https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=20200000702 2020-03-28T18:48:53+00:00Z
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
Provided by NASA Technical Reports Server

NASA/TM-2020-220436

Flow Control Applications

Dennis M. Bushnell
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Israel Wygnanski
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

January 2020
 NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION.
advancement of aeronautics and space science. The Collected papers from scientific and technical
NASA scientific and technical information (STI) conferences, symposia, seminars, or other
program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA.
this important role.
• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
The NASA STI program operates under the auspices technical, or historical information from NASA
of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, programs, projects, and missions, often
organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates concerned with subjects having substantial
NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access public interest.
to the NTRS Registered and its public interface, the
NASA Technical Reports Server, thus providing one • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.
of the largest collections of aeronautical and space English-language translations of foreign
science STI in the world. Results are published in both scientific and technical material pertinent to
non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA STI NASA’s mission.
Report Series, which includes the following report
types: Specialized services also include organizing
and publishing research results, distributing
• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of specialized research announcements and feeds,
completed research or a major significant phase of providing information desk and personal search
research that present the results of NASA support, and enabling data exchange services.
Programs and include extensive data or theoretical
analysis. Includes compilations of significant For more information about the NASA STI program,
scientific and technical data and information see the following:
deemed to be of continuing reference value.
NASA counter-part of peer-reviewed formal • Access the NASA STI program home page at
professional papers but has less stringent http://www.sti.nasa.gov
limitations on manuscript length and extent of
graphic presentations. • E-mail your question to [email protected]

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. • Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at

Scientific and technical findings that are 757-864-9658
preliminary or of specialized interest,
e.g., quick release reports, working • Write to:
papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal NASA STI Information Desk
annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis. Mail Stop 148
NASA Langley Research Center
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and Hampton, VA 23681-2199
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.
NASA/TM-2020-220436

Flow Control Applications

Dennis M. Bushnell
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Israel Wygnanski
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia

January 2020
The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not
constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Available from:

NASA STI Program / Mail Stop 148

NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-2199
Fax: 757-864-6500
Table of Contents 
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 
WHAT HAS CHANGED ................................................................................................................................................ 4 
WHAT HAS NOT APPRECIABLY CHANGED ................................................................................................................. 5 
THE FLOW CONTROL APPLICATION FILTERS ............................................................................................................. 5 
FLOW CONTROL APPROACHES: USED AND UNUSED .................................................................................................. 6 
SOME ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF FLOW CONTROL VISIONS VS. REALITY ............................................................... 8 
Viscous Drag Reduction (VDR) ............................................................................................................................ 8 
Remaining Application Issues Associated with Utilization of Riblets Include: ..................................................... 8 
Example Remaining Issues for Heated Laminar Flow Control (HLFC) Include: ................................................ 8 
Vortex Control ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 
Examples of Vortex Control Applications: ........................................................................................................... 9 
Aircraft High Lift ................................................................................................................................................ 10 
Scramjet Mixing Enhancement ........................................................................................................................... 10 
Drag Due to Lift (DDL) Reduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 
Air Lubrication in Water Flows .......................................................................................................................... 11 
Shock Wave Drag Reduction .............................................................................................................................. 11 
A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF ACTIVE FLOW CONTROL INCLUDING VERTICAL TAIL APPLICATIONS ........................... 12 
POTENTIAL SYSTEMS/CONFIGURATION LEVEL FLOW CONTROL ENABLEMENTS ..................................................... 16 
THE ALL UP TRUSS-BRACED WING ......................................................................................................................... 16 
DOUBLE FUSELAGE .................................................................................................................................................. 18 
THE CHANNEL WING ............................................................................................................................................... 18 
EXTREME ARROW WING TRUSS-BRACED SST ......................................................................................................... 19 
A POTPOURRI OF ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS LEVEL FLOW CONTROL POSSIBILITIES INCLUDE: ..................................... 20 
CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................................................................................................................... 21 
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………  23 

2
 Abstract
Flow control has a long history with many successes across a plethora of applications.
This report addresses the characteristics of the approaches that are actually used, why they are
used, the many approaches that are not used, and why. Analysis indicates ways forward to
increase applicability/usefulness, and efficiency of flow control research. Overall, greater and
more effective progress in flow control requires utilization of far more detailed information early
in the research process regarding application details and requirements.

Introduction
Flow control subsumes all types of technical flow control including laminar flow control,
mixing enhancement, separated flow control, vortex control, turbulence control, heat transfer
control, favorable wave interference, designer fluids and much more. Also included is the vast
preponderance of extant industrial flow control technology which involves valves and fluidics, for
which there is immense literature and technology including active control. The vision for
designer fluid mechanics includes, for example, the enablement of improved high lift, vectored
thrust, drag reduction (e.g. viscous, form, drag-due-to-lift), signature reduction, enhanced
combustion, reduced noise and pollution, improved flight/engine controls, reduced buffet, flutter
and fatigue, heat transfer control and a host of manufacturing, process and application specific
benefits.

The Following is an Attempt at a Taxonomy of Designer Fluid Mechanics:

Flow Control Applications – Aeronautical Vehicles, Ocean Vehicles, Architectural

Aerodynamics, Land Transport, Bioengineering, Pipelines, Chemical Processing, Propulsion
and Power, Manufacturing/Industrial Processes, Space Access/Re-Entry, and HVAC

Types of Fluids Controlled – Gas, Liquid, Plasma, Multi-Phase, Newtonian, Non-Newtonian, and
Designer Fluids

Types of Flows – 2-D, 3-D, Entire Speed Range, Laminar, Transitional, Turbulent, Attached,
Separated, Vortical, Shear Layers, Jets, Wakes, Free Surfaces, Steady, Unsteady, Shock
Waves, and Electromagnetic (EM)

Control Actuator/Effector Approaches – Suction, Injection, Sweeping Jets, Fluidic Oscillators,

Synthetic Jets, Rigid Surfaces, Body Forces, Surface Motions, Porosity, Energy
Addition/Subtraction, Discharges, Combustion, Piezo-Electrics, Plasma, Lasers, Additives,
Acoustics, and Multi-Phase

Control Logic – Passive, Active, Reactive, and Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Learning

Flow Phenomena Controlled – Cavitation, Drag-Due-To-Lift, Flames/Fire, Aeroelasticity/Flutter,

Wall Friction, Heat Transfer, Mass Transfer, Loading, Combustion, Mixing, Acoustics, Wave
Drag/Shock Phenomena, Particulates, Electrostatics, Icing, Erosion, Propulsion, Flow
Separation, Phenomena Involving Vortices, Jets, Wakes, Signatures, Controls, Buffet, Fatigue,
Stall, Surge, and Vibrations

Purpose of Control – Performance, Efficiency, Vehicle Dynamics, Noise Reduction,

Environment, Climate, Weather Effects Mitigation, Cost Reduction, Sensor Improvement,
Safety, Accuracy, Wake Vortex Mitigation, Thrust Vectoring, Emissions, Load Alleviation, and
Observability
3
 One can readily identify three generations of designer fluid mechanics devices and
approaches. The first generation is still being utilized. These first-generation devices are
typically relatively simple, inexpensive, passive, rigid, and, if active, are quasi-steady state. The
second generation is currently still emerging and involves active control using usually simple
systems and the application of evolving smart structures and materials for variable geometry
requirements. The third generation is of significant research interest currently. It involves the
vision of active control including highly non-linear complex/large degree of freedom dynamic
systems such as transition to turbulence, turbulence, change of flow orientation, control of
periodic separation and reattachment (e.g. dynamic stall) and flow separation. The taxonomy is
indicative of the parameter space with regard to designer fluid mechanics approaches and
applications. The present paper addresses the issue of application and usefulness for these
various approaches (i.e. what determines which, if any approach, is ultimately employed or
deployed along with putative solution spaces at the systems or configuration level).
References 1-32 address the utilization aspects of flow control and references 33-83
provide a cross section of review papers and books documenting extensive compilations of flow
control research in the large. These references document the wide spectrum corpus of the
current and previous flow control activities and accomplishments. As in any emerging field, only
a few of these studies address the real-world conditions in total. However, the existence of an
extensive array of company flow control patents indicates serious interest and possible detailed
application studies by industry. It is of interest to observe what has changed and not changed
with regard to flow control as a discipline over these last decades.

What Has Changed

There has been an explosion of small low Reynolds number air vehicle applications (e.g.
the unmanned air systems, on demand mobility, urban air mobility, personal air vehicles
[UAS/ODM/UAM/PAV] ongoing revolutions in aeronautics). These are usually prone to flow
separation and therefore separated flow control approaches could probably be efficacious. Also,
applications at a small scale do not involve major financial investments and serious study of
several approaches and associated optimization is therefore more easily accomplished. These
smallish vehicles, up to scales carrying several humans, should eventually constitute a fleet of
many millions and a new air-mobility aero market in the trillion dollar range, i.e. some half of the
global auromobile market as they increasingly replace ground transportation and doubling the
current commercial aero markets. The knowledge acquired on the small, and mostly
experimental, vehicles may eventually penetrate the major aerial transport system that employ
large and expensive airplanes.
Major improvements over the decades in computing machinery and computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) have enabled computation to replace much of the time and cost associated
with experiments. CFD validation is still a challenge but potentially could be used to evaluate
flow control concepts and address control approaches that would be difficult to test
experimentally. Also, far greater detail is available from computation than experiment, including
detailed dynamics.
Miniaturization, a result of information technology (IT), printing, Micro-Electrical-
Mechanical Systems (MEMS), and control effectors enables greater coverage and usually lower
cost. The use of natural flow instabilities to augment control authority provided a paradigm shift
for conceptual active flow approaches. This shift at the research level led to the implementation
of active and reactive control methods.
The improved understanding of the flow physics, coupled with improved computational
ability, increased the knowledge of detailed flow dynamics. This enabled control approaches
tailored to alter causative dynamic flow physics as opposed to just the mean flow. The approach
to flow control also has changed. Instead of simply adding momentum to compensate for the
4
viscous and turbulent depletion, active flow control utilizes the prevailing instabilities in the flow
to augment the control input. Consequently, a small input level of order (ε) can generate a large
change of order (1).

What Has Not Appreciably Changed

Control approaches are studied mainly at low Reynolds number and on a small scale.
The literature and research development efforts with regard to applications in the real-world are
sparse. Some critical end use metrics, including cost, weather effects, maintenance, favorable
energetics, the engineering “illities,” robustness, etc. are hardly ever seriously considered at the
research level. Flow control research is targeted primarily at specific flow issues as opposed to
at the systems level, systems, and configuration opportunities. There is usually a lack of
sufficient risk reduction, scaling or consideration of real-world application and enablements.

The Flow Control Application Filters

In the emerging climate of global econometrics, the rate of technological change and
innovation (as opposed to invention) is an important issue. The dominant market metric is a
combination of product price/cost and features, which can be addressed technologically via a
combination of product and process innovation. The technology development literature suggests
that a concept/idea must transit successfully two filters between conception and application.
The first of these is a technical filter which addresses the questions “Does it work and
does it violate any technical laws?” The second filter is an overall technological one plus
economic considerations and determines whether the concept makes sense in the real world in
terms of market, affordability, engineering-illities, safety, environmental issues, etc. In other
words, “Will the concept transition successfully to the market?” Experience indicates that the
first filter only fails 5% of the ideas, while the second filter fails nearly 95% of the rest. The
second filter failures are legion, the canonical industrial experience is thousands of ideas
required to, after several stages of triage, result in a single market viable new product. The
commercial aircraft industry in the western world is currently dominated by two companies: one
in the USA (Boeing) and another one in Europe (Airbus), with two emerging companies in the
east (Comac & Irkut in China and Russia). The market is huge with plenty of orders for
everyone for the foreseeable future so the motivation for change and risk taking is small. Even
in the military market an introduction of a new airplane to service may take 20 years and its
procurement may last for another 30 years (e.g. the F-16 was produced in 1973 and it is still
produced today while the V-22 flew in 1989 and only half of its initial orders are fulfilled at this
date).
The research community is exquisitely familiar with the details of the first, or technical,
filter but far less so with regard to the second. A sampling of the components, particularized to
aeronautics, of the technological/second filter in terms of its major components (engineering,
safety/environment, and economic/business) include the following:

Engineering – Production ability, manufacturability, maintainability, supportability, ability to fly

(regulatory restrictions), airworthiness, performance, flexibility, repairability, operability,
durability, robustness, compatibility, energetics, volumetrics, part count, complexity, weight,
scalability, and responsiveness

Econometrics –Cost(s), potential profit, ancillary side effects, liability, market timeliness,
protectability, novelty, availability, complexity, distribution system, risk, regulatory issues,
productivity, market pull, and competition

5
Safety/Environmental – Weather, vortex hazard, stall/spin, flutter, fatigue, reliability,
crashworthiness, emissions, and acoustics

Each of these issues obviously has to be particularized with an extensive sub-

breakdown for a specific system. As an example of the application of these filters, reference 84
discusses the technical aspects of several wing flow control approaches. Reference 85 then
describes a similar, but expanded, set and concludes operational applications of these concepts
were quite disappointing, due to lack of integration for the aerodynamic installations with
airplane structure and propulsion and flight control systems at the early state of airplane design.
A similar story is available for active noise attenuation (reference 86). The application of active
attenuators has developed slowly for the following reasons: Insufficient experience of practical
installations to permit assessment in real situations, the need to reduce the complexity and cost
of the systems, lack of knowledge by design engineers of the potential benefits of active
attenuators, and insufficient evidence to convince contractors and hardware suppliers of the
cost savings and reliability of active attenuators.
Such comments could be generalized to apply to any designer fluid mechanics or indeed
most any new technical approach. It should be noted that large scale research demonstrations,
and even research level flight experiments, are usually part of the technical as opposed to the
crucial technological filter (due to the typical utilization of breadboard/iron-bird/add-on
approaches). Very few, if any, of the technology filter issues are typically addressed in research
level flight programs. Designer fluid mechanics is merely one facet of a hugely complex and
necessarily interactive aerospace system design process, which, to further complicate matters,
can differ appreciably in terms of metrics and their relative importance between military and
civilian applications. One estimate suggests 10,000 separate computer programs are run during
the design and manufacture of an aerospace system. In general, a bad mark on any one or a
number of grey marks on several of the technological filter issues is usually sufficient to obviate
use of a particular designer fluid mechanics approach/concept, unless the potential benefits are
major enough to justify efforts to attempt to correct the shortfalls. These issues overlay industry
proclivities toward conservatism. As competition increases, risk-aversion decreases somewhat.
However, in terms of advanced concepts of all types (e.g. flow control/configurational, etc.), the
reality is that there are no magic bullets (i.e. approaches which require no research and
development, present no problems, and only provide huge (guaranteed) benefits). The
evaluation and eventual adoption of a new technical approach/idea/concept is usually a long
and arduous process for which the initiators are a key element. They have the physical
insight(s) and the motivation to pursue the idea. If such a pursuit included knowledge, study,
and problem solving concerning the multitudinous technological filter issues early on, the
adoption success rates would increase dramatically. As research on a concept addresses these
applications/real-world issues, requisite details regarding requirements and payoffs (or lack
thereof) become increasingly competition-sensitive/proprietary and, for Department of Defense-
related issues, may even be classified. Therefore, in general, there are no open journals the
researcher can consult for this critical second filter information, information which should ideally
influence the initial choice, as well as conduct, of the research project. The astute researcher
has little choice but to work directly with the end users up front, and at the end of the process
the end-user controls the outcome and may delay implementation for a generation.

Flow Control Approaches: Used and Unused

In an attempt to particularize the information in the previous section to the flow control
arena, experts in various industries and government were queried with regard to the following:
“In your products, what flow control approaches do you use and why do you use these particular
ones?” Also, “What flow control approaches do you not use and why do you not use them?” The
6
responses to this query were extraordinarily consistent. The consensus end use metrics
included: Low initial cost, favorable overall cost/benefit, competition, operates successfully in
“real-world” conditions, demonstrated experimentally at large scale, favorable or worthwhile
energetics. The engineering-illities included: Enhances/improves a valuable metric, acceptable
“side effects,” robust, and acceptable from a legal, regulatory, safety, environmental, liability and
acoustic standpoint. These are consistent with the technological second filter elements. Studies
of Langley Research Center’s attempts to license research concepts generated by in-house
research yielded a general theme that (in many cases) the research was simply not carried far
enough to allow evaluation of the technological filter issues. More specific comments on
particular approaches in the Langley study were: (1) lack of market; (2) not protectable; (3)
systems implications unevaluated/unknown; (4) more advanced/alternative solutions already
available and (5) narrow applicability.
A comment from the U.S. Navy was particularly interesting in that 95% of hydro benefits
in the last decades derived from the use of optional shaping. There are dozens of flow control
techniques that have been shown to be effective at the basic research level, and some at the
exploratory development and even prototyping levels. Very few have reached optional use.
Reasons for “Why not used?” included: Not robust, did not trade well, and were not
“sailor-proof.” Also, the NASA Aerodynamics Advisory Panel indicates if the use of a large scale
prototype is not feasible (i.e. affordable) in the vehicle development process, and the flow
control device cannot be accurately represented at close to flight Reynolds numbers in the wind
tunnel (or, reliably, computationally), then the risk factor for these devices is just too great.

Successful/deployed Flow Control Approaches Include the Following:

Blown flaps, leading edge extension, passive (“natural”) laminar flow, leading edge
“notch” vane vortex generators, NACA flush inlet, flow diverters, variable geometry writ large,
base burning, winglets, wing fences, inlet bleed, transition trips, screens/honeycombs, jet
injection thrust vector control, spiral chimney bands, anti-noise, polymer drag reduction, shelter
belts, super-cavitation, chevrons, shaping/fairing, “no tail rotar” tail boom, spoilers, cyclone
combustors, grooved runways, fairings, passive porous surfaces, air injection into hydrodynamic
flows, and polymers.

Flow control approaches utilized in nature include shark dermal denticles, swept tapered
tips, wing tip feathers, cactus barrels, grooved shells, swordfish/marlin sword, gill efflux, and
fairings

Sample Flow Control Approaches Under Study and Development for Many Decades
Include:
Suction laminar flow control, circulation control, mission adaptive wing, several wing tip
approaches for wake vortex control and/or drag due to lift reduction, jet vortex generators,
vortex flap, suction separation control, active compressor stall control, microbubble turbulent
drag reduction, phase locked active wave cancellation, spanwise blowing for vortex lift,
transverse wall motions, and plasma control
An examination of these lists and the previous discussion herein suggests the following
features of a useful flow control approach: Simple and inexpensive in many cases, retrofittable
in some cases, passive/rigid (thus far), reliable/simulatable in ground facilities, and well
understood and proven.

7
 Some Illustrative Example of Flow Control Visions vs. Reality

Viscous Drag Reduction (VDR)

The general approaches to VDR include reduced roughness, wetted area, viscosity,
density, mean velocity, and turbulence near/at the wall. As is well known, there has been very
considerable renewed research interest over the past decades in viscous drag reduction, both
laminar flow control (LFC) and turbulent drag reduction. The original impetus for this research
was the energy crisis of the 70s. In terms of fuel efficiency or initial size/cost reduction payoffs,
viscous drag reduction is avowed to have a greater impact than technology advances in
propulsion, structures, and materials and even advanced aerodynamics (but not their synergistic
combinations). There have been many flight experiments to evaluate various approaches. This
flight activity, along with serious progress in computational/predictive capability, has clearly
demonstrated that LFC (and riblets for turbulent drag reduction) are through the technical filter
yet they are not widely utilized except by the general aviation/ small aircraft community in terms
of natural laminar flow, which is the portion of the technology which satisfies the principles of
successful flow control devices (e.g. simple, inexpensive, passive, rigid, well understood, and
proven). Why is viscous drag reduction not more widely/generally used? The risk is still too
large in terms of the various facets of the technology/second filter and, based upon the current
knowledge base, the added cost(s) of design, fabrication, installation, and in-service
maintenance tend to cancel the value of reduced fuel consumption.
The evaluation process required to determine the applicability of LFC to transport aircraft
must necessarily include consideration of aerodynamics, weights, mechanical/electrical
subsystems, propulsion, structures, manufacturing, safety, reliability and maintainability,
marketing, and finance (i.e. components of the second filter).

Remaining Application Issues Associated with Utilization of Riblets Include:

Application installation and removal time/cost, durability/maintainability, cost/benefit
tradeoff, substrate inspection, cosmetics/weathering, control surface effectiveness, buffeting,
lightning, fluids interactions, operational damage, and clogging

Example Remaining Issues for Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC) Include:
Insects, lack of a low disturbance large scale, high Reynolds number transonic tunnel,
complexity, leading edge device effectiveness, cost/reliability/maintainability, manufacturability,
fatigue life, and risk
Over the years, attempts were made to utilize heated body laminar flow control in
hydrodynamic applications. The approach worked well in tow tanks but not at sea. Studies
indicated that the various particulates in the water column tripped the flow. Yet another
instantiation of real-world conditions, this time in the environment, having a first order effect on
usability of flow control approaches. Similar real world (flight) effects upon suction LFC in the
swept wing x-21 experiments included a requirement for better than 50-mile visibility at high
altitudes to avoid laminar flow degradation due to ice cloud particulates. Additional flight issues
included acoustic disturbances from the suction system, the propulsion system, and the
turbulent fuselage boundary layer, as well as rain/heavy clouds, residual roughness, and
insects.

Vortex Control
The diversity and importance of longitudinal vortex control applications are extraordinary.

8
Examples of Vortex Control Applications:
Submarine hull/sail “necklace” vortices (e.g. noise reduction, effects on control surfaces,
drag and propulsion), architectural aerodynamics, wake vortex hazard, turbomachinery
optimization, drag due to lift reduction, buffet/wing rock, noise reduction, heat transfer
augmentation/reduction, chemical engineering writ large, turbulence/mixing control, scouring,
energy separation, benthic oxygenation, and sediment control

Well-known aeronautical examples include: LEX [wing leading edge extensions], geometric
discontinuities utilized on fighter aircraft (e.g. F-16, F-18) which provide vortex lift and partially
attached lee-surface wing flow for enhanced maneuverability over a wide range of angles of
attack
Canards are used on all current European combat airplanes whose main wing has a
delta shape and is swept back at approximately 60o. The tip vortices emanating from the
canards have a large effect on the pressure distribution over the wing as may be seen on figure
1, where pressure sensitive paint is used on an airplane model of the Kfir, an F-21 that is a
variant of the French Mirage 5 that used the J-79 US made engine and canard. The test was
carried out at the University of Arizona and demonstrated the effects of the canard on the flow.
It contributed to the leading-edge vortex that is commonly present at these sweep angles,
particularly when the leading-edge curvature is large. The strengthening of the leading-edge
vortex increases the lift of the wing and provides a sufficient nose-up pitching moment that
alleviated the need for a horizontal stabilizer or an inflection at the trailing edge of wing’s airfoil
section. The incidence of the canard can vary independently of the airplane, thus providing the
adequate vortex strength at each attitude.
The Chinese Chengdu J-20 combat airplane has a movable (variable sweep) canard
that makes the canard more versatile.

Figure 1: Pressure sensitive paint wind tunnel study of the Kfir aircraft

Over the years, various alternative proposals of the active variety (e.g. moveable
geometry, blowing, suction, etc.) have been put forward, researched, and even, in some cases,
flown. Thus far, these active approaches have not been extensively applied. In the 1970s,
NASA worked a series of fixes to the wake vortex hazard problem and conducted flight tests on
a 747 aircraft. The general observation was that differences in detailed geometry and Reynolds
number between flight and the then available ground tests were responsible for the often large
laboratory-to-flight discrepancies. This provides clear support for the assertion cited previously
that adequate ground simulation at near flight conditions is essential, in this case to even sort
out the applicable physics, at least part of which was the curvature-induced Rayleigh
stabilization of the vortex core. Typical required separation distances between “heavy” and light
aircraft observed in the (unmodified) low Reynolds number ground tests were the order of half
or less those observed in the (unmodified) flight case. That is, the ground tests did not represent

9
the base flight state correctly. Similar shortfalls in vortex and vortex control have also been
observed during marine, especially submarine, applications.

Aircraft High Lift

The conventional approach to civilian aircraft high lift is that of variable geometry utilizing
a mix of leading edge slats/devices and trailing edge flaps. The resulting lift coefficient values
fall generally in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 (based on the cruise configuration of the wing area) with
major cost/weight penalties in terms of a high part count and system weight/volume
requirements. The military, which has a requirement for operation of heavy transport aircraft on
short, unimproved runways and carrier deck operations has long studied the tremendous
benefits of synergistic aero and propulsive interactions for high lift. Probably the most
defining/revolutionary approach (in terms of overall performance) to propulsive augmented lift is
circulation control, wherein a high-speed jet is positioned near and just above the trailing edge
to move both front and rear stagnation points under the wing. This approach can produce CL
values approaching 4 π. The possible benefits to commercial aircraft and airspace/airport
productivity of such a flow control approach are truly revolutionary and the approach transited
the technical filter long ago, including flight tests. The requisite small high-pressure feedlines
could even become an integral part of the wing structure. Yet, the approach is still not used.
This technology, along with thrust vectoring for control and many others, offers synergistic
aero/propulsion interactions and are, in the opinion of the civilian industry, too risky even though
the fluid mechanists can proffer some obvious risk reduction approaches for engine out such as
cross-coupling the engine bleed systems. This is a clear case of the technical community not
carrying the work far enough to provide risk mitigation, including invention/development of
techniques, to reduce the required efflux flow rates and acoustics.

Scramjet Mixing Enhancement

In 1972, at the Langley Conference on Turbulent Free Mixing, a clear trend was
established of reduced mixing for free shear layers with increasing (high speed stream side)
Mach number. This result lay essentially dormant for over 10 years until the National Aerospace
Plane Program of the late 80s inspired a national effort (Air Force Office of Scientific Research,
Office of Naval Research, NASA) in high speed mixing physics and enhancement. The physics
responsible for the observed diminution in mixing rate with Mach number was, to a significant
extent, delineated/identified, and many approaches proffered/studied by the fluids community to
increase mixing at high speeds to overcome this Mach number trend.
Unfortunately, these efforts were largely disconnected from the real world of scramjets,
their avowed application. Almost all of the fluids research centered on a clean shear layer
without the complicating, but essential, real engine mixing region features such as thick initial
turbulent regions, 3-D mean flows with curvature(s), organized vorticity of various types, various
wave systems/pressure gradients, combustion, walls, etc., all of which generally cause
enhanced mixing and would be expected to overshadow most-to-all of the effects of the various
enhancement approaches studied in the clean experiments. In fact, the 1972 “Langley curve” of
shear layer spreading parameter with Mach number included an (admittedly sparse) set of data
indicating no observable effect of Mach number upon spreading rate for the case
of a thick initial turbulent region where the shear layer is effectively forced by a high intensity
stream turbulent field with large length scales/broad spectrum. This provides an example
wherein the research community did not relate to/include/study the application details, thereby
significantly reducing the impact of their work in the real world.

10
Drag Due to Lift (DDL) Reduction
Drag due to lift is a major portion (40% to 45%) of aircraft cruise drag and 90% of takeoff
drag due to the requisite high lift levels. The obvious and well used approaches for reduction
include increased span, elliptic load distribution, winglets, and distributing lift vertically (e.g. bi
planes). There is a plethora of additional DDL reduction approaches, some with considerable
research heritage and some more speculative. The tip flow is 3-D and the extant flow angularity
can be utilized to either extract thrust or power. Alternatives include formation flying, reduced
vehicle weight, tip blowing, rotating tips, porous tips, wing tip engines, joined wing-tail, ring
wings, tip sails, vortex diffuser vane, tip turbines and swept back tapered tips, among others.
Several of these require systems level changes in structures/configuration for
enablement of such as wing tip engines, ring wings, and joined wing-tail. In general, and
curiously, as opposed to the major research efforts focused upon viscous drag reduction, the
efforts on drag due to lift reduction has been much less and, aside from mostly improved
winglets, not much application. DDL reduction appears to be a major opportunity area for flow
control going forward, including study of what has been found to improve lift and reduce wake
vortex hazard.

Air Lubrication in Water Flows

The large density difference between air and water is a source of major viscous drag
reduction for hydrodynamics. Large laminar and turbulent viscous drag reduction (VDR) can be
obtained via adding air near the wall. There are several instantiations of this approach extant,
two of which have been applied. The Russian Shkval Torpedo creates an air bubble around the
vehicle and attains speeds in excess of 200 knots. Control surfaces are extended out into the
water flow. There have been applications at the macroscale scale of air injection for ship drag
reduction, usually on riverine and flattish hulls, with greatly increased recent utilization, including
23 vessels across the utilization spectrum, in response to energy, climate realities. Observations
at sea indicate reductions of net power requirements by 10% to 20%.
Then there is microbubble air injection, proven in lab experiments, with the major drag
reduction levels observed mostly predictable from the mixed density profiles (i.e. air
concentration vs. distance from the surface). Another approach is more recent,
superhydrophobic surfaces, which are trapped air bubbles at the micro/Nano scales. This
reduces both laminar and turbulent drag nicely at low speeds but requires replenishment at
higher speeds, particularly in turbulent flows where studies suggest the convected turbulent wall
pressure fluctuations lift/remove the air bubbles.
An approach that is speculative is to attempt to extract air bubbles via microcavitation
approaches from the usually saturated water column near the surface. This provides continuous
“passive make up” air, with various approaches possible and probably worth some study.

Shock Wave Drag Reduction

For supersonic/hypersonic in atmospheric flight, shock wave drag is the order of a third
or greater of the total drag. Reducing shock wave drag involves either weakening the shock or
utilizing favorable shock interference. An example of the latter is parasol wing design. If the
associated shock/boundary interaction flow separation can be controlled, such a configuration
has the order of a 25% plus better overall aerodynamic performance than more conventional
configurations. Shocks can be weakened by utilizing more gradual flow turning. Interestingly,
due to over expansions, there is an optimal bluntness, with some portion of normal shock
enabling an overall lower body drag. Such bluntness, vice “sharp”, also reduces heat load and
delays transition and improves packaging. Another method of weakening the body shock
involves projecting a thin spike such as is used on the C4 and D5 ballistic missiles or injecting a

11
thin stream of liquid water forward or projecting energy upstream. All of these “point” the shock
and reduce shock drag as well as heating.

A Detailed Account of Active Flow Control Including Vertical Tail Applications

Turbulence was considered to be random prior to the discovery of the large coherent
eddies in turbulent shear flows. These eddies retained their characteristic features over large
streamwise distances despite the strong eddying motion that surrounded them. This led the
research community to question the validity of the prevailing turbulent models that correlated
turbulence to the local mean flow. The corollary of this observation put to test the presumption
that all self-preserving (equilibrium) turbulent flows are universal. When the flow at the origin of
a turbulent mixing layer was tripped by a piano wire that shed small vortices commensurate with
the wire’s diameter, the rate of spread of this turbulent flow increased by 30% (Fig. 2). This led
to the notion that the mixing layer is sensitive to periodic excitation at its origin (85), suggesting
that turbulent shear flows containing an inflection point in their mean velocity profile are
susceptible to instabilities similar to the ones observed in laminar flows (86-88). Boundary layer
flows subjected to strong adverse pressure gradient have velocity profiles resembling the
classical mixing layer (89) and separated flow over a stalled wing is a mixing layer (90). An
increase in the rate of spread of such a layer implies that more fluid is engulfed into its large
eddies and when this engulfment comes from a limited reservoir of fluid like the one existing on
a stalled wing, the pressure over the wing is being lowered by the periodic excitation and that
pressure difference bends (redirects) the flow toward the surface, eventually reattaching the
mixing layer to it (91). Thus, a novel active flow control (AFC) concept that utilizes inherent
instabilities in the flow emerged.
This led to the introduction of periodic excitation (synthetic jets) for control of separation,
whereupon the efficiency of the process relies on the natural amplification of the perturbations
by the mean flow. Experiments comparing the effectiveness of steady blowing to periodic
excitation were carried out, where it transpired that the oscillations reduced the input momentum
required to attach the flow by a factor of 5 and more (92).

Figure 2: The different spreading rates db/dx of mixing layers versus velocity ratio
λ= (U1-U2)/(U1+U2) representing the two streams creating the classical self-preserving,
turbulent mixing layer. The various symbols represent different experimental setups.
12
 The idea was pursued at numerous laboratories (e.g. NASA (95); Georgia Tech (94); IIT
(95), & industry (96)), and its validity was demonstrated on two airborne vehicles: a “Pioneer”
UAV in 1995 (97) and on the XV-15 tilt rotor airplane in 2003 (98]. A blower and a rotary valve
powered the active flow control (AFC) system in the Pioneer experiment, oscillating a jet that
emerged over a simple flap system. It increased the lift of the vehicle while requiring a relatively
small input of momentum coefficient (Cµ<1%). The test on the XV-15 was much more
extensive. It used 52 electromagnetic actuators that provided the required zero mass flux
periodic actuation. The actuators were placed in individual bays near the leading edge of the
flaps and emitted their oscillations through a segmented narrow slot. They reduced the
download created by the rotor wakes on the airplane in hover by enabling the flap to be
deflected at an angle that exceeded the natural separation angle by 15o. Coincidentally, the
download alleviation was approximately 17% as was the increase in the Pioneer’s lift, although
the configurations and flight test conditions were different.
The “Achilles Heel” of these tests were the actuators which were heavy and needed
maintenance. Various actuator types were considered (e.g. plasma actuators, piezo-electric,
mechanical, shape memory alloys, etc.) but none were satisfactory until the rediscovery of the
fluidic oscillators (often referred to as the sweeping jet actuators), that almost doubled the
download alleviation on the V-22 model. The potential use of these fluidic oscillators is attractive
because they are small, have no moving parts, and the air supply required by them is relatively
small as well. They can be easily integrated into a wing or a flap. The jets that they emit sweep
from one side of the nozzle to the other, therefore interacting periodically with different regions
of the flow to be controlled. The fluidic oscillators were developed during the 1950s at the Harry
Diamond Research Laboratories and used in analog computers and fluidic amplifiers. They are
currently used in automobile windshield washers, shower heads, and irrigation systems. Since
these commercial applications involve water, the effects of compressibility were not seriously
addressed in the past but this gap in knowledge was recently filled (99, 100)
The use of sweeping jets in the laboratory provided the impetus to put AFC into practice.
The most obvious and least risky application is the vertical tail (or stabilizer) of a twin-engine
airplane whose size is determined by the eventuality of an engine power loss during takeoff and
low speed climb. The vertical tail represents a large surface that is hardly used under normal
flight conditions, but it is indispensable during an “engine out” emergency, and is needed during
crosswind takeoff and landing. Although seldom used to its full capability, its presence adds
drag and weight to the aircraft, thus increasing its fuel consumption. Active flow control (AFC)
devices that delay flow separation over a highly deflected rudder may enable a smaller vertical
tail to provide the control authority needed during emergency. The purpose of the experiment
was to establish the efficacy of a system that uses fluidic oscillators at the rudder hinge. It broke
new ground in AFC applications because of the large sweep back of the vertical tail and its
relatively low aspect ratio. The natural flow direction over a typical rudder or a flap of a swept
back wing is dominated by the spanwise velocity because the chordwise flow decelerates as it
approaches the trailing edge, thus providing the Kutta-Joukowski condition. Consequently, a
small jet emanating from a point source is able to stop the natural spanwise flow and redirect it
downstream along the chord (101). In this sense a jet acts like a flexible fence or a jet curtain
and it may be more effective than the large fences currently seen on swept back wings. Initial
experiments on typical vertical tail models suggested that very few small jets located near the
rudder hinge can provide a large increment of lift (side force exceeding 20%). A collective input
momentum of Cμ ≈ 0.1% enabled sparsely distributed jets to redirect the surface-flow and
prevent flow reversal thus delaying separation over the rudder.

13
 Figure 3: The change of the side force coefficient with cmuat the highest rudder deflection angle when
various numbers of actuators were used at NFAC and a typical sweeping jet actuator.

The full-scale tests at the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC) (102, 103)
confirmed the concept of the fluidic fence but did not attempt to develop it further or optimize it.
The purpose of these tests was to prove the viability of active separation control at high
Reynolds number (Re) prior to demonstrating it on a Boeing 757 aircraft in flight (104). There
were many limitations imposed on the test that precluded a true development of the fluidic fence
concept. The test article used was an actual vertical tail that was removed from a mothballed
airplane. Its maximum rudder deflection was limited to the existing airplane range of 30o and it
was not modified. There were cut-outs in the rudder that accommodated the rudder deflection
mechanisms and those were blocked for a very short time to evaluate their impact on the flow
field. These constraints could be relaxed if the tests were to focus on development of a novel
AFC technology rather than fulfilling an arbitrary success criterion. Figure 3 presents the change
in the side force coefficient normalized by its baseline value as a function of Cμ at the highest
rudder deflection angle. It was noted that even a single actuator improved the control authority
of the rudder by approximately 9% relative to the measured and predicted baseline value,
suggesting that a nozzle whose total area was 1/8 in2 square can affect a wing whose area is
half a million times larger. This cannot be an issue of classical separation control because it
is impossible for a single wall-jet or even three or five of them to cover a substantial surface
area of the rudder. Since the purpose of this experiment was to control separation at high
rudder deflection angle and its success criterion for a demonstrative test flight was

14
predetermined, the discovery of the “fluidic fence” was not recognized by the sponsor nor
was it pursued any further. The CFD support proved to be a challenge. It precisely predicted
the baseline results but there were no tools in existence to simulate the time dependent flow
exiting the actuators and interacting with the three-dimensional turbulent boundary layer that
was either partly or totally separated. Large CFD effort carried out recently simulated the
extensive use of actuation on the rudder quite correctly (105, 106). Based on the predetermined
success criterion, a 31-actuator array configuration was chosen for the test flight because it
resulted in a 20% increase in side force at a side-slip angle of 7.5o. A TUI-Boeing 757-200
ecoDemonstrator was flown in the spring of 2015 (104). Although the flight test was considered
a resounding success, the critics pointed at a heat exchanger located below the APU, mocking
the achievement. Two years later it was shown that hotter sweeping jets were more effective
than colder ones and the jet flow cooled so rapidly that it did not pose a problem to the rudder
structure (102). Flow cones (tufts) placed on the rudder were photographed by a chase plane
and shown for reference (104).

The flight test pictures [Fig. 4] confirmed the observations made at NFAC and at the Lucas
wind tunnel at Caltech, showing how the rudder flow was redirected by the actuation. Pilot
feedback and analysis of the flight data proved the effectiveness of AFC, because a smoother
single engine flight was attained that was coupled to enhanced rudder control authority. It
resulted in NASA claiming an increase in the AFC Technology Readiness Level (TRL) from 3 to
6. However, the research on the vertical tail was stopped without providing a road map for future
optimization and system integration of AFC into the vertical tail or other control surfaces on an
airplane.

Figure 4: Tuft flow visualization during a test flight of the 757

airplane [104]
15
 If the experiment was repeated today, the elimination of spanwise flow would have been
a first order of importance. Since a small number of actuators is required for that task an entirely
different air supply could be used and incorporated into the 757-vertical tail. An electrically
driven small compressor (see specifications and size in Fig. 5) can supply five actuators on the
full-scale tail. It can be easily integrated into the vertical stabilizer as seen below. A small
number of these compressors provides safety and redundancy with very low weight penalty.
The location of actuation and the direction of intervention (blowing) in the rudder case is obvious
because the flow changes direction at the rudder hinge and it is the spanwise flow that has to be
controlled first.
The broad purpose of AFC is to extend and augment the capabilities of lift generation by
flaps and control surfaces beyond the natural separation of the flow (108). So, AFC may
become a tool that interacts with all the other variables affecting the shape of the vertical tail,
but the level of that interaction is still to be determined.

Figure 5 Possible installation of Fischer micro-turbo-compressor in the vertical tail of a 757 aircraft
(107)

Potential Systems/Configuration Level Flow Control Enablements

Large performance improvements are potentially possible based upon
systems/configuration level applications of flow control. Thus far flow control research has
primarily focused upon various classes of flows. There has been little consideration with regard
to what could be developed at the systems level if we utilized flow control and deviated from
extant, conventional designs.

The All Up Truss-braced Wing

Pfenninger has long advocated strut/truss bracing to improve the performance of
conventional transports. The resulting (bending, torsion) structural benefits allow reduced wing
weight, thickness, and sweep, resulting in a tremendously enhanced and easily maintained (i.e.
reduced sensitivity to roughness/insect remains/ice clouds, reduced cross flow) extent of
16
natural-to-easily forced low drag laminar flow, along with increased span with attendant drag
due to lift reductions. The latter allowed a reduction in wing chord, further enhancing the extent
of laminar flow, as well as enhanced takeoff and climb performance and reduced vortex hazard.
Plenninger’s designs for such aircraft yielded lift to drag (L/D) values in the 40s, over twice
current levels, with one of his studies which included a laminar fuselage yielding a machine with
L/D = 100, 700 Pax and 200,000 Km range. The concept was not, however, adopted primarily
because the extensive wingspan did not fit the FAA “80 meter box” for airport gate compatibility,
and disbelief that a transonic strut/truss braced wing could be designed with acceptable shock
drag (and obtain laminar flow on the strut/truss).
Strut-bracing is routinely employed on low(er) speed aircraft. The latter objection is
probably not valid in light of today’s CFD capabilities. In general, we build what we can compute
and we were too long constrained in aircraft design to linear theory and consequent “linear
thinking.” Indeed, lack of adequate/believable “first principles” estimation methods for not only
performance but cost(s), maintenance/operability, etc., are a major reason why work on
advanced aero concepts has lagged. Our historical systems methodologies were essentially
extrapolation and interpolation procedures based upon, and therefore largely restricted to,
empirical data for/from the current paradigms. As discussed, the improved computing machine
capabilities/mod-sim developments are changing such considerations/judgements in real time.
The span of a truss-braced configuration can probably be doubled and a hinge (already
available in industry) utilized to conform to the 80-meter gate requirement. Doubling span would
halve Reynolds number on the wing and reduce drag due to lift on the order of 75%. Combining
this DDL reduction with the extensive wing laminar flow, results in most of the remaining vehicle
drag being fuselage friction drag. Such drag can be addressed in several ways. The most
dramatic is to apply boundary layer relaminarization just downstream of the cockpit, forward
door. The aircraft nose region with the radome, probes, windshield, wipers, etc. will be turbulent,
therefore there will be the need to ingest/take aboard just aft of the forward door 150% plus (to
entrain the turbulent “superlayer”) of the local fuselage turbulent boundary layer and reestablish
laminar flow. The increasing use of personal view screens vice windows greatly eases the task
of maintaining laminar flow downstream. The air taken aboard can be slot injected into the
turbulent wing-fuselage turbulent flow wedge to accrue local skin friction reduction. The engines
can be moved to the rear of the fuselage, surrounded by a Goldschmied shroud. This would
enable several interesting/useful functionalities. The engines could be thrust-vectored, obviating
the weight/drag of the empennage. The shroud provides copious volume for acoustic
treatment(s). The engines ingest the fuselage boundary layer accruing a sizable propulsion
improvement. Then there is the oft mentioned, but still under study, “Goldschmied Effect” that
purportedly could cancel a sizable portion of the fuselage friction drag. The thought is that
possibly/TBD, putting “sinks inside the body” using the cowl could convert the back of the cowl
into a stagnation region, thereby producing what Goldschmied called favorable interaction
“Static Pressure Thrust.”
For long haul transports, the weight of the gear is the order of half the fuselage weight.
The gear weight could be reduced in several ways. One is to utilize parachutes instead of super
heavy brakes for refused takeoff. Another is to utilize wholly automatic landings with the controls
slaved to the altitude/ground proximity and a decent rate to take out the impact loading. All of
these benefits greatly reduce vehicle weight overall. These benefits, along with clever vortex
flow control and greater span, can reduce wake vortex hazard. Advanced materials on the way
to eventual development/invention of structural Nano tubes, along with the possibility of using
inflatable inboard wing sections to enable further sweep reductions provide weight reductions,
including the truss benefits on wing weight, in the range of 30% to double that. The estimated
and computed L/D for these configurations is in excess of 40 to much higher. The resultant fuel
burn reductions are, without going to fuselage laminarization but using riblets for turbulent
17
viscous drag reduction, in excess of 70%. It should be noted that we have no detailed studies
of truss braced wing truss optimization. The studies thus far have been at the systems not the
detailed design level. We have never been here before. Obvious options include pre-stressing,
hydraulic dynamic internal pressurization, laminar elements, arching, “Y” intersections with the
wing to avoid supercritical flow regions, optimizing the overall number, nature, positioning of the
elements, etc. The truss could also be carried out beyond the mid span/wing hinge positions. All
of these options and far more are forward work. The recent and ongoing efforts at Boeing on
truss braced wing designs employ a portion of the “all up” approaches cited herein. To these
flow control approaches for this configuration could be added the recent Corke plasma induced
sizable net turbulent drag reduction and some wing tip electric engines for additional DDL for
the electric propulsion case going forward.

Double Fuselage
Conventionally, double fuselage/multi-body aircraft have been employed to provide
span-load distribution and accrue the associated structural weight benefits (reduced wing
bending moment) without going all the way to a “blended wing body”/span loader configuration
(i.e. providing such benefits via “conventional” technology). Total aircraft drag is also reduced,
primarily due to favorable effects on drag due to lift. An advanced double fuselage approach
could attempt to delete the conventional outer wing panels and only retain a largely
unswept/long chord wing section between the fuselages. This requires prodigious drag due to lift
reduction, a requirement which can be addressed via design of the wing tip fuselages as wing-
tip “end plates” and the individual fuselage empennage as “winglets” (i.e. the tails become
thrusting surfaces in the presence of the wing vorticity wrapping around the fuselage(s)). For
this case, the “midwing” can become the site of the gear (to allow use of conventional runways),
with engines “buried” at the rear of the fuselages to accrue the benefits of “boundary layer
ingestion” and drag due to lift reduction, with extensive (natural/suction) laminar flow enabled by
the largely unswept “midwing.” Spanwise and localized ahead of the neutral curve heating strips
in the wing leading edge region would enable, from theory and experiment, longer regions of
laminar flow. The approach essentially converts the wing surface downstream of the neutral
curve into a “cooled region” as far as the incoming (upstream heated) flow is concerned and for
these speeds, in unswept flows, cooling is stabilizing. A major payoff would accrue from making
the fuselages detachable/interchangeable to provide a civilian “skytrain” with enhanced
productivity. The midwing portion which does all the “flying” could be in the air nearly “around
the clock” with interchangeable freighter and/or passenger modules, thereby nearly doubling the
productivity/duty cycle and the “return on investment.” Such an approach would allow a
restructuring of the airline capital investment, with the airlines “owning” their fuselages and
leasing the “midwing” from a “rent-a-wing” company. Obviously, military versions could have
cargo, troop, and refueling fuselages--providing a quantum jump in military flexibility and
productivity.

The Channel Wing

The channel wing is an example of an advanced configuration which was somewhat ahead of
its time. The concept was originally developed, essentially empirically, in the 40s and early 50s
as a Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) light aircraft and several versions were flown. This is
not just a "paper airplane." The essential technology consists of a semicircular airfoil "channel"
underneath, and surrounding on the underside, "standoff” wing mounted engine nacelles such
that the engine-induced airflow produces sizable lift on the wing "channel" at zero to low forward
speed, providing dramatic STOL capability. Measurements of pounds of lift per horsepower are
in the helicopter range. The developers of the configuration claimed, but there was never any
satisfactory "proof," perhaps due to "then year" control problems, that the approach was
18
capable of near Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) performance. Development of this
concept has been essentially dormant since the late 50's except for Soviet research. Antonov
produced an advanced prototype-demonstrator in the late 80's termed the AN 181. The original
40's-to-50's era research on the channel wing was, by necessity, highly empirical and resource
constrained. The concept provides a classic example of an approach worth revisiting with
updated tools and technology to ascertain the extent to which its STOL performance could
approach VTOL. In particular, the incorporation of circulation control in the classical sense (via
blowing immediately upstream and above the trailing edge), when combined with the engine-
induced flow over the wing, should further augment the lifting capability of the configuration.
Also, a serious attempt should be made to reduce the requisite propulsive mass flow currently
and historically required for circulation control via "dynamic flow control". Additional technology
updates/approaches of possible interest include (power on) CFD (so the approach could be
"designed" instead of "engineered"), flow separation avoidance and control, wing laminar flow
for cruise performance and inboard strut bracing along with the all-important vehicle controls
issues. The potential for such an updated channel wing approach to address the commercial
and military "V-22 niche" should be determined as the channel wing could possibly incorporate
very interesting lifting capabilities with a fairly high cruise speed at reduced weight/cost
compared to the V-22 (with its engine rotation requirements and associated systems penalties).

Extreme Arrow Wing Truss-braced SST

Thus far supersonic transports have not been particularly successful, either conceptually
or in actual realizations. The Concord was a technological marvel for its time but was not
commercially successful. Similar remarks hold for the TU-144. The basic SST issues are
straight forward. The usual many and various aeronautical problems hold and are extended and
confounded by the addition of serious wave drag, higher fuel fractions, higher temperatures, and
greater weights, which all drive up vehicle cost. Then there are the high-altitude
ozone/emissions (especially water) problems, far more incident radiation, and the sonic boom,
the latter causing anti-SST legislation. The sonic boom affects both people and things. There
has been some success in reducing the “N-wave” peaks that affect people but reducing the low
frequency “rumble” that affects buildings is a much more difficult task. Lastly, there is the jet
takeoff noise from the engines designed for propulsion at supersonic speeds. There are
concentrated studies ongoing of SST business jets, as such smaller vehicles both reduce the
massive investment level required to field such machines and also reduce the sonic boom,
which is first order dependent upon weight.
Advanced configuration SSTs come in five major categories: unswept, thin natural
laminar flow wings, parasol wing favorable interference, multistage aircraft, yawed wings and
the Pfenninger extreme arrow strut braced wing. The multi-stage approach usually involves a
stage which includes the capability to get off the ground with acceptable noise/high lift, and then
separates/returns to the airfield. The portion of the aircraft that lands at the end of the flight
weighs far less, allowing carriage of lighter weight gear and high lift systems. In-flight refueling is
another multi-stage aircraft option. The yawed wing approach uniquely provides a low
supersonic Mach number option that is nearly “boomless” and extremely efficient. Of these the
Pfenninger extreme arrow strut braced wing appears to have the greatest SST potential,
essentially doubling the Concord L/D of 7.3ish. The best NASA did in the High Speed Research
program of the late 90s was an L/D in the range of 9.5. The Pfenninger designs proffer values in
the range of 14 to 16 plus. The extreme arrow wing minimizes wave drag due to lift and wing
wetted area as well as providing a credible span for vortex drag minimization. The short wing
chord aids suction laminar flow control. There are mid-wing fuel canisters for favorable wave
interaction and load alleviation, with the possibility of natural laminar flow on the forward regions
of the fuel canisters and the fuselage. Several approaches utilized to optimize the truss-braced
19
Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL) design can also be applied to this SST, including
gear weight reductions via automatic landings and parachutes for refused take off. This is
particularly important in the SST case as the gear weight is the order of the fuselage weight. In
addition, C-wing tips would reduce DDL. The serious take off jet noise issue can be addressed
via an essentially new approach – disabling/reducing the causative turbulence dynamics vice
reducing the jet velocity via entrainment using heavy “mixer-ejectors.” Experiments and some
theory indicates that the injection of liquid water jets, suitably tailored for effectiveness and
minimal water mass flow, can place water droplets in the mixing region of the external jet which
reduce turbulence intensity and noise. The water injection produces additional thrust vice the
mixer-ejectors that reduce thrust and is a way of “staging the aircraft.” The water utilized during
take off does not have to be carried throughout the flight as does the mixer-ejector. Having such
a high L/D provides the margins necessary to address the myriad of SST problems.
Probably next-in-line in terms of efficient SST configuration approaches would be the
oblique/yawed wing, work on a bi-directional flying wing concept and the NASA N+3 SST
studies. The former is due to R.T. Jones and is well discussed in the literature. The bi-
directional approach is circa 2011 and involves a design based upon 90-degree rotation of the
configuration for supersonic vice subsonic flight. The design thereby provides major alterations
in aspect ratio for each speed range, enabling true bi-modal performance with excellent aero
performance for both supersonic over water and subsonic over land. The overall approach is
similar in philosophy to the variable sweep and yawed designs, but executed in a wholly novel
fashion, with efficacy to be determined. Such bi-modal aero performance improves the overall
performance for the mission and reduces required fuel fraction.

A Potpourri of Additional Systems Level Flow Control Possibilities Include:

 Spanwise wavy wings deduced from whale pectoral fin turbucules for improved lift and
possibly wake vortex mitigation and DDL reduction [Ref. 109] 
 A “Grim Wheel,” a flow turned disk just ahead of the internal inlet on a fuselage base
engine swallowing the fuselage boundary layer to reduce the inlet flow distortion [Ref.
110] 
 Water injection into the jet exhaust shear layer during takeoff to reduce takeoff jet noise
via mitigation of the causative jet turbulence, would also both increase thrust and obviate
the cruise weight and drag of the takeoff acoustics mitigation mixer-ejector approach for
SSTs 
 The Lobert Windmill, placing a windmill ahead of the air vehicle to extract energy, reduce
the boundary layer external velocity and thereby skin friction on the vehicle; the
extracted energy is carried to the rear where it is deposited in the vehicle wake,
producing thrust to partially obviate the drag produced by the energy extraction [Ref. 111
] 
 For ships or submersibles, extract phyto and zoo plankton from the cooling water and
cultivate on board drag reducing polymer to obviate having to load the requisite polymer
needed throughout the voyage 
 Continuous curvature, continuous 2nd derivative surfaces to minimize vortex production;
useful to reduce the self-noise on sonar domes and to mitigate hull bilge vortices which
reduce propulsion efficiency and create noise. Also can minimize lee side vortices on
aircraft 
 Turbulence tailoring/control in the combustor of gas turbine engines tailored to improve
the performance of downstream turbine stages 

20
  Stopped rotor VTOL, a two bladed large rotor turned by tip fans to obviate a tail rotor.
Once aloft, to cruise efficiently, rotor is stopped, becomes the wing. Necessary to rapidly
morph the leading/trailing edges of one of the rotors at that point so both rotors are
facing the right way. The tip fans become part of the propulsion system for cruise and
reduce DDL. A quiet, efficient VTOL with good cruise efficiency [Refr. 112]
 For SSTs, flow separation control at cruise to enable full inclusion of the many inviscid
performance enhancements now only partially employed due to flow separation,
including leading edge thrust, lift carryover onto the fuselage, carrying more lift on the
upper surface, and controlling the shock‐boundary layer interactions for parasol wing
designs

Concluding Remarks
Research and Development (R&D) of fixed geometry flow control approaches is still
occurring, notably the studies of the hump-back whale pectoral fin leading edge turbucles for
greater lift and possibly wake vortex hazard and DDL reduction.
Recent apparent breakthroughs in the laboratory regarding large net turbulent boundary
layer drag reduction via plasma actuators to induce spanwise motions (65) has, if proven, major
implications going forward.
There is a plethora of potential systems level flow control enablements, several positing
major benefits.
Boundary layer control by blowing enabled combat jet airplanes of the 1950s and 1960s
to operate from shorter runways by increasing their lift coefficient at low speeds. The concepts
of boundary layer and circulation control evolved at that time, however, blowing was never
considered interactively with other aerodynamic design parameters and it was always applied
after the design was frozen. The purpose of blowing boundary layer control was to supplement
the momentum loss in the boundary layer and it required a large momentum input to reduce the
landing speed by 30mph (e.g. F-104). A novel approach to AFC emerged after it was
recognized that turbulent flows are susceptible to instabilities that can naturally be amplified by
the flow itself. This enabled a small input level (of order ε) to and provide an output of order
unity, thus numerous interacting instabilities were exploited in “simple” two dimensional mean
flows and were even demonstrated in flight on a tilt rotor airplane (the XV-15). More recently the
focus has been 3D flows on swept wings where one has to maintain trim (i.e. keep the pitching
moment constant) over large range of lift coefficients. There is a need to augment the
effectiveness of control surfaces through the use of AFC, and in some situations to entirely
replace the traditional control surfaces by AFC. Experiments carried out on tailless aircraft
models indicate that dynamic tailoring of AFC in terms of momentum input and its location and
orientation, provides elegant solutions to problems plaguing such configurations. The research
on such configurations is ongoing, with attention being paid to the many real world metrics in
order to avoid blind alleys that caused ideas to fail.
The real-world metrics should be considered throughout the R&D process for flow
control, from initial ideation through the entire process to application. The flow control R&D
journey over many decades now is littered with the carcasses of approaches that were not, for
various reasons, suitable for the real-world. A way to make flow control R&D much more
effective, efficient, and timely is to do upfront, initial intel – market, application, utilization,
technical, competitive intelligence - and utilize such knowledgeability for the entire investigative
process from ideation/the decision of which approaches to study, through research and into
application. Experience indicates such efforts would be efficacious for R&D in the large, for
nearly all purposes, to increase the efficiency and cost effectiveness of R&D investments.

21
 References

1. Bushnell, Dennis M., Application Frontiers of “Designer Fluid Mechanics”…Visions vs.

Reality, AIAA paper, 97-2110, 1997

2. Crowther, W.J., et al “Flow Control Fallacies: A Review of Common Pitfalls in Flow Control
Research,” Proc. ImechE, Vol. 225 Part G, J. Aerospace Engineering, pp. 1-11, 2010

3. Batikh, Ahmad, et al “Application of Active Flow Control on Aircrafts – State of the Art,”
International Workshop on Aircraft System Technologies, Feb. 2017, Hamburg, Germany, hal-
01820331

4. Francis, Michael S., “Air Vehicle Management with Integrated Thrust-Vector Control,” AIAA, 8
Nov., 2018, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/full/10.2514/1.J056768

5. Joslin, Ronald D. and Jones, Gregory S. Eds, “Applications of Circulation Control

Technology,” Vol. 124, AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, 2006

6. “Air Lubrication Drag Reduction on Great Lakes Ships” Final Report, Great Lakes Maritime
Research Institute, 9 Feb. 2012

7. Le Page, A. et al, “Active Flow Control for Helicopters,” Journal Aerospace Lab, ONERA,
issue 6, June 2013, ALO6-04

8. Lengers, Matthias, “Industrial Assessment of Overall Aircraft Driven Local Active Flow
Control,” ICAS 29th Congress, 2014, paper 0175

9. Liddle, Stephen C., “Systems and Certification Issues for Civil Transport Aircraft Flow Control
Systems,” The Aeronautical Journal, Sept. 2009, V. 113, No. 1147, pp. 575-586

10. Jabbal, M. et al, “Active Flow Control Systems Architectures for Civil Transport Aircraft.” J.
of Aircraft, V. 47, No. 6, Nov-Dec 2010, pp. 1966-1981

11. Klingenberg, Daniel J. “Magnetorheology; Applications and Challenges,” AICHE J. Feb.

2001, V. 47, No. 2 p. 246

12. Tiainen, Jonna et al, “Flow Control Methods and Their Applicability in Low-Reynolds-
Number Centrifugal Compressors – A Review,” International Journal of Turbomachinery
Propulsion and Power, 2018, V. 3, No 2

13. Shahid, Seham and Agelin-Chaab Martin, “Application od Jets and Vortex Generators to
Improve Air-Cooling and Temperature Uniformity in a Simple Battery Pack,” ASME J. Thermal
Science and Engineering Applications, V. 11, No. 2, 2019

22
14. Ahmadzadehtalatapeh, Mohammad and Mousavi, Majid, “A Review on the Drag Reduction
Methods of the Ship Hulls for Improving Hydrodynamic Performance,” International Journal of
Maritime Technology, V. 4, Summer 2015, pp. 51-64

15. Bushnell, Dennis M. “Fluid Mechanics, Drag Reduction and Advanced Configuration
Aeronautics,” NASA TM-2000-210646, 2000
16. Zhang, M and He, L., “Combining Shaping and Flow Control For Aerodynamic
Optimization,” AIAA 26 Aug., 2014, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/full/10.2514/1.J053277

17. Goldschmied, F. R. “Fuselage Self-Propulsion by Static-Pressure Thrust: Wind-Tunnel

Verification,” AIAA Paper 87-2935, 1987

18. Jentzsch, Marvin Et Al, “On the Use of Sweeping Jets to Trim and Control a Tailless Aircraft
Model,” AIAA paper 2017-3042, 2017

19. Beck, Nils et al, Drag Reduction by Laminar Flow Control,” Energies, V. 11, No. 1, pp. 252,
Jan. 2018

20. Saric, William S. and Reed, Helen L., “Toward a Practical Lamin Flow Control - Remaining
Challenges,” AIAA paper 2004-2311, 2004

21. Bushnell, Dennis M., “Aircraft Drag Reduction – A Review,” J. Aerospace Engineering V.
217, Part G., pp. 1-18, 2003

22. Gundlach, J. F. et al, “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Strut-Braced Wing

Transonic Transport,” AIAA Paper AOO-16317, 2000

23. Lobert, G. “Drag Reduction by Means of Active Boundary Layer Thickening,” Israel Annual
Conference on Aviation and Astronautics, 23rd Tel Aviv and Haifa, Israel (Feb 11–12, 1981),
pp. 236-242

24. Mabe, James H. “On the Use of Single Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Actuators for
Improving the Performance of Airfoils,” AIAA paper 2007-3972, 2007

24. Shmilovich, Arvin et al, “Active Flow Control: From a Single Actuator to a Complete
Airplane,” AIAA 2018, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/full/10.2514/1.J056307

25. Demasi, Luciano et al, “Minimum Induced Drag Conditions For Truss-Braced Wings,” AIAA,
2018, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/full/10.2514/1.J057225

26. Joslin, Ronald D. et al, “Transitioning Active Flow Control to Applications,” AIAA paper 99-
3575, 1999

27. Jones, Gregory s. et al, “Using Computational Fluid Dynamics and Experiments to Design
Sweeping Jets for High Reynolds Number Cruise Configurations,” AIAA paper 2016-3313, 2016

28. Singh, Vickram M. and Scholz, Peter, “Comparison of Different Vortex Generating Devices
for Flow Control on a Vertical Tail,” AIAA paper 2018-4023, 2018

23
29. Sitaram, N. et al, “Active and Passive Flow Control of Turbomachines,” International J. of
Rotating Machinery, V. 2013, Article ID 372181

30. Whalen, Edward A., “Full Scale Flight Test of an Active Flow Control Enhanced Vertical
Tail,” AIAA paper 2016-3927, 2016

31. Dowgwillo, Robert M., "A Stake in the Ground: How Boundary Layer Control Was
Implemented on a Production Tactical Aircraft,” AIAA paper 2018-0561, 2018
32. Bushnell, D. M. and Moore, K. J. Synopsis of Drag Reduction in Nature. Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 23, 1991

33. Gad-El-Hak, M. and Bushnell, D. M. Separation Control: Review, Journal of Fluids

Engineering, Vol. 113, pp. 5-30, March 1991

34. Bushnell, D. M. "Longitudinal Vortex Control-Techniques and Applications," 1992

Lanchester Lecture, Royal Aeronautical Society, London, May 12, 1992. Aeronautical Journal,
p. 293-312, Oct. 1992

35. Bushnell, D. M., “Drag Reduction Designer Fluid Mechanics - Aeronautical Status and
Associated Hydrodynamic Possibilities,” invited paper for International Symposium on Seawater
Drag reduction, 22-24 July 1998, Newport R.I.

36. Bushnell, D. M., “Shock Wave Drag Reduction”, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, V.36,
pp. 81-96, Jan 2004

37. Bushnell, D. M. and Donaldson, C. D. “Control of Submersible Vortex Flows.” Submarine

Technology Symposium, APL-JHU STD-R-1954 (Secret), May 8-10, 1990. Also NASA TM
102693, 1990

38. Bushnell, D. M. and Malik, M. R. “Supersonic Laminar Flow Control.” NASA Symposium on
Natural Laminar Flow and Laminar Flow Control Research, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, Virginia, March 16-19, 1987. NASA CP-2487, Vol. 3, pp. 923-946.

39. Bushnell, Dennis M. and McGinley, Catherine B. “Turbulence Control in Wall Flows.”
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 21, 1989, pp. 1-20

40. American Bureau of Shipping, “Air Lubrication Technology,” 2019,

https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/advisories-and-
debriefs/Air%20Lubrication%20Technology.pdf

41. Gad-El-Hak, Mohamed, “Flow Control,” Cambridge University Press, 2000

42. Wang, Jinjun and Feng, Lihao, “Flow Control Techniques and Applications,” Cambridge
University Press, 2019

43. Dierffer et al, Eds., “Recent Progress in Flow Control for Practical Flows”, Springer, 2017

44. Bushnell, Dennis M. and Hefner, Jerry N. Eds. “Viscous Drag Reduction in Boundary
Layers,” Vol. 123, AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1990

24
45. Morrison, J.F. et al Eds., “IUTAM Symposium on Flow Control and MEMS,” Springer, 2008

46. Joslin, Ronald D., “Overview of Laminar Flow Control,” NASA TP-1998-208705, 1998

47. Appriou, Alain Ed., “Flow Control: The Renewal of Aerodynamics?” Issue 6, June 2013,
AeroLab Journal, ONERA.

48. Gursul, I. et al, “Review of Flow Control Mechanisms of Leading-Edge Vortices,” Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, V. 43, Issues 7-8, Oct-Nov 2007, pp. 246-270
49. Wang, Lin et al, “Review of Actuators for High Speed Active Flow Control,” Science China
Technological Sciences August 2012, Volume 55, Issue 8, pp. 2225–2240

50. Knight, D., “A Short Review of Microwave and Laser Discharges For Supersonic Flow
Control,” ONERA Aerospace Lab Journal, http://www.aerospacelab-
journal.org/sites/www.aerospacelab-journal.org/files/AL10-02.pdf

51. Ashill, P. R., “A Review of Recent Developments in Flow Control,” The Aeronautical Journal,
V. 109, Issue 1095, May 2005, pp. 205-232

52. Warsop, Clyde and Criwther, Wilkliam J., “Fluidic Flow Control Effectors For Flight Control,”
AIAA Journal 56 (5): 1-17 August 2018

53. Joslin, Ronald D. et al, “Synergism of Flow and Noise Control Technologies,” Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, V. 41, Issue 5, July 2005, pp. 363-417

54. Collos, S. Scott et al, “Issues in Active Flow Control: Theory, Control, Simulation, and
Experiment,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences Volume 40, Issues 4–5, May–July 2004, pp. 237-
289

55. Corke, Thomas et al, “Single Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Enhanced Aerodynamics:
Physics, Modeling and Applications,” Experiments in Fluids January 2009, Volume
46, Issue 1, pp. 1–26

56. McKeon, Beverley J. et al, “Dynamic Roughness for Manipulation and Control of Turbulent
Boundary Layers; An Overview,” AIAA J., V. 56, No. 6, June 2018, pp. 2178 – 2193

57. Moghaddam, Tohid and Neishabouri, Nafiseh Banazadeh, “On the Active and Passive Flow
Separation Control Techniques Over Airfoils,” 2017 IOP Conf. Ser: Mater. Sci. Eng. V 248,
012009

58. Touchard, G., “Plasma Actuators for Aeronautics Applications – State of Art Review,”
International Journal of Plasma Environmental Science and Technology, V.2, No. 1, March
2008, pp. 1025

69. Fish, Frank E. “Imaginative Solutions by Marine Organisms for Drag Reduction,”
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Seawater Drag Reduction, Newport R.I., 22-23
July 1998, pp. 443-450

60. Thomas, Russell H. et al, “Flow and Noise Control; Review and Assessment of Future
Directions,” NASA TM-2002 – 211631, 2002
25
61. Bushnell, Dennis M., “Supersonic Aircraft Drag Reduction,” AIAA paper No. 90-1596, 1990.

62. Kroo, Ilan, “Drag Due to Lift: Concepts for Prediction and Reduction,” Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics, V. 33, Jan. 2001, pp. 587-617

63. Samaha, Mohamed A and Gad-El-Hak, Mohamed, “Polymeric Slippery Coatings: Nature
and Applications,” Polymers, 2014, V. 6, pp. 1266-1311

64. Corke, Thomas C. and Thomas, Flint O., “Active and Passive Turbulent Boundary-Layer
Drag Reduction,” AIAA Journal 56 (10): 1-13, August 2018

65. Petit, Jean-Pierre et al, “MHD Hypersonic Flow Control for Aerospace Applications,” AIAA
Paper 2004-7348, 2009

66. Gad-El-Hak, M., “Coherent Structures and Flow Control; Genesis and Prospect,” Bulletin of
the Polish Academy of Sciences, Technical Sciences, V. 67, No. 3, 2019, pp. 411-444

67. Samaha, Mohamed, A. et al, “Superhydrophobic Surfaces: From the Lotus Leaf to the
Submarine,” C.R. Mecanique, 340 (2012), 18-34

68. Jahanmiri, Mohsen, “Active Flow Control: A Review,” Research Report 2010-12, Division of
Fluid Dynamics, Dept. of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology

69. Lumley, John and Blossey, Peter, “Control of Turbulence,” Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics, 1998, 30: 311-327

70. Yunqing, Gu et al, “Analysis of Drag Reduction Methods and Mechanisms of Turbulent,”
Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, V. 2017, Article ID 6858720, 2017

71. Abbas, Adel et al, “Drag Reduction Via Turbulent Boundary Layer Control,” Science China
Technological Sciences, V. 60, issue 9, 1281-1290, 2017

72. Seifert, Ari et al, “Active Separation Control: An Overview of Reynolds and Mach Numbers
Effects,” Aerospace Science and Technology, V. 8, issue 7, Oct. 2004, pp. 569-582

73. Green, John E., “Laminar Flow Control – Back to The Future,” AIAA paper 2008-3738, 2008

74. Beck, Nils, et al, “Drag Reduction by Laminar Flow Control,” Energies, 2018, 11 (1), 252

75. Gad-El-Hak, Mohamed et al, “Flow Control, Fundamentals and Practice,” Springer, 1998

76. Cattafesta, Louis N. and Sheplak, Mark, “Actuators for Active Flow Control,” Annual Review
of Fluid Mechanics, V. 43, Jan 2011, pp. 247-272

77. Faisal, Kh. Md., A Review of Blowing: As an Active Flow Control Strategy,” J. of Industrial
Mechanics, V. 3, Issue 3, 2018, pp. 1-33

78. Aubrun, Sandrine et al, “A Review of Wind Turbine-Orientated Active Flow Control,”
Experiments in Fluids, Oct. 2017, 58:134
26
79. Glezer, Ari and Amitay, Michael “Synthetic Jets,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, V. 34,
pp. 503-529, January 2002

80. Joslin, Ronald D. and Miller, Daniel N., Eds, “Fundamentals and Applications of Modern
Flow Control,” 2009, AIAA, vol. 231, Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics

81. Koumoutsakos, Petros and Mezic, Igor Eds., “Control of Fluid Flow,” 2006, Springer Lecture
Notes in Control and Information Sciences

82. Hilbig, R. and Szodruch, J., “The Intelligent Wing--Aerodynamic Developments for Future
Transport Aircraft,” 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 9-12, 1989, Reno, NV., AIAA
Paper Number 89-0534

83. Poisson-Quinton, “Les Systemes De Controle De LÕecoulement Sur Les Avions,” Revue
Francaise deMecanique, No. 2, 1995, pp. 127-137

84. Leventhall, H. G., “Application for Active Attenuation,” Inter-Noise 90 Proceedings,

Gothenburg, Sweden, August 13-15, 1990, pp. 1233-1238

85. Oster, D. and Wygnanski, I., “The Forced Mixing Layer Between Parallel Streams,” Journal
of Fluid Mechanics 123, 91-129, 1982

86. Gaster, M., Kit, E., and Wygnanski, I., “Large Scale Structures in a Forced Turbulent Mixing
Layer,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 150, 23-38, 1985

87. Weisbrot, I. and Wygnanski, I., “On Coherent Structures in a Highly Excited Mixing Layer,”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 195, 137, 1988

88. Wygnanski, I. and Weisbrot, I., “On the Pairing Process in an Excited Plane Turbulent
Mixing Layer,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 195, 161, 1988

89. Elsberry, K., Loeffler, J., Zhou, M. D., and Wygnanski, I., “An Experimental Study of a
Boundary Layer that is Maintained on the Verge of Separation,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 423,
227-261, 2000

90. Nishri, B. and Wygnanski, I., “The Effect of Periodic Excitation on Turbulent Flow Separation
from a Flap,” AIAA Journal 36, 547-556, 1998

91. Darabi, A., and Wygnanski, I., “Active Management of Naturally Separated Flow Over a
Solid Surface. Part 1. The Forced Reattachment Process,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 510, 105-
129, 2004

92. Seifert, A., Bachar, T., Koss, D., Wygnanski, I., and Shepshelovich, M., “Oscillatory
Blowing—A Tool to Delay Boundary-Layer Separation,” AIAA Journal 31, 2052-2060, 1993

93. A. Seifert, L.G. Pack, Oscillatory control of separation at high Reynolds numbers, AIAA J. 37
(9) (1999) 1062–1071, Part of AIAA paper 98-0214

27
94. M. Amitay, B.L. Smith, A. Glezer, “Aerodynamic flow control using synthetic jet technology,”
AIAA paper 98-0208, 1998

95. M. Hites, H. Nagib, T. Bachar, I. Wygnanski, “Enhancement performance of airfoils at

moderate Mach numbers using zero-mass flux pulsed blowing,” 39th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 12–15, 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-0734

96. A.A. Hassan, “Numerical simulations and potential applications of zero-mass jets for
enhanced rotorcraft aerodynamic performance,” 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
Reno, NV, January 12–15, 1998, AIAA Paper 98-0211
97. Seifert, A., Bachar, T., Wygnanski, I., Kariv, A., Cohen, H., and Yoeli, R., “Application of
Active Separation Control to a Small Unmanned Air Vehicle,” AIAA Journal of Aircraft 36, 474-
477, 1999

98. McVeigh, M.A., Nagib, H., Wood, T., and Wygnanski, I., “Full-Scale Flight Tests of Active
Flow Control to Reduce Tiltrotor Aircraft Download” Journal of Aircraft 48(3), 786-796, 2011

99. Hirsch, D., and Gharib, M., “Schlieren Visualization and Analysis of Sweeping Jet Actuator
Dynamics,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 8, 2018, pp. 2947–2960

100. Hirsch, D., Shmilovich, A., Whalen, E., and Gharib, M., “Technique for Enhanced Flow
Control Efficiency Through Thermal Actuation,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 9, 2018, pp. 3399–
3413

101. Seele, R., Graff, E., Gharib, M. Taubert, L, Lin, J., and Wygnanski, I., “Improving Rudder
Effectiveness with Sweeping Jet Actuators,”6th Flow Control Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana, AIAA 2010-3244, June 25-28, 2012

102. Whalen, E.A., Lacy D.S., Lin, J.C., Andino, M.Y., Washburn, A.E., Graff, E.C., and
Wygnanski, I., “Performance Enhancement of a Full-Scale Vertical Tail Model Equipped with
Active Flow,” 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida, AIAA 2015-0784,
January 5-9, 2015

103. Andino, M.Y., Lin, J.C., Washburn, A.E., Whalen, E.C., Graff, E.C., and Wygnanski, I.,
“Flow Separation Control on a Full-Scale Vertical Tail Model Using Sweeping Jet Actuators,”
53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida, AIAA 2015-0785, January 5-9,
2015

104. Whalen, E. A., Shmilovich, A., Spoor, M., Tran, J., Vijgen, P., Lin, J. C., and Andino, M.,
“Flight Test of an Active Flow Control Enhanced Vertical Tail,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 9,
2018, pp. 3393–3398

105. Shmilovich, A., and Vatsa, V. N., “Practical Computational Methods for Airplanes with
Flow-Control Systems,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1, 2019, pp. 35–52

106. Shmilovich, A., Yadlin, Y., and Whalen, E. A., “Active Flow Control Computations: From a
Single Actuator to a Complete Airplane,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 12, 2018, pp. 4730–4740

107. Fischer Electric Micro-Turbo-Compressor EMTC-150k Air Product description, 2016

28
108. E. Phillips, M. Jentzsch, M. Menge, C. Heinritz, L. Taubert, I. Wygnanski M Foster & J
Ladd “On the Use of Active Flow Control (AFC) on Tailless Aircraft Models to Affect their Trim
and Control,” NATO unclassified AVT-239 publication Chapter 5, 2019. Also AIAA Scitech 2019,
San Diego, California, Vol. 2019-0045, 2019

109. Wikipedia, “ Tubercle Effect”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubercle_effect

110. Safety4Sea, “Hhi and DNV GL Take a Fresh Look at Grim’s Vane Wheel”, 5 Dec., 2015,
https://safety4sea.com/hhi-and-dnv-gl-take-a-fresh-look-at-grims-vane-wheel/

111. Lobert, G., "Drag Reduction by Means of Active Boundary Layer Thickening," 23rd Israel
Annual Conference on Aviation and Astronautics, Tel Aviv and Haifa, February 11-12, 1981. .,

112. Bushnell, Dennis M. and Moses, Robert W., “ Reliability, Safety, and Performance for
Two Aerospace Revolutio9ns – UAS/ODM and Commercial Space’, NASA /TM-2019-220274 

29
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information
Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
1-01-2020 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

Flow Control Applications

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

Bushnell, Dennis M.; Wygnanski, Israel

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

736466.01.08.07.11.01
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199
L-21092
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA

Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
NASA-TM-2020-220436
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-
Subject Category 01
Availability: NASA STI Program (757) 864-9658

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Flow control, aka “Designer Fluid Mechanics,” has a long history with many successes across a plethora of applications. This report
addresses the characteristics of the approaches that are actually used, why they are used, the many approaches that are not used, and
why. Analysis indicates ways forward to increase applicability/usefulness, and efficiency of flow control research. Overall, greater
and more effective progress in flow control requires utilization of far more detailed information early in the research process regarding
application details and requirements.
15. SUBJECT TERMS

Aerodynamics; Aeronautical; Applications; Flow control; Laminar; Vehicles

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE STI Help Desk (email: [email protected])
PAGES
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
U U U UU (757) 864-9658
33
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18