ADVANCED SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY STUDY

ENGINE PROGRAM SUMMARY

SUPERSONIC PROPULSION - 1971 to 1976

J. N. Krebs
General Electric Company

S TA1MARY

Sustained supersonic rruise propulsion systems for military applications

have been developed by General Electric since the early 1950's. The J79-5 in
the Mach 2 B-58; YJ93 in the Mach 3.0 B-70 and the current F101 in the B-1,
are all examples of military propulsion systems and airplanes operated at sus-
tained supersonic cruise speeds.

The Mach 2.7 B2707 transport powered by GE4 turbojet engines was the only
non-military, sustained supersonic cruise vehicle intended for commercial pas-
senger service. The cancellation of the B2707 and GE4 programs in 1971 ended
hardware development effort.

In 1972 NASA initiated study programs to identify the required propulsion

system and airplane technology necessary for an environmentally acceptable
supersonic cruise vehicle. The Advanced Supersonic Propulsion System Tech-
nology Studies at General Electric screened conventional turbojets, mixed
flow and duct burning turbofans and variable cycle engines. This resulted in
the selection of a Variable Cycle Engine (VCE) concept that provides high air-
flow for low take off noise levels, using a coannular acoustic exhaust nozzle,
and a cruise airflow matched to the airplane inlet flow schedule. This VCE
has been refined and its mechanical design simplified to improve reliability
and maintainability: Technology predicted to be available for start of devel-
opment in 1985 is incorporated in the engine, as well as commercial life
requirements the same as used in the GE4 turbojets. The propulsion system
technology has improved to the point that definition of a second generation
supersonic cruise aircraft propulsion system much improved from the 1971 GE4
turbojet is now possible.

SYMBOLS

Values are given in both SI and U.S. Customary Units.

A/B afterburner

M flight Mach number

353
T/0 takeoff

VCE variable cycle engine

SFC specific fuel consumption

CO oxides of carbon

HC hydrocarbon

NO oxides of nitrogen

DISCUSSION

The GE4 development program, up until its cancellation in 1971, had accu-
mulated 1800 engine test hours on ten nameplate engines, with over 200 hours
of simulated altitude operation at Mach 2.7 inlet conditions. Table I shows
the GE4/J5 test engine cycle, and figures 1 and 2 show test engines prior to
installation in the test cell and on test at the Peebles Test Center.

A cross section of the GE4/J5 engine is shown on figure 3. The engine is

a single rotor afterburning turbojet with eleven turbomachinery stages, and
uses a two stage ejector nozzle (TSEN) to pump secondary air for nacelle cool-
ing. The GE4/J5 engine was designed for afterburning takeoff and supersonic
cruise at Mach 2.7 using partial afterburning. The afterburning takeoff
resulted in noise levels of approximately 120 EPNdb.

The environmental impact of the GE4/J5 afterburning turbojet in the B2707

airplane, noise levels, emissions, etc. became a major problem during the
development program. Extensive studies resulted in the selection of the GE4/
J6H dry turbojet for the production engine configuration (see table II). The
GE4/J6H was designed to come close to FAR 36 takeoff noise by providing a high
takeoff airflow of 408 kg/sec (900 lbs/sec) at an exhaust velocity of 762 m/sec
(2500 ft/sec) to meet the required takeoff thrust. Figure 4 shows a cross
section of the GE4/J6H, which is similar to the GE4/J5P, that is, basic engine
scaled up in airflow and increased turbine temperature, with a new annular plug
exhaust system with a retractable 10 PNdb chute type mechanical jet noise sup-
pressor, (see figure 5), and no afterburner system. The large airflow size
provided the thrust required for dry power climb and acceleration and super-
sonic cruise, but the large engine size and weight reduced the range of the
B2707 airplane.

At this point in the development of the engine and airplane, the program
was cancelled.

In 1972, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) spon-

sored study efforts by aircraft and engine manufacturers to identify needed
technology for supersonic cruise vehicles aimed at the start of full scale
development in the 1980-1985 time period. Under contracts from NASA Lewis

354
Research Center, General Electric has conducted Advanced Supersonic Propulsion
System Technology Studies (AST). These studies have screened conventional and
variable cycle concepts and combined features of both types into a variable
cycle engine that has characteristics suited for sustained supersonic cruise,
while also providing inlet flow matching capability over a wide range of air-
flows. The AST VCE is basically a low bypass ratio (0.35) dual rotor turbofan
engine with a low temperature augmentor, designed for dry power supersonic
cruise, using the afterburner for transonic climb and acceleration only. At
takeoff conditions (see table III) the bypass ratio is almost twice the super-
sonic cruise level with airflow to provide acceptable FAR 36 noise levels and
thrust. Figure 6 shows a schematic of the double bypass VCE concept. The
basic differences between the VCE and a conventional turbofan engine are the
separation of the fan into two blocks with an outer bypass duct between the
fan blocks, and the normal bypass duct after the second fan block. For the
low noise takeoff mode the front block of the fan is set at its maximum flow
configuration. The second fan block is operated to tailor the jet exhaust
velocity and flow to produce the desired thrust/noise relationships for take-
off. During subsonic cruise operation the front fan block is set to provide
the best match between inlet spillage and internal performance. In this mode
the second fan block is set to provide the proper cruise thrust. The inlet
airflow can be maintained down to the required subsonic cruise thrust require-
ment, which practically eliminates inlet spillage drag, and because of the
high flow also reduces the afterbody drag. The effect of the increased by-
pass ratio and reduction of installation drag decreases the installed specific
fuel consumption (SFC) by about 15%.

In the climb/acceleration and supersonic cruise modes, the front block

fan is set to meet the aircraft inlet flow supply, and the rear block fan and
high pressure compressor are set to pass all of the front block fan flow, and
the engine operates the same as the nominal 0.35 bypass ratio turbofan engine.
An advantage of the split fan configuration, beyond its inlet matching capa-
bility, is that for high takeoff airflow, only the front block fan and low
pressure turbine are affected, and a large weight saving is realized over the
weight of a conventional turbofan engine sized for the same takeoff airflow
and noise level.

A major effort has been made to simplify the engine and exhaust system to
reduce cost and weight and increase reliability. The cycle was established
for dry (non afterburning) takeoff and supersonic cruise, and to require only
two turbine stages. The choice of mixed flow eliminates the need for a sophis-
ticated high performance duct burner and requires only a very simple climb
acceleration low temperature rise augmentor. The low bypass ratio mixed flow
selection for supersonic operation also assures inlet compatibility. The
introduction of the annular jet noise suppression concept on the VCE resulted
in a simpler, lighter weight exhaust system with fewer movable parts and actu-
ation systems. These and other improvements have resulted in a lighter, more
reliable engine than the CE4 turbojets. A continuing effort on weight, cost
reduction and increased reliability through simpler design will show further
improvements in the future.

To compare the propulsion system advances from the GE4/J6H of 1971 to the

355
VCE of 1976, figure 7 compares the subsonic and supersonic fuel consumption
and engine weight for the engines sized for the same takeoff noise level. The
engines are installed in a Mach 2.4 cruise airplane of 1976 technology so that
airplane characteristics are the same. The VCE has about 9% lower M2.4 fuel
consumption than the GE4/J6H; about 22% lower subsonic (M0.95) cruise perform-
ance and a 25% lower weight. These differences can be attributed to:

Supersonic SFC

Smaller VCE cruise airflow size - matched to aircraft

Higher turbine temperature
Improved component efficiencies and cooling technology

Subsonic SFC

Cycle selection - higher bypass and cycle pressure

ratio (M2.4 vs. M2.7)
VCE features - minimum installation drag - inlet
flow matching
Smaller VCE cruise airflow size
Improved component efficiencies

Engine Weight

High flowed front block fan

VCE bypass ratio
Advanced nozzle concepts
Advanced materials
Higher turbine temperature

Figure 8 shows installation type outlines of the GE4/J5, GE4/J6H and the
GE21/JllB3 VCE. It is apparent that the engine volume required to produce the
required airflow has been greatly reduced. The reduction in cruise Mach
number from M2.7 to M2.4 has eliminated the requirement to package the engine
accessories for cooling. The smaller engine volume and the smaller advanced
technology accessories should result in a smaller, lighter and lower drag
nacelle.

The effect of the performance and weight advantages of the VCE can be
seen in figure 9, which compares all supersonic cruise range at Mach 2.4 with
engine takeoff airflow size. With both engines sized for FAR 36 noise levels,
the VCE is much better matched to the airplane requirements, and operates at
close to its optimum range. The GE4/J6H is not well matched, and its range
is much lower than its optimum. Performance differences would account for
about a 741 km (400 n.m.) range difference if both engines were sized to the
optimum but the actual range difference is about 1296 km (700 n.m.) when sized
at approximately the same takeoff airflow and FAR 36 noise level.

The VCE also offers even more advantages when subsonic cruise require-
ments are added, since the VCE reduces the subsonic installation drag and
gives much better installed performance.

356
 The VCE shows the potential of providing viable supersonic cruise range
while also meeting takeoff and landing noise requirements with its high take-
off airflow capability and the annular acoustic plug nozzle. Another environ-
mental consideration which had a major impact on the GE4/J6H and B2707 air-
plane is exhaust emissions around the airport and at high altitude supersonic
cruise.

Figure 10 compares the emission levels of the 1971 GE4/J6H with the 1976
VCE. Major reductions in airport emission levels have been achieved; in fact,
the VCE is predicted to meet the recently issued 1984 EPA Proposed Standards.
Large reductions have been made in the altitude cruise NOg emissions, but
major combustor improvements must be made to approach the suggested Climatic
Impact Assessment Program (CIAP) NOg emission target of 3 g/kg fuel.

The double bypass VCE concept will require some real advancements over
today's technology levels. Some of these are unique to the VCE, and others
will apply to both military and commercial engines developed in the 1980-1990
time period.

The VCE concepts and features that provide performance advantages, such
as inlet matching capability, reduction in installation drags, high takeoff
airflow, can be demonstrated in a test bed engine program in the 1978-1980
time period. Other high payoff technology such as high turbine temperatures
and improvements in component efficiencies must be demonstrated, and some
programs are already underway which should_ contribute. A major technology
item which impacts the VCE is the annular acoustic plug nozzle system. Static
model testing has shown the potential for meeting noise requirements with the
annular plug nozzle, but unknowns such as in flight effects, full scale test
noise measurements, static and in flight at the high exhaust velocities
required, may show the need for a back-up system with a 5-10 PNdb mechanical
jet noise suppressor.

Commercial experience to date has shown the major impact of hot parts life
on operating costs, and we,are planning 100-200°C (200-400°F) higher turbine
temperature than current commercial engines.

The cost of a supersonic propulsion system will be high. A major effort

is required to reduce this cost by use of better, simpler designs, advanced
materials and fewer parts.

The flexibility of the variable cycle engine introduces another dimension

in engine control complexity. The number of control parameters is more than
doubled over a conventional cycle engine. The use of a full authority digital
electronic control (FADEC), integrated with the aircraft control system, will
be a requirement. Programs are now underway on these types of engine control
systems, but the AST VCE will have unique control requirements to fully exploit
its flexibility of operation.

The current NASA Lewis Research Center Experimental Clean Combustor Pro-
gram (ECCP) is showing the potential for solving the airport emission problem.
The AST VCE uses the double annular combustor developed in this program and

357
meets the proposed 1984 EPA standards. The high altitude cruise NOg emissions
require a new combustor technology to meet CIAP targets. These combustors.will
require major research and development effort to achieve a practical design
which meets the engine operating requirements, and both airport and altitude
cruise emission levels.

The major question, not yet answered is, if all of these technology goals
are attained, can we have a commercial supersonic cruise vehicle which will
make money for the airlines?

The answer to this question will require a continuing major effort to

refine the variable cycle engine, and match the airplane and propulsion system
in an integrated economically viable commercial transport.

358
 TABLE I.- GE41J5 M2.7 TURBOJET RESULTS

• Thrust, N (lb) 3115360 (709000)

• Airflow, kg/sec (lb/sec) 290 (640)

• Pressure Ratio 12.5

• Turbine Rotor-In Temp., 1260 (2300)

OC (OF)

• A/B Temperature, OC (OF) 1693 (3080)

TABLE II.- GE41J6H M2.7 TURBOJET

• Thrust, N (lb) 3285722 (739900)

• Airflow, kg/sec (lb/sec) 408 (900)

• Pressure Ratio 12.4

• Turbine Rotor-In Temp., 1383 (2520)

OC (OF)

359
 TABLE I f I. - AST-VCE M2.4

• Airflow at T/O, 380 (840)

kg/sec (lb/sec)

• Bypass at T/O 0.8

• Pressure Ratio 17.3

• Turbine Rotor-In Temp., 1538 ( 2800)

oC (OF)

• A/B Temperature, °C (OF) 1038 (1900)

360
a,
bo
a
a^
Ln
ti
c7
i
a^
CIO
w
361
 ai
m
a^
v
a
w
w
N
v
bA
w
362
•n
O
N
n
N
Ul
h
f4
C7
I
cn
OD
W
363
 .r,
0
x
w
c7
W
^4
co
w
364
U
N
C1
r-I
U
.b
O
S4
O
U
aa
x
c^
v;
o^
w
365
 w
U
H
6
aD
.may
w
366
 h
x w
b
rrw.
o w
U
I
E-^
6cn
w
O
G
O
•aMr
W t
O
U
C4 n
c a)
!4
W
w
367
 ------ - - - - - - -- - --

GE4{J5P
I
I
Sideline HolM FAR 36 · 10
~~~~-- ~---~.--_~L
I
i

7
GE4/J6H

Sideline Noise FA.R 36-0

___.J-

GE21/J11B3 .
Sideline Noise FAR 36-0

I
I
\
\
Figure 8.- Engine installation comparison.
I
I
l
,
I, __ --- ------- ---- --------"- ----- ~-- - -.~--~-~-
 4
t
^/
r- E
i
(0 O
M
N a
Q i*' N
(L
cc
Q
LL
I

r ^i
t~
Q)
a^
LL
f40
0 0
LL
m
40
t~
ro
MIN- u
w
N 40' W 0
^+ U
^R w
I
1
d t
L. t
t w
vim
tU E
4^
c ,xE
369
 •
^^y^Appi u
u
,MI ^ a
bD
i
o
.^
x O
WWW
NM^ u ^
m
Ln
Crj UC
r 7, +1
d V U
^14 v
N ^ GN
w
Q
'
W oN
a 'H
p bD
a
^
qr W 00 p o CO
ui
C7 > r Q.
N
d x r F4
r
^
p w U
r
4-1Q)
^4 C
G
O r^
r
N

u o
I .ir 0 rn
c0 ^,
a °' >H
Q ^
a
I r. O
w
^} •rl
/ o O
C (A
• iT
uj N
OAM
W g
r w
370