62 64848

e . e.. e e
e...

. .*e

. .. .
e e.
o

e.
-

e. e..

.
e

e e .e.*

- ..
e e..

e . . . .

e . . . .

. :

38'7
RME58GlOi

e..

e..

R ESEARCH MEMORANDUM

OFF-DESIGN PERFORMANCE OF DIVERGENT EJECTORS

By Milton A. Beheim Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory Cleveland, O h i o

n
h0
v)
( I +

x
X

C ~ D o C u ? . m r n
This materlal contains information affecting th, Nntional Defense of tbe United States within tbe meaning of the e s p i o ~ g lawa, ~ TYtls 18, U.S.C., Sea. 793 and W , tbe trpIyImk38ion or revelation of which in m y manner to an unauthoriced p s o n is pmhtblted by law.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE F O R AERONAUTICS

I

WASHINGTON September 30, 1958

0..

0..

... . ....
a

NACA RM E&iOa":

......................... .. .... . . . ........ ...... : . . @QIFIG&iALi ... .. . i ....... ..........

0 . 0 . 0 .

.**

0..

R E S E A R C H MJ3MORANwM

OFF-DEIGN P E R F O R M A N C E O F DrVERGENT EJECPORS*

By Milton A. Beheim

SUMMARY
The off-design performance of fixed- and of variable-gemetry divergent e j e c t o r s w a s investigated. The ejectors, which were designed f o r t u r b o j e t operation a t Mach 3, were investigated i n the Mach number range 0.8 t o 2. The performance of a fixed-geometry e j e c t o r with high secondary-flow r a t e s w a s competitive w i t h t h a t of more complex variablegeometry e j e c t o r s . Variable-geometry ejectors with compromises t o reduce mechanical complexity produced performance reasonably c l o s e t o that of an i d e a l variable e j e c t o r .
INTRODUCTION

Simple fixed-geometry divergent e j e c t o r s designed f o r good performance a t high f l i g h t speeds (e.g., Mach 3) s u f f e r l a r g e performance l o s s e s a t low speeds. This l o s s r e s u l t s f r o m j e t overexpansion, which depends on the geometry and the j e t and stream interaction. Analyses have shown that t h e performance of such an e j e c t o r c m be s o poor a t low speeds that an a i r p l a n e would not be able t o accelerate t o t h e high design speed. In other cases where s u f f i c i e n t t h r u s t w a s a v a i l a b l e during acceleration, excessive f u e l consumption occurred. The following techniques of solving the problem a r e considered i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n : (1) Compromise t h e design performance t o improve off-design performance; (2) employ variable geometry; ( 3 ) employ large amounts of secondary a i r f l o w t o f i l l i n the excess a r e a of t h e exit. These schemes were investigated i n the NACA L e w i s 8- by 6-foot tunnel i n t h e Mach number range 0.8 t o 2.
SYMBOLS CD

b o a t t a i l drag c o e f f i c i e n t based on maximum cross-sectional area b o a t t a i l plus base drag

"Title,

....................... . .. ..... . ...... ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . .................

Unclassified.
.

0
0

0.

2
mm

m m m m

m mm m m m m o m m m m m m o o m m m ommo

dB

orno

mmo

om mmm

mm

m m

mm

m
0

om

mom

.moo

oomm

om.

m m m m m m o m m m m m 0 0 m m

mm

de

dm
dp

maximum forebody diameter

primary-nozzle diameter spoiler diameter secondary-nozzle diameter ejector g r o s s thrust

gross thrust

aT
dS

F
Fi
2

of ideal completely expanded primary flow

axial distance from primary-nozzle exit to ejector exit Mach number bypass mass-flow rate secondary mass-flow rate
maximum capture mass-flow rate of inlet

mb
mS

mo
pP
pS

primary total pressure secondary total pressure free-stream total pressure (upstream of model)

p1

local Pitot pressure base static pressure boattail static pressure exit-plane static pressure free-stream static pressure (upstream of model) primary total taperatwe secondary total temperature free-stream velocity

PB
Pbt Pe PO

T P

TS
vO

prime

wS

secon&&

......................... ...... *f&-fcl'cwjratq : ................ . . . . .................... . .... ..........

0 .

0
0

;ei&t-flow

rate

Y
U

normal distance from body surface

divergence angle, deg b o a t t a i l angle, deg

Subscripts : ab afterburning local no af terburning

a
nb

Ejector Models Thirteen d i f f e r e n t e j e c t o r s were used i n this investigation, each i d e n t i f i e d by number. Sketches of t h e ejectors are presented i n f i g u r e i, and each sketch i s accompanied with a t a b l e of the geometrical parame t e r s . These parameters a r e a l s o summarized i n t a b l e I. Ejectors 1 t o 1 2 were mounted on the c y l i n d r i c a l section of the model, which had an 8-inch outside diameter. With e j e c t o r 13 t h e outside diameter of t h e cylinder w a s reduced from 8 t o 6.4 inches by an abrupt s t e p 22 inches upstream of the e x i t plane. Ejectors 1 t o 9 and 13 had low b o a t t a i l angles representative of nacelle-type i n s t a l l a t i o n s . Ejectors 10 t o 1 2 had high b o a t t a i l angles as with c e r t a i n fuselage-type i n s t a l l a t i o n s . E j e c t o r s 1 t o 9 were investigated with e i t h e r of two primarynozzle-exit diameters corresponding t o operation with f u l l afterburning and with no afterburning. "he r a t i o of nonafterbuming t o afterburning primary-nozzle diameter w a s 0.75. E j e c t o r s 1 t o 6 ( f i g s . l ( a ) t o (d)) were fixed-geometry types with various values of t h e geometrical parameters t h a t a f f e c t e j e c t o r performance (such as expansion r a t i o , secondary diameter r a t i o , divergence A l l e j e c t o r s except ejector 3 were conical. Ejector 3 angle, etc.). had a divergent wall contoured (by the method of r e f . 1) t o produce nearly axial flow a t the e x i t plane.

....................... . .. ..... . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ........ . . . ..........

0 .
0 . 0 .

.om:

.:C@$&)mM*

0.

T w ~ M ~ d i f l p ? t $ P o nf by ~ j e c t p ~ + ~miproye t ?;y$es$gn performance a r e sho& fi Tlg& ,fer. :T k # Z g w e iJ):spotler r q $0 p c o u r a g e j e t separatio"; Ai?? (7air'ih';fectfbn %fkbugh Mfrfulbf. sloes ih t h e divergent w a l l t o encourage j e t separation and t o fill i n excess flow area a t the e x i t plane. These techniques were investigated independently and a l s o simultaneously.

One type of variable-geometry e j e c t o r ( 7 ) that was i n v e s t i g a t e d i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e l ( f ) .The divergent portion w a s assumed t o be composed of several leaves that could be r o t a t e d i n such a manner as t o vary the e x i t a r e a while maintaining a f i x e d secondary diameter. A s f l i g h t Mach number (and simultaneously nozzle pressure r a t i o ) decreased, t h e exit area would be decreased t o provide the c o r r e c t e x p s i o n r a t i o . The twos t e p b o a t t a i l geometry that i s shown would r e s u l t i n bigher b o a t t a i l drag a t Mach 3 than would occur i f a s i n g l e b o a t t a i l angle had been selected, but it would incur l e s s drag with low-speed positions. An a c t u a l v a r i a b l e ejector of t h i s type w a s not constructed; but r a t h e r various p o s i t i o n s of t h e movable portion corresponding t o operation a t various Mach numbers were selected, and models were constructed t o simulate these conditions.
Another variable-geometry e j e c t o r (8) that w a s investigated i s shown a s assumed t o i n figure l ( g ) . A s with e j e c t o r 7, t h e divergent portion w be constructed of leaves that could be r o t a t e d t o vary e x i t a r e a while maintaining a constant secondary diameter. However, i n this case t h e boattail w a s kept fixed. A s a r e s u l t , as e x i t area decreased, base a r e a increased. The model w a s designed with a removable base p l a t e t o i n v e s t i gate the e f f e c t of base bleed flow. Again, fixed-geometry models were constructed t o simulate various positions of i n t e r e s t of t h e movable port i o n of the ejector.
A t h i r d ty-pe of variable-geometry e j e c t o r ( 9 ) that was i n v e s t i g a t e d i s shown i n figure l ( h ) . In t h i s case the b o a t t a i l and e x i t a r e a were both fixed and tne secondary diameter was variable. The divergent w a l l w a s assumed t o be constructed of leaves that were hinged a t the e x i t plane. A t the design Mach number the secondary diameter would be a t i t s minimum value and would be l a r g e enough t o permit the passage of the cooling secondary airflow. A t lower than design Mach numbers the secondary diameter would be increased t o permit t h e flow of s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of secondary a i r t o f i l l i n t h e excess flow area a t t h e e x i t plane and prevent overexpansion of t h e primary flow. As with the o t h e r variable ejectors, fixed-geometry models simulated p o s i t i o n s of i n t e r e s t of t h e hypothetical variable e j e c t o r .

A s indicated e a r l i e r , e j e c t o r s 10 t o 1 2 ( f i g s . l(i)and ( j ) ) had higher b o a t t a i l angles than those discussed thus far. They simulated a f a m i l y of fixed-geometry e j e c t o r s with various values of the geometrical parameters. only one primary-nozzle position tcorresponding t o f u l l afterburning) w a s investigated with these models.

Tunnel I n s t a l l a t i o n
A schematic sketch of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e model i n t h e tunnel i s shown i n f i g u r e 2. The downstream portion of t h e walls of the 8- by 6-foot t e s t section have been perforated t o permit operation a t any Mach number from 0.6 t o 2.1. The support s t r u t s were swept forward 4 5 O t o a t t a i n a more continuous blockage a r e a d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r more uniform flow a t transonic speeds. Primary and secondary air were ducted separately t o the model through t h e support s t r u t s .

P i t o t pressure p r o f i l e s normal t o t h e body j u s t upstream of t h e boatt a i l a r e shown i n f i g u r e 3 f o r several tunnel Mach numbers. Survey rakes were placed i n the plane of the s t r u t and a l s o normal t o it. Their axial location i s indicated in f i g u r e 2. Ignoring unusual d i s t o r t i o n s of thy p r o f i l e s , it appears that boundary-layer thickness was about 0.8 inch a t Mach numbers 2, 1 , and 0.8, and about 1.3 inches a t Mach 1.35. Local Mach numbers (denoted by Mz) computed by means of t h e Fbyleigh equation fram the l o c a l body s t a t i c pressure and t h e P i t o t pressure fart h e s t from t h e body a r e shown i n f i g u r e 3. These Mach numbers show a circumferential v a r i a t i o n that probably was due t o t h e wake from t h e support s t r u t . A t tunnel Mach numbers 2, 1, and 0.8, t h e l o c a l Mach number was lower i n t h e region behind t h e s t r u t , and a t Mach 1.35 it was lower i n the plane normal t o the s t r u t . The reason f o r this shift of t h e low Mach number region as tunnel Mach number i s varied i s not apparent. B o a t t a i l s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a l s o indicated a varying degree of circumferential v a r i a t i o n . This v a r i a t i o n w a s g r e a t e r a t higher tunnel Mach numbers (e.g., Mach 1.35 compared with Mach 0.8) and a l s o generally with higher b o a t t a i l angles. The worst condition investigated ( e j e c t o r 5 o r 6) i s shown i n f i g u r e 4 a t several tunnel Mach numbers. The b o a t t a i l angle i n this case was 7.5O. The region of lowest pressure was behind t h e s t r u t a t Mach 1.35, b u t at Mach 1 it was i n t h e plane normal t o t h e s t r u t . A t Mach 0.8 t h e pressures were fairly uniform, Although e j e c t o r s 10 t o 1 2 had higher over-all b o a t t a i l angles (in two s t e p s ) than e j e c t o r 5, t h e pressures were more uniform. The pressures of other eject o r s w i t h lower-angle single-step b o a t t a i l s were a l s o more uniform.

All e j e c t o r s were investigated a t s e v e r a l Mach numbers. With e j e c t o r s 1 t o 1 2 s e v e r a l values of primary-nozzle pressure r a t i o were employed a t each Mach number, and with each pressure r a t i o s e v e r a l values of secondary flow were investigated. Only one primary-nozzle pressure r a t i o w i t h several values of secondary flow was i n v e s t i g a t e d a t each Mach number with e j e c t o r 13.
For e j e c t o r s 1 t o 9 f u l l afterburning was assumed f o r Mach numbers 1.35 and g r e a t e r , and no afterburning f o r Mach numbers 1.35 and l e s s . The assumption of the Mach number a t which afterburning was turned on d i d not a f f e c t t h e g e n e r a l i t y of the conclusions. For e j e c t o r s 10 t o 13 f u l l afterburning was assumed t o occur over t h e Mach number range of the i n vestigation. Total temperature of both primary and secondary a i r was about 80 F.

Data Reduction
Weight-flow r a t e s were obtained with standard ASME o r i f i c e s . P r i mary t o t a l pressure w a s cmputed from the primary weight-flow r a t e and measured s t a t i c pressures i n t h e primary nozzle upstream of t h e convergent- portion. Secondary t o t a l pressure w a s measured with rakes upstream of the primary-nozzle-exit station. Because t h e force-measurement apparatus did not perform with cons i s t e n t accuracy during the t e s t , ejector gross t h r u s t (exit-plane t o t a l momentum) w a s generally computed from t h e s u m of the t o t a l mamentum of the primary and secondary streams a t reference s t a t i o n s within the e j e c t o r plus t h e s u m of w a l l f o r c e s i n t h e a x i a l d i r e c t i o n between t h e reference s t a t i o n s and t h e e x i t plane. I n general, this procedure gave s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . Ekceptions occurred when large q u a n t i t i e s of secondary a i r f l o w were used ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e exceptions were e j e c t o r 8, Mach 1.35 with no afterburning, and e j e c t o r 9, bkch numbers 1.35 and 1.0 with no afterburni n g ) . I n these cases t h e t h r u s t computed by t h i s procedure s l i g h t l y exceeded t h e maximum t h e o r e t i c a l value with the given secondary and primary weight-flow rates and t o t a l pressures. This discrepancy i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 5 f o r e j e c t o r 8. A t Mach 1.35 ( f i g . 5(a)) the measured value of adjusted t h r u s t r a t i o (computed frm t h e g r o s s t h r u s t obtained by t h e procedure described) exceeded the maximum possible value a t very high values of secondary-flow r a t i o . This d i d not occur a t Mach 1.0 ( f i g . 5 ( b ) ) , which w a s the more t y p i c a l situation. It i s believed t h a t t h i s error w a s a r e s u l t of circumferential v a r i a t i o n s of t h e secondary flow that were not detected with t h e i n s t r m e o t a t i o n employed and that became

important only when t h e secondary-flow r a t e w a s unusually large. For these exceptional cases, t h e maximum t h e o r e t i c a l values were used i n t h e A.NALYSIS section. With t h e modified versions of e j e c t o r 1 (i.e., with s p o i l e r s and with a i r i n j e c t i o n j the waii surfaces were too irrzg-Llar t o e v s l i ~ t e the v a ~ force. Therefore, the data from t h e force-measurement apparatus (a s t r a i n gage and bellows arrangement) were used of necessity. For these configurations t h e apparatus appeared t o be operating reasonably well. Thrust Ratio

In the ANALYSIS section of the r e p o r t an e f f e c t i v e t h r u s t r a t i o (F msVg - D)/Fi i s evaluated t h a t required a knowledge of the grosst h r u s t r a t i o F/Fi and t h e b o a t t a i l plus base drag D. A t some Mach numbers where these data were n o t obtained, an estimated value f o r small secondary-flow r a t i o was computed by the following procedure: (1) I f t h e expansion r a t i o was c o r r e c t f o r the p a r t i c u l a r nozzle pressure r a t i o ( f u l l y expanded), a 2-percent l o s s i n gross-thrust r a t i o w a s assumed t o account f o r f r i c t i o n l o s s e s i n t h e nozzle. ( 2 ) Additional l o s s e s i n gross-thrust r a t i o due t o flow divergence a t t h e exit plane were computed (3) If the primary flow w a s underexassuming F/Fi = (1 + cos a)/2. panded, t h e a d d i t i o n a l l o s s i n gross-thrust r a t i o was computed from a a s overc a l c u l a t i o n of exit-plane momentum. ( 4 ) If t h e primary flow w expanded, estimates of gross-thrust r a t i o were made based on e a r l i e r unpublished data. (5) B o a t t a i l drag w a s computed from reference 2. (6) The configurations f o r which these estimates were made d i d not have bases; therefore, base drag was not needed.

The b a s i c data a r e presented i n figures 6 t o 22, Parameters presented a r e t h r u s t r a t i o , e j e c t o r pressure r a t i o , b o a t t a i l drag c o e f f i c i e n t , and e i t h e r base pressure r a t i o ( i f a base existed) o r e x i t s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e r a t i o as functions of secondary-flow r a t i o . The e x i t s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e r a t i o i s useful as an indication whether o r not t h e p r i mary flow i s overexpanded. ANALYSIS The data of figures 6 t o 22 have been used i n an a n a l y s i s of the performance of t h e e j e c t o r s over a Mach number range t o obtain a compari s o n of t h e solutions considered f o r t h e off-design e j e c t o r problem. A s a b a s i s f o r canparison, nozzle pressure-ratio schedules with Mach number w o schedules were used: the were assumed as shown i n figure 23. T

m o m o a m 0 o m 0
a0
0

mo
a
00.

0
0 0

ma
0

omm m a

ma0

mom

mmom

0
0

m o o m o

c&QI&$~&
omm

mmm m
0

oomo a
. m.0

iU I$ A
om0

mmm

RM E58G10a

omom

om0

mmm

mmm

ooom

currently o r planned f o r t h e near f u t u r e , and t h e schedule f o r e j e c t o r 13 i s f o r an advanced, hypothetical, low-pressure-ratio t u r b o j e t using a transonic compressor with a design Mach number of 4 . The performnce parameter upon which the a n a l y s i s i s based i s an e f f e c t i v e t h r u s t r a t i o (F - msVO D)/Fi, defined as the e j e c t o r gross t h r u s t minus the free-stream momentum of secondary a i r minus t h e drag of the b o a t t a i l and base (if t h e r e i s one) divided by gross t h r u s t of t h e i d e a l f u l l y expanded primary flow. W i t h this parameter, configurations designed f o r a given engine and n a c e l l e s i z e b u t having d i f f e r e n t a f t e r body geometries and secondary flows can be compared d i r e c t l y .

Fixed Geometry and Low Secondary Flow

If a fixed-geometry e j e c t o r i s designed t o provide peak performance

at a p a r t i c u l a r design Mach number, and i f off-design performance i s not a consideration, then the e j e c t o r of n e c e s s i t y must have t h e c o r r e c t expansion r a t i o f o r that Mach number, and t h e flow divergence a t the exit plane must be small. Ejectors 1 t o 3 a r e of this type with a design
Mach number of 3. Assuming that a 2-percent secondary-flow r a t i o i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r cooling purposes over t h e Mach number range 0.8 t o 3, t h e performance of these e j e c t o r s i n t h i s Mach number range i s shown i n f i g ure 24. Performance of a l l t h r e e e j e c t o r s was very poor i n the transonic speed range with no afterburning operation. Ejector 2, which had a larger secondary diameter than e j e c t o r 1 , showed b e t t e r j e t separation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than e j e c t o r 1 only a t h c h 0.8. The performance of ejector 3 with a contoured divergent wall was about t h e same as t h a t of the conical e j e c t o r s . The off-design performance of these fixed-geometry e j e c t o r s can be improved, a t t h e expense of on-design performance, i f t h e divergence angle i s increased o r i f t h e expansion r a t i o i s decreased. A higher divergence angle would improve t h e j e t separation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and thus reduce t h e degree of j e t overexpansion (although the pressures i n the separated region may s t i l l be lower than i s desirable because of t h e base-pressure phenomenon (ref. 3) ),. With a smaller expansibn r a t i o , t h e f l o w would n o t be as badly overexpanded a t off-design conditions. With e j e c t o r 4 t h e expansion r a t i o was t h e c o r r e c t value f o r Mach 3 operation, as with e j e c t o r 1 , but t h e divergence angle w a s increased from 9' t o 25O. The performance of this e j e c t o r i s compared with that of e j e c t o r 1 i n f i g u r e 25, again f o r a flow r a t i o of 0.02. The high Mach number afterburning performance of e j e c t o r 4 w a s estimated t o be somewhat l e s s than that of e j e c t o r 1 because of t h e higher divergence angle, but large improvements i n performance occurred a t Mach numbers 0.8 and 1.0. However, no improvement was a t t a i n e d a t Mach 1.35 with no afterburning. If t h e afterburning had been continued t o some lower Mach number than Mach

NAcARME5&1ba... e .

......................... . . . ........ . ...... . :cQNF.Iei . .......... .......................

0.

e.
0

. e :

With e j e c t o r s 5 and 6 the expansion r a t i o i s decreased t o that corresponding t o complete expansion a t Mach 2.2. With 2-percent flow r a t i o the performances of e j e c t o r s 5 and 6 were i d e n t i c a l and a r e a l s o compared h3th tkt ~f e;ezt=r 1 i n f i g l z e 25. Except f o r t h e reginn where underexpansion losses were appreciable (near Mach 3), e j e c t o r 5 o r 6 provided higher performance than e i t h e r ejector 1 o r 4. The l o s s i n p e r f o m n e e of the compromised e j e c t o r s (4 t o 6) wits about t h e same a t Mach 3 , but e j e c t o r s 5 and 6 were superior a t a l l other Mach numbers. Therefore, i t appears that a decreased expansion r a t i o i s a much b e t t e r compromise than an increased divergence angle. Fixed Geometry and High Secondary Flow

The reason a fixed-geometry e j e c t o r performs poorly a t Mach numbers l e s s than design i s that the e x i t a r e a i s too l a r g e f o r the a v a i l a b l e pressure r a t i o . If t h e secondary flow were increased s u f f i c i e n t l y a t t h i s condition, it would f i l l i n the excess e x i t area and prevent overexpansion of the primary flow. I n designing a fixed-geometry e j e c t o r that will employ t h i s technique t o improve the off-design performance, it i s necessary t o s e l e c t a proper value of secondary diameter t o o p t i mize o v e r - a l l performance. It i s desirable that t h e r e be s u f f i c i e n t secondary flow t o prevent primary-flow overexpansion and a l s o that t h e secondary flow have as high a t o t a l pressure as possible s o that overa l l performance will be high. If the secondary diameter i s too l a r g e f o r the amount of secondary flow being used, then t h r o t t l i n g l o s s e s of the secondary a i r would occur, with an accompanying loss i n e j e c t o r performance. On t h e other hand, if t h e secondary diameter i s t o o small, it may be impossible t o pass s u f f i c i e n t a i r a t the a v a i l a b l e pressure.
"he e f f e c t of increased secondary f l o w on off-design e j e c t o r performance i s shown i n f i g u r e 26 f o r ejectors 3 and 6 and f o r two posit i o n s of t h e variable portions of e j e c t o r 9. These data were obtained a t Mach 1.35. The secondary diameter r a t i o s were not necessarily the o p t i mum values f o r the various e x i t diameter r a t i o s . The e f f e c t i v e t h r u s t r a t i o s increased rapidly as flow r a t i o increased even though f u l l freestream momentum of the secondary a i r w a s charged against the e j e c t o r . Thus, l a r g e gains would be r e a l i z e d i f the drag and w e i g h t of the i n l e t system t h a t provides the a d d i t i o n a l air can be kept low.
One method of obtaining this additional a i r i s t h e use of a u x i l i a r y i n l e t s . Another method that w a s considered i n d e t a i l i s the use of t h e excess air-handling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a fixed-capture-area main i n l e t a t lower than design speeds. Typical of i n l e t s of this type i s t h e one i l l u s t r a t e d i n the sketch of f i g u r e 27. With t h i s i n l e t the compression surface i s varied a t each Mach number s o as t o maintain an i n l e t massflow r a t i o of 1 , and excess a i r i s disposed of through some s o r t of bypass system (see r e f . 4). For an assumed engine operating w i t h a n i n l e t

....................... .. ..... . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ........ . . . ..........

0 .

. .

.om:

o:ECIIYTM**

0.

of this type, the schedule of bypass mass-flow r a t i o i s shown i n f i g u r e 27. If it were possible t o duct a l l of this bypass a i r around the engine and use it i n t h e secondary passage of the e j e c t o r (assuming an a f t e r burning primary temperature of 3500' R and a nonafterburning temperature of 1 6 0 0 ' R), then maximum a v a i l a b l e secondary-flow r a t i o would be as shown i n f i g u r e 27. Estimating i n l e t pressure recovery, assuming addit i o n a l total-pressure losses i n ducting the bypass a i r back t o t h e eject o r , and taking t h e upper schedule of nozzle pressure r a t i o of f i g u r e 23, t h e maximum a v a i l a b l e e j e c t o r pressure r a t i o becames that shown a l s o i n figure 27. In the analyses that follow, where secondary a i r i s assumed t o be obtained from the i n l e t bypass, the limits of a v a i l a b l e weight flow and of a v a i l a b l e pressure shown i n t h i s f i g u r e w i l l apply. Mechani c a l problems of ducting l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of high-pressure a i r around t h e engine are n o t considered. Figure 28 shows t h e improvement i n performance of e j e c t o r 6 when large amounts of secondary a i r are supplied by t h e i n l e t bypass. In t h i s case the secondary-flow r a t e ( a l s o shown i n the f i g u r e ) w a s res t r i c t e d by the pressure l i m i t . Although the secondary diameter r a t i o selected f o r t h i s e j e c t o r was not necessarily the optimum, the -rovea s large. A s discussed e a r l i e r , e j e c t o r 6 i s a m e n t i n performance w compromised version of a Mach 3 e j e c t o r (i.e., the expansion r a t i o i s less than i d e a l a t Mach 3). I3ata a t high secondary-flow r a t e s were not obtained with e j e c t o r s that were n o t compromised (e.g., e j e c t o r Z), b u t t h e beneficial e f f e c t s of high secondary flow would be obtained with these e j e c t o r s a l s o . The e f f e c t on performance of using s p o i l e r s with e j e c t o r 1 i s shown i n figure 29. The s p o i l e r s were assumed t o be r e t r a c t e d f o r high-speed afterburning operation and extended f o r transonic nonafterburning operation. A t Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 t h e s p o i l e r s caused j e t separation as they were intended t o do, and hence improved performance r e l a t i v e t o the basic unmodified configuration, b u t f a i l e d t o do so a t Mach 1.35. Even when the j e t d i d separate, however, t h e pressures i n the separated r e gionwere s t i l l less than po because of t h e base pressure phenomenon described i n reference 3. Thus, performance remained r e l a t i v e l y low. Using i n l e t bypass air, air i n j e c t i o n with t h e s p o i l e r s eliminated the l o s s i n performance a t Mach 1.35 as shown i n the figure, but t h e r e s u l t i n g performance w a s no b e t t e r than that of the b a s i c e j e c t o r , At Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 t h e performance was about t h e same with a i r i n j e c t i o n plus s p o i l e r s as with t h e s p o i l e r s alone. With a i r i n j e c t i o n alone ( w i t h the a i r again supplied by t h e i n l e t bypass), about t h e same improvement i n performance was a t t a i n e d a t Mach numbers 0.8 and 1 as with t h e spoilers, but t h e r e w a s no improvement over t h e b a s i c e j e c t o r a t Mach 1.35, The secondary-flow rates again were l i m i t e d by the pressure available.

11
Although the l e v e l of performance was low, a f u r t h e r comparison of the performance of the basic e j e c t o r 1 with t h e performance with a i r i n j e c t i o n i s presented i n f i g u r e 30. A t Mach 1.35 ( f i g . 30(a)) the performance of t h e basic e j e c t o r w a s higher a t a given flow r a t i o than that with a i r injection. Therefore, a t this Mach number it would be b e t t e r not t o use t h e a i r - i n j e c t i o n slots and t o pass a i l am.ils%le a e c ~ z & ~ q y air through the secondary passage of t h e basic e j e c t o r . A t Mach 1 ( f i g . 30(b)) s l i g h t l y higher performance was obtained a t a given flow r a t i o a s employed. A t Wch 0.8 ( f i g . when air i n j e c t i o n through the slots w a s higher when the s l o t s were employed, even 30(c)), the performance w w i t h zero secondary flow, than with t h e basic ejector. Increasing secondary flow through the s l o t s produced r e l a t i v e l y small improvements i n performance. Wall pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s showed that with t h e s l o t s open the primary flow did not overexpand i n t e r n a l l y as much as w i t h the basic e j e c t o r . Variable Geometry and Low Secondary Flow

I
I

An idealized variable-geometry ejector would have t h e following features: (1)variable e x i t diameter t o obtain the i d e a l expansion r a t i o , ( 2 ) variable secondary diameter t o produce a divergent shroud f o r each e x i t position, (3) variable b o a t t a i l angle t o avoid base a r e a as e x i t diameter i s varied, with leaves s u f f i c i e n t l y long t h a t b o a t t a i l drag i s negligible. A n e x i t of this type m s not tested, because with the nozzle always on design and with negligible drag the e f f e c t i v e thrust r a t i o i s known t o be about 0.97.
A simpler version of this e x i t was investigated and i s designated e j e c t o r 7. The secondary diameter w a s kept f i x e d as e x i t area varied, and i n t e r n a l and external l i n e s were varied w i t h a single s e t of leaves that were s h o r t , and therefore b o a t t a i l drag w a s not negligible. The schedule of e x i t diameter r a t i o employedis shown i n f i g u r e 31. The ejector w a s designed so that t h e i d e a l expansion r a t i o w a s attainable f o r afterburning operation between Mach numbers 1 . 3 5 and 3. It was assumed that during the t r a n s i t i o n from afterburning t o nonafterburning operation a t Mach number 1.35 the e x i t area was not changed. This reA t Wch numbers s u l t e d i n overexpansion a t Mach 1.35 (nonafterburning) 1 and 0.8, t h e e x i t diameter w a s near the ideal value. However, a t Mach numbers 1 and 0.8 the exit diameter was l e s s than the secondary diame t e r (since the l a t t e r was kept fixed), with the r e s u l t that the shroud w a s convergent rather than divergent. Such a configuration can have r e l a t i v e l y low t h r u s t p a r t i c u l a r l y a t low secondary-flow r a t i o s and high primary pressure r a t i o s . Alternatives w o u l d be t o keep the e x i t diameter a t least as large as t h e secondary diameter and permit overexpansion (as a t Mach 1.35, nonafterburning) o r t o determine some optimum intermediate exit position. The s e l e c t i o n of a different pivot point of the leaves that would permit secondary diameter t o vary as the leaves r o t a t e d might avoid this problem.

................................. ..... ........ .............: .aowxbmx@= . .

.

0 0

00.0

. * a * *

0.0

.a

a .

12

. . . . ......................... ........ ...... ........................ i.0 ..........

0 .
0.

:.go&={

e .

. 0 . .

$L@

RM E58G10a

The performance of e j e c t o r 7 i s p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e 32 f o r 2-percent flow r a t i o . Also shown f o r reference i s the estimated performance of the ideal v a r i a b l e e j e c t o r described earlier. Although e j e c t o r 7 would have <ne ideal expansion r a t i o a t Psach 3, i t s performance w i i i be iess t h a n that of t h e i d e a l e j e c t o r because of the b o a t t a i l drag. Its r e l a t i v e l y low performance a t Mach numbers 1.35 and 1 (nonafterburning) was due t o overexpansion and t o t h e convergent shroud, respectively. Another e j e c t o r that a l s o was mechanically simpler than t h e i d e a l v a r i a b l e e j e c t o r was e j e c t o r 8. The secondary diameter and a l s o t h e b e a t t a i l were fixed. The schedule of e x i t diameter r a t i o employed with this e j e c t o r i s shown i n f i g u r e 33. The flow w a s s l i g h t l y underexpanded a t Mach 3 i n order t o a l l e v i a t e the off-design problem somewhat. The diameter r a t i o was near the i d e a l value a t Mach numbers between 2 and a s never l e s s than t h e value 1.35. For t h i s e j e c t o r the e x i t diameter w of the secondary diameter i n order t o avoid the problem of t h e convergent shroud. The shroud became c y l i n d r i c a l a t Mach 1.35 and remained so a t a l l Mach numbers less than that. This r e s u l t e d in overexpansion f o r nonafterburning operation. The performance of e j e c t o r 8 with 2-percent flow r a t i o (without base flow) i s presented i n f i g u r e 34. Again t h e performance of the i d e a l e j e c t o r i s presented as a reference. A t Mach 3 it i s estimated t h a t t h e performance of e j e c t o r 8 would be less than that of t h e i d e a l e j e c t o r because t h e flow i s s l i g h t l y underexpanded and because of boattail drag. A t transonic speeds t h e performance i s lower because of (1) overexpansion, ( 2 ) b o a t t a i l drag, and (3) base drag. Variable Geometry and High Secondary Flow
The improvement in performance of e j e c t o r 8 by employing l a r g e amounts of base flow t o eliminate t h e base drag i s a l s o shown i n f i g y r e The 34. It was assumed that the a i r was provided by the i n l e t bypass. drop i n performance f o r nonafterburning operation w a s due p a r t l y t o overexpansion of t h e primary flow and a l s o t o the total-pressure l o s s e s of the secondary flow.

Ejector 9 a l s o w a s simpler than the i d e a l v a r i a b l e e j e c t o r i n t h a t the exit a r e a and t h e b o a t t a i l were fixed. The schedule of secondary &Lameter r a t i o that was employed i s presented i n f i g u r e 35. By means of extrapolated data and one-dimensional-flow calculations, these values of diameter r a t i o were selected as those t h a t would match the a v a i l a b l e bypass flow schedule s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . The performance of this e j e c t c r i s presented i n figure 36. A s described i n t h e Data Reduction section, t h e measured values of t h r u s t r a t i o exceeded the t h e o r e t i c a l l y maximum possible value f o r nonafterburning operation. The t h e o r e t i c a l values are

....................... .......... . .... . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . ...... ........ . ....... :... ..........

0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .

.*C~Nfqq)&~.

shown i n f i g u r e 36 where this problem occurred. The performance a t Mach 3 again would be less than that of the i d e a l e j e c t o r because of b o a t t a i l a s slightly underexpanded (de/$ = 1.6) The drag and because t h e flow w drop i n performance f o r nonafterburning operation occurred because the secondary t o t a l pressure w a s less than free-stream t o t a l pressure as a r e s u l t of the losses ass-med i n t h e m a x i - p r e s s u r e - r a t i o schedule of f i g u r e 27.

C o m p a r i son

The b e s t performing e j e c t o r s of those considered thus far are compared i n f i g u r e 37. The performance of fixed-geometry e j e c t o r 6 with high secondary flow was within the range of performance encompassed by the more c m p l e x variable-geometry ejectors. The highest performance i n t h e low Mach number range w a s obtained w i t h e j e c t o r 9. Ejectors with N l Afterburning q e c t o r s 10 t o 13 were investigated with f u l l afterburning over the e n t i r e speed range. The supersonic performance of e j e c t o r s 10 t o 1 2 has been obtained i n an e a r l i e r investigation, and t h e speed range i s extended i n t o t h e transonic range i n t h e present report. "he performance of these e j e c t o r s based on the same pressure-ratio schedule as that of the previous e j e c t o r s i s shown i n f i g u r e 38 f o r 2-percent flow r a t i o . Ejector 10, which d i f f e r e d from e j e c t o r 1 1 only i n that it had a smaller 1 . Besecondary diameter, had about the same performance as e j e c t o r 1 cause these e j e c t o r s had h i g h b o a t t a i l angles r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of some fuselage-type i n s t a l l a t i o n s , b o a t t a i l drag was high, and t h u s t h e general l e v e l of performance w a s low. Ejector 1 2 had a higher expansion r a t i o (corresponding t o complete expansion a t Mach 3) than e j e c t o r s 10 and l l . For a given engine and fuselage size, an increase i n expansion r a t i o would r e s u l t i n an increase i n exit a r e a and hence a reduction i n boatt a i l area. The increased overexpansion losses w i t h t h e higher expansion r a t i o a t off-design conditions would a t l e a s t be partly compensated f o r by t h e decreased b o a t t a i l drag. However, because of details of model construction, e j e c t o r 1 2 had a smaller primary-nozzle a r e a than e j e c t o r s 10 and 1 1 ; whereas exit area, fuselage area, and b o a t t a i l geometry were i d e n t i c a l . Hence the data of f i g u r e 38 do not show the n e t e f f e c t of a simple change i n expansion r a t i o , b u t rather show the e f f e c t of Mach number on t h e performance of various ejector geometries. As with eject o r s 10 and 1 1 , the l e v e l of performance of e j e c t o r 1 2 w a s low because of high b o a t t a i l drag, but a d d i t i o n a l losses occurred with e j e c t o r 12 because of t h e greater degree of overexpansion of t h e primary flow.

The effect of secondary flow on the performance of ejectors 1 0 to 12 at Mach 1 is shown in figure 39. Again, appreciable increases in performance occurred as flow ratio increased. The effect of secondary flow on the performance of ejector 13 is shown in figure 4 0 . The nozzle-pressure-ratio schedule was lower than that for the previous nozzles (see fig. 2 3 ) . The magnitude of the increase in p e r f o m c e as a result of increasing the flow ratio differed with Mach number but w a s appreciable at all Mach numbers. The greatest . 5 . improvement occurred at Mach 1
I

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The off-design performance of fixed- and variable-geometry divergent ejectors has been investigated. The ejectors were designed for turbojet . 8 operation at Mach 3 and were investigated in the Mach number range 0 to 2 . The following results were obtained:

1 . Large performance losses occurred at off-design Mach numbers

with simple fixed-geometry ejectors designed for peak performance at Mach 3 .

2 . Compromising design performance by increasing the divergence angle or by decreasing the expansion ratio produced large gains in offdesign performance. A decreased expansion ratio w a s a better compromise than an increased divergence angle.
3 . Increasing the secondary airflow to fill in the excess exit area of fixed-geometry ejectors at off-design conditions produced large gains in performance and made them competitive with fairly complex variablegeometry types.

4 . Variable-expansion-ratio ejectors with compromises to reduce mechanical complexity produced performance reasonably close to that of an ideal variable ejector.
5. An ejector with a fixed exit area and a variable secondary diameter with high secondary airflow produced the best performance of the types investigated.

Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Cleveland, Ohio, July 15, 1958

1 . Clj.ppinger, R. F . : Supersonic Axially Symmetric Nozzles. Rep. No. 794, Ballistic Res. Labs., Aberdeen Proving Ground, Dec. 1951.
2. zaCk, john

yLieoretical &zaa-L-e n u4 I u u I ~ Y u " In vn Ia I " nni4 NACA TN 2972, 1953. Conical Boattails.
n + r i h . r + i

x. ;

W Y U

Wnire

. . I . _

rtra ---gs

for

3. Baughman, L. Eugene, and Kochendorfer, Fred D . : Jet Effects on Base NACA RM Pressures of Conical Afterbodies at Mach 1.91 and 3.12. E57E06, 1957.

Performance at Mach Numbers 3,07, 4 . Gertsma, L . W . , and Beheim, M. A . : 1 . 8 9 , and 0 of Inlets Designed for Inlet-Engine Matching Up to Mach 3. NACA RM E58B13, 1958.

16

a3 rl

It

*B
-P
U

'0.
rl

I n
0

rl

u!
rl

"0.

Lo

rl

cd

0
N
lc

'? N

Kl

co

?
M

2
0
n

In

0
M

rl

1 __

3.

0
0

z
v

?
D
7 a

v, cd

to

__

C n

3 )

'0.

rl

n
0

-I

In
l-i

In
0

0
rl

-4

U
0

-I

t o

to
rl
O

n
X

. F ,

cd

3 I

-I
-I

Ejector 2

T
de
7
=

de/dp,ab ds/dp,ab '/dp,ab

= = .-

1.8

1.05

1.21 = 2.37

ejector ejector

= 20

ejector ejector (a) Ejectors 1 and 2: dp,nb/dp,ab 0.75; dm/dp,ab

= 2.0.

dg
7 L

de/dp,ab ds/dp,ab

= 1.75
=

1.05

l/dp,ab = 2.37 0 = 20 dg/dp,ab = 1.78

(b) Ejector 3:

dp,nb/dp,ab

= 0.75;

d , , / d p , a b

= 2.0.

7 L

vdp,ab B
3.50 a = 2 3 '
=

0.875

1.05 (ejector 5) = 1.21 (ejector 6) L/dp,ab = 1.26 B = 7.50 a = g o (ejector 5,) - 6.5' (ejector 6)
=

de/dp,ab ds/dp,ab

1.45

(d) Ejectors 5 and 6:

dp,nb/dp,ab

0.75;

dm/dp,ab

= 2.0.

Figure 1.

Ejector geometries.

18

. . . ......................... ........ ...... . : : ........................ . ..........

0 .
0.

:*e

e . :

NJCAiRM E58GlOa

C.0625

dp,ab (all S l o t s )

(e) Ejector 1 with spoilers and air injection.

--

. .

1-1
6 ,
= -11.5'

de/dp,ab = 1.8 (at ds/dp,ab = 1 . 0 5 l/dp,ab = 1 . 5 5 , = 7' (at

3)

M = 3)
3)

/ a ' I =

1 4 '

(at

(f) Ejector 7 :

dp,nb/dp,ab

= 0.75; d , , , / d p , a b

= 2.0.

de/dp,ab = 1 . 6 (at ds/dp ,ab = 1.05 l/dp,ab = 1 . 6 9

3)

B
a

= 6.5' = 9.5'

(at

3)

dJdp,ab
= 2.0.

de/dp,ab ds/dp ,ab l/dp,;b

p = 5 a = 9.5O

= =

1 .OS (at

3)

= 1.69

I I
( h ) Ejector 9 :
Figure 1. dp,nb/dp,ab=
0.75;

(at
= 2.0.

3)

dm/dp,ab

. ....................... .... .......... . . . . ...... . ........ . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . .........................

Continued. Ejector geometries.
0 . 0 .

0
0

0.

19

= 1.21 (ejector

a =

1 2 . 5 ' (ejector 10) 8.50 (ejector 11) dB/dp,ab = 1 ' 5

(I)

Ejectors 10 and 1 1 : dp,nb/$,ab = 1 . 0 ; d,Jdp,ab

= 2.5.

I -

1 . (k) Ejector 13:

Figure 1.

dp,nb/dp,ab = 1.0; d,,,/dp,ab = 1.45.

- Concluded. Ejector geometries.

20

. ...... . .... ......................... ........ ...... w a :.. . m ~ .......... ........................

t
t . t
0 0 .

WCq RM E58G10a
0 .

rl

. ....................... .... .......... .. . . . . . . ...... ........ . . . . ..... .........................

a
0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 .
0 .

0 .

0 .

NACA RM E58G10a
0

......................... . . . ........ : .... . . . ...... . . .......... .......................

0. 0 .

.e:

CbNEIiI&p~~..~

21

L1

(a) Mach number, 2.0.

.1

.2

.3

.4

. 5

. 6

.l

.9

1.0

Ratio of Pitot to free-stream total pressure, P1/Po

(b) Mach numher, 1.35

Figure 3.

- Pitot pressure profiles upstream of boattail.

. .................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . ...... ......................... . . . ........ . . .

.

e .

0.

CONFIDENTIAL

22

Ti -rl

-P -P

Ld

Ld 0 P
+ I

k t-'

i
rn

PI 7 t
0 :

ri

a,

v i

k 0

k PI
a , k 3
0

m a, k
-P
0

PI
-P

a a, a
7
V
I
r-l

u
I

a,
.d

2l

*.
0.

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

COWIDENTIAL

23

.9(

-%
8

.94

.9c

.86

.82

.78

(a)Mach number, 1.35.

F&ure

4.

- Boattail

static-pressure distribution with 7.5O b o a t t a l l angle.

CCINFIDENTIAL

CrnIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

1.14

:
. 9 8

Locatlm
* 82

- 0 Aarmal t o strut 0 Behind S t N t

.74

.66

1
~

6 4 3 S t a t i o n froas beginning of b o a t t a i l angle, in.

(b) MBch number, 1.0.

p&ure 4 .

- Continued.

Boattail s t a t i c - p e e u r e d i a t r l b u t l o n with 7.S0 boattall angle.

......................... . . . . ........ . ........... ....... . . . . . . . . ...... .... . .......................

0 0 .
0 .

0.

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

25

Flow

1,oo

.98

96

I-

Location Normal t o s t r u t BehM s t r u t

* 92

,go

.-- 0

3 4 5 6 Station from beginning of b o a t t a i l W e , in. (c) Mach n r , 0 . 8 .

Figure 4.

- Concluded.

B o a t t a i l statio-preasure distribution w i t h 7.5O b o a t t a i l angle.

.......... ....................... . ...... . ............ . .......................... ....... . . ... . ........ . .

0 .

0.

......................... . . . ........ . ...... . . . .. . . . . . . .......... ...... ........................ . ....

0 . 0. 0 .

26

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

Fr
k

.rl

4J

E
(a) Mach number, 1.35.

Secondary-flow ratio

'

-i i $
wP

(b) Mach number, 1.0.

Figure 5. Comparison of measured and m a x i m u m thrust ratios for ejector 8 with no afterburninR.

....................... .......... .... . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . ...... ........ . . . . ..........................

0 .

0.

CONFIDENTIAL

0..

.................. . . . . . . .... . . ........ . ...... . . ............. .... .. ............

0 0 .
0 .

0.

NACA F M E58G10a

CrnIDENTIAL
m

27

z m
w . .
c m
G O 3.

??
i - E3

ale

mc

z 0

0
rl

9
rl

e
3
S

.
rl

s
c

rl

0
0
(u (u

.-,
u

e 3
U Gi

z 0

r-

I n
A

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . ........ ...... . . . .. . . . . . . .......... ...... . .... ........................

0 . 0. 0 . 0 .

28

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA R M E58G10a

.7

.6

.5

.4

.3

.2
.3 .6 .6

.2

.4

.4

.1

.2

.2

0 0
d
m..

0
.005

.01

rfi a a lddaon

u ddc G
0

ld ML.

n u

v u

-.005
1.4
O
Q

-m5
1.2

1.2

2 a . ? a L

drtR

a m m m e o u L-

1.0

1 .o

1 .o

m Q4

w f i
.d

.02

.04

.06

.8

.02

.04

Secondary-flow ratio,

: ;E

.0

.08

.8

.02

.04

(a) No afterburning; Mach number, 1.35.

F i g u r e 7.

(b)

No afterburning; M a c h
number, 1.0.

( c ) No afterburning; Mach number, 0.8.

P e r f o r m a n c e of e j e c t o r 2.

....................... .......... . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . ...... ........ .......................... . .

0 .
0 . 0 . 0.

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . . . ........ ........... ....... . . . . . . . ...... . .... .......................

0. 0 . 0 0 .
0 .

0 0

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

29

9
r(

4
3 !
M

.
E

D al +J OI

P v

.......... ....................... . ...... . .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .... . ........ . .

0 . 0 . 0 . .

a .

0.

.
30

. . .........................
0.

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

.9

.6

.9

.9

.8

.5

.8

.7

.4

.7

.7

.6

.3

.6

.5
.6

.2

.5 .5

.5

.3

.6

% a

a
.4

.2

.4

.5

.2
3

.1

.3

.4

m a

l a
h
J

.2

.3

c)

-.2

-.l
.02

.1
.04

.2

( 1 1

.04

.04

MU

ec,
d ( u

L -

2;
*4

.02

.01

.02

.02

* d

KIL

oa,

0
.8
I O
0

0 .8

1.1

1.0

2 a,? c)h
c m) m m
c)

KI2a
0 1 0

.6
k
d

.9

.9

h d

a*

.4

.7

'-0

.02

.04-0

.02

.04

.06-'0

Secondary-flow ratio,

2
0 .

.02

.04

.06'"0

.02

.04

(a) Afterburning;
Mach number,

1.35.

( b ) No afterburning; Mach number, 1.35. Figure 9.

( c ) No afterburning; Mach number, 1 . 0 .

....................... .......... .... . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . ...... ........ . . .........................

Performance of ejector 4.
0 . 0 . 0 .

(d) No afterburning; Mach . 8 . number, 0

0.

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . . ........ . ........... ....... . . . . . . . . ...... .. . .......................

0. 0 . 0 .

0
0

.e..

NACA RM E58GlOa

CONFIDENTIAL

31

Secondary-flow ratlo,

(a) No afterburning; M a c h number, 1.35.

2 P y$
1.0.
(c) NO afterburning; Mach number, 0.8.

( b ) NO afterburning; Mach number,

Figure 10.

Performance of e j e c t o r 5.

.......... ....................... . ..... . ..... . . . ...... .......................... ....... .... . ........ . .

0 . 0 .
0 .

a .

0.

CCTNFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . ........ . ...... . . . . . . . . . .......... ...... ........................ . ....

.e
0 0.
0 .

e . . e .

0 0

. .

e .

32

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

CL)

0 c ,
0

a, n a ,

0
a ,

2
(d

k 0
k

E
k
I

a, PI

rl
rl

a, k

2l

I %
i 4

Y)

Y)

?
3

L
D

r
5 m
M

=?

L E

N.

c m

. . . m
1
Y

, .
3 3 3 3
3

......................... . . . . . ........ ........... ....... . . . . . . . ...... .... ....................... .

0. 0 . 0
0

NACA

RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

33

e
k

.3
al I 0l k d

.3

.3

; P , R
d\

e
-&.

.2

.2

.2
.03

.02
d rl d

.02

MdS

clld%CI

.01

i.0
0

1 . 0

2 t a"

.8

.9

Q
0 d .

+ o
m

+ d + +
.6
.8

.A

. .7
.02
.04

.06

.02

.04

.06

.02
(c)

.04

.06

Secondary-flow ratio,

No afterburningj Mach
number, 0.8.

(a) No afterburningj Mach number, 1.35.

Figure 12.

(b) No afterburningj Mach number, 1.0.

Performance of ejector 1 with spoilers.

.......... ....................... . ...... . .......................... ....... . . . ...... .... . ........ . .

0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 .

. e

0.

CrnIDrnIAL

a a a a a.

a * * .

a a. a . . * . a a . a . . a * a . a a *a* .a*.

..

.a*. a

.. .
*a

a .

..a .a

*a.

a a

.a

a** a * * .a*

*.a

**a

..

*.*a . a** a

a * * a**. . a a .a* a**

**.a

.*a a . a a . a**

34

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

I :

,5? c o
G m4 c 3

a.

3. eF.
E
0

ha, ale

9
r(

3
9 PI

2 e
3
5:

A .C

.+
. c
U

bo
d

rl

h
U

e 3
PI

c)

PI
4

0 PI

I
4 0

a PI

?
r(

P i

--

b?

4 c)

z
PI

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . . . . .... ........ . ...... ........... ........... . . ...........

0 .

0 0

. .

0
0

0.

..e

me*

..e

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

35

9
3

e
c

. c

3
M
C

e 3
c e,
m

0 0

0 N

COWIDENTIAL

......................... . . . ........ . ...... . . . .. . . . . . . .......... ...... . .... ........................

0 .

0.

36

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

c
h

v
0

n 8
n

?.

0 u )

M 0 .

c
r l
rl
I
I

9
-r

v m

c
m

rl

h I

a
h

0 0 VI 0

rl

(D

v)

N.

9
0

D
W

....................... .......... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . ...... ........ . . . . ..........................

0 0 . 0 .

0.

CO m IDENTIAL

......................... . ...... . . . . ........ . ........... ....... . . . . . . . . . .... .. . .......................

0 . 0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL
d

37
9
N

U Z .r( Gi 0 .

GO.. 1s a, m m m
C b oG -

m O

74

-E99 2 3 22
0
N

Zda,

0
r(

'9
h

e
1
d OW . Ed
. . I

z 5
h a

boa

e
Gi U

B
I

d v)
a l

(0

..

rl

d 0

r?'
d

B
1

9
9 9
N
W

5%
4"

... M a

a -

0 2

N.

.
CONFIDENTIAL

.. . .

. ...... . .......................... . . . ........ ...... . . . . . . . . . . ... . .... . . . ........................ . . ..........

0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .

38

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM ESBGlOa

F
3

0
ci 0

e ,
.T-J

e ,
L

N
3
4

C OIWIDENTIAL

em. m e e e em.

eemm

mmm meme

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

39

03

e
3
i:.

O M @In

zd *
M d c ea

\ h C m e 34 U

4 d

m 0

e m

s
03

. i

8
m

-3

a,

m
4

m
C
LD M
d

4 0
D m .

% e
9
e
h m
1
rl

. I

e e aJ
d 0
U 0

C
I

. W I

I :
V

aJ
4

z
C

M
3

.
3

2J

4 U

CONFIDENTIAL

.
e

* * * e . . . .

m.

.e e *

0.0

e,.

*e.

e...

e.. .

e... e

.e. . e

40

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

.9

.9

.9

.8

.8

.8

.7

.7

.?

.2
a J
h

.3

.3

2 I % @ ln\
a
V

h a
~

w w

t'c,
'3

: ::.

.1

.2

.2

(uk

0 .03
. - ? I

. 1
.09

.1
.04

'2 hoc; Q d k C
a

F1 + h aJ (uv d a O d 0 v u

.02
v I
.ri

.07

.02

R O

.6

1.0

1.0

4 k F9 d3c4
Pln

\ J a

mu]
d

a , k d (D P 4 2
m P

w o
i

-.
.5
0
.02 .04

.02

.04

Secondary-flow ratio, ws W P (a) No afterburning; Mach number, 1.35; de/%, 1.53. Figure 17.
(b) No afterburning; Mach number, 1 . 0 ; de/%, 1.53.

E
0

.9

.02

.04

(c) No afterburningj
Mach number, 0.8; de/dp, 1.53.

Performance of ejector 8 without base flow.

.
e

.e
0 0

. e . . . e . . . .
.

e ..e e . e.
0

*.*e e
.

.
e...

e.. e e .e e . e e. .*e
0

..e . .e e .*e

0..

. 0 ..e m e e.. e... e

0.. e

e e e..

....e

..e . ...e

.e. e

e * .e*

COKFIDENTIAL

. . . . . ........ .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .... . .......... .......................

0. 0 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 . . 0 .

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

41

m
h
w 0
v a a,

4
a, 0
G

rl

In

rl

Lo
rf

M rl

rl 4

....... .......... ............. . . . . . . .... ............ . ...... . ........ .................... . .

0 .
0 .

0 0

. .

0.

0.

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . . . ........ . . ... . . . . . . ..... ...... ................ ............ ..........

0
0

.
.

0.

42

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a
(D

rl

9 rl
m

9 rl
a, P

. .

F-

M
. i

m
F42

C
P

c)

a, a ,
4

a v

a,
0

E
h
[4 a ,

a
A

a
rl

a,

a
a, VI

ld

dt
r-

C
U
I

<
a a
ln
. . I

m
rl

a ,
$4

r
h
P

27

rl

r :

x
d

bo
C

P
Q

*
0

a l

0
v

.................................... . ...... .. . . .... ........ . : :.. ........ . ......................... . . .

0 . 0 .

- m 2 ? 3 s ?TXZ
0 .
0 .

O . . a W O a =

0.

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . . . . . ........ . ........... ....... . . . . . . . . ...... . .... .......................

0.
0 .

0
0

NACA R M E58G10a

CON!?IDENTIAL

43

9
3
3

4
3

rl

0-

30

N 3

4
d

4
d

4 3

9
03

COrnIDENTIAL

. . . ........ . ......
0 .
0. 0 .

....... .................. . . . ..... ... ...... . . .... ..... ................... .......

0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0..

44

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58GlOa
0 rl

m
0

I D

D
3

9
@ l

F:

9
rl rl

. c w 3

r l c

P e

C o

~m
3 C E h

c
O
.-.I

c
h

m w 5 : a

- .
P

N 0

27

dl 0

ua

?
rl

B
E

z
S 5

9
. .
3

rl

rl

O d m OT3E.l

-T .I.Iao

. . . . . . . ........ . .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . .... .......... ....................... .

0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .

NACA RM E58GlOa

CONFIDENTIAL

45

1.1

1.0

.s

.u

.7

Secondary-flow r a t l o
( a ) Mach number, 1.35.

tP i ;
( c ) Mach number, 0.8.

( b ) Mach nunber, 1.0.

Figure 21.

Performance of ejector 12.

0 0

. ................................. . .......................... . . . . . . . ........... . . ... . ........ . .

. . 0 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0

o . .m . .0
0

CONFIDENTIAL

0.

......................... . . . . . . . . . . .......... ........ ...... . . . . ... ...... .... ........................

0 . 0.
0 .

0
0

0 0

. .

46

CO W IDENT IAL

NACA RM E58G10a

0 *ti

1.

.o

.04

.06

.08

. 1 0

.12

.14

.16

.18

....................... .......... .. .... ...... ........ ......................... . .

L

0.

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

CON? IDENTIAL

47

9
m

0.

u )

cu

Ei
m
N

?$

4
D.
l-i

1
N
K)

d:
l-i

0
l-i

......................... . . . . . . ........ ...... . . . . . ..... .... . ......................... . . . . . ..........

0 .
0.

4%

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10e

n
I

PI
. r l

0 e

Mach number, Figure 24.

- Effect, of

flight Msch number on fixed ejector performance.

Secondary-flow ratio, 0 . 0 2 .

.0

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Mach number, & & , Figure 25.

- Effect

of design compromises with fixed edectors.

Secondary-flow ratio, 0.02.

....................... .......... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ........ . ......................... ...... . . . .

0 .

0.

CONFIDENTIAL

. . . . . . . ........ .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . .... . .......... .......................

0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .

NACA RM E58G10a
1 . 0

CONFIDENTIAL

49

.8

.7

.6

1.40 1.45

2.40

1.60

.5 .5

.4

.3

.2

. 1

. 1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

Secondary-flow ratio,

wP

. ...... ......................... ........ . . . .. . .... .. . . . .......... .. . . ...... . ..... .. ........................ . . . . ....

0 .

50

C0 "

IDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

....................... .......... . ...... . ...... . . . . .. ........ . . . :.. . . . . . . . . ....................

-.
.
0 .

. % @ mJ*btKia

**

c'O&IJ)~,L

......................... . . . . . ........ ........... ....... . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . .... . .......................

0. 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .

NACA RM E58G10a

C ONFIDENTTAL

51

u )

CD

N.
N

t
a
V
P)

(d

rl

'4

k 0

a , N
N

rl

9 M 2

aJ

'r-

' 4 ' 9

?
0

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . . ........ . ...... . . .. .. . . . . .......... ...... . .... ........................

0 .
0. 0 . 0 .

52

CONFIDENTLAL

NACA RM E58G10a

?
N

ri

0
+ , C J

a
N

a ,
(u

*W

.ri

k
d!
N

k 0

vi

k cd

rd

cd
( D

rl

!
ri

N
0,

ri

9
ri

....................... .......... . . . .... . . . . . . . . . ...... . ........ .................... ...... . .

0 .
0 .

. . * . *

0.

~~~~IDENTIAL

......................... . . . . . ........ ........... ....... . . . . . . . . ...... . . . .... . .......................

.

0.

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

53

^.
ut

(a) Mach number, 1.35.

i !

( b ) Mach number, 1.0.

Secondary-flow r a t i o

'

WS
W P

12

(c) Mach number, 0.8.

Figure 30. A i r i n j e c t i o n compared with high secondary flow with e j e c t o r 1 and no afterburning.

0
0

................................. : ...... . . . ........ . . .........................

.

moo 0
0

0 .

me

em..

0.

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . ........ . . . .. . . . . . . . ...... . ..... ........................ . . . . .... ..........

0 .
0. 0 .

54

C ONF IDENT IAL

NACA RM E58G10a

1.. .8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8 2.0 Mach number,

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Figure 31.

Expansion-ratio schedule of e j e c t o r 7.

1
0

..-

Mach number, Figure 32.

E f f e c t of design compromises of variable-geometry e j e c t o r 7.

Secondary-flow r a t i o , 0.02.

.......... .......... . . . . . . . . . ........................ . . . ......

0 .
0 . 0 . 0 .

CONFIDENTIAL

......................... . . . . . ........ ........... ....... . . . . . . . . . ...... . .... . .......................

0.
0 . 0 .

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

55

9
M

?
N

cu

cu

k 0

co
ri

rl

....................... . . . . . ........ .............. . ...... . .... .............. .... .......... ..........

0 . 0.
0.

0 0

. .

56

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a
0

a )

0 + ,
0

a,
TI

+ , a,

e
0

E
W
I

M
a,
I i

%
a r t

2 kk 0
a,

t i
k k
I

0 k

P i

a,

+ m
a, k

.d

ki

-~

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

57

Fv

cu
N

a
(D

k
0
0

ri

m
I

a ,

I n
K)

cu
rl

58

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

C n 0 -P
0
T3

a J

a,

t- a,

e
a, M
I

a,
l-i

(d

Ti

(d

+
u

0 a,

F!
k aJ
I

PI
( D

a, k

rl

&

NACA R M E58G10a

CONFIDENTIAL

59

9
K)

9
0
0
. t i

. p a i

W
N

a
0
U

d !

A
c
W

a,

r n

m
c u
ri
0

R ,

c,

a, P

9
N

0 rl

m
. p
U

*T-J

e ,

"9

a
*ri

ri

R
0

k
k
W

W
I + *

9
5
I

rtrl

4 2 a, P a 5
a

0
0
a,

Y
ri

k 3 bo

a,

@ a
0

k
N

1
U

ri

rl

c1
a,

8
9
ri
l

a)

M
a,

-?

.d

bD

k 5

9 d

. . . . . . . ......................... ........ . . . .. ..... ... . . . . ...... . . . . .................... . . . . .... .. . . . . . ..........

..,a

60

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM E58G10a

ri

m
0

* u
k
@ . I

a ,
a,

c3

c u
ri

4 i
k k
(D

a,

R
0

rl

-%

ri k

2 a
0

A k
?
* $

a ,

k
0

g
V

a,

: :

E
I

Q)

cu

e,

,o
ri

....................... . .......... . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . ........ ....... . ..............

'..'c*-&p&~ml

NACA

- Langley Field, va,

0 rl
rl
0 -P

-P
0

a, a,

a,
'3

' T I

a,
0
a ,

a, "3 a,
k 0

d
a, P

k 0

+ i

a
P

a,

a,

cu
k
0

4
m

cu

.. ..
dc
d

"
LD

dc

0
-P
I

5
0

L d

660s