AIAA Paper 2005-1260

High Performance Airfoil Using Co-Flow Jet Flow

Control
Ge-Cheng Zha∗
Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida 33124
E-mail: [email protected]

Bruce F. Carroll †
Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-6250

Craig D. Paxton‡ and Clark A. Conley§

Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida 33124

Adam Wells ¶
Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-6250

Abstract

The wind tunnel tests in this research have proved the superior performance of co-flow
jet(CFJ) airfoil to dramatically increase lift, stall margin, and drag reduction. Two airfoils with
different injection slot size are tested to study the effect of geometry. The airfoil with smaller
injection slot size (0.65% chord length) performs significantly better than the one with twice
larger slot size. With the momentum coefficient varying from 0.1 to 0.30, compared with the
baseline airfoil, the maximum lift of the smaller size CFJ airfoil is increased by 113% to 220%,
∗
Associate Professor, AIAA Member
†
Associate Professor
‡
Graduate Student
§
Senior Undergraduate Student
¶
Graduate Student

Copyright °2005
c by the authors, Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with per-
mission.

1
 the angle of attack (AoA) operating range (stall margin) is increased by 100% to 153%. The
minimum drag coefficient is reduced by 30% to 127% with the momentum coefficient varying
from 0.055 to 0.192. Large negative drag (thrust) is produced when the momentum coefficient
is high. A coefficient of jet kinetic energy is introduced, which apperas to correlate better with
the maximum lift and stall margin than the momentum coefficient when CFJ airfoil geometry
varies. The momentum coefficient correlates well with drag reduction. It is observed that the
thicker injection slot airfoil has smaller stall AoA and hence less maximum lift. To achieve the
same lift coefficient of 4.42, the power required for the thicker injection slot is 3.9 times of that
required for the thinner injection slot airfoil. No optimization of the airfoil configuration is done
in this research and hence it is believed that there is a great potential for further CFJ airfoil
performance improvement.
In the experiment, it is observed that there is a limit of the jet mass flow rate to maintain the
stability of the flow. Below the limit, increasing the jet mass flow rate (momentum coefficient)
will make the flow attached and increase the lift and stall AoA. However, if the jet mass flow
rate exceeds the limit, the whole flow field breaks down. This research also has conducted a
concept study by CFD simulation indicating that it is possible for the CFJ airfoil to exceed
the inviscid limit of maximum lift coefficient due to the high jet velocity inducing high suction
velocity of the airfoil.

1 Introduction

To achieve high performance aircraft design, revolutionary technology advancement should be pur-
sued to dramatically reduce the weight of aircraft and fuel consumption, significantly increase air-
craft mission payload and maneuverability. Both the military and commercial aircraft will benefit
from the same technology.
Flow control (FC) is the most promising route to break through the conventional aerodynamic
design limit and bring dramatic performance improvement to aircraft[1, 2, 3]. NASA, Air Force and
aerospace industry have recently made great efforts to develop flow control technology[4, 5, 6, 7].
To enhance lift and suppress separation, various flow control techniques have been used, including
rotating cylinder at leading and trailing edge[8][9][3], circulation control using tangential blowing
at leading edge and trailing edge[10][11][12] [13][14][15][16], multi-element airfoils[17][18], pulsed jet
separation control[19][20][21][22], etc.
When a flow control technique is developed, there may be three issues needed to be considered:
1) Effectiveness: the FC method should have substantial improvement of aerodynamic performance,
which primarily includes lift enhancement, drag reduction, and stall margin increase (suppression
of separation) ; 2)Energy efficient: the FC method should not cause significantly more energy
expenditure. Otherwise, the penalty may outweigh the benefit for the whole aircraft as a system.
This includes minimal penalty to the propulsion system, minimal weight increase due to the FC
system; 3) Easy implementation: the FC technique should not be too difficult to be implemented.
The rotating cylinder method is generally most effective when the leading edge or trailing edge
are thick, and hence may be more applicable to low speed airfoil. It also needs a system to drive
the rotating system and can increase aircraft weight. The multi-element airfoil can generate high
lift, but generally comes with large drag and weight penalty due to the moving parts. In addition,
the high lift flap system increases noise during landing.
A circulation control(CC) airfoil [16, 15] relies on local favorable pressure gradient on a curved
surface to make the flow attached, the Coanda effect. Such favorable pressure gradient exists at
the airfoil leading edge due to the suction and at the end of the trailing edge due to the low base

2
pressure when the trailing edge is blunt. To make the CC airfoil effective, the blunt TE is hence
needed. However, this will create large drag at cruise. To overcome the dependence on large TE
for circulation control airfoil, a movable flap at the airfoil TE is suggested by Englar [10]. The
moving parts will increase the weight penalty to the aircraft. At large AoA, because the mainflow
can not resist the large adverse pressure gradient, the local TE favorable pressure gradient can not
be achieved and hence the Coanda effect is difficult to maintain. If only TE blowing is used, the
CC airfoil will usually stall at a smaller AoA than the regular non-controlled airfoil[23]. To increase
stall margin, the LE blowing needs to be added[23].
The other considerably high penalty of CC airfoil to the propulsion system is the dumped
blowing jet mass flow. The blowing air for the wing is usually from the engine compressor bleed.
The mass flow rate of the engine bleed is directly proportional to the decrease of thrust, i.e. an
engine will suffer 1% thrust decrease for 1% bleed flow used for wing flow control, and suffer 1-3%
fuel consumption increase depending on whether the bleed is from the compressor front stage or
back stage.
To avoid the jet mass flow rate penalty due to blowing, the synthetic jet or pulsed jet with open
or close loop feed back control are used[19, 20]. These methods need the jet generation system,
complicated actuation and sensor systems, which may increase the degree of difficulty to implement
the FC system and increase the weight of the aircraft as well. Since the interaction of the synthetic
jet with the main flow is generally weak, the effectiveness to enhance lift and suppress separation
may not as dramatic as desired. For example, the results shown in [19] using the periodic synthetic
jet have about 35% increase of the CLmax and little increase of stall AoA, while the CFJ airfoil
tested in this research increase the CLmax and AoA range by 220% and 153% respectively with
Cµ = 0.28. A moval flap is also used with the synthetic jet flow control airfoil studied in [19], which
will increase the aircraft weight.
The new airfoil flow control technique using co-flow jet (CFJ) recently suggested by Zha and
Paxton[24] is aimed at considering all the three issues mentioned above: effectiveness, energy
efficient, and easy implementation. The co-flow jet airfoil is to open an injection slot near leading
edge and a suction slot near trailing edge on the airfoil suction surface. The slots are opened by
translating a great portion of the suction surface downward. A high energy jet is then injected
near leading edge tangentially and the same amount of mass flow is sucked in near trailing edge.
The turbulent shear layer between the main flow and the jet causes strong turbulence diffusion and
mixing, which enhances lateral transport of energy from the jet to mainflow and allows the main flow
to overcome severe adverse pressure gradient and remain attached at high angel of attack(AoA).
The co-flow jet airfoil can dramatically enhance lift, reduce drag and increase stall margin based on
CFD simulations[24]. The CFJ airfoil can recirculate the jet mass flow and hence can significantly
reduce the penalty to propulsion system due to avoiding dumping the jet mass flow.
The objective of this research is to prove the superior performance of coflow jet airfoil concept
by wind tunnel tests. At a certain AoA, a CFJ airfoil always achieves a significantly higher lift due
to the augmented circulation. The operating range of AoA, hence the stall margin, is significantly
increased. The energized main flow will fill the wake deficit and dramatically reduce the airfoil drag,
or even generate thrust (negative drag). The filled wake will also reduce noise due to weakened
wake mixing. In addition, a CFJ airfoil wing does not need a high lift flap system, which will
further reduce noise during landing. A coflow jet airfoil does not rely on the Coanda effect at
leading or trailing edge and the thick leading or trailing edge are not required. Hence the low form
drag of modern airfoils can be maintained. The CFJ technique can be applied to any type of airfoil,
including low speed thick airfoils and high speed thin airfoils.

3
 Since a CFJ airfoil blows and sucks the same amount of mass flow, the jet mass flow then can be
recirculated through the propulsion system instead of being dumped away. This can significantly
reduce the penalty of energy expenditure to the overall airframe-propulsion system when compared
to the blowing only method. The co-flow jet can be always on during the whole fly mission. The
lift enhancement and drag reduction can be controlled by adjusting the injection total pressure,
hence the jet mass flow rate, during the mission according to different needs. No moving parts are
required.
The coflow jet airfoil concept studied in this research appears to have the following advantages:
1) Very effective to enhance lift and suppress separation; 2) Dramatically reduce drag and can
achieve very high CL /CD (infinity when CD = 0) at low AoA(cruise), and very high lift and drag
at high AoA(take off and landing); 3) Significantly increase AoA operating range and stall margin;
4) Have small penalty to the propulsion system; 5) Can be applied to any airfoil, thick or thin; 6)
Can be used for whole flying mission instead of only take off and landing; 7) Can be used for low
and high speed aircraft; 8) Easy implementation with no moving parts;
The above advantages of the CFJ airfoil may derive the following superior aircraft performances:
1) Extremely short distance for take off and landing; 2) Supersonic aircraft to have small wing size
matching cruise need, but also have high subsonic performance (e.g. high lift low drag at M < 1);
3) High maneuverability, high safety and fast acceleration military aircraft; 4) Very economic fuel
consumption; 5) Small wing span for easy storage, light weight and reduced skin friction and form
drag; 6) Low noise due to no high lift flap system and weakened wake mixing.
The wind tunnel tests conducted in this research have proved the high performance of the CFJ
airfoil. This is the beginning to study and understand the working principle of CFJ airfoil. It
is hoped that this research will open a door to a new area of flow control technology for next
generation advanced aircraft.

2 CFJ Airfoil Geometry

Fig.1 shows the baseline airfoil, NACA0025, and two airfoils with co-flow jet slots. The NACA0025
airfoil was selected as the baseline airfoil due to its large thickness to facilitate implementation of
co-flow jet, internal ducts, and instrumentation. The chord length of the airfoil is 0.1527m and the
span is 0.3m. The co-flow jet airfoils are named using the following convention: CFJ4dig-INJ-SUC,
where 4dig is the same as NACA 4 digit convention, INJ is replaced by the percentage of the
injection slot size to the chord length and SUC is replaced by the percentage of the suction slot
size to the chord length. For example, the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil has the injection slot height
of 0.65% of the chord and the suction slot height of 1.96% of the chord. The new suction surface
shape is a downward translation of the portion of the original suction surface between the injection
and suction slot. The CFJ0025-131-196 is constructed in the same way by recessing the suction
surface by 1.31% of the chord at the injection slot and 1.96% of the chord at the suction slot. The
previous studies [25, 24] indicate that the suction slot size needs to be larger than the inlet slot
size in order to suck in the same amount of jet mass flow without being choked. The injection and
suction slot are located at 7.11% and 83.18% of the chord from the leading edge. The slot faces
are normal to the suction surface to make the jet tangential to main flow.
The internal ducts for both the injection and suction slots are also illustrated in Fig.1, labeled as
the high pressure and low pressure cavities. The high pressure flow is injected into the high pressure
cavity and then passes through a block of Duocel aluminum foam. The Duocel foam acts as a baffle

4
that gives a uniform flow distribution downstream of the foam and generates a highly uniform
co-flow jet, which is imperative to achieve 2D flow for the CFJ airfoil testing. CFD was used as
a design tool to simulate the CFJ airfoils and their secondary flow ducts inside the wind tunnel.
Very good 2-dimensionality is achieved based CFD analysis and is verified in the experiment. Both
the injection and suction ducts are designed to have a continually converging or diverging shape
to ensure that the throat is located at the injection and suctions slots. CFD results are used to
verify that the injection and suction slots can pass the required mass flow rate of 0.1kg/s under the
experimental conditions.
Stress analysis of the CFJ airfoil designs show that the low pressure in the suction duct can cause
a deflection of the airfoil suction surface. Thus two support pins are placed near the cantilevered
end to avoid the deflection as shown in Fig.1.

3 Wind Tunnel Measurement Setup

3.1 Wind Tunnel

The AEROLAB educational wind tunnel shown in Fig.2 with the test section of 12 00 × 1200 × 2400
located at the University of Florida is used for this research. A TSI PIV system is used to capture
flow visualization and velocity vector fields on the mid span location. The lift, drag, and pitching
moment are measured by the strain gauges located on the sidewall sting tube.
The co-flow jet is injected through the sting tube into the high pressure cavity and is sucked
through a suction manifold on the opposite side of the airfoil, illustrated in Figs.3 and 4. The
injection system consists of a compressor and two large storage tanks that provides a continuous
constant injection flow, which is controlled by choking the flow using a butterfly valve turned on
and off by a Fisher control valve.
The airfoil is fixed on the sidewall sting on the injection side and is cantilevered on the suction
side. To avoid the airfoil cantilevered end deflection touching wind tunnel wall and causing force
translation, sufficient clearance is made on the cantilevered end wind tunnel wall as shown in
Fig.4. To prevent air leaking from the wind tunnel, a sealed plexiglass box is mounted outside
of the suction side wind tunnel wall as shown in Fig.2. The light weight and soft latex suction
tubes minimize the force translation and connect the suction system with the airfoil through the
transparent plexiglass box, which allows the PIV camera to visualize and measure the flow velocity
vector fields. The latex tubes are internally reinforced by brass inserts to prevent tube collapse.
The external suction system consists of four 240 gallon vacuum tanks (shown in the background
of Fig.2), one 60 gallon tank, one 80 gallon tank, and two vacuum pumps. This system provides
suction for 12-30 seconds within the required mass flow rate range. The suction mass flow rate is
controlled by choking the flow with a butterfly valve at the desired mass flow rate and is turned on
and off by a ball valve.

3.2 Measurement Calibration

To take into account of the airfoil deflection effect, the lift and drag components are calibrated using
a known weight at the center span of the airfoil in its testing configuration with the latex tubes
attached. This calibration showed a highly linear trend for both lift and drag with the coefficient

5
of determination R2 values of 0.9994 and 0.9995[26], respectively. Using Student’s t-distribution,
the uncertainty of lift and drag is given by:

tσ
∆= √ (1)
n

where ∆ is the uncertainty, t is the Student’s t value for corresponding confidence level[26], σ is
the standard deviation, n is the number of samples. For a 95% confidence level and n=50 samples,
t = 2.0105.
The standard deviation ranges from 1 N(Newton) at lower AoA to 5 N at higher AoA for both
lift and drag. This corresponds to standard deviation in terms of CL and CD of 0.031-0.153.
So the uncertainty in CL and CD would then be 0.008814 at lower AoA and 0.043 at higher
AoA. Strain gauge measurements are taken at approximately 2/3 Hz. These single measurements
are actually an average of 5 integrations of a digital signal with a two power line cycle integration
time. The sampling rate is 300Hz. Two power line cycles is equal to 33.3ms. This comes to 10
samples for each integration.
To calculate the wind tunnel velocity, a differential pressure transducer is used to measure the
dynamic pressure. The transducer measures the difference between the static pressure upstream
of the test section and the stagnation pressure in the room. Pressure readings are taken at 1Hz.
A correction factor is multiplied by the stagnation pressure to account for losses that occur in the
tunnel inlet. Mass flow rates are measured using fixed orifice plates placed inside of the injection
and suction supply ducts. Mass flow rates are calculated based on eq.(2):
√
CE²πd2 2ρ1 ∆p
qm = (2)
4
p
where, qm is the mass flow rate, C is the discharge coefficient, E = 1/ 1 − β 4 , ² is the gas
expansion factor, d the orifice diameter, D the pipe internal diameter, β = d/D, ρ 1 the upstream
density, ∆p is the differential pressure. All values are constant except density and differential
pressure. The density is found by measuring the upstream temperature and pressure. Temperature
readings are taken at 1Hz.
To calculate the total uncertainty of the mass flow rate, we need to take the square root of the
sum of the squares as in the following equation for the mass flow rate.

δqm δC δ² 2β 4 2 δD 2 2 δd 1 δ∆p 2 1 δρ1 2 1/2

= (( )2 + ( )2 + ( 4
) ( ) +( 4
)2 ( )2 + ( ) + ( ) ) (3)
qm C ² 1−β D 1−β d 4 ∆p 4 ρ1

δqm
Above data gives an uncertainty for injection mass flow rate , qm = 0.164% and for suction
δqm
mass flow rate, qm = 0.179%.
A Kiel probe was placed in the injection duct just downstream of the Duocel foam. This total
pressure was then used to find the velocity of the injection jet. To determine the injection velocity,
first the critical area ratio of a 1D duct A/A* [27] is obtained by eq.(4):

A KP0 Ajet
∗
= √ (4)
A qm T0

6
 Coefficient Injection Mass Uncertainty Suction Mass Uncertainty
δC
C 0.06 0.06
δ²
² 0.144 0.144
2β 4 2 δD 2
( 1−β 4 ) (D) ≈0 ≈0
( 1−β 4 ) ( δd
2 2
d )
2 ≈0 ≈0
δ∆p
0.100 0.176
r ∆p
δρ1 δp1 2 δT1 2
ρ1 = p1 + T 1 0.018 0.001

A
The A∗ can be also determined by[27]:

A 1 2 γ − 1 2 2(γ−1)
γ+1

∗
= [( )(1 + M )] (5)
A M γ+1 2

Where, K=0.040416, P0 is the total pressure in injection slot, Ajet is the injection slot area, qm
is the mass flow rate, T0 is the measured total temperature at the injection slot, γ is the specific
heat ratio taken the value of 1.4. The injection jet Mach number is found by linearly interpolating
the table of A/A* and Mach number determined by eq.(5). The injection velocity is then calculated
by the following relation:

p
V =M γRT (6)

Static pressure is measured in the exit of the suction duct at the plane where the suction duct
and suction manifold meet. This value is used to find the density, velocity, and total pressure in
the suction duct.
The pitching moment measurement is not considered as reliable because the effect of the latex
tubes is too difficult to calibrate for varying angle of attack. The pitching moment results hence
are not presented in this paper and will be reported in the future research.

4 Results and Discussion

The chord length of the airfoil is 0.1527m and the freestream Mach number is about 0.11. This gives
the Reynolds number about 3.8 × 105 , which is in the laminar/transitional region. To make the
boundary layer fully turbulent in order to mimic the realistic flight conditions, the airfoil leading
edge is tripped to trigger the turbulence.

4.1 CFJ Airfoil Performance

Fig.5 is the comparison of measured lift coefficient for the baseline NACA0025 airfoil and the
CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil with the injection total pressure coefficient given(the last number in the
legend, normalized by freestream total pressure). During a test, the injection total pressure is held
as constant while the AoA varies. A higher injection total pressure will yield a higher injection
momentum coefficient, and hence a higher lift coefficient and stall margin. The bottom two curves
with circle and cross symbols are for the baseline NACA0025 airfoil with and without LE trip.

7
It shows that the one with trip delays stall by about 4 degree of AoA. This is because the fully
turbulent boundary layer with the trip is more resistant to flow separation. The very bottom curve
is the CFJ airfoil without the jet on. It has less stall AoA than the baseline airfoil because the
injection and suction slot steps weaken the boundary layer and make separation occur at a smaller
AoA.
Table 1 lists the aerodynamic parameters of the baseline NACA0025 airfoil and the CFJ0025-
065-196 airfoil with injection total pressure coefficient of 1.27. Table 1 indicates that the C Lmax of
the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil is 3.2 times of the baseline airfoil, which is a 220% increase. The AoA
stall margin is defined as the interval of the zero lift AoA to stall (maximum lift) AoA. The AoA
stall margin of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil is hence 2.53 times of the baseline airfoil stall margin, an
increase of 153%.

Airfoil AoACL =0 Cµ CL =0 AoACLmax CLmax Cµ CLmax CDmin (AoA = 0◦ )

Baseline NACA0025 0◦ 0.0 19◦ 1.57 0.0 0.128
CFJ0025-065-196 −4◦ 0.187 44◦ 5.04 0.28 -0.036

Table 1: Comparison of aerodynamic parameters between baseline airfoil and CFJ airfoil.

For the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil, at injection total pressure coefficient 1.19, wind tunnel tests
are also done to see the effect of the LE trip. The tripped one (dash-dot line with square symbol)
delays stall by 4 degree of AoA. This is because the trip on the airfoil enhances the turbulence
mixing on the suction surface and is hence more resistant to stall.
Fig.6 and 7 are the flow visualization of the baseline NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 10 ◦ and 20◦ ,
respectively. They show that the flow is attached at AoA of 10◦ and separated at AoA of 20◦ ,
which is consistent with the lift coefficient vs AoA given in Fig.5.
Fig.8 and 9 are the PIV measured normalized velocity (V /V∞ ) contours and streamlines of the
attached flow of the baseline NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 10 ◦ , front part and rear part of the airfoil.
They clearly show again that the flow is very well attached at AoA of 10 ◦ with the peak suction
acceleration in the LE region. The flow merges to the mainflow in the TE region.
Fig.10 and 11 are the PIV measured normalized velocity (V /V∞ ) contours and streamlines of
the separated flow of the baseline NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 20 ◦ , front part and rear part of the
airfoil. They clearly show that the baseline airfoil flow is separated at AoA of 20 ◦ .
Fig.12 and 13 are the flow visualization of the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of 43 ◦ and 46◦ .
They show that the flow is attached at AoA of 43◦ and massively separated at AoA of 46◦ , which
is consistent with the lift coefficient vs AoA given in Fig.5.
Fig.14 and 15 are the PIV measured normalized velocity (V /V∞ ) contours and streamlines of
the attached flow of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of 43 ◦ , front part and rear part of the airfoil.
The AoA of 43◦ is right before the stall AoA of 45◦ . They clearly show again that the flow is very
well attached at AoA of 43◦ with very high peak suction acceleration in the LE region. The flow
merges to the mainflow in the TE region. The momentum coefficient at AoA of 43 ◦ is Cµ = 0.3.
Fig.16 and 17 are the PIV measured normalized velocity (V /V∞ ) contours and streamlines of
the separated flow of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of 46 ◦ , front part and rear part of the airfoil.
They clearly show that the flow is massively separated at AoA of 46◦ .
Since the PIV was not able to measure the flow field below the airfoil for the current setup, a

8
CFD simulation for the 2D flow field of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at 39 ◦ AoA was conducted to have
a qualitative understanding of the flow field. To make the flow attached, the momentum coefficient
used in the computation is 0.33 and is significantly higher than the experiment value of 0.286.
Fig.18 is the streamlines and Mach contours of the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil flow field calculated at
AoA of 39◦ at freestream Mach number of 0.103. What is different from the usual flow field is that
the stagnation point is far below the LE and is located at about the 1/3 chord point.
Fig.19 is the injection momentum coefficient of the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at three different
injection total pressure. The momentum coefficient is defined as:

ṁj Vj
Cµ = 2 S
(7)
0.5ρ∞ U∞

Where ṁj is the co-flow jet mass flow rate, Vj the injection jet velocity, ρ∞ and U∞ the freestream
density and velocity, S the wing area (chord × wing span).
The injection mass flow rate and velocity are determined by the injection total pressure and
the mainflow static pressure at the injection location. The injection total pressure is held constant
while the AoA varies. When the AoA is increased, the LE suction is stronger and hence the local
static pressure at the injection location decreases. The injection velocity therefore will increase, so
will the mass flow rate and the momentum coefficient as shown in Fig.19. For the highest injection
total pressure coefficient of 1.27, the momentum coefficient varies from 0.184 to 0.3. The lowest
injection total pressure coefficient of 1.04 has the momentum coefficient varying from 0.05 to 0.1,
which increase the CLmax by 113% and AoA stall margin by 100%. These results indicate that
even the small momentum coefficient is very effective to enhance the lift and stall margin.
Fig. 20 is the drag polar of the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil. The drag coefficient of CFJ airfoil is
significantly reduced and have a small region of negative drag (thrust). For example, at C L =1,
for Cµ = 0.071, the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil drag reduction is 19%; for C µ = 0.197, the drag
reduction is 90%, this makes the L/D increased by 10 times. At lower CL value with the total
pressure coefficient of 1.27, the drag reduction is over 100% because the drag is negative and
becomes thrust. When the drag becomes zero or negative, the L/D may be not meaningful since
it approaches infinity.
The drag reduction can be easily understood by doing a control volume analysis around the
airfoil. The drag is determined by:
Z Z
D= ρU (U∞ − U )dA (8)

Where U is the wake velocity. When U is greater than U∞ , the drag is negative and becomes
thrust.
As pointed out in [24], at low AoA, the CFJ airfoil wake is filled with the energized mainflow and
has inversed velocity deficit. In this case, the airfoil has no drag, but thrust. The airfoil drag can
be decomposed to two parts: skin friction and pressure drag. The skin friction drag does not vary
much when the AoA changes. It is the large pressure drag reduction that significantly decreases
the total drag[24].

9
4.2 Slot Size Effect

To examine the effect of the slot size, the CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil is tested with the injection slot
size twice as large as that of the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil. The suction slot size is unchanged. The
slot locations are also the same as those of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil.
To study the effect only caused by the geometry, both the airfoils are tested with the same
injection total pressure coefficient 1.04. Fig.21 is the comparison of injection jet velocity, which
shows that the larger slot size airfoil has a slightly higher jet velocity at the same AoA before the
airfoil stalls. The density of the CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil is slightly less than that of the CFJ0025-
096-196. In general, the velocity and density are not very different for the two airfoils. This is
because that the jet is mostly in the incompressible flow range. Fig. 23 shows that the injection jet
mass flow rate of CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil is about twice as large as that of the CFJ0025-096-196
airfoil due to the larger slot area.
Fig. 24 is the lift comparison for the two airfoils. It shows that the lift coefficient of CFJ0025-
131-196 is a little higher than that of CFJ0025-096-196 airfoil before the airfoil stall. The slightly
higher lift is induced by the slightly higher jet velocity of CFJ0025-131-196. Obviously, the price
paid with twice larger jet mass flow rate to gain this small benefit of lift is high. Further more, the
CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil stalls at lower AoA than CFJ0025-096-196 airfoil even with about twice
larger mass flow rate. The reason why the CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil with larger injection mass flow
rate stalls earlier is not fully clear at this time. It is speculated that the large centrifugal force
makes the jet detached from the curved airfoil suction surface.
Fig. 25 is the drag comparison for the two airfoils. The minimum drag of the CFJ0025-131-196
airfoil at AoA=0◦ is about 50% lower than that of the CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil. The reason is that
the jet momentum coefficient of CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil is higher than that of the CFJ0025-096-
196 airfoil due to the large jet mass flow rate and the mixing is enhanced. After mixing, the wake
is filled more than the CFJ0025-096-196 airfoil.
Fig.26 is the comparison of the tested lift coefficient for baseline NACA0025 and CFJ0025-131-
196 airfoil with different injection total pressure. Again, the CLmax and AoA stall margin are
significantly increased. The stall AoAs are again less than those of the CFJ0025-096-196 airfoil and
hence the magnitude of CLmax is also less. The jet mass flow rate is significantly higher than that
of the CFJ0025-096-196 airfoil due to the twice larger injection slot size. This can be seen in Fig.
27 showing the measured injection momentum coefficient of CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil.
Fig.28 is the drag polar of the CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil with different injection total pressure. As
shown in Fig.25, the minimum drag reduction of the CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil is significantly more
than the CFJ0025-096-196 airfoil as shown in the drag polar of Fig. 20. There is a large negative
drag (thrust) area.
Above results may indicate that, if the design purpose is to achieve high lift and stall margin,
a small injection slot should be used; if it is to reduce drag, larger slot size should be used. There
should be an optimum slot size to be the most energy efficient, which will be studied in next step.
The jet momentum coefficient is a good parameter to determine the performance of fixed ge-
ometry airfoils. Fig.29 is the ratio of the maximum lift of the two CFJ airfoils to the maximum
lift of the baseline airfoil against the momentum coefficient Cµ . Fig. 30 is the ratio of the AoA
stall margin of the two CFJ airfoils to that of the baseline airfoil against the momentum coefficient
Cµ . The airfoil performance correlates well with the momentum coefficient for the fixed geometry.
That is: when the geometry (slot size) does not change, increasing the momentum coefficient will

10
increase the stall margin and maximum lift coefficient. However, if all the results are combined
together with different geometry (open and solid symbols), it is seen in Fig. 29 and Fig. 30 that,
when the injection slot size varies, the test data are scattered and do not correlate well with the
jet momentum coefficient.
To find a parameter to correlate airfoil performance independent of the geometry, it is found
that the coefficient of jet kinetic energy per unit area seems a good one for C Lmax and AoA stall
margin. The coefficient of jet kinetic energy is defined as:

ṁj Vj
Cjk = 2
(9)
0.5ρ∞ U∞ Sinjection slot

Fig.31 is the ratio of the maximum CFJ lift of the two CFJ airfoils to the maximum lift of
the baseline airfoil against Cjk . Fig. 32 is the ratio of the AoA stall margin of the two CFJ
airfoils to that of the baseline airfoil against Cjk . Compared with Fig.29 and 30, Fig. 31 and 32
collapse much better. In general, when Cjk increases, the maximum lift and stall margin increase.
Compare Fig.29 and Fig. 31, Fig.30 and Fig. 32 , it can be seen that the thicker injection slot
CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil (solid symbols) may have higher momentum coefficient than that of the
thin injection slot airfoil, but in terms of the kinetic energy coefficient, they are less because the
thicker slot airfoil stalls earlier and has lower jet velocity. Fig. 31 and 32 indicate that, when the
kinetic energy coefficient varies from 14 to 50, the maximum lift of the CFJ airfoil is increased by
96% to 220%. The AoA stall margin is increased by 74% to 153%.
For drag reduction, the momentum coefficient correlates better with the test data than the jet
kinetic energy coefficient, as shown in Fig. 33 and Fig. 34. The drag reduction is calculated with
the minimum drag at AoA=0 by the following formulation:

Drag Reduction = (CDcf j − CDbaseline )/CDbaseline (10)

Table 1 indicates that the reduction of the minimum drag of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil with jet
momentum coefficient of 0.186 is 128.4%. Fig. 33 and Fig. 34 show that the reduction of the
minimum drag of CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil with jet momentum coefficient of 0.50 is 300%. These
results demonstrate that the CFJ airfoil is very effective to reduce drag. The drag reduction relies
on filling the wake. The higher momentum coefficient generated by the thicker slot size airfoil is
more effective.This says that the mechanism to enhance lift and stall margin is different from that
to reduce drag. The former relies on higher jet kinectic energy to induce higher circulation and
energize boundary layer. The latter relies on higher jet mass flow rate to fill the wake.
Since there are only 6 points collected in the tests of this research, the correlation based on C jk
mentioned above may not be conclusive and needs more measurement data to confirm in future
research.
Fig. 35 and Fig. 36 show the injection and suction mass flow rate, which are set to be the same.
They agree very well for most of the points except for one or two with the maximum difference
within 3.9%.
Fig. 37 and 38 show the total pressure ratio at CFJ injection and suction for CFJ0025-065-196
and CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil. The total pressure ratio represents the power required to pump the
CFJ. The total pressure ratio of the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil is significantly lower than that of the
CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil due to the smaller injection slot. The mass flow rate of CFJ0025-065-196
is hence far lower than that of CFJ0025-131-196. The overall power required for CFJ0025-065-196

11
to achieve the same lift coefficient will be much less than that of the CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil. For
example, table 2 gives the comparison of the two airfoils to achieve the same lift coefficient 4.42.
The jet mass flow rate of CFJ0025-065-196 is only half of that of CFJ0025-131-196. If assume the
same efficiency for the secondary flow pumping system, the power to pump the CFJ0025-131-196
airfoil is then 3.9 times of that needed for CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil as shown in table 2.
Airfoil CL ṁ (kg/s) PR AoA Power Required (unit)
CFJ0025-065-196 4.42 0.051254 1.33 34.7◦ 1
CFJ0025-131-196 4.42 0.11 1.65 30◦ 3.9

Table 2: Comparison of power required to achieve CL = 4.42 for the two CFJ airfoils.

This example indicates that there is a dramatic difference of power consumption (fuel consump-
tion) by simply using different slot size to achieve the same lift. Totally only two slot sizes are tested
in this study as concept proof. The airfoil configuration is not optimized. It is hence believed that
there is a great room for further CFJ airfoil performance improvement if an optimum configuration
study is done.

4.3 Jet Instability

In the experiment, it is observed that there is a limit of the jet mass flow rate to maintain the
stability of the flow. Below the limit, increasing the jet mass flow (momentum coefficient) will
make the flow attached and increase the lift and stall margin. However, if the jet mass flow rate
exceeds the limit, the whole flow field breaks down and a large separation occurs as the jet does
not exist. The turbulent shear layer due to jet mixing is complicated and is dominant by the
coherent structure[28]. The reason of the flow field breakdown is not clear at this time and may be
speculated as the following two aspects:
1) the mixing shear layer loses stability due to the large difference of the Mach number, or the
so called convective Mach number,

U1 − U 2
Mc = (11)
a1 + a 2

where U1 , U2 , a1 , and a2 are the velocity and speed of sound of the main flow and the jet. The
density and velocity ratio between the mainflow and jet also have an effect on the mixing shear
layer stability[29][28].
2) The centrifugal force of the jet is too large that the jet becomes detached and the flow field
collapses.
Due to the time limitation of this research, the details of the jet instability phenomenon was
not studied. More detailed research of the jet stability limit from both CFD and experiment will
be conducted in future.

12
5 Super-Circulation Airfoil

Conceptually, the CFJ airfoil should be able to break the inviscid CLmax limit when the CFJ
induces higher flow velocity on the suction surface than the inviscid potential velocity. The inviscid
maximum lift is given as[30]:

CLmax = 2π(1 + t/c) (12)

where t/c is the ratio of the maximum thickness to chord.

The jet velocity of CFJ airfoil is controlled by the injection total pressure and the injection duct
shape, and hence can be made greater than the inviscid velocity. The jet then may induce higher
circulation on the airfoil than the inviscid flow. We term the airfoil with higher lift and hence higher
circulation than that of the the inviscid limit as “Super-Circulation Airfoil”. The super-circulation
airfoil is based on the hypothesis of steady state flow, that is the jet will remain attached no matter
how high the jet velocity is. This may not be true as we have seen the jet instability problem in
the wind tunnel tests. Nonetheless, there is enough evidence to believe that the Super-Circulation
Airfoil is possible.
Based on the steady state assumption, we then use the RANS model CFD solver to simulate
a highly cambered CFJ airfoil created from NACA0025. The airfoil is named CFJ11425-065-
196. According to eq.(12), the inviscid limit of CLmax is 7.85. Fig. 39 is the streamlines and
Mach contours of the CFJ11425-065-196 airfoil flow field at AoA of 39 ◦ with the jet momentum
coefficient Cµ = 0.6, M∞ = 0.1. The lift coefficient calculated is CL = 9.74, which is far greater
than the inviscid limit. It is known that CFD over predicts the results. Nonetheless, the large
amount exceeding the inviscid CLmax is encouraging. Fig. 39 also shows that the stagnation point
is nearly located at mid-chord point, which is far below the leading edge where the stagnation point
of a conventional airfoil locates.
Further study of the Super-Circulation Airfoil concept will be one of the future research tasks.

6 Conclusions

This research has successfully demonstrated the superior performance of co-flow jet airfoil concept
in wind tunnel tests to dramatically increase lift, stall margin, and drag reduction. In the wind
tunnel tests conducted in this research, two airfoils with different injection slot size are tested
to study the effect of geometry. The airfoil with smaller injection slot size (0.65% chord length)
performs significantly better than the one with twice larger slot size. With the momentum coefficient
varying from 0.1 to 0.30, compared with the baseline airfoil, the maximum lift of the smaller size
CFJ airfoil is increased by 113% to 220%, the angle of attack operating range (stall margin) is
increased by 100% and 153%. The minimum drag coefficient is reduced by 30% to 127% with the
momentum coefficient varying from 0.055 to 0.192. Large negative drag (thrust) is produced when
the momentum coefficient is high. The L/D increase of CFJ airfoil is difficult to measure because
when the drag is zero, L/D = ∞.
Under the same injection total pressure, the jet mass flow rate of the twice larger injection slot
airfoil is about twice as large as that of the smaller slot airfoil. At the same AoA before stall, the gain
using the larger injection slot in lift enhancement is small. The gain in minimum drag reduction

13
is more significant than the lift enhancement. The higher jet mass flow rate also yields smaller
stall AoA. The reason is not fully clear at this time and is speculated due to the centrifugal force
detaching the jet. To achieve the same lift coefficient of 4.42, the power required (fuel consumption)
for the twice larger slot size airfoil is 3.9 times of that of the CFJ airfoil with smaller size. The two
airfoils tested in this research are not optimized. It is hence believed that there is a great potential
to further improve the CFJ airfoil performance when an optimum configuration study is done.
Based on the limited wind tunnel measurement data obtained in this research, a coefficient
of jet kinetic energy is introduced, which appears to correlate better with the maximum lift and
stall margin than the momentum coefficient when CFJ airfoil slot size varies. The minimum drag
reduction correlates better with momentum coefficient. These correlation needs to be confirmed by
more experimental data in future.
In the experiment, it is observed that there is a limit of the jet mass flow rate to maintain the
stability of the flow. Below the limit, increasing the jet mass flow (momentum coefficient) will make
the flow attached and increase the lift and stall AOA. However, if the jet mass flow rate exceeds
the limit, the whole flow field breaks down and a large separation occurs as the jet does not exist.
It is speculated that the instability may be attributed to the large dissimilarity of the jet and the
main flow, and large centrifugal force of the jet when the jet velocity is high. The exact mechanism
is not clear yet and will be studied in future research.
A concept study conducted by using CFD simulation in this research indicates that it is possible
for the CFJ airfoil to exceed the inviscid limit of maximum lift coefficient due to the high jet velocity
inducing high suction velocity of the airfoil. For a cambered CFJ airfoil modified from NACA0025,
a lift coefficient of 9.7 is obtained by the CFD simulation, which is far greater than the inviscid
maximum lift coefficient limit of 7.8. The concept is named Super-Circulation Airfoil.
The coflow jet airfoil concept studied in this research appears to have the following advantages:
1) Very effective to enhance lift and suppress separation; 2) Dramatically reduce drag and can
achieve very high CL /CD (infinity when CD = 0) at low AoA(cruise), and very high lift and drag
at high AoA(take off and landing); 3) Significantly increase AoA operating range and stall margin;
4) Have small penalty to the propulsion system; 5) Can be applied to any airfoil, thick or thin; 6)
Can be used for whole flying mission instead of only take off and landing; 7) Can be used for low
and high speed aircraft; 8) Easy implementation with no moving parts;
The above advantages of the CFJ airfoil may derive the following superior aircraft performances:
1) Extremely short distance for take off and landing; 2) Supersonic aircraft to have small wing size
matching cruise need, but also have high subsonic performance (e.g. high lift low drag at M < 1);
3) High maneuverability, high safety and fast acceleration military aircraft; 4) Very economic fuel
consumption; 5) Small wing span for easy storage, light weight and reduced skin friction and form
drag; 6) Low noise due to no high lift flap system and weakened wake mixing.

7 Acknowledgment

We would like to sincerely thank NASA LaRC for supporting this research as Phase I research of
NRA-03-LaRC-02 under the contract NNL04AA39C. We would also like to thank Dr. R. Gaeta at
Georgia Tech Research Institute for his advice to use Duocel aluminum foam to achieve uniform
injection flow, which is crucial for the success of this research. We would like to thank Mr. Geoffrey
A. Hill at NASA LaRC for discussion of possible application of CFJ airfoil to supersonic aircraft.

14
References

[1] W. L. I. Sellers, B. A. Singer, and L. D. Leavitt, “Aerodynamics for Revolutionary Air Vehi-
cles.” AIAA 2004-3785, June 2003.

[2] M. Gad-el Hak, “Flow Control: The Future ,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 38, pp. 402–418, 2001.

[3] M. Gad-el Hak, Flow Control, Passive, Active, and Reactive Flow Management. Cambridge
University Press, 2000.

[4] S. Anders, W. L. Sellers, and A. Washburn, “Active Flow Control Activities at NASA Langley.”
AIAA 2004-2623, June 2004.

[5] C. P. Tilmann, R. L. Kimmel, G. Addington, and J. H. Myatt, “Flow Control Research and
Application at the AFRL’s Air Vehicles Directorate.” AIAA 2004-2622, June 2004.

[6] D. Miller, , and G. Addington, “Aerodynamic Flowfield Control Technologies for Highly Inte-
grated Airframe Propulsion Flowpaths.” AIAA 2004-2625, June 2004.

[7] V. Kibens and W. W. Bower, “An Overview of Active Flow Control Applications at The
Boeing Company.” AIAA 2004-2624, June 2004.

[8] V. Modi, M. Fernando, and T. Yokomizo, “Drag Reduction of Bluff Bodies Through Moving
Surface Boundary Layer Control.” AIAA Paper No. 90-0298, 1990.

[9] D. Cichy, J. Harris, and J. MacKay, “Flight Tests of a Rotating Cylinder Flap on a North
American Rockwell YOV-10A Aircraft.” NASA CR-2135, 1972.

[10] R. J. Englar, “Circulation Control Pneumatic Aerodynamics: Blown Force and Moment Aug-
mentation and Modifications; Past, Present and Future.” AIAA 2000-2541, June 2000.

[11] L. C. Bradley, “An Experimental Investigation of A Sting-Mounted Finite Circulation Control

Wing.” M.S. Thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, 1995.

[12] N. Wood, L. Robert, and Z. Celik, “Control of Asymmetric Vortical Flows over Delta Wings
at High Angle of Attack,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 27, pp. 429–435, 1990.

[13] N. Wood and L. Robert, “Control of Vortical Lift on Delta Wings by Tangential Leading-Edge
Blowing,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 25, pp. 236–243, 1988.

[14] N. Wood and J. Nielsen, “Circulation Control Airfoils-Past, Present, Future.” AIAA Paper
85-0204, 1985.

[15] R. J. Englar, L. A. Trobaugh, and R. Hemmersly, “STOL Potential of the Circulation Control
Wing for High-Performance Aircraft,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 14, pp. 175–181, 1978.

[16] R. J. Englar, “Circulation Control for High Lift and Drag Generation on STOL Aircraft,”
Journal of Aircraft, vol. 12, pp. 457–463, 1975.

[17] A. Smith, “High-Lift Aerodynamics,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 12, pp. 501–530, 1975.

[18] J. Lin, S. Robinson, R. McGhee, and W. Valarezo, “Separation Control on High Reynolds
Number Multi-Element Airfoils.” AIAA Paper 92-2636, 1992.

15
[19] I. Wygnanski, “The Variables Affecting The Control Separation by Periodic Excitation.” AIAA
2004-2625, June 2004.

[20] K. McManus and J. Magill, “Airfoil Performance Enhancement Using Pulsed Jet Separation
Control.” AIAA Paper 97-1971, 1997.

[21] K. McManus and J. Magill, “Separation Control in Incompressible and Compressible Flows
Using Pulsed Jets.” AIAA Paper 96-1948, 1996.

[22] H. Johari and K. McManus, “Visulation of Pulsed Vortex Generator Jets for Active Control
of Boundary Layer Separation.” AIAA Paper 97-2021, 1997.

[23] Y. Liu, L. N. Sankar, R. J. Englar, K. K. Ahuja, and R. Gaeta, “Computational Evaluation of

the Steady and Pulsed Jet Effects on the Performance of a Circulation Control Wing Section.”
AIAA Paper 2004-0056, 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada
5 - 8 Jan 2004.

[24] G.-C. Zha and C. Paxton, “A Novel Airfoil Circulation Augment Flow Control Method Using
Co-Flow Jet.” NASA/ONR 2004 Circulation Control Workshop, 16-17 March 2004. AIAA
Paper 2004-2208, June 2004.

[25] G.-C. Zha, (team members: David Car, and W. Copenhaver), “Super Diffusion Cascades Using
Co-Flow Jet Flow Control.” National Research Council Summer Faculty Final Report, Aug.
23, 2002.

[26] J. P. Holman, Experimental Methods for Engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 7th Ed., 2001.

[27] M. J. Zucrow and J. D. Hoffman, Gas Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1976.

[28] G. Brown and A. Roshko, “On Density Effects and Large Scale Structure in Turbulent Mixing
Layers,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 64, pp. 675–816, 1974.

[29] P. Strykowski, A. Krothapalli, and S. Jendoubi, “The Effect of Counterflow on the Development
of Compressible Shear Layers,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 308, pp. 63–69, 1996.

[30] R. Englar and R. M. Williams, “Test Techniques for High Lift, Two Dimensional Airfoils with
Boundary Layer and Circulation Control for Application to Rotary Wing Aircraft,” Canadian
Aeronautics and Space Journal, vol. 19, pp. 93–108, 1973.

16
Figure 1: Airfoil section of the baseline airfoil of NACA0025, CFJ airfoil CFJ0025-065-196 and
CFJ airfoil CFJ0025-131-196.

17
Figure 2: Wind tunnel setup and suction tanks.
Figure 4: CFJ airfoil showing the suction side.

5
CFJ0025-065-196- no trip-1.19
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.19
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.27
4 CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-Jet off
NACA0025 w/trip
X NACA0025 no trip

3
CL

X
X
X
1 X
X

X X

0 X

X
-1
-10 0 10 20 30 40
AOA

Figure 5: Comparison of the measured lift coeffi-

cient for baseline NACA0025 and CFJ0025-065-
196 airfoil.

Figure 3: CFJ airfoil showing the injection side.

18
 16
2

14
1.6

12 1.2

0.8
LE
10
0.4

Y cm
8 0

Airfoil Suction Surface

4
Towards TE

2
Figure 6: Flow visualization of the attached flow
of baseline NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 10◦ . 10 15 20 25
X cm

Figure 8: PIV measured normalized velocity

(V /V ∞) field of the attached flow of baseline
NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 10◦ , front portion .

18

16 Towards LE 2

1.6
14 Airfoil Suction Surface
1.2

12
0.8

TE
10 0.4
Y cm

0
8

0
Figure 7: Flow visualization of the separated
5 10 15 20 25
flow of baseline NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 20◦ X cm
.

Figure 9: PIV measured normalized velocity

(V /V ∞) field of the attached flow of baseline
NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 10◦ , rear portion .

19
 150 1.5

1.2

125 0.9

LE 0.6

100
Y mm

0.3

Airfoil Suction Surface

0

75

50 Towards TE

25

0
100 150 200
X mm

Figure 10: PIV measured normalized velocity Figure 12: Flow visualization of the attached
◦
(V /V ∞) field of the separated flow of baseline flow of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of 43
NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 20◦ , front portion . .

150 Towards LE 1.5

1.2

125 Airfoil Suction Surface 0.9

0.6
100
Y mm

0.3

0
75 TE

50

25

100 150 200 250

X mm

Figure 13: Flow visualization of the separated

Figure 11: PIV measured normalized velocity flow of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of 46◦ .
(V /V ∞) field of the separated flow of baseline
NACA0025 airfoil at AoA of 20◦ , rear portion .

20
 140 140
3 2

120 2.4
120 1.6

LE
1.8 1.2
LE Injection Slot
100 100
1.2 0.8

Injection Slot
Y mm

Y mm
0.6 Airfoil Suction Surface 0.4
80 80
0 0
Airfoil Suction Surface
60 60 Towards TE
Towards TE

40 40

20 20

0
100 150 200 100 150 200
X mm X mm

Figure 14: PIV measured normalized velocity Figure 16: PIV measured normalized velocity
(V /V∞ ) contours and streamlines of the attached (V /V∞ ) contours and streamlines of the sepa-
flow of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of 43◦ , rated flow of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of
front portion. 46◦ , front portion.

140 Towards LE
Airfoil Suction Surface

Towards LE 140
3 2
120
Airfoil Suction Surface 2.4
Suction Slot 1.6

TE
100 Suction Slot 1.8 1.2
120
1.2 0.8

TE
80
Y mm

Y mm

0.6 0.4

100
0 0

60

40 80

20
60

0
100 150 200 100 150 200
X mm X mm

Figure 15: PIV measured normalized velocity Figure 17: PIV measured normalized velocity
(V /V∞ ) contours and streamlines of the attached (V /V∞ ) contours and streamlines of the sepa-
flow of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of 43◦ , rated flow of CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil at AoA of
rear portion. 46◦ , rear portion.

21
 5

mach-number
0.595983
0.556252 4
0.516522
0.476791
0.43706
3
0.39733
0.357599
0.317868

CL
0.278137 2
0.238407
0.198676
0.158945 X
X
X

0.119214 1 X
X CFJ0025-065-196- no trip-1.19
0.0794835 X X CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.19
0.0397528 X
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.27
CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-Jet off
0 X NACA0025 w/trip
X NACA0025 no trip
X

X
-1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
CD

Figure 20: Measured drag polar of CFJ0025-065-

196 airfoil.
Figure 18: CFD calculated streamlines and
Mach contours of the CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil
flow field at AoA of 39◦ .

100

90

0.3 CFJ0025-065-196- no trip-1.19

80
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.19
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.27
70
Jet Velocity, m/s

0.25
60

0.2 50

40
Cµ

0.15
30

0.1 20 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04
10
0.05
0
-10 0 10 20 30
AOA
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40
AOA
Figure 21: Measured injection jet velocity of
CFJ0025-065-196 and CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil
Figure 19: Measured injection momentum coef- with the same injection total pressure.
ficient for CFJ0025-065-196 airfoil.

22
 1.5

1.4 2.5
3
Jet Density, Kg/m

CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04 2
1.3
1.5

CL
1.2 1

0.5
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
1.1 CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04
0

-0.5
1
-10 0 10 20 30 -10 0 10 20 30
AOA AOA

Figure 22: Measured injection jet density of Figure 24: Measured lift coefficient of CFJ0025-
CFJ0025-065-196 and CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil 065-196 and CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil with the
with the same injection total pressure. same injection total pressure.

0.06

0.055 1.5
0.05
Jet Mass Flow Rate, Kg/s

0.045
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04
0.04
1
0.035
CD

0.03

0.025

0.02
0.5
0.015
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04
0.01

0.005

0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 -10 0 10 20 30
AOA AOA

Figure 23: Measured injection mass flow rate Figure 25: Measured drag coefficient of
of CFJ0025-065-196 and CFJ0025-131-196 air- CFJ0025-065-196 and CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil
foil with the same injection total pressure. with the same injection total pressure.

23
 5
5
CFJ0025-131-196 no trip -1.24
CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.04
CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.09
CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - 1.24 4
4 CFJ0025-131-196 no trip - Jet off
CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - Jet off
NACA0025 w/trip
X NACA0025 no trip
3
3

CL
2
CL

X
X X
X X
X 1 X
1 X
X
X X
X CFJ0025-131-196 no trip -1.24
X X CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.04
CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.09
X CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - 1.24
X
CFJ0025-131-196 no trip - Jet off
0 X
0 X CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - Jet off
NACA0025 w/trip
X
X X NACA0025 no trip

X
X
-1
-1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-10 0 10 20 30 40
AOA CD

Figure 26: Comparison of the measured lift coef- Figure 28: Measured drag polar of CFJ0025-131-
ficient for NACA0025 and CFJ0025-131-196 air- 196 airfoil.
foil.

3.2
3.1
0.7
3
CFJ0025-131-196 no trip -1.24
CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.04 2.9
CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.09
0.6 CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - 1.24 2.8
CL(max) Ratio

2.7
0.5 2.6
2.5
0.4 2.4
Cµ

2.3
0.3 2.2 CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-1.19
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
2.1 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.19
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.27
0.2 2 CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.09
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.24
1.9
0.1 1.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Cµ
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40
AOA
Figure 29: Measured ratio of
CLmax cf j /CLmax baseline vs jet momentum
Figure 27: Measured injection momentum coef- coefficient for both CFJ0025-096-196 and
ficient of CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil. CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil.

24
 2.6 2.6

2.5 2.5

2.4
2.4
2.3
Stall Margin Ratio

Stall Margin Ratio

2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2
2
CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-1.19 1.9
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04 CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-1.19
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.19 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
1.9 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.27 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.19
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04
1.8 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.27
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.09 CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.09
1.8 CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.24
1.7 CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.24

1.7 1.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0 10 20 30 40 50
Cµ CJK

Figure 30: Measured ratio of AoA Figure 32: Measured ratio of AoA
stallmargincf j /stallmarginbaseline vs jet stallmargincf j /stallmarginbaseline vs jet kinetic
momentum coefficient coefficient for both energy coefficient for both CFJ0025-096-196 and
CFJ0025-096-196 and CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil. CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil.

3.2 0

3.1
3
2.9
2.8
-1
Drag Reduction
CL(max) Ratio

2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3 -2 CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-1.19
2.2 CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-1.19 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.19
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.27
2.1 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.19
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.27
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04 CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.08
2 CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.09 CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.24
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.24
1.9
1.8 -3
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CJK CJK

Figure 31: Measured ratio of Figure 33: Measured reduction of minimum

CLmax cf j /CLmax baseline vs jet kinetic en- drag vs jet kinetic energy coefficient at AoA =0
ergy coefficient for both CFJ0025-096-196 and for both CFJ0025-096-196 and CFJ0025-131-196
CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil. airfoil.

25
 0 0.11 X
X
X X
X
X
0.1 X X

0.09

0.08

Mass Flow Rate, Kg/s

-1
Drag Reduction

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04
-2 CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-1.19 CFJ0025-131-196 no trip -1.24-Inj
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04 CFJ0025-131-196 no trip -1.24-Suc
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.19
0.03 CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.04-Inj
CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.27 CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.04-Suc
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.04 CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.09-Inj
0.02 CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip -1.09-Suc
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.08
CFJ0025-131-196-w/trip-1.24 CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - 1.24-Inj
0.01 X CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - 1.24-Suc

-3 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Cµ AOA

Figure 34: Measured reduction of minimum drag Figure 36: Measured CFJ injection and suction
vs momentum coefficient at AoA =0 for both mass flow rate of CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil.
CFJ0025-096-196 and CFJ0025-131-196 airfoil.

0.055
X
X
X
X
X 1.3
P o(after foam)/P o(in suction duct)

X
0.05 X
X
X
X
X
X
0.045 X
1.25
0.04
Mass Flow Rate, Kg/s

0.035 1.2

0.03
1.15
0.025

0.02 1.1
CFJ0025-065-196- no trip-1.19-Inj CFJ0025-065-196-no trip-1.19
0.015 CFJ0025-065-196- no trip-1.19-Suc CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.04
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.04-Inj CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.19
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.04-Suc 1.05 CFJ0025-065-196-w/trip-1.27
0.01 CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.19-Inj
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.19-Suc
CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.27-Inj
0.005 X CFJ0025-065-196- w/trip-1.27-Suc
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0 Cµ
-10 0 10 20 30 40
AOA

Figure 37: Measured total pressure ratio at CFJ

Figure 35: Measured CFJ injection and suction injection and suction for CFJ0025-065-196 air-
mass flow rate of CFJ0025-096-196 airfoil. foil.

26
 1.7

1.65
P o(after foam)/P o(in suction duct)

1.6

1.55

1.5

1.45

1.4

1.35

1.3

1.25 CFJ0025-131-196 no trip - 1.24

CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - 1.04
1.2 CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - 1.08
CFJ0025-131-196 w/trip - 1.24

1.15

1.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Cµ

Figure 38: Measured total pressure ratio at CFJ

injection and suction for CFJ0025-131-196 air-
foil.

mach-number
0.804912
0.751253
0.697593
0.643933
0.590273
0.536614
0.482954
0.429294
0.375635
0.321975
0.268315
0.214655
0.160996
0.107336
0.0536763

Figure 39: CFD calculated streamlines and

Mach contours of the CFJ11425-065-196 airfoil
flow field at AoA of 39◦ .

27