1

TEAM PARADIGM 6SYSTEM DEFINITION REVIEW

Farah AbdullahStephen AdamsNoor Emir Anuar

Paul DavisZherui Guo

Steve McCabeZack MeansMizuki Wada

Askar Yessirkepov

2

Presentation Overview Missions Review

Mission Statement Design Mission and Typical Operating

Mission Compliance Matrix

Concept Generation & Selection Overview Initial Concepts Selected Concepts

Cabin Layout Configuration and Dimension Process of Cabin Layout Seats Selection Layout Concepts QFD and Trend Study

Advanced Technologies Technologies Under Consideration Technologies’ Impacts

Engine / Propulsion◦ Engine Concept◦ Engine Sizing

Constraint Analysis◦ W0/S, T/W0 estimates◦ Compliance Matrix

Sizing Code◦ Current Status◦ Validation of Code◦ TOGW Estimates

Stability and Control Estimates◦ Location of c.g.◦ Static Margin Estimates◦ Tail Sizing Approach

Summary and Next Steps

3

Mission Statement Implement advanced technologies to design a

future large commercial airliner (200 passenger minimum) that simultaneously addresses all of the N+2 goals for noise, emissions and fuel burn as set forth by NASA.

Use market driven parameters to design a realistic and desirable aircraft.

4Design Mission

Max design range : 6500nm Covers weather issues

Max capacity : 250 passengers Max cruise Mach : 0.85 Cruise Altitude : 35000ft

Taxi and take off

Climb

Cruise

Land and taxi

Missed approach

2nd Climb

Divert to alternate

Loiter(25min.) Loiter

(25 min.)

Land and taxi

1 2

34

5

6 7

8

910

11

12

Designed Range

6000nm

Dubai New York 200nm

13

1-7 : Basic Mission7-13: Reserve Segment

•Satisfy FAA requirement of min. 45 min additional cruise for night time flights

5Typical Operating Mission

Mission Range: 2400nm Max capacity : 300 passengers Max cruise Mach : 0.85 Cruise Altitude : 30000ft

5

Taxi and take off

Climb

Cruise

Land and taxi

Missed approach

2nd Climb

Divert to alternate

Loiter(25min.) Loiter

(25 min.)

Land and taxi

1 2

34

5

6 7

8

910

11

12

Designed Range

2400nm

Seattle

Miami 100nm

13

1-7 : Basic Mission7-13: Reserve Segment

•High Capacity Medium Haul Aircraft

6

Compliance MatrixReference

(B777—200)Target Threshold

(Phase 1)Threshold(Phase 2)

Noise Levels 272 dB cum. 230 dB (-42dB) 246 dB (-20 dB) 246 dB (-20 dB)LTO NOx Emissions 26 kg/LTO 6.5 kg/LTO (-

75%)13 kg/LTO (-

50%)13 kg/LTO (-

50%)

Fuel Burn 2800 kg/hr 1400 kg/hr (-50%)

1820 kg/hr (-35%)

1820 kg/hr (-35%)

TO Field Length 8250-10000 ft 4125-5000 ft (-

50%) 4500-5500 ft 4500-5500 ft

Max Payload Range 6560 nmi 6560 nmi 6000 nmi 6500 nmi

Cruise Mach 0.85 @ 35,000 ft

0.85 @ 35,000 ft

0.75 @ 35,000 ft 0.8 @ 35,000 ft

Passengers 305 270 >200 250

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/AC_A320_01092010.pdf

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103

7

• Overview of Process• Initial Concepts• Selected Concepts

Concept Generation & Selection

8

Outline of Concept Generation

Morphological Matrix

Brainstorming

1st Round Pugh’s Method

Discussions of Pugh Method Results

2nd Round Pugh’s Method

Final Cabin Layout

9

Morphological Matrix

Concept Generation Brainstorming Ideas

11

Pugh’s Method

12

Pugh’s Method Results were not conclusive Need to do more top level analysis to

shortlist candidate concepts Concentrate on NASA ERA N+2 goals in

detail

13

2nd Round Pugh’s Method

Selected Concepts Using Pugh’s Method, the best two concepts were selected

for detailed analysisConcept 1 Concept 2U-TailEngines over tail

Blended Wing Body(Generic BWB, detailed analysis will be performed later)

15

Concept 1

16

Concept 1 – Cabin Layout

Wing BoxLD2

Economy Class Seating

Business Class Seating

17

Concept 2

18

•Process of Cabin Layout•Seats selection•Layout Concepts•QFD and Trend Study

Cabin Layout Configuration & Dimension

19Input (#pax, #class, and

#aisle)

Define Seating Size

Layout Concepts

Trend Study and Comparison

Final Cabin Layout

Process of Cabin Layout

Cabin Layout Requirements

Maximum 250 passengers 2 class (40 business & 210 economy) 2 crews for business 7 crews for economy

21

Width 17.5 inch 21 inchPitch 31 inch 50 inch

Seats selection

<http://www.extend-its.com/seatsize.htm>

Airline Coach Seat Sizes (Economy)

Economy Business

22 1 aisle

Layout Concepts

2 aisles

Fuselage width=WFuselage length=L

W:117in. (2.97m) L: 2876in. (73.04m)

W:137in. (3.48m) L: 2384in. (60.57m)

W:178in. (4.52m) L: 2068in. (52.52m)

W:198in. (5.03m) L: 1862in. (47.31m)

W:219in. (5.56m) L: 1739in. (44.16m)

W:259in. (6.58m) L: 1483in. (37.68m)

2 - 2

2 - 3

2 – 2 - 2

2 – 3 - 2

2 – 4 - 2

2 – 5 - 2

23

Trend Study and Comparison

1aisle 2-21aisle 3-2

2aisle 2-2-22aisle 2-3-22aisle 2-4-22aisle 3-4-3

2.25E+05 2.30E+05 2.35E+05 2.40E+05 2.45E+05

TOGW (lb)

1aisle 2-21aisle 3-2

2aisle 2-2-22aisle 2-3-22aisle 2-4-22aisle 3-4-3

0.0440 0.0460 0.0480 0.0500 0.0520 0.0540

CD0

1aisle 2-2

1aisle 3-2

2aisle 2-2-2

2aisle 2-3-2

2aisle 2-4-2

2aisle 3-4-3

0.3100 0.3150 0.3200 0.3250 0.3300 0.3350

T/W0

1aisle 2-2

1aisle 3-2

2aisle 2-2-2

2aisle 2-3-2

2aisle 2-4-2

2aisle 3-4-3

91.0 92.0 93.0 94.0 95.0 96.0 97.0 98.0

W0/S

24 Concept1

Final Cabin Layout and Dimensions

Pitch=31in. (Economy)

(pitch=50in. for business) Width=193in.

(5.03m) ≈1456.69in. (37m) (total fuselage=1862in. (47.31m)

25 Concept2: Initial layout

Final Cabin Layout and Dimensions

2 separated business class 4 divided compartments for

economy class Further study is needed to

optimize the cabin layout

26

•Technologies Under Consideration•Technologies’ Impacts

Advanced Technologies

Noise reduction Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustics Leading Edge High-Lift device

modification Perforated Landing Gear Fairings Airframe Noise Shielding Ultra-high bypass geared turbofan

engine

Fuel burn and NOx reduction

Active Engine Control Laminar Flow Control Gas Foil Bearings All-Composite Fuselage Ultra-high bypass geared turbofan

engine

Technology/ Advanced Concept

TRL 6+ Now TRL 6+ by 2020 Fuel Burn NOx Noise Other Benefits

Active Engine Control Yes Yes Up to 1%

ReductionUp to 1% Reduction N/A Longer on-wing

life

Gas Foil (“oil-free”) Bearings in

high-bypass turbofan engines

No Yes -3.05% Fuel Burn Up to 3.05% Reduction N/A

Safer, more reliable than

current

Composite Fuselage Yes Yes Up to 2%

ReductionUp to 2% Reduction N/A stronger, less

parts, longer life

Laminar Flow Control No Yes -28.2% fuel burn Up to 25%

Reduction Up to 1 dB reduction Reduce drag

Leading Edge High-lift Device

ModificationNo Yes Up to1% increase Up to1% increase Up to 1 dB

reductionIncrease Lift generation

Ultra High-Bypass Geared Turbofan

EngineNo Yes -20% fuel burn -50% emissions Stage 4 – 20DB N/A

Propulsion Airframe Aero

acousticsYes Yes Up to1% increase Up to 1%

increase -1.1 to -4 dB N/A

Perforated Landing Gear

FairingsYes Yes Up to1% increase Up to 1%

increase -3db to -4db Reduce Turbulence

Airframe Noise Shielding Yes Yes Up to1% increase Up to1% increase -15 to -20 dB N/A

30

•Engine Concept•Engine Sizing

Engine / Propulsion

Engine/Propulsion Engine under consideration:

Geared Turbofan Less noise Less NOx emissions Less SFC Direct-drive lighter than Geared

Table: Turbofan engines currently in market

Table: Geared turbofan experiment

Aircraft Engine type Thrust at SL(lb) SFC Max. Pressure Ratio Bypass Ratio

B767-200ER CF6-80A 48,000-50,000 0.355 - 0.357 27.3 - 28.4 4.59 - 4.66

A310-200 CF6-80C2 52,500 - 63,500 0.307 - 0.344 27.1 - 31.8 5 - 5.31

JT9D 48,000 - 56,000 23.4 - 26.7 5

Gear TypeExhaust

type Tsls (lb)Fan Diameter

(in)Pressure

RatioBypass Ratio

Takeoff Pressure Ratio

Reverse Thrust (%)

Geared Mixed 39800 91.9 1.55 8.4/8.6 38/36 48-55Direct Mixed 34800 78.9 1.71 6.1/6.3 38/36 43-50

Engine Specifications

Sizing Using equations from Raymer “Rubber” engine

Tsls = [W0*(T/W0)]/neng Sizing factor

SF=Tsls/(Tsls)base L=Lbase(SF)0.4

D=Dbase(SF)0.5

W=Wbase(SF)1.1

SFC=(SFC)base(SF)-0.1

Same with emissions

Tech. Factors Different Fuels Chevron Nozzle Fuel Flow Control Engine types

Direct Drive Vs. Geared Unducted Turbofan Turboprop

35

•Performance Constraints•W0/S, T/W0 estimates•Trade Studies•Compliance Matrix

Constraint Diagrams

36

Major Performance Constraints Noise Level Fuel Economy Takeoff Ground Roll Landing Ground Roll NOx Emissions Service Ceiling/Cruise Mach Passenger Count > 200

From Compliance Matrix

Constraint Diagram Parameters top of climb (1g steady, level flight, M = 0.8

@ h=40K, service ceiling) sustained subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @

h =10K takeoff ground roll 6000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day landing braking ground roll 2000 ft @ h =

5K, +15° hot day second segment climb gradient above h =

5K, +15° hot day

Initial Estimates for U-Tail Clmax (TO) = 1.7 Clmax (Landing) = 2.25 (Single Fowler, no

slat) Service Ceiling = 40000 ft Take-off Ground Roll = 6000 ft Landing Braking Ground Roll = 2000 ft Mach Number = 0.8 Aspect Ratio = 8 Reverse Thrust coefficient = 0.25

Initial Constraint Diagram – U-Tail Tube & Wing

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 1500

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

top of climb (1g steady, level flight, M = 0.8 @ h=40K, service ceiling)sustained subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @ h =10Ktakeoff ground roll 6000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot daylanding braking ground roll 2000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot daysecond segment climb gradient above h = 5K, +15° hot day

W0/S [lb/ft2]

TSL/

W0

U-Tail Trade StudyService Ceiling

Mach Number AR Clmax (TO)

Clmax (Landing)

Takeoff Ground Roll

Braking Ground Roll

Alpha Reverse T/W W/S Notes

40000 0.85 9 1.7 3.1 7000 2000 0 0.29 146

40000 0.8 9 1.6 2.4 8000 2000 0.25 0.28 130

40000 0.85 9 1.7 2.25 6000 2000 0.25 0.29 122

40000 0.85 9 1.6 2.4 6000 2000 0.25 0.28 112

40000 0.85 9 1.6 2.4 6000 2000 0 0.28 112

Removing thrust reversal did not change T/W and

W/S results

40000 0.85 9 1.6 2.25 6000 2000 0 0.28 112

40000 0.8 9 1.6 2.4 6000 2000 0.25 0.28 110

40000 0.8 7.5 1.6 2.4 5000 2000 0.25 0.31 106

40000 0.8 8.5 1.7 2.25 6000 2000 0 0.31 104

40000 0.8 8 1.6 2.4 5000 2000 0.25 0.3 102

40000 0.8 8.5 1.6 2.4 5000 2000 0.25 0.29 98

40000 0.8 8 1.7 2.25 6000 2000 0.25 0.32 124 Baseline

(ft) - - - - (ft) (ft)

Updated Estimates for U-Tail Clmax (TO) = 1.7 Clmax (Landing) = 2.5 (Single slotted Fowler

+ Slat) Service Ceiling = 40000 ft Take-off Ground Roll = 6000 ft Landing Braking Ground Roll = 2000 ft Mach Number = 0.8 Aspect Ratio = 9 Reverse Thrust coefficient = 0.25

42

Updated Constraint Diagram – U-Tail Tube & Wing

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 1500

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

top of climb (1g steady, level flight, M = 0.8 @ h=40K, service ceiling)sustained subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @ h =10Ktakeoff ground roll 6000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot daylanding braking ground roll 2000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot daysecond segment climb gradient above h = 5K, +15° hot day

W0/S [lb/ft2]

TSL/

W0

Estimates for BWB Clmax (TO) = 1.7 Clmax (Landing) = 2.0 (Slats) Service Ceiling = 40000 ft Take-off Ground Roll = 4500 ft Landing Braking Ground Roll = 2000 ft Mach Number = 0.85 Aspect Ratio = 6 Reverse Thrust coefficient = 0.25

44

Constraint Diagram – Blended Wing Body

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 1500

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

top of climb (1g steady, level flight, M = 0.85 @ h=32K, service ceiling)sustained subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @ h =10Ktakeoff ground roll 6000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot daylanding braking ground roll 2000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot daysecond segment climb gradient above h = 5K, +15° hot day

W0/S [lb/ft2]

TSL/

W0

45

•Current Status•Validation of Code•TOGW Estimates

• P6CAF-IncAR• P6BWB-ScalAR

Sizing Code

46

Current Status Completed:

Drag components – Parasite drag, Induced drag

Lift components – Wing, Tail Field length functions – Takeoff/Landing Propulsion – Rubber engine sizing LTO, Cruise, Loiter weight fraction

calculations Component weight sizing NOx, dB emissions estimation based on

historical data

47

Major Assumptions NOx emission estimation based on CAEP

6 best fit curve Noise levels based on best fit from

current engine data Horizontal tail scaled from wing

48

Implemented TechnologiesWeight Fuel Burn NOx Noise

Active Engine Control

Gas Foil (“oil-free”) Bearings in high-bypass turbofan engines

Composite Fuselage

Laminar Flow Control

Leading Edge High-lift Device ModificationUltra High-Bypass Geared Turbofan EnginePropulsion Airframe AeroacousticsPerforated Landing Gear FairingsAirframe Noise Shielding

49

Comparison with 767-200ERParameter 767-200ER Sizing Code % Dev.MTOW (lb) 395000 382090 -3.27Empty Weight (lb) 186000 174170 -6.36Fuel Weight (lb) 150320 157240 4.60Payload Weight (lb) 50680 50680 -

TO Field Length (ft)* 9300 8454 -9.097Landing Field Length (ft)*

5500 5149

NOx Emissions (g/kN) 62 65 -0.0484Noise Emissions (dB) 283.3 282.0 -0.486*assume standard day

50

Comparison with A330-200Parameter A330-200 Sizing Code % Dev.MTOW (lb) 510000 496170 -2.712Empty Weight (lb) 264885 235330 -11.158Fuel Weight (lb) 188224 200150 +6.336Payload Weight (lb) 56320 56320 -

TO Field Length (ft) 12080 9760Landing Field Length (ft) 6010NOx Emissions (g/kN) 279.2 285.7 +2.328Noise Emissions (dB) 61 71 +16.393*assume standard day

51

Parameters for P6CAF-IncAR 250 pax Wing Planform Area = 2500 ft2

Thrust = 39500 lbf CLmax = 2.3 CLα = 0.12 AR = 9.0

52

P6CAF-IncAR SizingParameter 767-200ER P6CAF-InCARTOGW (lb) 387,000 235,920We (lb) 186,000 126,880Wf (lb) 150,320 52,637Noise (dB) 274.7NOx (g/kN) 62 60.6Pax 224 250TO Field Length (ft)* 9000 6575Landing Field Length (ft)*

5500 5870

T/W0 0.3272 0.3282W0/S 127.15 94.92*assume standard day

53

Parameters for P6BWB-ScalAR

250 pax Wing Planform Area = 2910 ft2

Thrust = 42200 lbf CLmax = 2.3 CLα = 0.13

54

P6BWB-ScalAR SizingParameter 767-200ER P6BWB-

ScalARBWB-450a

TOGW (lb) 387,000 235,390 823,000We (lb) 186,000 110,320 412,000Wf (lb) 150,320 72778 -Noise (dB) 274.7 279.7 -NOx (g/kN) 62 65 -Pax 224 224 800TO Field Length (ft) 6020Landing Field Length (ft)

4120

T/W0 0.3400W0/S 83.589

55

•Location of c.g.•Static margin estimates•Tail sizing approach

• P6CAF-IncAR• P6BWB-ScalAR

Stability & Control Estimates

Center of Gravity Locations Used Raymer’s Table 15.2 as a guide Tube-and-wing U-tail design has initial c.g. estimated 112.22

feet from nose of aircraft Blended-wing body design has initial c.g. estimated 42.10

feet from nose of aircraft

Static Margin Estimates Using c.g. and neutral point estimates, static

margins can be calculated from:

Tube-and-wing body SM = 17.56% Blended-wing body SM = -60.94%

n cgx xSM

c

Tail Sizing Initial tail sizing done using equations 6.28

and 6.29 from Raymer’s text

Tube-and-wing body: SHT = 1316.61 ft2

SVT = 930.01 ft2

Blended-wing body is tailless

WHT WHT

HT

c C SSL

VT W WVT

VT

c b SS

L

59

•Summary of Concepts•Next Steps

Summary

60

Summary Two concepts chosen show potential for

achieving target values

Constraint diagrams show range of allowable T/W0 and W0/S values to use in sizing

Sizing code models base aircraft (767-200ER) parameters to a currently acceptable accuracy

61

Concept 1

U-Tail

Geared Turbofan

High AR wings

Streamlined Fuselage

62

Concept 1 – Cabin Layout

Wing BoxLD2

Economy Class Seating

Business Class Seating

63

Concept 2

Engines

Wingtips as Rudder

Lifting Fuselage

64

Dimensions

Concept 1 Concept 2Length 60.412 m 25.462 m Wingspan 64.000 m 72.000 mWidth 5.000 m 13.804 m (Fuselage)Height 7.000 m 9.303 mCabin Height 2.300 m 2.0 m (estimated)

65

Compliance MatrixReference

(B777—200)Target Threshold

(Phase 1)Threshold(Phase 2)

Noise Levels 272 dB cum. 230 dB (-42dB) 246 dB (-20 dB) 246 dB (-20 dB)LTO NOx Emissions 26 kg/LTO 6.5 kg/LTO (-

75%)13 kg/LTO (-

50%)13 kg/LTO (-

50%)

Fuel Burn 2800 kg/hr 1400 kg/hr (-50%)

1820 kg/hr (-35%)

1820 kg/hr (-35%)

TO Field Length 8250-10000 ft 4125-5000 ft (-

50%) 4500-5500 ft 4500-5500 ft

Max Payload Range 6560 nmi 6560 nmi 6000 nmi 6500 nmi

Cruise Mach 0.85 @ 35,000 ft

0.85 @ 35,000 ft

0.75 @ 35,000 ft 0.8 @ 35,000 ft

Passengers 305 270 >200 250

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/AC_A320_01092010.pdf

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103

66

Next Steps Obtain appropriate airfoil data

Interpolation / XFLR5 design

Model engine in sizing code to vary with altitude

Model NOx emissions and dB levels more accurately Currently using CAEP-6 best fit curve dB levels based on historical data