AIAA 2001-2974

Effective Flow Control for Rotorcraft

Applications at Flight Mach Numbers
(Invited)

Hassan Nagib
John Kiedaisch
David Greenblatt
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL

Israel Wygnanski
Tel Aviv University, Israel
University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ

Ahmed Hassan
The Boeing Company, Mesa, AZ

31st AIAA Fluid Dynamics

Conference & Exhibit
11-14 June 2001 / Anaheim, CA
 AIAA-2001-2974

EFFECTIVE FLOW CONTROL FOR ROTORCRAFT APPLICATIONS AT

FLIGHT MACH NUMBERS (Invited)

Hassan Nagib∗, John Kiedaisch†, David Greenblatt†‡

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL

Israel Wygnanski‡§
University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ

Ahmed Hassan¶
The Boeing Company, Mesa, AZ

Abstract changing flow conditions, and flow control may be

Pulsating zero-mass flux jets introduced from
spanwise slots at various locations on the upper surface
of an oscillating VR-7 airfoil model are shown to be
effective in controlling lift, moment and drag
coefficients over the range of Mach numbers from 0.1
to 0.4. This control is demonstrated over a wide range
of mean angles of attack of the oscillating airfoil from
light to deep stall conditions. Maintaining the non-
dimensional frequency and amplitude of the forcing
unchanged results in comparable modifications of the
aerodynamic coefficients throughout this Mach number
range. Therefore, it appears that this active-flow control
technique is only limited by the ability to generate the
adequate forcing conditions at the higher Mach numbers
required for applications such as rotorcraft.
1. Introduction & Background
In modern design of military aircraft, separation
control is vital to improving the flight characteristics of
airfoils whether the application is highly maneuverable
fighters, stealth bombers, or micro air vehicles. When
air separates from a wing in flight, the result is loss of
lift and increase in drag that threatens the stability of the
aircraft and the safety of the pilot. Separation is
typically avoided by geometric changes and by flying
the aircraft within the flight envelope.
Alternatives to fixed-geometry aircraft are flexible
structures, where the wings and fuselage are constructed
from materials that can be deformed to adapt to
achieved through solid or fluidic actuators. In either
case, the flow field is changed globally by locally acting
on the flow. This may be achieved by arrays of
actuators that energize the boundary layer with steady or
pulsed momentum through the wing surface. These
types of controlled actuation change the velocity,
pressure, and vorticity field around the wing to achieve
the desired objectives.
It has been observed that relatively large quantities
of steady blowing (Cµ = 10%) near the point of
separation can reattach the flow and increase lift, but the
steady blowing may also cause a thickening of both the
boundary layer and the wake behind the airfoil which
leads to increased drag.
In contrast to steady blowing, the oscillatory
blowing takes advantage of inherent local instabilities in
the near-wall shear layer that causes the selective
amplification of the input oscillation frequency. These
amplified disturbances convect downstream along the
airfoil as coherent large structures that serve to mix the
boundary layer flow and delay separation. The
efficiency of the mixing provides substantial increases
in lift, while concomitantly reducing drag even when
one assumes that the entire momentum added recovered
as thrust. The unsteady forcing can also be tailored to
affect some global instabilities of the separated flow and
lead to reduction in the size of the region of separation
and improved performance of the wing.

∗
Rettaliata Professor, Mechanical, Materials & Aerospace Engineering Department. Associate Fellow AIAA.
†
Senior Research Associate. Mechanical, Materials & Aerospace Engineering Department. Member AIAA.
‡
Department of Fluid Mechanics & Heat Transfer, Tel Aviv University.
§
Professor, Fellow AIAA.
¶
Associate Technical Fellow, Associate Fellow AIAA.
Copyright  2001 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc. All rights reserved.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Pulsed blowing has proven to be a reliable technique
for separation control. Recent work by Seifert et al.
(1993, 1996, 1998, 1999), Wygnanski (1997), and Hites
et al. (1997, 2001) has shown repeatedly that low
amplitude, oscillatory blowing can delay separation and
enhance lift over a wide range of Reynolds numbers
including those corresponding to aircraft takeoff and
landing. These experiments have demonstrated several
consistent results, including: 1) the most effective
location for unsteady forcing is near the point of
separation, 2) the optimum reduced frequency for the
oscillations is about F+ = fc/U ≈1, and 3) the amplitude
of the oscillations required for effective separation
control is about two orders of magnitude lower than that
for steady blowing. When oscillatory separation control
is applied to an airfoil that is not separated, the effects
are not detrimental to lift.
McManus and Magill (1997) performed experiments
on a 3-D, finite lambda wing model and demonstrated
the effectiveness of pulsed vortex jets up to M = 0.2.
The improvement in the lift coefficient was less then
that of Seifert et al.; however, the method and the
amplitude of the blowing were different. In the
McManus and Magill experiments, four round jets were
used to pulsate the flow locally just downstream of the
leading edge, whereas the work by Seifert used a linear
slot over the entire span of the airfoil at essentially x/c =
0. McManus introduced streamwise vorticity into the
boundary layer while Seifert introduced an unsteady
vorticity with a predominantly spanwise component.
In a numerical investigation by Towne and
Buter (1994), subharmonic pulsed blowing applied from
the leading edge in an M = 0.2 simulation. Their results
showed that the oscillations were ineffective at
controlling dynamic stall, whereas steady blowing was
effective. This contradicts recent experimental findings
with pulsed blowing that demonstrate more efficient
prevention of separation than steady blowing in airfoils.
Although the Mach number was similar to the
experimental studies, the chord Reynolds number was
about three orders of magnitude lower than the
experimental work of Seifert. Also the dimensionless
blowing frequency, F+, was about 10-3 in Towne and
Buter’s study, several orders of magnitude below the
optimal pulsing frequency of other researchers. A
comprehensive computational model has yet to be
developed to describe the effects of oscillatory blowing
on stall, although Wu et al. (1997) have begun to
propose schemes which address non-linear mode
interaction, resonance, and vortex dynamics. Very
recently, extensive numerical simulations by various
groups have achieved more success in representing the
various flow modules of such complex flow, e.g., see
Hassan and Munts (2000).
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Recently, periodic excitation (or forcing) has been
demonstrated as an effective, efficient and practical
method for controlling incompressible dynamic stall
(e.g. Greenblatt & Wygnanski, 1999). Based on these
results it is obvious to expect that the technique may
also be effective in improving the performance of a
wide range of airfoils used in the rotorcraft industry
such as those carefully documented by McAlister et al.
(1982). Carr (1988) shows, however, that
compressibility can have a profound effect on dynamic
stall, even at relatively moderate Mach numbers, i.e.
M = 0.3, when the flow can be supersonic in the
leading-edge region. Although in Carr’s case the airfoil
stall was dominated by leading edge separation, where
compressibility effects may be exaggerated by a shock
boundary layer interaction, Carr and Chandrasekhara
(1996) projected that such effects would lead to the
failure of flow control methodologies in all unsteady
airfoil applications for Mach numbers equal to or larger
than about 0.3. When attempting dynamic stall control,
compressibility must be seriously considered because
typical full-scale Mach numbers on a rotorcraft
retreating blade in the vicinity of dynamic stall are in
the range from 0.3 to 0.5. (Apparently, the effect of
Reynolds number is less understood due to the difficulty
of varying Reynolds number significantly without
introducing compressibility effects.)
The review by Carr and Chandrasekhara
(1996) shows that no definitive conclusions can be
drawn concerning the impact of the supersonic flow in
the leading-edge region. One of the problems is that
various investigators report different findings for
experiments at nominally the same conditions on
identical airfoils. Nevertheless, two main conclusions
are apparent: Firstly, there is a limit to the magnitude of
the suction peak that can be reached at high incidence in
compressible flow and this limit is due to the local
supersonic velocity on the surface of the airfoil.
Secondly, compressibility effects can completely
change the flow behavior compared to that observed at
low Mach numbers (M < 0.3).
The first attempt made to carefully and
independently examine the conclusion by Carr and
Chandrasekhara (1996), regarding the detrimental
effects of compressibility on control of separation, and
to examine the effectiveness of pulsed jets in the
enhancement of airfoil performance at Mach numbers
with compressibility effects, is contained in the thesis of
Hites (1997); see also Hites et al. (2001). These
experiments demonstrated effective control up to Mach
numbers above 0.4. More recently, Seifert & Pack
(1999) investigated the effect of periodic forcing on a
static NACA 0015 airfoil under the conditions
0.28 ≤ Ma ≤ 0.55 . For all cases, forcing had a
beneficial effect on lift and drag, with the most
significant effects in the post-stall regime. In fact,
Seifert & Pack showed that upper surface suction that is
attenuated as a result of an increase in Mach number
from 0.28 to 0.4 could be restored by forcing at low
perturbation amplitudes (Cµ < 0.1%). On the other
hand, Greenblatt et al. (1999) have shown that the net
result of forcing in incompressible flows is essentially
insensitive to whether an airfoil is stationary or
oscillating in pitch. This is primarily due to the large
disparity between the time-scales characterizing the
airfoil pitch oscillations and those characterizing the
forcing-generated large coherent structures (LCSs). It
can therefore be speculated that periodic forcing is also
effective in controlling dynamic stall under
compressible conditions, even at low perturbation
amplitudes.
2. Objectives & Scope
The global objective of this work was to study the
effectiveness of periodic forcing on the control of
rotorcraft dynamic stall at typical flight Mach numbers.
To this end, both an experimental and a numerical
investigation were conducted on a VR-7 airfoil.
It is well known that significant changes in the
characteristics of stall occur due to compressibility for
M > 0.3. Hence, the approach adopted in this
investigation is an incremental one: firstly, the effect of
forcing on dynamic stall under incompressible
conditions (M = 0.1 and 0.2) was evaluated; and
secondly, the effect of forcing while gradually
increasing M into the compressible regime is assessed
by comparison with the incompressible cases. Both the
experimental data and numerical predictions presented
here are of a preliminary nature. Experimental data is a
summary of a detailed investigation carried out in the
NDF at IIT and considers data for M ≤ 0.4. Numerical
predictions are of a more preliminary nature and are
presented for M ≤ 0.3.
3. Experimental Apparatus
A VR-7 airfoil with a 22 in. span was mounted
vertically in the NDF test section (c.f. Hites et al, 2001).
The airfoil could be dynamically pitched about its ¼
chord location through ±15° with mean angles ranging
from ±0° to 15°. The airfoil was tested in the National
Diagnostic Facility at IIT, and more details can be
found in Nagib et al. (1994) and Nagib and Hites (1994)
The airfoil was equipped with 44 static
pressure ports around its perimeter. Each of the static
pressure port was connected with 0.063" vinyl tubing to
a 48 port J9 Scanivalve. A Pitot-static probe located in
the free stream provided the reference pressure for each
pressure port, and each pressure port was sampled
sequentially using a Validyne DP-103 pressure
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
transducer with a ±12.5 psi range. The airfoil was
equipped with two oscillatory blowing (forcing) slots, at
x/c = 0.3 and 0.5, that were used independently. Forcing
was achieved by means of four large acoustic-speaker-
type devices. These actuators are based on a Boeing
design and were fabricated by Domzalski Machine of
Mesa, AZ. The oscillatory flow emanating form the
slots were calibrated by a hot-wire at the slot exit. To
obtain the total drag, the wake profile was measured by
a fixed Pitot rake with one hundred 0.040” diameter
(OD) tubes located at approximately x/c = 2 behind the
airfoil trailing edge. An Endevco pressure transducer
(model 8514-10, ±10 psi range) was surface-mounted at
x / c = 0.4 , at the same chordwise location as a pressure
port, but at a spanwise distance of 12.7mm from the
pressure port. The dynamic response of the pressure
ports, vinyl tubing and scanivalve, were calibrated and
modeled (see Greenblatt et al, 2001).
4. Computational Grid
The oscillatory jet flow (periodic forcing) was
simulated using a time-dependent boundary condition at
x/c = 0.5 at an angle of 25 degrees relative to the local
tangent to the airfoil surface. All computations were
performed on a C-type mesh having a resolution of
297x81, using the NASA Ames hyperbolic grid
generator, HYGRID (Cordova & Barth, 1988). Fig. 1
depicts a close-up view of a typical computational grid
for the VR-7 airfoil with clustering near the x/c = 0.5
position to accurately resolve the synthetic jet flow.
5. Discussion of Experimental Results
5.1 Baseline Results
Fig. 2 shows a comparison of the Endevco signal on
the airfoil surface, compared with the measured and
corrected pressure-port signals respectively, under the
conditions M = 0.3, k = 0.05 and α = 17°+5°sin(ω t).
The airfoil spends the majority of its time in the post-
stall regime, some 10° beyond the static stall angle. As
such, this deep-stall case may be considered particularly
challenging for the correction procedure.
Notwithstanding, the method performs well. High
frequency details shown on the Endevco signal result
from high levels of turbulent flow about the airfoil
surface. These small scales are impossible to detect due
to the significant attenuation of the signal in the
pressure ports and associated tubing. [see Greenblatt et
al (2001) for more details.]
Figs. 3a and 3b, respectively, show baseline quasi-
static lift and moment coefficient data for M = 0.1 to
0.4. The gradually increasing CL,max from M = 0.1 to 0.3
is primarily a low Reynolds number effect (Re =
700,000 to 2,100,000) due to the increasing free-stream
velocity. The humps in the CM data at approximately
13° are also low Reynolds number artifacts and
diminish with increasing Re. For M > 0.3 the low Re
effects are effectively eliminated as can be seen by the
higher lift curves and elimination of the CM hump.
Increasing Re and M effects appear to offset one
another as CL,max stays approximately constant between
M = 0.3 and 0.4. At M = 0.4, moment stall is much more
severe than that at lower M.
Dynamic lift and moment coefficient baseline data
are presented in Figs. 4a and 4b. Qualitatively, the data
are similar to the quasi-static data at low M. However,
at M > 0.3, a reduction in CL,max is observed from M =
0.3 to 0.4. This was originally presumed to be due to
local supersonic flow in the leading-edge region of the
airfoil. It was discovered, however, that attenuation due
to wave propagation in the vinyl tubing was the main
factor responsible for the lower values (see Greenblatt
et al, 2001). Although this introduced an inherent
inaccuracy, it was not regarded as a problem, because
the main objective of this study was to assess the
influence of forcing over the baseline case. Thus the
factor considered important here was the difference
between baseline and controlled scenarios, and not the
absolute values.
5.2 Control of Light Stall
The effect of control on lift and moments at M = 0.1
for a single F+ and various increasing (with numerical
assignment) values of Cµ are presented in Figs. 5a and
5b. The maximum incidence angle is 4° above the static
stall angle and thus this can be considered to a case of
so-called light stall. Note that the amplitude of
oscillatory forcing is characterized by the momentum
coefficient:
2
h u 
Cµ = 2  
c  U ∞ 
where h is the height of the blowing slot, c is the chord
of the control surface, and u is the rms velocity, and
F+ ≡ fXTE/U∞, where f is the excitation frequency and
XTE is the distance from the slot to the trailing-edge. For
the present case, the effect of control becomes more
pronounced with increasing forcing amplitude,
particularly increasing the maximum lift and minimum
moment, until a particular threshold is exceeded. Once
this threshold is exceeded, lift hysteresis virtually
disappears and the negative pitching moment is fully
controlled. An examination of pressure distributions
shows that separation is partially controlled at lower
forcing amplitudes, increasing lift as well as the severity
of stall. Beyond the above-mentioned threshold,
however, the flow remains fully attached throughout the
cycle, totally eliminating dynamic stall.
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Throughout this paper, Cµ and F+ are indicated
symbolically, not by their exact numeric values. This
allows us to present the most recent data obtained from
experiments and computations conducted specifically
for The Boeing Company. The values of the momentum
coefficient are indicated by Cµ(1)…Cµ(8), representing
increasing magnitude. Similarly, increasing values of
the non-dimensional frequency are represented by
F+(1)…F+(5). This allows us to demonstrate the effects
of each parameter individually, keeping other
parameters unchanged.
Figs. 6a and 6b show the effect of increasing M
from 0.1 to 0.3 on lift and moment coefficients,
respectively, while maintaining both forcing frequency
and amplitude fixed in relative terms (i.e. constant F+
and Cµ). Note that forcing data is for the slot at x/c =
0.5. For this light-stall scenario, it can clearly be seen
that the increase in M has no deleterious effect
whatsoever on the effectiveness of forcing. In fact, the
negative moment, relative to the baseline value,
introduced at M = 0.1 under these forcing conditions is
somewhat alleviated. Therefore, while the effectiveness
of forcing certainly does not diminish, there is evidence
to suggest that it may be superior at the higher Mach
number.
Data at a different F+ for increasing forcing
amplitudes is presented in Figs. 7a and 7b. Once again,
this is a light stall scenario, but here all data is for M =
0.3 and forcing is from the x/c = 0.3 slot. Note that
CL,max increases continuously with increasing Cµ and
minimum (negative) CM is only marginally affected. In
fact, hysteresis associated with CM is significantly
attenuated as forcing amplitudes increase. Furthermore,
CM excursions (i.e. CM,max–CM,min), which are often used
as an indication of dynamic stall severity are slightly
reduced. Thus, it can be concluded from the previous
two figures, that an increase in M from 0.1 to 0.3 has no
observable deleterious effect on the efficacy of dynamic
stall control in the light stall regime.
5.3 Control of Deep Stall
Figs. 8a and 8b show a similar comparison to that
presented in Figs 7a and 7b, with the exception that the
airfoil is moved far into the post-stall regime (with
maximum incidence angle 10° beyond the static stall
angle) and at a different forcing frequency. Here, both
lift and moment stall are severe. Introducing and
increasing the forcing amplitude has the effect of
increasing CL,max as was shown previously. Here, CL,max
is increased in the vicinity of the static stall angle and at
the largest Cµ the improvement in CL,max over the
baseline dynamic case is approximately 35%. Note,
however that the minimum moment associated with the
baseline value is not materially affected by the forcing.
In fact, it either remains unchanged, or is slightly
increased. Moreover, the CM excursions are consistently
reduced with increasing Cµ .
5.4 Control at M ≥ 0.3
A significant challenge when applying control at
high M, is delivering enough amplitude from the slot in
order to supply sufficient control authority. In order to
maintain constant Cµ the slot rms velocity must scale
linearly with the free stream velocity. The Cµ produced
in this investigation, at M > 0.3 was therefore very low.
The effect of increasing M from 0.3 to 0.35 for both
baseline and identical excitation conditions is shown in
Figs. 9a and 9b. The overall effect on lift in both cases
is to increase the stall angle by approximately 2°.
Minimum moments by-and-large are not significantly
affected. Although control at M = 0.35 produced
slightly more negative moments, the overall excursions
are approximately the same. Increasing M from 0.35 to
0.4 (see Figs 10a and 10b), under the same forcing
conditions showed very little difference to CL,max or
moment excursions. Consideration of Figs. 9a,b and
10a,b illustrate a point that is important to the overall
objective of this paper, namely that the time histories of
both lift and moment coefficients are affected in the
same way regardless of M in the range 0.3 to 0.4. Thus,
even though the small Cµ is incapable of exerting
significant control authority, the time histories indicate
that the effect of forcing is not diminished with
increasing Mach number.
5.5 Other Experimental Results
Figs. 11a,b and 12a,b show the effect of varying the
mean incidence angle at M = 0.3, while maintaining
incidence angle excursions of 5°, for baseline and
controlled scenarios. These data, in essence, summarize
and confirm the effectiveness of this control technique
over a wide range of angles, as observed in the previous
three sections, from light stall conditions well into deep
stall.
The deep-stall data for M = 0.1, shown in Figs. 13a
and 13b, demonstrate the effects of control at low Mach
number where high values of Cµ can be achieved.
These figures also show that although CL,max is
increased, this is accompanied by a moment penalty.
Thus, comparing these figures to Fig. 8, described
earlier, we see a definite improvement in the efficacy of
control on CM at M = 0.3 in the deep-stall regime.
In the discussion to this point, only lift and moment
coefficient results have been presented. It is also of
value to examine the effects of this control technique on
the airfoil drag. Examples of instantaneous wake
profiles (Fig. 14), time-mean momentum deficit in the
wake (Fig 15), and computed drag coefficient (Fig 16)
are shown for the light-stall case. In general, the drag-
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
reduction effect is not large. This is mainly due to the
relatively low excitation amplitudes (Cµ) available as
the free-stream velocity increases.
Additional details are revealed through examination
of the chordwise pressure distributions. The pressure
distributions in Fig. 17a, show how forcing from the
x/c = 0.3 slot renders the flow locally supersonic close
to the leading edge. The effects of flow control are most
pronounced on the upper surface of the airfoil in the
region between 0.1 < x/c < 0.4. Pressure gradients at
M = 0.4, shown in Fig. 17b, indicate that the flow is
supercritical in the leading-edge region, irrespective of
whether control is applied or not. While these figures
show no distinct signature of a shock, this may be due to
the lack of adequate spacial resolution in the pressure
measurements in the leading-edge region. Also, in
contrast to the NACA 0015 airfoil used by Carr and
Chandrasekhara (1995 and 1996), the VR-7 airfoil is
known to not exhibit a strong leading-edge shock at
these Mach numbers; e.g. see McAlister et al. (1982).
6. Discussion of Numerical Results
6.1 Static Airfoil Results
Fig. 18 illustrates comparisons between the
measured and the predicted sectional lift characteristics
for the VR-7 airfoil as a function of post-stall angle of
attack for M = 0.20 and Re = 1,430,000. Note that
baseline lift is over-predicted when assuming fully
turbulent flow. In this case, the forcing utilized Cµ(8)
and F+(1). Furthermore, user-specified “fixed” laminar-
turbulent transition points were enforced in the CFL3D
simulations. For example, “tr:U05_L05” implies that
transition was enforced at 5% chord on the upper
surface of the airfoil and at 5% chord on the lower
surface (Fig. 18). Upper and lower surface transition
points at the 5% and 15% chord, respectively, yield the
best correlation with the experimental data.
6.2 Dynamic Stall Results
Fig. 19 compares data of McAlister et al (1982,
frame 47305) with the CFL3D-predicted lift, pressure
drag and moment coefficients, for the baseline VR-7
airfoil under the conditions α = 14.8 ±49.88 degrees,
k = 0.10, M = 0.281 and Re = 3,780,000. Initial
transients in the computations were eliminated by
performing at least four complete airfoil “cycles”. Fig.
19 shows reasonable agreement of the computations
with the data. Specifically, the lift curve slope is
adequately represented during the pitch-up motion, The
growth and shedding of the dynamic stall vortex is
qualitatively predicted at 23.5 degrees as compared to
the experimental angle of 21 degrees. During the pitch-
down motion, reasonable correlation with the measured
lift values is obtained. Similarly, the sectional pressure
drag values and pitching moments are well predicted
with the exception of the values near the maximum
angle of attack of 25 degrees.
Having established the reasonable accuracy of the
solver for dynamic stall computations, the effect of
excitation was considered. Fig. 20 illustrates
comparisons between the measured and the predicted
lift coefficients for baseline controlled scenarios at M =
0.10, Re = 714,000, k = 0.05 and α = 11 ±5degrees. It is
seen that invoking forcing with Cµ(7) and F+(2) results
in a reduction in lift hysteresis, as a result of the lift
increase during the pitch-down part of the cycle. This
behavior is well captured by the modified CFL3D
solver. For the baseline airfoil, note that the predicted
lift values are higher than those measured especially
near the maximum angle of attack of 16 degrees. No
effort was made to investigate the effects of laminar-
turbulent transition on the predicted lift values. – mainly
due to the complex nature of emulating this phenomena
on an oscillating airfoil.
Fig. 21 illustrates the same comparison, but under
the conditions M = 0.3, Re = 2,140,000 million and k =
0.05. As above, with the exception of the higher levels
of the sectional lift values, it is seen that the effect of
control, with Cµ(5) and F+(1), is to reduce the area of
the loop. Simultaneously, an increase in the lift values
during the pitch-up and pitch-down parts of the cycle is
seen for all angles of attack larger than the mean angle
of 11 degrees. Similar to the CFL3D results shown in
Fig. 20 for the baseline airfoil, the predicted lift values
for angles of attack larger than 13 degrees are also
higher than the measured ones.
7. Summary
Fig. 22 presents a summary of the experimental
results presented in Section 5 by showing CL,max,
referenced to baseline values, for a wide range of
forcing cases. The figure suggests two possible
conclusions that can be drawn from the present work.
Firstly, the effectiveness of control improves as the
airfoil enters further into deep stall. Secondly, it appears
that the efficacy of forcing diminished with increasing
Mach number, as has been suggested by Carr and
Chandrasekhara (1995 and 1996). However, Fig. 23
clearly demonstrates that the main reason for the second
(erroneous) observation is the reduction in the relative
forcing amplitude, Cµ.
It is clear from Fig. 23 that for comparable values of
the forcing amplitude, the lift enhancement is
independent of Mach number over the range from 0.1 to
0.4. This is true for both the light-to-moderate stall
conditions, where the lift enhancement monotonically
increases up to approximately 10% improvement, and
for the deep stall cases (19 deg. mean angle), where the
lift enhancement can be by as much as 30%.
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
8. Conclusions
Pulsating zero-mass flux jets introduced from
spanwise slots at various locations on the upper surface
of an oscillating VR-7 airfoil model are shown to be
effective in controlling lift, moment and drag
coefficients over the range of Mach numbers from 0.1
to 0.4. This control is demonstrated over a wide range
of mean angles of attack of the oscillating airfoil from
light to deep stall conditions. Maintaining the non-
dimensional frequency and amplitude of the forcing
unchanged results in comparable modifications of the
aerodynamic coefficients throughout this Mach number
range.
Therefore, contrary to the earlier speculations of
Carr and Chandrasekhara (1996), it is clear based on the
present wind-tunnel tests that the pulsed-blowing active
flow technique can be effective for at least some
oscillating airfoils operating within the compressible
regime. Their documented conclusions may only be
valid for the particular airfoil used and the forcing
conditions applied.
Based on our results, it appears that this active-
flow control technique is only limited by the ability to
generate the adequate forcing conditions at the higher
Mach numbers required for applications such as
rotorcraft. Future research, design and development
should focus on providing actuators that can deliver the
pulsating momentum required at the higher Mach
numbers. Technologies leading to actuators that can be
integrated into the rotorcraft blade, currently under
development, should be a high priority to the active-
flow control filed.
Acknowledgments
The authors greatly appreciate the support of The
Boeing Company and the Army VGART Program,
monitored by Dr. Chee Tung. Also, many thanks are
due to Mr. Craig Johnson and Mr. Chris Chistophorou
of the MMAE Department at IIT for their valuable
assistance.
References
Carr, L. W., “Progress in the analysis and
prediction of dynamic stall” AIAA Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 25, No. 1, 1988, pp. 6-17.
Carr, L.W. and Chandrasekhara, M.S., "An
Assessment of the Impact of Compressibility on
Dynamic Stall," AIAA-95-0779, 33rd Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, 1995.
Carr, L. W. and Chandrasekhara, M. S.,
“Compressibility effects on dynamic stall”, Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 32, pp. 523-573, 1996.
Cordova, J. Q. and Barth, T. J., “Grid Generation
for General 2-D Regions Using Hyperbolic Equations,”
AIAA paper 88-0520, Jan. 1988.
 Gault, D.E., "A Correlation of Low-Speed, Airfoil-
Section Stalling Characteristics With Reynolds Number
and Airfoil Geometry," NACA TN 3963, March 1957.
Greenblatt, D. and Wygnanski, I. “Parameters
affecting dynamic stall control by oscillatory
excitation”, AIAA Paper 99-3121, 17th AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Norfolk, VA,
28 June – 1 July 1999.
Greenblatt, D., Darabi, A., Nishri, B. and
Wygnanski, I. “Some factors affecting stall control with
particular emphasis on dynamic stall”, AIAA Paper 99-
3504, 30th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Norfolk,
VA, 28 June – 1 July, 1999.
Greenblatt, D., Kiedaisch, J. and Nagib, H.,
“Unsteady-Pressure Corrections In Highly Attenuated
Measurements At High Mach Numbers”, AIAA-2001-
2983.
Hassan, A. and Munts E. “Transverse and Near
Tangent Synthetic Jets for Aerodynamic Flow Control,”
AIAA Paper 2000-4334, Applied Aerodynamic
Conference, Denver, CO, 14 – 17 August 2000.
Hites, M.H., Scaling of High-Reynolds-Number
Turbulent Boundary Layers in the National Diagnostic
Facility, Ph.D. Thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology,
1997.
Hites, M., Nagib, H., Bacher, T., and Wygnanski,
I., “Enhanced Performance of Airfoils at Moderate
Mach Numbers Using Zero-Mass Flux Pulsed
Blowing,” AIAA Paper 2001-0734, 39th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan. 12-15,
2001
Mazanec, M.J., Design of Research Equipment for
Use in the National Diagnostic Facility, M.S. Thesis,
Illinois Institute of Technology, May 1996.
McAlister, K. W., Pucci, S. L., McCroskey, W. J.
and Carr, L. W. “An experimental study of dynamic
stall on advanced airfoil sections. Volume 2. Pressure
and force data” NASA TM 84245, 1982.
McManus, K. and Magill, J., “Airfoil performance
enhancement using pulsed jet separation control”,
AIAA-1971, 1997.
Nagib, H.M., and Hites, M.H., "Measurement of
Disturbance Levels in the National Diagnostic Facility",
AIAA 94-0770, 32nd Aerospace Sci. Mtg., Reno, NV,
1994.
Nagib, H., Hites, M., Gravante, S., and Won, J.,
"Flow Quality Documentation of the National
Diagnostic Facility," AIAA 94-2499, 18th AIAA
Aerospace Ground Testing Conference, 1994.
Peterson, B.A., Design of Experimental Equipment
for Use in the National Diagnostic Facility, M.S. Thesis,
Illinois Institute of Technology, December 1995.
Rumsey, C. L., Sanetrik, M. D., Biedron, R. T.,
Melson, N. D., and Parlette, E. B., “Efficiency and
Accuracy of Time-Accurate Turbulent Navier-Stokes
Computations,” AIAA paper 95-1835, June 1995.
Seifert, A., Bachar, T., Koss, D., Shepshelovich,
M. and Wygnanski, I., "Oscillatory Blowing: A Tool to
Delay Boundary-Layer Separation," AIAA Journal, Vol.
31, No. 11, p. 2052, 1993.
Seifert, A., Darabi, B. Nishri, B, and Wygnanski, I,
“The effects of forced oscillations on the performance
of airfoils”, AIAA 93-3264, 1993.
Seifert, A. and Pack, L.G., “Oscillatory control of
separations at high Reynolds numbers”, AIAA 98-0214,
1998.
Seifert, A, Darabi, A., and Wygnanski, “Delay of
airfoil stall by periodic excitation”, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 33, No. 4, 1996.
Seifert, A. and Pack, L. G., “Oscillatory excitation
of unsteady compressible flows over airfoils at flight
Reynolds numbers” AIAA Paper 99-0925, 37th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV,
Jan. 11-14, 1999.
Spalart, P. And Allmaras, S., “A One-Equation
Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA 92-
0439, 1992.
Wygnanski, I. and Seifert, A., "The Control of
Separation by Periodic Oscillations," AIAA-94-2608,
18th AIAA Aerospace Ground Testing Conference,
Colorado Springs, CO, 1994.
Wygnanski, I, Boundary Layer and Flow Control
by Period Addition of Momentum (Invited)”, AIAA 97-
2117, 1997.
Wu, J-Z., Lu, X-Y., and Wu, J-M., “Post-stall lift
enhancement on an airfoil by local unsteady control”,
AIAA 97-2064.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2
VR7: Baseline, Quasi-Static,
1.8 α = 10o+10osin(ωt). (a)

1.6

1.4

1.2
Cl
1
Figure 1. Typical computational grid depicting the
required clustering near the 50% chord to capture the 0.8
details of the synthetic jet flow.
0.6 M = 0.1
M = 0.2
0.4 M = 0.3
-4000
Measured Pressure Signal M = 0.35
0.2
Surface-Mounted Endevco M = 0.4
-3000 20th harmonic correction & model
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg)
Oscillatory Pressure (Pa)

-2000
0
-1000 (b)
-0.02

0 -0.04

-0.06
1000
-0.08
Cm
2000 -0.1
VR7: Baseline, Quasi-Static,
-0.12 α = 10o+10osin(ωt).
3000
0 120 240 360 -0.14 M = 0.1
Cycle Angle (degrees) M = 0.2
Figure 2. Comparison of measured pressure signal, -0.16 M = 0.3
corrected signal, and the signal from the surface- M = 0.35
mounted transducer for one airfoil pitch-oscillation -0.18
M = 0.4
cycle for Ma = 0.3, k = 0.05, α=17°+5°sin( ω t).
-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg)
Figure 3. Quasi-static lift coefficient (a) and moment
coefficient (b) vs. angle of attack for five different
Mach numbers.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2 2
VR7: M=0.1, k=0.05
1.8
(a)
(a)
1.6 1.6

1.4
CL
1.2 1.2
Cl
1

0.8 0.8
VR7: k = 0.05, α=11o+5osin(ωt) Baseline: Quasi-Static
0.6 Baseline
F+(2), Cµ(1)
M = 0.1, Baseline
0.4 0.4 F+(2), Cµ(2)
M = 0.3, Baseline
F+(2), Cµ(4)
M = 0.35, Baseline F+(2), Cµ(6)
0.2
M = 0.4, Baseline F+(2), Cµ(7)
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg) α (degrees)
0 0

-0.02 (b) (b)

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 CM

-0.08 -0.08
Cm
-0.1 VR7: M=0.1, k=0.05

-0.12 -0.12
Baseline: Quasi-Static
o o
VR7: k = 0.05, α=11 +5 sin(ωt) Baseline
-0.14 F+(2), Cµ(1)
M = 0.1, Baseline
F+(2), Cµ(2)
-0.16 M = 0.3, Baseline -0.16
F+(2), Cµ(4)
M = 0.35, Baseline F+(2), Cµ(6)
-0.18 F+(2), Cµ(7)
M = 0.4, Baseline

-0.2 -0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (degrees)
α (deg)
Figure 5. Unsteady lift (a) and moment (b) coefficients
Figure 4. Unsteady lift (a) and moment (b) coefficients
vs. angle of attack for five excitation amplitudes at low
vs. angle of attack for four Mach numbers; baseline
Mach number compared to the baseline unsteady and
cases (no excitation). (Note: solid lines are upstroke
and dashed lines are downstroke.) quasi-static cases, α=11°+5°sin( ω t). (Forcing slot at
x/c = 0.5.)

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2 2
VR7: Effect of "M", k=0.05
Excitation from 50% slot (a) 1.8 (a)
1.6 1.6

1.4
CL
1.2 1.2
Cl
1 VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05,
α=11o+5osin(ωt)
0.8 0.8 Forcing slot at 30% chord.

Quasi-Static: M=0.1 Baseline

0.6
Quasi-Static: M=0.3 F+(3), Cµ(1)
Baseline: M=0.1 0.4 F+(3), Cµ(2)
0.4
Baseline: M=0.3 F+(3), Cµ(3)
F+(2), Cµ(4): M=0.1 0.2 F+(3), Cµ(5)
F+(2), Cµ(4): M=0.3 Baseline, Quasi-Static
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (degrees) α (deg)
0.04 0
VR7: Effect of "M", k=0.05
Excitation from 50% slot (b) -0.02 (b)
0
-0.04
CM
-0.06
-0.04
-0.08
Cm
-0.08 -0.1
VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05,
α=11o+5osin(ωt)
-0.12
Forcing slot at 30% chord.
-0.12 Quasi-Static: M=0.1
-0.14 Baseline
Quasi-Static: M=0.3
F+(3), Cµ(1)
Baseline: M=0.1
-0.16 F+(3), Cµ(2)
-0.16 Baseline: M=0.3
F+(3), Cµ(3)
F+(2), Cµ(4): M=0.1
-0.18 F+(3), Cµ(5)
F+(2), Cµ(4): M=0.3 Baseline, Quasi-Static
-0.2 -0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (degrees) α (deg)
Figure 6. Unsteady lift (a) and moment (b) coefficients Figure 7. Unsteady lift (a) and moment (b) coefficients
vs. angle of attack, baseline and with excitation, for vs. angle of attack for different excitation amplitudes
two Mach numbers, α=11°+5°sin( ω t). Quasi-static compared to baseline unsteady and quasi-static cases.
cases also shown.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2 2
VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05,
1.8 α=19o+5osin(ωt) (a) 1.8
(a)
Forcing slot at 30%
1.6 chord. 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2
Cl Cl
1 1

0.8 0.8 VR7: k = 0.05, α=11o+5osin(ωt)

Forcing slot at 30% chord.
0.6 Baseline 0.6
F+(1), Cµ(1) M = 0.3 Baseline
0.4 0.4
F+(1), Cµ(3) M = 0.3, F+(1), Cµ(1)

0.2 F+(1), Cµ(5) M = 0.35 Baseline

0.2
Baseline, Quasi-Static M = 0.35, F+(1), Cµ(1)
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg) α (deg)
0 0

-0.02 (b) -0.02 (b)

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08
Cm Cm
-0.1 -0.1
VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05,
-0.12 -0.12 VR7: k = 0.05, α=11o+5osin(ωt)
α=19o+5osin(ωt)
Forcing slot at 30% chord. Forcing slot at 30% chord.
-0.14 -0.14
Baseline M = 0.3 Baseline
-0.16 F+(1), Cµ(1) -0.16 M = 0.3, F+(1), Cµ(1)
F+(1), Cµ(3)
M = 0.35 Baseline
-0.18 F+(1), Cµ(5) -0.18
Baseline, Quasi-Static M = 0.35, F+(1), Cµ(1)
-0.2 -0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg) α (deg)
Figure 8. Unsteady lift (a) and moment (b) coefficients Figure 9. Unsteady lift (a) and moment (b) coefficients
vs. angle of attack for different excitation amplitudes vs. angle of attack at Ma = 0.3 and Ma = 0.35; cases
compared to baseline unsteady and quasi-static case; with equivalent excitation momentum coefficients
deep stall cases. compared to baseline cases.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2 2
VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05, α=αm+5osin(ωt)
1.8
(a) 1.8 (a)
1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2
Cl Cl
1 1

0.8 VR7: k = 0.05, α=11o+5osin(ωt) 0.8

Forcing slot at 30% chord.
0.6 0.6 Baseline, 11 deg. mean
M = 0.35 Baseline Baseline, 13 deg. mean
0.4 M = 0.35, F+(1), Cµ(1) 0.4 Baseline, 15 deg. mean
Baseline, 17 deg. mean
M = 0.4 Baseline
0.2 0.2 Baseline, 19 deg. mean
M = 0.4, F+(1), Cµ(1) Quasi-Static Baseline
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg) α (deg)
0 2
VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05,
-0.02 (b) 1.8 α=αm+5osin(ωt) (b)
Forcing slot at 30%
-0.04 1.6 chord.

-0.06 1.4

-0.08 1.2
Cm Cl
-0.1 1

-0.12 VR7: k = 0.05, α=11o+5osin(ωt) 0.8

Forcing slot at 30% chord.
-0.14 0.6 F+(3), Cµ(5), 11 deg. mean
M = 0.35 Baseline F+(3), Cµ(5), 13 deg. mean
-0.16 M = 0.35, F+(1), Cµ(1) 0.4 F+(3), Cµ(5), 15 deg. mean
M = 0.4 Baseline F+(3), Cµ(5), 17 deg. mean
-0.18 0.2 F+(3), Cµ(5), 19 deg. mean
M = 0.4, F+(1), Cµ(1)
Quasi-Static Baseline
-0.2 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg) α (deg)
Figure 10. Unsteady lift (a) and moment (b) Figure 11. Unsteady lift coefficients for baseline (a)
coefficients vs. angle of attack at Ma = 0.35 and Ma = and excitation (b) cases for airfoil pitch oscillations
0.4; cases with equivalent excitation momentum about five different mean angles.
coefficients compared to baseline cases.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 0 2.4
VR7: M=0.1, k = 0.05,
-0.02
(a) 2.2 α=17o+5osin(ωt)
Forcing slot at 30%
(a)
2 chord.
-0.04
1.8
-0.06
1.6
-0.08
1.4
Cm Cl
-0.1 1.2

-0.12 VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05, 1

α=αm+5osin(ωt)
-0.14 0.8
Baseline, 11 deg. mean
Baseline, 13 deg. mean 0.6
-0.16 Baseline
Baseline, 15 deg. mean
Baseline, 17 deg. mean
0.4 F+(4), Cµ(8)
-0.18 Baseline, 19 deg. mean F+(5), Cµ(8)
0.2
Quasi-Static Baseline Baseline, Quasi-Static
-0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg) α (deg)
0 0

-0.02 (b) -0.02 (b)

-0.04
-0.04
-0.06
-0.06
-0.08
-0.08
-0.1
Cm Cm
-0.1 -0.12
VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05,
α=αm+5osin(ωt) -0.14
-0.12 VR7: M=0.1, k = 0.05,
Forcing slot at 30%
chord. α=17o+5osin(ωt)
-0.14 -0.16
Forcing slot at 30% chord.
F+(3), Cµ(5), 11 deg. mean -0.18
-0.16 F+(3), Cµ(5), 13 deg. mean Baseline
F+(3), Cµ(5), 15 deg. mean
-0.2 F+(4), Cµ(8)
F+(3), Cµ(5), 17 deg. mean
-0.18 F+(3), Cµ(5), 19 deg. mean F+(5), Cµ(8)
Quasi-Static Baseline
-0.22
Baseline, Quasi-Static
-0.2
-0.24
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
α (deg) α (deg)
Figure 12. Unsteady moment coefficients for baseline Figure 13. Unsteady lift (a) and moment (b)
(a) and excitation (b) cases for airfoil pitch oscillations coefficients vs. angle of attack for deep stall, low Mach
about five different mean angles. number, and high excitation amplitude. (Baseline and
quasi-static cases shown for comparison.)

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 1.25 0.16
Baseline: Cd=0.0729
0.14 F+(1), Cµ(5): Cd=0.0719
F+(3), Cµ(5): Cd=0.0704
0.12 VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05, α=11o+5osin(ωt)

u/U(1-u/U) [time-mean]
Forcing slot at 30% chord.
1
0.1

U/Uh 0.08

0.06
0.75 VR7: M = 0.3,
k = 0.05,
α = 15o+5osin(ωt) 0.04
Baseline bottom top
Forcing slot at 30%
chord. F+(1), Cµ(5) side side
0.02
α = 12o: pitch-down F+(3), Cµ(5)

0.5 0
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
y/c y/c
Figure 14. Normalized wake velocity profiles for Figure 15. Integrated time-mean momentum deficit
baseline and two excitation cases at a single angle of plotted across the wake for baseline and two excitation
attack during the downstroke. cases; total drag values for each case shown in legend.
0.5
Baseline
0.45
F+(1), Cµ(5)
0.4 F+(3), Cµ(5)

0.35 VR7: M=0.3, k = 0.05, α=11o+5osin(ωt)

Forcing slot at 30% chord.
0.3

0.25
Cd
0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

-0.05
12 13 14 15 16 17
α (deg)
Figure 16. Instantaneous drag coefficient vs. angle of attack for baseline and two excitation cases.

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 -8 -8
(a) Baseline
(b)
-7 -7 F+(2), Cµ(1), slot x/c = 0.3
CP*
F+(2), Cµ(1), slot x/c = 0.5
-6 Baseline -6
F+(3), Cµ(5), slot x/c = 0.3 VR7: M = 0.4, k = 0.05,
-5 F+(2), Cµ(5), slot x/c = 0.5 -5 α = 11o+5osin(ωt)
CP CP α = 15o: pitch-up
VR7: M = 0.3, k = 0.05,
-4 -4
α = 11o+5osin(ωt)
α = 15o: pitch-up CP*
-3 -3

-2 -2

-1 -1

0 0

1 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c
Figure 17. Chordwise pressure coefficient distributions for baseline and two excitation cases at a single angle of
attack during the upstroke for two Mach numbers; Ma = 0.3 (a) and Ma = 0.4 (b). Critical pressure coefficient values
and excitation slot locations (vertical dashed lines) are also shown.

VR-7 Airfoil: M inf= 0.20, R e= 1.43 m illion

2.00

1.80

1.60
Lift Coefficient, CL

1.40

1.20
ba s e line (IIT - e x pt.)
w ith c ontr ol (IIT - e x pt.)
1.00 fully turbule nt
tr: U0 5 _ L0 5
tr: U0 5 _ L1 5
tr: U1 0 _ L1 0
0.80 tr: U2 0 _ L2 0
w ith c ontr ol CFD: U0 5 -L1 5

0.60
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
An g le o f Atta c k (d e g s .)

Figure 18. Predicted and measured sectional lift coefficients for the VR-7 airfoil in the
absence and the presence of synthetic jet flow control: effects of laminar-turbulent transition.

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2.50

2.00

Lift Coefficient, CL
1.50

1.00

0.50 experimental
predicted

0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Angle of Attack (degrees)
1.20

1.00 experimental
Drag Coefficient, CD

predicted
0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

-0.20
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Angle of Attack (degrees)

0.10

0.00
Pitching Moment Coefficient, Cm

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

-0.40
experimental
-0.50 predicted

-0.60

-0.70
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Angle of Attack (degrees)

Figure 19. Predicted and measured lift, pressure drag, and moment coefficients for the
baseline VR-7 airfoil during pitch oscillation.

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 V R -7 Airfo il: M in f=0 .1 0 , R e =7 1 4 ,0 0 0 , k =0 .0 5
1 .8 0
Ex p t. (b a se lin e )
1 .7 0 Ex p t. (w ith co n tro l)
C F D (b a se lin e )
1 .6 0
C F D (w ith co n tro l)

1 .5 0
Lift Coefficient, CL

1 .4 0

1 .3 0

1 .2 0

1 .1 0

1 .0 0

0 .9 0

0 .8 0
6 8 10 12 14 16
A n g le o f Atta c k (d e g s .)

Figure 20. Predicted and measured unsteady lift characteristics for the VR-7 airfoil during
pitch oscillation and a free stream Mach number of 0.10. Also shown are the measured and the
predicted values for the controlled airfoil.

2.1
b a se lin e (e x p t.)
1.9 w ith co n tro l (e x p t.)
b a se lin e (p re d icte d )
1.7 w ith co n tro l (p re d icte d )
Lift Coefficient, CL

1.5

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5
5 7 9 11 13 15 17

A n g le o f A tta c k (d e g re e s )
Figure 21. Predicted and measured unsteady lift characteristics for the VR-7 airfoil during
pitch oscillation and a free stream Mach number of 0.30. Also shown are the measured and the
predicted values for the controlled airfoil.

17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 1.4

1.3
Cl max / Cl max baseline

1.2

1.1

0.9
k = 0.05, 9+/-5 deg. k = 0.05, 10+/-5 deg.
k = 0.05, 11+/-5 deg. k = 0.05, 13+/-5 deg.
0.8
k = 0.05, 15+/-5 deg. k = 0.05, 17+/-5 deg.
k = 0.05, 19+/-5 deg. k = 0.1, 11+/-5 deg.
0.7
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Mach No.
Figure 22. Effects of forcing on maximum lift for various Mach numbers and mean angles of attack; data includes
the full range of momentum coefficients tested.

1.4

1.3
Cl max / Cl max baseline

1.2

1.1

1
M=0.1, 30% slot, k=0.05
0.9 M=0.3, 30% slot, k=0.05
M=0.35, 30% slot, k=0.05
M=0.4, 30% slot, k=0.05
0.8
M=0.1, 50% slot, k=0.1
M=0.3, 50% slot, k=0.1
0.7
Cmu (% )
M=0.1, 50% slot, k=0.05
M=0.3, 50% slot, k=0.05
M=0.35, 50% slot, k=0.05
M=0.4, 50% slot, k=0.05
M=0.3, 30% slot, k=0.1
19+/-5 deg. cases

Figure 23. Effects of forcing on maximum lift for various Mach numbers vs. momentum coefficient demonstrating
Mach-number independence of this type of active flow control; data includes the full range of mean angles of attack
tested with the maximum (19°) separately identified.

18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics