COMPONENT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT Our program encompasses all components of gas turbine engine propulsion systems: inlets, fans and compressors, combustors and thrust augmentors, turbines, exhaust nozzles, high speed bearings, shafts and seals. Our fan and axial flow compressor work is investigating advanced blade shapes for higher stage pressure ratios without sacrificing efficiency or stall margin. Progress in this has encouraged us to begin an experimental advanced multi-stage axial compressor, as I have previously described. Figure 6 shows a precursor experimental five-stage compressor designed to achieve an overall pressure ratio of 9.1 to 1. Current design practice requires about eight stages to achieve this same compression. Our principal research on turbines has the objective of achieving greater mechanical work extraction in each turbine stage than current design practice. Optimum turbine blade configurations for heat transfer and aerodynamic performance are also being sought for applications at 3500° F. and 40 atmospheres pressure. As with compressors, reducing the number of turbine stages pays off in reduced engine and aircraft weight and improved fuel economy. ENGINE SYSTEM RESEARCH Development costs required to bring a new engine from preliminary design into service status are enormous, running several hundred million dollars. One reason for high costs is an inability to predict all the systems interactions and subtleties of high performance propulsion systems over a wide variety of operating conditions, particularly in a dynamic environment. An important addition to our engine systems research is a new long-term, full-scale engine research program jointly with the Air Force. In this program, the Air Force will provide the Lewis Research Center modern advance technology engines developed under Air Force programs, and jointly establish research program objectives and plans with NASA. The research objectives for the first engine soon to enter tests relate primarily to fan aeroelastic behavior, fuel controls and afterburning characteristics. Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Smylie, I am very interested in this particular program. This is a relatively new program to involve engines? Mr. SMYLIE. Yes, sir, it is relatively new. It is a practice that was carried out with quite some success a number of years ago between the Air Force and NASA. It has just been reinstituted. The F100 series engine is now being assembled and instrumented, and will soon go into tests. The program will last about one year. We are currently discussing with the Air Force other engines that might go into this program after the F100 engine. The program is well on its way. Mr. THORNTON. What emphasis or what direction might we take in our thinking to strengthen this program? Do you have it funded at an adequate level? Mr. SMYLIE. Yes, sir, the funding for the program essentially is one in which the Air Force provides the engines to the NASA and we carry out the test program within our existing, in-house capabilities at the Research Center. The funding for the program is primarily research and program management funding at the Lewis Center. Of course, your encouragement of our doing this work is much appreciated. The Air Force is enthusiastic about this program. We have a good relationship on it and we think it is proceeding very well. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you. Mr. SMYLIE. In summary, I have described for you certain highlights and new features of our advanced propulsion research and development programs to indicate the broad scope of the program and illustrate its objectives. The achievement of all these objectives-noise and pollution reduction, performance improvement, and energy conservation-is vital to the future health of aviation and to the welfare of our society in which aviation has become such an important factor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. WELLS. I have several questions to follow up on your line of inquiry on the testing of the F100 engine. This was, as you say, Mr. Smylie, a standard practice in the early days of NACA, one which had a high payoff and which, unfortunately, has dropped by the wayside over the years. This is particularly encouraging to me because I have had many conversations back over the past three or four years with individuals at NASA on problems involved with getting this procedure reinstituted. I am glad to hear that the Air Force is now en thusiastic about this because one of the problems in the past is that they were not enthusiastic, based on the expense of turning over an engine early in the production line or turning over an aircraft early in production. Even here, I would have to temper our optimism a bit by saying that it was indeed perhaps a little later than it ought to have been with the F100; that the F15 is pretty well along and you are coming in a little late, relative to where you ought to have come in. At least, this is my personal opinion. I hope that this will mark a breakthrough: that you will be up front in getting airplanes and engines very soon and not after the airplane has gone into production. Mr. SMYLIE. I think that for the purposes of the program, to be able to understand and be able to predict better the performance of the engine in the interaction of the components, they are well served by some of the work that we can do on the F100 engine, even though it is an older engine. Considering the whole problem of aeroelastic behavior in the fan and the afterburning characteristics, there is still important and useful work that we can do with that engine, even though I agree that it is later in the development cycle. The engines that we are currently discussing with the Air Force include the B1 engine (the F101) the series II F100 engine, and J85-21. So we are discussing with the Air Force some of the more advanced engines. Mr. WELLS. This is promising. I hope it does mark a breakthrough. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you, Mr. Wells, for pursuing that. Mr. Smylie, it seems to me that the work you are doing, developing lighter weight, more fuel-efficient engines, is extremely meaningful, which ever the choices might be in the direction of the aircraft industry. By doing that, you reduce the weight of the plane, thereby allowing an increase in payload, either passengers, cargo or pollution control devices or whatever, so as to attain objectives-whether they are energy-conservation or environmental. Is that a fair characterization of the importance of engine research? Mr. SMYLIE. Yes, sir. I think that is a good statement in terms of the importance of the whole field of propulsion technology. As I said at the beginning of my statement, it tends to pace the whole field of aircraft. development and the advances we can make in engines. The work we are doing, particularly at the component level, is applicable to all kinds of air transportation, whether the conventional or shorthaul or even the supersonic which I didn't address much in my testimony. Mr. THORNTON. Would you characterize the budget that you submitted as being one based on your evaluation as to what you might reasonably be expected to attain or is it that budget level that would be most desirable if you had your choice? Mr. SMYLIE. The budget we have presented here amounts to about $49 million total, which includes some of the propulsion studies done on the supersonic cruise aircraft research programs, which I didn't discuss because it was discussed by other people. In propulsion technology, we can account for applicable research of about $49 million. In my estimation. I think that the work we are doing is covering all the fields that need to be covered and we are adequately funded at this level. Mr. THORNTON. There is no significant cutback in the level of this research, is there, from the previous year? 31-022 (Pt. 4) O 74 - 12 Mr. SYMLIE. No, sir. Mr. THORNTON. Perhaps there is a modest increase in that funding level? How would you characterize it? Mr. SMYLIE. I think it is about the same. If I am wrong, I would like to correct it for the record. Mr. THORNTON. Do you have any further questions, Mr. Wells? Mr. WELLS. Mr. Smylie, how will the advance multi-stage axial compressor work be done? Mr. SMYLIE. This is primarily a contracted effort, using the in-house management and technical expertise of the Lewis Research Center. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Smylie. [The complete prepared statement of Mr. Smylie follows:] STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. SMYLIE, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR ADVANCED ENGINE TECHNOLOGY Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommitte, the important influences that propulsion technology have on an airplane's size, weight, performance, cost and environmental impact are well known. History shows that the evolution of propulsion technology has paced the development of new aircraft, and that the limiting capabilities of a propulsion system provide the major constraints on the airplane's performance and usefulness. Thus, any improvements in propulsion technology bring important benefits and change. For this reason NASA has for many years conducted a major program in aeronautical propulsion as a vital part of our total aeronautics research and technology work. Our program has always sought to understand basic engine component and system characteristics, and to develop practical technology needed by engine designers for both military and civil applications. Our primary objective has always been to improve efficiency, to reduce weight, size, and fuel consumption, and to improve engine control and operational flexibility. In recent years we have also focused on the problems of reducing environmental impact, through noise reduction and exhaust emission pollution reduction. Now, growing energy shortages place additional emphasis on improved energy utilization and reduced fuel consumption. I will not attempt to cover our entire advanced propulsion program in detail, but instead review for you some of the more important and interesting parts best illustrating how we are moving toward our technology objectives. QCSEE Last year we outlined our technology goals for the Quiet, Clean, Short-haul Experimental Engine (QCSEE) program which was to begin in FY 1974. QCSEE's primary purpose is to explore and consolidate engine technology for very quiet, clean, powered-lift propulsion systems particularly applicable to future shorthaul aircraft. Our noise technology goal is the equivalent of a four-engine, medium size, short-haul transport operating with landing and take-off noise footprint area less than one square mile enclosed by the 90 EPNdB noise contour boundary. By comparison, corresponding noise footprints for current transport aircraft range from about 30 to 80 square miles. Figure 1 illustrates this comparison. Pollution goals for QCSEE are equivalent to those the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed for new aircraft after 1979. These levels will be 25 to 35 percent of those of current high performance commercial engines. Figure (2) compares these levels for the major exhaust emission pollutants. The QCSEE Request for Proposals was issued to industry in May 1973, proposals were submitted in July, and a contract was awarded to the General Electric Company in late December for the design, fabrication, testing and delivery of two QCSEE propulsion systems. The contract program will run 56 months and cost aprpoximately $31 million. |