2013-01-2245

Published 09/17/2013
Copyright © 2013 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2013-01-2245
saeaero.saejournals.org

Airbus AI-PX7 CROR Design Features and Aerodynamics

Camil A. Negulescu
Airbus Operations SAS, Toulouse, France

ABSTRACT
The renewed interest in the fuel efficient and low CO2 emission CROR (contra-rotating open rotor) propulsion system
for future commercial aircrafts has recently led to a series of isolated and installed CROR wind tunnel test campaigns
performed in close collaboration between Airbus and the engine manufacturers. These tests aim at better understanding the
potentials and limitations of the CROR configuration, as well as at generating reference data for the development and
calibration of numerical tools for both industry and research centers. One of these tested CROR concepts is the AI-PX7
CROR propeller designed by Airbus.
In this context, this paper presents multidisciplinary design features of modern high-speed contra-rotating propellers for
commercial aircrafts. The influence of main CROR design parameters like blade number, propeller tip speed, rotor
diameter, etc. on the propeller aerodynamics, acoustics and structures is described. Moreover, CROR blade shapes
aerodynamic, acoustic and structural design considerations, like blade loading and blade sweep distributions are exposed.
Finally, the design of the Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller is presented, as well as a steady-state and unsteady CFD
analysis of the AI-PX7 CROR propeller aerodynamics.

CITATION: Negulescu, C., "Airbus AI-PX7 CROR Design Features and Aerodynamics," SAE Int. J. Aerosp. 6(2):2013,
doi:10.4271/2013-01-2245.
____________________________________

INTRODUCTION wind tunnel testing are therefore important milestones for

The rapid growth of aircraft fuel prices over the past 20
years has stimulated a series of studies of propeller
propulsion systems for commercial aircrafts. Block fuel
benefits of 20 to 35% are expected by the use of modern
high-speed turboprops, with the highest fuel savings achieved
by the CROR (contra-rotating open rotor) technology.
Besides pure efficiency objectives, advanced high-speed
propeller designs have nowadays also to attain aggressive
noise reduction goals.
Actually, whereas the fan blades of a turbofan engine are
ducted by the nacelle, the propeller blades of an open rotor
engine are directly exposed to the aircraft flowfield and its
inhomogeneities and so to an environment which is
favourable for noise and vibrations generation. Likewise,
from an aerodynamic point of view, a non-uniform propeller
flowfield requires a robust propeller design and the mastering
of propeller in-plane 1P efforts. It is therefore of major
importance for the airframer to understand, characterize and
adapt, together with the engine manufacturer, the behavior of
the propeller in the aircraft flowfield. The design of the
Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller, its numerical simulation and
Airbus towards the development of the overall maturity of the
CROR aircraft configuration.
The Airbus CROR propeller AI-PX7 (Fig. 1), which
represents a pusher CROR designed for a rear-fuselage
installation on a future notional commercial aircraft, was
designed at the Airbus aerodynamic design office in Toulouse
in 2009. The AI-PX7 CROR design will permit to test and
assess the aerodynamic and aero-acoustic isolated and
installed CROR performances, as well as the CROR's impact
on the A/C (aircraft) performances and handling qualities.
Wind tunnel tests are currently performed on different A/C
models at different scales. Moreover, the Airbus AI-PX7
CROR geometry and part of the wind tunnel test results are
shared with the European aeronautic research and industrial
partners in the frame of the Clean Sky JTI project for
assessment and calibration of aerodynamic and aero-acoustic
numerical simulation tools.
This paper focuses on the design of the Airbus AI-PX7
CROR propeller based on multi-disciplinary design criteria
and its aerodynamic numerical validation.
Multidisciplinary design features of modern high-speed
contra-rotating propellers for commercial aircrafts are

626
 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013) 627

presented. The influence of main CROR design parameters MAIN CROR DESIGN PARAMETERS
like blade number, propeller tip speed, rotor diameter, etc. on
the propeller aerodynamics, acoustics and structures is AND THEIR IMPACT ON A
described. Moreover, CROR blade shapes aerodynamic, MULTIDISCIPLINARY LEVEL
acoustic and structural design considerations, like blade
In the following sections the impact of the main design
loading and blade sweep distributions, are exposed.
parameters of a CROR propeller on a multidisciplinary level
Finally, the design of the Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller
are described. Moreover, design criteria for the choice of
is presented, as well as a steady-state and unsteady CFD
these parameters are given. The main design parameters of
analysis of the AI-PX7 CROR propeller aerodynamics.
the Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller are finally exposed.

CROR Installation & Pusher/Puller

Propeller Configuration
Before specifying the main design parameters of the
CROR propeller, the airframer has to decide on the best
mission suited CROR-to-Aircraft installation concept.
Without looking at extravagant engine installation concepts,
CROR engines can generally be mounted on the wing or on
the rear fuselage with both puller and pusher propeller
arrangements. We will focus in this paragraph on the two
currently investigated installation concepts, i.e. the wing-
mounted puller and the rear fuselage pylon-mounted pusher
concepts, and give insight into multidisciplinary aircraft
installation and turboprop architecture considerations. Figure
Figure 1. AI-PX7 CROR propeller mounted on a dummy
2 and 3 show two examples of these two installation
nacelle.
concepts.

DESIGN CONDITIONS
As mentioned above, multidisciplinary design aspects for
CROR propellers for commercial aircraft will be presented in
the following sections. The exposed design considerations are
general and may be applied for civil or military contra-
rotating propeller propulsion systems of different type of
missions. Nevertheless, we will focus here on high speed
contra-rotating propellers of 14.000-20.000 engine shp, flying
at Mach=0.7−0.8 and at 31.000−41.000ft altitude adapted for
a future CROR notional commercial aircraft.
The exact design points considered for the Airbus AI-PX7 Figure 2. AN-70 wing-mounted puller CROR.
CROR propeller, as well as its performance objectives, are
listed in table 1. The design is performed as a compromise
between cruise and take-off aerodynamic and aero-acoustic
design considerations.

Table 1. Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller design

conditions.

Figure 3. Airbus Z08 A/C rear fuselage pusher CROR

wind tunnel model
628 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)

The wing-mounted puller concept has higher challenges From an engine architecture point of view the puller
to face in terms of cabin and community noise emissions. turboprop/CROR configuration is the more conventional
Indeed, the wing-mounted propellers radiate directly the configuration with proven technologies and lower risks. The
noise to the cabin which is crossed by the propeller planes. majority of past and present turboprops are pullers. Fig. 4
This is not the case for the rear fuselage pylon-mounted displays a view of the Progress D27 puller CROR
pusher where the propellers are situated just after the rear-end (14.000shp) of the AN-70 transporter aircraft. The
of the cabin, thus making this concept more interesting from turbomachinery is mounted in line with the contra-rotating
a cabin noise point of view. Furthermore, wing-mounted propeller (8+6 blades). Other particularities of this concept
propellers see a higher local propeller incidence due to the are the use of a planetary gearbox and an annular inlet duct.
wing up-wash, whereas on the contrary the rear fuselage
pusher sees a reduced local incidence due to the wing down-
wash. As propeller incidence has a direct impact on propeller
tonal noise, the latest configuration has also potentially lower
community noise emissions at take-off and landing condition.
Surely it is true that the rear fuselage pusher propeller has an
additional source of noise and vibrations, as the turboprop
pylon wake is ingested by the propeller which is placed
downstream of the pylon. Nevertheless, the effect of the
pylon wake can be significantly reduced, at least at take-off
and landing conditions, through the pylon trailing edge
blowing technique [1].
From a propeller performance point of view, higher
propeller efficiencies are attainable with the wing-mounted
puller concept. Actually, due to nacelle and wing blockage
the propeller sees lower local velocities in comparison to the
rear fuselage pusher propeller which is placed in the nacelle
overspeed region. Also, a higher propeller diameter can be
specified for wing-mounted propellers increasing furthermore Figure 4. Progress D27 puller CROR
the propeller efficiency.
From an aircraft performance point of view it is more
Turboprop/CROR pusher configurations are more
difficult to state. Surely, the rear fuselage pylon-mounted
challenging concepts due to the hot gases exhaust issue. In
pusher propeller may potentially have less installation and
fact, the hot gases are either expelled upstream of the
slipstream drag than the wing-mounted puller propeller, but
propeller plane (cf. PW/Allison 578DX geared propfan Fig. 5
an accurate study is needed in order to finally state. One has
[2] and Piaggio P180 Avanti PW Canada PT6 turboprop) or
also to keep in mind that the propellers of wing-mounted
the hot gases are expelled through the rotating propeller root
puller concepts may blow the suction side of the wing, so that
annulus (cf. PW/Allison 80's final geared propfan version
less wing area is needed in order to generate the required lift,
578E, Fig. 6 [3]). In the first case, an additional source of
reducing thus the aircraft drag.
noise is created. Moreover, the propeller blades' inboard part
Finally, in terms of aircraft flight mechanics, several
works in the hot exhaust gases environment (700-850°K).
important aspects have to be considered. First, the higher
Propeller blades have therefore to be protected from high
local angle of attack seen by the wing-mounted puller
temperatures, thus increasing blade mass and cost. In the
propeller generates higher propeller in-plane efforts (1P
second case, the hot exhaust gases pass in the vicinity of the
efforts). These efforts impact the stability and trimming of the
gearbox, pitch change mechanism and propeller bearings,
aircraft and have to be taken into account when designing the
which have therefore to be protected from hot gases leakage.
horizontal and vertical tail planes. Secondly, the rear fuselage
This may turn to be challenging and maintenance costs may
pusher propeller concept has, due to its rear engine
be increased.
positioning, a more important centre of gravity displacement
The reference CROR installation concept used at the
as fuel is burned during the flight. This will afford a more
moment by Airbus for CROR propulsion system to aircraft
complicated trimming of the aircraft and potentially a heavier
integrated studies is the rear-fuselage pusher configuration
and aerodynamically less optimized horizontal tail plane.
with hot gases expelled through the rotating propeller root
Finally, it has to be ensured for the rear fuselage pusher
annulus. As exposed above, this is mainly due to its better
propeller concept that during the reverse condition at landing
cabin comfort and lower community noise. This concept is in
the controllability of the aircraft is not affected. In fact, the
the mean time a challenging concept, as it requires tackling
propeller planes are placed just upstream of the vertical tail
potential aircraft trimming, reverse controllability and pylon
plane and may so affect the vertical tail plane aerodynamics
blowing issues. Also, the engine manufacturer has to face
under reverse conditions.
 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)
higher challenges with the CROR pusher concept than with
the more classical CROR puller concept.
Figure 5. PW/Allison 578DX geared propfan [2]
The design of the Airbus CROR propeller AI-PX7 is
consequently based on the rear fuselage pylon-mounted
pusher configuration with hot exhaust gases expelled through
the rotating propeller root annulus.
Up to now, the pusher rear-fuselage CROR installation
concept was flight-tested by American engine manufacturers
during the 80's contra-rotating turboprop powered civil
aircraft programs. Russians contra-rotating turboprops are
mainly puller wing-mounted configurations.
Figure 6. PW/Allison 578E geared propfan [3]
Propeller Hub-to-Tip Ratio
At fixed propeller diameter, a low propeller hub-to-tip
ratio increases the effective propeller annular surface,
diminishing thus induced velocities and increasing therefore
efficiency.
629
The propeller hub-to-tip ratio is generally fixed by the
CROR configuration. For a puller configuration, the hub-to-
tip ratio can be kept low (Dhub/Dtip ∼ 0.2-0.3). Its value
depends on the number of blades that have to be integrated in
the spinner. For a pusher configuration we have rather Dhub/
Dtip ∼ 0.25-0.40 depending on the gearbox and exhaust unit
architecture. Indeed, if hot gases are expelled through the
propeller root annulus and furthermore the propeller gearbox
is integrated in the blade hub, the hub-to-tip ratio is high
(0.35-0.4). Such a configuration is depicted in figure 6 and
represents PW/Allison 80's final geared propfan version [3].
In the case were the exhaust gases are expelled upstream of
the propeller plan (Fig. 5), the hub-to-tip ratio is lower :
Dhub/Dtip ∼ 0.25-0.3.
For the Airbus pusher CROR propeller AI-PX7, with the
hot gases exhaust through the propeller root, the propeller
hub-to-tip ratio is set at Dhub/Dtip=0.35.
Blade Number and Distribution
The blade number has an important impact on the
aerodynamics, acoustics and structures of the propeller. The
activity factor of a propeller AFP, required to absorb the
takeoff thrust and to work at the design lift coefficient at
cruise conditions, can be achieved by a small number of
blades with a large chord or by a high blade number with a
small chord.
For aerodynamic and acoustic reasons a high number of
blades is preferred. Increasing the blade number (at constant
propeller activity factor AFP) reduces blade tip losses (as the
blade aspect ratio is increased), therefore increasing
efficiency. Noise is reduced by shifting the noise to higher
frequencies, reducing thus the perceived noise and moreover
by increasing the propeller blades' phase cancellation. From a
structural point of view few blades with a large chord are
preferred in order to keep stresses low and to lower the flutter
risk. On the other side, at constant propeller activity factor
AFP, a propeller with few blades with large chords is heavier,
increasing thus the CROR weight.
Listing the advantages and disadvantages of a high
number of blades, we get :
Advantages :
• Efficiency increase
• Noise reduction
• Weight reduction
Inconvenient :
• Higher blade stresses
• Increased flutter risk
• Complex hub / pitch change mechanism
• Higher CROR acquisition & maintenance costs
Therefore, the blade number of a CROR or a turboprop in
general has to be adjusted in order to take as much as possible
630 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)
benefit of the aerodynamic and acoustic advantages of a high
blade number without deteriorating the structural
characteristics of the propeller and increasing the complexity
of the whole system.
Existing modern single-rotating or contra-rotating puller
open rotor engines like A400M's TP400 engine or AN-70's
D27 engine have up to 8 blades per rotor raw. For future
designs up to 10 blades per rotor raw should be manageable
with structurally well-designed spinner and blades. For
pusher open rotors with the exhaust gases flow through the
blade roots even higher blade numbers are possible, as GE's
UDF CROR 10×8 blade concept that was tested in the 80's
showed. In the same way, a future CROR pusher may go up
to 12 blades per rotor raw.
Furthermore, in the case of contra-rotating propellers the
front/rear rotor blade distribution is also very important. At
equal front/rear rotor rpm, equal front/rear rotor blade
numbers have to be avoided from an acoustic point of view.
Indeed, propeller noise consists of harmonic noise
superimposed on broadband noise. Harmonic noise
dominates propeller noise and occurs for a CROR at integer
multiples of the front and rear rotor blade passage frequencies
BPF1 and BPF2 and their linear combination. Thus, front/rear
rotor alone tones are emitted at integer multiples of the
corresponding rotor fundamental frequency (m*BPF1 for the
front rotor, respectively n*BPF2 for the rear rotor), while
interaction noise occurs at combinations of the rotors'
fundamental frequencies (k*BPF1+l*BPF2). For equal front/
rear rotor blade numbers (at equal front/rear rotor rpm) the
harmonic tones of the rear rotor, as well as the interaction
tones, are produced at the same frequencies as those of the
front rotor (Fig. 7 [4]). On the contrary, for unequal blade
numbers noise is spread over different frequencies (Fig. 8 [4])
changing thus the frequency envelope shape and diminishing
the overall sound pressure level (see also [4, 5]).
Figure 7. Harmonic and interaction tones, n × n CROR
[4]
Figure 8. Harmonic and interaction tones, m × n CROR
[4]
From a noise point of view it is therefore suitable to have
unequal front/rear rotor CROR blade numbers with no
common multiple factor. A difference of 2-3 blades for a total
of 14-20 blades is suggested. A difference of more than 3
blades would have a negative impact on the propeller
aerodynamic efficiency. Actually, while operating at realistic
front/rear rotor power and momentum ratios (∼ 55/45), the
blades of the rotor with less blades would be too highly
loaded.
For the Airbus pusher CROR AI-PX7 having a propeller
hub-to-tip ratio of 0.35, a total blade number of 20 blades and
a 11×9 front-rear rotor distribution has been chosen taking
into account aerodynamic, acoustic, structural and space
allocation concerns.
Propeller Diameter
The propeller diameter is chosen in order to fulfil
aerodynamic and acoustic performance objectives while
considering structural, weight and space allocation issues.
Thus, cruise performance and take-off maximum thrust
requirements must be reached by the selected diameter, as
well as maximum allowable cabin and community noise
levels not exceeded.
The impact of the disk power loading, which is expressed
as shaft horsepower divided by the square of the propeller
diameter, i.e. SHP/D2, on the propeller cruise efficiency is
depicted in figure 9 [6] for single- and contra-rotating
propellers with variable blade numbers. Reducing the disk
power loading (i.e. increasing the diameter) increases
efficiency as induced velocities are reduced. At equal power
loading, contra-rotating propellers have much higher
efficiencies due to smaller swirl losses as a consequence of
the swirl recovery by the contra-rotating rear propeller. Also,
the efficiency of contra-rotating propellers is less sensitive to
the power loading. Indeed, contra-rotating propellers can be
quite highly loaded without an important efficiency loss.
Finally, as already stated, increasing the blade number
 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)
increases efficiency, as blade tip losses are reduced. A higher
diameter can also absorb more power at take-off and generate
therefore more take-off thrust.
Figure 9. Single- and contra-rotating propeller ideal
efficiency: M=0.8, Alt=35.000ft, tip speed=800ft/s [6]
From an acoustic point of view a higher diameter is also
preferable. The local blade load of a propeller with a low disk
power loading is reduced, thus reducing the propeller
harmonic loading noise. Moreover, at high speed conditions
the blade shock intensity is thus also reduced, lowering
quadrupole noise sources.
On the other side a high propeller diameter impacts
negatively the weight of the propulsion system. A propeller
with a large diameter is heavier. Moreover, when increasing
the diameter the rpm has to be reduced in order to keep the
blade tip speed at aerodynamically and acoustically
acceptable values. A lower rpm means a higher propeller
momentum and therefore a more robust and heavier gearbox.
Finally, a heavier propeller and a heavier propeller gearbox
require reinforced and heavier engine mounts. Therefore, the
global weight of the propulsion system is increased by a snow
ball effect.
The propeller diameter is also limited by the CROR-to-
aircraft installation concept. For a wing-mounted CROR the
propeller size is limited by the ground clearance and in the
case of more than one engine per wing by the propeller-to-
propeller and propeller-to-fuselage clearance. For a rear-
fuselage installation concept the diameter is limited by the
propeller-to-fuselage clearance.
Nowadays, turboprops have maximum diameters of up to
18ft (TU-95 NK-12: 18ft, A400M TP400: 17.5ft, AN-70
D27: 14,76ft) for wing-mounted engine configurations. For
rear-fuselage mounted turboprops the diameter has to be
lower (e.g.: GE36' UDF installed on a MD-80 demonstrator:
11ft) but diameters of 13-14ft are realistic.
For the Airbus pusher CROR propeller AI-PX7 in the
rear-fuselage configuration a propeller diameter of 14ft has
631
been chosen in order to take as much as possible advantage of
the aerodynamic and acoustic benefits of a large diameter
with an acceptable structural and weight impact.
Rear Rotor Cropping & Rotor Disk Spacing
Compared to a single-rotating propeller, a contra-rotating
propeller has an additional source of noise, the rotor-to-rotor
interaction noise. Indeed, the wakes and tip vortices leaving
the front rotor blades impact the rear rotor and generate on
the rear rotor blades sequential lift pulses and thus unsteady-
loading noise. Also, the potential fields around the front and
rear rotor blades can interact with each other and generate in
the same way unsteady-loading noise. The interaction noise is
the dominant source of noise at low speed conditions and is
one of the main drawbacks of the contra-rotating propeller
propulsion system.
For small rotor spacings, the interaction noise is
dominated by the interaction of the front rotor wakes with the
rear rotor and by the interactions of the front and rear rotor
potential fields. For higher rotor spacings, the interaction
noise is dominated by the front rotor tip vortices interaction
with the rear rotor. Actually, the viscous wakes degenerate
more rapidly downstream than the highly energetic tip
vortices do [7].
This paragraph will present two ways for reducing the
rotor-to-rotor interaction noise : cropping the rear rotor
diameter and spacing the rotor disks. As mentioned above,
interaction noise is a dominant noise source at low speed
conditions. The here presented measures will consequently be
tailored for low speed conditions.
Figure 10. AI-PX7 CROR front rotor wake evolution at
takeoff conditions (chorochronic high density mesh
computation)
In order to reduce the interaction noise due to the impact
of the front rotor wakes with the rear rotor, the rotor disk
spacing has to be significant. As a hand rule, one can suppose
that the front blades' wakes have lost an important part of
their velocity deficit two chords downstream of the front
rotor blades' trailing edges (Fig. 10) [see also [8] for the
632 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)

velocity profile evolution of the front rotor blade wake]. For

usual take-off blade pitch angles of 40°-45° at the sideline
condition and assuming that the front rotor wakes follow
globally the blade chord direction and for usual chord lengths
of c/R=0.2−0.25 (at the reference blade span position of r/
R=0.75), we can compute a rotor disk spacing of H/
D=0.2−0.27.
The rotor disk spacing has rather a minor impact on the
propeller efficiency but has an impact on the weight of the
CROR [9]. Therefore, the rotor disk spacing should not
exceed by too much the value given above, as this will result
in a too important CROR weight increase.
The interaction noise can be furthermore reduced by
cropping the rear rotor diameter in order to avoid the impact
of the front rotor tip vortices with the rear rotor. The front
rotor tip vortices are convected downstream at the upper
surface of the stream tube. The stream tube contraction can
be evaluated through Froude's momentum theory for the
actuator disk [10]. Thus, for a 14ft diameter pusher CROR
propeller with a hub-to-tip ratio of Dhub/Dtip=0.35, a
propeller disk spacing of H/D=0.22, at take-off sideline
conditions (M=0.25 Alt=0ft) and a thrust level of 22.500lbf
the diameter of the stream tube is reduced by 6% from the
front to the rear rotor (Fig. 11). The rear rotor diameter
cropping has to be higher in order to account for the radius of
the vortex itself and moreover for high incidence cases at
take-off were the stream tube is no more axisymetric. Rear
rotor cropping levels of 10-15% are rather affordable in order
to avoid interaction with the highly energetic vortices' cores.
Figure 12. AI-PX7 CROR rear rotor cropping impact on
propeller efficiency
It has to be said here that the optimal rotor disk spacing
and rear rotor diameter cropping depend also a lot on the
blade design itself.
The Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller is designed with a
rotor disk spacing of H/D=0.22 and a rear rotor diameter
cropping of 10%.
Rotational Speed, Torque Split and Power
Split
Propeller performances are increasing with propeller
rotational speed. Indeed, when increasing the blade rotational
speed at iso propeller thrust, the blade's lift force projection
on the propeller thrust axis increases, while its projection in
the propeller plane decreases, increasing thus the propeller
efficiency. Nevertheless, when approaching a helical blade
tip Mach number of Machhel_tip=1.0, acoustic thickness and
shock noise (Fig. 13, [6]), as well as aerodynamic
compressibility losses increase rapidly, deteriorating thus the
acoustic and aerodynamic performances of the propeller.
Globally, the optimal acoustic rotational speed is lower than
the aerodynamic optimum. The propeller rotational speed has
to be therefore chosen as a compromise between noise and
propeller efficiency requirements.

Figure 11. Streame tube contraction at take-off sideline

thrust conditions

The cropping of the rear rotor diameter has to be chosen

as a compromise between aerodynamic and acoustic
requirements, as its impact on the CROR propeller cruise
performances is quite important. A cropping level of 10-15%
can lead to cruise efficiency losses of 0.5-2ec as depicted by
figure 12, where the rear rotor cropping impact on the
propeller efficiency was analysed for the case of the AI-PX7 Figure 13. Peak blade passage tone variation with helical
CROR with the lifting line tool LPC2 [11]. tip Mach number [6]
 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013) 633

At cruise conditions and depending on the blade's tip Table 2. AI-PX7 CROR main design parameters
relative thickness and sweep modern high speed propellers
have helical tip Mach numbers of Machhel_tip=0.9−1.0. At
take-off conditions modern propellers have helical tip Mach
numbers of Machhel_tip=0.6−0.7.
Figure 14 shows the evolution of the efficiency of the
Airbus CROR AI-PX7 at high speed conditions with
propeller rotational speed rpm and power and torque front/
rear rotor split. Three set of curves (green, red, blue) at
different front rotor rpms (760/790/820) are presented. For
each set of curves, the effect of the rear rotor rpm is analysed
(± 30 rpm). Several levels of power and torque splits are
analysed. All curves were computed at iso propeller cruise
thrust conditions with ONERA's lifting line tool LPC2 [11].
As stated above, propeller efficiency increases with front and
rear rotor rpm. Nevertheless, the effect slows down at higher
rpms due to an increase in compressibility losses. At low
CROR BLADE SHAPES DESIGN
rpms, there is some space to increase the propeller efficiency CONSIDERATIONS
by increasing the rear rotor rpm. This trend is inversed at high In this chapter general multidisciplinary considerations
rpms, as the rear rotor, which works in the induced flowfield for the design of high speed contra-rotating propeller blade
of the front rotor, sees too high velocities and so shapes are exposed. Also, the choices made for the Airbus
compressibility losses. Each rpm ratio has its optimal power AI-PX7 CROR propeller blade shapes are presented.
and so torque split. Actually, increasing the rear rotor rpm
requires an increase of the rear rotor power for optimal First CROR Blade Shape Layout
efficiency and vice versa. This can be explained by the fact The first layout of a propeller blade shape is usually
that a blade raw with a higher rpm is able to absorb more generated with the help of lifting line codes and can be based
power without deteriorating its performances. on the following steps (see also [10]):
A realistic torque split value for a contra-rotating
propeller planetary gearbox is 55/45. This value is a 1. Choice of initial thickness and chord distribution based
mechanical constraint and is fixed. For the Airbus CROR AI- on experience
PX7 we have chosen, as an aero-acoustic compromise, a
front/rear rotor rpm of 795/795. This gives a power split of a. Initial thickness distribution : t/c
55/45. For take-off conditions the front/rear rotor rpms were b. Initial chord distribution : c/R
chosen to be 1032/1032.
2. Choice of cruise blade loading as an aerodynamic and
acoustic compromise
a. Blade loading + chord distribution + cruise operation
conditions => blade lift distribution cl(r/R)

3. Choice of twist and camber distribution in order to

reach cl(r/R) distribution at cruise

4. Airfoil selection

5. Choice of sweep distribution as an aerodynamic-

acoustic-structural compromise

6. Choice of dihedral distribution based on structural

Figure 14. CROR efficiency evolution with rpm, torque design considerations
and power split
7. 1st aerodynamic lifting line cruise and take-off
computations
AI-PX7 CROR Main Design Parameters a. Are the blade loading and cruise performance
The following table summarizes the Airbus AI-PX7 objectives reached?
CROR propeller main design parameters :
b. Is the take-off thrust requirement achievable?
634 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)

c. If not, iterate on twist, camber and chord distribution
8. 1st simplified blade stress computation
a. Are blade stresses acceptable?
b. If not, iterate on t/c, c/R and dihedral distribution
After having thus generated first front and rear rotor
CROR blades with the target blade loading and performance,
the blade steady state 3D flowfield can be analysed through
RANS mixing plane CFD computations and additional design
iterations can now be performed. The propeller's robustness
to an unsteady flowfield, like an incidence flowfield or the
rotor-to-rotor interaction, can be finally evaluated though 3D
unsteady chimera CFD computations, as will be described in
the subsequent section. For the CROR propeller acoustic
analysis, chorochronic or URANS CFD computations are
required. The acoustic analysis is not presented in this paper.
Blade Relative Thickness Radial
Distribution
The propeller blade relative thickness t/c radial
distribution has a parabola-like evolution as displayed in
figure 15 for the AI-PX7 CROR propeller front and rear rotor
blades. The local blade profile relative thickness has to be
high enough to ensure acceptable local blade stresses for all
flight conditions under aerodynamic and centrifugal loading.
Also, the blades have to resist to FOD (foreign object
damage) and bird impact which can be the dimensioning
cases.
On the other side, aerodynamic performance and acoustic
noise considerations require low blade profile thicknesses in
order to diminish compressibility losses and acoustic shock
and thickness noise.
as an example. The tendency for modern propeller blades is
to reduce the blade tip loading and so the propeller chord at
the blade tip for acoustic loading noise and front/rear rotor tip
vortex interaction noise considerations. High chord values are
kept for modern propeller blades up to r/R=80%−90%.
Generally, the blade chord radial distribution is iteratively
adapted to the target cruise blade loading in order to work at
an aerodynamic and acoustic optimized blade radial lift
coefficient cl distribution for the cruise design point. Besides,
the propeller blades should be able to absorb the required
takeoff thrust.
Likewise according to stress considerations the blade
solidity usually expressed as (chord/2πr)r/R=0.7 should be
greater than 0.04 and according to aerodynamic induced
losses considerations lower then 0.05.
The blade chord distribution of the AI-PX7 CROR front
rotor is depicted in figure 17. Concerning the CROR rear
rotor, which has often a cropped diameter and less blades, its
blade chord has to be somewhat increased in order to be able
to operate at realistic propeller front/rear rotor power and
thrust ratios.

Figure 16. Lockheed C-130 Hercules four-bladed

propeller

Figure 15. AI-PX7 relative thickness distribution

Blade Chord Radial Distribution

In order to keep the aerodynamic efficiency high,
propeller blades are usually highly loaded and have a large
chord up to the tip of the blade. Actually, the upper part of
the blade contributes significantly to the propeller efficiency. Figure 17. AI-PX7 front rotor blade chord distribution
Figure 16 depicts the Lockheed C-130 four-bladed propeller
 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013) 635

Blade Loading Evolution take-off performance requirements. At cruise conditions these

profiles see high upstream relative Mach numbers of up to
Several optimal aerodynamic blade loadings are
Mach=1 and need therefore a highly transonic design, while
suggested in the literature, like the Goldstein or the
for takeoff conditions a high Clmax value is required in order
Theodorsen optimal aerodynamic blade loading, the later one
to cope with the high take-off upper blade loadings. The
being preferable from an acoustic point of view. For the AI-
lower blade profiles, due to their higher relative thicknesses
PX7 propeller the optimal aerodynamic Goldstein blade
(10%-30%) and the aerodynamic blockage generated by the
loading has been chosen for the cruise design point (Fig. 18).
closely situated adjacent blades, are also highly transonic and
As the blade chord distributions and the rotors' rpm have
require likewise a transonic profile design, which is also not a
been already fixed, the blades' lift coefficient cl distribution
straightforward design task due to the higher relative
results directly from the blade loading distribution.
thicknesses of these profiles.
The blades' lift coefficient cl distribution can now be
Nowadays modern propeller blades use more and more
modified by adjusting the blade chord radial distribution. The
supercritical blade profiles. Compared to A/C wing
blade lift coefficient at r/R=0.75 should be contained between
supercritical airfoils the maximum profile thickness is
cl=0.4−0.6 for the cruise design point. A too low value would
situated closer to the profile leading edge in order to cope
impact negatively the aerodynamic performance of the
with the high take-off thrust requirements, as no flaps are
propeller, while a too high value would increase the propeller
used on propeller blades. For highly optimized modern
shock noise. Finally, one has to check that the thrust required
propeller blades the blade's 3D shape is locally directly
at takeoff conditions is reached. This may request some
modified in order to optimize the aerodynamic or acoustic Cp
additional iterations on the blade chord distribution.
evolution without going through the 2D profile family design
process.
For the AI-PX7 CROR propeller two supercritical profile
families have been designed for the upper and lower part of
the front and rear rotor blades. Figure 19 shows the profile's
Cp evolution at r/R=0.8 for the rear rotor in cruise conditions.
The typical supersonic pressure plateau which ends in a
shock wave is visible, as well as the rear profile loading.

Figure 18. Optimal Goldstein blade loading

Twist and Camber Distribution

The blade's twist and camber distribution have to be
chosen in order to reach the target lift coefficient cl
distribution and so the target blade loading with the highest
possible L/D ratio (lift-to-drag ratio).
When doing this one has also to keep in mind that at high Figure 19. AI-PX7 CROR rear blade Cprot at r/R=0.8 in
thrust take-off conditions the maximum blade loading moves cruise conditions
outboard of the blade. Therefore, the blade outboard design
has to be compatible with such operating conditions.
For the AI-PX7 blades it was chosen to have a radial Blade Sweep Distribution
camber distribution law close to the cl distribution law and to From a pure aerodynamic point of view the blade sweep
avoid too big blade twist distribution deformations. Globally, distribution φ(r/R) is defined so that the local, perpendicular
the blade twist of the AI-PX7 blades follow the local relative to the blade's 25% chord line, profile Mach number is below
velocity evolution. the profile's drag divergence Mach number MDD at the cruise
design point as described by the following formula :
Blade Profile Selection
Several blade profile families can be designed for
different parts of the blade span from the hub to the tip. The
upper blade profiles have to cope with conflicting cruise and
636 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)

requirements. For a contra-rotating open rotor the relative

sweep distributions of the front and rear blades can be also
designed with the objective to reduce interaction noise. The
objective is to introduce a time lag on the spanwise rear rotor
blade lift pulses generated when interacting with the front
(1)
rotor tip vortices and wakes. Meanwhile, an acoustic sweep
Nonetheless, structural considerations do not allow a pure tailoring can be performed as long as its impact on the
positive or negative blade span sweep distribution like on an propeller blade's aerodynamic performances and mechanical
A/C wing. In fact, this would generate a too important characteristics is acceptable.
cantilever lc for the centrifugal forces Fc and therefore high
blade root stresses (Fig. 20). Therefore the lower blade part is
designed with negative sweep, while the upper blade part has
a positive sweep in order to balance the blade around the
blade pitch axis and to lower so the blade stresses (Fig. 17
and Fig. 20). As a consequence, somewhere at mid span the
sweep is zero, increasing thus locally the blade drag. An
adequate profile design is needed at this radial position in
order to limit the drag increase and so the impact on the
aerodynamic propeller efficiency. The rear rotor needs a
somewhat higher sweep in order to cope with the higher
Mach numbers seen by this rotor as a consequence of the
front rotor flow acceleration. Tip sweep values of 40°-50° are
generally defined on modern propeller designs depending on Figure 21. AI-PX7 front blade sweep distribution
the blade's rotational speed and tip profile relative thickness.
Figure 21 displays the sweep distribution φ(r/R) of the AI-
PX7 front blade. Blade Dihedral Distribution
The propeller blade's dihedral distribution has an
important impact on the blade's mechanics, while its impact
on the blade's aerodynamics is quite negligible. The
definition of the propeller blade dihedral d is displayed in
figure 22.

Figure 20. Sweep distribution and centrifugal force

displacement
The blade sweep can be also used as a mean to decrease
the propeller noise. Apart from the fact that sweep reduces
the shock intensity and thus the shock noise at high speed
conditions, the blade sweep diminishes also the propeller
alone tones by shifting the blade span noise sources relative
to each other and introducing thus a phase lag between these
noise sources [5]. High sweep values are requested at the
blade tip where the noise sources are the strongest. In order to
have an important acoustic effect, the required acoustic tip
sweep values are higher than those defined by aerodynamic
Figure 22. Blade dihedral d and sweep a displacement at
25% chord point
Indeed, the dihedral, as well as the sweep distribution,
permit to place the blade's profiles around the blade pitch axis
so as to minimize mechanical stresses, which are generated
by aerodynamic and centrifugal forces. Generally, propeller
blades are leaned forward, i.e. towards the blade's suction
side (Fig. 23), in order to generate a centrifugal bending
moment which acts against the aerodynamic bending
moment. A simplified stress computation, based on the
blade's profiles sectional material and geometric properties
 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)
and acting forces, allows defining a dihedral distribution
which permits to lower blade stresses at the design point.
Figure 23. AI-PX7 front blade front view
AI-PX7 CROR AERODYNAMICS
In this paragraph the aerodynamic design process of the
Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller is briefly exposed before
presenting the analysis of the propeller's aerodynamics. The
propeller blades' steady state 3D flowfield computed with
RANS mixing plane CFD computations, as well as of the
propeller's robustness to an unsteady flowfield, like an
incidence flowfield or the rotor-to-rotor interaction, evaluated
through 3D URANS chimera CFD computations, will be thus
presented.
We will mainly focus in this paper on the analysis of the
AIPX7 CROR cruise high-speed aerodynamics, as it
represents a very sensitive flow condition which has to be
well mastered in order to reach the target propeller cruise
efficiency. For the take-off design point it will be just
checked that the propeller reaches the specified maximal
take-off thrust. The analysis of the take-off and approach low
speed CROR propeller aerodynamics is very important from
an acoustic point of view in order to understand the
interaction noise sources which are dominant propeller noise
sources at low speed conditions. The acoustic analysis of the
Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller is not presented in this
paper.
AI-PX7 CROR Propeller Aerodynamic
Design Process
The design of the Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller has
been performed based on the design guidelines given in the
two previous sections and mainly through the use of the
preliminary design lifting line code LPC2 for contra-rotating
propellers (developed by ONERA [11]). The lifting line code
LPC2 permitted to adjust iteratively the blade shape in order
to reach the aerodynamic blade design objectives, like the
target blade loading in cruise or the maximum take-off thrust,
within a very short computational time. The front and rear
637
rotor blade shapes thus generated were presented in the
previous section.
The blade design performed with the help of the lifting
line tool has been aerodynamically validated through RANS
mixing plane computations performed on one front and rear
blade channel. The steady state mixing plane approach
permits to get access to the 3D steady state blade
aerodynamics within a short computational time and is
therefore well adapted for design purposes. Flow phenomena
that cannot been captured by the lifting line approach, like
blade tip and blade root flow features, blade-to-blade or
transversal blade flow interactions are visible and additional
design iterations can now be performed. The impact of the
nacelle design on the blade aerodynamics can now be also
evaluated.
The blades' unsteady response to an inhomogeneous
flowfield, like a propeller incidence flowfield or the front-to-
rear blade interactions, has been finally analysed through 3D
URANS chimera computations. Computations were
performed at propeller incidences of 0°, 1° and 2°. This
incidence range corresponds to the typical incidences seen by
a pusher rear-fuselage propeller in cruise conditions and it
permitted to check the robustness of the propeller to A/C
incidence variations.
A detailed description of the here presented design
process is also given in [12].
RANS Mixing Plane Steady State AI-PX7
Blade Aerodynamics
The RANS mixing plane approach computes the steady
state blade flowfield of a front and rear rotor blade passage in
the rotating frame. At the interface of the front and rear rotor
mesh blocks, the aerodynamic flow variables are azimuthally
averaged through the mixing plane technique. A periodical
boundary condition is imposed at the lateral block faces in
order to ensure the periodicity of the system. The RANS
mixing plane approach is limited to the computation of an
axisymetrical flow configuration (e.g. a propeller installed on
a nacelle at AoA=0°) and gives a view on the propeller
blades' 3D steady state aerodynamics.
The simulated configuration is the AI-PX7 CROR
propeller mounted on the XBG13dd dummy nacelle in a
pusher configuration (Fig. 1). A structured mesh of 4 million
points has been generated for the front and rear rotor blade
passage computational domain (Figure 24). RANS mixing
plane computations have been performed with the elsA CFD
solver developed by ONERA [13]. The Spalart-Allmaras one-
equation turbulence model [14] was used and the flow
solution converged after 3000 iterations.
As stated in the previous subsection, RANS mixing plane
computations have been performed on the AI-PX7 propeller
in order to validate the design resulting from the lifting line
approach. The propeller is running at cruise conditions
(M=0.75, Alt=35.000ft, ISA+0°K) at the cruise design front
and rear rotor rpm of 795rot/min. It turns out that the
638 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)

computed configuration has been slightly overpitched, as the

computed thrust exceeds by 11.5% the cruise design thrust of
4250lbf. The power split is 1.21 compared to the target power
split of 1.2 and efficiency shows a level of 84%, which is just
below the target value (see Tab. 1), but an efficiency increase
is expected when decreasing the thrust to the design thrust
level.

Figure 26. AI-PX7 CROR blade Cl distribution

Figure 24. AI-PX7 RANS mixing plane computational

domain and mesh

Figure 25 displays the computed AI-PX7 CROR front and

rear blade loadings, the first one being compared to the target
optimal aerodynamic Goldstein blade loading adapted to the
higher computed thrust level. A quite nice match can be
observed. The propeller blades' lift coefficient Cl evolution is
depicted in figures 26. The front and rear rotor are working at
the reference radial station r/R=0.75 at a lift coefficient of
approximately Cl=0.4, which was chosen, as described in the
previous section, as a compromise between aerodynamic and
acoustic performance considerations.
Figure 27. AI-PX7 front blade Cprot evolution

Figure 25. AI-PX7 CROR blade loading

Figure 28. AI-PX7 rear blade Cprot evolution

The front and rear rotor blade surface Cp evolutions are

depicted in figure 27 and 28 and radial Cp cuts are shown in
figure 29 and 30. Globally both rotors show the same
 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)
behavior which is nevertheless more pronounced for the rear
rotor, due to the higher velocities seen by this rotor. For the
upper blade part we can observe the typical characteristics of
supercritical profile aerodynamics, i.e. the supersonic
pressure plateau on the suction side which ends in a shock
wave and the rear profile loading. At the blade root a shock
wave is placed close to the blade leading edge on the suction
side. Indeed, the blade root profiles have higher relative
thicknesses and are moreover interacting with the nacelle
flow. These profiles need therefore a careful integrated
design which should be performed in an ulterior design step.
Figure 29. AI-PX7 front blade Cprot evolution
Figure 30. AI-PX7 rear blade Cprot evolution
RANS mixing plane computations have been also
performed for the maximum take-off operating point. The AI-
PX7 CROR achieved the required maximum take-off thrust
with an efficiency close to the target value.
The RANS mixing plane CFD analysis shows that the AI-
PX7 CROR propeller has very good cruise and take-off
aerodynamic performances in accordance with the
performance objectives (Tab. 1). Also the blades' 3D steady
state aerodynamics corresponds globally to the aimed
aerodynamic blade flow. The aerodynamic optimal Goldstein
blade loading and the supercritical profile behavior in the
639
upper blade part are thus achieved. Nonetheless, these
computations reveal also that there is some margin of design
improvement in the blade root region, where an integrated
blade profile - nacelle design should permit to decrease the
intensity of the blade root leading edge shock wave.
AI-PX7 CROR URANS 3D Chimera
Computations
URANS 3D chimera computations have been performed
in order to evaluate the robustness of the propeller to
unsteady flow conditions at the cruise design point. The
interaction of the AI-PX7 front and rear rotor was analysed,
as well as the response of the propeller to an incidence
flowfield. Incidences of 0°, 1° and 2° have been analysed,
representative of typical cruise incidences seen by the rear
fuselage pusher propeller concept.
Figure 31. AI-PX7 CROR mounted on XBG13dd dummy
nacelle computed configuration
Figure 32. AI-PX7 front & rear rotor rotating chimera
blocks
The computed AI-PX7 CROR mounted on the XBG13dd
dummy nacelle is depicted in figure 31. The chimera mesh
technique [15, 16, 17] was used, which consists in this case of
a background mesh associated to the nacelle and two contra-
rotating chimera cylindrical blocks for each rotor (Fig. 32).
At the interfaces between all these blocks overlapping regions
are defined in order to permit the exchange of the flow
variables by numerical interpolation. A structural mesh of 53
million points was built for the configuration in study and the
elsA CFD solver [13] was used to perform the unsteady
numerical simulations. In terms of numerical settings the
640 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)

Jameson second-order centered scheme [18] with artificial The rear rotor blade Cp evolution at r/R=0.9 for the
viscosity was used for the spatial discretisation, the Spalart- minimum and maximum rear blade loading oscillations is
Allmaras one-equation turbulence model [14] for the shown in figure 35 and is quite negligible. It has to be said
turbulence modeling and a time step of 2° was chosen in here that a higher mesh density and computations performed
order to capture the main aerodynamic interaction with a lower time step should reduce the dissipation of the
phenomena. Flow convergence was reached after 3 full front blade wake when passing through the front and rear
rotations and an additional rotation was performed in order to rotor chimera mesh overlapping region and increase thus the
extract the converged flow solution. rear rotor blade unsteadiness. Nevertheless, the order of
The aerodynamic interaction between the front and rear magnitude of the blade loadings oscillations shown here gives
rotor is analysed at the cruise design point at 0° propeller a first idea of the front and rear rotor aerodynamic
angle of attack. The periodicity of the aerodynamic flow on a interactions and shows that these phenomena have a limited
propeller blade corresponds to a blade rotation of 20° for the impact on the blades' aerodynamics at cruise conditions.
front blade and 16,36° for the rear blade. The unsteadiness of
the blade loading of one front and rear propeller blade for a
20°, respectively 16°, azimuthal rotation with a step of 4° is
displayed in figures 33 and 34. The unsteadiness of the front
rotor aerodynamics is due to its interaction with the potential
field of the rear rotor and is limited to the blade tip region and
represents a variation of the blade loading of 76N/m, i.e.
3,2%, at r/R=0.9. The rear rotor sees the front rotor blade
wakes and the oscillation of the blade loading corresponds to
156N/m, i.e. 5,6%, at r/R=0.9.

Figure 35. AI-PX7 rear blade Cprot evolution at r/R=0.9

Figure 33. AI-PX7 CROR front blade loading

unsteadiness

Figure 36. AI-PX7 CROR front blade loading evolution

with angle of attack

The incidence effect on the front and rear rotor blade

loading of the AI-PX7 CROR for typical cruise incidences is
displayed in figures 36 and 37. The blade loading increases
for the down-going blades and decreases for the up-going
blades. The blade loading has been plotted for the azimuthal
positions where it reaches its maximum and minimum. A
quite linear behavior can be observed for the front and rear
rotor. In the case of the rear rotor the evolutions with
Figure 34. AI-PX7 CROR rear blade loading incidence are less important as the flow passing the front
unsteadiness rotor is somewhat straightened. Generally, even if the blade
loading fluctuations are very important (up to 40% for the
 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)
front rotor), no strange behavior can be observed on the
blades which may indicate an important flow deterioration.
Figure 37. AI-PX7 CROR rear blade loading evolution
with angle of attack
The blade Cp evolution with incidence close to the
loading peak position at r/R=0.85 is depicted for both rotors
in figures 38 and 39. Also here, no strange phenomenon on
the Cp evolutions can be observed, which confirms the good
robustness of the propeller to typical cruise incidence
conditions seen by a rear fuselage pusher CROR.
The URANS CFD 3D chimera computations show that
the front-rear inter-rotor aerodynamic interactions are
negligible when compared to the incidence effect of typical
cruise incidences. The analysis reveals also the good
robustness of the AI-PX7 CROR to the important blade
loading fluctuations under these incidence conditions.
While the aerodynamic behavior of the AI-PX7 CROR
propeller to unsteady flow conditions is satisfactory, an
acoustic and structural analysis is also required in order to
state about the noise emissions and the structural integrity of
the propeller under such conditions, but this is not the scope
of this paper.
Figure 38. AI-PX7 CROR front blade Cprot evolution
with angle of attack
641
Figure 39. AI-PX7 CROR rear blade Cprot evolution
with angle of attack
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
While being a very fuel efficient and low CO2 emission
propulsion system, the CROR has also many challenges to
face due to its direct exposure to the aircraft flowfield and its
inhomogeneities. The design of the Airbus AI-PX7 CROR,
its numerical simulation and current wind tunnel testing on
isolated and installed wind tunnel models should permit to
Airbus to understand, characterize and adapt together with
the engine manufacturer the CROR behaviour in the
inhomogeneous aircraft flowfield and to develop so the
overall maturity of the CROR integration.
This paper presented aerodynamic, acoustic and structural
design considerations for a CROR propeller adapted to a
future CROR notional commercial aircraft. CROR propeller
main design parameters and blade shape design
considerations were exposed together with the associated
trade-offs in order to accommodate multidisciplinary
requirements to achieve a CROR design compliant with
severe future environmental and economic objectives.
Finally the design of the Airbus AI-PX7 CROR propeller,
the CROR reference geometry shared with the European
aeronautic research and industrial partners was presented, as
well as its aerodynamic numerical validation.
REFERENCES
1. Ricouard, J., Julliard, E., Omaïs, M., Parry, A. B., et al., “Installation
effects on contra-rotating open rotor noise,” AIAA Paper 2010-3795,
2010.
2. Warwick, G., Moxon, J., “The power of persuasion,” Flight
International, 23 May 1987, pp. 39-41.
3. Moxon, J., “Propfan gears up,” Flight International, 23 May 1987, pp.
21.
4. McCurdy, D. A., “Annoyance Caused by Advanced Turboprop Aircraft
Flyover Noise,” NASA TP-3104, 1991.
5. Magliozzi, B., Hanson, D. B., and Amiet, R. K., “Propeller and Propfan
Noise,” in Aeroacoustics of Flight Vehicles Vol. 1 p.1-64, N92 - 10599,
1991.
6. Mikkelson, D.C., Mitchell, G.A., and Bober, L.J., “Summary of Recent
NASA Propeller Research,” NASA TM-83733, 1984.
7. Woodward, R. P., Gordon, E. P., “Noise of a Model Counterrotating
Propeller with Reduced Aft Rotor Diameter at Simulated Takeoff/
Approach Conditions (F7/A3),” NASA TM-100254, 1988.
642 Negulescu / SAE Int. J. Aerosp. / Volume 6, Issue 2(December 2013)

8. Colin, Y., Blanc, F., Caruelle, B., Barrois, F., et al., “Computational
strategy for predicting CROR noise at low-speed, Part II: investigation Cprot - blade local pressure coefficient non-dimensionalized
of the noise sources computation with the chorochronic approach,” with local relative velocity : (p-p0) / (0.5·ρ0·Vrel2)
AIAA Paper 2012-2222, 2012.
9. Strack, W. C., Knip, G., Weisbrich, A. L., Godston, J., et al., d - blade local dihedral displacement
“Technology and Benefits of Aircraft Counter Rotation Propellers,”
NASA TM-82983, 1982. D - propeller diameter
10. McCormick, B. W., “Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight
Mechanics,” 2nd ed., Wiley, ISBN 0-471-57506-2, Chap 6, 1995. Dhub - propeller hub diameter
11. Bousquet, J. M., “Theoretical and experimental analysis of high speed
Dtip - propeller tip diameter
propeller aerodynamics,” Proceeding in AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 22nd
Joint Propulsion Conference, 1986. ec - efficiency count : 1ec=0.01
12. Béchet, S., Negulescu, C. A., Chapin, V., and Simon, F., “Integration of
CFD Tools in Aerodynamic Design of Contra-Rotating Propeller Fl or dFl/dr - blade local lift force (blade local loading)
Blades,” 3rd CEAS Air&Space Conference, Venice, 24-28 October
2011, pp. 498-507. H/D - front-rear rotor disk spacing over front rotor diameter
13. Cambier, L., and Gazaix, M., “elsA : an efficient object-oriented L/D - lift-to-drag ratio
solution to CFD complexity,” AIAA Paper 2002-0108, 2002.
14. Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., “A One-Equation Turbulence M - Mach number
Transport Model for aerodynamic flows,” AIAA Paper 92-0439, 1992.
15. Steger, J., Dougherty, F. C., and Benek, J. A., “A chimera grid scheme,” MDD - blade profile drag divergence Mach number
Advances in grid generation, Proceedings of the Applied Mechanics,
Bioengineering and Fluids Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas, Mrel - blade local relative Mach number
Juin 1983, pp. 59-69.
16. Stuermer, A., “Unsteady CFD Simulations of Contra-Rotating Propeller p0 - free stream static pressure
Propulsion Systems,” AIAA Paper 2008-5218, 2008.
17. François, B., Costes, M., and Dufour, G., “Comparison of Chimera and P - propeller power
Sliding Mesh Techniques for Unsteady Simulations of Counter Rotating
Open-Rotors,” ISABE Paper 2011-1231, 2011. t/c - blade local relative thickness
18. Jameson, A., Schmidt, R. F., and Turkel, E., “Numerical Solutions of
the Euler Equations by Finite Volume Methods Using Runge-Kutta T - propeller thrust
Time Stepping,” AIAA Paper 81-1259, 1981.
V0 - free stream velocity
CONTACT INFORMATION Vrel - blade local relative velocity : √(V20 + (Ω·r)2)
Camil A. Negulescu
1P - once per rotor revolution
AIRBUS OPERATIONS SAS, Toulouse, France
Aerodynamic Design Office A/C - aircraft
camil.negulescu@airbus.com Alt - altitude
BPF - blade passage frequency
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CFD - computational fluid dynamics
This work was partially performed within the European CROR - contra-rotating open rotor
project Cleansky JTI Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft. The author FOD - foreign object damage
would like to thank the Airbus Aerodynamic Methods and RANS - Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes
Tools team in Toulouse for their fruitful help for performing SPL - sound pressure level
CROR elsA mixing plane and chimera mesh technique
computations. rpm - revolutions per minute
shp - shaft horse power
URANS - Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
η - Propeller efficiency : T*V0/P
ρ0 - free stream density
φ - blade local sweep angle
Ω - propeller angular speed
a - blade local sweep displacement
AFP - propeller activity factor :

B - blade number
c/R - blade local chord over blade tip radius
cl - blade local lift coefficient : Fl / (0.5·ρ0·Vrel2·c)