Advanced general aviation comparative engine/airframe integration study

TABLE X part 1 EFFECT OF HIGH EFFICIENCY INLET TCM GTDR-246 DIESEL SINGLE ENGINE FIXED ENGINE, VARIABLE AIRFRAME STATIC PRESSURE HIGH EFFICIENCY £O ENGINE I_LEr TAKEOFF POWER 268 kW ]60 BHP 268 k_ 360 8HP CRUISE POWER 186 kW 250 BHP 186 kW 250 _HP BASIC EMPTY WEISHT 1048 kg 2310 ib 1018 kg 2245 Ib GROSS WEIGHT 1746 k9 3849 ib 1712 kg 3774 Ib WI NG AREA 13.6 sqm 146 sqft 13.2 sqm 142 sqft I0.91 m 35.8 ft WING SPAN 9.81 m 32.2 ft ASPECT RATIO .80 8.80 7.32 7.32 ROC AT CRUISE ALT 192 m/rain 630 fpm 198 m/rain 650 fpa £IME TO CLIMB 21 rain 21.4 rain 20.8 rain 20.8 rain TAKEOFF DISTANCE 55_ m 1810 ft 549 m 1800 ft S£ALL SPEED 113 km/hr 61 KTS 113 km/hr 61 KTS CRUISE SPEED 404 km/hr 218 KTS 417 km/hr 225 KTS (INITIAL) PAY LOAD 544 kg 1200 Ib 544 kg 1200 Ib RANGE 1296 km 700 NM 12 96 km 700 NM MISSION FUEL 126.] kg 278.5 Ib 122.5 kg 270.0 Ib REQUIRED FOEL CAP 200 L 52.9 gal 195 L 51.6 gal !.55 1.55 RELATIVE CRUISE EFF 1.58 1.58 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 V/V* AVG CRUISE SPEED 407 km/hr 220 KTS 420 km/hr 227 KTS MAXIMUM SPEED 436 km/hr 235.5 KTS 436 km/hr 235.5 KTS PRICE $288,000 $188,000 $181,500 $18] ,500 DOC $I06.6/hr $I06.6/hr $I04.6/hr $I04 .6/hr NOISE CHANGE -4 dBA -4 dBA -4 dSA -4 dBA EVALUATION £OTAL 229* 229* 253 250 FOEL EFFICIENCY 8.24 km/L 16.84 NMPG 8.50 km/L 17.37 NMPG * For comparison, the evaluation total on the RC2-32 was 244.

TABLE X

part 2

EFFECT OF HIGH EFFICIENCY

INLET

TCM GTDR-246 DIESEL

SINGLE ENGINE

VARIABLE ENGINE AND AIRFRAME

STATIC PRESSURE HIGH EFFICIENCY

TO ENGINE INLET

TAKEOFF POWER 242 KW 325 BHP 238 k_ 319 BHP

CRUISE PO'._ER 168 kW 226 BHP 166 k_ 222 BHP

BASIC EMPTYWEIGHT 1020 kg 2249 Ib 993 kg 2190 Ib

GROSSWEIGHT 1710 kg 3770 ib 1676 kg 3696 Ib

WING AREA 13.2 sqm 142 sqft 13.0 sqm 140 sqft

WING SPAN 10.55 m 34.6 ft 9.81 m 32.2 ft

ASPECT RATIO 8.45 8.45 7.40 7.40

ROC AT CRUISE ALT 152 m/rain 500 fpm 152 m/rain 500 fpm

TIM/_ rO CLIMB 24.6 rain 24.6 rain 25.4 rain 25.4 rain

TAKEOFF DISFANCE 619 m 2030 ft 629 m 2065 ft STALL SPEED 113 Km/hr 61 KTS 113 km/hr 61 KTS CRUISE SPEED 386 Km/hr 208.5 KTS 397 km/hr 214 .5 KTS (INITIAL) PAYLOAD 544 kg 1200 Ib 544 kg 1200 Ib RANGE 1296 km 700 NM 1296 km 700 IIM MISSION FUEL 120.2 Kg 265 Ib 115.4 Kg 254.5 ib REQUIREO FUEL CAP 189 L 49.9 ga_ 182 L 48.1 gal RELATIVE CRUTSE EFF 1.60 1.60 1.58 1.58 V/V* I. 00 I .00 I. 90 I .00 AVG CRUISE SPEEO 390 Km/h[ 210.5 KTS 402 km/hr 217 KTS MAXIMUM SPEED 420 km/hr 227 KTS 418 km/hr 225.5 K rS PRICE $176,100 $176,100 $169,400 $169,400 DOC $99.5/hr $99.5/hr $96 .B/hr $96.8/hr NOISE CHANGE -4.5 dBA -4.5 dBA -4.5 dBA -4.5 dBA EVALUAFION TD?AL 274" 274" 299 299 FUEL ZFFIC[ENCY _.66 km/L 17.70 NMPG 9.02 Km/L 18.43 N_4PG * For colparison, the evaluation total on the RC2-32 was 322.

9S

it had been 48 points less it moved to only 23 points behind. The

fuel savings were 8.5 pounds (3 percent) for Method II and 10.5 pounds (4 percent) for Method III. These numbers indicate that, within the framework of the assumptions, the inlet could pay its way.

Fhe major effect of the advanced inlet was an apparent increase in the engine's critical altitude. It could, therefore, just as easily be argued that the turDocharger design f_r the diesel should be changed. (For example, using the APU burner to increase turbine output above 17000 ft.) Its low critical altitude puts the diesel at somewhat of a disadvantage relative to the other I.C.

engines mostly due to the airplane's comparatively poor climb performance at high altitude. Reasonable increases in climb rate could, in the synergistic design process, offset significant increases in fuel burned during the climb. A change such as this might produce results equal to or better than the advanced inlet. However, since no engine data were available on this configuration, no tradeoff analysis could be run.

The lapse rate of the advanced spark ignition engine is virtually zero until above 25000 ft where it is still only 1/6 that of the diesel. Therefore, a high efficiency inlet could not produce nearly as large a change for this engine as for the diesel and was consequently not analyzed.

Cruise Altitude Within the constraints of the engine's capabili- _T6s_ncreases in altitude usually bring increases in cruise efficien- cy. _ecause of this, turbocharged engines have been taking an increasingly larger share of the general aviation market. This trend has been accelerating in recent years as fuel costs continue to escalate.

For this reason the selected cruise altitude for t_e missions used in this study was 25000 ft, which is the next logical step above the 18000-23000 ft altitu3es in common use today.

Lower altitudes than 25000 ft were not analyzed for all of the engines since future competitive aircraft will be capable of operating at this altitude and the aircraft of this study must alsc if they are to represent marketable products. The diesel's characteris- tics in particular seemed better matched perhaps to a lower alti- tude, but in Phase II it was analyzed at 25000ft for the reason just stated.

The operation of small aircraft is effectively limited to 25000 ft primarily because of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR'S).

Above that altitude the FAR's require fail-safe windshields and window panels (FAR-23.775e) and a supplemental oxygen dispensing unit (_AR-23.1447b) . this, plus the higher pressurization differential (assuming that a i0000 ft cabin is maintained) adds an estimated 50 pounds to the basic empty weight of the airplane.

Small increases in altitude above 25000 ft are not justified because

of this weight penalty. Phe four advanced engines were, therefore,

analyzed assuming a substantial increase in cruise altitude to

35000 ft. Fhe diesel and GATE, however, had such high ti_rust lapse

rates that no solution could be found without extrapolating the

engine size to unreasonably large values far beyond the range of

data supplied.

The rotary and advance spark ignition engines could be siz- ed to this altitude and the results are shown on Table KI. Even at this altitude, however, the increased efficiency cannot compensate for the heavier empty weight and higher horsepower required. The evaluation criteria, in particular, are noticeaLly worse than for the 25000ft case.

It would be easy to conclude from these results that 25000 ft re_?resents a reasonable maximum cruise altitude for general avia- tion. fhis wosld not, however, be correct. The correct conclusion is that the engine and turbocharger system must be matched to the cruise altitude intended for the aircraft. Simply scaling an engine to a larger size will not enable it to perfo:m well at alti- tuJes higher than where it was designed to operate.

With this in ,aind the baseline, RC2-32 anJ GFDR-246 were reanalyz- ed at a 17000 ft cruise altitude which corresponds to the diesel's critical altitude. This was done to see if the altitude choice had unfairly penalized the diesel. The results are shown on Table XII. Here the rotary and diesel are very evenly matched whereas at 25033 ft the rotary was clearly the superior powerplant. As oointeJ out above, marketing considerations make 17000 ft an impractical design altitude. _he data in Figure XII merely demonstrate again the illportaP_ze to a fair comparison of navln] all the engines designed fo,. the same attitude, the diesel, which ran a close secon3 to ti_e rotar/, would possibly have done better had its turbocharger [,een optimized for a higher altitude (see previous discussion under High Efficiency Inlet).

Cruise at Constant Airspeed ['here is an often quoted rule of thumb that says the horsepower required varies by the cube of the velocitF. Fhis indeed is a good approximation when considering the maximum speed where induced drag is low and parasite drag predominates. For general aviation aircraft flying at V*, however, inSuced drag is high enough that the horsepower required varies by the square, not the cube, of the velocity.

Even so, since the Cessna method of sizing usually defines airplanes with varying cruise speeds, it may still be asked why the airolanes shouldn't De compared when sized to the same cruise speed and, therefore, presumably are using the same cruise horsepower.

_nis u_ually is not a jo_ orocedure, however. First, from the

TABLE XI

EFFECT OF SIZING FOR CRUISE AT 35000 FT

SINGLE ENGINE

ENG I NE

NC 2-32

GTS IO-4 2 0 SC TAKEOFF POWER 347 k_J 465 BHP 313 kW 420 BHP CRUISE POWER 925000" 2_3 K_ 380 BHP 224 kW 300 BHP CRUISE PO_;ER @35000" 200 kW 268 BHP 204 k_4 274 BHP BASIC EMPTY _EIGHT 1146 kg 2527 lb 121'7 Kg 2683 ib GROSS _EIGHT 1856 kg 4092 Ib 1929 kg 4252 ib WING AREA 14.3 sqm 154 sqft 15.0 sqm 161 sqft WING SPAN 12.56 m 41.2 ft 12.83 m 42.1 ft ASPECT R:_T IO ii.0 ii.0 Ii.0 ii.0 ROC AT 35000 FT 210 m/rain 690 fpm 226 m/rain 740 fpm TIME TO CLIMB 23.2 rain 23. 2 rain 26.5 min 26.5 min TAKEOFF DISTANCE 415 m 1360 ft 479 m 1570 ft STALL SPEED 113 km/hr 61 KTS 113 km/hr 61 KTS CRUISE SPEED 453 km/hr 244.5 KTS 446 km/hr 241 KTS (INITIAL) PAY LOAD 544 kg 1200 ib 544 kg 1200 Ib RANGE 1296 km 700 NM 1296 Km 700 NM MISSION FUEL 134.9 Kg 297.5 Ib 134.3 kg 296 Ib REQUIREO FUEL C_P 218 L 57.6 gal 217 L 57.3 gal V/V* 1.00 1.03 1.00 1 .O0 AV3 _RUISE SPEEO 457 Km/hr 247 KTS 450 Km/hr 243 KTS MAK IMUM SPEEO 493 km/nr 266 KTS 452 km/hr 244 KTS PRIC£ $239,500 $239,500 $229,000 S229,000 DOC $!]).2/hr $i30.2/hr S125.0/hr $125.0/hr NOISE CHAN3_ -3.5 dB_ -3.5 dB_ -2.6 dBA -2.6 dBA EVALUATIOq FOFAL 103 103 Iii 111 FUEL _FFICIEqCY 7.71 Km/L 15.76 N4PG 7.75 km/L 15.84 N_PG There was no solution for the GFDR-246 or the GATE within reasonable extrapolation of the engine size.

I

C _.__ 0__ I _en _0 _o _c_,l koo c'q_ ,_,_ ,-t ',.o I._ f'.4 • C',,I O gO _'_ _ ,-.-4 _ C'-I I| ¢'¢ cxl c0 ,.,_ ,,-t ¢_ _o ,-_ O IJ'_ ,--,I Ol -_C _ O o- o" _ _ OO kO ",.O ,,_ • • ,.-4 I_ _ _:0 r,.

(Z) I 0._ !:_ C'_ .13 0 ,",4 p,., r,": t I"-,-.4 O_J'_ ,-4 I C',,I r,,] C',,I r_ u_ c_ ,-4 o < c:.l r.sa t.o i.f) t_ _,.o ,.-._ _z c) ,,.o ,-_ko u_ _2_UM ¢M ,-..4 o'_4 ,..-1 m_a4 r_ o_ (D z zt,'3 o [1.1 _c,l o o ,,.--1 ,_ ,-.4 co t_ o,I k,o ,-..t © c_ < o g..,,, m. "_E EE M u', a _ ._ '-' tO _ O_ L_ _3 ,,.o ol (_ P_ _ ,,ee ,.-t ko ,.....4 ,--I ,-I e,_i ('M r.._ ,_ r,_ _U z o O c.., U3 < ,.-4 r_ U L) z a, c)_ _4 ,-j _r..

0_ _r? r.-.

LO f.L, g'l O_ > O 'ZOa O_ -,_ r,. r s.1 ,,:_ rJ1 r._ < < O_ ',_ O_'1 t.)u3 U ,-3 __Z ,...1 Lo COO ,'9 V''D {_ ,") _:P :Z C_ << M -_ <_,_ _e_ _-__-_ ,J_ 4_ _rr

._ett;oJ II comparison it can be seen that equal cruise horseoower

does not produce equal cruise speeJs for the various engine/air-

frame combinations. Second, there are on the order of 8 specific constraints that each design must meet but only 4 major variables (gross weight, wing area, aspect ratio and engine size) which can be cnanged in order to match the airolane's performance to these constraints. That means that only 4, at most, can be satisfieJ and these are chosen so that the other constraints are exceeded.

Trying to pick one constraint, crulse speed, and sayin_ thac it will be met whatever the cost to the others usually means choosing design parameters that increase tne drag to artificially nold th __ speed of one configuration Jown to the value of anoti_er.

Phere is another option, however, which is to compare the airplanes when cruising at the same speed at reduced throttle set- tings. There was sufficient part throttle data to do the analysis fox the diesel and RC2-32 engines which were also the most interesting.

These were analyzed while operating at so called "economy cruise" ratings, or throttle settings that allowed an efficient matching of the cruise airspeeds to that of the baseline single. The results are ShOWn on Fable XIII. Note that the takeoff gross weight, acquisition cost anJ DO= are virtually unchanged, while the evalua- tion criteria, relative cruise coefficient and mission fuel are nominally better. Fhe effect is to make already dramatic improvements slightly better. It does not change the relative rankings of the engines nor does it make the large performance imorovements of these engines, relative to today's powerplants, significentl/ more obvious.

Alvance] Airframe As outline3 in the section on assumotions, the study was modeled using aerodynamics, materials and missions for the 1990 airplanes wnicn were logical progressions from the ai-:craft of today, rhere are, however, many active research and development programs wnich could radically alter that picture in the next decade. Fhese possibilities are discussed below along with estimates of now mUCh each would change the characteristic3 of a new airplane if the technology matured sufficiently to allow their use.

Composites Aaterials: Here the oroblem is not in materlal characteristics, which are in many ways already demonstrably better than aluminum, D_t in the costs associated with using then.

Reference 14 suggests potential weight savings of at least 25 percent in major components (_ings, fuselage, etc.) and 12 percent in the landing gear. _hese values are somewhat conservative compared to other estimates.

Propeller: _ne propeller characteristics used up to this point in the analysis took advantage of only about one half of the potential gains inJicated by the _ASA GAP study (Ref. 15). ]?he full gains used here are a 6 percent improvement in propeller efficiency (i.e.,f]prop)ne_-gprop)old = .06) , a 40 pound decrease in weight and a I00

TABLE XIII

part 1

EFFECT OF OPERATINGAT REDUCED PO_ER

SIN:UE ENGINE RC2-32

ME£HOD II FD(EOENSINE, V_RIABLE _IRFR&ME, FIXED PAYL_Ag-RANS_£'% %_:)

CRUISE _PEEO

THRSTTL E SETTING

'4AXIMUMCRUISE

:ECCNO!4Y CRJISE

TAKEOFF PC.g ER

239 k4 320 BHP 239 k_; 320 BHP

CRUISE PO_ER @251300"

186 kd 253 BHP 151 ka 206 3HP BASIC EMPI'Y _EIGHT 965 kg 2127 Ib 995 kg 2194 Ib GRDSS _EIGHT 1674 kg 3691 ib 1676 kg 3696 Ib WIN3 AREA 13.0 sqm 139.5 sqft 13.0 sqm 140 sqft WING SPAN I0.00 m _2.8 ft 11.28 m 37.0 ft A_PECr RATIO 7.73 7.73 9._0 9.80 ROC _T 25300 FT 249 m/min 816 fpa 290 m/min 950 fpm TIME ro CLIMB 22.1 ain 22.1 min 20.2 min 20.2 min TAKEOFF DIS£ANCE 585 m 1920 ft 563 m 1847 ft S£ALL SPEED 113 km/hr 61 KTS 113 km/hr 61 KTS CRUISE SPEED 424 km/nr 229 KTS 382 km/hr 206 KTS (INITIAL) PAYLOAD 5_4 Kg 1200 Ib 544 kg 1200 i_ RANGE 1296 Km 700 N:4 1296 km 700 N_ MISSION FJEL 134 kg 296 ib 114.5 kg 252.5 Ib REDUIRED FJEL C_P 214 L 56.5 gal 199 L 52.7 aal !.05 1.05 V/V* I .30 I .,:'0 AVG £RUISE SPEED 423 kin/h[ 231 KTS 384 Km/nr 207.5 KTS 4AXIMdN SPEED 439 km/hr 237 KTS 443 km/hr 239 KTS PRICE $!75,000 $175,000 $180,000 $180,000 DDC $i02.7/hr $i02.7/hr $i04.5/hr $I04.5/hr NOISE CHANGE -i.3 dBA -i.0 dBA -2.3 dBA -2.0 dBA EVALUATIO_ £OTAL 244 244 272 272 FJEL _FFICIENCf 7.73 Km/L 15.B0 NMPG 9.10 km/L 18.60 NMPG

FABLE XIII part 2 EFFECT OF OPERATING AT REDUCED POWER SINGLE ENGINE GTDR-246 METHOD II FIXED ENGINE, VARIABLE AIRFRAME, FIXED PAYLOAD-R_.NGE %N3 CRUISE 3PEEO THROTTLE SETTING MAXI'4UM CRUISE ECONO4Y CRUISE TAKEOFF POWER 268 kW 360 BHP 268 k_ 360 BHP CRUISE POWER @25000" 186 kW 250 BHP 154 k_ 206 3HP BASIC EMPTY WEIGHT i04% kg 2310 ib 1048 kg 2311 Ib GROSS _EIGHT 1746 kg 3849 ib 1726 kg 3807 Ib WING AREA 13.6 sqm 146 sqft 13.4 sqm 144.5 sqft WING SPAN 10.91 m 35.8 ft 11.06 m 36.3 ft ASPECT RATIO _.80 _.90 9.10 9.10 ROC AT 25000 FT 192 m/rain 630 fpm 200 m/rain 656 fpm TIME TO CLIMB 21.4 rain 21.4 rain 20.9 rain 20.9 rain TAKEOFF DISFANCE 552 m 1810 ft 547 m 1793 ft STALL SPEED I13 km/hr 61 KTS 113 km/hr 61 KTS CRUISE SPEED 404 km/hr 218 KTS 382 km/hr 206 KTS (INITIAL) PAYLOAD 544 kg 1200 ID 544 kg 1200 ib RANGE 1296 km 700 NM 1296 km 700 NM MISSION FUEL 126.3 kg 278.5 Ib 111.6 kg 246 Ib REQUIRED FJEL CAP 200 L 52.9 gal. 176 L 46.6 gal V/V* i. 05 I .05 i .00 I .30 AV'G CRUISE 3PEEC 407 kin/h[ 220 KTS 385 km/h_ 208 KTS ,IAXIMUM SPEED 436 km/hr 235.5 KTS 447 km/hr 236 KTS PRICE S188,000 S188,000 SIB7,00O $187,0_0 DOC Sl06.6/hr S]06.6/hr Sl06.4/hr SI06.4/h[ NOISE CHA_gg -4.0 dB_ -4.0 dBA -4.3 dBA -4.0 dBA EVALUATION T3FAL 229 229 260 260 FJEL EFFICIENCY 9.22 km/L 16.80 NMPG 9.35 km/L 19.10 NMPG 4 dB(A) improvement in nolse.

Accessories: An arbitrary weight reduction of 20 percent,

due mostly to improved electronics and materials, has been assum-

ed for the advanced airframes.

Laminar Flow Airfoils: Reference 16 indicates that a poten-

tial reduction in wing profile drag of 40 percent is reasonable

if laminar flow is achieved over large areas of the surface. Assum-

ing that the wing profile drag is approximately 1/3 of the total airframe value, then a savings of approximately 13 percent is possible.

Lift Coefficient: A trimmed maximum lift coefficient of 2.5 is assumed for this advanced airframe analysis and should be reasonably easy to obtain with the large span flaps.

Analysis: The improvements discussed above are in no way conservative but neither are any unreasonably optimistic. With adequate research funding they probably can be realized. The re- sults of reanalyzing the single engine airframe powered by the base- line and RC2-32 engines an_ with these more optimistic assumptions are shown on Table XIV. gote that the price per pound of airframe was not changed despite the use of advanced materials, thus assuming a major reduction in the cost of manufacturing composite structures.

For the baseline single these improvements due to aerodynamics and materials show greauer potential (as judged by the evaluation criteria) than the GTSIO-420 moderate risk, advanced spark igni- tion engine does. The improvements coupled with the RC2-32 show a potential savings in fuel (compared to the baseliine) cf 39 percent versus 33 percent for that engine without them.

REVISED GATE After work on Phase 2 had been virtually complet- ed, NASA, in conjunction with Teledyne-CAE, discovered that an inadver- tent error had been made when the Teledyne GATE engine was scaled to the higher design point altitude required for the present study.

Fhe ,:esult was an SFC and an engine weight which were almost exactly I0 Dercent too high. Therefore, the analysis was redone using Meth- od II with the two indicated factors reduced by i0 percent.

The results, shown in Fable XV and overplotted on Figures 28,33,36,38,40,42,45, indicate a very significant improvement but still do not c_upare favorably with the rotary and diesel powered machines. Note, however, that even these revised data are still b_sed on a low-initial-cest design philosophy which was prevalent at the time that NASA initiated the GATE studies. An approach that strives specifically for low fuel consumption might well be more coTpetitive wi£h the other engine types.

FABLE XIV part 1 EFFECt OF ADV&NCED AIRFRAME SINGLE ENGINE TSIO -550 METHOD II FIXED ENGINE, VARIABLE _IRFRAME, FIXED PAYLOAO-R_N3E AIRFRAME DESIGN Z3_SERVATIVE OPTIMI STIC TAKEOFF POWER 254 kW 340 BHP 254 kW 340 BHP CRUISE POWER925000" 186 kW 250 BHP 186 kW 250 BHP BASIC EMPTYNEIGHT 1241 kg 2736 ib 1021 kg 2252 ib GROSS_4E IGHT 2023 kg 4460 ib 1780 kg 3924 Ib WING ARE_ 15. 9 sqm 170 sqft 11.6 sqm 125 sqft WING SPAN 12.25 m 40.2 ft 11.16 m 36.6 ft ASPECT RATIO 9.50 9.50 10.70 10.70 ROC AT 25000 Fr 198 m/min 650 fpm 259 m/rain 850 fpm TIME TO CLIMB 2_.4 min 28.4 min 22.4 min 22.4 min TAKEOFF DISTANCE 583 m 2240 ft 686 m 2250 ft STALL SPEED 113 km/hr 61 KTS 113 km/hr 61 KTS CRUISE SPEED 382 Km/hr 206 KTS 426 km/hr 230 KTS (INITIAL) PAYLOAD 544 kg 1200 Ib 544 kg 1200 ib RANGE 1296 km 700 t_M 1296 km 700 NM MISSION FJEL 200 kg 440 Ib 177 kg 390 ib RE]UIRED FJEL CAP 344 L 91.0 gal 314 L 83.0 gal V/V• 1.00 1.00 1.1)5 1.05 %V_ ZRUISE _PEED 397 km/hr 209 KTS 431 km/hr 232.5 KTS PRICE $202,000 $202,000 $158,500 $158,500 DOC $122.0/hr $122.0/hr $108.0/hr $108. 0/br NOISE CHA'_jC 0.O ds% 0.0 dS& -I.0 dSA -i.0 dSA EVALUATIO!q tOTAL 0 0 134 134 FJEL EFFICIENCY _.70 km/L 9.60 NMPG 5.28 km/L i0.80 NMPG 10&

TABLE XIV part 2 EFFECT OF ADVANCED AIRFRAME SINGLE ENGINE RC2-32 METHOD iI FIXED PAYLOAD-R_NGE EN3INE, VARIABLE AIRFP_AME,FIXED AIRFRAMEDESI3N CONSERVATIVE OPTIMISTIC TAKEOFF POWER 239 k_ 320 BlIP 239 k_ 320 BHP CRUISE POWER@25000" 186 kW 250 BHP 186 kW 250 BHP BASIC EMPTY_EIGHT 965 kg 2127 Ib 782 kg 1725 Ib GROSS_EIG HT 1674 kg 3691 Ib 1479 kg 3260 ib WING AREA 13.0 sqm 139.5 sqft 9.60 sqm 103 sqft WING SPAN 10.00 m 32.8 ft 8.50 m 27.9 ft ASPECT RATIO 7.73 7.73 7.55 7.55 ROC AT 25000 FT 249 m/rain 816 fpm 293 m/rain 960 fpm TIME i'D CLIMB 22 .i min 22.1 min 18.6 min 18.6 min TAKEOFF DISTANCE 535 m 1928 ft 585 m 1920 ft SrALL SPEED i13 km/hr 61 KTS 113 km/hr 61 KTS CRUISE SPEED _24 km/hr 229 KTS 465 km/hr 251 KTS (INITIAL) P&YLOAD 544 kg 1200 Ib 544 kg 1200 Ib RANGE 1296 km 700 NM 1296 km 700 NM MISSION FOEL 134 kg 296 Ib 122 kg 269 ib REQUIREDFUEL CAP 214 L 56.5 gal 199 L 52.5 gal 1.05 1.05 I .05 1 .95 v/V* AVG SRUISE SPEEO 428 km/hr 231 KTS 419 kmlhr 253 KTS $175,000 $175,000 $141,000 $141,000 PRICE $i02.7/hr $102.7/hr $92.0/hr $92.0/hr DOC -I.0 dBA -I.0 dBA -3.5 dBA -3. 5 dBA NOISE CHA_SE 244 244 354 346 EWALJATIOq tOTAL 15.80 N'4PG 8.51 km/L 17.40 NMPG FUEL EFFICIENCf 7.73 km/L

rABLE XV part 1 EFFECT OF 10% IMPROVEMENT IN GATE ENGINE SINGLE ENGINE

_ErHOD II

FIXED ENGINE, VARIABLE AIRFRAME, FIXED PAYLOAD-RANGE ENGINE _ASIC ENGINE -10% NEIGH r & SFC FAKEOFF PONER 391 KW 523 BHP 391 kW 525 BHP CRUISE PO_ER @25000' 186 KN 250 BHP 186 k_/ 250 BHP BASIC EL-IPrY NEIGHI" 1006 kg 2218 Ib 975 kg 2150 Ib GROSS _EISHT 1772 kg 3907 ib 1719 kg 3790 Ib WIt_ AREA 13.8 sam 149 sqft 13.4 sqm 144 sqft WI NG SPAN 10.82 m 35.5 ft 10.42 m 34.2 ft ASPECt RATIO 3.45 8.45 8. I0 8.10 ROC AT 25000 FT 160 m/rain 524 fpm 267 m/rain 545 fpm TI:.IE TO CLIMB 28.1 rain 28.1 rain 27.0 rain 27.0 rain i_AKfiOF F DISfANCE 416 m 1365 ft 405 m 1330 ft S !'ALL SPEED 113 km/hr 61 KTS 113 km/hr 61 KTS CRUISE SPEED 418 km/hr 225.6 KTS 420 km/hr 227 KTS (INITIAL) PAYLOAD 544 Kg 1200 Ib 544 kg 1200 Ib RANGE 1296 k_ 700 NM 1296 km 700 NM AISSION FUEL 181 Kg 400 ID 162 kg 358 Ib REQUIRED FUEL CAP 291 L 77.0 gal 263 L 69.4 gal i .05 I .05 1.05 1.05 V/V* AVG CRUISE SPEED 423 km/hr 228.5 KTS 424 km/hr 229 KTS EFF RELATIVE Ci_UI SE 1.16 1.16 1.31 1.31 PRICE $203,000 $203,000 $198,000 $198,000 DOC $11_. 5/hr $118.5/hr $114.0/hr $114.0/hr NOISE CHANGE -5.0 dSA -5.0 dBA -5.0 dBA -5.0 dBA EVALUATION TOTAL 58 58 116 116 FUEL EFFICIENCY 5.72 km/L 11.70 NMPG 6.41 km/L 13.10 NMPG L.

FABLE XV part 2 EFFECT OF 10% IMPROVEMENT IN GATE ENGINE TWIN ENGINE METHOD II FIXED ENGINE, VARIABLE AIRFRAME, FIXED PAYLOAD-RANDE ENGINE 3ASI: ENGINE -13% ,;EI3HT & SFC TAKE _" F POWER 391 kW 525 BHP 391 KW 525 ?HP 136 kW 250 B_qP 186 kW 250 B_P CRUISE PO_ER @25000 BASIC EMPTY ,gEIGHT 1524 kg 3360 Ib 1477 kg 3257 ib GROSS _EIgHT 2_08 kg 5750 Ib 2514 kg 5542 Ib WiNG AREA 15.4 sqm 166 sqft 14.6 sqm 157 sqft 10.91 m 35.8 ft 10.64 m 34.9 ft _I NG SPAN ASPECt RATIO 7.70 7.70 7.75 7.75 ROC Ar 25000 FT 238 m/rain 780 fpm 247 m/rain @I0 fpm SEROC _ 5000 ft 119 m/rain 390 fpm 123 m/min 405 fpm TIME TO CLIMB 13.6 rain ]8.6 rain 17.9 rain 17.9 rain 375 m 1230 ft rAKEOFF D ISf_NCE 383 m 1255 ft _rALL 3P£ED 130 km/hr 70 KTS 131 km/hr 70.5 KTS CRUISE SPEEO 464 km/nr 250.7 KTS 469 km/hr 253 KTS (INITIAL) PAYLOAD 635 kg 1400 Ib 635 kg 1400 Ib 1492 km 800 NM 1482 km 800 NM RANGE MISSION FUEL 367 kg 808.5 Ib 328 kg 723 ib 587 L 155.0 gal 52a L 139.5 gal REQJIRED FUEL CA_ 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 V/V* 471 km/hr 254.5 KTS 474 km/hr 256 KTS %VG CRUISE 3PEED RELATIVE CRUISE EFF 1.07 1.07 1.21 1.21 PRICE S]77,000 $377,000 S365,000 $365,000 DOC $222.0/hr $222.0/hr $212.0/hr $212.0/hr -4.0 dBA -4.3 dBA NOISE CHANGE -3.0 dBA -3.0 dBA 122 122 EVALUATION tOTAL 61 61 3.62 km/L 7.40 NMPG FJEL £_FICIENCY 3.23 km/L 6.60 NMPG CONCLJSIONS The advanced and highly-advanced internal combustion engines all offer the potential for substantially improved airplanes in all respects - performance, fuel burn, and cost - compared to the baseline, particularly if the airframe is resized to take advantage of the powerplant cnaracteristics.

The turboprop (either version) might be viewed as a viable replacement for the baseline engine, offering market apoeal, but no major improvement in efficiency or cost.

Results for singles and twins show the same trends, regardless of the method of comparison.

Paraaetric studies show that the results are relatively insensitive to the assumptions (drag level, weights, costs, etc.) made and the missions chosen.

Advanced materials and aerodynamic features can provide very worthwhile improvements in performance, fuel burn, and cost.

Used in combination with the advanced engines, the gains become very large.

On the basis of the evaluation criteria the engines in the study rank as follows: STRDNG POINTS ENGINE WEAK POINTS Low fuel Durn, low DOC, I) RC2-32 Rotary Cooling system maintenance small size, low weight, multi-fuel capability Less multifuel 2) GTDR-246 Low fuel burn, low wgt Diesel capability Same factors as RC2-]2 Lower overall per- BC2-47 Rot formance than I) or 2) 3) Tie_GTSIO 4203C Mechanical Low fuel burn, low wgt %, Spark Ign complexity 4) GTSIO 420 None, compared to Relatively heavy, Spark Ign other engines poor economics 5) GATE Low weight High fuel consumption, "turbine image" high power lapse rate, TurDoprop high cost i0_

TECHNICAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

PREFERRED ENGINE CANDIDATE Although all of the I.C. engines studied show substantial improvements over the baseline, the highly advanced rotary and diesel engines are clearly tP- eferred candidates for development by virtue of their very hie ranking according to the evaluation criteria. If added importance is assigned to the ability to operate on the widest possible range of fuels, the rotary will have a 3efinite edge.

TEC:{ :_OL33Y PROGRAM It is recommended that a program be established by NASA which will focus on enabling technologies for both the rotary and diesel engines, paced to allow building of the "highly advanced" versions by 1990. _idway in this period, it would be highly desirable to have flightworthy experimental engines available for testing by an airframe manufacturer in order to assess installation factors, systems integration, vibration, performance, and certification potential, these interim mmoderately advanced" engines might themselves pe candidates for producti_,, depending on their performance and market conditions; at any rate, the experience gained should be valuaole in assessing and d_recting the overall program.

REFERENCES Aeronautics and Space Engineeering Board of the National

i)

Research Council. "NASA's Role in Aeronautics: A Workshop Vol IV General Aviation." National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1981 StucKas, K. J.: Advanced Spark-Ignition Aircraft Piston

2)

Engine Study. (Teledyne Continental Motors, NASA Contract NAS3-21272.) NASA CR-165162, 1980.

Brouwer, A. P.: 150 and 300 kW Lightweight Diesel _ircraft

3)

Engine Design Study. NASA CR-3260,19_0.

Brouwer, A. P.: 186 Net kN Lightweight Diesel Aircraft

4)

Engine. NASA CR-3261, 1980.

Badgley, P., et al: Advanced Stratified Change Rotary

5)

Aircraft Engine Oesign Study. NASA CR-165398, 19_I.

Baerst, C. F. ; and Furst, O. G.: General Aviation Turbine

6)

Engine (GATE) Study. (AiResearch 21-2997, AiBesearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona; N_SA Contract NAS3-20755.) NAS_ CR-1594S2, 1979.

Smith, R. ; and Benstein, E.H.: Advanced General Aviation

7)

Turbine Engine (GAFE) Study. (TELEDYNE-CAE-1600, Teledyne CAE; NASA Contract NAS3-20757.) NASA CR-159624, 1979.

Lays, E. J.; and _urray, D.L.: Advanced General Aviation

8)

Turbine Engine (GATE) Concepts. (WRC-78-I13-15, _illiams Research Corp.; NASA Contract NAS3-20758.) NASA CR-159603, 1979.

Gill, J.; et al.: Study of an Advanced General Aviation

9)

Turbine Engine (GATE). ( DDA-EDR-9528, Detroit Diesel Allison; NASA Contract NAS3-20756.) NASA CR-159558, 1979.

Carson, B. H. : "Fuel Efficiency of Small Aircraft,"

lO)

AIAA-@0- i%47.

Hoerner, Sighard F.: "Fluid-Dynamic Drag," published by

II)

the Author Miley, S. J.; "An Investlgation of the Aerodynamics & 12) Cooling of a Horizontally-Opposed Engine Installation," SAE 770467, 1977 Corsiglia, q. R.: Kitz, J. : "Full Szale Study of the 13) Cooling System Aerodynamics of an Operating Piston Engine Installed in a Light Aircraft Wing Panel," SAE 810623, 19Sl II0 14) Nicolai, L. M.; "Fundamentals of Aircraft Design," _Er3, Inc. , Ohio 15) Keiter, I. D.: "Impact of Advanced Propeller Technology on Aircraft/Mission Characteristics of Several General Aviation Aircraft," SAE 8105_4 19al 16) _Iolmes, _. C.; and Croom, C.C.: "Aerodynamic Design Data for a Cruise-Matched High Performance Single Engine _irplane," 3AE _10625, 19al iii

APPENDIX I DIRECf 9PER_TION ZDSTS FOR GENERAL _VIATION _IRCR_FP 1981 Estimate ENGINE PERIODIC M_INT_N_N_E i) Use past e:._rience (i.e. similar engine/airframe combination) or engine m_nufacturer's estimate, otherwise use: 4umber of labor hours for 100 hour inspection x labor rate l_ ............

then 3ouble this answer to account for oarts.

labor rate earl_ 1981 ran $20/hour 3/E S25/hour I/E $30/hour Turboprops Turboprops must be considered under a different formula. Instead of being inspected every hundred hours, they undergo a series of {ot Section Inspections during the overhaul period. These are usually of considerably greater time than I00 hours. For so_e engines the work scheduled for each HSI is different as the time from last overhaul increases.

(cost of labor _ cost of _arts) for HSI's + misc.

TBO (filters, igniter3 + labor not incluJe_ in qSI) 2) RESERV,£S FO_ E43['JZ 3_{RH%JL The _ssumotion (conservative) is made that every other overnaul will require, instead of an overhaul, a remanufactured engine.

£herefore: ( ov e maul cost +_cost__o__f_rem__an__f__act___uredeng ine)/2 TBO For £uroonrops: overnaul cost (l__abor_t_o_aits .) + additional allowances '£BO _dditional alloaances includes an allowance for oremature re- aoval of the engine (1/5 to 1/2 of overhaul cost) add engine ac- cessories (starter generator etc.) an_ engine components (Turbines, nozzles, etc.) .

PPOPELLER OVERHAUL 3) Propeller DOC (S/he) Fixed Pitcn .II S/E Controllable LSE .43 HPSE .60 Centurion class . 82 M/E Controllable (per oropeller) .90 AI RFIAI'E JA[NfE 4_CE 4) rnis number is basefl on a parametric fit of the available data.

OOC 1.472 + .000534 FOGW - .000373 BHP (Total) +2.774 ('twins only) + I.@78 (if pressurized) 3) INSURANCE (HULL + LIA,_ILITY) See tables A IV-I and A IV-2 Fuel cost 6) orice H@!_ oOC ...... × ($l.70/J3 gal used for all fuels) qal hour CIL COSt 7) OJC : [_rice x SPA use_ ($6/gal approximates oiI + filter) gal or alternately use actual orice cost of filter JJC ....... x /Pd used* + gal #hrs between filter change *include oil consumed an_ oil lost _urinq oil chaDqes.

OEPREC [AFIO'_ 3) 7.5 x utilization rate / year Depreciated to zero residual in 7.5 years RESERVES FOR AVIONICS 9) 10_ of total avionic oacka@e (standard + ootional)

I0) RESERVESFOR SYS£EMS4AINTENANCE

DOC -.513 + .900303 TOGW+ !.109 ( if pressurized)

Again this is a parametric fit of available data.

TABLE A IV-I

Pl_asure & Business Rates For Well-Qualified Pilots:

Jull Jalue

S_ le_E__n_ i ne Rate Mult { En@ine rate

] .00%

$15, 000 .... 24,999

2.75

00 - 39,999

2 .50

40, 000 - 59,999

2.00

000 - 99,999

60,

1.75

i00, 000 - 149,300

1.60

150, 000 - 200,000

1.75%

150, 000 - 299,999

I. 50

300, 000 - 499,999

1 .35

500, 000 - 750,000

P_6 - I Mil. i. I0

750 ,

1.00

I Mil - 1.5 4iI.

T_BLE A IV-2 limit Le_!l__Li_a.oillt _ Limit of SS,000,00O combined single S3ats Annual Fremium 5 675 6 725 7 825 8 975 9 1,075 !0 1,[75 ii 1,250 llZ_

APPENDIX II MISCELLANEOdS DATA USED IN STUDY Cabin Pr essur lzation Adequate for 10,000 ft cabin at cruise altitude Reserve Fuel Fhe gross weight was calculated as- suming adequate fuel for the mission plus 45 minutes reserve at cruise power Maximum Lan_.ing Weight For 95% of Gross Weight twins Shaft _{orsepower All engine power ratings supplied by NAS_ were assumed to be installed values; i.e., the powe_ available to the propeller after all accessory drive requirments were met i'he total fuel for these functions Fuel For 3tatting Runup, Faxi, and _aKeoff was estimated to be equivalent to .085 hours at takeoff power A value of Cd = .0035 was used based Drag Oue _Po Engine Out on T303 data. Fhis assumes inoperative engine propeller feathered and a bank angle of 5 degrees into the good engine Aspect Ratio Values greater than II were not used.

Primarily this was felt to be the maximum value to which the data base could be accurately extrapolated.

Takeoff Characteristics Climb velocity at 50 feet/Vs = 1.2 Rolling Friction Coeffi2Jent = .02 Maximum Lift Coefficient = 1.6 P Heat val Cost Fuel Character ist ics Avgas 6.0#/a 18720BTU/# $1.70/g let Fuel 6.7#/g I_400BTU/# $1.70/g Airplane Usage 5U0 Hours/Year

APPENDIX I II

TABULATEDDATA

qhe results of the Phase 2 study, shown g[aphzcally in Figures 28

through 37 and 39 through 46, are tabulated herein. Included also

is a table showing the values of each component of the evaluation

criteria _nalysis for all engines for the three methods of comparison

both for single and twin engine configurations.

TABLE AIII-I AIRPLANE COMPARISONS SINGLE ENGINE FIXED ENGINE & AIRFRAME SIZE VARIABLE MISSION & PER?ORMANCE TSIO GTDR GTSIO GTSIO EN_iNE -550 R: 2-_ 7 PC.2- 32 -246 -420 -_20SC GATE TAKEOFF k_" 254 239 239 268 261 261 391 PO_ER BHP 340 320 320 360 350 350 525 CRUISE kW 186 186 186 186 i86 186 186 POWE_ BHP 250 250 250 250 250 253 250 EMerY 4EIGHT kg 1241 1148 1105 1152 1201 1170 1105 !b 1736 2531 2_37 2539 2648 2579 2436 GROSS ,_EIGHT kg 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 ib 4460 4460 4460 4460 4460 4460 4460 _IN_ AREA sqm 15.8 15.8 15.9 15.8 15.B 15.8 15._ sqft !70 170 170 170 170 170 170 _IN_ SPAN m 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 ft 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2 ASPECT RATIO 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 ROC a/ain 198 198 193 150 264 251 130 AT 25000" fom 650 550 650 493 866 822 427 CLIM_ r I ._,_ rain 28._ 27.5 27.5 15.9 24.4 25.0 33._ TAKEOFF m 683 705 705 643 643 644 475 DISTA:_CE ft 2240 2313 2312 2110 2110 2113 1558 SFALL km/hr i13 113 I13 113 113 I13 113 SPEED KTS 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 CROISE k_/hr 3_2 407 407 389 396 394 404 SPEED KTS 206 220 220 210 214 213 218 PAYLOAD Kg 544 592 613 590 565 581 613 Ib 1200 1305 1352 1301 1246 i]81 1352 RAISE km 1296 2309 2658 2615 2004 2450 1876 NM 700 12_7 1435 1412 1082 1323 1013 MISSION F_EL Kq 200 252 274 254 226 244 264 Ib 440 555 605 560 499 538 583 TRANS Mg km/L 25.] 43.5 47.5 48.8 36.0 47.1 35.1 EFF ton '_MPG 5.7 9.8 10.7 ii._ 8.1 10.6 7.9 RhLAPI VE EFF l. O0 1.51 1.64 1.59 1.40 1.57 1.23 q/V • I .00 i .Oi !.0{ 1.02 1.03 !.03 1.0] NOISE dBA 0.3 0.0 0.0 -3.0 0.0 0.0 -4.0 PRICE $I000 202 212 2[2 217 217 215 229 DOC $/i_ 122 116 115 116 121 116 127 EVAL TOTAL --- 201 223 214 102 194 74 I17

TABLE AIII-II

AIRPLANE COMPARISONS

TWIN F_NG INE

FIXED ENGINE & AIRFRAme.SIZE

VARIABLE MISSION & PERFORMANCE

TSIO GTDR GTSIO

GTSIO

ENG [ NE

-550 ._C 2- 47 RC2-32 -246 -420 -420SC GATE

TAKEOF F k_

254 239 239 268 261

261 391

POW ER BHP

340 320 320 360 350 350 525

CRUISE dW

186 186 186 186 186 186 186

PO_ER BHP

250 250 250 250 250 250 25O EMPTY _EIGHT kg 2008 17_ 1710 1818 1932 1866 1688 ].b 4429 3959 3770 4007 4260 411 3722 GROSS ;4EIGHT kg 3107 3107 3107 3107 3107 3107 3107 Ib 6850 6850 6850 6850 6850 6850 6850 WING AREA sqm 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 sqft 180 180 180 18G 180 180 180 WING SPAN m 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 ft 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 ASPECF RATIO II.0 Ii.0 II.0 II.C ii.0 il.O 11.3 ROC m/rain 312 311 311 251 397 381 195 AT 25000" fPm 1025 1019 1019 825 1301 1250 641 CLIMB rIME mln 18.7 18.2 18.2 17.S 17.1 17.2 22.5 S EROC M/41 N 105 92 92 13/ 129 125 96 at 5000 ft fmp 243 301 301 451 423 410 314 TAKEOFF m 713 735 735 638 676 676 489 DISTANCE f t 2338 2410 2410 2093 2217 2218 1605 SFALL km/hr 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 SPEED K TS 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 CRUISE km/nr 423 450 450 437 433 433 456 SPEED KTS 229 243 243 236 234 234 246 PAYLOAD kg 635 790 876 776 741 751 891 ib 1400 1741 1931 1711 1634 1656 1965 RANGE Km 14_2 2367 2605 2676 1839 2429 1776 N4 800 1283 135J 1445 996 1311 959 MISSION FJEL kg 388 459 461 459 373 434 446 ib 355 1011 1017 1011 822 957 983 TRANS _4g km/L 17.3 32.8 38.2 36.4 26.2 33.7 28.4 EFF ton NMPG 3.9 7.4 8.6 8.2 5.9 7.6 6.4 RELATIVE EFF 1.00 1.71 !..99 1.82 1.52 1.69 1.45 V/V* 1.00 I.']3 ]..03 1.02 1.02 I .02 i .04 NOISE dBA 0.0 -i.0 -I.0 -_.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 PRICE $i000 381.5 396 396 403 408 405 427 DOC $/hr 230 216 2i4 216 226 216 239 EVAL TOTAL --- 228 260 238 123 207 128

TABLE AIII-III

AIRPLANE COMPARISONS

SINGLE ENGINE

FIXED ENGINE & PAYLOADRANGE

VARIABLE AIRFRAME

TSIO GTDR GTSIO GTSIO

ENGINE -550 RC2-47 RC2-32 -246 -420 .420SC GATE

TAKEOFF kW 254 239 239 268 261 261 391

PONER BHP 340 320 320 360 350 350 525

CRUISE dW 186 16_ lg6 186 186 186 186

PO_ER 3HP 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

EMPTY_EIGHT kg 1241 1042 965 1043 1143 1061 1006

ib 2736 2297 2127 2310 2520 2340 2218

GROSS 4EIGHF kg 202] 1760 1674 1746 1867 1764 1772 Ib 4460 3381 3691 3849 4117 3888 3907 WING AREA sgm 15.8 13.7 13.0 13.6 14.5 13.6 13.8 sqft 170 147 140 146 156 146 149 WING SPAN m 12.3 10.6 I0.0 10.9 11.5 10.8 10.8 ft 40.2 34.9 32.8 35.8 ]7.8 35.3 35.5 ASPECT RATIO 9.5 a.3 7.7 8.3 9.2 8.6 8.5 ROC m/min 193 235 249 192 297 302 160 AT 25300" fpm 650 775 816 630 974 990 524 CLIM_ TIM_ rain 23.% 23.3 22.1 21._ 22.0 21.0 2%.1 TAKEOFf" m 683 6t6 585 552 591 561 416 DISFA_C£ ft 2240 2020 1920 1810 1940 1840 1365 S_ALL km/hr 113 113 i13 113 I13 I13 113 SPEED KTS 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 CRUISE km/h[ 1332 420 424 40% 406 407 419 SPEED KTS 205 227 229 218 219 220 226 PAYL9%O kg 544 544 544 5%4 544 544 544 lb 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 RANGE km 1296 129_ 1296 1296 1296 1293 1296 N4 700 709 700 700 700 700 700 _I35IO_ FUEL kg 200 142 134 !27 15_ 133 181 Ib 440 314 296 279 331 287 400 CRUISE km/L 4.7 7.3 7.7 8,2 6.2 8.0 5.7 MILEAGE ._'4P G 9.6 14.9 i5.8 16.8 12.7 16.3 II .7 REL_TI VE EFF 1.00 1.48 1.58 1.58 1.40 1.57 1.16 V/V* 1 .00 1.05 1 .05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 NOISE dBA 0.0 -I.0 -I.0 -4 .0 -I.0 -1.5 -5 .0 PRICE $I000 202 184 175 188 200 186 203 .5 DOC $/hr 122 107 103 107 115 106 119 EVAL TOFAL --- 206 244 229 119 209 58

TABLE AIII-IV

AI RPLAN E COMPARISONS TWIN ENGINE FIXED ENGINE & PAYLOAD RANGE VARIABLE AIRFRAME TSIO GTDR G_'SIO GTSIO ENGINE -550 RC 2-4 7 RC 2- 32 -246 -420 -_208C GATE TAKEOFF kW 254 239 239 268 261 261 391 POWER BHP 340 320 320 360 350 350 525 CRUISE dW 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 POWER _HP 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 EMPTY aEIG_r kg 2008 1644 1509 1669 1868 1725 1524 ib 4428 3625 3327 3680 4118 3802 3360 GR338 _I3Hr kg 3107 2625 2474 2610 2864 2679 2608 ib 6353 5788 5454 5753 6314 5_07 5750 WING AREA sqm 16.7 13.7 13.5 13.4 15.7 14.0 15.4 sqft 180 148 145 144 169 151 166 WING SPAN m 13.6 11.6 10.7 11.9 13.1 12.4 10.9 ft 44.5 38.1 35.0 39.1 43.1 40.7 35.8 ASPECt RATIO II.0 9.8 8.5 10.6 II.0 II.0 7.7 ROC n/min 312 384 408 324 451 469 238 AT 25000" fpm 1025 1260 1340 1062 1480 1540 780 CLIMB FIME rain 18.7 14.9 14.9 14.3 15.3 14.2 18.5 SEROC m/rain 105 122 130 183 158 166 119 at 5000 ft fmD 343 400 425 600 520 545 390 TAKEOFF m 713 637 57] 565 607 600 383 DISTANCE ft 2338 2090 1880 1855 1990 1970 1255 STALL km/h[ 135 137 135 140 135 137 130 SPEED KTS 73 74 73 75 73 74 70 CRUISE km/hr _24 465 467 452 441 445 465 SPEED KTS 229 251 252 244 238 241 251 PAYLOAD kg 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 Ib 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 RANG_ km 1481 1431 l_gl 1481 1481 1481 1481 N_ 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 MISSION FJEL kg 337 233 269 252 330 264 367 Ib 855 625 592 555 661 581 809 CRUISE km/L 2.7 4.2 4.5 4.7 3.6 4.5 3.2 MILEAGE i_MPG 5.6 3.6 9.1 9.7 7.3 9.2 6.6 RELATIVE EFF !.00 1.46 1.55 1.59 1.34 1.51 1.07 V/_ i.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 NOISE dBA 0.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 -1.5 -2.0 -3.0 PRICE $i000 381.5 334 320.5 338.5 382 34 / 377 DOC $/hr 230 196 190 195 217 198 222 EVAL TOTAL --- 225 257 241 109 205 61

L

TABLE AIII-V AIRPLANE COMPARISO NS SINGLE ENGINE FIXED PAYLOAD RANGE VARIABLE ENGINE & AIRFRAME TSIO GTDR GTSIO GTSIO ENGINE -550 RC 2-47 RC 2- 32 -246 -420 -420SZ 3ATE TAKEO[ F kN 254 200 191 242 204 i99 411 PONER ]HP ]40 268 256 325 273 267 551 CRUISE kW 186 156 149 169 145 i_2 197 POWER _HP 250 209 200 226 lq% 191 26_ EMPFY _EIGHr kg 1241 1012 955 1020 1099 1029 981 Ib 2736 2230 2105 2249 2422 2268 2162 GROSS _EIGHF kg 2023 1715 16%1 1710 1799 1707 1752 Ib 4460 3782 3618 3770 3967 3764 3864 _IN3 AREA sqm 15.? 13._ 12.7 13.2 13.9 13.2 13.6 sqft 170 144 137 142 150 142 146 _ING SPAN m 12.3 10.6 10.7 10.6 12.3 11.7 9.3 ft 40.2 34.6 35.1 34.6 40.2 38.5 30.6 ASPECT RATIO 9.5 _.4 _.0 _.5 10.3 10.5 6.8 ROC n/min 198 173 174 152 209 210 152 AT 25000" fom 650 568 570 500 686 690 500 CLIMB FIME m_n 23.4 30.0 30.0 24.6 29.0 28.7 28.2 TAKEOFF m 683 733 722 619 756 738 405 DIS FA_ZE ft 2240 2405 2370 2030 2480 2420 1330 STALL km/hr 113 I13 I13 113 113 113 113 SPEED KTS 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 CRUISE km/hr 382 393 39! 387 370 370 422 SPEEO KTS 206 212 211 209 200 200 228 PA_LO%D Kg 544 544 544 544 544 54_ 544 ib 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 RANGE Km 1296 1296 1296 1296 1296 1296 1296 N:4 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 MISS IO[_ FdEL Kg 200 129 119 120 131 112 189 ID 440 285 262 265 289 246 416 CRUISE km/L 4.7 _.I 3.3 8.7 7.1 9.3 5.5 MILEAGE _PG 9.6 16.5 17.9 17.7 14.5 19.1 11.3 RELATIVE EFF 1.00 1.54 1.67 1.60 1.51 1.70 1.15 V/V* 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _]OISE dBA 0.0 -i.0 -I.0 -4.5 0.0 -0.5 -5.0 PRICE $I000 202 169 161 176 180 167 203 DOC $/hr 122 96 91 I00 i00 92 120 EVAL ?OF_L --- 278 322 274 221 306 40

TABLE AIII-VI

AIRPLANE COMPARISONS

TWIN ENGINE

FIXED PAYLOADRANGE

VARIABLE ENGINE & AIRFRAME

TS IO GTDR GTSIO GTSIO

ENC- INE

-550 RC2-47 _C 2- 32 -246 -420 -420 SC GATE

TAKEOFF kW

254 195 186 228 225 218 309

PO_ ER BHP 340 232 250 306 302 293 415

CRUISE kR 186 153 145 159 161

156 146

POWER _HP 250 205 195 213 216 209 196

2009 1591 1470 1606 1765 1632 1517

EMPTYNEIGHT kg

ib

4428 3485 3240 3540 3892 3597 3344

GROSS_EIGHT kg 3107 2519 2381 2517 2549 2547

Ib

6850 5553 5250 5550 6013 5620 5615 16.7 13.3 12.9 12.9 14.6 14.8 13.7

_qING AREA sgin

180 143 138 139 159 147 157

sqft

NING SPAN m 13.6 12.1 II. 9 11.9 12.7 12.7 12.3 ft 44.5 39.6 39.0 39.1 41.8 40.2 41.6 ASPECT RATIO ..0 ii.0 II.0 II.0 Ii.0 11.0 ii.0 312 285 291 239 367 364 162 ROC m/min 1025 935 955 785 1205 1195 530 AT 25000" fpm CLIM_ FIME mzn 18.7 19.1 18.B 17.8 lB.3 18.2 25.5 105 76 76 130 112 112 76 S EROC m/m i n 343 250 250 425 367 367 25O at 5000 ft fmp FAKEOFF m 713 768 739 658 681 479 DISTANCE ft 2338 2520 2425 2160 2290 2235 1570 135 135 135 139 135 135 131 STALL km/hr SPE ED K TS 73 73 73 75 73 73 71 424 432 429 424 419 417 420 CRUISE km/hr SPEED KTS 229 233 231 229 226 225 227 635 635 635 635 635 635 635 PAYLOAD kg Ib 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 RANGE km 1482 1492 1482 1492 1492 148 2 14_2 N_ 800 800 800 800 80O 800 800 388 252 231 230 275 237 328 MISSION FJEL kg Ib 606 723 855 555 509 506 523 2.7 4.7 5.1 5.2 3.6 CRUISE km/L 3.9 5.0 MI LEAGE NMPG 5.6 9.7 I0.5 I0.6 7.9 i0.3 7.4 RELATIVE EFF 1.00 1.55 1.66 1.65 1.40 1.59 1.08 v/v* I .30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I°003 NOISE dBA 0.0 -i.0 -2.5 -5.0 -i.0 -1.0 -3.0 PRICE $I000 381.5 301.5 286 307 341 312 333 OOC $/h r 230 173 163 175 194 175 EVAL 'tOTAL 300 355 312 191 296 170 TABLE AIII-VII

RESULTS

OF EVALUATION CRITERIA SINGLE ENGINE

FUEL

MULTI -

ENSI._E BU RNED DOC

PRICE FUEL NOISE I NSTL TOTAL

I - FIXED E_GINE AND AI

RFRAME SIZE, VARIABLE MISSION

RC2-47 167" 16

-12 I0 0 20 201 RC2- 32 187" 18 -12 I0 0 20 223 GTDR- 246 191" 16 -18 5 10 I0 214 GTSIO-420 117" ] -18 0 0 0 102 GFSIO-420SC 183" 16 -15 I0 0 0 194 GATE 109" - 18 -32 5 I0 0 74 II - FIKE9 ENC, INE SIZE ANO MISSION, V&RIABLE AIRFRAME RC2-47 115 40 21 I0 0 20 206 RC2-32 131 51 32 i0 0 20 244 GrDR-246 147 40 17 5 I0 i0 229 GTSIO-420 99 18 2 0 0 0 119 GTSIO-420SC 139 41 19 i0 0 0 209 GAT£ 36 9 -2 5 i0 0 58 III - FIXEO 4ISSION, _]ARIABLE E'_GIN_ AND AIRFRAME 3IZE RC2-47 1%1 38 39 I0 O 20 278 RC2-32 162 31 49 I0 0 20 322 SfDR-246 159 59 31 5 I0 i0 274 GTSIO-420 137 58 26 O 0 0 221 GFSIO-420SC 176 79 41 i0 0 0 306 GAtE 2 2 4 -i 5 I0 0 40 TABLE AIII-VIII RESULTS OF EVALUATION CRITERIA TWIN ENGINE FUEL MULTI- ENGINE BURNED DOC PRICE FUEL NOISE INSTL TOTAL I - FIXED ENGINE AND AIRFRAME SIZE, VARIABLE MISSION RC2-47 188" 19 -_ I0 0 20 227 RC2- 32 217" 22 -9 I0 0 20 260 GTDR- 246 208* 19 -14 5 I0 I0 238 GTSIO-420 134" 6 -17 0 0 0 123 GTSIO-4 20SC 193" 19 -15 I0 0 0 207 ._ATE 155" -13 -29 5 0 I0 128 II - FIXEO EN3INE SIZE AND _ISSION, VARIABLE AIRFRAME RC2-47 I0_ 47 30 I0 I0 20 225 RC2-32 123 56 38 I0 I0 20 257 GTD_ 246 140 49 27 5 I0 I0 241 GTSIO-420 91 18 0 0 0 0 109 GTSIO-4203C 12@ 45 22 I0 0 0 205 GATE 22 ii 3 5 I0 I0 61 VARIABLE E:_]_INE ANO AIRFRAME 31ZE III- FIXED 413SION, RC2-47 140 30 50 I0 0 20 300 RC2-32 162 93 60 I0 i0 20 355 GTDR-246 163 77 47 5 i0 I0 312 GTSIO-420 116 50 25 0 0 0 191 GTSIO-420SC 155 77 44 i0 0 0 286 GATE 62 52 31 5 i0 I0 170