The Gurney Flap: A case study

Abstract
The Gurney flap is a mechanically simple device consisting of a short strip, fitted perpendicular to the pressure
surface along the trailing edge of an airfoil. It was first used by Dan Gurney on his Indianapolis 500 race car to
increase aerodynamic down force, which provided a boost in cornering and braking performance .The earliest
reference to a Gurney flap was made by Liebeck [1]. This case study provides an insight on the aerodynamics of
Gurney Flaps, their lift and drag characteristics, their lift enhancement mechanism and their application. The
flow perturbation produced by the Gurney flap is characterized by a short region of separated flow directly
upstream of the flap, with two counter-rotating vortices downstream, and resulting in an increase in flow
velocity above the airfoil [5]. The Gurney flap produces an overall decrease in pressure on the upper surface and
an overall increase in pressure on the lower surface, compared to the clean aerofoil. It thus causes an increase in
both lift and drag. For supercritical airfoils, the lift enhancement of the Gurney flap mainly comes from its
ability to shift the shock on the upper surface downstream, further delaying the onset of stall. Its application in
the in-flight control of helicopters is also discussed, showing how it is efficient in this purpose.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Issues in wing design
Wing design is a very complex subject and is the
subject of extensive research in the modern era.
The main desirable properties of aircrafts are high
lift and lowest possible drag, for most efficient
performance and to minimize energy consumption
for minimum environmental impact and fuel use.
Lift can be augmented in four main ways:
1.
2.
3.
4.

deployed. Flaps are high-lift devices which serve to

increase lift by the ways discussed in section 1.1.
Flow over flaps is very complicated and involves
boundary layers, main wing wakes, potential flow
outside the boundary layer and flow in the flap slot.
Some common flaps and the ways they augment lift
are shown below:

Increase in wing area

Rise in angle of incidence
Increased camber; or
Increased circulation by the intelligent
application of a high-momentum fluid [2]

Features 2 and 3 can be controlled in design and the

extent to which 2 and 3 can be exploited is
governed by the behaviour of the boundary layer. A
wing can only continue to generate lift successfully
if boundary layer separation is either avoided or
closely controlled. This is usually accomplished by
the use of flaps.

1.2 Flaps
During lift and take-off, the speed of an aircraft is
low and the wings, in their cruise position will not
be able to sustain the aircraft in the air. In order to
maintain high lift and avoid stall, flaps are

Figure 1: Common Flaps [1]

Flap
Plain Flap

How it enhances lift

Increases Camber
Increases angle of incidence
Fowler Flap
Increases Camber
Increases angle of incidence
Increases wing area
Table 1: Two examples of how flaps enhance lift [2]

Page | 1

1.3 Gurney Flaps

Gurney flaps were invented by a race car driver
named Dan Gurney in 1960s and has been used to
enhance the aerodynamics performance of subsonic
and supercritical airfoils, high-lift devices and delta
wings. The GF is a simple configuration consisting
of a short flat plate which is attached to the trailing
edge perpendicular to the chord line of an airfoil as
shown in figure 2. Dan Gurney used this flap on an
inverted wing to increase the downward force in his
race car, therefore increasing the traction during
acceleration, braking and cornering. The car lapped
at a higher speed when the GF was employed,
indicating a lower drag. Inversing the GF on an
aerofoil could thus, increase lift and this was
proven by Liebeck on a Newman airfoil. Because
of its simple configuration and high effectiveness,
the GF is heavily researched upon today.
Figure 2: Gurney Flap Configuration [1]

Nomenclature
c - chord length of an airfoil, or root chord length of
a wing
Cd - drag coefficient
Cl - lift coefficient
Cl max - maximum of Cl
Cm - pitch moment coefficient
Cp - pressure coefficient
Cpp - lower surface pressure

Cps - upper surface suction

GF - Gurney flap
h - Gurney flap height
s - mounting distance (to the trailing edge)
x, y - chordwise and normal directions
- angle of attack
Mounting angle

2.0 Aerodynamic effects of Gurney Flap

2.1 Flow over a normal airfoil
Flow over an airfoil can be compared to boundary
layer phenomenon on a flat smooth plate. At the
leading edge, thin laminar flow occurs and the
boundary layer also is steady and smooth.
Downstream, viscosity continues to dominate, and
the laminar boundary layer thickens as more and
more air is slowed down by friction on the plate. At
a point downstream, the laminar boundary layer
undergoes transition to a turbulent boundary layer.
At a point further down the airfoil, the flow begins
to separate from the surface and form many chaotic
tiny vortex flows called vortices. The greater the

region of separated flow, the greater the drag on the

airfoil [3]. At a point where a large separation
occurs, the airfoil loses its lift and stalls.

Figure 3: Fluid flow around an airfoil [3]

Page | 2

2.4 Lift-to-drag ratio

2.2 Effect on Lift

For an airfoil, at low to moderate angles of attack,
the lift coefficient varies linearly with the angle of
attack. In this region, the flow moves smoothly
over the airfoil and is attached over most of the
surface. However, as becomes large, the flow
tends to separate from the top (suction) surface of
the foil creating a large wake of relatively dead
air behind the airfoil. Inside this separated region,
the flow is recirculating and part of the flow is
moving in a direction opposite to the freestream;
also called reversed flow. At certain , abrupt stall
occurs at leading edge separation bubbles burst
instead of the flow separating gradually. As seen in
figure 8, the lift increases with application of
gurney flap as seen in an upward shift in the Clmax
v/s graph. This shows that the GF is useful in its
application in aircrafts and helicopters as it
enhances lift. Section 3.0 discusses it further.

2.3 Effect on Drag

As seen in figure 9 and will be discussed further,
the application of GF causes an upward shift in the
drag graph. This shows that the CDmax on the device
employing the GF increases and is the price to pay
for a higher desired lift. The flap has a positive
pressure coefficient on the windward side and a
negative pressure coefficient on the leeward side,
resulting in a net drag on the flap.
Direction the graphs
shift with increasing
h

Figure 4: Graph of lift-to-drag ratio v/s lift coefficient

for low speed aerofoil [1]

Figure 4 shows the lift-to-drag ratio of an aerofoil.

For low to moderate lift coefficients (Cl = 0 - 0.7),
there are large drag penalties associated as the ratio
of Cl/Cd becomes progressively lower. This shows
an increasing value of Cd. As the lift coefficient is
increased further to around 1.4, both the lift and
drag coefficients are increased as shown by the
closer graphs at that point.

2.5 Pitching Moment

Pitching moment refers to the force applied at the
aerodynamic centre of an aerofoil or any other
flying device with respect to the aerodynamic
centre of its wing. [11] It is the moment usually
balanced by the lift from the horizontal stabilizer.
When an aerofoil moves anticlockwise, the aircraft
is lifted and since, by convention, anticlockwise
motion is taken as negative moment, the pitching
moment becomes more negative with increasing
GF height. Moment is the product of aerodynamic
force and distance, which is, here, provided by the
camber. Pitching moment increases as shown in
figure 5, showing that the effective camber is
increased with the GF.

Direction the graphs

shift with increasing
h

Figure 5: Graph of quarter-chord pitching moment vs. angle

of attack for low speed aerofoils [1]

2.6 Positive effects of using the Gurney Flap

As seen above, the most obvious effect of using a GF is the increase in lift it provides at a lower angle of attack
as compared to plain aerofoils. The decreasing zero-lift angle of attack is beneficial in bringing the aircraft to the
desired height in less time. Also, it increases the camber and this causes the aircraft to reach a certain angle of
attack in less time, also improving flight.

Page | 3

2.7 Negative effects of using the Gurney Flap

As discussed previously, increasing GF size entails a progressively higher drag penalty. Also, increasing GF
length increases the overall pitching moment and while it might be advantageous in some ways, it may cause
stall to occur faster by a faulty manoeuvre such that the plane nose nose is moved too high. Observations from
several researchers have concluded that optimal height for a Gurney flap should be smaller than the boundary
layer thickness on the lower pressure side of the airfoil.

3.0 Lift and Drag on low speed and supercritical airfoils

3.1 Low speed Airfoil
Figure 6 below shows the basic airfoil nomenclature and figure 7 is an example of a low speed airfoil.

Figure 6: The basic airfoil nomenclature. [9]

Lift
Figure 8 below shows the lift coefficient of a
NACA airfoil with GFs as obtained by Li et al. [1]
As seen in figure 8, an increase in gurney flap
length increased the coefficient of lift and as a
consequence, the lift on the aerofoil. The maximum
lift coefficient increased by 10%, 11%, 18%, 21%
and 27% for the GF heights 0.5%C, 1%C, 1.5%C,
2%C and 3%C, respectively. Stall occurs after the
maximum point of a graph and the figure shows
that as the height of the gurney flap increases, the
stall angle is reduced as the maximum shifts to the
left. The zero-lift angle of attack becomes
increasingly more negative with an increase in the
Direction the graphs
shift with increasing
h

Figure 8: Cl vs. angle of attack, [1]

Figure 7: Low speed Airfoil [5]

GF height as each graph is extrapolated backwards

to intercept the x-axis. These results suggest that
more lift is produced by a smaller as the gurney
flap increases.
Drag
A 3%C GF would be most desirable due to the high
lift it provides as shown by figure 8 but on the
other hand, drag increases as GF height increases
as shown by the upward shifting graphs in figure 9.
It is also seen that flaps with height more than
h=2%C will significantly increase the drag as
shown by higher shift in the CD graph when a GF
height of 3%c is experimented upon.

Direction the graphs

shift with increasing
h

Figure 9: Cd vs. angle of attack, [1]

Page | 4

3.2 Supercritical
The distinct characteristics of supercritical airfoils
compared to low speed airfoils are blunt nose,
relatively flat upper surface, and heavy camber
with a concave region on the lower surface near the
trailing edge as shown by figure 10 and 11 below.
They have been known for their high aerodynamic
efficiency. The flow over the critical airfoils is

accelerated to supersonic speed at the nose, and is

decelerated to subsonic speed through a weak
shock, further down than for normal airfoils [4].
Here, shock refers to the boundary layer separation
that occurs at supersonic speed. The supersonic
area is larger at the top of the airfoil and hence,
more lift is generated [1].
Increased nose radius

Cambered rear

Flat upper surface

Blunt trailing edge

Figure 10: Supercritical and divergent trailing edge airfoils [1]

Figure 11: Difference in features between a low

speed airfoil and supercritical airfoil

Direction the graphs shift

with increasing h

Figure 12: Cl vs. angle of attack, [6]

Direction the graphs shift

with increasing h

Figure 13: Cd vs. angle of attack, [6]

Lift
The curve of Cl v/s (figure 12) demonstrates that
the divergent trailing edge has very little, or
negligible effects on Cl. Figure 12 shows that at
>0o, the divergent trailing edge indeed enhances
lift. However, the lift coefficient increment is only
1.3%. When Gurney flaps are used, the lift curves
are shifted upwards and slightly to the left. This
shows that the lift coefficients are correspondingly
increased. The stall angle and angle of zero lift are
both slightly decreased as shown by slight shift in
the left of the point in the graph where the lift starts

to decrease. The maximum Cl and the slope of the

lift curve are increased when a larger Gurney flap
is utilized.
Drag
Figure 13 shows that the drag coefficient CD
changes very slightly for = -4 2o, and the
divergent trailing edge has relatively higher drag.
CD increases significantly with and h for > 3,
the drag on the airfoil increases sharply as the bunt
edge and concave surface oppose more to the fluid
motion against the downside of the wing.

Page | 5

3.3 Comparison between low speed and supercritical airfoils

Moreover, it can be seen that at any specific
value, the lift provided by the supercritical airfoil is
higher than that of a low speed airfoil. This is due
to the distinct properties of the supercritical airfoil.

Difference in lift characteristics

Thin airfoil theory shows that zero lift angle of
attack is dependant is a function of the amount of
camber as becomes more negative as the camber
is increased. For the low speed airfoil, the curve
without the GF passes through the origin, showing
that it is symmetric, compared to that of the
supercritical one.

Difference in drag characteristics

The difference in shift of the graphs is higher for
low speed airfoils than for supercritical airfoils
when =-4o 2.5o, showing that the latter is not
affected by the GFs. However, a spike in CD is
experienced after =2.5o compared to the low speed
airfoil which experienced an exponential CD
increase. This is caused by increased wave drag
due to intense shock as well as by an increased
pressure drag due to flow separation.

When comparing figure 8 and 12, the first striking

difference is the shape of the graphs. As mentioned
earlier, stall is indicated at the point where Cl starts
decreasing as increases. For the low speed
aerofoil, an abrupt decrease in Cl is observed
whereas for the supercritical airfoil, a very slight
decrease in lift is observed. This demonstrates that
a supercritical airfoil, fitted with a gurney flap does
not stall abruptly and is safer for flight.

4.0 Lift Enhancement Mechanism of Gurney Flap

4.1 Pressure distributions
Pressure measurements over a NACA 0012 airfoil are summarised in figure 14 below:
Upper surface
Upper surface
Lower surface
Lower surface

Figure 14: Pressure distributions over a low speed airfoil with the Gurney flap: (a) = 0o, (b) = 6o and (c) = 10o [1].

Increased suction can be seen in the upper surface as seen by an upward shift in the upper surface curve with
=6o and 10o. This shows that adding the gurney flap increases the lift on the aerofoil.

Page | 6

Figure 15: Flow patterns without and with the Gurney flap
[1]
Figure 16: Effect of circulation on the flow around an
aerofoil at an angle of incidence [4]

Figure 15 shows the flow field at an airfoil trailing

edge with and without a Gurney flap. Separation
bubbles can be seen in the airfoil without the GF.
The stall behaviour of aerofoils is often determined
by the behaviour of separation bubbles, in which a
laminar boundary layer separates, undergoes
transition to turbulence and subsequently reattaches
as a turbulent boundary layer. The separation
bubbles are a site of laminar-turbulent transition
and the ultimate breakdown of the boundary-layer
reattachment process. It dictates the maximum lift
possible with the aerofoil [7]. A recirculation
region can be seen in front of the flap and a strong
clockwise vortex is apparent on the upper backside
of the flap.

4.2 The Kutta Condition

The flow mechanism that makes the Gurney flap
work effectively is its effect on the trailing-edge
aerodynamics. As shown in figure 16, The Kutta
condition implies that a rear stagnation point at the
trailing edge makes the flow leave the upper and
lower surfaces smoothly at the trailing edge. The
steady flow over the airfoil is shown in figure 16
(bottom) and the remaining diagrams depict the
transient flow on the airfoil [2].

cylinder leaves as it moves along a fluid. A vortex

is a recirculating, low pressure region and this low
pressure region behind the Gurney flap in turn
results in a downward momentum of fluid in the
region just above the trailing edge. This is shown in
figure 15 as two counter-rotating vortices just
behind the GF which display the low pressure
region [7].
The low pressure region increases the pressure
gradient between the end of the airfoil and the
region just after the trailing edge. This, apart from
increasing the airflow velocity over the wing, also
delays the onset of flow separation by causing the
separation bubble to form nearer to the trailing
edge and thus, delaying stall. The upper side of the
airfoil has increased velocity as well as a smaller
upper-surface recirculation region as shown in
figure 15. Since the pressure over the wing is
reduced by the high momentum/ velocity airflow
and the pressure in the lower surface is increased,
lift is increased, thus, lift enhancement is caused.
The flow turning caused by the Gurney flap is
similar to an increase in the camber at the airfoil
trailing edge [12].

4.3 The lift mechanism

A gurney flap provides a definite place on the
airfoil surface for the flow to separate. As the Kutta
condition states, the streamlines hitting the gurney
flap are smooth. As the GF produces moves along
the fluid it is exposed to, it shed von Karman
vortex street which is the same pattern that a

Figure 17: von Karman vortex street by a cylinder moving

in a fluid [13]

Page | 7

5.0 Application of Gurney flap in Helicopters

5.1 Stability in flight
Some helicopters such as the Eurocopter AS 355
Twinstar as shown in figure 18 (b) have a double
gurney flap on both sides of the trailing edge. At
small positive angles of attack, the boundary layer
near the trailing edge separates on the upper
(suction) side of the airfoil. Hence, the pressure on
the lower surface (where the flow remains
attached) is lower than on the top surface. The
addition of the double flap stabilizes the boundary
layer and eliminated the instability. The tail
sections of a helicopter provide stability. They
provide a restoring moment to help bring the
helicopter to horizontal. To maintain stability, it is
important that the airflow remains attached to the
tail without stalling and hence, GFs are very useful.

GFs are also used in helicopter blades. The aim of

such a system is to increase helicopter overall
performance by improving lift and alleviating stall
on the retreating side of the helicopter.
As the blade goes around the helicopter, the
Gurney ap can provide a number of
enhancements. The ap can be deployed to provide
a signicant lift increase in specic situations such
as take-off, landing and hovering. The blade
providing more lift, the speed rotation of the
turbine can be decreased which reduces the
helicopter noise [8].

5.2 Flight control

The Gurney ap can also be used as a means to
redistribute lift between the advancing blade and
the retreating blade. When a helicopter goes
forward, a lift misbalance is created by the
mismatch of airow speed between two opposite
blades as shown in Figure 19. At high speeds the
retreating blade experiences stall. This effect limits
the maximum speed of a helicopter. Deploying the
Gurney ap on the retreating side of the helicopter
increases the lift for the retreating blade and
improves the stall behaviour [10]. Hence the main
use of a Gurney flap on a helicopter is to correct
control problems of a helicopter without seeking
major redesign.

Figure 18 (a) Eurocopter AS350 series Gurney flaps (b)

AS355 Gurney Flaps [4]

Figure 19: Airspeed imbalance between the two sides of a

helicopter in motion. [8]

Page | 8

6.0 Research potential

GFs is still a subject of extensive research seeing the limited amount of literature available in journals and thus,
there is still large scope of research on it in various aerodynamic applications. Till now, its effect has mostly
been tested in wings in the automobile and aerospace industry but noting its high ability to induce vortices and
change values of lift, drag, pitching moment amongst others it can be experimented upon in other sections of
planes and cars or computer simulated for outer space devices such as rockets and space shuttles to understand
its aerodynamic effects better.

7.0 Conclusion
GFs have proven very efficient in aircraft and helicopter performance. The Gurney flap increases the maximum
lift coefficient, decreases the angle of attack for zero lift while the lift curve slope remains relatively constant
and increases the nose-down pitching moment indicating that the Gurney flap increases the effective camber of
the aerofoil. Gurney flaps work by separating flow near the trailing edge, inducing vortices that work to turn the
flow. In doing so, pressure is decreased on the suction side and increased on the pressure side such that flow
separation is delayed. This results in an increase in Clmax of the airfoil and a shift in the zerolift angle of attack.
However, GFs entrail with them large drag penalties and thus, need to be used at their optimum length. They are
very useful in helicopter control in flight.

References
[1] Wang, J., Li, Y. and Choi, K. 2008. Gurney
flapLift
enhancement,
mechanisms
and
applications. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 44
(1), pp. 22--47.
[2] Houghton, E. L. & Carpenter, P. W.
(2003). Aerodynamics for engineering students.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
[3] Pilotfriend.com. 2014. aerodynamics of flight
drag.
[online]
Available
at:
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/
aero/drag.html.
[4] Anderson, J. D. 1984. Fundamentals of
aerodynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[5] Lin, Y., Lam, K., Zou, L. and Liu, Y. 2013.
Numerical study of flows past airfoils with wavy
surfaces. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 36 pp.
136--148.
[6] Li, Y., Wang, J. & Hua, J. (2007). Experimental
investigations on the effects of divergent trailing
edge and gurney flaps on a supercritical airfoil.
Aerospace Science And Technology, 11 (2), pp. 91-99.
[7]Southampton.ac.uk,2008.
aerofoil_separation_bubbles,University of

Southampton.
[online]
Available
at:
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/engineering/researc
h/projects/aerofoil_separation_bubbles.page
[8] Paternoster, A., Loendersloot,, R., De Boer,, A.
& Akkerman, R. (2011). Geometric optimisation of
a gurney flap hinge-less deployment system for a
helicopter model blade. Structural Dynamics And
Acoustics,, (ERF2011-135)
[9] Rostamy, D. and Jabbari, M. 2012. Sigmoidal-Nystrm for solving an aerofoil equation. Applied
Mathematics and Computation, 218 (17), pp.
84928502
[10] Prouty, R. W. & Prouty, R. W.
(1985). Helicopter aerodynamics. Peoria, Ill.: PJS
Publications.
[11] Gudmundsson, S. 2014. General aviation
aircraft design. Oxford, UK: ButterworthHeinemann.
[12] Jang, C. S., Ross, J. C. and Cummings, R. M.
1998. Numerical investigation of an airfoil with a
Gurney flap. Aircraft Design, 1 (2), pp. 75--88.
[13] Eloy, C. 2012. Optimal Strouhal number for
swimming animals. Journal of Fluids and
Structures, 30 pp. 205--218.

Page | 9