aerospace

Article
Improved Delayed Detached-Eddy Investigations on the Flow
Control of the Leading-Edge Flat Spoiler of the Cavity in the
Low-Aspect-Ratio Aircraft
Pengcheng Cui, Guiyu Zhou, Yaobing Zhang, Hongyin Jia, Xiaojun Wu, Mingsheng Ma, Huan Li * and Bing Chen *

Computational Aerodynamics Institute, China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center,

Mianyang 621000, China
* Correspondence: lanzhongze2008@126.com (H.L.); pccui@foxmail.com (B.C.)

Abstract: The internal weapon bay is widely used in modern aircraft; however, because the unsteady
flows of the cavity would cause dangerous store separation and intense aerodynamic noise, the
leading-edge spoiler is an easy and efficient passive flow-control method. The flow control of the
leading-edge flat spoiler before the cavity of a low-aspect-ratio flying-wing aircraft is investigated
based on numerical simulation. Numerical results show that the leading-edge flat spoiler completely
changes the cavity flow; it obviously lifts up the shear layer and reduces the pressure inside the
cavity. For the store separation from the weapon bay, the leading-edge flat spoiler is a very good
passive flow-control method that curbs the nose-up trend of the store and produces a safe and stable
store separation. Besides, the leading-edge spoiler reduces the noise in the rear of the cavity (max
8.2 dB), but increases the noise in the middle of the cavity (max 11.3 dB). In addition, the leading-edge
spoiler brings in a large drag increase to the aircraft (39.41% when the height of spoiler is 0.2 m),
which would affect the operational stability of the aircraft. The results of this paper could provide a
reference for the flow control of weapon bays and the design of aircraft.

Citation: Cui, P.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, Y.;

Keywords: weapon bay; flow control; numerical simulation; store separation; shear layer; vortex
Jia, H.; Wu, X.; Ma, M.; Li, H.; Chen,
B. Improved Delayed Detached-Eddy
Investigations on the Flow Control of
the Leading-Edge Flat Spoiler of the
1. Introduction
Cavity in the Low-Aspect-Ratio
Aircraft. Aerospace 2022, 9, 526. The internal weapon bay is widely used in modern aircraft due to its many advantages.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ First, loading the missiles into the internal weapon bay could effectively reduce the drag of
aerospace9090526 aircraft. Second, the internal weapon bay improves the maneuverability of the aircraft and
avoids severe aerodynamic heating that missiles would suffer under supersonic conditions.
Received: 12 July 2022
Besides, the internal weapon bay would significantly reduce the cross-sectional area of
Accepted: 11 September 2022
Published: 19 September 2022
radar scattering and improve the stealth performance of aircraft. As shown in Figure 1,
many modern aircraft, such as B-2 and F-22, use internal weapon bays, and the internal
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral weapon bay is an inevitable choice in aircraft design in the future.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Figure 1. The weapon bays of B-2 and F-22.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Although cavity flows have been under research for many years, there are still many
4.0/).
technical problems to be solved regarding the weapon bay. When the cavity is exposed to

Aerospace 2022, 9, 526. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9090526 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 2 of 27

high-speed free-stream flow, the unsteady flow inside the cavity would cause dangerous
store separation and intense aerodynamic noise [1]. On the one hand, there is usually a
high pressure on the rear wall and bottom floor and a low pressure at the front wall, which
makes the store produce a nose-up pitching moment. The store is in a nose-up attitude
during separation, which also produces large lift force. As a result, in some cases the store
would collide with the aircraft, and in other cases, the store would be out of control due
to excessive nose-up attitude. For example, Figure 2 shows a wind tunnel test of a store
separation from a weapon bay [2]. The nose-up pitching moment places the store in a
nose-up attitude, and as a result, the store collides with the cavity, which is a typical case
of the dangerous store separation caused by cavity flow. On the other hand, the unsteady
flows inside the cavity would cause strong aerodynamic noise; the sound-pressure level
(SPL) at the rear wall and bottom floor could be 170–180 dB in supersonic flows [3,4]. Such
a high acoustic-noise level could cause damages to the structure and internal devices of
the aircraft.

Figure 2. Dangerous store separation from a weapon bay [2].

Store separation and aerodynamic noise are two difficult issues in the research of the
internal weapon bay, and many researchers have investigated flow-control methods. Based
on whether there is a need for external energy input, the flow-control methods can be
roughly categorized as active and passive flow-control methods [5–7]. Active flow-control
methods, such as jet flow and plasma technology, have the advantages of wide application
range and easy adaptation based on the flight environments [8,9]. However, active flow
control requires a large external energy input, which greatly limits its engineering applica-
tions. Passive flow-control methods, such as leading-edge spoilers and trailing-edge ramps,
change the flow structures by modifying the geometric shape of the cavity [10]. Passive flow
control is a more ideal choice for real aircraft because it avoids further system complexity.
Many researchers have investigated passive flow-control methods for the cavity
(Figure 3). In most situations, leading-edge modifications can suppress the aerodynamic
noise. Omer and Chen studied noise suppression of the cavity with several leading-edge
spoilers and analyzed the frequency and sound-pressure level in the cavity [11,12]. Shaw
researched the flow characteristics of a simplified cavity of F-111 aircraft, and the results
showed that the leading-edge sawtooth spoiler could effectively reduce the aerodynamic
noise [13]. Ukeiley compared the flow control of a cylindrical spoiler and a traditional
spoiler and found that the mechanisms of noise suppression are different [14]. Saddington
et al. investigated the flow control of many passive leading-edge methods, and the results
showed that the distribution and shape of the rod spoiler are important factors affecting
the noise-suppression level [15–17]. Gai and Luo studied the influence of leading-edge
spoilers on the flow characteristics of supersonic cavities with a wind-tunnel experiment
and numerical simulation, and the results showed that the leading-edge sawtooth spoiler
could also reduce the noise in supersonic conditions [18,19]. However, not all leading-edge
spoilers can reduce the aerodynamic noise inside the cavity. Schmit compared leading-edge
spoiler-flow control under subsonic and supersonic conditions based on wind-tunnel ex-
periments, and the results showed that some spoilers could reduce the aerodynamic noise
in subsonic flows, but increased the aerodynamic noise in supersonic flows [20]. Zhang
studied the flow control of leading-edge modifications with a cavity of a real aircraft based
on both wind-tunnel experiments and numerical simulation, and the results showed that
some typical passive flow-control methods, such as leading-edge sawtooth, leading-edge
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 3 of 27

column, and flat spoilers, could not suppress the aerodynamic noise; on the contrary, the
flows became more chaotic and the sound-pressure level increased [21]. As for the store
separation, there are few studies on the flow control of store releasing from a cavity [22,23].

Figure 3. The leading-edge flat spoiler before a cavity.

In summary, although there are many studies on cavity noise, the studies on the flow
control of store separation are very limited. However, in fact, the main purpose of the
internal weapon bay is to drop stores. Besides, the majority of previous studies focus
on a simple regular rectangular cavity without the aircraft, and studies about the cavity
in a real aircraft are very limited; however, the flow characteristics of real aircraft are
more complex. Furthermore, most of the studies usually investigate the store separation
or the aerodynamic noise as a single isolated issue. However, in fact, the passive flow-
control method modifies the configuration of the aircraft, which not only affects the flow
characteristics and aerodynamic noise inside the cavity, but also affects the store separation
and aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. Therefore, it is necessary to study the
comprehensive effects of the leading-edge spoiler on the cavity of a real aircraft, including
the flow characteristics, aerodynamic characteristics, and the flow control of both store
separation and aerodynamic noise.
The flow control of the leading-edge flat spoiler before the cavity of a low-aspect-
ratio flying-wing aircraft is investigated based on numerical simulation in this paper. The
improved delayed detached eddy simulation (IDDES) method, HLLE++ numerical scheme,
dynamic hybrid overset mesh method, and mesh adaptation method are utilized to ensure
the numerical accuracy. The comprehensive effects of the leading-edge flat spoiler to
the flow characteristics, aerodynamic characteristics, and the flow control of both store
separation and aerodynamic noise are discussed in detail. The results of this paper could
provide a reference for the flow control of weapon bays and the design of aircraft. The rest
of the paper is organized as follows: The research model is described in Section 2. The
numerical method and validation are presented in Section 3. The results of the flow control
of the leading-edge flat spoiler are presented and discussed in detail in Section 4. Finally,
conclusions are presented in Section 5.

2. Model Description
The low-aspect-ratio configuration has the advantages of good stealth performance
and high aerodynamic efficiency, which is an ideal choice for advanced aircraft. As shown
in Figure 4, a low-aspect-ratio flying-wing model (LARFW) was designed to study the
aerodynamic characteristics of low-aspect-ratio aircraft [24,25], of which the sweep angle
of the leading edge is 65 degrees, the sweep angle of the trailing edge is 47 degrees, and the
aspect ratio is 1.54. The other parameters of the LARFW are presented in references [26,27].
There is a large number of reliable experimental data and numerical data of the LARFW.
As shown in Figure 4b, an internal weapon bay was set in the abdomen of the aircraft,
and the details of the cavity are presented in Figure 5: The length is 4.43 m, the width
is 0.88 m, the depth is 0.87 m, and the length-to-depth ratio is 5.09. Figure 6 shows a
simplified cylindrical store loaded inside the internal weapon bay, which was designed
to study the store-separation characteristics. The coordinates of this study were set as X
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 4 of 27

pointing from the nose to tail, Y pointing to the right hand of the pilot, and Z being decided
by the right-hand coordinate system.

Figure 4. The geometry of the LARFW: (a) the upper surface of the LARFW; (b) the lower surface of
the LARFW.

Figure 5. The configuration of the internal weapon bay.

Figure 6. A simplified cylindrical store loaded in the internal weapon bay.

Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 5 of 27

The leading-edge flat spoilers of different height were set to study the flow control to
the cavity, and the height of the spoilers is related to the thickness of the boundary layer at
the leading edge of the cavity. Table 1 lists the freestream-flow conditions of the numerical
simulation in this paper: the altitude is 10 km and the Mach number is 0.8, which is a
typical flight condition for modern aircraft. The thickness of the boundary layer (δ) at the
leading edge of the cavity is 0.08 m; therefore, the heights of the leading-edge flat spoilers
were set as 0.06 m (0.75δ), 0.1 m (1.25δ), 0.2 m (2.5δ), and 0.3 m (3.75δ).

Table 1. The freestream-flow conditions.

P∞ T∞ Altitude Mach Attack Angle Sideslip Angle

26,499.9 Pa 223.252 K 10 km 0.8 0 0

The comprehensive effects of the leading-edge flat spoiler to the flow characteristics,
aerodynamic characteristics, and flow control of both store separation and aerodynamic
noise are investigated in this paper. Only the LARFW model is used in the study of flow
characteristics, aerodynamic characteristics, and aerodynamic noise. Both the LARFW
model and the simplified cylindrical store are used in the study of store separation.

3. Numerical Method and Validation

First, the numerical method is presented in Section 3.1, including the FlowStar soft-
ware, IDDES method, HLLE++ numerical scheme, and time-stepping method. When the
cavity is exposed to high-speed free-stream flow, there would be a very complex flow field,
which includes strong vortex/shear-layer/shock-wave interactions, and the IDDES method
could provide the details of the complex flow field. The HLLE++ is a numerical scheme
newly developed in recent years that has low numerical dissipation and could capture
flow characteristics such as vortexes, shear layers, and shock waves well. Second, the mesh
generation is described in Section 3.2. The grid-adaptation method is utilized to acquire
more detailed flow structures, and the dynamic hybrid overset mesh method is utilized
to simulate the store separation. Finally, the verification and validation are presented in
Section 3.3, including IDDES method verification and store separation method verification.

3.1. Numerical Method

3.1.1. Software and Governing Equation
FlowStar software was used to simulate the cavity flows in this study, which is a
self-developed flow solver of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) by China Aerodynamics
Research and Development Center (CARDC) [28–30]. The software was developed based
on the unstructured finite volume method and large-scale parallel-computing technology,
and unsteady simulation and grid adaptation are the characteristics. The feature-based
grid-adaptation method [31,32] and adjoint-based grid-adaptation method [33,34] were
developed to provide accurate flow characteristics and aerodynamic characteristics.
The unsteady governing equation was utilized:
˚ ‹  ‹
∂ → → → →

QdV + H(Q) · n − Qvg . n dS = Hv (Q) · n dS (1)
∂t ∂Ω ∂Ω
Ω

where Ω denotes the volume of the control volume, Q denotes the conservative state
→ →
vector, vg denotes the wall velocity, n denotes the outward-pointing normal unit vector,
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 6 of 27

H(Q) denotes the inviscid flux vector, and Hv (Q) denotes the viscous flux vector. The
conservative-state vector and flux vector can be described as:
 T
Q = ρ ρu ρv ρw ρE
   
ρV 0
 ρuV + pn x   n x τxx + ny τxy + nz τxz 
    (2)
H(Q) =  ρvV + pny  Hv ( Q) = 
 
 n x τyx + ny τyy + nz τyz 

 ρwV + pnz   n x τzx + ny τzy + nz τzz 
ρHV n x Θ x + ny Θy + nz Θz

where ρ is the density; u, v, and w are the velocities in three directions; E is the total energy;
V is the contravariant velocity; p is the pressure; and τ is the viscous stress.
The inviscid flux was discretized with the HLLE++ scheme, which is introduced in
detail in Section 3.1.3, and the viscous term was discretized by the central difference scheme.
A Venkatakrishnan limiter was utilized to restrict numerical oscillation [35], which can be
described as:
(dmax )2 +ε2 +2d f ·dmax

 min(1,
 ) df > 0
(dmax )2 +ε2 +2(d f )2 +d f ·dmax







Ψi = min j (dmin )2 +ε2 +2d f ·dmin (3)
min ( 1, ) df < 0
(dmin )2 +ε2 +2(d f )2 +d f ·dmin








1 df = 0


and the coefficients can be described as:

* *
d f = ∇q · ( r f c j − r cc )
dmax = max(max(q j ), qi ) − qi (4)
dmin = min(min(q j ), qi ) − qi

where ∇q is the gradient, and qi and q j are the flow variables of left face and right face, respectively.

3.1.2. IDDES Method

The detached eddy-simulation (DES) method uses the Reynolds-averaged Navier–
Stokes equations (RANS) to solve the thin boundary-layer area, and uses the large-eddy-
simulation (LES) method to solve the other areas, which is essentially a hybrid method of the
RANS and LES [36,37]. The DES method combines the advantages of RANS and LES, and
could be used to simulate the unsteady separation flow. However, when the original DES
method is used to solve the thick boundary layer, the flow would separate too early, which
would result in an incorrect flow field. Therefore, the delayed detached-eddy-simulation
(DDES) method and IDDES method were proposed to solve this problem [38,39]. In the
IDDES method, the LES length scale for anisotropic grids near the wall is modified, which
makes use of the wall distance along with the grid spacing. In addition, the blending of
RANS and LES behavior within wall-modeled large-eddy simulation (WMLES) is modified,
which greatly increases the resolved turbulence activity near the wall and finely adjusts the
resolved logarithmic layer. The shear-stress-transport (SST) turbulence model was used in
the prediction of IDDES method in this paper.
The length scale in the IDDES method is described as:

∆ = min{max[0.15dw , 0.15hmax , lw ], hmax } (5)

where hmax = max(∆ x , ∆y , ∆z ), ∆ x , ∆y , and ∆z are the grid scale in the three coordinate
directions; lw denotes the length of the grid in the direction perpendicular to the wall; and
dw denotes the distance to the nearest wall.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 7 of 27

The IDDES method blends RANS and LES as:

l IDDES = f d0 (1 + f e )l RANS + (1 − f d0 )lW MLES (6)

where l RANS denotes the RANS length scale, lW MLES denotes the WMLES length scale, f e
is the correction coefficient, and other coefficients can be described as:
 
3
f d = 1 − tanh [Cd rd0 ]

f d0 = max{(1 − f d ), f B }
f B = min 2 exp(−9α2 ), 1.0

(7)
dw
α = 0.25 − hmax
vt
rd0 = √
Ui,j Ui,j κ 2 d2

3.1.3. HLLE++ Scheme

The numerical scheme is the foundation and soul of numerical simulation. There is a
complex flow field of shear-layer/vortex/boundary-layer/shock-wave interaction in the
high-speed cavity, which requires a low dissipative numerical scheme that could accurately
capture the shear layers, vortexes, and shock waves. Some approximate Riemann schemes,
such as the Roe scheme and HLLC scheme, are highly sensitive to how well the shock is
aligned with the grid. When the grids are not aligned with the shock wave, cross-coupling
between the Riemann problems in the different directions occurs, and the flow-field quality
would be severely degraded, resulting in non-physical features, which are often called
“carbuncles” [40]. The HLLE++ scheme uses a pressure-gradient-based switching function
to locally transition to a more robust algorithm in the vicinity of strong shocks, and it
removes error in the vicinity of non-grid-aligned shocks. The HLLE++ scheme produces
almost-grid-independent solutions regardless of grid alignment with strong shocks.
The HLLE++ scheme is a newly developed method in recent years, and many CFD
softwares, such as OVERFLOW [40], FlowStar [41,42], Kestrel, and KCFD [43,44], have
developed this scheme. It has been shown that the HLLE++ scheme provide significantly
better solutions than the original HLLC and Roe schemes for the flow fields with strong
shocks, shear layers, and vortexes, and it is suitable for the numerical simulation of high-
speed cavity flows.
The eigenvalue of HLLE++ scheme is defined as:

λ HLLE++ = βλ HLLE+ + (1 − β)λ D (8)

where λ HLLE+ denotes the eigenvalue of HLLE+, λ D denotes the eigenvalue of the dissipa-
tive term, and β denotes the switching function, which can be defined as:

!
max k p , 75 − 75
β = 1 − tanh (9)
100

where k p is a pressure-gradient-based switch sensor:

*
V ∇p 1
k p = 35 · Ω3 (10)
c p

The switch is only activated where there are strong shocks and does not affect other
areas of the flow, such as boundary layers. Therefore, The HLLE++ scheme could capture
shocks without encountering the “carbuncle” phenomena, and it is also a low dissipative
numerical scheme in the boundary layers.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 8 of 27

3.1.4. Time Stepping

Dual time-stepping is utilized for time stepping, and the Lower Upper-Symmetric
Gauss–Seidel (LU-SGS) is utilized to solve the governing equation [45]. The LU-SGS
method divides the discrete governing equation into 3 parts:
*n *n
( D + L ) D − 1 ( D + U ) ∆W = − R I (11)

where D denotes a diagonal matrix, L denotes a strictly lower triangular matrix, and U
denotes a strictly upper triangular matrix. Equation (11) can be solved with a forward
sweep and a backward sweep:

* (1) *n
( D + L ) ∆W = −RI
*n * (1)
(12)
( D + U )∆W = D∆W I

The LU-SGS method is widely used because it is relatively simple to execute and has
low memory requirement. In order to acquire detailed unsteady-flow characteristics, the
time step in unsteady simulation is 0.01 ms in this study.

3.2. Mesh Generation

3.2.1. Generation of Basic Mesh
Reasonable design and high-quality generation of computational mesh are the pre-
requisites for the numerical simulation. In this paper, hybrid mesh was, hexahedrons, and
triangular prisms were used in the boundary layer to better simulate the viscous flow;
tetrahedrons were used for the simulation of the spatial-flow field; and pyramid elements
were utilized for the transition between hexahedrons, prisms, and tetrahedrons. Figures 7
and 8 present the basic mesh of the LARFW, in which the grid areas near the cavity were
specially locally refined to capture the detailed flow characteristics, such as shear layers,
vortexes, and boundary layers. The grid scale of the first layer is 0.000002 m according
to the criterion of y+ < 1, and the number of the grid elements of the LARFW is about 41
million. As for the boundary conditions, all the surfaces of the LARFW and the internal
weapon bay are wall boundaries, and there is a large far-field boundary on the outside.

Figure 7. The surface grid of the LARFW.

Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 9 of 27

Figure 8. The spatial grid of the LARFW.

3.2.2. Grid-Adaptation Method

Grid adaptation is a popular method to improve the resolution of the flow field and
the accuracy of numerical simulation, which automatically optimizes the grid distribution
instead of complicated manual work [46,47]. The grid-adaptation method can be roughly
categorized as feature-based and adjoint-based grid adaptation. The former is used to
capture flow features such as vortexes, shock waves, and shear layers, and the latter is used
to provide more accurate aerodynamic characteristics such as the lift force and drag force.
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 29
There is a complex flow field of strong shear layers and vortexes in the cavity; therefore, the
feature-based adaptation was utilized to study the basic flow characteristics in this study.
Figure 9 presents the grid adaptation of the cavity of the LARFW with a leading-edge
flat spoiler, and it can be seen that the cells in areas of shear layers and vortexes were
automatically optimized, which would provide a high-resolution flow field.

(a) (b)
Figure9.9.The
Figure Thegrid
gridadaptation
adaptationofofthe
thecavity
cavityofofthe
theLARFW:
LARFW:(a)(a) original
original grid;
grid; (b)(b) adapted
adapted grid.
grid.

3.2.3.Conservative
3.2.3. ConservativeOverset
OversetMesh
MeshMethod
Method
The
Thedynamic
dynamic hybrid
hybridoverset mesh
overset mesh method
method is the most
is the widely
most usedused
widely method for simulat-
method for sim-
ing multi-body
ulating separation,
multi-body and it and
separation, was itutilized to simulate
was utilized the store
to simulate theseparation in this study.
store separation in this
The overset
study. Themesh method
overset meshdivides
methodthe complex
divides theflow area into
complex flowmany
area independent sub-areas,
into many independent
and the mesh
sub-areas, andof the
eachmesh
area of
is generated
each area is independently. The flow field
generated independently. of flow
The each area
field isofalso
each
simulated independently, and the date of each mesh is transferred in the overlapping
area is also simulated independently, and the date of each mesh is transferred in the over- areas.
The overset
lapping areas. mesh needs to exclude the elements that do not participate in the calcula-
tion, which is alsomesh
The overset calledneeds
“holetocutting”.
exclude A the“direct
elements cutting”
that dostrategy is used ininFlowStar,
not participate the calcu-
which uses
lation, the solid-surface-intersection
which is also called “hole cutting.”criterion to determine
A “direct cutting”the hole boundary
strategy is used in[28,48,49].
FlowStar,
The “direct
which usescutting” strategy does not requirecriterion
the solid-surface-intersection auxiliaryto mesh and could
determine theprovide high ef-
hole boundary
ficiency and robustness. The data transfer between overlapping grids
[28,48,49]. The “direct cutting” strategy does not require auxiliary mesh and could provide is the basis for
ensuring the correct calculation, especially for a high-speed flow field with
high efficiency and robustness. The data transfer between overlapping grids is the basis strong shocks
and
for vortexes.
ensuring Athe conservative data-transfer
correct calculation, method
especially for[50], based on the
a high-speed supermesh
flow field with technol-
strong
shocks and vortexes. A conservative data-transfer method [50], based on the supermesh
technology and the center-based finite-volume method, is used in FlowStar, which could
ensure the accuracy of overset mesh method.
Figure 10 presents the overset mesh of store separation, which contains two sub-
meshes: the mesh of the LARFW and the mesh of the simplified cylindrical store, and the
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 10 of 27

ogy and the center-based finite-volume method, is used in FlowStar, which could ensure
the accuracy of overset mesh method.
Figure 10 presents the overset mesh of store separation, which contains two sub-
meshes: the mesh of the LARFW and the mesh of the simplified cylindrical store, and
the number of grid elements of the store is about 4 million. The grid scale of the store
matched well with the grid scale of the LARFW, which could ensure the accuracy of the
overset mesh.

Figure 10. The overset mesh of the store separation: (a) the overset mesh; (b) surface mesh of the store.

3.3. Verifications and Validations

3.3.1. IDDES Method Verification
The M219 cavity is a benchmark widely used in the numerical verification of DES-type
methods, and there is a large number of reliable experimental data and numerical data of
the M219 cavity [51,52]. The M219 cavity was used to verify the IDDES method in this study.
The details of the configuration of the M219 cavity are presented in Refs. [53,54]. There
are 10 monitoring points at the bottom of the cavity to monitor the pressure fluctuation
(Figure 11). The grid scale of the first layer is 0.000002 m according to the criterion of y+ < 1,
the time step in unsteady simulation is 0.01 ms, and the freestream flow conditions of
numerical simulation are the same as wind-tunnel experiments [55]. The sound-pressure
level was computed as:
prms
SPL = 20lg (13)
pre f

where pre f = 2 × 10−5 Pa is the minimum audible pressure variation, and prms is the
root-mean-square pressure along the cavity.

Figure 11. The geometry of the M219 cavity [54].

Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 11 of 27

The numerical results of this study were compared with the results of wind-tunnel
experiments. The overall sound-pressure level (OASPL) at the bottom floor is presented in
Figure 12, and sound-pressure levels of each monitoring point are presented in Figure 13. It
can be seen that the CFD results are in good agreement with the wind-tunnel experiments.

Figure 12. Overall sound-pressure level (OASPL) [55].

Figure 13. Sound-pressure levels (SPL) at the monitoring points [55].

Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 12 of 27

3.3.2. Validation of Store Separation

Wing/Pylon/Finned Store (WPFS) is a benchmark designed by Arnold Engineering
Development Center (AEDC) that is widely used in the numerical-method verification
of multi-body separation [56]. The WPFS was used to verify the numerical method of
store separation in this study. Figure 14 presents the overset mesh of WPFS, including
two sub-meshes, one being the mesh of the wing and pylon, and the other the mesh of
the finned store. The comparison of the store-separation characteristics between CFD and
the experiments is presented in Figure 15. It can be seen that the CFD results are in good
agreement with the wind-tunnel experiments, which indicates that the numerical method
of store separation in this study is suitable for the store separation from the LARFW.

Figure 14. The overset mesh of WPFS: (a) the sub-meshes of the wing and store; (b) the surface of
WPFS; (c) the overset mesh at T = 0.3 s; (d) the pressure distribution at T = 0.3 s.

Figure 15. Comparison of CFD and the experiments: (a) trajectory; (b) attitude [56].

In summary, the numerical method was fully validated, including IDDES-method

verification and wind-tunnel-experiment validation of WPFS, which indicates that the nu-
merical method in this study is suitable for the research of flow characteristics, aerodynamic
noise, and store separation of the internal weapon bay.
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 29

Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 13 of 27

4. Results and Discussion

Figureand
4. Results 16 Discussion
shows the contours of the pressure coefficient and Mach number for the
“clean” cavity without
Figure 16 shows the thecontours
leading-edge flat
of the spoiler,coefficient
pressure and Figures and17–20
Machshow the contours
number for the
“clean” cavity without the leading-edge flat spoiler, and Figures 17–20 show the contoursflat
of the pressure coefficient and Mach number for the cavities with the leading-edge of
spoilers
the of different
pressure coefficient heights.
and Mach In addition,
number for the
theQ-criterion
cavities withis the
a common
leading-edgemethod used to
flat spoilers
identify
of andheights.
different visualize the structure
In addition, of the spatial
the Q-criterion vortex. Figure
is a common method21used shows the spatial
to identify and
streamlines
visualize theand iso-surface
structure of theofspatial
the Q-criterion for the
vortex. Figure “clean”the
21 shows cavity, and
spatial Figures 22–25
streamlines and
show the spatial
iso-surface of thestreamlines
Q-criterion and iso-surface
for the of the Q-criterion
“clean” cavity, and Figuresfor the cavities
22–25 show thewith the
spatial
leading-edgeand
streamlines flatiso-surface
spoilers of different heights. Itfor
of the Q-criterion canthebe cavities
seen thatwiththe numerical simulation
the leading-edge flat
successfully
spoilers capturedheights.
of different the detailed
It canflow structures,
be seen that theincluding
numerical thesimulation
shear layers and vor-
successfully
texes. In addition, the leading-edge flat spoiler before the cavity completely
captured the detailed flow structures, including the shear layers and vortexes. In addition, changed the
pressure
the distribution,
leading-edge shear before
flat spoiler layers,the
andcavity
vortexes of the cavity,
completely changed andthe thepressure
height ofdistribution,
the spoiler
had a layers,
shear significant effect on of
and vortexes thethe
flow characteristics.
cavity, and the heightTheofcomprehensive
the spoiler hadeffects of the effect
a significant lead-
ing-edge
on the flowflatcharacteristics.
spoiler on the flow characteristics, aerodynamic
The comprehensive effects of the characteristics,
leading-edge flat and the flow
spoiler on
control
the flowofcharacteristics,
both store separation and aero-dynamic
aerodynamic noise
characteristics, andarethe
discussed in detail
flow control in thestore
of both fol-
lowing sections.
separation and aero-dynamic noise are discussed in detail in the following sections.

Figure 16. The pressure coefficient (left) and Mach

Mach number
number (right)
(right) for
for the
the clean
clean cavity.
cavity.

Figure 17.
Figure 17. The
The pressure coefficient (left)
pressure coefficient (left) and
and Mach
Mach number
number (right)
(right) for
for hh == 0.75
0.75 δ.
δ.
 x FOR PEER REVIEW
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 1514of
of 29
27
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 29

Figure 18. The pressure coefficient (left) and Mach number (right) for h =
= 1.25 δ.
Figure 18. The pressure coefficient (left) and Mach number (right) for h = 1.25 δ.

Figure 19. The pressure coefficient (left) and Mach number (right) for h = 2.5 δ.
Figure 19. The pressure coefficient (left) and Mach number (right)
(right) for
for hh == 2.5 δ.

Figure 20. The pressure coefficient (left) and Mach number (right) for h = 3.75 δ.
Figure 20. The pressure coefficient (left) and Mach number (right) for h = 3.75 δ.
Figure 20. The pressure coefficient (left) and Mach number (right) for h = 3.75 δ.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 15 of 27

Figure 21. The spatial streamlines (left) and iso-surface of the Q-criterion (right) for the clean cavity.

Figure 22. The spatial streamlines (left) and iso-surface of the Q-criterion (right) for h = 0.75 δ.

Figure 23. The spatial streamlines (left) and iso-surface of the Q-criterion (right) for h = 1.25 δ.
Aerospace 2022, 9,
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of
17 of 27
29
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 29

Figure 24.
Figure 24. The
The spatial
spatial streamlines
streamlines (left)
(left) and
and iso-surface
iso-surface of
of the
the Q-criterion
Q-criterion (right)
(right) for
(right) for hh
for h === 2.5
2.5 δ.
δ.
δ.

Figure 25.
Figure 25. The
The spatial
spatial streamlines
streamlines and
and (left)
(left) and
and iso-surface
iso-surface of
of the
the Q-criterion
Q-criterion (right)
(right) for
for h
h == 3.75
3.75 δ.
δ.
Figure 25. The spatial streamlines and (left) and iso-surface of the Q-criterion (right) for h = 3.75 δ.
4.1. The
4.1. The Effects
Effects of of the
the Leading-Edge
Leading-Edge Flat Flat Spoiler
Spoiler to to Flow
Flow Characteristics
Characteristics
4.1.1. Shear
4.1.1. Shear Layers
Layers
Previous studies
Previous studies on on the
the simple
simple regular
regular rectangular
rectangular cavity cavity without
without thethe aircraft
aircraft have have
shown that the leading-edge
shown that the leading-edge spoilers spoilers can lift up the incoming
spoilers can lift up the incoming shear shear layer, and a
shear layer, and a similar similar
conclusion
conclusion can
can be
be drawn
drawn for
for the
the cavities
cavities of of low-aspect-ratio
low-aspect-ratio
conclusion can be drawn for the cavities of low-aspect-ratio flying-wing flying-wing
flying-wing aircraft.
aircraft.
aircraft. Figure
Figure
Figure26
26
showsshowsthe the
basic basic schematic
schematic diagrams
diagrams of of
the the cavity
cavity flow flow
26 shows the basic schematic diagrams of the cavity flow in this study. As shown in Fig-in in
this this study.
study. As As
shown shown in in Fig-
Figures
ures
16,
ures 16,
2116,
and 2126a,
21 andfor
and 26a,
26a,the for the clean
clean
for the clean cavity,
cavity,cavity,
the shear the layer
the shearstarted
shear layer started
layer started
from the from the leading
leading
from the leading
edge ofedgeedge of
cavity,
of
cavity,
and and
it was
cavity, it
andbasicallywas basically a
a two-dimensional
it was basically two-dimensional
a two-dimensional flow at the flow
flow at the
beginning. beginning.
Then, there
at the beginning. Then,
Then, there
werethere were
gradually
were
gradually
unsteady unsteady
disturbances disturbances
of the of
shear the shear
layer, and layer,
the and
shear
gradually unsteady disturbances of the shear layer, and the shear layer gradually became the
layershear layer
gradually gradually
became became
a three-
aa three-dimensional
three-dimensional
dimensional flow. The flow.
shear
flow. Thelayer
The shear
shear layer passed
passed
layer passed through
throughthroughthe cavity theand
the cavity
cavity and directly
directly
and directly
impacted impacted
on the
impacted
on
rear the
wallrear
of wall
the of the
cavity. cavity.
It can beIt can
seen be
fromseen from
Figures Figures
17–20
on the rear wall of the cavity. It can be seen from Figures 17–20 and 22–25 that for the 17–20
and and
22–25 22–25
that for that
the for the
cavities
cavities
with the with the
leading-edge leading-edge
flat flat
spoiler, spoiler,
the shearthe shear
layer layer
was was
lifted
cavities with the leading-edge flat spoiler, the shear layer was lifted up before the leading- lifted
up up
before before
the the leading-
leading-edge
edge spoiler.
spoiler.
edge spoiler. In addition,
In addition,
In addition, the leading-edge
the leading-edge
the leading-edge spoiler brought
spoiler brought
spoiler brought
in unsteady in unsteady
in unsteady
disturbancesdisturbances
to the shear
disturbances to
to
layer and
the shear
the made
shear layer
layer and it a three-dimensional
and mademade it flow
it aa three-dimensional after
three-dimensional flow the spoiler.
flow after Furthermore,
after the
the spoiler. the leading-edge
spoiler. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the the
spoiler pushed
leading-edge the
spoiler high-speed
pushed flow
the outside
high-speed the cavity,
flow in
outside
leading-edge spoiler pushed the high-speed flow outside the cavity, in our cases, and all our cases,
the and
cavity, inall
our the shear
cases, layers
and all
directly
the shear bypassed
layers the cavity
directly and arrived
bypassed the at the surface
cavity and after the
arrived at cavity
the (Figure
surface after26b),
the instead
cavity
the shear layers directly bypassed the cavity and arrived at the surface after the cavity
(Figure 26b),
(Figure 26b), instead
instead of of directly
directly impacting
impacting on on the
the rear
rear wall
wall of of the
the cavity.
cavity. The
The height
height of of the
the
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 17 of 27

of directly impacting on the rear wall of the cavity. The height of the leading-edge spoiler
also affected the shear layer, with the higher spoiler producing a higher shear layer.

Figure 26. Schematic diagrams of the cavity flow: (a) clean cavity; (b) cavity with the leading-
edge spoiler.

4.1.2. Pressure Distribution

First, the leading-edge flat spoiler greatly changed the pressure distribution inside
the cavity. As shown in Figure 16, for the clean cavity, the shear layer passed through the
cavity and directly impacted on the rear wall of the cavity, and the flow of high dynamic
pressure produced local high pressure on the rear wall. In addition, plenty of high-speed
flow entered the cavity, resulting in high pressure inside the cavity. It can be seen from
Figures 17–20 that for the cavities with the leading-edge flat spoiler, the shear layer was
lifted up, directly bypassed the cavity, and arrived at the surface after the cavity, instead
of directly impacting on the rear wall; therefore, the pressure at the rear wall and bottom
floor of the cavity was significantly reduced. In addition, the leading-edge spoiler pushed
most of high-speed flow outside the cavity, which resulted in a lower pressure distribution
inside the cavity.
Second, the leading-edge flat spoiler also had an enormous influence on the pressure
distribution outside the cavity. As shown in Figures 17, 18, 19, 20 and 26b, the leading-edge
spoiler blocked the coming flow around the aircraft, and the high-speed flow impacted on
the leading-edge spoiler and produced high pressure both on the spoiler and the surface of
aircraft, which would create additional drag on the aircraft.
Furthermore, the height of the leading-edge spoiler also affected the pressure distribu-
tion. On the one hand, with the increasing height of the spoiler, the overall pressure inside
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 18 of 27

the cavity became lower and lower. As shown in Figures 22–25, the flow mechanism was
that the higher spoiler pushed most of high-speed flow outside the cavity, leading to lower
pressure inside the cavity. On the one hand, as shown in Figures 17–20, with the increasing
height of the spoiler, the blocking effect of the spoiler also increased, which resulted in a
higher pressure both on the spoiler and the surface of aircraft.

4.1.3. Large-Scale Vortexes

The vortex is one of the main flow characteristics of cavity flows. In our case, as
shown in Figures 21–26, there were always large-scale vortexes inside the cavity with or
without the leading-edge spoiler. It can be seen that the large-scale vortex in the clean
cavity was located near the rear of the cavity; however, the large-scale vortex in the cavities
with a leading-edge spoiler were located in the middle of the cavity. In addition, with the
increasing height of the spoiler, the vortex in the middle of the cavity became larger and
larger, and it moved upstream closer to the front of the cavity. Furthermore, due to the
blocking effect of the leading-edge spoiler, some small-scale vortexes were generated before
the spoiler, which did not exist in the clean cavity.
There were large-scale vortexes inside the cavities both with and without the leading-
edge spoiler; however, the generation mechanisms of the vortexes were completely different.
As shown in Figure 26a, for the clean cavity, the flow of high dynamic pressure directly
impacted on the rear wall of the cavity, and a large recirculating vortex was generated
due to the blocking effect of the rear wall. Furthermore, the high pressure at the rear wall
produced a large adverse pressure gradient, which further promoted the generation of the
large-scale vortex.
Figure 26b shows the generation mechanisms of vortexes for the cavities with the
leading-edge flat spoiler. As discussed in Section 4.1.2, the leading-edge spoiler pushed
most of high-speed flow outside the cavity, which resulted in a lower pressure distribution
inside the cavity. Therefore, there was a strong adverse pressure gradient outside and inside
the shear layer, which drove the flow to separate into the cavity and generated a large-scale
vortex. In addition, the height of the leading-edge spoiler also affected the large-scale
vortex. With the increasing height of the spoiler, the overall pressure inside the cavity
became lower and lower, and the adverse pressure gradient outside and inside the shear
layer became stronger and stronger; therefore, the vortex insides the cavity became larger
and larger. In addition, the stronger adverse pressure gradient made the flow separate into
the cavity earlier, so with the increasing height of the spoiler, the vortex moved upstream
closer to the front of the cavity.

4.2. The Effects of the Leading-Edge Flat Spoiler on Store Separation

The store-separation characteristics for the internal cavities of the LARFW are pre-
sented in Figure 27. Figure 27a shows the store separation from the clean cavity, and
Figure 27b shows the store separation from the cavity with leading-edge flat spoiler (the
height of the spoiler is 0.2 m (2.5δ)). It can be seen that the store was in a large nose-up
attitude when separating from the clean cavity, which is a dangerous store separation and
would cause two risks. First, the nose-up attitude of the store also produces large lift force,
and as a result, in some cases the store would collide with the aircraft (Figure 2). Second,
the controllability of the control system of the store is limited, and in some cases the store
would be out of control due to excessive nose-up attitude. Therefore, = pilots usually want
the store to be in a nose-down or horizontal attitude, which would not be a threat to the
aircraft. As shown in Figure 27b, for the cavity with the leading-edge flat spoiler (the height
of the spoiler is 0.2 m), the store was in a slight nose-down attitude when separating from
the cavity, which is better for the safety of the aircraft. The leading-edge spoiler changed
the pitching trend of the store and greatly improved the safety of the store separation.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 19 of 27

Figure 27. Comparison of the store separation: (a) clean cavity; (b) cavity with leading-edge flat
spoiler (the height of the spoiler is 0.2 m).

As discussed with the pressure distribution in Section 4.1.2, for the clean cavity, the
shear layer passed through the cavity and directly impacted on the rear wall; the flow of
high dynamic pressure produced a local high pressure on the rear wall and bottom floor,
whereas the pressure near the front wall was lower. The pressure distribution made the
store produce a nose-up pitching moment. The store was in a nose-up attitude during
separation from the cavity, which also produced large lift force, and as a result, the store
separated slowly from the clean cavity. For the cavity with the leading-edge flat spoiler, the
shear layer was lifted up and directly bypassed the cavity, the pressure at the rear wall and
bottom floor of the cavity was significantly reduced, and the spoiler reduced the pressure
near the leading edge and there was a lower pressure at the lower surface at the head
of the store. As a result, the store produced a nose-down pitching moment and was in a
nose-down attitude during separation.
The height of the leading-edge spoiler also affected the store separation. Figure 28
shows the pitching attitude during separation under leading-edge spoiler flow control
with different heights. In our case, all the spoilers reduced the nose-up trend of the store
and improved the safety of store separation. In addition, with the increasing height of the
spoiler, the store produced a more obvious nose-down attitude during separation, which is
good for the safety of the aircraft.

Figure 28. The pitch attitude under the flow control of the leading-edge spoiler.

The results of this study show that the leading-edge flat spoiler is an excellent passive
flow-control method for store separation that completely changes the store-releasing char-
acteristics. The spoiler curbs the nose-up trend of the store and produces a safe and stable
store separation.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 20 of 27

4.3. The Effects of the Leading-Edge Flat Spoiler on Aerodynamic Noise

The highly unsteady flow could produce high aerodynamic noise inside the cavity.
Fourteen monitoring points were set on the wall of cavity to investigate the pressure
fluctuations (Figure 29a). The overall sound-pressure level (OASPL) of the clean cavity and
cavities with different spoilers is presented in Figure 29b, and it can be seen that for the
clean cavity, the front part of the cavity was relatively quiet and the sound-pressure level
(SPL) was amplified downstream. The highest SPL occurred on the rear wall of the cavity,
especially near the tailing edge. On the other hand, for the cavities with leading-edge flat
spoilers, the rear part of the cavity was relatively quiet and the highest SPL occurred in
the middle of the cavity. In our case, compared with the clean cavity, the leading-edge
flat spoiler reduced the SPL at the rear cavity (max 8.2 dB) but increased the noise at the
middle and front part of the cavity (max 11.3 dB). The height of the leading-edge spoiler
also affected the aerodynamic noise. As shown in Figure 29b, the higher spoiler produced
lower noise on the rear wall but higher noise at the middle and front part of the cavity.

Figure 29. Aerodynamic noise in inside the cavity: (a) the location of the monitoring points; (b) overall
sound-pressure level (OASPL) of different spoilers.

Figure 30 shows the instantaneous flow fields of the clean cavity and the cavity with
the leading-edge flat spoiler. The aerodynamic noise inside a cavity is mainly caused by
the impacts of unsteady flows. For the clean cavity, as shown in Figure 30a, the shear layer
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 21 of 27

directly impacted on the rear wall of cavity, resulting in large unsteady disturbances and
large aerodynamic noise. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.1.3, the large-scale vortex in
the clean cavity was located at the rear part of the cavity, and the oscillation of the unsteady
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 29
vortex caused large disturbances to the rear wall and bottom floor, which resulted in a large
aerodynamic noise.

(a)

(b)
Figure 30. The instantaneous flow field of the cavity: (a) clean cavity; (b) cavity with leading-edge
Figure 30. The(the
flat spoiler instantaneous flow field
height of the spoiler is 0.3ofm).
the cavity: (a) clean cavity; (b) cavity with leading-edge
flat spoiler (the height of the spoiler is 0.3 m).
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 22 of 27

For the cavity with the leading-edge flat spoiler, the shear layer was lifted up, directly
bypassed the cavity, and arrived at the surface after the cavity, instead of directly impacting
on the rear wall, therefore, the unsteady disturbances at the rear part of the cavity were
reduced compared with the clean cavity, which resulted in lower aerodynamic noise. The
aerodynamic noise at the middle of cavity was mainly caused by the unsteady oscillation of
the large-scale vortex. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the leading-edge spoiler pushed part
of the high-speed flow outside the cavity and caused a strong adverse pressure gradient
outside and inside the shear layer, which drove the flow to separate into the cavity and
generated a large-scale vortex in the middle of the cavity. As shown in Figures 21 and 30,
Figures 22–26, the large-scale vortex in the middle of the cavity caused large unsteady
oscillation, which resulted in a large aerodynamic noise. In addition, with the increasing
height of the spoiler, the vortex inside the cavity became larger and larger, and the vortex
moved upstream closer to the front of cavity; therefore, the SPL in the middle of the cavity
became larger and larger, and the location of highest SPL also moved upstream closer to
the front of the cavity.
The results in this study show that for the internal cavity of the LARFW aircraft, the
leading-edge spoiler reduced the noise in the rear of the cavity (max 8.2 dB) but increased
the noise in the middle of the cavity (max 11.3 dB). The results of this study are similar
to the results of Zhang and Schmit [20,21]. Not all leading-edge spoilers can reduce the
aerodynamic noise inside the cavity, which depends on the configuration of cavity/aircraft,
the flow conditions, and the configuration of the leading-edge spoilers. For example, Zhang
studied the flow control of leading-edge modifications with a cavity based on both wind-
tunnel experiments and numerical simulation, and the cavity was located in the abdomen
of a real aircraft. The results showed that some typical passive flow-control methods, such
as leading-edge sawtooth, leading-edge column, and flat spoilers, could not suppress the
aerodynamic noise; on the contrary, the flows became more chaotic and the sound-pressure
level increased.

4.4. The Effects of the Leading-Edge Flat Spoiler on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Aircraft
Figure 31 shows the aerodynamic characteristics of the LARFW, including the lift
coefficient, drag coefficient, pitching-moment coefficient, and lift–drag ratio. It can be seen
that the leading-edge flat spoiler greatly affected the aerodynamic characteristics of the
LARFW. As discussed in Section 4.2, the height of the leading-edge spoiler also affected the
store separation, and when the height was 0.2 m (2.5δ) the store was in a slight nose-down
attitude, which was good for the safety of the aircraft. Therefore, the differences between
the clean cavity and the cavity with leading-edge spoiler (h = 0.2 m) is discussed here.
Compared with the aerodynamic characteristics of the clean cavity, when the height of the
spoiler was 0.2 m, the lift decreased 6.25%, the drag increased 39.41%, the pitching moment
decreased 5.96%, and the lift–drag ratio decreased 32.75%. As shown in Figures 22–25, the
leading-edge spoiler blocked the coming flow around the aircraft and the high-speed flow
impacted on the leading-edge spoiler and produced high pressure on the spoiler, which
created a large additional drag on the aircraft.
In our case, the leading-edge flat spoiler greatly affected the drag and lift–drag ra-
tio, which would affect the operational stability of the aircraft and must be taken into
consideration in the design of the cavity of the aircraft.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 23 of 27

Figure 31. The aerodynamic characteristics of the LARFW: (a) lift coefficient; (b) drag coefficient;
(c) pitching-moment coefficient; (d) lift–drag ratio.

5. Conclusions
The flow control of the leading-edge flat spoiler before the cavity of a low-aspect-ratio
flying-wing aircraft is investigated based on numerical simulation, and the IDDES method,
HLLE++ numerical scheme, dynamic hybrid overset mesh method, and mesh adaptation
method are utilized to ensure the numerical accuracy. The following conclusions can
be drawn:
(1) The numerical methods in this paper were fully validated, including the IDDES-
method verification and the validation of multi-body separation, which indicates that the
numerical methods in this paper are suitable for cavity flows and store separation.
(2) The leading-edge flat spoiler greatly affected the shear layer and pressure distribu-
tion. The shear layer was obviously lifted up and directly bypassed the cavity and arrives
at the surface after the cavity. In addition, the spoiler reduced the pressure inside the cavity.
The higher spoiler lifted up the incoming shear layer more obviously and created a lower
pressure distribution inside the cavity.
(3) There were large-scale vortexes inside the cavities both with and without the
leading-edge spoiler; however, the generation mechanisms of the vortexes were completely
different. For the clean cavity, the large recirculating vortex was generated due to the
blocking effect of the rear wall, whereas for the cavity with the leading-edge flat spoiler,
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 24 of 27

the large-scale vortex was generated due to the strong adverse pressure gradient outside
and inside the shear layer.
(4) The leading-edge flat spoiler is an excellent passive flow-control method for store
separation that completely changes the store-releasing characteristics. The spoiler curbed
the nose-up trend of the store and produced a safe and stable store separation. In addition,
the leading-edge spoiler reduced the noise in the rear of the cavity (max 8.2 dB) but
increased the noise in the middle of the cavity (max 11.3 dB).
(5) The leading-edge flat spoiler greatly affected the drag and lift–drag ratio of the
aircraft. When the height of the spoiler was 0.2 m, the drag increased 39.41%, and the
lift–drag ratio decreased 32.75%. The large changes in aerodynamic characteristics would
affect the operational stability of the aircraft and must be taken into consideration in the
design of the cavity of the aircraft.
The internal weapon bay is widely used in the modern aircraft design due to its many
advantages, and the leading-edge spoiler is an easy and efficient passive flow-control
method. In our case, for the cavity of a low-aspect-ratio flying-wing aircraft, the spoiler
improved the safety of store separation but also brought in higher SPL in the middle of
the cavity and caused a large additional drag on the aircraft, which must be considered
synthetically in the design of the aircraft. The results of this paper could provide a reference
for the flow control of weapon bays and the design of aircraft. More flow-control methods
will be taken into consideration in consequent research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.C. and G.Z.; data curation, P.C. and H.L.; formal analysis,
P.C., H.L. and B.C.; funding acquisition, P.C. and X.W.; investigation, P.C. and G.Z.; methodology,
P.C., Y.Z. and B.C.; project administration, P.C. and X.W.; resources, P.C.; software, P.C. and H.J.;
supervision, M.M.; validation, X.W. and M.M.; visualization, P.C. and X.W.; writing—original draft,
P.C.; writing—review and editing, P.C. and Y.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Numerical Wind Tunnel (No. PZT20190006), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12102453), and the internal fund of the China
Aerodynamics Research and Development Center (No. PZT20200099).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

P∞ Pressure of freestream flow

T∞ Temperature of freestream flow
Mach Mach number
DES Detached-eddy simulation
DDES Delayed detached-eddy simulation
IDDES Improved delayed-detached-eddy simulation
δ The thickness of the boundary layer
Cl Lift coefficient
Cd Drag coefficient
My Pitching moment coefficient
L/D Lift–drag ratio
Ω Volume of the control volume
Q Conservative state vector
→
vg Wall velocity
→
n Outward-pointing normal unit vector
H(Q) Inviscid flux vector
Hv (Q) Viscous flux vector
ρ Density
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 25 of 27

E Total energy
V Contravariant velocity
p Pressure
τ Viscous stress
l RANS RANS length scale
lW MLES WMLES length scale
λ HLLE++ Eigenvalue of HLLE++
λ HLLE+ Eigenvalue of HLLE+
β Switching function
kp Pressure gradient-based switch sensor

References
1. Lawson, S.J.; Barakos, G.N. Review of numerical simulation for high-speed, turbulent cavity flows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2011, 47,
186–216. [CrossRef]
2. Rudy, A.J.; Michael, J.; James, E.G. Store Separation Trajectory Deviations Due to Unsteady Weapons Bay Aerodynamics. In
Proceedings of the 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 7–10 January 2008.
3. Al, H.N.; Kontis, K.; Zare-Behtash, H. The Impact of Steady Blowing from the Leading Edge of an Open Cavity Flow. Aerospace
2021, 8, 255.
4. Wang, Y.D. Active aerodynamic noise control research for supersonic aircraft cavity by nonlinear numerical simulation. Int. J.
Elec. Eng. Educ. 2021, online first.
5. Zhuang, N.; Alvi, F.S.; Alkislar, M.B.; Shih, C. Supersonic cavity flows and their control. AIAA J. 2006, 44, 2118–2128. [CrossRef]
6. Takeda, K.; Shieh, C.M. Cavity Tones by Computational Aeroacoustics. Int. J. Comput. Fluid D 2004, 18, 439–454. [CrossRef]
7. Cattafesta, L.N.; Song, Q.; Williams, D.R.; Rowley, C.W.; Alvi, F.S. Active control of flow-induced cavity oscillations. Prog. Aerosp.
Sci. 2008, 44, 479–502. [CrossRef]
8. Shaw, L. Active control for cavity acoustics. In Proceedings of the 4th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Toulouse, France,
2–4 June 1998.
9. Kim, B.H.; Williams, D.R.; Emo, S.; Acharya, M. Modeling Pulsed-Blowing Systems for Flow Control. AIAA J. 2005, 43, 314–325.
[CrossRef]
10. Smith, B.; Welterlen, T.; Maines, B.; Shaw, L.; Stanek, M.; Grove, J. Weapons bay acoustic suppression from rod spoilers. In
Proceedings of the 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 14–17 January 2002.
11. Omer, A.; Arafa, N.; Mohany, A.; Hassan, M. The effect of upstream edge geometry on the acoustic resonance excitation in
shallow rectangular cavities. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 2016, 15, 253–275. [CrossRef]
12. Chen, B.; Wang, Y. Nonlinear Numerical Simulation for Oscillating Pressure in Cavity and Passive Control Research. Int. J. Aerosp.
Eng. 2019, 4153287. [CrossRef]
13. Shaw, L.; Clark, R.; Talmadge, D. F-111 generic weapons bay acoustic environment. J. Aircr. 1988, 25, 147–153. [CrossRef]
14. Ukeiley, L.S.; Ponton, M.K.; Seiner, J.M.; Jansen, B. Suppression of Pressure Loads in Cavity Flows. AIAA J. 2004, 42, 70–79.
[CrossRef]
15. Saddington, A.J.; Thangamani, V.; Knowles, K. Comparison of Passive Flow Control Methods for a Cavity in Transonic Flow.
J. Aircr. 2016, 53, 1439–1447. [CrossRef]
16. Vakili, A.; Givogue, G.; Fowler, W. An Experimental Investigation of 2-D Cylinders Affecting Supersonic Cavity Flow. In
Proceedings of the 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 27–30 June 2011.
17. Milne, G.J.; Thieman, C.C.; Vakili, A. An Experimental Investigation of Supersonic Cavity Flow Control with Vertical Cylinders.
In Proceedings of the 43rd Fluid Dynamics Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 24–27 June 2013.
18. Gai, S.L.; Kleine, H.; Neely, A.J. Supersonic Flow over a Shallow Open Rectangular Cavity. J. Aircr. 2015, 52, 609–616. [CrossRef]
19. Luo, K.; Zhe, W.; Xiao, Z.; Fu, S. Improved delayed detached-eddy simulations of sawtooth spoiler control before supersonic
cavity. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2017, 63, 172–189. [CrossRef]
20. Schmit, R.; Semmelmayer, F.; Haverkamp, M.; Grove, J.; Ahmed, A. Analysis of Cavity Passive Flow Control Using High Speed
Shadowgraph Images. In Proceedings of the 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and
Aerospace Exposition, Nashville, TN, USA, 9–12 January 2012.
21. Zhang, P.; Chen, H.; Zhang, J.; Luo, L.; Zhou, F.; Jia, H. The study of passive flow control for weapon bay in high Mach number.
J. B Univ. Aeronaut. Astronaut. 2022. [CrossRef]
22. Freeman, J. Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics for Aircraft-Store Design, Analysis and Compatibility. In Proceedings of the
44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 9–12 January 2006.
23. Davis, M.; Yagle, P.; Smith, B.; Chankaya, K.; Johnson, R. Store Trajectory Response to Unsteady Weapons Bay Flowfields. In
Proceedings of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition,
Orlando, FL, USA, 5–8 January 2009.
24. Zhang, Y.; Zhou, N.; Chen, J. Numerical investigation of Reynolds number effects on a low-aspect-ratio flying-wing model.
Acta Aerodyn. Sin. 2015, 33, 279–288.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 26 of 27

25. Su, J.; Huang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhong, S.; Shan, J. Support interference of low-aspect-ratio flying-wing from subsonic to supersonic speed.
Acta Aerodyn. Sin. 2015, 33, 289–295.
26. Su, J.; Huang, Y.; Zhong, S.; Li, Y. Research on flow characteristics of low-aspect-ratio flying-wing at transonic speed. Acta Aerodyn.
Sin. 2015, 33, 307–312.
27. Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Huang, Y.; Zhong, S.; Su, J. Investigation on the correlation of high-speed force test results of flying-wing calibration
model with low-aspect ratio. Acta Aerodyn. Sin. 2016, 34, 107–112.
28. Chen, J.; Wu, X.; Zhang, J.; Li, B.; Jia, H.; Zhou, N. FlowStar: A general unstructured-grid CFD software of National Numerical
Windtunnel (NNW) project. Acta Aeronaut. Astronaut. Sin. 2021, 42, 625739.
29. Tang, J.; Cui, P.; Li, B.; Zhang, Y.; Si, H. Parallel hybrid mesh adaptation by refinement and coarsening. Graph. Models 2020,
111, 101084. [CrossRef]
30. Tang, J.; Ma, M.; Li, B.; Cui, P. A local and fast interpolation method for mesh deformation. Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 2019, 19,
282–292. [CrossRef]
31. Tang, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, B.; Zhou, N. Unsteady flow simulation with mesh adaptation. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 2020, 34, 2040080.
[CrossRef]
32. Tang, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, B.; Cui, P.; Zhou, N. Parallel algorithms for unstructured hybrid mesh adaptation. Acta Aeronaut. Astronaut.
Sin. 2020, 41, 123202.
33. Cui, P.; Li, B.; Tang, J.; Chen, J.; Deng, Y. A modified adjoint-based grid adaptation and error correction method for unstructured
grid. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 2018, 32, 1840020. [CrossRef]
34. Cui, P.; Deng, Y.; Tang, J.; Li, B. Adjoint equations-based grid adaptation and error correction. Acta Aeronaut. Astronaut. Sin. 2016,
37, 2992–3002.
35. Venkatakrishnan, V. On the accuracy of limiters and convergence to steady state solutions. In Proceedings of the 31st Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, USA, 11–14 January 1993.
36. ElCheikh, A.; ElKhoury, M. Effect of Local Grid Refinement on Performance of Scale-Resolving Models for Simulation of Complex
External Flows. Aerospace 2019, 6, 86. [CrossRef]
37. Boudreau, M.; Dumas, G.; Veilleux, J. Assessing the ability of the DDES turbulence modeling approach to simulate the wake of a
bluff body. Aerospace 2017, 4, 41. [CrossRef]
38. Krishnan, V.; Squires, K.; Forsythe, J. Prediction of separated flow characteristics over a hump. AIAA J. 2006, 42, 252–262.
[CrossRef]
39. Wang, H.; Li, J.; Jin, D.; Dai, H.; Gan, T.; Wu, Y. Effect of a transverse plasma jet on a shock wave induced by a ramp. Chin. J.
Aeronaut. 2017, 30, 1854–1865. [CrossRef]
40. Tramel, R.; Nichols, R.; Buning, P. Addition of improved shock-capturing schemes to OVERFLOW 2.1. In Proceedings of the 19th
AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics, San Antonio, TX, USA, 22–25 June 2009.
41. Zhang, P.; Luo, L.; Jia, H.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, X. Application of HLLE++ scheme in the simulation of high mach number
cavity flow. Chin. J. Comput. Mech. 2021. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/21.1373.O3.20210925.1031.018.html
(accessed on 26 September 2021).
42. Zhang, P.; Cheng, X.; Chen, H.; Jia, H.; Luo, L.; Tang, Y. Study on unsteady flow mechanism of high Mach number cavity. J. B
Univ. Aeronaut. Astronaut. 2022. [CrossRef]
43. McDaniel, D.R.; Nichols, R.H.; Eymann, T.A.; Starr, R.E.; Morton, S.A. Accuracy and Performance Improvements to Kestrel’s
Near-Body Flow Solver. In Proceedings of the 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 4–8 January 2016.
44. Bond, R.B.; Nichols, R.; Power, G.D. Extension of Kestrel to General Thermochemical Models, Part, I. In Proceedings of the 46th
AIAA Thermophysics Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 13–17 June 2016.
45. Blazek, J. Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and Applications, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 181–216.
46. Tang, J.; Cui, P.; Jia, H.; Li, B.; Li, H. Robust adaptation techniques for unstructured hybrid mesh. Acta Aeronaut. Astronaut. Sin.
2019, 40, 122894.
47. Cui, P.; Chen, J.; Li, B.; Li, H.; Ma, M.; Tang, J. A wide-template and high-accuracy data transfer method for unstructured
adjoint-based grid adaptation. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1985, 012021. [CrossRef]
48. Aref, P.; Ghoreyshi, M.; Jirasek, A.; Seidel, J. Application of the HPCMP CREATETM-AV Kestrel to an Integrated Propeller
Prediction. Aerospace 2020, 7, 177. [CrossRef]
49. Cui, P.; Li, B.; Tang, J.; Gong, X.; Ma, M. An improved tri-linear interpolation method for hybrid overset grids and its application.
In Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Aerospace Technology, Chengdu, China, 16–18 October 2018.
50. Cui, P.; Tang, J.; Li, B.; Ma, M.; Deng, Y. Conservative interpolation method of overlapping grids based on super grids.
Acta Aeronaut. Astronaut. Sin. 2018, 39, 121596.
51. Mancini, S.; Kolb, A.; Gonzalez-Martino, I.; Casalino, D. Very-Large Eddy Simulations of the M219 Cavity at High-Subsonic and
Supersonic Conditions. In Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, San Diego, CA, USA, 7–11 January 2019.
52. Lyubimov, D.; Fedorenko, A. External flow velocity and synthetic jets parameters influence on cavity flow structure and acoustics
characteristics using RANS/ILES. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 2018, 17, 259–274. [CrossRef]
53. Yan, P.; Zhang, Q.; Li, J. Numerical study of strong interplay between cavity and store during launching. J. Mech. 2018, 34,
103–112. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2022, 9, 526 27 of 27

54. Mancini, S.; Kolb, A.; Gonzalez-Martino, I.; Casalino, D. Predicting high-speed feedback mechanisms in rectangular cavities using
lattice-Boltzmann very-large eddy simulations. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2021, 117, 106908. [CrossRef]
55. Allen, R.; Mendonca, F. DES Validations of Cavity Acoustics over the Subsonic to Supersonic Range. In Proceedings of the 10th
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Manchester, UK, 10–12 May 2004.
56. Meakin, R. Computations of the unsteady flow about a generic wing/pylon/finned-store configuration. In Proceedings of the
Astrodynamics Conference, Hilton Head Island, SC, USA, 10–12 August 1992.