AIAA JOURNAL
Vol. 57, No. 8, August 2019
Introduction to the Flow Control Virtual Collection
DOI: 10.2514/1.J058507
Flow Control Virtual Collection: https://arc.aiaa.org/vc/flowcontrol
I. Brief Historical Development of Fundamental
Concepts
T HE study and application of active flow control (AFC) has its
roots in the discovery and formulation of the boundary layer by
Prandtl in 1904 [1] and, in particular, the control of boundary-layer
separation. Traditional boundary layer control (BLC) involved the
addition of momentum flux or the removal of the low-momentum
layer in order to restore the inviscid pressure distribution associated
with attached boundary layers [2]. When added momentum flux
Downloaded by 2409:40c2:1163:eed2:1c64:e52d:1fb0:f39e on January 30, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J058507
produces lift forces that exceeded the inviscid limit, this is termed
circulation control or super-circulation [3]. BLC reached its apogee
in the mid-20th century [3,4], leading to the “blown flaps,” which
were installed on some production aircraft (e.g., the Lockheed F-104
and some models of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21). However, with
the dawn of the space race, R&D funding was dramatically cut back
and BLC development came to a virtual standstill [5].
The 1973 oil crisis led to focused efforts for increasing efficiency
and, in particular, boundary-layer drag reduction was researched
extensively. Most active methods focused on the large disparities
between laminar and turbulent boundary-layer drag, with the
objective of “delaying” transition, that is, shifting it further
downstream. Apart from obvious geometric (pressure gradient)
approaches, active surface suction though a porous skin/slits or
surface temperature variations were evaluated. This often involved
the identification and elimination of flow instabilities that led to
transition. To date, suction though a porous skin has shown the
greatest promise, with extensive flight testing [6], but commercial
aircraft application has been limited [7]. Many modern approaches
aim to delay transition via the introduction of controlled perturbations
[8,9], especially on swept back wings. Active methods—such as wall
suction or blowing, oscillating walls, and sublayer blowing—have
also been applied directly to turbulent boundary-layer drag reduction.
These methods are designed to manipulate near-wall low-speed
streaks, and net drag reductions of up to 65% have been reported in
recent wind tunnel tests [10].
Until the 1970s, the meaningful control or manipulation of
turbulent flows by means of small perturbations was considered to be
impossible, with conventional wisdom asserting that “a turbulent
flow forgets its origin.” However, dedicated experiments on turbulent
shear layers revealed that instability-driven “coherent structures”
dominate the flowfield [11] and, as a consequence, “small” or O
ε
perturbations can produce “large” O
1 overall changes [12]. These
findings subsequently spawned a large body of research, covering
shear layers, jets, separation control on airfoils and flaps, cavity
flows, and combustion processes. Although instability-driven flow
control has been demonstrated in flight tests [13], it has not yet
reached the application stage.
For reasons of safety, simplicity, reliability, and power
consumption, AFC becomes viable only when a decisive
aerodynamic advantage can be demonstrated over passive flow
control (PFC) techniques—for example, slotted-flaps and vortex
generators (VGs) for separation control [14,15]; chevrons for jet
noise reduction [16,17]; and riblets for near-wall drag reduction
[18,19]. Moreover, apart from aerodynamic benefits, actuators or
actuation techniques must be safe, small, light, and robust with
associated low energy consumption [20]. To realize the full potential
of AFC, it must be integrated into the vehicle design and not
introduced as a postdesign add-on. This requires a full three-
dimensional flowfield analysis and hence a breakaway from
traditional two-dimensional paradigms. From a control theory
standpoint [21], the vast majority of AFC investigations are
considered to be the “open loop control.” Implicit in this approach is
3111
the understanding that any successful and viable technique will
ultimately be incorporated into automatic flight control systems.
This Virtual Collection of articles was conceived of with the
intention of producing a cross section of the diversity and depth of
modern flow control research. Contributing authors were encouraged
to produce articles that could be used as reference material to both
researchers and students and to present the philosophy underpinning
their research. All articles in this Virtual Collection have been
published online as regular contributions, but here they are presented
as a cohesive unit. The Collection is broadly divided into five main
sections: fundamental studies (Sec. II), airfoil and wing applications
(Sec. III), actuators and actuation methods (Sec. IV), closed-loop
control (Sec. V), and flight applications and testing (Sec. VI).
Conclusions and outlook are presented in Sec. VII. Although this
volume does not cover all aspects of flow control, it does summarize a
cross section of activities that make up the broader field.
II. Fundamental Studies
Fundamental studies relating to drag reduction, shear layer control,
separation control, and transition control continue to be the bedrock
of flow control research. In the area of drag reduction, Corke and
Thomas [10] present a comprehensive review of flow-control-based
drag reduction strategies encompassing 50 years of research. These
strategies aim to modify either the large-scale outer motions or the
near-wall small-scale streaks using riblets, wall mass-flux, and
transverse wall oscillations. A new and particularly effective
approach is presented that introduces spanwise blowing pulses,
achieved with newly developed pulsed-dc plasma actuators, to
prevent the lift-up of near-wall streaks. The reduction in wall-normal
vorticity that inhibits streak growth results in an unprecedented net
drag reduction of up to 65%. McKeon et al. [22] describe the use of
the “dynamic roughness” to manipulate turbulent boundary
structures. Linear and nonlinear responses to perturbations are
studied with a view to modifying the overall turbulent structure.
Practical applications will need to leverage advances in micro-
electromechanical system (MEMS) devices or metamaterial
actuators.
Fundamental studies on the control of turbulent free shear layers,
which are substantially altered by periodic excitation, are examined
by Little [23], who studied thermal perturbations of free and
reattaching incompressible turbulent shear layers using nanosecond-
pulse-driven dielectric barrier discharge (NS-DBD) plasma
actuators, where the perturbation mechanism is associated with
Joule heating. The research focuses on differences in the flow
receptivity to these perturbations when compared with traditional
momentum-based actuation. Samimy et al. [24] produced effective
control of turbulent supersonic jets using circumferentially mounted
arc filament plasma actuators that produce localized short pulse-
width (low power), high-bandwidth temperature spikes, and hence
compression waves. They demonstrated similarities between
perturbations of low-speed shear layers and supersonic jets, where
the effects of excitation depend on Mach number and compressibility
level. In cavities, where flow oscillations can generate large and
potentially damaging pressure fluctuations (e.g., in weapons and
landing-gear bays), Zhang et al. [25] showed that jet arrays deployed
at the cavity leading edge resulted in significant surface pressure
reductions, both experimentally and computationally. In the field of
turbomachinery, Bons et al. [26] studied low-pressure turbine blade
separation and secondary flow control strategies, including slot
blowing, suction, steady, and pulsed vortex-generator jets (VGJs),
where shear-layer excitations are exploited in the latter case. They
showed effective flow control focusing on the fluid dynamics
mechanisms. They point out, however, that flow unsteadiness, high
 3112 AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 57, NO. 8:
turbulence levels, and secondary flows rendered these problems more
challenging.
The control of transition remains an important research area on
swept and unswept configurations. Both theoretical and experimental
approaches have been adopted to attenuate or cancel the amplitude
of Tollmien–Schlichting (TS) waves. Using direct numerical
simulations (DNS), Dadfar et al. [27] employed a linear quadratic
Gaussian (LQG) controller to attenuate a TS wave packet (see
Sec. V). The controller design was based on rows of downstream
sensors, and plasma actuation was modeled by means of a volumetric
force. Simon et al. [28] studied the active cancellation of TS waves by
generating “counterwaves” using plasma actuators, with the
objective of reducing friction drag by extending the laminar flow
regime. Counterwaves cancel the incoming TS waves at
approximately one wavelength downstream, with the velocity wave
shape playing a secondary role. Saric et al. [29] employed discrete
roughness elements (DREs) to study crossflow instabilities leading to
Downloaded by 2409:40c2:1163:eed2:1c64:e52d:1fb0:f39e on January 30, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J058507
boundary-layer transition on a swept wing model mounted on an
aircraft. Linear stability analyses were used to determine the test
matrix, and infrared thermography was used to determine the
transition locations. Surprisingly, the transition location associated
with a painted leading edge was unexpectedly farther aft than that on
a highly polished one. Further research is required to determine if
DREs can be employed as a viable laminar flow control technique.
III. Airfoils, Wing, and Bluff Bodies
The original objectives of BLC related primarily to airfoil and wing
separation and circulation control as a precursor to flight tests. Recent
research adopts conventional methods in unique implementations,
studies novel actuator systems, and introduces substantial three-
dimensional effects. Warsop and Crowther [30] use the well-known
Coandă effect to develop aircraft systems with sufficient control
authority so as to eliminate conventional control surfaces. Their
extensive body of research encompasses fundamental studies
together with system integration and small-scale flying technology
demonstrators (also see Sec. VI). Dolgopyat and Seifert [31] also
studied flight control where suction and oscillatory blowing (SaOB)
actuators are used to achieve this purpose by an unsteady mechanism.
The system can increase lift or drag with concomitant minor effects
on other aerodynamic parameters. Amitay and Gildersleeve [32]
investigated synthetic jet actuators, low-aspect-ratio static and
dynamic pin-type actuators, and a novel hybrid (failsafe) actuator that
combines the two as they interact with a laminar boundary layer.
Synthetic jet, pin, and hybrid actuator parameters were studied in
detail and an array of passive cylindrical pins was shown to be
effective for separation control. Sweeping jets were also shown to be
effective over highly deflected flaps by Pack Melton et al. [33] (also
see Sec. IV). Gursul and Wang [34] present a review of tip and edge
vortex control by considering lift enhancement, drag reduction, flight
control, noise reduction, buffet and wing rock, and the excitation of
wake instabilities. A wide variety of techniques have been evaluated
based on bleed, exploitation of multiple co-rotating vortices, as well
as steady and unsteady blowing configurations. On afterbodies
(cylindrical bodies with a slanted base), both passive (Gurney flap)
and active (blowing) methods reduced drag.
Jentzsch et al. [35] used a combination of sweeping jets and
traditional control surfaces to trim and control a tailless aircraft
model, showing that significantly smaller flap deflections are
required with targeted local actuation. Visbal and Benton [36]
demonstrated dynamic stall control on a pitching airfoil using high-
fidelity wall-resolved large-eddy simulations and linear stability
theory, where high-frequency perturbations are introduced near the
leading edge. High-frequency perturbations excite convective
instabilities in the laminar separation bubble, thereby affecting the
bubble bursting and transition mechanisms. The approach shows
potential for significantly ameliorating dynamic loads and moments.
Keisar et al. [37] demonstrated the use of well-known pulsed
dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma actuators on a full-scale
unmanned air vehicle tail panel, where the objective was to increase
allowable cross winds during takeoff. The emphasis was on
INTRODUCTION
developing a lightweight and low-power system appropriate for flight
vehicles. A resulting 65% increase in allowable crosswind takeoff
speeds demonstrated that pulsed DBD plasma actuators are a viable
and practical solution. Lambert et al. [38] used azimuthally mounted
zero-mass-flux (synthetic) jets on the tail end of an axisymmetric
bluff-body model with curved (Coandă) surfaces to demonstrate
either suppression or augmentation of the motion-induced
aerodynamic loads. The model was mounted and controlled by
means of mounting wires that connected to servo motors with in-line
load cells. Closed-loop control aspects of this research are discussed
in Sec. V.
IV. Actuators or Actuation Methods
The development of effective and efficient actuators and actuation
methods is critical for practical implementation of flow control [20].
Recently, sweeping jets (SJs), also referred to as fluidic oscillators,
have received considerable attention. Hirsch and Gharib [39]
employed a novel Schlieren system combined with a high-speed
camera to study the internal dynamics of SJs. These data were used to
validate a theory based on nondimensional frequency and jet velocity.
They also studied two adjacent actuators with several separation
distances and pressure ratios that produced underexpanded and
transonic jets. Woszidlo et al. [40] measured SJ phase-resolved
properties and determined that flow from the feedback channels
enters the recirculation bubbles, and this is what drives the jet
oscillation. They also developed scaling parameters for actuator
sizing and different fluid densities. Pack Melton et al. [33] studied the
effect of sweeping and discrete jets over a simply hinged flap of a
semispan wing up to deflection angles of 60 deg. Sweeping jets
increased lift, but were not able to completely eliminate the
separation over the highly deflected flaps. Kara et al. [41]
numerically studied the effect of SJ actuation on flow-separation over
a wall-mounted hump model using 2-D unsteady RANS (URANS).
Crittenden et al. [42] studied both fundamental and application
aspects of combustion-powered actuators, namely, the ignition of a
mixture of gaseous fuel and air to produce high-impulse jets.
Performance was strongly dependent on chemical species
composition and the actuator geometry. They then demonstrated
the utility of the actuators for selected static and dynamic flow control
applications.
V. Modeling, Feedforward, and Feedback Control
Control theory, which generally involves some form of closed-
loop or feedback, deals with the behavior of dynamical systems and is
concerned with automating flow control. Williams and King [43]
provide a detailed comprehensive overview of closed-loop flow
control, particularly for the alleviation of unsteady aerodynamic
loads associated with aircraft and ground vehicles. They describe the
various models for unsteady aerodynamic loads (disturbance
models), models for the dynamic response to control input, and
surrogate measurements of forces and moments. Different closed-
loop architectures are described for different feed-forward and
feedback control applications. This serves as a framework for
determining the practical bandwidth for aircraft gust alleviation using
flow control. In a related study, Williams et al. [44] used pitching
airfoil lift history with blowing-type flow control to obtain low-
dimensional disturbance models for control based on a modified
Goman-Khrabrov model, and a plant model for the lift response to
blowing that took the form of a time-delay system. A feed-forward
controller-based linearized version of the dynamic actuation model
was capable of attenuating the lift oscillations by a factor of 10 over a
wide range of frequencies.
For transition control described in Sec. II, Dadfar et al. [27] used
solutions of the linearized Navier–Stokes equations to develop a
reduced-order model based on the Eigen-system Realization
Algorithm (ERA), and the LQG controller was designed based on
this model. Plasma actuation that was modeled by means of
volumetric force and feedback was provided via downstream sensors.
Seidel et al. [45] describe a heuristic approach to feedback flow
 AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 57, NO. 8:
control for two different problems, namely, a tangent ogive at large
angles of attack and a shear layer over a backward-facing step. On the
tangent ogive, using only four pressure sensors, a prescribed side
force signal could be tracked. For the shear layer, a reduction of 40%
in the optical path difference was achieved. Lambert et al. [38] used
the synthetic jets described in Sec. III to control the 6-DOF bluff body
motion using a trajectory tracking controller. An inner control loop
used a proportional integral differential (PID) controller based on
load cell sensors, with the controller driving the motors. An outer
loop PID-based controller measured the body’s position and
facilitated accurate trajectory tracking with disturbance rejection,
enabling real-time load and moment measurements.
VI. Flight Applications and Testing
A major objective of many flow control studies is flight testing and
Downloaded by 2409:40c2:1163:eed2:1c64:e52d:1fb0:f39e on January 30, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J058507
this is performed on both small-scale and large-scale demonstrators.
Warsop and Crowther [30] demonstrated their Coandă effect and
thrust vectoring systems (see Sec. III) on a series of small-scale flying
technology demonstrators. These ranged in size and complexity
(from less than 7 kg to 90 kg) and were vital for understanding system
integration and estimating full-scale flight performance. Shmilovich
and Vasta [46] review computational methods for practical
simulations of flow control for flight vehicles, based on both
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes and lattice Boltzmann methods.
Francis [47] reviews vectored thrust concepts and emphasizes the
enhanced control authority at low airspeeds, including poststall
maneuverability, tailless flight, and extremely short takeoff and
landing. Integrated vectored thrust, used in conjunction with gas-
turbine engines, including both mechanical and fluidic approaches, is
reviewed.
Extensive research was conducted on the Boeing 757
ecoDemonstrator aircraft, including computational simulations of
individual SJ actuators (Shmilovich et al. [48]); small and full-scale
vertical tail wind tunnel campaigns employing multiple actuator
types and configurations; and subsequently a full-scale flight
implementation on the ecoDemonstrator. This research was
motivated by projected fuel savings attained by reducing the size of
the vertical tail on commercial aircraft, which is sized to ensure
controllability in the event of engine failure, but is larger than
required for control and stability under normal flight conditions.
Boeing and NASA investigated the effects of a pneumatic SJ system
beginning with scale-model wind tunnel tests by Andino et al. [49],
who showed that spanwise flow on the rudder was reduced and side
force increased by up to 50% using a momentum coefficients of
O
1%. In flight tests, Whalen et al. [50] showed that the SJ system
provided a 14% increase in side force at the maximum tested rudder
deflection and at critical sideslip angles. The reduced effectiveness in
flight, relative to subscale testing, was attributed to the effects of
Reynolds number on the separated flow state of the tail. On the basis
of gas dynamics arguments, Hirsch et al. [51] showed experimentally
and computationally that higher temperature air supplies to the
actuators result in reduced mass flow rates without any degradation in
control authority. More specifically, the mass flow rate is reduced for
a given momentum coefficient.
VII. Conclusions
Recent decades have witnessed significant advances across the
spectrum of fundamental studies and basic research, actuator analysis
and development, full-scale wind tunnel testing, and flight tests. By
far, the greater emphasis is on active flow control (AFC). While
fundamental studies focus on physical mechanisms, others show
tremendous potential for drag reduction, control of supersonic jets,
transition control, and the control of cavity oscillations. Basic
research conducted on airfoils has now advanced to straight and
swept wing applications, where traditional and nontraditional
methods are employed for flight control, while novel and viable
actuation methods are being developed for separation control. In the
field of actuation, significant attention has been afforded to sweeping
INTRODUCTION 3113
jets, encompassing basic research, computation modeling, wind
tunnel campaigns, and full-scale flight tests.
More than a hundred years after the demonstration of what we
today call AFC, basic research has transitioned from the laboratory to
full-scale flight tests. Passive flow control left an indelible mark on
20th-century aerodynamics, it is hoped that this century will see a
decisive paradigm shift brought about by AFC.
David Greenblatt
Professor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, 3200003 Haifa, Israel;
davidg@technion.ac.il. Associate Fellow AIAA.
Edward A. Whalen
Flow Control Actuators Manager, Boeing Research &
Technology, Boeing Company, Hazelwood, Missouri 63042.
Associate Fellow AIAA.
Israel J. Wygnanski
Professor, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department,
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721. Fellow AIAA.
References
[1] Anderson, J. D., “Ludwig Prandtl’s Boundary Layer,” Physics Today,
Dec. 2005, pp. 42–48. In reference to: L. Prandtl In: Verhandlungen des
dritten internationalen Mathematiker-Kongresses, Heidelberg, 1904,
Leipzig, 1905, pp. 484–491.
[2] Betz, A., History of Boundary Layer Control in Germany, Vol. 1, edited
by G. V. Lachmann, Boundary Layer and Flow Control: Its Principles
and Application, Vol. 1, Pergamon Press, New York, 1961, pp. 1–20.
[3] Lachmann, G. V., Boundary Layer and Flow Control: Its Principles and
Application, Vol. 1, Pergamon Press, New York, 1961.
[4] Lachmann, G. V., Boundary Layer and Flow Control: Its Principles and
Application, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, New York, 1961.
[5] Flatt, J., The History of Boundary Layer Control Research in the United
States of America, edited by G. V. Lachmann, Boundary Layer and Flow
Control: Its Principles and Application, Vol. 1, Pergamon Press, New
York, 1961, pp. 122–143.
[6] Joslin, R. D., “Aircraft Laminar Flow Control,” Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1998, pp. 1–29.
doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.30.1.1
[7] Ostrower, J., “Boeing Tests Hybrid Laminar Flow Control for 787-9,”
Flight International, June 2011, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/
articles/boeing-tests-hybrid-laminar-flow-control-for-787-9-358123/.
[8] Reshotko, E., “Boundary-Layer Stability and Transition,” Annual
Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1976, pp. 311–349.
doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.08.010176.001523
[9] Saric, W. S., Reed, H. L., and White, E. B., “Stability and Transition of
Three-Dimensional Boundary Layers,” Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2003, pp. 413–440.
doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.35.101101.161045
[10] Corke, T. C., and Thomas, F. O., “Active and Passive Turbulent
Boundary-Layer Drag Reduction,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 10, 2018,
pp. 3835–3847.
doi:10.2514/1.J056949
[11] Brown, G. L., and Roshko, A., “On Density Effects and Large Structure
in Turbulent Mixing Layers,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 64,
No. 4, 1974, pp. 775–816.
doi:10.1017/S002211207400190X
[12] Fiedler, H., “Structure and Mechanism of Turbulence I,” Proceedings of
the Symposium on Turbulence, Vol. 75, Lecture Notes in Physics,
Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1978.
[13] McVeigh, M. A., Nagib, H., Wood, T., and Wygnanski, I., “Full-Scale
Flight Tests of Active Flow Control to Reduce Tiltrotor Aircraft
Download,” AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2011, pp. 786–
796.
doi:10.2514/1.46956
[14] Taylor, H. D., “The Elimination of Diffuser Separation by Vortex
Generators,” United Aircraft Corp. Rept. R-4012-3, East Hartford
Connecticut, June 1947.
[15] Lin, J. C., “Review of Research on Low-Profile Vortex Generators to
Control Boundary-Layer Separation,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences,
Vol. 38, Nos. 4–5, 2002, pp. 389–420.
doi:10.1016/S0376-0421(02)00010-6
[16] Bradbury, L. J. S., and Khadem, A. H., “The Distortion of a Jet by Tabs,”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 70, No. 4, 1975, pp. 801–813.
doi:10.1017/S0022112075002352
 3114 AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 57, NO. 8:
[17] Callender, B., Gutmark, E., and Martens, S., “Far-Field Acoustic
Investigation into Chevron Nozzle Mechanisms and Trends,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2005, pp. 87–95. [36]
doi:10.2514/1.6150
[18] Walsh, M. J., “Riblets as a Viscous Drag Reduction Technique,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1983, pp. 485–486.
doi:10.2514/3.60126 [37]
[19] Gubisch, M., “Aircraft Paint Suppliers Explore Sharkskin Coating,”
Flight International, Jan. 2013, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/
articles/aircraft-paint-suppliers-explore-sharkskin-coating-381646/.
[20] Cattafesta, L. N., and Sheplak, M., “Actuators for Active Flow Control,” [38]
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2011, pp. 247–272.
doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160634
[21] Franklin, G. F., Powell, J. D., and Emami-Naeini, A., Feedback Control
of Dynamic Systems, 8th ed., Pearson, New York, 2019. [39]
[22] McKeon, B. J., Jacobi, I., and Duvvuri, S., “Dynamic Roughness for
Manipulation and Control of Turbulent Boundary Layers: An
Overview,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 6, 2018, pp. 2178–2193.
doi:10.2514/1.J056764 [40]
Downloaded by 2409:40c2:1163:eed2:1c64:e52d:1fb0:f39e on January 30, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J058507
[23] Little, J., “Localized Thermal Perturbations for Control of Turbulent
Shear Flows,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2, 2019, pp. 655–669.
doi:10.2514/1.J056826
[24] Samimy, M., Webb, N., and Crawley, M., “Excitation of Free Shear- [41]
Layer Instabilities for High-Speed Flow Control,” AIAA Journal,
Vol. 56, No. 5, 2018, pp. 1770–1791.
doi:10.2514/1.J056610
[25] Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., Arora, N., Cattafesta, L. N., Taira, K., and Ukeiley, L. [42]
S., “Suppression of Cavity Flow Oscillations via Three-Dimensional
Steady Blowing,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1, 2019, pp. 90–105.
doi:10.2514/1.J057012
[26] Bons, J., Benton, S., Bernardini, C., and Bloxham, M., “Active Flow [43]
Control for Low-Pressure Turbines,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 7,
2018, pp. 2687–2698.
doi:10.2514/1.J056697
[27] Dadfar, R., Hanifi, A., and Henningson, D. S., “Control of Instabilities in [44]
an Unswept Wing Boundary Layer,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 5, 2018,
pp. 1750–1759.
doi:10.2514/1.J056415
[28] Simon, B., Markus, D., Tropea, C., and Grundmann, S., “Cancellation [45]
of Tollmien–Schlichting Waves in Direct Vicinity of a Plasma Actuator,”
AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 5, 2018, pp. 1760–1769.
doi:10.2514/1.J056265
[29] Saric, W. S., West, D. E., Tufts, M. W., and Reed, H. L., “Experiments on [46]
Discrete Roughness Element Technology for Swept-Wing Laminar
Flow Control,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2, 2019, pp. 641–654.
doi:10.2514/1.J056897
[30] Warsop, C., and Crowther, W. J., “Fluidic Flow Control Effectors for [47]
Flight Control,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 10, 2018, pp. 3808–3824.
doi:10.2514/1.J056787
[31] Dolgopyat, D., and Seifert, A., “Active Flow Control Virtual [48]
Maneuvering System Applied to Conventional Airfoil,” AIAA Journal,
Vol. 57, No. 1, 2019, pp. 72–89.
doi:10.2514/1.J056258
[32] Amitay, M., and Gildersleeve, S., “Virtual and Physical Surface [49]
Modifications as Means for Flow Control,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 57,
No. 1, 2019, pp. 53–71.
doi:10.2514/1.J056521
[33] Pack Melton, L., Koklu, M., Andino, M., and Lin, J. C., “Active Flow [50]
Control via Discrete Sweeping and Steady Jets on a Simple-Hinged
Flap,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 8, 2018, pp. 2961–2973.
doi:10.2514/1.J056841
[34] Gursul, I., and Wang, Z., “Flow Control of Tip/Edge Vortices,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 56, No. 5, 2018, pp. 1731–1749. [51]
doi:10.2514/1.J056586
[35] Jentzsch, M. P., Taubert, L., and Wygnanski, I. J., “On the Use of
Sweeping Jets to Trim and Control a Tailless Aircraft Model,” AIAA
INTRODUCTION
Journal Vol. 57, No. 6, 2019, pp. 2322–2334.
doi:10.2514/1.J056962
Visbal, M. R., and Benton, S. I., “Exploration of High-Frequency
Control of Dynamic Stall Using Large-Eddy Simulations,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 56, No. 8, 2018, pp. 2974–2991.
doi:10.2514/1.J056720
Keisar, D., Hasin, D., and Greenblatt, D., “Plasma Actuator Application
on a Full-Scale Aircraft Tail,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2, 2019,
pp. 616–627.
doi:10.2514/1.J057233
Lambert, T. J., Vukasinovic, B., and Glezer, A., “Aerodynamic Flow
Control of Axisymmetric Bluff Body by Coupled Wake Interactions,”
AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 8, 2018, pp. 2992–3007.
doi:10.2514/1.J056782
Hirsch, D., and Gharib, M., “Schlieren Visualization and Analysis of
Sweeping Jet Actuator Dynamics,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 8, 2018,
pp. 2947–2960.
doi:10.2514/1.J056776
Woszidlo, R., Ostermann, F., and Schmidt, H.-J., “Fundamental
Properties of Fluidic Oscillators for Flow Control Applications,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2019, pp. 978–992.
doi:10.2514/1.J056775
Kara, K., Kim, D., and Morris, P. J., “Flow-Separation Control
Using Sweeping Jet Actuator,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 11, 2018,
pp. 4604–4613.
doi:10.2514/1.J056715
Crittenden, T. M., Woo, G. T. K., and Glezer, A., “Combustion-Powered
Actuation for Transitory Flow Control,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 9,
2018, pp. 3414–3435.
doi:10.2514/1.J056783
Williams, D. R., and King, R., “Alleviating Unsteady Aerodynamic
Loads with Closed-Loop Flow Control,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 6,
2018, pp. 2194–2207.
doi:10.2514/1.J056817
Williams, D. R., Greenblatt, D., Müller-Vahl, H., Santra, S., and
Reißner, F., “Feed-Forward Dynamic Stall Control Model,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2, 2019, pp. 608–615.
doi:10.2514/1.J057266
Seidel, J., Fagley, C., and McLaughlin, T., “Feedback Flow Control:
A Heuristic Approach,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 10, 2018,
pp. 3825–3834.
doi:10.2514/1.J056884
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.
doi:10.2514/1.J056876
Francis, M. S., “Air Vehicle Management with Integrated Thrust-Vector
Control,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 12, 2018, pp. 4741–4751.
doi:10.2514/1.J056768
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.
doi:10.2514/1.J056307
Andino, M. Y., Lin, J. C., Seele, R., Graff, E. C., Gharib, M., Whalen, E.
A., and Wygnanski, I. J., “Active Flow Control on Vertical Tail Models,”
AIAA Journal To be referenced in the August Issue.
doi:10.2514/1.J057876
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.
doi:10.2514/1.J056959
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.
doi:10.2514/1.J056944