Copy No. . i!

'~

RM No. A7130
)

.,
)

"I V

"
)

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
AN EXPERIMENTAL l"NVESTIGATION OF T"rlE DESIGN VARlABLES

FOR NACA SUBMERGED DUCT ENTRANCES

By Emmet A. Mossman and LalU'os M. Randall

Ames Aeronautical Laboratory

Moffett Field, Calif.

,MS J"""Itt",~r:t e"rJ.&tm: ~~fl,..f >/If _r~'\l_"

~ff-'II"" II... tlatl<'T..1.l l"",,,~l\$" fIt .. "IlUIYI
::'blrft U... 11',"UIlIIo: ~II"'" .:ep.,I;2jI'" liZ!.,
-':~Ir:
"X ,,:,',11 un 3:':. lIa Ir:ar.:lml==n r Ir...
',I nil ~~l\t ..r.II' in :U:; rr.a:::r"'r t.: .on
,..,-.~btl'..,
<£1..u.,rl:1Id I"'r~n 1:0 ~r~r.'bll"1 by b ..
ld~l"C'I£1w" "'" :J:o.::r:tf!"<I 11111 b- lrr:p,",.j
m1r to I"·r~~r.a In t·~, .,..I;l!~r:7 In:I DaV1\
""rv!~ .. ~ '1f It:- "NI-.t N.a1~". l",""frlal~
~Ivlllu! ,ftl: .. U an:! -",;v-,--.a ,II"" I'''''~nl
1oV"n:momt wtz> ~"'~R • 1~1U,,"I. ,r:t~ .... o:t
tlw!'flln, ltd Ie 1!IIII<:ol :;ta:~11 :1!I~11lI ,1.."."",
I"J"lLI, ard dU.:::r!tlI~II.1\C ~I 1><'<:..:<:1117 m.oll! boo
IrJon:l<01I~f1)<If.

NAllONAl ADV1S0RY COMMITTEE

FOR AERONAUTICS .I 1/. / ..... .'
WASHINGTON
jan;m.rY B, 1948 ,!~r,' ", j

tttWtt~"t:f?'iU'\iiiIQ'1:$"1Meti'tn-'

_J ©UP::JATA 19n.~.
NACA :m lio. A7130

MTIONAL ADVISORY CCf!MI1'l!EE FOB AEROMUTICS

AN EXl'ERIMENTAL lllV1!STIGATION OF 'mE DESIGN VAllIAllLES

FOR 'NAC! stmME:imD !llJCT ~ES

By EmMt A. Mossman and Lauroa '(. Randall

Informatia~ concerning the ~tere aud design var1abl~s

affect1Ilg IUl MCA submerged duct design is presented. !I!1e pr1n-
cipal var1ablds investigated include entrance width-to-depth ratio,
ramp-vall divergence, ramp lIlISle, and deflector size. TGstll were
also Il!ade to show the e1'fect -:If v~.ation of bound!U7-~i!)r thick-
nsss and ramp-floor contour.

Pl'essure recov&ry at the duct tJlltrance and atter slisht

diff'uaion, pressure distribution OTel' the lip and ramp. and dl:'ag
are given as funct10ns of the inlet Teloc1ty ratio 01 the entrance.
An evaluation of the MCA submcl'ged entries 1nd1cates that latis-
factory duct characteristics may be found tor a 1'IUl8" of' the test
variables. It tLp;peara that an opt1lxum. NACA su'bllle~ :ll2l.et design
should employ curTed divergtns ramp walls, a 50 to ~ ramp angle.
and a width-to-depth ratio of trail 3 to 5. The boundary-layer
thicknese 01' the surface into which the inlet ill placed VaG found
to have e. large effect on the pressure recovery.

Possible applicatione of this type of' inlet an~ their

particular adTalltagss are discuslled.

lllTROmCTIOIl

For the development of a satisfactory air-induction system of

an aircraft, several aerodynamic criteria must be evaluated
junction with those involving structural design and installation.
con- '.n
Aer~cally. the 13;rBtl!lll should not reduce ths available anergy
of the entering sir, the dl:'ag of the bod,y into which it is placed
should not be increaaed, and the high-speed characteristics of' the
b~ or aircraft should not deterioratel. Although. in prac'!;1co, an
air-induction systl!lll poseibly doss not meet all these requirements,
the lII!Ir1ts of a syst6ll1 can be determined by the degree to which its
characteristics approach the timnm•

. , ,'.;j--"""-'d_-..-,

_ ~J
2 HACA mHo. A7I30 •

A :previous investigation of an air intake submergod belov the

bo~ surface (reference 1) vas exploratory in nature and vas meant
to indicate the trend for future research of this type inlet. ~is
present report gives the results of more extensive investigations of
HACA submerged duct entrances oonducted at the Ames Aeronautical
Laboratory. 'nle work includes further developnent of certain con-
figurations found to be desirable from preliminary tests and the
investigation of other design ~tera not previously considered.

SYMBOIS
A duct-Bntrance area, equare feet
B distance ramp floor :l.s submerged below reference contour
at station Where entrance lU"l3a is lJISasured

CD]) duct drag coefficient( fti: )

D drag. pounds
d duct depth
H total pressure, pounds per eq~ foot
t:iIl loss in total pros sure, pounds per square foot

M mach nUIolber

MeR critical Mach number

P I pressure coef'f'ic1ent ( p ~Po )
p static pressure, pounds per square foot
q dynmnic :pressure (iPT), pounds per square foot
U velOCity outsid!) bounda.r;y lBier, feet per second
u local velocity in boundar,f layer, feet per second
V velocity, feet per eecond
w duct width
p air denSity, slugs llOr cubic foot
RAOA mHo. A7130 3

dUf'uBer efficiency ( ~-
.l.-Pl.
lh) x 100, perqent

M.'2 H" MS MS
(1 + 11) 1+-+-+--
4 40 1600 80,000'"
Ii-p q(l + TI), ram. pressure, pounds per squar/l! foot
R - Po
r.ooa recovllr.1 ratio
lio - Po

inlet-velocity ratio
Subscripts
o t~e etrealll
l. duct-entrance station

.'2 station attIJr diffusion

Various models of submerged-duct entrances were teB~ed in the

Ames 8- by 36-inch wind tunnel of the 7- by la-foot v:1nd~·tunnel
section, which is shown schematically cn figure 1. Each entrance to
be investigated vas placed in a removable portion of one of the
36-inch valls of the test section, this wall thus simulating the
fuselage skin for a typical submerged-inlet application. Air was
draliJl through the inlet by a constant-llpeed centrifugal pumP. the
quantity flov being measured by a calibrated venturi and regul.ated
by a motor-controlled Plus-type valve located at the pump exit. ~e
tests vere made at tunnel epeede ransing frOJll 180 to 260 feet per
second.

All :parts or the entrances for ths greater portion of the

investigation vere flush with or belov the surf'ace of tho tunnel
vall. ~e area of the various entrancos was held constant at 16
square inches end the width-to-depth' ratio varied from 1 (4- by 4-
inch) to 6 (9.81- by 1.64-inch). A separate modol vaa required to
teat each of the six width-to-dspth ratios. (Soe fig. 2.)

For oach modol four =p plan foms vere invl!stigated (fig. 3).
Ramp angle could bel 'i8r1ed frOll 50 to 150 • Figure 4 shows the
geometric chang~ of the l'I!lIlP with ramp angle for one entrance con-
figuration. Erov1s1onvas also made for testing a c'Xl'Ved r.ooap floor
shape, nth the vld = 4 entrance for r.ooap lengths which corresponded

COII!'H! I!JllJiit' I
4 co~ lJACA EM Ho. JI. 7130 •

to the 50, "(0, 9 0 , and 11.50 straight rallIP floors. 'l!hi8 oUl'Ved ramp
floor, shown on figure 5, repres~ted the upper-eurfe.oe profile shape
of the aft :portion of a 65-eer1es 10lt-draS a1rtoiJ.•

Deflectors, or small ridges along the top edg6 of the ramp wall
with heights of 0.25, 0.50, 0.15, and 1.00 inch and lengtha of 25, 50,
75, and 100 percent of the ramp length vere tested (fig. 6).

The basic lip shape (fig. "() was the same for all models, but
the dimensions of the lip varied directly as the depth of the duct
entrance. In every cooe the lip incidence could bs varied through
an angle range of ± 50.

The models included a transition section vhicn simulated an

internal duct system with gradual diffusion. This section stal~ed
8 inches aft of the lip leading edge and for each model transformed
from the rectangular cross section of the submerged duct inlet to a
circu·.ar cross section 5.25 inches in diameter. ~e transition
ssction was 36 inches long with a 1.35 expansion in area, constant
for all models.

Rakes of pressure tubes for measuring ram recovery were locatsd

at wo stations (fig. 2), one at the duct entrance and the other after
diffusion in the 5.25-inch-diameter circular section. ~e rakes
located at the entrance contained 64 evenly spaced total-pressure
tubss and 4 static-pressure tubes. These rakes were mounted slightly
behind the leading edge of the lip in each case Gt a station where
the lip inner contour faired into a constant area ssction. The rake
aft of the diffusar ssction had 33 total pressure tubes and 4 static-
p!'eaaur8 tubas. '!he wind;"tunnal air dO'llDBtream of the inlet was
surveysd by a series of individual rakes, locatsd 8 inches aft of tha
lip station, which completely bracketed the wake caused by the
entrance. Each of the individual rakes containsd 15 tubes and were
located at 8 spanwise stations.

Pressure distributions were obtained from small flush static-

pressure orifices built into the submerged duct entrances along the
center lines of the lip and ramp and also along a section of the lip
1 inch from the side wall of the entrance.

To aid in the analysis of the data it was necess~ to evaluate

the sxisting testing conditions. The boundar'".f layer of the test
section tunnel wall, measured at the duct-entrance station, is given
on figure 3. It Should be noted that this boundary layer is consider-
ably thlcker than would be normally experienced if a submerged

c~
NACA EM No. A7I30 5

entrance vere located at or forYard of the ving on a similarly

scaled fuselage. Efforts to reduce thie mturaJ. bOUIlda.ry-la;rer
thickness did not prove successful, due l!le1nJ ;y to the Wind-tUDIlel
geometry. !!!he ratio of total bOUIlda.ry-~er thickness to duct depth
(wid = 4) is 0.80 for thesa tests as comr.ered to 0.31 for a typical
fighter installation (station O. reference 2). From this it is
evident that the pressure recoveries ~sentsd in this re~ nmst
not be considered as the mx:Jw1lll 'Values obtaimble vi th lfACA sub-
mersed duct entries. !1!l1e lips or all lItcdels of the Bubmerged
entrance vere located at the same position along tha test section
vall.

'1'0 detel'll1ine tha diffusor or internal duct efficiencies. bench

tests of the 'aix diffusers vere made. A cone vas attached to the
entrance in place of the ramp and lip to assure satisfactory flow
oonditions. !!!he presaurs losses vere measured aft of the diffusers
in the circular portion of tha diffuser at the same location and
vith the SBlII9 raka that 'Was UIIed to determine the preS!lurs recovery
aft of the diffusere in the vind-tUDIlel tests. Results of these
tests (fig. 9) show the efficiencies (I1D) of all ~ix diffusers to
be about 91 percent.
The principal ~ters investigated in the wind tUDIlel 'Were
ramp plan tom, vidth-to-depth ratio, =p angle, and defle.:3tora.
A limited number ot teats 'Was made to ehow the effect of variation of
ramp-floor contour and bounde.ry-~er thickness at the loc~tion of
the duot en'!;ranoe. For evaluation of the relatiTe merits of the
various oonfigurations measurements vere taken to deter.mine the
prsssu.~ reoovery aft of the diffuser seotion and at the entrance.
pressure distribution on the lip and ramp, and drag of the oonfig-
urations, through a range of inlet velocity ratios from 0 to 1.5.
Tables I and II are indices showing the range of modifications
to the submersed duot entry.

llESUL'lS Al'ID DISCUSSION

!!!his investigation to obta:l.n data for the developnent and

apPlioation of NACA submerged-duct entries was ooncerned ."ith the
effeot of various oonfiguration ohanges upon the degree of fulfill-
ment of the cI'iteria set forth. The measuremente neoessary for
evaluation, ae mentioned previously, vere pressure rscovery aft&r
diffusion and at the entrance, pressure distribution, and drag.
Under these oategorise the following parameters are disoussed:

1. !lamp plan form.

6
, ...-
CO~ NACA EM No.A7130

2. Width-to-depth ratio
3. Bamp angle

4. Ralnp floor shape

5. Boundary-layer thickness
Because of the nature of the investigation. the results and
discussion of deflectors are presented se~tely from the other
divisions at the conclusion of this section.
A figure guide is given in table III. Only the more pertinent
drag and prBSsure-distl'ibution .results are presented, the greater
portion of the data being given in terms of pressure recovery.

Pressure Recovery
On this type inlet the velocity distribution is not uniform
over the entrance area, and determining the entrance losses
(Appendix A) becomes a difficult process. Consequently, a large
portion of the data is evaluated from consideration of the pressure
recovery after diffusion. Since the diffuser efficiencies from
bench tests are equal, a comparison, for two inlet cont'igurationG.
of the results after diffusion is a direct measur.e of their relative
merits with respect to pressure recovery. This comparison, of course,
includes the effect of the inlet on the diffuser efficiency. Entrance
pressure recovery was obtained only for the most important values of
the deSign parameters.
Pressure Recovery after Diffusion.-

~mp plan fo rm.- The results of previous investigations (refer-

ences 1 and 2) showed that the ram pressure recovery of the
submerged duct entrance could be ~ppreciably increased by
diverging the walle of the ramp. The effect of ramp plan form
1s shown in figure 10, which gives the pressure recovery
measured after the diffuser section for two width-to-depth
ratios. In all cases the curved diverging ramp which was
previously developed (refElI'enCe 1) gave the highest ram pressure
recovery for the low inlet-velocity-ratio range (Vl/Vo ::;0.6).
However, the effect of ramp plan form 1s also a funcGion of
w1dth-to-depth ratio;> and ramp angle and Will be discUE/sed in
later sections.

,-
In the instances were the pressure recovery is increassd
by diverging the ramp plan form, the process is apparently one

CONtfJ""":fIfC
,-;~
mCA m No. A7I30 7

of diverting the boundery layer outside the ramp around the

entrance. Experimental data show this posaibly to be due to
two causes. The firet is indicated from a canJ;nrison of the
ramp pressure d1stl'ibution with that on the sur.f'ace in the
:Ilrmediate prox:1lJl1ty of the entrance. These pres.sures indicate
that at velocity ratios belov 1.0 the boundery layer outside
the ramp would have a tendency to flaw away, fran the inlet.
Second, it has been found that i f the top edge of the divers-
iIlg ramp walls vere rounded, the effsct of divergence vould be
greatly reduced. It was surmised that some of the ill1provement
vas caused by the resietance of the external boundery-layer air
to flow over the rather sharp edge of the ramp walls.
Width-to-depth ratio.- The effect of varying the width-to-depth
ratio of a submerged entrance is given in figure II for a con-
stant ramp angle of ~. Figure 11 shows that for the J;tU'allel
wall, nondiverging :t:'8lllp changing fralt a vld ratio of 6 to a
wid ratio of 1 increases the lD8 x1 mlD! pressure recovery atter
• diffUSion fi:om 70 to 80 percent. This trend vas expected since
most of the boundary-la;rer ai;r in front of a nondiTorg1ng ramp
flaws into this typa of entrance. Conaequen~. for the deeper
and narrovor entrances this 10N'-ent'rgy air is a smaller percent-
age of the total qusntity adlIIitted. Increasing the divergence
of the ramp valls diJdnished this ~ffect. ~is 11'8.8 entici1;lated
Since, 88 mentioned previously, With a diverging rtI.1!I.p lilUch of
the boundery-la;rer air i8 diverted around the entrcnce. thus
decreasing the beneficial effect of reduciIlg the width-to-depth
ratio found with a nondiverging ramp.
The vidth-to-depth ratio necessary tor mev!l!t1l!! pressure
recovery also increased as the divergence increased. This lIII!IJ"
be better visualized by the f'olloviIlg table:
Maximum Fressure wid for V3./Vo tor
Recovery (af'ter HaxiIllUlll Max:lmula
Dif'fUIJion) Recovery Recovery
Parallel valls 0.80 1 0.70
Straight diver-
ge..1ce Xo. 2 .845 2 .55
Straight diver-
gence lio. 3 .860 3 .43
Curv-ed diver-
gence .865 3 .40
3 CONF~ RACA EM No. A7I30

<'
Since good pressure recovuries are obtained for diverging
~pB over a wide range of inlet velocity ratios, this type of
inlet should not be lillli ted to systellll3 which have small internal
diffusion, but may include those which diffuse the air to a low
velocity. It should be em];haaized aga:ln that these pressure-
recovery values are not the maximum obtainable but represent
only those available with the exiBti118 boundary-~er thickness.

Ramp angl~'- '!'he results of 'fB.1'yi118 ~p engJ.fI, given on figure

12, show that in all cases an increase :In ~p angle was accom-
panied by a decrease in pressure recovery. As the divergence of
the ramp plan form increased, this effect of the ramp angle
became more pronounced.

An illustration of thiS, showi118 the prsssure-reco'fsry

decrement between ramp ansles of 50 and ll.5° for wId = 4, is
given as follows:
•

J V 1 /V 0
0.4 o.B 1.2
Nondivergins 0.055 0.03 0.045

I
•t
Divergence No. 2 .04 .13 .15
,Curved divergence .12 .18 .19
!

'!'he general trend of a decreaBe in pr8Slllurtl recovery resulti118

frOll. an increase in remp ans1e i& also s:lJdlar for v/d ratios
of 2 and 6, the decrease being aligntly les8 forv/d R 2 and
greater for wId .. 6.

For entrances vith nondi'ferging remp walls this decrease

:In pressure recovery results frOll. a thickening of the boundary
layer due to a more ad'feree pre88\\re gt'adie~:lt along the ramp.
For the divergent ramp the problem i8 morE. ccaplex tor; instead
of being relatively tvo-d1menaional as it is for the nondiverg-
ing (parallel) walls, it aBSUl!l!lB a three-d1Dl!neional aspect.
In this case it is believed that much of the loss accompanying
an :lncl.'eaee in ramp angle is attributable to the resultant
geometrical change :In the ralIp plan form. For a given divergent
ramp. increaSing the ramp angle :Increases the angle between the
diverging walls. (See fig. 4.) ':!his producos directly tvo
adver!le effects. Firat. :Increasing the angle betveen the raDP

CO~
,-
RACA EM No. A7I30 cob:rw I"A'f:c=e 9

walls increases the tendsncy toward seIaration. Second, in-

creasing this angle increases the obliquity between the ramp
walls and the free-stream flow. This makes it more dltticult
for the air tlowing along the outside ee.ge to follow the
dive~gent contour of the side walls. Consequently, air spills
over the sdge of the ramp walle, admitting much of ths
bOUAdary layer and causing a cross flow betwesn this ai.t' and the
air flowing down the ramp. A combination of tb~~~ two adverse
conditions causes large pl.'0ssure lossss to OCCil!' 1..0. the corners
of the submerged en'trance When the ramp angle is increased.
'!his is shown in figure 13, which gives the distribution of
preBB~e loss across ·the submerged entrance for several config-
urations. From figure 12 it appeare that for the larger ramp
anglee (above 100 ) the optimum ramp plan form should have some-
what less divergence than that employed for the lower ramp angles.

From the results of the investigation of ramp angle. a better

comparison of the Jlll!rits ot Tarious width-tO=depth ratios can be
obtained. In most cases the use ot a given ramp angle is dic-
tated by the length available ahead of' the duct entrance. Fora
constant-area duct entrance and a oonstant ~E angle, the
requir0d ramp length is much larger tor the deep and narrow
entrances. '!hUB tor a 70 ramp angle, the ramp leD8i1h for a
wid ratio ot 1 :1s 2.45 times the l'alllP length of a wid ratio of
6 entrance. Since ramp length usually cor£titutes a deSign
limitation, a more usable com:pariBon of' the entrances of varioUB
width-tO=depth ratios can be obtained by com:paring the pressure
recoveries at a constant ramp length. To obtain this com:parison,
pressure-recovery data after dif'fusion were plotted against a
ramp-length term. This term was lIIade nond1Jlll!naional by squaring
the ramp lens~ and dividing by the duct entrance area. '!he
2
cross plots of' pressure recovery as a function of (romP length)
entrance area
are giTen in figure 14. A comparison ot these curves indicates
that for many design conditions width-tO=depth ratios of 4 to 6
will give the highest pressure recovery.

Ramp-floor shaps.-A com:parison of the Pl~ssure recoveries for

the straight and curved l'IUIlp floore is given in figure 15.
The straight floor is seen to be superior for the configurations
tested, but the difterence in pressure recoTery is small,
usually lese than 2 percent for the more optimum configurations.
'!he presont exper1mental results indicate this ~ter to be
of secol;ldary :l.mportance in obta:\ning high-pressure recovery.
Therefore, small changes in the contour of the floor that lIIaY
be required to obtain a smooth junction between the ramp floor
and fuselage skin ahould not noticeably affect the pl.'0ssure
10 CO~ MCA EM No. A7I30

recove~ of the installation.

meet of' b2BPdl'mr-llmW tlrlelm'U.- A eCQll.~:t'ison of the natural
and thickened bounda~ layers is siven in figure 16. Figure 17
shows that, as eXI>!!cted. increeeing the bountJ.er,y-layer thickn&ee
decreased the ram recove~. This decrease wee practicall1 the
same for all configurations tested and wee approximatel1 equal
to 0.12 ram recove~ ratio. These tests clearl1indicate that
diverging the ramp walls kseps only a portion of the bound.e.lT-
layer air frCQll. entering the duct. and aonsequentJ;,r stresses the
tmpo~~ce of locating the entrance in a region of thin boundar,r
layer for =:I.mum recovs~.
An att8lllpt 'liaS made to cOl'1'elate the change in ram recovel'1
with the change in bountJ.er,y layer. Varioue bo~-layer pam-
maters were considered (bountJ.er,y layer. displacement. and
lIlOIIIentum thicknesses. etc.) and the factor h wee selected as
being mos·t I>!!l"tinent in estimating the pressure recovery for
this tYI>!! of submerged inlet. The term h is defined all a
height which contains an amount of free-stre!llll ram pressure
equivalent to the total pressure lost within the bountJ.er,y layer.
and may be emluated from the f'ollwing equation:

h - [O.::sa:
- Ho-Po
0
dy

. Where

8 total bountJ.er,y-layer thickness

As a firet approximation. the change in ram due to thicken-
ing the bountJ.er,y layer or changing the duct depth and holding
wid constant. may be est:!llla.ted from the f'ellOll'ing equation:

A
(H -p) (H-P
He- Po
13
He- Po
_ 13

where the subscripts I!I. and b refer te different config-

urations. Obviouely, this is not a rigeroue relation, but it
sheuld give an indication of' the change in ram which would be
expected if' the bountJ.er,y-layer conditions ef a given entrance
were altered, or the size of the inlet changed (all dimen-
sions remaining geometrically similar). The values of h fer
the natural bountJ.er,y layer end the thickened bountJ.er,r layer .
NACA 1M No. A7I30 II

are 0.227 and 0.530 inch, respactively. A cOll1llEU'1son of' the

estimated chango in ;p1.'6ssure recovery calculated by this
equation with the measured change for the tao bottnds.ry-laYElr
conditions of thoie tests is given in the follow1ns table. ~ie
table ie for Z'Illllpa v1th curved divorsenco and a ~ rrunp angle.

Calculated Values , Measured Values

ot.6(H -Po)
Po of t:.
(nHo -- Po
Po)
Bo - .
!l i . 2.0 !'. • 4.0 if .. 6.0 ~. 2.0 ;r. 4.0 ~ .. 6.0
Vo

0.4 0.071
d

0.101 0.123
- 0.095 0.120 0.ll2
0.8 .071 .101 .123 .105 .llO .ll3
1.2 .071 .101 .123 .095 .095 .105

The use ot the h factor resulted in a much closor aPl'lt'o:d.-

motion than any 01' the other bound!u7-la,yor ~ters considered.
,.Entrance Pressure Recover,z.- or llr1lilary interest in the design
ot &. duct1ng system 1s the entrtmclt prllssure recovory. frOll! which tho
108S0S chargeable to the d1fi'usOl· ~ !"goluded. !!he l!!!Ithod of com-
putation used :In detem1n1ng this entrance prllBSure recovol;1 1s given
in Appendix A.

The effects of ramp plen fom,ramp angle and 'Width-to-depth ratio.

are shOlln in figures 18(a). (11). end (c). Compsr:!.son of these
curves of entrance pressure recovery with corresponding curves for
recovery after diffusion (figs. 10. 11. 12) shov that the resulte
follow the same trends. In gensral, the prav:l.ous analysis accounting
for the differencee between various configurations is applic~bleo
~e sl1sbt discrepancies found :In the analysis bc)'tveen dat!l. for
entrance pressure reccvery and prES8ure recovery after diffusion
(f1Se. II and 12) can probably be attributed to changes in diffuse:!."
efficiency with changing entrance conditions. !!!he losses at the
entrance together 'With the losses after diffUSion enable en eval-
uation to be made of' the change in diffuser efficiency for lIllY con-
figuration. (See reference 2.) Using these losses. diffuser
effiCiencies tor two entrance configurations have been calculated
12 CONF~ NAOA EM No. A'1I30

and are com;pared :!.n figure 19 with those obtained from bench tests.
The difference between the two sets of curves represents the effect
of the inlet on the diffuser efficiencies.

rresoure Distribution 8nd Critical Mach Number

In thie part of the investigation esttmations of the critical-
speed characteristics of the submorgod duct sntr8nces yere made from
an analySis of the pressure distributions over the lip and ramp.
The critical Mach numbers were estimatsd t:t'CD the peak lov-spoed
PNSS1U'8 coefficients by the nfl'llllfn-'l'sien method (reference 3). 'DIiB
method doss not apply to three-d1l:ccnsionel flov (reference 4). Just
what corrections Should be used for the flO1l around a BublllBrged
inlet is not known. but it is believed the results given by the
method of reference 3 will be conservative.
L!J!.- The critical-speed charecteriotics of the lip are depend-
ent upon the inclination of the flov approaching the lip. A decrease
in the inclination of the flov is defined as an angular change of
the flO1l which causes the stagnation point to move toward the outside
surface of the lip. '.!!hue, adecrease in the flow inclination decreases
the incremental velOCity OTer the outside surface of the lip. and
vice versa fQr the inside surface.
'DIe pressure distribution over the lip is given in figure 20.
Here is ehown the change in the stagnation point With inlet velocity
ratio and the effect of this change on the peak negative pressure
(oeff1ciente. Increasing the inlet velocity ratio always decreases
the inclination of the flow.
The effecte of ramp plan fom on the cri tical-speed character-
istics of the lip are given in figure 21(a). With a nond:Lvergent
remp there is no appreciable change in the flow inclination across
the entrance. For the lip section, 1 inch from the edge of the
entrance. diverging the ramp also caused practically no variation
from the data obtained with nondiverging walls. For the center-
line section of the liP. however. diverging the ramp caused the
stagnation point to mOT$ toward the outside and consequllntly in-
creased the critical Mach number for the flow over the outSide
surface (fig. 21(a)). This cca:parison shOli's that with a divergent
ramp there is a disti~ct ~~ation across the entrance of the angle
of flow approaching the lip. 'DIe flow near the edge of the entrance
has a more positive inclination and produces the largest incremental
velocities ove~ t~e outside surface.
The effect of ramp aLgle on the critical Mach number for the
lip is shown in figure 2l(b). As v.ould be antiCipated. increasing

~
CON.F:afP '
/'

-- ------.-------------~~
NACA EM No. A 7I30 13

the l"Blllp angle decreased the flO'll inclination. T'.<1e datil. verify that
for the l'IlDlp angles tested. there is a variation of the fldW' inclina-
tion across the entrance when a diverging l'IlDlp is v~sd.

To correct for an undesirable angle of the flaw approaching the

lip~ tb." incidence of the lip may be varied. The ofiect on critical
Mach number of cluulging the lip incidence from -:50 to +50 is shawn on
figure 22 tor three widt..lJ.-to-depth-ratio entrances with curved divot'-
gence. From an analysis of these data. it app"!U's that for lIImy
configurations the critical-apeed characterietios of the lip will be
improved by giving the lip a negative (dow) inoidence. The und_
airable change in flO'll angle across the inlet, present with a
divergent ramp. may also 'be compellSateri by giving the lip a more
nesative inc:l.dence near the edge of the entranoe. Whether or not
the lip :l.ncidence or camber should be varied across the entrance ..-ill
depend on the critical epeed of the airplane. It ehould be noted
that it is undesimble to give the lip a more neg>ltive incidence then
ie requ:tred. Although the critical-a:p.'3ed characteristics ~ be
improved at the lower inlet velocity r&tios. the flow maJ separate
from the inside surface at higher inlet velOCity ratios. causing an
added loea in pressure recovery.

Ramp.- The pressure-distribution data obtained along the ramp

indicate that the inlet velocity ratio o~ the entrence does not
affect the velocity from 40 percent of the l'IlDlP length to the start
of the ramp (o-percEint station. fig. 23(a». !!!he peak negative
pressure coefficient occure forward of the 40-percent station for
inlet velocity ratios below 1.0. an~. consequently. the critical-
speed characteristics of the l'IlDlp appear to be independent of the
inlet velocity ratio. The pressure distribution forward of the 40-
percent station was found to be a function of the plan fom of the
ramp walls and the :profile of the l'IlDlP floor.

The :pressure distribution along the l'IlDlp is given in figure

23(b) for three l'IlDlP plan forma. The effect of width-to-depth
ratio of the entrance and of l'IlDlP engle 1s given in figures 23(c)
and 23( d). respectively. The critical Mach number for the l'IlDlP. as
estimated from the :pressure distrIbution. will be above 0.8 if the
ramp engle does not exceed 9 0 •

The l'IlDlp floors for the aforementioned teets were all straight
inclined eurfaces. A comparison between the pressure distributions
of ths straight ramp floor and a curved l'IlDlp floor ie given on
figure 24. The pressure gradient over the straight l'IlDlP appe!U's to
be more favorable for both parallel and curved divergent l'IlDlp walls.
The reduction 1n preseure recove~ which accompanied the mere adverse
pressure gradient of the curved ramp floor has been mentioned
previously. It may also be seen that the straight ramp floor gives

CO&~
14 cor NAOA :m No. A7I30

lower peak incremental velocities over the ramp than the curved ramp
floor when divergent walla are used. 'l'he studies of ramp floor con-
tour in the present investigation were 11llited in scope. A more
ftUld!lmental study of the effect of ths ramp pressure gradient on
critical speed and pressure racove.-y should ba made. 'l'he =p floor
should probabl;r be designed so that the pressure gradient will have
the least slope at the design inlet velocity ratio.

Drag

Drag of the submerged entrances was ll.eteMined by surveying the

Flrtion of the air st:ream containing the wake d:ue to the inlet. and
is equal to the difference in mcmentum of the air stream. vi th and
Without thG duct :tnstalled. 'Rio method of cal.culat:tns the drag is
given in Ap:pendiX B. 'l'he drag coeffic,"ents based Oll duct-entrence
area are lll'esented in figure 25 for the various conf'lgurations. while
figure 26 shaws th!& ,"stribution of the momentum loss, aft of the
entrance. .

In al.l cases, the drag decreases as the inlet "f'elocity ratio is

increased. Figul"e 25(8.) shcr.rs that the drag increases as the diver-
sence ill increased. 'l'his was expected. since a nondivergillg rem.p
permits a larger portion of the boundary-layer air to flaw into the
inlet. In general., it appears that configurations which result in
higher ram recovery haTe larger attendant drags. 'l'he negative vaJ.ues
of drag result from the fact that the lOBS in IIIOIIImtum dcnmstream of
the entrance was less than the loss due to the boundary ltver that
previously existed. 'l'his can be Bean on figure 26.

For thG curved divergent ramp, the drag for most usable config-
urations should be quite lcr.r for the high-epeed and climb flight range.
Assuming a wing-iU'8a-to-duct-entrsnce-area ratio of 150. a typical.
CD due to a subl!llerged duc'!; in the high-speed attitude would be
approx:tms.tely from 0.0003 to 0.0006. It should be remembered that
the effect of the duct wake along the fuselage aft of the entrance
is not included.

Deflectors

Deflectors, or ridgea along the divergent contour of the

entrance, have been shown to increase the ram recovery when used
with certain inlet configurations and conditions. '!his series of
tests was performed to find the effect of deflector size. and to
evaluate the use of deflectors for various inlet configurations.
'l'he criteria used for evaJ.uation were the same as those for '!;he
principal investigation.

OO~
• lIACA II( Ifo. A,7I30 15

It vas found that increasing the deflector l~ f~ 25 to

50 percent oZ the :t'eJIIp length cauaed the :.cst pronounced increases
:in pressure :reCOTOr;}' (fig. 27(a}). except for the 0.25-1nch-high

cauaed increases in the =

<iefJ.actol'8. l'urthel' increases to 100 percent of the =p length
:reCOTI!.v,y onl1 at inlet velocity ratios
belov about 0.8. FIgure l:!1(b) al80 gIves '\;hI! prellSu:re recoTeries tw
deflectorheignta of 0.25.0.50.0.15. and 1.00 inchvhen teoted at
~iOUB lengths.

For the deflector lle:1g1lta tested it rJJtaY be said. in genersJ...that

increM1ng the he:1gnt increased the pressure recover;}'. particular~
at inlet Telocity ratios above 0.,. HovIITer. chang1ng the height
from 0.15 to 1.00 inuh 1apt'OT5d the rlloover;}' o~ at :IDlet Telocity
ratios aboTe 1.0. A4 So :result of these tests on deflector size. a
series of deflectors ~1aB selected for further investigation.
Deflector hl!iig11ta rl'nsins frca 0.25 to o. '(5 inch extend.1n8 50 and.
100 lltIrcent of the l't\Jl~ length vere chosen becauee it vas thought
that this rrmge was IIOSt practicablo.
The cllaDge 1n ram recoTer;}' :pJt'Oduced by det'lectol'S for three
v1d.th-to-depth mt10s ~ be obtaintlll froa figure 28. ~e data .
ohov that ua1ng clefloctora v1th the liON ehallaw entrances (v/d
ratios of 4.0 !UUl 6.0) Ildds a. l!ll'.'ger increment to the pressure
roeoTer;}'. '!his can be better Tisual1ztlll by the follow1IJg table
vhich lists the increase in pressure NcoTer;}' after difi'ueion
l'.'Csult1ng i'l'CIIl the use of deflectors. '.!.he data are for a 10 CUl."TGd.
divergent raap and ths deflectors are 0.75 1mlh hish and 100 percent
of the :map length.

Va. v
d,",2.0 4.0 6.0
Vo

0.5 0.019 0.046 0.016

.7 .084 .103 .120
1.0 .088 .123 .138

F1gure 28 also shows that chBllging the deflector length from 50- to
lOG-percent ramp length causes 11ttle effect on the ram r&eOT6r.1 of
the entrance With vld = 2.
Figure 29(a) shows the d1tf'erenc6 in ram reCOV6r.1 :ror various
ramp plan f'orms with and vithout deflector'll. It is ap]fU'8Ilt that
 liAOA l'H lio. A7I30

derlector~ are not equally beneficial for all ramps. The inc~nt
of :t'I!lll recovery due to deflectors increased vith increasing divergence.
With nondivergent (pmUlel) valls the ilnprovement'llas negl1g1ble.
The results of tests to find the effect of deflectore on ramp
angle are shown in figure 29(b). When these data are cOll!:pued with
those for s1ln1lar configuratiOllS vithout deflectors (fig. 12) it can
be seen that deflectors a.re beneficial. fI'Olll the standpoint of l'!UII
recovery. tor all installa\tions. A mors comprehensive comparison ot
tha thl."ae wid ratios t!!steLt can be obtained frOll! the cross plots of
these data. given in figure 30. Here is shown the preSSUl'8 recovery
as a function.of the ramp-length te~ previously derived.

Pressure recovery at the duct entrance is given in tigure 31

for several deflector-5ntrance configurations. The trends shown by
these data are in good agreement vi tIl the ~ais alre~ discussed.
Deflectors apparently increase the pressure reco~ery by assisil-
ins the air flmrine; outside the ramp to follOW the diverging contour
of' the side valls. This prevents much. of the CroSB flaw of air OTor
the top edge of' the ramp valls and also helps ·to divert lIOre of' the
boundar,y layer around the entrance. With regard to the selection of
a deflector to glve best recovery, it should be noted that results of
other investigations (ref'erenco 2) clearly indicated that the require-
ments for deflectors are dependent upon the location of tho entr.ance.
It'llas found that when the entrance was ple!.ced in a region of' thin
boundary layer, increasing the defloctor length f'rolil 50- to 100-
percent ramp length caused a definite d!mroose of' preooure recoTery.
It i9 probable that deflectors which extend the full longth of the
ramll should be used only for thick boundary-'~r conditions.
Althoush the use of def'lectors results in h1glter prelilsure
recovery. it 'lIae found that their effect was sOlll!mhat deteriorating
to drag characteristics of the entrance. Figure 32 giTes the drag
for several inlet configurations vith deflectors. Ca.~ theBe
data vith drag for s1lll1lar configurations vithout deflectol:'lll (fig.
25) shows that deflectors increv.sed tho drag for all confi@U"fl.tions
tested when tho air enters thl!l inlet at a velOCity ratio abOTe 0.6.
This cOlllparison also indicates the deflectors caused tho largest
drag for shallow entrances (v/d = 4.0 ana 6.0) and steep l'I!Iillll angles
where the gain in pressura rsco-e-ery vas the greatest. All woul.d be
expected. figure 32(c) also shows the.t increasing the deflector size.
both length EUld heigltt. increased the drag.
The preasura distribution over the ramp when deflectors are used
is given in figure 33. COlIIpl.rison of these data with figure 23
indicates that deflectors cause s~ addition to the incremen~
velocities over the ~p. The critical-speed characteristics of the
lip for the curved diverging ramp. with and without deflectors,
.....
CONFIDi:.NfIAL
.-- .-
 mCA EM lfo. A7:£30 17

•
are given in figure 34. ~is can~son Shows that detlecto~
increase the critical Mach n~er tor the flow OTer the outside
surface at the center section of the entrance while decreasing thet
MeR for this tlow near the edge of the entrance. A larger flow-
ang!et Tariation acroos the entrance is therefore indicated lihen
deflectors are used.

ro3SIBLE APEICATIOll.'S FOR NACA S'IlBMEOOED J:liLmS

It should not be llle.intainsd that the Elubl!lerged entrance is
applicable as an inlet for all ducting installations. but it does
have certain characteristics in addition to th080 presented which
make it pe.rticular~ suited tor sp3citic ducting applications. The
use of MeA Bu'bl1lerged inlets could, in SOIII$ cElses. result in greater
aer~Cal cleamleee by effecting more favorable fuselage contour
lines and perha;pa reduc:l.ns the fuselage' frontal area. ~e structural
canplex1ty of the duct1ng sya"teln should be dilIIin1Shod and larger
space proTided for internal components. ~1B type at duct should
also reduce considerebl;r the ingestion of foreign material b;r in-
ertia se~~tion.
A possible Jet-enslne installation utilizing MCA subl!lerge:!.
ducts is ehown in figure 35. In this illustration the sUbl!Iergod-
duct design 1s centered around a single Jet engine located in the
fuselage a:t't of the pilot's enclosure. l'lacement at the twin entries
ahead of the wina III1IW!1zed the influence ot the Wings pressure field
and situated. the entry in a region of thin bouncl.ary layer (reference
2). A wid ratio of about 4 seemed advisable fram internal space
liln1tations. and a ramp using curTed divergence together with a ramp
angle between 50 or 70 was selected. ~is installation should give
opt:llltum pressure recovery. low ov"r-all drag and an efficient
internal-flow systen. since the necessity for sharp bends and rapid
ex:pansions have been elim:ina.ted. Reference 2 discusses a duct-flow
instability that could occur With this type of installation.
For airplanes employing two Jet engines the necessity of using
Wing nacelles could often be elim:ina.ted by housing the engines Side
by side in the fusolage. ~e HACA submerged inlet appears to be
very adaptable to such an installation. '!he use of single ducts
leading to each jet engine would be similar in desia;n and location
to that shown in the previous illustration. With a single duct
leadina to one Jet enginEt. the flow instability prenoualy mentioned
could not occur. '!hI!! ehort internal ductina of such an inata;Uation
should result in minimum lossee, especially for engines with exie.l-
type compressors.

Certain types of missiles. which are ])OI'sred by Jet enginas in

C9J&~
18 liACA EM No. A'iI30

the f'uselage and haYe no pt'OT1aion for landing gear~ are ideally
adaptable tor an XACA au'blllerged-duct system. ~e single inlet could
be placed. on the underside of the fUlleJ.age and the :l.natallation would
have the design and aerodynamic adTantage :mentioned :pl'OVi.:lUSly.
Other applications could include same ducting systems :l.nvolving
cooling and carburetor air. If' this type of entrance oould be sub-
stituted for the protruding scoop-t;ype of inlet, the aerodynlllllic
neatnElss of the a:lrcrart would be greatly enhanced.

From investigations tIl.'t'.t have been made of the configuration

changes and pa1'alII9tere afi'ecting the deB1gn of NACA sublllElrged-duct
installations it Was concluded that:
1. ~e boundar.1 layer at the location of the submerged entrance
will influence the ram recoTery. Due to the relatively thick tuzmel
boUll!l.ary layer into which the entrance vas placed, it is believed
that the pressure recoTeries ,pr')Bented in this report are 10W'er than
could be expected. for moat airplane installations but that the com-
pu'ison between configurations is 'Y8lid.
2. Significant sains 1n pressure recovery for a vide range of
coDf'igurations resulted. freat the UIIe ot the curved divergent rem:p.
1'h1s is es;pac'.a1ly true in the 10"1f inlet-velocity-mtio ranse,
:;; =: 0.9, vhere hish pressure recoTery is lIIOst necessary.
3. ':rho effect of v:!.dth-to-depth mtio VM greatest tor the
nondivergent (p!Irallol) =p valle. ~e best recoTery for this
configumtion ocoUl"%'Od for a v/d ratio. 1 (square) entrance. As
the ~~all divergence increaees vld reti0 has lOSR effect, 8lk1
the BqUlU"O Wt..7 is inferior to moat rectaDgular entries. With
curved diTergence the ~ recoTery inc~nt due to change in vld
ratio i8 about hal:f that nth ~lel valls.
4. RelIIp 8ll81e or, in Bam cnses, ramp length, had an ouw+and-
~e detr1ll1ental eff'ect of increasing
:tng efi'ect an rall1 recOTery.
=p angle beQ8lIlO sreeter as the diTergenoe VM increased.
5. In genoml,it ".ppeare that an inlet v:!.th curYed divergence.
". 50 or ~ ramp 8IJSl.e, and e. wId ratio or f'X'OllI 3and 5 o!f'ere opt:lJluJl
characterist1cs.
•
6. Good. cr1t1cal-speed characteristics can be obta1ned. v:!.th
proper lip design. ~el'e 1e e. spanviae change in angle ot ".ttack of
the lip when a d1versinB mJIll i8 UIIod, and it !eJ' be neceasar,r to

C01!]'+~lAL
NAOA :ElM No. A7I30 19

tll':tst the lip, de;pend:tns on the pJ;'eSSUl'e fiold into which the
entrance is ][aced.

7. Fo!' :most desisn conditioll8 the drag 'WBJJ found to be emall.

=
ROIi'ever, in the selection of an ollt:lJlnun configuration, the drag and
recoTery Mould be weighed. In thie respect, the use of
deflectore may not always prove advantageous.

ALes Aeronautical Laboratory.

National Advisory Committee for AeroDautics,
Moffett Field, Calif.

APE!:!lDIX A

MEmOD OF OBTADiIlD DUCT LOOSES AT mE ElmlAliCE

AlID AFT OF TIm DLFOB'tJSER SECTION

~, as in ths most general case, the straam fil.aments for a

steady flaw a:rt/ not Ill!Isumed to have the llaIiB nOli' energy, then the
total pressure for a given weight of fluid ~s:tns a given section is
(reference 5)

CAl)

Usually, it is not necessary .to a;pply thil! exact method, but it DI!3
be requisite i f the total pressure distribution at the :measur1Dg
station has local regioIll!- of high loss. Such WaB th!'l cllse at the
submerged--duct entrance for inlet Telocity ratios between 0 and 0.8.
In cOlllllUt:tns the losses for this range, equation (1) wes modified to
reduce the ctmptttational yon:

(A2)

where
20 liAOA liM No. A7I30

h locel total head

p local. density

a local area

V local velocity

1 number of equal areas (equals number of tubes)

assuming

A = a xl

Then

H=f ••• (A3)

For this application subscripts 1., 2, frio... , denote local areas

considered.

~e difference between tho losses cos]Uted in the preceding

manner and those ollta1ned trOll an 1ntergrating *UlOlll8ter yere found
to be negligible at the entrance for the reMinder of the inlet-
velocity-ratio range. V1./Vo ·s frail 0.8 to 1.4. Such'11"a8 the cas.,
also for the entire inlet-olelocity-mtio range at the measuring
station after diffueio~.
NACA EM No. A 7I30
~EmAL 21

APEllHDII J3
METHOD OJ' OB!l'AllIIlG DBAG OJ' THE SUBMEmED EN'nlAltCES

If' the 1Il000000tuIIl change betwoen two atatiOJlll alalg a .trallll1 tubo
is lII!Iaaured. the reaulting drag foree lIIa7 be coaputed:

D .. f {U - u) dill (J31)

or

D .. p f u(Uo - u) dA (J32)

where one station is :In the free streBll.

Ass1l'11l1n8 the dene1tiea at Uo I!.lld. u are equal,

(B3)

!few. aSlIUlling that tree-stream static pressure ex1.te :In the Yake
(p '" Po)

Then

or

dydx + -2
A
JJ tf1.f.
- dydx
qo (B5)
22 OOllFI~ RAeA !iN No. A7I30

Exxend1ng the first ~ of this eqtlation in a binomial expansion aI!d

ccabin1ng with the remainder giTes

°IlD "i ff ': d:sdx - irK ff ( 'f) ~dx. • • (:a6)

It vas tound thl!.t there Yere su1':l'1c1ent tubes in the measuring rake

so that a value at ~ obta1~, 'nth the aid of an integrating

qo
manOll!lter and iSubst1tut&d 1n place 01' the integrals in equation (:a6)
gaTe Ter.1 eatietactor,r correlat1onvlth the poin~1-po1nt
lntegration at equatlon (:a4).
To indicate hCllf the 8ubll!Orged-duct-dr.cg deterlllination vas made,
it III1ght be best to consider a cOllJ)a1'ieoo between the drag of a nose
inlet ant! of a subJlClrged inlet'l; as detel'lll:!.nad by ~ntum surveys.
~s oom~lBon ahould inolude the alI' flow thro~ the entrance to
OOl'l'l5opond1ng stations at the .1et-engine cca:p1;'8ssor. What happens
after this ~ection i8 a tunctlon ot the 3~t-eng1ne characteristics
and does no't enter this diecussion. To a:1lllulate the :p1;'eced1ng
oondition. oonsider that the air atte~ entering ths duct is relllOTsd
at right angles to the air stream eo that there i8 no IIOIIIOntull of
the exit air in the drag direction. Then

Loss in 1IOIIIOn-
tUll of ths MOIIIIntlUl ot L08S in 1!I00000ntUlll
Drag ot inlet .. entering air at + entering air + bDhind the duct
the duct entrance (I'm drag) (:p1;'ofUe drag)

, For the nose inlet

D = o +

For the submerged inlet

D .. J ment(Vo- Vent) dAent + J J ~t(Vo-

ment Vent dAenfft Vatt)dAatt

where iD1 is the maaa flClVing thro~ each unit area.

OONIfr
NACA liM No. A7I30 CONF~mu. 23

111ually, f'or the nose-tyllO :!:nlet, tho :tIIalIentUll1 of the entering air
is taken into account as xart of' the internal drag and subtracted
out. To lII8ke a fair cOlllI&'isCll between tho nose and sublll.orged inlets,
for a given quantity of' flow, the same r«tIl drag should bo accounted
f'or in each case. HoweTer, fol.· this oond:1tionl the :t'tIll1 drag of the
aub~ed entrance i8 leaa than that f'or the nose inlet since air i9
inducted which has already received a 108S of' momentUlll, this losa
boiDS equal to the second tem of the preTious equation. It' it i8
assUlI!ed that the :tIIalIentUII 01' the entering air is (llIentV0) for both
ill8taliatioll8 and i8 su'btl'l:!.cted f'rom each caoe, the drag becanes:
For the nose inlet

~the submerged inlet

D= J lI'aft(Vo-Va:rt) dAa:rt

In an actual duct application, tho ait' now OTer the body with the
duct entrance removed JIlU8t bit considered, so that another term is
necessary. ~e final f'orm of: the equation used to evaluate the drag
then becomes:
24 KAOA l'H Xo. A7I30 •

1. l!'r1ck~
Charles W•• Dl\.v1s, Wallace l!' o. Be"" .. " ~ LaUl.'OB M•.• and
MO!laman~x.et A.: .An Expel'blental Invest1gatlon of KACA
Subwtrged~ct 1:ntrances. l!'.ACA ACE lfo. 5120, 1945.

2. MOBsmen, Emmet A., and Ge.Ult~ Donald E.: DeTelopaent of KACA

SubJr.&rged li1J.eta and a CaI1puoison wlth Lead1~dBe Inleta
tor a. l/4-SCalS Model of a. Flghter Alrplane. KACA Cm! Xo.
A7A3l, 1947.
3. von~, Th.: CCCIl:pl'eBslbll1ty Efi'ecta ln Aero~CB.
Jour. Aero. Scl., Tol. 8, no. 9. July 1941, pp. 337-356.
4. Lees, Lester: A DlscUllslon of tb.e Appllcatlon of the PlUdtl-
Glauert Method to Subsonic Ccm:pl'ess1ble Flaw over a. Slende!:'
llo~ of Revolutlon. ~>li.aA TN No. 1127, 1946.

5. Rouse, Hunter: Fluid Mech8n:Lcs tor HydzaUl10 Engineers.

McGral1-R1U, 1938, pp. 47-54.
'~,
.,;IC·

5'f TABLE J:

J Index: of tho Su'IlIMrged-Duc~tl';J IIod1tlcatioI13 ~:z>

';.-;
~ !i!
~ Eamp floor Bo1llldar;y i5=
•
S' RalIIp plan tom vld Bamp 8Jl8l e Deflectors
~i
Bhape thicmesl!
~
Parallel valJ.8 ~
E1mp Straight divergence !io. 2
plan 1'om Straight divergence No. 3 4, 6 .,0 Straight lratural lI'ono
Curved divergence

...,
wid I
. ParallelvallB
Straight divergence lIo. 2 l~ 2, 3.
Straight divergence No. 3 4, 5~ 6
Curved divergenco
7
0
Stra:lght lratural ?lone

Parallel 'Walls a50, 70,

Ramp angle Straight divergence No. 2 2. 4, 6
Curved divergence
t.10;011.5°, Stra1ght lratul'tlJ. "one
llamp floor. Parallel walls c5°~ i' 9°~
Bhape 4 0' Curved lratural. :rem.
Curved divergence ll.5
Boundary
thickness
Curved divergence 2, 4, 6 ~ S'Gra1;;ht I !.I.'h1cklMd :rOM

d
Parallel valls 5°, .,0, 9° 1 Height • 1/4 tn..
Deflectom Straiglit divergence Xo. 2 2,4. 6
&-urved diTergence 11.5°. 15°
Strrt1~t I lratural 1/2 m•• 3/4 :In.,l m.
~ .. 25%,50%.
1 /15%.
200%
a. ~ 1dth wid", 4 lUld 6.
b. Only 1dth .,jIll = 2. N~TIOHAL AtlVJ5:0RY
c. Angle dcfmad by Co stmght 11ne connectillg beginn1Dg and end of' z:ap. coIu< I TTEE rot WOIIl.UT1C5 ~
d. See table II for cClllbimttions tested.
 NAOA m No. A7I30

Heisht
Lensth 1/4 inch 1/2 inch 3/4 inch 1 inch

wId 4 --
-, ,-
I.

4 --
25%
Ramp angle T' -- 1° --
wid 4 4 4 4
50%
Ramp ansle T' 1° T' 'f
wid 4 4 4 4
15% ,
Raap angle 1° 1° ,
I
T' T'
wid 2, 4, 6 4 2, 4, 6 4
100% Ramp angle 1° T' 5°. T'.9°, T'
11.5°. 15°

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COHHlnEE FOR AERONAUTICS

... _-_ .•. _--------------

NAOA m 10. A7130 27.

TABI\E III

FIGtmE GUIDE TO RESULTS

Modifioation Pressure ?.z:oessure Drag

recoTo17 distribution

Bamp plan form FiSS. 10. 18 F~.gs. 21, 23 FiSS. 25. 26

wId FiSS. ll. 18 ll'igs. 22. 23 FiSS. 25. 26

Bamp anglo FiSS. 12. 13. Figs. 21. 23 Figs. 25. 26
14. 18
Bamp floor Fig. 15 Fig. 24 lione
shape
Boundary-layer Fig. 17 lione None
thickness
Deflectors Figs. 27. 28. Figs. 33. 34 Fig. 32
29. 30. 31

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITT£E rOi AERONAUTICS
 F i K. 1
I': ACA ni l': " A7 1 10
., .,
..,....-
.-<
C>
.~
11
....
:II
.d
u
....c
oJ
.
-fA
,0
<!
...:5 c!
<
:;,
.!; ~Q
.
!I
~
to. ...
0
~ ....~
(. ~
.
....u
IC>
.c
u
tI)
I
...
i
....
"'-
•
© U :.;lTA 1 n
 t'

a~.

R
,~,

~,~~
CONFIDENTIAL :<:
>
o
>
I~
I~ :u
~.
~--'~
i:
,~~-;
--=-::.
it-·- :<:
--~--
----,• ?
, o
EN7'R",NC.£ CONE

- ...>
-...
~
OUi;;NOJMMP
.: c::_:L8u:l--------n-
,..-...
t
' .
o
.....
~ ..... ... - -~--:--\
.-c
~----.---
~ ~ - ~
-.. -:.----;.---------~--.-
_c ----.-1
-

.. ; , - -
__ === __ . _- 1 Ln .._
~.

p
~
SECTION S -B SECTION C-c::

OIFPVSER 5fXr;ON - , P.'"'..£:$s1NI'e TUBES ~

RAMP ANCU.E _ RJiMP"",",
17-_ _ _ _~l~·
FYJ.f.W:::1l/fJS ~.
LIP O!" DlFTUSCR ':SEer/oW-

I? . .~' 0'\'\:~:;":-0

~/ / '~'",\.,. .
// r;:' \ ,-\"'-. ;.'\,> . . ~ /,
_- --'-"G'_--!
. '
£'-" '\ .\.:'........'-'L'.~ / / 'f , , - - - .

E'Nt.I9RGcD SECTION ~-19

IU,TIOK.U. 4tMi01tY
COiHIKTTtE FOft uaOUI.mC1

"l
FlGUREC!. ~THEGENERR!. mR.qNGEMENT OFA SUBMERGftODlICTENTRANCe MODEL. TEsrEDIN THE a-SY3a·,NCH ".
00
WIND ruNNEl...
CONFIDENTIAL
'"
ti"
cV
~:'
~...
~>ll
~WYIW-?

!',~!
{::l.
~" ..
.,.:fr,.;"

__ +---:: ___
-
j ~_'UIJU

~~."- / ...
TABl.t ~ORDINATES ,:oOR CNo'ERfSlNG trRUP$

*./1. i 1')•
o'~QO,O
.'0 Ai?
• if"
..0
"I
""
~
o
,0
'. ..../-
I:IIIIIW'D0000oiI'IL [!Ior.DlnRa"05 '\I"'~'''''~
11;:-
,$00
~o .. 57
::50 .'IS~

-j ,- FnRRU.CL I¥~'S (_DlW"r1M/O ",If_)

STRIUGHr DlVERGENC£ NO ~
"'0
so
",0'
4'n
L STRRIGI1T CIVERtJENCE NO ~
--:-- ..
.• 0
~:
'.,
-1
..
56CrtON ,<9.04",""1 ~,",FNED DIvERGENCe
r;;U"4lJ DuIR'O_ ","'... _ ",,'- l
'DO OU_.:...~CIO ~·-.!....1l0~_ ,,,.....

•• - - "! ••••

----=----- r-"":--' ---<-.

~'r-::;-~
---::---
I '--
y ~-

~
~
•
.
i -------=-',"-'.:-:=.::..:::: -.:~.~ :c:
L
,qA_I.E_ni, I..
... >
o
>
:>;I
.,.r_£1'YISCIh'
COIHIITlU'~ auOMllfa
==
Z
o

.-...
F :JI.!RE 3 - FOVR ;JLAN FORMS OF TIfE RIi'I.IP TeSTED IN THIS MlVcsnGflTION OF THE SI.IBJ,IERGt-a CI..-cr ENT/rIWC£S

>
{"'~.i"d5iNTI'L
c:>

~
ii'. f

<1'
''d--
..l:l

:'~I
,;,...I:g.
,....-cOII"liiNn~ l2:
>
n
I
I >-
,,1I'I:;f :>;I
,:"~. ~
l2:
o
11.~·R.9MPIfIlGl.E S·RI1MPI9N5t.E ?·RIIMP I1NGLt! !/'RANfP /W&E
_ 1 L :_ I __ L_ >
-~
j J07C
<CC: \ ..........
.
RI'IMP PROF'IL£:

CrJRVED DIVERGING RIMIP PI.RN F'tJRM

WITH Ii IlS- RNrfP RNGl..e

- r -
~
,---"~:::::::::::::::-_
/
7·,, 57
j!:'
~
"'- --- ---+-
~
~
___ 1.. __ ~
RFiMP PLI'IN F'ORM

NATIONAL AOVISOfty
COMNITTEE FOR AEttDHl.UTICS

FIGURE: -F. - THE: G£:OME:TRIC CHI'ING£ OF' THE: RI'IMP WITH RFiMP I'lNGL£; CURVE/) OIV£RG£NC£, Wid: 40. !l!

-
~
~IAL
""
.
~

~,r;
..
,~
COI'ElPEMEAI.. __
~
il)f"········
i: :
'"
t~'j
l.r·
,,;0,;;1"'

STn"'laO~L
ST~.-O"-L

- FJ.§FERs..~r:.e. ~II!€- - l
LENSTH, L.
~
----
~
I~ ,
y
I
-- -.--

8 ~.-----
. ------
L--------·· TABl.E OF ORDINflTES

STA-~L Y-l'.S I

~D.D ~~~~j
NOTE 'DC
L.:r. i.ENGTH BETWEEN ST,qRT of R"lMP ,4ND ..
5T,liTION AT WHICH iHE DEPrH QF TIfE DUCT
ENTRm./CE IS M~FlSURECJ ~~DD
...--.."",
';a...
0
- . ,: gs-
~""""'9.!J - ~ ,:0,
a U CJ/STRNaE FROM REFERENCE LINE TO
R~MP Q -6.54 % L. STAr/ON- (PDINr AT WHICH
DUCT ENTFU1NCE FIRER 1$ MEfl~uR£,DI
t=i~~~' ~.!!lk~.
- '. ~ -.~.:!'
- IG.~ 7,'iiS' "I :2:
'- =-]'aof_-~~~ >
o
>
:0
i::
HATIONAl. ADVISORY
COUUITTEE fOR AEr.:c+lAUTICS :2:
o

>-...
FIGURE: S. - THE CURVED RIlMP FLOOR TESTED IN THIS INVESTlGI'ITION OF THE: SUBMERGED DUCr ......
ENTRI'INCES. c
CON'JOi'filN.TW.
&'

\
. NACA RM No. A7I3D Fig. 6

- ~ctllll.lllff.L

---c-

, " .... rv:ec ..tF

1

mrE
, • ....wNp~

I'J .IIHIlIAIUIW~
... 0 0 = ....

--=::::::::=~~
~U\tWor~w~
~. 7nNoOtoOlI~UNDTH

------ .
ORDlNA1'ES FDR :lCCTIDN-R
NOrE
sc(rIQ¥o~ IJ THE Si'IME FDR
RLL DeFlECTOR l.EN6rH$.
11_'
$ .,p-uar7Nl',w.{!;lr;nrrlO

HA71OH.lLAQVlSOftY
COMM(TTE£ FQft AEPlQHAUTICS

HGURE: 6. - THE: 1JE:FZ.E:CTOFIS TESTE:D IN THIS INVESTI&9T1ON OF THE: SUBM"F!Gm

DUCT "NTR/INC£' •
D
a.·'
Jtj'
~...
, - ;OfIFlDe;uTraw
tl
l
'IlL:.'.
I~~
'w'
t~
l~
r;';'
,,";,i~' .
~ro ST.q.?S ...,oo
~r

I IIEFEREIJ5I1 I.fNE

,
l./P INC/gENCE • o· ------ LIP OROINIfT&S IN INCHES
t.IP INCID&NC~ ;-JNEil/lr""Z---,.

POINT OF' RDTIiTlDN~~

X
NOTe
/. I'lLL DIMENSIONS liND OR&INIITE S ~R£ ':OR If9 tft DETERMINED 13)1' THE
SvSu:RG&D E'NTR-9N(;E' OF 1.01Nr:N DEPTH INT~RNl1l. Duer
2. 70 Ol!1r.,IN LIP FOR fl SPECI':'C eNTRI9Nt:E MUloT/PLY
THE ORDINI'}TES GIVEN IN THIS J:'IGVR/r BY THE ENTRI1NCe
DEPTH IN INCHES

0.'75'" ...

-~~
_---1 ENTR~NCE DePTH
fI"

/
:.:
• l >
( , , o
/ , >
~- /
•
/ :II
/ /; / !:
:.:
HATI~AL ADVISCfI,Y
CDWWlTTU FOft AEftDHAUTlCS
o

>
F,GURF: 7. - THe LIP PROFILF: USED IN THIS INVESTIGIITION OF THE SUBM€RGED
£NTRI'INC£ ...
-0

CONFiDEN i IAL '"o

. NACA RM No. A7130 Fig. 8,9

10

.. .- . - .. 1-0- - -I"- - -
. -- -
.. -
,"
r O/U-·
• -- ~S

• ,.
It
4
I\, I
I' •
-'Itt.

l-
r- ~ 1/ , H,-A
i
,
" 0
- .
.• I.w I.
•• 0

FiGURE e. - THE: NIITlJRFlL BOUNtMRY Ll9YER OF THE WIND nwNEL WIILL

MeflSuRED ~r THE l..OCRTION OF THE DUCT ENTRnNCE.

-, r I I ~I

- -I/o' ['!l:t;}tOO -
.
--I
.. 1_
I
'" .......
~ ~.

. - I- - .• -
110
--
, - ;-
80

10

or/:
l=Wi
6

~ -L ti .
' 2

OI"tr.UfR , REPHc~ENrs J"WE'

r-
~- -

0 I '0
-
DI'I"U$EH (lSID w~m orNe WJDTH TO -

---n~-f~~r
40
r- I 00 00
'-0 (nn
-.
"
""TKlHAL ADVISORY
C<IIrIMITTEE FOR AtllOllAUTICS

Ftr;uRE Q. - THE EFFICIENCIES OF THE DIFFUSER SECT/ONS USeD WITH THE

V/lRIOIJ5 MOD£LS OF THE StJl!JMEI?GEO ENTRIINC£'.
•
Fla. 10 NACA RM No. A7130

e- CQllilUENitiL

/.00 ",'-
r- w:"",,'",,,,pm _n~ • '.0 I I I I I I
.!.
m I .90

~
_

"
..!. "
.•
,SY.ff6(X.
•
~~JITJH~~
CURWD DlW:IMENt:&
S~~M\
ell'9-i1SV'~AOo<2
,.
_,:!!

.eo •

- -
ArlUull. M&'CrJ,_

iil: .70
~
V
I.....
,:':
~.
r- ....... t-..
..... ,~ - '>
r.....
i- -

~ .(10
'7 V 00- . ~~
~
~
"
~
1nJ-
:7" i- --
.50 r--. ,L - . ~~
f
,

~ ,'I' j 1"

.2 .4 .6 .6 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

INI.ET VEI.OCITV RATIO, VyV.
1.00

~rt
:f
,90

>,

0 .eo
~ .70
~
~ .60
§a:
::; ,SO
~

INI.ET VE1.0C/7V RATIO, VVV.

NATIONAl. ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FD!I AERONAUTICS

F'GIJRElo.- VI9R/~TION OF RAM RECOvERY RRTIO, MEASUReD I9FTER THE

DIFFUSER SEt:.TIONJ WITH INl.ET VELOCITY R19TIO FOR FOUR Pi..t'lN
FORMS OF THE RRMP. 7- RAMP ANGLE.
-
l
• • •

t C~_III1!J'm'ITrALo.
:z:
>
l~l
n
>
""_.to III
f' rt .-- -. . rr 1 . , 1 ..,.......,...-. -- !:
:i
100 IT ' i ! i I
~"-.,, -- ~L~: _ _ DnIlO~"IrI7O r ,,~~• ..,O&" .... --+-_.~_
~~ , "
~~.
~t
90 '1--' _J __ ~ --r---
_
I •
l

~;--+---t~:~~
• ~i~ol-'
:lii ....cn.m~_

-'I+---<t .eo ••
......·~ :z:
o
. eo
'0
f '. ' •. ~.. - : ·J!:n·' g
r
.... -.
.; .60
~
~ --. ,. ~ ~ 4 -; ~ i
, - I 50
•• ......
>
~ .:: V~··
l:#ri1=:0 T'-t-H-+-f"'-- .~
>-
'"
!II
...o
~ ~+J ' . ·~-'-H-++-h 8
l!!
~ .50 1·+- - '-1"~- . , ,-- ., .SO
~ h--.---·· , ~
o~-C.4k-l-~"-;rc-~Lo~-rI.~-7I.~4~71.~.~..J
II\\..ET vaOOTV RATtO. % INL.ET VELOCITY RATtO, 'Y'__

.. IrUrPT f-' l-,'.

*g
100
['-~1
_ sr_ _ _4 DIHr~~

.- • 100 .j. I 1 I I : I
""""Dr~ i I I ~
......-,..
.,ao:
..j... 1- -,., +'t-~~-~' :MJ.- _GO - • ~ ~
I '
---.. 01 _ _'"

90 ":-.,
~f"
.eo .- ..... . , :--+-
L//.(·f-- -I'<~'I
'.'"
L_;_~
~,!O
: --{;: r+-
:.~
;7.0 1-+-
.... 1--
_
~ .eO T~~r
~
," .:o:'f"":

f~~·-J-~
....:;:.
r-
,"
J •
;: +- -- ,
.,;f-.
~I
.

r<
.10 t t..t'-
1;'f"
I
1- -

. I
::";
",.
>
I§
.70 r,. ~,.!,
,j
",' ..

i .60

.:tilJt r lF' ~ ~
6 .60
t'~'
f.., ~-- ~ +
~t
.t ~

~
50
4·-+
----+-' 1-4---
, I '

..
, j "- ~50!
~ 0 t -,
i !! ! I I ! I I J
0
2 ,4 L L 1.4 I.' o 2 A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

INLET VELOCITy RATIO) o/v•. Im£T VEI..QCIT'! RATIO. o/v.

tc.l1lOtCAL IoIIVBO«T
COMtKnU: ra aUOHAUTJCI

F,GURE: II. - VIIRIIiTION OF RAM RECOVeRY R.9T10, MEIlSVRE:D .9FT£R THE: DlFF/J5fiR SECTION I WITH INLET VELOCITY
RRTIO FOR FOllR RIIMP PLIIN FORMS liND SIX WIDTH 70 DEPTH Rllnos OF" THE: ENTRIINCE. 7'RIIMP ANGLE:
.....,
00

... a 'JIi~ --
Fig. 12 NACA RM ND. A1l30 •

. .. ..
I: . ; "~i' :
~

'!'" ,
" I I ~
~

• ~
~
~'
~

i ~
'Ii,.
,
~
~
~
~
~

.." -. -t • • • ,r~-.~~
•••• I·I:~~:-::::·· . .."",. Ii!

::--:t;1I"",t··
'I~'~~C
· ..... ~~1""" ~
.I
"

'1IoH;·~··t.,~'.
,
.....
·_-,··t.lr"
'0''' • -. 0-. t"--i""r- . !-
~

Il'
'I .'-
, ..-'~~T"
i .,,~.
'J.

-.
-
-

~ ~
',
' • ... :-··· .... · ..·..·•••t-.~:;>.,
.•• ......t.t l!

~
. ·1..·' rt--+--.. ..
~t:)#;:~lt9~ L1:~: :i.:f r(!': 9 ~
· ;.

·.' '••
I" -,"f,7-1'
,· 0'-
f
.' :ff,.t
..
J ••• -.
~ ~
t',-,. . . ;. • ,.. ·t . •.. ~-. /... r
t .-
~
i
f
t -
'I" .• :"","
• f~-.j
'7.~-'~ ..
+ t ...
, •
~ f.
- It,i ·. • 8
~
7l
•
i
il
~

',:' ,'\,1 I,
·1 .•. . - ,H •• " •. 0( : ....... • ~
........ .
I
f t"t-, t ~ . ~ • ~ . • . • • !
• • • ,.
! • , "
,
, t
....
!
o : ;~,: :: : ; i :~
I
I
'If
~\.
fit
0 ~~
9g,.2~9SiO "ii
",,,
~ 'Ckl.WIf J."lMmtr~

. ... . .
.-~.-

.. . . . . .
.. -f" - - •.• -
~i~a
oJ
n~

~~
.~~
l'!
~

...
~o
~

~~
'"••
~~
'U
",Q
~
,,~ "
!l!
c.
• NACA RM No. A7I30 Fig.13

CONF IDEN IIAI..

3~M40L RAMPANGl.e
o S"
c • 7"
s"
... ItS·

~.J. .....
...'
~~...
"Il! '" IiIII /

R 1;:::-, I
1\ / b~ ro::"'"
'l~ \ ~ 1/ ~~
~~
o I¥H!£Nrop DC/ere~-'W9.vr!.~~DT/'OO

.
yc f'\ I .!
I?.M =.... LD
;,: \ I I
\.
V'" '\. I /
......
~~ \ .' I~ ~
2
'<
~ + I #
o0 ~ r-', ~~
co "", EO 0 -=

FiGIJf$ii!: 13. - DI5TRISt.r."ION OF THE: l..OSS OF RI9M PRESSIJRe

,o;CR055 THe SIJBMeRGcD !i'NTRI9NCE: FOR WIRIOIJS RF1MP
F1NGLES. "I{,J-4, CURVEO OIVERGENCE:.

•
 Fig. 14 NACA RM No. A7I30

f
fmr,n
rr
" .
S--
Itrr ":
I'
~I

'1
- - ~i
-
'}:-
- . I,
u
- !,'
1+] --
•- . I-t-, 1

-+1 '

,--
l!---~\ J, ,
' -

~!uj
,-~

I , .
~
~
- 0

.l~~1 - •
rt r~F- -
-
- 9
0
 NACA RM No. A7I30 Fig. 15

•
coNR1f£H filL

1.0 0
I I I 'wn'u.i I I I I I
~~
:t1:? .g 0 0.6

~ .B
0

~.
>
0:
.70

~) ~ "'"
~
~-..:: ~; ,..;:;:
.60

~V 7
f!i 0' / "
~ .50 to" 1/
0:
- ~

.2 .4 .1 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

INLET VELOCITV RATIO, VylV.

1.00 '~~-r -
I- f-- cu~.o' GV~~.J,,& 1T I I
ttl!"
.J';'J. 1~~"'~f";~
•
U
I',
.90
~ 0.6
&.
A
-±jj-
O· -j
7·
Ii
- -~ ~ r,,~ ~: I~~. I
"I'' ' ---
t
0 .BO , ~~~ ~t9MP rz.og~
~
CURV£D
srR>9",m-_na
J
0:
>
0:
.70 "
r-..: t:, ..
'" :
, r."
~
~ r~
~
~
.60

--
- k,
~
-:--.
,I">::
r~
--
,
~
.- ,
::; .50 I-
~ I- .. _- r~ " - -i'
00 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 " 1.4
~
1.6
INLET VELOCITY RATIO ~ 'Yr..
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
Fig. 16. 17 NACA RM No. A7130

~i ill!RfiAL

c-
I
.0

'"
:,;. ....
~
-
... - -
~
- -- ~~ ,~ --t -
"{IJ
~-
•
.a
D

I 0 aCClNDtfifY UW'I/fNOI
(N"rv".." IJQUNOIM'Y
'
UY£'''''')
D BOUNlJ.'f/lY i.l9YERNae
(nwc'K.GW%I~R)I"UM:""") •
~

~ I'-- '- I.
1'... c.".: ~ /' -~": I
o UI' ." -"'0 ·c.....

F(fSIJRe IS.- COMA9RISON OF" THE TWO BOIJNCl9R>' tA>'~S 0"" nYC W/ND
TIINNEL WRLL, M!"ASIJ~ED I9T.THE L0CJ9T10N OF THE DIJCT ENTRI9NCCIf.

1.00 C;lHl,*"D.DJYJ:"~,C' •..-.< "'flD7W1D~AWT""

7 .'?""'~t"MIt;;~~
•
• II !~T
~~.
';lO D ~o

~- ... ~JoI'
~11f'IP NO.1'
L.1f11tCl¥M:llJ:

~ I'....: ~
t.-- ~
. 80

~
I/.; V f" ~
V- -, - " ~:.

t...:
~
.70
~
- - ;:~

- - -- '" '"
~
19 - - " - -....;::" ~ f'..
8III
.60
-- --. " t\-
a: .. -.~ ~
:a .50 ,
, - .~ ~
&
.2 .4 .6 .6 1.0 1.2
- 1.4. 1.6
, , .~

INLET VELOCITY RATIO, V(Vo

NATIONAL AOVISOt\y
COMMITTEE FOft AERONAUTICS

F'lGlJRE 17. - COMA"lRISON OF' RI9M RECOVER>',MEI9StJREO If/FTER THE

DIFFUSER SE"CrION, FOR rHo: THOBOlJNDI9RYL.~YER CONDlrIOlVS.
CURveD OIV£RG£NCE.

cawt:IKH1IAL
 NACA RM No • .11.1130 Fig. 18

~h ilJ&RU..

. -'~--:---1
0.-.- +-- _ I t ..

-,
'---r ----~
• . ..,... .
. .. .
., ;.~
••
.
-. -..-.-",....,."-",,.,-J
IJUT vtLOCTY RATIO. %

F'CtI.;R£ I~ VJol1i141'lOfi ,v ~1lU urrOVFRV RAr",. MElnfJRI fl 'IT rllr 1.)I'U£Fd',FD ;"rPHNt.£. ;/WlrH lNU:r
vnOCITV I?~T'CI n;m V~JJm(Js INL.' T CONF/OfJI.'PIION
Fig. 19 MACA RM No. A7130
--
..J
•
•
....oo o
 •
j,I"
e'r.
~.'
1iJ'"
.... ', tC'oll'.IIIITIAIoo z
:S' >
o
.....
..,-" >
~~
lQ
~
, Z
-/., a ! I : o
'.1.
....>
I
PRESSURE: OISrnlBl.lTiON O>l!"R LIP (p ~ OF "NTRmvc~
A
WIDTH ro OCPTH R/inO = 4.0 --- ...
-8~ ~~ ~
I I CURVED OIVERISENCE'
LIP INCIDENCE • O'
- -
'"o
7·~IWVGl.E

!--- ' .--

--:IF'"

fl.... ,f' --""~1'- i.

". ,
~
;I!
~ [h - --, 1 . -
c-
~o
It -- -----0-
~: A

,----- - - - ,. *
-p,-
~ r /~ V·8 1,2 1.6 eO
DISTANCE FROM =E/IOING EDGE OF LIPINIM:'l-lCS
2.... a.s 3.2
t-. f----'
~::;.4,~
.-'" SYMSO. 11.;%
'/' ,-- -, --+- ,. • - +
a , ,
• --=l>-- - ---t A"..a - - - f--. - -- '---;
~ 9"
...c" .. -- ,
I 'i
0
(> /.0
I
'
i
.8I
If I ---- INI1IDIr_" '
~'I I
I
HATK*At. AQYIIOA'ttUTti
COfIIMlTTIE fOR ~1tONI.U tel
tc!
I I

..."1
00
FiGU'lE 20.- PRESSURE OISTRIBIJTION OVER mE LIP FOR' IAfRIOUS ,1ILETV£L.OCITY RI9TIOS.
'"o
COII'UU!"
Fig. 21 MACA RM No. A7130

ca I

-;._~.~r·- -~""""""-T
•• • .... - j t
t I ... J .....,_._,,... ... -- :, .
+ f"
k
-of t-";"':'""':'~~. 1 to
J "
. • • -+->-
• I
t
,
.-
J
~.. f•
~

I
• t-:- ...+- ~,- .... ~---~
4 '::&.~, l · .. ·
-r •
t _~ ~ , t; '4: l-" i
._ _--. __-,-..•
::..:.,-- T
i"-l •
..._w_
1- +---~- '.,"-+
__

~
.I. • •1-- .. -..I---

~
-4>

...._1I£_U".\i
=-~:---++---. ~
_ _ _II'U..rl A
. 7:':
-
-
'
-
-
~
~
'
_--'t ....
----ct--t-
.
9 ._oft"'
IffS4N' i § 2
t II •
~
IN.£.T \(1.OCTY RA'nO. ~
I
... iA
5 0.
• .4
• .0
INI.£T vo.oaT'I RATIO, 'Yv.

•
IP-n.E.T VD.DOT'I RATIO, V~

FiGURE O!/. - VI1RII1T1ON OF CmnCAL MRCH Ntd.lBER OF TIfE LIP WITH INLET ~LOCITY ,?P"'"IO
~OR VARIOUS INLt T CONF"lGURRTlONS. "": d 4. tiP INCIDENCE. O·
 NACA RM No. A7130 Fig. 22

cr~
-of

~ ~

!
:
f
%

~ ¥
i .. .. . •0
••
'JUT vQ...OQTY RAnQ. ~
.A ... i o 2 " .8 B 10 12 .4 10

a)~·~

• DJ ,;I- ..

,J ~ ••

FIGVRE~c- THe EFFEcr OF UPINCIDENC£ OIJ THE VF;RIRTION OF CRlr,c,qL MACH

NUMBER OF THE LIP WITH INLET 'dLOCITY RATIO FO~ THREe. WIDTH TO OEPTH RRTIOS
OF THE ENTRANCE CIJRVED 0Ii1U~6£NCC, '"RAMP ,Qfl/SLC

~. fl'; 'f't~'
Fig. 23 NACA RM No. A7I30

cwwn;r"

Ca.) Cn:ECT OF INLET ~LOC"7Y RRTlO

I-I
!"
...
-~-.,
, I.
:i. ,,
"j
I
"L
- . 'f: IJ

"'
!
,
.,j -' ....

FIGURE 23 - TIE PRESSIJR£ DISTRIBUTION ALONG THE RIWP n:m I/RRIOI./S INU; CONDITIONS.
•
 NACA RM No. A7130 Fig. Z4
•

COME" doT/A!.
-'
~

-
-IU
i,eL[I
_ -+-
'

sv...so<
I
-j-

t-+-t-'~
I

"",nuS
It ltH1 ~--

.
-- i
0 CURveo Rn.y,o~~

A! ST07"'R3~ R4ft'PF~~_
;"-I~+J I [ f I H-L
o _F\!"~&:"E~ ~~e.&~
....,
~
~ r-....
t":::.

. ,~. ~fq
-.J:Tlil!"ll~Tl
Q C"R~D RI'a+(P F~

-1 I· I· I +-
" SrRnI(5HT RRMP rLOOR

rI ~ I

!6~
I! - ~oPER
I ~a I
CENT I Ri9AI1P
B6 )06
r..ENG7N

j.~-.~.++~r+~~~~
HI-t- ,4 -
~

NATIONAL ADYIIOIIY
COIIIMITTEE FOIl Al!ftONAUTICS

•
.Q.PIFIPEN'fI"1!"
Fig. 25 a, b, c NACA RM No. A7130
•
~"
~
II I f
I-
-I- ~~ .T. io
i I t
~-
1-1-
--
- f-i
• II ~
Ii ~
~~.o.
!-oL- ~l···~ 1-1- .InN I-~ 1-. ~~ ..
r~m:
!- I-~ II:
,-f tI .. ··- I-I--G~¥.r
t:11
I- I-~
!-'- I-~ ~
fi!
f-~ l- I-
~I 'II
~~i
••• I
-17Th m
i-~~
~
J. ~rt ,~
1/ !
~~ f-:l'
c-~- I-I-J? b~'i
Q
~
l-
[7
i
C;; 7
~
i 17 i .. . ~..
0
• e 0
e ~ • •
I
~
~
I
l\
~
~
•
~
!- tfii~
!-I-
I-
!-I- l-~! •
!-I- ~t
!- l-

"T
!- 1-'$
to.
I'
.
I-
~
~ •
I
~~ !- l-
!- f- ~e~"
~~nl...
I-!- .~
~,
!-
I-
!-I-
ti ~
g
If- I-~
17
~I til 1-1·· .
1-. .~
!
~
~!
~~
0
~ ~~~
> l!s
~ .
~~
~p
I-i ~
I~ •
[7,
IT 17
17 .~
~~
~ -If ~ 0
~ :I - • - ~~
Ill!;:
ll!~
iljU
I;:
•
• I
I
 NACA RM No. A7I30 FiB. Z6 ". b
•
-H~ .=r--=r-+-f I~~S ~
I-- ~ .... - -t-..
"u ~
,.§ I"
I'll! ~
1i!~~~11
r-~QQQ. ":i
'--- ~.
fIj". li ..
Ill'
~~
~~~~..t:~~ ~! ~
f ","
r-,~ is::: ~
~I"·- i;
_. f--- ~ ~H~-<~.
, :,! -1 ~
l!l
u ~
[t 1-1-- ~ . ~d--:--
I ,
~ ~_. I ~~
f';~
~p~-r- ttl [\1"
B~
:~t~+ -I- I,. fa...~
. ,«'
~\J
I 111'0
) .-~ ~"
... !Jl~
~lr
'1 -r-J=' -r-- .~
~
- . -. .-
~ ~~
k.i9!
!':!);
~~f
~
I"
i§ ~Il:
~ I"~
• J;
!:ikJ
~~
l!;
J.. ~'l:
[~ : ~ r-;J-Ut= !<l ~~u
~ ~'
I
, .-+i".~~- .Icd· I' • 1£ I/)lii
~~..
-~mt- -~-:~I!~~H"", '"
:Q
'-'

I/)!:l
~~
-~ ~ ~~~
--1 -~"t - _So. . ~ .
_~--i~E~j
. ' t, I !ik ! ~t,j
~tll
I.o.iij
'+"r! T-<~~i'
r'.
r ~ ~ ...i!~
+ ·'-0
f~- -II
o
~~~$" tr-~
.: ~
•
~~
f:;11"
§~
!!!~
f\-' -hll-
~k-!......F --- - ( ..-'. f!:~
1Il~
~ .•
- ---,~
i!$--__...l_ 1-
i51"
tu
tn
.,
--0- _ •
1•
' __ • -.-" _ _ _ - j ___ :t~
r.::::o
.
~---

•
~- ........ ~

0
_. .... o·

~Cl
"'>::
n
D 3 a D ~ 0
n • . \010
!!iii!
~.$'.(p~,.,,",;. ~/!o:;NN~ IIfYUN.3nOI'l l!)
, G:
Fill, 21 a, b NACA RM No. A7130 •
~SSlOO
~ ~ 'Ot.LW AtQf.o']tr ffl1j
•o
•
v
':l
::.o •
'~'
!
IsiNr:J':;
8
ti- 1'·1-"T '1'-"-
t ..
!
;1..L~!,~·f$r:, ~
j t t
• tt '•• <,f..
:"1..;,
J•• j
I
~
t I
•
•

!
." g
~,i. 4)'1".· •
1= •• /',)' < 1 •••. It:
t'·,....
: '.,.!"..,
'\'j'. t •
~
, • '',.I 'I • . • ! • ~ •
~g~~2S00 ')1'
U ,~., I ••• -.:;
'j
I ~. I
~ ~ , cuw ".lNnllr rmI
.,. 0-- I ,.. ;-
i'l . '. ( 1i r 1'i, It: '
• • i
....J...-'- . 0
§ 8 2 I! II I! 0
::5ll CILL"'''~'''''' ,
 NACA RM No, A7I30 Fig, 28

f.OD -r -

••CO Tr-an!f Tt .,
t , i~
"!IIiIt.
"g
.00
~~
~.90 ...."'
L _ ...i..",-"

...~-!
QUIa1MS. ..........
- __

.J.;>
•
..2)
tot-
ao
jI~ a:l

-f'.;; :iJ .. t g MlIH:>'I-t-HH-H'<I*:-HI-+-+-H

~
.0
10

- - .to
....t-+-+-+

.2 .4 .0 .0 LO L2: fA ...
i ·S>o}iJ.~jj::p:ttttttJ.
rm.tT VELOCI'rY RATIO, 'ilv.. INLET YEl.CQTy RATIO, '!N.
•
LCO

~~RO f-+-
.eo
I
IlD'I.lnD'i'JfOII"'~
L
4£W1'IYO'WO.,,'"1:o!'f.¥
·~jii
, , ••
••
..00

~, .90
.eo
_~o.
--- ~.,..;'
•o
•
••
•• -C-
~

~ .10
~ .10
~
-
~

I" .00

.so
"
~
~
.GO

.00
~ ~
0
.2 .4 .0 .0 LO '.2 L4 •.$ 00 .2 .4 .e .a 1.0 1.2 I.. - I.G
Ir-l.£T \tl...OCJTV RATIO, ~ INLET VELOCIT'i RATfO, 'Vv-

FIGVRE cB. - THE EFFECT OF DEFLECTORS ON THE VI1RIfITION OF RIIM RECOVt:RY, RIITIO,
MERSJRED liFTER THE: DIFFUSER SECTION, WITH INLET VE:£OCITY RIITIO FOR THREE
WIDTH TO DEPTH RIITIOS OF THE EHTRIINCE. CURVED O/Vt:RGENCE. ?'RAMP liNGLE

Ji'.• lihiL

rta.-....
..:..-.~ W1Ji
__ .. ~
~ .t
Fig. 29 a. b NACA RM No. A7I30

(a) EFFECT OF'OCF/.ECTORS FOR THREE RIIMP Pf.AN FORMS

•
~ .00

~ 2 A ~ B W ~ ~ ~
INLET VELOCITY RATIO, 0/",

1.00
-
~

,,,.
""
.60
~ .70

I
~
.co
.<0

0
I.'
nUT VD..OOTV RAllO, %

(b) eFFECT OF RnMPFlNGl.E

FIGURE2S.- VIlRlnTION OF' RAM RECCVeRYRnTIO, MEASURED AFTER THE DIFFUSER SECTION I
WITH INLeT VELOCITY R,qTIO FOR VIlRIOUS ENTRANCE CONFIGURATIONS WHEN DCFL€CTORS
liRe USED.
~,
;Ji-
::1
~~'i;;
~~FID!:NTI1.\. :c:
ii'
~!:
:.-
n
"" j
,",' :.-
S' 1.00-~
r'---
I ... ltI

~~
<l
il"I"'" , gO ~~ " ,; ,,-~--"- ::::
;;S'
!?,-~.' :f . I , --':1"" - - '9"
I ,!1 " ,.---

.ao w< ,.~~___ ' 1 --

:c:o
_!". - ----
~
~
.70 ! .~-.
..-.-- :-==---;--- :.-
>
'"
S ~-I
. . .
" ,:' -
-,
......'"
' . . -~---~~
.60 .' o
:l!
~~ 5
. 0
I
_I• "
,--l-
,,'/fDT,.,7t:lt;CiOnv
I • ,
• 1
RHrm.eo
- -

T I
1
I 1 -
'
I, , I I
0 I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
RAMP LENGTH/ENTRANCE AREA

1.00 - ~ j j -~ i t j ! I" ~ ---, 1.00 Ii'/V>4PIVNGII:.£

' - !
p 1~5"~-5··11'10 . . - - -+-+-.; - -+-S"r-- "us 9·' '..,.
A"~
'--!5"
U'L'I il illi
~,90~1I'''') I :f .90 ~A14-14- .1 ~=~~;:.;

"1~1~t, ' 1
, ,!, !
t. >?- ' ----.
;l{ z=::-.--:
• IIS'-+-__ _. .•

~ .eo ,~~; ~~, 4-; 1 1

0 .eo
~,~.
~ .10 11:t~
....,.' Z--~;~ Ft, -
----il
~ --' 11-;;---~--- ' -
.70

~o ~
1:; -Lr. I I. -----;'~ ... -; - -
'J"." ~
:-l ! " ~.. -'-
ll!
.60

),J .50

j
"'y-,..."I;
•
-

T;....j I"
~,=N~~Trr«lI
J-W " ,
.,.L-
. ,
2; ~? +.=::.,...... ~-- 1 '--,

,I f+', '..,,-::,
'._- 'I' '
B
Oil
~
.60
.->-- 0." -
. or .' ij::: ."++1-t
:;
a:
.50
!
-rWfCnvTOD&P7"HR<9170.
1 ' I

H--I
co

( LLI I!
0 0 10 ZO 30 «l 60 70 ~ 102030405060
RAMP LENGffi/ENTRANCE AREA NATIONAL A6VISORY 1lRAM""""'P'LE""NG""""'~ ENTRAN::E AREA
CDNMInEE FOR AERONAUTICS

F,GVRE 30. - VIIRIIiTION OF RIIM ReCOVeRY 'RIITIO, M£IISURED liFTeR THE DIFFUSER SeCTION,
WITH RfllIJP LENGTH COeFFICIE'NT FOR THRee WIDTH TO DePTH RIITIOS OF THE' E'NTRIINCE. ::1
~
CI/R:tED DIV':RGeNCE WITH DEFLECTORS, IOO~ RAt.lP LEIvGTH AND 07S"HICiH.
COH!i'I&!fNpAL.
...
• '"
tt
!j ~O"PlbtNTrXr :!!
c:'
~:i ......
!'
~.: Sf
iIi:
•. "1'
~"'
n

> .70

I"
~ .50
.00 1-+"':-+-+-4

~~~-.4~~~-=-L~l~0-L~IZ~~~
INLET VELOCITV RATIO, VII.
(aJ EFFECT OF" DEFL~CTOR sIze

,.00 100 t,- "NcI;...'~D.r";'" tW,,n,.;.o,,,........, ~1<NI1fIIC' ...,;, 1

_,."JU/IO""lVOrvw_o.",W_""" .-
.r-~'6...,,,.,..
J"J
~ 9OE~r~-~~""'~'''''§'''''''-''~~~-8
:~"""'$~~
. . - --tr;-.;: ~..
•
'l
90 .~. ~ •~
. . - " - - • . "-'~.
~.....,........-.:t::::---
- ..
•.- -
-. - ,-
.. , ,.
Q .ao ~ ................
11 ~o f!::!"'..~.;. - .-;: ~ ; .;. ~-r .... ~ -~ . " ..
, , ' ,

~ ."lO!?",! ...-~ :_'~-;':--~ru~i:~"'::~o--~J .70 ____ r '-.....

-r-__ - --- -~ ~

11: S_oI!O" _____tl, ._-'1-.., z

~ ~['_
z - . ~ .. _._-+
:_ ,:.::.. ~":'...::'' ;;';_h __
, - - ~~.~"l'~:;!;..~::
¥!
S
ill
60 • _._,..
,"
• -t-.-- .".
~: .
,.
. '!-- '.
. '" >
n
~ ·tir'·· >
~ .50·'
r
--:-;-:t: ITT't·: ::~-:--r±:
! i. j , i !
~
50

00
T
Z
! :t--
•
,4 .0 .8 lO Ie!
'.'
.04 I.a
T
IQ
~ 2 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i:
IN\.£T vtt.OCITY RATIO,o/'4
IN\.£T tJ'£LOCIT'I' RATIO I o/v.
(c) £F'FECT OF" RI;MPIiMJI.E
zo
rbJ CF~£r:.r yt:e1'l.£CTOR5 FDR THREE VAl.UES OJ" ../#.

FIGURE: 31.-VARlflTION Or RAIJRIiCOVE:RY RATIO, MIiASURIiD -'lr THE: 5UBMIiRGE:D ENTRRNCe,

FeR VARIOUS E:NTRRNCE: CONrlGURIlTIOIJS WHE:N DIiFLf:CTOR5 RRE: USE:D.
WITH INLE:T VEl.OCITY
MATIOfI'IL &DYtSOf\1'
CI*WTTU IfClfll .u.IIQHIUTICS

Rlmo .-
>
'"o
.JilI!!!~!.'IM:

,
 NACA RM No. A7130 Fig. 32 11.. h, c
•
I~ t I. I
-~
-
[-[- I~ ;,~~:z
t-t- ~~ - .tit
~t- ~ ,
l.I.:
~~o ~Q<I"O .# IfI ~~
~it- n
2t'"
~r~.h
~~

Ii
~,
••n
I!~i~c
G
,~
Q~~
~~

1--
.'
••
~
I
3
~-- --tI ------+ .
M 0

J>- -P-
~
t
o , i
• ~
t]
'!
"
•
•
tt)t
~'
~...
tI, CONfiDENTIAL

~'
~, !"
...'"
!'11\,
" . ,.1" ~=_, . . ..
,"" =-<"""::J±:ili
"__ n:~,:~ ~~-"

tl~ I
0(1
.'~C,,=*,-==,
• -'--,.
.~;-"
. t==l,I .~--"
: n-t' ~~~J
+,...''.
~ ,
. I 7'~on",,,
,'-T I
~
;~-H
,
N' t#PI"OT_'~_T~ 16 I ..... I

~ : -=_. --to l\. I I 1

..•-.,...+-r.l ~
I.
~ ¥ • ".".;......;.. ..!...,. ~,. "t, .~
__ "~ .-l-l-...-H
t±=:r • , L . ; !__ ' ~~ .l..L...l..J

FIGURe 113. - PReSSURe DISTRIBUTION ALONG THo I<IlMP WHEN DeFLeCTORS liRe USED.

"--".1 Trr T ",. I I'T 'T'TTTTT~'­

.. ~ ,-
'.~.c~·-II
LOL1""ttR··~U~"-i"'~_C -+
'
, wt
Ll ..j
~
0
. , ++r-P
'. i I
~
• .
.a~J
. .,' , .. :'V-
_. ,. ,. '" ,. :.:,"
i ,
~

, ~
. '
'.1', __ 1 I . -

-~ .~- COWI'fI>'l'fT~ ...... ,"i.

, , I ' I·I-T~T
~ o'<!j_ ~,
.--or .. "
r'· .
nM!tftI(IoHl'..... ~
n.f.nI.a~_,,"",
""~ . . . .I I -
',.. . . n-tAW
~oIIoI'SU'l!'l)fC'.&'
A'~:-r
¥ .NoIIf\X ~
... j .•
·f..,
..J-.
.. _
notlC'lI ONPrUNCI'
~~~~
.,.n~._
. :<:
i i
-
2 .• ~-f INSIN~r 'I-++.:I!;;:I ~~~";!..Z~ :0-
qj
'i ' . , .,
\ll-+- ", "i",'ii''i'f'"I I, I n
:0-
.2 ,4 .Q .0 1.1:.1 I. OA r,0 o 2 • ~ D ~ ~ IA ~

..,......-
ItUT w,00TY RA'llO. % INL.£T va.COT" RATIO. o/\l. ~
!::
~ lIC« 1oVI0fIWInCt
:<:
o
F'GURe3~ - THo EFFECT DF DEFLECTORS ON THE VflRlllTION OF CRITICfI' MIlCH NUMBeR OF THo UP WfTH INl.ET mCCITY R.~TIO.
~. 4. • 7° RAMP ANGlo£: ....
:0-

CONFIDENTIAL
'"
C)

• • • ,J
~
c:
.
,
po

~
7.
o ;..
oJ C ON F IDEN riAl
n
" ;..

'"
z
o

>
....
c

NACA
•
'>:
C O NFID F:N "II A I
"
Figure 35.- A pro posed instal l ati on f or a s ingle-engine Jet-propel l ed ,.
airpl ane ueing NACA s ubme rged a ir intakes .
,