i t an assessment of t h e removal-replacement times f o r t h o s e e n g i n e i n s t a l -
l a t i o n components which h i s t o r i c a l l y have r e q u i r e d t h e most f r e q u e n t replacements.
Since i t would be i m p o s s i b l e , w i t h i n t h e p r e s e n t budget and s c h e d u l e , t o
show a l l such plumbing and w i r i n g , d i s c r e t i o n h a s t o be used i n d e c i d i n g
which r u n s were t o be shown. The r a t i o n a l e u s e d , h a s been t o show a l l t h o s e
l a r g e d i a m e t e r plumbing o r c a b l e r u n s which, because of t h e i r s i z e and l i m i t e d
choice of l o c a t i o n , could f o r c e t h e use o f d e s i g n s with s e v e r e p e n a l t i e s i n
a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o a d j a c e n t e n g i n e and a c c e s s o r y components. Small d i a m e t e r
p i p i n g and w i r e bundles o f approximately one-half i n c h d i a m e t e r o r less c a n
be designed w i t h a wide l a t i t u d e concerning t h e i r l o c a t i o n and so have n o t
been shown on t h e s u b j e c t drawings s i n c e they should have a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l
impact on n a c e l l e component m a i n t a i n a b i l i t y .

The i n l e t d u c t flow l i n e s , primary e x h a u s t d u c t flow l i n e s and e n g i n e

c o r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s on both engine l a y o u t s a r e i d e n t i c a l and are based on
t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s shown on G.E. drawing 84013267-011, d t d 8-24-78, s c a l e d
t o 40,000 l b . t h r u s t . For t h e c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r y d e s i g n t h e f a n c a s e
e x i t d i a m e t e r , t h e f a n e x h a u s t d u c t d i a m e t e r s and n a c e l l e maximum o u t e r
s u r f a c e d i a m e t e r s are g r e a t e r t h a n t h e corresponding v a l u e s used f o r t h e f a n
c a s e mounted a c c e s s o r y c o n f i g u r a t i o n . As o u t l i n e d i n t h e DAC i n t e r i m E3
r e p o r t (ACEE-15-TR-9735 d t d March 1979) t h i s d i a m e t r a l d i f f e r e n c e was
r e q u i r e d t o accommodate r e a l i s t i c c o r e compartment volumes t o house t h e
a c c e s s o r y package w i t h o u t imposing unaceptable flow r e s t r i c t i o n s i n t h e f a n
exhaust d u c t s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e h a s t h e n e t r e s u l t of both s t u d y n a c e l l e s
having approximately i d e n t i c a l wetted s u r f a c e a r e a v a l u e s even though t h e
f a n c a s e mounted a c c e s s o r y c o n f i g u r a t i o n r e q u i r e s a n accommodating bulge t o
t h e n a c e l l e along t h e bottom c e n t e r - l i n e .

The plumbing systems t h a t d i r e c t l y s e r v i c e t h e e n g i n e c o r e ( i . e .

combustion chamber f u e l supply, v a r i a b l e s t a t o r s e r v o power and a c t i v e t i p
c l e a r a n c e c o n t r o l a i r s u p p l y ) a r e a l s o e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l f o r both s t u d y
l a y o u t s and are d e r i v e d from i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d i n t h e GE/NASA PDR of Nov.
1978 and i n G.E. drawing #4013270-191 d t d 2-16-79 which d e p c i t s t h e ICLS
c o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r customer and e n g i n e s e r v i c e bleed a i r p i p i n g .

One 120 KVA e l e c t r i c a l g e n e r a t o r and two 35 G P M h y d r a u l i c pumps a r e

r e q u i r e d on each engine on t h e DAC E3 t r a n s p o r t . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e
a i r f r a m e a c c e s s o r i e s , t h e a c c e s s o r y gearbox must provide s h a f t power
i n t e r f a c e s f o r engine o i l pumping, engine f u e l c o n t r o l s and e n g i n e s t a r t i n g
f u n c t i o n s . I n t h e c a s e of t h e c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r y d e s i g n , r e a s o n a b l e
n a c e l l e d i a m e t e r s could be maintained o n l y by combining t h e a i r f r a m e e l e c t r i c
power g e n e r a t i g n and engine s t a r t i n g f u c t i o n s i n t o one component i n t h e
form of 8 VSCF/electric s t a r t e r u n i t . This i s p r i m a r i l y due t o t h e i n c r e a s e d
bleed a i r plumbing f o r t h e a c t i v e t i p c l e a r a n c e c o n t r o l systems and s t a r t e r
bleed v a l v e s which l i m i t t h e a c c e s s o r y envelope t o t h e c o r e l e n g t h between
2 81
t h e f a n case s u p p o r t frame and t h e 5 t h s t a g e of t h e h i g h p r e s s u r e compressor.
With t h i s l e n g t h r e s t r i c t i o n t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e a i r d u c t i n g t o a pneumatic
s t a r t e r becomes one o f t h e major advantages of t h e VSCF/electric s t a r t e r
d e s i g n approach.

4.3.1.1 Core Mounted Accessory C o n f i g u r a t i o n

The a c c e s s o r y gearbox f o r t h e c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r y arrangement i s

shown (on drawing #PP-SK-GEE-007) s m i l e shaped and l o c a t e d j u s t a f t o f t h e
f a n case s u p p o r t bulkhead w i t h a l l a c c e s s o r i e s mounted on t h e a f t f a c e o f
t h e gearbox. From l e f t t o r i g h t ( l o o k i n g a f t ) t h e a c c e s s o r i e s are mounted
i n t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r : f u e l c o n t r o l module ( i n c l u d i n g f u e l pump and f u e l /
o i l h e a t e x c h a n g e r ) , e n g i n e o i l pump, VSCF/electric s t a r t e r (on e n g i n e bottom
c e n t e r l i n e i n l i n e w i t h t h e gearbox i n p u t d r i v e s h a f t ) , f i r s t h y d r a u l i c pump
and second h y d r a u l i c pump, A s e p a r a t e N3 t a c h g e n e r a t o r i s n o t l i s t e d above
s i n c e a r e a d i n g o f t h i s e n g i n e performance parameter i s a v a i l a b l e from t h e
"wild" frequency A.C. o u t p u t from t h e VSCF. I f a n independent i n d i c a t i o n o f
Nz speed i s d e s i r e d a s e p a r a t e Tach g e n e r a t o r c a n be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e
above arrangement w i t h o u t any n o t a b l e impact on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s n a c e l l e
design study.

S i n c e i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e r e q u i r e d o p e r a t i n g t e m p e r a t u r e s and
h e a t r e j e c t i o n rates f o r t h e s t i l l t o be designed f u e l c o n t r o l and VSCF/
e l e c t r i c s t a r t e r u n i t s were n o t a v a i l a b l e , no p r o v i s i o n s f o r a c c e s s o r y temp-
e r a t u r e c o n t r o l s have been shown on t h e s u b j e c t l a y o u t s . Compartmentization
o f t h e e n g i n e a c c e s s o r y zone s e p a r a t e from t h e r e s t o f t h e e n g i n e c o r e com-
partment f o r v e n t i l a t i o n purposes would f o r c e t h e d e s i g n t o a c h o i c e of
e i t h e r a l a r g e r n a c e l l e d i a m e t e r ( w i t h a complete rearrangement o f t h e g e a r -
box and component l o c a t i o n s ) o r a major r e d u c t i o n i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o b o t h
t h e a c c e s s o r i e s and e n g i n e c o r e plumbing components. A more a t t r a c t i v e
approach, from t h e viewpoint of maximum a c c e s s i b i l i t y a t minimum system
weight, would be t o u s e l o c a l h e a t s h i e l d i n g t o p r o t e c t i n d i v i d u a l a c c e s s o r i e s
from r a d i a n t h e a t from t h e e n g i n e c o r e o r b l e e d a i r d u c t s w h i l e d i r e c t i n g
c o o l i n g a i r flow o n t o t h e s e components from a i r s u p p l y d u c t s mounted t o t h e
i n n e r s u r f a c e o f t h e hinged f a n d u c t assembly. Although a q u a n t i t a t i v e
assessment c a n n o t be made f o r t h i s t y p e o f system w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c v a l u e s
f o r component c o o l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e impact o f i t s employment upon t h e
n a c e l l e l i n e s shown on t h e s u b j e c t l a y o u t should be minor.

A major a c c e s s problem d i s c l o s e d by t h e s u b j e c t l a y o u t i s a t t h e e n g i n e
core-to-pylon i n t e r f a c e where a l l t h e e n g i n e t o a i r f r a m e system c o n n e c t i o n s
are made. Due t o t h e G . E . n a c e l l e concept wherein t h e a f t edge o f t h e hinged
p o r t i o n o f t h e f a n d u c t i n n e r w a l l is 38 i n c h e s forward o f t h e rear f l a n g e
o f t h e c o r e c a s e , o n l y a 23 i n c h long p o r t i o n o f t h e pylon lower bulkhead i s
common t o t h e e n g i n e c o r e compartment. A s shown on t h e l a y o u t (drawing #PP-
SK-GEE3-007) c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n g e s t i o n r e s u l t s i n t h i s area due t o t h e presence
o f t h e airframe-to-accessory package c o n n e c t i o n s ( i . e . f u e l f e e d l i n e , h y d r a u l i c
supply l i n e s and a i r f r a m e e l e c t r i c a l power l i n e s ) a s w e l l a s t h e engine
b l e e d a i r supply d u c t s t o t h e a i r f r a m e . With t h i s arrangement, i t i s a n t i c i -
pated t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n engine removal and replacement t i m e
w i l l r e s u l t r e l a t i v e t o t h e p r e s e n t DC-10.

2 82
4.3.1.2 Fan Case Mounted Accessory C o n f i g u r a t i o n

The a c c e s s o r y gearbox f o r t h e f a n c a s e mounted a c c e s s o r y arrangement i s

shown (drawing #jPP-SK-GEE3-008) c e n t e r e d below and supported by t h e bottom
o f t h e engine f a n c a s e . A two inch deep d e p r e s s i o n above t h e a c c e s s o r y
compartment h a s been s c a l l o p e d o u t o f t h e 7 inch t h i c k composite f a n c a s e
s h e l l t o minimize t h e e x t e r n a l bulge i n t h e n a c e l l e l o f t l i n e s r e q u i r e d t o
house t h e a c c e s s o r y package. Two d o o r s , hinged t o t h e composite f a n c a s e a t
t h e 3:30 and t h e 7:30 o-clock p o s i t i o n s , and l a t c h e d t o g e t h e r a l o n g t h e
bottom c e n t e r l i n e form t h e bulged e x t e r n a l n a c e l l e l i n e around t h e a c c e s s o r y
compartment. The a c c e s s o r y gearbox i s smile shaped i n a manner s i m i l a r t o
t h e d e s i g n used f o r t h e c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r y arrangment b u t i n t h i s c a s e
both t h e forward as w e l l as t h e a f t f a c e s of t h e gearbox are employed t o
provide d r i v e pads f o r t h e a c c e s s o r i e s . The e n g i n e o i l pump, t h e VSCF/
e l e c t r i c s t a r t e r and t h e No. 1 h y d r a u l i c pump are mounted t o t h e forward
f a c e of t h e gearbox w h i l e t h e No. 2 h y d r a u l i c pump and t h e e n g i n e f u e l
c o n t r o l module are mounted t o t h e a f t s i d e o f t h e gearbox a l o n g s i d e of t h e
gearbox i n p u t d r i v e s h a f t . This arangement i s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e i n u s e on
c u r r e n t commercial t r a n s p o r t s and p r o v i d e s t h e minimum bulge t o t h e b a s i c
c i r c u l a r n a c e l l e c r o s s s e c t i o n formed by t h e e n g i n e composite f a n c a s e . A
second s c a l l o p e d - o u t w e l l i n t h e composite f a n c a s e s t r u c t u r e i s provided on
t h e h o r i z o n t a l c e n t e r l i n e on t h e r i g h t hand s i d e o f t h e e n g i n e i n which i s
housed t h e engine o i l t a n k . A metal l i n e d trough between t h i s w e l l and t h e
a c c e s s o r y compartment on t h e bottom must be provided i n o r d e r t o provide f o r
t h e o i l plumbing between t h e tank and t h e e n g i n e o i l pump. The m e t a l l i n i n g
would be f o r t h e purposes o f f i r e zoning. S i m i l a r metal l i n e d t r o u g h s must
be provided between t h e engine a c c e s s o r y compartment and t h e t o p of t h e f a n
c a s e i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e f i r e p r o t e c t e d r o u t e s from a c c e s s o r y compartment
and t h e pylon f o r t h e e n g i n e f u e l feed l i n e and f o r a i r f r a m e h y d r a u l i c and
e l e c t r i c power supply c o n n e c t i o n s . A s shown on t h e s t u d y drawing, t h e f u e l
feed l i n e would be r o u t e d on t h e o p p o s i t e s i d e of t h e f a n c a s e from t h e
other airframe connections.

Except f o r t h e absence o f t h e a c c e s s o r y package, t h e e n g i n e c o r e

s e c t i o n f o r t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n h a s been k e p t i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t f o r t h e c o r e
mounted a c c e s s o r y c o n f i g u r a t i o n . Thus, d i f f e r e n c e s i n m a i n t a i n a b i l i t y c o s t s
should be s t r i c t l y due t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n a c c e s s o r y package l o c a t i o n .

4.3.2 Maintenance Cost Comparison

To compare t h e two e n g i n e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s f o r t h e i r r e l a t i v e maintenance

c o s t s a review of each c o n f i g u r a t i o n w a s conducted t o i d e n t i f y t h o s e e n g i n e
i n s t a l l a t i o n components which w e r e uncommon i n t h e i r method o f i n s t a l l a t i o n
or accessibility. The major components s o i d e n t i f i e d were: t h e VSCF/electric
s t a r t e r , t h e two e n g i n e d r i v e n h y d r a u l i c pumps, t h e e n g i n e f u e l c o n t r o l
module ( i n c l u d e s e n g i n e f u e l pump), t h e e n g i n e o i l t a n k , t h e engine combustor
f u e l flow d i v i d e r and t h e v a r i a b l e s t a t o r a c t u a t o r . Each of t h e s e components
was e v a l u a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e manpower and e l a p s e d t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r a
removal/replacement c y c l e f o r each of t h e two e n g i n e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a s shown
i n Tables C - X I 1 and C - X I I I . The l a b o r requirements d e t a i l e d i n Table C - X I 1
and C - X I 1 1 a r e broken down f o r each component i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : t h e
l a b o r involved i n g a i n i n g a c c e s s t o t h e n a c e l l e / e n g i n e compartment a r e a i n
which t h e component i s l o c a t e d ( s e e column 21, t h e l a b o r involved i n any
283
 b VI
0 2 9
rl 0 0

N N N N

N N N CD
m N N 9

p1

0,
'4
l.4
VI
VI
W

4
01
.
.i
M
c
w
U h n n
aJ r( N m rl
Y
c
0
X
aJ
0
V
Id
0
l
S.
8

>r
.u
U
VI
l.4
0
D
c7
U VI
c a
aJ -x
cn
z t
4 2
2-
d E:
rl
a VI
2 ..9
a
0 -

-
m z
n n u-
n -4 N c7z
N

0
N
a
-x
Z I
w z
E:-
E:
N
h

.. .
c4
9

si
52

[r,
z 0
v1
u
0 >

284
 9 Q)
m Q1
0

N
N N

m m
U
4
m U

-
rr)
m

EE
0
c.l

z
W
X
N

.. d
d X
0 1

1
2 h
N
h
4
h
N
h
d N 3:

hn h
- N m

I 0
N
P
-x
Z I
w z
2-
N
z
h
.I
9
.
:s
Ez

SI:

t
285
 r-
yc

1
P
W 0

286
rn
In Ei
0 0

N N N

Q, m
m

In
a
-r
3 kz
4

.. 9
d
W

0 '
m z
2;

0
z I I 287
 N
m
0

N N
N N

VI N QI
N N m

n
m
N
W
U
C
U
v

u)

.-I
0)
I.1
::
9)

9
U
IC
.
M
-
-.I
h
N

w
W
U
9)
C I

s w
e:
z
3
U

8
bd

0
h

x
-a
U
m
I..
0
n
3
U
c
E
4
+
a 3
2 n
U

el
c. w
3
iX5 "3
a
4 w Y
uc) z
oz d
w
1 4
4s
w u =I
3 x
Irw 0
 P
w

h h
ri 0

..
w
i-4
0
z

289
system p r e p a r a t i o n f o r comonent removal o r p o s t replacement system checkouts
( s e e column 31, and t h e l a b o r involved i n p h y s i c a l l y dismounting/remounting
each component t o t h e e n g i n e ( s e e column 5 ) . A summary o f t h e column 2 , 3
and 5 l a b o r f a c t o r s f o r each component i s t a b u l a t e d i n column 6 on each
t a b l e . These t o t a l s r e p r e s e n t t h e non-routine maintenance l a b o r performed
in r e p l a c i n g a l i s t e d component i f it i s s u s p e c t e d of being f a i l e d .
An e s t i m a t e of t h e maintenance c o s t impact o f t h e c o r e l o c a t e d a c c e s -
s o r i e s v e r s u s t h e f a n c a s e l o c a t i o n f o r unscheduled removals c a n be o b t a i n e d
by u s i n g t h e l a b o r v a l u e s i n Tables C - X I 1 and C - X I 1 1 t o c a l c u l a t e e s t i m a t e d
c o s t s due t o unscheduled component removals a s summarized i n Table C-XIV.

The l a b o r (man h o u r s ) and e l a p s e d t i m e v a l u e s shown i n Table 6-XIV a r e

taken from Tables C - I and C-11. The l a b o r c o s t s were c a l c u l a t e d by u s i n g a
l a b o r c o s t r a t e of $11.00 p e r man hour t o which i s added a maintenance burden
c o s t e q u a l t o 1.8 t i m e s t h e l a b o r c o s t . The c o s t due t o d i s p a t c h d e l a y i s
taken from t h e c o s t s shown i n NASA Report CR-12113, Vol. 11, d t d March 1973
("An A i r l i n e Study of Advanced Technology Requirements For Advanced High
Speed Commercial T r a n s p o r t Engines," by G. P h i l l i p S a l l e e ) f o r t h e DC-10 and
f a c t o r e d by 1.4429 t o a d j u s t t h e amounts f o r i n f l a t i o n a r y e f f e c t s f o r t h e
1973 t o 1979 . t i m e p e r i o d . This f a c t o r is based on t h e U.S. Department of
Commerce Index f o r government and i n d u s t r y c o s t s . The component unscheduled
replacement r a t e s are based on d a t a accumulated by t h e Douglas A i r c r a f t
Company R e l i a b i l i t y Engineeering Group f o r s i m i l a r engine i n s t a l l e d compon-
e n t s of t h e DC 10-30 a i r c r a f t f o r t h e y e a r s o f 1976 and 1977. I n t h e c a s e s
of t h e VSCFlelectric s t a r t e r and t h e engine combustor f u e l flow d i v i d e r i n
which t h e r e were no p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e t o go by, e s t i m a t e s were made on
e x p e r i e n c e w i t h e n g i n e components o f s i m i l a r mechanical complexity. For t h e
c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r i e s t h a t are n o t uncommon t o both engine c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ,
two s e t s of replacement rates a r e shown; one set which i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e
set s u p p l i e d t o c o s t c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r t h e f a n mounted a c c e s s o r y c o n f i g u r a t i o n
and a second s e t which i s 10% g r e a t e r than comparable v a l u e s i n t h e f i r s t
s e t . T h i s second s e t o f unscheduled replacement r a t e s was used along w i t h
the f i r s t set i n order t o evaluate s e n s i t i v i t y i n c o s t s t o the s h o r t e r l i f e
t h a t could occur due t o l o c a t i n g a c c e s s o r i e s i n t h e more s e v e r e temperature
environment found i n t h e engine compartment. A s shown i n Table X - 1 1 1 , a
comparison of c o s t s f o r t h e f a n mounted a c c e s s o r y c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i t h t h e
c o s t s ( a t t h e a c c e l e r a t e d replacement r a t e ) f o r t h e c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r y
c o n f i g u r a t i o n show t h e l a t e r t o be $.045 g r e a t e r p e r engine f l i g h t h o u r .
This v a l u e i s o n l y f o r e i g h t l i s t e d components and a s such i s probably
i n d i c a t i v e of o n l y h a l f o f t h e r e s u l t i n g c o s t d i f f e r e n c e i f a l l t h e a f f e c t e d
components were t o be a s s e s s e d i n t h e c h o i c e between a c c e s s o r y package l o c a t i o n s .
An examination of t h e Table C-XIV c o s t breakdown shows t h a t t h e "cost due t o
d i s p a t c h delay" i s t h e major c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e replacement c o s t t o t a l f o r
each component. This c o s t i s an account of i n c r e a s e d crew wages and passenger
r e s c h e d u l i n g e x p e n s e s , e t c . r e s u l t i n g from equipment d e l a y s and i s n o t t y p i c a l l y
counted-in a s l i n e maintenance c o s t i n s t a n d a r d DOC c a l c u l a t i o n s . A s a
r e s u l t of t h i s s t u d y , a $0.90 p e r e n g i n e f l i g h t hour c o s t d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h e
c o r e mounted a c c e s s o r y l o c a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o t h e f a n c a s e l o c a t i o n i s i n d i c a t e d
a s an o r d e r of magnitude c o s t d i f f e r e n c e e s t i m a t e f o r t h e shop and l i n e
maintenance c o s t due t o unscheduled removals o n l y .

290
 m
P-

m
-
(7 (7
In

m m
\o
N
\o
(7
*
h
m
0 01
.rl .rl
M M
W W
In Q)
m N I, I,
0
ln m 0 a a
N .j m
m
X
L 2
I,

U U
e

-
In N PI M rl
m m Q1 r4 rx.
h N \o 0
In m co I, I,
m 0
D4 a
h ln
. . m ?
M
C
W
\
*
0 0
c+

& It It

AJ n m
Ir(
m m o - 9 - -do OOI- lir m
U 0)
.rl
m m 9 m m c o o m 009
h r - 0 Inlnr. mmm Inma 0 2 I,
...
N N O
..
.-I-.-
999 ... 0
2 d
m
m
m
u
I,
Q)
D4
E Y
mr; Ir(
4
m
P)
m
o o f i m
L)
v
m
-0 Nul 0 W
0-
?m. ?? Y E
m e
O N
m-l
m N
AJ
m m L
NN In-! 0 m
.rl
N U I, m
U 0 >
I C m n
-46 m o -m mm E aJ Q)

99
N N
9‘9
lno
??
Nln
9 9
lnm
aJ
m Y 2
2% O h 00
N m l0
nm0 4 m
In0
N
i d
rl

P
o.
V C
d
5
r4
a AJ
V m
a m mcv \om a m
..
-PI
\ON
..
-00
eo
. .
coo3
a m
..
N-l

m o
s
u
m
6 d
I,
m
N mln 0 N m In m
E: 0 .I4 5 m
.rl U
O E
m l
k
u I,
0
Y
Y
*rl cu 0 m
m I
m .rl
0)

Y I,
m
P) m
$. 2. m
..
N -O
4 g. g. 0
m
U
00 0- 00
I,
Y
0
VII m
AJ 8
G m N
N
Ba I,
u4
H

Y
u B
U

Q
a,
rl w
P za
m ao
kduo
E

z!
W
::
;
I
z 3
sa
U
E 3
x a

2 91
 In a d d i t i o n t o scheduled maintenance c o s t d i f f e r e n c e s , some o t h e r
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o a c c e s s o r y l o c a t i o n t h a t have n o t been q u a l i f i e d are:

1: E f f e c t on a c c e s s o r y component l i f e .
2: Higher i n i t i a l c o s t s when a new n a c e l l e / e n g i n e is i n t r o d u c e d
s i n c e t h e above are based on a mature i n s t a l l a t i o n .
3: E f f e c t on e n g i n e maintenance cost because o f i n c r e a s e d
teardown and b u i l d up c o s t s
4: Installation cost
5: I n s t a l l a t i o n development c o s t .

It i s concluded t h a t a n a c c e s s o r y l o c a t i o n o p t i o n should be maintained

pending more i n d e p t h s t u d i e s .

4.4 REGENERATIVE FUEL HEAT SYSTEM STUDY

The p r i n c i p l e i n c e n t i v e f o r a r e g e n e r a t i v e f u e l h e a t i n g system i s t o
t r a n s f e r unwanted h e a t from t h e b l e e d a i r s u p p l y f o r t h e a i r f r a m e e n v i r o n -
mental c o n t r o l system t o t h e f u e l b e i n g s u p p l i e d t o t h e e n g i n e w i t h t h e
p r o s p e c t of improving ( d e c r e a s i n g ) t h e engine SFC v a l u e s a t c r u i s e .
I n a d d i t i o n , - e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e f a n a i r b l e e d t h a t would o t h e r w i s e be needed
a t c r u i s e , should a l s o r e s u l t i n a n SFC r e d u c t i o n . A s t u d y of t h e s e p o t e n t i a l
SFC improvements on t h e E3 c a n d i d a t e a i r p l a n e was conducted u s i n g t h e follow-
ing.design constraints:

1. The h e a t t r a n s f e r loop between t h e b l e e d a i r and t h e f u e l system

should be through an i n t e r m e d i a t e , non t o x i c f l u i d such as water
t o minimize t h e chance o f a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g c o n t a m i n a t i o n w i t h
f u e l vapor.
2. Fuel t e m p e r a t u r e should n o t exceed 275OF. 7

3. A i r p r e s s u r e l o s s i n w a t e r l a i r h e a t exchanger < 0 . 5 p s i .
4. Engine b l e e d a t e n t r y t o t h e environmental c o n t r o l system (ECS)
i s n o t t o be less than 300OF. This t e m p e r a t u r e is c a l l e d t h e
ECS S e t P o i n t (ECSSP).

A schematic o f t h e G . E . c a n d i d a t e system i s shown i n F i g u r e C-19.

4.4.1 Design Philosophy

F i g u r e C-19 shows an o v e r a l l system schematic w h i l e a p r e l i m i n a r y con-

t r o l system l o g i c schematic i s shown i n F i g u r e C-20. The system i s d e s i g n e d
t o be o p t i o n a l . It h a s been found t h a t t h e r e g e n e r a t i v e system can not be
o p e r a t e d a t i d l e d e s c e n t as f u e l temperatures a r e a l r e a d y c l o s e t o 275OF
with a c o n v e n t i o n a l system dce t o t h e h e a t r e j e c t i o n from t h e e n g i n e o i l
c o o l e r . The ECS S e t P o i n t (ECSSP! t e m p e r a t u r e i s t i s u a l l y 440°F t o f a c i l i t a t e
h o t a i r wing a n t i - i c i n g . Without wing a n t i - i c i n g , t h e ECSSP temperature h a s
been chosen a t 300OF. The lower t h e ECSSP, t h e g r e a t e r t h e h e a t a v a i l a b l e
t o t h e r e g e n e r a t i v e system f o r h e a t t r a n s f e r i n t o t h e f u e l s u p p l i e d t o t h e
e n g i n e . The c o n v e n t i o n a l s y s t e m o f s w i t c h i n g from t h e IP b l e e d t o engine HP
compressor d e l i v e r y b l e e d a t low t h r o t t l e s e t t i n g s i s r e t a i n e d s i n c e t h e
problem o f ECS o p e r a t i o n a t low b l e e d p r e s s u r e s and t e m p e r a t u r e s s t i l l e x i s t .
The l o w t h r o t t l e s e t t i n g s .-rs z o i n c i d e n t with h i g h f u e l t e m p e r a t u r e s , t h e r e -
f o r e , t h e r e g e n e r a t i v e system o n l y o p e r a t e s w i t h 1 . P . b l e e d a i r . Bypasses
around t h e b l e e d l a i r l w a t e r and t h e f u e l l w a t e r h e a t exchangers a r e included
f o r those o p e r a t i o n a l m z d e s when t h e r e g e n e r a t i v e system i s not i n o p e r a t i o n .
292
h

I
V

293
 K
w
-I
0
0
0
W
z
a.
w
et
a.
v)
v)
4
P
zi

0
CJ
I
0

2 94
4.4.2 A i r c r a f t Configuration Studied

The s t u d y w a s c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e E3 c a n d i d a t e a i r c r a f t s i z e d t o a '
minimum t a k e o f f weight of 499,000 l b . which h a s 3 e n g i n e s i n a DC10-30
arrangement. E3 b l e e d q u a n t i t i e s were e s t i m a t e d i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e
number o f passengers w i t h a r e c i r c u l a t i n g ECS system designed f o r 55%
r e c i r c u l a t i o n . It was assumed t h a t c a b i n bleed flows remained c o n s t a n t
throughout a f l i g h t , and t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t had one a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g pack p e r
engine i n o p e r a t i o n .

4.4.3 Fuel Temperature C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

E s t i m a t e s f o r t h e E3 a i r p l a n e o i l c o o l e r f u e l o u t l e t t e m p e r a t u r e s were
made from D C l O t e s t d a t a . These temperatures v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o f l i g h t
c o n d i t i o n , engine power s e t t i n g , f u e l t a n k temperature and ambient temper-
a t u r e . With t h e r e g e n e r a t i v e system o p e r a t i n g , t h e p e r m i s s i b l e f u e l t e m -
p e r a t u r e rise would be 275OF minus FOCO, where FOCO is t h e o i l c o o l e r f u e l
o u t l e t temperature.

4.4.3.1 Descent and S t a r t of C r u i s e

Engine o i l c o o l e r temperature d a t a f o r a t y i c a l DClO f l i g h t p r o f i l e f o r

a s t a n d a r d p l u s 18OF day w i t h an i n i t i a l f u e l t a n k temperature of 120°F is
shown on Figure C-21. According t o t h i s d a t a , t h e o i l c o o l e r f u e l o u t l e t
temperature a t c r u i s e i n i t i a t i o n would be 2180F, w h i l e an I d l e Descent con-
d i t i o n would produce an o i l o u t l e t f u e l temperature o f 275OF. With t h i s
I d l e Descent t e m p e r a t u r e , t h e r e g e n e r a t i v e system would have t o be s h u t o f f
t o avoid exceeding t h e maximum f u e l t e m p e r a t u r e l i m i t (275OF). Test d a t a
f o r Standard Day c o n d i t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e FOCO temperature a t s t a r t of
c r u i s e would be 153OF which would a l l o w a 122OF f u e l temperature rise due t o
r e g e n e r a t i v e system h e a t i n g .

4.4.3.2 Regenerative System Operation A t C r u i s e

Table C-XV shows , t h e f u e l temperature r i s e f o r t h e v a r i o u s o p t i o n s ,

c r u i s e a t Mz0.8, 35,000 f t ; ISA w i t h a p r e h e a t FOCO of 153OF. Where t h e
r e s u l t a n t f u e l t e m p e r a t u r e i s less than 275OF, t h e , r e g e n e r a t i v e system would
be o p e r a t i n g c o n t i n u o u s l y ; t o o b t a i n optimum b e n e f i t from r e g e n e r a t i v e h e a t -
i n g , t h e d e s i g n aim should be t o achieve 275OF f u e l temperature i n t h e c r u i s e
mode s i n c e c r u i s e c o n s t i t u t e s t h e g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e f l i g h t p r o f i l e .
D C l O f l i g h t t e s t d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t 6OF d e c r e a s e i$ FOCO temperature c a n be
expected over t h e d u r a t i o n of c r u i s e due t o c o o l i n g i o f t h e wing t a n k f u e l
t e m p e r a t u r e s . For t h e E3 c a n d i d a t e a i r c r a f t w i t h 55% ECS r e c i r c u l a t i o n , t h e
r e g e n e r a t i v e system could be o p e r a t e d without i n t e r r u p t i o n throughout c r u i s e
w i t h a maximum experienced f u e l temperature o f 2710F.

4.4.3.3 Engine T h r o t t l i n g E f f e c t s

A s t h e a i r c r a f t g e t s l i g h t e r d u r i n g prolonged c r u i s e , t h e engines are

t h r o t t l e d back. The e f f e c t of p a r t i a l c r u i s e t h r u s t s e t t i n g s on engine f u e l
flow and r e g e n e r a t i v e system h e a t i n p u t i s shown i n Figure C-22 while Figure
C-23 shows t h e r e s u l t a n t f u e l temperature a s a f u n c t i o n of % max c r u i s e
t h r u s t . A r e d u c t i o n of 5% f u e l flow corresponds t o a 5% r e d u c t i o n of c r u i s e
t h r u s t and a 40F i n c r e a s e i n r e g e n e r a t i v e h e a t i n g f u e l temperature r i s e W i l l
i n t u r n be o f f s e t by t h e lower FOCO temperature due t o wing t a n k c o o l i n g

295
 STD + 18OF DAY
+12OoF INITIAL FUEL TANK TEMP

REF: DAC/GE ENGG COORD MEMO

NO.7340-1 DTD 3/19/70

300 A -- .-.
280

260

240
U
0

UJ
220
0:
3
2K 200
w
n
5 188 L FUEL OUTLET
i-
160
L FUEL INLET

v HEAT EXCHANGER TEMPERATURES

140

120

100
1 FUEL TANK TEMPERATURE

-e

40
c)
Ir
-
a. Ground Idle Takeoff
x 3 0 b. Max. Climb (MN = .61-.85)
t: c. Max. Cruise (MN = .85)
1 d. Flight Idle (MN = .85-.69)
1 'LFLIGHT \
I/
w 20 PROFILE
e. Loiter (MN = .35)
n
3

5 10
\
a
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TIME -MINUTES

F i g u r e C-21. Fuel/Engine O i l Temperature P r o f i l e

296
T a b l e C-XV. P e r f o r m a n c e Summary For Regerative F u e l Heating System

On DAC Candidate E3 Engine T r a n s p o r t

RATED TAKEOFF THRUST LB 41360

(PER ENGINE)

MAX. TAKEOFF WEIGHT LB 499000

MAX. CRUISE FUEL FLOW PER ENG. 4814

FOR Mn = 0.8, 35K ALT. LB/HR

I.P. BLEED TEMP. OF 534

H.P. BLEED TEMP. OF 860

H.P. DELIVERY PRESS. PSIA 15 1

TYPE OF A I R CONDITIONING 55%

RE-CIRCULATE

BLEED AIR FLOW PPS 1.41

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SET

POINT (ECSSP TEMP) OF

FUEL TEMP. RISE DUE TO

REGENERATIVE HEATING OF

ESTIMATED FUEL TEMP. AFTER

PRE-HEATING OF

297
 MTOGW = 499,000 LB
TAKE OFF THRUSTIENGINE = 41,360 LB
TB = BLEED AIR TEMPERATURE
Tsp = ECSSP TEMP = AIR CONDiTlONiNG SET WINT TEMPERATURE
a
to

-
t
l
I-
u.

200

CIRCULATION/1.41 PPS/INTERMEDlATE/4M0F ECCSP 0

5000
a
J
\
m
w.t 4000 -

3000

.
I 1 I 1
50 I
80 90
I 100
i
60 70
PERCENT OF MAX. CRUISE THRUST
2 98
Figure C-22. Effect of T h r o t t l i n g Back on F u e l Flow
 MTOGW = 499,000 LB
TAKE OFF THRUST/ENGINE = 41,360 LE
T8 = BLEED AIR TEMPERATURE
Tsp = ECSSP TEMP = AIR CONDlTIONlRIG SET POINT TEMPERATURE
WB = ENGINE BLEED NOT INCLUDING ANTI-ICE

ENGINE
BLEED AIR
CONDITIONING
A

300
x?
x

U
0
2 200
-a
W
v)

4w
i-
-I
w
3 100
LL

0 1 I I I

60 70 ao 90 100

PERCENT OF MAX. CRUlSE THRUST

FUEL TEMP RSSE (OF)= HEAT INPUT (BTWMIN) ~ 6 0

FUEL FLOW (LE/HR) 0.5

F i g u r e C-23. Xffect of Throttling Back on Fuel Temperature

2 99
( d e s c r i b e d i n P a r a . 4 . 4 . 3 . 2 ) so t h a t t h e a b s o l u t e v a l u e o f t h e f u e l temper-
a t u r e at t h e r e g e n e r a t i v e h e a t e r o u t l e t w i l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y remain c o n s t a n t
o v e r t h e e n t i r e range o f c r u i s e t h r u s t s e t t i n g s w i t h no change i n p o t e n t i a l
SFC s a v i n g s as c r u i s e p r o g r e s s e s .

4.4.4 C r u i s e SFC Savings C a l c u l a t i o n s

% SFC Saving p u r e l y due t o f u e l pre-heating

WF X ATF X Cpf = WB X (TB - TECSSP) X Cpb - (1)

WF X EHV WF X EHV

WB Bleed Flow LB/MIN

WF Fuel Flow LB/MIN
ATF Pre Heat Fuel Temp Rise Degree F
CP f S p e c i f i c Heat o f Fuel BTU/LB/
Degree F
S p e c i f i c Heat o f Bleed Air BTU /LB/
Degree F
EHV - E f f e c t i v e Heating Value o f Fuel BTU/LB
TB
- Bleed Temperature Degree F
*ECSSP
- Environmental C o n t r o l System
Set Point Degree F
FROM ( 1 )

= % X (TB - TECSSP) X -C& (2)

WF CPf

Examining Table 1

It must be remembered t h a t f o r t h e E3 e n g i n e , SFC s a v i n g s are p o s s i b l e

due t o t h r e e r e a s o n s :

DIRECTLY DUE TO IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY

A b a s i c i n i t i a l SFC improvement due t o a more economical e n g i n e .

2) DIRECTLY DUE TO RECIRCULATION

R e c i r c u l a t i o n reduces c a b i n b l e e d by 55% which

(a) r e d u c e s SFC due t o reduced c a b i n b l e e d
(b) r e d u c e s SFC due t o t h e a s s o c i a t e d r e d u c t i o n i n f a n p r e c o o l e r
b l e e d as a consequence o f t h e r e d u c t i o n i n i n t e r m e d i a t e
b l e e d flow.

3) DIRECTLY DUE TO REGENERATOR

a) t h e p r e h e a t i n g f u e l temp r i s e i s g r e a t e r s i n c e t h e f u e l flow
t o r e c e i v e r each BTU o f bleed h e a t i s reduced.
b) t h e SFC r e d u c t i o n due t o t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f f a n p r e c o o l e r
b l e e d when t h e r e g e n e r a t o r o p e r a t e s .

This r e p o r t i s concerned only w i t h t h e s a v i n g s due t o r e a s o n 3 ) .

300
4.4.4 CRUISE SFC SAVINGS CALCULATIONS (Continued)

CALCULATION OF SFC SAVINGS

Savings d i r e c t l y due t o f u e l pre-heating have been e s t i m a t e d by

r a t i o i n g the pre-heat of t h e f u e l t o a f u e l e f f e c t i v e h e a t i n g
v a l u e , t h r u s t i s assumed c o n s t a n t and a s p e c i f i c h e a t o f 0.5 f o r
t h e f u e l w a s assumed, i . e . from ( 1 )

% SFC s a v i n g = ATF x Cpf

EW

QUOTED BELOW ARE SFC SAVINGS FOR REASON ( 3 ) :

(A) WITH CABIN RECIRCULATION ECSSP TEMP = 300 DEGREE F

MAX CRUISE RATING

SFC SAVING DIRECTLY DUE 118 X 0 . 5 * 0.32%

TO FUEL PREHEATING 18525

SFC SAVING DUE TO REDUCTION

I N PRECOOLER FAN BLEED WITH 0.06%
RE GE NE RAT OR

I N OPERATION TOTAL SFC

REDUCTION DIRECTLY DUE TO 0.38%
REGENERATOR

(B) THE MAXIMUM SFC SAVING DIRECTLY DUE TO THE REGENERAOR

Assuming a FOCO o f 153 degree F and a f u e l temperature a f t e r
t h e r e g e n e r a t o r o f 275 degree F, the maximum SFC s a v i n g d i r e c t l y
due t o t h e r e g e n e r a t o r i s :

122 X 0.5 = 0.33%

18525

and 1 d e g r e e F i n f u e l temperture r i s e reduces t h e SFC by:

-
0.33
122
= 0.0027%

4.4.5 Regenerative Fuel Heat Study Conclusions

An SFC improvement can be gained by i n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t

system on t h e o r d e r o f 0 . 3 % t o 0.5%. The use o f such a system would n o t
p e r m i t t h e e l i m i n a t i o n , o r r e d u c t i o n i n s i z e , o f t h e bleed a i r p r e c o o l e r
used i n c u r r e n t a i r f r a m e d e s i g n s t o l i m i t b l e e d a i r temperatures f o r e n v i -
ronmental c o n t r o l system u s e . A more d e t a i l e d d e f i n i t i o n o f Regenerative
Fuel Heating System complexity weight and c o s t , r e f e r e n c e d t o s p e c i f i c
a i r f r a m e d e s i g n s , i s r e q u i r e d b e f o r e a f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n can be made re-
garding t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f such a system.

301