ESS-38-89

Contra-Rotating Open Rotor

Propulsion System
Julien Enconniere
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United Kingdom, j.p.enconniere@cranfield.ac.uk

Abstract

Contra Rotating Open Rotor is currently named as one technology offering potential solutions for the next aircraft generation.
Indeed the rise in fuel price and the increasing concern for environment impact have renewed its interest. The idea of using
twin propellers rotating in opposite direction is not original; it has been studied from the beginning of airplane. But the high
level of noise coupled with this design has limited its expansion. So, this paper first investigates the background which lead
to architecture considers by the aerospace industry. Thus the requirement of always bigger By Pass Ratio turbofan engine is
reaching some limits which implied a comeback to propeller which allows better propulsive efficiency and higher effective By
Pass. From this remark, this paper highlights some breakthroughs undergo by the aerospace world which should make CROR
feasible. Of particular interest is noise, which is the central challenge of this technology delaying its apparition. Thus this paper
discusses different architecture concludes on an architecture with gear driver in pusher configuration with a forward blade
swept design, and 7x8 blades. This architecture seems to be the most promising design considering noise and performance
requirement and should be able to cope with legislation hardening.

Keywords: propulsion, noise, efficiency, integration

Nomenclature. propellers in tandem design has always been considered but

has never been largely used because of its complexity and its
CROR Contra-Rotating Open Rotor high noise emission.
BPR By Pass Ratio Then with high fuel prices in the eighties, the CROR con-
BWB Blended Wing Body cept with the current architecture was born. Two demonstra-
GE General Electric tors flew. These concepts were the General Electric GE36 on
P&W Pratt & Whitney a Boeing 727 (fig.5) and the Pratt & Whitney Allison 578DX
RR Rolls Royce on an MD80 (fig.6). Both engines have shown a signifi-
cant breakthrough technology for specific fuel consumption,
SAGE Sustainable And Green Engine
with a potential of 25% to 30% reduction at engine level.
ηprop propulsive efficiency Nevertheless, both programs were canceled when fuel prices
Vjet engine jet velocity dropped. Moreover, the absence of a shroud allowed audible
Vaircraf t flight aircraft velocity sound waves to radiate unobstructed enhanced by interac-
.
tions between the stage rotor blades thus the noise emissions
1. Introduction. were found to be incredibly high.
However, since 2000, fuel prices have risen again and
In the current context, where volatility in fuel prices and the contribution of CO2 emissions to climate change has in-
concern for aviations environmental impact have become the creased the environmental imperative, rekindling interest in
driving focus of aeronautical research, advanced turboprops CROR engines. In this spirit, two projects of CROR were
have received a renewed interest as potential solution for born in Europe under Clean Sky Partnership: one led by
the next aircraft generation. Actually, the idea of using two Rolls Royce (SAGE 1) and one led by SAFRAN (SAGE 2).
stages of contra rotating propellers has been first introduce Under SAGE2, a new demonstrator should see the light in
on aircraft in the early thirties. In this period, the advantages 2015 and fly on an Airbus 340 in 2016 and a bit later for
found for this architecture were the possibility ” to hitherto SAGE 1 [3]. Both demonstrators should demonstrate solu-
unattained airplane speeds and ”the banishing of torque”, tions to noise consideration, certification and integration on
which causes a plane to tend to lean sideways from the force airframe. It is still considered a nearly 30% reduction in fuel
of its single propellers whirling”, [9]. Since this epoch two consumption regarding current Turbofan engines. It is en-

1
38th Engine Systems Symposium - March 2013
J. Enconniere / Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Propulsion System
visaged to use CROR engine for short range aircraft ,ie the
successor of Airbus A320 or Boeing 737.
This paper is interested in the different architecture of
CROR, ie their achievable performances regarding current
turbofan engines. Then it will be considered all conundrums
raised by this technology as noise, certification and integra-
tion, which would certainly go with new airframe design.
2. Birth of Open Rotor.
Before considering CROR, an description of principles of
jet engine is required. We can define two engine global ef-
ficiencies. The thermal efficiency defins as ratio of output
power to the input energy given by fuel combustion. For
our topic the output power is the one transferring to the air-
flow. The propulsive efficiency corresponds to the ratio of
the thrust to the power given by the engine to the airflow.
The thermal efficiency is function of core pressure, tem-
perature and components’ efficiencies.
Focusing on the propulsive efficiency, it is possible to de-
fine it as the following equation [7]:
2
ηprop = Vjet
(1)
1+ Vaircraf t
So to have higher propulsive efficiency, it is necessary to
reduce Vjet to Vaircraf t . But as the thrust is defined as the
multiplication between the mass flow through the engine and
the delta of velocity between inlet and outlet of the engine, ie
Vjet minus Vaircraf t , to conserve the same thrust the mass
flow has to increase. This is the basic idea of turbofans, they
allow a reduction in jet velocity whilst an increase in mass
flow.
2.1. Turbofan
As previously explained, to increase the propulsive effi-
ciency, high mass flow is necessary; this is the basic concept
of Turbofan engines. For Turbofan engine it is considered
two mass flows, the hot one which goes through the core en-
gine and the cold one going through the bypass. In the fig.1
is shown propulsive efficiency and fan pressure ratio func-
tion of the ratio of bypass flow to hot flow.
Fig. 1: Propulsive efficiency an Fan Pressure Ratio function of BPR
[6].
To increase the propulsive efficiency the BPR is in-
creased. But we can see limits without even considering the
additional weight and casing drag which would eat into the
efficiency. Nevertheless high BPR are still considered for
future engine. But for even higher BPR without these draw-
backs, unducted architectures are considered. It means the
comeback to propellers.
2
ESS-38-89
2.2. Propellers
Propellers had been the only kind of propulsion existing
until the first jet engines in the thirties before Turbofan took
the lead. Propellers allow higher propulsive efficiency than
turbofan so why are they not in used on civil aircraft when
fuel consumption is one of the main considerations. There
are few reasons. Firstly propellers are relatively noisy re-
garding ducted turbofan. Secondly, propellers are consid-
ered to be like the ”old fashion”, something freely turning
doesn’t make people comfortable. And Mach number and
altitude achievable for aircrafts driven by propellers were
lower than that for a jet engine or a turbofan. This remark is
no more relevant with advanced high speed propeller achiev-
ing higher flight velocity. Moreover, the air coming out of a
rotor is spinning and as trust is proportional to the axial ve-
locity only, a part of the momentum is pushing the aircraft
whereas the other is waste in the swirl (visible in fig.2). The
airframe also have to adapt to this because it creates a torque.
Fig. 2: single propeller swirl effect [6].
In addition to this waste in energy, the only solution to
deal high power levels is to increase either the propeller di-
ameter or the rotational speed,[6][8]. These two solutions
induce a rise in relative Mach number thus imply the pres-
ence of transonic or even supersonic zone on blades. Shock
waves would occur at blade tip, decaying the efficiency, in-
creasing noise emissions. Higher diameter also induces trou-
ble for integration on airframe. Considering the problem of
high level of Mach number, new shapes of blade have been
design. It will be discussed in part 4.1.2. Nevertheless, it
does not prevent the requirement of extremely big rotor.
2.3. Contra-Rotating Open Rotor
CROR are basically two stages propellers where the sec-
ond stage rotates in opposite direction. So while on a simple
propeller the air coming out of the rotor spinning, now with
the second rotor, the air is speeded up and the previous swirl
is ideally annihilated, there is no more waste in energy re-
garding this consideration. And this cancels the propeller in-
duced momentum. Moreover for a power level, CROR split
it in two allowing a reduction in global propeller diameter.
The figure 3 summarizes what has been said above. Pro-
pellers allow higher propulsive efficiency than turbofans.
But Propellers efficiency reduces quickly with Mach number
because of the presence of shock waves on blades. CROR
can provide the same flight Mach number with better effi-
ciency. This advance in efficiency adding with weight, and
drag saving brings a CO2 emission reduction up to 30% re-
garding current Turbofan engine.
38th Engine Systems Symposium - March 2013 ESS-38-89
J. Enconniere / Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Propulsion System

suffer inlet efficiency penalty which eat into performance

[6].

Fig. 3: Propulsive efficiency function of flight Mach number [6].

3. Characteristic. Fig. 5: GE demonstrator.

The previous section has dealt with the progression which

has lead to the concept of CROR. Nevertheless this concept
is relatively new so many parts of the architecture are not
yet fully determined. Engine manufacturers are currently in
the process of convergence to the ideal design. This part de-
scribes every architecture that are studied in office at present
and tries to determine the pros and cons of each of them.
Not everything on the CROR is completely new. The gas
generator will be much likely two-shaft engine. Even if the
gas generator corresponds to current design, it will integrate
the state of the art components as low NOX emissions com-
bustor or even hydrogen as fuel inducing some arrangement
in the architecture. But, I won’t go any further in this topic
and look at what in the main design differs from current
propulsive system.

3.1. Rotors’ Position.

As said before, CROR is some sort of propeller. Thus as

a propeller, it seems reasonable that rotors are located at the
front of the gas generator in puller configuration, but it is
possible to put them at the rear in pusher configuration.
The puller design looks concretely like a propeller with
the only difference that there is two rotors spinning in an
opposite direction (fig.4).
The Pusher configuration is the one mainly studied since
the early eighties. General Electric (fig.5) and Pratt & Whit-
ney (fig.6) had based there research on this design.
Fig. 4: Puller configuration proposed by Rolls Royce [4].
Recent studies have shown that Pusher design is revealed
to be quieter and lighter than the Puller design and do not
Fig. 6: P&W demonstrator.
3.2. Rotors’ driver.
Another key decision for any open rotor is the drivers of
rotors. Pratt & Whitney and General Electric made different
choice. The GE chose direct drive whereas Pratt & Whitney
moved to geared transmission.
Direct drive CROR engines is designed as two contra-
rotating low-speed turbines put behind the gas generator.
Each turbine is connected to one rotor. It is noticeable on
fig.7 that the black turbine in the breakthrough. It was as if
we released the stator of a typical turbine design to drive the
first rotor.
Geared CROR engine have one high-speed power turbine
driving the two rotors through an epicyclic gear box with
two outputs. Thus turbine and rotors can operate at their
optimum speeds. Whereas this increase in efficiency for thus
components, it is now necessary to consider the efficiency of
the gear box and its operability.
For a long time, the two architectures were considered to
be equally efficient. Direct drive is the most simple one but
recent research have shown that the geared architecture is
lighter, quieter and clearly better in term of fuel burn. On
direct drive design, turbines have to operate at relatively low
speed so at low efficiency thus requiring more stage than
for a gear engine. And the same explanation can be given

3
38th Engine Systems Symposium - March 2013
J. Enconniere / Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Propulsion System
Fig. 7: Direct Drive configuration.
for rotors which has to operate at higher speed than there
optimal speed which reduce their efficiency. That is why
all recent projects concluded on using geared architecture.
These projects have shown that it exists an optimum speed
ratio between rotors and power turbine which is between 7
and 8 [3]. Now the integration of the geared system is a
challenge.
3.3. Overall Integration for prospective CROR.
Now that we broadly know the most probable architec-
ture, lets look at designs of prospective demonstrators that
should bear in a couple of years. The development of
these demonstrators depends upon CLEAN SKY European
Project and known as SAGE (Sustainable and Green En-
gine). Actually SAGE 1 (fig.8) is a project of CROR led
by ROLLS ROYCE and SAGE 2 by SAFRAN. One might
wonder why two new demonstrators with the same architec-
ture on study when two already exist. The SAGE 2 should
have been a direct drive engine but after two years of studies
geared design proved better joining the SAGE 1 configura-
tion. Besides these two new demonstrators should demon-
strate solutions to problems arose for the two previous one as
noise. And they should demonstrate full operability, some-
thing that old designs were unable to show [3]. Finally, they
should overcome the problem of flight clearance and certifi-
cation.
Fig. 8: Rolls Royce SAGE 1 project [5].
The SAFRANs demonstrator is shown on the fig.9. It in-
tegrates the M88 gas generator, system already existing on
the Rafale airframe, followed by a high-speed turbine driv-
ing a geared box with two outputs, one for each propeller.
4
ESS-38-89
The rotor blades will be discussed in the next part but it is
visible what would be there design.
4. Challenges.
Now that the broadly design is chosen, let’s look at the
challenges that CROR have to overcome and what are solu-
tions brought so far.
4.1. Acoustic.
4.1.1. Sources.
There are a number of sources of noise in a CROR design,
they can be divide in two part, the one that are due to the core
engine and the second that is presented on the Open Rotor
design:
First the sources that we can consider due to the core en-
gine:
• Compressor noise, which is the noise emit by the rotat-
ing compressor at the front of the engine.
• Core engine sources: turbine, jet, which is the noise
emit at outlet of the core engine with the same expla-
nation as the compressor noise plus the jet velocity in-
ducing even more noise.
• Airflow incidence angle and atmospheric turbulence-
eddies which affect all core engine and rotor sources.
Noise due to compressor and turbine noise can be sub-
dued with the use of acoustic shield in the core engine. As
in CROR engine the core does not produce a large amount
of thrust, the jet velocity is low implying a small amount of
emitted noise regarding other source of emission.
Noises due to the twin rotor are related to the airflow pat-
tern through blades and are the main source of noise on a
CROR design. These sources can be called periodic noise
sources because linked with the rotational speed and the
blade number. We can separate them depending upon the
pattern which creates them, in the same way as a single pro-
peller. First, there is the so called thickness noise which is
created by the air volume displacement due to the thickness
of blades. This source is relatively important at high rota-
tional speeds. The Second noise is the loading noise. Tip
vortex and wakes interaction are part of loading noise, vor-
tex and wakes generated by the first row perturb the load-
ing of second row blade which becomes unsteady so even
more noisy. This category is particularly important at take-
off where blades are highly loaded. Then the third category
is localised noise. It mainly includes shock waves occur-
ring in transonic and supersonic flow, so at high blade speeds
near tip blades. The fourth and last category is inflow distor-
tion due to integration as the presence of pylon which induce
non-symmetric inflow [8].
4.1.2. Noise solutions.
As said before, main sources of noise in a CROR con-
figuration are rotor/rotor interaction. Numerous studies have
addressed the problem and have revealed that some blade de-
sign can drastically decay noise. So this part will enumerate
different variables of blade design which impact noise.
Firstly, the blade distance variation plays a role in wake
interaction. Indeed the velocity profile downstream the first
row is not homogeneous but by mixing the velocity gradient
decays with the distance. And as velocity gradients cause
38th Engine Systems Symposium - March 2013 ESS-38-89
J. Enconniere / Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Propulsion System

Fig. 9: SAGE 2 architecture [5].

unsteady loading on blades it is preferable to have an in-

crease in blade row distance. But with a large row distance
the swirl recovery discussed earlier will not occur and thus a
decrease in efficiency and no balanced momentum. A trade-
off has to be made between noise emission and efficiency
regarding this variable.
Secondly, to cope with vortex generation and interaction,
some solutions are possible. Before giving them let’s ex-
plain how tip vortexes are generated. Tip vortexes are due to
blade lift. Indeed, as a blade is loaded, suction and pressure
side don’t see the same pressure thus the flow meets a pres-
sure gradient at blade tip generating vortex. It is the same
principle as vortex on aircraft wings. So the blade loading is
responsible for tip vortex. By decreasing it, vortex will de-
cay in intensity. But if we decay the blade loading for a given
thrust we need to increase blade number and thus weight and Fig. 10: Mach number reduction by sweeping a wing[8].
complexity of the system with it. Another way to cope with
vortex interaction is just to reduce the length of the second
propeller row but imply the same consequences. have a different shape, they won’t emit noise in the same
Thirdly, blade number variations have shown an impact frequency so these emission won’t just add with each other
on strength of noise. CROR design has higher blade num- and even might counteract each other. Fig.11 Describes this.
bers than typical propeller because requires to flight at higher The problem of swept blade is the high tip loading generated
Mach number. Therefore, it is often considered a blade num- which increase tip vortex.
ber between 6 and 8 for each row. Studies have shown that Then, another architecture has been studied, the forward
configuration where the two rows have a slightly different swept design. It includes advantages of backswept blade pre-
number are quieter especially when it is the back which has sented in the last paragraph plus a reduction in blade tip load-
the highest number (for example 6 at the front, 7 at the ing. Therefore prospective designs should look like the one
back). Moreover an increase in blade number has a prof- show on fig.12. It couples all advantages given by distance
itable impact on efficiency but adds mechanical complexity between blade and swept blade. It allows the second pro-
and weight. peller to be bigger. Moreover as we deal with noise we also
Fourthly, blade sweep have two main impacts on noise deal with vibrations which broadly have the same sources.
emission. The effective Mach number experiments by the Thus reduction in vibration impacts directly on material fail-
blade is lower with a swept design. Indeed as shown fig.10, ure and quality of flight for passengers. Therefore even if
the blade experiments only the ”normal component” of the vibration can be relatively low, engines have to be put far
Mach number thus a lower one. This lower Mach number from cabin which leads us to the problem of integration.
reduces the shock losses and its noise emissions. Apart from
lower relative Mach number, the ” phase cancellation effect 4.2. Integration.
” plays an important part in noise reduction. Without go-
ing into detail, if we divide a blade in N strips, as each part Even without considering vibration, the aircraft integra-

5
38th Engine Systems Symposium - March 2013
J. Enconniere / Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Propulsion System
Fig. 11: Phase cancellation [8].
Fig. 12: Forward CROR design [8].
tion becomes crucial. Engine builder have to cooperate
closely with Airframers to develop an optimised configura-
tion for both performance and acoustic point of view. In-
deed, CROR architecture is by definition unducted and its
design implies elongate propellers.
Fig. 13: Integration studied by Snecma [6].
Numbers of engine integration are considered (see fig.13).
The current typical airframe architecture is considered with
a puller configuration CROR under wing or a pusher CROR
over wing. These architectures have the advantage of re-
semblance with existing airframe thus making certification
6
ESS-38-89
of the design easier. Nevertheless, it provides more cabin
noise, so the need of a better cabin treatment inducing addi-
tion of weights. Another consideration is to put the engine
on sides of rear fuselage or even more extreme with engines
over fuselage as shown fig.13. Fuselage plays the role of an
acoustic shielding.
Moreover, engine burst issues have to be taken into ac-
count into aircraft integration configuration. Integration with
engine on rear fuselage seems optimised for this considera-
tion. Nevertheless, the configuration shown on fig.14 has
a lower cruise Mach number, about 0.74 but should pro-
vide excellent fuel consumption. Indeed the CROR works
at its optimum Mach number (as we can see on fig.3). This
configuration is a trade off between high velocity and low
fuel consumption. Other prospective integrations are stud-
ied. The Blended Wing Body (BWB) is also considered as
a possible airframe with CRORs mounted at the rear of the
fuselage. The BWD offers an even greater acoustic shielding
with even greater fuel consumption considering the aerody-
namics efficiency of the BWB.
Fig. 14: prospective lower emission and lower cruise Mach number
configuration.
4.3. Certification & reliability.
As CROR is a new technology it has to be certified before
any entry into service. Because the absence of casing, rotor
blades have to show an extremely low risk of failure. And
if there is any failure, the aircraft have to be able to land.
Then the engine has to be operable and reliable at any step
of a typical flight (take off, climb, cruise, and landing). One
of the challenges here is the operability at low power. In-
deed, CROR concepts have smaller gas generator size than
equivalent Turbofan but the demand in electric energy for the
aircraft remains the same. One other challenge is the design
of the gear box which is a new system on board. It doesnt
have to impede on reliable and efficiency of the main engine
to keep it as durable, safe and efficient as any other engine.
Nevertheless, system of gear box should not be completely
new. Indeed Ultra HBP ratio turbofan engine should be born
before CROR integrating one gear box to drive the fan. The
difference will be the fact that the gear box will have two
outputs instead of one for CROR. The pitch control mech-
anism also has to be integrated and has to be as simple and
reliable as possible.
Actually, the certification process consists on determining
if every component which are already reliable when takes
separately creates an overall system still reliable and safe.
And the problem is that it is a new system thus the way to
determine if the system is relevant does not exist yet as the
system. So a new methodology to assess CROR is necessary
and has to be created in parallel of the conception.
5. Conclusion.
38th Engine Systems Symposium - March 2013 ESS-38-89
J. Enconniere / Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Propulsion System

This paper is interested in the process leading to the Con- 14 prospective lower emission and lower cruise
tra Rotating Open Rotor concept. It starts from a limita- Mach number configuration. . . . . . . . . . 6
tion found in the research of always higher By Pass Ratio on
Turbofan engine. Drawbacks related to the presence of cas- References
ing implied the return to propeller technology but not simple
[1] E. S. Hendricks and M. T. Tong Performance and Weight
propellers: CROR. This configuration allows aircraft pow- Estimates for an Advanced Open Rotor Engine, 48th
ered by propeller to reach same altitudes and cruise Mach AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Ex-
number as airframe with Turbofans. Besides Propellers have hibit, 30 July - 01 August 2012, Atlanta, Georgia
always been more efficient than Turbofan, CRORs have an [2] F. Julian, Snecma Veut Faire Voler un Open Rotor, Air & Cos-
even higher efficiency than propellers. All of this reunite mos, n2321, p30-31, july 13, 2012.
should allow up to a 30% reduction in CO2 emission. [3] H. Barbier Clean Sky Newsletter n2, december 2010.
As CROR technology is relatively new, a number config- [4] J. Excell Rolls-Royce technology chief Ric Parker,
uration have been proposed and evaluated to determine pros www.theengineer.co.uk, june 5, 2009.
[5] M. Goulain SAGE-ITD, CLEAN SKY Info Day, Toulouse, Feb,
and cons of each one. The position of rotor can be at the
1, 2011.
front (puller) like a typical propeller or behind the gas gen- [6] L. M’Bengue Toward Acare 2020: Innovative Engine Architec-
erator (Pusher), gas generator no different from the one on tures to Achieve the Environmental Goals ?, 27th Congres of
a Turbofan. From recent studies, the pusher design seems the Aeronautical Sciences, Snecma SAFRAN Group, 2010.
more efficient, quieter and lighter than the puller design. [7] P. Pilidis & J.R Palmer Gas Turbine Theory and Performance,
Another discussion is the driver of the rotors. Two possi- Cranfield University, 2012.
bilities exist: Direct drive and Geared drive. Direct drive is [8] S. Rochhausen Investigation of Two-Stage Open Rotor Features
the simplest, Turbines and Rotors operates at same speed, affecting Noise and Performance, Cranfield University, MSc
but it means that neither turbine nor rotor operate at their Thesis, 2009.
[9] Plane Propellers Revolve in Opposite Directions,Popular Sci-
optimum design, inducing loss in efficiency and additional
ence, November 1931.
weight. Therefore the geared engine has been considered al- ——————————————————————–
lowing either the high-speed turbine or rotors to operate at
their optimum speed with an optimal speed ratio of nearly 7.
Thus from what have been said before, we can conclude
on what should look like a CROR in the future. It is a pusher
design, with geared drive configuration. Blades should be
highly swept, in forward configuration with a relatively high
number of blades. The second row should have one more
blade than the first row, so lets say a 7x8 configuration.
This design seems to be the most promising in term of per-
formance and noise emission. Besides, CROR engine will
much likely go with new airframe design where engine will
be mounted at the rear fuselage. Moreover the implementa-
tion of a new method of certification in parallel of the con-
ception of CROR is required. SAGE 1 and 2 of CLEAN
SKY paternship will incorporate all this to show the feasi-
bility of CROR engine for future aircraft.
CROR design proves to be the breakthrough which will
enable aircraft to cope with regulation always more severe
regarding fuel emission and noise. It wont be surprising to
see an aircraft flying with Open Rotors to power it in the next
decade.

6. *
List of Figures
1 Propulsive efficiency an Fan Pressure Ratio
function of BPR [6]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 single propeller swirl effect [6]. . . . . . . . 2
3 Propulsive efficiency function of flight Mach
number [6]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Puller configuration proposed by Rolls
Royce [4]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5 GE demonstrator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6 P&W demonstrator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7 Direct Drive configuration. . . . . . . . . . 4
8 Rolls Royce SAGE 1 project [5]. . . . . . . 4
9 SAGE 2 architecture [5]. . . . . . . . . . . 5
10 Mach number reduction by sweeping a
wing[8]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11 Phase cancellation [8]. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12 Forward CROR design [8]. . . . . . . . . . 6
13 Integration studied by Snecma [6]. . . . . . 6