.jpg)
.png)
| Part of a series on |
| Aircraft propulsion |
|---|
| Shaft engines: drivingpropellers,rotors,ducted fans orpropfans |
| Reaction engines |
Apropfan, also called apropjet, anopen rotor engine, or anopen fan engine,[1][2] is anaircraft engine combining features ofturbofans andturboprops. It uses advanced, curved propeller blades without aduct. Propfans first started prototype testing in the 1970s, aiming to combine the speed capability of turbofans with the fuel efficiency of turboprops, especially at high subsonic speeds. However, they have never proceeded beyond testing, never going into commercial use. Over the decades, different efforts to perfect the concept have used names like "open rotor" and "ultra-high-bypass (UHB) turbofan".
In the 1970s,Hamilton Standard described its propfan as "a small diameter, highly loaded multiple bladedvariable pitch propulsor having swept blades with thin advancedairfoil sections, integrated with anacelle contoured to retard the airflow through the blades thereby reducingcompressibility losses and designed to operate with a turbine engine and using a single stagereduction gear resulting in high performance".[3] In 1982, the weekly aviation magazineFlight International defined the propfan as a propeller with 8–10 highly swept blades that cruised at a speed of 390–480 knots (450–550 miles per hour; 720–890 kilometres per hour),[4] although its definition evolved a few years later with the emergence ofcontra-rotating propfans.[5]
In 1986, British engine makerRolls-Royce used the termopen rotor as a synonym for the original meaning of a propfan. This action was to delineate the propfan engine type from a number of ducted engine proposals at the time that hadpropfan in their names.[6] By the 2000s,open rotor (OR) became a preferred term for propfan technology in research and news reports, withcontra-rotating open rotor (CROR) also occasionally being used to distinguish between single-rotation propfans. As of 2015, theEuropean Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) defined an open rotor concretely (but broadly) as "a turbine engine fan stage that is not enclosed within a casing"; in contrast, it had only a working definition of an open rotor engine (the more commonly used term for propfan in the 21st century), calling it "a turbine engine featuring contra-rotating fan stages not enclosed within a casing." The engine uses agas turbine to drive an unshrouded (open)contra-rotating propeller like a turboprop, but the design of thepropeller itself is more tightly coupled to the turbine design, and the two are certified as a single unit.[7]
In a 2017 Ahmed El-Sayed, a professor in the design and performance of aircraft engines, differentiated between turboprops (which have been in use since the 1940s) and propfans (which have yet to advance beyond a few prototypes) according to 11 different criteria, including number of blades, blade shape, tip speed,bypass ratio,Mach number, andcruise altitude.[8]
About a decade after Germanaerospace engineers began exploring the idea of usingswept wings to reducedrag ontransonic speed aircraft, Hamilton Standard in the 1940s attempted to apply a similar concept to aircraft propellers. It created highly swept propeller blades withsupersonic tip speeds, so that engines with exposed propellers could power aircraft to speeds and cruising altitudes only attained by newturbojet andturbofan engines. Early tests of these blades revealed then-unresolvable bladeflutter and blade stress problems, and high noise levels were considered another obstacle. The popularity of turbojets and turbofans curtailed research in propellers, but by the 1960s, interest increased when studies showed that an exposed propeller driven by agas turbine could power an airliner flying at a speed of Mach 0.7–0.8 and at an altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 metres). The term propfan was created during this period.[9]
One of the earliest engines that resembled the propfan concept was the 4,710 pounds-force (21.0 kilonewtons)Metrovick F.5, which featured twin contra-rotating fans—14 blades in the fore (front) fan and 12 blades in the aft (back) fan—at the rear of the engine and was first run in 1946. The blades, however, were mostly unswept.[10] Other contra-rotating propeller engines that featured on common aircraft included the four powerfulKuznetsov NK-12 engines (each powering its own set of coaxial contra-rotating propellers) on the Soviet Union'sTupolev Tu-95 high-speed military bomber andAntonov An-22military transport aircraft, and theArmstrong Siddeley Double Mamba (ASMD) engines (both connected to a lone set of coaxial contra-rotating propellers) on the BritishFairey Gannet anti-submarine aircraft. Both setups had four largely unswept blades in the front propeller and the back propeller.
When the1973 oil crisis caused petroleum price spikes in the early 1970s, interest in propfans soared, and NASA-funded research began to accelerate.[11] The propfan concept was outlined by Carl Rohrbach and Bruce Metzger of the Hamilton Standard division ofUnited Technologies in 1975[12] and was patented by Rohrbach and Robert Cornell of Hamilton Standard in 1979.[3] Later work by General Electric on similar propulsors adopted the name unducted fan, which was a modifiedturbofan engine, with the fan placed outside theengine nacelle on the same axis as thecompressor blades.
During this era, the propeller problems became fixable. Advances were made in structural materials, such astitanium metal andgraphite andglass fiber composites infused withresin. These materials replacedaluminum andsteel metals in blade construction, which allowed the blades to be made thinner and stronger.[13]Computer-aided design was also useful in refining blade characteristics. Since the blades bend and deflect with higher power loading andcentrifugal force, the initial designs needed to be based on the in-motion shape. With the help of computers, the blade designers would then work backward to find the optimal unloaded shape for manufacturing purposes.[14]
Hamilton Standard, the only large American manufacturer of aircraft propellers, developed the propfan concept in the early 1970s.[15] Hamilton Standard tested numerous variations in conjunction withNASA.[16][17]
Under the Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) program, Lockheed-Georgia proposed modifying aGulfstream II to act as in-flight testbed for the propfan concept, whileMcDonnell Douglas proposed modifying aDC-9 for the same purpose.[18] NASA chose theLockheed proposal. The Gulfstream II had a nacelle added to the left wing, containing a 6,000 horsepower (4,500 kilowatts)Allison 570 turboprop engine (derived from theXT701 turboshaft developed for theBoeing Vertol XCH-62 heavy lifthelicopter). The engine used an eight-bladed, 9-foot diameter (2.7-metre; 110-inch; 270-centimetre), single-rotation Hamilton Standard SR-7 propfan. The test engine, which was named the Allison 501-M78,[19] had a thrust rating of 9,000 lbf (40 kN).[20] It was first operated in flight on March 28, 1987.[21] The extensive test program, which cost about $56 million,[22] racked up 73 flights and over 133 hours of flight time before finishing on March 25, 1988.[23] In 1989, however, thetestbed aircraft returned to the air from April 3 through April 14 to measure ground noise levels during flight.[24][25] The engine was removed after that, and the aircraft was converted to a spaceshuttle training aircraft later that year.[26]
_McDonnell_Douglas_demonstrator%2c_Farnborough_UK_-_England%2c_September_1988_(5589809360).jpg)
TheGE36 Unducted Fan (UDF), from American engine makerGeneral Electric (GE) with 35-percent participation from French partnerSnecma (nowSafran), was a variation on the original propfan concept and resembled apusher configuration piston engine. GE's UDF had a novel direct-drive arrangement, where the reduction gearbox was replaced by a low-speed seven-stage free turbine. One set of turbine rotors drove the forward set of propellers, while the rear set was driven by the other set of rotors which rotated in the opposite direction. The turbine had 14 blade rows with seven stages. Each stage was a pair of contra-rotating rows.[27] Airframers, who had been wary of issue-prone gearboxes since the 1950s, liked GE's gearless version of the propfan:[14]Boeing intended to offer GE's pusher UDF engine on the7J7 platform (which would have had a cruise speed ofMach 0.83),[28] andMcDonnell Douglas planned to do likewise on theirMD-94Xairliner. The GE36 was first flight tested mounted on the #3 engine station of aBoeing 727-100 on August 20, 1986.[29] The GE36 UDF for the 7J7 was planned to have a thrust of 25,000 pounds-force (110 kN), but GE claimed that in general its UDF concept could cover a thrust range of 9,000 to 75,000 lbf (40 to 334 kN),[30] so a UDF engine could possibly match or surpass the thrust of theCF6, GE's family of widebody engines at that time.
McDonnell Douglas developed a proof-of-concept aircraft by modifying its company-ownedMD-80, which is suited for propfans due to its aft fuselage-mounted engines (like its DC-9 ancestor), in preparation for the possible propfan-powered MD-91 and MD-92 derivatives and a possibleMD-94X clean-sheet aircraft. They replaced the left sideJT8D turbofan engine with the GE36. Test flights began in May 1987,[31] which proved the design's airworthiness, aerodynamic characteristics, and noise signature. Following the initial tests, a first-class cabin was installed inside the aft fuselage and airline executives were offered the opportunity to experience the UDF-powered aircraft first-hand. The test and marketing flights of the GE-outfitted demonstrator aircraft concluded in 1988, exhibiting a 30% reduction in fuel consumption over turbo-fan powered MD-80, full Stage 3 noise compliance, and low levels of interior noise/vibration. The GE36 would have the same 25,000 lbf (110 kN) thrust on the MD-92X, but the same engine would be derated to 22,000 lbf (98 kN) thrust for the smaller MD-91X. The MD-80 was also successfully flight tested in April 1989 with the578-DX propfan, which was a prototype from theAllison Engine Company (at that time a division ofGeneral Motors) that was also derived from the Allison XT701 and built with Hamilton Standard propellers. The engine program was jointly developed between Allison and another division of United Technologies, the engine makerPratt & Whitney. Unlike the competing GE36 UDF, the 578-DX was fairly conventional, having a reduction gearbox between the LP turbine and the propfan blades. Due to jet fuel price drops and shifting marketing priorities, Douglas shelved the propfan program later that year.
Other announcements of future propfan-powered airliners included:
None of these projects came to fruition, however, mainly because of excessive cabin noise (compared to turbofans) and low fuel prices.[45] For General Electric, theGE36 UDF was meant to replace theCFM56 high-bypass turbofan that it produced with equal partner Snecma in theirCFM International joint venture. In the 1980s the engine was initially uncompetitive against theInternational Aero Engines rival offering, theIAE V2500. In December 1986, the chairman of Snecma declared that the in-development CFM56-5S2 would be the last turbofan created for the CFM56 family, and that"There is no point in spending more money on turbofans. UDF is the future."[46] The V2500 ran into technical problems in 1987, however, and the CFM56 gained major sales momentum. General Electric lost interest in having the GE36 cannibalize the CFM56, which went five years before it received its first order in 1979, and while "the UDF could be made reliable by earlier standards, turbofans were getting much, much better than that." General Electric added the UDF's blade technology directly into theGE90, the most powerful jet engine ever produced, for theBoeing 777.[47]
At the beginning of the 1990s, theSoviet Union/Russia performed flight tests on theProgress D-236, a geared contra-rotating propfan engine based on the core of theProgress D-36 turbofan, with eight blades on the front propeller and six blades on the back propeller. One testbed was a 10,100 hp (7,500 kW) propfan mounted to an IlyushinIl-76 and flown to the Hannover ILA 90 airshow, which was intended for an unidentified four-propfan aircraft.[48] The D-236 flew 36 times for a total of 70 flight test hours on the Il-76.[49] The other testbed was a 10,990 hp (8,195 kW), 14 ft unit (4.2 m; 170 in; 420 cm) mounted to a YakovlevYak-42E-LL and flown to the 1991Paris Air Show, as a demonstration for the plannedYak-46 aircraft with twin propfan engines,[50] which in its base 150-seat version would have a range of 1,900 nmi (2,200 mi; 3,500 km) and cruise at a speed of 460 kn (530 mph; 850 km/h; 780 ft/s; 240 m/s)[51] (Mach 0.75).[52] The Soviets claimed the D-236 had a trueaerodynamic efficiency of 28 percent and a fuel savings of 30 percent over an equivalentturboprop. They also revealed plans for propfans with power ratings of 14,100 and 30,200 hp (10,500 and 22,500 kW).[48]
.jpg)
Like the Progress D-236, the more powerfulProgress D-27 propfan engine is a contra-rotating propfan with eight front blades and six back blades,[52] but the D-27 has advanced composite blades with a reducedthickness-to-chord ratio and a more pronounced curvature at theleading edge.[53] An engine that was launched in 1985, the D-27[54] delivers 14,000 hp (10,440 kW) of power with 27,000 lbf (119 kN) of thrust at takeoff.[55] Two rear-mounted D-27 propfans propelled the UkrainianAntonov An-180, which was scheduled for a 1995 first flight and a 1997 entry into service.[56] In January 1994,Antonov rolled out the first prototype of theAn-70 military transport aircraft, powered by four Progress D-27s attached to wings mounted to the top of the fuselage.[55] TheRussian Air Force placed an order for 164 aircraft in2003, later canceled. As of 2013, the An-70 was still thought to have a promising future as a freighter.[57] Since the propeller component of the Progress D-27 is made by Russia's SPEAerosila, however, the An-70 was stymied by theRusso-Ukrainian War. Antonov began working instead withTurkey in 2018 to redevelop the An-70 as a rebrandedAn-77, so that the aircraft can comply with modern-day requirements without Russian supplier participation.[58]
In the first decade of the 21st century, risingjet fuel prices increased emphasis on engine/airframe efficiency to reduce emissions, which renewed interest in the propfan concept for jetliners beyond theBoeing 787 andAirbus A350XWB. For instance,Airbus patented aircraft designs with twin rear-mounted contra-rotating propfans.[59]Rolls-Royce had the rear (pusher) configured RB.509-11 and front (tractor) configured RB.509-14 geared propfan designs, which produced 15,000–25,000 lbf thrust (6,800–11,300 kgf; 67–111 kN) using the gas generator from itsXG-40 engine[60] with 13,000 hp (9,700 kW) of shaft power.[61] It became lukewarm on propfan technology in the 1980s[62]although it developed an open rotor design that was thought to be a finalist for theIrkut MS-21 narrowbody aircraft.[63] TheRolls-Royce RB3011 engine would have a diameter of about 170 in (430 cm; 14 ft; 4.3 m) and require a 16,000 shaft hp (12,000 kW)gearbox.[64]
TheEuropean Commission launched an Open Rotor demonstration in 2008 led bySafran within theClean Sky program funded with €65 million over eight years. A demonstrator was assembled in 2015, and ground tested in May 2017 on its open-air test rig inIstres, aiming to reducefuel consumption and associated CO2 emissions by 30% compared with currentCFM56 turbofans.[65] After the completion of ground testing at the end of 2017, Safran's geared open rotor engine had reachedtechnology readiness level 5.[66] The demonstrator's twelve-blade front propeller and ten-blade back propeller had diameters of 13.1 and 12.5 ft (4.0 and 3.8 m; 160 and 150 in; 400 and 380 cm), respectively. The demonstrator, based on the core of theSnecma M88 military fighter engine, uses up to 12,200 horsepower (9 megawatts), provides a thrust of about 22,000 lbf (100 kN), and would cruise at a speed of Mach 0.75.[67] Safran's future open rotor engine, however, would have a maximum diameter of almost 14.8 ft (4.50 m; 177 in; 450 cm).[68]
In 2007, the Progress D-27 was successfully modified to meet the United StatesFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) Stage 4 regulations, which correspond toInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Chapter 4 standards.[69] A 2012 trade study projected that propfan noise would be 10–13decibels quieter than allowed by Stage 4 regulations.[70] Stage 5 noise limits reduce the limits by only seven effective perceived noise decibels (EPNdB),[71] within the propfan noise envelope. The study also projected that open rotors would be nine percent more fuel-efficient but remain 10–12 decibels louder than turbofans.[70] Snecma claimed that its propfan engines would have about the same noise levels as itsCFM LEAP turbofan engine.[72]
In 2021,CFM International announced itsRevolutionary Innovation for Sustainable Engines (RISE) development program to produce a single-stage, gear-driven propfan paired with active stators in a puller/tractor, configuration with flight tests to begin by 2025. The rotor was expected to be 12–13 ft (3.7–4.0 m) in diameter. The engine was expected to produce 20,000–35,000 lbf (9,100–15,900 kgf; 89–156 kN) of thrust, with a 20% increase in fuel efficiency. The company claimed its motivation was the global emphasis on reducing emissions. The engine was planned to support bothhydrogen andsustainable aviation fuels. The engine was expected to include a compact high-pressure core and a recuperating system to preheat combustion air with exhaust heat along with ceramic matrix composites in the hot section and resin-transfer-molded composite fan blades. In addition to the rotor, the design includes a nonrotating set of variable-pitch stator blades that act as flow recovery vanes. The design increases the fan-pressure ratio and reduces rotor loading, increasing airspeed. The fan stage is to be powered by a high-speed booster compressor and a high-speed, low-pressure-shaft-driven front gearbox. The engine is slated for certification as an "integrated engine" instead of a traditional "propeller/engine" because of its airframe integration complexity.[73] CFM planned for an aerodynamically three-dimensional rotor with 12 woven carbon-fiber composite blades. Aided by a smaller engine core, the CFM RISE engine would have a bypass ratio of 75.[74]
Turboprops have an optimum speed below about 450 mph (390 kn; 720 km/h),[75] becausepropellers lose efficiency at high speed, due to an effect known aswave drag that occurs just belowsupersonic speeds. This powerfuldrag has a sudden onset, and it led to the concept of asound barrier when first encountered in the 1940s. This effect can happen whenever the propeller is spun fast enough that the blade tips approach the speed of sound.
The most effective way to address this problem is by adding blades to the propeller, allowing it to deliver more power at a lower rotational speed. This is why manyWorld War II fighter designs started with two or three-blade propellers but by the end of the war were using up to five blades; as engines with more power were introduced, new propellers were needed to more efficiently convert that power. Adding blades makes the propeller harder to balance and maintain, and the additional blades cause minor performance penalties due to drag and efficiency issues. But even with these sorts of measures, eventually the forward speed of the plane combined with the rotational speed of the propeller blade tips (together known as the helical tip speed) will again result in wave drag problems. For most aircraft, this will occur at speeds over about 450 mph (390 kn; 720 km/h).[citation needed]
A method of decreasing wave drag was discovered by German researchers in 1935—sweeping the wing backwards. Today, almost all aircraft designed to fly much above 450 mph (390 kn; 720 km/h) use aswept wing. Since the inside of the propeller is moving slower in the rotational direction than the outside, the blade is progressively more swept back toward the outside, leading to a curved shape similar to ascimitar – a practice that was first used as far back as 1909, in theChauvière two-bladed wood propeller used on theBlériot XI. (At the blade root, the blade is actually swept forward into the rotational direction, to counter the twisting that is generated by the backward swept blade tips.)[76] The Hamilton Standard test propfan was swept progressively to a 39-degree maximum at the blade tips, allowing the propfan to produce thrust even though the blades had a helical tip speed of about Mach 1.15.[77]
The blades of the GE36 UDF and the 578-DX had a maximum tip speed of about 750–800 ft/s (230–240 m/s; 510–550 mph; 820–880 km/h).[78] This speed would be kept constant despite bigger or smaller propeller diameter by changing the maximum RPM.[5]
Drag can also be reduced by making the blades thinner, which increases the speed that the blades can attain before the air ahead of them becomes compressible and causes shock waves. For example, the blades of the Hamilton Standard test propfan had athickness-to-chord ratio that tapered from less than 20% at the spinner junction to 2% at the tips, and 4% at mid-span.[77] Propfan blades had approximately half the thickness-to-chord ratio of the best conventional propeller blades of the era,[79] thinned to razor-like sharpness at their edges,[14][80] and weighed as little as 20 pounds (9.1 kg).[81] (The GE36 UDF engine that was tested on the Boeing 727 had front and back blades that weighed 22.5 and 21.5 lb (10.2 and 9.8 kg) each.)[82]
One of the major problems with the propfan is noise. The propfan research in the 1980s discovered ways to reduce noise, but at the cost of reduced fuel efficiency, mitigating some of the advantages of a propfan.[citation needed]
General methods for reducing noise include lowering tip speeds and decreasing blade loading, or the amount ofthrust per unit of blade surface area. A concept similar towing loading, blade loading can be reduced by lowering the thrust requirement or by increasing the amount, width, and/or length of the blades. For contra-rotating propfans, which can be louder than turboprops or single-rotating propfans, noise can also be lowered by:[83]
Engine makers expect propfan implementations to meet community (as opposed to cabin) noise regulations without sacrificing the efficiency advantage. Some think that propfans can potentially cause less of a community impact than turbofans, given their lower rotational speeds. Geared propfans should have an advantage over ungeared propfans for the same reason.[84]
In 2007, the Progress D-27 was modified to meet the United StatesFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) Stage 4 regulations, which correspond toInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Chapter 4 standards and were adopted in 2006.[69] A 2012 trade study by NASA projected that noise from existing open rotor technology would be 10–13 cumulativeEPNdB quieter than the maximum noise level allowed by the Stage 4 regulations.[70][85] The newer Stage 5 noise limits (which replaced the Stage 4 regulations for larger aircraft in 2018 and mirrored the ICAO Chapter 14 noise standard established in 2014) are more restrictive than the Stage 4 requirement by only seven cumulative EPNdB,[71] so current propfan technology should not be hindered by the Stage 5 standards. (The term "cumulative" is used to combine takeoff lateral, takeoff flyover and approach EPNdB margins relative to certification noise levels.) The study also projected that at existing technology levels, open rotors would be nine percent more fuel-efficient but remain 10–12 cumulative EPNdB louder than future aircraft with advanced ultra-highbypass ratio turbofans.[70][85]Snecma estimates from open-rotor tests that its propfan engines would have about the same noise levels as itsCFM LEAP turbofan engine,[72] which entered service in 2016.
Further reductions can be achieved by redesigning the aircraft structure to shield noise from the ground. For example, another study estimated that if propfan engines were used to power ahybrid wing body aircraft instead of a conventional tube-and-wing aircraft, noise levels could be reduced by as much as 38 cumulative EPNdB compared to ICAO Chapter 4 requirements.[86] In 2007, the British budget airlineeasyJet introduced its ecoJet concept, a 150–250 seat aircraft with V-mounted open rotor engines joined to the rear fuselage and shielded by a U-tail.[87] It unsuccessfully initiated discussions with Airbus, Boeing, and Rolls-Royce to produce the aircraft.[88]
A twin-engine aircraft carrying 100–150 passengers would require propfan diameters of 120–168 inches (300–430 cm; 10.0–14.0 ft; 3.0–4.3 m),[77] and a propfan with a propeller diameter of 236 in (600 cm; 19.7 ft; 6.0 m) would theoretically produce almost 60,000 lbf (270 kN) of thrust.[89] These sizes achieve the desired highbypass ratios of over 30, but they are approximately twice the diameter of turbofan engines of equivalent capability.[67] For this reason, airframers usually design theempennage with aT-tail configuration in order to avoid the turbulent propwash adversely influencing the elevators and causing vibration issues therein. The propfans may be attached to the upper part of the rearfuselage. For theRolls-Royce RB3011 propfan prototype, a pylon of about 8.3 ft (2.54 m; 100 in; 254 cm) long would be required to connect the center of each engine to the side of the fuselage.[90] If the propfans are mounted to the wings, the wings would be attached to the aircraft in a highwing configuration, which allows for ground clearance without requiring excessively longlanding gear. For the same amount of power or thrust produced, an unducted fan requires shorter blades than a geared propfan,[91] although the overall installation issues still apply.
Turboprops and most propfans are rated by the amount of shafthorsepower (shp) that they produce, as opposed to turbofans and the UDF propfan type, which are rated by the amount ofthrust they put out. Therule of thumb is that at sea level with a static engine, 1 shaft horsepower (750 watts) is roughly equivalent of 2 pounds-force (8.9 N) thrust, but at cruise altitude, that changes to about 1 pound-force (4.4 N) thrust. That means two 25,000 lbf thrust (110 kN) engines can theoretically be replaced with a pair of 12,000–13,000 shaft hp (8,900–9,700 kW) propfans or with two 25,000 lbf thrust (110 kN) UDF propfans.[5]
G.E., however, insisted that open rotors' efficiency drops off at a much higher speed. Gordon said Boeing has G.E.'s and its own results from UDF windtunnel tests up to Mach 0.9 and continues to list the UDF as the baseline engine on the 7J7 that has a design cruise speed of Mach 0.83. 'Boeing is not crazy,' he told ATW.
General resources
{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)alternate url