AC77-02
Technical Support Repprt for Regulatory Action
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Revisions
in the Exhaust Emission Standards for
New and In-Use Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines
Based on Industry Submittals
by
Richard S. Wilcox
Richard Hunt
December 1977
NOTICE
Technical support reports for regulatory action do not necessarily
represent the final EPA decision on regulatory issues. They are intended
to present a technical analysis of an issue and recommendations resulting
from the assumptions and constraints of that analysis. Agency policy
considerations or data received subsequent to the date of release of this
report may altey th$ recommendations reached. Readers are cautioned to
seek the latest analysis from EPA before using the information contained
herein.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Methodology 3
Discussion .... .8
Conclusions ...... 25
References 26
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
.Aircraft Turbine Engine Manufacturer's
Cost Submittals , A-l
Derivation of Emissions Reduction Over
an Engine's Lifetime . . B-l
Derivation of the Incremental Engine
Costs Associated with the Proposed
Standards
C-l
Derivation of Fuel Savings Associated
with the Proposed Standards D-l
Fleet Projection and Engine Inventory .... . E-l
-------
-1-
INTRQDUCTION
This report contains a cost-effectiveness analysis of the proposed
revisions in exhaust emission standards for new and infuse aircraft gas
turbine engines using information supplied by engine manufacturers. The
resulting cost-benefit ratios may be compared with those of other aircraft
and non-aircraft pollution abatement control strategies in order to
determine the most cost effective means of achieving the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (42 CFR §420).
The control strategies analyzed are:
1. Control of newly manufactured gas turbine engines in 1981 for
HC and CO only;
2. Retrofit of in-use gas turbine engines in 1985 for HC and CO
only (to the same levels as in #1); and
3. Control of newly manufactured gas turbine engines in 1984 for
HC, CO, and NOx.
The la,ck of detailed data available for study has made a rigorous
analysis impossible. The cost information received thus far is incomplete
and poorly documented; therefore, it is impossible to determine the
validity of the data submitted (Appendix A).
-------
-2-
Furthermore, the very nature of the study necessitates using assumptions
and projections in an attempt to ascertain future facts. No matter how
carefully considered, these forecasts will be subject to error and
interpretation.
Within the constraints described above, the cost-effectiveness
figures generated by this analysis represent EPA's best estimate of the
^
costs imposed by the control strategies under consideration based on
industry submittals.
In this analysis, the JT8D is assumed to be out of production by
1984. However, shortly after finalization of the report, the EPA learned
that production of this engine would continue and, in fact, a growth
version of the engine was planned. This new information along with
EPA's independent cost estimate of the proposed standards will be addressed
in a subsequent report.
-------
—3—
METHODOLOGY
The procedure used in this analysis consisted of determining the
cost increment and the total reduction in fleet exhaust emissions for
each control strategy. A portion of the total cost was then applied
to each individual pollutant. The resulting HC, CO, and NOx cost-
effectiveness factors are defined in terms of dollars spent per ton of pollutant
saved ($/Ton). A discussion of each part of the methodology is presented in
the following sections. The undiscounted lifetime costs (zero discount
rate), expressed in 1976 dollars, are used throughout this analysis.
Emissions Reduction
The pollution abatement brought about by the use of a low-emission
version of an engine is computed by finding the net reduction
per landing-takeoff (LTO) cycle and multiplying that figure by an
estimate of the total LTO cycles that engine will experience during its
useful life (References 1 and 2).
A complete discussion and table of the emission performances for the
engines affected "by the proposed regulations are presented in Appendix B.
Cost
The incremental cost of each control strategy is conveniently
separated into four major components: non-recurring, manufacturing,
operating, and maintenance. In most instances, the amounts of each cost
-------
-4-
component were supplied by gas turbine engine manufacturers (References
3, 4, and 5). When the costs associated with a specific engine were not
identified, estimates based on other engines produced by the same
manufacturer or a similar model from a different manufacturer were used.
Non-recurring. This cost component is composed of several elements:
design, development, certification, and initial production. These funds
represent the corporate investment associated with the application of demon-
strated technology to specific engine families and must be recovered in
the engine selling price. Not included are the research and development
(R&D) costs of initial design and engine demonstration which were funded
through U.S. Government contract and Independent Research and Development
(IR & D) money.
Manufacturing. The cost of manufacturing refers only to the increment
in engine selling price as a consequence of the increased complexity or
more expensive materials found in a low-emission engine. This burden is
generally attributed to the combustor and fuel supply system, but may
include increased costs to manufacture the pressure casing and equipment
bay.
Appendix C contains a discussion and table of the non-recurring
costs and unit costs, which reflect the manufacturing expenses, asso-
ciated with the various control strategies.
Operating. In this analysis, the operating cost is defined as the
increment in fuel consumption between regulated and non-regulated
-------
-5-
engines. No performance penalties (such as a loss of thrust) are
expected from the use of low-emission technology.
The incremental fuel use is discussed and calculated in Appendix D.
Maintenance. Although generally considered an operating expense,
maintenance cost is segregated in this study because it includes subject
areas for which no estimates are available, or elements which are too
abstract to define with any certainty. These expenses, typically incurred
by the air carriers, are excluded from this analysis.
Fleet Projection
Having obtained the emissions reduction and cost of control for
each engine model, it is necessary to average them over the fleet in
\
order to obtain overall figures. Three fleets are of interest: (1) the
fleet of pre-1981 aircraft which is subject to the 1985 Retrofit Standard,
1
(2) the 1981 to 1984 aircraft fleet which is subject to the 1981 NME-
Standard; and (3) the 1984 and beyond fleet of new aircraft which
is subject to the 1984 NME Standard.
The projection used to obtain each fleet mix is based on EPA TSR
AC76-03, (Reference 6). In addition to this, certain further assumptions
had to be made, e.g., that the 3 engine wide body fleet (given in the
projection) consists of equal numbers of each candidate aircraft. These
-------
-6-
assumptions along with a summary of the fleet projection from TSR AC76-
03 that is relevant to this analysis are given in Appendix E.
Cost Apportionment
The costing methodology employed in this analysis is consistent
with that used for automobile emission control strategies (Reference 7),
For the 1981 NME and 1985 Retrofit Standards which control only HC and
CO, no quantitative approach to cost application exists since the same
technology controls both species. For this reason, the cost of control
is divided equally between the two pollutants.
The 1984 NME Standard regulates NOx in addition to HC and CO.
Since the allowable levels for HC and CO are the same as 1981 NME, the
same cost of control is assigned to these two pollutants for 1984 NME
and any additional burden is attributed to NOx control.
Cost-Effectiveness
The cost effectiveness for each of the proposed standards is
calculated by first finding the total cost as follows:
Total Cost =
Total + Total selling + Total fuel (1)
non-recurring costs price increment consumption increment /
-------
— 7—
For the 1981 NME and 1985 Retrofit Standards, 50 percent of the
total cost is applied to the total reduction in each pollutant which yields
the final cost-effectiveness ratio.
Cost effectiveness 50% of equation 1
for pollutant A Total reduction in pollutant A ^
For the 1984 NME Standard, the cost-effectiveness ratio for HC and CO
is the same as that found in Equation 2 for the 1981 NME Standard. These
ratios are then used to determine the NOx cost^effectiveness ratio in the
following manner:
HC allocation = (Total reduction in HC) (Eq. 2 for HC) (3)
CO allocation = (Total reduction in CO) (Eq. 2 for CO) (4)
NOx allocation =? Eq. 1 for 1984 NME - (Eq. 3 + Eq. 4) (5)
Cost effectiveness _ Eq. 5 ( .
for NOx ~ Total reduction in NOx
-------
-8-
DISCUSSION
EMISSION REDUCTIONS
The exhaust emission reductions are calculated over a 15 year
period to approximate the corporate accounting lifetime. This interval
is somewhat arbitrary because the rigorous maintenance schedule of an
aircraft turbine engine essentially precludes its ever being discarded.
Since the engine's service life is practically limitless, the exhaust
reductions are also. In this respect aircraft engines differ from other
mobile sources, such as automobile engines, which have rather definite
useful lives.
It should be noted that because of limitations in the 1984 NME fleet
forecast, only a 10 year production period is accounted for. Since the
production runs of engines in compliance with this standard are expected
to be greater than 10 years, this limitation causes the total emission
reductions to be under estimated.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize the lifetime reductions in gaseous
exhaust emissions for each engine as well as the total reduction for
each fleet affected by the 1981 NME, 1985 Retrofit, and 1984 NME Standards,
respectively.
By comparing the total lifetime reductions in each of the tables,
the significance of the pollution abatement brought about by the 1985
-------
-9-
Table 1
Reductions in Gaseous Emissions
Resulting from the 1981 NME Standards
Total
Tons/Engine/Lifetime3 In-Service Tons/Lifetime (000)
Model
JT8D-rl7
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22
RB211-524
TOTAL
HC
70
146
72
87
125
42
386
351
CO
204
264
242
174
207
205
447
472
Engines
76
140
140
100
100
732
52
52
1388
HC
5.3
20.4
10.1
8.7
12.5
30.7
20.1
18.3
126.1
CO
15.5
37.0
33,9
17.4
20.7
150.1
23.2
24.5
322.3
See Appendix B.
See Appendix E.
-------
-10-
Table 2
Reductions in Gaseous Emissions
Resulting from the 1985 Retrofit Standard
Total
Tons/Engine/Lifetime In-Service Tons/Lifetime (000)
Model
JT8D-17
JT9D-7
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22
TOTAL
HC
47
97 -
58
83
42C
257
CO
136
176
116
138
205°
298
Engines
3399
804
358
358
78
358
5355
HC
159.8
78.0
20.8
29.7
3.3
92.0
383.6
CO
462.3
141.5
41.5
49.4
16.0
106.7
817.4
Retrofitted engine lifetime is 10 years since most engines have already
expended some of their useful life. See Appendix B.
See Appendix E.
"Most of these engines will be new, therefore, the full 15 year lifetime
value is used.
-------
-11-
Table 3
Reductions in Gaseous Emissions
Resulting from the 1984 NME Standards
Total
Tons/Engine/Lifetime In-Service Tons/Lifetime (000)
Model
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56C
RB211-22B
RB211-524
' TOTAL
HC
140
53
87
122
42
386
338
CO
220
195
195
225
205
447
446
NOx
121
63
87
97.5
26
55
95
Engines
892
892
554
554
3030
277
277
6476
HC
124.9
47.3
48.2
67.6
127.3
106.9
93.6
615.8
CO
196.2
173.9
108.0
124.7
621.2
123.8
123.5
1471.3
NOx
107.9
56.2
48.2
54.0
78.8
15.2
26.3
386.6
See Appendix B.
Normalized to 10 years production (2x5 years production). See Appendix E.
C JTlOD's burden included.
-------
-12-
retrofit is apparent. Furthermore, the number of JT8D engines is so
large that its contribution to the total lifetime reduction of the
retrofitted fleet is approximately 40 percent for EC and 60 percent for
CO (Table 2).
The JT10D was omitted in the 1981 NME and 1985 retrofit fleets
(Tables 1 and 2). The engine's production design has not been finalized
and no companion airframe exists at this time. For these reasons, it is
unlikely that JT10D engines will be produced under the above standards.
The JT10D is expected to hold a significant share of the market in
compliance with the 1984 NME Standard. However, the EPAP values and
rated thrust of the engine are unknown; therefore, these values were
arbitrarily considered to be equivalent to those for the CFM56, an
engine of similar size. For this reason, the JT10D is included in the
CFM56 values used in Table 3.
The retrofit projection (Table 2) omits the JT9D-70 since very few
of these will be in the fleet. The impact of its exclusion is negligible,
COST
Within this section, engine costs and operating costs are discussed.
Engine costs are separated into non-recurring and recurring categories.
Recurring costs are represented by (1) the selling price increment
engine which reflects increments in the manufacturing complexity and
-------
-13-
hardware costs. Neither the selling price increment nor the retrofit
unit cost include pro-rated non-recurring expenses.
Engine Costs
The quantification of future costs is difficult, and when combined
with the incomplete and undocumented cost estimates submitted by the
engine manufacturers, conclusions must be accepted with caution.
Furthermore, the results of this section should be regarded only as
accounting for a significant share of the impact brought about by the
proposed standards.
Some important cost elements are excluded in this analysis. NOx
control schemes (category 3) may initially degrade the durability of the
combustor. and various high pressure turbine parts below contemporary levels,
causing higher operating costs from increases in parts and service, and
increased engine removal rates. Although the technology has been defined,
its application to specific engine families remains. Until more hardware
is finalized, the quantification of any maintenance increment imposed on
the airline industry is tenuous at best; therefore, this type of expense
is not considered in the cost-effectiveness calculations.
Other expenses to the airlines and airframe manufacturers such as
the development and installation costs to incorporate low-emission engines
into existing airframe designs are also unaccounted for since the magnitude
of this change is unknown. It should be noted, however, that the implementation
date of the 1985 retrofit was chosen to minimize installation costs by
-------
-14-
allowing sufficient lead time for incorporating low-emission engine
parts into existing maintenance schedules.
Similarily, elements which may offset some of the costs associated
with the proposed standards are excluded from consideration.
1. The aromatic content of jet fuel has been escalating in recent
years and the use of high-aromatic shale and coal derived fuels in
the future is almost certain. Conventional technology combustors
cannot cope with these fuels: combustion becomes smokey and increases
in flame luminosity cause combustor cooling problems. Category 3
technology combustors avoid these problems since they are lean
burning and, therefore, operate at cooler temperatures. Moreover,
higher aromatic fuels are expected to be lower in price.
2. The application of non-recurring expenses in this analysis
artifically inflates the final cost-effectiveness figures. In
reality this money will be amortized over a greater number of
engines since (1) engines used by airlines not operating within the
U.S. are not included and (2) the 1984 NME section considers only
the engines produced in the first 10 years.
3. The effects of the learning curve reduce production costs as
experience accumulates.
4. As technology progresses, maintenance problems will be solved
by re-establishing or improving component durability levels.
-------
-15-
5. The economic value of the physical, biological, and medical
consequences of lower pollutant concentrations are not estimated.
To derive a more accurate estimate of the total selling price
increment, a 20 percent increase in the in-service fleet numbers (Appendix
E) is used to develop cost information. These extra units reflect the
spare parts inventory of the airlines.
The costs associated with the 1981 NME, 1985 Retrofit, and 1984 NME
Standards are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The
differences between engine families are attributed to engine size and
combustor complexity. No additonal R & D is required for the 1985
retrofit because the same hardware is used to meet the 1981 NME Standard.
Operating Costs
The only operating expense identified as a consequence of the
control schemes is the increment in fuel consumption between regulated
and non-regulated engines. To meet the proposed standards, one of the
design points will be an improvement in the combustion efficiency at idle
from approximately 95 percent to essentially 100 percent, resulting in
a 5 percent decrease in the idle specific fuel consumption (SFC) for most
engines (Reference 8). The JT8D is an exception; its smokeless combustor
is already better than average. Therefore, a 1 percent improvement is
allowed for this engine.
-------
-16-
Table 4
The Costs Associated with the 1981
NME Standard (Category 1 and 2 Technology)
TOTAL
(In thousands of dollars)
Non-Recurring
Model Costs
Selling Price
Increment/Engine
Total Selling Price
Engines Increment/Family
JT8D
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22B
RB211-524
15,000
16,000
24,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
10,000
10,000
13
50
70
10
10
10
3
3
91
168
168
125
125
878
62
62
1,183
8,400
11,760
1,250
1,250
8,780
186
186
99,000
32.995
See Appendix C.
-------
-17-
Table 5
The Costs Associated with the 1985 Retrofit Standard
(Category 1 and 2 Technology)
TOTAL
(In thousands of dollars)
Model
JT8D
JT9D-7
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22B
Retrofit
Unit Cost
25
90
90
90
60
31
Total
Engines
4079
965
430
430
94
430
Retrofit
Cost/Family
101,975
86,850
38,700
38,700
5,640
13,330
285,195
See Appendix C.
-------
-18-
Table 6
The Costs Associated with the 1984 NME Standard
(Category 3 Technology)
(In thousands of dollars)
Modela
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22
RB211-524
JT10D
Non-Re cur ring
Costs
70,000
100,000
30,000
40,000
40,000
55,000
55,000
50,000
Selling Price0
Increment /Engine
190
190
70
70
50
130
130
120
Total
Engines
1070
1070
665
665
1818
332
332
1818
Selling Price
Increment /Family
203,300
203,300
46,550
46,550
90,900
43,150
43,150
218,200
TOTAL
440,000
895,100
JT8D is assumed to be out of production and replaced by CFM56.
See Appendix C.
-------
-19-
The General Electric engines produced in compliance with the proposed
1981 NME and 1985 Retrofit Standards will experience a net increase in
idle SFC. The use of sector burning (category 1) by these engines
causes a 10 percent decrease in component efficiency, which coupled with
the 5 percent benefit in combustion efficiency, yields a 5 percent
overall penalty in idle SFC.
The fuel consumption increments associated with the 1981 NME, 1985
Retrofit, and 1984 NME Standards are summarized in Tables 7, 8^and 9,
respectively, in 1976 dollars.
The penalty associated with the GE engines is significant for the
1981 NME and 1985 retrofit fleets (Table 7 and 8). However, as shown in
Table 8, the large reduction in fuel consumption for the JT8D engine
family offsets the GE penalty and provides an overall fuel savings for
the 1985 retrofit fleet. The fuel savings are more pronounced for the
1984 NME fleet. The use of category 3 technology provides a 5% reduction
in idle SFC for all engine families.
Cost Effectiveness
The overall cost effectiveness for each of the standards under
consideration is presented in Table 10. Cost-effectiveness figures are
not presented for specific engine families because the data lacked
sufficient detail to produce meaningful results.
As shown in Table 10, requiring the 1985 retrofit in conjunction
-------
-20-
Table 7
The Fuel Consumption Increment Associated
with the 1981 NME Fleet
In-Service
Model Engines
JT8D
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM-56
RB211-22
RB211-524
TOTAL
76
140
140
104
104
732
52
52
$ Saved/Engine
(x 10~J)
9
27
26
-20
-20
-23
31
31
$ Saved/Family
(x 10~b)
0.7
3.8
3.6
-2.1
-2.1
-16.8
1.6
1.6
-9.7
See Appendix E.
See Appendix D.
-------
-21-
Table 8
The Fuel Consumption Increment Associated
with the 1985 Retrofit Fleet
Model
In-Service
Engines
$ Saved/Engine
(x IP""3)
$ Saved/Family
(x 10"b)
JT8D
JT9D-7
CF6-6
GF6-50
CFM-56
RB2211-22
TOTAL
3399
804
358
358
78
358
6
18
-20
-20
-23
21
20.4
14.5
- 4.7
- 4.7
- 1.8
7.5
31.2
See Appendix E.
See Appendix D.
-------
-22-
Table 9
The Fuel Consumption Increment Associated
with the 1984 NME Fleet
Model
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM-56C
RB211-22
RB211-524
TOTAL
In-Service
Engines
892
892
554
554
3030
277
277
$ Saved /Engine
(x 10"J)
27
26
20
20
23
31
31
$ Saved /Family
(x 10~&)
24.1
23.2
11.1
11.1
69.7
8.6
8.6
156.4
See Appendix E.
See Appendix D.
Includes JT10D burden.
-------
-23-
with the 1981 NME Standard is more cost effective than the 1981 NME
Standard alone.
The cost effectiveness of controlling aircraft turbine engines for
HC in 1981 and 1985, and NOx in 1984 is considered to be comparable with
that of other sources under consideration (Table 11).
-------
-24-
Table 10
The Overall Cost-Effectiveness of the
Standards Under Consideration ($/Ton)
Pollutant
HC
CO
NOx
1981 NME
560
220
1985 Retrofit
in addition to
1981 NME
390
170
1984 NME
560a
220a
1316
The HC and CO values are the same as for 1981 NME.
Table 11
The Overall Cost-Effectiveness of Other
Control Strategies Under Consideration ($/Ton)
Strategy HC
Stationary Engines (75% control)
LDV (1.0 g/mile)
Utility Boilers (90% control)
LDV (0.4 g/mile)
Gasoline Handling, Stage 1 100^
Gasoline Handling, Stage 2 700^
LDV (0.41 g.mile) 470*
LDV (IM) 420J;
Neighborhood Dry Cleaners 770
N0xc
340
450
1200
2300
Reference 7.
Reference 9.
-------
-25-
CONCLUSIONS
The cost-effectiveness information generated in this report is
based on a limited amount of data and lacked sufficient detail to allow
a rigorous analysis. Within this constraint, the cost-effectiveness
figures are considered to be a reasonable approximation of the control
costs as a consequence of the standards under consideration based on
industry submittals.
The costs of controlling HC and CO to the levels prescribed by the
1981 NME Standard are similar to other control strategies and in combination
with the 1985 Retrofit Standard, they are more cost-effective. The
price of NOx control under the 1984 NME Standard is considered to be
comparable to other proposed control strategies for mobile and stationary
sources.
A fuel consumption penalty is associated with the 1981 standard,
although when combined with the 1985 retrofit an overall reduction in
fuel usage is expected. A very substantial fuel savings is expected
from engines in compliance with the 1984 standard.
-------
-26-
REFERENCES
1. Aviation Week and Space Technology. 1977. Operating and Cost Data
747, DC-10, and L-1011~second quarter, 1977. 107(13)46-47.
2. Aviation Week and Space Technology. 1976. Operating and cost data—
727, 737, DC-9, BAG 111—aircraft in passenger service—year 1976.
106(24)(48-49).
3. Pascal, D.D., Pratt and Whitney Aircraft. 1976. Letter of 26 February
1976 to E.O. Stork, EPA.
4. Bahr, D.W., General Electric. 1976. Letter of 22 April 1976 to
G. Kittredge, EPA.
5. Rolls Royce Ltd. 1976. Additional comments prepared at request of
the Environmental Protection Agency. DP279 Addendum 1.
6. Hunt, R. 1976. SST emissions projection. Environmental Protection
Agency AC 76-03.
7. Department of Transportation, Interagency Task Force on Motor
Vehicle Goals Beyond 1980. 1976. Air quality, noise and health.
8. Hunt, R. and E. Danielson. 1976. Aircraft technology assessment—
status of the gas turbine program. Environmental Protection Agency.
9. Angus, R.M. 1977. Draft economic energy impact assessment for
alternatives to national air quality standards for photochemical
oxidants. EPA Internal Report.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
Aircraft Turbine Engine
Manufacturer's Cost Submittals
The pertinent portions of the manufacturer's submittals are pre-
sented as follows:
Manufacturer Page
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft A-2 and A-3
Division of United Technologies
General Electric Aircraft A-4 and A-5
Engine Group
Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited A-6 and A-7
-------
,•» WHITNEY AIRCRAFT
' - A-2
ATTACHMENT A
5 YEAR LOW EMISSIONS EFFORT SUMMARY
Tabulated below are the expenditures in thousands of dollars for both visible and invisible
exhaust emissions reduction efforts for the period 1971 through 1975 by category in then
year dollars.
JT3D/TF33
JT3/J57,
JT4/J75
JT8D
JT9D
FT9
JT10D
JT12/J60
TF30
J52
Technology
Contracts
Proposals
Emissions R&D
Work for Other
Div.
Industrial Power
1971
289.7
204.9
148.6
30.4
11.0
89.2
299.5
208.1
61.9
290.3
538.0
1972
131.9
257.2
70.2
172.9
3.4
136.0
150.9
225.0
117.4
790.6
181.5
2,423.6
1973
772.4
302.5
90.2
49.9
148.4
0.5
16.8
80.6
896.2
107.4
1,066.2
155.0
2,143.1
1974
673.6
786.1
38.3
202.0
103.8
3.0
,
783.3
223.3
2,504.9
21.8
1,203.4
1975
313.4
24.8
740.7
2,537.0
46.9
331.2
.'
1,677.7
261.6
2,798.6
.
2,579.5
Total
2,181.0
1,575.5
1,088.0
2,992.2
46.9
583.4
14.9
245.0
531.0
3,790.3
771.6
7,450.6
358.3
8,887.6
Total 2,171.6 4,660.6 5,829.2 6,543.5 11,311.4 30,516.3
The source of the funding is as follows:
Government contracts $ 5,794,100
Independent Research
and Development 24,722,200
Total $30,516,300
•
PAGE NO. 1
-------
«TT A WHITN6V AIRCRAFT
A-3
ATTACHMENT B
LOW EMISSION BURNER PRICING INFORMATION
MODIFIED CURRENT BURNER
The pricing information given below must be considered as "rough order of magnitude" esti-
mates only, and is in no way to be construed as forming any commitment on the part of
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft for use as a basis for the establishment or negotiation of actual prices.
The cost of development must be recovered over the number of engines in which the hardware
is installed. In the case of the JT8D where no retrofit is planned, and the JT9D-70 where
there are relatively few engines in the field the development cost increment will be significant.
' 1976 Dollars
JT8D JT9D-7 JT9D-70
Production price increment for modified
low emission burners w/o specific
development $13,000 $50,000 $70,000
JT9D retrofit kit price w/o specific
development — - $90,000 $115,000
Development cost $15,000,000 $16,000,000 $24,000,000
ADVANCED STAGED BURNER
Estimates of the development cost and a price for the JT9D advanced.staged burner for the
JT9D are an order of magnitude cruder than the above estimates for modified current burners.
The development of this burner for incorporation in production engines in the 1984 time
period is estimated to cost up to 100 million (1976) dollars. This assumes this concept can
be developed to meet all the operational and reliability criteria of a commercial engine burner,
which is still a question at this time. The production engine price increment for this burner
is estimated to be 190,000 (1976) dollars exclusive of the development cost increment.
PACE NO.
-------
GENERAL^ ELECTRIC
A-4
Mr. George Kittfedge
April 22, 1976
Page 5
Estimated Costs Of Incorporating Gaseous Pollutant Emissions Control
Features Into Operational Engines
Detailed and precise estimates of the costs associated with incorporating
gaseous pollutant emissions control capabilities into our CFG or CFM56 engines
are not presently available. Such detailed estimates cannot be made at this
time, because the full extent of the changes needed in these engines to meet
th6 applicable standards are not fully known as yet.
In the statement we presented at the public hearings, we recommended
that the gaseous pollutant emissions standards applicable to engines already
in production or in development be modified to permit the use of current tech-
nology combustors. As is discussed in our statement, we believe current tech-
nology combustors can be developed and modified to meet or approach the presently
defined standards for carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons emissions, but
cannot be made to meet the presently defined standards for oxides of nitrogen
emissions.
Based on the assumed use of modified versions of current technology
combustors, the following are preliminary estimates of the costs involved in
the case of our two CF6 engine families:
Approximate Costs For
Each CF6 Engine Family
(In 1976 Dollars)
Design, Development, Qualification
And Initial Production Costs
Added Price Per Production Engine -
For Newly Manufactured Engines
(Excluding Pro-rated Design,
Development, Qualification And
Initial Production Costs)
Unit Engine Price To Retrofit
(During Overhaul) Existing Engines
(Excluding Pro-rated Design,
Development, Qualification And
Initial Production Costs)
$8,000,000
$ 10,000
$ 90,000
Continued on Page 6
-------
GENERAL^ ELECTRIC A-5
Mr. George Kittredge
April 22, 1976
Page 6
These estimated costs and prices are based on the assumed use of both sector
burning at idle and combustor dome design modifications to attain reduced carbon
monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons emissions levels.
As is discussed in the statement we presented at the hearings and in our
accompanying report submittal, we believe that consideration of the use of an
advanced technology combustor design concept, such as the Double Annular Dome
combustor design concept we are currently developing in the NASA Experimental
Clean Combustor Program, in existing production or development engines is not
appropriate at this time. However, for comparative purposes only, the following
are some very preliminary estimates of the costs of incorporating such an
advanced technology combustor design concept into our CF6 engines:
Approximate Costs For
Each CFG Engine Family
(In 1976 Dollars)
Design, Development, Qualification $32,000,000 to
And Initial Production Costs $40,000,000
(Excluding NASA Experimental Clean
Combustor Program Funding)
Added Price Per Production Engine - $ 70,000 to
For Newly Manufactured Engines • 100,000
(Excluding Pro-rated Design,
Development, Qualification And
Initial Production Costs)
These latter estimates are based on the use of the Double Annular Dome Combustor
design concept in its present form and, of course, are based on the assumption
that this advanced combustor design approach is found to be generally satis-
factory in the forthcoming demonstrator engine tests.
We trust this information will be useful in your assessments of the
presently defined and proposed gaseous pollutant emissions standards. If you
have any questions or comments on any of this information, or any contained in
our previously submitted statement and report, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours
truly
rr.
D. W. Dahr, Manager
Advanced Combustion &
cr Emissions Control Technology
Attachments
-------
A-6
Cost of Incorporating New Coobustors - Large Engines
4.1 Introduction
The prices quoted in the main Rolls-Royce response to the
EPA Public Hearings of 27/28 January 1976 (DP 279) were derived
assuming a worldwide application. This is considered
realistic as far as newly manufactured large engines are
concerned since Rolls-Royce would want to maintain only one
production standard. This would not apply, however, to new
hardware renuired for retrospective fitment to in-service
engines - since only US operators would be renuired to purchase
the new reduced pollution combustcrs and water injection kits.
The prices are derived from the estimated manufacturing unit
cost plus the recovery of the associated non-recurring costs.
4.2 Newly Manufactured Engines
It is assumed that the new combustor will be a modified version
of the existing design. Therefore its unit manufacturing cost
will be only slightly greater than the existing version. The
majority of the additional costs, however, are non-recurring
and are largely associated with recovering the engineering
programme expenditure. Thus the increase in price for each
engine incorporating the improved corabustor is mainly dictat&d
by the projected sales for these engines. On the other hand
if water injection is required, this represents a major acidities
to the engine equipment and thus also to the unit pries. Again
the price per engine will vary depending on the projected sales.
The extra price per engine assuming fitment to the engines of US
operators only, is shown for comparison with those based on
, world wide application in the table below at 1976 rates:
RB211 Engines
Worldwide Market
(quoted in DP 279)
US Only
Now Combustor Alone
#10,000
#22,000
New Combustor plus
Water Injection
Equipment
#54,000
#72,000
-------
A-7
4.3 Retrospective Application
4.3.1 Replacement within a 4 Year Period
Rolls-Royce confirms that it could produce new combustors
and water injection equipment at a rate which should enable
the operators of its engines in the USA to replace existing
RB211 liners by the reduced pollution combustor within the
four year period to 1985. The investigations which have
been carried out have shown, however, that it will not be
possible to rework the existing liners to the configuration
of the new combustor. Hence costs have beei* calculated on
the basis that new combustors -vill be purchased. Note also
that no allowance has been made in the prices quoted for
stripping and rebuilding the engine specially to fit the new
combustor or for loss of revenue to the operator caused by
the unscheduled removal of the engine should this be required
to meet the retrofit programme schedule.
The predicted price per engine for the retrofit parts,
calculated on the above assumptions, is shown in the table
below:
RB211 Engines
US Market only
Worldwide
(quoted in DP 279)
New Combustor Alone
#47,000
£37,000
New Combustor plus
Water Injection
Equipment
#98,000
#82,000
It should be noted that the true cost of retrofit action to
the airline operators would in effect be greater than the
values specified. No attempt has been made to assess the
write off value of the existing combustor hardware which should
bo ino.l.mleri in any estimate of the real cost of a four year
replacement programme.
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
Derivation of Emissions Reduction over an Engine's Lifetime
The regulated EPAP values used to derive the exhaust emission
reductions per engine reflect the actual levels achievable based on
current test results. By using these values instead of the more con-
servative approach of limiting the EPAPs to the maximum allowable levels
permitted by the regulation, a more realistic simulation of the actual
decrease in air pollutants at major air carrier terminals is accomplished.
In a few instances where the demonstrated EPAPs were above the
maximum permissable levels, they were adjusted to meet the standard.
This is consistent with the fact that all engines must comply with the
regulation or they will not be certified. Where no data were available
and no reasonable basis for estimating the engine's emissions existed,
EPAP values which conformed to the standard were assigned.
The useful life of a new engine is considered to be 15 years. A retro-
fitted engine has already been in service, therefore, it is assumed to
have 10 years of the normal 15 year lifetime remaining. The retrofitted
CFM56 is an exception; it is a new engine without an existing application.
This means the CFM56 engines in commercial service before 1981 will be
practically brand new, hence, the full 15 year lifetime is used.
The retrofitted RB211 engines are likely to be almost entirely of
the dash 22 variety. The dash 524 makes up a relatively small share of
the total population at this time and is expected to remain a minor
element of the RB211 fleet produced prior to 1981 (the engines subject
to the retrofit rule). For simplicity, it is assumed that the RB211
retrofit fleet is exclusively composed of the dash 22.
The pounds of pollutant reduced per engine during each LTO cycle
is computed by using the following equation:
Net Reduction of Pollutant A =
[EPAP (A) i ,. j - EPAP (A) . ^ ,] (Impulse/1000) (1)
unregulated regulated K
Where impulse power is defined as:
(Pounds of Rated Thrust) Z n [(% Power , )(Hours , )] (2)
cycle mode mode
The tons of pollutant saved over the lifetime of an engine is
determined in the subsequent equation:
Lifetime net reduction of Pollutant A =
(Equation 1) (//LTOs/year) (useful life)/2000 Ibs/T (3)
-------
B-2
where the useful life is the total number of years in service.
The exhaust emission reductions for each engine affected by
the standards under consideration are summarized in Tables B-l, B-2
and B-3.
-------
Table B-l
Exhaust Emissions Reduction per Engine Resulting from the
1981 NME Standard (Category 1 and 2)
Useful life for new engines is 15 years.
Adjusted to meet standard.
No data; baseline emissions were estimated
on the basis of the RB211-22B.
Tons
Pounds
Engine Thrust
Model (000)
JT8D-17
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22
RB211-524
16
46.2
51.2
38.9
49.9
22.2
42
50
Impulse
1456
4598
4655
3016
3867
1764
3502
4442
LTOs/yr
2455
900
900
1200
1050
2455
1300
1300
EPAP
(Unregulated)
HC CO
3.1
10.4
2.4
3.4
4.3
1.4
12.0
8.6°
12.8
10.4
9.7
10.0
10.8
10.6
17.4
14. 6C
EPAP
(Regulated)
HC CO
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.5
5.2"
1.9
2.0
3.6
4.0
4.3b
4.3b
3.7
Pounds
Net Reduction/LTO
HC
3.8
21.6
10.7
9.7
15.9
2.3
39.6
36.0
CO
12.4
39.1
35.8
19.3
26.3
11.1
45.9
48.4
Lifetime Net
Reduction/Unit
HC
69.7
145.9
72.3
86.9
124.9
42.2
385.8
350.8
CO
203.8
263.9
241.9
173.7
207.1
204.6
447.3
471.9
B-3
-------
Table B-2
Exhaust Emissions Reduction per Engine Resulting from the
1984 NME Standard (Category 3 Technology)
Tons,
Engine
Model
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22
RB211-524
Pounds
Thrust
(000)
46.2
51.2
38.9
49.9
22.2
42
50
EPAP
(Unregulated)
Impulse
4598
4655
3016
3867
1764
3502
4442
LTOs/yr
900 .
900
1200
1050
2455
1300
1300
HC
4.8
2.4
3.4
4.3
1.4
12.0
8.66
CO
10.4
9.7
10.0
10.8
10.6
17.4
14. 6S
NOx
6.5
5.8
7.2
7.7
4.8
5.6
6.26
EPAP
(Regulated)
HC
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.7d
0.8f
CO
3.3
3.5
2.8
3.4
4.3°
4.3d
4.3f
NOx
2.6
3.8
4.0
4.5°
4.0
4.0d
4.0f
Pounds
Net Reduction/LTO
HC
20.7
7.9
9.7
15.5
2.3
39.6
34.6
CO
32.6
28.9
21.7
28.6
11.1
45.9
45.8
NOx
17.9
9.3
9.7
12.4
1.4
5.6
9.8
Lifetime Net
Reduction/Unit
HC
139.7
53.4
86.9
122.1
42.2
385.8
337.8
CO
220.4
194.8
195.4
225.3
204.6
447.3
446.1
NOx
121.0
62.8
86.9
97.5
26.0
54.6
95.3
JT8D is assumed to be out of production and replaced by the CFM56.
Useful life for new engines is 15 years.
"Adjusted to meet standard.
No data; HC and CO levels are the same as 1981 NME
(Category 1 and 2) and the NOx level is equal to the standard.
i
No data; baseline emissions were estimated on the basis
of the RB211-22B.
No data; HC, CO., and NOx levels are equal to the standard.
B-4
-------
Table B-3
Exhaust Emissions Reduction per Engine Resulting from the
1985 Retrofit Standard (Category 1 and 2 Technology)
Retrofitted engine lifetime is 10 years since most
engines have already expended some of their useful life.
Adjusted to meet standard.
Most of the engines will be new, therefore, the
full 15 year lifetime value is used.
Tons
Engine
Model
JT8D-17
JT9D-7
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22
Pounds
Thrust
(000)
16
46.2
38.9
49.9
22.2
42
Impulse
1456
4598
3016
3867
1764
3502
LTOs/yr
2455
900
1200
1050
2455
1300
EPAP
(Unregulated)
HC CO
3.1
4.8
3.4
4.3
1.4
12.0
12.8
10.4
10.0
10.8
10.6
17.4
EPAP
(Regulated)
HC CO
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
5.2b
1.9
3.6
4.0
4.3b
4.3b
Pounds
Net Reduction/LTO
HC
3.8
21.6
9.7
15.9
2.3
39.6
CO
12.4
39.1
19.3
26.3
11.1
45.9
Lifetime Net
Reduction/Unit
HC CO
46.5 135.8
97.3
57.9
83.3
42.2°
257.2
175.9
115.8
138.1
204.6°
298.2
B-5
-------
C-l
APPENDIX C
Derivation of the Incremental Engine Costs
Associated with the Proposed Standards
The cost increments considered in this section are the main deter-
minants of selling price: non-recurring costs, the increment in new
engine selling price because of increased complexity or more expensive
materials, and the parts cost of a retrofit kit. These costs represent
the expenses and corporate profits which must be recovered by the engine
manufacturers.
The incomplete cost estimates submitted by the manufacturers make
the use of several assumptions necessary. The assumptions used tp
complete the 1981 NME and 1985 retrofit estimates are:
1. The JT8D retrofit unit cost was estimated based on
experience with the smoke retrofit and assuming the
only necessary change would be new fuel nozzles and
minor modifications to the combustor liner; and
2. The CFM56 selling price increment and retrofit unit
cost, as well as the R&D cost for the two RB211 dash
numbers were estimated by comparing the engine simi-
larities and degree of complexity with the CF6 engine
families.
3. The manufacturer's submittal regarding the selling price
increment and retrofit unit cost for the two RB211 engines
included pro-rated non-recurring costs, therefore, these
costs were re-evaluated to exclude this burden.
The 1984 NME estimates were completed using the following assumptions:
1. The R&D for the JT9D-7 was reduced from the manu-
facturers estimate of $100 million to $70 million
because of a mutual benefit between similar engine
families (as with the CF6 families);
2. The CF6-6 value for R&D represents the lower end
of GE's estimate and the CF6-50 R&D represents
the high end;
3. The R&D cost for the CFM56 is considered to be
the same as the CF6-50; the incremental selling
price is less since the engine is smaller;
-------
C-2
A. The values for the two RB211 dash numbers were
arbitrarily computed by averaging the JT9D-7
and CF6-50 expenses; and
5. The JT10D values were estimated by comparing the
similarities and degree of complexity with
the JT9D-7 and CFM56.
Tables C-l and C-2 summarize the cost Information used In this study.
-------
C-3
Table C-l
Cost Increment Associated with 1981 NME and
1985 Retrofit Standards (Category 1 and 2 Technology)
(In thousands of dollars)
Model
Non-Recurring
Costs
JT8D
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22B
RB211-52A
15,000
16,000
24,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
io,oooa
io,oooa
Selling Price
Increment/Unit
13
50
70
10
10
ioa
Retrofit
Unit Cost
25a
90
115
90
90
60a
31a
TOTAL
99,000
Estimated.
Table C-2
Cost Increment Associated with 1984 NME Standards
(Category 3 Technology)
(In thousands of dollars)
Model
Non-Recurring
Costs
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22
RB211-524
JT10D
70,000a
100,000
30,000a
40,000a
40,000a
55,000a
55,000a
50,000a
Selling Price
Increment/Unit
190
190
70
70
50a
130a
130a
120a
TOTAL
440 x 10
Estimated.
-------
D-l
APPENDIX D
Derivation of Fuel Savings Associated
with the Proposed Standards
In order to meet the standards under consideration, most manufacturers
will improve the combustion efficiency of their engines at idle power
from approximately 95 percent to essentially 100 percent. This results
in a 5 percent improvement in idle fuel consumption for most engines.
The General Electric engines complying with the 1981 NME and 1985
Retrofit Standards will experience a net increase in idle specific fuel
consumption (SFC) . The use of sector burning (category 1) by these
engines causes a 10 percent decrease in component efficiency, which
coupled with the 5 percent benefit in combustion efficiency as described
above, yields a 5 percent overall penalty in idle SFC. The 1984 newly
manufactured GE engines will use category 3 technology; accordingly,
they will be subject only to the 5 percent benefit in combustion efficiency.
The useful life of new engines is 15 years. Retrofitted engines
have a 10 year useful life with the exception of the CFM56, a new engine,
which has a useful life of 15 years.
The gallons of fuel saved over an engine's useful life are calcu-
lated using the following equation:
(//LTOs/yr) (useful lif e) (Mf Idle) (26/60) (+0. 05) / (6.7) (1)
where: 1. useful life is the number of years the engine will be in
service;
2. M- Idle is the fuel flow in pounds per hour;
3. 26/60 is the time in idle mode defined by EPA;
4. 4^ 0.05 is the percent fuel benefit or penalty; and
5. 6.7 is the weight of jet fuel in pounds per gallon.
The dollar value of the fuel saved is found by:
(Equation 1)($0.33) (2)
where $0.33, including tax, represents a nominal value for jet fuel in
1976.
-------
D-2
The lifetime savings for each engine affected by the proposed
standards are given in Tables D-l and D-2.
-------
D-3
Table D-l
o
Lifetime Idle Fuel Savings per Engine
(1981 NME and 1984 NME Standard)
Engine
JT8D-17b
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22B
RB211-524
M- Idle
(Ibs/hr)
1150
1850
1800
1060
1210
600°
1475
1500C
LTOs/yr
2455
900
900
1200
1050
2455
1300
1300
Gallons
Saved (000)
27
81
79
±62d
±62d
±71d
93
95
Dollars
Saved (000)
9
27
26
+ 20'
+ 20
+ 23
31
31
15 year useful life.
1 percent improvement only (smokeless combustor already better than
average).
"Estimated by authors.
GE engines experience a 5 percent increase in idle SFC under the
1981 NME Standard and a 5 percent improvement under the 1984 NME
Standard.
"At $0.33 per gallon.
-------
D-4
Table D-2
a
Lifetime Idle Fuel Savings per Engine
(1985 Retrofit Standard)
Engine
JT8Db
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22B
RB211-524
M Idle
(Ibs/yr)
1150
1850
1800
1060
1210
600°
1475
1500°
LTOs/yr
2455
900
900
1200
1050
2455
1300
1300
Gallons
Saved (000)
18
54
53
-42d
-42d
-71d
62
64
Dollars
Saved (000)
6
18
17
-13
-13
-23
21
21
10 year useful life for all retrofitted engines except the CFM56 which
has a useful life of 15 years.
1 percent improvement only (smokeless combustor already better than
average).
Q
Estimated by authors.
GE engines experience a 5 percent increase in fuel consumption when
using stage combustion at idle.
'At $0.33 per gallon.
-------
E-l
APPENDIX E
Fleet Projection and Engine Inventory
There are three aircraft fleets of interest, each associated with
one of the three dates of the standards: 1981 (NME, HC, CO), 1984 (NME,
NOx), and 1985 (Retrofit of pre-1981 engines to 1981 levels). These
fleets are obtained from an aircraft projection (Reference 1) which is
described in terms of airframe classification (e.g., 3 engine wide body)
and production rate. With certain simplifying assumptions, the numbers
of each kind of engine affected by the standards are found from the
fleet information.
Table E-l through E-5 are amended versions of the original projection.
The significant alterations are:
1. Elimination of an early introduction date for engines complying
with the NCE (newly certified engine) standards. The progress of
the NASA Quiet Clean Experimental Combustor Program and others
suggest that there will be no newly certified engines prior to
1990;
2. Delay in production of the new three engine super stretched
body aircraft (i.e., B7N7, B7X7) until 1981; and
3. Change of the dates which divide the fleet into the smaller
segments subject to the different standards to reflect the newly
proposed standards.
Utilization of these tables is achieved by examining the "Net
in Fleet" row at the appropriate date. In particular:
Rule Date and Standard
1985 Retrofit 1985, (No Std)
1981 NME 1984, (NME-1981)
1984 NME 1989, (NME-1984)
The 1985 Retrofit is self explanatory, but the others may not be.
The 1981 NME Standard is in effect for only three years, until January 1,
1984, at which time it is replaced. Thus, to enumerate that fleet, the
1984 date is chosen, when all affected engines are built. The 1984 NME
Standard is indefinite in duration so for the purposes of calculation,
it is postulated that the non-recurring costs will be written off in
10 years of production. However, inasmuch as the projection does not go
to 1994, only 5 years are taken (1989) and that number doubled.
Certain simplifying assumptions are also required. The first has
already been mentioned: a 10 year projection to 1994 is found by
-------
E-2
doubling the 5 year projection to 1989. The second is that each airframe
classification is associated with a specific engine or engines repre-
sentative of that class. While certainly artificial, it is impossible
to predict with any certainty the number of alternate engines which may
be used in any airframe class. The error is to a degree self compensating
since each time a given engine is replaced by an alternate in some
application, it may become an alternate for another engine in another
application. The engine designations for the airframe classes are:
1. 2 engine narrow body: JT8D through 1983, CFM56 thereafter;
2. 3 engine narrow body: JT8D;
3. 3 engine super stretched: CFM56;
4. 3 engine wide body: CF6, RB211; and
5. 4 engine wide body: JT9D.
For the 3 engine wide body classification, there are basically
three aircraft: the DC-10-10, DC-10-30, and L1011. These aircraft use
the CF6-6, CF6-50, and RB211, respectively. It is assumed, arbitrarily,
that the fleet of this type is divided equally among those airframes
and, therefore, also among those engines. As necessary, the RB211 and
JT9D families are assumed to be represented equally by their various
models.
In summary, the engine inventories are given in Table E-6.
-------
Table E-l
Type: 2 engine narrow body
Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Production
(No std) 37 32 0
(NME) 0 0 19
Attrition
(No std) 045
Net in' Fleet*
(No std) 684 721 749
(NME-1981) 000
(NME-1984) 0 0 0
00000000
14 5 14 16 16 76 76 76
4 7 20 20 20 80 80 80
744 740 733 713 693 673 593 513 433
19 33 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
00 0 14 30 46 122 198 274
* As of January 1
JT8D through 1983
CFM56 thereafter
E-3
-------
Table E-2
Type: 3 engine narrow body
Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Production
(No std)
(NME) 00 00 00 00 00 0
Attrition
(No std) 5 22 63 48 23 20 32 32 32 92 92
Net in Fleet*
(No std) 840 835 813 750 702 679 659 627 595 563 471 379
(NME) 0 00 00 00 00 00
* As of January 1
JT8D
E-4
-------
Type: 3 engine super stretched body
Year 1979 1980 1981 1982
Table E-3
1983 1984
1985 1986
1987 1988
1989 1990
Production
(No std) 0
(NME) 0
Attrition
(No std)
Net in Fleet*
(No std) ,0
(NME-1981) 0
(NME-1984) 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
77
0
0
0
0
0
83
0
0
77
0
0
84
0
0
160
0
0
83
0
0
244
0
0
78
0
0
244
83
0
68
0
0
244
161
0 0
55 89
0 0
0 0
244 244
229 284
0
102
0
0
244
373
0
244
475
* As of January 1
Production starts 1980
CFM56 or JT10D
E-5
-------
Table E-4
Type: 3 engine wide body
Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Production
(No std) 22
(NME) 0
Attrition
(No std) 0
Net in Fleet*
(No std) 305
(NME-1981) 0
(NME-1984) 0
31
0
0
327
0
0
0
31
0
358
0
0
0
33
0
358
31
0
0
40
0
358
64
0
0
42
0
358
104
0
0
47
0
358
104
42
0
51
0
358
104
89
0
56
0
358
104
140
0
61
0
358
104
196
0
97
30
358
104
277
328
104
374
* As of January 1
CF6 or RB211
E-6
-------
Table E-5
Type: 4 engine wide body
Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Production
(No std) 17
(NME) 0
Attrition
(No std) 0
Net in Fleet*
(No std) 164
(NME- 1981) 0
(NME-1984) 0
20
0.
0
181
0
0
0
20
0
201
0
0
0
21
0
201
20
0
0
29
0
201
41
0
0
32
0
201
70
0
0
36
0
201
70
32
0 0
40 45
0 0
201 201
70 70
68 108
0
70
20
201
70
153
0
76
20
181
70
223
161
7®
299
* As of January 1
JT9D
E-7
-------
E-8
Table E-6
STANDARD
Engine
JT8D-17
JT9D-7
JT9D-70
JT10D
CF6-6
CF6-50
CFM56
RB211-22B
RB211-524
1985 Retrofit
3399
804
0
0
358
358
78
358
0
1981 NME
76
140
0
0
104
104
732
52
52
1984 NME
0
892
892
1515
554
554
1515
277
277
-------
E-9
REFERENCES
(APPENDIX E)
1. Hunt, R. 1976. SST emissions projection. Environmental Protection
Agency, AC 76-03.
------- |