Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

ARTICLE INFO
Article ID: 03-15-01-0003
© 2022 SAE International
doi:10.4271/03-15-01-0003

Helicopter Turboshaft Engine

Database as a Conceptual
Design Tool
Farshid Bazmi 1 and Afshin Rahimi 1
1
University of Windsor, Canada

History
Abstract Received: 15 Dec 2020
Many interconnected parameters are involved in the helicopter turboshaft engine’s design, implying Revised: 15 Mar 2021
numerous limitations on the design process. These parameters include the key parameters such as Accepted: 27 May 2021
weight, dimensions, power, specific fuel consumption, combustion temperature, air mass flow rate, e-Available: 14 Jun 2021
and compressor pressure ratio, all of which correlate with one another and collectively affect the
engine’s design process and consequently the helicopter. The first step in any design process is the Keywords
conceptual design stage, where using an initial guess, an iterative parameter estimation runs until Helicopter, Turboshaft
convergence. For the initial guess, a database is required, and for estimation, knowledge of the engine, Database,
relationships between different parameters is mandatory. Hence, as an effort to help with this process Conceptual design,
and given that no publicly available database exists for turboshaft engines, in this work, a unique interconnected parameters
and comprehensive database of turboshaft engines along with novel insights into useful design
parameters and their correlations are presented. Citation
Bazmi, F. and Rahimi, A.,
“Helicopter Turboshaft
Engine Database as a
Conceptual Design Tool,”
SAE Int. J. Engines
15(1):31-56, 2022,
doi:10.4271/03-15-01-0003.

ISSN: 1946-3936
e-ISSN: 1946-3944

31
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022
32 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022
1. Introduction
I
n the late 1940s and early 1950s, turboshafts appeared in
aviation [1]. One of the firsts was the Turbomeca Artouste,
which was initially designed as an auxiliary power unit
and later was used as the “Turmo” engine. However, the first
engine to power a helicopter was Boeing T50’s turboshaft,
which flew on the Karam K225 Synchropter in 1951 [2].
Despite the advent of more than 100 engines over the past
70 years, turboshafts design components have mainly
remained unchanged; however, advances in materials and
axial flow technologies have continued to derive higher power
and more efficiency over time [2] to play a principal role in
substantially improving the payload and range capabilities of
helicopters [3]. While the improvements in power and effi-
ciency—due to the increased turbine inlet temperature (TIT)
and higher-pressure ratio (πC)—have reduced the size and
weight of engines, manufacturers have made modest improve-
ments in specific fuel consumption (SFC).
The critical design parameters mentioned earlier are
a good benchmark for evaluating engine performance and
its position in the market. Today, a few companies are
leading the way, including Pratt and Whitney Canada
(P&WC), Rolls-Royce (RR), Safran Turbomeca, Lycoming,
and General Electric (GE) [2]. Among these companies,
P&WC has been pioneering in the design, development,
and manufacturing of the turboshaft industry for over 45
years. The company installed the first PT6 in a Hiller heli-
copter back in 1960. Since then, P&WC has led the market
with engines that have become a world-class benchmark.
The family of products (PT6, PW100, & PW200) ranges
from 450 to more than 2240 kilowatt (kW) at take-off,
enough to cover the lift for light- to medium- and heavy-
sized helicopters [4].
2. Problem Definition
Companies aim to reach 4475  kW with the lowest fuel
consumption for future turboshaft engines [4]. The first step
in engine development is the “conceptual design” stage. From
a designer’s perspective, the turboshaft engine’s conceptual
design begins w it h identif y ing t he helicopter’s
mission requirements.
At first, the helicopter’s features are determined; next,
these needs are translated into the engine’s requirements, and
finally, to satisfy the engine requirements, the relevant type
of analysis and its dependent parameters that should be used
in the design process are determined. Since the design param-
eters are heavily correlated, not having a proper database
where these correlations are identified and parametrized can
either vastly extend the design timeline or put the design
at risk.
Since many turboshaft engines are used in the military
and since manufacturers do not tend to provide design data,
there is no comprehensive database for researchers to use as
a benchmark and therefore, only a few scientists have worked
on the helicopter turboshaft design and development with a
limited number of publications in the field. The database and
analysis presented in this article help designers synthesize
multi-input engine variables when predicting interactions
relative to the independent power parameter (i.e., engine
class). It should be noted that such a database and analysis
does not currently exist in the literature, and hence, can be a
valuable asset.
For example, the air mass flow rate parameter calculation
in phase zero of the design (without engine diameter and shaft
rotation speed) is estimated in this article with the help of a
database of existing engine data and calculations using a
10-step process with analytical equations. This has not been
previously done in the literature.
The calculations in this study are explicit, step-by-step,
follow the engine’s control logic, and have a completely
different approach than the previous methods, most of which
rely on the simultaneous solution of the system of equations
from input to exhaust [5, 6]. The use of technology coefficients
in the process presented here makes it possible to not only
analyze existing engines but help design future engines. That
is the main value proposition of this article.
In addition, in most previous studies [7, 8, 9, 10], cycle
analysis is only concerned with the hover or forward fl ight
regimes. However, the actual performance is a combination
of fl ight regimes. The process proposed in this article entails
a modeling process for a constant/variable free power
turbine (FPT) speed turboshaft engine, which can
be employed for real-life fl ight simulations as it can accom-
modate a combination of f light regimes unlink the
previous studies.
In the next section, the full 10-step process is detailed,
where each step’s outcomes are used in the consequent steps.
3. Methodology
This section outlines the design process in this article. Figure
1 illustrates the modeling in x-z space (forward flight at Vx
speed and climb at Vz speed) is considered for turboshaft
engines with the installation position under the main rotor
with reference stations.
The starting design point is determining engine power.
The helicopter pilot uses the collective lever to determine the
amount of power required (Ppilot). The turboshaft engine, based
on the flight condition (i.e., temperature and pressure) and
subsystems requirements, provides engine power (Pe). Engine
output as an independent parameter is calculated from
Equation 1 [11].
Ppilot
Pe  Eq. (1)
P T 
ne  gtm  
 P0 T0 
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022 33

  FIGURE 1    Reference stations for a turboshaft engine.

Cooling air #2
Bleed air Cooling air #1

0 1 2 2.2 2.5 3 3.1 4 4.1 5 6 7

© SAE International

Compressor
Amb.

Inlet and diffuser Burner NGV GGT FPT Nozzle ERG

(axial and centrifugal)

Gas generator spool Free power spool

where ne is the number of active engines. Moreover, mechan- 3.1. Estimation of Mass Flow
ical efficiency (ηm) and gearbox transmission efficiency (ηgt)
denotes the level of technology used in manufacturing.
Rate (Step 1)
In the next steps, according to the level of technology and The MFR  m  2.2  is the amount of air mass that enters the
limitations, other dependent parameters are determined. compressor (passed from variable inlet guide vanes) at a speci-
Figure 2 illustrates the relationships between independent and fied time. Determining MFR’s correct value as a dependent
dependent variables modeling and process flow. parameter at the beginning is very important and complex;
The proposed modeling is structured in ten steps as hence, designers consider its value (on-design point) as an initial
follows. The first step is to estimate the air mass flow rate based assumption in the design process. To estimate the MFR, a
on the engine power. database and statistical regression analysis is used in this article.

  FIGURE 2    Flowchart for the numerical method.

End

Nozzle

Start

GGT and FPT

Power (pilot)

Yes

Flight cond. Mass flow rate Converge?

No
rotor cond. (estimate) (MFR)

Mass flow rate

(calculate)
Level of tech. Diameter, length
fuselage limit and weight

Burner and NGV

Converge?
No Compressor
(RFP)
© SAE International

Yes

SFC and
Inlet and diffuser
combustion temp.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

34 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022

(
 2.2 vs. power (Pe).
  FIGURE 3    Air mass flow rate m )

Database
Polynomial fit (3 deg) with R2  0.954
95% Confidence boundary
Air MFR (kg/sec)

© SAE International
Power (Watt)

Remark: In the steps detailed in the following sections, chamber with the reverse flow and accessories around the
for Equations 2-5, 8, and 25, the equations are derived using engines. The correction coefficient of the distance between
the least mean squared (LMS) polynomial regression tech- the core and the casing in turboshaft engines is defined in the
nique [12]. The data used for the regression is from the data article and denoted by CD.
of 132 helicopter turboshaft engines compiled in Table A.1 Referring to Remark, with the assumption of maximum
(see Appendix A). For evaluation of LMS performance, the power and MFR, the diameter is estimated (R 2 = 0.737 and
R 2 score was employed as it resulted in the closest fit to 0.956) using Equation 3 from Figure 4.
the data.
Based on Remark, Equation 2 and Figure 3 present an
MFR estimate (R 2 = 0.954) that can be used in the design stage D est .
by engineers. It is important to note that such a database and
 CD
 m  5.735  10 Pe  3.026  10 Pe  0.012  
13 2 6
formulation do not exist in current literature to the authors’
best knowledge.  2.2
Pe  1800 kW W

P0 R T0  2.465 10 19 Pe3  1.875 10 12 Pe2   CD   5  1031 Pe5  7  1024 Pe4  4  10 17 Pe3 
m 2.2est .  Eq. (2)    
P0 T0 R  3.943 10 7 Pe  2.025   m  2.2  1010 Pe2  0.0002Pe  81.648 
       
ambient term regression term  accessories term regression term
 Eq. (3)
Pe  1800 kW
P0 R T0
where is the ambient term added to normalize the
P0 T0 R
CD
regression. The MFR is sensitive to ambient conditions and where is the accessories term introduced in this article.
causes scattering of points along the trend line.  2.2
m
Since MFR and diameter are intertwined, by determining In high-power engines (over 745 kW), due to the use of more
the maximum MFR passing through the engine, the diameter volume and complex accessories, the scattering of points along
can be calculated from Step 2. the trend line will increase.
Once the diameter is determined, limitations in the heli-
copter fuselage, the level of technology used in the compressor
3.2. Dimension and Weight and turbine, and the engine’s length are calculated.
(Step 2) Additionally, the high RPM (revolutions per minute) of the
engine is converted to power by the gearbox, increasing the
The casing diameter of turboshaft engines is larger than the length. So, the authors have added the correction coefficient
core diameter. It is owed to the use of an annular combustion for the attached gearbox (CL).
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022 35

 2.2 ) vs. power (Pe).

  FIGURE 4    Multiply engine diameter by air mass flow rate (D × m

Database
Polynomial fit (2 deg) with R2  0.737
Polynomial fit (5 deg) with R2  0.956
Diameter  Air MFR (m.kg/sec)

95% Confidence boundary

© SAE International

Power (Watt)

The engine’s final length is estimated (R 2 = 0.987) from Weight is another critical parameter for the develop-
Equation 4 by considering the power at the design point and ment of air engines that directly affects helicopter opera-
applying Remark. tions. The engine’s weight decreases as more advanced light-
weight materials are discovered; hence, newer engines would
Lest . 
CL
 3.25 10 11 Pe3  0.0001Pe2 139 .09.4 Pe  46934129.4  have lower weight-to-power ratios. Figure 6 confi rms this
 2.2 Dest . 
m  reality. Using the Remark, the relationship between weight

  regression term
transmission term
and engine power at the design point is captured (R 2 = 0.955)
Eq. (4)
in Equation 5.
CL
where is the transmission term introduced in this
 2.2 Dest .
m
article and show the effect of mechanical design on length. West .  C
 2.12 10 18 Pe3  2.8110 11 Pe2
 w
 0.0001Pe  55.572  Eq. (5)
Using a higher degree in the model can cause overfitting and metallurgy term  
Figure 5 illustrates this phenomenon in the regression term. regression term

 2.2 ) vs. power (Pe).

  FIGURE 5    Multiply engine length by diameter by air mass flow rate (L × D × m

Database
Length Diameter  Air MFR (m .kg/sec)

Polynomial fit (3 deg) with R2  0.987

95% Confidence boundary
2
© SAE International

Power (Watt)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

36 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022

  FIGURE 6    Engine weight (W ) vs. power (Pe).

Database
Polynomial fit (3 deg) with R2  0.955
95% Confidence boundary
Weight (kg)

© SAE International
Power (Watt)

where Cw is the metallurgy term, introduced in this article, The air then enters the diff user and prepares the airflow
and represents the alloy (military/civilian) effect on weight. to enter the compressor. It changes the pressure ratio (πd ),
At the end of this step, the calculated data is reconfigured temperature ratio (τd ), and velocity by changing the cross-
with the customer’s requests (RFP), and consequently, the sectional area (A). To ensure the performance of the engine
level of technology used in the design is determined. Next, in any flight conditions, the diameter of the air inlet is
the engine cycle design begins with Step 3. designed for maximum power, maximum flight altitude, and
warmest ambient temperature, as per Equation 7 for ideal
cycles [13, 14].
3.3. Inlet and Diffuser
(Step 3)  m 0 T  0g
1 1 0
  0  1 2  2 1 0
The transfer of part of the engine power to the main rotor    M 1  M 
 PA max   2 
causes an angular velocity. Mach number of the inlet airflow
entering the engine (M0) are determined by considering the 0. 3   d  1
Eq. (7)
geometrical characteristics, the pitch angle of the blades, the  d   d _ maxi
rotor disk angle of attack, and the flight speed of the helicopter  0 1
in the x-z plane. Based on these values, the temperature ratio  0 1
(τi), pressure ratio (πi), and inlet efficiency (ηi) are obtained d  i
 i 1
from Equation 6 [13].

 0 1 2 where πd_max is the total pressure ratio caused only by wall

i 1 M0 friction effects, and the levels of technology can be thought
2
0 of as a representative for the technical capability in 75-year
 i   i   0 1 Eq. (6) increments since 1945. Thus level 4 technology in Table 1
i  1 presents typical component design values for the period
2005-2020.
Flight altitude, climate flows, and helicopter landing and
take-off environment (i.e., mainly sand) significantly impact
TABLE 1   Maximum pressure ratio of diffuser. Data taken from
the design of the engine inlet. In desert environments, particle
Ref. [14].
separators (vortex tubes, inlet barrier fi lters (IBF), and inte-
grated inlet particle separators) at the helicopter engine’s inlet Level of technology
are necessary to eliminate the risk of engine wear and subse- Figure of
quent power deterioration. Choosing this system will be asso- Component merit 1 2 3 4
ciated with power consumption and an inherent loss in inlet Diffuser πd_max 0.88 0.93 0.96 0.97
pressure [14, 15]. © SAE International

After determining the input data, the combustion
temperature, as an important control parameter, should
be determined in Step 4.
3.4. SFC and Combustion
Temperature (Step 4)
The significant performance parameter in developing aero
engines is the SFC that directly affects the helicopter’s oper-
ating costs. Subsystems upgrade (fuel system, cooling system
optimization, control system, condition and monitoring
system, variable speed systems, recuperate heat system, etc.)
play an essential role in reducing SFC; hence, the correction
coefficient (Csys.) is considered in this article.
Based on Remark, the SFC can be calculated by Equation  8,
while its trend is illustrated in Figure 7 (R 2 = 0.974).
SFC 
m f
C sys .
Pe m 2.2

subsystem term
C sys.
where denotes the impact coefficient of technology used
m 2.2
in the subsystems.
Increasing power by controlling fuel consumption is the
second most useful solution to reduce SFC in new-generation
engines. This increase in power will be accompanied by an
increase in the amount of energy and temperature produced
in the combustion chamber. Over the past years, the average
combustion temperature growth has been about 19°K/year,
which is significantly higher than the increase in the material’s
  FIGURE 7    Multiply specific fuel consumption by the air mass flow rate SFC × m
Database
Polynomial fit (3 deg) with R2  0.974
95% Confidence boundary
SFC  Air MFR (kg2 /watt)
© SAE International
Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022
Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022 37
operating temperature (about 5°K/year), where this difference
is offset using advanced cooling techniques [16].
In low power engines (below 745 kW), the combustion
temperature (T4) remains within the specified range and with
technological advances, T4 can be reduced. Since these engines
are approximately the same in size (diameter) and do not have
much variation in air mass flow rate, the flow rate parameter
is less sensitive in the design process of these engines and with
the advancement in metallurgy (lighter weight and more rigid
parts) and aerodynamics (compressor and turbine blade
pressure ratio upgrades, reduction in the loss and blade tip
clearance, combustion chamber cooling upgrades), and manu-
facturing industry (upgrading turbine blades cooling,
reducing mechanical component losses, increasing accuracy
with electronic components), the T4 (at the same power)
have decreased.
In high-power engines (over 745 kW), although compres-
sors with a higher-pressure ratio are used, with higher power
output, the need for higher air mass flow rates (m  3.1, Equation
 3.57 10 26
Pe3  2.64 10 19 Pe2 14) and higher energy and temperature are inevitable.
 2.59 10 13 Pe  2.85 10 7  Therefore, the flow will be  more unstable with increased
    engine power, and the MFR plays a more significant role, as
regression term
Eq. (8) illustrated in Figure 8 (R 2 = 0.687 and 0.953).
Given that f light condition and ambient properties
(temperature, T0, and specific heat at constant pressure, CP)
are other effective parameters in the scattering of the points
of the database trend line in Figure 8, the impact factor of
ambient is defined as in Equation 9.
C P 4T4
Camb = Eq. (9)
C P 3T0
where T4 is the combustion temperature. The choice of
turboshaft engine manufacturers for T4 at the design
 2.2 vs. Power (Pe).
( )
Power (Watt)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

38 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022

 2.2 ) vs. Power (Pe).

  FIGURE 8    Multiply combustion temperature by air mass flow rate (T4 × m

30,000 Database
Combustion temperature  Air MFR (K .kg/sec)

Polynomial fit (3 deg) with R2  0.687

25,000 Polynomial fit (5 deg) with R2  0.953
95% Confidence boundary
20,000

15,000

10,000

© SAE International
Power (Watt)

point is between 957°K and 1728°K and it can be obtained The compressor pressure ratio is the most critical param-
from Equation 10 . eter in determining a turboshaft engine’s efficiency and is
obtained from Equation 13 [13].
2
1  hPRcc d 
T4   c 1
C P 3C P 4 T0 m 3.1 1  d  
 Eq. (10) c c
1
 1 c  Eq. (13)
 SFC  Pe  c 1

For further details on the derivation of Equation 10, see Over the years, the number of compressor stages has
Appendix B. The combustion temperature difference causes decreased dramatically due to the advancements in the aero-
rotation of the shaft and defines the compressor’s operating dynamics sciences used to design compressor blades, resulting
conditions as detailed in Step 5. in a remarkable increase in the pressure ratio between the
different compressor stages. However, the helicopter’s fuselage
3.5. Compressor (Step 5) constraints inf luence the number and type of stages
for compressors.
The compressor is responsible for supplying compressed air To stabilize the flow through the stages, at the end of the
to the engine and increasing the passing air temperature. The axial compressor, bleed valves/bands ( β) reduce the relative
compressor temperature ratio (CTR) can be obtained from air pressure and prevent the stall/surge phenomenon. On the
Equation 11 [13]. other hand, the combustion temperature is limited due to
metallurgical considerations, and many modern engines use
Camb an air-cooled compressor technique in the nozzles guide vane
c  Eq. (11) (ε1) and turbine blades (ε2) to operate at higher temperatures.
i
Figure 1 and Equation 14 show the manner and extent of these
flow changes.
The power required by the engine determines the required
operational settings for the compressor to have its optimum
m 3.1  m 2.2 1     1   2 
performance and provides an adequate mass flow rate and
pressure ratio (CPR). The CPR for the engines used to date is m
  bleed
between 1:6 and 1:22 (Figure 9 with R 2 = 0.956) and is a m 2.2
function of the CTR, efficiency, and technology level used m NGV Cooling Eq. (14)
(Table 2) in the compressor stages. The CPR can be calculated 1 
from Equation 12 [13]. m 2.2
m GGT Cooling
 c ec
2 
 c   c   c 1 Eq. (12) m 2.2
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022 39

 2.2 vs. Power (Pe).

  FIGURE 9    Multiply compressor pressure ratio by the air mass flow rate πC × m ( )

Database
Polynomial fit (3 deg) with R2  0.956
95% Confidence boundary
CPR  Air MFR (kg/sec)
© SAE International

Power (Watt)

The fluid enters the combustion chamber after exiting the The combustion chamber’s efficiency is a function of
compressor. Using the outcomes of Steps 4 and 5, the fuel mass various factors at the time of design, which is calculated based
flow rate and the thermodynamic changes can be obtained on the level of technology used in Table 3 or Equation 16 [17].
from Step 6.

1  f C P 4T4  CP 3T3
cc  Eq. (16)
f hPR
3.6. Combustion Chamber
and NGV (Step 6)
In addition to the chamber’s thermodynamic conditions,
By specifying the output temperature (Step 4) and the inlet the fuel mass flow rate is necessary to calculate the combustion
temperature (Step 5) to the combustion chamber, its tempera- energy to meet the pilot’s requested power. Therefore, based
ture ratio can be calculated from Equation 15 [13]. on atmospheric, flight, and fuel-specific heat (CP3) data, the
engine control unit (ECU) sends a signal to the fuel control
C P 4T4 unit (FCU) and determines the amount of fuel mass to spray
 CC  Eq. (15) application to the first law of thermodynamics using fuel-air
C P 3T3
ratio at Equation 17 [13].

The turbulence flow in this region of the engine enables

more fuel and air mixing for complete combustion, causing f
m  cc   i  c
a slight pressure to drop in the chamber. The combustion f   Eq. (17)
 3.1
m  hPRcc 
chamber pressure ratio at different technology levels is shown     cc
in Table 3.  C P 3T0 

TABLE 3   Pressure ratio and efficiency of combustion

TABLE 2   Polytropic efficiency of compressor. Data taken
from Ref. [14]. chamber. Data taken from Ref. [14].
Level of technology
Level of technology
© SAE International

Component Figure of 1 2 3 4
Figure of
merit
Component merit 1 2 3 4
Combustion πCC 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96
Compressor ec 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.90
chamber ηcc 0.88 0.94 0.985 0.995
© SAE International
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

40 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022

When the air used in Nozzle Guide Vane (NGV) cooling the sensitivity of the MFR to ambient, use the flight conditions
merges to the flow path, the temperature and pressure ratios for a new estimate. If the engine mission is in the hot regions,
will change according to Equation 18 [14]. higher values, and if the engine mission is in the cold regions,
values less than the initial estimate will be used.
 ic 
1    1   2  1  f   1  
 NGV    cc 
Eq. (18)
3.8. Gas Generator and Free
1    1   2  1  f   1 Power Turbines (Step 8)
 cc
 NGV   NGV   cc 1 The gas generator turbine (GGT) with compressor collection
is on one shaft, and the power balance between the two is
By determining the amount of sprayed fuel and achieved by mechanical efficiency. Given this fact, the GGT
combustion thermodynamic conditions, the MFR is calcu- temperature ratio, pressure ratio, and efficiency can be calcu-
lated in Step 7. lated from Equation 22 [13, 14].

3.7. Calculation of Mass Flow  i  c  1 

C wo
Rate (Step 7)  GGT  1 
m
   
To calculate the MFR, the percentage of energy loss (x) must m cc 1     1   2  1  f    1  i c 
fi rst be  determined. Th is number is essential in modern    cc 
engines’ design (with a recuperator heat exchanger), and t
manufacturers are working to minimize the percentage. If the
GGT 
NGV  GGT   t 1et
energy remaining in the hot airflow nozzle returns to the cycle Eq. (22)
1  GGT
(before the combustion chamber), this number is close to zero. GGT  t 1
If the recovery technique is not used in the engine or energy 1 
GGT t

dissipates through the nozzle, this number will equal one.

According to the derivation process presented in Appendix
B, the percentage of energy loss can be  calculated from
Equation 19. Since the GGT blades contact directly with the
compressed and hot airflow out of the NGV, using the rotor
fi lm-cooling technique (RCT) is necessary for metallurgical
  i  c  1  protection. The addition of this cool air to the passing hot
x   i  c 1   stream causes a change in temperature and pressure obtained
   1  Pe  Eq. (19) from Equation 23 [14].
 cc 
 m f hPR  
  

ic 
1    1   2 1  f   1   2  
Next, the “work output coefficient” for free-turbine turbo-  RCT    cc NGV  GGT 
shaft engines is obtained from Equation 20 [17]. 1    1   2 1  f   1   2
Eq. (23)
 x  t
Cwo   cc  1     i  c  1 Eq. (20)  RCT   RCS   t 1
  i c 
Then, the fluid flow reaches the FPT, whose shaft is sepa-
And finally, the MFR can be calculated from Equation rated from the gas generator. It transfers the required power
21 [17]. to the transmission by absorbing the maximum remaining
energy in the flow (Table 4), with the help of reduction gearbox
(conversion of rotational speed to power). The temperature
Pe
 2.2 calc . 
m Eq. (21)
C P 3T0Cwo
TABLE 4   Polytropic efficiency of turbine. Data taken from
Ref. [14].
The calculated value is compared with the estimated value
(Equation 2), and if matched, can proceed to Step 8. Otherwise, Level of technology
all steps of this cycle (Steps 1-7) are repeated with a new Figure of
estimate of m 2.2 −est .. Using Equation 2 until convergence. For Component merit 1 2 3 4
the new estimate, one can use the following approach. Due to Turbine et 0.80 0.83 0.87 0.89
© SAE International
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022 41

ratio, pressure ratio, and FPT efficiency are obtained from The GGT speed changes outside of the design point and
Equation 24 [13]. can be obtained from Equation 26 [17].
Pe
 FPT  1  T0 i  c  1
 2.2 1     1   2 1  f    1   2  C P 5  NGV  GGT  RCT T4
m N GGT  N GGT  R Eq. (26)
t T0 i  c  1 R
 FPT   FPT   t 1e t
Eq. (24)
1   FPT
 FPT   t 1 If engines with variable RPM are used, the FPT shafts’
t
1   FPT transient changes are calculated from Equation 27 [17].

Note that the gas carries the energy released in the combus-
tion chamber and sits on the turbine blades, causing the GGT T4 1   FPT 
to rotate. After losing more than half of the energy in GGT, the N FPT  N FPT  R Eq. (27)
T4 1   FPT  R
FPT circulates less frequently and falls into the lower range of
RPMs. The amount of energy absorption by the rotor depends
on solidity and aerodynamic design and is shown by the authors Next, the angular velocity can be determined based on
with the RPM correction coefficient (CN ). The rotational speed the “speed conversion coefficient” (CSC) from Equation 28 [8],
at the design point is presented in Equation 25.

C N ,GGT 2 N FPT
N GGT R 
m 2. 2
1.35  10 15 Pe3  1.8  10 8 Pe2  0.0946Pe  74246.8  FPT 
60 C sc
Eq. (28)
R

C N ,FPT
N FPT R   2.64  10 9 Pe2  0.031Pe  69111.64 
m 2.2  Eq. (25)
Finally, the shaft torque is obtained from Equation 29 [8]
 regression term
for use in the transmission.
rotor term R

Pe
CN QFPT  Eq. (29)
where is rotor term and shows the effect of aeroelastic FPT
 2.2
m
design on RPM. Also, the regression term is generated from
Figure 10 using Remark (R 2 = 0.843 and 0.859). And Step 9 will be the end of the cycle design.

 2.2 ) vs. Power (Pe).

  FIGURE 10    Multiply No. of rotors revolutions per minute by air mass flow rate (RPM × m
RPM  Air MFR (kg/sec.min)

Polynomial fit (3 deg) with R2  0.843

© SAE International

Polynomial fit (2 deg) with R2  0.859

95% Confidence boundary

Power (Watt)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

42 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022

3.9. Nozzle (Step 9) 4. Results and Discussion

The temperature ratio and Mach number of the engine’s
exhaust airflow are calculated from Equation 30 [17]. To verify the process described, a case study is presented in
this section. The calculations presented here are based on field
data from the T700-GE turboshaft engine on a Sikorsky
  UH-60A helicopter, where Table 5 lists the design data and
 1  test conditions for this engine.
 n  1 n  1   t 1 
  t  Engine performance in all helicopter fl ight missions,
  Eq. (30)
n including hover, forward/backward, climb/descent, and
2 combinations of these fl ights, is modeled for constant and
M7   i c GGT FPT  1 variable speed FPT modes and presented in Table 6.
 t 1
In Table 6, “Case I” stands for previous studies referring
to reference [8, 10] and “Case II” stands for the outcomes of
The closer the temperature ratio is to one, the lower the the current model presented in this article (the 10 steps).
heat loss, and the higher the efficiency. Next, in Step 10, this Hovering maneuver : The first simulation of engine
phenomenon is further detailed. behavior in hover maneuver was performed in 50% of
power’s design point with constant and variable speed FPT
modes. Assuming there is the same ambient condition, the
3.10. Performance (Step 10) comparison shows the maximum speed of GGT (see Figure
16) and minimum torque of FPT in this maneuver.
The helicopter turboshaft engine’s thermal efficiency is Forward flight (minimum power): The minimum power
obtained from Equation 31 [18]. of the engine is obtained at 25% of the design point and in
the low-speed forward fl ight (ECO mode). Analysis of the
data shows that the MFR, with a 60% reduction from the
Pe
th  Eq. (31) design point, is located at the lowest of its value and sensi-
 f hPR
m tivity to height in this maneuver. Figure 11 shows the extent

TABLE 5   T700-GE data in design condition. Data taken from Refs. [8, 19].
Parameters Value Unit
Number of engines (ne) 2 —
Compressor pressure ratio at the design point (πc) 17.5 —
Compressor polytropic efficiency (ec) 0.821 —
Compressor speed at the design point (NGGT-R) 44,700 [rpm]
Max. temp. of the combustion chamber at the design point (T4) 1124 [°K]
Combustion chamber pressure (πcc) 0.96 —
Combustion chamber efficiency (ηcc) 0.985 —
Turbine polytropic efficiency (et) 0.85 —
FPT rotational speed at the design point (NFPT-R) 20,900 [rpm]
FPT angular velocity at the design point (ΩFPT-R) 2094 [rad/s]
FPT power at the design point (Pe) 1329.9 [kW]
Air mass flow rate at the design point ( m 2.2 ) 4.6122 [kg/s]

Fuel mass flow rate at the design point ( m f ) 0.1004 [kg/s]

Fuel upper heat of combustion (hPR) 43,100 [kJ/kg]

Speed conversion coefficient (Csc) 1.045 —
Technology impact coefficient (Csys.) 0.77 —
Diameter correction coefficient (CD) 1.35 —
Length correction coefficient (CL) 1.35 —
Weight correction coefficient (Cw) 0.77 —
© SAE International

RPM correction coefficient (CN,FPT) 0.86 —

Nozzle efficiency (ηn) 0.9 —
Mechanical efficiency (ηm) 0.99 —
Gear transmission efficiency (ηgt) 0.95 —
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022 43

TABLE 6   Performance predicted for different flights.

Flight data Engine data
h [m] Vflight [m/s] M0 m 2.2  kg /s  πC T4 [°K] m f  kg /s  NFPT [1/min] ΩFPT [rad/s] Pe [kW] ηth
Hovering maneuver
0.093 2.85 14.79 1338 0.0614 20,900 2094 752 0.28
Case II 500 Vx,z = 0 15.05 1348
0.008 2.60 0.0569 19,354 1559 667 0.27
10.11* 1056*
0.000 2.55 14.34 1322 0.0618 20,900 2094 752 0.28
Case I 500 Vx,z = 0
0.000 2.90 12.5 1060 0.0598 15,557 1559 667 0.26
Forward flight (minimum power)
0.104 2.02 15.59 1383 0.0448 20,900 2094 441 0.23
Case II 500 Vx = 35 12.61 1216
0.116 1.82 0.0377 15,838 1629 336 0.21
8.41* 948*
0.103 1.87 14.95 1365 0.0430 20,900 2094 441 0.24
Case I 500 Vx = 35
0.103 2.00 8.5 930 0.0361 16,254 1629 336 0.21
Forward flight (maximum velocity)
0.295 5.95 15.32 737 0.1071 20,900 2094 1515 0.33
Case II 500 Vx = 100 14.72 685
0.295 5.95 0.1031 21,452 1986 1489 0.33
14.58* 672*
0.296 4.83 18.2 729 0.1123 20,900 2094 1515 0.31
Case I 500 Vx = 100
0.296 4.91 18.6 783 0.1173 19,814 1986 1489 0.30
Climbing flight (maximum velocity)
0.023 3.48 11.93 1169 0.0709 20,900 2094 935 0.31
Case II 500 Vz = 5.08
0.023 3.46 11.98 1172 0.0705 18,963 1575 929 0.31
Case I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
© SAE International

Combination of forward and climbing flights

Vx = 49.74 0.148 2.29 15.12 1364 0.0510 20,900 2094 553 0.25
Case II 500
Vz = 5.08 0.148 2.12 15.34 1376 0.0475 18,454 1699 486 0.24
Case I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*
 No cooling (ε1 and ε2) and bleed ( β ).

of these changes at design condition (h = 500 m) and service
ceiling fl ight (h = 6100 m).
In a complete combustion, to maintain the flame stoi-
chiometric ratio, air and fuel mass flow rates at different
power settings show a similar trend. Figure 12 shows
this phenomenon.
Forward flight (maximum velocity): The power required
for maximum speed in the forward flight is about 12% more
than the design point. This increase of power is only made by
3% increase in the fuel mass flow rate, and therefore, the best
results for engine efficiency (Figure 14) and SFC (Figure 13)
appear in this maneuver. It is important to note that reduced
fuel consumption can be achieved at high speeds due to a
significant increase in ram effect pressure and temperature.
Although the cooling system does not have much effect on
SFC, it increases the efficiency at the engine design point.
Table 6 shows that, as the power requested from the
engine increases, the amount of energy and, consequently, the
combustion chamber’s temperature increases. In higher
power, the CPR and ram effect causes a sharp drop in combus-
tion chamber temperature, which can be observed in Figure 15.
Based on the concept of energy released to get the maximum
power required, the performance results represent the
maximum FPT speed and torque in this maneuver, as shown
in Figure 16.
Climbing flight (maximum velocity): The simulation of
engine behavior in climbing fl ight was carried out at 70%
of the power’s design point. Due to the alignment of the
fl ight path with the passing airflow of the main rotor, the
automatic increase in pressure (ram effect) will occur and
the minimum CPR is obtained in climbing fl ight as shown
in Figure 17.
Combination of forward and climbing flights: In combined
flight, both types of flights in x-z space (forward flight at Vx
speed and climb at Vz speed) are used, which improves the
analysis in the real conditions.
In equal power and RPM, and that the pedals are not
used by the pilot (i.e., in the normal operation of the tail
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

 2.2 ) vs. Power (Pe) for T700-GE.

  FIGURE 11    Air mass flow rate ( m

Case II (h = 500 m)
Case II (h = 6100 m)
Case I
Air MFR (kg/sec)

© SAE International
Power (Watt)

 f ) vs. Power (Pe) for T700-GE.

  FIGURE 12    Fuel mass flow rate ( m

Case II
Case II (with bleed and cooling)
Case I
Fuel MFR (kg/sec)

© SAE International

Power (Watt)

44
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

  FIGURE 13    Specific fuel consumption (SFC) vs. Power (Pe) for T700-GE.

Case II (h = 500 m)
Case II (h = 6100 m)
Case I
SFC (kg/J)
© SAE International

Power (Watt)

  FIGURE 14    Thermal efficiency (ηth) vs. Power (Pe) for T700-GE.

Case II
Case II (with bleed and cooling)
Case I
Thermal efficiency
© SAE International

Power (Watt)

45
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

 f ) vs. Power (Pe) for T700-GE.

  FIGURE 15    Combustion temperature by the fuel mass flow rate (T4 × m
Combustion temperature fuel MFR (K.kg/sec)

Case II
Case II (with bleed and cooling)
Case I

© SAE International
Power (Watt)

  FIGURE 16    Revolutions per minute (RPM) vs. Power (Pe) for T700-GE.
RPM (1/min)

Case II, FPT

Case II, GGT (with bleed and cooling)
Case I
© SAE International

Power (Watt)

46

Power (Watt)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022
 2.2_corrected ) vs. Power (Pe) for T700-GE.
  FIGURE 17    CPR by the corrected air mass flow rate (πC × m
Case II
Case II (with bleed and cooling)
CPR corrected air MFR (kg/sec)
Case I
© SAE International
rotor) and ignoring the cooling system in the turbine and
the bleed in the compressor, the data shows an average differ-
ence of 11% in air mass flow rate, 6% in fuel mass flow rates,
3% in the compressor pressure ratio, and 1% in the combus-
tion chamber temperature. Therefore, the results of the
modeling 10-step approach presented in this article (Case
II) are validated with the information provided in previous
studies (Case I).
The values obtained from the engine’s diameter, length,
and weight indicate the acceptable error percentage of the
equations obtained from the database, as listed in Table 7.
Therefore, considering the ability to estimate engine
dimensions (see Table 7), modeling other flight modes (see
Table 6), and applying the control parameters of the cooling
system and bleed band (see Figures 12 and 17), it can be argued
that Case II provides superior and more accurate results that
can be used in the design and analysis of turboshaft engines
compared to previous studies (Case I).
TABLE 7   T700-GE diameter, length, and weight.
© SAE International
Parameters Estimated
Diameter (D) 0.58
Length (L) 1.14
Weight (W) 184
Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022 47
Power (Watt)
5. Conclusions
Over the years, many innovations have changed the turboshaft
engine design and development. Although the compressor
pressure ratio and TIT have increased with the advent of aero-
dynamics and materials, some indicators (such as thermal effi-
ciency) are significantly lower than the average of other catego-
ries of gas turbine engines. Using a database of the raw data
and an analytical system of equations can offer alternative
solutions for future engine upgrades. Since all the critical design
parameters are interdependent, their correlation to the power
and the other parameters’ impact and rank is crucial. Hence,
the correlation equations presented in this article can be utilized
to quickly and reasonably evaluate different engine parameters
when comparing performance or designing a new engine in
two constant/variable engine speed modes. As a tool, this
research provides a new way to improve turboshaft engines’
design and efficiency. Accreditation using more experimental
data, accelerated motion detection, autorotation f light
modeling, starting modeling, and the recuperator heat
exchanger effect are among the suggested topics for further work.
Contact Information
Farshid Bazmi
Error
Postdoctoral Fellow
D e pa r t ment of Me c h a n ic a l, Automot ive a nd
Real data percentage
0.63 7
Materials Engineering
University of Windsor
1.19 4
401 Sunset Ave, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, N9B 3P4
192 4 fbazmi@uwindsor.ca
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

48 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022

Nomenclature Subscripts
0…7 - station number
Symbols amb - ambient
A - Area [m2] c - compressor
C - coefficient cc - combustion chamber
Cp - specific heat at const. pressure [J/(kg °K)] co - cooling
e - polytropic efficiency d - diff user
f - fuel-to-air mass flow ratio β - bleed air mass flow ratio
g - gravity constant [m/s2] ε - cooling air mass flow ratio
h - flight altitude [m] τ - temperature ratio
π - pressure ratio
hPR - fuel heat value [J/kg]
γ - heat capacity ratio [J/°K]
L - length [m]
η - efficiency
D - diameter [m]
Ω - angular velocity [rad/s]
M - Mach number
 - mass flow rate [kg/s]
m Acronyms

n - number CPR - compressor pressure ratio

N - No. of revolutions per minute [1/min] CTR - compressor temperature ratio
P - pressure [Pa] ECU - engine control unit
P - power [Watt] ERG - engine reduction gearbox
FCU - fuel control unit
 - torque [N·m]
FPT - free power turbine
 - specific gas constant [J/(mol. °K)]
GGT - gas generator turbine
T - temperature [°K]
MFR - mass flow rate
V - flight velocity [m/s]
NGV - nozzle guide vane
w - weight [kg] RCT - rotor cooling technique
x - percentage of energy loss D - diameter
SFC - specific fuel consumption [kg/J] e - engine
RFP - request for proposal f - fuel
RPM - revolutions per minute gt - gear transmission
i - inlet
L - length
Abbreviation m - mechanical
mf - mass flow
a. - axial compressor
n - nozzle
c. - centrifugal compressor
N - No. of revolutions per minute
calc. - calculation
r - ram
comp. - compressor
R - reference
cond. - condition sc - speed conversion
est. - estimate sys. - systems
tech. - technology t - turbine
th. - thermal TO - take-off
turb. - turbine w - weight
limit. - limitation wo - work output
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022
Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022
References
1. Varga, B., “Power Sources of Military Helicopters,” Academic
and Applied Research in Military and Public Management
Science (AARMS), 17, no. 2 (2018): 139-168.
2. Schenderlein J. and Clayton T., “Comparison of Helicopter
Turboshaft Engines,” American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Boulder, CO, 2015 , 1-14, https://www.colorado.
edu/faculty/kantha/sites/default/files/attached-
files/16496-116619_-_tyler_clayton_-_dec_17_2015_110_pm_-_
clayton_schenderlein_comparisonofhelicopterengines.pdf.
3. Ali, F., Goulos, I., and Pachidis, V., “An Integrated
Methodology to Assess the Operational and Environmental
Performance of a Conceptual Regenerative Helicopter,”
Aeronaut. J. 119, no. 1211 (2015): 67-90, https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0001924000010253.
4. Litalien, C. and Safah, F., “Pratt & Whitney Canada
Turboshaft Engines Product and Technology Evolution,”
Kazan Tatarstan, Russia, 2007.
5. Coban, K., Colpan, C.O., and Karakoc, T.H., “Application of
Thermodynamic Laws on a Military Helicopter Engine,”
Energy 140 (2017): 1427-1436, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.07.179.
6. Bayona-Roa, C., Solis-Chaves, J.S., Bonilla, J., Rodriguez-
Melendez, A.G. et al., “Computational Simulation of PT6A
Gas Turbine Engine Operating with Different Blends of
Biodiesel—A Transient-Response Analysis,” Energies 12, no.
22 (2019): 4258, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12224258.
7. Misté, G.A., Benini, E., Garavello, A., and Gonzalez-Alcoy,
M., “A Methodology for Determining the Optimal
Rotational Speed of a Variable RPM Main Rotor/Turboshaft
Engine System,” J. Am. Helicopter Soc. 60, no. 3 (2015): 1-11,
https://doi.org/10.4050/JAHS.60.032009.
8. Alberto, G. and Benini, E., “Performance of a Turboshaft
Engine for Helicopter Applications Operating at Variable
Shaft Speed,” in Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Gas Turbine
India Conference, Maharashtra, India, 2012, https://doi.
org/10.1115/GTINDIA2012-9505, 1-15.
9. Garavello, A. and Benini, E., “Preliminary Study on a Wide-
Speed-Range Helicopter Rotor/Turboshaft System,” J. Aircr.
49, no. 4 (2012): 1032-1038, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.
C031526.
10. Miste, G.A. and Benini, E., “Variable-Speed Rotor
Helicopters: Performance Comparison between
Continuously Variable and Fixed-Ratio Transmissions,” J.
Aircr. 53, no. 5 (2016): 1189-1200, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.
C032744.
11. Misté, G., “Variable Speed Rotor Helicopters : Optimization
of Main Rotor—Turboshaft Engine Integration,” Università
degli Studi di Padova, 2015.
12. Ostertagová, E., “Modelling Using Polynomial Regression,”
Procedia Eng. 48 (2012): 500-506, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2012.09.545.
13. Mattingly, J.D., Elements of Propulsion: Gas Turbines and
Rockets, vol. 53, no. 9 (Reston, VA: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006).
49
14. Mattingly, J.D., Heiser, W.H., and Pratt, D.T., Aircraft Engine
Design, 2nd ed. (Reston, VA: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2002)
15. Bojdo, N. and Filippone, A., “Comparative Study of
Helicopter Engine Particle Separators,” J. Aircr. 51, no. 3
(2014): 1030-1042, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C032322.
16. Yin, F. and Gangoli Rao, A., “Performance Analysis of an
Aero Engine with Inter-Stage Turbine Burner,” Aeronaut. J.
121, no. 1245 (2017): 1605-1626, https://doi.org/10.1017/
aer.2017.93.
17. Mattingly, J., Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion, Illustrate
(Michigan: McGraw-Hill, 1996)
18 . MTU, “PW200—MTU Aero Engines,” MTU Aero
Engines, 2018 , https://www.mtu.de/maintenance/
commercial-aircraft-engine-services/engine-portfolio-
mro/helicopters/pw200/?pk_vid=62c883896fc430b215803
288013992e1, accessed 15 Dec. 2019.
19. Bose, T., “An Introduction Airbreathing Propulsion,”
Aerospace America 45, no. 12 (2012): 58-59.
20. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), “PW100 Series
Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne, Germany, 2018.
21. Marcus, M., Kachalla, I.A., Chikeluba Uchenna, N., and
Fredrick, O.M., “Effects of Components Deterioration on
Helicopter Operation in Hostile Environment,” ATBU, J. Sci.
Technol. Educ. 7, no. 2 (2019): 99-107.
22. EASA, “CT7-Series Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne,
Germany, 2019.
23. Snyder, C.A. and Tong, M.T., “Modeling Turboshaft Engines
for the Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology Project,”
Philadelphia, 2019.
24. EASA, “250 Series Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne,
Germany, 2019.
25. EASA, “Arrius 2 Series Type Certificate Data Sheet,”
Cologne, Germany, 2019.
26. Rolls-Royce, “M250 First Network Directory,” Indiana, 2019.
27. EASA, “PW206&207 Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne,
Germany, 2015.
28. United Training Corp, “PT6 Training Manual,” Florida, 2015.
29. Rolls-Royce, “M250-C47B/8 Turboshaft Data Sheet,” Bristol,
UK, 2015.
30. Uchida, S., Nagashima, Y., and Shimauchi, K., “MG5 Series
Commercial Helicopter Engine Development and
Utilization,” in International Gas Turbine Congress, Tokyo,
Japan, 2003, 1-8.
31. T. T. Engine, “ARRIEL 2B-2B1 Training Manual,” Bordes,
France, 2003.
32. Rolls-Royce Corporation, “Model 250-C20R Turboshaft
Engine Fact Sheet,” Indiana, 2003.
33. Saeed, F., “Aero-Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery for Jet
Propulsion,” Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 2004.
34. Bräunling, W.J., Aircraft Engines: Basics, Aero-
Thermodynamics, Cycle Processes, Thermal Turbo Machines,
Components and Emissions, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Berlin, 2004)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022
50 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022
35. US Army, “Theory of Operations (Boeing H-47 Chinook),”
Alabama, 2004.
36. Data, G., “Outlook/Specifications Gas Turbine Engines
General Data,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, January
2005, 122-134.
37. Eames, D.J.H., “Short Haul Civil Tiltrotor Contingency
Power System Preliminary Design,” Indianapolis, IN, 2006.
38. Rolls-Royce, “AE1107-Liberty Engine Catalog,” Rolls-Royce
plc vcomb 0448, Bristol, England, 2006.
39. US Army, “CH-47D Power Plant (714),” Alabama, 2006.
40. Turbomeca, “ARRIUS 1Ttraining Manual,” Bordes,
France, 2006.
41. Richard Chait, D.L. and Lyons, J., “Critical Technology
Events in the Development of the Apache Helicopter,” DTP-
026, Washington, DC, 2006.
42. Suhr, S., “Preliminary Turboshaft Engine Design
Methodology for Rotorcraft Applications,” Georgia Institute
of Technology, 2006.
43. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), “ARRIEL1-
Series Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne, Germany, 2007.
44. Kong, C.-D., Ki, J.-Y., and Lee, C.-H., “A Study on Fault
Detection of a Turboshaft Engine Using Neural Network
Method,” KSAS Int. J. 9, no. 1 (2008): 100-110, https://doi.
org/10.5139/ijass.2008.9.1.100.
45. Helicopter Association International, “2009 HAI Helicopter
Annual,” Alexandria, VA, 2009.
46. Chang, Y.W., Hsieh, C.J., Chang, K.W., Ringgaard, M. et al.,
“Training and Testing Low-Degree Polynomial Data
Mappings via Linear SVM,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11 (2010):
1471-1490.
47. Snyder, C.A. and Thurman, D.R., “Gas Turbine
Characteristics for a Large Civil Tilt-Rotor (LCTR),”
Cleveland, OH, 2010.
48. EASA, “CTS800-4N Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne,
Germany, 2010.
49. Zeng, W.S. and Tang, S.Z., “Bias Correction in Logarithmic
Regression and Comparison with Weighted Regression for
Non-Linear Models,” For. Res. 24, no. 2 (2011): 137-143,
https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2011.6708.1.
50. Forecast International, “The Market for Aviation Turboshaft
Engines,” Newtown, CT, 2011.
51. Helsinki, “Arriel 1 Series Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Kiev,
Ukraine, 2012.
52. Intro, P. and Shepherd, D., “Bell 212 Manufacturer’s Data
Manual,” Alberta, Canada, 2012.
53. Bazmi, F., Helicopter Turboshaft Engines, One (Tehran, IR:
Chortkeh, 2012)
54. Turbomeca, “Arriel 1 Training Manual,” Bordes,
France, 2012.
55. European Aviation Safety Agency, “PT6C-Series Type
Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne, Germany, 2012.
56. Nkoi, B., Pilidis, P., and Nikolaidis, T., “Performance
Assessment of Simple and Modified Cycle Turboshaft Gas
Turbines,” Propuls. Power Res. 2, no. 2 (2013): 96 -106, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jppr.2013.04.009.
57. EASA, “RTM322 Series Type Certificate Data Sheet,”
Cologne, Germany, 2013.
58. Warning, R.P.M., Bell 212 Pilot Training Manual, no.
February (Abbotsford, B.C.: Campbell Helicopters, 2013),
1-15.
59. EASA, “PW210 Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne,
Germany, 2014.
60. Cohen, J., West, S.G., Aiken, L., and Cohen, P., Applied
Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, Revised (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2014).
61. Power G., “RTM322 Turbomeca Engine Catalog,” Bordes
CEDEX - France, 2014.
62. EASA, “ARRIEL2-Series Type Certificate Data Sheet,”
Cologne, Germany, 2014.
63. EASA, “PT6T-Series Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne,
Germany, 2015.
64. Turan, Ö. and Aydin, H., “Numerical Calculation of Energy
and Exergy Flows of a Turboshaft Engine for Power
Generation and Helicopter Applications,” Energy 115 (2016):
914-923, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.09.070.
65. Chen, R., Wen, C.Y., Lorente, S., and Bejan, A., “The
Evolution of Helicopters,” J. Appl. Phys. 120, no. 1 (2016):
014901, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4954976.
66. Engine M., Jetranger B., and Searanger B.T., “M250 Engine
Designations and Applications,” 2016.
67. Adamec, J., “Vliv vůle na koncích lopatek na parametry
odstředivého kompresoru. pdf,” ČESKÉ VYSOKÉ UČENÍ
TECHNICKÉ V PRAZE, 2016.
68. Varga, B., Óvári, G., and Kavas, L., “The Turbine Inlet
Temperature and Compressor Pressure Ratio, the Siamese
Twins of the Gas Turbine Engines,” Sci. Res. Educ. Air Force
18, no. 1 (2016): 393-398, https://doi.org/10.19062/2247-
3173.2016.18.1.53.
69. EASA, “Arrius 1A-1A1 Type Certificate Data Sheet,”
Cologne, Germany, 2016.
70. Bulanov, M., “Arrius 2 Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Moscow,
Russia, 2016.
71. EASA, “TM 333 Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne,
Germany, 2017.
72. AminiMagham, M., Ebrahimi, A., and Zolfaghari, A., “STS-
IDOO: A Candidate Turboshaft Engine for Hybrid Electric
Medium Altitude Long Endurance Search and Rescue UAV,”
America Institute Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018.
73. Przybyła, B., Przysowa, R., and Zapałowicz, Z.,
“Implementation of a New Inlet Protection System into
HEMS Fleet,” Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 92 (2018): 67-79,
https://doi.org/10.14339/STO-MP-AVT-306-08-PDF.
74. Reddy, D.S., Kumar, K.P., Manikanta, Y., Sai, B.P. et al.,
“Analysis of Turboshaft Engine-Low Power Margin,” Int. J.
Innov. Res. Manag. Eng. Technol. 3, no. 3 (2018): 40-57.
75. EASA, “ARRIEL 2 Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Cologne,
Germany, 2018.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022 51

76. Al, S., “Army Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines,” Virginia, 85. Gunston, B., Jane’s Aero-Engines, 12th ed. (Surrey, UK: Janes
January 1, 2005. Information Group, 1996)
77. L. Document, “T53 Engine Experience Report,” 86. Haynes, S.R., “The MTR390 Turboshaft Engine,” Bristol,
Alabama, 1974. England, 1997.
78. Stigler, S.M., “Gergonne’s 1815 Paper on the Design and 87. Silet, J., “Helicopter Turboshaft Technology Evolution,”
Analysis of Polynomial Regression Experiments,” Hist. Bordes Cedex - France, 1997.
Math. 1, no. 4 (1974): 431-439, https://doi.org/10.1016/0315- 88. SAFRAN Helicopter Engines company, “MTR390 for the
0860(74)90033-0. Tiger HAD - Tiger UHT - Tiger HAP/ARH,” 1-2,
79. Stratford, C., Student Training Manual: Gas Turbine Engine France, 2000.
T5313 Series, T53-L-13 Series, Service De (Williamsport, PA: 89. Turbomeca, “Arriel 2S1 Training Manual,” Bordes Cedex -
Lycoming Division, 1975). France, 2001.
80. Walter, T.J., “Study of T53 Engine Vibration,” Latham, 90. Turbomeca, “ARRIEL 2C1-2C2 Training Manual,” Borders,
NY, 1978. Frances, 2002.
81. Leissler, G.W. and Yuhas, J.S., “T55-L-712 Turbine Engine
Compressor Housing Refurbishment—Plasma Spray
Project,” Ohio, 1988.
82. Faragher, J., “The Development of a T53-L11 Engine
Computer Model,” AR-005-587, Melbourne, 1989.
Appendix A: Compiled
83. CEF, “CT7-2D Type Certificate Data Sheet,” Stratford, Database
CT, 1990.
84. Pratt & Whitney Canada, PT6T-3 Training Manual The key parameters of the database on 132 helicopter engines
(Longueuil, Quebec: Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp, 1990) are as follows:

Column Parameter Description

1 — Name of the turboshaft engine manufacturer company
2 — Name of the turboshaft engine
3 Pe Power of the engine with “kilowatt” dimension
4 L Length of the turboshaft engine with “meter” dimension
5 D The diameter of the turboshaft engine with “meter” dimension
6 W Weight of the turboshaft engine with “kilogram” dimension
7  2.2
m Air mass flow rate of the turboshaft engine with “kg/s” dimension
8 πC The compressor pressure ratio of the turboshaft engine
9 Comp. Compressor description: “a.” is the abbreviation for axial compressor and “c.” is the
abbreviation for a centrifugal compressor. For example, 3a.+1c. means three axial
compressor stages and one centrifugal compressor stage in the engine structure
10 T4 The turbine inlet temperature of the turboshaft engine at design point with “°K” dimension
11 SFC Specific fuel consumption of the turboshaft engine with at design point “kg/MJ” dimension
12 Turb. Turbine description: “GT” is the abbreviation for gas generator turbine and “FT” is the
© SAE International

abbreviation for a free turbine. For example, 1GT+2FT means one gas generator turbine
stage and two free turbine stages in the engine structure
13 NGGT No. of gas generator turbine revolutions per minute with “1/min” dimension
14 NFPT No. of free turbine revolutions per minute with “1/min” dimension
N/A stands for not available as the authors were not able to confirm the data for these cells.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

TABLE A.1  Compiled key design parameter dada of 132 helicopter turboshaft engines. Data taken from Refs. [5, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90].
SFC
W m 2.2 T4 [kg/ NGGT NFPT
Company Engine Pe [kW] L [m] D [m] [kg] [kg/s] πC Comp. [°K] MJ] Turb. [1/min] [1/min]
Pratt and PT6B-36A 731 1.50 0.49 174 2.495 6.3 3a.+1c. 1089 0.098 1GT+1FT 38,400 N/A
Whitney PT6B-36B 770 1.50 0.49 175 3.084 7.1 3a.+1c. 1089 0.098 1GT+1FT 39,400 N/A
PT6B-37A 747 1.64 0.89 175 N/A N/A 3a.+1c. 1083 0.010 1GT+1FT 39,300 N/A
PT6C-67A 1447 1.65 0.53 190 3.084 6.7 4a.+1c. 1088 0.081 1GT+2FT 39,100 21,420
PT6C-67C 1252 1.51 0.57 188 2.404 6.3 4a.+1c. 1048 0.086 1GT+2FT 39,100 21,420
PT6C-67D 1262 1.51 0.57 203 2.404 6.3 4a.+1c. N/A 0.086 1GT+2FT 39,100 21,420
PT6C-67E 1324 1.52 0.57 217 2.404 6.3 4a.+1c. 1088 0.010 1GT+2FT 39,100 21,420
PT6T-3 1342 1.67 1.10 313 2.953 7.3 3a.+1c. 1322 0.010 1GT+1FT 38,100 33,000
PT6T-3B/BF 1342 1.67 1.10 299 2.994 7.3 3a.+1c. 1083 0.010 1GT+1FT 38,100 33,000
PT6T-3BE/ 1342 1.67 1.10 302 2.994 7.3 3a.+1c. 1083 0.010 1GT+1FT 38,100 33,000
BG
PT6T-3D/ 1432 1.67 1.10 313 2.994 7.3 3a.+1c. 1083 0.010 1GT+1FT 38,100 33,000
DE/DF
PT6T-6 1469 1.67 1.10 299 2.948 7.2 3a.+1c. 1083 0.099 1GT+1FT 38,100 33,000
PT6T-6B 1469 1.67 1.10 305 2.948 7.2 3a.+1c. 1083 0.099 1GT+1FT 38,100 33,000
PW 127T/S 2595 1.27 0.84 227 9.072 14.7 2c. 1073 0.079 1GT+2FT 33,930 28,000
PW 150T/S 4474 1.52 0.85 372 15.88 18 3a.+1c. 1089 0.073 1GT+1FT N/A N/A
PW 206A 477 0.91 0.57 107 2.005 8 1c. 1136 0.097 1GT+1FT 57,250 41,606
PW 206B 463 1.04 0.63 112 2.005 8 1c. 1127 0.099 1GT+1FT 57,250 40,891
PW 206B2 518 1.04 0.63 112 2.042 8 1c. 1173 N/A 1GT+1FT 57,900 40,891
PW 206C 477 0.91 0.57 107 2.005 7.912 1c. 1136 0.093 1GT+1FT 57,250 40,806
PW 206E 477 0.96 0.57 107 2.005 8 1c. 1136 N/A 1GT+1FT 57,250 41,606
PW 207C 548 0.91 0.57 109 2.042 8.1 1c. 1173 N/A 1GT+1FT 57,900 40,806
PW 207D 529 0.91 0.57 110 2.005 8 1c. 1173 0.094 1GT+1FT 57,900 41,606

© SAE International
PW 207D1 536 0.79 0.57 107 2.019 8 1c. 1173 N/A N/A 57,900 41,606
PW 207E 529 0.96 0.57 109 2.005 8 1c. 1173 0.091 1GT+1FT 57,900 41,606
PW 207K 544 0.99 0.57 115 2.042 8 1c. N/A N/A 1GT+1FT N/A N/A
PW 210S 802 1.09 0.60 162 N/A N/A 1a.+1c. 1279 0.092 1GT+2FT 51,000 26,383
(Continued)

52
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

TABLE A.1  (Continued) Compiled key design parameter dada of 132 helicopter turboshaft engines. Data taken from Refs. [5, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90].
SFC
W m 2.2 T4 [kg/ NGGT NFPT
Company Engine Pe [kW] L [m] D [m] [kg] [kg/s] πC Comp. [°K] MJ] Turb. [1/min] [1/min]
Rolls- RR 300 224 1.10 0.56 80 N/A 6.2 1c. N/A 0.011 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
Royce AE 1007 4549 1.52 0.75 440 16.012 16.7 14a. 1478 0.072 2GT+2FT N/A 28,000
AE 1107C 5093 1.98 0.87 440 15.876 16.7 14a. 1728 0.073 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
(T406)
CTS 800-4N 1015 1.30 0.59 185 3.538 14.6 2c. 1178 0.079 2GT+2FT 43,796 23,000
CTS 800-4K 991 1.30 0.59 163 N/A 14.6 2c. N/A 0.078 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
GEM 42 835 1.10 0.60 183 3.402 12.72 4a.+1c. N/A 0.086 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
GEM 42-1 746 1.10 0.57 183 N/A 13 4a.+1c. N/A 0.086 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
Gnome 1238 1.39 0.58 148 6.260 8.6 10a. N/A 0.010 2GT+1FT N/A N/A
H1400
MTR 390-2C 1176 1.08 0.68 169 3.198 13 2c. N/A 0.050 1GT+2FT N/A 8320
MTR 390-E 1110 1.08 0.68 178 3.583 14 2c. 1627 0.050 1GT+2FT N/A 8320
RTM 322- 1567 1.17 0.66 254 N/A N/A 3a.+1c. N/A 0.077 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
01/8
RTM 322- 1799 1.12 0.64 227 5.788 14.7 3a.+1c. 1507 0.072 2GT+2FT 36,300 20,841
01/9
RTM 322- 1904 1.12 0.64 227 N/A 16 3a.+1c. 1168 0.072 2GT+2FT 36,300 20,841
01/9A
RTM 322- 1567 1.18 0.66 250 N/A N/A 3a.+1c. N/A 0.077 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
01/12
RTM 322- 1687 1.18 0.66 252 N/A N/A 3a.+1c. N/A 0.076 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
02/8
RTM 322- 1950 1.1709 0.66 254 N/A N/A 3a.+1c. N/A 0.072 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
04/08
T63-A-720 313 0.98 0.48 72 1.588 7.1 6a.+1c. 1083 0.011 2GT+2FT 50,970 33,290
T703-A-700 522 1.04 0.56 122 2.540 8.6 1c. 998 0.099 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,650
T800-802 1283 0.98 0.57 154 4.536 14.6 2c. 1444 0.079 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
Allison T406 4586 1.98 0.62 442 N/A 16.7 14a. 1045 0.072 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
250-C20B 313 1.03 0.59 72 1.588 7.2 6a.+1c. 1083 0.011 2GT+2FT 50,970 33,290
250-C20R 335 0.98 0.53 79 1.733 7.9 4a.+1c. 1046 0.010 2GT+2FT 50,970 33,290
250-C20F 313 0.96 0.48 74 1.815 7.2 6a.+1c. 1083 0.011 2GT+2FT 50,970 33,290
250-C20J 313 0.96 0.48 74 1.815 7.2 6a.+1c. 1083 0.011 2GT+2FT 50,970 33,290
250-C20W 313 0.98 0.48 74 1.815 7.2 6a.+1c. 1083 0.011 2GT+2FT 50,970 33,290
250-C28C 373 1.10 0.65 107 1.964 8.4 1c. 1005 0.099 2GT+2FT 50,940 33,420
250-C30 485 1.10 0.56 114 2.540 8.6 1c. 1015 0.010 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,650
250-C30G 485 1.10 0.65 114 2.721 8.6 1c. 1015 0.010 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,650
250-C30M 485 1.10 0.56 114 2.721 8.4 1c. 998 0.010 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,650
250-C30P 485 1.10 0.56 114 2.721 8.6 1c. 998 0.010 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,650
© SAE International

250-C30R 485 1.04 0.56 124 2.767 9.2 1c. 1075 0.010 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,650
250-C30S 485 1.10 0.56 114 2.721 8.4 1c. 1075 0.010 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,650
250-C40 533 1.04 0.64 127 2.767 9.2 1c. 1053 0.097 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,908
250-C47B/M 485 1.04 0.64 124 2.721 9.2 1c. 1053 0.099 2GT+2FT 51,000 30,650
(Continued)

53
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

TABLE A.1  (Continued) Compiled key design parameter dada of 132 helicopter turboshaft engines. Data taken from Refs. [5, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90].

SFC
W m 2.2 T4 [kg/ NGGT NFPT
Company Engine Pe [kW] L [m] D [m] [kg] [kg/s] πC Comp. [°K] MJ] Turb. [1/min] [1/min]
Safran Arrius 1A 340 1.16 0.59 114 1.815 8.1 1c. 1073 0.094 1GT+1FT 54,117 45,438
Turbomeca Arrius 1M 357 1.16 0.59 114 1.588 8.2 1c. N/A 0.094 1GT+1FT 54,117 45,438
Arrius 2B1 450 1.16 0.69 114 2.177 9 1c. 1168 0.089 1GT+1FT 54,117 44,038
Arrius 2B2 472 1.16 0.69 114 N/A 8.4 1c. 1170 0.091 1GT+1FT 54,117 44,038
Arrius 2F 376 1.35 0.67 103 N/A 8.5 1c. 1143 0.094 1GT+1FT 54,117 44,000
Arrius 2K1 559 0.97 0.64 115 2.313 9 1c. 1178 0.089 1GT+1FT 54,117 44,000
Arrius 2K2 534 0.97 0.64 115 2.268 9 1c. 1202 0.089 1GT+1FT 54,117 44,000
Arrius 2G1 537 0.97 0.64 115 N/A N/A 1c. 1205 N/A 1GT+1FT 54,117 44,000
Arriel 1B 478 1.21 0.50 114 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1083 0.010 2GT+1FT 51,800 414,20
Arriel 1C2 550 1.17 0.61 119 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1118 0.097 2GT+1FT 51,800 41,420
Arriel 1D 510 1.20 0.60 122 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1118 0.098 2GT+1FT 51,800 41,420
Arriel 1D1 546 1.20 0.61 122 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1118 0.098 2GT+1FT 51,800 41,420
Arriel 1E 410 1.16 0.60 126 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. N/A 0.098 2GT+1FT 51,800 41,420
Arriel 1E2 550 1.19 0.69 125 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1118 0.097 2GT+1FT 51,800 41,586
Arriel 1K2 550 0.62 0.62 123 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. N/A 0.097 2GT+1FT 51,800 41,420
Arriel 1S1 539 1.54 0.79 130 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1118 0.096 2GT+1FT 52,110 44,421
Arriel 2B1 632 1.18 0.62 119 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1188 0.093 1GT+1FT 52,110 39,095
Arriel 2C 626 1.18 0.62 128 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1185 0.093 1GT+1FT 52,110 39,095
Arriel 2C1 632 1.02 0.58 128 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1185 0.093 1GT+1FT 52,110 39,095
Arriel 2C2 704 1.01 0.58 128 2.676 8.2 1a.+1c. 1202 0.092 1GT+1FT 52,110 39,095
Arriel 2S1 638 1.54 0.71 128 2.495 8.2 1a.+1c. 1185 0.091 1GT+1FT 52,110 39,095
TM 333-2B 909 1.04 0.74 167 2.812 11 2a.+1c. 1089 0.092 1GT+1FT N/A N/A
TM 333 2B2 824 1.04 0.75 167 2.721 10 2a.+1c. 1177 0.087 1GT+1FT 45,000 37,562
Ardiden 1 1254 1.04 0.71 198 3.493 12.1 2c. N/A 0.088 1GT+2FT N/A N/A
Ardiden 2 1311 1.04 0.71 190 3.493 12.1 2c. N/A 0.088 1GT+2FT N/A N/A
Makila 1A1 1357 2.10 0.68 235 5.443 10.4 3a.+1c. 1068 0.082 2GT+2FT 33,200 22,850

© SAE International
Makila 1A2 1376 2.13 0.67 235 5.489 10.4 3a.+1c. 1098 0.080 2GT+2FT 33,200 22,962
Makila 1K2 1376 2.12 0.67 235 5.547 10.4 3a.+1c. 1098 0.080 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
Makila 2 1801 1.84 0.62 274 5.489 10.4 3a.+1c. N/A 0.080 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
Makila 2A 1564 2.12 0.67 279 5.702 11 3a.+1c. 1069 0.079 2GT+2FT 33,200 22,962
(Continued)

54
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

TABLE A.1  (Continued) Compiled key design parameter dada of 132 helicopter turboshaft engines. Data taken from Refs. [5, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90].
SFC
W m 2.2 T4 [kg/ NGGT NFPT
Company Engine Pe [kW] L [m] D [m] [kg] [kg/s] πC Comp. [°K] MJ] Turb. [1/min] [1/min]
Textron T53-13B 1044 1.21 0.62 250 5.534 7.2 5a.+1c. 1211 0.098 2GT+2FT 25,600 N/A
Lycoming T53-17A 1118 1.21 0.62 247 5.443 7 5a.+1c. 1199 0.099 2GT+2FT 25,150 21,080
T53-17A-1 1118 1.21 0.62 248 5.443 7 5a.+1c. 1199 0.010 2GT+2FT 25,150 21,080
T53-17B 1118 1.21 0.62 250 4.853 7.1 5a.+1c. 1199 0.010 2GT+2FT 25,150 21,080
T53-17BCV 1342 1.21 0.62 249 N/A 8 5a.+1c. N/A 0.096 2HT+2FT 25,150 21,080
T53-L-11 820 1.21 0.58 225 4.853 6.2 5a.+1c. N/A N/A 1GT+1FT 25,150 21,080
T55-L-13 1044 1.21 0.58 249 5.534 7.4 5a.+1c. 1211 0.098 2GT+2FT 25,000 21,089
T53-L-13B 1044 1.21 0.62 249 5.534 7.4 5a.+1c. 1211 0.098 1GT+1FT 25,000 21,089
T53-L-703 1342 1.21 0.62 247 N/A 8 5a.+1c. N/A 0.096 2GT+2FT 25,150 21,080
T55-L-712 2796 1.20 0.62 344 11.975 8.2 7a.+1c. 1303 0.089 2GT+2FT 18,720 15,333
T55-L-712E 2796 1.20 0.62 354 11.975 8.2 7a.+1c. 1303 0.089 2GT+2FT 18,720 15,333
T55-L-712F 3218 1.20 0.62 354 11.975 8.2 7a.+1c. 1348 0.089 2GT+2FT 18,720 15,333
T55-L-714 3629 1.20 0.62 377 13.199 9.3 7a.+1c. 1088 0.086 2GT+2FT 18,720 15,333
T55-L-714A 3630 1.20 0.62 377 13.199 9.3 7a.+1c. 1088 0.084 2GT+2FT 18,720 15,333
LTS-101- 459 0.80 0.63 120 2.268 8.4 1a.+1c. 1055 0.096 1GT+1FT 49,638 N/A
600A-2/-3
LTS-101- 485 0.80 0.63 120 2.268 8.4 1a.+1c. 1059 0.098 1GT+1FT 49,830 N/A
600A-3A
LTS-101- 485 0.80 0.64 121 2.268 8.4 1a.+1c. 1055 0.096 1GT+1FT 49,638 N/A
650B-1
LTS-101- 503 0.80 0.57 109 2.268 8.4 1a.+1c. 1055 0.096 1GT+1FT 49,638 N/A
650C-3
LTS-101- 546 0.80 0.63 120 2.268 8.4 1a.+1c. 1196 0.096 1GT+1FT 51,026 N/A
700D-2
LTS-101- 542 0.80 0.64 123 2.268 8.4 1a.+1c. 1059 0.098 1GT+1FT 49,830 N/A
750B-1
LTS-101- 553 0.82 0.63 122 2.268 8.8 1a.+1c. 1059 0.096 1HT+1FT 49,830 N/A
750B-2
LTS-101- 548 0.79 0.57 111 2.268 8.8 1a.+1c. 1059 0.098 1GT+1FT 49,830 N/A
© SAE International

750C-1
LTS-101- 582 0.82 0.50 123 2.313 8.8 1a.+1c. 1121 0.096 2GT+2FT 51,029 N/A
850B-2
HTS900 709 0.82 0.64 127 2.495 9 1a.+1c. N/A 0.089 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
(Continued)

55
 Downloaded from SAE International by Texas A&M University, Tuesday, June 07, 2022

56 Bazmi and Rahimi / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 15, Issue 1, 2022

TABLE A.1  (Continued) Compiled key design parameter dada of 132 helicopter turboshaft engines. Data taken from Refs. [5, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90].
SFC
W m 2.2 T4 [kg/ NGGT NFPT
Company Engine Pe [kW] L [m] D [m] [kg] [kg/s] πC Comp. [°K] MJ] Turb. [1/min] [1/min]
General T58-16A 1394 1.63 0.61 201 6.305 8.4 10a. 1346 0.089 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
Electric T58-100 1118 1.40 0.53 152 6.351 8.4 10a. 1017 0.010 2GT+1FT N/A N/A
T58-400B 1118 1.40 0.53 156 6.351 8.4 10a. N/A 0.010 2GT+1FT N/A N/A
CT58-140 1044 1.50 0.41 154 6.214 8.4 10a. 1150 0.010 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
T64-100 3229 1.96 0.51 327 13.29 14.9 14a. 1100 0.082 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
T64-419 3542 2.01 0.51 342 13.336 14.9 14a. N/A 0.079 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
CT7/T700-6 1626 1.22 0.66 220 5.897 18 5a.+1c. N/A 0.077 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
CT7-2A 1286 1.19 0.63 195 N/A 17 5a.+1c. 1152 0.081 2GT+2FT 44,700 21,000
CT7-6 1432 1.22 0.66 224 N/A N/A 5a.+1c. 1221 0.078 2GT+2FT 44,700 20,463
CT7-6A 1491 1.22 0.63 224 N/A 18 5a.+1c. 1221 0.077 2GT+2FT 44,700 20,463
CT7-8A 1964 1.22 0.66 246 N/A 21 5a.+1c. 1268 0.076 2GT+2FT 44,700 21,945
CT7-8C 2386 1.25 0.66 227 6.350 22 5a.+1c. N/A 0.077 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
T700-401 1285 1.19 0.63 201 4.536 17 5a.+1c. 1176 0.079 2GT+2FT 44,700 20,900
T700-700 1330 1.19 0.63 192 4.612 17.5 5a.+1c. 1124 0.079 2GT+2FT 44,700 20,900
T700-GE- 1476 1.19 0.63 207 4.536 18 5a.+1c. 1125 0.078 2GT+2FT 44,700 20,900
701D
GE38 5593 1.46 0.69 501 N/A 18.6 5a.+1c. 1053 0.066 2GT+3FT N/A N/A

© SAE International
Russian Klimov TV3- 1864 2.08 0.91 294 8.750 9.4 10a. 957 0.052 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
Turboshaft 117
Klimov TV7- 2796 1.78 0.73 360 N/A 16 5a.+1c. N/A 0.084 2GT+2FT N/A N/A
117V

Appendix B: Proofs f 
f
m

SFC  Pe

 cc   i c
 3.1
m  3.1
m  hPRcc  Eq. (B.3)
The proof of equations are as follows:     cc
 C P 3T0 

Then using Equation 11 and B.2 into (B.3), so

B.1. Proof of Equation 10
SFC  Pe 1 d
The combustion chamber’ temperature ratio is given by [13]:  Eq. (B.4)

m3.1  hPRcc d 
  1
 CC 
C P 4T4

C P 4T4
Eq. (B.1)  Camb C P 3T0 
C P 3T3 C P 3 T0 i d c and fi nally, we  can derive Equation 10 from rearranging
Let us use Equation 11 and then can be written as Equation B.4 and calling Equation 9.

B.2. Proof of Equation 19
 CC 
C P 4T4 C T
 P4 4
1 C
 amb The engine thermal efficiency is given by [17]:
 1 C P 4T4  C T C P 4T4 d  i  c  1
C P 3 T0 i d  
P3 0
d th.  1  Eq. (B.5)
  i C P 3T0  C P 3T0  x 
Eq. (B.2)  cc  1  
  i c 
On the other hand, considering Equations 8 and 17, if we equate Equation B.5 with Equation 31, we get Equation 19
fuel-air ratio is given by: by sorting.

© 2022 SAE International. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. Responsibility for the content of the work lies
solely with the author(s).