NOISY BUT efficient and almost making its commercial debut in the 1980’s, the open rotor engine (also known as the propfan) was poised to be the revolution in engine development. Its inception accredited for by the energy crisis in the early ’70s, which brought airlines to their knees as one variable cost they could not control; fuel, forced them into the red. Twenty years later, the price of oil once again breached the $100 mark and now it’s becoming a common occurrence.

The resurgence of turboprops such as the ATR and Dash 8 family effectively killed off the 50 seat regional jet. Carriers found that operating short sectors using CRJ200s or ERJ145s could be twice as costly to run than using a turboprop counterpart. Any speed advantage is minimal, particularly on sectors less than 1.5 hours. It is on sectors of 2 hours and longer when the operating benefits become negligible, or disadvantageous compared to turbofan aircraft.

Whilst the turbofan engine remain an institution in commercial aviation, studies into open rotor viability have re-opened. Major manufacturers have identified the likelihood of a future that implements unducted fan engines, primarily in their medium-haul narrowbody fleet. The engine connects the fuel economy of a turboprop with jet-like speeds but suffers one significant drawback; an unacceptable noise profile.

To counteract this pitfall, designers are working on ways to mask the noise output. A rear-engined layout displays many benefits, such as propeller clearance. It also allows for a “pelican” tail design which encases the engines on both sides with twin vertical stabilisers.

easyJet have vocalised their support for the engine, even modelling their ideal aircraft which they have dubbed the “EcoJet”

With Pratt and Whitney’s Geared Turbofan success, and General Electric’s equally triumphant Leap-x design, the open rotor dwells on the horizon. Just like the turboprop revival, it stands a fair chance of becoming a reality once more as airlines seek to maintain control¬†of volatile fuel prices in their aim to remain profitable.


6 thoughts on “An open rotor future

  1. I think 2 propfans side by side on the tail were looked it in recent yrs. Authorities came to the conclusion they had to be certified as single engine aircraft because of the likelihood of engine one taking out the other.

    They went back to more conventional set ups ( a few yrs ago) .

    Maybe w’ll go to conventional configurations with new engines..

  2. the noise issue has two parts, cabin noise, and outside noise. the loud noise generated by these propfans could be heard from the ground, far away. the propellor tip speeds are near sonic, creates acoustic issues not seen with normal turbo props.

  3. That was 22 years ago. In europe RR did a lot of research and testing during the last 4-5 yrs. New techology was developed to reduce/ prevent the noise effects experienced in the eighties. NASA too restarted research together with PW.

  4. A great concept but one thing I have never understood – why dont they just put something of a nacelle around just the fan at the back?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s