48
1 © 2012 Lockheed Martin
1
© 2012 Lockheed Martin
2
Lockheed Martin ERA Team
Propulsion Acoustics
NAS - Environment NAS - Operations
3
LM ERA – Next Generation Efficiency
• NASA’s Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project
– Matures Dual Use (civil/military) Technologies
– Achieves Dramatic Impact on Fuel Efficiency & the Environment
• ERA Goals Compare to 1998 Reference
• ERA Program is a Significant Step Toward
USAF Energy Horizon Goals
NASA ERA USAF Energy Horizons
Fuel Burn -50% (2025) -30% (2016-20) + -2% / Year After
Noise -42dB Cum Below Stage 4 -42dB Cum Below Stage 4
Emissions -75% LTO NOx Below CAEP 6 -80% LTO NOx Below CAEP 6
4
LM ERA – Dual Use Technologies
Ultra-High Bypass
Engine • Less Fuel Burn
• Noise Reduction
• Reduced Emissions
Advanced Composite Structure • Reduced Manufacturing Cost
• Less Weight = Less Fuel Burn
• Demonstrated on X-55A
Box Wing Configuration • Drag Reduction for Reduced
Fuel Burn
• Scalable from Tactical to Strategic
• Reduced Span for Compatibility
with Existing Infrastructure
Passenger Configuration
• 224 Passengers
• 8,000 Nautical Miles
Cargo Configuration
• 100,000 Pounds Payload
• 6,500 Nautical Miles
5
2025 Future Scenario
6
Compiled US Demand Chart Assumptions
FAA Baseline,
no major mishaps:
•No large oil price shocks
•No swings in macro-
economic policy
•No financial meltdowns
FAA Pessimistic Scenario:
•Slower net immigration
•Higher inflation
•GDP growth 0.5% lower, 0.3% higher
unemployment
FAA Optimistic Scenario:
•Population grows more rapidly due to higher
net immigration
•Lower inflation
•Faster growth, GDP 0.5% quicker than
forecast, unemployment 0.4% lower
7
Fuel Prices, Noise & Emissions Standards
Jet Fuel:
High: $4.77
Low: $1.55
Ref: $3.18
Oil, USD, per barrel
2025: $105
Emissions
Anticipated Future Stage 5 Standard
• CAEP/9 Work Program studying the impacts of developing “a range of stringency options of up to 10-12 dB cumulative margin relative to Stage 4
• Starts between 2017-2020
• Non-compliant aircraft grandfathered
>> $3/gal
Cost of Fuel Increase & Harder Noise & Emissions Standards
8
• Defined as the avionics equipment/software required for full
NextGen 2025 capability
– Full Avionics Suite Defined
– Operational Scenarios Vetted
NextGen 2025 “Fully Capable”
Notional Avionics Suite
Communications
Navigation
Surveillance
Functionalities Considered “Best Equipped” in 2025
Baseline 2011 Aircraft Functionality
9
Flight Counts and Substitutions
2025 Conventional and PSC Substituted into BWI NGOps4
Scenario – 6 of 948 Arrivals/Departures
10 Twin Aisle 12
3 2025 Substitutions 3
Operation Model Input
481 Total Arrivals 503 Total Departures
Aircraft Substitutions - BWI
2025 NGOps4 Summary: Baltimore-
Washington Intl (BWI)
Original
JPDO/IPSA
NGOps 4 Scenario
2025 Reference
Scenario
2025 Conventional
Scenario
2025 Preferred
System Concept
Scenario
* 1998 Entry into Service (EIS) Conventional Configuration Reference Vehicle (CCRV)
** 2025 Entry into Service (EIS) Conventional Configuration Vehicle (CCV)
*** 2025 Preferred System Concept Vehicle
FU
N+XTw
in A
isle
Wid
ebod
y
Airc
raft
Standard
Standard
Non
-Tw
in A
isle
Wid
ebod
y A
ircaf
t
CU
2025 PSC***
Standard Standard Standard
Standard Standard Standard
Scenario
Airc
raft
Cat
egor
y
1998 REF* 2025 CCV**
1998 REF* 1998 REF* 1998 REF*
1998 REF* 1998 REF* 1998 REF*
Determine How Advanced Concepts Affect
Environmental Parameters at Selected Airports
Noise (DNL metric)
Landing/Takeoff Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions
Particulate Emissions (PM 2.5)
CO2 Emissions (Fuel)
10
2025 PSC
1998 Reference
10 nm range rings
Single Event Noise Level (SEL)
Noise Exposure Color Legend
2025 CCV
10 nm range rings
10 nm range rings
Color Min
Level Max Level
RED 75 infinity
PINK 70 75
ORANGE 65 70
YELLOW 60 65
GREEN 55 60
CYAN 50 55
BLUE 45 50
PURPLE -infinity 45
SEL for Arrival & Departure (BWI)
11
2025 Future Scenario Conclusions
• NG Benefits will be Larger if More PSC Aircraft are Inserted into
the Scenario
– MEM with Larger Aircraft Substitutions Confirms
• PSC Would Seem to have Little Effect on 2025 Operational Traffic
– LTO Speeds and Profiles are Consistent with Envisioned 2025
OPD Procedures
• Analysis can be Scaled to Assess Larger System-Wide Benefits to
Evaluate the Impacts of Greater PSC Aircraft Fleet Penetration
into the Operational Scenarios
– Existing Sized/Class PSC, or
– Other Sized/Classed PSC Variants
12
Aircraft Sizing, Performance
& Design
13
ERA Missions
3
1
11
6
12
14
15
8
10
13
16
4
To
Reserve
Mission
Block Time & Fuel
Flight Time & Fuel
2
Still Air Range, 8000nm Pax or 6500nm Cargo
5
Mission Range: 8,000nm (Pax) or 6,500nm (Cargo)
Payload: 224 Passengers 50 Klb or 100,000lb (Cargo)
Crew: 2 Flight Deck, 7 Flight Attendant (Not For Cargo)
Cruise Speed: M0.85
Zero Wind
10Kft
1.5Kft
9 7
Mission Range: 200 nm
Payload: 224 Passengers, 50 Klb or 100,000lb Cargo
Crew: 2 Flight Deck, 7 Flight Attendant
Cruise Speed: LRC
Zero Wind
3
1
6
7
4
2
5
Still Air Range, 200 nm
Primary
Reserve
14
1998 Baseline 3-View
211 ft
181 ft 3 in
RR Trent 800
Aluminum Primary
Structure
15
2025 Advanced Conventional 3-View
223 ft 6 in
181 ft 3 in
Adv Turbofan
Composite Primary
Structure
Laminar Flow Systems
16
PAX Payload Range: 1998 vs. 2025
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Range, 1,000’s NM
Pa
ylo
ad
, K
lb
0 4 6 8 14 16 2
Includes ERA Reserve Mission Fuel
With Center Wing
Tank
No Center Wing
Tank (Baseline)
With Center Wing
Tank Option
10 12
224 Passengers,
8,000nm
Limit Load 2.5g
17
2025 Preferred System Concept 3-View
171 ft
181 ft 3 in
Composites Primary
Structure RR UHB Engine
Laminar Flow Systems
18
2025 PSC PAX Payload-Range
No Center
Wing Tank
Required
Range, 1,000’s NM
Paylo
ad
, K
lb
Includes Reserve Mission Fuel
Limit Load 2.5g
With Center Wing
Tank
224 Passengers,
8,000nm
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
19
Configuration Comparison
Specifications 2025 PSC 2025
Conventional
1998
Baseline
Mis
sion
Range / Speed 8,000 nm / M0.85 8,000 nm / M0.85 8,000 nm / M0.85
Passengers / Flight
Attendants / Crew 224 / 7 / 2 224 / 7 / 2 224 / 7 / 2
Payload (Pax + Baggage)
50,000 lb 50,000 lb 50,000 lb
Weig
hts
MTOW (with HLFC) 365,900 lb 364,500 lb 550,400 lb
Fuel Wt 124,500 lb 123,900 lb 250,500 lb
Engin
e
Engine Type RR UFE RR Adv Turbofan RR Trent
Thrust per Engine 63,600 lb 68,100 lb 76,400 lb
Bypass Ratio 5X Baseline 2X Baseline Ref
Perf
orm
ance Cruise SFC -22% Baseline -17% Baseline Ref
Cruise L/D +16% Baseline +21% Baseline Ref
Max Cruise Altitude 47,000 ft 45,000 ft 39,000 ft
Fuel Burn Goal of 50% is Achievable
Fuel Burn Goal Configuration Neutral
Application of Critical Technologies is Key
20
• Fuel Burn – Exceed Requirement
• > - 30 dB Below Stage 4 (3deg)
• > - 35 dB (6 deg)
• Exceed Requirement by >10% to
CAEP/6 (UFE)
1998 Baseline
• Fuel Burn – Exceed Requirement
• > - 25 dB Below Stage 4 (3 deg)
> - 30 dB (6 deg)
• Miss Requirement by < 10% to
CAEP/6 (ATF)
Skunk Works® Technology Innovation
2025 PSC (UltraFan)
2025 Conventional (ATF)
21
Propulsion
22
1998 Baseline Engine - Trent 800
• Certification was achieved in January 1995
• The first Boeing 777 with
Trent 800 engines flew in
May 1995, and entered service
with Cathay Pacific in April 1996.
• The Trent 800 family thrust ratings
spanning 75,000 to 93,400 lbf
(330 to 415 kN).
• Technology level supports
ERA 1998 EIS Aircraft baseline engine
The Trent 800 is a three-shaft high
bypass ratio engine.
6:1 BPR
Takeoff Fn = 76,400 Lbf
Fan diameter: 102 inches* Excellent 1998 Technology
Representative Engine
© Rolls-Royce North American Technologies
23
2025 Advanced Turbofan Engine (ATF)
NextGen VHBR, High OPR, Direct Drive, Turbofan Engine
© Rolls-Royce North American Technologies
50% in OPR
7” in Fan Diameter
15% T41
2x BPR
Takeoff Fn = 68,100 Lbf
-68% Below CAEP/6
-16 EPNdB
17% SFC Reduction
10
9” F
an
Dia
mete
r
Cruise Thrust
SF
C 17%
10,000 lb 5,000 lb
Baseline
Adv. Turbofan
24
Cruise Thrust
SF
C 17%
10,000 lb 5,000 lb
Baseline
Adv. Turbofan 22%
UFE
2025 PSC UltraFan Engine
3 Shaft
Turbofan
174” Fan
Diameter
NextGen UHB, High OPR, Geared, Turbofan Engine
© Rolls-Royce North American Technologies
50% in OPR
72” in Fan Diameter
15% T41
5x BPR
Takeoff Fn = 63,600 Lbf
-89% Below CAEP/6
-25 EPNdB
22% SFC Reduction
25
UltraFan Engine Comparison
© Rolls-Royce North American Technologies
5x BPR
174”
2x BPR
109”
Further UltraFan Engine Nacelle Optimization Needed
2025 Adv. Turbofan
2025 UltraFan
26
Propulsion Conclusion
• Propulsion is a “Key” ERA Vehicle Technology
• Driving to Extreme BPR is Best Path to Show
“Simultaneous” Compliance with NASA ERA Goals
– Low FPR & UHB Architectures
• Advanced Core Technology – High OPR
• LFC to Reduce Installed Nacelle Drag
• Further Optimization to Find Best Compromise
between BPR, Nacelle Drag and Fan Weight may
Result in a Lower BPR
27
Acoustics
28
1998 Baseline Certification Trajectories
• Approach trajectory maintains a 3 degree glide slope at a 28% power setting
• Cutback occurs at 20,000 ft and power setting is reduced to 53%
• Sideline observer is 16,228 ft from brake release, per FAR 36 (984 ft altitude)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
-40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Po
we
r S
ett
ing
Alt
itu
de
(ft
)
X-Position (ft)
Cutback - ALT
Sideline - ALT
Approach - ALT
Cutback - PS
Sideline - PS
Approach - PS
(300 m) 3o glide slope
“approach” Sideline
Cutback
29
1998 Baseline Calibrated Results
CUM Margin to Stage 4 - 7.2dB
• Calibrated results match expected values well
• Increases at cutback and approach observers relative to similar
aircraft due to low-speed performance
Effective Perceived Noise Level (dB re 20 µPa)
Cutback Sideline Approach
Overall System 91.9 95.1 100.2
Stage 3 Limit 98.5 101.3 104.6
Margin to Stage 3 6.6 6.2 4.4
30
Airframe Noise Reduction Technologies
• Continuous moldline flaps
• Landing Gear Fairings
• Quiet Slat gap filler
• Shape memory alloy serration on chevrons (Rolls-Royce)
• Total Reduction ≈ 22 dB
Perforated fairings for gear
(AIAA Paper 2008-2961) Continuous moldline link
(AIAA Paper 2009-3144) Slat gap filler
31
2025 Conventional Trajectories
• Cargo configuration ~7% heavier TOGW, same engine
• Approach Power Setting: 30%- 40%
• Cutback Power Setting: 40% - 55%
3o glide slope
“approach” Sideline
Cutback
Cargo
PAX
6o glide slope
32
2025 Conventional Noise Levels
CUM Margin to Stage 4 -27.0dB - 34.9dB
Passenger Effective Perceived Noise Level (dB re 20 µPa)
Cutback Sideline Approach
(3 deg.)
Approach
(6 deg.)
Overall System 79.3 88.6 94.1 86.2
Stage 3 Limit 96.1 99.7 103.2 103.2
Margin to Stage 3 16.8 11.1 9.1 17.0
Cargo Effective Perceived Noise Level (dB re 20 µPa)
Cutback Sideline Approach
(3 deg.)
Approach
(6 deg.)
Overall System 80.8 89.1 94.5 86.8
Stage 3 Limit 96.5 100.0 103.5 103.5
Margin to Stage 3 15.7 10.9 9.0 16.7
CUM Margin to Stage 4 -25.6dB - 33.3dB
33
2025 Conventional Noise Reduction
1998 EIS Stage 4
Limit
2025 EIS Stage 4
Limit
NASA Goal
Relative to
PSC TOGW
34
2025 PSC Trajectories
• Two Approach Trajectories were Considered:
– Three Degree Glide Slope Power Setting: 25%-35%
– Six Degree Glide Slope Power Setting: 15%-25%
• Cutback Power Setting: 40% - 50%
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
-40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Alt
itu
de
(ft)
X-Position (ft)
CUTBACK - PSC PASSENGER
SIDELINE - PSC PASSENGER
APPROACH - PSC PASSENGER
CUTBACK - PSC CARGO
SIDELINE - PSC CARGO
APPROACH - PSC CARGO
3o glide slope Sideline
Cutback Cargo
PAX
6o glide slope
35
2025 PSC Noise Levels
CUM Margin to Stage 4 -32.6dB - 39.2dB
Passenger Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB re 20 µPa)
Cutback Sideline Approach
(3 deg.)
Approach
(6 deg.)
Overall System 78.4 85.4 92.7 86.1
Stage 3 Limit 96.1 99.8 103.2 103.2
Margin to Stage 3 17.7 14.4 10.5 17.1
Cargo Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB re 20 µPa)
Cutback Sideline Approach
(3 deg.)
Approach
(6 deg.)
Overall System 80.2 85.3 93.1 86.4
Stage 3 Limit 96.5 100.0 103.4 103.4
Margin to Stage 3 16.3 14.7 10.3 17.0
CUM Margin to Stage 4 -31.3dB - 38.0dB
36
2025 PSC Noise Reduction
NASA Goal
Relative to
PSC TOGW
PSC
Stage 4 Limit
1998 EIS
Stage 4 Limit
37
Acoustics Conclusion
• Noise Goal of -42dB below Stage 4 is “tough”
Challenge
• PSC with UHB UltraFan Engine and 6 degree Glide
Slope get within 3dB of Goal
• UHB Engine Contributes to Half of Goal
• Reduced Weight, Higher Approach Path &
Suppression Technologies Contribute “other” Half
38
STV Development
39
PSC vs. STV Comparison
Parameter PSC STV
MTOW (lbs) 365,910 162,500
Empty
Weight (lbs) 189,540 86,070
Fuel Weight
(lbs) 124,500 27,650
Fuselage
Length (ft) 181.3 125.0
Span (ft) 168.5 99.2
Thrust (lbs) 127,200 45,600
50% Scale NASA Objective
40
STV Concept of Operations
• Two Person Manned Flight Station with Partitioned Fully
Upgradable Open Architecture Mission System
– Supports Spiral Avionics and Future Autonomous Capability
• Assembled & 1st Flight at LM Aero Facility
• 20-year and 10,000 hr Projected Useful Life
– New Components from Existing Supply Chains
• Spirals
– UFE Engine
– Autonomous Ops
– Subsystems
• Post Flight Test
– Available for Special Use
STV is Venue to Elevate Vehicle & Technologies to TRL 6
41
NASA ERA Conclusion
Phase 1 Executed Successfully
NASA ERA Goals Reachable
41
42 2011 Copyright Lockheed Martin
NASA/LM N+2 Supersonic
Validations Program
N+2 Is a Supersonic Systems Level Validations Opportunity
Towards 2025 Performance and Environmental Goals
• LM Interest is for Collaborative Research and Development of Innovative
Concepts, Technologies, and Approaches Towards a System Level
Solution
• 18 Month Integrated Testing and Validations Program
– Test focused program rolled up to systems validations
– Integrated airframe and propulsion validations
• Strategic Partnerships
– GE –Nozzle/Low noise validations
– RRLW –Nozzle/Low noise validations
– Stanford University – Low boom adjoint methods
43 2011 Copyright Lockheed Martin
System Level Validations to meet N+2
goals
N+2
Supersonic Transport
Goals (2018-2020)
Environmental Goals
Sonic Boom 65-70 PLdB
Airport Noise
(cumulative below stage 3)
10-20 EPNdB
(targeting 20+ below S3)
Cruise Emissions (g/kg fuel) <10 EINOx
Performance Goals
Cruise Speed Mach 1.6 – 1.8
Range (nm) 4000
Payload
(passengers)
35-70
(up to 100 for LM N+2 Effort)
Fuel Efficiency
(passenger-miles per lb of fuel)
3.0
• Initiate a validation of the tools and technologies for integrated
supersonic vehicle design that is traceable to a full scale N+2 vehicle
class.
• Low boom wind tunnel testing in Ames 9’x7’ (2 entries)
• Nozzle testing in NATR facility at Glenn Research Center
• MDAO system level assessments
Integration of Multiple
Disciplines into a Single
Platform to meet N+2 goals
44 2012 Copyright Lockheed Martin
Objective and Scope
PHASE 1 – Base Program (complete)
• Sonic Boom Testing
– LM1 Hardware Validation (risk reduction)
– LM2 Spiked Nacelle Sonic Boom Validation
– LM3 Low Boom Validation Model
• Inlet Testing (unfunded)
• Propulsion Variable Cycle Development
– Rolls Royce Nozzle Acoustic Test
– GE Nozzle Acoustic Test
• Optimization with Stanford University
• Vehicle System Integration Analysis
PHASE 2 (Option Year 2)
• NASA Parametric Retest
• LM4 Low Boom Refinement and Tech Integration
• GE Nozzle Modeling and Refinement
• Optimization with Stanford University
• Vehicle System Integration Analysis and Tech Integration
Validation of Capability for Successful Supersonic Transportation System
Focus on Test Validation of System Components
−Low Sonic Boom
−Propulsion Airport Noise
45 2012 Copyright Lockheed Martin
Low Boom Design Development
45
30
15
QR3 (Feb 2011)
15 30
45
QR4 (May 2011)
0
49
Stretched-Prisms / CFD++
Better shock persistence
SSGN/FUN3D Adaptation
• CAD automatically
linked to CFD-boom
solution
• Direct area redesign,
DOE and response
surface parametric
investigations
• Stretched-prism grid 5x
faster with better
resolution but requires
alignment
• Full Carpet Low Boom
Average 79 PLdB with
L/Dcruise impacted < 10%
Full Carpet Low Boom Achieved with High Performance
46 2012 Copyright Lockheed Martin
LM3 Low Boom Design Test • Aft shock emphasis and dual model support
• SEEB-ALR Calibration
• Low Variability Orifices
• Spatial Averaging
• Before vs. After Ambient Reference Measurements
• Extreme Humidity Control and Higher Pressure
• Oil Flow Visualization and Model Trip Discs
N+2 WT Model Mach=1.6
Re=2.55/ft CL=0.142
Turbulent
Laminar
Laminar and Turbulent CFD
Prediction
Flow fully attached like turbulent—no reason
to expect difference with CFD predictions
Mach = 1.6, Re = 4.5M, CL =0.142
Wind Tunnel
Blade & Sting Model Supports
47 2012 Copyright Lockheed Martin
Phase II Optimization
Baseline Mesh
Mesh Deformation
pyCAPRI
Geometry Engine
CHIMPS++
Signature extraction Ae Calculation
ADjoint Solver
Gradient Module
SU2 CFD Input File
flow solution
adjoint solution
design parameters
cost/constraint functions
• Stanford University low boom design optimization using high-
fidelity tools in a multi-disciplinary design environment
– Adjoint-based sensitivities for Boom, Lift, Drag, Cm
– CAD geometry linkage
– Response surface optimization including slopes
48 2012 Copyright Lockheed Martin
NASA’s N+2 Environmental Targets and
Performance Goals
N+2 Small Supersonic
Airliner (2020) NASA's Initial Goals LM's Target LM's Phase I Status
Environmental Goals
Sonic Boom (PLdB) 65 - 70 ≤ 78 Threshold, ≤ 73 79
Airport Noise
(cum below Stage 3) 10 - 20 EPNdB 25 - 30 EPNdB 22 EPNdB (predicted)
Cruise Emissions
(g/kg fuel) < 10 EINOx < 10 EINOx < 10 EINOx
Performance Goals
Cruise Speed Mach 1.6 - 1.8 Mach 1.6 - 1.8 Mach 1.6
Range (nm) 4000 4000 - 5500 5000+
Payload
(passengers) 35 - 70 70 - 100 82
Fuel Efficiency
(passenger-nm per lb fuel) 3.0 > 3.0 3.1
Phase II continues refinement of low boom and airport noise with
technology integration expected to further improve efficiency
