1

Table of Contents
I. Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 3
II. Constraint analysis .................................................................................................................................... 4
A Theory .................................................................................................................................................... 4
B Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................... 6
C Throttle Ratio (
0,Break
) ............................................................................................................................ 7
D AEDsys Program ..................................................................................................................................... 8
E Data ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
1. Takeoff (Mission Phase 1-2) ........................................................................................................ 10
2. Acceleration (Mission Phase 7-8) ................................................................................................ 11
3. 4.8 g Turn- Subsonic Turn (Mission Phase 7-8) ........................................................................... 11
4. Super cruise (Mission Phase 6-7) ................................................................................................ 12
5. 5.07 G Turn- Supersonic Turn (Mission Phase7-8) ...................................................................... 12
6. Max Mach (Engine Parameter) ................................................................................................... 13
7. Landing (Mission Phase 13-14) ................................................................................................... 14
D Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 15
III. Mission Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 16
A. Theoretical Background .................................................................................................................. 16
B. Mission Analysis Run ....................................................................................................................... 19
1. Mission Legs ................................................................................................................................ 20
IV. Parametric Cycle Analysis ............................................................................................................... 33
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 33
1. Software ...................................................................................................................................... 34
2. Engine Stations Nomenclature and Performance Parameters ................................................... 34
3. ONX Input .................................................................................................................................... 38
4. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 43
V. Optimizing Performance Using Thrust ................................................................................................ 46
VI. Candidate Engine Selection ............................................................................................................ 48
A. Mission Analysis with Candidate Engines ................................................................................... 48
VII. Engine Sizing ................................................................................................................................... 51


2

1. Inlet Area Sizing (A1) ..................................................................................................................... 51
2. Exhaust Nozzle Sizing (A9) ............................................................................................................ 52
3. Using AEDsys to Calculate the Installation Losses ..................................................................... 52
VIII. Final Engine Data ........................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 75
Calculation for CL max ............................................................................................................................ 75
BCM ......................................................................................................................................................... 75
Best Cruise Altitude (BCA) ....................................................................................................................... 78
Calculation for Load Factor ..................................................................................................................... 80



















3

I. Summary
The twin engine configuration was chosen to prevent one engine from needing too large of an
air intake. As a figure of merit, fighter engines usually have a mass flow rate of 200-250 pounds per
second (lb
m
/s), and during initial computations our engine required a total mass flow rate of 404lmb/s.
This value was too high, so two engines were needed to satisfy the figure of merit. This made each
engine require 201.87 lb
m
/s of air at SLS and 198.30 lb
m
/s of air at the design point.
Included in the RFP were requirements for 2lbm/s of bleed air to be supplied at all times and to
have 298.28 kW of mechanical power produced to help power the aircraft. Each engine contributed
151.2 KW power and 1.01 lb
m
/s of bleed air flow. The engine completed the entire mission analysis
described in the RFP (see Chapter III). The mission, comprised of a takeoff from a 1700 ft runway,
subsonic cruise at the Best Cruise Mach and Best Cruise Altitude (BCM/BCA), Supersonic Dash (M=1.6),
Subsonic (M=.9) and Supersonic (M=1.6) turns, acceleration to the supersonic cruise speed (M=1.6), and
landing on the 1700ft runway. The engine was successful in satisfying the above mission legs. In
addition, the engine met all of the requirements except for one. At subsonic speeds, the engine was not
able to maintain a rate of climb of 500 feet per minute at a height of 57,000ft and at a beta value of
0.80. In order to fulfill this requirement the engine either needs to be travelling at a supersonic speed, or
must have a beta value of 0.64. At SLS the engine had a rate of climb of 1605 ft/s, surpassing the
requirement of 1000ft/s. In conclusion, the engine meets or exceeds every requirement set by the RFP
except for the service ceiling condition, and provides a well-rounded Low-Bypass Turbofan Engine
design.



4

II. Constraint analysis
A Theory
Constraint analysis is the first part of any engine design process. This is where one of the most
important components of an engine, the thrust loading (

) is determined based on the type of

Request for Proposal (RFP) that is given. Other forces like lift, drag and weight are also determined in
this stage of the design. The constraint analyses mainly consist of modeling the takeoff, high g turn,
speed cruise and landing. This is then used to determine the design point for thrust loading (

) and
wing loading on the aircraft at takeoff(

). Components like maximum Mach, best cruise altitude and

best cruise Mach may be added to the constraint analysis parameters to obtain a more refined solution
space.


The solution space is where an engine can meet all the required mission parameters without going into
failure. . Based on the figure above, the appropriate thrust loading is 1.2 and the appropriate wing
loading is 70 pounds per square foot.
Figure 2.1 shows a generic constraint
analysis and the solution space which
helps determine the appropriate
thrust and wing loading.


5

The main equation at which the solution space is produced as follows:

-
where:




From this equation then, thrust loading for each component can be easily determined.
















=instantaneous weight fraction =fraction of maximum thrust q=dynamic pressure
W_TO= weight of aircraft at takeoff N=load factor K_1, K_2, C_D0= drag coefficients
C_DR =additional drag coefficient P_s =excess power V=velocity



6

B Assumptions
Initial assumptions made were the thrust and wing loading at first design point and we refined it
later as we adapted it to the RFP and improved the engines.





















Table: 2.2.1 (Constraints based on the requirements of the RFP
# Type (AED) Maneuver Description
1 F Takeoff Takeoff (No Obstacle)
2 J Acceleration Acceleration Time
3 C 4.8 g Turn Constant Altitude/Speed Turn
4 A Super cruise Constant Altitude/Speed Cruise
5 C 5.07 g Turn Constant Altitude/Speed Turn
6 A Max Mach Constant Altitude/Speed Cruise
7 H Landing Landing (No Obstacle)


7

C Throttle Ratio (0,Break)
Throttle ratio is defined as the flight condition at which the engine can operate at maximum TT4
(Main burner temperature) and maximum c (compressor pressure ratio). The throttle ratio was
selected as 1.20 for the engine, which was the first design parameter that was decided. In order to
operate at a 0 value that offers the best compromise of engine performance over the entire range of
flight conditions, a throttle ratio (0,Break) of 1.2 was determined. This would assist in optimizing the
thermal efficiency, and the thrust produced by the engine, however, the disadvantage of having a higher
throttle ratio was that sea level performance of the engine would be diminished, as well as lowering the
c value that the engine can achieve.











8

D AEDsys Program
AEDsys program is a software that incorporates chapters 2 - 7 of Aircraft Engine Design. The
program comprises of other subprograms: Constraint Analysis (Chapter 2); Aircraft System Performance
(Chapters 2-3), Mission Analysis of Aircraft Systems (Chapter 3), and Engine Performance (Chapter 5).
The main objective of the program is to provide the means to the user to easily calculate the complex,
iterative and extensive calculations that are otherwise involved with engine design. Users have the
option of choosing between the basic engine models of Chapters 2 and 3 or the advanced engine
models of Chapter 5 with the installation loss models of Chapter 6 or the constant loss model.


9

E Data
All the data that was used in each parameter for each constraint was obtained from Request for
Proposal (RFP) except beta (weight fraction) which was obtained from page 39 of the AED book.

Figure (2.3.1): Instantaneous Weight Fraction: typical fighter aircraft








10

1. Takeoff (Mission Phase 1-2)
The RFP stated that the takeoff would be at 2000 feet and no obstacles were present. The aircraft was
required to takeoff from a hard and wet surface with a static friction of 0.05 and only had 1700 feet of
tarmac to takeoff. The afterburners were on and the temperature outside was 95
O
F. The table below
displays the data inputs for AEDsys.
Table: 2.3.1.1 Takeoff Constraint
1
Altitude (ft) 2000
Temperature (R) 511.5383
Mach no. 0.1
CDR 0.0455
CL max 1.3106
Kto 1.03
TO friction coif. 0.05
Rotation time (s) 3
TO distance (ft) 1700
Engine AB ( AB ON= 1 ) 1











11

2. Acceleration (Mission Phase 7-8)
The aircraft is required to accelerate from Mach 0.9 to 1.6 for 45 seconds at an altitude of 30000 feet.
The table below displays the data inputs for AEDsys.
Table: 2.3.3.2 (Acceleration Constraint)
0.78
Altitude (ft) 30000
Temperature (R) 411.8376
Initial Velocity 895.3057
Intial Mach Number 0.8999999
Final Velocity 1591.655
Final Mach 1.6
Acceleration Time 45
CDR 0.005
Fraction of Max Thrust 1
Engine AB ( AB ON= 1 ) 1

3. 4.8 g Turn- Subsonic Turn (Mission Phase 7-8)
The aircraft then was required to perform a 1.5 nautical mile turn at an altitude of 30000 feet and Mach
0.9 with the engine at full power to have the capability to complete the turn. The table below displays
the data inputs for AEDsys.
Table: 2.3.3.3 (Subsonic Turn Constraint )
0.78
Altitude (ft) 30000
Temperature (R) 411.8376
Velocity (ft/s) 895
Mach no. 0.9
Number of G 4.81
CDR 0.005
Fraction of Max Thrust 1
Engine AB ( AB ON= 1 ) 1





12

4. Super cruise (Mission Phase 6-7)
A dash or super cruise is when an aircraft is required to travel at a certain Mach for a specified distance.
The aircraft was required to travel 25 nautical miles at Mach 1.6.The table below displays the data
inputs for AEDsys.
Table: 2.3.3.4 (Super cruise Constraint )
0.86071
Altitude (ft) 0.86071
Temperature (R) 411.8376
Velocity (ft/s) 1591.655
Mach no. 1.6
CDR 0.01
Fraction of Max Thrust 1
Engine AB ( AB ON= 1 ) 0

5. 5.07 G Turn- Supersonic Turn (Mission Phase7-8)
The aircraft then was required to perform a 3 nautical mile turn at an altitude of 30000 feet and Mach
1.6 with the engine at full power to have the capability to complete the turn. The table below displays
the data inputs for AEDsys.
Table: 2.3.3.5 (Supersonic Turn Constraint )
0.78
Altitude (ft) 30000
Temperature (R) 411.8376
Velocity (ft/s) 1591.655
Mach no. 1.6
Number of G 5.065
CDR 0.007
Fraction of Max Thrust 1
Engine AB ( AB ON= 1 ) 1





13

6. Max Mach (Engine Parameter)
The maximum Mach is the highest value the aircraft can attain at a specified altitude. This aircraft had a
maximum Mach of 1.9 at an altitude of 40000 feet which was specified in the RFP. The table below
displays the data inputs for AEDsys.
Table: 2.3.3.6 (Max Mach Constraint )
0.5
Altitude (ft) 40000
Temperature (R) 389.97
Velocity (ft/s) 1839.226
Mach no. 1.9
CDR 0.007
Fraction of Max Thrust 1
Engine AB ( AB ON= 1 ) 1













14

7. Landing (Mission Phase 13-14)
It is expected that the engine is off during landing which means there is no thrust loading but only wing
loading occurs. It is during this time the highest amount of wing loading is obtained and that can be
clearly seen in the plot of constraint analysis where the landing has vertical line on the right half. The
RFP required the aircraft to land at the same runway but with a temperature of 90
o
F. The aircraft had a
roll distance of 3 seconds with a braking friction coefficient of 0.18. There were no thrust revers as the
engine was off and only had 1700 feet to come to a standstill. The table below displays the data inputs
for AEDsys.
Table: 2.3.3.7 (Landing Constraint)
0.6
Altitude (ft) 2000
Temperature (R) 511.5383
Fraction of CLTD for Braking 0.8
CDR 1.2
CL max 1.31
kTD 1.15
Braking friction coeff 0.18
Free roll time (s) 3
Total landing distance (ft) 1700
Thrust reverser (alpha) 0









15

D Conclusions
Figure 2.4.1 shows all constrains plotted to obtain a solution space. The thrust loading that was
determined to be 1.23 and a wing loading of 60.32 pounds per square foot was chosen.
Figure 2.4.1: Wing Loading versus Thrust Loading
















16

III. Mission Analysis
A. Theoretical Background
Based on the thrust loading (TSL/WTO) and wing loading (WTO/S) obtained from the constraint
analysis, our next step in sizing the aircraft and its components, was to find the takeoff weight of the
aircraft. The takeoff weight was found by performing a complete mission analysis of the aircraft. Mission
analysis is the simulation of each leg of the mission as mentioned in the RFP by the client. In short, it is
flying the aircraft on paper, and then estimating its takeoff weight.
When designing the mission analysis each task/mission leg required to be performed by the
aircraft can be categorized under various cases mentioned in Aircraft Engine Design. These cases are
used to estimate weight fractions ( W_f/W_i ) for each leg, and thereby compute final weight fraction at
the end of the mission. Following is an example of one such case.

{
(

+ (

) (

)
]}
If calculating by hand, the above equation can be used to compute the weight fraction, since we
employed the use of AED, which has these cases built in, we did not have to compute the weight
fractions by hand. Use of weight fractions will be discussed in later sections of the report.
As per class discussions, and academic research the takeoff (W
TO
) of the aircraft is modeled as the sum
of the payload weight (W
P
), the empty weight W
E
and the required fuel weight ( W
F
).

17

While the payload weight was given to us in the RFP, we had to compute the empty weight and
the fuel weight required to carry out the mission using the mission analysis results. When running the
mission, the weight of the aircraft changed during each mission leg, some weight changes were gradual,
while some were sudden. The gradual weight changes can be attributed to drop in weight because of
burning of fuel, while the large drop in weight fraction was due to the release of payload. The payload
weight can be defined under two categories, expendable payload (W
PE
) and permanent payload (W
PP
).
For our aircraft, the permanent payload included the pilot including his gear, and the 20mm cannon,
while the expendable payload included the AIM-9 and AMRAAM missiles, JDAM guidance kit and the 20
mm cannon ammunition weight. Thus, equation (ii) can now be modeled as the following equation.

In order to perform the mission analysis, certain initial values need to be assumed. These values
included an estimate of the takeoff weight, weight fraction (), thrust loading (T_SL/W_TO ), wing
loading (W_TO/S), and the thrust at sea level. The thrust loading, wing loading and the sea level thrust
was already found from the constraint analysis. Next, was the assumption of takeoff weight, which in
our case we assumed it to be 45,000 lbs (general fighter aircraft weight). This estimate of takeoff weight
was then used to compute the empty weight of the aircraft. The empty weight was estimated using the
empty weight fraction model for the fighter aircraft. The empty weight fraction model was developed
based on historical results.

Now that the empty weight and payload weight is found, the only last value left to find is the
weight of the fuel used. The total weight of fuel used during a complete mission can be estimated as the
sum of the weight of fuel used during each mission leg. As per Aircraft Engine Design, this can be


18

achieved by finding the rate at which aircraft weight is diminishing as a result of the consumption of
fuel. Equation (iv) represents the relation between the rate of fuel consumption and the thrust specific
fuel consumption.

In the above equation, TSFC is the installed thrust specific fuel consumption, while T is the installed
thrust.
TSFC varies with the Mach number, altitude, type of engine and throttle conditions. For initial
calculations, TSFC models are used to find the thrust specific fuel consumption. The TSFC model is
designed for both military and maximum power conditions. For our case we used the low bypass ratio
mixed turbofan engine TSFC model.

The above model was then used for each mission leg, and used to compute the final weight
fraction at the end of the final leg. Since the initial weight of the aircraft is known, the final weight can
then be computed using the final weight fraction. The difference between the final weight and initial
weight gives the weight of fuel used.
With the empty weight, payload weight and weight of fuel used now known, the takeoff weight
was calculated. If sum of these three components is not equal to the assumed takeoff weight, the
process is repeated till the assumed and final takeoff weights are equal.



19

B. Mission Analysis Run
As discussed previously, the mission analysis can be either performed by hand or by the use of
computer software like AED. We opted for AED, as it incorporates the same equations and principles
described in Aircraft Engine Design, and expedites the time spent on extensive and iterative calculations
that are often performed during the design process.
After opening AED, we selected the drag model for our aircraft as the future fighter and the
thrust and TSFC model for the engine as the generic low bypass turbofan engine. In addition, we
specified the TR of the aircraft as 1.2. Under the mission analysis tab, we then filled in the empty weight
model. The values for this section were obtained from our constraint analysis, which include the values
for wing loading, thrust loading, and weight fraction at the start of the mission. The following table
represents the values that we selected for the above mentioned parameters.
Table 3. 1: Initial parameters from Constraint Analysis
Wing Loading W/S (psf) 60.32
Thrust Loading T/W 1.23
Weight Fraction at Start 1
Gross Takeoff Weight (lb) 45000
Thrust @ SL Static T (lb) 55350
Wing Area (ft
2
) 746.021







20

1. Mission Legs
The following is the list of the mission legs that we designed for our aircraft.
Mission Legs with Leg numbers
Warm up 1 - 2a
Acceleration 1 - 2b
Rotation 1 - 2c
Accel to BCM 2 - 3a
Accel to BCM 2 - 3a
Climb to BCA 2 -3b
Climb to BCA 2 -3b
Climb to BCA 2 -3b
BCM/BCA 3-4
Descent & decelerate to 30k ft 4 - 5
Surveillence 5 - 6
Super dash 6 - 7a
Super dash 6 - 7a
Super dash 6 - 7a
Super dash 6 - 7a
Super range 6 - 7b
Combat AMRAAM 7 - 8a
Combat turn 7 - 8b
Combat deceleration 7 - 8c
Combat Jdam 7 - 8c
Combat turn 2 7 - 8d
Combat acceleration 7 - 8e
Combat AIM 7 - 8g
Run away 8 -9
Return climb BCM/BCA 9 - 10b
Subsonic cruise climb 10 - 11
Descent 11 - 12
Loiter at 10k 12 - 13
Landing 13 - 14
Extra payload 14
Table 3.2 Mission legs of the flight envelope



21

a. Takeoff (Phase 1-2)
After setting the initial conditions, we created the mission legs corresponding for each mission
phase. Phase 1-2 in the RFP corresponds to the warm-up, takeoff, and rotation phase of the mission. In
order to simplify the takeoff phase we distributed the three mission phases into three different legs. As
per the RFP, the three legs take place at an altitude of 2000 ft, and an ambient temperature of 95
0
F. The
warm-up phase was modeled for military power operation for a period of 1 min (60 sec.) Below are the
inputs that we used for the warm-up leg.



The next leg was the takeoff acceleration phase where we switched the afterburner on. The afterburner
was switched on to increase the velocity of the aircraft in a short period of time. In addition, we were
given the following Runway length =1700ft, CLmax
1
=1.3106, CDR=0.0455, and To=0.05, that we
incorporated in the input section of the mission leg. The following figure is the screenshot of the mission
leg input.






1
Calculation for CLmax is presented in Appendix A


22

The last leg for the takeoff phase is the takeoff rotation. The only extra input needed for this
phase was the rotation time of 3s which was specified in the RFP.





1. Best Cruise Mach(BCM) /Best Cruise Altitude (BCA) 1 Phase(2-3)
Phase 2-3 in the RFP correspond to the acceleration to climb speed and then a minimum time
climb to BCA
2
at BCM
3
. We divided this phase in five legs, the first two include the acceleration to BCM
and the next three legs include the climb to BCA. We chose two different legs for the acceleration; as we
wanted to increase the velocity of the aircraft in incrementing steps, which in turn helps in regulation of
fuel consumption





2
BCM (Best Cruise Mach Number) calculations shown in appendix
3
BCA (Best Cruise Altitude) calculations shown in appendix


23

Next, for each of the above legs, the acceleration took place from an initial Mach number to a
final Mach number. In our case, we used the final Mach number of the previous leg to be the initial
Mach number for the next leg. The final Mach number for the sixth leg was calculated to be 0.9, which
was the Best Cruise Mach number.
After accelerating to BCM, we then created three new legs for the minimum time climb to BCA.
The legs were modeled using the Type A- Constant Speed Climb tab in AED. We performed the climb in
increasing altitude steps which were spread over three legs, while maintaining BCM. The following
figures represent the inputs for the BCA minimum time climb.






Based on the calculation for BCA, the BCA for our aircraft at this leg was calculated to be 43180 ft.
b. Subsonic Cruise Climb at BCA/BCM (Phase 3-4)
The next phase in the RFP is the subsonic cruise climb at BCA/BCM. The cruise was performed with
afterburner off, and a CDR of 0.01. The total range for the phase was specified to be 175nm, where the
distance began with leg 4, as mentioned in the RFP.







24

c. Descend to 30,000 ft (Phase 4-5)
The next task that the RFP requested was to descend form BCA to an altitude of 30,000ft. As per class
discussions and notes, a descent can be modeled as a payload drop of 0lbs. This model is used since, the
descent requires very less power from the engine, and thereby consumes very less fuel. In this case the
weight fraction at the beginning of the leg is same as the weight fraction at the end of the respective leg.


d. Surveillance for 15 minutes (900 sec.) at 30,000ft. (Phase 5-6)
The surveillance phase was modeled as a type H loiter mission leg. In this leg, we kept the afterburner
off and set the CDR to 0.01. The Loiter phase, usually consumes very less onboard fuel, and therefore is
very easy to model.







e. Supersonic dash to Combat Area (Phase 6-7)
Based on the RFP, the aircraft had to perform a supersonic dash to the combat area at a
Mach number of 1.6, and an altitude of 30000ft. The distance to be covered was 100nm and the CDR
was specified as 0.01. We modeled this mission phases into five legs. The first four include the
acceleration phase from our subsonic Mach number of 0.9 to the final Mach number of 1.6, and the last
phase comprised of the cruise, where we covered the 100nm as specified by the RFP.


25

Similar to our previous acceleration legs, we divided this acceleration phase amongst three
horizontal acceleration type B mission legs, since we wanted to keep the afterburner on for only one or
two of the acceleration legs. Each leg again had an initial Mach number and a final Mach number, where
the final Mach number of the previous horizontal acceleration leg was equal to the initial Mach number
of the succeeding leg. In order to conserve fuel during this acceleration phase, we kept the afterburner
off for the first and second leg, while we kept it on for the last two legs of the acceleration.




















26

After reaching the desired Mach number for the supersonic dash we then modeled the super-
cruise as type E constant altitude speed cruise with the distance as 100nm at an altitude of 30,000ft. In
addition, we kept the afterburner off during this leg, and selected a CDR of 0.01. For this phase, the
distance to begin with was set to mission leg 12.






f. Engage in Combat
The RFP specifies Phases 7-8 as the combat section of the mission. In this phase, the aircraft
performs a set of combat maneuvers at a constant altitude of 30,000ft, and then escapes from the
combat zone. The combat begins with firing of 2 AMRAAMS (Advanced Medium Range Air to Air
Missiles), and then performing one 360degree (3.0 mile) radius turn at M=1.6 and altitude of 30,000ft.
After which, releasing one JDAM (a Joint Direct Attack Munitions) guidance bomb warhead, and again
performing two 360deg. (1.0 mile) radius turn at M=0.9 and altitude of 30,000ft. The next step includes
regaining Mach 1.6, under maximum power, and firing 2 AIM-9(Sidewinder Heat Seeking Missiles) plus
half of the 20mm cannon ammunition.
To correctly include the following maneuvers in our mission analysis we used a total of 7 mission
legs. The firing of armament was modeled as type L payload drop legs, while the turns were modeled as
type F constant altitude speed turn.


27

As per the RFP, each AMRAAM weighs about 326 lb. therefore we calculated the total payload
delivered for firing the two AMRAAM was 652lb. We used this weight as the input for the payload
delivered for the AMRAAM leg.


The next leg was modeled as one 360 deg. turn at 30,000ft, M=1.6, CDR=0.007and radius of 3.0 miles.
For this we calculated the number of gs (n
4
) for the turn to be 5.06658.







In the next leg, we created a dummy payload delivered placeholder to indicate that the
aircraft was decelerating from M=1.6 to M=0.9. After this leg, we created another payload delivery leg
for releasing the JDAM guidance bombs. Based on the RFP, one JDAM unit weighs approximately 500lb.,
therefore; for the JDAM leg we delivered a payload of 500lb.
We next modeled the two 360 deg. turn required by the RFP. This leg was same as the
previous turn; the only changes that were made were in the values for number of gs, Mach number and

4
Number of g calculation shown in appendix


28

the CDR value. The CDR given to us for this leg, was 0.005, and the Mach number =0.9. The CDR
dropped, since our appendage drag reduced, on account of delivering payload in the previous legs.








The last two legs in the combat phase were acceleration from M=0.9 to M=1.6, and firing 2 AIM-
9 missiles, with half of the cannon ammunition.
We modeled the gain from Mach of 0.9 to Mach of 1.6, as a type B horizontal acceleration leg.
The initial Mach number was set as 0.9 and the final Mach number was set to 1.6. We kept the
afterburner on for this leg, since the RFP required us to perform this maneuver under maximum power
requirements. The appendage drag (CDR) was taken to be 0.005 and the rest of the values were taken to
be similar as the previous legs.







29

The final leg was firing of the 2 AIM-9 sidewinder missiles and half of the ammunition. Since no
other combat maneuvers take place during this leg, we modeled this leg as a payload delivery leg. As
specified in the RFP, one AIM-9 missile weighs approximately 192 lbs, so for our mission the total weight
of the AIM-9 missiles was calculated to be 384 lb. The ammunition weight was specified to be 319lbf.
Thus for our mission, half of the sum of the above quantity, was calculated to be 159.5 lb. The weight of
the casings of the cannon ammunition was not taken into consideration, since the casing shells were
returned back to the aircraft. Thus, the total weight of the payload delivered for this leg, was calculated
to be 543.5 lbs.
g. Escape from Combat area (Phase 8-9)
The next phase required by the RFP was escaping from the combat area under military power.
The distance required to cover was 25nm and the Mach number for this phase was 1.6. We modeled
this phase as a type E constant altitude speed cruise leg. The afterburner was kept off for this, since
the RFP stops us from using maximum power. The distance for this phase begins with the previous
leg i.e leg 24. The CDR was 0, since most of the components that increase appendage-drag have
been removed.







30

h. Return to BCM-BCA using military power (Phase 9-10)
The next phase in the RFP requires the aircraft to return to the best cruise altitude and the best
cruise Mach number. Since we were travelling at a higher Mach number of 1.6, and we had to reach a
Mach number of 0.9 (BCM), we decided to model this phase as a constant energy height maneuver. The
constant energy height corresponds to a situation where the potential energy of the aircraft is being
exchanged for a climb using an equal amount of kinetic energy. Therefore, we would be using very less
power from the propulsion system, and thereby, increasing our fuel savings for that leg.
We modeled this phase in AED using the type K constant energy height maneuver. For inputs we
kept the initial altitude as 30,000ft and the final BCA for this leg as 50,000 ft
5
. As mentioned earlier, our
initial Mach number was 1.6, and our BCM was 0.9. For fraction of average velocity field we set it to 0.5.
This means that for completing this maneuver, we require only half of the velocity to convert potential
energy for the change in altitude. Once the exchanged potential energy has been used, the engine will
then be used.











5
Refer to Appendix for calculation of BCA


31

i. Subsonic cruise climb at BCM/BCA (Phase 10-11)
The next phase in RFP was the subsonic cruise climb at BCM-BCA for a total distance of 200nm.
The altitude for this phase was constant, and was fixed by the software to be at BCA. We modeled
this phase as a type G - best cruise Mach and altitude maneuver. The Mach number was set to be
our BCM, and the afterburner was kept off, as there was no acceleration. The distance for this leg
began at leg 26, and the CDR was set to 0.







j. Descend to 10,000ft (Phase 11-12)
As the mission reached its end, one of the last phases was to descend to an altitude of
10,000 ft. Like the previous altitude descends, we used the same technique, and used the
payload delivered placeholder to indicate the descent. Again, the payload delivered was set to
0lb.
k. Loiter at 10,000ft. (Phase 12-13)
The Loiter phase was to be accomplished at an altitude of 10,000ft and for a total time of 15
minutes (900 sec.). We modeled this as a type H loiter leg in AED. The CDR was set to 0 and we kept
the afterburner off.





32

l. Landing (Phase 13-14)
The mission in the RFP came to an end at the Landing phase. The RFP specified that the landing
would take place on a 1700 ft wet, hard surface runway. Since we employed the use of drag chutes
and spoilers for our landing, engine power required for this phase was minimal. Therefore, we used
the payload delivered technique as a place holder for the landing. The payload delivered was set to
0lb.
m. After Landing Extra Payload Removal
At the end of the landing phase we obtained the aircraft landing weight with the permanent and
expendable payload included. But in order to compare the empty weight and the landing weight of the
aircraft, we need to remove any kind of permanent or expendable payloads that are onboard. We can
either remove them manually by subtracting the payloads, which will be quite inconvenient to
accomplish after each iteration. Therefore, we modeled the extra payload removal phase as another
payload delivered place holder, which will automatically remove those payloads for us. For the payload
delivered we included the weight of the pilot, the unused ammunition, the 20mm cannon with the
casings and the feed system. The total weight for these items was calculated to be 996.5lbs. this
included the 292lbs for the cannon, 270lbs. for the feed system, 159.5 lbs. for half of the ammunition,
115 lbs. weight for the ammo casings, and 160lbs for the weight of the pilot







33

IV. Parametric Cycle Analysis
A. Introduction
At this point in the design process, we have modeled our engine as per the constraint and mission
analysis. Now the next step is to compute the performance parameters of the engine, and compute
quantities like the specific thrust and thrust specific fuel consumption of the engine. Furthermore, the
performance parameters are limited by certain physical quantities like the maximum allowable turbine
temperature, component efficiencies, flight conditions, and design choices (like compressor pressure
ratio, fan pressure ratio, bypass ratio and theta break).
For simplifying our analysis we made certain assumptions before computing our performance
parameters. We assumed that all the gases behaved as perfect gases, the flow through the engine
components was one dimensional, and realistic efficiencies were applicable for non-ideal component
behavior.
We also presume that we had the liberty to control all design choices of the engine, except the engine
sizing, which will be discussed and analyzed in subsequent sections. The underlying reason for this
assumption is that no single point can be chosen to design the engine, instead the engine performance
should be designed such that the aircraft operation over the entire mission is taken into account.
Furthermore, the motive behind using parametric cycle analysis can be attributed to three reasons,
first, we wish to create a reference point for our performance calculation, so that we can then perform
off design analysis, second, parametric analysis is a less lengthy process than performance analysis, and
third, we wish to try and test different combinations of design choices, before we select our engine and
parametric analysis allows us to modify our design choices.



34

1. Software
Although the text book and class notes provide equations and theories that we can use to compute the
performance parameters by hand, we opted for using ONX software that computed the performance
parameters for us. ONX is one of the software developed with the AED-SYS suite for engine performance
calculations.
One of the advantages of ONX is that the air and combustion gases are modeled as perfect gases in
thermodynamic equilibrium, and their properties are based on NASA Glenn thermochemical data and
the Gordon-McBride equilibrium algorithm, which means that the gas model includes variation of
specific heat Cp with constant temperature. Furthermore, the ONX uses two different subroutines to
calculate the different parameters. The FAIR subroutine is used to calculate the temperature dependent
properties, while the subroutine RGCOMP is used to calculate the relationships of the compressible flow
in the engine.
2. Engine Stations Nomenclature and Performance Parameters
In order to familiarize the reader with the engine station numbers and their respective components for a
low bypass turbofan engine, we are presenting a table and schematic of the engine components.







Figure 4.1: Sketch of LBTF engine stations


35


Station Location
0 Free stream
1 Inlet or diffuser Entry
2 Inlet or diffuser Exit
13 Fan Exit
L 2.5 Low-Pressure Compressor Exit
- High-Pressure Compressor Entry
3 High-Pressure Compressor Exit
3.1 Burner Entry
4 Burner Exit
- Nozzle vanes Entry
- Modeled coolant mixer 1 Entry
- High-Pressure turbine Entry For Pi
4.1 Nozzle vanes Exit
- Coolant Mixer 1 Exit
- High-Pressure Turbine Entry For Tau
4.4 High-Pressure Turbine Exit
- Modeled coolant Mixer Entry
4.5 Coolant mixer 2 Exit
- Low-pressure turbine Entry
5 Low-pressure turbine Exit
6 Core Stream Mixer Entry
16 Fan Bypass Stream Mixer Entry
6A Mixer Exit
- Afterburner Entry
7 Afterburner Exit
- Exhaust Nozzle Entry
8 Exhaust Nozzle Throat
9 Exhaust Nozzle Exit
Table 4.1: Engine station component definitions
In regards to definitions of performance parameters, following is a list of parameters that were
used during our analysis. These parameters include pressure ratios, temperature ratios, mass flow rates
and efficiencies for the engine components. Although, the book derives the equation for each of the
pressure ratios, temperature ratios and other parameters, we will not be going to go over those


36

derivations, as they are quite extensive and lengthy to solve. The following figures and tables present
the performance parameters for the engine components.
With the subscript for each component now known, the total pressure and total temperature
ratio for each component were represented as the following
















Table 4.2: Subscript notation for engine stations




Subscript Component Station
AB
b
Afterburner 6A-7
b

Burner 3.1-4
c Compressor 2-3
cH High-Pressure Compressor 2.5-3
cL
d

Low-Pressure Compressor 2-2.5
d

Diffuser or inlet 0-2
f Fan 2-13
-- Fan duct 13-16
m1 Coolant mixer 1 4-4.1
m2 Coolant mixer 2 4.4-4.5
M
n
Mixer 6-6A
n Exhaust Nozzle 7-9
t Turbine 4-5
tH High-Pressure Turbine 4-4.5
tL Low-Pressure Turbine 4.5-5
Total Enthalpies and Pressure Ratios


Total pressure ratio across component

Total temperature across component


37

For example,

, represents the total temperature ratio for the afterburner.

represents the total pressure ratio across the low pressure turbine.
The parametric analysis of the LBTF include the mass flow rates that have major importance
during engine performance, these include the core flow, fuel flow to the burner, and fuel flow to the
afterburner.





Figure 4.2: Mass flow rates subscript
The turbo-machinery efficiencies are usually computed by relating the and of each
component. These parameters are used since and are good indicators of the losses and real effects
during the mission phase. Furthermore, for the cycle analysis two kinds of efficiencies will be used, first,
which corresponds to the overall and for the component, and second or the polytropic
efficiency which corresponds to the imaginary process, where and are arbitrarily close to one. The
polytropic efficiency does not describe the actual behavior of the component, but provides a broader
perspective on the level of technology that the component pertains to.






38

Figure 4.3: Figures of Merit and efficiencies



3. ONX Input
After defining the terms needed, we moved to complete the ONX file, we next filled in all the input
fields. After opening ONX, we first modified the type of cycle to Turbofan with Afterbunrer. Next we
modified the Ideal Gas Model to Modified Specific heat, since we had different specific heats for
different engine components. We also set iteration variable to Single Point Calculation and the mass
flow rate as 355 lbm/s.


39


Figure 4.4: ONX input first window

Our next step was to go into view data and fill in all the inputs for our engine configuration.
Most of the values in this section were provided to us in the RFP; however, we obtained some
parameters from the component efficiency figure and figure of merits table.







40

The following is the figure of the ONX input file for compressor ratio of 20 and fan pressure ratio of 3.5
Figure 4.5: ONX input main file







41

Beginning with the first input, the design Mach and Altitude were chosen based on the theta
break values at the most fuel consuming mission legs. We computed the above assuming that our theta
break was 1.2, and our altitude was 35,000ft, which was the operational constraint that the RFP
required us to follow.
Using the following calculation we computed the design Mach number

((

For the next set of inputs, we were given the Cp c, Gamma c, Cp t, Gamma t, Cp AB and Gamma
AB in class discussion and notes, while we had to find Fuel Heating Value for the JP-8 fuel (RFP) from the
Table 9.4 in Aircraft Engine Design. We also took the Tt4 and Tt7 values from the figure of merits table
for a technology level of 3. Looking into mass flow rates, the bleed air flow percentage was varying
based on changing mass flow rate of the engine; but the mass flow rate of the bleed air was specified in
the RFP to be 2lbm/s. Therefore, every time we changed our mass flow rate for the engine, we altered


42

the bleed air flow percentage such that 2lbm/s was extracted from the engine at all times. The cooling
air flows were again taken from class discussions and lectures. CTOL was given to be zero and the CTOH
was calculated based on the electrical power requirements in the RFP. A total power of 400 HP was
required to run the electrical systems on board the aircraft. Therefore, we computed the CTOH based on
this value.

Since, we intended to use two engines we divided the CTOH by 2, to equal the power output by
both the engines, to get the CTOH of one engine to be 0.0079. The half value for CTOH is indicated in the
ONX input file.
The design variables that included the compressor pressure ratio and fan pressure ratio were all
iterated upon to reach the best desired performance. Therefore, these values were not set in stone,
until we found the best engine for our mission.
Pi AB, Pi n, Pi B, Polytropic efficiencies and component efficiencies were all figures of merit that
we took from the figures of merit table for a technology level of 4.





43

4. Results
With all the information now input. We ran the calculations and obtained the following output for one
case.



















Figure 4.6: Output for ONX run


44

The final result of the Parametric Analysis is the study of the variation of the uninstalled thrust
specific fuel consumption (S) with the uninstalled specific thrust of the engine(F/mdot), and allow us
determine to the most optimum combination of design choices. The S-F/mdot variation will also help us
determine which combination of design choices will be able to satisfy the target goal value for S. The
figure shown below is S vs F/mdot for our design Mach number and altitude. We obtained the target
goal line by testing the engine on AED and finding the uninstalled thrust specific fuel consumption from
the test.

Figure 4.7: Finding the target uninstalled TSFC


45

Plotting the above result on the carpet plot, for our design flight conditions,














Figure 1: Carpet plot for sample ONX runs










46

V. Optimizing Performance Using Thrust

During the aircraft take off rotation the aircraft will be oriented at an angle slightly above the horizontal.
Because of this a component of thrust will be acting in the vertical direction that would be acting against
the weight of the aircraft. Using this scenario and two assumptions stated below, the aircraft takeoff
performance was optimized to improve the thrust loading ratio and wing loading ratio.
1. Chord oriented at a small angle (3) to aircraft axis.
2. Thrust aligned with the aircraft axis.
Using the two assumptions and considering the force equilibrium of the aircraft, following equation was
derived.

Take off lift coefficient

Thrust loading
V
0
Takeoff velocity

Wing loading
Engine thrust lapse Takeoff weight fraction

Takeoff rotational angle

Freestream density

Using the following two equations engine thrust lapse () was calculated.
0
and
0
were both calculated
at an altitude of 2000ft with 0.1M.

)
Since
0
< TR at the considered flight condition, =
0
for maximum power Low bypass turbofan engines.


47

C
L,TO
can be found using the following equation. C
L,max
, and K
TO
were provided in the Request for
Proposal.

Using the T
SL
/W
TO
and W
TO
/S values from the constraint analysis and thrust lapse, and C
L,TO
from the
calculations above the equation # was solved for v
0
. Then using the equation below we can calculate the
v
stall
value, which then can be used to calculate the new K
TO
value for takeoff.

After repeating the above mentioned procedures iteratively K
TO
was calculated to be 1.03 for the takeoff
leg. Using the new takeoff constraint an improved thrust loading of 1.118 and wing loading of 60.32 psf
was extrapolated from the constraint plot.









48

VI. Candidate Engine Selection

After establishing the design choices from parametric design point analysis, the fan pressure ratios and
compressor pressure ratios were varied to search for the best performing engine. The fan pressure ratio
(
f
) was varied between the values of 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 3.6 and 3.7. For each of the fan pressure ratios the
compressor pressure ratios (c) were varied between the values of 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28.
A. Mission Analysis with Candidate Engines
ONX reference files for a candidate engines were then inputted in to the AEDsys program and the
mission analysis function was executed. However, for every engine at mission leg 16 (supercruise 1.6M
at 30,000 ft) an error message was displayed claiming that the thrust produced by the engine was not
sufficient to complete the mission. Then the initial (weight fraction) of the leg was recorded and in the
constraint analysis the value of the supercruise constraint was replaced by the value from the
mission analysis. Then using the constraint analysis the T
SL
/W
TO
at the initial wing loading was calculated.
Next the new T
SL
/W
TO
value was inputted as the T
SL
/W
TO
value for the mission analysis and the program
was executed. This procedure was followed for all of the engines that were being analyzed.
The new T
SL
/W
TO
ratio was recorded for each engine and the increase in the ratio was then calculated.
Using mission analysis the fuel usage for the mission was then calculated, and then compared with the
generic engine fuel usage to find the fuel savings for each engine.








49

Fuel used by the generic engine = 10669 lb
f

Table 6.1 Displays required thrust loading, percentage increase in thrust loading required, fuel used,
and fuel saved for the candidate engines compared to the generic engine.

f

c
Alpha T/W Required T/w Increase Required (%) Fuel Used (lb
f
) Fuel Saved (lb
f
)
3.3 20 0.4528 1.332 19.14 10643 26
3.3 22 0.4514 1.352 20.93 10512 157
3.3 24 0.4425 1.367 22.27 10408 261
3.3 26 0.4276 1.379 23.35 10324 345
3.3 28 0.4081 1.388 24.15 10256 413
- - - - -

3.4 20 0.3701 1.330 18.96 10673 -4
3.4 22 0.3683 1.352 20.93 10551 118
3.4 24 0.3589 1.369 22.45 10456 213
3.4 26 0.3438 1.382 23.61 10382 287
3.4 28 0.3241 1.391 24.42 10326 343
- - - - -

3.5 20 0.3103 1.300 16.28 10700 -31
3.5 22 0.3095 1.322 18.25 10630 39
3.5 24 0.3013 1.339 19.77 10532 137
3.5 26 0.2874 1.352 20.93 10456 213
3.5 28 0.2690 1.362 21.82 10398 271
- - - - -

3.6 20 0.2548 1.280 14.49 10834 -165
3.6 22 0.2551 1.300 16.28 10706 -37
3.6 24 0.2480 1.320 18.07 10604 65
- - - - -

3.7 20 0.2034 1.250 11.81 10921 -252
3.7 22 0.2045 1.390 15.54 10837 -168
3.7 24 0.1984 1.398 16.19 11369 -700
3.7 26 - - - - -
3.7 28 - - - - -


50


Figure 6.1 Fuel saved with respect to the generic engine against the compressor ratio for each
different fan pressure ratio.

As it is evident from the table and the graph increasing amount of fuel were saved as the compressor
pressure ratio increased and fan pressure ratio decreased. However, one drawback with having a higher
compressor ratio is that as the compressor ratio is increased the specific thrust decreases.






-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
18 20 22 24 26 28 30
F
u
e
l

S
a
v
e
d

(
l
b
f
)

Compressor Pressure Ratio -
c

Fuel Saved Comparison
Pif = 3.3 Pif = 3.4 Pif = 3.5


51

VII. Engine Sizing

When the engine is mounted on an aircraft, the external drag that the engine encounters would be
significant and would have to be accounted for. Substantial amount of the external drag (D
I
+D
N
) is
conceived in the inlet and nozzle areas of the engine, which is heavily dependent on the flight condition,
and the amount of thrust produced. The uninstalled thrust (F) represents the thrust of the engine
performed under ideal conditions with no drag accounted for. However, in reality there is a significant
impact on the thrust due to the total drag increase from installation. Installed thrust (T) is the thrust
produced by the engine after taking the drag losses (

) in to account. This chapter discusses the loss

model used to analyze the engine installation penalties more accurately, thereby using those values to
decide the sizing of the engine. Up until this stage, the installed losses of the engine were assumed to be
a constant loss of 0.05. Following equations displays the relationship between installed thrust (T),
uninstalled thrust (F), drag at nozzle (D
N
), drag at inlet (D
I
) and installation losses (

).

1. Inlet Area Sizing (A1)
In order to estimate the installation losses for the engines the inlet areas (A
1
) of the engines were
needed to be calculated. By using the constant loss model the procedure was simplified to find the flight
conditions that required the largest inlet areas. When in subsonic flight the freestream Mach number of
the flow is increased to the inlet Mach number as it moves in to the engine. However, in order to
prevent choking the flow at the inlet, the inlet area was decided to be sized slightly larger (4%) than the
freestream critical area. Thus, the maximum allowable Mach number through the inlet was decided to
be 0.8. Furthermore, in order to facilitate the boundary layer displacement or blockage a 4% margin of
safety too was introduced.


52

Using the AEDsys programs mission analysis the largest subsonic and supersonic A
0
were found for each
of the engines, and the inlet areas (A
1
)

areas were then calculated accounting for the margin of safety
values that were imposed. Then the subsonic and supersonic areas were compared and the largest area
was then chosen as the engine inlet area. Following are the equations used for the area calculations.

2. Exhaust Nozzle Sizing (A9)
When calculating the installation losses for the exhaust nozzle afterbody area (A
10
), exit nozzle area (A
9
),
and afterbody length (L) was required. The exit nozzle area was calculated for each leg under constant
loss model for each engine, and the largest exit nozzle area was then chosen for each engine. In order to
ensure that afterbody area would be greater than exit nozzle area, the area A
10
was calculated to be 4%
higher than the exit nozzle area. The diameter of the exit nozzle area was then calculated using the
equation given below and multiplied by 1.5 to estimate the afterbody length (L).

3. Using AEDsys to Calculate the Installation Losses
After finding A1, A10, L values for each engine, they were inputted as the data for chapter 6 loss model
in AEDsys. In the engine data section of the AEDsys program the A
1
, A
10
, L were inputted in their
respective fields. The auxiliary area was inputted as the same as value as the inlet capture area (A
1
) to
reduce installation losses at takeoff and Max Mach for Aux inlet was set to 0.3. Mission analysis was


53

then used again to find the fuel used for the mission with the engines equipped with the chapter 6 loss
model.

f

c
A
1
(ft
2
) A
10
(ft
2
) L (ft) Alpha T/W
Required
T/w Increase
Required (%)
Fuel
Used (lb
f
)
Fuel Saved
(lb
f
)
3.3 20 10.21 15.86 6.674 0.4528 1.332 19.14 10528 141
3.3 22 10.17 16.10 6.724 0.4514 1.352 20.93 10397 272
3.3 24 10.47 16.27 6.760 0.4425 1.367 22.27 10338 331
3.3 26 10.57 16.41 6.789 0.4276 1.379 23.35 10258 411
3.3 28 10.64 16.51 6.810 0.4081 1.388 24.15 10194 475
- - - - - - - - - -
3.4 20 10.33 16.01 6.641 0.3701 1.330 18.96 10604 65
3.4 22 10.50 16.27 6.696 0.3683 1.352 20.93 10489 180
3.4 24 10.63 16.48 6.737 0.3589 1.369 22.45 10401 268
3.4 26 10.73 16.63 6.768 0.3438 1.382 23.61 10331 338
3.4 28 10.80 16.73 6.789 0.3241 1.391 24.42 10278 391
- - - - - - - - - -
3.5 20 9.98 15.28 6.489 0.3103 1.300 16.28 10700 30
3.5 22 10.15 15.54 6.543 0.3095 1.322 18.25 10630 112
3.5 24 10.28 15.74 6.584 0.3013 1.339 19.77 10532 221
3.5 26 10.38 15.89 6.615 0.2874 1.352 20.93 10456 275
3.5 28 10.45 16.00 6.639 0.2690 1.362 21.82 10398 329
- - - - - - - - - -
3.6 20 9.34 14.43 9.548 0.2548 1.280 14.49 10662 7
3.6 22 9.49 14.65 9.622 0.2551 1.300 16.28 10541 128
3.6 24 9.64 14.87 9.695 0.2480 1.320 18.07 10358 311
- - - - - - - - - -
3.7 20 9.03 13.79 9.335 0.2034 1.250 11.81 10737 -68
3.7 22 16.16 14.94 9.715 0.2045 1.390 15.54 10464 205
3.7 24 10.02 15.67 9.952 0.1984 1.398 16.19 11842 -1173
3.7 26 - - - - - - - -
3.7 28 - - - - - - - -
Fuel used by the generic engine = 10669 lb
f

Table 6.2 Displays required thrust loading, percentage increase in thrust loading required, fuel used,
and fuel saved for the candidate engines with chapter 6 loss model compared to the generic engine.




54

Figure 6.2 - Fuel saved with respect to the generic engine against the compressor ratio for each different
fan pressure ratio after using the chapter 6 loss model.

Now that the engines were sized, they were once again run through the mission analysis and their final
characteristics were calculated. From this table the Final engine was chosen. Initially the engine #1 was
chosen, because it had large fuel savings and also a lower T
SL
/W
TO
ratio, however this engine was
problematic going through the rest of the stages so the engine with
f
= 3.5
c
= 20 was chosen instead,
due to its low thrust to weight ratio.
Once the final engine was chosen, the engine had to be sized to meet all of the constraints listed in the
RFP. These requirements were that at least 2 lb
m
/s of bleed air must be taken from the engine and that
the engine should provide at least 298.28 kW of mechanical power to run additional systems in the
aircraft. Additionally based on the engine performance the team had to decide whether or not to use
two engines instead of one. This option was chosen, to prevent increasing the mass flow through the
engine to unreasonable levels. Generally fighter aircraft have an intake of around 250 lb
m
/s of air per
engine. To produce the required amount of thrust, 40000lbs, the chosen engine would need to have and
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
18 20 22 24 26 28 30
F
u
e
l

S
a
v
e
d

(
l
b
f
)

Compressor Pressure Ratio - PiC
Fuel Saved Comparison
Pif = 3.3
Pif = 3.4
Pif = 3.5


55

intake of 404 lb
m
/s of air. Because of this, the team decided on using two engines. This halved the
constraint requirements for each engine. Only 1 lb
m
/s of bleed air was required and only 149.64 kW of
power was needed. To change these parameters, the engine was edited through the ONX program.
After using an initial bleed air percent of 5%, the new percent was calculated. Since only one unit of air
was necessary and 210 units of air were entering, this comes out to .495%. Additionally, using the
following equation, the team was able to calculate the amount of CTOH the engine needed to provide.

In effort to save time the team just scaled the input into ONX based on the output into the Engine Data
Section of AED so that the PTOH produced by both engines was equal to or greater than 298.28kW, the
amount requested in the RFP. Once all of the constraints were met, and the engine was sized, the final
engine selection was 100% complete.













56

VIII. Final Engine Data
The final engine design had a thrust loading of 1.32, a wing loading of 60.32 and used 10462 lbm
of fuel over the entire mission. The Takeoff weight was 33600 lbm and a single engine produced 22176
lbf of thrust. The empty weight of the aircraft was 20283 while the final weight at landing was 20446
lbm. Other important engine design characteristics are located in the following table. These
characteristics were taken from the design point calculation of the engine and also from the Sea Level
Static condition. As stated in Section IV.A.3, the ONX Input part of the cycle analysis, the C
TOH
at SLS is
calculated to be .001766; however via the ONX software the team found that a C
TOH
of 0.0075 produced
the required P
TOH
. The final mission analysis is presented in figure 7.1. Figure 7.2 includes the inlet and
exit nozzle areas for the engine and the installation loss values. Table 7.2 includes the area sizing terms
found for the engine.
M
0

f
T
T4
(K) T
T6
(K)
P
TOH
(kW)
C
TOH
H(kft)
T
T7

(K)
P
0
/P
9
M
6

0
(lb
m
/s)
Thrust
(lb
f
)
Design
Point
1.702 3.5 3200 2080.55 151.1 .0075 35 .353 3600 1 0.4003 201.87 43812
SLS 0 3.5 2669.5 1735.87 151.1 .0075 0 .352 3600 1 0.3975 198.30 44352
Table 7.1: Engine performance


57


Figure 7.1: Mission analysis Output

A0:A0*(ft
2
) A9(ft
2
) L(ft
2
)
5.0284 7.61022 3.1128
Table 7.2: Area terms


58


Figure 7.2: Area and installation losses in the mission analysis
Given the characteristics of the engine it is also important to view the improvements that this
engine made in fuel savings vs the generic engine, developed in the beginning of the design process. This
comparison is made in table 7.3.







59

Segment M0 h(kft)
i
+
n

i

f

W(lb
f
)
model W(lb
f
)
real
fuel saved
%
change
1 0 2000 0.5256 0.98986 384 341 43 11.19792
2 0 2000 0.1279 0.99573 133 142 -9 6.766917
3 0.1873 2000 0.0178 0.99827 60 57 3 5
4 0.3816 2000 0.1059 0.99606 142 130 12 8.450704
5 0.7272 2000 0.0859 0.9943 184 188 -4 2.173913
6 0.9 8863 0.0628 0.98954 267 343 -76 28.46442
7 0.8978 22590 0.0578 0.99088 249 295 -46 18.4739
8 0.8951 36317 0.04578 0.98814 292 381 -89 30.47945
9 0.9 43107 0.07872 0.96801 1253 1015 238 18.99441
10 1 0 0 0
11 0.6697 30000 0.12372 0.97588 745 741 4 0.536913
12 0.7525 30000 0.01125 0.99651 102 104 -2 1.960784
13 0.9946 30000 0.12435 0.99022 145 292 -147 101.3793
14 1.2368 30000 0.0122 0.99276 189 214 -25 13.22751
15 1.4789 30000 0.01196 0.99244 195 222 -27 13.84615
16 1.6 30000 0.01776 0.92773 2608 2106 502 19.24847
17 1 0 0
18 1.6 30000 0.00921 0.9749 632 662 -30 4.746835
19 1 0 0 0
20 1 0 0
21 0.9 30000 0.02816 0.97791 455 456 -1 0.21978
22 1.25 30000 0.01256 0.98151 406 543 -137 33.74384
23 1 0 0
24 1.6 30000 0.06385 0.97664 575 553 22 3.826087
25 1.4189 40050 0.03064 0.9965 87 81 6 6.896552
26 0.9 50111 0.13076 0.95815 942 964 -22 2.335456
27

1 0 0 0
28 0.3738 10000 0.08845 0.97192 529 619 -90 17.01323
29 1 0 0
30 1 0 0
Total 10699 10449 220 2.01
Table 7.3: Fuel saved from the candidate engine vs. the generic engine




60

Table 7.4 contains the engine performance at the different constraint requirements. This clearly
shows how the candidate engine can perform the mission.
Performance
Req
M
0
/Alt
kft
F
avail
lb
f
T
req
lb
f

I
+
N

F
req

(lb
f
)

req
Tsl/Wto
(T
sl
/W
to
)
req
/
(T
sl
/W
to
)
avail

Takeoff (100
F)
0.1/2 21726 14751 0.01279 14562 0.87 0.9963 0.7548
Supercruise 1.6/30 12875 12356 0.01776 12137 0.5738 1.259 0.9538
Supersonic
Turn
1.6/30 23611 8701 0.00921 8621 1.0611 0.4836 0.3664
Subsonic
Turn
0.9/30 10880 9576 0.02816 9306 0.4792 1.156 0.8758
Acceleration 1.25/30 15757 9167 0.06385 8582 0.4792 1.066 0.8076
Maximum
Mach
1.9/40 19097 9940 0.00048 9935 0.8612 0.6867 0.5202
Table 7.4: Performance of the engine at different constraints.
Also after running the candidate engine through the mission analysis, the original constraint plot
had to be edited, to better reflect the flight conditions presented in the mission. This meant getting the
Beta values from the Mission analysis output and updating the Constraint Analysis inputs to better
reflect the mission constraints. Table 7.5 displays the new beta values compared to the ones chosen at
the beginning of the analysis.


Initial Revised
Constraint
M
0
/Alt
kft
Throttle
Takeoff (100 F) .1/2 MAX 0.87 1 0.87 1
Supercruise 1.6/30 MIL 0.5738 0.86 0.5738 0.8045
Supersonic Turn 1.6/30 MAX 1.0611 0.78 1.0611 0.7653
Subsonic Turn .9/30 MAX 0.4792 0.78 0.4792 0.7339
Acceleration 1.25/30 MAX 0.4792 0.78 0.4792 0.7041
Maximum Mach 2/40 MAX 0.8612 0.85 0.8612 0.8500
Table 7.5: Beta Value chart


61


Figure 7.3: Constraint plot for the Candidate engine
While the engine was constructed to meet all of the constraints, there were also several
requests placed in the RFP that can only be tested with the final engine. One of these requirements was
that the engine be able to maintain a climb of 500ft/min at a service ceiling of 57,000 ft at military
power and at a subsonic speed. This has to be achieved with a Beta value of .8 and a CDR of .005. As the
following contour plot shows, our engine is not capable of climbing to 57,000 ft at a subsonic speed. In
order to have a rate of climb of 500 ft/min at 57,000 ft the beta value needed to be decreased to .64,
meaning that the maneuver would occur later in the mission. However the engine can climb at a rate of
2092 ft/min at supersonic speeds, or at 5714 ft/min with that afterburner on at subsonic speeds. The
speed of sound at 57,000 ft is 968.08 ft/s.


62


Figure 7.4: Military power Ps Contour plot with a Beta =.8

Figure 7.5: Military power Ps Contour plot with a Beta=.64


63

In addition it was requested that the engine have a climb rate of 1000 ft/s at Sea Level, with
afterburner. The following contour plots show how it can achieve this requirement at Maximum power.
This satisfies all of the criteria put in the RFP.

Figure 7.6: Maximum power Ps Contour plot
Once the final engine was chosen it was also important to recheck all of the constraints to make
sure the engine could handle the mission. To do this the beta values for the constraints had to be
adjusted to better represent the mission requirements.
Through the Engine Test page, many of the characteristics of the engine could be graphed over a
range of Mach numbers. As you will see in Figure 7.7, the Mach numbers that the engine can perform at
vary for different heights. These numbers were chosen from the Ps Contour plots. The velocities were
chosen where the altitude intersects the highest Ps contour. These values were compiled in the Table
below.




64

Height
(kft)
a V
low
V
high
M
low
M
high

0 1116.5
144.6 1436 0.129512 1.286162
10 1077.4
152.25 1555 0.136364 1.392745
20 1036.9
224.88 1715 0.201415 1.53605
30 994.85
343.39 1975 0.307559 1.768921
36 968.75
435.13 2094 0.389727 1.875504
40 968.08
538.35 2082 0.482176 1.864756
50 968.08
882.4 1998 0.790327 1.789521
Table 7.6: The highest and lowest velocity values for a selected range of heights.
After obtaining these Mach numbers, the information was inputted into the engine test page
and the following plots were obtained.

Figure 7.7: Maximum Power Uninstalled thrust vs Mach number


65


Figure 7.8: Military Power uninstalled thrust vs Mach number
Both Figures 7.7 and 7.8 provide information on the thrust provided by each engine. These
values are for the uninstalled thrust. The engine was also tested at SLS and the Design Point. The results
from these tests can be found in Table 7.7 below.

SLS Design
Thrust (lb
f
) 14041 11309
Thrust with AB (lb
f
) 22176 21906
Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (1/h) .7419 1.1228
Air Mass Flow Rate (lb
m
/sec) 202
Compressor Pressure Ratio 20
Fan Pressure Ratio 3.5
Bypass Ratio .352
Bleed Air Flow rate (lb
m
/sec) 1.9831
Power Takeoff (kW) 151.1(per Engine)
Table 7.7: SLS and Design point data


66


Figure 7.9: Values of specific fuel consumption with afterburner on vs Mach number

Figure 7.10: Values of Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption for Military power vs Mach number


67


Figure 7.11: Fuel flow to the Afterburner vs Mach number

Figure 7.12: The Fuel flow rate into the main burner vs Mach number


68

Figures 7.11 and 7.12 display how much fuel per second each of the burners require at each
Mach number. Table 7.8 shows the characteristics of the main burner and afterburner at the condition
of maximum dynamic pressure which occurs at M=1.2. These values were taken from the Engine test
page and the values for core mass flow and fuel flow are for both engines together.
Main burner operation at Max dynamic pressure

M0 Alt, kft Pt3 Tt3 Tt4 3.1 f
f
(lb
m
/s)
1.2 0 577.208 1644.30 3200 246.52 .066993 16.515

Afterburner operation at Max dynamic pressure

M0 Alt, kft Pt6A Tt6A Tt7 6A f
f
(lb
m
/s)
1.2 0 99.596 1810.03 3600 386.63 .127026 49.112
Table 7.8: Engine conditions at maximum dynamic pressure

Figure 7.13: Mass flow rate vs Mach number


69


Figure 7.14: Bypass ratio vs Mach number
In order to get the proper amount of airflow through the engine the bypass ratio will change to
account for the different speeds of the air flow coming into the intake.


70


Figure 7.15: Inlet area for subsonic and supersonic speeds over Mach number.
The inlet area will also change adjusted depending on Mach number, however the change
comes after the aircraft becomes supersonic.


71


Figure 7.16: Pif vs Mach number

Figure 7.17: High pressure compressor ratio vs Mach number


72


Figure 7.18: Shows the expansion rate of the low pressure turbine vs mach number

Figure 7.19: Area of the exhaust nozzle vs Mach number.


73

In order to get the most velocity out of the exhaust it is important to get the gas to expand all of
the way to the ambient pressure. To do this over a wide range of Mach numbers, the exit nozzle
geometry needs to adjust. Figure 7.19 shows the area needed for expansion over Mach number.
The engine test page also lets you look at the operation of the mechanical components at any
flight condition. The values for the Design point of M=1.702 at 35,000 feet are shown below.

Figure 7.20: Engine component data at the Design point.
As Figure 7.20 shows, that at the design point the main burner and afterburner are working at
the maximum temperatures allowed, which are limits set by the team, which were taken as Figures of
Merit. From this information we can find the impulse imparted on each stage by the fluid flow. Taking
the differences provides the axial forces being imparted on the engine at each stage through the engine.
These values are given in Table 7.9.



74


Cumulative

Component Stations
Axial Force
I,(lb
f
)
Stations
Axial Force I,
(lb
f
)
Freestream Tube 0 to 1 794.7 0 to 1 794.7
Inlet 1 to 2 694.6 1 to 2 1489.3
Fan
2 to
13/2.5
20290.7 2 to 13/2.5 21780
High-Pressure compressor 2.5 to 3 9222.3 2.5 to 3 31002.3
Main Burner 3 to 4 -2396.3 3 to 4 28606
High-Pressure turbine 4 to 4.5 -630.2 4 to 4.5 27975.8
Low-Peressure turbine 4.5 to 6 5121.9 4.5 to 6 33097.7
Bypass duct 13 to 16 3293 1.3 to 16 36390.7
Mixer
6/16 to
6A
-37573.9 6/16 to 6A -1183.2
Afterburner 6A to 7 24245.9 6A to 7 23062.7
Nozzle 7 to 9 8372.5 7 to 9 31435.2
Table 7.9: Design point component axial forces
Figure 7.20 also gives us the information to build a table, displaying the operating conditions of
the different compressor and turbine segments of the engine. Knowing the mass flow, pressures and
temperatures across these components is necessary to help find the best material to construct these
parts out of and understand what kind of wear these parts might encounter.
Table 7.10: different values of importance for the compressor and turbine stages.
As is supported in the previous report, the candidate engine produced either matches or excels
the requirements set in the RFP, except for the subsonic rate of climb at the service ceiling of 57,000 ft.

Inlet

value T
t
(R) (lbm/s) P
t
(psia) T
t
(R)
Fan, f
3.5 308.11 201.87 15.715 622.37
High-pressure compressor, ch
5.714296 691.8 149.2 55.001 926.33
High-pressure turbine, 1/Th
2.741513 620.46 145.46 301.72 3107.73
Low-pressure turbine, 1/tL
2.00448 353.71 152.92 110.056 2434.26


75

Appendix
Calculation for CL max
For Future Fighter as per the RFP,

BCM
The best cruise Mach (BCM) number calculation was based on the assumption that in order to
have the best possible range, the least amount of fuel needs to be used. In order to satisfy this theory,
the drag acting on the aircraft during this phase should be almost zero. Therefore after modifying the
parasitic drag equation we came up with the following;

76





Therefore in order to minimize

should be minimum, and the Mach number

corresponding to these values will then be used as the Best Cruise Mach number
For our Future Fighter we obtained the values for

and

at different Mach numbers( figure

obtained from ).












77











After obtaining the above values for different Mach numbers we then computed

for each of
the Mach number, and which ever value was the least, the corresponding Mach number was our Best
Cruise Mach.







78

Current

Future Current Future
M K1 Cd0 M K1 Cd0 Min M Min M
0 0.14 0.018 0 0.18 0.014 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
0.1 0.133656 0.011182 0.1 0.1719 0.072333 0.71907301 2.0740543
0.2 0.12875 0.006875 0.2 0.1656 0.089182 0.28561513 1.1666472
0.3 0.125469 0.004797 0.3 0.1611 0.082091 0.16191643 0.7589956
0.4 0.124 0.004667 0.4 0.1584 0.06404 0.12268301 0.5136589
0.5 0.124531 0.006203 0.5 0.1575 0.044015 0.11673302 0.349696
0.6 0.12725 0.009125 0.6 0.1584 0.027576 0.12267267 0.237927
0.7 0.132344 0.013151 0.7 0.1611 0.017429 0.13230819 0.1680516
0.8 0.14 0.018 0.8 0.1656 0.014 0.14306886 0.1372268
0.9 0.150406 0.023391 0.9 0.1719 0.016 0.15421521 0.1363551
1 0.16375 0.029042 1 0.18 0.021 0.16550559 0.1475561
1.1 0.180219 0.034672 1.1 0.1899 0.026 0.17677916 0.1571417
1.2 0.2 0.04 1.2 0.2016 0.028 0.18782971 0.157777
1.3 0.223281 0.044745 1.3 0.2151 0.028 0.19836896 0.1540195
1.4 0.25025 0.048625 1.4 0.2304 0.028 0.20801408 0.1514594
1.5 0.281094 0.051359 1.5 0.2475 0.028 0.21627582 0.1498439
1.6 0.316 0.052667 1.6 0.2664 0.028 0.22253614 0.1489825
1.7 0.355156 0.052266 1.7 0.2871 0.028 0.22600497 0.148729
1.8 0.39875 0.049875 1.8 0.3096 0.028 0.22563776 0.1489702
1.9 0.446969 0.045214 1.9 0.3339 0.028 0.21997158 0.149617
2 0.5 0.038 2 0.36 0.028 0.20676073 0.1505988

Therefore for the Future Fighter the Best Cruise Mach number was compute to be 0.9
Best Cruise Altitude (BCA)
The Best Cruise Altitude is usually computed at BCM, and takes into account that the aircraft
should cruise at an altitude that provides the aircraft with the best fuel economy. During this phase, the
aircraft should have enough lift to sustain it weight and just enough so that fuel is also saved. To obtain
BCA, we used the following equations.




79


We then simplify the above equation, in terms of thrust loading and wing loading.


Then from this equation we calculate and locate the altitude at which the is found.
Below is a sample worked out BCA calculation,

)




80

Calculation for Load Factor
The Load factor n that was calculated for turns and other maneuvers, was computed using the below
mentioned equation,



We calculated the load factor for the two turns that were done during combat following is the
calculation for one of the turns.