PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A FLETTNER ROTOR WITH A FLAP

G. Bordogna, Blue Wasp Marine BV, The Netherlands

A.A.K. Rijkens, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
N.J. van der Kolk, Blue Wasp Marine BV, The Netherlands

SUMMARY
This article presents an integrated analysis of the Flettner rotor + Flap concept. The Flettner rotor is a rotating cylinder
that, due to the Magnus effect, can generate large aerodynamic forces relative to its area. Unfortunately, other than
lift, this includes a substantial drag force, which results in sub-optimal performance when considering lift-to-drag
efficiency. The lift-to-drag ratio for a wind propulsor is a key determinant for upwind performance. A wind-assisted ship
will generally motor sail, mostly operating in upwind apparent wind conditions in which the performance for the lift-to-
drag ratio of the Flettner rotor could be a short-coming.
The Flettner Rotor+Flap concept is a modification to the standard Flettner rotor design. The flap, which can be set at
any angular position around the rotor, introduces the possibility to fix the separation point. This improves the
aerodynamic properties of the Flettner Rotor, in particular its lift/drag ratio.
The results obtained using Blue Wasp’s Pelican performance prediction software, show that the flap significantly
increases the aerodynamic thrust generated by the Flettner rotor for upwind sailing conditions. The improved lift/drag
efficiency of the Flettner Rotor+Flap also results in a smaller tacking angle, meaning that the ship is able to sail closer
to the wind thus increasing its operational profile. Differences in tacking angles around 15 degrees are reported. The
evaluation of a shipping route on the North Sea shows that the difference in fuel savings between a ship deploying
the Flettner Rotor+Flap and the Standard Flettner rotor can be as large as 35%.

1 INTRODUCTION
The Flettner rotor is a rotating cylinder that generates a lift force due to the Magnus effect. At present, several examples
of Flettner rotor installations are operated on ships of different types and sizes [1]. The potential fuel reduction that
this wind assist device offers has been demonstrated and well-documented in academic literature [2-5]. Nonetheless,
it is known that the large amount of lift a Flettner rotor is able to generate is accompanied by a substantial amount of
drag, reducing its lift/drag efficiency. For the fuel-savings performance of the wind-assisted ship, this is particularly
detrimental when the ship sails upwind. The addition of a flap to the Flettner rotor introduces the possibility of fixing
the flow separation point on the rotating cylinder, thus altering the lift and drag forces it generates. The flap may offer
the capacity to increase the performance of the Flettner rotor, in particular its lift/drag efficiency.

1.1 Methodology
This study was commissioned to investigate the potential performance benefits of the Flettner Rotor+Flap with respect
to a comparable Standard Flettner Rotor. The assessment is carried out by analysing the performance of a ship
equipped with a Standard Flettner Rotor and a Flettner Rotor+Flap for a set of different conditions. All cases are
analysed following the same approach using the Blue Wasp vessel model, described in Section 3 of this article.
The performance differences between the Standard Flettner Rotor and a Flettner Rotor+Flap are evaluated by
analysing the vessel’s sailing characteristics. This is presented in Section 5 and it includes a discussion of state
variables such as aero/hydrodynamic forces, Flettner rotor velocity ratio and rotor power consumption. The fuel
savings achievable by the Standard Flettner Rotor ship and the Flettner Rotor+Flap ship, with respect to a comparable
reference case, are then discussed. These results are eventually used to compute the fuel savings of the ship when
sailing in the North Sea region.
2 AERODYNAMIC INPUT
The aerodynamic data of Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap used in the present study were obtained
during experiments carried out at Politecnico di Milano wind tunnel. Both test campaigns were conducted on the large-
scale Flettner rotor (Delft Rotor), see Figure 1. The 𝐶𝐿 and 𝐶𝐷 curves used herewith were derived from the pressure
measurements at the cylinder’s mid-span. Due to the experimental setup, i.e. the tip vortices were suppressed by the
wind-tunnel floor and ceiling, the lift and drag coefficients used in the present analysis are, in fact, two-dimensional.
Here, the underlying assumption is that the flap does not alter the Flettner rotor tip vortices. Further details on the
measurement setup employed can be found in [6].

The lift and drag coefficients of the Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap used in this article were
obtained at Reynolds number 𝑅𝑒 = 3.6 ⋅ 105 , which was the highest Reynolds number achievable for velocity ratios
up to 𝑘 = 5.0. It is proven that at 𝑅𝑒 > 3.6 ⋅ 105 the drag coefficient is still sensitive to scale effects, whereas, after this
threshold, the lift coefficient is no longer affected. This can be seen by looking at the wind-tunnel test results of the
Delft Rotor given in Figures 2, 3, and 4. In Figure 1 the cylinder direction of rotation and the reference system used in
this article to indicate the flap position is depicted.

Figure 1 Flettner Rotor+Flap prototype tested at Politecnico di Milano wind tunnel (left) and Delft Rotor direction
of rotation and reference system used to indicate the flap position.

Figure 2 Reynolds number effect on the Delft Rotor lift and drag coefficients for different velocity ratios 𝑘.
The scope of the flap is to set a separation point that alters the pressure distribution around the entire rotating cylinder.
An example of the flap influence on the pressure distribution of the Delft Rotor is given in Figure 4.

Figure 3 Reynolds number influence on the pressure distribution measured at the Delft Rotor mid-span for
velocity ratio 𝑘 = 1.5 (left) and 𝑘 = 2.0 (right). Following the reference system depicted in Figure 1, the wind
comes from the left side of the plot and the cylinder rotates counterclockwise.

Figure 4 Example of pressure distribution of the Delft Rotor with (red curve) and without (blue curve) flap. The
flap is positioned at 180°, the velocity ratio is 𝑘 = 3.0 and the Reynolds number is 𝑅𝑒 = 3.6 ⋅ 105 .

Considering that the most significant positive effect of the flap on the aerodynamic performance of a Flettner rotor is
to reduce its drag, and considering that the drag coefficient increases with the increase of the Reynolds number (see
Figure 2 and Figure 3), it’s arguable that at full scale the benefits introduced by the flap will be larger than those
discussed in this article.

The lift and drag coefficients of the Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap used in the present study are
given in Figure 5. In the case of the Flettner Rotor+Flap, 𝐶𝐿 and 𝐶𝐷 are given for each flap position tested. As it can
be seen in Figure 5, the main effect of the flap is to increase the 𝐶𝐿 /𝐶𝐷 ratio, typically by reducing 𝐶𝐷 to a larger extent
than 𝐶𝐿 . Nonetheless, for certain combinations of flap position and velocity ratio, the flap introduces an increase in 𝐶𝐿
and 𝐶𝐷 with respect to the standard Flettner rotor.

Figure 5 𝐶𝐿 , 𝐶𝐷 and 𝐶𝐿 /𝐶𝐷 of the Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap.

3 BLUE WASP VESSEL MODEL

The performance difference between the Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap is assessed with Blue
Wasp’s Pelican performance prediction software, using the in-built force models. The aerodynamic module was
modified to include the flap position that, together with the velocity ratio 𝑘, is the control variable to determine the
amount of lift and drag generated by the device. In particular, the results of the wind tunnel experiments reported in
Section 2 were used.
Fundamentally, the vessel model balances the aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, and main propulsor forces acting on a
wind-assisted ship. The following components of the vessel surge equation must be in equilibrium:

− Flettner rotor thrust

− Calm-water resistance
− Windage
− Added resistance in waves
− Resistance due to leeway
− Resistance due to heel
− Resistance due to rudder working
An analogous balance is needed for the Sway, Roll, and Yaw equations. A gradient-descent solver is used to
determine the optimum combination of control variables: Flettner rotor velocity ratio (𝑘), rudder angles, and Flettner
rotor flap position (if applicable).
Hydro-mechanic modelling follows the manoeuvring approach: body forces in the lateral plane for the steady drift
condition, including vessel heel angle [7]. The hydrodynamic derivatives for resistance, sway, and yaw moment are
extracted from the database of full-scale simulation results of the Delft Wind-assist Series [8]. A correction for
systematic simulation bias (under-prediction of the non-linear side force for hard-bilged vessels) was applied. This
was accomplished by adjusting the effective draft, a convenient metric for the sailing efficiency of the hull.

Of principal interest for this modelling for wind-assist vessels is the centre of effort for the distribution of lateral force,
also known as the centre of lateral resistance. Yaw balance and a sailing equilibrium are achieved by aligning the
aerodynamic centre of the wind propulsors with the hydrodynamic centre (CLR) of the hull. A static rudder angle is
needed in many cases to maintain course. The ship considered in this study was updated with two rudders to improve
its sailing characteristics.

The rudders operate in the wake of the ship and in the wash of the propeller. As the main engine thrust is reduced,
the rudders should become less effective. The rudder-propeller interaction coefficient is set to 0.76, or 3/4 of the fluid
momentum added at the propeller disc is remaining by the time this wash reaches the rudder [9]. Similarly, the leeway
angle at the rudder is reduced as the flow has been aligned with the sidewalls and bottom of the ship. A wake-
straightening factor of 0.60 is taken.
For this study, vessel speed is prescribed, and the goal function for optimization is to minimize the main engine fuel
consumption. The power and associated generator fuel consumption required to operate the Flettner rotor is not
considered in the optimization routine. Also, it was decided not to set operational limits on the Flettner rotor (electric
motor nominal power and max RPMs). This decision was to make the present investigation to be less dependent on
the ship and Flettner rotor type/size. The implications of this decision are discussed further in Section 5.2.

4 CASE STUDY
The DAMEN CF5000 ship was used to compare the performance of the Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner
Rotor+Flap. For the present study, it was decided to use a small-sized Flettner rotor of diameter D=3 m and span
H=18 m. Although larger rotor sizes are available, which would have led to larger fuel savings, a well-balanced ship
was desired to isolate the potential benefits of the flap. The main particulars of the vessel are provided in Table 1 and
a general arrangement of the ship is presented in Figure 6.
The CF5000 is a small freighter designed for near-shore operation, it is 86 meters long and it has an installed power
of 1300 kW. The deadweight tonnage is 5000 metric ton, representing a typical ship for regional trade.

Table 1 Main particulars of the DAMEN CF5000 ship.

Main Particulars Value Units

Length between perpendiculars 86.0 [m]
Beam 15.2 [m]
Draft 6.3 [m]
Main engine power 1300 [kW]
 Figure 6 General arrangement of the Damen Combi-freighter CF5000 with a Flettner Rotor+Flap

4.1 Testing matrix definition

The test matrix reported in Table 2 was analysed for the ship equipped with the Standard Flettner Rotor as well as
with the Flettner Rotor+Flap.

Table 2 Test cases considered for the Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap.

Name N° Rotors Rotor size Rotor position Ship speed

Reference case 0 - - 11 [kts]
One Flettner rotor 1 D=3 x H=18 [m] Foredeck 11 [kts]
Two Flettner rotors – Side 2 D=3 x H=18 [m] Both at foredeck 11 [kts]
Two Flettner rotors – Line 2 D=3 x H=18 [m] Foredeck & Midship 11 [kts]

For the Two Flettner rotor case, two different Flettner rotor positions were investigated, see Error! Reference source
not found.Figure 7. The “Line” arrangement implies that the two rotors are installed at the centreline of the ship, one
at the foredeck and the other 7.5 diameters aft, near midship. On the other hand, for the “Side” arrangement, the two
Flettner rotors are both installed at the foredeck of the ship, one at starboard side and the other at port side, 3 diameters
apart.

Depending on the Flettner rotor position, significant rotor-rotor interaction is expected for upwind and downwind
courses (“Line” case) or for beam wind conditions (“Side” case). The goal of the Two Flettner rotor case is to investigate
how the flap influences the aerodynamic interaction effects between the two rotors and, therefore, the overall
performance of the ship.

Figure 7 Different Flettner rotor arrangement analysed in this study.

5 RESULTS
The analysis of the results is divided into two sections. The first section deals with the difference in ship performance
in case the Standard Flettner Rotor or the Flettner Rotor+Flap are used. In the second section, the fuel savings with
respect to the reference ship are computed for two different routes for all considered cases.

5.1 Upwind sailing performance

As described in the aerodynamic section of this study, the main advantage introduced by the flap is to increase the
lift-over-drag ratio of the Flettner rotor, which is particularly important when the ship sails upwind. In this respect, Figure
8 contains several information on the relative performance between a ship equipped with one Standard Flettner Rotor
and one Flettner Rotor+Flap.
First of all, it can be noticed that, for a given case, the aerodynamic thrust generated by Flettner Rotor+Flap is generally
greater or equal to the one produced by the Standard Flettner Rotor. This is particularly noticeable for 𝑇𝑊𝐴 < 80 deg.

Figure 8 One Flettner rotor case: rotor aerodynamic thrust, hydrodynamic induced resistance and rotor power
consumption for 𝑇𝑊𝑆 = 20 kts and ship speed 𝑉𝑆 = 11 kts

Another significant result is that the ship equipped with the Flettner Rotor+Flap has a considerably smaller tacking
angle. The maximum upwind course that a wind-assisted ship can beneficially sail is referred to as the tacking angle.
The tacking angle is determined by comparing the aerodynamic thrust with the increase in hydrodynamic induced
resistance.
Upwind sailing at small 𝑇𝑊𝐴𝑠 is a desirable characteristic as it increases the operability of the wind-assisted ship. The
improved lift-over-drag characteristics of the Flettner Rotor+Flap results in significant improvements in the vessel’s
upwind sailing performance. In fact, on average, the ship with the Flettner Rotor+Flap can sail 15 degrees higher on
the wind compared with the standard rotor (see Table 3). Similar results are also found for the Two Flettner rotor cases
(see Figure 9).

Table 3 Tacking angles of the Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap

Case Tacking Angle [deg]

Single Rotor Case Standard
Rotor + Flap Delta Δ
𝑇𝑊𝑆 = 20 kts Rotor
𝑉𝑆 = 11 kts 35 20 15
 Figure 9 Two Flettner rotor case: rotor aerodynamic thrust, hydrodynamic induced resistance and rotor power
consumption for 𝑇𝑊𝑆 = 20 kts and ship speed 𝑉𝑆 = 11 kts. “Line” arrangement (left) and “Side”
arrangement (right).

5.2 Rotor operation / Power consumption

The results reported in Figure 8 and Figure 9 also indicate another important difference between the Standard Flettner
Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap, which is the rotor power consumption (that scales with the cube of the Flettner
rotor rotational speed, i.e. RPM). To attain the performance difference reported in Figure 8 and Figure 9, the Flettner
Rotor+Flap needs a higher power input than the Standard Flettner Rotor. For the One Rotor case, this is true for
𝑇𝑊𝐴 < 50 deg, whereas for the Two Flettner rotor “Side” case, this effect can be noticed up to 𝑇𝑊𝐴 = 110 deg (see
Figure 9, right). The reason for this difference can be understood by looking at Figure 5: the Flettner Rotor+Flap
achieves high 𝐶𝐿 /𝐶𝐷 values at velocity ratios larger than the Standard Flettner Rotor. This implies that, for a given
apparent wind speed, the Flettner Rotor+Flap has higher RPMs and, therefore, a greater power consumption.
Figure 10 depicts the polar diagrams of the velocity ratios and flap position (if applicable) for the Standard Flettner
Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap for the same condition (One Flettner rotor case, ship speed 𝑉𝑆 =11 kts). Comparing
the velocity ratios, it can be noticed that the Flettner Rotor+Flap, in order to deliver optimal performance for upwind
sailing (𝑇𝑊𝐴 < 50 deg), has to achieve larger velocity ratios than the Standard Flettner Rotor, which leads to a greater
power consumption (see Figure 8 and Figure 9).

In the present study, it was decided not to include the Flettner rotor power consumption and operational limits (electric
motor nominal power and max RPMs) in the optimization routine for vessel performance. If these were considered,
the Flettner rotor’s operation would have been limited, resulting in a sub-optimal setting from an aerodynamic
perspective, in particular for small True Wind Angles (upwind sailing) and high wind speeds. As this study intends to
compare the performance of the Standard Flettner Rotor and the Flettner Rotor+Flap from a theoretical perspective,
it was decided not to include the rotor power consumption and operational limits in the optimization routine in order
not to limit its aerodynamic performance.
 Figure 10 Standard Flettner Rotor - Velocity ratio (left). Flettner Rotor+Flap - Velocity ratio (middle) and Flap
Position (right). One Flettner rotor, ship speed 𝑉𝑆 =11 kts.

5.3 Fuel savings polars

The results of the vessel sailing characteristics discussed in the previous sections lead to a different fuel consumption
for the ship with the Standard Flettner Rotor and with the Flettner Rotor+Flap. The results of fuel consumption are
then used to calculate the fuel savings, which is the percentage of fuel that the ship with the Standard Flettner Rotor
and with the Flettner Rotor+Flap can save compared to a reference ship without Flettner rotors for the same wind
conditions and ship speed. The fuel savings are reported in polar diagrams for True Wind Angle 0° < 𝑇𝑊𝐴 < 180° and
True Wind Speed 5< 𝑇𝑊𝑆 < 35 kts.
The fuel savings results are reported in Error! Reference source not found. to Error! Reference source not found.
for all considered cases. Comparing the results of the ship with the Standard Flettner Rotor and with the Flettner
Rotor+Flap, it can be seen that, in general, the Flettner Rotor+Flap delivers better performance, i.e. it is able to save
a larger percentage of fuel compared to a similar ship without wind assistance. This is particularly visible for 𝑇𝑊𝐴 <
90°. In this region, in fact, it is noticeable that for the Flettner Rotor+Flap case the isolines of higher percentage fuel
savings extend to smaller True Wind Angles compared to the Standard Flettner rotor case. This indicates that the flap
allows the ship to better sail upwind, leading to considerably larger fuel savings.

Figure 11 Percentage fuel savings of the ship with the Standard Flettner Rotor (left) and with the Flettner Rotor+Flap
(right) with respect to the same vessel with no wind assistance. One Flettner rotor, 𝑉𝑆 = 11 kts.
Figure 12 Percentage fuel savings of the ship with the Standard Flettner Rotor (left) and with the Flettner Rotor+Flap
(right) with respect to the same vessel with no wind assistance. Two Flettner rotors “Line”, 𝑉𝑆 = 11 kts.

Figure 13 Percentage fuel savings of the ship with the Standard Flettner Rotor (left) and with the Flettner Rotor+Flap
(right) with respect to a comparable reference ship with no Flettner rotors. Two Flettner rotors “Side”, 𝑉𝑆 = 11 kts.

5.4 Evaluation on shipping routes

Wind assist vessel performance is very sensitive to the wind conditions. A region will typically have dominant wind
directions and angles. The Flettner Rotor+Flap is assessed using wind scatter diagrams for North Sea conditions.
These wind conditions are presented in wind-rose plots in Figure 14.
Changes in performance for the Flettner Rotor+Flap are expected especially at small wind angles. At lower wind
speeds, wind-assisted vessels will not exceed operating constraints for rudder angle or heel angle. In some cases,
however, the Flettner rotor will need to depower to respect the operational constraints of the vessel.
The fuel savings figures for single-rotor cases presented in Table 4 are computed by multiplying the fuel consumption
polar diagrams with the wind scatter matrix. This is a weighted sum for vessel performance according to the likelihood
for each combination of 𝑇𝑊𝑆 and 𝑇𝑊𝐴 for the region.
The flap introduces a dramatic increase in performance for upwind cases. A wind-assisted vessel with Flettner
Rotor+Flap can sail approximately 15-20 degrees closer to the wind compared with a Standard Flettner rotor. The
resulting fuel savings on upwind routes confirms this: see the North Sea N-S route in particular.

Figure 14 Wind-rose plots for the North Sea (Rotterdam – Trondheim route). True wind angles distributions are in
the Earth-fixed system

The results reported in Table 4 as well as in Figure 15 do not indicate a clear beneficial impact of the flap on the
aerodynamic interaction effects. In fact, the percentage increase in fuel savings due to the flap for the Two Rotor case
and the One Rotor case are comparable. This could be explained as followed. For most flap positions, the flap reduces
the amount of circulation (lift) generated by the Flettner rotor. This results in a less accelerated flow in the wake of the
rotor but also in a weaker downwash. Whereas the first has a negative effect on the overall performance of multiple
Flettner rotors, the latter depends on the True Wind Angle the ship is sailing at. The downwash increases the drag of
the downstream rotor, which is negative for upwind sailing but beneficial for broad reach and downwind conditions.

Table 4 Percentage fuel savings of the ship equipped with one or two standard Flettner rotors and one or two
Flettner Rotors+Flap. The percentage increase in fuel-savings of the Flettner Rotor+Flap versus the standard ones
is reported. Ship speed is Vs= 11 kts.

Route One FR One FR Increase Two FR Two FR Increase Two FR Two FR Increase
No Flap Flap Line Line Side Side
No Flap Flap No Flap Flap
N. Sea S-N 8.4 % 10.1 % 20.2 % 15.3 % 18.1 % 18.3 % 13.8 % 16.4 % 18.8 %
N. Sea N-S 6.8 % 9.2 % 35.3 % 11.4 % 15.1 % 32.5 % 10.0 % 13.3 % 33.0 %
 Figure 15 Fuel savings of the Flettner rotor+Flap and the Standard Flettner rotor with respect to the same vessel
without wind assistance. The percentage increase in performance due to the flap is shown. North Sea N-S route,
ship speed 𝑉𝑆 = 11 kts,

6 CONCLUSIONS
An analysis of the Flettner Rotor+Flap has been carried out and reported. The present work follows a dedicated
experimental wind tunnel campaign on the so-called “Delft Rotor”. The performance of the Flettner Rotor+Flap concept
was compared with a standard Flettner rotor. Results include a comparison of aerodynamic characteristics and
expected fuel savings for the North sea route between Rotterdam and Trondheim.
Vessel performance with and without the Flap was modelled using Blue Wasp’s Pelican performance prediction
software, which was modified to incorporate Flettner Rotor+Flap configuration.
Upgrading a Flettner rotor with a flap can markedly improve sailing performance. For a wind-assisted vessel,
operations will typically be as a motor sailor. This means that the ship speed contributes a further apparent wind that
will bring the wind angle forward. Especially for cases where the ship speed is larger than the wind speed, this means
that a wind-assisted vessel will typically sail upwind. For this reason, the increased lift/drag ratio of the Flettner
Rotor+Flap introduces a substantial performance improvement for the following three reasons:
− For upwind sailing conditions, the higher lift-to-drag ratio of the Flettner rotor+Flap assures that it can attain
a larger aerodynamic thrust than the Standard Flettner rotor.
− The improved lift/drag efficiency introduced by the flap results in a smaller tacking angle, meaning that the
ship is able to sail closer to the wind thus increasing its operational profile.
− Although not shown in this article for the sake of brevity, improvements in the lift/drag ratio for the Flettner
Rotor+Flap results in a relatively smaller aerodynamic sideforce, meaning that smaller heeling, leeway, and
rudder angles are necessary to reach the sailing equilibrium. This means the ship can operate at larger wind
speeds before encountering any operational constraints (maximum heel/rudder angles).
For most positions, the flap decreases the circulation (lift) generated by the Flettner rotor. This leads to a reduced
downwash and a less accelerated flow in the rotor wake. These have positive as well as negative effects on the
overall performance of multiple Flettner rotors. The results of the present study suggest that such effects tend to
compensate for one another. Overall, the flap does not seem to have a significant impact on the Flettner rotor
aerodynamic interaction.
The performance improvements introduced by the flap are also assessed using vessel fuel consumption. The results
are presented in terms of fuel savings compared with an identical ship without wind assistance. Expected performance
for vessels operating on North Sea routes is determined using long-term weather statistics. The increased range of
operation for the wind-assisted vessel by 15-20 degrees upwind, and to larger wind speeds, results in a considerable
increase in the fuel savings realised. Depending on the prevailing apparent wind angle experienced by the vessel, a
performance increase of up to 35% is reported.
The Flettner rotor power consumption and operational limits were not included in the fuel optimization routine for vessel
modelling used to derive the results presented in this paper. This allowed the results to be less dependent on the ship
and Flettner rotor type/size. The effect of considering the Flettner rotor operational limits on the overall fuel savings
depend on the wind conditions of the route operated by the vessel. A more significant effect is expected for routes in
which the ship sails upwind in a strong breeze. Further analysis should be carried out to gain better understanding of
this limiting effect.
To conclude, the results of the present study indicate that the improved lift-to-drag characteristics of the Flettner
Rotor+Flap bring substantial performance benefits to the ship. This analysis was based on aerodynamic data obtained
at moderate Reynolds numbers. The results of the wind-tunnel tests on the “Delft Rotor” suggest that for full-scale flow
conditions, the increase in aerodynamic efficiency introduced by the flap is likely to be significantly more pronounced,
leading to a corresponding additional increase in fuel-savings performance.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Axe Bow Foundation for their kind permission to allow the
publication of the results.

REFERENCES
[1] Lloyd’s list. Owners drawn to wind-assist technology amid high fuel prices.
[https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1141638/Owners-drawn-to-wind-assist-technology-amid-high-
fuel-prices/]. Accessed on 21/9/2022.
[2] Paakkari, V., Hurford, A., Craddock, C. Rotor Sail GHG Reduction Potential, Modelling and Sea Trial Validation,
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Innovation in High Performance Sailing Yachts and Sail-Assisted
Ship Propulsion, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2020
[3] Tilling, F., Ringsberg, J.W. Design, Operation and Analysis of Wind-Assisted cargo Ships. Ocean Engineering,
211(1): 1-23, 2020
[4] Jones, L., Prince, M., Hudson, D., Cocks, J. Predicted Fuel-Savings for a Flettner Rotor Assisted Tanker Using
Computational Fluis Dynamics. Proceedings of the RINA Wind Propulsion Conference, London, UK, 2019
[5] Vahs, M. Retrofitting of Flettner Rotors – Results From Sea Trials of the General Cargo Ship “Fehn Pollux”.
Proceedings of the RINA Wind Propulsion Conference, London, UK, 2019
[6] Bordogna, G. Aerodynamics of Wind-Assisted Ships: Interaction Effects on the Aerodynamic Performance of
Multiple Wind Propulsion Systems. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2020
[7] Newman, J.N. Marine Hydrodynamics. MIT press, Boston, 1977
[8] van der Kolk, N.J. Sailing Efficiency and Course Keeping Ability of Wind-Assisted Ships. PhD thesis, Delft
University of Technology, 2020
[9] Hooft, J.P., Quadvlieg, H.A. Non-Linear Hydrodynamic Hull Forces Derived from Segmented Model Tests.
Marine Simulation and Ship Manoeuvrability, pp 399-410, 1996