1. TEAM PARADIGM 6 SYSTEM DEFINITION REVIEW Farah Abdullah Stephen Adams Noor Emir Anuar Paul Davis Zherui Guo Steve McCabe Zack Means Mizuki Wada Askar Yessirkepov 1

2. Presentation Overview 2  Missions Review  Mission Statement  Design Mission and Typical Operating Mission  Compliance Matrix  Concept Generation & Selection  Overview  Initial Concepts  Selected Concepts  Cabin Layout Configuration and Dimension  Process of Cabin Layout  Seats Selection  Layout Concepts  QFD and Trend Study  Advanced Technologies  Technologies Under Consideration  Technologies’ Impacts  Engine / Propulsion ◦ Engine Concept ◦ Engine Sizing  Constraint Analysis ◦ W 0 /S, T/W 0 estimates ◦ Compliance Matrix  Sizing Code ◦ Current Status ◦ Validation of Code ◦ TOGW Estimates  Stability and Control Estimates ◦ Location of c.g. ◦ Static Margin Estimates ◦ Tail Sizing Approach  Summary and Next Steps

3. Mission Statement 3  Implement advanced technologies to design a future large commercial airliner (200 passenger minimum) that simultaneously addresses all of the N+2 goals for noise, emissions and fuel burn as set forth by NASA.  Use market driven parameters to design a realistic and desirable aircraft.

4. Design Mission 4  Max design range : 6500nm  Covers weather issues  Max capacity : 250 passengers  Max cruise Mach : 0.85  Cruise Altitude : 35000ft Taxi and take off Climb Cruise Land and taxi Missed approach 2 nd Climb Divert to alternate Loiter (25min.) Loiter (25 min.) Land and taxi 12 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 Designed Range 6000nm Dubai New York 200nm 13 1-7 : Basic Mission 7-13: Reserve Segment Satisfy FAA requirement of min. 45 min additional cruise for night time flights

5. Typical Operating Mission 5  Mission Range: 2400nm  Max capacity : 300 passengers  Max cruise Mach : 0.85  Cruise Altitude : 30000ft 5 Taxi and take off Climb Cruise Land and taxi Missed approach 2 nd Climb Divert to alternate Loiter (25min.) Loiter (25 min.) Land and taxi 12 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 Designed Range 2400nm Seattle Miami 100nm 13 1-7 : Basic Mission 7-13: Reserve Segment High Capacity Medium Haul Aircraft

6. Compliance Matrix 6 Reference (B777— 200) TargetThreshold (Phase 1) Threshold (Phase 2) Noise Levels272 dB cum.230 dB (-42dB)246 dB (-20 dB) LTO NO x Emissions 26 kg/LTO6.5 kg/LTO (-75%)13 kg/LTO (-50%) Fuel Burn2800 kg/hr1400 kg/hr (-50%)1820 kg/hr (-35%) TO Field Length8250-10000 ft 4125-5000 ft (- 50%) 4500-5500 ft Max Payload Range 6560 nmi 6000 nmi6500 nmi Cruise Mach0.85 @ 35,000 ft 0.75 @ 35,000 ft0.8 @ 35,000 ft Passengers305270>200250 http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/AC_A320_01092010.pdf http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103

7. Overview of Process Initial Concepts Selected Concepts Concept Generation & Selection 7

8. Outline of Concept Generation 8 Morphological MatrixBrainstorming1 st Round Pugh’s MethodDiscussions of Pugh Method Results2 nd Round Pugh’s MethodFinal Cabin Layout

9. Morphological Matrix 9

10. Concept Generation  Brainstorming Ideas

11. Pugh’s Method 11

12. Pugh’s Method 12  Results were not conclusive  Need to do more top level analysis to shortlist candidate concepts  Concentrate on NASA ERA N+2 goals in detail

13. 2 nd Round Pugh’s Method 13

14. Selected Concepts  Using Pugh’s Method, the best two concepts were selected for detailed analysis Concept 1Concept 2 U-Tail Engines over tail Blended Wing Body (Generic BWB, detailed analysis will be performed later)

15. Concept 1 15

16. Concept 1 – Cabin Layout 16 Wing Box LD2 Economy Class Seating Business Class Seating

17. Concept 2 17

18. Process of Cabin Layout Seats selection Layout Concepts QFD and Trend Study Cabin Layout Configuration & Dimension 18

19. Input (#pax, #class, and #aisle)Define Seating SizeLayout ConceptsTrend Study and ComparisonFinal Cabin Layout 19 Process of Cabin Layout

20. Cabin Layout Requirements  Maximum 250 passengers  2 class (40 business & 210 economy)  2 crews for business  7 crews for economy

21. Width17.5 inch21 inch Pitch31 inch50 inch 21 Seats selection Airline Coach Seat Sizes (Economy) EconomyBusiness

22.  1 aisle 22 Layout Concepts  2 aisles Fuselage width=W Fuselage length=L W:117in. (2.97m) L: 2876in. (73.04m) W:137in. (3.48m) L: 2384in. (60.57m) W:178in. (4.52m) L: 2068in. (52.52m) W:198in. (5.03m) L: 1862in. (47.31m) W:219in. (5.56m) L: 1739in. (44.16m) W:259in. (6.58m) L: 1483in. (37.68m) 2 - 2 2 - 3 2 – 2 - 2 2 – 3 - 2 2 – 4 - 2 2 – 5 - 2

23. 23 Trend Study and Comparison

24.  Concept1 24 Final Cabin Layout and Dimensions Pitch=31in. (Economy) (pitch=50in. for business) Width=193in. (5.03m) ≈1456.69in. (37m) (total fuselage=1862in. (47.31m)

25.  Concept2: Initial layout 25 Final Cabin Layout and Dimensions  2 separated business class  4 divided compartments for economy class  Further study is needed to optimize the cabin layout

26. Technologies Under Consideration Technologies’ Impacts Advanced Technologies 26

27. Noise reduction  Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustics  Leading Edge High-Lift device modification  Perforated Landing Gear Fairings  Airframe Noise Shielding  Ultra-high bypass geared turbofan engine

28. Fuel burn and NO x reduction  Active Engine Control  Laminar Flow Control  Gas Foil Bearings  All-Composite Fuselage  Ultra-high bypass geared turbofan engine

29. Technology/ Advanced Concept TRL 6+ NowTRL 6+ by 2020Fuel BurnNOxNoiseOther Benefits Active Engine Control Yes Up to 1% Reduction N/A Longer on-wing life Gas Foil (“oil- free”) Bearings in high-bypass turbofan engines NoYes-3.05% Fuel Burn Up to 3.05% Reduction N/A Safer, more reliable than current Composite Fuselage Yes Up to 2% Reduction N/A stronger, less parts, longer life Laminar Flow Control NoYes-28.2% fuel burn Up to 25% Reduction Up to 1 dB reduction Reduce drag Leading Edge High-lift Device Modification NoYesUp to1% increase Up to 1 dB reduction Increase Lift generation Ultra High-Bypass Geared Turbofan Engine NoYes-20% fuel burn-50% emissionsStage 4 – 20DBN/A Propulsion Airframe Aero acoustics Yes Up to1% increase -1.1 to -4 dBN/A Perforated Landing Gear Fairings Yes Up to1% increase -3db to -4db Reduce Turbulence Airframe Noise Shielding Yes Up to1% increase -15 to -20 dBN/A

30. Engine Concept Engine Sizing Engine / Propulsion 30

31. Engine/Propulsion  Engine under consideration:  Geared Turbofan Less noise Less NOx emissions Less SFC Direct-drive lighter than Geared

32. Table: Turbofan engines currently in market Table: Geared turbofan experiment AircraftEngine typeThrust at SL(lb)SFCMax. Pressure RatioBypass Ratio B767-200ERCF6-80A48,000-50,0000.355 - 0.35727.3 - 28.44.59 - 4.66 A310-200CF6-80C252,500 - 63,5000.307 - 0.34427.1 - 31.85 - 5.31 JT9D48,000 - 56,000 23.4 - 26.75 Gear Type Exhaust typeT sls (lb) Fan Diameter (in) Pressure Ratio Bypass Ratio Takeoff Pressure Ratio Reverse Thrust (%) GearedMixed3980091.91.558.4/8.638/3648-55 DirectMixed3480078.91.716.1/6.338/3643-50 Engine Specifications

33. Sizing  Using equations from Raymer  “Rubber” engine  T sls = [W 0 *(T/W 0 )]/n eng  Sizing factor SF=T sls /(T sls ) base L=L base (SF) 0.4 D=D base (SF) 0.5 W=W base (SF) 1.1 SFC=(SFC) base (SF) -0.1 Same with emissions

34. Tech. Factors  Different Fuels  Chevron Nozzle  Fuel Flow Control  Engine types  Direct Drive Vs. Geared  Unducted Turbofan  Turboprop

35. Performance Constraints W0/S, T/W0 estimates Trade Studies Compliance Matrix Constraint Diagrams 35

36. Major Performance Constraints 36  Noise Level  Fuel Economy  Takeoff Ground Roll  Landing Ground Roll  NOx Emissions  Service Ceiling/Cruise Mach  Passenger Count > 200 From Compliance Matrix

37. Constraint Diagram Parameters  top of climb (1g steady, level flight, M = 0.8 @ h=40K, service ceiling)  sustained subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @ h =10K takeoff  ground roll 6000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day  landing braking ground roll 2000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day  second segment climb gradient above h = 5K, +15° hot day

38. Initial Estimates for U-Tail  Cl max (TO) = 1.7  Cl max (Landing) = 2.25 (Single Fowler, no slat)  Service Ceiling = 40000 ft  Take-off Ground Roll = 6000 ft  Landing Braking Ground Roll = 2000 ft  Mach Number = 0.8  Aspect Ratio = 8  Reverse Thrust coefficient = 0.25

39. Initial Constraint Diagram – U-Tail Tube & Wing

40. U-Tail Trade Study Service Ceiling Mach NumberARCl max (TO) Cl max (Landing) Takeoff Ground Roll Braking Ground Roll Alpha Reverse T/WW/SNotes 400000.8591.73.17000200000.29146 400000.891.62.4800020000.250.28130 400000.8591.72.25600020000.250.29122 400000.8591.62.4600020000.250.28112 400000.8591.62.46000200000.28112 Removing thrust reversal did not change T/W and W/S results 400000.8591.62.256000200000.28112 400000.891.62.4600020000.250.28110 400000.87.51.62.4500020000.250.31106 400000.88.51.72.256000200000.31104 400000.881.62.4500020000.250.3102 400000.88.51.62.4500020000.250.2998 400000.881.72.25600020000.250.32124 Baseline (ft)----

41. Updated Estimates for U-Tail  Cl max (TO) = 1.7  Cl max (Landing) = 2.5 (Single slotted Fowler + Slat)  Service Ceiling = 40000 ft  Take-off Ground Roll = 6000 ft  Landing Braking Ground Roll = 2000 ft  Mach Number = 0.8  Aspect Ratio = 9  Reverse Thrust coefficient = 0.25

42. Updated Constraint Diagram – U-Tail Tube & Wing 42

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

44. Constraint Diagram – Blended Wing Body 44

45. Current Status Validation of Code TOGW Estimates P6CAF-IncAR P6BWB-ScalAR Sizing Code 45

46. Current Status 46  Completed:  Drag components – Parasite drag, Induced drag  Lift components – Wing, Tail  Field length functions – Takeoff/Landing  Propulsion – Rubber engine sizing  LTO, Cruise, Loiter weight fraction calculations  Component weight sizing  NOx, dB emissions estimation based on historical data

47. Major Assumptions 47  NOx emission estimation based on CAEP 6 best fit curve  Noise levels based on best fit from current engine data  Horizontal tail scaled from wing

48. Implemented Technologies 48 WeightFuel BurnNOxNoise Active Engine Control Gas Foil (“oil-free”) Bearings in high-bypass turbofan engines Composite Fuselage Laminar Flow Control Leading Edge High-lift Device Modification Ultra High-Bypass Geared Turbofan Engine Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustics Perforated Landing Gear Fairings Airframe Noise Shielding

49. Comparison with 767-200ER 49 Parameter767-200ERSizing Code% Dev. MTOW (lb)395000 382090 -3.27 Empty Weight (lb)186000 174170 -6.36 Fuel Weight (lb)1503201572404.60 Payload Weight (lb)50680 - TO Field Length (ft)*93008454-9.097 Landing Field Length (ft)*55005149 NOx Emissions (g/kN)6265-0.0484 Noise Emissions (dB)283.3282.0-0.486 *assume standard day

50. Comparison with A330-200 50 ParameterA330-200Sizing Code% Dev. MTOW (lb)510000 496170-2.712 Empty Weight (lb)264885 235330-11.158 Fuel Weight (lb)188224 200150+6.336 Payload Weight (lb)56320 - TO Field Length (ft)120809760 Landing Field Length (ft)6010 NOx Emissions (g/kN)279.2285.7+2.328 Noise Emissions (dB)6171+16.393 *assume standard day

51. Parameters for P6CAF-IncAR 51  250 pax  Wing Planform Area = 2500 ft 2  Thrust = 39500 lbf  C Lmax = 2.3  C L α = 0.12  AR = 9.0

52. P6CAF-IncAR Sizing 52 Parameter767-200ERP6CAF-InCAR TOGW (lb)387,000235,920 W e (lb)186,000126,880 W f (lb)150,32052,637 Noise (dB)274.7 NOx (g/kN)6260.6 Pax224250 TO Field Length (ft)*90006575 Landing Field Length (ft)*55005870 T/W00.32720.3282 W0/S127.1594.92 *assume standard day

53. Parameters for P6BWB-ScalAR 53  250 pax  Wing Planform Area = 2910 ft 2  Thrust = 42200 lbf  C Lmax = 2.3  C L α = 0.13

54. P6BWB-ScalAR Sizing 54 Parameter767-200ERP6BWB-ScalARBWB-450 a TOGW (lb)387,000235,390823,000 W e (lb)186,000110,320412,000 W f (lb)150,32072778- Noise (dB)274.7279.7- NOx (g/kN)6265- Pax224 800 TO Field Length (ft)6020 Landing Field Length (ft)4120 T/W00.3400 W0/S83.589

55. Location of c.g. Static margin estimates Tail sizing approach P6CAF-IncAR P6BWB-ScalAR Stability & Control Estimates 55

56. Center of Gravity Locations  Used Raymer’s Table 15.2 as a guide  Tube-and-wing U-tail design has initial c.g. estimated 112.22 feet from nose of aircraft  Blended-wing body design has initial c.g. estimated 42.10 feet from nose of aircraft

57. Static Margin Estimates  Using c.g. and neutral point estimates, static margins can be calculated from:  Tube-and-wing body SM = 17.56%  Blended-wing body SM = -60.94%

58. Tail Sizing  Initial tail sizing done using equations 6.28 and 6.29 from Raymer’s text  Tube-and-wing body:  S HT = 1316.61 ft 2  S VT = 930.01 ft 2  Blended-wing body is tailless

59. Summary of Concepts Next Steps Summary 59

60. Summary 60  Two concepts chosen show potential for achieving target values  Constraint diagrams show range of allowable T/W 0 and W 0 /S values to use in sizing  Sizing code models base aircraft (767-200ER) parameters to a currently acceptable accuracy

61. Concept 1 61 U-Tail Geared Turbofan High AR wings Streamlined Fuselage

62. Concept 1 – Cabin Layout 62 Wing Box LD2 Economy Class Seating Business Class Seating

63. Concept 2 63 Engines Wingtips as Rudder Lifting Fuselage

64. Dimensions 64 Concept 1Concept 2 Length60.412 m25.462 m Wingspan64.000 m72.000 m Width5.000 m13.804 m (Fuselage) Height7.000 m9.303 m Cabin Height2.300 m2.0 m (estimated)

65. Compliance Matrix 65 Reference (B777— 200) TargetThreshold (Phase 1) Threshold (Phase 2) Noise Levels272 dB cum.230 dB (-42dB)246 dB (-20 dB) LTO NO x Emissions 26 kg/LTO6.5 kg/LTO (-75%)13 kg/LTO (-50%) Fuel Burn2800 kg/hr1400 kg/hr (-50%)1820 kg/hr (-35%) TO Field Length8250-10000 ft 4125-5000 ft (- 50%) 4500-5500 ft Max Payload Range 6560 nmi 6000 nmi6500 nmi Cruise Mach0.85 @ 35,000 ft 0.75 @ 35,000 ft0.8 @ 35,000 ft Passengers305270>200250 http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/AC_A320_01092010.pdf http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103

66. Next Steps 66  Obtain appropriate airfoil data  Interpolation / XFLR5 design  Model engine in sizing code to vary with altitude  Model NOx emissions and dB levels more accurately  Currently using CAEP-6 best fit curve  dB levels based on historical data