You are on page 1of 17

Coefficient of Pitching Moment (Design MFR)

0.1

0.05

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.05 With Exhaust and
Intake
Cm

-0.1 With Intake only

-0.15 Without Exhaust and


Intake
-0.2

-0.25

-0.3
AOA

Figure 55: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison (Design MFR)

Coefficient of Pitching Moment (Off-Design MFR)


0.15
With Exhaust and Intake
0.1
With Intake only
0.05
Without Exhaust and Intake
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.05
Cm

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25

-0.3
AOA

Figure 56: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison (Off Design MFR)

8.4.1 Analysis at Mach 1.5

It can be observed that there is no significant change in lift and drag coefficients
due to exhaust nozzle integration with aircraft at supersonic speed. No major change in

66
overall lift of aircraft was observed in supersonic analysis with the change of mass flow
rate. This is due to fact that pressure change due to shock waves is much higher than the
pressure variation due to exhaust and intake ducts. Hence, the overall change is
negligible.
It can be observed that lift of the aircraft with exhaust configuration is slightly less
than other configuration (without exhaust). This is due to the fact that at supersonic speed
wave drag becomes prominent and hence it reduces the lift factor due to exhaust as well.
However, unlike in supersonic case at supersonic speeds, the effect of pitching moment
due to exhaust integration is not prominent. This is due to the fact that at supersonic
speeds pressure rise due to shock waves occurs at aircraft surface. The pressure rise
across the shock wave is much higher than the pressure variations around aircraft aft
body and exhaust nozzle. Hence the effect of pitching moment is not significant at
supersonic speed. For both mass flow rates, the longitudinal stability parameters are met,
however, there is a slight shift in trim point of aircraft.

8.5 Comparative Analysis

The nozzle performance was predicted with high accuracy which was verified
through the results and plume structure observed. External flow analysis of similar aircraft
with intake has been carried out to analyze the flow behavior and calculate its
aerodynamic characteristics at different flow conditions [5]. The comparative analysis of
aerodynamic parameters calculated in this analysis is done with previous research in
which exhaust duct was not considered in analysis. For comparative analysis, results are
compared at previous research and Wind Tunnel Data.

67
Mach 0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4

Wind Tunnel
0.2 (Blocked
CL

Model)
Wind Tunnel
0 (Open
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Intake) 10
CFD with
-0.2 Intake Only
Cfd with
-0.4 Exhaust and
Intake
-0.6
AOA

Figure 57: Coefficient of Lift Comparison

Mach 0.6

0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06 Wind Tunnel
(Blocked
CD

0.05 Model)
Wind Tunnel
0.04 (Open Intake)

0.03 CFD with


Intake Only
0.02
Cfd with
0.01 Exhaust and
Intake
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
AOA

Figure 58: Coefficient of Drag Comparison

68
Mach 0.6

0.01

Wind
0 Tunnel
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 (Blocked12
Model)
-0.01 Wind
Tunnel
(Open
Intake)
Cm

-0.02 CFD with


Exhaust
and Intake
-0.03 CFD with
Intake Only

-0.04

-0.05
AOA

Figure 59: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison

Mach 0.8
1.2

0.8
Wind Tunnel (Open
0.6 Intake)
CFD with Intake Only
CL

0.4

0.2 CFD with Exhaust and


Intake
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
-0.2

-0.4
AOA

Figure 60: Coefficient of Lift Comparison

69
Mach 0.8
0.3

0.25

0.2
CD

0.15

0.1 Wind Tunnel (Open


Intake)
0.05 CFD with Intake Only

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
AOA

Figure 61: Coefficient of Drag Comparison

Mach 0.8
0.01

0
-7 -2 3 8 13 18
-0.01

-0.02 Wind
Tunnel
(Blocked
Cm

-0.03
Model)
Wind
-0.04
Tunnel
-0.05 (Open
Intake)
CFD with
-0.06 Intake
Only
-0.07
AOA

Figure 62: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison

70
8.5.1 Subsonic Analysis

Comparative analysis is carried out with previous research on similar aircraft


without exhaust configurations.

8.5.1.1 Variation in Lift


Figure 59 and 62 compares lift coefficients of CFD analysis with exhaust and intake
integration (Config 1), CFD analysis with intake integration only (without exhaust) (Config
2) and Wind Tunnel data (Config 3) at Mach No 0.6 and 0.8. The overall lift of aircraft of
Config 1 and Config 2 is greater than that of Config 3. However, the lift curve slope of all
configurations is similar. The variations between Config 1,2 and Config 3 results are due
to significant variation in Reynold number of actual flight conditions simulated in CFD
analysis and Wind Tunnel Tests. This aspect affects the boundary layer effects of both
these methods. Hence, a difference in coefficient of lift is observed between Wind Tunnel
Tests and CFD analysis is observed. The difference between the overall lift of aircraft
for Config 1,2 and 3 decreases with an increase in free stream velocity.

8.5.1.2 Variation in Drag


Figure 60 and 63 compares drag coefficients of CFD analysis with exhaust and
intake integration (Config 1), CFD analysis with intake integration only (without exhaust)
(Config 2) and Wind Tunnel data (Config 3). The overall drag of aircraft of Config 1 and
Config 2 is less than that of Config 3. However, the slope of all configurations is similar.
From the results it is evident that the coefficient of drag evaluated from CFD analysis is
lower than that of Wind Tunnel Data at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. Reasons
for difference is discussed in detail in Section 8.6.

8.5.1.3 Variation in Pitching Moment


Figure 61 and 64 compares lift coefficients of CFD analysis with exhaust and intake
integration (Config 1), CFD analysis with intake integration only (without exhaust) (Config
2) and Wind Tunnel data (Config 3). At subsonic speeds, a significant change in pitching
moment coefficient can be observed between Config 1 and Config 3. The overall slope of
coefficient of pitching moment for all configurations is quite similar, however, there is a

71
significant rise in zero lift pitching moment (Cmo) of aircraft due to exhaust nozzle which
helps in improving the longitudinal stability of aircraft and shifts the trim point of aircraft.
This aspect allows the aircraft to trim at positive angle of attack. This validates the
importance of including exhaust nozzle in analysis as the aircraft is longitudinally stable
at low speeds and moderate AoAs.

Mach 1.5
1

0.8

0.6
Wind Tunnel
(Blocked
0.4 Model)
CL

CFD with
0.2 Intake Only

0 CFD with
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Exhaust and14
Intake
-0.2

-0.4
AOA

Figure 63: Coefficient of Lift Comparison

Mach 1.5

0.25

0.2

0.15
CD

Wind Tunnel
(Blocked Model)
0.1
CFD with Intake
Only
0.05
CFD with
Exhaust and
Intake
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
Alpha

Figure 64: Coefficient of Drag Comparison

72
Mach 1.5

0.15
Wind Tunnel (Blocked
Model)
0.1
CFD with Intake Only
0.05
CFD with Exhaust and
0 Intake
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
-0.05
Cm

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25

-0.3
AOA

Figure 65: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison

8.5.2 Supersonic Analysis

Comparative analysis was carried out at supersonic speed between CFD


analysis with exhaust and intake integration (Config 1), CFD analysis with intake
integration only (without exhaust) (Config 2) and Wind Tunnel data (Config 3).

8.5.2.1 Variation in Lift


No significant difference was observed between co-efficient of lift in all three
configurations. This is due to the fact that at supersonic speed the pressure change
across the shock waves becomes more dominant and hence it reduces the lift factor
due to exhaust and intake integration in analysis.

8.5.2.2 Variation in Drag


Effect of drag is significant in supersonic conditions. This variation is due to Reynold
number difference between CFD analysis and Wind Tunnel Tests. Further details are
presented in Section 8.6 of this chapter.

73
8.5.2.3 Variation in Pitching Moment
The coefficient of pitching moment has surprisingly similar trend for all three
configurations. This is due to the fact that at supersonic flight conditions, the effect of nozzle
is not as prominent as in the case of subsonic flight regime. Also, Wind Tunnel model with
blocked intake creates additional shock structure which creates unusual pressure
distribution over the aircraft surfaces. This pressure difference is responsible for additional
pitching moment and hence the overall result is similar to CFD results.

8.6 Reasons for difference between CFD and Wind Tunnel Data

Wind Tunnel being a reliable and standard equipment for calculation of aerodynamic
characteristics of a body can be sometimes limited in analysis due to number of reasons.
Some of them are discussed below:

8.6.1 Reynolds Number Corrections

Due to variation in Reynolds number of actual flight conditions simulated in CFD


analysis and Wind Tunnel Tests. This aspect affects the boundary layer effects of both
these methods. Hence, a difference in aerodynamic coefficients is observed between
Wind Tunnel Tests and CFD analysis is observed.

8.6.2 Exhaust Nozzle Analysis

Analysis of exhaust nozzle is one of the most difficult task in wind tunnel testing.
Presence of high temperatures and pressures make this task even more cumbersome.
Although high pressures could be analyzed at nozzle section, but this requires extra
accessories and equipment with standard wind tunnel. These type of analysis is usually
done using cold flow to keep the temperatures in limit. Hence, there always exist some
assumptions and inaccuracies in Wind Tunnel analysis of jet nozzle. Furthermore,
integration of nozzle with aircraft model poses serious challenges for wind tunnel analysis
as external flow is operating at different conditions than internal flow through intake, engine
area and exhaust nozzle.

For current research, CFD analysis proved to be quite effective as separate


boundary conditions were imposed for external surfaces and internal flow. This feature

74
helped in capturing large pressure and temperature gradients throughout the flow
effectively. This aspect was almost impossible to analyze in wind tunnel testing. Therefore,
analysis results of CFD are more reliable than wind tunnel results in this case.

8.6.3 Aircraft Model

The comparative analysis of drag coefficients clearly showed that the drag of Wind
Tunnel analysis was higher than CFD analysis. One of the main reason for this deviation is
due to the model of aircraft used for Wind Tunnel Analysis. The intake duct for wind tunnel
test is modeled generally diverts the flow coming towards the duct due to uncontrolled mass
flow rate of air inside the duct area, however, for CFD analysis mass flow rate at compressor
inlet was controlled by boundary conditions. Hence, CFD analysis models the flow
accurately. In CFD analysis, the flow passes through intake, engine bay and then exhausts
into free stream through nozzle with controlled temperatures and pressures. However, it
was not possible to maintain the same temperatures and pressures in Wind Tunnel Tests.
Also, deficiencies in surface finish of model produces additional unwanted drag in wind
tunnel analysis. The wind tunnel model was built with landing gear and secondary doors.
These additional surfaces further added to overall drag of aircraft.

8.6.4 Wave Drag

In Wind Tunnel Testing, due to blocked intake on aircraft model additional viscous
and wave drag is produced. Although, wave drag is generally produced in supersonic
flight conditions, but even at high subsonic speeds local Mach No reaches above 1 and
wave drag is produced in these conditions as well. The effect is prominent at high
subsonic speeds and supersonic speeds. The rise in drag is significant and may reach
up to 3 to 4 times the subsonic drag. The magnitude increases at high supersonic speeds.

In this research, exhaust nozzle and intake duct geometries were integrated with
aircraft model. Both internal and external flows were simulated for detailed analysis. Due
to open intake and exhaust for CFD analysis, the flow passes through the aircraft intake
duct and nozzle without any significant hindrance. Hence, additional drag is not produced
unlike the case of Wind Tunnel. At high supersonic speeds, the shock waves formed on
aircraft surfaces does not cause abnormal pressure change inside nozzle or intake duct.

75
Hence, overall drag of CFD simulation is much less than that of Wind Tunnel Tests. The
difference between drag increases significantly at high supersonic speeds.

8.7 Drag Polar

Drag polar was evaluated from CFD analysis and was plotted with Mach No
variation as shown below:

Drag Polar
0.8

0.6

0.4
M 0.6
CL

0.2
M 0.8
0 M 1.5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
-0.2

-0.4
CD

Figure 66: Drag Polar

8.7.1 Analysis

Dynamic pressure is the main contributor in lift generation in this case. The
dynamic pressure is directly proportional with flow velocity. As it is inversely proportional
to the CL, its value will decrease at higher Mach numbers at the same altitude. From the
graph it is evident that the coefficient of drag is higher in supersonic conditions. This
additional drag is due to formation of shock waves causing wave drag. The coefficient of
drag starts to increase rapidly at transonic regime due to drag divergence effects. The
sudden rise in pressure difference before and after shock waves causes a strong
imbalance on aircraft surfaces in the drag direction which increases the overall drag of
the aircraft.

76
8.8 Lift to Drag Ratio vs AOA

Lift to Drag ratio was evaluated from CFD analysis and was plotted with angle of
attack variation as shown below:

Lift to Drag Ratio


15

10

5 M 0.6
M 0.8
0 M 1.5
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

-5

-10

Figure 67: Lift to Drag Ratio vs AOA

From the graph, it is evident that the peak value of lift to drag ratio at subsonic
conditions is much higher than that of supersonic regime. This is due to the fact that the
value of drag is higher at supersonic speed and hence the ratio of lift to drag decreases
significantly at similar AoA.

77
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Introduction

This research was initiated with an aim to perform composite analysis and
characterization of intake and exhaust effect on aerodynamic behavior of a supersonic
aircraft through Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis. The idea was to calculate
and perform a comparative analysis of aircraft with and without nozzle configuration.
Integration of intake duct and exhaust nozzle with aircraft required numerical simulation
of both external and internal flow. Numerical modelling of exhaust nozzle required
determination of different parameters (pressure, temperature, nozzle pressure ratio etc)
for accurate analysis. Due to unavailability of exact engine performance parameters at
different flow conditions, the complexity of research increased manifold. Hence, complete
mathematical modelling of aircraft engine (RD-93) was carried out analytically to
determine the nozzle input parameters. Research was successfully completed and all the
objectives were accomplished which were set at the beginning of this research.

9.2 Conclusions

The analysis was carried out at three different Mach Numbers (0.6, 0.8 and 1.5) at
five different angle of attack (-4, 0, 4, 8,12) and two mass flow rates (design and off design
mass flow rates). Hence, a total of 30 simulations were carried out during the research.
The external flow conditions were kept consistent with the previous research [5] for
detailed comparative analysis. Pressure distribution, shock structure and shear stress
over different aircraft surfaces and through the intake and nozzle were analyzed in detail.
Some of the important conclusions drawn for this research are presented below:

1. A baseline analytical model of engine was developed using engine design


software for RD-93 engine. The extracted values of thrust from analytical model
was compared with already available thrust data from OEM. The results were in
good agreement with available data and hence the analytical model was
considered feasible for further utility for research.

78
2. From the analysis it was observed that the exhaust nozzle is under-
expanded at subsonic conditions at all different AOAs. This fact can be observed
by the flow inside the jet flow, the flow is expanded rapidly and causes the pressure
to fall below ambient pressure, and hence compression waves are formed to
increase the pressure according to ambient pressure.

3. A percentage difference of 23% was observed between the results of NPR


calculated analytically and by CFD analysis at subsonic Mach No. whereas the
difference between the results reduced to 18% at Mach 1.5. The variations
between the results are due to the fact that the analytical calculations were based
on perfectly expanded nozzle, whereas from the CFD analysis it is evident that the
nozzle is under expanded at these flight conditions.

4. At subsonic speeds, no significant change in lift and drag coefficients due


to exhaust nozzle integration with aircraft was observed. A significant change in
pitching moment coefficient was be observed. This fact authenticated the
importance of exhaust nozzle integration in overall aerodynamic behavior
estimation of aircraft.

5. At supersonic speeds, the effect of pitching moment due to exhaust


integration was not prominent. This is due to the fact that at supersonic speeds
pressure rise due to shock waves occurs at aircraft surface. The pressure rise
across the shock wave is much higher than the pressure variations around aircraft
aft body and exhaust nozzle. Hence the effect of pitching moment is not significant
at supersonic speed.

6. The overall lift of aircraft calculated by CFD analysis was greater than that
of Wind Tunnel Data. However, the lift curve slope of all configurations is similar.
The overall drag of aircraft calculated by CFD analysis was less than that of Wind
Tunnel Data. However, the slope of all configurations is similar.

7. At subsonic speeds, a significant change in pitching moment coefficient can


be observed between CFD analysis and Wind Tunnel Data. The overall slope of

79
coefficient of pitching moment for all configurations is quite similar, however, there
is a significant rise in zero lift pitching moment (Cm o) of aircraft due to exhaust
nozzle which helps in improving the longitudinal stability of aircraft and shifts the
trim point of aircraft.

8. Parameters such as Lift to Drag ratio and Drag Polar were also calculated
and analyzed in details.

CFD analysis provided an effective solution of analyzing complex flow inside the
exhaust nozzle and flow downstream of exhaust nozzle. The results were in good
agreement with available Wind Tunnel Data, OEM data and analytical calculations.
Hence, the aim of this research was successfully achieved.

9.3 Recommendations

Some of the recommendations drawn during the course of this research and for
future research are presented below:

1. A continuation study may be carried out to analyze the ground effects on


flow downstream of exhaust nozzle in takeoff and landing configurations.

2. Similar type of analysis may be carried out for different aircraft as well with
exhaust nozzle and intake duct integration.

3. Analytical model of RD-93 may be further utilized for design changes and
modifications in engine components.

4. Computer lab facilities may be enhanced by incorporating cluster network


computers.

80
Bibliography

1. Li, W., et al., Integration of Engine, Plume, and CFD Analyses in Conceptual Design of Low-Boom
Supersonic Aircraft. AIAA Paper, 2009. 1171.
2. Adamson Jr, T., On the structure of jets from highly underexpanded nozzles into still air. Journal
of the Aerospace sciences, 2012.
3. Albini, F.A., Approximate computation of underexpanded jet structure. AIAA Journal, 1965. 3(8):
p. 1535-1537.
4. Hussain, F., Compressible aerodynamic analysis of external flow field around a modern fighter jet
configuration, in IAA. Air Univeristy, Islamabad.
5. Hassan, S., J. Masud, and O. Khan, Intake and Airframe Characterization through Composite CFD,
in AIAA. 2015.
6. Shishir A., M.A., Scott M., Validation of Inlet and Exhaust Boundary Conditions for a Cartesian
Method, in 22nd Applied Aerodynamics Conference and Exhibit 2004: Rhode Island.
7. Mc Ghee, R.J., Jet-plume-induced flow separation on a lifting entry body at Mach numbers from
4.00 to 6.00. 1970.
8. DalBello, T., et al., Computational study of axisymmetric off-design nozzle flows. AIAA paper,
2004. 530: p. 2004.
9. Pandya, S.A., S.M. Murman, and M.J. Aftosmis, Validation of inlet and exhaust boundary
conditions for a Cartesian method. AIAA Paper, 2004. 4837: p. 2004.
10. Elmiligui, A., K. Abdol-Hamid, and S.J. Massey, PAB3D Simulations for the CAWAPI F-16XL. AIAA
Paper, 2007. 491.
11. Lamar, J.E. and K.S. Abdol-Hamid, USM3D unstructured grid solutions for CAWAPI at NASA LaRC.
AIAA Paper, 2007. 682: p. 8-11.
12. Mattingly, J.D., Aircraft Engine Design. 2nd ed. 2002.
13. Gamble, E., D. Terrell, and R. DeFrancesco, Nozzle selection and design criteria. AIAA Paper,
2004. 3923: p. 1-11.
14. Stitt, L.E., Exhaust nozzles for propulsion systems with emphasis on supersonic cruise aircraft.
1990.
15. MORAN, J.P., Similarity in high-altitude jets. AIAA Journal, 1967. 5(7): p. 1343-1345.
16. Peters, C. and W. Phares, The structure of plumes from moderately underexpanded supersonic
nozzles. 1970: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
17. Schoones, M. and W. Bannink, Base Flow and Exhaust Plume Interaction. 1998, Delft University.
18. Cain, T.M., An experimental study of under-expanded jets. Oxford Univ Report, 1992. 1.
19. Simons, G.A., Effect of nozzle boundary layers on rocket exhaust plumes. AIAA journal, 1972.
10(11): p. 1534-1535.
20. Boynton, F.P., Highly underexpanded jet structure-Exact and approximate calculations. AIAA
Journal, 1967. 5(9): p. 1703-1704.
21. Korst, H., et al., Simulation and Modeling of Jet Plumes in Wind Tunnel Facilities. Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, 1981. 18(5): p. 427-434.
22. HUBBARD, E.W., Approximate calculation of highly underexpanded jets. AIAA Journal, 1966.
4(10): p. 1877-1879.
23. Chernyi, G.G., Introduction to hypersonic flow. 2013: Academic Press.
24. Moran, J.P., Mixing layers for highly underexpanded supersonic jets in hypersonic streams.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1974. 65(01): p. 153-175.
25. Garcia, R.G., CFD simulation of flow fields associated with high speed jet impingement on
deflectors. 2007.

81
26. Krzywoblocki, M., Jets-review of literature. Jet Propul, 1957. 26: p. 760-779.
27. Anderson, A.R., Characteristics of free supersonic jets exhausting into quiescent air. Journal of
Jet Propulsion, 1955. 25(1): p. 13-15.
28. Seddon, J. and L. Haverty, Experiments at mach numbers from 0.5 to 1.8, on side intakes of
normal-shock type without boundary layer control. Part I. the nature of pre-entry flow and its
effect on pressure recovery. 1954: Ministry of Aviation.
29. Owen, P., The Flow in an Axially Symmetric Supersonic Jet from a Thornhill, CK Nearly-Sonic
Orifice into a Vacuum. Aero. Res. Council Report. 9.
30. Love, E.S., et al., Experimental and theoretical studies of axisymmetric free jets. 1959.
31. Snedeker, R.S., A study of free jet impingement. Part 1. Mean properties of free and impinging
jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1971. 45(02): p. 281-319.
32. Dash, S., H. Pergament, and R. Wilmoth, Prediction of nearfield jet entrainment by an interactive
mixing/afterburning model. 1978.
33. Dash, S.M., D.E. Wolf, and J. Seiner, Analysis of turbulent underexpanded jets. I-Parabolized
Navier-Stokes model, SCIPVIS. AIAA journal, 1985. 23(4): p. 505-514.
34. Chuech, S., M.-C. Lai, and G. Faeth, Structure of turbulent sonic underexpanded free jets. AIAA
journal, 1989. 27(5): p. 549-559.
35. Woodmansee, M.A., J. Dutton, and R.P. Lucht. Experimental measurements of pressure,
temperature, and density in an underexpanded sonic jet flowfield. in AIAA Fluid Dynamics
Conference, 30 th, Norfolk, VA. 1999.
36. Brown, G.L. and A. Roshko, On density effects and large structure in turbulent mixing layers.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1974. 64(04): p. 775-816.
37. Steffen, C., D. Reddy, and K. Zaman, Numerical modeling of jet entrainment for nozzles fitted
with delta tabs. AIAA Paper, 1997: p. 97-0709.
38. ANSYS(R). 2016; Available from: http://www.ansys.com/Products/Fluids/ANSYS-Fluent.
39. Pletcher, R.H., J.C. Tannehill, and D. Anderson, Computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer.
2012: CRC Press.
40. Blevins, R.D., Applied fluid dynamics handbook. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984, 568
p., 1984. 1.
41. Spalart, P.R. and S.R. Allmaras, A one equation turbulence model for aerodinamic flows. AIAA
journal, 1992. 94.
42. Kim, S.-E., D. Choudhury, and B. Patel, Computations of complex turbulent flows using the
commercial code FLUENT, in Modeling complex turbulent flows. 1999, Springer. p. 259-276.
43. Kalitzin, G., et al., Near-wall behavior of RANS turbulence models and implications for wall
functions. Journal of Computational Physics, 2005. 204(1): p. 265-291.
44. Mattingly, J.D. and H. Von Ohain, Elements of propulsion: gas turbines and rockets. 2006:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Reston, Va, USA.
45. Jaw, L.C. and J.D. Mattingly, Aircraft engine controls: design, system analysis, and health
monitoring. 2009: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
46. Engine, J.A. RD-93 2015; Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33#RD-93.
47. Technologies, K. RD-33 Engines. 2015; Available from:
http://www.klimov.ru/en/production/aircraft/RD-33-family/.
48. Etkin, B. and L.D. Reid, Dynamics of flight: stability and control. Vol. 3. 1996: Wiley New York.

82