Study of Small Civil Turbofan Engines Applicable To Military Trainer Airplanes

IlIAiNiit AilPLAilfS
FINAL |EPO|T
AIREII[JkRCH MANIJleADI"URII_I!_, QO_ OF ARIZONA

A I)IVlIIDN OP' ?lNa l_Jllll'llr IOOl_l_A1ilON
" ,. _.,, _ _:_ . _ 'i 1 ".) 1 __ , !

CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
SYMBOLS ii
GENERAL AVIATION SYNTHESIS PROGRAM (GASP) DESCRIPTION 15
BASELINE ENGINE DEFINITION 25
General Design Considerations 25
Component Configurations and Design Parameters 27

27
Core compressor
27
Fan stage
Core turbine 29
Fan-driving turbine 30
Combustor 32
Exhaust ducts 32
Accessocie 32
BASELINE AIRPLANE DEFINITION 36
General Design Considerations 36
Initial configuration study 37
TASK I - EVALUATIO_ OF SIDE-BY-SIDE, SINGLE-ENGINE

TRAINER 41
Initial Airplane and Engine Sizing Analyses 41
Final Design Results and E_,aluation 42
TASK II - EVALUATION OF SIDE-BY-SIDE, TWIN-ENGINE TRAINER 47
Initial Airplane and Engine Sizing Analysis 47
Wing-loading and thrust-loadings 47
Final Design Results and Evaluation 59
Parametric Sensitivity Analyses 62
Engine definition for sensitivity analysis 62
Engine cycle quality sensitivity results 73
Airplane drag sensitivity results "77
Fixed equipment weight sensitivity results 79
Wing weight sensitivity results _2
Sustained load factor sensitivity results 87
Combined sensitivity effects R7
iii
CONTENTS(Contd)
TASK III - EVALUATION OF THE TANDEM-SEAT, TWIN-ENGINE

TRAINER
TASK IV - EVALUTION OF THE TANDEM-SEAT, SINGLE- 92
ENGINE TRAINER
92
Configuration Studies and Final Design Results
97
Inlet Pressure Loss Sensitivity Analyses
99
ENGINE INSTALLATION STUDIES
99
Single Engine Installation
i00
Twin-Engine Installation
109
CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
113
APPENDIX A
119
APPENDIX B
135
APPENDIX C
139
REFERENCES
iv
I
NASA CR 137575
Available to the PuDlic
AiResearch 74-21098_A
STUDY OF SMALL CIVIL TURBOFANENGINES

APPLICABLE TO
MILITARY TRAINER AIRPLANES
FINAL REPORT
By R. W. Heldenbrand, G. L. Merrill, G. A. Burnett

April 1975
Prepared under Contract No. NAS2-6799 by

AIRESEARCHMANUFACTURING COMPANYOF ARIZOHA
A Division of the Garrett Corporation
Sky Harbor Airport, 402 South 36th Street
P. O. Box 5217
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
for
Ames Research Center
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Systems Studies Division

LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Figure
1 General Aviation Light-Twin Three-View

Schematic and Design Results from Initial
Study
Illustration of the Baseline Engine Design

i0
for Military Trainer Study
16
3 Primary Program Modules of GASP
17
4 GASP Geometry Module Description
19
5 GASP Aerodynamic Module Description
20
6 GASP Propulsion Module Description
20
7 GASP Weight and Balance Module Description
8 GASP Mission Profile and Airfield 21

Performance Module Description
23
9 GASP Economics Module Description
i0 GASP Normal Calculation Flow Path

24
Description
33/34
ii Baseline Engine Cross Section
o
12 Three-View Drawing Side-By-Side, Single

45/46
Engine Configuration
13 Engine Sizing Results at Wing Loading 48

of 171 kg/sq m (35 ib/sq ft).
14 Engine Sizing Results at Wing Loading 4_

of 195 kg/sq m (40 Ib/sq ft).
15 Engine Sizing Results at Wing Loading 5O

of 220 kg/sq m (45 !b/sq ft).
16 Engine Sizing Results at Wing Loading 51

of 244 kg/sq m (50 ib/sq ft)
53
17 Gross Weight Variation with Wing-Loading
54
18 Empty Weight Variation with Wing-Loading
19 Cruise Fuel Consumption Variation with

55
Wing-Loading
IL_ _.
!
LIST OF FIGURES (Contd)
Title Page
Figure
2O Takeoff Thrust-to-Weight Ratio Variation

with Wing-Loading 56
21 Total Sea Level Thrust Variation with

Wing-Loading 57
22 Loop Maneuver Characteristic of Wing-Loading

of 220 kb/sq m (45 ib/sq ft) 58
23 Airplane Climbing Characteristics at Wing-

Loading of 220 kb/sa m (45 ib/sq ft) 60
24 Airplane Performance Envelope at Wing-Loading

of 220 kb/sq m (45 ib/sq ft) 61
25 Three-View Drawing Side-By-Side Twin Engine

Configuration 63/64
26 Estimated Core Compressor Efficiency

Variation with Compressor Pressure Ratio 65
27 Estimated Design Point Fan Efficiency

Variation with Fan Pressure Ratio 66
28 Parametric Cycle Analysis Results 68
29 Engine Specific Thrust (Thrust ÷ Airflow)

Variation with Fan Pressure Ratio 7O
3O Parametric Analysis Results of Core Size

Variation 71
31 Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption Variation

72
with Cycle Pressure Ratio
32 Calcul_ted Specific Engine Weight

(Weight ÷ Thrust) Variation with Core
75
Compressor Pressure Ratio
33 Gross and Empty Weight Variation with Core

Compressor Pressure Ratio 76
34 Cruise Fuel Consumption Variation with Core

Compressor Pressure Ratio 78
]5 Gros_ and Empty Weight Sensitivity to Zero-

Lift Drag Coefficient 8O
vi
LIST OF FIGURES (Contd)
Title
Figure
36 Engine Size and Cruise Fuel Consumption

Sensitivity to Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient 81
37 Gross and Empty Weight Sensitivity to

Fixed Equipment Weight 83

84
Sensitivity to Fixed Equipment Weight
39 Gross and Empty Weight Sensitivity

85
to Wing Weight
4O Engine Size and Cruise Consumption Sensitivity

86
to Wing Weight
41 Gross and Empty Weight Sensitivity to Sustained

Load Factor Capability 88

Sensitivity to Sustained Load Factor
89
Capability
43 Three-View Drawing Twin-Engine Tandem Seat

Configuration 93/94
44 Three-View Drawing Tandem-Seat, Single

Engine Configuration 95/96
45 Single-Engine Installation Layout 103/104
46 Twin-Engine Installation Layout 107/108
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title ,Page
I Description of Initial Program: "A Study

of Small Turbofan Engines Applicable to
General Aviation Aircraft"
II Guidelines for the Study of Small Turbofans

Applicable to Military and Civil Aircraft
llI Baseline Engine Cycle at Sea Level Static

26
Design Point
IV Baseline Engine Core Compressor and Stage

28
Characteristics
29
V Baseline Engine Fdn Stage Characteristics
3O
VI Baseline Engine Core Turbine Characteristics
Vll Baseline Engine Fan-Driving Turbine

Characteristics 31
VIII Primary Trainer Mission and Performance

Requirements Adopted from the Randolph
38
Study
IX Configuration and Equipment Requirements

39
Adopted from the Randolph Study
X Cessna-Provided Fixed Equipment Weight

43
Estimate
74
XI Candidate Engine Cycle Parameter Definition
XII Single-Engine, Tandem Airplane GASP Results,

9_
with Two Values of Engine Inlet Loss
viii
STUDY OF SMALL CIVIL TURBOFANENGINES
APPLICABLE TO MILITARY TRAINER AIRPLANES
By R. W. Heldenbrand, G. L. Merrill, and G. A. Burnett
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a study sponsored by the

NASA Ames Research Center, Systems Studies Division (Contract
NAS2-6799, Mod. 2), regarding the applicability of small turbofan
engines to military primary trainer airplanes.
Earlier efforts accomplished under the original contract

work statement showed that efficient turbofan propulsion systems
could be designed for and extended successfully to smaller and
lower speed civil airplanes than have been considered heretofore.
This follow-on study by NASA-Ames and AiResearch expands that
work to include the application of these small turbofan concepts
to _ilitary trainer airplanes, and to establish the potential for
commonality between civil and military engines. With the aid of
the NASA General Aviation Synthesis (Computer) Program, four pri-
mary trainer configurations were defined and studied. A "best"
engine was defined for the trainer mission, and sensitivity anal-
yses were performed to determine the effects on airplane size and
efficiency of wing loading, power loading, configuration, aero-
dynamic quality, and engine quality.
'fhe principal conclusion drawn from the results of this

investigation is that a turbofan propulsion system for a small
civil aircraft is also applicable to military trainer airplanes.
Aircraft designed with these engines to meet military require-
ments for basic trainers are smaller, less costly and more effi-
cient than existing basic trainer aircraft or basic trainer air-
craft that have been conceptually designed with high subsonic
turbojets or turbofans. In addition, substantial benefits may
accrue to both military and civil sectors if this commonality is
exploited.
INTRODUCTION
Turbofan propulsion, as applicable to smaller, lower speed

general-aviation airplanes than have been designed and produced
to date, was thoroughly investigated in the initial program
conducted under this contract (Reference i). The significant
results of that program are given in Table I, and the specific
airplane design addressed in that study is shown on Figure i.
Historically, military aircraft engine developments have
provided the genesis and economic impetus for nearly all civil
aircraft engine developments. Thus, a logical continuation of
the effort to define advanced turbofan propulsion for general-
aviation airplanes would be to identify military applications
for such engines. It was determined that a follow-on study
should be undertaken to quantify airplane performance and cost
advantages for a new, turbofan-powered military primary trainer.
The objective of the study would be to identify the technical
requirements of a new military aircraft engine, and to establish
the commonality of this engine design with civil engine require-
ments. Because the performance envelope of a primary trainer is
typically consistent with that of many general-aviation air-
planes, a "best" turbofan for a trainer should be directly =ppli-
cable to potential general-aviation airplane designs. Following
discussions with United States Air Force and Navy training head-
quarters personnel, the program was revised to permit a more
comprehensive study of military trainers. The investigation of
the civil airplane was consequently deferred to a later date _nd
will be addressed in a follow-on program.
The military trainer design and mission criteria that were

selected as guidelines for this study were defined in the USAF
Mission Analysis Report noted in Reference 2 (referred to in
this report as the "Randolph study"). These criteria were
developed for a primary trainer designated TA-2 in the USAF
report. Use of the USAF data has permitted the definition and
investigation of the following four trainer configurations:
o Single-engine, side-by-side seats
o Twin-engine, side-by-side seats

o Twin-engine, tandem seats
o Single-engine, tandem seats
Although work was begun with the single-engine, side-by-side

configuration, the study tasks were designed to give primary
TABLE I. SUMMARYRESULTSOF INITIAL PROGRAM:
"A STUDY OF SMALL TURBOFANENGINES
APPLICABLE TO GENERALAVIATION
AIRCRAFT. "
The initial study, completed in 1973, investigated the

applicability of turbofans to high-performance civil
light twin engine aircraft. Significant results
achieved were:
o Definition of engine/airplane design,

performance and cost interrelationships,
using NASA-_ES general aviation synthesis
program (GASP).
o Credible preliminary design of an attractive
airplane, demonstrating the applicability
of turbofans to much smaller, lower cost
airplanes than previously thought possible.
o Better understanding of propulsion principles
for lower speed, lower cost airplanes.
o Understanding that military sponsorship of
development and procurement of turbofans
in this class would expedite availability.
e_l ..I
¢..)
i
0
4-
Ii
"0
c_
-M
,.c;
C)
C_
- ,-'.i
_=_ -
I .,--i
==
0
I
-,-.I rJ'J
,-4
C_
_)
S
emphasis to the twin-engine, side-by-side airplane. The NASA-
Ames General Aviation Synthesis (computer) Program (GASP) was
used throughout the investigation for airplane design definition,
and for the evaluation of the effects of various design param-
eters on airplane size and cost. With the GASP program, an
initial sensitivity study was performed with the twin-engine,
side-by-side airplane to establish criteria for selection of
wing loading and thrust loading appropriate to the airplane
performance requirements. These criteria were consi4ered appli-
cable to the other three airplane configurations. The majority
of the airplane and engine sensitivity studies and trade-off
analyses were performed on the twin-engine, side-by-side airplane.
Conceptual designs of the four airplane configurations were

originated by AiResearch; however, in order to ensure that these
designs met certain military trainer requirements, informal dis-
cussions were held with personnel of the USAF Air Training
Command Headquarters, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, and of the
USN Air Training Center, Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, Texas,
as well as various other military offices. Further, to ensure
their overall credibility, all the designs were reviewed by the
Cessna Aircraft Company, under subcontract, for equipment fit,
balance, weight, performance, stability, control, and other
design considerations. The specific study guidelines agreed to
by AiResearch and NASA-Ames are given in Table If. Under these
guidelines, only the Air Force ?A-2 airplane requirements given
in the Randolph study were addressed. Each of the four airplane
configurations was designed to meet these requirements, with
airplane size, efficiency, and engine size "solutions" varying.
A baseline engine cycle for the trainers was defined by

addressing and separately quantifying the elements of overall
propulsion system efficiency as applicable to the trainer per-
formance and mission requlrements.
The airplane cruise speed and initial estimates of the

airplane's fuel and engine weight fractions are the fundamental
parameters evaluated in the determination of a credible baseline
engine cycle by the methods described in Reference i.
The mechanical arrangement, aerodynamic component selection,

and detail design concepts for the baseline engine were chosen
to provide for low manufacturing cost, high reliability, and
maintainability. The basic engine design philosophy was to
achieve the simplest possible high-bypass-ratio turbofan config-
uration, having two spools, no reduction gears, only' two frames,
TABLE II. GUIDELINES FOR THE STUDY OF SMALL TURBOFANS
APPLICABLE TO MILITARY AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT.
Airplane designs to be totally responsive to the TA-2

(primary trainer) performance, mission, and configura-
tion requirements reported in--
"Mission Analysis on Future Undergraduate Pilot
Training 1975 through 1990," by mission analysis
study group, Randolph AFB, Texas (Jan. 1972).
Single-Engine, Side-by-Side
Seats
o Define four Twin-Engine, Side-by-Side

airplanes Seats
Single-Engine, Tandem Seats
Twin-Engine, Tandem Seats
463 km/hr (250 kt) Cruise

Speed
o Define
engine
a
for
"Best"
i 4572 m
Altitude
And
ments
Other
(15,000
Mission
ft) Cruise
Require-
o Do parametric
Design/Configuration
sensitivity analyses
I Wing Loading/Thrust Loading
Engine Quality
o Identify engine and airplane with lowest operating

cost.
four bearings in two bearing cavities, castable subsonic aero-
dynamic components, low rotor speed per unit of airflow, low
stresses, modest temperatures, _nd modular assemblies. The con-
ceptual design layout for the _aseline engine is shown in
Figure 2. This engine design provided the basis for later,
in-depth, parametric cycle optimization studies, and for the
definition of engine candidates for aircraft synthesis evalua-
tion of engine cycle quality.
FOR 250 KT/15,000 FT. CRUISE
• FAN PRESSURE RATIO 1.3
• CORE PRESSURE RATIO 7.0

• TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE 1228°K (1750 °F)
• BYPASS RATIO "-'9
Illustration of the Baseline Engine

Figure 2.
Desiun for Military Trainer study.
I0
SYMBOLS
AR Aspect ratio
BPR Bypass ratio
Btu British thermal unit
oC Degrees centigrade
Drag coefficient
C D
Induced drag coefficient
CDi
Drag coefficient referenced to the wetted area
CD wet
Lift coefficient
C L
C Specific heat of constant pressure

P
CU Customary units
EPNdB Effective perceived noise level
Oswald efficiency factor

e
cF Degrees Fahrenheit
F Engine thrust, N (ibf)
f Fuel-air ratio
a
Federal Air Regulations
FAR
Net thrust, N (lbf)

F N
Feet per minute

fpm
ft Feet
Sea level static thrust, N (ibf)

F
SLS
Engine specific thrust, or thrust per unit
F/W
a airflow N-s/kg [ibf/(ibm/sec)]
Acceleration of gravity
g
Gallon
gal
hp Horsepower
hr }{our
in. Inch(es)
SYMBOLS (Contd)
ISA International Standard Atmosphere
J Joules and work conversion factor 778/550
oK Degrees Kelvin
K Thousand
kg Kilogram
kt Knot
L Length
Ib Pound(s)
m Meter
mm Millimeter
mph Miles per hour
N Newton
Gas generator speed, rpm

NG
n. mi. Nautical miles
Pressure, ib per sq ft
P
PR Pressure ratio
psf Pounds per square foot
psi Pounds per square inch
q Dynamic pressure
oR Degrees Rankine
S Wing area, sq m (sq ft)
Sl Systeme International
SLF Sustained load factor
SLS Sea level static
sec Second
12
SYMBOLS (Contd)
Wetted area, sq m (sq ft)

Swet
T Temperature, °K (°F or °R)
TAS True airspeed, knots
TSFC Thrust specific fuel consumption, kg/N-hr

[(ibm/hr)/Ibf]
AT Temperature change
U Rotational velocity, m/sec, (fps)
V Axial velocity
a
V Airplane stall speed, km/hr (mph)
s
W Weight, kg (ibm)
Wing loading, kg/m 2 (ibm/ft2)

wlS
Efficiency (actual work/ideal work)

r]
Turbine work factor (gJc AT/U 2)

P
Flow coefficient (Va/U)
Compressor work coefficient (gJcp AT/U 2)
13
GENERALAVIATION SYNTHESIS PROGRAM(GASP) DESCRIPTION
The airplane and engine performance and design parameters

were combined in the NASA-Ames General Aviation Synthesis Program
(GASP) to aid in performing preliminary design studies of the
various trainer configurations. This computer program was
designed by the NASA-Ames Systems Studies Division, and is
described in Society of Automotive Engineers Paper 73033
(Reference 3). It was utilized extensively by AiResearch during
the study of general-aviation turbofan engines reported in
Reference i. During the study of military trainers, the GASP
program was refined to permit the direct input of improved,
separately calculated engine performance maps. It was found
that for aircraft of this size, the performance penalties for
engine bleed and shaft power extraction were more significant
than for larger aircraft. Therefore, a revised and streamlined
method was derived for inputting complete engine performance
data from a separate, off-design, cycle matching program.
Throughout these studies, GASP proved to be a valuable tool for
conducting:
o Airplane configuration comparisons
o Comparative assessments of aircraft performance
and economics
o Performance trade-off studies and parametric
analyses
o Assessments of advanced technology
GASP was described briefly in Reference i; however, it is
pertinent to review its principal features here. The following
description, taken from Reference 3, defines the calculation
flow paths through the various airplane analyses. As illustrated
in Figure 3, the control module directs the computational flow
through the other modules of the synthesis with module sequenc-
ing determined by parameter input to the control module, as well
as the normal mode of operation. Input for each module consists
of quantities generated internally by other modules, or design
variables that are input directly, or both. The integrated
approach established in the program methodology ensures that
the multiple effects of design variables are continuously
accounted for in the aircraft sizing procedures.
The airplane geometry module, Figure 4, computes the sizing

of the wing, fuselage, empennage, and engine nacelles. The wi_g
geometry is characterized by the aspect ratio, taper ratio, air-
foil thickness-chord ratio, quarter-chord sweeLJ, etc. The fuse-
lage shape and volume are related to the number of passengers,
seating arrangement, and fuselage configuration.
CONTROL_
GEOMETRY
AERODYNAMICS]
I FIELD PERFORMANCE
I PROPULSION WEIGHTAND
BALANCE
Figure 3. Primary Program Modules of GASP.
16
INPUT OUTPUT
3-DIMENSIONAL
CONFIGURATION
GEOMETRYAND
INDICATORS
GEOMETRY
PARAMETERS
NUMBEROF _ABI_I AND FUSELAGEI
PASSENGERS
'"| "GEOMETRIES J PLANFORM
AND SEATING
AREAS
ARRANGEMENT
AND EMPENNAGE
,.4m
WING GEOMETRIES VOLUMES
ASPECT& TAPER
RATIOS.SWEEPS 4, COMPONENT
THICKNESSES,
SIZES
INCIDENCE ._ NACELLEGEOMETRY
[FIXED ENGINE)
TAIL VOLUME [
COEFFICIENTS
[OPTIONAL)
Figure 4. GASP Geometry Module Description.
17
The aerodynamic module, Figure 5, computes the airplane
lift and drag characteristics on a point-by-point basis during
takeoff, climb, cruise, and landing. The cruise drag is deter-
mined for each aircraft component based on Reynolds number and
Mach number. Form factors are used to account for body shape
and component interference, or for duplicating the drag of an
existing aircraft. Cruise lift is based on an input value of
angle of attack for zero lift and a semi-empirical method for
computing the lift curve slope. The effects of plain, split,
slotted, and Fowler-type trailing-edge flaps are simulated for
high-lift increments in optionally selected takeoff and landing
configurations. The methodology accounts for flap deflection,
span and chord, wing sweep, thickness, and aspect ratio. Nacelle
drag is accounted for as either an aircraft drag or as a propul-
sion system drag, reducing uninstalled thrust, and increasing
specific fuel consumption.
The propulsion module, Figure 6, computes the engine per-

formance, dimensions, weight, and volume required for airplane
synthesis definition. Complete engine data including thrust,
fuel flow, and airflow maps are input to the program with
installation losses included. The propulsion system is initial-
ly sized to match the cruise drag and a rate of climb requirement
at the end of climb. Program options permit engine sizing for
specified takeoff distance, or sizing such that the climb require-
ments of FAR Part 25 are satisfied. Engine diameter and weight
can be internally calculated as a function of engine front-face,
design-point Mach number, the hub-tip diameter ratio, and engine
airflow required, or a separately derived engine specific weight
may be input to the program.
A weight and balance analysis, Figure 7, is completed on

the airplane after the configuration geometry is defined and the
engine size and weight are calculated. Weights for the various
airplane components are estimated from trend equations derived
from the general-aviation airplane class correlations. Available
fuel is determined from the empty airplane weight, which is com-
puted by summarizing the subsystem weights and the input gross
weight and payload.
The airplane mission module, Figure 8, computes the air-

plane performance during taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, and
landing. Options are available in this module for calculating
engine-out and acceleratestop distance, best rate of climb, b_st
lift-to-drag ratio, and additional airplane and engine operating
characteristics. The effects of gear and flap r:_traction and
ground effect are accounted for during the takeoff segment. Fuel
reserve inputs are accounted for in the cruise segment. Range is
18
OUTPUT
INPUT
FL,_P LIFT
INCREMENTS 1
CRUISE,
CONFIGURATION TAKEOFF AND
GEOMETRY LANDING DRAG
FLAPINCREMENTS
DRAG AND GEAR 1 POLARS
FLIGHT
t, WETTED AREAS
CONDITIONS
LEADING EDGE
LIFT INCREMENTS ZERO LIFT DRAG
TYPE OF HIGH
LIFT DEVICES i BREAKDOWN
LOW SPEED ZERO
LIFT DRAG
I o,AG,,s
Figure 5. GASP Aerod__'nam ic Module Description.
_9
J
INPUT OUTPUT
INPUT ,_ OUTPUT
MANUFACTURER'S I CO-,UTE
I /oo;_ u CRUISE ANO ,=.-;71_ ENGINE SEA I
-_ SPECIFIC _ ENGINE _ TH_RO$_T._._I TAKEOFF _ FOR C

OATACOR_CTEO LEV
THRUST OR I
ENGINE LOSS REQUIREMENTS
FOR INSTALLATION POWER I
AND
LOSSES / PER FORMANC E] LO?",_,S/S/// RATING ]
OPERATING /
OPERATING CONOIT_NS .,.,,,"_T AN NACELLE OR I

CONDITIONS POWEA ."LLE _REOU'R PROPULSOR l
SETTING M
REQUIRED THRUST
O,_METR¥ _' DIMENSIONS
AND
PROPULSION
PROPULSION i
SEA LEVEL
WEIGHT [
ENGINE RATING '_ SIZE AiD
PARAMETERS J YE_ II PROPULSION
NACELLE ""L WEIGHTS
YES
I POWER
I
YES TAKEOFF
OR CLIMS/N(
Figure 6. GASP Propulsion Module Description.
CHECKF.A.R. 1
-[REQUIREMENTS]
INPUT
I _ OUTPUT
GROSSWEIGHT,
PAYLOAD,
WEIGHTS ]___ FUELAVAILABLE
OESIGNLOAD
AIRPLANE FACTORS
GEOMETRY, TIP
DESIGNSPEEDS SIZE _
._ TANKS YES _'_
WEIGHT
ANO CATEGORY " STATEMENT
NO
WEIGHTTRENO WING, CENTEROF
COEFFICIENTS GRAVITY,ANb
ANOBALANCE /LOCATE "".,_
COMPONENT
CRITERIA NO LOCATION
_YES
_ BALANCEAIRCRAFTi
OF GRAVITY
Figure 7. GASP Weight and Balance Module Description.
OP_G_,CGPAGE IB
or Poor
2O
INPUT OUTPUT
DRAGPOLARS, -_ LANDING FIELD

ENGINEDATA. PERFORMANCE
WEIGHTS,ANO
OPERATING
T X, FLIGHTSEGMENT
PERFORMANCE
LIMITS
TAKEOF RANGE
"
•--AIRCRAFT RANGE-"_
-...,__,
_ ..,,-CRUISE
TAXI TAKEOFF RESERVE LANDING
Figure 8. GASP Mission Profile and Airfield

Performance Module Description.
2_
accounted for during the climb and cruise segment. When a spe-
cific range definition is required, a program option is utilized
that iterates on the airplane size until the calculated range is
within a specified tolerance of the required range.
The economics module, Figure 9, is used for civil aircraft

cost evaluations with good correlation. However, for the mili-
tary trainer airplanes, it was considered necessary to include
life-cycle cost data that incorporated cost factors and calcula-
tion formats consistent with USAF experience. These data were
not available within the time span of this study, thus, the
economics module was not utilized to its full capability.
The synthesis program calculation sequence, Figure 10, has

been designed to provide an iterative, integrated method which
ensures that the results contain the effects of design inte_-
action within each calculation module and between modules. For
example, a change in specified wing loading affects wing area,
tail size, lift, drag, structural weight, aircraft performance,
and finally, engine and airplane "solution _' size. Some of the
effects are minor while others are significant; however, all
effects that impact the airplane "solution" are iteratively
accounted for.
22
INPUT OUTPUT
FLYAWAYCOST • FLYAWAYCOST
• WEIGHTAND
BREAKDOWN
SPEED • LABOR
• OPERATINGCOST
• POWERAND • MATERIALS
v
VERSUS
PROPULSION • PURCHASED
UTILIZATION
TYPE EQUIPMENT
• BLOCKFUEL • MARK-UPS
AND TIME
• COST
COEFFICIENTS
• VARIABLE
• FIXED
=i OPERATINGCOST _-
• UTILIZATION
J
Figure 9. GASP Economics Module Description.
23
I;moB#I m
GASP Normal Calculation

Figure i0.
F lo_qoath Description.
24
BASELINE ENGINE DEFINITION
General Design Considerations
In the final report on the first investigation conducted

under this contract (Reference i), methods were discussed where-
by a "nearly best" turbofan engine cycle can be defined directly
and quickly, without recourse to extensive cycle analysis, para-
metric trade-off analyses, and comprehensive preliminary design
exercises. By separately quantifying the elements of overall
propulsion system efficiency (propulsive efficiency, thermal
efficiency, airplane performance and mission-related installed
drag, and installed weight and drag), an engine that nearly
minimizes airplane size and cost can be readily defined. When
the airplane required-cruise-thrust sizes the engine, the cruise
flight speed and altitude may be assumed to be the engine design
point. Then the fan pressure ratio and core jet velocity that
maximize propulsive efficiency at the design point can be calcu-
lated directly. For maximum thermal efficiency, the highest
practical cycle pressure ratio is chosen. For minimum core size
and weight, the highest practical turbine inlet temperature is
chosen. However, maximum propulsive efficiency must be traded-
off against fan system weight and nacelle drag, and maximum
thermal efficiency must be traded-off against core weight to
achieve the "best" engine that minimizes airplane size, initial
cost, and operating cost. While a "nearly best" engine can be
defined readily, an optimum engine can be determined only from
aircraft synthesis sensitivity and trade-off analyses. Because
the interrelationships between engine and airplane performance
qualities are complex, synthesis analyses are vital in defining
the most cost-effective engine. This has, of course, been the
procedure used in this investigation of primary trainers.
The airplane design point for this study was set at 463
km/hr (250 kt), at 4572 m (15,000 ft) altitude. For airplane
optimization studies, a baseline engine was defined that would
provide near maximum net propulsive and thermal efficiencies at
this design point. The 1.3 fan pressure ratio chosen was esti-
mated to give the best balance betwe,_n propulsive effi_:iency,
fan system size and weight, and nacelle drag. The 7.0 core pres-
sure ratio chosen was judged to provide the best balance between
thermal efficiency and core weight. The 1255°K (1800 °F) turbine
inlet temperature was selected to minimize the cost of the engine
core; that is, the highest temperature that would not require
expensive turbine blade cooling. Thesc principal determinants
of cycle quality, plus the additional efficiency and loss assump-
tions made for the baseline engine, are llsted in Table Ill. In
l_iter modeling for engine performance mapping, many of the values
were adjusted based on further evaluation of component design
25
TABLE III. BASELINE ENGINE CYCLE AT SEA LEVEL
STATIC DESIGN POINT
Fan Pressure ratio 1.3

Core Compressor Pressure Ratio 7.0
Core Turbine Pressure Ratio 2.99
Fan Turbine Pressure _atio 2.83
Core Jet Nozzle Pressure Ratio 1.2
Bypass Ratio 7.81
Turbine Inlet Temperature 1255°K (2260°R,
1800°F)
Inlet Pressure Loss O%
Inter-Compressor Pressure Loss O%
Combustor Pressure Loss 4%
Core Exhaust-Duct Pressure Loss 2%
Bypass-Duct Pressure Loss 2%
IFan Efficiency 89%
Core Compressor Efficiency 82%
Combustor Efficiency 100%
Core Turbine Efficiency 86%
Fan Turbine Efficiency 89%
Nozzle Velocity Coefficient (Both Nozzles) 0.985
Mechanical Efficiency (Both Spools) 100%
Shaft Power Extraction 0
Bleed-Air Extraction 0
Overboard Leakage Loss (CPD) 1.9%
Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption 0.0370 kg/N-hr
(0.363 ib/hr/ib)
Specific Thrust 207.41 N-sec/kg
(21.15 ib/Ib/sec
26
and the determination of component performance maps. Further
adjustments were made to accommodate shaft power extraction and
compressor bleed for airframe needs.
Design studies were conducted on overall engine and compo-
nent configurations for the baseline engine. In accordance with
the contemporary engine design principles discussed in the final
report of the initial investigation (Reference i), the baseline
engine design was to exhibit an understanding that by proper
choice of aerodynamic configurations, costly parasitic machinery
could be avoided. The basic two-frame, four-bearing configura-
tion with direct fan drive was considered essential, even at
bypass ratios as high as 10:1. With this configuration, bearings,
gears, seals, splines, couplings, fasteners, shaft elements, expe
expensive lubrication system plumbing, pumps, and co_ling devices
could be minimized. If the engine design were subjected to a
design-to-ccst exercise, this configuration would permit a
greater emphasis on aerodynamic and thermodynamic quality.
Engine performance for a specified cost would thereby be
maximized.
Component Configurations and Design Parameters
Core compressor. - The core compressor is the key component

in achieving the desired engine configuration. In turn, the key
ccmpressor design parameter is the rotational speed per unit
airflow. If this parameter has a low value, the engine core
may have a large center hole to accommodate the fan driving shaft
when supported on just two bearings. Table IV lists the princi-
ple parameters chosen for a preliminary compressor design that
was one of several examined for the baseline engine. This com-
pressor design is all subsonic. With thicker airfoils permitted
by subsonic design, the castability of the compressor stages is
enhanced, which can result in significant cost savings. %;ith
low axial velocity and the flow-path configuration chosen to
maximize the height of the flow-path annulus, the potential for
high efficiency is inherent in the design. The six-stage, low-
speed compressor design selected addresses all the criteria
developed in the initial investigation for cost-effective engine
design.
Fan stage• - In detail engine design, the fan and its

turbin. _ must be the subject of ext_asiw; trade-off analvs{_s to
ensure that the fan spool makes tl (z maxi:_um contribution to ov_r-
all propulsion system efficiency ._nd :.n_iu( _ cost -e<_ ...._ ,_,'_,ss
The size, weight, and [r _g of the nacell<' are, in far!.: part, a
function of the fan desi.jn. In addition, the weight of th.-_ f,_:_
spool, the inlet and bypass du:t pressure losses, th._ _ffici,_n'i, s
of the fan and the turbin ,-_, the cor,. _ exha'Ist-duct pr,_ssur_' loss,
_In-] the cost of the f:in spool _r_: all important trad _-_ff : _rav-
eters affected l)y ,an
: _,,:-;ign
. • !{igi_ thz:)'_,;i_ -¢'__ j.,:)V, ....."<$0.. ] ?i -; _ I ..,
'""
27
TABLE IV. BASELINE ENGINE CORE COMPRESSOR
AND STAGE CHARACTERISTICS
Airflow 2.83 kg/sec Adiabatic 82 percent

(6.24 ib/sec) efficiency
Corrected 2.27 kg/sec Speed 27,627 rpm
airflow (5.00 ib/sec)
Pressure 7.0 0.78
Inlet hub-tip
ratio ratio
AT U (I) (I) (i)
Pressure OK mps e
Stage Ratio (OF) (fps) (_)
1.323 31 288 0.480 0.38 87

(56) (945)
1.323 32 280 0.465 0.41 87

(57) (919)
1. 296 33 272 0.450 0.45 87

(60) (593)
1.253 31 264 O.450 0.45 87

(56) (866)
1.218 29 256 0.450 0.45 87

(52) (84O)
2.13 123 374 0.450 0.90 83

(222) (1228) (2)
(i) At mean flow-[)ath radius
(2) Centrifugal tip speed

(3) : = Flow coefficient
= Compressor work coefficient
= Efficiency
2_3
hub-tip radius ratio, and low tip work coefficient serve to
decrease fan diameter and increase rotational speed. In turn,
nacelle weight and drag are reduced, the diameter or number of
stages and the weight of the fan-driving turbine are decreased
as is the cost of these elements. Offsetting these gains are
the increases in internal duct losses and an accompanying
decrease in fan efficiency which reduces thrust, propulsive
efficiency, and finally fuel economy. The interrelationship
between these parameters and those of the fan aerodynamic design
is complex, and their detailed evaluation was beyond the scope
of this study. However, _,,_ intent was to provide a fan design
for the baseline engine that balanced these parameters based on
previous experience. Thus a reasonable and compatible set of
losses, efficiencies, cor ponent sizes, and weights would be
achieved. Some of the pertinent fan preliminary design param-
eters are given in Table V.
TABLE V. BASELINE ENGINE FAN STAGE CHARACTERISTICS

Airflow 25 kg/Sec
(55 Ib/sec)
Pressure ratio 1.3
Adiabatic efficiency 89 %
Speed 14,114 rpm
Inlet hub/tip ratio 0.45
Design
Parameter Units Hub Tip
Pressure Ratio 1.3 1.3
AT °K(°F) 25.2 25.2

(45.3) (45.3)
U m/see 159 354

(fps) (522) (1160)
1.0 0.45
1.0 0.2025
89 89
Core turbine. - A }_igh-s:_,,_cific-v;ork [65,223 J,'kg, (28.04

Btu/lb) ] single-st _g,_ t_lrbin.- _ "._'_s :;.-_le:te.'i f.)r th: bas.,i]:.,_
,_n<]l:],.,cor__,. Preliminary str,:ss _:__lysis _nlic,_t,,d ti1,_t _n int ....
;rally cast, tip-shrou<led stag,_ wd:{ [)o<;sibl,. _ _t th, st,_:,: '.,,',_re
i_sign,3d with :li ]h t:_rk co,;ffi,3i :;t _n i ;ubst _::ti _[ ,utl, ' swirl.
Although less efficient than a two-stage design, the single-stage
turbine would be lighter and substantially less costly. Again,
in-depth turbine design and trade-off analyses would be needed
to prove the best choice. Table VI lists several design param-
eters for the baseline core turbine.
TABLE VI. BASELINE ENGINE CORE TURBINE CHARACTERISTICS
Specific work 65,220 J/kg

(28.04 Btu/ib)
Flow 2.83 Kg/sec

(6.24 ib/sec)
Pressure ratio 2.83
AT 242°K (436°F)
_, Efficiency 86 %
Speed 27,627 rpm
Hub/tip ratio (exit) 0.89
U, Tip speed 380 _/sec (1246 fps) (i)
_, Flow coefficient O.59 (I)
I, Turbine work factor

1.97 (i)
(gJCpAT)
Exit swirl angle 30 deg. (i)
(i) At mean radius
Fan-driving turbine. - The fan-driving turbine for the base-

line engine is a three-stage unit close-coupled to the core
turbine. It was designed with a synuaetrical flow path with the
mean radius equal to that of the core turbine. Each of the three
stages have tip shrouds with labyrinth seals for improved effi-
ciency. Approximately 1.5 £)ercent turbine efficiency could be
gained over the baseline by adding an interturbine diffuser duct.
However, decreased velocity through the turbine would increase
the turbine weight and cost. This design option furti_er ill,as-
trates the need for trade-off analyses to ascertain the total
effects on airplane size and costs. Design parameters for ti_e
baseline fan-driving turbine are given in Table VII.
3O
TABLE VII. BASELINE ENGINE FAN-DRIVING
TURBINE CHARACTERISTICS
Specific work 63730 J/kg

(27.4 Btu/ib)
Flow 2.83 kg/sec

(6.24 ib/sec)
Pressure ratio 2.83
193 °h
AT
(347 oF)
_, Efficiency 87 percent
Speed 14,114 rpm
0.76
Hub/tip ratio (exlt)
194 m/sec
U, Tip speed
(636 fps) (i)
i.10 1)
¢ , Flow coefficient
i. _jv I)
, Turbine work factor
Exit swirl angle
(i) At m_:an radius
]i
Combustor. - The baseline engine combustor is a reverse-
flow, annular configuration, sized for a heat-release rate
of i.i million Joules/hour/atmosphere/cubic meter (3 million
Btu/hour/atmosphere/cubic foot). Although the configuration has
a high surface-to-volume ratio, the moderate turbine inlet tem-
perature chosen for the cycle should permit a low turbine-inlet
pattern factor and adequate liner cooling with little difficulty.
The definition of a fuel-admission system has little impact on
engine preliminary design or performance, since comparable per-
formance can be expected from any of several alternate systems.
However, to meet the chemical emissions requirements applicable
to small civil turbofans after 1979 will probably require devel-
opment of a hybrid system combining the desirable characteris-
tics of both atomizers and vaporizers. Such a system is known
by the generic term "air-blast atomizer," a form of which is
depicted on the layout drawing of the baseline engine.
Exhaust ducts. - The engine exhaust ducts are conventional.

They provide diffusion to 0.3 Mach number and terminate in jet
nozzles that have equivalent convergence angles of 15 degrees.
The planes of the jet nozzles are located sufficiently aft to
provide a maximum nacelle boattail half-angle of 15 degrees.
Accessories. - The engine/airframe accessories are mounted

on a gear case that is integral with the engine front frame. A
radial "tower" shaft transmits power from the forward end of the
core compressor shaft to the accessory gear case through bevel
gear sets. The accessories systems complement consists of:
a 150-ampere, 30-vdc, 12,000-rpm starter-generator; a 12,000-rpm
fuel pump; an electronic/hydromechanical fuel control; a dual-
igniter continuous-ignition system; a lubrication system con-
sisting of a three-element pump, integral oil tank, and a fuel-
oil heat exchanger. The gear case also has provision for an
optional engine-driven hydraulic pump.
A representative engine mechanical design was executed in

sufficient detail to determine component configurations, stress
levels, manufacturing methods, material selections, and finally
to make a credible engine weight estimate.
The baseline engine basic layout is shown in Figure ll.

As stated r)reviously, the intent of the design was to achieve a
cost-effective engine by maximizing performance quality while
minimizing parasitic machinery. The drawing illustrates the
results of the careful adherence to these principles. The engine
was sized for o sea-level static thrust of 5204 N (1170 ib).
At this thrust level, the calcula__d engine weight is 125 kg
(275 ib) includine_ all accessories, bypass duct, and final jet
nozzles. The maximum bypass duct diameter is 5_ cm (23 in.),
and the overal[ engine length from inlet flange to the plane of
the primary jet nozzle is 114 cm (45 in.).
32
/"
Figure ii. Baseline Englne Cross Sect
OF ?00_'
selzne Engzne Cross Section.
a n_Al_ I_ _SE L _i_ ' 'p _94
3334
From this nominal size, it was determined that the baseline
engine could be scaled over the range of 3114 to 7562 N (700 to
1700 Ib) thrust with negligible change in specific performance.
The linear scale factor over this range of thrust varies approxi-
mately plus and minus 20 percent. This variation in scale factor
was found to be sufficient to cover the thrust requirements of
the various single- and twin-engine airplanes derived in the
study.
35
BASELINE AIRPLANE DEFINITION
General Design Considerations
Based on a summary knowledge of the USAF primary training

mission profile, early studies showed that a candidate military
primary trainer would exhibit a strong resemblance in size, cost,
and operating cost to a high-performance, civil, light airplane.
It was learned that the typical mission consisted of flights of
l-i/2-hour duration, at 370 to 463 kilometers (200 to 250 kt)
airspeed at altitudes up to 6096 m (20,000 ft) usually under
visual flight rule (VFR) conditions. The Cessna T-37B (the
present USAF definitive primary trainer) has elementary instru-
ment flight rule (IFR) capability, no cockpit pressurization,
and has short-range capability that is consistent with the
nominal l-1/2-hour primary training mission. IIowever, in was
designed to be fully aerobatic and capable of 648 km/hr (350 kt)
airspeed. With an empty weight over 1860 kg (4100 lb) and gross
weight over 2994 kg (6600 ib), the T-37B consumes fuel at the
rate of 719 liters (190 gallons) per hour in typical use. If it
were in production today, it would cost the USAF over $300,000.
In comparison, contemporary civil, high-performance, single-

engine light airplanes carry four to six people and baggage at
speeds up to 352 km/hr (190 kt), over ranges of 1296 to 1667 km
(700 to 900 n.mi.), yet weigh about half as much as the T-37B,
and consume fuel at a rate one-tenth as great. These airplanes,
with a comprehensive set of IFR avionics, sell to consumers for
less than $80,000. This includes markups to cover the cost of
design, development, and commercial distribution.
This comparison illustrates anomalies that can only partly

be explained by the fact that a sturdy military training airplane
would weigh more and consume more fuel than a civil airplane,
which was designed to less stringent standards. In fact, it can
be shown that the disparities in this comp._Lison result from the
differences in overall propulsion-system efficiencies between
the types compared. At the time the T-37 was designed, there
were no small turbofan engines in production and the propulsive
system had to be a turbojet. At the low airspeeds flown in the
training syllabus, this engine cycle is ver_' inefficient due to
low propulsive efficiency. This inefficiency far out-b_11ances
the inherent light wei<[ht and low volume of turboiet engines.
In addition, the state of the art in attainable aircraft <!as t'ar-
bine cycles is markedly im[)ro\,ed tod_y. With kl_is combination ';f
factors, the thrust specific f_le[ c<)ns_im})tic, n (TSFC) at 46_ km':r
(250 kt) airspeed of the turbofan en;ines is less than h_if th,u
TSFC of the T37B turbojets.
The aircraft design studies described later in this report
resulted in approximately a 25 percent increase in both gross
weight and fuel consumption over these preliminary results.
In the work leading to the definition of engine and airplane
baselines for this study, the turbofan engine was found to have
overall propulsion system efficiency that compared favorably with
that of contemporary light airplanes. Preliminary airplane siz-
ing analys_s of a baseline airplane showed that with performance
and operational capabilities similar to those of the T-37B, but
with less equipment than the Randolph study TA-2, a new turbofan-
powered trainer could be designed to have a gross weight of 1270
kg (2800 ibs) and a cruise fuel consumption of 117 liters/hr
(31 gal/hr) at 463 km/hr (250 kt), 4572 m (15,000 ft) altitude.
Initial configuration study. - From these initial results,
a three-view drawing was prepared for a baseline single-engine
airplane configuration. Military standard cockpit sizing, engine
location, landing gear stowage, wing vertical location, equip-
ment volume requirements, and the estimated center of gravity
location were the major considerations in the preparation of this
drawing. Crew visibility requirements, initial wing and tail
size and plan form options, ground clearance angles, and seat-
ejection path clearance were other items addressed in the con-
figuration study.
Together with baseline engine performance data, the geometry

of the baseline airplane configuration was input to the GASP
computer program to obtain a baseline program model. Several
iterations were required for a balanced solution with wing,
engine, tail, and equipment locations and sizes that were repre-
sentative of the three-view drawing. With this model completed,
the next task was to "calibrate" the program with structural
component weights that were based on actual attainments in similar
airplanes. Ultimate load factor, pressurization level, and de-
sign speed requirements were input to the program weight and bal-
ance module. At this point the specific requirements chosen for
the TA-2 Randolph study airplane were reviewed and input, accommo-
dated, or achieved in successive synthesis analyses. Table VIII
lists the mission and performance requirements, and Table IX lists
the configuration and equipment requirements that were net.
The first three-view and synthesis results were then sub-

mitted to Cessna Aircraft Company for evaluation and comment.
Equipment fit and weights, and general configuration considera-
tions were of primary concern in Cessna's initial review.
37
mmmmnnm
TABLE VIII. PRIMARYTRAINER MISSION AND PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTSADOPTEDFROMTHE RANDOLPH
STUDY.
Mission
O Takeoff I0 min. idle + 5 min. MIL power
O Climb MIL power climb to 4572 m

(15,000 ft)
O Cruise 1.5 hr at 463 km/hr (250 kt) at

4572 m (15,000 ft)
O Landing 15 min. MIL power at sea level
O Re serve s 20 min. loiter at sea level
Performance
O Takeoff Ground Run < 1220 m (< 4000 ft)
O Takeoff Time 10.15 seconds
O Landing Roll < 1220 m (< 4000 ft,
O Approach Speed 167-204 km/hr (90-110 knots)
O Rate-of-Climb k 610 m/min at 4572 m

(k 2000 ft/min at 15,000 ft)
O Single-engine Hot-Day k 122 m/min (k 400 ft/min)

Takeoff Configuration at sea level
O Cruise Endurance 1.5 hour at 463 km/hr

(250 kt) at 4572 m
(15,000 ft)
O Cruise Ceiling 7620 m (25,000 ft)
O Sustained Load Factor k 2.5 g's at 4572 m (15,000 ft)
O Instantaneous Load > 4.0 g's at 4372 m (15,000 ft)

Factor
O Maximum Speed 463 km/hr (250 kt, 0.399 :lach)
38
TABLE IX. CONFIGURATIONAND EQUIPMENTREQUIREMENTS
ADOPTEDFROMTHE RANDOLPHSTUDY.
Configuration
o Seating 2-place side-by-side
o Cockpit Geometry MIL-STD-133 or equivalent
o Visibility MIL-STD-850
o Propulsion Two engines in flight,

restart capability
o Flight Controls Conventional primary con-

trols, flaps, deceleration
devices, lift spoilers
o Landing Gear Retractable, nose wheel

steering, antiskid brakes
Equipment
o Avionics Communications - UHF, hot-mike

intercom
Navigation - TACAN or VOR-DME

area nav. IFF/SIF(AIMS). ILS
marker beacon
Special - Collision avoidance
o Instruments Engine - State-of-the-art

round dial
Flight - Attitude, heading

ref. system, flight director,
angle of attack indicator
o Status Monitoring Conventional light warning
o Student Performance- Audiovideo recording system,

Measuring Equipment audio tape recorder
o Air Conditioning
o Bird-Proof Windshield
o Windshield, Engine
Inlet Anti-Ice
o Oxygen and Pressu[ization
o Zero/Zero Escape System
o Standard Emergency System
39
Personnel of the DCS Operations staff at USAF Air Training Command
Headquarters were solicited for comments on the configuration and
projected performance capabilities. Similarly, U.S. Navy Train-
ing command personnel were consulted on the configuration.
Although it was the original intent of the study to define
one most cost-effective airplane having a single engine applicable
to civil use, it became increasingly clear during discussions
with military personnel that twin-engine configurations should
be included in the study. Furthermore, while side-by-side seat-
ing was selected for the initial baseline, certain advantages of
the tandem seating arrangement were pointed out by military
personnel, and it was subsequently decided to include this
alternative. Finally, the basic configuration sensitivity study
included a complement of four airplanes--single-engine and twin--
engine, each with side-by-side and tandem seating.
Three-view drawings were prepared, and synthesis definition
of baseline models was completed for each of the four configura-
tions. Except for their inherent differences, these baselines
were executed in such a manner that their performance and opera-
tional characteristics were nearly identical. Of course, the
twin-engine airplanes required extra propulsion-related equipment
and instrumentation to be included in the weight, and tandem seat-
ing required extra cockpit instrumentation.
The analysis of single-engine climb capability of the twins

provided the greatest difference in the performan,:e analysis.
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), Part 25 were applied to the
single-engine climb analysis of the twins. With respect to
engine failures on the single-engine airplanes, it was considered
imperative that the stall speed be less than 113 km/hr (70 mph),
which would usually permit emergency landings without destruction
of the aircraft or serious injury to the crew. This is apparently
the intention of the 70-mph maximum stalling speed rule of FAR
Part 23 that is applicable to single-engine civil airplanes.
Complete descriptions of the baseline airplanes are provided

in the following sections, Tasks I through IV, together with the
results of an engine sizing study and the synthesis sensitivity
analyses conducted on the baseline configurations.
4_
TASK I - EVALUATION OF SIDE-BY-SIDE,
SINGLE-ENGINE TRAINER
Initial Airplane and Engine Sizing Analyses

The baseline airplane geometry was defined by a three-view
drawing and a compatible set of synthesis results. The first
drawing was prepared with a 9.29 sq m (100 sq ft) wing, antici-
pating that the "solution" airplane would weigh about 1067 kg
(3500 ib), resulting in a wing-loading approximately the same as
that of the T-37B. The 10-aspect-ratio wing was located in a
"shoulder" configuration, at eye level, behind the cockpit.
Wing-tip fuel tanks were sized to accommodate more than half the
total fuel, thus providing a large wing relieving load that would
ensure a light wing structure. However, the tip tanks were re-
moved in subsequent design analyses when Cessna Aircraft Company
advised that, in a fully aerobatic trainer, it is considered im-
perative to minimize the moment of inertia about the roll axis to
enhance recovery from spins. Synthesis analysis was performed
with the assumption of full span, 100 percent Fowler-action flaps,
and the drawing incorporated Mitsubishi-type spoilers for roll
control. Two vertical tails were located at the tips of the hor-
izontal tail, and tail surfaces were sized to provide volume
coefficients of 0.075 and 1.36, for the vertical and horizontal,
respectively. The engine was located on the top of the fuselage
tail cone, with the rectangular inlet located at about 50 percent
of the wing root chord. The landing gear was assumed to be a
conventional tricycle configuration. The oleo-spring nose gear
retracted forward into the fuselage nose, and the main gear, with
spring steel struts, retracted about a single pivot hinge into
the fuselage tail cone. Crew accommodation was provided within
a fully glazed canopy, similar in size and shape to that of the
T-37B.
Because the GASP mission module is based on a typical general
aviation mission format of takeoff, climb, and cruise, plus re-
serve fuel, it was necessary to rationalize the Randolph TA-2
airplane mission into this format. Based on initial synthesis
results and separate calculations, it was determined that a mis-
sion nearly equivalent in fuel consumption to that of the TA-2
could be represented by takeoff, climb to 4572 m (15,000 ft),
250 kt cruise for 740 km (400 n.mi.), plds reserve fuel for 45
minutes at that speed and altitude. All further synthesis sizing
work (lone in the program was based on this mission.
With baseline engine and airplane sizing results obtained

from initial synthesis analysis, the re<_uired airplane perform-
ance envelope was examined for engine sizing criteria other than
those analyzed in GASP. The TA-2 air_)[ane requirements specified
in the Randolph UPT study report were adopted for this investiga-
tion. Initial synthesis results showed that when the engine was
sized by the thrust re_[uired at start-of-cruise it would [,rovide
ad,_<[uate takeoff and climb perforr _nce. l{owever, a separate
41
analysis of the thrust required to provide a sustained load factor
(or maneuver rate) of +2.5 g's at 4572 m (15,000 ft) showed that
this performance requirement probably sized the engine at all
reasonable values of wing-loading. Because the twin-engine air-
plane to be evaluated in Task II was to be the subject of exten-
sive wing-loading and thrust-loading studies, it was decided to
forego this work on the single-engine airplane until optimized
values were obtained in Task II.
The calibrating values of airplane component weights for
refining the GASP calculations were taken from the 1724-kg
(3800-ib) Cessna Turbo Centurion II. From these calibrating
values GASP has the capability of calculating new weights based
on the different structural load criteria, pressurization require-
ments, and compol_ent sizes. For example, the GASP-calculated
wing weight was [.ased on a 10-g ultimate load factor, resulting
in a substantially heavier wing than that of the more lightly
loaded Centurion. Fixed equipment weights were estimated by
Cessna Aircraft Company, based on the Randolph "fit" and currently
available equipment lists. The breakdown of equipment weights is
qiven in Table X.
Final Design results and Evaluation
Sensitivity and trade-off analysis results obtained in Task

II were incorporated in a final side-by-side, single-engine de-
sign. The three-view drawing, Figure 12, and GASP printouts
supplied in Appendix B describe this design in detail. The most
notable aspect of these design results are the large reductions
in airplane size and fuel consumption over those obtained in the
Randolph study. The reduction in empty weight amounted to over
227 kg (500 Ib) ; in gross weight, about 363 kg (_00 Ib); and in
mission fuel, about 30 percent. This achievement is attributed
to the use of a "best" engine, which is designed and optimized to
meet the stipulated mission and airplane performance requirements.
Cempared with the other three configurations evaluated in

this study, the side-by-side single-engine trainer is unquestion-
ably the most cost-effective. With side-by-side seating, there
is a minimum of duplication of cockpit instrumentation and equip-
ment. With a less costly single-engine installation (nacelle,
instruments, etc.), and lower specific engine cost (dollars per
unit of thrust), the development and fly]way costs of this con-
f[ luration should be substantially less than those of the others.
With the lowest fuel consumption, lower maintenance costs permit-
ted b>' the single engines and least amount of e, luipment, the air-
!)lane operating costs should also })e lower by a si_:nifi<:nnt mar-
<jin. Finally, with the easier operation inherent in sin_le-en_in,_
airplanes , training effectiveness should be improved by eliminat-
inq the re<[uiroment for teachin.l "})rimary" students th_ _nore co_-
:)lex multi-engine n[loti:< I tasks.
42
TABLE X. CESSNA-PROVIDED FIXED EQUIPMENT
WEIGHT ESTIMATE
lb
INSTRUMENTS :
15.0
Engine Instruments, Transmitters (0.5 of
citation) 1.0 2.1
cabin Pressure Instruments 42.9 94.5
Flight Instruments, Dual + Dual Flight Director
[ii kg (25 lbs) ea] 9.1
Angle-of Attack (Citation) 1.5
celerometer (T-37) 2.5
Recorder (T-37)
124.7
Total
•]LECTRICAL (Except Starter-Generator[

26 58
3attery - 22 amp-hr, 24-volt, & case 4 9
olid-State Inverters (2) 3 6
Cutouts and Voltage Reg. (0.5 of T-37) 2 4
Switches, Rheostats, Panels, Boxes 0.5 1
circuit Breakers 1 3
Junctions, Distribution Boxes l 3
P lugs 2 4
Relays 9 20
Wiring 0.5 1
conduit 4 8
iscellaneous l0 22
Lights (Incl. Strobes), Horns 3 7
Supports
66 146
Total
FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT

5O ii0
Rocket Zero-Zero Ejection Seats with Chutes 2 5
Cushions 9 19
Oxygen System (High-Pressure, Limited Size,
for Decompression Only) 12
Pins, Plates, Mirror, Rugs, Trim Insulation,
First Aid 8 18
Fire Detect. & Extinguish. & Portable Extinguisher 7 15
Ventilation System 0.5 i
Heat System 23 56
cooling System (Air cycle) 5 i0
Defog & Windshield Anti-Ice & Rain Removal
(All Weather) 2
xiliary Gear 248
To ta i
4
T -r'------'-"
, 1
i
+
TABLE X. (Contd.)
AVIONICS
Side-by-Side Tandem
k/ l_k
UHF
4 9 5 12
Hot Mike Intercom & Audio System 2 5 3 6
VOR-ILS-MB
3.2 7.1 5 12
DME
8 18 9 20
Area NAV
5 ii 7 15
IFF/SIF (AIMS) 3.4 7.5 3.4 7.5
Collision Avoidance (Proximity Only) 3 7 4 8
Audiovideo Recording System and 18 40 18 40
Audio Tape Recorder
Sub Total 46.6 104.6 54.4 120.5

10% For Installation 4.7 10.5 5.4 12.1
TOTAL 51.3 I15.1 59.8 132.6
44
ENGffJE DAT_.
PEIRIz'OR_A klCE
A_I_Iz'LOW ( , / 757 ,_=,/_e

g&LL 5PlEED (gULL ;LAP'5) v CoO kr_, (57.6 _p_,_ .
RANGE. (W11"l-I Z CI:_IEW') "_700 n,-n {*45,,-,. R_'VE ") V#E_IGI.4"T Dl4'¢ _Z;_ Ib
TAKF_.0_:I= _STAJNCE (SL 5TD DAY}.--15_4 _ (0vE.R 35 _'_
LANDiklCo 135TAt,,ICE (5._- 5TO DAY) _IG_,5 _ {OVER 50 Ct) .
_Jf_TAINEO
UAX _TE 0¢ kAA_IF.U%_--.-.P,
CUrB QA'FI_
('SL-_S,00O_ 2.S
_00-Z(,40 _p jAT 2C_ W3/15,000 _'$) AEJ_0 D'Y1,4AKAiC DATA
wF_.lGI-I T S
GROSS 3497 tb
Et, Z P T Y ?..,iS} Ib
Ol::_.R.P, TIWIG (l_C OI,iE. CREW') _ tb
I='IXF_D u.SE.IZ'LJL LOAD /'.10 tb
I_AY LOAD 2'_ Ib
I_I_E.D FJ,,,iT GROUP &&? ib

_:LIGHT C0_TROL_ G_OOP 76 Ib
5"I'I_uCTU_ _ _?.4_, 16
P_O_L_O_ GI_OL._D 459
D_MEi4SIOt45 4 A_E.A_
I= usE.I..AGE
L F__KIGT I"-I _ ?t
Wt DTI-.i 453 Ct
HEIGI-IT 4.50 ¢t
W ik.IG
AREA 77.7 _
_PA_4 g_9 i'_-
GF.OI, IETRIC _F_AH Ct.IGRD Z_,I ¢-t
A.._IT=CT PJwTW_ IO
"r_4ICKNF_.%/Ct'WDRD _.¢_0OT- TID_ 0.Ct-0 ,7
HORIZONTAL "TiWI L
18.5
CHORD Z.0_ ,it

A._i_-CT ilil_T I G a.s7
"t_41CK_l_5_/C wO_O 0.07
V_I_CiI.L Tlklt (TWIN')
C_i0RO (F..._) Z.O5 ¢t

iw_i_.JL"r _TiO I .r'_O
T WI C KWIF....._t,_/ Cl.1Oli_ Cli_"l
EN Gll, l_. N A.(._.,I..L.__

U_GT_ 45
AVI[RAGF- I.tEI_14 T i&7
tA_NG G_k_
TIRE =3t_E 5.Cw_ .S :_,
ORIGD_AL PAGE IS t X " -J__

OF POOR QU._JTY
Filure [2. Three-View Drawing Side-BF-S_de, Szn:le Er

DAT_
I S09 Ib
_L.0w_'US'F
(_, 5TODAY,,
' I 75.7 Ib/_,_c.
_,lA_vlIC DATA
LOADING
..%E DO_ POL_
_b_._ _ £-_ IkICRE._ENT
_VE _'LAT PLATE
'_ _RICTIO)J C._E._'X:tCJE3_T
_O_FI"_L T_L vO,...L..._AE

C.OEk-I:ICJE}.,.[T
--11"lC_.l_ T_IL. VOt-U_,AF__ CSE._'_'hCIE._T
)--
i, _
L "_ = __
'_'l:. •] i+ltt.I TARY "";_II, iiER

£de-By-Side, S_ngle Engine Con figurat ion. ..... I
i"' i -"'_" "-" !:l_:,'
I _ ,
"-,,I!
,,o ,
"-T
TASK II - EVALUATION OF SIDE-BY-SIDE TWIN-

ENGINE TRAINER
Initial Airplane and Engine Sizing Analyses
Wing-loadin_ and thrust-loading. - Initial design efforts on

the side-by-side, twin engine configuration were directed toward
achieving a compatible set of results between the GASP output and
the three-view drawing. The significant differences between this
configuration and that of the single-engine airplane is the low
versus shoulder wing location, and the relocation of the engines
to the top of the wing. This engine position was chosen for two
reasons. First, wing-mounted engines provide the lowest airframe
structural weight. Heavy fuselage frames are eliminated, and
wing bending moments are reduced by moving the "dead" weight of
the engines outboard on the wing. This is particularly signi-
ficant in a wing stressed for I0 g's ultimate load factor, as
the case is for trainer airplanes. The second reason for wing-
mounted engines is the elimination of the aerodynamic effects of
the engine-to-fuselage pylon. In the deep-stall flight condi-
tion, the horizontal tail is less likely to be blanked by the
combined wake of fuselage, pylons, and engine nacelles. With
the consequent increased effectiveness of stabilizer and elevator,
it should be possible to have a horizontal tail of shorter span
and lower weight.
The original GASP definition of the airplane was performed

with engines arbitrarily oversized tc _nsure conformance to the
several airplane off-design performanu requirements stipulated
in the Randolph study. Because the interrelationships between
wing loading (gross weight - wing area), thrust-loading (gross
weight - installed thrust), and performance requirements are
complex, an in-depth parametric analysis was undertaken. The
results of this analysis facilitates the identification of the
most cost-effective combination of these important design
variables.
Figures 13 through 16 are plots of thrust available and

thrusts required for 1 and 2.5 g's flight at 4572 m (15,000 ft),
versus flight speed, for four values of wing-loading. The
engine is "sized" in each case by the point of tangenc'/ between
the thrust available and the thrust re<[uirr_d for 2.5 g's load
factor. With the engine "sized" by this method, the solution
airplane thrust-loading is a fallout, varying with win j-loading.
In further GASP anal_sis it was shown that with engines sized
for 2.5 <;'s sustained maneuver capabilit-, at 4572 m (15,g99 ft) ,
all other performance requirements were met at all the values
o: wincl-[oadinq that were examine<]. Additional information
47
I
I
I
t
i
WING LOADING = 171 KG/M 2 (35 PSF)
ALTITUDE = 4572 I%1(15,000 FT)
RANGE = 400 N. Mi. PLUS RESERVES
PAYLOAD = 186 KG (410 LB)

4O00
3800
11,11
TURNING FLIGHT
8O0 7 (2.5 "g's"

THRUST REQUIRED)
3400
3600
ESTIMATED 1
3200
• STALL
700 -
3000 "" _/
2800
/
2600
,.,.I
THRUST
, - _
2400 AVAI LABLE
_ NI0- Z 2200
e¢- i-- CRUISE /"
i-- DESIGN
2000
POINT /
4110- 1800
1600
1400
300-
J
/ LEVEL FLIGHT
1200 _
i THRUST REQUIRED
1000
20G -
800
100 140 180 220 260 300 340
VELOCITY, TAS - KNOTS
Figure 13. Engine S_zing Results at Wing

Loading of 171 kg/sq m (35 ib/sq ft).
48
AtTiTUDE = 4572 M (15,000 FT)
RANGE -- 400 N. Mi. PLUS RESERVES
4000
3800 I llll
TURNING FLIGHT
3600
800
\ 7 (2.s"_")
THRUST REQUIRED
34OO
ESTIMATED
700 - 32oo _. /
II
STALL
tI I1
3000
2800
6OO
IJ. 2600
/I -__-_'-
i
THRUST
2400 AVA ILAB L E ""
_ 500
_ 22C0
-r
2000 CRUISE
/
DESIGN
/
400 1800
POINT,, /
_J
1600
P
300 m
1400
-b, t
1200 _'` / LEVEL FLIGHT
_ \ THRUST REQUIRED
_/
1000
200 L
800
100 140 180 220 260 300 34O
Figure 14. Engine Sizing Results at

Wing Loading of: i<)5 kg/sq m
(40 ib."sq ft).
! !
(
I
I
I

ALTITUDE -- 4572 M (15,000 FT)
4200
900 - 4000
11 I
D 3800 TURNING FLIGHT
712.5 "g's") REQUIRED
THRUST
800 - 3600
3400
m
ESTIMATED
3200 _
700 -
' _::_STALL
3000
2 2800
I.I.
I
/i
600 - THRUST _._ _,J'
-J
= 2600 AVAI LAB LE "_ ¢..--, f
I-- m
¢/3 2,:,00
n,"
..I- 500 - 2200
I-
2000
CRUISE /
400 - 1800 DESIGN
POINT,_ /"
1600
1400 •
300 - I
1200 _
J LEVEL FLIGHT
1000
THRUST REQUIRED
200 -
800 i ]. l ] l l
100 140 180 220 260 300 340
VELOCITY, ]AS - KNOTS
Figure 15. Engine Sizin< _ Results at Win<_ Loading

of 220 kg_s_: :< (4:_ l]J/sq ft) .
5O
r ........... _r

ALTITUDE = 4572 M (15,000 FT)
4400
4200
TURNING FLIGHT
900 4O00 ; (2.5 "g's")
3800
8OO 3600 _ THRUST REQUIRED
ESTIM_,TED
3200
700 X:j/_' STALL
3000
u=
2800
-I Z /
i 500 I 2600 THRUST
- AVAI LABLE
¢/)
2400
"r "t-
k- 500 _- 2200
2000
/
/
CRUISE
400 1800 DESIGN
POINT
/
1600
/
f
1400 X
Y
300 \
1200
LEVEL FLIGHT
1000 THRUST REQUIRED
200
800 J 1 l I I
100 140 180 220 260 300 340
Figure 16. Engzne Sizing Results at Wing Loading

of 244 kg/'sq m (50 ib/sq ft).
51
contained i:_ Figures 13 through 16 includes the estimated stall
or buffet limit velocity in a 2.5-g maneuver, best maneuver
speed at 4572 m (15,000 ft), and the thrust required in level
flight at the cruise design point, 463 km/hr (250 _t).
Continuing the wing-loading study, GASP results were used

to generate the data contained in Figures 17 through 21. Here,
the important design parameters affecting airplane unit cost and
operating cost are plotted against wing loading. Three curves
in each plot represent different engine sizing criteria; 2.5 and
2.0 g's sustained load factor, and 122 m/min (400 ft/min) single-
engine, hot-day rate of climb. It should be reiterated here
that with use of the GASP analysis technique, any point along
these curves represents a unique airplane "solution" that meets
all the stipulated performance, mission, and equipment require-
ments.
Examining Figures 17 through 21 reveals that over the range

of wing loading investigated, 171 to 244 kg/sq m (35 to 50 ib/sq
ft), airplane gross weight, empty weight, and cruise fuel con-
sumption are reduced with increased wing loading. Only thrust
loading and, consequently, engine sea level static thrust in-
creases with increased wing loading. The immediate conclusion
based on these results is that only life-cycle cost analyses
would permit the selection of a wing-loading value that would
maximize airplane cost-effectiveness. However, based on a pre-
liminary evaluation of the relative values of the components of
life-cycle cost, the highest wing loading examined in this study
would result in the most cost-effective trainer. It was estimated
that over the range studied the increased cost of the engine due
to higher thrust would be approximately offset by lower airframe
cost due to lower structural weight, and that the reduced fuel
consumption would provide a net reduction in the life-cycle cost.
Coincident with the analytical efforts to select a best

wing-loading for the baseline airplanes of this study, NASA
personnel _ere engaged in the design of a computer program to
simulate the dynamics of the conventional loop maneuver. Using
this program, it was demonstrated that at 220 kg/sq m (45 ib/sq
ft) the airplane would exhibit several desirable characteristics
in the loop. Figure 22 illustrates that with a buffet limit lift
coefficient of 1.12 and a 3.5-g maximum load factor, it would
maintain 1.03 positive g's over the top, or apex, of the loop.
Less than 1219 m (4000 ft) of vertical and horizontal air space
would be required to accomplish the maneuver. This maneuvering
capability, together with considerations of stall speed, landing
speed and distance, and absolute wing dimensions on the "solution"
airplane, led to the selection of a wing-loading of 222 kg/sq m
(45 Ib/sq ft). This value was used in all subsequent sensitivity
analyses performed in the study.
52
1620
1600,
3500 m
1580,
1560,
3400 2.5 "g's" SLF AT

- 1540
4572 M (15,000 FT)-
1520
cO
.J
I v
I- 11500
33OO \\\
-r- I-
Q -I-
n
IJJ
,T, 1480
-
C,
oO \\
_ 1460
3200 _ IX
1440
2.0 "g's" SLF AT

1420
4572 M (15,000 FT)
3100 m
1400
- 1380
122 M/MIN J
300t - 1360 (400 FT/MIN)
SE H_T DAY
134G
160 180 200 220 240 260
WING LOADING - KG/M 2
I I I I
35 40 45 50
WING LOADING - PSF
Figure 17. Gross Weight Variation With

Wing-Loadzng.
53
1120
\
1100
2400 m
1080
2.5 "g's" SLF AT
1060
4572 M (15,000 FT) --
23O0 1040
I I
- _ 1020
2200 _1000
980 2.0 "g's" S L F AT

W
960 4572 M (lb,000 FT)

2100
940
122 M/MIN
920 .(400 FT/MIN)
SE HOT DAY
2000
90_60 200 220 240 260
180
WING LOADING - KG/M 2
I I I I
35 40 45 5U
WING LOADING - PSF
Figure 18.
Wing-Loading-
54
160
42-
2.5 "g's" SLF AT

B
"I-
150 4.%-/2 M (15,000 FT_
"1-
Q.
..I
I I
38
O
-I
IJ. 122 M/MIN
.-I -J (40G FT/IVl IN)
uJ
SE HOT DAY
u. u. 130
34-
m
120
2.0 "g's" SLF AT
4572 M (15,000 FT)
110 1
160 180 200 220 240 26O
WING LOADING -- KG/M 2
I I I J
35 40 45 50
WING LOADING - PSF
Figure 19. Cruise Fuel Consumption Variation

with Wing-Loading
' INSTA NTAN
U--'_'U'_
EO
0.48 LOAD FACTOR LIMIT
0.46
2.5 "'g's" SLF AT

0.44
4572 M (15,000 FT)
=0
.J
it 0.42
CO
,.J
L
I- 0.40
,1-
uJ
0.38
0.36 2.0 "g's" SLF AT

-t-
l-- 4572 M (15,000 FT)
0.34
0.32
122 M/MIN
(400 FT/MIN)
0.30 SE HOT DAY
2.8
L
200 220 240 260
160 180
WING LOADING -- KG/M 2
I L
35 40 45 50
WING LOADING PSF
t'lgurc 2_). Takes<': " F!:: _.;'_-to-,',' i_:_'t " '-:_

"V'<IKI,i_t ! II ',.:'.i _, ;';k_ _,t:-L ,:_i_n,[.
36
i
7000
68OO f
1500
6600
2.5 "g's'" SLF AT
4572 M (15 000 FT)
1400
2.0 "q's" SLF AT

4572 M (15,000 FT)
5200
4800
4600 --" 122 M/MIN _"

(400 FT/MIN)
1000 SE HOT DAY
I
4400 260
160 180 200 220 240
WING LOADING - KG/M2
L I I J
35 40 45 50
WING LOADING - PSF
Figure 21. Total Sea Level Thrust Varlation

With Wing-Loading •
¢
BUFFET CL = 1.12
MAXIMUM "g" = 3.5
MINIMUM "g" = 1.03
X 102 X 102
190 58'
APEX (1.03 "g'$")
185
/ \
56
180
54
I 52
UJ
GI
I-
I--
50
160
48
/
155
46
150 END (3.5 "g's")
START (3.5 "_")
400 600 800 1000 12U0

0 200
AXIAL DISTANCE M
I 1 I L I l
1000 2000 3000
AXIAL DISTANCE .- FT
F i'tur," _ _
58
Final Design Results and Evaluation
Figure 23 illustrates climbing characteristics, which are

functions of wing- and thrust-loading common to the four baseline
airplanes. Time to climb to the assumed normal operation alti-
tude of 4572 m (15,000 ft) is less than 5 minutes. Maximum rate
of climb at this altitude exceeds the Randolph study requirement
by about 152 m/min (500 ft/min). A service ceiling of about
10,060 m (33,000 ft) is indicated.
The operating envelope common to the four baseline airplanes

is illustrated in Figure 24. In this plot of altitude versus
flight speed, the maximum level flight speed, the speed for maxi-
mum rate of climb, the maximum altitude of 10,670 m (35,000 ft),
and the maximum level speed of 598 km/hr (323 kt) are all shown.
With completion of the foregoing performance analyses of the

baseline side-by-side twin configuration, it was concluded that
the resulting airplane conceptual design was entirely responsive
to the requirements defined in the Randolph study. The final
design and performance quality varied only slightly from that of
the Randolph conceptual TA-2. However, comparative analysis sug-
gests that substantial gains had been made in areas that affect
economics. The gross and empty weights were reduced over 20 per-
cent, a factor that clearly indicateE a potential for reducing
flyaway cost from the Randolph study estimate of $319,000. Fuel
consumption was estimated to have been reduced between 30 and 50
percent, indicating that operating cost could be lowered from the
$99 per hour Randolph study estimate.
The three-view drawing presented in Figure 25 depicts the

configuration details of the final side-by-side twin engine
design. The GASP printouts given in Appendix B list additional
dimensional, weight breakdown, and aerodynamic data. With use of
these data, pertinent comparisons can be drawn between the design
results and those of the current USAF primary trainer, the T-37B.
For example, it is dimensionally smaller, with 85 percent of the
fuselage length, and 80 percent of the wing span of T-37B. It
is substantially lighter in weight--about half the gross weight
and 60 percent of the empty weight of T-37B. With 30 percent of
the fuel carried by T-37B, it has greater range and endurance in
primary training missions. With cockpit pressurization and a
superior avionics fit, it is able tc perform training missions
and meet training syllabus requirements that are not I_ssible in
the T-37B, as it is currently equipped.
%9
o o ,I_
_° v- 8 °
O'I 8 °8
r,,. °i._ °
_r
X" q" _I- 3Clnlll-lV
I •
I l I I I
o
X _
1-I - 3(]f11117V
6O
l
X 102
120
X 102 110
35O
100
f_T_
MINIMUM /
300 9O LEVEL /r
80 _'_"_ _o _oR
_. MAXIMUM
I.-- =Z MAXIMUM
u. 250 LEVEL
RATE OF FLIGHT
I I 70
uiJ SPEED
L,U E3
r_ 200 D 6O
i==
I..- CLIMB 7"
l-
=J ,_ so
< 150
40 !
NORMAL
100 30 OPERATING
CONDITION
50
2O
1(1
0
0
/
100 200 300
/ 400
DESIGN POINT
5OO 6OO
VELOCITY, TAS - KM/HR
1 I . I I J
100 200 3OO
Figure 24. AirDlane Performance Envelope at

Wing-Loading of 220 kg/sq m
(45 ib/sq ft).
61
Further comparisons show additional improvements in
propulsion-related factors affecting operational use. It is
estimated that the turbofan-powered trainer would have approxi-
mately 20 EPNdB lower noise level in takeoff (flyover), approach,
and sideline measurements than the T-37B. With an exhaust jet
velocity about 40 percent of that of T-37B, personnel safety on
conjested flight lines would be improved. Chemical exhaust
emissions would be reduced to newly proposed federal standards.
Finally, with adherence to contemporary engine design practice,
substantial improvements could be expected in reliability and
maintainability. Modular engine component assemblies would fac-
ilitate on-the-wing, on-condition maintenance and, thereby, effect
reductions in hourly operating costs.
The foregoing comparative evaluations of the side-by-side

twin-engine configuration show that it is markedly superior to
both the T-37B and the Randolph study TA-2 conceptual design.
Only the side-by-side single-engine airplane defined in this study
would have greater cost-effectiveness than this configuration.
Parametric Sensitivity Analyses
Engine definition for sensitivity analysis. - The baseline

engine design described previously provided the basis for design
point parametric cycle analysis, and for subsequent definition
of candidate engines used to evaluate the effects of cycle qual-
ity on the airplane size and fuel consumption. In the parametric
cycle analysis, all cycle variables affecting spec;=ic thrust and
specific fuel consumption were examined. Fan pressure ratio,
core compressor pressure ratio, turbine inlet temperature, and
bypass ratio were varied over a sufficient range of values to
permit the evaluation of performance trends and optimum condi-
tions. Component efficiencies and cycle losses were varied or
held constant appropriate to the cycle and component variations.
The effects on cycle quality of core compressor pressure

ratio were examined by varying the pressure ratio from 4:1 to
i0:i. The variation expected in adiabatic efficiency over this
range is shown in Figure 26. In order to simplify the definition
of compressor performance over this range, one axial-centrifugal
compressor design was assumed, with design characteristics simi-
lar to those of the original baseline engine. Beginning with a
1.818 pressure ratio centrifugal compressor desi<_n, three to
seven axial stages were added sequentially to the front to effect
the desired overall pressure ratio.
The effects of fan pressure ratio were examined over the

range from 1.15:1 to 1.4:1, with desi;n point efficiency varying
as shown in Figure 27. Turbine inlet temperatures ranqing from
62
......
]
PERFORMANCE ENGINE DATA (2 e._)
[.RUISE SPEED 05,000 h A,_.T_ ZSO _h IZ8_ mph - $ 399KA_ THRUST (5_.5 5"rDDAY ?44
_TALL SPEED (CULL FLAPS) _ I_O ,_% ' 59 44 mpk) AIR_L0W , ) 38.II
CI_uISE ""_'RUST (?.T_j ,.:,/15.O00) I@I
"IAKE0_'F DtSTA_CE (..%L.5TO C_A<).."_4 _* ;CvE_ 35 ;, WDGF_T ([_,Y _ 15¶
LANDING OlST_,I,@"_E (5.L STD DAY) .-.,_G_76:_ (OVER 5C R'_
SUSTAINED MANEUVE_ RATE _ _ {;T 26C kt/15.OOOfb AE_0DYNAMC DATA
IvtaX RATE 0_" CLIWAB _t -,5,0_j _60G-_C,(o7 ,r_;,_
WING L.0AD, _G
WEIGNTS
GR055 35GG Ib LKANI=DINS

EZK GEA_ _ L_W:.REMENT
E.C_IqVEF----LAT ATE
EMPTY Z3_Z I_ WETTED AREA
OPERATIklG (_NC ONE CREW) 2522 Ib _'_AEA!,_ SKIN PRtCTION COEIZ'CICIEI_T
FIXED USEFUL LOAD Z:0 u_ CRUISE REYNOLEL_ _C /FOOT
I_Y LOAD ?.00 Ib kA&K ! _ITN _LJLL. 7LAP_)
V_EL (MAX) C_44 Ib 9G_I_I) i_0gJZOlqTAL .rAIL VOLJME C_ICIENT

FIXED EQUIPMENT GROUP roza _b VEJRT<AL "_._,- V0_,J_,F_ COEP,:C#..._T
FLIGHT CONTROL.5 G_OUP ?8 Ib
ST_UCTLIR_ GROL_D ilIO Ib
PI:I0PULSION GROUP 455 ib
DIMENSIONS ¢. AREAS
FUSELAGE
_F.._GTN 25 #t
WIDT_ 4.5 {t
_EIGNT 45 h
WI_IG
AREA ?5 _,4 _,
5PAI_ L73 ,h
_F.Ok_TR_ MEAN OaO_D z B4
A.%PECT R/_TIO Io
T_ER RATIO 05 •
T NIC..KN_CtJIORD 0:_(:W)T
& TIP') 0.17
I.I(_IlZl}I_TAL
TAIL
').87 ft
Cw(ll_ zZ_
T_'wNr_ICwmP 0.07 •
VERTtC,AI. T&IL
AREA 15.5 ¢_
.£T _IAT_ _W •
ICWNE$S/C_ORD 0,015 .
F_IilGINEN_,CELLE (?_)
_EAN • DIAMETER i.G7 _ct
LIEMGTH 3 ?.5 #t
L_4_ NG GEAR
MNki TIRE 31ZE 4 4 x 18
_E TIRE SIZE 44 x 14
WHEEL _ 7, 5 h
WI_EEL TI:_..AD B._3 h
.i--. _ _ ,-i \
,h i ! ! !,L_:' '
<Z - 2.2
Figure 25. Three-Vie_, Drawing Side-By-Side Twzn I_

-T----
I
T_RUST (Si..%STD IZ_Y 746 Ib

AIRrLOW( ..... ) 3B,IB _b/_
C_UtBE THRUST (&50 .t_/15,_{X))
wEiGhT<r_v_ 15_ Ib
C DATA
WING LOAO_NG 45 Ib/_,,Ct

F..RUI.SEDRAG POLAR Co '-0,0zem÷o,040G_._
LANDIiJG GEAR __xC..RF..MF_NT 0 0Z8_8
E__E.CInVE F-.LRAT%LATE AREA .
V_ETTED AR_.A 4q6 ,L(i '_t"
MEAN 5KIklg'RICTION CC_:'ICIENT 0,00438
CRUISE R_-Y_WSLD5 KW3./FOOT i B4_ x _0 _
C4," _,AAX (NITI4 i:'ULL _.._i:)S) 3.'7_5

-\
140RIZ01_TAL TAIL VOLUI',AE COE"_'_ICIE_T IAZ3
VERT_,CAL TAIL V0_U_F- GOEFI=IOE.N,T 0094
!\ I;_ //
. #' =___-,r ._ ,, , j-
_J
_J
I... L_YOU? !-
Side-B_-Side Twin Engine Ccnfiguratxon.

.........
iiii .... ...,.,.,
_ ,_....-.
:.....
:._.
.........
° ............
63 (_4
.,-I
O0
0 0
_4J
0-,-t
_ c
4-1-,.4
ffl
f'4
1.4
-,.4
r.u
A3N'-JI31:1:1:1
65
0.900
0.895
>.
cj
Z
LU
I
o.89o
IJ.
IJ.
I.U
0.885
0.880
1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40
TOTAL PRESSURE RATIO
Figure 27. Estimated Design Point Fan Efficiency

Variation With Fan Pressure Ratio.
66
1140 to 1228°K (1600 to 1750°F) were evaluated and bypass ratios
were varied sufficiently to ascertain the values for minimum
specific fuel consumption.
The other cycle parameters assumed to be constant were:
Combustion efficiency 0.99
Core turbine efficiency 0.852
Fan turbine efficiency 0.89

8.5 percent
Total system pressure loss
The system pressure loss is divided between the combustor (4

percent), the bypass duct, fan-compressor transition duct,
inter-turbine transition and turbine exhaust ducts (1.5 percent
each). The parasitic power losses in the engine (fuel and oil,
windage, bearing seal, and gear friction) are assumed to require
1 percent of the power developed by the fan turbine.
The engine cycles were derived and compared on the basis of

installed performance, with the following airframe installation
factors accounted for:
0.99
Inlet ram pressure recovery
7.5 kw (i0 hp)
Power extraction
4.5 kg/min
Bleed-air extraction
(i0 ib/min)
The parametric engines were sized to provide an installed net

thrust of 2464 N (554 ib) at 463 km/hr (250 kt) and 4572 m
(15,000 ft) ISA. This thrust level is approximately that re-
quired by the single-engine airplane to provide the 2.5 g's sus-
tained load factor capability.
The many possible combinations of fan pressure ratio, com-

pressor pressure ratio, turbine inlet temperature and bypass
ratio are shown in the following parametric cycle analysis
results. The influence on specific fuel consumption of these
variab].es is shown in Figure 28. Over the range of values exam-
ined, it can be seen that the effect of core pressure ratio is
most significant. Also shown in these results of parametric
cycle analysis is the irrelevance of the term bypass ratio as a
fundamental operator on specific fuel consumption or s_ecific
thrust. On a high bypass ratio engine, a large percentage of the
thrust is generated by the bypass flow--approximately in propo: -
tion to the bypass ratio. Furthermore, the engine speciflc
thrust, or thrust per unit of airflow, is a direct function of
fan pressure ratio. Therefore, for an engine of a given thrust,
the engine airflow (and essentially the fan, engine, and nacelle
67
ALTITUDE = 4572 M (15,000 FT)
VELOCITY = 463 KM/H (250 KNOTS)
THRUST = 2464 N (554 LBF)
0.090
COMPRI ;SOR
"r"
PRESSURE
-Z RATIO
Tt4 - °K 10
0.085 9 8 7
1144 -._\ __ _ -'-- "-..-_
I _ _- 4
11721200 _ _ _ .
Z 1228
_0.8 -0
0.OS0
oh
t,n
_L -Z
11 10 9 8 BPR
m 8.j 0.075 _ 11441_ __ _. 5,5

1228 7
_ 0.7 _ u. 12 11 10 9 8__ _. 7
8
o
_J 1144'
1172_ _ "-_ _ _ _ _____........._ 10
0.065 1200 __:__ __ ==_..---_ 8_7
== 12281_--2-_-- 1-7-- 10 9
0.6 _1--
0.060
1.16 1.20 1.24 1.28 1.32
FAN PRESSURE RATIO
TURBINE INLET
TEMPERATURE
oK °F
1144 1600
1172 1650
1200 1700
1228 1750
Figure 28. Parametric Cycle Analysis Results.
68
dimensions) can be established by first selecting the fan
pressure ratio. It can also be shown that by evaluating nacelle
drag versus fan pressure ratio, a best pressure ratio may be
selected that maximizes net installed thrust and consequently
maximizes the propulsive efficiency component of net installed
specific fuel consumption. It can be seen in Figure 28 that
turbine inlet temperature and bypass ratio are interrelated
functions if fan and core compressor pressure ratios are selected.
For example, if a 1.2:1 pressure ratio fan and a I0:I pressure
ratio core are selected, Figure 28 shows that for a turbine inlet
temperature of I144 °K (1600°F), the optimum bypass ratio is less
than I0:i. Similarly, for 1228°K (1750°F), the optimum bypass
ratio is greater than 12:1. This illustrates the effect of tur-
bine inlet temperature on the size of the engine core. The dif-
ference in specific fuel consumption between these cases is only
the effect of turbine inlet temperature on the thermal efficiency
of the cycle.
Figure 29 shows that fan pressure ratio is the predominent

factor in the important engine performance parameter--specific
thrust. Any point on the curves in this figure is an optimized
engine cycle. That is, for a given point on one of the compres-
sor pressure ratio lines and at a given turbine inlet temperature
(with constant component efficiencies and loss assumptions), there
is no variation in engine cycle that will provide a lower specific
fuel consumption. Only one kind of variation is possible; it is
the choice of energy split between that delivered to the core jet
nozzle and that of the fan. The energy split that is most effic-
ient, in terms of specific fuel consumption, occurs at only one
bypass ratio and by definition provides the optimized engine cycle
referred to previously.
The dominant influence that turbine inlet temperature has

on the size of the engine core is further illustrated in Figure
30. The core inlet corrected airflow is shown to vary sub-
stantially over the small range of turbine inlet temperatures
examined. The core size varies to _ lesser extent with compres-
sor pressure ratio, which affirms that its influence on the
specific power of a gas turbine cycle is small.
In defining the best engine candidates for engine cycle

quality sensitivity analyses, the parametric cycle analysis
results were carefully evaluated. It was determined that the
best fan pressure ratio, as it affects net installed specific
fuel consumption, could be ascertained directl_f • Fiqure 31 shows
specific fuel consumption versus cycle pressure ratio for two
c_ses of fan pressure ratio. The dashed line in Figure 31 rep-
resents the best attainable TSFC, discounting the effects on net
performance of nacelle drag and enqine weight. Along this line,
fan pr?ssure ratio varies from about 1.2:1 to 1.25:1. The solid
ALTITUDE = 4572 M (15,000 FT)
VELOCITY = 46"! KM/HR (250 KNOTS)
Tt2 = 267OK (20.4°F)
Pt2 = 6.318 N/CM 2 (9.164 PSIA)
I I
11 _3 110
-v COMPRESSOR 10
¢/3
PRESSURE RATIO 7 ,_
_z 100
_ u.Z 90
_= 80
_z 8
z_ 70
7
I.IJ
/
6O 1.32
1.20 1.24 1.28
1.16
FAN PRESSURE RATIO
Figure 29. Engine Specific Thrust (Thrus_Airflow)

Variation With Fan Pressure Ratio.
7O
AIRFLOWS ARE FOR AN ENGINE SIZED FOR
2464 N (554 LB) NET CRUISE THRUST AT
463 KM/HR (250 KNOTS) 4572 M (15,000 FT)
4.6
uJ
3.2
1.16 1.20 1.24 1.28 1.32
FAN PRESSURE RATIO
TURBINE INLET
COMPRESSOR
TEMPERATURE, Tt4
PRESSURE RATIO
oK OF
4
7 1144 1600
10 1172 1650
1200 1700
1228 1750
Figure 30. Paramctrlc Analys_s R_ suits of

Cot<' Shxt_ Va__atLo_.
STANDARD ATMOSPHERE
ALTITUDE = 4572 M (15,000 FT)
VELOCITY = 463 KM/HR (250 KNOTS)
FAN PRESSURE RATIO = 1.3
TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE = 1228 °K (1750°F)
BYPASS RATIO = 7.85 TO 8.50
INS rALLATION LOSSES:
RAM RECOVERY = 0.99
SHAFT HORSEPOWER -- 7.5 KW (10 HP)
.3:: CUSTOM ED 4.5 KG/MIN (!0 LB/MIN)
z 0.085 I ..... I
4 ..-COMPRESSOR
" Q PRESSURE
0.8- I '_ RATIO
o_uu_ \\l I
Dr"
u.._ zO .075 ...... _ "_%"_ 1
°=
;.;-,-
_ _0.7 - uJ
/ "b,,,. 7
w_ _ 0070 I I " _,_ _
_; _ BEST TSFC ATTAINABLE AT 10

"'"-',O
_ - o_ LOWER SPECIFIC THRUST
I.-
0.6L- " °
3::
1 l
i- 0.060 12 13
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
CYCLE PRESSURE RATIO
Figure 31. Thrust $I_'<'_ ' _c i"a_'].- Consumpt_c_::

Var_atlon ",',: t!', C_:'_i '.' P_-cssu_'_ }{atlo.
J
line in Figure 31 represents a constant fan pressure ratio of
1.2:1, (and constant specific thrust), which is near optimum with
respect to the tradeoffs between TSFC, and nacelle drag and engine
weight. By examining Figures 28, 29 and 31, it can be seen that
in the I0:i core pressure ratio case, the 1.3 pressure ratio fan
provides a 40 percent higher specific thrust than the 1.2 pressure
ratio fan which provides the lowest TSFC. The effect on nacelle
drag and engine weight of the higher specific thrust offsets the
3 percent increase in TSFC.
Because of its relatively small influence on TSFC and engine

specific weight, turbine inlet temperature was similarly elimin-
ated as a cycle quality variable in the synthesis sensitivity
analyses. A turbine inlet temperature of 1228°K (1750°F) was
chosen for sensitivity candidates as the highest temperature that
would permit the use of an uncooled core turbine while retaining
substantial growth potential.
The parametric cycle analysis results show that the variable

exerting the greatest impact on cycle quality is core compressor
pressure ratio. Over the range examined, specific fuel consump-
tion varies about 30 percent. The candidate engine cycles selec-
ted for use in the synthesis sensitivity analyses differ in
configuration, size, weight, and specific fuel consumption since
three different pressure ratios were selected for comparison.
Table XI lists the candidate engine cycle parameters, as well as
the installed net thrust and TSFC for each engine.
Weights for the candidate engines were derived from the cal-
culated weight of the original baseline engine, which is similar
to Engine II in Table XI. Figure 32 is a plot of engine specific
weight versus core pressure ratio, as calculated by a weight
estimating computer program that was calibrated with the baseline
engine weight. These weights were subst lently used in the
synthesis sensitivity analyses.
Engine cycle quality sensitivity' results. - With use of the

GASP program, "solution" airplanes were calculated with each of
the three engine candidates to evaluate the effects of cycle qual-
ity on airplane size and cruise fuel consumption. In Figure 33,
the resultant gross and empty weights are plotted against engine
core pressure ratio. These curves show that the 7:1 core chosen
for the baseline engine minimizes empty weight and results in
near minimum gross weight. Beyond 7:1, the erupt%, weight increase
is attributable to increased engine weiclht, which is _oartly off-
set by a small reduction in airplap "_ structural ".:eight because of
lower fuel weight. The effect on ]ross weight is similar beyond
8.5:1 pressure ratio.
77
TABLE XI. CANDIDATE ENGINE CYCLE
PARAMETERDEFINITION
I II III
38.317 kg/s 38. 317 kg/s 38.317 kg/s

Inlet (Fan)
Corrected (84.475 ib/s) (84. 475 ib/s) (84. 475 ib/s)
_irflow
1.3 1.3 1.3
Fan Pressure
Ratio
0.89 0.89 0.89
Fan Efficiency
8.0 8.397 7.85
Bypass Ratio
3. 468 kg/s 3. 321 kg/s 3. 526 kg/s
Compressor Inlet
Corrected (7.645 ib/s) (7. 322 ib/s) (7.774 ib/s)
Airflow
i0.0 7.0 4.0
Compressor
Pressure Ratio
0.806 0.816 0.824
Compressor
Efficiency
1228°K 1228°K 1228°K
Turbine Inlet
(1750°F) (1750°F) (1750°F)
Temperature
0. 713 kg/s 0.976 kg/s 1.821 kg/s
HPT Inlet (4.015 ib/s)
Corrected Flow (1.572 ib/s) (2. 152 ]b/s)
3.85 2.799 1.902
HPT Pressure
Ratio
0.852 0.852 0.852
HPT Efficiency
2.473 kg/s 2.540 kg/s 3. 345 kg/s
LPT Inlet
Corrected Flow (5.451 lb/s) (5.599 ib/s) (7. 375 ib/s)
2.837 2.764 2.377
LPT Pressure
Ratio
U.89 0.89 0.89
LPT Efficiency
2464N 2464N 2464N
Instal_ Net 554 ib 554 ib
Thrust _- 554 ib
0.0654 kg/N.h 0.0689 kg/N.h 0.0824 kg/N.h
Installed 0.8N8 Ib/hr/ib
TSFC(I) 0.641 ib/hr/ib 0.676 Ib/hr/ib
(1)At design point, 463 kg/hr (250 kt), _572 m (15,000 ft).
74
0
¢.J
.10 ¢J
,.c:
' "_ 00
o
t t--
c_
OC
I.u _7
CC
gO
,,.O
ILl b _J
OC
o..
W
OC 0
0
¢0
r_ ?b
_o
r.)
rj
.3
,-,-d
b
J 0
.,_
co
('41
eo
i
i
i
o
c_
i
/ o
c--_
i
co
c44 ¢4
:"3 r_
¢N o o c_
0 0 O 0
o o o.
N/9)! - IHgl3AA 3NIDN3 31-1133dS
l _...j l _ A
0o
c4 _ _
c4
0
:187/87 _'- 1HOI::iM tNION3 31:il33dS

I- -r
'.r
D
LU
uJ
0
ne
r_ W
0 4.J-_
ILl
CS_
T_ CS_
W
a.
ill
0
0
_,_
/
/
0
0
C)
/
r,q
_J
.,-4
F._
°
o
5m
q--
_
0
ON - 1HOI::IM
1 l J
I L l l I
o
°
o
Q
87 - 1Hg13M
"7G
I I
The rate of cruise fuel consumption of the "solution"

airplanes is plotted in Figure 34 against core pressure ratio.
As shown, fuel consumption will continue to decrease beyond 7:1
pressure ratio, but only by a small amount. It can be anticipated
that life-cycle cost analyses would show that the benefits derived
from the higher pressure ratio, in the trade-off between inherent
higher engine cost and lower fuel cost, are negligible.
The results of this sensitivity analysis indicate that the

cycle quality chosen for the baseline engine is near optimum for
the mission and performance requirements selected in the Randoli_h
study. Final designs of the four airplanes which resulted from
this study therefore use the 7:1 core pressure ratio engine.
Airp!ane drag sensitivity results. - It can be observed that

airplanes differ widely with respect to their zero-life drag coef-
ficient, which is a measure of aerodynamic quality. Comparisons
of any two airplanes designed at the same time co essentially the
same mission problem statement will reveal surprising differences
in aerodynamic quality as manifested in either airplane size or
performance. In exercis_nc the airplane design art, choosing
betteeen the fundamental configuration alternatives has a major
effect on resultant aerodynamic quality. Beyond that, however,
it has been shown that "attention to detail" is of equal or more
significance.
This art is, of course, well known to airplane designers.

Proper execution of wing root fillets and fairings, the "flush-
inc" of protuberances and excrescencies, sealing gaps, shutting
off circulation through holes and wheel wells, specification of
skin finish and smoothness, an<] the shaping or tailoring of com-
ponent forms are a few examples of the art as it is practiced.
An example that has become a text book classic is the work o r
NACA's R.II. Lange on the qrumdnan TB_I. Using an incremental
approach, i.e., fixing .one "draggy" detail at a time, he was
able to effect a total drag reduction o9 30 I_ercent, which is
er[uivalent to removing either the wing or the fuselage increment
from the total airplane profile drag.
It is a>,br)nrent, that _o__ all air:)lanog ,_nder'Io r_c:ua! *-,_-

......
"n,_:_t Ln the minimi,",atio:] o': dra<_. It is :,ro})a_.)]_ t}Lat l,_r,i;n,:<:_
at,} often st:o!_!;,)<1shc_'rt in !_',f,:',r,2nceto ar])ltr<qr'* cr)st-
,l <[t,],I tn(;r_:iI,_:lt iq ,_{_n,'ral].-]' e_l,_.-c,(],.,,...... _o _ ",,r, :,erfc_rman,:,_ " :, "<, :n,-,",'

th;lt i.t c t'l:;,_s. It ; _; .:.ou})tctl" tl}:.u - the _,<le_tion iq :',,;_" t_k,, i,
"[ " _1 !. mi:;.;ion ,-_n_i '.),_rfo<r_anc,- _ t-,_.:t<)r:_ at,. he, l,! _:on_':._:_'., ",,!_ ,'. : '
c_.D_ _ ,,<;t ,[ a <lr<i j i.,>]c'F,_ g _._ ........ , .........
C')'.;_ ; _'- tit,' ''._,-)]__lt4<_ <-tiY;_L<-I_ _'' _ CO:;'---<,' _-.,C _ ;_*.'.':,';'.:; j': i V" .... '
tJi3: };(, m<]:._, })',,'in<v.,,+

,'-i_,,' thir4 ,ttlo_4̀pron.
,.c:
4J
.,-I
0
o0 .,-.1
0
m rtl ..._
I-- ._ J,.J
<
r01m
1.1.1 b,
It:
0
.,-.i
iii .i.J u)
a::
o.
1.1.1
0:
8 0 0
/ rd
/
/ oU
.;.-i
g.4
/ 4
u_
o
o o
o_
o
co
o o $ _,m
HI7 - M07-1 73n-I
! , I I i i i
co
HdD- MOl_13n_
78
The GASP synthesis computer program makes it possible to
answer this question easily. By adding a drag increment while
holding all other input parameters constant, it will compute a
new "solution" airplane and list the factors that determine its
initial and operating costs. Then, a valid cost-effectiveness
evaluation can be made, and the drag-reduction efforts of the
designer will probably be continued.
In checking the GASP results on the side-by-side single-

engine airplane, Cessna's drag buildup analysis indicated that
the GASP-calculated zero-lift drag coefficient was optimistic.
The Cessna analysis showed several areas where configuration
changes and "attention to detail" would serve to eliminate the
discrepancy. For example, moving the engines aft on the wing
would reduce nacelle-wing interference drag, and shortening the
engine nacelles would reduce their profile drag. Therefore, it
was determined that a drag sensitivity analysis should be per-
formed. By using GASP to show the effect on airplane size and
fuel consumption of an added drag increment, it was expected
that incentive would be provided to find the means whereby the
original GASP-calculated coefficient could be achieved.
Figure 35 shows that for a 10-percent increase in zero-lift

drag coefficient, the airplane empty weight would increase 3.2
percent, and the gross weight would increase 5.3 percent. The
effect on engine size and airplane fuel consumption is illus-
trated in Figure 36. For the same 10-percent drag coefficient
increase, the new "solution" airplane would have a 10.5-percent
larger engine, and 13 percent greater fuel consumption. It was
estimated that these effects could add $6000 to the flyaway cost
of the airplane and cause it to consume 280,000 liters (74,000
gallons) of additional fuel in its lifetime. The 10-percent
drag increment that would cause these increases is equivalent to
the addition of two automotive-type rear-view mirrors on the
exterior of the airplane.
Fixed equipment weight sensitivity results. - The fixed

equipment group includes all avionics, instruments, furnishings,
electcical equipment, lines, and fittings--that is, all airplane
parts that remain fixed in size, quantity, and weight regard-
less of the "sclution" airplane size. Cessna prepared an e<lul}_-
ment list and a weight breakdown of all such equipment applicable
to each baseline airplane desi<In, which was consistent with the
Randolph study re_luirements list. The Cossna weight estimates
were based on state-of-the-art hardware wherever possible. }{ow-
ever, since optimum hardware is usually the most costly and dif-
ficult to obtain, it is often sub!coted to relax]tion of o_)ti -
mistic weight targets durinq a design and develo:_ment :,r_)gram.
79
\
IJL O
U.I
n-
o _J
-,.-I
v
>
-.-I
O
-,-I
\ c.1
I
I-- 03
Z ..-t
LU 4-)U
m
c.1 ,C:-_
\ \ ii
ii
Iii
O
._I LI-I
_o
u
\
\ \ n.-
u.l
\ \ I
> _I--I
I
• ...I o
II LI.J o
II
n,-
__ ___
u. e, Z_
O: ¢9 ,,, _ .,-I
I I
,- o. q o. o. _. o. _ o.
_ _m _
"I31:IM/M- 1HOI3M AldlAi3 ONV

1HOI3M S$O1::19 3NVTdI::IIV 3AI1V'13_I
8O
0""4
4J -_
04_
E_
0
_U
0
._ 0
U
b_
_d
_- 0
rd 4J
N _J
._-_
C] 4a
_._
_o
J:II:I(IAA)/IAA ONV =I3_(N=Is7s)/N:Is7S - AAO7=I 1:Jn:J

(]NV 1SFI_H1 OllVlS 73A37 V3S 3AIIV731::I
7
For the same reason that the drag sensitivity study was
performed, a similar analysis was made on the impact of fixed
equipment weight increases. Cost-effectiveness of a change in
component weight can be evaluated only if the effects on
"solution" airplane size, unit cost, and operating cost are
known. Figure 37 shows that over the range examined, a 0.45-kg
(i ib) equipment weight increase over the 303-kg (669 Ib) base-
line value would increase empty weight 0.785 kg (1.73 ib) and
gross weight 0.916 kg (2.02 ib). Similarly (refer to Figure
38), the 0.45-kg (i Ib) change would increase required engine
thrust by 1.38 N (0.31 ib), and cruise fuel consumption by 0.08
L/il (0.02 gph).
The significance of these "per-pound" increments must be

evaluated carefully. It is estimated that a 10-percent, or
30-kg (67 Ib) equipment weight increase would increase the
airplane cost by about $3000 and its lifetime fuel consumption
by about 75,700 liters (20,000 gallons). Any cost savings in a
30-kg (67 Ib) heavier but less expensive equipment fit would
have to offset these life-cycle cost increases in order to be
cost-effective. The foregoing sensitivity factors apply as well
to fuselage structural weight and to anything carried in the
fuselage, including payload. Again, these factors apply when all
mission and performance requirements are unchanged.
Win@ weight sensitivity results. - There are several well

known wing weight prediction eauations used in airplane pre-
liminary design. These equations are based on derived corre-
lations between the known weights of existing wings, the weights
and design load factors of the airplanes they support, and per-
tinent wing geometry variables. GASP contains such an equation
in its weight calculating module. The GASP-calculated wing
weight of the baseline airplane was compared with the results
from two other equations. Less than 5 percent difference was
found. However, the equation used by Cessna in their weight
estimates yielded a heavier wing. It was determined that this
equation was simply conservative. Again a sensitivity study was
called for, to determine the impact of wing weiqht variation on
"solution" airplane characteristics that determine cost.
Figures 39 and 40 show sensitivities to wing weight increase

nearly identical with those shown for fixed equipment weight.
The example used in the fixed equipment weight _nalysis is
therefore ap[_licable here, and should foster a similar concern
for the achir_'ement of a light win_.
_2
4-)
>
4J
-l,J -,-I
_3_._
rg CJ
X
f_
Lo
L_ _J
o
[_..
"7
_7
0 GO _ID ,_ _ Q _ _ '_ _ O _''

IN ..... •7. ,- o o c_ q Q
"I31J/VVM " 1HgI3M A1dl/43 ONe/

1HDI3M SSO_19 3NVIdI:IIV 3AI1V73_I
O
.,4
4J,._
0-_
U
_.,-I
.,-I
r_._l
.,4
_.,-I
•,-,I_}
CO
mJL
\
I,I,,I
1 1
\ b_
.,-..I
•- o. _. o. o. o. o. o. c_ ,e,.m
_3N(IM)/IM ONV 43U(Njsqs)/Njs7s

-- MO1J 73nJ ONV
ISNNH1 31Iris 73A37 V3S 3AllV73_
_4
t
t'N
,q.
4J
IL
U.I >
4J
.,-4
b']
4a
,.¢:
©
L_
4a4J
_.,_
o
_.,_
o
o
LO4a
71
J38fCVM - 1HOI3t_ AldeN3 aNV

/HDI__M SSOND 3NVldNIV 3AIIV13N
0
J.J
E
{8
_4
-,4
@ @
m3:
r,.) ._i
N_
-,-4 -,"4
-M
J
@
o.
0 O'J CO I_ (_ I_ _ e_ (%1 _'- _ ,--
O. 0 O. 0 0 0 o o o 0
:::J31::IIlAAIlIAACINV ::I3EI(N:Isqs)IN=Is7S - AA07=I 7317-I

CIN_' IS£11dHl 311VlS 73A3"I V3S 3AII_"IBI::J
Sustained load factor sensitivity results. - It was shown
in the section concerning wing- and thrust-loading studies that
the design requirement for 2.5 g's sustained load factor, or
maneuver rate, at 4572 m (15,000 ft) altitude sized the engines.
This desirable turning capability was undoubtedly weighed care-
fully in the Randolph study before it was made a requirement.
There is no evidence, however, that the cost of this capability
was examined in the study. For example, a lower cost alterna-
tive would be to specify the 2.5 g's at some lower altitude, or
to specify 2.0 g's at 4572 m (15,000 ft) altitude.
The latter case may be examined in Figures 41 and 42. At

2.0 g's sustained load factor, the "solution" airplane would
have a gross weight 7.5 percent less and an empty weight 8.25
percent less. Cruise fuel consumption would be reduced about
ii percent, and the engine sea level static thrust would be 26
percent lower. It was estimated that the unit cost of the air-
plane could be reduced about $15,000, and lifetime fuel consump-
tion reduced by 227,000 liters (60,000 gallons). Expert know-
ledge of primary training aerobatics would be required to judge
the value of the 0.5-g sustained load factor increment and eval-
uate its cost-effectiveness.
Combined sensitivity effects. - To this point in the study,

the multiplying or synergistic effects of single-parameter vari-
ations have been demonstrated. It thus is essential to know
whether combining parametric voriables would cause gross changes
in "solution" airplane size and economics.
As a test for this effect, a GASP calculation was made

wherein arbitrarily decremented values were assigned to three
selected input parameters. By manipulation of the wing weight
equation, specific wing weight was increased 20 percent. The
zero-lift drag coefficient and the fixed equipment weight were
both increased i0 percent. The results of this analysis showed
a 12-percent gross weight increase, 13 percent empty weight
increase, 15 percent increase in cruise fuel consumption, and
13 percent increase in engine thrust. The overall effect of
co_]ined-parameter variables was surprisingly small. With such
decremented quality, the, trnin_r 7esignod t_ tho Ran<lol_)h _'':,]"
i_robiem statement, )>ut usin'_ ] "best" en'::ne, still im[_rc'.'e _
on the Randolph results by i ]_rge marg:n.
N
.lJ .,-I
._I ,--4
>.,-I
• ,-I ,._
4J rd
•,-I _.
_rJ
O
•.l.J 4..J
DT_d
•,.4 _._
¢)
>IO
n.
E"O
"_I .,-I
m :3
m_
O
O
:3
.,-I
:J31::I,_/M- 1HgI3M AldlAI3 ONV

1HSI3M SSOEID 3NV'IdI:JIV 3AIIV"I31::I
8_4
i
i i
_-_
-,-I
.D.
\\ 0
4-J
_0
\ z
,'tl
Q 0
e,i
et- 0
O
I-
<
_'] -,-4
,<
0
_1 U
w c_ 0
O ._4 -,-4
,..J i
ILL
k -,-'4
..I
_._I
.,-4
t_
A
i ! A
_1 ¢,L
I
P
-- tN O,i t,.9 _
I u.,I
_ 23
P --f,-- t ! -
,t 1
Oi
l i l [ o
o. m. m _. 00 r,,, o
O o o o ,5
> _ OwC_
:I31:J(IM)/IM (]NV J ] El( N -ISIS)/.-.ISIS
- MO"I-I 3313=10NV Z I-- _ I-- I---
1SI"IUH1 31.LVIS "13A3"1 V3S 3AliV"I3EI

TASK III - EVALUATION OF THE TANDEM-SEAT, TWIN-ENGINE TRAINER
As described in the introduction of this report, the

original contract work statement was modified early in the
program to permit a more thorough study of military primary
trainers than was originally intended. From discussions held
with training command personnel concerning side-by-side versus
tandem seating, and single versus twin-engine configurations,
it was learned that varying training requirements and philos-
sophies dictate the choice between such alternatives. It was
therefore determined that a proper course for this investigation
was to define and evaluate airplanes having each of the con-
figuration alternatives. In this manner, the impact of air-
plane configuration on the installed performance of high bypass
ratio engines could be evaluated.
The tandem seating configuration provides significant

advantages in instrument training. For example, the simulation
of instrument flight rule conditions is facilitated by the ability
to hood the rear cockpit, thereby eliminating the student's
visual cues to flight attitude. A further advantage is the unim-
paired visability provided to the front seat instructor or safety
pilot. The elimination of instructor "presence" permits a psy-
chological effect also considered important.
In this study, the tandem configuration differs in design

from the side-by-side airplane only in those things that result
from the seating arrangement. Fixed equipment weight is greater
because of the duplication of some cockpit instrumentation and
avionics. There is a small increase in fuselage dimensions,
weight, and drag resulting from the greater cockpit volume. As
a consequence of these increases, the tandem configuration air-
plane has 126 kg (227 ib) qreater gross weight or approximately
eight percent. Ten percent higher thrust engines are required,
and cruise fuel consumption is approximately eleven percent
greater than that of the side-by-side airplane solution. It
was estimated that this growth would result in about $9000
greater unit cost than the equivalent side-by-side airplane, and
lifetime fuel consumption would be about 227,000 liters (60,000
gallons_ greater. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the
advantages offered by the tandem conf_gurati _n for instrument
training could more than o:fset these incr,_ases. By usin,_
this more canable [)rimar%' trainer for _ !_i_!_er percentage o[
total training syllabus [:ours, significant savings in overall
training cost ani fuel consumption cou] ! },e achieved.
The three-view !rawin:l present':_'l in Fi :uro 4B de! ine:{ t!:,_

tandem-scat, twin-en ;ine confi,!urat_)n. GAf<P :_rinto_]tn ;ivr. n
in App_n{li:.: }{ list a(lditional <]_t _.
l-i][.?_U
....
,' " "' [ %; Ii'._"-O
TASK IV - EVALUATION OF THE TANDEM-SEAT, SINGLE-ENGINE TRAINER
Configuration Studies and Final Design Results
This configuration presented an inherent design problem

that was the most difficult of those addressed in the study.
The factors that create the problem appear to be inalterable
and make the final "solution" airplane the least attractive of
the configurations studied. In essence, there is no reasonable
location for the engine that will achieve the low installation
losses permitted in the other configurations. It is an inherent
characteristic of turbofan engines having low fan pressure ratio
and high bypass ratio that their performance is greatly affected
by inlet and exhaust-duct-system pressure losses. The engine
cycle found to be optimum in this study exhibits this sensitivity
to duct pressure loss.
The airplane configuration difference that contributes to
the problem is the high cockpit canopy profile required to
accommodate the elevated rear seat. Modern tandem-seat
trainers incorporate this feature in order to maximize the
instructor's forward visibility and it is considered essen-
tial. Therefore, if the inlet configuration and engine instal-
lation were executed in the manner of the side-by-side single,
the engine thrust axis would be high above the airplane center
of pressure. The consequent trim drag would have the same
effect on airplane solutions as alternative high-pressure-loss
installations. Raising the wing to a mid-fuselage location to
raise the airplane center of pressure was found to be un-
desirable due to increased restriction of downward visibility
from the instructor's seat. Lowering the engine and fuselage
tail cone by increasing the amount of inlet duct offset would
lower the thrust axis, but would result in high pressure loss.
Based on evaluations of several alternative designs, a

fuselage-buried engine installation was chosen for the final
design and GASP calculation. An assessment was made of the
pressure loss for rectangular-:_haped side inlets, and engine
_)erformance was altered to reflect this loss. Figure 44 shows
a three-view drawing of this solution. Corresponding GASP
printouts are given in Appendix B.
The disap_)ointing results of this design show a 19-percent

increase in gross weight, a 14-percent increase in emnty weight,
a 26-:}ercent larger engine, and a 47-:}ercent hitcher cruise fuel
consumption over values achieved in the side-bv-si,|e single
entwine airplane.
EklC__NE DATA (Z m_ ")
PERI:ORI,,AANCE
T_IRUST (5L5, STD DAY)

A,Rr_W C .....
CRUISE T_ST (,Z.SG _', _Z_OC f_
WEIGher (DRY)
AERODV_MIC DATA
W II',JG LOADIIMG 45 _b
CI_UISE DI=IAG I:_L_I_, Co- o o5o. s s,%_ c_
WEIG_4T5
L/kl',,ID;klG GF..,/_ Co _N(::I_U, AENT O.OZT?
EFVI:I::CTIVE _-LAT I:K._TF. /_E_
G_055 3_43 wETTED A I_..__ 585 _j -_
EMPTY g5_2 b #EA_-J 5_IN _l_ICTl(:l_i_ ,C_ENT
DPER_T_G (_NC ONE CREW_ Z732 b I_,3 • IO _
C_UISE _EY_0LD_ NO/_OOT
_IX_D USEFUL LOAD _10 ,b
C_ MAX (_T_ _ULL FLA_S_
PAYLOAD 200 Ib C93
_0RIZONT_L "rAIL _O_._E _Eg
EUEL(MAX "/l& ,b f,O_ _¢,, JE_TICAL TAIL VOLUME CCE_ ,._(:)94
I=IxED EQUIPMENT GROUP 7..Vo Ib
FLIGHT CONTROLS G_.O_JO 81 _b
S"r'quCT URE 5 GROUP 12_.O5
IV,.qOPULSION C_,43,OUP 499 :b
D_MEKISIC)'45 _ AREA5
_'USELAGE
LENGTH _9 ;,
_IDTM 3 85 _t
_E_G_T _5 h
Wtl'qG
AREA 8x _ ,h.
5 I=>_,l,.i 2-8.5 :+
E_'OMIETRIC IvIEAI,
I C_rJl_l:) iC95 :+
ASP_T _T_O :0 •
T_PE_ RATIO 0.5 •
T_IICKNESSIcI-IOI_D (Q(XDT-?I@ O. _7 -
I-I_RIZ01,1TAL TAiL
_:I.E.A _G.G Q'
SPAkl 9. I _l
MEAN Ct4Ol:_::_ _.'_ ,q'
I._II_ECT _T_0 5 •
ln4_C_04F_.SS/C _ P_D _ •
VERTICAL TAIL
AREA _.4 _ ¢_
SPC_KI _ h
_AF__N CqOC_D 3.0
A_--_3F._T _TIO 19 •
"n4_.K_E55/C_O¢_3 00_? •
EI,IG_I,IE kl/_EL.E5 ( Z_
IWI_._KI EIIAMETER I_ it
l__llkl_T N J4 _t
_klG GEA_
I.,,I_I14 TII:;IE _ZE 44, _8
KIOSE TtQ_. SIZE a 4 . ,4
N.EEL. BASE _C
WHEEL _EAD 667
¢-
• r" ,
F i _L_re 43. Three-View D_awin,_ T>.'i::-i::_- i:.,
(Z_-_)
818 Ib
4|.9 I b,/sex.. .
Ww, Jb (RC=_:_D)
175 Ib
DATA.
llUG 45 Ib
Co-0.030 _-0.040&
C_
Im Co (NK_F_EN'T 0.0Z79
----tATIA.A'I'?_/W,
REA _.. d,_,2 • _L _:_"
565 _
_IC'I'I01N C0_ICJ ENT O.OOd|_ s
_.UO_
_0./_'00T %,845 x iO &
: !
3.7?__
L VOU.IK4E.
COEF. 0._3
VOuU_,E COEI:, 0.094 I <- -_ i i
f .- i
L__
__....._._
":? ..... _<

L
Twin-Engine Tandem Seat Cenfiguration.

%... +..',
. ".:_:". ":27-- ""_" ---. ...
":--'=-"' "-""'.... l-'

ENGINE DAT_,
PER_ORMAKICE
:_08 ,b
TVAIRUST f'EL5 6Tb. L)Aw')
CI_UISE SPEED (15_:)O#4ALTITUDE_ 250 _ (_88 rap%-0399 Mn') &IRI:'L0W I I I lb/'_ec
i
STALL SPEED (t:'ULL PL/*PE) -GO kt CRUISE TI4RLI.ET (2S6 ,t/t%0b6;,) 400 _b P.E&D'_
RANGE (WtT_ Z CREW) _700 ,_,-n (.+.45 mi_ _ESERVE) 401 _b
WEIGt-4T ('DRY)
T_,KEOFF IDISTANC_I:: _ =5(=0 ,_+ < evE.P, 35 +'+"+)
LANDING OtETAI4CE _tGb0 T_. (0VE_ 50 _'t )
SUSTAINED M6,NEUVER RATE 25 _1 (AT _200 kt-,5,060 t:+_ AERODYNAMIC DATA
MAX {_lk_E 01: CL|INAB (SL-IS,0L",6) 3800 +;'(G_,0 .p_n
WInG 45 %b/It z
C_UIEE DRAG DOL&R CD=O.0Z6& +0
WEIGHTS
LN,4DIKIG GEAR _ INCRE_IENT 0,0ZTZI
[II-VECIIVE _LAT ._LA'[E AD.E.A 2,GOZ
GROS._ 41.54 Lb
EMPTY 2.?98 Ib
I,
AEAN 5KIKI ;R%CTION COEFIz,C%EI,.IT G OO4_G
0PERAT( MG (. INC. ONE CREW_ 3008 _b
CRUISE REYNOLDS _C/I:00T _863 _ 5 {"
FIXED LLSEt:LIL LO_D 2.10 Ib
C..i. MAX (_IT¼ :'LILL ;LAPS_ 317&
PAYLOAD 200 Ib
1401_IZOklTAL TAIL /OLLIKAE rj:/FJ:IZltIEklT :j.93
_'UE.L(M_X_ _s ,b ( t4 S,)=i
) VERTIr.AL T_,L VOLUME COEF;_CjENT 0075
I:'IXEO EQUIPMENT GROUP 73_ Ib
I:'LIGHT CONTROLS GI_0LtD 88 _b
5TETUR_ C,.-_:I(WJI:) _38| Lb
pROImJLSION GROUP 593 tb
[)IkA_IONS ,¢ AREAS
IrUSELAGE
L EKIGTI-I z9 T-t
WIOTI4 3.L5 4:t
HE IGl.-IT co.5 ft
WING
Ag.EA 92.3 R.
T:_:}AN 30.4
GEOMETRIC MEAl4 Ckl_qD 3,15 ft
A_I:_CT _ATIO l0 •
TAPER I:_I_TI0 0.5 •
Tt4tCKNES._E)I:E) (_OOT ¢ TiP) O.l? •
1-101_7_f)MT AL TAIL
AREA 15 s% +"++
5PAI,4 ,OPt #+
MEAM CklO_o Z.O8 _t
A_I:_.T I_ATIO 5 •
THICKMF._/CI4ORD 0.07 •
VERTICAL TAIL
I_i:IEA !5 ('t
SPAM 4.82 _
MEAM 040RD 3.z2 h
ASC_-CT I_TIO L55 •
TI41C I(N E .5S/(:I-IK) P,D 0.08? •
ENGIklF._. NJ_F_.LLE
(BUBED k"USE.LAGE INITALLATIOI4")
LAi4DIN6 GEA_
MNM Ti_*f_.,SIZE 4.4 , 18
NOSE TIRE SIZE. 4.4 _ t4
NlaEEL _lkIF... 10 ¢1
WHEEL TREAD (=_7 Ft
OE pOOR QUA.Lt]L
SingIe Engine
Three-View Drawing Tandem-Scat,
Figure 44.
DATA
!i
L&YOUT ' _
• .: ..,/ i.... ,
..,::.".L .7:: :'.:_T."
"t; ...... I ' .,_,,_
) •,, _ A"" .................
era-Seat, Single Engine Configuration. .,)_.._._._ -

...:..--_..:.._:_.--.
_ ...._ .__
r-
Inlet Pressure Loss Sensitivity Analysis
Since the foregoino growth increments can be attributed

almost entirely to the compounding effects of a 5 percent inlet
loss on engine performance, it was concluded that an inlet loss
sensitivity study could be easily completed. By redoing the
GASP analysis with use of engine performance data corresponding
to an inlet loss of only 1 percent, the impact of inlet loss
alon_ could be assessed. To make this assessment, it was not
considered necessary to show how the low-loss inlet would be
executed. Table XII shows the pertinent results of this
sensitivity analysis. It was estimated that the impact of this
inlet loss increment on airplane unit cost could amount to
about $12,000. Lifetime fuel consumption differences could be
as high as 757,000 liters (2_0,000 gallons).
As indicated previously, it is characteristic of turbofans

with low fan pressure ratios that their performance (both
thrust and specific fuel consumption) is extremely sensitive
to inlet losses. From this, it may be concluded that a
revised cycle, with a higher fan pressure ratio would be
bett_r in installations with high losses. Over the range of
loss values examined in this study, it was shown that higher
fan pressure ratios would raise the uninstalled specific fuel
consumption and increase the core size. The installed perform-
ance then was no better than it was with the original fan
pressure ratio found optimum in this investigation. It is
interesting to note that as poor as the tandem-seat, single
engine configuration is in comparison with the other airplanes
of the study, it is not as heavy nor does it consume as much
fuel as the Randolph TA-2 conceptual design.
_7
TABLE XII. SINGLE-ENGINE, TANDEM AIRPLANE GASP RESULTS,
WITH TWO VALUES OF ENGINE INLET LOSS.
5% 1.0%
Inlet Loss
1884 1679
Gross weight kg (ib)
(4154) (3701)
1269 1166
Empty weight kg (Ib)
(2798) (2570)
8487 7384
Engine thrust, N (ib)
(1908) (1660)
211.6 161.6
Fuel Consumption
(55.9) (42.7)
liters/hr (gal/hr)
98
ENGINE INSTALLATION STUDIES
Single-Engine Installation
In the description of the tandem-seat, single-engine airplane

configuration, the sensitivity of engine performance to duct
pressure loss was shown to have a major effect on airplane size.
The problem of providing a low-loss engine installation for that
configuration was not resolved. Fortunately, with a side-by-side
seating arrangement and a shoulder wing location, it was found
possible to install a single engine in a manner that avoided
compromise to either engine or airplane performance. It was
possible to provide a short, nondiffusing_ and nearly straight
inlet duct, with the result that the inlet duct was estimated to
have only one percent pressure loss. A layout drawing was sub-
sequently prepared for this installation.
The merits of this installation are revealed by examining

the airplane three-view drawing in Figure 12 and the installation
layout drawing in Figure 45. The three-view drawing shows the
engine installed at shoulder level--a particular advantage in
providing accessibility for routine engine maintenance. Access
to the engine is not inhibited by the wing or other airplane
structure. A further advantage of this semi-buried installation
_ that large areas and volumes are available for engine acces-
sories and engine/airframe interfacing hardware. This space is
provided in the fuselage tail cone; thus, no drag penalty is
incurred.
The installation layout shows the nacelle structure, includ-

ing large access doors on either side of the engine. Engine
accessories, oil tank, and the cabin air bleed line are shown at
the bottom of the engine. Engine mounting is accomplished with
two trunnions on the engine front frame and a stabilizing link
at the rear. Airframe components of the mount system are shown
projecting from the "floor" of the nacelle. The ignition exciter
box and inlet-lip anti-icing plumbing are easily located on the
top half of the engine. Normal engine lines and fittings and
the in-coming fuel line are omitted from the drawing, but more
than ample space for these items is available.
No difficulties were encountered in achieving this attractive

installation. Although small engines are inherently more
difficult to _nstall and interface with, this installation
a_[)e_rs to be _n easy one. It achieves more efficient results
than is usually accomplished with large engines.
99
Twin-Engine Installation
Installation studies were carried out on the wing-mounted,
podded engines of both twin-engine configurations. To examine
the total engine/airplane interface problem, the pylon and wing
section are included in the installation layout drawing given
in Figure 46.
In Cessna's analysis of the aerodynamic effects of over-the-
wing installations, the design and wind tunnel test results
carried out on the VFW-614 airplane were reviewed in some detail.
Based on the data available from this design, location of the
nacelle inlet plane at 50 percent of the wing chord produces
near-minimum interference drag. In comparison with the VFW-614,
the trainer design benefits from an additional effect that lowers
interference drag. At the lower design flight speed of the
trainer, the ratio of capture area to nacelle frontal area is
substantially greater. Thus, super-velocities around the nacelle
are reduced_ which in turn reduces interference effects.
this installation, it is obviously more difficult to
achieve a low-drag configuration than was the case with the
fuselage-mounted, single engine. In addition to the drag effects
of nacelle-pylon-wing interference, there is a greater extent
of frontal and wetted areas with which to conte.d. It was found
that nacelle and pylon areas could be minimized by locating
engine-mounted accessories in the pylon. With pylon width deter-
mined by structural considerations and height by the need to
minimize nacelle-wing interference drag, sufficient space is
available for this arrangement.
The layout shows the starter-generator, fuel control and
pump, hydraulic pump, oil tank, and cabin air bleed line, all
outside the nacelle envelope. This permits the engine nacelle
to have the smallest dimensions and least possible drag.
The engine mounting is accomplished in a manner similar to

that of the single engine installation. Conjectural airframe
structure is shown in the nacelle, pylon, and wing, principally
to show that space is available for credible load paths in this
volume-limited configuration.
In summary, while not as efficient both structurally and

with respect to drag as the single-engine installation, the
small size of the twin-engine installation does not preclude its
being accomplished at least as well as most large turbofan
engines. Accessibility for maintenance and engine removal is
outstanding, and with proper aerodynamic tailoring, it should be
possible to achieve a low installed drag.
i00
I
J
I
i COWL D_R HINGE
I
-- _" EL r©NTI:_._ -- SrA l_r EI_

SENEP_ATG_
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
._w_7_GLI"
- ,_NTP K_ _,ALVE
/ , ,... ,L
/ i
I
i,I_-_ ....... ::
.............
-l Tf,: ,T1
"_-+ [: L
i
I !I
.2)
I
I
1
/- E_,
L _iN
///
J/ i
Figure 45. Single-Engine Installat
"ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF,POOa_UALr_
-..._
"T "
---MAIN MOUN T
--OIL DIPSTICK AND

/ FILL
Single-Engine Installation Layout.
÷..
51At6L6 _2/6zNE _ --
F.-_,_._,_
_,.!.....
_-------
-"
_,tc._Yi 5PdPr , _-i
-
1-
103 104
_ OWl DOOR HINGE,
£ /
:i
d / IGNITER
:iL
7 / . \
f //
/
/
/
r,
I 'L
-- rC_L DOOR LATCH
O,LF,
LLD,PST'C_
_N0__._
"C:? 71
_ STARTER/GENERATOR
_-- FuEL CONTROL

;.,ND PUMP
sE=,o,',,
1_" tB
ORIGINA/_ PAGE IB 3KP J7,_03

OF POOR QUALr_
"r"'
I
INLET ANTI ICE MAr, IFOLD--
• I _,,]
Figure 46. Twin-Engine Instaliat_on Li
ORIGINAL PAG]_ IS
o_ POOR_U_,_r_
ANTI-ICE VALVI
;I
i '_N'_" h _
x •
-- MAIN MOUNI
, -m_Z. /-
_ Z
, r
-- T
STARTEI_
....
,-'r,
-_ FUEL CONTROL
y "-"_. _.._A N D PUMP A
_,-_ /____ HYDRAUUC PUMP
_FT WIN_ SPAR
BLEED
ACCESSORY ACCESS PAN ELS
,--{]_ {N PLYON SIDE
L.
-ii I I ....
,.,,.-r,:.':,.=:.._-
"" rw,,'v/#6,#£ ,_,f/,i_',q .................
ino Installation Layout. I--_'.__ t:__ t- .... .- .-._-_ _
........ T/6. l-
_ I_P- -- -- IIW
,i
107/108
mmmmmm
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It was demonstrated under the original work statement

of this contract, that turbofan engines could be both efficient
and cost-effective when installed on small, high-performance,
general-aviation airplanes. It has been the purpose of this
continuation of the study to determine if the trend continues in
applications to still smaller, and lower-performance airplanes.
The principal goal has been to determine if small turbofans in
the general-aviation class studied were equally attractive in
performance and economics, when applied to military trainers. _
If this could be demonstrated, it could lead to eventual mili-
tary procurement of turbofans in this class. In turn, this
would hasten their availability to general-aviation where the
social qualities and economic advantages of turbofans would be
welcomed.
Throughout the course of the study, it was felt by the

investigators that significant accomplishments were being demon-
strated with respect to factors affecting economics. Late in
the program, attempts were made to encourage military agencies
to participate in life-cycle cost analyses in order to confirm
these tentative accomplishments. Although these attempts
failed, sufficient data were gathered to permit a brief, but
meaningful, economic study to be performed. Since this study
lacked the technical rigidity desirable, a discussion of its
results is not given in the body of this report, but is provided
in Appendix C.
Early in the program, the 1973-74 "energy crisis" impacted

on energy-consuming citizens of the world, including those res-
ponsible for military operations. The pertinency of this study
was made clear by the press reports that, in deference to the
shortage of aviation fuel, entire classes were being dropped or
stretched out in military undergraduate pilot training programs.
It was also clear that, if the results anticipated from this
study were confirmed, a small contribution would have been indi-
cated to the solution of the "energy crisis."
It should be pointed out that a great amount of energy is

consumed in the preparation of raw materials and in the manu-
facture of engines and airplanes. Minimizing their size by
maximizing their efficiency is then an energy conservation
method as important as minimizing in-flight fuel consumption.
For this reason, analysis was performed throughout the study in
a manner that yielded results that could be given in terms of
airplane and engine sizes, as well as fuel consumption.
109
The study has concentrated on cycle selection and design of
the turbofan engine. However, it is significant that the new
general-aviation wing design being developed by the NASA was used
throughout the study, and the be_efit to results was taken for
granted. With this wing currently undergoing development and
demonstration, taking it for granted may be hazardous. However,
it is concluded that complete success in this demonstration is
fundamental to achieving a significant step forward in the
design of light airplanes.
Also it should be pointed out that the NASA developed air-
craft synthesis computer program, GASP, was again used to define
engine/airplane/performance interrelationships and to evaluate
design results. Proof of its value was demonstrated. It is
concluded that its use is indispensable in defining "best"
engine and airplane solutions.
From the study results described in this report, the
investigators have drawn the following specific conclusions:
i. It has been shown for the second time that when
care is taken to define a "best" turbofan propul-
sion system for a specified airplane flight
envelope and mission, the synergistic effects of
a "best" engine design yield a surprisingly small
and efficient airplane solution.
2. The airplane size and fuel consumption results

obtained in this study confirm that at low design
flight speed, the "best" turbofan has high over-
all propulsion system efficiency. It is thought
to be greater than propulsion systems using
propellers when all installation and synergistic
effects are accounted for.
3. The engine performance quality found to be "best"

in this study can be attained without recourse
to high-pressure, high-temperature, advanced-
technology cycles. The design and development
of these turbofans need not await the invention
and demonstration of the technology features
generally thought applicable to future gas turbine
engines.
4. The low-noise, low-emissions characteristics of
the engine designs addressed in this study would
provide a "bonus" fallout of improved social accept-
ability for under-graduate pilot training operations
with no economic penalty.
Finally, tentative conclusions can be made relating to the

primary objective of this study, namely, the applicability of
small civil turbofan engines to military trainer aircraft. By
adhering strictly to the basic trainer specifications set down
II0
by the Air Force in their under-graduate pilot training study, an
aircraft-engine combination has been derived which is smaller,
less costly and more efficient than either current basic trainer
aircraft or those that have been conceptually designed with
advanced high-subsonic engines. This leaves open the question of
other approaches to military pilot training such as greater use
of simulators or one aircraft designed for both basic and
advanced training.
The engines defined in this study could have widespread _se
in civil light aircraft because of their high efficiency, low
noise and low emissions. A remaining question is cost; and
substantial benefits may accrue to both military and civil
sectors if the engine commonality established in this study could
be exploited.
iii
q I
APPENDIX A
CESSNA FIN_I REPORT

ON
GARRETT AIRESEARCH SMALL TURBOFAN-POWERED TRAINER DESIGNS
Cessna Wallace Division, under 3ubcontracL to Garrett

AiResearch, has acted as a consultant to critique small turbofan
military trainez designs developed by G_rrett and to provide
Cessna experience in the area of trainer requirements. Trainer
designs were critiqued in the areas of weight, balance, stabil-
ity, control, and general performance. Modifications to the
designs were suggested, along with corrections of some of the
performance data. Basic data on the T-37 and on the latest
technology airfoils was supplied to help achieve the most
efficient performance and state-of-the-art projections. Cessna
representatives also participated in the interim oral review at
Garrett and in trips to Air Force and Navy offices to help deter-
mine future customer requirements, trends, and interest in the
aircraft types under study.
The Garrett configurations provide a new trainer concept

with good potential for reducing operating cost and unit cost.
The fuel availability and cost situation is generating the need
for further consideration of small turbofan engines.
The Garrett configurations should be less expensive to

manufacture and to maintain than current larger trainers• They
_ offer design challenges since they are based on projections
in the state-of-the art aerodynamics as well as propulsion
systems. Their suitability in the training role will require
further study outside the limited scope of the current program.
Additional detail studies should include design effects on aero-
batic characteristics; the number of takeoff and landings avail-
able; range profiles; training profiles; stability and control
dynamics; fuselage lift influences; inertia distributions; spin
characteristics; and airspace allotment requirements.
Critique on Single-Engine Configuration.
i • Tip tanks are not considered necessary, since the fuel

_rolume required is available in the wings. Tip tanks
and fuel increase rollinc[ inertia (potentially undesir-
able in spins) and a trend to_.:ards roll/yaw d%,namic
coupling•
!
APPENDIX A
o Higher aspect ratio vertical tails may be desirable,

particularly for spin recovery. It is desirable to
have a considerable difference between roll and pitch
inertia for good spin recovery. Higher pitch inertia
goes with rudder recovery. Higher roll inertia goes
with elevator recovery. Higher pitch inertia is
rec%mmended, since one of the vertical tails will be
fully exposed during a spin.
. Wing stall will begin in the trailing-edge root area,

producing low dynamic pressure and possibly reverse
flow. The engine will have to tolerate this flow
during stalls• Lowering the wing or raising the engine
intake slightly would reduce the problem. Other than
stall, airflow over the canopy can be made to remain
attached (similar to the T-37 trainer).
• If the main landing gear should utilize spring struts

similar to Cessna single-engine landing gears, the
gear height should be sufficient to avoid banging the
belly during very hard landings by students.
. The tail-cone contours and exhaust fairing will require

special attention to preclude exhaust attachment along
the tail cone, leading to elevator problems.
• The use of spoilers only for roll control on a fully

aerobatic trainer airplane is feasible. However,
some development testing will be required to perfect
manually powered aecodynamically balanced spoilers.
• Cessna's calculation of airplane weight is within

50 pounds of the Garrett computer-calculated weight.
There are greater differences in group weight distri-
butions, but Cessna's check provides the credibility
necessary within the scope of this study• Much of the
equipment has been pared down in weight commensurate
with state of the art projections. The total
integrated airplane follows this philosophy, and it
should not be considered as utilizing "off-the-shelf"
engineering or equipment.
• A tandem seating arrangement would require additional

avionics weight. It is assumed that this could be
done with extra control heads and switches.
114
T
APPENDIX A
9. The avionics package was based on those functions

required by the Randolph AFB UPT-study. Future
training needs could conceivably require additions
to this list such as weather radar, microwave landing
equipment, autopilot, very low frequency navigation,
and equipment for flight-into-known-icing conditions.
Since the Garrett design philosophy includes a fully
optimized and integrated trainer for the greatest
training efficiency, it is very important to establish
future equipment requirements by close coordination with
the military for finalizing a new trainer design. A
small aircraft design is fairly sensitive to hanges in
fixed equipment requirements.
i0. Additional comments in the twin-engine trainer
critique, where applicable, apply to the single-engine
configuration, and vice versa.
Critique on Twin-Engine Configuration - The twin-engine,
side-by-side seating trainer configuration received the greatest
study verification effort by Cessna. Those items studied
included weight, balance, stability, wing aerodynamics, empennage
aerodynamics, nacelle aerodynamics, landing distance, takeoff
distance, stall speeds, drag, and cruise performance.
i. Cessna's calculation of empty weight is about 300

pounds greater than the Garrett computer analysis,
most of which is in fixed equipment. The computer
employs percentages to establish group weights. This
is not believed to be totally realistic as an airplane
is reduced in size since some fixed equipment must
remain the same. Garrett has run a sensitivity
analysis to test the impact of weight variation on
the overall aircraft, which has proven an excellt_nt
tool to judge necessary changes in preliminary
engineering.
2. For a balance check, avionics was :)l_:ed in th, :_ _n,_l

and nose, battery and oxygen i _ the nos_, an_i
h]'draulics <_nd _lir-cycle aft of the [_ressuriz{_d
cockpit, by assumin'] a most aft center-of-gr_vity of
30 perc,_nt ::e _n aerodynlmic c!ior,], it was (l_t,,r:_:_ .'_]
that the ,_n,jines should be moved aft abo,lt 15 inc_1,_s.
ii,is engi:_c :_I_ c:<<ent is also compatibl _ with C,_ssna's
reco:<_,_nJation for r,_ hJcinl engin{_ int,,rf_r_n::, dr] ].
The o::y _en bottl,_ w _s ;:loved to th<_ tail con_' to r(,d:]:,,
fire hazard.
]]%
APPENDIX A
•
Volume for equipment is satisfactory. Fuel volume and
tank configuration included a wet tank integral with
the wing and additional fuel in the wing carry-through.
With one integral tank per side, the fuel system and
fuel management should be very simple.
• Static stability was checked, including a larger

vertical tail to lower engine-out minimum control
speed to near the stall speed. Recommended empennage
changes were incorporated by Garrett. The larger
vertical tail will also improve spin recovery char-
acteristics•
• There is some concern about Reynolds-number effects

due to the rather small wing chords. The latest
NASA low-speed airfoils are used but have not been
tested below about 2 million Reynolds number• Low-
speed lift characteristics near the stall and during
low dynamic-pressure maneuvers may be erratic or at
least require airfoil tailoring by wind tunnel and
flight testing research. The new NASA airfoils are
considered desirable due to their high L/D character-
istics at high lift coefficients.
• Due to airframe equipment power requirements, starter-

generators, alternators, hydraulics, and engine bleed
for pressurization-heating-cooling will require about
the same engine gearboxpower and pad ratings, and
bleed flow as today• It would be desirable in future
small-engine studies, possibly under NASA sponsorship,
to study integration of some power systems directly in
the engine.
• Recommendations were made to relocate the engines for

drag reduction• Nacelle-fuselage interference drag
could be reduced by moving the nacelles outboard to
the wing planform break. The Garrett nacelle inlet
is located at about 15.5 percent of the local wing
chord. _1oving the intake back to about 70 percent
wing chord would reduce the nacelle drag coefficient
by at least 25 percent. This is based on VFW-614
studies. Further aft mo%ement and changing to
fuselage pylon-mounted nacelles would reduce drag
even further, although balance would become a problem.
Raising the nacelles about 2.5 inches would further
reduce nacelle-wing interference drag. Shortening
the nacelle intake seems feasible and would reduce
the amount of engine movement aft for balance con-
siderations. _1o"[ng the enqines aft 15 inches and
116
APPENDIX A
shortening the intake would decrease overall airplane

drag by approximately 5 percent at the 250-knot/
15,000-foot cruise point.
. Garrett's calculation of thrust required at the cruise

point (250 knots at 15,000 feet) was 167 pounds per
engine. Cessna's drag buildup calculation, including
nacelle position changes, yielded 212 pounds per engine.
This difference was not resolved, since Cessna calcula-
tions are based on cross-section areas, interference
drags, and drag due to lift, while the Garrett calcula-
tions are based on wetted area. It is suspected that
most of the difference is in the compensation for inter-
ference drag based on Cessna's Citation experience and
data from VFW-614 studies.
, Stall speed with full flaps calculated by Garrett was

52 knots while Cessna calculated it to be 67.5 knots.
The increase is due to Cessna's reduction in maximum
coefficient of lift due to Reynolds number, wing plan-
form, and adjusted exposed wing-area effects. The
higher stall speed is not considered critical for a
trainer.
I0. Takeoff distance over a 35-foot obstacle was calculated

by Garrett as 1564 feet and by Cessna as 1612 feet.
This is well within the band of accuracy for this type
of study.
ii. Landing distance over < 50-foot obstacle as calculated

by Garrett was i676 feet and by Cessna was 2155 feet
due to Cessna's higher stall speed calculation.
12. The wing-body-nacelle juncture and shapes may produce

local flow separation, causing drag, [K)tential tail buf-
fet, and loss of elevator effectiveness. This area will
require considerable attention to nacelle placement,
wing fillets, and local area ruling. These details do
not affect the credibility of the configuration as rep-
resentative of the aircraft class.
13. Dynamic res_onse characteristics of the configur_tion

should not be a problem.
14. A relatively detailed analysis of wing downwazh char-

acteristics was made to pro"ide data for empennage con-
figuration recommendations supplied to Garrett. Static
directional and lon Titud[nal stability estimates w,_re
made to establish empenna<ie reco_nendation_. Single-
engine minimum control speed w ls calculat,_d an_] use l
to reco_men<l vertical tail size. The stick fixed
neutral point was calculated to be at 60 percent m,_an
aero_l}'namic chord in cruise.
I]7
APPENDIX A
15. Fuselage planform is nearly the same as wing area.
Final analysis should include fuselage lift effects
in addition to the wing.
Conclusion - The Garrett trainer configurations are good
representatives of the aircraft class for the scope of this
study. This class of aircraft should be less expensive to
manufacture and to maintain. It does offer design challenges.
The configuration concepts, due to size versus performance, are
in an area not yet explored for use in a training role. However,
the economic advantages justify a close look at small turbofan-
powered aircraft.
In this small size and weight class, fixed equipment
becomes a higher percentage of empty weight, packaging is tight
due to volume limitations, fuselages have more relative effect
on lift and drag, Reynolds numbers become more critical due to
small wing chords, and weight reduction may be limited by
practical skin thicknesses rather than strength requirements.
As a result, there will be a need for future airframe as well
as engine research, development, and testing.
Small turbofan engine power offers very good fuel econom-

ics, configuration design flexibility, low noise, minimum
vibration, very limited pollution emissions, good ground
safety, and inherent reliability/maintainability.
Limited knowledge in some aerodynamic areas as they apply

to a trainer and its mission will require further investigation.
Low Reynolds-number effects may influence normal stall character-
istics, aerobatic maneuvers, and spin sensitivity. Fuselage
size effects relative to the wing and empennage will require
close investigation. Moderately high wing loadings may pose
problems for primary training. "Spoilers only" for roll control
on a fully aerobatic trainer will require some development
testing. Close attention must be paid to equipment design and
weight, and to justify any secondary airplane mission functions
that may impact primary mission efficiency.
The NASA computer synthesis airplane design program has

proven to be an excellent tool for configuration fundamentals
and trade-off studies. Final design finesse is still required
but much time is saved in integrated optimization studies.
The Garrett-Airesearch trainer designs are feasible and

offer considerable operating cost reductions. The configura-
tions are pared do,4n to do one specific job, which is training
efficiency. As a result, early firm requirements of desired
equipmeDt functions and mission re_lu[rements must be made to
preclude oversizing the aircraft for growth during development
or for future growth. Airframe, aerodynamics, and equipment
research and development will be required in addition to the
engine development.
i18
APPENDIX B
GASP Printout For
Side-By-Side Single-Engine Solution Airplane
volv[ = 9_o. _Ib VM0 = 289. KTS MM0 = .792

ULI. tk = 9.0(J MAN. LF = 6.00 _UST LF = 2.9_
px OP,_IL _ I Oe', G.U _Uf"

p._i MAwr ENF, I r_FS
_JIMAWV FN_,If_£ INSTL, (wPEI) _0.
(*rSS) 57.
,_L _YSIE p
(_p) U.
_(_wul. SOW _,£]U_T
(_p) _59,
Tr_1_L pHOpo(_wUUP WTo
S fwuCTO&E5 GwOIJP
w tr,j_ (ww) _t_U,
_nQ. IAIL (wt.,T) D2,
vF_i, T_IL (wVT) _h,
L a _IL,I ._G GEAr4 (WL(%) Ibh,

p_I,._ANY ENG, 5ECIlON (wPF5) 7h,
c._qOP ,.,klbH[ I_,C. (i)EtwS1) 0.
TnI_L SIWUCoGN(JUP _To (*ST) _ 2_6o
FLIGHT CONIROLS b_0P 33.

(wCC)
COCVIT LONT_O_S 17,
(wCFW)
FTXE0 wING CONTWUL5
(wSAS)
$^S
(DEtWFC)
b_ndP _IG.I INC. 19.
(_FC)
TnTAL CONTHUL wT.
(_FE) b_g,
wl. nF FI_EO EQUIPMLNT
(WE)
_IGHT E _oTY
_I0, IINC- CME, OF l)
(wFL'L)
FIAED uSFFUL LOAD
(Ow_) 2Oh3.
O_£P_IING wEIGMT E_PTY
2UO, (PAXs
(wPl_)
PAYL_AU
0.)
b35, {wFw*
(wFA)
FUEL
(WG)
u.05S wEIGMT
PAGB I._
"9
APPE£TDIX B
Side-By-Side Single (Cont'd)
= 3_7 PASSENO_:_5 : 1. PLUb CRE_ OF I
LEr_GIN (ELF) 26.65 FT

w ]UTH (SWF) _.b7 F1
WFITE() AhtA (SF) , 282. SUFi
DELI_ P (hELP) a._o PSl
_SPECT RAt i_; (AR) I0.00

AF_EA (Sw) 71.7 SOFI
SPAt. (tl) 21.9 F1
2._I FT
_UAUIEH CF';,..? SvFEP(DLMC_+) U.O OEO
lAPEk kJ_ [I0 (SL_I) .7bO
HOOT TH 1C_i_ .%S (ICR) .IYU
"TIP THI CK(,,ESS (ICT} .llO
_ING LO_' ul "UG (,,GS) ab.o P_F
wli,JG FUEL V()LI -If- (VFw) 23'8 CUFI
FIIIR, T_ll ASPECT HAl Ic (aRril} _.57

A_F/c, (SHT) I_.5 S(_FT
SF-A_. (BFil) 9.19 ;T
MEa_ CHOP[; (CL6AF_t_I) 2.05 F1
I_ICI_r_ESS/CF,LbRD (ICr_l) .070
MO_,I{. N T AFRo, (ELIH) 13.3 FT
VULUML COEFF. (VBAC_N) I.I_3
VE.I. I¢,II _%FECI F_AT lu (APVT)

A_,E._ (SVT) 12.2 SUF1
SFa_ (HV]) 3.89 FT
MEAN C_qOWD (CHAF_VT) 3,_6 FI
T_I CKFwES_</C _ O_l) ( 1CV 1 ) .057
_.O_,EP,T A_' (ELTV) 13.2 FI
VOL(_'_ COil-F. (VBAhV) .015
E:J5._(JELLES LE_GI_ (ELN) 4.83 FT

• TI F1
NU_",LH t'(_l_ F% (ENP) l.r)
wlllFb AV_A (5%) In,T? 5QFI
120
APPE[_DIX B
Side-By-Side Single (Cont'd)
C_uISE ALIIIUbE • IbO00,
PLAIPLAI5 CF AT HE-10eo7 IS .002_7
r(_IA, r_F' Cl LvF FLATPLAI__ ANI'A

r jiAi _,F rltu ,_H(_A
uwA(. ..-F A,_)(_:, lr, j 5(_FT

(FE-) ,6dw
(_FF) I,I03
I_", I . IAIL (_lVf) ,_O9
._L)-, TwIL (FE"I) .flu
w _1:'t NACrLLFS {_tN) ,0|0
I TW I A,'_S (FLIP) 0,000
I '*(._,F.
MI- N I AL F__ (DLIAFE) ,0dl
w_ w_'_Yr_hN IC CUtFF,
,ho%O
-,llb_
,1_/b
3,0_
_-,_ I.IFI .%LE,_F AT CRUIS_ _CM PER _AOIAN

r'.'.,,,AI.!_ _" ACT(,H
L'_.',,'T!.,_ GEAR Cu ]_CML_E;_T= .'J?_16
<' ", *"*' + ",, [ ,_,r( T C_I" I,'wP_[ FUW CUN'I"wUL
OIU6_ &_;PAGI_ IB
121
APPENDI X B
GASP Printout For

Side-By-Side Twin--Engine Airplane Solution
vOlvE = 340. KTS VM0 • ?Sq. KTS MM0 = ,792

ULT. LF = 9,00 MAN, LF = 6,00 GUST LF - 2,98
P_hPUI._TON GROUP
PRIMARY ENGINES
PRIMARY FNGINE INSTL, (WPFI) 79,
FI.IEL SYSTEM (wrsS) 5B,
RROPUL_OR WEIBMT (wPR0P) 0,
TnTAL PR0P,GROUR WT, (w_) 455,
$IRUCTURF5 GROUP
wI_.'G (WW) 27b,
MhR. TAIL (WHT) 57,
VF_I, TAIL (WVT) 32,
FUSELAGE (a_) _59,
LANDING GEAR (WLG) |60,
PRIMARY ENG, SECTION (WPES) 127,
Gmi_UP WEIGHT I_C, (OELWST) 0,
TOTAL STRUC,GNOUP WT, (WST) 1]10,
FLIGHT CONTROLS 6_0P

COCPIT CONTROLS (WCC) 33,
FIXED wING CONTROLS (wcFw) 16,
SAS (wsAs) 0,
(_qO0_ wEIGHT INC, (0EI. WFC) 29,
TOTAL CONTROL _T, (wrc) 78,
WT, OF FIXED EOUIP_ENT (WFr) 669,
_EIGWT E_PTY (WE) 2311,
(WFIIL) _I0, (INC, CREw 0_ I)

FIxEq USEFUL LOAO
OPERATING WEIGHT EMPTY (0w_) 25_I,
PAYLOAD (WPL) _00, {PAX- l,)
6_5, (WFWm b45,) (WFTPm 0,)

FUEL (wFA)
GROSS .EIGHT (wS) 3366,
122
APPE_DIX B
Side-By-Side, Twin (Cont'd)
GROSS WEIGHT = 3366. pASSENGERS = I* PLUS CRE_ DF I
LENGTH (ELF) 25.00 FT

FUSELAGE
WIDTH (SWF) 4.67 FT
wETTED AREA (SF} 261. SOFT
DELTA P (DELP) 4.20 PSI
ASPECT RATIO (AR) I0.00

WING
AWE_ (SW) 7&.8 SOFT
SPA_ (8) 27.3 FT
GEO_. MEAN C_OR{) (CBAPw) ?.8_ FT
OIJA_T_R CHORD SwEEP(DL_C4) 0.0 DEG
T_PER RATIO (SLM) .500
ROOT THICKNE_SS (TCR) .170
TIP THICKNESS (lCI) .170
WING LOADING (_GS) 45.0 PSF
WING FUEL VOLt'ME (VFw) 24.5 CUFT
ASPECT RATIO (ARHT) _.57

HOR, TAft.
21.3 SOFT
AREA (SHT)
g,87 FT
SPAN (BH,)
MEAN CHORD (CRARHT} P.24 FT
THICKNESS/C_40_D (TCHT) .070
11.2 FT
MOMEN] ARP (ELTH)
VOLU_E CnEFF. (VGA_H) 1.123
1.24
VERT. _AIL ASPECT RATIO (ARVT)
13,0 SOFT
AREA (SVT)
4.01 FT
SPA_ (BUT)
_EA_ CHORO (CHARVT} 3,36 FT
_HICKNESS/CH_O (1CUT) ,087
MOMENT AR_: (ELTV) 11.8 FI
VOLL'ME COEFF. (VBAPV) ,075
4.83 FT
ENG.NACELLES LEBr;TH (ELN)
1.19 FT
NEA_; DI_:_ETFR (D_ARN}
NU_'ER ENGINES (ENP} 2.0
36.11 SGFI
WETTED _PEA (S_}
123
t
APPEI_DIX B
Side-By-Side, Twin (Cont'd)
C_UISF MACM m ,399 CRUISE ALTITUDE • 15000,
CRUISE REoNUM, PE_ FT, • |,SA3E+06 FLATPLATE CF AT RE-L0e,7 IS .00287
AERODyNAmICS DATA
TOTAl. EFFFCTIVF FLATPLATE AREA (FF) E,|80 SQFT
TOtAl WFTIED A_EA (SwET) 698,2 SOFT
MEAN SkIN FRICTION COEFF, (CRARF) ,00438
DRAG R_EAKOOWN IN SOFT

wing (FEw) .65H
FII_FLAGE (FEF) I.n46
VF_T, TAIL (FFVT) ,115
Hn_. TAIL (FEMT) ,193
E_:_TNF NACELLFS (FEN) ,138
TI_ TANKS (FETP) O,DO0
INCrEmENTAL FF (OLTAFE) .030
AER01)Y._AMIC COEFF,
A1 ._S50
AP -.I158
At ._781
A_s,TSe(T/C) .1275
o0204
A6 3.0591
ATsI/(PI*SEEOAR) ,_406
3-U LiFT SLOPE AT CRUISE MACH (CLALPH) 5,FIB8 PER RAOIAN
_*A[.O F4CTOR (SEE) ,7846
C_UISE C_ • ,02Q1 * ,0406 CLIe2

LAN_ING _EAR CO IkCWEMENTm ,0_A38
• *eeeSTAHT OF INPUT FOR CONTROL

_JPC'2, NSC-6, IOC'O,
+**+*START OF INPUT FOR MISSION DESCRIPTION

ICON_=0, ISEO=1, *
DtUGIN, IJPAO
124
]
APPEHDIX
GASP Printout For
Tandem; Twin-Engine Airplane Solution
VDIVE = 1_0, KTS VMO • 289. KTS MHO . ,792

ULT, LF = 9,00 MAN, LF • _,00 GUST LF _ 2,Q8
PROPULSIhN GROUP
PRIMAPY ENGINES (WFP) 3_9.
PRIMARY ENGINE INSTL, (WPFI) 86,
FUFL _YSTEM (WFSS) 66,
PRhPU|_OR wEIGhT
TOTAL PWOP.GROUP WT, (WP} &99,
STRUCTUP_ GROUP
wING (WW} 340,
_Ow. TAIL (WwT) 53.
VEP[. TAIL (WVT) w0.
F'lqEtA_E (WR) _63,
t _N01NG GEA_ (WL_) 173,
PNIMARY ENG. S_CTION (WPFS) 137.
G_nUP wFIGHT INC. (0ELWST) 0,
TOTAl. STRUC.GROUP WT, (wsT) I_05,
FLI&HT CONTrOl S GDOP

COCPIT CONTROLS (wcc) 3_o
FIXED WING CONTROLS (w£rw) 19.
(ws^s) 0,
GRhUP wEIGHT INC. (OEI_WFC)
TOT_I. CONTROL wT, (WFC) 81,
wT. OF FIXED EQUIPMENT (WFF) 736,
WEIGHT FMPIY (WE} 2522,
FIXE0 USFFUL LOAD (WFUL) 210, (INC, CREW OF I)
OPE_ATINA WEIGMT EMPTY iOwE) 273Z,
PAYLOAO (W_L) _00, (PAX• _,)
(WrA) 712, (wFW= 712,) (WFTP• 0o}

FUEL
GROSS wFIGHT (w(%) 36_3,
_') ,f-
O*JG[NAj_ pA(;;_,
i.,_
OF P(_JI£Q[/A,[.F!v
125
APPEI;DIX B
Tandem; Twin (Cont'd)
3643, PASSENGERS = |, PLUS CREW OF
LENGTH (ELF) 29,00 FT

w!OTH (SWF) 3,25 FT
wETTED APEA (SF) 336, SOFT
DELTA P (DELP) 4,20 PSI
ASPECT _ATIO (AR) 10,00

AREA (Sw) 81,0 SQFT
SPAh (B) _8.5 FT
GEOM, MEAN C_ORn (CBAR_) 2,g5 FT
OUAPTER CHOPD SWFEP(DLMC_) 0,0 DE(_
TAPFP RATIO (SLM) ,500
RO01 THICKNESS (TCR) ,]70
TIP THICKNESS (TCT) ,170
WING LOADING (wGS) 65,0 PSF
WING FUEL VOLUMF (VFW) 27.5 CUFT
HOR, TAIL ASPECT RATIO (A_HT) 5,00

AREA (SHT) 16.3 SOFT
SPAN (BHT) 9,04 FT
MEAN CHOPD (CBAPHT) 1,B7 FT
THICKNESS/CHOQO (TCHT) ,070
MOMENT APr_ (ELTH) ]3,6 FT
VOLUME COEFF, (VBARH) ,930
ASPECT P_TI0 (ARVT) 1,90

VERT, TAIl.
AREA (SVT) 15,3 SOFT
SPAN (BVT) _,39 FT
MEAN ChOPn (CSARVT) 2,96 FT
TH|CKNESS/CHOPD (TCVT) ,087
MOMENT AUM (ELTV) 14._ FT
VOLU_E COEFF, (VHAnV) ,096
ENG,NACFLLES LENGTH (ELN) 6,83 FT

MEA_ DIAvFTER (DBAPN) 1,19 ¢T
NUMBER F',GI_FS (ENP) 2,0
wETTED _rA (SN) 3k,ll SOFT
126
APPENDIX B
Tandem; Twin (Cont'd)
C_UIS_ MACH • ,399 CPUISE ALTITUOE = 15000,
FLATPLATE CF AT _EmlOee7 IS ,00287

CRUISE _F,NLIM, PEP FT, • 1,8_3Eo06
AEROOyNAMICS 0ATA
T_TAL EFFECT|VE FLATPLATE AREA (FE) 2.432 SOFT
(SWET) SRS.O SOFT
TOIAL wETTED AREA
_AN SKIN FRICT|ON COEFF, (CBARF) ,00416
ORAG _FAKDOWN IN SQFT

(FEw) ,707
WING
(FEF) 1,263
FU_FLAGE
(FEVT) ,139
V_T. TAIL
(FEMT) ,|53
Hh_. TAIL
(FE_) ,|38
EN@I_0F NACELLES
(FETP) 0,000
TT_ TANKS
(DLTAFE) ,032
INC_F_ENTAL FF
AErOdYNAMIC COEFF.
,_8S0
At
-,1158
A_
,0781
A_
,1275
A4z.7_o(T/C)
,0213
A_zCOO--
3,0388
A_
,0_06
A?=|/(PIQ_EEeA_)
5,5188 PER RJOIAN
• 3-O LIFT SL.GPF AT CRUISF MACH (CLALPH)
,7866
" O_,ALD FACTOW (SEE)
CWUlS_ C_ • .03no • .0_06 CLIO2

LANDIN_ _EA_ CO [NCREMENTx .0_T93
OklG/m..
_-"'*t/.s
127
APPEI_DIX B
GASP Printout For

Tandem; Single-Engine Airplane
Solution with 0.95 Ram _ecovery
VOIVE = 340. KTS VMO • 289. KTS MMO = ,792

ULT. LF • 9,00 MAN. LF • 6,00 GUST LF x 2,98
PROPULSION GROUP
g_TMARY ENGINES (WEp) 407,
PRIMARY ENGINE INSTL, (WRrl) I01,
FUEL _YSTEM (wFSS) 85,
P_PULSOR WEIGHT (wPROP; 0,
TOTAL PROP.GROUP WT, (wp) 593,
STRUCTURES GROUP
WING (WW) 477,
HOR. TAIL (WHT) 64,
VERT, TAIL (WVT) 39,
FUSELAGE (w@} 517,
LANDING GEAR (WLG) 197,
PRIMARY ENG, SFCTION (WPES} 87,
GRnUP WEIGHT INC. (OELWST) O.
TOTAL STRUC.GROUP WT, (WST) 1381,
FLIGHT CONTROLS GPOP

COCPIT CONTROLS (wcc| 36,
FIxEn WING CONTROLS (wCFW) 23,
SAS (WSAS) O.
GRnUP WEIGHT INC, (DELWFC) 29,
TOTAL CONTROL WT, (wFc) 88,
WT, OF rIXED EGUIPMENT (WFF) 736,
WEIGHT EMPTY (WE) 2798,
FIXED USEFUL LOAO (WFUL) ?IO, (INC, CREw Or 1)
OPERATING wEIGHT EMPTY (OWE) 3008,
PAYLOAD (WPL) 200. (PAX• 1,)
FUEL (WFA) 96So (WFW8 9450) (WFTP8 0,)
GROSS WEIGHT (WG) 4154o
lOP
128
APPENDIX B
Tandem; Single (Cont'd)

qR = 0.95
GROSS WRIGHT = _154, PASSENGERS t I, PLUS CREW OF I
FUSELAGE LENGTH (ELF} 29,00 FT

WIOTH (SWF) 3,2S FT
WETTED AREA (SF) 336, S_rT
DELTA P (DELP) +,20 PSI
WING ASPECT RATIO (AR) I0,00

AREa (Sw) 92,3 SOFT
SPAN (B) 30,4 FT
GEOM, MEAN CHORD (CBAPw) 3,15 FT
QUARTEP CHORD SWEEP(DLMC_) 0,0 DEG
TAPE_ RATIO (SLM) ,500
ROOT THICKNESS (TCR) .170
TIP THICKNESS (TCT) .170
WING LOADING (WGS) 45,0 PSF
WING FUEL VnLUP_E (VFW) 33,5 CUrl
HOR. TAIL ASPECT RATIh (ARHT) 5,00

AREA (SHT) 20,! SOrT
SPAN (8HT) I0,0! FT
MEAN CHORD {CBARHT) 2,08 rT
THICKNESS/C_OPO (TCHT) ,070
MOMENT ARM (ELTH) 13.5 FT
VOLUME COEFF. (VBARH) ,930
VERT, TAIL ASPECT RATIO (ARVT) 1,55

AREa (SVT) 15.0 SOFT
SPAN (BVT) 4,82 FT
MEAH CHORD (CBARVT) 3,_2 rT
THICKNESS/CH0_D (TCVT) ,087
MOMFNT ARM (ELTV) lk,O FT
VOLUME COE_F. (VBA_V) ,07S
ENG,N^CFLLES LENGTH (ELN) _,h0 FT

MEA_ GIAuET_ (O_A:_.) 3,36 rT
NUMBER ENGI'.ES (ENP) 1,0
wETTr0 AREA ($N) _8,56 SQ=T
OIUI,,_.
" ]2
APPEIIDIX B

= 0.95
qR
C_UISE MACM = .39¢) CRUISE ALTITUDE • 15000,
CRUISE PE,NUM, PER FT, • |,8A3E'06 FLATPLATE CF AT RE,1Oee7 IS ,00Z87
AERODYNAMICS DATA
TGrAL EFFECTIVE FLATPLATE AREA (FE) 2,602 SgFT
TOIAL WETTED AREA (SwET) 626.0 SOFT
WEAN SKIN FRICTION COEFF. (CBARF) ,0_416
O_AG RHEAKDOwN IN SOFT

WTN_ (FEW) ,797
FUSELAGE (FEE) 1.263
VEHT. TAIL (FEVT) .134

MOH, TAIl. (FEMT) .1R5
ENGINE NACELLES (FEN) ,IR6
TIP TANKS (FETP) 0.000
INCREMENTAL FE (DLTAFE) ,037
AERODyNA-IC COEFF,
._SSO
At
o,!158
A_
A_ ,0781
A&m,T%e(T/C) ,1E7S
,0196
A%=Cn_--
AA 3,nOS?
AT=|/(_Ie_EEeAR) ,O&Ob
t-0 LIFT _LOPF AT CRUISE MAC_ (CLALPM) PER RAOIAN
OSWALD FACTO_ (SEE) ,7846
CRUISE cn = ,02_? * ,0¢06 CLe*_

LANDIN@ GEAR CO INCREMENT- ,OETEI
*****STAMT OF INPUT FOR CONT_0L
END 0F INPUT OATAe J0_ C0MPLET[,
130
APPE[_DIX B
GASP Printout For

Tandem; Single-Engine Airplane
Solution with 0.99 _am Recovery
VDIVE = _n, KTS VM0 = 28_. KTS MM0 = ,792

LILT. I.F = g,n0 uAN, LF • h,00 GUST LF = 2,98
RRO_UL_IO_ GROUP
p_A.tY ENGINES (wFPl 35_.
PRTMAPY _NAINE INSTL. (_WpFI) HH.
FLJ_L _Y_TE_ (WFRS) 6_.
pRh_LIL_OR _EIGHT
T_TAL PROP,G_UP WT, (Wp) 507.
$TROCTUn£_ G_UP
_. TaIL (WwT) b2.

vFwT. IAIL (WVT} 32.
PwTMARY _A, S_CTION (v,PCS) _7.

G_(_OP wFIA_T I_C. (Oc_ wST) 0.
T_IAI _IHUC.bRO_I_ WT. (WKT) _-
FLTGWT C_F_TQOLS GU_ p

COP_TT CONTROL ¢
¢Ix_O _'INA CONTROLS (WCFW) 19.
(W_AS) {'.
_QnuP wEIGwT I_C.
TOTAL CONTROL _'T,
(wF_) 736.
WT. OF FTWED EOUIQ_ENT
2570.
_TI_WT E_PTY
210, (TNC, C_EW _r I)

rlXrn u_rrUL LOAD
(C)w_ } 27Q0.
OP;_ATIN_ wEIAMT ;_PTY
( WPl ) 200. (PAXm I°)

PAYL OAt)
n.)
(w_) 720. (_FW• 720.) {wFTPm
FOEI
(wA_ 3701.
OF _4)_)_9 ; a,.,_, _.
APPEIIDIX B
Tandem; Single (Cont' d)

= 0.99
q_
: 370]. PASSENGERS = I. PLUS CWEW OF 1
L_N_TH (ELF) 2_.00 FT

WTDT_ (SWF) 3,25 FT
WETTF[) AREA (SF) 336. SOFT
DELTA P (DELP)
WIN_ AS¢'=Cl PATIO AR) 10.00

Sw) 82,? SOFT
SP_x, B) ?8.7 FT
CSAPW) 2.97 FT
OLJ_DTER CHO_[) SWFED DI.MC¢) 0.0 9EG
_APF_ RATIO ,_LM) .500
gOOT THICKNFSS TCR) .170
TIP THICKNESS 1CT) .170
WIN_ LOAOIN_ wGS) _S.O PSF
WInG FUEL V_LtIME VFW) _._ CUFT
H0q, TATL _SPFCT D.... (A_T) 5,00

APEA (SH1) 16.0 SOFT
SP_N (BHT) 8,95 FT
MEAN CHOPD (C_AqHT) l,B6 FT
T_IrKNFSS/CHq_D (TCHT) ,070
MOMENT A_M (EI.TH) 14.2 FT
VOLU_E COEFF, (V@APH) ,930
VEw1. leTt ASPFCl RATIO (A_VT) 1,55

APEA (SvT) l?.O SOFT
SPA_ (BVT) _.32 FT
MEA_ CHORD (CBA_VT) 2._9 FT
TH I rK_F SS/C_DUl) (TCVT) ,087
MOtIE _1 A_ (FITV) lk,? FT
V0t ll'tE Cr_E_ , (VRAPV) ,075
E'wG. _.'_C_ LI rS Lt hr_ T _ (ELN)

3.3_ ri
NLir._._l.., _O,I _' E_ 1.0
wETlrl_ t,REA (S_)
132
-r--'----"
APPEI_D iX B
<JR = 0.99
CRUT_ _CH : o3QQ CQUISE ALTITUDE = 15000,
CQUTq_" _'¢.NUw4. PE_ FT. " I,_63E'*06 rLATPLATE CF AT qE,,lOee7 IS ,n0297
AEROflYNA-TC% _ATA
TnTAL EFFFCTIVE FLATPLATE AREA (FF) 2,_59 S_;T
T_rAL _ETTEO A_EA (SwET) 5_?.7 SOFT
M;_t S_IN FRICTION COEFF, (C_A@F) .0n_I5
D_AG QHEAK_O*N I_J SQFT

_T_ (FFw) ,717
F'!b_LA_ (FEF) 1,263
V;wT, TAIL. (FEVT) ,]09
_. TAIL (FEMT) ,150
E_AI'JF 4ACELLFS (FEN) ,1_b
Tl_ TLNKq (FETO) 0.000
INC_FMENTAL Fr (OLTAFE) .033
AER_nY._A_TC COEFF,
,aBSO
AP -.I15_
A3 ,nThl
A_=,T_O(T/C) ,I_75
.0212
3._3wH
,O_O6
_-_) LIFT _i.OP_ AT _LIISE _^¢_ (CLALPH) _R RaOIAN
OqwAi n FA_TO_ (SEE) ,TH_b
LANOTNG GFA_ CO I_CRF"ENTm ,0)TA&
• *$*$STA_T _F l_P_lT FOR CONTROL
EhO OF TNPUT OATA, ,IOH C0_PI.ETE,
ORIGINAI PAGB
OF POOR
33
W .............. ........... T • - Y
m
APPENDIX C
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS -
THE POTENTIAL FOR FUEL AND
OPERATING COST SAVINGS
All who participated in the investigation summarized in this

report are convinced that the results merit further study, par-
ticularly the economic questions left unanswered. It is the
intent of this appendix to outline some of these considerations,
but due to its brevity, no claim is made for its conclusiveness.
Rather, it is intended to indicate the need for in-depth cost
estimates, and life-cycle cost analyses of the military primary
trainer defined in this study.
The "Randolph study," repeatedly referred to in the text

of this report, received such attention because of the TA-2
conceptual trainer design that is described in the study group"s
final report. This conceptual trainer is most representative or
a turbofan-powered light airplane that could become an actual
military requirement. Furthermore, the concept was supported by
a massive amount of U.S. Air Force-sponsored analyses. This
comprehensive work resulted in many recommendations among which
was to undertake the procurement of the TA-2 airplane. This
economics appendix supports that recommendation.
The Randolph study was, as its title states, a complete

%
"Mission Analysis on Future Undergraduate Pilot Training: 1975
through 1990." Three considerations appear to have been given
to every question addressed: requirements for; effectiveness
of; and cost of. Avoiding the issue of requirements, this NASA/
Garrett investigation has provided an in-depth analysis of both
effectiveness- and cost-related factors. The work appears to
have improved upon the Air Force results affecting these factors.
Smaller, presumably less costly, candidate airplanes were
derived. It has been shown how o[_eratin{] costs, as influenced b'i
low fuel consumption and less maintenance, could be reduced from
the Air Force estimates. Finally, the "energy crisis" i/rovided a
sense of urgenc], to the need for maximu_ _,Icfficienc]" attainr_ents.
The General officer St"-_ring C°mmitte'_ that revi _w(_-d ti__'

r_andolph stud}' results r,_con_:te.'id<_d: "T:',,: rh::i_ion to procure-
any new conceptual aircraft (TA-2, TA-3, or TA-4) should b__'
deferred until th{_' 1979-1982 time [_erio!." That r,_co ::m'_''n<!at_<;n,
n_a<]e in 1971, does n<_t, ')f c_urs,_, r'-_f!'-_(;*ith,; ur,_)n-":" that :,l:{t
have been felt in 1974, wh,_n und,,,rjr-a<!'.at" i ilot pro i_,,,ti<_n "..:_s
r_:duced for l_ck ',f f _,_!. " >r do,:s it r,,-_fl_ct t h'_- fact th,_'
r,,cen _: :u);_r<.)riations ")f T-37's }-'" other "'..q. Air i ere,, ,'o::u',_:',_{
7,__" ca'asc _n :,arlv , :lsui flcl,]nc]' _t <'r:_ini:_g C,>:_nan i Ai:_o i
APPENDIX C
economical airplane than the Randolph study TA-2 could be
achieved.
Based upon information contained in the Randolph study,

cost data from various other sources, and the resdlts of this
investigation, the following extensions of fuel and cost sav-
ings are projected for a new primary trainer:
FUEL SAVINGS (vs. T-37 FLEET)
Current Annual Consumption 62.7 million gal.

190 gph, 90 hr/graduate,
3665 grad./yr.
Potential Annual Consumption 12.6 million gal.
38 gph, 90 hr/graduate,
3665 grad./yr.
Potential Annual Fuel Savings 50.1 million @al.
Projected Fuel Cost Savings
i5_/gal $ 7.5 million/yr.
20@/gal i0.0 million/yr.
30_/gal 15.0 million/yr.
OPERATING COST SAVINGS (vs. T-37 FLEET)
Current Annual Operating Cost $41.2 million/yr.

$125/hr, 90 hr/graduate, 3665
grad/yr.
Potential Annual Operating Cost 10.2 million/yr.
$31/hr, 90 hr/graduate, 3665
grad/yr.
Potential Annual O_eratin_ Cost Savinqs 31.0 million/yr.
In discussions held with various USAF personnel, it was

learned that, with the increased performance, range, and IFR
capability of the TA-2 primary trainer concept, it could dis-
place the 3'-38 in a small portion of the training syllabus.
If i0 hours were to be considered a reasonable such displace-
ment, then the following additional savings could be pro-
jected:
FUEL SAVINGS (vs. T-38 IN i0 SYLLABUS HOURS)
Current Annual Consumption 14.3 million gal.

_a 390 gph, i0 hr/g_aduate
3665 grad/yr.
Potential Annual Consumption 1.4 million gal.
_a 38 gph, i0 hr/graduate, 3665
grad/yr.
Potential Annual Fuel Savincjs 12.9 million gal.
136
APPENDIX C
Projected Fuel Cost Savings

15_/gal $ 1.94 million/yr.
20_/gal 2,58 million/yr.
30_/gal 3,87 million/yr.
OPERATING COST SAVINGS (vs. T-38 IN l0 SYLLABUS HOURS)
Current Annual Operating Cost $ 9.2 million/yr.

$250/hr, l0 hr/graduate,
3665 grad/yr.
Potential Annual Operating Cost i.I million/yr.
$31/hr, i0 hr/graduate,
3665 grad/yr.
Potential Annual Operating Cost 8.1 million/yr.
Savings
Combining the potential fuel savings estimated here, the

total is 63 million gallons saved per year. It is doubtful that
there is another area in military aviation where a potential for
savings of more than 80 percent exists.
Similarly, with a potential total annual operating cost

savings of $39.1 million, the case for a new primary trainer
merits careful review.
Finally, it has been estimated that, at a total program

cost of less than $200 million, the U.S. Air Force could pro-
cure a new primary trainer fleet. If this cost and the fore-
going projected savings are accurate, such a program would
pay for itself in about 5 years.
137
9
I
REFERENCES
• Merrill, G.L., G.A. Burnett, and C.C. Alsworth, et al.

"A Study of Small Turbofan Engines Applicable to General-
Aviation Aircraft, Final Report," NASA CR i14630, September
1973.
• Anon., "United States Air Force Mission Analysis on

Future Undergraduate Pilot Training: 1975 through 1990,
Final Report," Mission Analysis Study Group, Randolph Air
Force Base, Texas, January 1972.
• Galloway, T.L. and M.H. Waters, "Computer Aided Parametric

Analysis for General Aviation Aircraft," Soc. Auto. Eng.
Technical Paper 730332, April 1973.
139
J

Study of Small Civil Turbofan Engines Applicable To Military Trainer Airplanes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study of Small Civil Turbofan Engines Applicable To Military Trainer Airplanes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IlIAiNiit AilPLAilfS

AIREII[JkRCH MANIJleADI"URII_I!_, QO_ OF ARIZONA

" ,. _.,, _ _:_ . _ 'i 1 ".) 1 __ , !

GENERAL AVIATION SYNTHESIS PROGRAM (GASP) DESCRIPTION 15

BASELINE ENGINE DEFINITION 25

General Design Considerations 25

Component Configurations and Design Parameters 27

BASELINE AIRPLANE DEFINITION 36

General Design Considerations 36

Initial configuration study 37

TASK I - EVALUATIO_ OF SIDE-BY-SIDE, SINGLE-ENGINE

Final Design Results and E_,aluation 42

TASK II - EVALUATION OF SIDE-BY-SIDE, TWIN-ENGINE TRAINER 47

Initial Airplane and Engine Sizing Analysis 47

Wing-loading and thrust-loadings 47

Final Design Results and Evaluation 59

Parametric Sensitivity Analyses 62

Engine definition for sensitivity analysis 62

Engine cycle quality sensitivity results 73

Airplane drag sensitivity results "77

Fixed equipment weight sensitivity results 79

Wing weight sensitivity results _2

Sustained load factor sensitivity results 87

Combined sensitivity effects R7

TASK III - EVALUATION OF THE TANDEM-SEAT, TWIN-ENGINE

STUDY OF SMALL CIVIL TURBOFANENGINES

By R. W. Heldenbrand, G. L. Merrill, G. A. Burnett

Prepared under Contract No. NAS2-6799 by

Ames Research Center

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Systems Studies Division

1 General Aviation Light-Twin Three-View

Illustration of the Baseline Engine Design

8 GASP Mission Profile and Airfield 21

i0 GASP Normal Calculation Flow Path

12 Three-View Drawing Side-By-Side, Single

13 Engine Sizing Results at Wing Loading 48

14 Engine Sizing Results at Wing Loading 4_

15 Engine Sizing Results at Wing Loading 5O

16 Engine Sizing Results at Wing Loading 51

19 Cruise Fuel Consumption Variation with

LIST OF FIGURES (Contd)

2O Takeoff Thrust-to-Weight Ratio Variation

21 Total Sea Level Thrust Variation with

22 Loop Maneuver Characteristic of Wing-Loading

23 Airplane Climbing Characteristics at Wing-

24 Airplane Performance Envelope at Wing-Loading

25 Three-View Drawing Side-By-Side Twin Engine

26 Estimated Core Compressor Efficiency

27 Estimated Design Point Fan Efficiency

28 Parametric Cycle Analysis Results 68

29 Engine Specific Thrust (Thrust ÷ Airflow)

3O Parametric Analysis Results of Core Size

31 Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption Variation

32 Calcul_ted Specific Engine Weight

33 Gross and Empty Weight Variation with Core

34 Cruise Fuel Consumption Variation with Core

]5 Gros_ and Empty Weight Sensitivity to Zero-

36 Engine Size and Cruise Fuel Consumption

37 Gross and Empty Weight Sensitivity to

38 Engine Size and Cruise Fuel Consumption

39 Gross and Empty Weight Sensitivity

4O Engine Size and Cruise Consumption Sensitivity