Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reprinted from
Journal
olAircraft
AMERICAN
INSTITUTE
OF AERONAUTICS
AND
ASTRONAUTICS
1290
AVENUE
OF THE
AMERICAS
NEW
YORK,
NEW
YORK,
N.Y.
10104
VOL.
19, NO.
AIAA
J. AIRCRAFT
MARCH
1982
80-1872R
NASA/TM.
- _ o ---"
208075
__ '
Katz, Victor
NASA
The pressure
recovery
A rues
of incoming
R. Corsig/ia,t
Research
cooling
Center,
Field,
aviation twin-engine
aircraft was investigated
40 80-Foot Wind Tunnel at Ames Research
....
Calif.
with engine
cooling
of a typical
general
experimentally.
The semispan model was mounted vertically in the
Center, The propeller was driven by an electric motor to provide
Nomenclature
well.
Recent
studies
in Refs.
1-5. These
= cooling
air inlet area
= upstream
cooling
airstream
= drag coefficient
AI
A=
Co
cp
tube
= propeller
power
coefficient
= upper
plenum
total pressure
Cp u
cr
D
= propeller
---propeller
Ds=l
=measured
system
component
= propeller
= revolutions
= propeller
P_ot
P**
= total pressure
= freestream
static
q
S
= freestream
=semispan
= propeller
thrust
- freestream
airspeed
= cooling
air mass-flow
V=
advance
ratio
per second
power
=required
lb/s)]
O_
= angle
of attack
= propeller
pitch
6of
= cowl flap
= freestream
P**
by
the
tunnel
scale
Extensive
studies
were
performed
Research
Center.
rate
[1.4
in
that
opposed
War
I!
the
most
general
engine
aircraft
designer
aviation
configurations,
used
air-cooled
with
list
of
engine
in increasing
data were not
of
opposed
inlet
pressure
reported.
piston
engine
recovery;
nacelle
drag
in the 40 80-Foot
Wind
Tunnel
at Ames
These studies
4,5 were carried
out without
the
propeller
in order
to measure
mass-flow
rates and nacelle
drag
accurately.
In the work
reported
herein,
an electric-motordriven
propeller
was added
to the nacelle;
this made
it possible
to study the effect
of the propeller
slip-stream
on the pressure
ftJ)]
kg/s
before
layouts.
provided
They
were
successful
however,
nacelle
drag
= V**/nD
mass-flow
and
"cooling
drag"
are cited
from
the studies
of the
installation
data and a procedure
for sizing the components
of
a cooling
system.
The
reshaping
of cooling
air
inlets
to
provide
less pressure
head loss was studied
by Miley et al. 2._
recovery
of the cooling
air inlets and
major
advantage
of using
an electric
was
that
cold-flow
measurements
rate
air
II era
radials
or in-line
Monts
_ has
2D*
pressure
cooling
War
aircraft
whereas
dynamic
pressure
= VJp** V_
model
wing area
[8.6 m 2 (92.6
W,
(3075
= P/p=n3D
coefficient
thrust
coefficient
= T/p**n
diameter
[ 193 cm (76 in.)]
drag
World
area
of this so-called
studies
differ
(3
propeller-off
vibration
angle
propeller
accurate
deflection
air density
data
torque
could
and
on the nacelle
drag.
The
motor
for this purpose
comparable
to
the
be performed.
thrust
of
an
Moreover,
the
electric-motor-driven
to measure,
which
of nacelle
drag.
was simpler
measurement
resulted
low-
in a more
Introduction
HE
cooling
system
engine
installations
design
has
attention
as fuel
efficiency
factor
in aircraft
development.
research,
originally
directed
problems,
is now
concerned
Experimental
of general
aviation
piston
recently
received
increased
has
become
a more
important
As a result,
engine
installation
at solving
powerplant
cooling
with
nacelle
drag
reduction
Apparatus
The
general
layout
of the
vertically
mounted
semispan
model
is seen in Fig. I. The end plate
was used to separate
the
model
from
the tunnel
boundary
layer
and
to serve
as a
reflection
plane.
Forces
were
measured
through
a shielded
strut
that
passed
through
the end plane
to the tunnel
scales
as
below
the floor.
inlet area when
Presented
as Paper
80-1872
at the AIAA Aircraft
Systems
and
Technology
Meeting,
Anaheim,
Calif.,
Aug. 4-6, 1980; submitted
Sept. 12, 1980; revision received July 6, 1981. This paper is declared
a
work of the U.S. Government
and therefore
is in the public domain.
"NRC
Associate.
Present
address:
Department
of Mechanical
Engineering,
Technion,
Haifa, Israel.
tAerospace
Engineer.
Member AIAA.
gAerospace
Engineer.
arrangement
streamtube
area
193
inlet
into
inserts
(Fig.
the production
2) served
inlet
of the nacelle
and
a sketch
of
are shown
in Fig. 3. The
upstream
of the
cooling
Three
placed
streamtube
airstream
is A=;
enters
into
after
the
cross section
A, (A=
recovery
is measured
four
in
static
holes
the
rear
the external
upper
plenum
to decrease
The internal
an incoming
cross-section
diffusion,
via the
the
inlet
of
upper
plenum
the pressure
pressure
(K!el) probes
and
corner
of
the
plenum.
.fL
194
KATZ,CORSIGLIA,
ANDBARLOW
The
pressure
measured;
small (less
J.AIRCRAFT
recovery
however,
than 0.05
reported
was
the
differences
between
q**). The cooling
air
highest
value
the
sensors
were
then flowed
through
an adjustable
orifice
plate
orifice
opening
was used
to the lower
to simulate
configurations
and served
the cooling
channel.
The
was measured
in a similar
four
head
used
plenum.
various
static
holes; a rake of four
Kiel probes
measured
at the exit downstream
of a cowl
flap,
which
to control
the flow rate.
The
electric
3600
rpm]
torquemeter
motor
[maximum
was
connected
which
was
able
output:
to
to
186
propeller
thrust
simultaneously.
Incoming
filtered
with
a 10-Hz
low-pass
filter
before
The accuracy
of drag-thrust
data
was of the
lift accuracy
was
one
order
kW
the
propeller
record
shaft
of magnitude
the total
was also
(250
hp)
through
torque
at
a
and
signals
were
being
recorded.
order
of 1 70; the
better.
Results
Propeller
Calibration
The objective
of the study
reported
here was to investigate
the parametric
behavior
of inlet pressure
recovery
and nacelle
drag,
relative
to propeller-off
measurements.
4._ As a first step
the propeller
was calibrated
tion of advance
ratio
J and
for torque
blade-pitch
and thrust
as a funcangle/_o
75- The results
Cooling-drag
model
in 40 x 80-Foo!
thrust
angles.
with a propeller
are contained
theory
in Ref.
coefficient
vs advance
These
results
are shown
ratio
for
to be in
agreement
with
the values
obtained
using
the wind-tunnel
scales
and setting
the model
at 0 deg angle
of attack.
Table
shows
the
propeller
operating
conditions
selected
to
Wind Tunnel.
1
be
PROPELLER
UPPER
PLENUM
PLENUM
\'COWL
Ai
COOLING
STREAM
AIR
TUBE
LOWER
ADJUSTABLE
Scbemalle
Fig. 3
CTSCALE
= _ [CDMEAS
[
FLAP
ORIFICE
EXIT
PLATE
of nacelle.
_ COpRoP]
OFF
':'"24
.10
20
.06
25"
_3/4
TSHAFT
CT .02'040
m____BALANCE
-02
Fig.
Interchangeable
area:
large,
265cm
690
(41
in.2).
cm
inlets
2
(107
in.2);
to
reduce
mediunt,
inlet
393
size.
cm
Production
2
(61
in.2);
a
.4
.2
J
.6
.8
J
1.0
1.2
1,4
J
1.6
inlet
small,
Fig.
Comparison
corresponding
of
thrust
values measured
measured
on shaft
on
wind-tunnel
balance.
scales
with
MARCH
1982
ENGINE
Table
COOLING
Test conditions
SYSTEM
195
q,
m/s
(ft/s)
cm H20
(Ib/ft z )
Propeller
6cf,
deg
30
30
19
...............
2450
180
0.063
0.58
0
0
25
...............
2450
150
0.039
1.06
Climb
on
off
13. I (26)
15. I (30)
47 (I 55)
50 (166)
8
8
Cruise
on
off
40.3 (80)
40.3 (80)
84 (272)
84 (272)
2.3
2.3
t "
CRUISE
,\
------
WITH
--
WITHOUT
l/oa
--
J=
ct,
deg
_o.TJ,
deg
nD
hp
rpm
1.0
PROPELLER
PROPELLER
.6
.6
Cp u
Cp u
.4
.4
L
.2
L
.4
I
.6
I
.8
I
1
Medium
inlet
Smell
inlet
A_/Ai
Fig. 5
Effect
of propeller
1
.5
on inlet pressure
I
1.5
I
1.0
recovery.
air mass-flow
rate: climb,
I
LARGE
INLET
MEDIUM
INL_
.O6
M AL L IN L E T-'_,,,,,._
------
WITH
--
WITHOUT
PROPELLER
PROPELLER
_(_
.O5
CLIMB
Cp u
.O4
.4
CD
C o =(D$cale+
_--
DESIGN
T)
/qm
POINT
,O3
.2
_l
1
tlo
.;
CRUISE
.O2
.2
.4
.6
.8
t
1
A=/Ai
recovery
vs cooling
air mass-flow
rate: cruise,
Fig. 8
These
representative
conditions
were
Variation
The
of
cruise
those
used
and
climb
in the present
condition.
These
study.
of Inlet Area
effect
inlet pressure
the propeller-off
of
the
propeller
recovery
data
slip-stream
was investigated
reported
in Ref.
on
nacelle
drag
and
and compared
with
5. The upper
plenum
Effect of propeller
data
were
obtained
on semispan
for
both
nacelle-wing
the
drag.
cruise
and
climb
conditions
that are given in Table
I.
The measured
pressure
recoveries
presented
in Fig. 5 are in
agreement
with
the results
obtained
by Miley
et al.2.J
for
inlets
of area
ratio
0.3 and
0.6.
Because
their
inlet
configurations
however,
slightly
The
the
had
improved
internal
small
inlets
(A=/A,=0.6)
improved
effect
of
pressure
recovery
the propeller
on
diffuser
in their
contours,
test gave
of C,
= 0.6-0.7.
inlet _ressure
recovery
a
at
pressure
recovery
Cpu as a function
of inlet area ratio
A=/Ai,
where A= is the incoming
flow cross-section
area ahead
of the
model
(Fig. 3) and A, is the inlet area,
is given in Fig. 5. Here
cruise
is small.
This agrees
with the observation
of Miley
et
al. z.3 of a 5% increase
in inlet total
head because
of propeller
slip-stream.
For the climb
condition
and the lowest
value
of
the pressure
A /A,
(largest
about
20/0 to
coefficient
is defined
as
Cp u = (Pro,-P)/q=
(1)
close
agreement
inlet area),
the effect
of the propeller
the upper
plenum
pressure.
This
is,
with
the
results
of
Miley
et al.2.3
is to add
again,
in
At
higher
196
KATZ,CORSIGLIA,
values
of
propeller
propeller
pressure
A=/A,
(smallest
inlet
area)
the
is much
greater.
Nevertheless,
installed,
there
is a substantial
recovery
C.
as A=/A,
increases.
even
with
the propeller
shp-stream
considerable
internal
flow
separation
This
nonlinear
behavior
is demonstrated
which
the
mass-flow
effect
of
the
even
with
decrease
in
This indicates
the
inlet
that
present,
there
ts still
in the upper
plenum.
in Figs. 6 and 7, in
upper
plenum
pressure
recovery
rate
W. At the cruise condition,
C_
is plotted
a slight
increase
vs
in
pressure
recovery
is measured
for the higher
flow rates.
This
might
possibly
be an indication
of reattachment
in the internal
flow.
The basic
trend
of higher
pressure
recovery
for
the
larger
cooling
The
inlets
is maintained
Fig. 8. The
paper
have
measured
the wing
with
the
propeller
C o values
shown
in Fig.
been
corrected
for
shaft
shaft
thrust
T to the
propeller
combination
on
A=/A,
the
is plotted
8 and
thrust
measured
for
data
BARLOW
Fig.
8. At cruise
at climb
separation
J. AIRCRAFT
the drag
increases
as
power
rates ( W W c <0.8),
however,
the effect
is large enough
that drag is not reduced
the thrust
becomes
greater.
The increase
in the drag
coefficient
rate is increased
(with
the propeller
10. When
the propeller
was added,
drag was observed
for
for the larger
inflows,
root
and in the
thinner
boundary
is increased,
and
of the suppression
of
the nacelle.
At lower
of the
because
flow
flow
frontal
spillage
of thrust
until
as the cooling
air flow
off)
is presented
in Fig.
however,
a reduction
in
increased
mass-flow
the flow
disturbance
rates.
at
It seems
that
the propeller
front
of the nacelle
is reduced,
layer and lower
drag.
resulting
in a
in
throughout
by adding
scale
AND
the
the
O58
CLIMB
C T = 0000
(PROP
OFF)
hscal e for
O54
C o = (D_cal e + T)/qS
75 = 17
(;_0 75 = 19
(2)
. 0063
.05O
Therefore
the C o values
reflect
the influence
of the
slip-stream
on the wing
nacelle,
but do not include
thrust.
To
interpret
these
results,
a schematic
around
based
the wing
nacelle
on tuft observations
that
the
airstream
and
high
local
is drawn
in
in the wind
spillage,
velocities
that
at the
propeller
the shaft
flowfield
Fig. 9. The
drawing
tunnel
which
indicated
is, thickened
nacelle
boundary
blunt
front
CO
046
is
028
C T = 0.039
layer
end,
flow separation
at the aft section
of the wing-nacelle
fairing.
The drag results
in Fig. 8 can be interpreted
in terms of this
flowfield
sketch.
In the cruise
condition,
the angle of attack
is
low
and
favorable
the
aft
flow
effect
of the
separation,
increased
but
skin
propeller
propeller
increased.
the
study
drag
was
of streamlined
however,
that
without
the
streamlined.
propeller,
by suppressing
conducted
by
the
Becker,
the
aft
7 who
section
of
that
0._
(PROP
CRUISE
by
of
OFF)
020
the
the
.5
1 0
1.5
w_
Fig.
I0 Effect
of propeller
production configuration.
power
on
wing-nacelle
drag
for
separation
measured
bodies
with frontal
inlets.
the smaller
inlet had lower
since
the
flow
with the
has
been
is to sub-
flow
= 25 I
024
his
i=!
i
AFT
FAIRtNG
His results
drag
even
model
was
U
0,58
of Power
The effect
on
mass-flow
rate,
seen
the resulting
drag
reduction
is offset
friction.
Consequently,
the
effect
reduce
nacelle.
A related
Effect
is small.
Therefore
slip-stream
reduces
the
on drag is small.
In the climb configuration
off,
however,
the aft
flow
separation
The net effect,
then,
of the propeller
stantially
on the aft
the drag
showed,
separation
propeller
(_o75
causes
drag of increasing
for the large
inlet
the effect
of
the
power
power setting
area,
in Fig.
is the
same
is plotted
10. It can
as that
shown
vs
be
-------
PROPELLER
PROPELLER
ON
OFF
AFT
.......c......__
FAIRING
FF
CLIMB
054
in
.05O
_----'W"
S-;E'::S%
_ _'_7...-_ _"I_'-----
OFF
.046
c D
FRONTAL
SPILLAGE
al l
028
AFT
FAIRING
OFF
"---_ _
---"
I,"
"--_--.,t
o24
_'_-"
--
--
"_----
ON ---0- ---_@
"P-
_,--
_=-- --
CRUISE
OFF
ON
020
L
S
/
SEPARATED
of flowfield
=
110
1A5
REGION
Fig. II
Effect
configuration.
of aft
failing
on
wing-nacelle
drag
for production
MARCH
1982
ENGINE
COOLING
SYSTEM
.062
AFT
------
PROPELLER
ON
--
PROPELLER
OFF
FAIRING
__'_
the cooling
exits
of
exit
was
sealed,
OFF
stream,
however,
also continues
to
with
.O54
ON
CLIMa
For
shown
this
in Fig.
the
the drag
decrease
propeller-off
slightly
increased
with
and
12 it is concluded
o'e.a.
_.
air.
as
configuration
12.
The
the
cowl
results
of
flap
Ref.
show
that
this particular
side
exit configuration
increased
flow separation
over the rear part of the nacelle
and thereby
increased
the drag.
In Ihe presence
of the propeller
slip-
.O58
.O5O
197
figuration
exit. But
cowl flap
_ OFF
SiDE
aft fairing
EXITS
configuration,
flow
that
for
which
the
drag
rates.
When
comparing
Figs.
11
at cruise
the side exiting
con-
has slightly
higher
drag
than
for the powered
climb
condition
makes
the side exits competitive,
the standard
cowl
the absence
of the
especially
with the
on,
.046
Conclusions
CD
ON
The
reduces
nacelle
.042
addition
of a propeller
to a wing-nacelle
configuration
the amount
of flow separation
over the aft part of the
and at the inlet of the cooling
air flow.
This leads to a
reduction
flow rate
CRUISE
FAIRING
are more
The inlet
as much
.028
ON"_'_=_----:'_--_-v---5_:
climb
this
production
.024
.;
Fig. 12 Effect
cooling airL
110
the cooling
is reduced.
air massWhen
the
pronounced
in the climb
condition
than
pressure
recovery
for the cruise
condition
as 570 because
of the slip-stream
effect,
improvement
(large)
inlet
is of the
order
and
even
more
of 20070
for smaller
at cruise.
improves
while
at
for
the
inlets.
These
improvements
are partially
a result
of propeller
slipstream
related
pressure
rise,
but
the
major
effect
is the
reduction
in the amount
of flow separation
inside the inlet at
115
drag (using
drag when
inlet spillage
inlet
area
was
reduced,
the
drag
decreased,
unlike
the
propeller-off
case in which
the nacelle
drag continued
to be
almost
unaffected
as the inlet area was reduced.
These
effects
.032
AFT
in the configuration
is increased,
since
the
higher
angles
of attack.
References
Variation
of Nacelle
Figures
8-10
on the amount
Aft Section
illustrate
the strong
of
flow
separation
dependence
behind
of nacelle
the nacelle.
drag
To
reduce
that effect,
an aft fairing
(shown
in Fig. 11) was tested
with
various
nacelle
configurations.
The results
in Fig.
11
show that for both
propeller-off
(solid
lines) and propeller-on
(dashed
present.
lines)
the drag
reduction
At the cruise
condition
order
as the
propeller-on
propeller-off
effect
of the aft fairing
is
this reduction
is of the same
propeller-off
case,
and at the climb condition
the
drag reduction
is smaller
(by 20 to 4070) than the
drag
reduction,
especially
for the higher
flow
rates
flow
(W).
This
separation
and
the additional
is because
the propeller
with the aft fairing
off,
effect
has suppressed
the
as discussed
above,
is therefore
less.
Side Exits
Similar
added
to
behavior
a nacelle
was observed
configuration
when
the aft fairing
was
thai uses side ports
for the
I Monts,
F., "The
Development
of Reciprocating
Engine
Installation
Data for General
Aviation Aircraft,"
SAE Paper 73-0325,
April 1973.
"Miley, S.J., Cross, E.J. Jr., and Owens, J.K., "An Investigation
of the Aerodynamics
and Cooling of a Horizontally
Opposed Engine
Installation,"
SAE Paper 77-0467, March-April
1977.
3Miley,
S.J., Cross, E.J. Jr., Lawrence,
D.L., and Owens, J.K.,
"Aerodynamics
of
Horizontally
Opposed
Aircraft
Engine
Installations,"
AIAA Paper 77-1249, April 1977.
4Corsiglia,
V.R., Katz, J., and Kroeger,
R.A.,
"Full-Scale
Wind
Tunnel
Sludy of Nacelle Shape on Cooling
Drag,"
Journal
of Aircrafl, VoI. 18, No. 2, Feb. 1981, pp. 82-88.
_Katz, J., Corsiglia,
V.R., and Barlow, P.R., "Study
of Cooling
Air Inlet and Exit Geometries
for Horizontally
Opposed
Piston
Aircraft
Engines,"
AIAA Paper 80-1242, June 1980.
6Barlow,
P.R.,
Corsiglia,
V.R.,
and
Ka_z, J.,
"'Full-Scale
Aerodynamic
Characteristics
of a Propeller
Installed
on a Small TwinEngine Aircraft Wing Panel,"
NASA TM 81285, May 1981.
7Becket,
V.J.,
"Wind
Tunnel
Tests of Air Inlet
and Outlet
Openings
on a Streamline
Body,"
NACA Wartime
Rept, L-300, Nov.
1940.