13.12.2012 Views

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Aviation</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Global</strong> <strong>Atmosphere</strong><br />

between Mach 2 <strong>and</strong> 2.4, airframe characteristics currently dictate cruise altitudes between 16 <strong>and</strong> 20 km. Optimization studies are planned to investigate lower cruise<br />

altitudes, recognizing <strong>the</strong> potential benefit of minimized ozone impact. To enable <strong>the</strong> inclusion of route segments over populated areas without sonic booms, an<br />

advanced supersonic airliner must also be capable of cruising efficiently in an environmentally acceptable manner at subsonic speeds <strong>and</strong> lower cruise altitudes.<br />

7.10.1. Supersonic Transport Characteristics<br />

The characteristics of potential second-generation supersonic transports <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir consequent<br />

impact on <strong>the</strong> atmosphere differ substantially from those of subsonic transports. First among<br />

<strong>the</strong>se differences is <strong>the</strong> cruise altitude in <strong>the</strong> stratosphere, which is near where ozone<br />

concentration peaks. For a given level of emissions, <strong>the</strong> supersonic transport's potential impact<br />

on <strong>the</strong> ozone column is larger than that of subsonic aircraft from an NO x -ozone depletion<br />

perspective. This impact led to strong opposition to U.S. supersonic transport development in <strong>the</strong><br />

1970s <strong>and</strong>, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> potential airport noise impact <strong>and</strong> economic considerations, led<br />

ultimately to cancellation of <strong>the</strong> development. There is now consensus that emissions from a<br />

second-generation supersonic transport must be limited to levels that will have a "negligible<br />

effect" on ozone.<br />

There is also concern regarding <strong>the</strong> effects of carbon <strong>and</strong> sulfate-based particulates, <strong>and</strong> water<br />

vapor (Albritton et al., 1993; Stolarski et al., 1995). This subject is discussed in Chapters 2 <strong>and</strong><br />

3. Atmospheric modeling has indicated that <strong>the</strong> effects of NO x are likely to be small for a fleet of<br />

500 to 1,000 Mach 2-2.4 aircraft if EI(NO x ) is near 5 g kg -1 . This issue is discussed in detail in<br />

Figure 7-43: Military aircraft inventory (1992 <strong>and</strong><br />

projection for 2015).<br />

Chapters 4 through 6. This level of emission has become a technology development target for <strong>the</strong> second generation supersonic transport. As yet <strong>the</strong>re are no such<br />

targets for particulates, but such targets may emerge before <strong>the</strong> decision time for a production development program is reached.<br />

The overall efficiencies of subsonic <strong>and</strong> supersonic propulsion systems at comparable technology levels are not very different. The lift/drag ratio of supersonic aircraft,<br />

however, is substantially lower than that of subsonics-no more than about 9 compared to about 20 for subsonics, as is shown in Figure 7-41. This lower ratio is related<br />

to losses caused by shock waves, which can be minimized but not eliminated by sophisticated designs. Thus, for <strong>the</strong> same range <strong>the</strong> supersonic transport must carry a<br />

larger fraction of its mass as fuel. For a given weight, its engines must also produce more thrust in cruise because of <strong>the</strong> larger drag. Primarily as a result of <strong>the</strong>se<br />

effects, <strong>the</strong> fuel burn per passenger mile of a supersonic transport is correspondingly large-two or more times that of a subsonic transport. Never<strong>the</strong>less, economic<br />

studies that incorporate time zone/ productivity considerations indicate that <strong>the</strong> greater productivity resulting from shorter block times could enable <strong>the</strong> supersonic<br />

transport to compete with subsonic transports. There is no intent to fur<strong>the</strong>r quantify this question here. The remaining sections address <strong>the</strong> technological challenges<br />

that set supersonic transport propulsion apart from those faced by advanced subsonic engines.<br />

7.10.2. Propulsion System Efficiency<br />

This subject is covered in greater depth in Section 7.4, but <strong>the</strong> key points are reviewed here briefly with emphasis on supersonic aspects. Overall propulsion system<br />

efficiency may be regarded as <strong>the</strong> product of two factors: Thermal efficiency <strong>and</strong> propulsive efficiency. Thermal efficiency is <strong>the</strong> ratio of hot gas power produced by <strong>the</strong><br />

engine gas generator to <strong>the</strong> power in <strong>the</strong> fuel flow. It is ideally controlled by <strong>the</strong> temperature ratio of <strong>the</strong> compression process-that is, <strong>the</strong> ratio of temperature at <strong>the</strong><br />

discharge of <strong>the</strong> compressor to ambient temperature. In modern engines, <strong>the</strong> compressor discharge temperature is limited by <strong>the</strong> temperature tolerance of materials<br />

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/113.htm (2 von 4)08.05.2008 02:43:51

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!