Current activities on the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) at Douglas are focussed on baseline vehicle development at Mach 1.6 and 2.4. Parallel design activities incorporating the latest technologies in structures/materials, propulsion/noise, and aerodynamics are also being conducted and incorporated into the baseline to establish performance, economic viability, and environmental compliance. Studies are also being conducted to establish the feasibility of incorporating laminar flow control and minimized sonic boom concepts into the baseline. A decision point on these last two technologies is targeted prior to the start of the NASA HSR Phase 2 Program in 1993

Welge, H. Robert

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

N94-33454I
SESSION # 2
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT HSCT
STATUS & FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
H. R. WELGE
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP.
FIRST ANNUAL HIGH-SPEED RESEARCH WORKSHOP
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
14-16 MAY 1991
WARNING: INFORMATIONSUBJECTTOEXPORTCONTROLLAWS Thisd_umentmayc_ntaininformati_nsub_ectt_the_nternat_ea_Tra_icinArmsRqu_ati_(_TAR)andmrtheEx_t/k::_mini_tr=_
tiOn Regulation (EAR)of 1979 which may not be exported, released, or disclosed to foreisn natKx*als inside or outside the United States without first obtaining an exporl licen_.AviOlationof the i'rAR or
EAR may be subjed to a penalty o( up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of $100,000 under 22 U.S.C. 2778 or Section 2410 of the Export Administratio4_Act of 1979 Irclude this notice with any
re_oduced portion of this document.
PRECEDING PPlG£ BLANK NOT FILMED
361
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19940028948 2020-06-16T13:12:29+00:00Z
MDC HSCT ENGINEERING SUMMARY
Current activities on the HSCT at Douglas Aircraft are focused on
baseline vehicle development at Mach 1.6 and 2.4. Parallel design
activities incorporating the latest technologies in
structures/material_ propulsion/noise and aerodynamics are also being
conducted and incorporated into the baseline to establish
performance, economic viability and environmental compliance.
Studies are also being conducted to establish the feasibility of
incorporating laminar flow control and minimized sonic boom concepts
into the baseline. A decision point on these last two technologies
is targeted prior to the start of the NASA HSR Phase II program in
1993. The activities summarized in Figure i.
All actions are focused on the timely initiation of the NASA HSR
Phase II program in 1993.
1191 1T2
WILLIAMSBURG
MTG BALTIMORE } MTG WILLIAMSBURG
LONG BEACH MTG
362
BASELINE 2.4-1 ENGINEERING
VEHICLES -- 1.6-3 ECONOMICS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STRUCTURES
MATERIALS ANALYSIS / DESIGN & TEST
PROPULSION CYCLE ASSM'T PREFERRED
NOISE AIRFRAME INTEGRATION (PAIT) ENGINE (S)& INSTALLATIONS
AERODYNAMICS
LFC
SONIC BOOM
LOW & HIGH SPEED TEST
TECHNOLOGY & ECONOMIC STUDIES
ANAYStS DESIGN & TEST
I :!,.E--
0 _ F16XL
I
Figure 1
?ASSENGER AIRCRAFT
CAPACITY/SUPPLY FORECAST
The available passenger traffic growth through the year 2000 is shown
in Figure 2. The retirement of the current fleet and current new
orders do not meet the projected demand. The short fall will be
filled by HSCT and new subsonic aircraft. HSCT market capture and
world fleet split between supersonic and subsonic aircraft will
depend on HSCT's operating economics and on the level of fare premium
that may be charged to it's passengers.
5
AVAILABLE
SEAT- 3
KILOMETERS
(TRILLION)
2
/
REQUIREMENT
CURRENT FLEET
I I I
1982 1987 1992 1997 2000
YEAR
Figure 2
363
HSCT FLEET PROJECTIONS BASED ON TRAFFIC DEMAND
Based on traffic demands, supersonic fleet projections for Mach 2.2
may exceed 3000 aircraft by year 2030. These fleet projections show
a substantial decline as fare premium levels increase. As fare
premium levels get higher, the supersonic fleet size may fall short
of the commercially viable quantity that attracts the aircraft
manufacturers to assume the financial risk of launching HSCT.
3000
2500 10%
200O
I.IJ
N FARE20%
1500 PREMIUM
w LEVEL
._1
LL
1000
30%
364
500
0 I
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
YEAR
2025
Figure 3
40%
150%
2030
DESIGN FEATURES AND KEY TECHNOLOGIES
FOR OPERATIONAL AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY
The DAC HSCT features numerous advanced technology features as
illustrated in Figure 4. Highlights include synthetic visions for
the pilot, a fly-by-lite/power-by-wire flight control system,
lightweight advanced structural materials, high-lift devices_high
airflow augmentation engine nozzle ejectors for Stage 3 noise
compliance)and conventional Jet-A fuel.
LE AND TE JET-A
FLAPS
AFTTAILFOR
TRIM & CONTROL
LIGHTWEIGHT ADVANCED
MATERIALS '
AIRPORT COMPATABILITY/
SUPPORTABILITY
NEGATIVE STATIC
STABILITY MARGIN
AUGMENTATION
EJECTORS (60 TO 120%)
SYNTHETIC VISION
SIDESTICK CONTROL ,,,if AXISYMMETRIC
/ POD MOUNTED VARIABLE
SEPARATE / CYCLE ENGINES
FUEL TANK_/_. _v_r
L FLY-BY-LIGHT/ MIXED COMPRESSION
POWER-BY-WIRE . INLETS
FLIGHT CONTROLS
MANAGEMENT
AUTO CONTROL IN PITCH
Figure 4
365
CURRENT PERFORMANCE STATUS
The Mach 1.6 and 2.4 vehicle performance is summarized on Figure 5.
The performance shown below is currently based on lightweight
airframe materials without cost considerations. DAC trade studies
discussed in Session ii and summarized later in this presentation
describe ongoing studies of the structural/material concepts. The
selected mission is based on a fleet average basis using 250 city
pairs and reasonable re-routing.
o 5500 NM RANGE/25% SUBSONIC OVERLAND
o 300 SEATS
o 10,600FTTOFL
o UGHTWEIGHTAIRFRAME MATERIALS (AIMMC)
o TURBINE BYPASS ENGINE CYCLE
MTOGW(!:,)
OEW(b)
BLOCK FUEL(lb)
WING AREA (ft2)
THRUST (SLS bEng)
366
MACH 1.6
725,000
2'24,000
360,000
9,300
51,500
Figure 5
MACH 2.4
760,000
249,000
372,000
11,500
54,500
MACH 1 . 6 BASELINE
The Mach 1.6 aircraft planform and maj_
Figure 6.
imensions are shown on
4_: 7_5 f-T.
r _ L_ F'_---.... L.; 5 []...... '='-'
S?_u
Figure 6
367
MACH 2 . 4 BASELINE
The Mach 2.4 baseline planform and major dimensions are shown in
Figure 7.
368
Figure 7
ENVIRONMENTALTOPICS TO BE DTS'r....,S'SD
The status in the three areas shown in Figure B will be discussed.
1) ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
2) JET NOISE
3) SONIC BOOM
Figure 8
369
TOTAL CHANGE IN COLUMN OZONE CONCENTRATION
The results of a parametric analysis conducted to determine the total
column change in ozone as a function of mean cruise altitude/cruise
Mach number and NOx emissions is shown in Figure 9. Superimposed on
this parametric analysis are the emissions for a two levels of
annual-seat-miles (ASM) and their corresponding fleet size.
370
It is generally agreed within the industry that a total ozone column
change of more than i percent would not meet the environmental
acceptance goal. With this ozone change as an upper boundary, the
results shown on Figure 9 indicate that the lower altitude/Mach
conditions will accommodate larger fleet sizes. These studies have
been used as one factor for DAC continuing the Mach 1.6 baseline
studies.
24
EINOx = 5 Scenario
5OO
1o00
90
L700 L 1500 Reel size for same ASMs
M=3.2
03change
M=2.2
M=1.6
I ' 1 ' I ' I ' I '
1 2 3 4 5 6
NOx Emission (molecules/yr) X 10 34
Figure 9
STAGE 3 NOISE STATUS AT MACH 2.2
Stage 3 noise limits may be met with advanced high augmentation
suppressors as shown in Figure 10. Range has a very small effect on
this conclusion but at 6,500 nmi and 883,000 ibs. the HSCT may not be
economically viable.
GE FLADE ENGINE (PS 50)
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY HIGH LIFT PERFORMANCE
RANGE TOGW SLST
NMI 10001bs. 1000 Ibs.
50O0 650 49.2
6500 883 66.6
SUPPRESSOR NOISE REDUCTION
11-12 EPNL
SIDELINE TAKEOFF
(A EPNdB
re STAGE3)
+3.1 +1.2
+2.9 +1.5
14-15 EPNL (ADVANCED)
SIDELINE TAKEOFF
(z_EPNdB
re STAGE3)
-0.2 -1.9
-0.3 -1.6
Figure I0
371
THE HSCT NOISE CONTOUR IS LARGER THAN
THE 747 IF THE HSCT EXACTLY MEETS THE STAGE 3 SIDELINE
CERTIFICATION LIMIT
The community noise contours for both vehicles are shown in Figure
Ii. A 1990 Mach 3.2 cruise vehicle with goal level low speed
performance has been used for the HSCT. The HSCT will have an
increased impact on the community unless the technology can be
developed to reduce the effect.
4
DFCL
(1.000F_
0
-4
-8
372
CONTOUR LEVEL = 100 EPNdB S
/
loo k____ loo
HSCT CONTOUR
AREA = 4.1 SQUARE MILES
100 100_
747400 CONTOUR J
AREA = 1.7_ 5QMILES
100
100 
">
100
ENGINES
LIFT DEVICES
TAKEOFF VELOCITY
WEIGHTS
NOISE LEVELS
SIDELINE
TAKEOFF
HSCT 3.2-3A 747400 ....
GEVCE
80% LE SUCTION
230 KNOTS
800.000 LB
STAGE 3
STAGE 3-3
PW 4256
10-DEG FLAPS
185 KNOTS
870,000 LB
STAGE 3-3.3
STAGE 34 5
U'.ICO 12- 20
Figure 11
CLIMB NOISE HSCT VS SUBSONICS
During the climb to cruise portion of the HSCT mission, the
unsuppressed jet noise at ground level will be higher than either
current stage 2 or 3 subsonic's as indicated in Figure 12. This
higher noise level is a concern and will need suppressing and further
study to establish the accuracy of these calculations and acceptable
noise levels. Additional details are discussed in Session 8.
w"
£3
D
_J
<
35000
3O000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 115
110
105
100
95
9O
JET t,'IIXIHG ONLY
(UNSUPPRESSED) _ 85
80
7O
-- -- -- MAX. LEVEL 55
i " i i ' i I i ' 50
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISTANCE FROM BRAKES RELEASE, N.t,_i.
<
m
X
Figure 12
373
SONIC BOOM STATUS - SEPTEMBER 1990
The configuration shown on Figure 13 meets our sonic boom signature
goal of 90 PLdB. However, the concept shown has an unacceptably high
empty weight which results in a range short of our goal. Additional
details are discussed in Session 5.
MACH 3.20VERWATER/ MACH 1.6 OVERLAND
-'86 PASSENGERS
355 FT. LENGTH
374
Figure 13
_EQUIREMENTSTO ACHIEVEENVIRONMENTALGOALS
Suggested technology and study topics in the 3 environmental areas
discussed is shown in Figure 14.
REQUIREMENT
"_ ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
• COMBUSTOR EINOx = 5 "]J• ATMOSPHERIC MODELS
2) JET NOISE
• HIGH AUGMENTATION =',
EJECTORS (60 TO 120%)
OR
HIGH INLET FLOW ENGINE CYCLE
• NOZZLE SUPPRESSOR OR MIXER
• LOW SPEED AERODYNAMICS =_
• ENGINE CYCLE "_
• NOZZLE SUPPRESSOR OR MIXER
• NOISE ESTIMATE VALIDATION
3) SONIC BOOM
• CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT ='%.
& WEIGHT REDUCTION J• WIND TUNNEL VALIDATION
=, HUMAN RESPONSE STUDIES
Figure 14
GOAL
NO GREATER THAN
1% OZONE DEPLETION
FOR ECONOMIC FLEET SIZE
STAGE 3 LIMITS
CLIMB TO CRUISE NOISE
COMMUNITY NOISE
ACCEPTABILITY
90 PLdB SIGNATURE
AT ECONOMIC RANGE
375
MATERIALS AND STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS
The material systems and structural concepts being considered for the
1991 Mach 2.4 material design study are described in Figure 15.
Additional details are discussed in Session Ii.
MATERIAL SYSTEMS- STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS
CONVENTIONAL ALUMINUM ALLOYS
ELEVATED TEMPERATURE ALUMINUM
MONOLITHIC
DISCONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED
CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED
TITANIUM PRODUCTS
POLYMERIC CARBON FIBERS WITH RESINS;
EPOXY
THERMOPLASTIC
BMI
PMR
Figure 15
HAT
BLADE
ZEE
HONEYCOMB
=
=
=:
376
9
MDC 1991 MACH 2.4 MATERIAL STUDY DESIGN
FEATURES MULTIPLE MATERIALS
The current status of the materials concepts on various components of
the aircraft are shown on Figure 16. The configuration features an
all composite fuselage and a mixture of titanium and composites for
the wing.
LEGEND:
POLYMER COMPOSITES
TI'FANIL_M SANDWICH
[-----J TITANIUM STIFFENED SHEET
Figure 16
377
PwnPUT,SION ASSESSMENT
The status of the propulsion system analysis is described in Figure
17.
• 4 ENGINE CYCLES & VARIANTS EVALUATED
- FLADE
- VCE } GE
- VSCE
- TBE } P&W
• P&W TBE AND GE FLADE ARE PREFERRED CONCEPTS
• NOISE SUPPRESSORS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET NOISE & PERFORMANCE
CONSTRAINTS - ENGINE DERATE NOT ACCEPTABLE
• KEY TECHNOLOGIES/STUDIES
- PERFORMANCE AT SUBSONIC AND SUPERSONIC CRUISE
- HIGH AIRFLOW NOISE SUPPRESSORS
. INTEGRAT-I_DCONTROL
- AIRFRAME INTEGRATION
- HIGH TEMPERATURE/LONG DURATION CRUISE
378
Figure 17
EVALUATIONOF ENGINE CYCLESRESULTS
IN THE P&WTBE AND GE FLADE AS
THE PREFERREDCONCEPTS
Noise and performance assessments were made for the 4 basic engine
cycles listed on Figure 18. The results were obtained during DAC's
contract work in 1990 using a Mach 3.2 cruise vehicle. Based on the
results shown on the Figure, the P&WTBE and GE Flade were selected
for further study.
NOISE
PERFORMANCE
TOGW (NO STAGE 3 LIMIT)
TOGW (STAGE 3)
TBE
MEETS
STAGE 3 WITH
120% PUMPING
BASE
4.8% WORSE
VSCE
MAY NO T
MEET STAGE 3
11.2% WORSE
VCE
3-5 DB OVER
STAGE 3
2.5% BETTER
FLADE
MEETS STAGE 3
BASED ON GE
DATA
0.4% WORSE
3.1% BETTER
Figure 18
379
1991 HSCT ENGINE SYSTEMS STUDIES PLAN
The task and schedule that the joint P&W/GE team have agreed on for
engine cycle development is shown on Figure 19. DAC will be
supplying the necessary inputs to the engine companies for cycle
development throughout the year. The engine cycles will be available
for airframe fly-off analysis starting in October of 1991.
ENGINE CYCLE, FLOWPATH,
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DEFINITION
IEXJtAUST NOZZLE CONCEPT
DESIGN DEFINITION
ENGINE]N OZZ1E PERFORMANCE
WEIGHT, INSTALLATION DATA
IN-HOUSE SYSTEM
FLYO FF ANALYSIS
AIRFRAME MANUFACTURER
SYSTEM FLYOFF ANALYSIS
J F M A M J J
__ 1 1..... I As-o.ol I I I....J__
MFTF TBE / IF'V
_E,VCEV_F_OE_ ......P&w - MFrF,._n!_ T._S!!l__GEAE - MFTF, VCE, FLADE
MFTF ]'BE / IFV
TBE. VCE V FLADE
P&W - AXI & 2D ?
GEAE - 2D FLUID SHIELD
P&WGEAIE
. P&WGEAE
COST & MC
I
COST & MC I
I
TBE
VCE MFTF
V__V
"n3E
I
I
TBEJIFV
FLADE
TBE IFV
VCE MFXF FLADE
V V \
EXISTING FLADE
INLET / INTEG RATION_
ISSUES | t BOE|NGDOUGLAS
i
38O
Figure 19
Z
HIGH LIFT STATUS
The status of the high lift work is described in Figure 20.
Additional details are discussed in Session 12.
• AERODYNAMIC IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE AND NOISE HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED
RECOMMEND HIGH LIFT SYSTEM SETTING CHANGE DURING
TAKE-OFF & CLIMB
NO IMPACT ON SIDELINE NOISE
• NEW PASSIVE DEVICES TESTED AT NASA DECEMBER 1990
• "PNEUMATIC" CONCEPTS TO BE TESTED AT NASA MID 1991
• IN HOUSE ANALYTICAL STUDIES INDICATE THAT THE DAC PERFORMANCE
GOAL (S-80% TRIMMED) CAN BE ACHIEVED USING PASSIVE DEVICES
KEY TECHNOLOGIES/STUDIES
VERIFICATION OF INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION AT HIGH
REYNOLDS NUMBER
CFD APPLICATIONS
SUBSONIC CRUISE REQUIREMENTS
Figure 20
381
BENEFITS OF HIGH LIFT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT
Current technology community noise contours can be significantly
improved if the high lift performance goal of 80 percent leading edge
suction (LES) can be achieved as indicated by the results shown in
Figure 21.
Mach 3.2-3A / GE-VCE
D/CL, FT
1000
100
80% LES, TRIMMED
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
/
382
!
0 ' o' o'o '_ o' ' ' '10000 2 O00 3 OO 40000 501000 6 000 70000 BOOOO 9"0300
DFBR,FT
Figure 21
OI I I1 o000 110000 120000
SUPERSONIC LAMINAR FLOW CONTROL (SLFC)
Previous studies at DAC under contract to NASA Langley have
investigated the benefits of partial chord and full chord suction for
laminar flow control. These studies indicated that full chord was
the best system when evaluated on an economic basis. The benefits
are shown on Figure 22 accompanied by the technology issues to be
validated before these benefits can be achieved. Additional details
are descussed in Session 13.
BENEFITS FOR HSCT TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
• 8% TOGW REDUCTION •
• 12% SMALLER ENGINES
• 14% BLOCK FUEL REDUCTION
• 11% L/D IMPROVEMENT
• 4% BETTER ECONOMICS
Figure 22
CFD FOR HIGH SPEED ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN
3-D BOUNDARY LAYER STABILITY
ANALYSIS PACKAGE
PERFORATED ADVANCED
MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT OF SLFC
STRUCTURES AND DUCTING
USING ADVANCED MATERIALS
DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION
OF LARGE SUCTION MOTORS
383
FUTURE PLANS
DOUGLAS SYSTEM STUDY TASK STATUS FOR 1991
Douglas aircraft has recently been awarded an $8 million 5 year task
order contract to continue system studies to evaluate environmental
compatibility and economic viability. DAC currently is under
contract on 8 task orders as shown on Figure 23. Others are under
negotiation and 3 are listed. DAC will also be continuing their own
in house studies during the same period of time (see Figure I).
TASK NO. TITLE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
LOW SONIC BOOM PERFORMANCE/ECONOMICS
STATUS
UNDER
CONTRACT
X
X
AESA SUPPORT
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSION EFFECTS
FLIGHT RESEARCH NEEDS
ECONOMIC METHODOLOGY
NOISE ASSESSMENTS
PROPULSION ASSESSMENTS
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOISE PREDICTION CODE VALIDATION (ANOPP)
LFC ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT AT MACH 1.6
SONIC BOOM MINIMIZATION
NEGOTIATING
384
Figure 23


Douglas Aircraft HSCT status and future research needs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server