Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NAO_ EM A55Fi6
CONFIDENTIAL
TABLE OF COI_t_
._.
Page
!.
INTRODUCTION
II.
DEFINITIONS
AIR-INDUCTION SYST/M ...................
DMSION
OF FORCES ............
........
PEEFO_tNCE
PARAMETERS .................
_=_ESSUHE RECOVERY
.
- .
c ,
.
DRAG ...............
" ..........
MASS F[0W
.......................
FEELIMIN._RY CONSIDERATIONS
.................
AIRCRAFT HEQUIREMENTS
..................
AI EFRAME- INDUCTION- SYST_4 CGMBINATION
ENGINE- INDUCTION-SYST_
COMBINATION
..........
MATC_NG
........................
OPTIMIZATION
.
.
. o
,
.
.
.
,
Desi_
.......................
Subsonic Flight
...................
Lip design .....................
Angle of attack
..................
Inlet asjnmnetry ..................
Supersonic Flight
..................
_
:
_.
:_
_
III.
J'
-_
_.
_'_
_=
.
'
_i
._
i
IV.
:%
,
?
_
,,
_;
:_
i
:"_,
_
ii
........................
3
3
4
9
9
]_1.
12
13
13
14
i_
16
19
20
22
22
23
23
23
24
29
27
31
33
36
37
37
I'
_ l '_IIII
llll
NI
]ll
,l l
38
40
43
45
47
48
51
52
53
56
57
61
63
64
65
66
I _
_I
--'L_
,
4 :
CO_I_DE_.
__
|t
m e#
)1)
:,..
!i!
"
s_
mo
..:
m_@
. : NACA _4 A55F16
@meQ
!
Page
wings.......................
Effects of Forebody Boundary Layer ..........
Boundary-Layer Removal ................
Suction ........................
"_
;
:
;
_:
68
68
69
70
71
71
73
74
76
77
77
77
79
81
81
8_
_-
86
87
88
_
_,
92
93
8_
93
94
94
95
95
95
96
98
99
99
I00
i01
104
108
113
138
171
41,
k
_ i
"2_,_
C(Sr_IDENT_
NACA EM A99F16
NATIONAL
ADVISORY
';
C0MM_TTEE
RESEARCH
AERODYNAMIC
_"
FOR AERONAUTICS
MEMORANDUM
PRINCIPLES
F0h _
JET-ENGIneS INDUCT!0N
By Wallace
: i,
DESIGN
OF
SYSTEMS
_cherrer
I. INTRODUCTION
!
_
'_
_'
An air-induction
system conveys air from the atmosphere to the
engine of an aircraft.
Its purpose is to supply, under all flight conditions, the air needed for best operation of the engine wlth the ].east
disturbance to the external flow.
In other words, to avoid penalties in
engine size, weight, and fuel consumption: an induction system must supply
air at the maximum presto,re and with the least drag and adverse interference po'_sible. The flow to the engine must be sufficiently uniform
and steady to maintain engine performance
_md to avoid vlb_ation and
structural failure.
The significance
of tae air-induction
system in
,;
_
high-speed-aircraft
design has been well illustrated by SuJ_kin in reference i.
It is sho_m "_hat for fighter aircraft flying at Mach numbers le.ss
than about i.I, the: p_-essure losses throt_h a typical normal-shock
inlet
!_
_:.
_
_
:_
_
:_
;:
_.
mlslng them.
an extensive
._
_i
bibliography
based on this search is appended to the present report.
The bibliography
lists "reports published since 1948 and thus extends the
blbllography
of reference J. The authors acknowledge
wlth gratitude the
assistance given by Mr. Emmet A. Mos._man, Mr. Forrest E. Gowen, and
Mr. Warren E. Anderson In csx'rylng out the literature ser_rch and in maklng
'_:
.:i_,
_
other
_,_
<i
i_
contributions
to thls re_
_;
J
I
"
_D_E_L_tAI_
o,
CA _
A55FI6
B.
_C_
_ r
and
'
under
'.
two beadlngs:
d_ag_ flowencountered in
ft. Interference_
or how other parts of an airframe
induction system and vice versa.
This arrangement
is illustrated
by the following
affect
the
chart:
Air-induction
systems
I
Definitions
Preliminary
Aircraft
tv
co.nsideration s
I
requir .e_ents
r_Airframe-i.,_ductionsystem combinatlun
_.
i
!
_
I
,
Engine-ind.,ction.system combinstion
'
I
L-tail
considerations
Interference
lTessure
Drag
Flow steadiness
._,
.....
recovery
and uniformity
;, , ,,-....,_ .............
,_ ,,,_.
Airframe-induction
system I
Inductlan-sy_tem
airframe |
_.
I
,
,_.
Y_
t
AIR-INDUCTION SYg_EM
To define the major factors involved, consider the general arrangement of the following sketch:
Exlern@lsurfaces
InternatIwfoces
Streamline
---.-----
!
--
"_
/_
_o._
._ _
_;_ ,o.,._
Lip 3
Sketch (1)
" '"
. --......
.......
;.........
,_.
................
......
--
/':
.-
I
/
/
:;
_(_?.DE_:
chose_
is the most representative in terms of _nduction-systemj
_erfor_
c_
Many specific definitlon_ of inlet area have been employed
_W-_BB-literature; two of -;_hese
_Ich are particularly useful are the
capture area; the axial pr _jec_ionel_the _n!et ar_._and c_mpresslonm,_face frontal area onto the plane of station l, and the minimum cross_ection area, station 2'. Each of these definitions is convenient in
certaln cases, and they are identical for sharp-llp normal-shock inlets.
The duct (stations 2' to 3) in the general case includes an area and
shape variation along i_s length, bends_ and a plenum chamber. The _uglne
intake is at station 3 and is considered to be upstream of all components
that are normally supplied with an engine and that are present when static
tests of the engine are made. It .isthus ahead of screens and swirl vanes.
The inlet lip and the fairing of external surfaces .intoother parts of the
aircraft are considered to he prcblems of the induction system.
Ii
I
DIVISION GF FORCES
i
i
!
:
:_
_ll
l 11 1 II
111
11_
II
II
I I
IIII11
III rl 11
Ill
lllllll
Ill
"
......
:---
I
_.
r*,
_ .
ILl
rl
r_,
/
.......
NACA RM A95F16
CONFIDEN_qAL
,_
"_
_!_
_
_<
_i
-
(1)
Fnp -
in
(P - Po)dA - L_l
i
ex
(P - Po)dA + DVex
(2)
Here, the pressure forces f(p - Po)dA and the viscous forces DV are
the components in the flight direction, and they are divided between
internal and exterual surfaces, Ain and Aex,, A force tending to accelerate in
the
flight direct__onis
thus the pressure
reaction
from
the
accelerated
gases of a considered
jet enginepositive;
causes a positive
_
_
_
_
_ii
._"
sketch
(1))
thethose
engine
nozzle
the exit.
surfaces
Aexandare
inand
sketch
(1)passages
from the to
forebody
nose The
to external
station
_!
_'_'_.
The first bracketed term of equation (2) less the force on the ramp
is, according to the momentum theorem, equal to the rate of momentum
_,j_
_
change between the exit _._d the plane which includes the stagnation
points on the inlet lip (for a three-dimensional inlet)
in
where
,_
'I
AI
I
t
_
eO
O0
@@
@_
Fr
_|
a
I
+ _
- moVo
mL
(4)
or
(p . Po)dA + DVe
f-
J
I
According to the momen_,_ntheorem, the rate of change o_ _:.>mentum
through
the boundary about a d finite volume of fluld is lug, '_.._he
resultant
of _he pressure integr_ over the 1'tee-fluidsurface -."ithe forces acting
on the fluid due to soll '__urfaces. (This statem_.n
t " ,he theorem assumes
ste_y flow and _o shesa_ !_crce_on the free-_u_d ,"_"':--.'e.)
For the
streamtube between AI and t_._f:ee Btresm,
...., .......
:'?:,'",',.""'
:"' .:''",,.,',
'-,".... ' .'"
--
"
.....
FB " Fr
_l_11I
._:_
NACA I_4A99FI6
-_
"CONFIUA_._
_ ;'
_ .
"
or
_'
AI
_J_ " mV = o
_"
(P - P)dA
" FB " Fr
(6)
where
FB is the body force b_tween the nose and station i in sketch (i)
acting on the air which eventually flows through the engine,
if the airinduction system has a boundary-layer bleed, as in sketch (i), which pre-
_.__
_.
.%\_
ven_s the boundary layer frc_ the forebody from entering the inlet, MI
would not Lnclude any of the momentum decrement of this boundary layer,
_o F B should then represent only the pressure drag on the s_rip of
external body surface which is affected by the flow to the engine.
Sub-
_'i_
stitutlng
/'
'_'/:'
equation
Fnp = Fn -
-_,_
;
_!
._!_.
._._
j_.."
.i.
_
S
"_/
._
+
(p - Po)dA + DVe x
ex
.i_
- po)dA
- F
(7)
B!
_:o,-
:.
..
._i
,
a
(p - Po)dA +
_:
(p - Po)dA -- 0
AI
_j"
._',,,..
,_,;
:_"
'
Restating
Fn__ Fn -
(7) in smaller
(P " Po)_
components
" Po)a_ + _x
- Po)a_ "
I (p-_o)dA-
,;
%,:
DVBI
is the pressure
.....
force
on the forebody
from
";_
._
_._
CONFg_DENTL_JJ.
q
,_
*e
_teB
:
etQ
6_
6._
oo
Fn_ = F_ - m_ex+_B
where
DVB
is she friction
(8)
AI(p-po)dA-FB
DVe x.
of
DVB
twice
in Fnp, the _x.entum at the i_itlal _catlon of the internal flow must be
corrected to lccal conditions, which means that DVB
_ast be added into
the equation for Fnp because the true inlet momentum is less than that
as definea (_,Vo) and thus tends to increase
FT.p. In the event the
boundary layer from external _u_faces is removed from the engine flow
by a b_Jndary-layer bleed _uch as that of sketch (1), F u is not affected
by th_s loss in stream m_nentum,
Then
I>_B is unnecessary.
Fnp : Fn - DVex
(9)
increases
faster
Fnp
as boundary
than
Fn
decreases,
layer is taken
in
',
Quick in
L-_"
I
----
.....
"
"
"-
7L
"
"
(p - Po)dA = 0
then
@_.;_
NACA _4 Ag.SF16
.and
'"_,#
CONFIDE_IIUikL
Fn-o = F n +
(p - Po)dA-
DVex + DVB
(]0)
?
*q
,_
_:
._:
%
_
i_
_..
in other words, a correction must be made for the mc_entum chs_ige occurring
in the
jet
which
affects
the flow and thus
the forces,
as p=ev-lously
defined, which act on the system.
This correction is a pressure-drag
force which acts on the external surfaces.
(See ref. 6.) The fact that
sy_ne_ry is not a necessary condition for the preceding equations for
subsonic potential
flow has been demonstrated
in reference
7.
It can
also be seen fr_n the fact that if a closed body, which according _o
the
asst_l
can have
drag, is drag
added
to the
aystem,
the flow
s_etry conditions
is destroyed
and no
thepressure
total
pressure
must
still.
be zero if the flow remains irrotationa!.
Z_:
_':
_
_t_ON4ANC_
P/_tANN_RS
_
5;
PRESSURE
EECOV_ NY
"_'_'_
_:
_,
Several.
terms
have been used
to describe
r,he performance
of airinduction systems in regard to their effectiveness in providing an engine
with hig_,-pressure air. The total-pressure ratio
Pts/Pt o is the average
_
_
_
_
the effective
Pts
in non_uiform flow _e discussed in Appendix B. )
This ratio is used when an air-induction system is being considered in
--_
_'_
relation to an engine_airframe
combination because it is directly related
_o the net thrust and _he fuel consumption.
K_chemann and Weber show
by a simplified analysis of turbojet engines in reference 2 (p. 197) that
AFn
Fn-'-_
= Fni"Fnl Fna =L(I-
,_
"_.
_'
A(Q/Fn)
(Ql'_U)i
(Q/Fn) i
(Q/Fn)a
(Q/Fn)i
J__lll&
Pt_h
P-_o/
= (i - L)
(ii)
(12)
Pt
i0
;
,i :_
_ ...........
C@__AL:
.....
_
ii
quql ii
,,.
:l
@oe
s_
"':
.: : _ACA EM Ag_FI6
c,_s
t9
where
" vt-qJ j
+
-- -'gZT1
I
l
_j
jet eificiency,
l + (vj/vo)
Po
--
pressure
ratio
across
the engine
exit nozzle
Ptn
a
actual
installation
ideal installation
fuel
with
induction-system
without
induction-system
losses
losses
consumption
i
.i
_,_
_ depends on engine design and flight conditions and is greater
than i. _ decrease in total-pressure
ratio reduces the engine net thrust
and increases the specific fuel consumption with a greater effect on the
thrust reduction.
This occurs because the net thrust decreases with both
the mass flow and the jet velocity while the fuel that can be burned
decreases only as the mass flow for a fixed turbine inlet temperature.
(See _!so refs. 8 and 9-)
Ram-recovery
ratio (pts-Po)/(Pto-Po)
is the ratio of differences
in total pressure as measured at the engine face _nd ambient static pres-,
sure Pts'Po
and the total pressure and static pressure in the undisturbed stream
Pto'PoThis parameter is t_eful because experience ha_,
demonstrated
it to be only a weak function of Mach number for welldesigned systems in subsonic flow at a fixed mass-flow ratio.
(See
ref. 10. ) Thus, the results of low-speed wind-tunnel
tests can be extrapolated to high subsonic Mach numbers (of the order of 0.9) for condi-_ions
in which the total-pressure
profile at the inlet in flight is simulated
in the tests.l
Conversion from ram-recovery ratio to total-pressure
ratio is accomplished by the formula:
'
ii
i_
C(,_!D_._EI/_L
NACA I_4A99F16
Pts " Po
_.
pt s
P+.
Pt-_
_u
ll
7 - 1
Poo
+ _
M2
- i
+ i
(i
7.i2
2)7_ I
C_es
of this variation for
7 = l.& are presented in figure
out thls report
7
is assumed to be uqual to 1.4.)
The parameter
_
_._
_.
_=
__
,_'
-'_
._
'_
_:
_'-.
i-
(13)
. -!_
[(Pts-Pto)/q2]
has frequently
i.
(Through-
_&
DRAG
!-_
_
2
_.
ratio
t:
_'i
_"
',_
being added
to an of
airframe-engine
combination to area
the of
product
of the
a_mamlc
pressure
flight and a characteristic
the induction
sys._em. As indicated in the previo_,s discussion, it is necessary to be
consistent in defining drag; the bracketed term of equation (7), the n._t
drag
E.,_, can be regarded a_ the drag force which is consistent with _he
definition of net thrust
Fn usually used in computing net propulsive
'-#.
"f_:
-_-__-_
force
Fno.
_ne bracketed term of equation (7), in the general case,
includes _uch more than the drag force of the air-induction sysbem, for
the drag of basic body, wing, tail, etc., must, of course, be included
in t ha net propulsive force.
However, for the present discuss.lon, it
is assumed that only a scoop arrangement such as that of sketch (I) is
_
_"
"_
-,4C
being considered.
The force on the air-induction system is the pressure
and friction z'orc_s caused by adding the scoop to a basic body plus the
pressure _ntegral on the free surface of the engine-flow streamtube minu._
"-_
"
I;
!
12
the body
integral
t -
_t
esl
4e
2
;_
,_
_
_
MASS FLOW
ma
--
mref
A2
pVaA
(14)
_ArefpVdA
'_
The mass-flow
ratio
ma/m o
_O=PoVQA2
il
_
I
,,
I'"
I
I
, .
i
|
AS rl6
_;_
properties
_,
_"
_'
]_.;
;
13
evaluate
are used.
However, in the general case, mo
is easier co
=fA
DVdA,
and
in
subsonic
flow
both
ratios
can be greater
than m c
cl
than 1.
of capture
area
'
Acl.)
_.L_;
0.579
m2--_.
A2 ( 1 + _
ma' Am'
of mass-flow
ratio
Mo a_a(7.1)
- i
Aa,
"
2.
which
is plotted
in figure
2 for
AIRCRAFT
= 1.O.
REQUIRE_--_.,_
_TS
"_"
_
As discussed
in reference
basis
for the
choice of both
airframe 15,
and aircraft
engine. requirements
Since one of are
the the
considerations of airframe design is that of the induction system and since the
engine performs_ce is affected by the internal aerodynamic problems of
induction, the considerations of the air-induction system enter into
the preli_tlnary layout of aircraft; and they must be viewed from the
standpoint of the flight requirements.
Aircraft range and endurance,
for instance, are dictated by fuel consumption, which is affected by the
drag and pressure recovery of the induction system.
Similarly, take-off
distanoe, rate of cl_mb, maneuvering accelerations, etc._ depend upon
net propulsive force and hence on induction-system
drag and pressure
reoovery.
Aside from these performsnce requArements that vary w__th aircraft parpoae, there are other, less tangible, requirements that must be
taken into a_:ount in any design.
For example, safety, vulnerability,
_!_
_
'_
_:
__
i_'
-'
14
CO_D' .a_.__.
{ "'" :"{
NACA EM A95FI6
AIRFRAME-INDUCTION-SYSTEM
COMBINATION
To illustrate some of the problems encountered in fitting sxl Enduetion system to an airframe and to introduce some of the types of inlets
that have been developed for various engine locations, the progression
of design problems with increasing size of airplane is briefly discussed.
C_-rrent design practice for high-speed turbojet-powered
indicated by the following compilation:
Airplane
length Number
el_
Engine
diameter
F-86D
F-86F
F4D-I
FSU-1
FTU-1
F-IO0
F-8_E
XF-I04
XF-105
F-89
F4D-2
F-IOI
B-97
A3D-!
F-IOPA
X-3
14._
14
15
16
17
17
17
18
18
20
20..9
21.9
22
23
24
30
B-47
40
B-_2
44
of
x ettypeand I
engln_=s
i
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
6
8
aircraft
/_----_e
location
_
_
_
can be
Xe h
diameter
9.5
9.5
4.91
9
6
9
6
9.71
71
2
9
3
1.9
i._
I01
3.9
1.9
1.5
,"
iThese airplanes have two inlets for one engine, and the ratio of duct
length to engine diameter is for a reference diameter corresponding
to half the engine frontal area.
!
_
": .....
," , , ..........
:..........
H H .....
II
II
-.....
_'
NACA _
_
__
_
_
_"
_.
_
_
A55F16
C0_FIP_._
....
l_
_i
wing
aircraft,
thethe
wing-root
inset
a region
of large
induced preflow
angles,
both from
body _ua
wing is
atin
subsonic
spe_s,
so special
cautions must be taken to instu-eadequate perfor22nce at off-deslgn angles
of attack. For a high-_ing airplane, a design probl,m_of the wing-root
inlet at angle of attack i_ the thick bounda_ layer on the leeboardside
of the body.
_'
_,
_
_
,
.i_.
_
__:'
_
d_
....
_b
For aircraft of greater relative size (fu_elage-length-to-englnediameter ratio _ 22) there are several possible location_ with the choice
depending on many considerations. For engines clustered in the fuselage_
scoop inlets can be used; for engines in the wlng-root or buried in the
wing, wing-root, _Ing-leadlng-edge, or, for very large aircraft, underslung wing scoops are possibilities. However, nacelles with a simple
nose inlet have been used most frequently. Such _a_ramEementsare deslrable from the air-induction standpoint because the ducts are short and
straight and the problems of aircraft-induction-system interfe__nce ere
generally reduced.
_:
'_
_.-2_GINE-INDUCTION-SYS_EM
COMBI_ATION
_
,_
'_!
_
_,
",_
_
_
.:.
:
_'
_',
_!
,_
._
a
runway,
the vortex
will
suck
into
the the
engine;
or,
if objects
which
cs_
do damage
(see ref.
18)
arethem
thro_u
into
air by
some
other me_'.s,
the engine can easily draw them into the inlet. Foreign.-objectdau_e to
engines _s generally considered to be an operational problem, that is, one
of using screens, of polici_g._mPs ._ r_n:raysand of pro_r taxii_ proced_es_ rather than a fact_
t location and airframe design.
_
_!.
,_
._
_
!
,_
.'
ee
oe_
eo
_,_o
Qe
._
,
[
_
W_
MA,Ib_IKING
._
__
, _m=
i
i
'
'
--L_
.]lk_l
___2
"
_,_v_l
J ....
JJ-
t'
'
,_ 11'
NACA P_ Ag_F16
COE_DENTIAL
....
1.7
7.
characteristics
through _ wide r__a%e of flight conditions. 4
These characteristics are determined by analysis and tests, but since in the preliminary stages the air-induction
system has not yet been designed, its
performance _n_st be assume_ from past experience or by determining what
performance
is necessary and then striving to dezign and develop an
_'r_em_nt
that will accomplish the goal.
,
_i
_
<
/
To illustrate
<
:
..:
_
a method
for matching
a turbojet
engine
and an air-
induction-system
combinstion, the variation of corrected weight flow of
air for an engine (Wac=Wa_8/8) as a function of Mach number and the variation of the pressure recovery of the air-induction
system with massflow ratio as shown in sketch (2) are assumed to be known.
?i,
Wae
._/
Pt--!
Pt o
n,h
Mo, a,_8,A2/A.
Mo
'-:.
roW'too
_.
Sketch
_
_'
%.
'_il
_.
(2)
'_
:_>
'-
_2/AM, although in the usual case changes in this ratio are small and
their effec%s are negligible.
Transposing the continuity equation
'_
_,_
_
_"
;,:
and references
mi smatchin_.
.......
2_ and _
Illlll
for studies
II
IIII I
of the penalties
' ........
--
I .L_..]II
II I
associated
Illllll
.
!
_Ith
I I
""i"
,'
II
.,,.]IIsL_i_II
,f
i
!
defining
8-pts/2SL,
8o-=Pto/PSL,
mm_
peV_A._
s
_'_
Ao
=o poVoA21_;
gives
.:
{
w_J_P_
A28
m2
.7'+1
Pto - gPSLa_SL _
= 8_._
_
';
-N_
._
(16)
l+
when
i.4
32.] 7 ft/sec 2
PSL
0.002376slugs/ft
ASL
lll7 ft/sec
ii
;
:
'.
This relationship
can be represented graphically so that from the kno'.m
engine and air-inducticm
system characteristics the inlet area required
to match the engine at the _elected induction-system
conditions can be
readily determined as illustl-ated in fi_e
3. Thus, for a given flight
condition o_ Mach number and altitude (sketch (2)), a mass-flow ratio
is selected and the corresponding pressure ratio determined from the
alr-induction-sy_tem
performance data; _he corrected engine weight flow
is determined from the engine curve; and the p_oper inlet area is determined by the intersection of the corresponding horizontal and vertical
lines in the third quadrant of figure 3. This inlet area f'zrnlshes the
engine the pruper volume rate of flow at the chosen mass-flow ratio, but,
this is_ o: course, not necessarily the mass-flo_ ratio that produces
the msmAmum net propulsive force or the minimum fuel conscription.
A similar method
ditiO_S
ratio
m_/mo
at static
has no significance.
ccn-
Defining
"]I
_- ....,
:_
.......................
"_..........
_ '"'
' _"'_-"
...............
'-
"
-=
_L
NACA I]4A_GFI6
o,
|_$
'..
m sll
C,)N_ID_.NT!_'. : '
Ii
19
Wa_
,.
_'
J_
Pts
A25 Pto
89 4M2r
(17)
_ ,2_e
(I + 0._a
,
?
_i
r
!_
me/me*
"
can be
me*
i
(18)
and this
used
to determine
variationthe
together
inlet area
wzth required
the }mownto
engine
matchch_cacteristlcs
the engine or the
cad be
penalties resulting from mismatching.
OPTIMIZATION
<
:
!
;
n,h
in'h'-l_''t
Mo
Mo
Mo,a.B.AsIAu
me/ mo
":,'
Sketch (3)
"'_
-.!j_
.._"
i_
A,':V
o-
:....
to match
Fnp = Fn - _Fn - Dn
the engln_,
(39)
F._
/_z
Sketch
(4)
..
)"
T_
"
area system
_;
considerations.
other variables,
acceum.t.
by mecb2_ical;
structl_sl,
or flight
I_
;'"
)_"
4
NACA _4 Ag_-FI6
- -
. _
s
s
01o
_
i
bl
21
fuel consumption is, in general, different from that for 1_ximum net
propulsive force, but for a well-designed
air-induction
system the difference, which depends on the diffez'ence in the mass-flow ratio for maximum pressure recovery and for minimum net drag, is usually s_ull.
The
importance of this difference depends on the intended mission.
FLOW L_IFOR_TY
_._/
-i
*_*
_
._._
_
_i
_
_
_
_.
_
z_
_.
+
,_
_
_
*!_
_,
_
AND STF_DII,_S_
*_
".,iZ
,,. __ _
,...
22
C_NF_DE_A_
: -
NACA MM A55F16
4b
uniformity and steadiness are becoming more critical because of the greater
likelihood of rotating stall and of structural fail_._e. Even if a cornpresser is designed to avoid rotating stall, the effect of intak.e flow
r._c_
distortion is to _ve
the compressor surge line to higher eo_
....
wei_wht flows, and thus toward the operating line, with an ensuing decrease
in the operating range possible with the engine.
_iso, the results of
reference 35 indicate that nonuniformity of the flow from the induction
system can cause nonuniformity
in the temperature distribution at the
IV. DETAIL
CONSIDERATIONS
INDUCTI ON
!
i
i
}
'i
_i
;
simplest
purpose
cases,
here
refined
design
is to discuss
,-_._
,.__.,:
_'
The
principles.
t ",,,
'_-,_,,.
"
"
"F
NACA }_4 AS_F16
C0_T_DF_TI._I
PRESS/HE
RECOVEHY
_,
23
;
:'
:
:_
,\
],
Ducts
j-
:
_
There is no general method for designing the ducts of practical alrindu-.tion systems because the flow in the usual case is viscous, compress:ble, and three-dimensional.
A su,,nary of preseI:t knowledge of duct
flow is presented here to develop empirical design rulec.
L_e two primary ge_:etrlc factors which are of concern are the inlet-to-engine-face
_
J;
,_
&
.&
-'
,_
_
mined by the aircraft configuration and the necessity for avoiding press_ce losses.
The aerodynamic factors of concern are the initial flow
distribution azd the conditions which cause _ressure losses and nonunzformity in the flow,
The problem is to determine from consideration of
these factors the shape of duct that produces the best ope_ati. _ conditions
for the engine with the least cost in weight and complexity t,_%ne airframe.
_'
Area ratio.- In regard to the area ratio between _hc i_l__t and the
engine face, by assuming uniform, adiabatic flow of a perfect gas and
using the continuity _quation, it can be shown that (assuming
Ae=A2,)
'
'_
7+1
:'
PtJPto 1% 1 +
!l.
-1
IIIIII
--
II
II
I'I
L,..
il
24
CO_IOE_IAL
t
_
".
',
":
."_ACA
RM AS_FI6
s
4. o
zr
eJo
ee
Thus, for a given area AS at the entwine face, the inlet area A2
increases as the total-pressure ratio, and engine intak_ Math nu_o,_r, but
it decreases with increasing mass-flow ratio.
Other factors being constant, Am
is a minimlJ_mat a flight Mach number of 1.0. For present-day
turbojet engines in flight from sea level into the stratosphere at Mach
numbers from 0 to 2.0, MS
is in the range from 0.4 to 0.6; 5hus the area
ratio for an efficient air-induction system is between 0.7 and 0.9; and,
for grea_er engine-intake M__ch n,_ers
_ich
c_ be expected
in the
future, the ratio is more nearly 1. In other w6rds, the chsnge in area
between inlet end engine face is relatively smsdl and short ducts can be
fused
without requiring large divergence of the flow.
However, in the
I case of a rs_-jet engine with the Mach number at the burner about 0.2,
( the area of the inlet must be about half of that for a turbojet engine,
\
_ ;
_ .,
_
is more difficult.
losses..- In regard
consider first a
"
= o.ozIr
(see, e. g., refs.
(n)
= T/qs
'r
shearing
dynamic
wetted
i,
force
pressure
area
in dut
and on
the total-pressure
ducts with conical
I
/,
_f
:_
NACA RM A95F3 6
cgI_FIDENTIAI
_ ,'
29
2
2
_
are reproduced
in figure 4;7 similar curves can be calculated by the
method of reference 49. Beeton shows that for the seve_.e condition of
Aa/A2,=I.2, M2:=0.8, and (_/dsxCf/O.O03)=10
the total pressure ratio is
0.96.
Since the loss in total pressure in this case is nearly proportiona! to the duct length, it is evident that here a shcr_er duct Is
desirable and that losses due to skin friction can be sizable.
(Refs. 29
__ud _ sh_.:
- that the !ncr_mental loss ._ +,,_+
.... _
+_,_+
A_'___
per unit decrease in total-pressure
_atlo is in the range of 1.2 to 1.5
for the flighL conditions under discuasion.)
For long-range,
subsonic
aircraft, intern_3, skin-friction
losse_ must be mi_:mized, and duct length
req_.ires careful consideration.
If thi_ duct were on a supersonic airplane with a very efficient method of external compression
(Ma'-->i.0),
the high inlet velocity and the result_m_ duct losses would counteract
the near_y isentropic itLlet flow, for the total-pressure
ratic would be
reduced to 0.99 by the greater internal skin friction.
However, in the
usual case of a supersonic design in which the duct is shorter and external compression occurs through shock waves, skin friction is a small
portion of the tot; L loss.
The maid concern in duct design Is a shape
that avoids separation and meintains uniform flow. s
:[
_:
efficient air-induction
systems, the i_!et Mach
subsonic ra_e,
for if the flow is uniform
&.
_2
Me '
J
-_
i
y=l.4,
Pts/Pt2,_
is in the high
+ _ -_____l
Me _
=pte,_avMs
and with
Pts AS
number
+ ____________i
y
M32/
(22)
when Ms=0.6;
or
'
II
-,_
.
o_
/
f
e6
.......
t
:
..
_
,,.
(_c
_ ,_
....
' ' "
;,%t
_w
: .:
:_ACA
esgb
A)_I6
)u
M2'=0.7 when M3--0.9, Such a high subsonic Mach number fJtthe in/et makes
the design of the upstream section of a duct critical because, assuming
one-dimensional flow
_p
'
i,
!
;
:
dx
+ ---
MO
_'7-m
dx
For a g_ven local tot_l pressure, or flight altituAe and Mach number in
the second case, the bracketed _erm of these equations has a maximum
value at a local Mach number of 0.79and changes little from M=0.6 to
1.0. As a result, deceleration of flow in this range causes the most
severe positive pressure gradients per unit of Mach number chau_,e,and
the effect is aggravated by low-altitude flight at high Mach num,er.
Since deceleration is produced by an e_)anding channel in subsonic flow,
the inltialportion of a duct must diverge slowly to avoid presm_e
gradients which separate the boundary layer.
With mauy induction systems, b_adary D_yer fr_fS.ow over surfaces
upstream of the iDlet enters the duc_. In this case, the duct shape
depends critically on the initial boumds:y-layer conditions because the
pressure gradient that a boundazy layer c_n withstand wi_1out _eparatlon
decreases as the boundary-layer shape parameter H increases.9 The
shape parameter is increased when the boundary layer flows through adverse
pressure gradients and over rough surfaces.
_SH=5*/8=clisplacement
thickness/momentum thickness. This ratio is a
measure of the shape of the boundary-layer profile and is u_eful for
indicating incipient separation. Reference 47 shows that separatio_ do_s
not occur in inc_m2ressible, two-ddam.usio_alflow if H<I.8, and reference 48 slmdl_ly shows that the criteri_ is valid for conical-diffuser
flow.
"...........
tw"
% V,:,,
_ "_,
C01_I>ENT_,AL"
NACA I_MAS_F16
"-
I.E._try
lenql_
Inltiol _e
5.t_imumslo_
2
'
Sketch (_)
'
,
%
i,
_
ii
F_rml slope
"
/j
'
8
:11
le
so
el
e tew
,
i
.:__"
NACA EM AS_F16
_:
'-
CONFIDFI,_IAL
29
pared
tion ofin ansketch
attached
(6)
initial
for the
boundary
condilayer.
It is apparent that, for this
_
,____:
_'Conical0ref. 56 I
/
_'_8" Con_coI-O
5
_'-_96 L o f "_._
..,;t_1
olq +
_,
;
_
o
8
recovery
shape.
_:
The measurements
i','
:_
:,'
is
on the
flowimportant
uniformity
and of
steadiness,
that
effect
shape _
for
the uniformity
ratio
VM/Vductvaried
from 1.12 to 1.29 for ducts differing
:n total-press,are ratio by only 0.02
in tests with a thin initial boundary
layer ((S/'r)2' =0_0014) and a hig_
initial Mach number (142' _- 0.89).
,_
Furthermore,
t_
_qual uniformity
"
of reference
ducts having
and pressure
64 show
_.
,
i i
Midstream
Moth number,O.,_
-._ B8
I
I
I
]----,
I
......
0
.004 D08
.Or2
_6
D20
Bou.d_y-my_r,_c_essrotM,(8/r)_o
Sketch (6)
1.00 __
-_
nearly
recovery
differed
by flow
a large
amount in
quality of
steadiness
at the
hi@h
inlet Math numbers.
The comparison
of pressure recovery predicted by
the method of reference _ with the
,_
recoveryfor tfiinnest1
unseparated,__Y
__
u._15.5__6_
96 _
4_
_ 92 _
._
experimental measurements
of sketch
(6) _ .88
shows that the prediction is only
acc_.ate when the initial boundarylayer thickness is very small.
If it
_
cx .84----'
I
is
not small,
the effective
skinfriction
coefficient
is larger
than
that indicated by equation (2_I) and
experiments are necessary for accurate
loss predictions.
(The data for
_ketch (6), and also (7), were calc_iated according to the mass-derived
method; see Appendix B.
The magnitude
!
:
M._%_eom Moch I
;_umbe,',08
fl
.80 |
[----_--R,eference
64|
D2
04
06
08
JO
Om_oceme_ th_kr_s_ ratk%(_*/r)z,
"_I
_
_
:"
_'
in length.
.......
IIIII II
L_
_ 11 IU
IIII _ &
,,_
-_r 7 ....
_._
3o
ix ;
6
te
difference
shown in sketch (6) would be smaller
redaced by the mss-fl_w
weighting method.)
initial separation which, as will be discussed later, c_n occur in lowspeed flight _t high mass-flow ratios or in high-speed flight at low massflow ratios, some entry length improves duct performance because it gives
the boundary layer an opportunity
to reattach.
The fact tb_t _he _ressure
recovery can be higher for the long duct with the separated boun;_j
layer
than with the _mseparated
profile indicates that reattacP_nent occurred
after relatively extensive separation and that the small skin-f_.qction
force in the region of separation reduc _d the over-all losses.
In regard
to flow uniformity,
the results of reference 64 show that for short ducts
the flov is more uniform if the initial boundary layer is attached rather
than separated.
For a given initial profile of the separated type, the
final uniformity is improved if the duct is made longer.
!
!
i
:
:
assumed to be 0.6re,
apart, and the deflection was varied up to 19 tiues
the momentum thickness, or 1.9 times the boundary-layer
thickness, at the
duct throat.
For m_ss-flow ratios
toe'/me'* below 0.89, even the maximum
waviness tested had a negligible effect on the final flow.
At greater
mass-flow ratic_ 3 the maximum waviness reduced the pressure recovery,
uniformity,
_I
steadiness only slightly.
Leakage, as might occur through
Joints in duct wslls during high mass-flow operation in run-up on take-off,
was fou_
to have negligible effects when the leaks were in the lowvelocity region of a duct
However, leakage nea_. the duct inlet caused
separation with ensuing sizable pressure losses and flow nonunlformity,
The internal-flow
systems of most aircraft h_ve some offset between
the inlet
Grid the exit, transitions
in cross-section
_hape, and J_mctures
!_
i
wiLh other dacts, all of which can cause losses in pressure recover[.-.
The general pzoblem in the design of these elements Is the same as that of
%1
,k,,.......
......
_-,..,-m,m_
_'
_111
'
NACA RM A99FI6
_
_
CO_IDF_I_FI_L
_S
_
_
-i_i
_
_
_
_
{_
a wedge-shaped
externsl-co_pression
the auct was offset 1.9 exi_ radii,
_
_,
_
_
_]
;_'
_
_:
maximum total-pressure ratios measured with the ducts were of the order
of 6 percent less than those measured wi_h a straight duct.
Reducing
the mass-flow ratio decreased this difference to about 3 percent, a fact
which indicatez the dependence of duct losses on inlet Mach number.
Altho_=h the total-pressure
losses could be reduced by reducing mass-flow
ratio, the exit velocity distributions
show considerable nonuniformity
for _hese conditions.
Tests with offsets of one and two inlet radii
reported in refe-._nce 64 indicate similar results.
The center lines of
_....
_
these offsets
were s_ooth
curves
similar
to thin
thoseinitial
of the boundary
duct-wall layer,
contours.
At a mass-.flow
ratio
of 0.9
with a
the 1-radius offset reduced the total-pressure
ra_io 3 percept from that
_
_-_"
_
_.
Subsonic
_,
_
f
Since
in subsonic
flow,
Flight
press'_re losses
snd nommiformity
result
from skin fr_ction, separation, and en+ering flow that is asymmetric with
respect to the inlet, the _nduction-system
design problems in subsonic
,_'
_
_
_The
design prin?_p_es for annular subsonic diffusers are like
those of diffusers without center bodies, but the annular type, having
more wetted area, has l_rger frictional pressure losses.
Ltudies of
annular diffusers are reported in references 65 and 66.
52
"_C"_II_lPE_f'r-AL
, ,
:
,._
t I
*, -
el
el@
ol
"
;
,_
12
,
See ievel
Sfrofosphere
Flighf schedule
I0
___
1.0
-----
.-
.4
.8"1.2
Machnumber,Mo
1.6
20
k
Sketch (8)
Math number.
It is here assumed that the airplane accelerates at sea
level to a Math number of O. 8, climbs at this Mach number to sltitude,
_"
-"-7....
.....
"'_
71
.....
A _
A55F16-
CO.'_IDY:I_I__AL
condition
33
to a Mach number
of 2o
__
-'
._
_
_.
fZight.
From this, it is evident that the principal problem of inlet design
in subsonic flow is to select a lip shape and a variation of mass-flow
ratio that avoids internal-flow
sepPIaticn at low speeds and detrimental
disturbances
in the external flow at high speeds.
Of course, there is
the l_mitablcn that the inlet area must rLot be chosen to be so small that
iu chokes el, a low flight
_=
_'esure losse_ and
which a Macb number of 1.0
in uniform flow are shown
-_
Lip design_.- The import,triceof lip shape "to pressure recovery in subsonic flight can be seen from the analysis or' Fradenb_rgh
and Wyatt
(_.'ef.14).
The extreme case of a tube having very thin walls was studied
by momentum methods, and the predicted variation of total-pressure
ratio
pt2/Pt
with mass-flow
ratio
..........
for _ariou_
flight
Mach numbers
is reproduced
Y
-
.......
I II II
eat
e_
v,_
@
:'"
o4_a
40
eo_
OOe
@mD
N/1-//
i,
'
!//
720
1___
.2
.4
Sketch
_?
__1
LO
(9)
i
in sketch
,
'
)
i
'
,
J
-_
'
(9)
(Losses
the inlet
total-pressure
ratios to determine the pres=ure at an engine face
pt 3.
At high mass-flow _'_tios when the lip is stalled the duct losses are
small relative to those due to flow separation at the lip and are seld_
known. ) If the inlet area is r o_ ",cted for the altitude, cx-aise condition
and information
similar to that o_ sketch (9) shows that the mass-flow
ratio
me/m2*
is about 0._ ._n _ake-off_ the total-pressure
ratio
Pt2/Pt
at the inlet is then less than 0.9.
Such pressure losses correspond to a
,-
72 to 79.
pts/Pto,
are presented
'_
_._
NAOA RM A_FI6
CO_'D__._.,.A.'_
_5
speed.
However,
!_ are considerably
of
pt2/Pto
is greater
of
pts/Pto
by 1 to
'
ratio
..
Some tests have been made of qrhemes for reduci,_ the mass-flow
in low-speed flight to avoid lip separaticn.
These methods consist
_1_. ;,_,
36
COffF]_NTIA_',.
e
i :
,on
6_
-: : _ACA
0.0
f_MA55FI6
ot
of
Pts/Pt
with
mt/mt*
(where
mt
is the mass-flow
through
the total area) was nearly identical no matter how much area (up to 68 percent of +_o+ _? +_ _o_n .....
_-_ _" j_ ".'as_,,_.,.._,_--^---"
_- _ in the _uxiiiary _ccop.
--Tnus,
the _rovement
in pressure recovery that can be expected with this method
is entirely the result of reducing the mass-flo_" ratio for a given engine
operating condition.
In reference 78 a supersonic conical-shock
inlet
with a sharp lip was tested with a translating cowl; that is, a short
length of cowl including the sharp leadir_ edge could be moved forward
exposing a gap with a rounded lip and increasing the minimum throat area.
Since the curve of total pressure ratio as a function of mass-flow ratio
rotrot* (mt is here based on the increased throat area) for the extended
cowl lles above that with the cowl retracted, it is evident that this
method not only increases the available inlet area, but it also improves
the quality of the flow.
At Mach numbers from 0.4 to 1.1, the .esults of references 23, 76,
and 80 show that even _th
shal-p lips pressure recovery is nearly insen,
:
'
_
'
.
.......
':_
i_o - :....... _._---_"_,,,_:e_"'_
"
' ,,,
_"| |_i'
._
_f sttauk _: not
, +L_ _ivergence
'
'
. i
". : ..'
%w
NACA RM A_gF16
'
%
_
_
_if
/
C0k?UDE_FIAL
,".
37
5_
_
_
_.
_/
_#,
_
_,
_
_
_
_
_
t
_
the outbo_axlcorner of the inlet which resulted from the fact that, for
this operating condition, the flow must turn through a large angle to
enter the duct, since it approaches nearly normal to the inlet plane.
Guide vanes ali__._with the duct axis in the outboard portion reduced the
flow nonuniformityj but increased the pressure losses. Slots in the inlet
lips similar to wing-leading-edge slots, but not swept, reduce_ both the
losses and nonun_formity because they increased the inlet area and bled
high-energy air _zntothe region of potential separation.
s
S
....
_-
_v
e
_:
_
__-
_,_
_
greatly improved as the shape was changed from the acute 8_le
angular inlet to a semielliptical or semicircular inlet.
_
_.
of a tri-
Supersonic Flight
_'
-_
_
_
::
!_
-_
_
!'_
_%
pression of engine air the pressure losses and flow nommiformlty can be
caused by two additional factors, shock waves and shock-wave-boundary-layer
interaction. These factors become increasingly important as the local
Mach number at which they occur increase_ above 1. Moreover, the necessary
increase in thrust of air-consuming jet engines with speed depends upon
t_e increase in tc _al pressure
_
_
_
_
_"
_
_%
/
/
38
@0_LDEN_AL :
_ ".
_. c
..A_AEM
:
-I_v'_
m_
Pto = po(!
Little of the available pressure and
to overcome the large dr_
forces of
margin of excess thrust at supersonic
thrust-available
and thrusl-required
small losses in total pressure cause
maximum-speed
performance.
I
Supersonic c_pressionZS.
- Since the local Mach number at the intake
of present-day engine_ must be subsonic, the flow to the ermine of a supersonic aircraft must be decelerated
through a Mach number of i.
Ideally,
!
I_
I
l
_
(i0) ; practically,
i
I
shock-free
internal
intet'nol
compresslo,,
througa
M_@ waves
Normal
_
compmuio,
flow canno_
be attained
/
because
Extecr_coml_ssio,t_mug_
shock,ayes
,ntmnr:
co_sskm ttwou_shockwaves
external
endinternal
compression
Sketch (Io)
_
ISFerri
in reference 86 and Lukasie_Icz
in references 53 .and 87 discuss many of the principles involved in supersonic compression.
In this
report, these principles are mentioned only briefly, and the emphasis is
].imitations
the flight that
conditions
under
consideration-.
on presentlngforinformation
is useful
in design
and in point.tug out
'/
e,_
.
-
NACA A
F!6
39
_
:r
'L
_
v-.
.:
__
.
:-"
"
_'
/
_
_'
#
_o
_
_
_-_I_
_
.o_"
such
conditions,
the(11).
variation
waves
plus
normal
shock
wave)
is shown
intermina&
sketch
It
isof
apparent that the losses _rough a _ingle
normal shock wave rapidly become
intolerable above a Mach number of
about 1.6 and that large improvements
can be made by utilizing oblique
<
%
._
,
i
,
S
;_
_ .6
_ 4 ....
_._
_ k
k_
_
_2
_
Normal
_'
_.
sho_w_
\ \
,,_
hck waves'_"
_O
O0
I_
Z6
_.
_4
42
_'
'._. ,
_
.....
_.
_','J)!
__;_
....._._""_
mR"_ .'_.
---
II
llllllI
--
_"_
._
_",W_
l l__
I._
.......
._
i,_
;_'
Jl.JL .
.....
.- I
_,
J_lIIII I
_"'
';'
'
'-i
--
_-_-.-_-1
....
-"
_-_--
4o
:2:i
:
NACA RM A55F!6
'
._
' C-t
NACA RM A_F16
"_
A2'
Me
_._,
_;
.:_
-_i
CO__%L'
Ma "2 _
Ma 2
41
p _
Pt2 '
.9
"_.
'_
t-
..
\_
_
..... _
.
\ _,,,f.ee
\
_-_,N
_j:
.4
_"
contraction
inlet
at a given
flightTotalMach
number
and is
designated
_start"
pressure-ratio curves for two positions
j_
_.
of
the
normal
wave for
are
also
shown
for shock
the cases
where_start
the normal
_
,_
._.
:_:
._.
_._
,.o_,
(_,_/
_
_
Thus, if
aircraft
is to reach
a Mash
number
of an
2.0
and maintain
the totalnumber of 2.0, for inst_mce, is less than
_
%.
_i.
pressure
ratios ratio
(Pte,/PtO)_star
t orwith
higher_
the contraction
must decrease
. .e_-increasing flight speed above a Mach num- =_"_ ....
_._
_
.L_L
.:
_':"
i_,
_
_i
_i
_
_'
(',
Mach number
=m
J_
I_1
.Me_ with
\
_
..
.z
_
_4
LS
z.z
.,
z6
_o
Skc.tch(12a)
;__'_
._f.
es(___
\/_/_,
%_
_ k
\\
.e---_
_ .5_=--_
'
_
X
____/
_-
.4_
.s
"21.0
1,4
2.2
I_
Ze
"_
-_
:_
M.
Pt2 _/Pt2=I"
_ ....,
Sketch (12%)
II
.....................
'
II
I1111111I_111 I]1
...........
....
""'
'/
42
coNfiDENCe.'.
.....
[ t
_
ce
.":
eta
eo
eo
:.-
'
!
,
,
the normal
---
<
,
.
passage.
Rectangular
scoop _'_lets w_._ side walls swept .back towara the body
as described in references _3, 100, and lO1 are able to n_in_ain supersonic
_!
_
"
_J
<
_CA _ A59FI,5
}_
_1
_.
i_
'_.
_
C0_DE%_ZAL
43
derives in reference 53 th
contraction ratio
_start
that can be used
with conical-shock
inlets, based upon the assumption that the entrance
._i:
_'_
M_ch number is the average of that behind the shock wave and on the cone
mu_face.
This variation is presenc_,d in sketch (13). It is seen that for
:._
._
pressure
recovery
!
:
IDO
_]
_"
inlet
with25only
to about
as conical-shock
compared to 30compresfor _n
_._
,{
:_
in
maximum
recovery
small. e
sion,
(fig. _ossib]e
8).
However2
the is
differene
Only for SL_Lll cone angles where the
96
.92
_,
_:
88
;_
_
produce
great
have beenany
made
at advantage.
a Mach numberTests
of 1.85
_
_i
'!
;
,,_
The results
with
conical-shock
indicateinlets
very high
havingmaximum
internal
total-pressure
ratio, 0.95, for this
arraugement.
Both drag and pressure-
_i____
.76
_
_'
_',
recovery
measurements
werea made
for a
conical-shock
inlet with
20 cone
and a perforated cowl at Mach numbers
.7210
.
_,
_
_
_
!_
_.
_:
_'
._
/.
_,'
_nlets.
:'i!
,_
compression
can be,
or, in other
_ds,
__k
\ _
30"
--
_
*'.84
\_
r
20"
.80
1.4
on the number
18
2._
Mo
of oblique
____ 5.O
2.6
o-_
-_;_
,:_
_
"i_
shock
g-
44
'
' ;
_iD_.WA._'.
.:
" .'. _ :
.....
NACA RM A_-F3.6
"
! _t_p;_-_t_
_t._ _t_
pt_-_t_
p_
n"_-_o Pto_o
_
_ _t-'_
0 0.70 0.93
0.02
1 _ 98i o_ _ 74 _
3
-94 1.00
.0_
.96
.90
-97
O.O1
o2
.03
0.71
.94
best that can be expected in the present state of practical design knowledge, little ca,. be g_tned by using more t'han one obllqae shock wave _.t
a Mach number of 1.5 or two oblique wave_ at a Mach nz_ber of 2.6.
If
a poorer duct is used, say the duct "_Ith a thick initial boundary layer
and a two-radli offset as described in reference 64, the following results
P_e obtained when it is csmblned with shock-cumpression
inlets:
= 1.5
--
_t__t__-_t_
pt_
}YO
2.0
_t_pt_-pt_
&
Me
Pto
Pto
0 _,17oi0.931 o.09
1
2
._i
._i
_94
.98
.99!
_.00
-!:
Pt o-
M_
Pt
.14
.16
.84
.33
.7%
.83
.90
.99
.17
Pt o
Pto
0.06
0.66
.i0
.i3
.80
.82
.l_
.82
"I
-f
.At flight Mach numbers greater than 2.0, another limit appears on
the n_nber of oblique shock waves that can be us_=<lbeneficially.
As
pointed out by Lukasiewicz
/_ z'ef_renc_ o_ and Oonnors and Woo]-iett in
reference 102, supersonic flow can be t'_vned and compressed by deflecting
surfaces through such lar6e angles that a normal shock wave must form at
the streamline which turns throt,4_hthe max'nnum angle possible for attached
flow.
This normal shock w_ve occurs at Mach numbers above about 2.2 before
i_
.-
Boundar_-la_er
shock-wave interactior .- _ohably
the most important
limitation on supersonic compression
is caused by the interaction of
shock waves with boun "duty layers.
For iustance, Seddon in the note
appended to reference I03 shows that for a side intake without boundarylayer removal and only a nornml shock wa_:e for supersonic compression,
the _obal-pressure
loss due to this interaction was greater than the sum
of the losses from all other sources _t Macb nt_bers between 1.0 and 1.4
=
_
_.
and was about equal to that across a nc.'mml shock wave at 1.7, where;
in general, normal-shock
losses are unacceptably
high.
These interfez_nce losses were due to turbt_lent mixing in the flow after separation and
to changes in :_kin friction and. shock losses from "..heir_lues
in uuseparated flow.
"
:
.
_:
:
;
:
;
.
._
men_s.
Separation is to be avoided noc only because of pressure losses
but al._o because of flow unsteadiness
and nonun_ormity.
However, small
46
....
,
;:
'
C0_F_$:_.
': @:-': ":
:
:"{:CA
:.:
"
:
!
!
!
-_
NACA EM A55F16
'_
C_ENTIA_'
If boundary-layer
-_%
_,
separation
',"'
47
due to interaction
inveJtlgations of boundary-layer
removal near the minimum-area
station
Both porous suction and slots show that some improvement in pressure
_
_
,_
by
--
_-
_:_
_.
:_
_:
_
_
:r
_,
"
_
.c
_
"_
:
--
?
,
_
_
:
,
high recovery
,_-
to relatively
large mass-flov
ratios
at subsonic
Sl_d_,.
_
_
"
i
I
43
::
C9__'.
_{ACA_4 A99FI6
',, ..:':..:.......
" . ,
. "
NACA RM A55F16
CONFIDE._'
_ :'"
I_
9
85,_)_A2
Pt--2
=
Dto
(26)
7+I
L a
II
I -_
,:
/
/
50
""
:"
.....
.......
(
_'_
.(It
....
FM
1-
ql'ot
which adveruely affects subcritical operation. The most disturbing difficulties at reduced mass-flow ratios are flow nonuniformity and unsteadiness which are caused by separatiou that can arise from a number of
sources. An extended subcritical range of mass-flow ratios _n which the
flow is steady can be obtained by cholce of _he proper shock _attern and
duct design or by bounds-_y-layerremoval.
_ ,
.... ,,,,.;.-,_
. ,_,,,
"
'
"
. "
- _''''::
, ,,,,
,,j
., ,,ILIL_L_
...............
,....................
"'_
"."_",I ,_'_*_'_"::::'J',,_'_'_"_"':n',_,._,:_i
_:'_i_,_,,T,,_gR/_vz_crc"_
, "-
_-:-" _'" "" ._,'",'.:-.
, " " ".,_",____,."
" " ' .'. ":...
,,,
.'..... /
,""' ......
AS_F16
_O_q_
51
of a bypass system a_ flight Mash numbers of 0, 0.6, 1.7, and _.0 are
described. Both systems e_zLminatedflow spillage behind a normal shock
_ve, but the,net propulsive forces _re not determimed. Thi_ imvestigatlo_ was extended in reference 12_ to include automatic control of a system
ii
""
:_
'_.
_.
o_
._
_
._.
!
'_'
_
Mach numbers of 0.6_, 1.5, and 2.0. Substantial :unproveme_tsin net propulsive force over tl_t of the _ouble-cone inlet "wereobtained at these
Mach numbers,
i_
.:,
'_
,_
axis because
of the attitude
A_ in _he case _f _s-flow
total-pressure
x_tios
are,
._
_ the aircraft
end because of induced effects.
variatimas_ inlets which attain very high
in general,
sensitive
to an_.e of attack.
_..'
......
, ....
---
_,._
!
elo
,
:-
DRAG
,:
_h..
'
__
'lllnl
I.
II
,,_.,__._:;:;_::::..,
,::.l_
[l_..,,...:_J_._
;,_'
....
-C
_
._
_
_
_
__
_
/
_
Xnle_ Ma_d=.=
f_selageA_
-_
Aircraft
area,
A2,
sq ft
_!
"_i_
sq ft
Wing
area,
26.40
F_D. _
F-94C
_._8
_3.00
.171
_-86_
_._
_.I#
.102 _.o
_._o
3.72
_._o
26.50
AM
3,
,q Zt
#.#_
F-84_
_F-9_,
_-_F
._,.
AM,
?-100
_,-_1
F3H-I
f.,cUt._1area_
Mdrng
19._i
_._
_o.o
_15.0
557.0
232.8
T_ansonic
s_"_lel_o=
r _Se
.m
I.i0
._
.88
.o_7_
.o630
.015
.0515
.045
.90
.76
.0100
.0_5
.06_
l_er"
Supersonic
.0373
= i.5o crimes
0.0_30 137
1_7
137
.0380
.o_
.8_
.016o
139
.057
.77
._0
.80
.01_0
.0100
.0140
_._O
1#1
i_
661.0
385.0
051
.o6_
,90
.0100
,o_o
OZO0
.047
.87
.0140
.07_0
_.20
33 6O
_..7o
.i_
FTU-I
3_._0
_3._
.137 _96.0
0_70
,o3_o
,_
1_3
I_
i_5
_'
_
_',
_
_
i_7
138
3_3._
_3.0
302.0
_-i0Z
_-_05
.:,
_
._i
:-_
-:_
!_'
""
_
'_
?,i,
4,*I_
_
-._i
m_
-_
!_
SubsonicFlight
..._
_
_'_I
delaying
_(:_,
bc_ludary-layer
transition
D_ag
,'j_
_i
!'_'
,:,_._
._
i_ is desirable
_%
;i
._
'_
to minimize
internal
losses
by having
a large
_nlet area
,_,:
2_
_
94
: .."
'
C O_:;D_WZ_-T,_
_ _ '
" ,,"
NACA EM A95FI6
i
!
"
,:
The net drag of an air-induction system is entirely due to skin friction as long as the flow is unseparated and Irrotational outside of the
boundary layer, for, as shown pzeviousl), the pressure force in the drag
direction along the free surface of the englne-flow streamtube in equation (7) is offset by a pressure force on the cowling surface in the
thrust direction. The experimental _-esultso_ Biackaby and Watson
(ref. 72) show that for a wedge-shaped lip profile (7-1/2 w _ge angle)
there is no net pressure drag in low-speed flow at mass-flow ratios above
0.8; for blunter llps, lower mass-flow ratios (less than 0.6) were reached
without external separation that caused any appreciable loss in lip suction
force. Similarly, measurements to a Mach number of 1 show little change
in net drag with mass-flow ratios as low as 0.8 for sharp llps and to
less with blunt llps. (See refs. 76 and 146.) From these results, it is
apparent that no net pressure drag need be experienced at subsonic
speeds in the mass-flow-ratlo range of interest. However, for the thin
llps required for high-speed flight, a very localized lip suction force
to counteract additive drag is not conducive to laminar flow, for a small
region of very low pressure is followed by a rising pressure which causes
transition to turbulent flow in the boundary layer. From the criterion
of }'_cmluand Millikan (ref. 147) that laminar separation occurs in a
posltl_e pressure gradient when the local velocity is about 0.9 the maxlmum velocity and that laminar separation results in transition, it appears
from the pressure-distribution data of reference 146 that at flight Mach
numbers greater than O.8 with a sharp lip, mass-flow ratios greater than
0.9 ere necessary to prevent transition from occurrSng on the lip. For
the NACA 1-series irlets of reference 76, mass-flow ratios to as low as
0.8 with no serious adverse pressure _u-adlentseem possible in flight to
a M,eh number of 1.O, although the scatter of the data prevents a definite
cc_ucluslon. The pressure-dl_%rlbutlon data on NACA 1-series inlets at a
Mach number of 0.4 (rof. 80) indicate that for usual ratios of inlet to
maximum dismetert
no suction
pressure
peak with subsequent
transition
need occur to mass-flow
ratios
as low as about O.h at zero an61e of attack.
Similarly, the "class C" profiles of _ehemann and Weber (ref. 2) create
n_ _adverse pressu_ gradient until very low mass-flow ratios, less than
O._:_ are reached. These shapes thus can produce low drag in subsonic
flight; however, because of their blunt shapep they create hi_ wave drag
in sul_ersonieflight (see, e.g., the da_a Gf ref,,I_8). For aircraft tha_
_
_
i
I'_
!
I:
!
Z
NACA RM
"
55
_ :" _ ;_" _,
:..
""
"
_,
._
_.
:;
0_#__,
.e
i_ 7
"_"
_
--
//'
:
i
_ _"OI'C0"10050
_;////
E]
'
"
I IIII
L ""
.......
7 __
III
...........
_:
:_.l_--iL-i
2;,_2,_._:w_
........
,_
,_"
_
;:_.
'_
::_
._._
:"
''
"'
T
JL_
c f
-,
indication
or duote_-bo_y
tingle
of
at, tack
af
_r-Nuet-ton
systems
drag r_s_ -
"
is greatest
or. external
p_ssure-distrlbut.i_
da_ o_ the _NACA l-_erles Nets
zhow that angles
to4 can be reached without a serious suctl_n presaure peak for cowls
that are not too _lender.
A _sl_Kler cowl, the i-_0-_00, for instance,
devel_
a suctiom presm_epeel[
at this angle wh_e_
the 1-50-i_0 does
not because of the thicker lip.
su, sc night
i.c
?
+
'........
.:+_
JtJl
i :"
'
=_
+,*
57
1.
_ue external
wave (or pressure)
drag When the
with no spillage, as in sketch (16a).
syste_.--perates
2.
3-
from
the maximum,
as _n sketch (16b) or (16c). :('This.
is called
the cowl
suction force.)
II.+ Skin fricIlon (as mentioned on p. _2, thls.csmpon_at of the
drag is not discussed in this report).
(a)
(b)
No spillage
(c)
Spillage due man oblique
o.d a no_?mlshot..
_-wove
'
Sketch (16)
External wave a,_g with no spillage.- Several m_thods have been
developed for estimating the pressure distribution and wave drag of axially
symmetric ducted bodies at zero angle of attack with an _tt_.chedshock wave
on the llp. These are listed with pertinent references as follows:
Linearized methods
Brown and Parker
Lighthill
Ward
Jack
Moore
Ferrari
Bolton-Shaw and Zienklewicz
Perker
References
86,192 /
153,154
155,156
197
158
199,160
161
162
Second-order method
Van Dyke
:"
:<
_
;_
_+'+'
_._
163,164,165
,_
}
v,
,:,+
<L J
Higher-order
7--..-"_.
_-_'-'_'-Tmt'
,e
method
ov
References
Ferrl
86,166
x = 4.38(r
- l) + 15.Sl(r
- l) 2 + 77.07(r
- l) s + 1.73
The outer surface of this lip is parallel %0 the local flow direction
when the shock wave fro_, a 50 cone in%ersects the lip. 16
_%e results
of this comparison are sunm_rized in the following table:
iSLukasie_icz
in reference 53 _eesents &esign ir_forr_ation on the
flow direction in conical flow fields and on _he conditions for regular
reflection and shock-wave detachment.
It is shown that a llp incidence
angle can be _elected that is good for a wide ran_
of Mach numbers.
Also,
a conical-shock
inlet designed with a straight lip to provide internal
contraction cezmot have regular r_flection at Mach numbers up to 2.0 if
cone angles greater than 25 are u_,_d. In two-dlmensional
flow, attached
flow on a straight llp is not possible at ,a Mach number of 2.0 if the flow
deflection
angle is greater than 15 .
"
',
___-
. ,
.:
' :'
, .....
,,,.
'/2.
, !
NACA _
A55FI6
....
"
59
IDrag coefficient,
Dwave
Method
,
qAM
Conical
C-._v_d
[ cowl
cowl
o_.r Cp _-_
ist order
l +-7-
- ve2/]
-1
o,ol78 0.035
.... do ..................................
.OI7_L
.030
Do....
Do....
u2-
u
Cp = -2 Vo
v2 + -- _
Vo2
Vo 2
.Oi7h
.031
Cp = -2 u
Vo
v_
Vo2
.017I'
,
.02"9
.o187
.028
D_---- cp= -2 %
<
f
,_
"
',,?
_
_,
Whereas about 6 intervals are sufficient for solid ogival bodies, the
curved cowling required ii intervals, which incr_.'ased
the labor of corn-
ii_i_
.,_
putati_n fourfold.
./_
___
"-
]1 i
ii
I ii
R iii
i i
I I
m l
I I
-;.'_
.....................
......
--
_,
.....
....... , f..
"_.
IlJll
F
{
c ,
_C'-
_K
*-
_a
and 167. It was found that in spite of the fact thst the mo4els were
not quasi-cyllndl'ical (the ratios of..inlet-<)-maxi_r_ area were 029 and
6.90, _
the corre_onding
initial lip angles were 11.8 and 7.3 ) the
agreement was satisfactory,
as indicated in the followin% table:
Model
Aa/_4
= O. 29 i. _l I
:.821
A2/A
M = o.._o
l._.ll
1.82 i
0.1!9
O. 136
.099
.1o4
.049
.0_
.o4o
.04:
tI
Error
jor_diction '
percen_
14
12
2.5
"
',
,
"
"
:
I '
At a Mach number of i. 33, the theory predicts the pressure on the cowl
I:D as well as it does at higher Mach numbers, but at Mo = 1.17 the
experiments show that the pressure is overestimated.
At lower supersonic
Math numbers this tendency increases.
It is therefore conc!ud_l that the
lower limit at which tlm linearized theory should be applied is a Mach
number of about 1.2.
Warren ar_ Gunn in reference 168 have extrapolated Ward's firstorder theory for conical cowls to small values of the ratio of isis,-tomaximum area.
The effect is to l-educe the overestimation
of wave dr_g
shown in the previous table.
Their method csm be. slightly improved at
low values of A2/AM and Mo
by using exact values for the drag of cones
(A_/A M = O) and calculatioas from second-order theory to indicate more
closel_ the proper trend of the extrapolation.
Results from such a procedure are shown in figure ll. (Drag coefficient
is based on maximum frontal
area. )
"
been
with
of 3
than
that
Conical
(Ref.
Parker
1621
Am/AM = 0.16
0.099
0.019
.056
.016
Mo = 2.0
1._
A_/AM = 0.36
A2/AM = 0.16
0.032 ! 0.010
0.0_9
0.016
0.0_9
0.009
.0_8
.014
.0_3
.008
.031
............
I
.00_
_i__"
R_
62
@@
.': .. :.:.
A 1'6
io
I.....I
.
.
,
Kormonprofde,re, 171
witharea rule_
"
.6 ..,,,,mmd_
''"
Porker,
ref. 162!
Me_1.414
-_.___'#
.-
B_P_
o.,
witharearul6
_'-" M4 power_o6/, rlf 171
......
Az/AII-.3S
tld_ 4.7!
.I
._
xA
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
':"
Sketch (17)
solid bodies (see ref6. 171 and 172), that there is little difference no
matter which shape near the optimum is selected. For most practical purposes the conical cowl is the optimum shape.
Warren and Gunn (ref. 168) have presented charts for the optlmum
angle of conical taper and the corresponding drag coefficient (including
skin friction) as functions of "Mch number, skin-frictlon coefficient,
and area ratio. For _ given area ratio, an optimum conical angle exists
because the hess the angle the smaller the wave drag 'butthe greater the
skin-fric_ ou drsg. Charts rerJultimgfr_ the altered calculations mentioned on _age 6J are shown in figure 12, and they show that for a given
area ratio and skin-friction c_efficient, an increase in Mach number
increases the optimum angle and decreases the drag coefficient. However,
the differences about the optAmum are small.
:
!
!
/."..-.'"'i'_;: ,,,'"-_:
.,-_ ':
, .
._
'{
..
:,_
"_
'_'
_,
:'
<
sketch (18)
'_' _,
:' :,
:
,:
;_
'-'_
'
'i
[',
_;
_
'_
"
.,_
....
SXetch(18)
oti_.r factors be_g constant, the additiye drag coefficient in,Teases with
cone angle, and, contrary to the normal-shock nose inlet, the additive
drag coeficient decreases _rlthincreasing Mach number. For conicalshock inlets in which the flow at the inlet is not supersc_ic (sketch (18)),
Sibulkin in the same reference has studied the effec%s of the center body
,;!_
ii_
,_
"
as
in the fo_er
because Sibulkin
of the weaker
normal
wave. _or
In comparing
predictions
with case
experiment,
has found
goodshock
agreement
this
form of spillage.
Wyatt (ref. 12) has compared the additive dr_.g coefficlents
resulting from reduced flow of the three possible types ,__._shown
in sketch (19).
Thus, from the standpoint of drag, it is evident that air
I"
_
I
1
o..........
!
--!
.
1
Moss41ow
r_io,m_/m.
should
points
I,
t
li
_:'"
_I
_m--,-'
I
I
........
. -".wF"
. [J"
_j
_,
-_
_
_i
._
_'
i_
_
_'_
_,_
LiD bluntn,_,ss.
- Much of the previous discussion on drag at sunersonic
speeds has been :oncerned with thin, sharp lips on whleh shock waves _ould
be attached at m_ximum mass flow. Ho_.;e,,er,
since such lip shapes cause
large total-pressure losses at the high mass-flow ratios encotu.teredin
low-speed flight, the penalty in drag at supersonic speeds result."._
from bluntness must be la_ovn_n order to resolve the necesssi-ycomp. x_se.
As pointed out by Graham (ref. 17_), it Is to be expected that the maximum
cowl _uctlon force attainable is limite& by lip bluntness; that is, for
_ given atio of inlet-to-maximum-cowl area, above some degree of bluntness,
high pressures on _ne large frontal area at the leading edge more than
counterbalance the incremental suction force caused by expansion of the
flo_ over the rela::_velysmall frontal area between the lip aud the
maximum cowl diameter'.
-'
:_
__._
_
._
_.
:"
'
"
: :
NACA _M Ag_FI6
ZSBecause of the contraction between the lip leading edge and s_ati_
2', it would be expected from one-dimensional
consideration_
that (ma(/mO)M
would be greater than 1. The experimental evidence Of Fraenkel f pz relatively blunt lips indicates that compression due to contraction
is hardly
realized sm_ the maximum mass-flow ratio is very nearly 1. Mosmm_u s_d
Anderson (ref. 23) _ound that for less blunt lips nearly the full effect
of the ce_traction is attained.
This result is confirmed by recent work
of _i
and O_en (NACA RM LS_CI6).
_SThe experimental determln_tiom
of net wave drag by means of direct
force measurements and total-pressure
survcjs is a dlfficul+ procedure
because sevea-al very accurate measurements
must be made to obtain reliable
val_s.
It is possible to determine this force in supersonic flow frc_
schlieren or shadowEraph photographs
by calculation of the entropy rise
or moment-am change '_hrough the external b _w shock wave.
However, acc_rate
evaluations by this method slso require coasiderable
care_
Descriptions
and studies Of the method s.qe presented in refer__ences 178 thro___181.
NACA _A95FI6
C_!
_. _
67
For instance, as shown in sketch (20): the rises in net drag with decreasing
mass-flow ratio for the vertical-_dge inlet of reference 182 and the
inlet with a flow deflector of reference 26 are considerably different.
"
L6
"
'
"?' I
----Tl_xet_.ol
.:
"_
"_
----TI_It_
|2
_,
!
(open nose) Rat 173
(W'zbdescow;
IkCtl0nmlflmote)Ref.174
deflector
<3
(model
----<)----- e"Ver)icel
_
B) Ref. 26
sco_,_f. 162
:
2-
"
_"
.2
:_
.6
Mo_-f_ow
.8
ro:'o,
1.0
i.2
-'
m_lm m
Sketch (2O)
,,
i
_.
._
+.t._
_
.._
_,
--
it--
ii i
_
i_
_
_?
ii[i
,_
L
I .
_ LI ,+ .l'lll
I_
I
'
'I I
+
+ "
.....
_,"3,,
"
"
'_
..............
;t['_."
"r'+ll '"
:_,_
'
',
'+",+ +'+9+_'
'
,'
",
',_l
possibly useful for estimating the drag of slender complicated configurations at high mass=flow ratlos.
01_
= CD,,.,,.
---_ +
ttoAM
p,-_o
= C'De_,, + .,_
_
,,,
m[
(27;
and
FLOW STEADINESS
Subsonic Flight
,J
#jr
_&
.
r::
::-
_,
: _'!:T:.
:-:_:_::
,'_ ,,,,
,,
_;L,_; _::::
,' .,7'.
:: -:T-'_ _
.
_
,r'j ,'_ ,_
_
,.
" "
'_
'
"," ,,.;J_olF-"w-_
, .......
' _
_
'
'
)_
NACA _
AS_F]6
69
enough to choke the inlet. Asld_ from the low total-pressure ratio and
nonuniformity associated with thl_ condlt_ou, it must be avoided because
of flow unsteadiness. The results of BiLckaby and Watson (ref. 72) show
that at zero forward speed with a sharp.-iil"
inlet, fluctuations as large
as 8 perceut of the ambient pressure occur at frequencies up to _bout
200 cycles per second at mass-flow ratios ma/ma* above about 0.6. Such
unsteadiness was reduced both by increasing either the flight Mach number
or the radius of the inlet lip. The results of Mil_llo (ref. 73) in tests
at zero forward speed indicate large nonuniformlty in _he diffused flow,
differences in local total-pressure ratio of as much as O.lO, for inlets
with rounded lips just prior to choking. Thus, both flow unsteadiness
and nonuniformlty are to be expected in opezation near choked conditions.
'
:;_:
_
_
_
_!_
ahead of the inlets described in references 18_ sad 186 show that without
_i;_
/
.........................
.._
ace
ee
I@.CA]_4A99FI6
eo
_L
_._
"_
b__m_._
._-\
\
_
S
a
_--k_.._---J
--
Vz/Vo
8ks%on (21)
(V
(v2/Vo)s
=
o)a
* (V
o)b
(29)
Thus, as a res_< of the continuity requirement snd the assumption of uniform static pressure at station 3, it is apparent from simple geometry
that operation below the inlet-velocity ratio for maximum recovery is
possible either at s or at a and b. However, if s is above the
maximum, operation is possible orly at the Joint inlet-velocity ratio.
For these events to occur it is necessary that the shape of the curve be
similar to that of the sketch; that is, the negative slope at ulgh inle%velocity ratios must be grea er in absolute magnitude +ban the l_-sitive
slope at low Inlet-velocity ratios. The assumption of m,ifcrm static
pressure has been found from experiments to be realistic, "Jndthe shale
of the curve has also been found to be typical of those of twin-scoops
into which boundary layer flows. If two nose inlets or scoops with complete boundary-layer removal were used, the slope of the curve would not
reverse; it would decrease from an inlet-velocity ratio of zero. Unstable
flow could then not occur. From _he sketch it c_ be seen that if the
.......................
__ _
_._
"
' "
,, ,,:"i,T--"'-h'-
........
'
J' i
":
_
,,t
(0)
,.
-- .....
(b)
Lineof velocitydiscontinuity
Seporofedflow
()
"
_:
_>
Sketch (22)
'*
._
:
"'
!
/
I
.......
those described _ Ferri &nd Nucci in reference 50. Here, the velocity
discontinuity downstream of the intersection of an oblique shock wave and
the terminal normal shock wave entezs the inlet as a result of the normal
shock wave moving forward due to a reduction in mass-flow ratio. Since
the total pressure and velocity are less in the streamtube on the outside
of the llne of dizcontinuity, subsonic compressioa tends to bring this air
to rest sooner than it does the high-_elocity streamtube next to the
center body. When the local _ch number behind the oblique bow shock
wave is near 1.O, as it should be to avoid significant shock-wave boundarylayer interaction, the velocity difference across the discontinuity is
large, and the velocity of the outside streamtube approaches zero in the
duct while that of the inside streamtube is still high. Unsteady flow
results when the llne of discont_uuity Just crosses the lip because a
large percentage growth in streamtube area of the low velocity stream
occurs while a uniform static pressure is maintained across the discontinuity. Even though the contraction of the high-velocity stream is small,
it is sufficient to choke the major portion of the flow because of the
high local velocity, and air must be spilled. Once this happens, the
pressure recovery decreases, which tends to draw the flow back to its
original position, choking again occurs, and the cycle repeats. This
explanation is obviously oversimplified because the effects of viscosity
are ignored; neither turbulent mixir_Eacross the llne of discontinuity
nor the presence of a boundary layer is considered. The experiments
which were reported with this explanation show that an entry section which
is sufficiently long to permit mixing to reduce the ve_'ocitydiscontinuity
provides an increased range of steady subcritical mass-flow ratios. "When
separation occurred on the central body as shown in sketch (22b) in these
tests, it was found that unsteadiness occurred as the mass-flow ratio was
reduced when the velocity discontinuity from behind the lambda shock
approached the lip from the inside. When separation was prevented by
boundary-layer removal, unsteadiness resulted only from the prior explanation. It was concluded fromthls study that unsteadiness can be ave: led
by positioning the external compression surface so that the _ine of velocity discontinuity cannot move across the lip for the range of flight conditions of interest so long as extensive separation on the compression
surface is also avoided.
The results of references 91 and 189 show the importance of separation, as illustrated in sketch (22c),as a source of unstesdlne_s and
indicate that factors other than lines of velocity discontinuity must be
considered. It is shown in reference 51 that a conical-shock diffuser
with a 25 semlcone an._leand a 6 equivalent conical subocnic diffuser
has a very small range of steady subcritical flo'_ e_en though the relation
of the lip to the oblique bcw shock wave is changed. The same inlet,
however, with _ length o" duct-entry section of 3._ hydraulic diameters
alway_ had a much wider steady range. Since there was separation on the
cone surface throughout the subscritical mass-flow range in these tests,
it is apparent that this and the duct shape can be dominant causes of
unsteadiness. When the duct did not have an entry length of small pressure
....
. .
I"
I
.->%.;.
NACA _
CC_IDF_-T_;_LL _ _....
A_SFI6
73
__
_In the tests reported in referel._e123, the models used had small
irregularities in area distribution near the duct entry, but the razAge
of steady mass-flow ratios was large. The cause of this difference wa_
that in this latter case the pressure gradient through the duct entry
was slightly negative or zero.
....
_ ....
me
_J
%
%
nT
/
l
IIit
i
II
e _1
I 11
'
------.
r
i,
_-_ ,,
...........
- ....
....
" ........
._
"
'
"_
: - ......
_._.
:o......
._
NACA EM AS_F16
C_
:....
i.o
LO|__._
"- \x',
[ ""
,
'
79
I
2
3
Entry length,x/Oh
1
--a
Sketch (23)
greater at angles of attack up to 9 . A similar result was found in the
tests of reference 91 fo_"conlcal-shock inlets which had small steady
ranges at zero angle. Howe_er, when a long entry passage was a;Ldedto
provide a wide r_nge of steady operation at zero angle of attack, there
was an abrupt reduction in the steady range at angles of attack from 3
to _o. At higher angles thel-ewas little difference between _he inlets
with the long and short entry sections. A tilting cone on e conicalshock inlet to provide improved steadiness at large angles of atte:ckis
reported in reference 129. A_ an angle of attack of lO, "_iththe cone
at 0 angle of attack, steady flow was m_intained to a mass-flow ratio of
0.4; with the cone and cowl at lO angle of attack, the rdmimum steady
msss-flow ratio was 0.9. In reference 198 tests of conical-shock inlets
wlth booms protruding from the center bodies ere described. An increase
in angle of attack to lO reduced the range o_'steady uass-flow ratio_
by 29 percent. Interaction between ahock waves and the boundary layer
on the booms was the cause of this large decrease.
:
i
-
:_
_:
....
l
[
_,
'
If
_,
It
I
lel
It
ge
&
steady flov are the same for other t_rges. (See, e.g., refs. 188, 190,
19i, 199 through e0e. )
I_2E_[_NOE
Here, the
Sketch(2_)
th_ performance of an undc_ w_ng nacelle is affe:c_,':_,
1.
2.
3.
' r.,,;
NACA _
'_;
-_
_
A55F16
CONT_DEI_.V_L
, _,
77
4.
_.
"
__._.e
perfo._naneeof the other aircraft components is affected by
1. Interference of pressure field of engine streamtube "_iththe
wing and fuselage boundary layers and presgure fields
,!
!_
o_
_
!_
._,.
_'
I'O0_--]----T
._
_
_ .96
_
Fuse._
in_I
I
m "0"_
I^_ i
I'_o
I _<2_4_
I
2.00
.
i
_,
,
:_.
_
'_,
_.
:,:
_
._,
..
'_
"
"_
"_
7
:,_
_:
1.2---
I,O_---_r-_-_&_
:i]
i_
"o ,o
,o
--.
_._
Sketch_.(25)
'_
i_
_
_'_
'r_
'7
!
/
78
"
......
"_
'
CZ!
NACA l_
:
Ag_F16
"
!.
!*
i
+_where
flow.
).+...
(30)
i,
_,-V/-o
)o_,_essiblo_l- .o_ -- Vo,'_c_re_s_ble
and in the three-dimensional case, the methods of Her:lot (zef. 208)
should be ,._ed.
In terms of pressure
coefficient
in three-dimensional
flow_
CPeumT-.essibl
e
CPimcmpressible
=i+
In(l - Mm)
_t)
2 + O.6138
where t/Z is one-half the body fineness ratio. Herriot points out that
in.Junctures_ such as those between a wing and nacelle, the flow is more
.
,,
- -
[
i
"'
NACA
A9_16
CO_[D_
79
nearly
Olauert
than
rule is a better approximation
three-dimensional,for this and
case.
thus
the
Prandtl-
t
over a
typical body
at a subsonic
and shows
a supersonic
Mach number.
If in
Supersonic
flight.Sketch (26)
a comparison
of flow properties
the subso/_ic case the boundary layer is neglected, the total-pressure
i
h
'J
iii
,_
kEochnumli_r,
Me* 0.70
"
'
J
tO
":
Sketch
._
(26)
area and
distance
position
however,
ratio of
"
shock wave, in this case i percent, and there are subsequez,_ changes in
local flow properties which have important consequences
in regard to air-
._
induction-systems
performance,
As an example, consider the flow conditions
at x/1 = 0.0_ and at x/_ = 0.9 wnere the local Mach numbers are 1.38
and 1.79, respectively.
If no significant radial
change in Mach n_mber
_
._i'
through
an engine
streamtube
is assumed,
a normal
wave occurringratio
at
the
forward
location
would create
a _-percent
loss shock
in total-pressure
and the loss through the optim_h oblique-normal-shock-wave
combination
"
_t
point
field
..........
'_.-_
_!
'
_ _
'
'
_--_--
":
"_
:........
'..... "_,'_':--J"
"
l" 1
'
80
-"
NACA_4 A99FI6
'.
ZO
'---
=
/ i/
J
1.7 I{/
|"
.....
- 1.7
.l
-"
i.,2.0
M,.2_
%,
t#d._o
i#d.li.O
i
(a)
i.5
-.-I
20
Jl
Jt
(hi
_0
tSO
x/l,
(a)
.2
6
x/l
Jllill! zil.......
(b)
.8
tO
41
NACA _4 A95F16
_CONFIDF_
.......
81
For forebodies
of low fneness ratio, a considerable redactlo_ in local
Mach munber can be achieved by using conical, or m!nlmum-drag
shapes
ra_he'_"than sn ogive if the inlet r.ust be locate_ upstre.am of x/_ = I0
For fo::'ebodles of high fineness ratio, the differences
are sma!ie'_. _"Tne
data of cefe_ence 172 show that for a fineness ratio of S.O, the K_m_n
forebo_y dx.ag than the cone and ogive at zero angle of attack at supersonic
Mach numbers up to 2.0.
However, these minlmum-@rag
nose shapes have
blunt tips, and, depending upon the size of the engiue stresmtube, the
loss in total presmme
through the locally int_.se bow shock wave counteracts the drag difference.
.Reference 211, for instance, reports that a
rel_tlvely
small amount of _0i# bluntness that had a negligible effect on
mirC1mum drag caused 1-percent losses in tot_3-)?ressure ratio and maximum
mass-flow ratio as compared to a pointed tiL_. Thus, any specific design
requires s_I/dy and evaluation of these factors.
Because an air inlet at
positions other than the nose intercepts b-l_ a sma31 part of the air co_pressed by the bodD,, the major consideration
in choice of body shade is
drag.
The desi_
problem is to find the optimum inlet location on a lowdrag body.
_'
-.
In the general case, forebodles are not axia]3.y symmetric as has been
assumed in this disct_slon,
the theoretical
study of reference 213 indicates that small reductions la dr_g can be produced by axial asymmetry,
and a similar conclusion has been reached as a result of the tests reported
in reference 21_.
It is possible that circumferential pressure gradients
and reduced local Mach numbers can be prod,uteri b._iasys_etric bodies that
are beneficial
to air-induction-.systam performance.
To date, no studies
of this kind have been made.
Induced
.
body,
Effects
of Angle
_
._
of Attack
"._
Bodie_.____s,._
In selecting the circumferential
position of an inlet on a
the induced effects of angle of attack are of primary concern.
The
:-.
': ----'
- .........
=7.',' ":'_,_,_ i.
"
"_-_?,.-,,-',,.i;,',
"_".......
'
_'._
-_
'_._',,_.i._,_-,_
"
82
....
.......
" '"
''<
NACA 1_4
St_ A-A
a<3"
___
tolol pressure
8_
Bottom, Oe
I
Side, 90 e
J
Top, 160"
Con_tont
totol-
preosure contcurs
Rot 217', 218
Sketch (28)
It is seen that along the top and bottom of a body in potential flow, the
flow direction is nearly parallel to the body c_nter line (i.e., at the
_ngle of attack _ with respect to the flight dire< 'ion); whereas along
the body sldes the flow inclination Is greeter, being _
on a right circulsa-cylinder SimJlarly, the local _.ch number is greatest on the body
sides and is lea_t in the forward bottom location _: th, leeward side
of the body, bhe flow is affected by viscosity so that the boundary layer
accumulates in lobes and, at sufficiently h_gh angles of attack, this lowener_ air leaves the surface of the body as a vortex wake. These general
characteristics of tL_ flow occur at subsonic"as well as supersonic speeds.
Several investigatiems of alr-_-.ductionsystems in the flow fields
of inclined bodies have been made. (See refs. 199, 20_, 218, 219, and 220. )
i
1_
I
|
f
NACA EM A_SF_6
i
.
Typical results are shown in sketch (29) in which the maximum totalpressure ratios attained are plotted as functions of angle of attack.
',
"L_L! i
'
I
--
, I
--
M, I)9
7-1tl
h'O
_;
30
"
,
"_
"
h-375
I
8
12
inch
4
8
I_.
Angie of ottock, e, de@
h=.750inch
0
I2
Sketc_ (29)
Half-conical shock inlets were mounted on a slender, low-drag body at about
the maximum-d_lammterstation, and the height of the boundary-layer diverter
h was varied. The 0.37_-inch diverter height h was about equal _o the
undisturbed boundary-layer thicknes_ at the inlet station at zero angle
of attack. These results confirm the desirability of the bottom location
':
_i
_,
_
:
_
'
"
:,
':,_
layer.
_ -_
i_
"_
_
_,
84
C_,ID_L
-
_,
c
_
"
NACA EM A99F16
/_
of attack was greater than that of the bottom inlet. A final evaluation
would, of course, require study of the effects of such large vertical
surfaces on aircraft directional stability and other related factors.
Since the upwash about a body decreases as the square of the distance
from the body center line (refs. 21_ and __,,_^_ "adverseeffect of angle
of attack on pressure recovery of side inlets can be alleviated by moving
the air-intake outboard. Thus, a comparison of the data of references
218 and 224 shows that if a nacelle with a conical-shock inlet were used
rather than a half-conlcal shock scoop,on the body sides, the same maximum" total-pressure ratio could be maintained by the nacelle at twice the
angle of attack of the scoop-body combination when the nacelle was over
about 1-1/2 nacelle diameters from the body center line.
Wi___n_.Wh@n the Mach number normal to the leading edge of wings is
subsonic, the circulation accompanying lift creates an upwasn field ahead
of wln@s which increases the effective angle of attack of inlets in or
n,-arthe leading edge. At low mass-flow ratios this upwash is aggravated
by the diverging engine streamtube. Fortunately, turbojet-powered supersonic aircraft, which are quite subject to lip stall because of thln llps,
seldo_ encouater the condition of high lift coefficient and low mass-flow
ratio Eigh-speed maneuvers are made with full power and normal landings
are made _ta some power at mass-flow ratios greater than 1. For subsonic
aircraft designed with a relatively large inlet area, internal lip stall
in landing would be more likely if it were not for the thicker llps that
can be u_ed.
An investigation of leading-edge inlets in a straight wing at subsonic
speeds is reported in reference 229 in _,hichit is shown that the induced
upwash from the wins causes an abrupt decrease in total-pressure ratio for
an inlet not designed to account for the additional flow inclination. For
example, an inlet with relatively thick lips maintained a total-pressure
ratio of 0.99 to an angle of attack of 6 , at which angle the pressure
recovery rapidly decreased _o 0.92 at an angle of 8.5. This decrease ir_
total-pressure ratio was caused by internal-flow separation from the
lower lip. It was found that the separation could be delayed by csnti:_
the duct axis Ju_t behind the llps downward and also staggering the inlet
plane. Tests of a similar leading-edge inlet at subsonic speeds in a
swept wing are reported in reference o_2E. Here, it was found that a
seriouK spanwise flow occurs in the inlet at low mass-flow ratios when
the wing carries lift. At mass-flow ratios greater than 0.4 and angles
of attack less than about 4, the perfo_n_anceof the inlet in the swept
wing was nearly equal to that in the unswept wing. At greater angles,
however, the pressure recovery decreased rapidly due to separation of the
i_,te_-u_al
flow. I_ is probable that this separation could have been delayed
somewhat by canting the lower inlet lip downward as was done with the
inlet in the unswept wing. At angles of attack greater than 6 to 8 and
a_ mass-flow ratios less than 0.8, separation occurred downstream of the
outboard edge of the inlet on the external surface of this swept wing
and resulted in an increase in drag and a loss in lift.
for supersonic aircraft have
the
Itlets located in
wir_ leading edge
received little attention because of the transitions and bends needed t,,
i
:
"
_
i
:
_
"_
_i
In
this
sketch,
the
wlng-ro_t
inlet
thobe
for
maxlm_n
pressure
The
mass-flow
ratios
of therecovery.
data are
of reference
84 shows
pressure
recovery
with improvement
increasing in
._
t
_
past
_._.84
6,r-,_,mT,_ _. z_u [
/o"5_1
_-S_"
mMn;m_in_s.mt.P.3q
,_,
/I
._ L_,,_,LA
_'s,_,,_._zswi,_--"_
I
_
o
4
_
_
_
_ _,m..._
"
|
_.0"_'0
m
2o
by
body
c_ossflo
w.
In
Sketch
(_0)
terms_h_n
of absolute
total-pressure
ratio at angle of _t_ack, the wimg _*ooti_lets are inferior to isolate_
inlets or those with upstream flow-deflecti_ surfaces. Although most
of these tests we.reperformed at M_ch numbers less tha_ 0.7, the low-spee_
results have been transformed to com_itio_ at a Mach mtm_er of 0.7 to
obtain a consistent correlation. As m_ntioned previously, this _,"amsformation can be reliably acc_mnli_h.e_if it Is assumed that the mea_ared
_
"
, .
_I_
_''_,_I.00
_
._ s,_
_
i_
W_,_
"
_i_
!]_
:_.'_
)_
._._
,_,:,,,
_
_
i
86.
CGN_I_E_Ir_,
_"
' NACA _
A5_FI6
ram-recovery
ra_io is iz_Lependent of _ubsonic fli@ht
Mach number and this
measurement is conw_rted -,,o
total-pressure ratio by equatio_ (13).
______
_'
_tP'4P'!|__Ss
the local Mach number is high. Such
s_--- __--inlets receive all the boundary layer
I
R,f._
I,_,_-c,.,_.._
a_nu'_r
i,_
from the flow over the forebody (the
. |
..... -I_
wltll S.k.t_mo_
_ _I
.4:
!
20
.4
'_.-_-_
..
_. , ,,.
_--
CONF_Eh__;_
87
'5
"
q--/-Pt_"
Pto
[ I +J(Vo/V
1 )
"
where
"_
Boundary-Layer Removal
.
'
:
';
"
88
CQ
NACA _M A59TI6
m_
,,_ada
m.
."a
4
i
_
..
shock wave occurring at the _ocal Mach number of each element of the flow
approaching the inlet and adding an allowance for the skln_friction loss
in the duct. This method of prediction is also recommended in reference 241. The tests showed that, if h/5 _ 1.0 and no additional _-ethod
of
boundary-layer
removal
is used, the
leading
of the
suction
fairly
well predicted
by integrating
the
local edge
pressure
recovery
ofscoup
a normal
'
_
:
the
- not i_L_t
aheadand
of the boundary-18&er
scoop
- occt_ron
if flow
must intervening
be upstreamsurface
of the main
nozm_l ShOCk wave
mu_t
unsteadiness is to be avoided. For mass-flow ratios greater than 0.9 at
Mach nambers from 1.3 to 1.8; it was founa _n this test that thesuction
scoop must be at least a distance of 0.4 of the inlet r_-llusupstream
of the main inlet. (The cross secticn of the main inlet was a semicircle)
The mass-flow ratio of the s',ctionscoop was maintained a_ the maximum value
in this investig tion, and.by measuring the total pressure in both the main
and the .....
ootm_y-layer
ducts the net propulsive force possible with the
system was evaluated. It was found that the maximum net propulsive force
occurred when the suction-scoop height was 0.7 of the undisturbed boundary-
'
i
_i
_
flight
number
indicated
in
remvalMach
ducts
shwsas
a large
decrease
with _ __.
sketch (32). (See also ref. 242.)
s _.4Q_
"
_,.
_
l
_
l
Z_
C
o
.4
I "t,.o "'
"
A5___
! --_
I . I
!', I.... _,
_'_
,q_f.190._P_--_
'
h IOm
J' --._-_"
,--"IJ
'S 8
ram.
_
_._._,[
'-ts
_,,.0,._,.0-_----_'o---_--_
8
_2
l
I
,6 _o
"
_8
Sketch (32_)
|
-"L-_.
................
I_111
I
-{k
_,
IIIIIIr
_'_l_'_
" --
_'t_ _
___
[l_l
r "_]I_/'i
_ l "',_ IIllll
lll
ll
!
!
....
!_
__
,
..... , ,,
._ __ .
- .
el
: , ,.: .::
-If
III|
, , -
NACA I_4
80undary plo|edisturbance
created
by the
shock
from the edges
and the
extent
of wave
the
upstream .influencethrough the boundary
Sketch (33)
layer are reduc=d. Swept edges also
create a latereO pressure gradient
which tend_ to divert the boundary la._er. It -_asfound that extending
the boundeu--j-layer
passage downstresr_beyond the plane of the main inlet
reduced the angle through which the boundary layer w_s dlverted and prevenbed the b_.mdary layer"from being drawn /a._othe engine streamtube.
(See also ref. 243.) Tests of other inlets which u+ilize these design
pzincip!es are described in references 3.82,244, 2_, and 2_6.
".
|
P
NACA _
A_FI6
/d. _
91
le
i_
at
#1_
|el
c,
2.
B.
._
-"
z
[
an installation would have less drag than one with a forward auxiliary
air intake because the dynamic pressure of the local flow is smaller.
,_
..... ,r
....
'
"
" 11_I
,_,,, ,,,,,
....
--
NACA EM A59FI6
when the adverse effects of the approaching boundary layer are removed.
Investigat._onsof submerged inlets haviug curved or steep-angle approach
ramps with parallel sides are reported in references 291, 2_2, and 253.
In general, the total-pressure ratios attained were less than those of
_imilarly placed scoops. A submerged i_iet having a relatively small
ramp angle (about 7) and diverging ramp side walls has been found to be
coupare_le to scoops in regard to pressure recovery. (See refs. 294, 2_,
and 2_. ) The experimental investigation of reference 257 and the Gheoretical study of reference 298 provide an explanation of the relatively
high pressure recovery of this arrangement. Flow over the square corner
of the ramp side _'allscrestes a vortex which thins the boundary layer on
the ramp and sweeps the retarded air into the vQrtex co_'e. When the
vortex flows into the inlet at high mass-flow ratios, it represents a loss
in total-pressure ratio, but less of a loss than if _he boundary layer
were permitted to _ow normally; at low mass,-flo_ratios, the vortex is
discharged externally and represents an increase in drag. Tests at low
subsonic s_eeds, reference 28, have indicated that the drag of submerged
inlets can be greater than that of scoo;s. However, flight tests comparing
a submerged and a scoop installatlcm (ref _26) have shown that the former
has equal or slightly better performance. Appsrently, the merits of the
two depend upon the installatlon, and they can be equal in subsonic flight.
However, iuve_tigatiom at supersnnlc speeds, reference _9, has sho_a
that the expansion of the flow over the ramp leads to a high inlet Mach
number and large pressure losses at flight Math numbers greater than about.
1.2. Thus, the Submerged inlet is limited in application to subsonic
airplanes _s either a main or an auxiliary air intake. (For the latter
application, see refs. 2_i and 260.)
!
:
_,
: -
;_
CONFIDENk_AI _,
-_
'
_ +
-_
Combined Effects
initial
of an at
alr-inductlon
tube andstation
the mmmentum
the
_
system. It is_ therefore, an
Interference force resulting from
both _he pressure and skln-friction
arag forces on surfaces upstream of
"
93
Mo,,.O
P%/P'o
kk_ _
/I
"---- i
'
fl_,,_
m_m o
_,,9,,i_m,_m_k _
' il
_i
_ ,, . L___ '_'---
_.
!
/
!
-|
_
......
c
f
%
_t_
(|
t
_
It
me
u@
@ 4
ore
_,
NACA _
AS_F16
oe,
ee
:"
Thus, when the average inlet Mach n_uzberis subsonic in cupersonl flight,
the scoop incremental drag_force is large at low mass-flow ratios, particulexly i_ the forebody wave an-/skin-frictlon drag forces are small,
because the _ the Ioc_i pressure rise ahead of the inlet is large. (The
symbol Pt2 is the average total pressure at the inlet, and it includes
the total-pressure loss of any entering boundary-layer air which eventually
flows to the engine. ) With supersonic flow into the inlet, the scoop
incr_nental drag coefficient is negative because t]'?_pillage drag22 is
small (zero at m_xinnnnmass flow) end the forebody drag term FB of eOuaticm (7) is dominant.
For air-induction systems having thxs interference force, the net drag
consists of the sum of the external wave drag when the inlet operetes with
no spillage, the scoop Incramen+_l wave d_ag, the change in external wave
drag due to a reduction in mass flow from the maximu_ and skin friction.
".bus,%h" zc_)p incremental drag replaces the additive drag of systems
having no xorebody interference.
.Uakos.-The pressure recovery of am alr-lnduction system that takes
in air frQm the wake of an upstream body is, of course, reduced. The tests
at a Mach number of 2.0 of reference 224 in wb4 =h a nacelle was placed
behind the tip of a canard control surface illustrate f_e magnitude of
this effect. With the control surface deflected I0 , the maximum totalpressure ratio atta_mable was O.lO less than when the nacelle was moved
outboard away fr_n the influence of the tip vorter.
INDUCTION-SYSTEM AIRCIVA_T
i.
il
.. ,
-
;-.........
.
.
"
,.,
_,....
..
_,,_:,..,,_,_,._:
_ "A'.':'."
._
':
'*
_...._.__
.-"
' ....
.'_'
'_.9._%"
.
.
,.,
.,. '._...............
--..--.__.,._,w.,,_,,..,_._,._...._.._-._-_.___.-._,_,,...._._
-|
Drag
a
"
0._.
'i_aetuft studies of reference 185 show that an inlet-velocity ratio
less than 0.6 with a scoop in the presence of forebody boundary layer not
only causes separation of the internal flow, but also causes the separabed
region to spread around the inlet and to affect the external flow.
Although inte-_ferencedrag was not measured, it is undoubtedly increased
by the turbulent _ixingo The flight tests reported in reference 256 =.how
the possible effect of such separati_u. Drag measurements were m_de _ith
a boundary-layer b_pass sealed, and with it discharging normal to the
external flow, it was found that at a flight Mach number of 0.8, discharge
of the boundary-layer normal to the air stream increased the airplane drag
coefficient 0.0015, or 7 percent.
s
.
i
;
-.--.....
____
,
_ L,,
_._
.....
_-
..........................
,_
_.""_'_"_,":'".':_'._L"
i
"'
,.
.,...,!
".
i
!
/
t
T I
:
_
I
.
I
il
II1
I
II
tl
can be desired
so that they do not decre_e
appreciably
the d_-rise
$_
number of a viz_-body
comb_ation.
(Methods of predicting
the dragrise Mach number have been discussed previously and are presented in
references 149 and 208.)
For supersonic aircraft, the drag-rise Mach number is an important
cru_e consideration; the magnitude of the rise and methods for minimizing
it are of essential importance in determining acceleration performance and
fuel eonmm_ption. Re "transonic area rule" pr__sentedin references 26j
and 264 states that for slender configurations, the transcmic rise in wave
drag is a function of _ne longitudinal distribution of cross-section area
and is independent of cross-sec_ion shape. Thus, an aircraft with the
least drag rise has the same distribution of cross-section area as a
minimmn-drag b(xlyof revoluti(_n_ Conversely, the magnitude of the increase
in wave drag at transonic speeds for complicated configurations can be predicted for flight at zero angle of attack from information on bodies of
revolution with the same cross-sectional-area distribution. It follows
fram this rule that for low drag rise the equivalent body of revolution
must be fair and slender, and these design requirements also result in
high drag-rise Mach nmnber.
"
,
of air-induction systems
with aircraft at transonic
flight speeds.
,,_,,
_8
0241
|
_
___
_______
_
_
I@DI_J_$-_#/'_
thn
._
extension
have- been examined
by Lumax in reference 269,
It is shown that, for slender
L_
0 8
_+_
LO
12
L4
M
L6
LO 2.0
Sk_-tch (36)
....................
"
" "
,
"
_ _ "--_ "_'"_';
"__";
*
. ,',
_--
.... .....
, ,,
, ,
'.
--
--
"
Illill
":':;
....
;,
.........
|1
_
,
.....
,",
II....
i
,., .,""'_
NACA _4 A95F16
CONFIDE_P_',
97
i
_.m.--mm_Imb
!
,
_:_
Moment
2_CL = _
m_
(_
(33)
in radiant)
the corresponding
incremental pitchLug-mc_ent
coefficient
is, of course,
the product of this lift coefficient and the distance from the inlet to
the moment reference point d_vided by the moment reference length.
Pierpont and Braden in reference 234 compare this prediction with data
taken at subsonic speeds on a b_ly having an underslung scoop Just behind
the nose.
The results for a flight Mach number of 0.8 are shown in
sketch (37).
The effect of mass-flow ratio on the llft of the body-scoop
.3
.2
._
Theot'etical
//'
internal
Theor,ticoi
/j
internal
///
l / / Basic body
@J
12
(37)
Sketch
(b) Effect
......
,..........,_.--.,,,_,-_._
-.-............................
,. ....... ',..
..
.......
'
.-
. _.,.,.----,<,--,,,_-.,.,_,.,,.._,_il_:
!2
._...-.
....
. -,_
.. _ .....
- ,.
,.,.-...........
.-
-'"
_'__t_:_i_T.
'-'
- -, .....
@f basic body
" _,_..
....
: "
,,,
-_,,,t,__ _'_'-: .............
"_.*- -,
-.-,
',_ ,,"_'1
*..
L T_
_
<
::
[
_
_
%
_
],
'
_
j.
<
!
_
.
!
;"W-
--_
,
"
.n,
r_
....
.,
of a stmilar configtu_tion differing only in inlet frontal shape (semielliptical rather than triangalar) are presented. The effects of internal
flow on lift _:ereagain negligible, but here pitching moment was measured.
It was found that at Mach numbers above 0.R, the presence of the inlet
with mass-flow ratios of 0.4 or 0.8 increased the static longitudinal
stability of the wing-oody combination tested by 25 percent. _n this test,
the i_et had no e_fect on the l!ft coefficient at _hich the slope of the
moment curve reversed.
Tests of a wing-root inlet mounted on a swept wing with the inlet
planenormal to the flight direction are described in reference o76.
The inlet plane was ahead of the leading edge of the root chord of the
wing alone, and thus the installation of the air-inductlou system modified
the wing plan form_ Flight tests revealed a strong pitch-up aoove an angle
of attack of 8, and w_nd-tunnel tests showed this to be caused by an
abrupt change in downwash at the tail, du_ to a change in circulation
about the wing as the angle of attack was increased. The pitch-up wa_
eliminated by changing the section contour of the outbos_'d9ortion of the
wing leading edge and by adding fences both at _he inlet and outboard on
the wing. An ir_letwith the outboard radius about half the scoop depth,
and an inlet width-to-height ratio near 1.0 also eliminated the pitch-up.
It was concluded that the wing plan form and sharp side edge resulting
from the addition of the extended wing-root inlet was the cause of the
unexpected downwash varla'_ion. Tests of a somewhat simi]_u_ config_aration
for a supersonic airplane 8_e reported _n reference 144. In this case
there was no longitudinal instability for the condition of no flap deflection, probably because of the low position of the horizontal-tail surfaces
and the rounded side eages of the inlet.
" "
NACA _4 A55F16
!'
"
_,0:_F_W3_A$
'
101
i
i
I_
"_
I,,,:.
show that
_panwise
position of
ward.
Thethe
results
of ref_rence27
,,_
_,
'
I i_
1 _-
i t
Wing_
wing reverses. Here, movi_ the
nacelle from 0.5 to 0.6 of "_hewing
semiapan changed the flo':r
n_er the
wing to such an extent that loss of
lift at the ti_s was delayed. As
shown in sketch (38),at flight M_ch
n_bers below about 0.9 this effect
_as large.
_
_
0a
For nacelles that extend aheed of a wang, the lift on the projecting
body is destabilizAng. The magr_.tude c_ this effect for some nacelles in
subsonic flow is reported it.reference 81.
Some of the nacelles of this
reference were located Just below the wing; this position resulted in an
increase in the an__e for zero lift above that for the "_ug alone because
of the hi_ induced velocities on the lower wi_g surface in the region of
the wing-nacelle Juncture. This effect also changed the span loading of
the wing. The nacelles described in thiz reference did not change the
maximum llft coefficient attainable with the wing alone_ bu_ the liftcurve slope was increased as much as lO percent. This large increase was
due to the nacelles being tested o_!y on a short wing panel; on a complete
wing the increase in lift-curve slope would De of the order of 4 percent.
In reference 278 it is shown
that the destabilizing effec_ of for- _
"
small iu the tests in which llft was measured, (:'efs.207 and 231).
f_
Nscellest la.,5
semispon
.5_
AR-B.5
,
I/4Ch_d sweep,47'
Ts_e_r0tio
0.2
I
B
1O
i_
_A,
Sketch (38)
'" ,""
!
/
102
....
i
: <r ,-
i
q
_tl
' TE , :
lit
NACA
The nacelles
tested at subsonic speeds as re_r_ed
in reference
278
and 39 were also tested at Mach n,mmbersof 1.6 and 2.0 as described in
reference_ ?_) an_ 28O.. These nacelles w_re mounted in several positions
on and below the chord plane of the sweptback wing at various spanwise
loc=tl_ms. _.._aerodynamic characteristics were similar to those at subsc_ic speeds; _hat is, all the nacelles increased the lift-curve slope,
the necelles _m the wing root increased stability but those mounted oatboard decress,
ed it. The magnitudes of the effects depend upon the specif2c confJ6uration, but they seldom exceeded lO percent of the lift or
m_nen_ of r_ wing alone.
!
:
!
"
,,
.'
..,;
4F
"
NACA _4 A99FI6"
C_E_TIK_.
103
as gre:.t as when they were added in the vertical pl_ne, and the effect on
stability was not as great.
The addition of nacelles to the basic aircraft confi&mration
of references 266 and 267, howev_r_ resulted in large
percentage changes in pitchi_4_ moment.
The r.%uge
vsrious incombinations
investigated
in
references
239: performances
283. end 284 of
arethecompared
reference 19.
It w_ _o..nd
I
Ames Aeronautical
Laborato_j
National Advisory Committee
Moffett Field, Calif.,
for Aeronautics
June 16, 1955
f_d
shift of
J
!
104
......
....
g
RM
( g_
APPENDIX
S_4BOLS
area
Ac
capture
CD
drag ccefficient
Cf
skin-friction
CL
lift coefficient
Cp
pressure
arag
Dn
net
area
coefficient
based
on wett_
area
coefficient
diameter
Fn
engine
Fnp
net propulsive
_Fn
difference
gravitational
ratio of boundary-layer-displacement
5*
' "
"
net
th_st
force
between
net thrus_,
Fni-Fna
constant
thickness
to momentum
thickness,_h
altitude
height
of boundary-layer
diverSer
length
MI
total momentum
Mach n_m_er
::
mass flow
maximum
,. .},r
of the ermine
,_
streamtube
"
NACA EM Ag_FI6
CC_I_]_SENTI_.:.
105
i
-_
engine
rotational
_I_._
number
of oblique
shock waves
pressure x
fuel
dynamic
Reynolds
gas constant
local
wing
temperature z
local
u,v,v
local velocity
respectively
stream
velocity
Wa
weight
flow of air
Wae
coz-rected weight
Wf
weight
x,y,z
Cartesian coordinates
direction
angle
angle of sidesl_p
ratio of specific
heats
relative
pressure,
boundary-layer
consm_ption
pressure
n_mber
radius
area or wetted
velocity
e_a
of flow, U2=(V+u)2+vm+w 2
components
flow
in the
x,y, and z
directions_
of air
flow of fuel
with
positive
in the stream
of attack
Pts
absolute
thickness
bounda_-la_r
displacement
thickness
,.
ZWhen used without the subscript
t, the symbols, p, p, and T denote
static pressure_ static demsit_t _ an@ static temperature_ respectively.
,
5*
'
.'
._
^,
_.
(( [
_ '
,,
cs , ,, ''"
Tts
e
relative
boundary-layer
_I,_2_s
funct-_ons defined
respectively
absolute
temperattt_e, T'S_
mc_entu_, thickness
by equations
mass density 2
cc_e
semiapex
cowl-posltion
compression
local
angle
angle, the _ngle between the apex cf a presurface and the cowl lip (see sketch (18))
shear stres_
shock-_ave
_ugle
Ae'
area ratio,
-_-
Subscripts
O_ X_2_2 t_S_I
,
|
denote
staticr_
actual
or additive
forebody
body
cone surface
ex
external
friction
hydraulic
@j,,.
mSee footnote
_t .page
in the flow
_-
as shown in sketch
diameter
I0_.
.......
,_'
....
.....
(I)
_ ._t,Aii
Nil ...........
j,,.
(._,
.,_ h*
CCNI'_I,
_ _.' _ : "
in
internal
'.
ideal
jet
.
I07
by the sta_lati_n
points
on
lip
maximum
_net
ramp
shock wave
scoop
total
viscous
wave
cr
c:-iticel
isen
denotes
isentropic
SL
denotes
standard
flow
sea-level
conditions
Superscripts
( )*
denotes
conditions
where
( )
average
or effective
M = 1.O
value
-_ ,,!
llLlOiOg,ci_
"C__........__
m ill
al
__--
iiii
.o
............
Im
"
"
"Ilium
....
......................
--
,I ....
'_'
ligllg_mDIml_t.,_
i
I
108
__
CO_ID_D_L
c tt
_ (. tee
_
NACA EM A55F16
eg
APPENDIX B
_TS
AND INTERPEETATION
MEASUREMENT ACCURACY
'i
V2
p +0
_,
"
(u
TM +
(B1)
7
7
_+
"
NACA FM A55F16
.......
Ill
with pitot
i
r+l+i
C_ENTIAL
il
++ll
l+
some method
of indicating
unsteady
ments
in air-inducticm
systems.
109
_.
flow.
"
It i_ therefore
necessary
that
measureD
In making measur_ .ants with a rake of pitot tubes, the number of tubes
which can be conveniently used is occasionally limited.
Under such clrcumstances the spacing of the tubes to give the most accurate average can
be chosen according to the metnod oi" Gauss, references 291 and 29_.
Integration must be performed accordlD_ to the Gaussian formula, which
requires more comp_,t_tion than do the norm_l methods,
+
.'+
Pt2
+
where
"
the subscript
+++
2 refers
to the throat
<,,++>
...!
or minimum
s_ution
Hence,
_--
I-,
me = PtmAm \
Tt _
./
\Pta/
" t,p-"_'-J .j
(B3)
<
These formulas involve assumptioas _nich often are not met in tests of
air-inductlon
systems, and again check calibrations
and careful consideration of sources of error are necessary.
(See, e.g., refs. 28_, 288, and
293)
The +uncertainty _,see ref. 293) in mass-flow measurement
is given
by the relationship
'"
__ ....
""
-'
....-+.c_,++:._-=+.,+.,+.+;,.,.7,.,..
' '-""-" ' ....
. i
"
" '
....
Z .....
Iiii ........
_
......
[(P/Pt)
2/7 -2__2
(B_)
11/2
whet c
7(A,IA2)_(p,Ip_)'l=[__.
(p,lp_)_/"]
_2 ......
"" _ _
[(AilA2)_(pl/p2)il'r- i][
(pllu_)
(B7)
12i7 (AI/A2)2-
and
[(AllA=>=CP.I_=,
"i7-
6__ __ _217+
1][(Al/A=,=(,:l./._=>
:l'=/" - 1]
._,
!
_
}
J
(Bs)
i-,
':
,
.
!
,
L-
%,
..:.
_ ....
" "
I ""
,_ ...........................................
',';.."_._.
.... ".......
' ;7.
5F
,_
NACA _M Ag_F].6
n,_mber M2 is illustrated in sketch (39) for an assumed error in staticpressure and area-ratio measurements of 1/2 percent. The uncertainties
are directly
for
other values
proportional
of the assumed
to theerror
errors
caninbe
these
determined
rstios,byand
simply
uncert_',
multi-
_QN_I_)E_IS_L-
Ill
a D2
raCY.able
throat.ln
order to maintain accuracy
_ D4 ____iA2
= 2
Tio
None are
D6....
st
,o
or
_\_
_'
_
<_ _--_
"_02
,
(Bg)
.4
_\j
.6
IO
T_ _e_.M,
P-V
= P + f(u)
2
Sketch (39)
Area-weighting method
Pt
_
or
=P+_
p/U2dA
(BI0)
p'_ = p + f(_)
.
"
Pt =P+
dA
or
(BII)
_t =P+ _/US
f(U_)
M_.ss-f!owweighting method_
..
1
,.q
I!
/
[- ,
ll2
,_
-C(_NF.T._N'_$.L
......
NACA HM Ag_FI6
_,
..
IL
NACA EM Ag_FI6
CC_IPT/)F_TIAL
',
"
EEFFRENCES
i.
S1_l"
in, M. A. : Aerodyn_nic Considerat_ons for the Design af Submerged
larboJet Power Plant Installations. I;_ Symposium on Flight Propulslon, Cleveland, Ohio, Mar. 16, 19'51. Pub. by Central Ai_'
Doc1_ents Office, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ds.yton,Ohio,
May 19'51.
2.
3.
4.
9.
6.
7.
Kleln_ Harold: The Calculation of the Scoop Drag for a General Configuration in a Supersonic Stream. Rep. No. SM-15744, Douglas
Aircraft Co._ Santa Monica, Apr. 1990.
8.
9.
Aircraft Eng.,
lO.
ll.
12.
13.
"
113
qpmpmp.,.. .......
IIIImNmmwl --<-
.......
I]'1,
"
'
_q_
II
'
,_r
,{
:,
i.
'
"r:l
"
.......
.l
l._l
II
,._[,
l;_._
_;l_,
II
lit
Fradenburgh, Evan A., an_ Wyatt, DeMarquis D. : Theoretical Perf_.nmanceCharacteristics of Sharp-Lip Inlets at Subsonic Speeds.
_ACA T_ 3O04, 1993.
I_.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
A Symposimn.
23. Moss_an_ Emmet A. _ and Anderson_ Warren E. : The Ef2ect of Lip Shape
o_ a Nose-Inlet Inztal!atio_ at Maeh Numbers fr_ 0 to 1._ and
a Methc_lfor Optimizing Engine-lnlet Combinations. NACA _4 AGUE08,
195_.
24.
2_. Schueller_ Carl F., and Esenwet-, Fred T. : Analytical and Experimental
luvestigation ._fInlet-Emgine Matching for T_rboJet-Powered Air/j
_*
_
2.
A_s_,
Warren E., and Scherrer, Richard: Investigation of a Flow
D_flector and an Auxiliary Scoop for Improving Off-Design Performance of Nose Inlets. NACA _4 A94_06, 19_.
27.
AS F 6
.....'
n5
28.
Jour. _nv.
29.
30. Walker, Lewis E., Conrad, E. William, and Prince, William R.: Effect
of Uneven Air-Flow Distribution to _he _
Inlets of an _xialFlow Turbojet E_.&ine NACA RM E52K06, 1953.
31.
Graham, Robert W., and Prise, Vasily D. : Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Rotating-Stall Characteristics of SingleStage Axial-Flow Compressor With Hub-Tip Ratio of 0.76.
NACA _ E53109, 1953.
34.
Huppert t Merle C., Johnson, Donald F., and Castilow, Eleanor C.:
Preliminary Investigation of Compressor Blade Vibration Excitad
by Rotating Stall. NACA _ E52J15, 1952.
"
35. Walker, Curtis L., Silvo, Joseph N., and Jansen, Emmert T.: Effect
of Unequal Air-Flow Distribution from _win Inlet Ducts on Performance of an Axial-Flow Turbojet Engine. NACA i_4E54EI3, 1954.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
j'
....
.
, ,-
Flui_ t_ech_icso
i
........ _ ............................
_._-_
/
n6
,,
.",.,"_,',
dO_D_,_ i'! ,."
.: _cA_ A55FI6
41.
42.
43.
_4.
45.
46.
47.
_//%8.
"
of
and
Pressure
in
of General
NACA
L._ttle,
B. H.,
Jr,
_.lqdWilbur,
Stafford W.:
High-Subsonic
formance
Charac:.eri._tics
and Boundary-Layer
Investigations Perof
a 12 10-Inch-inlet-Diameter
Conical Diffuser.
NACA Y_4 LSOCO2a,
_990.
49.
50.
51.
92.
Kantrowitz, Arthur:
The Formation and Stability
Waves in Channel Flow.
NACA TN 12_3, 1947.
of Normal
Shock
"
.....
_,g'5
---....
..............
LJI
.....
:".
_.
,;-,_-c.-;_-;-
--
[]
,"......
''
_ ' _-_.'II
'
'"
NACA _M A55FI6
117
53.
54.
55.
Investigatisn of High-Subsonlc /_
Naumann: Wirkungs_'ad yon Diffusoren bei hohen Unterschallgeschwlndigkelten. FB Nx 1705, Luftfahrtforschung (Berlln-Adlershof), 1942.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
Henry, John R.: Design of Power-Plant Installations. PressureLoss Characteristics of Duct Components. NACA WR L-2(kS,June 19h/_.
(Formerly NACA ARR L_F26)
62.
63.
64.
Scherrer, Richard, and Anderson, Warrer E. : Prel_min.%ryInvestigation of a Family of Diffusers Designed for Near-Sonic Inlet Velocities. NACA _ 3668, 1956.
65.
66.
Rep. 05280-9,
R.&M.
v.
"
-., .
/
!
118
,.......
,
, ,
_ ',C0NFTffEN_/AL.......
, , ,
, ,
NACA ._4A99FI6
69.
70.
71.
Piercy, Thomas G., and Welnstein, Maynard I. : Preliminary Iuvesttgation at Mach Number 1.9 of Simulated Wing Root Inlets. NACA RM
I_4E94124, 199_
72.
An Experimental Investiga-
"
73.
Milillo, Joseph R. : Some Internal Flow Charm'teristics of Supersonic Inlets at Zero Flight Speed. NACA RM L_4E39, 19_4.
74.
i.
"
7.5. Bryan, Carroll R., and Fleming, Frank F. : Some Internal-Flow Characteristics of Several Axlsymmetrlcal NACA 1-Serles Nose Air Inlets
A_ Zero Flight Speed. NACA I_4L54E19a, 1994.
"
76.
/__
BraJnikoff, George B. _ and Stroud, John F." Experimental Investigatiom of the Effect of Entrance Width-tc-Height Ratio on the Performance of an Auxiliary Scoop-_.,10e
I_iet at Me.ohNumbers _rcm
0 to 1.3. NACA EM A5_.28; !953.
78.
--
.....
TT
....
L1
_
I_
'
'
IIIIIII
I
III
II IIIII
_'
L6F
NACA RM A55F16
CO.NFIIJENTi_L
79.
jJ
ll9
J,
_
_,
80.
Baals, Donald D., Smith, Norman F., and Wright, John B. : The
Development
and Application
of High-C_itical-Speed
Nose l/fiets.
T A A
_._C_ Ecp. r.or, 1948.
(Formerly "^_^ ACR, LSF3Oa)
81.
Danneabe_g,
Robert E. : The Development
of Jet-Engine
a High-Spe_d Pother Design.
NACA RM ATDIO, 1947.
82.
83.
Trescot, Charle_ D., Jr., and Keith, Arvid L., Jr. : Investigation
at Transonic Speeds of the Aerodynamic
Characteristics
of a Se_iCircular Air Inlet in the Root of a 45 Sweptback Wing.
NACA }94 L95AOSa, 1999.
84.
Howell,
Robert
Transonic
Installed
Arvid L. Jr. :
Nacelles
An Investigation
for
at
1952.
85-
86.
Ferri, Antonio:
The MacMillan
87.
Lukasiewicz,
J. : Supersonic
A.R.C., 1946.
(Originally
88.
Elements of Aerodynamics
Co., New York, ]9'_9-
Investigation
at
of a :_emielllpbical
NACA i_4 L53J22a,
in Supers_lic
Flows.
._
Diffusers.
R. & M. No. 2901, British
R.A.E. GAll 8, June 1946)
ACRLSD O)
"
....
,_ , ,
89.
Clauser,
Rocket
ll2.
90.
L_
F. H.:
Ramjet Diffusers at Supersonic
Soc.. vol. 24, no. 2, Mar.-Apr., 19_4,
/[
,
II12_
c __
II
,
_LJ
,
I-_
L.
,,. ,._,-r4._
_
_{
,"
I
,
II
I I
,
120
,,_
,:c__
.......
......
NACA
RM
A55F16
91.
92.
93.
94.
99.
96.
Madden, Robert T., and Kremzier_ Emi2 J. : Force and Pressure Charateristics for a Series of Nose IDlets at Mach Numbers frcm 1.59 to
1.99. IV. Co_ical-Splke External-Internal
Compression Inlet
Utilizing Perforated Cowl.
NACA RM ESIB09, 1951.
97.
McLafferty,
George:
Development
of the M_lti-Unit Perforated Diffuser
for Operation at Mach Number 2.0.
Rep. R-9348h30, Res. Dept.,
United Aircraft Corp., Sept. 1952.
98.
99.
Tables,
i_
aud Charts
Inlets
'
Neice, St_ford
E. : A Method for Stabilizing Shock Waw_._ in Channel
Flow by Means of a Surge Chamber.
_ACA TN 2694, 1953.
i00.
101.
Fexri, Antonio:
Some Recent Advances in the Design of Supersonic
Diffusers.
Supersonic Inlet Symposium, jan. 23, 195_.
R_p. No.
1692, Wr_nt
Aero. Div., Wood-Ridge,
N. J., pp. F-1 - F-18.
lO'_.
'
of FLow About
at Mach Number
_ ";'_
' '<--'"T_-""-
"
..............
P_.[_
ilil
i II
"
I--
Ill
]111 ......
R_CA RM A55F16
C0_IDEI_ISLiL
121
i03.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
Dailey,
Univ.
109.
ii0.
Drougge, Georg :
Da% Experimental
Investigation
of the Influence of
Strong Adverse _Tessure Gradients on Turbulent Boundary Layers
at Supersonic Sp_:eds. Fly_teknlska Forsoksanstalten,
Stockholm.
Meddelande 46, 1952.
iii.
112.
113.
The Interaction
a Note on the
of Supersonic
FM 2017),
2, 1954.
of Shock-Induccd
NACA RM ESIL26,
C. L. : Diffuser Instabiiitv
in Subcritical
of Southern Calif., Sept. 26, 1950.
of a Supersonic
NACA RM E54101,
_arbulent
1954.
Operation.
....
._I
il
ii
.......
I
ii I ii
i _I
i i i
NACA _4 A55FI6
_ i
llS.
ll6.
ll7.
ll8.
,_/z ll9.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
Stitt,
_onard
Double-Ramp
"
:C_N_EIA_
.i
ll4.
:
iI
........
'
Murry:
Comparison at Supersoni'.. Speeds
}L_ving Blunt- and Sharp-Lip Ccwls.
E., Inlets.
and Wise, NACA
George
A. : Investigation
Side
RM E54D20,
1954.
of Several
NACA RM A55FI6
126.
CONFIDE_f,/AL
123
127.
128.
L-_
I
129.
Inves
Angle
of Attack.
NACA RMa E_3130,
of a Diffuser
Employing
Pivoted
ii
Ii
:--_
I!
130.
_
131.
.
]993.
Cone to Improve
Mach Number
Operation
NACA RM ES_E!4,
132.
I
1
Carter, Howard S., and Merlet, Charles F. : Preliminary Investigation of the Total-pre_;sure-Recovery
Characteristics
of a Symmetric
134.
13_.
136.
137.
College
:_
of Attack
133.
.;
:
at
1952.
1.91
I;
,_
of Aeronautics,
1993.
,k'snsi-
_ _:
;i
: '",
_
!
I
8
.
t
I
It
ill
_tte
_t
II
;_p
NACA HM
'
136.
Owens, Billy F., and Curtis, Thomas H.: Phase II Flight Tests
of the Lockheed F-94C Airplane, USAF No. 50-596. Tech. Rep.
52-14, Edwards Air Force Base, Aug., 1952.
13_.
3_.
141.
Redd, Joseph W., Yeager, Charles E., and Everest, Frank K.: Perfarmance Flight Tests of the XF-92A Airplane, USAF S/N 46-682
with a J33-A-29 Power Plant. Tech. Rep. 53-11, Edwards Air Force
Base, Mar. 1953.
142.
Yaucey, Marion H., Jr., and Carson, James S.. Phase IV Performance
Flight Tests of the F-_gF &Ir_lnne USAF No. 52-4349. Tech. Rep.
54-10, Edwards Air Force Base, May 1954.
14g.
Wesesky, John L., and Stephens, Robert L.: Phase II Flight Tests
of the YF-102 Airplane S/N U._kFNo. 52-7995. Tech. Rep. 5;_-14,
Edwards Air Force Base, July 1954.
144.
145.
II
"
:
146.
147.
148.
Sears, R. I.. Merlet, C. Fo, and Putland, L. W.: Flight Determination of Drag of Norm_1.-SnockNose D&lets With Various Cowling
',
,_
|:-
'
--_
._
...==..--
,,_',
4
Lp_l_...+._
.
...._,,.%
....._
'J,,,
_ _
JJ
--
--
Ill lilt
lilt
Ill ___
: _:_,
. _
....
,--
J
.
NACA RM AS_F16
CONFIDENTIAL
125
150.
Waiters, Richard E. :
Sharp-Lipped Ducted
Application
of Transonic Area Rule to a
Nacelle.
NACA _4 L53JOb,
1954.
151.
152.
Brown, Clinton _., and P&rker, Herman H. : A Method for the Calculation of Ex'4er0sl Lift, Moment, and Pressure Drag of Slender OpeuNose Bodie_ on Revo]utiou at Supersonic Speeds.
NACA Rep. 808,
1945.
(Formerly NACA ACR LSL29)
153.
154.
of Revolution.
155.
156.
Ward_ G. N. :
Jour. Mech.
i.
157.
1_8.
Moore, Franklin:
Linearized Supersonic Axially S_mmetric Flow
About Open-Nosed Bodies Obtaintm by Use of Stream Function.
NACA TN 2116, 1950.
159.
Ferrari, Carlo:
Determination
of the Exterior Contour of a Body
of Revolution Wi-h a Central Duct so as to Give Minimum Drag in
Supersonic Flow, With Various Perlmetral Conditions Imposed Upon
the Missile Geometry.
Rep. No. AF-814-A1 (Contract No. N6 ori-ll)
Cornell Aero, Lab., Inc., Buffalo, Mar. 1953.
160.
Ferrari, Carlo:
Determlnstion
of the External Contour of a Body of
Revolution with a Central Duct So As to Give Minimum Drag in
Supersonic Flow, with Various Perimetral Conditions imposed
Upon the Missile Geometry.
Part III- Numerical Applications.
Rep. AF-814-A-2, Cornell Aeronautical
Lab., Inc., Buffalo,
Nov. 1953.
161.
Bolton-Shaw,
B. W., and Zienkiewicz,
H. K.:
The Rap_d, Accurate
Prediction of Pressure on Non-Lifting
0glval Heads of Arbttrsmy
Shape at _upersonic Speeds.
British ARC CP 154, 1954.
"'J
/
J
=i!!
::
162.
.....
i:i
. .
Bodies c_
NA_ TN 3189,
19:_.
_
163.
16_.
165.
166.
167.
i_i_
168.
169.
170.
Howell, Robert R. : A Method for Designing Lcw Drag Nose Inlet Bodies
for Operation at Moderate Supersonic Speeds. NACA RM Lg_IOla,
19_4.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
.....
-2.::....---;_..__,*-_*_
_
t _ .......
:_
_ _ ,
Rep.
:_,*_
'_,.,,_,-,_:
:,-_:_;.
_-.,_:;_,._;_'___
_
, _*
_.
[?F
XACa_ A95F16
UOm_/D_kTIA_
176.
Moeekel,
W. E. :
Approximate
Method
or Axially
for Predicting
Sym_etrlc
Form
and Loea$ion
FelTi. Ant_io:
Method for Evaluating from Shadow
Photegraphs the Pre._sure DraE in Two-Dimensional
Symmetrical Flow Phenomena With Detached Shock.
Having
0_an,
Lars:
An [_xperimenta! Method of Determining
the Drag of 8
Shock Wave with Application
to a Ducted Body.
The Flygtekniska
F6_sSksanstalten,
StocR/_olm Meddelande 51, jan. 1994.
181_.
Bra_ikoff,
George B., and Rogers, Arthur W. :
Four Nose Inlets as Measured at Maeh Numbers
NACA _4. A51C12, 1951.
182.
183.
184.
Richter, A.:
Flight Tes_ Investigation
of Engine _nlet Duct Rumble
on the Model XF4D-I for a Mach Number Range of 0.7 to 0.92.
Rep. No. DEV-1338, Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., Santa Monica,
June 29, 1993.
185.
186.
Kelth,
Jack:
Characteristics
of.
Between 1.4 and 2.0.
Low-Speed
187.
._
Ducts
Wind Tt_nel
Inves_i_tlcn
of a Triangular Swept Back Air Inlet
of a 45
Sweptback Wing.
NACA _4 LSOIO1, 1950_
_ _
Inlets
1949
180.
L_ -J .......
at
or Schlieren
or AxiallyNACA TN 1808,
Bodies.
in the Root
'_
....
,--_,_--__I_K_.-,
IIII
_.
Ur.<_,-IIII
_
,
-_
....
.
_. L__ ,_,_4_'_.'_',_,'-_'_'T
_2 __
i+
!
!
'c '
128
_[
188.
_+_
;
'_ :
.c:
&
C_+_/DE_L:
:
:
tec
r
--
_:i
z:
BI_
,.
:
" :t
|
ire
:
:t
t
Ill
NACA _4 A99FI6
:.1
Mossman, Emmet A., Pfyl, Frank A., and Lazzeroni, Frank A.:
Experimental
Investigation
at Mach Numbers Frc_ 0 to 1.9 of
Trapezoidal
and Circular Side-Inlets for a Fighter-Ty; e Airplane.
NACA _ A99DmT,1959.
_//
189.
Nussdorfer,
Theodore J., 0bery, Leonard J., and Englere, Gerald W.:
Pressure Recovery, Drag, and Subcritlca! Stability Characteristics
tf Three Conical Supersonic Diffusers at Streem Mach Numbers fram
" 7 to 9.0.
NACA RM EglH27, 1992.
190.
Shock Alao._
Scoop Inlet
Boundary-Layer
NACA RMof A93D29,
Frazer,
C._ andWith
Anderson,
Warren E.Control.
: Performance
a Normal-
1953.
19]..
192.
193.
]94.
199.
>+
'.
,
196.
Effect of
on Operation
Oscillations Ahead of
R._ .E. Rep. No. Aero.
Dailey, C. L. : Development
of Supersonic Ramjet Diffuser.'+, Sunmmry
Rel_rt.
Rep. 8-1, Univ. of Southenl Calif., Jan. lO, 1951.
_/197.
Englert, Gerald W., and 0bery, Leonard J.: Evaluation of Five Conical
Center-Body
Supersonic Diffusers at Sever-i Angles of Attack.
NACA _4 ESIL04, 1992.
199.
"
....
+L
-
. ,-.
,, ,v,
,k,,,,_+
.+
, ....
.'; +'r+.+
,
_
,,
+
....
++..+_<%,'_+."., ...+.++.,_+.,,,,_J"+;,+.
..
'. ,.,'.
+ . +:'
@_'m+'.";'+_,+"-:;
, _+.+'
. - ,+
'"
NACA RM A95FI6
CON_ID_TZ_M_
200.
201.
Mossman,
Type Normal-Shock
llJJJ
Inlet.
Frank A.,
NACA RM
An
A59AI3, 1999.
202.
203.
204.
209.
206.
207.
208.
209.
Hasel, Lowell
on Circular
_I0.
211.
"
129
JILL
E.:
The Performance of Conical Supersonic
Fuselages.
NACA _4 L93Ii4a, 1953.
J.
'li
Imlf
"
.......
_ ....
r i,' _.'
vi
Scoop
An
Com-
_,"
Inlets_ I_
iiillLJ_
__
!
/
130
.......
t
............
c
c
(
i
C__'7..a._
',
-.
: .'.
|t
":
':
,,': NAOA i_
,,
o !
Ag_FI6
-i
212.
Recovery
Shs_es
213.
pp.563-571.
2_14.
_15.
Beskln, L.:
Determination
o." Upwash Around a Body of Revolution
Supersonic Velocities.
Rep. CM-251, Applied Physics Lab.,
Johns Hopkins Univ., May 27, 19_.
)16.
2i7.
./_18.
_/
at
W.:
Characteristics
of Flow
NACA 1_4 ASGL07, 1.951.
Valerino_ Alfred S., Pennington_ Donald B., and Vargo, Donald J.:
Effect of Circumferential
Location on Angle of Attack Performance
of T_in Half-Conical
Scoop-Type Inlets Mounted Sy_netrically
on
the RM-IO Body of Revolution.
NACA RM E53G09, 1993.
i
_ //_i_"_19"
Weinstein,
M.
I.-
NACA RM E92A22,
220.
_.
'
Kremzier,
Emll
Perfor_ance
of
Supersonic
Scoop
Inlets.
19_2.
Robert
C.:
Angle-of-Attack
Super-
sonic Performance
of a Configuration Consisting
of a Ramp-Type
Scoop Inlet Located Either o_ Top or Bottom of a Body of Revolution.
NACA RM E54C09, 1954.
22-1.
222.
V /
Inlet-Fuselage
Configuration.
__,
....
[,
NACA RM E54J04,
1999.
-.,,_,,,,f.....
._.._.,,_
......
.....
Jl,
III
I1 IIIIIII
II
__ II
_11
NACA RM A95F16
22h.
225.
226.
227.
of 3.85.
ii
133.
223.
'
_ J,
CONFIDK_TT_uL
Characteristics
NACA RM AglE29,
Inlets
for
of a 45 Swept
1951.
228.
229.
Anon. : Evaluation
No. ZM-9136-001,
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
/
V"
3-9,
June l_,
.//
v
132
C0_II_._IAL
.
I
l
l
.....
{ _
I I
: .. "': .":
II
I I
NACA EM A55FI6
:.
Boswinkle, Robert W., Jr., and Mitchell, Meade H., Jr. : Experimental Investigation
of the Internal-Flow
Characteristics
of Porward
Underslung Fuselage Scoops With Un.swept and Sweptback Entrances
at Mach Numbers of 1.41 to 1o96.
NACA _ L52A24, 1952.
236.
237.
Nichols_ Mark R., ,_nd Goral, Edwin B.: A Low Speed Investigation
of a Fuselage-Side
Air Inlet for Use at Transonic Flight Speeds_
NACA TN 2684, 1952.
238.
239.
Fradenburgh,
Evan A., and Campbell, Robert C.:
Characteristics
a Canard-Type Missile Configuration
With an Underslung Scoop
Inlet at Mach Numbe-:s From 1.5 to 2.0.
NACA BM. E52J22, 1953.
240.
Watson,
Earl
C. :
Some Low-Speed
Characteristics
'.
_
i
II
II
235.
Provisions
of
of an Air-induction
for Boundary-Layer
241.
McLafferty,
George:
Theoretical
Pressure Recovery Through a Normal
Shock in a Duct With Initial Boundary Layer.
Jour. Aero. Sci.,
vol. 20, no. 3, Mar. 1953, pp. 169-174.
242.
243.
l_rcy,
Thomas G., and Johnson, Harry U. : A Comparison of Several
Systems of Boundary-Layer
Removal Ahad of a Typical Conical
Extrnal-Compression
Side Inlet at Mach Numbers of 1.88 and 2.93.
NACA RM E53FI6, 1953.
244.
245.
X/"
"!
:
i
i
,
i
V"
!
_/
[
[
,
,
,ll
, i
i i
, ]
F'
I t _J
'
NACA RMA55FI6
"
246.
247.
248.
249
:'
_
_
C0_'iDENTIAL
133
250.
251.
2_2.
254.
255.
Frank, Joseph L., and Taylor, Robert A. : Comparison of Drag, Pressure Recovery and Surface Pressure of a Scoop-Type Inlet and an
NACA Submerged Inlet at Transonic Speeds.
NACA RM ASIH20a, 1951.
256
Rolls, L. Stewart:
A Flight Comparison of a Submerged Inlet and a
Scoop Inlet st Transonic Speeds.
N,_CA RM A53A06, 1953.
!J /.
-.
/"
_//
li:
134
257.
._!
CO_IDZh_FIkL
NACA EM A55F16
_/'_
I I
'. ....
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
Whitcomb, Richard T. : A Study of the Zero-Lift Drag-Rise Characteristics of Wing-Body Combinations Near the Speed of Sound. NACA
RM L52H0_, 1952.
264.
265.
Smith, Norman F., Bielat, Ralph P., and Guy, Lawrence D.: Drag of
External Stores and Nacelles at Transonic and Supersonic Speeds.
NACA RM L53123b, 1953.
266.
!,
.!
267.
268.
_,
i
_
:
- II
]"
"
'"'_
, ,.....
_,.:'_ . ..,.
li
I_.,_
.-" .-..:..
III lii
__
--
_.
__
_SF
NACA EM A95FI6
269.
Lom_,
Harvard:
The Wave Drag of Arbitrary Configurabions
in
Linearized Flow as Determined by Areas and Forces in Oblique
Planes.
NACA RM A55A18, 1955.
270.
271.
272.
Nielsen, Jack N. : General Theory of Wave Drag Reduction for Combinations Employing Quasi-Cylindrical
Bodies ;'i_h an Application
to Swept Wing and Body Combinations.
NACA F_ AS_B07,1995.
2_3.
274.
Ram-Jet
Test Vehicle.
NACA RM A50C20,
135
of
1950.
275.
276.
277.
278.
_79.
r_0NFID_A[J.
Carmel, , 41vln M., end Flschettl, Thomas L.: A Trs/%sonic WindTunnel Investigation
of the Effects of Nacelles on the AerodyDamlc
Characteristics
of a Complete Model Configuration.
NACA ]_M L95F22a
1953.
!
,/
28_.
with_
Swe_
w_w_. _
_ LSL_,
19_.
zSz. _tz,
Barry:_te
Bodies, _terbodies,
farCnAculation
of L_t of
NACA _N 2669,
_z.
283.
28_.
280.
286.
287.
288.
:"
C _
:
_96.
t
289.
29C.
_30)
i
|
_I_
Ag_F16.....
i_
291.
_ :
,_
137
2 ':: ::!......
292.
293.
294.
The Johns
Gas _bine
.a
Th_ following
bibliogrsp_ has been arranged chronologically under
the headings of the table of contents. The n_bers of the references
that are pertinent to each subject are also listed. The majority of the
reports lu:luded in this blbl: graphy were published after June 1947,
because the NACA Bibliography of reference 3 lists previous reports.
II. I]EFINITIONS
13.
Jour. Aero.
See references
Cleveland
Laboratory
Staff: PerformanceSystem.
and Ranges
Various Types
of Aircraft-Propulsion
NACA of
TNApplication
1349, 1947.of
Brewster, J. H. :
,
i
A I
'
Lubarsky_ Bernard: Performance sad Load-Range Characteristics of TurboJet Engine in Transonic Speed Range. NACA _ 2088, 1950.
Sturdevant 2 C. R._ and Woodworth, L. R.: A Generalized Turbojet Weight t
Size, and Perfox_aanceStudy. Rep. R-166, Rand Corp._ Santa Monica,
Dec. 19, 1949.
Krebs, Richard P., and Wilcox, E. Clinton: Analysis of the Turbojet
Engine for Propulsion of Supersonic Bumbers. NACA _ ES_A21_ 1954.
Koutz_ Stanley L o_ sad Hensley_ Reec6 V. : Loitering and Range Performance
of Turbojet-Powered Aircraft Determined by Off-Design Engine Cycle
Analysis. NACA RM ESIK29, 1952.
/"
Gabriel_ David S., Krebs2 Richard P.3 Wilcox, E. Clinton, sad Koutz,
Stauley L. : Imalysls of the Turbojet Engine for Propulsion of
Supersonic Fighter Airplanes. NACA I_4E)2FIT, 1953.
....
....:.:
....
l
!
i
t
NACA RM A55FI6
._ _
AIRFR_
See references I, 2,
Blatz, William J.:
1948.
_EN_.
_:
139
-INDUCTION-SYSTEM COMBINATIDN
ENGIRE-INDUCTION-STS_EM COMBINATIONS
_IING
OPTIMIZATION
"
J
_"
_..j
,
:_
i\
/
I
!'__-
'"''_"/1
.....
--
,._..-,, ....
'-_""'-_"__I',:_._''
:_
_:.
___
",_<-_
' _+,'-'_','
_":_;_"_
'_-"
:"_
__:i_."_',-,
'
_
,'m..............................
_i
."
Aviation Week,
IV.
D_fAYL CONSIDERATIONB
INDL_TION
Ducts
Skin friction and separation
i
I
J
i
i
"
Regenseheit, B. : Drag Reduction by Suction of the Boundary Layer Separated Behind Shock-Wave Formation at High Mach Numbers. NACA TM 1168,
1947.
!
I
!
I
Pierpont, P. Kenneth: Investigation of Suctlon-Slot Shapes for Controlling a Turbulent Boundary Ls_er. NACA TN 1292, 1947.
Dz?/den,Hugh L. : Recent Advances in the Mechanics of Botmdary L_yer
Flow. Vol. I, Advances in Applied Mechanics, sec. i, yon Mises, Richard_
and yon K_rm_u, Theodore, eds., Academic Press, Inc., N. Y., 1948,
pp. 2-)-1.0.
Oswatitsch, K._ and Wieghardt, K.: Theoretical Analysis of Stationary,
Potential Flows and Boundary Layers at High Speed. NACA TM 1189, 1948.
Lagerstrom, Facol Cole, Julian M. e and Trilling, Leon: On Viscous Effects
in Compressible Flow. Paper presented at meeting of Institute for Fluid
Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Pasadena, Cal., June 23, 1948.
Kay, J. M. : Experimental Investigation of Boundar.wLayer Flow Along a
Flat Plate with Uniform Suction. Aero. Com. no. ii,_76, British A.R.C.,
1948.
Dickinson, H. B. : Flight and Tunnel Test Research on Boundary-Layer
Control. Jour. Aero. Sci., vol. 16, no. 4, Apr. 1949, pp. 243-2_1.
m_
"
".....
_)Li-_
g2t
..-,.
,,,
- ._......
-_
....
.... ,_._.__ram,m,"
.. - .
........
"
"_'_-_
_,_,;:_...._.
"r__'_"_':
v.. ...
Schliehting, H. :
Laminar Flows.
TM 1218, 1949,
Suction.
Fluid
yon Doenhoff, A. L., and Loftln, L. K., Jr. : Present Status of Research
on Boundary-Layer
Control.
Jour. Aero. Sci., vol. 16, no. 12, Dec.
1949, pp. 729-740, 760.
Van Driest, E. R. : Turbulent Boundary ]_yer for Compressible
Fluids on
a Flat Plate with Heat Transfer.
Rep. AL-997, North American Aviation,
Inc., Jan. 27, 1950.
Ferrari, Carlo:
Study of the Boundary L_Lyer at Supersonic Speeds
Turbulent Flow:
Case of Flow Along a _lat Plate.
Quart_ Appl.
vol. VIIi, no. l, pp. 33-57, Apr. 1950.
..
in
M_th.
of
Andersou, K_ G. : Preliminary
Investigation
of Boundary Layer Control at
High Subsonic Speeds.
Tech. Rep. No. 6186, U. S. Air Force, WrightI
Patterson
1950.
Tucker, Maurice:
Approximate
Turbulent Boundary-Layer
Development
in
Plane Compressible
Flow along Thermally Insulated Surfaces with Application to Supersonic-Tunnel
Contour Correction.
NACA TN 2045, 1950.
Young, A. D. : The Equations of Motion and Energy and the Velocity Profile
of a Turbulent Boundary Layer in a Compressible Fluid.
College of
Aeronautics,
Crsnfield, England, Rep. 42, Jan. 1951.
Van Driest, E. R. : Turbulent Boundary Layer in Compressible
Fluids
Jour. Aero. Sci., vol. 18, no. 3, Mar. 19_i, pp. 145-160, 216.
Young, A. D. : Boundary Layers and Skin Friction
Jour. R. Ae. Soc., l_y, 1951, pp. 285-30o-.
"
in High-Speed
Flow.
':
142
*_ _ _:'_
_O_I_T_
c
_kleker, Maurice:
Approximate
Development
in Compressible
Jt
tl
_ll
aB
@al
eal
Calculation
of Turbulent Boundary-Layer
Flow.
NACA TN 2337, 1991.
Klebanoff,
F. S., and Diehl, Z. We:
Some Features of Artificially
Thickened Frilly Developed Turbulent Boundary Layers With Zero Pressure
Gradient.
NACA TN 2479, 1991.
Rubert, Kennedy F., and Persh, Jerome:
A Procedure for Calculating
the
Development
of Turbulent Bounda_-j Layers Under the Influence of Adverse
Presstre Gradients.
_iACA TN 2478, 1951.
Schubauer, G. B., and Klebanoff,
the Turbulent Boundary Layer.
NACA TN 2133)
P. S. : Investigation
NACA Rep. 1030, 1951.
of Sep_ratlon
(Supersedes
of
K. G. : Investigation
of Boundary-Layer
Control
Tech. Rep. 6344, pt. i, U. S. Air Force, WADC,
at High Subsonic
Jar. 19_i.
Design
See references
I[
!
Cohen, Herbert N. : Investigation of Intake Ducts for a High-Speed Subsonic Jet-Propelled Airplane. NACA RM L7C24a, 1947.
Turner, L. Richard, Addle, Albert N., and Zimmerman, Richard H.: Charts
for the _m_.lysisof 0ne-Dimensional Stead>-Compressible Flow. _ACA
TN 1419, 1948.
Shapiro, Ascher H., and Ha%_horne, W. R. : The Mechanics and Thermodynamics
of Steady One-Dimensional Gas Flow. Jour. Appl. Mech., vol. 14, no. 4,
Dec. 1947, pp. A317-A336.
Butcher, Marie A. : Compressible Flow 'l_blesfor Air.
Gratzer, L. B., and Smith, E. H. : Boundary Layer Control for Wide Angle
Diffusers. Rep. 300 (ONR Contract N6ori-217, Task Order I, Project
No. NR-061-00$), Univ. Washington Aero. lab., Nov. 22, 1948.
Palme, Hans Olof: An Investigation of the Effect of Bo?mdary Layer Suctiou on the Air Resistance in Channel Elbows. KTH-Aero TN 2, Roy. Inst.
of Tech.# Flygtekniska Institutionen, Stockholm, Sweden, 1948.
Taylor, H.
fusers.
Research
Dec. 31,
D. : Application of Vortex Generator Mixing ;_rlnclpleto DifConcluding report, Air Force contract W33-038 ac-21825.
L-pt. R-19064-9, United Aircraft Corp., East Hartford, Conn.,
1948.
_i
Gas Turbine
Neumann, Ernest P., and Lustwerk, F. : High-Efficiency Supersonic Diffusers. M.I.T. Meteor Rep. 96, June 1990.
Persh,
The
of the Inlet
and Inlet-Boundaryt//
LayerJerome:
Thickness
onEffect
the Performance
of Mach
a 23Number
Conicsl-Diffuser
- TailPipe Combination. NACA RM L9K10, 19_0.
Squire, H. B., and Carter, P.: Further Experiments on Conical Diffusers.
Rep. No. 13,499, British A.R.C., Nov. 6, 1950.
'
Sibulkin, Merwin, and Koffel, William K. : Chart for Simplifying Calculations of Pressure Drop of a High-Speed Compressible Fluid under Simultaneous Action of Friction and Heat Transfer - Application to Combustion
Chamber Cooling Passages. NACA TN 2067, 1990.
j:
.Jb
144
.'
C tVF E_I
_"_"......
tTl
, , ,NACA RM A55F!6
Proc. Natlon_l
\,
,/
\/
Valentine, E. Floyd, and Carroll, Raymond B. : Effects of Several Arrangements of Rectangular Vortex Generators on the Static-Pressure Rise
Through a Short 2:1 Diffuser. NACA RM LSOL04, 1951.
i
!
,_
i
:
I
r
I
__
Performance Cl_racteristics
_'
'
J_
,_
[111
i i
ii
. .
....
ii i
II III
ii
......
:,
_,
I i
II
i i
-L.J
i i i ill
I i
ii
IIII[
--
_.i
NACA P&_A55FI6
C0_'_IDENT_L "'
145
Subsonic Flight
_
@
_
--
II J.I I
il
i, i _ -_
ill11 i
__J_ _
I ttntllluu
I
i
II
ii
._
i
ii
146
'
'C_B_NT_
, !
_ e
f t
Connor,
F.,
and Widllmd,
J. : Flight
Pressure
Recovery.
EFTMR No. 1193,
Ig
Tests
of
Republic
ee
eo
eee
0
J_
F_E
Induction
System
Aviation
Corp.,
Mar.
20,
1951.
Becker,
John Vernon:
Wind-Tunnel
Openings oh a Streamline Body.
NACA ACR, _ov. 1940)
Investigation
of Air
Inlet
and Outlet
NACA Re;,. 1038, 1951.
(Su)ersedes
BraJnikoff,
George B., 9_ud Stroud, John F. : Exper_mlental investigation
of tP,_ Effect of Entrance Width-to-Height
Ratio on the Performance
of
an _uxiliary Scoop-Type Inlet at Mach Ntmlbers From 0 to 1o3. NACA
Ye4 A53E28, 1953.
Bryan, Carroll R., and Fleming, Frank F. : Some Internal-Flow
Characteristics of Several Axisymmetric
NACA 1-Series Nose Air Inlets at Zero
Flight Speed.
NACA RM L54E19a, 1954.
Supersonic
Su_rsonic
Flight
compression
See references 13, 53, 54, 87 to 97, 100, _02, iii, 116, 125, 127, 177,
181, 182, 189, 190, and 219.
Moeekel, W. E., Connors, J. F., _.
"b_,.e_:"
".,A. H.:
Investigation
Shock Diffusers at Mach Nu_?_:,'l.bS.
ii - Projecting Double-Shock
Ccnes.
NACA RM E6LI3, i94"i.
I
of
M.I.T.,
1947.
.!
']
i.
!_
_i
fuse2s.
II - Perforated
Marie A. :
Su_x_-rsonic Inlet.
_.
Burcher,
Compressible
_/
NACA R!'..;:
:o,1948.
..ACA [.'
Pal_ame_e_s &cross
_;
1592, 1948.
!:
Oblique
L
I_
'
,,,,
,7'_
"
__-
,,,
, ,
....
CO;_IDEIk_FIAL
1_7
George
East Hartford,
i{.:
_Comn.,
A Preliminary
Investigation
Diffusers.
R.A.E. TN Aero.
of
2000,
_"
R. B. :
Comparison of Supersouic-Inlet
Diffuser Tests at M c = 2.8.
American Aviation, Inc., Los Angeles, AL-I027,
(ProjectMX-_70) North
July l, 1950.
Diffusers.
Inc., Sept.
(Project MX-770)
21, 19_O.
Rep.
McI_fferty, George:
Tests of Unit and Multi-Unit Perforated Diffusers
at Math Numbers up to 3.0. Rep. R-93372-8, Res. Dept., United Aircraft
Corp., East Hartford, Co?re., Dee., 19_0.
/i
ll]
III
i i
iit[llljl[i
'
4
ge
ee
@9#
t
@_e
c
fl
McLefferty_
Geor_:
A Stu_
cf Perforation
Confi_narations
for Supersonic
b_IfTusers. Rep. R-53372-7, Research Dept. United Aircraft Corp. East
Hartford,Con,. Dec.1950.
P_e,P_ioi_ _.: =
Cuw].%n._
DiffUser.
Ru_,
P.:
R_A _ 1_79,1950.
_/_
@old_mith_
of S_
Centre
E. L., _Fraenkel,
Diffusers
L. E.,
at Supersonic
and Griggs,Speeds.
C. F.:
R.A.E.
The Performance
Bep. No.
A_z_.237Z_;_ae1950.
Esenwein, Fred T., 8_ Valerino, Alfred S. : Force and Pressure C_aracteristies for a Series of Nose Inlets at M_ch Numbers from 1.99 to 1.99.
I -Conical Spike All-External Compression Inlet with Subsonic Cowl Lip.
NAEA RM ESO_,
i_I.
Obery_ L_ J._ _u_ Englert, G. W. : For=e _
Pressure C'nar_cteristics
for a Series Of Nose Inlets at Math Numbers from 1.59 to 1.99. II Isentrupie-Spike All-External Cc_p:ession Inlet. NACA RM ._OJ_,
95_
Welnstein, N_Tuard I._ and Davlds_ Joseph: Force and Pressure Characteristics for a Series of Nose Inlets at Mach Numbers from 1.59 to 1.99.
III- Conical-Spike _ll-External-Conpression Inlet with Supersonic Cowl
Lip. _ACA _ E_C_T30,1951.
Baud,
L. Eu_.ne_ and Gould, Lawrence I. : Investigation of Three _5_es
of Supersonic Diffusex-sOver a Range of Mzch Numbers From 1.75 to 2.7_.
NACA RM E_X)8, 1951.
.
Fox, Jerome L. : Supersonic 9Anne! Investigation by Means of InclinedPlate Technique to Determine Performance of Sev_r_l No_e Inlets Over
M_ch Number Range of 1.72 to 2.18. NACA RM ESOKI_ 19_I.
PeaTJ_onok_ Eugene_ and Farley_
John H.:
Internal
Flow and Burning Characteristics
of 16-Inch Ram Jet Oper_tinE in a Free Jet at Mach Numbers
of 1-35 arK11.73. NAEA R_ E51C16, 1951.
Speed_.
NACA _
2_18, 1991.
./-
Beasts/i t D., _
Turnert J. : The Effect of a Spike _otzuding in Front
of a Bluff Body at Supersonic Speeds. R.A.E. TN No. Aero. P137, E_itish,
Jan. 1952.
Jones, Jim J.:
Number 2.72.
1952.
Cortrightt Edgar M., Jr., and CcJa-_rst James F.: Survey of Some Preliminary Investigations of Supersouic Diffusers at _igh MAch Numbers.
NACA RM E52E20, 1952.
F_ir, W. A. : Experimento on Sel_L_ationof Bou_
Layers on Probes in
Front of Blunt-Nosed Bodies in a Supersonic Air Stream. Phil. Mag. t
.
//!
Investi_tion
of _Prc_ure
"_
//
_.
':..
| _ ',
/
,
I_ A55mU.6
h/
Lukasiewicz,
J. : Supersonic Ramjet Performance.
vol. XXV, no. 296, Oct. 1953_ PP. 298-306.
Aircraft
Engineering,
_,/-
Bernstein,
Harry,
and Humber
Haefeli,of Rudolph
C. : RMPerforn_Ance
of Isentropic
Nose Inlets
at M_ch
9.6.
HACA
E_B24_
1994.
Hunczak, Henry R. : Pressure Recovery and M_ss-Flow Performance
of Four
An_Llar Nose Inlets Ope=_ting in Hach Number Region of 3.1 and Reynolds
Number Range of Approximately
0.49xi0 e to 2.2CKI0 e. NACA RM E94A07,
195_
NACARM E93J09,1,994.
_rsh,
B. W._
sonic Ra_et
1954,_. 199-161.
0ffenlm,rtz, Edward:
An Experimental
Investigation
of Two-Dimensional t
Suporsonic Cascade-Type
Inlets at a _ch
Number of 3.11.
NACA RM L54E17,
195_.
Lean, G. H. : Report on the Flow Phenomena at Supersonic Speed in the
Neighbourhood
of the Entry of a Propulsive Duct.
R. and M. 2827,
British A.R.C., 1994.
(Also issued as:
A.R.C. Engine Aerodynamics
and Propellers, Sub-Comm. 11,868, 1949)
Limiting
See reference
internal
contraction
and limiting
inlet Mach
number
113.
,_
......
,..-:__
[ ..........................................
OF
Tunnels.
Some Observations
of Flow
at a Maeh Number of 3.89.
NACARM E52104,1952.
Himka, _eodore:
Methods of Starting Scoop-Type Inlets.
Wright Aero.
Rep. No. 1692, sec. G, Supersonic Inlet Symposium, Curtiss-Wright
Corp.,
Wright Aero. Div., Wood-Ridge, New Jersey, Jan. 23, 1953, PP. 67-80.
Bouadar_-la_er
See references
shock-wave
interaction
103 to 107.
Ackeret,
Shocks
m4 .
"
Weise, A.:
On the Selmla_tion of Flow Due
NACA TM 1152, 1947.
to Cxm_resslbillty
8hock.
1113,
i
i
152
..
e e
@ g
(io
Q@
_|g
v
Zalovcik, John A., and Luke_ Ernest P.: Some Flight _asurements of
Pressure-Distribution and Boundary-Layer Cha_-_cteristicsin the Presence
of Shock. NACA I_ML8C22_ 1948.
Lukasiewlcz, J. : Conical Flow as a Result of Shock and Boundary Layer
Interaction on a Probe. R. and M. 2669, British A.R.C. 12,023, Sept.
1948.
0utmsn, Vernon, and Lambert, Arthur:
Sci., vol. 15, 1948, pp. 671-67]_.
Transonic Separation.
Jour. Aero.
_
i
I
:
s
j
_L
"
',
'
..........
,,._,
'" _._
111 J
. I
Ill
II
II
' _
"
NACA _4 A59FI6
GONFIDE_AL
193
Crocco, L., and Lees, L. : A Mixing Theory for the Interaction Between
Dissi__tlve Flows and Nearly-Isentropic Streams. Rep. 187, l_nceton
Univ., Aero. Engr. Dept., Jan. 15, 1992.
Johannesen, N. H. : Experiments on Two-Dimenslonal Supersonic Flow in
Corners and Over Concave Surfaces. British A.R.C. Fluid Motiou SubComm., 14,607 - F.M. 1669, Jan. 29, 1992.
Gszld,G. E., and Holder, D. W. : The Interaction of an Oblique Shock
Wave with the Boundary Layer on a Flat Plate. Part I - Results for
M = 2. British A.R.C. Fluid Motion Sub-Comm., 14,8_8 - F.M. 1714,
Apr. 24, 1992.
Gadd, G. E. : On the Interaction with a Complete]_ Laminar Boundary L_ver
of a Shock Wave Generated in the Mainstream. British A.R.C. Fluid
Motion Sub-Comm., 15,100 - F.M. 1770, Aug. l, 1952.
"
Barry, F. W.: A Review of Exper_,,entalResults on Boundary Layer Shock Wave Interaction. (Project MX 770) Rep. AL-1599, North American
Aviation, Inc., Downey, Calif., Dec. 19, 1952.
Cope, W. F. : The Measurement of Skin Friction in a Turbulent Bound"
Layer at a Mach Number of 2.9, Including the Effect of a Shock Wave.
Proc_ Roy. Sot., ser. A, vol. 919, 1952, pp. 84-99.
Liepmann, H. W., Rosbko, A., and Dhawan, S. : On Reflection of Shock
Waves from Boundary Layers. NACA Rep. llO0, 1952. (Supersedes NACA
TN 2334)
Barrin, E. N. : A Flight Investigation on the Effect of Shape and Thickness of the Boundary Layer on the Pressure Distribution in the Presence
of Shock. NACA TN 2765, 1952.
Gadd, G. E. : A Semi-Emplrical Theory for Interactions Between Tumbulent
Boundary Layers and Shock Waves Strong Enough to Cause Sel_ration.
British A.R.C. Fluid Motion Sub-Comm., 15,543 - F.M. 1849, Jan lO, 1953.
Gadd, G. E., Holder, D. W., and Regan, J. D. : The Interaction of an
Oblique Shock Wave with the Boundax_ Layer on a Flat Plate. Part II Interim Note on the Results for M = 1.5, 2, 3 and 4. British A.R.C.
Fluid Motion Sub-Comm., 15,591 -F.M. 1855, Jan. 30, 1953.
._mmmdmmmmmMmb,_
.-ab
.....
154
::
: .....
'.: ..: :
......
iil
,.
Nichols, Mark R., and Pendley, Robert E. : Performance of Air Inlets at
,.
Transonic and Low Superscnic Speeds NACA }_4L52A07, 1992.
IIolzhauser,Curt A. : The Effect of Entrance Math Number and Lip Shape
on the Subsonic Characteristics of a Scoop-Type-Air-Induction System
for a Supersonic Airplane. NACA RM AglJ19a, 1992.
Dennard, John S., and Nelson, William J. : Preliminary Investigation of
the Effect of Inlet Asymmetry on the Performance of ConvergingDiverging Diffusers at Transonic Speeds. NACA _4 L92J20, 1992.
M_ss-flow variation
NACA _4 A55FI6
CONFIDEN"3T_AL
155
Hayes, Clyde: Preliminary Investi_tion of a Variable Mass-Flow Supersonic Nose Inlet. NACA RM L9JII, 1949.
Allen, J. L., and Beke, Andrew: Force and Pressure Recovery Characteris tics at Supersonic Speeds of a Conical Spike Inlet with a Bypass
Discharging from the Top or Bottom of the Diffuser in an Axial Direction.
_0A _M ESBA29, 1953.
Hinners, Artht_rH., Jr., and Lee, John B. : Preliminary Investigation of
the Total-Pressure-Recovery Characteristics of a 15 Semiangle MovableCone Variable-Geometry Ram-Jet Inlet at Free-Jet Math Numbers of 1.62,
2.00, 2.53, sad 3.05. NACA RM LO2KlO, 1953.
_-
Beke, Andrew, and Allen, J. L. : Force and Pressure-Recovery Characteristics of a Conical-Type Nose Inlet Operating at Mach Numbers of ].6
to 2.0 and at Angles of Attack to 9. NACA RM E52130, 1952.
Comenzo, Raymond J., and Mackley, Ernest A. : Effect of Yaw and Angle of
Attack on Pressure Recovery and Mass Flow Characteristics of a Rectangular Supersonic Scoop Inlet at a )_ch Number of 2.71. NACA _4 L54G22,
1954.
DRAG
Subsonic FIight
See references 7e, 76, and 80.
Kuchemann, D., and Weber, J., eds. : Je Power-Unit Ducts. Ministry of
Aircraft Production, Volkenrode, VC Sv (Rep. and Trans. 987), June i,
1948, AVA Monographs, A. Betz, gen. J.
Nichols, Mark R., and Kelth, Arvid L., Jr.: Investigation of a Systematic Groap of NACA 1-Series Cowlings With and Without Spinners. NACA
Rep. 950, 1949. (Supersedes NACA _4 LSAIs)
Pendley, Robert E., and Rob_mson, Harold L. : An Investigation of Several
NACA 1-Serles Nose Inlets With and Without Protruding Central Bodies
at High-Subsonic Mach Numbers and at a Mach Number of 1.2. NACA
RM LL23a, 1950.
Booker, John Vernon: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Air Inlet and O_tlet
Openings on a _treamline.Body..,
.,_._
R.el__.:.
i_038, 1951.
/
!
.
t
.
LII
.
i
Ii
ie
NACA }94A_gF16
Selna, James, Bright, Loren G., and Schlaff, Bernard A.: Investigation
of Drag and Pressure Recovery of a Scoop Inlet in the Transonic Speed
Range. NACA RM A92F27, 1952.
Cole, Richard I.: Pressure Distributions on Bodies of Revolution at
Subsonic and Transonic Speeds. NACA RM L_2D30, 1952.
Pendley, Robert E., Mili12o, Joseph R., Fleming, Frank F., and Brym_,
Carroll R. : An Exper!mental Study of Five Annular Air Inlet Configurations at Subsonic 8_idTransonic Speeds. NACA RM L53F18a, 19_3.
Supersonic Flight
External wave drag with no spill_age
Jour.
R. and M.
Munk, YzlxM., and Crown, J. Conrad: The Head Shock Wave. Proc. 7th
Int. Congr. Appl. Math., vol. 2, pt. 2, Sept. 1948, pp. 470-_84.
Broderick, J. B. : Supersonic Flow Round Pointed Bodies of Revolution.
Quart. Jour. Yech. and Appl. Math., vol. II, pt. l, Mar. 1949,
pp. 98-120.
Graham, Ernest W. : The Pressure on a Slender Body of Non-Uniform CrossSeetionsl Shape in Axial Sup=rsonic Flow. Rep. SM-13346K, Douglas
Aircraft Co., Inc., Santa Monlca, July 20, _949.
Moeckel, W. E. : Use of Characteristic Surfaces for Unsymmetrical Supersonic Flow Problems. NACA %_ 1849, 191'_9.
Basemann, Adolf: A Review of Analytical Methods for the Treatment of
Flow with Detached Shocks. NACA TN 1898, 1949.
i
!
,-,_"-_4, _
,..
I
i
_.j
"-
NACA EM A55F16
CO_,FIDF_NTIAL
157
Rep. 192,
Ferrarl, Carlo: The Determination of the Projectile of Minimum WaveResistance. RTP Trans. ll80, British Minlstry of Aircraft Production,
Sept., 1939.
Fraenkel, L. E.: Supersonic Flow Past Slender Bodies of Elliptic CrossSection. R.A.E. Rep. Aero. 2466, British, May 1952.
Additive drag
See references 12, 146, 173, and 174.
Chan6e in external wave dra_
See references 23, 146, 153, 162, 167, 173 to 176, and 178.
Lighthill, M. J. : The Position of the Shock-Wave in Certain Aerodynamic
Problems. Quart. Jour. Mech. and Appl. Math., vol. I, pt. 3, Sept.
1948, pp. 309-318.
_
:'
t
Lip bl_tnes _
.....
-..........
-.--, v / .......,,,.
158
I1
,1
4_
dt
.....
.............
G
_
t
lie
......
I_
A95F16
See references 23, 98, 100, i16, 120, 148, 174, and ]76 to 182.
Kinghorn, George F., and Disher, John H.: Free-Flight Investigation of
16-Inch-Diameter Supersonic Ram-Jet Unit. NACA _ ES&26, 1928.
Ferri, Antonio, and Nucci, Louis M.: Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Low-Drag Supersonic Inlets Having a Circ_ularCross Section and
a Central Body at Mach Numbers of 3.30, 2.75, and 2.45. NACK RM L8H13,
1948.
Fendley, Robert E., and Smith, Norman F. : An Investigation of the Characteristics of Three NACA 1-Serles Nose Inlets at Subcritical and Supercritical Mach Numbers. NACA RM LSL06, 1949.
Esenwein, Fred T., and Valerino, Alfred S_ : Force and Pressuze Characteristics for a Series of Nose Inlets at Mach Numbers from 1.59 to 1.99.
I - Conical-Spike All-External Compression Inlet with a Subsonic Cowl
Lip. NACA RM E50J26, 1951.
Messing, Wesley E., and Aeker, Loren W. : Transonic Free-Flight Drag
Results of Full-Scale Models of 16-Inch-Diameter Ram-Jet _gines.
NACA _ Eg_Ulg, 1972.
i
t
!
!
!
Messing, Wesley E., and Raob_ Leo._rd: Transonic Free-Flight Investigation of the Total Drag aud of the Component Drags (Cowl Pressure,
Additive, Base, Friction, and Internal) Encountered by a 16-InchDiameter Ram-Jet Engine for Mach Numbers from 0.80 to 1.43. NACA
RM E52F02,
1992.
Allen, J. L., mad Beke, Andrew: Force and Pressure-Recovery Characteristics of a Conical-T_e Nose Inlet Operating at Mach Numbers of 1.6
to 2.0 and at Angles of Attack of 9 . NACA RM E52130, 1952.
Allen J. L., and Beke, Andrew: Force and Fressure Recovery Characteristics at Supersonic Speeds of a Conical Spike Inlet with a Bypass
Discharging from the Top or Bottom of the Diffuser in an Axial Direction.
NACA RM E53A29, 1953.
Connors, James F., and Woollett, Richard R. : Force, Moment, and Pressure
CharacSeristlcs of Several Annular Nose Inlets at M_ch Number 3.87.
NACA EM EgSJ09, 1954.
i
i
i
0bery, Leonard J., Stitt, Leonard E., and Wise, George A. : Evaluation
at Supersonic Speeds of Twin-Duct Side-Intake System with TwoDimensional Double-Shock Inlet_. NACA RM E51_C08,1954.
.,
ilF
CO!_$_EI_IAL
NACARM A55Fi6
159
FLOW STEADINESS
i
Subsonic Flight
Choked _
Duct rumble
Twin-duct instability
Supersonic Flight
Causes of unsteadiness
Character of tu.steadiness
See references 37, 38, 52; 99, 108, 130, and 191 5o 196.
/
,:. t
t , 1141
, it
_--
lw_i
in
-m_
' /
' ,f' ,
/
/
(coat_etswoa(s)9_o3
_
AF 33(038)-L_31)
mmua_t
Ai_t
Co.,
1952.
Sterbentz, William H., and Davids, Joseph: Amplitude of Supersonic
Diffuser Flow Pulsations. NACA _ E_2Y2_ 19_2.
Dailey, C.L.:
z_.
Prevention of unstead/ness
See references _0, 51, iii, 123_ 129_ 189; and 199.
_
"
"
AIRCRAFT-I_DUC_0_
SYSTEM
Effects of Inlet Location
Subsonic flight
_CA _M L6JO_)
-Supersonic fli_t
See references 89_ 199, 209, 213, 215, 216, 218 to 220, 224, 232,
233,
and 237.
Allen_ H. Julian: Estimation of the Forces and Moments Acting on Incline_d
Bodies of Revolution of High Fineness Ratio. NACA RM A9126, 1949.
Allen, H. Julian: Pressure Distribution and Some Effects of Viscosity
on Slender Inclined Bodies of Revolution. NACA TN _4,
1950.
Anon. : Design and Aualysis of Three Supersonic Side Inlet Diffuser Models.
Rep. 1795, Wright Aero. Div., Wood-Ridge, N Jp Sept. 22, i953.
.......................
_,,-._".'
,'_._"?'":-._:_
. "'_ ' ........
:"_"__'
'
..........
"_,_
, _,,
"_._"
....
_:_
...........
-'_"._:'_."_','-'-_'
_.':,,_v_"..,_
bo_v.HAOA_AS_o_, 1948.
BraJnikoff; George B. : Pressure Recovery &t Supersonic Speeds Through
_
Duct Inlets Situated in a Region of Appreciable Boundary Layer.
II - Effect of an Oblique Shock Wave I_ediately Ahead. of the Inlet.
NACA RM A(_'08,19_-8.
Davis, W"
_].laceF., Edwards, Sherman S., and BraJnikoff_ George B. :
Experimental Investigstion at Supersonic Speeds of Twin-Scoop Duct
Inlets of Equal Area. IV - Some Effects of Internal Duct Shape Upon
an Inlet Enclosing 37.2 Percent of the Forebody Circumference.
NACA _M A9A31, 1949.
".
Boundary-Layer Removal
Suction
.,
!
;
_ ._,,,%, . _-.-,"
._:_._
i
._
_.,
..,,,,
'. _
_'_ _
..
,., . . ,,.,
:....
- ., ._,,_,,_,_*,
. ._ ..
I_'--
i-
,,
._..,,,"_',_,_,_._&_]_A',_'_,.._, .
.;.:
.....
c.:_,.,"_:
"
._
.-,
NACA EM A5_16
..
_CONFID__
, _._ :
163
Diversion
Submer_ed inlets
Seddon, J._ and Raney, D. J. : Low Speed Wind Tunnel _xlel Tests of Submerged Air Intakes on the Undersurface of a Delta Wing. R.A.E. Rep.
Aero. 2428, British s July 1951.
!
f
-_
:
c
to:
_
_
I
lit
iI a
ill
Combined
Scoop
iI
s
ill
;
i
;It
i
i
t c
Modifications
on the Drag
Inlet at Transonic Speeds.
Effects
incremental
drag
7.
See reference
Wakes
See reference
224.
Influence of a Canard-Type
Control
of Sy_netrical Fuselage at Mach Num1952.
NACA RM E52F09,
1992.
Fradenburgh,
Evan A., 0bery, Leonard J._ and Mello, John F. : Influence
of Fuselage and Canard-Type Control Surface on the Flow Field Adjacent
to a Rearwsa_Fuselage
Station at a Mach Number of 2.0 - Data Presentattcm.
NACAI_4EglK09,
1952.
INDUCTION-SYSTEM
AIRCRAI_
Drag
S_In friction
See references
Seddon,
,
J.:
and separation
Fuselage
on a Model of a Single-Ermined
B.A.E. TNAero.
2051, British,
Brodel, Walter:
Theory
TM1267,
1950.
of Plane,
Drag Measurements
Jet Aircraft
May 1990.
Sy_netrical
at LowM_ch
With Exit
Intake
Number
at the Tail.
Diffusers.
NACA
6
r
........
V
Jll
%"
!
....
_CA
-_
: . :_j
"_
RM A95F16
z _
, ' J_ CO_._._.___
Transonic
See
references
2_2
to
169
drag rise
267.
Hoffman, Sherwood:
Comparison of Zero-Lift
Tests at Transonic Speeds of Symmetrically
Spanwlse Positions on a 49 8weptback Wing
RM LglD06, 1991.
Hoffman, Sherwood:
Comparison of Zero-Lift Drag Determined by Flight
Tests at Transonic Speeds of Pylon, Underslung,
and Sy_netrlcally
Mounted Nacellee at 40 Percent Semispan of a 49 Sweptback Wing and
Body Combination.
NACA RM LglD26, 1991.
Pepper, William B.j Jr., and
Drags Determined by Flight
Moun_ed Nacelles in Various
49 Sweptback Wing and Body
Hoffm8_, Sherwood:
Comparison of Zero-Lift
Tests at Transonic Speeds of Symmetrically
Chordwise Positions at the Wing _p
of a
Combination.
NACA RM LglF13, 1991.
_offman, Sherwood:
Transonic Flight Tests to Compare the Zero-Lift Drags
of Underslung Nacelles Varied Spanwlse on a 49 Sweptback Wing and
Body Combination.
NACA BM L92DO4a, 1952.
Hoffman, Sherwood, and Pepper, William B., Jr. : Transonic Flight Tests
to Determine Zero-Lift Drag and Pressure Recovery of Nacelles Located
at the Wing Tips on a _9 Sweptbaek Wing and Body Combination.
NACA
RM LglK02, 1992.
Hoffman, Sherwood, and Mapp, Richard C., Jr. : Transonic Flight Tests
to Compare the Zero-Lift Drags of 49 Sweptback Wings of Aspect
Ratio 3.9.5and 6.0 With and Without Nacelles at the Wing Tips.
NACA
RM LglL27, 1992.
"
"
!
\
.
i
I
i
.
I_
ilt
. .
g
_ fl
eeI
I
,1
. 0 0
el
e _
NACA RM A_gFI6
I r
,Ii
Hopko, Russell N., Piland, Robert 0., and Hall, James R. : Drag Measurements at Low Lift of a Four-Nacelle Airplane Configuration Havlng a
Longitudinal Distribution of Cross-Sectional Area Conducive to Low
Transonic Drag Rise. NACA EM L93E29, 1953.
Holda%_, George H." Com_rison of Theoretical and Experimeutal Zerc-Lift
Drag-Rise Characteristics of Wing-Body-Tail Combinations _ear the Speed
of Sm_d.
NACA RM A93H17, 1993.
Whitcomb, Richard T. : 2_cent Results Pertaining to the Application of the
"Area Rule." NACA BM L93il_, 1993.
Hall, James Rud_rd:
ComlP_rlsonof Free-Flight Measurements of the ZeroLift Drag Rise of S_x Airglane Configurations and Their Equivalent
Bodies of Revolution at Transonic Speeds. NACA RM L53X21a, 1994.
Donlan, Charles J. : An Assessment of the Airplane Drag Problem _t Transonic and Supersonic Speeds. NACA BM L94F16, 1994.
Wave drag
e
See references
225 to 230.
i_
-_
_X,,_..J
....
I
nlllll
II J
III
inin
._.,
IJl,_
NAOA P,MA55FI6
CONFID_B_
J a J
167
Wind-Tunnel Investigation
Scoops
Nacelles
See references 81, 207, 211, 249, 272, 273, and 277 to 284.
Hansen, Frederick H., Jr., and Dannenberg, Robert E.: Effect of a Nacelle
on the Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Swept-Back Wing.
NACAIM A8EI2, 1948.
Welsh, Clement J., and Morrow, John D.: Effect of Wing-Tank Location on
the Drag and Trim of a Swept-WingModel As Measured in Flight at Transonic Speeds. NACARMLSOAI9,
1990.
Silvers, H. Norman, King, Thomas, J.1 Jr., and Pasteur, Thomas B., Jr.:
Investigation of the Effect of a Nacelle at Various Chordwise and
Vertical Positions on the Aerodynamic Characteristics at High Subsonic
Speeds of a 45 Wing With and Without a Fuselage. NACARMLOIII16, 1951.
168
......
i f
_ iI
"', dO.,f_._rD__
(
II
I i
iI
i _ iI
I l
1952.
Silvers, H. Non,nan, and King, Thomas J., Jr. : A Small-Scale Investigation
of the Effect of Spanwlse and Chordwise Positioning of an Ogive-Cylinder
Underwlug Nacelle on the High-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of a
45 Sweptback Tapered-in-Thickness Wing of Aspect Ratio 6. NACA I_M
L.5_22,1992.
i
;
APPENDIX B
_. ............
_-_,,,_\_,_,......
: _,,_-,,_. , '_,. _
.....
,,_,.
__
:_,_
._
,_
_......_ _.;_@_._
;:::
,_
Q:
NACA _
A99F16
O.0_FI.OE_'-_AL
169
195o.
Kraushasr, Robert J. : Manometers in Pulsating Systems.
NYU-14, New York Univ., Project SQUID, Aug. 22, 1951.
Tech. Memo.
170
.........
.....
II
Ill
', .....
_' ....
CO__L
I
ll
I
z
I
II
li
II
Ill
I
III
Ill.,
i :"_
---- .......
L'l,_
llli
I I I
NACA _
I
I
I
AS_FI6
NACA F_4A_F16
CONFIDEPTI_!J
171
I.O _
-_
'
I.O p. - p_
.96
.68,
.68
56 ,52
_
.I
.2
.3
.4.5
.6
.7
Free-_.reomMochnumber,Mo
'
8
.9
ID
.._1 L_
|.,
//
<,
i
iiil
, :
3L._
'."
i
t
Me
020
il I X it(l/i
i /
= ,/
: /
,/,
/',S/
',/Z
2.4
jr
(130
'"
/i
__/._
o
.2
i_.
!
_
,.oo
,.--,.,o
A2
#I
_i
il
1.0
12
:. -- .-..,+.
_,...
., _
,'t
on free-stream
properties
inlet properties.
/
{
.,
.,
..
: : .,.
,
a
,...........
. ...
...
# : ::..: .......
: ':: :
kO0
_'
-_ _
""_
.98
.97
1o1 _
0.003
C...__. =4
tOOlI
_---_
....
.,
_ ,
_,
___
..q9
.45
Me
2
l ....
__.e
_
"
I"
p_.
.gt
.9'
LO
L2
1.4
1.6
18
2.0
2.2
i
2.6
2.4
Exit-to-inletarea ratio, As
A2,
(b) _'_'o.oo_ 8
,
,.
Figure 4.- Variatio_ of tatal-pressure ratio with area ratio for varimm
flow co_iti_s
in circular co_ical _iffusers.
._:
'
'
'
, .
....
I Ill
..
. ..,
:; ;'
I I IIIIIII
.- .
.. _.
Ill
. ;.
: .. ,...,..
. ,
,
. . ....
/1/
., .
.,
, '..,
|
_1
,..,:.
,_,, .. _.':" ,, . ,
. =,
._,
,
, ,'_', : ..
'..,,,.'.
,'_,'
-,..
_,,....._"
.,,:._,.,*_ ._..._,
!
/
/
/
178
ee
go
2;
";
7777
: .....:
,:
eo
NACA RM A_FI6
e
"'"..........
r77
.2
.l
-,.
I
_,
Figure
8.-
12
To_l-pressure
16
20
Cone half angle, _
ratios
24
deg
for conical
28
32
two-shock
compression.
_: ,
i,,,
, .--
......
..,,_,
*,
,o---'--J'l
IJ
I__J
_ _-,
II
.
I_.ll
>
. ,..
"___
36
180
..........
_)NF_DEI_IAL. ......
.....
.98
me
NACA i_4A95F16
,.'',:
....
2"- "(9"--
o.o
- .9----_
_.___
L_
e= .82
.....
O.
.J.
_-
_
.78 ....
.74 _
.7"0n
M_
Descripiion
(9 1.42 Asymmetric normcI shock nose inlet
13 1.42 Symmetric normalshock nose inlet
<_ 1.50 Normal shock nose inlet with deflector
Ref.
151
131
26
A 1.9:
133
129
,d 1.91
,_) 1.90
129
1.50
Conicolinlet
Vertical-wedge nose inlet
8
12
16
Angleof attack, a,de,]
20
NACA RMA99FI6
.30
C0RFIDEF/T_AL
181
II
182
ee
JO
C.O._.._.ZAL
,e
d.... e
o|
ge
:'_
geu '
es
.., '
,_ (
uw
mCA _ A55n6
I
o8
Az/AM =C
.04
.02
_/,,
Mo-,.2
Iv"
.001
002
.001
-_'--2 '!
.-
002
.002
004
003
o,_>_-
_-
.001
.002
003
.004
_,:o
'_'_
004
M.
:zo
o ,
S
_"
003
A_.O
Friction coefficient, Cf
04
00!
Friction coefficient, Gf
",_:,:_ _,=,,4
__ 2 _rz/_
_
.004
I_
'_.08
003
Mo=,.2
2"
Friction coefficient, Gf
_l<t.,o
"
___..._
zl
-_'-'
.4
I-_,
_t--'_,
I
:
i
Ct =.0025
0
1.5 20
2.5
30
Free-streamMach number,Mo
L
c, .0025
0
1.5 20
25
3.0
Free-streamMach number,Mo
.,.,,.
......
'"
;r
i ....
"'
'J'L,'L
:F
NACA RM A55FI6
....11
CO.'W"II_F,
NTZ'd
: *!
s s
As
183
_i;
&
_.e_.
',' //////
_.o
"
_.x
lllJllll_J
o
_
,_
,_
..
CO
J
-.
,It
OO'IUOFPlltOoo6o,ap o^!IlPPV
"-Ii
ii_
i_,"_ ..................
:'_"_ Idr__
..............
'"'_ _'t
_1_
'
-2.0
'
AI
- I_ --
"
Sharp
Lip
Sharp
13 Sharp
<_Porobolicarc
-- 16 --
....
I_
4.t0
._x
2.00
2.00
12.50
167
Ref.
167
]46
177
S_rp
5.40
23
Sharp
NACA
1-49-30
4.20'
, 148
Blunt
4.20,
Blunt
--I.4-
-----
5.40
-,B
-.6
i
/
,,_S
--I.0
23
"
_1
4.20
......
[
i
I
..
'.
:
k
./
/,
,..... __--'
\
&13
13 S
1_ _
13
....
-.2
.8
IX)
12
1.4
dB -/_
/-""- ".._ ...L ._.. "
L6
L8
2.0
Ref. i74
2.2
:,
',,
2.4
wit_.
II_CA - IL.,au_q_
71eld,V_.
,,_
'
"
._#;_
......
-._-.._
"L-
_._..._,.
.....
L - __EL_,_I_.
, .,
..............................
__i
....
_#_,7..
7. ........
.....
"'
, _ , - _ ::.,_,f,''_
L!_,'IIL]_ _
i
'