Author Affiliations
Key Laboratory of Thermal Management and Energy Utilization of Aircraft, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, College of Energy and Power, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. (a) Diverter nozzle ejector infrared suppressor;(b) Top view of infrared suppressor;(c) Diverter nozzle (tail perspective)
Fig. 2. Outlet structural parameters of diverter nozzle
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the computational domain
Fig. 4. Computed results of Infrared suppressor pumping coefficient and total pressure recovery coefficient under different grid numbers
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of infrared detection position distribution
Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of experimental system
Fig. 7. Photograph of diverter nozzle (tail perspective)
Fig. 8. Photograph of experimental system
Fig. 9. Comparison of experimental and numerical simulation results of experimental model temperature distribution
Fig. 10. The influence of the diverter nozzle outlet configuration on the pumping coefficient and total pressure recovery coefficient of the infrared suppressor
Fig. 11. Outlet temperature distribution of the infrared suppressor mixing tube
Fig. 12. Wall surface temperature distribution of the infrared suppressor external mixing tube
Fig. 13. 3-5 μm band infrared radiation intensity distribution
Fig. 14. 8-14 μm band infrared radiation intensity distribution
Model | Experiment | Simulation | Deviation | Origin | 0.988 | 0.975 | 1.32% | Lobe_1 | 0.896 | 0.925 | 3.24% | Lobe_2 | 0.981 | 1.018 | 3.77% |
|
Table 1. Pumping coefficient of experimental model
Model | 3-5 μm infrared radiation intensity/W·sr–1 | | 8-14 μm infrared radiation intensity/W·sr–1 | Experiment | Simulation | Deviation | Experiment | Simulation | Deviation | Origin | 0.407 | 0.429 | 5.41% | | 3.285 | 3.187 | 2.98% | Lobe_1 | 0.420 | 0.436 | 3.81% | 2.958 | 3.073 | 3.89% | Lobe_2 | 0.358 | 0.381 | 6.42% | 2.464 | 2.594 | 5.28% |
|
Table 2. Infrared radiation intensity of experimental model