62 64848 38'7
w 0 e v) h- 0
- n
e e . . . . . e . . . . . . e
o w - - . . : RME58GlOi e . e .
e. . e. e. . e e . . e e .
e.. e... .*e . e.. e.. e.. e e .e.* e..
R ESEARCH M EMORAN DUM
OFF-DESIGN PERFORMANCE OF DIVERGENT EJECTORS
(I+
x 0 e w X
By Milton A. Beheim
Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory Cleveland, Ohio
C ~ D o C u ? . m r n
This materlal contains information affecting th, Nntional Defense of tbe United States within tbe meaning of the e s p i o ~ g ~ lawa, TYtls 18, U.S.C., Sea. 793 and W, tbe trpIyImk38ion or revelation of which in my manner to an unauthoriced p s o n is pmhtblted by law.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
WASHINGTON September 30, 1958
I . 0.. 0.. ... a . .... a
......................... . . . . . . . . ........ 0 . 0 . 0 . . ...... NACA RM E&iOa": : .** .. 0 . . . . . 0.. @QIFIG&iALi ... i ....... ..........
RESEARCH MJ3MORANwM
OFF-DEIGN PERFORMANCE OF DrVERGENT EJECPORS*
By Milton A. Beheim
SUMMARY
The off-design performance of fixed- and of variable-gemetry di- vergent e jectors was investigated. The ejectors, which were designed f o r turbojet operation a t Mach 3, were investigated i n the Mach number range 0.8 t o 2. The performance of a fixed-geometry ejector with high secondary-flow ra t e s was competitive w i t h t ha t of more complex variable- geometry ejectors. Variable-geometry ejectors with compromises t o re- duce mechanical complexity produced performance reasonably close t o that of an idea l variable ejector.
INTRODUCTION
Simple fixed-geometry divergent ejectors designed f o r good perform- ance a t high f l ight speeds (e.g., Mach 3) suf fer large performance losses a t low speeds. on the geometry and the j e t and stream interaction. that the performance of such an ejector c m be so poor a t low speeds that an airplane would not be able t o accelerate t o the high design speed. In other cases where suf f ic ien t thrust w a s available during acceleration, excessive fue l consumption occurred.
This loss resu l t s f r o m j e t overexpansion, which depends Analyses have shown
The following techniques of solving the problem a re considered i n t h i s investigation: off-design performance; (2) employ variable geometry; (3) employ large amounts of secondary airflow t o f i l l i n the excess area of the exit. These schemes were investigated i n the NACA L e w i s 8- by 6-foot tunnel i n the Mach number range 0.8 t o 2.
(1) Compromise the design performance t o improve
SYMBOLS
CD
D b o a t t a i l plus base drag
b o a t t a i l drag coefficient based on maximum cross-sectional area
"T i t l e , Unclassified. .......... ....................... . .... . 0 . 0 . . ...... . . . ........ . 0 . . 0 . . . 0 . 0 . .
0 .
0 .
0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................
2
dB
de
dm dp aT dS
F
Fi
2
M
mb
mS
mo
pP
pS
p1
PB
Pbt
Pe
PO
TP
vO
TS
m m m m m m m m m o m m m m m m m m o o
m m m m m ommo
om m m orno m m o m m m m m m m m o
m m m m m .moo 0 0 m m
m m om m m
m m m mom oomm om. m m
0
maximum forebody diameter
primary-nozzle diameter
spoiler diameter
secondary-nozzle diameter
ejector gross thrust
gross thrust of ideal completely expanded primary flow
axial distance from primary-nozzle exit to ejector exit
Mach number
bypass mass-flow rate
secondary mass-flow rate
maximum capture mass-flow rate of inlet
primary total pressure
secondary total pressure
free-stream total pressure (upstream of model)
local Pitot pressure
base static pressure
boattail static pressure
exit-plane static pressure
free-stream static pressure (upstream of model)
primary total taperatwe
secondary total temperature
free-stream velocity
......................... ................... .......... 0 . 0 . 0 .
0 . . 0 . 0 . W p r i m e ...... *f&-fcl'cwjratq : ................ . . . . . . .... P
wS secon&& ;ei&t-flow ra t e
Y
U divergence angle, deg
P b o a t t a i l angle, deg
Subscripts :
ab afterburning
a l oca l
nb no af terburning
normal distance from body surface
3
Ejector Models
Thirteen different e jectors were used i n this investigation, each ident i f ied by number. i, and each sketch i s accompanied with a table of the geometrical param- eters. 1 2 were mounted on the cyl indrical section of the model, which had an 8-inch outside diameter. With ejector 13 the outside diameter of the cylinder was reduced from 8 t o 6.4 inches by an abrupt step 22 inches upstream of the e x i t plane.
Sketches of the ejectors are presented i n figure
Ejectors 1 t o These parameters are a l s o summarized i n tab le I.
Ejectors 1 t o 9 and 13 had low boat ta i l angles representative of nacelle-type instal la t ions. as with cer ta in fuselage-type installations.
Ejectors 10 t o 1 2 had high boa t t a i l angles
Ejectors 1 t o 9 were investigated with e i ther of two primary- nozzle-exit diameters corresponding t o operation with f u l l afterburning and with no afterburning. "he r a t i o of nonafterbuming t o afterburning primary-nozzle diameter was 0.75.
Ejectors 1 t o 6 ( f igs . l (a ) t o (d)) were fixed-geometry types with various values of the geometrical parameters t h a t a f f ec t e jector per- formance (such as expansion rat io , secondary diameter ra t io , divergence angle, etc.). Ejector 3 had a divergent wall contoured (by the method of re f . 1) t o produce nearly axial flow a t the ex i t plane.
A l l e jectors except ejector 3 were conical.
.......... ....................... 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . . . ...... .......... .om: . :C@$&)mM*
. . .... 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ........ . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 .
4
T w ~ M ~ d i f l p ? t $ P o n b ~ f y j e c t p ~ + ~ t miproye ?;y$es$gn performance a r e sho& fi Tlg& ,fer. : Tk#Zg w e iJ):spotler r-q $0 pcourage j e t separatio"; Ai?? (7 air'ih';fectfbn %fkbugh Mfrfulbf. sloes ih the divergent w a l l t o encourage j e t separation and t o fill i n excess flow area a t the ex i t plane. simultaneously.
These techniques were investigated independently and a l so
One type of variable-geometry ejector (7) that was investigated i s i l l u s t r a t ed i n figure l(f). The divergent portion was assumed t o be com- posed of several leaves that could be rotated i n such a manner as t o vary the e x i t area while maintaining a f ixed secondary diameter. Mach number (and simultaneously nozzle pressure r a t io ) decreased, the exit area would be decreased t o provide the correct e x p s i o n ra t io . The two- step boa t t a i l geometry that i s shown would r e su l t i n bigher b o a t t a i l drag a t Mach 3 than would occur i f a single boa t t a i l angle had been selected, but it would incur l e s s drag with low-speed positions. ejector of t h i s type w a s not constructed; but ra ther various posit ions of the movable portion corresponding t o operation a t various Mach numbers were selected, and models were constructed t o simulate these conditions.
A s f l ight
An ac tua l variable
Another variable-geometry ejector (8) that was investigated i s shown i n figure l ( g ) . be constructed of leaves that could be rotated t o vary e x i t area while maintaining a constant secondary diameter. However, i n this case the boa t ta i l was kept fixed. A s a resu l t , as e x i t area decreased, base area increased. The model was designed with a removable base p la te t o invest i - gate the e f fec t of base bleed flow. Again, fixed-geometry models were constructed t o simulate various positions of i n t e re s t of the movable por- t ion of the ejector.
A s with e jec tor 7, the divergent portion was assumed t o
A t h i r d ty-pe of variable-geometry ejector (9) that was investigated i s shown i n figure l ( h ) . both fixed and tne secondary diameter was variable. was assumed t o be constructed of leaves that were hinged a t the e x i t plane. A t the design Mach number the secondary diameter would be a t i t s minimum value and would be large enough t o permit the passage of the cooling secondary airflow. eter would be increased t o permit the flow of suf f ic ien t ly large quantit ies of secondary a i r t o f i l l i n the excess flow area a t the e x i t plane and prevent overexpansion of the primary flow. As with the other variable ejectors, fixed-geometry models simulated posit ions of i n t e r e s t of the hypothetical variable ejector.
In t h i s case the boa t t a i l and ex i t area were The divergent w a l l
A t lower than design Mach numbers the secondary diam-
A s indicated ear l ie r , e jectors 10 t o 12 ( f igs . l(i) and ( j ) ) had higher boa t t a i l angles than those discussed thus far. They simulated a f a m i l y of fixed-geometry ejectors with various values of the geometrical parameters. afterburning) was investigated with these models.
only one primary-nozzle position tcorresponding t o f u l l
5
Tunnel Instal la t ion
A schematic sketch of the ins ta l la t ion of the model i n the tunnel i s shown i n f igure 2. The downstream portion of the walls of the 8- by 6-foot t e s t section have been perforated t o permit operation a t any Mach number from 0.6 t o 2.1. a t t a i n a more continuous blockage area dis t r ibut ion f o r more uniform flow a t transonic speeds. Primary and secondary air were ducted separately t o the model through the support s t ru t s .
The support s t ru t s were swept forward 4 5 O t o
P i t o t pressure prof i les normal t o the body j u s t upstream of the boat- t a i l a re shown i n f igure 3 f o r several tunnel Mach numbers. were placed i n the plane of the s t r u t and also normal t o it. location is indicated in f igure 2. profiles, it appears that boundary-layer thickness was about 0.8 inch a t Mach numbers 2, 1, and 0.8, and about 1.3 inches a t Mach 1.35.
Survey rakes Their axial
Ignoring unusual dis tor t ions of thy
Local Mach numbers (denoted by Mz) computed by means of the Fbyleigh equation fram the loca l body s t a t i c pressure and the P i to t pressure far- thes t from the body a r e shown i n figure 3. These Mach numbers show a circumferential var ia t ion that probably was due t o the wake from the support s t r u t . A t tunnel Mach numbers 2, 1, and 0.8, the loca l Mach number was lower i n the region behind the s t r u t , and a t Mach 1.35 it was lower i n the plane normal t o the s t ru t . The reason f o r this shift of the low Mach number region as tunnel Mach number is varied is not apparent.
Boat ta i l static-pressure distributions a l so indicated a varying de- gree of circumferential variation. This variation w a s greater a t higher tunnel Mach numbers (e.g., Mach 1.35 compared with Mach 0.8) and a l so generally with higher boa t t a i l angles. The worst condition investigated (ejector 5 o r 6) i s shown i n figure 4 a t several tunnel Mach numbers. The boa t t a i l angle i n this case was 7.5O. The region of lowest pressure was behind the s t r u t a t Mach 1.35, but at Mach 1 it was i n the plane normal t o the s t r u t . A t Mach 0.8 the pressures were fairly uniform, e jectors 10 t o 1 2 had higher over-all boa t t a i l angles (in two s teps) than ejector 5, the pressures were more uniform. The pressures of other ejec- t o r s w i t h lower-angle single-step boat ta i ls were a l so more uniform.
Although
All ejectors were investigated a t several Mach numbers. With ejectors 1 t o 1 2 several values of primary-nozzle pressure r a t i o were employed a t each Mach number, and with each pressure r a t i o several values of secondary flow were investigated. several values of secondary flow was investigated a t each Mach number with e jec tor 13.
Only one primary-nozzle pressure r a t i o w i t h
For e jectors 1 t o 9 f u l l afterburning was assumed f o r Mach numbers 1.35 and greater, and no afterburning f o r Mach numbers 1.35 and less . The assumption of the Mach number a t which afterburning was turned on did not a f f e c t the generali ty of the conclusions. For e jectors 10 t o 13 f u l l afterburning was assumed t o occur over the Mach number range of the in- vestigation. about 80° F.
Total temperature of both primary and secondary a i r was
Data Reduction
Weight-flow ra t e s were obtained with standard ASME or i f ices . mary t o t a l pressure was cmputed from the primary weight-flow r a t e and measured s t a t i c pressures i n the primary nozzle upstream of the con- vergent- portion. Secondary t o t a l pressure w a s measured with rakes up- stream of the primary-nozzle-exit station.
Pr i -
Because the force-measurement apparatus did not perform with con- s i s t en t accuracy during the test, ejector gross thrus t (exit-plane t o t a l momentum) w a s generally computed from the sum of the t o t a l mamentum of the primary and secondary streams a t reference s ta t ions within the ejector plus the sum of w a l l forces i n the axial direct ion between the reference s ta t ions and the e x i t plane. In general, this procedure gave sa t i s fac tory resu l t s . Ekceptions occurred when large quant i t ies of secondary airflow were used (specifically, the exceptions were ejector 8, Mach 1.35 with no afterburning, and e jec tor 9, bkch numbers 1.35 and 1.0 with no afterburn- ing) . ceeded the maximum theoret ical value with the given secondary and primary weight-flow rates and t o t a l pressures. i n f igure 5 f o r e jector 8. of adjusted th rus t r a t i o (computed frm the gross th rus t obtained by the procedure described) exceeded the maximum possible value a t very high values of secondary-flow ra t io . This did not occur a t Mach 1.0 ( f ig . 5(b) ) , which was the more typical situation. It i s believed tha t t h i s e r ror was a r e s u l t of circumferential variations of the secondary flow that were not detected with the instrmeotat ion employed and that became
In these cases the thrus t computed by th i s procedure s l i gh t ly ex-
This discrepancy i s i l l u s t r a t e d A t Mach 1.35 (f ig . 5(a)) the measured value
important only when the secondary-flow ra te was unusually large. For these exceptional cases, the maximum theoret ical values were used i n the A.NALYSIS section.
With the modified versions of e jector 1 (i.e., with spoi lers and with air inject ionj the waii surfaces were too irrzg-Llar t o e v s l i ~ t e the v a ~ force. s t r a i n gage and bellows arrangement) were used of necessity. configurations the apparatus appeared t o be operating reasonably well.
Therefore, the data from the force-measurement apparatus (a For these
Thrust Ratio
In the ANALYSIS section of the report an effect ive thrus t r a t i o (F - msVg - D)/Fi th rus t r a t i o F/Fi and the boa t t a i l plus base drag D. A t some Mach numbers where these data were not obtained, an estimated value f o r small secondary-flow r a t i o was computed by the following procedure: (1) If the expansion r a t i o was correct for the particular nozzle pressure r a t i o ( fu l ly expanded), a 2-percent l o s s i n gross-thrust r a t i o was assumed t o account f o r f r i c t i o n losses i n the nozzle. gross-thrust r a t i o due t o flow divergence a t the exit plane were computed assuming F/Fi = (1 + cos a)/2. (3) If the primary flow was underex- panded, the addi t ional loss i n gross-thrust r a t i o was computed from a calculation of exit-plane momentum. expanded, estimates of gross-thrust r a t i o were made based on e a r l i e r un- published data. (6) The configurations f o r which these estimates were made did not have bases; therefore, base drag was not needed.
i s evaluated t h a t required a knowledge of the gross-
( 2 ) Additional losses i n
(4) If the primary flow was over-
(5) B o a t t a i l drag was computed from reference 2.
The basic data a re presented i n figures 6 t o 22, Parameters pre- sented a r e thrus t ra t io , e jector pressure rat io , b o a t t a i l drag coeff i - cient, and e i the r base pressure r a t i o ( i f a base existed) or e x i t static-pressure r a t i o as functions of secondary-flow ra t io . static-pressure r a t i o i s useful as an indication whether or not the p r i - mary flow i s overexpanded.
The exit
ANALYSIS
The data of figures 6 t o 22 have been used i n an analysis of the performance of the ejectors over a Mach number range t o obtain a compar- ison of the solutions considered for the off-design e jec tor problem. A s a basis f o r canparison, nozzle pressure-ratio schedules with Mach number were assumed as shown i n figure 23. Two schedules were used: the
0 m o mo 0 ma o m m ma0 m o m m m o m m m m oomo m m m 0 m o o m o a 0 0 m a m a
a 0 0 0 0 . omom o m m o m 0 m m m m m m o o o m om0
0 0 0 m a m o m o m 0 0 c&QI&$~& 0 . m.0 i IU$A RM E58G10a 8
currently or planned f o r the near future, and the schedule f o r e jector 13 is f o r an advanced, hypothetical, low-pressure-ratio turbojet using a transonic compressor with a design Mach number of 4.
The performnce parameter upon which the analysis i s based i s an effective thrust r a t i o (F - msVO - D)/Fi, defined as the ejector gross t h r u s t minus the free-stream momentum of secondary air minus the drag of the b o a t t a i l and base (if there i s one) divided by gross thrus t of the ideal fully expanded primary flow. W i t h this parameter, configurations designed f o r a given engine and nacelle s i ze but having d i f fe ren t a f t e r - body geometries and secondary flows can be compared direct ly .
Fixed Geometry and Low Secondary Flow
If a fixed-geometry e jec tor i s designed t o provide peak performance at a par t icu lar design Mach number, and i f off-design performance i s not a consideration, then the ejector of necessity must have the correct expansion r a t i o f o r that Mach number, and the flow divergence a t the exit plane must be small. Ejectors 1 t o 3 a r e of this type with a design Mach number of 3. Assuming that a 2-percent secondary-flow r a t i o is sufficient f o r cooling purposes over the Mach number range 0.8 t o 3, the performance of these ejectors i n t h i s Mach number range i s shown i n f ig- ure 24. speed range with no afterburning operation. Ejector 2, which had a larger secondary diameter than e jec tor 1, showed b e t t e r j e t separation character is t ics than ejector 1 only a t h c h 0.8. ejector 3 with a contoured divergent wall was about the same as t h a t of the conical ejectors.
Performance of a l l three ejectors was very poor i n the transonic
The performance of
The off-design performance of these fixed-geometry ejectors can be improved, a t the expense of on-design performance, i f the divergence angle i s increased or if the expansion r a t i o i s decreased. A higher divergence angle would improve the j e t separation charac te r i s t ics and thus reduce the degree of j e t overexpansion (although the pressures i n the separated region may s t i l l be lower than i s desirable because of the base-pressure phenomenon (ref. 3) ),. With a smaller expansibn ra t io , the f low would not be as badly overexpanded a t off-design conditions.
With ejector 4 the expansion r a t i o was the correct value f o r Mach 3 operation, as with e jector 1, but the divergence angle was increased from 9' t o 25O. The performance of this e jec tor i s compared with that of ejector 1 i n f igure 25, again f o r a flow r a t i o of 0.02. number afterburning performance of e jector 4 was estimated t o be somewhat less than that of e jec tor 1 because of the higher divergence angle, but large improvements i n performance occurred a t Mach numbers 0.8 and 1.0. However, no improvement was a t ta ined a t Mach 1.35 with no afterburning. the afterburning had been continued t o some lower Mach number than Mach
The high Mach
If
......................... . 0 . . e . . . ...... .......... ....................... ........ . . 0 .
NAcARME5&1ba... e . . e .e: 0 . : c Q N F . I e i 0 . 0 . . 9
With ejectors 5 and 6 the expansion r a t io i s decreased t o that cor- With 2-percent flow r a t i o responding t o complete expansion a t Mach 2.2.
the performances of ejectors 5 and 6 were ident ica l and a r e a l s o com- pared h3th tkt ~f e;ezt=r 1 i n figlze 25. underexpansion losses were appreciable (near Mach 3), e jector 5 o r 6 provided higher performance than e i the r ejector 1 or 4. The l o s s i n pe r fomnee of the compromised ejectors (4 t o 6) wits about the same a t Mach 3, but e jectors 5 and 6 were superior at a l l other Mach numbers. Therefore, it appears that a decreased expansion r a t i o i s a much b e t t e r compromise than an increased divergence angle.
Except f o r the reginn where
Fixed Geometry and High Secondary Flow
The reason a fixed-geometry ejector performs poorly a t Mach numbers l e s s than design i s that the e x i t area i s too large f o r the available pressure ra t io . If the secondary flow were increased suf f ic ien t ly a t t h i s condition, it would f i l l i n the excess e x i t area and prevent over- expansion of the primary flow. In designing a fixed-geometry e jec tor that will employ th i s technique t o improve the off-design performance, it i s necessary t o select a proper value of secondary diameter t o opti- mize over-all performance. It i s desirable that there be suf f ic ien t secondary flow t o prevent primary-flow overexpansion and a l so that the secondary flow have as high a t o t a l pressure as possible s o that over- a l l performance will be high. If the secondary diameter i s too large f o r the amount of secondary flow being used, then th ro t t l i ng losses of the secondary air would occur, with an accompanying loss i n e jec tor per- formance. On the other hand, if the secondary diameter i s too small, it may be impossible t o pass suf f ic ien t a i r a t the available pressure.
"he ef fec t of increased secondary f l o w on off-design ejector per- formance i s shown i n figure 26 f o r ejectors 3 and 6 and f o r two posi- t ions of t h e variable portions of ejector 9. Mach 1.35. mum values fo r the various e x i t diameter ra t ios . The effect ive thrus t r a t i o s increased rapidly as flow r a t i o increased even though f u l l free- stream momentum of the secondary air was charged against the ejector. Thus, large gains would be realized if the drag and w e i g h t of the i n l e t system t h a t provides the additional air can be kept low.
These data were obtained a t The secondary diameter ra t ios were not necessarily the opti-
One method of obtaining this additional air i s the use of auxi l iary in l e t s . Another method that was considered i n detai l is the use of the excess air-handling character is t ics of a fixed-capture-area main i n l e t a t lower than design speeds. Typical of i n l e t s of this type i s the one i l l u s t r a t e d i n the sketch of f igure 27. surface i s varied a t each Mach number so as t o maintain an i n l e t mass- flow r a t i o of 1, and excess air is disposed of through some s o r t of by- pass system (see re f . 4).
With th i s i n l e t the compression
For an assumed engine operating w i t h an i n l e t
.......... ....................... 0 . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .... . 0 . 0 . . ........ . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 .
0 . e . .......... .om: o : E C I I Y T M * *
of this type, the schedule of bypass mass-flow r a t i o i s shown i n figure 27. and use it i n the secondary passage of the ejector (assuming an a f t e r - burning primary temperature of 3500' R and a nonafterburning temperature of 1600' R), then maximum available secondary-flow r a t i o would be as shown i n figure 27. t ional total-pressure losses i n ducting the bypass air back t o the ejec- to r , and taking the upper schedule of nozzle pressure r a t i o of f igure 23, the maximum available e jector pressure r a t i o becames that shown a l so i n figure 27. In the analyses that follow, where secondary air i s assumed t o be obtained from the i n l e t bypass, the limits of available weight flow and of available pressure shown i n t h i s f igure w i l l apply. i c a l problems of ducting large quant i t ies of high-pressure a i r around the engine are not considered.
If it were possible t o duct a l l of this bypass a i r around the engine
Estimating i n l e t pressure recovery, assuming addi-
Mechan-
Figure 28 shows the improvement i n performance of e jector 6 when large amounts of secondary air are supplied by the i n l e t bypass. In t h i s case the secondary-flow r a t e (also shown i n the f igure) w a s re- s t r ic ted by the pressure l i m i t . Although the secondary diameter r a t i o selected f o r t h i s e jector was not necessarily the optimum, the -rove- ment in performance was large. compromised version of a Mach 3 ejector (i.e., the expansion r a t i o i s less than idea l a t Mach 3). I3ata a t high secondary-flow ra t e s were not obtained with ejectors that were not compromised (e.g., e jector Z), but the beneficial e f fec ts of high secondary flow would be obtained with these ejectors also.
A s discussed ear l ie r , e jector 6 i s a
The e f f ec t on performance of using spoi lers with ejector 1 i s shown i n figure 29. The spoilers were assumed t o be retracted f o r high-speed afterburning operation and extended f o r transonic nonafterburning oper- ation. A t Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 the spoilers caused j e t separation as they were intended t o do, and hence improved performance re la t ive t o the basic unmodified configuration, but f a i l e d t o do so a t Mach 1.35. Even when the j e t did separate, however, the pressures i n the separated re- gionwere s t i l l less than po because of the base pressure phenomenon described i n reference 3. Thus, performance remained r e l a t ive ly low. Using i n l e t bypass air, air inject ion with the spoi lers eliminated the loss i n performance a t Mach 1.35 as shown i n the figure, but the resu l t - ing performance was no be t te r than that of the basic e jector , At Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 the performance was about the same with air inject ion plus spoilers as with the spoi lers alone. With air inject ion alone ( w i t h the air again supplied by the i n l e t bypass), about t he same im- provement i n performance was at ta ined a t Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 as with the spoilers, but there was no improvement over the basic e jector a t Mach 1.35, The secondary-flow rates again were limited by the pressure available.
11
Although the leve l of performance was low, a fur ther comparison of the performance of the basic e jector 1 with the performance with a i r in- jection i s presented i n f igure 30. A t Mach 1.35 (f ig . 30(a)) the per- formance of the basic ejector w a s higher a t a given flow r a t i o than that with air injection. Therefore, a t this Mach number it would be be t te r not t o use the air- inject ion slots and t o pass a i l am.ils%le aec~z&~qy
30(b)) s l igh t ly higher performance was obtained a t a given flow r a t i o when air inject ion through the slots was employed. A t Wch 0.8 (f ig . 30(c)), the performance was higher when the s l o t s were employed, even
l air through the secondary passage of the basic ejector. A t Mach 1 (f ig .
I w i t h zero secondary flow, than with the basic ejector. Increasing sec- ondary flow through the s l o t s produced relatively small improvements i n I
performance. open the primary flow did not overexpand internally as much as w i t h the basic ejector.
Wall pressure distributions showed that with the s l o t s
Variable Geometry and Low Secondary Flow
An idealized variable-geometry ejector would have the following features: ra t io , (2) variable secondary diameter t o produce a divergent shroud f o r each e x i t position, (3) variable boa t ta i l angle t o avoid base area as e x i t diameter i s varied, with leaves sufficiently long that boat ta i l drag i s negligible. An ex i t of this type m s not tested, because with the nozzle always on design and with negligible drag the effect ive thrust r a t i o i s known t o be about 0.97.
(1) variable ex i t diameter t o obtain the idea l expansion
A simpler version of this ex i t was investigated and is designated The secondary diameter was kept fixed as e x i t area varied, e jector 7.
and in te rna l and external l ines were varied w i t h a single s e t of leaves that were short , and therefore boa t t a i l drag was not negligible. The schedule of e x i t diameter r a t i o employedis shown i n figure 31. ejector was designed so that the idea l expansion r a t i o was attainable f o r afterburning operation between Mach numbers 1.35 and 3. assumed that during the t ransi t ion from afterburning t o nonafterburning operation a t Mach number 1.35 the ex i t area was not changed. sul ted i n overexpansion a t Mach 1.35 (nonafterburning) . 1 and 0.8, the e x i t diameter was near the ideal value. numbers 1 and 0.8 the exit diameter was less than the secondary diam- e t e r (since the la t ter was kept fixed), with the resu l t that the shroud was convergent rather than divergent. re la t ive ly low thrus t par t icular ly a t low secondary-flow ra t io s and high primary pressure r a t i o s . a t least as large as the secondary diameter and permit overexpansion (as a t Mach 1.35, nonafterburning) o r t o determine some optimum intermediate exit position. that would permit secondary diameter t o vary as the leaves rotated might avoid this problem.
The
It was
This re- A t Wch numbers
However, a t Mach
Such a configuration can have
Alternatives w o u l d be t o keep the e x i t diameter
The selection of a different pivot point of the leaves
................................. . . . . . 0 . 0 . : .aowxbmx@= . .a . a .
a . * a * * a 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 . 0 . . a 0.0 ........ .............
12
. 0 . . 0 . . ......................... ....................... .......... ........ ...... . e . 0 . . 0 . 0 . . :.go&={ i.0 0 . 0.. $L@ RM E58G10a
The performance of ejector 7 is presentedin figure 32 f o r 2-percent flow ra t io . Also shown f o r reference is the estimated performance of the ideal variable e jector described earlier. Although e jec tor 7 would have <ne ideal expansion r a t i o a t Psach 3, i ts performance w i i i be iess than that of the idea l e jector because of the b o a t t a i l drag. Its r e l a t ive ly low performance a t Mach numbers 1.35 and 1 (nonafterburning) was due t o overexpansion and t o the convergent shroud, respectively.
Another e jector that a l so was mechanically simpler than the i d e a l variable e jector was ejector 8. b e a t t a i l were fixed. this ejector i s shown i n figure 33. a t Mach 3 i n order t o a l lev ia te the off-design problem somewhat . The diameter r a t i o was near the idea l value a t Mach numbers between 2 and 1.35. of the secondary diameter i n order t o avoid the problem of the conver- gent shroud. a t a l l Mach numbers less than that. This resulted in overexpansion f o r nonafterburning operation.
The secondary diameter and a l so the The schedule of e x i t diameter r a t i o employed with
The flow was s l igh t ly underexpanded
For th i s e jector the e x i t diameter was never l e s s than the value
The shroud became cylindrical a t Mach 1.35 and remained so
The performance of e jector 8 with 2-percent flow r a t i o (without base flow) i s presented i n f igure 34. e jec tor i s presented as a reference. A t Mach 3 it i s estimated t h a t the performance of e jector 8 would be less than that of the idea l e jector because the flow i s s l igh t ly underexpanded and because of boattail drag. A t transonic speeds the performance i s lower because of (1) overexpansion, ( 2 ) b o a t t a i l drag, and (3) base drag.
Again the performance of the idea l
Variable Geometry and High Secondary Flow
The improvement in performance of e jec tor 8 by employing large amounts of base flow t o eliminate the base drag i s a l so shown i n f igyre 34. It was assumed that the a i r was provided by the i n l e t bypass. The drop i n performance f o r nonafterburning operation was due pa r t ly t o overexpansion of the primary flow and also t o the total-pressure losses of the secondary flow.
Ejector 9 a l so was simpler than the idea l variable e jector i n t h a t the exit area and the boa t t a i l were fixed. The schedule of secondary &Lameter r a t i o that was employed i s presented i n figure 35. extrapolated data and one-dimensional-flow calculations, these values of diameter r a t i o were selected as those t h a t would match the available bypass flow schedule sa t i s fac tor i ly . The performance of this e jec tc r i s presented i n figure 36. A s described i n the Data Reduction section, the measured values of th rus t r a t i o exceeded the theoret ical ly maximum possible value f o r nonafterburning operation.
By means of
The theoret ical values are
. . ....................... .......... 0 . 0 . .... . . . . 0 . 0 . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . * C ~ N f q q ) & ~ . :... ..........
I
shown i n f igure 36 where this problem occurred. The performance a t Mach 3 again would be less than that of the ideal e jec tor because of b o a t t a i l drag and because the flow was slightly underexpanded (de/$ = 1.6) . The drop i n performance f o r nonafterburning operation occurred because the secondary t o t a l pressure was less than free-stream t o t a l pressure as a r e s u l t of the losses ass-med i n the m a x i - p r e s s u r e - r a t i o schedule of f igure 27.
C o m p a r i s on
The best performing ejectors of those considered thus far are com- pared i n f igure 37. high secondary flow was within the range of performance encompassed by the more cmplex variable-geometry ejectors. i n the low Mach number range was obtained w i t h e jector 9.
The performance of fixed-geometry e jec tor 6 with
The highest performance
Ejectors with N l Afterburning
q e c t o r s 10 t o 13 were investigated with f u l l afterburning over the en t i r e speed range. The supersonic performance of e jectors 10 t o 1 2 has been obtained i n an ea r l i e r investigation, and the speed range i s ex- tended i n t o the transonic range in the present report. of these ejectors based on the same pressure-ratio schedule as that of the previous ejectors i s shown i n figure 38 f o r 2-percent flow ra t io . Ejector 10, which differed from ejector 11 only i n that it had a smaller secondary diameter, had about the same performance as ejector 11. cause these ejectors had high b o a t t a i l angles representative of some fuselage-type instal la t ions, b o a t t a i l drag was high, and thus the general level of performance was low. (corresponding t o complete expansion at Mach 3) than e jec tors 10 and ll. For a given engine and fuselage size, an increase i n expansion r a t i o would r e su l t i n an increase i n exit area and hence a reduction i n boat- ta i l area. r a t i o a t off-design conditions would a t leas t be partly compensated f o r by the decreased boa t ta i l drag. construction, e jector 1 2 had a smaller primary-nozzle area than ejectors 10 and 11; whereas exit area, fuselage area, and boa t t a i l geometry were ident ical . Hence the data of figure 38 do not show the net e f f e c t of a simple change i n expansion ra t io , but rather show the e f f ec t of Mach number on the performance of various ejector geometries. As with ejec- t o r s 10 and 11, the leve l of performance of e jec tor 1 2 was low because of high b o a t t a i l drag, but additional losses occurred with e jec tor 12 because of the greater degree of overexpansion of the primary flow.
"he performance
Be-
Ejector 1 2 had a higher expansion r a t i o
The increased overexpansion losses w i t h the higher expansion
However, because of details of model
The effect of secondary flow on the performance of ejectors 10 to 12 at Mach 1 is shown in figure 39. formance occurred as flow ratio increased.
Again, appreciable increases in per-
The effect of secondary flow on the performance of ejector 13 is I
shown in figure 40. that for the previous nozzles (see fig. 23). crease in perfomce as a result of increasing the flow ratio differed with Mach number but was appreciable at all Mach numbers. The greatest improvement occurred at Mach 1.5.
The nozzle-pressure-ratio schedule was lower than The magnitude of the in-
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The off-design performance of fixed- and variable-geometry divergent ejectors has been investigated. operation at Mach 3 and were investigated in the Mach number range 0.8 to 2. The following results were obtained: I
The ejectors were designed for turbojet
1. Large performance losses occurred at off-design Mach numbers with simple fixed-geometry ejectors designed for peak performance at Mach 3.
2. Compromising design performance by increasing the divergence angle or by decreasing the expansion ratio produced large gains in off- design performance. than an increased divergence angle.
A decreased expansion ratio was a better compromise
3. Increasing the secondary airflow to fill in the excess exit area of fixed-geometry ejectors at off-design conditions produced large gains in performance and made them competitive with fairly complex variable- geometry types.
4. Variable-expansion-ratio ejectors with compromises to reduce I
mechanical complexity produced performance reasonably close to that of an ideal variable ejector.
I
5. An ejector with a fixed exit area and a variable secondary diam- eter with high secondary airflow produced the best performance of the types investigated.
Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
Cleveland, Ohio, July 15, 1958
1. Clj.ppinger, R. F.: Supersonic Axially Symmetric Nozzles. Rep. No. 794, Ballistic Res. Labs., Aberdeen Proving Ground, Dec. 1951.
Conical Boattails. 2. zaCk, john x. ; yLieoretical &zaa-L-e n4 n + r i h . r + i nna nni4 W n i r e rtra u I u u I ~ Y u " I v I I " W Y U ..I._ ---gs for
NACA TN 2972, 1953.
3. Baughman, L. Eugene, and Kochendorfer, Fred D.: Jet Effects on Base Pressures of Conical Afterbodies at Mach 1.91 and 3.12. E57E06, 1957.
NACA RM
4. Gertsma, L. W., and Beheim, M. A.: Performance at Mach Numbers 3,07, 1.89, and 0 of Inlets Designed for Inlet-Engine Matching Up to Mach 3. NACA RM E58B13, 1958.
16
M
It
* B
-P cd
a3
rl
U
9 N
Lo
rl "0. '0.
rl
-
0 N
In
rl 0 u!
rl
co M ? '?
9
N -
rl
Kl
N .
2 0
In lc
0 3. 1 __
? D
0 1
0
n M
U
z v, cd v
7-a
? to
__
Cn
rl '0.
3)
-I 4 n
0
-I
In
l-i 9
In 0 rl
0
-4 U
-I 0
h to n
to rl
O X
.F, cd
W
D 3 -I
-
-I -I
Ejector 2 T de
7
(a) Ejectors 1 and 2: dp,nb/dp,ab = 0.75; dm/dp,ab = 2.0.
L
de/dp,ab = 1.8 ds/dp,ab = 1.05
.- 1.21 '/dp,ab = 2.37
7 vdp,ab 0.875 B = 3.50 a = 23'
5 = 20 ejector ejector
L
de/dp,ab = 1.75 dg ds/dp,ab = 1.05
7 l/dp,ab = 2.37 7
L 0 = 20 dg/dp,ab = 1.78
(b) Ejector 3: dp,nb/dp,ab = 0.75; d,,/dp,ab = 2.0 .
de/dp,ab = 1.45 ds/dp,ab = 1.05 (ejector 5)
= 1.21 (ejector 6) L/dp,ab = 1.26 B = 7.50 a = go (ejector 5,)
- 6.5' (ejector 6)
(d) Ejectors 5 and 6: dp,nb/dp,ab = 0 . 7 5 ; dm/dp,ab = 2.0.
Figure 1. - Ejector geometries.
ejector ejector
18
. 0 . . 0 . . ......................... ....................... .......... ........ ...... . 0 . 0 .
0 . 0 0 . . . : :*e : :.e NJCAiRM E58GlOa 0 .
(e) Ejector 1 with spoilers and air injection.
C . 0 6 2 5 dp,ab (all Slo t s )
de/dp,ab = 1.8 (at M = 3 )
ds/dp,ab = 1 .05 . l/dp,ab = 1.5 5 , = 7'
. --
6, = -11.5' (at M = 3) 1-1 / ' I a = 14' (at M = 3)
(f) Ejector 7 : dp,nb/dp,ab = 0.75; d,,,/dp,ab = 2.0.
de/dp,ab = 1 . 6 (at ds/dp ,ab = 1.05
B = 6.5'
M = 3 )
l/dp,ab = 1 . 6 9
a = 9.5' (at M = 3) - dJdp,ab = 2.0.
de/dp,ab =
ds/dp ,ab = 1 .OS l/dp,;b = 1 . 6 9
p = 5 a = 9.5O (at M
I- I (h) Ejector 9 : dp,nb/dp,ab= 0.75; dm/dp,ab = 2.0.
Figure 1. - Continued. Ejector geometries.
(at M = 3)
= 3 )
....................... .... .......... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .
. . . . . . 0 . 0 .
0 . 0 . ...... 0 . . 0 . . . .........................
= 1.21 (ejector
a = 12.5' (ejector 10) 8.50 (ejector 11)
dB/dp,ab = 1'5
(I) Ejectors 10 and 11: dp,nb/$,ab = 1.0; d,Jdp,ab = 2.5.
I- 1.- (k) Ejector 13: dp,nb/dp,ab = 1.0; d,,,/dp,ab = 1.45.
Figure 1. - Concluded. Ejector geometries.
19
20 . . . . . . . ......................... . 0 . 0 . 0 . . ....................... .......... ........ ...... . t w a m ~ t.. t :.. WCq RM E58G10a . .... . 0 . 0 .
b rl
....................... .... .......... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . .
0 . . 0 . 0 .
a 0 . 0 . ...... a 0 . 0. . .........................
......................... . 0 . . 0 . .
.......... ....................... ........ ...... 0 . 0 . . . 21
. e .... NACA RM E58G10a : .e: CbNE’IiI&p~~..~ 0 . 0 . . . .
L1
A (a) Mach number, 2.0.
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 . l .9 1.0 Ratio of Pitot to free-stream total pressure, P1/Po
(b) Mach numher, 1.35
Figure 3. - Pitot pressure profiles upstream of boattail.
................................. . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . .... e . 0 . . 0 . ......................... 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ........ . ...... . 0 . . 0 . .
CONFIDENTIAL
22
.
I
0 . * . CONFIDENTIAL
T i -rl Ld -P -P Ld 0 P +I 0
E
k t-' rn PI 7 t 0 : a, ri v i k 0 k PI a, k 3 0 m a, k PI -P 0 -P
i
G a a, a 7 r-l V e 0 u I
M
a,
2l .d R
NACA RM E58G10a COWIDENTIAL I 23
.9(
0
-% 8
.94
.9c
.86
.82
.78
(a) Mach number, 1.35.
F&ure 4. - Boattail static-pressure distribution with 7.5O boattal l angle.
CCINFIDENTIAL
CrnIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
1.14
0 P :
.98
* 82
.74
.66 0 1 2 3 4
Locatlm
- 0 Aarmal t o strut 0 Behind S t N t
6 I - ~
Stat ion froas beginning of boa t ta i l angle, in.
(b) MBch number, 1.0.
p&ure 4. - Continued. Boattail s t a t i c - p e e u r e diatr lbut lon with 7.S0 boattall angle.
NACA RM E58G10a
Flow
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . . .......... ....................... . .... .
CONFIDENTIAL 25
1,oo
.98
96
* 92
,go
Location Normal t o s t r u t BehM s t r u t
I-
. -- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Station from beginning of b o a t t a i l W e , in.
(c) Mach n-r, 0.8.
Figure 4. - Concluded. Boattail statio-preasure distribution w i t h 7.5O boat ta i l angle.
.......... ....................... 0 . 0 . . . . ..... 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . ........ ......................... . 0 . . 0 . . . . .
......................... ........ . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .......... . 0 . . 0 . . . . . 0 . 0 . .... 0 . . 0 . 0 .
26 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
0
.rl Fr
k
4J m E 5 (a) Mach number, 1.35.
Secondary-flow ratio - ii$ ' wP
(b) Mach number, 1.0.
Figure 5. - Comparison of measured and m a x i m u m thrust ratios for ejector 8 with no afterburninR.
....................... .......... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . 0 . . ......................... . . .... 0 . . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 .
. 0 . 0 . ........ . 0 .
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA FM E58G10a
r- W In ?
.................. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . ....
0.. ............ 0 . . . CrnIDENTIAL
. 0 . . 0 . . ........ . ...... 0 . 0 . . . ...........
27
m
S
m z
w . c m G O 3.
ale - E i 3
0 z
0
- . ? ?
m c
- rl N
A e ”’
9 rl
h e 3
S s .. M
rl c
3 e
0 U Gi
0 z
e -
rl
h 0 0 0 (u .-, (u
’u
CONFIDENTIAL
......................... .... . 0 . 0 .
. 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . ........ . 0 . 0 . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .......... . 0 . .
28 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
.7
.6
.5
. 4
.3
.2
.3 .6 .6
.2 . 4 . 4
.1 .2 .2
0 0 0
0 .005 .01 d m . . ld ML. 4
r’ f i a a u lddaon 0 v u
u ddc G n
m -. 005 -m5 0
1.2 1.2 1.4 I O
2 a.? a L Q d r t R m m .. 1.0
e o u L- m Q4 * r l w f i
1 .o a m 1 .o
.8 .8 0 .02 .04 .06 0 .02 .04 . 0 6 .08 0 .02 .04 . d
Secondary-flow ratio, - :; E (a) No afterburning; Mach (b) No afterburning; Mach (c) No after-
burning; Mach number, 0.8.
number, 1.35. number, 1.0.
Figure 7. - Performance of ejector 2.
....................... .......... . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . ........ . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ......................... ...... .
CONFIDENTIAL
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .......... ....................... . .... . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . .
NACA RM E58G10a 29 CONFIDENTIAL
9 r(
k
f 4 3!
E
.. M d
D
al +J OI
P - D v
.......... ....................... 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . 0 . a . . ........ ......................... . 0 . . 0 . . ..... . . .
. 0 . . 0 . . ......................... 30
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
CONFIDENTIAL
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
NACA RM E58G10a
.9
.7
.6
.5
.9
.8
.7
.5
.6 .3 .5 .6 a
% a .
0
4 m
.2 .4 .5 .4 - 3
.2 .1 . 3 . 4
m a la h o 0 .2 .3 J 0
c) w a
-.2 -.l .1 .2
(11 .04 .02 .04 .04 MU L - ec, d ( u
* d * 4 KIL oa,
2; .02 .01 .02 .02
0 0 0 0
.8 .8 1.1 1.0 I O
2 a,? c ) h 0 KI2a
c ) m m m 010
c) h d X d W k
.6 . 9 .9
4 a*
A .4 .7 '-0 .02 .04- 0 .02 .04 .06-'0 .02 .04 .06'"0 .02 .04
Secondary-flow ratio, 2 (d) No after- burning; Mach number, 0.8.
(a) Afterburning; (b) No afterburning; (c) No afterburning; Mach number, Mach number, 1.35. Mach number, 1.0. 1.35.
Figure 9. - Performance of ejector 4. ....................... .......... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e * e . 0 . . ......................... . . .... 0 . 0 .
0 . 0 .
. . . . e 0 . 0 . ........ . 0 . 0 .
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58GlOa
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . .e.. 0 . 0 . . .......... ....................... . . . . a .
CONFIDENTIAL 31
Secondary-flow ratlo, 2 P y$
(c) NO afterburning; Mach number, 0.8.
(a) No afterburning; M a c h number, 1.35. (b) NO afterburning; Mach number, 1.0.
Figure 10. - Performance of e j e c t o r 5.
.......... ....................... 0 . 0 . . . . ..... 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . 0 . a . . ........ ......................... . 0 . . 0 . . . . .
CCTNFIDENTIAL
......................... ........ . 0 . e e . e . 0 . ...... e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . .... . e . ....................... .......... . . e . 0 . . . e e . 0 .
32
3 3 3 3
CONFIDENTIAL
9 9
NACA RM E58G10a
i 4
Y)
Y
=?
N.
1
,. - 0
3
Y)
3
L D
?
E r m 5
M
3 E L
P
u c m
z m ..-. Y
CL)
k 0 c, 0 a, n a,
k 0
a,
(d E k 0 k k a, PI
I
r l rl
a, k
d I%
2
2l
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .......... ....................... .... . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . .
NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL 33
d e k
.3 .3 .3 al I l k 0 d ;P,R
e d\
- & . k .2 .2 .2
.02 .02 .03 d l rl d MdS c l l d % C I P
0 0 .01
i.0 1.0
0
2 t a" .8 .9 Q 0 d . + o d + + + m .6 .8
A . 7 . . .- 0 .02 .04 .06 0 .02 .04 .06 0 . 02 .04 .06
Secondary-flow ratio, -
(a) No afterburningj Mach (b) No afterburningj Mach ( c ) No afterburningj Mach number, 1.35. number, 1.0. number, 0.8.
Figure 12. - Performance of ejector 1 with spoilers.
.......... ....................... 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . ........ ......................... . 0 . . 0 . . ..... . . .
C r n I D r n I A L
* a ..a *a . a * * * . *a a * * a * * . . *a a * . * . a a . a a . a . . a a .
a . . .a .a . a * * a . a * . a a . a . a a .a*. a * * a a . a .
a a a . a a. a
a * . . a * a * * **.a a * * . *.a * * a . a * . a. . . * a * .a*. a
34
c -- b?
P i m ? r(
CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
2 I:
a .
c o 3. eF. ha, ale ” E G 4 3 m c
.. ,5?
0 z
0 h -
9
2 r(
e 3
5:
9 .. bo d E
3 e PI
m 0 z
e - -
C
3 ” 0 PI 9
C .A
h m .c U .+ 3 rl
h U 0
c) PI 4
PI 0
4
I 0 4
PI a I
c) 4
PI z 4 a
CONFIDENTIAL
......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ..e m e * ..e
. 0 . e .... 0 . 0 . 0 .
0 . . 0 . 0 . .
NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL
* *
Y
0
N 0 0
N 9
0
. 0 . . 0 . . ........ . ...... . 0 . 0 . e ...........
9 3
c e 3
.c
c
3 M
C
3 e
e, c
0 0
e
4
m
- -
COWIDENTIAL
35
......................... . 0 . 0 . 0 .
0 . 0 .
. 0 . . 0 . . ........ . 0 . . 0 . 0 .
...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .......... . . .... 0 . .
NACA RM E58G10a 36 CONFIDENTIAL
n ?.
N rl 0
m
(D v) N.
u) 0 M 0 . r l rl I” n
d N 9 9
I
9
-r 0
h 9
N 9 m 0
W 0
D
4 v m
3 0 rl c I h
a 0 0 0 VI
m
....................... .......... . . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . ........ . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . ......................... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . 0 . 0 . . C O m IDENT IAL
c h v 0
n 8
c
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
0 . 0 . . . . 0 . 0 . . .......... ....................... . 0 . . .... . . NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL 37
d 9
N 9
0 9
1s GO.. . a, m m m U Z .r( Gi 0 . m .. 7 4 b o - O C G - Zda, a - E 9 9 2 3 22
8 N 0 0
h 0 h 0 9 r(
9 ? (0
.. '9 0
h e 1
C . O W d . E d ..I . boa z5 h a e
U Gi B
I
v) d
al
k rl a . . 1 .
0 d
m 9
W
9
d 9
N 9
d 0 m N. 9
r?' d
B e 1
... M a 5% 4 "
0 2
a - -
9 9
. . . . . . CONFIDENTIAL
38
. . . . . . . ......................... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 .
0 . . . ........ . 0 . . . .... . . . . ....................... 0 . 0 . ..........
d 3 3 3
CONFIDENTIAL
3
3
* N 9 9
NACA RM ESBGlOa
3 3
F 0 ci 0 e, .T-J e, L
3 4
C OIWIDENTIAL
em. eemm m e e e m m m m e
em. meme
NACA RM E58G10a C O N F I D E N T I A L
m * 0 9 9
39
.. 03
0
h e 3
i:. O M @In z *
d
M - c a de C\ h m 3- e
m U 4
0 z
m h
v
M LD
d
a
% e
.I
9 rl
h m
1
I: V
z M
C
3
m U 4
0 z
e
e
.. 3
e
h
v
d 4
0 m
m e
s
8
.i
03
U 0 a, -3
m 4
m ” C E
0 4
m D.
e aJ e
d 0
C 0 U
I
W .-I
aJ
2 J 4 a
C O N F I D E N T I A L
.e 0.0 e,. *e . e... e.. e... .e. . e . e . * * * m.
e e . . . . e *
40
.9
.8
.7
CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
.9
.8
.7
.9
.8
.?
.2 .3 .3 aJ h
ln\ w w h a
2 I%@
a ~ .1 .2 .2 :: .: t'c, V d (uk w '3
0 .1 .1
.03 .09 .04 . - ? I
'2 hoc; Q d k C F1 + h aJ (uv d a O d 0 v u
.02 .07 .02 a
v I O R .6 1.0 1.0 .ri aJ\ 4 k F9 d 3 c 4 Pln m u ] -. w o a, k d (D P42 d .9 m .5
0 .02 .04 0 .02 .04 0 .02 .04 P i n
Secondary-flow ratio, - ws E W P
(a) No afterburning; (b) No afterburning; (c) No afterburningj Mach number, 1.35; Mach number, 1.0; Mach number, 0.8;
de/%, 1.53. de/%, 1.53. de/dp, 1.53.
Figure 17. - Performance of ejector 8 without base flow.
.e 0 e ..e *.*e e 0 e.. ..e 0.. 0 0.. ...e .e.
0 . e. e e. .*e .*e e.. e... e.. ...e .e *
e... e . e . e . e . e . e .e .e . ..e e ..e .
e . e e m e e . e * e 0 . e . . . e . . . e e . . . . 0 .
COKFIDENTIAL
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . 0 . . . .... . 0 . 0 . . .......... .......................
NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL
N d rl
Lo M rl m rf rl 4
....... .......... 0 . . . . 0 . 0 .
............ . .................... . .
rl In
.... ............. . . 0 . 0 . . . 0 . b 0 . . 0 . ...... 0 . ........ 0 .
41
m h
w 0
a v a,
4
a, 0 G
E
CONFIDENTIAL
. 0 . . 0 . . ........ ...... . . 0 . 0 . . ........... 42
......................... . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 0 . . 0 . 0 . ............ .......... CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
(D
rl
.. 9 rl 9
rl F- a, P
5 m
m
.................................... . -m2?’3s ?TXZ
0 . .... : O . a W O a = :.. . 0 . 0 . . ........ . ...... . . ........ . ......................... 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . CONFIDENTIAL
A
ld a
a, VI
M .i C
3 P
a,
4
0 z
a - v
dt m r-
a < a
ln
rl
h P
3
r:
x
bo
d C
P al * Q
0 z
..I
r
s ..
5
0 v
F- 4 2 0 u c) a,
h
a, 0 c
E h
a, [4
a a, a rl 0 C
U
I
m rl
a, $4
4 a 27
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .......... ....................... . . . . .... 0 . 0 . b 0 . 0 . 0 . 0
NACA RM E58G10a
9 3 3
4 ? W
3 4
4
d 4 m 3
m
CON!?IDENTIAL
c m -? N 0 9 9
W d N 0 9 9
m m d 4 9 4
03
rl 0-
3 30
0
N 3
m 4
d 9
43
COrnIDENTIAL
.................. . 0 . . 0 . ................... . 0 . . 0 . . ........ ...... . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 0 . . . .
0.. . . . . 44 CONFIDENTIAL
d N 9 9
dl 0 0
? 9
. . - T .I.I ao 3
....... . 0 . ..... . 0 . ....... NACA RM E58GlOa
0 rl
m 9
ID
9
* 9
@l
9
0 9
rl rl
N 0
rl rl
O d m ‘ O T 3 E . l
m 0
h D 3
F:
P h
0 -
w . c 3
9 w r l c
h a e o P C
3 E C h
c c O h
5 : a .-.I P
0 N
~m
m w
- .
27
a
ua
rl ?
B z s
E
S
5
a - -
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .......... ....................... . . . . .... 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . .
NACA RM E58GlOa C ONF IDENT IAL 45
1.1
1.0
. s
. u
.7
Secondary-flow r a t l o tP i; (b) Mach nunber, 1.0. ( c ) Mach number, 0.8. ( a ) Mach number, 1.35.
Figure 21. - Performance of ejector 12.
0 . ................................. 0 . . . . ..... 0 . 0 . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ........ . . o . m . . 0 ......................... . 0 . . 0 . . CONFIDENTIAL
......................... . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . .... 0 . .
. 0 . . 0 . . ........ . 0 . 0 .
...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .......... 0 . 0 .
46 C OW IDENT IAL NACA RM E58G10a
1. .. 0
I *ti
.o .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18
....................... .......... L . - 0 . 0 . . . . . . ...... . 0 . . 0 . 0
. . . . . . . . 0 ......................... b o
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a CON? IDENTIAL
9 m
“0. N
u)
cu
N
N
? $ “ 4
‘D. l-i
d: l-i
0 l-i
47
Ei m m
H
1
K) N
4%
n I
0
8” ,
PI
0 .rl e k
......................... . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 0 . . 0 . 0 . ....................... .......... . 0 . . 0 . . ........ . . 0 . 0 .
CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10e
Mach number,
Figure 24. - Effect, of flight Msch number on fixed ejector performance. Secondary-flow ratio, 0.02.
F ‘ I
.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Mach number, &&,
Figure 25. - Effect of design compromises with fixed edectors. Secondary-flow ratio, 0.02.
....................... .......... . 0 . 0 . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e ........ . ......................... 0 . 0 . 0 .
0 . 0 . . e ...... . 0 . . 0 . . . . e . CONFIDENTIAL
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . . . . . .... . 0 . 0 . . .......... .......................
NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL
1.0
.8
.7
.6
.5
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
1.40 2.40 1.45 1.60
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
Secondary-flow ratio, - wP
49
. . . . . . . ......................... ........ . . . . . . 0 . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . ....................... .......... 50 C 0" IDENT IAL NACA RM E58G10a
- . ....................... .......... . . . . . . . .................... . ...... . . ...... . . . .%-@ . mJ*btKia . . :.. . . 0 . ........ . . . 0 . 0 . . . .
* * c'O&IJ)~,L
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . . . . . .... 0 . 0 . . .......... ....................... .
NACA RM E58G10a C ONFIDENTTAL
? N
u)
N
N. N
'4 rl
N
rl
? 'r- ' 4 ' 9 0 ? 0
51
CD k 0
n 0
t (d a V P) m k 0
I
a, N
aJ
M 9 2
CONFIDENTIAL
......................... . . .... 0 . . 0 . 0 .
........ . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .......... . 0 . . 0 . . . 0 . 0 .
52 CONFIDENTLAL NACA RM E58G10a
0
M
? N
a N
d! N
N
N
(D
rl
-! ri
N
ri
9 ri
ri
k 0 +, CJ a, *W (u
. r i k
k 0
C 0
k v i cd rd c cd
I
0, N
2 d R
....................... .......... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ * a .................... . * 0 .
0 . 0 . . . . * . 0 . 0 . . ...... . 0 . 0 . 0
0 . . ~ ~ ~ ~ I D E N T I A L
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . b . . 0 . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .......... ....................... . . . . .... . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 .
NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL 53
^ . (a) Mach number, 1.35. u t
i! ( b ) Mach number, 1.0.
Secondary-flow r a t i o - WS 12 ' WP
(c) Mach number, 0.8.
Figure 30. - A i r in jec t ion compared with high secondary flow with e j ec to r 1 and no afterburning.
0 . ................................. m . moo 0 . . 0. m e em.. : 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ...... . ........ 0 . . 0 . . .........................
CONFIDENTIAL
54
1
1
1
0
......................... ........ . . . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 0 . . 0 . 0 . ....................... ..........
C ONF IDENT IAL NACA RM E58G10a
1
1
1.. 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 .8
Mach number,
Figure 31. - Expansion-ratio schedule of e j ec to r 7.
1
..- Mach number,
Figure 32. - Effect of design compromises of variable-geometry e j e c t o r 7. Secondary-flow r a t i o , 0.02.
.......... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . 0 . 0 .
0 . 0 . . . .
CONFIDENTIAL
......................... . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 . 0 . 0 . . . .... . 0 . 0 . . .......... .......................
NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL
9 M
? N
t cu
N
cu
co ri
55
a
k 0
N
rl
?
0 . 0 . . 0 . . .... . 0 . . 0 . . ........ ...... . . . . . .............
56
....................... . . 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . .......... .......... CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
0
a)
k 0 +, 0 a, ‘T I W
e +, a, E 0 W M a,
I i
a r t
I
% 2 k- k 0
a,
ti k 0 k k a, Pi I
+ m a, k 3 M .d ki
- -~ CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL
cu N
(D
ri
cu rl
57
? Fv
a k d 0 0 a, m I
In K)
58
9 ?
CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
Cn
k 0 -P 0 aJ ‘T3 a,
e t-’ a,
a, M I a,
l-i
P (d Ti k (d + k 0 a, u
F! 0 k k aJ PI I
(D M
a, k
rl & k
NACA RM E58G10a CONFIDENTIAL 59
9 K)
N 9 0
0 .ti .p ai k ?
N
A !d a c 0 U W m
W
N
rn a,
R Y c , cu ri 0 c, 0 rl
9 N
m k 0 .p U W *T-J e,
6 % a, P
"9 ri
a *ri k R k 0
W
4
h
W 9 5 I + * 4 2
a a, P 5 a
0 0 I
k a,
@ a r- trl
a, k 3 bo
Y ri
1 k 0 9
rl N
ri c1 U a, k
8 l
a) M
9 ri ?
a, k 5 bD .d k -? W
9 ? ? d
. . . . . . . ......................... ........ . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . ................... ..,a . .......... 60
cu ri
CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM E58G10a
-%
0
A * $ ? g
k
V a, m
cu ?
,o ri
0 @.I
(D rl
m ri
k 0 * u a, c3 a,
k 0
a, u
i4 k 0 k
R
0
$ n
ri k
h
a 2 0 a, m k 0
:: Q) E I
0 + e,
d 2 k
....................... . .......... . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '..'c*-&p&~ml .............. . . . . ...... . . . . . . ........ NACA - Langley Field, va,
- - 0 rl rl
k 0 -P 0 a, '3 a,
k 0 -P d
0 a, 'TI a,
0 a, "3 a,
a, P k
0 +i 0 a,
k 0
d 0
$ 0
5 a
0 cu k 0
- - a, P
a, P 0 4 m
2 m
0 cu
.. 3
.. dc d
" LD dc 0
5 -P Ld
I
0 m
660s
