General Disclaimer

One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document

This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the

organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as

much information as possible.

This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was

furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy

available.

This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures,

which have been reproduced in black and white.

This document is paginated as submitted by the original source.

Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some

of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original

submission.

Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI)

1

NASA Technical Memorandum 79013

(4ASA-TM-79013) PPELIM1 4ARY QCGAT PRnGHkM

TEST RESILTS (NAS4) 19 F IiC A02/MF A01CSCL 21E

,InclasG3/07 42u97

479-15051

PRE" "UNARY QCGAT

PROGRAPA TEST RESULTS

R. W. Koenig and G. K. SieversLewis Iesearch CenterCleveland, Ohio

I

/4e6 U ,

n, Vii;, 19 -

far Czjs

err CQ

y ^

TECHIVCAL PAPER to be presented at theBusiness Aircraft Meeting

sponsored by the Society of Automotive EngineersWichita, Kansas, April 3-6, 1979

.a

;BS TRACT

N.S., Lewis Research Center is conductinga .g rogram to der^onstrate that :arge com:rercia.engine technology can be applied :o generalaviation engines tc reduce noise, emissionsand i%;cl consumption and to develop new tech-nology where required. Following a studyPhase I, two contractors (AiResearch and

,CCO - Lycoming) were selected to design, fabri-cate, asseT.ble, test and deliver their respec-tive Quiet, Clean General Aviation Turbofan

iQC6AT) experi. . ental en g ines to NAS.%. TheQCGnT engines have now entered the test phase.This paper describes the overall engine pro-Sram, design, and technology incorporated intothe QCGAT eng ines. In addit!.on, pre:i:rinaryengine test results are presented and comparedto the technical requirem.nts the engines were

designed to meet.

Koenig and Sievers

IN LATE 197b, NASA initiated an experimentalengine prc.gram to design, develop and test agul t Clean General _Aviation TurVOfan (QCGAT)engine. The objective of this program is to

demonstrate the applicabil i.ty of availablelarge turbofan engine technology to smallgeneral aviation engines in order to obtain

significant reductions in noise and pollutant

emissions while reducing or maintaining fuel

consumption levels. The program has now pro-gressed well into the test phase. This paperpresents the significant test results thathave been recently obtained and includes an

overview of the program.

General aviation aircraft have the po-tential of more widespread adverse community

reaction to noise and pollution than do trans-port aiicrafc because general aviation air-ports are much more numerous and are usua.ly

located i , i relativel y small communities where

background noise and pollution are low. thenoise produced by small turbofan engines can

be as annoying as that produced b y the large

engines. In the past, considerable design

and test efforts have been spent on the largeconvnercial turbofans in quieting engines, de-

creasing emissions and increasing fuel econ-omy. This technology has generally not beentested on general aviation turbofan engines.A technology bridge between these two engine

classes was needed and was implemented through

the NASA QCGAT experimental engine program.Following initial studies, as reported

in reference (1),'', contracts were awarded tothe Garrett-AiResearch Company and A%'CO-Lycominb Corporation to each design, fabricate,

test and deliver to NASA a QCGAT experimentalengine and test nacelle. The engines have nowentered the test 1111ase. This paper describes

the QCGAT program and the major design fea-tures of the engines, discusses the progressmade and test results to date.

PROPUM ION SYSTEM OVERALL DESIGN

A basic requirement to minimize cost for

the QCGAT engine program is for the contractorsto use an existing core for their engine design.AiResearch chose the core used in the HE 731-3executive jet engine. The engine currently Koenig, and Sieversproduces approximately 16 458 N (3700 lb) ofthrust. AVCO-Lycoming selected an uprated

*Numbers in parentheses designate References 2at end of paper.

:..

E

version of the LTS 101 core. The basic LTS101 core with a power turbine has been usedprimarily in helicopters and would be capableof producing a turbofan engine with approxi-mately 5783 N (1300 lb) of thrust. Based on

the contractors' engine core sizes and thepreliminary design thrust levels of the OCGAT

engines, the contractors synthesized twin-engined executive jet aircraft to provide _abasis for assessing propulsion s y stem perfor-manct- and noise. These aircraft, shown in

Fig. 1, appear similar in design but actuallyare quite different. The AiResearch aircraftPictured is a Learjet 35. For the program,

this aircraft was stretched, and uprated aero-dyi.amic characteristics were used - especially

in the airport or slow speed regime. TheAiResearch QCGAT engine resulted in an air-craft whose takeoff gross weight is 8b74 kg

(19 122 lb) with a payload carrying capabilityof 14 passengers, including crew, for 3297 km

(1780 n. mi.). Chis aircraft has a designcruise speed of Mach 0.8 at an altitude of12 192 m (40 000 ft).

The AVCO-Lycoming aircraft was conceivedby the Beech Aircraft Company under an AVCO-

Lycoming subcontract. This aircraft is a new

design specifically for the QCGAT engine. Itweighs 3538 kg (7800 lb) at takeoff and car-

ries six passengers including crew. This

executive jet has characteristics similar tothe Cessna Citation, cruising at approximatelyMach 0.6 at a 10 058-m (33 000-ft) altitude.The maximum payload range is approximately

2778 km (1500 n. mi.).

DESIGN GOAIS - The significant difference

in aircraft size and weight is a result of abasic QCGAT engine requirement to use existing;engine cores and synthesize twin engine air-craft. Consequently, since the FAR Part 36noise measuring; points are flight profile(aerodynamics and engine thrust/airplane grossweight ratio) and aircraft gross weight depen-dent, each contractor has a different noise

goal for their respective engine/aircraft

combinations.Figure 2 shows the NASA QCGAT program

noise goals and the preliminary design noisevalues that each contractor predicted for theFAR Part 36 takeoff, sideline and approach

locations. Also shown on the figure are the19b9 and 1977 FAR fart 3b noise requirements.

For reference, existing twin executive typejet aircraft and the airbus (A300B) noise

Koenig and Sievers

3

levels are shown. The NASA noise goal values

for the QCGAT engine program are summarizedin Table 1.

Figure 2(a) shows the AVCO-Lycoming take-

off noise goal to be 4.5 EPNdB quieter than

the NASA goal. The AiResearch engine is pre-

dicted to meet the NASA contract goal at take-off. Both contractors are using inlet and aft

duct acoustic treatment in conjunction with an

internal mixer nozzle. For sideline noise,measured at 463 m (0.25 n. mi.), Fig. 2(b)

shows both contractors predict noise valuesquieter than the NASA noise goal. A similar

situation exists at the 113-m (370-ft) alti-tude, 1852 m (1.0 n. mi.) from the runway endapproach ..oise measuring point (Fig. 2(c)).Both of the engine aircraft configurationsare quieter than the goal.

The QCGAT engine emission goals areshown in Table 2. These goals are based on

the emission levels established for 1979 EPA

standard I1 class (<35 58b-N (8000-1b) thrust)engines. The allowable SAE Smoke Number val-ues are determined by the procedure set forthby the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) in the Federal Register, Volume

38, No. 136, July 17, 1973. In 1978, it wasdecided by the EPA to abandon the emissiongoals for the T1 class engines. Although new

EPA emission standards are being considered,

the QCGAT contracts have retained the 1979goals for demonstration purposes.

The performance goals for the QCGAT pro-

gram (shown in Table 3) are considerably dif-

ferent for each contractor. Design approachand core size are the major contributors to

this difference. The smaller AVCO-Lycomingengine has an uninstalled thrust goal of7215 N (1622 lb) at takeoff, while the larger

AiResearch engine has a thrust goal of17 513 N (3937 lb). The maximum cruise thrust

goals are 2157 N (485 lb) at a flight cruise

condition of Mach 0.6, 7620 m (25 000 ft),

and 4017 N (903 lb) thrust at Mach 0.8 at12 192 m (40 000 ft) cruise for each of theengines, respectively.

OVERALL DESIGN - In Fig. 3, a cros sec-tion of the AiResearch QCGAT engine is sh uwnwith the core and supercharger of their se-

lected model TFE 731-3 basic turbofan engine.The TFE 731-3 is a 16 458-N (3700-1b) thrustturbofan with two spools and a geared fan

similar to the arrangement for the QCGAT en-gine. The TFE 731-3 is currently used in the

Koenig and Sievers

4

Dassault Falcon 50, Learjet 35/36 and others.As modified for QCGAT, it incorporates a newfan similar to the AiResearch ATF3 design

(another AiResearch engine), a new reductiongear, combustor and power turbine -'n conjunc-

tion with other associated parts. The major

unique QCGAT parts are shaded on the figure.Figure 4 shows a cutawa y view of the

AiResearch QCGAI engine in an installed con-figuration. The mixer nozzle is a key elementin reducing takeoff noise and, as model tests

have shown (2), can significantly improve per-formance. A moderate fan tip speed and properfan rotor-stator spacing are also evident de-sign features for low noise. Acoustic treat-ment is installed in the inlet and fan exhaust

duct. The significant installed performancepretest predictions and characteristics areshown on the insert. A moderate engine bypassratio and fan pressure ratio are typical de-

signs for the high altitude and Xach numbercruise capability of the selected aircraftconfiguration.

The cross section AVCO-Lycoming QCGATengine (Fig. 5) is shown with the modifiedLTS 101 core. The LTS 101, which was certi-

fied in 1975, has flown in helicopters of twoaircraft manufacturers. An uprated LTS 101core is being used for the QCGAT program.This uprating includes the addition of a new

supercharger stage on the core compressor andincreased inlet temperature requiring cooledturbine blades. The new parts unique to

QCGAT are a scaled ALF 502 fan, a reductiongear, a combustor and power turbine. These

parts are shown as shaded areas on the figure.

Figure 6 shows a cutaway view of theAVCO-Lycoming engine in an installed configu-ration. V e installation is similar to

AiResearch, featuring acoustic treatment inthe inlet and fan duct and a mixer nozzle de-

signed (3) for both takeoff noise reductionand performance improvement. The significantengine characteristics and pretest performancepredictions are shown in the insert in Fig. 6.

Of note is the relatively high bypass ratioof 8.5. The fan pressure ratio and tip speedare relatively low, which is customary forhigh bypass engines. These selected designcharacteristics are a result of the low noise

requirements imposed on the propulsion system.However, the selected engine characteristicsare nearly optimum for the aircraft cruise

Koenig and Sievers

5

speed selected for this engine-aircraft con-figuration combination.

PROGRAM SCHEDULE

An overall program schedule is shown in

Fig. 7. The AVCO-Lycoming program runs about

b months longer than the AiResearch progra7r.As of this date, all work except data analysis

and final reports have been completed atAiResearch. The engine was recently deliveredto NASA Lewis Research Center for further

testing. A%'CO-Lycoming :s in the final monthsof testing the QCGAT engine. The engine willthen be refurbished and shipped to NASA inmid -1979.

TEST RESULTS

Reported herein are the overall test re-

sults of both of the QCGAT engines that havebeen completed to date by each of the con-

tractors. This includes all the AiResearchtests but only part of the AVCO-Lycomingtests. Inasmuch as detailed anal yses have

not been completed, the results are consideredto be preliminary in nature. However, the

prospects for significant changes in the in-

formation presented are small.Figure 8 shows the AiResearch and A%'CO-

Lyccming QCGAT engines installed in their re-spective company test facilities. To minimizeprogram costs, testing is being accomplishedwith boiler plate nacelles. However, internalaerodynamic and acoustic characteristics arecorrectly simulated. The AiResearch engine isshown installed in the outdoor acoustic test

facility with a simulated flight inlet while

the beilmouth inlet is shown on the AVC0-Lycoming engine installed in an indoor test

cell. The flight inlet is used for installedsystem performance measurements while a bell-

mouth type inlet is used for correct airflow

measurements and basic performance calibra-tion. An additional inlet is being tested inthe program, a flight lip, and a simulated

flight lip which has aerodynamic flow contoursto simulate a particular flight condition.These inlet lips are used to verify for thecontract installed engine performance goals

and engine/aircraft simulated acou r•tic test

goals.

NOISE - The QCGAT system noise levels in

the fully suppressed configuration were pre-dicted for the conditions for which the FAR

K%,enig and Sievers

6

Part 36 noise requirements were established;namely takeoff, sideline, and approach. Acomparison of predicted engine levels; and the

QCGAT noise g,ial levels from Table 1 are shown

in Table 4.For both contractors engines. the QCGAT

sideline and approach noise levels are pre-

dicted to be quieter than the :NASA goals. Ai-

Research predicts the NASA takeoff noise goal

will be met. The AVCO QCGAT predicted takeoffnoise is Somewhat quieter than the NASA goal.

A method of comparing the significance of thepredicted noise levels for these engines can

be illustrated us.n: noise contours. A noisecontour defines an area within whic' the noiselevel exceeds a g iven level. The noise con-

tour is generated for a specific flight pathwhich an aircraft is capable of flying with aparticular engine. At each point in the vi-

cinity beneath the flight path, the observer

is exiosed to a different noise level. Thenoise signal at each point is weighted basedon the fre q uenc y content of -he si g nal anyintegrate- ....k'. respect to time. The contouris then generated by determining the locus ofpoints where this particular level is heard.The area inside the noise contour can then becompared to other noise contours for similar

type engine-aircraft combinations. The pre-

dicted AiResearch QCGAT-airframe noire contour

area was compared to a TFE 731-3 powered Lear-

jet 35 at an 80 FPNL level. The QCGAT poweredaircraft has an 86 percent reduction in ex-posed area compared to the Learjet 35. The

Learjet 35 is considered to be a quiet air-

craft meeting the FAR Part 36 1977 guidelines.A similar comparison was made between

the AVCO-Lycoming-Beech engine airframe com-

bination and a Cessna Citation powered by two

J115D en Ines. Tne Cessna Citation is con-sidered to be a :ery quiet aircraft beingconsiderably below the FAR Part 36 197; noise

guidelines (Fig. 2). However, with the AVCO-Lycomin6-Beech engine-airplane combination,92 percent reduction of an 60 EPNL exposure

area resulted when compared to the CessnaCitation. Both QCGAT engines are predicted tobe considerably quieter than present day quiet

engines. Consequently, the QCGAT programshould demonstrate that noise need not he a Koenig and Sievers

major constraint on the future growth of tur-

bofan powered aircraft in general aviation.

EMISSIONS - The emission goals are shown

in Table 5 with the current results for both

8

Koenig and Sievers

engines. WCO-Lycoming engine emission pre-dictions are based on extensive QCGAI combustorhardware c:-ponent testing which has been donethroughout the design and fabrication phases of

the CCGAT engine. .-.%'CC c=bustor tests -.aveshown t:.at with the exception of NO X , the :979EP y emission goats can be met by the reverseflo.: co-.bust.or with airblast fuel injectors.the A':C^ en g ine e-.issior, tests are .urrentlybeing --n ar.d the data is not vet a•:ailable.;iResearc'n e'nisslons are based on the test ofthe - CGAI engine ..ith the Concert 1 combustor::hick ':as designed .:sing the data fro- a NASA-s::)nsare: :l Po:.^;tion Reduction Techno:og::Prc3ra-.. '.;ith the exception of NO X and smoke,the AiResearch Concept 1 combustor meets the

NASA contract emission goals.?ERFOR.`L,NCE - .. comparison of the ..7i^

sta.led and insta:led sea :evsl thrust _:oatsand the -easured tnr.:_t performance for Tothengines is s::oar :ably 6.

As can be seen, the thrust goals for Ai-Research were achieved while AVCO-Lycoming is

predicted to be slightly below the goal. Ai-

Research specific fuel consumption was slight-

ly higher than predicted. It is believed that

most of the SFC degradation comes about be-cause the AiResearch fan tip efficiency is

not as high as predicted. The AVCO-Lycoming

fan hub supercharger stators have a higher

than design loss as do the high and low pressure turbines. However, these discrepancies

can be easily remedied by a'ditional componentdevelopment. These losses are also reflected

in the installed performance values. It ap-pears the AiResearch mixer nozzle is mixing

and performing as well as predicted. However,

analyses are still in progress to determinethe possible areas of modification for per-formance improvement.

Important to the engine's thrust perfor-mance was the performance of the fans. These

fans are relativel y low-pressure ratio designs.

The design pressure ratio for each fan wasselected at a point between low-pressure ratio

required for low ,p oise at takeoff and the

higher pressure ratio desired at cruise forimproved engine performance. The airflow andbypass ratio were selected for noise and per-

formance at takeoff and cruise, respectively.The AiResearch fan aerodesign point was se-lected for the Mach 0.8 at 12 192-m (.40 000-

ft) cruise condition. The takeuff aerodynamicperformance of the AiResearch fan was generally

good as seen on Fig. 9. The takeoff airflowand mass averaged fan pressure ratio was gen-

erally as good as predicted. Fan efficiencyIs below predicted values at the tip portion

of the fan rotor blades.A photo and performance of the AVCO-

Lycoming fan is shown on the Fig. lU. !hu far.is a scaled version of the fan in the AVCO-Lycoming ALE 502 engine which is currentlyflying on the Canadair Aircraft. the ful:size QCGAI version of the fan was tested atthe AVCO facility. The tests included com-

plete mapping and surge line definition. Thetests showed that the actual data very closelyfollowed predicte^ data. the QCGAT fan designpoint is for an engine operating durin Lz a sec-ond segment climb aircraft condition %ith one

engine out. the performance data shoes flowand pressure ratio were or design for the de-

sign fan speed. The 1 perzent efficiencydegradation is from a lower than expected hub

section stator performance which is includedin the efficiency rating. :'hi:: root statorsection has been redesigned for a greater re-

covery. The fan tip section exceeds the designefficiency.

CONCIXS IONS

The QCGAT program goal is to demonstrate

experimentally that the design technology de-veloped for a quiet, clean large commercialturbofan engine can be scaled down and usedto design and develop a quiet, clean generalaviation turbofan engine with at leab t equalto or improved engine perfonnanc^!. Initialengine test results indicate that the majorityof the technical goals laid down for the en-

gines will be met or exceeded, Tze engines

are predicted to be quieter than the strin-

gent noise goals established by NA:'A for theGeneral Aviation aircraft demonstra,-or engines

of the QCGAT program, which should stow that

noise need not be a major constraint on thefuture growth of general aviation aircraftusing turbofan engines. The emission goalsestablished for the program were only partial- Koenig and Sieversly met. However, the demonstrated emissionsfor these engines are substantially lowerthan those of current engines. The AiResearch 9

thrust goals of the program were met. How-

ever, the fuel consumption was slightly higher

Ad

than desired because component efficiencies

were slightly lower than expected. These

loss muchanisms are- understood and are cor-

rectablu with design modifications and fur-ther component development which was beyondthe scope of this program.

REFERENCES

1. D. L. Bresnahan and G. K. Sievers,"NASA Quiet, Clezn General Aviation Turbofan(QCCAT) Program Status." ASME Paper 77-GT-77,'tar. 1977.

^:• L. Blackmore and C. E. Thompson,"QCCAT "fixer Compound Exhaust System Designand Static Rig Model Test Report." AiResearch

Manufacturing Co. of Arizona, AiResvirch 21-28bl, Proj. FEDD, NASA CR-13538b, 1978.

3. J. F. Hurley, L. I'Anson, and C.Wilson, "Design of an -xhau,t }fixer Nozzle forthe AVCO-Lycoming Quit, Clean General Avia-tion Turbofan (QCGAT)." AVCO-Lycoming Div.,

AVCO Corp., Proj. FEDD, NASA CR-15942b, 1978.

Koenig and Sievers

10

0

U M Yt i. t tV N

b ^V

J^ M

w ax `

Z -+

V 1. MW X CN

m^

i P x

4 ^• uo .,e ter.=

G y

0V

V

e

V

a

V

•H

N m?

r nd N

, r O N? J O J O^ O n00 00 00 00

rA p

n.b O ;n, nJ OaDO r ri n

fvO D

N.O

O O D O 0 0 O O

v y N ,,.,, N ^

u

Y ]M O

y^

Y V• y J•

'Oy L VC C Y +7 b

C

•u M V yCY b ~ ^ ^uC

p.t V •

wL.c: .Gr

.ft b •

w eV u b.+ a y u u b

OYJI r•

N v• N

Hbq

V nr

N ^

O AN N

.OO m^oL

.1 Y•

wL wU00

e

C LV

O y

J a

^. VJ ^

t

B• M• Y

V

H4 •

ybi 0.

Y

a•ti

aL

H

yNCJC)

Y

R KJ o

w

0M^

Y

O O

w ~ ~V

:J A N N

^ O O

^ a

sY

a

N

P

N

o u

0

U u .-.•

< <

00 ^C 4, O 90 r^

u v.a

1O -- v a aU 10

00m

^0 f

.L ^ V

u H u f'10. H ^ ^ 00r0 '^

YH

^ 1 P1 l^.

^C U r1 N nV r- 00 ap

m Wm p M

W

^; sw

u.^

0 OY Q 1r

F" t! 4

W

u

hv

N

"'n

NO

r`o0

Uao uf\ ju

•^ E

^ CCC^a wp

^ O N

Y v y v v E

E uE B N C

O JY 4N00 >1

n10 7a ~

mraC C7 y

w E •.^ v M •.. EQ01 10.. ^ 0'L .vi ^0.,

`^+ b H d 10 w

w

AOC)

61In

O2

a

1

v

F

table s

EPA Para.eatere

^' f+ `1e

I1^ Contract gull

CO— I^NC Nllx ^mokf

ntdabf C

< 45" < 38"

e/kNe (lb/1000 lb throat hr-cycle)

0.266 (9.4) 0.045 (1.6) J.105 (1.7)

AVCO 0.101 (1.6) 0 011 (0.4) 0.121 (4.5) 16 00

AlNeseerch 0.289 (b-0) 0 045 (1.6) 0.1)0 (4 .6) 00 42

Goal for AVCO enillne.

~Goal lot AlReaearch engine.

I .b It 6

A18esearah AVCO

C.+al Nfasured Goal Vr."I 1, t.j

JCninstalled threat, N (lb) 17 511 17.513 1115 1063

(39)7) (39)7) (162:) (ISMS)

lninstalled Srt:, k8/hr/N (lb /hr/1h) 0.0426 0.0456 0 . 0161 0 0170(0.418) (0.448) (0.160) (0,363)

Installed thtuat, ti (lb) 17 312 17.312 1166 6868(1891) (]892) (1611) (1544)

Installed BPC, k8/hr/N (lb/hr/lb) 0.0471 0.0438 0.0170 0.0371(D.423) (0.410) (0.16)) (0.164)

-now "V- ,y,

(a) GATES LEARJET 35

Jp

AIRCRAFT, WHICH UTILIZES THE GARRETT AIRE-SFAVH TFE 731 ENGINE.

r

W AVCO-LYCOMING-BEECH AIRCRt1rE.

Figure 1. - QCGAT twin-engine ExeeutiV( aircraft.

IIv

U'

U

NNN

dC

v,

t7UdL

6r

4

v^

irr^,ii

OFPACK E9

^R Q[1ALrIZI

OlC

cv 8 db :z O N

^ ^ryet

O.--.

up'^fir,^

""rN

,r+rG?

ISdy1 L

,y ud

E cc

L M S7

- F

A N qu

pfr1 00

'oCL Z 2

o,rz

N

CJ

r

— ^o c^O

CL

D.^ ^. wQ U ^, Q vi

yr^ OO c^Ln

¢Q gy po vi

W

NLn

O Wm-^ cZ 1 2

w OZ

in n pp r a?L"

Q OZ Z

NW Lu y

S

UW

N U Wto I=

S^. c7 W'n w

i Z ^ ^ Z -- ^ Z z Q ^ g o^.

O V1a L Ln

U w Z 2L ]

O w tR Sc

;.1 Q W W Q J W J K O Q^'d W

w Q Y4 7 ^ V. 4

0 O

W ^

(Qy^

Q (^

u(',

O '^

Ov_

e d O d wr.' ^' `Z0 !4 ,bM O W Qr vJ f^ W

Y_ZZ O

Ckf

OC O O d v nl

^ W '^ r4- ^ ^ ^

~

JU

O W Q Q o+

L-^ I ^` U

CD

8PNd3 8PNd3 8PNd3

i

0. 579 m 1'11rlF. bi112 81 i -- t _ ^[lk w t' ^u ^' ►

Figure 5. - AVCO-lycoming QUAT engine cross section.

Takeoff Characteristics

,'Airflow, kglsec (lb/sec) 32(70)Bypass ratio

I8.5

Fan PIP average 1.31

Fan tip speed, misec Mlsec) 30611005)Thrust, NON 706811589)

7620 (25 0001Cruise, M - 0.6 at altitude, m tft!Thrust, N ilb) 2077(467)

Figure 6. - Installed AVCO-lycoming QUAT engine.

4 4

4

4

^orYL7

I 'Ar I

r 4U t or

` ^ W

tl---uqr}w ^

t

-- Ev

a

U^}. d

.v

v

v

Of L'I

CK

O

Ckfr-

' ~vi ^ w Z ~ "...1' ^ ^' w w r wp ^ ^ ^^ w T p ^ ^ ^ w^+.+ W Z W— Y vY N U } — Y U N UCX W ix C rw- Z N Q t/1 N ZVt uJi ^ ?Q o __ ^^ w

? of w w ^ O} wZ

oa- 2 J Z V'^ a J Zn Z- N J Q W Q

wZ

C7Z (' Q N J Q W Q Z Z (,W

~W ? W ^' - W Zd O W y w

= 6. C Z = d. G ZW W IIyy-J W W W W J J WZ Z W Z Z W W J

CLW

^--J U_dL of U V

cr

[ U' CJ Q

OU

J C^ C7 Q

OU

JV) W W V1 In N W W Z V1 0

Nry

w

^C-18-4111

Id1 AIRESLARCN ENGINE.

(b) AVCO-LYCOMING ENGINF

Flgure R. - QCGAT engines installed in test cells.

0

9

.I

I

PRIFPRWI

§^@

\ k

^ 7 S ƒ

^ )^/ \ f k^ -

f in« f

CL.§ k

ka _k ^

} ^

®

§

/

\§«

/

c,

W

N

8 ----2

n ^_

/ f^- —. .

.e $ § $

^ \ \ 3 7 ^J ° » ^ d $

\

« -m

\ ^

^ k

lu

\ \ \ 7^u « r 2

/kK

\

/

co

QDALI b