AIAA-81-1596

The Turbine Bypass Engine-

a New Supersonic Cruise
Research Propulsion Concept
L.C. Franciscus, NASA Lewis
Research Center, Cleveland, OH

AIAA/SAE/ASME 17th
b Joint Propulsion Conference
Amversry bkbalm July 27-29, 1981/Colorado Springs, Colorado
For Permission lo copy or republish. CofllJCt Ihe American llisltlule 01 Aeronautics and Aslronaulics 1290 Avenue 01 the Americas. New Vark. NY 10104

-
 TURBINE BYPASS ENGINE -
A NEW SUPERSONIC CRUISE PROPUlSION CONCEPT

by Leo C. F r a n c i s c u s
N a t i o n a l A e r o n a u t i c s and Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
Lewis Research.Center
Cleveland, Ohio

m Abstract performance and i n c r e a s e t h e t r a n s o n i c t h r u s t capa-

t
c
m b i l i t i e s o f t h e t u r b o j e t w i t h m r e s i m p l i c i t y than
Y t h e v a r i a b l e geometry t u r b i n e .
Engine performance and m i s s i o n s t u d i e s were car- Although one and two spool v e r s i o n s of B o e i n g ' s
r i e d o u t f o r a s i n g l e - s p o o l Turbine Bypass Engine t u r b i n e bypass engine (TBE) concept have been pro-
(TBE) concept. Comparisons were made between t h e posed, r e c e n t s t u d i e s o f t h e engine have i n d i c a t e d
TBE, a c o n v e n t i o n a l s i n g l e - s p o o l t u r b o j e t , and t h e t h a t t h e s i n g l e spool v e r s i o n would be a more s i m p l e
P r a t t & Whitney V a r i a b l e Stream C o n t r o l Engine engine and would have about t h e same performance
(VSCE). The a i r p l a n e assumed f o r t h e s t u d y was a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a two spool version. NASA-Lewis
Mach 2.32 commercial supersonic t r a n s p o r t . The nom- has c o n t r a c t e d w i t h P r a t t & Whitney t o s t u d y t h e
i n a l m i s s i o n was a 4000 n.mi. t o t a l range w i t h a 300 s i n g l e spool TBE. In-house s t u d i e s o f t h i s concept
n.mi. subsonic c r u i s e leg. The f i g u r e of m e r i t was have a l s o been c a r r i e d o u t a t NASA-Lewis. I n these
t h e minimum t a k e o f f gross w e i g h t f o r t h e m i s s i o n . s t u d i e s , t h e TBE, a v a r i a b l e - g e o m e t r y - t u r b i n e t u r b o -
Canparisons of t h e t h r e e engines were a l s o made f o r j e t and t h e P r a t t & Whitney v a r i a b l e - s t r e a m - c o n t r o l
t h e 4000 n.mi. t o t a l range w i t h l o n g e r subsonic ( W E ) t u r b o f a n were compared. Engine performance
c r u i s e legs. and m i s s i o n s t u d i e s were performed f o r t h e t h r e e en-
g i n e concepts. The p o t e n t i a l of t h e engines was as-
Nomenclature sessed i n terms o f t h e performance o f a f u t u r e com-
m e r c i a l supersonic t r a n s p o r t . T h i s paper p r o v i d e s
BPR bypass r a t i o t h e r e s u l t s of these s t u d i e s .
CET combustor e x i t temperature
CL lift coefficient Method of A n a l y s i s
F PR fan pressure r a t i o
OPR c y c l e pressure r a t i o The a n a l y t i c a l procedures f o l l o w e d f o r t h i s
Po f r e e stream s t a t i c p r e s s u r e s t u d y are summarized i n f i g u r e 1. Aerodynamic and
SFC s p e c i f i c f u e l consumption w e i g h t d a t a f o r t h e a i r p l a n e were o b t a i n e d from r e f -

- S.L.S.
TIT
TOGW
W &/la
sea l e v e l s t a t i c
t u r b i n e s t a t o r i n l e t temperature
a i r p l a n e t a k e o f f gross w e i g h t
c o r r e c t e d gas f l o w r a t e
erence 3. I n t h e engine'performance and weight c a l -
c u l a t i o n s , t h e same technology l e v e l was assumed f o r
t h e t h r e e engines. The s t u d y r e f l e c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s
i n pod d r a g and w e i g h t o f t h e engines considered.
The a i r f r a m e and t h e engine d a t a were t h e n used i n
Subscripts: f l i g h t performance c a l c u l a t i o n s t o determine t h e
t a k e o f f gross w e i g h t as a f u n c t i o n o f engine sea
0 f r e e stream l e v e l s t a t i c d e s i g n a i r f l o w f o r a f i x e d range and
3 compressor e x i t payload.
4 t u r b i n e s t a t o r entrance
Mission
Introduction
The b a s e l i n e m i s s i o n considered i n t h i s s t u d y
The r e l a t i v e s i m p l i c i t y , compactness and good was a Mach 2.32 supersonic c r u i s e w i t h a 300 n.mi.
suoersonic
, ~~ c r u i s p- oerformance
r~ ~ ~~ ~ - - o f t h e. Tiirbniet.
~ ~ ~ " __
makoc
~
i t an a t t r a c t i v e c a n d i d a t e f o r a supersonic a i r p l a n e
.(556 km) subsonic c r u i s e l e g f o r a s t a n d a r d l a y +
14.4' F ( 8 ' C ) . The t o t a l m i s s i o n range was f i x e d
p r o p u l s i o n system. The Olympus engine on t h e Con- a t 4000 n.mi. (7408 km) b u t v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e sub-
corde supersonic t r a n s p o r t i s a two-spool t u r b o j e t . s o n i c c r u i s e range were assumed t o show t h e e f f e c t s
I n t h e f i r s t U n i t e d S t a t e s SST program, t h e General of t h e subsonic c r u i s e performance o f t h e engines.
E l e c t r i c GE 4 t u r b o j e t was s e l e c t e d . However, on The m i s s i o n p r o f i l e i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 2. A
NASA's supersonic c r u i s e research (SCR) program c o n s t a n t 213 n.mi. (394 km) descent from t h e f i n a l
which began i n 1972, a l t e r n a t i v e s were sought be- c r u i s e a l t i t u d e a t an e s t i m a t e d f l i g h t - i d l e fuel
cause t h e t u r b o j e t was considered t o have a d i f f i - f l o w was assumed f o r a l l cases. The t o t a l of 4000
c u l t n o i s e problem and unacceptable subsonic c r u i s e n.mi. (7408 km) was t h e t o t a l of c l i m b l a c c e l e r a t i o n ,
performance. Hence, SCR emphasis has been on new subsonic and supersonic c r u i s e and letdown ranges.
c y c l e concepts t h a t a r e i n h e r e n t l y q u i e t e r and have A p a r t of t h e f u e l l o a d a v a i l a b l e was h e l d i n
b e t t e r low-speed performance. r e s e r v e f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g requirements:
However, t h e r e i s r e c e n t renewed i n t e r e s t i n t h e ( 1 ) R e t a i n an e n r o u t e c o n t i n g e n c y f u e l a l l o w -
t u r b o j e t i n t h e SCR program. The l a t e s t develop- ance equal t o 5 p e r c e n t of t h e m i s s i o n f u e l .
ments i n mechanical n o i s e suppressors ( r e f . 1 ) a r e ( 2 ) P r o v i d e f o r a 260 n.mi. (482 km) d i v e r s i o n
encouraging. Also, a p r o m i s i n g t h e r m a l a c o u s t i c t o an a l t e r n a t e a i r p o r t a t Mach 0.9 a t an
s h i e l d (TAS) n o i s e r e d u c t i o n scheme ( r e f . 2) has optimum Brequet c r u i s e a l t i t u d e .
been suggested and i s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g i n v e s t i g a t e d . ( 3 ) P r o v i d e f o r a 30-minute h o l d a t Mach 0.45
V a r i a b l e geometry t u r b i n e s would be a means of a t an a l t i t u d e of 15 000 f e e t (4572 m).
improving t h e t u r b o j e t subsonic c r u i s e performance

- b u t a r e u n d e s i r a b l e due t o t h e i r c o m p l e x i t y . How-
ever, Boeing has r e p o r t e d an i n n o v a t i v e t u r b i n e by-
pass concept t h a t may improve t h e subsonic c r u i s e
Airframe

The w e i g h t and aerodynamics f o r t h e b a s e l i n e

1
airplane used in this study were for the Langley-LTV low temperature design and lower thrust. The small-
arrow-wing airplane defined in reference 3. The ma- er turbine could not be operated at the same hlgh
jor characteristics of the airplane are summarized turbine inlet temperature as the large AN turbine
in table 1. without surging the compressor. The limi?ations on
the operating turbine inlet temperatures set by the
Propulsion System compressorlturbine design are shown in figure 5. A
minimum surge margin of 20 percent and a maximum op- v
The uninstalled engine performance was first erating turbine inlet temperature of 3160 R (1756 K )
calculated without inlet and nacelle drags using the are assumed. The large AN turbojet is matched for
NASA-NAVY Engine Program, reference 4. The engine 3160 R (1756 K ) . The large Apl turbojet can be
component aerodynamic characteristics, efficiencies operated near maximum turbine inlet temperature for
and cooling requirements used in the program were almost all conditions. The small AN turbojet must
compatible with the Pratt & Whitney early to mid- be operated at much lower temperatures to maintaln
1990's technology level. However, a three-count ef- the 20 percent comoressor surqe marqin. The accel-
ficiency penalty was assumed for the variable area eration' thrust and' SFC's of ti;e two-engines are con+
turbines compared to the fixed-area turbines. pared in figure 6. The large AN turbojet would
The inlet sires were determined by the super- have 60 percent more transonic thrust than the small
sonic cruise airflow. lnletlengine airflow matching AN turbojet. It shall be noted, however, that the
studies were conducted. The engine airflows were higher thrust o f the large AN turbojet is at the
scheduled to match the Boeing inlet. Cowl pressure expense of higher SFC's.
drag was not included since nacelle dimensional data A comparison of the subsonic cruise performance
for the TEE are not well defined. Bypass, bleed and of the two engines is shown in figure 7. Although
spillage drays were determined for the inlet per- the high thrust of the large AN turbojet is bene-
formance. ficial for acceleration, the engine must he substan-
Nozzle performance includes internal lOSSeS and tially throttled back for cruise. In this case, the
boattail drag. An internal nozzle velocity coeffi- engine i s throttled back along a 20 percent comprcs-
cient o f 0.985 was assumed for all cases. Boattail sor surge margin as shown in figure 3. This reduces
dray was calculated with data from reference 5. engine airflow resulting in lower propulsive effi-
The installed engine performance is the unin- ciency. Also, the inlet air supply remains fixed so
stalled performance adjusted for the inlet, nozzle that inlet air must be bypassed overboard as the en-
and nacelle drags. gine air demand reduces resulting in large bypass
The installed propulsion system weight includes drag. As seen in figure 7, the larye AN turbojet
the engine plus nozzlelreverser. inlet and nacelle. is heavily penalized at the subsonic cruise operat-
The TBE enginelnozrlelreverser weight was obtained ing point. The small AN turbojet is operatiny
from preliminary estimates from Pratt & Whitney. closer to its maximum thrust and has an SFC 2% per-
The turbojet/nozzle/reverser weight was assumed to cent lower than the large AN turbojet.
be the same as the TBE. The VSCE engine/nozzlel
reverser weight was obtained from reference b . The Turbine Bypass Engine and the Variable Turbine
Weight estimates for the Boeing inlet and the na- Area Turbojet L
celle were made with data from reference 7.
The major characteristics of the three engines One means of removing the restrictions associa-
are given in table 11. ted with the choked turbine is with a variable area
turbine (VAT). With the ability to vary the turbine
Results and Discussion area, t h e turbine corrected flow can vary, thus per-
mitting wider excursions in the operating turbine
Single-Spool Fixed-Turbine-Area Turbojets inlet temperature. For a given flight condition
this allows the compressor to operate at nearly a
Figure 3 depicts the matching o f a compressor fixed point for wide variations in throttle. This
and turbine for a single spool turbojet. The tur- avoids the port power performance penalties of the
bine is choked for nearly all operating conditions fixed turbine (fig. 7). Figure B shraws typical op-
indicated by the constant value of turbine corrected erating characteristics of the variable area turbine
airflow W4 G l a q . For variations in turbine (VAT) analyzed in this study. At Mach 0.9, the tur-
inlet temperature, the compressor will operate at bine area varies by 30 percent between low throttle
pressure ratios and airflows to satisfy the constant cruise and maximum thrust acceleration. The com-
value of turbine corrected airflow. For a pre- pressor operating points for these two conditions
scribed
~. comoressor airflow., the comoressor ooerates
r~ ~~
are seen to be verv close.
at increasing pressure ratios with increasing tur- The objective bf the turbine bypass concept is
bine inlet temperatures. The compressor surge mar- very similar to that of the variable area turbine.
gin, (usually about 20 percent) places a constraint However, instead of varying the turbine area, the
on the upper limit of turbine inlet temperature. turbine airflow is varied without changing the coni
There are, of course, other constraints such as ma- pressor airflow.
terials, cooling, etc. Decreasing the turbine inlet During his propulsion studies at Eoeiny, Garry
temperature at a fixed compressor airflow causes de- Klees found that regulating the airflow into the
creasing pressure ratios. Lower limits on the tur- burner and turbine provided a convenient means of
bine inlet temoeratures would have to be evaluated
~I
achieving a constant corrected airflow into a fixed
in terms of low compressor efficiencies or limits on geometry turbine with excursions in turbine inlet
nozzle area variations. temperature. Figure 9 shows a schematic of this
Selecting a particular compressorlturbine combi- concept for a single spool engine. In this scheme,
nation olaces limits on the turbine inlet tempera- the compressor is matched with a small pN tur-
ture excursion a turbojet can achieve. Match'lng a bine. A provision is made for bypassing some cow
compressor to a large annulus area, AN, turbine pressor discharge air around the burner and turbine
( f i g . 4) reflects a high temperature design and high and into the nozzle. As shown in the figure, the
thrust. For the same engine airflow, matching the turbine inlet temperature for zero bypass is 1900 R L
same compressor t o a small turbine reflects a (1055 K ) . As the turbine inlet temperature is in-

2
 creased t h e bypass a i r f l o w , WBP, i s i n c r e a s e d . The t u r b o j e t . The c r u i s e SFC of t h e VSCE i s about 9
a c t u a l t u r b i n e a i r f l o w , W4, i s reduced t o achieve p e r c e n t h i g h e r t h a n those of t h e o t h e r two engines.
t h e c o n s t a n t t u r b i n e c o r r e c t e d f l o w 82 lbmisec (37.2
k g l s e c ) . T h i s enables a small AN t u r b o j e t t o be Mission Studies
o p e r a t e d a t t h e maximum t u r b i n e i n l e t temperature o f
3160 R (1756 K ) b y bypassing some fa t h e compressor
., d i s c h a r g e a i r . F i g u r e 10 shows t h e v a r i a t i o n of t h e
conipressor d i s c h a r g e a i r w i t h Mach number f o r a con-
As shown i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , t h e TEE and
t h e VAT t u r b o j e t have b e t t e r a c c e l e r a t i o n and super-
s o n i c cruise performance t h a n t h e VSCE. As seen i n
s t a n t t u r b i n e i n l e t t e m p e r a t u r e of 3160 R (1756 K ) t a b l e 11, however, t h e VSCE weighs l e s s t h a n t h e
and 20 p e r c e n t conipressor surge margin. o t h e r two engines f o r t h e same e n g i n e s i z e ( a i r -
Since t h e compressor d i s c h a r g e t o t a l p r e s s u r e i s flow). The VSCE engines can be l a r g e r t h a n t h e
much h i g h e r t h a n t h a t of t h e nozzle, t h e bypass a i r o t h e r two engines w i t h o u t i n c u r r i n g as much w e i g h t
may have t o he t h r o t t l e d t o t h e n o z z l e t o t a l pres- p e n a l t y . T h i s reduces a c c e l e r a t i o n t i m e and lessens
sure t o p r e v e n t p o s s i b l e u n d e s i r a b l e aerodynamic e f - t h e p e n a l t i e s i n c u r r e d by t h e h i g h t r a n s o n i c l s u p e r -
f e c t s a t t h e t u r b i n e e x i t . I n t h i s study, t h r o t - s o n i c SFC's o f t h e VSCE. F i g u r e 16 shows range ver-
t l i n q of t h e bvDaSS a i r reDreSentS t o t a l o r e s s u r e sus e n g i n e s i z e f o r t h e t h r e e engines. The engine
l o s s & o f t h e bypass a i r a i h i g h as EO p e l c e n t . s i z e f o r maximum range f o r t h e VSCE i s 720 l b / s e c
F i g u r e 11 shows t h e improvements i n t h e t u r b o j e t (327 k g l s e c ) ; 30 p e r c e n t l a r g e r t h a n t h e b e s t engine
subsonic c r u i s e performance w i t h t h e TBE concept and s i z e s f o r t h e TBR and VAT t u r b o j e t . The b e t t e r
t h e VAT. Compared t o t h e large-AN f i x e d - a r e a - t u r - SFC's of t h e TEE and VAT t u r b o j e t (compared t o t h e
b i n e t u r b o j e t , t h e TBE and t h e VAT improve t h e VSCE) r e s u l t i o 400 t o 500 n.mi. ( 7 4 1 t o 926 km)
c r u i s e SFC by 20 p e r c e n t . The c r u i s e SFC's of t h e more ranae f o r t h e b e s t enoine s i z e s . Fioure 17
TEE and t h e VAT a r e about t h e same. A t maximum compares"the m i s s i o n p e r f o h a n c e of t h e t i i r e e en-
power, t h e VAT has t h e h i g h e s t t h r u s t b u t a l s o t h e g i n e s i n terms o f t a k e o f f gross w e i g h t f o r a 4000
h i g h e s t SFC. The maximum t h r u s t o f t h e f i x e d a r e a n.mi. m i s s i o n ranqe. The minimum TDGW of t h e TEE i s
t u r b o j e t i s about 6 p e r c e n t lower t h a n t h e VAT t u r - 8 p e r c e n t l o w e r t h a n t h a t of t h e VSCE.
b o j e t s i n c e i t cannot he o p e r a t e d a t maximum t u r b i n e F i g u r e 18 shows t h e e f f e c t o f l o n g e r subsonic
i n l e t t e r m e r a t u r e w i t h o u t s u r o i n a t h e comoressor
~~ ~
c r u i s e range on t o t a l range. The r e f e r e n c e p o i n t i s
( f i g . 5): A l t h o u g h t h e TBE m&iium t u r b i n e i n l e t t h e 4000 n.mi. (7408 km) t o t a l range w i t h 300 n.mi.
temperature, 3160 R (1756 K ) , i s t h e same as t h e VAT (556 km) subsonic c r u i s e l e g and t h e t a k e o f f g r o s s
t u r b o j e t , i t s maximum t h r u s t i s 16 p e r c e n t lower be- w e i g h t s are t h e minimum values from f i g u r e 17. The
cause 22 p e r c e n t of t h e engine a i r i s bypassed subsonic c r u i s e range i s seen t o have o n l y a s m a l l
around t h e b u r n e r and t u r b i n e . T h i s a l s o reduces e f f e c t on t o t a l range. T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r
f u e l f l o w r e s u l t i n g i n a lower SFC. subsonic c r u i s e ranges l e s s t h a n lO0U n.nii. (1852
km) u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d f o r an SST-mission. It
Engine Performance Comparisons - TEE, VAT T u r b o j e t , s h o u l d he p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h i s r e s u l t stems from
P & MA VSCE t h e good subsonic c r u i s e SFC's of a l l t h r e e o f t h e
e n g i n e s compared t o a f i x e d t u r b i n e t u r b o j e t .
The performance o f t h e TBE and t h e VAT t u r b o j e t
I
a r e compared t o P r a t t & W h i t n e y ' s VSCE w h i c h i s a Concluding Remarks
moderate bypass r a t i o d u c t b u r n i n g t u r b o f a n . Ee-
cause i t i s a bypass e n g i n e i t has t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r A s t u d y was made t o compare t h e m i s s i o n perform-
good subsonic c r u i s e performance (maximum d r y power ances of t h e t u r b i n e bypass engine, TBE, t o t h e niis-
c r u i s e ) and q u i e t t a k e o f f . On t h e o t h e r hand, d u c t s i o n performance of a v a r i a b l e area t u r b i n e , VAT,
burning, l e a d i n g t o h i g h e r SFC's, i s r e q u i r e d f o r t u r b o j e t and t h e P & WA v a r i a b l e stream c o n t r o l en-
t r a n s o n i c and s u p e r s o n i c o p e r a t i o n . gine, VSCE. The s t u d y i n c l u d e d e n g i n e performance
A comparison of t h e performance o f t h e TBE, VAT a n a l y s i s and m i s s i o n performance. The minimum t a k e -
t u r b o j e t and t h e P & W A VSCE a t Mach 0.9 i s shown i n o f f gross weight (TOGW) of a commercial supersonic
f i g u r e 12. A t t h e c r u i s e o p e r a t i n g p o i n t s , t h e SFC t r a n s p o r t f o r a 4000 n.mi. (7408 km) range was used
of t h e VSCE i s about 6 p e r c e n t b e t t e r t h a n those of as t h e f i g u r e o f m e r i t . The maximum r a n g e f o r a
t h e TBE and VAT t u r b o j e t . However, t h e h i g h t h r u s t f i x e d TOGW of 762 000 pounds ( 3 4 5 950 k g ) was a l s o
performance o f t h e VSCE i s much p o o r e r t h a n t h e used. The e f f e c t of subsonic c r u i s e range was i n -
o t h e r two engines s i n c e d u c t b u r n i n g i s r e q u i r e d . vestigated.
T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s a l s o shown i n f i g u r e s 13 and The r e s u l t s of t h e s t u d y show t h a t t h e m i s s i o n
14 ( d u c t b u r n e r f u e l l a i r r a t i o s were reduced w i t h performance o f t h e TEE and a VAT t u r b o j e t a r e about
l a r g e r engine s i z e s ) . I n f i g u r e 13, t h e t r a n s o n i c t h e same. The TBE TOGW i s about 8 p e r c e n t lower
t h r u s t o f t h e W E i s seen t o be 15 t o 25 p e r c e n t t h a n t h a t o f t h e VSCE f o r t h e 4000
~ ~ .~~ ~
n.mi.. ranop. The ..
lower t h a n t h e TBE and 30 t o 40 p e r c e n t lower than maximum range of t h e TEE i s 10 p e r c e n t highe;-than
t h a t of t h e VAT t u r b o j e t . A t s u p e r s o n i c accelera- t h e maximum range of t h e VSCE f o r t h e 762 000 puunds
t i o n , t h e t h r u s t o f t h e TEE and VSCE are compar- (345 950 kg) a i r p l a n e . The m i s s i o n performance o f
a b l e . The VAT t u r b o j e t has t h e b e s t a c c e l e r a t i o n t h e TEE and VAT-turbojet are s u p e r i o r t o t h e VSCE
t h r u s t o f t h e t h r e e engines. I n f i g u r e 14, t h e VSCE because t h e y have s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r SFC's a t t r a n -
e x h i b i t s t h e b e s t subsonic a c c e l e r a t i o n SFC's. Dur- s o n i c l s u p e r s o n i c a c c e l e r a t i o n and s u p e r s o n i c
i n g t r a n s o n i c and s u p e r s o n i c a c c e l e r a t i o n . t h e S F C ' S c r u i s e . The l e n g t h of t h e subsonic c r u i s e l e g has a
o f t h e VSCE a r e about 20 p e r c e n t h i g h e r than t h e small e f f e c t on m i s s i o n range f o r a l l t h r e e en-
o t h e r two engines. gines. This r e s u l t s from t h e e f f i c i e n t low t h r u s t
Since most o f t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n f u e l of t h e SST c y c l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e TEE, VAT t u r b o j e t and
i s consumed d u r i n g t r a n s o n i c l s u p e r s o n i c a c c e l e r a - VSCE. Also, t h e h i g h port-power a i r f l o w c h a r a c t e r -
t i o n , t h e VSCE would b e n e f i t from l a r g e r engine i s t i c s of t h e s e engines reduces t h e i n l e t bypass
s i z e s t h a n t h e TEE o r VAT t u r b o j e t t o reduce a c c e l - drag, w h i c h comprises a m a j o r p a r t of t h e t h r o t t l e -
e r a t i o n t i m e and f u e l . hack d r a g a t subsonic c r u i s e .
F i g u r e 15 shows a comparison o f t h e supersonic I t s h o u l d be s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e mechanical and
-. c r u i s e performance o f t h e t h r e e engines. The SFC's c y c l e f e a t u r e s of t h e VSCE have been under s t u d y by
of t h e TEE a r e somewhat l o w e r t h a n those o f t h e VAT P r a t t & Whitney f o r s e v e r a l years. The same i n -
d e p t h s t u d i e s o f t h e TBE have y e t t o be accom- 6. H o w l e t t , R.A. and Hunt, R.B., "VSCE Technology
p l i s h e d . F i n a l comparisons of t h e two COnCePtS D e f i n i t i o n Study, F i n a l Report,'' P r a t t & Whitney
would have t o a w a i t c o m p l e t i o n of these s t u d i e s . it A i r c r a f t , East H a r t f o r d , CT, PWA- 56340-11, Aug.
s h o u l d a l s o be s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e s e engines a r e com- 1979. (NASA CR-159730)
pared on a m i s s i o n performance b a s i s o n l y . Since 7. H o w l e t t , R.A., !'Advanced Supersonic P r o p u l s i o n
t h e VSCE would be i n h e r e n t l y q u i e t e r t h a n an unsup- Study. Phase 1," P r a t t & Whitney A i r c r a f t , E a s t
Dressed TBE a t t a k e o f f . n o i s e c o n s t r a i n t s mav have a H a r t f o r d , CT, PWA-5312, Sep. 1975. (NASA
CR-134904)
v
more s i g n i f i c a n t impact on t h e TBE t h a n on t h e VSCE.
The n o v e l f e a t u r e o f t h e TBE i s t h e a b i l i t y t o
o p e r a t e a t low p a r t power w i t h h i g h p r o p u l s i v e e f f i - TABLE 1. - MAJOR AIRPLANE CHARACTERISTICS
c i e n c y . T h i s f e a t u r e should be e x p l o i t e d f o r o t h e r
a D D l i c a t i o n s such as f i q h t e r a i r c r a f t w i t h subsonic ___
Characteristic Value
and supersonic f l i g h t requirements, c r u i s e m i s s i l e s
and t u r b o s h a f t s f o r h e l i c o p t e r s .
Takeoff g r o s s weight:
1bm 7b2 000
References
kg 345 637
__~ ~~~~~

1. Fitzsimmons, R.D., McKinnon, R.A., Johnson, E.S., Number of passengers

and Brooks, J. R., " F l i g h t and Wind Tunnel T e s t
292
R e s u l t s of a Mechanical J e t N o i s e Suppressor Payload:
Nozzle," A I A A Paper 80-0165, Jan. 1980. 1bm 61 028
2. Cowan, S.J. and Crouch, R.W., " T r a n s m i s s i o n of
kg 27 682
Sound Through a Twc-Dimensional S h i e l d i n g Jet,"
A I A A Paper 73-1002, Oct. 1973. Reference wing area:
3. "Advanced Supersonic Technology Concept - Study ft
Reference C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , " LTV Aerospace Corp.,
9 969
m 926
Hampton, VA, Oec. 1973. (NASA CR-132374) - .. ..
4. Fishbach, L.H. and Caddy, M.J., "NNEP - The O p e r a t i n g empty w e i g h t l e s s
Navy-NASA E n g i n e Program," NASA TM X-71857, 1975. p r o p u l s i o n weight:
5. Kowalski, E.J., "A Computer Code f o r E s t i m a t i n g 1bm 259 913
I n s t a l l e d Performance o f A i r c r a f t Gas T u r b i n e 117 897
kg
Engines. Vol. 3: L i b r a r y of Maps," Boeing Co., -______
S e a t t l e , WA, 0180-25481-3-VOL-3, Dec. 1979. L i f t - o f f CL
(NASA CR-159693) 0.55

TABLE 11. - ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS

T6E

750 (341)

3160 (1756)
*3160 (1756)
__-__-----_-- 3060 (1700)

Engine w e i g h t
Engine + n o z z l e / r e v e r s e r ,
Ibm (W 13 550 (6152) 13 550 (6152) 11 500 (5221)
I n l e t + Nacelle 5 000 (2770) 5 000 (2270) 5 000 (2270)
T o t a l , lbm ( k g ) 18 550 (8422) 1 8 550 (8422) 16 500 (7491)

*Maximum bypass.

4
hlRfRA?ALSIRUCIURE
AND AtRO rTURBINE
DEFINED BY ENGINE PERFORMANCE rCOMPRESSOR BURNER, I
AND WElGtll

(al Single Swi turbojet, large AN

r COhlPRLSSOR BURNERi rTURBlNE

CDMPUiAllONS

DESIGN RANGE
VS.
ING. SIZE
Q___ -AN

ibl Single rwl turbojet, small

Figure4. - Turbineannoluiarea. AN

TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT

VS.
ENG. 5111 FOR DESIGN
RANGE
lioure I. - Calciilalion flowchart.

r OPTIhlILE INIIIAI.
I
I CRUISE. AISITUOE

i h-' ---MACH 2.32CRUlSE

rOPlIMl2t INITIAL

Al.lllUDt

LAND IVliH
4CCfLERAIION R€COMZILNDED
-
R i S t R V L S - .~
RANGE
figure 2 .Reierence miniion. rld. + 14. 4O F I+80 CI day.

20%SURGf 0 a5 1.0 1.1 2.0 2.5

MARGIN-. MACH NUMBER
Figure 5. -Effect of lurbineared on cornprersor surge margin and t u r -
bine inlet temperature - j i n g l e 1~001turbojet

CORRECTED AIRFLOW, W @ h PRESSURE RATIO, PqlP5

la1 Compressor. lbl Turbine.
Figure 3. - Malching characlerislicr of a single rpool turbojel.
 15 r
150 r
I
TRANSONIC ACCELERATION
1MACII 0. 913. AREA
TRANSONIC
ACCELERATION
90
IMACH 0.91;
CRUISE

a :SUPERSONIC
CRUISE
i
CORRECTED AIRFLOW PRESSURE RATIO
la1 Com?rerror. Ibl Variableares turbine.
Figure 8. - Operating characteristics 01 a single Spool turbojet with a v a i i -
ablearea t u r b i n e IVATI.

260 2
r
~ i g u r e6. -Effect 01 turbine area on acceleration performance - Single
spool turbojet.
240 - ~ - ij
Y
E
220
".
2
z
200
- ;
-
m

I. 3
r .13r-

k--
w-
Y
2-
,LARGE AN

a
a

-SMALL AN
Ll _ _ 1 J
1100 1400 1600 1800
TURBINE iNLET TEMPERATURE OK

u 40 60 80 IW 120
C l i l - U A
1800 ZWO ZZW 24W 26W 2800 MOO 3700
THRUST, 1wO N TURBINE INLET TEhlPERATURE. "R
Figlire 9. - V a r i a t i o n Of b y p s i air and turbine inlet air 'vitll t o r -
L- - I__L~.___ L_J
bine inlet tenlDerature; M4CH 0.%.
5ow 1OwO l5OW 2OwO 25wO
THRUST, ibf
Figure 7. .Elfecl 01 t u r b i n e area on engine performance a1 MACH
0.9: single spwl turbojet; sed level static airflow. 7% lbrnlrec
1341 kglrecl.
 1.3
0 A 0.5

surge margin.
1.0

MACH NUMBER
1. 5

Figure 10. - VarialiGn 01 TBE b pass air for acceleration:

constant TIT 3160 OR il7% LYKI, 20 percent compressor

0 MAXIMUM DRYTHRUST
0 CRUISE
2.0 2. 5

-
.--/
0.5 1.0
MACH NUMBER
1.5 2.0

Figure 13. - Comparison 01 the TBE, VAT turbajel and the P&WA VSCE
2, 5

acceleration fhruit; rea level static airllow, 750 lbmlrec 1341 kqlisecl.

1.4 -
i
d- "40 YI 6D 70 80 41 1W 110 120

--
THRUST. IWON 1.3-
4
i i
8wo low0
I
l5wo 20 wo
I I
25 wo -g
r 5
THRUST. Ihf 1.2- 2
r

2. E!
rn
1.1 - ",

1.0-

.9-

1. 3 0 MAXIMUM DRY THRUST

a CRUISE . g L
.mo
L_I__L
0.5 1.0
u
1. 5 2.0 2. 5
MACH NUMBER
Figure 14. - Comparison Of TBL. VAT turbojet and the P&WA VSCE
acceieralion SFC: l e d level slafic airflwi. 7 9 lbmlrec 1141 kglrecl.

.8 L .OBo I I I I I I J
20 40 60 80 1W 120 140
THRUST. 1wO N

I___L____c__I
0 10 wo 20 wn 3owo
THRUST, Ibf
 0 MAXIMUM DRY THRUS1
l55r 0 CRUISE
/
n
/ v
/VSCE
/
3 ,NO _- VSCE-
-5 -
/
/
E$ -- I
I
/' 180 200 220 240 260 280 330 320
/ ENGINE SEA LEVEL STATIC AIRFLOIV, hglsecl
'e
VAT TURBOJET i I I I
4w Mo 6W 7W
ENGINE SEA LEVEL STATIC AIRFLOW, lhnifrec
Figure 17. - Mission performance comparison of the TBL, VAT
turbojet, and the PEWA VSCE; MACH 2.32cruise; Mo n. mi.
15% km) subsonic Cruise: 4W0 n. mi. I7408 k m i total mission
range; payload, 292 passengers.
.'%J 60 80 1W 120 140
THRUST, 1wO N

J 10
' I5 M 25 30
THRUST, 1wO Ibf

L
L--_L_I__L__L_J
.-E 0 m 1wo 1% 2wO ZMO
SUBSONIC CRUISERANGE. n. mi.
c'
f i g u r e 18. -Effect Of subsonic cruise range on total range:
u-
0 VSCE MACH 2.32 supersonic Cruise: MACH 0.9 subsonic cruise;
L
4 = 85w payload. 292 passengers.
I J
4wo 7 n % ~ 260 3w 30 30
ENGINE SEA LLVEL STATIC AIRFLOW,
I kglsec, 1
I ! I
IC0 6W 7W 800
ENGINE SEA LEVEL STAIIC
AIRFLOW, lbrnlsec
Figure 16. - Range versus engine size comparison for
the TBE. VAT turbojet. and the PEWA VSCE: MACH
2.32 cruise: 3w n. mi. (556 Xmi subsonic cruise:
TOGW 762wO Ibm 135954 kql; 292 passengers.