AIAA80-1872R Effectof Propeller on Engine Cooling System Dragand Performance J. Katz, V. R. Corsiglia, P. R.

Barlow

Reprinted from

Journal ol Aircraft
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS 1290

Volume 19. Number 3, March 1982, Page 193 This paper is declared a work of the U S Government and therefore is in the public domain

AVENUE

OF THE

AMERICAS

NEW

YORK,

NEW

YORK,

N.Y.

10104

VOL.

19, NO.

J. AIRCRAFT

MARCH

1982

AIAA

80-1872R

NASA/TM.

- _ o ---"

208075

__ '

Effect of Propeller on Engine Cooling System Drag and Performance

Joseph
NASA

....

.fL

Katz, Victor
A rues

R. Corsig/ia,t
Center,

and Philip R. Bar/owl

Moffett Field, Calif.

Research

The pressure

recovery

of incoming

cooling

air and the drag associated

with engine

cooling

of a typical

general

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

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

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

Nomenclature
AI

A= Co cp Cp u cr D Ds=l J
n

= cooling air inlet area = upstream cooling airstream = drag coefficient = propeller power coefficient = upper plenum total pressure = propeller ---propeller =measured system = propeller = revolutions = propeller

well. Recent studies in Refs. 1-5. These tube area 5 2D* tunnel scale World aircraft whereas War II era

of this so-called studies differ and before in opposed War I! the designer

"cooling drag" are cited from the studies of the that most engine aircraft with general aviation configurations, used air-cooled a list of engine

= P/p=n3D coefficient

now use horizontally most pre-World layouts. provided

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

radials or in-line Monts _ has

installation data and a procedure for sizing the components of a cooling system. The reshaping of cooling air inlets to provide less pressure head loss was studied by Miley et al. 2._ They were successful however, nacelle drag Extensive studies were performed Research Center. in increasing data were not of opposed inlet pressure reported. engine recovery; nacelle drag

P P_ot P** q S T V=

advance ratio per second power pressure

= V**/nD

piston

= total pressure = freestream static = freestream =semispan

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

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

ftJ)]

= propeller thrust - freestream airspeed = cooling air mass-flow =required lb/s)] cooling air

propeller in order to measure mass-flow rates and nacelle drag accurately. In the work reported herein, an electric-motordriven propeller was added to the nacelle; this made it possible to study the effect of the propeller slip-stream on the pressure recovery of the cooling air inlets and major advantage of using an electric was that cold-flow measurements propeller-off vibration propeller accurate data torque could and on the nacelle drag. The motor for this purpose comparable to the Moreover, the electric-motor-driven resulted low-

rate mass-flow rate [1.4 kg/s (3

W,
O_ (3075

= angle of attack = propeller pitch = cowl flap = freestream

angle

be performed. thrust of an

6of P**

deflection air density Introduction

was simpler measurement

to measure, which of nacelle drag.

in a more

HE cooling system engine installations

design has

of general aviation piston recently received increased

Experimental

Apparatus

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

has become a more important As a result, engine installation at solving powerplant cooling with nacelle drag reduction as

The general layout of the vertically mounted semispan model is seen in Fig. I. The end plate was used to separate the model from the tunnel boundary layer and to serve as a reflection plane. Forces were measured through a shielded strut that passed through the end plane to the tunnel scales below the floor. inlet area when Three placed inlet into inserts (Fig. the production 2) served inlet to decrease The internal an incoming cross-section diffusion, via the inlet the of

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

arrangement streamtube area cooling of the

of the nacelle and a sketch of are shown in Fig. 3. The upstream streamtube enters is A=; into after the the external plenum airstream upper

cross section A, (A= recovery is measured four static holes

<A j). At the by eight total in the rear

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

193

194

KATZ, CORSIGLIA, AND BARLOW

The pressure recovery reported was the measured; small (less however, than 0.05 differences between q**). The cooling air to the lower to simulate

J.AIRCRAFT
highest value the sensors were then flowed through The size of the engine baffle

an adjustable orifice plate orifice opening was used configurations and served the cooling channel. The was measured in a similar four head used The

plenum. various

to vary the mass-flow rate through total pressure in the lower plenum manner by four Kiel probes and the total was also (250 through torque hp) at a and

static holes; a rake of four Kiel probes measured at the exit downstream of a cowl flap, which to control the flow rate. electric motor [maximum to to output: 186 kW was connected which was able the propeller record shaft

3600 rpm] torquemeter

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

signals were being recorded. order of 1 70; the

better.

Results Propeller Calibration

The objective of the study reported here was to investigate the parametric behavior of inlet pressure recovery and nacelle drag, relative to propeller-off measurements. 4._ As a first step the propeller was calibrated tion of advance ratio J and for torque blade-pitch and thrust as a funcangle/_o 75- The results with a propeller are contained theory in Ref. ratio for to be in 1 be

of these tests along with a comparison and a description of a spinner correction 6. Figure 4 shows various blade-pitch Fig. I Cooling-drag model in 40 x 80-Foo! Wind Tunnel. thrust angles.

coefficient vs advance These results are shown

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

PROPELLER UPPER PLENUM

Ai

COOLING STREAM

AIR TUBE

LOWER

PLENUM ADJUSTABLE

\'COWL ORIFICE

FLAP PLATE

EXIT

Fig. 3

Scbemalle

of nacelle.

CTSCALE .10

= _ [CDMEAS [ 20 25"

_ COpRoP] OFF

':'"24

.06

_3/4

TSHAFT

CT .02'040

m____BALANCE

-02 Fig. area: 265cm 2 Interchangeable large, 2 (41 690 in.2). cm 2 (107 inlets in.2); to reduce mediunt, inlet 393 size. cm 2 Production (61 in.2); inlet small, Fig. 4 Comparison

.2

a .4

J .6

.8 J

1.0

1.2

1,4

J 1.6

of

thrust

measured

on

wind-tunnel

scales

with

corresponding

values measured

on shaft

balance.

MARCH

1982

ENGINE

COOLING

SYSTEM

195

Table
q,

Test conditions

for climb and cruise configurations

l/oa --

Propeller Climb on off on off

cm H20 (Ib/ft z ) 13. I (26) 15. I (30) 40.3 (80) 40.3 (80)

m/s (ft/s) 47 (I 55) 50 (166) 84 (272) 84 (272)

ct, deg 8 8 2.3 2.3

6cf, deg 30 30 0 0

_o.TJ, deg 19 ............... 25 ...............

J=

rpm 2450

hp 180 0.063

nD 0.58

Cruise

2450

150

0.039

1.06

t " CRUISE

------

WITH

PROPELLER

1.0

,\

--

WITHOUT

PROPELLER

.6 .6 Cp u .4 Cp u

.4

L .2

L .4

I .6 A_/Ai

I .8

I 1

Medium inlet Smell inlet

1 .5

I 1.0

I 1.5

Fig. 5

Effect

of propeller

on inlet pressure

recovery. Fig. ? Inlet pressure recovery vs cooling with propeller. air mass-flow rate: climb,

10LARGE MEDIUM 8 INLET INL_

I
i -----.O6 M AL L IN L E T-'_,,,,,._ _ _(_ -WITH PROPELLER PROPELLER

WITHOUT

.O5 CLIMB .O4 .4 CD C o =(D$cale+ _-DESIGN POINT ,O3 .2 T) /qm S

Cp u

o
Fig. 6 Inlet pressure with propeller.

.;
recovery vs cooling

1 tlo
air mass-flow rate: cruise, Fig. 8

_l
.O2 0 .2 .4 A=/Ai .6

CRUISE
.8 t 1

Effect of propeller

on semispan

nacelle-wing

drag.

These representative conditions were of a cruise used and a climb condition. These those in the present study.

data

were

obtained

for

both

the

cruise

and

climb

conditions that are given in Table I. The measured pressure recoveries presented in Fig. 5 are in agreement with the results obtained by Miley et al.2.J for inlets of area ratio 0.3 and 0.6. Because their inlet configurations however, slightly The the had improved internal small inlets (A=/A,=0.6) pressure recovery the propeller on diffuser in their contours, test gave a at

Variation The

of Inlet Area effect of the propeller slip-stream on nacelle drag and

inlet pressure the propeller-off

recovery data

was investigated reported in Ref.

and compared with 5. The upper plenum

improved effect of

of C, = 0.6-0.7. inlet _ressure recovery

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

cruise is small. This agrees with the observation of Miley et al. z.3 of a 5% increase in inlet total head because of propeller slip-stream. For the climb condition and the lowest value of A /A, (largest about 20/0 to inlet area), the effect of the propeller the upper plenum pressure. This is, with the results of Miley et al.2.3 is to add again, in At higher

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

(1)

close

agreement

196
values propeller propeller pressure of A=/A, (smallest inlet area) is much greater. Nevertheless, installed, there is a substantial recovery C. as A=/A, increases.

KATZ, CORSIGLIA,
the effect of the the inlet that even with decrease in This indicates

AND

BARLOW

J. AIRCRAFT

Fig.

8. At cruise

the drag

increases

as

power

is increased,

and flow flow

at climb separation

the drag decreases because at the aft portion of

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

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

present, there ts still in the upper plenum. in Figs. 6 and 7, in C_ is plotted a slight increase vs in

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

frontal spillage of thrust until

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

as the cooling air flow off) is presented in Fig. however, a reduction in rates. at It seems that the propeller resulting in a

pressure recovery is measured for the higher flow rates. This might possibly be an indication of reattachment in the internal flow. The basic trend of higher pressure recovery for the larger inlets is maintained with the propeller A=/A, 8 and thrust scale on for the in the the cooling The air flow rates drag coefficient that were tested. C ovs area ratio

increased mass-flow the flow disturbance

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

is plotted throughout by adding data

Fig. 8. The paper have measured the wing

C o values shown in Fig. been corrected for shaft measured

O58

CLIMB C T = 0000 (PROP OFF)

shaft thrust T to the propeller combination

hscal e for
O54 75 = 17 )

C o = (D_cal e + T)/qS Therefore the C o values reflect the influence of the slip-stream on the wing nacelle, but do not include thrust. To interpret these results, a schematic around based that and the wing nacelle on tuft observations the high airstream local spillage, velocities is drawn in in the wind that at the nacelle

(2)
. 0063 .05O (;_0 75 = 19 )

propeller the shaft flowfield is

CO 046

Fig. 9. The drawing tunnel which indicated boundary front end, layer causes blunt

028 C T = 0.039 (_o75 = 25 I CRUISE

is, thickened

flow separation at the aft section of the wing-nacelle fairing. The drag results in Fig. 8 can be interpreted in terms of this flowfield sketch. In the cruise condition, the angle of attack is low and favorable separation, increased propeller propeller increased. stantially on the aft A related the drag showed, the aft flow effect of the but skin separation propeller is small. Therefore slip-stream reduces the by of the flow the the

024 0._ (PROP OFF)

020

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

.5

1 0

1.5

w_
Fig. I0 Effect of propeller production configuration. power on wing-nacelle drag for

on drag is small. In the climb configuration off, however, the aft flow separation The net effect, then, of the propeller reduce nacelle. study the drag by suppressing by the Becker, flow 7 who

with the has been is to subseparation measured His results drag even model was

was

conducted

i=! i

AFT

FAIRtNG

of streamlined however, that propeller,

bodies with frontal inlets. the smaller inlet had lower since the aft section of his

without the streamlined. Effect

U ------PROPELLER PROPELLER ON OFF

of Power drag of increasing for the large inlet of the power power setting area, in Fig. is the same is plotted 10. It can shown vs be in

0,58

AFT

FAIRING

The effect on mass-flow rate, seen that

.......c......__
054

FF

CLIMB

the effect

as that

.05O

_----'W"

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

OFF

S- ;E'::S%
c D FRONTAL SPILLAGE [ al l

.046

028

AFT

FAIRING OFF _'_-" --"_---"P_ _,-_=-- -CRUISE

"---_ _

---"

I,"

"--_--.,t

o24

ON ---0- ---_@
OFF ON

020 L S REGION = 110 1A5

/
SEPARATED

Fig. 9 Schematic description by tuft studies),

of flowfield

about nacelle (as obtained

Fig. II Effect configuration.

of aft

failing

on

wing-nacelle

drag

for production

MARCH 1982
-----.062 AFT FAIRING --

ENGINE COOLING SYSTEM

PROPELLER PROPELLER ON OFF

197
air. as shown For this in Fig. configuration 12. The the results cowl of flap 5 Ref.

exits exit

of was

the cooling sealed,

__'_ .O58

OFF

show that this particular side exit configuration increased flow separation over the rear part of the nacelle and thereby increased the drag. In Ihe presence of the propeller slipstream, however, also continues to the drag decrease flow that is not only lower (generally), but with flow rate; this is in contrast for which the drag rates. When comparing Figs. 11 at cruise the side exiting conthe standard cowl the absence of the especially with the

.O54 ON CLIMa

with

the

propeller-off

configuration,

slightly increased with and 12 it is concluded figuration exit. But cowl flap

.O5O _.

o'e.a.
_ OFF SiDE EXITS

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

aft fairing

.046

CD ON .042

The reduces nacelle

addition of a propeller to a wing-nacelle configuration the amount of flow separation over the aft part of the and at the inlet of the cooling air flow. This leads to a in the configuration is increased, since drag when inlet spillage the cooling is reduced. air massWhen the

reduction flow rate

.032

CRUISE AFT .028 FAIRING

inlet area was reduced, the drag decreased, unlike the propeller-off case in which the nacelle drag continued to be almost unaffected as the inlet area was reduced. These effects are more The inlet as much climb this production pronounced in the climb condition than pressure recovery for the cruise condition as 570 because of the slip-stream effect, improvement (large) inlet is of the order and even more of 20070 for smaller at cruise. improves while at for the inlets.

ON "_'_=_----:'_--_-v---5_:
.024

.;

110

115

These improvements are partially a result of propeller slipstream related pressure rise, but the major effect is the reduction in the amount of flow separation inside the inlet at side exits for the higher angles of attack.

Fig. 12 Effect cooling airL

of aft fairing on wing-nacelle

drag (using

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

Figures 8-10 on the amount

illustrate the strong of flow separation

reduce that effect, an aft fairing (shown in Fig. 11) was tested with various nacelle configurations. The results in Fig. 11 show that for both propeller-off (solid lines) and propeller-on (dashed present. lines) the drag reduction At the cruise condition effect of the aft fairing is this reduction is of the same

order as the propeller-on propeller-off rates flow and

propeller-off case, and at the climb condition the drag reduction is smaller (by 20 to 4070) than the drag reduction, especially for the higher flow is because the propeller with the aft fairing off, effect of the aft fairing has suppressed the as discussed above, is therefore less.

(W). This separation the additional

Side Exits Similar added to behavior a nacelle was observed configuration when the aft fairing was thai uses side ports for the