Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Contra-Prop?  
User currently offlineMriya225 From French Polynesia, joined Nov 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (15 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5962 times:

I can't seem to get a straight answer on this from anyone I know... What are the technical advantages to the contra-prop configuration?


3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineStarship From South Africa, joined Nov 1999, 1098 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (15 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

In the case of the Tu-95 Bear.....

it was determined that a propeller capable of efficiently utilizing the enormous power output of the Kuznetsov turboprop engines would have to be 7m (23ft) in diameter. This was unacceptable for a number of reasons, not least of which was the simple difficulty of building and producing such an enormous propeller and in manufacturing landing gear tall enough to accommodate it. It was decided that a contra-rotating propeller configuration would be best suited. Though mechanically complicated and aerodynamically challenging, a design utilising the contra-rotating option could be conveniently accomodated by the propeller manufacturers and the airframe landing gear could be readily designed to meet the more sensible height-above-the-ramp requirement.

Behind every "no" is a "yes"
User currently offlinePanman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5839 times:

Okay I've got an exam on propellers (propellors depending on which country you live in) this Friday so I better not be talking crap here.

Propellers have to be capable of absorbing engine power and converting it into thrust. The greater the propeller solidity the greater the engine power that can be absorbed.

Propeller Solidity is the ratio of total blade area relative to the swept disc area. For simplicity sakes it is the sum of the chord widths at a given radius divided by the circumference of a circle at that radius. The radius that is chosen is the propeller master station location which is usually 2/3 to 3/4 along the length of the blade from the hub.

There are two ways in which prop blade solidity can be increased.

(1) By increasing the chord length of the blade (make the blade wider). This has the effect of lowering the aspect ratio of the prop blade. Low aspect ratio wings provide a lot of lift at low speeds but at high speeds the amount of lift they create is offset by the tremendous induced drag. The same can be said for prop blades. There is a point where it is no longer beneficial to make the chord of the prop blade longer.

(2) By increasing the number of blades on the propeller. The side effect of this is that it increases the weight of the propeller assembly tremendously.

Now if the manufacturers in the aircraft shown had decided to use a conventional prop assembly then they would need to attach a propeller with a large number of blades on it in order to convert the engine power into thrust. The problem then would not be with the number of blades on the propeller but with the airflow that is left behind the propellor.

The basic thrust equation is Thrust = Mass x Acceleration. Props are more efficient that turbojets/fans in that they impart a small acceleration on a large mass of air while jets/fans impart a large acceleration on a small mass of air. Not only do the props impart a small acceleration on the airflow but due to the rotation of the prop blades the assembly also imparts a swirling motion onto the air. Some of the engine power is therefore lost in rotating the slipstream. This swirling air mass now moves rearwards and acts upon the horizontal stabilizer. Conventional aerofoils are at their optimum angle of attack somewhere between 3-4 degrees. The swirling mass of air from the prop hits the horizontal tailplane so that the AOA is no longer at its optimum of 3-4 degrees. The air mass also would act at an angle on the vertical stabilizer causing the aircraft to have a tendency to yaw. So the greater the properller solidity the more it would impart a swirl into the airflow and the more this would affect the rear aerofoils of the aircraft.

Now I finally answer your question. To overcome this problem contra-rotating propellers are employed. Contra-rotating propellers consist of two prop assemblies that rotate in opposite directions. The swirling airflow from the first prop assembly is straightened out byt the second prop assembly and the airflow behind the engine is now straight instead of swirling. This now allows for more prop blades to be added, thereby increasing prop solidity and therefore increasing the amount of engine power that is converted into thrust. It is now possible with contra-rotating props to convert upwards of 90% of engine power into thrust.

I hope this helps even though it is long winded.


P.S. Don't confuse contra-rotating props with co-axial props (two separately driven props mounted on the concentric shafts, these also rotate in opposite directions to each other). Even still a counter-rotating prop assembly which is the engine on the port side rotating opposite to the engine on the starboard side.

User currently offlineMriya225 From French Polynesia, joined Nov 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5835 times:

Starship & Panman,
Thank you both for your answers! Conceptualizing the dynamics at work with prop powered aircraft has never been my strong suit - but I think I'm beginning to catch on. Thanks for your help!

Yes, I was refering to two sets of (counter-spinning) rotors located on the same drive train. You don't need it - but Good luck on your test!

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Contra-Prop?
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Do Airbus Tails Have A Bump On The Bottom? posted Sun Apr 29 2007 18:49:29 by Kaitak744
Next Gen NB Engines : Contra Rotating Turbofan Fan posted Fri Apr 27 2007 13:25:59 by Keesje
Why A Jet Stop Smoking When They Go Into A/B posted Thu Apr 26 2007 05:38:35 by 747400sp
A340NG - Why Does It Have 4 Engines? posted Thu Apr 19 2007 21:18:44 by CygnusChicago
DC-8 Landing Gear Doors Open On Ground. Why? posted Tue Apr 17 2007 01:50:02 by Jeffry747
Anyone Know Why Klga Only Used 13-31 Most Of 04/14 posted Tue Apr 17 2007 01:05:21 by JETBLUEATASW
What Are The Benefits Of Having A Prop Vs. A Jet? posted Thu Apr 12 2007 02:44:46 by UAL747
Why No Back-Up Gauges? posted Wed Apr 11 2007 04:20:26 by HighFlyer9790
Why Did This Pilot Not Go-around? (video) posted Sat Apr 7 2007 05:20:53 by Alberchico
UA 903, Why A 777? posted Fri Apr 6 2007 00:42:51 by HAMAD

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format