RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

FRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF AN NACA OF THE TRANSONIC SUBMERGtiD and Robert INLET A. Taylor CHARACTERISTICS By John A. Axelson Ames

Aeronautical Moffett Field,

Laboratory Calif. .

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

WASHINGTON
June 5, 1950

NACARM A5OCl3
#

__ -. NATIONAL ADKEORY COMMITTEE FOR AEROlDWTICS

PRELIMIHARY RWEsTIGATION OF TEE TRANSONIC CEARACIERISTICS

By John A. Axelson and Robert A. Taylor

A preliminary inveetig%tion of m.NACA ~ubmerggd inlet operating over a range of ma884low ratfoe and ancomfng flow angle8 was conducted throu& a Mach number ranfrom 0.70 to 1.15 by the u8e of a traneonic Ram recovery and pressure dietribution were measured for maesb-0 For approximately constant mass-flow ratio, the flow ratios up to 0.67. ranr-recovery ratio decreased about 0.05 in the Mach number ran@ fram 0.85 to 1.1, but generally improved above a Mach number of 1.0 or 1.1. The ram+recovery ratio decreased about 0.05 when the angle tetween, the inlet center plane and the free stream was increased fram 0 to 4 , but fncreased about 0.02 from thie reduced value when the angle wa8 increased from 4 to 8. &c??eaeIng the maea flow into the inlet increased the ram recovery, but the improvement became progreesively lees at the higber.ma88 flow8 and higher Mach numbers. Static-preeeure andtotal-pressure 8urveys inside the inlet indicated that the loeees inramrecoverywere caused -principally by the entrance of low-energg air from the surrounding boundary layer which paseed over the aharp ed@s of the-rap wall8 and mixed with the higher-energy air entering the inlet. IXTRODUCTION
.

The locatim of air lnlete on the sides of the fuselag of jetPrOpelbd aircraft ha8 received 8peCfa1 emphaEli8 recently because Of the Although neceseity of housing radar and armament fn the fuselage noflee, a side location generally titroducee boundary-layer probleme, a dietinct advantae is sined by the ehorter internal ducting from the air inlet A8 a result of wind-tunnel iie8ts directed toward the to the compreseor. development of a' eide inlet having high pre8sure-recovery characteristics and rnlnjmum adverse effect8 frclm the fu8ela@ boundezy layer, the HACA Several variation8 of this inlet were 8ubmer@d tilet wae conceived. tivestiegted inone of the Ame8 7-by104ootwindtunnel8andare disof those teets cussed in reference 1. A de8ign judged from the result8 tObe OpttiUBl~8theIlteSted oTLaWfng-bOdyCo?IIbination in the AU.Bfl

a-

ITAC!A A5OC13 FM

P Ic

164oot high-peed wind txuuzelup to a fr&e+treem Mach number of 0.875. free-&ream Mach number comeeprmded to elightly higher localI&ch numbers at the inlet, depending upo~l the location of the inlet with respect (Se 8 reference .2.) The preltiInary to the wingandfuselage. lnvestlgstionreportedhereinuas conductedusinganidenticaltiletmountedonan almoet flat, two4imeneional surface of a transonic bump in the Ames l& For these test8 the local Mch number over foot high+peed wind tumml, the bump in the re@on of the inlet ran@d from 0.70 to 1.15.
This

The symbols used in thie crose-eectional Inlet total depth,

report

and their

definitions

axe as foILlowe:

area of duct, 1.6 fnches

equare Inches
.. -..

pre88ure,

pounds per equare foot parameter of QlWnic deei@ating pY%SSUre the height
gJ0

boundary-layer complete loss

for

which a

to the integratedloss

( of totalpremure

would be equivalent > in the actual boundary

M m P P 9 u U

Mach number
ma~w flow

(flu),

aluga per aecand

PXWSSUre coefficient

static

preesure,

pound

per square foot

dyLWliC pZW88Ure velocity local outeide velocity,

k&J2 , pounds per equare foot ( > boundary layer, feet per second per second thicImes8, inches

feet

increment ii2 Al

of boundary--layer

ratio of duct crose--eectional area &2 inches down&ream of lip leading edge to croee-sectional $rea at rak

"+A RM A50C13
L

*-

--

%--PO H, -po
ml mo

rem.covery

ratio

ratio

of the ma88 flowtJIroughthe

inlet

to the ma88 flow area

in the

free
a

etream through

an area equal to the Inlet

angle between the Inlet (8imuhting the an& degreee boundary-layer the velocity

center plane and the free stream Of attack Of an airplane Side inlet>, i8 0.99 Of

thiChe88 Where the local Velocity outeide the boundary layer, tiche di8plaCement thiCkle88

s*

boundary-Layer

boundary-layer
ma88 density,

momentum thiCkne88 81x.1@per cubic foot Subscripts

[ l"z

(1-e)

ti]s

incha

averagg

condition8 entrance

over test

sectian

of bmp

diffuser duct rake

APPARATUS
Deecription of Tnlet Mode1B

Detail8 and dimensions of the NACA submerged-inlet model are ahown the dimension8 of the inlet COrY'ein figure 1. %80far 88 possible, sponded to those of the inlet reported in reference 2, where the inlet 32 the pre8ent wa8 Installed on the curved side of a modelfusela~. investigation, the inlet wag mounted on a Mo-dimensianal surface'ae

ahown in figure

2.

To siu@ate angle-of-attack

conditicmrs of an aIrplane

NACA RM A50C13' side inlet, the inlet was mounted on the transonic bump with angles of O", The curand 8 between the Inlet center plane and the f me stream. 4O, vature of the test surface necessitated the construction and installation. of three separate models with identical basic inlet lines. The models were equipped with pressure orifices alang the center line of the ramp andaround the lip (exzeptthe inlet representing8'angle of attack which had no lip orifices), Pressure losses and flow rates In the Inlet were measured with a rake 6 inches behind. the lip leading edge. !The rake consist&d of 30 total+ressure and 35~stat~c-press-ure tubes. The a* which flowed through the inlet entered a diffuser which started 6 jnohes downstream of the rake and discharged back'to the wind-tunnel air stream through the underside of the bump. Description of the Transonic Bums

The trsnsonic bump of the Ames l64oot high-speed wind tunnel used for testing models through sonic velocity and up to low supersonic speeds is sham in figure 3. The bump had an l&foot chord and a flat tmderside which was mounted a small distance away from one of the vertical walls of the wind tunnel. The profile of the bump was essentially one-half of an NACA 16421 section modefed by a 17-percent extension of the chord and faired by a straight line connecting the 64-percent-chard point of the resulting profile to the trailing edge. Distributims of local Mach number over the bump surface are shown in figure 4. At the highest Mach numbers, there was an increase in the local Mach number and consequently a small favorable pressure gradient alongthatportion of the bump surface inwhich the submered Inlet was The maepitude bf the favorable pt%ssure gradient on the blimp placed. was, however, small compared to the gradient of pressure along the ramp of the fnlet, amounting.to less than 3 percent of the gradient on the ramp below a Mach number of 1.05, and less than 7 percent at the highest Mach numbers, Thus, the gradient of Mach number was felt to have only a small effect on the results obtaIned for the Inlet, and was of a maep nitude which could conceivably exist along the side of the fuselage of an airplane. The underside of the bump was mounted a small distance away from the vertical wall of the wind tunnel in order that the boundary layer of the t~lwallwouldpassundero the bum@, A 2--inch spacing existed during the &ests 05 the inlet at 0 angle of attack, When the inlet was the spacing wae increased to 5 tested at 4 and 8 angles of attack, inches in order to reduce the boundary layer on the bump and to decrease the static pressure under the bump so that slightly hi&er mass flows through the inlet might be obtained. (The duct exhausted through the underside of the bmp.) Results of boundary-layer survey8 7 inches

..

--

NACA RM A5OC!l3

forward of the rRmp at bump station 73.3 are presented in figure 5 for the bump located2 inchee and5 inchesfromthe wind-tunnelwall. The buq boundary layer was decreased by increasing the spacing, but time did not permit repeating the tests of the inlet at O" angle of attack with the

5-inch spacing.
TESTS A Mach nmber rang8 fram 0.70 to 1.15 kae covered in the investi@tion of the inlets, the Msch numbers being taken as the average of the values prevailingbetweenbump stations 78 and 114 inches. Vnder the test conditions, this ran@ of Wch numbers corresponded to a Reynolds number range from 3.5 to 4.2 million per foot of length. Three different mass--flow conditions were investigated with the inlet at 0' angle of attack. The two reduced flow rat88 were produced by the additirm of constrictions 13 inches behind the lip in the diffuser entrance. Since rigid control of the mass flow during the tests was not practicable, there were small wriatians in the r8sultlngmass~low ratios over the Mach number ran@. Only one mass4low condition was investimted at 4O and 8' angles of attack. RESISLTSAND DISCDSSION Ran&Recovery Ratio The ram--recovery ratios were computed by the method outlined in reference 2 wherein the logarithms of the local total pressures at each of the 30 total-ressure tubes of the rake were weighted according to the local mass flows. The primary variables which affect the ram recovery of the inlet and which can be isolated in the present investigation are maasdlow ratio, angle of attack, boundary-layer profile, and Mach number. Th8 effects of each of theee on the ram recovery will be discussed, Effect of mass-flow ratio.7 The variations of ram-recovery and massflow ratios with Mach number for three different diffUse3X3ntranCe constricti& are shown in figure 6 for the inlet at an angle of attack of 0'. A cross plot of these results is presented in figure 7. At all test Mach numbers increasing the mass4low ratio resulted in an increased ram recovery, but the improvement generally became progressively mailer at the higher mass-flow ratios and at the higher Mach nmbera. These results are in agreement with those measured during the investigation reported in

NACA RM A50C13

.-

reference 2 wherein the optimum mass-flow ratio was about 0.70 over the Mach number range from 0.30 to 0.875. S&e only one flowconditiaawas tested with the inlet at angles of attack'of 4' and 8, it was not possible to present the rmecovery ratios for these angles of attack at constant values of mase-flow ratio. The amount by which the mase-flow ratios varied, however, were not lar@ enough to obscure the consistent trend In the variation of ram+recovery ratio with Mach number. Effeot of angle of attack.The variations with Mach number of ramrecovery ratio and mass+Plow ratio for angles of attack of O", 4', and 8' ' are shown in figure 8. Because of th8 dffference in spacing b8tW88n the underside of the bump end the wind-tunnelwall, slightly higher mass flows were obtalaed with the Inlet at 4' and 8' angles of attack than were obtained with the inlet at 0' angle of attack. The mass-flow ratios shown in figure 8(b) are not to be compared forevaluation of an effect of angle of attack, but are shown in order that a comparison can be made between the ram-recovery ratios shown in figure 8(a). Had the same bump Spacing b88n used for all three angles of attack the mass flows would in all probability have been nearly equal at any given Mach number. The small differences in measured mass flows between the 4' and 8' angles of attack w8re probably within the accuracy of the test results. The results show, at least qualitatively, that the ram+8 oovery ratios for the 4' and 8 angles of attack were slightly less than those for 0' angle of attack in spite of the fact that the masaiflow ratios were higher by 0.02 to 0.09. A c~~~parison probably more quantitative in nature is possible by performing an extrapolation of the results shown in figure 6 for th8 inlet at 0' angle of attack so that the ram-recovery ratios for three angles of attack might be compared on the baais of equalmass4low ratio. (The results presented in figure 8 of reference 2 which cover higher mase-flow ratios than those covered In the present investigation indicate that serious error is unlikely in making such an extrapolation.) For example, in the present investigation at a &iach number of 0.95 the ram+ecovery ratio for 0' angl8 of attack extrapolated up to a masa+i?low ratio of 0.62, the value shown in figure 8(b) for 4' and 8' angles of attack corresponds to a value of about 0.83; but introducing this value in figure 8(a) has little effect on the relative values of the ram+e c every At ccmmrabls mass-flow ratios, ratios for the three angles of attack. the ram+recovery ratio decreased about 0.05 when the angle of attack was increased from 0' to 4', but -roved-about 0.02 when the angle of attack was increased frcxn 4' to 8. A similar variation of ram+c%covery ratio with angle of attack was reported in figure 9 of reference 2 for the inlet fitted with amall boundary-layer deflectors shown in figure 3 of refer. ence 2. Effect of Mach number and bump boundary layer.The determination of ,the ram-recovery characteristics of an RACA i3'ubm8r@d inlet through the transonic speed rang8 tis the primary purpose of the present investigation 6(a), 7, and 8(a). The and the reeults have been presented in fig&es

..

-3

NACA FM A5OC13

--

effects upon rsm+ecovery ratio of variations of the mass4l.o~ ratio and of Mach of the angle of attack have been disoussed, leaving the effects Since the results presented in figure 5 indicate nuder to be isolated. thatchan@s occurred inthe boundarylayer onthe bumpwhenthe Mach number was varied, it is desirable to ascertain what effect the boundarylayer chan@s'exerted onthe ranr-re covery characteristics of the inlet. As shown infigure 5(d),the maximum&an@ in the boundary-layer parameter h/d throughout the test range of Mach numbers was about 0.025, The results fram the presmost of which occurred below 0.92 Mach nmber. ent investigation have been cabined in figure 9 with those fra reference 2 and show the relationship between the boundary-layer parameter h/d and the r Wcovery ratio of the inlet. The results for the three Mach numbers for which'the two investigstione overlapped indicate that the 0,025 &an@ in h/d could cause an increment of rwecovery ratio of about 0.02. However, in th8 present investi*tion, the boundary-layer parameter h/d remained almost constant above 0.92 Mach number, while the most significant changes in ram-recovery ratio occurred above this Mach It appears, then, that in enalyzing the variation of ram+oe covery number. ratio with Mach number for Mach numbers above 0.92 it is permissible to consider the bump boundary layer essentially constant, thereby allowing further scrutiny of the effects of Mach number. The results in figure 9, in addition to providing evidence on tbs effect of the changes Ia the boundary layer, also serve to correlate the ram+recovery results of reference 2 with those of the present investigation. in figure 9 showhow Perhaps more important, however, the results large an effect the energy deficiency in the oncoming boundary layer exerted an the ram+recovery characteristics of the inlet. It has been shown that the effects of changes in the mass4low ratio and in the bmp boundary layer above 0.92 Mach number were too amall to mask the consistent reductions in ram-recovery ratio which oc&rred at Mach numbers near 1.0 and the slight improvement above l.lMach number. Zif'ormation on the changes in the flow into the inlet which accompanied the changes in the Machnmberis introduced in the followin g sections, which present the distributicne of the losees in the inlet, photographs of tufts on the model, and pressure distributions. Distribution of rsecovery losses inside the inlet.show the distribution of the r Mcovery losses within the tours of the cmput8d local r-ecovery and niass-%low ratios sented in figures 10, ll, and 12. The results are arranged marily the effects of Mach number, the mass4low ratios for three Mach numbers being chosen as nearly equal as possible available data. The results shown in figure 10, the intepated values appeared in figure 6, cqver three maes4low conditions for ti order to inlet, conare preto show prieach set of from the

of which O" angle of

NACA RM A5CC13

.--

attack, As would be expected, the regions of high ram recovery corresponded to those of high mass flow. B gmeral, the losses were concentrated in those-areas adjacent to the ramp and in the corners where The asymmetry of.flow and of losses boundary layers were to be expected. which were mor8 evident at the lowest mass flow (fig. lO( g)) was probably caused by small differences between the boundary layers in the upper and lower portions of the inlet rather then by a change in the flow direction over the inlet, dnaamueh as the latter would have had a similar effect on the results at the higher maas flows and, further, tuft studies indicated no change In flow directian over the bump. contours for angles of attack of 4' Theram-re covery andmass4low and8" are shown fnfigures lland 12. Asmightbe ewected, there was a concentration of the losses in the lower portion of the inlet because of the differences In the direction and spilla@p3 of air and in the boundDifferences in the boundary layers along the two diverging ramp walls. ary layers would be expected in light of the differences ip the pressure distributions presented in fim 13, which were measured during the show l-f&r@ diffeYWIC88 investigaticm reported ti reference 2. These results between the local pressures along the two:walls when the inlet was operating at other than zero angle of attack. Cause of the lOSS8S.- In reference 3J: it was sumised from re recovery distributions for a similar inlet that the flow of air over the sharp edges of the ramp walls and into the inlet Imparted a rotational velocity component to the air. It was reasoned that this rotational velocity increased tith maes-flow ratio end with the divergence of the ramp walls relative to the direction of the air streamand resulted in the formation of one or more vortices, the centers of which produced regions of low local ram recovery not immediately adjacent to the walls. In th8 present investigation, similar regions of ram+ecovery loseee were measured, such as those shown in figures 11(a) and X?(a). In order to provide more information on the nature of the ram+8 covery losses, the contours of figure ll(a) are compared with the measured total and static pressures across the inlet ti figure 14. In light of the results shown in figure 9 and the large variations In total pressure across the inlet, it appears logicalto attribute the regions of ram+x covery loss and low total pressure to the deficiency of energy in the air which cam8 from the bump boundary layer and left the surface in passing over the sharp edges of the ramp wall before reaching the inlet. O&Ly relatively small Pariations of static pr8ssure across the Inlet and no marked reductions in local static pressuP Such as might be expected at the core of a vortex were measured in the present investigation, so it is possible that the rotational velocity ccrmpanents remained as more or less random vortiofty or turbulence. It Is also possible that, at the massSlow ratios covered in the present investigation, the cores of.the vortices passed outside the Inlet. The latter would explain oondensation trails which were observed In the wind tunnel during the course of the tests. With higher maas-410~ ratios than were obtained in the:present investigation, it is

1 .

c .

..-

-* --

NACA B&f A5CC13

possible that the rotational velocity components could wrap up into Cn the basis of the present invesvortices which would enter the inlet. tigation, however, it is felt that the losses in ram recovery were, in the caused by the entry of air from the bump boundary layer. most part, The diverggnt rams of the HACA~submerg8d inlet appears to offer two advsntages with respect to the boundary layer in which it is placed. First, the oncoming boundary layer that flows directly on to the remp does not thicken, aa it approaches the inlet, in COrr8SpOdenCe With the adV8rS8 pressure sadlent it encountirs becauee the diverging walls provide relief in a third dimension; and, second, the boundary layer that flows frm the outside surface on to the ramp by passing over the Sharp edges of the ramp wall is involved in a mixing action with higheMnergy air and SO IS less prone to separate. Pressure Distributions and Tuft Studies

I .

the ram-recovery lossee w8re attributed In the preceding discussian, principally to the entrance of low-nergy air fram the bump boundary layer. The bump boundary-layer parameters varied comparatively little above 0.92 Mach number; however, the ram-recovery ratios varied in the Mach number rang3 fram 0.92 to 1.15. Tuft studies, scpII8 photographs of which are prethat no si&ficant separation occurred on Sented in figure 15, indicated the ramp. It appears logical, then, to attribute the variations in r8I11recovery ratio with MachnMber primarily to chsnges in the amounts of low-energgairwhichentered the inletfrcm the surroundingbump boundary layer. The controlling factor which determined the amount of bump boundarylayer air which entered the inlet was the local pressure gradient between the ramp and the Surroundingbtmrp surface. Pressure distributions along . the ramp, .some of which appear in figurea 16 and 17, indicate that the pressure differenceS were generally greatest and extended over longer portions of the ramp at the Mach numbers corresponding to those at which the minimum ram+ecovery ratios were measured. (See figs.7and8.) The effect of variation in mass+Ylow ratio m the pressure distributions along the centerline of the ramp andaroundthe lip is abo shown in figure 16 for an angle of attack of Co at Mach numbers of approximately Reduction of maes flow at the higher Mach numbers 0.75, 1.02, end 1.14. bad the eqpected effects of increasing the pr8SSLUXS on the ramp and increasing the angle of attack at which the lip operated. Figure 17 prealong the ramp for angles of attack sents additianal pressure distributionrs of O", 4', and 8O and around the lip for 0' and 4O. Varying the angle of attack with a constant mass flow had a noticeable effect on the pressures around the lip, but had little effect on the pressures along the center of line of the ramp. It Should be repeated, however, that variation angle of attack produced large changes in the pressures along the ramp walls as shown in figure 13.

10

NACA RM A50Cl3

Since the pressure distributions and tuft studies indioated that the over entrance of air from the oncoming boundary layer occurred principally the forward part of the ramp walls where the local pressures were less than those of the surrounding air stream, it appears that, if boundarylayer control were to be employed, the surrounding surface just outside and forward of the ramp should be COnSid8r8d in addition to the surface of the ramp itself. The tufts shown in figures 15(a) and 15(b) indicate that the boundary lapr along the after part of the rm walls passed outside of the lip in the direction of the local pressure gradient. CCNCT.DSIONS The following conclusions were drawn from the results of tests of an NACA submerwd inlet on a trsnaonic bump for a test Msch nuuiber range fram 0.70 to 1.15: 1. For mass+Plow ratios between 0.40 and 0.67, the ram-recovery ratio decreased about 0.05 in the Mach number range from 0.85 to rou&ly 1.1. Generally there was a small improvement in the ram-recovery ratio at Mach numbers above 1.0 or 1.1. For comparable mass-flow ratios, the ram+recovery ratio decreased 2. about 0.05 when the an& of attack was increased fram O" to 4', but improved about 0.02 when the angle of attack was inoreased from 4' to 8. ratios higher 3. Increasing the mass-flow ratio resulted in higher rsm+recovery but, in general, the improvement became progressively less at the mass flows and Mach numbers investigated.

4. ,Rem+recovery ratios higher than those obtained in the present investigation appear possible on installations with relatively thinner boundary layers. Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, National Advisory Committee for Moffett Field, Calif.

Aeronautics,

NACA RM A5OCl.3
t

1.

Mossman,lQrmetA., andRmdaU,LaurosM.: AnEqerhentallh~sti~ti'on of the Desiep Variables for NACA Submerged Duct Entrances, HACA RM A7I30, 1948. H&U., CharlesF., andBarclay,F.Dorn: An Xkperimental Investigation of NACA Submer@d Ihlets at El& Subsonic Speeds. I - &lets Forward of the Wing Ieading Edge. HACA RM M~16, 1948. &hny, &ale of Submerged Air Inlets on a l/hNO81 K. : An Investigation Model of a mica1 Fighter4ype Airplane. NACA RM A8A20, 1948.

2.

3.

..

.-

NACA RM A5OCl3

Section

A-A

Secfion

B-B Afofe: A/i dimensions Romp-Wail in inches

Lip Coordinofes

Coordinates

-. -..

Figure

f.-

Dhensiono/

dafu

for

mode/ h/ef.

I : .

(a) wpstreanl view. Figure

(b) Dovnstream view. bw in the Aslee l64oot

molmted on the tmmonlc 3.- Moael of NACA Buhmerga tit hl&+qeea wird tunnel.

..

Bump

chord ) percent 45
I

50 I
I

55
I . I I

/6

92 Bump

96 station,

IO0 in.

IO4

108

l/2

116 v

I20

Figure

4.-

Mach

number

distribution

perpendicular bump.

to

the

surface

of

the

tronsonic

Bump

chord, 45

percent

/6

80

84

88

92

96 Bump (bl

IO0 station; Me, 0.9Z . in.

104

108

II2

116 v

120

Figu r 8 4. - continued

Bump chord,
40 PO 45

percent
50 55

16 I I l.d4 I x I / / I /-

1 \ \.

I
1 /I

II

I
1 /I

I
I InI

v 1

I
I /I

I /I I/ t
I

\ / /-\ \ \\

76

80

84

88

.92

96

IO0
in,

104

IO8

II2

II6
v

I20

BUmQ station,
Id M,,

1.12.

Figure

4. - Concluded.

22 2 Gieurance 5 Clearonce

NACA FiMA~Cl3

--------

.8

.6 (a) Boundaryiuyer thickness.

.08

.06 (b) Displacement -08 Mickness.

.06

fc) Momentum ./6

fhickness.

19 1 ,L

- -.--.-

.68

.76

LO8 .84 .92 1.00 Mach number. A4, (d) Boundary-iayer parameter #.

I. f6 T
I

_- ..
q

figure 5.- Varhfion with Moth number of. fhe bump boundarylayer choracferistics measured at 34-percent chord for two clearances between fhe bump and wind - funne/ ~a//.

.-

RACA RM A5OCXL3

23

.86

.82

I i

I I

-78 p Q.. a? I&Q .74

(0) Ram-recovery -60

rufio.

30

I I

40

.85

-90 -95 I.00 Mach number, M,

f. 05

i.iO -597

f. 15

(6) Moss -f/o w ratio.

Figure

6.- Vurhtion of rum-recovery ratio and mass- f/ow ratio number for f/tree diffuser-in/ef areu rofios. a, Of

with Much

.70

.80

.90 Mach number,

I.00 M,

1.20

Figure

Z- Voriathn

of ram-recovery

ratio wifti rWach number

for

ssveraf

mass-flow

ratios.

tz,

NACARMA5OC13

25

.86

(0) Ram -recovery

ratio.

.70

.60. --30 .- 70

-75

-80

.8.5

20 Much

-95 number, M, r&o.

LOO

i-05 -

/. 10

/./5

(b)

Mass-f/ow

Figure

8.-

Vurhtion of rum- recovery rUti0 and mussnumber for ungles of olfuck of ,04, 49

flow
und

fotio

wifb

~ffch

8*.

26

NACABMA5OC13

.-

o 0.80

0.58

e Q

t? 2 0 5 I

.88
:

A?4
.80

1
.20
$

-05

.I0

.I5

Bumdory

- foyef pofomefet

Hgutt?

9 . = Voduf/on
layer

boundaty-

of tom- recovery tdo patam eter h a s0 S a*

with

RICA RMA50C13
Ram-fecovery f afio

27

2 s

Mass-f/o

f ofio

(a) M,, 0.70 ;

Lzlr > 0.57. m.
Figure lo.Ram-recovery of the

fi 1 M,,

i-02;

W% K-g

# 0.80;

ml m* 0.54.
and moss-flow submerged in/et,
ConfOUB

a, 0

in the e??fYat?Ce v

28

ITACA A5OC13 RM ffum-recovery ratio

Muss-f/o

w I utio

fd) 4, 0.72; Y-4 I 0.81; J%Yg 2 f 0.40. m.

(e) MO, i-O/;

B ~I 0.77; 4-e 2 m, jO.40.

Figure

IO.-

Continued,

-. -.

NACA RI4 A50213

29 Rum-recovery rafio

Mass-flow

f of/0

(9/ N, 0.76;

(i/ 4,
6-P

/./4;

H-p a 0.70; & m. # 0.25.

0

Y-e

H-p t 0.76; * 0 2 o-30Figure /O.- Concluded.

30 Ram-recovery fafio

NACA RM A5OC13

.4

Moss-flow

fofio

-Y-J? # 0.79; Ho-4 m &* > 0.66. figure //.Rum- recovery ffonce of

6, f 4, 0.89; t% I 0.80; H,-%

# and

I 0.63. mussflow canfoufs CI, 44 in the v en -

fhe

submerged

Mef.

XAC!A RM

A5OCl3 Ram- recovery f afio

31

Mass-ffow

rafio

9 kg

0.83;

Figure

/2.-

Ram- recovery of fhe

and mass-flow confours submerged infef. CT, 83

in the v

enfrance

-.8 0 A 0 0 0 4 0.55 .90 .55 .90

El 4O

.8

10 .20

30

40

IO

2030 station,

,4u @. fc) Lower we/l:

Fuselage

I&) Upper wolLi

Figure

/3.-

PfeSSum

distfiitruon

along

ramp

and

diverging

hmp

wa//s

fm

jnves~@jon

reported

in

reference

2.

K,

0.80.

-,
l -

NACARMA50Cl3
Ram-recovery ratio

31

Mass-flow

rofio

4% - H,-p,
2 Figure 0 @.-

2 0.83; I 0.65. Ram- recovery of the ond mass-flow confours submerged inlef. CT, 89

(k) It& f-13; Y-42 0.79;

s

Ho-4

s 0.56. entrance

in the v

w
-.8 Q 0 A 0
q

0.55 .90 .55 .90

4 4

.8

Fusefoge Ial Romp.

station,

in. fcl Lower no//.

Figure

i3.- Pressure

distribution

t&g

ramp reference

and diverging 2. I%, 0.80.

ramp wa/ls

from

investigation

reported

in

-_

NACARMA5OC!l3

33

l -

4
.

I I I km L
24 26

I
28

I I I
30

Local

pf essure , in. Hg.

Figure
l -

/4.-

Compurkun
TU f/OS

of /ocal
Wf=fhh fh8

pressures
id8f. M, t

and
cf.

fcwn Q, 4 = ;

I8 CO Vet-Y

71;

--

HI-&,,o.79; ffo-&

2,
0

0.66.

NACAEMA5OCl3

35

(a)

MO, 0.78;

2,

0.58.

(c)
t

MO, 1.05;

o-53.

Figwe

157

Tufts on the submer~d-Inlet model at several' Mach numbers. a, 0'.

NACARMA5OCl3

37

(a)

N,,

1.13;

2,

0.53.

Figure 15.- Conoluded.

r
.

-.8 -.6 0 0.74 0.85 0.58

I6 t2 8 Ramp station, in.

20

24

0 .5 I.0 1.6 Ll;o station, In. 0)) L@ pressure distribuiion.

(0) Ramp pressure distribution. Figure /6.Ramp and lip pressure distributions for several

muss- flow

rafios

and Mach numbers ; CT, 09

-1.0 -.8 -.6

2 2 a

.4 .6 .8 /.O 1.2 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 .5 I.0 f.5

Ramp station, in. fcl Ramp pressure dkti$~ion.

Lip station, in. Id/ Lip pmssure distribution.

Figure /6,-

Continued.

4.0 -.8 -.6 -,4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 l-0 f.2 I.4 0 4 8 I2 I6 L/j2

leading sdgs

0 i.15 0.8; 0.56 El I.14 .77 .40A f,f4 .76 .30 I I I I

20

24

.5 I.0 1.5

Romp stothn , in. (e) Romp pressure distribution.

Lip sfofion, in. (f) Lip pressure distribution.

figure

16. - Conchded.

4.0

-.8 -.6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 f.0 I.2 I.4

0

Te m, MOH*-&a a
0 0.74 0.85 0.58 EI .75 .82 .67 A .73 a83 .65 I I I I I

0" 4" 8'.

12

16

20

24

.5 I.0 1.'5

Ramp station, in. la) Ramp pressure distibuthn.

Lip station, in. (b/ Lip pressure distribution. for three numbers. angles of attack

Figure

17. - Ramp md lip pressure oi

d/striButions Moth

various

l.

-1.0 -3

-.6 I I I

I
I

0 I.02 0.80 0.54 0" El I.05 .75 .56 4" Al.04 -77 .57 8" I I I I I

Inner 1.0

I.2 I.4 0 4 8 /2 /6 20 24

Romp siation , in. lc) Ramp pressure disMbution.

0 .5 I.0 I.5 L/p statian, in. td/ Lip pressure distribution.

Flgure 17:- Continued.

-I. 0 -.8 -.6 0 I.15 0.81 0.56 0

f.4 0 4 f2 I6 -20 Ramp statian, in. (e) Ramp pressure dishbutihn . v 8 24

Figure

/Z- Concluded.

l .