AIAA-84-1272 Improved Supersonic Performance Design for the F-16 Inlet Modified for the J-79 Engine L.G.

Hunter and J.A. Cawthon General Dynamics, Fort Worth, Tx

AIAA/SAE/ASME 20th Joint Propulsion Conference

June 11-13, 1984/Cincinnati, Ohio
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019

IMPROVED SUPERSONlC PERFORMANCE DESlGN FOR

THE F-16 INLET MODIFIED FOR THE J-79 ENGINE

h u h G. Hunter' and J. A. Cawthon.' General Dynamics Corp. Fort Worth, Texas

Abstract The F-16 inlet modified for the J79-GE-119 engine, the integration of a new inlet incorporated into the F-l6A/B airframe, a new inlet bleed system, the design philosophy, development tests and performance of the inlet throughout the flight and maneuver envelope are reviewed. Model d a t a a r e included which show the performance of the inlet in terms of pressure recovery, distortion, and turbulence. An engine bypass system was developed for providing cooling air for the hot engine case and exhaust nozzle, to provide good ejector exhaust nozzle performance, and t o m a i n t a i n s t a b l e inlet operation at high Mach numbers. The F-16/79 inlet retains the same location, Capture area, cross-sectional shape and d u c t length. The additions a r e a longer compression ramp composed of a fixed and curved ramp surface for improved high - Mach number performance and a throat slot boundary-layercontrol for reduced shock-interaction. These improvements provide a 2 0 % increase in pressure recovery and 60% decrease in spill drag a t Mach
2.0.
W

easily accelerate t o M = 2.Ot. The purpose of this paper is to describe the design, validation and performance process through three wind tunnel tests and a flight test.

An Overview of the Inlet Desim

A cross section of the F-16/79 inlet and duct as installed in the development a i r c r a f t is shown and compared w i t h the F-16 inlet and duct in Figure 2.
The new Inlet design utilizes the present F-16A/B inlet cowl and subsonic duct so that external nacelle lines are not changed aft of F.S. 160 in. (F.S. 160 is the inlet cowl location) and internal lines a r e not changed aft of F.S. 188. The inlet capture area also remains unchanged a t 826.7 i d . Supersonic performance is considerably enhanced by the incorporation of a fixed geometry double compression ramp. The ramp is composed of a 6 degree initial wedge followed by an isentropic surface t h a t turns the local flow through an additional 6.67 degrees forward of the cowl lip for a total turn of 12.67 degrees. The new double ramp design reduces the throat a r e a approximately 21% compared with the F-lGA/B. This approach accomplishes both design and performance goals. First, it provides an efficient means for matching the inlet throat size to the lower airflow requirement of the -119 engine. Second, it turns and compresses the flow in supersonic flight t o result in a 2 0 percent increase in total-pressure recovery and a 68 percent decrease in spillage drag a t Mach 2.0, compared with the basic F-16 inlet design (See Figure 3). Supersonic inlet performance is further enhanced by the use of boundary-layer control (BLC) provided by a transverse boundary-layer-bleed slot located on the ramp near the inlet throat (Figure 4). Low-energy boundarylayer air is removed through this slot and discharged through flush, aft-facing louvers located on the nacelle shoulders. This BLC system minimizes the degrading effect of shocklboundary-layer interaction, increases subsonic diffuser efficiency, and expands t h e stable operating range of the inlet a t supersonic Mach number. The bleed slot design also incorporates a differentialpressure-actuated door (see Figure 5) that closes the slot and prevents reverse flow during ground and low speed flight operations. The inserted compression ramp is terminated a t F.S. 188 and from this point back to F.S. 335, F-16 internal duct lines are maintained. Between F.S. 335 and the engine inlet a t F.S. 361.5 a reducing transition section is inserted to match the smaller inlet diameter of t h e -119 engine. Figure 6 shows a comparison of flow a r e a between t h e F-16 and the F-16/79 ducts. Also shown a r e enlarged views of t h e transition duct secondary-flowsystem bypass valve mechanism as well as a cross-section of t h e bypass valve. The duct flow area decrease imposed by the transition section increases local flow velocity forward of the engine and along with the low-

Introduction The F-16/79 aircraft is a tailored version of the operational F-16A/B aircraft. The F-16/79 demonstrator recently completed a rigorous flight development c e r t i f i c a t i o n program w i t h USAF surveillance and participation. This contractor- funded development program integrated an improved version of the proven GE J79 engine into the F-16 aircraft which required a new inlet t o be incorporated into the basic F-16 structure and systems. The F-16/79 (Figure 1) is a single engine tactical fighter with air-to-air combat capabilities. Advanced technologies are combined to make it one of the most maneuverable fighters ever built. The a i r c r a f t is powered by a 17,820 pound-thrust J79-GE-119 turbojet engine. An airframe-mounted accessory drive gearbox powers a i r c r a f t accessories, and a j e t - f u e l s t a r t e r provides self-starting of the engine. Recently in a quickreaction s i m u l a t e d intercept mission, the F-16/79 demonstrated its record-breaking scramble capability by going from a cold start, with no ground power to 40,000 feet and twice the speed of sound in 6 minutes and 11 seconds. A major design milestone in the inletlengine integration of this airplane modification was to develop a new multiple ramp inlet with a sophisticated bleed system which would enable this airplane to operate and

**

Engineering Specialist, Member AIAA Engineering Specialist, S r .

Copyright * 1984 by General Dynamics Corporation. AU rights reserved.

energy air removal through the bypass valve, results i n a decrease i n pressure distortion and turbulence a t t h e engine i n l e t , t h u s i m p r o v i n g i n s t a l l e d engine performance. The bypass valve is the main secondary flow control device. The valve can be positioned either fully open or fully closed or at any intermediate position i n response t o control signals. When the valve is open, a portion of the primary inlet airflow is bypassed. through the exposed annular slot into the nacelle. This bypass air i s drawn through the nacelle by the pumping action of the ejector nozzle. This secondary airflow provides engine Cooling air as well as enhanced gross thrust as the cool air mixes with the primary jet. At higher flight speeds (above 0.7 Mach), the valve pressure differential is sufficiently high t o schedule the bypass valve in the open position which provides additional airflow at the high Mach numbers thus providing additional stability margin. Preliminarv Inlet Desiun Considerations Since t h e maximum inlet a i r f l o w (engine plus bypass) was aproximately 83% of the FlOO engine airflow, a corresponding i n l e t throat reduction from 713 in2 (which is the F-l6A/B inlet throat area) t o 594 in2 was chosen as one o f the primary test configurations. This configuration was designed with a 6 degree fixed first ramp and fixed second ramp w i t h a curved isentropic surface which turns the flow through an additional 5 degrees (see Figure 7). Along with this configuration are shown two additional designs each w i t h a Mach 2.0 shock system superimposed. Configuration 1 was designed for operation at Mach 1.8 w i t h minimum overspeed capability. Configurations 12 and 2 4 were designed for operation a t Mach 2 with some overspeed capability. Thus, at Mach 2.0, the shock system on Configuration 1 focuses inside the cowl lip, while the other two longer ramp configurations focus the A l l configurations shock system outside the cowl lip. provided stable operation at Mach 2 but configurations 12 and 2 4 resulted i n an increase in stability margin. Table 1 shows these 3 basic inlet configurations t o be tested along w i t h other features such as variations i n the BLC system, throat size, duct smoothing, vortex generators and sideplate variations. This test matrix was tested in the NASA/AMES 6 ' x 6' wind tunnel. A t the conclusion of this first wind tunnel test, i t was determined t h a t Configuration 12 was the most promising design. Vortex generators, sideplate cutback and a f t - r a m p fill ( s m o o t h i n g t h e F.S. 188 i n l e t discontinuity) did not make a significant difference i n inlet performance and distortion and were discarded. During the NASA/AMES test i t was discovered that t h e bleed system was marginal at high Mach numbers and at the low Mach numbers a reverse flow was coming back through the bleed system causing f l o w separation in the throat slot region. Therefore, a second test was s e t up a t t h e General Dynamics Engineering Test L a b o r a t o r y (GD/ETL) t o improve the bleed flow system and develop a set of bleed characteristic curves for the bleed louvers. In addition t o the above requirements, t h i s t e s t also served t o the determine static performance o f the inlet. This test was designated the Static Model Test (Figure 8). it was during this test that the pressure d i f f e r e n t i a l throat slot door (Figure 5) was developed t o prevent the reverse flow i n the throat slot. From t h e results of the NASA/AMES and GD/ETL tests, a final wind tunnel test was formulated to test Configuration 12 w i t h a more elaborate bleed system

including a louver exhaust system (Figure 9). This configuration has 5 bleed cavities on the ramp which are bled outwardly through the louvers and centrally through the diverter chamber t o the 3 rear chambers. This f i n a l configuration was tested at the Rockwell 7' x 7' Trisonic Facility for t h e test conditions shown i n Figure 10. After a comparison of results, which w i l l be discussed i n detail L i n the Wind Tunnel Results section, it was determined that a single throat slot bleed (Chamber 5 ) flowing outward through the louvers and centrally through the diverter through chambers 6 and 7 would be adequate for the Mach 2 . 0 requirement. This was confirmed by the f l i g h t t e s t series w h i c h v e r i f i e d t h a t t h i s f i n a l configuration was more than adequate t o provide the necessary operating flow margins for Mach 2.0 flight.
Model DescriDtion and Instrumentation

A summary of the F-l6/79 inlet Test Program is shown in Figure 10. The first t e s t was conducted i n the NASA ARC 6' x 6' wind-tunnel using a 0.15 scale model consisting o f a forebody, boundary-layer d i v e r t e r , p r i m a r y i n l e t , subsonic d u c t , c o m p r e s s o r - f a c e instrumentation and remotely actuated t h r o t t l e plug for the primary inlet. The compressor face instrumentation consists o f 4 0 steady-state t o t a l pressure probes and 40 high-response probes where each p a i r o f probes i s mounted jointly i n a single unit as shown in Figure 11. Throat t o t a l pressure rakes are also shown in Figure 11 along with centerline static pressure locations (B.L. 3) on the upper ramp o f the inlet. Other t o t a l and static pressure instruments are located down the subsonic duct, along the diverter and i n the orifice plate at the rear end o f the diverter bleed chamber t o measure bleed flow rates. The GD/FW ETL s t a t i c test used the same instrumentation that was used i n the NASA ARC wind tunnel test. The Rockwell T r i s o n i c Wind Tunnel Test was L conducted i n a blow-down f a c i l i t y w i t h a 7' x 7' test section. The average run lasted between 2 0 and 40 seconds. Instrumentation was more l i m i t e d i n this facility and only one ring of high-response compressorface data were taken. The r i n g selected for high response data acquisition was ring 3, where the data was processed specifically for input into the Melick code for instantaneous distortion levels. Figure 12 shows the test set-up at the Rockwell facility. A boundary-layer-bleed flow plug was used t o control and measure the inlet bleed flow for a portion of the test and t h e louvers were used for the remainder of the test. A bypass plenum and flow plug were provided to simulate the engine bypass system. Wind Tunnel Test Results Figure 13 shows t h e m a j o r i n l e t performance baseline i n l e t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e F - 1 6 / 7 9 (Configuration 12 ramp and single slot bleed through bleed chambers 5, 6, and 7) along w i t h the corrected airflow as a function o f freestream Mach number. The extended ramp and bleed system serve t o increase performance levels a t the higher Mach numbers when compared to the normal shock inlet of the F-lGA/B. Note the bypass valve opens up at approximately Mach 0.6 and remains open a t high speeds. The pressure recovery i s affected slightly a t M = 0.5 t o M = 0.8 by the opening of t h e bypass valve where t h e throat Mach number i S increased with the increased bypass airflow. In addition, the throat bleed closure door starts to open at approximately the same t i m e the bypass opens, which has some effect on recovery. The above figure also shows the effect of sideslip on pressure distortion t o remain w e l l below Nc = 0.12, which i s an upper distortion limit. The parameter "Nc" i s defined in the JTS-GE-119 Engine Specification E2259. This parameter is a circumferential

distortion indicator which has limiting value of 0.12 for the 5-79 engine. For values of Nc less than 0.12 (which is a very conservative steady-state value) the distortion levels m a y be regarded a s stall free. Flight test data indicate that the Nc l i m i t is a very conservative number and that engine stalls are not likely to be encountered until an Nc value of a t least 0.20 to 0.25 is encountered (see Figure 14).

A t high speeds both the NASAIAMES and Rockwell test data are combined and shown in Figure 15 where pressure recovery is slightly higher for the Rockwell test and the stable airflow margin is significantly increased. Two effects are responsible for this: (1) increased bleed in the Rockwell test and (2) higher Reynolds number in the Rockwell tunnel (1.5 x 106 vs 9 x 106). The pressure recovery differentials a r e more substantial at higher angles of attack. Distortion is also decreased in the Rockwell t e s t as a result of less boundary-layer interaction due to t h e higher Reynolds number and greater bleed. A further comparison of t h e variations in t h e bleed system is shown in Figure 16 w h e r e performance with the porous ramp and throat slot are compared w i t h the throat slot alone. Perfomance levels are not significantly changed, however with the porous ramp the inlet is stable over a much larger airflow range, especially at Mach 1.8 and 2.0.
The subcritical s t a b l e operating range of the F-16/19 inlet a t cruise flight attitude is shown in Figure 17. A t Mach 1.6 and above, the least stable operating point (indicated by a vertical line on the left-hand side of the pressure recovery characteristic) was defined during the wind-tunnel test. A t duct corrected airflows less than those indicated by this limit, boundary-layer on the compression ramp will separate, the shock system will become unstable and begin t o oscillate and the inlet will be operating in an unstable mode commonly referred to as "inlet buzz". In this mode of unstable operation, pressure recovery a t the engine inlet will decrease and distortion and turbulence will increase, possibly resulting in compressor stall. A s mentioned above, the inlet o p e r a t i n g characteristics shown in Figure 17 apply only for cruise attitude flight. During certain aircraft maneuvers where a pushover or sideslip is imposed, the m i n i m u m stable operating airflow will be more t h a n that s h o w n . Limited data on the effect of maneuver were acquired during the wind-tunnel tests and are shown i n Figure 18. During low speed flight operation, the throat static pressure is much lower than the ambient s t a t i c pressure thus inducing a reverse flow in the BLC system. At Mach 0.6, Figure 19 shows the effects of the reversed flow on inlet performance. Smoke tests performed a t these same conditions show strong vortex flows in the corner regions of the throat slot which will degrade the performance and increase distortion. To eliminate this problem the throat slot door was added t o the design. Figure 20 shows the ramp and duct static pressures just inside t h e inlet at M = 2.0 a s a function of duct airflow, where airflows greater than 190 lblsec represent supercritical flows. Also shown a r e the inlet throat region total pressure rake measurements. The flow is well-behaved in the inlet throat region for the subcritical flows. For the supercritical flow conditions, some separation is observed on the upper ramp surfaces is indicated by the decreased t o t a l pressure -which measured by t h e station 187 throat rake. Flight test data a t M = 2.0 (Figure 21) shows the inlet ramp pressure distribution along with the Rockwell

wind tunnel data. The flight test ramp data is in good agreement w i t h the tunnel data. Using t h i s data as a reference, t i m e varying d a t a were t a k e n during a pressure anomoly (intermittent buzz condition) where ramp pressures a r e shown as a function of time. The shock movement is correlated with the PS3 compressor pressure in the engine, the PLA, RPM and EGT for this time sequence. The pressure in the inlet bleed cavity during this time sequence also increases a s the shock moves out on the ramp which increases the bleed through the louvers and tends to stabilize the inlet flow. En~ne Inlet Compatability C i r c u m f e r e n t i a l t o t a l p r e s s u r e d i s t o r t i o n is measured by the distortion parameter, Ne. The steadys t a t e limit value for Nc is 0.12, where Figure 14 shows the F-16/79 distortion to be well below this limit.
A historical measured in flight the 579 engine is F-16/79 data show

record of the Nc pressure distortion tests on three different aircraft using also shown in Figure 14. Again, the a wide margin of safety.

Eight dynamic total pressure measurements were also recorded at the engine face during t h e wind tunnel tests. These data were used with the Melick methodology t o predict m a x i m u m instantaneous t o t a l pressure distortion. This prediction is compared w i t h steady-state resuits and shown across the ranges of test Mach number and maneuver attitude in Figure 22. it is noted that the very conservative specification Ne s t e a t y - s t a t e limit value is exceeded by the instantaneous distortion only at high subsonic Mach number during s e v e r e sideslip conditions. The results of the engine-inlet compatibility have been well-demonstrated in a comprehensive flight test program during which there have been no incidents of engine stall.

Concludina Remarks A fixed double ramp inlet with a throat slot bleed system has been developed for the F-16/79 derivative of the F-IGA/B. Three wind tunnel tests were required to optimize t h e inlet design and performance. In the subsonic and transonic Mach number range, the F-16/79 performance distortion are essentially unchanged from the F-16AIB levels. However, at Mach 2.0, performance is increased 2 0 % and spill drag decreased 60% over the F-lGA/B levels. Various ramp/throat bleed configurations were tested where the final configuration chosen was a single transverse throat bleed slot with a bleed closure door. A bypass valve opens a t approximately M = 0.6 and remains open at high speeds which stabilizes the inlet. However, should higher Mach numbers than 2.0 be required, provision for additional ramp bleed cavities have been incorporated into the current airplane design, and can be activated should that option be exercised. The results of the engine-inlet compatibility have been well-demonstrated in a comprehensive flight test program during which there have been no incidents of engine stall.

; .

+ ..

Figure 1 F-16!79 Fixed Ramp Inlet Compared With F-16A/B Normal Shock Inlet

F I B INLET
RAMP TE INTERSECTS F.16 OUCT AT FS 188

PRESENT F.16 COWL AND OUCT LINES BELOW WL 70.9

Figure 2 Model E-14/79 Compression Ramps

J79-GE-119 ENGINE COMBAT PLUS

0070
ALT
=

30.000FT

SPILLAGE DRAG COEFFICIENT C

D

SPILL

12

16

3(a) I N L E T PRESSURE RECOVERY COMPARISON

MACH NUMBER. Mo

3(b) INLETSPILLAGE ORAG COMPARISON

Figure 3 F-16 and F-16/79 Performance Comparisons

(Incommg A i r )

Figure 4 Internal View of the Model F-16/79 Inlet

CENTER
DOOR HINGE

ELC BLEED SLOT

DAMPERJ

Figure 5 Inietdlot Boundrry Layer Bleed Closure DoodDamper

Figure 7 Mach 2.0 Shock System for Candidate Inl& Designs

VALVE OPENIXB

Figure 6 F-16/79 Inlet Duct Area Distribution and Transition Duct and Bypass Valve Arrangement

1
4

Table I F - 1 6 , 7 9 INLET DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS

~

SUBSONIC RAMP BASIC BASIC BASIC BASIC BASIC FILLEO FILLEO FILLED BASIC VG'I

CONFIG. NO.

RAMP L.E. FUS. STA (1N.I

THROAT SIZE LIN21

TYPE BLC THROAT SLOT THROATSLOT THROAT SLOT &POROUS PLATE THROATSLOT THROATSLOT THROATSLOT THROAT SLOT NONE. TAPE0 SLOT THROATSLOT

SIDEPLATE CONFIG. SOLID SLOTTED

NONE NONE NONE NONE YES NONE YES YES NONE

134.3 134.3 134.3

131.3
131.3

594 594 594 562.4 562.4 562.4 562.4

562.4 563

14
12

SOLI0
SOLID

15

SOLI0
SOLID SOLI0
SOLI0

21 22
23

131.3 131.3 131.3 130

24

SOLlD

F i p r e 8 0.15-Scale F-16179 Inlet Model in the General Dynamics Static Test Facility

BLEEO CHAMBERS

OlVlOER PLATE

BLEEO CHAMBER I N FALSE OIVERTER

BL 0

t
SECT A 4

-POROUSPLATE BLEED CHAMBER ITYP)

8.L. BLEEO EXIT LOUVERS

Figure 9 Rockwell Inlet Model Detail

A
0 15-SCALECOMPOSITE
WIND.TUNNEL MODEL FULL-SCALE SLC SYSTEM MODEL

IWO WINO-TUNNEL ENTRIES

CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT

iNLETlENGlNE COMPATIBILITY

NOV

- JAN 1979.60
I

.
f

STATIC MODEL TEST

MARCH 1980
G O I F W ETL

.
. . .

JUNE 1960 ROCKWELL TRISONIC 7r7W

REiFT
~

NASA A R C 6 REiFT
I 5

6 WT

10'

0 IS~SCAIE MOOEL

9. 10

0 I5.SCALECOMPOSlTE
INLET MODEL WIF-16 COMPRESSOR FACE
THROAT-SLOT 8 2ST POROUSRAMP eLc
MACHRANGE 0 6 7 0 2 0

COMPOSITE CONFIG 6 ISOLATE0 INLET WIBELL-

0 15.SCALECOMPOSlTE
INLETMOOEL W/F-16,79 COMPRESSOR FACE THROAT-SLOT 6 2ND POROUSRAMP eLc
MACH RANGE 0 TO 2 0

THROAT~SLOT 8 !STPOROUSOAMP 8LC

*LYRANGE -5'TOm'

M l i l 1980

GD'FWETL

LYRANGE . 5 * TO 20-

.ORANGE

O'TO?I'
It2-SECTIONOF FULL~SCALE 8LC SYSTEM

0 RANGE 0'10

10'

Figure 10 Summary of Model 161'79Test Program

INSTRUMENTEDSUBSONIC DUCT
I

REMOVABLE FOREEODY

40 PROBES LOCATED IN EOUAL AREAS

HIGH-RESPONS PROBE

-..-.._

'

DUCT RAKES FULLY INSTRUMENTED(Steady-Stale and High-Response) SIMULATED COMPRESSOR FACE *GD/FW ETL STATIC TEST STEADY-STATE
41 STATICS

STEADY-STA PROBE

d?
,
r7

48 STATICS

72 TOTALS

72 TOTALS

HIGH-RESPONSE

HIGH-RESPONSE

I :::z1
40 TOTALS (3 C.F.

I :K:

8 TOTALS @ C.F, I

Figure 11 Inlet Wind Tunnel Model and Primary Pressure Instrumentation

CUTAWAY VIEW

//-?T-..
BYPASS PLENUM

TUNNEL CEILING PRIMARY FLOW PLUG

E.L. BLEED FLOW P

TUNNE5FLOOR

Figure I 2 Rockwell Trisonic Wind Tunnel Test Setup

PRESSURE RECOVERY
B l P L I O CLOSED

,I

,.
I'

3'

CORRECTED AIRFLOW
200

1.2

16

20

180

7
160

W,%

140

120

M.3

12

16

20

Figure 13 F-16/79 Inlet Performance Characteristics

04

F-4C (SOLID -STALL, RA5-C F-104AiS

I

03
STALL

PRESSURE DISTORTION NC 02

r
07

4STALL FREE MODEL SPEC LIMIT

UNCERTAINT

PREDICTED INSTANTANEOUS-

STEADY-STATE

05

10

15

MACH NUMBER Mo

Figure 14 Inlet Pressure Distortion Comparison

A. -5 E0 F 161179 NASIAMESWT TEST A- -2 8.0 0 M.2.0 A- 1 8.0 TEST NO 314 b M.2.O A. IO 8.0 OATE 11ilP-IIII(l V M-2.0 A. 20 0-0 CONFIG 12 SOLIOSYMBOLSRFPRESENTROCKWELL O A T A OPfN SYMBOLS REPRESENT NASAIAMES OATA

M-2.0

0 M.2.O

1.0

El I

El c

m >

: t 0.9
= w >
u D
. A
Y M

: 10.0
m
Y

>

>

>

:0.5
E
0.1 100.0

a 2
> 5.0
(E

m a
I

m D

150.0 200.0 WCZ. LBISEC

0.0

0.06

e c
&

100.0

150.0 200.0 wc2. LBISEC

0.1

. e c

e
0.01

a
e 4

:0.2
z

t
Y I

s c
c El

: 0.02 rn
= c
0.00 100.0

E
a
150.0 200.0 WC2, LBISEC

0.1

0.0 100.0

150.0 200.0 WC2, LBISEC

Figure 15 Comparison of Rockwell and NASAIAMES Data at M, = 2.0 Show the Effect of Angle of Attack

WZ

081

091

OD1

021

Wl

t8'

ooz

081

091

ow

OZL

001

98'
88'

98'

88'

1 '1

rn
v)

ob'

0 6 ' "
0

5 rn

x
ts
96'

'd d

ZI

w r n n <
96' 86'
DO 1

86'
001

lNlOd lV3111M3

MACH NUMBER

Figure 18 Effect of Aircraft Maneuver on F-16/79 Inlet Stability Limit

wcQUCI
LBISIC

Figure 19 Effects of Closed vs Open Throat Slot at M = 0.6

M = 2.0 0 = 1.0; 0

0.8
PtIPt,

CONF. 1 2

0.4
RUN WCZ -

0.01 130.0

140.0

150.0

160.0

110.0

180.0

190.0

0 - 218172

0
A

STA 166 8 1 3.0

I.OWER RAKE

STA 166 8L 18.0

0
0

v - 218200
- 218219

- 218178 - 218182 - 218190

8.0
Pt/Pl,

8.0

4.0

1.o

0.0 0.0 1.0 DIST. FROMSUAF.

- IN.

8.0

0.0 0.0

4.0

6.0

0151.F R O M SURF. -IN.

Figure 20 Duct Static and Total Pressures

PSI IPSIAI

PLA

RPM

EGT

1%

'W

TIME, SEC

FUSELAGE STATION. IN

Figure 21 Flight Test Data Showing Effect o f Pressure Anomoly on Ramp Static Pressure, PS3. PLA. RPM and EGT

,,.-.* ..-.

. * % I .~sl^.l~"

, . , D..e.10
c .,. -

-.lj- i

.-

*I

, I * . I I *a i

8".

..

.I

I , * / I ..I

-Is1 1 I . d

I.

I #*.I

!*./I

.. I i ..I1

(.

I1 . I I1 I. I

l ( -

I .>II m. :I*. I I " I I I ., I I

.. / I ,.I I ,.I

I*

Figure 22 Comparison of Steady-State and Predicted Maximum Instantaneous Distortion at the Engine Inlet