Copyright ©1996, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc, January 1996

A9618035, AIAA Paper 96-0059

Effect of Gurney flaps on a NACA 0011 airfoil

Roy Myose
Wichita State Univ., KS

Ismael Heron
Wichita State Univ., KS

Michael Papadakis
Wichita State Univ., KS

AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 34th, Reno, NV, Jan. 15-18, 1996

The effect of Gurney flaps on a NACA 0011 airfoil was tested in a low speed wind tunnel. Aerodynamic forces, quarter
chord moment, and airfoil pressure distribution were measured. A rake of total pressure probes was used to measure
the wake one-half and one chord length behind the airfoil. Boundary layer profile measurements were taken using a
mouse at the 70 and 90 percent chord locations on the suction side. Gurney flaps provide a significant increase in lift
with very little drag penalty. The lift increase is accomplished by a change in the effective camber. The typical Gurney
flap height is only 1-2 percent of chord length. Thus, the device remains within the boundary layer and very little drag
penalty results. (Author)

Page 1
 EFFECT OF GURNEY FLAPS ON A NACA 0011 AIRFOIL
Roy Myose*, Ismael Heront, and Michael Papadakis*
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260-0044

Abstract companies are oftentimes updating existing

planes with modern avionics and engines as well
The effect of Gurney flaps on a NACA
as other modest modifications. Thus, building
0011 airfoil was tested hi a low speed wind
a brand new whig for a new version of an
tunnel. Aerodynamic forces, quarter chord
aircraft may not be economically feasible.
moment, and airfoil pressure distribution were
Nevertheless, customers demand increased
measured. A rake of total pressure probes was
performance which may require some sort of
used to measure the wake one-half and one
aerodynamic enhancement. One possible
chord length behind the airfoil. Boundary layer
solution is to add a simple passive device, called
profile measurements were taken using a mouse
the Gurney flap, onto the wing.
at the 70% and 90% chord locations on the
The Gurney flap is a short flat plate,
suction side. Gurney flaps provide a significant
typically 1-2% of chord in height. This flat
increase hi lift with very little drag penalty. The
plate is attached to the trailing edge
lift increase is accomplished by a change in the
perpendicular to the chordline on the pressure
effective camber. The typical Gurney flap
side of the airfoil. Figure 1 shows a schematic
height is only 1-2% of chord length. Thus, the
of the Gurney flap configuration. The Gurney
device remains within the boundary layer and
flap was originally developed by race car driver
very little drag penalty results.
Dan Gurney in order to increase the down force
and thus the traction generated by the inverted
Nomenclature wings used on race cars. Liebeck1 conducted
Chord length wind tunnel tests on the effect of a 1.25% chord
Drag coefficient height Gurney flap. He used a Newman type
Lift coefficient airfoil which had an elliptic nose and a straight
C,
line wedge for the rear section. He found that
Cm Quarter chord pitching moment coefficient
Pressure coefficient the Gurney flap increased the airfoil lift while
CP the drag at a given lift was slightly decreased.
u/U Measured/freestream velocity
x, z Streamwise and normal directions According to Liebeck, increasing the Gurney
a Angle of attack flap height beyond 2% of chord continues to
increase the lift, but at the cost of substantially
increased drag.
Introduction Storms and Jang2 measured aerodynamic
Today, the cost of designing and loads and pressure distributions on a NACA
manufacturing a new aircraft is becoming more
and more prohibitive. In light of this, aircraft

*Assistant Professor, Senior Member AIAA.

f
Graduate Assistant, Member AIAA.
*Assoeiate^Professor, Member AIAA.
/'
Copyright ® 1996 by Roy Myose, Ismael Gurney Flap detail
Heron, and Michael Papadakis. Published by
the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. with permission. Fig. 1. Gurney flap configuration.
4412 airfoil. Their tests were performed on 1%, 2%, and 4% chord height Gurney flaps on
Gurney flap heights ranging from 0.5% to 2% a NACA 0011 airfoil. The extent of the
of chord at a chord Reynolds number of 2xl06. quantitative information obtained during the
Compared to the clean airfoil, the lift was course of this project include: (1) aerodynamic
substantially increased with the Gurney flap loads - lift, drag, and quarter chord pitching
while the drag was decreased at high lift moment, (2) airfoil pressure distributions, (3)
coefficients. However, the drag was increased wake measurements, (4) boundary layer profile
using the Gurney flap at low to moderate lift measurements, and (5) static pressure
coefficients. They also found that the Gurney measurements along the wind tunnel walls to
flap generated an additional nose-down pitching provide boundary conditions for future
moment compared to the clean airfoil. These computation studies. Previous studies on
results suggest that the Gurney flap serves to Gurney flaps have included some of these
increase the effective camber of the airfoil. measurements, but not all of these types of
Giguere et aP studied the effect of Gurney measurments for a single (i.e. particular) airfoil-
flaps ranging in height from 0.5% to 5% of Gurney flap configuration. The present paper
chord. They conducted their tests on two discusses the general effect of Gurney flaps with
different airfoils, LA 203 and Gottingen 797, at detailed emphasis on the 2% chord height
a relatively low chord Reynolds number of Gurney flap under pre-stall conditions.
250,000. They found that the Gurney flap
significantly increased the lift with very little Experimental Set-up
penalty in drag. Based on their results as well
as a review of past studies, they found that the The experiment was conducted hi the
optimum Gurney flap height scales with the Wichita State University Beech memorial low
boundary layer thickness. speed wind tunnel. This closed-return type wind
Neuhart and Pendergraft4 present tunnel consists of four screens for flow
unpublished pressure distribution results taken conditioning, a 6:1 ratio contraction section, a 7
by Robert McGhee on an advanced technology feet high by 10 feet wide by 12 feet long test
airfoil at a chord Reynolds number of 3x10*. section, a diffuser section, a four-bladed 11 feet
They found a decrease in pressure on the upper diameter variable pitch propeller and a 1000
surface and an increase in pressure on the lower horsepower electric motor section followed by
surface using a Gurney flap as compared to a the four corners with turning vanes. The
clean airfoil. This effect is most noticeable at maximum speed of the Beech wind tunnel.is
the peaks of the pressure distribution and at the 160 mph (235 ft/s). The facility is equipped
trailing edge. They conclude that this indicates with a truncated pyramid-type external balance
a downward turning of the flow compared to a which is capable of measuring up to six
clean airfoil. This is then substantiated by their components of aerodynamic force and moment
flow visualization results, albeit at a low chord data simultaneously. Since the present
Reynolds number of 82,000. experiment consists of two-dimensional tests,
Kentfield and Clavelle5 tested a NACA only the lift, drag, and quarter chord pitching
0015 airfoil at a chord Reynolds* number of moment were measured by the balance. Two-
550,000. They obtained some limited boundary dimensional wall inserts were used to support
layer data near the trailing edge with and the 3 feet span NACA 0011 airfoil as shown in
without a 1.5% chord height Gurney flap. At fig. 2. The airfoil was pitched about its quarter
a = 0°, they found that the boundary layer chord location using the motor-driven base plates
profile with the Gurney flap is fuller than the on the twxHdimemional-wall-inserts.
clean airfoil profile. However, they found that The NACA 0011 airfoil used in this
the clean airfoil profile is fuller at a = 10°. experiment had a 2 feet chord length. A total of
The objective of the present study was to 76 surface pressure taps were available for
obtain detailed measurements on the effect of airfoil pressure distribution measurements. All
 shown in fig. 4a. The mouse was located at
either the 70% or 90% chord location, slightly
offset spanwise from one of the surface pressure
taps as shown in fig. 4b. This then allowed the
determination of boundary layer velocity profiles
based on Bernoulli's equation. The entire mouse
and support mechanism was mounted on the
pitching base plate (see fig. 4c), allowing airfoil
pressure distribution and boundary layer
measurements to be taken over the entire angle
of attack range. Additional details about the
facility and instrumentation are given in
reference 6.
The dynamic pressure was set to a constant
value of 25 lb/ft2 throughout the course of this
experiment. This corresponds to a freestream
velocity of about 155 ft/s and a Reynolds
number of 1. IxlO 6 per foot. Thus, the Reynolds
number based on airfoil chord length was 2.2
million. According to Papadakis and Miller7,
the turbulence intensity is approximately 0.3
percent when the NACA 0011 airfoil is set to
zero angle of attack while supported by the
Fig. 2. Set-up viewed from downstream: two- present two-dimensional wall inserts. When
dimensional wall inserts (vertical) and NACA only the aerodynamic loads and airfoil surface
0011 airfoil (horizontal). Note the pitch- pressure distribution measurements were taken,
rotatable base plate visible in the right wall. the airfoil angle of attack ranged from -2° to
+20° (i.e. to post-stall). When either the wake
pressures were scanned electronically using rake mechanism or boundary layer mouse was
Pressure Systems Inc. (PSI) 8400 Industrial utilized, the airfoil angle was brought up to stall.
System Processor. A total of six PSI pressure Post-stall measurements were not taken in this
scanner units were used, allowing a maximum of case due to the fluttering of the rake and mouse.
192 simultaneous pressure measurements. The
PSI units are rated with a 0.1 percent accuracy Results and Discussion
over a full scale range of 2.5 psid. The
remaining pressure measurement channels (i.e. Figure 5 shows the lift and drag coefficient
less the airfoil surface pressure taps) were used results. The effect of the Gurney flap is to
to measure either (1) wind tunnel wall static substantially increase the maximum lift
pressures, (2) total pressures in the wake, or (3) coefficient as shown in fig. 5a. Compared to
total pressures in the airfoil boundary layer. the clean NACA 0011 airfoil, the maximum lift
Wake measurements were taken using a 14 inch coefficient is increased 25 %, 35 %, and 45 % for
(1.17 feet) high total pressure rake shown in fig. the 1%, 2%, and 4% height Gurney flaps,
3a. This rake was mounted on an airfoil-shaped respectively. The figure also shows that the stall
support which was traversed to a downstream angle is decreased while the zero lift angle of
location either l/i or 1 chord length behind the attack appears to become increasingly more
trailing edge of the NACA 0011 airfoil as shown negative as a larger Gurney flap is utilized.
in fig. 3b. Boundary layer measurements were These results suggest that the effect of the
taken with a boundary layer mouse consisting of Gurney flap is to increase the effective camber
a series of miniature total pressure probes as of the airfoil. The significant increase in lift
 (a) Mouse probe details

(a) Rake probe details (b) Mouse probe at 70% chord location

(b) Rake probe support & traversing mechanism,

view from downstream
(c) Support mechanism, view from downstream.
Fig. 3. Rake probe.
Fig. 4. Mouse probe.
 2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-2 0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
Cd
(a) Lift coefficient versus angle of attack. Fig. 6. Lift coefficient versus drag coefficient.
+ , clean NACA 0011; °, 2% height Gurney
flap.
0.05

0.00

-0.05

J -0.10

-0.15

-0.20

(b) Drag coefficient versus angle of attack. -0.25

- 2 0 2 4 6 10 12 14 16 IS 20

Fig. 5. Lift and drag coefficients. +, clean Fig. 7. Quarter chord pitching moment versus
NACA 0011; A, 1% height Gurney flap; °, 2% angle of attack. +, clean NACA 0011; °, 2%
height Gurney flap; n , 4% height Gurney flap. height Gurney flap.

coefficient for the 4% height Gurney flap comes may be reduced by using a Gurney flap. This is
at the price of substantially increased drag as a plausible explanation for thick airfoils with
shown in fig. 5b. This is in agreement with large trailing edge angles (e.g., the Newman,
Liebeck1 who concluded (based on Gurney's LA 203, Gottingen 797, and NACA 0015) used
field tests) that flap heights larger than 2% chord in these previous studies.1'3'5 However,
significantly increase the drag. relatively thin airfoils (e.g., the NACA 0011)
Figure 6 compares the lift and drag would not have separation bubbles near the
coefficients of the NACA 0011 airfoil with and trailing edge at low to moderate angles of attack.
without the 2% height Gurney flap. If a high Thus, it is reasonable that reduced drag was not
lift coefficient is desired (e.g. Q ~ 1.4), the found at low angles of attack in this experiment.
2% height Gurney flap can provide this lift at It should be noted that Storms and Jang2, using
slightly less drag than the clean NACA 0011 a NACA 4412 airfoil, did not find reduced drag
airfoil. At low and moderate angles of attack, overall using the Gurney flap.
however, fig. 6 shows that the airfoil with Figure 7 shows that nose-down pitching
Gurney flap has more drag than the clean airfoil. moment is increased with the Gurney flap. This
Some previous studies1'3-5 have found a reduction again suggests that the effective camber is
in drag overall using the Gurney flap. Liebeck1 increased with the use of a Gurney flap.
has theorized that if a clean airfoil has separation Figure 8 shows the pressure distribution for
bubbles, the wake momentum deficit and drag the clean NACA 0011 airfoil and the 2% height
 0.3 • 0.3 •

0.2 - 0.2 -

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 - 0.1 -
x/c
o 0.0 o 0.0
(a) a = O c ••x
N >
-0.1
•^ -0.1
;
-0.2
«^
-0.2
(

-0.3 . -0.3 1

0. BO 0.90 1.00 0.80 0.90 1.C

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 u/U u/U
x/c
(a) a = O c (b) a = 5 C
(b) a = 5°

-0.3 -
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.80 1.00
x/c

(c) a = 10°
(c) a = 10°
Fig. 8. Pressure distribution comparison. Clean
NACA 0011: +, upper surface; x, lower Fig. 9. Wake velocity profile, 1A chord
surface. 2% height Gurney flap: °, upper downstream of trailing edge. +, clean NACA
surface; •, lower surface. 0011; o, 2% height Gurney flap.

Gurney flap at three different angles of attack. expected in front of the flap, and was found in
There is a small mismatch hi pressure all previous studies with pressure distribution
distribution between the upper and lower measurements.2'5 Liebeck1 has theorized that a
surfaces for the clean NACA 0011 airfoil at zero recirculating vortex may be associated with this
angle of attack (fig 8a). This is due to a small adverse pressure region just upstream of the flap
flow angularity of about -0.3 ° hi the wind tunnel on the lower surface.
(see fig. 5a). Using the Gurney*flap, fig. 8 Figures 9 and 10 show wake velocity
shows that increased suction is evident profiles based on rake probe measurements taken
l
everywhere on the upper surface while the lower h and 1 chord length downstream of the airfoil,
surface experiences increased pressure. This respectively. The sharp edges in the profile
results in the substantially increased lift shape is probably due to the coarse resolution
coefficient with the Gurney flap whictr was
discussed earlier. Note the adverse pressure The figures show that the wake momentum
gradient near the trailing edge on the lower deficit is deeper and wider with the Gurney flap
surface due to the presence of the Gurney flap. than with the clean airfoil. This means that the
Such an adverse pressure region is to be drag is increased with the Gurney flap compared
 measurements taken at chord locations of 70%
and 90%, respectively. The results are shown in
both normalized and dimensional forms.
Focusing on the dimensional form, it is quite
clear that in all cases the velocity over the airfoil
upper surface is physically increased with the
Gurney flap. This result is reasonable since the
overall circulation of the airfoil (and thus the
lift) is increased with the Gurney flap. When
-0.3 - -0.3 the normalized velocity profiles at x/c = 0.9 are
0.80 1.00 0.80 0.90 1.00
compared, fig. 12 shows that the Gurney flap
u/U profile is fuller than the clean airfoil profile.
This is consistent with the airfoil pressure
(a) a = O c (b) a = 5°
distribution results of fig. 8 where the clean
airfoil case has a more adverse pressure gradient
0.3 r
near x/c = 0.9 than the Gurney flap case.
0.2 When the normalized velocity profiles are
compared at x/c = 0.7, both cases have similar
0.1
profile shapes. This result is reasonable since
0.0 - fig. 8 shows that both cases have roughly the
same pressure gradient at x/c = 0.7.
-0.1 -
Figure 12a shows that the boundary layer
-0.2 thickness is about 1.5% of chord in height near
the trailing edge (on the upper surface at zero
-0.3
angle of attack). Thus, a Gurney flap with a
0.80 0.90 1.00 height of about 2% or less would not
u/U significantly increase the drag since most of the
(c) a = 10° device remains within the airfoil boundary layer.
This is indeed consistent with the drag
Fig. 10. Wake velocity profile, 1 chord coefficient results of fig. 5b.
downstream of trailing edge. +, clean NACA Figure 13 summarizes the boundary layer
0011; o, 2% height Gurney flap. and wake profile results. The flow behind the
airfoil is turned downward so much that it lies
to the clean airfoil at the same angle of attack. below the extended chordline. This is consistent
This is in agreement with the drag coefficient with the behavior of an airfoil with high camber.
results of fig. 5b. Note that the wake velocity
profile misses an important point about the Summary
Gurney flap; it does not show the substantial
increase in lift associated with this small increase Low speed wind tunnel tests were
in drag. Figures 9 and 10 show that there is a conducted on the effect of Gurney flaps on a
downward shift in the wake position with the NACA 0011 airfoil. The maximum lift
Gurney flap. This is consistent with the flow coefficient compared to the clean airfoil
visualization results of previous studies1'* where increased by 25 %, 35 %, and 45 % using the 1 %,
a downward turning of the flow was observed 2%, and 4% chord height Gurney flaps,
behind the Gurney flap. Furthermore, such a respectively. The addition of a Gurney flap
vertical shift in the wake is to be expected for an increased the nose-down pitching moment of the
airfoil with increased camber. airfoil. Airfoil pressure distribution results show
Figures 11 and 12 show the boundary layer that the Gurney flap increases the upper surface
velocity profiles based on mouse probe suction and the lower surface high pressure.
 0.040 , 0.96 1 0.040 - » 0.96 - |
0.90 - 0.90 -
0.035 0.84 ; 0.035 - 0.84 ;
0.78 - 0.78 - i
0.030 ' 0.72 - 0.030 - 0.72 -
I 0.6S - . O.S6 ' )
0.025 0.60 0.025 - 0.60 -
.-. 0.5+ --. 0.54
0.020 •0 0.4-8 : 0.020 - 0 0.48 : •
N
0.4-2 " 0.42
0.015 0.36 0.015 - 0.36 \
-
0.010 J
f
i 0.30
0.24
0.18
I 0.010
f
j
f
0.30
0.24
0.18
j i
f
fe f
0.005 Jf 0.12 0.005 jf 0.12 ff

0.000 ............if,.,.
0 0 0.2 0.4- 0.6 0.8 1 0
O.OS
0.00
C
-.,.,., JF..
50 100 15C 200
0.000 , , , , H^T , , 0.08
0.00 ' . , . , &/,
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 C 50 100 1 50 200
U/U u (ft/a) U/U u (ft/s)

(a) a = O c (a) a = O c

0.040 . 0.96 , > 0.040

0.90 -
0.035 ;i 0.84 - ; 1
0.035
0.78 -
1
0.030 0.72 - 0.030
\ 0.66 -
0.025 - 0.60 - 0.025
~ _
0.54
0.020 ; <§. 0.48 " 0.020
! N -
0.42
0.015 1 0.36 -
0.30 -
;
jj
' 0.015

0.010 0.24 0.010

/ o.ta
0.005 0.12 0.005
0.06
0.000 . i . t j i . i , (Hi . 1 . 1 . 1 . 0.00 0.000
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 C) 50 100 150 200 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 50 100 150
u/U u (ft/s) U/U U (ft/s)

(b) a = 5 C (b) a = 5C

0.040 0.040 0.96

0.90
0.035 0.035 0.84
0.78
0.030 0.030 0.72
0.66
0.025 0.025 0.60
~ 0.54
0.020 0.020 £, 0.48
N
0.42
0.015 0.015 0.36
0.30
0.010 0.010 0.24
0.18
0.005 0,005 0.12
0.06
0.000 0.000 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 50 100 150 200 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 50 100 150 200
U/U U (ft/3) u/Umax U (ft/s)

(c) a = 10C (c) a = 10C

Fig. 11. Boundary layer velocity profiles taken Fig. 12. Boundary layer velocity profiles taken
at x/c = 0.7. +, clean NACA 0011; o; 2% at x/c = 0.9. +, clean NACA 0011; o, 2%
height Gurney flap. Left figure is normalized Gurney flap. Left figure is normalized while
while right figure is left in dimensional form. right figure is left in dimensional form. In (c),
velocity is normalized by maximum value since
boundary layer thickness is greater than 1 inch.
 Boundary
Lager Wake Width assistance during the course of this experiment.
Thickness (Uppar Half)

Wake Center! Ine

References
Boundary 'Liebeck, R.H., "Design of Subsonic Airfoils
Layer
(Upper Half)
for High Lift," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 15,
. — — -=^unn7-"t-— _ . _^YZH! — No. 9, 1978, pp. 547-561.
Wake Centerline 2
Storms, B.L., and Jang, C.S., "Lift
Enhancement of an Airfoil Using a Gurney Flap
and Vortex Generators," Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 31, No. 3, 1994, pp. 542-547.
Wake Centerlln»~ 3
Giguere, P., Lemay, L, and Dumas, G.,
"Gurney Flap Effects and Scaling for Low-speed
Fig. 13. Boundary layer and wake behavior. Airfoils," AIAA paper 95-1881, June 1995.
• • — , extension of chordline; — — — , velocity 4
deficit (boundary layer and upper half of wake);
Neuhart, D.H., and Pendergraft, O.C., "A
Water Tunnel Study of Gurney Flaps," NASA
•• + ••, clean NACA 0011 wake centerline;
Technical Memorandum 4071, November 1988,
• -° • % 1% height Gurney flap wake center line.
pp. 1-20.
5
Wake velocity profiles show that the addition of Kentfield, J.A.C, and Clavelle, E.J., "The
the Gurney flap resulted in a downward turning Flow Physics of Gurney Flaps, Devices for
of the flow behind the airfoil. All of these Improving Turbine Blade Performance," Wind
results indicate that the Gurney flap works by Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1993, pp. 24-34.
increasing the effective camber of the airfoil.
'Johnson, B.L., "Facility Description of the
With the exception of the 4% Gurney flap,
Walter H. Beech Memorial 7x10 Foot Low-
substantial increases in drag did not result
speed Wind Tunnel," Wichita State University
because the flap physically resides inside the
report AR93-1, June 1993.
boundary layer of the airfoil.
7
Papadakis, M., and Miller, L.S., "Experimental
and Computational Investigation of Wind Tunnel
Future Work
Effects on Airfoil Flow Fields," AIAA paper 9.2-
The results discussed in this paper is part of 0672, January 1992.
a larger study on the effect of Gurney flaps. 8
Myose, R., Heron, I., and Papadakis, M., "The
Post-stall results for the NACA 0011 with Post-stall Effect of Gurney Flaps on a NACA
Gurney flap will be discussed in a future paper.8
0011 Airfoil," accepted for presentation at SAE
Wind tunnel testing on the effect of Gurney flaps Aerospace Atlantic Conference, Dayton, OH,
has also been completed on: (1) two-dimensional
May 1996.
two-element GA(W)-2 airfoil with flap
deflections, (2) three-dimensional reflection
plane wings with and without taper, and (3)
twin-engine reflection plane models. Future
papers discussing these additional test cases are
planned.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Bonnie Johnson
and the Beech Wind Tunnel staff for their
Copyright ©1996, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Fig. 2
Copyright ©1996, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Fig. 3
Copyright ©1996, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Fig. 4