CFD Exhaust Jet Wake and Thrust Characteristics of Several Nozzles Designed For Vtol Downwash Supresion Nasa Report PDF

N A S A C O N T R A C T O R
R E P O R T
EXHAUST JET WAKE AND
THRUST CHARACTERISTICS OF
SEVERAL NOZZLES DESIGNED
FOR VTOL DOWNWASH SUPPRESSION
TESTS I N AND OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
WITH 70" F AND 1200" F NOZZLE
DISCHARGE TEMPERATURES
by C. C. Higgins, D, P. Kelly, and T, W. Wainwright
NA TI ONA L A ERONA UTI CS A ND SPA CE A DMI NI STRA TI ON - WA SHI NGT ON, D. C. - JAN!U%l?'Y 1966
TECH LIBRARY KAFB. NY
EXHAUST J ET WAKE AND THRUST CHARACTERISTICS OF SEVERAL
NOZZLES DESIGNED FOR VTOL DOWNWASH SUPPRESSION
TESTS IN AND OUT OF GROUND EFFECT WITH 70' F AND 1200' F
NOZZLE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURES
By C. C. Higgins, D. P. Kelly, and T. W. Wainwright
Distribution of thi s report is provided in the interest of
information exchange. Responsibility for the contents
resi des i n the author or organization that prepared it.
Prepared under Contract No. NASw-908 by
THE BOEING COMPANY
Renton, Wash.
for
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Fo r s al e by t h e Ci eo r i n g h o u s e f o r Fed er al Sc i en t i f i c an d Tec h n i c al I n f o r mat i o n
Sp r i n g f i el d , Vi r g i n i a 22151 - Pr i c e $3.00
. . . .- - . . . . . . . - . " ".
EXHAUST J ET WAKE AND THRUST CHARACTERISTICS OF SEVERAL
NOZZLES DESIGNED FOR VTOL DOWNWASH SUPPRESSION- TESTS
IN AND OUT OF GROUND EFFECT WITH 70F AND 1200F NOZZLE
DISCHARGE TEMPERATURES
By C. C. Higgins, D. P. Kelly, and T. W. Wainwright
SUMMARY
The jet wake degradation and thrust characteristics of eleven exhaust
nozzle models designed for dynamic pressure and temperature reduction in the
jet were evaluated statically, using both hot gases and unheated air, and similar
tests were conducted with a reference circular nozzle. Additional tests of
selected nozzles were conducted to determine effects of fuselage and/or proximity
of a ground plane upon thrust and jet wake characteristics.
Results show significant jet wake degradation for all suppressor nozzles
tested, both in and out of ground effect and with various fuselage configurations.
Most rapid jet wake degradation was achieved with nozzle designs having widely
spaced and/or high aspect ratio nozzle elements. Except for regions very
close to the nozzle exit, increasing exit wall divergence angles provided only a
small improvement in jet wake degradation characteristics.
Thrust l osses were a function of nozzle geometry, with losses minimized
for nozzles having small exit wall divergence angles and moderate values of
aspect rati o of the discharge openings. The effect upon thrust of varying spacing
between nozzle elements was not clearly established by these tests. Combining
the nozzles with a fuselage resulted in additional thrust losses; these losses
further increased when operating in proximity with a ground surface. Ventila-
tion of the fuselage reduced thrust losses, particularly with suppressor nozzles,
but all nozzle and fuselage configurations exhibited large l osses when tested in
proximity to a ground surface. These thrust losses were associated with the
large projected fuselage area used in the present tests, and it is concluded
that the projected area must be minimized if excessi ve l osses are to be avoided
during operation in ground effect.
I. I . . " . _. . . . ...". . " " .. ..
INTRODUCTION
Ground impingement of the downwash from VTOL aircraft can produce
operational problems of varying degree, depending upon the type of landing site
and the disc-loading of the lift system. With jet powered VTOL aircraft built
to date, operations have been conducted primarily from prepared sites, thereby
avoiding problems of surface deterioration from impingement of high velocity,
high temperature exhaust gases on unprotected natural surfaces. Some success
has been achieved with operational techniques which reduce exposure time of'the
surfaces to jet impingement, and ways of rapidly preparing the sites with surface
coatings are being investigated. Other solutions to the jet impingement problem
have been proposed, but no solution appears to be completely satisfactory at
this time. Many of the proposed solutions involve some operational or logistic
penalties, and other approaches to the problem must be investigated if VTOL
aircraft are to achieve maximum utilization. In practice, a combination of the
best elements of a number of solutions may be required to achieve the desired
operational capability.
In an effort to reduce the severity of the fundamental problem, particularly
with jet-lift aircraft with high disc loadings, a program to evaluate various ex-
haust nozzle design factors which could lead to a reduction of dynamic pressures
and temperatures at the ground surface was undertaken (reference 1). The
current effort represents a follow-on to the program reported in reference 1;
emphasis in the current tests was directed toward an evaluation of the nozzle
performance and jet wake degradation characteristics of suppressor nozzle de-
signs under representative jet engine nozzle discharge temperatures and pres-
sures. Effects of a simulated fuselage upon installed nozzle performance,
together with the effects of an adjacent ground plane, were evaluated. Significant
thrust losses due to adverse pressure fields induced on the undersurface of the
fuselage (i. e. , suck-down losses) have been reported by other investigators,
references 2, 3, and 4, and it was anticipated that the higher rates of mixing
associated with suppressor nozzles would result in proportionately larger thrust
l osses.
Twelve nozzle configurations were evaluated in the current tests, designated
as Phase I1 tests to distinguish the present efforts from those reported in
reference 1, which are designated as Phase I tests. Of the twelve nozzle con-
figurations tested, three nozzles duplicated Nozzles No. 1, No. 8, and No. 12
of the Phase I tests. Nine additional nozzles, each with four parallel rectangular
discharge ports, were designed to investigate in greater detail the range of
nozzle design parameters applicable to VTOL jet lift aircraft. The principal
design parameters were:
1) spacing between nozzle elements
2) internal exit wall divergence angle
3) aspect ratio of the elements forming the nozzle exit
2
All nozzle designs were evaluated without fuselage or ground plane at
both 70F and 1200F nozzle discharge temperatures. Surveys of the pressures
and temperatures in the jet wake of each nozzle were made at a nozzle pressure
rati o of 2.0, while thrust measurements were made over a range of nozzle
pressure rati os from 1. 3 to 2.5. Following these tests, the thrust and jet wake
degradation characteristics of the circular nozzle and two suppressor nozzles
were evaluated with a large simulated fuselage out of ground effect in which
varying degrees of fuselage ventilation were provided. Testing was completed
with these three nozzles and various fuselage configurations while operating at
a distance of five equivalent nozzle diameters from a ground plane. Thrust
measurements and surveys of jet wake pressures and temperatures in the efflux
over the surface of the ground plane were obtained in these tests. Except for
differences of procedure and equipment necessitated by the tests at 1200" F ex-
haust gas temperatures, the current tests were conducted in a manner si mi l ar
to those of the Phase I tests.
This research was sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration through the Office of Grants and Research Contracts under
Contract NASw-9d8.
SYMBOLS
CF
cP
L
W
exit area of the nozzle, square inches
projected area of the fuselage on the ground plane, square
inches
aspect ratio, D /Area or length/width
2
mass flow coefficient, actual mass flow/ideal mass flow
static pressure coefficient,
's measured
- PJPt -Po
n
effective velocity coefficient, effective exit velocity/ideal
exit velocity. Effective velocity =(thrust/mass flow)actual
incremental change of effective velocity coefficient
di ameter of nozzle exit, inches
di ameter of a circular nozzle with exit area equal to that
of a non-circular nozzle, inches
length of an element of rectangular exit planform, inches
width of an element of rectangular exit planform, inches
3
R radial distance from center of ground plane, inches
S distance between centerlines of nozzle elements, inches
X f Y f z axes of a right hand coordinate system with the Z axis in
the direction of flow. Also designates distances along
each respective axis from center of nozzle exit, inches
distance from core or "apparent core" to any point in the
mixing region, measured parallel to the X axis, inches
(ref. figure 29).
x .25, distance from core or "apparent core" to reference contour
m a x at twenty-five per cent dynamic pressure, inches (ref.
figure 29).
x SOT, distance from core or "apparent core" to reference contour
m a x at fifty per cent differential temperatures, inches (ref. figure
2 9, by analogy).
Y distance from core or "apparent core" to any point in the
mixing region, measured parallel to the Y axis, inches
(ref. figure 29).
y. 25 4, distance from core or "apparent core" to reference contour
m a x at twenty-five per cent dynamic pressure, inches (ref.
figure 29).
Y.50T, distance from core or "apparent core" to reference contour
m a x at fifty per cent differential temperatures, inches (ref. figure
29, by analogy).
h
n
P o
p s f
p s g
height above the ground plane, inches
distance from ground plane to the end of the jet core, inches
load induced on plate, lb.
number of exit segments
atmospheri c pressure, I bs/sq ft
stati c pressure measured by orifices in the fuselage surface,
lbs/sq f t
stati c pressure measured by orifices in the ground plane,
lbs/sq f t
4
P t
9,
m a x
' g max
qgS
r nax
static pressure at any specified point in the jet wake,
l bs/sq f t
total or stagnation pressure, lbs/sq f t
total or stagnation pressure at the nozzle exit, lbs/sq f t
total or stagnation pressure at any specified point in the
jet wake, lbs/sq f t
F
total or stagnation pressure at any specified point on, or
over the ground plane, lbs/sq f t
compressible dynamic pressure at the nozzle exit, p - po,
lbs/sq f t tn
compressible dynamic pressure at any specified point in the
jet wake, p - pot l bs/sq ft
tZ
maximum compressible dynamic pressure measured at any
specified transverse plane perpendicular to the Z axis,
Pt
- po, l bs/sq f t
%ax
compressible dynamic pressure at any specified point on, or
adjacent to, the ground plane, pt - po, I bs/sq f t
.gr
maximum compressible dynamic pressure measured on, or
adjacent to, the ground plane at specified distances of the
ground plane from the nozzle, p - po, lbs/sq f t
tgr
max
local dynamic pressure measured on, or adjacent to the
ground plane p
maximum local dynamic pressure measured on, or adjacent
to the ground plane p , lb/sq f t
T
5
I
j et thrust, l bs
+t
g l ma x
g'rnax
tt
tt
n
Z
tt
Z
max
Z
C
r
Tg rnax
tZ
rnax
e
6
ambient temperature, "F
total or stagnati on temperature, "F
total temperature measured in the boundary layer
immediately adjacent to the ground plane, O F
maximum total temperature measured in the boundary
layer immediately adjacent to the ground plane, O F
total temperature measured in the jet efflux over the
ground plane, O F
maximum total temperature measured in the jet efflux over
the ground plane, O F
total temperature at nozzle exit, O F
total temperature measured at any specified point in the
jet wake, O F
maximum total temperature measured at any transverse
plane perpendicular to the Z axi s, O F
length of unmixed jet core, measured from nozzle exit,
inches
nozzle wall divergence angle, referred to the longitudinal
axis of the nozzle, degrees
nozzle wall convergence angle, referred to the longitudinal
axis of. the nozzle, degrees
differential temperature at any specified point on, or
adjacent to, the'ground plane it - - t or tt - to, "F
gl
0
gr
maximum differential temperature at any specified point on, or
adjacent to, the ground plane t - t or tt - to, O F
g1 max gr max
t 0
differential temperature at the nozzle exit, tt - to, "F
n
differential temperature at any specified point in the jet
wake, tt - to, "F
Z
maximum differential temperature measured at any specified
transverse plane perpendicular to the Z axis, tt - to, "F
angle subtended by a nozzle sector, degrees
Z
max
APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE
Models
The nozzle models used in this program are described in figures 1
through 4 while figure 5 gives details of the fuselage configurations used with
nozzles 1. 1, 2.1, 2. 5 , 2.6, and 2.8. The circular and twelve segment nozzles
shown in figure 1 were the same nozzles (designated as nozzles Nos. 1 and 12
during the Phase I tests, reference 1) previously tested, while the delta nozzle
shown in figure 1 was a new nozzle of stainless steel which duplicated the
contours of the previous fiberglass delta nozzle.
The circular nozzle provided a reference standard to which the perform-
ance of the remaining nozzles could be compared, while the delta and twelve
segment nozzles provided correlation with previou's Phase I tests at lower
pressures and temperatures. Basi c characteri sti cs of these nozzles are shown
in the following table: I
Nozzle No. Configuration
1. 1
1.2
1. 3
Circular Nozzle
Delta Nozzle A3 =5 , 0 =5"
Twelve Segment Suppressor Nozzle, 8 =6"
The additional nine nozzles shown in figure 2 consisted of four rectangular
discharge elements which were designed to cover the probable range of nozzle
geometry applicable to jet-lift VTOL aircraft. Nozzle design parameters for
the four-element suppressor nozzles were (1) nozzle internal wall divergence
angle, 0 ; (2) spacing to width ratio of the nozzle elements, S/W; and ( 3) aspect
ratio of the nozzle element, . The dimensions of the four-element suppressor
nozzles 2. 1 through 2.9, are shown in figure 3. Configurations were selected
so that a systematic variation of each of the nozzle design parameters was
obtained for at least three nozzles. The nozzles selected are shown in the
following table:
7
i
I
Nozzle Bo. Variable I nvestigated Variables Held Constant
2. 1
2.2
2.5
2.7
2. 3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.8
2. 5
2.9
(3 =0" to 30"
s/w= 1. 5 to 4.0
A3 =3 . 0 to 10. 0
m =5. 0
s/w= 3 . 0
Ai =5. 0
p =15"
S/W =3 . 0
(3 =15"
All nozzles were designed to have the same physical exit area as that of
the three-inch-diameter circular nozzle. The four-element suppressor nozzles
were designed with internal contours which provided similar cross-sectional
area distributions as shown in figure 4. A l l nozzles, except Nos. 1.1 and 1.3,
were fabricated of stainless steel for dimensional stability at the 1200F exhaust
gas temperatures. Circular nozzle No. 1. 1 was fabricated with thick walls of
mild steel, and distortion did not appear to be a problem. However, thermal
distortion and failure of a weld occurred with the twelve segment nozzle, and
only a limited number of tests were conducted.
The fuselage incorporated large orifices on the I fupper" side of the fuselage
which would permit ambient air to flow from the upper fuselage surface into the
fuselage cavity; for some of the tests these orifices were covered with solid
plates to prevent the flow of ventilating air through the fuselage. The lower
surface of the fuselage also incorporated removable plates which permitted
variation in the clearance between the nozzle and the lower surface of the
fuselage. With these plates, clearances of 0, 0. 5, and 1. 5 inches were tested
with circular nozzle 1.1 and suppressor nozzles 2. 1 and 2.5. Combining varia-
tion of lower fuselage clearance space with upper fuselage ventilation openings
provided six fuselage and nozzle configurations; of these, the two extreme con-
figurations were investigated in greatest detail; i. e. , sealed nozzle and fuselage
for minimum ventilation in one case, and maximum nozzle clearance with upper
fuselage open for maximum ventilation in the other case. The fuselage was
constructed primarily of aluminum, but the plates used to vary the clearance
between the nozzles and the lower fuselage surface were fabricated from stainless
steel. For the plates which reduced the clearance space between the nozzles
and fuselage to zero, a perfect seal was not achieved and spaces on the order
of 0. 02 inches existed between the nozzles and the fuselage at some points.
8
Nozzle Test Rig
A schematic of the test facility is shown in figure 6. Additional details of
the instrumentation are shown in figure 7, and photographs of the rig and in-
strumentation are shown in figure 8.
A s in the Phase I tests, the nozzle models were installed on a bellmouth
transition section at the end of a twenty-inch inside diameter plenum chamber.
Three internal baffle plates and a screen were used to provide uniform flow at
the entrance to the bellmouth section. The plenum was suspended by means of
four flexures which minimized resistance to fore and aft movement. Thrust
loads were balanced only by the strain-gaged thrust ring and a small force
resulting from deflection of the flexible inlet air pipe. Direct calibration of the
installed strain-gaged thrust ring by means of dead weights effectively isolated
nozzle thrust forces from any mechanical loads imposed by the inlet air pipe
and other service connections.
Airflow was measured with an ASME long radius flow nozzle upstream of
the air preheater, and a dual valve arrangement permitted a constant Mach
number to be maintained through the flow nozzle. Filtered air for the nozzle
tests was obtained from a laboratory supply system at approximately 70" F with
a dew point of -40F or less. For hot gas testing a propane-fired preheater was
installed upstream of the plenum chamber.
Pressure measurements i n the jet wake were obtained with a remotely-
controlled Pitot-static probe which could be traversed along each coordinate
axis of the model. Pressures were sensed by means of transducers. Pressures
obtained in wake surveys were recorded directly as a function of probe position
on Moseley X-Y plotters; other pressure data were recorded either manually or
automatically on IBM punch card equipment.
Temperature measurements in the jet wake were obtained with a forty-one
element chromel-alumel thermocouple rake installed on the mast of the probe
traversing mechanism; the thermocouples were of the shielded stagnation type
shown in figure 7. For the hot gas tests, operating conditions were based upon
the maximum temperature found with the forty-one element thermocouple rake
when positioned at the nozzle exit plane; this nozzle discharge temperature was
then maintained throughout the jet wake surveys or other tests by means of a
reference thermocouple just upstream of the nozzle exit. For the 1200F nozzle
discharge condition of the present tests, the average nozzl e di scharge tempera-
ture was found to be 1161F. A thermal profile was present at the nozzle exit,
apparently the result of non-uniform temperature distribution generated within
the propane fired preheater.
A 24 inch by 36 inch translating ground plane was instrumented as shown
in figures 7 and 8 to measure pressures and temperatures at the surface. Pres-
sure and temperature surveys in the boundary layer above the ground plane were
obtained using traversing five-element total pressure and stagnation tempera-
ture rakes of the type shown in figure 7. Surveys along the major and minor
9
axes were obtained by rotacmg the nozzles (and fuselage when used) 90 degrees
at a quick-disconnect nozzle flange.
Data Accuracy
Repeated calibrations and checks on the rig instrumentation and read-out
equipment were made during the program, and it is believed that all data, with
the exception of the temperatures, were accurate within f 0.5 per cent of full
scale values. Temperatures were repeatable within f 15"F, or in the case of
differential temperature ratios, f 1. 0 per cent. Shielded thermocouples were
used, where possible, to minimize radiation effects at the thermocouple junctions,
and it is believed that the accuracy of these readings was within f 2.0 per cent
of ful l scale value
RESULTS
Method of Data Presentation
Because of uncertainties associated with static pressure measurements
in an intensely turbulent stream, all dynamic pressure measurements are pre-
sented as differentials between indicated probe total pressure and atmospheric
pressure. Stati c pressures are presented as differential pressures with respect
to atmospheric pressures. Presentation of dynamic pressure data in this form
introduces effects of compressibility, but the treatment is consistent with
.previous investigations. The use of dimensionless ratios further minimizes
possi bl e errors due to compressi bi l i ty effects. Sign conventions have been
taken as positive for values where the measured pressure was greater than
atmospheric, and negative when the pressure was less than atmospheric.
In the case of dynamic pressures determined with respect to a ground
surface, it has been found advantageous in some analyses to use the differential
pressure between total pressure measured above the ground and a local static
pressure measured at the surface of the ground plane, rather than a differential
between the total pressure above the ground plane and atmospheric. Wherever
this procedure has been followed, the resultant dynamic pressure has been des-
ignated as a local dynamic pressure, to distinguish from dynamic pressures
referenced to atmospheric pressure. Data obtained for the tests in ground
effect have been presented in both forms; consequently, care must be used in
making comparisons between various sections or figures of this report.
10
Nozzle Performance Evaluation
Effective velocity and mass flow coefficients were determined for all
basic nozzles using unheated air; a typical test configuration is shown in figure
8a. Results for the three Phase I nozzle configurations previously evaluated in
reference 1 are shown in figure 9a. Other results obtained in these tests have
been grouped according to the suppressor nozzle design parameters of exit wall
angle fj , aspect rati o of the elements A z , and spacing to width ratio S/W,
figures 9b, 9c and 9d. It may be seen from these results that, in general, both
effective velocitv and mass flow coefficients increased with increasing nozzle
pressure ratio. I n general, effective velocity and mass flow coefficients de-
crease progressively with increasing exit wall angle, increasing aspect ratio of
the nozzle elements, and increasing spacing to width ratio. However, the mass
flow coefficients for nozzle 2.3 show a reversal of trend at low nozzl e pressure
ratios. This effect is believed to be related to internal flow separation due to
local high velocities and unfavorable pressure gradients associated with exit wall
divergence angle fj =15" and the smal l exi t wal l convergence angle r =8.4".
The other nozzles in this series (nozzles 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6) had larger values of
exit wal l convergence angle r , thus providing more favorable pressure gradients
and lower velocities at any specified cross section prior to the nozzle exit.
Following evaluation of the basic nozzles, tests were conducted with
nozzles Nos. 1. 1, 2. 1, 2. 5 , 2. 6, and 2. 8 in conjunction with an unventilated
fuselage, similar to that shown~ in figure 8c. The effect of a ground plane on
effective velocity and flow coefficients was evaluated in thi s seri es of tests.
Results obtained in ground effect and out of ground effect for both the basic
nozzle and the unventilated fuselage configurations are shown in figure 10 for
nozzles Nos. 1. 1, 2. 1, and 2.5. These results indicate that effective velocity
coefficients were reduced by either the presence of a fuselage or ground plane,
and largest reductions were found when the fuselage and ground plane were tested
together. These effects are caused by reduced static pressures acting over the
proj ected area of the fuselage and plenum, rather than changes in the effective
velocity coefficient of the basic nozzles. No significant effects upon mass flow
coefficients were noted for any configuration of fuselage or ground plane evaluated
in the present program.
The effects of variation of the clearance between the nozzle exit and fuselage
lower surface upon thrust were evaluated for two conditions of fuselage cavity
ventilation; i. e. , upper fuselage inlets were either both open or both closed.
The results for tests out of ground effect are shown in figure 11, while results
obtained in ground effect are shown in figure 12 for the circular nozzle 1. 1 and
suppressor nozzles 2. 1 and 2.5. These results indicate that increased clearance
between the nozzle and fuselage improves effective velocity coefficient, while
mass flow coefficients remain essentially unchanged in all cases. Largest
benefits of clearance between the nozzles and fuselage were obtained with the
suppressor nozzles, and it was found that a clearance of 0.5 inches was nearly
as effective as a cl earance of 1.5 inches. Ventilating the fuselage cavity re-
sulted in only minor improvement in effective velocity coefficients.
11
Similar, but less extensive, data were obtained for suppressor nozzles
2. 6 and 2.8, figure 13. In this figure, the effect of the ground plane upon
effective velocity and mass flow coefficients is shown for two fuselage config-
urations; namely, (a) non-ventilated fuselage cavity with no clearance between
nozzle exit and fuselage lower surface, and (b) ventilated fuselage cavity with
maximum clearance of 1.5 inches between the nozzle exit and the fuselage lower
surface. The first configuration of fuselage described in (a) is designated as
the non-ventilated fuselage, while the second configuration of fuselage described
in (b) is designated as a ventilated fuselage. These designations will apply to
figure 13 and all subsequent figures of thi s report in which effects of fuselage
configuration are being presented. Although testing only two fuselage config-
urations with each nozzle of interest eliminates some fuselage/nozzle inter-
actions, it was felt that the two extremes of fuselage/nozzle clearance and cavity
ventilation would bracket reasonably well the range of effects which would be
encountered in practical applications.
From the results shown in figures 9 through 13, it is apparent that overall
thrust of the various nozzle and fuselage configurations is influenced significantly
by (1) internal nozzle geometry, (2) fuselage to nozzle clearance, and ( 3) prox-
imity to a ground surface. Additional results which may be of assi stance in
further evaluating these factors will be presented in subsequent sections of this
report.
Free J et Wake Surveys
Typical results of pressure surveys of four-element suppressor nozzles
are shown in figure 14 for nozzle 2.1. The data obtained from the surveys of
the jet wake of several basic nozzles were cross-plotted as shown in figure 15
in order to provide "contour maps" of dynamic pressure and differential tem-
perature, along the major axes of the nozzles. From these plots, the relative
rate of mixing of the various jet wakes is readily apparent, as are the sub-
sequent growth and merging patterns of the jets from each discharge opening of
the multiple-element suppressor nozzles. The point at which merging of these
individual jets occurs is largely determined by the spacing between the nozzle
elements. Because the relative rate of mixing of the overall jet wake is al so
strongly influenced by the merging characteristics of the individual jets, it is
apparent that spacing between the nozzle elements is an important factor in
determining the pressures and temperatures imposed upon a ground surface
during VTOL aircraft operations.
Maximum values of dynamic pressure and differential temperature in the
jet wake at selected distances downstream of the nozzle exit are shown in
figures 16 and 17 for each of the basic nozzles tested. Maximum values of
dynamic pressure and differential temperature, rather than average values, have
been used as a cri teri on of erosi on characteri sti cs of the nozzles by other
investigators and, as shown in reference 5, correlation between maximum values
of jet wake dynamic pressure and erosion characteristics of various ground
12
I
surfaces has been obtained experimentally. In addition, the maximum values of
dynamic pressure and differential temperature provide a valid indication of the
rapidity of mixing of the entire jet, inasmuch as the central regions of the jet
will be the last regions to be affected by the shear generated turbulence origi-
nating on the perimeter of the jet.
The data of figures 16 and 17 show that the suppressor nozzles produced
significantly greater decay of the pressures and temperatures in the jet wake,
compared with the decay characteristics of the circular nozzle. The suppressor
nozzles were less effective in reducing differential temperatures in the jet wake
than in reducing dynamic pressures. The differences in jet wake degradation
characteri sti cs shown in figures 16 and 17 for nozzles 2.3 and 2.4 are due to
differences in the merging of the individual jets.
Differences in the jet wake deg-radation characteri sti cs of the various
nozzles at discharge temperatures of 70F and 1200F may be determined also
from the data of figures 16a and 16b. In general, the decay of the jet wakes
occurred more rapidly at the higher nozzle discharge temperatures, with the
largest changes found i n tests of the circular nozzle. The effect of temperature
upon the decay characteristics of the suppressor nozzles is similar to that of
the circular nozzle, but is much less evident because of the masking effect of
the high mixing rates inherent with the suppressor nozzle configurations.
Results obtained from surveying the jet wake dynamic pressures and
temperatures in various locations removed from the central axes of the nozzle,
figure 18, show that the two outer jets of the four slot suppressor nozzles decay
much more rapidly than the two inner jets. The results of figure 18 indicate
that total pressures less than ambient will be found in the regions between the
individual nozzle discharge elements. These negative pressure regions represent
a thrust loss which cannot be separated from the internal flow losses with the
test rig force measurements obtained.
Fuselage and Ground Plane Effects
Figure 19 shows maximum values of the dynamic pressure ratio and
differential temperature ratio on or above the ground plane for various nozzle
and fuselage configurations. The dynamic pressure and differential temperature
degradation curves for the basic nozzles provide a comparison with mixing rates
previously determined in the free jet tests. For the circular nozzle, values of
pressures and temperatures over the ground surface were less than measured
in the free jet wake at Z/De =5. Conversely, values of pressures and tempera-
tures over the ground surface were somewhat higher for the suppressor nozzles.
For the distance of five nozzle diameters maintained between the ground surface
and the nozzle exit in the present tests, the results indicate that the ground
plane did not greatly disturb the degradation of the jet wake prior to impingement
with the ground surface.
Additional results obtained from the dynamic pressure and differential
temperature surveys over the ground plane are shown in figures 20 and 21. The
dynamic pressure profiles (referenced to ambient pressure) of the suppressor
nozzles are smal l er in value and show less variation with height above the ground
13
than do the profiles produced by the circular nozzle. This result is attributable
to the greater mixing in the jet wakes of the suppressor nozzles. The values of
dynamic pressures and differential temperatures over the ground plane were
slightly higher in tests of the basic nozzles, compared with non-ventilated fuse-
lage and nozzle configurations. Surveys over the ground plane indicated that
l arger val ues of dynami c pressure were present al ong the maj or axis (x axi s) of
the nozzles and fuselage than along the minor axis ( Y axis). A similar but much
smaller effect of nozzle and fuselage orientation with respect to the ground plane
was observed in the differential temperatures measured in the jet efflux over
the ground plane. Because effects of orientation were observed in tests with and
without the fuselage, it is believed that these effects are related to nozzle geom-
etry.
Some of the dynamic pressures measured in the surveys of the efflux over
the ground plane were found to be lower than the static pressures measured on
the surface of the ground plane at corresponding radial locations from the center
of the ground plane; these data have been indicated by hrolten lines in figures
2011and 20c. It is believed that these data are an indication that the efflux over
the ground plane at these locations was flowing radially toward the center of the
ground plane rather than radially away from the center of the ground plane.
Mclial inflow direction over the ground plane may be caused by merging of the
jets impinging at points not located at the center of the ground plane. Further
evidence of this behavior may be seen in the free jet wake surveys of nozzle
2. 1, figure 14a.
Contour maps of static pressure coefficients and local gas temperatures
on or immediately above the ground plane are presented for the circular nozzle
and suppressor nozzles 2.1 and 2. 5 with non-ventilated fuselage configurations,
figure 22. These data were obtained using the instrumented traversing ground
plane, details of which are shown in figures 7 and 8b. The contours obtained in
the circular nozzle tests were nearly symmetrical with respect to the center of
the ground plane, but the contours developed for the suppressor nozzles con-
tained distinct "islands" of high static pressures di spl aced 1. 0 to 1. 5 nozzle
di ameters from the center of the ground plane. A large region of nearly uniform
temperature was found at the center of the ground plane during the suppressor
nozzle tests.
While i t is difficult to obtain meaningful measurements near the point of
jet impingement, it is believed that some useful interpretation of the flow field
may be made from the difference between total pressure measurements just
above the ground plane boundary layer and the static pressures measured on
the surface of the ground plane. Figure 23 shows the radial distribution of
maximum local dynamic pressures (q /qn) along the major and minor
gs max
axes of the ground plane, together with the corresponding radial variation of the
maximum differential temperature ratios (t /Til). For the circular nozzle,
figure 23a, the local dynamic pressure is very low near the center of the ground
plane. The l ocal dynami c pressure i ncreases to a maximum at approximately
one diameter from the center, and then decreases in an exponential manner Ivith
radial distance beyond that point. The radial distribution of masimum differential
g max
14
temperature above the ground plane exhibited highest values at the center of the
ground plane, and these values decreased non-linearly with radial distance from
the center.
Local dynamic pressures over the ground plane in the suppressor nozzle
tests acted in a manner similar to that of.the circular nozzle; however, the
highest values were found at radial distances of 1.5 to 2. 0 nozzle diameters
from the center of the ground plane. These results are due to merging charac-
teri sti cs of the j ets, as noted above for figures 20b and 20c. The "negative"
values of local dynamic pressures in figures 23b and 23c are also an indication
of the radial inflow toward the center of the ground plane. Surveys parallel to
the major and minor axes of the suppressor nozzles and fuselage ( X and Y axes)
show that higher values of the iocal dynamic pressure and differential temper-
atdre rati os are found along the major axis, both with and without fuselage;
consequently, it was concluded that the primary factor which produces the effects
noted is nozzle geometry.
The radial distribution of flow from the point of impingement of a ci rcul ar
jet has been investigated in references 5 and G , and results similar to that shown
in figure 23a were obtained. However, the nozzles used in these investigations
exhibited differences in the jet core length which were reflected in differences
in the magnitude of local dynamic pressures measured over the ground surface.
It has been suggested that the distance from the end of the jet core to the ground
plane constitutes a reference parameter of jet wake mixing characteristics.
Figure 24 shows the correlation between the results of references 5 and 6 and
the present tests.
Figure 25 shows the distribution of static pressure coefficients over the
lower fuselage surface, while figure 26 shows the variation of these fuselage
static pressure coefficients with distance radially from the nozzle exit. In-
creased stati c pressure di fferenti al s (p - p ) were found in ground effect.
Largest static pressure differentials were found to occur very near the nozzle
exit. These differentials were both large and non-uniform in the region between
elements of the suppressor nozzles. Static pressure differentials found between
outermost suppressor nozzle elements were much larger for nozzle 2.5 than 2.1,
indicating a strong influence of wall divergence angle upon local jet entrain-
ment. The largest values of static pressure differentials were located near the
outer ends of the suppressor nozzle elements, as indicated by the "islands" in
fi gure 25. The static pressure differentials between the outermost nozzle
elements were larger than the corresponding static pressure differentials be-
tween the two most centrally located elements.
Sf
0
Temperature distributions on the lower fuselage surface are shown in
fi gure 25. Measurements were made with the ground plane at a distance of five
diameters from the nozzle exit. At the nozzle discharge temperature of 1200" F,
temperatures on the fuselage were less than 200" F.
15
DISCUSSION
Free J et Characteri sti cs of Basic Nozzles
In order to be effective, suppressor nozzle designs must substantially
reduce the dynamic pressures and temperatures of the jet wake prior to im-
pingement on the ground surface. A primary consideration in the program
has been the evaluation of those factors which could alter the mixing rates in
the jet wake. The objective of Phase II of the program has been the evaluation
of VTOL nozzle design parameters and configurations which promise significant
reduction of the dynamic pressures and temperatures imposed upon a ground
surface, consistent with minimum thrust reduction. The effects of a fuselage
and of a ground plane upon jet mixing and nozzle thrust were investigated.
Effects of nozzle wall discharge angle, discharge aspect ratio, and spacing
to width ratio upon dynamic pressure and differential temperature degradation
of free jets of the basic nozzles are shown in figures 27 and 28. The gains due
to increasing nozzle wall divergence angle and aspect ratio are shown to be
minor, except at small distances from the nozzle exit. Variation of the spacing
between the nozzle elements was found to be an important parameter in deter-
mining jet wake degradation (figures 27 and 28); maximum degradation was
achieved with the largest values of the spacing ratio.
Data obtained from the jet wake surveys were used to determine the rate
of spreading of the jet wake and the progression of the mixing process in a
manner similar to that used in the Phase I tests, reference 1. By non-dimen-
sionalizing the respective dynamic pressures and differential temperatures
against selected reference values, it was possible to collapse the dynamic pres-
sure and differential temperature distributions across the jet wake onto
"universal" profiles as shown in figure 29. The results presented in figure 29
indicate that the shear-generated turbulent mixing processes remain generally
similar throughout the fully developed jet wake region. However, the rate of
spreading of the jet appears to be influenced by factors related to nozzle geom-
etry, and the general observation may be made that those jets which spread
most rapidly also decay most rapidly with distance from the nozzle exit. Be-
cause of the interrelationship between nozzle geometry and the subsequent
spreadi ng characteri sti cs of the jet wake from suppressor nozzles, methods
of predicting the location of the reference dynamic pressures and differential
temperatures appear to be less than satisfactory at this time.
In order to investigate changes in the mechanics of mixing as a function of
nozzle design, the maximum dynamic pressure ratio at several locations down-
stream from the nozzl e exi t of each basic nozzle was compared with the max-
imum differential temperature ratios at corresponding locations, figure 30a.
Maximum values of dynamic pressures and temperatures maintain a well es-
tablished relationship along the jet for all nozzle configurations in which merging
between individual jets does not occur. Figure 30a shows that temperature
16
degradation lags dynamic pressure degradation in the fully developed mixing
region of the jets. For jets in which merging occurred, the decay of differential
temperatures was inhibited to a greater degree than the decay of dynamic pres-
sures. Turbulent energy dissipation continues during the merging process, but
only small amounts of external air can enter the mixing zone between the jets to
reduce the temperatures.
Figure 30b shows that the distance from the nozzle exit at which a specific
rati o of dynamic pressure to differential temperature occurs is distinctly
different for various basic nozzle configurations. The suppressor nozzles,
because of the rapid rates of dynamic pressure degradation achieved, quickly
reach rati os of dynamic pressure to differential temperature which correspond
to si mi l ar rati os found much farther downstream in the jet wake of a ci rcul ar
nozzle. The principal effect achieved by the suppressor nozzles is a compression
of the distance scale in which the mixing occurs.
Comparisons of the free jet maximum dynamic pressure and differential
temperature degradation of the various nozzles with that of the circular nozzle
have been made in figure 31. These curves were determined by finding the
differences between the respective quantities for the suppressor and circular
nozzles for various distances downstream from the nozzle exit. These curves
represent an incremental gain (in terms of nozzle exit values) which can be
obtained by use of each suppressor nozzle as contrasted with that of the circular
nozzle. It is seen that gains on the order of 70 per cent in dynamic pressure
reduction and 50 per cent in differential temperatures may be obtained by using
suppressor nozzles. For the nozzles tested, maximum gains occur at approx-
imately five to six nozzle diameters from the exit. Because of the nature of the
circular nozzle degradation curve, the distance from the ground surface for
maximum gains will always occur in the range of four to six equivalent circular
nozzle diameters.
Data from figure 31, when combined with the effective velocity coefficients
of each nozzle, can be used to show the trades between jet wake degradation
characteristics and nozzle thrust performance. Figure 32 shows the trades for
a distance of five equivalent nozzle diameters from the nozzle exit. The results
indicate that dynamic pressure and differential temperature degradation are
nearly independent of nozzle thrust coefficient. Maximum degradation with
minimum thrust losses were achieved with nozzles 2. 1, 2. 2, 2. 6, 2. 8, and 1 . 3 ,
and it was found that best results from the Phase I1 tests correspond well with
the best results of the Phase I tests. I t should be noted that thrust losses were
largest with nozzles 2. 7, 2. 9, 2. 3, and 2. 5, i. e. , nozzles with large wall
divergence angles ( 2 15"), small spacing to width ratio (S/W =1.5), and
high aspect ratio (,qx =10).
Nozzle 2 . 4 showed somewhat better thrust performance than would be
anticipated on the basis of the performance of nozzles 2 . 3 , 2.5, and 2. 6. The
value of effective velocity coefficient shown for nozzle 2 . 4 in figure 32 was
verified by several check runs. In comparison with the performance of nozzle
17
2 . 4 , nozzle 2. 3 exhibits a markedly lower effective velocity coefficient. The
low effective velocity coefficient of 2 . 3 is attributed to large internal losses.
Consequently, it is possible to visualize nozzle designs with small spacing to
width rati os (i. e. , S/W < 2. 0) which have high velocity coefficients. If a point
is visualized with an effective velocity coefficient of approximately 0. 96 to 0. 97
instead of the 0. 94 found with nozzle 2 . 3 , then the curve connecting nozzles of
variable S/W in figure 32 would assume a shape si mi l ar to that of the envelope
curve from the Phase I tests.
Fuselage and Ground Effects
The above discussion has summarized thrust and dynamic pressure de-
gradation characteristics of basic nozzles; other effects are introduced when
the nozzle is installed in a fuselage and when operating in the proximity of a
ground surface. The principal effect, as shown in figure 33, was a reduction
in available thrust of the combined nozzle and fuselage. Only minor changes
were noted in the jet wake degradation characteristics. These effects are pre-
sented for a nozzle height of five diameters from the ground. A s indicated by
references 2 and 3, the thrust losses would be expected to increase rapidly
with smaller distanc s between the nozzle and ground surface.
'i
The effect of fuselage ventilation upon thrust l osses in and out of ground
effect is shown in figure 34. These curves show that gains to be made by
ventilating the fuselage are relatively insensitive to nozzle pressure ratio.
Maximum gain in effective velocity coefficient by ventilating the fuselage appears
to be about 2 to 3 percent for the suppressor nozzles, and less than 1 percent
for the single circular nozzle. Fuselage ventilation is most helpful with nozzles
which have the greatest base pressure losses.
An unexpected result of the tests in ground effect is shown in figure 35.
The presence of a ground plane increased the suckdown losses by very nearly a
constant amount, regardless of the nozzle or fuselage ventilation. This loss,
which approximates 5 to 7 per cent of nozzle thrust for all nozzle pressure
ratios, constitutes the largest single loss found during the tests. This loss is
associated with large scale circulation under the fuselage, and can be minimized
by reduction of projected fuselage area.
Thrust losses determined from static pressure measurements on the
fuselage are shown in figure 36 in and out of ground effect. Figure 36 shows
that base l osses of suppressor nozzles are concentrated largely in the regions
immediately adjacent to the nozzles when out of ground effect, while large losses
are caused by static pressure reductions over the entire lower fuselage surface
when operating in ground effect. Large losses with suppressor nozzle 2.5
appear to be associated with a small fuselage area adjacent to the divergent side
of the nozzle. A s an explanation for this effect, it appears that increased tur-
bulence in the jet existed with nozzles having exit wall divergence, thus leading
to greater entrainment of external air near the nozzle. To obtain a more
18
I
positive explanation of this behavior would require extensive measurements of
the flow in the nozzle, as well as more complete surveys of the jet wake and
entrainment region near the nozzle exit.
The results obtained in tests with various fuselage and nozzle configura-
tions were found to agree with that of other investigators, reference 2. These
resul ts, with the ratio of projected model area to nozzle exit area as a primary
parameter, are shown in figure 37. Although only a single large fuselage was
used in the current tests, it is apparent from figure 37 that small fuselage
projected areas will be required to avoid significant suckdown effects, particu-
l arl y when operating in ground effect. Figure 37 also shows that fuselage
ventilation assists materially in maintaining competitive effective velocity
coefficients for the suppressor nozzle configurations. Thrust losses due to
suckdown effects associated with suppressor nozzles vary from 0.5 to 2.0 per-
cent greater than those of the circular nozzle.
A summary of al l thrust l osses for the vari ous nozzl e and fusel age con-
figurations are shown in figure 38. The losses are shown to be cumulative.
Nozzles which had greatest losses in the tests of the basic nozzles also ex-
hibited higher suckdown losses with the fuselage and ground plane.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Several exhaust nozzle models designed to achieve downwash suppression
of the exhaust jets of VTOL aircraft have been evaluated for jet wake degradation
and thrust characteristics with both hot gases and unheated air.
For the best suppressor nozzle and fuselage configuration tested,
dynamic pressures were reduced by GO to 70 per cent, differential
temperatures were reduced by nearly 50 per cent, and thrust losses
increased by less than 2 per cent compared with a reference circular
nozzle at five nozzle diameters above the ground surface.
A l arge thrust loss resulted from small negative pressure differen-
tials acting over the lower fuselage surface in ground effect, and this
loss was nearly constant for all nozzle configurations. This loss is
related to projected area of the model on the ground surface.
J et wake degradation characteristics were strongly influenced by the
merging characteristics of the multiple jets. Merging of the jets was
pri mari l y rel ated to the spacing between the nozzle elements. In-
creasing the aspect ratio of the nozzle elements was effective in in-
creasi ng jet wake degradation. I ncreasing the exit wall divergence
angle was effective in increasing jet wake degradation for the region
less than three diameters away from the nozzle exit, but related
19
thrust losses result in an optimum nozzle having small exit wall
divergence angles, moderate aspect ratio of the elements, and a
large spacing between the elements.
4) Base area of the nozzle and fuselage immediately adjacent to the
nozzle contributes significantly to the thrust losses with suppressor
type nozzles. Providing clearance between the suppressor nozzles
and fuselage was found to be an effective way to minimize these
losses. Ventilation, in the sense of providing large open areas
around the nozzle exit, will be necessary for best thrust performance
with suppressor nozzles. Openings on the upper fuselage surface
did not reduce thrust losses.
5) At a distance of five diameters from the nozzle exit, the ground
plane had only small effects upon jet wake degradation prior to
impingement. Effects of a fuselage upon the mixing processes
were minor,
Airplane Division, The Boeing Company
Renton, Washington
J une 22, 1965
20
REFERENCES
1. Higgins, C. C. , and Wainwright, T. W. : Dynamic Pressure and Thrust
Characteri sti cs of Cold J ets Discharging from Several Exhaust Nozzles
Designed for VTOL Downwash Suppression. NASA TN D-2263,
April 1964
2. Gentry, Gar1 L. , Margason, Richard J. , and Kuhn, Richard E. : J et-
Induced Base Losses on VTOL Configurations Hovering In and Out of
Ground Effect. NASA TN D-3166
3. Spreemann, Kenneth P. , and Sherman, I rving R. : Effects of Ground
Proximity on the Thrust of A Simple Downward-Directed J et Beneath
a Flat Surface. NACA TN 4407, September 1958
4. Davenport, Edwin E. , .and Spreeman, Kenneth P. : Thrust Characteri sti cs
of Multiple Lifting J ets in Ground Proximity. NASA TN D-513, September
1960
5 Kuhn, Richard. : An Investigation to Determine Conditions Under Which
Downwash from VTOL Aircraft will Start Surface Erosion From
Various Types of Terrai n. NASA TN D-56, September 1959
6. Tani, I tero, and Komatsu, Yasuo: I mpingement of A Round J et on a Flat
Surface. Presented at Eleventh I nternational Congress of Applied
Mechanics, Munchen, 1964
21
(a) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1
(b) DELTA NOZZLE 1.2
(c) TWELVE SEGMENT
NOZZLE 1.3
Fi gure 1. - Phase I nozzles evaluated under phase 11.
22
NOZZLE 2.1
NOZZLE 2.4
NOZZLE 2.7
NOZZLE 2.2
. d.,... :
NOZZLE 2.5
NOZZLE 2.8
NOZZLE 2.3
NOZZLE 2.6
NOZZLE 2.9
Figure 2. - Non-circular nozzle configurations for phase 11.
23
I
A, = NOZZLE EXI T AREA. SQ. IN.
Nozzle No. A, L W
2.1 7.1336 2.975 0.595
2.2 7.0534 2.975 0.595
2.3 7.1 119 2.975 0.595
2.4 7.0300 2.975 0.595
2.5 7.1151 2.975 0.595
2.6 7.1465 2.975 0.595
2.7 7.0407 2.975 0.595
2.8 7.0640 2.298 0.766
2. 9 7. 0900 4.200 0.420
5 V U P
1.785 1.144 1.250 0
1.785 1.053 1.150 5
0.8925 0. 567 1.000 15
1. 190 0.785 1.000 15
1.785 0.915 1.000 15
2.380 0.943 1 .OOO I5
1.785 0.854 0.930 30
2.298 0. 934 1 .OOO I5
1.260 0.847 1.000 15
r
25O27'
27'2 1.5'
80285 8
16O34'
30'45'
4 1 O45'
33'28'
37027'
22'47'
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
IO
s/ w
3 .O
3 .O
1.5
2.0
3 .O
4.0
3 .O
3 .O
3 .O
Figure 3 - Four-element suppressor nozzle configurations
24
BELLMOUTH INSTRUMENTATION TRANSITION
SECTION
1 .o
.8
E .6
m
3
I
z
1
U
x
W
Q -4
.2
0
ELLIPTICAL NOZZLE
0 4 8 1 2
T
DISTANCE FROM PLENUM - INCHES
Figure 4 - Typical four-element suppressor nozzle cross-sectional
area and Mach number progression
25
"J
TOP VIEW SHOWING INLETS
SIDE VIEW END VIEW
3.0R FO2 1.5"CLEARANCE
I -2.0R FOR .5 "CLEARANCE
BOTTOM VIEW SHOWING CLEARANCE
NOZZLE
BETWEEN FUSELAGE ANDCIRCULAR
BOTTOM VIEW SHOWING CLEARANCE
BETWEEN FUSELAGE AND FOUR-ELEMENT
SUPPRESSOR NOZZLES
NOZZLECLEARANCE
NOZZLE 2.1 8. 2.5 0.5" 1.5"
Figure 5 - Fuselage configurations
26
TRAVERSING
C/A RAKE
q-
TRAVERSING PROBE
1 TOTAL PRESSURE RAKE (2)
GROUND P LANE
7
Figure 6 - Schematic of test ri g and facilities
-
( a) TRAVERSING PITOT PROBE
SURFACETHERMOCOUPLE
(TYP.)
SURFACE STATIC PRESSURE
(TYP.)
-0.125 X 0.028 WALL
0.0625 C-A MEGAPAK
1 5"
' H+4.0 4
( c ) FORTY-ONE ELEMENT TRAVERSING THERMOCOUPLE RAKE
(PRESSURE TUBES AND THERMOCOUPLES INTERCHANGEABLE)
24.75' OD; 20" ID
PLENUM CHAMBER
\ NOZZLE
55.5 L 7 2 . 7 5 d - 3 7 4
TRAVERSING J ET
WAKE PROBE
GROUND P LANE
MOVEABLEGROUN
P LANE (56 IN. DIA.
I
Figure 7 - Schematic of test rig and instrumentation
28
(a! TEST RIG (b) TRAVERSING GROUND PLANE
( c ) CIRCULAR NOZZLE WITH NON- ( 4 INTERIOR OF FUSELAGE
VENTILATED FUSELAGE
( e) NOZZLE 2.5 WITH VENTILATED ( f ) NOZZLE 2.5 WITH INSTRUMENTED
FUSELAGE FUSELAGE
Figure 8. - Photographs of test rig for various nozzle and fuselage configurations
29
1 .oo
U
6
e- .96
w
u
0 .92
!I
Z
U
U
W
U
>
U
.88
>
W
e
1
$ .84
W
U
.80
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6
NOZZLE CONFIGURATION
1.1 CIRCULAR
""" 1.2 DELTA 5 t R , 5" f l
" 1.3 TWELVE SEGMENT
1.8 2.0
( a ) PHASE I NOZZLES
i
I
I
-
-
2.4 1
2.6
Figure 9 - Variation of effective velocity and mass flow coefficients with
nozzle pressure ratio for all basic nozzle configurations
30
1 .oo
V' .96
c'
z
I-
W
>
w
L
.84
LL
w
U
.80 -
1 .o
1 .ocJ
.96
V
LL
I--
z
W
.52
-
LL
LL
0
W
V
g .88
1
LL
m
z
.84
.a0
NOZZL
1.5
1.2
NO.
-
.".
--
"
-:; 1.6
NOZZLE f i
2.1 0"
2.2 5"
2.5 15"
2.7 30"
"""
"L
"
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
NOZZLI
2.1
2.2"
2.5
'
/
2.7
".
1.2
SAV = 3.0
t, = 70F
=5.0
n
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, pt /p,
n
(b) PHASE I I NOZZLES - VARIATION OF EXI T WALL ANGLE, I
Figure 9 - Continued
31
1 .oo
.96
.92
.88
.84
.80
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6
NOZZLE 4
2.8 3
2.5 5
2.9 10
"_
"""
1 .o 1.2 1.4
i
I
1.8 2.0 2.2
P = 15"
S W = 3.0
tt, 70F
1.6 1.8 2 .o 2.2
2.4 2.6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, p!,/'Po
( c ) PHASE II NOZZLES - VARIATION OF ASPECT RATIO, A
2.4 2.6
32
1 .oo
.96
.9l
.88
.84
.EO
1 .o
I
U
LL
c
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
NOZZLE S/W
"
2.3 1.5
2.4 2.0
2.5 3.0
2. 6
4.0
"-
""""_
NOZZLE NO.
2.0
4? = 5
B = 15"
t 70F
t"
2.4 2.6
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, ptn;po
(d) PHASE II NOZZLES - VARIATION OF SPACING RATIO, S/W
Figure 9 - Concluded
33
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
I
BASICCIRCULAR NOZZLE OUTOF GROUND EFFECT
""_" - BASIC CIRCULAR NOZZLE IN GROUND EFFECT (2 'De = 5.0)
- - - - CIRCULAR NOZZLE WITH ALL FUSELAGE CONFIGURATIONS
OUTOF GROUND EFFECT
GROUND EFFECT (Z'D, = 5.0)
CIRCULAR NOZZLE WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE IN ""
'tn
= 70F
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, Pt n/Po
( 0 ) CIRCULAR NOZZLE WITH FUSELAGE AND GROUND PLANE.
34
0
6
+-
w
u
Z
U
U
W
0
U
>
V
0
W
_1
>
W
+
U
W
U
U
W
k
?
I .oo
.96
.92
.88
.84
.80
1 .oo
.96
V
U
e-
w
u .92
Z
U
L L
W
0
U
.88
1
U
v)
In
Q
I
.84
.80
+ _" ".
I
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
-------- BASIC NOZZLE 2.1 IN GROUND EFFECT (Z'D, = 5.0)
"" NOZZLE 2.1 WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
BASIC NOZZLE 2.1 OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
NOZZLE 2.1 WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z'D, = 5.0)
2.4
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, pt,'p,
(b) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1 WITH FUSELAGE AND GROUND PLANE.
2.6
35
U
6
I--
w
u
Z
LL
W
U
0
U
>-
U
E
9
W
>
W
I-
V
W
LL
U
W
1
1 .oo
.96
.92
.88
.84
.80
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 .2.4 2.6
BASIC NOZZLE 2.5 OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
- - - - - - - BASIC NOZZLE 2.5 IN GROUND EFFECT (Z.'De = 5.0)
"" NOZZLE 2.5 WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z'De = 5.0)
- -" NOZZLE 2.5 WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
t = 70F
t "
2.4 2.6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, pt n/Po
( C ) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.5 WITH FUSELAGE AND GROUND PLANE.
36
I
1 .oo
U
s .88
W
>
W
I-
>
-
Y .e4
LL
LL
W
.80
t = 70F
NO GROUND PLANE
'"
NOCLEARANCE
- - - - - - - -
INTERMEDIATE CLEARANCE
""
MAXIMUM CLEARANCE
NOZZLE NO.
1 .oo
.96
U
U
I-
W
Z
E .92
L L
U
W
U
0
v)
v)
4
I
.84
.80
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, t +" /Fo
( a ) FUSELAGE CAVITY NOT VENTILATED.
Figure 11 - Effect of clearance between fuselage lower surface and nozzle
efi t on effective velocity and mass flow coefficients for nozzles
1. 1, 2. 1, and 2.5 out of ground effect
37
I
-
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
= 70F
' t "
NO CLEARANCE
MAXIMUM CLEARANCE
- - - - - - - - - - INTERMEDIATE CLEARANCE
"""
NOGROUND PLANE
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 I .a 2.0 2.2 2.4 2. 6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, ptn/Po
(bl FUSELAGE CAVITY WITH MAXIMUM VENTILATION
38
1 .oo
.96
U
V
b-
W
z
g .92
U
LL
0
W
V
g .88
LL
_J
In
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
I-
i
t t 1 70'F
Z De GROUND PLANE = 5.0
n
1
1 . 1 L
-2.1
~*
I
2.5
'
1
ZZLE NO.
ll 1.2
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
I
rc
#
-
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
~~
NON-VENTILATED
VENTILATED
- - - - - - .
2.2 2.4 2.6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, pt /P,
n
Figure 12 - Effect of fuselage ventilation on effective velocity and mass
flow coefficients for nozzles 1.1, 2. 1, and 2. 5 in ground effect
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
2.6
2.6
VENTILATED
2. 8 VENTILATED
NON-VENTILATED
2.8 NON-VENTILATED
- - - - - - - - - -
"
"-
t = 70F
1"
1 .oo
.96
.92
.88
.84
.@I
1 .o 1.2
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, p /p0
(a) OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
t"
Figure 13 - Effect of fuselage ventilation on effective velocity and mass flow
coefficients for nozzles 2.6 and 2.8 in and out of ground effect
40
1 .oo
.96
.92
.88
.ed
.80
1 .o
1 .oo
.96
U
U
I-- .92
w
u
z
U
U
W
0
.88
V
3
0
-I
U
m
.84
z
.80
1
I _ 1.4 z ."". 1.6 -
t = 70F
t"
1.8
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
NOZZLE
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
" ~
-1
2. 0
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, pt,/p0
2.2 2.4 2.6
CONFIGURATION
i 2. i
NON-VENTILATED
! 2.4 2.6
(b) IN GROUND EFFECT C/D, = 5.0)
41
I
l~H .4 .2 0
1 . or
.4
-
.2
0
"L I I I
0
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 \ 2 3 4
P+,/Po =2.0
ttn =1200" F
Y
Z/D, -
0 0
.01
-
--.03
-.02
-
-.01
1 .o 0
-.01
J -.03
J -.03
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4
DISTANCE FROM J ET CENTERLINE/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, X/De
( a! SURVEYS ALONG X AXIS.
Figure 14 - Dynamic and static pressure surveys for basic suppressor nozzle
2.1 out of ground effect
42
I
P,"/P0 =2.0
t t n =1200" F
Z/D,
0
Y
x -
I I 0
-
501
.2 0
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4
0
a
I
a
-.01
-.03 _U
w
L L
w
U
0
J L
4.0
-.03 +
I 1 0 2
m
J -.OI
-I ..01
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4
DISTANCE FROM J ET CENTERLINE 'EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Y/'Do,
(b) SURVEYS ALONG Y AXIS
Fi,gure 14 - Continued
43
I -
Y /
1.0
-
.8
-
-7
.6
-
.4
-
.2
-
0
I I 1 I I I !
P+,/Po =2.0
'tn =1200" F
::Il , A I , ,
0
.2
0 I
.2
0
I
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4
0 I I
- -.01
- -.02
J -.03
0
a
J -.03
"7
a
V"
t
W
[II
8.0
I I " - 1
10.0 - 1
~-
0
-
- -.02
-.01
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4
DISTANCE FROM J ET CENTERLINE'EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Y/D,
( c ) SURVEY AT DISTANCE OF 0.90 INCHES FROM NOZZLE CENTERLINE.
44
.2
0 I I I J
.4 r
I l l
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4
Z,'D, / L I
1 .o
2. 0
3.0
4.0
8.0
10.0
1 I I 0
-.01
I t I 0
-.01
- -.02
-
' - " j - . : l - .02
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4
DISTANCE FROM J ET CENTERLINE/EQUJ VALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Y/D,
(d) SURVEYS AT DISTANCE OF 1.80 INCHES FROM NOZZLE CENTERLINE
45
Y /
Ptn/Po =2.0
t - 12GW F
'n -
I
Z/D,
1
1 .o
.a
.6
.4
.2
0
a
. 2
0 I I
I 1 I
.2
0 I I I 1 I
- 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
8.0
I 1
10.0
-.02
I 1 1 - 0
-
- -.02
-.01
-4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4
DISTANCE FROM J ET CENTERLINE EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Y/D,
( e ) SURVEY AT DISTANCE OF 2.70 INCHES FROM NOZZLE CENTERLINE
Fig-ure 14 - Concluded
46
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z' D,
(b) TWELVE-SEGMENT NOZZLE 1.3 (Y =0)
Figure 15 - J et wake dynamic pressure and differential temperature surveys
of several basic nozzles out of ground effect
47
I "
t,,= 1200" F
i I
+ o
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 ? a 9 10
n
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z./D,
( c ) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2. 1 (Y 0)
48
Y
W
1
N
N
0
W
z
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
I
"
X
-
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(d) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1 (X 0.90 INCHES)
Ptn 'Po =2.0
tt, : 1200" F
2 3
AXI AL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT / EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z 'De
(e) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1 (X =2.70 INCHES).
49
(f) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.7 ( X =0.90 INCHES)
t
i
I
I
L
7
AXIAL 9lSTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT / EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DI.\METER, Z/De
(9) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.7 IX =2.70 INCHES)
NOZZLE CONFIGURATION NOZZLE CONFIGURATION
m s/w P RL SAY A
5 3.0 0" 2.5 5 3.0 15"
5 3.0 5" 2 2.6 5 4.0 15'
5 1.5 15" o 2.7 5 3.0 30"
5 2.0 15" A 2.8 3 3.0 15"
0
m SAY D
L 2.9 10 3.0 15"
0 1.1 CIRCULAR
0 1.3 TWELVE SEGMENT
1.2 DELTA 5 a ,5" A
-
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z/D,
ia) NOZZLE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE =70F
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EPUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, ZI'D,
(b) NOZZLE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE =1200" F
Figure 16 - J et wake dynamic pressure degradation versus distance from
nozzle exit for all basic nozzle out of ground effect
51
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
I
.R s w B
2.1 5 3.0 0'
0 2.2 5 3.0 5'
0 2.3 5 1.5 15'
x 2.4 5 2.0 15'
0 2.5 5 3.0 15-
2.6 5 4.0 15'
0 2.7 5 3.0 3 0
E. 2. 9 IO 3.0 15
A 2.8 3 3.0 15'
0 1.1
CIRCULAR
0 1.2
DELTA 5R 5" /3
0 1.3
TWELVE SEGMENT
0 2 4 6 8
10
I '
I
12 14
I /
P," 'Po =2.0
t, =1200" F
n
16 18
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM hOZZLE EXIT ,' EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z./D,
NOZZLE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE =1200F
20
Figure 17 - J et wake differential temperature degradation versus distance
from nozzle exit for all basic nozzles out of ground effect
52
1 .o
.8
c
0-
\ x .6
e
LT
P
2 .4
a:
W
a:
3
v)
v)
W .2
a
u
a:
I
Q
E o
n
-.2
- . 4
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
I
4
7
l " l I I I I 1 1 I I I
"-
- SINGLE ELEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
4 6 8 IO 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EQIJ IVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z/D,
(a) NOZZLE 2.1
Figure 18 - J et wake degradation characteristics for several basic nozzle
configurations and survey planes
53
1 .o
.8
c
e
wi .6
D-
c
+
Q
IL:
!x
1
v)
v)
W
IL:
w .4
a
u
I
Q
z
>
.2
n
0
-.2
- .4
54
EXTRAPOLATEDFROMPHAS
1 1
t," =12"O" F -
P+,/Po =2.0
--"
"
tb2
- "
12 14
"
0 2 4 6 8 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT'EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z/D,
(b) NOZZLE 2.3
1 .o
.8
c
.6
8
G
2
m
I- .4
. I I - "
"
n
/--
1 - 1 1 I I I I
SINGLE ELEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
EXTRAPOLATED FKUM PnASE I (R
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAUETER, Z/D,
( c ) NOZZLE 2.5
55
~ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SINGLE ELEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
EXTRAPOLATED FROM PHASE !(REF. 1)-
Pt,/Po =2.0
ttn
=1200" F t
I
I
10 12
?
, 18
I
I
16
0 2 4 6
8 10
12 14
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXITIEQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, 2'0,
(d) NOZZLE 2.8
56
1
- 1 I I I " . ) I I I I I I I I
"-
SINGLE ELEMENT CHARACTERISTICS EXTRAPOLATED
-
FROM PHASE I (REF. 1
I _ " 12
I
I-
L
4 6
P? f P
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
1
0 :I 10 i 14
-.
"
"
EL
8 0 2 4 6 16 18 20
57
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 IO 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT'EPUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z/D,
BASIC NOZZLE OUT OF ;ROUND EFFECT
""- - NOZZLEWITHVENTILATED FUSELAGEOUTOFGROUbD EFFECT
" NOZZLE WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
FLAG SYMBOLS (r) STAGNATION PRESSURES ON OR ABOVE SURFACE OF GROUND PLANE
BASIC NOZZLE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
> NOZZLE WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
( a) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1. 1 WITH DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE =70" F
'Figure 19 - Effect of fuselage and ground plane on jet wake degradation
characteristics
58
0 l a 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT'EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z,' D,
BASIC NOZZLE OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
FLAG SYMBOLS ( r) STAGNATION PRESSURES OR DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURES
ON OR ABOVE SURFACE OF GROUND P LANE
BASIC NOZZL E IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
> NOZZLE WI TH NON-VENTI LATED FUSELAGE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
0 2 4 6 8 IO
12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT./EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z/D,
(b) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1. 1 WITH DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE 1200" F
59
0 2 4 6 a
10 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT'EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z/D,
BASICNOZZLE OUTOFSROUNDEFFECT
""_ - NOZZLE WITHVENTILATED FUSELAGE OUTOFGROUHD EFFECT
" NOZZLEWITHNON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE OUTOFGROUND EFFECT
FLAG SYMBOLS (r) STAGNATION PRESSURES ON OR ABOVE SURFACE OF GROUND PLANE
BASIC NOZZLE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
> NOZZLE WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, 5 .O)
( C ) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2. 1 WITH DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE 70" F
60
0 2
* 4
\ 6
10 12 14 16 18 20
AXI AL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT ' EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z*' D,
BASIC NOZZLC OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
FLAG SYMBOLS
STA GNA TI ON PRESSURES OR DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURES
(r) ON OR ABOVE SURFACE OF GROUND PL ANE
/* BASIC NOZ Z L E I N GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
> NOZZL E WI TH NON- VENTI L ATED FUSEL AGE I N GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
."
-~
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EPUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z 'De
(d) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1 WITH DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE 1200" F
61
0 2 4 6 8
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXITEQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, ZID,
BASICNOZZLE OUTOFrJ ROUND EFFECT
- - NOZZLEWI THVENTI LATEDFUSELAGEOUTOFGROUKDEFFECT
NOZZLEWITHNON-VENTILATEDFUSELAGE OUTOFGROUND EFFECT
FLAG SYMBOLS (r) STAGNATION PRESSURES OR DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURES
ON OR ABOVE SURFACE OF GROUND P LANE
f i BASIC NOZZLE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
NOZZLE WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
(e) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.5 WITH DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE 70 F
62
0 2 4 6 8 IO 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT'EPUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z/D,
BASIC NOZZLE. OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
FLAG SYMBOLS
0 2
STAGNATI ON PRESSURES OR DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURES
("ON OR ABOVE SURFACE OF GROUND PLANE
/* BASI C NOZZLE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
> NOZZLE WI TH NON-VENTI LATED FUSELAGE IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
8 IO 12 14
16 18
4 6 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z.'D,
( f ) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.5 WITH DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE =1200' F
63
WITHOUT FUSELAGE
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o
R 'De
-
0 0
0 .15
P+,/Po 2.0
n .50
ttn =1200" F
A 1.00 GROUND PLANE AT Z/D, =5.0
0 2.00
0 3.00
0 5.00
NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
.5
.4
.3
.2
. I
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o
DYNAMIC PRESSURE RATIO OVER GROUND FLANE, qdq,
(a) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1
Figure 20 - Dynamic pressure distribution in the jet
efflux adjacent to the ground plane
64
WITHOUT FUSELAGE
.2 .4 .6
.I5
S O
1 .oo
2 .oo
3.00
5.00
Y AXIS
.a 1.0 0 .2 .4 .6 .a 1.0
- - - - - - - - - CROSS FLOW CONDITION WITH RESPECT TO AXES OF PROBE
X AXIS
.2 .4 .6 .a 1.0 0 .2
Pt n/Po =2.0
ttn = 1200 F
GROUND PLANE AT Z/D, 5.0
I AXIS
DYNAMIC PRESSURE RATiO OVER GROUND PLANE, q d q ,
(b) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1
.6 .a 1 .o
65
X AXIS
.5
.4
'1
.3
d
W
+
w .2
I
4
D
W
J
N
N .1
0
Z
Q
-
R /De
0 0
n .50
0 . I 5
A 1.00
0 2.00
0 3.00
0 5.00
WITH3UT FUSELAGE
Y AXIS
.8 1.0 0 .2 . 4
..
. - .
.6
- - - - - - - - CROSSFLOW CONDITION WITH RESPECT T O AXES OF PROBES
X AXIS Y AXIS
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0
.2 .4
DYNAMIC PRESSURE RATIO OVER GROUND PLANE, q,/q,
( c ) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.5
Pt, /Po =2.0
t , =1200" F
n
GROUND PLANE AT Z/De =5.0
-
.6
.8
66
.6 1.0
2
z P, /Po =2.0 R /De
5 GROUND PLANE A r Z/D, : 5.0
U 0 0
[L
_I
4
3
-
ttn 1200" F
a 30
U
I-
Z
u
1
a.
n
3
?
1.00
0 2.00
3.00
0 5.00
0
DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE RATIO OVER GROUND PLANE, zg/Tn
( 0 ) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1
Figure 21 - Differential temperature distribution adjacent to ground plane
67
.5
X AXIS
.4
.3
.2
1
E-
+
W
W
I
9
n
W
J
N
! s o
5
z o . 2 .4
E
3
V
V
k
w
Z
J
E
P+" /P0 2.0
t t n =1200" F
I
-
6
GROUND PLANE AT Z/ D = 5.0
W
Z
_I
Q
X AXIS
a
n .5
3
Z
0
E
0
w
> .4
0
m
Q
W
V
Z
2 .3
! 2
n
.2
.1
0
0 .2 .4 .6
-
8
WITHOUT FUSELAGE
- i
.o 0 .2 .4
Y AXIS
~~
-~
"
~-
~~
"
"
"
"
E
. 2
DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE RATIO OVER GROUND PLANE, tdT,
b ) SVPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1
2 1.0 0 2 ,
.4
.8
R 4
"
0 0
'\ 1 .oo
0 2.00
0 .50
0 3.00
0
5.00
I
. ..
L
3
68
0
"
.2
WITHOUT FUSELAGE
X AXIS
.4 .6 .a 1 .o
P," ,Po =2.0
t, =1200" F
n
GROUND PLANE AT Z / D : 5.0
.2
X AXIS
t
.6
Y AXIS
.4 .6 .a 1 .o
R 'De
0 0
0 S O
A 1.00
0 2.00
0
3.00
0 5.00
Y AXIS
1.0 0 .2 .4
.8 1 .o
DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE RATIO OVER GROUND PLANE, t,p,
69
II - c,
I
Y/D,
I
I - c,
1 1 1 - TEMPERATURES, "F IV - TEMPERATURES, "F
QUADRANT CONFIGURATION
I AND IV NOZZLE 1. 1 WITHOUT FUSELAGE
II AND 111 NOZZLE 1 . 1 WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
Ptn/Po 2.0
ttn =1200F
Z/D, GROUND PLANE =5.0
( a) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1
Figure 22 - Distribution of surface static pressures and exhaust gas
temperatures adjacent to ground plane for various nozzle
and fuselage configurations
70
I
I1 - c,
t
I - cp
-
0 1 2
Ill - TEMPERATURES, "F I IV - TEMPERATURES, "F
QUADRANT CONFIGURATION
I AND IV NOZZLE 2.1 WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
II AND 111 NOZZLE 2.5 WITH NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
Ptn/Po 2.0
ttn =1200F
Z/D, GROUND PLANE =5.0
(b) SUPPRESSOR NOZZLES 2.1 AND 2.5
71
mm I WITHOUT FUSELAGE NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
Q!
W
>
0
W
5 .4
m
m
W
D:
a
U
Q
Z
>
a
5 .2
I
3
I O
3 4
WITHOUT FUSELAGE
5
Pt,/Po =2.0
t t n =1200" F
GROUND PLANE AT Z/D, =5.0
1 5
3 4
0 1 2 3 4
DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF GROUND PLANE/EPUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIArdETER, R/De
( 0 ) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1
5
5
Figure 23 - Radial distribution of maximum dynamic pressures and dif-
ferential temperatures in the efflux over the ground plane
for various nozzle and fuselage configurations
72
1 0 1
WITHOUT FUSELAGE
2 3 4 5 0
WITHOUT FUSELAGE
X AXIS
Y AXIS
_"
Pt n/Po 2.0
t t n =1200" F
GROUND PLArlE AT Z/D, I5.0
3 4 5
.-I ;$.; I".: [11
~.
1 2 3 4 5
DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF GROUND PLANE/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, R/D,
73
WITHOUT FUSELAGE NON-VENTILATED FUSELAtiE
1 2 3 4
n
5 0 1 2 3 4 5
X AXIS
Y AXIS
-"
p t p =2.0
't" =12000F
GROUND PLANT AT Z/De 5.0
WITHOUT FUSELAGE
DISTANCE FROMCENTEROFGROUNDPLANE/EQI
1
..
~~ ~- ~
0 1 2 3 4 5
UIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, R/O,
74
h
2 f i 0.5
De
CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1 (Ptn/Po =2.0, tt, =l200" F,
CIRCULAR NOZZLE REF. 6
CIRCULAR NOZZLE REF. 5
"""_
-"
0
.4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.0
Figure 24 - Radial variation of local dynamic pressure over ground plane
for various investigations
75
I I - NOZZLE 2.5 OUT OF GROUND EFFECT I - NOZZLE 2.1 OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
a
4
v)
W
V
z
I -0. -
-
4
8
16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 16
INCHES
111 - NOZZLE 2.5 IN GROUND EFFECT IV - NOZZLE 2.1 IN GROUND EFFECT
VALUE OF CpSHOWN ARE ACTUAL VALUES X 100
(a) STATIC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON THE LCWER FUSELAGE SURFACE, cp
Ptn /Po =2.0
ttn =1200 O F
16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12 16
INCHES
Ill - NOZZLE 2.5 IN GROUND EFFECT IV - NOZZLE 2.1 IN GROUND EFFECT
(b) TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION ADJ ACENT TO THE LOWER FUSELAGE SURFACE, "F
Figure 25 - Static pressure and temperature distributions on lower surface
of non-ventilated fuselage for various nozzle configurations
76
I
- .003
- .002
- .001
0
I 0 I
1-
I 5
1 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF GROUND PLANE/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, RID,
0
n
I
Ln
n
- - - - NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
a
u "- VENTILATED FUSELAGE
IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
I-
z
w
-
-
2 -------- NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
LL
LLI
0
P+ /Po =2.0
t " -
LL OUTOFGROUND EFFECT
n
VENTILATED FUSELAGE t - 70F
- ,003
- 002
- .001
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
( 0) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1
Figure 26 - Radial distribution of pressures induced on the lower
surface of the fuselage by the jet
77
- .012
- .008
- .004
0
- T LAJ OR AXIS
I 1
0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF GROUND PLANE/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE OIAMETER, R/D,
0
a
I
y1 ""
I
VENTILATED FUSELAGE
a
IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, 5.0)
"-
V"
E
z """" NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
+
u VENTILATED FUSELAGE
OUTOF GROUNDEFFECT
LL
U ~
W
0
V
W
- .020
,016
- ,012
- ,008
- .004
0
I I . i
0 1 2 3
NOR AXIS
i
. . -
I
4
- -
78
- .012
- .008
- .004
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF GROUND PLANE/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, R/De
0
n
I
I NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
a
-" VENTILATED FUSELAGE
I
IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/De =5.0)
V"
I-
z
"""" NON-VENTILATED FUSELAGE
w
u
VENTILATED FUSELAGE
OUT OF GRWND EFFECT
- .020
1 - I
MINOR 1
3 4 5 6 7
79
I
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
EXIT WALL ANGLE, 19, DEGREES
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
2/D,
0 0
0 1
$ 2
e13
0 4
0 6
D 8
x 10
P 15
Q 20
Q
Z
i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
n
ASPECT RATIO, 4
Pt n/Po =2.0
ttn =70" F
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SPACING RATIO, S A
(a) NOZZLE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE =70" F
Figure 27 - Dynamic pressure degradation versus exit wall angle, aspect
ratio, and spacing ratio for all basic suppressor nozzles out
of ground effect
80
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
EXIT WALL ANGLE, , DEGREES
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ASPECT RATIO, 4
I
. .
Ptn/Po =2.0
tt, =1200" F
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SPACING RATIO, S/W
(b) NOZZLE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE =1200" F
Z/D,
0
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
15
20
81
I
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
EXIT WALL ANGLE, p, DEGREES
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0 2 4 6 a 10 12
Z/D,
0 0
0 1
0 2
0 4
0 3
ASPECT RATIO, +R
P," .'Po =2.0
t - 1200F
+" -
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SPACING RATIO, S N ,
NOZZLE DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE =1200" F
Figure 28 - Differential temperature degradation versus exit wall angle,
aspect ratio, and spacing ratio for all basic suppressor
nozzles out of ground effect
82
I .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
- T - T T 1 - 7 - T
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
TRANSVERSE MIXING DISTANCE RATIOS, X/X.25,
' max
(a) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1 - DYNAMIC PRESSURE RATIO
Figure 29 - J et wake dynamic pressure and differential temperature
reference contours and similarity profiles of several
I nsic nozzles out of ground effect
83
0 2
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.?
0
'EI
1 ~. 4 ...
6 8 10 12 14 16
. 2 .4
, I .-
Z 'DL
0 1 -
0 3
0 4 -
D 5
D 6 -
0 8
x 10 .
17 15
0
:2.5
0 17.5 '
Q
20
.6 .8 1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
TRANSVERSE MIXING DISTANCE RATI0S.X X,50r
=rno.x
(b) CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1 . 1 - DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE RATIO
84
5 -
4 -
3 -
GEOMETRY OF MI XI NG ZONE
BOUNDARY OF
"APPARENT CORE"
-
X =TRANSVERSE MI XI NG
-
DISTANCE FROM BOUNDARY
OF "APPARENT CORE" ALONG
X AXIS.
-
Y =ANALOGOUS TRANSVERSE
- MI XI NG DISTANCE ALONG
Y AXIS.
-
0
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
2 4 6 R 10 12 14 16 18
I 1 1
- PLAIN SYMBOLS =VALUES OF x1X. 25
D 6
D 8
-
FLAG SYMBOLS ( / ) = VA L UES OF Y/Y.
L
.8 1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 .o
TRANSVERSE MIXING DISTANCE RATIOS, X/X.25, 8. Yl y.25qzmax
' max
( c ) NOZZLE 2.1 - DYNAMIC PRESSURE RATIO
85
I
~
L
0 .2 .4 .6 .a 1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1 .a 2.0
" . . . 3
TRANSVERSE MIXING DISTANCE RATIOS,X/X,gfir 8, Y/Y.50r ZmOX
'mox
I
(d) NOZZLE 2.1 - DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE RATIO
86
GEOMETRY OF MI XI NG ZONE
/" APPARENI
CORE"
BOUNDARY OF
BOUNDARY OF
" APPARENT CORE"
X =TRANSVERSE MI XI NG
DISTANCE FROM BOUNDARY
Y = ANALOGOUS TRANSVERSE
0 2 4 6 8 IO 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT / EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z ' D ~
.a
.6
. 4
.2
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o 1.2 I . 4 1 6 1.8 2.0
TRANSVERSE MIXING DISTANCE RAT10S,X/X~~5q,mox g I mox
( e ) NOZZLE 2.5 - DYNAMIC PRESSURE RATIO
Figure 29 - Conti nued
87
\
W
Z
J
W
@L
I-
Z
V
W
-
I
0
CL:
LI
W
N
J
N
0
z
W
u
Z
6
E
I-
n
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, Z/C,
1
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
TRANSVERSE MIXING DISTANCE RATIOS, X h . 5 0 ~ a Y/y. 50~
' max ' max
(f ) NOZZLE 2.5 - DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE RATIO
88
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o
DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE RATIO, Tr ma x / Tn
(a) DYNAMIC PRESSURE RATI O VERSUS DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURE RATIO
NOZZL E
7 2.1
0
0
2.2
2.3
X
0
2.4
0
2.5
2.6
0 2.7
n 2.8
II 2.9
0 1.1
0
0 1.2
1.3
Ptn/Po =2.0
tt, =1200 F
2 4 6 8 10
12
0 14 16 18 20
AXI AL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EPUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER. Z/D,
(b) VARIATION WITH DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT
Figure 30 - Comparison of dynamic pressure degradation with differential
temperature degradation for all basic nozzles out of ground effect
89
NOZZLE
CONFIGURATION -
1 .o
.a
.6
.4
.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, VD,
Figure 31 - J et wake degradation characteristics of suppressor nozzles
relative to the degradation characteristics of a circular
nozzle for all basic nozzles out of ground effect
90
I
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
.%
1 .o
.8
.6
.4
.88 .90 .92 .94 .96 .98 1 .oo
& S' W f!
7
2.1 5 3.0 0"
0
2.2 5 3.0 5"
0 2.3 5 1.5 15"
x 2.4 5 2.0 15"
0 2.5 5 3.0 15"
0
2.6 5 4.0 15"
0
2.7 5 3.0 30"
A 2.8 3 3.0 15"
b 2.9 10 3.0 15"
0 1 . 1 CIRCULAR
0 1.2
DE L T A 5&,
0 1.3 TWELVE SEGMENT
Pt,/Po = 2.0
tt"
= 1200'F
Z/D, = 5.0
.86 .88 .90 .92 .94 .96 .98 1 .oo
EFFECTIVE VELOCITY COEFFICIENT, Cve
Figure 32 - Jet wake degradation versus thrust of basic nozzles
for free jet tests
91
I
1 .@
.8
.6
.4
.2
@
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
1 ' I
_i
2. 0
tt
1
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, Ptn/Po
CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1, OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1, OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.5, OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
"""
"-
@ CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1, IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, z5.0)
0' SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1, IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.5, I N GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
0 2 4 6 IO 12 14 16 18 20
AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE EXIT/EPUIVALENT CIRCULAR NOZZLE DIAMETER, z/D,
Figure 33 - Comparison of thrust and dynamic pressure degradation of
nozzles 1.1, 2.1, and 2.5 with non-ventilated fuselage in
and out of ground effect
92
.04
.03
.02
.01
0
OUTOFGROUNDEFFECT
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
NOZZLE
1.1
2.2 2.4 2.6
1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, P,,/P~
Figure 34 - Effect of fuselage ventilation on effective velocity coefficients
for various nozzle and fuselage configurations
93
.... .." ~
e
0
0)
L?
0
I-
W
3
I-
z
n
w
u
L L
_I
W
>
W
U
U
W
1 .o 1.2 I .4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
NOZZLE
1.1 t, =70" F
n
- - - - - - - - - - -
2.1
2.5
2.6
2.8
"-"
Z/D, =5.0
""
VENTILATED FUSELAGE
LL
0
1 .o 1.2 1 .4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO, pt,/po
Figure 35 - Effect of ground proximity on effective velocity coefficients
of various nozzle and fuselage configurations
94
I I -
SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1 8.2.5 CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1
I -
(NON-VENTILATED) (NON-VENTILATED)
I l l - IV -
SUPPRESSOR NOZZLE 2.1 8 2.5 CIRCULAR NOZZLE 1.1
(VENTILATED) (VENTILATED)
1 00
40
Q
I-
U
0
I-
Z
w
a
NOZZLE NO.
n
I-
U
a
U
0
Z
u
I- 20
a
w
I II Ill IV
QUADRANT
Pt,/Po =2.0
t,, =70" F
3
1. 1 2.1
c
A
9 3
2 -
,.'
2.5
OUTOFGROUND EFFECT
1.1
49
2.1 2.5
Figure 36 - Relative distribution of thrust losses for various nozzle
and fuselage configurations
95
NOZZLE NOZZLE CONFIGURATION FUSELAGE CONFIGURATION
A( SAV P
"-
c 2.1 5 3 0" NON-VENTILATED
2.1 5 3 (P VENTILATED
5 3 15" NON-VENTILATED
2.5 5 3 1 5' VENTILATED
2.6 5 4 1 5" NON-VENTILATED
2.6 5 4 1 5" VENTILATED
n 2.8 3 3 1 5" NON-VENTILATED
2.8 3 3 1 5" VENTILATED
1.1 CIRCULAR NON-VENTILATED
; 2.5
;
g
J 3 1.1 CIRCULAR VENTILATED
CIRCULAR NOZZLE AND CIRCULAR PLENUM WITH CIRCULAR PLATE
- . CIRCULARNOZZLE ANDRECTANGULAR PLENUMWITHCIRCULAR PLATE
- FOUR CIRCULAR NOZZLES WITH DELTA MODEL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EIGHT CIRCULAR NOZZLES WITH DELTA MODEL ALL DATA
- - - - - - - FOUR RECTANGULAR NOZZLESWITH RECTANGULARMODEL FROM REF. 2
- - - - - - - - - - FOURRECTANGULARNOZZLESWITHDELTAMODEL
.06
.04
.02
0
(a) OUT OF GROUND EFFECT
PROJ ECTED FUSELAGE AREA/NOZZLE EXIT AREA, Af/A,
(b) IN GROUND EFFECT (Z/D, =5.0)
i
90
Figure 37 - Thrust losses attributed to the fuselage for various fuselage
and nozzle configurations in and out of ground effect
96
+-
w
z
U
U
W
0
U
>
0
U
W
-I
>
.16
k .I2
W
2 .08
k
x
U
W
LL
0
W
0
Q
z
I
.04
v o
BASIC NOZZLE LOSSES
ADDITIONAL LOSSES DUE TO FUSELAGE
a ADDITIONAL LOSSES DUE TO GROUND PROXIMITY (Z/D, =5.0)
. . . . . . . . .
:....... ...:::.
. . . . . . .. .. ..
. , . .. .. .. .. .. .
. . . . ._.. .. ...
. . . . . . .
.....
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
L? A ! ?
P P
1 .I 2.1 2.5 2.6
Pt"/P0 =2.0
ttn =70" F
k! .
P
2.8
NOZZLENUMBER
Figure 38 - Summary of thrust losses for various nozzle and fuselage
configurations
NASA-Langley, 1966 CR-373
97

CFD Exhaust Jet Wake and Thrust Characteristics of Several Nozzles Designed For Vtol Downwash Supresion Nasa Report PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CFD Exhaust Jet Wake and Thrust Characteristics of Several Nozzles Designed For Vtol Downwash Supresion Nasa Report PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

N A S A C O N T R A C T O R

Вам также может понравиться