Patent Grant
7407133
Contained herein is material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction of the patent disclosure by any person as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all rights to the copyright whatsoever. Copyright© 2001-2005 3× Jet Aircraft Company.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Various embodiments of the present invention generally relate to multi-engine jet aircraft configurations. More particularly, embodiments of the present invention relate to a centerline mounted unequal-thrust multi-engine configuration and operation thereof. Embodiments of the present invention are thought to have particular utility for use in the business jet industry.
Methods of operating a multi-engine jet-aircraft are described. According to one embodiment of the present invention, a first jet engine and a second jet engine are provided. One of the jet engines has a lesser maximum thrust capability than the other jet engine as a result of limiting the former's maximum thrust capability, but the two jet engines are otherwise equally powered. During various segments of flight, both the first jet engine and second jet engine are utilized. A thrust differential between the first jet engine and the second jet engine is created during one or more flight segments by continuing to run either the first jet engine or second jet engine, but running the other at a reduced power.
A more complete understanding of the present invention may be derived by referring to the detailed description of preferred embodiments and claims when considered in connection with the figures.
In the FIGS., similar components and/or features may have the same reference label. Further, various components of the same type may be distinguished by following the reference label with a second label that distinguishes among the similar components. If only the first reference label is used in the specification, the description is applicable to any one of the similar components having the same first reference label irrespective of the second reference label.
With reference to
(a.) A Range of Engine Combinations.
Under the terminology of the prior patents, a 3× combination was discussed at some length. But surrounding the 3× range is a range produced by a wide variety of engine 120, 140 combinations. For example, a range of less than 2× to almost 4× (or beyond) may be employed. At the less-than-2× side, by focusing on the “cleaner” aerodynamics of the centerline 160 mounted concept, with less drag than a conventional twin, and other advantages it may be possible to have a thrust equivalent to that of a conventional (2×-powered) twin while using engines of less actual thrust than the twin—hence, a 1.6× (or even lower amount of combined thrust in a two-engine configuration) engine combination in accordance with embodiments the present invention could equal the effective thrust of a conventional twin, and result in a lower initial purchase cost (because of the anticipated reduced cost in engine acquisition corresponding with the reduced thrust of the engines) while preserving the lower operating costs and increased engine-out safety of the centerline mounted concept.
(b.) A Method of Achieving or Varying a Thrust Differential in Engines of the Same Size or Different Sizes.
As discussed further below with reference to
One way of achieving a thrust differential from a pair of engines 120, 140 which are otherwise the same is by “down-rating” or otherwise reducing one of the engines from its maximum thrust. It may be possible to purchase two engines 120, 140 of identical maximum thrust potential, but down-rate one of them beneath its maximum thrust. Except for the down-rating, the engines 120, 140 are the same (resulting in common parts and common skills in the maintenance crew). Because of the down-rating, one of the engines (the down-rated one) may be less expensive than the other engine.
Even without down-rating, the benefits of a thrust differential could be achieved in a pair of centerline 160 mounted engines 120, 140 which are entirely identical if one of them is either shutdown (that is, “staged”) during one or more flight segments, or is run at a different power setting than the other engine.
(c.) A Range of Operating Methods.
By “staging” is meant shutting off at least one of the engines 120, 140. As in the prior patents, the aircraft could be staged during taxi. But instead of staging during one or more of the flight segments (take-off, climb, cruise, descent and landing), both engines 120, 140 could be left running. Instead of staging during one or more of the flight segments, a thrust differential could be obtained by setting a pair of engines 120, 140 at different power settings, thereby creating an effective differential in thrust. This creation of differential thrust can be achieved without staging an engine, and it could even be achieved with identical engines. This leads to a wide range of operating profiles/operating methods.
A sample operational profile might be as follows:
Where the paired engines 120, 140 are of different size, engine (1) in Table 1 above could be the larger of the two, and engine (2) in Table 1 above could be the smaller of the two. By turning off the larger engine on taxi, and reducing the power of the smaller engine while in cruise and initial descent, operating costs are reduced.
Embodiments of the present invention are not limited to the profile described in Table 1; rather it should be understood that there is a large range of profiles. The thrust differential concept employed by embodiments of the present invention permits the foregoing operational profile to be modified in every category to achieve whatever result is desired. For example, in the context of Table 1, engines 1 & 2 could be the same size; the engine off during taxi could be engine 2; the engine reduced during cruise could be engine 1 (or both engines might be reduced on cruise); the reduction of power in one or both of the engines might be during cruise only, during cruise and initial descent, during final descent, or at any other time. The centerline thrust characteristics of a pair of jet engines, one or both of which may be main engines, creates room for developing unequal applications of thrust in order to achieve whatever level of higher performance (both engines operating), economy (one engine off, or one or both engines on reduced power), safety (both engines operating, though perhaps with one at reduced power—in addition to the inherent safety margin already provided in an engine-out emergency by a pair of engines having symmetrical, centerline thrust) or other advantage desired. Indeed, there are advantages to be gained even if the only staging or reduction in power occurs during taxi.
One embodiment of a method for operating a multi-engine aircraft 300 is described in
In
If the aircraft is in the takeoff and climb fight segment, both of the engines are operating as indicated by block 440. In block 450, both engines are running with one of the engines running at a reduced power during the cruise and initial descent flight segment. Alternatively, both engines may be running at full power or one engine may be running at full power and the other may be off.
If the determination at block 420 is made that the aircraft is in the final descent and landing segment of the flight, to the extent either engine was previously running at reduced power or off, the power of such engine is increased or such engine is restarted thereby causing both engines to be running as indicated by block 460.
(d.) Particular Applications.
The methods described herein can be used with any number of products, and may be adapted to a wide range of applications. Among the specific products appropriate for this concept are:
As may be readily understood from the forgoing disclosures, embodiments of the present invention permit and encourage a new method of aircraft design. Rather than taking the necessity of identical engines 120, 140 as a given in any paired engine design, the freedom to create numerous combinations of differential thrust conditions (and then further to vary the thrust during operation of the aircraft) allows the designer the flexibility to solve problems and/or to maximize results in a new way. For example, the designer can target a particular product or niche (i.e., the 19 passenger commuter, the utility jet, the fractional ownership market, the small jet, or any other particular product); the designer can target any one or more of the typical criteria (acquisition cost, operational cost, speed, range/loiter, balanced field length, cabin volume, weight); and the designer can create the product which fulfills the need (that is, a concern with balanced field length might drive the size of the smaller engine; a concern with cruise speed might drive the size of the larger engine). Given an existing operating aircraft, the concepts described herein might permit a relatively rapid retrofit to enhance performance. Given a clean slate, the concepts described herein permit the designer rapidly to attain a concept-level design.
Advantages
By not requiring staging, various methods described herein can avoid staging issues—that is, issues over whether an engine intentionally shut down during flight can be restarted “cold” when needed (and, therefore, it should not be necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, to obtain certifications or otherwise to satisfy the concern over whether an engine 120, 140, once shut down during flight can be reliably counted upon to restart when needed). As understood from the foregoing discussion and as illustrated in the foregoing operational table, Table 1, both engines can be kept running during flight, with one of them on reduced power.
Even without staging during flight, it is anticipated that the operational methods contemplated herein can still reduce operating costs. The applicant has estimated that the staged method of the prior patents might result in about a 30% savings in operating costs. The applicant is estimating that the non-staged method (that is, no staging during flight, but with staging on taxi and reduced power in flight) discussed above can still yield about a 20% savings in operating costs.
The methods described above continue to preserve the safety of centerline thrust in an emergency engine-out condition (because of the symmetrical thrust) as compared to the emergency engine-out condition in a conventional twin (with asymmetrical thrust).
In conclusion, embodiments of the present invention provide novel systems, methods and arrangements for using imbalanced thrust in a multi-engine jet aircraft. While detailed descriptions of one or more embodiments of the invention have been given above, various alternatives, modifications, and equivalents will be apparent to those skilled in the art without varying from the spirit of the invention. Therefore, the above description should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention, which is defined by the appended claims.
This patent application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/912,078, filed on Jul. 24, 2001 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,921,046. This patent application is also related to the subject matter described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,855,340 and 5,480,107 of Richard J. Bacon (hereinafter the “prior patents”), both of which are commonly owned by the assignee and which are hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2557522 | Vautier | Jun 1951 | A |
| 2679991 | Eagon | Jun 1954 | A |
| 2694357 | Lee | Nov 1954 | A |
| 2934288 | MacIntyre | Apr 1960 | A |
| 2978208 | Halsmer | Apr 1961 | A |
| 3045953 | Eggers et al. | Jul 1962 | A |
| 3057581 | Tumavicus | Oct 1962 | A |
| 3060685 | Tonnies et al. | Oct 1962 | A |
| 3075728 | Kogan | Jan 1963 | A |
| 3113636 | Brown et al. | Dec 1963 | A |
| 3224712 | Maurice et al. | Dec 1965 | A |
| 3229933 | Kutney | Jan 1966 | A |
| 3352514 | Addison | Nov 1967 | A |
| 3366350 | Fritz Hoffert et al. | Jan 1968 | A |
| 3387456 | Feder et al. | Jun 1968 | A |
| D220981 | Ehrlich, Jr. | Jun 1971 | S |
| D220982 | Ehrlich, Jr. | Jun 1971 | S |
| 3614034 | Townsend | Oct 1971 | A |
| 3936017 | Blythe et al. | Feb 1976 | A |
| 4478378 | Capuani | Oct 1984 | A |
| 4500052 | Kim | Feb 1985 | A |
| 4662171 | Jackson et al. | May 1987 | A |
| 4667900 | Kim | May 1987 | A |
| 4711415 | Binden | Dec 1987 | A |
| 4802639 | Hardy et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4805396 | Veerhusen et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
| 4899958 | Horikawa | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4934632 | Kim | Jun 1990 | A |
| 4938021 | Jones et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
| 5114097 | Williams | May 1992 | A |
| 5170964 | Enderle et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5275356 | Bollinger et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5372337 | Kress et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5480107 | Bacon | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5488824 | LeDoux et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5529263 | Rudolph | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5855340 | Bacon | Jan 1999 | A |
| 6089504 | Williams et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6170780 | Williams | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6199795 | Williams | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6247668 | Reysa et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6508052 | Snyder et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6612522 | Aldrin et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6921046 | Bacon | Jul 2005 | B2 |
| 6990798 | Bouchard et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 20020074453 | Bacon | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20030146344 | Saito et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20050178890 | Bacon | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20050178890 A1 | Aug 2005 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 09912078 | Jul 2001 | US |
| Child | 11077248 | US |
