Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Do you get Open Rotor?

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Do you get Open Rotor?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 31st Aug 2011, 07:33
  #1 (permalink)  
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do you get Open Rotor?

I do sympathise with Keesje. Airlines wet themselves over saving 5-10% fuel so why don't they buy Keeje's Turboliner and save 20% for only slightly longer flight durations?

Nevertheless I'm still intrigued to see where Rolls' vision of the future fits in. What essentially is the difference between a turboprop and an open rotor?

It would appear open rotors can go a bit faster but turboprops can already do M0.72 at 37,000 feet. That's not much slower than a 737.

Turboprops have gears but then again it looks to me as though Rolls' motor has a gear to get one of the rotors to counter-rotate.

Rolls has failed to win anything recently with their RB285. Is open rotor just to divert attention from their weakness in the narrow body market?
twistedenginestarter is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2011, 10:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
don't they buy Keeje's Turboliner and save 20% for only slightly longer flight durations
They don't buy it because it doesn't exist and it doesn't exist because it is a high risk technology.
WillDAQ is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2011, 13:45
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I remember seeing something like this on a proof of concept demonstrator at Paris or Farnborough back around '87 or '88. At that time GE called the concept UDF for unducted fan. One UDF engine was mounted on an MD-80 series airplane while the other side carried the standard JT8D-200 series fanjet. It was billed as being able to provide massive fuel savings to cost conscious airlines. But what was remembered by crowds witnessing the flight demo was the cacophony of ear-splitting noise emanating from the beast. Between that, concerns expressed over the structural integrity and damage tolerance of the blades and the development of higher bypass and more efficient fanjets, the project never really went anywhere. The idea still has it's supporters to this day though, so it resurfaces from time to time.

Edit: I found an interesting historical perspective on the project here. Enjoy!
westhawk is online now  
Old 31st Aug 2011, 16:50
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I remember following the UDF at the time it was first tried. They lined the fuselage with Helmholtz resonators and still couldn't control the noise.

After an excellent landing etc...
Flash2001 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2011, 17:52
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The "open rotor" engines, despite their relatively green characteristics, will still be unpopular with many anti-aviation campaigners as they are significantly noisier than ordinary turbofans.
NASA working on 'open rotor' green (but loud) jets ? The Register

With all the noise complaints already, it is unlikely we'll see any of these on airliners.
Intruder is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.