IM--O_

F 37

ADVANCED SUBSONIC AIRPLANE DESIGN & ECONOMIC STUDIES

Robert H. Liebeck, Donald A. Andrastek, Johnny Chau, Raquel Blaine K. Rawdon, Paul W. Scott, Robert A. Wright MCDONNELL DOUGLAS AEROSPACE, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

Girvin,

Roger

Lyon,

0 ,4" N _ cO ,.f a

f_ O

e_

Contract

NAS3-25965,

Task 9

Z O gel

r_

April

1995

oq U sr uj 0 U Z Z 0 W O. 0

National Space Lewis

Aeronautics Administration Research Center Ohio 44135

and
rm

ZO_

t3 _nmO 0 _ w= I I w ZtaC _uc ..I_ !

Cleveland,

-4

PREFACE

This report Center Task under

was prepared

by McDonnell technical PAIT

Douglas monitors Program

Corporation were Joseph Manager recognition

for NASA contract

Lewis

Research

Propulsion/Airframe 9. The NASA Douglas Douglas was Raquel

Integration Program Girvin.

Technology Manager

(PAIT)

NAS3-25965 and Felix H. Douglas are

Assignment

D. Eisenberg

R. Torres. Liebeck The editor

The McDonnell and the McDonell of this report

for this task was Robert was James of the McDonnell

G. McComb.

The members

team that participated as follows: Aerodynamics Configuration Economics Propulsion Secondary Weights Power

in this task order

and deserve

for their contributions

Robert Robert Donald Raquel Kenneth Dennis

S. Bird, Johnny A. Wright, Blaine

Chau,

Roger

Lyon

K. Rawdon Ellis James K. Wechsler

A. Andrastek, Girvin, Susan

Madeline M. Koval,

tL Williams Nguyen, Paul W. Scott

iii

PRECEDi;,JG

P_E

E_L._2_K NOT

F_!.r_ED

Table

of Contents

ub.S_u_b.im
List of Tables List of Figures I. II. Introduction Approach A. B. Mission Airframe 1. 2. 3. 4. C. D. E. Definition Technology Definition vi vii 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 7 7 Model (CASES) 7 11 12 12 12 18 19

Aerodynamics Structure Stability Systems Definition Defmition and Rules and Control

Engine

Configuration Airplane 1. 2. 3. 4. Weight

Sizing and Performance Model Model Estimation

Propulsion Aerodynamic

Sizing Procedures Analysis Method

F.

Sensitivity

G. DOC+I III. IV. Results Conclusions

and Rules

PR2CEO|_G

Ph_E

E_._NK
V

NOT

F!L_.,'_D

List of Tables Page Table 1. Subsonic Airframe/Propulsion 2005 EIS versus Aircraft Engine Type Designations Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Table Table Table Table Integration Airplane Design 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 18

Specifications Table 2. Table 3. Table Table 4. 5. Power Baseline SR-150 MR-225 MR-275 LR-600 Aircraft Design Advanced DOC+I

Extraction

and Advanced Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Sizing Criteria Technology Ground Rules Common

Model

Geometric Geometric Geometric Geometric

Common Common Common Derivatives'

Table 6. Table 7. Table Table Table Table 8. 9. 10. 11.

Multipliers

for 2005

EIS

and Assumptions

vi

List of Figures Figure1. Figure2. Figure3. Figure4. Figure5. Figure6. Figure7. Figure8. Figure9. General Arrangement - SR-150 Interior Arrangement - SR-150 GeneralArrangement - MR-225 Interior Arrangement - MR-225 GeneralArrangement - MR-275 Interior Arrangement- MR-275 GeneralArrangement - LR-600
Interior Fixed Weight Arrangement Equipment - LR-600 Items Ratio of Actual 28 29 30 31 Page 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

and Operational Weights Ratio Carpet Plot

to Estimated

Figure10. Figure11. Figure12.

Engine Typical Typical

Pod Weight/Thrust CASES DOC Sizing Process

vii

I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose performance these date have advanced for the been of this study of subsonic engines engine/airframe range) engines, dates difficult. is to examine transport offer. The year the effect of advanced technology engines on the which (EIS) classes EIS period with for

airplanes

and provide A set

a vision

of the potential airplane airframes framework

2005 has been

set as the entry-into-service of four transport existing for the 2005

combination. that are envisioned could more however, back

(passenger advanced produced) evaluation have Two (1995) engines. evaluated and engine the present Participants and

and design defined. technology airframes becomes

to span the needs utilizing

This problem

be approached since the origin than two 2005

of some the existing a consistent advanced

(and currently airframes

decades, EIS

Consequently,

technology

been designed airplanes engines The have

and sized for all classes. been designed and sized for each class: using engine one using then have current been technology (2005 compared (e.g. considered EIS) and SFC in

to provide resulting

a baseline, engine/airframe

and one

advanced have performance

technology parameters not been

combinations Noise

on the basis of sensitivity weight) study. in this study of the and Pratt technology in a single company. include:

to the basic

as well as DOC+I.

and emissions

McDonnell and the three who have

Douglas engine

Aerospace companies; preclude

for the design, Allison, data for their have been are current prepared given

sizing and of for in this

evaluation

airplanes, engines. report, General

GE Aircraft

Engines, advanced this study each report.

and Whitney and

provided separate

the engine appendices

Proprietary therefore discussions

considerations pertaining

the documentation

engine

to all airplanes

II. APPROACH A. Mission Definition missions MR-225, types have transport define have been defined and are summarized MR-275, and LR-600 are used in these These were selected requirements considered envisioned in this study. needs for the year To claim in 2005 in Table 1; the reports to refer to the complete missions be 2005 would and beyond. of course

Four airplane design designations SR-150, these four airplane of subsonic missions spectrum Commuter accurately naive,

respectively. not been

to represent

that these

and precisely

air transportation's the best judgment

however,

they represent

at this writing. 7500 n.mi.) is the most is regarded speculative, as serving all

Of the four missions, particularly

the long range

(600 passenger, The 7500

with respect

to the payload.

n mi range

meaningfulcity-pair requirements. Very largeaircraft (VLA's) aredefinedas 500to 1000 passengers, sothe choicefor this studyis somewhat nearthe lower bound. Increasingthe payloadwould be straightforward, however,the 800-1000 level could beginto deteriorate the accuracyandresolutionof existingdatabases for weights. Table1. Subsonic Airframe/Propulsion Integration AirplaneDesignSpecifications 2005EIS Category Seats Rules Range (N.Mi.) 2500 Cruise Mach No. .78 ICA (Ft) 31,000 VAP (Kts) 130 TOFL (Ft) 7,000

Short Range Medium Range Medium Range Long Range

B. Airframe Technology used

150

225

275

600

2 Class Narrow Body 2 Class Twin Aisle 3 Class International 3 Class International
Definition

45OO

.80

35,000

135

7,500

6000

.83

35,000

140

9,000

7,500

.85

31,000

150

11,000

Technology for all airframes technology

is based levels

on a 2005

entry-into-service

date.

The philosophy reality. The

in selecting

was to lean to the optimistic reductions of existing

but maintain

resulting airplanes would be obtained described below.

thus show measurable from simple derivatives

in size and weight over those which airframes. Specific technologies are

1. Aerodynamics All wing are highly designs loaded are based on advanced wetted supercriticai area. Selection divergent trailing edge airfoils which allows

to minimize

of a composite

wing

structure

a relatively high aspect based on the technology slat and outboard. a track motion The system

ratio limit of 11. High-lift system design and performance is developed for the MD-12. This utilizes a full-span leading edge flap provides system with two segments inboard and a single segment high values of CLm_x and L/D for both takeoff and landing

configurations.

2. Structure Advanced structure aluminum yields composites utilizes structural and fiberglass weight are used for the entire longerons wing with and the empennage skins made and of materials structure. from structural Fuselage GLARE, an design

aluminum-lithium laminate. reductions.

This combination

3. Stability The Stability and horizontal available aeroelastic region. is sized inboard and landing

and Control & Control terms that strongly affect tail size, and cruise center-of-gravity span and therefore then CLmax. ailerons low-speed in the Further, to add L/D. reversal, it is necessary hurts reversal the aircraft performance are vertical (C.G.). The lateral controls affect the if the outboard inboard ailerons flap area speed ailerons in the and distort the wing and suffer stiff from mid-span the takeoff structure no therefore

flap

Unfortunately, spanloads to preclude aileron

these inboard which aileron

also reduce operational

For these

reasons range

is required. tail sizes are based smooth airplanes which losses on an advanced rotation. surface high-lift The tail with a slotted is articulated The level deflections. stability elevator to provide unaugmented VFc/MFc the C.G. places that a

The horizontal can deflect sealed static condition

-350 for low-speed of the Point

takeoff

slot door

aerodynamically stability where

at low elevator This static stability control

is set to -15%MAC are greatest. neutral ground speed represents

at aft C.G. for the critical from a load-factor speed (VmcG)

aeroelastic

at the Maneuver The vertical airplanes, cases, nearly actuators,

standpoint. engine In all larger

tail is sized

for minimum landing

on the twin airplanes. requires the

and two engine-out tail concept shaft, a pivot

(VmCL.2)

for the four tail area.

engine

the all-flying

is used to minimize supporting in addition

This feature but reduces

and additional

structure,

tail size by

50% since the fin can be deflected

to the rudder.

4. Systems This arrangement, reductions, as well It should study system. be noted chosen for the baseline study aircraft, yields weight and complexity as robustness for both the signaling and the power systems. that the secondary the electrical has been bleed power system 2005 EIS arrangement technology, into one shaft for other limited only systems chosen which power for the baseline integrates extraction the from core powered applications

aircraft This

represents pneumatic, An allowance require engine Power-by-Wire

anticipated (PBW)

conventional the engine. which would airflow.

and hydraulic system made

electrically airframe

requires

in this study

air, but this has been

to 1% of the engine

This type of secondarypower systemmakespossiblethe considerationof future very high bypass ratio engines, whose smaller core airflow would not allow the use of conventionalbleedair utilization. ThesePBW secondary power systems arecompatible with the presentenginesusedin the study,andthereforeprovidefor a genericevaluation of the results, with respectto enginetype versussecondarypower systeminstallation. The effect of thesenewer secondarypower systemson weight hasnot beenincludedin this study. Table 2 showsthe actual anticipatedengineextractionexpectedfor eachof the study aircraft types. Table2. PowerExtractionversusAircraft Type AIRCRAFT TYPE ShortRange 150Passengers Shaft
POWER EXTRACTION PER ENGINE 281 hp Max. (209.5 Kva)

225 hp Norm. (167.6 Kva)

MediumRange 225Passengers

Air Shaft

1% core flow max; 379 hp Norm. (282.7 Kva) 1% core flow max; 394 hp Norm. (293.7 Kva)

30 hp 474 hp Max. (353.4 (Kva)

Air

Meditma Range ..... 275 Passengers

Sha
Air

70 hp 492 hp Max. (367.2 Kva)

1% core flow max; 559 hp Norm. (416.8 Kva)

85 hp 698 hp Max. (521.0 Kva)

Long Range 600 Passengers

Shaft

Air

1% core flow max;

120 hp

C. Engine Each engines

Definition three engine companies defined design technology provided their current and advanced cycle, technology base. Relative and was materials, assessment

of the

according

to each company's the advanced efficiency and design

philosophy engines

and technology incorporate No independent

to the current turbomachinery

engines,

improvements.

made on the levels of performance and advanced technology engines. The three below the airplanes, P&W pairs of current 3. The were

by the engine companies

for both the current

and advanced Allison used engines for both were used

technology were the used

engines for the

used

in this study

are listed and long-

in Table

short-range/150-passenger airplanes, and

the GE engines engines

for the medium-range/225-passenger medium-range/275-passenger

range/600-passenger airplanes.
with two engines; Table the long-range

The short airplanes

and medium-range had four engines.

airplanes

were

configured

3. Baseline

and Advanced

Engine

Model

Designations

Engine Company Allison GE Aircraft Pratt Engines

Baseline

Engine PD577-1A6

(1995 EIS)

Advanced

Engine

(2005 EIS)

PD577-2A5/6 Advanced ASTEA STS1046

Baseline

ASTEA

& Whitney Definition configuration isolates the engine airflow without Company

PW4484

D. Configuration A conventional arrangement Douglas FAR Once Part sized, can be analyzed Aircraft

and Rules with pylon-mounted wing Interior crew engines was selected. This changes from the

inlets from the airframe complications. rules. Flight 121.480. a constant, while

so that engine requirements

technology are derived

accommodations

are set using

(DAC)

121, subpart the fuselage the wing, un-sized 8, and

R, paragraph is considered

the engine

technology

level

used

will re-size Preliminary 1 through through

empennage, configurations

landing

gear, engine

size (thrust),

and fuel requirement. are presented are given vertical tails. in Figures in Tables Features 4

for each of the four missions geometric ratio 11 wings characteristics and all-flying

their airplanes

corresponding have aspect include:

7. All airplanes

of the individual

SR-150: A conventional twin engine configuration. section that will accommodate one LD-W container wing box and main landing A conventional gear bay. twin engine Interior

The fuselage has a circular cross below the floor forward and aft of the is 150 seat two class domestic. has a near circular the floor forward cross and

arrangement

b,IR-225: section

configuration. (LD-2) gear bay.

The fuselage containers arrangement

and will accommodate

two LD-3A

below

aft of the wing domestic.

box and main landing

Interior

is 225 seat two class

MR-275: A conventional twin engine configuration. The fuselage has a circular cross section and will accommodate two LD-3 containers below the floor forward and aft of the wing interior box and main class. rules, landing gear bay. class crew Interior arrangement is slightly is 282 seat (not the target by Douglas of the design of 275) three flight range. LR-600: section deck. A conventional with seating The upper deck four engine on both floors; class has three configuration. 217 seats seating The fuselage on the upper with two aisles deck and has a double and lobed cross lower can be Economy seat spacing greater than specified

and a flight

rest area is provided

due to the long duration

382 on the

the seat count

substantially increasedto approximately 317 with economy only seating. Passenger seatingon the lower deck is oneclasseconomywith threeaisles. A restareais provided for the crew dueto the long durationof the designmission. Provisionsto accommodate two LD-3 containersor commercialpalletsarebelow the lower floor forward andaft of the wing box andmain landinggearbay. The lower deckcanbeconfiguredfor passengers or cargo. Whenusedfor cargo,the floor andcabinareawill accommodate two 88 x 108 inch pallets sideby sidewith a height of 8 feet. A visor type nosedoor is shown on the threeview asanoptionfor the lowercargofloor arrangement.
Table 4. SR-150 Aircraft Common Geometric Characteristics HORIZONTAL 5.00 28.00 0.35 25.00 763.63 1.0161 10.0 0.10 VERTICAL 1.80 30.00 0.35 0.00 696.90 0.0514 0.00 0.1025

WING ASPECT C/4SWEEP TRAP RATIO ANGLE DEG 11.00 27.00 0.28 IN
im

TAPER

Y SIDE OF BODY TAIL ARM VOLUME D HERAL _IICKNESS, RATIO ANGLE % CHORD

75.00 N/A N/A 5.00 0.1388 ..... AIRCRAFT

IN DEG Average

OVERALL

LENGTH

FT

130.68

Table 5. MR-225

Aircraft

Common

Geometric

Characteristics HORIZONTAL 5.00 30.00 0.35 50.00 VERTICAL 1.80 35.00 0.33 0.00 900.00 0.0426 0.00 0.I1

WING ASPECT C/4SWEEP TRAP RATIO

,r ,

11.00
m-

ANGLE

DEG

28.00

TAPEi_ .......... IN IN RATIO ANGLE o_ CHORD DEG Average N/A N/A

Y SIDE OF BODY TAIL ARM VOLUME D_ THICKNESS,

906.00 0.9243 4.00 0.095

5.00 '
0.125 AIRCRAFT

OVERALL

LENGTH

FT

163.27

Table 6. MR-275

Aircraft

Common

Geometric

Characteristics HORIZONTAL 5.00 35.00 0.35 50.00 1045.00 1.1376 8.00 0.10 VERTICAL 1.80 40.00 0.33 0.00 1041.00 0.0450 0.00 0.10

WING ASPECT RATIO C/4SWEEP ANGLE" TRAP TAPER Y SIDE OF BODY TAIL ARM VOMUME RATIO DIHERAL ANGLE THICKNESS_ OVERALL % CHORD LENGTH DEG IN IN DEG Averse FT 11.03 34.95 0.30 115.00 N/A N/A 6.00 0.12 AIRCRAFT 195.21

Table 7. LR-600

Aircraft

Common

Geometric

Characteristics HORIZONTAL 4.50 35.00 0.35 84.00 1382.00 0.5160 8.00 0.093 VERTICAL 1.80 40.00 0.33 0.00 1352.00 0.0685 0.00 0.10

WING ASPECT C/4SWEEP TRAP Y SIDE VOLUME DIHERAL RATIO ANGLE DEG T,_PER OF BODY RATIO ANGLE % CHORD DEG Average IN IN 11.00 35.00 0.30 136.00 N/A N/A 6.00 0.103 AIRCRAFT OVERALL LENGTH FT 244.07

TAIL ARM

THICKNESS,

E. Airplane 1. Propulsion

Sizing model

and Performance

The airplanes were sized using engine performance companies for the baseline and advanced engines, either decks. engine airplane Thrust sizing and fuel flow for a large datapacks program which or cycle matrix decks company mission and loaded

data provided by the engine in the form of datapacks or cycle were the extracted fiom the Douglas to into McDonnell

of flight conditions

in turn interpolated

and sealed the engine

data according

the airplane

requirements.

2. Weight MDC's

Estimation

Model Weight Estimation Program (CWEP) requires inputs such

proprietary

Conceptual

as geometrical uses a series

parameters, design of weight estimating

criteria, and advanced technology multipliers. CWEP relationships (WElLs) and a modified Breguet range

equationto developthe initial aircraft sizingparameters, which arethenprocessed by the moresophisticated CASESsizing code. The sizingparameters (shownin Table8) consist of the partial derivatives of Operational Empty Weight (OEW) with respect to gross
weight, weight weight wing area, wing and thrust area, thrust, is used are shown plus a constant and gross in the tables weight. Both To obtain the sizing the final aircraft The resulting derivatives weight, group the CASES weight are input to CWEP.

statement statements

for cost estimation.

and the group

at the end of this section. Sizing Derivatives

TABLE

8. Aircraft

OEW

= We +

aOEW awm-g

(wg

" Wg)

aOEW(s _

w - Swo) +

aOEW aT

(T - To)

Wg

= OEW

+ Wpl

+ Wfuel

OEW aOEW

= Operational Partial

Empty

Weight of OEW

(lb) with respect to wing area (lb / ft 2)

derivative

aSw aOEW aT aOEW Partial aWg Sw = Wing area (ft 2) area (ft 2) sea level static sea level (lb) Gross Weight Gross (lb) (lb) rated (lbf) (lbf) derivative of OEW with respect to MTOGW (Ib I lb) Partial derivative of OEW with respect to Thrust (lb / lb)

Sw o = Base wing T To Wc Wg = Thrust

per engine,

Base thrust = Base constant = Maximum

per engine, weight

static rated

Takeoff

Wg o = Base Maximum W fuel Wpl = Fuel Weight = Payload (lb)

Takeoff

Weight

weight

(lb)

Design

Criteria maximum maximum takeoff design gross weight (MTOGW) capacity is defined over the by the requirement range. The to full

The aircraft's transport the

passenger

design

complement of passengers (WPPL), which is shown heaviest payload

and bags at 210 in Table 9. The must carry

lb each defines the performance payload maximum payload (WMPL) reflects the and influences the structural weight. As is are designed for a 2.5

that the aircraft

typical for commercial aircraft, the configurations for this study limit load factor and a 10 ft/sec limit landing sink rate. The SR-150 three cabin airplanes pressure speeds is designed provide (PD) to provide this pressure of 8.1 for the 8000 feet cabin and pressure This 8.6 psig

at 39,000 results for the

feet while other

the other The

at 43,000 SR-150

feet.

in a limit in Table 9.

differential

aircraft.

maximum

in a dive (VD)

for the aircraft

are also presented

TABLE

9. Design

Criteria

CONFIGURATION

WPPL (.lb)

RANGE (nm) 2,500 4,500 6,000 7,500

WMPL (Ib) 43,000 77,000 100,000 200,000

PD (psig) 8.1 8.6 8.6 8.6

VD (KEAS) 400 410 415 420

SR-150 MR-225 MR-275 LR-600

31,500 47,250

57,750
126,000

Advanced

Technology

Weight

Impacts multipliers (ATMs) to reflect the technology level. on an entry into service date (EIS) of 2005 as aircraft. transports The structural been weight factored increments out in order of to have

CWEP utilizes advanced technology The ATMs of Table 10 are based referenced advanced normalize The wing assumed dramatic Lithium utilizes properties. The fixed equipment due ATM's to the database composites in newer the database. and tail incorporate for leading weight longerons, carbon brakes, edges, reductions and

of operational operational

maximum aerodynamic may

use of advanced surface hinges, but commercial The fuselage secondary

composites, and transports structure.

but metallics joints. must skins, The

are More

at critical

be feasible, composite

emphasize Aluminumgear

low cost of manufacturing

and maintenance. advanced radial

uses GLARE

landing

tires and steel struts

with a moderate

improvement

material

are empirically improvements,

derived many

trends

that reflect are

numerous by

weight increased

reductions

to technology

of which

offset

capabilitiesandimprovedfunctionality. The term"fixed equipment"refersto thoseitems whose weight is insensitive to changesin MTOGW and includes furnishings, APU, pneumatics,air conditioning, electrical, instrumentsandavionics. The weight of fixed equipmentitemstendto scalewith fuselagesize. Dividing the sumof actualaircraft fixed equipmentweightsplus operationalitem weightsby the value estimatedby a WER and
plotting this versus the EIS date of each aircraft determines the ATM trend versus EIS date. This trend curve, shown in Figure 9, estimates an ATM of 0.918 for a 2005 EIS. However, this factor is not distributed evenly across all of the components.

Table FUNCTIONAL W'ln_ Bending material

10. Advanced

Technology ATM

Multipliers

for 2005

EIS = '

GROUP

COMMENTS

0.75
i i

Spar webs Ribs and bulldaeads Aerodynamic Secondar_ Tail Fuselage Landing Nacelle Flight APU, gear & L and Propulsion controls Hydraulics Pneumatics, Air surfaces struc ,ture

0.75 0.75 0.92 0.83 0.80 0.95 0191 NA 0.95 0.976 By engine .manufacturer LR-600 ATM is 0.94

Conditioning Electrical, Instruments & Avionics Fumishir_gs & Equipment items 0.869 0.976

Operational

Although

an EIS 2005 no reliable

transport rational

may be all-electric, for identifying related

there

is scant

empirical

data on such therefore none

systems and are assumed.

weight

increments,

Propulsion All engine ratio engines

System

Weights are provided thrust study by the engine for contemporary manufacturers. turbofans A trend curve 10. curve. of the The

pod weights weight

of pod used

to rated

is in Figure of this trend

in the present

are not included

in the generation

10

When adequatedetail is providedby the manufacturer,MDC usesa MIL-STD-1374A functional weight reportingformat for the propulsionrelatedweights. MIL-STD-1374A allocatesthe inlet cowl to the Air InductionGroup,andthe fan cowl doorsplusthe pylon are chargedto the Nacelle Group. The fan exhaustduct, core cowl and nozzle are allocated to the exhaust system,which is part of the Propulsion Group. In some instances,the fan exhaust duct and the thrust reverserweights are reported as an assembly andcannotbeseparately identified. MDC estimatesthe propulsion related items that are external to the pod, such as the enginepylonsandthe aircraft'sfuel system. Lacking detailedenginepylon drawings,all pylons are estimatedto weigh 16 % of the pod weight, a value that is typical of the highly cantileveredpylons on modemcommercialtransportaircraft. All of the PAIT aircraft are assumed to carry fuel in their outerandcenterwings. With the exceptionof the SR-150, all configurations are assumedto have a trim tank in their horizontal stabilizer.

3. Aerodynamic
High Lift System

model

The high is sealed, takeoff open open

lift system is composed of a slat plus Fowler-motion flap. At takeoff, the slat and it is fully open at landing. An "auto-slat" system is utilized to reduce speed by automatically position flap opening the slats from This makes slat. ailerons. the sealed available edge takeoff system position to the of if stall is approached. plus drooped remaining flap setting stowed is 30 . using a combination of flight and methods. Lift and drag data were sizing program. All takeoff data at the data was trimmed the high CLmax of the

landing

slat with the high L/D of the sealed segments element Maximum

The trailing Inboard, at takeoff.

is composed has two elements

two spanwise single element.

the flap

with the auxiliary

Midspan

and outboard

flaps are

Low speed aerodynamic characteristics were estimated wind tunnel test data as well as conceptual handbook assembled and trimmed trimmed using the MDC CASES aircraft and Ctmax were mid CG position. Transonic High speed methodology advanced latest at the forward

CG limit, and all landing

aerodynamic data were based on a combination of MDC advanced and empirical data which has been substantiated by wind tunnel technology transport aircraft. Wing airfoils design and performance trailing is based edges. technology supercritical with divergent

design tests of on the

advanced

11

4. Sizing

Procedures

(CASES) Sizing and Evaluation System (CASES) was used of the aircraft in this report. The program is designed mission requirements and other Stability area (Sw), constraints, routines in CASES for payload, requirements. & Control TOFL, which range, The and initial cruise altitude, Propulsion, such as wing design

MDC's proprietary for the evaluation to facilitate takeoff program Weights. The design visual criteria used. a matrix payload other selected and mission field length,

Computer-Aided and optimization of aircraft approach inputs from parameters between areas (Sw) speed,

the sizing requires The sizing optimization Figure range

to meet specific Aerodynamics, require inputs

and thrust. provide of the

is accomplished the geometric a typical and thrusts The 11 shows

with interactive variables, sizing (FN). minimum approach carpet

plotting

relationships of wing

and optimization consisting that field meets the design is then

plot created TOGW speed

All points

in this plot satisfy configuration and takeoff

requirements. sized

requirements,

in this case, aircraft.

length

as the optimum Analysis studies (1995) Increments have and

F. Sensitivity Sensitivity weight the analyzed. baseline

been

conducted weight

to estimate (2005

the effect to target EIS) been

on maximum airplanes weight

takeoff have the

gross Both been design

of increases

in engine of plus

and SFC relative technology in engine have

at entry into service. and

advanced

engined re-sized

5 percent airplanes

+ pod + pylon then

SFC have

been applied, and the resulting criteria of Table 1. G. DOC+I Method and Rules

to meet

1. Introduction This section presents the direct operating cost rules and calculation process used to

evaluate and compare the airplane concepts with current-technology and advancedtechnology turbofan engines. The economic analysis focus was on the first-level effects of advanced time, The block propulsion fuel) system technology with respect to airplane performance stage length effect (block (ASL)). and airplane criterion used economics for (DOC for a typical average and comparing the

economic

evaluating

of advanced

propulsion systems on airplane design and operation was Direct Operating Cost (DOC). The Air Transportation Association of America, in 1944, published the first universally recognized method for estimating direct operating costs of airplanes. That ATA method was progressively prime airframe ..omparative in December The DOC assumptions updated through the years and engine manufacturers. with inputs from ATA member airlines and The ATA standard method of estimating airplanes, last published used for this study. of ground (MDC) rules and

direct 1967, method

operating costs of turbine powered transport formed the basis for the method and approach used for this study collectively was based by McDonnell on

the combination Douglas

developed

Corporation

and its

12

commercial

aircraft

component,

Douglas

Aircraft

Company

(DAC),

the

Boeing The was also this

Commercial Airplane method was referred added. In addition, to be indirect operating

Group (BCAG), and NASA's to as the "DOC+I" method, crew costs costs, landing by the former Civil

Lewis Research Center since the interest cost fees, usually Board Aeronautics

(LeRC). element were

cabin

fees and navigation

considered

(CAB),

added to the original ATA DOC cost element structure. Using DOC+I method affords a way to discriminate from the basic ATA DOC method. With element the aforementioned structure additions to the basic ATA DOC method,

to describe

the

DOC+I

cost

for this study Crew Crew

included

the following

cost elements:

(1) Flight (2) Cabin

(3) Landing Fees (4) Navigation Fees (5) Maintenance (6) Maintenance (7) Fuel (8) Depreciation (9) Insurance (10) Interest - Airframe - Engine - Aircraft and Spares

Elements through

(1) through

(7) are commonly to as "ownership the terms

referred costs".

to as "cash

costs";

whereas

elements

(8)

(10) are referred

For purposes

of this study,

"DOC"

and "DOC+I"

may be used interchangeably

as they will both mean 2. DOC The block specific Parameters' concept engine consisting methods. technology DOC Process process ground and under

the same thing.

shown rules

in Figure rules and sets' Data' would

12 is typical includes to provide include and engine for each

of the process each

used just one.

for this study. discussed blocks design study and scaling for each The

The

'standard

economic

the ten cost elements calculate the airplane configuration performance prices, were conventional

and the 'Study airplane weights, prices,

assumptions

'Engineering which technology airframe company design

descriptions geometry data. calculated technology data,

study,

description, of separate Engine engine

level, and data

Airplane using

parametric advanced factors to

were combined

with parametrically-determined

derive engine study maintenance values and engine The DOC company process by MDC.

prices for each sized airplane concept. were also parametrically determined data is the Part for each specific last part engine concept.

Airplane (airframe and engine) from DAC's historical database

of a generalized involves aircraft

aircraft sizing,

concept which

study was

process using

employed

of that process

done

13

MDC's already

internally-developed described in Section

Computer-Aided II. The

Sizing CASES as well

and

Evaluation include the

System design

[CASES] mission for the data

results

configuration, weight, and performance data, economic mission used for DOC evaluation.

as the

performance

3. DOC The DOC Listed

Groundrules, ground the rules various

Assumptions and assumptions factors

and Element used

Descriptions are summarized either are so identified. in Table in narrative The 11. or DOC

for the study DOC equations

are

for each

of the

elements,

quantitative form. Domestic and international values are calculated in mid-1993 dollars. Following element COCKPIT are detailed may differ CREW. descriptions of each DOC

element. hour, takeoff

Note S/flight gross

that the cost units hour, weight S/trip. ['MTOGW].

of any

from one to the next, e.g., S/block Based on the aircraft Hour Hour maximum

[Domestic] [International]

S/Block S/Block

= 440 + 0.532*(MTOGW/1000) = 482 + 0.590*(MTOGW/1000)

.C_. Based on the number rate for each crew member. [Domestic] [International] LANDING maximum FEE. take-off Based gross S/Block S/Block Hour Hour

of seats in the aircraft

and a cost-per-block

hour

= (Number = (Number

of Seats/35)*60 of Seats/30)*78 landing gross weight (MLGW) or the

on either weight S/Trip

the maximum

MTOGW. = $1.50 * (MLGW/1000) * (MTOGW/1000) 500NM of a trip and the MTOGW, and used

[Domestic] [International] NAVIGATION FEE.

S/Trip = $4.25 Based DOC

on the first

only for international [International]

cases. = $0.136 * 500NM * (Square Root of

S/Trip

MTOGW/1000) FUEL. gallon, Based on the economic mission block fuel, at a density or $0.70 includes labor of 6.7 pounds (Intemational). the cost of direct the per US

and a price per gallon Total

of either airplane airframe

$0.65 (US Domestic) maintenance and applied maintenance direet cost

MAINTENANCE. maintenance airframe and labor, engines.

maintenance The

material,

maintenance

burden

for both

and maintenance

material

14

costs Group The data

are based (BCAG). engine was

on parametric

equations

developed

by the Boeing

Commercial

Airplane

maintenance augmented, (MDC) maintenance

costs are based where appropriate, transport used

on data provided by engine as general cost data

by the engine from thrust the database. level, equations

companies. Since based

This Douglas

McDonnell the Boeing

Corporation company maintenance static thrust. Airframe

commercial cost data were

maintenance reference scaling

the engine engine

was for a fixed

cost equations

on sea-level

Maintenace empty

Labor weight

[AFLAB]. (MEW)

Based less the

on airframe dry weight

weight

[AFW],

defined AFLAB

as has

manufacturer's both a flight-cycle (MMH/FH) hours.

of the engines. The equations and a variable

(FC) and a flight-hour Each trip consists

(FH) component. (MMH/FC) of one flight cycle

produce number

either of flight

maintenance-man-hour-per-flight-cycle values.

or maintenance-man-per-flight-hour

AFLAB

:MMH/FH

= 1.260+(

1.774*AFW/10/'5)

-. 1071 *(AFW/10^5)^2 1024*(AFW/10^5)^2

AFLAB:MMH/FC AFLAB:MMHfrRIP Total maintenance

= 1.614+(.7227*AFW/10/'5)+.

= ((MMF/FH)*(FH/TRIP))+MMH/FC per trip are converted to direct labor dollars per trip by

man-hours

multiplying Airframe

by the direct Maintenace

maintenance

labor rate ($25/MMH). Same basis as airframe maintenance labor,

Materials

[AFMAT]. component.

with both a cyclic

and flight-hour

AFMAT:$MAT/FH AFMAT:$MAT/FC AFMAT:$MAT/TRIP

= 12.39+(29.80*AFW/10/`5)+.

1806*(AFW/10/'5)/'2

= 15.20+(97.33*AFW/10^5)-2.862*(AFW/10a5)/`2 = (($MAT/FH)*(FHfFRIP))+$MAT/FC Burden [AAMB]. The airframe maintenance of airframe direct maintenance labor cost. Direct cost Labor elements Cost (direct labor, materials, maintenance and burden) are overhead

Airframe Applied Maintenance cost is calculated as a function AAMB All three calculated = 2.0 * Airframe maintenance

airframe

on a per-trip

basis and summed

to get total airframe

cost. direct thrust of

Engine Maintenance maintenance labor (SLST) engines per engine, per aircraft

Labor [ENGLAB]. The scaling equation for engine is based on the maximum rated uninstalled sea-level static in pounds (NE). force (lbf), the flight hours to the airframe, and flight-hour components. *NE In contrast the engine maintenance

(FH) per trip, and the number

labor cost is

not separated ENGLAB:

into flight-cycle MMH/TRIP

= ((.645+(.05*SLST/10^4))*(.566+.434/FH)*FH

15

The engine the direct Engine material contrast cycle

direct

maintenance labor Material

labor

cost is calculated

by multiplying

the MMH/TRIP

by

maintenance

rate ($25/MMH). [-ENGMAT]. The scaling material equation direct for engine maintenance maintenance labor. In into flight-

Maintenance cost is based

on the same parameters the engine maintenance components. = ((25+(18' Burden

as the engine

to the airframe,

cost is not separated

and flight-hour

ENGMAT: Engine calculated Applied

$MAT/TRIP Maintenance

SLST/10^4)) [EAMB]. direct

*((.62+(.38/FH))*FH*NE maintenance overhead cost is

The engine cost.

as a function

of the engine Direct cost

maintenance Labor (direct

EAMB All three engine

= 2.0 * Engine maintenance

Maintenance elements

Cost materials, and burden) cost. costs to trip 2100 are

labor,

calculated Depreciation, costs As noted trips/year, stage length

on a per-trip interest

basis and summed and insurance

to get the total engine costs. Reducing

maintenance these annual

are annual the annual short-range NM..

are accomplished in Table

by dividing 11, the domestic

cost by the number mission 625 trips/year

of trips flown

per year.

of 500 NM

will generate

and the international and 480 trips/year Depreciation spares price. value

missions at 4000

will generate

at 3000 NM average

DEPRECIATION. and its associated period

is based The

on the total airplane and engine 11. through spares

(airframe factors,

+ engines)

price

airframe in Table

the depreciation

and the residual Most

are noted

INTEREST. down interest Although in aircraft The equal period, interest principle payment

aircraft

purchases funds.

are f'manced To account each year,

the use of long-term less the down interest

debt and a payment. life. and

from

company

for the total interest plus spares an average over two amount annual

cost to the airline, cost is used per year,

is computed interest comparisons method

on the total price payments assumes The will decline to reflect

of the airplane effect period, the 11.

the average loan defining in Table factors

the airplane's loan payments f'manced,

depreciable the

a 15-year

payments.

depreciation

and the interest The

rate are noted annual

INSURANCE. insurance AIRFRAME was based index independent

hull insurance

cost price.

is based

on the total

airplane

price.

The

rate is 0.35% AND

of the total airplane STUDY relationship since this

ENGINE weight.

PRICES. between index

Airframe airframe (PRI) study was

study price

price

for this as the

study

on a parametric variable,

and a payload-range primary the weight,

or airframe

Payload-range is the

selected Airframe

market-driven

price.

16

secondary independent variable,wasalsoevaluated asanairframepricegenerator in order to assess the impact of airframe downsizing afforded by advanced engine technology.
However, it should be understood that commercial transport aircraft are not sold on a price on an This

price-per-pound bases. Its selling price in essence (without relationship to cost). The commercial product end item specification, would The apply airframe to airframes payload-range transports. database. the following Airframe Study For The airframe Price performance guarantees, service as well as to engines. index was determined prices a linear price were

represents a market-based relies on a fixed price based life policies, and warranties.

from regression

a database from

of US and MDC's price

non-US and PRI

commercial transport produced

airframe study

derived

commercial

all airplanes,

of airframe

equations: + 0.0462 + 0.0239 + 0.0282 airframe * PRI * PRI * PRI weight SR-150 MR-225 MR-275 (in pounds, and LR-600 and denoted

($M)

= 16.342 = 45.972 = 43.553

A power by AFW)

curve

fit of airframe

study price airframe

versus

produced

the following Study Price ($M)

study price

equations: ^ 0.7475 ^ 0.8937 database SR-150 All other and price scaling) segregated to 90,000 from (e.g., was engine nacelles The derived into two Ibf for the price, The engine.

Airframe

= 1.3255 = 0.7822

* (AFW/1000) * (AFW/1000) historical

Engine

study

prices data.

were These This

developed engine price price

from

MDC's

manufacturer's of the propulsion and thrust parametric from engine larger the trend MDC

prices

represent

only the bare engine, ATA DOC price

as the remainder

system of engine database 15,000 concepts.

is assumed vs. engine

to be part of the airframe with the original thrust engines, and was (i.e., engine

reversers).

is in keeping

methodology.

for current-technology to 40,000 This parametric study were price usually trend

and was 50,000

classes: twin-aisle

lbf for the SR-150, for the sized, priced

calibrated higher than

to the bare-engine the

and used to generate advanced-technology

the engine engines

current-technology

current-technology

engines for the same thrust level, based on engine company information. The engine study price equations are in log-linear format and are based on uninstalled maximum sea-level static dollars y=ax^b thrust, dimensioned in pounds-force. characteristics The engine price price dimension take is millions of per engine. The where x is thrust. of the engine equations on the form

17

Table 11. DOC+I Ground Rules And Assumptions Item DOC+I Basis Design Mission/Economic Mission (NM) Parameter SR-150: US domestic rules All other: International rules SR- 150:2500/500 MR-225:4500/3000 MR-275:6000/3000 LR-600:7500/4000 SR- 150:2100 MR-225:625 MR-275:625 LR-600:480 1993 SR-150:$0.65 All other: $0.70 .$25.00 per man-hour 200% of direct labor SR-150:1 per 35 seats All other: 1 per 30 seats SR-150: Function of MLGW All other: Function of MTOGW SR- 150: None All other: Function of MTOGW r first 500 NM 0.35% of airplane price 15 Years 10% of price (Includin8 spares) 6% of airframe price 23% of engine price 100% of aircraft & spares 15 Years 8%

Utilization (trips per year)

Dollar Year Fuel Price (per US gallon) Maintenance I _bor Rate Maintenance Burden Rate Number of Cockpit Crew Number of Cabin Crew Landing Fees Navigation Fees Hull Insurance Rate Depreciation:Period Depreciation:Residual Value Investment Spares:Airframe Investment Spares:Engine Interest:Amount Financed Interest:Period Interest:l__ate

m. RESULTS Specific reports. weight final results The advanced and wing for each of the engine technology engines companies provided Average are given significant values in the respective reductions appendix burn,

in fuel

area for all four airplanes. percent percent percent reduction reduction reduction DOC+I

are as follows:

in fuel bum -- 18% in wing area = 7% = 9% and 5%, using models and engine price the payload-rangeThe DOC+I as model employed, in TOGW

This resulted index-based results varied,

in an average and the depending

reduction based assumed

of 3.5% pricing

airframe-weight

respectively. engine.

on the particular

airframe

well as on the level of performance

for the baseline

18

In all cases,

increasing

SFC

by 5% had a greater

impact

on aircraft

size than

increasing

engine pod weight by 5%. This is because engine pod weight is a relatively small fraction of takeoff gross weight. The sensitivity of aircraft size to both SFC and engine weight increased with mission range requirement.

IV. SUMMARY A study and using (2005) missions to examine were engines. the sole effect transport in which (1995) of advanced airplanes two engines has airplanes technology been were designed engines and on the performance Four sized airplane for each: design one

DOC+I current

of subsonic studied, technology

completed. and one using

as a baseline, technologies

advanced

technology

All other aircraft-related

were kept constant.

The year 2005

was selected The advanced wing

as the entry-into-service technology engines

date for the airframe/engine provided significant values reductions

combinations. in fuel bum, weight and

area for all four airplane percent percent percent

classes. reduction reduction reduction

Average

are as follows:

in fuel bum = 18% in wing area = 7% = 9% in TOGW

This resulted index-based results varied,

in an average DOC+I and the airframe-weight depending

reduction based assumed of this

of 3.5% and 5%, using the payload-rangepricing models respectively. The DOC+I and engine price model employed, as for the baseline study engine. from more than a single

on the particular

airframe

well as on the level of performance It is recommended that the results

be viewed

perspective: the physical characteristics of the airplanes themselves (TOGW, OEW, Sw, Fn, etc.), and the corresponding DOC+I figures. The economic analyses have been defined in two forms: 1. airframe cost based on the mission (number of passengers and range), which results in the airframe cost being invariant between the current and advanced technology airplanes, and 2. airframe cost varying with airframe weight. The first method forces the DOC+I increment between the current and advanced technology airplanes No specific advanced direct benefit Finally, iterative advanced economic reward probably it should analysis technology to become reward technology algorithms dependent is offered powerpiants. may be regarded solely on engine Alternatively, technology in between in both their as bounding price, the maintenance second method and cost, and fuel bum. by the a more two economic for the reduction in airplane size and weight provided provides These

for the advanced lies somewhere be understood should yield

engines

airframe. and the true

the problem, predictions.

DOC+I

that the scope an increase

of the present

study

did not allow mission. offered

for an by the

optimization

of the matching engines.

of engines

to the airplanes

and the design

A careful

in the performance

benefits

19

 m O3 m

o m

co

,I,
o I i

r-.

o)

(13

u2_
o ,

oi oil

O
N

_1 I o t

O'J r-

[
.--A

E
=

3q
i'vl Iv)
N N 0

<

_U

0 0

_-o.
p! X >-

U_
,O

1
_

W J_

<W

h.---

I.----

-4

(D O? frl

r!-_. 2

,,C I/1J

___._L

e@

Uh

r,

Z,--;

I
I # t I

II
u w

Figure

2.

Interior

Arrangement 21

- SR-150

O_ N

r_ (D rrl

b_

!i! '
4. 4

.C:0 0 0

_
_

o o o

-_1\
AI /tll

,t
I

m i
,,, IN m m m I I

IN

N b,

_--_j_ ,
' _ J__

m N

J 0

=_z

J
_z
mN

'II o

Z--"

A
I

//
I I I I

/
! I

/
I I

\_/
i

Figure 4.

Interior Arrangemem 23

- MR-225

IJ9

' "

i
I

I/\ I:
1 I I

--ttr
I
N

I i

II1

.-I

8
O..

I
|

Q E | !

J
O N

i!

.i
Z.._

/ t

i|l

l!-m liii

Figure

6.

Interior

Arrangement

- MR-275 OF P_GR QU&L/TY,

25

....

r ! !

_1_

I|

UU

i: _ _

iI_

/
I I

Figure 8.

Interior Arrangement - LR-600

27

31VINIJ.S_CIVNJ.OV
28

0
1

<1:
hr.
0 CO o

o,,lf

a_

.,_-4

0 0

a_
,-..i

I-

I-0

W
O

! Q

(87187) 1SFII:IH1/1HE)I=IM
29

OOd

0
I I I

_ N

o_

3O

_o__o _-_co _r_o

._ = .__o _ .::E_
_o o "

l,,,.._. _

31

REPORT

DOCUMENTATION

PAGE

Fo,,nApproved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Publicreporting burdenforthiscollection of information is estimated to average1 hour per response, including thetime for reviewing instructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintainingthedataneeded,and completing and reviewing thecollection ofinformation. Sendcomments regarding this burdenestimateor any otheraspectofthis collection of information, including suggestions for reducing thisburdento Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations andReports,1215Jefferson DavisHighway, Suite 1 204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, andtotheOfficeof Management andBudget,Paperwork ReductionProject(0704-0188),Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE only (Leave blank) 2. Report DATE April 1995 3. Report TYPE AND DATES covered FINAL CONTRACTOR REPORT 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Advanced

Subsonic

Airplane

Design

& Economic

Studies WU-538-08-1 C-NAS3-25965 l

6. AUTHOR(S) Robert H. Liebeck, et. al.

7. PERFORMING

NAME(S)

AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Long Beach, California

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

E-9488

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135
11. SUPPLEMENTARY Project Manager, (216) 977-7026. Felix NOTES J. Tortes, Aeropropulsion Analysis Office, NASA Lewis Research Center,

NASA

CR- 195443

organization
i

code 2430,

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY

STATEMENT

12b. DISTRIBUTION

CODE

Unclassified Subject

- Unlimited 07
from the NASA Center for Aerospace Information,(301) 621-0390.

Category

This publication is available 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum

200 words) airplanes (EIS) envisioned and provide a vision date for the engine/ to span the needs Two

A study was made to examine the effect of advanced technology engines on the performance of subsonic of the potential which these advanced engines offered. The year 2005 was selected as the entry-into-service airframe combination. A set of four airplane classes (passenger and design range combinations) that were for the 2005 EIS period were def'med. The airframes for all classes airplanes were designed and sized for each class: one using current advanced technology (2005) engines. The resulting engine/airframe sensitivity provided reduction to basic engine performance parameters (e.g.

were designed and sized using 2005 EIS advanced technology. technology (1995) engines to provide a baseline, and one using combinations were compared and evaluated on the basis of weight) as well as DOC+I. The advanced technology

SFC and engine

engines

significant reductions in fuel bum, weight, and wing area. Average values were as follows: reduction in fuel burn = 18%, in wing area = 7%, and reduction in TOGW = 9%. Average DOC+I reduction was 3.5% using the pricing model based on index and 5% using the pricing model based on airframe weight. Noise and emissions were not considered.

payload-range

14. SUBJECTTERMS Subsonic Transports Propulsion Systems DOC+I

17. SECURITY OF REPORT CLASSIFICATION

12b. NUMBEIq

OF PAGES

31
16. PRICE CODE PCA03

Unclassified

18.SECURITYCLASSIFICATION19.SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified

20. LIMITATION ABSTRACT

OF

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescn"oed 298-102 by ANSI Std. 239-18

_Z =I