Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
e . e.. e e
e...
. .*e
. .. .
e e.
o
e.
-
e. e..
.
e
e e .e.*
- ..
e e..
e . . . .
e . . . .
. :
38'7
RME58GlOi
e..
e..
R ESEARCH MEMORANDUM
n
h0
v)
( I +
x
X
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 m y manner to an unauthoriced p s o n is pmhtblted by law.
0..
... . ....
a
NACA RM E&iOa":
.**
0..
R E S E A R C H MJ3MORANwM
SUMMARY
The off-design performance of fixed- and of variable-gemetry divergent e j e c t o r s w a s investigated. The ejectors, which were designed f o r t u r b o j e t operation a t Mach 3, were investigated i n the Mach number range 0.8 t o 2. The performance of a fixed-geometry e j e c t o r with high secondary-flow r a t e s w a s competitive w i t h t h a t of more complex variablegeometry e j e c t o r s . Variable-geometry ejectors with compromises t o reduce mechanical complexity produced performance reasonably c l o s e t o that of an i d e a l variable e j e c t o r .
INTRODUCTION
Simple fixed-geometry divergent e j e c t o r s designed f o r good performance a t high f l i g h t speeds (e.g., Mach 3) s u f f e r l a r g e performance l o s s e s a t low speeds. This l o s s r e s u l t s f r o m j e t overexpansion, which depends on the geometry and the j e t and stream interaction. Analyses have shown that t h e performance of such an e j e c t o r c m be s o poor a t low speeds that an a i r p l a n e would not be able t o accelerate t o t h e high design speed. In other cases where s u f f i c i e n t t h r u s t w a s a v a i l a b l e during acceleration, excessive f u e l consumption occurred. The following techniques of solving the problem a r e considered i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n : (1) Compromise t h e design performance t o improve off-design performance; (2) employ variable geometry; ( 3 ) employ large amounts of secondary a i r f l o w t o f i l l i n the excess a r e a of t h e exit. These schemes were investigated i n the NACA L e w i s 8- by 6-foot tunnel i n t h e Mach number range 0.8 t o 2.
SYMBOLS CD
0
0
0.
2
mm
m m m m
m mm m m m m o m m m m m m o o m m m ommo
dB
orno
mmo
om mmm
mm
m m
mm
m
0
om
mom
.moo
oomm
om.
m m m m m m o m m m m m 0 0 m m
mm
de
dm
dp
aT
dS
F
Fi
2
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
mb
mS
mo
pP
pS
primary total pressure secondary total pressure free-stream total pressure (upstream of model)
p1
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
PB
Pbt Pe PO
T P
TS
vO
prime
wS
secon&&
0
0
;ei&t-flow
rate
Y
U
a
nb
Ejector Models Thirteen d i f f e r e n t e j e c t o r s were used i n this investigation, each i d e n t i f i e d by number. Sketches of t h e ejectors are presented i n f i g u r e i, and each sketch i s accompanied with a t a b l e of the geometrical parame t e r s . These parameters a r e a l s o summarized i n t a b l e I. Ejectors 1 t o 1 2 were mounted on the c y l i n d r i c a l section of the model, which had an 8-inch outside diameter. With e j e c t o r 13 t h e outside diameter of t h e cylinder w a s reduced from 8 t o 6.4 inches by an abrupt s t e p 22 inches upstream of the e x i t plane. Ejectors 1 t o 9 and 13 had low b o a t t a i l angles representative of nacelle-type i n s t a l l a t i o n s . Ejectors 10 t o 1 2 had high b o a t t a i l angles as with c e r t a i n fuselage-type i n s t a l l a t i o n s . E j e c t o r s 1 t o 9 were investigated with e i t h e r of two primarynozzle-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 w a s 0.75. E j e c t o r s 1 t o 6 ( f i g s . l ( a ) t o (d)) were fixed-geometry types with various values of t h e geometrical parameters t h a t a f f e c t e j e c t o r performance (such as expansion r a t i o , secondary diameter r a t i o , divergence A l l e j e c t o r s except ejector 3 were conical. Ejector 3 angle, etc.). had a divergent wall contoured (by the method of r e f . 1) t o produce nearly axial flow a t the e x i t plane.
.om:
.:C@$&)mM*
0.
T w ~ M ~ d i f l p ? t $ P o nf by ~ j e c t p ~ + ~miproye t ?;y$es$gn performance a r e sho& fi Tlg& ,fer. :T k # Z g w e iJ):spotler r q $0 p c o u r a g e j e t separatio"; Ai?? (7air'ih';fectfbn %fkbugh Mfrfulbf. sloes ih t h e divergent w a l l t o encourage j e t separation and t o fill i n excess flow area a t the e x i t plane. These techniques were investigated independently and a l s o simultaneously.
One type of variable-geometry e j e c t o r ( 7 ) that was i n v e s t i g a t e d i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e l ( f ) .The divergent portion w a s assumed t o be composed of several leaves that could be r o t a t e d i n such a manner as t o vary the e x i t a r e a while maintaining a f i x e d secondary diameter. A s f l i g h t Mach number (and simultaneously nozzle pressure r a t i o ) decreased, t h e exit area would be decreased t o provide the c o r r e c t e x p s i o n r a t i o . The twos t e p b o a t t a i l geometry that i s shown would r e s u l t i n bigher b o a t t a i l drag a t Mach 3 than would occur i f a s i n g l e b o a t t a i l angle had been selected, but it would incur l e s s drag with low-speed positions. An a c t u a l v a r i a b l e ejector of t h i s type w a s not constructed; but r a t h e r various p o s i t i o n s of t h e movable portion corresponding t o operation a t various Mach numbers were selected, and models were constructed t o simulate these conditions.
Another variable-geometry e j e c t o r (8) that w a s investigated i s shown a s assumed t o i n figure l ( g ) . A s with e j e c t o r 7, t h e divergent portion w be constructed of leaves that could be r o t a t e d t o vary e x i t a r e a while maintaining a constant secondary diameter. However, i n this case t h e boattail w a s kept fixed. A s a r e s u l t , as e x i t area decreased, base a r e a increased. The model w a s designed with a removable base p l a t e t o i n v e s t i gate the e f f e c t of base bleed flow. Again, fixed-geometry models were constructed t o simulate various positions of i n t e r e s t of t h e movable port i o n of the ejector.
A t h i r d ty-pe of variable-geometry e j e c t o r ( 9 ) that was i n v e s t i g a t e d i s shown i n figure l ( h ) . In t h i s case the b o a t t a i l and e x i t a r e a were both fixed and tne secondary diameter was variable. The divergent w a l l w a s 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 l a r g e enough t o permit the passage of the cooling secondary airflow. A t lower than design Mach numbers the secondary diameter would be increased t o permit t h e flow of s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of secondary a i r t o f i l l i n t h e excess flow area a t t h e e x i t plane and prevent overexpansion of t h e primary flow. As with the o t h e r variable ejectors, fixed-geometry models simulated p o s i t i o n s of i n t e r e s t of t h e hypothetical variable e j e c t o r .
A s indicated e a r l i e r , e j e c t o r s 10 t o 1 2 ( f i g s . l(i)and ( j ) ) had higher b o a t t a i l angles than those discussed thus far. They simulated a f a m i l y of fixed-geometry e j e c t o r s with various values of the geometrical parameters. only one primary-nozzle position tcorresponding t o f u l l afterburning) w a s investigated with these models.
Tunnel I n s t a l l a t i o n
A schematic sketch of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e model i n t h e tunnel i s shown i n f i g u r e 2. The downstream portion of t h e 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. The support s t r u t s were swept forward 4 5 O t o a t t a i n a more continuous blockage a r e a d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r more uniform flow a t transonic speeds. Primary and secondary air were ducted separately t o the model through t h e support s t r u t s .
P i t o t pressure p r o f i l e s normal t o t h e body j u s t upstream of t h e boatt a i l a r e shown i n f i g u r e 3 f o r several tunnel Mach numbers. Survey rakes were placed i n the plane of the s t r u t and a l s o normal t o it. Their axial location i s indicated in f i g u r e 2. Ignoring unusual d i s t o r t i o n s of thy p r o f i l e s , 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. Local Mach numbers (denoted by Mz) computed by means of t h e Fbyleigh equation fram the l o c a l body s t a t i c pressure and t h e P i t o t pressure fart h e s t from t h e body a r e shown i n f i g u r e 3. These Mach numbers show a circumferential v a r i a t i o n that probably was due t o t h e wake from t h e support s t r u t . A t tunnel Mach numbers 2, 1, and 0.8, t h e l o c a l Mach number was lower i n t h e region behind t h e s t r u t , and a t Mach 1.35 it was lower i n the plane normal t o the s t r u t . The reason f o r this shift of t h e low Mach number region as tunnel Mach number i s varied i s not apparent. B o a t t a i l s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a l s o indicated a varying degree of circumferential v a r i a t i o n . This v a r i a t i o n w a s g r e a t e r a t higher tunnel Mach numbers (e.g., Mach 1.35 compared with Mach 0.8) and a l s o generally with higher b o a t t a i l angles. The worst condition investigated ( e j e c t o r 5 o r 6) i s shown i n f i g u r e 4 a t several tunnel Mach numbers. The b o a t t a i l angle i n this case was 7.5O. The region of lowest pressure was behind t h e s t r u t a t Mach 1.35, b u t at Mach 1 it was i n t h e plane normal t o t h e s t r u t . A t Mach 0.8 t h e pressures were fairly uniform, Although e j e c t o r s 10 t o 1 2 had higher over-all b o a t t a i l angles (in two s t e p s ) than e j e c t o r 5, t h e pressures were more uniform. The pressures of other eject o r s w i t h lower-angle single-step b o a t t a i l s were a l s o more uniform.
All e j e c t o r s were investigated a t s e v e r a l Mach numbers. With e j e c t o r s 1 t o 1 2 s e v e r a l 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 s e v e r a l values of secondary flow were investigated. Only one primary-nozzle pressure r a t i o w i t h several values of secondary flow was i n v e s t i g a t e d a t each Mach number with e j e c t o r 13.
For e j e c t o r s 1 t o 9 f u l l afterburning was assumed f o r Mach numbers 1.35 and g r e a t e r , and no afterburning f o r Mach numbers 1.35 and l e s s . The assumption of the Mach number a t which afterburning was turned on d i d not a f f e c t t h e g e n e r a l i t y of the conclusions. For e j e c t o r s 10 t o 13 f u l l afterburning was assumed t o occur over t h e Mach number range of the i n vestigation. Total temperature of both primary and secondary a i r was about 80 F.
Data Reduction
Weight-flow r a t e s were obtained with standard ASME o r i f i c e s . P r i mary t o t a l pressure w a s cmputed from the primary weight-flow r a t e and measured s t a t i c pressures i n t h e primary nozzle upstream of t h e convergent- portion. Secondary t o t a l pressure w a s measured with rakes upstream of the primary-nozzle-exit station. Because t h e force-measurement apparatus did not perform with cons i s t e n t accuracy during the t e s t , ejector gross t h r u s t (exit-plane t o t a l momentum) w a s generally computed from t h e s u m of the t o t a l mamentum of the primary and secondary streams a t reference s t a t i o n s within the e j e c t o r plus t h e s u m of w a l l f o r c e s i n t h e a x i a l d i r e c t i o n between t h e reference s t a t i o n s and t h e e x i t plane. I n general, this procedure gave s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . Ekceptions occurred when large q u a n t i t i e s of secondary a i r f l o w were used ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e exceptions were e j e c t o r 8, Mach 1.35 with no afterburning, and e j e c t o r 9, bkch numbers 1.35 and 1.0 with no afterburni n g ) . I n these cases t h e t h r u s t computed by t h i s procedure s l i g h t l y exceeded t h e maximum t h e o r e t i c a l value with the given secondary and primary weight-flow rates and t o t a l pressures. This discrepancy i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 5 f o r e j e c t o r 8. A t Mach 1.35 ( f i g . 5(a)) the measured value of adjusted t h r u s t r a t i o (computed frm t h e g r o s s t h r u s t obtained by t h e procedure described) exceeded the maximum possible value a t very high values of secondary-flow r a t i o . This d i d not occur a t Mach 1.0 ( f i g . 5 ( b ) ) , which w a s the more t y p i c a l situation. It i s believed t h a t t h i s error w a s a r e s u l t of circumferential v a r i a t i o n s of t h e secondary flow that were not detected with t h e i n s t r m e o t a t i o n employed and that became
important only when t h e secondary-flow r a t e w a s unusually large. For these exceptional cases, t h e maximum t h e o r e t i c a l values were used i n t h e A.NALYSIS section. With t h e modified versions of e j e c t o r 1 (i.e., with s p o i l e r s and with a i r i n j e c t i o n j the waii surfaces were too irrzg-Llar t o e v s l i ~ t e the v a ~ force. Therefore, the data from t h e force-measurement apparatus (a s t r a i n gage and bellows arrangement) were used of necessity. For these configurations t h e apparatus appeared t o be operating reasonably well. Thrust Ratio
In the ANALYSIS section of the r e p o r t an e f f e c t i v e t h r u s t r a t i o (F msVg - D)/Fi i s evaluated t h a t required a knowledge of the grosst h r u s t r a t i o F/Fi and t h e b o a t t a i l plus base drag D. A t some Mach numbers where these data were n o t obtained, an estimated value f o r small secondary-flow r a t i o was computed by the following procedure: (1) I f t h e expansion r a t i o was c o r r e c t f o r the p a r t i c u l a r nozzle pressure r a t i o ( f u l l y expanded), a 2-percent l o s s i n gross-thrust r a t i o w a s assumed t o account f o r f r i c t i o n l o s s e s i n t h e nozzle. ( 2 ) Additional l o s s e s i n gross-thrust r a t i o due t o flow divergence a t t h e exit plane were computed (3) If the primary flow w a s underexassuming F/Fi = (1 + cos a)/2. panded, t h e a d d i t i o n a l l o s s i n gross-thrust r a t i o was computed from a a s overc a l c u l a t i o n of exit-plane momentum. ( 4 ) If t h e primary flow w expanded, estimates of gross-thrust r a t i o were made based on e a r l i e r unpublished data. (5) B o a t t a i l drag w a s computed from reference 2. (6) The configurations f o r which these estimates were made d i d not have bases; therefore, base drag was not needed.
The b a s i c data a r e presented i n figures 6 t o 22, Parameters presented a r e t h r u s t r a t i o , e j e c t o r pressure r a t i o , b o a t t a i l drag c o e f f i c i e n t , and e i t h e r base pressure r a t i o ( i f a base existed) o r e x i t s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e r a t i o as functions of secondary-flow r a t i o . The e x i t s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e r a t i o i s useful as an indication whether o r not t h e p r i mary flow i s overexpanded. ANALYSIS The data of figures 6 t o 22 have been used i n an a n a l y s i s of the performance of t h e e j e c t o r s over a Mach number range t o obtain a compari s o n of t h e solutions considered f o r t h e off-design e j e c t o r problem. A s a b a s i s f o r canparison, nozzle pressure-ratio schedules with Mach number w o schedules were used: the were assumed as shown i n figure 23. T
m o m o a m 0 o m 0
a0
0
mo
a
00.
0
0 0
ma
0
omm m a
ma0
mom
mmom
0
0
m o o m o
c&QI&$~&
omm
mmm m
0
oomo a
. m.0
iU I$ A
om0
mmm
RM E58G10a
omom
om0
mmm
mmm
ooom
currently o r planned f o r t h e near f u t u r e , and t h e schedule f o r e j e c t o r 13 i s f o r an advanced, hypothetical, low-pressure-ratio t u r b o j e t using a transonic compressor with a design Mach number of 4 . The performnce parameter upon which the a n a l y s i s i s based i s an e f f e c t i v e t h r u s t r a t i o (F - msVO D)/Fi, defined as the e j e c t o r gross t h r u s t minus the free-stream momentum of secondary a i r minus t h e drag of the b o a t t a i l and base (if t h e r e i s one) divided by gross t h r u s t of t h e i d e a l f u l l y expanded primary flow. W i t h this parameter, configurations designed f o r a given engine and n a c e l l e s i z e b u t having d i f f e r e n t a f t e r body geometries and secondary flows can be compared d i r e c t l y .
at a p a r t i c u l a r design Mach number, and i f off-design performance i s not a consideration, then the e j e c t o r of n e c e s s i t y must have t h e c o r r e c t expansion r a t i o f o r that Mach number, and t h e 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 i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r cooling purposes over t h e Mach number range 0.8 t o 3, t h e performance of these e j e c t o r s i n t h i s Mach number range i s shown i n f i g ure 24. Performance of a l l t h r e e e j e c t o r s was very poor i n the transonic speed range with no afterburning operation. Ejector 2, which had a larger secondary diameter than e j e c t o r 1 , showed b e t t e r j e t separation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than e j e c t o r 1 only a t h c h 0.8. The performance of ejector 3 with a contoured divergent wall was about t h e same as t h a t of the conical e j e c t o r s . The off-design performance of these fixed-geometry e j e c t o r s can be improved, a t t h e expense of on-design performance, i f t h e divergence angle i s increased o r i f t h e expansion r a t i o i s decreased. A higher divergence angle would improve t h e j e t separation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and thus reduce t h e 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 t h e base-pressure phenomenon (ref. 3) ),. With a smaller expansibn r a t i o , t h e f l o w would n o t be as badly overexpanded a t off-design conditions. With e j e c t o r 4 t h e expansion r a t i o was t h e c o r r e c t value f o r Mach 3 operation, as with e j e c t o r 1 , but t h e divergence angle w a s increased from 9' t o 25O. The performance of this e j e c t o r i s compared with that of e j e c t o r 1 i n f i g u r e 25, again f o r a flow r a t i o of 0.02. The high Mach number afterburning performance of e j e c t o r 4 w a s estimated t o be somewhat l e s s than that of e j e c t o r 1 because of t h e 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 t a i n e d a t Mach 1.35 with no afterburning. If t h e afterburning had been continued t o some lower Mach number than Mach
NAcARME5&1ba... e .
e.
0
. e :
With e j e c t o r s 5 and 6 the expansion r a t i o i s decreased t o that corresponding t o complete expansion a t Mach 2.2. With 2-percent flow r a t i o the performances of e j e c t o r s 5 and 6 were i d e n t i c a l and a r e a l s o compared h3th tkt ~f e;ezt=r 1 i n f i g l z e 25. Except f o r t h e reginn where underexpansion losses were appreciable (near Mach 3), e j e c t o r 5 o r 6 provided higher performance than e i t h e r ejector 1 o r 4. The l o s s i n p e r f o m n e e of the compromised e j e c t o r s (4 t o 6) wits about t h e same a t Mach 3 , but e j e c t o r s 5 and 6 were superior a t a l l other Mach numbers. Therefore, i t 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. Fixed Geometry and High Secondary Flow
The reason a fixed-geometry e j e c t o r performs poorly a t Mach numbers l e s s than design i s that the e x i t a r e a i s too l a r g e f o r the a v a i l a b l e pressure r a t i o . If t h e secondary flow were increased s u f f i c i e n t l y a t t h i s condition, it would f i l l i n the excess e x i t area and prevent overexpansion of the primary flow. I n designing a fixed-geometry e j e c t o r that will employ t h i s technique t o improve the off-design performance, it i s necessary t o s e l e c t a proper value of secondary diameter t o o p t i mize o v e r - a l l performance. It i s desirable that t h e r e be s u f f i c i e n t secondary flow t o prevent primary-flow overexpansion and a l s o that t h e secondary flow have as high a t o t a l pressure as possible s o that overa l l performance will be high. If the secondary diameter i s too l a r g e f o r the amount of secondary flow being used, then t h r o t t l i n g l o s s e s of the secondary a i r would occur, with an accompanying loss i n e j e c t o r performance. On t h e other hand, if t h e secondary diameter i s t o o small, it may be impossible t o pass s u f f i c i e n t a i r a t the a v a i l a b l e pressure.
"he e f f e c t of increased secondary f l o w on off-design e j e c t o r performance i s shown i n f i g u r e 26 f o r ejectors 3 and 6 and f o r two posit i o n s of t h e variable portions of e j e c t o r 9. These data were obtained a t Mach 1.35. The secondary diameter r a t i o s were not necessarily the o p t i mum values f o r the various e x i t diameter r a t i o s . The e f f e c t i v e t h r u s t r a t i o s increased rapidly as flow r a t i o increased even though f u l l freestream momentum of the secondary a i r w a s charged against the e j e c t o r . Thus, l a r g e gains would be r e a l i z e d i f the drag and w e i g h t of the i n l e t system t h a t provides the a d d i t i o n a l air can be kept low.
One method of obtaining this additional a i r i s t h e use of a u x i l i a r y i n l e t s . Another method that w a s considered i n d e t a i l i s the use of t h e excess air-handling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 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 t h e one i l l u s t r a t e d i n the sketch of f i g u r e 27. With t h i s i n l e t the compression surface i s varied a t each Mach number s o as t o maintain an i n l e t massflow r a t i o of 1 , and excess a i r i s disposed of through some s o r t of bypass system (see r e f . 4). For an assumed engine operating w i t h a n i n l e t
. .
.om:
o:ECIIYTM**
0.
of this type, the schedule of bypass mass-flow r a t i o i s shown i n f i g u r e 27. If it were possible t o duct a l l of this bypass a i r around the engine and use it i n t h e secondary passage of the e j e c t o r (assuming an a f t e r burning primary temperature of 3500' R and a nonafterburning temperature of 1 6 0 0 ' R), then maximum a v a i l a b l e secondary-flow r a t i o would be as shown i n f i g u r e 27. Estimating i n l e t pressure recovery, assuming addit i o n a l total-pressure losses i n ducting the bypass a i r back t o t h e eject o r , and taking t h e upper schedule of nozzle pressure r a t i o of f i g u r e 23, t h e maximum a v a i l a b l e e j e c t o r pressure r a t i o becames that shown a l s o i n figure 27. In the analyses that follow, where secondary a i r i s assumed t o be obtained from the i n l e t bypass, the limits of a v a i l a b l e weight flow and of a v a i l a b l e pressure shown i n t h i s f i g u r e w i l l apply. Mechani c a l problems of ducting l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of high-pressure a i r around t h e engine are n o t considered. Figure 28 shows t h e improvement i n performance of e j e c t o r 6 when large amounts of secondary a i r are supplied by t h e i n l e t bypass. In t h i s case the secondary-flow r a t e ( a l s o shown i n the f i g u r e ) w a s res t r i c t e d 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 j e c t o r was not necessarily the optimum, the -rovea s large. A s discussed e a r l i e r , e j e c t o r 6 i s a m e n t i n performance w compromised version of a Mach 3 e j e c t o r (i.e., the expansion r a t i o i s less than i d e a l a t Mach 3). I3ata a t high secondary-flow r a t e s were not obtained with e j e c t o r s that were n o t compromised (e.g., e j e c t o r Z), b u t t h e beneficial e f f e c t s of high secondary flow would be obtained with these e j e c t o r s a l s o . The e f f e c t on performance of using s p o i l e r s with e j e c t o r 1 i s shown i n figure 29. The s p o i l e r s were assumed t o be r e t r a c t e d f o r high-speed afterburning operation and extended f o r transonic nonafterburning operation. A t Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 t h e s p o i l e r s caused j e t separation as they were intended t o do, and hence improved performance r e l a t i v e t o the basic unmodified configuration, b u t f a i l e d t o do so a t Mach 1.35. Even when the j e t d i d separate, however, t h e pressures i n the separated r e gionwere s t i l l less than po because of t h e base pressure phenomenon described i n reference 3. Thus, performance remained r e l a t i v e l y low. Using i n l e t bypass air, air i n j e c t i o n with t h e s p o i l e r s eliminated the l o s s i n performance a t Mach 1.35 as shown i n the figure, but t h e r e s u l t i n g performance w a s no b e t t e r than that of the b a s i c e j e c t o r , At Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 t h e performance was about t h e same with a i r i n j e c t i o n plus s p o i l e r s as with t h e s p o i l e r s alone. With a i r i n j e c t i o n alone ( w i t h the a i r again supplied by t h e i n l e t bypass), about t h e same improvement i n performance was a t t a i n e d a t Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 as with t h e spoilers, but t h e r e w a s no improvement over t h e b a s i c e j e c t o r a t Mach 1.35, The secondary-flow rates again were l i m i t e d by the pressure available.
11
Although the l e v e l of performance was low, a f u r t h e r comparison of the performance of the basic e j e c t o r 1 with t h e performance with a i r i n j e c t i o n i s presented i n f i g u r e 30. A t Mach 1.35 ( f i g . 30(a)) the performance of t h e basic e j e c t o r w a s higher a t a given flow r a t i o than that with a i r injection. Therefore, a t this Mach number it would be b e t t e r not t o use t h e a i r - i n j e c t i o n slots and t o pass a i l am.ils%le a e c ~ z & ~ q y air through the secondary passage of t h e basic e j e c t o r . A t Mach 1 ( f i g . 30(b)) s l i g h t l y higher performance was obtained a t a given flow r a t i o a s employed. A t Wch 0.8 ( f i g . when air i n j e c t i o n through the slots w a s higher when the s l o t s were employed, even 30(c)), the performance w w i t h zero secondary flow, than with t h e basic ejector. Increasing secondary flow through the s l o t s produced r e l a t i v e l y small improvements i n performance. Wall pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s showed that with t h e s l o t s open the primary flow did not overexpand i n t e r n a l l y as much as w i t h the basic e j e c t o r . Variable Geometry and Low Secondary Flow
I
I
An idealized variable-geometry ejector would have t h e following features: (1)variable e x i t diameter t o obtain the i d e a l expansion r a t i o , ( 2 ) variable secondary diameter t o produce a divergent shroud f o r each e x i t position, (3) variable b o a t t a i l angle t o avoid base a r e a as e x i t diameter i s varied, with leaves s u f f i c i e n t l y long t h a t b o a t t a i l drag i s negligible. A n e x i t of this type m s not tested, because with the nozzle always on design and with negligible drag the e f f e c t i v e thrust r a t i o i s known t o be about 0.97.
A simpler version of this e x i t was investigated and i s designated e j e c t o r 7. The secondary diameter w a s kept f i x e d as e x i t area varied, and i n t e r n a l and external l i n e s were varied w i t h a single s e t of leaves that were s h o r t , and therefore b o a t t a i l drag w a s not negligible. The schedule of e x i t diameter r a t i o employedis shown i n f i g u r e 31. The ejector w a s designed so that t h e i d e a l expansion r a t i o w a s attainable f o r afterburning operation between Mach numbers 1 . 3 5 and 3. It was assumed that during the t r a n s i t i o n from afterburning t o nonafterburning operation a t Mach number 1.35 the e x i t area was not changed. This reA t Wch numbers s u l t e d i n overexpansion a t Mach 1.35 (nonafterburning) 1 and 0.8, t h e e x i t diameter w a s near the ideal value. However, a t Mach numbers 1 and 0.8 the exit diameter was l e s s than the secondary diame t e r (since the l a t t e r was kept fixed), with the r e s u l t that the shroud w a s convergent rather than divergent. Such a configuration can have r e l a t i v e l y low t h r u s t p a r t i c u l a r l y a t low secondary-flow r a t i o s and high primary pressure r a t i o s . Alternatives w o u l d be t o keep the e x i t diameter a t least as large as t h e secondary diameter and permit overexpansion (as a t Mach 1.35, nonafterburning) o r t o determine some optimum intermediate exit position. The s e l e c t i o n of a different pivot point of the leaves that would permit secondary diameter t o vary as the leaves r o t a t e d might avoid this problem.
0 0
00.0
. * a * *
0.0
.a
a .
12
:.go&={
e .
. 0 . .
$L@
RM E58G10a
The performance of e j e c t o r 7 i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 32 f o r 2-percent flow r a t i o . Also shown f o r reference i s the estimated performance of the ideal v a r i a b l e e j e c t o r described earlier. Although e j e c t o r 7 would have <ne ideal expansion r a t i o a t Psach 3, i t s performance w i i i be iess t h a n that of t h e i d e a l e j e c t o r because of the b o a t t a i l drag. Its r e l a t i v e l y low performance a t Mach numbers 1.35 and 1 (nonafterburning) was due t o overexpansion and t o t h e convergent shroud, respectively. Another e j e c t o r that a l s o was mechanically simpler than t h e i d e a l v a r i a b l e e j e c t o r was e j e c t o r 8. The secondary diameter and a l s o t h e b e a t t a i l were fixed. The schedule of e x i t diameter r a t i o employed with this e j e c t o r i s shown i n f i g u r e 33. The flow w a s s l i g h t l y underexpanded a t Mach 3 i n order t o a l l e v i a t e the off-design problem somewhat. The diameter r a t i o was near the i d e a l value a t Mach numbers between 2 and a s never l e s s than t h e value 1.35. For t h i s e j e c t o r the e x i t diameter w of the secondary diameter i n order t o avoid the problem of t h e convergent shroud. The shroud became c y l i n d r i c a l a t Mach 1.35 and remained so a t a l l Mach numbers less than that. This r e s u l t e d in overexpansion f o r nonafterburning operation. The performance of e j e c t o r 8 with 2-percent flow r a t i o (without base flow) i s presented i n f i g u r e 34. Again t h e performance of the i d e a l e j e c t o r i s presented as a reference. A t Mach 3 it i s estimated t h a t t h e performance of e j e c t o r 8 would be less than that of t h e i d e a l e j e c t o r because t h e flow i s s l i g h t l y underexpanded and because of boattail drag. A t transonic speeds t h e performance i s lower because of (1) overexpansion, ( 2 ) b o a t t a i l drag, and (3) base drag. Variable Geometry and High Secondary Flow
The improvement in performance of e j e c t o r 8 by employing l a r g e amounts of base flow t o eliminate t h e base drag i s a l s o shown i n f i g y r e The 34. It was assumed that the a i r was provided by the i n l e t bypass. drop i n performance f o r nonafterburning operation w a s due p a r t l y t o overexpansion of t h e primary flow and a l s o t o the total-pressure l o s s e s of the secondary flow.
Ejector 9 a l s o w a s simpler than the i d e a l v a r i a b l e e j e c t o r i n t h a t the exit a r e a and t h e b o a 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 f i g u r e 35. By means of 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 a v a i l a b l e bypass flow schedule s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . The performance of this e j e c t c r i s presented i n figure 36. A s described i n t h e Data Reduction section, t h e measured values of t h r u s t r a t i o exceeded the t h e o r e t i c a l l y maximum possible value f o r nonafterburning operation. The t h e o r e t i c a l values are
.*C~Nfqq)&~.
shown i n f i g u r e 36 where this problem occurred. The performance a t Mach 3 again would be less than that of the i d e a l e j e c t o r because of b o a t t a i l a s slightly underexpanded (de/$ = 1.6) The drag and because t h e flow w drop i n performance f o r nonafterburning operation occurred because the secondary t o t a l pressure w a s 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 t h e m a x i - p r e s s u r e - r a t i o schedule of f i g u r e 27.
C o m p a r i son
The b e s t performing e j e c t o r s of those considered thus far are compared i n f i g u r e 37. The performance of fixed-geometry e j e c t o r 6 with high secondary flow was within the range of performance encompassed by the more c m p l e x variable-geometry ejectors. The highest performance i n t h e low Mach number range w a s obtained w i t h e j e c t o r 9. 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 e n t i r e speed range. The supersonic performance of e j e c t o r s 10 t o 1 2 has been obtained i n an e a r l i e r investigation, and t h e speed range i s extended i n t o t h e transonic range i n t h e present report. "he performance of these e j e c t o r s based on the same pressure-ratio schedule as that of the previous e j e c t o r s i s shown i n f i g u r e 38 f o r 2-percent flow r a t i o . Ejector 10, which d i f f e r e d from e j e c t o r 1 1 only i n that it had a smaller 1 . Besecondary diameter, had about the same performance as e j e c t o r 1 cause these e j e c t o r s had h i g h b o a t t a i l angles r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of some fuselage-type i n s t a l l a t i o n s , b o a t t a i l drag was high, and t h u s t h e general l e v e l of performance w a s low. Ejector 1 2 had a higher expansion r a t i o (corresponding t o complete expansion a t Mach 3) than e j e c t o r s 10 and l l . For a given engine and fuselage size, an increase i n expansion r a t i o would r e s u l t i n an increase i n exit a r e a and hence a reduction i n boatt a i l area. The increased overexpansion losses w i t h t h e higher expansion r a t i o a t off-design conditions would a t l e a s t be partly compensated f o r by t h e decreased b o a t t a i l drag. However, because of details of model construction, e j e c t o r 1 2 had a smaller primary-nozzle a r e a than e j e c t o r s 10 and 1 1 ; whereas exit area, fuselage area, and b o a t t a i l geometry were i d e n t i c a l . Hence the data of f i g u r e 38 do not show the n e t e f f e c t of a simple change i n expansion r a t i o , b u t rather show the e f f e c t of Mach number on t h e performance of various ejector geometries. As with eject o r s 10 and 1 1 , the l e v e l of performance of e j e c t o r 1 2 w a s low because of high b o a t t a i l drag, but a d d i t i o n a l losses occurred with e j e c t o r 12 because of t h e greater degree of overexpansion of t h e primary flow.
The effect of secondary flow on the performance of ejectors 1 0 to 12 at Mach 1 is shown in figure 39. Again, appreciable increases in performance occurred as flow ratio increased. The effect of secondary flow on the performance of ejector 13 is shown in figure 4 0 . The nozzle-pressure-ratio schedule was lower than that for the previous nozzles (see fig. 2 3 ) . The magnitude of the increase in p e r f o m c e as a result of increasing the flow ratio differed with Mach number but w a s appreciable at all Mach numbers. The greatest . 5 . improvement occurred at Mach 1
I
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The off-design performance of fixed- and variable-geometry divergent ejectors has been investigated. The ejectors were designed for turbojet . 8 operation at Mach 3 and were investigated in the Mach number range 0 to 2 . The following results were obtained:
2 . Compromising design performance by increasing the divergence angle or by decreasing the expansion ratio produced large gains in offdesign performance. A decreased expansion ratio w a s a better compromise than an increased divergence angle.
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 variablegeometry types.
4 . Variable-expansion-ratio ejectors with compromises to reduce mechanical complexity produced performance reasonably close to that of an ideal variable ejector.
5. An ejector with a fixed exit area and a variable secondary diameter 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.
2. zaCk, john
yLieoretical &zaa-L-e n u4 I u u I ~ Y u " In vn Ia I " nni4 NACA TN 2972, 1953. Conical Boattails.
n + r i h . r + i
x. ;
W Y U
Wnire
. . I . _
rtra ---gs
for
3. Baughman, L. Eugene, and Kochendorfer, Fred D . : Jet Effects on Base NACA RM Pressures of Conical Afterbodies at Mach 1.91 and 3.12. E57E06, 1957.
Performance at Mach Numbers 3,07, 4 . Gertsma, L . W . , and Beheim, M. A . : 1 . 8 9 , and 0 of Inlets Designed for Inlet-Engine Matching Up to Mach 3. NACA RM E58B13, 1958.
16
a3 rl
It
*B
-P
U
'0.
rl
I n
0
rl
u!
rl
"0.
Lo
rl
cd
0
N
lc
'? N
Kl
co
?
M
2
0
n
In
0
M
rl
1 __
3.
0
0
z
v
?
D
7 a
v, cd
to
__
C n
3 )
'0.
rl
n
0
-I
In
l-i
In
0
0
rl
-4
U
0
-I
t o
to
rl
O
n
X
. F ,
cd
3 I
-I
-I
Ejector 2
T
de
7
=
= = .-
1.8
1.05
1.21 = 2.37
ejector ejector
= 20
dg
7 L
de/dp,ab ds/dp,ab
= 1.75
=
1.05
(b) Ejector 3:
dp,nb/dp,ab
= 0.75;
d , , / d p , a b
= 2.0.
7 L
vdp,ab B
3.50 a = 2 3 '
=
0.875
1.05 (ejector 5) = 1.21 (ejector 6) L/dp,ab = 1.26 B = 7.50 a = g o (ejector 5,) - 6.5' (ejector 6)
=
de/dp,ab ds/dp,ab
1.45
dp,nb/dp,ab
0.75;
dm/dp,ab
= 2.0.
Figure 1.
Ejector geometries.
18
:*e
e . :
NJCAiRM E58GlOa
C.0625
dp,ab (all S l o t s )
--
. .
1-1
6 ,
= -11.5'
3)
M = 3)
3)
/ a ' I =
1 4 '
(at
(f) Ejector 7 :
dp,nb/dp,ab
= 0.75; d , , , / d p , a b
= 2.0.
3)
B
a
= 6.5' = 9.5'
(at
3)
dJdp,ab
= 2.0.
= =
1 .OS (at
3)
= 1.69
I I
( h ) Ejector 9 :
Figure 1. dp,nb/dp,ab=
0.75;
(at
= 2.0.
3)
dm/dp,ab
0
0
0.
19
= 1.21 (ejector
a =
(I)
= 2.5.
I -
20
WCq RM E58G10a
0 .
rl
0 .
0 .
NACA RM E58G10a
0
.e:
CbNEIiI&p~~..~
21
L1
.1
.2
.3
.4
. 5
. 6
.l
.9
1.0
Figure 3.
e .
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
22
Ti -rl
-P -P
Ld
Ld 0 P
+ I
k t-'
i
rn
PI 7 t
0 :
ri
a,
v i
k 0
k PI
a , k 3
0
m a, k
-P
0
PI
-P
a a, a
7
V
I
r-l
u
I
a,
.d
2l
*.
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
COWIDENTIAL
23
.9(
-%
8
.94
.9c
.86
.82
.78
F&ure
4.
- Boattail
CCINFIDENTIAL
CrnIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
1.14
:
. 9 8
Locatlm
* 82
.74
.66
1
~
p&ure 4 .
- Continued.
0.
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
25
Flow
1,oo
.98
96
I-
* 92
,go
.-- 0
Figure 4.
- Concluded.
0.
26
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
Fr
k
.rl
4J
E
(a) Mach number, 1.35.
Secondary-flow ratio
'
-i i $
wP
Figure 5. Comparison of measured and m a x i m u m thrust ratios for ejector 8 with no afterburninR.
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
0..
0.
NACA F M E58G10a
CrnIDENTIAL
m
27
z m
w . .
c m
G O 3.
??
i - E3
ale
mc
z 0
0
rl
9
rl
e
3
S
.
rl
s
c
rl
0
0
(u (u
.-,
u
e 3
U Gi
z 0
r-
I n
A
CONFIDENTIAL
28
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA R M E58G10a
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.3 .6 .6
.2
.4
.4
.1
.2
.2
0 0
d
m..
0
.005
.01
rfi a a lddaon
u ddc G
0
ld ML.
n u
v u
-.005
1.4
O
Q
-m5
1.2
1.2
2 a . ? a L
drtR
a m m m e o u L-
1.0
1 .o
1 .o
m Q4
w f i
.d
.02
.04
.06
.8
.02
.04
Secondary-flow ratio,
: ;E
.0
.08
.8
.02
.04
(b)
No afterburning; M a c h
number, 1.0.
P e r f o r m a n c e of e j e c t o r 2.
CONFIDENTIAL
0 0
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
29
9
r(
4
3 !
M
.
E
D al +J OI
P v
a .
0.
.
30
. . .........................
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
.9
.6
.9
.9
.8
.5
.8
.7
.4
.7
.7
.6
.3
.6
.5
.6
.2
.5 .5
.5
.3
.6
% a
a
.4
.2
.4
.5
.2
3
.1
.3
.4
m a
l a
h
J
.2
.3
c)
-.2
-.l
.02
.1
.04
.2
( 1 1
.04
.04
MU
ec,
d ( u
L -
2;
*4
.02
.01
.02
.02
* d
KIL
oa,
0
.8
I O
0
0 .8
1.1
1.0
2 a,? c)h
c m) m m
c)
KI2a
0 1 0
.6
k
d
.9
.9
h d
a*
.4
.7
'-0
.02
.04-0
.02
.04
.06-'0
Secondary-flow ratio,
2
0 .
.02
.04
.06'"0
.02
.04
(a) Afterburning;
Mach number,
1.35.
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
0
0
.e..
NACA RM E58GlOa
CONFIDENTIAL
31
Secondary-flow ratlo,
2 P y$
1.0.
(c) NO afterburning; Mach number, 0.8.
Figure 10.
Performance of e j e c t o r 5.
a .
0.
CCTNFIDENTIAL
e . . e .
0 0
. .
e .
32
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
CL)
0 c ,
0
a, n a ,
0
a ,
2
(d
k 0
k
E
k
I
a, PI
rl
rl
a, k
2l
I %
i 4
Y)
Y)
?
3
L
D
r
5 m
M
=?
L E
N.
c m
. . . m
1
Y
, .
3 3 3 3
3
NACA
RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
33
e
k
.3
al I 0l k d
.3
.3
; P , R
d\
e
-&.
.2
.2
.2
.03
.02
d rl d
.02
MdS
clld%CI
.01
i.0
0
1 . 0
2 t a"
.8
.9
Q
0 d .
+ o
m
+ d + +
.6
.8
.A
. .7
.02
.04
.06
.02
.04
.06
.02
(c)
.04
.06
Secondary-flow ratio,
No afterburningj Mach
number, 0.8.
. e
0.
CrnIDrnIAL
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
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
I :
,5? c o
G m4 c 3
a.
3. eF.
E
0
ha, ale
9
r(
3
9 PI
2 e
3
5:
A .C
.+
. c
U
bo
d
rl
h
U
e 3
PI
c)
PI
4
0 PI
I
4 0
a PI
?
r(
P i
--
b?
4 c)
z
PI
CONFIDENTIAL
0 0
. .
0
0
0.
..e
me*
..e
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
35
9
3
e
c
. c
3
M
C
e 3
c e,
m
0 0
0 N
COWIDENTIAL
0.
36
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
c
h
v
0
n 8
n
?.
0 u )
M 0 .
c
r l
rl
I
I
9
-r
v m
c
m
rl
h I
a
h
0 0 VI 0
rl
(D
v)
N.
9
0
D
W
0.
CO m IDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
d
37
9
N
U Z .r( Gi 0 .
GO.. 1s a, m m m
C b oG -
m O
74
-E99 2 3 22
0
N
Zda,
0
r(
'9
h
e
1
d OW . Ed
. . I
z 5
h a
boa
e
Gi U
B
I
d v)
a l
(0
..
rl
d 0
r?'
d
B
1
9
9 9
N
W
5%
4"
... M a
a -
0 2
N.
.
CONFIDENTIAL
.. . .
38
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM ESBGlOa
F
3
0
ci 0
e ,
.T-J
e ,
L
N
3
4
C OIWIDENTIAL
em. m e e e em.
eemm
mmm meme
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
39
03
e
3
i:.
O M @In
zd *
M d c ea
\ h C m e 34 U
4 d
m 0
e m
s
03
. i
8
m
-3
a,
m
4
m
C
LD M
d
4 0
D m .
% e
9
e
h m
1
rl
. I
e e aJ
d 0
U 0
C
I
. W I
I :
V
aJ
4
z
C
M
3
.
3
2J
4 U
CONFIDENTIAL
.
e
* * * e . . . .
m.
.e e *
0.0
e,.
*e.
e...
e.. .
e... e
.e. . e
40
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
.9
.9
.9
.8
.8
.8
.7
.7
.?
.2
a J
h
.3
.3
2 I % @ ln\
a
V
h a
~
w w
t'c,
'3
: ::.
.1
.2
.2
(uk
0 .03
. - ? I
. 1
.09
.1
.04
'2 hoc; Q d k C
a
F1 + h aJ (uv d a O d 0 v u
.02
v I
.ri
.07
.02
R O
.6
1.0
1.0
4 k F9 d3c4
Pln
\ J a
mu]
d
a , k d (D P 4 2
m P
w o
i
-.
.5
0
.02 .04
.02
.04
Secondary-flow ratio, ws W P (a) No afterburning; Mach number, 1.35; de/%, 1.53. Figure 17.
(b) No afterburning; Mach number, 1 . 0 ; de/%, 1.53.
E
0
.9
.02
.04
(c) No afterburningj
Mach number, 0.8; de/dp, 1.53.
.
e
.e
0 0
. e . . . e . . . .
.
e ..e e . e.
0
*.*e e
.
.
e...
e.. e e .e e . e e. .*e
0
..e . .e e .*e
0..
0.. e
e e e..
....e
..e . ...e
.e. e
e * .e*
COKFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
41
m
h
w 0
v a a,
4
a, 0
G
rl
In
rl
Lo
rf
M rl
rl 4
0 0
. .
0.
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
.
.
0.
42
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
(D
rl
9 rl
m
9 rl
a, P
. .
F-
M
. i
m
F42
C
P
c)
a, a ,
4
a v
a,
0
E
h
[4 a ,
a
A
a
rl
a,
a
a, VI
ld
dt
r-
C
U
I
<
a a
ln
. . I
m
rl
a ,
$4
r
h
P
27
rl
r :
x
d
bo
C
P
Q
*
0
a l
0
v
- m 2 ? 3 s ?TXZ
0 .
0 .
O . . a W O a =
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
0
0
NACA R M E58G10a
CON!?IDENTIAL
43
9
3
3
4
3
rl
0-
30
N 3
4
d
4
d
4 3
9
03
COrnIDENTIAL
. . . ........ . ......
0 .
0. 0 .
44
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58GlOa
0 rl
m
0
I D
D
3
9
@ l
F:
9
rl rl
. c w 3
r l c
P e
C o
~m
3 C E h
c
O
.-.I
c
h
m w 5 : a
- .
P
N 0
27
dl 0
ua
?
rl
B
E
z
S 5
9
. .
3
rl
rl
O d m OT3E.l
-T .I.Iao
NACA RM E58GlOa
CONFIDENTIAL
45
1.1
1.0
.s
.u
.7
Secondary-flow r a t l o
( a ) Mach number, 1.35.
tP i ;
( c ) Mach number, 0.8.
Figure 21.
0 0
o . .m . .0
0
CONFIDENTIAL
0.
0
0
0 0
. .
46
CO W IDENT IAL
NACA RM E58G10a
0 *ti
1.
.o
.04
.06
.08
. 1 0
.12
.14
.16
.18
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
CON? IDENTIAL
47
9
m
0.
u )
cu
Ei
m
N
?$
4
D.
l-i
1
N
K)
d:
l-i
0
l-i
4%
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10e
n
I
PI
. r l
0 e
- Effect, of
Secondary-flow ratio, 0 . 0 2 .
.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
- Effect
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
1 . 0
CONFIDENTIAL
49
.8
.7
.6
1.40 1.45
2.40
1.60
.5 .5
.4
.3
.2
. 1
. 1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
Secondary-flow ratio,
wP
50
C0 "
IDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
. % @ mJ*btKia
**
c'O&IJ)~,L
NACA RM E58G10a
C ONFIDENTTAL
51
u )
CD
N.
N
t
a
V
P)
(d
rl
'4
k 0
a , N
N
rl
9 M 2
aJ
'r-
' 4 ' 9
?
0
CONFIDENTIAL
52
CONFIDENTLAL
NACA RM E58G10a
?
N
ri
0
+ , C J
a
N
a ,
(u
*W
.ri
k
d!
N
k 0
vi
k cd
rd
cd
( D
rl
!
ri
N
0,
ri
9
ri
. . * . *
0.
~~~~IDENTIAL
0.
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
53
^.
ut
i !
Secondary-flow r a t i o
'
WS
W P
12
0
0
moo 0
0
0 .
me
em..
0.
CONFIDENTIAL
54
NACA RM E58G10a
1.. .8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Figure 31.
Expansion-ratio schedule of e j e c t o r 7.
1
0
..-
Secondary-flow r a t i o , 0.02.
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
55
9
M
?
N
cu
cu
k 0
co
ri
rl
0 0
. .
56
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
0
a )
0 + ,
0
a,
TI
+ , a,
e
0
E
W
I
M
a,
I i
%
a r t
2 kk 0
a,
t i
k k
I
0 k
P i
a,
+ m
a, k
.d
ki
-~
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
57
Fv
cu
N
a
(D
k
0
0
ri
m
I
a ,
I n
K)
cu
rl
58
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
C n 0 -P
0
T3
a J
a,
t- a,
e
a, M
I
a,
l-i
(d
Ti
(d
+
u
0 a,
F!
k aJ
I
PI
( D
a, k
rl
&
NACA R M E58G10a
CONFIDENTIAL
59
9
K)
9
0
0
. t i
. p a i
W
N
a
0
U
d !
A
c
W
a,
r n
m
c u
ri
0
R ,
c,
a, P
9
N
0 rl
m
. p
U
*T-J
e ,
"9
a
*ri
ri
R
0
k
k
W
W
I + *
9
5
I
rtrl
4 2 a, P a 5
a
0
0
a,
Y
ri
k 3 bo
a,
@ a
0
k
N
1
U
ri
rl
c1
a,
8
9
ri
l
a)
M
a,
-?
.d
bD
k 5
9 d
60
CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM E58G10a
ri
m
0
* u
k
@ . I
a ,
a,
c3
c u
ri
4 i
k k
(D
a,
R
0
rl
-%
ri k
2 a
0
A k
?
* $
a ,
k
0
g
V
a,
: :
E
I
Q)
cu
e,
,o
ri
NACA
0 rl
rl
0 -P
-P
0
a, a,
a,
'3
' T I
a,
0
a ,
a, "3 a,
k 0
d
a, P
k 0
+ i
a
P
a,
a,
cu
k
0
4
m
cu
.. ..
dc
d
"
LD
dc
0
-P
I
5
0
L d
660s