Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191

A review of out-of-ground-effect propulsion-induced

interference on STOVL aircraft
A.J. Saddington

, K. Knowles
Aeromechanical Systems Group, Department of Aerospace, Power and Sensors, Craneld University, RMCS, Shrivenham, Swindon,
Wiltshire, SN6 8LA, UK
Available online 14 June 2005
Abstract
This paper provides a review of the out-of-ground-effect propulsion-induced interference on the aerodynamics of jet-
lift short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft. Two main ight regimes are discussed; hover and transition
wherein the main uid dynamics phenomena that cause the interference are presented. Where possible, an engineering
assessment is made of the effect of jet and/or airframe conguration parameters on the observed interference effects.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
2. The free jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
3. Hover out of ground effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.1. The effect of jet decay rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.2. The effect of nozzle pressure ratio (NPR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
3.3. The effect of nozzle length and projection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
3.4. The effect of planform shape and position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
3.5. The effect of off-axis nozzle positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
4. Transition out of ground effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
4.1. The free jet in a cross-ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
4.1.1. Correlation parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
4.1.2. Jet trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4.2. Jet-induced interference effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4.2.1. The effect of velocity ratio, V
e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.2.2. The effect of area ratio, A
n
S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.2.3. The effect of nozzle geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.2.4. The relative location of wing and jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
www.elsevier.com/locate/paerosci
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0376-0421/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2005.03.002

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.j.saddington@craneld.ac.uk (A.J. Saddington), k.knowles@craneld.ac.uk (K. Knowles).
4.2.5. The effect of nozzle vector angle, d
n
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.2.6. Lift improvement devices (LIDs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.3. Jet and intake-induced interference effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
1. Introduction
For over 40 years engineers have struggled with the
concept of giving a jet-powered xed-wing aircraft the
capability to hover and transition to and from wing-
borne ight. From the tens of designs studied, only
about 20 jet-powered STOVL aircraft made it to the
ight test stage and of these, only two (the Harrier and
Yak-38) became operational, a testimony to the
difculty in designing a successful STOVL aircraft.
With development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
nearing completion it is perhaps poignant to reect on
the lessons learnt throughout the development of these
aircraft.
This paper presents a review of the main out-of-
ground-effect propulsion-induced aerodynamic interfer-
ence encountered by jet-lift STOVL aircraft. It will draw
from several earlier surveys [16] as well as presenting
more recent research results.
2. The free jet
Many generalised studies of axisymmetric free jets
have been made and their characteristics are well
documented [79]. Studies focussing on particular
aspects of free jets such as the self-similar region
downstream of the nozzle [1012], the effect of initial
conditions [1316], the effect of a co-owing stream [17]
and large-scale structures within the jet [18,19] have also
been made.
With regard to STOVL aircraft applications high-
speed (in particular under-expanded) free jets are of
relevance and these too have been well documented
[2024]. For a circular convergent nozzle, three varia-
tions of the ow pattern are possible, depending on the
nozzle pressure ratio (NPR, the ratio of settling chamber
total pressure, P
c
to ambient static pressure, p
a
). The
three variations are the subsonic jet, the under-expanded
jet and the highly under-expanded jet [23]. Note that
with a convergent-divergent nozzle an additional ow
pattern exists, that of the overexpanded jet. This occurs
when the nozzle is operating off-design at too high a
NPR [25].
Jet spreading rate and entrainment characteristics
have been the subject of a number of studies. Anderson
and Johns [20] considered a range of jet exit Mach
numbers from 1.4 to 3.53. The jets were found to have a
mean cone half angle of 4:6

with this value being

independent of NPR. Later studies by Moustafa [24]
Nomenclature
A
n
nozzle exit area
d
n
nozzle diameter
d
ne
equivalent nozzle diameter

D angular mean planform diameter

i index (see Eq. (3))
k
1
, k
2
constants in Eqs. (2), (4) and (7)
L lift
m constant in Eq. (10)
_ m
n
nozzle exit mass ow rate
_ m
x
mass ow rate at a streamwise distance x
max maximum
M pitching moment
M
n
nozzle exit Mach number
M
1
freestream (cross-ow) Mach number
n constant in Eq. (10)
NPR nozzle pressure ratio
p
a
ambient static pressure
P
c
settling chamber total pressure
Per
total
total jet perimeter
q
n
nozzle exit dynamic pressure
q
x
dynamic pressure at a streamwise distance x
r radius
r
n
nozzle radius
S planform area
T thrust
u
c
mean jet centreline velocity
V
e
effective velocity ratio (see Eq. (9))
V
n
nozzle exit velocity
V
1
freestream (cross-ow) velocity
x streamwise distance from nozzle exit
z distance perpendicular to nozzle exit
x x=r
n
a; b constants in Eq. (10)
d
n
nozzle vector angle
D incremental
y angular measurement (see Eq. (8))
k constant in Eq. 1
r
e
r
a
=r
n
r
n
nozzle exit static density
r
a
ambient static density
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 176
and Lau et al. [26] indicated that jet spreading rate is in
fact strongly inuenced by NPR and jet exit Mach
number. Nozzle geometry has also been found to
inuence spreading characteristics with elliptical, rec-
tangular and lobed nozzles all showing greater spreading
rates than jets from a circular nozzle [27].
Ricou and Spalding [28] summarise results for the
mass entrained by a jet, based on measured velocity
prole data and augmented with analytical solutions,
showing that for given jet exit conditions air is entrained
into a jet at a constant rate. Witze [29] making use of
Kleinsteins [30] theoretical formulation and the results
of 13 experimental studies, derived an empirical
formulation (Eq. (1)) for the decay in the centreline
velocity for varying jet exit Mach numbers.
u
c
x 1 exp
1
k x r
e

0:5
0:7
_ _
, (1)
where k is a proportionality constant given by
k 0:081 0:16M
n
r
e

0:22
M
n
o1,
k 0:063M
2
n
1
0:15
M
n
41.
The inuence of temperature on the characteristics of
free jets has also been widely investigated [29,3133],
particularly with respect to spreading rates [31] and
entrainment rates [33].
3. Hover out of ground effect
The basic ow-eld associated with a jet-lift STOVL
aircraft hovering out of ground effect is illustrated in
Fig. 1 [34]. In all cases, the lifting jets issuing from the
aircraft mix with ambient air to generate a complicated
three-dimensional ow-eld. In general, when one or
more jet-lift engines are installed in an aircraft fuselage
or wing, and exhaust vertically downwards, a small lift
loss is induced by the entrainment action of the jet(s).
For a simple circular planform with a single central
round jet having a uniform exit velocity distribution
(Fig. 2), the reduction in lift is about 2% of the installed
thrust T, for a nozzle area to planform area ratio
A
n
=S 0:01 [35,36]. This lift loss reduces steadily, but
non-linearly, as the ratio A
n
=S increases, becoming only
about 0.5% for A
n
=S 0:11 and negligible if A
n
=S is
greater than 0.25 [35,36]. The lift losses on the plate arise
from the entrainment action of the jet, which mixes with
the surrounding air and sets up a cross-ow over the
bottom of the plate, thereby inducing a suction pressure.
The four-jet conguration of Otis [37] indicated that lift
losses of between 3 and 4 per cent could be encountered
for typical multiple-jet congurations.
3.1. The effect of jet decay rate
Gentry and Margason [38] made lift loss measure-
ments using a circular and a rectangular plenum
chamber. The latter was designed to t inside the
fuselage of a wind tunnel model and was smaller than
ideally desired. A comparison of the loads induced on a
circular plate by a single nozzle tted to the circular and
rectangular plenum chambers (Fig. 3(a)), indicated that
the loads induced on the circular plate mounted on the
Entrained air
Intake flow
Fig. 1. The ow eld surrounding a V/STOL aircraft in hover
[34].
L
Fig. 2. The lift loss generated on a at plate by a single nozzle
[35].
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 177
rectangular plenum were three to four times as large as
those induced on the same plate-nozzle arrangement
with the circular plenum chamber.
Measurements of the velocity prole obtained from
the rectangular plenum indicated a distorted velocity
distribution with a decit at the centre, whereas the ow
from the circular plenum had a uniform top hat
velocity prole. The ow through the rectangular
plenum was found to be very turbulent and it was
suspected that the high turbulence levels were causing
the higher induced loads. To conrm the hypothesis,
fairings and bafes were added to the rectangular
plenum chamber to improve the ow quality and a
strut was inserted in the circular plenum to degrade the
ow quality. This also produced a much greater
distortion of the exit velocity prole than was present
on the original rectangular plenum chamber. Fig. 3(a)
shows that these changes increased the lift loss for the
circular plenum chamber and greatly reduced the losses
for the rectangular plenum chamber.
The lift losses did not correlate with the exit velocity
distribution, however, they were found to correlate with
the rate of decay of the jet with distance downstream
from the nozzle exit (Fig. 3(b)). These curves show the
peak non-dimensional dynamic pressure in the jet at a
non-dimensional distance downstream of the nozzle. The
circular plenum chamber gave the smallest lift loss and
had the lowest decay rate. The original rectangular
plenum produced the greatest lift loss and had the highest
decay rate. The modications made to the circular and
rectangular plenum chambers produced jets with similar
decay rates, giving similar lift losses. The correlation was
also found to hold true for multiple-jet congurations.
Fig. 4 compares the lift loss and decay rates for three
different jet arrangements (all using the modied
rectangular plenum chamber). An empirical equation
was developed to predict the lift loss per unit thrust based
on the jet decay rate and model geometry [38].
DL
T

S
A
n
_
k
1
k
2
, (2)
where k
1
0:009 and
k
2

qq
x
=q
n

@x=d
ne

_ _
max
x=d
ne

_
, (3)
(S/A
n
)

L
/
T
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
Single jet
Four jet
Eight jet
Four slot jet
Single jet
Four jet
Eight jet
Four slot jet
x/d
ne
q
x
/
(
P
c

-
p
a
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4. (a) Induced load and (b) jet decay for single-jet and
several multiple-jet congurations NPR 1:89 [38].
NPR

L
/
T
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
Cylindrical plenum, clean nozzle
Cylindrical plenum, restriction in nozzle
Original rectangular plenum
Modified rectangular plenum
Cylindrical plenum, clean nozzle
Cylindrical plenum, restriction in nozzle
Original rectangular plenum
Modified rectangular plenum
x/d
n
q
x
/
(
P
c

-
p
a
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. The effect of plenum chamber and nozzle conguration
on (a) induced load on several plate shapes and (b) on jet decay
NPR 1:64 [38].
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 178
where x is the distance along the nozzle axis, the origin of
which is at the exit plane. The lift loss is therefore
proportional to the square root of the maximum rate of
decay of the jet divided by the distance to the point at
which this occurs. The correlation showed good agree-
ment with the test data.
It is clear that the use of rapid mixing nozzles, if
installed on a STOVL aircraft, will have a detrimental
effect on the aircrafts hover performance. These
nozzles, which are currently being developed for reduced
radar and infra-red signatures [39] and for minimising
ground erosion problems, are designed to promote high
decay rates of the jet potential core and may employ
techniques including: geometric modications such as
lobes, notches or castellations; excrescences such as tabs
or vortex generators and uidic techniques such as swirl
or shear layer excitation. An extensive literature review
of jet mixing enhancement is given by Wong [40], to
which the reader is referred.
When multiple jets are dispersed over the planform,
the percentage lift loss is greater than for the corre-
sponding single jet of the same equivalent diameter
ratio, d
ne
[35]. This is partly due to the increased mixing
rate, but also to the additional pressure drop produced
on the lower surface between the jets because of the
constricting effect of the jets themselves on the entrained
ow. This does not appear, however, to be a strong
effect and the lift loss seems unlikely to exceed 5%
unless the jets are arranged in rows or elongated narrow
slots, thus tending to enclose a signicant amount of the
planform area.
Using a Pratt and Witney J85 engine equipped with
two alternative jet pipes; one for a single jet investiga-
tion, and one with a special exhaust ducting to produce a
four-jet conguration, McLemore [41] ran tests with
three different sizes of rectangular plates to produce
three different ratios of planform area to jet area A
n
=S.
The comparison of these real engine data with the model
results of Gentry and Margason [38] shows good
agreement (Fig. 5).
Using data from Fleming [42] and Higgins et al.
[43,44], Kuhn and McKinney [45] (and later Hammond
[46]), present a comparison of experiments conducted
using jets of different temperature. These suggest that
temperature does not appear to have an appreciable
effect on the jet decay rate except for a circular nozzle
(Fig. 6).
The studies on jet decay rate demonstrate that if
accurate lift loss data are to be obtained from wind tunnel
models then the decay rate of the simulated jets should
accurately match those of the full size installation.
3.2. The effect of nozzle pressure ratio (NPR)
Gentry and Margason observed that the measured lift
losses showed a reduction with increasing NPR for a
constant nozzle to planform area ratio [38]. At the time a
theoretical model was not available to explain this. NPR
effects were looked at, however, in an extensive study of
jet-induced interference effects undertaken by Shumpert
and Tibbetts [47]. Tests were conducted on a 14 per cent
scale model of a jet VTOL aircraft with a fuselage-
mounted lift system at pressure ratios of 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 and
2.3. It was discovered that the lift loss did not follow the
correlation proposed by Gentry and Margason (Eq. (2)).
The results showed that there was a measurable
(S/A
n
)

L
/
T
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
Single jet, small scale
Four jet, small scale
Single jet, J85
Four jet, J85
Single jet, small scale
Four jet, small scale
Single jet, J85
Four jet, J85
x/d
ne
q
x
/
(
P
c

-
p
a
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5. Comparison of (a) induced load and (b) jet decay for the
small-scale results of Ref. [38] and a J85 turbojet [41].
x/d
ne
q
x
/
(
P
c

-
p
a
)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Circular nozzle (70F)
Circular nozzle (1200F)
Single slot nozzle (70F)
Single slot nozzle (1200F)
Four slot nozzle (70F)
Four slot nozzle (1200F)
Fig. 6. The effect of temperature and nozzle conguration on
jet decay [45].
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 179
discrepancy between the lift losses at different NPRs for
a constant nozzle area and a modication to Eq. (2) was
proposed.
DL
T

S
A
n
_
NPR
0:64
k
1
k
2
. (4)
The constant k
1
was found to be aircraft conguration
dependent and for the tests conducted, varied between
0:01 and 0:016. The parameter k
2
was unchanged
(see Eq. (3)). As this correlation suggests, an increase in
NPR is seen to result in a decrease in percentage lift loss.
This effect was found to be similar for all congurations.
The NPR effect described above is explained by the jet
entrainment rate of different NPR jets. At an axial
distance, x downstream of the nozzle exit plane, the
ratio of mass ow rate in the jet to the mass ow rate at
the nozzle exit is given by [28]
_ m
x
_ m
n
0:32
x
d
n

r
a
r
n
_
. (5)
Eq. (5) shows that as NPR is increased (and hence the jet
density), the mass ow rate of the jet at a given
streamwise location is reduced. The decay rate of a high
NPR jet will, therefore, be less than that of a lower NPR
jet. Comparison with data collected by Schwantes [48]
and reported by Ransom and Smy [49] suggests that
although Eq. (5) gives the correct trend for jet
entrainment, the magnitude calculated may not be relied
upon.
Shumpert and Tibbetts also conducted experiments at
constant thrust, i.e. the nozzle area was reduced as the
NPR was increased. Varying NPR at constant thrust
had no measurable effect on lift loss [47].
A more direct, easier to use method for estimating
hover lift losses is presented by Kotansky [50]. Correla-
tion of data from various single and multiple jet
congurations [51] resulted in the following equation:
DL
T
0:0002528

S
A
n
_
NPR
0:64
Per
total
d
ne
_ _ _ _
1:581
. 6
Eq. (6) implicitly accounts for the higher decay rate of
multiple jet congurations in terms of equivalent nozzle
diameter but does not account for higher decay rates
caused by jet exit conditions involving high entrainment
rates i.e. rapid mixing nozzles. If higher than normal
turbulence and decay rates are involved, Kotansky
suggests that Eq. (4) should be used [50].
3.3. The effect of nozzle length and projection
Gentry and Margason [38] investigated the effect of
nozzle length and projection on induced loads for a
single round jet with the modied rectangular plenum
chamber described in Section 3.1 and with rectangular-
planform plates. In these experiments, nozzle length
was dened as the distance from the bottom of the
settling chamber (the start of the nozzle prole) to
the nozzle exit plane. Nozzle projection, by contrast,
was the distance the nozzle exit plane extended below
the planform surface. The ndings are summarised in
Table 1 for NPRs of 1.5 and 2.0.
Extending the nozzle length caused a slight reduction
in the lift loss for the case of zero projection.
Measurements of the jet decay rate for the different
nozzle lengths showed that the shortest nozzle had the
highest decay rate. A further reduction in lift loss was
obtained by projecting the nozzle through the circular
plate distances of 0:5d
n
and 1:0d
n
. This reduction is due
to the increased distance between the plate and the free
surface of the jet which is entraining air.
3.4. The effect of planform shape and position
In order to determine the effect of planform shape on
the induced lift loss, Gentry and Margason tested four
plate shapes on their circular plenum chamber [38]. The
four shapes were circular, square, rectangular (aspect
ratio 1.52) and triangular (equilateral). In all cases the
ratio of nozzle exit area to plate area, A
n
=S was 0.0144
and the centre of the nozzle was located at the centroid
of the plate. There was no measurable effect of planform
shape on the lift loss. The effect of wing height was also
investigated. As would be expected, a low wing
conguration had more lift loss than a mid-mounted
wing which in turn performed worse than a high wing.
This is due to the relative proximity of the wing to the
mixing region of the jet.
The effect of planform lip shape was investigated by
Ing and Zhang [52]. An experiment was carried out to
study the parameters affecting single-jet ground-effect
hover lift loss and to identify the cause behind the large
discrepancies in lift loss between the experiments of
Wyatt [53] and Corsiglia et al. [54], commonly known as
Table 1
Lift loss for various nozzle lengths and projections, A
n
=S
0:0105 [38]
Nozzle length
d
n

Nozzle
projection
d
n

DL=T
NPR 1:5
DL=T
NPR 2:0
0.248 0.0 0.0187 0.0175
0.910 0.0 0.0163 0.0155
1.410 0.0 0.0163 0.0148
0.910 0.5 0.0130 0.0129
1.410 0.5 0.0133 0.0126
1.410 1.0 0.0116 0.0107
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 180
the Wyatt anomaly. The cause of the discrepancies was
traced to a single geometrical parameter, namely the
planform plate edge geometry, which signicantly
affected the ow separation underneath the plate. The
out of ground effect lift loss was, however, found to be
insensitive to the edge geometry.
3.5. The effect of off-axis nozzle positions
The effect of positioning a nozzle away from the
fuselage centre-line was part of a study carried out by
Welte [55]. Tests on a model of the VTOL transporter,
Dornier Do-31, indicated that a centrally located jet will
produce more lift loss than a peripherally located jet.
The podded lift engines installed at the wing tips induced
a lift loss of 2.2 per cent compared with 3.6 per cent for
the lift/cruise engine installed below the inner wing
section. Welte postulated that the constant k
1
in Eq. (3)
is universal and an additional term could be introduced
into the equation to take into account conguration
effects. The following equation was developed [55].
DL
T

D
d
ne
NPR
0:64
k
1
k
2
, (7)
where

D is the angular mean planform diameter and is
given by

D
1
p
_
2p
0
ry
d
ne
2
_ _
dy, (8)
where k
1
0:009 and k
2
is unchanged from Eq. (3).
It was found that for the lift/cruise engines, both Eqs.
(4) and (7) predicted the lift loss quite well, 4.0 and 3.4
per cent, respectively. With the peripherally located
lift engines at the wing tip, Eq. (4) failed to produce
a satisfactory result, again predicting 4.0 per cent
(as would be expected) compared with 2.4 per cent for
Eq. (7).
4. Transition out of ground effect
The transition from hover to wing-borne ight is a
very important design consideration for STOVL air-
craft. Fig. 7 shows the principle aerodynamic phenom-
ena affecting a STOVL aircraft in transition out of
ground effect [56]. During the transition from hovering
to conventional ight, the efux from the lifting jet(s) is
swept back by the freestream and rolled up into pairs of
vortices. These vortices, along with the entrainment
action and blockage effect of the jet(s), induce suction
pressures on the bottom of the conguration beside and
behind the jet(s) and a smaller region of positive
pressure ahead of the jet(s). In most cases, these induced
pressures result in a nose-up pitching moment and a loss
of lift on the aircraft.
4.1. The free jet in a cross-ow
The jet in cross-ow has received considerable
research attention because it is a fundamental uid
dynamic phenomena with many applications such as
smoke plumes from chimneys, the dispersal of liquids in
streams, jet engine combustors and reaction control jets
on rockets and missiles. The most widely studied, and
reviewed, application, however, is related to STOVL
aircraft [57,58].
A jet exhausting into a cross-ow generates a complex
ow-eld with several distinguishable features. When
the jet efux exits the nozzle it is deected by the
freestream to follow a curved path downstream while its
cross-section changes. For the case of a circular jet, there
are stagnation points upstream and downstream and
minimum pressures at the lateral edges. As a conse-
quence, the jet spreads laterally into an oval shape. At
the same time the cross-ow shears the jet uid along the
lateral edges downstream to form a kidney-shaped
cross-section. At increasing distances along the jet path
this shearing folds the downstream face over itself to
form a vortex pair which dominates the ow. Associated
with the vortex pair is the ow induced into the wake
region of the jet from the freestream. Fig. 8 shows the
topology of a jet in cross-ow [58].
4.1.1. Correlation parameters
Early jet in cross-ow investigations usually charac-
terised the test condition by the ratio of freestream
velocity to jet exit velocity, V
1
=V
j
. It was soon
recognised, however, that this ratio was not appropriate
for hot jets. Williams and Wood observed that non-
dimensional increments in lift, drag and pitching
moment were primarily, but not solely, a function of
jet to freestream velocity ratio [35]. The inuence of
jet Reynolds number (based on nozzle diameter) and
model Reynolds number (based on wing chord) on jet
Viscous effects on
wing and control
surfaces
Intake mass flow
Jet blockage and entrainment
Fig. 7. The ow eld about a STOVL aircraft in transition out
of ground effect [56].
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 181
interference effects were secondary. They showed that
the inuence of temperature and compressibility effects
could better be accounted for by the use of an effective
velocity ratio (Eq. (9)), which is still widely used.
V
e

V
1
V
n

r
a
r
n
_

M
1
M
n

p
a
p
n
_
. (9)
For STOVL applications the magnitude of V
e
for
transition to wing-borne ight depends on the pressure
ratio of the lifting propulsion device. For high-pressure
ratio jet engines, transition will occur with V
e
o0:2; for
the Harrier, transition will occur with V
e
o0:3; and for
lift fans with low pressure ratios, transition will occur
with V
e
o0:5 [58].
4.1.2. Jet trajectory
One property of jets in cross-ow which has received a
lot of research attention is the jet trajectory [5963]. The
most common parameter for dening the trajectory is
the locus of maximum velocity; however, other deni-
tions are sometimes used depending on the preference of
the researcher. These trajectory denitions include: the
locus of maximum stagnation pressure; the locus of
maximum dynamic pressure; the locus of maximum
stagnation temperature and the line of maximum
vorticity. Since none of these denitions will give the
same trajectory, it is necessary to exercise great care
when comparing data from different sources.
Nearly all the work done to establish a jet trajectory
has used a subsonic jet in a subsonic cross-ow. A
widely used empirical equation for the jet centreline
trajectory is [58],
x
d
n
aV
n
e
z
d
n
_ _
m

z
d
n
bcotd
n
. (10)
The z and x origins are taken as the centre of the nozzle
exit. When the nozzle vector angle is 90

(i.e. perpendi-
cular to the cross-ow), the second term in Eq. (10)
becomes zero. The empirical approaches correlate the
experimental data using similarity laws to obtain the jet
trajectory. Table 2 summarises the coefcients and
exponents for jets with a 90

vector angle [6467] and

for jets with varying vector angles [6870].
Eq. (10) has been plotted using an effective velocity
ratio, V
e
of 0.25 which covers the range of applicability
for most of the researchers. Fig. 9 shows the jet
trajectories for a nozzle vector angle of 90

while
Fig. 10 shows the trajectories for a vector angle of 60

.
The equations derived by the researchers show good
agreement with each other. There are slight variations in
the initial depth of penetration and the rate of jet
deection. These can probably be accounted for by
variations in the initial jet and cross-ow conditions in
the experiments from which the empirical equations are
derived. In particular the turbulence intensities of the jet
and cross-ow, which will affect the mixing rate between
the two, will have a strong inuence on the jet
Table 2
Jet trajectory equation terms and applicability
Author(s) a n m b V
e
d
j
(deg)
Bradbury [64] 1.08 2.70 3.00 n/a 0.080.43 90
Kamotani and Greber [65] 1.38 2.61 2.78 n/a 0.130.26 90
Chaissaing et al. [66]
0:59 V
e

2:6
2.60 2.60 n/a 0.160.42 90
Fearn and Weston [67] 1.08 2.68 2.95 n/a 0.100.33 90
Ivanov [68] 1.00 2.60 3.00 1.00 0.030.71 60120
Shandorov [69] 1.00 2.00 2.55
1 V
e

2
0.210.71 4590
Margason [70]
1=4 sin
2
d
j
2.00 3.00 1.00 0.100.85 30180
V
Jet C
L
Vortex curve
Separation line
Vortex pair
Horseshoe vortex
Wake vortex street
Fig. 8. Sketch of the vortex systems associated with a jet in
cross-ow [58].
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 182
penetration and curvature. Zhang and Hurst [71] have
observed that with supersonic jets, where the turbulence
intensity in the jet may be high (due to the breakdown of
the shock structure), the jet centreline trajectory will
ultimately lead to less penetration than for a subsonic
jet.
Integral methods, e.g. [7277] for jet in cross-ow
research have also been developed which consider the
deecting mechanisms of a jet by taking into account
either a pressure force or cross-ow momentum
entrainment or both. More recently the use of computa-
tional uid dynamics (CFD) has given researchers an
addition numerical tool, e.g. [7882].
4.2. Jet-induced interference effects
In general, the jet-induced interference effects in
transition are characterised by a loss in lift and a nose-
up pitching moment. Fig. 11(a) illustrates typical trends
for a tail-off conguration [83] and shows the lift divided
by the thrust as a function of angle of attack. Fig. 11(b)
shows pitching moment as a function of angle of attack.
In hover, the jets produce a lift which is equal to the net
thrust. With forward velocity the wing also develops lift
and, in the absence of interference effects, lift from these
two sources could be added together to produce the
solid curve. The jet-induced effects, however, cause a
loss of lift and the actual lift measured in a wind tunnel
is shown by the symbols. The difference between the
calculated and measured curves is the interference lift
loss, which is generally independent of angle of attack.
The rolling up of the jet wakes into contra-rotating
vortices is the primary cause of the interference effects in
transitional ight [83]. The vortices change the ow eld
in the near-eld and induce additional suction pressures
on the lower surface of the fuselage and wing of the
aircraft.
The interaction between the jet and the cross-ow
means that positive pressures are generated on surfaces
ahead of the jet and negative pressures behind [84].
Spreeman [85] measured negative pressures as high as 3
to 4 times the freestream dynamic pressure. The
pressures diminished with distance from the jet but
extended 10 to 15 jet diameters downstream and 5 to 10
(deg.)
L
/
T
-10 0 10 20 30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Calculated
Measured
Jet lift
Power-off lift
Interference lift loss (L)
(deg.)
M
-10 0 10 20 30
0
Interference moment (M)
Measured power-on moment
Power-off moment
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11. Jet interference in transition ight (tail off) [83]. (a)
Lift, (b) pitching moment.
x/d
n
z
/
d
n
0 5 10 15 20
0
5
10
Ivanov [68]
Shandorov [69]
Margason [70]
Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted jet in cross-ow trajectories
d
j
60

; V
e
0:25.
x/d
n
z
/
d
n
0 5 10 15 20
0
5
10
Kamotani and Greber [65]
Chaissang et.al [66]
Fearn and Weston [67]
Bradbury [64]
Fig. 9. Comparison of predicted jet in cross-ow trajectories
d
n
90

; V
e
0:25.
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 183
diameters to each side of the jet [85]. The combination of
positive pressures ahead of the jet and negative pressures
behind gives a nose-up pitching moment.
The following sections aim to describe parameters
which have been observed to inuence the jet-induced
interference effects. Due to the complex nature of the
ow elds surrounding STOVL aircraft in transition, it
is difcult to isolate the effects which different para-
meters may have on any particular conguration and as
such only general trends can be identied.
4.2.1. The effect of velocity ratio, V
e
The lift loss on a typical STOVL aircraft in hover has
already been discussed and is of the order of 2 to 3 per
cent of the installed thrust. Early experiments conducted
by Williams and Wood [35] on a simple rectangular-
wing model with a centrally located jet established that
the lift increment, DL=T falls steadily below its static
value as the effective velocity ratio V
e
is raised from
zero. The lift loss was accompanied by the expected
nose-up pitching moments, again increasing as V
e
was
raised. The observed interference effects are due partly
to the steady growth of the downward load from jet
interference on the lower surface behind the jet and
partly from the rearward movement of the centre of this
jet interference load. Additionally, the normal compo-
nent of thrust will be reduced because of the jet
deection.
As the velocity ratio is increased further, the lift loss
reduces but the nose-up pitching moment continues to
increase. This may be due to two main factors; rstly,
the conguration being tested may be generating
aerodynamic lift which will offset the lift loss, and
secondly, the very high jet deection angles involved
may put the jet interference close to the trailing edge of
the wing. The jets may then act as a crude jet-ap on the
wing lower surface and thereby generate extra lift by
super-circulation.
For practical STOVL aircraft, effective velocity ratios
below about 0.3 are of primary concern during
transition with jet-lift schemes although values as high
as 0.5 could be of importance with high by-pass ratio
engines or lift fan arrangements. Fig. 12 shows typical
results for a four-jet conguration [37].
4.2.2. The effect of area ratio, A
n
=S
The interference lift loss is strongly sensitive to the
ratio of nozzle area to planform area, A
n
=S. With the
conguration mentioned above, Williams and Wood
observed that the lift loss increases as the area ratio is
decreased and the relationship is approximately linear
for a simple wing/jet geometry [35]. A larger planform
provides more area over which the interference pressures
can act thereby increasing the lift loss. At very low area
ratios, A
n
=So0:0016, L=T actually fell to zero. For
more practical area ratios (between 0.01 and 0.04 for a
typical STOVL aircraft) the lift loss and accompanying
nose-up moments are less severe, a maximum lift loss of
25 per cent was recorded with an area ratio of 0.01.
4.2.3. The effect of nozzle geometry
Extensive studies of the effect of nozzle geometry were
carried out by Volger [86]. A VTOL model was equipped
with various arrangements of interchangeable single or
multiple, round or slotted jets, with and without jet
deection. All congurations showed interference lift
losses that increased with velocity ratio. For most jet
arrangements, nose-up pitching moments due to jet
interference occurred and increased with velocity ratio.
The congurations which suffered the least interference
effect on the lift and pitching moment were the single
longitudinal slot jets, which was thought to be due to
their more streamlined shape in cross-section and the
smaller planform area behind the jet.
An ejector powered STOVL model, equipped with
various arrangements of slot nozzles, was tested by
Volger and Goodson [87]. The aerodynamic lift of the
fuselage, which was almost square in cross-section, at 0

angle of attack was zero. As velocity ratio was increased

V
e

M
/
T
d
n
e
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0
0.2
0.4
V
e

L
/
T
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
-0.4
-0.2
0
(a)
(b)
Fig. 12. The effect of wing planform on lift and pitching
moment S=A
n
38 [37]. (a) Pitching moment, (b) lift.
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 184
from 0 (hover) to 0.4, all congurations showed a
reduction in the combined aerodynamic lift plus thrust.
Moving the slots outward reduced the affected model
area directly behind the jets, thereby reducing the
interference effects between the model, jets and free-
stream. Yawing the slots either inward or outward at the
forward end resulted in a reduction in lift and an
increase in nose-up pitching moments compared with
the unyawed slots. Yawing the slots outward was less
detrimental than inward. The effect of splaying the jet
20

away from the plane of symmetry produced some lift

improvement and a more nose-down pitching moment
as a result of less interference between the freestream
and the outward spreading jets. Any indicated benet
from splaying the jet would, however, be partially offset
by the 6 per cent lift loss resulting from the inclination of
the thrust axis. A combination of 10

outward yaw of
the slots and 10

outward splay gave less lift loss than

congurations with or without angular deections. Yaw
appeared to affect the results more than inclination.
4.2.4. The relative location of wing and jet
As regards jet position relative to the wing, rearward
location of the jet exit naturally tends to alleviate the lift
loss and the nose-up pitching moments arising from jet
interference, since the surface extent aft of the jet exit is
reduced. Williams and Wood found evidence to suggest
that with multiple jets the velocity ratio range over
which the lift loss occurs can be much reduced and the
subsequent lift augmentation much increased by the
adoption of a span-wise row arrangement towards the
rear of the wing instead of a close cluster [35].
A generalised study of jet positions from several wing
chord lengths ahead, to several wing chord lengths
behind, an unswept wing was reported by Hammond
and McLemore [88]. In this investigation, an aspect
ratio 6, unswept, untapered wing-fuselage model
equipped with a 30 per cent chord slotted Fowler ap
was used. Two jets, one on either side of the fuselage,
were positioned at about 25 per cent semi-span and at
the various longitudinal and vertical positions shown by
the plus marks in Fig. 13. The jets were mounted
independently of the wing so that only the aerodynamic
forces and interference effects were measured on the
wing. The data show that with the jet exits on the wing
chord plane, considerable jet interference was experi-
enced even with the jet as far as four wing chords ahead
of the wing. Favourable interference effects, however,
were encountered with the jets beneath and behind the
50 per cent chord point of the wing and the interference
effects are most favourable for positions closest to the
ap. These favourable interference increments were
believed to be due to the action of the jet in helping
the ap achieve its full lift potential. Another slightly
different conguration [88], this time with jets operat-
ing simultaneously both in front of and behind the
wing, indicated an overall favourable interference lift
effect, again indicating the importance of conguration
geometry on the jet interference lift and moment
characteristics. These ndings agree well with those of
Margason and Gentry [112], Schultz and Viehweger [89]
and Nangia [90].
Winston et al. [91] report on a conguration which
was tested to determine the optimum jet exit location
from an induced lift standpoint. The model was tested
with the lift/cruise jets in three longitudinal positions as
shown in Fig. 14 and illustrate the lift improvement
obtained by successive aft movement of the jet exits
towards the wing trailing edge.
The Harrier II, with its new wing and large slotted
trailing edge ap, initially suffered from interference
problems whereby the forward nozzle ow interacted
x/chord

L
/
T
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
+ + +++ + ++ + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + ++++ + +

n
= 90 V
e
= 0.18
Fig. 13. The effect of varying chordwise jet location relative to a nearby wing on the induced lift [88].
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 185
with the wing undersurface and inboard pylon at
transitional forward speeds causing a ow separation
upstream of the ap. Removal of the scarf directed the
forward jet to a position further below the wing and
produced a lift coefcient increment of approximately
0.2 [50].
4.2.5. The effect of nozzle vector angle, d
n
Wind tunnel tests carried out on a one-sixth scale
model of the Kestrel (XV-6A) measured the effect of
vectoring the nozzles on the incremental lift and pitching
moment at a range of velocity ratios and angles of attack
[92]. At 0

angle of attack, increasing nozzle vector angle

to a more vertical position, increased the lift loss and
nose-up pitching moment. This correlates well with
similar works [93,94].
4.2.6. Lift improvement devices (LIDs)
Spreeman [85] noted that in one full-scale ight
investigation, deecting the trailing-edge aps reduced
the losses in lift and nose-up pitching moments. The
benecial effect of the aps on this conguration can be
attributed to positive pressures being built up in front of
the ap on the lower surface.
The alleviation of unfavourable jet interference effects
was shown possible by Williams and Wood with the
addition of stream-wise fences to the lower surface of
the airframe, along the sides of the jet exit [35]. The
geometry of the fence was found to be important. The
depth of the fence should be at least one jet diameter and
the stream-wise length at least two jet diameters so as to
extend forward of the jet exit as well as bounding the
sides. Flow visualisation suggested that the fences
reduced the initial curvature of the jet, thus increasing
the penetration of the jet plume and delaying the growth
of the trailing vortex ows. This was consistent with the
apparent negligible effect of the fences at low velocity
ratios, where the rate of deection of the jet is inherently
small. The effect of the fences on a simple fuselage
model was excellent, reducing maximum transitional lift
loss from 27% to 7%.
4.3. Jet and intake-induced interference effects
During wind tunnel testing of jet-lift STOVL aircraft,
it is usual to simulate the jet efux but not the intake
ows. The intakes, which are commonly faired over or
are unpowered, are generally tested in separate wind
tunnel experiments. This may lead to a lack of
integration between intake [95,96] and nozzle design
[97]. Separate jet and intake testing ignores any mutual
interferences between them and airframe, but is adopted
due to the complexity of building a fully powered, metric
STOVL model [49,98]. This is in addition to the complex
tunnel interference problems encountered during transi-
tion testing [99] necessitating careful planning of test
procedures [100,101].
Early research using simple wind tunnel models
showed only minor interference effects due to intake
ows [45,112,102,103], which were easily accounted for.
This lead researchers to conclude that when testing
models in the transition phase of ight the intake
interference effects were generally not sufciently
important to warrant modelling the intake ows [64].
Nevertheless some research projects have shown sig-
nicant jet/intake interference effects. An investigation
carried out by Mineck and Margason [103], and Mineck
and Schwendemann [104] determined some interference
effects between the jets and intakes on a STOVL
aircraft. Comparison of the force and moment data
for the intake open and intake closed (using elliptical
plugs) congurations, indicated that closing the intakes
decreased the aerodynamic angle of attack by approxi-
mately 2

. Data for the VAK 191B described by

Haftmann [105] showed a consistent discrepancy be-
tween the lift loss measured in ight and the lift loss
measured on a wind tunnel model. The full-size aircraft
had a transitional lift loss 410% greater than the wind
tunnel model and a nose-up pitching moment 58%
higher. This was probably due, in part, to the use of a
free ow intake on the model with no suction simulated.
As more complex STOVL aircraft designs were
developed, it became increasingly apparent that the
argument for separate jet and intake testing on STOVL
aircraft was not valid. The term close-coupled aero-
dynamics has become increasingly popular in describing
the engine/airframe designs and operating conditions in
which the air intake and nozzle system ows create
signicant interferences with respect to each other and/
or which, when combined, create interferences to
airframe surfaces differing from the sum of the
V
e
L
/
T
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
1
2
3
Calculated (no interference)
Fig. 14. The effect of chordwise location of deected lift/cruise
jets relative to the wing trailing edge on the total lift for a
supersonic combat lift plus lift/cruise V/STOL aircraft cong-
uration [91].
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 186
individual interferences. Harris et al. [106] suggest that
aircraft designs, in which the distance from the intake
face to the front nozzle relative to the diameter of the
compressor face is less than 3, will undoubtedly feature
close-coupled aerodynamics. Whereas for designs in
which this ratio is greater than 8 the aerodynamics can
generally be considered to be uncoupled.
Recent research has concluded that during low speed
transition V
e
o0:1 mutual jet/intake interference ef-
fects do exist for close-coupled propulsion systems
[107109]. A generic jet-lift STOVL aircraft equipped
with powered intakes was tested in the RMCS low-speed
wind tunnel (Fig. 15). The model was not fully metric
and so airloads were inferred from static pressure
tappings on the wing. The model was tested with jet
and intakes powered separately and simultaneously
the difference between the airloads giving an indication
of the mutual interference effect. This is shown in
Fig. 16, which illustrates the mutual interference as an
increment of wing root sectional lift coefcient for the
rearmost nozzle position.
One would expect that the solution to the complexities
of building a STOVL wind tunnel model would be to use
computational uid dynamics (CFD) tools. The combi-
nation of viscous interactions, broad range of ow
velocities and extensive regions of separated ow has
meant that CFD methods tried so far have been unable
to adequately predict overall airframe forces and
moments [110]. Although CFD is undoubtedly useful
in some aspects of STOVL aircraft development,
designers are still reliant on exhaustive wind tunnel
tests backed up by large historical databases. Even in
the 21st Century semi-empirical correlations are still
being developed for propulsion-induced interference
effects [111].
5. Conclusions
This paper has provided a review of the out-of-
ground-effect propulsion-induced interference on the
aerodynamics of jet-lift short take-off and vertical
landing (STOVL) aircraft. Two main operational
environments encountered by STOVL aircraft have
been discussed: hovering out of ground effect and
transition out of ground effect. The former has included
the uid mechanics of an isolated free jet and the
interference effects caused by such a jet when combined
with simple and more complex fuselage/wing arrange-
ments. On the subject of transition out of ground effect,
the discussion has followed a similar format. Where
possible, an engineering assessment is made of the effect
of jet and/or airframe conguration parameters on the
observed interference effects.
Although some parametric trends are observed in
simplied experiments, jet-induced interference effects
for a complete airframe are difcult to predict and must
therefore be assessed through rigourous tests of the
chosen conguration. The evaluation process is still
predominantly experimental since computational uid
dynamics models of complete STOVL aircraft do not yet
exist with sufcient delity to provide a reliable
prediction of overall airframe forces and moments.
References
[1] Margason RJ. Review of propulsion-induced effects
on aerodynamics of jet/STOL aircraft, Technical Note
D-5617, NASA, 1970.
[2] Barche J. Jet-lift problems of V/STOL aircraft. In:
AGARD conference proceedings CP-143, uid dynamics
panel symposium, Delft, Netherlands, 1974. p. 16.118.
V
e

C
l

(
r
o
o
t
)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
NPR=1.586
NPR=2
NPR=3
NPR=4
Fig. 16. Mutual interference between propulsive jet and intake
ows shown as an incremental change in wing root sectional lift
coefcient d
n
60

.
Fig. 15. Front view of the jet/intake model in the RMCS
1:5 m1:1 m open-jet wind tunnel: intake suction pipe is seen
behind and to the right of the model; compressed air supply is
via the light-coloured pipe above the fuselage.
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 187
[3] Knott PG, Hargreaves JJ. A review of the lifting
characteristics of some jet-lift V/STOL congurations.
In: AGARD conference proceedings CP-143, uid
dynamics panel symposium, Delft, Netherlands, 1974.
p. 24.112.
[4] Leyland DC. Aerodynamics of V/STOL aircraftper-
formance assessment. AGARD Report R-710, 1984.
p. 11.126.
[5] Kuhn RE. The induced aerodynamics of jet and fan
powered V/STOL aircraft. In: Krothapalli A, Smith CA,
editors. Recent advances in aerodynamics, New York :
Springer; 1986. p. 33773.
[6] Margason RJ. Propulsion-induced effects caused by out-
of-ground effects. In: Proceedings of the international
powered lift conference, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 1987.
p. 3157, SAE 872307.
[7] Abramovich GN. The theory of turbulent jets. Cambridge:
MIT Press; 1963.
[8] Schlichting H. Boundary-layer theory, 6th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.; 1968.
[9] Rajaratnam N. Turbulent jets. Amsterdam: Elsevier;
1976.
[10] Gelb GH, Martin WA. An experimental investigation of
the ow eld about a subsonic jet exhausting into a
quiescent and a low velocity air stream. Can Aeronaut
Space J 1966;12:33342.
[11] Wygnanski I, Fiedler H. Some measurements in the self-
preserving jet. J Fluid Mech 1969;38(3):577612.
[12] Agrawal A, Prasad A. Properties of vortices in the self-
similar turbulent jet. Exp Fluids 2002;33(3):56577.
[13] Oosthuizen PH. An experimental study of low Reynolds
number turbulent circular jet ow. In: Proceedings of the
ASME applied mechanics, bioengineering and uids
engineering conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1983, ASME
83-FE-36.
[14] Otu gen MV, Kim S, Vradis GC. The near eld structure
of initially asymmetric jets. In: Proceedings of the 34th
AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV,
USA, 1996, AIAA 96-0202.
[15] Antonia RA, Zhao Q. Effect of initial conditions on a
circular jet. Exp Fluids 2001;31(3):31923.
[16] Xu G, Antonia RA. Effect of different initial conditions
on a turbulent round free jet. Exp Fluids 2002;33(5):
67783.
[17] Antonia RA, Bilger RW. An experimental investigation
of an axisymmetric jet in a co-owing air stream. J Fluid
Mech 1973;61:80522.
[18] Champagne FH, Crow SC. Orderly structure in jet
turbulence. J Fluid Mech 1971;48:54791.
[19] Dimotakis PE, Maike-Lye RC, Papantoniou DA. Struc-
ture and dynamics of round turbulent jets. Physics of
Fluids 1983;26:318592.
[20] Anderson AR, Johns FR. Characteristics of free super-
sonic jet exhausting into quiescent air. J Jet Propulsion
1955;25(1):135.
[21] Love ES, Grigsby CE, Lee LP, Woodling MJ. Experi-
mental and theoretical studies of axisymmetric free jets.
Technical Report R-6, NASA, 1958.
[22] Adamson Jr TC, Nicholls JA. On the structure of
jets from highly underexpanded nozzles into still air.
J Aerospace Sci 1959;26(16):1624.
[23] Donaldson CD, Snedeker RS. A study of free jet
impingement. Part 1. Mean properties of free and
impinging jets. J Fluid Mech 1971;45(2):281319.
[24] Moustafa GH. Further study of high speed single free
jets. Aeronaut J 1993;97(965):1716.
[25] Anderson Jr JD. Modern compressible ow. McGraw
Hill: London; 1990.
[26] Lau JC, Morris PJ, Fisher MJ. Measurements in subsonic
and supersonic free jets using a laser velocimeter. J Fluid
Mech 1979;93:127.
[27] Zaman KBMQ. Spreading characteristics of compressible
jets from nozzles of various geometries. J Fluid Mech
1999;383:197228.
[28] Ricou FP, Spalding DB. Measurements of entrainment
by axisymmetrical turbulent jets. J Fluid Mech 1961;
11(1):2132.
[29] Witze PO. Centreline velocity decay of compressible free
jets. AIAA J 1974;12(4):4178.
[30] Kleinstein G. Mixing in turbulent axially symmetric free
jets. J Spacecraft Rockets 1964;1:4038.
[31] Lau JC. Effects of exit Mach number and temperature
on mean ow and turbulence characteristics in round jets.
J Fluid Mech 1981;105:193218.
[32] Lepicovsky J. Total temperature effects on centreline
Mach number characteristics of free jets. AIAA J 1989;
28(1):47882.
[33] Curtis P. Investigation into the behaviour of a single
jet in free air and impinging perpendicularly on
the ground. Technical Report BAe-KAD-R-RES-3349,
British Aerospace, 1987.
[34] Milford CM. Hot gas ingestion in V/STOL. In: Proceed-
ings of the international powered lift conference, Santa
Clara, CA, USA, 1987. p. 1729.
[35] Williams J, Wood MN, Aerodynamic interference effects
with jet-lift V/STOL aircraft under static and forward
speed conditions. Technical Report 66403, RAE 1966.
[36] Wood MN, Jet V/STOL aircraft aerodynamics. In:
Proceedings of the international congress on subsonic
aerodynamics, New York, NY, USA, 1967. p. 893920.
[37] Otis Jr JH. Induced interference effects on a four-jet
VTOL conguration with various wing planforms in the
transition speed range. Technical Note D-1400, NASA,
1962.
[38] Gentry Jr GL, Margason RJ. Jet-induced lift losses on
VTOL congurations hovering in and out of ground
effect. Technical Note D-3166, NASA, 1966.
[39] Rao GA, Mahulikar SP. Integrated review of stealth
technology and its role in airpower. Aeronaut J 2002;
106(1066):62941.
[40] Wong RYT. Enhancement of supersonic jet mixing.
Ph.D. thesis, Craneld University, RMCS, Shrivenham,
UK, 2000.
[41] McLemore HC. Jet-induced lift loss of jet VTOL
congurations in hovering condition. Technical Note
D-3435, NASA, 1966.
[42] Fleming WA. Characteristics of a hot jet discharge from a
jet propulsion engine. Research Memorandum E6L27a,
NACA, 1946.
[43] Higgins CC, Wainwright TW. Dynamic pressure and
thrust characteristics of cold jets discharging from several
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 188
exhaust nozzles designed for VTOL downwash suppres-
sion. Technical Note D-2263, NASA, 1964.
[44] Higgins CC, Kelly DP, Wainwright TW. Exhaust jet
wake and thrust characteristics of several nozzles
designed for VTOL downwash suppressiontests in
and out of ground effect with 70

F and 1200

F nozzle
discharge temperatures, Contractor Report CR-373,
NASA, 1966.
[45] Kuhn RE, McKinney Jr MO. NASA research on the
aerodynamics of jet VTOL engine installations. In:
AGARDograph 103, Specialists Meeting, Tennessee,
TN, USA, 1965. p. 689713.
[46] Hammond AD. Thrust losses in hovering for jet VTOL
aircraft. In: NASA special proceedings, SP-116, 1966.
p. 16375.
[47] Shumpert PK, Tibbetts JG. Model tests of jet-induced lift
effects on a VTOL aircraft in hover. Contractor Report
1297, NASA, 1969.
[48] Schwantes E. The propulsion jet of a VTOL aircraft. In:
AGARD conference proceedings CP-91, propulsion and
energetics panel symposium, Sandefjord, Norway, 1971.
p. 15.110.
[49] Ransom ECP, Smy JR. Introduction and review of some
jet interference phenomena relevant to V/STOL aircraft.
In: AGARD Report R-710, 1984. p. 2.123.
[50] Kotansky DR. Jet ow-elds. In: AGARD Report
R-710, 1984. p. 7.148.
[51] Kotansky DR, Durando NA, Bristow DR, Saunders PW.
Multi jet induced forces and moments on VTOL
aircraft hovering in and out of ground effect. NADC
Report 77-229-30, Naval Air Development Centre, June
1977.
[52] Ing DN, Zhang X. An experimental and computational
investigation of ground effect lift loss for single jet
impingement. Aeronaut J 1994;98(974):12736.
[53] Wyatt LA. Static tests of ground effect on planforms
tted with a centrally-located round lifting jet. Aeronaut
Research Council C.P. No. 749, Ministry of Aviation,
1964.
[54] Corsiglia VR, Wardell DA, Kuhn RE. Small-scale
experiments in STOVL ground effects. In: Proceedings
of the international powered lift conference, London,
UK, 1990. p. III.14.113.
[55] Welte D. Prediction of aerodynamic interference effects
with jet-lift and fan-lift VTOL aircraft. In: AGARD
conference proceedings CP-143, uid dynamics panel
symposium, Delft, Netherlands, 1974. p. 23.19.
[56] Agarwal RK. Recent advances in prediction methods for
jet-induced effects on V/STOL aircraft. In: Krothapalli
A, Smith CA, editors. Recent advances in aerodynamics,
New York : Springer; 1986. p. 471521.
[57] Hancock GJ. A review of the aerodynamics of a jet in a
cross-ow. Aeronaut J 1987;91:20113.
[58] Margason RJ. Fifty years of jet in cross-ow research. In:
AGARD conference proceedings CP-534, uid dynamics
panel symposium, Winchester, UK, 1993. p. 1.141.
[59] Keffer JF, Baines WD. The round turbulent jet in a cross-
wind. J Fluid Mech 1962;1(31):48196.
[60] Shaw CS, Margason RJ. An experimental investigation of
a highly underexpanded sonic jet ejecting from a at plate
into a subsonic cross-ow, Technical Note D-7314,
NASA, 1973.
[61] Stoy RL, Ben-Haim Y. Turbulent jets in a conned cross-
ow. Trans ASME J Fluids Eng 1973; 5516.
[62] Ransom ECP, Wood PM. A literature review on jets in
cross-ow. In: AGARD conference proceedings CP-143,
uid dynamics panel symposium, Delft, Netherlands,
1974. p. 26.17.
[63] Taylor P, Watkins DJ. An investigation of inclined jets
in a cross-wind. In: AGARD conference proceedings
CP-308, uid dynamics panel symposium, Fundac- ao
Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon, Portugal, 1981. p. 6.14.
[64] Bradbury LJS. Some aspects of jet dynamics and their
implications for VTOL research. In: AGARD conference
proceedings CP-308, uid dynamics panel symposium,
Fundac-ao Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon, Portugal, 1981.
p. 1.126.
[65] Kamotani Y, Greber I. Experiments on a turbulent jet in
a cross-ow. AIAA J 1972;10(11):14259.
[66] Chaissaing P, George J, Claria A, Sananes F. Physical
characteristics of subsonic jets in a cross-stream. J Fluid
Mech 1974;62(1):4164.
[67] Fearn RL, Weston RP. Induced velocity eld of a jet in a
cross-ow. Technical Paper 1087, NASA, 1978.
[68] Ivanov Y. Shape of the centreline of an axisymmetric fan-
type jet in a cross-ow. Izv Vuz Aviotsionnaya Teknika
(4) (1963).
[69] Shandorov G. Calculation of a jet axis in a drifting ow.
Technical Translation F-10638, NASA, 1966.
[70] Margason RJ. The path of a jet directed at large angles to
a subsonic freestream. Technical Note D-4919, NASA,
1968.
[71] Zhang X, Hurst DW. An investigation of a supersonic jet
in a low speed cross-ow. Report 301896, Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Southamp-
ton, 1990.
[72] Wooler PT. Flow of a circular jet into a cross-ow. AIAA
J Aircraft 1969;6(3):2834.
[73] Snel H. A method for the calculation of the ow-eld
induced by a jet exhausting perpendicularly into a cross-
ow. In: AGARD conference proceedings CP-143, uid
dynamics panel symposium, Delft, Netherlands, 1974.
p. 18.16.
[74] Siclari MJ, Migdal D, Palcza JL. The development of
theoretical models for jet-induced effects on V/STOL
aircraft. In: Proceedings of the AIAA/SAE 11th pro-
pulsion conference, Anaheim, CA, USA, 1975, AIAA
75-1216.
[75] Sucec J. Bowley WW. Prediction of the trajectory of a
turbulent jet injecting into a cross-owing stream. Trans
ASME, J Fluids Eng (1976) 66773.
[76] Adler D, Baron A. Prediction of a three-dimensional
circular turbulent jet in a cross-ow. AIAA Journal
1978;17(2):16874.
[77] Fearn RL. Progress towards a model to describe jet/
aerodynamic surface interference effects. In: Krothapalli
A, Smith CA, editors. Recent advances in aerodynamics,
New York : Springer; 1986. p. 40734.
[78] Roth KR. Numerical simulation of a subsonic jet in a
cross-ow. In: Proceedings of the international powered
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 189
lift conference, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 1987. p. 42531,
SAE 872343.
[79] Baker AJ, Snyder PK, Orzechowski JA. Three-dimen-
sional characterisation of the near-eld of a VSTOL jet in
a turbulent cross-ow. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
1993; (102) 113.
[80] Chiu SH, Roth KR, Margason RJ, Tso J. A numerical
investigation of a subsonic jet in a crossow. In: AGARD
conference proceedings CP-534, uid dynamics panel
symposium, Winchester, UK, 1993. p. 22.114.
[81] Chocinski D, Leblanc R, Hachemin J-V. Experimental/
computational investigation of supersonic jet in subsonic
compressible crossow. In: 35th AIAA aerospace sciences
meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 1997, AIAA 97-
0714.
[82] Kennedy KD, Walker BJ, Mikkelsen CD. Comparisons
of CFD calculations and measurements for a sonic jet in a
supersonic crossow. In: 36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
joint propulsion conference and exhibit, Huntsville, AL,
USA, 2000, AIAA 2000-3313.
[83] Margason RJ. Jet-induced effects in transition ight. In:
NASA special proceedings SP-116, 1966. p. 17789.
[84] Fearn RL, Weston RP. Induced pressure distribution of a
jet in a crossow, Technical Note D-7916, NASA, July
1975.
[85] Spreeman KP. Induced interference effects on jet and
buried-fan VTOL congurations in transition. Technical
Note D-731, NASA, 1960.
[86] Volger RD. Interference effects of single and multiple
round or slotted jets on a VTOL model in transition.
Technical Note D-2380, NASA, 1964.
[87] Volger RD, Goodson KW, Low speed aerodynamic
characteristics of a fuselage model with various arrange-
ments of elongated lift-jets. Technical Note D-7299,
NASA, 1973.
[88] Hammond AD, McLemore HC. Hot-gas ingestion
and jet interference effects for jet V/STOL aircraft.
In: AGARD conference proceedings CP-27, uid
dynamics panel symposium, Go ttingen, Germany, 1967.
p. 8.127.
[89] Schultz G, Viehweger G. Detailed experimental and
theoretical analysis of the aerodynamic interference
between lifting jets and the fuselage and wing. In:
AGARD conference proceedings CP-150, uid dynamics
panel symposium, Rome, Italy, 1974. p. 24.113.
[90] Nangia RK. Prediction & evaluation of vectored jets-
induced interference on aircraft congurations in low-
speed ight. In: Proceedings of the 19th congress of the
international council of aeronautical sciences, Anaheim,
CA, USA, 1994. p. 85970.
[91] Winston MM, Weston RP, Mineck RE. Propulsion-
induced interference effects on jet-lift VTOL aircraft. In:
Proceedings of the AIAA/SAE 11th propulsion con-
ference, Anaheim, CA, USA, 1975, AIAA 75-1215.
[92] Margason RJ, Volger RD, Winston MM. Wind tunnel
investigation at low speeds of a model of the Kestrel
(XV-6A) vectored thrust V/STOL airplane, Technical
Note D-6826, NASA, 1972.
[93] Fu tterer H, Harms L. Jet interference measurements on a
VTOL model with jet simulation by fans, In: AGARD
conference proceedings CP-27, uid dynamics panel
symposium, Go ttingen, Germany, 1967. p 17.126.
[94] Krenz G, Barche J. Jet inuence on V/STOL aircraft
in the transitional and high speed regime. In: AGARD
conference proceedings CP-27, uid dynamics panel
symposium, Go ttingen, Germany, 1967. pp. 2.125.
[95] Wiles WF. Jet-lift intakes. In: AGARDograph 103,
specialists meeting, Tennessee, TN, USA, 1965.
p. 55986.
[96] Curtis P. The design and testing of short duct intakes for
supersonic STOVL aircraft. In: Proceedings of the RAeS/
IMechE conference on engine/airframe integration, Not-
tingham, UK, 1992. p. 10.112.
[97] Tape RF, Hartill WR, Curry LS, Jones TJ. Vectoring
exhaust systems for STOL tactical aircraft. Trans ASME
J Eng Power 1983;105(3):65462.
[98] McMichael T, McKay K, Walker MJ, Fielding C,
Lockley G, Curtis P, Probert B, Lee CS, Moretti G.
Aerodynamic technologythe role of aerodynamic tech-
nology in the design and development of modern combat
aircraft. Aeronaut J 1996;100(1000):41124.
[99] Carbonaro M. Interference problems in V/STOL testing
at low speeds. In: AGARD conference proceedings
CP-174, uid dynamics panel symposium, London, UK,
1975. p. 40.121.
[100] Koenig DG, V/STOL wind-tunnel testing. In: AGARD
Report R-710, 1984. p. 9.171.
[101] Harris AE. Test techniques for engine/airframe integra-
tion. In: AGARD conference proceedings CP-498, uid
dynamics panel symposium, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 1991.
1.117.
[102] Winston MM. Induced interference effects on the
aerodynamic characteristics of a 0.16-scale six-jet V/
STOL model in transition. Technical Note D-5727,
NASA, 1970.
[103] Mineck RE, Margason RJ. Pressure distribution on a
vectored thrust V/STOL ghter in the transition-
speed range. Technical Memorandum X-2867, NASA,
1973.
[104] Mineck RE, Schwendemann MF. Aerodynamic charac-
teristics of a vectored thrust V/STOL ghter in the
transition-speed range. Technical Note D-7191, NASA,
1973.
[105] Haftmann B. Jet effects on forces and moments of a
vstol ghter-type aircraft. In: AGARD conference
proceedings CP-308, uid dynamics panel symposium,
Fundac-ao Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon, Portugal, 1981.
p. 18.113.
[106] Harris AE, Wilde GL, Smith VJ, Mundell ARG,
Davidson DP. ASTOVL model engine simulators for
wind tunnel research. In: AGARD conference proceed-
ings CP-498, uid dynamics panel symposium, Fort
Worth, TX, USA, 1991. p. 15.110.
[107] Saddington AJ. Mutual interference between jets
and intakes in STOVL aircraft. EngD thesis,
Craneld University, RMCS, Shrivenham, UK, Septem-
ber 1997.
[108] Saddington AJ, Knowles K. Mutual interference
between jets and intakes in STOVL aircraft. Aeronaut
J 1999;103(1024):2816.
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 190
[109] Saddington AJ, Knowles K. Jet/intake interference in
short take off, vertical landing aircraft. AIAA J Aircraft
2001;38(5):92431.
[110] Hunt DL, Bruce RJ. The role of CFD in predicting
vectored jet interference for STOVL aircraft. In: Proceed-
ings of the international powered lift conference, London,
UK, 1998. p. 11.112
[111] Margason RJ, Correlation of STOVL jet induced effects with
examples for congurations with supersonic convergent jets.
In: Proceedings of the international powered lift conference,
Williamsburg, VA, USA, 2002. AIAA 2002-5967.
[112] Margason RJ, Gentry Jr GL. Aerodynamic character-
istics of a ve-jet VTOL conguration in the transition
speed range. Technical Note D-4812, NASA, 1968.
A.J. Saddington, K. Knowles / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2005) 175191 191