General Disclaimer

One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document

This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the
organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as
much information as possible.

This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was
furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy
available.

This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures,
which have been reproduced in black and white.

This document is paginated as submitted by the original source.

Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some
of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original
submission.

Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI)

 Restriction/

This documen
Classification
Cancelled tion affecting
3o3/ H
JAN25 1950 the National D d States, within _7
the meaning o t U.S.C. 50:31 -
and 32. Its tra velation of its
contents in an authorized per- I
son is prohibi

I
PROGRESS REPORT NO. 4-103

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF GAS-FLOW SEPARATION IN

OVEREXPANDED EXHAUST NOZZLES FOR ROCKET MOTORS
CHARLES R. FOSTER
FREDERICK B. COWLES

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
LIP '/ PV
MAY 9, 1949

Restriction/
LEWISNA-CA
U[FFY,
Classificati CLEVELp D OHIO
on
Cancelled
 •
... /••

Restriction/
REST Classification
Cancelled

OBECIT Pject
Contract No. W-04-200-ORD-455
ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT

Progress Report No. 4-103

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF GAS-FLOW SEPARATION IN OVEREXPANDED

EXHAUST NOZZLES FOR ROCKET MOTORS

Charles R. Foster
Frederick B. Cowles

flJJkzj 4AL
Nathaniel Van De Verg, Chief
Liquid Rockets Section

—Luis C. Penn, Director

6.
Je\t Propulsion Laboratory

Clark B. Millikan, thairman

Jet Propulsion Laboratory Board

copy No. A (3

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California
May 9, 1949

Restriction/
RES Classification
Cancelled
 Restriction/ .9
Classification 9
RCancelled ICTED 7 .7 Progress Report No. 4-103

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction and Summary ......................... 1

II. Test Equipment ................................ 2

III. Instrumentation ................................. 2

IV. Test Procedure ................................ 3

V. Results of Tests ............................. 3

A. Separation Data ........................... 4

1. Method of presenting data ..................... 4

2. Tests with nozzle of 15° divergence half-angle-and

at high mixture ratio ..................... 4

3. Tests with nozzle of 15° divergence half-angle at

various chamber pressures ................... 5

4. Tests with nozzle of 15° divergence half-angle and

expansion ratio 20.8 ...................... 5

5. Tests with nozzles of 10, 20, and 30° divergence half-angles . 6

B. Induced Separation .......................... 8

C. Effect of Overexpansion on Thrust .................. 9

VI. Conclusions ................................ 11

Tables...................................... 12

Figures...................................... 15

References................................... 49

LIST OF TABLES

I. Nomenclature ...............................12

II. Rocket Motor Performance Data .......................13

Restriction/
Classification
RESCancelled Page i i i
 Restriction/
Progress Report No. 4-103 RESClassification
Cancelled

LIST OF-FIGURES

Page
1. Underexpansion of Rocket Motor Flame .....................15

2. Correct Expansion of Rocket Motor Flame ....................15

3. Overexpansion of Rocket Motor Flame Without Jet Separation ..........15

4. Overexpansion of Rocket Motor Flame With Jet Separation ........... 15

5. Test Rocket Motor with Optimum Expansion Nozzle ............... 16

6. Overexpanded Nozzles ............................. 16

7. Typical Test Nozzle ................................. 17

8. Typical Test Motor Installation ......................... 17

9. Control Panel and Manometer Bank ...................... 17

10. Typical Thrust and Chamber Pressure Records ................... 18

11. Piping Diagram of Test Installation ..................... 18

12. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, c = 10, a = 15°, High Mixture Ratio . . 19

13. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 15 0 , High Mixture Ratio . . 19

14. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, e = 10, a = 15°, High Mixture Ratio . . 20

15. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 15 0 , p c ' 200 psia ....... 20

16. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 150, Pc 200 psia ....... 21

17. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 15 0 , pc 250 psia ....... 21

18. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 15 0 , p c 300 psia ....... 22

19. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, e = 10, a = 15 0 , p 300 psia ....... 22

20. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, c = 10, a 15 0 , p 300 psia ....... 23

0
21. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 15 P = 300 psia ....... 23

22. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 150, Pc 330 psia ....... 24

23. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, e = 10, a = 150 P = '-' 350 psia ....... 24

rressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 150,

Pressure Pc = 350 psia ....... 25

25. Area Ratio at Plane of Separation vs Chamber Pressure for € = 10, a = 15° . . 25
Restriction/
Classification
Page iv RES
Cancelled
 Restriction/
Classification
RE Cancelled Progress Report No. 4-103

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)

Page
26. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20.8, a= 150 . 26

27. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20.8, a = 150 26

28. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20. 8, a = 15 0 ............. 27

29. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20.8, a = 150 . 27

30. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20. 8, a = 150 28

31. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20. 8, a = 15 0 .............. 28

32. Area Ratio at Plane of Separation vs Chamber Pressure

for a = 15°, € = 10.0 and 20.8 ...................... 29

33. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 10° ............. 30

34. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 100 ............. 30

35. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 10 0 ............. 31

36. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 10 0 ............ 31

37. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 20° ............. 32

38. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 20 0 ............. 32

39. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 20 0 ............. 33

40. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 20 0 ............. 33

41. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0,a = 20 0 ............. 34

42. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 20° ............. 34

43. Area Ratio at Plane of Separation vs Clamber Pressure

for € = 10.0, a = 10, 15, and 200 ..................... 35

44. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10.0, a = 30° ............. 36

45. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 30 0 ............. 36

46. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 30° ............. 37

47. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 30 0 .............. 37

48. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 30 0 ............. 38

49. Area Ratio at Plane of Separation vs Chamber Pressure

for € = 10.0, a = 10, 15, 20, and 30 0 ................... 38
Restriction/
REClassification Page v
Cancelled
 Restriction/
Classification
Progress Report No. 4-103 RE Cancelled

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)

Page
50. Variation of Separation Pressure with Chamber Pressure ...........39

51. Possible Methods for Inducing Gas Separation ................39

52. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

53. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation ...................... 40

54. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation ...................... 41

55. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation ......................... 42

56. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation ...................... 43

57. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation ...................... 43

58. Theoretical Thrust Coefficient, Neglecting Separation ............ 44

59. Experimental Thrust Coefficient, a = 15 0 .................. 44

60. Experimental Thrust Coefficient, a = 10 .0 .................. 45

61. Experimental Thrust Coefficient, a = 20° .................. 45

62. Experimental Thrust Coefficient, a = 15°, e 3. 5, 10. 0, 20.8 ....... 46

63. Hypothetical Flow Structure in Overexpanded Exhaust Nozzle ......... 46

64. Variation of Plane of Gas Separation with Clamber Pressure ......... 47

Restriction/
Classification
Page vi R Cancelled
 Restriction/
Classification
RECancelled Progress Report No. 4-103

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

In a rocket motor having a de Laval nozzle with a fixed expansion ratio, there is
only one pressure ratio 1 /j for which this expansion ratio is correct. At any other
pressure ratio the gases will be either underexpanded or overexpanded, depending on
whether the pressure ratio is higher or lower than the correct value. Rocket motor
flame pattrns illustrating the four possible regimes are shown in Figures 1 to 4,
inclusive. \In Figure 1, the pressure ratio is higher than the correct one for the
fixed expansion ratio of the nozzle, resulting in underexpansio1\of the gases. in
Figure 2, the pressure ratio is thecorrect one. in Figure 3, the pressure ratio is
only slightly lower than the correct one, resulting in overexpansion without separa-
tion of the gases from the wall.JIn Figure 4, the pressure ratio is considerably below
the correct one, resulting in overexpansion with separation of the gases from the
nozzle wall. The present report is concerned primarily with this fourth type of flow,
that is, overexpansion of the gases with separation of the flow from the wall. Such a
situation exists in a rocket motor operating at a considerably lower altitude than
that for which its exhaust nozzle was designed.
Tests were made with overexpanded nozzles, and a record was taken of the pressure
variation along the wall of the nozzle in each test. 2 The pressure followed the
theoretical adiabatic expansion curve down to the point of separation below atmos-
pheric pressure, and then returned quite abruptly to approximately atmospheric
pressure. The point of separation was found to move downstream with increasing chamber
pressure, the curve of separation area ratio vs chamber pressure being nearly a
straight-line function. Typical values are: separation at area ratio 5.5 at 200 psia
chamber pressure, and separation at area ratio 8.3 at 350 psia chamber pressure. Also
the point of separation was found to be relatively unaffected by changes in the nozzle
divergence angle, varying only about 0.8 area ratio at a given chamber pressure for
changes in nozzle divergence half-angles from 10 to 30°.
The gases were found to separate from the wall when they had expanded to a
pressure of about 5 psia, and this separation pressure decreased slightly with
\ increasing chamber pressure. Of special significance is the fact that this separation
pressure appears to be independent of mixture ratio, gas temperature, adiabatic
expansion exponent (and hence propellant combination), total expansion ratio, and
nozzle divergence half-angle.
The loss in thrust resulting from operation of a nozzle having a total expansion
ratio of 10, as compared with one having a total expansion ratio of 3.65, was deter-
mined for various divergence half-angles. A typical experimental loss value was 8 per
cent, compared with a theoretically predicted value of 12 per cent when separation
was neglected.

1The nomenclature used in this report is given in Table I.

2 Some preliminary tests with an overexpanded nozzle were made by R. B. Canright

of this Laboratory, which aided materially in determining the course of the research
reported herein.

Restriction/
Classification
R Cancelled Page 1
Progress Rep ort No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

II. TEST EQUIPMENT

A rocket motor having a nominal thrust of 750 pounds at 300 psia chamber pressure
was used as the test motor. A drawing of this motor is shown in Figure 5. The injector
used in all tests was the impinging-jet type with six pairs of replaceable orifices.
Chamber pressure was measured. at the injector face through a tap not shown in the
drawing. The steel chamber and the chrome-plated copper nozzle were separately cooled
by water. The cooling water was piped through Fischer-Porter rotameters for flow
measurement, and temperature of the water was taken at each inlet and outlet by means
of iron-constantan thermocouples. The millivolt output from these thermocouples was
recorded on either a Brown or a Leeds and Northrup 12-point r e cordi ng potentiometer.
The nozzle shown in Figure 5 was designed for optimum expansion, that is, for
expansion from 300 psia chamber pressure to 14 psia atmospheric pressure at the nozzle
exit. Drawings of the overexpanded nozzles tested are shown in Figure 6. These nozzles
included three having expansion ratios of 10 with divergence half-angles of 10, 15,
and 20°, and one having an expansion ratio of 20.8 with a divergence half-angle of
15°. The nozzle was water-cooled except for the portion between area ratio 3 and the
exit, this portion of the expansion section being uncooled. This type of construction
was possible because the temperature of the exhaust gases was low enough to prevent
overheating of the uncooled portion beyond area ratio 3. This construction also
greatly simplified the installation of the pressure taps for the pressure measurements.
Holes of 1/32-inch diameter were drilled at 1/2-inch intervals in the expanding
portion of the nozzle, starting at approximately area ratio 3 and extending to the
nozzle exit. These holes were drilled carefully to be normal to the nozzle surface
and to have sharp corners without burrs. The pressure was conducted to the mercury
manometer bank through copper tubes, 1/4 inch in diameter, which were brazed into the
nozzle wall as shown in Figure 6. Certain of the pressure taps were repeated in two
other circumferential locations around the nozzle in order that any nonsymmetry of
pressure might be determined. Figure 7 is a photograph of a typical nozzle showing all
these details of construction. in this photograph, the cooled copper portion of the
nozzle appears in the center, the outer case for optimum expansion is at the left, and
the outer case for overexpansion is at the right.
Ine test rocket motor was mounted on a parallelogram-type thrust stand as shown
in the photograph of Figure 8. The parallelogram was supported by eight ball bearings
and pushed against a hydraulic piston (area 1 sq in.) for transmission of the thrust
force to the recording gage. The hydraulic piston was rotated slowly within its
housing in order to minimize friction forces. Operation of the rocket motor was
observed through the windows between the control room and the concrete test area.

III. INSTRUMENTATION

The quantities of most importance to be measured during a test were thrust,

chamber pressure, and pressures at the various stations in the expanding portion of
the nozzle. Additional data taken but considered of minor importance were flow of
oxidizer, flow of fuel, flow of cooling water through the chamber and nozzle, and
temperature rise of this cooling water.
In order to increase the readability of the thrust measurement on the recording
gage, a mechanical preload was applied to the thrust system. Known weights were placed
in the preload pan on its lever arm, visible in Figure 8 just under the rocket motor,
and acting in the direction opposite to that of the thrust force. The preload force
could be varied by changing the weights in the preload pan; thus a thrust of 500 to
1000 pounds was always measured on a 250-pound gage. The instrument used was a Brown
/

Page 2 - RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

circular chart-recording pressure gage, having a range of 0 to 250 psi. A similar

gage, having a range of 0 to 500 psi, was used to obtain the chamber pressure record.
The two circular chart-recording gages appear at the top of the control panel in
Figure 9. Typical thrust and chamber pressure records obtained on these gages are
shown in Figure 10. In this Figure, a portion of each of the circular charts has been
reproduced. Note that, in this particular test, a preload of 426 pounds was used; the
total thrust is therefore the chart reading plus 426 pounds. The chamber pressure was
235 psig (or 249 psia).
Pressures from the taps in the expanding portion of the exhaust nozzle were
transmitted to the mercury manometer bank shown in Figure 9. There were twenty-six
tubes in this bank. The black inch marks visible in the photograph were a great help
in reading the mercury level in the various tubes. The manometer was illuminated from
the rear in order that good pictures could be obtained. Pictures of the manometer bank
were taken at frequent intervals during the tests. A means was provided for blowing
out the tubes leading to the manometer bank, the twenty-six valves at the left in
Figure 9 being used for this purpose. The tubes were blown out just before each test
in order to remove any moisture condensation.
For propellant flow measurement, the depth of each propellant in its calibrated
tank was measured before and after each test. The flow rate of the propellant was then
obtained by dividing the quantity of propellant used by the duration of the test. The
cooling water for the rocket chamber and nozzle was metered through Fischer-Porter
rotameters. These rotameters were the visual type, giving a direct reading of the flow
of water in pounds per second.

IV. TEST PROCEDURE

The test cell was piped according to the simplified diagram shown in Figure 11.
The propellant tanks, containing red fuming nitric acid (6/47, NO added) and aniline,
2
were equally pressurized from commercial high-pressure nitrogen cylinders through a
pressure-reducing regulator. Opening the first set of valves in the propellant lines
established flow through the restrictors in the starting circuit. The ignition of red
fuming nitric acid and aniline in the rocket motor is spontaneous. The chamber
pressure developed by this restricted flow acted on a pressure switch which in turn
opened the second set of valves in the propellant lines, establishing the 'flow through
the full-flow circuit. With this method of operation, test starts were obtained
quickly and were nearly identical from test to test.
Tests were normally 30 seconds in duration, and in those tests made with over-
expanded nozzles, pictures were taken of the manometer bank recording the nozzle
pressures at 1- or 2-second intervals. From these manometer pictures it was determined
that equilibrium conditions were reached in approximately 5 seconds, and pressures
were relatively steady after that interval.

V. RESULTS OF TESTS

The exhaust nozzle for a rocket motor normally has a much larger divergence angle
than is usual in the design of the de Laval steany nozzle. The advantage of increasing
the nozzle divergence angle is the reduction in the weight of the nozzle and in the
surface area of the nozzle through which heat losses occur. The disadvantage is, of
course, a loss in thrust. Early experiments at this Laboratory indicated that a
divergence half-angle of 15° was a good compromise when these factors were considered,
and nozzles having approximately this divergence angle have been used since that time.
In the present series of tests, a nozzle having a divergence half-angle of 15°
was tested first. Subsequently, nozzles having divergence half-angles of 10 and 20°
I'

RESThICTED Page 3
Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

were tested, since it was believed that this range would cover the normal spread
encountered in rocket motor work. Finally, because an apparently anomalous result was
obtained, a nozzle having a divergence half-angle of 30° was tested.

A. Separation Data

1. Method of. presenting data. Results of individual tests are presented by

plotting the pressure ratio pa/p against the area ratio f/ft , where

p pressure measured at plane in nozzle

f = area of nozzle cross section where pressure is p

PC = chamber pressure
nozzle throat area

Included on each graph of the data are theoretical curves assuming adiabatic expansion
of the gas through the nozzle according to the usual expression (Cf. Ref. 1):

I r ___
V ( ( _p
\\PC ) \Y- 1,1 • .PC

in which r' is a constant defined by the equation

y+1
/ 2 1) . 2( - 1)
= Y
+

Theoretical curves for y = 1.20 and y = 1.26 are included, since these values will
approximately bracket conditions encountered in the acid-aniline rocket motor.
The results from groups of tests have been summarized in regard to separation
data byplotting the chamber pressure against the area ratio at which separation occurred.

2. Tests with nozzle of 15° divergence half-angle and at high mixture ratio.
Operation at a mixture ratio of approximately 3 produces maximum exhaust velocity with
the acid-aniline propellant combination. However, at this mixture ratio, where the
combustion temperature is 5020°F, the lifetime of some rocket motor parts (such as
chrome-plated copper nozzles) is rather limited. For this reason, most tests were
made at a mixture ratio of 1.9 to 2.0 (combustion temperature 3650°F'), but a few tests
were made at high mixture ratio to determine the effect of varying this parameter.
Three tests were made at mixture ratios of 3.1 to 3.3, and the data are plotted
in Figures 12, 13, and 14. The nozzle had a divergence half-angle of 15° and a total
expansion ratio of 10.0, and the tests were made at 302 to 306 psia chamber pressure.
The experimental curve followed the theoretical adiabatic expansion curve down to the
point of separation (which was considerably below atmospheric pressure) and then rose
quite abruptly to approximately atmospheric pressure. Separation of the gas from the
wall in these tests. at .high mixture ratio occurred.ataiarea ratio of 8.0 to 8.1
where the static pressure was 5 psia.
Subsequent tests at lower mixture ratio showed that the experimental curve
followed the theoretical adiabatic expansion curve of a correspondingly higher value
of y, as it should for a lower combustion temperature. In fact, in most tests, the

Page 4 . . RESTRICTED


RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

shape of the pressure curve upstream from the separation point fitted a theoretical
adiabatic expansion curve closely enough to permit determination of the effective
adiabatic exponent y to a fair degree of accuracy. Thus, since the effect of changes
in mixture ratio had been tested and found to be normal and predictable, the remaining
tests were made at a mixture ratio of about 1.9 in order that the equipment would have
a suitable lifetime.

3. Tests with nozzle of 150 divergence half-angle at various chamber pressures.

With the nozzle having a total expansion ratio of 10.0 and a divergence half-angle of
15°, a systematic study of the -effect of variations in chamber pressure was made. All
of the tests were - made at a mixture ratio of about 1.9. Results of the individual
tests are shown in Figures 15 through 24, which are arranged in order of increasing
chamber pressure. Separation of the gases from the wall occurred at every chamber
pressure tested, with a rather abrupt return to near-atmospheric pressure just down-
stream the separation point, and then a gradual return to exactly atmospheric
pressure at the nozzle exit.
In several of these tests (Cf. Figs. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24) a nozzle
was used in which the pressure taps extended as far upstream as the throat of the
nozzle. The purpose of these tests was to determine that no discontinuities existed
in the expansion process at any place between the throat and the nozzle exit. That no
discontinuities existed is evident from the smoothness of the curves plotted from the
measurements taken. Within the experimental accuracy, the measured throat pressure
agreed with the predicted value (Cf. Ref. 1) of

V
t ( 2
PC
y+i)
A summary curve for the separation data is presented in Figure 25, in which the
area ratio at the plane of separation is plotted against chamber pressure. From this
curve it is seen that the point of separation moves downstream as the chamber pressure
increases. The change is nearly a straight-line function, the point of separation
varying from area ratio 5.5 at 200 psia chamber pressure to area ratio 8.3 at 350 psia
chamber pressure.
As noted in Section II, on some of the nozzles certain pressure taps were
repeated in two other circumferential locations around the nozzle in order that any
nonsymmetry of pressure might be determined. During the tests, the pressures were
found to be quite symmetrical, the greatest deviations occurring, as would be expected,
in the pressure downstream from the plane of separation where the-pressure curve was -
returning very steeply toward atmospheric pressure. The method of indicating the 7'
asymmetry of pressure is given in Figure 21. Here the dotted vertical line through. -
alternate test • points indicates the amount of asymmetry at the point, and the three
circumferential pressures fall within these vertical lines. The only point of appre-
ciable difference is at area ratio 7.55, which is just downstream from the separation
plane. Because of the rapid rate of change of pressure in this region, this asymmetry
is also negligible. in all subsequent graphs, vertical dotted lines through test)
points have the same meaning as indicated here.

4. Tests with nozzle of 15 0 divergence half-angle and expansion ratio 20.8.

Tests were made with a nozzle having a total expansion ratio of 20.8 and a divergence
half-angle of 15°. One purpose of these tests was to determine whether the length of

RES7RICI'ED - Page 5
Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

the nozzle affected the plane of separation of gases from the wall. Data from the
individual tests are shown in Figures 26 through 31, which are arranged in order of
increasing chamber pressure. The pressures were nearly identical with the pressures
measured in the nozzle having a total expansion of 10, following the theoretical
adiabatic expansion down to the point of gas separation and then returning to atmos-
pheric pressure at the nozzle exit. Also the plane of separation of the gases was
nearly identical, as indicated by Figure 32, in which the area ratio at the plane of
gas separation is plotted against chamber pressure. The experimental points for both
nozzles (€ = 10.0 and € = 20.8) are shown in the Figure.
Although the plane of separation of the gases from the wall is not affected by
the length of the nozzle, the thrust of the motor is less for the nozzle having a
total expansion € of 20.8 than for the nozzle having a total expansion € of 10.0. The
increased loss is due to the larger area of the nozzle downstream from the separation
plane where the pressure inside the nozzle is subatmospheric. More details on this
point will be given in Section V-C.
Another important result has been determined with this greatly overexpanded
nozzle; the detached flow persists even when the chamber pressure is made sufficiently
low to satisfy conditions for the occurrence of a plane shock wave within the nozzle.
According to the rocket motor theory which neglects separation, the plane shock wave
would stand at the exit plane of the nozzle when the pressure just upstream from the
normal shock p and the chamber pressure are such (Cf. Ref. 2) that

y-i
= 4y y -I
P, si y2 - y+ I
I (^P_
[)
Sci

and

,,+ I
2 2(y - I)

fe + 1)
ft
, \ V
Ps
(
Vc)
For any chamber pressure less than this value, the theory indicates that the shock
wave would occur within the nozzle.
For the nozzle having a total expansion ratio of 20.8, the conditions for the
normal shock to stand at the exit plane of the nozzle are satisfied when the chamber
pressure is 197 psia. Tests were made with the nozzle at chamber pressures as low as
130 psia; separation continued to occur, with no indication of the normal shock at any
chamber pressure between 130 and 200 psia. Figure 32 shows one point at 167 psia
chamber pressure with gas separation occurring at expansion ratio 4.7.
Thus it has been demonstrated that, with a nozzle having a divergence half-angle
of 15° and under the conditions of the tests, the plane shock wave solution postulated
in such theories as Reference 2 does not occur.
5; Tests with nozzles of 10, 20, and 30 0 divergence half-angles. Rocket motor
nozzles for most applications may be expected to have a divergence half-angle between

Page 6 RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

about 10 and 200. In order to have complete data covering this range, tests were mad
with a nozzle having a divergence half-angle of 10 0 and also with one having a
divergence half-angle of 200. For each of these nozzles the total expansion ratio was
10.0, similar to the previous nozzle having a divergence half-angle of 15°.
Pressures measured during individual tests with a nozzle of 10° divergence half-
angle are shown in Figures 33 through 36, which are arranged in order of increasing
chamber pressure. Similarly, tests with a nozzle of 20 0 divergence half-angle are
shown in Figures 37 through 42. The behavior in these nozzles was similar to that in
the previous nozzles, pressure following approximately an adiabatic expansion curve
to the point of separation and returning to atmospheric pressure at the nozzle exit.
A summary of the separation data for these two nozzles, as well as a repetition
of the data for the nozzle of 15° divergence half-angle, is given in Figure 43. As
shown, separation occurred in the 10 and 20° nozzles along curves parallel to the
curve for the 15° nozzle, but at slightly larger area ratios for equal chamber
pressures. The curve for the 20° nozzle fell between the curves for the 10 and 15°
nozzles, and the small scatter of the data around these curves seemed to indicate
that this effect was real.
Because of the apparently anomalous results mentioned in the previous paragraph,
a nozzle having a divergence half-angle of 30° was constructed and tested in an effort
to clear up this effect. Pressures measured during individual tests with the nozzle of
30 0 divergence half-angle are shown in Figures 44 through 48, which are arranged in
order of increasing chamber pressure. The data did not have the same consistency as
had been obtained with the previous nozzles, and when the separation data were
plotted, as shown in Figure 49, the points scattered among the points for the other
three nozzles.
The scatter obtained with the nozzle of 30° divergence half-angle was probably
due to one, or a combination, of the following factors: (1) Tests for symmetry of
separation made with the 20° nozzle (vertical dotted lines through points in Figs. 37 7
through 42) showed an increase in asymmetry of separation over that in the 10 and 15°
nozzles. Tests for symmetry of separation were not made with the 30° nozzle, and it
seems probable that there was a greatly increased amount of asymmetry of separation
with the nozzle of such a large divergence angle. This factor would account for the
scatter in the separation data, and is very likely the major contribution. (2) Another
possible source of difficulty may be that 30 0 is approaching too closely the angle at
which separation is caused by divergence, and may thus result in unstable pressures in
the overexpanded portion. SeparatIon of the gases from the wall is known to occur with
a divergence half-angle somewhere between 30 and 40°.
Although testing the 30 0 nozzle did not in itself clear the apparently anomalous
results obtained with the other nozzles, it showed an important result: The plane of
separation is relatively unaffected by changes in the nozzle divergence angle. It is
evident, for instance, that in Figure 49, at a chamber pressure of 300 psia, separa-
tion would occur at an area ratio between 7.4 and 8.2 for any nozzle divergence half-
angle between 10 and 30°. For all practical applications, this range of divergence
angles is more than adequate, and rocket performance with overexpanded nozzles can be
quite accurately estimated from the data presented.
Another result s which is possibly the most important with regard to practical
applications, is a crossplot, from all of the foregoing curves, of separation pressure
vs chamber pressure. This plot is shown in Figure 50, which includes points at high
mixture ratio, at low mixture ratio, with total expansion ratios of 10.0 and 20.8,
and with nozzles having divergence half-angles of 10, 15, 20, and 30 0 . Although there
is considerable scatter of the points, there is a definite trend indicating that the
pressure at which separation of the gases from the wall of the nozzle occurs decreases

RESWICThD Page 7
Progress Report No. 4-103 '. - RESTRICTED.

as chamber pressure increases. Since points are included from all the nozzles tested,
this curve appears to he independent of mixture ratio, gas temperature, adiabatic
expansion exponent 'y (and therefore propellant combination), total expansion ratio,
and nozzle divergence half-angle. The one question that 'could not be determined with
the present experimental equipment was the effect of varying the back pressure. in all
tests, the back pressure was atmospheric pressure of about 14.2 psia. If the influence
of the absolute value of.back pressure is not appreciable, the designer of a high-
altitude rocket could assume adiabatic expansion of the gases from the chamber
pressure to the pressure shown by Figure 50, at which pressure separation would take
place; thus the designer could determine thrust at launching and during flight.

B. Induced Separation

For each external pressure there exists an optimum nozzle whose expansion ratio
gives maximum thrust. For vertical flight, where pressure is continually decreasing,
the most efficient nozzle would be one with a continually varying expansion ratio.
Because of the evident difficulties of constructing such a nozzle, present-day rockets
have a rigid nozzle designed for some mean altitude. in some instances, however, an
appreciable increase in altitude might be obtained by having two or three expansion
ratios built into one nozzle with a means for causing gas separation to change from
one to another. It has been shown (Cf. Ref. 3) that, in most instances, very little
advantage is obtained by having more than two such steps.
During the course of the present investigation, several possible methods of
inducing separation at a desired area ratio have come to mind. (1) A ring (or rings)
of holes (Cf. design a of Fig. 51) might be drilled in the nozzle wall and connected
to external pressure or ram pressure of the ascending rocket, causing separation at
the air inlet. These onings could be valved off as the rocket ascended and a larger
nozzle area ratio was required. 2) An abrupt change in angle in the diverging portion
of the nozzle wall (Cf. design b of Fig. 51) might cause separation at low pressure
ratios of p c1po and not at the higher 'pressure ratios at increased altitude. (3) A
step (or steps) of material of proper melting temperature might be placed in the
diverging portion of the.nozzle to cause separation until each successive step was
burned away (Cf. design c of Fig. 51). (4) A sliding section might be built into the
nozzle that would move out into position at a predetermined pressure ratio (Cf. design
d of Fig. 51).
A few preliminary tests have been made using the first of these methods, that is,
drilling holes through the nozzle wall to allow air to be drawn in, thus causing
separation. Six tests were made. A brief description of each test follows, and graphs
of pressure ratio vs area ratio for each test are shown in Figures 52 through 57.
1. In test E40W (Cf. Fig. 52) the nozzle having a divergence half-angle
of 15° and a total expansion ratio of 10.0 was used. First, fourteen
holes of 1/4-inch diameter were drilled through the nozzle wall at area
ratio 7.0. At a chamber pressure of 330 psia where separation would
occur normally at area ratio 8.0, separation was induced at the air
inlet holes at area ratio 7.0. Fluctuations in the pressure near the
separation point are indicated by the dotted portion of the curve with
the limits of fluctuation indicated by the two plotted points at area
ratio 7.0.
2. In test E41W (Cf. Fig. 53), using the same configuration as in test
E40W, a test was made at 350 psia chamber pressure where separation
would occur normally at area ratio 8.3. Again, separation occurred at
the air inlet holes at area ratio 7.0. Increased fluctuations in

Page 8 RESThICfED
RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

pressure downstream from the separation point were noted.

3. In test E42W (Cf. Fig. 54) an effort was made to distribute the in-
coming air more evenly; the fourteen holes of 1/4-inch diameter were
connected by a groove 3/32 inch wide and 1/8 inch deep on the inner
surface of the nozzle. A test was made at 351 psia chamber pressure
where separation would occur normally at area ratio 8.3. Separation
occurred at the air inlet, and an appreciable decrease in the pressure
fluctuations downstream from the separation point was obtained.
4. In test E44W (Cf. Fig. 55) a second ring of holes consisting of five
holes of 1/4-inch diameter was drilled through the nozzle wall at area
ratio 4.8 and connected by a groove 3/32 inch wide and 1/8 inch deep on
the inner surface. The objective was to cause gas separation at this
area ratio. A test was made at 328 psia chamber pressure where separa-
tion would occur normally at area ratio 8.0. Separation did not occur
at the upstream air inlet at area ratio 4.8, but continued to occur at
the second air inlet at area ratio 7.0.
5. In test E45W (Cf. Fig. 56), using the same configuration as in test
E44W, a test was made at 255 psia chamber pressure, at which pressure
the normal separation point is at area ratio 6.6 Separation did not occur
at the upstream air inlet, but continued at the normal separation point.
6. In test E47W (Cf. Fig. 57), in order to simulate ram pressure in an
actual vehicle, nitrogen gas at a velocity of 500 ft/sec was introduced
at the upstream air inlet holes. This velocity was chosen since it is
that of the existing R'AC CORPORAL vehicle at the end of boost. With a
chamber pressure of 308 psia (normal separation point area ratio 7.6)
the gases still did not separate at the upstream air inlet, but
continued to separate at the downstream air inlet at area ratio 7.0.
In this series of preliminary tests, a limited amount of success was obtained
with this method of inducing separation of the gases from the rocket nozzle wall. For
a specific application in which an appreciable advantage could be obtained by having
more than one nozzle expansion ratio, additional tests with design a of Figure 51
(or one of the other three designs) would be warranted, with good chances for early
successful achievement. Examples of the advantage that can be obtained by having a
nozzle with two expansion ratios rather than one fixed expansion ratio have been
calculated in Reference 3. A nozzle designed with an infinitely variable area ratio,
such that the optimum may be obtained for each altitude, was chosen (Cf. Ref. 3) as
the standard by which maximum performance may be calculated. The ratio of the summit
altitude reached by a rocket vehicle with a conventional nozzle of fixed area ratio to
the altitude obtained by the ideal nozzle is symbolized by the ratio ft. In one example
it is shown that, for a rocket vehicle having a sea-level specific impulse of 200
seconds, an initial acceleration of 1 g, and initial velocity of 0, a loading density
of 0. 85, a chamber pressure of 300 psia, and y of 1.2, the optimum fixed expansion
ratio is 7.5 and ft = 0.835. Then if a two-step nozzle of expansion ratios 6 and 35 is
substituted, all other conditions remaining the same, ft is increased to 0.913. In
other words, a 9 per cent increase in summit altitude is obtained by using a two-step
nozzle having expansion ratios of 6 and 35 over the altitude reached by a single-step
nozzle of expansion ratio 7.5. Similar increases in altitude are indicated in the
other examples calculated in Reference 3.

C. Effect of Overexpansion on Thrust

The equation for thrust of a rocket motor may be written in the form (Cf. Ref. 1)

RESTRICTED Page 9
Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

F =&Ve+ ( P e Po)fe

The two terms in the right-hand member of the equation are referred to as velocity
thrust and pressure thrust, respectively. If P e = p 0 , all the thrust is velocity
thiust. If Pe < p 0 , the gases are overexpanded and the pressure thrust is negative,
although partially compensated by an increased velocity thrust. If Pe > p0 , the gases
are underexpanded. Although the pressure thrust will then be positive, it will not
compensate completely for loss in Ve caused by inadequate expansion. in the present
report, the effects of overexpansion on thrust are correlated by means of the thrust

I
coefficient Cf.

r __

v
CF' 2 j-( (^ePo fe
L- L
+
PC
I
1
PC )7
In a rocket motor nozzle, if the phenomenon of jet separation did not take place
but the gases followed an adiabatic expansion process down to the nozzle exit, then
the theoretical loss in thrust would be as shown in Figure 58 for a change in expan-
sion ratio from 3.5 to 10.0. Here Cf has been plotted against PC for € = 3.5 and
e = 10.0, assuming y = 1.26 and no loss due to nozzle divergence ()'. = 1.0). The loss
in thrust in changing from E 3.5 to € = 10.0 varies from 24.4 per cent at p = 200
psia to 8.8 per cent at p = 350 psia. in an actual nozzle, jet separation does occur
and the loss in thrust is not as great as the theory indicates. in Figure 59, experi-
mental CF values have been plotted against p for nozzles having expansion ratios of
3.5 and 10;0, each having a nozzle divergence half-angle of 15 0 . It is seen that the
loss in thrust in changing from € = 3.5 to E = 10 0 amounts to approximately 9. 2 per
cent at P C = 200 psia to 7.1 per cent at P = 350 psia. In Figures 60 and 61, similar
data are presented for nozzles having divergence half-angles of 10 and 20°, respec-
tively, although the number of experimental points with these nozzles is insufficient
to establish the curves to the same degree of accuracy as the curve for the 15
nozzle.
In tests made with the nozzle having a total expansion ratio of 10.0, the loss in
thrust can also he obtained by integrating the pressure forces acting on the nozzle
between area ratios 3.5 and 10.0. This check method was used in several tests and, by
means of a graphical integration, agreement within 1 per cent of the measured thrust
was obtained.
When separation of the gases takes place in a nozzle, subatmospheric pressure
exists in the nozzle from that point to the nozzle exit. Thus, when the nozzle having
a total expansion of 20.8 was tested, the gases separated at the same area ratio as
in the nozzle having a total expansion ratio of 10.0 (as shown in Section V-A of this
report); the thrust, however, was somewhat decreased. This effect is shown in Figure
62 in which CF is plotted against chamber pressure for the nozzles having € = 3.5,
10.0, and 20.8. The ideal theoretical curve (A. = 1.0) is included in Figure.62.
Whereas the average thrust loss between € = 3.5 and € = 10.0 is about 8 per cent, the
average loss between € = 3.5 and € = 20.8 is about 11 per cent.
A suninary of the rocket motor performance data obtained during all tests is given
in Table II. In examining this table, it should be remembered that the accuracy of
thrust, chamber pressure, and CF is good, but that the accuracy of mixture ratio,
exhaust velocity, and specific impulse is only fair because of the tank deflection
method of obtaining flow rates. The accuracy of these latter items also decreases as
the duration of the test decreases because of the influence of end effects (starting
and stopping transients).

Page 10 RE.STRIG'IED
RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Although the phenomenon of jet detachment has been observed before, the sys-
tematic behavior of the point of separation with chamber pressure apparently has not
been described in the literature on this subject. in Reference 3, a hypothesis for
predicting the nature of these curves of-pressure ratio vs area ratio was established..
It was assumed in Reference 3 that the detachment of the jet was accompanied by an
oblique shock wave near the nozzle wall, and that the angle and strength of the.
oblique shock corresponded to the wedge angle 8, by which the stream lines adjacent to
the wall were deflected. The hypothetical flow structure is. sketched in Figure 63-. By
means of one-dimensional supersonic nozzle theory and one-dimensional oblique shock
theory (applicable to the local region near the wall), a system of equations was
developed that could be solved for the area ratio of separation as a function of
pressure ratio for various parametric values of the wedge angle 8. If the experimental.
data for various values of a and the theoretical data for various values of the wedge
angle 8 are both plotted on the same graph, as in Figure 64, it is found that the
experimental curve for each nozzle is reasonably parallel to the family of theoretical
curves for constant wedge angle. The assumption of a constant wedge angle of 18±3°.
would include all of the experimental data. An interesting conclusion is that, over
the range of conditions tested, the wedge angle is almost independent of the nozzle
divergence angle, and is relatively unaffected by changes in pressure ratio, gas
temperature, adiabatic expansion exponent y, and nozzle length.
Another conclusion which has been tentatively established is that the separation
pressure is independent of mixture ratio, gas temperature, adiabatic expansion
exponent y (and hence propellant combination), total expansion ratio, and nozzle
divergence angle. This conclusion will be checked by further experimentation already
undertaken by this Laboratory, using nitrogen gas in a two-dimensional nozzle.1
Since jet separation is found to occur in highly overexpanded nozzles,, the loss
in thrust at launching of a sounding rocket is not as severe as the theory predicts
when jet separation is neglected. Preliminary attempts to induce separation at a
desired area ratio have met with some success, and the performance of a sounding
rocket might be improved by inducing separation of the jet at two or more area ratios
during the powered flight.

'Unpublished report on experiments with two-dimensional supersonic exhaust

nozzles using nitrogen gas by John D. McKenney of this Laboratory.

RESTRICTED Page 11
Progress Report 'No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

TABLE II

NOMENCLATURE

c = effective exhaust velocity (ft/sec).

c' = characteristic exhaust velocity (ft/sec).

CF = thrust coefficient.

f = area (sq in.).

nozzle exit area (sq in.).

fS = area at plane of separation (sq in.).

f t = nozzle throat area (sq in.).
F = thrust (lb).

ISP = specific impulse (lb sec/lb).

= mass flow rte (lb/sec).

p = pressure (psia).

pc = chamber pressure (psia).

Pe = pressure at nozzle exit (psia).

p0 = atmospheric pressure (psia).

• = pressure at plane of separation (psia).

= pressure upstream from normalshock (psi).

Pt = pressure at nozzle throat (psia).

• r = mixture ratio = wo/wf.

time (sec).

Ve = exhaust velocity parallel to axis (ft/sec)

Wf = fuel flow rate (lb/sec).

wo = oxidizer flow rate (lb/sec).

a = nozzle divergence half-angle (°).

y = ratio of specific heats.

€ = fe/ft = nozzle expansion ratio.

)2(Vul)
r' =y (_2
+1

9 = wedge angle (°).

= nozzle divergence angle function.

Page 12 • RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

TABLE II

ROCKET MOTOR PERFORMANCE DATA

Test t F Pc r c* C, Isp Po Ps Is
No. (sec) (1b) (psia) (ft/sec) (sec) (psia) (psia)
It
,
E = 3.5 (Optill1l.ll!l); a = 15°
32
31
30.5 479
27.0 . SOO
201
210
1.88
1. 92
4030
3833
1. 312 164.2
1. 307 155 .. 6
14.1
14.2
---- --
--
33 31.0 639 258 1. 81 . 4185 1. 360 176 ..8 14.1 -- --
34 31.5 631 258 1. 88 4183 1.347 175.0 14.1 -- --
14 29.7 736 298 1. 88 4160 1.379 178.2 14.1 -- --
18 30.3 753· 299 1. 91 4077 1. 379 174.6· 14.2 -- --
q 30.9 738 301 1.84 4301 1.392 185.9 14.2 -- --
36 31. 5 757 301 1. 75 4264 1.388 183.8 14.1 -- --
35 32.0 774 308 1.84 4293 1. 381 184.1 14.1 -- --
38 31. 5 890 348 1.78 4444 1.413 195.0 14.1 -- --
37 31.0 889 349 1.82 4239 1.407 l85.2 14.1 -- --
€ = 10 (Overexpanded); a = 15°; High Mixture Rat10
9 29.5 693 302. 3.31 4203 1.247 162.8 14.2 4.95· 8.1 .• o'f7 .otc,,'f
8 56.6 700 306 3.12 4548 1.251 176.7 14.1 4.97 B.O • ofbl .Olhl;j'·
10 31. 7 705 :D6 3.18 4512 1.262 176.8 14.1 4.90 8.1 " .dbOV
E = 10 (Overexpanded); a = 15°; Low Mixture Ratio

30 9.5 457 206 2.. 11 3536 1.197 131. 4 14..2 5.26 5.7
29 8.0 486 218 2.18 3308 1.197 123.0 14.2 5.59 5.7
24 10.5 589 256 2.11 4097 1.237 157.4 14.2 5.43 6.6
17 31.0 690 299 1.69 4550 1.268 179.3 14.2 5.15 7.4
26 13.5 710 299 1.98 4085 1. 275 161. 8 14.1 4.88 7.6
25 11.5 712 300 2.17 3907 1. 272 154.4 14.1 5.04 7.5
50 :D.7 710 . 302 1. 86 4241 1. 266 . 166.7 14.1 5.12 7.4
39 31. 2 761 326 1. 78 4372 1.276 173.2 14.1 5.10 7.8
28 10.5 858 352 2.00 3859 1. 308 156.7 14.2 4.78 8.2
27 14.5 883 360 . 1. 87. 4422 1. 315 180.6 14.1 4.91 8. 5
€ = 20.8 (Overexpanded); a = 15°
75 30.4' 347 '. 167 1. 72 39461.122 137.5 14.1 5.57 4.7 :" 3ff.,(J73'!..f
91 29.7 445 205 1. 93 41961.174 152.9 14.1 5.62 5.3 p{;;M .()?--7'f
71
70
30.5
30.7
575
,.706
258·
309
--
1. 90 4286
--1.208
1.238 164.8
-- 14.1
14.1
5.16
4.76
6.5
7.6
0* . ~15'I
: @ ifC,
o~o
•
69 31.4 844 363 1.88 . 4360 1.256 170.1 . 14.1 4.47 9.0 .1'),Jfjf .01?r.,J
89 29.8 879 374 1.84 4516 1.270 178.1 14.1 4.55 9.2 . (J3?J ,tJI ;)-/7
E = 3.65 (Optimum); a = 10°
88 30.7 466 189 1. 80 4277 1.305 173.4 14.1
87 30.6 652 253 1.86 4176 1. 366 177.3 14.1
48 :D. 9 768 298 1.86 4283 1.376 183.0 14.2
86 30.5 919 345 1. 415 14.1

RESTRICTED Page 13
, Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

TABLE II (Cont'd)

Test t F Pc r c* CF Isp Po Ps Is
No. (sec) (lb) (psia) (ft/sec) (sec) (psia) (psia) -T
€ = 10 (Overexpanded); a = 10°
54 30.6 429 195 1.86 4042 1.173 147.2 14.2 5.20\ 6.0
53 30.2 574 249 1. 78 4091 1.239 157.4 14.2 4.98 7.1
51 30.7 703 299 1.80 4422 1.257 172.6· 14.2 ~78 8.2
52 30.6 864 353 1. 81 4395 1. 315 179.5 14.2 4.72 9.0
€ = 3.65 (Optimum); a = 20°

58 30.7 468 195 1.92 4027 1.280 160.1 14.1 -- --

57 30.8 637 254 1. 87 4227 1.336 175.4 14.1 -- --
55 30.4 774 302 1. 83 4415 1. 364 187.0 14.1 -- --
56 30.6 899 347 1.84 4808 1.391 207.7 14.1 -- --
E = 10 (Overexpanded); a = 20°
62 30.6 434 196 1. 93 4021 1.163 145.2 14.1 5.80 5.7
61 30.7 573 251 1.86 4163 1.205 15S.B 14.1 5.41 6.8
60 20.2 TI9 302 1.93 4169 1.270 164.4 14.0 5.12 7.7
65 30.3 723 303 1. 84 4337 1.260 169.7 14.1 5.32 7.65
66 31.0 850 345 1. 81 4306, 1.299 173.7' 14.1 5.05 8.6
59 10~1 841 349 2.07 4082 1. 285 162.9 14.0 4.92 8.5
€ = 10 (Overexpanded); a = 30°

96 13.4 419 201 2.13 4333 1.121 150.8 14.1 5.43 5.5
95 .10.8 423 204 2.07 4145 1.115 143.5 14.1 5.28 5.6
94 11.0 549 255 1.81 3845 1.158 138. :3 14.1 5.32 6.45
93 10.7 688 311 1. 95 4336 1.186 159.7 14.1 4.96 8.1
92 11.1 831 361 1.97 4396 1.233 168.3 14.1 4. 95 9.0
Induced Separation
40 31.2 780 330 1. 85 4215 1. g05 170.8 14.1 -- --
41 31.1 848 350 1. '85 4255 1. 327 175.3 14.1 -- --
42 27.5 850 351 1.99 4017 1. 333 166.3 14.1 -- --
44 30.8 786 328 1. 95 4054 1. 334 167.9 14.1 -- --
45 30.1 584 255 1.99 3964 1.259 155.0· 14.1 -- --
47 61. 7 729 308 1.87 4323 1. 300 174.5 14.2 -- --

Page 14 RES1RIGTED
RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

Figure 1
Underexpansion of Rocket
Motor Flame

Figure 3
Overexpansion of Rocket Motor
Flame Without Jet Separation

Figure 4. Overexpansion of Rocket Motor Flame %ith

Jet Separation

RESTRICTED Page 15
Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

Figure 5. Test Rocket Motor with Optimum Expansion Nozzle

9 122

30 30 0
4 1.545 4.890 4.890

2.950 01k
AT OPTIMUM
6 IO EXPANSION (TYP) EIO
oCIO0

131

"
30 f-

o;15° 0(200

Figure 6. .Overexpanded Nozzles

RESTRICTED
Page 16

RESTRICTED Progress Report 'o. 4-103

Figure 7. Typical Test Nozzle

Installation -. Manometer Bank

HESThICJ'ED Page 17
Progress Report No. 4-10:?, RESTRIC7EE

Figure 10. Typical Thrust and Chamber Pressure Records

Figure 11. Piping Diagram of lest Installation

Page 18 RESTRICTED
 111111 — ii

RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103
/

10
.ATM PRESSURE 14.2 pso
20
--= ==-
30

40 ii
TEST E9W
50
pc/p
THEORY y 1.20- pc = 302 psa
60 - ---------

-
THEORY.y
-
1,26- -- --A '\ r - 3.3
70 - -
\ \ a=15
80 - -- ----- ___

90

111111 .11
100
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 12. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10, a 15°, High Mixture Ratio

10
ç—ATM PRESSURE = 14.1 psia
20 - = -.

30

40 --
TEST E8W
PC P 50
THEORY 1. 2
60 II306b0
THEORY :1.26 r 3.1
70
a: 150
80

90

100
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 13. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10, a = 15°, High Mixture Ratio

RESTRICTED Page 19
 r

111111 ii

Progress Report No. 4103 RESTRICTED

10
ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psio
20 - ;-= 1601 = =

30

40
TTEST EIOW
50
------ --
- THEORY 1.20 - - p 306 psia -
60
- - "N \
-
THEORY r 3.2
70
1.26
- -- a 15
0 -
80

90 -
I 00
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
f
Figure 14. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, e = 10, a = 15°,F!igh Mixture Ratio

0
ATM PRESSURE 14.2 psia
I0

20

_--\----
30
TEST E3OW
40
\\
¼ 206 psia
50 - ------\-;-__
- THEORY y 1.20- - -\ r 1.9
60
THEORY y
---
1.26 - - - a 15
0 --
70
'\ \
\
80
-
90 - - --
123 4 5 6 7 8 9 tO II 12 13 14 15

Figure 15. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, c = 10, a = 15°, Pc 20 psia

Page 20 RESTRICTED


RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

Iii
ATM PRESSURE 14.2 psia
l0

20

30 H
40 - TEST E29W

PC 218 psia
PC /P 50 - ---------
THEORY 1.20-- - r 1.9
'\
60
a : 150
THEORY y:I26__\
70

80

90

100
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
fif
Figure 16. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, e 10, a = 150, 200 psia
Pc

0
ATM PRESSURE 14.2 psia

EEEEEEE__
I0

20

30

40

50
4 ".'
- - -
TEST E24W

c : 255 psia
- r : 1.9
THEORY y 1.20 — —s
60 - - 0
a - IS
1 : 1.26— -
THEORY
70

80

90 - --

100
I Z 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 17. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, c = 10, a = 150, Pc 250 psia

RESTRICTED S Page 21
 Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

10
0

111111 -ATM PRESSURE

LI I LIII14.2 psic
20 = = 0= - - -. -

30 ------ -- _____'

40
THEORY y 1.20
PJP 50
THEORY (.26 — —

60

70
TEST 17
E \ \\
80 pC:299pSj0 \
r :(9 \\
90
a 150

I , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 18. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, c = 10, a = 15°, Pc

300 psia

10 --
_ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
20

30

40 0

THEORY )' :1.20-

PC "P 50 \k"

I II±IIIIIII
THEORY
y :I.26 \
60

70 _
TEST E26W
80 - : 299psia

90 ;:

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 i

f/ f
Figure 19. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10, a. 15°, Pc 300 psia

Page 22 0
RES7RICTED


RESTRICTED ess Report No. 4-103

IC t ol N TT__I
EEEE!TIEEEEE
ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
N
20

30

40
THEORYy 1.20
C 'P 50
THEORY y
P
- 1.26
6C
\, \
70
TEST E25W \\ \\
8C
PC300psia
9C r 1.9
a : 15 0
10c q b ( 0 V IV II I I.) I' I
-I

Figure 20. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, c = 10, a = 150, Pc '

300 psia

10
ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
20

30
------;--- 7'___
40
THEORY )' 1.20 ii]
P C /P 50
THEORY y : 1.26 jI(
60

70 -
- U
TEST E 50 - - -- - - - -
\ \
80 PC : 302psio -----------
-
\

90

100
-

I
r
a

2
:1.9
:15°

3 4 5 6 7
f/ft
8 9
IT^ I
10 II 12 13 14 I

Figure 21. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10, a = 15°, Pc

300 psia

RESTRICTED Page 23


Progress Report No. 4-103 RESThITED

10

20
111111 ,ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psio
1111
30

NI
40

PC /P 50
THEORY y 1.20 - -
60
THEORY

F FT iiiiii
70
TEST E39W \
80
326psia
\
90
a 15
10
100
IZ 3 4 0 6 7 8 9 tO II 12 13 14 15

IIIHHH_III
/ft

Figure 22. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, 6 = 10, a = 150, Pc

330 psia

10
,TM PRESSURE = 14.2 psia
20
ii-iiiiii--::ii-i:----------
30

40

C 'P 50
THEORY
yO \ '
60
THEORY y .26 - _
70
TEST E28W
80 PC 352psuo

90
a 150
Ics I 4 b ( 6 V JO 1Z 14
Z3 5 II 13 I
/ ft

Figure 23. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10, a = 15°, p 350 psia

Page 24 RESThICTED
 RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

10
,ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
III
EE3EEEEEEE
20

30

40

PC /P 50

60
I-
70
TEST E27W - THEORY y 1.20
80 PC 360psio -.
_- THEORY y 1.26
r 1.9
90
a=15°
F-1
Ke 4
I

6
I

7
I

8 9 tO
I

II i Z 13 14 lb
2 3 5

Figure 24. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, 6 = 10, a 15 0 , P 350 psia

111111
380

360

340

320

280
a
260
a. - dt : 1.545 In.
C.) ft:I.875sqin.
240

E EE?EEE ) i -
220 a 150

200

Em I O
13 14 15
f5 /ft

Figure 25. Area Ratio at Plane of Separation vs Chamber Pressure for

= 10, a = 150

RESTRICTED Page 25
 Progress Report tb. 4-103 RESTRICTED

C-v-

I:itiItt"liii
0

\ .
,—ATM PRESSURE .: 14.1 psia
10

20

30
TEST E75W
40 -- -
—THEORY 1.20 y: PC 167 psia
p/p 50
C ----- - r - 1.9
—THEORY y: 1.26
60
a 15°
70 e :20.8

80

90

IMN
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
T-f
18 20 22 24 26 28 30
f
Figure 26. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20. 8, a = 150

0
ATM PRESSURE = 14.Ipsia
10

20

30
TEST E9IW
40 - - -

50 -
- —THEORY y: 1.20 -

C : 205
psia - -

—THEORY y: 1.26 r 1.9

60
a: 15° --
70
6 : 20.8
80
\
90 ---------
IOU
24 6 8 tO 12 14 16 lB 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 27. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20. 8, a = 150

Page 26 RESTRICTED
 RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

0
ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
10

20

30

40 JL TEST E7IW

PC
258 psia
50
\ \ r 1.9
60
a 1
—THEORY 1.20
70 c 20.8
\. -THEORY 1.26
80

90

100
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 lB 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 28. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20.8, a. = 15°

0
—ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
l0

20

30
TEST E7OW
40
\ p 309 psia
50
pc/p -------------
r 1.9
60
1g\ —THEORY y: 1.20 15°
70 - \_.
E 20.8
ç't\ —THEORY
y: 1.26
80
\
90

100
4 IV 1Z 14 lb IS 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 29. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20. 8, a = 15°

RESTRICTED Page 27
 Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

0
10 iii H 11111
20
30
- -
-
- -
TM PRESSURE

-
14.1 psia
-
-
---- -
TEST E69W
40

pc /p 50
-

1 PC

r =
363 psi a

1.9
60
15°
70
80 k ' THEORY y

THEORY y=I,26
1.20
E 20.8 -

90

0•0 q b 8 10 1Z
I ITi
14 18 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Figure 30. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, e = 20.8, a = 150

0
10 liii
20
Hi 11
—ATM PRESSURE = 14.1 psia
1111
- - - - - - _..c r— -
30
TEST E89W
40
= 374 psia
PC
p/p 50
r:I.8
60

70
i7 a
E = 20.8
15°

'--THEORY y=1.20
80
- -THEORYy _1.26
90

100
2 4 6 8 . 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
f

Figure 31. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 20 .8, a. = 150

Page 28 RES7BICTED

RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

PC

(psia)
r 1.9

.545 in.

.875 sq in.
400
0
a = 15

380 € = 10.0

ZI € = 20.8
360

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

180

1 60
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12

f/
st
Figure 32. Area Ratio at Plane of Separation vs Chamber Pressure for a =15°,
= 10.0 and 20.8

RESTRICTED Page 29
 Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

0
ATM PRESSURE : 14.2 psia
10
- - - - - - )— -
20

30

40
THEORY y 1.20 -
P / P 50
THEORY y 1.26 - \
60 --\-----------------------

70
TEST E54W \ \
80 I95psia
r: 1.9
90
a : 10
mm I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 33. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € 10.0, a = 100

10
-ATM PRESSURE : 14.2 psia
20 _

NZ
30

40

P 'P 50
\ __
\ -THEORY y 1.20
60
\\ THEORYy:I.26
70
TEST E5 - \\
80 PC : 249pso ----------------------------------
r = 1.8 \
90
- a: 100
100
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

- Figure 34. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € 10.0, a = 100

Page 3- RESTRICTED
 FTJ
RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

10
ATM. PRESSURE 14.2 psio
20

30

40

PC /p 50

60
- -ThEORY y 1.20
70
TEST E5IW –THEORY y 1.26
80 PC- PSO
- r 1.8
90
— a 10
F-1
100
I Z 5 'I 0 b 1 a 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

IC 111111 Figure 35. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = '10-.0, a = 10°

,ATM PRESSURE 14.2 psic

iiIiiii 1111111
20

30

40

Pc 1P 50

60
TEST E52W
\'\
70
\. -
p 353 p sia -------cç:-----------------------
\ -THEORY 7 : 1.20
r 1.8
80
a 100
\ — -THEORY 7 1.26
90

100
i Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 36. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10.0, a = 100

RESTRICTED Page 31
 Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

0
ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
10

20

30

40
-THEORY y 1.20
50
PC /P -THEORY y 1.26
60
TEST E62W

70 p :I96psia
C \ \
80 r : 1.9
\\
a :20°
9C

IOC - N- T
I 2 3 4 b ( 10 II I I. I'a

Figure 37. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 200

10
(I - 1 ^7
,, ATM PRESSURE : 14.Ipsia
1111
20

30

40 -- \.\
-

-
—
50
P "P 60 \\

7C
- 5::-j; -
251 ps iO --- \. -
- --- -
r-
-THEORY y:12O
BC r 1.9

a = 200 '—THEORY y: 1.26

___IIIIIiH
9C

rers
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 lb

Figure 38. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, 6 = 10.0, a = 200

Page 32 RESTRICTED

RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

0
111111
20
30
40
11± 12E1T 1111 •

IN
,ATM PRESSURE 14.0 psia

50 N^
PC /P
60
TEST E60W \ \
70 P C : 302psia
r 1.9
\ \ -THEORY y 1.20
80
a 20° -THEORY y 1.26
90

100
I q D b ( S 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
_j
Figure 39. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a. = 200
0
10

20
I I I I TT
ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psio
III
30

40

50

PC /P
60
TEST E 65 \ \
70 - C303'°
ITHEORYY 1.20
80 r:l.8
a 20° \ ' :1.26
THEORY
90

100
I ., 4 0 6 1 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 40. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 200

RESTRICTED Page 33

Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

10
/ ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psio
20
----------
30 -
----c:
40 -
\

-I-----------
50

PC /P - -
60

70
TEST E66W
PC 345psia
\J \\i_THEORY y :1.20
80 r 1.8
a 200 \_ _ -THEORY y 1.26

FFTT 1111121_HH
90

100
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 41. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € =10.0, a- = 200

HH
0

10 111111 C ,ATM PRESSURE 14.Opsia

111
20

30

40

50
11111:t11111
PC / P
60
\\\ j
\ r
TEST . E59W \0
70
PC
C \ \ -THEORY y : 1.20
80 - r 2.1

a : 20 0 .. -THEORY 1.26

_H
90

100 11_1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 lb

Figure 42. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10.0, a. = 20°

Page 34 RESTRICTED


RESTRICTED Progress Report No. . 4-103

r .9

d t .545 in.
PC
.875 sq in.
(psia)
€Io
400

380

360

340

320

300

280
-
15 0
A
260

100
240

220

200

80

160
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12

f S /ft

Figure 43 Area Ratio at Plane of Separation vs Chamber Pressure for E = 10. 0,
a = 10, 15, and 200

RES7RICTED Page 35

s Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

0
[ATM PRESSUREI4Hpsw
I0
- "— v— -
20

30 -

40 - ---------

PC / P 5 0
\\ THEORY y2O
60
- TEST E96W THEORY y .26

I
70
PSIO
P;C
80

90

100
I
____IIIIIIIIII
2 3 4 5 6 7
f
8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 44. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 309

0
—ATM PRESSURE = 14.1 psia
l0

20

30 IIILIIIIIIIII
---

P /P
40

50

60
IIIIIIIIIIIII
" - ---
,,'—THEORY y 1.20

TEST E95W \ -THEORY y 1.26

III.4IIIIiI
70
PC204P510
80

90

100
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 45. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a 300

Page 36 RESTRICTED
 ss Report No. -103
RESTRICTED'

0
AT PRESSURE 14.1 psia
10

20 -------- ---------

30
-- -i------ -
40

PC/P
50
THEORY 1,20 -
60

70
— TEST E 94W -- N —THEORY y j 6
PC 255 psia
80 - r = 1.8

I_IIII±IIIIi
a 300
90

100
I , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II .12 13 14 15

Figure 46. Pressuxe . in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10.0, a =

0
-ATM PRESSURE = 14.1 psia
10

20

30

40
P/P
C 50
: I. 20
,- THEORY

60
TEST E93W THEORY y : 1.26
7.0
- PC :311 psia - --
80 - r : 1.9

H
a:30°
90

100
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
f/ft
Figure 47. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, € = 10.0, a = 300

RESTRICTED Page 37
 Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

0
/-ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psio
10

20 - -

30

40
PC /P
50
-THEORY y : 120
60
- TEST E 92W - - \ -THEORY y1. 26
70

80 - PC
r :
a :
361 psia
2.0 ---_____--
/ \

T7 I
300
90

100
I 2 3 4 5
11111111111
6 7 8
f / ft
9 10 II 12 1314 15

Figure 48. Pressure in Overexpanded Nozzle, E = 10.0, a = 300

380

360 -----
r:L9
34C
dt = 1.545 in.
PC 32C
- f:I.B75sqin.
---4
(psia) € 10
300

28C
a :150
26(

71 a :20°
240

22C
q1 a :l
a

____I
M I 17TT
= 300

I
^v
200

ISO
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 49. Area Ratio at Plane of Separation vs Chamber Pressure for € = 10.0,
a. = 10, 15, 20, and 300

Page 38 RESThICTED

RESTRICTED ss Report No. 4-103

30

28

26
0
24

22

PC /P0
20

18 MEW
16 Im'd
14
ININ
2

I0
0.30 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58
PS /PO

Figure 50. Variation of Separation Pressure with Chamber Pressure

a. RINGS OF HOLES CONNECTED b. ABRUPT CHANGE IN ANGLE IN

TO RAM PRESSURE DIVERGING PORTION OF NOZZLE

c. STEPS OF LOW-MELTING-POINT d. SLIDING SECTION THAT MOVES OUT

MATERIAL THAT BURN AWAY INTO POSITION AT PREDETERMINED
AT KNOWN RATE PRESSURE RATIO
Figure 51. Possible Methods for Inducing Gas Separation

RESTRICTED Page 39
 ress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

10
i.- ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
20

30

40
THEORY y 1.20
PC/p
50
FOURTEEN 1/4-in. HOLES THEORY y 1.26
60 - DRILLED THROUGH NOZZLE \- -

WALL AT THIS AREA RATIOY < ", TEST E40W
70
- TO CAUSE GAS SEPARATION p: 330 psia
\ \ PC
80 - NORMAL SEPARATION WOULD _ -
OCCUR AT AREA RATIO 8.0
- 5°
90 - WITH THIS CHAMBER PRESSURE

00
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
f/f

Fire 52. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation / .

10
ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
20
- . - --
30 --

40
—THEORY y 1.20
9:;
50
FOURTEEN /4-in. HOLES —THEORY y 1.26 -
60
- DRILLED THROUGH. NOZZLE
- TEST E4IW
- WALL AT THIS AREA RATI0
70
\ \ PC 350 psia
TO CAUSE GAS SEPARATION
r 1.9
80 - NORMAL SEPARATION WOULD
OCCUR AT AREA RATIO 8.3 a 150
9c - WITH THIS CHAMBER PRESSURE -\
IOC
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15

Figure 53. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation

Page 40 RESTRICTED
 RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

TEST E42W

PC 351 psia
PC /P r 2.0
0 a 50

I0

.ATM PRESSURE = 14.1 psia

0•• ___

20 _____

30

40
-THEORY y: 1.20
50

-THEORY y :1.26
60

70
FOURTEEN .1/4-in. HOLES DRILLED THROUGH
NOZZLE WALL ANDCONNECTED BY GROOVE
80
3/32 . in. WIDE AND I/B in. DEEP ON INNER
SURFACE AT THIS AREA RATIO
90 —NORMAL SEPARATION WOULD OCCUR AT AREA
RATIO 8.3 WITH THIS CHAMBER PRESSURE
0

I00 0 -- - -

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
f / ft

Figure 54. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation

RES7RIcFED. Page 41

s Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

(
TEST E44W
328 psia
r = 1.9

a : 15° -
0

10

,ATM PRESSURE = 14.1 psi•a

20

PC / P

30
THEORY y I.2O
THEORY = 1.26—
40 -

50
.s
\
60
GROOVE 3/32 x I / 8 in.
FIVE 1/4-in. HOLES AT I \ _____ ____
70 AREA RATIO 4.8 \
\

GROOVE 3/32 x I/Bin.—\

80
FOURTEEN 1/4 -in. HOLES AT
AREA RATIO .7.0
-.
90

100
2 3 4 7 8 9 10
/f
5•6 t

Figure 55. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation

Page 42 RESTRICTED

RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

10
-ATM PRESSURE 14.1 psia
20

30
GROOVE 3/32 x 1/8 in' N ( TEST E45W
40 I:
FIVE 1/4-in. HOLES - PC F255Psia
- AT AREA RATIO 4.8 - -_-- - r 2.0
50
a - 15°
PC /P
60

70
GROOVE 3/32x I/B in.— \ THEORY y 1.20
80
FOURTEEN 1/4-in. HOLES AT -THEORY y 1.26
90 - AREA RATIO 7.0 '

100
I 2 3 4
F-f-I
5 6 7 8 9 10 II
I I 7^
12 13 14 15

Figure 56. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation

0

10
,ATM PRSSURE 14.2 psia
20

30
GROOVE 3/32 xi/8 ifl.\ \ TEST E47W
40 FIVE 1/4.-in. HOLES -
WITH FLOW OF
c-f- C 308 psia
50 500ft/sec - r = 1.9
---- \ \
P 'P VELOCITY N2 a 15°
60 GAS ATAREA
RATIO 4.8
70
GROOVE 3/32 x I/- .\ \ ._. -THEORY 1.20
80 -

90
- FOURTEEN I/4in.HOLES
AT AREA RATIO 7.0
\ - THEORY y: 1.26
-
-

100
I 3 4 b b 7 8 9 10 II IZ 13 14 lb

f/fr

Figure 57. Tests on Inducing Gas Separation

RESTRICTED Page 43

Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

.45

.40

1.35

1.30 0
----z----
CF 1.25
// p0 14.2 psia
1.20 .26 25

1.15 20
LOSS IN

1.10 THRUST

1.05 10

5
mej
200 250 300 350 400
PC (psia)

Figure 58: Theoretical Thrust Coefficient, Neglecting Separation

.45

1.40

1.35

ii
1.30

1.25
0 r:
CF 1.9
1.20 p: 14.2psia

1.1 5 9

-0-
1.10 8 LOSS IN
THRUST
1.05 --------------- 7 (%)

I rn 6
200 250 300 350 400
PC (psja)

Figure 59. Experimental Thrust Coefficient, a = 15°

Page 44 RESTRICTED


RESTRICTED . Progress Report No. 4-103

1.45

1.40

1.35

1.30

CF 1.25

1.20

1.15 I0
LOSS AN

1.10 g THRUST
t0
Fe

1.05 8

1.00 7,
150 200 250 300 350 400
P C (psia)

Figure 60. Experimental Thrust Coefficient, a = 100

1.45

1.40

1.35,

.1.30

1.25 .0
CF

1.20

1.15 r.: 1.9 - 10

14.2 psia toss IN
1.10 g THRUST
I 01
' 10

1.05 8

.00 mmmmmmmmmm
.I. 250 300 1.!.
PC (psaa)

Figure 61. Experimental Thrust Coefficient, a = 20°

RESThICTED Page 45


Progress Report No. 4-103 RESTRICTED

1.45
THEORETICAL (X1.0)
3.5
1.40

1.35

llrAE•
1.30

CF € 20.8
1.25

1.20 ,n
r 1.9
14.2 psia
1.15

1.10
200 250 300 350 400

Figure 62. Experimental Thrust Coefficient, a = 15 0 , € = 3.5, 10.0, 20.8

EFFECTIVE WEDGE ANGLE

DIVERGENCE fe
ANGLE

JET BOUNDARY
I
a OBLIQUE SHOCK WAVE
AXIS OF
NOZZLE
i I SUBATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
I ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
I REGION OF UNDISTURBED
GAS
THROAT OPTIMUM I EXIT
SECTION AREA I SECTION
AREA OF
DETACHMENT

Figure 63. Hypothetical Flow Structure in Overexpanded Exhaust Nozzle

Page 46 RESTRICTED

RESTRICTED Progress Report No. 4-103

rzl.9

d-
1.545 in.
26
f t .875 sq in.

I .1
24
__ __
II
llql
f /
1.26

9-150
/1
22 I.26
1.22
Ii I p -
1/
/
PC /PO I
11H /
20
I / ix 122 -
I ____II -
• ri /1/ :
18

•__ • 1 _______
16
ly li/I ,/ a:10 €0 0

: 16 0 c 20

2 4 1L
s "t

Figure 64. Variation of Plane of Gas Separation with Chamber Pressure

RESTRICTED Page 47
Page intentionally left blank
RESTRICTED Progress Report M. 4-103

REFERENCES

1. Seifert, Howard S., Mills, Mark M., and Summerfield, Martin, "The Physics of
Rockets," American Journal of Physics, 15 (No. 1): 1-21, 1947.

2. Malina, F. J., "Characteristics of the Rocket Motor Unit Based on the Theory of
Perfect Gases," Journal of the Franklin Institute, 230 (No. 4):433454, 1940.

3. Swan, Walter C., The Influence of Nozzle Design on the Flight Performance of
Rocket Vehicles, with an Analysis of the Results of Jet Separation (thesis).
Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, 1948.

RESTRICTED Page 49
 Restriction/
Classification
Progress Report No. 4-103 R Cancelled

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO SECTIONS

A,. C, AND DP OF-THE JOINT ARMY-NAVY.-AIR FORCE MAILING

LIST NO.9 DATED 1 SEPTEMBER 1949 AND CHANGE SHEET

NO. 1 DATED 1 NOVEMBER 1949

'U

Restriction/
Classification
Page 50 R Cancelled