DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

Brian Yutko, Neil Titchener, Christopher Courtin, Michael Lieu, Larry Wirsing,
David Hall, John Tylko, Jeffrey Chambers, Thomas Roberts, Clint Church

Aurora Flight Sciences, A Boeing Company

Abstract transportation system analysis was completed

using these aircraft and it is shown that the D8
The conceptual design of a subsonic, configuration has the potential to reduce
environmentally efficient, twin-aisle commercial narrowbody system fuel consumption by 52%
airliner is presented (previously presented by and significantly reduce community noise
Yutko et al [1]). The D8 double-bubble aircraft – impacts based on an analysis of the top 20 United
named for its complex, non-round fuselage shape States airports.
– originated from NASA's N+3 Phase I study in
which participants designed efficient commercial
aircraft for market entry in the 2035 timeframe. 1 Introduction and Aircraft Configuration
Previous computational and experimental work Background
has established the potential of the D8 Over the past eighty years of commercial airline
configuration to significantly reduce operations, only two fundamental transitions in
environmental impact of aviation. However, the aircraft configuration occurred. In both cases,
integration of engines and airframe, as well as government funding supplemented by private
the non-round fuselage with central support capital formed the basis for successful product
element, pose many challenges for the airframe launches. In recent years, similar collaboration of
designer. In this paper, the conceptual design of government and industry, with key university
a D8 aircraft is presented: the aircraft is partners, has resulted in a series of new aircraft
designed to comply with FAR 25 requirements configurations which have the potential to again
and air transportation system constraints; revolutionize commercial airline economics with
airframe structural solutions for the unique significant operating benefits related to
configuration challenges of the D8 are substantially reduced fuel burn and much smaller
presented; aircraft weight and balance and environmental impact.
airline operations are analyzed; aerodynamic The first revolution was the launch of the
lofting and performance is accomplished with DC-3 by Douglas Aircraft in 1935, which
CFD; and performance of the boundary layer incorporated several new aeronautical
ingesting (BLI) propulsion system is technologies including radial air-cooled engines
investigated. Results are presented for two D8 with cowlings, a variable pitch propeller, high-
concepts. First, a concept for a D8 with an entry- lift flaps, lightweight stressed-skin structure and
into-service (EIS) of 2016 was designed that retractable landing gear. NASA’s predecessor,
utilizes current engine technology and existing the National Advisory Committee for
composite manufacturing techniques, and it is Aeronautics, developed several of these
demonstrated that such an aircraft is capable of technologies, including the one of the first uses
saving between 25-30% fuel when compared of a standard NACA airfoil. The Collier Trophy
with a Boeing 737-800. Second, a concept for a was awarded on three separate occasions for the
vision system with EIS prior to 2035 that is government and industry innovations embodied
capable of meeting NASA's mid-term in the DC-3: to NACA for the engine cowling
environmental goals was designed. An air with improved aerodynamic efficiency in 1929;
1
 YUTKO ET AL

to Hamilton Standard for the variable pitch For example, the silhouettes of tube-and-wing
propeller in 1933 and to Douglas Aircraft for the aircraft over the past sixty years demonstrate
DC-3 aircraft itself in 1935 [2]. considerable similarity [5]. Engine
The DC-3 was the first commercial configurations, on the other hand, have changed
airliner that could be flown by airlines at a profit. from turbojets, to turbofans, to high bypass ratio
As William Littlewood, chief engineer of turbofans, to the geared turbofans recently
American Airlines would later write, the DC-3 introduced into service [6]. Unfortunately,
was “the first American transport to show a continuation of the current design practices will
favorable net difference between costs and result in increased nacelle drag, increased
revenues at reasonable load factors and for a propulsor weight, and under-wing installation
substantial spread of operating ranges” [3]. By challenges due to larger fans. The increasingly
the end of the decade, DC-3 aircraft carried 95% diminishing returns available from advances in
of all US commercial air traffic and were used by tube-and-wing aircraft is shown in Figure 1,
30 foreign airlines. By launching a disruptive which shows the historical trend of fuel-burn per
technology, Douglas emerged as the leading seat-km from the Boeing 707 through to the
commercial airliner manufacturer, a position it Boeing 737-MAX8.
would maintain for nearly four decades.
In the late 1950s, the second revolution, a
transition from propeller driven aircraft to jet
aircraft, was also achieved through major public
and private investments. In this case, the market
disrupter was Boeing, which began the decade in
fifth place in commercial aircraft behind
Douglas, Lockheed, Martin, and Convair.
Leveraging Boeing’s experience with B-47 and
B-52 military bombers, newly elected Boeing
Fig. 1. Progression of fuel-burn per seat-km over time
President William Allen made the decision to
invest $16 million, a major portion of Boeing’s
existing financial resources, to develop a Under the leadership of NASA Aeronautics,
prototype aircraft, the 367-80, for both the KC- beginning with the N+3 program in 2008, new
135A Stratotanker for the military and the teams of government, industry and academic
Boeing 707 Stratoliner for commercial innovators aggressively pursued the systematic
customers. Within a month of its first flight, Air examination of new airframe architectures with
Force General Curtis LeMay authorized an initial potential for major improvements in vehicle
order of 29 KC-135A aircraft in August 1954. system-level performance that go well beyond
Boeing leveraged Air Force funding to mature what is achievable through component or
the aircraft for civil aviation. Pan American subsystem advances. Such configurations have
World Airways placed its launch order for 20 been estimated to achieve fuel savings of up to
Boeing 707 airliners in October 1956, beginning 70 percent, compared to current versions of
the modern jet era which Boeing Commercial conventional commercial airliners.
Aircraft would dominate. These innovative teams primarily focused
Exhibiting many of the fundamental on new aircraft configurations capable of
characteristics described by Clay Christensen, significant performance increases utilizing a high
the commercial airline industry has not adopted a degree of integration between the propulsion
new aircraft configuration in over sixty years [4]. system and the airframe. This level of airframe
Although aircraft fuel efficiency has steadily propulsion integration leads to substantial
improved, these advances have been performance and efficiency improvements
accomplished primarily through dramatic offered by these new configurations.
improvements in propulsion systems rather than Three primary criteria were established for
substantial changes in airframe configuration. the next generation of aeronautical technology
2
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

capable of transforming commercial aviation the characterized by a twin-aisle lifting body

way the DC-3 and 707 did several generations fuselage with integrated Boundary Layer
ago. These aircraft should be: Ingesting (BLI) propulsion. An artist’s depiction
• Fully integrated to leverage the virtuous of the Aurora D8 is shown in Figure 2.
cycle of interactions between
subsystems in order to deliver
revolutionary performance benefits in a
short time frames;

• Not dependent on high-risk technologies

such as low-TRL materials or
manufacturing methods; and

• Capable of being integrated seamlessly

into the existing global air transportation
system.
The importance of seamless integration into
Fig. 2. Aurora D8-2016 subsonic transport aircraft
the global air transportation cannot be overstated.
Advanced, fuel efficient concepts have existed The D8 configuration’s distinctive dual-
for decades, but they have not been produced lobed, double-bubble fuselage and pi-tail, greatly
because of both commercial pressure against enhance air-vehicle performance when combined
cannibalizing existing product lines and with aft-mounted boundary-layer ingestion (BLI)
pushback by customers against major changes to engines. The substantial performance benefits
the way aircraft are typically operated. In the resulting from the D8 configuration—rather than
same way that new jet aircraft like the 707 for any of the individual technologies integrated
leveraged existing infrastructure and could be into the aircraft—is perhaps the MIT led N+3
operated profitably while improving the airline project's most important finding [7]. It implies
customer experience, a new revolutionary that a synergistic aircraft configuration has the
aircraft based on an innovative configuration potential to deliver a step change in commercial
must be compliant with airport infrastructure, aircraft performance, and that this change could
provide a substantial operating cost savings to potentially occur on a shorter time scale than
airlines, and achieve passenger experiences equal required for maturation of many separate
to or better than today’s best-in-class aircraft. incremental technologies.
Motivated by the potential gains possible
2 D8 Background and Configuration with the D8 configuration, researchers have
Requirements continued to mature the D8 concept: Notably, de
la Rosa Blanco and Hileman [8] on D8 noise
The D8 originated from NASA’s N+3 Phase I performance; Pandya [11] on aerodynamic
study, during which a team from the design; Hall [12] on BLI fan design; Lord et al.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T), [13] on engine architectures suitable for the D8;
Aurora Flight Sciences (Aurora), and Pratt & and Uranga et al. [14] on an experimental
Whitney (P&W) conducted conceptual trades assessment of the BLI benefit for the D8. In the
and system optimization studies to develop a latter research, a 1:11 scale, powered model of a
conceptual configuration of an ultra-efficient D8 configuration was tested in NASA Langley’s
180-passenger transport aircraft [7] [8] [9] .The 14x22 ft. subsonic wind tunnel in order to
goal of the NASA N+3 program was to develop evaluate the aerodynamic performance of the D8
a conceptual aircraft that would substantially with and without BLI. In this experimental
reduce fuel consumption, noise, and emissions of investigation, a power benefit of up to 8% was
commercial aircraft with a targeted entry into directly measured validating early conceptual
service in the 2035 timeframe. The D8 is tool estimates.
3
 YUTKO ET AL

The present work builds on these prior Key features of the design mission are the
research programs and attempts to fill some 250 KIAS speed restriction under 10,000ft, and a
important gaps: particularly, design of the unique Mach 0.78 optimal cruise climb, which would be
structures required for the D8 aircraft, approximated by a step climb under current ATC
compliance with regulations and air regulations. As part of the vehicle design process,
transportation system constraints, and an updated the initial cruise altitude was a free variable that
performance assessment based on these designs. could be optimized along with other vehicle
To have the largest impact on emissions,
Aurora’s D8 design is targeted at the largest
segment of the commercial aircraft market: The
single-aisle, 150-200 passenger, 3000 nm range
segment currently dominated by the Boeing 737
and Airbus A320 families of aircraft. Therefore,
the current study took the design point to be 180
passengers with a transcontinental range of 3000-
nm. In addition, a design cruise Mach number of
0.80 was selected for ease of integration into the
existing air transportation network which led to
long range cruise performance occurring at
approximately 0.78M. It is worth noting that this
cruise Mach number is higher than the MIT Fig. 4. Fuel reserve mission based on FAR 121.645
Phase I D8 design which was designed to and ATA best practice
minimize fuel-burn and resulted in a 0.72M
parameters such as wing size, fan diameter, etc.
aircraft. A balanced field length constraint of All other features of the mission were fixed.
8000 ft. was also included to retain similar
The reserve fuel fraction was calculated
airfield operational capabilities as the B737-800. based on the requirements of FAR 121.645 and
Aurora introduced several other design
the industry best practices. The mission profile
constraints/requirements beyond those included
for the reserve fuel is shown in Figure 4 and
in the original MIT Phase I including a span
consists of fuel for 10% of the original mission
constraint of 118 ft. The design mission shown in plus a missed approach at the original destination
Figure 3 was defined prior to conceptual design
airport, a 200-mile cruise to the alternate at
to be similar to the B737-800. The design 20,000ft, and a 30-minute hold at 1500 ft. before
payload is 180 passengers each weighing 195 lbs.
landing. The total fuel for such a reserve mission
in accordance with AC120- 27E [15]. turns out to be approximately 20% for such a
design payload and range.
The performance of the D8 variants described in
this paper is assessed against NASA’s Subsonic
Transport System-level Metrics (STSLM) [16].
Fig. 3. Design mission with a constant cruise climb These metrics, which are shown in Table 1,
specify near-, mid-, and far term targets for
aircraft noise, fuel burn, and emissions,
referenced to a common baseline. The common
baseline is generally accepted to be the Boeing
737-800 powered by two CFM56-7 series
engines; an all-aluminum, tube-and-wing aircraft
with moderate bypass ratio engines.

4
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

Technology Generations
Technology Benefit Near-term Mid-term Far-term
2015-2025 2025-2035 Beyond 2035
Noise 22-32 dB 32-42 dB 42-52 dB
(cumulative below Stage 4)

LTO NOx Emissions 70-75% 80% >80%

(below CAEP 6)

Cruise NOx Emissions 65-70% 80% >80%

(relative to 2005 best in class)
Fuel/Energy
Consumption 40-50% 50-60% 60-80%
(relative to 2005 best in class)
Table 1. NASA Subsonic Transport System Level Metrics for noise and fuel economy

savings over current generation commercial

3 Conceptual Design Method transports.
Firstly, TASOPT was used for a trade-space
The conceptual design of the D8 aircraft study on various D8 aircraft. This study and the
presented in this paper follows a standard performance of the various D8 aircraft are
iterative design process in which integrated reported in Section 4. Once the trade-studies in
discipline teams performed repeated high- TASOPT were completed and a suitable seed
fidelity analysis and passed results onward. This aircraft was identified for the given constraints,
spiral of fidelity can continue onwards through the design was matured through conceptual
preliminary design, detail design, and eventually design using higher fidelity tools and additional
into manufacturing as part of a product operational and manufacturing constraints were
development program. As with any design study added. Updated D8 weight allocation,
that does not end in flight or ground-test aerodynamic performance, and propulsion
hardware, the endpoint is determined by system performance was calculated, and the
engineering judgement—the purpose of a design magnitude of fuel savings and aircraft noise were
study is to generate data capable of answering updated. The conceptual design of this aircraft is
predetermined questions. In this case, the presented in Section 5. The 2016 technology
purpose of the design study is to generate data level variant of the D8 was chosen as the seed
capable of: validating performance estimates design for the detailed design study to avoid
from lower-fidelity conceptual performance having to include various future technologies that
tools, assessing the feasibility of the unique have unknown impacts on weight and
structures required for the D8 aircraft, evaluating performance.
the D8 against NASA vehicle-level and system- The general design process for the full
level performance metrics, and providing a point- conceptual design study was conventional and
of-departure for designing ground and flight test followed a sequence from initial aircraft sizing to
articles. detailed geometry definition and layout.
With any novel configuration, design Attention was paid to passenger cabin
integration is critical to establishing real-world configuration and structural layout. The steps in
design constraints and to create a practical a single design cycle are as follows:
aircraft. MIT’s conceptual design tool, Transport 1. Initial sizing studies were performed with
Aircraft System OPTimization tool, TASOPT, TASOPT for a Mach 0.78 LRC / 180
was developed to allow optimized integrated passenger / 3000 nm mission, with fuel
aircraft design at the system level. As reported in reserves based on FAR Part 121.645. This
“N+3 Aircraft Concept Designs and Trade determined the wing and tail areas, engine
Studies, Final Report” [7], TASOPT was used to thrust, and an initial weight budget.
define the D8 configuration and identify its fuel

5
 YUTKO ET AL

2. A CAD model was developed based on the computations and sweep theory. The drag
TASOPT design. Main structural elements buildup was used in for detailed performance
were identified, and a structural layout was calculations.
developed. A layout of the passenger cabin to 10. A boundary-layer ingestion compliant
provide seating, baggage bins, lavatories and variant of current best-in-service jet-engines
galleys for 180 passengers in a single-class, was generated using an in-house variant of
consistent with present day comfort levels, the TASOPT engine model which
was generated. Both double bubble and oval implements BLI via a power balance
cross sections were developed for a trade methodology.
study of the fuselage weight. Ideally, several design cycles would have
3. A two-crew flight deck was laid out with been performed to close on an optimum
attention paid to providing visibility configuration. However, this was not possible
consistent with current certification criteria, due to schedule constraints and because an
with and without enhanced vision systems. optimized aircraft was not an objective of this
The effect of the cab outer mold line on the design study. Therefore, the D8 aircraft
aircraft basic pitching moment was described in this paper is not an optimal solution.
considered in an aerodynamic trade study. There remain opportunities to further improve
4. The defining airfoils for the wing loft were the efficiency of the aircraft – perhaps
chosen, and wing camber, thickness, and substantially – through further design cycles;
twist distribution were established using a those will be noted where they have been
vortex lattice model and compressible Euler identified.
calculations. A preliminary concept for the
high lift system was selected based on 4 D8 Configuration Analysis Using TASOPT
similarity to current generation transports.
The wing geometry planform was adjusted TASOPT was created to examine and evaluate
from the TASOPT output to provide future aircraft with potentially unprecedented
adequate integration of the main landing airframe, aerodynamic, engine, or operation
gear. parameters. For such configurations, it is
5. V-n diagrams were generated to establish the desirable to dispense with as many of the
preliminary maneuver and gust loads. The historically-based methods as possible, since
critical sizing cases were then selected. these cannot be relied on outside of their data-fit
6. A vortex lattice model was used to compute ranges. It is preferential instead to rely on low-
the wing, empennage and fuselage loads. The order physical models implementing
loads were the basis for initial structural fundamental structural, aerodynamic, and
sizing studies to validate the weight. thermodynamic theory and associated
7. Horizontal and vertical tail volume computational methods for all primary
coefficients were chosen. The horizontal tail predictions. Modeling the bulk of the aircraft
size was established by setting a minimum structure, aerodynamics, and propulsion by
static margin of 5% mean aerodynamic chord fundamentals gives considerable confidence that
at the aft c.g. limit and a reasonable tail lift the resulting optimized design is realizable, and
coefficient on approach at the forward c.g. not some artifact of inappropriate extrapolated
limit. Vertical tail volume was based on data fits. From Drela [8]: TASOPT uses
similarity to current twin-engine transports. structural theory for primary-structure sizing
8. Concepts for the aircraft systems were and weight prediction (in lieu of historical
chosen and used to estimate system weights. correlations), variable wing airfoils and
9. A drag buildup was generated from a viscous/inviscid CFD for all profile drag
combination of handbook methods based on prediction (in lieu of wetted-area methods), full
wetted areas, induced and trim drag from a engine flowpath simulation (in lieu of engine
vortex lattice model, and wing drag based on tables or correlations), and a variable flight
two-dimensional airfoil viscous trajectory (in lieu of a fixed climb and cruise

6
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

profile). The minimal reliance on historical data D8 configurations with varying levels of
and empiricism gives considerable confidence in technology. These technology benefits, while
applying TASOPT for the conceptual design of not D8-specific, are an important element that is
the unconventional D8 configuration. captured by the morphing approach. This
Based on the prescribed mission and methodology was employed to isolate the
payload described in Section 2, TASOPT was benefits of the D8 from various future
utilized to perform low fidelity system-level technologies, such as advanced aerodynamics,
analysis and trades on numerous variants of the engine technologies and composite materials,
D8 with various assumed technology levels. A that are just as applicable to other configurations.
conceptual design tool such as TASOPT is ideal As a result, this study identifies the unique
for directly comparing numerous D8 variants performance benefit of the D8 relative to
within a common framework. The performance alternative configurations.
assessment performed as part of this study Before the various D8 variants were
focused on the fuel-burn performance of the modeled, a suitable baseline tube-and-wing
various D8 configurations, and the objective aircraft was established in TASOPT. This is an
function optimized in TASOPT for this study important step as it ensures a fair comparison is
was Payload Fuel Energy Intensity (PFEI), which made between various conceptual-airplanes in a
is the fuel energy consumption per payload- low-fidelity conceptual design. Using
range. TASOPT version 2.16 was utilized in this TASOPT’s built-in 737-800 geometry, the
study which includes relatively minor updates to performance of the TASOPT 737-800 was
the engine model when compared to the original computed using in sizing mode (with
TASOPT version used in the NASA/MIT Phase optimization switched off). This TASOPT 737-
I study [7]. 800, differs somewhat from that in Reference [7]
While fuel-burn was the objective for due to the updated engine model that better
optimization, a noise assessment of each of the simulates engine off-takes and spool losses. The
D8 configurations was also undertaken relative TASOPT variant of the 737-800 is presented in
to the baseline. The performance of each Table 2 alongside publicly available data for the
configuration with respect to NOx emission was 737-800 (without winglets) taken from the
not specifically assessed as NOx emissions are Boeing Airport Planning Guide [17]. It can be
driven primarily by advances in core combustor seen that very good agreement is obtained
technology. Given that core combustor between TASOPT and published data with the
technology is largely independent of the air OEW and block fuel for a 3000 nm mission with
vehicle geometric configuration, there was no the design payload computed in TASOPT within
utility in assessing NOx performance here. 1% of published values. This result provides
In addition to performing optimization on confidence in TASOPTs ability to produce
various D8 variants, a number of morphing realistic weights and block fuel performance.
sequences were performed, whereby the The TASOPT 737-800 was then run in fuel-
conceptual aircraft is discretely morphed from a burn optimization mode which allows TASOPT
known tube-and-wing configuration to various the vary design parameters such as wing aspect

Source
Boeing Airport TASOPT TASOPT
Planning Guide (No Optimization) (Optimization)
Maximum takeoff weight (lbs) 174,000 173,790 157,053
Block fuel (lbs) 39,200* 39,458 35,409
Mission fuel weight (lbs) 47,000 47349 42,491
Operational Empty Weight (lbs) 91,300 91,346 79,467
*Assuming 20% reserve fuel
Table 2. Weight comparison of Boeing 737-800 models

7
 YUTKO ET AL

ratio, cruising altitude, cruise CL, etc. The OEW, expected to be matured by that timeframe,
fuel-burn over the 3000 nm mission, and such as more advanced composites and high-
resulting MTOW, for the TASOPT optimized temperature engine materials and ultra-high
737-800 are also shown in Table 2. From Table bypass ratio, small-core engine technology.
2 it can be seen that there is a substantial A morphing chart that illustrates one
difference between the TASOPT optimized and sequence of morphing from the baseline tube-
non-optimized 737-800. This difference stems and-wing configuration to the TASOPT D8-2016
from the fact that TASOPT creates a purely fuel- is presented in Figure 5. The origin corresponds
burn optimized solution; whereas, there are many to the optimized TASOPT 737-800 as discussed
other design drivers for real-world aircraft above. At each step in the morphing process, as
including those driven by economic and each geometric change or technology is added,
operational considerations. It is for this reason the vehicle is re-optimized to minimize fuel burn
that the most meaningful comparison is that over the reference mission profile. Consequently,
between fuel-optimized vehicles in TASOPT. the benefit shown at each step is the integrated
The TASOPT optimized 737-800 represents a vehicle-level benefit of that configuration change
2005 best-in-class fuel optimized, all-aluminum, or technology addition and not just the direct
tube-and-wing configuration with high-bypass benefit of that addition to the previous iteration.
engines, and, as a result, this vehicle is used as For this TASOPT study it is assumed that the
the baseline when comparing TASOPT D8 TASOPT D8-2016 ingests 40% of the total
aircraft performance to the NASA fuel-burn fuselage surface dissipation with a 1% fan
metric. polytropic efficiency debit due to the inlet
Three D8 variants were compared to the distortion
baseline tube-and-wing as part of this study:
1. UW-D8-2016: A 2016 D8 with underwing
engines: This aircraft consists of a double-
bubble fuselage and pi-tail with two engines
mounted conventionally under the wings.
The airframe is of all-composite construction
using current industry-standard composite
materials, and the engines consist are geared
turbofan engines representative of current
state of the art designs. This is the highest
TRL variant of the D8 aircraft.
2. D8-2016: A 2016 D8 with aft mounted BLI
engines: This aircraft consists of the same
technologies as the D8 with the addition of Fig. 5. Example morphing process from the TASOPT
BLI engines. This variant is intended to 737-800 OPT to the TASOPT D8-2016
demonstrate the performance benefits In Figure 5, four bars are shown at each step
available using technology available today
with each step normalized by the baseline. Three
with the exception of BLI-specific engine of the four bars represent each of the main
technologies such as a distortion-tolerant fan
contributors to vehicle fuel-burn performance:
and core designs. There is no assumption of lift-to-drag, L/D, which quantifies external
technology advancement included in the
aerodynamic efficiency, TSFC, which quantities
performance numbers beyond the suitability propulsion system efficiency, and zero-fuel
of the engine for BLI operations.
weight which defines structural efficiency. These
3. D8-2035: A 2035 D8 with BLI: This aircraft are the three terms that feature in the Breguet
includes a selection of technology packages
range equation. The fourth bar shown at each
to estimate the performance of a D8 with a step is the fuel-burn relative to the baseline
2035 entry into service (EIS). As a result, this
aircraft. For aircraft with a relatively short
variant includes technology advances that are
8
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

design mission, fuel-burn is almost directly is expected, the majority of the TSFC benefit
proportional to these three factors which have occurs at the steps in the morphing sequence
approximately equal weighting [8]. As a result, where 2016 engines are introduced (7%) and
Table 3 illustrates not only the fuel-burn benefit with the introduction of boundary-layer ingestion
but also a direct breakdown of where the benefit (3%). The main benefit of the composites is a
originates as each technology or configuration reduction in zero-fuel weight. The trade-off
change is introduced. between increased engine size for improved
In reviewing the performance of the propulsive efficiency and increased weight is
TASOPT D8-2016 it is visible that the also visible from the morphing chart as can be
aerodynamic, propulsion and structural seen from the increase in zero-fuel weight with
performance are all improved relative to the the introduction of 2016 engines.
baseline. The zero-fuel weight is improved by The TASOPT optimization presented in
14%, the propulsion system performance is Figure 5 has fuel-burn as the sole objective. In
improved 11% and the aerodynamic performance practice, it may be desirable to trade some fuel
6%. Consequently, there is an overall fuel-burn benefit for improvements in noise or other
benefit relative to the baseline of 30%. metrics of interest; multi-objective optimization
The benefits of the double-bubble fuselage is a compelling candidate for future work.
and pi-tail in terms of air-vehicle weight is Figure 6 shows the results of the morphing
clearly shown in the first morphing step. This steps in terms of both fuel-burn and noise leading
weight reduction is driven by the need for a to the non-ingesting, 2016, and vision system D8
smaller wing due to the lifting attributes of the variants. Additionally, several intermediate steps
fuselage and widened fuselage, and the widened are shown that illuminate the contributions from
fuselage and wing box reduces the root bending various technology packages. The morphing
moment loads and hence wing box and spar steps proceed outward along the line from the
weights. Furthermore, the reduced wing size origin; the location of each point shows the
precipitates a reduction in tail size and hence fuel/noise benefit from the addition of each
weight. Finally, the widened fuselage also allows specific technology. The green and blue line
landing gear can be mounted closer to the ground shows key morphing steps leading to the D8
while retaining the required wheel base, and this vision system. Several branches off this chain are
reduces the total landing gear weight. While shown in black, representing variants of interest.
there is an improvement in lift-to-drag for the D8 The NASA STSLM mid-term goals are shown as
configuration due to improved lift-carryover and the blue shaded areas. The red dot corresponds to
the positive pitching moment contribution which the non-ingesting D8, the blue dot is the 2016 D8,
reduces the required horizontal tail size, this is and the green dot is the D8 vision system. Table
partially offset by increased wetted area of the 3 summarizes key parameters of each of these
fuselage (due to the non-cylindrical shape). As

TASOPT TASOPT TASOPT TASOPT TASOPT

Parameters
737-800 737-800 OPT. UW-D8-2016 D8-2016 D8-2035
PFEI (kJ/kg-km) 8.72 7.80 6.16 5.43 3.19
MTOW (lb) 173,790 157,053 133,700 127,935 107,250
Mission Fuel (lb) 47,349 42,491 33,688 29,681 16,059
Baseline Fuel (%) 111% 100% 79.3% 69.9% 37.8%
L/D (-) 16.9 16.8 16.8 17.9 20.1
W/S (lb/sqft) 124 122 116 116 124
TSFC (lb/hr/lb) 0.612 0.601 0.551 0.533 .410
FPR (-) 1.69 1.69 1.49 1.44 1.47
BPR (-) 5.1 5.1 8.5 9.1 20.0
Altitude (ft) 34786 36007 38204 37235 37080
Table 3. Key parameters resulting from D8 morphing study

9
 YUTKO ET AL

Fig. 6. Morphing steps leading to the different D8 variants

vehicles, as well as the baseline aircraft. Relative shape). The non-ingesting D8 offers a 21% fuel
fuel burn is also included. burn benefit over the baseline aircraft – which
A key piece of information in Figure 6 is the again is the TASOPT-optimized Boeing 737-
core benefit of the D8 configuration, shown as 800.
the green line. This fuel burn benefit, 20.6%, is Table 4 shows that there is some
unique to the D8. Of that 20.6%, 7.7% is due to dependency on the ordering of the technology
the D8 fuselage and pi-tail, and 12.9% is due to benefits. Composite materials have more of an
the integration of the engines with the airframe. effect on the 2016 D8 due to the longer fuselage
While the widened fuselage improves lift- required to accommodate the BLI engines, while
carryover efficiency and provides a positive the fuel benefit due to the introduction of geared
pitching moment contribution which reduces the turbofan technology is smaller with BLI. The
required horizontal tail size, the L/D of the non- opposite is true for the noise benefit.
ingesting D8 is similar to that of the baseline Balanced field length for the D8 is
configuration because the reduced horizontal tail constrained to be less than or the same as the
size is approximately offset by increased wetted Boeing 737-800. However, the potential for
area of the fuselage (due to the non-cylindrical shortening that distance does exist and was

TASOPT TASOPT
Parameters
UW-D8-2016 D8-2016
D8 Fuselage and Pi-Tail 7.7% 7.7%
Current Generation Composites 5.6% 6.0%
2016 Geared Turbofan Engines 7.4% 3.5%
Boundary Layer Ingestion - 12.9%
Total Benefit 20.7% 30.1%
Table 4. The source of the fuel burn benefit for the 2016 and non-ingesting D8 variants

10
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

considered as part of N+3 Phase I. Figure 7 more lift than a traditional cylindrical fuselage,
shows a variant of the D8 that is constrained to a improves lift-carryover performance, and results
5000ft balanced field length. This aircraft has a in an operationally favorable twin-aisle
significant penalty in fuel burn but does yield a configuration; and (ii) the aft-mounted boundary-
potential noise reduction benefit. The noise layer ingesting propulsion system, which
benefit is due to the lighter wing loading required improves both airframe and propulsion system
to meet the takeoff performance (98 lb/ft2 relative performance.
to 116 lb/ft2). This has the effect of lowering The majority of the airframe structure
approach/stall speed for a given approach angle consists of carbon-fiber reinforced polymer
and thus reducing aerodynamic noise. Higher (CFRP), and a structural layout was created
fidelity source-noise characterization is a assuming 2016 composite materials and
candidate for future work. technologies. The structural components were
The other key D8 variant, the D8 Vision sized based on the critical load cases and this
System, offers a substantial improvement over sizing process was used to produce a bottoms-up
the 2016 D8. This is not due to any additional estimate of the airframe structural weight. The
unique features of the airplane but rather due to aircrafts maximum operating speed and Mach
the integration of future technology forecasting number are 340 KEAS and 0.85 respectively,
into the 2035 timeframe. The technology with a typical cruise Mach number in the range
improvements that go into the D8 Vision System of 0.74-0.80.
are grouped into four categories: operational The D8 fuselage layout was modified from
improvements, advanced aerodynamics, the TASOPT output to allow for 180 passengers
advanced materials, and advanced propulsion in a single-class arrangement with an industry
and power subsystems. The Boeing SUGAR standard 32-inch seat pitch in a 2-4-2
Phase I report [18] is the source of these arrangement, while complying with emergency
technology forecasts. The integration of all of egress requirements. Overhead bins, galleys, and
these benefits, which are discussed in detail lavatories that meet current standards were also
below, yields a 62% fuel burn reduction integrated into the floor plan. Although the aft
compared to the baseline, as well as a 36 EPNdB fuselage extends further behind the passenger
noise reduction. This meets or exceeds NASA cabin than for aircraft with underwing engines,
STSLM goals in these categories. the eight-abreast seating results in a shorter cabin
than single-aisle aircraft and the aircraft length
5 The Aurora D8-2016 overall is comparable to current generation,
single-aisle aircraft.
The cockpit for the Aurora D8-2016 is
5.1 D8 Conceptual Air Vehicle Configuration largely conventional and accommodates two
The outputs from the sizing and optimization pilots in a traditional configuration. The flight
results of TASOPT for the 2016 variant of the control system is digital fly-by-wire with
D8, D8-2016, formed the basis for the design envelope protection. Due to the distinctive
activities. In this section, the details of the Aurora upturned nose which creates more lift and pushes
D8 design and its key characteristics are the fuselage center-of-pressure forward fuselage
presented and discussed. Emphasis is placed on to reduce the required tail download, an artificial
design challenges unique to the D8 and potential or synthetically augmented vision system may be
solutions to these challenges. necessary. However, the cost of synthetic vision
The conceptual design solution resulting system is thought to be outweighed by the
from this D8 design study is presented in Figure benefits of the upturned nose which is of the
7, where the general arrangement, passenger
cabin layout and fuselage cross-section are
shown. The defining features of the D8
configuration are clearly identifiable in (i) the
unique double-bubble fuselage which creates
11
 YUTKO ET AL

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISION HISTORY
ZONE REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED

NOTE:

1. THIS DRAWING CAPTURES A DESIGN POINT FOR AN OBJECTIVE DESIGN CONFIGURATION

AGAINST WHICH FUTURE DESIGN EVOLUTIONS WILL BE EVALUATED.

D D

17 7

C ISOMETRIC VIEW C
SCALE: NONE ELEVATOR

TOP VIEW SPEED BRAKES

FLAPS

SPOILERS
SLATS

AILERON

B B

117 6
48 2 123 4

RUDDER
27 1

13.1 1
10.3
3 2
STATIC GROUND LINE
0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90' 100' 110' 120' 130'

FRONT VIEW LEFT VIEW

A A
AURORA PROPRIETARY AURORA FLIGHT SCIENCES CORPORATION
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED OR DISTRIBUTED
TO OTHER PARTIES WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF 9950 WAKEMAN DRIVE
AURORA FLIGHT SCIENCES CORPORATION MANASSAS, VA 20110
TOLERANCES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED NAME DATE
.X .1 X/X 1/16 INTERPRET DRAWING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME Y14.5M 1994
DRAWN BY:
.XX .03 SURFACE FINISH
V. POSBIC 06/07/2016 TITLE
.XXX .010 125

D8 Full Scale Layout

CHECKER:
.5
-
UNLESS NOTED, DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
BREAK ALL SHARP EDGES ENGINEERING:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING -
WARNING - EXPORT CONTROLLED DATA
SIZE CAGE CODE DWG NO REV
THE DATA CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THIRD ANGLE PROJECTION MANUFACTURING:

CONTROLLED UNDER THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION

REGULATIONS AS ECCN 9E991. CONFIRM AUTHORIZED
-
PROJECT:
D 1KY53 D8FS-AA001 *
NATIONALITIES PRIOR TO DISCLOSURE. - SCALE: 1:100 WEIGHT: - SHEET 1 OF 2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Fig. 7. D8 general arrangement (top). Internal profile in a single-class configuration (Bottom).

order of ∆Cm0 = 0.05 compared to a more variations along the span to obtain the desired
conventional cab design. swept isobars on the upper surface and a
Visually, the D8-2016 is more similar to satisfactory span load distribution. The high-lift
traditional single-aisle concepts than the MIT system of the D8-2016 is also relatively
N+3 Phase I D8 due to the higher cruise Mach conventional with a system similar to current
number for the Aurora D8 variant, which results generation aircraft, consisting of full-span slats at
in a more conventional, span-constrained wing. the leading edge and partial span double slotted
The basic planform is trapezoidal, with an Fowler flaps at the trailing edge. When sizing the
extended wing root chord to provide ample fuel aircraft, the maximum lift coefficient in takeoff
volume and to accommodate the main landing configuration was assumed to be 2.0 and in
gear. Modern supercritical airfoils are used to landing configuration it is 2.7. The approach
define the wing loft with thickness and camber speed is 135KEAS at maximum landing weight.
12
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

The lateral control system consists of outboard mitigates this considerably, and the tail download
ailerons and inboard spoilers. Ground spoilers in cruise is quite small.
located on the inboard wing provide a means to
dump lift quickly upon landing. The main
difference between the Aurora D8 wing and
current single-aisle tube-and-wing designs is in
terms of overall size; The D8 wing is 8% smaller
than that of the 737-800.
Weight and balance poses a challenge for
the D8 due to the rear engine configuration which
results in an aft aircraft empty center of mass
relative to the passenger cabin. This leads to a
relatively large center of gravity (c.g.) range than
aircraft with wing mounted engines. For the D8
configuration this issue is compounded as the
Fig. 8. Aurora D8-2016 loading diagram. The blue curves
engines are mounted at the end of the fuselage
show c.g. travel for row-by-row loading, and the red
rather than near the end of the passenger cabin curve show loading limits for window-aisle-center seat
like traditional rear-engine-mounted aircraft. sequence loading.
It is desirable to have the wing located
Unlike the wing, the empennage is highly
forward on the body so that the fuel load is
unconventional. It is a pi-tail with a swept
centered near the payload c.g., and the loaded
horizontal stabilizer and twin fins. The
aircraft c.g. is generally aft on the mean
horizontal stabilizer incidence is used for trim,
aerodynamic chord (m.a.c.). However, the wing
and four segments of elevators are the primary
position is constrained by the need to have the
pitch control effectors. Each fin has a single
main landing gear behind the empty c.g. in the
segment rudder for directional control. The
space behind the wing rear spar. Operators desire
horizontal tail sizing criteria required that the
an unrestricted passenger and freight loading
minimum static margin was no less than 5%
envelope for operational flexibility, and as a
m.a.c. and a reasonable tail lift coefficient (-0.7)
result, much attention was paid to getting a good
at forward c.g. on approach. The sizing chart is
balance between the conflicting requirements of
shown in Figure 9. The minimum tail volume
passenger and freight loading envelope and c.g.
coefficient to satisfy these criteria and to meet the
position and hence tail size.
50% c.g. travel shown in Figure 9 is VH = 0.75.
To obtain an adequate loading envelope, a
This was used to set the initial tail size for early
relatively forward c.g. in typical operating
layouts. As the design progressed towards a
conditions had to be accepted, and the final
reasonable compromise for loadability, the wing
loading diagram for the chosen wing position
was moved forward on the fuselage, but the
with 180 passengers in single-class seating is
empennage was not resized as part of the final
shown in Figure 8. A c.g. travel about 50% m.a.c.
design spiral. Thus, the aircraft has a much larger
was established, with minor restrictions on
tail volume, VH = 0.98, than required, which
passenger loading. Unrestricted loading requires
would allow about 60% m.a.c. travel. The
a c.g. travel of about 52%. The landing gear is
horizontal stabilizer area can be reduced by about
relatively aft on the wing at almost 60% m.a.c.
13% and satisfy the minimum tail size
As can be seen in Figure 8, during typical
requirement. This would result in a weight
operating conditions the c.g. is generally
reduction of about 100lb and a profile drag
forward—with a full passenger payload, the c.g.
varies between about 17% – 22% m.a.c.
depending on the fuel load. Normally such a
forward c.g. would lead to a large trim drag;
however, the favorable forward fuselage lift

13
 YUTKO ET AL

reduction of about two counts. This is an obvious Throughout the design process attention
area of opportunity for future design cycles. was paid to retaining many of the operational
The propulsion system for the Aurora D8- capabilities of traditional tube-and-wing
2016 is a boundary-layer ingestion capable configurations. In addition to the wing-span
turbofan with core technology and hence thermal constraint to retain compatibility with Group III
efficiency comparable to current best-in-class gates, the design was required to retain
engines for the single aisle market as of 2016. compatibility with aircraft tugs, ground-handling
The propulsion system is aft-mounted on the equipment and jet ways. A CAD model of the
upper-side of the fuselage and it is assumed that Aurora D8-2016 at a gate beside a Boeing 737-
40% of the fuselage boundary layer is ingested 800 at a similar gate is shown in Figure 10.
by the propulsion system during cruise flight.
The propulsion system cycle was calculated 5.2 Airframe Design and Analysis
using an Aurora variant of the TASOPT engine
model, which is compatible with BLI systems as The D8 airframe design used a NASA/MIT
it is able to account for the propulsive efficiency Outer Mold Line (OML) loft [14] as the initiation
benefit of the BLI. Simultaneously, the engine- point for this effort. The point-of-departure OML
had been developed for wind-tunnel testing in
order to investigate aerodynamic and propulsion
benefits of the configuration. This model lacked
internal structural details.
The conceptual design process required
constant iterations across a multi-discipline team.
The airframe-centric view of these interactions is

Fig. 9. Aurora D8-2016 tail sizing. The approach trim

at forward c.g. and 5% static margin boundaries are
shown in blue and red, respectively. Tail volume for
50% m.a.c. range is 0.75.
Fig. 10. D8 integrates into existing gate servicing.
cycle was designed so that no credit was taken
illustrated in Figure 11. The computer-aided
for future enhancements in core technologies or
design (CAD) OML serves as the backbone
engine weight. A design study was undertaken
across the disciplines, with information flowing
to determine the optimal fan pressure ratio and
through the CAD to and from the other
engine size for the 2016 D8 and it was found that
disciplines. The CAD geometry is considered the
a twin-engine configuration with two 73 in. fans
master model. Geometry is exported from CAD
at a FPR=1.45 provided a suitable compromise
in order to generate computational fluid
between propulsive efficiency, size and weight.
dynamics (CFD) and finite element analysis
Each engine has a sea level static thrust of 24,200
(FEA) models.
lb. Full details of the propulsion system design
study are presented in Section 5.3. The upper aft
fuselage, fins and nacelles are integral parts of
the fan inlets. A summary of the aircraft’s salient
characteristics and performance for the design
mission is presented in Table 5.

14
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

Accommodation
Flight Crew 1-2
Cabin Crew 3-5
Passengers 180 (single class, 32" pitch)
Capability
Still Air Range 3000 nm (full pax load)
Long Range Cruise Speed 0.78 Mach
Maximum Operating Mach 0.82 Mach
Maximum Operating Altitude FL410
Takeoff Field Length 7,750 ft
Dimensions
Wing Span 117 ft 6 in
Length 124 ft 5 in
Height 25 ft 0 in
Fuselage Width 17 ft 7 in
Wing Area 1,244 sq ft
Cabin Width 16 ft 7 in
Cabin Length 76 ft 4 in
Aisle Height 7 ft 10 in
Aisle Width 18 in
Seat Width 17.5 in
Underfloor Cargo Volume 1,700 cu ft
Propulsion
High Bypass Turbofan 2 x 73 in. fans
Thrust 24,200 lb (sea level static)
Weights
Maximum Takeoff Weight 153,670 lb
Maximum Landing Weight 138,303 lb
Maximum Zero Fuel Weight 128,476 lb
Maximum Fuel Weight 41,660 lb
Operating Empty Weight 83,476 lb
Design Mission Performance
Still Air Range 3000 nm (full pax load)
Initial Cruise Altitude 37,500 ft
Approach Speed 135 KEAS
Takeoff Gross Weight 153,670 lb
Payload 35,095 lb
Block Fuel 29,245 lb
Reserve Fuel 5,850 lb
Landing Weight 124,425 lb
Takeoff Wing Loading 124 psf
Takeoff T/W 0.27
Long-range cruise Mach # 0.78
Table 5. Aurora D8-2016 General Characteristics
geometry on the pilot visibility out the cockpit
5.2.1 Airframe Design
windscreens. FAR 25.775 and AC25.773-1 [19]
Aerodynamics drive the D8 configuration to
provide guidance regarding required pilot
have an up-swept nose, as described in detail in
visibility. For this study, a 95th percentile male
Section 5.3.1. One of the considerations
pilot is placed at a nominal location within the
discovered during this work is the impact of this
cockpit. View angles in compliance of
15
 YUTKO ET AL

complying with emergency egress requirements

and offering an industry standard 32-inch seat
pitch. The latest in passenger seats is used as the
base for the seat dimensions. Seat cushions are
17.5 inches wide and armrests are 1.9 inches
wide for an effective seat width of 19.4 inches.
The aisles are 18 inches wide from the floor up
to 25 inches above the floor. Above 25 inches
from the floor, the aisles are 21.8 inches wide.
FAR 25.775 requires 15 inches and 20 inches,
respectively. To accommodate the aisles widths
Fig. 11. Airframe design and analysis method and seat widths, the fuselage width grew slightly
from the point-of-departure model. A view of
AC25.773-1 are modeled and cockpit some of the conceptual passenger considerations
windscreen geometries are defined. Three nose is shown in Figure 13. Overhead baggage space
variants are considered, as illustrated Figure 12. allows for one carry-on bag for every passenger.
The -101 variant is the nominal aerodynamic A/C routed through centerline bay
between center overhead bins
Centerline tension
straps are cladded with
nose, -103 enables the windscreens to be fully- interiors to avoid
passenger-induced

compliant with view requirements, and -102 is a 3 carry-on bags per row (each
aisle) in center overhead bins,
damage
Windows are
66” head clearance positioned to
compromise between the -101 and -103 variants. 1 carry-on bag per row (each
provide a good
view for 5-95%

The forward pressure bulkhead partially aisle) in outboard overhead

bins, 60” head clearance
passengers

interferes with the field of view looking

straightforward. An illustration showing the
interference from within the cockpit for the three
nose variants is shown in Figure 12. The Seat cushions
are 17.5” wide,
conceptual design presented in this paper armrests are
1.9” wide
Aisles are 18” wide 0-25” from floor,
maintains the OML with the maximum 21.8” wide above 25” from floor
(§25.775 requires 15” and 20”
(19.4” effective
seat width)

aerodynamic benefits (i.e. -101) described in respectively)

Section 5.3.1, as it is anticipated that methods for Fig. 13. Partial list of D8 passenger human-factors
considerations
supplementing the pilot with optical cameras will
be accepted in the near future. For example, Unique to the D8 configuration is the
Gulfstream recently earned certification for an centerline structural elements that run down the
Enhanced Vision System [20]. A conceptual middle of the fuselage and connect the upper
layout of the D8 cockpit is completed was part of fuselage skin to the lower fuselage skin. The
this study; ample space is available for placement conceptual function of a central element is to
of modern, large multi-functional displays. provide a load path from upper skin to lower skin
in order to reduce bending stress, and therefore,
structural mass and deflection of the fuselage
skins along the upper and lower cusps, Figure 14.
-101 fuselage -102 fuselage -103 fuselage
As incorporation of structure down the middle of
a fuselage is an unconventional approach, a trade
was performed to investigate the central element
design space from simple tension rods located at
each frame station to a full-height shear web (i.e.
wall) with cutouts separating the left and right
lobes of the fuselage. A third consideration was a
Fig. 12. FAR25.775 and AC25.773-1 visibility study hybrid of the two previous concepts, merging
The size of the fuselage was grown slightly tension rods with partial-height shear webs.
from the NASA/MIT point-of departure OML in
order to accommodate 180 passengers while

16
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

emergency exit rows, the cross-aisle spacing is

10.2 inches. Galley, lavatories, and service doors
(Type B) are included in order to set the fuselage
length. In order to comply with FAR
requirements, the fuselage length slightly
increased from the point-of-departure OML. The
D8 airframe is comprised of five major
components; fuselage, aft fuselage, wing,
vertical stabilizers, and horizontal stabilizers.
The airframe utilizes a traditional composite
Fig. 14. D8 fuselage section cuts fuselage build approach, utilizing frames and
stringers in the fuselage and aft fuselage, and
The three central element concepts, tension
spars, ribs, and stringers in the wing, vertical
rods, tension rods with a partial web, and a full-
stabilizers, and horizontal stabilizers. However,
height web with cutouts, were evaluated for
the fuselage adds a unique central element, the Y-
suitability on the D8, and those results were
clip, keel, and tension rods as described above.
reported out in Reference [21]. The trade study
As with traditional passenger aircraft, the D8 has
found two main results: (i) the dual-lobed cross-
a mix of pressurized and unpressurized bays.
section is more mass efficient than an oval or
Figure 16 (top) illustrates the conceptual design
elliptical fuselage, and (ii) including structure to
of these bays.
tie the cusp of the fuselage along buttline zero
The structural arrangement for the fuselage
decreases the total structural mass. While the
utilizes a typical frame spacing between 20 and
full-height web and tension rods with partial web
24 inches. Windows are placed within the frame
design weights were relatively similar from a
bays throughout the passenger cabin. The frame
mass-efficiency standpoint, periodic tension rods
pitch is decreased in the surrounds of doors and
offer greater cabin configuration flexibility. In
emergency exits as well as in the region of the
addition, bending is a driving sizing factor for the
wing carry-through structure. The fuselage skin
fuselage. There is diminishing returns to having
has integrated hat stiffeners running along the
a full height central web with mass near the
length of the aircraft. The main fuselage cabin
neutral axis of the fuselage. The chosen solution
has a forward and an aft pressure bulkhead. The
is a tension rod with a longitudinal keel beam
nose landing gear and the wing carry-through
(shear web), as demonstrated in Figure 15 and
structure bays are reinforced pressure bulkheads.
described in detail in [21].
The fuselage also contains cargo doors. The floor
structure of the fuselage provides support for the
passenger cabin. Continuous seat tracks and seat
track beam caps run across the top of the
crossbeams. Hat shaped seat track beams are
discontinuous at every crossbeam. Shear clips tie
the vertical support struts to the seat track beams
and cross beams. Six inches of depth is allotted
for the floor structure (0.5 inch for seat track and
floor boards, 5.25 inches for seat track beams and
cross beams, 0.25-inch margin for
miscellaneous). The depth of the floor allows for
the calculation of the D8 cargo volume. A
volume comparison between the D8 and a
Fig. 15. D8 Central Structural Elements Boeing 737-800 is shown in Figure 16 (bottom);
The standard row cross-aisle spacing (from the D8 has slightly more cargo volume than the
seat-back to seat cushion) is 7.2 inches. For the Boeing 737-800. Note, only half of the rear cargo
hold volume is included for the D8. It is
17
 YUTKO ET AL

ATA 55 Horizontal tail

ATA 54 Twin nacelles

ATA 57 Wing
ATA 55 Twin
vertical tails
ATA 53 Fuselage cabin
ATA 53 Tail cone
ATA 56 Windows

ATA 32 Main landing gear

ATA 32 Nose landing gear

ATA 55 Horizontal tail

ATA 54 Twin nacelles

ATA 57 Wing
ATA 55 Twin
vertical tails
ATA 53 Fuselage cabin
ATA 53 Tail cone
ATA 56 Windows

ATA 32 Main landing gear

ATA 32 Nose landing gear

Fig. 17. D8 structural layout

The D8 aft fuselage requires unique
Fig. 16. D8 fuselage structural arrangement. structural design solutions in order to integrate
Pressurized and unpressurized sections (top), interior the engines as well as for the pi-tail. The aft
structural concept (middle), and available cargo fuselage and stabilizers follow the same design
volume (bottom).
methods as the fuselage and wing. The structural
envisioned some aircraft systems will potentially layout for the aft fuselage and empennage is
occupy the other half of the rear cargo hold shown in Figure 18. The aft fuselage is
volume. This assumption should be reassessed as comprised of hoop frames with hat-stiffened
the D8 concept moves beyond the conceptual skins. In addition to the hat stiffeners,
design state. In addition, a cargo floor structure longerons/keels provide additional capability to
may be required in order to avoid the Y-clip and react the forces from the empennage and engines.
central keel in the lower hold. For the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, three
The D8 wing, as shown in Figure 17, is free main spars run their length with typical rib
of engines and conventional in relatively every spacing between 14 and 16 inches.
way; the structural layout follows typical In this conceptual design, the point-of-
practice. The structure consists of three main departure propulsion system architecture is
spars running the length of each wing. These designed by Pratt & Whitney (P&W) with the
spars tie into the wing carry-through structure goal of being compliant with the UHERF 1:20
(that passes through the underside of the regulation [22]. Two powerplants are located
fuselage). Each wing has ribs at a typical spacing side-by-side and employ an innovative reverse-
between 20 and 24 inches. The models include flow gas generator core. Each core exhaust drives
simple geometry for the high-lift devices. The a low-pressure turbine which is mechanically
main landing gear pivot point is just outside the linked to each fan via a gearbox. The flow in the
fuselage with the gear pivoting inward to stow low-pressure turbine is turned back to
below the fuselage. An additional spar boxes out streamwise inside the fan exit guide vanes and
the main landing gear bay. The wing contains 6 exhausted at the trailing edge. A choice is yet to
degrees of dihedral to provide landing clearance be made as to whether the fans are of co- or
in the cross-wind landing case. counter-rotating design relative to one another.
To prevent fratricide and reduce exposure to the

18
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

development of the D8 Global Finite Element

Model (GFEM). The D8 vehicle is divided into
four break-out models, as shown in Figure 19,
with the fuselage serving as the integration point
of the GFEM. Detailed views of the aft fuselage
and vertical tails model and of the fuselage model
are shown in Figure 19, where the color map
indicates the resolution of property optimization
for the global models (i.e. each color can have a
unique composite laminate). Sizing of the
primary structural elements are based on critical
sizing load cases.

Fig. 19. D8 global FEM. Four sections of the D8 vehicle

were used for finite element analysis (bottom left). Detail
Fig. 18. D8 conceptual empennage design. General views of the more complex structures (top right).
arrangement (left), and reverse-flow engine
installation (right). Load case generation to support the
conceptual design of the D8 requires
empennage structure and critical systems in the identification of critical sizing load cases which
event of an uncontained rotor burst, this possible are a subset of the many thousands of load cases
solution mounts the engine cores at typically analyzed during a detailed design
approximately 45 degrees to aircraft axis with the phase. Literature, such as NASA G-7123.1-001
flow path reversed to that of the fans. An [23] was reviewed in order to identify typical
illustration of the potential P&W reversed-flow critical load cases to consider during the
core design installed on the aircraft is shown in conceptual design phase. In addition, FAR Part
Figure 18 (right). A conceptual-level UHERF 25 was consulted along with in-house Aurora
study was performed in order to assess the expertise. From these sources, a preliminary
potential of the reverse-flow architecture; master list of load cases is compiled in Table 6.
sacrificial spars are currently accounted for in the
vertical tails. More details of this potential D8
powerplant installation can be found in
Reference [13].
5.2.2 Airframe Analysis and Weight Estimation
The D8 airframe analysis uses the CAD models
discussed in Section 5.2.1 as the initiation point.
The analysis models of the D8 are the first
structural analysis models created for the D8 (i.e.
no previous detailed analysis models exist).
Model fidelity continues to increase and evolve
as the design progresses. The analysis
development process begins with the

19
 YUTKO ET AL

The GFEM and trade study models follow Hypersizer can be iterative, depending on the
the same methodology whereby CAD generates desired level of optimization. A flowchart
geometry that is meshed and solved in illustrating the process used for the D8 analysis
NASTRAN before structural optimization is studies is shown in Figure 20.
carried out within Hypersizer. FEM generation Two methods are used to estimate the
begins with geometry generated from the CAD. weight of the conceptual D8 aircraft: the weight
The geometry is meshed and material properties module in NASA’s Flight Optimization System
and sections are assigned within FEMAP. Load (FLOPS) code [24] and an Aurora developed
cases are assigned and the model is analyzed in bottoms-up weight estimation MATLAB code.
NASTRAN. The FEM and element level results The FLOPS method for estimating structures,
are passed into Hypersizer, where the sections systems, and propulsion weights includes a full
are optimized to generate the minimum-weight mission performance analysis. Performance
solution that satisfies minimum-margins of outputs from the TASOPT model along with
safety. Hypersizer generates a new file geometric data from CAD layouts are used as
containing the optimized properties for the FEM inputs in the FLOPS weight module.
sections. The user can reanalyze the FEM with Additionally, design range is specified in the
the new properties in order to check for load FLOPS configuration module to allow FLOPS to
redistribution in the optimized configuration. calculate takeoff gross weight and ensure enough
The exchange between NASTRAN and available fuel to complete the desired mission.

Load Ultimate
Case Description SF
1 +2.93g MTOW 1.5
2 -0.93g MTOW 1.5
3 4.34g OEW 1.5
4 -2.34g OEW 1.5
5 2g taxi bump MTOW 1.5
+2.93g MTOW + 12 psi cabin over-pressure
6 decompression 1.5
-0.93g MTOW + 12 psi cabin over-pressure
7 decompression 1.5
4.34g OEW + 12 psi cabin over-pressure
8 decompression 1.5
-2.34g OEW + 12 psi cabin over-pressure
9 decompression 1.5
Table 6. Fuselage Cross-Section Trade Study Critical Sizing Cases

Fig. 20. Typical finite element model generation and analysis flowchart.

20
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

Other important assumptions in the model inputs components updated. This sizing information is
included a mostly composite structure and an used in the MATLAB weight estimation code
advanced technology wing. Furthermore, alongside surface areas and perimeters of
propulsion parameters are calculated based on an sectioned components from CAD layouts. Using
engine deck generated by NASA using TASOPT this code, detailed component weights are
model outputs. Key results from the FLOPS estimated and subsequently classified by ATA
model are listed in Table 7. The bottoms-up codes for consistent bookkeeping. Table 8 lists
method for estimating structures, systems, and the rolled-up airframe structures weights.
propulsion weights are independent of TASOPT The systems weights are grouped by their
and FLOPS. To estimate airframe structures respective ATA chapters, and the resulting high-
weights, a bottoms-up approach is employed in level weights are shown in Table 9.
which weights are calculated for detailed Some powerplant weights such as engine
airframe components. Systems weights are controls, exhaust, and nacelle systems weights
calculated using equations and heuristics from are estimated using the same method described in
Raymer [25], Roskam [26], and NASA that were the airframe systems weight section. To calculate
developed primarily based on historical data. dry engine weight for the reverse flow engine,
Propulsion weights are estimated using a known weights of existing engines are compiled,
combination of textbook equations and and TASOPT models are run with modifications
information provided by Pratt and Whitney. for future technology levels. Based on the results
MTOW (lb) 145,954 of these models, the new engine weight is
OEW (lb) 81,384 estimated and corrected for current generation
Mission Fuel (lb) 29,469 technology. The full power plant weight
Block Fuel (lb) 25,842 summary is listed in Table 10.
Wing Area (ft2) 1,297 Key aircraft weight estimates for the D8,
Wing Span (ft) 118 including manufacturer’s empty weight (MEW),
Wing Aspect Ratio 10.75 operational empty weight (OEW), maximum
Wing Loading (lbf/ ft2) 113 zero fuel weight (MZFW), and maximum takeoff
Thrust to Weight 0.367 weight (MTOW) are shown in Table 11. Payload
Tab. 7. Key FLOPS Outputs weight includes passenger and crew weight and
is allocated based on the FAA AC 120-27E [15]
A code is developed in MATLAB to passenger winter weight guideline of 195 pounds
calculate the D8 airframe structures weights per passenger including baggage. Additionally,
using a bottoms-up approach. Airframe
structures are broken down into detailed
components, and weight estimates are
determined for each part. After completion of the
GFEM analysis and optimization, sizing of

ATA Current Best

ATA Title
Chapter Estimate (lb)
Cargo and Accessory
50 Compartments 21
52 Doors 2,369
53 Fuselage 12,213
54 Nacelles/Pylons 1,036
55 Stabilizers 2,666
56 Windows 880
57 Wings 14,211
Total Airframe Structures 33,396
Table 8. Summary of D8 Airframe Structures Weight Estimates

21
 YUTKO ET AL

ATA Current Best

ATA Title
Chapter Estimate (lb)
21 Air Conditioning 1,761
24 Electrical Power 3,726
25 Equipment/Furnishings 12,775
27 Flight Controls 1,878
28 Fuel 734
29 Hydraulic Power 609
30 Ice and Rain Protection 328
Indicating/Recording
31 Systems 559
32 Landing Gear 5,354
35 Oxygen 166
36 Pneumatic 421
38 Water/Waste 119
Integrated Modular
42 Avionics 1,862
Airborne Auxiliary
49 Power 1,238
Total Airframe Systems 31,530
Table 9. Summary of D8 Airframe Systems Weight Estimates

ATA Current Best

ATA Title
Chapter Estimate (lb)
71 Power Plant 1,036
72 Engine Turbine 10,200
76 Engine Controls 226
78 Exhaust 1,255
Total Power Plant (2 Engines) 12,717
Table 10. Summary of D8 Power Plant Weight Estimates
mission fuel weight is calculated from the Current
TASOPT performance model output. To validate Best
the bottom-up weight estimates, results from Group
Estimate
FLOPS, TASOPT, and a FLOPS weight (lb)
estimation of the Boeing 737-800 are compared Total Airframe
against the design current best estimate. The Systems 31,530
current best estimate MTOW (153,670 lb), falls Total Structures 33,396
within 5 percent of the FLOPS MTOW (145,000 Total Power Plant 12,717
lb), and both are lower than Boeing 737-800 MEW 77,643
MTOW (174,000 lb), as expected. The TASOPT Total Operational
weight estimate is lower than the design and Items 4,573
FLOPS estimates. Taking a closer look at the
OEW 82,216
individual weight categories, the primary
Total Payload
discrepancy lies in the airframe structures weight
Weight 35,100
estimates.
Zero Fuel Weight 117,316
Mission Fuel 36,354
MTOW 153,670
Table 11. Summary of D8 Current Best Weight
Estimate Estimates
22
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

5.3 Propulsion System Design and Analysis lower jet velocity for a given mechanical power
Propulsion for the boundary-layer ingesting input, 𝑃, , into the flow:
variants of the D8 is provided by two aft- 1 1
4 4
mounted, boundary-layer ingesting, turbofan 𝑃, = 𝑚̇ 2𝑉()* − 𝑉64 7 − 𝑚̇ 2𝑉89: − 𝑉64 7 (1)
2 2
engines. The engines are mounted in this location
to ingest the boundary layer that develops over and a lower jet velocity leads directly to reduced
the D8 fuselage. The BLI capable variants of the jess losses via
D8 include a distortion tolerant fan design which
is capable of operation in the presence of the 1 4
distorted ingested flow. Φ()* = 𝑚̇ 2𝑉()* − 𝑉6 7 . (2)
2
There are three direct aerodynamic benefits
to embedding the air-vehicle’s propulsion system The effect of boundary-layer ingestion on
in such a manner: (i) Ingestion of the boundary- propulsive efficiency is plotted in Figure 21,
layer results in an increase in propulsive where propulsive efficiency, 𝜂= , is shown on the
efficiency, 𝜂" , at a given specific thrust, 𝐹%" , due ordinate and fan pressure ratio, FPR, on the
to a direct reduction in jet dissipation, 𝛷()* ; (ii) abscissa. Two levels of ingestion are shown: No
ingestion reduces the aircraft wake which ingestion, 𝑓?@A = 0, i.e., a conventional podded
reduces the losses dissipation in the vehicles installation is shown in blue and a typical level of
wake (sometimes referred to as wake-filling); ingestion, 𝑓?@AC = 0. 4, 40% of fuselage
and (iii), an embedded installation naturally leads boundary-layer Proulsive
ingested,
Eficiencyis shown
Trend with BLI in red.
1
to a reduction in wetted-area because of smaller
nacelle area. These three direct benefits which 0.95
directly reduce fuel-burn for a given mission are
Propulsive Efficiency, ETAP (-)

compounded at the system-level to drive down 0.9

overall vehicle size and weight [7]. 0.4

N+1 D8 series
While the theoretical benefits of propelling 0.85
0.0

an air-vehicle with BLI have long been known PW1000G series

0.4

fBLIf
0.8
[27], only recently have computational tools and C
0.0
CFM LEAP-1 series
0.4

methods become available to design an 0.75 CFM56-7 series

0.0

integrated vehicle on which to maximize the

benefits of ingestion. Importantly, the propulsion 0.7
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
system must be specifically designed to operate Fan Pressure Ratio, FPR (-)

in a highly-distorted flow across the envelope of 0.8

the vehicle. A design which operates in highly 0.
6

distorted flow across much of its operational 0.7

0.2

0.
0.

4 0. 5
3

envelope is very different from most traditional

Core Efficiency, ETAT (-)

high-bypass high-bypass+BLI
0.6
propulsion system designs where high levels of high-bypass
(Gen N)
(Gen N+1) (Gen N+1)

distortion are only encountered at the corners of 0.5 0. low-bypass

0. 3
2
the envelope such as cross-wind take-off. As a
consequence, an entirely new design philosophy 0.4 0.3

is required for a distortion tolerant propulsion 0.2

0.
1

system. 0.3
0.2

The direct benefit of BLI from the 0.1 Whittle

0.2
propulsion system perspective is the inherent 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Propulsive Efficiency, ETAP (-)
increase in propulsive efficiency that results from Fig. 21. Effect of OD8 levels of boundary-layer ingestion
making the propulsor ingest low-energy flow. An on propulsive efficiency (top) and overall efficiency
increase in propulsive efficiency is achieved (bottom)
because the ingested kinetic energy defect –
lower incoming velocity at the inlet – leads to a

23
 YUTKO ET AL

The contour presented for no ingestion is the optimal FPR for the OD8 for minimum mission
canonical variation of propulsive efficiency with fuel over a predetermined 3000 nm mission.
FPR or specific thrust for a podded installation Based on the functional variation shown in
that can be found in any propulsion system Figure 21 and estimates of the variation of fan-
textbook—for example see Kerrebrock Figure stage efficiency and fan weight with fan pressure
1.1 in Reference [28]—where propulsive ratio, it was found that an aerodynamic design
efficiency is only a simple function of jet velocity point fan pressure ratio, FPR = 1.45, provided the
and freestream velocity: best compromise between efficiency, weight, and
aft-end integration. This region of optimal FPR
2 for the D8 is included in Figure 21 (top) and it is
𝜂=,DEFG HI = .
𝑉()* (3) immediately clear that such an installation would
1+ 𝑉
6 provide a propulsive efficiency above current
(2017) best-in-service engines.
This equation illustrates why there has been To directly compare the D8 BLI
a trend for ever lower FPR (lower specific thrust) installation and traditional podded propulsion
as the commercial jet-age has progressed: the system performance, it is useful to define an
continuous drive for higher efficiency has driven effective fan pressure ratio which is defined as
us further to the left on the blue curve in Figure the FPR that would be required in a non-BLI case
21 (top). This historical trend towards lower to achieve the same propulsive efficiency, i.e.,
specific thrusts is shown in Figure 21 (bottom) by
the addition of some single-aisle propulsion 𝜂= (𝑓LMN = 0, 𝐹𝑃𝑅P ) ≡ 𝜂= (𝑓LMN = 𝑓LMN , 𝐹𝑃𝑅). (4)
systems along the blue curve.
For a given thrust requirement, however, a The effective fan pressure ratio is easy to
lower specific thrust requires a larger engine to visualize from Figure 21 by taking a horizontal
pass the necessary mass flow. These lower line from the D8 configuration across to the non-
specific thrust engines are therefore larger, and, BLI line. Using either method it is found that
as a result, are heavier and have larger wetted FPR=1.45 for the 2016 D8 is equivalent in terms
areas than higher specific thrust designs. Hence, of propulsive efficiency to a non-BLI fan design
a compromise must be made between higher at FPR=1.34, but without the associated nacelle
propulsive efficiency, and increased weight and weight and nacelle drag penalty that accompany
external drag. To minimize the negative impacts a traditional design in the FPR=1.35 range.
of external drag and weight improved integration To make sure that no credit for improved
design and advances in materials for weight engine technologies, aside from BLI
savings have been major focuses of recent performance, are given to the D8 configuration,
installation efforts. the engine core efficiency was deliberately
An alternative to reducing specific thrust maintained at a similar level to current best-in-
further is to ingest the aircraft boundary layer as service engines such as the CFM LEAP 1 series
can be seen from the curve of 40% ingestion and the PW1000G geared turbofan series.
shown in red in Figure 21 (top). CFD studies on Retaining a similar level of core engine
the D8 configuration have demonstrated that the technology allows the benefits of the D8
vehicle ingests about 40% of the boundary-layer configuration to be separated from future engine
during cruise, and, as a result, this curve technology enhancements. The propulsion
represents the propulsive efficiency variation system technology-level for the OD8 was based
possible with the D8. It can be seen that there is on current generation turbofan performance and
a 2–4% direct propulsive efficiency benefit in the is loosely based on the current generation of
presence of 40% ingestion across the range of geared turbofans produced by P&W. The engine-
viable specific thrusts—with a larger benefit cycle used for the D8 presented in this paper was
achieved at higher specific thrusts. computed using Aurora’s in-house propulsion
A trade-space study spanning a portion of system tool which is based off the engine model
the red line was undertaken to determine the found in TASOPT. This model was employed
24
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

over the more industry standard NPSS because of One installation variant for the D8
the ease with which BLI could be integrated into configuration propulsion system involves an
the cycle. innovative reverse-flow gas generator core. Each
The overall performance of the 2016 D8 core exhaust drives a low-pressure turbine which
propulsion system is demonstrated relative to is mechanically linked to each fan via a gearbox.
other engines in Figure 21 (bottom), where The flow in the low-pressure turbine is turned
propulsive efficiency is plotted versus core back to streamwise inside the fan exit guide
efficiency for various engines. This figure is vanes and exhausted at the trailing edge. To
adapted from Reference [6]. The figure prevent fratricide and reduce exposure to the
simultaneously illustrates both the propulsive empennage structure and critical systems in the
efficiency benefit associated with BLI and the event of an uncontained rotor burst, one possible
comparable engine core efficiency to current solution is to mount the engine cores at
best-in-class engines. With a propulsive approximately 45 degrees to aircraft axis with the
efficiency of 0.75 and a core thermal efficiency flow path reversed to that of the fans. An
of 0.55, the overall efficiency of the propulsion illustration of the proposed P&W reversed-flow
system is 0.413. Based on these engine core design is shown in Figure 18.
parameters, the propulsion system was sized
based on the thrust requirements at take-off, top- 5.4 Aerodynamic Design and Analysis
of-climb and cruise. The key parameters of the
power-plant are presented in Table 12. The D8 boasts distinct aerodynamic
For the purpose of this design study no configuration differences from the traditional
attempt was made to design a distortion tolerant wing-tube aircraft which contribute to the D8's
fan. This area is the subject of a significant overall efficiency. The main features are the
amount of ongoing research, particularly the wide-body, “double-bubble" fuselage, the Pi-tail,
design of a D8 X-Plane flight demonstrator, and the aft, flush-mounted, BLI propulsors. Early
which will be reported out in subsequent conceptual aerodynamic work was conducted to
literature. Instead, for this study it has been assess these features. Other aero-efforts also
assumed that a distortion tolerant fan could be included developing a traditional drag-build up
developed to work in the environment created by to estimate aerodynamic performance of the D8
the D8 configuration. To account for the design in the absence of a detail-designed geometry.
compromises that would be required to produce CFD studies, which were conducted in Star-
a propulsion system that could operate CCM+, focused on (i) investigating the fuselage
effectively in the BLI environment of the D8, a contribution to the lift and moment benefit, and
1.0% fan-stage efficiency debit was included (ii) evaluating initial designs of the aft-end
relative to current generation fan performance. integration. In addition to the CFD effort to
assess configuration changes to the D8, a low-

Parameter Value
General characteristics 2 x 73 in. fans
Thrust (Seal Level Static) 2 × 24,200 lb (2 x 102
kN)
Equivalent shaft power (sea level 2 x 20,800 shp (2 x 13.0
static) MW)
Operating pressure ratio (OPR) 40
Bypass ratio (BPR) 10
Fan pressure ratio (FPR) 1.45
Cruise TSFC 0.535 lb/hr/lb
Overall cycle efficiency 0.413
Weight (dry, each) 5,100 lb (2,310 kg)
Table 12. Key engine parameters

25
 YUTKO ET AL

nominal nose
speed, unpowered wind tunnel test was
conducted in August 2016 on a 5%-scale D8 at
the 12-ft Low Speed Tunnel in NASA Langley
beaver-tail lofted tail
[29]. The main goal of this wind tunnel test was modified nose
in lieu of empennage

to investigate the low-speed longitudinal and

lateral characteristics of the D8 and understand
how the aerodynamics change due to design
changes to nose shape and tail layout. Figure 22 Fig. 23. Geometries used in the CFD assessment of the
D8 fuselage effects. Top: Nominal D8 nose that is up-
shows the 5%-scale wind tunnel model and all swept. Bottom: Modified D8 nose that features a
the different configurations including the conventional nose shape similar to the current fleet. Blue-
different control surfaces at various deflection shaded regions highlight the geometric differences
angles, an alternate nose, and various tail layouts. between the two configurations. Right side images depict
the corresponding equipment packaging and pilot view
for each nose shape.

A second fuselage-wing geometry, seen in

the bottom of Figure 23 was created to assess the
effect of the up-swept nose. Both configurations
have the same wide-body and overall length, but
the second geometry has a modified nose shape
based on the nose shape of the Boeing 787. The
modified nose is shorter than the D8 up-swept
nose so the straight barrel section is extended
Fig. 22. 5%-scale D8 wind tunnel model. This model was forward to make up the difference in fuselage
used in the Aug 2016 D8 configuration wind tunnel test length. Note that the shapes of both noses were
conducted at the 12-ft LST at NASA LaRC. Shown is the not aerodynamically optimized but shaped based
nominal OML (fully assembled), alternate tails (low- on pilot visibility and equipment packaging
mounted horizontal tail, tail-off), alternate nose, and
considerations.
control surface [29]
Since the metrics of interest are driven by
5.4.1 Fuselage Aerodynamics inviscid effects, Euler calculations (inviscid,
The shape of the D8 fuselage was designed to compressible) were conducted in Star-CCM+.
provide a greater carryover lift across the span as Angle of attack sweeps were conducted at a
well as a more positive pitching moment which freestream Mach number of 0.80, simulated
contributes to the reduction in wing and tail size. altitude of 40 kft, and side slip angle of 0º. These
A CFD study was conducted on a simplified conditions represent a potential cruise condition.
geometry to quantify these aerodynamic Figure 24 shows the resulting lift (left) and
contributions. pitching moment (right) curves from the
To assess the carryover lift, a D8 fuselage- simulations of the two geometries. In addition to
wing geometry was modeled in CFD. As seen in the total quantities of lift and pitching moment,
the top graphic in Figure 23, the forward fuselage the isolated contributions of the fuselage and
features the signature D8 wide-body and up- wing are also shown. Focusing on the results for
swept nose. Since the goal of this computational the nominal D8 nose, the fuselage contributes
study is focused on the fuselage, the vertical tail, roughly 17.8% of the overall lift across the range
horizontal tail, and nacelles were removed for of angles of attack. The fuselage carryover lift
simplicity. In their place, a beaver-tail (lofted contribution found in this study is consistent with
tail) was added to ensure clean aerodynamics the quoted literature of 15-20% [8].
leaving the body. The wing was kept in the
simulations because it is needed to capture the
carryover lift.

26
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

1.5 nominal
structural benefits. The main challenge for

Pitching Moment Coefficient, Cm,mac/4

modified 0.2
fuselage designing a Pi-tail at transonic speeds is
0
managing the drag produced at the stabilizer
Lift Coefficient, CL

1
wing

total
intersections while still being able to meet
-0.2

0.5
-0.4

total
structural requirements such as actuation device
-0.6
wing housing. The team performing this work has been
fuselage
-0.8
actively exploring different Pi-tail designs,
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 specifically taking inspiration from various T-tail
Angle of Attack, ↵ [deg] Angle of Attack, ↵ [deg]
aircraft to inform the blending of the stabilizer
Fig. 24. Lift and moment curves from CFD for two
fuselage options. Lift curves (left) and moment curves
intersection.
(right) for the CFD (Star-CCM+ Euler) fuselage nose Figure 26 shows an initial geometry for a
study. Conditions: SSA 0◦, M 0.80, altitude 40 kft. ∞
Fokker 100-type Pi-tail design and Euler results
for this geometry at cruise conditions. Unlike
Analyzing the lift performance between the
transonic T-tail aircraft, which has a strictly
two geometries shows that the nose shape does
backward-swept horizontal tail, the Pi-tail has
not affect the magnitude of the carryover lift.
both forward- and backward sweeps relative to
There is a difference, however, between the two
the stabilizer junction. As seen in the Euler
configurations' pitching moments. The modified
results, there are regions of supersonic flow on
nose shows a ∆Cm,mac/4 = -0.03 which results in
the top surface of the inboard stabilizer junction,
less of a restoring force on the airframe. Looking
and the lower surface of the outboard horizontal
at the breakdown of the pitching moment
tail. While forward-swept lifting surfaces are not
contributions, the source of the pitching moment
terribly common in commercial aircraft, planes
difference is unsurprisingly only from the
such as the Grumman X-29 have used this feature
fuselage. This finding is supported by the results
and were able to overcome this challenge. The
from the low speed wind tunnel experiment
over-speed on the outboard lower surface can be
which tested the two different nose shapes. These
mitigated by more standard swept profile
wind tunnel results are shown in Figure 25. It
reshaping.
should be noted that the models tested in the wind isometric view

tunnel test to assess the nose change had the D8

aft-end (i.e. Pi-tail and embedded nacelles) as
well as a different wing geometry.
1
nominal
0.8 top view bottom view
modified

0.6 CL
Fig. 26. Star-CCM+ Euler analysis of an early Pi-tail
0.4
design. Left: Isometric view of the Pi-tail geometry.
0.2
Middle: Top view of static pressure coefficient contours
Cm,mac/4 on the horizontal tail (vertical tail hidden). Right: Bottom
0 view of static pressure coefficient contours on the
horizontal tail (vertical tail hidden). Conditions: AoA 0º,
-0.2 SSA 0º, M 0.78, alt. 35 kft.
∞
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Angle of Attack, ↵ [deg] Another challenge the Pi-tail design faces is

the same challenge any T-tail variant faces which
Fig. 25. Experimental data from 12-ft LST at NASA
LaRC. Lift and moment curves comparing the two is the loss of stabilizer effectiveness during deep
fuselage noses. Conditions: SSA 0º, M 0.09, altitude sea- ∞
stall. As part of the low-speed configuration wind
level. tunnel test, the Pi-tail layout was tested against a
low-mounted horizontal tail (hereafter referred to
5.4.2 Tail Configuration Aerodynamics as “low-tail”). While the low-tail may not be an
The D8's wide-body fuselage allowed for a Pi- efficient layout from a structural perspective, the
tail empennage layout which provides mainly low-tail would theoretically perform better in

27
 YUTKO ET AL

deep stall. Both tail geometries can be seen on the was broken into its simplest components and then
right side of Figure 27. Both the low-tail and Pi- more geometric complexity was added in stages.
tail have the same tail span, but the Pi-tail has The primary aft-end design requirement at
about 60% more exposed surface area and a 40% cruise is to minimize excess dissipation from the
longer moment arm. propulsion-fuselage integration, while still being
Figure 27 shows a comparison of the able to diffuse the flow to the desired fan face
elevator effectiveness between the two tail Mach number. Analysis of preliminary aft-end
layouts. Elevator effectiveness is defined here as geometries at cruise conditions identified two
the change in the model pitching moment about regions unique to the D8 configuration that could
the m.a.c. quarter chord relative to the pitching result in excess dissipation: (i) the space in
moment at 0º elevator deflection. Positive between the nacelles and (ii) the junction
deflections correspond to a downward elevator between the nacelle and vertical tail.
trailing edge. The Pi-tail configuration shows The space in between the nacelles is highly
larger changes in pitching moment for the same susceptible to shocks because the inboard
amount of elevator deflection relative to the low- surfaces of the nacelles act like a convergent-
tail configuration. This is expected because the divergent nozzle. Figure 28 (top) shows Mach
Pi-tail has additional inboard elevator. The contours on the symmetry plane at cruise
elevator on the Pi-tail begins to lose its control conditions at an altitude of 35 kft and highlights
authority around 15º angle of attack. The loss is the location of the shock. The aft-end body is
more drastic as the deflection angle increases. translucently overlaid over the contours to give
The low-tail layout doesn't seem to experience spatial context of the shock location. The highest
much loss in control authority across the range of Mach number seen in the channel has a value of
angles of attack, as expected. Information gained 1.24. Recent work has determined that this shock
from this or any other future wind tunnel test will can be mitigated by tailoring the local nacelle
help inform the location of the horizontal tail as profile.
well as “keep-out" zones in the operating The nacelle-vertical tail junction is
envelope. 0
susceptible to flow separation, as the aft surfaces
of the outer nacelle and vertical tail act as an
-0.1 5 elevator deflection
effective diffuser, producing an adverse pressure
-0.2
gradient. In addition, high curvature near the
Cm,mac/4

-0.3
pi-tail nacelle lip can result in a weak shock-induced
-0.4
25 elevator deflection separation, exacerbated by the downstream
-0.5 pi-tail
diffusion. The wall shear stress traces in Figure
low-tail 28 (bottom) show the extent of the shock-induced
separation in an early aft-end design. Multiple
-0.6
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Angle of Attack, ↵ [deg] low-tail

steps were taken to address these flow features.
Fig. 27. Experimental analysis of tail configuration from The first was to tailor a patch surface between the
12-ft LST at NASA LaRC. Elevator effectiveness of the outer nacelle and vertical tail toward the
two tail layouts at 5◦ and 25◦ elevator deflection. components' trailing edges. This patch surface
Conditions: SSA 0◦, M∞ 0.09, altitude sea-level.
adds volume to the body and subsequently
5.4.3 BLI Propulsion System Integration reduces the level of flow diffusion. The second
The most intensive aspect of the D8 aerodynamic was to extend the leading edge of the outboard
design is the integration of the propulsion system nacelle profile to blend smoothly into the vertical
into the aft-fuselage and Pi-tail. Due to the tail. This modification brings the local nacelle
complex nature of the geometry and flow regime leading edge out (greater radius), reducing the
(viscous, transonic), a majority of the design curvature of the outer nacelle surface, and thus
analysis was conducted using RANS CFD. A reducing the susceptibility to local shocks.
building-block approach to the conceptual design
of the aft-end integration was used; the geometry

28
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

are one-engine operation (engine out) as well as

crosswind take-off. From a propulsor distortion
standpoint, additional conditions of interest
include ground-roll crosswind as well as very
high angle of attack. At high angle of attack,
there are some concerns that shed nose-vortices
could be ingested into the propulsors. While this
phenomenon did not appear in the low speed
wind tunnel tests, it is something that needs to be
evaluated at proper Reynolds and Mach numbers
as part of a future work program.
5.4.4 Air Vehicle Drag Buildup
A table summarizing the profile drag areas is in
Table 13. For comparison, published drag
estimates [30] of a comparable sized aircraft, the
Boeing 727-200, are shown. The latter airplane
has a larger wing. Both aircraft have similar
fuselage lengths; the total fuselage wetted area of
OD8 is a bit larger because of the greater width,
Fig. 28. Star-CCM+ RANS analysis on an early aft-end but that is compensated in part by less nacelle
geometry highlighting unique D8 aerodynamic design
challenges. Top: Mach contours on the symmetry plane
wetted area than the 727. The excrescence and
with a translucent aft-end geometry overlaid. Bottom: unknown drag estimates for D8 are likely
Image of the vertical tail-nacelle junction. Surface pessimistic, and as noted the tail is currently
contours show static pressure coefficient with traces of significantly oversized. Nevertheless, this
wall shear stress, and the off-body axial cuts show total comparison gives confidence in the validity of
pressure ratio; Conditions for both images: AoA 2◦, SSA
the drag buildup method, and assurance that it’s
0º, M 0.78, alt. 35 kft, FPR 1.5.
not overly optimistic. Drag polars were
∞

Detailed design of the aft-end is still in developed using handbook methods for the
progress. The main conditions that drive the fuselage and empennage, a vortex lattice method
aero-design are cruise, start of descent, and take- for the induced and trim drag, and an
off. Other conditions that require consideration

Boeing 727-200
Method Method Method
D8
1 2 3
Wings 7.643 8.665 8.940 9.607
Fuselage 8.638 8.432 8.700 8.700
Nacelles 1.074 1.896 2.007
Pylons 2.173 1.598 0.419 0.447
Centre Nacelle 2.188 2.323 2.525
Horizontal Tail 2.078 1.283 1.223 1.307
Vertical Tail 2.028 0.342 0.282 0.304
Flap Track
Fairings 0.267 0.267 0.232 0.249
Total 22.827 23.849 24.015 25.146
Excrescences 2.985 2.673 1.752
Unknown 0.871 0.725 0.544
Total 26.683 27.247 26.309 27.442
Table 13. Subcritical profile drag with a comparison to three estimates for the Boeing 727-200.

29
 YUTKO ET AL

Euler/integral boundary layer computational ranging from -2.0 to -3.0 were used during the
method for two-dimensional airfoil descent phase of the mission. Based on this
characteristics extended to three dimensions analysis, the block fuel burn benefit of the 2016
using simple sweep theory. High speed drag D8 is estimated to be approximately 25% better
polars and the range factor, M L/D, are shown in than a 737-800. The block fuel for the 737-800,
Figure 29. The maximum lift-to-drag ratio at 39,000lbs, was taken from the published airport
subcritical speeds is 19.1, with typical L/D of planning guide. Block fuel for 3000 nm with a
17.4 at 0.78 Mach. full passenger payload is 29,245 lb, or 18.5
passenger-nautical miles per pound.

5.6 System-Level D8 Benefit Assessment

A system-level analysis was conducted in order
to assess the ability of the D8 aircraft to impact
actual operational fuel consumption and reduce
community noise impacts.
For the fuel assessment, flights originating
or terminating in North America and serviced by
American Airlines, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest,
and United Airlines were simulated. The market
demand is taken from 2014 OAG and the
baseline aircraft performance is taken from Base
of Aircraft Data (BADA 3). Baseline aircraft
fleet composition for each airline is according to
SEC reports and public statements. Aircraft
growth and replacement is according to the 2016
Boeing Current Market Outlook, and fleet
survival curves are based on H. Jiang [31]. New,
non-D8 aircraft are assumed to improve by 1.5%
per year. The Aurora D8-2016 presented in this
paper is assumed to enter the fleet in 2025, with
the TASOPT D8-2035 entering service in 2035.
New D8 aircraft likewise improve at 1.5% per
year. Note that these market entry dates are
simply a point-of-departure for the system-level
analysis.
Fig. 29. High speed drag polars and the range factor Results are shown in Figure 30. Two aspects
ML/D of this chart are notable; first, narrowbody
aircraft currently contribute 55% of the baseline
fleet fuel consumption. Therefore, designing an
5.5 D8 Conceptual Design Summary efficient aircraft for the narrowbody market is the
The performance of the 2016 D8 configuration biggest lever for impacting fuel consumption.
described in the previous sections was evaluated Second, under the above assumptions, the D8 is
using the tools described in Section IV. Based on able to save 52% of the projected narrobody fuel
the drag buildup, propulsion performance model, by in 2060, even when accounting for growth,
and the weight breakdown described above, the replacement, aircraft survival rates, and baseline
fuel consumption at the design payload-range improvement.
was calculated using a forward-stepping Euler
integration. An indicated airspeed limit of 250kts
was used below 10,000ft, and flight path angles

30
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

System (ILS) 3º final for approach and ICAO1

Standard Departure profile. Baseline noise
performance is using BADA for aircraft
performance and the FAA Aviation
Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) for noise
Without D8
modeling.
Results are shown in Figure 31. A sample
approach (top left) at Los Angeles (LAX) is
shown for the baseline aircraft, the 2016 D8, and
Widebody
the D8 with advanced technology. For this
particular approach to runway 24R, 160,000 less
people are exposed to 60dB LMAX. In order to
RJ/TP evaluate the integrated community noise impact,
a year of operations were simulated at the top 20
airports by number of movements in 2015, as
shown in Table 14.
50+
Fig. 30. System fuel forecast with and without the D8 (D8
737-800
only applied to the narrowbody market).

2010 Population Density (thousands per sq. mi.)

D8 (Current Tech)
D8 (2035 Tech)
40
A noise assessment was also performed
using a tool developed by L. Jensen, J. Hansman, 30
et al. at MIT [32]. The tool links TASOPT with
the NASA Aircraft Noise Prediction Program 20

(ANOPP), and supplements this interaction with

a flight profile generator. High-fidelity data from 10

TASOPT, such as aircraft geometry, low-level

engine parameters, etc., are passed to both a 0

flight profile generator (to generate actual flight

tracks) and to ANOPP in order to create noise
grids. Those grids are then rotated and overlaid
on specific airports of interests, and underlying
population date from the 2010 census is used to
calculate a change in population exposed on both
a procedure level (Lmax) as well as on an
integrated level (Day-Night Sound Level: DNL).
For integrated noise assessment, system-
level operational data is taken from two sources.
The data source for fleet operation count and fleet
mix is the FAA Aviation System Performance Fig 30. System-level noise assessment of the D8 aircraft.
65dB L approach noise contour for Los Angeles (LAX)
Metrics (ASPM) Single Flight Download MAX

runway 24R (top), reduction in population exposed for

Records, with a range from 01 January 2015 – 31 LAX runway 24R approach by dB level (bottom).
December 2015. Runway configuration is based
on ASPM Hourly Airport Efficiency reports, and
operations are split proportionally between active 6 Conclusion
runways in each one-hour window. Arrival and A conceptual design of a 0.78M, double-bubble,
departure rates are calculated on an hourly, boundary-layer ingesting D8 aircraft was
runway-specific basis for 2015; importantly, all completed to provide higher fidelity estimates for
operations are assumed to be straight-in arrivals weight and performance than recent studies using
or straight-out departures for simplicity and TASOPT. At the end of one full design cycle a
tractability. All flights utilize standard arrival and viable 2016 D8 aircraft was achieved with an
departure procedures: Instrument Landing
31
 YUTKO ET AL

D8 D8 overall air-vehicle design process and level of

Baseline
Airport
(count)
(Current (2035
Reduction integration required between the airframe and
Tech) Tech)
engine manufacturer.
ATL 81,005 49,736 39,826 41,179
ORD 152,594 72,423 56,275 96,319
There is a clear need to continue
DFW 41,960 5,881 4,125 37,835
development of the D8 concept, which is
LAX 263,190 143,960 126,749 136,441
potentially a viable replacement for the current
DEN 88 25 9 79 generation of single-aisle tube-and-wing aircraft.
CLT 12,513 4,771 2,483 10,030 Further development is required to mature the
IAH 17,180 7,451 5,714 11,466 concept, especially in regard to the BLI
JFK 409,659 307,259 270,355 139,304 propulsion system, its integration with the
SFO 10,288 3,270 2,921 7,367 airframe, and the details of the double-bubble
PHX 39,841 21,279 11,213 28,628 fuselage design and manufacturer. These studies
EWR 88,304 58,712 53,775 34,529 should be initiated in the near future. One
PHL 30,395 16,524 13,483 16,912 potentially necessary risk reduction activity is
MSP 50,722 22,361 17,427 33,295 thought to be the design and eventual
SEA 92,170 42,425 33,812 58,358 manufacturer of a prototype aircraft, or X-Plane.
DTW 9,661 1,472 751 8,910
A D8 X-Plane would demonstrate the D8
LAS 138,327 56,527 40,826 97,501
configuration performance and operability across
LGA 259,663 100,049 67,524 192,139
the flight envelope, which is one of the largest
BOS 68,652 22,674 18,544 50,108
remaining challenges associated with the
MIA 160,756 102,769 90,367 70,389
configuration.
MCO 17,614 3,584 1,063 16,551
Table 14. DNL population exposure reduction at top
20 busiest US airports. 60 dBA DNL; population from
2010 decennial census; 2015 yearly operations Acknowledgments
calculated on an hourly basis. D8 replaces narrowbody This work was sponsored by NASA,
aircraft with similar capability. Reduction reported for
2035 variant.
Contract #NND151C56C. Opinions,
interpretations, conclusions, and
MTOW = 153,670 lb. and a mission fuel for a recommendations are those of the authors and are
180 passenger, 3000 nm reference mission of not necessarily endorsed by the United States
29,245 lb. This is a 25% block fuel improvement Government. The authors would like to
over the 737-800, and compares well with acknowledge the management support of Brent
approximate 30% block fuel improvement Cobleigh, Rich DeLoof, and Mike Guminsky at
predicted by TASOPT. There remain NASA. The authors would also like to thank the
opportunities to further improve the efficiency of talented team at Aurora Flight Sciences that have
the aircraft designed in this paper – perhaps contributed to this work: Ian Bilyj, Matt
substantially – through further design cycles; Carstensen, Clinton Church, Stephen Clark,
those where they have been identified. At the Andrew Coe, Patrick Cox, Paul Dahlstrand,
same time as demonstrating much improved Amanda Dropkins, Jeff Ensminger, Patrick
performance over current tube-and-wing Garrett, Jonas Gonzalez, Riley Griffin, Deborah
configurations, the 2016 D8 was specifically Hoffman, Dr. Matthew Hutchison, Cody
designed to retain the ability to fit within the Jacobucci, Alex Kim, Dr. John Langford,
operational constraints and infrastructure of Abraham Oonnoonny, Gary Papas, Alex Peraire,
current airlines and airports. Vincent Posbic, Jason Ryan, Raymond Singh,
As well demonstrating the fuel-efficient Nina Siu, Jay Snider, Corey Stein, William
capabilities of the D8 configuration, this study Thalheimer, Josh Torgerson, Adam Treager,
led to a better understanding of the design Nathan Varney, Ed Wen, and Travis Whitfield.
challenges inherent in a new air-vehicle design, The authors would especially like to thank Oliver
including the design and manufacturer of the Masefield for his invaluable technical
double-bubble fuselage and empennage, the contributions and commitment to the D8 team.
integration of the BLI propulsion system, and the Thanks also to the great researchers at MIT for
32
 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE D8 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CONCEPT

both their past and current contributions to Wing Project: Generation N+3 Technology Portfolio.
making the D8 a reality, including but not limited 2011-01-2521, 2011.
to Professor Mark Drela, Professor Ed Greitzer, [10] Blanco E and Hileman J. Noise Assessment of the
Double-Bubble Aircraft Configuration. 49th AIAA
Professor John Hansman, Professor Warren Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including New Horizons
Hoburg, Luke Jensen, Phillippe Kirschen, Berk Forum. 2011.
Ozturk, Jacquie Thomas, and Martin York. [11] Pandya S, Huang A, Espitia A, and Uranga A.
Lastly, the authors would like to thank the Computational Assessment of the Boundary Layer
following individuals for their review and input Ingesting Nacelle Design of the D8 Aircraft. 52nd
during technical interchange meetings Aerospace Science Meeting. 2014.
[12] Hall D, Greitzer E, and Tan, C. Analysis of Fan Stage
throughout the program: Scott Anders, Milind
Conceptual Design Atttributes for Boundary Layer
Birajdra, Richard Bradshaw, Mary Colby, Fay Ingestion. J. Turbomach. Vol. 139, No. 7, July 2017.
Collier, Dr. Alan Epstein, Starr Ginn, James [13] Lord W, Suciu G, Hasel K, and Chandler J. Engine
Heidmann, Christopher Hughes, Nils Larson, Architecture for High Efficiency at Small Core Size.
Mary Jo Long-Davis, Wesley Lord, John Melton, 53rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting. 2015.
Bruce Morin, Andrew Murphy, Zienna Nalles, [14] Uranga A, et al. Preliminary Experimental Assessment
Bradford Neal, Scott Ochs, Steve O’Flarity, of the Boundary Layer Ingestion Benefit for the D8
Aircraft. 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting. 2014.
Wally Orisamolu, Shishir Pandya, Gabriel Suciu,
[15] FAA AC 120-27E – Aircraft Weight and Balance
Neil Terwilliger, Dan Vicroy, Richard Wahls, Control. 2005.
Jason Welstead, et. al. Opinions, interpretations, [16] NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
conclusions, and recommendations in this paper Strategic Implementation Plan: 2017 Update [Online].
are those of the authors and are not necessarily Available:
by the above individuals. https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/strategy
[Accessed 30 May 2017]
[17] Boeing Commercial Airplanes. 737 Airplane
References Characteristics for Airport Planning.
[18] Bradley M and Droney C. Subsonic Ultra Green
[1] Yutko B, Titchener N, Courtin C, Lieu M, Wirsing L, Aircraft Research. NASA CR-2011-216847, 2011.
Tylko J, Chambers J, Roberts T, and Church C.
[19] FAA AC 25.773-1 – Pilot Compartment View Design
Conceptual Design of a D8 Commercial Aircraft. 17th
Considerations.
AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and
Operations Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, [20] FAA NPRM Docket No. NM 185, Notice 25-01-02 -S
AIAA 2017-3590, 2017. C Special Conditions: Enhanced Vision System (EVS)
for Gulfstream Model G-V Airplane. 2001.
[2] Pamela M. “From Engineering Science to Big
Science: The NACA and NASA Collier Trophy [21] Chambers J. Structural Optimization Study of the D8
Research Project Winners,” NASA SP-4219, 1998. Double-Bubble Composite Fuselage. 58th
AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
[3] Littlewood W. Technical Trends in Air Transport:
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2017.
The Sixteenth Wright Brothers Lecture. J. Aeronaut.
Sci., Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 225-268, 1953. [22] FAA AC 20-128A – Design Considerations for
Minimizing Hazards caused by Uncontained Turbine
[4] Christensen C. Innovator’s Dilemma: When new
Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Rotor Failure
technologies cause great firms to fail. 1997.
Document Information, 1997.
[5] Liebeck R. Design of the Blended Wing Body
[23] NASA G-7123.1-001 AFRC Aircraft Structural Safety
Subsonic Transport. J. Aircraft. Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 10- of Flight Guidelines.
25, 2004.
[24] McCullers L. Flight Optimization System Release
[6] Epstein A. Aeropropulsion for Commercial Aviation
8.23 User’s Guide. 2011.
in the Twenty-First Century and Research Directions
Needed. AIAA J. Vol. 52, No. 5, pp. 901-911, 2014. [25] Raymer D. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach.
Fourth Edition, 2006.
[7] Greitzer E, et al. N+3 Aircraft Concept Designs and
Trade Studies, Final Report Volume 1. NASA CR- [26] Roskam J. Airplane Design. DAR Coproration, 2000.
2010-216794/VOL1, 2010. [27] Darrieus G. La mécanique des fluids. Qulques progrès
[8] Drela M. Development of the D8 Transport récents. Conférence du 15.2.1938. La Technique
Configuration. 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Modern. Supplements des 15.9.1938, 1.8.1939 et
Conference. 2011. 15.11.1941.
[9] Follen G, Del Rosaria R, Wahls R, and Madavan N. [28] Kerrebrock J. Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines.
NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics Subsonic Fixed 1992.

33
 YUTKO ET AL

[29] Vicroy D. Low-Speed Stability and Control Test of a Copyright Statement

Double-Bubble Transport Configuration. 2017. The authors confirm that they, and/or their company or
[30] Obert E. Aerodynamic Design of Transport Aircraft. organization, hold copyright on all of the original material
Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2009. included in this paper. The authors also confirm that they
[31] Jiang H. Key Findings on Airplane Life. 2013. have obtained permission, from the copyright holder of
[32] Jensen L, et al. Development of Rapid Fleet-Wide any third party material included in this paper, to publish
Environmental Assessment Capability. AIAA it as part of their paper. The authors confirm that they
AVIATION 2017, 2017. give permission, or have obtained permission from the
copyright holder of this paper, for the publication and
[33] Drela M. Power Balance in Aerodynamic Flows. AIAA
distribution of this paper as part of the ICAS proceedings
J., Vol. 47, No. 7, pp. 1761-1771, 2009.
or as individual off-prints from the proceedings.

34