Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T12:57:45.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progress in open rotor propulsors: The FAA/GE/NASA open rotor test campaign

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

D. E. Van Zante ,
F. Collier ,
A. Orton ,
S. Arif Khalid ,
J. P. Wojno  and
T. H. Wood
D. E. Van Zante*
Affiliation:
NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, USA
F. Collier
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, USA
A. Orton
Affiliation:
Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC, USA
S. Arif Khalid
Affiliation:
General Electric Aviation, Cincinnati, USA
J. P. Wojno
Affiliation:
General Electric Aviation, Cincinnati, USA
T. H. Wood
Affiliation:
General Electric Global Research, Niskayuna, USA
*
dale.e.vanzante@nasa.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Model scale tests of modern ‘open rotor’ propulsor concepts that have potential for significant fuel burn reduction for aircraft applications were completed at NASA Glenn Research Center. The recent test campaign was a collaboration between NASA, FAA, and General Electric (GE). GE was the primary industrial partner, but other organisations were involved such as Boeing and Airbus who provided additional hardware for fuselage simulations. The open rotor is a modern version of the UnDucted Fan (UDF®) that was flight tested in the late 1980s through a partnership between NASA and GE. The UDF® was memorable for its scimitar shaped propeller blades and its unique noise signature. Design methods of the time were not able to optimise for both high aerodynamic efficiency and low noise simultaneously. Contemporary CFD/CAA based design methods can produce open rotor blade designs that maintain efficiency with acceptable acoustic signatures. Tests of two generations of new open rotor designs were conducted in the 9’ × 15’ Low Speed Wind Tunnel and the 8’ × 6’ Supersonic Wind Tunnel starting in late 2009 and completed in early 2012. Aerodynamic performance and acoustic data were obtained for take-off, approach and cruise conditions in isolated and semi-installed configurations. Additional detailed flow diagnostic measurements and acoustic measurements, including canonical shielding configurations, were obtained by NASA. NASA and GE conducted joint systems analysis to evaluate the performance of the new blade designs on a Boeing 737 class aircraft. The program demonstrated a 2-3% improvement in overall net efficiency relative to the best efficiency designs of the 1980s while nominally achieving 15-17 EPNdB noise margin to Chapter 4 (at a Technology Readiness Level of 5) for a notional aircraft system defined by NASA.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1208 , October 2014 , pp. 1181 - 1213
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bowles, M.D. The Apollo of Aeronautics, NASA’s Aircraft Energy Effciency Program, NASA SP-2009-574, 2010.Google Scholar
2. Janardan, B.A. and Gliebe, P.R. Acoustic Power Level Comparisons of Model-Scale Counterrotating Unducted Fans, AIAA-91-0595, 29th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, USA, 7-10 January, 1991.Google Scholar
3. Hoff, G.E. Experimental Performance and Acoustic Investigation of Modern, Counterrotating Blade Concepts, NASA CR 185158, January 1990.Google Scholar
4. Harris, R.W. and Cuthbertson, R.D. UDF™/727 Flight Test Program, AIAA-87-1733, AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 23rd Joint Propulsion Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 29 June – 2 July, 1987.Google Scholar
5. Wojno, J.P. and Janardan, B.A. Comparison of NASA 9 × 15 Low Speed Wind Tunnel Counter Rotating Open Rotor Data with GE-Anechoic Facility Historic Data for Baseline F31A31 Blade Design, AIAA 2013-2204, 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Berlin, Germany, May 2013.Google Scholar
6. Sharma, A. and Chen, H. Prediction of tonal aerodynamic noise from open rotors, JSV, 2013, 332, (16), pp 3832–3845.Google Scholar
7. Khalid, S. A., Wojno, J. P., Breeze-Stringfellow, A., Lurie, D. P., Wood, T. H., Ramakrishnan, K. and Paliath, U. Open Rotor Designs for Low Noise and High Effciency, ASME GT2013-94736, ASME Turbo Expo, San Antonio, TX, USA, June 2013.Google Scholar
8. Smith, L.H. Unducted fan aerodynamic design, ASME J Turbomachinery, 1987, 109, pp 313–324.Google Scholar
9. Metzger, F.B. and Brown, P.C. Results of Acoustic Tests of a Prop-Fan Model, in AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 23rd Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA-87-1894, San Diego, CA, USA, 1984.Google Scholar
10. Magliozzi, B. Noise Characteristics of a Model Counterrotating Prop-Fan, in 11th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA-87-2656, Sunnyvale, CA, USA, 1987.Google Scholar
11. Sullivan, T.J. Aerodynamic performance of a scale-model, counterrotating unducted fan, ASME J Turbomachinery, 112, pp 579–586, 1990.Google Scholar
12. Elliott, D.M. Initial Investigation of the Acoustics of a Counter Rotating Open Rotor Model With Historical Baseline Blades in a Low Speed Wind Tunnel, in 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2011-2760, Portland, OR, USA, 2011.Google Scholar
13. Van Zante, D., Gazzaniga, J., Elliott, D. and Woodward, R. An Open Rotor Test Case: F31/A31 Historical Baseline Blade Set, in ISABE-2011-1310, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2011.Google Scholar
14. Delaney, B.R., Balan, C., West, H., Humenik, F.M. and Craig, G. A Model Propulsion Simulator for Evaluating Counter Rotating Blade Characteristics, SAE Paper 861715, presented at the Aerospace Technology Conference and Exposition, Long Beach, CA, USA, 13-16 October 1986.Google Scholar
15. Stephens, D.B. Acoustic Performance of Drive Rig Muffers for Model Scale Engine Testing, NASA/TM-2013-217885, 2013.Google Scholar
16. Stefko, G.L. and Jeracki, R.J. Porous Wind Tunnel Corrections for Counterrotation Propeller Testing, AIAA-88-2055, 1988.Google Scholar
17. Stephens, D.B. Nearfield Unsteady Pressures at Cruise Mach Numbers for a Model Scale Counter-Rotation Open Rotor, AIAA-2012-2264, 18th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Colorado Springs, CO, USA, June 2012.Google Scholar
18. Horvath, C., Podboy, G.G. and Envia, E. Limitations of Phased Array Beamforming in Open Rotor Noise Source Imaging, presented at 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Berlin, Germany, May 2013.Google Scholar
19. Van Zante, D.E. and Wernet, M.P. Tip Vortex and Wake Characteristics of a Counterrotating Open Rotor, AIAA-2012-4039, 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 29 July – 1 August 2012.Google Scholar
20. Stephens, D. and Envia, E. Acoustic Shielding for a Model Scale Counter-rotation Open Rotor, AIAA 2011-2940, 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA, June 2011.Google Scholar
21. Berton, J.J. Empennage Noise Shielding Benefts for an Open Rotor Transport, AIAA 2011-2764, 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA, June 2011.Google Scholar
22. Guynn, M., Berton, J., Hendricks, E., Tong, M., Haller, W. and Thurman, D. Initial Assessment of Open Rotor Propulsion Applied to an Advanced Single-Aisle Aircraft, 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, AIAA-2011-7058. Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 2011.Google Scholar
23. Hendricks, E. Development of an Open Rotor Cycle Model in NPSS using a Multi-Design Point Approach, GT2011-46694, ASME Turbo Expo 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 2011.Google Scholar
24. Hendricks, E.S. and Tong, M.T. Performance and Weight Estimates for an Advanced Open Rotor Engine, AIAA-2012-3911, 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 29 July – 1 August 2012.Google Scholar
25. Hendricks, E.S., Berton, J.J., Haller, W.J., Tong, M.T. and Guynn, M.D. Updated Assessments of an Open Rotor Airplane using Advanced Blade Designs, AIAA-2013-3628, 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, San Jose, CA, USA, July 2013.Google Scholar
26. Majjigi, M. and Wojno, J.P. Previous Open Rotor Noise Experience at GE,’ in X-Noise Open Rotor Technology Seminar, Lausanne, Switzerland, 18 March 2011, pp 1–8.Google Scholar