See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275845701

Prediction of Gurney-Flap Lift Enhancement for Airfoils and Wings

Article  in  AIAA Journal · September 2014

DOI: 10.2514/1.J053234

CITATIONS READS

4 168

1 author:

Lance W Traub
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
107 PUBLICATIONS   843 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lance W Traub on 23 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AIAA JOURNAL
Vol. 52, No. 9, September 2014

Technical Notes
Prediction of Gurney-Flap Lift an effective increase in flap length [11]. The flap can also attenuate
the adversity of the suction-surface pressure recovery, yielding a
Enhancement for Airfoils and Wings reduction in displacement thickness and, consequently, viscous
decambering of the section with incidence.
Because of the continuing interest in Gurney flaps, it would be
Lance W. Traub∗ useful to the community to have a simple relation that can estimate
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the lift augmentation resulting from the Gurney-flap addition suitable
Prescott, Arizona 86301 for conceptual analysis. In this Note, a semi-empirical equation is
presented that allows lift estimates accounting for both the zero-lift
DOI: 10.2514/1.J053234
angle-of-attack shift and the increase in the lift-curve slope. After
presentation of the expression, experimental data are analyzed to
establish the required empirical constants. Subsequently, numerous
Downloaded by EMERY-RIDDLE AERO UNIV. on January 9, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053234

Nomenclature
comparisons with sectional and wing data are presented to validate
A0 , A1 = constants the equation’s utility.
CL = lift coefficient of wing
Cl = sectional lift coefficient
CLα = lift-curve slope of wing II. Theoretical Development
Clα = sectional lift-curve slope
c = chord As noted, experiment and Liu and Montefort’s [10] analysis have
h = Gurney-flap height indicated a zero-lift angle-of-attack shift proportional to
h∕c0.5 .
K
Cl  = Gurney-flap correlation parameter From an analytic-analysis standpoint, the increase in the lift-curve
α = angle of attack slope may be interpreted as a continuous variation of the lifting
surface’s αZL with α in conjunction with a fixed lift-curve slope.
An analysis of a lift curve would show such an effect as an increase in
Subscripts
the lift-curve slope. The lift coefficient for an airfoil with camber may
eff = effective be written as (development for a wing is analogous)
REF = reference test data
ZL = zero lift Cl  Clα
α − αZL  (1)

An additional term may be added to Eq. (1) that accounts for the
impact of the Gurney flap on αZL . An assumed dependence on the lift
I. Introduction coefficient is also indicated.
p








T HE simplicity and utility of Gurney flaps have resulted in a
sustained research effort to characterize their behavior. Studies
have elucidated effects of their length [1–5], location [6], orientation
Cl  Clαh∕c0
α − αZLh∕c0 − K
Cl  × h∕c (2)

[6], and shape [7,8]. The impact of a Gurney flap is analogous to a Solving Eq. (2) for K
Cl  yields
conventional trailing-edge lift-augmentation device, primarily, a shift
in the zero-lift angle of attack. This is accomplished through the flap
α − αZLh∕c0 −
Cl ∕Clαh∕c0 
functionally increasing aft camber, and thus, turning of the wake K
Cl   p







(3a)
h∕c
flow. The flap causes a finite pressure difference at the trailing edge
(maintained through base suction imposed by a vortex street shed The evaluation of Eq. (3a), using experimental data (as will
from the flap extents [9]) with final pressure recovery occurring in the be shown), indicates that K
Cl  is well approximated using
wake. Consequently, a Gurney flap does not increase the adversity of a linear curve fit. Thus, K
Cl ’s functional dependency may be
the upper-surface pressure-recovery demands placed on the bound- approximated by
ary layer. Thus, unlike a conventional trailing-edge flap, the stall
angle is generally not reduced. K
Cl   A0 Cl  A1 (3b)
An analytic study by Liu and Montefort [10], using thin-airfoil
theory, showed that the lift increment and shift of the zero-lift angle of This formulation is consistent with the documented increase in the
attack of a Gurney flap are dependent on
h∕c0.5 . The experimental effectiveness of the flap with incidence (or Cl ) causing a linear
correlation of this result is well documented [1,2]. In addition to the increase in the lift-curve slope compared to h∕c  0. The constants
shift of the zero-lift angle of attack, the Gurney-flap data have also A0 and A1 may be established using the experimental or computa-
indicated an increase in the lift-curve slope of the lifting element tional data. For maximum utility, these constants would need to be
[2–4,11,12]. It has been suggested that the slope increase is due to universal for different airfoil and wing geometries. The substitution
windward-side boundary-layer thinning with incidence causing of Eq. (3) into Eq. (2) yields
p








Received 15 November 2013; revision received 31 January 2014; accepted
α − A1 h∕c − αZLh∕c0 
for publication 31 January 2014; published online 9 May 2014. Copyright © Cl  p







(4)
2014 by Lance W. Traub. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics

1∕Clα   A0 h∕c
h∕c0
and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. Copies of this paper may be made for
personal or internal use, on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy
fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, As shown by Daniel and Traub [4], the lift increment of a Gurney flap
MA 01923; include the code 1533-385X/14 and $10.00 in correspondence scales with the lift-curve slope of the wing. It follows that the lift-
with the CCC. dependent term in K
Cl  (i.e., A0 Cl ) should behave similarly. This
*Associate Professor, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Depart- can be incorporated into Eq. (4) as a multiplier (Clα ∕Clα REF )
h∕c0 h∕c0
ment. Senior Member AIAA. to the A0 term:
2087
 2088 AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 52, NO. 9: TECHNICAL NOTES

p







2.0

α − A1 h∕c − αZLh∕c0  NACA 0011 Section
Cl  p







(5a) 1.8 Re = 2.2 million


1∕Clα   A0eff h∕c 1.6
h∕c0

1.4 Prediction
in which Clα REF is the lift-curve slope of the data set used to define
1.2
A0 and A1 , and A0eff  A0 × Clαh∕c0 ∕Clα
h∕c0

h∕c0
REF . Note that the
1.0
sectional Clα REF is still representative if the method is used for

Cl
h∕c0
0.8
finite wing estimates. For a wing, the relation becomes
0.6
p







Clα = 0.1076/deg

α − A1 h∕c − αZLh∕c0  0.4
A0 = -9.4
CL  p







(5b) 0.2


1∕CLαh∕c0   A0eff h∕c A1 = -25.8
0.0
Consequently, the lift-curve slope and αZL may be expressed as -0.2
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
α, deg
1
Clα  p








airfoil 0


1∕Clαh∕c0   A0eff h∕c h/c = 0
(6)
Downloaded by EMERY-RIDDLE AERO UNIV. on January 9, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053234

1 -10 h/c = 0.01

CLα  p








wing


1∕CLαh∕c0   A0eff h∕c h/c = 0.02
-20
h/c = 0.04

K(Cl)
whereas the zero-lift angle is
K(Cl) = -9.4 Cl - 25.8
p







-30
αZL  A1 h∕c  αZLh∕c0 (7)
-40

III. Validation -50

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
A. Airfoils Cl
The experimental data from various sources were digitized to Fig. 1 Determination of constants A0 and A1 using data set from [3];
enable the evaluation of Eq. (3) and, subsequently, Eqs. (5a) and (5b). upper plot shows a comparison between experiment and theory.
An experimental data set of Myose et al. [3] was used to ascertain the
constants A0 and A1 that define K
Cl . As noted, for the method to A0 and A1 coefficients are representative for a range of test data
have utility, a fixed value of A0 and A1 should provide approximation (Figs. 1–4), including airfoils and wings. This (Myose et al.) data set
for different test cases. Figure 1 shows the data of Myose et al., was used as a reference, as it appears well behaved and systematic in
evaluated using Eq. (3a) in the lower plot. The curves for the different
trends. It should be noted that the evaluation of K
Cl  for the 2-D data
Gurney-flap heights are seen to show reasonable coincidence in terms
of slope and zero-lift intercept. From these curves, A0 was set to −9.4, 1.2
and A1 to −25.8. Note that the curve-fit values of A0 and A1 for S903
h∕c  0.01 and 0.04 could also have been used and would yield 1.0
Re = 1 million

similar predictions. With A0 and A1 established, all that is required to

Prediction
estimate the effect of a Gurney flap is knowledge of the airfoil’s lift- 0.8
curve slope (Clαh∕c0 ) and αZL without the flap attached (αZLh∕c0 ).
Figures 1–3 show Cl estimates using Eq. (5a) for the data sets of 0.6
[3,11,12]. Note that the values of the lift-curve slope, indicated by the 0.4
Cl

dashed lines on the figures, are those corresponding to Clαh∕c0 . While

accord for the Myose et al. data is assumed (as it was used to find the 0.2
constants), agreement for the other data sets is seen to be encour- Clα = 0.0971/deg
aging, with both the αZL shift and the Clα variation well predicted. 0.0 A0eff = -8.48
The values of A0eff are also presented in Figures 2–4. As an example A1 = -25.8
of calculation for the data in Fig. 2, A0eff 
0.0971∕0.1076 -0.2

−9.4  −8.48. -0.4
-4 -2 0 2 4 6
α, deg
B. Wings
Figure 4 shows the comparisons of Eq. (5b), using A0  −9.4 and 0
A1  −25.8, with the finite wing data of Cavanaugh et al. (A0eff  h/c = 0

0.0742∕0.1076
−9.4  −6.48) [2] and Daniel and Traub (A0eff  -10 h/c = 0.005

0.0555∕0.1076
−9.4  −4.85) [4]. Cavanaugh et al.’s wing
( ) used a NACA 23012 section, and was tested at Re  h/c = 0.01
-20
1.95 × 106 for the data presented. Daniel and Traub’s wing ( ) h/c = 0.02
K(Cl)

used a S8036 profile, and was tested at Re  2.5 × 105 . Agreement

between theory and experiment is very good, with both the lift-curve -30
slope and αZL predictions showing accord with the exper-
iment. Note that, for both airfoils and wings, Eq. (5) is only applicable -40
in the linear extent of the lift curve.
-50
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
IV. Sensitivity to A0 and A1 Cl
Validation of the method was based upon the two-dimensional Fig. 2 Parameter K
Cl  based on data from [11]; upper plot shows a
(2-D) data set of Myose et al. [3]. As shown previously, the extracted comparison between experiment and theory.
 AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 52, NO. 9: TECHNICAL NOTES 2089

1.4 S903 0
Re = 1 million NACA 0011 Section
1.2 Re = 2.2 million
-2
1.0

0.8 -4

0.6

αZL , deg
-6
Cl

0.4 Clα = 0.1022/deg

A0eff = -8.93 -8
0.2
A1 = -25.8
0.0 Prediction
-10
-0.2

-0.4 -12
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -28 -26 -24 -22
α, deg A1
1.6 XV-15 0.15
Re = 1 million
1.4 h/c = 0
Downloaded by EMERY-RIDDLE AERO UNIV. on January 9, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053234

1.2 h/c = 0.01

1.0
0.10
0.8
Prediction h/c = 0.01
0.6
Cl

Clα
Clα = 0.1019/deg Prediction h/c = 0.02
0.4 A0eff = -8.9 Prediction h/c = 0.04
A1 = -25.8
0.2 0.05 Experiment h/c = 0.01
Prediction
0.0 Experiment h/c = 0.02

-0.2 Experiment h/c = 0.04

-0.4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 0.00
α, deg -10 -9 -8 -7 -6
A0
Fig. 3 Comparison between experiment and theory; data from [12].
Fig. 5 Impact of variation of A0 and A1 on calculated lift-curve slope
1.4 and zero-lift angle of attack; data from [3].

1.2
sets other than Myose et al. yielded values of A1 from −21 to −27. A0
1.0
showed a variation ranging from −7 to −9.9 (compared to −9.4).
0.8 However, each data-set combination of A0 and A1 still yielded ade-
quate Gurney lift-enhancement estimates. Thus, the specific values of
0.6 CLα = 0.0555/deg A0 and A1 are not necessarily unique, as various combinations of
CL

0.4 A0eff = -4.85 A0 and A1 can yield universal lift-enhancement estimates (for the
A1 = -25.8 data sets evaluated) suitable for conceptual-design purposes. Conse-
0.2 quently, the sensitivity of the lift-coefficient estimate to changes in A0
S8036
Re = 250,000 and A1 was examined, as shown in Fig. 5. Presented is the variation in
0.0
=3 the zero-lift angle of attack and lift-curve slope as A0 and A1 vary. As
-0.2 seen, the sensitivity of the estimates to A0 and A1 variation increases
with flap length, as follows from examination of Eqs. (6) and (7).
-0.4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 However, the predictions do not change significantly within the range
α, deg of variation of A0 and A1 examined for the data sets presented. Using
Eq. (3), constants A0 and A1 can be readily established for any data
1.4
h/c = 0 set, in which the present estimates may be nonrepresentative.
1.2 h/c = 0.0104
h/c = 0.0208
1.0 h/c = 0.0333
V. Conclusions
h/c = 0.04 A semi-empirical equation is presented, allowing the estimation of
0.8
h/c = 0.05
the lift augmentation caused by Gurney-flap addition for both airfoils
0.6 and wings. The expression requires the determination of two empir-
Prediction
ical constants. Comparisons with a selection of sectional and finite
CL

0.4 wing data sets demonstrated accuracy commensurate with the re-
CLα = 0.0742/deg
quirements for conceptual analysis.
0.2 A0eff = -6.48
A1 = -25.8
0.0 NACA 23012 References
Re = 1.95 million
-0.2 =6 [1] Traub, L. W., and Akerson, A., “Airfoil Lift Augmentation at Low
Reynolds Number,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 6, 2010, pp. 2103–
-0.4 2114.
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 doi:10.2514/1.C000326
α, deg [2] Cavanaugh, M. A., Robertson, P., and Mason, W. H., “Wind Tunnel Test
Fig. 4 Comparison between experiment and theory; upper-plot data of Gurney Flaps and T-Strips on a NACA 23012 Wing,” AIAA Paper
from [4]; lower-plot data from [2]. 2007-4175, June 2007.
 2090 AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 52, NO. 9: TECHNICAL NOTES

[3] Myose, R., Heron, I., and Papadakis, M., “Effect of Gurney Flaps on a Vol. 44, No. 1, Nov. 2007, pp. 22–47.
NACA 0011 Airfoil,” AIAA Paper 1996-0059, Jan. 1996. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2007.10.001
[4] Daniel, L., and Traub, L. W., “Effect of Aspect Ratio on Gurney-Flap [9] Jeffrey, D. R., and Hurst, D., “Aerodynamics of the Gurney Flap,” AIAA
Performance,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2013, pp. 1217–1225. Paper 1996-2418, June 1996.
doi:10.2514/1.C032140 [10] Liu, T., and Montefort, J., “Thin-Airfoil Theoretical Interpretation for
[5] Giguere, P., Dumas, G., and Lemay, J., “Gurney Flap Scaling for Gurney Flap Lift Enhancement,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 2,
Optimum Lift to-Drag Ratio,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 12, 1997, 2007, pp. 667–671.
pp. 1888–1890. doi:10.2514/1.27680
doi:10.2514/3.13766 [11] Maughmer, M. D., and Bramesfeld, G., “Experimental Investigation
[6] Li, Y. C., Wang, J. J., and Zhang, P. F., “Influences of Mounting Angles of Gurney Flaps,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2008, pp. 2062–
and Locations on the Effects of Gurney Flaps,” Journal of Aircraft, 2067.
Vol. 40, No. 3, 2003, pp. 494–498. doi:10.2514/1.37050
doi:10.2514/2.3144 [12] Cole, J. A., Vieira, A. O., Coder, J., Premi, A., and Maughmer, M. D.,
[7] Meyer, R., Hage, W., Bechert, D. W., Schatz, M., and Thiele, F., “Drag “Experimental Investigation into the Effect of Gurney Flaps on Various
Reduction on Gurney Flaps by Three-Dimensional Modifications,” Airfoils,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2013, pp. 1287–1294.
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2006, pp. 132–140. doi:10.2514/1.C032203
doi:10.2514/1.14294
[8] Wang, J. J., Li, Y. C., and Choi, K. S., “Gurney Flap-Lift Enhancement, Z. Rusak
Mechanism and Applications,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Associate Editor
Downloaded by EMERY-RIDDLE AERO UNIV. on January 9, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053234

View publication stats