Search

A control volume analysis is presented in this paper to analyze the jet effect on the coflow jet airfoil with injection and suction and on the airfoil with injection only. The formulations to calculate the duct's reactionary forces that must be included for the lift and drag calculation are given. The computational fluid dynamics solutions based on the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes model are used to provide the breakdowns of lift and drag contributions from the airfoil surface force integral and jet duct's reactionary forces. The results are compared with experiment for validation. The duct reactionary forces are also validated with the result of a 3-D computational fluid dynamics calculation of the complete airfoil with jet ducts and wind tunnel walls. The study indicates that the suction occurring on the airfoil suction surface of the coflow jet airfoil is more beneficial than the suction occurring through the engine inlet such as the airfoil with injection only. For the airfoil with injection only, the drag actually acted on the aircraft, or the equivalent drag, is significantly larger than the drag measured by the wind tunnel balance due to the ram drag and captured area drag when the jet is drawn from the freestream. For a coflow jet airfoil, the drag measured by the wind tunnel balance is the actual 2-D drag that the aircraft will experience. A coflow jet airfoil does not have the ram drag and captured area drag. For a coflow jet airfoil, the suction penalty is offset by the significant circulation enhancement. The coflow jet airfoil with both injection and suction yields stronger mixing, larger circulation, more filled wake, higher stall angle of attack, less drag, and lower energy expenditure.

Two coflow jet airfoils with injection slot size differing by a factor of 2 are tested in a wind tunnel to study the effect of injection slot size. At the same angle of attack, the larger injection slot size airfoil passes about twice the jet mass flow rate of the smaller injection slot size airfoil. The smaller injection slot size airfoil is more effective in increasing the stall margin and maximum lift, whereas the larger slot coflow jet airfoil is more effective in reducing drag. To achieve the same lift, the smaller injection slot size airfoil has much less energy expenditure than the larger injection slot airfoil. A coefficient of jet kinetic energy is introduced, which appears to correlate well with the maximum lift and stall margin when coflow .jet airfoil geometry varies. Both the jet kinetic energy coefficient and the momentum coefficient correlate well with drag reduction. No optimization of the airfoil configuration is pursued in this research, and the results indicate that there is a great potential for coflow jet airfoil performance improvement.

Two coflow jet airfoils with injection slot size differing by a factor of 2 are tested in a wind tunnel to study the effect of injection slot size. At the same angle of attack, the larger injection slot size airfoil passes about twice the jet mass flow rate of the smaller injection slot size airfoil. The smaller injection slot size airfoil is more effective in increasing the stall margin and maximum lift, whereas the larger slot coflow jet airfoil is more effective in reducing drag. To achieve the same lift, the smaller injection slot size airfoil has much less energy expenditure than the larger injection slot airfoil. A coefficient of jet kinetic energy is introduced, which appears to correlate well with the maximum lift and stall margin when coflow jet airfoil geometry varies. Both the jet kinetic energy coefficient and the momentum coefficient correlate well with drag reduction. No optimization of the airfoil configuration is pursued in this research, and the results indicate that there is a great potential for coflow jet airfoil performance improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study which demonstrated the high performance of the coflow jet airfoil (CFJ) with the wind-tunnel test results. The CFJ airfoil, a novel active airfoil flow control concept with zero-net mass flux, was developed. The airfoil achieves three effects namely, lift augmentation, stall margin increase and drag reduction. It utilizes an injection slot near the leading edge and a suction slot near the trailing edge on the airfoil suction surface. As indicated by numerical simulation, the CFJ airfoil in the freestream conditions has a higher stall margin and a maximum lift than in the wind tunnel.

A control volume analysis is presented in this paper to analyze the jet effect on the coflow jet airfoil with injection and suction and on the airfoil with injection only. The formulations to calculate the duct's reactionary forces that must be included for the lift and drag calculation are given. The computational fluid dynamics solutions based on the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes model are used to provide the breakdowns of lift and drag contributions from the airfoil surface force integral and jet duct's reactionary forces. The results are compared with experiment for validation. The duct reactionary forces are also validated with the result of a 3-D computational fluid dynamics calculation of the complete airfoil with jet ducts and wind tunnel walls. The study indicates that the suction occurring on the airfoil suction surface of the coflow jet airfoil is more beneficial than the suction occurring through the engine inlet such as the airfoil with injection only. For the airfoil with injection only, the drag actually acted on the aircraft, or the equivalent drag, is significantly larger than the drag measured by the wind tunnel balance due to the ram drag and captured area drag when the jet is drawn from the freestream. For a coflow jet airfoil, the drag measured by the wind tunnel balance is the actual 2-D drag that the aircraft will experience. A coflow jet airfoil does not have the ram drag and captured area drag. For a coflow jet airfoil, the suction penalty is offset by the significant circulation enhancement. The coflow jet airfoil with both injection and suction yields stronger mixing, larger circulation, more filled wake, higher stall angle of attack, less drag, and lower energy expenditure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]