safety & economics trade study
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-1
Safety & Economics Trade Study
Principal Investigator: Prof. Ken Sivier
GraduateResearch Assistant: Jennifer Bradley
![Page 2: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-2
SMART ICING SYSTEMS Research Organization
Core Technologies
Icing-EncounterFlight Simulator
Aerodynamics and
Propulsion
FlightMechanics
Control and Sensor
Integration
HumanFactors
AircraftIcing
Technology
Operate andMonitor IPS
EnvelopeProtection
AdaptiveControl
CharacterizeIcing Effects
IMS Functions
Safety and EconomicsTrade Study
![Page 3: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-3
Safety & Economics Trade Study
Goal: Establish, through the use of safety and tradestudies, the impact of new IPSs, especially the SIS,on the safety and costs of operation of TBPcommuter aircraft.
![Page 4: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-4
Safety & Economics Trade Study
Objective: 1) Develop methodologies for evaluatingthe impact of IPSs on the safety and costsof operation of TBP commuter aircraft
2) Establish a baseline for existing IPSs3) Evaluate the impact of new IPSs on safety
and costs4) Evaluate the impact potential of the SIS on
safety and costs
![Page 5: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-5
Safety & Economics Trade Study
Approach: 1) Examine ATS safety history and study theapplication of the SIS within thatframework
2) Perform economics trade studies focusedon existing and new IPSs, including theSIS
![Page 6: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-6
Safety & Economics Waterfall Chart
99 00 01 02
AccidentAnalysis
Regional Jet Study
Federal Fiscal Years
98
Ice ProtectionTrade Study
Effects on DomesticAir Transportation
Safety History
Baseline TBP Study
![Page 7: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-7
SAFETY AND ECONOMICS TRADE STUDY
SIS Safety Impact
Smart Icing System Research
Statistical Analysis
of Icing Events Safety History
SIS Application toAccident History
Safety Study
![Page 8: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-8
Safety Study
• Aircraft Icing Events– Accidents– Incidents– Mishaps
• Engine Type
• Primary Factors
• Flight Phase
![Page 9: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-9
Safety Study (cont.)
• Roselawn, IN Accident Analysis– Accident History– SIS Application
• Conclusions• Recommendations
![Page 10: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-10
Types of Events
• Accidents– Person suffers serious injury or death– Aircraft receives substantial damage
• Incidents– Not an accident– An occurrence that could affect the safety of
operations
• Mishaps– An icing encounter that did not warrant an accident
or incident report
![Page 11: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-11
Databases
• NTSB Accident/Incident Database– Aircraft Accidents and Incidents - 1983 to present
• FAA Incident Data System
– Aircraft Incidents - 1978 to present
• NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System
– Aircraft Mishaps
– Voluntary Aircraft Reports -1988 to present
![Page 12: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-12
Aircraft Icing Events
10390
98
6883
155163 160
177172
133 134
184
115
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Nu
mb
er o
f Ic
ing
Eve
nts
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Year
MishapIncidentAccident
![Page 13: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-13
Icing Accident Fatalities
52
33
46
24
61
22
4145 48
67
27
88
3931
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Year
Nu
mb
er o
f F
atal
itie
s
![Page 14: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-14
Engine Type
• Reciprocating (carburetor)• Reciprocating (fuel injection)• Turboprop• Turbojet• Turbofan• Turboshaft (helicopters)
![Page 15: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-15
Aircraft Icing AccidentsEngine Type
Recip (carb), 73.1%
Recip (fuel inj), 22.5%
Turboprop, 3.2%
Turbofan, 0.4%
Turboshaft, 0.4%
Turbojet, 0.4%
![Page 16: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-16
Primary Factors
• Flightcrew• Aircraft• Maintenance• Weather• Airport/ATC• Miscellaneous/Other• Unknown
![Page 17: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-17
Aircraft Icing AccidentsPrimary Factors
Flightcrew, 46.7%
Airframe-manufacturer,
0.4%
AircraftSystems, 1.4%
Weather, 36.7%
Airport/ATC, 0.6%
Maintenance, 3.3%
Other, 1.0% Unknown, 10.0%
![Page 18: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-18
Flight Phases
Preflight/Taxi
Takeoff/Climb
Cruise
Descent
Approach
Landing
Maneuver (not shown)
![Page 19: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-19
Aircraft Icing Accidents Flight Phases
Unknown, 1.0%
Preflight/Taxi, 0.2%
Takeoff/Climb, 20.5%
Cruise, 39.2%Descent, 9.0%
Approach, 17.8%
Landing, 1.8%
Maneuvering, 10.5%
![Page 20: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-20
American Eagle, Flt. 4184
• October 31, 1994
• Flight from Indianapolis, IN to Chicago, IL
• Avions de Transport Régional, model 72-212 (ATR-72)
• Roselawn, Indiana
• Total aboard: 68
![Page 21: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-21
ATR-72 Ice Protection
• Level I– all probe & windshield heating systems
• Level II– activates pneumatic engine intake boots;
electric prop heaters; elevator, rudder, & aileronhorn heat; electric side window heaters
• Level III– activates wing, horizontal & vertical stabilizer
leading edge boots; routinely prop to 86%
![Page 22: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-22
ATR-72 Ice Protection
PneumaticAnti/Deicing
Wing LeadingEdges
Horizontal Tail PlaneLeading Edges
Engine AirIntakes
Gas PathDeicer
Ice EvidenceProbe
Electronic IceDetector
Windshields Probes Propellers HornsElectrical Anti-
icing
![Page 23: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-23
ATR Time History - 1
Time (CST) Event1455:20 -- Cleared for takeoff
Normal climb to 16,000 ft
1513 -- (Began descent from 16,000 ft to 10,000 ft)-- (FDR – Level III activation)
(FDR – Prop RPM = 86%)1524:39 -- Entered hold at 10,000 ft
-- (FDR – deice off)Flt attendant & Capt conversing – both flight &non-flight related subjects
1533:13 -- Capt – "high deck angle"-- (FDR – AOA = 5 deg)
1533:26 -- Flaps moved to 15 deg-- (FDR – AOA â to 0 deg)
1541:07 -- Caution alert-- (FDR – Level III activation)-- (FDR – Prop increase)
![Page 24: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-24
ATR Time History - 2
Time (CST) Event1542:38 -- (Third circuit of hold)1548:34 -- "showing ice"1549:44 -- Capt leaves cockpit1554:13 -- Capt returns1555:42 -- FO – "we still got ice"1556:51 -- (FDR – descent to 8000 ft; autopilot on)1557:22 -- Flap overspeed warning1557:28 -- Flaps going to 0 deg (AOA & pitch á)1557:33 -- (Descent thru 9130 ft)
-- (AOA á thru 5 deg; Ailerons – RWD)1557:34 -- (Ailerons – 13.45 deg RWD)
-- (Autopilot disconnect)-- Autopilot disconnect warning-- Rolls right (AOA & pitch â)
1557:57 -- (Descent thru 1700 ft)-- End of Recording
![Page 25: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-25
ATR 72-212 DFDR DataA
merican
Eag
le Flig
ht 4184*
*Freezing D
rizzle: Tow
ards A B
etter K
nowledge and a B
etter Protection, Issue 1,
AT
R, F
rance, 11/05/95
![Page 26: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-26
Hinge Moments vs. Angle of Attack
AIAA 99-0092 “Effects of Simulated-Spanwise Ice Shapes on Airfoils:Experimental Investigation” by S. Lee & M.B. Bragg
![Page 27: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-27
SIS Modified - 1
Time (CST) Event SIS Action1455:20 -- Cleared for takeoff
Normal climb to 16,000 ft1513 -- (Began descent from 16,000 ft
to 10,000 ft)-- (FDR – Level III activation) ßdetection of ice
ßanti-ice/deice on(FDR – Prop RPM = 86%)ßnotice to pilot
1524:39 -- Entered hold at 10,000 ft-- (FDR – deice off)
ßnotice to pilot á AOAßflap hinge moment ∆ßflt envelope change
Flt attendant & Captconversing – both flight & non-flight related subjects ßnotice to pilot of flt
envelope change
![Page 28: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-28
SIS Application - 2
Time (CST) Event SIS Action1533:13 -- Capt – "high deck angle"
-- (FDR – AOA = 5 deg)1533:26 -- Flaps moved to 15 deg
-- (FDR – AOA â to 0 deg)1541:07 -- Caution alert ßanti-ice/deice still on
-- (FDR – Level III activation)-- (FDR – Prop increase)
1542:38 -- (Third circuit of hold)1548:34 -- "showing ice" ßanti-ice/deice still on1549:44 -- Capt leaves cockpit1554:42 -- Capt returns1555:42 -- FO- "we still got ice" ßanti-ice/deice still on1556:51 -- (FDR – descent to 8000 ft)
-- (FDR – autopilot on)1557:22 -- Flap overspeed warning
![Page 29: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-29
SIS Application - 3
Time (CST) Event SIS Action1557:28 -- Flaps going to 0 deg ßnotice to pilot á AOA
-- (AOA & pitch á) ßflt envelope changesßautopilot disconnect
warning1557:33 -- (Descent thru 9130 ft)
-- (AOA á 5 deg) ßnotice to pilot á AOA-- (Ailerons – RWD)
1557:34 -- (Ailerons – 13.45 deg RWD)-- Autopilot disconnect ßnotice to pilot á AOA-- Autopilot disconnect warning-- Rolls right
(AOA & pitch â)1557:57 -- (Descent thru 1700 ft)
-- End of Recording
![Page 30: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-30
Safety StudySummary and Conclusions
• An average of at least 131 icing encountersa year (1983-1996).
• Primary factors are flightcrew and weather,making up a total of 83% of the accidents.
• Performed accident analyses:– October 31, 1994 -- Roselawn, IN– January 9, 1997 -- Monroe, MI– December 26, 1989 -- Pasco, WA
![Page 31: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-31
Safety Study Future Research
• Obtain a better description of SIS.• Analyze accidents using improved SIS model.• Further categorization of accidents by
aircraft type. • Analyze accidents to find the specific action
or lack of action that initiated the event.
![Page 32: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-32
SAFETY AND ECONOMICS TRADE STUDY
SISCost Impact
Smart Icing System Research
ACSYNTAnalysis Tool
Baseline Studies &TOC Sensitivity
IPS EconomicsTrade Study
SIS
Projection
IPS Data
TBP Aircraft &
Mission Models
Economics Trade Study
![Page 33: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-33
Economics Trade Study
• Analysis Tool• Baseline Aircraft• Mission Profiles• Sensitivity Studies
– Weight Sensitivity– Altitude Sensitivity
• Ice Protection Trade Study• Conclusions• Recommendations
![Page 34: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-34
ACSYNT
• AirCraft SYNThesis
• NASA Ames Research Center
• Phoenix Integration, Inc.
• Design Capabilities
• Performance Analysis
• Economic Analysis
![Page 35: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-35
Baseline Aircraft
35-passenger 70-passengerAircraft Model Fairchild F-27
(F-27)Scaled Fairchild F-27(F27-70)
Gross Takeoff Weight 34,750 lb 57,840 lbWing Span 95 ft 104 ftAircraft Length 76 ft 112 ftEngine Rolls-Royce Pratt & Whitney - Model Dart 7 Mark 528 PW150A - SFC 0.71 0.43
![Page 36: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-36
Mission Profiles
Takeoff Landing
Cruise @ 13,000 ft
Total Range = 107.5 nmi
Loiter @ 13,000 ftfor 10 min
CMI MDW
Mission A
Takeoff Landing
Cruise @ 13,000 ft
Total Range = 277 nmi
CMI DET
Mission B
Mission C
Takeoff Landing
Cruise @ 13,000 ft
Total Range = 277 nmi
CMI DET
Cruise @9,000 ft
![Page 37: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-37
Economic Analysis Input
• Annual Aircraft Utilization = 2925 block hr• Aircraft Economic Life = 20 yr• Stage Length = 319 sm• Load Factor = 75%• Fuel Cost = $2.01 per gal
• Crew Cost ≈ $42,000 yr
![Page 38: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-38
F-27 Weight Sensitivity
1.575
1.580
1.585
1.590
1.595
1.600
1.605
1.610
1.615
1.620
31,500 32,250 33,000 33,750 34,500 35,250 36,000
Gross Takeoff Weight (lb)
TO
C (
$/A
SM
)
1105
1115
1125
1135
1145
1155
1165
1175
1185
To
tal F
uel
(lb
)
Total FuelTOC
Mission BCruise Altitude = 13,000 ft
Cruise Mach = 0.39
TOC Sensitivity = 0.1 ¢/ASM/100 lb
Fuel Sensitivity = 1.6 lb/100 lb
![Page 39: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-39
F27-70 Weight Sensitivity
0.732
0.734
0.736
0.738
0.740
0.742
0.744
0.746
0.748
55,500 56,250 57,000 57,750 58,500 59,250 60,000
Gross Takeoff Weight (lb)
TO
C (
$/A
SM
)
1168
1170
1172
1174
1176
1178
1180
1182
1184
1186
1188
1190
To
tal F
uel
(lb
)
Total FuelTOC
Mission BCruise Altitude = 13,000 ft
Cruise Mach = 0.54
TOC Sensitivity = 0.04 ¢/ASM/100 lb
Fuel Sensitivity = 0.5 lb/100 lb
![Page 40: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-40
F-27 Altitude Sensitivity
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.60
1.62
1.64
1.66
1.68
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Cruise Altitude (ft)
TO
C (
$/A
SM
)
1080
1100
1120
1140
1160
1180
1200
1220
1240
1260
1280
To
tal F
uel
(lb
)
TOCTotal Fuel
Mission BAverage WG = 34,750 lb
Cruise Mach = 0.39
TOC Sensitivity = 0.8 ¢/ASM/1000 ft
Fuel Sensitivity = 12.1 lb/1000 ft
![Page 41: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-41
F-27 Altitude Sensitivity
1.52
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.60
1.62
1.64
1.66
1.68
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Cruise Altitude (ft)
TO
C (
$/A
SM
)
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
Blo
ck T
ime
(Blo
ck h
r)
TOCBlock Hour
Mission BAverage WG = 34,750 lb
Cruise Mach = 0.39
Time Sensitivity = 0.01 block hr/1000 ft
TOC Sensitivity = 0.8 ¢/ASM/1000 ft
![Page 42: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-42
F27-70 Altitude Sensitivity
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.78
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Cruise Altitude (ft)
TO
C (
$/A
SM
)
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
To
tal F
uel
(lb
)
TOC
Total Fuel
Mission BAverage WG = 57,840 lb
Cruise Mach = 0.54
TOC Sensitivity = 0.2 ¢/ASM/1000 ft
Fuel Sensitivity = 19.6 lb/1000 ft
![Page 43: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-43
F27-70 Altitude Sensitivity
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.78
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Cruise Altitude (ft)
TO
C (
$/A
SM
)
1.18
1.20
1.22
1.24
1.26
1.28
1.30
1.32
1.34
1.36
1.38
Blo
ck T
ime
(Blo
ck h
r)TOCBlock Hour
Mission BAverage WG = 57,840 lb
Cruise Mach = 0.54
TOC Sensitivity = 0.2 ¢/ASM/1000 ft
Time Sensitivity = 0.008 block hr/1000 ft
![Page 44: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-44
Ice Protection EconomicsTrade Study
Includes• Acquisition estimates• Costs due to Weight• Costs due to Drag• Technology Factors• Complexity Factors
Does Not IncludeCost due to:
• Delays• Airport Diversions• Cancellations• Accidents• Litigation• IPS Energy Usage
![Page 45: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-45
Ice Protection Systems & Components
• Magnetostrictive Ice Detector• Heat of Transformation (HOT) Ice Detector• Standard Pneumatic Deicer• Silver Estane Pneumatic Deicer• Small Tube Pneumatic (STP) Deicer• Pneumatic Impulse Ice Protection (PIIP™)• Electrothermal• Electro-mechanical• Smart Icing System (SIS)
![Page 46: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-46
SIS Cost Analysis
• Ice Protection System– Standard Pneumatic Deicer
• Avionics• Increased Technology & Complexity
Factors– Deicing System– Avionics
![Page 47: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-47
Economic Analysis Input
Tec
hnol
ogy
Fac
tor
Com
pone
ntW
eigh
t (lb
)
Ani
t/Dei
cing
Equ
ipm
ent
Com
plex
ityF
acto
r
Avi
onic
sC
ompl
exity
Fac
tor
Dra
gP
enal
ty( ∆
CD
min)
Control Group 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 -Magnetostrictive IceDetector (2)
1.2 2 1.2 1.2 -
HOT Ice Detector (2) " 4 1.3 " -Standard PneumaticDeicer*
1.3 98 " 1.3 0.0011
Silver EstanePneumatic Deicer*
1.4 98 " " 0.0011
STP Deicer* 1.45 98 " " 0.0011PIIP* " 98 1.4 " -Electro-MechanicalDeicer*
" 331 " " -
Electrothermal* " 59 " " -SIS* 1.6 98 1.5 1.6 0.0011* Protection for wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizers
![Page 48: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-48
1.49
1.49
2.31
2.90
3.19
3.19
3.28
3.16
4.94
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
No Ice Protection
Magnetostrictive Sensor
HOT Sensor
Standard Pneumatic
Silver Estane
STP
PIIP
Electro-mechanical
Electrothermal
SIS
∆∆TOC ($100,000/Yr)
F-27 Ice Protection Trade Study
Mission BBaseline case = $24.8 million/yr
PreliminaryEstimates
![Page 49: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-49
2.31
4.77
4.86
2.11
0 1 2 3 4 5
SIS Breakdown
SIS Total
Std Pneum.Breakdown
Std Pneum. Total
∆∆TOC ($100,000/yr)
Technology FactorComponent WeightIP ComplexityAvionics ComplexityAvionics Development
Breakdown of Change in TOC
PreliminaryEstimates
![Page 50: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-50
1.67
1.70
2.72
3.36
3.69
3.60
3.71
3.60
5.53
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
No Ice Protection
Magnetostrictive Sensor
HOT Sensor
Standard Pneumatic
Silver Estane
STP
PIIP
Electro-mechanical
Electrothermal
SIS
∆∆TOC ($100,000/Yr)
0.00
F27-70 Ice Protection Trade Study
Mission BBaseline case = $27.7 million/yr
PreliminaryEstimates
![Page 51: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-51
Economics Trade StudySummary and Conclusions
• Selected the software tool, ACSYNT, for makingIPS economics trade studies
• Developed two TBP commuter aircraft models for the studies
• Established TBP commuter mission models• Evaluated the fuel required and TOC
sensitivities to cruise altitude and TOGW• Found TOC impact of several existing and new
IPSs including the projected SIS
![Page 52: Safety & Economics Trade Study](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022061523/629f17fa4b8a6d317545be3c/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999
2-52
• Calibrate the ACSYNT economics study results using:– Actual aircraft operational costs.– Better acquisition and operational costs for
ice protection systems and components. • Obtain data and include additional icing related
items in total operating costs– Number of delays & cancellations a year– Costs of delays or cancellations– Costs of accidents & incidents
(aircraft, liability, & negative publicity effects)• Perform ice protection trade study for a
regional jet aircraft.
Economics Trade StudyFuture Research