Propulsion Systems: Basic Concepts

The operation of a propulsion system may be viewed simply as shown below. A fluid
enters the system at speed V0 with a mass flow of dm/dt. It exits at speed Ve, and mass is
added to the outflow at a rate dmf/dt. The force exerted by this system includes the rate of
change of momentum through the system and a pressure term:

This equation for thrust holds for systems ranging from chemical and electric rockets to
ramjets, turbojets, and propeller-driven aircraft.

Engine Types
Rockets

The expression is simplest in the case of a rocket operating outside the atmosphere. In
this case, the thrust is simply given by:

where Ve is the exit velocity of the exhaust flow. The exhaust gases may be the by-
products of the rocket fuel combustion, or just unburned expanded gas, or any other
mass. In the case of electric rocket propulsion, small droplets of Mercury or other heavy
material are accelerated in an electric field to produce thrust. The fuel (or other mass)
flow for a given thrust is minimized by achieving high exit velocities. Typical values of
exit velocity are 3000 to 4000 m/s (10000-13000 ft/sec) for liquid propellant rockets.

There is a large advantage to be gained if one does not have to carry all of the mass used
to generate thrust. This can be seen by examining the total energy required to produce the
change in momentum. The rate of change of energy is given by:

Thus, to produce the most thrust with the least energy consumption, it is best to do so
with a large value of dm/dt and a small change in U. This is because the energy required
varies with U2 while the momentum change is linear in U. This basic principal applies to
many systems. It is why helicopters have large diameter rotors, wings need large spans,
and propellers are more efficient than jets at low speeds. This concept serves to
distinguish the several types of propulsion systems, as discussed in the following
sections.

Ramjets

Ambient air can be used, not only to provide oxidizer for burning fuel, but also as a
source of mass. This is done most simply in the ramjet engine.

The ramjet has no moving parts. High speed air enters the inlet, is compressed as it is
slowed down, is mixed with fuel and burned in the combustion chamber, and is finally
expanded and ejected through the nozzle. For the combustion process to be efficient, the
air most be compressed sufficiently. This is possible only when the freestream Mach
number exceeds about 3, and so ramjets have been practical for only a few missile
applications. A hybrid engine, part turbojet, part ramjet, was also used on the SR-71 high
speed reconnaissance aircraft and is a topic of current research interest for several
possible hypersonic applications.

Turbojets

When additional compression is required of the intake air, a separate compressor may be
added to the ramjet as shown in the figure below. A single-stage centrifugal compressor
was used until about 1953. Such a compressor could produce an increase in total pressure
of about 4. More modern axial compressors can produce overall pressure ratios (OPR) of
about 8.5 with a single stage and by including several stages of compression, pressure
ratios of 13 have been achieved on turbojet engines. For the turbofan designs discussed in
the next section, the multi-stage compressors achieve pressure ratios of 25-30, enabling
efficient operation at subsonic speeds.

In order to power the compressor, a windmill is placed in the engine exhaust-in principal
that is what the turbine stage does. The turbine is located downstream of the combustor
and is connected to the compressor blades with a shaft. It extracts power from the flow in
the same way that a windmill extracts power.

Turbofans

Increased efficiency at low speeds requires that the mass of air affected by the engine be
increased. However, for a given rate of fuel burned, there is a corresponding mass of air
that should be mixed with the fuel and one cannot simply force more air through the
combustor. Instead, one may route some of the air around the combustor and turbine, and
so bypass the engine core. Engines are characterized by their bypass ratio (BPR), the ratio
of mass flux bypassing the combustor and turbine to the mass flux through the core.
Engines with bypass ratios of 0 are called straight jets or sometimes turbojets. Engines
with bypass ratios of 1 to 2 are generally termed low bypass ratio turbofans. High bypass
turbofans found on most current transport aircraft have BPR's of 5-8. It is sometimes
necessary to drive the first few stages of the compressor (fan) at a slower speed than the
high pressure stages, so twin-spool engines or even triple spool engines (three separate
shafts from turbine to compressor stages) are common. Gearing between the turbine and
fan stages is also possible to provide more optimal fan performance. More detail is shown
in the figures on the following pages.

The figure below shows a Pratt and Whitney 4084 engine used on the 777. The diameter
of this 84,000 lb thrust engine with nacelle is only somewhat smaller than the diameter of
a 717.

Turboprops

When the bypass ratio is increased to 10-20 for very efficient low speed performance, the
weight and wetted area of the fan shroud (inlet) become large, and at some point it makes
sense to eliminate it altogether. The fan then becomes a propeller and the engine is called
a turboprop. Turboprop engines provide efficient power from low speeds up to as high as
M=0.8 with bypass ratios of 50-100.

Advanced Turboprops and Ultra-high Bypass Ratio Turbofans

One can increase the efficiency of turbofans from their current values of 35% - 40% to
values close to 45% by further increasing the bypass ratio. Advanced designs with bypass
ratios of 12-25 are sometimes termed advanced ducted propellers or ADP's. Although the
propulsive efficiency of such designs is very high, they are often less desirable than the
engines with more moderate bypass ratios. This is due to the difficulties of installing
these very large diameter engines, especially on low-wing configurations, and on the
weight and drag penalties associated with the large duct.
An unusual ADP with the fan located aft and attached directly to the turbine. Note the
stator vanes in both turbine and fan sections to reduce swirl losses.

A counter-rotating prop-fan. At some value of bypass ratio, the advantages associated

with the duct are overwhelmed by the weight and drag of the duct itself. Bypass ratio 50,
ductless propfans such as the one shown here have been proposed for aircraft that fly up
to Mach 0.8.

Propellers / Piston Engines

It is possible, of course, to power the propeller by any available means, from turbine to
piston engine, electric motor to rotary engine, rubber bands to human muscle. In many of
these cases, the bypass ratio is infinite. Very high efficiency especially at low speeds is
possible, although as the propeller diameter is increased, installation issues become more
severe.

Engines for Supersonic Aircraft

The following discussion from Boeing describes the recent thrust of engine development
work for the high speed civil transport (HSCT).

Considerable effort has been devoted to improvement of engine specific fuel

consumption (SFC) at subsonic conditions over the past 20 years. The original
U.S. SST had very poor subsonic SFC. High subsonic SFC penalizes the mission
performance by reducing the efficiency during subsonic mission legs and by
requiring larger amounts of reserve fuel. The key to good subsonic and supersonic
SFC is a variable-cycle engine. The major objective for a future HSCT application
is to provide some degree of engine cycle variability that will not significantly
increase the cost, the maintenance requirements, or the overall complexity of the
engine. The variable-cycle engine must have a good economic payoff for the
airline while still providing more mission flexibility and reducing the reserve fuel
requirements so that more payload can be carried. In the past, variable-cycle
engines were designed with large variations in bypass ratio to provide jet noise
reduction. However, these types were complicated and did not perform well.
Today, the trend is toward turbojets or low-bypass engines that have the ability to
improve off-design performance by adjustment of compressor bleed or by a
relatively small variation in bypass ratio. The current engine offerings from Pratt
& Whitney and General Electric fall into this category. Both of these engines will
require an effective jet noise suppressor. Rolls-Royce/SNECMA favors other
approaches. One is a tandem fan that operates as a turbojet cycle for cruise but
opens a bypass inlet and nozzle for higher flow at subsonic speeds. A second
approach is to increase the bypass ratio by incorporating an additional fan and
turbine stream into the flow path at subsonic speeds.
Some additional information on current supersonic engine development efforts from
NASA Lewis follows:

Following are five of the most promising engine concepts studied.

(1) Turbine bypass engine (TBE) is a single spool turbojet engine that possesses
turbofan-like subsonic performance, but produces the largest jet velocity of all the
concepts. Hence, it needs a very advanced technology mixer-ejector exhaust
nozzle with about 18 decibels (dB) suppression ability to attain FAR 36 Stage III
noise requirements without over sizing the engine and reducing power during take
off. This level of suppression could be reached if the ejector airflow equals 120
percent of the primary flow.

(2) The Variable Cycle Engine (VCE) which alters its bypass ratio during flight to
better match varying requirements. However, although its original version defined
in the 1970's relied on an inverted velocity profile exhaust system to meet less
stringent FAR 36 Stage II noise goals, the revised version needs a more powerful
15 dB suppression solution. A 60 percent mass flow augmented mixer-ejector
nozzle together with modest engine oversizing would satisfy this requirement. It
should not be inferred from the above that the TBE needs a 120 percent mass flow
augmented mixer-ejector nozzle while the VCE only needs one that is 60 percent.
There is uncertainty concerning the best combination of mass flow augmentation,
 acoustic lining, and engine oversizing for both engines.

(3) A relative newcomer, the fan-on-blade ("Flade") engine is a variation of the

VCE. It has an auxiliary third flow stream deployed during takeoff by opening a
set of inlet guide vanes located in an external annular duct surrounding the VCE.
The auxiliary annular duct is pressurized by extension to the fan blades and is
scrolled into the lower half of the engine prior to exhausting to provide a fluid
acoustic shield. It also requires a relatively modest mixer-ejector exhaust nozzle
of approximately 30 percent flow augmentation.

(4) The fourth concept is the mixed flow turbofan (MFTF) with a mixer-ejector
nozzle.

(5) The final engine concept is a TBE with an Inlet Flow Valve (TBE/IFV). The
IFV is activated during takeoff to permit auxiliary inlets to feed supplementary air
to the rear compressor stages while the main inlet air is compressed by just the
front compressor stages. While a single spool TBE/IFV still needs a mixer-ejector
exhaust nozzle, it seems possible to avoid that complexity with a two-spool
version because of greater flow handling ability in the takeoff mode.

Data on several specific engines is provided in the section on engine performance. Links
to manufacturers' sites are provided in that section as well.

How Many Engines?

One of the questions to be answered early in the conceptual design stage is how many
engines will be desirable. The recent trend is definitely toward fewer engines, with twin
engine aircraft becoming the most popular design. This has become possible for larger
aircraft as the thrust of engines has climbed to levels that were nearly unimaginable not
long ago. 100,000+ lb sea level static thrust engines are now available.

The interest in large twin engine aircraft come from the greater economy afforded by
using fewer engines. Current engine prices are such that it is less expensive to obtain a
specified sea level static thrust level with two large engines than with three or four
smaller ones.

However, when more engines are used, the system is more reliable. And it is not just the
propulsion system that is more reliable. When additional electrical generators or
hydraulic pumps are available, overall system reliability is improved. However, it is more
likely that at least one engine will fail.

These considerations limited the use of twin engine aircraft for long flights. The U.S.
operating rules limited two and three engine aircraft to routes over which the airplane
could not be more than 60 minutes from an alternate airport after an engine had failed. In
1964, three-engine turbine-powered aircraft were exempted from this rule. More recently,
the FAA approved extended range operations for twin engine aircraft requiring that the
aircraft stay within 120 minutes (with engine failure) of an appropriate airport and 180
minute ETOPS are becoming more common.

Probability of Engine Failure

Failed
1 2 3 4
Engines:
Total
Engines:
1 P - - -
2
2 2P P - -
2 3
3 3P 3P P -
4 4P 6P2 4P3 P4

The probability, P, in this table depends on the particular engine and the flight duration,
but for typical high bypass ratio turbines, the in-flight shutdown rate varies from .02 to .1
per 1000 hours, with the higher rates associated with engines in their introduction. A
value of 0.05 is a typical average.

In addition to questions of reliability, several other considerations are important in the

selection of the number of engines.

Twin Engine Aircraft: must meet climb requirements with one engine out. This means
that the available thrust is reduced by more than 50% (more because of the extra drag
associated with the failed engine and the need to trim with asymmetric thrust). Engine
failure on a four-engine aircraft reduces the thrust by a bit more than 25%. This means
that twins have engines that are often oversized for long range cruise. This adds weight,
cost, and drag.

Four Engine Aircraft: must meet second segment climb requirements with 75% or so of
installed power, usually leading to a better match with cruise performance, but the larger
number of engines mean more parts, more maintenance, and more cost. The distribution
of engine mass over the wing can reduce the bending loads on the wing, but may also
result in greater penalties to prevent flutter.

Tri-jets: are a compromise losing favor. The third engine creates a problem with
installation as discussed in the next section.

There are sometimes other considerations that are dominant in the selection of number of
engines. General aviation aircraft are generally required to have a stall speed not greater
than 61 knots if they have only one engine (although now this requirement may be
waived). This is a major reason that most higher speed GA airplanes are twins. The BAE-
146, a small four-engine feeder aircraft was designed to operate out of small airports
without extensive maintenance facilities. It was desirable to be able to fly to a larger
facility after one engine had failed. By using four engines, the aircraft is allowed to take-
off with just three operating engines on a ferry mission (no passengers) to be repaired
elsewhere.

The choice of number of engines is most strongly related to engine sizing. Typical ratios
of aircraft sea-level static thrust to take-off weight are given below:

Typical T/W for Various Transport Aircraft

Aircraft Type: T/W
Twin .3
Tri-jet .25
4-Engine .2
Twin Exec. Jet .4
SST .4

Note: the data for commercial aircraft above come from Jane's All the World's Aircraft.
SST numbers include:
0.40 from a Japanese study (see References), 0.385 (Langley Study), .380 (Concorde w/
afterburners), .28 (Boeing Study w/ Turbine Bypass Engine concept of Pratt and
Whitney), .24-.30 (Langley Study assuming 'advanced engines'), .36 (1970's U.S. SST),
.398 (Douglas AST 1975 study), .32 (Douglas Mach 3.2 study airplane, 1989)

One starts with these rough estimates of thrust-to-weight ratio, selects an engine from the
currently available list, and sometimes scales the basic engine as needed.