
Variable cycle engines have a major challenge
For a supercruise engine, you want a high pressure ratio fan, and a large moderate pressure ratio core with temperature and rotor speed margins sufficient to maintain airflow and engine pressure ratio at supercruise inlet conditions (approximately 100F inlet temperature at 40K, 1.5Mn).
For a cruise engine, you want a low pressure ratio fan, and a small, high pressure, hard working core module. You can lower the pressure ratio of the fan by opening up the exhaust nozzle, but this lowers the inlet pressure to the core and reduces the power required from the core module. You can rematch and reduce the airflow to the core for this higher bypass condition, but you end up with a low pressure ratio, lazy core. What you gain in propulsive efficiency with the higher bypass, low pressure ratio fan is offset by the reduced thermodynamic efficiency of the core.
While the YF120 engine demonstrated tons of supercruise thrust during the ATF Dem-Val, it was not as fuel efficient as the YF119 engine at either supercruise or subsonic conditions, indicating that GE had not solved that dilemma.
The challenge for the XA100 / XA101 is to raise (or at least maintain) the pressure ratio of the core module at the same time that you are reducing core airflow. I believe that this is going to require variable geometry in the turbine to reduce the flow area, re-matching the core to a higher pressure ratio, lower flow condition for subsonic cruise. Variable geometry in the hot section is major design challenge, to say the least.
For a supercruise engine, you want a high pressure ratio fan, and a large moderate pressure ratio core with temperature and rotor speed margins sufficient to maintain airflow and engine pressure ratio at supercruise inlet conditions (approximately 100F inlet temperature at 40K, 1.5Mn).
For a cruise engine, you want a low pressure ratio fan, and a small, high pressure, hard working core module. You can lower the pressure ratio of the fan by opening up the exhaust nozzle, but this lowers the inlet pressure to the core and reduces the power required from the core module. You can rematch and reduce the airflow to the core for this higher bypass condition, but you end up with a low pressure ratio, lazy core. What you gain in propulsive efficiency with the higher bypass, low pressure ratio fan is offset by the reduced thermodynamic efficiency of the core.
While the YF120 engine demonstrated tons of supercruise thrust during the ATF Dem-Val, it was not as fuel efficient as the YF119 engine at either supercruise or subsonic conditions, indicating that GE had not solved that dilemma.
The challenge for the XA100 / XA101 is to raise (or at least maintain) the pressure ratio of the core module at the same time that you are reducing core airflow. I believe that this is going to require variable geometry in the turbine to reduce the flow area, re-matching the core to a higher pressure ratio, lower flow condition for subsonic cruise. Variable geometry in the hot section is major design challenge, to say the least.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135