Due to their high propulsive efficiency, counter-rotating open rotors (CRORs) have the potential to significantly reduce fuel consumption and emissions relative to conventional high bypass ratio turbofans. However, this novel engine architecture presents many design and operational challenges both at engine and aircraft level. The assessment of the impact of the main low-pressure preliminary design and control parameters of CRORs on mission fuel burn, certification noise, and emissions is necessary at preliminary design stages in order to identify optimum design regions. These assessments may also aid the development process when compromises need to be performed as a consequence of design, operational, or regulatory constraints. The required preliminary design simulation tools should ideally be 0D or 1D (for computational purposes) and should capture the impact of the independent variation of the main low-pressure system design and control variables, such as the number of blades, diameter and rotational speed of each propeller, the spacing between the propellers, and the torque ratio (TR) of the gearbox or the counter-rotating turbine (CRT), among others. From a performance point of view, counter-rotating propellers (CRPs) have historically been modeled as single propellers. Such a performance model does not provide the required flexibility for a detailed design and control study. Part I of this two-part publication presents a novel 0D performance model for CRPs allowing an independent definition of the design and operation of each of the propellers. It is based on the classical low-speed performance model for individual propellers, the interactions between them, and a compressibility correction which is applied to both propellers. The proposed model was verified with publicly available wind tunnel test data from NASA and was judged to be suitable for preliminary design studies of geared and direct drive open rotors. The model has to be further verified with high-speed wind tunnel test data of highly loaded propellers, which was not found in the public domain. In Part II, the novel CRP model is used to produce a performance model of a geared open rotor (GOR) engine with a 10% clipped propeller designed for a 160 PAX and 5700 NM aircraft. This engine model is first used to study the impact of the control of the propellers on the engine specific fuel consumption (SFC). Subsequently, it was integrated in a multidisciplinary simulation platform to study the impact of the control of the propellers on engine weight, certification noise, and NOx emission.

References

1.
Strack
,
W. C.
,
Knip
,
G.
,
Godston
,
J.
, and
Bradley
,
E.
,
1982
, “
Technology and Benefits of Aircraft Counter Rotation Propellers
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center
,
Cleveland, OH
, Report No. NASA TM-82983.
2.
Mikkelson
,
D. C.
,
Mitchell
,
G. A.
, and
Bober
,
L. J.
,
1984
, “
Summary of Recent NASA Propeller Research
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center
,
Cleveland, OH
, Report No. NASA-TM-83733.
3.
Newton
,
F. C.
,
Liebeck
,
R. H.
,
Mitchell
,
G. H.
,
Mooiweer
,
A.
,
Platte
,
M. M.
,
Toogood
,
T. L.
, and
Wright
,
R. A.
,
1986
, “
Multiple Application Propfan Study (MAPS): Advanced Tactical Transport
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, Report No. NASA-CR-175003.
4.
Dannenhoffer
,
N. F.
,
Herzberg
,
J. S.
,
Kretzing
,
J. R.
,
Landfield
,
J. P.
,
Mahoney
,
C. L.
,
Mahoney
,
R. A.
, and
Potonides
,
H. C.
,
1986
, “
Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) Multiple Application Propfan Study (MAPS)
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center
,
Cleveland, OH
, Report No. NASA-CR-175104.
5.
Winkeljohn
,
D. M.
, and
Mayrand
,
C. H.
,
1986
, “
Multiple-Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) Multiple Application Propfan Study (MAPS)
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center
,
Cleveland, OH
, Report No. NASA-CR-175096.
6.
Strack
,
W. C.
,
Knip
,
G.
,
Weisbrich
,
A. L.
,
Godston
,
J.
, and
Bradley
,
E.
,
1982
, “
Technology and Benefits of Aircraft Counter Rotation Propellers
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center
,
Cleveland, OH
, Report No. NASA-CR-168258.
7.
Perullo
,
C. A.
,
Tai
,
J. C. M.
, and
Mavris
,
D. N.
,
2012
, “
Effects of Advanced Engine Technology on Open Rotor Cycle Selection and Performance
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2012-69331.
8.
Hendricks
,
E. S.
, and
Tong
,
M. T.
,
2012
, “
Performance and Weight Estimates for an Advanced Open Rotor Engine
,”
AIAA
Paper No. 2012-3911.
9.
Guynn
,
M. D.
,
Berton
,
J. J.
,
Hendricks
,
E. S.
,
Tong
,
M. T.
,
Haller
,
W. J.
, and
Thurman
,
D. R.
,
2011
, “
Initial Assessment of Open Rotor Propulsion Applied to an Advanced Single-Aisle Aircraft
,”
AIAA
Paper No. 2011-7058.
10.
Hendricks
,
E. S.
,
2011
, “
Development of an Open Rotor Cycle Model in NPSS Using a Multi-Design Point Approach
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2011-46694.
11.
Larson
,
L.
,
Grönstedt
,
T.
, and
Kyprianidis
,
K. G.
,
2011
, “
Conceptual Design and Mission Analysis for a Geared Turbofan and an Open Rotor Configuration
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2011-46451.
12.
Sullivan
,
T. J.
,
1990
, “
Aerodynamic Performance of a Scale-Model, Counter-Rotating Unducted Fan
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
,
112
(
4
), pp.
579
586
.
13.
Bellocq
,
P.
,
Sethi
,
V.
,
Cerasi
,
L.
,
Ahlefelder
,
S.
,
Singh
,
R.
, and
Tantot
,
N.
,
2010
, “
Advanced Open Rotor Performance Modeling for Multidisciplinary Optimization Assessments
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2010-22963.
14.
Bellocq
,
P.
,
2012
, “
Multi-Disciplinary Preliminary Design Assessments of Pusher Counter-Rotating Open Rotors for Civil Aviation
,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Power and Propulsion, School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK.
15.
Mitchell
,
G. A.
,
1988
, “
Experimental Aerodynamic Performance of Advanced 40 Deg-Swept 10-Blade Propeller Model at Mach 0.6 to 0.85
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center,
Cleveland, OH
, Report No. NASA TM-88969.
16.
Lock
,
C. N. H.
,
1941
, “
Interference Velocity for a Close Pair of Contra-Rotating Airscrews
,” Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda,
H.M.S.O.
, London, Technical Report No. 2084.
17.
Denner
,
B. W.
,
1989
, “
An Approximate Model for the Performance and Acoustic Predictions of Counterrotating Propeller Configurations
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center
,
Cleveland, OH
, Report No. NASA CR-180667.
18.
Playle
,
S. C.
,
Korkan
,
K. D.
, and
Von Lavante
,
E.
,
1986
, “
A Numerical Method for the Design and Analysis of Counter-Rotating Propellers
,”
J. Propul.
,
2
(
1
), pp.
57
63
.
19.
Ginzel
,
F.
,
1949
, “
Calculation of Counterrotating Propellers
,”
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
,
Washington, DC
, Report No.
NACA
TM-1208.
20.
Davidson
,
R. E.
,
1981
, “
Optimization and Performance Calculation of Dual-Rotation Propellers
,”
NASA
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, Report No. NASA TP-1948.
21.
Naiman
,
I.
,
1943
, “
Method of Calculating Performance of Dual-Rotating Propellers From Airfoil Characteristics
,”
NACA
Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, VA, Report No. NACA WR-L-330.
22.
Nelson
,
W. C.
,
1944
,
Airplane Propeller Principles
,
Wiley
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
23.
Chandrasekaran
,
B.
,
1985
, “
Method for the Prediction of the Installation Aerodynamics of a Propfan at Subsonic Speeds
,”
NASA
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, Report No. NASA CR-3887.
24.
Veldhuis
,
L. L. M.
,
2005
, “
Propeller Wing Aerodynamic Interference
,” Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
25.
Empresarios Agrupados
,
2011
, “
proosis 2.6.0 User Manual
,”
EA International
,
Madrid, Spain
.
26.
Lesley
,
E. P.
,
1939
, “
Tandem Air Propellers
,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC,
NACA
Report No. TN-689.
27.
Gray
,
H. W.
,
1942
, “
Wind-Tunnel Tests of Single- and Dual-Rotating Pusher Propellers Having From Three to Eight Blades
,”
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
,
Washington, DC
,
NACA
Report No. WR-L-359.
28.
Gilman
,
J.
,
1948
, “
Wind-Tunnel Tests and Analysis of Two 10-Foot-Diameter Six-Blade Dual-Rotating Tractor Propeller Differing in Pitch Distribution
,”
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
,
Washington, DC
,
NACA
Report No. TN-1634.
29.
Gilman
,
J.
,
1946
, “
Wind-Tunnel Tests and Analysis of Three 10-Foot-Diameter Three-Blade Tractor Propellers Differing in Pitch Distribution
,”
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
,
Washington, DC
,
NACA
Report No. WR-L-712.
30.
Parzych
,
D.
,
Shenkman
,
A.
, and
Cohen
,
S.
,
1985
, “
Large-Scale Advanced Propfan (LAP) Performance, Acoustic and Weight Estimation
,”
NASA
Lewis Research Center
,
Cleveland, OH
, Report No. NASA CR-174782.
You do not currently have access to this content.