- I

t
!
NASA
TP
NASA 2 171
c.1
Technical I
Paper
2171
June 1983

Thrust Performance
of a Variable-Geometry,
Nonaxisymmetric, Two-
Dimensional, Convergent=
Divergent Exhaust Nozzle
on a Turbojet Engine
at Altitude

David M. Straight LOAN COW: RETURN TO

and Richard R. Cullom AFWL TECHNICAL LIBRARY
KlFlTLAND AFB, N.M.

25th Anniversary
1958-1983
 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

NASA ll11lllHlIll
Illllllll11
00b7954
Technical
Paper
2171

1983

Thrust Performance
of a Variable-Geometry,
Nonaxisymmetric, Two-
Dimensional, Convergent=
Divergent Exhaust Nozzle
on a Turbojet Engine
at Altitude
David M. Straight
and Richard R. Cullom
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio

National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
Scientlfic and Technical
Information Branch
Summary obtained for different nozzle configurations, only the
baseline performance results without afterburning are
The potential thrust performance of full-scale, nonaxi- presented in this report. The design features, however,
symmetric, two-dimensional, convergent-divergent included variable throat area for afterburning, variable
exhaust nozzles was determined by testing a versatile air- area ratio for a wide range of nozzle pressure ratios,
cooled research configuration on a 585-13 turbojet vectoring by two methods (flap vectoring or pivoting the
engine in an altitude test facility. Nonafterburning data nozzle throat), thrust reversing, and replaceable panels to
were obtained for three nozzle throat areas where a range study various cooling schemes on the convergent and
of internal expansion area ratios from 1.2 to 2.3 was divergent flaps. The design philosophy, to keep costs
investigated. Significant performance corrections were low, was to use boilerplate support structure but internal
made to account for coolant flows that bypassed the parts having thin walls approaching flight-weight
nozzle throat and for seal leakages. hardware and realistic flow paths. Simple low-cost leaf
The results of the investigation indicated that gross seals were used throughout to prevent leakage. The
thrust coefficients of 0.985 o r higher were achievable nozzle was extensively instrumented to obtain internal
over most of the operating range (nozzle pressure ratios thrust performance and heat transfer data.
greater than 4) if seal leakage and bypass coolant losses Thrust performance was obtained with the nozzle in
were eliminated. The corrected thrust performance values the normal (nonvectored) cruise position. The
were in good agreement with one-dimensional theory and nonafterburning data were obtained for three throat
scale-model data for most configurations. Three- areas (710,903, and 1129 cm2; 110, 140, and 175 in2) over
dimensional flow effects occurred near the nozzle throat a wide range of internal expansion area ratios (1.2 to 2.3)
plane and in the presence of the wall surface and operating nozzle pressure ratios (1.6 to 14.0) in the
discontinuities, which were more pronounced than in the PSL-3 altitude test facility at NASA Lewis. The
scale models. maximum performance potential of the nozzle was
determined by correcting the measured thrust coefficients
for seal leakage and coolant flows that bypassed the
nozzle throat. The calibrations required and the
Introduction calculation methods used are included in this report.
Nonaxisymmetric exhaust nozzles have potential bene- The corrected thrust data are compared with simple
fits for advanced fighter-aircraft such as improved one-dimensionai theory and scale-model data for similar
integration with the airframe to reduce drag and increase geometries (ref. 2). To complete the documentation of
lift, improved maneuverability in combat situations parameters that affect internal thrust performance,
through vectoring and reversing, and increased flexibility several plots of typical internal wall static-pressure
for short-takeoff-and-landing (STOL) operations. profiles are presented and compared with one-
Reference 1 includes a bibliography and summary of 82 dimensional theory.
publications on nonaxisymmetric nozzles up to 1979.
Additional experimental data include scale-model tests
with several nonaxisymmetric nozzle concepts and design Apparatus
variables. Both internal performance results obtained in
static rig tests (refs. 2 to 4) and installed performance Engine and Installation
results obtained with wind tunnel models have been The engine used for this investigation was a 585-13,
published (refs. 5 to 9). Theoretical studies have been afterburner-equipped turbojet, figure ](a). At sea-level
made on integrating nonaxisymmetric nozzles with static conditions the rated dry thrust is 12 900 N (2900
several different aircraft (ref. 1) in which benefits were lb). The rated airflow is 20 kglsec (44lb/sec). The engine
determined analytically from model test results. There is, has an eight-stage axial-flow compressor with variable
however, a paucity of full-scale engine data t o confirm inlet guide vanes. The annular combustor discharges into
the high performance potential indicated by the model a two-stage turbine. For these tests the standard
tests. Favorable results have been obtained in the full- axisymmetric, variable-area exhaust nozzle was replaced
scale ADEN program (ref. 10) at sea-level static test with a two-dimensional, convergent-divergent nozzle.
conditions. The standard 585 variable-area nozzle control, which is
A low-aspect-ratio versatile research exhaust nozzle integrated into the engine main fuel control, was replaced
was designed and built by a contractor for testing on a by the manual two-dimensional, convergent-divergent
585-13 full-scale turbojet engine at the NASA Lewis (2D-CD) nozzle area control, which was independent of
Research Center. Although the design incorporated many the main fuel control.
variable features so that parametric performance and The engine installation in the altitude test chamber, a
heat transfer data on the.effect of the variables could be conventional direct-connect type, is shown in figures 1
 \
\ r Labyrinth // 1 exhaust nozzle
I
/// seal Compressor / /I Afterburner 7 I
, 1
'

3 z

i
\\
<

Station: P i 2 3 5 7 8 9 0
(nozzle inlet) (throat1 (exit1 (altitude
(a) o Total pressure chamber)
o Static pressure
x Total temperature

@ X
X

Station 1 Station 2
(plenum) (airflow -measu ri ng station) (compressor inlet)

(b)
Station 3
(compressor exit)
Station 5
(turbine exit)

(a1 Engine installation; station locations.

i_l/
oooooooooo

Station 7
(nozzle inlet)

(b) Stations, viewed looking upstream.

Figure 1. - 585-13 engine installation and instrumentation layout.

and 2. At the left is the forward bulkhead, which The engine and test nozzle were mounted to the thrust
separates the 5.5-m-diameter (18-ft-diam) inlet plenum bed through separate support structures as shown in
from the 7.3-rn-diameter (24-ft-diam) test chamber. The figure 2. In this test installation the 2D-CD nozzle has
required pressure and temperature air flows from the been rotated 90" around the engine centerline from a
plenum at the left, through the bellmouth, and into the typical airframe installation. The interface between the
engine inlet duct. A conical screen is attached to the engine and the nozzle is a piston ring seal designed to
bellmouth to prevent foreign object ingestion. A compensate for component thermal growth. This seal
labyrinth seal is used to isolate the inlet ducting and thus also minimizes transfer of loads or moment forces
allow free movement of the engine for thrust between the engine and the nozzle. The thrust bed is
measurement. suspended by four multiflexured vertical rods attached at
 Figure2 -Engine installation in altitudetest chamber.

their upper ends to the chamber. The bed alignment with seals at the left and right sides of the throat can be seen in
the airflow direction is maintained by two multiflexured figure 4. The movable convergent and divergent flaps
horizontal rods located fore and aft on the far side of the provided throat area and nozzle expansion area ratio
bed. The thrust bed is restrained from free movement by variation. With the movable flaps the nozzle throat area
a dual load-cell system that allows the bed to be could be varied from 568 cm2 (88 in2) to 1290 cm2 (200
preioaded and therefore calibrated. in2). For the dry-cruise condition at a flight Mach
Engine exhaust gases and test cell cooling air are number of 0-9 and an altitude of 4570 m (15 000 ft) the
captured by a water-cooled collector extending through nozzle throat had an aspect ratio of 4.0.The height of the
the rear bulkhead at the right. To accommodate the exhaust gas flow path through the rectangular nozzle was
rectangular-cross-sectioned exhaust plume from the two- constant a t 53.67 cm (21.13 in.). The test nozzle had a n
dimensional nozzle, a rectangular, variable-area exhaust overall maximum length of 244 cm (96.2 in.) including
collector aperture was formed by two horizontally the afterburner. When the divergent flaps were vectored
movable doors. The van-able area allows sizing of the differentially with respect t o the nozzle centerline, up to
collector aperture so that the facility exhaust air ltI5" of supersonic turning of the exhaust jet could be
equipment can be used efficiently for the wide range of accomplished. The nozzle body could be pivoted inde-
nozzle configurations available for testing. pendently *15" to provide subsonic turning of the jet.
When nozzle body pivoting and flap vectoring were
combined, the exhaust jet could be deflected a maximum
Nozzle of ~k30". An electrohydraulic servocontrol system
The two-dimensional, convergent-divergent exhaust positioned the variable-geometry sections of the exhaust
nozzle is capable of variable internal exhaust jet or nozzle. The hydraulic actuators in this system operated a t
external area expansion, as well as jet deflection by a pressure of 620 N/cm2 (900 psig).
pivoting or flap vectoring and thrust reversal. This nozzle The convergent and divergent nozzle flaps were
was designed and fabricated under contract by General provided with instrumented interchangeable cooling
Electric. Design features of this hardware include a fiied paneIs so that impingement, f i i , or combined
transition section, two pivotable reverser-blocker doors, impingement-fiIm cooling schemes could be tested. AD
50-percent-cutback side walls, interchangeable flap of the nozzles tested had impingement-cooled panels
cooling panels, and a pivotable nozzle body with movable installed on the right side and impingement-filmcooied
convergent and divergent flaps (fig. 3.) AU movable panels on the left side as viewed Erom downstream. The
components of the nozzIe were sealed against hot-gas inner walls of the nozzle hot-gas flow path were
leakage with simple elastic leaf sheet-metal seals. approximately of flight-weight design in order to
Location of these seals is indicated in figure 3. The gas simdate actual heat transfer conditions. Most of the hot-

3
 V Location of gas seal

Reverser
chute -,
r Piston ring seal

Transition section

-t
Figure 3.
2.:) + -I
- Cross-sectional schematic of two-dimensional,
E t- ;to: +2.04-I)
convergentdivergent exhaust nozzle. (Dimensions are in centimeters (inches). )

Figure 4. - Exit view of two-dimensional. convergentdivergent exhaust nozzle.

side wall area was fabricated from Hastelloy X. Nozzle The test nozzle as viewed from the exit (fig. 4) shows
component wall thicknesses varied from 0.10 cm to 0.33 impingement-cooled panels installed on the right flaps
cm (0.040 in. to 0.130 in.). A system of 14 individually and impingement-film-cooled panels installed on the left
controlled and metered zones supplied cooling air to the flaps. One cooled panel was installed on each convergent
various nozzle components and cooling panels. The zone flap. Each divergent flap had three cooled panels as
valves were of the air-operated plug type and were shown. The round-to-rectangular transition section can
controlled through set-point potentiometers. be seen upstream through the nozzle throat. This figure

4
shows the position in which the nozzle was tested, that is, displays and a line printer, by a facility computer system
rotated 90" about the engine centerline from a typical with 1-second data update time capability. Engine and
aircraft installation. nozzle instrument stations and locations are identified in
figures 1 and 5 .
Instrumentation Engine thrust and thrust-bed preload forces were
For these tests instrumentation was provided to measured separately with 22 250-N (5000-lb) strain-gage
determine engine inlet and altitude chamber conditions, load cells. The load cells were independently calibrated
nozzle performance, and engine operating status. On-line and mounted beneath the thrust bed. The thrust-
data readout was provided, through alphanumeric video measuring system accuracy was f 18 N (h4lb).

0 Static pressure
x Wall temoerature
:onver -

I
Transition section Reverser-
blocker I ent flap

I @$
x x
X
8 8
8
X
X
'88
X
Y

x x
8 8 x 8
X -

Station 7 a
(nozzle inlet) (nozzle throat) (nozzle exit)
(a)

(a) Transition section and flaps (right side as viewed from centerline).
(b) Top and bottom side walls.
Figure 5. - Nozzle wall instrumentations.
5
 Most pressures were recorded on 19 Scanivalves (24 Procedure
ports each) that were operated by the facility computer.
The differential Scanivalve transducers were calibrated Testing
while in use and had an estimated system accuracy of For the baseline performance tests the variable-
k0.26 percent full scale. Pressures recorded with geometry nozzle was maintained in the cruise mode. The
individual differential transducers had system accuracies nozzle was not pivoted nor were the divergent flaps
of &0.60 percent full scale.
vectored differentially with respect to the nozzle
All thermocouples were Chromel-Alumel and were centerline. Also the thrust reverser was not used. The
referenced to a 339 K (610" R) oven. The estimated movable flaps were positioned to set a specific throat area
system accuracy was f 1.1 deg K ( k 2 . 0 deg R). Position and to vary the nozzle expansion area ratio. Nozzle dry-
of the movable convergent and divergent flaps was thrust performance was recorded for three nozzle throat
determined with calibrated linear potentiometers areas at various expansion area ratios over a range of
attached to the respective hydraulic actuators. nozzle pressure ratios. The three nominal throat areas
The nozzle inlet total pressure was determined from a were 710, 903, and 1129 cm2 (110, 140, and 175 in2).
10-probe rake located 19.8 cm (7.8 in.) upstream of the Nozzle expansion area ratio was varied from 1.2 to 2.3.
inlet to the nozzle transition section. The test chamber or The various configurations of the nozzle, as it was tested,
altitude pressure was measured by six pressure taps are shown in figure 6 and summarized in table I. Figure
located near the outer end of the nozzle thrust reverser 6(a) shows the position of the trailing edge of the cutback
chutes. These chutes were open to the test chamber at the side wall. Figure 6(b) shows isometric sketches of the nine
outer end but closed to the nozzle flow stream by the configurations in table I.
reverser-blocker doors at the inner end. The nozzle inlet For these tests the nozzle throat area and expansion
total temperature was equated to the turbine outlet area ratio were adjusted to the desired values. The engine
temperature, as is reasonable for nonafterburning engine inlet conditions were set to 10.3 N/cm2 (15.0 psia)
operation. This temperature was determined from three pressure and 289 K (520" R) temperature and held con-
rakes of five probes each located at the turbine exit. stant for all nozzle configurations. Although the tests
The array of wall static-pressure taps and were run without afterburning, the nozzle coolant flows
thermocouples installed on the right, or impingement- were set equal to calculated afterburning design values
cooled, side of the nozzle is shown in figure 5(a). The for all configurations so that the effect of coolant flow on
instrumentation array on the left convergent and thrust could be determined. The total nozzle coolant flow
divergent flaps is identical to that shown, except that it is was approximately 13 percent of the nozzlegas flow. The
inverted. Not shown are pressure and temperature nozzle inlet total temperature, which is grossly a function
sensors installed in the coolant flow passages of the of the nozzle throat area, was set to the desired test value
nozzle components. Each flat wall, top and bottom (side by small adjustments in engine speed. All data were
walls as installed on an aircraft), was instrumented with recorded with the corrected speed above 95.5 percent to
13 wall static-pressure taps and 13 wall thermocouples as ensure that the interstage compressor bleeds were closed.
shown in figure 5(b). In total there were approximately With the nozzle inlet total pressure fixed, the altitude
150 pressure and 200 temperature sensors installed on or chamber pressure was varied to produce the desired
in the nozzle. nozzle pressure ratio. Nozzle performance was obtained

TABLE I - NOZZLE CONFIGURATION

Nozz 1e Convergent Divergent
area, throat flap flap
aspect angle, angle,
ratio aC'
deg
A1 710 1.20 4.10 28.75 2.19 I
1
A2
1
1.50 5.66
A3 1.79 8.87
A4 2.29 14.60
81 903 140 1.20 3.19 21.25 2.86
c1 1129 175 1.20 2.55 13.15 3.58
1.50 8.91
1.80 14.31
2.30 23.72

6
over a range of nozzle pressure ratios from 1.6 to 14.0. Postrun Leakage
- Calibration
Test points did not intentionally correspond to specific As the nozzle tests were conducted, it became apparent
flight Mach numberlaltitude conditions. from the on-line data that the level of thrust performance
To enhance performance data the thrust bed was substandard. It was suspected that the hot-gas seals
was calibrated before and after each test period. For on the various movable components of the nozzle were
these baseline nozzle performance tests the engine was
leaking and perhaps contributing to the performance
operated using ASTM-A-1 jet fuel. decrease. The elastic leaf sheet-metal seals installed on

Configu-
ration

b- Sidewall trailing edge

_-
rcenterline
__- __ ___

I''-Sidewall trailing edge

centerl line
~- '-- ____ ___-
(a)

@
,/ ''0

Configur tion Al: At = 710 cm2 Configuration A2: At = 710 cm2 Configuration 61: At = 903 cm2 Configuration C1: At = 1129 cm2 Configuration cz = 1129 cm2
.iiio in4; Ae/At = 1.2 (110 i n $ A,/A~ = 1.5. (140 in2); Ae/At 1. 2.
L 1175 in2); Ae/At = 1. 2 1175 in2); Ae/At = 1.5.

Configuration A3: At = 710 cm2

1110 id; A,/A~ = 1.8.
Ibl
1110 in?); AeIAt = 23.
.

Configuration A4: At = 710 cm2

la) Flap positions.

Ib) Isometric views.
Figure 6. - Nozzle configurations.
Configuration c3: A~ 1-
(175in2); AeIAt = 1.8.
13cm2
@ /'
0*\

-
Configuratiin ~q A 1129 cm2
1175 in2); AeIAt = $3.
 the movable components and at the pivot points are Analysis
located in figure 3. Figure 4 shows the gas seals on the left
and right pivot points at the throat. Seals were installed The gross thrust coefficient of exhaust nozzles is
on the top and bottom edges of the convergent and defined as:
divergent flaps. Also seals were used between the
reverser-blocker door pivot arms and the flat side walls at
the top and bottom. Individual lengths of the leaf seals
and their percentage distribution overall and upstream of
the throat are summarized in table 11. (A complete list of symbols is given in appendix A.)
When nozzle testing was completed, a leak calibration The gross thrust Fg was determined both experi-
test was performed with the nozzle and engine mentally (Fg,,J and analytically (Fg,J. Experimental
afterburner. The afterburner was included so as to values were obtained from the calibrated facility thrust-
consider possible leakage of the piston ring seal between measuring system. Analytical values of gross thrust Fg,a
the afterburner outlet and the nozzle inlet. Leaktight were determined for comparison by using simple one-
closures were installed at the afterburner inlet and at the dimensional isentropic theory.
nozzle divergent section just upstream of the side-wall Values of the ideal gross thrust Fi depend on the
trailing edges to form a pressure vessel. For this analytical model and the bookkeeping used for correcting
calibration the nozzle throat area was 710 cm2 (110 in2) the data to account for coolant bypass flows and leakage.
and the expansion area ratio was 1.2. This configuration The following paragraphs describe the methods used to
was chosen because it appeared to display the largest obtain the experimental and analytical values.
decrease in performance. And therefore if seal leakage
contributed to the performance decline, it should be more
apparent with this configuration. Measured Gross Thrust
The nozzle and tailpipe assembly was pressurized by The equation used for determining gross thrust from
using the nozzle coolant flow system. The total seal measurements made in the facility is
leakage airflow was measured with the coolant flow
system zone flowmeters. The pressure differential
imposed on the assembly was measured as the difference
between the station 7 total-pressure rake reading and the
nozzle external static pressure, which in this case was where
atmospheric. The assembly was calibrated over the same
range of pressure differential as indicated during the
nozzle performance tests by this same instrumentation. A
calibration of total seal leakage airflow against imposed
pressure differential was obtained (fig. 7). This The inlet momentum mlVl was computed from area-
calibration was used to correct the nozzle thrust weighted boundary layer total pressures, wall static
performance data for the deleterious effects of leakage. pressures, and temperatures at station 1 and the inlet
The correction calculation procedure is further explained plenum (fig. 1); Fsp, Fd, and Ff were determined by
in the next section of the report. calibrations.

r--- ~ ~.

Reverser-blocker, upstream
Reverser-blocker, downstream
i = l
Seal l e n g t h

168.1
197.9
66.2
77.9
Distribution
upstream o f
throat,
percent
33.7
39.6
Overall
distribution,
percent

24.8
29.2
Convergent f l a p 133.6 52.6 26.7 19.7
T o t a l upstream o f t h r o a t 7-557 TCEU 7-37
Throat
Divergent f l a p
T o t a l seal l e n g t h
I I I
106.2
71.4
41.8
28.1
XFX I* 15.7

8
 0 4 8 12 16 20
Nozzle differential pressure, APl. N k m 2

I I
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Nozzle differential pressure, APl, psid
Figure 7. - Nozzle seal leakage calibration. Amibent test cell pressure, Po, 9.85 N/cm2
(14.29 psia); throat area, At, 710 cm2 (110 in2): internal expansion area ratio, Ae/Av 1.2

Ideal Gross Thrust impingement-film cooled with the flow discharging

through film-cooling slots into the nozzle flow path
The general equation for ideal gross thrust is
( wc,lcf and wc,ldf)-
Since the overboard flow discharge was perpendicular
t o the surface being cooled and no attempt was made to
recover thrust from the flow, the sample set of data
(lowest curve in fig. 8) was reevaluated without penal-
The ideal thrust Fi was computed separately for the hot- izing the thrust performance for the force components of
gas flow from the engine and for each of the separate overboard flows that were perpendicular to the axial
externally supplied coolant flows. The denominator Fi of direction of thrust (nonaxial component in fig. 9). The
equation (1) is the sum of the ideal thrusts of the side-wall overboard coolant discharge was always
separately computed values if no corrections are made perpendicular to the engine axis, and the ideal thrusts Fi
for coolant flows that bypass the nozzle throat or for of these flows (5/6 WC,,,,,) were omitted. The right
leakage. The resulting thrust performance is penalized
for all flows entering the exhaust system. A sample set of ,- Ideal. one-
1.00

1
data is shown in figure 8, where the lowest curve shows
the penalized performance.
m
Coolant Bypass Correction u” .9a
L

A schematic sketch of the nozzle is shown in figure 9, .-c

P)

.-
c
U

where the various separate coolant flow paths are indi-

cated. Some of the coolant flows were purposely ? .96
discharged overboard after they had cooled the nozzle
parts t o simplify the construction of the research VI

hardware. Specifically, the overboard flows were from E

a
.94
the aft side-wall sections, which were impingement
cooled using 5/6 of the total side-wall flow WC,,, and
from the right convergent and divergent flaps ( WC,,,fand .9Z2 I/ 4 4
6 a 10
1
12
Wc,rdf)), which were also cooled by impingement only. Nozzle pressure ratio, PT, 7IPg
The forward section of each side wall was impingement
Figure 8. -Typical corrections to experimental data for
cooled with 1/6 We,,,. This flow discharged through J85-13 two-dimensional. convergentdivergent nozzle
discrete holes in the side walls for additional film cooling to account for coolant bypass flows and leakage.
upstream of the nozzle throat. The two left flaps were Internal expansion area ratio, AeIAt. 1.5.

9
 Nonaxial KAxial
omponenr~ ,! ‘xomponents
\\4 f ,‘ rNonaxial
w_ -17:
‘1
component

Coolant flows
Wc, transition liner Wc, right convergent flap
reverser section Wc,rdf right divergent flap
$1 r pivot section Wc,Icf left convergent flap
c, Psw
Wc, side walls Wc,Idf left divergent flap

Figure 9. - Schematic of coolant flow paths.

convergent and divergent flaps, however, were not probably because the seals were deflecting in a direction
parallel to the engine axis: the angles varied with the to seal off the leakage.
throat area setting and the nozzle area ratio A,/At. Thus The high leakage levels and the reversal of the trend at
an axial force component resulted from the discharge of 8.5 N/cm2 (12 psid), however, were not expected and
coolant from the two right flaps (fig. 9) and would affect indicated a leakage problem. It is not known whether the
the thrust measured by the load cells. For this reason the trend reversal can be attributed to the flow becoming
axial components of the Fi of these flows are included in sonic, as indicated in figure 11, or to increasing actual
the total Fi. The nonaxial force components of these area due to higher pressure loads. The local distribution
coolant flows, however, were omitted in the total Fi used of leaks among the various leakage flow paths indicated
in equation (1). All of the ideal thrusts of the left-flap in figure 10 was not determinable from the available
coolant flows were included in the total Fi since these data. A qualitative estimate was made, however, at very
flows were discharged internally. !ow APl by walk-around test personnel. The major
The thrust performance for the sample data set in leakage flow was in the region of the reverser ports ( FV/,r).
figure 8, after these corrections have been made in the
values of Fi,are shown by the square symbols, which are
Leakage flows
about 1.5 percentage points above the fully penalized
performance curve. This 1.5 percent is the penalty for Piston ring seal
WL, P
Wl, r Reverser section seals
incomplete recovery of thrust from the externally Forward hinge seals
wZ. fh
discharged coolant, which bypassed the nozzle throat. Wl, cf Convergent flap sidewall seals
wZ, th Throat hinge seals
wZ, df Divergent flap side-wall seals
Leakage Correction
For determining the maximum performance potential
of full-scale nonaxisymmetric nozzles and to compare the
performance with scale-model data, it was desirable to
correct the data for leakage. This was particularly
important for the data in this report because the leakage
was higher than would occur in a developed flight-weight
nozzle. t --
A schematic of the 2D-CD nozzle with the leakage
flow paths indicated is presented in figure 10. The total
effective leakage area was computed from the leakage
calibration data (fig. 7) and is presented in figure 11. As
the differential pressure was increased from zero to about
8.5 N/cm2 (12 psid), the effective leakage area decreased Figure 10. - Schematic of leakage flow paths,

10
 I

Leakage corrections can be closely approximated by exceeded the coolant flow (externally supplied), some of
using the overall leakage area curve of figure 11. If the the hot engine flow also leaked along with the coolant
leakage area distribution is assumed to be proportional to flow. An iterative heat balance procedure was used to
the seal lengths (table XI), most of the leakage area is obtain the temperature of the leakage flow mixture T/
upstream of the nozzle throat, particularly in the and the leakage flow rate W,. The total pressure of the
reverser-blocker region. The local leakage flow rates are leakage flow was set equal to an average of wall static
also a function of the local differential pressure across pressures (same pressure as the coolant film) Ps,,,
the leakage area. The divergent flap seals (downstream of measured near the reverser and pivot sections, where
the nozzle throat) and the throat seals are a small most of the leakage area was located.
percentage of the total seal length and operate at lower Instead of separately computing and summing the ideal
local static differential pressures (approaching zero on thrust of the individual coolant flows and the hot-gas
the divergent flaps). Thus the leakage at the divergent flow as was done for the initial calculation, the ideal
seals W/,dfand at the nozzle throat W / , t h is lower than the thrust of a mixed hot-gas and coolant flow through the
upstream leakage. nozzle throat was used when the data were corrected for
The following assumptions were used for the leakage leakage. The hot-gas flow rate at the throat was adjusted
correction analysis: for the coolant and leakage flows (w8= W, + W,- Wl),
(1) All significant leakage occurs upstream of the and the temperature of the hot gas at the throat was also
nozzle throat. adjusted for the other flows by using a completely mixed
(2) The leakage area at hot test conditions is the same model in the heat balance. An iterative solution is
as at ambient calibration conditions. required. Variable heat capacities Cp and specific heat
(3) The leakage airflow properties are the'same as the ratios y were used that vary with the temperature and
film-cooling air properties Ps,,, and T, (except when the fuel-air ratio of the mixture at the throat station. The
leakage is greater than the cooling airflow rate). final value of Fi in equation (1) for this case is then the
(4) The effective leakage areas determined from the sum of Fi,8 at the throat station and the Fi of the coolant
calibration apply for all throat area and area ratio flows that enter the system downstream of the throat
settings. (coolant for left divergent flap) and the Fi of the axial
( 5 ) The leakage area is equivalent to a simple flow components of the overboard coolant flows previously
orifice (not a series of flow restrictions). discussed.
(6) The effective leakage area is a function of only The top curve (circular symbols) in figure 8 is the
differential pressure A P l (independent of whether the resulting performance of the sample data set after
leak is subsonic or sonic flow). correcting for both overboard coolant losses and leakage.
The sonic flow point occurred at different differential The details of the computational procedure and program
pressures during altitude tests than during the calibration logic for determining the leakage and the corrected gross
test (indicated in fig. 11). When the leakage flow thrust coefficients are described in appendix B.

11

I
 either plus or minus. When Ps,~=Po, the nozzle is ideally
expanded and the second term is zero. A maximum ideal
thrust coefficient exists at that pressure ratio (Fg=Fi, and
C, = 1 .O per equation (1)).
f h e value of Ps,, at the exit plane is computed from the
ideal isentropic area ratio equation:

A,=
l.Or At

where A , is set equal to the desired A , to find P S , at ~

station 9 (Ps,, in eq. (4)). Nozzle inlet total pressure PT
and nozzle throat area A t are given.
The variation of local-static-to-total-pressure ratio
0 P~,,/PTwith local area ratio Ax/At in figure 12 is a plot
0
m of equation ( 5 ) . This plot is relatively insensitive to the
isentropic
value of y, and values from published compressible flow
1 I I
.6 1.0 1.4 1. a 22 26 charts (ref. 11) for y = 1.4 were used.
Ratio of area at axial station within nozzle to throat area, Ax/At The calculated isentropic thrust at nozzle pressure
Figure 12 - Nomenclature and analytical model for ideal one- ratios other than ideally expanded results in lower thrust
dimensional, isentropic expansion calculations. coefficients. If the operating pressure ratio is higher than
the optimum (Po<Ps,,), the A AP term is negative, but
Ideal Isentropic Thrust
the momentum is greater than that of the optimum
The corrected experimental data can be compared with pressure ratio and the sum is again below the optimum
an ideal one-dimensional, isentropic gross thrust coeffi- thrust. The net result is a curve such as shown by the
cient such as shown by the dashed line in figure 8. In this dashed line in figure 8, where the maximum occurs at the
case the gross thrust Fg in equation (1) is predicted for optimum pressure ratio (PT/Po= 6 ) for that particular
design and off-design pressure ratios. area ratio & / A I = 1.5).
The theoretical ideal gross thrust was computed for The analytical model described above is idealized.
each fixed-area-ratio configuration tested over a range of When a nozzle is overexpanded (Po>Ps,,), the flow often
operating pressure ratio. A sketch of the analytical model separates or shocks form that cause nonuniformities in
is shown in figure 12. For the analysis it was assumed that exit flow velocity and pressure profiles. Two such
the nozzle side walls extend to the end of the divergent hypothetical cases are shown in figure 12. Some actual
flaps such that the nozzle is a simple two-dimensional, data are presented in the section Results and Discussion.
convergent-divergent supersonic nozzle of given fixed When such phenomena occur, the actual thrust produced
area ratio. With no corrections for coolant flow, leakage, by the nozzle can exceed the values predicted by the
friction, flow angularity, shocks, or flow separations and simple analytical model presented here. This can be
assuming a simple one-dimensional isentropic expansion, confirmed by integrating pressure-area data if enough
the thrust produced by the nozzle is measurements are made.

Results and Discussion

The model assumes that the nozzle is flowing full to the
Thrust Performance
exit plane at A , and that, Ps,, is not equal to PO,there is a
step change in pressure to POat the exit plane. Thus the Each of the nine configurations (table I) was tested
second term in equation (4)(Ps,, -PO)has a finite value, over a range of nozzle pressure ratios from below to
 0 2D-CD corrected data 0 2D-CD corrected data
----_Ideal, onedimensional, isentropic Q
__---
Zero nozzle coolant
-Model (see fig. for details) Ideal, onedimensional, isentropic
Model (see fig. for details)
Model C-11 (ref. 2): r-Model C-5 (ref. 2):
\\ Ae/At =1.8; Model C-11 (ref. 2): r Model C-5 (ref. 2):
',*
(b = 10.70 AeIA = 1.25;
Q = 1.40 , / AeIAt = 1.8;
c,j = 10.7O

c
2- 1 Model C-9 (ref. 2): Model C-9 (ref. 2):
VI AeIAt 1.4;
2
c (b = 5.407

E
VI
VI
1.00
e
" .98
' 0 0
2 4 6 8 1 0
4 6 8 10 12 14
Nozzle pressure ratio, PT,7 I Po
Nozzle pressure ratio, PT,7/Po
(a) AeIAt = 1.2; Q= 3.6O.
(a) Ae/At = 1.2; Q = 2 3O.
(b) Ae/At = 1.5; =8.9'.
(b) AeIAt = 1.5; c,j = 5.7'.,
(c) A e I A t = 1.8; Q = 14.3'.
(c) AeIAt = 1.8; Q = 8.8'.
(d) Ae/At 2 3; Q = 23.7'.
(d) AeIAt = 2 3; c,j = 14.6'.
5

Figure 15. - Dry gross thrust performance for various

Figure 13. - Dry gross thrust performance for various internal
internal expansion area ratios Ae/At and divergent
expansion area ratios A /At and divergent flap angles q.
flap angles Q. Throat area, A 1129 cm2 (175 in2);
Throat area, At, 710 cm$(llO in2); gas temperature, TG,
gas temperature. TG. 600 K (lo$boR).
944 K (1700O R).

calculated ideal-expansion, one-dimensional isentropic

performance for each configuration assuming no coolant
penalties, leakage, friction, flow angle, or nonisentropic
flow effects. Only area ratio A,/A1 was accounted for in
the ideal calculation (see Analysis). The solid lines in the
figures are scale-model data published in reference 2 . The
model identification numbers are from that reference.
The model configurations are not exactly the same (note
Ideal. onedimensional, isentropic differences in A,/AI and the divergent flap angles ad)but
Model C-11 (ref. 2): Ae/At = 1. 25; closely represent the full-scale configurations. The
c,j = 5.40
configuration differences account for most of the shift in
.94 I pressure ratio values where the peak performance occurs.
0 2 4 6 8 10 The shifts are more pronounced at low area ratios (figs.
Nozzle pressure ratio, PT, 7IPo
13(a), 14, and 15(a)).
Figure 14. - Dry gross thrust performance for internal expansion The corrected J85 full-scale data are generally within 2
area ratio Ae/At of 1.2 and divergent flap angle q, of 2 9".
Throat area, At, 903 cm2 (140 in2); gas temperature, TG, 716 K percent of the ideal isentropic predictions and are in good
(1288' R). agreement with the scale-model data although some
scatter exists in the experimental data and the corrections
above the value that theoretically provides the maximum for coolant bypass and leakage are not precise (see
thrust for that particular configuration. The ideal gross assumptions in Analysis). Friction and flow angle effects
thrust used to compute the gross thrust coefficient CF can account for most of the difference between the ideal
for each data point was corrected for seal leakage and and experimental data. The lowest experimental peak
nonaxial components of coolant flow discharged outside performance occurred at a high divergent flap angle
the nozzle structure, as discussed in the section Analysis. (23.7' in fig. 15(d)). This low performance is due to flow
The corrected thrust coefficient data are presented in angularity since a significant portion of the flow at the
figures 13 to 15. The dashed lines in the figures are the nozzle exit is not flowing parallel to the engine centerline.

13
 The peak performance is also lower at low area ratios Configuration Internal
, expansion
(&At= 1.2 in figs. 13(a) and 15(a)) than at the midrange
area ratio,
area ratios. This performance loss may be attributed to
three-dimensional nonisentropic flow effects in the AJAt
nozzle throat region, which are more pronounced at the 0 c1 1.2
0 c2 1.5
low area ratios. Wall static-pressure data to support this 0 c3 1.8
hypothesis are presented in Results and Discussion. A c4 2.3
Some of the corrected data at low nozzle pressure ----- Ideal, onedimensional, isentropic
ratios show gross thrust coefficients that are higher than Experimental
the ideal isentropic value (figs. 13(b), 14, and 15(a)).
Again, the actual flow is not ideal, and the forces 3
1.00
u
resulting from pressure recovery downstream of internal
shocks can increase the total force at some nozzle
pressure ratios.
The area ratio of an operational exhaust nozzle would
be either (1) scheduled with throat area by using linkages
-2
VI

or (2) allowed to free float by pressure forces so that 5

VI
.94
nearly ideal area ratios would occur at all flight e
a
conditions. The overall performance of a variable-area- .92 ~

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
ratio nozzle would then be near the peaks of the Nozzle pressure ratio, P T , ~ / P o
individual fixed-area-ratio curves presented in figures 13
Figure 17. - Dry gross thrust performance summary for
and 15. Composite summaries of the peak performance throat area At of 1129 cm2 (175 in2) and gas tempera-
for the two throat areas of figures 13 and 15 are presented ture TG of 600 K (1080° R).
in figures 16 and 17, respectively. Figure 16 shows that
the performance potential of a variable-area-ratio value of 1.Q over the full range (a line through the peaks
2D-CD nozzle at a dry-cruise throat area setting (data of the dashed lines in fig. 16). A similar plot for the
from fig. 13) is between 0.985 and 0.990 for all nozzle maximum-afterburning area setting (the data were
pressure ratios above 4.0. The highest performance obtained without afterburning) is shown in figure 17. In
occurred at an area ratio of 1.5. Below a nozzle pressure this case the performance is higher than for the dry-cruise
ratio of 4.0 the performance decreased to 0.958 at a configuration. The performance increased from 0.967 at
pressure ratio of 2.5. The ideal isentropic thrust a pressure ratio of 2.0 to a maximum of 0.996 at a
coefficient of a variable-area-ratio nozzle would have a pressure ratio of 6.5, where the area ratio was 1.5. Above
this pressure ratio the maximum performance decreased
Configuration Internal slowly to 0.987 at a pressure ratio of 14.0.
expansion These high performance levels are achievable with
area ra!io,
nonaxisymmetric 2D-CD nozzles if the leakage and
Ae /At
coolant penalties are eliminated.
0 A1 1.2
A2 1.5
0 A3 1.8 Flow Discharge Coefficient
A A4 2.3
-_--- Ideal, onedimensional isentropic After the data had been corrected for leakage and
- Experimental coolant flows that bypassed the nozzle throat, the flow
coefficient of the nozzle was determined by ratioing the
effective area of the throat to the actual measured area.
The effective area was computed from the corrected
values of throat flow rate and mixed hot-gas temperature
and the measured values of total pressure.
The flow discharge coefficients determined from the
data are presented in figure 18. Above a nozzle pressure
ratio of 5.0 the flow coefficient was nearly constant for
both the dry-cruise throat area setting (fig. 18(a)) and the
maximum-afterburning throat area setting (fig. 18(b)) as
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Nozzle pressure ratio, PT, 7/Po established by a line through the data scatter. The
maximum-afterburning average throat area setting value
Figure 16. - Dry gross thrust performance summary for
throat area At of 710 cm2 (110 in2) and gas tempera- of 0.957 was lower than the average value of 0.965 for the
ture TG of 944 K (1700O R). dry-cruise throat area setting. A possible explanation for

14
 Config- Internal the difference is that the leakage area for the maximum-
uration expansion afterburning throat area setting may be somewhat
area ratio, different than that for the dry-cruise throat area setting at
Ae'At which the leakage test was run (see Analysis). Any
0 A2 1.5 difference would affect the corrected flow rate through
0 A3

1
1.8
1. 00 - A A4 2.3 the nozzle throat as well as the corrected gross thrust
performance discussed in the previous section.
u d M o d e l (ref. 2) The full-scale nozzle discharge coefficients are
.98 generally about 2 percent lower than the values reported
in reference 2. The range of the reference values is
indicated by the crosshatched areas in figure 18. Another
difference exists at nozzle pressure ratios below 5.0. The
trend of the full-scale nozzle values decreased at lower
pressure ratios, whereas the model data showed a trend
toward increasing values at lower pressure ratios. The
presence of seals at the nozzle throat (fig. 4) could have
0 c1 1.2 an effect on the flow coefficients as well as on thrust
0 c2 1.5 performance because of a small step change in area at the
- 0 c3 1.8 throat station. The reference data were obtained by using
A C4
a model with continuous, smooth walls and no irregular
surface features or sharp corners.
-
Wail Static Pressure Profiles
Wall static pressure (ratioed to nozzle inlet total
pressure) profiles for convergent and divergent flaps and

.94 0
I (b)
0

5
I
10
0
15
1
top and bottom side walls are presented in figures 19 to
21 for nozzle throat area settings of 710, 903, and 1129
cm2 (110, 140, and 175 inz), respectively. In each figure,
Nozzle pressure ratio, PT, 7IPo
typical pressure profile plots are presented for various
(a) At = 710 crn2 (110 in2). combinations of area ratio and operating nozzle pressure
(b) At = 1129 cm2 (175 in2). ratio. The types of plot, configuration, and test pressure
Figure 18. -Variation of nozzle discharge ratio are summarized in table 111.
coefficient with pressure ratio for two Each figure includes an isometric sketch of the
throat areas At.
configuration for the data shown and oriented as the

TABLE 111. - WALL STATIC-PRESSURE PROFILE PLOTS

Figure Conf ig- Throat area, Nozzle Type o f p l o t
uration 3 __ pressurr
ratio,
c d in2 pT.7/p0
4.5 A t wall centerlines

7iI
A1 110
A1 4.5 Across stream
A t wall centerlines
19 b-1

4
A3
A4
2.5
2.5
6.0
14.0
9.0
14.0
Across stream
A t wall centerlines

1.6

1 gl1
20 (a-1) 81 140
1.6 Across stream
2.0 A t wall centerlines
2.6
3.5
4.5
4.5 Across stream
1129 6.0 A t wall centerlines
c1
21 (a-1) 175 4.4 A t wall centerlines
21
21
El
21
a-2)
IbJ
c)
id-1
21 (d-21
c1
c2
c3
c4
c4 II 4.4
6.1
9.0
13.9
13.9
~
Across stream
A t wall centerlines
A t wall centerlines
A t wall centerlines
Across stream
 at wall center- - flap angle,
line of - %
deg
0 Model C-11 Flaps 431 1. Z 5.38

.9-
d .gi,21i
iref. 21
Sidewall 431 1.25 5.38

OPD-CDA1 Rightflaps 4.49 1.a 2.26

r- Left flaps 2 22

P
0-
gL .7-
...\ Solid symbols denote Po/PT, 7
at

a Ideal. onedimensional. I' \ 4 a Panel joints, right flaps

Z .6- isentropic; y - 1.4 -J' Q Q Cooling slots, left flaps
P
-
m
.
--
I

.5-

r-
._
u

.4-
-
I
-
at @.J
,J
g .3- Configuration A1
--d @ I
,
la-1) I I I 0

Ratio of area at axial station within nozzle to throat area, A,IA1

Top side wall
AxIAt

Solid symbols denote upstream

+- + 1.004 of nozzle throat

5: 0 .5
Z'zmax
Left flaps Right flaps

1.354

Representation
of nozzle rear
view

1.0 .5 0 0 .5 1.0
'S"T, 7 'SiPT. 7

side wall

h
1. 104
t 1.001
1.575
la-21 2. 1731
1.0
-.5 0 .5
ZIZmax
la-11 At wall centerlines.
la-21 Across stream at various axial stations x.
la) Internal expansion area ratio, AeIAt, 1.2; nozzle pressure ratio, Pr.71 Pg. 45.
Figure 19. - Nozzle wall-static-to-total-pressure-ratio profiles at throat area At of 710 cm21110 in2).

16

. .. . ... . .
 Test nozzle Static pressure PT 7 A, Divergent
at wall center- A flap angle,
lineof - 0' @d*
deg
o Model C-9 Flaps 252 L a 5. m
(ref. 2)
d Model C-9 Side wall 2.52 1.m 5.41
(ref. 2)
0 ZD-CD A2 Right flaps 2% L49 5.65
O
2n 1
Left flaps
Top side wall
Bottom side wall
Solid symbols denote P o I P T , ~
I I 5.42
0
0

Q L

Configuration A2
Throat>,

Convergent Divergent
b-1) I I 1 I l l l a
1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Ratio of area at axial station within nozzle to throat area, AXIAt
Top side wall

2. 173
1.515
-+- 1.008
Solid symbols denote upstream
of nozzle throat
=+
. 1.104
1.258

-.5 0 .5
Z%ax
Left flaps Right flaps

1.0

.8
4P

x .6
-E
>-
>
.4
<I

.2

0
1.0 .5 0
' .5 1.0
'SI'T.7 pS'pT,7
Bottom side wall

+ 1.104
-
k

n
VI
.5
-Q- 1.258
+ 1.W8
(b-2)
1.0
-.5 0 .5
ZIZmax
Ib-1) At wall centerlines.
(b-2) Across stream at various axial stations x.
(b) Internal expansion area ratio, AeIAt, L5; nozzle pressure ratio. P T , 7 1 P ~25.
Figure 19. - Continued.

17
 Test nozzle Static pressure PT 7 A, Divergent
at wall center- A
5 flapangle.
line of - o d e
deg
0 Model C-9 Flaps 6. 10 1.40 5. 40
fref. 21
U Model C-9 Side wall 6.10 1.40 5.40
.9 kef. 2)
-e 0 PD-CDA2 Rightflaps 5.98 1.51 5.78

.a -

.7 -
\

-. , \
\
n
Left flaps
Top side wall
Bottom side wall
Solid symbols denote P0/PT, 7
5.63

r Panel joints, right flaps

.6-
Ideal. one dimensional./
isentropic; 7 - ~4 - J
‘fp Q
Q Cooling slots, left flaps

h
+-
0 .2
VI
CL
Configuration A2
Throat
Convergent Divergent

1 1 1 1 1 1
g
- o
m
0 Model C-9 Flaps 9.74 L40 5.40
fref. 21
.9 r
Y Model C-9 Side wall 9.74 1.40 5.40
. Right flaps 14 16 1.52 5.92
5.75
N

z
0

4 p Panel joints, right flaps

Q Q Q Cooling slots, left flaps

.5t \\
0

Throat
\

convergent t-
Divergent

0L l l l l l l l l l
1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Ratio of area at axial station within nozzle to throat area, AJAt
(c) At wall centerliner internal expansion area ratio, AeIAt. 1.5; nozzle pressure
ratio. PT,71Po, 6.0.
(dl At wall centerliner internal expansion area ratio, AeIAt. 1.5; nozzle pressure
ratio, PT,7/Po. 140.
Figure 19. -Continued.

18
 I
I
Test nozzle Static pressure
at wall center-
line of -
-2
p$i Divergent
flapangle.
%I.
dw
0 Model C-5 Flaps 9.10 L80 10.73
(ref. a
d Model C-5 Sidewall 9.10 L80 10.73
(ref. 21
0 20-CDA3 Rightflaps 9.03 L79 8.94
Left flaps 8.79
Top side wall
3 a Bottom side wall
-\

- '.( \
Solid symbols denote Po/PT.7
,-Ideal, one dimensional.
isentropic; 7 - 1.4

@ 9 Panel joints, right flaps

Q Q Q Cooling slots, left flaps

I I I I I 1
-
10

Right flaps 229 1471

s Left flaps I 14%
Top side wall
Bottom side wall 14r

i
U
''y, ,,r Ideal. one dimensional.
isentropic:, y - 1.4

9 4 Panel joints, right flaps

.6 1 ), Q Q Q Cooling slot. left flaps

I I I I I I I
1.4 L2 LO 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20 2.2 2 4
Ratio of area at axial station within nozzle to throat area. A,IAt
(e) At wall centerlinen internal expansion area ratio, AeIA+ 1.8: nozzle
pressure ratio, PT 71P0 9.0.
(f) At wall centerlinei internal expansion area ratio, AeIAt. 2.3: nozzle
pressure ratio, PT,71P0 140.
Figure 19. - Concluded.

19
 Test nozzle Static pressure PT,7 5 Divergent
at wall center- - flap angle.
l i n e of- po
od.
deg
0 Model C-11 Flaps L75 1.25 5.38
(ref. 2l
d Model C-11 Side wall L15 1.5 5.38
(ref. 2)

---- 2D-CD 61 Right flaps 1.65 1. a0 2.15

.\ : I
W Left flaps 2.87
Top side wall
-\ a Bottom side wall
-1

'. Solid symbols denote Po/PT,7

r P a n e l joints, r i g h t flaps

Configuration B1

1-1) I
1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.M) 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
Ratio of area at axial station w i t h i n nozzle to throat area, AxIAt
Top side wall
A nd A t.
1.0
Solid symbols denote upstream

LVI .5 1.036
n

Left flaps Right flaps

Representation
of nozzle rear
view

1.0 .5 0 0 .5 1.0
pS1pT,7 pS1pT,7
Bottom side wall

h
O
r I

(a-2)

ZIZmax
(a-1) At wall centerlines.
(a-2) Across stream at various axial stations x.
la) Nozzle pressure ratio, PT, 71P, 1.6.
Figure 20. - Nozzle wall-static-to-total-pressure ratio profiles at t h r o a t area At of 903 cm2 (140 in2) and i n t e r n a l
expansion area ratio AeIAt of 1.2.

20
 Test nozzle Static pressure PT,7 A, Divergent
at wall center- ,-
,p q flapangle.
line of - air,
deg
0 Model C-11 Flaps 2001.25 5.38
(ref. 2)
Model C-11 Side wall 2.001.3 5.38
.9 Iref. 21

---
0 ZD-CD B1 Right flaps 2.01 1.19 272
CB Left flaps 2.74
Top side wall
-1 n Bottom side wall
I\

'\,
Solid symbols denote PolPT,7

->
Ideal, one d i m e n s i o n a z h x
isentropic; y - 1.4
9 4 Panel joints, right flaps
Q Q Q Cooling slots, left flaps

T \?

.3 Configuration B1

3
f .2 1 I
a

0 Model C-11 Flaps 2.50 1. 25 5.38

lref. 21

;:;--<
0 ModeiC-11 Sidewall 2.50 1. a 5.38
- (ref. 21
Right flaps 2.56 1. 20 2.97
- 2.73
n
n Bottom side wall

Ideal, one dimensional,,,'

isentropic; y = 1 . 4 - 1
\ 9 9 Panel joints, right flaps
Q c w l i n g slots, left flaps
Q
.5

.4

.3

.2 IC' I
1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
Ratio of area at axial station w i t h i n nozzle to throat area, AxIAt
Ib) At wall centerlines: nozzle pressure ratio, PT 7/Pg. 2.0.
IC)At wall centerlines: nozzle pressure ratio, Pi71P0, 2.6.
Figure 20. - Continued.

21
 A_”

I
Test nozzle Static pressure PT,7 Divergent
at wall center- - flapangle.
line of - Pd.
de9
0 Model C-11 Flaps 3.77 1. 25 5.38
(ref. 2)
0 Model C-11 Side wall 3.77 1. 25 5.38
h .9 (ref. 2)
,! I n PD-CD E1 Riqht flaos 3.49 1.20 2.97
L e i flaps 2.74
Top side wall

-.
. \
\
n Bottom side wall
Solid symbols denote PoIPT, 7

Ideal. one dimensional,,,’‘

isentropic; y = 1 . 4 - 2
‘ 9 4 Panel joints, r i g h t flaps

Q Q Coolingslots. leftflaps

Configuration 8 1 Convergent

Id) At wall centerlines: nozzle pressure ratio, PT,71Pg. 3.5.

Figure 20. - Continued.

22
 Test nozzle Static pressure PT,7 A, Divergent
at wall center- - ,q flap angle.
line of - us
deg
0 Model C-11 Flaps 431 1.25 5.38
(ref. 2)
d Model C-11 Side wall 431 1.a 5.38
(ref. 2)
0 PO-CO B1 Rightflaps 452 L21 3.14

-- -. -\
Left flaps
Top side wall
Bottom side wall
2.82

P
'9
Idea,, one
isentropic; y - 1.4-1
I+\ .

dimensional,,//"'^,,
'f Q
9\"
Solid symbols denote PoIPT, 7

p
Q
4
Q
Panel joints. r i g h t flaps

Cooling slots, left flaps

::
P
.3 Configuration 6 1

I 1 5
1.25 1. M 1. 15 1. 10 1.05 1.
Ratio of area at axial station w i t h i n nozzle to throat area, A,/At

Top side wall

Ax14

I
h--' O F T 'z
1.317 Solid symbols denote upstream
of nozzle throat

Left flaps Right flaps

~

Representation
of nozzle rear
view

1.0 .5 0 0 .5 1.0
pS1pT.7 pS/pT.7
Bottom side wall

1. o9a
1.086
1. ooo

(e-2) 1.0
-.5 0 .5
ZIZmax
(e-1) At wall centerlines.
(e-2) Across stream at various axial stations x.
(e) Nozzle pressure ratio, PT,7/P,,, 45.
Figure 20. - Continued.

23
 Test nozzle Static pressure PT,7 A, Divergent
at wall center- - q flap angle,
line of - %.
deg
0 Model C-11 Flaps 6.12 1. a 5.38
(ref. 2)
0 Model C-11 Side wall 6.12 1. 2S 5.38
(ref 2)

---.\ :
0 2DlCD 6 1 Right flaps 6.03 1.20 -3.W

-
h
c-
n
v)
LL
.a

.7
g---
-
0

.\
,
\
n I Left flaps
Top side wall
Bottom side wall
Solid symbols denote P0IPT, 7
1 1 :
3.80

0-

5 .6-
Ideal. one dimensional,
isentropic; 7 - 1.4-1'
/"\
\
4 9 Panel joints, r i g h t flaps
E \
2
a3
L Q Q Cooling slots, left flaps

;. 5 -
.=
0
c
L

5--
.4- QQ
m

:
-N
.3- Configuration B 1
T iroat 7, -d,
z" \ 0

LLL
.1
1.25 L20 1.15
s
1.10
Convergent

I
LO5
- I-"
.
l.W
Divergent
-..I..
1.05
1
1.10
Ratio of area at axial station w i t h i n nozzle to throat area, Ax!$
.1-_1.
1.15 1.20
c
I
1.25

(f) At wall c e n t e r l i n e r nozzle pressure ratio, PT, 7 1 P ~ . 6.0.

Figure 20. - Concluded.

24
 Test nozzle Static pressure Pr A, Dlvergent
at wall center- & flap angle.
line of - %
dql
0 Model C-11 Flaps 431 1.3 5.38
(ref. 2)
0 Model C-11 Sidewall 431 1.3 5.38

@ 9 Panel joints, right flaps

Q Q Cooling slots, left flaps

I . ~ I_.- I
125 1.20 115 1.10 1.05 l.W 1.05 1.10 1.15 L20 1.25
Ratio of area at axial station within nozzle to throat area, AxlAt

Top side wall

1.0 AxIAt

Solid symbols denote upstream

2
’
-VI . 5 b 1.041
1. W3 of nozzle throat
n
1. 102

-0
-.5 0 .5
ZIZmax

Left flaps Right flaps

82

Representation
of nozzle rear
view

1.0 .5 0
d
.5 1.0
‘SIPT,7 pSfpT,7
Bottom side wall

Or

(a-2)

Z‘Zmax
la-1) At wall centeriines.
(a-21 Across streamlines at various axial stations x
(a) Internal expansion area ratio, AeIAt. 1.2: nozzle pressure ratio, PTa7fP@ 4 4
Figure 21. - Nozzle wall-static-to-total-pressure ratio profiles at throat area 4 of 1129 cm2 1175 in2).

25

111 1111l1I 111 11111111

I I
 Test nozzle Static pressure PT,7 A, Divergent
at wall center- -
po ~7 flap angle.
line of - 4.

\
deg
d Model C-9 Flaps 6.1ol.m 5.m
lref. a
0 Model C-9 Sidewall 610140 5.40
lref. 2)
0 2D-CO C2 Right flaps I 8.86
Left flaps 8.95
Top side wall 0
n Bottom side wall
pT.7 9o 3
0
Panel joints, right flaps

.7 3 Cooling slots, left flaps

I
I
.6 I
Ideal, one dimensional.,
isentropic; y - 1.4-'
.5

.-
e
Configuration C2
m
L
a
- Throat 7

-4._
L
2
L

-
-
.lt-) ,
o
14 1.3 1.2
I converqent
1.1
+Divergent
1.0
L I I L .
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
I
1.5
J
1 6

I 0 Model C-10 Flaps 9.27 1.80 1425

(ref. 21
z d Model C-10 Side wall 9.27 1.80 1425
lref. 21
0 20-CD C3 Right flaps 8.96 1.79 1426

1 1 :
Left flaps 14 33
Top side wall
Bottom side wall

4 9 Panel joints, right flaps

r Ideal. one dimensional,

Throat 7

Convergent Divergent
0L t I I I I I
L4 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Ratio of area at axial station within nozzle to throat area. A,IAt

- . 1.5, nozzle pressure

(b) At wall centerliner internal expansion area ratio, A,I&,
ratio, PT 7lPg. 6.1.
IC)At wall h e r l i n e r internal expansion area ratio, AeIAt, 18: nozzle pressure
ratio, PT,71P~, 9.0.
Figure 21. - Continued.

26
 Test nozzle Static pressure PT,7 3 Divergent
at wall center- - flapangle.
line d - po

-
n
0 ED-CD C4 Rightflaps
Left flaps
Tap side wall
Bottom side wall
Solid symbol denote PdPT,7
I I
U.90 230 23.71

q7,
r Ideal, one dimensional,
senr;t y 1.4 -
-
4 Panel joints, right flaps

id-11 i I I I I I 12
1.4 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20 2.2 24
Ratio of area at axial station within nozzle to throat area, AxIAt

lop side wail

-.-
1 fl- AJAt

':" Solid symbols denote upstream

of nozzlethroat
VI 1.220
a

0
I cr;ho I 1.618
-.5 0 .5
ZIzmax
Left flaps Right flaps
r 2.263

Representation
of nozzle rear
vi eu

.5 0 0 .5 1.0

5.5e
pSIpT.7 pS'pT,7
Bottom side wall
1.618

;:
1.322
Id4 1.0
-.5 0 .5
XZ,Z'
Id-11 At wall centerlines.
Id-21 Across stream at various axial stations x
(dl Internal expansion area ratio AeIA, d 2.3; nozzle pressure ratio PT,71Po
of 13.9.
Figure 21. - Concluded.

27

I:
 nozzle was mounted in the facility (side walls on top and are faired in where possible and extrapolated to the edges
bottom). The wall centerline profile plots include scale- so that the axial profiles at the edges can be drawn in. In
model data from reference 2 for comparison with the some cases where actual measurements were not available
full-scale data. The ideal one-dimensional, isentropic near both edges, symmetry was assumed in drawing the
pressure ratio expressed by equation ( 5 ) is shown by the lines. In other cases a pressure on the adjacent surface
dashed lines. The locations of surface discontinuities due (usually near the corner) was assumed to exist on the
to the design of the cooling panels on the divergent flaps other side of the corner. These points are indicated by the
are also shown in the figures. The across-stream profile tailed symbols. Some of the profiles near the throat are
plots are a composite of four plots, one for each of the estimated (fig. 23(b), e.g.) from trends in other tests
four walls arranged around a representation of a rear where pressure meashements were available.
view of the nozzle. Because of the adjustable nozzle A number of characteristic trends are indicated by the f
configuration some of the side-wall static-pressure- profiles in figures 19 to 23. The basic centerline profiles
measuring orifices were covered by the flaps at the lower along the flaps at the various nozzle pressure ratios are
area settings. At a throat area of 710 cm2 (110 inz), for typical for any convergent-divergent nozzle whether
example, only the centerline orifices provided data on the axisymmetric or nonaxisymmetric (refs. 2 and 12). All
side walls (figs. 19(a-2) and (b-2)). flap pressure profiles show evidence of local shocks or
To assist in the visualization of the complex three- pressure recovery from local overexpansion. These
dimensional flow fields, additional isometric plots of the phenomena occur at or near the throat plane and near
wall static-pressure profiles are presented in figures 22 discontinuities in the flap walls. For example, even
and 23. Figure 22 is an isometric of the curved ideal though the pressure ratio (4.5) for the data shown in
profile, which is assumed to be uniform across the width figure 19(a-1) was near the value for peak performance
of the nozzle. In figure 23(a) profiles for a typical high- for that area ratio (1.2), a large overexpansion occurred
performance data point (from figs. 21(a-1) and (a-2)) are followed by a pressure recovery near the throat on both
shown superimposed on the ideal isentropic curved plane. right and the left flaps. Another pressure rise, which
Figures 23(b) and (c) show data from a high- and a low- could result from shocks triggered by the discontinuities,
nozzle-pressure-ratio test condition, respectively. occurred downstream of the wall discontinuities (at
In figure 23 the data points along the centerlines are symbols labeled 2) on the divergent flaps. (Note the axial
connected by straight lines. The across-stream profiles displacement of the right and left sides.)
Although the flap centerline data show overexpansion
(below the theoretical ideal) near the throat, the side-wall
centerline data near the throat show a local
underexpansion (above the ideal). The scale-model data
show the same trend but lower in magnitude. This
characteristic was consistent for all the data. Further
insight can be obtained from the side-wall plots of figure
u 21(a-2) and the isometric of the same data point in figure
23(a), where wall static pressures were available in the
corners near the throat. Considerable nonlinearity of wall
pressure profiles exists on both the side walls and the
flaps at the throat plane. The nonlinearity is even more
pronounced for the low-nozzle-pressure-ratio example in
figure 23(c). This figure also indicates an inversion of the

i
throat profile a short distance downstream of the throat.
.8
Although the overall pressure ratio of the nozzle for the
.6 test point of figure 23(c) was below the critical for choked
Y'Ymax flow, some of the local static-pressure levels indicated
.4 that t h e flow could have reached sonic velocity locally.
.2
The across-stream pressure profiles are relatively flat
across the full width of the divergent flaps except near the
1. 0 throat, as indicated in the last paragraph. Some pressure
dropoff occurred near the flap edges downstream of the
trailing edge of the side walls, as would be expected (most
clearly seen in fig. 23(a)). The side-wall profiles,
however, show some curvature at other axial stations
Figure 22 - Isometric plot of theoretical onedimensional isentropic wall-static-to-total-
especially at high operating nozzle pressure ratios (fig.
pressure ratio profile. Internal expansion area ratio AeIAt of 1.2 23(b)).
28
 +-- - -4

--- Ideal
Solid symbols denote upstream of throat
Tailed symbols denote data transposed from adjacent surface

Trailing edge of
.8 ps/pT,7 left divergent flap

(a) High-performance data point: internal expansion area ratio, Ae/At, 1.2; throat area, At, 113 cm2 1175 id):nozzle pressure ratio, PTJ/PO, 4.4.
(b) High-area-ratio, high-pressure-ratio data point: internal expansion area ratio, Ae/At. 2 3; throat area, At, 1129 cm2 (175 in2); nozzle pressure ratio, PT,7/Po, 13.9.

Figure 23. -Isometric plots of typical wall-static-to-total-pressure ratio profiles.

 Solid symbols denote upstream of nozzle throat on a 585-13 turbojet engine in an altitude test facility
Tailed symbols denote data transposed from adajcent surfaces over a range of nozzle pressure ratios from 1.6 to 14.0.
1.3 Dry baseline axial thrust performance was determined for
three nozzle throat areas and a range of area ratios from
1.2 to 2.3. The data analysis included corrections in the
performance for coolant flows that bypassed the nozzle
throat and for seal leakages. The corrected data were
compared with theory and scale-model data. The
significant results were as follows:
1 . Above a nozzle pressure ratio of 4.0 the peak
corrected gross thrust coefficient was 0.985 or higher i
for all configurations except one high-divergence-angle
configuration.
2. Maximum gross thrust coefficient occurred at an
internal expansion area ratio of 1.5 for both the
maximum and minimum nozzle throat areas tested.
1. 5
3 . Below a nozzle pressure ratio of 4.0 maximum gross
thrust coefficients decreased with decreases in nozzle
pressure ratio to as low as 0.958 at a nozzle pressure ratio
of 2.5 for the minimum tested area ratio of 1.2.
1.2- (I8 .U P*/PT,7 4. The corrected thrust data were in good agreement
1.0 with one-dimensional theory and scale-model data over
(Cl
the full range of nozzle pressure ratio for most
(c) Overexpanded low-pressure-ratio data point: internal expansion area ratio, Ae/At,
1. 4 throat area, At, 903cm2(140 in2]; nozzle pressure ratio, P T , ~ / P ~1.6.
.
configurations. The poorest agreement occurred at a high
Figure 23. - Concluded. (23.7")divergent flap angle (up to 4 percent below ideal)
and for low-area-ratio configurations (2 percent below
ideal).
Even though the wall static-pressure profiles show 5 . The nozzle discharge coefficients were constant
characteristics that deviate considerably from theoretical, above a nozzle pressure ratio of 5.0, with values of 0.965
the thrust performance remained high for most for a dry-cruise nozzle throat area setting and 0.957 for a
configurations. The axial component of an integration of maximum-afterburning nozzle throat area setting. These
the pressure over the surface areas would probably values are about 2 percentage points lower than the scale-
confirm the high thrust leve!s because the regions of low model results.
pressure are offset in general by regions of high pressure. 6 . Wall static-pressure profile data indicated that
Such an integration was not done for the data reported strong three-dimensional flow effects occurred near the
because there were not enough pressure measurements throat plane and along the divergent flaps near wall
for accurate results. surface discontinuities. These flow effects were more
The effect of the nonideal pressure gradients on other pronounced than those occurring in smooth-walled scale
performance parameters such as the coolant flows models.
required remains to be determined. 7. The magnitude of the data corrections indicated
that substantial thrust penalties could result from coolant
bypass flow and leakage.
Summary of Results
Lewis Research Center
An air-cooled, nonaxisymmetric, two-dimensional, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
convergent-divergent research exhaust nozzle was tested Cleveland, Ohio, January 24, 1983

30
 Appendix A
Symbols

aeea leakage flow from convergent flap

effective leakage area leakage flow from forward hinges
discharge coefficient leakage flow from divergent flap
gross thrust coefficient leakage flow from piston ring seal
increment in C., leakage flow from reverser section
specific heat at constant pressure leakage flow from throat hinges
test cell coolant flow drag force axial distance along nozzle flow path
air friction drag at labyrinth seal across-stream distance along width of nozzle
gross thrust flaps
analytical ideal isentropic gross thrust across-stream distance along side walls
measured gross thrust convergent flap angle to engine centerline
ideal gross thrust divergent flap angle to engine centerline
ideal thrust of bypass coolant flow specific heat ratio
labyrinth seal pressure forces density
measured thrust from load cells
Subscripts:
installation spring force
C coolant
inlet momentum and pressure force (eq. (2)) nozzle exit (engine station 9)
e
fuel-air ratio
G gas
gravitational constant
I leak
Mach number
m measured
mass flow rate, W / g max maximum
pressure P inlet plenum
differential pressure
S static condition
computed static pressure at exit area T total condition
measured wall static pressure nozzle throat (engine station 8)
t
gas constant
X axial station within nozzle
radius
0 ambient test cell
temperature
Engine stations:
velocity
1 airflow-measuring station
flow rate
2 compressor inlet
coolant flow to transition liner
3 compressor exit
coolant flow to left convergent flap
5 turbine exit
coolant flow to left divergent flap
7 nozzle inlet
coolant flow to pivot section
8 nozzle throat
coolant flow to reverser sectior.
9 nozzle exit
coolant flow t o right convergent flap
coolant flow to right divergent t a p Superscript :
coolant flow to side walls * critical

31
 Appendix Is
Leakage Corrections

The postrun leakage calibration was performed with Wc,rin fig. 9)entering the system upstream of the nozzle
the air supply and nozzle hardware at ambient test cell throat was also upstream of the reverser section, where
temperature conditions. The pressure differential APl 73.7 percent of the seal length was located (table 11). The
was varied to include the range encountered in the hot- reverser section was also close to the film-cooling slot,
flow nozzle tests. The amount of actual leakage during where the reverser section coolant Wc,r was discharged
9
the hot-flow tests, however, is a function not only of the along the wall. The temperature of this flow, measured at
pressure differential, but also of the temperature of the the inlet to the slot, was used for calculating the leakage
leakage flow. In addition, the leakage calculation air density. Some hot gas, however, was mixed with the
requires determination of whether the leaks are flowing transition liner coolant Wc,l,which was injected along the
with subsonic or sonic velocity at the leakage area and wall further upstream (fig. 9).
whether the leakage is greater or less than the coolant When the calculated leakage was greater than the
flow supplied internally to the nozzle upstream of the measured internal coolant flow upstream of the nozzle
throat. throat (test 198 in table IV), the temperature of the
When the calculated leakage flow was less than the leakage flow was adjusted to account for the hot gas that
measured internal coolant flow upstream of the nozzle was also flowing through the leak along with the cooling
throat (tests 127 and 164 in table IV), the analysis air.
assumed that only film-cooling air was flowing through After the temperature and flow rate of the leakage
the leak (assumption 3 in Analysis). This assumption was were known, the nozzle throat flow rate and temperature
used because about 90 percent of the coolant (W,J and were determined. When the calculated leakage was less

TABLE I V . - TYPICAL LEAKAGE RESULTS

Test
127 164 198

903 ( 1 4 0 ) 1129 ( 1 7 5 ) 710 (110)

N o z z l e e x p a n s i o n a r e a r a t i o , AJAt 1.2 1.5 1.5
N o z z l e p r e s s u r e r a t i o , PT,~/Po 3.49 6.OE 5.98
C o o l a n t f l o w , p e r c e n t W7:
I n t e r n a l , upstream o f
Transition liner, 5.35 5.32 5.48
R e v e r s e s e c t i o n , %,r 3.49 3.48 4.05
P i v o t section, 0.38 0.40 0.56
!
L e f t c o n v e r g e n t l % p , wC,,f 0.37 0.38 0.38
1/6 o f s i d e w a l l , % 0.25 0.26 0.27
'SwSubtotal v;84 Ka? m;T4
I n t e r n a l , downstream o f A 0.75 0.77 0.72
( b y p a s s around
d i v e r g e n t flap,%,,
) -
le!t
Idf
External overboard discharge
( b y p a s s around At)
R i g h t c o n v e r g e n t f l a p , fW,,C, 0.36 0.38 0.37
R i g h t d i v e r g e n t f l a p , Wc,rdf 0.76 0.77 0.72
5 / 6 o f s i d e w a l l , Wc 1.28 1.28 1.37
'"Sub t o t a1 m 2x3 2x6
C'

I T o t a l c o o l a n t f l o w , W,, p e r c e n t W7 12.99 13.04 13.92

.Leak d i f f e r n t i a l p r e s s u r e , 9.4 (13.6) 7.4 (10.7) 16.9 (24.5)
API, N / c Z ( p s i d )
E f f e c t i v e l e a k a g e area, AI. cm2 ( i n 2 ) 51.3 7.95 i7.2 8.87
Hot-gas t e m p e r a t u r e , T , K ( O R ) 702 [ 1 2 9 6 / 946 117021
C o o l a n t tem e r a t u r e (a$ %,r s l o t ) , 313 (564 306 ( 5 5 0 337 (607
Tc, K (OR!
Computed l e a k a g e t e m p e r a t u r e , 313 ( 5 6 4 ) 306 (550) 417 ( 7 5 0 )
TI, K ( O R )
Nozz 1e t h r o a t t e m p e r a t u r e , 714 (1285) i99 (1079) 946 (1702)
T K (OR)
s
Leakage f l o w r a t e , MI, percent w7 7.94 5.52 11.84

32

~~ . .. ..... .
I
1 than the coolant flow, the coolant that did not leak was Since the solutions are iterative, initial first-try values
i assumed anaiytically to be completely mixed with the hot are needed for the leakage temperature TI and specific
er gas. The resulting value of Tf (lower than T7) was heat of the nozzle throat flow Cp,f.For first try: TI=T,
computed from a heat balance by using variable and C P ,=~Cp,7.
properties. If the leakage was greater than the coolant The properties of the leakage flow are determined in
flow, the nozzle throat flow rate was adjusted for the hot block A (fig. 24), where
gas flowing out the leak, but the temperature remained at
the T7 value.
,
I
When the adjusted temperatures and flow rates
through both the nozzle throat and the leakage area had
t been determined, a corrected gross thrust coefficient was
1: computed by using these adjusted values for evaluating The critical flow static pressure Pt,r is computed to
1 the ideal thrust F, in equation (3). The ideal thrust compare with the ambient test cell pressure Po for
contributions of the overboard and bypass coolant flows determining whether the leak is sonic or subsonic.
were included as previously discussed in Analysis.
A logic diagram of the computations is shown in figure
24. The sequence of the computations and equations used
is outlined in the following paragraphs.
The inputs required are listed in figure 24, where the
temperature, pressure, fuel-air ratio, flow rate, and
thrust are measured values. The effective leakage area A1
was determined from the calibration, and the ideal thrust
of the bypass coolant flows F,,c,extwas separately where PT,[is the average of four wall static pressures in
computed from the pressure, temperature, and flow rate the region of the reverser-blockers. The sonic flow test
of the bypass flow. occurs at block B. If the leakage flow is subsonic (block

Inputs: -
Tc. T7, Ifla+, Leak properties:
‘T.C. ‘T.79 ‘0’ “L4 initialize ‘P, 1 = f(TZ)
Find W l
subsonic
wc. w7. w3. A h
Fg. nv Fi, c, ext C

33
 C), the leakage flow rate is computed as follows: The output-corrected thrust parameters at block K are
computed as follows: I

When the test at block G indicates that the leakage

flow WIis less than the coolant flow W,, the calculation
branches to block L, where the nozzle throat flow
conditions are determined.
If the leakage flow is sonic (block D), the following
equations are used: w,= w,+ w,- w,

v*=
The nozzle throat temperature T, is calculated at block
M, but an iteration is required since the specific heat is a
function of the temperature Tt being computed.
1

The difference between the leakage and coolant flow is

determined at block E. The test flag at block F is used to
ensure that the iteration for a mixed (coolant and hot gas)
TI is completed before continuing to the nozzle throat
calculations (used when the leakage is greater than the The iteration occurs through the convergence test at
coolant flow). The flow test is made at block G and block N to block 0, where a new value of specific heat
branches to block H when W l l W,, where TI is Cp,t is computed:
determined by a heat balance:
CP,t =f [Tt, Cf/a1 tl

When Tt has converged within 1 deg K, the calculation

branches to block K, where the output-corrected thrust
parameters are computed as previously described.
A test for convergence occurs at block I. If TI is not The sensitivity of the calculated gross thrust coefficient
converged within 1 deg K, the calculations for blocks A to the two experimental measurements (AI and TI)that
to E are repeated with new properties in each loop until have the greatest uncertainty in accuracy of measurement
convergence does occur. (see assumptions in Analysis) was calculated for the three
After TI has converged, the calculation branches to typical test points in table IV and is tabulated in table V.
block J, where the nozzle throat conditions are constant In general, these sensitivity factors indicate that the
for this case. Set Tt= T7 and ( f / ~ )Cf/a)7
~ = and the probable accuracy of the corrected thrust performance in
throat flow rate is figures 13 to 17 is within &0.5 percent for variables used
in the leakage correction. Additional error, however,
w,= w7+ w,- w/ could be attributed to measured thrust errors.
34
 TABLE V. - SENSITIVITY OF GROSS THRUST COEFFICIENT
TO LEAKAGE PARAMETERS

Increment i n gross t h r u s t
coefficient, AC
Fo
Effective leakage area:
A / + 10 p e r c e n t
A, - 10 p e r c e n t I I I I
+0.007
-.005
+0.005
-.OM
+0.006
-.007

I
Leakage t e m p e r a t u r e :
TI + 50 deg K (+90 deg R )
TI - 50 deg K (-90 deg R ) I ;:8: I 1
1 I
-e005
+.oo5
I
-.005
+.003 I
I

35
 References
1. Capone, F.J.: The Nonaxisymmetric Nozzle-It is For Real. AIAA 7. Capone, F. J.: Aeropropulsive Characteristics of Twin Nonaxi-
Paper No. 79-1810, Aug. 1979. symmetric Vectoring Nozzles Installed with Forward-Swept and
2. Berrier, B. L.; and Re, R. J.: Effect of Several Geometric Aft-Swept Wings. NASA TP-1778, 1981.
Parameters on the Static Internal Performance of Three 8. Capone, F. J.; Hunt, B. L.; and Poth, G. E.: Subsonic/Supersonic
Nonaxisymmetric Nozzle Concepts. NASA TP-1468, 1979. Nonvectored Aeropropulsive Characteristics of Nonaxisymmetric
3. Re, R. J.; and Berrier, B. L.: Static Internal Performance of Single Nozzles Installed on an F-18 Model. AIAA Paper No. 81-1445,
Expansion-Ramp Nozzles with Thrust Vectoring and Reversing. July 1981.
NASA TP-1962, 1982. 9. Bare, A. E.; Berrier, B. L.; and Capone, F. J.: Effect of Simulated
4. Mason, M. L.; Putnam, L. E.; and Re, R. J.: Effect of Throat In-Flight Thrust Reversing on Vertical-Tail Loads of F-18 and
Contouring on Two-Dimensional Converging-Diverging Nozzles F-15 Airplane Models. NASA TP-1890, 1981.
at Static Conditions. NASA TP-1704, 1980. 10. Nash, D. 0.; Wakeman, T. G.; and Palcza, J. L.: Structural and
5 . Yetter, J. A.; and Leavirt, L. D.: Effects of Sidewall Geometry on Cooling Aspects of the ADEN Nonaxisymmetric Exhaust Nozzle.
the Installed Performance of Nonaxisymmetric Convergent- ASME Paper No. 77-GT-110, 1977.
Divergent Exhaust Nozzles. NASA TP-1771, 1980. 11. Ames Research Staff: Equations, Tables, and Charts for
6. Hutchinson, R.A.; et al.: Investigation of Advanced Thrust- Compressible Flow. NASA TR-1135, 1953.
Vectoring Exhaust Systems for High Speed Propulsive Lift. AIAA 12. Shapiro, A.H.: The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Com-
Paper No. 80-1159, July 1980. pressible Fluid Flow. Vol. I. Ronald Press Co., 1953, pp. 139-143.

36
I 1. Report No.
NASA TP-2171 I
L
2. Government Accession No.

THRUST PERFORMANCE OF A VARIABLE-GEOMETRY,

4. Title and Subtitle
I 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report Date
NONAXISYMMETRIC, TWO-DIMENSIONAL, CONVERGENT- June 1983
DIVERGENT EXHAUST NOZZLE ON A TURBOJET ENGINE AT 6. Performing Organization Code
ALTITUDE 50543-22
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

David M. Straight and Richard R. Cullom E-1451

_ _. - 10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lewis Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No.
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
I Technical Paper
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D. C. 20546

. .
. .

i
. .~ .

16. Abstract
A variable-geometry, low-aspect-ratio, nonaxispmetric, two-dimensional, convergent-divergent
exhaust nozzle was tested at simulated altitude on a turbojet engine to obtain baseline axial, dry-
thrust performance over wide ranges of operating nozzle pressure ratios, throat areas, and internal
expansion area ratios. The thrust data showed good agreement with theory and scale-model test
results after the data were corrected for seal leakage and coolant losses. Wall static-pressure
profile data were also obtained and compared with one-dimensional theory and scale-model data.
The pressure data indicate greater three-dimensional flow effects in the full-scale tests than with
models. The leakage and coolant penalties were substantial, and the method to determine them is
included.

-~ . - -
(Suggested by Author(s1 ) 18. Distribution Statement
Nonaxisymmetric nozzles; Thrust-vectoring Unclassified - unlimited
nozzles; Thrust-reversing nozzles; Nozzle thrust STAR Category 07
performance; Exhaust nozzle leakage

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 22. Price'
Unclassified Unclassified A03
- ~~

* For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 NASA-Langley, 1983
 THIRD-CLASS BULK R A T E Postage and Fees Paid
National Aeronautics and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Space Administration
NASA451
Washington, D.C.
20546
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300

m POSTMASTER: If Undeliverable (Section 1 5 8

Postal Manual) Do Not Return