PRIMARYSCREEN
1A
Imber- [im-ber] m (genitive imbris);
1. rain2. a stormcloud
TORRENT 19
2A
The Team(Imber Tech)
Kevin WarrenDesign Team Lead (DTL)
Kelsey KechersonAssistant DTL
Jared BasileAerodynamics/CAD
Michael BrowneStructures/Landing Gear
Anthony SalazarStructures/Landing Gear
Matthew HanusWeight and Balance
David WilsonStability and Control
Inigo RipodasPropulsion Liaison
3A
• Past 20 years:• 14 fatal accidents• Structural failure• Aircraft unable to maneuver in wildfire
weather (up- and down-drafts)
• 36 Crewmen killed
Aerial Firefighting
4A
Figure 1A: Acreage Burned
5A
The future of firefighting aircraft
• Very Large Air Tankers (VLAT) can drop as much as 12 loads of smaller aircraft.
• Only 3 VLAT’s are available:• 2 DC-10-10• 1 747-100
• Dwindling fleet of firefighting aircraft
6A
Why do we need the Dunamis
• No purpose built engine for firefighting
• Available engines will not perform in adverse weather created by wildfires
• Current aircraft can not maintain proper speed and altitude during downdrafts
7A
Overview
Kevin Warren
8A
Overview• Mission Specifications and Profile
• Preliminary Design Components
• Labor Hour and Cost Estimations
• Conclusions and Recommendations
imber tech - Kevin Warren 9A
Mission Specificationand
Profile
Kevin Warren
10A
imber tech - Kevin Warren
Main RFP Requirements:
• 120,000 lb Slurry payload
• 2G emergency maneuver at 150 kts
• TO/Land on 7,000 ft runway
• Operational Radius of 300 nm
• 2500 nm ferry range
• Maximum Cockpit visibility
11A
Figure 2A: Design Point
12A
Loaded Flight Empty Flight
1
2
3
5
7
9
4 86
Figure 3A: Mission Profile
Mission Profile
13A
Aircraft Comparison
Table 1A: Comparison
Imber tech – Kevin Warren
Aircraft Payload (lb)
Take-Off (ft)
Sorties Cruise Speed (knots)
B747 170,000 8,000 1 517DC-10 119,556 10,000 1 310
C-130 J-30 44,000 3,586 7 350Torrent 19 120,000 7,000 3 430
14A
Aircraft Configuration, Layout and Design
Kelsey Kecherson
15A
Configuration• High Wing
• Ground clearance• Short Landing• Servicing
• T-Tail• Engine wash
• Composite Material• Lightweight
imber tech – Kelsey Kecherson 16A
Configuration• High-Cl airfoil• 2g maneuver at slurry drop
• Tank for 120,000 lb of slurry• Pressurized system
• Maximum pilot visibility• Safer low-level navigation
imber tech – Kelsey Kecherson 17A
Configuration• Aft door• Allows slurry tank removal
• High-thrust powerplant• Designed for adverse wildfire conditions
imber tech – Kelsey Kecherson 18A
Cockpit
Kelsey Kecherson
19A
Cockpit
Table 2A: Cockpit Dimensions Table 3A: Cockpit CG Location (From Nose)
X-Location 7.18 ft
Y-Location 0.00 ft
Z-Location 17.6 ft
Length 10.10 ft
Width 12.11 ft
Height (at seat location) 5.30 ft
Seatback Angle 10 deg
imber tech – Kelsey Kecherson 20A
CockpitTable 4A: Required Pilot Vision Angles
Overnose vision angle 21 degOver-the-side vision angle, no head movement 35 degOver-the-side vision angle, head against cockpit glass 70 degUnobstructed vision upward/forward angle 20 degGrazing angle 30 deg
imber tech – Kelsey Kecherson 21A
Wing Layout and Design
Jared Basile
22A
Selection Considerations
• Based on MGTOW: 552,277 lb
• 2G emergency maneuver at 150 KTAS• Required CL = 2.66
• Clean configuration at 120 KTAS• Required CL = 1.53
• MDD > 0.75
imber tech – Jared Basile 23A
Selected AirfoilNASA SC(2)-0714Clmax = 2.09
αstall = 18o
imber tech – Jared Basile 24A
Wing Design Variables
Design Variable Chosen Value
W/S (lb/ft2) 75
λ 0.6
𝛬𝐿𝐸 (deg) 10
AR 9
Dependent Variable Value
S (ft2) 7364
𝛬c/4 (deg) 8.45
𝛬tmax (deg) 7.7
e 0.715
b (ft) 257
Table 5A: Design Variables
Imber tech – Jared Basile 25A
Airfoil to Wing Conversion
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
Airfoil
Wing
(deg)α
Cl o
r CL
Figure 4A: 2D to 3D conversion
imber tech – Jared Basile 26A
Addition of High Lift Devices
Design Variable Chosen Value
cF/c 0.25
δF 20o
Swf/Sw 0.55
Table 6A: Comparison
Imber tech – Jared Basile 27A
Addition of High Lift Devices
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.75-0.5
-0.250
0.250.5
0.751
1.251.5
1.752
2.252.5
2.753
Wing
20 deg Flaps
(deg)α
CL
Figure 5A: Flapped and Unflapped CLαimber tech – Jared Basile 28A
Wing
Figure 6A: Wing
imber tech – Jared Basile 29A
Evaluation of Mcr
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.4 0.48 0.56 0.64 0.72 0.8 0.88 0.96 1.04 1.12
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Cp
Cpcr
M∞
Cp
Figure 7A: Mach Critial
imber tech – Jared Basile 30A
HT Design Variables
Design Variable Chosen Value
λ 0.18
𝛬𝐿𝐸 (deg) 30
AR 5.5
b (ft) 110
Dependent Variable Value
S (ft2) 2200
𝛬c/4 (deg) 24.7
e 0.581
Table 7A: Comparison
Imber tech – Jared Basile 31A
Airfoil to Horizontal Tail
-32 -24 -16 -8 0 8 16 24 32
-2
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
2.8
3.2
Horizontal tail
HT w/ Elevator
AOA
CL
Figure 8A: Horizontal Tail
imber tech – Jared Basile 32A
VT Design Variables
Design Variable Chosen Value
λ 0.9
𝛬𝐿𝐸 (deg) 30
AR 4
b (ft) 35.7
Dependent Variable Value
S (ft2) 1275
𝛬c/4 (deg) 24.7
e 0.632
Table 8A: Design Variables
Imber tech – Jared Basile 33A
Airfoil to Vertical Tail
Figure 9A: Vertical Tail
imber tech – Jared Basile
-32 -24 -16 -8 0 8 16 24 32
-2
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
2.8
3.2
Vertical tailVT w/ Rudder
34A
FuselageStructure
Michael Browne
35A
Fuselage SizingLength = aWc a = 0.23 c = 0.50 W = 690000 lbs
Fuselage Length = 191 ft
Fineness Ratio 8
Inner Diameter = 23.9 ft
Outer Diameter = 24.4 ft
imber tech – Michael Browne 36A
Fuselage Sizing
Parameters ValueMach Drag Divergence 0.8Nose Fineness 1.5Diameter 24.4ftLength 36.7 ft
Table 9A: Nose Cone Sizing
imber tech – Michael Browne 37A
Fuselage Sizing
Parameters ValueDiameter 24.4 ftLength 69 ftAngle 16 degrees
Table 10A: Tail Cone Sizing
imber tech – Michael Browne 38A
Fuselage Sizing
Segment Length (ft)Cockpit 10.10Nose 36.7Tail Cone 69.1Cabin 85.2
Table 11A: Segment Sizes
imber tech – Michael Browne 39A
Fuselage Structure• Frames• 20 inch spacing
• Longerons• 10 inch spacing
• Stringers• 8.4 inch spacing (between 7.3 and 9.5)
40Aimber tech – Michael Browne
Wing Structure& Landing Gear
Anthony Salazar
41A
Wing Structure• Ribs• 25 inch spacing
• Spars• 3 spars at 10%, 40%, and 75% wing chord
• Stringers• 8 inch spacing
imber tech – Anthony Salazar 42A
Landing Gear LayoutWeight of Aircraft 552277 lbsnose wheels (4) 13807 lbsmain wheels (32) 15533 lbs
Table 12A: Estimated Weight Per Wheel
Figure 10A: Landing Gear Beam
443
999
1201
43Aimber tech – Anthony Salazar
Tire Sizing
Good Year TirePressure (Recommended < 120) 115
Diameter 39 in
Width 13 in
Rolling Radius 17.7 in
Table 13A: Refined Tire Sizing
Figure 11A: Tire Contact AreaSource: Raymer page 362, 5th Edition
44Aimber tech – Anthony Salazar
Shock Absorber
Static Loads on Tires (lbs)
Max Static Load 257,640
Max Static Load (nose) 28,438
Min Static Load (nose) 26,739Dynamic Braking Load (nose) 18,881
Table 14A: Static Loads on Tires
Figure 12A: Wheel Load GeometrySource: Raymer page 359, 5th Edition
imber tech – Anthony Salazar
>15
Ma
Mf
Na
Nf
45A
Shock Absorber
Shock AbsorberVT Assumption (ft/s)
10 ȠT 0.47
Ƞ 0.75 Loleo (load) (lbs) 128820
ST (in) 1.795 Doleo (main landing gear) (in) 14.36
S (in) 12.297 Doleo (nose landing gear) (in) 8.70
Ng 2 Length Oleo (in) 25.82
Table 15A: Shock Absorber Dimensions
imber tech – Anthony Salazar 46A
Landing-Gear CriteriaTip Back Angle
End of Empennage 16.6 (deg)Bogey 2 32.5 (deg)
Table 16A: Torrent 19 Tip Back Angle
Figure 13A: Torrent 19 Tip Criterion
imber tech – Anthony Salazar 47A
Landing-Gear Criteria
Figure 14A: Lateral Tip Over (ft)
imber tech – Anthony Salazar 48A
Landing-Gear CriteriaGround Clearance
Landing Gear to Wing 12.55 (deg)
Table 17A: Ground Clearance
Figure 15A: Ground Clearance
imber tech – Anthony Salazar 49A
12.55°
Nose Retraction
Figure 16A: Nose Gear Retracted Side View
imber tech – Anthony Salazar 50A
Weight andBalance
Matthew Hanus
51A
Methods• Raymer’s Statistical Group Weight Method
• Cargo/Transport Weights Groups
• Compared to Nicolai’s Method
• Nicolai’s Composite Weight Reduction Factors
imber tech – Matthew Hanus 52A
Materials
Figure 17A: Composite Make-up
imber tech – Matthew Hanus
Al 7075-T6
Al 7475 T7351
53A
Component Weight (lbs)
Wing 76,339
Horizontal Tail 8,183
Vertical Tail 18,829
Fuselage 31,738
Main Landing Gear 17,258
Engines (4) 16,403 x 4 = 65,612
Fuel (8 tanks) 18,692.25 x 8 = 149,538
Slurry 120,000
Slurry Tank 36,000
Table 18A: Component Weights
imber tech – Matthew Hanus 54A
Figure 18A: Side View with Component CG Locations
imber tech – Matthew Hanus 55A
A GJD
F I E
C B
H
Figure 19B: Center Of Gravity Location1: Fuel Burn – depart airport2: Slurry Drop
3: Fuel Burn – return to airport
Imber tech – Matthew Hanus 56A
CG Locations• Most aft X CG: 86.36 ft (1,037 in.)
• Most forward X CG: 85.42 ft (1,025 in.)
• Total X CG shift: 0.94 ft (11 in.)
• Max Z CG location: 21.68 ft (260 in.)
imber tech – Matthew Hanus 57A
Stability andControl
David Wilson
58A
• Horizontal Tail• Airfoil: NACA 0009• Area: 2200 • Sweep: 30 deg• AR: 5.5• Span: 110 ft• Taper Ratio: 0.18• % Elevator: 30%
• Vertical Tail• Airfoil: NACA 0009• Area: 1275 • Sweep: 30 deg• AR: 4• Height: 35.7 ft• Taper Ratio: 0.9• % Elevator: 38%
Dimensions
imber tech – David Wilson 59A
Static Margin• Full: 0.102
• Post Slurry: 0.114
• Empty Fuel: 0.107
• Empty: 0.128
imber tech – David Wilson 60A
Trim Conditions
Table 19A: Trim Conditions
Condition Cruise to drop Ferry cruise Take offDrop (Deg)
Alpha -4.77 -3.06 5.18 3.19Ih -3.55 -3.85 -5.32 -5.87
imber tech – David Wilson 61A
• 2G Maneuver• Cl used for drop: 1.4• Velocity: 150 kts• Cmcl from average SM
• Deflection required: 9.3 degrees• Pitch rate: 7.27 deg/sec
Elevator Sizing
imber tech – David Wilson 62A
• Take off• X-distance to Rear Gear: 14 ft• Weight: 552,277 lb• Moment required: 7,731,878 ft·lb• Size chose: 30% chord
• Total moment:-249,598 ft·lb
Elevator Sizing
imber tech – David Wilson 63A
• Take-off• Trim: -5.32 deg• Elevator deflection:
-5 deg• AOA: -6.82 deg
• 2G Maneuver• Trim: -5.87 deg• Elevator deflection:
-9.322 deg• AOA: -8.66 deg
Elevator Sizing
imber tech – David Wilson 64A
Minimum Controllable Airspeed
• Vmc must be less than 135.6 kts
• Area: 1275 • Average chord: 35.7 ft • % rudder: 38%• Critical Engine: 44 ft• Force per engine: 88,000 lb
• Vmc calculated: 134.2 kts
imber tech – David Wilson 65A
Cnβ
imber tech – David Wilson
Figure 20B: Cnβ vs Vertical Area66A
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Cn BVertical Tail Size𝐶𝑛β
Vertical Tail Size (ft2)
Clβ
imber tech – David Wilson
Table 20A: Clβ
Parameter Value
Dihedral 0
Wing sweep -0.000624
Wing position -0.00016
Vertical Tail -0.00121
Total (1/deg) -0.002
67A
Summary• Aircraft becomes more stable during drop
• Elevators provide control
• Vmc requirement met
• Stability derivatives are stable
imber tech – David Wilson 68A
Drag Results
Inigo Ripodas
69A
Wetted Area• Used Brandt’s Method for Drag Build-
Up calculations
• Specifies approximations for each type of surface
• Considers these areas and subtracts the areas of intersection
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 70A
Wetted AreaCircular Surfaces
S (ft2)Nose Cone 1437Nose Cone Sphere 14Fuselage 8006Tail Cone 3254Engine 532 (x4)Total 14839
Table 21A: Wetted Area of Circular Surfaces
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 71A
Wetted Area• Estimated Wetted Area = 37,643 ft2
• CATIA Estimated Area = 39,525 ft2
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 72A
Drag Build-Up
Figure 21A: Total Drag
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 73A
TA-TR Plots
Figure 22A: Thrust Available and Thrust Required at Sea-Level
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 74A
TA-TR Plots
Figure 22A: Thrust Available and Thrust Required at 10,000 ft
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 75A
TA-TR Plots
Figure 22A: Thrust Available and Thrust Required at 20,000 ft
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 76A
TA-TR Plots
Figure 22A: Thrust Available and Thrust Required at 30,000 ft
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 77A
TA-TR Plots
Figure 22A: Thrust Available and Thrust Required at 40,000 ft
imber tech – Inigo Ripodas 78A
Overview
Kyle Klouda
79A
• Similar Engines• Engine Cycle and Design Point• Mission Analysis• Engine Configuration and Layout• Inlet and Diffuser Design and Installation Loss• Nozzle Design and Installation Loss
Overview
80Aṁ - Kyle Klouda
Similar Engines and Projected Engine
Values
Troy Killgore81A
Similar Engines – GE90-85B
Low TSFC ~ 0.553 (lbm/lbf*hr)Low Emissions/ Noise High Turbine Inlet Temperature ~ 3325o RHigh Weight ~ 17250 lb.
82Aṁ - Troy Kilgore
Similar Engines - Trent 800
Small frameLightweight3-Spool DesignTSFC ~ 0.557 (lbm/lbf*hr)Sound-deadening material in inlet area
83Aṁ - Troy Kilgore
Similar Engines – PW4084
Highly complex compressor system High TSFC ~ .63 (lbm/lbf*hr)
84Aṁ - Troy Kilgore
Engine Model GE90-85B RB211-882/884 PW4084
Dry Weight (engine) (lb) 17250 13100 14920
Thrust(sea-level) (lb) 87400 84950 87900
TSFC(sea-level) (lbm/hr*lbf) 0.294 N.A 0.329
TSFC(cruise) (lbm/hr*lbf) 0.5526 0.557 N.A.
Cruise Altitude (feet) 35000 35000 35000
Cruise Speed (Mach) 0.8 0.83 0.83
Bypass Ratio 8.4 6.1 6.41
Overall Pressure Ratio 39.3 39 34.4
Spool No. 2 3 2
Fan Stages 1 1 1
LPC Stages 3 8 6
HPC Stages 9 6 11
LPT Stages 6 5 7
HPT Stages 2 1 2
airflow (lbm/s) 3037 2640 2550
Length (inches) 204 172 191.7
Case Diameter (inches) 134 132 118.5
Fan Diameter (inches) 123 110 112
Researched ValuesTable 22A: Researched Values
85Aṁ - Troy Kilgore
Engine Cycle
Troy Killgore
86A
Engine Design Point
Flight parameters Value ChosenMach 0.232
Altitude (ft) 10,000
Table 23A: Engine Design Points
87Aṁ - Troy Kilgore
Engine Cycle
Design Choices Value ChosenCompressor Pressure Ratio, πc 37
Low Pressure Ratio, πLPC 3.5Fan Pressure Ratio, πf 1.8
Bypass Ratio, α 7.5Turbine Temperature, Tt4 (°R) 3200
Bleed Air (lbm/s) 5.9
Table 24A: Engine Cycle Choices
88Aṁ - Troy Kilgore
Mission Fuel BurnMission Legs
(Sortie 1 data provided)Altitude
(kft)Mach Thrust Req’d
(lbf)Fuel Burn
(lbf)
Takeoff 7 0.232 238,730 797
Climb 10 0.48 223,067 1,238
Climb & Accel 10-38 0.48-0.75 119,927 9,052
Cruise 38 0.75 31,458 13,869
Descend & Drop Slurry 10 0.232 143,117 171
Climb & Accel 10-38 0.232-0.75 118,172 6,148
Cruise/Descend/Land 38-7 0.75-0 29,993 15,637
Total (Sortie 1) - - - 46,911
Total (Sortie 2) - - - 44,418
Total (Sortie 3) - - - 44,350
Total Fuel Burn - - - 135,679
Table 25A: Mission Fuel Burn
89Aṁ - Troy Kilgore
Ferry Fuel BurnMission Legs Altitude (kft) Mach Thrust Req’d
(lbf)Fuel Burned
(lbf)
Takeoff 7 0.232 238,730 797
Climb 7-10 0.232-0.48 240,371 1,238
Climb & Accel 10-38 0.48-0.75 119,927 9,052
Cruise 38 0.75 31,458 123,529
Descend/Land 38-7 0.75-0 31,423 1,874
Ferry Total - - - 136,490
Table 26A: Ferry Fuel Burn
90Aṁ - Troy Kilgore
Engine Configuration
Cameron Schmitt
91A
Engine ConfigurationComponent Length, in Diameter, in
Overall 348.02 169.51Inlet 55 124Fan 61.76 136LPC 19.55 68.7HPC 47.32 31.88Combustor 27.45 35.98HPT 10.15 35.16LPT 31.14 76.52Nozzle (from Max Diameter) 239.68 169.51
92A
Table 27A: Engine Configuration
ṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Inlet
Cameron Schmitt
93A
• Inlet Design• Initial Sizing• Blow-in Doors• Pressure Calculations• Resizing• Cowling Design
Inlet Overview
94Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
• Conventional Pitot inlet • High mass flow requirements• Minimize additive drag
• Reduce free stream area mismatch
Inlet Design
95Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Table 28A: Install Losses
Initial SizingA1 = 10033 in2
Condition M0 M1 Alt (ft) Φ(%)2-G Drop 0.232 0.8 10000 17.67T/O 0.232 0.737 7000 16.85Climb 10kft 0.232 0.8 10000 17.67
Climb 17kft 0.612 0.833 17000 1.94Climb 24kft 0.658 0.826 24000 1.04Climb 31kft 0.704 0.815 31000 0.46Cruse 38kft 0.75 0.795 38000 0.02Climb Out 0.66 0.84 19000 1.18
D1 =113in (9.4ft)
96Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Blow-in doorsDrastically reduced Additive Drag at Design Point
Design Point
A1 (in2) A0 (in2) M1 Dadd (lbf) Φ (%)
Without Doors
10033 22198.99 0.8 10584.63 17.46With Doors 16600 22198.99 0.364 1725.142 2.89
Auxiliary area = 6567 in2
Table 29A: Blow-in doors
97Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Pressure Calculations• Exterior pressures
• Cp at 15% Chord
• Interior Pressures• Mach at Fan Face =0.55
98Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Redesign• Increase A1
• Reduce Aux Area• Smaller Blow-In Doors
• Six 754in2 Doors• 20 in long • 37.7 in wide
99Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Figure 24A: Final Inlet Design
100Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Cowling Design
• Utilize Natural Laminar Flow• Minimize drag • NASA HSNLF-213
• 17.5ft Chord length
101Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Nozzle Design and Installation
Loss
102A
Main ComponentsLayout• Chevron nozzles• Core Plug• Thrust reversing
Installation Loss• 2 Types of losses due to difference
in fan and core diameter
103Aṁ - Cameron Schmitt
Chevrons• Distribute airflow into shear layer• Reduces noise 1-2dB• NBAA states any noise reduction
on an engine which can be possible is required
104A
Noise Reduction Optimization
• IC1: 14 internal chevrons • IC2: 18 internal chevrons
• M1C: 14-lobed mixer • M3: 18-lobed mixer
Internal Nozzles
Figure 25A: Internal Nozzles(http://www.lufthansagroup.com)
105A
Noise Reduction Optimization
Figure 26A: Noise Optimization(http://www.lufthansagroup.com) 106A
Core Plug
• “Prop-wash” creates pressure drag on nozzle and turbulent flow resulting in noise
• Directs flow into more streamline formation
• Noise-reduction cone reduces noise 2-3dB
107A
Thrust Reverser
• Redirects fan mass flow• Angled at 45 degrees• Produces about 44% the thrust
of the fan in opposite direction
108A
Engine Layout• Maximum dia: 169.51 inches
(14.12 feet ) • From max diameter to end of
core plug: 239.68 inches (19.97 feet)
109A
Installation Loss
• Two different installation losses because of different diameters and forces of the fan and core
• is the pressure drag on the external section of the nozzle
• F is the uninstalled thrust of the engine
φ𝑛𝑜𝑧𝑧𝑙𝑒=𝐷𝑛𝑜𝑧𝑧𝑙𝑒
𝐹
110A
Compression Section Design
Courtney Hough111A
Design Parameters
Initial Design ParametersFan Booster High Pressure
Mass Flow (lbm/s) 3395.80 399.32 399.32Total Pressure (psia) 14.40 25.91 50.34Total Temperature (R) 490.01 591.64 732.27Angular Velocity (rad/s) 282.35 282.35 1054Number of Stages* 1 3 10
*From similar engines
Table 30A: Initial Design Parameters
112Aṁ - Courtney Hough
Fan Design
Fan Design Inputs and GoalsStages 1Pressure (psia) 14.40Temperature Rise (R) 101.63Tip Radius (in) 68Angular Velocity (rad/s) 282.35Inlet Mach 0.55Mass Flow (lbm/s) 3395.80Design Pressure Ratio 1.8
Table 31A: Fan Design Inputs and Goals
• Constant Tip Design• Tip Speed Limit (1600 ft/s)• Titanium
113Aṁ - Courtney Hough
Fan DesignFan OutputNumber of Blades 23Overall Diameter (in) 136Tip Speed (ft/s) 1598Hub-to-Tip Ratio 0.39Exit Mach 0.58Exit Angle (deg) 3.43Actual Pressure Ratio 1.81Stage Loading 0.49Diffusion Factor 0.46
Table 32A: Fan Output
Figure 27A: Catia Fan Model
114Aṁ - Courtney Hough
Booster Compressor
• Constant Mean Design• Tip Speed Limit (1400 ft/s)• Inlet guide vanes • Titanium
115Aṁ - Courtney Hough
Booster CompressorTable 33A: Booster Compressor Output
Booster Output
Overall Diameter (in) 68.70
Tip Speed (ft/s) 807.23
Mean Radii (in) 32
Hub-to-Tip Ratio 0.86
Exit Mach 0.40
Exit Angle (deg) 0
Actual Pressure Ratio 1.96
Stage Loading 0.49
Diffusion Factor 0.59
Figure 28A: Catia Booster Model
116Aṁ - Courtney Hough
High-Pressure Compressor
• Constant Tip Design• Tip Speed Limit (1400 ft/s)• Inlet guide vanes • Similar Engines• GE90 • 10 stages
• Titanium & Nickel
117Aṁ - Courtney Hough
High-Pressure CompressorTable 34A: HPC Output
Booster Output
Overall Diameter (in) 31.88
Tip Speed (ft/s) 1400
Hub-to-Tip Ratio 0.39
Exit Mach 0.35
Exit Angle (deg) 0
Actual Pressure Ratio 10.54
Stage Loading 0.49
Diffusion Factor 0.59
Figure 29A: HPC Catia Model
118Aṁ - Courtney Hough
Summary
Design Results
Pressure Ratio Goal Actual
Fan 1.8 1.81
Booster 1.94 1.96
High Pressure 10.57 10.54
Total 37 37
Table 35A: Design Results
119Aṁ - Courtney Hough
Turbine Section Design
Kevin Walker120A
High-Pressure Turbine
HP Turbine Design ParametersValue
Mass Flow (lbm/s) 383.31Inlet Total Pressure (psia) 497.5Inlet Total Temperature (R) 3098Angular Velocity (rad/s) 1054Number of Stages 2
Table 36A: Design Parameters
121Aṁ - Kevin Walker
High-Pressure Turbine
HP Turbine Design InputsMean Radius (in) 15.25Inlet Mach 0.35Inlet Flow Angle (deg) 0Temperature Drop Across Turbine (R)
691
Table 37A: HP Turbine Design Inputs
Design Point (Sea Level)
Mach 0
Altitude (ft) 0
Temperature (R) 490
Table 38A: Design Point
• Blade cooling scheme required
• Constant mean design
122Aṁ - Kevin Walker
High-Pressure TurbineHP Turbine Output
Stage 1 Stage 2Number of Rotor Blades 112 62Number of Stator Blades 48 52Number of Exit Guide Vanes
- 54
Stage Loading Coefficient 1.43 1.43Flow Coefficient 1.08 1.05Velocity Ratio 0.59 0.59
Table 39A: HP Turbine Output
123Aṁ - Kevin Walker
Low-Pressure Turbine
HP Turbine Design ParametersValue
Mass Flow (lbm/s) 403.28Inlet Total Pressure (psia) 145.8Inlet Total Temperature (R) 2350Angular Velocity (rad/s) 282.35Number of Stages 5
Table 40A: Design Parameters
124Aṁ - Kevin Walker
Low-Pressure Turbine
LP Turbine Design InputsMean Radius (in) 32Inlet Mach 0.5Inlet Flow Angle (deg) 0Temperature Drop Across Turbine (R)
835
Table 41A: LP Turbine Design Inputs
• Constant mean design
125Aṁ - Kevin Walker
Low-Pressure TurbineLP Turbine Output
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5Number of Rotor Blades
288 248 218 142 84
Number of Stator Blades
266 178 186 144 110
Number of Exit Guide Vanes
- - - - 30
Stage Loading Coefficient
2.19 2.19 2.19 2.18 1.19
Flow Coefficient 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.04Velocity Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
Table 42A: LP Turbine Output
126Aṁ - Kevin Walker
Combustor Design
Jase Heinzeroth127A
Combustor Type
• Annular• Inter-Turbine Burner Considered• Other combustor platforms researched, but little information
found
• Combustor designed to meet geometry of compressor exit and turbine entrance with no loss of airflow or pressure
128Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Design Point
• Design Point: Max Dynamic Pressure at sea-level• Chose Mach 1 (1126 ft/s)
• Ran engine test to acquire temperature and pressure values
129Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Combustor
Table 43A: Station DataHigh-Pressure Comp. Exit High-Pressure Turbine Entrance
Total Pressure, psia 554 521
Total Temperature, °R
1630 3200
Mass Flow, lbm/s 368 378
Mach Number 0.35 0.35
130Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Pressure Loss
• Assumed 1 percent pressure loss over diffuser section
• Area Ratio of diffuser optimized to 1 percent loss• Actual loss: 3.5 psi
131A
Diffuser
Combustor Inlet
# of sub-divided 9° streams 3
Mach Number 0.07Swirl Angle, deg 0
Total Diffuser Length, in 6.838Overall Area Ratio 4.71
Area Ratio Flat-Wall 2.8Area Ratio Dump 1.68
Table 44A: Diffuser Data
132Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Emission Output
Figure 30A: Emissions Range
133Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Air Partitioning
Summary Percentage of Total Mass Flow, lbm/s
Primary Air Flow 66.61 245.077Cooling Air Flow 4.57 16.820Secondary Air Flow 28.55 105.033Dilution Air Flow 0.27 1.0196Total air flow 100 367.95
Table 45A: Air Flows
134Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Primary Zone
Primary Zone Design
Annulus Area, in2 75.116Liner Height, in 4.123Annulus Mach No. 0.114Number of Fuel Nozzles 17Primary Zone Length, in 3.94
Table 46A: Primary Zone
135Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Secondary Zone
Secondary Zone
CD90° 0.64Number of Dilution Holes 457Diameter of Dilution Holes, in 0.465Length of Secondary Zone, in 8.246
Table 47A: Secondary Zone
136Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Dilution Zone
Dilution Zone
CD90° 0.64Number of Dilution Holes 1Diameter of Dilution Holes 0.626Length of Dilution Zone 6.185
Table 48A: Dilution Zone
137Aṁ - Jase Heinzeroth
Labor Hour and Cost Estimation
Kyle Klouda
138A
8/30/2
013
9/6/2
013
9/13/2
013
9/20/2
013
9/27/2
013
10/4/2
013
10/11/2
013
10/18/2
013
10/25/2
013
11/1/2
013
11/8/2
013
11/15/2
013
11/22/2
013
11/29/2
013
12/6/2
0130
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Table: Labor Accounting Chart
Actual HoursProjected Hours
Date (MM/DD/YYYY)
Hou
rs W
orke
d
139A
Figure 31A: Labor Accounting Chart
ṁ - Kyle Klouda
Labor Hours and Costs
Category Hours Costs
Engineering Management 261 $26,100
Engineering 778.33 $50,591 Technical 39 $1,560 Administrative 210.3 $4,206 Sub-total 1,289 $82,457
Professional Development 875.16 $43,758
Total 2,164 $126,215
Table 49A: Hours and Costs
140Aṁ - Kyle Klouda
12%
36%
2%
40%
10%
Engineering Man-agementEngineeringTechnicalProfessional Devel-opmentAdministrative
Figure 32A: Breakdown of Hours141Aṁ - Kyle Klouda
21%
40%
1%
3%
35% Engineering Man-
agementEngineeringTechnicalAdministrativeProfessional Devel-opment
Figure 33A: Labor Hour Costs142Aṁ - Kyle Klouda
Conclusions• Length: 29 ft• Diameter: 14 ft• Installed Thrust: 87,483 lbf• Overall Compression Ratio: 37• Max TSFC: 0.854 lbm/lbf*hr• Fan and Core Nozzle Installation Loss of
Totals to 4.99%
143Aṁ - Kyle Klouda
Performance Verification
Kevin Warren
144A
V-n Diagram
Figure 34A: V-n Diagram
imber tech – Kevin Warren
V (KTAS)
nz (g
’s)
145A
Thrust @ 38k ft.
146Aimber tech – Kevin Warren
Figure 35A: Thrust Available Vs. Thrust Required 38k ft
Stall Characteristics• Critical phase of flight
• 2g “pull-up” maneuver simulates fire weather
• Lift = Weight
• CL required is 2.66 with 2.69 available from wing design
147Aimber tech – Kevin Warren
Takeoff Performance
Figure 36A: Max Thrust Takeoff with 4 engines
imber tech – Kevin Warren 148A
Climb Performance
Parameter Value
Best Climb Angle 16.82 (Degrees)
Best Climb Velocity 628 (KTAS)
Table 50A: Climb Performance
imber tech – Kevin Warren 149A
Range Performance• Based on Breguet’s range equation
• 4313 nm Range
150Aimber tech – Kevin Warren
Landing Performance
Phase of Landing Distance (ft)
Obstacle Clearance (SA) 954
Free Roll (SFR) 638
Braking Roll (SB) 3405
Total Landing Distance 4997
Table 52A: Landing Distances
imber tech – Kevin Warren 151A
Cost Estimations& Labor Accounting
Kevin Warren
152A
Cost Estimation
153Aimber tech – Kevin Warren
Cost Type Per Aircraft Total (20 Aircraft)
RDT&E $587 Million $11.7 Billion
Manufacturing Cost
$2.2 Billion $44 Billion
Cost to Customer $2.8 Billion $56 Billion
Operating Cost $430 Million $8.6 Billion
Life Cycle Cost $3.3 Billion $65 Billion
Table 53A: Cost Estimation
Figure 37A: Labor Hours
imber tech – Kevin Warren 154A
Labor Percentage by Type
Figure 38A: Labor Hour Accounting Hours
imber tech – Kevin Warren 155A
Labor Percentage by Cost
Figure 39A: Labor Hour Accounting Cost
imber tech – Kevin Warren 156A
Conclusions &Recommendations
157A
• Structure: • Aft door system may compromise support of tail• Landing-gear doors are too large• Internal structure requires further analysis
• S&C:• Tail structure based on S&C and may require modification
to work with structure• Engine placement needs to be analyzed for interference
• Aircraft performance characteristics require wind tunnel testing to verify calculated data
Conclusions
158Aimber tech – Kevin Warren
Open for Questions
159A