2002 Biennial International Powered Lift Conference and Exhibit
5-7 November 2002, Williamsburg, Virginia
AN OVERVIEW OF THE LOCKHEED MARTIN JSF PWSC STOVL
AERODYNAMIC IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Richard L. Mange, PhD
STOVL Aerodynamics Lead, Joint Strike Fighter Program
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Garry E. Lockley
Technologist Adviser, ASTOVL Configuration Design and Integration
BAE SYSTEMS
Peter Palmer
Project Supervisor, Wind Tunnels
BAE SYSTEMS
ABSTRACT
A Jet Effects experimental investigation of the
Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman/BAE SYSTEMS
Joint Strike Fighter STOVL configuration has been
carried out, spanning 3 years and 10 wind tunnel
entries. The tests were conducted in the BAE
SYSTEMS 4.0m and 5.5m Low-Speed Wind Tunnels
at Warton, UK. The high fidelity 7.5% scale model
was mounted to a sting via a strut support system, and
positioned in pitch (θ) from -6° to 20° without yaw.
The effects of aircraft height were also investigated by
running sweeps from out of ground effect down to
extended gear height.
Nozzle characteristics, including thrust coefficient,
discharge coefficient, exhaust plume shape and decay,
were measured during nozzle calibrations. Force and
moment data were measured at all test conditions using
an internal, 6-component strain gauge balance. Surface
pressures were also measured at all conditions using an
array of 120 static pressure taps. Flow Visualization
was utilized to determine the aircraft and ground
surface flow field.
The primary goal of this investigation was to
provide data for long-range, high-payoff configuration
trade studies, outside the principle JSF configuration
development program. A secondary goal was to help
develop experimental techniques, facilities and an
experienced team in preparation for executing the JSF
System Design and Development (SDD) contract.
These goals were all satisfied, and primary results
transferred to JSF program include developmental data
on the Lift Fan Variable Area Vane Box Nozzle
(VAVBN) and Compact Axi-Flap Extension (CAFE)
Core Nozzles.
1
Copyright © 2002 by the author(s). Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
AIAA 2002-5963
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of STOVL Jet Effects (SJE) testing is
to determine the induced effects of nozzle flow on the
external aerodynamics of the vehicle in the STOVL
regions of its flight envelope. This includes vertical
operations airspeeds (0 to 45 knots) up to airspeeds
where the aircraft transitions between fully jet borne
flight and fully wing borne flight (150 to 250 knots). In
addition, these effects must be characterized in ground
effect (IGE), as well as out of ground effect (OGE).
The magnitude of these induced jet effects can be a
primary driver on both aircraft performance and
handling qualities. Vertical Landing (VL), Vertical
Takeoff (VTO), and Short Takeoff (STO) performance
may all be substantially affected. In addition, control
effecter/blender schemes, and control schedules must
take these forces and moments into account.
This test program, though extensive, was only part
of an overall program of STOVL testing. These tests
were companion tests to those of the production 12%
SJE model, which obtained baseline performance data
for use in the JSF force and moment accounting system.
The 12% model was a much more capable system,
because of the larger scale and a full yaw capability.
However, this model was not so suitable, or indeed
available, for the ‘cut and try’ approach available to the
7.5% model.
This SJE investigation was also removed from the
principle JSF program to allow thinking free from the
rigors and schedule of the contract effort. Company
facilities were utilized in order to ensure maximum
flexibility in schedule, at a minimum cost.
This model was also used for testing not
specifically for STOVL aerodynamic improvement.
Prior to commissioning the hover pit at Palmdale, a
7.5% scale model of the pit design was checked out in
the 5.5m wind tunnel. A runway surface treatment
concept, designed to reduce ground effects was also
evaluated. In addition, a model of the P&W C-12
engine test cell was tested, with a stripped down version
of the model simulating the engine test article, in order
to evaluate flow around the cell.
In addition to SJE testing, a range of STOVL
improvement testing was being carried out during the
JSF Concept Development phase (CDP). This included
Hot Gas Ingestion (HGI) tests, measuring the
temperature of any jet exhaust flows finding their way
back into the intake; Ground Environment tests
measuring acoustic, thermal and pressure data on the
airframe and its environs; and Ground Erosion testing,
measuring the impact of jet flows on the various
runway surfaces.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The BAE SYSTEMS - Warton test facilities
include 4.0 and 5.5m Low Speed Wind Tunnels, Hot
Gas Lab (Ground Erosion Testing), Ground Effects Rig
(HGI Testing), and a 1.2m High Speed Wind Tunnel.
These facilities are supported by a high-pressure air
farm capable of supplying 600 psi air at 26 lb/sec. This
was a more than sufficient amount of air to power the
7.5% SJE model.
Hover/hover-in-headwind tests were carried out in
the 5.5m Wind Tunnel, pictured in Figure 1 with the
7.5% scale SJE model installed. This is an open return
wind tunnel with a contraction ratio of 2.32:1. The
working section is 5.5m wide by 5.0m high.
This tunnel was large enough to provide
interference free hovers at scaled heights in excess of
60 feet. Forward speed capability allowed a maximum
of 40 knots to be obtained with the model installed and
the jets on. The ground boundary layer was removed
via a system of suction slots.
Testing at higher speeds was carried out in the
4.0m Wind Tunnel. This tunnel, pictured in Figure 2
with the 7.5% scale SJE model installed, is a closed
return wind tunnel with a contraction ratio of 10.6:1.
The working section is 4.0m wide by 2.7m high.
This tunnel was large enough to simulate OGE
conditions at the forward airspeeds of interest (>45
knots). Forward speed capability allowed a maximum
of 170 knots to be obtained with the model installed and
the jets on. The ground boundary layer was removed
via a ground plane for IGE testing.
Nozzle calibrations and plume surveys were
carried out in the Nozzle Calibration Lab, shown in
Figure 3. This measures loads via load cells in 2D:
requiring a 90° rotation to obtain a full 3D calibration.
Full plume surveys were obtained via a computer
controlled pitot rake/table. For some applications, such
as the small roll nozzle exit surveys, a single pitot was
substituted for the rake.
The model concept is illustrated in Figure 4. The
external air farm, mentioned above, supplied air for the
2
nozzles. This air was fed via four independently
controlled supplies through pipes alongside the sting
and strut, into a power block. This power block
remained earthed (attached to the non-metric end of the
balance), inside the model. The air farm allowed
continuous running, assuming no other large demands,
and the controllability of the supplies allowed for a very
short time to get on condition.
All exhaust paths were simulated using true lines
downstream of the final choke plates in each system.
This included a fully functional Three Bearing Swivel
Duct (3BSD), and lift fan transition section. The lift
fan and core nozzles remained earthed, with minimal
clearance from the live model, but the roll posts were
live (attached to the metric end of the balance). Due to
the various, highly integrated concepts to be tested, it
was decided that the roll posts could not be isolated
from the live model.
This hybrid metric/non-metric thrust system had
many advantages. First, having the majority thrust off
the balance allowed the balance to be sized to a sensible
range for the jet effects parameters being measured.
Second, having the roll thrust on the balance allowed
the direct measurement of ‘net thrust’ from the various
alternative concepts for utilizing the roll post air supply.
In order to accomplish this metric roll thrust, a
design was derived whereby each wing was fed from
the power block via a set of flexible pipes (a so-called
'trombone' system) to a manifold at the wing root. The
manifold and wing can be seen in Figure 5. This
system minimized possible balance bridging tares in the
lift, roll and pitch axes, which were of primary interest,
while allowing the freedom to use the roll post air as
required. The small bridging tares that did exist were
quantified and corrected using check loadings as a
function of pressure in the trombone system.
This manifold distribution system also allowed for
two model wing designs to be used. The first was a
solid wing with a rebate leading from the manifold to
the baseline roll post position. This enabled slot-in roll
post assemblies with various roll post designs to be
installed. This wing also had a slotted trailing-edge flap
alternative to the baseline plane flap, and provisions for
spanwise blowing over the plain trailing-edge flap
knuckle.
The second wing comprised upper and lower
surface shells, such that when bolted together formed a
plenum chamber, fed from the manifold. The lower
surface had six holes machined out, each one able to
accept an insert containing a roll post nozzle or a
blanking plate. This was to test various roll post
designs over a matrix of positions, including pairs of
positions, to determine the sensitivity of lift loss to roll
post position, orientation and vector angle.
One concern was that this wing would not act as a
true plenum, especially near the tip where the plenum
became very shallow. Because of this concern, an
extensive risk reduction experiment was conducted to
determine the best approach. Several bellmouth
choking configurations were tested, along with various
perforated plate concepts. The result of this risk
reduction testing was fully satisfactory plenum
performance, obtained through the use of perforated
plates in the nozzle inserts.
In addition to roll nozzle parametrics, this plenum
wing was built with provision for chordwise slot
blowing over the trailing-edge flap. By incorporating a
shim around the root, tip and leading edge of the wing
shells, a gap was left at the trailing edge for use in a
blown flap design. More details of the plenum wing, its
design, fabrication and validation are given in Palmer1.
The primary test data were the 6 component force
and moment data from the main balance. The balance
used for this experiment was a Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics 1.5-inch internal strain gage balance,
designated C-5.5-1.50. For added sensitivity, this
balance was rolled 90° for hover testing, giving it a
normal force capacity of 150 pounds. For transition
testing, the balance was used in the standard
orientation, giving it a normal force capacity of 500
pounds. In each case, pitching moment capacity was
the respective normal force capacity times 2 inches, and
rolling moment capacity was 500 inch-pounds.
In addition to force and moment data, it was
desired to obtain an understanding of the underlying
flow field characteristics. To this end, some 120
surface pressure taps were installed on the external
surface of the model, and static pressures were
measured during all data runs.
These taps were laid out in three distinct patterns.
First, in order to provide direct tie-in data, half of the
lower surface was instrumented identically to the
production 12% SJE model. Second, the other half of
the lower surface was instrumented for the
configuration areas of interest in this testing, e.g.
around the lift fan and roll post nozzles. Finally, a
series of chordwise tap rows were installed on the wing
upper and lower surface in order to evaluate the
sectional effects of the various circulation control
concepts to be tested.
Various flow visualization techniques were also
used to provide qualitative information about this
underlying flow field. These techniques included:
Smoke introduced into the ambient air to illustrate jet
plume entrainment; Water vapor introduced into the
nozzle flow to illuminate the various jet plumes;
Fluorescent dyes on the model surfaces, to illustrate
direct fountain impingement; Fluorescent dyes on the
ground surface (Figure 6), to illustrate the ground jet
flow field.
3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of these tests was to explore STOVL
aerodynamic improvements in all nozzle systems. This
included basic roll nozzle design, as well as more
integrated circulation control concepts, alternate lift fan
nozzle designs, and alternate core nozzle designs. The
following section is divided into these subsections for
convenience.
Roll Nozzle/Circulation Control
Lift loss per pound of thrust due to the baseline roll
nozzle geometry is somewhat higher than the lift fan or
core nozzle for several reasons. First, the roll jets are
located centrally under the wing surface. This leaves
the locally accelerated ambient flow plenty of area on
which to act in low airspeeds, and destroys a good deal
of the power-off wing circulation at higher airspeeds.
Secondly, the roll nozzle is non-circular, which causes
higher ambient air entrainment rates, and
correspondingly higher lift loss. Finally, there are
various undercarriage components and external store
loadings in close proximity to the roll nozzle plumes,
risking direct jet impingement.
In addition, the engine cycle design requires that
the roll posts receive a certain amount of airflow at all
times during STOVL operations. Because of these
issues, many proposals for alternative roll post concepts
were considered, as were proposals to utilize the roll
post flow for various circulation improvement concepts.
The results of these experiments will be described
below.
As stated above, the plenum wing allowed various
positions for the roll post to be tested and compared.
The roll nozzle inserts were designed square, so that the
letterbox nozzle design could be tested in both
chordwise and spanwise orientations, at each location,
with multiple vector angles. As an example, Figure 7
shows the mid-span aft location, in a spanwise
orientation, with an aft vector angle nozzle. Multiple
roll post combinations could also be tested, but the
airflow split was a fall out of the plenum system design.
The results of this study generally confirmed the
limited previous data, and the engineering judgment
used in the original design. Roll nozzle positions aft
and/or outboard of the baseline position reduced OGE
lift loss at both hover and transition airspeeds. This
was due to the reduction in surface area/lifting surface
that the roll nozzle affected. In addition, these alternate
roll nozzle positions generally increased the roll nozzle
augmentation of hover IGE fountain formation. Roll
nozzle positions forward and inboard of the baseline
position were not tested.
In transition, the baseline chordwise orientation
was preferable because it presented less blockage to the
oncoming air. However, orientation had little effect in
hover because the roll nozzle plume quickly decayed to
a more circular shape in either orientation. Therefore
exit orientation had less of an effect on farther field
phenomena such as fountain formation.
Combinations of nozzles, using the most promising
positions/orientations in conjunction with the baseline
nozzle, were also explored. Combinations could be
found that reduced lift loss in hover, but all these
combinations increased lift loss in transition. This was
simply due to the increase in blockage caused by
multiple nozzles.
The effect of roll nozzle aft vector angle (from the
baseline of 3°) was also examined at transition
airspeeds, using several techniques. First, the plenum
wing was used to test the sensitivity to moderate vector
angle changes (up to 45°) at several roll nozzle
locations. This sensitivity was relatively small, but
increased aft vector angle did noticeably reduce lift loss
in all cases. This coupled with the increase in net aft
thrust was more than enough to make up for the
decrease in net vertical thrust, and provide a substantial
benefit in STO performance.
The larger aft vector angles were also tested in the
spanwise orientation at the aft positions, in conjunction
with large trailing-edge flap deflections, in an attempt
to create an augmentation effect. However, this flap
augmentation could not be achieved without vectoring
the roll nozzle aft the full 90°. This chordwise roll
nozzle blowing was employed on the solid wing using a
hooded type nozzle, in conjunction with both a slotted
and plain trailing-edge flap. A picture of this system,
with the slotted trailing-edge flap, is shown in Figure 8.
The largest chordwise roll nozzle blowing effect
was actually seen with the plain trailing-edge flap
deflected to 45°. An increase in total lift over the
baseline arrangement on the order of 2000 lb was
achieved with this system at transition airspeeds, due to
a combination of direct thrust vectoring with the flap
deflection, and induced benefits of reattached flow on
the upper surface of the deflected flap. This system
also retained all the roll control power of the baseline
through differential flap deflections combined with
differential roll post thrust. The primary drawback
however, was large nose-down pitching moments
caused by the substantial lift increase at the trailing-
edge flap, well aft of the aircraft center of gravity.
Finally, a series of vented roll nozzles, pictured in
Figure 9, were tested on the solid wing. These nozzles
were designed to convert the roll post nozzle into a mini
‘ejector’ system. However, ejector pumping was not
achieved at the Reynolds numbers tested, and little
effect was seen.
In addition to the alternate roll nozzle designs
discussed above, alternate uses for the required roll
nozzle airflow were also investigated, mainly in an
attempt to energize the upper surface of the trailing-
4
edge flap. Spanwise flap blowing was explored using
the solid wing, and chordwise flap blowing was
explored using the plenum wing. Figure 10 is a picture
of the solid wing with the spanwise nozzle installed.
Also shown in this figure is the location of the
chordwise slot for reference only.
As mentioned earlier, the plenum wing allowed the
testing of a chordwise slot blown flap design, using a
slightly repositioned flap. This system, which only
required a part of the required roll post airflow, actually
achieved five times the lift per unit mass flow as the
baseline roll nozzle at transition airspeeds. When used
in conjuction with partial roll post thrust, a significant
total system lift benefit was realized. As with the
chordwise blowing roll nozzle, this system retained all
the roll control power through differential flap
deflections combined with differential roll thrust, but
had increased nose-down pitching moment from the
added lift on the trailing-edge flap.
Spanwise flap blowing was achieved using a small
bore pipe linked to the roll post air supply manifold, in
order to blow a jet across the solid wing, over the
trailing edge flap knuckle. This system, pictured in
Figure 10, also only required a part of the roll post
airflow. Unfortunately, a combination of this blowing
and partial roll nozzle thrust, using the remaining
airflow, only resulted in total system lift comparable to
simple roll nozzle thrust. Because the system was
developed simply as a concept rather than a fully
engineered solution, it is believed that the same lift
improvements seen with other systems could also be
achieved using this method.
Lift Fan
At the time of this testing the baseline lift fan
nozzle design was the D-hood, or Telescoping
Vectoring Nozzle (TEVEN) used on the X-35.
However, there was a proposed trade study to replace
this by a completely different vane box nozzle concept,
which might have weight and performance benefits.
However, little was known of possible integration
issues associated with this type of nozzle, therefore it
was tested on this model to obtain SJE data. Several
iterations of the design were made and tested,
culminating in the adoption of the Variable Area Vane
Box Nozzle (VAVBN) as the current JSF baseline.
The baseline lift fan TEVEN nozzle, pictured in
Figure 11, was tested against the initial design of the
vane box nozzle. This initial design, a simple 1-degree
of freedom system, was shown to have much wider
plume shapes, and corresponding higher lift loss levels
with forward airspeeds. In addition, this design had
lower thrust coefficients at all vector angles. With the
addition of fore-aft splay, shown in Figure 12, reduced
lift loss levels in transition were obtained, but thrust
coefficients were not improved.
 These data contributed to the further understanding
of the importance of controlling the plume shape, not
only for minimizing adverse SJE effects, but also
effects on nozzle performance, HGI and environmental
issues. First attempts at improving vane box lift loss
characteristics centered on redesigning the lift fan doors
and adding fences to decrease airframe/jet interactions.
Some improved effects were noted, but the underlying
issue of plume shape was not addressed.
One mechanism adopted for controlling the plume
shape was to add fixed plume tabs at the vane box
nozzle exit. These tabs, pictured in Figure 13 with the
second-generation nozzle, dramatically reduced exhaust
plume width, and correspondingly reduced suckdown in
transition. In addition, unexpected thrust coefficient
benefits were realized with the smaller tab versions.
As a database was developed, later vane box
designs became more sophisticated. Individual vanes
were optimized with airfoil shapes and vane angle
control adopted a third degree of freedom system. In
addition, plume tab designs were refined to provide an
optimum mix of increased thrust coefficient at all
angles and decreased lift loss in transition, without
negatively impacting hover performance. The resulting
integrated vane box concept, pictured in Figure 14, was
designated the Variable Area Vane Box Nozzle
(VAVBN). The details of VAVBN development are
described in Rickman2.
With the help of this experimental study, lift loss
levels comparable to the X-35 TEVEN were eventually
achieved, with all the benefits of variable area and the
reduced weight of the VAVBN. In addition, possible
improvements through further tailoring of the plume
shape have been identified for future study.
Core Nozzle
Several variations of core nozzle were also tested
in this program, including the X-35 Short Compact
Axis-Symmetric Nozzle (SCAN) Nozzle pictured in
Figure 15. This nozzle had a typical convergent section
but a relatively short divergent section, which was
designed to favor STOVL performance over high-speed
performance during the demonstration phase.
Also at this time, a Compact Axis-Symmetric Flap
Extension (CAFE) Nozzle was being examined as a
way to improve high-speed performance, without
penalizing STOVL performance. This nozzle, pictured
in Figure 16, had a shortened convergent section, with a
lengthened divergent section. This nozzle also helps in
the ongoing push toward common nozzles with the
other configurations.
As the geometry of this CAFE nozzle was still in
work, the area ratio and area variation with core nozzle-
lift fan thrust split was still being developed. Because
the relationship of these parameters to SJE was not
known, a database needed to be developed. In order to
5
determine the sensitivity on SJE to these nozzle design
variations a matrix of area ratio and area settings,
pictured in Figure 17, was tested. This database was
designed to cover any likely variations and so to
provide a look up table as new variations of the design
were adopted.
An ejector version of CAFE nozzle, designated the
Compact Axis-Symmetric Flap Extension Ejector
Nozzle (CAFEEN), was also tested. This nozzle,
pictured in Figure 18, was an attempt to draw warm air
out of the engine bay during up-and-away flight, and to
draw in cool air to mix with the core nozzle flow during
STOVL operations. The ejector portal section was
formed in stereolithography, attached to the nozzle
convergent section, and bonded to the nozzle tip.
Despite the different exhaust plume characteristics
of each of these nozzles, little effect was seen at any
airspeed. At transition airspeeds, the core nozzle has
very little effect anyway, because there is no surface
area aft of the nozzle on which to act. In hover, this
round core nozzle produces a fairly uniform wall jet, so
it is relatively insensitive to subtle structure changes.
SUMMARY
The test program of a 7.5% JSF SJE model has
been described. The technical objectives were to find
lift in STOVL mode, by turning adverse jet effects into
benefits, while developing experimental techniques,
facilities and an experienced team in preparation for
executing the JSF SDD contract. These goals were all
satisfied and the JSF program has reaped the benefits,
both direct and indirect.
In addition to the enormous database gathered
during the program, there was also a general increase in
understanding of SJE flow mechanisms, which is now
being incorporated into the design process. Also, much
of the staff involved are now utilizing the knowledge
gained, via working on the SDD team.
Finally, over the life of the program, the Warton
facilities were able to dramatically reduce wind tunnel
installation time, while increasing run rates by 50% -
100%, and completely modernizing their computing
capability. This is an excellent indicator of a continual
process of capability and efficiency improvement, now
available to the SDD team.
REFERENCES
1
Palmer, P., “Design, Fabrication and Validation of the
JSF 7.5% Plenum Wing Concept for SJE Testing,”
AIAA-2002-5964, November 2002.
2
Rickman, S.J., and Pesyna, K.M., “The Development
of the JSF F35 Lift Fan Variable Area Vane Box
Nozzle,” AIAA-2002-6028, November 2002.
 FIGURES
Non-Metric
Metric

Fig. 1: BAE SYSTEMS 5.5 Meter Wind Tunnel

Fig. 4: 7.5% Scale SJE Development Model

Distribution Alternate Roll

Manifold Nozzle Positions

Plenum

Blowing Slot

Fig. 2: BAE SYSTEMS 4.0 Meter Wind Tunnel Fig. 5: Plenum Wing Concept

Calibration Plume
Survey
Rig
Rake

SJE
Nozzle

Plume
Survey
Table

Fig. 3: BAE SYSTEMS Nozzle Calibration Rig Fig. 6: Ground Plane Surface Oil Flow Visualization

6
 Spanwise
Nozzle

Location of Chordwise Slot

Trailing
Fig. 7: Roll Nozzle Location/Angle/Orientation Study Edge Flap

Fig. 10: Chordwise and Spanwise TE Flap Blowing

Slotted
TE Flap Chordwise
Roll Nozzle

Fig. 8: Chordwise Roll Nozzle Blowing

Single Lobe Vented

Fig. 11: X-35 Hooded (TEVEN) Lift Fan Nozzle

Twin Lobe Vented

Fig. 12: First Generation Vane Box Nozzle With Splay

Fig. 9: Vented Roll Nozzles

7
 Added Refined Shortened Lengthened
Plume Vane Box Compression Expansion
Tabs Ramp Ramp

Fig. 16: Compact Axi Flap Extension (CAFE) Nozzle

Fig. 13: Second Generation Vane Box with Plume Tabs

Plume Tab
Attach Points

Refined
Vane Box

Fig. 14: Third Generation Vane Box (VAVBN)

Fig. 17: CAFE Nozzle Area/Area Ratio Parametric

Compact
Expansion
Ramp Ejector Ejector
Intakes Exit Slot

Fig. 15: X-35 Short Compact Axi (SCAN) Nozzle

Fig. 18: CAFE Ejector Nozzle