Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology (APET) Single-AND Counter - Rotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Mechanism

/
NASA CONTRACTOR
REPORT 168114 (Vol. I )
PWA - 5869 - 88
Pf. -"-'-
t -
J
_ j,. /", / ..,
ADVANCED PROP-FAN
ENGINE TECHNOLOGY (APET)
SINGLE- AND COUNTER-
ROTATION GEARBOX/PITCH
CHANGE MECHANISM
FINAL REPORT
by
C. N. Reynolds
COMMERCIAL ENGINEERING
PRATT & WHITNEY
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
PREPARED FOR:
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration
c_Rmme_. Ceet='
Cleveland, Ohio
44135
(I_ASA-CB- 168 1 lq-_Cl- 1) AD V A liC_.._ EH CI:'-F AB N87-28552

EbGZbP. 'I_CHI_CLOG_t (API;'I) S] EC-I,_- AliD
CCUIiTEE-I_C_IA_ICE C-EAEECX/.EI'ICE CEANGE
BECEABISM Final Eeport (United _echnologies Unclas
Corp.| 288 p Avail: _TIS _C AI3/MF A01 G3/07 _G97822
UNDER
CONTRACT NAS3-23045
1 .REPORT NO. ] 2. GOVERNME_JT AGE,wICY 3.RECIPIENT'S CATALOG !_O.
NASA CR-168114 (Vol. I) I
4.TITLE AND SUBTITLE -_ REPORT rATE
July 1985
Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology (APET) Single-
and Counter-Rotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Hechanism 5. PERFORMING ORG. CODE
7.AUTHOR(S ) 8. PERFORMING ORG. REPT. HO.
C. N. Reynolds PWA-5869-88
9.PERFORatING ORG. NA,_IEAHr) ADDRESS 10. I_IORKUKIIT _JO.
Ui:IITEDTECHHOLOG!ES CORPORATION
Pratt & !4hitney Engineering Division II. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.
East Hartford, Connecticut 06108
_4AS3-23045
I?. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME A_D ADDRESS 13. TYPE REPT./PERIOD CPVERED
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contractor Final Report

Lewis Research Center
21000 Brookpark Road 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
1 5. SUPPLEMENTARY _,I,r)TES Gerald A. Kraft
Contract Project _ianager: _(JVdnC_(] ,uru(Jprop Pro ect L_TF_C:_
a J ....... J -P .... !........ j __
NASA Lewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
16. ABSTRACT
Volume I reports the preliminary design of advanced technology (1999_) turboprop engines
for single-rotation Prop-Fans, the conceptual design of the entire propulsion system, and
an aircraft evaluation of the resultant designs.
Four engine configurations were examined. A two-spool engine with all _xial compressors
and a three-spool engine with axial/centrifug_l compressors were selected. Tntegrated
propulsion systems were designed in conjuntion with airframe manufacturers. The design
efforts resulted in 12,000 shaft horsepower engines installed in over the winfl
installations with in-line and offset gearboxes.
The Prop-Fan powered aircraft used 21 percent less fuel and cost I0 percent less to
operate than a similar aircraft powered by turbofan engines with comparable technology.
All enission and acoustic regulations projected for the early 1990's were met. A
comprehensive technology plan will address key engine and propulsion system technologies
Volume II reports the preliminary design of advanced technology (1992) gearboxes and
_ mechanisms for single- and counter-rotation Prop-Fan applications.
R_ (SUGGESTED BY A-OTH-OR(S)) ---i-8: DI__TTON _EMENT
Prop-Fan Propulsion System, Reduction
Gearbox, Turboprop Engine, Prop-Fan
Engine Technology Plan, Engine/Aircraft July 1987
Evaluation
Unclassified _ Unclassified
* For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Sprinqfield, VA
FOREWORD
This report presents the results of a definition study conducted to: (l) iden-
tify promising propulsion systems for a Prop-Fan powered aircraft, (2) evalu-
ate the propulsion systems in a short-range airplane, and (3) prepare a com-
prehensive program for verifying key engine technology components by 1988 in
order to ensure certification of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft by 1992. This
study was conducted as part of the Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Program
under Contract NAS3-23045.
The NASA Program Manager for this contract was Mr. G. A. Kraft of the Propul-
sion Systems Division, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio. The Pratt and
Whitney Program Manager was Mr. C. N. Reynolds. The principal technical con-
tributors were Messrs. Joel Godston, Wade Ferguson, Robert Owens, Uuao Tari,
and John Kiraly.
Pratt & Whitney would also like to acknowledge the technical contributions of
the four airframe manufacturers participating in the APET Definition Study:
Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed-Georgia, and Lockheed-California.
?_,_=D|,_u PAGE BL._'_'_ NOT FILMED
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 SI_IMARY l
2.0 INTRODUCTION 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 7
3.1 Introduction 7
3.2 Task I - Selection of Evaluation Procedures and

Assumptions
3.3 Task II - Cycle Optimization and Engine Configuration

Sel ecti on 8
3.4 Task III- Propulsion System Integration 14
3.5 Task IV Results - Engine/Aircraft Evaluation 17
3.6 Task V Results - Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Plan 2O
3.7 Comparison With Counter Rotation Propulsion 2O
3.8 Relevancy of Prop-Fan Propulsion to Military Applications 21
4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4.1 Task I - Selection of Evaluation Procedures and Assumptions 25
4.2 Task II - Cycle Optimization and Engine Configuration

Selection 51
4.3 Task III- Propulsion System Integration 123
4.4 Task IV - Engine/Aircraft Evaluation 1 93
4.5 Task V - Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Plan 223
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 277
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 279
REFERENCES 281
i A detailed Table of Contents for each major section I

I is presented at the beginning of the section. A List of i
I Illustrations and List of Tables for the section is also i
I included. I
iv
SECTION 1.0
SUMMARY
ORIGINAL PAGE iS
OE_ POOR QUALITY
SECTION 1.0
SUMMARY
The Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technolo_Lv (APET) Definition Study results show
that a Prop-Fan powered aircraft can provide a 21% improvement in fuel burn
and a I0% advantage in direct operating costs relative to a turbofar, powered
aircraft with comparable technology. While the Prop-Fan powered aircraft de-
monstrated significant advantages over a comparable turbofan, several key
technologies must be verified before industry will commit to full-scale devel-
opment leading to certification. Key engine-related technologies include the
large horsepower size reduction gearbox, Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet/compressor
interactions, and the small size high-pressure compressor. Additional studies
must also be conducted with major airframe manufacturers to address key issues
related to engine/aircraft integration.
To initiate the APET program, Pratt & Whitney prepared a Stuay Procedures and
Assumptions document to define the reference aircraft, aircraft mission, ref-
erence turbofan engine, fuel burn and direct operating cost trade factors, and
other key ground rules for the study. The document was reviewed by the four
major airframe manufacturers participating in the APET program; Boeing,
McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheea-California and Lockheed-Georgia. The final docu-
ment reflects their comments ana suBgestions.
.............. afv nf ;_nnrn;_rh_=(: fn fijrnnnrn_ nrnnul_inn fnur different

engine configurations were evaluated; (1) a two-spool engine with axial com-
pression, (2) a three-spool engine with axial/centrifugal compression, (3) a
"reversed" three-spool axial/centrifugal engine, with the inlet at the rear
and the turbine in front, and (4) a three-spool enBine with axial compression.
An optimum cycle for advanced turboprop engines was definea using trade fac-
tors developed in Task I. Using this optimum cycle, the engines were evaluated
on the basis of mechanical design, perforraance, design assurance issues, and
environmental considerations. The two-spool engine with axial compression and
the three-spool engine with axial/centrifugal compression demonstrated the
best combination of fuel burned and direct operating costs and were selected
for further evaluation.
Conceptual designs of integrated propulsion systems for the two engine config-
urations, including Prop-Fan, reduction gear, and nacelle, were submitted to
the airframe manufacturers for critique and comment. Using their input, Pratt
& Whitney, with the concurrence of the NASA Program Manager, selected two
final propulsion system configurations for further evaluation. Key features of
these systems include: (I) selection of a 12,000 shaft horsepower base engine
size for the two-spool and three-spool configurations; (2) the option of using
an in-line or offset reduction gear; (3) use of an over-the-wing installation
to minimize landing gear length.
The integrated turboprop propulsion systems were then evaluated in a reference
120-passenger aircraft over a typical mission. The Prop-Fan powered aircraft
demonstrated a 21% fuel burned improvement and a I0% advantage in direct oper-
ating cost over a turbofan powered aircraft with comparable technology. The
Prop-Fan powered aircraft is also expected to meet all emissions and flyover
acoustic regulations projected for the early 1990's.
In order to achieve the goal set for the APET program - certification of a
Prop-Fan powered aircraft by 1992 - a comprehensive engine technology program
has been developed. This program provides detailed verification plans for key
engine-related technologies and identifies major tecnnical considerations
which should be addressed in engine/aircraft integration studies. It is recorbl-
mended that full support be given to this program to ensure verification of
critical technologies by 1988 and certification of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft
by 1992.
2
SECTION2.0
INTRODUCTION
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
SECTION 2.0
INTRODUCTION
Previous studies conducted by NASA and Pratt & Whitney indicated that a new
high-speed propeller, the Prop-Fan, coupled with an advancea turboprop engine,
could play a significant role in reducing the fuel consumption and operating
costs of aircraft scheduled for service in the 1990's and beyond. The most
promising first application for Prop-Fan propulsion is in short/medium range
I00-120 passenger aircraft; studies indicate that more than half of the exist-
ing fleet must be replaced with more fuel efficient airplanes in the early
1990's. Introduction of a viable Prop-Fan propulsion system for these aircraft
could save billions of gallons of fuel over the life of these aircraft.
The objectives of the Advanced Prop-Fan Technology (APET) Definition Study

were to: (1) identify promising propulsion systems for a Prop-Fan powered air-
craft, (2) evaluate the propulsion systems in a short-range aircraft, and (3)
prepare a comprehensive program for verifying key engine technology components
by 1988 in order to ensure certification of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft by
1992. The APET study program consisted of five technical tasks.
Task I - Study Procedures and Assumptions
Pratt & Whitney prepared a Study Procedures and Assumptions docu_=ent to

d_f_n_ _h_ grnlJnrl rillp_ fnr @hp APFT nrnnr_n| Aircraft r_lat_d i_ues were
reviewed by four major airframe manufacturers (Boeing, FlcUonnell Douglas,
Lockheed-Georgia, and Lockheed-California). Hamilton Standard provided in-
formation on the Prop-Fan.
Task II - Engine Configuration and Cycle Evaluation
Four different turboprop engine configurations were evaluated. Trade fac-

tors from Task I were used to define the optimum engine cycle and to select
the most pr_,lising candidates for further study.
Task Ill - Propulsion System Integration Studies
The most promising engine configurations were assessed in integrated pro-

pulsion systems which included the Prop-Fan, reduction gear, and nacelle.
Propulsion system designs were reviewed by the airframe manufacturers. Data
packages and computer decks were prepared for each integrated propulsion
system.
Task IV - Engine/Aircraft Evaluation
A mission simulation study was conducted to assess the merits of the tur-
boprop propulsion systems relative to a comparable turbofan propulsion
system.
3
Task V - Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Plan
Pratt & Whitney identified the key engine technologies required for an
advanced Prop-Fan propulsion system and prepared a comprehensive program
for technology verification.
Section 3.0 of this report summarizes the key results of the APET Definition
Study. Section 4.0 contains a detailed discussion of the results. Conclusions
and recommendations are presented in Section 5.0. The Propulsion System Inte-
gration Package, which will facilitate future evaluations of the Prop-Fan pro-
pulsion system, has been supplied to NASA and the airframe manufacturers.
Proprietary information, including engine technology verification program costs

and engine and gearbox acquisition and maintenance cost data, is presented in
a separate volume.
4
SECTION3.0
SIJtIMARY
OF RESULTS
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
oF Poor QUALITY
SECTION 3.0
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table of Contents for Section 3.0
Section Ti tle
Page
3.1 INTRODUCTION 7
3.2 TASK I - SELECTION OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND ASSUMPTIONS
3.3 TASK II - CYCLE OPTIMIZATION AND ENGINE CONFIGURATION SELECTION 8

3.3.1 Cycle Optimization 10
3.3.2 Configuration Selection 11
3.4 TASK III - PROPULSION SYSTEM INTEGRATION 14

3.4.1 Selected Integrated Propulsion Systems 14
3.4.2 Airframe Companies' Review of Integration Package 14
3.4.3 Final Propulsion System Selections 15
3.4.4 Engine Performance Decks 15
3.5 TASK IV - ENGINE/AIRCRAFT EVALUATION 17

3.5.1 Comparison of Turbofan and Prop-Fan Powered Aircraft 17
3.5.2 Aircraft Mission Evaluation
3.5.3 Environmental Considerations 18
3.5.3.1 Emissions Ig
3.5.3.2 Acoustics 19
3.6 TASK V - ADVANCED PROP-FAN ENGINE TECHNOLOGY PLAN 20

3.6.1 Technology Identification and Component Verification Plan 20
3.6.2 Additional Engine/Aircraft Integration Studies 20
3.7 COMPARISON WITH COUNTER ROTATION PROPULSION 20
3.8 RELEVANCY OF PROP-FAN PROPULSION TO MILITARY APPLICATIONS 21

List of Illustrations for Section 3.0
Figure
Number Title Page
3-I Reference Turbofan Engine (STF686) 9
3-2 Factors Considered in Selecting the Optimum Cycle lO
3-3 Overall Pressure Ratio as a Function of Engine Size at 1,426°C

(2600°F) Maximum Takeoff Temperature II
3-4 Turboprop Engine Configuration Candidates and Evaluation Summary 12
3-5 Two-Spool Engine With All-Axial Compression 13
3-6 Three-Spool Engine With Axial/Centrifugal Compression 13
3-7 In-Line Gearbox Propulsion System Installation 16
3-8 Offset Gearbox Propulsion System Installation 16
3-9 Noise Predictions l_
List of Tables for Section 3.0
Table
Number Title Paue
3-I Key Assumptions and Procedures 8
3-II Prop-Fan Airplane Trade Factors 9
3-1II Turbofan and Prop-Fan Engine Characteristic Comparisons 17
3-1V Weight Comparison of Prop-Fan and Turbofan Powered Aircraft 18
3-V Comparison of Prop-Fan to Turbofan Powered Aircraft 18
3-VI International Civil Aviation Organization

(Emissions Research Goals) 19
SECTION
3.0
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology (APET) study has identified candidate
Prop-Fan systems, evaluated them in a short-range aircraft, and prepared a key
engine technology verification plan for the APETprogram.
The selected Prop-Fan propulsion system was compared with a similar technology
turbofan propulsion system on the basis of fuel burned and direct operating
cost; both systems were installed in a 120-passenger twin-engine short-range
aircraft. Study results show the Prop-Fan powered aircraft has an advantage of
21% in fuel burned and I0% in direct operating cost over the comparable tech-
nology turbofan powered aircraft.
Many technology areas remain to be verified before industry can commit to the
design and development of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft. The key engine-related
technologies are: (I) the large horsepower size reduction gearbox, (2) Prop-
Fan/nacelle/inlet/compressor interactions, and (3) the small size high-pressure
compressor. Verification plans for these technologies are presented in Section
4.5.
M=n_, mnv',-_ _nn_n_/_rCr_f inf_nr_finn _f,Jni_c _main fn hp cnndlJrtpd which may

identify other technology needs. These are also discussed in Section 4.5 of
this report.
The overall study followed the logical sequence of the tasks in the APET con-
tract statement of work.
In Task I, Pratt & Whitney prepared a Procedures and Assumptions document to

define the reference aircraft, aircraft mission, reference turbofan engine,
direct operating cost methods and other key items in the study. The reference
airplane and aircraft evaluation ground rules were developed with the assis-
tance of four airframe companies: Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed-California and
Lockheed-Georgia. The mission profile used for the design and typical missions
follows U.S. rules with taxi times based on trunk airline experience. Air
Transport Association domestic reserve requirements were used. The economic
ground rules were based on the 1981 update of the Boeing direct operating cost
procedure. After approval by the NASA Program Manager, the document served as
the ground rules for the remainder of the study. The key procedures and as-
sumptions are summarized in Table 3-I; a more detailed presentation is con-
tained in Section 4.1 of this report.
The reference turbofan engine cycle, components, and configuration were selec-
ted based on work done in the benefit/cost portion of the NASA-sponsored Energy
Efficient Engine program. Engine technology availability of 1988 and an engine
certification date of 1992 were assumed to ensure compatibility with the Prop-
Fan engine.
7
TABLE 3-I
KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES
Engine Technology Avai Iabi Iity 1988
Engine Certification 1992
Engine Sizing 2133 m (7UUO ft) takeoff

field length at sea level
29 C (84 F) day or 10,668 m
(35,000 ft) initial cruise
al ti tude capabi Iity
Reference Airplane 120-Passenger, Twin-Engine
Design Range l_gO Nautical Miles
Typical F1 ight Range 40(J Nautical Miles
Cruise Conditions O.7b Mach Number

I0,66B m (35,000 ft) Altitude
Reference Turbofan En)ine Bypass Ratio = 7.0

Overall Pressure katio = 4U._
Co_ustor Exit Temp. = 1460"C
(2660°F)
Reference Propel ler Hamilton Standard Ten Blade

SPO4A_U
Unique Assumptions
Cabin Acoustic Weight Penalty Treatment Added to Reduce
Cabin Noise to Turbofan Level
Propeller Slipstream Drag 0% (+ 3% Evaluated)
A cross section of the reference turbofan engine, designated STF6U6, is pre-

sented in Figure 3-I.
3.3 TASK II - CYCLE OPTIMIZATION AND ENGINE CONFIGURATION SELECTION
In Task II the Prop-Fan cycle was optimized using trade factors from Task I.
These are shown in Table 3-11. The cycle optimization was done at three levels
of horsepower to evaluate the effect on smaller and larger size engines.
Four different Prop-Fan engine configurations were evaluated. The two most
promising candidates were a two-spool all-axial compression engine and a three-
spool engine with axial/centrifugal compression.
The NASA Program Manager approved our selections of cycle and configurations
and they were then used for the Task III Propulsion System Integration.
8
Cycle description at cruise
STF686 E3 technology
Thurst class, N (Ib) 84 (19K) 177 (4OK)

Overall pressure ratio 40.8 38.6
Bypass ratio 7.0 7.2
Fan pressure ratio 1.66 1.65

Maximum CET, C ° (°F) 1460 (2660) 1437 (2620)
Exhaust type Separate Mixed
Figure 3-I Reference Turbofan Engine (STF086) - The reference turbofan is

basea on work done in the benefit/cost portion of the Energy
Efficient Engine program.
TABLE 3-11
PROP-FAN AIRPLANE TRADE FACTORS
(198l Dollars, 0.396 per liter ($1.50 per Gallon))
Effect on Effect on Direct

Trade Factor Fuel Burn Operati n_ Cost
One percent increase in TSFC 1.12% O.46%

I0 pound increase in pod drag
per engine 0.32% 0.15%
lO00 pound increase in
weight per engine 2.Ib% l. 29%
$I00,000 increase in the price of
each engine 0.27%
$I0.00 increase in maintenance cost
per engine flight hour ml-- O. 96%
9
f
3.3.1 Cycle Optimization
The cycle was optimized for a base engine rating of 16,0UU shaft horsepower
using the trade factors from Task I. Consideration was given to overall pres-
sure ratios from 20 to 45 and maximum combustor exit temperatures from 12U4 to
1537"C (2200 to 2800°F). The optimization process considered engine TSFC, pro-
pulsion system weight, mission fuel burned and direct operating cost as a
function of overall pressure ratio and combustor exit temperature.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the TSFC, weight, fuel burned and DOC curves which were
considered in selecting the:cycle. A cycle of 35:1 design point overall pres-
sure ratio and 1426 C (2bOO F) maximum combustor exit temperature was selected
considering both fuel burned and DOC. This cycle was used for the configura-
tion selection portion of the study.
+4
0
U_ +3
I--
c
•- +2
+5
+1
t- ) mE +3
o
Max
CET takeoff
=
E
_ o 1204_
P +I
Q_ _c o
-1 O. "-
__ (2200"F}
-1
_ _ 1316 (2400)
-2 -- _w_l._ _ 1427 (2500}
__t 427 (2600)
_1538 (2800)
Max. takeoff
CET =
¢_ +20]'-/ +4 F Max tw_.

'_-
= _ +4°V _,20,_ (2200o,)_ +3 I'-_ CET-
'-'- = " .-_ ,2_._122oo._)
o ® o/ / _IS38(280o) _ _ +2
_o"_ _ o -- . __..-_ ,3re(24oo)

- 20 F__/1371
_/) (2500) C _
O. o ._ 8 1 _142"t 12600)
- 40
-2[ ,3,,,2,oo,
i ! ! I I I '- I I I I I I
20 25 30 35 40 45 20 25 30 35 40 45
Overall pressure ratio Overall pressure ratio
Figure 3-2 Factors Considered in Selecting the Optimum Cycle - These trade-
offs resulted in the selection of the 1,426°C (2600°F) CET, 35:1
OPR cycle for the 16,000 shaft horsepower engine.
lO
Because of the uncertainty of the correct horsepower requirements the cycle
optimization was also done at 8000 and 23,000 horsepower to properly reflect
smaller and larger size engines. The overall pressure ratio and combustor exit
temperature are fairly insensitive to variations in engine size between _uO0
and 23,000 horsepower as indicated in Figure 3-3.
40-
Overall 35
pressure (
ratio,
OPR 3o
25 I I I I I I I I
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Nominal takeoff shaft horsepower, 1000 hp
Figure 3-3 Overall Pressure Ratio as a Function of Engine Size at 1,426°C

(2600°F) Maximum Takeoff Temperature - Overall pressure ratio is
fairly insensitive to engine size.
3.3.2 Configuration Selection
Four different turboprop engine configurations were evaluated. Tiley included:

(A) a two-spool engine with all-axial compression, (B) a three-spool engine
with axial/centrifugal compression, (C)a three-spool engine, like (B), but
reversed so the inlet is at the rear and the turbine in the front, and (D) a
three-spool engine with all-axial compression. The configurations and results
of the evaluation are presented in Figure 3-4.
Of the four configurations evaluated, the two-spool engine with all-axial com-
pression and the three-spool engine with axial/centrifugal compression demon-
strated the best combination of fuel burned and direct operating costs; thus,
these engine configurations were selected for further evaluation under Task
Ill. The performance of the three-spool axial compression engine was inferior
to the performance of the two-spool axial compression engine, while the direct
operating cost of the three-spool axial compression engine was inferior to the
operating cost of the three-spool axial/centrifugal compression engine. Poor
fuel burn characteristics caused the reversed engine configuration to be
el imi hated from consi derati on.
II
(A) 2 spool
HPT
(B) 3 spool (D) 3 spool

Axial/centrifugal compressor Power turbine forward
IPT HPT
(C) 3 spool
Axial compressor
0 _,
_L P[___H _T!\p_T_
Confi gurati on A B C D
Fuel Burned Base +I.5% +5.6% +l .1%

Direct Operating Cost Base -u.9% +0.8% -u.l%
Figure 3-4 Turboprop Engine Configuration Candidates and Evaluation Summary -

The all-axial two-spool and axial/centrifugal three-spool config-
urations were selected for further evaluation.
The two-spool axial compression engine and the three-spool axial/centrifugal

compression engine are illustrated in Figures 3-5 and 3-6, respectively.
12
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF pOOR QUALITY
Figure 3-5 Two-Spool Engine With All-Axial Compression - This configuration

was selected for further evaluation under Task ZZI.
Figure 3-6 Three-Spool Engine With Axial/Centrifugal Compression -Tnis con-

figuration was selected for further evaluation under Task IiI.
13
3.4 TASK Ill - PROPULSION SYSTEM INTEGRATION
The two selected configurations were combined with the Prop-Fan, reduction
gear, and nacelle in two integrated propulsion systems. These integrated pro-
pulsion system packages were given to the four airframe manufacturers for
their evaluation. Input from the airframe manufacturers was considered when
the NASA Program Manager and Pratt & Whitney mutually selected two propulsion
system configurations for engine/aircraft evaluation in Task IV.
A computer deck simulating the performance of both propulsion systems was

generated for the Task IV Engine/Aircraft Evaluation.
3.4.1 Selected Integrated Propulsion Systems
Using the two engine configurations selected in Task II, Pratt & Whitney pre-
pared two integrated propulsion system packages for evaluation by the airframe
companies and for further study under Task Ill Propulsion System Integration.
These include:
A two-spool engine, with a non-free power turbine drive, all-axial com-

pression system, an offset compound idler reduction gear, a chin mounted
inlet, and an oil-to-fuel cooling system with a supplemental oil-to-air
cooler system for auxiliary use.
A three-spool engine with a free turbine drive, an axial/centrifugal com-

pression system, a split-path in-line reduction gear, a trifurcated duct
inlet and an oil-to-air cooling system.
3.4.2 Airframe Companies' Review of Integration Package
A propulsion system integration package was sent to Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed-

California and Lockheed-Georgia for their conBents. This package is discussed
in detail in Section 4.3. It included:
o Aircraft accessory options

0 Engine/gearbox base size dimensions
0 Confi gurati on eval uati on summary
0 In-line/offset reduction gear options
0 Gearbox oil cooler information
0 Inlet configuration options and comparisons
0 A system integration summary
0 Conceptual nacelle for over-the-wing installation
0 Propulsion system mounting options
Written replies were received from Lockheed-Georgia, Lockheed-California, and

Boeing. These comments were integrated and are discussed in detail in Section
4.3.
14
3.4.3 Final Propulsion System Selections
Based on a consensus of the comments by the airframe companies, along with our
own studies, two propulsion systems, presented in Figures 3-7 and 3-8, were
selected for further evaluation under Task IV. These configurations were
approved by the NASA Program Manager and are described in detail in Section
4.3 of this report. Some of the more pertinent selection details include:
Both the in-line and offset reduction gear concepts will continue to be
eval uated.
0 The 12,000 shaft horsepower base engine size was chosen representing the
power required for the reference aircraft and mission.
An over-the-wing engine installation was selected based on input from the

aircraft companies. Minimizing landing gear length was a significant fac-
tor in this selection.
3.4.4 Engine Performance Decks
Pratt & Whitney prepared a computer deck for calculating steady state perfor-
mance for the 12,000 shaft horsepower base size engine. This deck represents
the performance of both the two-spool and three-spool propulsion systems. Ap-
three-spool engines. This deck will also have provisions for scaling the en-
gine performance, weight and dimensions over a range of 8000 to 2_,OOu shaft
horsepower.
A computer deck for the comparable technology turbofan with appropriate scaling
capability, was also provided under the contract.
User manuals for both decks were prepared and the entire package w_s submitted
to NASA.
15
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
Figure 3-7 In-Line Gearbox Propulsion System Installation - This configu-

ration was selected for further study under Task IV.
-- Supplementary aifloil heat exchanger
A/_-----_PSOrb$ engine thrusl, / ---'7 Optional airframe Engine accessory
/\:: ac,,on,
I
lateral,
_, \
vertical and horizontal
Reacts Prop-Fen torque/

/
"
/
accessories
n -
gearbox
-n _ nacelle
/ \\ o.,.,,,..,,..-_/ / Borise'compound/';o;:',,_.;
.,.
, ii r', /_",.op.,,.p,tchcoot.o,
View B'B { { [ _" Vibration isolator
\ _ Optional
\ t eirlramo
accessory
\\, , gearbox
Figure 3-8 Offset Gearbox Propulsion System Installation - This configuration

was selected for further study under Task IV.
16
3.5 TASKIV - ENGINE/AIRCRAFT
EVALUATION
A mission simulation study was conducted using the Task I approved aircraft to
assess the merits of the turboprop propulsion systems relative to a comparable
technology turbofan engine. The aircraft were flown on the Task I reference
mission and compared on the basis of fuel burned and direct operating costs.
Mission studies inaicated that the Prop-Fan powered aircraft has a potential
24% fuel burned and 12% direct operating cost advantage over a comparable
technology turbofan powered aircraft for the typical mission.
3.5.1 Comparison of Turbofan and Prop-Fan Powered Aircraft
The engine characteristics for the mission study are compared in Table _-III.
Both the Prop-Fan and turbofan are advanced technology engines with 1992 cer-
tification. Both engines were installed in twin engine aircraft aesignea to
carry 120 passengers on a 1800 nm mission and with a typical mission range of
400 nm at 0.75 Mach Number, 10,668 m (3_,OOu ft) cruise conditions.
TABLE 3-111
TURBOFAN AND PROP-FAN ENGINE CHARACTERISTIC COMPARISONS
Turbofan Prop-Fan
Rvn_¢¢ P_tln (RPQ_ _U _ml
Overall Pressure Ratio (OPR) 40.B 3B.3

at Max Climb, I0,668 m (35,000 ft)
Altitude
Combustor Exit Temperature (CET)
Growth 2660 2600
Initial 2590 2530
Takeoff Power at Sea Level 7,529 kg ll,6uO shp
Standard Day Plus -3°C (25°F), (Ib,6UO Ib)
Static Thrust, Mach 0.3 for shp
Engine Sizing Condition Takeoff Max CI imb
A weight comparison of both aircraft is presented in Table 3-1V. The operating

empty weight of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft is greater than that of the tur-
bofan powered aircraft because the total propulsion system weight is higher
and because there is a fuselage acoustic weight penalty for equal cabin noise
levels. However, the takeoff gross weights are nearly equal due to the lesser
amount of mission fuel carried by the more fuel efficient Prop-Fan powered
aircraft.
17
TABLE3-1V
WEIGHTCOMPARISON OF PROP-FANANDTURBOFAN POWERED AIRCRAFT
(0.75 Mn, I0,66B m (35,000 ft) Cruise Conditions)
Weights k_ (Ib)
Prop-Fan Turbofan
Takeoff Power at Sea Level

Standard Day, +13°C (+25°F) ll,60O shp 73,840 N
(16,600 Ib)
Enyine EilO (1787) 1383 (Li051)
Reducti on Gear 509 (l123) ---
Propel Ier 640 (1411 ) ---
Nacelle 781 (1723) Ill6 (2461)
Total _TIFF--_)-4_) _-5_O--(-S_'I_-_
Fuselage Acoustic Weight Penalty _3b (2062) ---

Aircraft Operating Empty Weight (OEW) Ibs 33,833 (74,590) 32,418 (71,470)
Aircraft Takeoff Gross Weight (TOGW) Ibs 52,480 (llS,70O) 52,661 (If6,100)
3.5.2 Aircraft i,lissionEvaluation
Table 3-V presents the results of the comparison in terms of fuel burned and
direct operating costs. Study results show that the Prop-Fan powered aircraft
has significant advantages in fuel burned and direct operating costs (DOC)
over the comparable technology turbofan powered aircraft. The study is dis-
cussed in detail in Section 4.4 of this report.
TABLE 3-V
COMPARISON OF PROP-FAN TO TURBOFAN POWERED AIRCRAFT
(0.75 Mn, I0,668 m (35,000 ft) Cruise Conditions)
400 Nautical Miles 1800 Nautical Miles

(Typical Mission) (Design Range)
Fuel Burned -21% -17%

Direct Operating Cost (DOC) -10% -B%
3.5.3 Environmental Considerations
Task IV of the APET program also addressed environmental considerations of the

Prop-Fan propulsion system. It is expected that the Prop-Fan powered aircraft
will meet all emissions and flyover acoustic regulations for 1992 certifica-
tion. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.4.
18
3.5.3.1 Emissions
The emissions goals of the International Civil Aviation Organization were used
in the APET study. These goals, presented in Table 3-VI, are referred to as
"Research Goals" for newly certified engines. The advanced Mark V combustion
system which is projected to be available for 1992 engine certification will
provide the capability to meet these emissions goals for both the Prop-Fan and
turbofan engines.
TABLE 3-VI
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORC_NIZATION
(Emissions Research Goals)
Research Goals (g/kN)*

Prop-Fan Turbofan
Unburned Hydrocarbons 4.35 4.35

Carbon Monoxide 42.0 42.0
Oxides of Nitrogen 54 5b.6
Smoke (SAE Number) 24.7 24.4
* Thrust at Sea Level Takeoff Static Conditions in kilonewtons
3.5.3.2 Acoustics
The flyover noise of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft was estimated at the certi-
fication points defined by the FAA Part 36 Chapter 3 regulations. The Prop-Fan
powered aircraft is predicted to nleet FAR 3b noise regulations with margin at
all three measuring points. Figure 3-9 presents these predictions for both the
Prop-Fan and turbofan powered aircraft.
Takeoff Sideline Approach

12(
11,=
110
Effective 105
FAR 36
perceived
noise level 100
In EPNdB
95
90
O
85 O
J=l I i I, J,=J i=1 J * I J===, li,l | I I l IIII
45 453 45 453 45 453

(100) (1000) (100) (1000) (100) (1000)
I"1STF686 Turbofan (cutback el takeolf) Aircraft gross weight kg x 1000

O STS678 Prop-Fan (without cutback) (Ibs x 1000)
*FAR 36 limits (stage 3) for new two engine elrcnilt types
Figure 3-9 Noise Predictions - The Prop-Fan powered aircraft meets FAR 36
regulations with margin at all three measuring points. (J27638-14_)
19
3.6 TASKV - ADVANCED
PROP-FAN
ENGINETECHNOLOGY
PLAN
The objectives of Task V were: (1) identify the key technology components for
an advanced Prop-Fan engine system and (2) prepare a key engine technology
development and verification plan.
3.6.1 Technology Identification and ComponentVerification Plan
Three componenttechnology areas unique to the Prop-Fan propulsion system have

been identified. They are:
0 Reduction gear/pitch control

0 Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet/compressor interaction
0 Small-size high-pressure compressor
Detailed technology verification plans, including schedules and estimated

costs for planning, for these key technology areas were prepared and are pre-
sented in Section 4.5.
3.6.2 Additional Engine/Aircraft Integration Studies
During Task Ill integration with the aircraft companies, many engine/aircraft
issues arose which could not be resolved by Pratt & Whitney alone under the
APET contract. A distinct possibility exists that these unresolved issues
could result in more key propulsion system technology identification. We re-
commend that joint engine/aircraft studies be funded by NASA to resolve these
issues which include:
Free power turbine versus non-free power turbine engine/aircraft

integration study
0 Propulsion system engine/aircraft mounting study
0 Engine/aircraft heat rejection study
0 Integrated engine/aircraft control study
Details of these proposed studies can be found in Section 4.5.
3.7 COMPARISON WITH COUNTER ROTATION PROPULSION
Pratt & Whitney was involved in a 1982 study with Hamilton Standard and
Lockheed-Georgia to evaluate a counter rotation Prop-Fan and compare the
results to single rotation Prop-Fan propulsion. Lockheed-Georgia results indi-
cate the counter rotation system has the potential for 8% fuel burned and 2.5%
direct operating cost improvement over the single rotation system.
These results require a word of caution. There is no model test background for
the performance and acoustic predictions for the counter rotation propellers.
Model tests must be run to put the counter rotation system on the same techni-
cal base as the single rotation propeller. If it is meaningful to conduct
these tests, then they should be funded separately from the single rotation
program to prevent dilution of the presently planned NASA program.
20
Wind tunnel tests should also be conducted on a supercritical wing installa-
tion to compare with the present Ames and Langley single rotation tests. These
NASA tests indicate that the wing is a good straightener of the single rota-
tion swirl flow. This in turn suggests that the benefit for the counter rota-
tion propeller may be much less than the projected 8% from the joint study.
3.8 RELEVANCY OF PROP-FAN PROPULSION TO MILITARY APPLICATIONS
The excellent fuel economy of the Prop-Fan offers several opportunities for
Hilitary applications. These could include use in tactical transports and car-
go planes or use in anti-submarine aircraft.
Studies are now being conducted by all three major aircraft manufacturers con-
cerning Cl30 replacement aircraft. The Prop-Fan may be a natural for this ap-
plication with its good fuel economy and excellent takeoff ana reverse power
characteristics which permit small field operation.
Previous Air Force studies have shown larye advantages for a Prop-Fan powered
aircraft in fuel savings, longer range, greater lifting capability and lower
life cycle cost for cargo applications like the C-141.
The greater fuel efficiency of the Prop-Fan could permit application to anti-
submarine warfare aircraft to permit aircraft to stay on station much longer.
Finally, the APET reduction gear program will provide excellent technology
transfer to the Army helicopter reduction gear efforts along with future mili-
tary turboprop applications.
For the Prop-Fan propulsion system to be effective in military applications, a

program should be initiated to reduce the radar cross section effect of the
Prop-Fan blading.
21
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
SECTION 4.0
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
ORIOINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
Section 4.1 -- DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Task I -- Selection of Evaluation Procedures and Assumptions
4.1 TASK I - SELECTION f_F EVALUATIF)N PRnCEF)URES AND ASSUMPTIF)tIS
Section Page
4.1.1 Introduction 25
4.1.2 Engine Technology Availability and Certification Timing 75
4.1.3 Reference Aircraft and >lission 25

4.1.3.1 Reference Aircraft 26
4.1.3.2 ;4ission Profile 27
4.1.4 Reference Turbofan 27

Engine Components 31
Weight Estimate 32
Installation 32
Acoustic Liners 3?
4.1.5 Turboprop Propulsion System 34

4.1.5.1 Study Turboprop Engine Configurations 34
4.1.5.2 Prop-Fan Performance Characteristics 36
K)"/
Ulll_Ur_ L,U;i]iPVfl_lJL._, lUl a tMruuJ3rUJ.J rf v_ul_,lulw .)y_._cg,I ,Jl
Reduction Gear Configurations 37

Heat Rejection System Concepts 39
Inl ets 39
4.1.6 Engine/Aircraft Trade Factors 41
4.1.7 Economic Considerations and Environmental Constraints 41

4.1.7.1 Economic Considerations 41
Fuel Price 41
Direct Operating Cost Methods, Equations and Constraints 42
4.1.7.2 Environmental Constraints 43
_oise 43
Emissions 44
23
List of lllustraions for Section 4.1
Figure
t,lumber Title Page
4.1 -l Nominal Mission Profile 28
4.1-2 STF586 Cross Section (Conceptual) 29
4.1-3 STF686 Performance at Altitude 30
4.1-4 STF686 Takeoff Performance 31
4.1-5 STF686 Installation Drawing 33
4.1-6 Acoustic Liner Locations {Schematic) 34
4.1-7 Candidate Turboprop Engine Configurations 35
4.1-8 Sensitivity of Prop-Fan Efficiency to Tip Speed and Power

Loading 36
4.1-9 Sensitivity of TSFC to Prop-Fan Tip Speed and Power Loading 37
4.l-lO Compound Idler Offset Reduction Gear 38
4.l-I l Split Path In-Line Reduction Gear 38
4.1-12 Double Flap Air/Oil Cooler 39
,_.l-l 3 Candidate Inlets 40
Table
Number Title Page
4.l-I Reference Aircraft Description 26
4.l-II STF686 Cycle Description 28
4.l-Ill Pron-Fan Aircraft Trade Factors 41
4.1 -IV Ground Rules an_ Equations 42
4.l-V ICAO Emissions Research Goals 43
24
4.1.1 Introduction
The objective of Task I was to establish comprehensive procedures and assump-

tions for the APET Definition Study. Key issues which were addressed include:
0 Engine technology availability and certification timing

0 Reference aircraft and mission
0 Reference turbofan
0 Turboprop propulsion system
o Engine/airplane trade factors
0 Economic considerations and environmental constraints
Preliminary ground rules were developed using results from previous Pratt
Whitney studies. These preliminary ground rules were then reviewed by the four
airframe manufacturers participating in the A2ET study (Boeing, HcDonnell
Douglas, Lockheed-Georgia, and Lockheed-California) and written critiques were
submitted to Pratt & Whitney. Working with the NASA Program Manager, Pratt &
Whitney modified the study ground rules wherever fed_ible to reflect the com-
ments and suggestions of the airframe manufacturers. After the _uuuj P,u_uu, c_
and Assumptions Document (Reference 1) was approved by NASA in March 1982,
work began on the remaining technical tasks.
This section summarizes key facets of the procedures and assumptions used in
the APET study.
It should be noted that Task I specified the minimum level of effort required
to achieve the objectives of the APET Program. In many cases, the technical
effort was expanded significantly beyond these minimum levels.
4.1.2 Engine Technology Availability and Certification Timing
Market studies indicated that the most promising application for Prop-Fan pro-
pulsion is the short-to-medium range, lO0-120 passenger, replacement aircraft
market, starting in the early 1990's. In order to certify a Prop-Fan powered
aircraft by 1992, key propulsion system teclmologies have to be verified by
198_. Both the advanced turboprop propulsion systems and the reference turbo-
fan engine evaluated in the APET study incorporate technology features and
cycle parameters appropriate for 1988 technolo_ty verification and 1992 commer-
cial engine certification.
4.1.3 Reference Aircraft and Mission
A 120-passenger commercial transport was selected as the reference aircraft

for the APET Definition Study. A mission consisting of a 3333 km (]800 nm) de-
sign range and a 740 km (400 nm) typical mission was considered representative
for airplanes in this class.
25
4.1.3.1 Reference Aircraft
The key features of the 120-passenger reference aircraft are summarized in

Table 4.l-I. An airplane of this size was considered well-suited to the com-
mercial market of the 1990's for several reasons. First, current lO0 to 140
passenger aircraft, first purchased in the 1960's, will be candidates for re-
placement by 1990. Second, new airplanes have been proposed, and in some cases
built, for the 150-220 passenger market. These airplanes will be in their
prime in the 1990's and thus will not be candidates for replacement. Finally,
the trend to hub-spoke airline route systems and the abandonment of service to
smaller cities by trunk carriers will releyate airplanes with less than IUO
seats to local routes where the speed capability of the Prop-Fan will not be
required.
A cruise Mach number of 0.75 was selected as representative of the cruise

speeds for airplanes in the 120 passenger class.
The cabin acoustic weight penalty required to achieve levels of cabin noise
comparable to a turbofan powered aircraft (82 dB) was calculated to be approx-
imately 1.7% of the takeoff gross weight of the Prop-Fan powered airplanes. A
propeller slipstream interference drag of zero (equal to turbofan interference)
was assumed on the reco_mlendation of the NASA Program Manager. However, the
effect of a higher drag penalty (3%) was also evaluated.
TABLE 4.l-I
REFERENCE AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION
Reference Ai rcraft
Type: Commercial passenger transport with two wing-mounted engines,

t,lach0.75 cruise.
Size: 120 passengers in I0/90 first/tourist class split, 96 cm (38
in)/86 cm (34 in) seat pitch, six abreast, single aisle.
Technology: Pratt & Whitney projection for airplanes entering service in
the early 1990' s.
Interior Noise: Cabin interior noise goal was 82 dBA.
Reference Missions
Design: 3333 km (1800 nm) with 120 passengers, no cargo, U.S. rules,
ATA domestic reserves, l,lacnu.75 cruise.
Typical : 740 km (400 nm) with 72 passengers, no cargo, U.S. rules, ATA
domestic reserves, Macn 0.75 cruise.
26
TABLE4.1-I (Continued)
REFERENCE
AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION
Engine Sizing Conditions
The more
critical of: Takeoff field length (FAR) of 2133 m (7UO(J ft) at sea level,
28°C (840F), or
Initial cruise altitude capability on design mission of
I0,668 m (35,000 ft) (the effect of 9448 m (31,000 ft) was
also examined).
Reference Prop-Fan
Type: Hamilton Standard Division lO blade model from data package

SPu4ASO, October 19_0.
Tip Speed: 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec)
Disk Loading: 34.1 shp/D 2 at I0,60_ m (35,000 ft), M 0.75, rilaximumclimb.

The 34.1 power loading permits I0% growth without change in
Prop-Fan diameter.
4.1.3.2 i,fissionProfile
The missions chosen for this study followed directly from the choice of air-
plane size. A 3333 km (1800 nm) design range and a 740 km (400 nm) typical
mission were considered representative of airplanes in the 120 passenger class.
The 60 % loaa factor also follows current experience.
The mission profile used for the design and typical missions (Figure 4.l-l)
followed U.S. rules, with taxi time based on trunk line experience. Air Trans-
port Association domestic reserves were used. Cruises were flown at optimum
altitude, subject to 1220 m (4000 ft) steps (9450, I0,670, II,890 m (31,000,
35,000, 39,000 ft)) and thrust limitations.
4.1.4 Reference Turbofan
The reference turbofan selected for the APET study, designated the STF6U6, is
a B452 kN (19,000 Ib) takeoff thrust, high bypass ratio engine incorporating
technology features and cycle parameters appropriate for commercial engine
certification in the 1992 time period. The _laximum Efficiency Energy bfficient
Engine configuration identified in the Energy Efficient Engine program (NASA
Contract NAS3-20646) provided the basis for the STF686 engine. The STF6_b
engine incorporates technology features four years beyond those incorporated
in the Maximum Efficiency Energy Efficient Engine (scheduled for certification
in 1988) which would improve thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) by 2 to
3% over the flight regime. However, the STF6b6 is smaller ana does not incluae
a mixer.
27
Mission Reserves
Cruise Cruise ext

(60 rain)
Cruise
C|im_
Missed F •
.ppro._J _t
_t
19 mini !
I
"I
*Taxi-in fuet is taken from the reserves
Figure 4.1-1 Nominal Mission Profile - The 3333 km (1800 nm) design range
and 740 km (400 nm) typical mission are considered
representative for 120 passenger aircraft. (J2763B-901)
The STF686 has been configured as a separate flow engine. Discussions with
aircraft manufacturers indicated that this configuration is consistent with
use in short range aircraft applications.
Table 4.l-II presents a cycle description of the STF6B6.
TABLE 4.l-If
STF686 CYCLE DESCRIPTION
(0.75 Mn, I0,668 m (35,000 ft) Cruise Conditions)
14aximum Overall Pressure Ratio 40.8

Maximum Combustor Exit Temperature - =C (°F) 1460 (2660)
Fan Pressure Ratio 1.66
Bypass Ratio 7.0
A conceptual cross section drawing of the STF686 is presented in Figure 4.1-2.

The high-pressure spool consists of an eleven-stage high-pressure compressor
(pressure ratio 17el) driven by a two-stage high-pressure turbine and a MARK
combustion system. The low-pressure spool consists of a single-stage shroud-
less fan and a four-stage low-pressure compressor driven by a five-stage low-
pressure turbi he.
28
ORfGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
i,... c.,,. o
r.,q ._,-,. (..)
// I
T,,..
=:1
L.I_
29
Fi9ure 4.1-3 contains performance data for the STF6B6 at altitudes of 9144 m
(30,000 ft) and I0,668 m (35,000 ft) for flight Mach numbers from 0.6 to 0.8.
The figure does not include nacelle drag which is charged against airplane
performance. Takeoff performance is shown in Figure 4.1-4.
Std. day
Inlet presure recovery = .997
Customer horsepower extraction = 200.
kg/hr-N kg/hr-N
Ib/hr-lb lb/hr-lb 0066-
0.066 - Altitude -- 9144m (30,000 ft)
Altitude -- 10,668m
o.64!-
(35,000 ft)
r_ MCL
0 MOB i'_ - 0.062
0.062
060 -
_, [] MCL
o
LL
o.o58 0
LL 0.56 -
0.058 \\ o.c.
00 0.58-
t--
5
0.054' -- 0.054 _-.,5
0.52 -
0.050 - 0050 -
0.48 -- MN = .6
0.48 -
I I I JN 0.046 I I I I IN
0.0460 I 10,000 20,000 0 10,000 20,000
I I I lib 1 I I lib
0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000
Thrust Thrust
Figure 4.1-3 STF686 Performance at Altitude - Performance data is presented

for cruise altitudes of 9,144 m (30,OOU ft) and 10,668 m
(35,000 ft). (J27638-213)
30
Sea level + 13°C (+ 25°F)
Inlet pressure recovery = .997
Customer horsepower extraction = 90.
Ib/hr-lb
0.46 - kg/hr-N Ib
0.046
20,000
N
0.42 -
0.042
18,000 - 85,(XX)
O
u. 0.38-
oo 0.038
I-- 216,ooo
e-
k-
0.34 -
O. 034
0.30 - I I I l 55,0001 , I I I I
0.030
0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32 12,000 - 0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32
Mach number Mach number
Figure 4.1-4
TSFC as a function of Hach number. (J27638-212)
Engine Components
The STF686 engine components incorporate techno]ogy advances expected to be

available for 1992 certification.
Fan - The STF686 incorporates a single stage, 2.8 aspect ratio shroudless fan
with increased flow capacity and higher aerooynamic loading. An improved air-
foil contour wil] reduce shock losses and the manufacture of the airfoil con-
tour with closer tolerances and consistency will improve fan performance.
Compressors - The low- and high-pressure compressors incorporate aerodynamic

improvements including new airfoil contours and reduced endwall losses. Ad-
vances in airfoil contour design wi]l come from better understanding of both
the two-dimensional and three-dimensional |oss mechanisms. The introduction of
controlled diffusion airfoils (CDA's) in the early 1980's will be followed by
a second generation of CDA's in the late 1980's. Improved three-dimensional
modeling of endwall flow interactions will result in airfoil designs that en-
hance aerodynamic efficiency. Also, improvements in materials and mechanical
configurations will allow better tip clearance management with active clear-
ance control and new stator cavity designs resulting in improved compressor
performance.
Combustor - The STF686 incorporates an advanced technology MARK V combustion

system that is now under evaluation and development at Pratt & Whitney. It is
an outgrowth of the combustor concepts developed under the NASA/Pratt & Whitney
Experimental Clean Combustor Program and the NASA/Pratt & Whitney Energy Effi-
cient Engine Program.
31
The FiARKV combustion system uses high mixing rate technology to produce rapid
burning and combustion product dilution with an integrated low pressure loss
diffuser system.
Turbines - The major technology features in the turbine are improved single
crystal airfoil materials and increased cooling effectiveness. These advances
result in increased high pressure turbine efficiency and reduced turbine cool-
ing requirements.
Improved single crystal airfoil materials permit higher stress turbine blade
root designs (increased AN2). This will in turn permit a better selection of
aerodynamic parameters (load factors, H/U 2, and axial velocity ratio, Cx/U)
for improved performance.
Improved single crystal airfoil materials, addition of thermal barrier coating

on the blades and vanes, and increased cooling effectiveness will result in
lower cooling airflow requirements and hi gher allowabl e compressor discharge
temperature. Greater cooling effectiveness is attained by multipass designs
which use impingement leading and trailing edges. Leading edye impingement air
is reused as film through showerhead holes and trailing edge impingement air
is used for convective cooling through the trailing edge holes. Skewed trip
strips provide heat transfer augmentation. Film cooling is provided in the
blade trailing edge tip regions.
Weight Estimate
The engine weight is 1587 kg (3500 Ib).
Instal Iation
The engine installation drawing is shown in Figure 4.1-5.
Acoustic Liners
The reference turbofan will satisfy Government noise regulations by incorpora-

ting acoustic liners in the engine ana nacelle. Either perforated plate over
honeycomb or wire mesh over perforated plate over honeycomb liner designs will
be used. Locations at which the liners could be installed are shown in Figure
4.1-6. The liners in the fan inlet and discharge ducts and the fan case will
be tuned to provide maximum attenuation of fan-generated noise. The liners in
the primary nozzle will be tuned to attenuate turbine noise.
Liner designs will be based on the latest technology available. The location
and amount of liner material will ensure that the airplane meets noise limits
set forth in the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 36, Stage _.
32
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POORQUALITY.
>= -_
"_- i. u)
_ _-
O •
i -I " -,.('" e-
o
I " e-
0_-..
u _-o
®o
._i 1 ffl-__
._ e'-
- _,
r.-J_
i
_1 _l_.
t o
u tD._
t.l. _
I-- e"
o. E
u -
_c ,._=
I
III >_;,_
® ,,, ,,, _- -- p'. >,,,
_',',',I. ","
UU ---_4 I;)
lip °_ /_ -,,:,[ -,
I-
-6--
o- _,_
33
FAN DISCHARGE
DUCT LINERS
PRIMARY NOZZLE LINERS
FAN INLET__ _ "
DUCT
FAN CASE LINERS
Figure 4.1-6 Acoustic Liner Locations (Schematic) - Witll acoustic

trea_lent, the STF686 will satisfy noise limits specified in
Federal Aviation Regulations. (J2763b-ub4)
4.1.5 Turboprop Propulsion System
Four candidate turboprop engine configurations were evaluated in the APET Pro-
gram. Prop-Fan performance characteristics were examined under a variety of
conditions to aid in defining an optimum propeller system. In addition, many
promising concepts were studied for three components unique to the turboprop
propulsion system: reduction gear, heat rejection system, and inlet.
4.1.5.1 Stud)' Turboprop Engine Configurations
Four candidate turboprop engine configurations (shown schematically in Figure

4.1-7) were selected to provide a variety of approaches to turboprop pro-
pulsion. They encompassed the use of two and three spools, axial and axial/
centrifugal compressors, and free and non-free power turbines. This variety of
candidates provided a great deal of flexibility in conducting the Engine Con-
figuration and Cycle Evaluation (Task II of the APET Program).
The two-spool configuration (Figure 4.1-7A) was used to explore the potential
of using a turbofan-type high spool for a turDoshaft application. The power
turbine drives both the low-pressure compressor and the Prop-Fan in this
configuration.
The two three-spool configurations (Figures 4.1-7B and 4.1-7C) permitted eval-
uation of a free power turbine relative to the two-spool non-free turbine con-
figuration. These two configurations also permitted evaluation of the relative
merits of axial versus axial/centrifugal compressors.
34
In the novel three-spool approach (Figure 4.1-7D), the inlet and compressor
are at the rear and the turbines in front, directly behind the Prop-Fan. This
arrangement of components permitted evaluation of unconventional aerodynar_lic
and mechanical installation concepts. Several possible benefits relative to
conventional systems were weighed against the penalties imposed by the uncon-
ventional arrangements. Among the potential benefits are simplified Prop-Fan/
inlet integration because the inlet is aerodynamically remote from the Prop-Fan
flow field. In addition, the two-spool engine could be used with a free third
spool without requiring a third concentric shaft. These benefits were compared
to the inlet and exhaust ducting losses associated with high flow turning
angles.
(A) 2 spool
0n
HPT
(B) 3 spool (C) 3 spool

A _|_1 I,-_r_@r|4Fi
_II_AI_III,B_III_I
=ra_l _mnr,_c_c_nr
ll_im_IiJfiiAl
VVlllIdlvvvvi Axia! compressor
01_
0"
(D) 3 spool
Power turbine forward
IPT HPT
Figure 4.1-7 Candidate Turboprop Engine Configurations - The four candidate

configurations cover a variety of approaches to turboprop
propulsion. (J27638-159)
35
4.1.5.2 Prop-Fan Performance Characteristics
The effects of tip speed and disk loading (shp/D 2) variations on the effi-
ciency (ETAPROP) of the Prop-Fan are shown in Figure 4.1-8. Uisk ]oadings are
quoted at maximum climb power setting, I0,668 m (35,000 ft) altitude, Mach
0.75. Combining the Prop-Fan with an advanced technology turboshaft engine
produces the thrust and thrust specific fuel consumption characteristics shown
in Figure 4.1-9.
0.75 Mach no. 10,668m (35,000 ft) std day
Tip speed = 182 m/sec 213 mlsec (700 ft/sec) 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec)
(600 ft/sec)
S H P/£)2
°86 F
= 25
8 F 37.5
.5
"5 _o.78
n
0170 F
0.66L I t I I , I I I i I I IN
10,000 14,000 18,000 22,000 10,000 14,000 18,000 22,000 10,000 14,000 18,000 22,000
I I t I I I I I I l I I Ib
2000 2800 3600 4400 2000 2800 3600 4400 2oo0 2600 36oo 44oo
Thrust Thrust Thrust
Legend: O Max cruise
[] Max climb
Figure 4.1-8 Sensitivity of Prop-Fan Efficiency to Tip Speed and Power

Loadin9 - A tip speed of 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec) ensures
efficient operation at a variety of disk loadings. (J27638-129)
36
0.75 Mach no. 10,668m (35,000 ft) std day
Tip speed = 182 m/sec

Ib/hr-lb kg/hr-N (600 ft/sec) 213 m/sec (700 ft/sec) 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec)
0.55 - 0.056 -
S H P/D 2
r- 053 - 0.054
.__.o
= 37.5
O 0.51 - 0.052
__Z] SHPID2
0 0.49 - 0.050
SHPID2
2o 7.5
I-- 0.47 - o.o48 _ -_.._5 7.5
0.45 - 0.046
?5
I I I I I I I I I I I I
IO,(X)O 14.0(O) 18.0(O) 22,0(0) 10,0(O) 14,0(0) 18,O00 22,0(O) 10.0(O) 14,0C() 18.O(0) 22.0OO N
I I I I I I I I I I I I Ib
20(0) 2800 3600 4400 2000 2800 360(2) 4400 2000 2800 3600 4400
Thrust Thrust Thrust
Legend: OMax cruise

O Max climb
Figure 4.1-9 Sensitivity of TSFC to Prop-Fan Tip Speed and Power Loading -
A tip speed of 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec) and disk loading between
31 and 37.5 shp/D 2 provide excellent thrust specific fuel
consumption at both climb and cruise. (J27638-130)
4.1.5.3 Unique Components for a Turboprop Propulsion System
The reduction gear, heat rejection .system, and inlet are unique components for
a Prop-Fan propulsion system. The most promising concepts identified in pre-
vious studies were evaluated in the APET Program.
Reduction Gear Configurations
Based on Pratt & Whitney studies and input from the four airframe manufac-
turers, two reduction gear configurations were selected. The first is an off-
set compound idler configuration, shown in Figure 4.1-10. The second configu-
ration, an in-line reduction system (see Figure 4.1-ll), features an in-line
split path concept. The overall efficiency for the reduction gear systems will
be 99% at cruise.
37
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
Output
Schematic
illustrating
relationship
of centerlines
Input
Figure 4.1-lO Compound Idler Offset Reduction Gear - This system features a
minimum number of gears and bearings. (J27638-905)
Schematic
illustrating _ _-----------_-_ -
load pat I ,
Output Input
Figure 4.1-11 Split Path In-Line Reduction Gear - This system features
minimum diameter and weight. (J27638-906)
38
Heat Rejection S_vstem Concepts
Two heat rejection systems were selected for evaluation: the double-flap inlet
air/oil cooler concept (Figure 4.1-12) and a fuel/oil cooler system using air-
craft fuel as a l_eat sink. The systems were sized to dissipate heat in the oii
generated by the reduction gear. The critical conditions for sizing the heat
exchanger are takeoff, maximum power, and ground idle.
The selection of two promising concepts was based on a comprehensive evalu-

ation covering a variety of candidates. This evaluation is described in
Section 4.3.
Jl
I IIF l' _IJLI L _-_
I //,_____
Double flap air/oil cooler
Figure 4.1-12 Double Flap Air/0il Cooler - This system minimizes drag at the
cruise operating condition. (J27636-907)
Inlets
Annular, bifurcated, and chin inlets were selected for evaluation in the APET
study (see Figure 4.1-13). The chin inlet is primarily compatible with an off-
set gearbox while the annular inlet is most suited to an in-line gearbox. The
bifurcated inlet is shown with an in-line gearbox, but could be adapted to an
offset system.
The selection of three promising inlet concepts was based on a comprehensive

evaluation covering a variety of candidates. This evaluation is described in
Section 4.3.
39
Annular
Bifurcated
Inlet_ I
shaft
Chin
Figure 4.1-13 Candidate Inlets - The three candidate inlets are compatible
with the reduction gear systems evaluated in the APET
Program. (J27638-I04)
40
4.1.6 Engine/Aircraft Trade Factors
Mission fuel burn trade factors were computedusing a nominal domestic airline
mission profile with step cruises and ATA reserves (see Figure 4.l-l). Trades
were computed by changing one parameter (engine weight, for example) wIiile
holding all others at their baseline values and then running the airplane
through the design mission analysis,,including any resizing required to per-
form the specified aesign mission. Next, the resized airplane was run through
the typical mission profile to compute its fuel burn. Results were then com-
pared to the fuel burn of the baseline system, thus defining the sensitivity
of fuel burn to, in this case, engine weight. Direct operating cost trade fac-
tors were computed in a similar fashion. Typical mission (740 km (400 nm))
trade factors are shown in Table 4.l-III. These trade factors were updated
during Task IV (see Section 4.4).
TABLE4.l-IiI
PROP-FANAIRPLANETRADEFACTORS
(1981 Dollars, $0.396 per liter ($I.50 per gallon))
Mach 0.75, 120 Passenger, Twin Engine Airplane

740 km (400 nm) Typical Mission
Sized for I0,668 m (35,000 ft) Cruise Altitude
LIIGGG VII
Trade Factor Fuel Burn Operatin_ Cost
I% increase in TSFC 1.12% 0.46%
4 kg (10 Ib) increase

in pod drag per engine 0.32% 0.15%
450 kg (100U1b) increase in

weight per engine 2.]6% 1.29%
$100,000 increase in the price of

each engine 0.27%
$10.00 increase in maintenance cost

per engine flight hour O. 96%
4.1.7 Economic Considerations and Environmental Constraints
4.l.7.l Economic Considerations
Fuel Price
A jet fuel price of $0.396 per liter ($I.50 per U.S. gallon), stated in 1981
dollars, was selected for the economic analysis. This is a representative mid-
1990's level, assuming that fuel price escalates about 3% faster than general
inflation. After final turboprop engine configurations had been defined, the
economic impact of fuel prices of $0.264 and $0.52B per liter ($I.00 and $2.00
per gallon) were also assessed.
4l
Direct Operatin_ Cost Methods, Equations and Constraints
Direct Operating Cost (DOC) ground rules and equations are given in Table
4.l-IV. The method is based on the 1977 Boeing DOC method, updated to 1981
cost levels by Pratt & Whitney. The aircraft pricing equation was derived by
Pratt & Whitney from published data. This method has been used in the Energy
Efficient Engine program at 1977 and 1980 cost levels.
TABLE 4.l-IV
GROUND RULES AND EQUATIONS
(Direct Operating Cost Ground Rules)
Factor Method of Calculation
Crew Cost 1981 update of 1977 Boeing
Fuel $0.396/liter ($1.50/gallon) in 1981 dollars

(The effect of $O.264/liter ($I .O0/gallon)
and $0.528/I iter ($2. O0/gal Ion) wi I l al so
be eval uated. )
Aircraft
o Price Pratt & Whitney 1981

o Utilization 1981 update of 1977 Boeing
o Block Time 1981 update of 1977 Boeing
Insurance I/2% flyaway per year

Airframe Maintenance 1981 update of 1977 Boeing
Maintenance Burden 200% on labor
Depreciation Straight line, 15 years to I0% residual
Spares Airframe and nacelle 6%
Engine 30%
Engine Maintenance Mature engine, no immaturity bump
Year dollars 1981
Crew Cost (2 man crew)* Domestic = (40.8F w + 33.98)Fg + 39.1

(Fw and F u are from 1977 Boelng Method)
Airplane Price
o Airframe I.I x 0.7079 (WAF/IOOO) 0-7 x 106
o Furnishings 1.1 x I. 4157 (0.0089 (number of seats) -
0.315) x 106
o Avionics I 1 x 1.4157 (0.0022 (number of seats) +
I 81)
x 1o6
42
TABLE 4.l-IV (Continued)
Economic Equati ons
Factor Method of Calculation
Utilization Constant trips/year as function of range (3200 at 463 km

(250 nm), 2200 at 926 km (500 nm), 140O at 1,852 km
(fOOD nm), BSO at 3,704 km (2DO0 nm)
B1 ock time Taxi Time - Domestic 14 minutes
Airframe Maintenance* Material = U.366 (WAF/lOuu)/Block Time

+ 0.294 (WAF/IuuO) _ .
Labor = LO.U7345 (WAF/lOOO)U-7)u_/Block Time
+ 0.2048 (WAF/IOu)U.595j x Labor Rate
where
Fw is a function of airplane speed and gross
weight
Fu is a function of aircraft utilization
WAF = Airframe Weignt= UEW- Engine Weight
Labor Rate (Direct) = $13.75/hour
*Cost in dollars per block hour
4.1.7.2 Environmental Constraints
Study engines were designed to meet or exceed existing noise and emissions
regulations for new airplanes. Noise and emissions levels were documented to
facil itate compari son with any projected regulations.
Noise
Noise was calculated according to FAR Part 36 procedures and compared to maxi-
mum acceptable levels. These maximum acceptable levels are functions of take-
off gross weight and number of engines, and were applied equally to the refer-
ence turbofan and the study turboprop engines.
Noise prediction procedures used in the Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology

Study are described in detail in the Study Procedures and Assumptions Document
(Reference l). Airframe weight penalties for reducing cabin noise to accept-
able levels through the use of advanced nacelle treatment techniques were
based on work performed by the Lockheed-California Company (References 2 and
3).
43
Emi ssi ons
The emissions goals were those of the International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion (ICAO), referred to as "Research Goals," for newly certified engines.
These goals are listed in Table 4.l-V.
TABLE 4.l-V
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
(Emissions Research Goals)
Research _oals (g/kN)*

Turbofan Prop-Fan
Unburned Hydrocarbons 4.3_ 4._5

Carbon Nonoxiae 4Z.O 42.0
Oxides of Nitrogen 56.6 54.0
S_loKe (SAE Number) 24.7 24.4
These goals are basically for Class TZ turbofan engines (turbofan or turbojet
engines with thrust §reater than 35 kN (7870 Ib)). In the past, turboprop en-
gines have been treated differently and the units most often used were g/kN.
For this APET study, the turboprop was treated as a turbofan when emissions
were calculated. Thus, the same "Research Goals" were used for the turboprop
and the reference turbofan and the units are the same (y/kN).
44
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
SECTION 4.2 -- DISCUSS!ON OF RFSULTS

Task II -- Cycle Optimization and Engine Configuration Selection
4.2 TASK II - CYCLE OPTIMIZATION A_D ENGINE CO_FIGURATInN SELECTION
Secti on Ti tl e Page
4.2.1 Introd_ction 51
4.2.2 Cycle Optimization 51

4.2.2.1 Cycle Optimization Study Ground Rules 52
4.2.2.2 Base Size Engine F.valuation 54
Turbine Cooling Plus Leakage Flow Trends 54
Core Size 54
Engine TSFC 55
Engine Weight 55
Propeller Neight 57
Gearbox Weight 57
Propulsion System Weight 58
Fuel Burned for a Typical _lission 58
Direct Operating Costs for a Typical Mission 60
Optimum Cycle for the 16,000 Horsepower Size Engine 60
4.2.2.3 Small Size Engine Evaluation 61
Engine TSFC 61
67
Fuel Burned for a Typical _,lission 62
Direct Operating Cost for a Typical Mission 62
Optimum Cycle for the 8000 Horsepower Size Engine 64
4.2.2.4 Large Size Engine Evaluation 64
Engine TSFC 64
Propulsion System Weight 55
Fuel Burned for a Typical Mission 65
Direct Operating Costs for a Typical _lission 65
_ptimum Cycle for the 23,000 Horsepower Size Engine 67
4.2.2.5 Summary of Cycle Optimization Study Results 68
4.2.3 Engine Configuration Evaluation 69

4.2.3.1 Configuration Study Objectives and Ground Rules 70
Study Objectives 70
Study Ground Rules 70
4.2.3.2 Screening Candidate Configurations 73
4.2.3.2.1 Mechanical Design and Aerothermodynamic Analysis 73
Engine Configuration Flowpaths 74
._lechanical Description of the Candidate Engines 79
Structural Analysis, _laterials, and Rotor nynamics 83
4.2.3.2.2 Performance Related Issues 86
Ground Rules for Performance Evaluation 86
General Characteristics of the Engine Configurations 88
Hew Engine Performance at !laximum Cruise 89
Engine Performance Deterioration 90
Reversed Engine Configuration - STS646R 92
Effect of Customer Rleed on Performance 93
Effect of Gearbox Power Extraction on Performance 93
Part Power Performance 93
45
Table of Contents for Section 4.2 (Cont'd)
Section Ti tl e Page
Operational Constraints (Propeller Speed Schedule) 95

Starting Requirements 95
Propeller Drag in Connection with Failure Modes 96
4.2.3.2.3 Design Assurance P, elated Issues 96
4.2.3.2.4 Environmental Issues 97
4.2.3.2.5 Summary of Results 97
4.2.3.3 Configuration Update with Optimum Cycle I00
4.2.3.3.1 Two-Spool Engine with All-Axial Compression System 102
Tnree-Spool Engine with Axial/Centrifugal Compression 104
Summary of _lechanical nesign and Analysis Issues 108
4.2.3.3.2 Performance Related Issues II0
4.e.3.3.3 nesign Assu;-ance Related Issues I12
4.2.3.3.4 Environmental Issues 112
4.2.3.3.5 Summary of P, esults 113
4.2.4 Technical Considerations Requiring Additional Study Effort

Beyond the Scope of the Current Contract ll3
46
Figure
Number Ti tle Page
4.2-I Effects of Cycle Parameters on Turhine Cooling Plus

Leakage Flo_s 54
4.2-2 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Core Size 55
4.2-3 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Engine Cruise TSFC 56
4.2-4 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Engine Weight 56
4.2-5 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Propeller Weiaht 57
4.2-6 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Gearbox Weight 58
4.2-7 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Total Propulsion System Weight 59
4.2-8 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Fuel Burned for a Typical

!lission 59
4.2-9 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Direct Operating Cost 60
4.2-10 Effect nf Cycle Parameters on Small Engine TSFC 61
4.2-11 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Propulsion System _Jeight 62
4.2-12 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Fuel Burned for a Typical

ilission 63
4.2-13 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Direct r}peratina Cost for a

Typical 'lission 63
4.2-14 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Large Engine TSFC 5.5
4.2-15 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Propulsion System Weight 66
4.2-16 Effecl_Tof Cycle Parameters on Fuel Flurriedfor a Typical

_Ii ssi on 66
4.2-17 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Direct Operating Cost for a

Typical Mission 67
4.2-18 Effect of Size on Cycle Pressure Ratio 68
4.2-19 Shaft Horsepower vs Passengers 72
4.2-20 Evaluation of Axial and Axial/Centrifugal Compression Systems 73
4.2-21 Engine Configuration Flowpaths 75
47
Figure
,LIumber Ti tl e Page
4.2-22 qechanical Cross Section of the Three-Spool Engine with

Axial/Centrifugal Compressor (STS646) 80
4.2-23 !lechanical Cross Section of the Two-Spool All Axial Engine

(STS648 ) 81
4.2-24 Mechanical Cross Section of the Three-Spool All Axial Engine

(STS647) 82
4.2-25 Hechanical Cross Section of the Reversed Three-Spool

Axial/Centrifugal Engine 82
4.2-26 Reversed Engine Performance Characteristics 92
4.2-27 Off-Design Engine 'latching Impact of Part Po_er Performance 94
4.2-28 Operational Constraints 95
4.,-,.9
0 ")
Aerodynamic Flowpath of the STS678 _ngine 102
4.2-30 "lechanical Cross Section of tile l lpdated Two-Spool Axial

Compression Engine ISTS678) I04
Aerodynamic Flowpath of the STS679 Engine 106
,!echanical Cross Section of the Ifpdated Three-Spool

Axial/Centrifugal Compression Engine (STS679) I08
48
Table
Number Ti tl e Page
4.2-I Cycle Matrix for Base Size Engine Evaluation 52
4.2-11 Ground Rules for Cycle Optimization 53
4,2-111 OptimumCycle for the Base Size Engine 6O
4.2-IV Optimum Cycle for the Small Size Engine 64
4.2-V Optimum Cycle for the Large Size Engine 67
4.2-VI Characteristics of the 8ptimum Engine Cycle 69
4.2-Vli Engine Configuration Evaluation Parameters 71
4.2-VLII Overall Flowpath Comparison 76
4.2-IX Comparison of _lajor Low Pressure Compressor Design

Parameters 77
4.2-X Comparison of Major High Pressure Compressor Design

Parameters 77
4.2-XI Combustor 78
4.2-XII Turbine Airfoil Cooling Requirements 79
4.2-XIII Critical Structural Analysis Considerations 83
4,2-XIV Material s 84
4.2-XV Rotor Dynamics 85
4.2-XVl Turboprop Engine Bearings 85
4.2-XVll Secondary Flows and Thrust Balance 86
4.2-XVlII Performance Related Issues 87
4.2-XIX Summary of General Characteristics for All Engine

Configurations 88
4.2-XX Component Performance Comparison at Haximum Cruise Rating 89
4.2-XXI Engine Performance Comparison at Maximum Cruise Rating 90
4.2-XXII Effects of Performance Deterioration 91
4.2-XXIII Effect of Deterioration on Performance Comparison 91
49
List of Tables for Section 4.2 (Cont'd)
Table
Humber Title Page
4.2-XXIV Effects of Customer Bleed on Performance 93
4.2-XXV Effect of Gearbox Power Extraction on Performance 94
4.2-XXVI Starting Requirements 96
4.2-XXVII Propeller Drag in Connection _ith Failure _1odes 96
4.2-XXVIII Design Assurance Related Issues 98
,'.2-XXIX Configuration Evaluation Summary 98
4.2-XX× Engine Configuration Evaluation Factors Judged Comparable

or of Second Order Influence 99
4.2-XXXI Practical Horsepower Scaling Range lO0
4.2-XXXII Summary of Updated Size and Aerodynamic Cycle lOl
4.2-XXXIII Component Summary for the Two-Spool All-Axial

Compression Engine (STS678) 103
4.2-XXXIV _4echanical Design Features of the Two-Spool Axial

Compression Engine (STS678) I05
4.2-XXXV Component Summary for the Three-Spool Axial/Centrifugal

Engine (STS679) 107
4.2-XXXVI I1echanical Design Features of the Three-Spool

Axial/Centrifugal Engine (STS679) I09
4.2-XXXVII IIpdate of Mechanical Design and Analysis Issues llO
4.2-XX×V!II Turboprop Engines Rerated to Improve Compatibility with

Aircraft Requirements Ill
4.2-XXXIX Update of Performance Related Issues ll2
4.2-XL Update of Design Assurance Related Issues ll3
4.2-XLI Configuration Evaluation Summary ll4
4.2-XLII Engine Configuration Technical Considerations

Requiring Additional Study ll5
50
4.2 TASKII - CYCLEOPTIMIZATION
ANDENGINE
CONFIGURATION
SELECTION
4.2.1 Introduction
The objectives of
Task II were to identify the optimum cycle for an advanced
turboprop engine and to select the most promising turboprop engine configura-
tions for the integrated Prop-Fan propulsion system evaluation conducted under
Task III of the APET Program.
The cycle optimization study considered a wide range of overall pressure

ratios (from 20 to 50:1) and maximum combustor exit temperatures from 1204°C
(2200°F) to 1537°C (28UO°F). To determine the impact on size, the optimization
study considered a base size of 16,000 shp, a small engine size of b,O00 shp
and a large engine size of 23,000 shp. The key parameters used to select the
cycle were fuel burn and direct operating cost. The optimum cycle for the base
size 16,000 shp engine is 35:1 design overall pressure ratio and 39.5:1 at
maximum climb, with a maximum combustor exit temperature of 1426°C (2600"F).
The optimum cycle for the small size engine is 33:1 design overall pressure
ratio and 37:1 at maximum climb, and 37:1 design overall pressure ratio and
41.5:1 at maximum climb for the large size engine, both of these at 1426°C
(2600°F) maximum combustor exit temperature. The design point represents en-
gine operation at typically 94% maximum cruise power.
_Am,_ r_nrlirl_+_ _nnin_ rnnfiguratinn_ w_re _creened in the confiouration selec-

tion process. They include: l) a two-spool engine with all-axial compression,
2) a three-spool engine with axial/centrifugal compression, 3) a three-spool
engine with all axial compression and 4) a three-spool engine like 2) with
reversed flow where the inlet is at the rear and the turbine and propeller at
the front. Fuel burn and direct operating cost were the parameters used to
select the configuration. The two most promising configurations were I) the
two-spool with all axial compression and 3) the three-spool with axial/centri-
fugal compressi on.
The optimum cycle and the two configuration choices were approved by the NASA
Program Manager and then used for the Task Ill Propulsion System Integration
Study.
4.2.2 Cycle Optimization
The cycle optimization study represents the initial step in the engine defini-
tion process. The major objectives of the cycle optimization study were to:
Optimize the engine cycle for the reference aircraft, a 120-passenger

airplane with a 3333 km (1800 nm) design range, a cruise altitude of
I0,668 m (35,000 ft), and a cruise Mach number of 0.75. Both fuel burn
and direct operating cost were figures of merit used in the optimization
studies.
0 Investigate the impact of engine size on cycle selection by evaluating

8000 and 23,000 horsepower size engines in addition to the 16,000 horse-
power size base engine.
51
To initiate the cycle studies, component performance and turbine cooling trends
were established at levels appropriate for commercial engine certification in
the 1992 time period.
Cycle studies were conducted for a base size turboprop engine (16,000 shaft
horsepower) using the range of pressure ratios and combustor exit temperatures
shown in Table 4.2-I. Each of the engine cycles in the matrix was evaluated on
the basis of fuel burn and direct operating cost using trade factors defined
in the study procedures and assumptions (Task I).
TABLE 4.2-I
CYCLE MATRIX FOR BASE SIZE ENGINE EVALUATION
Design Point Maximum Takeoff

Combustor Exit Combustor Exit
Temperature °C (°F) Temperature °C (°F) 20 Design Point

30 Pressure
35 40Ratio _5
971 (1780) 1204 (22U0) _ _ _ -_{ _ --X
1071 (Ig60) 1315 (2400) X X X X X X
If21 (2U50) 1371 (2500) X X X X X X
I176 (2150) 1426 (2600) X X X X X X
1271 (2320) 1537 (2BOO) X X X X X X
In addition to the cycle study for the base size engine, more limited studies
were conducted for the 800U and 23,000 shaft horsepower engines to determine
the impact of engine size on selection of the optimum cycle. Fuel burn and
direct operating cost characteristics were determined for these two engine
sizes in the reference aircraft.
4.2.2.1 Cycle Optimization Study Ground Rules
A detailed set of ground rules was developed for the cycle optimization study
(see Table 4.2-II). Use of these ground rules provided a consistent, objective
evaluation of engine performance and minimized the impact of variables other
than overall pressure ratio and maximum combustor exit temperature.
Maintaining constant propeller tip speed and power loading limited the impact
of the Prop-Fan on the engine cycle. Previous work indicated that a tip speed
of 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec) and power loading of 34 shp/D _ was a reasonable
design choice based on fuel burn and direct operating cost.
In order to insure a consistent philosophy of power-turbine work extraction

for all cycles in the matrix, the design point primary stream jet velocity was
held constant at 304 m/sec (I000 ft/sec). Once the optimum cycle was identi-
fied, a follow-on study of power turbine work extraction was conducted. This
study confirmed that a velocity of 304 m/sec (lO00 ft/sec) at the aerodynamic
design point did provide the best combination of fuel burn and direct opera-
ti ng cost.
52
Holding thrust ratio constant at takeoff/climb and climb/cruise ensured that
each engine would be rated consistently for the critical operating conditions.
These thrust ratios were tailored to tile requirements of the 120-passenger
reference aircraft.
Selecting a consistent growth philosophy aided objective evaluation of engine

performance. Ten percent growth in shaft horsepower reflects projected future
applications for Prop-Fan propulsion.
The use of a constant aerodynamic overflow guaranteed that similar demands
would be made on the turbomachinery of each engine. (Aerodynamic overflow is
defined as the ratio of the inlet corrected flow at maximumclimb power to the
inlet corrected flow at the aerodynamic design point.) The variation in tur-
bine cooling flows was required to achieve the samelife for all cycles.
TABLE 4.2-II
bROUND Rules for Cycle Optimization
0 The study should reflect 19_8 technology availability and 1992 engine
certi ficati on.
0 Constant Propeller Tip SReed UT = 243 m/sec (80u ft/sec) and Constant
n .... 11.. I ,.,_A4.,', lehr, lrIC._ _-- lJl _+ M_v_mllm I'l_mh _tin(T _t a Math
r'l ul, Jil_ I i¢i i.,=g_JL_Jl I II_ _ .i'_ll_=I# i.J I v I _4 t,P I I_I_ llllilll .............. g .........
Number of 0.75, I0,668 m {35,000 ft) Altitude

Constant Primary Stream Jet Velocity at Aerodynamic Desiyn Point of 304
m/sec (lO00 ft/sec)
Constant Thrust Ratios to Ensure Rating Consistency Between All Enyines
Studied:
Fn MCL, I0,668 m (35,000 ft), 0.75 M = 0.24
Fn T.O. M = 0.22 +14"C {+25"F)
0 Constant Climb/Cruise Thrust Margin
Fn HCL, I0,668 m (35,000 ft), 0.75 M = 1.09
Fn MCR, I0,668 m (35,000 ft), 0.75 M
0 Constant Growth Philosophy for All Cycles
- I0% Takeoff Shaft Horsepower
0 Constant Overflow for All Cycles +I0.5% W T2/ T2 Relative to
Aerodynamic Design Point
0 Component Efficiencies Vary with Size
0 Turbine Cooling Varies with Naximum Combustor Lxit Temperature (Takeoff)
and Compressor Discharge Temperature (Takeoff). Turbine Cooling Set based
on Growth Ratings
53
4.2.2.2 Base Size Engine Evaluation
The base size engine (16,000 shp) was evaluated at each combination of overall
pressure ratio and combustor exit temperature shown in Table 4.2-I. This large
matrix covered cycles used in current engines as well as cycles projected for
advanced technology engines of the 1990's. The detailed cycle study conducted
for the base size engine investigated the effects of cycle parameters (pressure
ratio and temperature) on turbine cooling trends, engine core size, thrust
specific fuel consumption, engine, propeller, gearbox and overall propulsion
system weight, fuel burn for a typical mission, and direct operating cost for
a typical mission. Results of the evaluation are presented in this section.
Turbine Coolin_ Plus Leakage Flow Trends
Figure 4.2-I shows how turbine cooling plus leakage flows varied with changes
in overall pressure ratio and maximum combustor exit temperature. Increases in
pressure ratio and temperature both led to increased cooling plus leakage
flows. This increased flow was required to maintain constant turbine airfoil
metal temperature, thereby ensuring engine durability.
Maximum
takeoff combustor
exit temperature
28 "C ('F)
• _ 1537 (2800)
24
Turbine
cooling
plus 2(3 / _ 1426 (2600)
leakage
flow, 1E __ 1371 (2500)
% Wa
12
1204 12200)
8 I I I I I
2O 25 3O 35 4O 45
Design overall pressure ratio
Figure 4.2-I Effect of Cycle Parameters on Turbine Cooling Plus Leakage

Flows - As pressure ratio or temperature increases, cooling
flow must increase in order to maintain constant turbine
airfoil metal temperature for durability. (J2763B-3_)
Core Size
The effect of cycle parameters on engine core size (high compressor exit cor-
rected airflow) is shown in Figure 4.2-2. As overall pressure ratio increases
at constant maximum combustor exit temperature, the core size decreases. At
constant overall pressure ratio, the aerodynamic core size decreases as maxi-
mum combustor exit temperature increases. The smaller size core results in a
reduction in efficiency for the smaller size engine components.
54
Ib/sec kg/sec
_ 3.2
High 6- 2"8 _%__ MaximUmcombustortakeoff
compressor 2.4 __ _ exit temperature
oorrecte,,
exit 5 L___ _ ,c (°,=,
flow 4 |_._____1 _ -_..-_.._t315 (24oo)

.... 1371(25o0)
1.6 ]'- _ 1426 (2600)
3 I -- 1537 (2800)
I
1.21 I I I I J
20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2-2 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Core Size - As overall pressure

ratio or maximum combustor exit temperature increases, engine
core size decreases. (J2763B-39)
En9ine TSFC
Figure 4.2-3 shows the resulting variation in thrust specific fuel consumption
with changes in overall pressure ratio and maxi_aum combustor exit temperature.
The best installed thrust specific fuel consumption is achieved at maximum
combustor exit temperatures between ]37l°C (250U"F) and 1426"C (2600°F) regard-
less of overall pressure ratio. In this temperature range, thrust specific
fuel consumption reaches a minimum at overall pressure ratios of 40 to 45 or
greater. Maximum combustor exit temperatures above 1426°C (2bOO°F) do not im-
prove thrust specific fuel consumption at any overall pressure ratio of in-
terest because of the increasing amount of cooling plus leakage flow which
must accompany tile use of higher temperatures.
Engine Weight
Figure 4.2-4 shows engine weight as a function of overall pressure ratio and
maximum combustor exit temperature. Engine weight increases with rising overall
pressure ratio and constant maximum combustor exit temperature. This increase
in weight is due to the greater number of stages required to achieve the lligher
pressure ratio and an increasing air flow with overall pressure ratio. However,
engine weight decreases with increasing maximum combustor exit temperature and
constant overall pressure ratio. This decrease is due to the reduced airflow
requirement associated with increased combustor exit temperatures.
55
10668 m (35,000 ft) M = 0.75
197 HP taken from gearbox
+5,-
Percent
change
+2 Max
mumtakeo exit temperature
in TSFC +i __1204 (22001

_,_._.,.... 1537 (2800)
"_.,_ 1315 (2400)
- 1'.-- _'_1426 (2600)
1371 (2500)
--2 I I I I I I ....
]
20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Figure 4.2-3 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Engine Cruise TSFC - The best
cruise TSFC is achieved at 44:1 overall pressure ratio and
1371°C (2500:F) maximum combustor exit temperature. (J27638-4U)
Maximum
takeoff combustor
exit temperature
18oo .___c
(.__%
4000-
t- 3500 -
°_
3000- 1371 12500)

I / _1426 (2600)
¢-
.m
t- 1200__ t 537 (2800)

2500-
UJ
1000
2000 L
8001 _ i I I i
20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2-4 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Engine Weight - The requirement

for more stages causes engine weight to increase as overall
pressure ratio increases. However, as temperatures increase,
engine size is reduced and engine weight decreases. (J27638-41)
56
Propeller Weight
The effect of cycle parameters on propeller weight is shown in Figure 4.2-5.

Propeller weight decreases slightly as overall pressure ratio increases and
combustor exit temperature decreases.
The reduction in propeller weight at higher pressure ratios results from a

trend toward increased engine airflow as overall pressure ratio increases. As
engine airflow increases, a greater amount of thrust is provided by the pri-
mary stream. Since total thrust is held constant, propeller thrust can be
reduced slightly by using a smaller diameter unit, thus reducing propeller
weight.
The reduction in propeller weight at lower combustor exit temperatures also

results from increased engine airflow. As maximum combustor exit temperature
is reduced, the engine airflow must increase, providing more primary stream
thrust. Again propeller diameter can be reduced, thereby decreasing propeller
weight at lower combustor exit temperatures.
Maximum
takeoff combustor
exit temperature
825
1800 °C (°F)
,1537 (2800)
c- 800 /
_ 149R /PBt30_
m
.._ 1371 (2500)

1700 _ 775
1315 (2400)
750 \1204 (2200)

m
I
1600 - 725 -
Q.
0
t_ 700 -
Q.
1500- 675 I I I I I
2O 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2-5 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Propeller Weight - Propeller

weight remains nearly constant over the range of pressure
ratios evaluated and varies only slightly as combustor exit
temperature increases. (J27638-42)
Gearbox Weight
The effect of cycle parameters on gearbox weight is shown in Figure 4.2-6.

Gearbox weight decreases slightly as overall pressure ratio increases and
maximum combustor exit temperature decreases. This trend reflects the reduc-
tions in propeller diameter and required shaft horsepower which result from
increased engine airflow under these conditions.
Gearbox weights are based on an offset gearbox using a compound idler

arrangement.
57
1700
t- 750
Maximum
,1 takeoff combustor
a) 1600 725 exit temperature
°C (°F)
X-- _700
0 1537 (2800)
c_ 1500 675 1426
1371 (2600)
}=.
(2500)
1315 (2400)
650
C9 1204 (2200)
1400-
625 I I I I I
20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2-6 Effect of Cycle Parameters on _earbox Weight - _earbox weight

remains nearly constant over the range of pressure ratios
evaluated and varies only slightly as combus_or exit
temperature increases. (J27638-43)
Propulsion Sj/stem Weight
Figure 4.2-7 shows how total propulsion system weight is affected by cnanges
in the engine cycle. The total weight of the propulsion system increases as
overall pressure ratio increases and maximum combustor exit temperature de-
creases. The total propulsion system includes the engine, propeller, gearbox,
and nacelle.
Changes in engine weight are the major factor in tt_e propulsion system weight
trends. A change of 210 kg (463 Ib) per engine is required to produce a l_
change in fuel burn over a typical mission.
The changes in total propulsion system weight have been arbitrarily normalized
for a 1371°C (2500°F) maximum combustor exit temperature 30:I overall pressure
ratio engine. Nacelle weight is not shown because it is essentially constant.
Fuel Burned for a T_/pical Mission
Aircraft fuel burn trends for a typical 740 km (4UO nm) mission are presenteo
in Figure 4.2-8. The best fuel burn results are achieved at a maximum com-
bustor exit temperature of 1426°C (260U°F). At this temperature, the best fuel
burn is oDzained at an overall pressure ratio of about 40:I.
Aircraft fuel burn optimizes at a lower pressure ratio and higher temperature
than specific fuel consumption because of the effect of total propulsion system
weight on aircraft weight.
Fuel burn results have been arbitrarily normalized to the 1371°C (2500°F) maxi-
mum combustor exit temperature 30:I overall pressure ratio engine.
58
Maximum
takeoff combustor
exit temperature
•C ('F)
E I 131512400)
500i 200 _ _ t371 (2soo)
I __ 1426 (2600)
oD
3o°_ 0 - _) O_1537I (28001
Q. -- 500 - -- 200 r 1% fuel burned

2
- 1000 -
- 400 1 1
I I I I I
20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2-7 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Total Propulsion System Weight

- Engine weight trends have the most significant impact on
the propulsion system. Aweight change of 210 kg (463 Ib)
per engine is required to produce a one percent change in
fuel burn on an average mission. (J27638-44)
71
6-
Maximum
5 _ takeoff combuator
Percent
4 "c I'F)
A
fuel 3 _1204 (2200)
burned
1L
2-
0
1537128001
-1
_.__ 1371 (2500)
-2 I I I _'-"-_'_-'_-14261 (2600)
20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2-8 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Fuel Burned for a Typical

Mission - The best fuel burn is achieved at a maximum
combustor exit temperature of 1426°C (26UU°F) and an overall
pressure ratio of approximately 40:I. (J2763B-45)
59
Direct Operatin_ Costs for a Typical Mission
The direct operating cost results for a typical 740 km (400 nm) mission are
shown in Figure 4.2-9. Direct operating costs are lowest at an overall pres-
sure ratio of about 35:1 and a maximum combustor exit temperature of 1537°C
(28UO°F). However, direct operating costs are only 0.08% higher at an overall
pressure ratio of 35:1 and a maximum combustor exit temperature of 142b°C
(2600°F). This is judged to be a small penalty for lll°C (200°F) lower temper-
ature operation and is well within the accuracy band.
Optimum Cycle for the 16,000 Horsepower Size Engine
Based on fuel burn and direct operating cost trends, the optimum cycle for a
base size turboprop engine (]6,000 shaft horsepower) is 35:l at the design
point and 1426 C (2600 F) maximum combustor exit temperature. A more detailed
description of the cycle is presented in Table 4.2-III.
Maximum
takeoff combustor
3 exit temperature
•c ('F)
_1204 (2200)
Pe_ent 2
DOC 1
/1315 (2400)
-1 \1426 12600)
-1371 (2500)
--2 I I I I I
20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2-9 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Direct Operating Cost - Direct

operating cost is lowest at an overall pressure ratio of
about 3b:l. A maximum combustor exit temperature of 1426=C
(2600=F) provides acceptable operating costs without com-
promising engine performance. (j27638-46)
TABLE 4.2-III
OPTIHUM CYCLE FOR THE BASE SIZE ENGINE
Design Point Overall Pressure Ratio 35

(at 90% Maximum Cruise Thrust)
Maximum Climb Overall Pressure Ratio 39.5
Haximum Cruise Overall Pressure Ratio 37.5
High Compressor Exit Corrected Flow 1.70 kg/sec (3.75 lD/sec)
Takeoff Combustor Exit Temperature

Initial 1387=C (2530°F)
Growth 1426:C (260U"F)
60
4.2.2.3 Small Size Engine Evaludtion
The BOO0 horsepower size engine was evaluated at overall pressure ratios from
25:1 to 45:1 and maximum combustor exit temperatures of 1371°C (2500°F), 1426°C
(2600°F), and 1482°C (2700°F). Based on study results for the base size engine,
higher and lower combustor exit temperatures were not considered. The range of
overall pressure ratios covers current engine operating conditions as well as
projected operating conditions for engines of the 1990's. Specific fuel con-
sumption, propulsion system weight, fuel burn, and direct operating cost trends
were evaluated.
The cycle for the 8000 horsepower size engine was optimized at a design over-
all pressure ratio of 33:1, 37:1 at maximum climb, and a maximum combustor
exit temperature of 1426°C (2600°F).
Engi ne TSFC
Figure 4.2-10 shows the variation in installed thrust specific fuel consump-
tion with changes in overall pressure ratio and maximum combustor exit temper-
ature. The best installed thrust specific fuel consumption is achieved at a
maximum combustor exit temperature of 1371°C (2500°F) and an overall pressure
ratio of 42:1. Maximum combustor exit temperatures above 1426°C (2600°F) do
not improve thrust specific fuel consumption at any overall pressure ratio of
interest because of the increasing amount of turbine cooling flow requirea for
operation at higher telaperatures.
kg/hr-N
0.0480-
Ib/hr-lb
0.468 -
0.0476
_\ 10,668m (35,000 ft) M = 0.75
Thrust 0.464
0.0472
specific
99 H P taken from gearbox
fuel
consumption 0.460 0.0468
Maximum takeoff combustor
\_ exit temperature
\\ oc cF>
_'_::_ _0 1482 (2700)
0.456
0.0464 _ _ 1426 (2600)
1371 (2500)
0.452
0.0460 I I I I I I I I
20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52
Figure 4.2-10 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Small Engine TSFC - Maximum

combustor exit temperatures of 1371°C (2500°F) and overall
pressure ratio of 42 provide minimum thrust specific fuel
consumption. (J27638-47)
61
Propulsion S/stem Weight
Figure 4.2-II shows how total propulsion system weight is affected by changes
in overall pressure ratio and maximum combustor exit temperature. The total
propulsion system includes the engine, propeller, gearbox, and nacelle.
The variations in propulsion system weight for the 8000 horsepower size engine
are generally similar to the trends observed with the base size engine (Section
4.2.1.2.7). However, the magnitudes of the variations are reduced because this
engine is only half the power of the base engine.
0
°_
Maximum
takeoff combustor
exit temperature
Cz._ + 500 -
°C (°F)
0
1371 (2500)
1426 (2600)
cE
,m 0
+ 200 f 1482 (2700)
E_O _ 20001
C >" I I I I I
- 500 20 25 30 35 40 45
f-
Figure 4.2-11 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Propulsion System Weight -

Propulsion system weight trends for the bUOu horsepower
engine parallel those for the base engine, but the
variations are less pronounced due to smaller engine size.
(d2763U-4U)
Fuel Burned for a T;/pical Mission
Fuel burn trends for a typical 740 km (400 nm) mission are presented in Figure
4.2-12. The best fuel burn results are achieved at a maximum combustor exit
temperature of 1426°C (2600°F) and an overall pressure ratio of about 37:1.
Direct Operatin 9 Cost for a T_pical Mission
shown in Figure 4.2-13. The best direct _peratin_ costs are attained at a
maximum combustor exit temperature of 1482 C (2700 F). However, direct opera-
ting costs are only slightly higher at a combustor exit temperature of 1426°C
(2600°F). This is judged to be a small penalty for 56°C (lO0"F) lower temper-
ature operation.
62
+2-
Maximum takeoff combustor
exit temperature
+1-
°C (°F)
1371 (2500)
Percent,_ 0- 1482 (2700)
fuel burned "__ _ x1426(2600)
-1 -
--2 --
-3 I I I I I
20 25 30 35 40 45

combustor exit temperature of 1426°C (2600°F) and an overall
pressure ratio of approximately 37:1. (j2763b-49)
Maximum
takeoff combustor
+I- exit temperature
°C (°F)
.__ _137_ (2500)

1482 (2700)
o-
Percent
A _1426 (2600)
DOC
-1.-
-2 I I I I I
20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2-13 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Direct Operating Cost for a

Typical Mission - Direct operating cost is lowest at a
maximum combustor exit temperature of about 14B2"C (2700°F)
and an overall pressure ratio of about 33:1. (J27638-50)
63
Optimum C_/cle for the 8000 Horsepower Size Engine
small size turboprop engine (8000 shaft horsepower) is 33:1 design overall
pressure ratio and 1426 C (2600°F) maximum cmnbustor exit temperature. A more
detailed description of the cycle is presented in Table 4.2-IV.
TABLE 4.2-IV
OPTIMUM CYCLE FOR THE SF_LL SIZE ENGINE

(at 90% Fiaximum Cruise Thrust)
Maximum Cruise Overall Pressure Ratio 35.2
High Compressor Exit Corrected Flow 0.9 kg/sec (2.0 Ib/sec)
Takeoff Colabustor Exit Temperature

Initial Rati ny 1387°C {2530°F)
Growth Rating 1426°C (2600°F)
4.2.2.4 Large Size Engine Evaluation
The 23,00U horsepower size engine was evaluated at overall pressure ratios
from 30:I to 50:1 and maximum combustor exit temperatures of 1371°C (2500°F),
1426°C (2600°F), and 1482°C (2700°F). Based on study results for the base size
engine, higher and lower combustor exit temperatures were not considered. The
range of overall pressure ratios covers current engine operating conditions as
well as projected operating conditions for engines of the 199_'s. Specific
fuel consumption, propulsion system weight, fuel burn, and direct operatin9
cost trends were evaluated.
The cycle for the 23,000 horsepower size en§ine was optimized at a design
overall pressure ratio of 37:1 and a maximum combustor exit temperature of
1426°C (2600°F).
Engine TSFC
Figure 4.2-14 shows the variation in thrust specific fuel consumption with
changes in overall pressure ratio and maximum combustor exit temperature. The
best installed thrust specific fuel consumption is achieved at a maximum com-
bustor exit temperature of 1371°C (250U°F) and an overall pressure ratio of
about 45:1.
64
10,668m (35,000 ft) M = 0.75
Ib/hr-lb
kg/hr-N
_ Maximum
0"448 F 0.0456 takeoff
combustor
0"446 I- 0.0454 exit
Thrust \\\ temperature
specific 0"444 i- 0.0452
fuel
0"442 I- 0.0450
consumption
0"440 F 0.0448
1426 12600)
_ 1371 12500)
0"438 F 0.0446
0.436 L
0.0444 I I I I I 1 I I
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56
Figure 4.2-14 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Large Engine TSFC - The best
thrust specific fuel consumption is obtained at combustor exit
temperatures of 1371°C (2500°F) and an overall pressure ratio
of about 45:1. (j27638-51)
Propulsion System Weight
Figure 4.2-15 shows how total propulsion system weight is affected by changes
in overall pressure ratio and maximum combustor exit temperature. The total
propulsion system includes the engine, propeller, gearbox, and nacelle.
The variations in propulsion system weight for the 23,000 horsepower size
engine are generally similar to the trends observed with the base size engine
(Section 4.2.1.2.7). The magnitude of the variations is increased because the
engine is significantly larger.
Fuel Burned for a T_pical Mission
Fuel burn trends for a typical 740 km (400 nm) mission are presented in Figure
4.2-16. The best fuel burn results are achieved at a maximum combustor exit
temperature of 1426°C (2600°F) and an overall pressure ratio of about 42:1.
Direct Operating Costs for a T_pical Mission
shown in Figure 4.2-17. The best direct operating costs are attained at a
maximum combustor exit temperature of 1426°C (2600°F) and a design overall
pressure ratio of about 37:1.
65
¢- Maximum
takeoff combustor
.o_ + 1000 - exit temperature
+ 400 -
°c (°F)
_ r-
,1371 (2500)
_.__
0 _ + 500 + 200
1482 (2700).
cE
"- (D 0 0 1426 (2600)
r- >,
- 20(] I I I I ,I
.c - 500 - 25 30 35 40 45 50
L)
Figure 4.2-15 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Propulsion System Weight -

Propulsion system weight trends for the 23,000 horsepower
engine parallel those for the base engine, but the weight
increments are larger due to increased engine size.
(J27638-52)
Maximum
+l-
takeoff combustor
exit temperature
Percent o-
A 1482 (2700)
fuel -1 - 1426 (2600)

°C (°F)
burned 1371 (2500)
-2,-
-3 i , i l i
25 30 35 40 45 50

combustor exit temperature of 1426°C (2600°F) and an overall
pressure ratio of about 42:1. (J27638-53)
66
+I
Maximum
takeoff combustor
exit temperature
Percent 0 _--___.__=__,,__ °C (°F)
A
1482 (2700)
DOC
_'X_ 1134:16
I:::::
-1
- 2 I I J J J
25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 4.2-17 Effect of Cycle Parameters on Uirect Operating Cost for a

Typical Mission - Direct operating cost is lowest at a
maximum combustor exit temperature of 1426°C (26000F) and an
overall pressure ratio of about 37:1. (J27638-54)
Optimum Cycle for the 23,00U Horsepower Size Engine
large size turboprop engine (23,000 shaft horsepower) is 37:1 design overall
pressure ratio and 1426% (26000F) maximum combustor exit temperature. A _lore
detailed description of the cycle is presented in Table 4.2-V.
TABLE 4.2-V
OPTIMUM CYCLE FOR THE LARGE SIZE ENGINE

(at 90% Maximum Cruise Thrust)
Maximum Cruise Overall Pressure Ratio 39.5
High Compressor Exit Corrected Flow 2.24 kg/sec (4.96 Ib/sec)
Takeoff Combustor Exit Temperature

Initial Rating 1387"C (2530"F)
Growth Rating 1426°C (2600°F)
67
4.2.2.5 Summary of Cycle Optimization Study Results
Evaluation of 8000, 16,00U and 23,000 horsepower enyines indicated that engine
size had little impact on the selection of the optimum cycle (see Figure
4.2-18). In the 8000 to 23,000 horsepower ran9e, the best overall pressure
ratio is 33:1 and 37:1 at the design point. Balancin9 fuel burn and direct
operating costs, the best combustor exit temperature is 1426°C (2600°F)
regardless of engine size.
The overall pressure ratio is also shown at the maximum climb condition of
I0,668 m (35,000 ft) Mach 0.75.
...-.O
40
Max climb
3._
Overall
pressure
ratio
3(
25 I _ I I I I I 1
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Nominal takeoff shaft horsepower, 1000 hp
Figure 4.2-18 Effect of Size on Cycle Pressure Ratio - For the range of
engine sizes evaluated, the optimum overall pressure ratio
varies between 33:l and 37:1 at design point. The optimum
maximum combustor exit temperature is 1426°C (2600°F)
regardless of engine size. (j27638-60)
A more detailed description of the optimum cycle for the base 16,000 shp en-
gine is presented in Table 4.2-VI. This cycle was subsequently used in the
detailed evaluation of the two most promising turboprop engine configurations.
68
TABLE4.2-VI
CHARACTERISTICS
OF THEOPTIMUN
ENGINECYCLE
Initial Ratin_ Growth Rating
Shaft Horsepower 6470 6470

Overall Pressure Ratio 35.U 35.0
Combustor Exit Temperature, °C (°F) I177 (2150) 1177 (2150)
Sea Level Takeoff M = 0.3 Std +14°C (+25°F)
Shaft Horsepower 16,550 18,20u

Overall Pressure Ratio 30.9 32.9
Combustor Exit Temperature, °C (°F) 1387 (2530) 1426 (2600)
Maximum Climb at I0,668 m (35,000 ft) M = U.75

Overall Pressure Ratio 39.5 41.2
Combustor Exit Temperature, °C (°F) 1254 (2290) 1287 (2350)
Maximum Cruise at I0,688 m (35,000 ft) M = U.75

Overall Pressure Ratio 37.5 3_.0
ComDustor Exit Temperature, °C (°F) 1221 (223U) 1246 (227b)
4.2.3 Engine Configuration Evaluation
To explore a variety of approaches to engine design, four candidate engine

configurations were screened in a lO,O00 horsepower base engine size and a
reference cycle. This screening covered mechanical design, performance, design
assurance and environmental issues. The two-spool all-axial compression engine
and the three-spool axial/centrifugal compression engines emerged as the best
configurations for a Prop-Fan powered aircraft. The three-spool all-axial con-
figuration was inferior in deteriorated performance and was considered a high
technical risk. The reversed engine configuration was inferior in fuel burn
and high in installation complexity.
After the screening was completed, the best engine configurations were updated
using the cycle characteristics identified in the optimization study (Section
4.2.2). The engines were reevaluated on the basis of mechanical design, per-
formance, design assurance, and environmental issues. Although there were dif-
ferences in fuel burn and direct operating costs, the two engines were con-
sidered approximately equal. Thus, both the two-spool axial and three-spool
axial/centrifugal engines were carried into the propulsion system integration
studies conducted with the airframe manufacturers (Task III of the APET
Program).
69
4.2.3.1 Configuration Study Objectives and Ground Rules
Study Objectives
The major objectives of the configuration study were to:
o Determine whether a centrifugal compressor has a place in the lO,O00 to

15,000 horsepower size turboprop engines being evaluated for the reference
aircraft.
o Evaluate the differences between two-spool and three-spool turboprop

engines.
o Determine whether a non-concentric shaft turboprop engine results in a

system benefit. (A non-concentric shaft turboprop engine is defined as an
engine concept in which the power turbine shaft is not required to pass
through the middle of the turboprop engine.) This concept was explored in
the reversed three-spool axial/centrifugal compression engine.
Study Ground Rules
Four candidate engine configurations were considered. A detailed set of study

parameters was developed in order to ensure a comprehensive, objective evalua-
tion of engine design and performance characteristics. A standard engine size
and cycle were selected to screen the candidates. The most promising configu-
rations were then updated using tile optimum turboprop engine cycle (discussed
in Section 4.2. l).
Turboprop Engine Configur_i;ion Candidates - The four turboprop engine con-

figurations evaluated in the APET Program are shown in Figure 4.1-7. The_ in-
clude a two-spool all-axial engine configuration (designated STS648), a three-
spool all-axial engine configuration (designated STS647), a three-spool axial/
centrifugal engine configuration (designated STS646), and the reversed axial/
centrifugal engine configuration (designated STS646R).
In the two-spool axial configuration (Figure 4.1-7A), the power turbine drives
both the low-pressure compressor and the Prop-Fan. The two three-spool con-
figurations (Figures 4.1-7B and 4.1-7C) permitted evaluation of free power
turbines relative to the two-spool non-free turbine configuration. These two
configurations were also used to evaluate the relative merits of axial versus
axial/centrifugal compressors. The "reversed" engine configuration (Figure
4.1-7D) provided the capability to explore an installation arrangement which
has a free turbine without a third concentric shaft.
Engine configuration candidates with the entire compression system on one

spool were evaluated in previous Pratt & Whitney studies and found not to be
competitive. Therefore, neither an all axial or axial/centrifugal one spool
configuration was evaluated in the APET Program.
70
Configuration Evaluation Parameters - A comprehensive set of evaluation para-
meters was developed for the configuration selection process (see Table
4.2-VII). These parameters can be divided into four major categories: (])
mechanical design and analysis related issues; (2) performance related issues;
(3) design assurance related issues; (4) environmental issues (noise and
pollution).
TABLE 4.2-VII
ENGINE CONFIGURATION EVALUATION PARamETERS
i,lechanical Design and Analysis Related Issues
Turbine Cooling Requirements

Compo_lent Performance and Matching
Future Engine Growth Paths
Deterioration Modes and Design Considerations
Maintenance Consi derati ons (Modul ari ty)
Materials Selection Based on Structura] Design Limits
Timel iness of Technology
Impact of Engine Design Choices on Propeller, Gearbox, Accessories, and
Oil Cool ing
Performance Related Issues
Specific Fuel Consumption

Fuel Burned on Typical Mission
Direct Operating Costs on Typical Mission
Overall Pressure Ratio
Turbine Rotor Inlet Temperature
Power Turbine Work Extraction
Starting Requirements
Off-Design Operations
Propeller Drag in Connection with Failure Modes
Effects of Anticipated Customer Bleeds and/or Horsepower Extraction
Component Performance and Matching
Operating Constraints
Impact of Engine Design Choices on Propeller, _earbox, Accessories, and
Oil Cooling
Design Assurance Related Issues
Engine Weight
Relative Engine Cost
Maintenance Considerations (Relative Maintenance Cost)
Engine Reliability
Environmental Related Issues (Noise and Pollution)
Engine Noise Considerations

Engine Emissions Considerations
71
Engine Size - In Figure 4.2-19, engine size (shaft horsepower) is plotted
against aircraft size (number of passengers). The top portion of the band re-
presents a cruise Nach number of 0.8 and a cruise altitude of I0,668 m (35,000
ft); the bottom portion of the band represents a cruise Mach number of 0.7 and
a cruise altitude of 9448 m (31,000 ft). All studies conducted to date by both
engine and airframe manufacturers indicate that the power requirements for a
Prop-Fan powered aircraft fall within this band.
Studies conducted by Pratt & Whitney indicate that as engine size is reduced,
bearing compart_lents, rotor dynamics, and con_Dustor aerothermal mechanical
conditions become critical factors in the mechanical design of the engine.
Thus the lO,O00 horsepower engine size (at sea level static conditions) was
used to screen the four engine configurations.
18,000 m
16,000
14,000 I
Engine
size,
SliP 12,000 I
10,000
8,000 I I I I I I
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Aircraft size, number of passengers
Figure 4.2-19 Shaft Horsepower vs Passengers - The engine size for a IUU -
150 passenger short to medium range transport is likely to
be between 9000 and Ib,O00 shaft horsepower. (J27638-bb)
In Figure 4.2-20 lines of constant high pressure compressor exit corrected

airflow are superimposed on Figure 4.2-19. At flow rates above 1.8 kg/sec (4.u
Ib/sec) axial compression systems have been used exclusively. Below 0.9 kg/sec
(2.0 Ib/sec), experience encompasses both axial and centrifugal compression
systems. The configuration screening was conducted at a flow rate of slightly
more than 0.9 kg/sec (2.u Ib/sec) to assess both axial and axial/centrifugal
configurations.
72
Is use of axial/centrigugal I
B
compressor systems a benefit?? I
18,000 m
1.8 kg/sec (4.0 Ib/sec) compressor exit corrected airflow--
16,000
Engine 14,000
size,
SHP 12,000 n
10,000
-0.9 kg/sec
I (2.0 Ib/sec)
I compressor
I exit1 corrected I airflow-- l
8,000
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Aircraft size, number of passengers
Figure 4.2-20 Evaluation of Axial and _xial/Centrifugal Compression Systems -

Both axial and centrifugal compression systems are candidates
for engines in lO0 - 150 passenger aircraft. (d2763_-5b)
Engine Cycle - A reference cycle of 29:1 overall pressure ratio at the maximum
cliB@) point and 1426°C (2600°F) maximum takeoff combustor exit temperature was
used to screen the four candidate engine configurations. Previous work per-
formed by Pratt & Whitney indicated that modest increases in overall pressure
ratio should not have a significant impact on the configuration comparison.
4.2.3.2 Screening Candidate Configurations
Using the reference cycle, the configuration study was initiated by defining
the flowpaths for each of the four engines. The pressure ratio split between
high and low spool and design characteristics of compressors, turbines and
burners were then defined. Mechanical design effort established the rotor
support scheme and included an assessment of critical speed (rotor dynamics).
Engine fuel burn, direct operating cost, weight, price, and dimensions were
determined and the engines ranked on the basis of these key parameters.
4.2.3.2.l Mechanical Design and Aerothermodynamic Analysis
An interactive computer program was used to generate a flowpath for each en-
gine configuration. Engine cross sections were then developed from these flow-
paths. Characteristics of major components including the compressor, combustor,
and turbine were specified. Key design analysis considerations such as materi-
als, structural analysis and rotor dynamics were investigated.
73
Engine Configuration F1 owpath s
The aerothermodynamic flowpaths for the two-spool axial, three-spool axial and
three-spool axial/centrifugal configurations are presented in Figure 4.2-21.
The reversed engine uses the same flowpath as the three-spool axial/ centri-
fugal engine configuration. These flowpaths were derived using consistent
aerodynamic loading and material technology levels, producing the number of
stages and axial and radial dimensions shown.
The flowpath for the three-spool all-axial configuration (STS647) is the long-
est of the three. The three-spool arrangement in this small size (lO,O00
horsepower) engine results in several mechanical and structural difficulties.
The flowpath shown in the figure was found to be neither mechanically nor
structurally feasible due to high bearing DN levels and inadequate space for
the turbine disks. To resolve these problems, modifications to the high spool
flowpath, including reduced rotor speed and increased diameter, were required.
The flowpath for the three-spool axial/centrifugal engine configuration

(STS646) is the shortest of the three but the engine has the largest diameter.
Use of a centrifuyal compressor with folded burner provides room for an over-
hung high pressure turbine bearing arrangement, thus eliminating the need for
an inter-turbine support strut.
The third flowpath, the all-axial two-spool configuration (STS64u), eliminates

the third concentric shaft by putting the low-pressure compressor on the same
spool as the Prop-Fan.
Aerothermodynamic flowpath definitions were generated with an existing Pratt &

Whitney analytical computer program. The engine flowpath definition forms the
basis for adding the mechanical-structural features (i.e., disks, bearing com-
partments, shrouds, engine cases, etc.) resulting in an engine cross section.
The flowpath program is also used to estimate engine weight, cost, and nacelle
dimensions.
The major differences between the three flowpaths are summarized in Table
4.2-VII. The axial compression two-spool engine (STS64_) incorporates a
12-stage compressor with a moderately high pressure ratio and a two-stage
turbine. The low-pressure compressor is located on the same spool as the
four-stage power turbine. The speed of the rotor is established by the close
coupled turbine arrangement and the maximum turbine blade attachment stress
(represented by AN(). The three-stage compressor, which has a corrected tip
speed of 353 m/sec (ll60 ft/sec) provides a good balance between low-pressure
compressor performance and engine weight and cost.
74
In Cm
40
| axial _,_llUllt I I
Radius 10 201 I i/ 3spool , , ,
5 10
0 O_ --_- .
axial/centrifugal y/ /--...."_ ..._lll [ I

Radius
10 _llllllllll llll I I
axial
15 40 f
Radius 1 20 _ 2 spool
_f 30 STS648
10 _ ' , -_"-_J_JL_,,.,,,.- _--:.._--...-.--_ ....
0 L 0| I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2O0
Cm
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
In
I _.nnth
.... 3-'"
Figure 4.2-21 Engine Configuration Flowpaths - The three flowpaths were

derived using 1988 technology for materials, coo]ing, and
aerodynamics. The same flowpatn is used for the three-spool
axial/centrifugal engine and the reversed enyine. (J27b3_-107)
The pressure ratio split in the three-spool axial/centrifugal engine (STS640)

is 7.1 x 3.6, with a 3.6:1 pressure ratio in the single-stage centrifugal com-
pressor. A single-stage turbine drives the centrifugal compressor, a single-
stage intermediate turbine drives the five-stage low-pressure compressor, and
a three-stage power turbine drives the Prop-Fan. In this configuration, high
spool rotor speed is limitea by the properties of the nickel-based centrifugal
compressor disk. The speed of the intermediate spool is governed by optimum
compressor efficiency. The speed of the power turbine is established by the
close coupled turbine configuration and the maximum turbine blade attachment
stress. This configuration draws heavily from the PW3005 engine designed by
the Government Products Division of Pratt & Whitney.
The pressure ratio split in the three-spool axial compression engine (STS647)
is 4.9 x 5.1. These pressure ratios were used to match the diameters of the
high and intermediate turbine at the maximum allowable rotor speed. In this
configuration, the speed of the high spool is limited by the close coupled
turbine arrangement, the speed of the intermediate turbine is governed by com-
pressor efficiency, and the speed of the low spool is set by performance,
weight, and cost considerations.
75
TABLE 4.2-VLII
OVERALL FLOWPATH COMPARISON
STS648 STS64b STSb47
Engine Configuration Axial Axial/Centrifugal Axial

Two-Spool Three-Spool Three-Spool
Flight Condition ..... Aerodynamic Design Point .....
A1 ti tude/Mn 10,668 /0.75 10,668 /0.75 10,668 /0.75

(35,00u ft) (35,000 ft) (35,000 ft)
Compressors
Pressure Ratio 2 x 12.5 7.1 x 3.6 4.9 x 5.1

Number of Stages 3+12 b+l 4+7
Corrected Tip Speed,
m/sec (ft/sec)
- Low Compressor 353 (1160) 441 (1450) 441 (1450)
- High Compressor 355 (1165) 271 (890) 334 (l13U)
Turbines
No of Stages 2 + 4 l + l + 3 I + l + 3
AN _ - Maximum
- High Turbine Base -13% Base
- Intermediate Turbine -- Base Base
- Power Turbine Base Base Base
Overall Length Base -3U cm (-12 in) +7 cm (+3 in)
Compressor - Using the aerothermodynamic flowpath definitions and data from

previous studies, including the NASA-sponsored Energy Efficient Engine pro-
gram, the characteristics of the high and low-pressure compressors were
defined and evaluated.
Low-pressure compressor design parameters are compared in Table 4.2-IX. The

low-pressure compressors in the study engines feature controlled diffusion
airfoils, abradable tip rub strips, low aspect ratio, high loading, and low
airfoil count. These and other advanced technology features are assumed to be
available by 1988.
High-pressure compressor design parameters are compared in Table 4.2-X. The

axial high-pressure compressors incorporate advanced technology features from
the Energy Efficient Engine Program. Among these features are controlled dif-
fusion airfoils, designed to provide low losses at high subsonic Mach numbers
by controlling the diffusion process in the airfoil passage so that recom-
pression is accomplished without shocks. Abradable blade tip rubstrips with
trenches are used to reduce the sensitivity of efficiency to tip clearance.
The rotor design features mini-cavities to reduce endwall losses. An active
clearance control system is used for improved efficiency.
76
The centrifugal compressor draws on Pratt & Whitney of Canada design and
service experience with centrifugal compressors•
TABLE 4.2-IX
COMPARISON OF MAJOR LOW-PRESSURE COMPRESSOR DESIGN PAR_4ETERS
Engine Configuration STS648 STb64b STS647
Axial/
Axial Centrifugal Axial
Pressure Ratio 2•0 7•l 4•9

Inlet Corrected Airflow,
kg/sec (Ib/sec) le•] (40•0) 1B•8 (4l•5) 18.3 (40•5)
Number of Stages 3 5 4
Corrected Tip Speed,
m/sec (ft/sec) 353 (1160) 441 (1450) 441 (1450)
Inlet Hub/Tip Ratio O. 67 0.46 0•46
Aspect Ratio 1.2 1.2 1.2
Gap/Chord Ratio 0.6 0.6 0.6
Number of Airfoils 205 494 288
I _nn_h rm (_n_
_¢I_ v,,, v,,, • ,''e
35 (!4) 43 (!7) 40 (!6)
TABLE 4.2-X
COMPARISON OF MAJOR HIGH PRESSURE COMPRESSOR DESIGN PARAMETERS
En_i ne Confi 9urati on STS648 STS64b STS647
Axial/
Pressure Ratio 12.5 3•6 5•1

Inlet Corrected Airflow,
kg/sec (lb/sec) 9•9 (22•0) Li•5 (a•O) 4•9 (11.0)
Number of Stages 12 "1 7
Inlet Corrected Tip Speed,
m/sec (ft/sec) 355 ('1165) 27l (890) 344 (1"130)
Hub/Tip Ratio
- Inlet •63 .70 .69
- Exit •90 --- .90
Aspect Ratio 1.8 --- 1.8
Gap/Chord Ratio •93 --- .93
Number of Airfoils 1578 --- 895
Length, cm (in) 48 (19) 22 (9) 25 (lO)
Specific Speed --- 63 ---
77
Combustor- The characteristics of the combustors used in the three configu-
rations are compared in Table 4.2-XI. The axial compression engines use an
advanced single stage aerating (HARK) burner. The overall pressure loss (dif-
fuser plus liner) of the two-spool axial engine (STS648) is 3.2% of inlet
pressure. The overall pressure loss of the three-spool (STS647) axial engine
is 3.7%. The increase is due to mechanical considerations which require adai-
tional turning in the diffuser.
The three-spool axial/centrifugal engine (STS646) incorporates a single stage

aerating burner which is cantea at a 20 degree angle to mate with the centri-
fugal compressor. Pipe diffusers are used in this configuration: diffuser
pressure loss is included in the centrifugal compressor efficiency. There is a
3% liner pressure loss in the combustor.
All three engines have the potential to meet the emissions requirements speci-
fied for the APET Program with developed combustion systems.
TABLE 4.2-XI
COMBUSTOR
STS648 STS647 STS646
High Compressor Configuration Axial Axial Centrifugal
Design Parameters
Exit Temperature (CET), °C (°F) 1426 (2600) 1426 (2600) 1426 (2600)
Inlet Temperature (CIT), °C (°F) 511 (9_3) 50_ (939) 522 (972)
Type of Combustor Advanced Single Canted Single
Stage Aerating Stage Aerating
Pressure Loss, % Pt in
Overall 3.2 3.7 ---
Liner 2.0 2.0 3.0
Burning Length, cm 16.6/14.6 16.6/14.6 14.6
(in) (b.5/5.75) (6.5/5.75) (5.75)
Number of Fuel Injectors 14 14 24
Space Heat Release Ra:e,
Btu/hr ft 3 atm x lo-b 5.9 5.9 5.6
Emissions Potential for all tomeet regulations
Combustor Status
Lean Blowout Fuel to Air Ratio 0.004 0.004 0.0095/.0066
Emissions, HC, CO, NOx Test to be conducted
0.20 0.20 0.16

Pattern Factor, Tma x - CET
CET-CIT
78
Turbine Airfoil Cool in_ Requirements - Turbine airfoil cool ing requirements
for the three engine configurations are presented in Table 4.2-XII. The fea-
tures assumed to be available for 1988 technology verification include: high
cooling effectiveness attained by multipass, impingement showerhead, blade
trailing edge discharge; use of advanced single crystal alloys with allowable
metal temperatures 37 C (IO0°F) higher than current alloys; thermal barrier
coatings on blades and vanes which increase allowable gas tei,iperatures by 57°C
(135°F); turbine inlet temperature profiles and pattern factors commensurate
with the Energy Efficient Engine and PW3005 combustors.
TABLE 4.2-XII
TURBINE AIRFOIL COOLING RE_UIREFIENTS
Maximum Combustor Exit Temperature = 1426°C (260U°F)

Axial Axial/Centrifugal Axial
Ist Stage Vane 6.05% 5.6% 5.6%

Platform 0.30 0.25 u.25
Ist Stage Blade 1.4 1.2 1.25
2nd Vane 0.5 0.5 0.5
2nd Blade 0.35 U.35 0.35
Total _ _
14echanical Description of the Candidate Engines
Mechanical design effort followed the flowpath and component definition. A

mechanical cross section was prepared for each of the four candidate engine
configurations.
Three-Spool Axial/Centrifugal Engine (STS646) - A cross section of the three-

spool axial/centrifugal compression engine (STS646) is presented in Figure
4.2-22. In this engine, the front end of the power turbine shaft is supported
by a large thrust bearing. With this arrangement, the axial blow-off loads
imposed by the power turbine are taken out through the mechanical bearing,
thus avoiding the performance penalty associated with injecting bleed air into
the turbine rear cavity to thrust balance the blow-off load across the turbine.
The inlet case features struts with variable trailing edge flaps, used to
optimize off-design performance operation. The intermediate case supports both
the rear of the low compressor and the front of the high compressor. In addi-
tion, a drive shaft passes through the intermediate case which is used to
start the engine and to drive engine accessories.
The high compressor features a centrifugal impeller. The air leaving the
impeller is passed through pipe diffusers into the burner cavity. The burner
section features the advanced technology segmented burner liner from the
Energy Efficient Engine Program.
79
The bearing compartment between the impeller and the high turbine is similar
to the bearing compartment used in the PW3005engine. It features a buffered
sealing system in which cooler, lower pressure, low compressor exit air sur-
rounds the bearing compartment and protects it from the hot high compressor
exit gas. Buffering air that leaks past the seals is reinjected back into the
engine at the turbine exhaust region. This air does double duty; it is also
used in the turbine exhaust inner cavity to provide additional thrust balance
to minimize the blow-off load of the low turbine.
A piggyback bearing arrangement is used in the intermediate turbine. The in-

termediate shaft is supported by the power turbine shaft through an intershaft
roller bearing: the power turbine shaft is in turn supported by another roller
bearing to the turbine exhaust case. The piggyback bearing compartment fea-
tures labyrinth seals in which low compressor discharge air is used to buffer
and minimize the temperatures in the bearing compartment region. To minimize
bearing case speed, the power turbine rotor and the intermediate turbine rotor
are counter rotating.
Figure 4.2-22 Mechanical Cross Section of the Three-Spool Engine with

Axial/Centrifugal Compressor (STS646)- The major features
include a large thrust bearing to support the power turbine
shaft, inlet case struts with variable trailing edge flaps, a
centrifugal impeller, and a piggyback bearing arrangement.
(J27638-908)
Two-Spool Axial Engine (STS648) - The STS64Bengine is a two-spool, all-axial

compression configuration. A mechanical cross section of the engine is pre-
sented in Figure 4.2-23. In this configuration, the power turbine drives both
the low compressor and the propeller drive shaft. The front end of the power
turbine shaft is supported by a large thrust bearing, which also reacts the
power turbine blow-off loads. This arrangement also minimizes the performance
losses associated with using thrust balance bleed air to offset the blow-off
load of the power t_rbine. The intermediate case supports both the rear of the
low compressor and the front of the high compressor. The starter drive shaft,
which passes through the intermediate case, is also used to drive engine ac-
cessories. The high compressor features four stages of variable geometry in
the front end and a compact inner stator seal arrangement aimed at reducing
the losses associated with inner seal cavity airflow leakage.
80
An advanced single stage burner is used in the combustor. The burner incorpo-
rates the segmented cooling liner currently unaer evaluation and technology
development in the Energy Efficient Engine Program.
The rear of the high spool is supported from the power drive shaft by a piggy-
back support system. This piggyback bearing system is very similar to the con-
figuration used in the three-spool axial/centrifugal engine (STS646). In the
two-spool engine, compressor bleed air is also a source of low temperature
buffer air used to control temperatures in the bearing compartment.
Figure 4.2-23 14echanical Cross Section of the Two-Spool All-Axial Lngine

(STS648) - The power turbine drives both the low compressor and
the propeller; (d2763_-909)
Three-Spool Axial Engine (STS647) - The STS647 engine is a three-spool axial

compressor configuration. A cross section of the engine is presented in Figure
4.2-24. Schematically the engine has many of the features used in the two-
spool axial and three-spool axial/centrifugal configurations (STS646 and
STS648). The major differerlce in the design of the three-spool axial engine is
the use of a bearing turbine intermediate case support strut system. This
arrangement was selected because the high rotor is more easily supported with
a strut than a bearing in the cramped space underneath the burner.
During the conceptual design phase it was determined that the speed selected
to define the high rotor flowpath, combined with the mechanical requirement of
having three shafts pass through the bore region of the high turbine disk,
resulted in an extremely difficult design problem; hroviding adequate disk
structure in the small amount of space available. A larger aiameter, lower
speed high spool would be required to a11ow for a properly designed high
pressure turbine disk with adequate strength. Another result of the speed
originally chosen for the high rotor was a high bearing DN level for the high
rotor support system. While the conceptual engine configuration and flowpath
were not modified, it was estimated that the high spool flowpath would have to
be moved out in diameter approximately 5 cm (2 in) to alleviate the problems
noted. The impact of this change on engine performance, weight, acquisition
cost, maintenance cost, and bearing speeds has been accounted for in tt_e final
evaluation of this engine configuration. In spite of these modifications, the
three-spool axial compression engine still has the highest bearing DN levels
of any configuration evaluated.
81
ORIGINAL PAGE iS
OF POOR QUAIJ_
Mechanical Cross Section of the Three-Spool All-Axial Engine

Figure 4.2-24
(STS647) - The major feature of this engine is a hot strut
bearing support system for the high rotor. (J27638-910)
Reversed Three-Spool Enqine (STS646RJ - The STS646R engine is a reversed

three-spool axial/centrifugal compression configuration. The major objective
of this novel design was to eliminate the third concentric shaft in the engine.
A cross section of the engine is presented in Figure 4.2-25. In this reversed
configuration, the turbine is located at the front of the engine and the com-
pressor at the rear.
Most of the features of this engine are similar to the three-spool axial/
centrifugal engine, STS646. However, the reversed configuration includes a
support strut which supports the back end of the power turbine.
1! I 'F ii ....
Mechanical Cross Section of the Reversed Three-Spool

Figure 4.2-25
Axial/Centrifugal Engine - In this reversed configuration,
the turbine is located at the front and the compressor at the
rear. A turbine intermediate case bearing support strut
system is used to support the back end of the power drive
turbine. (j27638-911)
B2
Structural Analysis, Materials, and Rotor u_namics
As mechanical cross sections were being developed, critical issues related to

engine structure, materials, and rotor dynamics were addressed.
Critical Structural Analysis Considerations - Structural design limits were

identified for tne three study engines; critical considerations are covered in
Table 4.2-XIII. In most cases, design limits are set by blade roots ana
attachments. However, bore stresses are the limiting factor in trle centrifugal
compressor.
TABLE 4.2-XIII
CRITICAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS
STS648 (Two-Spool Axial)

o Power Turbine Spool Allowable stress in last stage turbine
blade/attachment sets design limits
o High Spool Allowable stress in second stage turbine
blade/attachment sets rotor speed limit
STSb4b (Tilree-Spool
Axial/Centri fu_al )
o Power Turbine Spool Allowable stress in last stage turbine
blade/attachment sets rotor speed limit
o Intermediate Spool Allowable stress in turbine blade attacrl-
ment and compressor aerodynamic/LCF life
considerations set rotor speed
o High Spool LCF life/centrifugal disk bore stresses
set rotor speed
STS647 (Three-Spool Axial)

o Power Turbine Spool Allowable stress iJl last stage turbine
blade/attachment sets rotor speed
o Intermediate Spool Allowable stress in turbine blade/
attachment and compressor aerodynamic
(LCF) life considerations set rotor speed
o High Spool Allowable stress in turbine blade/
attachment and disk bore allowable stress
(LCF life) set rotor speed
Materials - The materials considered for use in ti_e study engines are speci-
fied in Table 4.2-XIV. Advanced aluminum will be used for components operatin_
at temperatures up to 2bU°C (bOO°F). High fatigue strength is requirea for
blades; therefore, titanium and advanced nickel alloys will be used as temper-
atures increase. Hi_n tensile strength and weldability are ilaportant for in-
dividual disks or drum rotors. For these components, material selection will
also be determined by operating environment. Inconnel luu nickel alloy would
be used for the centrifugal compressor. Second generation single crystal
alloys with thermal barrier coatii_gs would be used for the cooled turbine air-
foiI s.
83
TABLE 4.2-XIV
F_TERIALS
Component Material
Low Pressure Compressor
Blades Advanced Al
Disks (Drum) Advanced A]
Vanes A! Cast to Size
Cases Advanced A]
Intermediate Case 17-4PH Steel
High Pressure Compressor
Blades - to 250°C Advanced AI

Blades - 260°C to 482°C Ti
Blades - Above 482°C Ni Alloy
Vanes - to 260°C Advanced AI
Vanes - 250°C to 482°C Ti
Vanes - Above 482°C Ni Alloy
Disks - to 260°C Advanced A]
Disks - 260°C to 482°C Ti
Disks - Above 482°C Ni Alloy
Cases - to 482°C Steel
Cases - above 482°C Ni Alloy
Centrifugal Compressor INIO0
Burner
Liner BlgO0
Outer Liner BIgo0
Cases Ni Alloy
Turbine
First and Second Stage Blades Second generation single crystal Ni alloy and
thermal barrier coating
First Stage Vanes Second generation single crystal Ni alloy and
thermal barrier coating
Second Stage Vanes Triaxial, otherwise same as first stage vanes
First and Second Stage Disks Advanced INlO0
Power Turbine Blades
Above 648°C INTI3
Below 648°C AI-Ti
Disks
Above 537°C INIO0
Below 5370C Ti
Cases Ni Alloy
Shafts AMS6304
84
Rotor Dynamics - A rotor dynamics evaluation relative to design criteria for
the three major configurations is ShOWn in Table 4.2-XV. Initially, none of
the engines met the required power turbine idle margin. However, the margin
was met with a combination of shaft redesign and increased idle speed.
TABLE 4.2-XV
ROTOR DYNAMICS
Criteria: Critical Speed must be

15% Below Idle
or Ib% Above Red Line
Idle % Mar_in Red Line % Mar_in
STS646 (3-Spool Axial/Centrifugal)

Power Turbine Spool -15 +IOu
Intermediate Spool -21 + 21
High Spool Sufficient Margin
STS647 (3-Spool Axial )

Power Turbine Spool
Intermediate Spool Similar to STS64b
Hi gh Spool
STS64B (2-Spooi Axial )

Turbine Spool -I 5 + _lu
Hi gh Spool Sufficient Fiargin
Bearings _ Leakage _ and Thrust Balance - Mechanical design effort was completed
with analysis of bearings, leakage flow, and thrust balance. Although some
changes would have to be made in the final design, none of the configurations
was eliminated from consideration due to bearing, leakage, or thrust balance
tecnnical issues.
Bearing DN's are silown in Table 4.2-XVI. These levels represent moderate ad-
vances over current technology.
TABLE 4.2-XVI
TURBOPROP ENGINE BEARINGS
Bearing UN Levels (Fiillions)

Axial Axial/Centrifugal Axial
(STS648) (STS646) (STS647)
Power Turbine Thrust 2.0 I.7 l .7

Low Rotor Thrust 2.0 2.0 2.1
Low Rotor Forward Roller l .0 2.1 2.0
High Rotor Thrust 2.3 2.5 2.5
High Rotor Roller 1.9" 2.5 2.5*
Low Rotor Roller I.O* I. 6* 2. l*
Low Rotor Rear u.9 --- 2.1
Power Turbine Roller --- I. O* 0.9
Power Turbine Rear --- l .0 l .3
*Piggyback bearings
85
Secondary flows and thrust balances for the three configurations are shown in
Table 4.2-XVII. In setting secondary cooling and leakage flows, it is assumed
that advances will be made in static sealing and cooling air delivery system
technology.
A preliminary study indicated that there are no major differences in secondary
flow between the two-spool and three-spool engines. However, additional seal
work, and particularly a low leakage, high speed seal for piggyback bearings,
is required to achieve the projected flow levels. The large diameter of the
power turbine thrust bearing in the two-spool configuration is likely to pro-
vide an advantage in low rotor thrust balance over the other engines.
TABLE4.2-XVil
SECONDARY
FLOWSANDTHRUST_ALANCE
Three-Spool
Two-Spool Axial/ Three-Spool
Airfoil Cooling, Percent _.6 _.I B.O
Secondary Cooling and Leakage, Percent 4.2 4.2 4.2
Total Cooling and Leakage, Percent 12.8 12._ 12.2
The conclusions base on these analyses are:
0 No secondary flow difference between twoand three-spool engines

0 Large power turbine thrust bearing used to eliminate thrust balance leak-
age airfl ow penal ty
Higi_ speed, low leakage seals required for piggyback bearings
4.2.3.2.2 Performance Related Issues
After the mechanical design effort was completed, the performance of the four
candidate turboprop engines was evaluated. The analysis covered engine fuel
burn and component efficiency at the aerodynamic design point, the impact of
deterioration on engine performance, the effects of customer bleed and gearbox
power extraction, part power performance, operational constraints and starting
requirements. Three of the engines remained competitive, but the reversed en-
gine exhibited unacceptable inlet and exhaust system pressure losses, resul-
ting in a significant disadvantage in fuel burn relative to the other concepts
evaluated.
Ground Rules for Performance Evaluation
A detailed set of ground rules was developed for the engine performance evalu-
ation (see Table 4.2-XVIII). Use of these ground rules ensured a consistent,
objective evaluation of the performance characteristics of the engine con-
figurations.
86
Holding thrust ratio and climb/cruise thrust margin constant ensured that each
engine would be rated consistently at critical operating conditions. Thrust
levels were tailored to the requirements of the 120-passenger reference air-
craft.
Maintaining constant propeller tip speed and power 1odding limited the impact
of the Prop-Fan on engine performance. Previous work indicated that a tip
speed of 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec) and power loading of 34 shp/D 2 resulted in
an efficient Prop-Fan operating condition.
Primary stream jet velocity was held constant for the performance evaluation.
A follow-on study of power turbine work extraction indicated that a velocity
of 304 m/sec (lO00 ft/sec) at the aerodynamic design point did provide the
best combination of fuel burn and direct operating cost.
Selecting a consistent growth philosopt_ aided in the objective evaluation of

engine performance. Ten percent growth in shaft horsepower reflects prujected
future applications for Prop-Fan propulsion.
TABLE 4.2-XVIII
PERFORh_NCE RELATED ISSUES
(Ground Rules fur Configuration Study}
o ConstalJt Climb-Thrust/Takeoff-Thrust Ratio
Fn lO,6b_ m (3b,OOu ft), 0.7_14 Std. = 0.24

Fn SL 0.22hI +14_C (+25_F)
o Constant Climb-Thrust/Cruise-Thrust Ratio
Fn HCL IU,66B m (35,000 ft), U.75M = 1.09

Fn 14CR I0,66B m (35,000 ft), U.75M
o Propeller L_ading (shp/D 2) @ 14aximum Climb (I0,66B m (35,000 ft), 0.75M) =

34 hp/ft _, Ut = 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec)
o Constant Speed Operation of Propeller During Takeoff, Climb and Cruise
o Constant Power Turbine Work Extraction Philosophy (Vje = 304 m/sec

(IOUO ft/sec))
o IU% Future Shaft Horsepower Growth Considered for all ConfiBurations
87
General Characteristics of th_y_.kngine _.onfi,_urations
Table 4.z-XIX sllows the general operating parameters for the engine configu-
rations at the aerodynawic desigrl point, c liwb, cruise, _r,a tdKeuff cunditiuns.
[he cycle pressure ratio used in tlle cunfiguratlun selection study (fable
4.2-XIX) is lower tIlan t_le pressure ratiu derived trum the cycle uptimiz_tiorl
(Table 4.2-VI). Since the two studies were conducted in para||el, tile optimum
pressure ratio was not k,lown when t_Je cunfiguration study was initiated.
TABLE 4.2-XIX
SUt4MARY OF GLNLRAL CHARACTLRISTICS FUR ALL ENGINE CUNFIGuRAIIUNb
Propeller Diameter, m (ft) ..s.b (ll.b)
Aerodynamic Desi__n Point at IU,(JbL_m (3b,O(_u ft), M = U.lb
Overall Pressure Ratio 2b

Shaft Horsepower, hp 3_7U
Shp/U 2, hp/ft 2 29.Z
Thrust, N (Ib) 1U,4U_ (234U)
Maximum cliwb at IO,6b_ Ill (jb,(JOU ft), l_i= U./b
Overall Pressure Rdtiu Z_

Shaft Horsepower hp _SUU
Shp/U 2, hp/ft 2 ' 34
TI1rust, N (Ib) I_,344 (_UOU)
Maximum Cruise at lO,bob m (jb,OUU ft), 14 = U.Tb
Overall Pressure RdtiO 27

4115
Shaft Horsepower, hp
Shp/D 2, hp/ft 2 31
Thrust, N (Ib) 12,232 (2750)
l,|aximumTakeoff Sea Level Static +14°C (+25°F)
Shaft Horsepower hp 92_0

Shp/D 2, hp/ft 2 ' 69._
Thrust, N (Ib) 6B,947 (155U0)
ComDustor Exit Temperature, °C (°F) 142u (2buu)
Overall Pressure Ratio 23.2
Component Performance at Maximum Cruise
The performance characteristics of tlle major components in the three engine

configurations are compared in Table 4.2-XX.
88
TABLE 4.2-XX
COMPONENT PERFORh_NCE COMPARISON AT h_XIMUI,_CRUISE RATIN_
(I0,668 m (35,000 ft), M = 0.75)
(I09 Horsepower Taken from Gearbox)
STS64_ STSo47 STS64b

All Axial All Axial Axial/Centri fugal
Low Compressor
Pressure Ratio 2.1 5.3 7.7

Polytropic Efficiency, % Base +I. b +0.7
High Compressor
Pressure Ratio 13 b.2 3.6

Polytropic Efficiency, % Base -0. B -2.6
Overall Compression System
Polytropic Efficiency, % Base +0. J -u. b
Combustor
Pressure Loss, % Base +u. b +I. i
High Pressure Turbine
Expansion Ratio 3.49 2.5 2.1

Efficiency, % Base -2.2 -l .9
Low Turbine
Expansion Ratio .... l.6 2.1

Efficiency, % .... Base +I. 7
Power Turbine
Expansion Ratio 7.9

Efficiency, % Base +U.2 +U.I
New Engine Performance at Maximum Cruise
The performance of the three configurations at the maximum cruise rating is

compared in Table 4.2-XXI. As indicated previously (page 77), the overall
pressure ratio is lower than the pressure ratio for the optimum cycle. The
comparison presented in the table is based on specific fuel consumption for a
new engine. It is assumed that the engines incorporate technology features
appropriate for commercial certification in 1992.
o- 89
The best performance is obtained with the two-spool, all-axial configuration.
However, the differences in the performance of tne three-spool all-axial con-
figuration (0.4% poorer thrust specific fuel consumption) and the three-spool
axial/centrifugal configuration (0.3% poorer TSFC) are not considered signifi-
cant.
TABLE 4.2-XXI
ENGINE PERFORMANCE COMPARISON AT MAXIMUM CRUISE RATING
(IU,bb8 m (35,000 ft), M = 0.75)
(IU9 Horsepower Taken from Gearbox)
STSb4d STbb41 STSb_b

Two-Spool Three-Spool Three-3pool
All _xial A11Axidl Axi_I/beh_rifu_dl
Overall Pressure Ratio 27 27.0 27.5

Con_ustor Exit Temperature,
°C (°F) 127J (Zj25) 1261 (23UJ) lZbu (2JUU)
Shaft Horsepower, hp 4DUO 40uu 4uOO

Difference in BSFC Base +U.4% +u.3%
Total Thrust, N (lb) 11,832 (2bbU) 11,832 (Zbbb) 11,832 (2bbO}

Difference in TSFC Base +U.4% +U.J%
Engine Performance Deterioration
Performance deterioration was evaluated by iaentifyin9 tile factors which cause

the performance of axial and centrifugal engines to deteriorate and then
assessing the impact of these factors on the thrust specific fuel consumption
of the study engines. Since the major differences in the deteriorated perfor-
mance of axial and centrifugal engines result fro_J_variations in compressor
efficiency, compressor performance characteristics were the focal point of
this ewluation.
Effects of Performance Deterioration - Table 4.2-XXII highlignts Pratt

Whitney experience in evaluating performance deterioration in axial ana cen-
trifugal compression engines.
Effect of Deterioration on Performance Comparison - The effects of deterio-

ration on engine performance are shown in Table 4.2-XXIII. Pratt & Whitney of
Canaad experience indicated that the performance of centrifugal coJ;_pressors
deteriorated at a much slower rate than the performance of axial compressors.
Therefore, the three-spool axial/centrifugal enwine exnibits better ti)rust
specific fuel consumption after 350U cycles than either of the axial configu-
rations.
90
The slightly poorer thrust specific fuel consumption of the two-spool axial
compression engine after 3_OU cycles is not considered a significant disadvan-
tage. However, the thrust specific fuel consumption of the three-spool axial
compression engine after 3500 cycles is considerably worse than the TSFC of
the three-spool axial/centrifugal engine.
TABLE 4.2-XXII
EFFECTS OF PERFORMANCE DETERIORATION
(I0,000 shp, 0.9 kg/sec (2 Ib/sec) Exit Flow)
Axial Compression Engines
Axial compressor model based on extensive JTSD, JT_D airline data
Axial compressors in study engines STS647 and STS64_ are likely to ex-
perience similar types of damage:
Tight clearances
Rubstri ps
Engine inlet ground clearance
Polytropic efficiency of axial compressors is assuBi_d to deteriorate

about 2.5% in 3500 cycles because of small size airfoils
Centri fu_al Col_ipressionEnBi nes
0 Centrifugal compressor model based on Pratt _ Whitney of Canada experieJ_ce
0 Based on Pratt & Whitney of Canada experience, axial compressor blades

are replaced three times more frequently than centrifugal
0 Polytropic efficiency of centrifugal compressors is assumed to deterio-

rate 0.7% in 35UU cycles
TABLE 4.2-XXII I
EFFECT OF DETERIORATION ON PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
STS64U STS647 STS646

All-Axial All-Axial Axial/Centrifugal
New Engine Performance
Difference in TSFC Base +u.4% +u.3%
Deteriorated Performance
After 35UU Flight Cycles
Difference in TSFC Base +u.4% -U.3%
91
Reversed Engine Configuration - STSb4_t(
The installed configuration concept and pertormarlce c_aracteristics of the

"reversed" three-spool axial/centrifugal engine, ST_64bR, are shown in Figure
4.2-ZD. Reversing the conventior,al three-spool axial/centrifugal e_ginu,
STS646, creates the requirement to turn inlet flow and exhaust flow as shown
in t_le figure.
The inlet and exI_aust system pressure losses resultir,9 fro_i,the reversed flew
are 7.b% and 5%, respectively. These losses result in a _._% increase in
thrust specific fuel cunsul_tptio|lrelative to ti_e conventional SIS(Jau e_agine.
In addition, the external pod drag, which was not evaluated, was judged to b_
greater tilan the pod drag ef the SIS64b, _I_647, or S ISb4_ because two exhdust
pipes are exposed to a M = u.75 flow field. The probability that a longer na-
celle will be required alsu i,Jpacts tJ1_ performance of the reversed ungir,e
confi gurati on.
When all of these factors are considered, the reversed engine concept suffers
a significant disadvantage relative to the conventional axial and axial/cen-
tri fugal configurdtior, s.
r/ • ,o:e%%mr%,:
xoeo,
,or:
/ • 5.0% exhaust pressure loss
/ • External pod drag (not evaluated) but judged
/ to be greater than STS647 or STS648... two exhaust
pipes in M = 0.75 + flow field.., longer nacelle
i_-_ / I---I--i, Inlet _ "- .... "....... " -------___.
_\'_"_ . :o A T:;h:u:t,o668m (35000 ft), 0.75m max cruise=
" ' 4.2% relative to STS646
Figure 4.2-26 Reversed Engine Performance Characteristics - Inlet and ex-

haust system pressure losses encountered with the reversed
engine led to a significant disadvantage in thrust specific
fuel consumption. (J2763U-57)
92
Effect of Customer Bleed on Performance
Tile impact of extracting 0.2 kg/sec (0.5 Ib/sec) customer bleed from _ae high
compressor discharge of tlle four engine configurations is shown in Table
4.2-XXIV. A similar increase in thrust specific fuel consumptiun is ouservea
in all four engines at both the maximum cruise and bU% maximum cruise condi-
tions.
The small airflow two-spool axial compression engine (STS64_) experiences the
greatest thrust loss. At 5u% maximum cruise, turbine temperatures are signi-
ficantly below rated levels; therefore t|Irust loss can De recoverea by aavanc-
ing the throttle setting. The effects of bleed on the performance of all four
engines is essentially the same.
TABLE 4.2-XXIV
EFFECTS OF CUSTOMER BLEED ON PLRFORF_NCE
(0.2 kg/sec (0.5 Ib/sec) High Compressor Discharge Bleed
10,668 m (3b,O00 ft) M = u.75)
STSb_b
STS648 STSb47 Three-Spool
Two-Spool Three-Spool Axial / STS646R
A! !-Axial AIl -Axial Centri fugal (Reversed 64b)
Maximum Cruise Ratin 9
Thrust Loss 11.5% Iu.6% IU.5% IU.b%
TSFC Inc rea se +4.9% 4.8% 4. _% 4. _%
5U% Maximum Cruise
TSFC Increase 5.7% 5.6% 5.b% 5.6%
Effect of Gearbox Power Extraction on Performance
The effect of gearbox power extraction on engine performance at various power

settinys is shown in Table 4.2-XXV. As i11ustratea, the impact of horsepower
extraction on all four engines is identical at a given power setting.
Part Power Performance
The relative part power performance characteristics of the two-spool and _hree-
spool engine configurations are shown in Figure 4.2-27. The thrust specific
fuel consumption of the two-spool engine is slightly higher than the TSFC of
the three-spool engines between 5u% and lOU% maximum cruise. This difference
is due to the variable stator vanes used in the low-pressure compressor of the
two-spool engine.
93
TABLE 4.2-XXV
EFFECT OF GEARBOX POWER EXTRACTION ON PERFORmaNCE
(109 Horsepower Taken from Gearbox
Iu,668 m (35,000 ft) M = U.75)
STS64_
STSb4_ STSb47 Three-Spool
Two-Spool Three-Spool Axial/ STS64uR
All Axial All Axial Centrifugal (Reversed 64b)
Maximum Cruise Ratin_
Thrust Reduction 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% Z.4%
TSFC Increase z.4% 2.4% 2._% Z.4_
50% Naximum Cruise Thrust
TSFC Increase _.0_ 4.0% 4.0% 4.U%
10,668m (35,000 ft) M =0.15

+10
+12
Percent Constant propeller speed
,_ TSFC + 8 \_ operation
relative to \%
maximum + 6
_ / STS648
cruise
+4 Threespools __/ twospool
"s--_-_6_"-f_X,_
0 .. , , , ., "_-'_
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of maximum cruise thrust
Figure 4.2-27 Off-Design Engine Natching Impact of Part Power Performance -

The three-spool engines have slightly lower thrust specific
fuel consumption at part power than the two-spool engine.
(J27638-58)
94
Operational Constraints (Propeller Speed Schedule)
The propeller speed schedules for the two-spool and three-spool engine con-
figurations are shown in Figure 4.2-2B. The two-spool axial engine (STSb4U)
provides constant speed over a range of power settings from bu% maxilaum cruise
to approximately II0% maximum cruise. However, below about bu% maximum cruise
the propeller must operate at variable speed. In contrast, the three-spoul en-
gines (STS646 and STS647) could operate at constant speed over the entire
range of power settings.
If the propeller is not required to operate at constant speed, the two-spool

engine will operate along the schedule shown in the lower portion of the
figure. Both of the three-spool engines can operate at a s_ecified constant
speed or along a speed schedule.
2 spool
STS648 speed
100[ sched ule......._.

STSm6_
Percent .o .
_2 spool
propeller 70 J STS648 speed schedule
speed without constant speed constraint
60
50
40
30 I I I I I I i I I I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Percent maximum cruise thrust
Figure 4.2-28 Operational Constraints - The three-spool enuines provide a

more flexible propeller speed sclledule than the two-spool
engine. (J27638-59)
Starting Requirements
The starter horsepower requirement for the two-spool and three-spool configu-
rations are shown in Table 4.2-XXVI. The three-spool configurations, which
have a lower high compressor pressure ratio, require tne least starter norse-
power.
95
TABLE 4.2-XXVI
STARTING REQUIREMENTS
STS64_ STS647 STS646

Two-Spool Three-Spool Three Spool
All-Axial All-Axial Axial/Centrifugal
Takeoff Airflow 39 39 4U
HPC Pressure Ratio II.86 5.0 3.5
Relative Starter HP Required Base -45% -55%
Propeller Dra_ in Connection with Failure Modes
A judgmental rating of free rotor windmilling drag is presentea in Table

4.2-XXVII. The windmilling drag of the two-spool engine was judged to be
slightly worse than the drag of either of the free turbine configurations be-
cause of the higher power required in the low rotor of the two-spool engine
because the low-pressure compressor is on the low shaft. Since the increased
power must ultimately come from the propeller in the windmilling mode, this
was judged to result in slightly more drag for tile two-spool configuration.
TABLE 4.2-XXVII
PROPELLER DRAG IN CONNECTION WITH FAILURE MOUE3
STS64_ ST3647 STSb_6

Two-Spool Three-Spool lhree Spool
All Axial All Axial Axial/Centrifugal
Windmilling Drag Base Slightly Lower Slightly Lower
4.2.3.2.3 Design Assurance Related Issues
The critical issues in the design assurance analysis are engine weight, acqui-
sition cost, reliability, and maintenance cost. The four engine configurations
were evaluated with the results summarized in Table 4.2-XXVIII.
For the most part, differences in engine weight, acquisition cost, and main-
tenance cost can be attributed to differences in the high-pressure compressor
configuration (axial vs centrifugal compressor, 7-stage vs 12-stage axial com-
pressor, etc.). Differences in compressor weight are influenced by the mass of
the centrifugal disk compared to the number of axial stages.
In this study, weight estimates were made by a component analysis estimating

technique in which key features of components were evaluatea by comparability
analysis which accounts for new technology and operating conditions.
96
Acquisition cost was determined using a program which analyzes key features of
an engine flowpath such as number of stages, airfoil quantity and size, ai_d
flowpath diameter. These parameters were comparedto a base engine with estab-
lished r,laterial and labor costs. Unusual features, design concepts, ana
materials were accounted for.
Differences in the acquisition cost of the axial engines can be attributed to

aifferences in the number of stages. The acquisition costs of the axial/cen-
trifugal engines are generally lower because they contain fewer r_Ja3orparts.
Maintenance costs reflect both acquisition cost and reliability factors. Dif-
ferences in engine reliability are inversely related to tile nulnber of bearings,
number of intershaft bearings, number of major structures, and number of vari-
able geometry vane stages.
Maintenance cost was evaluated by comparing the design features of _ study en-
gine to a base design, analyzing hot section lives and, thus determining reli-
ability by mission and operational severity factors. Key design and operational
parameters were compared to an existing engine with an established reliability
and maintenance cost base. New reliability and maintenance cost estimates were
generated by integrating detailed part lives, task man-hours, and module repair
rates with price estimates consistent with acquisition cost. The effect of new
design concepts and materials was also integrated into the model.
4.2.3.2.4 Environmental Issues
The noise and emissions characteristics of the four engine cunfigurations were
evaluated and found to be approximately equal. All four propulsion systems are
capable of achieving the noise levels specified in Federal Aviation Regulation
Part 36. Although some development work is required, all four configurations
also have the potential to meet the International Civil Aviation Urganization
emissions goals, used as the standard for tileAPET ProgralJl.
4.2.3.2.5 Sulmnary of Results
In the screening process, two engine configurations e1_lergeaas promising power-

plants for the reference aircraft: the two-spool axial compression engine
(STS648) and the three-spool axial/centrifugal compression engine (STS64o).
These two engines were considered approximately equal when fuel burn, direct
operating cost, technical risK, and other performance, aesign, and environmen-
tal issues were integrated. The two configurations were then updated to re-
flect the optimum cycle and reevaluated to determine which configuration was
best suited for engine/airplane integration studies with the airframe manu-
facturers. Results of the evaluation with the updatea cycle are presented in
the following section.
The characteristics of the four candidate engine configurations are su_(_marized

in Table 4.2-XXIX. After analyzing the results of the screening study, the two-
spool axial and three-spool axial/centrifugal configurations were selectea for
further evaluation. The performance of the three-spool axial compression engine
was inferior to the performance of the two-spool axial compression configu-
ration, while the direct operating cost of the three-spool axial compression
engine was inferior to the operating cost of the three-spool axial/centrifugal
compression engine. Poor fuel burn characteristics caused the reversed engine
configuration to be eliminated from further consideration.
97
TABLE4.2-XXVIII
DESIGNASSURANCERELATEDISSUES
STS648 STS646 STS647 STS646R

Ax ia 171)'6_E{i
fuga l Revers
e--S-6"6F-A-_
ia1/
Engine Configuration Z-Spool 3-Spool 3-Spool Centrifugal 3-Spool
Compressor Pressure Ratio 2 x 1Z.5 7.1 x 3.5 4.9 x 5.1 7.1 x 3.5
Compressor Stages 3+12 5+1 4+7 5+I
Turbine Stages 2+4 I+I+3 I+I+3 I+I+3
Number of Bearings 5 7 8 7
Maximum Bearing DN 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5
Bearing Supports and Major Structures 3 4 4 5
Rotor Support System Piggyback Overhung Turbine/ Piggyback Bearings/ Overhung Turbine/
Bearings Piggyback Bearings Hot Strut Hot Strut
Overall Length, cm (in) Base -30 (-121 +8 (+3) -15 (-6)
Weight Base +7% +13% +13%
Acquisition Cost Base -7% -1% -4%
Reliabl_Ity Base Base Lowest Lower
Maintenance Considerations
Number of Modules 6 5 9 7
Maintenance Cost Base -16% -6% -15%
TABLE 4.2-XXIX
CONFIGURATION EVALUATION SUMMARY
STS648 STS646 STS647 STS646R

Three-Spool Reversed Three-
Two-Spool Axlal/ Three-Spool Spool Axial/
Axial Centrifulal Axial Centrifugal
Compressor Stages 3 + 12 5 + 1 4 + 7 5+I

Turbine Stages Z + 4 I + 1+ 3 I + 1 + 3 I+I+3
Number of Bearings 5 7 8 7
Maximum Bearing DN (millions) 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4
Bearing Supports and Major Structures 3 4 4 5
Rotor Support System Piggyback Overhung Turbine/ Piggyback Bearing/ Overhung Turbine/
Bearing Piggyback Bearing Hot Strut Hot Strut
Overall Length, cm (in) Base 182 (72) 30 (12) 7 (+3) -15 (-6)
Maximum Diameter, cm (in) Base 68 (27) I0 (+4) Base I0 (+4)
Modularity (Number of Modules) 6 5 9 7

Deterioration Modes Base Least Most Same as STS646
Timeliness of Technology Base Greater Risk Greatest Risk Same as STS646
Reliability Base Base Lowest Lower
Component Performance and Matching Base Simpler Simpler Same as STS646
Starting Requirements Base 55% -45% Same as STS646
Operating Constraints Base Fewer Fewer Same as STS646
Variable Geometry Complexity Base Least Base Same as STS646
Accel/Decel Time Base Lowest Lower Same as STS646
Prop-Fan Matching Base Improved Improved Improved
Flexibility Flexibility Flexibility
Specific Fuel Consumption

New Base +0.3% +0.4% +4.5%
After Approximately 3500 Cycles Base -0.3% +0.4% +3.9%
Engine Weight Base +7% +13% +13%
Engine Cost Base -7% -1% -4%
Engine Maintenance Cost Base -16% -6% -15%
Fuel Burn
Percent Difference Base +0.6 +I.1 +5.6
After Approximately 3500 Cycles Base -O.l +1.I +4.9
Direct Operating Cost

Percent Difference Base -1.5 -O.l +0.8
After Approximately 3500 Cycles Base -1.7 -0.1 +0.6
98
Fuel burn and direct operating cost are the most important factors in the con-
figuration ranking. Engine performance (thrust specific fuel consumption and
pod drag) and weight are integrated to obtain the fuel burn comparison. Several
parameters including performance, weight, acquisition cost, and maintenance
cost contribute to the direct operating cost evaluation. Factors which were
judged to be either comparable or of a second order of importance are listed
in Table 4.2-XXX.
TABLE 4.2-XXX
ENGINE CONFIGURATION EVALUATION FACTORS
(Judged Comparable or of Second Order Influence)
I,iechanical Uesign and Analysis Related Issues
Turbine Cooling Requirements

Impact of Engine Design Choices on Propeller, _earbox, Accessories, and
Oil Cooling
Performance Related Issues
Pod Drag (Specific Fuel Consul,lption)*

Overall Pressure Ratio
Turbine Rotor Inlet TBnperature
Power Turbine Work Extraction
Propeller Drag in Connection with Failure Modes
Effects of Anticipated Customer Bleeds anO/or Horsepower Extraction
Impact of Engine Design Choices on Propeller, Gearbox, Accessories, and
Oil Cooling
Environmental Related Issues (Noise arld Pollution)
Engine Noise Consi derati ons

Engine Emi ssions Consi derati ons
* Except for Reversed Engine (STS646R) which is judged to have a higher pod
drag
The practical scaling range for each of tne four configurations was also eval-
uated. Results are summarized in Table 4.2-XXXI. The smallest practical size
for the axial flow two and three-spool engines (STS64_ and STS647) is lu,OOu
horsepower, due to rotor dynamics considerations and compressor blade size.
The three-spool axial/centrifugal and reversed engine configurations (STS64b
and STS646R) nave a practical upper limit of I6,O00 horsepower. This limit is
imposed by centrifugal compressor performance, weight, low cycle fatigue life,
and manufacturing considerations. These sca]ing ranges cover the engine sizes
required for 9U - 150 passenger aircraft (refer to Figure 4.2-19).
99
TABLE4.2-XXXI
PRACTICAL HORSEPOWER SCALING RANGE
Two-Spool Axial (STS648) lO,OOD to 2_,OOU horsepower

Three-Spool Axial (STS647) IO,OuU to 2_,000 horsepower
Three-Spool Axial/Centrifugal (STS646) 800U to Ib,OOU horsepower
Reversed Axial/Centrifugal (STS646R) 8000 to 16,UO0 horsepower
4.2.3.3 Configuration Update with Optimum Cycle
The engine configuration evaluation began with a screening study in which four
candidate engine configurations were evaluated in a Iu,O00 horsepower base
size with a design pressure ratio of 25:1. The two-spool axial compression en-
gine and the three-spool axial/centrifugal compression engine were selected as
the best candidates for a Prop-Fan propulsion system (Section 4.2.2.2). Because
airframe manufacturers had not yet defined a final engine size for the refer-
ence 120-passenger aircraft, a final configuration evaluation was required to
resolve critical issues relating to engine size and cycle.
With the two-spool axial compression configuration, mechanical arrangement,

rotor dynamics, and critical speed become more significant problems as engine
size is reduced: therefore, tile axial compression engine was evaluated in the
lO,O00 horsepower size. With the three-spool axial/centrifugal configuration,
centrifugal compressor design becomes more difficult as engine size is in-
creased: therefore, the axial/centrifugal compression engine was evaluated in
the 16,uO0 horsepower size. The cycle selected for each engine is listed in
the top portion of Table 4.2-XXXII. Issues relating to mechanical design and
aerothermodynamic analysis, performance, design assurance, and environmental
constraints were updated for the resized engines. The key technical issues are
also highliyhted in Table 4.2-XXXII.
To select a final engine size, a propulsion system integration package, incor-

porating the updated engine size and cycle data, was submitted to the airframe
manufacturers for review and comment. By mutual agreement with the participat-
ing airframe manufacturers and the NASA Program Manager, a final engine base
size of 12,00U horsepower was selected. In addition to scaling the two engines
to the final size, the overall cycle was modified to reflect the findings from
the cycle optimization study (Section 4.2.1), as indicated in the bottom por-
tion of Table 4.2-XXXII.
An interactive computer program was then used to generate an updated flowpath

for each engine configuration. Cross sections were developed from these flow-
paths and the characteristics of major components were defined. Materials,
structural analysis and rotor dynamics issues were addressed, and engine per-
formance was evaluated. Finally, the two engine configurations were compared
on the basis of fuel burn and direct operating cost. Based on this evaluation
and input from the participating airframe manufacturers, both the two-spool
axial and the three-spool axial/centrifugal engine were selected for the
Propulsion System Integration study (Task III).
1 O0
TABLE 4.2-XXXLI
SUMMARY OF UPDATED ENGINE SIZE AND AERODYN_,iIC CYCLE
"Non-Free" Power "Free" Power

Turbine Engine 1 Turoine Engine 2
A11 -Axial Axial/Centri fugal
Configuration Update Compression System Compression System
o Engine Size, Maximum 10,000 Ib,OOU

Horsepower
o Overall Compressor Pres- _3.5 35

sure Ratio (Aerodynamic
Cycle Design Point - 90%
of Max Cruise Rating)
o Major Technical Issues o Critical Speed o Perfon, ance, LCF

(Rotor Dynamics) Li fe, Structural
Configurati on and
o Small Size Rear Manufacturing
Stage Compressor Limitations of
Blades Centrifugal Stage
Size, Cycle Selected for

Propulsion System Integration
Package
o Engine Size, Max Horsepower 12,000 12,0UU
o Overall Compressor Pressure 34 ,}4

Ratio
o Tecnnical Comparison No o.e clear winner:

Aircraft Companies Recomend Both
Engine Concepts Be Included In Propulsion
System Integration Package
Notes:
I. A "non-free" power turbine engine is a configuration in whicn t|=e low-

pressure compressor is on the same spool as the power turbine which drives
the Prop-Fan.
2. A "free" power turbine engine is a configuration in which the power turbine

drives only the Prop-Fan.
lOl
4.2.3.3.1 Two-Spool Engine with A11-Axial Compression System
The.aerothermodynamic flowpath for the two-spool all-axial engine configura-

tion, designated STS678 in the 12,000 horsepower base size, is shown in Figure
4.2-29. The flowpatn features an eleven-stage high-pressure compressor driven
by a two-stage high-pressure turbine. A four-stage power turbine drives a two-
stage low compressor and the Prop-Fan through the gearbox (not shown on tile
flowpath). The flowpath, which is illustrated, provides a physical description
of the path the air takes tnrough the gas generator. Table 4.2-XXXIII provides
a more detailed description of the engine, including a definition of the num-
ber of compressor and turbine stages, airfoil diameters, rotor speeds, nuJ,_)er
of airfoils, and airfoil geometry (for example aspect ratio and solidity). The
aerodynamic 1oadings and materials selected reflect 1988 technology verifica-
tion and ]992 engine certification.
in cm
15 40
I°I 20
OL 0 I L I I _ I I
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
cm
I I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80'
in
Axial length
Figure 4.2-29 Aerothermodynamic Flowpath of the STS678 Engine - The updated

flowpath for the IZ,O00 horsepower size two-spool axial com-
pression engine was derived using 1968 technology for materi-
als, cooling, and aerodynamics. (J276_8-2)
The rotor speeds for both the higll and low spools were set as high as possible
without exceeding maximum turbine blade attachment stresses, resulting in the
maximum turbine AN 2 limits noted in Table 4.2-XXXIII. The flowpath for the
high spool is an extension of the engine technology studies conducted under
the Energy Efficient Engine program. As indicated in the table, the high cor,
l-
pressor pressure ratio is 17:1 using eleven stages.
An advanced single-stage aerating (MARK) burner concept is used in the com-

bustor section.
I02
TABLE4.2-XXXIII
COMPONENT SUMMARY FOR THE TWO-SPOOL ALL-AXIAL COMPRESSION ENGINE

((STS678) 12,000 Horsepower Base Size)
Aerodynamic Design Cycle Parameters
Altitude, m (ft)/Mach NunJ_er 10658 (35000)/0.75

Power Setting 90% Maximum Cruise
Overall Pressure Ratio 34
Max Co,g}ustorExit Temperature (SLS, Hot Day), °C (°F) 1427 (2600)
Shaft Horsepower 12,000
Low Compressor
Pressure Ratio 2.0

NunJ_erof Stages 2
Corrected Tip Speed, m/sec (ft/sec) 581 (1280)
Gap/Chord Ratio 0.60
Aspect Ratio 1.2
Nu_er of Airfoils 162
Inlet Hub/Tip Ratio 0.69
Blade Tip Clearance, mils 11
Adiabatic Efficiency 87.2
High Compressor
Pressure Ratio 17
Nunt}erof Stages 11
Corrected Tip Speed, _sec (ft/sec) 401 (13151
A_n_rf gafin 1.5
Nude; of'Airfoils 1059
Adiabatic Efficiency 86
Combustor
Co_ustor Exit Temperature (CET), °C (°F) 1,426 (2600)

Combustor Inlet Temperature (CIT), °C (°F) 580 (1077)
Type of Cont}ustor Advanced Single
Stage Aerating
Cooling Air Flux, kg/sec-m2 (Ib/sec-in2) 15.87_ (0.024)
Pressure Loss, % PT in
Overall 3.2
Liner 2.0
Burning Length, cm (in) 17/15 (6.7/5.9)
Nun_er of Fuel Injectors 14
Pattern Factor, TMAX - CET 0.20
Space Heat Relea_atts/Nm (Btu/hr ft3 atm) 4.29 x 102 (4.2 x 106)
Emissions Potential to Meet
Regulations
Lean Blowout Fuel to Air Ratio 0.004
High-Pressure Turbine
Expansion Ratio 4.4

Number of Stages 2
Mean Velocity Rat_g 0.63
Maximum AN_ (X 10_u) c_RPM2(in2RPM 2) 32.3 (S.O)
Number of Airfoils 154
Adiabatic Efficiency go.2
Power Turbine
Expansion Ratio 8.4

Number of Stages 4
Mean Velocity Ratio 0.60
Maximum AN2 (X 1010) c_RPM2(in2RPM 2) 38.7 (6.0}
Adiabatic Efficiency, % 94.1
103
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
.OEPOOR qUALITY
The low-pressure compressor is on the same spool as the four-stage power tur-
bine; rotor speed is limited by the maximum turbine blade attachment stress
(AN() of the last turbine stage. This results in a two-stage low compressor
configuration with a corrected tip speed of 390 m/sec (1280 ft/sec ), illustra-
ted in Figure 4.2-29. The two-stage configuration provides sufficient radial
space (diameter) for the bearing compartment. The low spool (low-pressure com-
pressor and power turbine) was designed with variable compressor vanes to per-
mit the Prop-Fan to operate at constant speed at critical off-design condi-
tions including takeoff, maximum climb, and cruise.
The four-stage power turbine configuration provides the velocity ratio re-
quired for a highly efficient close coupled turbine arrangement.
The cross section for the STS678 engine is presented in Fiyure 4.2-30; mechan-
ical design features are suBmarized in Table 4.2-XXXIV.
i
........ '_" _"-_-_'_-'_: i ' I t _/ ...... '....
Figure 4.2-30 Mechanical Cross Section of the Updatea Two-Spool Axial

Compression Engine (STS678) - This 12,00U horsepower size
engine features high rotor speeds for both spools and a low
spool (low-pressure compressor and power turbine) designed to
permit constant Prop-Fan speed at the critical off-design
operating conditions. (J27638-4)
Three-Spool Engine with Axial/Centri fu_al Compressi on
The aerothermo_Lynamic flowpath for the three-spool axial/centrifugal engine

configuration, designated STS67g in the 12,00O horsepower size, is shown in
Figure 4.2-31.
The high spool is an axial/centrifugal compression system driven by a single-

stage high-pressure turbine. The high-pressure compressor system features two
axial compression stages followed by a single centrifugal compression stage. A
pipe diffuser is used and a single-stage aerating burner is canted to mate
with the centrifugal compressor.
IO4
TABLE4.2-XXXIV
MECHANICAL
DESIGN FEATURES OF THE TWO-SPOOL AXIAL
(Compression Engine (STS678) ]2,000 Horsepower Base Size)
Inlet Case
Cast aluminum, integral inner case, vane and outer case construction
Provides bearing support for low compressor and power turbine shaft
Two-Stage Low Compressor
Two-stage one piece rotor construction

Variable stators for trailing edge of first stage vane and second
stage vane
Split outer case
Intermediate Case
Houses Number 2 (rear of low compressor) and Number 3 (high com-

pressor) thrust bearings
Provides for engine accessory drive system
Eleven-Stage High Compressor
Four variable vane stages

Eleven stages separated into (a) front hub and disk, (b) rear one
piece rotor
Diffuser/Combustor/High-Pressure Turbine Vanes
- Pipe diffuser to provide high-pressure turbine cooling air (TOBI)

- Pin fin combustor liner construction
- Cantilevered combustor support system
Two-Stage High-Pressure Turbine
Full ring sideplates, wire seals for reduced leakage

Simplified interstage seal arrangement
Second stage cooling air supplied through second vane
Segmented ceramic coated outer air seals
Four-Stage Power Turbine and Piggyback Bearing
- Four-stage unitized rotor construction

- Shrouded blades
- One piece welded construction
- Piggyback damped bearing support system
The intermediate spool consists of a four-stage low-pressure compressor driven

by a single-stage intermediate turbine.
The three-stage power turbine, located on a third concentric shaft, provides

shaft horsepower to the Prop-Fan through the gearbox (not shown on the flow-
path).
105
The aerodynamic 1oadings and materials selected for the flowpath definition
reflect 1988 technology verification and I_92 engine certification.
cm
in
40-
OL 0 I I I I I l
0 30 60 90 120 "150 180
cm
I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
in
Axial length
Figure 4.2-31 Aerothermodynamic Flowpath of the STS679 Engine - The
updated flowpath for the 12,000 horsepower size three-spool
axial/centrifugal compression engine was derived using 1988
technology for material s, cool ing, and aerodynamics.
(J27638-I)
The major components for the STS679 engine are described in Table 4.2-XXXV.
The pressure ratio split between the high and low spool permits a close
coupled high/intermediate power turbine configuration without exceeding tur-
bine loading levels (velocity ratio), maximum turbine AN t , acceptable com-
pressor tip speeds, number of turbine stages, and maximum turbine rim speeds.
The selection of the high spool rotor speed was based on the maximum high-
pressure turbine blade attachment stress (AN2). The velocity ratio in the
high-pressure turbine of the three-spool engine is slightly lower than the
velocity ratio in the high-pressure turbine of the two-spool engine. This dif-
ference results from the 620 m/sec (2035 ft/sec) maximum rim speed in the cen-
trifugal compressor, set by limitations in materials technology for the 19_B
technology verification date. The axial/centrifugal pressure ratio split in
the two-stage axial/single-stage centrifugal compressor was chosen to maximize
efficiency.
106
TABLE 4.2-XXXV
COMPONENT SUMMARY FOR THE THREE-SPOOL AXIAL/CENTRIFUGAL ENGINE (STS679)
Aerodynamic Design Cycle Parameters
Altitude, m (ft)/Mach Number IOG68 (35000)/0.75

Power Setting 94% Maximum Cruise
:4ax Combustor Exit Temperature (SLS, Hot Day), °C (°F) 1427 (2600)
Overa]] Pressure Ratio 34
Shaft Horsepower, SLS - Hot Day ]2,000
Low Compressor
Pressure Ratio 5.4

Number of Stages 4
Corrected Tip Speed, m/sec (ft/sec) 658 (1450)
Aspect Ratio l._
Number of Airfoils 3]0
Blade Tip Clearance, mils 1]
High Compressor Axial Centrifugal
Pressure Ratio 1.76 3.6

Number of Stages 2 ]
Corrected Tip Wheel

Speed, mlsecm/sec
(ft/sec) 463
-- (I020) 923 (2035)
Maximum Exit Speed, (ft/sec)
Gap/Chord Ratio 1.0 --
Aspect Ratio l.B --
Number of Airfoils 139 --
Blade Tip Clearance, mils 11 Not Applicable
Adiabatic Efficiency 86.5 86.5
Combustor
Combustor Exit Temperature (CET), °C (°F) 1,426 (2600)

Combustor Inlet Temperature (CIT), °C (°F) 580 (1077)
Type of Combustor Canted Single
Stage Aerating
Cooling Air Flux, kg/sec-m2 (Ib/sec-in2) 16.874 (0.024)
Pressure Loss, % PT in
Overall 3_0
Liner
Burning Length, cm (in) 15 (5.9)
Number of Fuel Injectors 24
Pattern Factor, TMAX - CET 0.24
Space Heat Release Rate, Watts/Nm (Btu/hr ft3 atm) 4.03 x lO2 (4.0 x 106 )
Potential to Meet
Emissions Regulations
Lean Blowout Fuel to Air Ratio O.oogs/o.OOG6
(Staged)
High-Pressure Turbine
Expansion Ratio 3.3

Number of Stages 1
Maximum AN2 (X 10I0) cm2RPM2(in2RPM2) 32.3 (5.0)
Blade Tip Clearance, mils II
Intermediate Turbine
Expansion Ratio 2.0

Number of Stages l
Mean Velocity Rat_ 0.58
Maximum AN_ (X 10lu) 3.6
Power Turbine
6.1
Expansion Ratio
Number of Stages 3
Maximum AN 2 (X ]0lO) cm2RPM2(in2RPM2) 38.7 (6.0)
11
Blade Tip Clearance, mils
I07
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
The intermediate spool rotor speed was limited by the low-pressure compressor
corrected tip speed of 43B m/sec (1440 ft/sec) which was considered a reason-
able trade between efficiency, weight, and cost. This tip speed, coupled with
the requirement to provide sufficient radial space for the bearing compart-
ments, le_ to selection of an intermediate turbine rotor speed below the
maximum AN L limit.
The three-stage power turbine configuration is used to achieve the velocity

ratio required for high efficiency in a close coupled mechanical arrangement
in which the speed is set by the maximum turbine blade attachment stress in
the last stage.
The cross section for the STS679 engine is presented in Figure 4.2-32; mechan-
ical design features are summarized in Table 4.2-XXXVI.
_ ! ii
J /
Figure 4.2-32 Mechanical Cross Section of the Updated Three-Spool Axial/

Centrifugal Compression Engine (STS679) - This 12,000
horsepower size engine features a close coupled high/
intermediate/power turbine configuration designed to maximize
efficiency and minimize engine weight and cost. (J2763B-5)
Summar_ of Mechanical Deslgn and Anal_sis Issues
Updated mechanical design and analysis issues are summarized in Table

4.2-XXXVII. The parameters which were modified include: bearing DN levels,
overall length, diameter, and number of modules. However, these changes did
not have a major impact on the overall comparison of tne two configurations.
Factors judged comparable or of a second order of importance include turbine
cooling requirements, future engine growth paths, and the impact of design
choices on the Prop-Fan, gearbox, accessories, and oil cooling.
108
TABLE 4.2-XXXVI
MECHANICAL DESIGN FEATURES OF THE THREE-SPOOL AXIAL/CENTRIFU_d_L ENGINE
((STS679) 12,000 Horsepower Base Size)
Inlet Case
Cast aluminum, integral inner case, vane and outer case construction
Provides bearing support for low compressor and power turbine shaft
Four Stage Low Compressor
Four-stage one piece welded rotor

Two variable stators
Split outer case
Intermediate Case
Contains Number 3 and Number 4 damped bearings

Provides for engine accessory drive system
Three-Stage High Compressor
n First vane is variable

D Twn _1 c+_n_c _nt_nr_l wfth cantrifun_l _t_n_
M
Split internal case, one piece outer case is cantilevered construction
Diffuser/Combustor/Bearing Support/High Pressure Turbine Vanes
Pipe diffuser
Pin fin combustor louver construction
Cantilevered combustor support system
Damped bearing arrangement
Pressurized Iabyri nth seal s
Single-Stage High-Pressure Turbine
D
m
Segmented ceramic coated outer air seals
Single Stage Intermediate Turbine
m
D
Rotor cooling air supplied externally through turbine nozzle vane
Segmented ceramic cooled outer air seals
Three-Stage Power Turbine and Piggyback Bearin_
Three stage unitized rotor construction

m Shrouded blades
Q
One piece welded construction
Piggyback damped bearing support system
109
TABLE4.2-XXXVII
UPDATE
OF MECHANICAL
DESIGNANDANALYSISISSUES
Two-Spool Three-Spool
AIl -Axi al Axial/Centrifugal
Compressi on S_/stem Compression S_stem
Initial Initial
Assessment Update Assessment Update
STS648 STS678 STS646 STS679
Compressor Pressure 2/12.5 2/17 7.1/3.6 5.3/b.3

Ratio, Low/High
Engine Size, Horsepower lO,O00 12,000 1O, OOO 12,000
Compressor Stages 3 + 12 2+11 5+I 4+3
Turbine Stages 2 + 4 2+4 1 +1 +3 I+I +3
Number of Uearings 5 5 7 7
Max Bearing DN 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.8

(Millions)
Bearing Supports and 3 3 4 4

Haj or Structures
Rotor Support System PB PB OH/PB OH/PB
Overall Length, cm (in) Base Base -30 (-12) -12 (-5)
Maximum Diameter, Base Base +IU (+4) Up to 5% lower

cm (in)
Modul ari ty (Number b 6 5 7

of Modules)
Deteri oration Modes Base Base Least Lower
Timeliness of Base Base Greater Greater Risk

Technology Risk
OH = Overhung Turbine PB = Piggyback Bearings
4.2.3.3.2 Performance Related Issues
Based on comments from the airframe manufacturers, the turboprop engine was
rerated to more closely reflect the aircraft thrust requirements at the take-
off, climb, and cruise conditions. The original and revised ratings are com-
pared in Table 4.2-XXXVIII. The revised ratings were achieved by a combination
of reduced throttle operation at takeoff and a hot section rematch. These
changes reduced engine core size and takeoff shaft horsepower but maintained
takeoff combustor exit temperature.
llO
TABLE4.2-XXXVIII
TURBOPROP ENGINES RERATED TO IMPROVE
COMPATIBILITY WITH AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS
Ori 9i nal Ratings Revised Ratings
Design Inlet Corrected Flow, kg/sec (lb/sec) 28.4 (62.5) 27.3 (6U.1)
Design Overall Pressure Ratio 34 34
Core Size, Compressor Exit Corrected Airflow, 1.4 (3.1B) 1.4 (_.06)
kg/sec (Ib/sec)
Maximum Cruise Ratin 9
Maximum Cruise Combustor Exit Temp, °C (°F) 1221 (2230) 1221 (2330)
Maximum Cruise TSFC Base +0.3%
Maximum Climb Thrust, N (Ib) 17,8BI (4020) 17,881 (4020)
Maximum Climb Overall Pressure Ratio 38.3 38.3
Combustor Exit Temperature, STD +I0°C (+I8°F) 1332 (2430) 13t_B (25J0)
Prop-Fan Loading, shp/D 2 34.2 34.2
Prop-Fan Diameter, m (ft) 4.05 (13.3) 4.05 (13.3)
Takeoff Ratin 9
Takeoff Thrust @ M=0.22, STD +14°C

(+25°F) Day, N (lb) 74,507 (16750) 69,836 (1570U)
Maximum Shaft Horsepower 13300 12000
Combustor Exit Temperature, °C (°F) 1388 (2550) 15t_8 (2530)
Prop-Fan Maximum Loading, shp/D 2 74.7 67.4
The updated performance related issues are summarized in Table 4.2-XXXIX. While the
performance comparison differs from the original assessment, _me changes are not
considered significant in the overall evaluation of the two engines. The following
factors were judged to be comparable or of a second order of importance in the
performance evaluation: pod drag, SFC, overall pressure ratio, turbine rotor inlet
temperature, power turbine work extraction, propeller drag in failure mode, effects
of anticipated customer bleeds and/or horsepower extraction, future engine growth
paths, impact of engine design choices on the Prop-Fan, gearbox, and oil cooling
system.
111
TABLE 4.2-XXXIX
UPDATE OF PERFORMANCE RELATED ISSUES
All-Axial Axial/Centrifugal
Compression S_stem Compression S_stem
Inltlal Initial
Compressor Pressure 2/12.5 2/17 7.1/3.6 5.4/6.3

Ratio, Low Compressor/
Hi 9h Compressor
Engine Size, 10,000 12,000 10,000 12,000

Horsepower
Component Performance Base Base Simpler Simpler

and Matchi n9
Starting Requirements Base Base -55% -45%
Operating Constraints Base Base Fewer Fewer
Variable Geometry Base Base Least Lower

Compl exity
Accel/Decel Time Base Base Lowest Lower
Prop-Fan Matching Base Base Improved Improved

Flexibility Flexibility
New SFC (After Base (Base) Base (Base) +0.3%(-0.3%) +1% (+I/2%)
Approx 3500 Cycles
4.2.3.3.3 Design Assurance Related Issues
Updated design assurance related issues are summarized in Table 4.2-XL. While
there are some differences from the initial assessment, they are not consid-
ered significant.
4.2.3.3.4 Environmental Issues
Both updated engine configurations have the potential to satisfy the noise and
emissions goals specified for the APET Program.
ll2
TABLE4.2-XL
UPDATE OF DESIGN ASSURANCE RELATED ISSUES
All Axial Axi al/Centri fugal
Compression System Compression System
Initial Initi a]
Compressor Pressure 2112.5 2117 7.113.6 5.4/6.3

Ratio (Low Compres-
sor/High Compressor)
Engine Size, 10,000 12,000 10,000 12,000

Horsepower
Reliability Base Base Base Base
Engine Weight Base Base +7% +_%
Engine Cost Base Base -7% -8%
Engine Maintenance Base Base -Ib% -12%

Cost
4.2.3.3.5 Summary of Results
Table 4.2-XLI summarizes the key findings from the evaluation of the updated
mechanical design and analysis issues, performance related issues, and design
assurance related issues for the two 12,000 horsepower size engines. The fuel
burn and direct operating costs of the two engines were then compared, using
aircraft trade factors for specific fuel consumption, engine weight, price, and
maintenance cost. The two-spool axial compression engine demonstrated a fuel
burn advantage, while the three-spool axial/centrifugal engine exhibited lower
direct operating costs. Based on these results, and input from the airframe
manufacturers, both engine configurations were selected for the Propulsion
System Integration Package.
4.2.4 Technical Considerations Requiring Additional Study Effort Beyond

the Scope of the Current Contract
The engine configuration evaluation led to the identification of several tech-

nical considerations for which additional study effort, beyond the scope of the
current contract, is recommended. These issues are summarized in Table 4.2-XLII
and discussed briefly below.
I13
TABLE4.2-XL I
CONFIGURATION EVALUATION SUMMARY
STS678 STS679
Axial Axial/Centrifugal
Engine Configuration Two-Spool Three-Spool
Compressor Pressure Ratio 2 X 17 5.4 X 6.3

Engine Size, Horsepower 12,000 12,000
Compressor Stages 2 + 11 4 + (2 + I)
Turbine Stages 2+4 I+I+3
Number of Bearings 5 7
Maximum Bearing DN (millions) 2.5 2.8
Bearing Supports and Major Structures 3 4
Rotor Support System PB OH/PB
Overall Length, cm (in) Base -I 2 (-5)
Maximum Diameter, cm (in) Base Base
Modularity (Number of Modules) 6 7

Deterioration Modes Base Lower
Timeliness of Technology Base Greater Risk
Reliability Base Up To b% Lower
Component Performance and Matching Base Simpler

Starting Requirements Base -45%
Operating Constraints Base Fewer
Variable Geometry Complexity Base Lower
Accel/Decel Time Base Lower
Prop-Fan Matchin9 Base More F1exibili_
o New SFC (After About 3500 Cycles) Base (Base) +1% (+ I/2%)
o Engine Weight Base +9%
o Engine Cost Base -8%
o Engine Maintenance Cost Base -]2%
Fuel Burn (After 3500 Cycles) Base (Base) +1.5% (+0.9%)

Direct Operatin 9 Cost (After 3500 Cycles) Base (Base) -0.9% (-1.1%)
OH = Overhung Turbine PB = Piggyback Bearings
F1owpath dirt removal and bird ingestion requirements must be defined for both
the two-spool axial compression engine and the three-spool axial/centrifugal
compression engine; innovative systems must be developed in response to these
requirements.
Finally, there are operational considerations for the "free" turbine (three-
spool) and "non-free" turbine (two-spool) engines which must be addressed in
joint studies with the airframe manufacturers.
I14
TABLE 4.2-XLII
ENGINE CONFIGURATION TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
REQUIRING ADDITIONAL STUDY
0 Define Specific Requirements and Solutions for Flowpath Dirt Removal
0 Define Specific Bird Ingestion Requirements and Potential Solutions
0 Estimate and Compare "Free" (Three-Spool) vs "Non-Free" (Two-Spool) Power

Turbine Operating Characteristics to Determine Impact on Transient Air-
craft Operating Characteristics
115
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
SECTION 4.3 -- DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Task III -- Propulsion System Integration
4.3 TASKIII - PROPULSION
SYSTEM
INTEGRATION
Section Ti tle
Pag.e
4.3.2 Propul sion System Components 124

4.3.2.1 Turboprop Engine 124
4.3.2.2 Gearbox and Pitch Control 124
Background Information 125
In-line Split Path Reduction _ear Configuration 129
Offset Compound Idler Reduction Gear Configuration 133
Pitch Control Comparison 136
In-Line/Offset Gearbox Configuration Comparison 138
Technical Considerations Requiring Further Study 140
4.3.2.3 Engine and Aircraft Accessory Locations for Power
Extraction 140
4.3.2.4 Inlet Configurations 142
Inlets for In-Line Gearbox Installations 142
Inlets for Offset Gearbox Installations 143
Inlet Pressure Losses 144
Inlet Selection 1 Aj
Technical Considerations Requiring Additional Study 144

4.3.2.5 Oil Cooler Arrangements 147
Air/Oil Cooler Concepts 150
Fuel/Oil Cooler Concept 153
Technical Considerations Requiring Additional Study 155
4.3.2.6 Propulsion System Control 155
Design Approach 155
Control r4odes 156
Implementation 157
Description of a Potential Turboprop Control System 158
4.3.2.7 Prop-Fan Configuration 159
4.3.3 Integrated Propulsion System 161

4.3.3.1 Nacelle Conceptual Design 161
4.3.3.2 Propulsion System Mounting 163
4.3.3.3 Acoustic Treatment Requirements 168
4.3.3.4 Modular Maintenance Concept 168
Modules for an nffset Gearbox Installation 168
In-Line Propulsion System Modules 173
Turboshaft Engine _4odules 174
4.3.3.5 Propulsion System Reliability 177
Prop-Fan Reliability 178
Reduction Gearbox Reliability 178
Turboshaft Engine Reliability 179
117
Section Title Page
4.3.4 Propulsion System Integration Package 179

4.3.4.1 Conceptual Design Drawings of Prop-Fan Propulsion System 180
4.3.4.2 Base Size Turboprop and Reference Turbofan Engine Comparison 181
4.3.4.3 Turboprop Engine Propulsion System Data Package and Computer
Deck (User Manual) 183
4.3.4.4 Reference Turbofan Engine Propulsion System nata Package and
Computer Deck (User Manual) 185
4.3.4.5 Acquisition and Maintenance Cost Information for the
Turboprop and Reference Turbofan Engines 187
List of lllustraions for Section 4.3
Figure
)lumber Ti tl e Page
4.3-I Cross Section of the STS678 Engine 124
4.3-2 Cross Section of the STS679 Engine 125
4.3-3 Spur-Helical Gear S-N Curve 127
4.3-4 In-Line Split Path Reduction Gear Concept 129
4.3-5 In-Line Gearbox/Pitch Control Integration Highlights 132
4.3-6 Impact of Opposite Hand Rotation on the Single Rotation

In-Line Split Path Reduction Gear Concept 133
Offset Compound Idler Reduction Gear Concept 134
Impact of Opposite Hand Rotation on Offset Compound

Idler Reduction Gear Configuration 137
4.3-9 Offset Gearbox/Pitch Control Integration 137
4.3-10 Comparison of Pitch Control Systems for In-Line and

Offset Reduction Gear Configurations 138
4.3-II Comparison of In-Line and Offset Reduction Gear Configurations 139
4.3-12 Aircraft Accessory Mounting Options for an In-Line Gearbox

Installation 141
4.3-13 Aircraft Accessory Mounting Options for an Offset Gearbox

Installation 141
4.3-14 Heat Rejection Data for a 12,000 Horsepower Size Reduction

Gearbox 148
ll8
List of Illustraions for Section 4.3 (Cont'd)
Figure
Number Ti tl e Page
4.3-15 Air/Oil Heat Exchanger Concept; Dual Inlets with Variable

Bypass Valves 151
4.3-16 Double Flap Concept 151
4.3-17 Variable Cooler Inlet Concept 152
4.3-18 Oil Cooler Concept Using a Common Inlet at Cruise 152
4.3-19 Inlet Duct Air/Oil Heat Exchanger Concept 153
4.3-20 Fuel/Oil Cooler Concept 154
4.3-21 Fuel/Oil Cooling System with Supplementary Air/Oil Cooler 154
4.3-22 Advanced Turboprop Control System 158
4.3-23 Prop-Fan Selection Trade Study 160
4.3-24 Prop-Fan Concept Description 160
4.3-25 Conceptual Nacelle Design for an Offset Gearbox Installation 161
4.3-26 Conceptual Nacelle Design for an In-Line Gearbox Installation 162
4.3-27 Candidate Propulsion System _1ounting Schemes 163
4.3-28 Schematic Drawing of the "Integrated" Engine and Reduction

Gear Mounting System 164
4.3-29 Schematic Drawing of "Integrated Nacelle" (Cradle)

Mounting System 165
4.3-30 Schematic Drawi ng of the "Parti ally Independently Mounted"

Reduction Gear and Engine Mounting System 165
4.3-31 "Integrated" Engine and Reduction Gear Mounting System

Selected for the Offset Configuration 166
4.3-32 "Integrated" Engine and Reduction Gear Mounting System

Selected for the In-Line Configuration 167
4.3-33 Propulsion System Components for the Offset Gearbox

Installation 169
]19
List of lllustraions for Section 4.3 (Cont'd)
Figure
Number Ti tl e Page
4.3-34 Single Prop-Fan Blade Removal 170
4.3-35 Pitch Change Regulator Removal; Offset Gearbox Installation 171
4.3-36 Prop-Fan Module Removal 171
4.3-37 Offset Gearbox Removal 172
4.3-38 Power Shaft Removal 172
4.3-39 Turboshaft Engine Removal 173
4.3-40 Major Propulsion System Modules; In-Line Gearbox Installation 174
4.3-41 In-Line Gearbox Removal 175
4.3-42 Pitch Change Regulator Removal 175
4.3-43 Turboshaft Engine Modules; "Non-Free" Power Turbine

(Two-Spool) Engine 176
4.3-44 Turboshaft Engine Modules; "Free" Power Turbine (Three-Spool)

Engine 176
4.3-45 Conceptual Design Drawing of the Prop-Fan Propulsio n System;

In-Line Gearbox Installation 180
4.3-46 Conceptual Drawing of the Prop-Fan Propulsion System;

Offset Gearbox Installation 181
4.3-47 Part Power Performance Comparison 183
4.3-48 Base Size Turboprop Engine Dimensions 184
4.3-49 Turboprop Engine Scaling Information 185
4.3-50 Base Size Gearbox Dimensions 186
4.3-5l Reduction Gear Scaling Data 187
4.3-52 Reference Turbofan Engine (STF686) Dimensions 188
4.3-53 Reference Turbofan Engine (STF686) Installation 188
4.3-54 Reference Turbofan Engine (STF686) Scaling Information 188
120
Table
Number Ti tl e Page
4.3-I Reduction Gear Configuration System Evaluation 126
4.3-II United Technologies Corporation Reduction Gear

Evaluation Team 126
4.3-III Reduction Gear Design Approach 127
4.3-IV Technology for Reduction Gear Concept Evaluation 128
4.3-V Gearbox Subassemblies Made Removable for Inspection,

Repair, or Replacement 130
4.3-VI Bearing Life Summary In-Line, Split Path Planetary Gearbox

(Conventional Rotation) 130
4.3-VII Gear Stress Summary In-Line, Split Path Planetary Gearbox

4.3-VIII Gear Stress Summary Offset Compound Idler Gearbox

4.3-IX Bearing Life Summary Offset Compound Idler Gearbox

4.3-X Reduction Gear/Pitch Control Integration Technical

Considerations Requiring Additional Effort 140
4.3-XI Engine and Aircraft Accessory Technical Considerations

Requiring Additional Effort 140
4.3-XII Major Technical Concerns for Inlets Used With In-Line Gearbox
Installations 143
4.3-XIII Dimensional Comparison of Inlets for In-Line Gearbox

Installations 144
4.3-XIV Major Technical Concerns for Inlets Used With In-Line

Gearbox Install ations 145
4.3-XV Dimensional Comparison of Inlets for Offset Gearbox

Installations 145
4.3-XVl Estimated Inlet Pressure Losses 146
4.3-XVll Inlet/Nacelle Technical Considerations Requiring Additional

Study Effort 146
121
List of Tables for Section 4.3 (Cont'd)
Table
Number Title Page
4.3-XVIII Typical Prop-Fan Engine Flight Cycle and Heat Rejection

from 12,000 Horsepower Size Gearbox - Standard Day 149
4.3-XIX Typical Plate-Fin Heat Exchanger Characteristics for 12,0DO

Horsepower Size Gearbox 150
4.3-XX Heat Exchanger Technical Issues Requiring Additional Study 155
4.3-XXI Advanced Turboprop Control System Design Approach 156
4.3-XXII Advanced Turboprop Control Modes 157
4.3-XXIII Advanced Turboprop Control System Implementation 157
4.3-XXIV Advanced Turboprop Engine Control Technical Issues Requiring

Additional Analytical Efforts 15g
4.3-XXV Mounting Considerations Requiring Additional Study Effort 167
4.3-XXVl Major _odules in the Prop-Fan Propulsion System 168
4.3-XXVll Typical Propulsion System Component Maintenance Action

(Removal/Replacement) Times 169
4.3-XXVIII Propulsion System Reliability Prediction 177
4.3-XXIX Reduction Gear Reliability (MTBR) 179
4.3-XXX Base Size Turboprop and Reference Turbofan Comparison 182
4.3-XXXI Turboprop Engine (STS678/679) Computer Deck Capabilities

and Options 184
4.3-XXXII Base Size Engine, Gearbox, and Prop-Fan Weights 186
4.3-XXXIII Reference Turbofan (STF686) Computer Deck Capabilities

and Options 187
122
4.3 TASK Ill - PROPULSION SYSTEM INTEGRATION
4.3.1 Introduction
The objective of Task Ill was to select the best propulsion system for a Prop-
Fan powered aircraft and to prepare a Propulsion System Inte9ration Package
which would be used to compare the Prop-Fan and reference turbofan propulsion
systems in the Engine/Aircraft Evaluation (Task IV).
At the conclusion of Task II, the NASA Program Manager and Pratt & Whitney
mutually selected two engine configurations for the propulsion system integra-
tion studies: (l) a "non-free" power turbine (two-spool) engine with axial
compression and (2) a "free" turbine (three-spool) engine with axial/centrifu-
gal compression.
Initial Propulsion System Integration Packa9es were assembled and submitted to

the four airframe manufacturers participating in the APET Study (Boeing,
Douglas, Lockheed-California and Lockheed-Georgia) for their critique and com-
ments. The integration packages included an over-the-wing installation for the
two-spool and three-spool engine configurations, in-line and offset reduction
gear options, gearbox oil cooler information, inlet configuration options and
comparisons, and a propulsion system integration summary. Pratt & Whitney re-
ceived written comments from Lockheed-Georgia, Lockheed-California, and Boeing.
Ill_ 5QIIHIi_II5_ OIIOU_ U_ 5ll_ _gl biSl_QSIIl_ OII ll'Olll_ IIIGIIUIO_bUI'_['_ W_l'_ iil_Ur'pur-dk-
ed in the Final Propulsion System Integration Package discussed in this sec-
tion. Some of the major features of the final integration package include:
confirmation of an over-the-wing installation, a turboprop base engine size of
12,000 horsepower, and confirmation that the propulsion system integration
package should continue to include options for "free" and "non-free" power
turbine engine configurations, and in-line and offset reduction gear concepts.
During Task Ill, follow-on work was identified which will require coordinated
efforts between engine and airframe manufacturers.
This section covers the following topics in some detail: (I) propulsion system
component definition, including engine configurations, gearbox and pitch con-
trol candidates, aircraft accessory locations for power extraction, inlet con-
figurations, oil cooler arrangements, propulsion system control, and propeller
(Prop-Fan) considerations; (2) the major features of the integrated propulsion
system, including a conceptual nacel]e, engine mounting options, acoustic
treatment requirements, modular maintenance concepts, and propulsion system
reliabi]ity; (3) a summary of the Final Propulsion System Integration Package.
The integration package includes: a conceptual drawing of the two propulsion
systems, a base size turboprop/reference turbofan engine comparison, turboprop
engine system data package and computer deck (including User Manual), and a
reference turbofan engine propulsion system data package and computer deck
(including user manual). The user manuals for both the turboprop and reference
turbofan engines include weight, dimensional, and performance scaling curves
as a function of engine size. Acquisition and maintenance cost data, as well
as appropriate scaling curves, will be supplied in a separate document.
123
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF_ POOR QUALITY
4.3.2 Propulsion System Components
The propulsion system components include: the turboprop engine, reduction

gearbox/pitch control, aircraft accessory locations for power extraction, en-
gine inlet configuration with options, oil cooler with options, an engine/
Prop-Fan control system, and the Prop-Fan. The process of evaluating these
components and defining the final propulsion system configuration is described
below.
4.3.2.] Turboprop Engine
As a result of the cycle optimization study and engine configuration evalua-

tion (Task If), both the two-spool axial compression engine (designated STS678
in the 12,000 horsepower base size) and the three-spool axial/centrifugal en-
gine (designated STS679 in the 12,000 horsepower base size) were selected for
the propulsion system integration study. The "non-free" power turbine engine
(STS678) is i11ustrated in Figure 4.3-I and the "free" power turbine engine
(STS679) is illustrated in Figure 4.3-2. These two engine configurations were
judged approximately equal on the basis of fuel burn and direct operating
cost. The details of the selection process were presented in Section 4.2.
Figure 4.3-I Cross Section of the STS678 Engine - This "non-free" power tur-
bine (two-spool) axial compression engine was selected for eval-
uation in an integrated Prop-Fan propulsion system. (J27638-4)
4.3.2.2 Gearbox and Pitch Control
Pratt & Whitney conducted extensive studies of reduction gear systems in 1981.
Information obtained in these studies is provided as background for the work
conducted during the APET contract effort.
124
Figure 4.3-2 Cross Section of the STS67g Engine - This "free" power turbine
(three-spool) axial/centrifugal compression engine was selected
for evaluation in an integrated Prop-Fan propulsion system.
(J27638-5)
Based on these studies, the in-line split path gearbox configuration and the
offset compound idler gearbox configuration were selected for evaluation.
Pitch control considerations were also covered. The airframe manufacturers
indicated that both systems should be included in future engine/aircraft inte-
gration studies. Therefore, both the in-line split path configuration and the
offset compound idler configuration are included in the Propulsion System
Integration Package.
Background Information
The results of previous gearbox studies were documented in Technical Paper

AIAA-82-1124, "Selecting the Best Reduction Gear Concept for a Prop-Fan
Propulsion System," delivered at the June 1982 AIAA/SAE/ASME 18th Joint
Propulsion System Conference. The major findings from the paper are summarized
in Table 4.3-I. Nine in-line and offset gearbox concepts were screened in the
studies. The in-line concepts were: split path planetary, layshaft, compound
planetary, star/star, and planetary/planetary systems. The offset reduction
gear concepts included: spur/star, spur/planetary, compound idler, and spur/
spur systems. The systems were evaluated on the basis of efficiency, reli-
ability, weight, acquisition cost, maintenance cost, Prop-Fan pitch control
accessibility, risk assessment, capability of opposite rotation, ease of
scaling, and noise generation.
125
TABLE 4.3- I
REDUCTION GEAR CONFIGURATION SYSTEM EVALUATION
15,000 HORSEPOWER SIZE

1981 TECHNOLOGY
MAX, MFG MAINT RELATIVE

REDUCTION GEAR HORSEPOWER CRUISE WEIGHT. COST, COST,'8G SYSTEM
CONFIGURATION LOSS EFFICIENCY LB. '80 $ $/EFH DOC + INT
COMPOUND IDLER (OFFSET) 166 0.982 BASE BASE BASE
SPUR/PLANETARY (OFFSET) 172 0.981 -9% +50% +105% + 0.32%
SPLIT PATH (IN-LINE) 182 0.980 - 30% + 50% + 100%
STAR/PLANETARY (IN-LINE) 213 0.977 - 8% + 50% + 105% + 0.62%
SPUR/STAR (OFFSET) 213 0.977 + 4% +50% + 50% +0.72%
STAR/STAR (IN-LINE) 224 0.976 -3% + 60% + 110% +0.85%
As shown in the table, the offset compound idler and the in-line split path
planetary gearbox concepts were found to be very close on the basis of direct
operating cost. Therefore, both concepts were selected for further evaluation
in the APET study using technology assumed to be available in the 1988 time
peri od.
To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the reduction gear configurations, a

team of experts was assembled from United Technologies Corporation to take
advantage of the Corporation's extensive experience with gearboxes for heli-
copters, small turboprop engines, and military applications. The makeup of the
team is described in Table 4.3-II; key results are also highlighted.
TABLE 4.3-II
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION REDUCTION GEAR EVALUATION TEAM
Des_ Design Review Team
0 Pratt & Whitney - o Hamilton Standard

Commerci al Engineeri n9 o Pratt & Whitney of Canada
0 Sikorsky Aircraft o Pratt % Whitney - Government
Products Division
o Considered 5 In-line gear candidates

4 Offset gear candidates
o Compared Weight, efficiency, durability, cost
o Selected Split path in-line and compound idler offset

configurations for further studies
126
The gearbox design objectives are summarized in Table 4.3-III. The objectives
reflect the major concern of airline operators of turboprop engines; improving
the 2000 to 3000 hour mean time between unscheduled removals of the gearbox
module for cause characteristic of current reduction gears. The mean time
between removals (_BR) is indicative of the reliability of the gearbox and
leads to the assessment of maintenance cost which wtll be discussed later in
this section.
TABLE 4.3-111
REDUCTION GEAR DESIGN APPROACH
Overall Design Goals
o Reliability (MTBR) - Greater than 15,000 hours

o Cruise efficiency - 99.0%
Mounting Philosophy - Transfer Prop-Fan Loads Directly to Aircraft
o Stiff reduction gear shafts to minimize deflections

o Output gear located on output shaft where shaft slope = 0 degree
o Stiff case to minimize deformations
o Bearings and gears sized for long life
Modular Construction for High Aircraft Dispatch Reliability and Low Mainte-
nance Cost
o Externally mounted aircraft accessories

o Accessible oil pump and condition monitoring systems
o Propeller brake pad
o "On-the-wing" main shaft seal replacement
o Accessible propeller pitch control components
To assist in meeting the reliability goals, the gears for an advanced turbo-
prop reduction gear system will be designed with allowable stresses which are
30%-40% lower than helicopter design criteria. This standard reflects the
longer life cycle requirement for a turboprop gear system. The stress levels
for the turboprop gears are compared to stress levels for helicopter gears in
Figure 4.3-Li.
DESIGN ALLOWABLES AT 10 l° CYCLES
2.2
(n
) BENOI .EL,CO...
REDUCTION GEAR
ul
TURBOPROP
1.1
1.0 _
10 4 10 6 10 6 10 ./ 108 10 9 10 lo
LIFE CYCLES
Figure 4.3-3 Spur-Helical Gear S-N Curve - The a11owable gear stresses for a
turboprop reduction gear system are significantly lower than
helicopter design criteria. (J26767-6)
127
The offset compound idler and tn-line spl it path reduction gear concepts were
evaluated using technology assumed to be available by 1988. Current and
advanced gear, bearing, housing, and lubricant technology levels are compared
in Table 4.3-IV. To achieve the longer ltfe design objective for advanced
turboprop engine gearboxes, weight has been strategically added to the gearbox
designs.
TABLE 4.3-IV
TECHNOLOGY FOR REDUCTION GEAR CONCEPT EVALUATION
Advanced
Current Technology Assumed
Technology Available b_ 1988
o Gears - Materials AMS 6265 Vasco X-ZM or

Cartech EX-53
Bending Fatigue Limit
Unidirectional, MPa 345(l) 414(1)
(psi) (50,000)
Reversed Bending, MPa 283(1) 338
(psi) (41,000) (49,000)
Hertz Stress Limit, MPa 869(I) I041(I)
(psi ) (126,ooo) (151,ooo)
Pitch Line Velocity Limit, m/min 9144 10,668
(ft/mi n) (30,000) (35,000)
CVM M50 Vimvar M50

o Bearings - Materials
System Design Life Requirement 18,000 18,000

(LIO) hr.
Material/Lubrication Life Factor 6-12 20 to 30
o Aluminum, Advanced Alumi-

Housings - Material s
Magnesium num, Magnesium
and/or Stainless
Steel
o Lubricant - Fluids Mil 23699 Synthesized _ydro-

Type II carbon Fluid (SHF)
Oil Inlet Temp., °C ('F) 82 (IUU) 121 (250)

Allowable Temperature Rise, "C (°F) 4.4-I0 (40-50) 26.7-37.8 (80-100)
Load Carrying Ability, MPa (psi) 13.8-24.1 27.6-31.0
(2000-3500 ) (4000-4500)
Flash Temperature Index, "C ('F) 136 (276) 177 (350)
(1)Typical gl)Br allowable stress - 3 sigma with a coefficient of variation

- 0.I, lOm cycles
128
In-line Split Path Reduction Gear Confl(/uration
The in-line split path reduction gear is a compact, lightweight system incor-
porating twenty gears and twenty-one bearings. A conventional rotation con-
figuration is shown in Figure 4.3-4. A schematic of the gearbox is shown in
the lower left corner of the figure. The overall gear (speed) ratio is 9.6.
The speed reduction for the first and second stages is 5.2 and 1.85, respec-
tively. Forty-four percent of the total power is transmitted through the first
stage while the remaining 56% is transmitted through the second stage. Since
the power transmission is split between both stages, smaller gears and bear-
ings can be used. The second stage incorporates a star gear system which is
located forward of the planetary first stage to improve access to the Prop-Fan
pitch control modules. Although it is not shown in the figure, one accessory
pad is provided for aircraft use and a Prop-Fan brake pad is included.
•
• 1 input gear, 2 bearings
• 1st stage
-- 6 pinion gears, 6 bearings
-- 1 ring gear
• 2nd stage
-- Input sun gear
-- 10 pinion gears, 10 bearings
-- 1 ring gear
-- Output shaft, 3 bearings
Figure 4.3-4 In-Line Split Path Reduction Gear Concept - This compact, light-
weight system includes 20 gears and 21 bearings. (J27638-86)
In order to minimize maintenance costs, the gearbox has been designed as a

series of subassemblies which can be removed as modules for inspection, re-
pair, or replacement. Key features of this modular design are described in
Table 4.3-V.
129
TABLE 4.3-V
GEARBOX SUBASSEMBLIES MADE REMOVABLE FOR
INSPECTION, REPAIR, OR REPLACEMENT
External Accessories
Prop-Fan Pitch Control (all modules for offset gearbox concept; two of
these modules for in-line gearbox concepts)
Power Takeoff Shaft to Airframe Accessory Drive
Prop-Fan Brake Assembly
Interface Components
Input Shaft Coupling, Seal and Mating Ring
Prop-Fan Shaft Seal and Mating Ring
Mount Pads and Bushings
Lubrication System Components

Oil Supply/Scavenge Pump Module(s)
Oil Filter(s)
Breather Filter
Oil Jet Screens
Oil Jets (two-thirds of total)
Condition Monitoring Components (Usually Supplied by Aircraft Company)
Chip Detector Modul e(s)

Vibrati on/Noi se Moni tori ng Devi ces
Table 4.3-VI summarizes the individual bearing lives required to meet the total
bearing system design objective of a BIO life of 18,000 hours. Spherical roller
bearings were selected for the planet and star pinions to provide good bearing
and gear alignment. The multiple load path design of the split path planetary
gearbox concept results in a compact, lightweight system with twenty-one bear-
ings. The bearing sizes selected to meet the design objectives will determine
pinion gear diameter and face width.
TABLE 4.3-V I
BEARING LIFE SUMMARY IN-LINE, SPLIT PATH PLANETARY GEARBOX
(Conventional Rotation)
Bearing Life_ BIO*
Locati on Type Quantit_ Individual Bearing

Hours
Ball 2 106
Input Shaft
Planet Pinion Spherical Roller 6 135,000
Star Pinion Spherical Roller lO 148,000
Output Shaft Roller, Rear 1 I05,000
Output Shaft Roller, Front 1 100,000
Output Shaft Ball l 146,000
7T
Bearing System Life 18,900
*Equivalent life that 90% of all bearing sets will meet or exceed
130
Gear stresses for the in-line split path planetary gearbox are summarized in
Table 4.3-VII. The bearing sizes selected to meet the design objectives in
Table 4.3-VI will determine pinion 9ear diameter and face width. The resulting
pinion 9ear dimensions led to gear tooth Hertz contact stresses which are well
below the 1041 I_a (151,000 psi) design allowable level. This will substanti-
ally reduce the probability of gear tooth pitting and scoring failures. To
obtain maximum 9ear efficiency, the gear tooth pitch was selected such that
the 9ear tooth bending stresses are at the design allowable level. The stres-
ses setting the desi9 n constraints are associated with the bending limit for
reverse loading in the pinion gear teeth.
TABLE 4.3-VII
GEAR STRESS SUMMARY IN-LINE, SPLIT PATH PLANETARY GEARBOX
Gear Stress
Value AII owabl e

Stage Mesh Type MPa_rpsi ) MPa (psi)
Planet Sun-Pinion Hertz 861 (124,800) 1041 (151,000)

Bending 332 (48,200) 338 ( 49,000)*
Pinion-Ring Hertz 544 (79,00u) 1041 (151,000)

Bending 299 (43,30U) 338 ( 49,000)*
Star Sun-Pinion Hertz 886 (128,500) 1041 (151,000)

Bending 27B (40,_00) 3_8 ( 49,000)*
Pinion-Ring Hertz 712 (103,300) 1041 (151,OOU)

Bending 271 (39,300) 338 ( 49,000)*
*Bending Limit Set by Reverse Loading of Pinion Gear Tooth
To provide some insight into the integration of the pitch control with the in-
line gearbox, an enlarged view of this portion of the gearbox is shown in
Figure 4.3-5. The differential 9ear assembly and hydraulic transfer bearing
module of the pitch control are located within the gearbox. Therefore, the
gearbox will have to be removed from the aircraft for pitch control mainte-
nance actions in these areas.
131
• Integrated as part of gearbox,
likely to require gearbox removal
for maintenance
• Large diameter > 1 2.7 cm (5 inch

diameter) oil transfer bearing
• Mechanical and hydraulic

hardware pass thru planetary
gearset
Figure 4.3-5 In-Line Gearbox/Pitch Control Integration Highlights - With an

in-line reduction gear system, the pitch control is integrated
with the gearbox; thus, the gearbox must be removed for pitch
control maintenance actions. (J27638-93)
Input from the aircraft manufacturers indicated that an opposite hand rotation
Prop-Fan may be required to optimize wing interference and wing aerodynamics,
and to reduce noise. Figure 4.3-6 shows the impact of opposite rotation on the
in-line split path gearbox concept. A schematic of the opposite hand rotation
configuration is shown in the lower left hand portion of the figure. Very few
of the parts in the opposite hand rotation gearbox are interchangeable with
the parts in the conventional rotation gearbox. To implement the opposite
rotation, the carrier of the first stage planetary gear set must be connected
to the spur gear of the second stage, resulting in a 70% increase in the
planetary bearing speeds. The higher speed produces a significant increase in
the bearing centrifugal loads. This reduces the bearing set life by approxi-
mately 20% and increases the maintenance cost by about 5%. Prop-Fan pitch con-
trol accessibility is more difficult because the second stage must be moved
aft of the first stage gearing. Since the first stage pinion gearset speed is
70% higher than the Prop-Fan output speed, an additional transfer bearing is
required to accommodate the higher first stage speed; this increases the com-
plexity of the pitch control.
1 32
Opposite hand rotation
Modified for
opposite
Base design .rotation
• Cruise efficiency % Base ,--Base

• Weight Base -,-Base
Base ,--Base
•Beadng set life, hrs Base - 20%
f__ ,, • Acquisition
Reliability (MTBR)
cost, $ hrs 15,000 15,000
• Maintenance cost, $/EFH Base + 5%
• Dimensions
Maximum radial envelope Base + 10%
• Number of common parts Base Very few
Fi gure 4.3-6 Impact of Opposite Hand Rotation on t,e Single Rotation In-Line
Split Path Reduction Gear Concept - An opposite hand rotation
Prop-Fan will optimize wing interference and aerodynamics and
reduce noise. (J27638-87)
Offset Compound Idler Reduction Gear Configuration
The offset compound idler reduction gear concept is illustrated in Figure

4.3-7. A schematic of the gearbox is presented on the left side of the figure.
The total gear (speed) reduction is 9.6, using a total of six gears and twelve
bearings. The inlet pinion gear drives two idler gears for the first stage
speed reduction of 3.1. Each of the two idler gears is integrated with a co-
axial pinion and together drive a gear attached to the output shaft of the
second stage with a speed reduction ratio of 3.1. Six gears and twelve
bearings are used for the concept.
Since the total input power from the engine is divided between the two idler
gears, the input load (or power) must be shared equally. Four load sharing
techniques were investigated: (1) a vertical floating pinion, (2) an axial
floating pinion system, (3) an external mechanical balance beam arrangement,
and (4) a hydraulic thrust piston arrangement. The vertical floating pinion
was discounted because large gears were required to meet the offset installa-
tion requirements. The axial floating pinion system required additional axial
1 33
Conventional rotation
ou _ ,_
piston-load _1 _ ._
arrangem_gent ...._ _L---_-I II
• 1 input gear, 3 bearings

• 4 idler gears, 6 bearings
• 1 output gear, 3 bearings
Figure 4.3-7 Offset Compound Idler Reduction Gear Concept - This system
provides a total speed reduction of 9.6 and features a modular
design. (J27638-88)
space within the gearbox as well as additional gears and would have increased
the weight of the gearbox 5 to I0%. The external mechanical balance beam re-
quired a 15 - 20% increase in axial space, making it a very cumbersome system.
The hydraulic thrust piston arrangement was selected because it had a minimal
impact on gearbox weight and installation complexity. The hydraulic thrust
piston load sharing concept is illustrated in the gearbox cross section
(Figure 4.3-7).
As with the in-line split path reduction gear concept, the design includes an
aircraft accessory pad, a Prop-Fan brake, and subassemblies which can be re-
moved for inspection and/or repair without removing the entire gearbox from
the aircraft. The removable subassemblies are listed in Table 4.3-V. The off-
set reduction gear concept provides all of the modular features of the in-line
split path concept. In addition, the Prop-Fan pitch control can be removed for
inspection or repair without removing the gearbox from the aircraft.
Gear stresses for the offset compound idler gearbox concept are summarized in
Table 4.3-VIII. The limiting gear stress level, used to size the gears, is
based on the bending unidirectional tooth loading. Gear size is minimized by
using a high contact ratio gear tooth design. The design evaluation resulted
in setting the second gear stage stresses closer to the design limits than the
first stage stresses because the gear weight is concentrated in the second
1 34
stage. The gear dimensions for each stage are set by considerations of rela-
tive speed ratio, center distance, and pinion gear face width-to-diameter
ratio. By reducing the first stage gear face width-to-diameter ratio from 0.85
to 0.73, Hertz and bending stresses could be increased to the design limits.
This was judged to reduce gear weight by less than 5%; therefore further design
iterations were not performed.
TABLE 4.3-VIII
GEAR STRESS SUMMARY OFFSET COMPOUND IDLER GEARBOX
Gear Stress
Stage Shaft Type Value AI 1owabl e

MPa (psi) MPa (psi)
First Input Hertz 894 (129,600) I041 (151,000)

Bending 348 (50,400) 414 ( 60,000)*
Idler Hertz 894 (129,600) 1041 (151,000)

Bending 314 (45,500) 414 ( 60,000)*
Second Idler Hertz I035 (150,000) 1041 (15l,OOu)

Bending 428 (60,000) 414 ( 60,000)*
Output Hertz I035 (150,100) 1041 (151,000)

Bending 359 (52,100) 414 ( 60,000)*
*Bending Limit Based on Unidirectional Tooth Loading
Table 4.3-IX summarizes the individual bearing lives required to meet the to-
tal bearing system design objective of a BlO life of 18,000 hours. As seen in
the table, several of the individual bearing lives are in the 50,OUO to lO0,O00
hour range. These individual bearing lives are lower than the bearing lives
for the in-line gearbox because the number of bearings is reduced from 21 to
12. Several ball bearings have lives of 300,000 hours or more because bearing
sizes are determined by shaft and housing requirements rather than bearing
load.
The impact of opposite hand rotation on the offset compound idler reduction
gear configuration is shown in Figure 4.3-8. Two idler gears and four bearings
are added to the conventional system to achieve opposite hand rotation. The
idler gears used in the conventional rotation gearbox are moved outward
approximately 2.5 cm (l.O in) (in a 12,00U horsepower size gearbox) to disen-
gage the output gearing. The additional parts required for opposite hand
rotation reduce the efficiency and'reliability of the gearbox, as well as in-
creasing weight, cost, and maximum radial diameter. However, there are more
common parts in the conventional and opposite rotation offset gearbox con-
figurations than in the conventional and opposite rotation in-line gearbox
configurations.
135
TABLE 4.3-IX
BEARING LIFE SUMMARY OFFSET COMPOUND IDLER GEARBOX
Bearin_ Life, BlO*
Location Type Quantit_ Individual Bearing

hours
Input Shaft Roller l 80,000

Roller l 98,000
Ball 1 84,000
Left Idler Rol Ier 1 90,000

Rol Ier l I08,000
Ball l lO6
Right Idler Roller l 72,000

Roller l 4B,O00
Ball l lO 6
Output Shaft Rol Ier l I00,000

Rol Ier l 140,000
Bal I 1 300,000
12
Bearing System Life IB,800
*Equivalent life that 90% of all bearing sets will meet or exceed
Pitch control integration for the offset gearbox is highlighted in Figure

4.3-9. As illustrated in the sketch in the lower left hand corner, the pitch
control is readily accessible from the rear of the gearbox, permitting pitch
control maintenance actions "on the wing" of the aircraft. The oil transfer
bearing is smaller than the bearing required for the in-line gearbox concept.
This smaller bearing provides the potential for reduced weight as well as a
simplified design for transferring the 20,684 to 34,474 Pa (3000 to 5000 psi)
fluid used for Prop-Fan blade pitch change.
Pitch Control Comparison
The characteristics of the pitch control systems for the in-line and offset
reduction gear configurations are summarized in Fiyure 4.3-I0. The sketches
shown at the top of the figure are roughly to scale. The slip ring assembly
for electrical input to the Prop-Fan is readily located at the rear end of the
offset gearbox pitch control system. However, for the in-line gearbox system,
the slip ring assembly is placed at the front of the gearbox. The impact of
the hydraulic transfer bearing, mechanical input, and maintenance of the in-
line and offset gearbox concepts are highlighted in the figure.
136
Idler _ Idler
, -I-_
gear _ gear
Max. radial
Conventional rotation Opposite rotation envelope
Modified for
Base design opposite rotation
* Cruise efficiency, % Base - 0.3
• Weight Base + 18%
• Acquisition cost, $ Base + 18%
• Bearing set life, hrs Base Base
• Reliability (MTBR), hrs 33,000 27,300
• Maintenance cost, $/EFH Base + 15%
• Dimensions
Max. radial envelope, ins. Base + 5%
• Number of common parts Base Large number
Figure 4,3-8 Impact of Opposite Hand Rotation on Offset Compound Idler

Reduction Gear Configuration - Opposite hand rotation reduces
the efficiency and reliability of the gearbox and increases
weight and cost. (J27638-61)
Hydraulic
transfer
Hydraulic. beadng
supply \ / Differential gear assy
................... _--_.._. _._.j_

,,::
_ .et-=_._-:----mJI - I .11_ | • Accessible from rear of gearbox

u"'"'_i__'_ } -- does not require gearbox
_X,,.__ removal for maintenance
- _ • Small,-.7.6 cm (3 inch diameter)
-.._.._ i...t . oil transfer bearing
Offset compound idler
Figure 4.3-9 Offset Gearbox/Pitch Control Integration - With an offset

reduction gear configuration, pitch control maintenance
actions can be performed on the wing of the aircraft.
(J27638-94)
137
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF PoOR QUALITY
HyGtlwllC tnmsfM
_ _\ Hydr•ull¢ _'-_ bering
/ BffMentlal
Hydtl_tk_ IKIl_ly gear _ Control Input
-- "_ . I_/._ F s"p"o'Y
¢4mtMtine _ i I_ _ - _e-, _
,,
_J:- _L&' , L
L.,.._
Dlff_tllt
........
g_W a_liembly
In-Line Offset
• MECHANICAL AND • Through gear train • Through prop (_ transfer tube

HYDRAULIC INPUT
• ELECTRICAL INPUT • Through slip ring on rotor • Through prop (_ transfer tube
• TRANSFER BEARING • Large diameter • Small diameter
• MECHANICAL INPUT • Right angle drive • Small and simple
(DIFFERENTIAL GEAR TRAIN) • Removal of Prop-Fan assembly • Modular and accessible for
• MAINTENANCE maintenance
Figure 4.3-I0 Comparison of Pitch Control Systems for In-Line and Offset
Reduction Gear Configurations - The pitch control for the
offset gearbox is more accessible than the pitch control for
the in-line gearbox. (J27638-95)
In-Line/Offset Gearbox Configuration Comparison
The significant characteristics of the in-line split path and offset compound
idler reduction gear configurations are compared in Figure 4.3-II. The advan-
tages of the offset compound idler system include: greater efficiency, less
major parts (bearings and gears), lower acquisition and maintenance cost,
greater reliability, and more effective pitch control integration. The in-line
split path gearbox configuration offers a significant weight advantage; in
addition, it can result in a slimmer nacelle because of its smaller diameter.
The final selection of a gearbox concept for a Prop-Fan propulsion system must
be made in integrated studies with the airframe manufacturers. Therefore, both
the in-line and offset reduction gear configurations have been included in the
Propulsion System Integration Package.
138
Output __ ,_'_'_'t_ I put
___ ,nou,
Offset In-line
compound idler split path
• Rotation Conventional Opposite Conventional Opposite

• Efficiency Base -0.3% - 0.2% - 0.2%
• Number of bearings/gears 12/6 16/8 21120 21120
• Diameter Base + 5% - 34% - 27%
• Weight Base + 18% - 35% - 35%
• Acquisition cost Base + 18% + 23% + 23%
• Reliability (MTBR, hrs) 32,700 27,300 15,000 15,000
• Maintenance cost, $1FH [1] 2.40 2.80 4.80 5.05
(1982 $)
• Pitch control integration Base More difficult
rll In nnminAI 19 _ hnr.qcmnwAr .qiTA

L'J • ............... • ......... r .........
Figure 4.3-11 Comparison of In-Line and Offset Reduction Gear Configurations -

Each configuration offers advantages and disadvantages; the
final selection must be made in conjunction with the airframe
manufacturers. (J2763B-I08)
When compared in a Prop-Fan powered aircraft, the significant weight reduction

and slimmer nacelle of the in-line gearbox overcame the acquisition and main-
tenance cost advantage of the offset gearbox. Results of the fuel burned and
direct operating cost evaluation are summarized below.
Gearbox Rotation* in Fuel Burn, % Direct Operatin_ Cost_ %
Offset
Compound Idler Opposite Base Base
Offset
Compound Idler Same -0.4 -0.25
In-Line
Spl it Path Opposite -I .4 -0.4
In-Line
Spl it Path Same -I .4 -0.4
* Propeller direction of rotation, left vs right engines
139
Technical Considerations Requirtn 9 Further Stud_
The major technical consideration requiring study beyond the scope of the cur-
rent contract is summarized in Table 4.3.-X. Preliminary design studies should
be conducted to identify innovative approaches to lowering the acquisition
cost and improving the modularity of the in-line reduction gear system through
improved accessibility to the Prop-Fan pitch conrol.
TABLE 4.3-X
REDUCTION GEAR/PITCH CONTROL INTEGRATION
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EFFORT
0 In-Line Gearbox/Pitch Control Integration and Modularity
4.3.2.3 Engine and Aircraft Accessory Locations for Power Extraction
Various mounting locations for engine and aircraft related accessories were
evaluated. Engine related accessories, which include the fuel pump, electronic
controls for the propulsion system, lubrication pumps, electrical generator
and starter, will be powered from the high-pressure spool through a gear drive
system. Aircraft related accessories, such as hydraulic pumps and integrated
drive electrical generators, can either be mounted on the engine or on the
Prop-Fan reduction gearbox.
The airframe manufacturers indicated that sufficient data are not yet avail-
able to define the optimum location for the aircraft related accessories.
Therefore, options for both engine and aircraft mounting locations have been
included in the Propulsion System Integration Package. Preliminary studies
would appear to favor engine mounted accessories for an in-line gearbox
installation and gearbox mounted accessories for an offset reduction gear in-
stallation. In the in-line installation, inlet ducting is crowded around the
gearbox; thus, panels would have to be included in the nacelle to provide
access to gearbox-mounted airframe accessories. The engine mounting location
alleviates this problem, as indicated in Figure 4.3-12. In the offset instal-
lation, the limited space available around the engine makes _le gearbox mount-
ing location more attractive, as indicated in Figure 4.3-13.
The final selection of an accessory mounting location will require trade stud-
ies with the airframe manufacturers. The key issues which must be addressed
are summarized in Table 4.3-XI.
TABLE 4.3-XI
ENGINE AND AIRCRAFT ACCESSORY TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
REQUIRING AUDITIONAL EFFORT
Conduct trade studies with airframe manufacturers to determine proper

location of airframe accessories
Conduct trade studies with airframe manufacturers to evaluate

"all-electric" accessory technology
140
\ I__ Airframe accessories: engine mounted
Xt "
Fi gure 4.3-12 Aircraft Accessory Mounting Options for an In-Line Gearbox
Installation - Two mounting options are provided for location
of aircraft accessories. (J27638-8)
i-// / • . : g"
Figure 4.3-13 Aircraft Accessory Mounting Options for an Offset Gearbox

Installation - Two mounting options are provided for location
of aircraft accessories. (j27638-1])
141
4..3.2.4 Inlet Configurations
Since the interaction between the Prop-Fan and the inlet is a key factor in
designing an efficient turboprop propulsion system, several inlet configu-
rations were evaluated in the APET Program. Annular, trifurcated, bifurcated
and chin inlet concepts were considered for an in-line gearbox installation.
Chin and bifurcated inlets were viable candidates for an offset gearbox in-
stallation. After an evaluation of the inlets, summarized below, the chin in-
let was selected for the offset gearbox installation and the bifurcated inlet
was selected for the in-line gearbox installation. Both of these concepts have
been included in the Propulsion System Integration Package.
The evaluation focused on major technical concerns for the inlet concepts,
changes in inlet dimensions required for two-spool and three-spool engine con-
figurations, and inlet pressure losses. Technical concerns included: the im-
pact of Prop-Fan spinner boundary air on inlet performance, engine compressor
airflow distortion, Prop-Fan back pressure effects, bird ingestion/dirt re-
moval, angular airflow sensitivity, inlet anti-icing, and compatibility with
the gearbox. A qualitative assessment of each inlet concept was made on the
basis of these parameters. These judgements were confirmed by the airframe
manufacturers. Technical issues requiring additional effort beyond the scope
of the current contract were also identified.
Inlets for In-Line Gearbox Installations
Technical Concerns- Annular, trifurcated, bifurcated and chin inlet concepts

were considered for in-line gearbox installations. A qualitative assessment of
the relative merits of each concept is presented in Table 4.3-XII. The results
of the evaluation are discussed briefly.
With the annular inlet concept, pressure losses due to the spinner boundary
layer are very significant. In all of the other configurations, the boundary
layer generated by the spinner can be diverted away from the engine inlet,
eliminating pressure losses. On the other hand, circumferential face distor-
tion is less of a concern with the annular inlet concept than with any of the
other inlet concepts evaluated.
Although the chin inlet concept produces the maximum back pressure distortion
on the Prop-Fan, it is not considered a significant factor. Since bird inges-
tion and dirt removal are influenced primarily by inlet height, the chin inlet
is also least favorable in this category. However, chin inlets continue to be
widely used in current turboprop propulsion systems.
Increasing the number of inlet ducts increases the angular airflow sensitivity,
making the trifurcated inlet least favorable in this category. Since the sur-
face area requiring anti-icing is directly proportional to the inlet lip
length, the chin inlet demonstrates an advantage. Finally, gearbox compatibil-
ity, which is related to geometric design considerations including the Prop-
Fan and nacelle, favors the annular and trifurcated inlet concepts.
142
TABLE 4.3-Xll
MAJOR TECHNICAL CONCERNS FOR INLETS USED WITH IN-LINE GEARBOX INSTALLATIONS
Drlve $_IlI
Annular Trifurcated Bifurcated Chin
• Spinner boundary layer loss 6.5% PT 0 0 0

• Distortion Minimal Medium Medium Maximum
• Prop back press. Favorable Less favorable Less favorable Least favorable
• Bird ingestion/dirt removal Favorable Favorable Less favorable Least favorable
• Angular airflow sensitivity Favorable Least favorable Less favorable Favorable
• Inlet anti-icing Least favorable Less favorable Less favorable Favorable
• Gearbox compatability Favorable Favorable Less favorable Least favorable
The impact of the various inlet configurations on (1) the distance between the
engine inlet compressor face and inlet highlight plane and (2) the maximum in-
let throat height for an in-line gearbox installation is summarized in Table
4.3-XIII. The in-line gearbox installation has the "slimmest" nacelle (0.28
nacelle diameter to Prop-Fan diameter ratio). Inlet length decreases with in-
creasing number of inlets for all the concepts considered when the airflow
turning requirement is met. For the bifurcated inlet concept, the inlet length
is not significantly affected by the geometry of the compressor inlet in either
the STS678 (two-spool engine) or the STS679 (three-spool engine) configuration.
However, there is a 7 to 15 cm (3 to 6 in) change for the other inlet concepts
evaluated.
The very small inlet throat height (4 cm (I.6 inches)) for the annular concept
is approximately the height of the boundary l_Lyer of the airflow after it has
passed over the Prop-Fan spinner. This results in the very high pressure loss
shown in Table 4.3-XII.
Inlets for Offset Gearbox Installations
Bifurcated and chin inlet concepts were considered for an offset gearbox in-
stallation. Technical concerns are highlighted in Table 4.3-XIV; inlet dimen-
sions are compared in Table 4.3-XV. A significant increase in length is re-
quired for the bifurcated inlet to meet the airflow turning requirements. As
noted, the length of the chin inlet must be increased (15 cm (6 in)) to ensure
compatibility with the STS678 two-spool engine.
143
TABLE 4.3-XIII
DIMENSIONAL COMPARISON OF INLETS FOR IN-LINE GEARBOX INSTALLATIONS
28% Nacelle Inlet throat area = 16.0 cm2 (248 In 2)

Inlet throat area/area Aspect ratio of inlet = 3
of compressor face = 1.0
• Max. inlet throat height, cm (in) 24.13 (9.5) 17.02 (6.7) 13.97 (5.5) 4.06 (1.6)
+76.2 (+30)
2 spool
+50.8 (+20)
• z_ Inlet length, cm (in)

+ 25.4 (+ 10)
Base
/
-25.4
-50.8
-76.2
(-10)
(-20)
(-30)
° 2 spool
3 spool
2 spool
Inlet Pressure Losses
The estimated inlet pressure losses for the candidate inlet concepts are pre-
sented in Table 4.3-XVI. The assessment of pressure losses was determined by
considering the total inlet duct surface area and boundary layer effects.
Except for the annular inlet, which has spinner boundary layer losses, the
pressure losses are not significantly different for any of the inlet concepts
evaluated.
Inlet Selection
Based on these findings, the qualitative assessment of the inlet concepts pre-
sented in Tables 4.3-XI through 4.3-XVI, and comments from the airframe manu-
facturers, the chin inlet was selected for the offset gearbox installation and
the bifurcated inlet for the in-line gearbox installation. Both concepts have
been included in the Propulsion System Integration Package.
Technical Considerations Requirin 9 Additional Stud_
While specific inlets have been selected for the in-line and offset reduction
gear configurations, several technical considerations were identified which
require additional analytical and/or experimental effort beyond the scope of
the current contract. These issues are highlighted in Table 4.3-XVII. Many of
these issues are covered in the Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet/Compressor Technology
Verification Plan presented in Section 4.5.
144
TABLE 4.3-XlV
MAJOR TECHNICAL CONCERNS FOR INLETS USED WITH IN-LINE GEARBOX INSTALLATIONS
Drive shall
Bifurcated Chin
• Distortion Minimal Medium
• Prop back press. Favorable Less favorable
• Bird ingestion/dirt removal Favorable Less favorable
• Angular airflow sensitivity Less favorable Favorable
• Inlet anti-icing Less favorable Favorable
• Gearbox compatability Favorable Favorable
TABLE 4.3-XV
DIMENSIONAl. COMPARISON OF INLETS FOR OFFSET GEARBOX INSTALLATIONS
32% Nacelle Aspect ratio of inlet = 3

Inlet throat area/area Offset = 45.72 cm (18 inches)
of compressor face = 1.0
Inlet throat area = 15.5 cm 2 (248 in 2) -_J_ .._. _
shafl
Chin Bifurcated
• Max. inlet throat height, cm (in) 24.13 (9.5) 17.02 (6.7)
+ 101.6 (+ 4(]
3 spool
2 spool
+76.2(+30
• /% Inlet length, I
l
cm (in) +5o.8(+2o I
+25.4 (+ 1(]
Base 2 spool
I
=
-25.4(-1£ 3 spool
145
TABLE 4.3-XVI
ESTIMATED INLET PRESSURE LOSSES
In-line gearbox Offset gearbox

_
Percent Spinner boundary,,_

\,,
layer loss
pressure 41- , \
loss
0
'IMnn
*Selected
TABLE 4.3-XVI I
INLET/NACELLE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL STUDY EFFORT
o Coupled Internal/External Analysis with Propeller Influence
o Boundary Layer Removal Design System Development (Analysis and

Empirical Efforts Required)
o Nacelle External Design System Including:
- Prop-Fan Profile and Swirl Effects
- Prop-Fan Power Coefficient Effects
0 Internal Shaft Cover/Engine Compressor Inlet Shaft Fairing Design
0 Define Specific Inlet Anti-lcing Requirements and Patented Solutions
0 Define Specific Bird Ingestion and Engine Flowpath Dirt Removal

Requirements and Potential Solutions
146
4.3.2.5 Oil Cooler Arrangements
An effective gearbox cooling and lubrication system ensures that the Prop-Fan
reduction gear operates efficiently at maximum power conditions and helps in
providing long life for the individual gears and bearings. During gearbox
operation, power is lost due to sliding and rolling contact in the gear meshes,
bearing rolling contact, windage effects, and oii churning. These losses be-
come more critical at high horsepower and speed, significantly increasing the
temperature of the oii used to lubricate the gearbox. An oii cooling system
must be provided to dissipate the heat and prevent the oii from breaking down.
At reduced power conditions, such as cruise operation, the full flow of oii is
not required: gearbox efficiency can be improved by reducing the oii flow,
thus eliminating unnecessary oil churning losses. A two-stage lubrication
system, in which oil flow is reduced during cruise and below-cruise power con-
ditions, satisfies both of these requirements.
To explore a variety of alternatives, five air/oil cooling concepts and one

fuel/oil cooling concept were evaluated. Based on recommendations from the
airframe manufacturers, a fuel/oil system, using fuel from the aircraft tanks
as a heat sink, with a supplementary air/oil cooler for auxiliary usage, was
selected for the Propulsion System Integration Package.
The operating characteristics of a two-stage lubrication system for a 12,00O

horsepower size reduction gear are shown in Figure 4.3-14. The data are based
on the offset compound idler gearbox concept which has an efficiency of 99% at
the maximum power (takeoff) condition using a modular (two-stage) lubrication
system. Lines of constant efficiency have been included for comparison. The
figure shows how oil flow is modulated to ensure maximum efficiency at each
operating condition.
Table 4.3-XVIII presents typical gearbox oil heat rejection rates at discrete
operating conditions throughout the flight cycle. (The values in this table
correspond to the equivalent points in Figure 4.3-14.) Using this data, a
plate-fin air/oil heat exchanger was designed which would effectively dissi-
pate the heat in the 12,000 horsepower size Prop-Fan reduction gear. The
characteristics of this heat exchanger are described in Table 4.3-XIX. The
critical sizing point for the heat exchanger is low aircraft speed or static
operating conditions, which dictates a low air-side pressure drop configura-
tion. At other operating conditions in the flight cycle, ample pressure is
provided by aircraft ram effects and airflow is controlled by valves or vari-
abl e geometry.
147
Btu/min
6000 kwlmin
1001 99.0%
Gearbox efficiency = 98.7% /
5000
/ . _0_9_"*'_/ Max power point
80 R._.=.doil---! ,"_" / / J (1=.ooo
.o.power)
,,ow,c_,,., I _._..r /_..._ ..3O/o
Heat 4000
rejection, 60
Q loss 3000
40_ Ii // / 111
2000
20 _/ / J _ Maximum oll
1000 - ///'_ J" m flOW (takeoff
/ _ I and climb)
0 - O_ 5,000 10,000 15,000
Input horsepower
Figure 4.3-14 Heat Rejection Data for a 12,000 Horsepower Size Reduction Gear-
box - With a two-stage lubrication system, oil flow is modulated
to ensure maximum efficiency at a variety of operating
conditions. (j27638-15)
Using the plate-fin air/oil heat exchanger system, five air/oil cooler con-
cepts and one fuel/oil cooler concept were evaluated. These concepts cover a
variety of approaches to dissipating the heat in the gearbox oil, including
variable valves, variable geometry, and use of the fuel in the aircraft tanks
as a heat sink. A brief description of each system follows.
148
TABLE 4.3-XVIII
TYPICAL PROP-FAN ENGINE FLIGHT CYCLE AND
HEAT REJECTION FROM 12,000 HORSEPOWER SIZE GEARBOX - STANDARD DAY
Heat Time,
Gearbox Rejection Minutes
Fl ight Al ti tude Mach Power Prop Input KW/Min At End
Condition m (ft) Number (Thrust) rpm Horsepower (Btu/Min) Segment
Taxi 0 0 Idle 567 179 11.2 9.0

(o) (636)
Takeoff 0 0 Takeoff 1145 10,809 85.5 10.4

(o) (4863)
Climb 457 0.39 Climb 1145 II ,539 88.5 10.4

(1500 ) (5036)
CI imb 3048 0.5 Climb 1145 10,309 83.4 12.8

(10,000) (4745)
Climb 6096 0.6 Climb 1145 8896 77.5 16.6

(20,000) (4410 )
Climb 9!44 0,74 Climb 1145 7233 70.6 25.5

(30,000) (4016)
Climb 10,668 0.75 Climb 1145 6162 66.1 31.7

(35,000) (3762)
Cruise 10,668 0.75 Cruise 1145 4785 35.4 31.7

(Begin) (35,000) (2015)
Cruise 10,668 0.75 Cruise 1145 4732 35.3 52. l

(End) (35,000) (2006)
Descent I0,b68 0.75 Flt. Idle 651 267 13.0 52.1

(Begin) (35,000) (741)
Descent 457 0.39 Fit. Idle 627 257 12.5 68.9

(End) (1,500) (713)
Approach 0 0.2 30% Takeoff 900 2564 24.4 72.1

(o) Thrust (138b)
Touchdown 0 O. 18 Idle 586 196 11.6 72.2

(o) (659)
Reverse 0 0.15 Approx. 844 1874 21.3 72.4

(o) Takeoff (1212)
Taxi 0 0 Idle 567 179 ll.2 77.4

(o) (636)
149
TABLE4.3-XIX
TYPICALPLATE-FINHEATEXCHANGER CHARACTERISTICS
FOR
12,000 HORSEPOWER SIZE GEARBOX
Dimensions
495 cm2 (195 tn 2) face area, 5.715 cm (2.25 in) thickness

Core and Header Weight (WET) = 15 kg (33 lb)
SLTO Cruise Ground Idle
Oil Flow, kg/min (Ib/min) 109 (240) 54 (120) 27 (59)
Oil In Temp., °C (°F) 121 (249) 139 (282) 132 (270)
Oil Out Temp., °C (°F) 99 (210) 121 (25U) 121 (250)
Air Flow, kg/min (Ib/min) 79 (175) 15 (32) 8 (16.6)
Air In Temp., °C (°F) 32 (90) -5 (-16) 32 (90)
Air Out Temp., °C (°F) 96 (206) 121 (250) 121 (250)
Air Mach No. at Heat 0.027 0.012 0.0025

Exchanger Inlet
Air Side Pressure Drop,

P, MPa (psi) 2.21 (0.04) 0.965 (0.32) 0.275 (0.14)
Q, kw/min (Btu/min) 86 (4863) 35 (2015) ll (636)
Air/Oil Cooler Concepts
Figure 4.3-15 shows an air/oil heat exchanger which has dual inlets with vari-
able bypass valves. Dual inlets for the cooler are located downstream of the
engine inlet to reduce and/or eliminate interference and interactions between
the engine inlet and the cooler inlets. An ejector is used for flight condi-
tions where there is insufficient pressure drop across the heat exchanger for
effective heat dissipation. The cooler inlets incorporate flaps which are
opened or closed at the proper times to eliminate secondary losses when the
air/oil heat exchanger is not used to dissipate gearbox heat rejection.
Figure 4.3-16 illustrates a double flap concept which incorporates variable

inlet and exhaust flaps to permit low profile drags at the 0.7 to U.8 Mn
cruise conditions. The takeoff operating condition is illustrated by dashed
lines. The solid lines illustrate the partially open condition used to mini-
mize drag during cruise operation. An ejector is incorporate_ to insure proper
operation of the heat exchanger at conditions where there is insufficient
pressure drop across the heat exchanger for effective gearbox heat dissipation.
The system could use engine bleed air to induce airflow through the heat ex-
changer during ground and/or low speed aircraft flight conditions.
150
i
_ _ "1, Eng.
__ _ _ Oil cooler
Bypass control
Figure 4.3-15 Air/Oil Heat Exchanger Concept; Dual Inlets with Variable
Bypass Valves - In this concept, variable valves are used to
regulate ai rfl ow. (J27638-89)
-1
.-, _L_ /Ejector
.... _ _'_ t
Figure 4.3-16 Double Flap Concept - In this concept, variable flaps are used
to regulate ai rflow. (J27638-89A)
151
A variable cooler inlet concept similar to the double flap arrangement,
(Figure 4.3-16) but using an alternate system to vary the inlet and exhaust
areas, is illustrated in Figure 4.3-17. The inlet is made variable through a
set of linkages which open and close the inlet area as required. As with the
double flap concept, an ejector system is included.
Ejector
Variable inlet
Figure 4.3-17 Variable Cooler Inlet Concept - This concept represents an

alternate approach to variable inlet and exhaust geometry.
(J27639-91)
Figure 4.3-18 shows an oil cooler concept using a common inlet with the engine
at cruise. When maximum oil cooler airflow is required (takeoff and climb) a
separate inlet opens to increase the airflow to the heat exchanger. This
system would result in a low drag profile during cruise conditions. An ejector
is also required to operate this system during ground and/or low speed air-
craft flight conditions.
Cruise inlet
actor
f
Takeoff and climb ,i t
inlet position _ I_
Figure 4.3-18 0il Cooler Concept Using a Common Inlet at Cruise - This system
presents a low drag profile at cruise conditions. (J27638-g2)
152
In this air/oil heat exchanger concept, the engine inlet duct system is used
for cooling as illustrated in Figure 4.3-19. The oil cooler is built into the
wall of the inlet and rejects heat to the engine. This system insures airflow
over the cooler at all flight conditions. However, the heated airflow increases
turbine inlet temperature at takeoff and climb and results in a small cruise
fuel consumption penalty. These trades, coupled with flight safety issues,
must be evaluated in conjunction with studies conducted by the airframe manu-
facturers. The principal safety issue is a potential engine fire should an oii
Ieak occur.
Figure 4.3-19 Inlet Duct Air/Oil Heat Exchanger Concept - This configuration
insures airflow over the cooler at a11 flight conditions.
(J27638-90)
Fuel/Oil Cooler Concept
The fuel being consumed by the highly fuel-efficient engines in the Prop-Fan
propulsion system does not have a sufficient heat sink to dissipate the heat
from the reduction gear. Thus, a heat rejection concept in which the fuel in
the aircraft tanks is used as a heat sink was proposed by the airframe manu-
facturers (see Figure 4.3-20). This configuration eliminates the drag and
reduces the inlet heating penalties associated with air/oil heat exchanger
systems.
153
Aircraft
fuel tank
l Z Boost
pump
Fuel/oil
cooler
L
Figure 4.3-20 Fuel/0il Cooler Concept - Heat from the gearbox is dissipated by
using the fuel in the aircraft tank as a heat sink. (J27638-66A)
Based on comments from the airframe manufacturers, a supplementary air/oil

cooler was added to the fuel/oil cooler concept, as shown in Figure 4.3-21.
The supplementary cooler is used to dissipate gearbox heat rejection during
operating conditions when fuel in the aircraft tanks is below the level re-
quired to absorb the gearbox heat rejection. Based on Pratt & Whitney's evalu-
ation of the cooling concepts, as well as comments from the aircraft manufac-
turers, the fuel/oil cooler concept with a supplementary air/oil heat exchanger
was selected for the Propulsion System Integration Package.
fuel tank
Aircraft
I / Boost
pump
Fuel/oil
cooler
l
----
Supplementary
air/oil cooler
Figure 4.3-21 Fue]/0il Cooling System with Supplementary Air/0il Cooler - This
stem was selected for the Propulsion System Integration
ackage. (J27638-66)
154
Technical Considerations Requiring Additional Stud_
Technical considerations requiring study beyond the scope of the current con-
tract were identified. These issues are summarized in Table 4.3-XX.
TABLE 4.3-XX
HEAT EXCHANGER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL STUDY
o Trade study of fuel/oil heat exchanger system with air/oil supplemen-

tary backup system for auxiliary aircraft operating conditions
o Conceptual design studies with aircraft manufacturers to integrate

engine, gearbox and other aircraft heat rejection subsystems
o Conceptual design of supplementary air/oil cooler system (inlet,

variable geometry, requirements, etc. ) with airframe manufacturers
4.3.2.6 Propulsion System Control
The control system for the Prop-Fan propulsion system is an advanced design
incorporating electronic circuitry, fiber optics, and dual redundancy in the
vital control paths. This section describes the design approach, control
modes, and items required to implement the control system. A detailed
description of the system is provided, and technical issues requiring
additional study effort are discussed.
Design Approach
The control system which will be designed for an advanced turboprop engine can
employ many technological features currently under development. Control modes
can be optimized to take advantage of the flexibility, compactness, and power
of the computer. System communication can be enhanced by optics. Control
redundancy can be optimized to achieve maximum reliability while minimizing
weight and cost.
Electronics are being used with increasing frequency in aircraft control

systems. The technology has been demonstrated in Full Authority Digital
Electronic Controls (FADEC) on both military and commercial engines. The
transition from mechanical systems has been aided by rapidly developing
technology and the demonstrated reliability of electronic components and
controls. As indicated in Table 4.3-XXI, full authority digital electronic
controls ensure effective integration of the functional and performance
requirements of the propulsion system. An electronic control system also
provides an optimum balance between reliability, safety, maintainability, and
cost. Considering these factors, and the other features highlighted in the
table, a full authority digital electronic control system design was selected
for the Prop-Fan powered aircraft.
155
TABLE 4.3-XXI
ADVANCED TURBOPROP CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN APPROACH
0 Dual Channel Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) to

Control Prop-Fan and Engine is an Optimal Balance Between:
- Integration of Functlonal and Performance Propulslon System

Characteristics
- Reliability
- Safety
- Maintainability
- Acquisition Cost
o Provision for Interfacing with Aircraft Flight Control System
o Modular Construction and Simple Aircraft Installation/Removal
0 Integrated Total Propulsion System (Prop-Fan, Gearbox and Engine)

Condi ti on Moni tori ng System
The control system design will benefit from about 1.5 million flight hours of
Pratt & Whitney and Hamilton Standard experience with engine mounted digital
electronic controls. This background includes over one million flight hours
with a digital supervisory control on the FIO0 military turbofan engine in
F-15 and F-16 aircraft, and 300,000 hours of reliability demonstration testing
on commercial Boeing 727 aircraft. The operational benefits of a dual-channel
electronic control are demonstrated by the selection of this system for the
PW2037 commercial transport engine which will power the Boeing 757, as well as
the recently-introduced PW4000 family of engines. In other applications, re-
quirements for safety-of-flight, reduced pilot workload, and a high level of
aircraft availability (dispatchability) led to selection of the dual-channel
configuration on a Boeing 747 as well as a Navy control technology program
(FADEC) which verified the hardware and software used for a dual-channel
arrangement.
Control Modes
There are several unique considerations in designing a control system for a

Prop-Fan propulsion system; therefore, capabilities beyond those of current
turbofan control systems are required. The variable pitch blade feature permits
independent control of propeller speed and engine speed/power setting, increas-
ing the complexity of the control system. Thrust control in both forward and
reverse pitch also requires enhanced control system capabilities.
Advanced turboprop engines will be expected to incorporate the sophisticated

thrust management capability found on the latest turbofan engines. The thrust
setting system must be simple to operate and accurate in both forward and
reverse modes. Devising adequate protective measures for limiting torque, pre-
venting overspeed, and accommodating possible system faults will be complicat-
ed by the variable pitch propulsion system.
156
Electronic computation makes it possible to tailor propulsion system operation
to the power setting regime, thus achieving maximum thrust at takeoff, low
noise during approach, maximum thrust reversal effectiveness, and optimum fuel
consumption during cruise. Integrating gas generator performance and Prop-Fan
blade pitch setting offers additional flexibility in controlling transient
operation during takeoff and landing conditions. Electronic computation also
provides great flexibility in dealing with fault accommodation, leading to im-
proved safety of flight. Major control mode features are summarized in Table
4.3-XXII.
TABLE 4.3-XXII
ADVANCED TURBOPROP CONTROL MODES
0 Independent Control of Propeller (Synchrophasing, etc.) and Engine

Speed/Power Setting
0 Automatic Control in Steady State and Transient Operation for Forward

and Reverse Thrust
0 Protective Measures for Limiting Torque, Temperature, Overspeed, and

Possible System Fault (Prop-Fan Feathering, Windmilling, etc.)
Impl ementati on
Technology features required to impiement a control system for a Prop-Fan

powered aircraft are listed in Table 4.3-XXIII. The advanced turboprop control
system will be based on the dual-channel, Full Authority Digital Electronic
Control System currently under development for the PW2037 and PW4000 engines.
Technology advances and related improvements in the reliability of electronics
and optics will permit more selective redundancy in the control system. A re-
duction in component and circuit redundancy will reduce system cost and weight
while maintaining the required reliability. Redundant electronic computation
obviates the need for hydromechanical "backup" and the attendant cost and
weight penalties, implementation compromises, and operational complications.
Use of advanced digital electronics and application of emerging technologies,

including optic sensing and signal transmission concepts currently being de-
veloped in NASA programs will lead to a highly efficient, reliable control
system. Optic technology can significantly reduce the electrical cabling re-
quired for a sophisticated multiple function control system. In the PW2037
engine control system, electrical cabling represents the third costliest and
heaviest component in the control system.
TABLE 4.3-XXIII
ADVANCED TURBOPROP CONTROL SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
Redundant Electronic Computation Power Supply Commands and Feedback

Input and Output Electrical, Optical, and Pneumatic Conditioning
Information From Control to Aircraft
- Cockpit Instrumentation and Status Displays
- Diagnostics and Condition Monitoring
Optics Technology to Reduce Electrical Cabling and Immunity to
External Electromagnetic Threats
157
L)escription of a Potential Turboprop Control $_,stem
The control system which has been designed for the Prop-Fan propulsion system
is shown in block diagram form in Figure 4.3-22. The heart of the system is an
electronic control unit housing circuitry for digital computation, input and
output conditioning, and electrical power regulation. This circuitry gathers
information from the propulsion system sensors and modulates the various en-
gine functions including gas generator fuel flow, propeller pitch, variable
compressor geometry, active clearance control (tf required), and other per-
formance optimi zati on features.
TYPICAL CONTROL
DUAL CHANNEL ELECTRONIC UNIT FUNCTION
AIRCRAFT INPUTS
(I.E. VANES, BLEEDS
(AIR DATA INPUTS. PI_(_P-"FAN
DIGITAL
POWER PROP PITCH, ETC.)
SYNCHROPHASlNG, ETC.) INPUT
PROCESSOR
r ............ -- CIRCUITRY
r ..---<m ELECTRO! SERVO :_
i OUTPUT OPTICS ACTUATOR
_RO_ F REGULATION ....
ENGINE PT2
Pe _ PRESSURE
SENSORS t I POSITION
CIRCUITRY [ TRANSDUCER
PROSES Ps2 1 It
! I
! OUTPUT - j
A!nC_RA.FT
I.NPuTs. CIRCUITRY
INPUT DIGITAL
m I CIRCUITRY PROCESSOR
I ENG,NE
I POWER
TEMPERATURES
I F° REGULATION
ANDROTORANOl
P.oPSPEEDS
I
ELECTRICAL PATHS
...... OPTIC PATHS
PNEUMATIC PATHS
DUAL ALTERNATOR
Figure 4.3-22 Advanced Turboprop Control System - This control system wi11
use advanced techno]ogy to ensure maximum efficiency and reli-
ability while reductng weight and cost. (J27638-3)
Dual redundancy is used in the vital control paths for power supply, computa-
tion commands, and feedback.
The electrical power required to operate the system will be provided by a dual
winding permanent magnet alternator driven by the gas generator accessory
drive system.
Aircraft information used by the control system will be provided via a digital
fiber optic data bank feeding into each control computer channel. Information
from the control system will be provided to the aircraft for instrumentation
and status displays, diagnostics, etc. Feedback precision sensors and vartous
control system actuators will be digita]ly compatible with optica] transducers
requiring no electrical excitation, similar to those being developed under
158
NASA contract NAS3-lg898. Command signals from the control unit to the actua-
tors can also be transmitted optically using technology being developed under
NASA contracts NAS3-2]809 and NAS3-22535. The fiber optics signal "conductors"
reduce weight as much as four to five fold compared to current electrical
units while requiring no electromagnetic shielding for interference or light-
ning induced effects. Other potential applications of optic technology include
gas path temperature sensors which are being developed under NASA contract
NAS3-2184].
While a full authority digital electronic control system has been designed for
the Prop-Fan propulsion system, there are additional technical issues which
must be addressed. These issues are summarized in Table 4.3-XXIV.
TABLE 4.3-XXIV
ADVANCED TURBOPROP ENGINE CONTROL TECHNICAL ISSUES REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL ANALYTICAL EFFORTS
0 Define Control Mode, Fault Logic, and Integrated Electronics for

Candidate Engines to Improve Cost, Weight and Reliability
Systems Integration with Aircraft for Optimal Use of All Electronic

Aircraft Systems
Optics Technology to Ensure Immunity to External Electromagnetic

Threats (Lightning, etc.)
4.3.2.7 Prop-Fan Configuration
A ten-bladed Prop-Fan configuration was selected for the integrated propulsion

system. The Prop-Fan has a diameter of 4.05 m (13.3 ft), and a loading of 34
shp/D c with a tip speed of 243 m/sec (800 ft/sec) at maximum climb condi-
tions, I0,668 m (35,000 ft), 0.75 Mach number. The Prop-Fan diameter and load-
ing were derived from a previous study conducted by Pratt & Whitney, the re-
sults of which are summarized in Figure 4.3-23. These results agree with in-
dependent studies conducted by the airframe manufacturers.
A mechanical description of the Prop-Fan, provided by Hamilton Standard, is

presented in Figure 4.3-24. The interface with the gearbox, in this case an
offset compound idler configuration, is shown in the figure. The Prop-Fan con-
cept which is illustrated can also be used with an in-line gearbox configura-
tion; however, the pitch control system would be quite different (see Section
4.3.1.2).
The Prop-Fan configuration which was selected is a conventional "tractor" in-

stallation. It is recommended that additional studies be conducted to evaluate
a "pusher" Prop-Fan from the standpoint of performance, mounting, interface
with the reduction gear, and aircraft installation.
159
ft m
16 5.O
Prop-Fan
m/sec
diameter
14 f 4.0
4.5 243,8 m/sec (800 ft/sec)
_1__213.4 (700 ft/sec)and
12
3.5
8 / 213.4 m (700 ft/sec)
/
/
Percent change 4
in typical mission
fuel burned / 243.8 m (800 ft/sec)
2
_. percent
10 bladed
0 Prop-Fan configuratio=
selected for base size
-2 i propulsion system
25 30 35 40
Prop-Fan loading (shp/D =) @ max climb

10668m (35,000 ft), Mach = 0.72
Figure 4.3-23 Prop-Fan Selection Trade Study - A ten-bladed Prop-Fan with a

diameter of 4.05 m (13.3 ft) was selected for the Propulsion
System Integration Package. (J27638-17)
and fairing
Offset reduction gear bearings

(interface with Prop-Fan)
Slip ring assembly

(electrical input)
Deicing condL
Pitch change regulator
[contains (hydraulic input) transfer bearing,
(mechanical input) differential gear train, etc.]
Figure 4.3-24 Prop-Fan Concept Description - This Prop-Fan can be used with
an in-line or offset gearbox configuration. (J27638-18)
160
4.3.3 Integrated Propulsion System
In this section, conceptual nacelles, engine mounting concepts, acoustic treat-

ment requirements, modular propulsion system concepts, and propulsion system
reliability are discussed. Input from the aircraft manufacturers was incorpo-
rated in the evaluation of the integrated propulsion system.
4.3.3.1 Nacelle Conceptual Design
The nacelle designs were prepared to define mechanical aspects of the gearbox/
nacelle interfaces. Figure 4.3-25 illustrates the conceptual nacelle design
for an offset gearbox installation with the two-spool axial compression engine
(STS678) and a chin (single) inlet. Figure 4.3-26 illustrates the conceptual
nacelle for an in-line gearbox installation with the three-spool axial com-
pression engine (STS679) and a bifurcated in]et. Both of these nacelles were
included in the Propulsion System Integration Package. The choice of an over-
the-wing installation reflects input from various airframe manufacturers.
j l
conceptual
I loft lines are
View B-B
\
\
\,Z
Figure 4.3-25 Conceptual Nacelle Design for an Offset Gearbox Installation -

This design has a 0.32 diameter ratio due to the space required
for the offset gearbox. (J27638-123)
Based on previous Hamilton Standard and NASA studies, a 0.24 spinner diameter
(at the centerline of the blade root) to Prop-Fan blade diameter, set by Prop-
Fan aerodynamic considerations, was used in the nacelle designs. The nacelle
for the offset gearbox installation has been configured to have a 0.32 dia-
meter ratio (maximum nacelle diameter to Prop-Fan blade diameter), based on
the space available behind the Prop-Fan spinner for the offset compound idler
gearbox. The nacelle for the in-line gearbox installation has been configured
to have a 0.28 diameter ratio due to the smaller diameter of the split path
in-line gearbox.
151
_"'A j. Inlet _ necelle
l
/ lott lines ire
_- conceptuel
View A-A
\
_- SupplQn'_Bntecy alf#Oil
beet exchanger
Figure 4.3-26 Conceptual Nacelle Design for an In-Line Gearbox Installation -

This design has a 0.28 diameter ratio, due to the slimmer in-
line gearbox. (j27638-122)
The external aerodynamic lines for the nacelle, which provide proper blockage
for the Prop-Fan, are conceptual in nature. The final aerodynamic nacelle lines
would be tailored to the flow field of the specific aircraft application. De-
tailed studies are being conducted by NASA and the airframe manufacturers to
"tailor" the nacelle and aircraft wing to minimize aerodynamic interface los-
ses. The nacelles identified in this study are intended to scope the mechani-
cal design for use in the Engine/Aircraft Evaluation (Task IV).
It should be noted that the axial position of the Prop-Fan blade relative to
the quarter chord of the wing shown in the figures was established by Hamilton
Standard. The final axial location will be determined by integrated studies
which consider propeller excitation, wing structure, maintenance, weight, and
other aerodynamic/structural factors. These studies will require close coordi-
nation with airframe manufacturers. The axial location of the exhaust nozzle
plane follows previous aircraft studies; thermal shielding may be required on
the wing surface.
The over-the-wing "tractor" installation which was selected for both the in-
line and offset gearbox nacelle concepts should provide adequate ground clear-
ance for a typical low wing commercial aircraft. While a wing mount is typical
of current propeller installations, there are other mount locations which may
also be practical. Tail mounted engines, either pylon or horizontal stabilizer
mounted, may offer significant cabin noise and/or aerodynamic benefits. An
assessment of the nacelle/aircraft aerodynamic interactions leading to a mini-
mum drag nacelle concept and the overall effects of engine location on air-
plane design and performance are beyond the scope of this study. These issues
should be addressed in future studies involving both aircraft and engine manu-
facturers.
1 62
4.3.3.2 Propulsion System Mounting
Three candidate propulsion system mounting schemes are shown in Figure 4.3-27.
The "integrated" engine and reduction gear mount system ties the two units to-
gether structurally to form a single functional unit. With the "integrated
nacelle," the gearbox and engine are mounted to a stiff frame which is in turn
shock mounted to the airframe nacelle. The "partially independently" mounted
gearbox and engine system requires stiff mounting of the gearbox and engine to
the airframe to minimize deflections between the reduction gear and the engine.
Based on a careful analysis of each configuration, and confirmation from the
airframe manufacturers and the NASA Program Manager, the integrated engine/
reduction gear mount system was selected for the Propulsion System Integration
Package. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each system
follows.
"Integrated" engine and "Integrated nacelle"

reduction gearbox (cradle mount)
\Free to rotate r_,-_-_ _11
.£,
"Partially independent" mounted
gearbox and engine
Figure 4.3-27 Candidate Propulsion System Mounting Schemes - A variety of

methods for mounting the propulsion system were evaluated.
(J27638-I 9)
A schematic drawing of the "integrated" engine and reduction gear mounting

system, highlighting the basic components, is presented in Figure 4.3-2B. Two
mount planes are provided -- one at the reduction gear and the other located
at approximately the center of gravity of the engine. Additional weight will
be required in the engine casing to minimize compressor tip clearance increases
relative to an "integrated nacelle" configuration. The aircraft nacelle pro-
vides the primary mounting structure. The support structure consists of two
box beams cantilevered forward of the wing box structure on either side of the
powerplant joined together by a bulkhead attached to the reduction gear. The
forward bulkhead provides a pick up point for the front mount plane while the
structure attached to the wing box provides support for the rear mount plane.
163
A Prop-Fan torque reaction system is provided to handle the large Prop-Fan
torque while allowing the mount to be sized for thrust, maneuver loads, and
vibration isolation. The isolation of engine/Prop-Fan generated vibration is
considered a major requirement for passenger comfort. The torque link system
may be eliminated if vibration isolators can be made stiff enough to absorb
Prop-Fan torque and can be oriented to permit the powerplant to translate
freely in response to vibration while absorbing Prop-Fan torque.
] Front mount plane
__ Rear mount plan9
Qearbox
Reduction ,/___._<. ..j, .._._ /
Structuraltruss Engin 'e_ i
I
_'°
"
Figure 4.3-28 Schematic Drawing of the "Integrated" Engine and Reduction Gear
Mounting System - This mounting scheme was the most promising
candidate for a Prop-Fan propulsion system. (j27638-20)
The "integrated nacelle" mounting system is shown schematically in Figure

4.3-29. The gearbox and engine are mounted on a stiff frame which is shock
mounted to the airframe nacelle. This system is designed to reduce structural
case deflections, thus insuring optimum engine performance. Total propulsion
system weight will be higher with this system than with the "integrated"
mounting approach shown in Figure 4.3-28. As with the "integrated" engine and
reduction gear mounting system, the airframe nacelle provides the primary
mounting structure. The support structure consists of two box beams canti-
levered forward of the wing box structure on either side of the powerplant
joined by a bulkhead attached to the reduction gear. The forward bulkhead
provides pick up points for the powerplant front mount plane while the struc-
ture attached to the wing box provides the rear mount plane. A Prop-Fan torque
link system is provided to handle the Prop-Fan torque while allowing the shock
mounts to be sized for thrust, maneuver reaction and vibration isolation.
A coordinated effort between engine and airframe manufacturers, beyond the

scope of this contract, is required to avoid duplicate structures between the
propulsion system and the aircraft.
164
Reduction gearbox
_C_ Power plant cradl e
Shock mount _.______._. _'_-__/_A _Engine
(lhrra_t':nkairframe) \ "_ __"'__._-_ , "_

(_ /_/"_.._
Airframe nacelle structure--_ _'-__'_ "__ f- f,

)
cantilevered from _S _-_'_"_ L .-/'
wing structure /I/7/ _ _
/ / : ., Wing
Shock mount / _ .). structure
LI\_ ..... . .. j_
Figure 4.3-29 Schematic Drawing of "Integrated Nacelle" (Cradle) Mounting

System - Propulsion system performance is improved with this
configuration. (J27638-69)
A schematic drawing of the "partially independently mounted" reduction gear

and engine mounting system is presented in Figure 4.3-30. As noted previously,
the reduction gear must be stiff mounted to the airframe in order to minimize
deflections between the gearbox and the engine. The stiffness required to
minimize these deflections makes it difficult to provide vibration isolation.
In addition, couplings are required between the engine and gearbox to handle
the large deflections which result from the independent mounting of each com-
ponent.
Reduction gearbox mount plane
must react all gearbox loads,
maintain shaft angular
requirements relative to gas
generator)
Thrust, axial
.1
,': ine "steady rest"
reactions taken at rear of
1P moment gearbox
Typical reactions ,_
Engine mount
plane (side,
vertical, engine
only torque
reactions)
Figure 4.3-30 Schematic Drawing of the "Partially Independently Mounted"

Reduction Gear and Engine Mounting System - This system was
eliminated from consideration due to excessive vibration and the
complexity of the design. (J27638-21)
165
Based on input from the aircraft manufacturers, the "integrated" engine and
reduction gear mounting system was selected for the Propulsion System Integra-
tion Package. The mounting system for the offset gearbox configuration is
illustrated in Figure 4.3-31. As shown in the figure, the offset gearbox and
engine are tied together by a simple tubular truss system.
The "integrated" engine and reduction gear mounting system for the in-line
gearbox configuration is shown in Figure 4.3-32. With this concept, a portion
of the inlet duct is structurally tied to the engine and the gearbox to avoid
structural links in the aerodynamic flowpath of the inlet. These links would
result in smal I performance and engine inlet distortion penal ties.
j,--
/
/ Reduction gearbox
/
/Torque __s ngine
i I 1 Tubular
.., moun,
truss
=ront mount
Figure 4.3-31 "Integrated" Engine and Reduction Gear Mounting System Selected
for the Offset Configuration - This mounting system was included
in the Propulsion System Integration Package. (J27638-13)
While the "integrated" engine and reduction gear mounting system has been se-
lected for the Prop-Fan propulsion system, there are several technical issues
which require study effort beyond the scope of the current contract. These
issues are summarized in Table 4.3-XXV.
166
Reduction gearbox
pTorque links
\
\___._ /Engine
__ /Structural upper inlet
Tubular _.
truss "Rear mount
Front mount
Figure 4.3-32 "Integrated" Engine and Reduction Gear Mounting System Selected
for the In-Line Configuration - This mounting system was
included in the Propulsion System Integration Package.
(J27638-I O)
TABLE 4.3-XXV
MOUNTING CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL STUDY EFFORT
O Powerplant/aircraft structural dynamics studies
Axial location of engine relative to gearbox and wing box

Shock isolation trade studies
Effect of these factors on wing flutter
O Integrated engine and gearbox structure
Structural links between engine and gearbox

Primary structure with inlet between engine and gearbox
O "Integrated nacelle" (cradle mount) mounting engi ne/aircraft study
167
4.3.3.3 Acoustic Treatment Requirements
Studies performed by the Pratt & Whitney Acoustics Research Staff indicate
that inlet and exhaust acoustic treatment will not be required to meet Federal
Aviation Administration Stage 3 noise level requirements. The analysis per-
formed during these studies considered the Prop-Fan, reduction gear and engine
noise, including compressor, burner, and turbine noise generation. In Task IV,
the engine configurations were evaluated to determine if any new noise sources
could be identified which would require inlet, exhaust, or other acoustic
treatment. No new sources requiring acoustic treatment were identified.
4.3.3.4 Modular Maintenance Concept
The Prop-Fan propulsion system employs a modular maintenance concept to maxi-

mize accessibility to propulsion system compounds, thus minimizing maintenance
costs. Table 4.3-XXVl lists the major modules for an offset gearbox installa-
tion, an in-line gearbox installation, and the "non-free" and "free" power
turbine engines. The elapsed times for removal and replacement of the major
modules in the propulsion system are summarized in Table 4.3-XXVII. A more
detail ed descri ption of the removal/repl acement procedures fol lows.
TABLE 4.3-XXVI
F_JOR MODULES IN THE PROP-FAN PROPULSION SYSTEM
• Offset gearbox installation

Single prop-fan blade
Prop.fan pitch control regulator
Prop.fan module
Gearbox
Power shaft
Turboshaft engine
• In-line gearbox installation (modules uniquely different

from offset gearbox installation)
Gearbox
Prop-fan pitch controls modules
Power shaft
• Turboshaft engine modules

"Non-free" power turbine (two-spool)engine -- STS678
"Free" power turbine (three-spool) engine -- STS679
Modules for an Offset Gearbox Installation
Figure 4.3-33 shows the six major modules in the Prop-Fan propulsion system
with an offset gearbox: (1) sinyle Prop-Fan blade, (2) Prop-Fan pitch control
regulator, (3) Prop-Fan module, (4) gearbox, (5) power shaft, and (6) turbo-
shaft engine. A graphic description of the removal procedure for each module
follows. Modules which are common to both the offset and in-line installation
are noted. Easy accessibility to the pitch change regulator makes the offset
installation somewhat easier to maintain than the in-line installation.
168
TABLE4.3-XXVll
TYPICAL PROPULSION SYSTEM COMPONENT
MAINTENANCE ACTION (REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT) TIMES
Maintenance Action
Elapsed Time_ Minutes
0 Offset Gearbox Installation
Si ngl e Prop-Fan Bl ade 70

Prop-Fan Pitch Control Regulator 23
Prop-Fan Module 60
Gearbox 180
Power Shaft (Engine-Gearbox Connecting Shaft) 30
Turboshaft Engine 120
0 In-line Gearbox Installation (Modules Uniquely Different

From Offset Gearbox Installation)
Gearbox 180
Prop-Fan Pitch Control Modules (Gearbox) 180
Power Shaft (Engine/Gearbox Connecting Shaft) 3O
.1" -----7
Offset / /," / Nacelle
gearbox(/_!__
/ i Inlet / /_-__------_/-Pr°p'Fanpitch control regulator control
i / murboshaft engine
\
Spinner _- Prop-Fan
Figure 4.3-33 Propulsion System Components for the Offset Gearbox Installation
-There are six major modules in the offset gearbox installation.
(j27638-12)
169
The sequence of events for the removalreplacement of a stngle Prop-Fan blade
is shown in Figure 4.3-34. A typical elapsed time for removalreplacement is
70 minutes, This estimate includes the elapsed time to remove or replace the
opposite moment weighted blade which is planned for this maintenance action.
The removal/replacement actions for the Prop-Fan blade pitch change regulator
in the offset gearbox installation are shown in Figure 4.3-35. A typical
elapsed time for removal/replacement is 23 minutes.
Figure 4.3-36 shows the procedures for removal or replacement of the Prop-Fan
module. The same procedure is used for either an in-line or offset gearbox in-
stallation. Typical elapsed time to remove/replace the Prop-Fan module is 60
minutes.
The removal/replacement procedures for the offset gearbox are shown in Figure
4.3-37. A typical elapsed time required to remove or replace the reduction
gear is 180 minutes.
The removal of the engine/gearbox connecting shaft for either the offset or
in-line reduction gear system is shown in Figure 4.3-38. Typical elapsed time
is 30 minutes.
t _ -- Pitch change
__I __i--T.-I regu,ator
_._"__ ,___d!cti° n I__/aS_i:y ri n g
(_ ;i ct?:a ?hrange
spinner _ Detach link
Disconnect deicer leads

(Z) Remove outer blade clamp
_ Remove spinner bolt and
Drain bearing oll " 0 Slide blade in toward centerllne
Remove
Remove deicer conduit
disk cover assy 3 Remove blade retention ball assy
,Withdraw blade
Figure 4.3-34 Single Prop-Fan Blade Removal - The average time for removal and
replacement is 70 minutes. (J27638-22)
170
II °i- Pitch change
Reduction ! /regulator
_._ gearbox __,_)
-- _
_"_ JLf__ ' \ Siip ring assy
(_ Disconnect deicer leads

(_) Remove slip ring assy
(_) Remove pitch change regulator
Figure 4.3-35 Pitch Change Regulator Removal; Offset Gearbox Installation -

The _u°_.= *_m_ fnr r_mnvA1 And renlacement iS 23 minutes
(J27638-23)
o \ Oearbox
(_ Remove spinner bolt and spinner
Q isconnect deicer leads

(_) Remove deicer conduit assembly
(_) Remove disk cover
G Remove bolts from gearbox output shaft
O Remove Prop-Fan assembly
Figure 4.3-36 Prop-Fan Module Removal - The average time for removal or
replacement is 60 minutes. (J27638-Z5)
171
/_ Prop-Fan pitch
(_ \ change regulator
.28"e "
Remove Prop-Fan pitch change regulator and slip ring assy
I_ Disconnect torque links
Disconnect gearbox supports

Disconnect
Disconnect power
aircraft drive shaft gearbox
_ accessory drive shaft
Remove gearbox
Figure 4.3-37 Offset Gearbox Removal - The average time for removal and
O
• ® ®
®
Q Remove duct half (offset) or lower duct and air/oil cooler duct
(_ Disconnect clamps and telescope housing
(_ Disconnect flex couplings and remove driveshaft and housings
(_ Access panel for engine removal (offset only)
Figure 4.3-38 Power Shaft Removal - The average time for removal and
replacement is 30 minutes. (j27638-28)
172
Turboshaft engine removal for an over-the-wing installation with either the
in-line or offset gearbox is shown in Figure 4.3-39. Typical elapsed time for
removal/replacement of the turboshaft engine is 120 minutes.
Inlet .
face\ I __
Nacelle clamshell \'l l' --
doors open _
.... .......,,
_ / ("_ Disconnect airframe to engine fuel, hydraulic,
\ \ and electrical lines
O Disconnect drive shaft

O Disconnect reduction gearbox supports and inlet flanges
Q Disconnect rear mount

(_) Lift engine clear of wing
Figure 4.3-39 Turboshaft Engine Removal - The average time for removal and
In-Line Propulsion STstem Modules
The major modules in a Prop-Fan propulsion system with an in-line gearbox are
shown in Figure 4.3-40. Most of the modules are similar to those in the offset
gearbox installation. However, there are significant differences in the gear-
box/pitch change regulator. In the in-line gearbox system, the pitch change
regulator is divided into two modules. One of the modules contains control
hardware such as an electro hydraulic valve, linear variable differential
transfer and a hydraulic motor. This module is mounted on the gearbox and can
be removed without removing the entire gearbox. The other module is located
inside the gearbox and contains a differential geartrain and hydraulic trans-
fer bearing. The gearbox must be removed to gain access to this module. This
lack of accessibility to the pitch change control has an adverse effect on
maintenance cost. It is recommended that additional studies be conducted to
increase accessibility to the pitch control.
173
In-line gearbox
Prop-Fan pitch control regulator

Differential gear train and transfer bearing modules)
Engine exhaust
Spinner
nlet Turboshaft engine
Figure 4.3-40 Major Propulsion System Modules; In-Line Gearbox Installation

- The modules in the in-line installation are similar to those
in the offset installation except for the gearbox and pitch
change regulator (j27638-9)
The removal procedure for the in-line gearbox is shown in Figure 4.3-41. The
removal procedure for the pitch change regulator is shown in Figure 4.3-42.
The gearbox must be removed in order to remove the Prop-Fan pitch change regu-
lator. However, while the procedures are somewhat different from the offset
gearbox, the typical elapsed time for removal and replacement is the same -
180 minutes.
Turboshaft Engine Modules
A modular concept was also devised for the turboshaft engines in order to
maximize accessibility and minimize maintenance costs. One of the primary
objectives of engine modularity is to provide quick access to the hot section,
including the combustor and high-pressure turbine. This access is provided
through simple removal procedures for the power and low turbine modules.
The modular maintenance concept for the "non-free = power turbine (two-spool)
engine (STS678) is illustrated in Figure 4.3-43. The engine system has six
modules including the inlet case and low compressor, intermediate case, high
compressor, combustor and high-pressure turbine vanes, high-pressure turbine,
power turbine and shaft. Additional components not shown on the figure which
are considered modules include the engine accessory gearbox and the propulsion
system electronic control.
174
r ®
Remove Prop-Fan assembly

Disconnect power shaft and pitch change regulator
Disconnect torque links
Disconnect gearbox supports
Remove gearbox
Figure 4.3-41 In-Line Gearbox Removal - The average time for removal and
Housings and
drive shaft _-
(D Remove housings and (_ Remove pitch change

drive shaft regulator and input
(_) Remove gimbal assy drive pinion
and rear outer housing
Figure 4.3-42 Pitch Change Regulator Removal - Since the gearbox must be
removed, the average time to remove and replace the pitch
change regulator is also ]80 minutes. (j27638-24)
175
Several major engine subassemblies can be removed for inspection, repair, or
replacement. Among the external accessories in this category are the angle
gearbox and shaft, ignitor box and ignitor plug, the anti-icing shutoff valve,
and the ignition harness. Removable lubrication system subassemblies include
the oil tank, oil filters, oil pressure and flow transmitters, and the oil
quantity transmitter. Modular components in the propulsion system control in-
clude the electronic engine control and associated dedicated generator, the
fuel pump, fuel control and distribution valves, the fuel heater and valve,
fuel filter and fuel flow transmitters several temperature and pressure sen-
sors, and the rotor speed tach generators.
Inlet case Intermediate High Combustor & High pressure Power turbine
and low case compressor high pressure turbine and shaft
compressor turbine vanes
Figure 4.3-43 Turboshaft Engine Modules; "Non-Free" Power Turbine (Two-Spool)

Engine - The STS678 engine system is comprised of six major
modules. (J27638-70)
The modular maintenance concept for the "free" power turbine (three-spool)
engine (STS679) is illustrated in Figure 4.3-44. The engine has seven modules
including the inlet case and low compressor, intermediate case, high compres-
sor, combustor and high pressure turbine vanes, high pressure turbine, inter-
mediate turbine and shaft, and power turbine and shaft. The power turbine
module includes the shaft and the forward thrust bearing. As with the STS678
engine, the engine accessory gearbox and the propulsion system electronic
control are separate modules, which are not shown in the figure.
Power
turbine
shaft
and
thrust
Inlet case Intermediate
bearing turbine
and low case
High Combustor
compressor
compressor/ and
diffuser high
and pressure
bearing turbine
compartment vanes
Figure 4.3-44 Turboshaft Engine Modules; "Free" Power Turbine (Three-Spool)

Engine - The ST5679 engine system is comprised of seven major
modules. (J27638-71)
176
4.3.3.5 Propulsion System Reliability
The reliability of the integrated Prop-Fan propulsion system is determined by

evaluating three key components: the Prop-Fan, reduction gear system, and the
turboprop engine. Table 4.3-XXVIII provides reliability estimates for the in-
dividual components and the total Prop-Fan propulsion system. Information on
an integrated propulsion system for the reference turbofan engine is also in-
cluded in the table. The estimates are based on mean time between removals
(MTBR), a statistical measure of reliability used to develop maintenance cost
data. As indicated in the table, the reliability of the two systems is compar-
able.
TABLE 4.3-XXVIII
PROPULSION SYSTEM RELIABILITY PREDICTION
Mean Time Between Removal, Hours

Chargeable All Causes
Major Prop-Fan Propulsion System Modules
o Prop-Fan 18,400 2700
Red,Jction Gear
- In-Line 15,000 7000
- Offset 32,000 9400
0 Turboshaft Engine
- STS678 (Two-Spool) 6900 630
- STS679 (Three-Spool) 6550 620
Integrated Prop-Fan Propulsion System
o STS678 With In-Line Gearbox 3750 480

o STS678 With Offset Gearbox 4350 490
Maj or Turbofan Propulsion System Modules
0 Reference Turbofan Engine, STF686

- Without Reverser 6900 630
- Reverser Alone 8000 1900
Integrated Turbofan Propulsion System 37O0 475
The reliability prediction for the turbofan engine (6900 hours not including
the reverser and 3700 hours including the reverser) is compatible with current
turbofan experience.
The reliability prediction for the integrated Prop-Fan propulsion system (in-
cluding the Prop-Fan as a reverser) is essentially equal to the reliability
prediction for the turbofan.
177
The mean time between removals is calculated by summing the projected failure
rates of key parts and taking the reciprocal. The mature reliability level is
predicted because it reflects the basic capability of the design and is the
level which prevails during most of the useful life of the system. The predic-
tion does not imply the existence of an exponential failure rate, but instead
uses contributing factors such as mixture of parts prior to wear out, mix of
old and new parts, and the inherent randomness of failures occurring in the
tail ends of the standard statistical distribution. The system reliability
prediction is based on a review of previous designs for which experience has
been accumulated in both commercial and military applications. Once the basic
component history has been selected, adjustment factors, based on engineering
judgement, are developed to account for anticipated differences in design
parameters such as speed, flow, and maintenance philosophy. These adjustment
factors are applied to the basic component failure rates to obtain a projected
system failure rate.
There are two categories of MTBR estimates in Table 4.3-XXVIII; Chargeable and
All Causes. Chargeable or "basic" removals are unscheduled removals of major
modules which can be charged to the hardware. Causes of chargeable removals
include manufacturing errors, quality control problems, or design flaws. Re-
movals for all causes include chargeable events plus nonchargeable events: un-
scheduled removals of flight-line replaceable modules which can not be charged
to the hardware. Examples include foreign object damage, maintenance damage,
and unsubstantiated removals. Maintenance cost estimates cover both chargeable
and nonchargeable events.
A somewhat more detailed discussion of the reliability estimates for the three
key components in the Prop-Fan propulsion system follows.
Prop-Fan Rel iabi Iit_
The predicted mean time between chargeable removals for the ten-bladed Prop-
Fan is 18,400 hours. A chargeable maintenance event involves removal of the
Prop-Fan module, including the hub, pitch change mechanism, and Prop-Fan
blades. The projected mean time between removals for all causes is 2697 hours.
This category includes both chargeable and nonchargeable removals. Examples of
the latter include removal or replacement of the spinner or pitch change regu-
lator; maintenance actions which can be accomplished without removing the
Prop-Fan module from the aircraft.
The reliability estimates for the Prop-Fan module are based on an assessment
of the reliability of the individual parts, as defined on preliminary design
layouts. The data reflect Hamilton Standard experience with comparable com-
ponents.
Reduction Gearbox Rel iabil it_
A detailed evaluation of reduction gearbox reliability is presented in Table

4.3-XXIX. The mean time between removal for the primary transmission unit was
determined separately by technical experts from Pratt & Whitney and Sikorsky.
The answers were then compared. The independent MTBR prediction made by each
technical team was essentially the same.
The impacts of aircraft accessory pads, Prop-Fan pitch control accessibility,

and opposite hand rotation gearbox design are highlighted in the table.
178
TABLE 4.3-XXlX
REDUCTION GEAR RELIABILITY (MTBR)
Reduction Gear Type

In-I ine Offset
Split Path Compound Idler
o Primary Transmission Unit, Mean Time 23,200* 42,000*
Between Removal (_RBR), Hours
o Impact of One Aircraft Accessory Pad 20,800 35,000

- _RBR, Hours
o Impact of Propeller Pitch Control 15,000 32,700

Accessibility - MTBR, Hours
o Impact of Opposite Rotation - MTBR, Hours 15,000 27,300
Includes projected failure rates of bearings, gears and seals.
Turboshaft En9ine Rel iabil it_
Individual lives of critical parts in the two-spool and three-spool engines,

including bearings, seals, blades, vanes, rotors, and structural support
cases, were assessed and compared. The reliability of the "non-free" power
turbine (two-spool) engine (STS678) was found to the about 5% greater than the
reliability of the "free" power turbine (three-spool) engine (5TS679). The
chargeable mean time between removals for the two engines is 6900 and 6550
hours, respectively.
4.3.4 Propulsion System Integration Package
After the technical effort described in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 had been com-
pleted, a Propulsion System Integrated Package was prepared. The integration
package permits comprehensive analysis of the characteristics of the Prop-Fan
propulsion system, as well as comparative evaluation with a turbofan propul-
sion system incorporating comparable technology. The package covers the fol-
lowing major items: two-spool and three-spool engine configurations, gear-
boxes, aircraft accessory locations for power extraction, inlet configurations,
a typical oil cooler arrangement, a Prop-Fan/engine control concept, propeller
(Prop-Fan and pitch control configurations), conceptual nacelle, a typical
engine mounting arrangement, and modular maintenance concept.
More specifically, the Propulsion System Integration Package includes: (l) a

conceptual design drawing of the two turboprop propulsion system concepts,
and (2) a base size turboprop engine propulsion system data pack and computer
deck (including user manual for performance, dimensional, weight, and scaling
information) and (3) a reference turbofan propulsion system data pack and com-
puter deck. Acquisition cost and maintenance cost data for the turboprop and
reference turbofan engines are provided in a separate document.
179
This section contains a brief description of the individual components in the
Propulsion System Integration Package.
4.3.4.1 Conceptual Design Drawings of Prop-Fan Propulsion System
Separate drawings were prepared for the Prop-Fan propulsion system with an in-
line gearbox and the Prop-Fan propulsion system with an offset gearbox. A con-
ceptual design drawing of the propulsion system installation with an in-line
gearbox is presented in Figure 4.3-45. The conceptual drawing illustrates the
installation for both the "free" power turbine engine (STS679) and the "non-
free" power turbine engine (STS678). The figure summarizes technical informa-
tion developed during Task Ill and covers the conceptual nacelle (0.28 maximum
nacelle diameter to Prop-Fan blade diameter), mounting, two possible locations
for airframe accessories, bifurcated inlet, and the supplementary air/oil heat
exchanger required for the oil cooler system.
_ onlllel'i$, vet|loll _ horizontll /_--7 / t_'-_.,_
Recoil PfOl)-FIm torque '" / " itch I" Ul_iX air inlet duCl shown " _--,% "_% -r" ./STM/9
ly If re(lulrld..--_ , / P,O_._. p . /is wlmlry structure between _ _'_-_-_ _1
"_ ; COlt ro linle_rll /
I \ _ / \ / .i,h,-_._/'_"'_-°,'"_"_°'
I %. _ f _ / .Im.A / / -- Inklt Mid nlcIIltl ]__
- . i
"_ OpllOIwd idrfrlme %. 8upptlmentlwy ltr/oll _/i \ J
" -J Rear mount
Figure 4.3-45 Conceptual Design Drawing of the Prop-Fan Propulsion System;

In-Line Gearbox Installation - The drawing covers both the
"free" and "non-free" power turbine engine configurations.
(J27638-85)
Figure 4.3-46 shows the conceptual design of the Prop-Fan propulsion system
installation with an offset gearbox. It highlights both the STS678 and STS679
engine configurations, a chin (single) inlet, nacelle (0.32 maximum nacelle
diameter to Prop-Fan blade diameter), mounting, possible locations for air-
craft accessories, chin inlet, and the supplementary air/oil heat exchanger
required for the oil cooler system.
180
/ _t_ lalenil, _mlr.al ind +.on I il / / imcss_i_ Oelmox _ ._- I| x
_' //z--'l _II01111 lldrlkT4 El_llrt4 IP.colIIIG_ STM_I
I _\ ricllOml • + _ 17 i _L
I _\ o.+,.m,+-_/ z-'_" -_'Y'"/ _"""'_' _ _____._rllilll I I171;
I__ _ _ ._ _1_"-__. /IUll 11 I_ III II j i,._m.,._o....,_.

+; , i i L.j__jj-i i Io STMZII
v_,,.e_o _ / _'vm..tm
t._.,o, I
\ Optional
:'o:m
geagDox SlGtoon A-A
Figure 4.3-46 Conceptual Drawing of the Prop-Fan Propulsion System; Offset

Gearbox Installation - The drawing covers both the "free" and
"non-free" power turbine engine configurations. (J27638-84)
4.3.4.2 Base Size Turboprop and Reference Turbofan Engine Comparison
Table 4.3-XXX compares critical parameters for the turboprop engine and the
reference turbofan. The reference turbofan has a higher pressure ratio than
the turboprop engine which is consistent with the differences in engine core
size (indicated by the high compressor exit corrected airflow). The high spool
of the STF686 reference turbofan is essentially a scaled STS678 turboprop en-
gine high spool.
The typical cruise part power performance for the turboprop and turbofan en-
gines is shown in Figure 4.3-47. An indicated in the figure, the turboprop
engine has a 16.6% advantage in thrust specific fuel consumption over the tur-
bofan at the maximum cruise rating.
181
TABLE 4.3-XXX
BASE SIZE TURBOPROP AND REFERENCE TURBOFAN COMPARISON
Turboprop Engine Reference Turbofan

STS678 STS686
Takeoff Thrust @ M = .22 STD +14°C 69,836 (15,700) 68,146 (15,320)

(+25°F) Day, N (Ib)
Horsepower ll,800
Haximum Climb Thrust @ I0668 m 1824 (4020) 2155 (4750)

(35,000 ft), M = .75 STD
Overall Pressure Ratio @ Design Point 34 37

(I0,668 m (35,000 ft), M = .75 STD,
90% of Max Cruise)
Maximum Takeoff Combustor

Exit Temperature
(Sea Level, STD +14°C (+25°F) Day),
Growth Rating - "C (°F) ]427 (2600) 1460 (2660)
Initial Rating - "C (°F) 1388 (2530) 1421 (2590)
Maximum Climb Combustor Exit 1318 (2405) 1243 (2270)

Temperature STD - °C (°F)
Maximum Cruise Combustor Exit 1274 (2326) 1206 (2203)

Temperature STD - °C (°F)
Pressure Ratio Split - Low Compressor 2.0/17 2.2/17

plus Fan ID/High Compressor
Core Size, High Compressor Exit Corrected 1.39 (3.06) 1.97 (4.4)
Airflow, kg/sec (Ib/sec)
Fan Pressure Ratio "1.06" 1.66
Jet Velocity Ratio 0.7 0.7
"90" 7.0
Bypass Ratio
Fan/Propel Ier Diameter - m (ft) 4.05 (13.3) 2.20 (4.86)
182
• Isolated pod performance
Iblhr-lb
0.58-
ko/hr-N
• No external drag losses
0.068- • No bleed or power extraction
• 100% ram recovery
0.04-
0.054
0.50-
ffl
p. o._ ___ T ]_F_"_um climb / Turbofan
o /
_ ,i/e/. ATRF/":.
0._-
0.046 %
0.4g - "Two-spool engine

O.O42 I I I IIb
2000 3000 4000
!
I I
_.O,__no0 1s:ooo 20.I000.:
Net thrust
Figure 4.3-47 Part Power Performance Comparison - The turboprop has a 16% TSFC
advantage over the turbofan. (j27638-203)
4.3.4.3 Turboprop Engine Propulsion System Data Package and Computer

Deck (User Manual)
The capabilities and options included in the computer deck for the turboprop
engine (STS678/STS679) are summarized in Table 4.3-XXXI. The more significant
capabilities include: (I) the ability for the user to perform Prop-Fan tip
speed and loading trade studies, (2) the ability to compare propulsion systems
with single or counter rotation Prop-Fans, and (3) the ability to perform
trade studies between constant and variable speed Prop-Fan operation. The user
manual provides weight, dimensions, and scaling information for the various
engine andgearbox options.
Base size dimensions for the "non-free" power turbine (two-spool) engine
(STS678) with all axial compression and the "free" power turbine (three-spool)
engine (STS679) with axial/centrifugal compression are presented in Figure
4.3-48.
Scaling curves for turboprop engine weight, dimensions, and performance are
presented in Figure 4.3-49.
183
TABLE 4.3-XXXI
TURBOPROP ENGINE (STS678/67g) COMPUTER DECK CAPABILITIES AND OPTIONS
0 Two-spool (STS678) or three-spool (STS679) engine approximation.

0 Ability for user to perform propeller tip speed and loading trade studies.
0 Constant speed/variable speed Prop-Fan option.
0 Option for user to specify temperature and pressure rise across
Prop-Fan(s).
0 Single rotation and counter rotation Prop-Fan(s) options.
0 Gearbox efficiency input option.
0 Ability to alter propeller efficiency.
0 Capability for user to specify inlet and exhaust systems.
0 Standard customer bleed and power extraction options.
0 Capability to schedule environmental control system bleeds with flight
conditions.
0 Capability to operate as a stand-alone program or as a subroutine to the
user's program.
Capability to automatically sequence the input to allow rapid generation
of performance information at a series of flight conditions.
User Manual provides weights, geometric dimensions and scaling curves for
engine and gearbox options.
STS678 "non-free" power STS679 "free" power turbine

turbine (two-spool) engine (three-spool) engine
/- Rear mount
,2., ,,3.3 ./ r(_._(_."_ --s._ h...-_Rear mount
" l
t=1=11"11
TJJJ '""")
(_];)
Figure 4.3-48 Base Size Turboprop Engine Dimensions - Detailed information on

engine dimensions is included in the Propulsion System Inte-
gration Package. (J27638-31)
184
Scaling curve for Scaling curve for
BSFC and TSFC engine weight and dimensions
(D
1.04 e-
._ 2.2
"_._ 1.8
p, ,.02 o Wei /
"_ _ // Diameter
-_.__
F- m 0.98
o
u)
1.2
0.96 .-_ 0.6
0.6 1.0
1.4 1.8 2.2 :_ 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2
Relative shaft horsepower Relative shaft horsepower
*Base engine power to gearbox = 12123 HP @ sea level,

0.3 MN, takeoff rating, STD -13°C ( + 25°F) day.
c4,,,,,.= 4 "4-6Q THrhnnrnn Fnninr= _calina Information - Detailed scalinq

information is included in the Propulsion System Integration
Package. (j27638-32)
Base size gearbox dimensions are presented in Figures 4.3-50 for the single
rotation offset compound idler and in-1 ine spl it path reduction gear systems.
Because of the interest in counter rotation, the differential planetary count-
er rotation gearbox is also included in the figure. The weights of the base
size engine, gearbox, and Prop-Fan are presented in Table 4.3-XXXII. Prop-Fan
weight data was provided by Hamilton Standard. Weight and dimensional reduc-
tion gear scaling information is provided in Figure 4.3-51. Reduction gear
performance is not expected to differ for the range of gearbox sizes consider-
ed. Scaling curves for the Prop-Fan should be obtained directly from Hamilton
Standard. Base size information is provided to be consistent with the perform-
ance obtained from the computer deck included in the Propulsion System Inte-
grati on Package.
4.3.4.4 Reference Turbofan Engine Propulsion System Data Package and

Computer Deck (User Manual)
A comprehensive data package and computer deck were prepared for the reference
turbofan engine. The capabilities and options of this package are presented in
Table 4.3-XXXIII. The base size (86,072 N (19,350 lb) thrust) turbofan dimen-
sions are shown in Figure 4.3-52. A propulsion system installation incorpora-
ting the reference turbofan is shown in Figure 4.3-53. Scaling curves for en-
gine weight, dimensions, and performance are provided in Figure 4.3-54. This
information is used to compare the capabilities of the Prop-Fan and turbofan
propulsion systems.
185
74,662 newton-meters (55,068 ft-lb) for single rotation and
74,493 newton.meters (54,943 ft-lb) for counter rotation
SINGLE ROTATION
Offset compound idler gearbox
59.9 (23.6)
[62.5 (24,8)] 41 9 8.9 cm
_.6 I----
1' ©21 L
_._'_(_,.:2,(_;_, J.__.l _ COUNTER ROTATION
: (25.0) _ 8 9
_. _ ._._. _ I_ s3.s .J_ _.5 _1JL./LL__L _tLJ_ I LE:3"r_t_J___"-t-_ J
In.line split path gearbox _ _ I _ I I
__/C___(_.9 (34.2)1
I1[11 . ¢_SI=_ I
Note: [ ] denotes opposite rotation, ell other data is for conventional rotation
Figure 4.3-50 Base Size Gearbox Dimensions - Information is presented for

both single and counter rotation gearboxes, (J27638-33)
TABLE 4.3-XXXII
BASE SIZE ENGINE, GEARBOX, AND PROP-FAN WEIGHTS
All Axial Axial/Centri fugal
Non-Free Turbine Free Turbine
STS678 STS679
Engine Weight, k9 (Ib) 839 (1850) 916 (2020)
.Single and Counter Rotation Gearbox WeiBht, k9 (Ib)
Single Rotation
Conventional Rotation Opposite Rotation
o Offset Compound 467 (1030) 549 (1210)

Idler
o In-Line Split Path 347 (765) 347 (765)
Counter Rotation
0 In-Line Oi fferential 388 (855)

P1anetary
Single Rotation Counter Rotation
(Ten Blades) (Twelve Blades)
Prop-Fan Weight , k9 (Ib) 671 (14_0) 84l (lS5 )
186
Max. radial
_Engine=_
envelo_.._ light
2.2
,/
Gearbox scaling 1.8 /
parameters
1.4 ........- envMax. )eradial
width
ar height
"°7"
0.6
Note. • Wgtne.
I
= Wgt
i
'
.new _1
ear ratio
.
se gear ratio
)' 1
0. 5
0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0

Relative total output torque
Base size gearbox output torque @ sea level takeoff power
STO. -- 13°C ( + 25°F) day, Mach 0.3 = 74,662 newton-maters (55,068 ft-lb) for
single rotation and 74,492 newton-meters (54,943 ft-lb) for counter rotation
Figure 4.3-51 Reduction Gear Scaling Data - Performance is not expected to

•4 C4_^ ,.. ,_
(J27638-34)
TABLE 4.3-XXXll I
REFERENCE TURBOFAN (STF686) COMPUTER DECK CAPABILITIES AND OPTIONS
0 Capability for user to specify inlet and/or exhaust system as desired.
0 Standard customer bleed and power extraction options.
0 Capability to schedule environmental control system bleeds with flight

conditions.
Capability to operate as a stand-alone program or as a subroutine to the

users program.
Capability to automatically sequence the input to allow rapid generation

of performance information at a series of flight conditions.
User Manual provides weights, geometric dimensions, and scaling curves for
the engine.
4.3.4.5 Acquisition and Maintenance Cost Information for the

Turboprop and Reference Turbofan Engines
Complete acquisition and maintenance cost information, including a description

of the system used to generate the cost estimates, is provided in the proprie-
tary cost document.
187
32.9 m
t (7o3, ....
__
19.1 17.8
(82.8) (58.3) -
, L
t
L_
l ......
31.9 ....... p
(104.8)
Figure 4.3-52 Reference Turbofan Engine (STF686) Dimensions - The dimensions

are shown for the base size engine. (J27638-35)
Figure 4.3-53 Reference Turbofan Engine (STF686) Installation - Acoustic

liner locations and reverser concepts are highlighted.
(J27638-124)
o _2.2
1.04
(D
E 1.02 _1.8
_5 _
m 1.4
jweio_
u_ mn1.00 _"
(/) "_ _O Q- _ _Dlame
_ _"Lengtl
•--- 0.98
¢0
O
0.96 o_o 0.6
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 "_ m 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Relative engine thrust Relative engine thrust
*Base engine takeoff thrust = 86069 N (19350 Ib) @ SLS -- 13°C ( + 25°F) day
Figure 4.3-54 Reference Turbofan Engine (STF686) Scaling Information - The

impact of changes in engine thrust rating on TSFC, weight,
diameter, and length are shown. (J27638-37)
188
SECTION 4.4 -- DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Task IV -- Engine/Aircraft Evaluation
4.4 TASKIV - ENGINE/AIRCRAFT
EVALUATION
Section Title Page
4.4.l Introduction 193
4.4.2 Evaluation Procedure Ig3

4.4.2.1 Evaluation Ground Rules 193
4.4.2.2 Airplane Sizing - Mission Analysis Procedure Ig4
4.4.3 Turbofan/Prop-Fan Propulsion System Comparison 196

4.4.3.1 Performance Comparison 196
4.4.3.2 Weight Comparison Ig8
4.4.3.3 Cost Comparison 199
4.4.4 Mission Analysis - Airplane Sizing and Performance 2OO

4.4.4.1 Airplane Sizing 200
4.4.4.2 Mission Performance Comparison 2O5
4.4.4.3 Fuel Burn Influence Coefficients 209
4.4.5 Mission Analysis - Economics 210

4.4.5.l Direct Operating Cost Comparison 210
4.4.5.2 Direct Operating Cost Influence Coefficients 212
4.4.6 Influence of Undefined Factors on the Evaluation 212
4.4.7 Acoustics 214
4.4.8 Emissions 218
189
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Number Title
4.4.1 Mission Analysis Procedure 195
4.4-2 Cruise Performance Comparison Ig7
4.4-3 Takeoff Performance Comparison 197
4.4-4 Turbofan Powered Airplane Configuration 204
4.4-5 Prop-Fan Powered Airplane Configuration 204
4.4-6 Fuel Burn Comparison 205
4.4-7 Typical Mission Flight Profiles 208
4.4-8 Typical Mission Thrust Profiles 208
4.4-9 Typical Mission Specific Fuel Consumption Profile 209
4.4-I0 Prop-Fan Fuel Burn Influence Coefficients 210
4.4-II Direct Operating Cost Comparison 211
4.4-12 Direct Operating Cost Influence Coefficients 212
4.4-13 Effect of Key Parameters on the Fuel Burn Advantage of

the Prop-Fan Powered Aircraft 213
4.4-14 Effect of Key Parameters on the Direct Operating Cost

Advantage of the Prop-Fan Powered Aircraft 213
4.4-15 Flyover Noise Predictions for the Prop-Fan Powered Airplane 215
4.4-16 Prop-Fan Airplane Component Noise Levels 215
4.4-17 Comparison of Flyover Noise Levels for Prop-Fan and

Turbofan Powered Aircraft 217
190
LIST OF TABLES
Tab1 e
Number Title
4.4-I Isolated Pod Installation Effects 198
4.4-II Turboprop/Turboprop Comparison 199
4.4-III Cost Comparison Scaled to Airplane Size 199
4o4-IV Airplane Characteristics 20O
4o4-V Airplane Weight Breakdown 202
4.4-VI Typical Mission Fuel Burn Breakdown 206
4o4-VII Direct Operating Cost Breakdown for a Typical Mission 211
4.4-VIII Altitude at Certification Flyover Locations 217
4.4-IX International Civil Aviation Organization Emissions

Research Goals 218
191
4.4 TASK IV - ENGINE/AIRCRAFT EVALUATION
4.4.1 Introduction
The objective of Task IV was to assess the merits of the Prop-Fan propulsion
system relative to a turbofan propulsion system with comparable technology.
The two propulsion systems were evaluated in the reference 120-passenger Mach
0.75 cruise airplane over a simulated flight cycle covering a typical mission
and the design range for the aircraft. The evaluation included airplane and
engine sizing, mission performance, fuel burn, noise, and economics. The Prop-
Fan powered aircraft demonstrated a 21% advantage in fuel burn and a 10% ad-
vantage in direct operating costs over the turbofan.
4.4.2 Evaluation Procedure
4.4.2.1 Evaluation Ground Rules
Ground rules for the evaluation were established in Task I; study procedures
and assumptions are summarized in Section 4.1. Several of the ground rules
which are especially important to the comparison of the Prop-Fan propulsion
system to the reference turbofan are restated below:
Cruise speed of Mach 0.75.

N_e4nn _=nna n_ _ _m II_(_N nm_ _vn_P_l m4cc4nn P_nn_ nf 7_ _m
(400 nm).
Engine sizing requirements of
- Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) takeoff field length of 2133 m
(7000 ft) at sea level, 28°C (84°F) day;
- Initial cruise altitude capability of 9448 m (31,000 ft) or
10,668 m (35,000 ft) on design mission.
No drag penalty for propeller s]ipstream swirl effect on wing.
0 Fuselage acoustic treatment weight penalty added to Prop-Fan powered

airplanes to reduce cabin noise to turbofan levels.
PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

193
Cruise speed affects the comparison because the performance advantage of the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft increases as Mach number decreases. Mach 0.75 was
chosen, after consultation with the airframe manufacturers as representative
for airplanes of this size (120 passengers) and range capability. The effect
of range on the comparison is a bit more subtle. At short ranges - less than
926 km (500 nm) - a large portion of the mission fuel is burned at lower Mach
numbers, where the Prop-Fan powered aircraft has relatively better performance.
At mid-ranges (1852 km (1000 nm) to 3704 km (2000 rim)) mission fuel is domi-
nated by cruise, so the fuel burn advantage of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft
approaches its cruise TSFC advantage, which is lower than at lower Mach num-
bers. At long ranges - greater than 4630 km (2500 nm) - cruise fuel burn is of
course the dominant factor in mission fuel, but the growth of airplane fuel
fraction (fuel weight/gross weight) gives the fuel efficiency of the Prop-Fan
powered aircraft increasing leverage on airplane empty weight.
Thus the fuel burn advantage of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft will tend to
reach a minimum at mid ranges and increase at both shorter and longer ranges.
The design and typical mission ranges chosen for evaluation are representative
of current airplanes in this class.
Engine sizing requirements affect the Prop-Fan propulsion system/turbofan com-

parison through the differing thrust lapse rates with Mach number of the two
systems. The thrust of the turboprop propulsion system lapses faster than the
thrust of the turbofan with increasing Mach number. Therefore, the Prop-Fan
propulsion system is relatively more sensitive to cruise sizing than the tur-
bofan, which is why two cruise altitude requirements were chosen for evalua-
tion.
The effect of propeller slipstream swirl on wing aerodynamics has not yet been
established. Wind tunnel tests run at NASA-Ames have suggested that, with pro-
per wing shaping, some of the slipstream swirl energy may be recoverable, which
provide a potential drag benefit for the Prop-Fan propulsion system. Much more
work, both experimental and analytical, is needed before any penalty (or bene-
fit) can be definitively assessed. In the baseline comparisons of the APET
study, no penalty or benefit is assumed for swirl/wing interaction. The effects
of Prop-Fan drag penalty on the comparison will be assessed separately in
Section 4.4.5.
The amount of cabin acoustic treatment required on a Prop-Fan powered airplane

to achieve interior noise levels comparable to a turbofan powered airplane is
another unknown in the comparison. Preliminary studies conducted by industry
and NASA suggest that the penalty of 1.7% of maximum takeoff gross weight pre-
dicted for this study may be conservative. The effect of cabin treatment
weight on the comparison of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft and the turbofan
powered aircraft will be evaluated in Section 4.4.5.
4.4.2.2 Airplane Sizing - Mission Analysis Procedure
The airplane sizing/mission analysis procedure used in the APET Program is

diagrammed in Figure 4.4-I. Since this is a "rubber" airplane analysis, sever-
al loops are needed to solve for the airplane size takeoff gross weight re-
quired to perform the design mission. A derivative program created by the
Vehicle Analysis Modular Programming System (VAMP) was used to perform the
complete process outlined in the figure. Output includes flight conditions and
thrust requirements for Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36 noise calculations.
194
I
-_ I
._u"_
o..__ I
_E I
'%. 1 ' S..

0
*,="
|
E-_
o'o I 0
| c o _"'0
e.-
_ I I
'" I
r_ E
I or'.*
C "r '=
p=. e..
¢.) n_
• r=,. li..
,, _ 81
*r.=
o -- "0
Icl
¢3. G/
• e._ e- s.
c 3.-N- _ I
v. @ m-- I I-.0
q-
I
_q c 0 j
• u_ _ uJ _- Q __ . ! S. ¢n
I
"0
n
E I
s., I
< r-
I r_ _0
> "o
o v) 4.J _.0
(P
<
I • .- U) l_
J
t I e= e-
so
*_'J
s.>_
_ r'..,
usom
• r- S.. e-
t 's" Q. m
q_
S.
.-!
I.L
i
| '
:*1
0
-= =®1
(J3 m C:l
I-- uJI
195
4.4.3 TurbofanProp-Fan Propulsion System Comparison
To conduct the engine/aircraft evaluation, one of the Prop-Fan propulsion

systems from Task III was selected for mission evaluation. The system consists
of the two-spool axial compression engine (STS678) with an offset compound
idler gearbox and single scoop inlet. The system was wing mounted, so opposite
rotation was used. (Propellers on opposite sides of the airplane turn in op-
posite directions; therefore, both wings encounter the same slipstream char-
acteristics.) Even though there are penalties in gearbox weight, price, main-
tenance and efficiency with opposite rotation, the potential advantage in wing
aerodynamics makes the system desirable. Since opposite rotation caused dif-
ferences in performance and other characteristics between right and left en-
gines on the airplane, averaged values were used in the mission analysis.
These averaged values are also used in the various comparisons between the
turbofan and Prop-Fan propulsion systems in this part of the report.
In this section, engines will often be referred to as "base size" or "scaled

to airplane size." The first term indicates that the engines are in their un-
scaled, field deck thrust (or shp) size (86,295 N (19,350 lb) thrust at sea
level standard day, static takeoff for the turbofan; 12,000 shp at sea level
standard day, Mach 0.2 takeoff for the turboprop). The second designation is
applied to engines which have been scaled as required to perform the design
mission, with the payload, range, and sizing requirements specified in the
study procedures and assumptions (Section 4.1). The 10,668 m (35,000 ft) ini-
tial cruise altitude, 2133 m (7000 ft) takeoff field length case was used for
compari son.
4.4.3.1 Performance Comparison
Performance of the STS678 Prop-Fan propulsion system at a cruise speed of Mach

0.75 and a cruise altitude of I0,668m (35,000 ft) is compared to the perform-
ance of the STF686 reference turbofan engine in Figure 4.4-2. Performance
shown in the figure includes the effects of customer horsepower extraction,
real inlets and nozzles and propeller pressure rise. Nacelle dra9, both free
stream and scrubbing, is not included. Data are in airplane size. The Prop-Fan
powered aircraft has 16% better specific fuel consumption at the maximum
cruise rating.
The performance advantage of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft increases dramat-

ically as flight Mach number is reduced. Figure 4.4-3 shows that at sea level
takeoff, Mach 0.2, the TSFC advantage of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft has
risen to 39%. This difference in performance lapse with flight speed is caused
by the specific thrust (thrust/airflow) difference between the turbofan and
turboprop engines. The turbofan has a higher specific thrust than the turbo-
prop, and, hence, the performance of the turbofan does not improve as rapidly
as the performance of the turboprop as speed is reduced.
Isolated pod installation effects at cruise are compared in Table 4.4-I. Pres-
sure rise through the propeller offsets the higher inlet loss of the Prop-Fan
propulsion system. Nacelle drag favors the Prop-Fan system, due primarily to a
somewhat smaller surface area and a lack of high velocity fan exhaust scrub-
bing drag. Also contributing are a better length to diameter ratio and elimi-
nation of mismatches associated with thrust reversers.
196
0.60
0.060 10,668 m (35,000 ft),M = 0.75
0 Climb rating
O Cruise rating
LL 0.55
03 z 0.055 Tu_o,an
F.--_
_ "_ 0.50
/
ffi
..E 0.45
°=F
0.045 [
0.40 0.040l I t I t I I
10 12 14 16 18 20
KN
I I I I I I
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Lb
Installed thrust/engine
Figure 4.4-2 Cruise Performance Comparison - The turboprop engine has more
than 16% better thrust specific fuel consumption at maximum
cruise than the reference turbofan. Both engines are shown in
airplane size,and include horsepower extraction, real inlets
and nozzles. (J27638-72)
Sea levellM 0.2

0.40 -
0.040 & Takeolf rating
Turbofan
0.35
0.035
14.
03
Z
0.030
¢n 0.25
C 0.025
Prop-Fan
0.20 0.020 t I I I I
50 55 60 65 70
KNlenglne
I i i i i i i
lO 11 12 13 14 15 16
1000 Iblenglne
Installed thrust
Figure 4.4-3 Takeoff Performance Comparison - The performance advantage of

the turboprop engine at takeoff is much greater than the
advantage seen at cruise. The thrust specific fuel consumption
of the turboprop engine is 39% lower than the TSFC of the
turbofan at the takeoff rating. Both engines are shown in
airplane size, and include horsepower extraction, real inlets
and nozzles. (j27638-73)
197
TABLE 4.4- I
ISOLATED POD INSTALLATION EFFECTS
Mach 0.75, 10,668 m (35,000 ft)

Ai rpl ane Si ze Engines
Base Units Percent Chan_e in TSFC
Prop-Fan Turbofan Prop-Fan Turbofan
Propeller Inlet Pressure Rise

(% p/p) 3.0 --- -1.24 ---
Inlet Pressure Loss (% P/P) 3.0 0.4 +I.24 +0.57
Fan Duct Pressure Loss (% P/P) --- 1.27 --- +I.02
Primary Exhaust Pressure Loss

(% p/p) 1.0 0.79 +0.35 +0.27
0.995 --- +l.O0

Fan Nozzle C v ---
Primary Nozzle Cv 0.965 0.996 +0.74 +0.17
Customer Power Extraction,

kw (shp) 125 (168) 125 (168) +2.75 +1.65
Isolated Nacelle Drag, N (Ib) 725 (163) 1067 (24U) +4.7 +6.6
Total Isolated Pod

Instal Iation Effect +B.54% +11.28%
4.4.3.2 Weight Comparison
The weight comparison in Table 4.4-II shows both base size and airplane size
propulsion systems. Reference thrust for the turbofan is uninstalled (no bleed
or horsepower extraction, but real inlets and nozzles, no scrubbing drag)
takeoff thrust at sea level static, +14°C (+25°F) day, while turboprop shaft
horsepower is the uninstalled takeoff rating at sea level, Mach 0.3, +14°C
(+25°F) day. Engine weight reflects the relatively small size of the gas gen-
erator in the Prop-Fan propulsion system. Gearbox weight is presented for a
compound idler offset gearbox, including one half the weight difference for
opposite rotation, as explained above and the engine/gearbox connecting shaft.
Nacelle weights include pylon, engine build up (engine and airframe accesso-
ries commonly located in the nacelle), and, for the turbofan, thrust reverser
weights. The airplane size Prop-Fan propulsion system is slightly heavier than
the turbofan propulsion system, primarily due to gearbox and propeller weight.
198
TABLE 4.4-II
TURBOFAN/TURBOPROP COMPARISON
Instal led Weight
Base Size Ai rp1 ane Si ze

Turbofan Prop-Fan Turbofan Prop-Fan
(10,668 m)
Size (thrust at sea level

static, shp at sea level, 86,069N 8948 kw 73,926 N 8620 kw
Mach 0.3, STD + 14°C) (19,350 Ib) (12,000 hp) (16,620 lb) (II,560 hp)
Engine Weight, kg (Ib) 1588 (3500) 839 (1850) 1384 (305l) 811 (1787)
Propeller Weight, kg (Ib) --- 671 (1480) - 640 (1411)
Offset Gearbox Weight, kg (Ib) --- 531 (1170) - 509 (1123)
Nacelle Weight, kg (Ib) 1263 (2785) 805 (1775) 1116 (2461) 782 (1723)
Total Weight, kg (Ib) 2851 (6285) 2846 (6275) 2500 (5512) 2742 (6044)
4.4.3.3 Cost Comparison
The maintenance cost and acquisition price of the two systems are compared in
Table 4.4-III. The lower price of the turboprop engine is due to smaller size and
lack of a fan. These factors carry over into maintenance cost, where a similar
effect can be seen. Addition of a gearbox and propeller (Prop-Fan) brings the
total price of the Prop-Fan propulsion system to within I0% of the price of the
turbofan, while addition of a reverser restores the 17% difference. The effect of
the gearbox and propeller on maintenance cost is somewhat less. The relatively
low maintenance cost of the gearbox is due to the compound idler design, with few
gears and bearings, and to the advanced technologies which are assumed to be
available. If the split path inline gearbox had been used, maintenance cost would
have been almost double the cost of the compound idler offset gearbox. Propeller
price and maintenance cost were obtained from the Hamilton Standard Division of
United Technologies Corporation.
TABLE 4.4-III
COST COMPARISON SCALED TO AIRPLANE SlZE
Acquisition Maintenance
STF686 STS678 STF686 STS678
Turbofan Prop-Fan Turbofan Prop-Fan
(10,668m) (I0,668m)
Engine 91.5% 64.2% 95.8% 68.8%

Gearbox (Offset) --- 8.7% .... 3.9%
Propeller --- 10.3% --- 4.6%
Reverser 8.5% --- 4.2% ---
Total 100.0% 83.2% 100.0% 77.3%

199
4.4.4 Hission Analysis - Airplane Sizing and Performance
The results of a "fly-off" between the Prop-Fan powered aircraft and the tur-
bofan powered aircraft are discussed in this section in terms of airplane/
engine sizing, airplane characteristics, mission performance, and fuel burn.
4.4.4.1 Airplane Sizing
In Table 4.4-IV the STF686 turbofan powered airplane is compared to two Prop-
Fan powered airplanes. Recalling that the airplane sizing requirements in the
ground rules called for a Federal Aviation Regulation takeoff field length
(TOFL) of 2133 m (7000 ft) or less and initial cruise altitude capabilities
(ICAC) of 9448 m (31,000 ft) or I0,668 m (35,000 ft), it can be seen that when
the turbofan is sized to meet the takeoff requirement it has sufficient cruise
thrust to exceed the highest initial cruise altitude capability. The turboprop
engine, due to its different thrust lapse rate with Mach number, is sized by
the cruise requirements, and, in each case, has enough takeoff thrust to
better the takeoff field length requirement. [The 9448 m (31,000 ft) initial
cruise altitude capability can be seen to provide a good match to the 2133 m
(7000 ft) field length given the performance of the Prop-Fan propulsion system
and the airplane assumptions.]
TABLE 4.4-IV
AIRPLANE CHARACTERISTICS
Turbofan Prop-Fan
9448 m I0,568 m
Design Range, km (Nm) 3333 (1800) 3333 (1800) 3333 (1800)

Payload - 120 Passengers, kg (Ib) 10,886 (24,000) I0,88G (24,000) 10,886 (24,000)
Cruise Mach Number 0.75 0.75 0.75
Operating Empty Weight, kg (Ib) 32,420 (71,470) 32,390 {7],410) 33,830 (74,590)
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight, kg (Ib) 52,680 (l]6,100) 50,970 (112,400) 52,480 (I15,700)
Initial Cruise Altitude Capability,

m (ft) 11,064 (36,300) 9448 (31,000) 10,668 (35,000)
Takeoff Field Length at Maximum

Takeoff Gross Weight,
m (ft) (S.L., Std + 14°C) 2133 (7000) 2130 (6990) 1639 (5380)
Reference Wing Area, _ (ft2) I03 (If06) 91 (977) 98 (1052)
Cruise Lift-to-Drag Ratio 16.49 I6.2l 16.52
Engine Size Static Fn, Mach 0.3 73,926 N 7405 kw 8620 kw

SHP, at S.L. Std + 14°C (16,620 lb) (9930 hp) (II,560 hp)
Propeller Diameter, m (ft) -- 3.70 (12.14) 3.99 (13.10)
200
The primary cause of the differences between the two Prop-Fa.n powered aircraft
is the reduction in engine size which results from decreasing initial cruise
altitude capability from 10,668 m (35,000 ft) to 9448 m (31,000 ft). This 14%
reduction in engine size leads to a 4% decrease in operating empty weight and
a 3% reduction in takeoff gross weight. Since the takeoff field length for the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for 9448 m (31,000 ft) is very close to 2133 m
(7000 ft), no further reduction in engine size would be permitted under the
study ground rules, unless the Prop-Fan engine rating schedule was changed.
Wing loading (gross weight/wing area) was chosen to minimize fuel burn Rn a
740 km (400 nm) typical mission, subject to an upper limit of 115 ]bs/ft ( at
design maximum takeoff gross weight.
The enroute engine-out cruise altitude capabilities of the turbofan powered

airplane and the two Prop-Fan powered airplanes are considerably different.
Although this factor was not considered a sizing condition due to the rela-
tively small size and short range of the aircraft, it does provide an inter-
esting comparison of the performance of the three airplanes. Engine out cap-
abilities were determined using maximum continuous thrust ratings for the
"begin cruise" weight of a 1852 km (lO00 nm) mission with I00% and 60% load
factors. With a I00% load factor, the turbofan powered airplane could sustain
an altitude of 5580 m (]8,300 ft) with an engine out, while the Prop-Fan
powered aircraft sized for I0,668 m (35,000 ft) could sustain an altitude of
4600 m (15,100 ft) and the Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for 9448 m (31,000
ft) demonstrated a 3380 m (ll,lO0 ft) capability. With a 60% load factor, the
enroute engine out capability of the turbofan powered airplane was 6280 m
(20,600 ft), while the capability of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for
I0,668 m (35,000 ft) was 5460 m (17,900 ft) and the capability of the Prop-Fan
powered aircraft sized for 9448 m (31,000 ft) was 4540 m (14,900 ft). However,
there is some latitude available in the maximum continuous ratings for the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft. Thus, if enroute engine out capability was consi-
dered a critical sizing condition, the rating could be increased to help sat-
isfy the requirement.
Comparing the turbofan powered aircraft with the Prop-Fan powered aircraft
sized for I0,668 m (35,000 ft), most of the difference in operating empty
weight is due to differences in the weight of the propulsion system and cabin
acoustic treatment. The maximum gross weight of the turbofan is higher because
it requires a larger fuel load to accomplish the design mission.
The comparison is continued in Table 4.4-V, where a detailed weight breakdown

is presented for all three aircraft. Most of the differences in operating
empty weight are in the areas of engine installation and cabin noise treat-
ment. Baseline cabin noise treatment for the turbofan powered airplane is in-
cluded in the weight of the fuselage and furnishings. Fuel weights are total
fuel on board for the design mission, including Air Transport Association
domestic reserves.
Airplane configurations for the turbofan powered aircraft and the Prop-Fan
powered aircraft sized for I0,668 m (35,000 ft) are shown in Figures 4.4-4 and
4.4-5. These figures are strictly conceptual in nature and are included only
to illustrate engine locations and assumed aircraft geometry. Some reshaping
of the Prop-Fan powered airplane wing and tailoring of the nacelles would be
required to achieve low interference drag. However, refinements of this sort
are beyond the scope of the APET study.
201
TABLE 4.4-V
AIRPLANE WEIGHT BREAKDOWN (English Units)
Turbofan Prop-Fan Prop-Fan

Powered Powered Powered
Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft
Xl:Jl_i_O-O-f
t ) T'J_I_-(_-f
t)
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight (Ib) = 116,147 112,357 115,703

Maximum Ramp Weight (Ib) = 116,272 112,430 115,787
Operating Empty Weight (Ib) = 71,470 71,405 74,587
Payload Weight (Ib) = 24,000 24,000 24,000
Fuel On Board (Ib) = 20,802 17,025 17,200
Airframe Structure: 33,996 33,002 34,213

Wing 12,291 11,461 12,109
Fuselage 13,789 14,019 14,038
Tail 3,117 2,786 2,976
Landing Gear 4,800 4,736 5,091
Aircraft Systems: 7,687 7,313 7,482
Fuel Systems 6O5 519 521
Surface Controls 2,016 1,816 1,932
Hydraulic, Electric,
Pneumatic Equipment 2,794 2,726 2,765
Air Conditioning 1,238 1,238 1,238
Anti-lcing 285 266 277
Auxiliary Power Unit 749 749 749
Engine Installation: II,025 10,390 12,089
Engine Weight 3,051 3,670 4,321
Wing Installation 2,461 1,525 I,723
Electronic Systems: 2,132 2,122 2,122
Electronics 1,521 1,521 1,521
Instruments 610 600 600
Furnishings and Equipment: 11,037 11,053 11,044
Passenger Seats 3,780 3,780 3,780
Galley Structure 927 927 927
Other Furnishings 4,234 4,234 4,234
Emergency Equipment 505 505 505
620 620 620
Flight Provisions
Cargo Handling Equipment 742 762 750
Exterior Paint 230 226 228
Extra Cabin Noise Treatment: 0 1,929 2,062
Manufacturers Empty Weight: 65,877 65,810 69,012
Operator Items: 5,593 5,596 5,575

Flight Crew and Baggage 430 430 430
Cabin Crew and Baogage 620 620 620
Unusable Fuel and Oil 152 I18 119
Washing and Drinking Water 370 370 370
Toilet Water and Chemicals 86 86 86
Food and Beverage 1,I06 1,106 1,106
Galley Service Equipment 560 560 560
Cabin Service Equipment 330 330 330
Cargo Containers 1,377 1,414 1,393
Operator Allowances 0 0 0
Operators Empty Weight: 71,470 71,405 74,587
202
TABLE 4.4-V
AIRPLANE WEIGHT BREAKDOWN (Standard International Units)
Turbofan Prop-Fan Prop-Fan

Powered Powered Powered
Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft
(9449 m) X_F6_--m)
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight (kg) = 52,684 50,965 52,483

Maximum Ramp Weight (kg) = 52,74] 50,998 52,52]
Operating Empty Weight (kg) = 32,419 32,389 33,832
Payload Weight (kO) = I0,886 I0,886 10,886
Fuel On Board (kg) = 9,436 7,722 7,802
Airframe Structure: ]5,420 14,970 15_51g.....

Wing 5575 5]99 5493
Fuselage 6255 5359 6368
Tail ]414 1264 ]350
Landing Gear 2]77 2148 2309
Aircraft Systems: 3,487 3,317 3,394
Fuel Systems 274 235 236
Surface Controls 914 824 876
Hydraulic, Electric,
Pneumatic Equipment ]267 1237 ]254
Air Conditioning 562 562 562
Anti-lcing ]29 121 ]26
Auxiliary Power Unit 340 340 340
Engine Installation: 5,001 4,713 5,484
Engine Weight 1384 ]665 1960
Wing Installation l]16 692 782
Electronic Systems: 967 963 963
Electronics 690 690 690
Instruments 277 272 272
Furnishings and Equipment: 5,037 5,014 5,0]0
Passenger Seats 1715 1715 1715
Galley Structure 420 420 420
Other Furnishings 1921 1921 ]921
Flight Provisions 281 28] 281
Cargo Handling Equipment 337 346 340
Exterior Paint ]04 103 103
Extra Cabin Noise Treatment: 0 875 935
Manufacturers Empty Weight: 29,882 29,85] 31,304
Operator Items: 2,537 2,538 2,529

Flight Crew and Baggage 195 195 195
Cabin Crew and Baggage 281 281 281
Unusable Fuel and Oil 69 54 54
Washing and Drinking.Water 168 168 168
Toilet Water and Chemicals 39 39 39
Food and Beverage 502 502 5O2
Galley Service Equipment 254 254 254
Cabin Service Equipment 150 150 150
Cargo Containers 624 64l 632
Operator Allowances 0 0 0
Operators Empty Weight: 32,419 32,839 33,832
203
Aspect ratio 10
Sweep (¼ chord) 22 degrees
Wing area 103 m2 (1106 ft2)
Engine size 16,620 Ibs fn
(105.2 ft)
Figure 4.4-4 Turbofan Powered Airplane Configuration - This conceptual

drawing shows the location of the turbofan engines and the basic
airplane geometry. (J27638-214)
Aspect ratio 10
Sweep (¼ chord) 22 degrees
Wing area 98 m2 (1052 ft2)
Engine size 11,560 shp
33.8 m J
(102.5 ft) (111.2 ft)
Figure 4.4-5 Prop-Fan Powered Airplane Configuration - This conceptual drawing

shows the location of the Prop-Fan engines and the basic air-
plane geometry. (J27638-215)
204
4.4.4.2 Mission Performance Comparison
Fuel burn results for design and typical missions for the turbofan and Prop-
Fan powered airplanes are compared in Figure 4.4-6. The fuel burn advantage
for the Prop-Fan powered aircraft is 17 to 18% on the design mission and 21 to
24% on a typical mission. The advantage tends to increase as range decreases
due to the relatively better low speed performance of the Prop-Fan powered
aircraft. Reducing the initial cruise altitude capability requirement also in-
creases fuel burn advantage, due primarily to the smaller engine size required
at the lower altitude, as shown in Table 4.4-1V. A somewhat greater benefit is
obtained from lowering the initial cruise altitude capability on a typical
mission than on the design mission. This stems mostly from the small cruise
lift/drag penalty assessed against the Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for
9448 m (31,000 ft) (see Table 4.4-IV), which has more effect on the design
mission which has a relatively long cruise segment.
In all cases the airplanes were allowed to cruise at the altitude at which the
best fuel mileage was obtained, subject to minimum initial cruise altitude
capability sizing requirements and 1220 m (4000 ft) steps (altitudes used were
9448 m, I0,668 m and 11,887 m (31,000 ft, 35,000 ft and 39,000 ft)).
Design mission Typical mission

_3 km(!800 nm) 740 km (400 nm)
r- 100 - I I c: 100 -
- 17.9% - 17.1%
I I
-24.0% -21.4%
o I
m 80- 80-
c_
¢-
60- " 60-
uO
m 40- 40-
> 20- > 20-
m 0
DE 9448m 10,668m n- 9448 m 10,668 m
Turbofan (31,000 ft) (35,000 ft) Turbofan (31,000 ft)(35,000 ft)
Prop-Fan Prop-Fan
Figure 4.4-6 Fuel Burn Comparison - The Prop-Fan powered aircraft has a 17%
to 18% advantage in fuel burn at the design range (3333 km) and
a 21% to 24% advantage during a typical mission (740 km).
(J27638-7)
205
Table 4.4-VI shows the increased performance advantage of the Prop-Fan powered
aircraft at lower speeds. The Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for 10,668 m
(35,000 ft) demonstrates a 38% advantage in takeoff fuel use (which includes
takeoff and climb to 457 m (1500 ft)) and a 14% advantage in fuel burn per
mile at cruise. Cruise altitudes differ among the three aircraft due to dif-
ferences in optimum conditions and thrust capabilities; the turbofan powered
airplane cruises at ]],887 m (3_,000 ft), for best fuel mileage while both
Prop-Fan powered aircraft cruise at 10,668 m (35,000 ft) during a typical mis-
sion (see Figure 4.4-7). This makes climb performance rather difficult to com-
pare, since the turbofan is spending a large portion of its climb at high
altitudes where the airplane is more efficient. Taxi fuel, which is calculated
using ground idle thrust, is another area of significant advantage for the
Prop-Fan. This stems primarily from the smaller engine core size of the Prop-
Fan propulsion system, which allows lower idle fuel flows. Descent performance
of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft benefits from the same effect. Fuel burn at
approach for the Prop-Fan powered aircraft shows a significant advantaye (36%)
of the same magnitude as takeoff performance.
TABLE 4.4-VI
TYPICAL MISSION FUEL BURN BREAKDOWN (English Units)
Turbofan Prop-Fan
Sized for 31000 ft Sized for 35000 ft
Time Dist Fuel Time Dist Fuel Time Dist Fuel

nm TI_ _ml n_ TI} _m n _nm
Taxi Out 9 - ]25 9 - 73 9 - 84
Take Off 2 3 26] 2 4 ]65 ] 3 ]6l
CI imb 23 ]49 2121 24 157 ]631 18 1 ]2 ]393
Cruise 17 ]24 854 20 142 819 26 188 11]7
Descent 21 124 296 17 97 127 17 97 148
Approach 4 - 154 4 - 93 4 - ]O0
Taxi In 5 - 69 5 - 40 5 - 47
Mission 81 400 3880 81 400 2948 80 400 3050
(Reserves) (49l O) (3925) (4044)
206
TABLE 4.4-VI
TYPICAL MISSION FUEL BURN BREAKDOWN (Standard International Units)
Turbofan Prop-Fan
Sized for 9448 m Sized for 10,668 m
Time Dist Fuel Time Dist Fuel Time Dist Fuel

ml--"n _ _g m1"--'-6 _ _g ml---'-6 _ leg
Taxi Out 9 - 57 g - 33 9 - 38
Take Off 2 6 118 2 7 75 1 6 73
Climb 23 276 962 24 291 740 18 206 732
Cruise 17 230 387 20 263 372 26 34B 507
Descent 21 229 134 17 180 58 17 180 67
Approach 4 - 70 4 - 42 4 - 45
Taxi In 5 - 32 5 - 18 5 - 21
Mission 81 400 1760 81 741 1337 80 741 1383
(Reserves) (2227) (1780) (1834)
Further comparisons of the mission performance of the Prop-Fan powered air-

craft and the turbofan powered aircraft are presented in the mission profiles
of Figure 4.4-7. This figure illustrates the differences in climb performance
and cruise altitude of the two Prop-Fan powered aircraft and the turbofan
powered aircraft. As would be expected, the Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized
for 9448 m (31,000 ft) takes the longest time to get to cruise altitude, while
the Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for IU,668 m (35,000 ft) is quickest to
I0,668 m (35,000 ft), due primarily to better low speed performance. The climb
speed schedule used in all cases was: 250 knots equivalent air speed (KEAS)
to 304B m (lO,O00 ft), 280 KEAS to Mach 0.72, Mach 0.72 to cruise altitude,
accelerate at cruise altitude to Mach 0.75. The descent schedule was the
reverse of climb. The 740 km (400 nm) mission includes 14 minutes of taxi
time; nine minutes out and five minutes in.
Thrust and specific fuel consumption profiles for the 740 km (400 nm) typical
mission are shown in Figures 4.4-8 and 4.4-9. The thrust lapse difference be-
tween the turbofan and Prop-Fan powered aircraft is illustrated graphically;
the turbofan powered aircraft begins takeoff with slightly less thrust than
the Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for 9448 m (31,000 ft), but by 6096 m
(20,000 ft) it has about 15% more climb thrust than the Prop-Fan powered air-
craft. Cruise thrust for both Prop-Fan powered aircraft is essentially the
same, since both cruise at I0,668 m (35,000 ft) on this mission.
207
j, Turbofan
40 " 12 - Prop-Fan F--:""_. -- --- --,.
10,668 m sizing_ j / urmse "_
10 (35,000 ft) _
3O
8
,/>:
/_;/'_ Prop-Fan
,/_;J "_ 9448 m sizing
20 E 6
C.mb /,y (31,000
ft) ent
"- 4
Takeoff///
10
0
2
0 Approach"-'--
:ax\
I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Mission time, min
Figure 4.4-7 Typical Mission Flight Profiles - The turbofan powered aircraft
cruises at a higher altitude than the Prop-Fan powered aircraft.
The Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for 9448 m has a signifi-
cantly longer climbing time than the Prop-Fan powered aircraft
sized for 10,668 m or the reference turbofan. (J27638-75)
10
20- r---Prop-Fan 10,668 m sizing S.L.S.T.O. Fn
8 _- Prop-Fan 9448 m sizing S.L.S.T.O.

"_" Turbofan S.L.S. takeoff Fn
Fn
15 6
2-=
£ m sizing
s 2
Turbofan PropFan 9448m Prop Fan cruise Fn_"_
Turbofan cruise Fn/
00
r. o- oI I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Km
I I I I I I I I I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1000 ft
Altitude
Figure 4.4-8 Typical Mission Thrust Profiles - The turbofan powered aircraft
begins takeoff with slightly less thrust than the Prop-Fan
powered aircraft but by 6096 m has about 15% more climb thrust
than the smaller Prop-Fan. (J27638-76)
208
Thrust specific fuel consumption profiles in Figure 4.4-9 show that the advan-
tage of the Prop-Fan narrows as altitude increases (actually as speed in-
creases, but Mach number is increasing during climb up to 8686 m (28,500 ft),
after which it is constant until cruise altitude is reached, so altitude and
speed are roughly synonymous). Except for a minor adjustment in TSFC due to
scaling effects, both Prop-Fan powered aircraft have the same thrust specific
fuel consumption. The jog at 3048 m (lO,O00 ft) is caused by the climb speed
schedule, in which there is an acceleration from 250 to 280 KEAS at that
altitude. There is an additional jog in the turbofan line at 457 m (1500 ft)
where the active clearance control switches on.
0.60 0.06 - Turbofan cruise TSFC

d
Turbofan..,Z%" "_
IJ.. 0.50
(/) 0.05
....... -/" Prop-Fan cruise TSFC-._,,_
/Prop-Fan 9448 m _ --- "J
•' 0.40 Z., 0.04 _. (31,000 ft)sizing_.._"-
"O,-
f" _..._- Prop-Fan 10,668 m
m(i) "--
{-
JO
m -- 0.30
¢0 0.03
(35,000 ft) sizing
¢n 0.20 0.02
t-- Prop-Fan S.L.S. takeoff TSFC
m
0.10 0.01 i i I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Km
I I [ I I I I I I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
1000 ft
Altitude
Figure 4.4-9 Typical Mission Specific Fuel Consumption Profile - The

advantage in thrust specific fuel consumption demonstrated by
the Prop-Fan powered aircraft increases as altitude and speed
decrease. (J27638-77)
4.4.4.3 Fuel Burn Influence Coefficients
The effect of variations in engine and airplane performance parameters on fuel

burn for a 740 km (400 nm) typical mission is shown in Figure 4.4-10. The
Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for 10,668 m (35,000 ft) was used as the base
engine in determining these variations. Influences were calculated using the
complete airplane sizing/mission analysis cycle. For example, the thrust spe-
cific fuel consumption (TSFC) influence coefficient was determined by first
factoring all fuel flows in the basic, unscaled engine upward by five percent.
Next, the airplane and engine were sized to perform the design mission, using
the factored engine data. After all the requirements for the design mission
were satisfied (cruise altitude, takeoff field length, payload, range, etc.),
the resulting airplane and engine were flown through the 740 knl (400 rim) typi-
cal mission to determine fuel burn and economics for that mission.
209
No significance should be attached to the size of the variation selected for
each parameter. The magnitude of the variation was large enough to measure
accurately but small enough to remain in the linear range of effect.
These influence coefficients are very similar to the coefficients developed

during Task I (Study Procedures and Assumptions) for use in the Task II (Cycle
and Configuration Study) and Task Ill (Propulsion System Integration) evalua-
tions. Any differences arise from the fact that the coefficients developed in
Task I were based on a less advanced engine.
+6-
+ 5.53% - 5.46%
+5
Percent +4
Afuel
burn on
740 km (400 nm) +3
typical mission + 2.30%
+2
+1
+0.31%
0 [---i
+ 5% TSFC + 454 kg (1000 Ib) + 5% airplane + 5% Nacelle
weight/engine drag drag
Figure 4.4-10 Prop-Fan Fuel Burn Influence Coefficients - The impact of each
variation was determined by a complete airplane resizing and
mission analysis. (J27638-78)
4.4.5 Mission Analysis - Economics
Direct operating cost (DOC) was selected as the figure of merit for the econo-
mic evaluation. The 1981 Boeing DOC method was furnished by The Boeing Company
for use in the APET Program. Key economic ground rules included: $0.396 per
liter ($I.50 per gallon) fuel price; 1981 dollars; two man crew. The ground
rules for the economic evaluation are summarized in Section 4.1.6.
4.4.5.1 Direct Operating Cost Comparison
Figure 4.4-II shows that the Prop-Fan powered aircraft offers significant re-
ductions in direct operating cost relative to the reference turbofan: the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for I0,668 m (35,000 ft) is I0% less expensive
to operate, while the Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for 9448 m (31,000 ft)
provides an II.8% reduction in direct operating cost. Most of this reduction
in operating cost stems from the fuel burn advantage of the Prop-Fan propul-
sion system, as shown in Table 4.4-VII. Reduced engine maintenance cost is
also a contributing factor. Relative costs are based on cost per seat - kilo-
meter (statute mile). Utilization is 2537 trips per year for all three air-
craft.
210
100-
Fuel
0
@ $0.39611iter
($1.50/gallon)
60-
Flight crew
Relative DOC, %
Engine
40- maintenance
Airframe
maintenance
20-
Depreciation
and insurance
0
9450 m 10,670 m
(31,000 ft) (35,000 ft)
Turbofan Prop-Fan
Figure 4.4-11 Direct Operating Cost Comparison - The direct operating cost of
a Prop-Fan powered aircraft is 10% to 12% lower than the
operating cost of a comparable turbofan powered aircraft,
(J27638-7_)
• TABLE 4.4-VII
DIRECT OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN FOR A TYPICAL MISSION (740 km)
STF6B6 STS678
Turbofan Prop-Fan
9448 m I0,668 m
Fuel 37.0% 28.1% 29.1%
Flight Crew 20.3 20.1 20.0
Airframe Maintenance I0.3 I0.1 10,3
Engine Maintenance 6.1 4.5 4.7
Insurance 1.8 1.8 l.B
Depreciation
Engine 5.3 4.2 4.4
Airframe 19.2 19.4 19.7
Total I00.0% 88.2% 90.0%
211
4.4.5.2 Direct Operating Cost Influence Coefficients
The effect of variations in performance and economic factors on the direct

operating cost of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft is shown in Figure 4.4-12.
These coefficients were calculated in the same manner as the fuel burn coeffi-
cients (by completing the airplane sizing/mission analysis cycle), with the
addition of maintenance cost and price. Unlike the fuel burn coefficients,
however, direct operating cost is more sensitive to airplane drag than to
thrust specific fuel consumption. The reason for this difference lies in the
fact that the Prop-Fan powered aircraft is sized for cruise; thus, drag
directly affects engine size, and hence, engine price and maintenance cost.
Thus, while drag and specific fuel consumption have an essentially equal im-
pact on fuel burn, the added influence of engine cost parameter scaling causes
drag to have more effect on direct operating cost. All coefficients were cal-
culated using a fuel price of $0.396/liter ($l.50/gallon).
+2.5
+ 2.0 - + 1.96%
Percent
ADOC + 1.5
on 740 km + 1.27%
(400 nm)
typical mission + 1.0 -
+ 0.52% + 0,52%
+0.5 -
+0.13% _ _--_
0
F---1
+5%TSFC +454kg _5% +5% +10%eng +10%
(1000 Ib) airplane nacelle maintenance engine
weight/ drag drag cost price
engine
Figure 4.4-12 Direct Operating Cost Influence Coefficients - Variations in

airplane drag, thrust specific fuel consumption, and engine
weight have the greatest influence on direct operating cost.
(J27638-80)
4.4.6 Influence of Undefined Factors on the Evaluation
As discussed earlier, there are several key parameters which may affect the
performance of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft which have not yet been adequately
defined. Two key factors, airplane drag and fuselage acoustic treatment weight,
are addressed in Figures 4.4-13 and 4.4-14. The impact of changing fuel prices
is also assessed.
712
24.0%
"--_.7.1
21.4%
drag I
I 19.5%
20 I 18.8% I m
i
i
+3% I
Prop-Fan drag I
15- !
fuel burn I
advantage, i
10-
% @ 740 Km
(400 nm)
5-
i
0 i,
Base Airplane 2x acoustic

drag treatment weight
Figure 4.4-13 Effect of Key Parameters on the Fuel Burn Advantage of the
Prop-Fan Powered Aircraft - Even with increased airplane drag
and acoustic treatment weight, the fuel burn advantage of the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft remains large. (j27638-81)
12
11.3% 11.2%
r;_ _ F_
10.0%
10 I drag liter I
(S2.001
I
gal) l
I 8.7%
8.3% 8 .30/0 I
+3%
$0.264/
drag
liter
($1.001
Prop-Fan DOC gal)
advantage,
@ 740 Km (400 nm)
I
i
Base "Airplane 2x acoustic Fuel price

drag treatment weight
Figure 4.4-14 Effect of Key Parameters on the Direct Operating Cost Advantage
of the Prop-Fan Powered Aircraft - The direct operating cost
advantage of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft is not significantly
reduced by increased airplane drag or acoustic treatment
weight, or by lower fuel prices. (J27638-_2)
213
The first bar in each figure shows the (fuel burn/DOC) advantage demonstrated
by the Prop-Fan powered aircraft sized for 10,668 m (35,000 ft) over the tur-
bofan under the basic ground rules of the APET Program. The next bar shows the
impact of a 3% drag penalty on the Prop-Fan powered aircraft. (Recall that in
the basic ground rules, no interference drag penalty was imposed on the Prop-
Fan powered aircraft relative to the reference turbofan.) Also shown is the
potential benefit which can be derived by the Prop-Fan powered aircraft from
recovering part of the propeller slipstream residual swirl. More extensive
wind tunnel testing of Prop-Fans installed on wings will be required to accu-
rately assess the benefit, or penalty, of the interaction of the propeller
slipstream and the wing. The third bar shows the effect of doubling the fuse-
1age acoustic treatment weight in the Prop-Fan powered aircraft. Under the
basic ground rules, the Prop-Fan powered airplane had 907 kg (2000 lb) more
fuselage treatment than the turbofan powered airplane. (Acoustic treatment has
a greater effect on direct operating cost than engine weight because it in-
cludes the associated airframe cost increase while engine weight and cost are
treated separately.) The fourth bar, seen only in Figure 4.4-14, shows the
effect of changing fuel price from the baseline of $0.396/liter ($l.50/gallon)
to $0.264/liter ($1.00/gallon) and $0.528/liter ($2.00/gallon). All of these
effects are shown individually, not cumulatively.
The effects of airplane drag and acoustic treatment weight may seem to dis-
agree somewhat with the Prop-Fan influence coefficients shown previously. This
is due primarily to a shift in the base. The influence coefficients were based
on the performance of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft, while the effects of in-
creased airplane drag and acoustic treatment weight are measured in terms of
the advantage of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft over the turbofan powered air-
craft. Hence, these effects are based on the performance of the turbofan
powered airplane. Since the turbofan powered aircraft has higher fuel burn and
direct operating costs, changes in the performance of the Prop-Fan powered
aircraft appear smaller w_en compared to the performance of the turbofan
powered airplane. For example, a one percent change in the fuel burn of the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft would produce a 0.8% change in the advantage of the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft over the turbofan powered airplane.
Figures 4.4-13 and 4.4-14 indicate that the performance advantage of the Prop-
Fan powered aircraft is large enough to withstand significantly greater penal-
ties in interference drag and acoustic treatment weight than have been assumed
for the APET Program. In addition, the direct operating cost advantage of the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft remains large (over 8%) at fuel prices equivalent to
1981 levels.
4.4.7 Acoustics
The flyover noise of the Prop-Fan powered airplane was estimated at the certi-
fication points defined by the FM Part 36 Chapter 3 regulations. The predic-
ted Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) was established by summing the
noise generated by each of the noise sources during the airplane flyover. The
procedure, described in Appendix C of Reference I, is comprised of a Hamilton
Standard supplied module to predict the noise generated by the Prop-Fan and an
engine noise procedure, developed by Pratt & Whitney, based on turbofan engine
noise data. The results of the flyover noise estimates are presented in Figure
4.4-15 and indicate that the Prop-Fan powered airplane will meet the noise
rules by a comfortable margin.
214
120
115
110
Effective 105
perceived FAR 36
noise level 100
in EPNdB
95
90
85 0
kg K 50 100 200 400 50 100 200 40( 50 100 200 400
I
J IIIJ
' ' '' llllllllll ' ' ,I IIIII IIIII ' , ,,,Jlll
Ib K lOO 1000 100 1000 100 1000
Aircraft gross weight
*FAR 36 limits (stage 3) for new

O STS678 Prop-fan
two engine aircraft types
Figure 4.4-15 Flyover Noise Predictions for the Prop-Fan Powered Airplane -
The Prop-Fan powered airplane will satisfy FAR Part 36 Stage 3
noise regulations by a comfortable margin. (J27638-148)
The contribution of each of the component noise sources to the total airplane
noise is tabulated in Figure 4.4-16. The major noise sources in the Prop-Fan
powered aircraft are the Prop-Fan (propeller) at the takeoff and sideline con-
ditions and the Prop-Fan and airframe at approach.
EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL (EPNL)
FAA Noise Point

IComponent Takeoff Sideline Approach
I
IProp-Fan 83.1 90.2 b2. l
lAirframe 67.7 69.1 88.9
ICombustor 57.8 59.9 65.4
IJet 67.6 69.2 51.4
ICompressor 32.8 34.2 75.2
ITurbine 32.1 31.2 59.2
IGearbox 34. ] 35.0 38.3
I
I Total 84.4 90.9 91.7
Figure 4.4-16 Prop-Fan Airplane Component Noise Levels - The major noise
sources are the Prop-Fan at takeoff and sideline conditions
and the Prop-Fan and airframe at approach. (J27638-913)
215
The Prop-Fan is quieter than conventionally designed propellers at the same
tip speed and loading due to the low notse features developed over the last
several years by the NASA-Lewis Research Center and the Hamilton Standard
Division of United Technologies Corporation (References 2 and 3). At the maxi-
mum power condition (sideline and takeoff) the other noise sources are all at
least l OdB below the noise of the Prop-Fan. At the low thrust approach condi-
tion, the Prop-Fan noise is reduced appreciably because of the low disk load-
ing and lower tip speed, and airframe noise predominates. It is noted that the
airframe noise prediction is based on a correlation of data obtained from tur-
bofan powered airplanes and, therefore, does not include the possible effect
of noise generated by the prop wash impinging on the wing surface. This possi-
ble noise source should be evaluated as part of a large scale flight test
program.
The flyover noise of the turbofan powered airplane was also predicted by the
procedure described in Reference l, with many of the engine component modules
common to both predictions. In order for the turbofan powered airplane to meet
the FAA noise regulations, it was necessary to provide two noise reduction
features. First, turbomachinery noise was attenuated through the use of acous-
tic lining in the inlet, fan case, and fan and turbine exhaust ducts. The
amounts of lining used in each section were based on Pratt & Whitney ful I
scale _ngine acoustic liner experience. Based on this experience, 2.04 m:
(2R ft() of liner material was apportioned _o the inl_et, 5.67 m: (61
ft () to the fan case and fan duct, and 1.18 m _ (12.7 ft () to the turbine
exhaust case. The inlet, fan case and fan duct lining material design involves
a wire mesh bonded to perforated plate with a honeycomb backing. The acoustic
lining was predicted to provide acceptable noise levels at the sideline and
approach conditions. Second, a two-slope takeoff (reduced thrust "cutback")
procedure was used in order to meet the FAA rules for that community noise
point. The predicted levels for the turbofan powered aircraft relative to the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft and for both aircraft relative to the FAA rules for
two-engine airplanes are shown in Figure 4.4-17. The altitudes at takeoff and
sideline for the two aircraft are shown in Table 4.4-VIII. At the sideline
condition where the respective altitudes differ by only 60 m (200 ft), the
noise levels of the Prop-Fan and turbofan powered airplanes are very close. At
the takeoff condition, the Prop-Fan powered aircraft attains a much greater
altitude than the turbofan powered aircraft; 865 m (2840 ft) vs 600 m (1970
ft). The greater altitude provides larger attenuations of the Prop-Fan noise
relative to the sideline condition than those associated with the smaller
altitude change and reduced thrust of the turbofan, with the result that the
Prop-Fan powered aircraft is quieter at takeoff. At approach, the predictions
indicate that the fan is the dominant source of noise in the turbofan, whereas
airframe noise dominates in the Prop-Fan powered aircraft. As a result, the
noise level of the Prop-Fan powered aircraft is less than the noise level of
the turbofan powered aircraft.
216
120
115
110
Effective
105
perceived - FAR 36
noise level 100
in EPNdB
95
90
[]
85- O
kg K 50 100 200 400 50 100 200 400 50 100 200 400
I I i _ JJlil
IbK I,,,I , , i, ,,,,llllJl , , , ,,,,,ll=lll
100 1000 100 1000 100 1000
[] STF686 Turbofan (cutback at takeoff) Aircraft gross weight

C) STS678 Prop-Fan (without cutback)
*FAR 36 limits (stage 3) for new two engine aircraft types
Figure 4.4-17 Comparison of Flyover Noise Levels for Prop-Fan and Turbofan
Powered Aircraft - The overall noise level of the Prop-Fan
powered aircraft is lower than the noise level of the turbofan
powered aircraft. (J27638-149)
TABLE 4.4-VIII
ALTITUDE AT CERTIFICATION FLYOVER LOCATIONS
Prop-Fan Powered Aircraft - m (ft) 865 (2840) 426 (1400) 120 (394)
Turbofan Powered Aircraft - m (ft) 600 (1970) 365 (1200) ]20 (394)
It should be noted that the predictions for the Prop-Fan powered aircraft are
based on a method for Prop-Fans which has not been verified with full scale
data. Further, the turboshaft engine horsepower is well beyond the range of
existing turboshaft engines, with components that are closer in design philos-
ophy to current turbofan engines than to current turboprops. Thus, even though
the current prediction methodology indicates that the Prop-Fan powered air-
plane is an attractive concept in terms of community noise considerations,
comfortably meeting the FAA noise rules, full scale verification is required.
Z17
4.4.8 Emissions
The emissions goals of the International Civil Aviation Organization were used
in the APET Program. These goals, presented in Table 4.4-IX, are referred to
as "Research Goals" for newly certified engines. The advanced Mark V combus-
tion system which is projected to be available for 1992 engine certification
will provide the capability to meet these emissions 9oals.
TABLE 4.4-IX
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
Emissions Research Goals
Research Goals (g/kN)*

Turbofan Prop-Fan
Unburned Hydrocarbons 4.35 4.35
Carbon Monoxide 42.0 42.0
Oxides of Nitrogen 56.6 54.0
Smoke (SAE Number) 24.7 24.4
218
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF. POOR QUALITY
SECTION 4.5 -- DISCUSSIO_I OF RESULTS

Task V -- Advanced Prop-Fan En,;lineTechnology Plan
4.5 TASK V - ADVANCED PROP-FAN ENGINE TECIINOLOGY PLAN
Section Ti tl e Page
4.5. _. Key Technology Components and Overall Verification Plan 2?4

Large-Size Reduction Gear 224
Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet/Compressor Interactions 224
Small-Size High-Pressure Compressor Technologies 224
Overall Program Plan 225
4.5.3 Large-Size Reduction Gearbox and Pitch Control Plan 22,_

Overall design goals 227
Improved modularity and reduced maintenance costs 227
4.5.3.1 Objectives and Benefits 227
4.5.3.2 Gearbox/Pitch Control Technology and Research Plan 228
4.5.3.3 Design and Analysis 229
Gearbox/Pitch Control Preliminary Design 230
Flight Weight Gearbox/Pitch Control Design 230
Developsent of Analytical Design Tools 230
Analysis of Verification Tests 232
'-t.Q.a.,-t bUI_II,.PUII_IIL la_CIIIIUIU_,,V _CqUISIT.I()I'I t-rlase Z_L
Individual Component Rigs 232
Single-Stage, High-Speed Gear Rig (Multi-Purpose Gear Rig) 235
4.5.3.5 Large-Size Gearbox Technology Verification 237
Design of Rig Adapting Hardware 237
Fabri cati on P.37
i_est Program 237
,_.S.4 Prop-Fan/'lacel Ie/I nlet/Compressor Pl an 238

4.5.4.2 Prop-Fan/Nacel Ie/Inl et/Compressor P1 an 238
Prop-Fan/Nacel Ie/I nl et Pl an 241
Inlet/Di ffuser Plan 245
Design 246
Analytical Code Development 250
Inlet/Low-Pressure Compressor PIan 252
4.5.5 Small-Size Hign-Press_re Compressor 258

4.5.5.2 Program Plan 260
4.5.5.3 Influence Factor Tests 260
4.5.5.4 Aerodynamic Design Studies 263
4.5.5.5 Axial Stages 263
4.5.5.6 Centrifugal and Mixed-Flow Rear Stage Design Studies 265
4.5.5.7 Rig Test of the Best Rear Single-Stage Design 266
219
Secti on TI tl e Page
4.5.6 Recomended Engine/Aircraft Integration Studies 267

4.5.6.1 "Free" vs "Non-Free" Power Turbine Engine/Aircraft
Integration Trade Study 267
Task I - Propulsion System Dynamic Simulation 269
Task II - Control Modes and Stability Requirements 269
Task Ill - Transient Response 269
Task IV - Aircraft Evaluation 269
Task V - Research and Technology Plan 269
4.5.6.2 Engine/Aircraft Propulsion System I1ounting Integration 270
Task I -Analytical I1odel 270
Task II - Evaluation of Alternate !_ounting Concepts 270
Task III - Cost/Benefit Analysis 270
Task IV - Preliminary Design 270
4.5.6.3 Engine/Aircraft Heat Rejection Study 271
Task I - Fuel/Oil Heat Rejection System 272
Task II - Supplementary Air/Oil Cooler System 272
Task Ill - Comparison with Conventional Heat
Rejection System 273
Task IV - Preliminary Design 273
4.5.6.4 Integrated Propulsion/Aircraft Control Study 273
Task I - Identify Requirements and Modeling Strategies
for Control System Design and Evaluation 274
Task II - Preliminary System Integration Plan 274
Task Ill - Identify Airframe Coordination Requirements 275
Task IV - Research and Technology Plan 275
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIOF_S
Figure
,Llumber Ti tl e Page
4.5-I Overall Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Program Plan 226
4.5-2 In-Line and Offset Flight Gearbox Designs 228
4.5-3 Large-Size Reduction Gear Technology Program Plan 229
4.5-4 Single Bearing Test Rig 233
4.5-5 Single ;lesh Gear Test Rig 233
4.5-6 Gear Tooth Bending Fatigue Rig 234
4.5-7 Test Rig Installation 236
4.5-8 Building Block Technology Plan 240
220
(Cont'd)
Figure
Number Title Page
4.5-9 Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet/Compressor Interaction Program Schedule 240
4.5-10 Prop-Fan 14odelTest Rig 241
4.5-II Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet Plan 242
4.5-12 Inlet Throat Recovery 244
4.5-13 Optimization of Boundary Layer Height 244
4.5-14 Optimization of Configuration at Best Inlet Height 245
4.5-15 Candidate Inlets 246
4.5-16 Inlet/Diffuser Program Plan 246
4.5-17 Inlet/Diffuser Development Rig 247
4.5-18 Compressor Face Conditions 249
4.5-19 Separation Analysis 249
4.5-20 Analytical Codes for Evaluation Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet
Interactions 251
4.5-21 Turboprop Annular Inlet Flow Field Evaluation ?53
4.5-22 Turboprop Inlet :,lodel 253
4.5-23 I nl et/Low Pressure CompressorTechnology Veri fication Pl an
Schedule 254
4.5-24 Low Pressure CompressorTest Rig 256
4.5-25 High-Pressure CompressorProgram Flow Diagram 260
4.5-26 High-Pressure CompressorTechnology Verification Plan 261
4.5-27 United Technologies Research Center Closed Loop Compressor
Test Facility 262
4.5-28 Typical Three-Stage Compressor Rig 262
4.5-29 Operating Characteristics of the "Free" and "Non-Free" Power
Turbine Engines at Approach 268
4.5-30 Free vs Non-Free Power Turbine Engine/Aircraft Integration
Study Schedule 269
221
(Cont'd)
Figure
Number Title Page
4.5-31 Propulsion SystemHounting Study 271
4.5-32 Engine/Aircraft Heat Rejection Study 272
4.5-33 Integrated Propulsion System/Aircraft Control Study Schedule 274
LIST _F TABLES
Table
Number Title Page
4.5-1 Objectives and Benefits of the Large Scale Reduction

Gearbox/Pitch Control Program 227
Corlputer Code Development Will be Advanced in Critical Areas 231
Objectives and Benefits of the Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet/

Compressor Plan 239
4.5-IV Objectives and Benefits of the High-Pressure Compressor

Technology Program 259
4.5-V Comparison of Current Engine High-Pressure Compressor

Para_neters to Prop-Fan High-Pressure Compressor Parameters 261
4.5-VI Suggested Three-Stage Rig for Prop-Fan High-Pressure

Compressor Influence Factor Program 263
222
4.5 TASK V - ADVANCED PROP-FAN ENGINE TECHNOLOGY PLAN
4.5.1 Introduction
The objectives of Task V were: (I) to identify the key technology components
for an advanced Prop-Fan engine system assuming technology verification by
1988 for in-service use in the early 1990's and (2) to prepare a key tech-
nology development and verification plan to the subcomponent design, fabrica-
tion, and test level with appropriate schedules and costs.
In response to these objectives, Pratt & Whitney has identified three key
technology areas unique to the advanced Prop-Fan engine system: (1) large-
size reduction gear, (2) Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet/compressor interactions, and
(3) small-size high-pressure compressor technology. Pratt & Whitney has pre-
parted detailed technology verification plans for these key areas including
schedules and estimated costs for p]anning purposes. Cost data for these tech-
nology verification plans wi]l be submitted under separate cover.
In addition, Pratt & Whitney has identified further study effort required in
the area of engine/aircraft integration. This effort includes, in order of
descending priority:
Free vs non-free power turbine engine

Propulsion system mounting
I IIU/d I
Integrated propulsion system/aircraft control
These studies must be performed jointly between engine and airframe manufac-
turers and may lead to identification of other key technology areas.
The technology plan and the definition of the study requirements are based not
only on the technical work performed as part of this contract, but draw on
technical work and planning done by Pratt & Whitney as a subcontractor to
Hamilton Standard under the NASA-sponsored Counter Rotation Contract
(NAS3-23043). The study has also benefitted from the extensive work on the
Prop-Fan system that has been conducted by Pratt & Whitney since 1980 using
company funds.
To ensure Prop-Fan propulsion system technology verification by IgBs, the cur-

rent study contract must be followed by initiation of the large-size reduction
gearbox preliminary design in 19B3 and the start of NASA-sponsored test pro-
grams to evaluate Prop-Fannacelleinlet interactions no later than 1985.
In Section 4.5.2, background and requirements for the three technology veri-
fication programs are discussed briefly and the overaTl _ plan is presented.
Detailed discussions of each program are presented in Sections 4.5.3 through
4.5.5. Engine/aircraft integration studies, which were started in this program
and should be continued, are discussed in Section 4.5.6.
223
4.5.2 Key Technology Components and Overall Verification Plan
Pratt & Whitney has identified three key technology areas that are unique to
Prop-Fan propulsion systems and which cannot be addressed by either current
turboprop or turbofan engine experience. These technology issues must be veri-
fied in a timely manner to provide the technology base required before engine
manufacturers can commit to a full-scale advanced turboprop engine development
program leading to certification. These key technologies are:
Large-size reduction gear

Prop-Fan/nacel Ie/i nl et/compressor interactions
Smal l-si ze hi gh-pressure compressor technology
Large-Size Reduction Gear
There is no experience in the Western world with advanced turboprop reduction

gears in the lO,O00 to 15,000 shaft horsepower (shp) class. Experience to date
is based on small 5000 shp class units with initial designs dating back some
25 years. Therefore, a modern technology base must be established for the
hi gher horsepower ratings.
In addition, airline operators of the current 5000 shp reduction gears have
experienced less than satisfactory durability and high maintenance costs. Im-
proved technology with respect to bearings and seals, gears, materials, struc-
tures and lubricants will significantly improve reliability and efficiency
resulting in lower cost and reduced weight. To launch a successful Prop-Fan
powered aircraft, the airline industry must be convinced that the reliability
and maintainability of the reduction gear will match that of components in
current turbofan engines.
The pitch change mechanism, which is an integral part of a gearbox design, can
have a significant adverse impact on overall gearbox reliability and mainte-
nance cost. Therefore, it is important that the advanced turboprop gearbox
technology program include pitch change control requirements and conside-
rations.
Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet/Compressor Interactions
The higher flight speed of a turboprop aircraft with Prop-Fan propulsion pre-
sents an all new Prop-Fan/nacelle/engine inlet environment significantly more
severe than the environment in today's engines. At cruise operation, the inlet
face Mach number will be near Mach l with blade passing pulsations
superimposed. Consequently, current design methodology and test verification
techniques must be extended to produce an efficient installation.
Design and test verification is required to determine the interactive perfor-

mance of the Prop-Fan, nacelle, and inlet with the engine. First, the flow
field behind the Prop-Fan must be defined, including the interactive effects
of the inlet and the nacelle. This will define the spillage and flow distor-
tions at the inlet front face and will provide input to the inlet design.
224
Second, inlet designs have to be tested to evaluate pressure recovery and flow
stability of the boundary laLyer. Third, the interactive effects of the Prop-
Fan and the inlet with the compressor (engine) will have to be determined to
assure that the combined performance of the inlet and the compressor (engine)
is stable and efficient.
Small-Size Hi_h-Pressure Compressor Technologies
Engines of the future can be expected to have higher overall pressure ratios
than engines currently in service. This will result in smaller blade heights
in the rear stages of the high-pressure compressor. These small blades are
susceptible to erosion and early loss of performance. This condition is aggra-
vated in advanced turboprop engines because of the smaller size core compared
to turbofan engines of equal thrust. Centrifugal compressors can provide re-
lief for this problem. However, the application of a centrifugal compressor at
the rear of a high pressure ratio compression system will require new struc-
tural and aerodynamic technology.
Studies conducted in Task II of this program highlighted the favorable acqui-

sition cost and maintenance cost characteristics of a turboprop engine using
centrifugal or mixed-flow compression in the high spool. (A mixed-flow com-
pressor stage is similar to a centrifugal compressor stage except that the
flow at the exit has an axial velocity component, in addition to a large
radial component.) A systematic analytical/testprogram is required to deter-
mine the relative cost/benefit ratio of using all-axial rear stages vs centri-
fugal or mixed-flow rear stages in advanced engines. In addition, a technology
program is required to establish fabrication processes and computer codes for
design of advanced centrifugal or mixed-flow compressors.
Overall Program Plan
The overall advanced Prop-Fan engine technology plan has been formulated to
attain verification of key technologies by 1988 with engine certification in
1992. The major elements of this six-year plan are shown in Figure 4.5-I and
summarized below:
0 Large-size reduction gearbox program culminating in the test of a fu11-

scale gearbox in a back-to-back rig.
0 Prop-Fannacelleinletcompressor aerodynamic interaction program consis-

ting of: (a) evaluation of the Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet interactions, (b)
inlet/diffuser testing, (c) analytical code development, and (d) evalua-
tion of the compatibility of the best inlet with the compressor (the
effects of the Prop-Fan and nacelle will be simulated at the inlet
throat).
o Smal l-size hi gh-pressure compressor technol ogy program.
225
Section Calendar Year
APET definition study 1_1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
(NAS3-23045)
4.5.3 _ze reduction gear

• APET proposed mod 1
(NAS3-23045, rood 1)
• Design,
• Technology
gearbox
analysis and codes
acquisition
verification
and _7
L t t
4.5.4 Prop-fan/nacelle/inlet/
compressor _ns
• Prop-fan/nacelle/inlet plan:
-NASA/LGC/P&W shared tests
-Updated PF/nacelle/inlet tests
• Inlet diffuser plan:
-NASA/Boeing/P&W shared test iT=T

-Updated inlet tests
• Analytical code development
• Inlet/low.pressure compressor
plan ___ Engine
Hi_lh-pressure compressor plan
Engine development/certification
17/T//77T/71Funded programs
Figure 4.5-1 0verall Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Program Plan - This
program, which was initiated with the APET Study contract in
1982, provides the capability to certify an advanced turboprop
engine for a Prop-Fan powered aircraft in 1992. (J27638-200)
The successful accomplishment of this program, along with NASA's ongoing Large-
Scale Advanced Prop-Fan (LAP) program and the flight test of the propeller as
part of the Propeller Test Assembly (PTA) program, will provide the technology
data base necessary for industry to commit substantial development funds to
certification of an advanced turboprop aircraft in 1992.
The technical effort in each phase of the program is discussed in detail in

the following sections.
4.5.3 Large-Size Reduction Gearbox and Pitch Control Plan
Current experience with turboprop reduction gearboxes is based on small 5000

shp class units with initial designs dating back some 25 years. Airline opera-
tors complained about the less than satisfactory durability, low mean time be-
tween removals (MTBR), and high maintenance cost associated with these designs.
226
New design methods and technologies for bearings and seals, gears, materials,
structures and lubricants must be developed for advanced turboprop reduction
gears in the I0,000 to 15,000 shaft horsepower class. These improved capabili-
ties will be used to produce a reduction gearbox with significantly greater
reliability and efficiency, lower cost and reduced weight, and a Prop-Fan
pitch control that is effectively integrated with the reduction gear system.
The ability of this design to meet commercial performance and service goals
must be verified by large-scale rig tests before industry will initiate devel-
opment of a commercial Prop-Fan propulsion system.
The gearbox design objectives discussed in Task III are summarized below. The
overall design goals address the major concerns of current operators of turbo-
prop engines.
Overall design _oals
Reliability (MTBR) - Hours 15,000

Cruise Efficiency - Percent 99.0
Improved modularity and reduced maintenance costs
External ly mounted aircraft accessories

Accessible oil pump and condition monitoring systems
Propeller brake pad
D "On-the-wing" main shaft seal replacement
Accessible propeller pitch control components
4.5.3.1 Objectives and Benefits
The overall objective of the Large-Size Reduction Gearbox/Pitch Control Tech-

nology and Research Program and the expected benefits are summarized in Table
4.5-I.
TABLE 4.5-I
OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS
Large-Size Reduction Gearbox/Pitch Control Program
Objective: Verify the efficiency and durability of a large-size reduction

gearbox/pitch control system using 1988 technology.
Benefits:
Reduce the gearbox heat rejection by 50% at cruise (i.e., improve effi-
ciency from 98% to 99%).
o Provide the potential to reduce oil cooler size and drag 40% - 60%.
o Improve gearbox/pitch control durability (MTBR) I00% to 20_.
o Reduce weight 10% to 20%.
227
In Task Ill of the current contract, the best in-line and offset reduction
gearbox concepts were selected for further study. These concepts are illustra-
ted in Figure 4.5-2. The major features of each system are summarized in the
figure.
In-line split-path Offset compound idler

reduction gear reduction gear
piston.load
arr:h;r;nn.gent _--_
o Lowest Weight o Best Efficiency

o Smallest Diameter o Lowest Cost
o Most Reliable
o Lowest Maintenance Costs
Figure 4.5-2 In-Line and Offset Flight Gearbox Designs - Both reduction gear
configurati ons were selected as promi sing candidates for a Prop-
Fan propulsion system. (J27638-199)
Integrating the Prop-Fan pitch control with the gearbox is a particularly im-
portant consideration with an in-line gearbox system. This topic was discussed
in some detail in Sections 4.3.1.2.2 and 4.3.1.7. With the in-line gearbox
configuration, mechanical and hydraulic hardware for the Prop-Fan pitch change
control must pass through the gearbox. Studies to reduce the complexity of the
gearbox/pitch control system and improve modularity are included in the preli-
minary design efforts discussed below.
4.5.3.2 Gearbox/Pitch Control Technology and Research Plan
The Large-Size Reduction Gearbox/Pitch Control Program Plan is i11ustrated in

Figure 4.5-3. The plan includes: Design and Analysis, Component Technology
Acquisition using new and existing test rigs, and Large-Size Gearbox/Pitch
Control Verification.
228
The three phases in the program are discussed below.
Section Calendar Y_u"
'83 '84 '85 '86 '87 ,Q
4.5.3.3 Design and analysis

• Gearboxlpitch_control prel. design m
• Flight weight gearbox/pitch control
design tomb
• Development of analytical tools mmm
• Analysis of verification test results
4.5.3.4 Component technolo_ly acquisition

emm m u i inn ilUm a | m Inul nmua i iIII n III l
• Bearings
i ann m mu i m mm u n n m n anita lure g Ulim j m um
• Gears
mlmmu = g m mw mm atoma m WN m U, mlOam n aura i
• Lubricants
mini mmmm i mum m aa n ran0 Im umu I
• Prop-Fan pitch change
• Single-stage high speed gear rig

Design
Fabrication
Test
Bid 1
4.5.3.5 Large-size gearbox/
pitch-control verification
• Design of rig adapting hardware
• Fabrication
mwm
• Test
Figure 4.5-3 Large-Size Reduction Gear Technology Program Plan - This three-
part effort covers design and analysis, technology acquisition,
and technology verification efforts. (J27638-188)
4.5.3.3 Design and Analysis
This phase will lead to the design of a viable reduction gearbox in the 10,000
to 15,000 shp class as well as development of analytical tools which can be
used to evaluate and refine the design. There are three segments in the design
and analysis phase: (1) a preliminary design effort to quantify the benefits
of advanced technology and to confirm the advantages of modular maintenance
concepts, (2) design of a flight weight (10,000 - 15,900 shp class) gearbox/
pitch control, and (3) development of analytical design tools using data ac-
quired from the subsequent component technology acquisition and large-size
gearbox verification test efforts. A brief description of each of these efforts
follows.
229
Gearbox/Pitch Control Preliminary Design
During the APET contract effort, two reduction gear systems were selected for
a Prop-Fan propulsion system: an offset compound idler gearbox and an in-line
split path planetary gearbox. These gearbox concepts are i11ustrated in Figure
4.5-2. With NASA approval, a preliminary design of one of the two gearbox/pitch
control concepts, capable of being demonstrated in a large size by the late
1980s, will be compared with a state of the art (1983) gearbox design to assess
the benefits of advanced (1988) technology. The design of the associated pitch
control mechanism will include an assessment of completely new or enhanced
conventional designs which will improve modularity and reduce maintenance
costs. At the end of this phase full-scale preliminary design drawings of the
gearbox/pitch control system will be generated. Partial detailed and assembly
drawings will be produced to support the maintenance, modularity and mounting
assumptions. The most critical technical consideration is whether in-line
gearbox/pitch control integration and modularity can be improved significantly.
The planned analytical effort will address this issue.
F1 i)ht Wei)ht Gearbox/Pitch Control Desi 9n
The design phase has been structured to take advantage of evolving technolo-
gies within the APET program as well as related developments in the field.
Initiating the design phase in 19B5 ensures that the latest benefits of the
component technology acquisition effort, which covers bearings, gears, lubri-
cants, and the pitch change mechanism, will be incorporated in the flight
weight gearbox. Related Government and industry programs will be reviewed
periodically.
Development of Analytical Design Tools
The development of analytical design tools is an extremely important counter-

part to the preliminary design and flight weight gearbox design efforts. Com-
puter codes used in gear, bearing, housing and lubrication system design will
be updated as new test data becomes available. The major areas of emphasis are
listed in Table 4.5-II. Information would be obtained from the APET Component
Technology Acquisition and Large-Size Gearbox Verification programs, as well
as other related NASA, Government and industry sponsored efforts.
23O
TABLE 4.5-II
COMPUTER CODE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE ADVANCED IN CRITICAL AREAS
Efficiency - Replace classical gear friction factors with

elastohydrodynamics (EHD) based theory
- Verify bearing loss in "SHABERTH"
Durability - Calibrate bearing derived analysis with gear

pitting data
- Derive EHD related scoring limits
bynamics - Demonstrate Hamilton Standard's gear system

dynamics code
o Cooling - Develop planetary system oil jet design methods

based on high velocity, multiple jet concepts
0 Condition Monitoring - Develop failure mode/progression rate analytical

model s
The analytical design improvements specified in Table 4.5-II will fill voids
in the current design data base, validate new methods, and extend current
methods to new regimes as required.
To meet advanced performance goals, precise power loss prediction methods are
required. Gear loss analysis can be enhanced by recent advances in lubrication
theory in which lubricant film thickness and sheared film heat generation are
calculated using elastohydrodynamic concepts. Specific bearing loss calcula-
tions will be developed for the single row spherical roller bearing considered
optimal for high speed planetary gears. Appropriate gear and bearing thermal
models will be assen_led in "SHABERTH" or an equivalent computer program and
calibrated against data from individual bearing, gear and transmission test
rigs.
Durability testing of gears and bearings will be conducted in various rigs.

All test results will be used to calibrate and enhance existing prediction
methods. An area of particular interest is the effect of gear speed and oil
jet velocity and flow rate on the scoring probability of a high speed plane-
tary gear set, where heating of sun gear teeth is particularly intense.
Dynamic tooth loads, tooth profile correction and system stiffness and damping
requirements are particularly critical in a planetary gear system where tor-
sional and radial ring modes may combine to cause fatigue or wear related
failures. The Hamilton Standard computer models for gear system dynamics can
be compared with data from the multi-purpose gear rig over a wide range of
operating conditions.
New technology is needed to minimize gearbox losses without compromising dur-

ability. New oil delivery concepts for planetary gears and bearings and new
analytical methods to optimize these concepts will aid in meeting this objec-
tive.
231
The need for development of highly effective condition monitoring data acqui-
sition and processing systems will be supported with suitable testing in both
the technology acquisition and gearbox verification phases. Reducing the re-
sults of these tests to an appropriate mathematical model of key failure modes
and failure progression rates will ensure that maintenance actions can be made
cost effective wi thout compromi sing fl i ght safety.
Analysis of Verification Tests
Analytical design procedures developed during the program will be used to pre-
dict large-size gearbox performance. These predictions will then be compared
with data from the gearbox verification tests. This final comparison of pre-
dicted and demonstrated results will aid significantly in evaluating gearbox
technology levels and provide a well-established data base for future verifi-
cati on efforts.
4.5.3.4 Component Technology Acquisition Phase
The component technology acquisition phase consists of two segments: (I) test-
ing of individual component technology acquisition rigs, and (2) testing of
the advanced technology components in a single-stage rig to verify the effi-
ciency and durability of the individual components in an integrated system.
Current plans call for adapting individual component rigs available at NASA
and in industry to test advanced technology concepts. An advanced technology,
back-to-back, single-stage, high-speed gear test rig will be used to assess a
variety of aspects of reduction gear technology in an integrated gear system.
Individual Component Rigs
The APET technology acquisition program will take advantage of existing gear-
box test rigs used at NASA, Government agencies and other divisions of United
Technologies Corporation. The rigs described below are suitable for "generic"
technology programs which would benefit a wide range of gearbox applications.
Component technology acquisition rig testing would focus on several key areas:
(I) heat generation and dynamic gear tooth load scoring limits, (2) static
tests to measure ultimate strength of single gear teeth, (3) one way bending
fatigue gear tooth testing, (4) reverse bending fatigue gear tooth testing,
and (5) roller bearing testing to assess thermal performance and durability
characteristics which cannot be established in a large-size back-to-back gear-
box test rig in a cost effective manner. Single bearing, single mesh, and
tooth bending fatigue test rigs are illustrated in Figures 4.5-4, 4.5-5 and
4.5-6 respectively.
Bearings - The single bearing test rig shown in Figure 4.5-4 will provide
essential data on planet bearing friction and wear, as well as lubrication and
cooling. It will also be used to evaluate the rolling contact fatigue proper-
ties of candidate gear materials for a pinion bearing with an integral gear
and bearing outer ring, and to evaluate the effects of outer ring thickness on
bearing performance.
Gears - The single mesh gear rig shown in Figure 4.5-5 will be used to evalu-
a--t-e--gear
tooth form and to develop materials and lubricants. Among the tooth
forms considered for evaluation are the high contact ratio buttress form and
the noninvolute constant relative radius of curvature form which can reduce
scoring tendencies produced by high sliding velocity.
232
Load cell
Loadin
I Input
drive
Instrumentation
/
Static ._. Load
support ' bearing
shaft
Test 3il drains
' Load bearing
bearing Anti-rotation pin
Figure 4.5-4 Single Bearing Test Rig - This rig will provide data on planet
bearing friction and wear. (J27638-125)
Loading cylinder
7
_____Testgears#j
__/ side 2_
_-Test gears #1
side
Figure 4.5-5 Single Mesh Gear Test Rig - This rig will be used to evaluate
gear tooth forms, and to evaluate materials and lubricants.
(J27638-I 31 )
233
The gear materials tests would compare scoring and pitting resistance of mate-
rials such as Vasco X-2 and Carpenter EXO0053, the major candidates to replace
AIS19310. Processing variables would also be examined. Lubricant tests would
compare promising new oils with MIL-L-23699.
The tooth bending fatigue rig shown in Figure 4.5-6 would be used to compare
the bending strengths of candidate materials and root geometry, as well as to
evaluate processing options such as the unground fillet produced by the Maag
tooth grinding machine.
Tooth contact _loading pins jCycli ng valve

\.
Load cellL _Load cell
Supportl..
-Test gear
I \ tooth
plate
, _w
%
%
{ /
/
Figure 4.5-6 Gear Tooth Bending Fatigue Rig - This rig will be used to
evaluate the bending strength of gear tooth materials.
(J27638-126)
Lubricants - Lubricant technology will also be acquired using these rigs.

Increases in oil inlet temperature, allowable temperature rise, oil load
carrying ability and flash temperature index will be assessed. It is expected
that Synthesized Hydrocarbon Fluids (SHF) will be used in this program.
Prop-Fan Pitch ChanBe - Current pitch change technology is based on proven

concepts involving hydraulic actuators and mechanical signal transmission. Ad-
vanced pitch change systems may incorporate new concepts such as digital fiber
optic control and rare earth electric drives. To implement these advanced sys-
tems, in-depth study will be required in the following areas:
0 Define a safety philosophy. For example, three signal channels would be

required for a fail-operational system, while two channels would be re-
quired for a fail-fixed system.
234
o Define a diagnostic system compatible with the safety philosophy.
o Improve optic encoder technology for measuring blade angle and phase.
o Develop reliability and maintenance values for fiber optic components.
Develop methods for transferring fiber optic signals across the rotating
boundary of the Prop-Fan .
0 Develop methods for electric power generation and control in the pro-
pel Ier.
During the preliminary design effort for the gearbox/pitch control, it is

likely that specific technology needs will be identified. These pitch change
technology considerations will form a basis for future technology verification
plans and component acquisition programs.
SinBle-Sta_e, Hi_h-Speed Gear l_i_I(Multi-Purpose Gear Ri_)
A new single-stage gear technology acquisition rig will be designed to provide

generic gear, bearing and lubricant technology applicable to future single
rotation or counter rotation Prop-Fans. It will address the following advanced
technology issues: (1) high speed integral gear(s) and spherical roller bear-
ings_ (2) high capacity gear tooth form including high contact ratio, (3) mod-
ulating and/or high velocity lubrication and cooling system techno]ogy, (4)
condition monitoring systems to identify techniques that would lead to improv-
ed durability, (5) advanced materials for gears, bearings, and housings, (6)
advanced lubricants, (7) technologies for controlling noise and/or vibration,
and (8) potential pitch control integration issues. The generic technology
information obtained with this rig will be equally applicable to both offset
and in-l ine gearboxes.
The single stage feature of the rig provides room for maximum instrumentation.
Thus, significantly more technical data will be obtained from the gear set
than in a standard back-to-back rig.
The rig will be designed to test a planetary gear set at any combination of
speed, power, torque, and temperature as well as with a variety of lubrication
systems appropriate for the Prop-Fan application.
The center portion of the rig contains the hydraulic thrust layshaft torque
loader system. This system includes the torque reaction spur gear mesh and the
torque application helical gear mesh. This portion of the rig also includes
the speed control for the ring gear, as well as temperature and stress instru-
mentation for the components being tested. The speed reduction test gear set
and a similar speed increasing gear set are located at each end of the test
rig. This arrangement isolates the gear sets from each other and from the tor-
que load application system in the center section of the rig. Isolation of the
gear sets also assures precise control over operating conditions and depend-
able test data. The test section will be thoroughly instrumented with strain,
temperature, and displacement devices required for the sun gear, ring gear,
and planet carrier components. It may be possible to obtain some planet gear
data using optical devices such as infrared temperature sensors. Direct access
will be provided to test hardware to ensure rapid inspection and modification
of components.
235
The complete test installation shown in Figure 4.5-7 includes the multi-purpose
gear rig and an electric motor used to drive the planet carrier of the multi-
purpose gear rig. The design of the rig ensures easy access to instrumentation
and the torque loader hydraulic connections. A bed plate has been used to en-
sure alignment between the electric motor drive and multi-purpose gear rig.
Two ring gear drive systems ensure proper speed and power transfer to the ring
gear in the multi-purpose rig.
The installation has been designed to permit test rig attitude to be varied,
allowing lubrication systems to be evaluated at simulated flight conditions.
Rig Design - The multi-purpose gear rig incorporates the design flexibility to
test single-stage gears for a variety of applications, as well as to accommo-
date back-to-back tests of a complete gear system for the turboprop engine.
However, much more instrumentation can be used in single-stage tests. Ample
radial and axial clearances are provided to ensure that current slip rings and
telemetry instrumentation hardware can be used for data acquisition. Suffi-
cient insulation is provided around the test vehicle to guarantee accurate
temperature measurements which are used to determine the efficiency of the
gear meshes.
MULTIPURPOSE GEAR RIG\
Carrier drive_ Ring gear_ _ Instrumentation/
_ system _ dsylVtem l ___y//Lube oil supply
......... __.i._ .....
J _ _ Torque loader
Electric motors / hydraulic conn.
Bed plate
Figure 4.5-7 Test Rig Installation - The major components in the gearbox test
rig are shown in this figure. (J27638-205)
Ri B Fabrication - The rig is fabricated in two major sections: (1) the basic
core or center portion of the gearbox rig, and (2) the gearing and shafts for
the single-stage planetary gear set. Rig construction includes all cases,
covers, housings and supports for the static parts. Rotating parts include
shafts, gears, gear shafts, and telemetry slip ring adapting equipment.
Test Program - Test plans for the single-stage planetary gear rig call for a
wide range of operating conditions to be applied to each build. The program
will provide as much fundamental data as possible on gear system performance,
dynamics, lubrication and cooling, and condition monitoring operating con-
straints in order to fully calibrate the analytical design systems.
236
Lubricant supply and scavenge concepts will be critical to high efficiency and
optimal cooling effectiveness; therefore, several versions will be examined
early in the test schedule. When proper oil system function and target effi-
ciency levels have been obtained, the rig can be used for durability and con-
dition monitoring studies.
Rig tests will include verification of selected materials and lubricants, as

well as demonstration of condition monitoring concepts.
4.5.3.5 Large-Size Gearbox Technology Verification
The single-stage rig provides much needed generic technology for the design of
the large-size gearbox. However the large-size gearbox verification test is
required to establish the confidence of the airline industry in a large-size
gearbox with modern technology
The large-size gearbox technology verification program consists of three

phases: (1) design of rig adapting hardware required to test the flight weight
gearbox/pitch control in the multi-purpose rig, (2) fabrication of the flight
weight gearbox/pitch control system and rig modifications, and (3) verifica-
tion testing of the gearbox. The schedule for these efforts is shown in Figure
4.5-3.
Design of Rig Adaptin 9 Hardware
The large-size gearbox technology verification rig uses the center portion of
the multi-purpose gear rig. Adapting hardware will be designed for the gearbox
verification test to accommodate the unique instrumentation and hardware at
both ends of the rig.
Fabrication
This effort covers fabrication of rig adapting hardware and fabrication of the
flight weight gearbox/pitch control system. (The design of this system was
discussed in Section 4.5.3.3.) The rig adapting hardware includes cases,
covers, housing and supports for static structures, as well as shafts, gears,
gear shafts, gear sets, bearings, and minor parts for the rotating structures.
The bed plate, drive motors, etc. for the major facility have already been
completed. However, to ensure maximum use of time, a second basic core will be
fabricated for the multi-purpose gearbox rig. This will allow large-size gear-
box verification hardware to be assembled while the individual component tech-
nology acquisition tests are being conducted.
Test Program
Two tests (builds) of the large-size gearbox rig are planned. The first build
of the gearbox will incorporate the latest gearbox technology available at the
time of design. The second build (mid-1988) will incorporate technologies
acquired in the individual component and single-stage technology acquisition
rigs. The schedule shown in Figure 4.5-3 will permit more than three years of
technology acquisition to be incorporated in the second build. Test results
will be compared with the analytical design data base, as indicated previously.
237
4.5.4 Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inl et/Compressor Plan
It is expected that the higher flight speed and unique Prop-Fan configuration
of an advanced turboprop system will create an all-new Prop-Fan/nacelle/ inlet/
compressor environment significantly worse than the environment in today's
engines.
Before a Prop-Fan powered aircraft can be designed with confidence, the criti-
cal questions of the aerodynamic interaction between the propeller, nacelle,
and inlet must be addressed. Historically, inlets for turboshaft engines have
been designed for substantially lower flight speeds than those being consider-
ed for the Prop-Fan. Hence, design techniques were used which are totally un-
suited to the higher speed Prop-Fan applications. For example, the aerodynamic
characteristics of conventional turboshaft engines are: (l) cruise speeds at
Mach numbers around 0.4, (2) flow diffusion up the spinner to Mach numbers of
approximately 0.2, (3) flow captured by the inlet at such low speeds that the
diffusion process is minimal and can be performed in almost any manner without
incurring high losses. With the Prop-Fan, however, the aerodynamic designer is
confronted with the following challenges: (1) cruise Mach numbers up to 0.8
introducing a potential for high drag, (2) flow diffusion up the spinner, but
reaccelerating to transonic Mach numbers immediately behind the propeller, (3)
high velocity flow which must be captured by the inlet and scroll diffused
around a large-size gearbox down to velocities low enough to enter the com-
pressor while still keeping the losses and distortions to acceptable levels,
and (4) flow distortions at the compressor front face that are expected to be
significantly worse than the flow distortions in today's engines. The com-
pressor must be stable under these distortions and in addition attenuate them
to a level that the rear compressor can handle.
The objectives and benefits of the proposed Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet/compressor

interactive program are summarized in Table 4.5-III.
4.5.4.2 Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet/Compressor Plan
Ideally, tests to check out these potential problems would be conducted with
the real inlet shape and with the nacelle and wing simulated. This is not pos-
sible with existing Prop-Fan test rigs because of mechanical constraints. For
instance, the shafting required to drive the two-foot diameter scale model
propeller is too large to allow simulation of the inlet internal flowpath.
Similarly, evaluating inlet flow in an airplane model requires duct areas too
large for a simulated pylon.
Therefore, to address the interactive concerns, a building block approach was

structured using different test rigs. Figure 4.5-8 shows the four elements
that will be used to address the aerodynamic concerns mentioned previously.
Figure 4.5-8a illustrates a Prop-Fan rig with an aspirated inlet. Figure
4.5-8b is a schematic of a large-scale inlet diffuser test rig. This type of
testing can provide important external aerodynamic data, inlet front face dis-
tortion, propeller performance and propeller stress during both forward flight
and reverse.
238
TABLE4.5-III
OBJECTIVES ANDBENEFITS
Prop-Fan/NacelI e/Inl et/Compressor Pl an
Objecti yes
0 Determine the flow field behind the Prop-Fan, including the effects of the
inlet and the nacelle.
Determine inlet contours that will minimize spillage loss and distortions
at the front face, maximize pressure recovery, and attenuate distortions
through the inlet contours to the compressor front face.
Determine the impact of the Prop-Fan exit flow and the inlet contours on
low-pressure compressor performance, stability and attenuation character-
istics.
Develop analytical techniques to enable future three-dimensional, non-

axisjnnmetric, transonic flow design capability.
Benefits
0 Prop-Fan/nacel Ie/i nlet flow fiel d interacti ons defi ned.
0 Inlet pressure recovery and distortion attenuation defined as a function

of inlet contours.
0 Inlet/low-pressure compressor interactions defined with the effects of the

Prop-Fan and nacelle included.
0 Inlet/low-pressure compressor stability limits and high-pressure compres-

sor inlet conditions defined.
0 New analytical techniques developed and verified for future Prop-Fan ap-
pl ications.
The rig program shown in Figure 4.5-8c will be a full scale inlet/compressor
test to verify stability behind a Prop-Fan/inlet. The distortions measured at
the inlet throat during the Prop-Fan/inlet interaction tests will be simulated
with screens in the inlet/compressor rig. Downstream of these screens, the in-
let and drive shaft aerodynamic configuration will be modeled exactly. Inlet
throat and compressor face distortion, surge margin loss, blade stress, and
compressor efficiency data will be recorded during this test.
Figure 4.5-8d depicts a half-airplane model which will be tested with powered
nacelles (props) to provide propeller/wing interaction data. The airframe
manufacturers, in concert with NASA-Langley, are taking the lead in this area.
However, the design of the propulsion system is heavily impacted by these ex-
ternal aerodynamic concerns, so Pratt & Whitney will continue to closely moni-
tor progress.
The proposed schedule for these rig programs, excluding the hal f-airplane model
program, is shown in Figure 4.5-9. A schedule for the analytical effort sup-
porting the inlet rig programs is also shown. Each major phase of the program
is described in greater detail below. 239
A) Large scale Inlet diffuser B) Prop-fan Inlet interactions
development test
motor
• I
, Define inlet which has maximum • Evaluate prop-fan and spinner
recovery and minimum distortion influence on inlet flow field
• Determine asymmetric nacelle
influence on prop-fan
C) Inlet/compressor rig tests D) Installed prop-fan

nacelle/airplane tests
Candidate inlet configuration-_ _ Compressor
Distortion generator | face
Supplytul_eJ I _
, Design verification of • Evaluate total system

compressor stability with performance
simulated prop-fan distortion
Figure 4.5-8 Building Block Technology Plan - This approach per_dts a com-
prehensive evaluation of Prop-Fannacelleinletcompressor
interactions using current test rig technology. (J2763B-Iu_)
Section CaLendar Year

'84 '85 '86 '87 ' 88
4.5.4.2 A) Prop.Fan-- inlet

NASAILGCIP&W shared tests
Updated PF/nacellellnlet tests:
Design
Fabricate
Test
Analysis
I
4.5.4.2 B) Inlet - diffuser
NASA/Boeing/P&W shared tests i
i
Updated inlet tests:
Design
Fabricate
Test
Analysis
45.4.4 C) Inlet -- compressor

Design
Fabricate
Test
Analysis
4.5.4.3 D) Analytical code development

Internal duct
External nacelle/Inlet
Coupled inlet/external
Figure 4.5-9 Prop-FanNacelleInletCompressor Interaction Program Schedule -

The schedule includes three rig test programs and development of
new analytical code. (J27638-190)
240
ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POORQUALITY.
Prop-Fan/Nacel 1e/In1 et P1 an
Previous Prop-Fan scale tests conducted by NASA have shown transonic Hach num-
bers near the inner diameter wall immediately behind the propeller and in the
area where the inlet would be 1ocated.
In the NASA model, shown in Figure 4.5-10, an axisymmetric body was located
behind the propeller. It is known that the presence of a flowing inlet will
change the local aerodynamic characteristics, but it is not known to what
extent. This local change introduces additional concerns, including blade
stress, vibration, and performance losses. For these reasons, Pratt & Whitney,
Lockheed-Georgia Corporation and Hamil ton Standard are collaborating with NASA
in an experimental program to obtain data on Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet inter-
actions. In this program, an aspiration system was designed, fabricated, and
mated to the United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) propeller test rig to
allow simulation of flowing inlets. A program plan was formulated, model hard-
ware was fabricated and instrumented, and testing was initiated in November,
1982 using the SR3 propeller provided by NASA-Lewis. Testing is continuing and
results are being analyzed. These shared tests provide a good base from which
to proceed to the accompanying test plan.
However, this testing has not addressed some of the important technological
unknowns: (l) nacelle drag has not been measured, (Z) parametric variations of
inlet aspect ratio, inlet proximity to the Prop-Fan, and boundary layer diver-
sion also need study, and (3) the inlet types (chin, bifurcated, trifurcated,
and annular) all must be tested to obtain data required for trade studies and
configuration selection. These tests should be performed with the most promis-
ing propellers over a range of speeds, with variable blade angles at the flight
conditions of interest.
Figure 4.5-10 Prop-Fan Model Test Rig - This two-foot diameter model is being
used in ongoing NASA Prop-Fan tests. (82-A-9026-001)
241
An additional area of concern is operation during reverse. Depending on the
method of reversing (propeller rotation through a flat pitch vs feather), it
is possible that either in reverse or during transition, the inlet would be
"starved" for airflow or might ingest highly distorted wakes. Data are needed
to evaluate the seriousness of this potential threat as well.
There are two facilities available for conducting these tests: the NASA-Lewis
wind tunnel and the wind tunnel at the United Technologies Research Center
(UTRC). It appears that the NASA-Lewis propeller test rig is dedicated to the
demonstrator program. Since the aspiration system is available on the UTRC
drive rig, this seems to be the likely place to perform the tests. However, a
skin balance will have to be designed, fabricated and ca]ibrated to measure
nacelle drag. With the success UTRC has enjoyed in recent propeller testing,
the development of the skin ba]ance appears to be the only remaining technical
chal]enge in the execution of this program.
The test program outlined in Figure 4.5-11 will provide key external aerodyna-
mic information to resolve the interactive effects of the Prop-Fan/nacelle/
inlet.
A description of the design, fabrication, test and analysis portions of this

plan follows.
Calendar Year
'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88
Prop-fan -- inlet
NASAJLGCIP&W shared tests
Updated PFinacellelinlet tests:
Design
Fabricate
Test
Analysis
Figure 4.5-I 1 Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet Plan - This program will provide key

external aerodynamic information to resolve the interactive
effects of the Prop-Fan, nacelle, and inlet. (J27638-914)
Design - A comprehensive test plan will be developed for the wind tunnel pro-
gram. Test configurations that provide the most meaningful information on
Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet interactions will be selected, and detailed models of
the configurations will be designed. The design process will include aerodyna-
mic flowpath definition as well as the actual mechanical design. Flowpath
definition will be based on advanced three-dimensional and transonic inlet
analysis codes, ensuring that the test configurations will be separation-free,
with minimum shock losses. A qualified vendor will be selected to complete the
mechanical design and fabricate the models. Pratt & Whitney will closely moni-
tor production to ensure that program schedules are met and wind tunnel safety
requirements satisfied.
242
Fabrication - Test models will be fabricated and instrumented by a qualified
vendor, using existing propellers, hubs, and drive rigs. The construction of
the models should be straightforward. However, it is recommended that addi-
tional hardware be fabricated to improve the productivity of the test program:
An additional set of SR3 propeller blades and hubs should be manufactured

to permit simultaneous testing in the NASA-Lewis and UTRC facilities.
Multi-component balances should be designed, fabricated, calibrated and

developed.
o An aspiration system should be constructed for the NASA-Lewis wind tunnel.
The aspiration system allows inlet airflow to be simulated at low speed, high
angle of attack operation. The system also permits meaningful drag data to be
obtained with the flowthrough nacelles used in high speed tests.
Test - Two types of tests will be conducted in the wind tunnel facilities: (1)
low speed, high angle of attack tests simulating takeoff operation, conducted
primarily to evaluate inlet distortion, and (2) high speed tests focusing on
inlet distortion and external drag. The key variables in the test program are
listed below:
o Tunnel Mach number
u
Low speed; 0 to 0.25
High speed; 0.6 to 0.8
o Propeller bl ade angle and rpm
o Inlet mass ratio (0.6 to l.O)
o Inlet configuration
Chin, bifurcated and annular inlet configurations will be evaluated in the

program. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the inlets, the following
parameters should be varied systematical ly:
o Dhighlight/Dthroat to determine distortion
o Inlet throat orientation to evaluate swirl
Throat area and aspect ratio to permit trade studies of drag vs pressure
recovery
o Boundary layer diverter
Data Analxsis - Measurements of throat total pressure distributions will be

used to calculate throat recovery and back pressure effects as a function of
propeller advance ratio, propeller power and inlet mass flow ratio (see Figure
4.5-12). Drag data will be acquired using skin balance measurements. It will
then be used to optimize boundary layer diverter geometry (see Figure 4.5-13).
Drag data will also be used to perform trade studies of drag vs inlet recovery,
ensuring optimum specific fuel consumption (see Figure 4.5-14).
243
A. Pressure isobars at throat
B. Recovery vs mass flow ratio C. Power coefficient vs advance ratio

Mach Number = constant
Math Number = constant Mass flow ratio = constant
advance ratio (J) and "_

constant power _ "_
coefficient (CP) O__.
g _. Lines of constant
n-
O
of constant recovery
Mass flow ratio Advance ratio
Fi gure 4.5-I 2 Inlet Throat Recovery - Throat pressure distributions will be

used to compute throat recovery and propeller back pressure
effects. (J2763_-236)
Mach Number = constant Mach Number = constant

Mass flow ratio = constant Mass flow ratio = constant
°j
__>= .=.. •
c_ ®7
coefficient, and
advance ratio -e=
and advance ratio
Inlet height Inlet height

(relative to base) (relative to base)

Mass flow ratio = constant
/_ Inlet height
(relative to base)
-Or-,=,
v_ G
c_> > _ Lines of
g=. constant power
coefficient,
and advance ratio
Figure 4.5-13 Optimization of Boundary Layer Diverter Height - Drag data will
be used to optimize boundary layer diverter geometry.
(J27638-207)
244
Mass flow ratio = constant
A
v , w w
SFC gain 1 21 i3 4 Configuration

(drag effect &
recovery effect)
(relative to base)
I I_UIt; "fig I? IJ_511111&QSIVII VI Vl,/III I_UIUSIVll Ok I.ICO5 &ill_;5 lit;l_ll5 = _lSl_.51sIVil
of the optimum inlet height will minimize fuel consumption.

1d27638-2081
Inlet/Di ffuser Plan
The selection of the best inlet for the Prop-Fan application involves trades
between several key factors, including weight, distortion, pressure recovery
and spillage drag. In aadition, the type of gearbox configuration, in-line or
offset, can be a significant factor in the inlet selection process. APET study
results indicate that either chin or bifurcated Inlets are preferable for an
offset gearbox, while bifurcated or trifurcated inlets would be preferred with
an in-1 i ne gearbox.
To illustrate, changing the inlet configuration from chin to bifurcated to

trifurcated to annular constitutes a transition in which more and more of the
propeller hub circumference is used by the inlet (see Figure 4.5-15). As this
transition occurs, less circumferential scrolling is required and the inlet
diffuser can be shortened. A shorter diffuser in turn allows the shaft from
the compressor to the gearbox to be shortened. Other favorable results of
using more of the circumference are a reduction in inlet height, which lowers
the threat of bird strikes, and a reduction in localized propeller back-pres-
surization. However, increasing the number of inlets also produces some nega-
tive results, such as more difficult boundary layer diversion and an increase
in the wetted area of the inlet diffuser, which reduces the pressure recovery.
Obviously, detailed trade studies are required to arrive at the "best" inlet
for any given application. The Inlet/Diffuser Program plan shown in Figure
4.5-16 will provide important internal aerodynamic information as a function
of the key inlet design variables.
245
A description of the design, fabrication, test and analysis phases of the pro-
gram follows.
_÷
shaft I
Chin Bifurcated
Drive
shaft
Trifurcated Annular
Figure 4.5-15 Candidate Inlets - The best inlet for a Prop-Fan propulsion
system will depend on the specific application. (J2763_-104)
Calendar Year
'82 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88
inlet - diffuser
NASAJBoeinglP&W shared tests
Updated inlet tests:
Design
Fabricate
Test
Analysis
Figure 4.5-16 Inlet/Diffuser Program Plan - This program will provide

critical internal aerodynamic information. (J27638-915)
Design
A comprehensive test plan will be developed for the Inlet/Diffuser Program.

After the test configurations have been selected, agrodynamic flowpaths will
be defined using advanced computer codes; detailed models of the configura-
tions will be designed and fabricated by a qualified vendor.
246
In the flowpath definition, an appropriate flow code will be used to determine
the three-dimensional pressure distributions on the wall of the inlet. The
pressure distributions are input to a boundary layer analysis to check for
flow separation. Since a three-dimensional boundary layer analysis is not yet
available, individual segments, or "strips," of the duct will be analyzed.
However, this type of analysis introduces a significant degree of uncertainty,
a deficiency which constitutes one of the major reasons for the inlet diffuser
program.
To reduce length and weight, the contours in the model should be approaching
the very edge of flow separation. The model contours will then bracket the
predicted onset of separation; some of the contours will be designed conserva-
tively, with gentle flow turning, while others will incorporate aggressive
diffusion and flow turning.
Once the flowpath has been defined, the mechanical design and fabrication of
the models will be completed by a qualified vendor. The inlet/diffuser rig in
which the models will be tested is illustrated in Figure 4.5-]7.
/ Propeller hub
_ _ompressor face
with fairing
Gearbox shaft 1
Figure 4.5-17 Inlet/Diffuser Development Rig - The large scale inlet/diffuser

test will provide empirical information on the inlet internal
aerodynamics including the effects of propeller hub, gearbox
shafting and compressor face Doundaw conditions. (J27638-2ll)
Fabrication - The models will be made of fiberglass and will be constructed in

halves to permit flow visualization. Advanced computer-aided design and com-
puter-aided manufacturing techniques, including numerical control machining,
will be used to minimize costs and expedite production.
Test - A large scale inlet diffuser development test is recommended to obtain

empirical information on the internal aerodynamics of the inlet. There are two
major reasons for large scale testing: (l) the aerodynamic threat to the dif-
fuser is flow separation, which is sensitive to Reynolds number, and (2) with
high aspect ratios, the inlet height becomes very small, making it difficult
to instrument the model without creating blockage problems.
247
Current plans call for the tests to be performed in a low speed wind tunnel
with an aspiration system using a bladeless hub/inlet combination. Many of the
test configurations being considered for the Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet inter-
action tests are being designed to reduce total pressure distortion across the
inlet. If these designs are successful, the diffuser development testing can
be conducted with a bladeless spinner/inlet combination in a low speed tunnel.
If the designs are not successful the model will have to be more sophisticated.
It should incorporate screens of varying solidity to obtain a representative'
inlet throat total pressure profile, as well as turning vanes to simulate
swirl.
Chin, bifurcated and annular inlet configurations will be evaluated in the

program (as indicated in Figure 4.5=15). The annular configuration, which is
most amenable to analytical treatment, will require minimal test evaluation.
Instead, the tests will focus on chin and bifurcated inlets to validate the
analytical codes for these more complicated configurations. The major test
variables include:
Throat to compressor face area ratio

Area distribution through the diffuser
Maximum wall curvature
Length
Compressor face (simulated) Mach number
Lip radius
Aspect ratio
Effectiveness of vortex generators
Angle of attack
Compressor face total pressure patterns, wall static pressure distributions,

and flow visualizations will be recorded. These data will be used to evaluate
inlet pressure recovery and map regions of flow separation.
The tests should be conducted over a range of Mach numbers at inlet flows
covering idle through maximum climb. Either the NASA-Lewis 8-foot by 6-foot
wind tunnel or the main wind tunnel at the United Technologies Research Center
could be used for the tests. Both facilities are of sufficient size and have
aspiration systems which can accommodate models as large as half-scale.
Data Analysis - The inlet/diffuser tests will provide internal inlet perfor-
mance data (no propeller) for half-scale candidate inlets. Compressor face
total pressure distributions will be used to calculate compressor face re-
covery and compressor face distortion (see Figure 4.5-18). Static pressure
distributions and oil flow techniques will be used to define lip and diffuser
separation (see Figure 4.5-19).
248
A. Compressor.face distortion maps
constant pressure
B. Compressor face recovery C. Compressor face distortion

M = const.
Lines of constant advance

C
ratio (J) and constant power 0
>
0 0
0
¢0
nr C3
clent (CP)
Mass flow ratio Mass flow
Figure 4.5-18 Compressor Face Conditions - Total pressure distributions will

be used to compute compressor face recovery and compressor face
distortion. (J27638-209)
A. Axial static pressure coefficient B. Separation analysis
Upper wall
,___J , Upper wall _.
//I"-_ . ,,_
il
O.n
:
03
"-- "" Lower wall
Axial distance Axial distance
Figure 4.5-19 Separation Analysis - Static pressure data and oil flow
techniques wi]] be used to define lip a.d diffuser separation.
(J27638-210)
249
4.5.4.3 Analytical Code Development
To generate high performance designs for Prop-Fannacelleinletcompression

systems, rig test programs must be complemented by development of analytical
codes that will permit refinement and extrapolation of the experimental data.
Relying exclusively on empirical correlations requires extensive refinement of
the configurations through repeated wind tunnel tests. This type of approach
is very costly. Further, there are several inherent shortcomings in wind,
tunnel testing: (l) model mounting support systems and wall interference ef-
fects cast doubt on the accuracy of wind tunnel results at transonic speeds;
(2) the limited Reynolds number capability of existing wind tunnel facilities
introduces large risks in extrapolating wind tunnel results to full-scale con-
ditions; and (3) current instrumentation and flow visualization techniques
provide only limited knowledge of the flow field around the aircraft. It is
becoming clear that these concerns can be mitigated when applicable computa-
tional tools are available. Computational aerodynamic methods have been used
for a wide range of design problems in turbofan applications. These codes are
flexible, and with some modification can be adapted to the turboprop appli-
cati on.
However, the problem of adequately modeling the aerodynamics of Prop-Fan

nacelleinletcompressor interactions is complicated by the presence of strong
viscous effects, arising from shocks, premature separation, etc. An analysis
of a steady state problem must be quite general; therefore, the governing
equation system will be highly nonlinear. Typically, solutions for these sys-
tems are only possible with the simplest of geometries, such as flat plates,
not for the complex propellernacelleinlet geometry. Figure 4.5-20 lists
several codes that can be adapted to the Prop-Fan system. The upper portion of
the figure shows an inlet internal duct analysis which would model the inlet/
diffuser results. The center portion of the figure identifies codes which, at
the present time, seem most applicable to the external flow field analysis
representing Prop-Fannacelleinlet testing. All of these codes need some re-
finement, adaptation, and calibration before they can be used with confidence
on the highly three-dimensional Prop-Fan inlet problem. Ultimately, the appro-
priate external analysis will be coupled with the internal analysis. The
figure shows a schedule for completing the modifications to the codes. The
following paragraphs describe the codes and the refinements required.
Two approaches to internal flow analysis were considered: (1) a potential

solver in which paneling methods are used to describe the flowpath, and (2)
PEPSI(G) a fully viscous forward marching Navier-Stokes solver. Pratt &
Whitney's experience in using paneling procedures with internal flows indi-
cates that excessive leakage through the panels prohibits calculation of pres-
sure distributions on the surface with any degree of confidence.
Consequently, it is recommended that PEPSI(G) be refined and enhanced to make

it more suitable for the complex geometries of Prop-Fan inlets. A preprocessor
must be developed to reduce running times, avoid computational stability prob-
lems, and extend the code to more complex geometries. The code must then be
calibrated with experimental data and exercised to develop user efficiency and
confidence in the results.
250
Calendar Year
1984 1985 1986
Inlet Internal duct analysis

• Pepsi
Preprocessor
Calibration
Exercising
External nacelle/Inlet anal.

• Panalr
Preprocessor
Evaluation !
Exercising
• Small disturbance
30 inlet
Prop simulation
Swirl
Calibration
Coupled intetlexternal anal.

Code formulation
Evaluation
Figure 4.5-20 Analytical Codes for Evaluating Prop-Fan/Nacelle/Inlet

Interactions - These codes will be used in conjunction with rig
testing to design an efficient Prop-Fan propulsion system.
(J27638-201)
Two candidate codes are available for external aerodynamic computations:

PANAIR and a Three-Dimensional Small Disturbance Analysis. PANAIR (B868), a
pilot adaptation of a code developed by the Boeing Company, is a higher order
three-dimensional potential flow (panel) method. It has demonstrated the cap-
ability to predict wing/fuselage flow fields at angle of attack. However,
PANAIR requires long set-up and run times. A preprocessor can be developed to
provide the detailed geometry description required to evaluate the influence
of an airplane flow field on the nacelle design, thus reducing processing time.
An additional shortcoming of PANAIR is that it does not provide a simulation
of the propeller, the associated energy addition, and residual swirl. An effort
should be made to establish whether this capability is essential in a Prop-Fan
inlet design system.
A_ alternate system for calculating the external flow field around the inlet
is the Transonic Small Disturbance Analysis. This code can model complex geo-
metries quickly and inexpensively. Despite the fact that it is a small distur-
bance analysis, limited to low turning and thin geometries, it could be well
suited to Prop-Fan inlets which are located at large hub radii. With high
aspect ratios, the throat height is small and the inlet lip is relatively thin.
An added feature of this analysis is the ability to incorporate a simulation
of the propeller discharge, including swirl, via an actuator disc analysis.
Pratt & Whitney has been usiny this analysis to simulate the influence of a
fan on the inlet and nozzle flow fields of conventional turbofan engines. By
251
extending the spinner and actuator disc in front of an axisymmetric nacelle, a
fair representation of an annular inlet is possible (top of Figure 4.5-21).
The lower portion of Figure 4.5-21 shows the resulting calculated pressure
distribution over the spinner and around the inlet. The figure also shows the
profound impact of the actuator disc on the streamlines as evidenced by the
streamtube contraction behind the actuator disc.
Modifications are required before this analysis can be used for chin, bifurca-
ted, and trifurcated inlets. The recommended approach is shown in Figure
4.5-22. The top left of the figure shows the "smile" (chin) inlet that is to
be simulated. The ideal analytical model is shown in the center. The top right
hand side of the figure shows how, through the use of a permeable nacelle wall
over a portion of the circumference, the ideal model can be simulated with
Small Disturbance Analysis. The lower portion of the figure shows an actual
graphics display of a grid set up to perform these calculations. Additional
programming is required to complete the logic. Empirical data must then be
used to calibrate the analysis and determine its effectiveness.
Following an assessment of the relative advantages of PANAIR vs Three-Dimen-

sional Small Disturbance Analysis, the appropriate external flow code will be
selected and mated to the internal flow (PEPSI) code. By the time this phase
has been completed, data will be available from the inlet diffuser rig tests
and the Prop-Fan rig tests to calibrate the analyses.
4.5.4.4 Inlet/Low-Pressure Compressor Plan
Previous experience has shown that effective aerodynamic integration of the

inlet and engine is a key requirement for a high performance propulsion system.
Inlet exit flow conditions must be compatible with major engine design para-
meters, including static and total pressure profiles, steady state and dynamic
distortions, axial Mach number, and surge margin. The consequences of poor in-
let and engine compatibility were demonstrated in a recent military turbofan
engine program. Inlet/low-pressure compressor integration is even more criti-
cal in a Prop-Fan propulsion system.
In the Prop-Fan propulsion system, the inlet aerodynamics behind the multi-
bladed, high tip speed Prop-Fan (with flight Mach numbers in the 0.7-0.8
range) present flow conditions which are much more complex than the conditions
encountered in current installations. Transonic exit flow, with the associated
swirl component, is expected to produce severe distortion at the inlet front
face. The "S" duct inlet contour delivers this distorted flow to the compres-
sor front face with total pressure distortion patterns and approach flow an-
gles significantly different from current experience. Further, the low-pressure
compressor, which must include sufficient surge margin to accept the distorted
flow and attenuate it to the high-pressure compressor at acceptable levels,
will itself incorporate technology features that have yet to be evaluated
under these severe conditions. Rig testing is required to establish the actual
surge margin loss in the Prop-Fan flow field.
The Inlet/Low-Pressure Compressor Program plan is presented in Figure 4.5-23.

There are six major components in the plan: (1) inlet and compressor aerodyna-
mic design, (2) mechanical design, (3) fabrication, (4) assembly and instru-
mentation, (5) test, and (6) analysis and data reduction. Each part of the
plan is discussed in some detail in the following sections.
252
Actuator disc Sonic bubbles
\
M=o.8
Streamtube
Actuator disc / contraction
Spinner
\ Actuator disc
\_ / Nacelle
Cp 0
I ex ma,
C
-1
Shocks
Figure 4.5-21 Turboprop Annular Inlet Flow Field Evaluation - The Transonic
Small Disturbance Analysis can be used to generate a fairly
accurate representation of an annular inlet. (J27638-103)
///t/i -/
/_///////"
"Permeable
/ / _)_--_nacelle wall"
-I///.
"// /s
// //
// //.
// //,
/ \ _ ....
/I//" I
// //,
// //.
s/ //
"Smile" inlet/nacelle Ideal model

inlet wall
Test case
Figure 4.5-22 Turboprop Inlet Rode1 - The Transonic Small Disturbance

Analysis can be modified to simulate more complex inlets such
as smile, bifurcated and trifurcated configurations. (J27638-97)
253
Calendar Year
1986 1987 1988
Inlet and compressor aerodynamic

design
Mechanical design x7
I I
Fabrication
T--
Assembly and Instrumentation
Test
Data reduction and analysis
Figure 4.5-23 Inlet/Low-Pressure Compressor Technology Verification Plan

Schedule - The program will verify the interactive performance
of an advanced turboprop inlet and high-speed low-pressure
compressor including the simulated effects of Prop-Fan and
nacelle. (J27638-202)
Inlet and Compressor Aerodynamic Design - The rig testing described in Section
4.5.4.2 and the analytical effort discussed in Section 4.5.4.3 will provide
the information required to select inlet designs on the basis of propeller/
inlet interactions, inlet pressure recovery, and inlet distortion. Design
studies will be conducted to select the most promising inlet configuration for
the inlet/compressor test. Chin, bifurcated, trifurcated and annular inlets
will be considered for both offset and in-line reduction gear systems.
The low-pressure compressor used in the Prop-Fan propulsion system will incor-
porate advanced technology features that must be adapted to the special inlet
boundary conditions of the Prop-Fan system. Inlet radial and circumferential
profiles from the Prop-Fan/inlet testing will be incorporated in the design to
ensure that low-pressure compressor performance goals are met. Major consider-
ations in low-pressure compressor design are discussed below. Advanced tech-
nology features are also described.
Design Considerations - The use of a gear between the Prop-Fan and the low-
pressure compressor provides significantly more wheel speed and work cap-
ability, but also increases the rotor tip Mach nuhlber to a level of 1.3 or
greater. These rotor tip Mach numbers are more in the range of front stage
high-pressure compressor blades; therefore, a different blade design philoso-
phy is required for the low-pressure compressor in the Prop-Fan propulsion
system. High Mach number blade technology, characteristic of current fan blade
designs, will be used in the design of the front stages of the low-pressure
compressor to produce high work capability without high shock wave total pres-
sure loss. Three-dimensional time marching inviscid solutions of the Euler
equations will be combined with interblade boundary layer and shock boundary
layer viscous solutions to solve the full flow field aerodynamics to optimize
airfoil geometry for maximum efficiency. The three-dimensional flow field sol-
ving techniques that will be used in this design have been extensively devel-
oped and have been shown to accurately represent the interblade aerodynamics.
Agreement of measured and calculated values is excellent in the high Mach
number region where minimizing shock loss is essential to good efficiency.
254
Advanced Technology Features - Controlled Diffusion Airfotls will be used in
the design of the remaining low-pressure compressor stages, where Mach numbers
are either transonic or high subsonic. In contrast with the high Mach number
blade design philosophy, which seeks to control shock waves in order to reduce
loss, Controlled Diffusion Airfoils are contoured to reduce loss by eliminat-
ing shock waves and avoiding separation of the airfoil surface boundary layers.
Controlled diffusion airfoils have demonstrated higher critical Mach number,
higher incidence range and higher loading capability than standard airfoils
designed to the same aerodynamic requirements.
The low-pressure compressor will also include advanced endwa11 blading geometry
in all rows that will minimize endwa11 friction, tip clearance loss, stator
cavity loss and secondary flow effects. Airfoil sections in the endwall region
will be selected to maximize efficiency within the operating range of the low-
pressure compressor.
Mechanical Design - The low-pressure compressor test rig will be designed to

duplicate the full size aerodynamic flowpath including airfoils, seals, tip
clearances, and inner wall flowpath cavities. The static structure will be
designed as non-flight (rig) hardware and will incorporate variable vanes in
all stages. Existing hardware will be used for bearing compartments and seals
wherever possible.
The rotor drum and shafts will also incorporate low cost hardware which meets
rig life and structural requirements. Flight hardware aerodynamics will be
preserved in all rotating components. The entire rotating structure will be
subjected to critical speed analysis to ensure safety throughout the rig
operating range. Adapting hardware, such as discharge ductin9 and drive shaft/
coupling, will be designed to adapt to existing test stand interfaces. A com-
plete installation drawing will be generated to show the rig and inlet ducts
mounted in the test stand. In addition, a critical speed analysis of the rig
and test stand drive train will be conducted to ensure safe operation.
The inlet and compressor will be completely instrumented to provide high re-
sponse pressures, interstage stator leading edge temperatures and pressures,
and inlet duct pressures and temperatures. Circumferential traverse and rotat-
ing strain gage instrumentation will also be included.
Fabrication - During this phase of the program, a11 hardware identified in the
mechanical design will be fabricated. Raw material will be procured before the
final design is completed, reducing the length and cost of the program. Since
the airfoils will be the pacing item in this test, fabrication will be initia-
ted as soon as the designs have been approved. Selected vanes will incorporate
machine cuts in which instrumentation will be installed. All other hardware
will be fabricated and inspected in compliance with the program schedule. Fix-
ed and traversing performance+instrumentation will be calibrated to ensure
accurate measurements.
Instrumentation and Assembl_ - Fixed and traversing instrumentation will be

located circumferentially at each axial instrumentation station using an
arrangement which ensures that no rake is in the wake of an upstream rake.
Early in the assembly phase, sensors will be installed in the airfoils select-
ed for instrumentation. Uniform blade tips and seal clearances will be set by
grinding in an assembled condition. All bearing compartments will be leak
255
checked; oil jet flow will also be tested. The rotor assembly will be dynami-
cally balanced. Variable vane assemblies will be inspected to ensure proper
vane stagger and uniformity. In the final assembly, the rotor-stator package
will be joined with the inlet case and intermediate case. Quick disconnect
blocks will be used for a11 instrumentation leads.
Test - The assembled test vehicle will be mounted in an existing test stand; a
schematic of a typical arrangement is shown in Figure 4.5-24. The test rig
will be externally driven by a motor or an engine through a gearbox. Inlet air
will be supplied through ducting and will be measured by a suitable nozzle.
Air is discharged through ducting and can be controlled by conventional butter-
fly valves.
A typical rig installation is also shown in Figure 4.5-24. For i11ustrative

purposes, the four-stage compressor is shown in conjunction with a bifurcated
inlet. The inlet is protruding into the plenum chamber; flow from the plenum
chamber is guided into the inlet using a bellmouth for each duct. Preswirl
vanes are used to simulate the exit swirl of the Prop-Fan. Distortion screens
and rods (which generate discrete frequencies) are used to simulate the steady
state distortions measured from the Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet tests. The compres-
sor design incorporates several features that reduce costs and facilitate
aerodynamic performance optimization in the rig. For instance, the drum rotor
design is replaced by a conventional disk design with root mini-cavities.
Also, all four stages have variable stators to facilitate stage performance
matching.
Plenum
chamber _i I .------
F r y.
/f _- "
,
I\
Discharge
/ll
,
L,... , air collector
Figure 4.5-24 Low-Pressure Compressor Test Rig - This type of facility will
be used to obtain detailed information on low-pressure
256 compressor performance characteristics. (j27638-I17)
The data system in the test stand has the capability to measure up to a total
of 300 steady state pressures, 158 temperatures and 12 differential pressures.
An additional 72 channels can be used for any millivolt signal. The data sys-
tem is connected to a high-powered Univac computer via telecommunication links.
Strain gage instrumentation can be recorded through a lO0-channel slip ring.
The test stand also contains a rig Supervisory Control System that allows the
engineer conducting the test to control most phases of compressor operation
including speed, pressure ratio, vane angle and bleeds. The supervisory control
also ensures rig operating safety by monitoring critical performance para-
meters and taking corrective action to avoid dangerous operating conditions.
The test will be conducted according to an approved test plan. The first phase
of the test will consist of a shakedown program to substantiate the mechanical
integrity of the test rig throughout the operating envelope and to verify that
the instrumentation and data acquisition system are operating properly.
In the second phase, complete performance maps, including vane optimization

and stress measurements, will be generated with each of the inlet configura-
tions (e.g., bifurcated and chin). Perfomance of each of these inlets will
also be measured with one or more distortion screens and rods to simulate pro-
peller/inlet interactions over a number of flight conditions.
Data Reduction and Analysis - Two types of computer programs will be used to
reduce the raw data for analysis; a conditioning program and a flow field
analysis program. A conditioning program will be used to process aerodynamic
data and calculate overall and stage perfomance. This program will also pro-
cess the data for display. The flow field analysis program will be used to
calculate overall, row, and blade element perfomance, including all vector
quantities and parameters necessary for a complete description of compressor
performance.
More specifically, the data conditioning deck performs two functions. First,
it reduces the electrical signals produced by the instrumentation to engineer-
ing units. Second, it applies calibrations and statistical techniques to the
resulting data to calculate averaged performance. The results from the first
set of calculations are displayed at the test stand, permitting critical para-
meters to be checked during the test and ensuring that all the instrumentation
is operational. The second set of calculations provides a definition of over-
all performance and stage characteristics, and is used as input to the flow
field analysis program.
In the flow field analysis program, inlet and discharge total pressure ratios
and temperature ratios are calculated by radially mass-flow-averaging the cir-
cumferentially mass-flow-averaged values for the radial locations where data
are measured. Static pressures used in determining the average parameters are
computed by linearly interpolating values of static pressure measured at the
walls. Averaged total pressures and temperatures at each axial location are
divided by the compressor inlet values to provide temperature and pressure
ratios. The overall performance for any combination of blade rows can be plot-
ted as total pressure ratio, total temperature ratio, and adiabatic efficiency
as a function of corrected flow.
257
Stage performance is presented as a pressure rise coefficient, temperature
rise coefficient, and adiabatic efficiency, all as a function of inlet flow
coefficient. These coefficients can be used to determine variable stator set-
tings that will optimize the surge margin and efficiency of the compressor.
Traverse data from the compressor exit station wake rakes are presented in the
form of wake shapes of pressure, temperature, and efficiency for each radial
location traversed. Tabulations of pressure, temperature, and efficiency ver-
sus percent stator gap are also provided. Traverse data from the inlet rakes
are presented in the form of radial total pressure variations of each circum-
ferential traverse position from which overall annular distortion maps will be
produced.
Input for the flow field analysis program includes values of inlet corrected
flow, corrected speed, inlet total pressure and total temperature, and radial
distributions of total pressure ratio, total temperature ratio, and reference
static pressures from selected instrumentati on planes.
The detailed overall, stage, blade and vane row, and blade element data are
analyzed relative to the design goals and major deviations are noted. Blade
changes designed to improve the overall performance of the compressor are
identified and evaluated using computer programs. These changes could be made
to improve the performance match of front end stages to the performance of
back end stages, to correct spanwise pressure profile defects, or to implement
local changes to correct blade element traverse incidence conditions. The dif-
ferences between design objectives and test results will be analyzed to deter-
mine the effect and magnitude of the Prop-Fan inlet interactions and to for-
mulate a set of Prop-Fan low-pressure compressor design ground rules that
recognize the special requirements of these interactions. Variations in the
performance of the two types of inlets will also be analyzed to formulate
special design requirements and to identify characteristics of the inlet sys-
tem which have either favorable or deleterious effects on the compressor. A
preferred inlet system will be recommended on the basis of overall system and
compressor performance data.
4.5.5 Small-Size High-Pressure Compressor
Engines of the 1990's and beyond are expected to have higher overall pressure
ratios than engines currently in service. To achieve these higher pressure
ratios, blade heights in the rear stages of the high-pressure compressor will
be reduced. These small blades are susceptible to erosion and early loss of
performance, a condition that is aggravated by the smaller size core of ad-
vanced turboprop engines relative to turbofan engines of equal thrust. For
example, the blade lengths for the 12,000 shp advanced turboprop engines de-
scribed in Section 4.3 are approximately 1.5 cm (0.6 in).
Engine configuration studies conducted in Task II (described in Section 4.2)

highlighted the good deterioration characteristics of centrifugal/mixed-flow
compressor stages after approximately 3500 cycles. (As indicated previously, a
mixed-flow compressor stage is similar to a centrifugal compressor stage, ex-
cept that the flow at the exit has an axial velocity component in addition to
a large radial component.) In addition, the studies demonstrated the low main-
tenance cost of centrifugal/mixed-flow stag_s. The improved fuel burn char-
acteristics after 3500 cycles, coupled with reduced maintenance costs, contri-
bute to significantly lower direct operating costs for a high-pressure com-
pressor configuration with centrifugal/mixed-flow stages.
258
Another advantage of centrifugal compressors in small engines is the reduced
rotor length relative to axial compressors. This is especially helpful in
solving rotor critical speed problems that are more crucial in smaller engines.
Studies conducted under the Energy Efficient Engine program have also con-
firmed that a centrifugal or mixed-flow compressor would be an attractive
alternative to an all-axial compression high-pressure compressor for an ad-
vanced turbofan engine.
A high-pressure compressor for an advanced turboprop or turbofan engine could,

therefore, include a number of axial compressor stages followed by a single
centrifugal or mixed-flow compressor stage of moderately high pressure ratio.
The number of axial compressor stages is dictated by the work potential of the
centrifugal or mixed-flow stage. Work potential is determined by the tip speed
limit, which is set by structural considerations at the compressor exit. The
extremely high temperatures encountered at the compressor exit increase the
difficulty of creating an effective design.
A systematic analytical/test program is required to determine the relative

merits of using all-axial rear stages vs centrifugal or mixed-flow rear stages
in advanced engines.
The objectives and benefits of the small-size, high-pressure compressor tech-

nology program are summarized in Table 4.5-IV.
TABLE 4.5-IV
OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS
High-Pressure Compressor Technology Program
Objectives:
0 Verify the performance of a centrifugal or mixed-flow compressor in

order to permit use in the rear stages of an advanced turboshaft
engine. This configuration will improve deterioration characteristics,
reduce maintenance cost, and reduce acquisition cost relative to axial
compressor stages.
o Develop new advanced analytical design codes.
Benefits:
o Compressor efficiency loss decreased by 1.5 percentage points after

3500 cycles of operation.
o Engine maintenance cost reduced approximately 12%.
o Engine acquisition cost reduced approximately 8%.
o Compressor/diffuser length reduced approximately 25%.
o All of these benefits achieved with a maximum 5% increase in engine

weight.
259
4.5.5.2 Program P1 an
Three candidate configurations for the rear stages of the high-pressure com-
pressor were considered in the APET Definition Study: axial stages, a mixed-
flow stage, and a centrifugal stage. These concepts should be compared on the
basis of efficiency, weight and cost and the optimum configuration should be
selected for the Prop-Fan propulsion system.
The flow diagram for the small-size high-pressure compressor program is shown
in Figure 4.5-25. The schedule for the high-pressure compressor technology
program is shown in Figure 4.5-26. The individual phases of the program are
discussed below (the section numbers for each phase are specified in the
figure).
Influence Factor Tests

• Assess RN, tip clearance and surface
roughness effects for advanced engine
compressor rear stages. This information will
be used in the Aerodynamic Design Studies
t
• Determine best all-axial, axial-centrifugal, and I
I Aerodynamic Design Studies I
axial/mixed.flow compressor configuration I
J
f
!
I t t
Compressor Design Compressor Design I Compressor Design

• Perform detailed design of Perform detailed design of le Perform detailed design of
I the bestAll-Axial
all-axial I axial/centrifugal
Axial/Centrifugal I I axial/mixed-flow
Axial/Mixed-Flow I
compressor. compressor. i compressor.
t t t
• Deslgnl fabricate, and test the all-axial • Design, fabricate, and test either the
rear stages in a 3-stage compressor rig. centrifugal or mixed-flow rear stage.
I ,< Compare Test Results _>---j
(Pick the Winner_
Figure 4.5-25 High-Pressure Compressor Program Flow Diagram - The program is

designed to identify the rear stage compressor configuration
that will provide optimum efficiency and performance retention.
(j27638-204)
4.5.5.3 Influence Factor Tests
A series of tests will be conducted with an existing three-stage rig to assess

the effects of variations in Reynolds number, tip clearance and surface rough-
ness from current engine levels to the range of the Prop-Fan engine. The para-
meters are compared in Table 4.5-V.
260
Section Calendar Year
1984 1985 1986 1987
RN, clearance, roughness
V V vl V
4.5.5.3 Influence factor tests I I
4.5.5.4 Aero desi_in studies

4.5.5.5 Axial stages
• Aerodynamic design
• Mechanical design
• Fabrication
• Test & analysis
4.5.5.6 Single-stage rear stage

• Centrifugal design studies --7
• Mixed-flow design studies 7. v
I
4.5.5.7 Ri_ test of best rear single staQe desIQn

• Mechanical design 7==:::7
v V
• Fabrication I I
• Test & analysis I°

|
Figure 4.5-26 High-Pressure Compressor Technology Verification Plan - This

five-phase program will identify the best rear stage con-
figuration for the high-pressure compressor of the Prop-Fan
propulsion system. (J27638-191)
TABLE 4.5-V
COMPARISON OF CURRENT ENGINE HIGH-PRESSURE COMPRESSOR PARAMETERS
TO PROP-FAN HIGH-PRESSURE COMPRESSOR PARAMETERS
State of the Art Estimated APET

Rear Stages Rear Stages
Mach Number 0.63 0.6

(Rotor/Stator Average)
Reynolds Number x 10 -° 10.3 5.0
Tip Clearance/Span 1.0% 2.0%
Blade Span, cm (in) 3.3 (1.3) 1.65 (0.65)
The Pratt & Whitney closed loop test facility at the United Technologies
Research Center is well suited to conduct these tests; it provides the pres-
surization capability to vary Reynolds number by a factor of over 3.0. This
facility, which is shown in Figure 4.5-27, can be used to test full scale core
compressor middle and rear three-stage rigs such as the rig shown in Figure
4.5-28. Flowpath, blading and stator cavities are representative of current
practice for commercial engines. The type and number of blades in this core
compressor three-stage rig can be modified to meet the requirements of the
APET High-Pressure Compressor Program. The three critical parameters essential
to compressor performance and performance retention - tip clearance, Reynolds
number, and airfoil surface roughness - will be evaluated over the range of
values shown in Table 4.5-VI.
261
Venturi "__\
_-_./_ Inlet ducting
Filter
plenum
. < P'_. ,.
Inlet plenum-'%.
Compressor rig
Discharge collector
Heat Gearbox
exchanger Drive motor 2250 hp
Figure 4.5-27 United Technologies Research Center Closed Loop Compressor

Test Facility - This type of facility is well suited to
conducting compressor rig tests. (J27638-II0)
Figure 4.5-28 Typical Three-Stage Compressor Rig - This compressor rig will
be used to test the effects of variations in Reynolds number,
tip clearance, and surface roughness on high-pressure
compressor performance. (J27638-I09)
262
TABLE 4.5-VI
SUGGESTED THREE-STAGE RIG FOR PROP-FAN HIGH-PRESSURE COMPRESSOR
INFLUENCE FACTOR PROGRAM
Test Tip Reynolds Airfoil Surface

Number Configuration Clearance Number Roughness
Span x lO -5 Arithmetic Avg X 10 -6
Previously Baseline 1.0% 3.8-11.6 IO-20AA

Tested
I Increased Rotor 2.0 3.8-11.6 IO-20AA

Clearance
2 Increased Surface 2.0 3.8-11.6 4000 plus hours

Roughness in-service simulation
Instrumentation in the rig will include: (I) inlet and discharge pole rakes to
establish radial total pressure and total temperature profiles, (2) stator
leading edge total pressure and total temperature sensors to determine stage
radial profiles and matching, and (3) stator surface static pressure taps to
determine airfoil surface Mach number and to evaluate the accuracy of blade
design techniques in this regime. The detailed information provided by the
static pressure measurements on the airfoil surface will be coupled with over-
all performance results and compared to design objectives. Design techniques
will be modified as required to accurately represent conditions in the Prop-
Fan engine environment. These improved design tools will then be used in the
aerodynamic design studies and in the final design.
4.5.5.4 Aerodynamic Design Studies
Aerodynamic design studies will be conducted to identify the best all-axial,

axial/centrifugal and axial/mixed-flow configurations for advanced engines.
Compressor efficiency, weight, cost and performance retention will be con-
sidered in the selection of a final configuration in each category. The impact
of advanced technology on the efficiency and surge margin potential of each
configuration will be considered in the evaluation. Results of the high-pres-
sure compressor tests described in Section 4.5.5.3 will provide a realistic
baseline for performance evaluation and influence factors used to assess the
effects of Reynolds number, tip clearance and surface roughness. An existing
meanline performance prediction system, updated to include the test results,
will be used to select the best configurations. F1owpaths, airfoil counts and
preliminary weight and cost estimates will be prepared for each configuration.
4.5.5.5 Axial Stages
This phase of the program includes aerodynamic design of the all-axial com-
pressor, followed by mechanical design, fabrication and testing of the rear
stage compressor rig.
263
Aerodynamic Design - A detailed full span aerodynamic design will be conducted
for the final axial configuration; a complete specification of blade geometry
will be developed from the design. Blade design will be optimized to produce
maximum efficiency within the surge margin constraints at design and off-design
conditions. Blade technology will include full three-dimensional high Hach
number concepts developed for current turbofans in the front stages and ad-
vanced controlled diffusion/improved endwall geometry in the remaining stages.
Airfoil boundary layer transition and separation criteria will be modified as
required, based on the results of the influence factor tests. These modifica-
tions will produce airfoil geometry that accurately reflects the operating
conditions in the Prop-Fan propulsion system. Endwall geometry will be con-
toured to maximize performance at the required level of rotor tip clearance
and stator seal clearance.
In the final phase of the design, the potential for replacing several of the
rear stages of the axial compressor with a centrifugal or mixed-flow compres-
sor will be evaluated. The rear axial compression stages will be tested in the
high speed closed loop facility and will serve as a baseline for evaluating
the performance potential of the single mixed-flow or centrifugal compressor
stage.
Mechanical Design of Rear Stage Compressor Ri_ - Three stages of airfoils will
be designed for the rear stage compressor r19. The static structure will be
designed as non-flight (rig) hardware. Existing hardware will be used for the
bearing compartments and seals wherever possible.
The rotor and shafts will also incorporate low cost hardware that meets rig
life and structural requirements. The entire rotating structure will be sub-
jected to critical speed analysis to ensure safety throughout the rig opera-
ting range. An installation drawing will be generated showing all the rig/test
stand interfaces.
Provisions will be made for complete instrumentation in the test rig including
major station inlet and discharge probes, interstage leading edge instrumenta-
tion, and high response instrumentation.
Fabrication of Rear Staqe Compressor Rig - During this phase of the program
all hardware identified in the mechanical design will be fabricated. Raw mate-
rial will be procured before the final design is completed, reducing program
cost and length. Since the airfoils will be the pacing item in this test,
machining will be initiated as soon as the design is approved. Selected vanes
will incorporate machine cuts in which instrumentation will be installed. All
other hardware will be fabricated and inspected in compliance with the program
schedule. All fixed and traversing performance instrumentation will be calib-
rated to ensure accurate measurements.
Test of Rear Stage Compressor Ri 9 - A series of three tests will be conducted

with a newly fabricated three-stage rig to assess the effects of Reynold's
number, tip clearance and airfoil surface roughness. These tests will be con-
ducted in the closed loop test facility shown in Figure 4.5-27.
264
The program will begin with a shakedown to establish the mechanical integrity
of the test rig and to verify the operation of instrumentation and data reduc-
tion equipment. The performance test will consist of three separate rig con-
fi gurati ons designed to evaluate:
Tight tip clearance blading with rough surface finish airfoils

Loose tip clearance blading with rough surface finish airfoils
Loose tip clearance bladin9 with smooth surface finish
After the second and third rig configuration tests the rigs must be removed
from the test stand and the hardware modified. In each of the three configu-
ration tests, a series of speedlines will be run from wide open throttle to
surge at a number of different Reynold's number settings.
4.5.5.6 Centrifugal and Mixed-Flow Rear Stage Design Studies
Preliminary studies have shown the potential economic advantage and improve-
ment in deteriorated performance that can be obtained by replacing the rear
stages of high overall pressure ratio engines with a centrifugal or mixed-flow
compressor. This advantage stems primarily from replacing several axial com-
pressor blades and vanes with a single, rugged and less costly impeller and
diffuser with improved resistance to performance deterioration.
Previous studies have shown small differences in the performance of axial and
centrifugal compressor configurations. However, performance depends to a great
extent on the level of tip clearance that can be maintained in the axial com-
pressor and the rotational speed of both configurations. Advanced technology
concepts for axial compressors, such as improved endwall geometry, have the
potential to improve the performance of axial systems, even under the adverse
conditions encountered in the rear stages of advanced turboprop engines. The
recommended technology programs for centrifugal compressors would also be
directed toward improving performance at the low specific speeds of Prop-Fan
system applications. The impact of advanced design and manufacturing techno-
logies will be considered in the centrifugal and mixed-flow stage aerodynamic
and mechanical design studies in order to provide a realistic assessment of
the direct operating costs of these two configurations, as well as an objec-
tive comparison with the axial compression stages which these configurations
would repl ace.
This design work will form the basis for selecting the most promising single-
stage configuration, centrifugal or mixed-flow, for comparison with an opti-
mized axial compression system.
Centrifuqal Rear Stage Design Studies - Full three-dimensional flowfield de-

finition computer programs and advanced high Mach number airfoil sections will
be used to design the centrifugal compressor for peak performance at operating
conditions characteristic of the Prop-Fan propulsion system. The impact of
using pipe and vaned diffusers on engine direct operating cost will be evalu-
ated.
Impeller endwall geometry will be optimized for the low specific speed and
high wall friction encountered in the Prop-Fan propulsion system. Full blading
geometry specifications and flowfield definition will be produced.
265
The impact of advanced manufacturing technology on engine weight, cost, and
structure will be considered in the mechanical design of the centrifugal im-
peller and diffuser. The flight hardware will be defined in sufficient detail
to permit realistic evaluation of weight, cost and performance relative to the
axial and mixed-flow rear stages.
Mixed-Flow Rear Stage Design Studies - The mixed-flow configuration is being

considered in these studies because it represents a reasonable compromise be-
tween the large diameter required for the centrifugal compressor and the large
number of airfoils required for the axial compressor. Aerodynamic design tech-
niques developed for axial compressors, including high Mach number airfoil
section theory and three-dimensional definition, will be applied to the mixed-
flow configuration. Structural analyses will be conducted to assure that
stress and life cycle requirements for the Prop-Fan propulsion system are
satisfied.
4.5.5.7 Rig Test of the Best Rear Single-Stage Design
The most effective single-stage rear compressor configuration will be selected

based on the design studies. A rig will then be designed, fabricated and test-
ed as described below.
Rig Mechanical Design - A compressor rig with integrated axial and impeller
stages will be designed for the best rear stage configuration. The static
structure will be designed as non-flight (rig) hardware. Existing hardware
will be used for the bearing compartments and seals wherever possible.
The rotor and shaft will also incorporate low cost hardware designed to satis-
fy rig life and structural requirements. Special attention will be given to
the structural analysis of impeller type rotors. The entire rotating structure
will be subjected to critical speed analysis to insure safety throughout the
rig operating range.
Provisions will be made for complete instrumentation of the test rig including
major station, inlet and discharge probes, interstage leading edge instrumen-
tation and high response instrumentation.
Fabrication - The latest cost-effective manufacturing techniques will be used

in fabricating the centrifugal or mixed-flow compressor impeller.
The impellers will be manufactured by isothermal forgiving to near net shape.

One of the key elements is the use of the GATORIZIN614_process, which Pratt &
Whitney's Government Products Division has used to forge a rotor to near net
shape. In addition, a differential heat treatment, producing a fine grain
structure in the rotor hub and coarse equiaxed grains in the blade region, has
been developed in a subscale component.
Test - A performance test will be conducted using a test rig incorporating the
best rear stage configuration. The compressor rig will be tested in the closed
loop facility shown in Figure 4.5-27.
The test program will consist of a shakedown program to substantiate the me-
chanical integrity of the rig throughout the operating envelope and to verify
proper operation of the instrumentation and data acquisition system.
266
In the performance testing, a series of speed lines will be run from wide open
throttle to surge. Readings form steady state performance instrumentation will
be recorded throughout the operating range of the compressor.
4.5.6 Recommended Engine/Aircraft Integration Studies
A number of technical considerations has identified during Task II (Cycle

Optimization and Engine Configuration Selection) and Task III (Propulsion
System Integration) that affect both the Prop-Fan propulsion system and the
aircraft on which it will be mounted. After reviewing the Prop-Fan Propulsion
System Integration Package, the airframe manufacturers participating in the
APET Definition Study and Pratt & Whitney identified several key issues which
should be addressed in joint engine/aircraft integration studies. These issues
encompass potential "barrier" technologies, which, if not resolved in a timely
manner, could prevent a Prop-Fan powered aircraft from being introOuced to
service by the 1992 target date.
These recommendations have been consolidated in four major engine/aircraft in-

tegration programs, listed in order of importance:
l) Free vs Non-Free Power Turbine Engine/Aircraft Study

2) Engine/Aircraft Propulsion System Mounting Integration
-}I rll_lilCIO'lliStOI I,, [ICQ5 I_J_bblUII ObUU_
4) Integrated Propulsion System/Aircraft Control
A brief description of each program follows. Individual tasks are defined and
preliminary program schedules are presented. Preliminary plans for these pro-
grams have been discussed with the airframe manufacturers. Once NASA specifies
which engine/aircraft integration studies should be conducted, program content
will be defined in detail and final program plans will be prepared. Estimates
of the costs of these studies are provided in a separate proprietary document.
4.5.6.1 "Free" vs "Non-Free" Power Turbine Engine/Aircraft Integration Trade

study
The overall objective of this study is to determine whether there are funda-
mental differences in the performance of the two-spool, all-axial compression,
"non-free" power turbine engine (STS678) and the three-spool, axial/centrifugal
compression, "free" power turbine engine (STS679) at critical aircraft opera-
ting conditions. In Task II (Engine Configuration Se]ection), both engines
were found to be viable candidates for a Prop-Fan propulsion system. Steady
state and transient operating characteristics will be evaluated in the free vs
nonfree power turbine engine/aircraft integration study.
To illustrate the type of conditions that will be evaluated, Figure 4.5-29

shows Prop-Fan speed as a function of power setting for the "free" and "non-
free" power turbine engines, as well as the typical steady state approach
power requirement. With the non-free power turbine engine, approach power is
about 70%-80% of the takeoff speed of the Prop-Fan; with the free power tur-
bine engine, approach power is 100% of the takeoff speed of the Prop-Fan. In
the event of a "go-around" or aborted approach, Prop-Fan speed must be accele-
rated up to the takeoff thrust level with the non-free power turbine engine.
With the free power turbine, the Prop-Fan is already operating at full speed,
and the required power can be achieved by simply changing the pitch of the
Prop-Fan blades. This example demonstrates the contrasting transient thrust
response characteristics of the two engines. 267
Sea level/Mach 0.22
Standard day + 14°C (25°F) "
..... f Free turbine
lOO
/ - _'--'_ Constant speed to 60% power

go
/ / variable LPC vanes
4 -- _ Non-free turbine
8o
% takeoff
prop-fan,
rpm 70-
'_ Approach power requirements

60-
50, I I I I I
0 20 4O 60 80 100
% takeoff thrust
Figure 4.5-29 Operating Characteristics of the "Free" and "Non-Free" Power

Turbine Engines at Approach - With the non-free power turbine
engine, approach power is about 75% of Prop-Fan takeoff speed;
with the free power turbine engine, approach is made at full
speed. (d27638-217)
However, this example depicts only one of the many operating conditions that
must be considered in evaluating the dynamic response characteristics of the
two engines. In the free vs non-free power turbine engine/aircraft integration
study, the differences in the responses of the two engines wil] be quantified,
and data wil] be provided to the airframe manufacturers which wil] permit them
to evaluate the impact of these differences on the Prop-Fan powered airplane.
In addition to evaluating the differences in transient operation between the

two engines, two methods of improving the flexibility of the non-free turbine
engine will be evaluated (see Figure 4.5-29). In the first method, variable
vanes are incorporated in the low-pressure compressor tn order to maintain a
constant Prop-Fan speed over the 60%-100% thrust range. In the second method,
the geometry in the low-pressure compressor is fixed, while Prop-Fan speed is
varied over the engine operating range. The impact of operating the Prop-Fan
at constant and variable speeds will be evaluated on the basis of performance,
noise, and transient response.
?68
The schedule for the free turbine vs non-free turbine engine/aircraft inte-
gration study is shown in Figure 4.5-30. A description of the individual tasks
follows.
Months from go-ahead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Task I
Establish propulsion system

Dynamic simulation
Task II
Develop control modes

Stability requirements
_L
Task III
Determine transient response

Coordination
Task IV
Aircraft evaluation
Task V
Barrier technology identification

Technology and research plan
Figure 4.o-_u tree vs Non-Free Power Turbine Engine/Aircraft integration

Study Schedule - The five technical tasks in this program will
aid in evaluating the operating characteristics of the free and
non-free power turbine engines. (J27638-216)
Task I - Propulsion System Dynamic Simulation
The dynamic operating conditions of the free power turbine and non-free power
turbine engines will be simulated. The models will provide a quantitative re-
presentation of the characteristics of the propulsion systems during transient
operation. Dynamic simulations will be developed by modeling engine rotor,
Prop-Fan and gearbox inertia characteristics, Prop-Fan blade angle and aero-
dynamic characteristics, as well as the effects of using variable vanes in the
low-pressure compressor of the non-free power turbine engine.
Task II - Control Modes and Stability Requirements
Methods of operation for the propulsion system electronic control will be de-
fined under a variety of operating conditions. These specifications will en-
sure that appropriate thrust response is obtained from the free turbine and
non-free turbine engines through effective management of fuel flow, compressor
geometry, Prop-Fan blade pitch, and active clearance control (if required).
The dynamic propulsion system simulations developed in Task I will aid in de-
fining the control modes. Compression system stability requirements will also
be a major factor in the control mode definition, ensuring safe operation
under a variety of conditions.
The impact of key assumptions about engine components, such as the weight and
inertia of centrifugal compressors, on the transient response characteristics
of the two engine configurations will also be assessed.
269
Task Ill - Transient Response
The control modes defined in Task II will be used to determine the transient
response characteristics of the free and non-free power turbine engines at
critical operating conditions. The conditions to be evaluated will be selected
by Pratt & Whitney and the participating aircraft manufacturer and approved by
the NASA Program Manager. The "missed approach" situation described earlier is
typical of the conditions that will be studied.
Steady state engine operations will be evaluated with fixed and variable speed
Prop-Fans in order to assess the impact of different methods of operation on
performance and noise.
Starting and windmilling engine operating conditions, which were covered dur-
ing the APET Definition Study, will be excluded from this effort.
Task IV - Aircraft Evaluation
The impact of engine steady state and transient response characteristics on

airplane operation will be assessed. This study will be conducted by the air-
frame manufacturer.
Task V - Research and Technology Plan
A detailed Research and Technology plan will be prepared to verify key tech-
nologies identified in this study and to ensure timely response to issues that
could delay certification of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft.
4.5.6.2 Engine/Aircraft Propulsion System Mounting Integration
This study will address two key propulsion system/aircraft integration issues:
(1) use of vibration isolation devices to damp propulsion system induced vi-
brations, avoiding transmission through the wing to the fuselage, and (2)
establishment of key geometry constraints to prevent wing flutter resulting
from propulsion system loads. All of the airframe manufacturers participating
in the APET Program indicated that this study should be accorded high priority.
The schedule for the propulsion system mounting study is shown in Figure
4.5-31. A description of the individual tasks follows.
Task I -Analytical Model
An analytical model of the propulsion system and wing structure will be gene-
rated using the integrated engine mount system developed in Task III of the
APET Definition Study. The model will be used to identify the optimum location
of the propulsion system for a given wing structure. The model will also pro-
vide spring rate and damping requirements for vibration isolation devices.
Task II - Evaluation of Alternate Mounting Concepts
Conceptual designs will be prepared for up to three different propulsion sys-

tem mounting arrangements.
270
Months from go-ahead 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .13 14 15
Task I
Identify reqmntel
modelling strategies
Task II
Preliminary system
Integration plan
Task III
Airframe coordination
II
Task IV
Barrier technology
identified
Technology & research
plan
Figure 4.5-3l Propulsion System Mounting Study - This study will address key
propulsion system mounting issues: vibration isolation and wing
flutter. (J27638-218)
Task III- Cost/Benefit Analysis
An economic analysis will be conducted to select the best mounting system for
a Prop-Fan powered aircraft.
Task IV - Preliminary Design
A preliminary design will be prepared for the mounting system selected in Task
Ill. The preliminary design will specify vibration isolation requirements, de-
fine propulsion system dynamic characteristics, provide a method for struc-
turally integrating the reduction gearbox with the engine, and identify modu-
lar maintenance concepts for the mounting system.
nologies identified in this study and to ensure timely response to issues
which could delay certification of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft.
4.5.6.3 Engine/Aircraft Heat Rejection Study
A critical characteristic of the Prop-Fan propulsion system is the significant

amount of heat generated in the oil systems relative to current turbofan en-
gines producing comparable thrust. In fact, the heat in the oil systems is so
great that the systems cannot be effectively cooled by the fuel consumed in
the engine. To alleviate this problem, several air/oil cooling concepts were
evaluated in the APET Definition Study. However, these systems were eliminated
from consideration due to significant weight, cost and/or performance penal-
ties.
271
A system in which the fuel in the aircraft tanks is used as a heat sink and a
supplementary air/oil cooler is provided for auxiliary operation was finally
selected. Since this is a relatively new concept, the airframe manufacturers
recommended that additional studies be conducted to assess the relative merits
of the system. The engineaircraft heat rejection program shown in Figure
4.5-32 will address the key technical considerations for this system. A de-
scription of the individual tasks in the program follows. At the outset of the
study, the total heat rejection for the propulsion system (engine, gearbox,
and Prop-Fan) and aircraft (environmental systems, etc.) will be determined.
Months from go-ahead
Task.__._l
, 2 3141++1,]+ , ,0
Define base
concept
' '
_ 7Recommend
fuel/oil cooler
a
Fuel/oil heat rejection system concept

Task II
I ,.J. Define
_/ base
concept _ I
7Recommend I
AIr/oll supplementary heat supplementary
rejection system concept
Task III
Comparison of "proposed"
system with a
"conventional" heat
F---7
NASA approval of
rejection system
proposed system
Task IV
Preliminary design of proposed system t I

Task V
Barrier technology
Technology
identification
and research plan
I-
T
Figure 4.5-32 Engine/Aircraft Heat Rejection Study - This program will

address key technical considerations for a keat rejection
system for a Prop-Fan powered aircraft. (J27638-2]9)
Task I - Fuel/Oil Heat Rejection System
The use of fuel in the aircraft tanks as a heat sink will be evaluated. Major
considerations include:
Tank capacities, flight utilization and cooling rates

Engine-to-tank line heat loss definition
Tank location and fuel management benefits
Fuel deicing
Heat rejection loads for aircraft subsystems
Task II - Supplementary Air/Oil Cooler System
The supplementary air/oil cooler system used for auxiliary operation will be
evaluated. Major factors include the design of low drag inlets and exhaust,
and definition of the sizing, location, and operational requirements of the
system.
272
Task III - Comparison with Conventional Heat Rejection System
The fuel/oil heat rejection system with supplementary air/oil cooler will be
compared to a conventional heat rejection system on the basis of cost and per-
formance characteristics.
Task IV - Preliminary Design
With the approval of the NASA Program Manager, a preliminary design will be
developed for the basic fuel/oil heat rejection system and the supplementary
air/oil cooler.
nologies identified in this study and to ensure timely response to issues
which could delay certification of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft.
4.5.6.4 Integrated Propulsion/Aircraft Control Study
The control system identified in the APET Definition Study (Section 4.3.1.6)
is an advanced, dual channel, full authority digital electronic control incor-
_)UIGblII_ I_ltt**blUIIll. _,II_.Ul blJF, I IU¢l UI./klb_) , QIIU U_GI I¢_,IUlIUQII_.J III _mm¢ v, bum
control paths. The control provides independent control of Prop-Fan blade pitch
(synchrophasing, etc.), engine speed/power setting, automatic control in steady
state and transient operation for forward/reverse thrust, and protective meas-
ures for limiting torque, temperature, overspeed, and possible system f._;It
(Prop-Fan feathering, windmilling, etc.). However, this control system is con-
ceptual in nature. A program is required to identify and verify the technology
for an effective, integrated control system for a Prop-Fan powered aircraft by
1988.
Experience has shown that a comprehensive plan for integrating the components
in the propulsion system electronic control with other aircraft systems can
lead to major improvements in safety, performance and cost. The primary em-
phasis in this study will be a thorough examination and understanding of the
requirements posed by an integrated control system concept. A fundamental
approach to control system evaluation is the use of models to qualitatively
assess alternate configurations and design approaches. This study will identi-
fy the methodology for designing a high quality integrated control system and
present a plan for addressing barrier technology issues.
The schedule for the integrated propulsion system/aircraft control study is

shown in Figure 4.5-33. A description of the individual tasks follows.
273
3 4 5 6 9 10
. Months from go-ahead
Task I
Model the baseline aircraft/
propulsion system mounting
NASA approval of up to
arrangement
3 concepts to be evaluated
Task II
Evaluation of up to 3 alternate __ Recommend one

mounting concepts
Task III
_untlng coicept
Coat/benefit systems study
E_ NASA approval
comparing all candidate systems
of 1 concept
Task IV 7 for PD effort
I I
Preliminary design of
selected mounting concept
Task V
m
Barrier technology identified
Technology & research plan
Figure 4.5-33 Integrated Propulsion System/Aircraft Control Study Schedule -

In this study, technology for an integrated control system for
a Prop-Fan powered aircraft will be developed and verified.
(j27638-Z20)
Task I - Identify Requirements and Modeling Strategies for Control System

Design and Evaluation
A Systems Requirement Document will be generated to define specific functional

and performance requirements for the propulsion and aircraft systems. This
document will provide a focal point for identifying features to be incorporat-
ed in the electronic control. Advanced modeling techniques will be used to
evaluate various control system concepts and design approaches on the basis of
cost, weight, and maintenance considerations.
Task II - Preliminary System Integration Plan
The Systems Requirement Document (SRD) will be used to create a preliminary

System Integration Plan. This plan will ensure that the technology features
identified in Task I are incorporated in the integrated electronic control for
the Prop-Fan propulsion system. Experience with control systems for the PW2000
and PW4000 engine families will provide significant input to the integration
plan.
274
The System Integration Plan covers seven major factors in control system
des i gn:
0 Create control modes and laws that satisfy system performance require-
ments.
0 Define component reliability characteristics that ensure safety and main-
tai nabil ity.
0 Describe the physical arrangement of the components and the interface
requi rements.
0 Coordinate aircraft interface requirements with airframe manufacturers
and translate them into control system requirements.
0 Define a fault accommodation system that meets reliability requirements.
0 Provide maintenance capability that minimizes end-user costs and maxi-
mizes aircraft utilization.
0 Ensure that the system can be proof-tested prior to industry development.
Task III- Identify Airframe Coordination Requirements
The electronic control for the Prop-Fan powered aircraft will provide effec-
tive management of the propulsion system, safety of flight, and displays of
meaningful information for airplane operation. The requirements and recommen-
dations of the airframe manufacturer will be incorporated in the finai design
of the control system.
Task IV - Research and Technology Plan
nologies identified in this study and to ensure timely response to issues that
could delay certification of a Prop-Fan powered aircraft.
275
SECTION5.0
CONCLUSIONS
ANDRECO_,_ENDATIONS
SECTION 5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Definition Study was successful in

achieving its objectives: (1) a turboprop propulsion system to be combined
with the Prop-Fan was defined; (2) the Prop-Fan propulsion system was compared
to a similar technology turbofan system in a 120-passenger short-range air-
craft; (3) key propulsion system technologies were identified. These technolo-
gies must be verified before initiating Prop-Fan design and development, lead-
ing to ai rplane certi ficati on.
The Prop-Fan propulsion system has the potential to provide very large fuel
burn and direct operating cost advantages relative to a turbofan system with
comparable technology. However, many key technologies have to be verified be-
fore industry will risk committing billions of dollars to the certification
process for a Prop-Fan powered aircraft. In addition to the planned Large
Advanced Propeller (LAP) and Propeller Test Assembly (PTA) programs, it is
recommended that NASA also undertake programs involving (I) a large-size
reduction gear, (2) Prop-Fan/nacelle/inlet/compressor interactions, and (3)
small-size high-pressure compressors. Details of these recommended programs
have been included in Section 4.5.
In addition, many engine/airframe issues remain unresolved, which could result

in identification of other key technologies requiring verification. Joint
engine/aircraft studies are recommended to address these key issues. These
studies include: (I) free vs non-free power turbine engine/aircraft integra-
tion, (2) engine and aircraft oil heat rejection, (3) propulsion system mount-
ing and the effect of the mounting system on vibration isolation and wing
flutter, and (4) an integrated propulsion system/aircraft control.
277
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
APET Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology
BSFC block specific fuel consumption

Btu British thermal unit
Cv velocity coefficient
CET combustor exit temperature
CIT combustor inlet temperature
CO carbon monoxide
dB decibel
DN bearing life (diameter X speed)
DOC direct operating cost
E3 Energy Efficient Engine

EPNL effective perceived noise level
FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Air Regulation
Fn net thrust
ftlsec feet per second
HC hydrocarbon
HP horsepower
HPC high-pressure compressor
HPT high-pressure temperature
ICAC initial cruise altitude capabilities

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IPT intermediate pressure turbine
kg/sec kilogram per second

kw/min kilowatt per minute
LAP large advance propeller

lb/sec pound per second
LCF low cycle fatigue
LPC low-pressure compressor
M or Mn mach number
MCL maximum climb
MCR maximum cruise
m/sec millimeter per second
MTBR mean time before removal
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOx oxides of nitrogen
?RECEDING PAGE BLAI_iK NOT FILMED

279
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (Continued)
OEW operating empty weight

OPR w
overall pressure ratio
P/P m
pressure ratio
PIT m
total pressure
PTA m
propeller test assembly
SFC B
specific fuel consumption
shp shaft horesepower
STF study turbofan
STS study turboshaft
Tmax maximum temperature

TOFL takeoff field length
TOGW takeoff gross weight
TSFC thrust specific fuel consumption
UTRC United Technologies Research Center
V" e jet velocity

V_P Vehicle Analysis Modular Programming System
WAF fan ai rfl ow

Wa ai rfl ow
8 mean turning angle
corrected pressure
A finite change
280
REFERENCES
•
Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Definition Study Procedures and As-
sumptions, Contractor Report No. PWA-5869-6, April 1982.
o
Revel1, J. D., Bolena, F.J., and Koval, L.R., "Analytical Study of In-
terior Noise Control by Fuselage Design Techniques on High _peed, Propel-
ler Driven Aircraft," NASA CR-159222, April 1980.
o
Revel1, J. D., Bolena, F.J., and Koval, L.R., "Interior Noise Control by
Fuselage Design for High Speed, Propeller Driven Aircraft," Journal of
Aircraft, Vo1. 19, January 1982, pp. 39-45.
281
PROP FAN DISTRIBUTION LIST
NASA Lewis Research Center NASA Lewis Research Center

21000 Brookpark Road 21000 Brookpark Road
Cleveland, OH 44135 Cleveland, OH 44135
Attn: Report Control Office. MS 60-I Attn: J.E. Rohde, MS 86-7 (1)
(1)

Attn: Library, MS 60-3 (2) Attn: D.A, Sagerser, MS 86-7 (1)

Attn: L.J. Bober, MS 86-7 (1) Attn: G.K. Sievers, MS 86-7 (1)

Attn: L.C. Franciscus, MS 6-12 (1) Attn: W.C. Strack, MS 6-12 (1)

Attn: E.J. Graber, MS 86-7 (1) Attn: O.A. Ziemianski, MS 86-7 (1)
NASA Lewis Research Center NASA Scientific and Technical

21000 Brookpark Road Information Facility
Cleveland, OH 44135 P. O. Box 8757
Attn: J.F. Groeneweg, MS 86-7 (1) Baltimore Washington Intn'1 Airport
Baltimore, MD 21240
Attn: Accessioning Dept. (20)

NASA Headquarters
21000 Brookpark Road Washington, DC 20546
Cleveland, OH 44135 Attn: RJ/Cecil Rosen (1)
Attn: G.A. Kraft, MS 86-7 (25)
NASA Lewis Research Center NASA Headquarters

21000 Brookpark Road Washington, DC 20546
Cleveland, OH 44135 Attn: RP/J.R. Facey (1)
Attn: E.T. Meleason, MS 86-7 (1)
283
NASA Ames Research Center Naval Air Systems Command
Moffett Field, CA 94035 Jefferson Plaza #1
Attn: D.P. Bencze, MS 227-6 (1) Arlington, VA 20360
Attn: a. Klapper, AIR 532C-1 (1)
NASA Ames Research Center Naval Air Propulsion Center

Moffett Field, CA 94035 P. O. Box 7176
Attn: R.C. Smith, MS 227-6 (i) Trenton, NJ 08628
Attn: P. J. Mangione, MS PC-32 (2)
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Allison Gas Turbine Operations

P. O. Box 273 General Motors Corporation
Edwards, CA 93523 P.O. Box 894
Attn: R.S. Baron, MS D-FP (1) Indianapolis, IN 46206 0894
Attn: R.D. Anderson, MS T-18 (1)
NASA Langley Research Center Allison Gas Turbine Operations

Hampton, VA 23665 General Motors Corporation
Attn: C. Driver, MS 249A (1) P.O. Box 894
Indianapolis, IN 46206-0894
Attn: A.S. Novick, MS T-18 (6)
NASA Langley Research Center Allison Gas Turbine Operations

Hampton, VA 23665 General Motors Corporation
Attn: R. W. Koenig, MS 249 (1) P.O. Box 894
Indianapolis, IN 46206-0894
Attn: D.A. Wagner, MS T 18 (i)
NASA Langley Research Center Beech Aircraft Corporation

Hampton, VA 23665 Wichita, KS 67201
Attn: Research Information Center Attn: R.W. Awker (2)
MS ISIA (1)
Air Force Aero Propulsion Lab Boeing Commercial Airplane Company

Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433 P. O. Box 3707
Attn: H.F. Jones AFWAL/POSL (3) Seattle, WA 98124
Attn: G.P. Evelyn, MS 72-27 (3)
Naval Air Systems Command Boeing Military Airplane Company

Jefferson Plaza #I P. O. Box 7730
Arlington, VA 20360 Wichita, KS 67277-7730
Attn: G. Derderian, AIR 310-E (3) Attn: D. Axelson, MS K77-24 (2)
284
Boeing Military Airplane Company General Electric Company
P. O. Box 7730 Aircraft Engine Group
Wichita, KS 67277-7730 One Neumann Way
Attn: C. T. Havey, MS 75-76 (2) Cincinnati, OH 45215
Attn: J.E. Johnson, M.S. H6, Bldg 305
(8)
Cessna Aircraft Company Grumman Aerospace Corporation

P. O. Box 154 Bethpage, NY 11714
Wichita, KS 67201 Attn: N.F. Dannenhoffer, M.S. C32-05
Attn: Dave Ellis, Dept• 178 (2)
(1)
Douglas Aircraft Co. Grumman Aerospace Corporation

3855 Lakewood Blvd. Bethpage, NY I1714
Long Beach, CA 90801 Attn: C. Lehman, M.S. C42 05 (1)
Attn: R.F. Chaplet, MS 3641 (I)
Douglas Aircraft Co• Grumman Aerospace Corporation

3855 Lakewood Blvd. Bethpage, NY 11714
Long Beach, CA 90801 Attn: J. Karanik, M.S. C32-05 (I)
(I)
Douglas Aircraft Co. Hamilton Standard Division, UTC

3855 Lakewood Blvd. Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Long Beach, CA 90801 Attn: J.A. Baum, M.S. I-2-11 (1)
Attn: E.S. Johnson, MS 3641 (1)
Douglas Aircraft Co. Hamilton Standard Division, UTC

3855 Lakewood Blvd. Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Long Beach, CA 90801 Attn: S. H. Cohen, M.S. 1 2=11 (1)
Attn: F.C. Newton, MS 3584 (1)
The Garret Corporation Hamilton Standard Division, UTC

One First National Plaza Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Suite 1900 Attn: B. S. Gatzen, M.S. I-2-11 (2)
Dayton, OH 45402
Attn: A.E. Hause (1)
General Electric Company Hamilton Standard Division, UTC

Aircraft Engine Business Group Windsor Locks, CT 06096
lO00"Western Avenue Attn: M. G. Mayo, M.S. IA 3 2 (2)
Lynn, MA 01905
Attn: R.J. Willis, Jr., M.S. WL 345
(2)
235
Hartzell Propeller Products Pratt &Whitney Aircraft
P. O. Box 1458 United Technologies Corporation
1800 Covington Avenue Military Products Division
Piqua, OH 45356 P. O. Box 2691
Attn: A. R. Disbrow (1) West Palm Beach FL 33402
Attn: L. L. Coons, M.S. 711-69 (1)
Lockheed-California Company Pratt & Whitney Aircraft

P. O. Box 551 United Technologies Corporation
Burbank, CA 91503 Military Products Division
Attn: A.R. Yackle, P. O. Box 2691
Bldg. 90-1, Dept. 69-05 .(2) West Palm Beach FL 33402
Attn: W. King, M.S. 702-05 (1)
Lockheed-Georgia Company Pratt &Whitney Aircraft

86 South Cobb Drive United Technologies Corporation
Marietta, GA 30063 Military Products Division
Attn: W.E. Arndt, M.S. 9/72-17, P. O. Box 2691
Zone 418 (4) West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Attn: H. D. 5nyder, M.S. 711-67 (1)
Lockheed-Georgia Company Pratt & Whitney Aircraft

86 South Cobb Drive United Technologies Corporation
Marietta, GA 30063 Military Products Division
Attn: D.H. Winkeljohn, H.S. D/72-79, P. O. Box 2691
Zone 419 (I) West Palm Beach FL 33402
Attn: S. Spoleer, M.S. 702-50 (1)
Pratt & Whitney Pratt & Whitney Aircraft

United Technology Corporation United Technologies Corporation
Commercial Products Division Military Products Division
400 Main Street P. 0. Box 2691
East Hartford, CT 06108 West Palm Beach FL 33402
Attn: a. Godston, M.5. 118-26 (1) Attn: H.D. Stetson, M.S. 713--09 (1)
Pratt & Whitney Sikorsky Aircraft

United Technology Corporation Transmission Engineering
Commercial Products Division North Main Street
400 Main Street Stratford, CT 06601
East Hartford, CT 06108 Attn: R. Stone M.S. S-318A (3)
Attn: A. H. McKibbin, M.S. 163-12 (1)
Pratt & Whitney Williams International

United Technology Corporation 2280 West Maple Road
Commercial Products Division P. O. Box 200
400 Main Street Walled Lake, MI 48088
East Hartford, CT 06108 Attn: Edward Lays, M.S. 4-9 (1)
Attn: C. Reynolds, M.5. I18-26 (6)
Pratt & Whitney Air Canada

United Technology Corporation Dorval Base H4Y-ICZ
CommErcial Products Division Quebec, Canada
400 Main Street Attn: Goeff Haigh - Zip 14 (1)
East Hartford, CT 06108
Attn: C. V. Sundt, M.S. 118-27 (1)
286
Air Canada
Dorval Base H4Y-ICZ
Quebec, Canada
Attn: G.H. 3ones - Zip 66 (l)
Air Transport Association

1709 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, OC 20006
Attn: O.J. Collier (1)
Delta Air Lines Inc.

Hartsfield Atlanta Intn'l Airport
Atlanta, GA 30320
Attn: 3.T. Davis, Engr Dept. (2)
Federal Express
P. O. Box 727-4021
Memphis, TN 38194
Attn: B. H. Dotson, H.S. 4021 (1)
Ozark Air Lines Inc.

P. O. Box 10007
Lambert St. Louis Airport
St. Louis, MO 63145
Attn: Phil Rogers, Engrg Dept. (i)
Trans World Airlines Inc.

605 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Attn: Engineering Dept. (2)
United Air Lines

San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, CA 94128
Attn: Richard Coykendall
(2)
287

Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology (APET) Single-AND Counter - Rotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Mechanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology (APET) Single-AND Counter - Rotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Mechanism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology (APET) Single-AND Counter - Rotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Mechanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

/

National Aeronautics and

(I_ASA-CB- 168 1 lq-_Cl- 1) AD V A liC_.._ EH CI:'-F AB N87-28552

7.AUTHOR(S ) 8. PERFORMING ORG. REPT. HO.

9.PERFORatING ORG. NA,_IEAHr) ADDRESS 10. I_IORKUKIIT _JO.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contractor Final Report

NASA Lewis Research Center

?_,_=D|,_u PAGE BL._'_'_ NOT FILMED

3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 7

3.2 Task I - Selection of Evaluation Procedures and

3.3 Task II - Cycle Optimization and Engine Configuration

3.4 Task III- Propulsion System Integration 14

3.5 Task IV Results - Engine/Aircraft Evaluation 17

3.6 Task V Results - Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Plan 2O

3.7 Comparison With Counter Rotation Propulsion 2O

3.8 Relevancy of Prop-Fan Propulsion to Military Applications 21

4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Task I - Selection of Evaluation Procedures and Assumptions 25

4.2 Task II - Cycle Optimization and Engine Configuration

4.3 Task III- Propulsion System Integration 123

4.4 Task IV - Engine/Aircraft Evaluation 1 93

4.5 Task V - Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology Plan 223

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 277

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 279

i A detailed Table of Contents for each major section I

.............. afv nf ;_nnrn;_rh_=(: fn fijrnnnrn_ nrnnul_inn fnur different

The objectives of the Advanced Prop-Fan Technology (APET) Definition Study

Task I - Study Procedures and Assumptions

Pratt & Whitney prepared a Study Procedures and Assumptions docu_=ent to

Task II - Engine Configuration and Cycle Evaluation

Four different turboprop engine configurations were evaluated. Trade fac-

Task Ill - Propulsion System Integration Studies

The most promising engine configurations were assessed in integrated pro-

Task IV - Engine/Aircraft Evaluation

Proprietary information, including engine technology verification program costs

Table of Contents for Section 3.0

3.2 TASK I - SELECTION OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND ASSUMPTIONS

3.3 TASK II - CYCLE OPTIMIZATION AND ENGINE CONFIGURATION SELECTION 8

3.4 TASK III - PROPULSION SYSTEM INTEGRATION 14

3.5 TASK IV - ENGINE/AIRCRAFT EVALUATION 17

3.6 TASK V - ADVANCED PROP-FAN ENGINE TECHNOLOGY PLAN 20

3.7 COMPARISON WITH COUNTER ROTATION PROPULSION 20

3.8 RELEVANCY OF PROP-FAN PROPULSION TO MILITARY APPLICATIONS 21

3-I Reference Turbofan Engine (STF686) 9

3-2 Factors Considered in Selecting the Optimum Cycle lO

3-3 Overall Pressure Ratio as a Function of Engine Size at 1,426°C

3-4 Turboprop Engine Configuration Candidates and Evaluation Summary 12

3-5 Two-Spool Engine With All-Axial Compression 13

3-6 Three-Spool Engine With Axial/Centrifugal Compression 13

3-7 In-Line Gearbox Propulsion System Installation 16

3-8 Offset Gearbox Propulsion System Installation 16

3-9 Noise Predictions l_

List of Tables for Section 3.0

3-II Prop-Fan Airplane Trade Factors 9

3-1II Turbofan and Prop-Fan Engine Characteristic Comparisons 17

3-1V Weight Comparison of Prop-Fan and Turbofan Powered Aircraft 18

3-V Comparison of Prop-Fan to Turbofan Powered Aircraft 18

3-VI International Civil Aviation Organization

M=n_, mnv',-_ _nn_n_/_rCr_f inf_nr_finn _f,Jni_c _main fn hp cnndlJrtpd which may