THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL JUNE 2001 335

Future challenges for powerplant

aerodynamic integration in combat aircraft
M. G. Philpot
Propulsion and Performance Department
DERA Centre for Aerospace Technology
Farnborough, UK

ABSTRACT
The operational requirements of modern combat aircraft demand
complex engine intake and exhaust systems, capable of working
efficiently over a very wide range of flight conditions and throttle
settings. In addition to high aerodynamic efficiency and avoidance
of high distortion levels at the engine face, these systems must also
meet rigorous radar and infra-red signature targets. This paper
discusses the implications from the aerodynamics point of view.
Examples of technical approaches which seek to balance the some-
times conflicting requirements of aerodynamics and signatures are
outlined. The potential offered by in-flight thrust vectoring to
enhance flight performance and/or safety is also reviewed and the
aerodynamic implications considered. Overall, propulsion integra-
tion for combat aircraft presents several challenges to the aerody-
namicist, not least the development and validation of improved theo-
retical design methods capable of analysing the highly complex
flows involved.
Figure 1. Panavia Tornado.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The installation of an engine into the airframe, whether it be the
typical external, pylon-mounted in a separate nacelle in a civil trans-
port, or an embedded engine in the fuselage of a military aircraft,
forms a distinct and vital branch of aeronautics technology. The
operational requirements of the modern combat aircraft in particular
demand complex intake and exhaust systems capable of working
efficiently over a wide range of flight conditions and engine thrusts.
This is true whether the primary design role of the aircraft is ground
attack, as was the case with Tornado (Fig. 1), or air defence as with
Eurofighter 2000 (Fig. 2) or Rafale (Fig. 3). The increasingly unpre-
dictable nature of air warfare as we enter the 21st century, plus the
need to minimise the number of different aircraft types in the air
force inventory for affordability reasons, means that combat aircraft
will increasingly need to be operated in a flexible manner. Thus the
ground attack aircraft may be required to have a good self-defence
capability in air combat, while the air defence fighter may be
required to perform ground attack missions. Although future uncer-
tainties may emphasise the desirability of such flexibility, it is
scarcely a new concept. Most existing combat designs have more
than one role. Figure 2. Eurofighter.

Paper No. 2589. Manuscript received 26 September 2000, accepted 12 January 2001.
© Crown copyright 2000. Published with the permission of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on behalf of the Controller of HMSO.
Originally presented at the ICAS 2000 Conference, Harrogate, UK.
 336 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL
Figure 3. Rafale.
What is more recent is the emergence of low observability (LO) as
a key requirement, not just for specialist aircraft like the Lockheed
Martin Fl 17 'stealth fighter' or the Northrop B2 bomber, but for all
future combat aircraft. The trail-blazer for the new approach is the
US F22 project (Fig. 4) in which LO considerations have strongly
influenced almost every aspect of the aircraft design, most notice-
ably with regard to the external shaping of the airframe. The shaping
principles embodied in the F22 will undoubtedly be emulated to a
greater or lesser extent in all future designs. The need to combine
LO properties with good aerodynamic performance now tends to
dominate military engine installation research programmes and is
stimulating various novel approaches.
Much attention has also been devoted during the past decade to
the potential use of in-flight thrust vectoring, to enhance aircraft
manoeuvrability or confer other benefits. Its practicality has been
clearly demonstrated, although the operational value continues to be
the subject of vigorous debate. Irrespective of the latter, any success-
ful implementation will require careful aerodynamic optimisation.
The aim of this paper is to highlight some of the issues and aero-
dynamic challenges that result from the foregoing trends.
2.0 OPERATIONAL NEEDS
The broad requirements outlined above mean that combat aircraft
will operate for the great majority of any mission at medium alti-
tudes (20,000 to 40,000ft) and/or low altitudes, at a well throttled-
back subsonic cruise condition. However there will be brief excur-
sions to high altitudes (50,000 to 60,000ft, say) and supersonic
Figure 4. USAF F22 Raptor.
JUNE 2001
speeds in the Mach 1-5 to Mach 2 range. Combat manoeuvring
whether at subsonic or supersonic speeds, will require maximum
thrust and high g turns. Advances in engine technology are leading
to ever higher specific thrusts (thrust/unit inlet airflow), while com-
parable advances in airframe technology are allowing higher turn
rates and efficient, controlled flight at higher angles of attack. The
intake must more than ever before be capable of efficient, stable
operation over a wide flow range and be tolerant of high pitch and
yaw angles, or rapid and large changes in them during combat
manoeuvring. As well as operating efficiently in their own right, the
intake and associated ducting must not present the engine with
excessive steady or dynamic distortion levels. The latter aspects
require careful optimisation of the intake external geometry and its
integration with the adjacent fuselage surfaces. Such considerations
led for example to the choice of chin intakes for EF2000, where the
underside of the forebody assists flow entry at high angles of attack.
The wide flow and Mach number ranges may be accommodated by
variable intake cowls, allowing intake capture area to be matched to
flight condition; variable internal ramps may also be employed to
adjust throat area. The Tornado and Eurofighter both employ the
latter.
At the back end, the wide variation in thrust demands of a super-
sonic-capable fighter can still only be satisfactorily met in practice
by the use of reheat. Although there have been flirtations in the past
with 'supercruise' concepts, in which the engine would have suffi-
cient dry (ie unreheated) power to accelerate to and sustain supersonic
cruise flight, this generally results in unacceptably poor performance
in other parts of the flight envelope. The main development in recent
years has been a big increase in nozzle pressure ratios. This has led
to change from the simple variable convergent nozzles used in
Tornado and some other aircraft of the same era, to widespread
adoption of variable convergent-divergent nozzles, first introduced
in the F15 Air Superiority fighter in the 1970s. The nozzles may still
be relatively simple in the sense that the throat and exit areas may be
'hard-linked' and change together according to a schedule deter-
mined by the mechanical linkage. However optimum performance
under all conditions requires the two areas to be controlled indepen-
dently leading ultimately to so-called two parameter nozzle designs.
While such nozzles provide improved internal performance, they do
add to the difficulties of integration with the fuselage afterbody.
Developing low drag designs, particularly those involving close-
coupled twin engine arrangements, remains a challenge.
Overlaying these performance-related requirements are now those
associated with LO, which introduce additional constraints. The
most obvious manifestation of these are the careful shaping of the
aircraft external surfaces to control radar returns — not least the
engine intake and exhaust system geometries — and the obscuration
Figure 5. Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter design.
 PHILPOT FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR POWERPLANT AERODYNAMIC INTEGRATION IN COMBAI AIRCRAFT
Figure 6. Boeing Joint Strike Fighter design.
as far as possible of internal surfaces and systems like the engines,
which may be powerful sources of radar reflection or infra-red emis-
sions. Thus the Fl 17 'first generation' stealth bomber has 'louvred'
intakes to present as far as possible continuous surfaces with the
adjacent airframe, while the later B2 bomber has slit intakes located
on top of the wing to achieve a similar purpose. Both aircraft also
have narrow 'slit' nozzles integrated into the wing trailing edges, an
approach facilitated by the use of unreheated engines. Less extreme
solutions must be sought for the agile fighter or multi-roled combat
aircraft, where reheated engines are almost certainly necessary, as
already discussed. For example, the F22 has intakes which are
conventionally-placed, forward of the wing and open at the inlet
plane, albeit aligned to the wing leading edges. It does however
move some way towards the slit nozzle approach in using variable
area, rectangular engine nozzles to provide close integration with the
airframe and minimise irregularities in the contour lines.
3.0 INTAKES
3.1 Intake/forebody integration
Considerations of overall aircraft architecture, equipment packaging
and aerodynamic optimisation greatly constrain the choice of intake
longitudinal location in modern fighter aircraft. Thus, while there
may be freedom to select side, semi-ventral or chin intakes, almost
all modern designs place them at or just behind the point at which
the curved forebody blends into the main, parallel section of the
fuselage, and hence in a region of diffusing flow and thickening
forebody boundary layer. To avoid as far as possible ingestion of the
associated low energy and turbulent flow, aerodynamically highly-
optimised designs like Eurofighter and Rafale use 'diverter' intake
arrangements, in which the intake itself stands off from the fuselage
skin sufficiently to take it clear of the boundary layer under most
flight conditions. A vee-shaped diverter in the resultant cavity
between intake and fuselage guides the 'captured' boundary layer
back into the mainstream flow with minimum drag penalty.
However, while the diverter intake concept offers a good aerody-
namic solution, the additional cavity and discontinuities in mould
lines, when viewed from most forward aspects, potentially create
additional sources of radar return. Thus, where LO considerations
are of particular importance, more closely-coupled intake/forebody
arrangements, without any separation between the intake lip and the
fuselage wall, may be preferred in the future — the so-called 'divert-
erless' intake. While the F22 still uses a form of diverter intake,
diverterless designs are apparent in both Joint Strike Fighter designs,
although in other respects the two intake concepts differ consider-
337
Figure 7. Computed streamlines over a bump-type intake at
supersonic speed.
ably from one another (Figs 5 and 6). Because the forebody bound-
ary layer can no longer be avoided, the aerodynamic solution must
be either to minimise its thickness or to re-energise it (or a combina-
tion of both).
One approach is to introduce a localised 'bump' on the fuselage
wall immediately upstream of the intake. The principles have been
known for decades, but have attracted renewed attention recently.
The main art lies in the way the concept is integrated into the overall
design; the particular combination of bump and forward swept cowl
embodied in the Lockheed Martin JSF design has for example been
protected by patent"*. But in general the aim is to create a favourable
pressure gradient, thinning the boundary layer as it flows over the
bump and into the intake. Conversely, the boundary layer round the
sides of the bump is thickened but effectively transports the main
low energy flow round the sides of the intake (Fig. 7). By careful
contouring, the bump may also act as a pre-compression surface to
increase intake efficiency under supersonic conditions. But achiev-
ing the necessary boundary layer flow control with the complex
three dimensional geometries involved is a substantial task. Exten-
sive computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies to understand and
quantify the effects of the many geometric and flow variables are
required, supported where necessary by wind tunnel testing and vali-
dation.
3.2 Intake duct design
As with the intake entry design, aerodynamic and signature consid-
erations place conflicting demands on the design of the intake duct.
The job of the duct is to diffuse the flow from choking or high sub-
sonic conditions at the intake throat to around M 0-6 at the engine
face, with minimum pressure loss and - more importantly from the
propulsion point of view - with minimum circumferential pressure
distortion. The inherent lack of axisymmetry of side or chin intakes,
coupled with the rectangular geometry of the typical supersonic
installation, means that there will always be some residual distortion.
This will generally be intensified as aircraft pitch or yaw angle
increases and overlaid with additional transient distortions triggered
by aircraft dynamic manoeuvring. Allowance for these effects must
be made in engine stability audits and they can account for a half (or
even more) of the required engine surge margin. Aerodynamically,
the preferred way of minimising both total pressure losses and
distortion is to make the intake ducts as straight and as 'clean' as
possible. Although practical aircraft layouts generally enforce some
duct curvature, it is apparent from Fig. 2 that Eurofighter, for
example, adheres broadly to this principle.
Signature considerations tend to drive the duct design in the oppo-
site direction. A particular aim is to prevent 'line of sight' from
forward of the aircraft to the engine face. Not only is it virtually
 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL
inevitable that the fan rotating blades have to be made from highly
radar-reflective titanium for strength reasons, but the rotation
imparts a characteristic modulation to the reflected waves which will
further aid detection and aircraft identification. This may lead to a
preference for more highly curved duct arrangements and/or the
inclusion of radial vanes or other devices in the duct to enhance
obscuration. Both duct walls and obscuration devices will be treated
with radar absorption material in analogous fashion to the acoustic
duct liners used in civil engine installations. The engine fan may
well be designed with inlet guide vanes for aerodynamic perfor-
mance reasons and these will help to conceal the rotating blades. But
in general substantial obscuration will require specially designed
vanes and/or other devices and these are likely to lead to aerodynamic
penalties. The latter will be made worse if the design also involves
increased duct curvature.
The penalties will take the form of increased mean pressure losses
and greater distortion levels. The latter will also potentially become
more variable in character because of the increased opportunities for
local flow separations. The resultant problems and challenges facing
the intake aerodynamicist will be apparent. It is difficult with current
CFD methods and turbulence models to predict the flow characteristics
of highly curved ducts, at least where there are regions of separated
flow. The problems are compounded when obscuration vanes or
other devices further complicate the geometry. Work to improve and
validate these theoretical methods offers important scope for
research at the present time.
Better modelling and prediction are only part of the battle. It is
equally important to devise methods of controlling and reducing the
adverse effects — the flow distortions in particular. This is leading
to interest in both passive and active flow management within com-
plex geometry ducts. As an example of the former, theoretical stud-
ies at DERA have suggested that concentrating flow diffusion in the
front part of the duct, with some subsequent re-contraction, will help
to reduce distortion levels at the engine face. In terms of active
measures, work at DERA has also demonstrated that the use of either
stub vane or wall air-jet vortex generators in a highly curved duct
can successfully re-energise and re-distribute regions of low energy
flow. This work builds on earlier theoretical studies carried out jointly
with NASA*2'. Wind tunnel model tests on such devices have recently
been carried out at representative Reynolds numbers and have shown
substantial improvements in the standard DC60 distortion parameter
(DC60 defined as (Pmean - Pmin)/Pmean at the engine face, for the
worst 60° sector of the annulus). Sample results are shown visually in
Fig. 8 and numerically in Fig. 9. The aim of the approach is not to
suppress local flow separations as such, as that can only be effected
over very narrow flow ranges, but rather to 'smear out' the low
energy flows caused by separation. It has been found that the tech-
niques appear to work over a wide flow range and for widely differ-
ent inlet pitch and yaw angles.
Despite the promise, much needs to be done to turn these concepts
into practical solutions. Also, how successfully they can be used in
conjunction with duct vanes is not yet known and it is clearly impor-
M2129 Baseline S-Duct With Vortex Flow Control
Figure 8. Duct vortex flow control - total pressure contours.
JUNE 2001
0.5
•
0.4
yS* Datum
0.3
o
mr-
VO
o
Q 0.2
'
/
/ Air Jets
/ [
0.1 y 1
—« Vanes
^iT^SV- ^ t-—-A i
0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Mth
Figure 9. Duct vortex flow control - DC60 v Mn.
tant that issues such as this should be addressed. It is indeed possible
that obscuration vanes might be designed to contribute directly to the
solution by providing beneficial flow conditioning in similar fashion
to the flow straighteners used in wind tunnels. Duct flow manage-
ment will continue to be an important field of investigation for some
years to come.
3.3 Intake/engine compatibility
As already noted, engine operating surge margin requirements are
strongly influenced by the levels of flow distortion arriving at the fan
face. Other factors which contribute to the surge margin 'stack-up',
include fan and compressor operating point deviations during engine
handling (primarily rapid engine accelerations), allowances for
engine to engine variations during manufacture and engine deteriora-
tion in service. Fan and compressor design and technology have
made great strides in the past 10 years, thanks in large measure to the
introduction of 3D CFD design codes. However, with the highly
loaded blading designs now being used in military combat engines, it
remains difficult to combine good surge margins with high
efficiency, particularly for the highly-tuned transonic blades of the
fan or LP compressor. Typically, a state-of-art 3 stage fan may be
required to deliver a pressure ratio of 5 or more, where less than 3
would have been sought 25 years ago. Such a fan is likely to be
specified to operate in the engine with a surge margin of around 25%
(surge margin defined as (Rsurge - Rop)/(Rop - 1), while peak
efficiency is likely to occur at a surge margin of perhaps 15%. The
extra margin indicated by the stability audit may cost 3% to 4% of
fan efficiency.
It is clearly important to estimate the different effects that con-
tribute to surge behaviour as accurately as possible, the response to
inlet distortion above all else. The principles were established sqirfe
30 years ago'3*, but even now, estimation methods remain very largely
empirical and hence cannot be extrapolated to new fan and
compressor designs with confidence. The question, is perhaps one for
the turbomachinery specialist rather than^the aircraft or intake
aerodynamicist, but it is very much an engine integration issue and
hence relevant to the present discussion. In an attempt to proceed
towards a soundly-based theoretical prediction method, DERA and
Rolls-Royce have sponsored work at Cambridge University, based
on multi-block structured CFD methods aimed at modelling the
transport of flow distortions through multiple highly-loaded
compressor rows. The work is showing promise, but is only one step
towards quantification of the trade-offs between intake distortion
levels and erosion of surge margin.
 PHILPOT FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR POWERPLANT AERODYNAMIC INTEGRATION IN COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Figure 10. Eurofighter- rear aspect.
4.0 EXHAUST SYSTEMS
4.1 Nozzle/afterbody integration: aerodynamics
As in the case of engine intakes, integration of the engine exhaust
system into the airframe is a critical part of the overall aircraft and
one that is becoming increasingly complex'4-5'. The aerodynamic
issues for an agile combat aircraft with reheated engines can be illus-
trated by reference to the nozzle/afterbody design of Eurofighter — a
good example of a well-designed and carefully optimised back end,
Fig. 10. The rear fuselage tapers to match the lines of the twin,
closely-coupled nozzles (which are the engine designer's responsibil-
ity) as smoothly as possible in their fully-open position. Both under-
neath and on the upper side, the fuselage is channelled to allow
entrainment of free stream air and minimise the back end base area.
In common with all current reheated engine designs, the variable
area nozzles protrude beyond the aircraft afterbody in order to allow
the nozzle area mechanism to operate, untrammelled by airframe
constraints.
The nozzle operating parameters and external shaping vary widely
with flight condition, not only in terms of area (governed mainly, but
a/c afterbody
n
°zzle »««
jet pipe internal flaps
Dry Cruise
Max Reheat
Figure 11. Nozzle profiles, 'closed' and 'open'.
339
not entirely by whether reheat is on or off), but also in terms of
nozzle pressure ratio and hence jet velocity. Both will strongly influ-
ence the flow entrainment over the afterbody and the boundary layer,
eg thickness and presence and positioning of local flow separations.
The following table gives some idea, for an arbitrary design, of the
range of nozzle conditions that might be encountered. Figure 11
depicts the corresponding internal and external lines.
Aircraft Mach no M0-7 M 1-8
Altitude (M) 3,000 10.000
Engine condition dry cruise max reheat
Nozzle Pressure Ratio 4-5 13
Jet velocity (m/s) 800 1500
Rel nozzle throat area 10 1-75
Rel nozzle exit area 1-2 24
It is apparent from the figure that when the nozzle is closed down
to the dry cruise condition, the effective base area is considerably
increased, thus increasing base drag. When the nozzle is opened up
for maximum reheat operation, the external profile is straight, or
may even be designed to be slightly divergent. A small degree of
divergence may possibly reduce aggregate base drag still further, but
its influence on the boundary layer flow exiting from the aircraft
afterbody is liable to be complex and far from easy to determine.
Overall, aircraft back end drag is a summation of several
elements: afterbody profile drag, fuselage base drag, nozzle base
drag, and local interference effects associated with the wing or
tailplane/fuselage and fin/fuselage junctions. All are affected to a
greater or lesser extent by engine operating condition and are often
referred to collectively as 'throttle dependent drag'. This represents a
significant component of total aircraft drag, typically amounting to
up to 30% of total zero lift drag'41. Moreover, as implied above, it
tends to be worst at throttled back cruise conditions, which is where,
perversely, much of the mission fuel will be burned — perhaps 70%
or more in some scenarios'6'.
The complexities of the aircraft and engine jet flows and the range
of geometric,flightand engine operating parameters involved, make
the nozzle/afterbody integration problem a prime candidate for theo-
retical analysis using advanced CFD methods. However, those same
complexities make it a difficult problem to confront by these means
and in the past it has been necessary to depend largely on experimental
methods. Figure 12 shows a special wind tunnel model designed by
Figure 12. DERA/ARA nozzle/afterbody model.
340 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL
the Aircraft Research Association on behalf of DERA for experi-
mental research in this field. The general similarity to Eurofighter
will be apparent and in fact the model has been used to optimise and
validate the afterbody/nozzle design of that aircraft. While much
progress has been made in the CFD field during the past decade,
development of analytical techniques that will reduce dependence on
such expensive wind tunnel exercises remains an important aspira-
tion for the future.
4.2 Nozzle/afterbody integration: signature considerations
Turning now to the additional constraints that may be imposed if a
high degree of stealth is required, it is readily apparent that design-
ing the engine exhaust system and its integration into the aircraft for
low signatures is far from easy. The aerodynamic and engine operat-
ing requirements — not least the need for nozzle area variation —
reduce the scope for shaping and other measures aimed at reduced
radar cross-section. The inherently high engine exhaust temperatures
create major sources of infra-red radiation, from the plume and the
externally visible hot parts, even without reheat on.
Major guidelines for a low signature back end include: alignment
of major edges to reflect incident radar waves away from the direc-
tion of the emissions source; avoidance of discontinuities that will
lead to additional reflections; application of radar absorbent treat-
ments on potentially reflecting surfaces; exploitation of shielding
and obscuration techniques wherever possible. As noted earlier, the
Fl 17 and B2 aircraft have slit or 'letterbox' nozzles, at least partly
for the latter reason. However, neither of these aircraft has reheated
engines, or variable area nozzles. The requirement for nozzle
variability makes such obscuration approaches more difficult, while
also introducing various discontinuities in the visible mould lines, eg
at the afterbody/nozzle interface and due to axisymmetric nozzle
petal overlap (nozzle closed), or possibly petal-petal gaps (nozzle
open).
In response to problems such as these, the designers of the F22
aircraft have adopted rectangular rather than axisymmetric nozzles,
with 'chevron' exit lips and saw-toothed interfaces between the
moveable parts of the nozzle and the aircraft afterbody (Fig. 4). In
addition, the engine exhausts are located between extended tail
booms, which also support the horizontal tailplanes and canted tail
fins. These arrangements reduce the integration discontinuities
('steps and gaps') and offer a considerable amount of shielding from
Thrust Coefficient
—\ .—.
0.98 -
/ /\ '--./^^
; / \ '*._ ^ - ^ A r e a ratio = 1.4
0.96 -
0.94 -
N mission usage combine to call for extensive operation at such condi-
' /
0.92 - / s Area ratio = 1.2
/ X.
0.90 - \ at maximum reheat. The corresponding gains in net thrust, more
•v.
0.88 - Area ratio = 1.0
0.86 - 1 1 : r— • — — —
5 10 15
Nozzle Pressure Ratio
Figure 13. Nozzle thrust coefficient variations for different exit/throat
area ratios.
JUNE 2001
Figure 14. IHPTET Saw-tooth nozzle concept.
most aspects, except directly behind. Broadly similar approaches are
being adopted in the two competing Joint Strike Fighter designs
(Figs 5 and 6).
Clearly, the F22 design is successful from the aerodynamic point
of view, with flight performance reportedly meeting or even exceed-
ing specification. There is every reason to presume that the two JSF
designs will be equally successful. However, the nozzle is essentially
a pressure vessel (most particularly upstream of the throat, but also
to some extent downstream) and axisymmetry offers the highest
inherent strength/weight ratio, as well being somewhat easier to
cool. Rectangular nozzles therefore tend to introduce mass and other
penalties, while the need for the variability to be effected by move-
ment of the upper and lower ramps between side plates increases the
potential for leakage and hence lower nozzle thrust coefficients.
Thus, from the propulsion point of view there is continuing motiva-
tion for seeking alternative approaches that might achieve the same
low signature aims, while preserving an axisymmetric nozzle struc-
ture. Novel aircraft and exhaust system architectures that further
increase shielding will thus continue to excite interest.
4.3 Nozzle design
Aerodynamically, the most significant change that has occurred in
recent years has been the general adoption of convergent-divergent
(con-di) nozzles, as noted earlier. However these are considerably
longer, heavier and mechanically more complex than convergent
nozzles and can only be justified where the summation of aircraft
flight point performance requirements and engine throttle settings
results in a net mission performance benefit. Con-di nozzles provide
much improved performance at high nozzle pressure ratios (Fig. 13)
and therefore are particularly attractive when engine cycle and
tions. Taking the conditions cited in the table in Section 4.1 for
example, the improvement in gross thrust over a convergent nozzle
(Area ratio = 1-0) is around 2-5% at the dry cruise condition and 6%
important in aircraft performance terms, are 3-5% and 9%,
respectively.
The purpose of the divergent section is to allow efficient super-
sonic expansion of the jet flow to take place downstream of the
20 throat. Its ideal profile and dimensions are dependent on the amount
of expansion required and hence on nozzle operating condition. The
exit/throat area is therefore required to vary with the latter. Practical
engineering considerations of size, weight, actuation etc, mean that
the nozzle geometry has to be a compromise at any setting.
However, by suitable design of the mechanical linkages it is possible
PHILPOT FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR POWERPLANT AERODYNAMIC INTEGRATION IN COMBAT AIRCRAFT 341

to schedule exit area against throat area in approximately the right

way and drive both with a single set of actuators: the so-called
'single parameter' nozzle. Current designs are generally of this type.
The next logical step is to drive the two areas independently, i.e. to
use a full two parameter nozzle design. The aerodynamic problem
(or perhaps rather a system one) is to identify nozzle geometries and
area schedules which will offer sufficient gains in performance to
outweigh the additional complexity. Potentially, net thrust improve-
ments varying from 2% to 4%, dependent on operating condition,
may be available.
When it comes to signature control and reduction for nozzles,
radar returns and infra-red emissions both need to be given careful
consideration. One possible extension of the shaping approach for
reduced radar returns from axisymmetric nozzle lips is to terminate
the outer ends of the individual nozzle petals in chevrons, to create a
saw-tooth pattern. This concept has been investigated under the US
IHPTET programme (Fig. 14 and Ref. 7). Nevertheless, shielding
tends to be the first line of defence, as exemplified by the F22 and
the two JSF designs. Figure 16. General Electric advanced vectoring nozzle (AVEN) on test
Shielding is also likely to be the most effective way of reducing {courtesy GE).
IR signatures caused by the hot nozzle and jet pipe surface emis-
sions. However it can only be of limited value in dealing with emis- (around 20% of main engine flow), which would have a punitive
sions from the jet plume. Here, interest tends to be concentrated on effect on engine performance. Nonetheless, the results encourage the
improved jet mixing to suppress the hot jet core as rapidly as possi- belief that fluidic flow control has something to offer and to be
ble. The requirement is in many respects similar to that of jet noise worth further research.
reduction in the civil aeronautics field, although the latter is con-
cerned with jet velocity reduction rather than jet temperatures.
Nonetheless the two properties are linked and it prompts the ques-
tion: can any lessons be learned or techniques borrowed from jet 5.0 THRUST VECTORING
noise reduction technology? Rapid jet mixing for civil engines is Thrust vectoring in flight has excited the interest of researchers,
most commonly induced by radial chute or daisy mixers, installed aircraft and propulsion designers, and some sections of the air
internally to mix out the core and bypass flow streams upstream of a warfare fighting community alike over the past decade. As well as
common propulsion nozzle (Fig. 15 and Ref. 9). The problems of theoretical and model scale experimental studies of the principles
translating this concept to the military sphere would include the and potential utility of thrust vectoring, full scale engine hardware
accommodation of nozzle variability and ensuring adequate cooling has been built and tested by both General Electric and Pratt and
of the nozzle petals. However, there may be scope for adding ribs to
Whitney in the USA and by ITP in Europe (Refs 10 to 12 and Figs
act as vortex generators, or using air bleeds to act in the same way,
16 and 17).
in analogous fashion to the intake duct air jet vortex generators
described in Section 3.2. There have also been flight demonstration programmes, notably
the US/German collaborative X31 aircraft and the US F15 Short
It is evident that many of the inherent difficulties in combining Takeoff and Manoeuvrability Demonstrator (SMTD), which led to
high performance combat aircraft exhaust systems with low signa- the subsequent Advanced Control Technology of Integrated Vehicles
tures are associated with the variable area nozzles. Whether prompted (ACTIVE), and the F16 Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring programme
by this or by a more general desire to reduce the mechanical com- (MATV), (Refs 13 to 16). These programmes have clearly demon-
plexity of conventional designs, there have been several research strated that the incorporation of all axis vectoring into otherwise
investigations in the US into fluidic control of nozzles over the past conventional nozzles, with vector angles of up to 20°, does not
10 to 15 years. Most of these have been directed at nozzle vectoring present major engineering problems. The three engine manufacturers
using Coanda principles, but there has been some NASA work have adopted different design approaches, but all have achieved
directed at throat area control*10*. This suggested that effective throat
area might be changed by factors of up to 2, by the use of
judiciously-placed in-bleeds, albeit at very high bleed flow rates

Figure 15. Example of civil engine internal mixer. Figure 17. ITP vectoring nozzle on test {courtesy ITP).
342 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL
successful designs and have shown broadly similar mass penalties
(typically around 5% powerplant mass addition). The key questions
for thrust vectoring are therefore how to integrate the capability into
the aircraft and how best to exploit it operationally. Both questions
are at least partly ones of aerodynamics.
A number of operational benefits have been cited in the literature.
These include:
• Increased combat manoeuvrability, through the ability to pitch
and yaw more rapidly and to higher angles of attack under
controlled flight.
• Partial or complete replacement of tail fin or other conventional
flight control surfaces, with net saving in aircraft mass and/or
drag (and perhaps also reduced radar signature).
• Increased ability to recover from uncontrolled flight conditions
(eg loss of directional stability at high angles of attack).
• Enhanced take-off and landing performance, with shorter take-off
runs, lower approach speeds and more precise touch-down.
The first two of these contribute in principle to enhanced flight
performance and combat effectiveness. Substantial gains in 'dog-
fight' superiority have been claimed, on the basis of manned simula-
tor trials and actual flight trials with the X31 and F16 MATV aircraft
(pitting a vectored thrust aircraft against a conventional one). Essen-
tially, the main advantage of thrust vectoring appears to have been
manifested in greater ability to track targets in 'point and shoot'
manoeuvres. Against this, there is the inherent problem that thrust
vectoring is only effective at low aircraft speeds and its exploitation
involves losing aircraft kinetic energy - something which goes
against most other rules of air-air combat. It can also be argued that
current state-of-art missiles have all-axis 'lock' capability and do not
require 'point and shoot' tactics. For these and other reasons, thrust
vectoring for combat manoeuvrability has yet to find clear favour
with the war-fighter community, although it is often acknowledged
as a 'nice to have' added capability.
Use of thrust vectoring to off-set the need for conventional control
surfaces (the so-called 'tail-less aircraft') represents a quite different
operational concept and one which could not easily be used in
conjunction with manoeuvrability enhancement. The basic feasibility
of the approach was demonstrated during the X31 flight
programme^6', but little has been published on the possible benefits.
Initial studies by DERA have suggested the potential for modest, but
tangible net gains if thrust vectoring were to replace a tail fin (or tail
fins) for longitudinal control —- 3% to 4% in terms of mission
endurance. However the study was limited to the modification of an
existing, conventional design and little attempt was made to optimise
the aerodynamics of the aircraft for the no tail fin case. Greater bene-
fits ought to be obtainable by designing the aircraft from the begin-
ning for thrust vector primary control. Whether the resultant safety
critical issues could be satisfactorily resolved is unclear and this
would of course be a vital aspect.
The remaining two bullet points promise inherent enhancements
to flight safety, although the take off and landing performance one
also offers some gain in overall capability. Both utilise thrust vector-
ing as an additional control effector, augmenting the conventional
aerodynamic ones. In general this provides a significant level of dual
redundancy, available over much of the flight envelope and reducing
the consequences of failure or battle damage to parts of the system.
The ability to recover from uncontrolled flight conditions,
sometimes termed 'departure resistance', is in effect a particular
application of the latter generality. As is well known, even agile
fighters suffer from loss of lateral control authority when the angle
of attack is high enough to cause shielding of the rudder; aileron
control may also be lost or impaired for similar reasons. Typically,
rudder control power for lateral stability begins to fade at around 25°
angle of attack, with loss of roll or sideslip control beginning to
occur at around 30°. Dynamic simulation studies at DERA for an air-
craft with these characteristics have suggested that thrust vectoring
can push the controlled flight angle of attack range out to 50° to 60°.
J LINE 2001
The main interest here is not so much the achievement of post-stall
manoeuvring, but rather the considerable extension of the control
power available to the pilot to recover quickly from a difficult or
dangerous flight condition.
Enhanced take-off and landing performance was a major goal of
the original F15 SMTD flight trials of 1988-1990. For that exercise a
standard F15 was fitted with foreplanes and ±20° rectangular, pitch
vectoring nozzles (vectoring confined to the pitch plane). The nozzle
flaps could also be set to provide a thrust reverse capability. The
modified aircraft showed a 40% reduction in take-off distance, due
to activation of thrust vectoring. It also showed a slower touch-down
speed and much better touch-down scatter for repeated landings —
something of particular interest for conventional aircraft carrier
landings, for example. However this was due to thrust reversal on
final approach rather than thrust vectoring. Simulation investigations
at DERA on a rather different study aircraft (trapezium wing and no
foreplane) have suggested a very similar improvement in take-off
distance. In the same study, the use of thrust vectoring (as opposed
to thrust reversal), to reduce landing approach speed was also
investigated. It was found that significant speed reductions were
only possible by increasing angle of attack and the normal aerody-
namic flight controls were much more effective for this. However,
the results showed that most or all of the aerodynamic control
authority was needed in the pitch plane, leaving insufficient
differential control for directional stability. Lateral thrust vectoring
provided an effective means of overcoming this problem. There is a
question of whether angles of attack much higher than the normal
15° or so would be operationally acceptable (eg, because of pilot
visibility difficulties), but this does appear to offer an alternative
way of achieving lower approach speeds, without the burden of a
thrust reverser.
6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is evident that recent advances in propulsion technology and the
evolving nature and greater diversity of operational needs as we
enter the 21st century are combining to demand increasing sophisti-
cation in the design and integration of engine intake and exhaust
systems for future combat aircraft. True multi-role capability and
versatility are once again becoming highly desirable attributes and
these systems must be designed to accommodate wide variations in
engine mass flow and cycle operating point and in aircraft flight
speed and attitude. Most importantly the resultant aerodynamic
designs must satisfy the demands for low observability, which place
significant constraints on both internal and external shaping and
measures to improve the aerodynamics at the more difficult
conditions.
In one short paper it has not been possible to undertake a compre-
hensive survey of the technical issues and this review has necessarily
been selective. However, it is clear that they offer many challenges
to the propulsion integration aerodynamics community. Propulsion
integration and overall aircraft design architecture are fundamentally
inter-dependent and the former must be defined near the beginning
of the overall design process. Mistakes made at that stage are-'fiot
easily rectified. The development and validation of analytical
methods for the highly complex flow fields involved, to reduce the
current dependence on empiricism and ensure- 'right first time'
designs, will continue to be a major research'goal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the many helpful contributions
and comments received from colleagues at DERA Bedford and
Farnborough and from associates at Rolls Royce and BAE
Systems.
PHILPOT FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR POWERPLANT AERODYNAMIC INTEGRATION IN COMBAT AIRCRAFT
REFERENCES
1. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION. System and method for diverting
boundary layer air, 14 July 1998, US patent No. 5779189.
2. ANDERSON, B.H. and GIBB, J. Application of computational fluid
mechanics to the study of vortex flow control for the management of
inlet distortion, 1992T, AIAA-92-3177.
3. HERCOCK, R.G. and WILLIAMS, D.D. Aerodynamic response, AGARD
lecture series on distortion induced engine stability, November 1974,
AGARD-LS-72.
4. PEACE, A.J. Turbulent flow predictions for afterbody/nozzle geometries
including base effects, J Propulsion and Power, May-June 1991, 7, (4).
5. WOOD, A.C.R. Integration of combat aircraft exhaust nozzles, RAeS
conference on engine/airframe integration, October 1992, Royal Aero-
nautical Society, London.
6. HODDER, S.D. and SIMM, S.E. The impact of advanced engine technology
on combat aircraft performance, AGARD symposium on advanced
aero-engine concepts and control, September 1995, PEP86. Seattle.
7. IHPTET descriptive brochure, 1995.
8. FEDESPIEL, J., BANGERT, L., WING, D. and HAWKES, T. Fluidic control of
nozzle flow - some performance measurements, AIAA/ASME/SAE/
ASEE joint propulsion conference, San Diego, July 1995,
Paper 95-2605.
Errata
A strategic review of the large civil aeroengine
market and the paradigm shift to a service-
oriented environment
C. I. V. Kerr and P. C. Ivey
School of Mechanical Engineering
Cranfield University
Cranfield, UK
Due to an error at our printers. The title of this paper was misprinted
in the Mav issue of The Aeronautical Journal.
Paper No 2592. Originally published in The Aeronautical Journal. May 2001, Vol 105, No 1047. pp 287-293.
343
PINKER, R.A. and STRANGE, P.J.R. The noise benefits of forced mixing,
A1AA/CEAS 4th aeroacoustics conference, June 1998, Toulouse.
10. MISHLER, R. and WILKINSON, T. Emerging airframe/propulsion
integration technologies at General Electric, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
joint propulsion conference, July 1992, Nashville, Paper A1AA
92-3335.
11. IHPTET descriptive brochure, 1999.
12. IKAZA, D. Thrust vectoring nozzle for military aircraft engines, 7th
European Propulsion Forum, March 1999, Pau, France.
13. MOORHOUSE, D. An overview of the STOL and manoeuvre technology
demonstration program, 1994, AIAA-94-2106-CP.
14. BURSEY, R. The F15 active aircraft - the next step, AGARD
symposium on advanced aero-engine concepts and control, September
1995, PEP86, Seattle.
15. SMALL, L. and BONNEMA, K. F16 MATV program lessons learned,
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference, Indianapolis,
June 1994. Paper AIAA 94-3362.
LORIA, C.J., et al. X31A Quasi-tail-less evaluation, IEEE aerospace
applications conference, Aspen, Colorado, Feb 1996, and IEEE
proceedings, 1996, 4, pp 253-276.