You are on page 1of 6

AIAA80-1872R

Effectof Propeller on EngineCooling System


Dragand Performance
J. Katz, V. R. Corsiglia, P. R. Barlow

Reprinted from

Journal
olAircraft

Volume 19. Number 3, March 1982, Page 193


This paper is declared a work of the U S Government and therefore is in the public
domain

AMERICAN

INSTITUTE

OF AERONAUTICS

AND

ASTRONAUTICS

1290

AVENUE

OF THE

AMERICAS

NEW

YORK,

NEW

YORK,

N.Y.

10104

VOL.

19, NO.

AIAA

J. AIRCRAFT

MARCH

1982

80-1872R

NASA/TM.

- _ o ---"

208075

__ '

Effect of Propeller on Engine Cooling


System Drag and Performance
Joseph

Katz, Victor

NASA

The pressure

recovery

A rues

of incoming

R. Corsig/ia,t

Research

cooling

Center,

and Philip R. Bar/owl


Moffett

Field,

air and the drag associated

aviation twin-engine
aircraft was investigated
40 80-Foot Wind Tunnel at Ames Research

....

Calif.

with engine

cooling

of a typical

general

experimentally.
The semispan model was mounted vertically in the
Center, The propeller was driven by an electric motor to provide

thrust with low vibration levels for the cold-flow


configuration,
it was found that the propeller slip-stream
reduces the frontal air spillage around the blunt nacelle shape. Consequently,
this slip-stream
effect promotes
flow realtaehmenl
at the rear section of the engine nacelle and improves inlet pressure recovery.
These effects are
most pronounced
at high angles of attack; that is, climb condition.
For the cruise condition those improvements
were more moderate.

Nomenclature

well.
Recent
studies
in Refs.
1-5. These

= cooling
air inlet area
= upstream
cooling
airstream
= drag coefficient

AI

A=
Co
cp

tube

= propeller
power
coefficient
= upper
plenum
total pressure

Cp u
cr
D

= propeller
---propeller

Ds=l

=measured
system

component

= propeller
= revolutions
= propeller

P_ot
P**

= total pressure
= freestream
static

q
S

= freestream
=semispan

= propeller
thrust
- freestream
airspeed
= cooling
air mass-flow

V=

advance
ratio
per second
power

=required
lb/s)]

O_

= angle
of attack
= propeller
pitch

6of

= cowl flap
= freestream

P**

by

the

tunnel

scale

Extensive

studies

were
performed
Research
Center.

rate

[1.4

in

that

opposed
War
I!
the

most

general

engine
aircraft

designer

aviation

configurations,
used
air-cooled

with

list

of

engine

in increasing
data were not
of

opposed

inlet
pressure
reported.

piston

engine

recovery;
nacelle

drag

in the 40 80-Foot
Wind
Tunnel
at Ames
These studies
4,5 were carried
out without
the

propeller
in order
to measure
mass-flow
rates and nacelle
drag
accurately.
In the work
reported
herein,
an electric-motordriven
propeller
was added
to the nacelle;
this made
it possible
to study the effect
of the propeller
slip-stream
on the pressure

ftJ)]

kg/s

before

layouts.
provided

They
were
successful
however,
nacelle
drag

= V**/nD

mass-flow

and

"cooling
drag"
are cited
from
the studies
of the

installation
data and a procedure
for sizing the components
of
a cooling
system.
The
reshaping
of cooling
air
inlets
to
provide
less pressure
head loss was studied
by Miley et al. 2._

recovery
of the cooling
air inlets and
major
advantage
of using
an electric
was
that
cold-flow
measurements

rate

air

II era

now use horizontally


most
pre-World

radials
or in-line
Monts
_ has

2D*

pressure

cooling

War

aircraft
whereas

dynamic
pressure
= VJp** V_
model
wing area
[8.6 m 2 (92.6

W,

(3075

= P/p=n3D
coefficient

thrust
coefficient
= T/p**n
diameter
[ 193 cm (76 in.)]
drag

World

area

of this so-called
studies
differ

(3

propeller-off
vibration

angle

propeller
accurate

deflection
air density

data
torque

could
and

on the nacelle
drag.
The
motor
for this purpose
comparable
to
the

be performed.
thrust
of
an

Moreover,
the
electric-motor-driven

to measure,
which
of nacelle
drag.

was simpler
measurement

resulted

low-

in a more

Introduction
HE
cooling
system
engine
installations

design
has

attention
as fuel
efficiency
factor
in aircraft
development.
research,
originally
directed
problems,

is now

concerned

Experimental

of general
aviation
piston
recently
received
increased

has
become
a more
important
As a result,
engine
installation
at solving
powerplant
cooling
with

nacelle

drag

reduction

Apparatus

The
general
layout
of the
vertically
mounted
semispan
model
is seen in Fig. I. The end plate
was used to separate
the
model
from
the tunnel
boundary
layer
and
to serve
as a
reflection
plane.
Forces
were
measured
through
a shielded
strut
that
passed
through
the end plane
to the tunnel
scales

as

below
the floor.
inlet area when
Presented
as Paper
80-1872
at the AIAA Aircraft
Systems
and
Technology
Meeting,
Anaheim,
Calif.,
Aug. 4-6, 1980; submitted
Sept. 12, 1980; revision received July 6, 1981. This paper is declared
a
work of the U.S. Government
and therefore
is in the public domain.
"NRC
Associate.
Present
address:
Department
of Mechanical
Engineering,
Technion,
Haifa, Israel.
tAerospace
Engineer.
Member AIAA.
gAerospace
Engineer.

arrangement
streamtube
area

193

inlet
into

inserts
(Fig.
the production

2) served
inlet

of the nacelle
and
a sketch
of
are shown
in Fig. 3. The
upstream

of the

cooling

Three
placed

streamtube

airstream

is A=;

enters

into

after
the

cross section
A, (A=
recovery
is measured

<A j). At the


by eight
total

four

in

static

holes

the

rear

the external

upper

plenum

to decrease
The internal
an incoming
cross-section
diffusion,

via the

the
inlet

of

upper
plenum
the pressure
pressure
(K!el) probes
and
corner

of

the

plenum.

.fL

194

KATZ,CORSIGLIA,
ANDBARLOW
The

pressure

measured;
small (less

J.AIRCRAFT

recovery

however,
than 0.05

reported

was

the

differences
between
q**). The cooling
air

highest

value

the
sensors
were
then flowed
through

an adjustable
orifice
plate
orifice
opening
was used

to the lower
to simulate

configurations
and served
the cooling
channel.
The
was measured
in a similar

to vary the mass-flow


rate through
total
pressure
in the lower
plenum
manner
by four
Kiel probes
and

four
head
used

plenum.
various

The size of the


engine
baffle

static
holes; a rake of four
Kiel probes
measured
at the exit downstream
of a cowl
flap,
which
to control
the flow rate.

The

electric

3600
rpm]
torquemeter

motor

[maximum

was
connected
which
was
able

output:
to
to

186

propeller
thrust
simultaneously.
Incoming
filtered
with
a 10-Hz
low-pass
filter
before
The accuracy
of drag-thrust
data
was of the
lift accuracy

was

one

order

kW

the
propeller
record
shaft

of magnitude

the total
was also
(250

hp)

through
torque

at
a
and

signals
were
being
recorded.
order
of 1 70; the

better.

Results
Propeller

Calibration

The objective
of the study
reported
here was to investigate
the parametric
behavior
of inlet pressure
recovery
and nacelle
drag,
relative
to propeller-off
measurements.
4._ As a first step
the propeller
was calibrated
tion of advance
ratio
J and

for torque
blade-pitch

and thrust
as a funcangle/_o
75- The results

of these tests along with a comparison


and a description
of a spinner
correction
6. Figure
4 shows
various
blade-pitch
Fig. I

Cooling-drag

model

in 40 x 80-Foo!

thrust
angles.

with a propeller
are contained

theory
in Ref.

coefficient
vs advance
These
results
are shown

ratio
for
to be in

agreement
with
the values
obtained
using
the wind-tunnel
scales
and setting
the model
at 0 deg angle
of attack.
Table
shows
the
propeller
operating
conditions
selected
to

Wind Tunnel.

1
be

PROPELLER

UPPER

PLENUM

PLENUM

\'COWL

Ai

COOLING
STREAM

AIR
TUBE

LOWER

ADJUSTABLE

Scbemalle

Fig. 3

CTSCALE

= _ [CDMEAS
[

FLAP

ORIFICE

EXIT

PLATE

of nacelle.

_ COpRoP]
OFF

':'"24

.10
20

.06

25"

_3/4

TSHAFT

CT .02'040

m____BALANCE

-02
Fig.

Interchangeable

area:

large,

265cm

690
(41

in.2).

cm

inlets
2

(107

in.2);

to

reduce
mediunt,

inlet
393

size.
cm

Production
2

(61

in.2);

a
.4

.2

J
.6

.8
J

1.0

1.2

1,4

J
1.6

inlet
small,

Fig.

Comparison

corresponding

of

thrust

values measured

measured

on shaft

on

wind-tunnel

balance.

scales

with

MARCH

1982

ENGINE

Table

COOLING

Test conditions

SYSTEM

195

for climb and cruise configurations

q,

m/s
(ft/s)

cm H20
(Ib/ft z )

Propeller

6cf,
deg
30
30

19
...............

2450

180

0.063

0.58

0
0

25
...............

2450

150

0.039

1.06

Climb

on
off

13. I (26)
15. I (30)

47 (I 55)
50 (166)

8
8

Cruise

on
off

40.3 (80)
40.3 (80)

84 (272)
84 (272)

2.3
2.3

t "
CRUISE

,\

------

WITH

--

WITHOUT

l/oa
--

J=

ct,
deg

_o.TJ,
deg

nD

hp

rpm

1.0

PROPELLER

PROPELLER

.6
.6
Cp u
Cp u

.4

.4

L
.2

L
.4

I
.6

I
.8

I
1

Medium
inlet
Smell
inlet

A_/Ai

Fig. 5

Effect

of propeller

1
.5

on inlet pressure

Fig. ? Inlet pressure recovery vs cooling


with propeller.
10-

I
1.5

I
1.0

recovery.
air mass-flow

rate: climb,

I
LARGE

INLET

MEDIUM

INL_
.O6

M AL L IN L E T-'_,,,,,._

------

WITH

--

WITHOUT

PROPELLER
PROPELLER

_(_

.O5
CLIMB

Cp u
.O4
.4
CD
C o =(D$cale+
_--

DESIGN

T)

/qm

POINT
,O3

.2

_l

1
tlo

.;

CRUISE

.O2

.2

.4

.6

.8

t
1

A=/Ai

Fig. 6 Inlet pressure


with propeller.

recovery

vs cooling

air mass-flow

rate: cruise,

Fig. 8

These
representative
conditions

were

Variation
The

of

cruise

those

used

and

climb

in the present

condition.

These

study.

of Inlet Area
effect

inlet pressure
the propeller-off

of

the

propeller

recovery
data

slip-stream

was investigated
reported
in Ref.

on

nacelle

drag

and

and compared
with
5. The upper
plenum

Effect of propeller

data

were

obtained

on semispan

for

both

nacelle-wing

the

drag.

cruise

and

climb

conditions
that are given in Table
I.
The measured
pressure
recoveries
presented
in Fig. 5 are in
agreement
with
the results
obtained
by Miley
et al.2.J
for
inlets
of area
ratio
0.3 and
0.6.
Because
their
inlet
configurations
however,
slightly
The

the

had
improved
internal
small
inlets
(A=/A,=0.6)

improved
effect
of

pressure
recovery
the propeller
on

diffuser
in their

contours,
test gave

of C,
= 0.6-0.7.
inlet _ressure
recovery

a
at

pressure
recovery
Cpu as a function
of inlet area ratio
A=/Ai,
where A= is the incoming
flow cross-section
area ahead
of the
model
(Fig. 3) and A, is the inlet area,
is given in Fig. 5. Here

cruise
is small.
This agrees
with the observation
of Miley
et
al. z.3 of a 5% increase
in inlet total
head because
of propeller
slip-stream.
For the climb
condition
and the lowest
value
of

the pressure

A /A,
(largest
about
20/0 to

coefficient

is defined

as

Cp u = (Pro,-P)/q=

(1)

close

agreement

inlet area),
the effect
of the propeller
the upper
plenum
pressure.
This
is,
with

the

results

of

Miley

et al.2.3

is to add
again,
in
At

higher

196

KATZ,CORSIGLIA,

values

of

propeller
propeller
pressure

A=/A,

(smallest

inlet

area)

the

is much
greater.
Nevertheless,
installed,
there
is a substantial
recovery
C.
as A=/A,
increases.

even
with
the propeller
shp-stream
considerable
internal
flow
separation
This
nonlinear
behavior
is demonstrated
which
the
mass-flow

effect

of

the

even
with
decrease
in
This indicates

the
inlet
that

present,
there
ts still
in the upper
plenum.
in Figs. 6 and 7, in

upper
plenum
pressure
recovery
rate
W. At the cruise condition,

C_
is plotted
a slight
increase

vs
in

pressure
recovery
is measured
for the higher
flow rates.
This
might
possibly
be an indication
of reattachment
in the internal
flow.
The basic
trend
of higher
pressure
recovery
for
the

larger

cooling
The

inlets

is maintained

air flow rates


drag coefficient

Fig. 8. The
paper
have
measured
the wing

with

the

propeller

that were tested.


C ovs
area
ratio

C o values
shown
in Fig.
been
corrected
for
shaft

shaft
thrust
T to the
propeller
combination

on

A=/A,

the

is plotted

8 and
thrust

measured

for

data

BARLOW

Fig.

8. At cruise

at climb
separation

J. AIRCRAFT

the drag

increases

as

the drag decreases


because
at the aft portion
of

power

rates ( W W c <0.8),
however,
the effect
is large enough
that drag is not reduced
the thrust
becomes
greater.
The increase
in the drag
coefficient
rate is increased
(with
the propeller
10. When
the propeller
was added,
drag was observed
for
for the larger
inflows,
root
and in the
thinner
boundary

is increased,

and

of the suppression
of
the nacelle.
At lower
of the
because

flow
flow

frontal
spillage
of thrust
until

as the cooling
air flow
off)
is presented
in Fig.
however,
a reduction
in

increased
mass-flow
the flow
disturbance

rates.
at

It seems
that
the propeller

front
of the nacelle
is reduced,
layer and lower
drag.

resulting

in a

in

throughout
by adding

scale

AND

the
the

O58

CLIMB
C T = 0000

(PROP

OFF)

hscal e for
O54

C o = (D_cal e + T)/qS

75 = 17

(;_0 75 = 19

(2)
. 0063
.05O

Therefore
the C o values
reflect
the influence
of the
slip-stream
on the wing
nacelle,
but do not include
thrust.
To
interpret
these
results,
a schematic
around
based

the wing
nacelle
on tuft observations

that

the

airstream

and

high

local

is drawn
in
in the wind

spillage,
velocities

that
at the

propeller
the shaft
flowfield

Fig. 9. The
drawing
tunnel
which
indicated

is, thickened
nacelle

boundary

blunt

front

CO
046

is

028
C T = 0.039

layer

end,

flow separation
at the aft section
of the wing-nacelle
fairing.
The drag results
in Fig. 8 can be interpreted
in terms of this
flowfield
sketch.
In the cruise
condition,
the angle of attack
is
low
and
favorable

the
aft
flow
effect
of the

separation,
increased

but
skin

propeller
propeller
increased.

the

study

drag

was

of streamlined
however,
that

without
the
streamlined.

propeller,

by suppressing

conducted

by

the
Becker,

the

aft

7 who

section

of

that

0._

(PROP

CRUISE

by
of

OFF)

020

the
the

.5

1 0

1.5

w_
Fig.
I0 Effect
of propeller
production configuration.

power

on

wing-nacelle

drag

for

separation
measured

bodies
with frontal
inlets.
the smaller
inlet had lower
since

the
flow

with the
has
been
is to sub-

flow

= 25 I

024

his

i=!
i

AFT

FAIRtNG

His results
drag
even
model

was
U

0,58

of Power

The effect
on
mass-flow
rate,
seen

the resulting
drag
reduction
is offset
friction.
Consequently,
the
effect

reduce
nacelle.

A related

Effect

is small.
Therefore
slip-stream
reduces
the

on drag is small.
In the climb configuration
off,
however,
the aft
flow
separation
The net effect,
then,
of the propeller

stantially
on the aft

the drag
showed,

separation
propeller

(_o75

causes

drag of increasing
for the large
inlet

the effect

of

the

power

power setting
area,
in Fig.
is the

same

is plotted
10. It can

as that

shown

vs
be

-------

PROPELLER
PROPELLER

ON
OFF

AFT

.......c......__

FAIRING

FF

CLIMB

054

in

.05O

_----'W"

S-;E'::S%

_ _'_7...-_ _"I_'-----

OFF

.046
c D

FRONTAL

SPILLAGE

al l
028

AFT

FAIRING
OFF

"---_ _

---"

I,"

"--_--.,t

o24

_'_-"

--

--

"_----

ON ---0- ---_@

"P-

_,--

_=-- --

CRUISE

OFF
ON
020
L
S

/
SEPARATED

Fig. 9 Schematic description


by tuft studies),

of flowfield

=
110

1A5

REGION

about nacelle (as obtained

Fig. II
Effect
configuration.

of aft

failing

on

wing-nacelle

drag

for production

MARCH
1982

ENGINE
COOLING
SYSTEM

.062
AFT

------

PROPELLER

ON

--

PROPELLER

OFF

FAIRING

__'_

the cooling

exits

of

exit

was

sealed,

OFF

stream,
however,
also continues
to
with

.O54
ON

CLIMa

For

shown

this
in Fig.

the

the drag
decrease

propeller-off

slightly
increased
with
and
12 it is concluded

o'e.a.
_.

air.
as

configuration
12.

The

the

cowl

results

of

flap

Ref.

show
that
this particular
side
exit configuration
increased
flow separation
over the rear part of the nacelle
and thereby
increased
the drag.
In Ihe presence
of the propeller
slip-

.O58

.O5O

197

figuration
exit. But
cowl flap

_ OFF

SiDE

aft fairing

EXITS

is not only lower


(generally),
but
with
flow
rate;
this is in contrast

configuration,
flow
that

for

which

the

drag

rates.
When
comparing
Figs.
11
at cruise
the side exiting
con-

has slightly
higher
drag
than
for the powered
climb
condition
makes
the side exits competitive,

the standard
cowl
the absence
of the
especially
with the

on,

.046

Conclusions

CD
ON

The
reduces
nacelle

.042

addition
of a propeller
to a wing-nacelle
configuration
the amount
of flow separation
over the aft part of the
and at the inlet of the cooling
air flow.
This leads to a

reduction
flow rate

CRUISE
FAIRING

are more
The inlet
as much

.028

ON"_'_=_----:'_--_-v---5_:

climb
this
production

.024

.;

Fig. 12 Effect
cooling airL

110

of aft fairing on wing-nacelle

the cooling
is reduced.

air massWhen
the

pronounced
in the climb
condition
than
pressure
recovery
for the cruise
condition
as 570 because
of the slip-stream
effect,
improvement
(large)
inlet

is of the
order
and
even
more

of 20070
for smaller

at cruise.
improves
while
at
for
the
inlets.

These
improvements
are partially
a result
of propeller
slipstream
related
pressure
rise,
but
the
major
effect
is the
reduction
in the amount
of flow separation
inside the inlet at

115

drag (using

drag when
inlet spillage

inlet
area
was
reduced,
the
drag
decreased,
unlike
the
propeller-off
case in which
the nacelle
drag continued
to be
almost
unaffected
as the inlet area was reduced.
These
effects

.032

AFT

in the configuration
is increased,
since

side exits for

the

higher

angles

of attack.

References
Variation

of Nacelle

Figures
8-10
on the amount

Aft Section

illustrate
the strong
of
flow
separation

dependence
behind

of nacelle
the nacelle.

drag
To

reduce
that effect,
an aft fairing
(shown
in Fig. 11) was tested
with
various
nacelle
configurations.
The results
in Fig.
11
show that for both
propeller-off
(solid
lines) and propeller-on
(dashed
present.

lines)
the drag
reduction
At the cruise
condition

order
as the
propeller-on
propeller-off

effect
of the aft fairing
is
this reduction
is of the same

propeller-off
case,
and at the climb condition
the
drag reduction
is smaller
(by 20 to 4070) than the
drag
reduction,
especially
for the higher
flow

rates
flow

(W).
This
separation

and

the additional

is because
the propeller
with the aft fairing
off,
effect

of the aft fairing

has suppressed
the
as discussed
above,
is therefore

less.

Side Exits
Similar
added
to

behavior
a nacelle

was observed
configuration

when
the aft fairing
was
thai uses side ports
for the

I Monts,
F., "The
Development
of Reciprocating
Engine
Installation
Data for General
Aviation Aircraft,"
SAE Paper 73-0325,
April 1973.
"Miley, S.J., Cross, E.J. Jr., and Owens, J.K., "An Investigation
of the Aerodynamics
and Cooling of a Horizontally
Opposed Engine
Installation,"
SAE Paper 77-0467, March-April
1977.
3Miley,
S.J., Cross, E.J. Jr., Lawrence,
D.L., and Owens, J.K.,
"Aerodynamics
of
Horizontally
Opposed
Aircraft
Engine
Installations,"
AIAA Paper 77-1249, April 1977.
4Corsiglia,
V.R., Katz, J., and Kroeger,
R.A.,
"Full-Scale
Wind
Tunnel
Sludy of Nacelle Shape on Cooling
Drag,"
Journal
of Aircrafl, VoI. 18, No. 2, Feb. 1981, pp. 82-88.
_Katz, J., Corsiglia,
V.R., and Barlow, P.R., "Study
of Cooling
Air Inlet and Exit Geometries
for Horizontally
Opposed
Piston
Aircraft
Engines,"
AIAA Paper 80-1242, June 1980.
6Barlow,
P.R.,
Corsiglia,
V.R.,
and
Ka_z, J.,
"'Full-Scale
Aerodynamic
Characteristics
of a Propeller
Installed
on a Small TwinEngine Aircraft Wing Panel,"
NASA TM 81285, May 1981.
7Becket,
V.J.,
"Wind
Tunnel
Tests of Air Inlet
and Outlet
Openings
on a Streamline
Body,"
NACA Wartime
Rept, L-300, Nov.
1940.