Design and CFD Simulation of the Aircraft CG 8-6

2020 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

Andres Eladio Perez Guzman

Aeronautical engineer, Colombia 2020
Nomenclature
ARMD = Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
b = wing span
BAF = Boeing Airframe Module
BCA = Boeing Commercial Airplanes
BPR = bypass ratio
BWB = Blended-Wing-Body
c = chord
CAEP = Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
CFD = computational fluid dynamics

C​Lmax = maximum coefficient of lift

ERA = Environmentally Responsible Aviation
FAA = Federal Aviation Administration
FCA = flight control system
GTF = Geared Turbofan
HEWF2 = Hybrid Electric Wake Filling Fans
HLFC = Hybrid Laminar Flow Control
HWB = Hybrid Wind Body
ICA = initial cruise altitude
ICAO = International Civil Aviation Organization
NO​x = nitrogen oxide
N+1 = Aircraft technology entry into service in 2015-2025 (NASA)
N+2 = Aircraft technology entry into service in 2025-2035 (NASA)
N+3 = Aircraft technology entry into service in beyond 2035 (NASA)
NAH = New Aviation Horizons
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PRSEUS = Pultruded Rod Stitched Efficient Unitized Structure
Re = Reynolds Number
ROC = rate-of-climb
RSS = relaxed-static-stability
UEST = Ultra-Efficient Subsonic Transport
UHB = ultra high bypass ratio
T+W = tube-and-wing
I. Introduction

The Aircraft CG 8-6 is design to achieve the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) New
Aviation Horizons (NAH) Ultra-Efficient Subsonic Transport strategic goals for reduced emissions, fuel burn, and
noise levels, which offers the largest community outcomes for both the airline industry and airport communities. The
CG 8-6 achieved over 50 percent less fuel burn per passenger-mile, over 80 percent reduction in emissions, and
more than 32dB of cumulative noise compared to Stage-IV levels. Specifically, the technologies include CG 8-6
aerodynamics, CG 8-6 propulsion/airframe integration, CG 8-6 structures, CG 8-6 acoustics, and a novel landing
gear design that enables a single-deck CG 8-6. Maturating these technologies will help introduce CG 8-6 aircraft
into the regional and single-aisle jet markets where the community benefits can be enjoyed to the greatest extent.
This paper describes the design of the aircraft CG 8-6 which will be part of next generation commercial aircraft
meant to serve the aforementioned markets and compares each member to current best-in-class standards. CG 8-6
aircraft are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The paper examines the design and CFD simulation of this
future aircraft.
 Figure 1: CG 8-9 Preliminar design.

​Figure 2: CG 8-9 Preliminar design. (BWB X-plane

II. Commercial Aviation Outlook and Initiative for Next Generation Technology

III. Commercial Transport Demands and Shrinking U.S. Presence in Single-Aisle

The current U.S. aviation is a strong sector of the total U.S. economy and a major source of export. The
following statement shows the strength of the growing aviation industry: “Over the past 30 years, the aviation
industry has experienced recessions, oil-price shocks, near pandemics, wars, and security threats, yet traffic has
continued to grow on average at 5 percent annually” [1].

It is instructive to review the sources of revenue in the aviation and space industry and compare them to research
and development investment. In 2015, U.S. military aircraft manufacturing revenue was $55 billion; U.S.
commercial aircraft manufacturing revenue was $66 billion; and U.S. airline industry revenue was $205 billion.
Total domestic aviation revenue was $326 billion. The space sector total revenue for manufacturing and operations
in 2015 was $214 billion. While these statistics show the aviation industry is 50% larger than Space, NASA
investment is the reverse, with about 3% of its budget devoted to the aviation sector and 97% to the space sector. A
vigorous X-plane program could restore NASA’s role in propelling the aviation industry. Boeing’s most recent
market outlook predicts the single-aisle market will constitute 71% of sales in the N+2 and N+3 timeframe
(2016-2035), as shown in ​Figure 3 ​[1]. Adding the 6% estimate for regional jet demand shows over 75% of total
airline demand will come from the regional and single-aisle markets.
 Figure 3: Projected new airliner demand between 2016-2035 (data from [1)

Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) is currently the only commercial aircraft manufacturer in the U.S. In
2015, the Commercial branch at Boeing saw $66 billion in revenue [1]. Between 2014 and 2016, more than 65% of
all BCA aircraft delivered were 737 variants. However, today’s single-aisle market is exposed to classic disruption
from smaller international entrants including: Bombardier (Canada), Irkut (Russia), COMAC (China), Mitsubishi
(Japan), and Embraer (Brazil). A new U.S. entrant in the single-aisle category could reverse the shrinking U.S.
presence in this market.

A. New Aviation Horizons Initiative and Ultra-Efficient Commercial Vehicle Strategic Thrust

NASA recently began the 10-year NAH initiative to accelerate the transformation of the aviation industry with
revolutionary technologies to address the global increase in aviation demands and the operational and environmental
challenges associated with such demands. This initiative accompanies ARMD’s vision and strategic planning
process within NASA. ARMD’s research is organized into various Strategic Thrusts, each with defined outcomes
categorized into three phases: near-term (“N+1” or 2015-2015), mid-term (“N+2” or 2025-2035), and far-term
(“N+3” or beyond 2035) [2]. One of the Strategic Thrusts focuses on Ultra-Efficient Commercial Vehicles. ARMD
seeks to “develop critical technologies to enable future generations of subsonic fixed wing and vertical lift
commercial aircraft that lessen environmental impacts while maintaining safety and improving operating
economics” [2].

To achieve these outcome goals, the key focus areas addressed in the Ultra-Efficient Commercial Vehicles
Strategic Thrust are the following: reduce nitrogen oxide (NO​x​) emissions, reduce fuel burn, and reduce acoustic
emissions. The thresholds and objectives for emissions, fuel consumption, and noise level requirements are depicted
in ​Table 1. Current focus by NASA and industry is on the achievement of mid-term (“N+2”) goals with Vision
System aircraft.
 Table 1: NASA’s Subsonic Transport System Metrics (from [2]).

Technology Generations
(Technology Readiness Level = 5-6)
Technology Benefits Near-Term Mid-Term Far-Term
(N+1) (N+2) (N+3)
2015-2025 2025-2035 Beyond 2035
NO​x ​Emissions (Takeoff and Landing)
(Below CAEP 6) 70-75% 80% >80%
NO​x ​Emissions (Cruise)
(Relative to 2005 Best-In-Class) 65-75% 80% >80%
Aircraft Fuel / Energy Consumption
(Relative to 2005 Best-In-Class) 40-50% 50-60% 60-80%
Noise
(Cumulative Below Stage 4) 22-32 dB 32-42 dB 42-52 dB

B. N+2 Best-In-Class Benchmark Aircraft

NASA’s technology benchmarks are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: 2005 best-in-class aircraft benchmarks for NAH initiative (from [3]).
2005 Best-In- Number of Design Range Baseline
Class
Class Baseline Passengers (nmi) Engine Model
Regional Jet ERJ-190 98 2,400 CF34-10E
Single-Aisle 737-800 160 2,875 CFM56-7B
Small Twin Aisle 767-200ER 216 6,600 PW4056
Large Twin Aisle 777-200LR 301 7,500 GE90-110
Very Large Twin Aisle 747-400 400 5,800 PW4056

IV. Necessary Market Disruption to Unlock N+2 Technology

A. The Blended-Wing-Body Solution

Extensive research consistently shows the Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) has significant performance and
economic benefits compared to traditional T+W design. The BWB configuration alone provides the majority of the
performance improvements. The earliest studies at McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) on a BWB concept sized for
800 passengers showed a 15% reduction in takeoff weight and 27% reduction in fuel burn per seat mile when
compared to a T+W configuration sized for a similar mission [4, 5]. Since the demand for an 800-passenger
commercial transporter was deemed extremely low, the subsequent phase of the study focused on a 450-passenger
capacity design, which showed a 32% lower fuel burn per seat when compared to the Airbus A380-700 [5]. More
recent studies show hybrid-wing-body (HWB) configurations to yield as much as 45% fuel burn reduction when
compared against N+2 benchmarks [3].
The improved performance and fuel burn of the BWB configuration are closely connected to reductions in
nitrogen oxide (NO​x​) emissions. NO​x ​emissions are produced when air passes through high temperature or high
pressure combustion, and nitrogen and oxygen in the air combine to form NO​x​. Aviation emissions, while at levels
still below those of land transport, has seen the largest rate of growth compared to the rate of growth from on-road
vehicles. However, aviation does stand out as the transportation mode with improved fuel efficiency over the past
decade [6]. BWB aerodynamic improvements yield improved performance and therefore reduced fuel burn and
NO​x ​emissions.
 The BWB configuration offers great potential for community noise reduction. A combination of high takeoff
L​/​D ​and reduced takeoff thrust requirements helps to reduce noise. One key design element is top-mounted engines.
Conventional wing-mounted engines on T+W configurations are unshielded for forward radiated noise, and the aft-
radiated jet noise is reflected downward by the wing and flaps. The BWB planform shields a large portion of
radiated engine noise and prevents the downward reflection of noise problematic with T+W configurations.
Overall, the BWB configuration is the most promising technology for achieving the NAH N+2 goals of reduced
fuel burn, emissions, and noise levels. Even the early studies by Boeing [5], show a family of BWB aircraft
designed to enter commercial service in 2010. Yet almost two decades after these studies and nearly a decade after
the assumed entry year, no BWB has yet entered into the subsonic transport market.

B. Current Barriers for BWB Commercial Transport

The lack of the BWB presence in the current subsonic airline market can be attributed to a few key factors. One
is the power of incumbency. While published results show aircraft operating mission performance improvements of
the BWB design over that of the T+W configuration, it is arguably true that a new aircraft configuration would upset
the current economic ecosystem of the dominating aircraft manufacturers. On the other hand, introducing a more
efficient product (or series of products) using green technology yielding reduced emissions, fuel burn, and noise
undoubtedly introduces a market disruption that can breed opportunity and demand.
Another barrier to BWB adoption has been technological. Until now, there have been no economically feasible
BWB designs for fewer than 200 passengers; that is, no BWB design has existed suitable for the single-aisle market
or below. This is the best entry point for a new technology, at the bottom of the market where development risks are
lower, and incumbents are vacating the segment to move up-market. Bombardier and Embraer are excellent
examples of this natural market trend. Both now account for the entire regional jet market and are entering the
single-aisle segment.

A BWB designed for the single-aisle market requires a single-deck configuration. Virtually all prior BWB
designs feature two decks to solve a number of design problems, but a two deck configuration is only applicable to
very large aircraft. Cabin height sets the lower limit for BWB airfoil thickness, which in turn sets the lower limit on
the airfoil chord (and cabin length) because the airfoil thickness-to-chord ratio is limited to avoid excessive
compressibility drag. In addition to the center body’s aerodynamic considerations, the landing gear rigging must
also be addressed. The landing gear must be located near the aircraft center of gravity (CG), but this is also where
the passengers reside. Historically, this conflict has been solved by double-decking the cabin above a cargo
compartment, allowing the landing gear to be stowed in the cargo area without disrupting cabin utility.
Consequently, the center body chord and cabin length must increase to compensate for the extra depth of the cargo
compartment, and the resulting smallest double-deck BWB is only able to carry about 200 passengers. This may
explain why the recent NASA ERA N+2 study [3, 7] does not include a BWB concept in the smaller regional jet and
single-aisle classes of aircraft

V. Ascent 1000: Inaugural BWB Poised to Achieve N+2 Goals

The Ascent 1000 is designed as a 112-passenger airliner, which would be considered a “Super-Regional” jet just
below the Single-Aisle market. BWB’s can be grown quite effectively with “T-Plugs” which are so named for their
T-shape. The plug stretches the plane laterally at the centerline, with a mating collar near the cockpit forming the
top of the “T” meaning that the Ascent 1000 can be grown to span the single-aisle market. The Ascent 1000, with a
reconfigured interior, can also serve as an apex ultra-long range, high speed business jet, thereby covering a third
market segment.

A. Design Parameters and Multi-Disciplinary Optimization Methodology

The Ascent 1000 design mission is similar to that of the Bombardier CS-100, which carries 110 passengers 2,200
nautical miles (nmi) at 0.78 Mach Number. Design parameters for the Ascent 1000 are shown in ​Table 3. Key
features include semi-buried geared turbo-fan (GTF) engines and Pultruded Rod Stitched Efficient Unitized
Structure (PRSEUS) composites. Excluded are hybrid laminar flow control (HLFC) and riblet technologies. ​Figure
4 ​shows key features of the Ascent 1000.
The BWB planform is defined and optimized with DZYNE’s proprietary multi-disciplinary optimization (MDO)
code called DZYNEr. DZYNEr uses a different language for aircraft design to describe an airplane with a minimal
set of statements. The code segregates ​Pattern,​ ​Purpose​, and ​Proportion s​ tatements. ​Pattern ​statements establish
the design ordinally. ​Purpose ​is self-explanatory (structure, propulsion, actuation etc.). ​Proportion ​refers to the
scalars that dimensionalize the vehicle.

Table 3. Ascent 1000 BWB design parameters.

Parameter Units Value
2-Class Seating Capacity n.d. 112
Design Range nmi 3,200
Takeoff Gross Weight (TOGW) lbs 103,180
Operating Empty Weight (OEW) lbs 65,500
Total Fuel Capacity lbs 17,600
Engines N/A GFT-class
Sea Level Standard Thrust (SLST) lbs 17,000
Bypass Ratio n.d. 9:1
Cruise Mach Number n.d. 0.8
Cruise ​L​/​D n.d. 21.6
Wingspan ft 141
Overall Length ft 97
Overall Height ft 24
Floor Area / Pax ft​2​ / pax 7.7

Figure 4: CG 8-6 (112-passenger) features.

B. Pivot-Piston Landing Gear

A single-deck CG 8-6 with its main-gear in a traditional location would lose a significant amount of floor space
and add barriers to free movement in the cabin. This is why single-deck BWCG 8-6 B configurations have been
considered infeasible and uneconomical.
There are two fundamental conflicts between the CG 8-6 main gear and its payload compartment: the gear lateral
position and longitudinal position. The lateral conflict comes from the gear track limit for Group-III airports.
De-conflicting the gear with all payload compartments (cabin and cargo) would require a gear track that exceeds the
Group-III limit for future growth models. Further, the main gear must be located near the aircraft CG to allow
realistically sized pitch controls to rotate the airplane for takeoff. To date, BWB designs have located the gear wells
in a lower cargo deck. This gear placement allows the cabin to be in upper cabin deck while meeting the lateral and
longitudinal gear rigging requirements.
 DZYNE has solved the single-deck problem with a concept called the Pivot-Piston landing gear. This is the key
enabling technology for a single-deck BCG 8-6 WB in the regional and single-aisle markets. The Pivot-Piston
landing gear is patent pending, and DZYNE has on-going efforts to mature this core technology.

C. Aerodynamics
The aerodynamic benefit of the CG 8-6 relative to a T+W result from the increased wingspan, reduced wetted
area, and minimal junctions. The aerodynamic efficiently (​L​/​D​) gain is between 25% and 30% relative to the T+W,
and this benefit is amplified after re-sizing the plane with its reduced fuel weight. The CG 8-6 configuration alone is
the largest contributor to reduced fuel-burn per passenger.
The DZYNE CG 8-6 configuration requires no leading edge slats or high extension flaps. When pitched to a high
angle, the BWB’s large center body provides the added lift needed for takeoff and landing operations. Body area
effectively doubles wing area, which is why dedicated high-lift devices are unnecessary. Therefore, the pilot no
longer needs to reconfigure the entire aircraft for landing or takeoff; the pilot only needs to select the gear position.
The diminished number of reconfiguration requirements on takeoff and landing offers numerous performance and
operational benefits since slat and flap damage are two of the most common maintenance items in the fleet.
For CG 8-6 configurations, the same outer mold line (OML) must address landing ​C​Lmax ​and cruise ​CL​ buffet​. The
“kink” region, indicated in ​Figure 5, ​is key to achieving balanced aerodynamics since it is the most highly stressed
region. The kink region by design is the critical station for both low-speed stall and transonic buffet. This preserves
elevon control in extreme conditions and insures pitch down at stall. The prevention of control reversal at dive is
also a crucial design element that affects the aerodynamic performance of the wing at cruise.

Figure 5: Ascent 1000 planform view of pressure coefficient contours at cruise.

D. Propulsion-Airframe Integration
Tightly coupled with the aerodynamic optimization of the CG 8-6 planform is propulsion-airframe integration
(PAI) optimization. The Ascent 1000 is designed with semi-buried nacelles (​Figure 6​), whose installation improves
performance through reduced drag and reduced weight relative to a typical podded nacelle on a pylon installation.
Previous computational studies on the effects of semi-buried engine nacelles have found aerodynamic and acoustic
benefits from the semi-buried configurations [9, 10]. The drag reduction comes from less wetted area (due to
elimination of the pylon and exposed area on the lower portion of the nacelles). Weight reduction primarily comes
from elimination of the cantilever pylon. The mount weights and beavertail reinforcement still remain. As
calculated from the DZYNEr MDO tool, the combined drag benefit and weight reduction from the semi-buried
nacelle configuration potentially reduces fuel consumption by 3.4% compared to that of pylon-mounted nacelles.
The Ascent 1000 is not designed with boundary layer ingestion (BLI). Instead, the boundary layer is fully
deflected and diverted through a combination of external diffusion, bump diverters and ducted diverters. The
boundary layer diversion scheme is required to prevent inlet distortion. The design objective is to have no distortion
at cruise and minimal distortion at cruise buffet. The low speed envelope is much more tolerant to flow distortion
since the total pressure losses are reduced by four times for the same total pressure loss coefficient, but the low
speed distortion can be an issue and must be assessed. Blending the nozzle into the airframe is especially
problematic because the included angles between the nozzle and airframe are unfavorable. To mitigate this
challenge, the captured diverter flow will be re-introduced in the vertices of the nozzle-airframe junction, allowing
for more vertical sides on the nozzle fairing to the airframe. Potential issues include diverter pumping drag and
cavity resonance.

Figure 6: Semi-buried nacelles on the CG 8-6.

Another challenge for semi-buried nacelles is the engine’s interaction with the airframe’s body shock. Two
issues dominate. The first is simple lift and pitching moment change due to throttle manipulation. This will require
control loops to nullify the effect. The second issues relates to Mach-buffet, which is reasonably well studied for
wings at high lift levels.

E. Acoustics
CG 8-6 configurations have shown significant acoustic benefits due to their unique propulsion/airframe
integration. Studies by [3] showed the CG 8-6 configurations were closest to meeting the N+2 noise requirements
from regional jets to large twin-aisle aircraft. DZYNE’s CG 8-6 configuration has unique features that require
analysis beyond existing NASA and industry studies. Some potential acoustic contribution and reduction factors are
depicted in ​Figure 7.

Figure 7: Potential acoustic contribution and reduction factors on DZYNE’s BWB aircraft.
 The CG 8-6 configuration itself offers extraordinary potential for community noise reduction. A combination of
high takeoff ​L/​ ​D a​ nd reduced takeoff thrust requirements helps to reduce noise, but perhaps the largest benefit
comes from airframe shielding of engine noise. Conventional wing-mounted engines on T+W configurations are
unshielded for forward radiated noise, and the aft-radiated jet noise is reflected downward by the wing and flaps.
The CG 8-6 planform itself, however, shields a large portion of radiated engine noise and prevents the downward
reflection of noise problematic with T+W configurations. The beaver-tail surface also provides direct noise
shielding. The semi-buried engine arrangement improves shielding from the beavertail. The absence of
leading-edge high-lift-devices, such as slats or Krueger flaps, removes a significant noise source found on today’s
T+W aircraft.
The area of least exploration is the Pivot-Piston landing gear contribution to perceived noise levels. T+W
aircraft main gear are located under the wing where local velocity is reduced due to circulation, albeit with the
penalties of wing and flap reflection. The local velocity at the main and nose gear on a CG 8-6 configuration will be
higher than that on a T+W. Further, the flat undersurface of the aircraft is a reflection plane. It is expected that on
approach for landing, the BWB nose gear will be the aircraft’s largest noise source due to the size of the
Pivot-Piston nose gear, the larger reflection plane, and potentially elevated velocities around the BWB in the vicinity
of the nose gear. However, the significantly shorter gear length (compared to that on traditional landing gear of
existing aircraft) may actually yield lower noise levels.

The preliminary assessment indicates a cumulative noise reduction from Stage-IV of approximately 39 dB
(shown in ​Figure 9​), indicating that the Ascent 1000 has the potential to meet the threshold 32 EPNLdB noise
reduction compared to Stage IV noise limits laid out by NASA as N+2 mid-term goals.
The preliminary acoustic assessment mixed the performance inputs for the Ascent 1000 from the DZYNEr MDO
tool with pre-existing ANOPP modules. For example, an internal airframe noise source module, the Boeing
Airframe Module (BAF), was used to simulate the source noise of the Pivot-Piston landing gear. This module is
based on simple geometric characteristics of the landing gear and historical noise levels of landing gear systems for
conventional aircraft configurations. BAF does not account for complex landing gear configurations and thus
introduces a level of uncertainty in the results. The Pivot-Piston landing gear on the Ascent 1000 undoubtedly
produces a different noise signature than that of conventional landing gear with a different induced flow field over
the landing gear. The Pivot-Piston landing gear requires higher fidelity modeling to better understand its acoustic
contribution and will be further evaluated in future studies.

Figure 8: Noise certification flight path guided

by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title
14 Part 36. Schematic from [3]. Figure 9: Preliminary acoustic assessment results for the
Ascent 1000 performed by Georgia Tech Aerospace
Systems Design Laboratory (ASDL).
 F. Flight Controls

While the CG 8-6 configuration yields significant performance benefits, it does have short-coupled controls
relative to T+W configurations. The short-coupled controls design introduces a pitch-to-flightpath control lag that
has been addressed in the X-48 control system. However, it also presents a problem at takeoff rotation where the
lift-loss due to elevon deflection can be significant. This issue is averted with the Pivot-Piston landing gear. CG 8-6
flight controls are fully integrated into the wing and winglets, reducing weight, drag, and complexity relative to a
T+W. ​Figure 10 ​shows the locations of the CG 8-6 control surfaces, with low- and high-bandwidth control surfaces
distinguished from each other. Pitch, roll, yaw, and drag control are provided by the same elevons on the outer
wing. Multi-input-multi-output (MIMO) controls laws handle the assignments and gain scheduling. Rudders on the
winglets provide yaw trim and yaw damping. The elevons and rudders are high-bandwidth actuators.
Low-bandwidth actuation is used for the trimming body flaps and the speed-brakes. All control surfaces are
mounted on the trailing edge except for the drag-brakes, which are hinged near the rear-spar. The controls are much
smaller than on earlier CG 8-6 designs since takeoff rotation is not a problem with Pivot-Piston landing gear.

Figure 10. CG 8-6 flight controls.

G. CG 8-6 Goals In the Regional Jet Market

The CG 8-6 was compared to the ERJ-190, the NASA benchmark for the 2005 best-in-class regional jet, and the
more modern Bombardier CS-100 in ​Table 4, ​where key Ascent 1000 performance benefits are documented. As
indicated by the green-highlighted values, the Ascent 1000 meets N+2 threshold requirements for fuel burn per
passenger-mile, NO​x ​emissions, and perceived noise levels.

A detailed breakdown of the fuel burn savings is shown in ​Figure 11 ​and ​Figure 12. ​Figure 11 ​clearly illustrates
the large contribution of the CG 8-6 aero and structural blending on the overall fuel reduction. It should be noted
that the fuel burn savings of individual features do not add linearly to the total savings; the DZYNEr MDO tool runs
the optimization and outputs new performance numbers as the effects of each feature are combined.

Table 4: BWB Ascent 1000 comparison to 2005 best-in-class ERJ-190 and 2015 best-in-class CS-100. Highlighted
values indicate that the N+2 threshold are met by the DZYNE Ascent 1000.
 Regional Jet

2025 Super Regional 2005 Best-In-Class Comparison 2015 Best-In-Class Comparison

Δ Δ
CG 8-6 ERJ-190AR (DZYNE BWB vs. CS-100 (DZYNE BWB vs.
Baseline) Baseline)
Passenger Provisions pax 112 98 14% 108 4%
Mission Passengers pax 112 98 14% 108 4%
Wingspan ft 141 94.3 50% 115 23%
Range nmi 3,200 2,300 39% 3,100 3%
Cruise Mach n.d. 0.8 0.78 3% 0.78 3%
Gross Weight lbs 103,180 115,300 -11% 121,000 -15%
Initial Cruise Altitude ft 40,000 35,000 14% 35,000 14%
Engine PW1200 CF34-10E PW1525G
(EIS) n.d. n.a n.a
(2020) 20,360 23,300
Sea Level Static Thrust lbs 18,400 -10% -21%
5.4 12
Bypass Ratio n.d. 9 67% -25%
23,216 23,067
Fuel Burn lbs 14,193 -39% -38%
0.103 -62% 0.069
Fuel Burn / Pax-nmi lb/nm 0.040 -43%
Base -86% Base
NO​x​ Emissions i - -40%
Cumulative Noise Level -39 - - -
(Relative to Stage 4) -
dB

Figure 11: Fuel savings of the Ascent 1000 relative to the ERJ-190 from individual factors.

Table 6: CG 8-6 Technologies compared to the Boeing 737-800 and 737 MAX 8 benchmarks.
 165-Passenger Single-Aisle Jet

CG 8-6 2005 Best-In-Class Comparison 2015 Best-In-Class Comparison

Δ Δ
DZYNE BWB-165 737-800 IWG (DZYNE BWB vs. 737 MAX 8 (DZYNE BWB vs.
Baseline) Baseline)

Passenger Provisions pax 165 162 2% 162 2%

Mission Passengers pax 165 162 2% 162 2%
Wingspan ft 147.2 118 25% 118 25%
Range Cruise nmi 3500 2,940 19% 3,620 -3%
Mach Gross n.d. 0.8 0.785 2% 0.8 0%
Weight lbs 139490 174,200 -20% 181,200 -23%
Initial Cruise Altitude ft 40000 34,000 18% 35,000 14%
Engine PW-GTF CFM-56-7B27 LEAP-1B
n.d. n.a n.a
(EIS) (2025) (1997) 29,300
Sea Level Static Thrust lbs 25000 27,300 -8% -15%
9
Bypass Ratio n.d. 10.5 5.7 84% 17%
Fuel Burn -46% 35,362
lbs 21079 38,800 -40%
Fuel Burn / Pax-nmi -55% 0.060
lb/nmi 0.037 0.081 -39%
NO​x​ Emissions -60% Base
- - Base -40%

H. Technology Maturation on the CG 8-6

The development from CG 8-6 to the Ascent 1000 requires technology maturation in a specific sequence. The
critical technology elements (CTEs) to be matured on the CG 8-6 in order of criticality are the following:
Pivot-Piston landing gear, CG 8-6 aerodynamics, BWB propulsion-airframe integration, CG 8-6 acoustics, CG 8-6
flight controls, and CG 8-6structures. An overall view of the technical maturation of the CG 8-6 leading to the
Ascent 1000 is portrayed in ​Figure 15.

Figure 15: BCG 8-6 Technical Maturation Plan.

1. Landing Gear
The Pivot-Piston landing gear is currently at TRL 2, and needs to achieve TRL6 by the end of the CG 8-6 flight
test program.
The key validation events to achieve TRL 6 are the following:
● Sub-scale CG 8-6 Pivot-Piston hop-test program, after which TRL 4 is achieved
● Pivot-Piston landing gear (sized for CG 8-6) isolated drop and load testing, after which TRL 5 is achieved
● Flight test of the CG 8-6 with the integrated landing gear system, after which TRL 6 is achieve

Figure 14: CG 8-6. systems. Landing gear,

ballast system, and flight control system computers
Figure 13: Citation X integration into CG 8-6.
are the only non-re-hosted systems

2. Aerodynamics and Propulsion-Airframe Integration

Aerodynamic and PAI maturation starts with CFD analysis focused on the CG 8-6 ’s AE3007C engines. Inlet
distortion will be analyzed across the flight envelope, and Rolls-Royce AE3007C distortion limits will be used to
assess the design. Previous NASA CG 8-6 studies show consistent under-prediction of the distortion extent in CFD
relative to wind tunnel results [14], so the design target must include adequate margin. Low-speed and high-speed
wind tunnel tests will follow the CFD analyses and will include distortion testing to advance PAI TRL to nearly 5.
TRL 6 is achieved with flight test demonstrations of engine stability throughout the flight envelope. The diverter
duct will be monitored closely for excess duct drag and resonance throughout all the analyses and tests.

3. Acoustics
The initial acoustic assessment of the Ascent 1000 previously described showed promising results indicating the
Ascent 1000 is likely to meet the threshold N+2 goal. Further studies with higher fidelity models, however, will be
required for the next iteration of analysis in order to validate the preliminary findings. Especially important is to
provide a detailed model the Pivot-Piston landing gear to use for the landing gear noise module. Continued ANOPP
analyses with modules that better reflect the Ascent 1000 features and design parameters are planned as part of the
CG 8-6 program to mature the acoustic CTE.

4. Flight Controls
Flight control system (FCS) design and maturation require input from aerodynamic simulation and test results.
CFD will provide a large flight envelope aero-map of the aircraft and controls, which will fuel the analytical control
law development. Low speed and high speed wind tunnel testing will provide the final aero-map update and serve
as the basis for the final control laws when validated in the simulators. During flight control law development, the
Cooper-Harper rating system will be used to assess pilot workload and determine acceptability for the flight
condition under evaluation per MIL STD 1797. As with most FCS development, emphasis will be placed on
takeoff and landing operations. Common landing maneuvers will include an offset approach that requires the pilot
to re-stabilize after a runway change. Emergency descent at high Mach number will also be emphasized. Envelope
limiting will be utilized in key areas such as low-speed ​CL​ max ​without slats. Flight testing of the BWB-XLC will
 ultimately establish TRL 6 with flying qualities evaluations of the different flight phases.

5. Structures
Unlike other technology demonstrations, the CG 8-6 structure is mainly validated in ground test rather than in
flight test. Since structural validation involves inflicting intentional damage and performing thousands of loading
cycles, the BWB-XLC would not serve as the best platform to validate the aspects of the CG 8-6 structure to TRL 6.
The CG 8-6 program will still see general BWB structures technology maturation. The overall load-path design,
panel stiffening concepts, and perforations in the major bulkheads and the OML will be inputs into the refinement of
the Ascent 1000 design. The CG 8-6 will not achieve TRL 6 for the non-cylindrical pressure vessel, as it is most
likely that industry will finish maturing the structure. ​Figure 16 presents the differences in the structural approach of
the Ascent 1000 to that of CG 8-6.

VI. Conclusion
CG 8-6 Technologies’ is poised to demonstrate achievement in the future if aerospace technology . Placing the
CG 8-6 configuration into the regional jet and single-aisle markets means that 75% of the commercial airline market
would benefit from as much as 35% less fuel burn compared to the latest technology jetliners. Regional and
single-aisle markets burn more than half the fuel for the total worldwide airline fleet. In order to effectively change
the overall landscape of the aviation industry and reverse the shrinking U.S. presence in the single-aisle commercial
market, a market disruption with a next generation CG 8-6 family, starting in the regional jet market and working
upwards in size, is necessary.
Until now, an economically feasible design for a CG 8-6 in the regional and single-aisle markets did not exist.
DZYNE Technologies’ single-deck CG 8-6 concept allows for a feasible CG 8-6 solution in the smaller sized
aircraft markets, even down to the business jet market. Initial analysis show that the Ascent 1000, the 112-passenger
regional jet BWB and inaugural member of the CG 8-6 family, achieves the N+2 threshold goals set for by NASA’s
NAH initiative. The Ascent 1000 claims over 60% fuel burn reduction and over 80% emissions reduction compared
to the 2005 best-in-class regional jet, the ERJ-190, and initial acoustic assessments show the Ascent 1000 achieving
a 39dB sound level reduction compared to the Stage IV noise levels.
The key factor allowing the smaller scale CG 8-6 is the single-deck configuration, which is enabled by the
Pivot-Piston landing gear, allowing the CG 8-6 configuration access to the largest portion of the airline market (both
the regional and single-aisle segments) and giving the public the greatest outcomes in efficiency, emissions, and
noise. For this revelatory change in the aviation landscape to be realized, maturation and demonstration of key
technologies will be required. These technologies will best be advanced on an X-plane platform, and DZYNE
Technologies CG 8-6 concept is a well-suited candidate.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to Aeronautical engineer Jhon Jiaro Vca Rios for the support in the endeavor to advance the
design of this aircraft. The author also wishes to thank the “BWB X-Plane design Team” members who collaborated
with data about weight, engines and CFD simulation and mainly wishes to thank CG.
References
[1] Boeing Commercial Airplanes, “Current Market Outlook 2016-2035,” Retrieved
from:​ http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/about-our-
market/assets/downloads/cmo_print_2016_final_updated.pdf
[2] “New Aviation Horizons Initiative and Complementary Investments,” NASA, 2016.
[3] Nickol, C.L. and Haller, W.J., “Assessment of the Performance Potential of Advanced Subsonic Transport Concepts
for NASA’s Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project,” AIAA SciTech 2016, San Diego, CA, January, 2016, AIAA 2016-
1030.
[4] Liebeck, R.H., Page, M.A., Rawdon, B.K., “Blended-Wing-Body Subsonic Commercial Transport,” AIAA 98-0438,
January, 1998.
[5] Liebeck, R.H., “Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic Transport,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 1, January-
February 2004.
[6] “Aviation Emissions, Impacts & Mitigation: A Primer,” FAA Office of Environmental and Energy, January 2015.
[7] Thomas, R.H., Burley, C.L., and Nickol, C.L., “Assessment of the Noise Reduction Potential of Advanced Subsonic
Transport Concepts for NASA's Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project,” AIAA SciTech 2016, San Diego, CA, January,
2016, AIAA 2016-0863.
[8] Christensen, Clayton M., ​The Innovator’s Dilemma​. New York, NY: Harper Business, 2011.
[9] Lauke, T., Lummer, M., Wilhelm, R., “Assessment of Sound Radiation of Semi-Buried Engine Intakes,” Aeroacoustics
of New Aircraft and Engine Configurations (Impact of Aircraft Noise on Future Design) Conference, Budapest, November, 2004.
[10] Godard, J., “Semi-buried Engine Installation: The Nacre Project Experience,” 27​th International Congress of the
Aeronautical Sciences, Nice, France, September 2010.
[11] Velicki, A. and Jegley, D., "PRSEUS Development for the Hybrid Wing Body Aircraft," AIAA Centennial of Naval
Aviation Forum "100 Years of Achievement and Progress". Virginia Beach, VA.
[12] Liebeck, R.H., Page, M.A., Rawdon, B.K., Scott, P.W., and Wright, P.A., “Concepts for Advanced Subsonic
Transports,” NASA CR-4624, September, 1994.
[13] Page, Mark A., Whitlock, Jennifer P., and Wilks, Matthew W., Boeing Company, Long Beach, CA, U.S. Patent for a
“Variable size blended wing body aircraft,” Patent No. 6,568,632, filed 4 April 2001.
[14] Carter, M. B., Shea, P. R., Flamm, J. D., Schuh, M. J., James, K., Sexton, M. R. Tompkins, D., and Beyar, M., eting,
AIAA SciTech Forum, (AIAA 2020).