Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018

SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, INC.

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pa. 15096

J58/YF-12 Ejector Nozzle

Performance

Paul W. Herrick
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, div., United Aircraft Corp.

National Aerospace Engineering

and Manufacturing Meeting 740832
San Diego, California
October 1-3, 1974
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018
J58/YF-12 Ejector Nozzle
THE PURPOSE of this paper is to discuss the aerodynamic
design of the YF-12 blow-in door ejector nozzle and to pre
sent performance data which are tracked throughout the noz
zle's development program. The design of the J58/YF-12 ex
haust nozzle was a cooperative effort of the Florida Research
and Development Center (FRDC) of Pratt & Whitney Air
craft (P&WA) (responsible for aerodynamic design and iso
lated performance) and the Lockheed California Co. (respon
sible for structural design and installed performance). The
variable exit area, blow-in door ejector concept was chosen
for the YF-12 aircraft (Fig. 1) because of the clean installa
tion, the large Mach number range, the secondary flow avail
ability, and weight considerations (1)*. The ejector nozzle
aerodynamic design and performance data were obtained
through: isolated, cold-flow wind tunnel model tests, in
stalled, cold-flow wind tunnel model tests, hot-flow, static
stand model tests, and flight tests.
BLOW-IN DOOR EJECTOR NOZZLE DESCRIPTION
The components of the J58/YF-12 exhaust system (Fig.
2)
are:
1. A mechanically actuated, balanced flap convergent noz
zle.
*Numbers in parenthesis designate References at the end of
the paper.
The Lockheed YF-12 aircraft uses a blow-in door ejector
nozzle, which consists of a variable area, primary nozzle
mounted on the afterburner of a Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
J58 engine and blow-in doors, a convergent-divergent spool
piece, and variable exit area free-floating flaps integrated into
a Lockheed YF-12 airframe. Performance data from cold
740832
Performance
Paul W. Herrick
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, div., United Aircraft Corp.
2.A fixed convergent-divergent shroud.
3.Pressure-actuated blow-in doors.
4.Pressure-actuated trailing edge flaps.
THEORY OF OPERATION - The blow-in door ejector em
ploys both physical and aerodynamic means of reducing over
expansion and underexpansion. During static operation, the
primary exhaust stream, which is at a slightly supercritical
pressure ratio, tends to overexpand in the ejector shroud. The
low static pressure caused by the overexpansion and the ejec
tor pumping action causes three phenomena:
1. Secondary air is drawn through the nacelle helping to
cool the engine and the ejector.
2.The pressure-actuated blow-in doors are sucked open
and external (tertiary) air is pulled into the ejector along with
the secondary air. The combined secondary and tertiary air
flows tend to aerodynamically alleviate the overexpansion by
keeping the primary flow separated from the wall and by
partially filling the exit area.
3.The pressure-actuated trailing edge flaps are sucked
closed to physically reduce overexpansion by reducing the
exit area.
As the aircraft accelerates through the subsonic and tran
sonic regions, the nozzle pressure ratio steadily increases and
the ejector nears complete expansion. Ram compression
causes the pressure of the secondary flow to increase and the
blow-in doors to be forced shut. The secondary flow alone
continues to control the expansion of the primary stream.
ABSTRACT
flow, wind tunnel models and hot-flow, static stand models
were correlated and compared with actual flight test data. It
was found that these data showed agreement when both inter
nal thermodynamic and external aerodynamic effects were
considered.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018
When the ejector achieves complete expansion and tries to
underexpand, the high pressure forces the trailing edge flaps
to open until there is no longer a pressure (hinge moment)
differential across the flaps. The nozzle remains near complete
expansion as the pressure ratio increases until the flaps are
forced all the way open. Further increases in pressure ratio
result in underexpansion. has definite effects on ejector performance. For good perfor
AERODYNAMIC AND MECHANICAL DESIGN CRITE mance with open blow-in doors, the front (convergent) por
RIA[<_->] -
Primary Nozzle - The main function of the primary nozzle
is to control the effective jet area, AJCD, which, in turn, con
trols engine operation. When a large AJCD is desired the
primary nozzle opens up physically. The exit angle becomes
small, dictating a large discharge coefficient. The combined
physical and aerodynamic effects give a maximum AJCD.
When a small AJCD is needed, the nozzle closes down. The
discharge coefficient CD is reduced due to the large exit angle,
and the combined effects result in a minimum AJCD.
Secondary Airflow - Secondary airflow originates in the in
let and may consist of excess inlet air or "shock trap" bleed
air. It flows between the engine and the nacelle and serves
to: purge the engine compartment, cool the engine, and reduce
the pressure differential across the engine case. When the
flow reaches the ejector, it cools the ejector, cushions the ex
pansion of the primary stream, and helps eliminate overex
pansion of the primary stream by opposing premature attach
ment to the ejector walls and partially filling the exit area.
It should be noted that in a flight situation, secondary air
total pressure is determined by altitude and Mach number
and, therefore, an upper limit exists for the amount of secon
dary flow at each flight condition.
Tertiary Airflow - Tertiary airflow is the key to the B-I-D
ejector's feasibility as a large pressure ratio range exhaust sys
tem. The majority of the primary stream cushioning, the de
laying of premature attachment of the primary flow, and the
prevention of overexpansion that occurs during static, sub
sonic, and transonic operation are done by the tertiary air
flow.
Blow-In Doors - There is a tradeoff between the effect of
tertiary air on internal performance and its induction drag. It
is important that the blow-in doors are properly sized and
shaped. When the doors are open, the flow contour (known
as the blow-in door boattail) should be as gentle as possible so
that the tertiary flow undergoes a small momentum change.
The drag caused by supersonic expansion around the blow-in
door boattail also necessitates a gentle slope.
Ejector Shroud - The internal contour of the ejector shroud
tion of the shroud must have a small convergence angle to
minimize the axial momentum loss of the tertiary air. The
throat portion of the shroud must be large enough to permit
the tertiary air to flow into the divergent section without re
striction. For blow-in door closed operation the throat sec
tion must be small enough to prevent rapid overexpansion of
the primary stream and the resulting impingement shocks.
The leading edge of the ejector shroud must be located
radially to permit the required tertiary flow and still not
protrude into the free stream sufficiently to cause large drags.
The external contour should be a gentle boattail, which
smoothly fairs into the external contour of the trailing edge
flaps when they are fully closed.
Trailing Edge Flaps - There are several important design
criteria concerning the trailing edge flaps. The most impor
tant of these are the internal flow contour, the external flow
contour, weight, complexity, and sealing. The optimum flap
design is a compromise among these factors.
A variety of internal flap contours have been tested for per
formance evaluation. A long flapped ejector has flaps hinged
at the throat or minimum shroud portion of the shroud.
This gives a smooth divergent flow contour regardless of the
flap position. The medium and short flap ejectors have a
cusp in the divergent flow contour, which causes internal
oblique shocks to form in all flap positions except wide open.
Fig. 3 illustrates the internal performance gain possible with
the elimination of the cusp.
The external flow contour of the ejector shroud-flap com
bination is important due to boattail and fantail drag. If long,
medium, and short flap lengths were closed down to the same
minimum exit area, the following would be true:
1. The long flap and medium flap configurations would
have the lowest drag because they would have gentle boattails.
2.The short flap would offer drag because it would have a
steep boattail.
If they were all at their maximum exit areas, the following
would occur:
1. The long flap would have the lowest drag because the
external hinge cusp would be shallow and the fantail would
be at a small angle.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018
2.The medium flap would have more drag because the
cusp would be deeper and the fantail would be inclined at a
larger angle.
3.The short flap would have the most abrupt fantail, and
therefore, the most drag.
The long flap is heaviest and hardest to seal. The J58 ejec
tor employs the medium flap as a compromise between the
high performance of the long flap and the low complexity and
low sealing difficulty of the short flap.
WIND TUNNEL MODEL PERFORMANCE
ISOLATED TESTS - Isolated ejector tests were conducted
by P&WA with 2.86% (2 in) and 5.72% (4 in) scale models.
The 2.86% scale models were tested in the United Aircraft
Research Laboratories (UARL) 17 in blow-down tunnel at
Mach 0-2.5 with nozzle pressure ratios of 2.0-50.(2) Cor
rected secondary flow ratios (WST) ranged 0-0.225. Both
open and closed blow-in door configurations were tested. The
nozzle design was altered during the test program to accom
modate a structural "I" beam in the YF-12 design (Fig. 4).
The trailing edge flap hinge point was also moved closer to the
minimum shroud diameter to improve off-design performance.
Wind tunnel testing (250 h) in this program consisted of 605
individual tests.
The 5.72% model tests were conducted in both the UARL
17 in blow-down tunnel and the UARL 8 ft continuous flow
tunnel. These tests were concerned with optimizing the de
sign of the primary (afterburner) nozzle, the configuration of
the ejector shroud, and the amount of the blow-in door area.
Determination of windmilling performance and verification
of the 2.86% scale model performance were also test objec
tives. The original primary nozzle was changed to permit a
larger range of throat areas to be attained. Tabs were added
to the original nozzle to permit a reduction in minimum jet
area, but the model test data showed a 1% deficit in thrust
coefficient when the nozzle was set at an intermediate throat
area. A result was that a new, steeper flap (lower discharge
coefficient), lightweight afterburner nozzle was tested as a
model and incorporated into the YF-12 exhaust system.
3
Simplified ejector shroud designs were evaluated. Two
short shroud designs were tested at supersonic cruise condi
tions. One, which had the same exit area as the J58 nozzle
but a steeper exit angle, was called the short ejector. The other
had the same exit angle as the J58 ejector but a smaller exit
area, and was called the short modified ejector. Fig. 5 shows
that both designs suffered considerable performance losses
relative to the final J58 configuration. The short version ex
perienced high angularity losses while, at the high supersonic
pressure ratio conditions, the short modified nozzle was un
derexpanded.
A fixed-geometry, slotted shroud ejector was also tested. (3)
Design features included a larger blow-in door area and four
contoured slots through the fixed trailing edge flaps. Fig. 6
shows that static performance improved more than 3% above
the J58 design. This is to be expected because there is no drag
at Mach 0, and as ventilation increases, convergent nozzle per
formance improves. At transonic conditions, the combined
effects of shroud drag, air induction drag, and the larger exit
area of the slotted shroud nozzle cause a drastic change in rel
ative performance. Tests also indicated that additional blow
in door area alone would improve the J58 nozzle performance
subsonically where overexpansion exists. However, the amount
of performance improvement varies with the degree of over
expansion of the ejector. If steeper shroud inlet angles are re
quired to obtain the larger blow-in door area, a loss in perfor
mance could result when little or no overexpansion is present.
Early flight test experience indicated that the blow-in doors
were closing both prematurely and asymmetrically. Isolated
nozzle model tests were conducted to evaluate these phenom
4
Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018
ena from a performance standpoint. Fig. 7 shows the losses
experienced by the models in various stages of door closing.
Tests were also run in which the doors were held open well
into the supersonic flight regime. Both premature and late
door closure resulted in performance losses.
INSTALLED TESTS - Installed nozzle model tests were
conducted by Lockheed with the assistance of P&WA. (4)
The program consisted of 8.58% scale (6 in) jet-on nozzle/
wing tests (Fig. 8) and 8.32% scale jet-off full aircraft model
tests in NASA-AMES' Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Facility. The
program determined the effect of the installation design on
the performance of the YF-12 blow-in door ejector. The cor
rection factors for the determination of installed thrust were
used in performance analyses based on data obtained from
P&WA wind tunnel tests of a 2.86% scale isolated nacelle at
0 deg angle of attack. A realistic simulation of the nacelle
installation was needed to determine the influence of the wing
flow field at some angle of attack.
The effect of the wing on the performance of the basic ejec
tor is shown in Fig. 9. The ejector performance degradation
due to the vehicle is approximately 3% from the isolated data
at Mach 1.1. Below Mach 1.01 the ejector performance is
better than that indicated by the isolated data. The perfor
mance drop was traceable to increased nozzle local Mach num
bers, which are coexistent with the lifting wing (Fig. 10). The
full aircraft jet-off tests also showed this local low pressure
field in the vicinity of the nozzles' blow-in doors.
The majority of the configurations tested with tertiary air
flow incorporated fixed, uniform blow-in doors. A few tests
made with asymmetric door openings on a nacelle model indi
cated a small performance degradation. Photographic data ob
tained from flight testing showed that the doors are positioned
as a function of Mach number with one distribution at subsonic
Mach numbers and a secondary distribution at supersonic
Mach numbers. The cause of this asymmetry in door open
ing appears to be a variation in local static pressures in the
wing flow field.
HOT FLOW PERFORMANCE
The pumping characteristics of a cold-air-flowing wind tun
nel model may differ 10% or more from hot, vitiated gas flow
 5
Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018

flight hardware values. The nozzle gross thrust coefficients are

also in error but to a lesser extent. The cold model will usually
yield a lower secondary total pressure for a given corrected sec
ondary flow, and its nozzle gross thrust coefficient may be
either lower or higher.
As a result, a hot flow 8.5% scale model test of the YF-12
ejector was conducted on a static test stand at FRDC. (5)
Thrust coefficient and secondary flow pumping characteristic
data were gathered for models similar to the J58/YF-12 ejec
tor at both transonic acceleration and supersonic cruise condi
tions. Primary nozzle exhaust gas temperatures were varied
from 500-2300°F. Cold secondary air was used and the nozzle ondary flow ratio. The secondary total temperature, however,
pressure ratio ranged from 1:14. Using this data as a check, a
theoretical technique to correct cold model secondary pres
sures for flight-type conditions has been developed. (6) It dif
fers from previous methods in that it includes such effects as
heat and momentum transfer due to the turbulent, compres
sible, nonisoenergetic mixing that actually occurs under en
gine test or flight conditions (Fig. 11). The cold nozzle gross
thrust coefficients are adjusted for the newly determined sec
ondary pressures and ratios of specific heats.
One-dimensional flow relationships indicate that tempera
ture-corrected secondary flow ratio (WST) can be found from
can be a debatable parameter in instances where secondary
flow rate is low compared to primary flowrate.
In both the hot model tests and the full-scale tests, TTS was
defined as the secondary stream total temperature at the en
trance to the ejector. Eq. 1 indicates that the stream param
eters should be choked flow values.
The secondary total temperature at the minimum shroud
(where the compound choke (7) occurs) can be considerably
greater than that which is used in the definition of the cor
rected flow ratio. Heat transfer from the primary stream to
the secondary stream is an important consideration in sec
ondary pumping characteristics.
Momentum transfer from the primary stream to the second
ary stream is another important factor. The secondary total
pressure at the minimum shroud is greater than that at the
entrance to the ejector because mixing occurs along the pri
mary boundary. Although mixing occurs in the cold flow
model tests, the rate of momentum transfer (and therefore
the increase in pressure) is dependent on the relative stream
velocities and temperatures.
The width of the mixing region for turbulent, incompres
sible, parallel streams under isobaric conditions is found from
(8,9)

Secondary and primary physical flow rates and primary total

temperature are clearly defined components of corrected sec
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018
6

where:

The dimensionless coordinates of the incompressible mixing where:

region are given by Abramovich (10) to be

The compressible total and partial widths of the mixing re

gion are found from:

The zero value of Y1* and Y2* occurs at the one-dimen

sional radius of the primary stream. This is the point about
which the heat and momentum transfer are calculated by use
of semiempirical profiles.
The total temperature profile for both incompressible and
compressible coflowing streams in the initial segment of the
jet is given by Abramovich to be:

The compressible velocity profile can now be determined by:

The compressible mixing region coordinates may be ob
tained from the known incompressible values through use of
the inverse transformation,

The one-dimensional solution at the minimum shroud yielded

the one-dimensional primary stream boundary radius. With
the velocity and static temperature profiles across the mixing
region, the actual primary boundary radius can be found by
where ?r (reference density) equals the density of the poten solving:
tial flow portion of the primary stream. The only problem
remaining in applying the transformation is that of determin
ing the density distribution through the mixing region. For
the isobaric case (dp/dR = O), this problem reduces to that
of finding the static temperature distribution because
for Ap since Wp is known. This is done by:

With Ap known, the remaining mass flow through the ejec

tor minimum shroud can be integrated directly:

In this procedure the static temperature profile is found using

the isentropic relationship: If W's is not equal to Ws the procedure goes back and incre
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018
ments PTs up or down depending on whether Ws is less than
or greater than known value ofW ' This iteration goes on
S nacelle, were used to record the position of the upper right
until Ws = WS'
The method of calculating nozzle gross thrust coefficient
for the hot primary flow ejector employs use of the hot flow
secondary total pressure from the pumping characteristics
portion of the procedure along with the ejector geometry,
fiowrates, temperatures, and pressures.
The resulting theoretical prediction technique yields very
good agreement with the results of the hot flow test program
(Fig. 12).
FLIGHT PERFORMANCE
The YF-I 2 nozzle flight test data were evaluated for 42
flight conditions in 14 different flights. (I I) Both afterburn-
ing and nonafterburning operating points were studied from
Mach 0.89-2.97. Secondary flow rates were varied by chang-
ing inlet characteristics.
The left nacelle looking forward was instrumented with
ejector total pressure rakes and static pressure taps (Fig. 13).
The accuracy of the pressure readings is estimated to be ±O.3
in Hg. A trailing-edge flap position indicator consisting of a
deflection beam with a strain gage pickup was connected to
flap number four to determine the nozzle exit area.
'7
External cameras, mounted Inboard and outboard of the
and upper left bank of blow-in doors on selected flights. Ad-
ditional engine and aircraft instrumentation yielding altitude,
Mach number, compressor face pressure, compressor inlet tern·
perature, rotor speed, turbme discharge gas temperature, and
total fuel flow permitted determination of the engine flow
conditions entering the ejector nozzle. Reduction of the pres-
sure tap data into a form suitable for comparison with model
performance required the integration of momentum and pres-
sure-area terms over the control volumes.
The J58 ejector at maximum afterburning operation with
free floatmg blOW-in doors and trailing edge flaps showed a
maximum 3% loss from predicted values from Mach 0.9-1.2
(Fig. 14). Because the doors and flaps were free floating,
their position was determined by a balance of hinge moments
obtained from the internal and external static pressure fields.
The blow-in doors closed at lower Mach numbers than pre-
dicted because there were l.ower than ambient pressures .over
the aft portion of the aircraft. Fig. 15 presents representative
plots of blow-in do.or positi.on versus Mach number as deter-
mined from photographic records. Note the asymmetrical
closing pattern and the range .of Mach numbers required for
the doors to become fully closed.
Blow·in door open ejector performance is primarily a Cunc·
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018
8
tion of the tertiary flow and not the door position. For doors
and flaps free, the data indicate that at least some of the doors
are closed at Mach 1.0 as compared to a predicted clOSing at
Mach 1.28. The premature closing of the blow·in doors reo
duces the tertiary flow area and tends to overexpand the ejec-
tor nozzle causing a performance decrement at Mach 1.0 as
shown in Fig. 14. For comparison, a flight was made with the
blow-in doors fixed in the open position with flaps free; that
condition did not show the performance decrement at Mach
1.0. These data show that performance could be Improved
from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.16 if the premature closing of
blow-in doors was restrained.
A flight in which the doors were fixed open With the trail-
ing edge flaps held closed showed performance levels similar
to the flaps-free flight. This mdlcates that the traIling edge
flaps are approximately in the closed position when allowed
to float free. The main negative deviations between the flight
test data and the 2.86% isolated model test data occur in the
transonic regime. Above Mach 1.5, the blow·in doors are
closed and installation effects are limIted to external drag
changes. Good agreement between the flight and model in-
ternal pressure distributIOns and near equal performance levels
indicate little or no installation effect IS present at supersonic
night Mach numbers.
A method has been devised using the J 58 model and flight
data to predict the transonic Installed performance of a blow-in
door ejector exhaust nozzle in a wing-mounted installation.
(12) The method does not require phYSical simulation of the
aIrframe or adjacent aIrcraft components and yields perfor-
mance differences between an exhaust system operating in
an isolated free-flow field and one operating in the presence of
an aircraft flow field. The prediction technique requires
knowledge of both the external flow field Mach numbers and
boundary characteristics approachIng the exhaust nozzle (Fig.
16). Table 1 gives the variatIOn of the average boundary layer
height approaching the J58 exhaust system for the isolated
test models and full-scale aircraft and a tabulation of the ex-
haust nozzle average local Mach number variation from free-
stream conditions for the YF-12.
The ratio of boundary layer height to blow-in door height
provides a correlation for the quantity of flow entering the
blow-in doors. A relatively large boundary layer reduces the
flow into the blow-in doors and reduces the nozzle perfor-
mance. The combIned boundary layer and local Mach number
effect is summarized in Fig. 17. Both improvements and dec-
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018
9

the blow-in doors. A hot flow model test of the YF-12 ejector
was conducted on a static test stand at P&WA's Florida Re
search and Development Center. Using this data as a check, a
theoretical analysis was performed on the physical, aerody
namic, and thermodynamic boundaries and processes in an
ejector-type aircraft exhaust system. The resulting theoretical
prediction technique yields very good agreement with the re
sults of the hot flow test program.
Thè YF-12 nozzle flight test performance was determined
from momentum and pressure area integrations over the ejec
tor control volume. The main deviations between the flight
test data and the 2.86% isolated model test data also occur in
the transonic regime. A prediction system for wing-mounted,
blow-in door ejector transonic installation effects was devel
oped based on the results of all the wind tunnel model and
flight tests. This system is a function of local Mach number
and boundary layer in the vicinity of the doors and it predicts
quite well installation effects and performance levels and
trends.

NOMENCLATURE

A = area, ft2
B-I-D = blow-in doors
b = total mixing region width, in
CD = discharge coefficient
CFP = gross thrust-nozzle drag ideal gross thrust
CVP = gross thrust/ideal gross thrust
G = acceleration due to gravity, ft-lbm/lbf s 2
K = ratio of specific heats
MO = velocity ratio, MO = VS/VP
= pressure
P
lb/ft2
rements in nozzle performance from isolated or uninstalled
conditions are evident. p PTP = primary total pressure,
A comparison with full-scale nozzle performance measured PTS =secondary total pressure, lb/ft2
in flight is given in Fig. 18. The full-scale exhaust nozzle per R =gas constant, R
formance shows good agreement with the predicted perfor T = temperature, R
mance installation effect.
TS = static temperature, R
SUMMARY TTtotal
= temperature, R
TTP =
primary total temperature, R
The J58/YF-12 exhaust nozzle is the result of a cooperative
effort between Lockheed, California, and Pratt & Whitney TTS = secondary total temperature, R
Aircraft. The aerodynamic design and isolated performance V = velocity, ft/s
was handled by P&WA and structural design and installed per Wp = primary gas flow, lb/s
formance were the responsibility of Lockheed. The variable WS =secondary airflow, lb/s
exit area, blow-in door ejector concept was chosen for the
YF-12 aircraft because of the clean installation, large Mach WST = corrected secondary airflow ratio:
number range, secondary flow availability, and weight consid
erations. Isolated model tests were conducted to optimize
shroud, flap, and primary nozzle configurations using both
2.9% and 5.7% scale models.
Installed 8.5% scale tests showed the presence of the wing of
l
=
X
poin
to
nozzle
primary
from
region
mixing
ength
caused a decrease in doors-open ejector, transonic thrust in
minus drag coefficient. The performance drop was traceable Y = partial mixing region width or radius, in
to increased external local Mach numbers in the vicinity of P = density
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Monday, September 24, 2018

10

SUBSCRIPTS 4.M. I. Leitner, "A Preliminary Report on the Influence

of Wing Flow Field on the Performance of the A-12 Blow-In
1 = mixing region of secondary stream Door Ejector." Lockheed Report SP-756, Dec. 14, 1964.
2 = mixing region of primary stream 5.V. E. Goldsmith, "Hot Flow Ejector Program." Pratt
J = throat & Whitney Aircraft Report SMR FR-2034, Aug. 1, 1966.
M = minimum shroud plane 6.P. W. Herrick, "Hot Flow Ejector Performance-A
O = primary exit plane Theoretical Prediction Technique." Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
P = primary Report FR-2722, Feb. 7, 1968.
r = reference 7.A. Bernstein, W. H. Heiser, and C. Hevenor, "Com
S = secondary pound-Compressible Nozzle Flow." Jr1. of Applied Me
chanics, Vol. 34, September 1967, pp. 548-554.
SUPERSCRIPT 8.V. P. Roan, "On the Turbulent Mixing of Semi-Con
tained Compressible Streams at Constant Pressure and Small
* = choking value or incompressible value Relative Flow Angles." Doctoral Thesis presented at the
iterative
=
'
value University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, June 1966.
9.M. L. Aibertson, et al., "Diffusion of Submerged Jets."
REFERENCES Proceedings American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 74,
1948, p. 1751.
1. H. N. Cotter, "JT11 Turbojet Engine Exhaust Sys 10.G. N. Abramovich, "The Theory of Turbulent Jets."
tems." Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Report FR-265, Oct. 10, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1963.
1961. 11.C.E. Swavely, "Performance of the JT11 D-20 Ejector
2.C. E. Swavely, "Scale Model Test of an Axisymmetric in the YF-12A Aircraft." Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Internal
Blow-In Door Ejector." Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Report Report, Dec. 1, 1964.
FR-773,Dec.23, 1963. 12.C. E. Swavely, "Prediction of Installed Blow-In Door
3.C.E. Swavely, "Windtunnel Tests of a Slotted Shroud Ejector Exhaust Nozzle Performance in Wing-Mounted Installa
Ejector." Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Report FR-963, Mar. 30, tions." Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Report FR-2518, Nov. 14,
1964. 1967.

This paper is subject to revision. Statements and opinions
advanced in papers or discussion are the author's and are
his responsibility, not the Society's; however, the paper has
been edited by SAE For uniform styling and format. Dis
cussion will be printed with the paper if it is published
in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part,
contact the SAE Publications Division.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publica
tion through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a pro
posed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Activities Board, SAE.

page
page booklet. Printed in U.S.A.