An Analysis of the Ejector-Ram-Rocket Engine

Dario Pastrone

Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Torino, Italy.
A simplied steady-state, one-dimensional compressible ow model is used to analyze
a rocket-based combined-cycle engine where a constant-area subsonic-supersonic ejector
feeds a ramjet. The engine performance depend on ve parameters when ight conditions
and propellant combination are specied. Constraints related to ejector and ramjet burner
operation are highlighted. A liquid-oxigen/liquid-hydrogen primary rocket is considered,
focusing attention to sea-level-static performance. The engine characteristics, namely, the
specic impulse, is optimized. A quasi-Newton procedure is used to minimize a perfor-
mance index which takes into account penalties related to the ramjet burner temperature,
and/or to the thrust to area ratio.
Nomenclature
A = area
A

= rocket throat area

B = parameter
c

= rocket characteristic velocity

G = performance index
I
s
= specic impulse
I

= density specic impulse

k = penalty coecient
M = molecular mass
M = Mach number
m = mass ow rate
p = pressure
T = temperature
w = velocity
z = altitude
= ejector-to-primary-nozzle-throat area ratio
= primary-to-secondary total pressure ratio

n
= nozzle expansion ratio
= specic heat ratio
= nozzle area ratio
= secondary-to-primary mass ow rate
= primary-to-secondary molecular mass ratio

3
= mixed-to-secondary molecular mass ratio
= primary-to-secondary total temperature ratio

3
= mixed-to-secondary total temperature ratio
= rocket chamber mixture ratio ratio
= overall equivalence ratio
= ejector operation parameter
Subscripts
1 = ejector mixing tube inlet
3 = ejector mixing tube exit
7 = ramjet nozzle inlet
ck = secondary-ow choking
e = engine exit
fr = fuel added in the ramjet burner
fp = residual fuel from primary ow
m = mixed ow
M3 = ejector-exit choking
max = maximum
p = primary ow
s = secondary ow
Superscripts
throat
o total
I. Introduction
R
ocket-based combined-cycle (RBCC) engines are one of the possible low-cost space launch solutions.
A studied concept is the so-called Ejector-Ram-Rocket (ERR) engine. In such an engine, a rocket is used
as the primary of an ejector from lift o up to about Mach 2 or 3 in order to augment the pure ramjet
thrust. The same rocket is then used alone when the ight Mach number exceeds 6. The primary ow draws
a secondary ow from the surrounding, supplying the ramjet burner with a pressurized ow. It is equivalent

Associate Professor, Dipartimento di Energetica, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 Torino. AIAA Senior Member.
1 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit
11 - 14 July 2004, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
AIAA 2004-3647
Copyright 2004 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
to the ram conditions of a much higher forward speed. This kind of engine presents interesting features,
since it provides good thrust augmentation at low speeds while having mechanical simplicity. Moreover the
thrust augmenter device, the ejector, is easily integrated in the ramjet owpath. If the rocket is used as a
reference, the thrust augmentation is about 1.6-2.2 in the ight from take o to Mach 2.
1
In a recent study S. Han et al.
2
examined the eect of the molecular weight of the primary ow using
steady-state one-dimensional compressible ow equations. Their model considers an exit-choked ejector. The
energy release in the ramjet burner is taken into account assuming that hydrogen fuel burns in the mixed
ow with an equivalence ratio of 0.33. They performed a parametric study considering three primary uids
with molecular weights of 2, 18 and 29, and covering a range of primary rocket stagnation conditions, ejector
geometries and freestream conditions.
The proposed paper is intended to extend the aforementioned analysis in some aspects. As far as the
model is concerned, the gas properties of the the primary ow are related to the rocket mixture ratio for a
given propellant combination. Fuel can be present in the primary ow, posing a constraint to the minimum
equivalence ratio in the ramjet burner. Moreover dierent ejector operation modes are considered. As a
matter of fact, Han et al.
2
limit their analysis to an exit-choked ejector, without taking into account, for
instance, cases where this choking is not possible. Possible constraints are highlighted. Moreover a parametric
optimization is performed, trying to maximize the specic impulse of the engine at sea level static conditions
while taking into account limits related to maximum temperature and thrust to area ratio.
II. Statement of the problem
A. Assumptions
7 1
*
3 e
Rocket
Nozzle
Burner
Intake
Figure 1. Schematic of the ERR Engine.
The Ejector-Ram-Rocket (ERR) is composed of a
ducted rocket, followed by the ramjet combustor and
a nozzle. The primary ow, coming from the rocket,
draws the secondary ow from the surrounding at-
mosphere trough the air intake, feeding the ram-
jet. It is assumed that the rocket nozzle is choked
at the throat area A

, and that a supersonic pri-

mary ow entrains a subsonic secondary ow into a
constant-area ejector mixing tube, i.e., a constant-
area subsonic-supersonic ejector is here considered.
More fuel, the same used in the rocket chamber, can
be added in the ramjet burner.
In order to perform a quick parametric study,
a one-dimensional approach is used, similar to that
used by other authors.
26
The conservation equa-
tions (continuity, momentum and energy) are ap-
plied to the overall control volume consisting of the
constant area ejector mixing tube, assuming a fric-
tionless, steady, adiabatic ow. Pressure losses due
to air intake compression, primary/secondary ow
interaction, heat release, ame holders, etc. are not
taken into account. Uniform velocity and pressure
distribution are assumed for the primary and sec-
ondary ows at the control volume entrance (station 1), and a uniform, fully mixed ow is assumed at the
exit of the control volume (station 3). The condition at the ejector exit can be found when eight parameters
are given.
5
A further parameters denes the fuel mass ow in the ramjet burner. Following Han et al.,
2
the
optimum condition
3
p
s,1
= p
p,1
is posed throughout, and eight parameters are to be dened, namely:
2 stagnation parameters: the total pressure ratio, = p
o
p
/p
o
s
and the total temperature ratio = T
o
p
/T
o
s
3 thermochemical parameters: the specic heat ratios
s
,
p
and the molecular weight ratio =
M
p
/M
s
.
1 geometric parameter: the ejector-mixer area to primary-nozzle throat area ratio = A/A

;
2 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1 ejector-operation parameter: either the Mach number M
p1
of the primary stream at the ejector inlet
or the Mach number M
3
at the ejector-mixer exit;
1 ramjet-burner parameter: the ramjet-fuel mass ow to primary mass ow ratio,
fr
.
These parameters are reduced to ve, if ight conditions and rocket propellant combination are given. In fact,
when the ight Mach number M
0
, and altitude (i.e. p
0
and T
0
) are given, all the secondary-ow properties,
namely T
o
s
, p
o
s
,
s
= 1.4, and M
s
, are known, while the primary-ow properties, namely T
o
p
,
p
, and M
p
,
are determined by the mixture-ratio of the rocket-propellant combination. Then the ve parameters to be
chosen are, namely:
the ejector geometry, i.e. ;
the rocket mass ow, i.e. the primary total pressure, which determines ;
the rocket mixture ratio, i.e. the primary total temperature, which determines ;
the Mach number of the primary ow at the ejector mixing tube inlet M
p1
;
the ramjet-fuel mass ow to primary mass ow ratio,
fr
.
The aforementioned ve parameters must respect some inequality constraints. Three constraints concern the
secondary-ow entrance into the ejector, one is related to the mixer choking (M
3
1). Two other constraints
can exist and are related to the ramjet burner: a maximum engine temperature is not to be exceeded; a
minimum allowable value of the overall equivalence ratio exists when the primary ow is fuel rich. Finally,
a constraint is related to the engine operation: the nozzle inlet stagnation pressure must be larger than the
ambient pressure.
B. Some Useful Relations
First of all, it results useful to dene the following functions:
f
0
(, M) = 1 +
1
2
M
2
; f
1
(, M) = [f
0
(, M)]

1
f
2
(, M) = M
_
f
0
(, M) ; f
3
(, M) = 1 +M
2
f
g
(, M) =

M
[f
0
(, M)]
+1
2(1)
; (, M) =
1
M
_
2+(1)M
2
+1
_
+1
2(1)
B
1
=

s
1
(
p
1)
B
2
=

p

s
B
1
C. Secondary Flow Constraints
The secondary ow can enter the ejector if the following constraints are respected at section (1):
Blockage: the primary ow should not occupy all the mixer area, i.e.
(
p
, M
p1
) (1)
Secondary ow chocking: secondary Mach number should not exceed unitary value; assuming p
s1
= p
p1
and
s
= 1.4

f
1
(
p
, M
p1
)
f
1
(
s
, 1)
= 0.5283f
1
(
p
, M
p1
) (2)
Back-ow: the static pressure p
p1
should not exceed p
o
s1
f
1
(
p
, M
p1
) (3)
3 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
0
0.2
0.4
0.6


0 2 4 6 8 10 1
Z<(-1)/
1 solution (subsonic)
(-1)/ < Z </(+1)
2 solutions (subsonic & supersonic)
Z>/(+1)
No solutions
Z=/(+1)
1 solution (M
3
= 1)
Z=(-1)/
2 solutions (M
3
=(-1)/2; M
3
=)
M
3
Z
Figure 2. Relation between the parameter Z and the
ejector exit Mach number for = 1.4.
1
2
5
10
20
1 2 5 10 20
10
2
5
= 20

M
3
Figure 3. Maximum values of to make the ejector-
exit choking passible, as a function of , for dierent
values of (
p
=
s
= 1.4, = 1).
D. Ejector Exit Conditions and Choking Constraint
When the four parameters , , and M
p1
are given, remembering that p
p1
= p
s1
is assumed , one can
determine the secondary-to-primary mass ow ratio
=
m
s
m
p
=
_

p
1
_ _

f
2
(
s
, M
s1
)
f
2
(
p
, M
p1
)
=
_

p
1
_ _

f
g
(
s
, M
s1
)
f
g
(
p
, M
p1
)
(4)
where

p
= (
p
, M
p1
) and M
s1
=

_
2

s
1
_
_
f
1
(
p
, M
p1
)

s
1

s
1
_
(5)
The energy and continuity equations give the properties of the mixed ow

3
=
s
+B
2
+B
1
;
3
=
T
o
3
T
o
s
=
+B
2

+B
2
;
3
=
M
3
M
s
=
1 +
1 +
(6)
while, by combining momentum and continuity equations the exit Mach number can be evaluated using the
following relation
M
2
3
=
(1 Z)
3

_
(1 Z)
2
3
Z
3

3
(1 Z)
2
3
(7)
where
Z = 2

3
/

3
/
(1 +)
2
_

p
f
2
(
p
, M
p1
)

p
f
3
(
p
, M
p1
) + (
p
)f
3
(
s
, M
s1
)
_
2
(8)
Real roots (see Fig. 2) are obtained for M
3
if the radicand is positive, i.e., if Z
3
/(
3
+ 1). The root
obtained with the negative sign is a subsonic solution, while the root obtained with the positive sign is a
supersonic one. The subsonic solution is obtained also allowing the possible supersonic solution to diuse
through a normal shock wave. As a matter of fact, when Z < (
3
1)/
3
only the subsonic solution
exists since the denominator is negative and only a negative numerator is permitted. Moreover, as shown
by Emanuel,
4
the second law of thermodynamics is violated as Z approaches (
3
1)/
3
on the supersonic
branch. One can realize it since the stagnation total pressure of the mixed ow would exceed the larger of the
4 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
primary and secondary ow stagnation pressure. Both the roots have solution M
3
= 1 when Z =
3
/(
3
+1).
This case corresponds to an exit-choked ejector. It is interesting to observe that, for any given values of
and , the ejector can have a choked exit only if is lower than a given value
M3
(see Fig. 3). In the
present paper only subsonic solutions are taken into account, supposing that the mixer tube has a proper
length to allow a fully mixed ow at its end.
The momentum equation allows to compute the Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR)
EPR =
p
o
3
p
o
s
=
f
1
(
3
, M
3
)
f
1
(
s
, M
s1
) f
3
(
3
, M
3
)
__
1

p

_
f
3
(
s
, M
s1
) +

p

f
3
(
p
, M
p1
)
_
(9)
A further constraint requires a nozzle expansion ratio larger than unity. Neglecting pressure losses in the
ramjet burner and in the nozzle:
n
= p
o
e
/p
o
= EPR f
1
(
p
, M
0
) > 1.
1
2
3
4
1 10 100
Mixer choking
M
p1
max.

max

ck
5
10
= 20
Blockage:
M
p1
max.
Back-flow:
M
p1
min.
Secondary-flow
choking: M
p1
max.

M
p
1
Figure 4. Possible values of M
p1
as a function of
for = 10 with
p
=
s
= 1.4. Dashed lines represent
maximum values of M
p1
due to ejector-exit choking
for dierent values of , with = 1.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0

Z
Z
max
= 80
limited by
blockage
= 20
limited by
2ndary-flow choking
= 10
limited by
ejector-exit
choking
M
p1
Z
Figure 5. Trend of Z and as a function of M
p1
for dierent values of ( = 10, = 10
s
=
p
= 1.4,
= 1).
E. Ejector Operation Range
For any given geometry , a maximum value of M
p1
, M
p1,max
, is obtained. Then, remembering Eq. (1), a
maximum allowed value of is obtained,
max
(,
p
) = f
1
(
p
, M
p1,max
), while Eq. (2), assuming
s
= 1.4,
gives
ck
(,
p
) = 0.5283
max
. The secondary ow choking is possible only if
ck
. Finally, when also
is given, a value of
M3
(, ,
p
,
s
, ) can be found. Remembering that
s
= 1.4, while
p
, and are
determined by the mixture ratio , then
max

ck
and
M3
are all functions of and . When choosing a
value for , three dierent cases exist (see Fig. 4):
case (a): 1
M3
; M
p1
upper limit is due to exit choking
case (b):
M3
<
ck
; M
p1
upper limit is due to secondary ow choking in station (1)
case (c):
ck
<
max
; M
p1
upper limit is due to blockage
For all these cases the lower limit of M
p1
corresponds to a back ow of the primary ow, while ejector
operation is not possible if >
max
.
Figure 5 shows trends of Z and for cases (a), (b) and (c). For cases (b) and (c) two dierent values of M
p1
gives the same values of ; only the solution where (/M
p1
)
,,
> 0 is considered, since higher values of
EPR are obtained (as an example see Fig. 6). An ejector operation parameter is introduced in the following,
5 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
indicating the chosen value of M
p1
for given values of , and , i.e., M
p1
= M
p1,min
+(M
p1,max
M
p1,min
).
The condition = 1 indicates that the maximum allowable values of and M
3
are obtained, while = 0
corresponds to minimum values. Figure 7 shows as a function of EPR for dierent values of , and .
The increment of seems to enlarge the range of possible values of (EPR). It is interesting to see that
better performance are obtained (larger for a given EPR), if the same / ratio is used (this corresponds
to cases where the same primary mass ow rate is used in the same ejector mixing duct).
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
7.45 7.50 7.55 7.60 7.65
M
p1
growing
this way
EPR

Figure 6. Mass ow ratio as a function of EPR

for a case where >
M3
( = 10, = 50, = 10,

s
=
p
= 1.4, = 1).
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
= 1
= 5
= 10
100,100
20,20
20,30
, = 20,10
10,10
EPR

Figure 7. Mass ow ratio as a function of EPR for

dierent values of , and (
s
=
p
= 1.4, = 1).
F. Engine Operation and Performance
Usually, a maximum value of the temperature in the ramjet burner is given, T
o
7,max
. Provided that T
o
3
<
T
o
7,max
, if the primary ow is fuel rich, then a residual fuel is present

fp
=
m
fp
m
p
= 1

st
+ 1

st

+ 1
(10)
which determines a minimum overall equivalence ratio
min
. A corresponding combustion temperature T
o
7,dry
can be evaluated, which should be lower than T
o
7,max
. This constraint can aect the minimum possible value
of M
p1
, and eventually forbid the engine operation. On the other hand if a value of
min
is assigned,
further fuel
fr
= m
fr
/ m
p
, is added in the ramjet burner.
An optimum expansion is assumed (p
e
= p
0
), neglecting pressure and heat losses in the ramjet burner
(p
o
e
= p
o
7
and T
o
e
= T
o
7
). Then
w
e
=

2c
pe
T
o
e
_
1
1
e

e
n
_
(11)
The values of c
pe
and
e
are functions of , and . To simplify the problem, proper mean values can be
used. As far as the engine performance are concerned, we can evaluate both the specic impulse I
s
and the
Thrust to Area ratio T/A.
I
s
=
(1 + +
fr
)w
e
u
g
o
(1 +
fr
)
;
T
A
=
g
o
(1 +
fr
) I
s
p
o
p
c

(12)
6 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1
2
3
4
0 25 50 75 100 125
= 1 ( = 3.4)
= 6 ( = 11.9)

M
p
1
Figure 8. Eects of on the ejector possible operation
range at SLS conditions and = 10.
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
= 1.5
= 6
20,30
, = 20, 10
100, 100
10, 10
EPR

Figure 9. Mass ow ratio as a function of EPR for

dierent values of , and at SLS static conditions.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(I
s,max
)
,
= 390 s
300 s
200
B

Specific impulse, I
s
s
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1
0.75
0.5
0.25 MN/m
2
B

Thrust to area ratio, T/A

MN/m
2
Figure 10. Dry performance and parameters as a function of B and with = 10 and = 4 at SLS conditions.
7 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
III. Numerical results
As an example a primary rocket feed by liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen (LH2) is considered.
A popular code
7
is used to compute the properties of the primary combustion gases as a function of the
mixture ratio . Fourth-degree curve ts of
p
, T
o
p
and M
p
are embedded in the code. The properties
of the gas exiting the ramjet burner are evaluated by a proper subroutine which determines the chemical
equilibrium.
0
100
200
300
400
530 540 550 560 570 580

p
p
o
I
s
(s)

,



p
p o


(
b
a
r
)
Figure 11. Primary-ow total pressure and as a
function of I
s
, with G= k
1
I
s
+k
2
(T
o
7
2000K)
2
+
+k
3
(T/A.5MN/m
2
)
2
minimized.
Figure (8) shows the eects of on the possible
operation range of ejector (without considering the
constraint related to
n
1, which can arise for low
values of ). Corresponding values of for Sea Level
Static (SLS) conditions are shown. The case where
= 4, corresponding at = 10.1 at SLS conditions,
is quite similar to the = 6 case. Figure (9) is simi-
lar to Fig. (7), showing the opposite eect of with
respect to , due to the lower molecular mass associ-
ated with a lower primary-ow temperature. On the
other hand, and show similar eects on (EPR).
Figure (10) shows contour lines of I
s
and T/A with
= 10 and = 4, which fairly corresponds to the
baseline case of Han et al.
2
The parameter B is in-
troduced: the assumed is = 1 + B(
max
1)
with 0 B 1, so that =
max
when B = 1
and = 1 when B = 0. Temperature T
o
7
ranges
from about 2700 K for lower values of B, to about
2900 K for B 1. The maximum I
s
is about 390
s and is obtained with = 1 and M
3
= 1, for a
value in the vicinity of
M3
. If larger values of T/A
are required, the ejector should operate in a range
where its choking is not possible. It is interesting to
notice that, if M
3
< 1, the specic impulse decreases
as the mass ow bypass ratio is reduced. On the other hand, the thrust to area ratio is fairly augmented as
well. This behavior is favorable at the beginning of the ascent, when the vehicle is heavier, and can become
a must in the transonic region, where the drag increases.
Low values of I
s
and very high values of T
o
7
are obtained when = 10 and 10 at SLS conditions. A
parametric optimization has been performed to improve these values, using an IMSL subroutine, based on a
quasi-Newton method. If the performance index to be minimized is G = I
s
, a solution is found (see Table 1)
where nor the ejector exit neither the ramjet nozzle are choked. This solution presents a T
o
7
which is still too
high. Very similar is the solution at M
0
= 0.3. To reduce engine heating problems, a solution is searched for,
introducing a penalty function related to T
o
7
: the used performance index is G = k
1
I
s
+k
2
(T
o
7
2000K)
2
.
The last solution shown in Table 1, is obtained assuming k
1
= 0.001s
1
, k
2
= 1K
2
; it presents T
o
7
= 2000K
and a further benet of having an higher value of T/A. All these solutions are dry, i.e.,
fr
= 0: it is better
to introduce all the fuel in the rocket chamber to draw the secondary ow, instead of splitting it into the
case p
o
p
M
3

fr
EPR T
o
7
I
s
T/A
bar K s MN/m
2
SLS 407.8 156.5 1.820 0.992 0.938 0.000 1.121 8.145 1.35 2533.3 688.3 0.1107
M
0
= 0.3 264.3 93.3 1.664 0.983 0.909 0.000 1.130 8.789 1.30 2519.1 670.5 0.1020
T
o
7
= 2000K 366.6 189.5 1.000 1.000 0.993 0.000 2.128 5.964 1.53 2000.0 632.2 0.1500
Table 1. Optimal solutions at sea level.
8 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
two combustion chambers. To further improve T/A, an other penalty function is added and the performance
index becomes G = k
1
I
s
+k
2
(T
o
7
2000K)
2
+k
3
(T/A.5MN/m
2
)
2
. In this case and are bounded
to limit the rockets chamber pressure and its mixture ratio, i.e., it is assumed that
max
and 1:
the solution requires =
max
and = 1. Figure (11) shows the trend of the required p
o
p
and the relative
value of , as a function of I
s
. All the solutions present T/A = 5 MN/m
2
and T
o
7
= 2000 K. No fuel
is added in the ramjet burner. The engine nozzle is choked (EPR 3.4) while the ejector-exit is almost
choked (M
3
0.995): the ejector operates at its maximum for values of the parameters that do not allow
its choking. Due to the almost sonic condition, one can argue that
M3
. For lower values of p
o
p
an open-
cycle rocket can be used, while a staged-combustion cycle should be required to obtain higher values of I
s
.
The low temperature levels and the high specic-impulse values are obtained using a very high equivalence
ratio ( > 4). The density specic impulse is 70 I

80 10
3
s m
3
/kg. If these values are considered too
low, a further penalty, related to the propellant bulk density has to be introduced.
IV. Conclusions
An analysis of the Ejector-Ram-Rocket has been performed using a simplied one-dimensional model.
A constant-area subsonic-supersonic rocket-based ejector is considered. The relevant parameters that aect
the design of this engine are identied, highlighting the main constraints that can arise, and on-design engine
performance are evaluated. Five parameters, namely the ejector to primary-ow nozzle-throat area ratio, the
primary-ow mixture ratio and pressure level, the ejector exit Mach number and the fuel mass ow added
in the ramjet burner, determine the performance when the propellant combination and the ight conditions
are given. For a given ejector area ratio, ejector presents good performance (compromise between mass ow
by-pass and engine pressure ratio) even if the exit-choking is not possible. High primary-ow pressures and
ejector area to primary-nozzle throat area ratios should be used.
As far as the engine performance are concerned, the optimal design is searched for, focusing attention to
a LOX/LH2 primary rocket at Sea Level Static condition. A library subroutine based on a quasi-Newton
method has been used. According to the used model, the solution which maximizes the specic impulse
presents an almost-choked-exit ejector. When introducing penalty functions to have required values of
thrust to area ratio and total exit temperature, it is found that the specic impulse grows with primary-ow
pressure and area ratio.
References
1
Heiser, W.H., Pratt, D.T., Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion, AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Washington DC, 1994,
pp. 446-452.
2
Han, S., Peddieson, J.,Gregory, Jr. D., Ejector Primary Flow Molecular Weight Eects in an Ejector-Ram Rocket
Engine, Journal of Propulsione and Power, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2002, pp. 592-599.
3
Fabri, J., Siestrunck, R., Supersonic Air Ejectors, Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. V, Academic Press, New York,
1958, pp. 1-34.
4
Emanuel, G., Comparison of One-Dimensional Solutions with Fabri Theory for Ejectors Acta Mechanica, Vol. 44, 1982,
pp. 187-200.
5
Dutton, J.C., Mikkelsen C.D., and Addy, A. L., A theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Constant Area,
Supersonic-Supersonic Ejector, AIAA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 10, 1982, pp. 1392-1400.
6
Dutton, J.C., Carroll B.F., Limitation of Ejector Performance Due to Exit Choking, Journal of Fluids Engineering,
Vol. 110, No. 10, 1988, pp. 91-93.
7
Mc Bride, B.J., and Reno, M.A., CET93 and CETPC: An Interim Updated Version of the NASA Lewis Computer
Program for Calculating Complex Chemical Equilibria With Applications, NASA TM-4557, 1994.
9 of 9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics