Copyright ©1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc, January 1997

A9715742, AIAA Paper 97-0728

Experimental investigation of Gurney flaps on a two element general aviation

airfoil
Michael Papadakis
Wichita State Univ., KS

Roy Y. Myose
Wichita State Univ., KS

Santiago Matallana
Wichita State Univ., KS

AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, 35th, Reno, NV, Jan. 6-9, 1997

The effect of 1 percent chord Gurney flaps on the aerodynamic performance of a GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25 percent chord
single slotted flap was investigated experimentally. Flap deflections of 0, 10, 20 and 30 deg were considered. For each flap
deflection experimental data were obtained for the baseline configuration (clean airfoil) and for three Gurney flap
configurations. The Gurney configurations included a Gurney flap attached to the slotted flap only, a Gurney flap attached to
the main element, and Gurney flaps attached to both elements. In all cases the Gurney flaps were located at the trailing edge
of the lower surface of each element and were set perpendicular to the local chord. The experimental investigation was
conducted at a Mach number of 0.13 and a Reynolds number of 2.2 million. Selected force data, pressure distributions and
wake velocity profiles are presented for a range of angles of attack. The experimental results indicate that the aerodynamic
performance of the baseline configuration is considerably modified by the use of Gurney flaps. (Author)

Page 1
 Experimental Investigation of Gurney Flaps on
a Two Element General Aviation Airfoil
Michael Papadakis*, Roy Y. Myose+, and Santiago MatalW,
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Wichita State University
Wichita, KS 67260
Abstract
The effect of 1% chord Gurney flaps on the
aerodynamic performance of a GA(W)-2 airfoil with
25% chord single slotted flap was investigated
experimentally. Flap deflections of 0, 10, 20 and 30
degrees were considered in this study. For each flap
deflection experimental data were obtained for the
baseline configuration (clean airfoil) and for three
Gurney flap configurations. The Gurney configurations
included a Gurney flap attached to the slotted flap only,
a Gurney flap attached to the main element, and Gurney
flaps attached to both elements. In all cases the Gurney
flaps were located at the trailing edge of the lower
surface of each element and were set perpendicular to
the local chord. The experimental investigation was
conducted at a Mach number of 0.13 and a Reynolds
number of 2.2 million. Selected force data, pressure
distributions and wake velocity profiles are presented in
this paper for a range of angles of attack. The
experimental results indicate that the aerodynamic
performance of the baseline configuration is
considerably modified by the use of Gurney flaps.
Introduction
Gurney flaps were originally developed by race
car driver Dan Gurney (Ref. 1). These flaps are
typically small tabs placed normal to the pressure side of
a wing surface at or near the trailing edge. Gurney flaps
are generally less than 2% of the wing chord and have a
significant effect on the aerodynamic forces and
moments produced by the wing. The performance of
Gurney flaps is dependent on tab size (height) and on
airfoil geometry.
* Associate Professor, Member AIAA
+
Assistant Professor, Senior Member AIAA
t Research Assistant, Student Member AIAA
Copyright© 1997 by the Authors. Published by the American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission.
The aerodynamic effects of Gurney flaps are
typically related to an increase in the effective camber of
the airfoil near the trailing edge (Ref. 2). More elaborate
explanations relate the increased lift obtained with
Gurney flaps to the Kutta condition. It is hypothesized
based on experimental evidence that the Gurney flap
causes a downward turning of the flow as the flow
leaves the trailing edge of the airfoil. This flow turning
causes an increase in the downward momentum of the
fluid near the trailing edge. This increase in momentum
assists the fluid over the suction side of the airfoil to
overcome the adverse pressure gradient encountered
near the trailing edge. The net effect of the Gurney is an
increase in lift and a smaller separation region on the
suction side of the airfoil (Ref. 2).
In general, Gumey flaps on single element
airfoils produce a positive increment in lift with respect
to the baseline (clean) configuration for a given angle of
attack. However, in some cases this lift increment is
accompanied by an increase hi drag compared with the
clean airfoil (Refs. 3-5). Some investigators have
reported that for certain airfoils and tab sizes a positive
increment in the lift to drag ratio can be obtained by the
use of Gurney flaps.
For multi-element airfoil configurations a
number of possible locations exist for the application of
Gurney flaps. For example tabs can be placed in the
cove region of the main element as well as at the trailing
edge of each flap. However, wing design considerations
can limit the location of Gurney flaps. A number of
experimental investigations have been conducted to
identify the effect of Gurney flaps on the aerodynamic
performance of multi-element airfoils (Refs. 6-8). In
Ref. 6 it was shown that a tab attached in the cove
region of the main element increased the loading on the
main element while separation on the flap was delayed.
Optimum performance was obtained with a 0.5% Gurney
flap. In general, the use of the Gurney flap increased the
maximum lift and the lift to drag ratio of the two-
element airfoil.
 Although several experimental investigations
have been conducted on Gurney flaps the experimental
results available are limited in both range of geometries
and flow measurements. Thus, in 1995 a comprehensive
experimental study of Gurney flaps was initiated at
Wichita State University. The main objective of this
effort was to investigate a wide range of wing
geometries, Gurney sizes as well as Gurney locations
and to provide extensive experimental data. Wing
geometries varied from single element airfoils, to multi-
element airfoils to three dimensional wings as well as
wing-fuselage and wing-fuselage-engine combinations.
Gurney flaps of sizes ranging from 0.5% to 4% of
nested airfoil chord and of different designs (e.g.,
porous, segmented, etc.) were attached to the various
wing geometries at several locations chordwise and
spanwise. Experimental data obtained included force,
moment and pressure coefficients as well as boundary
layer and wake velocity profiles and wind tunnel wall
pressures.
In this paper experimental results obtained with
1% chord Gumey flaps attached to a GA(W)-2 airfoil
with a 25% chord slotted flap are reported. In the
following sections the experimental method, the test
configurations, force data, pressure distributions and
wake velocity profiles are presented.
Experimental Method
The experimental investigation was conducted
in the Wichita State University (WSU) Beech memorial
7 ft x 10 ft low speed wind tunnel. This is a single-return
closed circuit facility with a maximum speed of 160
mph. For this investigation two-dimensional wall inserts
were used to support the 3 ft span two-dimensional test
model. The experimental set up is shown in Fig. 1. The
dynamic pressure for all tests was 35 lb/ft2. This
corresponds to a freestream velocity of 120 mph (176
ft/sec) and a Reynolds number of 2.2 million based on
airfoil chord.
The GA(W)-2 airfoil section 24 inch chord and
36 inch span was mounted in the two-dimensional
inserts. Transition strips 0.1 inch wide made of #80
carborundum grit were attached at 5% chord on the
upper surface and at 5% chord on the lower surface of
the main element. Transition on the flap was not forced.
Pressure distributions were obtained with a
Pressure Systems Inc (PSI) 8400 Industrial System
processor. The PSI system was capable of measuring
pressure in the range of ±2.5 psid with an accuracy of
0.001 psi. The test model had 52 pressure ports on the
main element and 18 pressure ports on the slotted flap.
These pressure ports were distributed along the model
midspan.
Wake velocity profiles were measured with a 14
inch high total pressure rake. This rake had 37 total
pressure ports and three static ports. For all flap
deflections wake mean-velocity profiles were taken at
two locations 1/4 and 1/2 airfoil chords downstream with
respect to the nested airfoil trailing edge. Force,
moment, pressure and wake data were obtained for
angles of attack ranging from -8 to 16 degrees. Angle of
attack was set by rotating the airfoil about its 50% chord
point using motor driven plates located on the two-
dimensional wall inserts.
Fig. 1 GA(W)-2 airfoil installation in WSU wind tunnel
facility (looking upstream).
Experimental data were obtained for the airfoil
with the flap in the nested position and for three flap
deflections namely 10, 20 and 30 degrees.
With the flap nested the configurations tested included :
1. The airfoil with no Gurney attached. This is referred
to as the single element baseline configuration - Clean.
2. The airfoil with 1% (0.25 Inch) Gurney attached to the
lower surface of the airfoil at the trailing edge - Gurney.
For each deflection of the 25% chord slotted flap four
test configurations were investigated as follows (Fig. 2):
1. Baseline configuration - Clean
2. 1% chord (0.25 inch) Gurney attached to the trailing
edge of the main element on the lower surface - Main
Gurney
3. 1% chord (0.25 inch) Gurney attached to the trailing
edge of the slotted flap on the lower surface - Flap
Gurney
4. Two 1% chord (0.25 inch) Gurneys attached to the
trailing edge of the main element and to the trailing edge
Results and Discussion
of the flap - Flap + Main Gurney
Lift coefficients for all flap deflections and for
all Gurney flap configurations are presented in this
section. The lift coefficients have been corrected using
the wind tunnel corrections described in Ref. 10.
Selected surface pressure distributions and wake mean-
velocity profiles are also presented for all test
a. Clean (baseline) configurations. Flow conditions include Mach number
of 0.13, Reynolds number of 2.2 million based on airfoil
chord (24 inches) and angles of attack in the range -8 to
Gurney Flap
16 degrees.

Lift Coefficients
b. Main Gurney
Flap Nested
The lift curves for the baseline and Gurney flap
configurations with the flap in the nested position are
shown in Fig. 3. The Gurney flap increased the lift
coefficient for all angles of attack compared to the
c. Flap Gurney baseline case. Other effects of the Gurney include a
shift of the lift curve to the left by approximately 2-3
deg. indicating an increase in effective camber, a small
increase in the lift slope and a reduction in the stall angle
of attack.

- GA(W)-2 - flap nested

1
I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I !
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
d. Flap + Main Gurney

Fig. 2 Slotted flap configurations (Gurney flaps not to

scale).
Cl 1.00-
Flap pivot locations for each flap deflection are
given in Table 1. The origin of the x and z axes is at the
airfoil leading edge, x is positive to the right and z is
positive upwards. o.oo-
Clean, Run 55
Table 1: Slotted flap pivot locations. Gurney, Run 56
Flap Deflection (deg.) x/c z/c
0 0.8125 0.01 -1.00 i i i | i i i i i I i i i i I i I I I I I I
10 0.903 -0.03 -10.00 -S.oo 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Alpha
20 0.943 -0.03 Fig. 3 Experimental lift curves for GA(W)-2; baseline
30 0.938 -0.025 and 1% Gurney configurations, M=0.13, Re=2.2
million, 0 deg. flap deflection.
The total number of test configurations
investigated in this study was 14 [3 flap deflections x (3 Slotted Flap Deflection: 10 deg.
Gurney locations + Baseline configuration) + 2 For this flap deflection case the largest lift
configurations with the flap nested]. Geometry details increment with respect to the baseline configuration was
for the GAW-2 airfoil with 25% chord slotted flap are obtained with the "Flap+Main Gurney". The maximum
given in Ref. 9. lift coefficients for the "Clean", "Main Gurney", "Flap
Gurney" and "Flap+Main Gurney" were 2.74, 2.71, 3.02 increment in lift coefficient was obtained with the "Flap
and 3.04 respectively. The "Main Gurney" configuration + Main Gurney" and was in the range of 0.3-0.65. The
produced a small increment in Cl with respect to the "Flap Gurney" configuration produced Cl increments in
baseline airfoil. From Fig. 4 it is observed that the lift the range of 0.3 to 0.48. The smallest increment in Cl
curves corresponding to the Gurney configurations are was obtained with the "Main Gurney" and was in the
shifted to the left by 2-4 degrees depending on test case. range 0.06 to 0.28. The maximum lift coefficients for
The stall angle was not significantly affected by the use the "Clean", "Main Gurney", "Flap Gurney" and
of Gurney flaps and was approximately 13 deg. for all "Flap+Main Gurney" were 3.12, 3.18, 3.38 and 3.39
configurations tested. respectively. From Fig. 5 it is observed that the
Gurney flaps increased the effective camber of the two
GA(W)-2- 10 deg. flap element airfoil and made the angle of zero lift more
Clean, Run 54 negative. Furthermore, for the "Flap Gumey" and
Main Gurney, Run 51 "Flap+Main Gurney" cases the stall angle of attack was
3.00 - Flap Gurney, Run 53 decreased.
Flap + Main Gurney, Run 52
Slotted Flap Deflection: 30 deg.
The lift coefficients for this test case are
Cl 2.00- depicted in Fig. 6. The lift curves corresponding to the
"Clean" and "Main Gurney" configurations are similar.
The "Flap Gurney" and "Flap+Main Gurney"
configurations produced a notable increase in lift
1.00 - coefficient which for positive angles of attack was
approximately 0.3 higher than that of the baseline case.
For these two Gurney cases the Cl curves were shifted to
the left by 2 to 3 degrees and the stall angle was
decreased by approximately 1-2 deg. The maximum lift
-S.OO 0.00 5.00 10.0 15.00 coefficients for this case were 3.29, 3.28, 3.45 and 3.42
Alpha
Fig. 4 Experimental lift curves for GA(W)-2 airfoil with
for the Clean", "Main Gurney", "Flap Gurney" and
"Flap+Main Gurney" respectively.
25% slotted flap and 1% Gumey flaps; M=0.13, Re=2.2
million, 10 deg. flap deflection. 4.00 -
- GA(W)-2 - 30 deg. flap
-GA(W)-2 - 20 deg. flap

3.00 -

Cl 2.00
Cl 2.00 -

Clean, Run 66
Main Gurney, Run 67
Clean, Run 39
Flap Gurney, Run 69
Main Gurney, Run 50
Flap + Main Gurney, Run 68
i r Flap Gurney, Run 46
—i—i—i—i—i—r~ ~r i—|—i—i—r—
-1000 -5.00 0.00 500 10.00 1500 Flap + Main Gurney, Run 49
Alpha (deg)
i i i I i i > i I i i > i ( . i , , | i , i
Fig. 5 Experimental lift curves for GA(W)-2 airfoil with
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
25% slotted flap and 1% Gurney flaps; M=0.13, Re=2.2 Alpha (deg)
million, 20 deg. flap deflection. Fig. 6 Experimental lift curves for GA(W)-2 airfoil with
25% slotted flap and 1% Gurney flaps; M=0.13, Re=2.2
Slotted Flap Deflection: 20 deg. million, 30 deg. flap deflection.
For this case, Gurney flaps increased the lift
coefficient at all angles of attack. The lift increment was Additional force and moment data for the test
configuration dependent as shown in Fig. 5. The largest configurations in this paper can be found in Ref. 11.
Pressure Coefficients GA(W)-2, Test Runs 55, 56
Flap deflection 0 deg.
Flap Nested Angle of attack 0 deg.
Pressure distributions for this test case are
depicted in Figs. 7 and 8. In Fig. 7 pressure distributions _ ——|—— Clean, Run 55
for the baseline airfoil are presented for angles of attack -2.50 — — 0— Gurney, Run 56
ranging from -4 to 15 degrees. The results obtained are
in good agreement with those of Ref. 9.
Cp
-10.00 - :f^^^^-t-^^^~^
GA(W)-2, Test Run 55
Flap deflection 0 deg.
Clean
Angle of attack 0.00 —
^^i ! ! . !! !^^fe>^

-5.00 - Main element

2.50 —
Cp 0.40 0.60 0 80 1 00
X/C
-2.50 -
Fig. 9 Cp comparison for the GA(W)-2; a =0 deg.,
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million, 0 deg. flap deflection; Clean
and Gurney configurations.
0.00 -
-15.00-
GA(W)-2, Test Runs 55, 56
Main element Flap deflection 0 deg.
2.50 •
I 1
I ' ' ' I
-12.50 — Angle of attack 15 deg.
o.oo 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
X/C
•10.00 -
Fig. 7 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
airfoil; baseline configuration, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - Clean, Run 55
-7.50 -
Flap nested.
Gurney, Run 56
Cp
-10.00 -5.00 -
GA(W)-2, Test Run 56
Flap deflection 0 deg.
-2.50 -
-7.50 —

0.00 -

-5.00 —
Main element
2.50 • 1
I '
Cp 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
X/C
-2.50 — Fig. 10 Cp comparison for the GA(W)-2; a - 15 deg.,
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million, 0 deg. flap deflection; Clean
and Gurney configurations.
0.00 —
In Fig. 8 pressure distributions for the single
Main element element airfoil with 1% chord Gurney flap are shown.
2.50 • The pressure distributions presented indicate that for
I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' [ ' ' ' I
000 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
positive angles of attack the suction on the upper surface
X/C of the airfoil is significantly increased compared to the
Fig. 8 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2 baseline configuration. This is also evident from Figs. 9
airfoil; 1 % Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - Flap and 10 which depict comparisons of pressure
nested. distributions for the "Clean" and "Gurney" cases at 0 and
15 deg. angles of attack respectively. From Fig. 9 it is
GA(W)-2,TestRun51
observed that the Gurney flap produced higher pressures Flap deflection 10 deg.
on the lower surface and increased the suction over the Main Gurney

upper surface of the airfoil. At 15 deg. angle of attack

(near stall) the Gurney has less of an effect on the lower
surface pressures but it increased the suction on the
upper surface compared to the baseline airfoil. Cp

Slotted Flap Deflection: 10 deg.

Pressure distributions for the 10 deg. flap
deflection and for all Gurney configurations are shown
in Figs. 11-14. As the angle of attack was increased Main element 25% slotted flap
higher suction pressure coefficients were obtained over i | i
0.00 0.20 0,40 0.60 0.80
the upper surface of the main element. In all cases tested X/C

the surface pressure distribution in the cove region of the Fig. 12 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
main element exhibits a sudden drop in pressure airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Main Gurney, M=0.13,
followed by a pressure recovery as expected. Re=2.2 million - 10 deg. flap deflection.

For a given test configuration the flap pressure

GA(W)-2, Test Run 53
distribution was insensitive to angle of attack. However, Flap deflection 10 deg.
the flap pressure distribution was significantly affected Flap Gurney
by Gurney flap configuration.

A Gurney flap attached to the trailing edge of

an airfoil causes the formation of two counter rotating CP
vortices and shifts the Kutta condition downstream of the
trailing edge (Ref. 1). This increases the pressure
difference between the upper and lower surfaces near the
trailing edge. The pressure distributions at the flap inKBi • HB
trailing edge for the "Flap Gurney" and "Flap+Main Main element
1
25% slotted flap

Gurney" shown in Figs. 13 and 14 respectively I ' '—I' ' I ' ' ' I
0.80 t.OO 0.80 1.00
demonstrate this effect. The addition of a Gurney flap to X/C

the trailing edge of the main element (see Figs. 12 and Fig. 13 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
14) has a similar effect on upper and lower pressures in airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Flap Gurney, M=0.13,
the trailing edge region. Re=2.2 million - 10 deg. flap deflection.

GA(W)-2 , Test Run 52

GA(W)-2, Test Run 54 Flap deflection 10 deg.
Flap deflection 10 deg. Flap+Main Gurney
Clean

Cp
Cp

Main element 25% slatted flap

25% slotted flap 1
I ' T^l | I ' ' 1 ' ' ' I '

I I ' 0.00 020 0.40 0.60

1.00 o.ao
Fig. 11 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
airfoil with 25% slotted flap; baseline configuration,
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 10 deg. flap deflection.
X/C
Fig. 14 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Flap + Main Gurney,
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 10 deg. flap deflection.
 GA(W)-2, Test Runs 51,52, 53, 54
Flap deflection 10 deg.
configurations. The effect of the Gurney flaps on the
Angle of attack 0 deg. Clean, Run 54 lower surface pressure distribution of the main element
Main Gumey, Run 51 and flap at this angle of attack was less pronounced.
Flap Gurncy, Run 53
Flap-t-Main Gurney, Run 52 Slotted Flap Deflection: 20 deg.
Cp
Pressure distributions for angles of attack of -4,
0, 4, 8 and 12 deg. are presented in Figs. 17-20 for the
"Clean", "Main Gurney", "Flap Gurney" and
"Flap+Main Gurney" respectively. For all configurations
tested the flap pressure distribution was found to be
25% slotted flap
insensitive to angle of attack. In Figs. 17 and 19 the
pressure coefficient in the cove region near the trailing
0.40
x/c
edge of the main element initially decreases and then
Fig. 15 Cp comparison for the GA(W)-2 airfoil with increases as expected. This is mainly due to flow
25% slotted flap; a =0 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2 million, acceleration and deceleration in the cove region. The
10 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Gurney, Flap use of a Gurney flap at the trailing edge of the main
Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney. element increased the positive pressure coefficient in the
cove region as demonstrated in Figs. 18 and 20.
-18,01
GA(W)-2, Test Runs 51, 52, 53, 54
-1600 - Flap deflection 10 deg.
Angle of attack 13 deg. GW(W>2, TestRn66
-1400^ F\if deflecticn 20 deg.
dean
-12.00- Clean. Run 54

-1000 - Main Gurney, Run 51

Flap Gurney, Run 53 -7.50
Cp -800 -
Flap-t-Main Gurncy, Run 52 Cp
-600-
-5.00 —

-400

200 -

000 -

25% slotted flai

2.00- 1
I '
Main element 25% slotted flap
0.30 T
0.00 0.20 0.40 o.ao 1.00 o.8<
Fig. 16 Cp comparison for the GA(W)-2 airfoil with X/C

25% slotted flap; a = 13 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2 Fig. 17 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
million, 10 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Gurney, airfoil with 25% slotted flap; baseline configuration,
Flap Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney. M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 20 deg flap deflection.

Pressure distributions for all Gurney

configurations are compared in Figs. 15 and 16 for TestRLn67
Flap deflection 20 deg.
angles of attack of 0 and 13 deg. respectively. It is N'feinQjney
evident from these figures that configurations with a
Gumey flap attached to the main element had an adverse
-7.50 —
effect on the suction peak of the flap. This reduction in Cp
suction on the flap upper surface is attributed to the
change in the flap gap and to the increase in the lower
surface pressure near the trailing edge of the main
element. This is the result of the increase in effective
camber due to the Gurney flap. Note that the "Gurney Main element 25% slotted Hap
flap" configuration produced the highest suction on the ]
flap upper surface as shown in Figs. 15 and 16. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 O.aO 1.00 080 100
x/c
Fig. 18 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
Near stall (a = 13 deg.) the "Flap Gurney" and
airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Main Gurney, M=0.13,
"Flap+Main Gurney" produced higher suction over the
Re=2.2 million - 20 deg. flap deflection.
main element than the "Main Gumey" and baseline
 Angle of attack GA(W>2, Test Runs 66,67,68,69
GA(W)-2, TestRin69 Hap deflection 20 deg.
Flap deflecta -H—— -4 deg
Angle of attack 12 deg.
FlapQmey — + - dean, Rin66
—0' Mrin Gumey, Run 67
-7.50
cp D ~ nap Gumey, Run69
CP
-500 —C— Hap+ N<fein Gumey, Run 68
•—A— 12cfeg

Main element 25% slotted flap Main element 25% slotted flap
rT TT-]
I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I T
000 020 040 0.60 080 1.00 0.80 1.00
X/C x/c
Fig. 19 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2 Fig. 22 Cp comparison for the GA(W)-2 airfoil with
airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Flap Gumey, M=0.13, 25% slotted flap;a =12 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2 million,
Re=2.2 million - 20 deg. flap deflection. 20 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Gumey, Flap
Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney.

GA(\V)-2, TestRin68
Flap deflected 20 dsg
The pressure distributions for all four test
ls/HnQmey configurations are compared for angles of attack of 0 and
12 degrees in Figs. 21 and 22 respectively. The 12 deg.
-7.50 ——| angle of attack case is representative of flow conditions
Cp near stall. For the 0 deg. incidence the suction over the
-5.00 —I
main element increases with the addition of Gurney
flaps. The highest suction was obtained with the
"Flap+Main Gurney" configuration, followed by the
"Flap Gurney", "Main Gurney", and "Clean"
Main element 25% slotted Hap configurations. On the lower surface of the main
I i i i I i i i i i i ii iii | i i i | i i | i i i j
element the addition of Gurney flaps produced more
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 080 1.00 0.80 1.00
X/C positive pressures. Similar trends are observed for the
Fig. 20 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2 12 deg. angle of attack case as shown in Fig. 22. From
airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Flap + Main gumey, the pressure distributions presented in Figs. 21 and 22 it
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 20 deg. flap deflection. is clear that the main element is responsible for most of
the Cl increment obtained with the Gurney flap
GA(W)-2, Test RLTB 66, 67, 68, 69 ——I—— dean,Rin66
configurations.
Flap deflection 20 deg. —0_ Miin Omy, Run 67
Angle of attack Odea . _.
^^ — Q— RapCirrey, Rui69 The pressure distributions over the slotted flap
— 0 " HapH-MunGwiKy, Ruti68| exhibit similar behavior as for the 10 deg. flap deflection
case. For both angles of attack the addition of a Gurney
Cp ^
-2.00
flap to the main element has an adverse effect on the
suction surface of the flap. The highest suction on the
flap was obtained with the "Flap Gurney" configuration
followed by the "Flap+Main Gumey" configuration.
Note that the addition of a Gurney to the trailing edge of
the flap caused the pressure distribution near the trailing
Main element 25% slotted flap
1
edge of the flap to diverge, i.e., the suction increased on
T I '
1.00 the upper surface while on the lower surface the pressure
was increased. This is related to the vortex structures
Fig. 21 Cp comparison for the GA(W)-2 airfoil with downstream of the Gurney. These vortices modify the
25% slotted flap;O. =0 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2 million, effective geometry of the trailing edge and cause the
20 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Gurney, Flap flow to accelerate on the upper surface while on the
Gumey, Flap+Main Gurney. lower surface the flow is slowed down.
Slotted Flap Deflection: 30 deg.
Surface pressure distributions for the 30 deg. GA(W)-2, Test Run 50
Flap deflection 30 deg.
flap configuration are presented in Figs. 23-26. The Main Gurncy
stall angle for this flap deflection varied between 10.5
and 12.5 deg. depending on Gurney flap configuration as
shown in Fig. 6. For all pre-stall angles of attack the
suction over the main element was increased in the Cp

following order: "Clean", "Main Gurney", "Flap

Gurney", "Flap+Main Gurney". For the test cases with a
Gurney attached to the flap the stall angle was in the
range of 10.5 to 11 deg. The flap pressure distributions
for all pre-stall angles exhibit the same behavior as for Main element 25% slotted flap
1
the other flap deflections. Once again it is observed that I ' '——H~
0.60 o.eo
I

0.00 0.20
test configurations with a Gurney flap on the main x/c
element have an adverse effect on the flap performance. Fig. 24 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
This is also evident in Figs. 27 and 28 which compare airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Main Gurney, M=0.13,
the pressure distributions for all Gurney configurations Re=2.2 million - 30 deg. flap deflection.
at angles of attack of 0 and 12 deg. respectively.
GA(W)-2, Test Run 46 Angle of Attack
For this flap deflection the "Flap Gurney" and Flap deflection 30 deg.
"Flap+Main Gurney" configurations experienced flow Flap Gumey
separation. The addition of a Gurney flap at the trailing
edge of the slotted flap significantly increased the load
on the flap and resulted in flow separation over the flap Cp
at a lower angle of attack compared to the baseline and
"Main Gurney" cases. This separation is evident in Figs.
25 and 26. Flow separation over the flap caused a
decrease in overall circulation and as a result the suction
on the main element was also decreased.
25% slotted flap
1
1
I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I1 ' I ' ' ' I '
Figures 24 through 26 demonstrate that the 0.00 0.20 0.40
0.60 0.80 1.00 0.80 l.DO

Gurney flaps increase the pressure difference near the Fig. 25 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
trailing edge of the element they are attached to. This airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Flap Gurney, M=0.13,
was also observed with the other slotted flap deflections Re=2.2 million - 30 deg. flap deflection.
including the nested flap case.

GA(W)-2, Test Run 49

GA(W)-2, Test Run 39 Flap deflection 30 deg.
Flap deflection 30 deg. Flap+Main Gurney
Clean

Cp
CP

25% slotted flap

T 25% slotted flap I1 r

~rr
' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' I
0.00 0.20 0.40 o.ao0.60
i.oo o.so 1.00
0.60
x/c
Fig. 26 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
Fig. 23 Experimental pressure distribution for GA(W)-2
airfoil with 25% slotted flap; Flap + Main gurney,
airfoil with 25% slotted flap; baseline configuration,
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 30 deg. flap deflection.
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 30 deg. flap deflection.
 OA(W)-2, Test Runs 39, 46, 49, 50 total pressure probe of the wake rake. The wake rake
Flap deflection 30 deg. locations for all flap deflections are given in Fig. 29 and
Angle of attack 0 deg.
Clean, Run 39
in Table 2. For die 0, 10 and 30 deg. flap deflections the
Main Gumey, Run 50
results presented were obtained with the rake at the 1/2
—g— Flap Guniey, Run 46
chord location while for the 20 deg. flap deflection the
Flap+Main Guniey, Run 49
rake location was at 1/4 chord downstream of the airfoil
Cp -2.50 -j
trailing edge.
40 -
Tunnel Ceiling h = +41.25 inches
35 —

30 —
D
•g 25 -
25% slotted flap o
T
20 -
•0
0.20 0.40
X/C .§u 15 — Airfoil Pivot Point
Wake Rake
Fig. 27 Cp comparison for the GA(W)-2 airfoil with 10 - ( 37 Pilot Probes )
1 5 -
C
25% slotted flap; a = 0 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2 million, •§
O
0 - -|
30 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Gurney, Flap O
<^~^___9~^IZ
^•==v S

-5 -
Guniey, Flap+Main Gurney. 1 Reference Point ^ |
§ -10 — ~^~_^^ -1J"J

a "~^^B
1
5 -15 - ^H
-» T
J3 -20 — FLOW E
QA(W)-2, Test Runs 39, 46, 49, 50 1, -25 —
Flap deflection 30 deg. 1 -30 - D
Angle of attack 12 deg.
-35 -
Clean, Test Run 39 -40 - Tunnel Floor h= -42.75 inches
Main Gumey, Test Run 50 ' -, , | T-
Flap Gurney, Test Run 46 - 6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78
Cp Horizontal distance in inches, x = 0 corresponds to Airfoil LE
Flap+Main Gurney, Test Run 49
Fig. 29 Rake location with respect to airfoil and tunnel
floor ; C - distance from airfoil pivot to Pilot probes, D -
distance from rake lower probe (reference point) to
tunnel floor, E - distance from tunnel floor to upper
probe, airfoil pivot at 50% chord (12 inches from L.E.);
25% slotted flap All dimensions in inches.
1
I ' ' ' I
0.00 020
X/C
Fig. 28 Cp comparison for the GA(W)-2 airfoil with Table 2: Rake location for all flap deflections.
25% slotted flap; a = 12 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2 Flap deflection C D E
million, 30 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Guniey, deg. inches inches inches
Flap Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney. 0 24.75 29.50 43.50
10 24.75 29.50 43.50
20 18.00 29.50 43.50
Wake Velocity Profiles 30 24.75 26.20 40.20
Extensive mean-velocity profile measurements
were conducted at two downstream locations
corresponding to 1/4 and 1/2 chord lengths with respect Flap Nested
to the nested airfoil trailing edge. Selected wake velocity The wake profiles for the single element airfoil
profiles are presented in this section. are depicted in Figs. 30 and 31 for the "Clean" and
"Gurney" configurations respectively. The wake profiles
In all wake profile figures the horizontal axis is are shifted downward with increasing angle of attack.
the wake velocity normalized with the local freestream The centerline velocity defect and the wake width are
velocity. The vertical axis gives the location in inches also greater at the higher angles of attack as expected.
with respect to a reference point (see Fig. 29) The addition of 1% chord length Gurney flap at the
corresponding to the zero inch location in the wake trailing edge of the airfoil produced a larger velocity
profile figures. This reference point is also the bottom deficit for each positive angle of attack and a greater

10
downward shift in the wake profile in comparison with is also increased. The configurations with the Gurney
the baseline configuration. flaps exhibit greater downward wake shifts and greater
velocity deficits compared to the baseline case.
15.00 -
GA(W)-2, Test Run 55
Flap deflection 0 deg. GA(W)-2, Test Run 54
12.50 - Clean Flap deflection 10 deg.
Clean

Angle of Attack
10.00 —
-4.0 deg.
0.0 deg.
4.0 deg.
8.0 deg.
5.00 -
13.0 deg.

2.50 -

I i i i I
0.00 •
0.40 0.60 0.80
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 V / Vfree stream
V / Vfree stream Fig. 32 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream of
Fig. 30 Wake profiles 1/2 chord downstream of the the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil; baseline flap; baseline configuration, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million -
configuration, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - Flap nested. 10 deg. flap deflection.

15.00 •
GA(W)-2, Test Run 51
GA(W)-2, Test Run 56 Flap deflection 10 deg.
Flap deflection 0 deg. Main Gumey
12.50 - Gurney

10.00 —

c 7.50 -

5.00 -

5.00 —

2.50 —
0.00 • i i I i i i I i i i I i i i I i r
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1 20
0.00 •
I 1
I ' ' ' I '
V / Vfree stream
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.00
0.80 1.20 Fig. 33 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream
V / Vfree stream of the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
Fig. 31 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream flap; Main Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 10 deg.
of the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil; 1% Gurney, flap deflection.
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - Flap nested.
Some of the wake profiles for the "Clean"
Slotted Flap Deflection: 10 deg. configuration exhibit a double dip (see Fig. 32). The
Mean-velocity profiles for the 10 deg. flap upper dip in the profile which is also the largest is due to
deflection case are shown in Figs. 32-35. These velocity the wake from the main element while the lower and
profiles were measured at the 1/2 chord location. The smaller dip is due to the wake behind the flap. The
wake profiles move downward as the angle of attack is wakes from the two elements combine downstream to
increased from -4 to 13 degrees and the velocity deficit produce the composite wake profiles shown in Fig. 32.

11
The "Flap Guraey" wake profiles (Fig. 34) show similar velocity defect, and the largest downward shift in the
is but the second dip in the profile is less
trends wake centerline compared to the other configurations.
pronounced.
15.00 •
15.00 GA(W)-2, Test Runs 51, 52, 53, 54
GA(W)-2, Test Run 53 Flap deflection 10 deg.
Flap deflection 10 deg. Angle of attack 0. deg.
12.50 -
Flap Gurney 12.50 -

10.00 -

c 7,50 -

Clean, Run 54
5,00 - Main Gurney, Run 51
Flap Gurney, Run 53
2.50 — Flap+Main Gurney, Run 52

p
o.oo 0.20 0.40 o.ao o.ao 1.00 0.00120
•
V / Vfree stream
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Fig. 34 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream of V / Vfree stream
the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted Fig. 36 Comparison of wake velocity profiles for
flap; Flap Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 10 deg. GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted flap; a =0 deg.,
flap deflection. M=0.13, Re=2.2 million, 10 deg. flap deflection; Clean,
Main Gurney, Flap Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney.
GA(W)-2, Test Run 52
Flap deflection 10 deg.
GA(W)-2, Test Runs 51, 52, 53, 54
12.50 -
Flap + Main Gurney Flap deflection 10 deg, El
El
Angle of attack 13 deg. E)
12.50 — El
Clean, Run 54 U
El
—Q— Main Gurney, Run 51 El
E
10.00 - El
Flap Gurney, Run 53
Hap+Main Gumey, Run 52

5.00-

2.50 -

I
0,00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
V / Vfree stream 0.00 •

Fig. 35 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream of
the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
flap; Flap+Main Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 10
deg. flap deflection.
Wake profiles for the "Clean" and the three
Gurney configurations are compared at angles of attack
of 0 deg. and 13 deg. in Figs. 36 and 37 respectively. It
is evident from these figures that the "Flap+Main
Gurney" configuration produced the largest centerline
0.40 o.so o.ao 1.00
V / Vfree stream
Fig. 37 Comparison of wake velocity profiles for
GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted flap; a =13 deg.,
M=0.13, Re=2.2 million, 10 deg. flap deflection; Clean,
Main Gurney, Flap Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney.
Slotted Flap Deflection: 20 deg.
The wake velocity profiles for the 20 deg. flap
deflection case presented below were measured at the
1/4 chord location (see Table 1).

12
 Wake velocity profiles are presented in Figs. 38 15,00
GA(W)-2, Test Run 67
- 41 for the "Clean", "Main Gurney", "Flap Gurney" and Flap deflection 20 deg.
"Flap+Main Gurney" respectively. Velocity profiles for 12.50 ——
Main Gurney
all Gurney configurations and for angles of attack of 0
and 8 deg. are compared in Figs. 42 and 43.

From Figs. 38-41 it is observed that as the angle

of attack becomes more positive the wake is deflected
downward as expected. The "Clean" (Fig. 38) and "Flap
Gurney" (Fig. 40) wake profiles exhibit a double
velocity deficit (two dips in the profile). For positive
angles of attack the upper deficit is greater than the
lower and this difference is increased with incidence.
The upper deficit in the profile is due to the wake from
the main element while the lower deficit is the result of
the combined boundary layers from the upper and lower
surfaces of the flap. For the "Flap+Main Gurney" 0.20 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.40 1,20
configuration the double deficit is present at the lower V / Vfree stream
angles of attack but it is significantly reduced at higher Fig. 39 Wake velocity profiles 1/4 chord downstream
angles of incidence. of the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
flap; Main Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 20 deg.
The addition of a Gurney flap to the main flap deflection.
element reduces and in some cases completely eliminates 15.00
the lower deficit in the wake profile as shown in Figs. 39 GA(W)-2, Test Run 69
and 41. This is particularly so at the higher angles of Flap deflection 20 deg.
Flap Gurney
attack which suggests that the slot flow is significantly 12.50 ——

modified by the Gurney flap. As the slot flow is

deflected downward by the Gumey it begins to influence
the boundary layer profiles at the trailing edge of the flap
and it appears that the higher energy flow reduces the
momentum deficit in this region.

15.00
GA(W)-2, Test Run 66
Flap deflection 20 deg.
Clean
12.50

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1,00 1.20

V / Vfree stream
Fig. 40 Wake velocity profiles 1/4 chord downstream of
the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
flap; Flap Gumey, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 20 deg.
flap deflection.

From the results depicted in Figs. 42 and 43 the

o.oo following observations are made.

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1. For the 0 deg. angle of attack the wake profiles
V / Vfree stream produced by the "Main Gurney", "Flap Gurney" and
Fig. 38 Wake velocity profiles 1/4 chord downstream of "Flap+Main Gurney" configurations are shifted
the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted downward compared to the baseline case. A similar
flap; baseline configuration, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - trend is observed with the 8 deg. angle of attack case.
20 deg. flap deflection.

13
2. For both angles of attack the "Flap+Main Gurney" 15.00
GA(W)-2, Test Runs 66, 67, 68, 69
configuration produced the largest overall velocity Flap defelction 20 deg.
deficit and downward shift in the wake centerline. 12.60 —— Angle of attack 8 deg.

3. The smallest velocity deficit was produced by the

"Clean" configuration. 10.00
JC
15.00
C 7.50 ——
GA(W)-2, Test Run 68
Flap deflection 20 deg.
Flap + Main Gurney
12.50
5.00
-\—— Clean. Run 6B
$— Main Gurney, Run 67
10.00
—3— Flap Gurney, Run 69
A;— Flap +Main Gurney, Run 68
0.00
I ! I I II I

Angle of Attack 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1,20

5.00
—|— -4.0 deg.
V / Vfreestream
—0— o.o deg.
Fig. 43 Comparison of wake profiles at 1/4 chord
—[£j— 4.0 deg. downstream location; a =8 deg., M=0.13, Re=2,2
—^3— 8.0 deg. million, 20 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Gurney,
Flap Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney.
I I I TTT

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.00

0.30
V / Vfree stream
Fig. 41 Wake velocity profiles 1/4 chord downstream of
the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
flap; Flap+Main Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 20
deg. flap deflection.
1.20
Slotted Flap Deflection: 30 deg.
Wake profiles 1/2 chord location are presented
in Figs. 44-47 for the "Clean", "Main Gurney", "Flap
Gurney" and "Flap+Main Gurney" cases respectively.
Comparisons of wake profiles for all test configurations
at 0 deg. and 8 deg. incidence are provided in Figs. 48
and 49.

15.00
GA(W)-2, Test Runs 66, 67, 68, 69 GA(W)-2, Test Run 39
Flap defelction 20 deg. Flap deflection 30 deg.
Angle of attack 0 deg. 12.50 - Clean

10.00

Angle of Attack
.c
C 7.50
•4.0 deg
Clean, Run 66
D 0.0 deg.
MainGumey, Run 67
~ 4.0 deg.
Flap Gurney, Run 69
8.0 deg.
Flap +Main Gurney, Run 68

TT 1 I I I I I I TT I I I
0.00———^ ., ,-,-, , , , , , , , , - ,
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.( 1.20
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
V / Vfreestream V / Vfree stream
Fig. 42 Comparison of wake profiles at 1/4 chord Fig. 44 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream of
downstream location; a =0 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2 the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
million, 20 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Gurney, flap; baseline configuration, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million -
Flap Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney. 30 deg. flap deflection.

14
 The trends in wake behavior are similar to those 15.00
observed for the other flap deflections. The wake GA(W)-2, Test Run 49
Flap deflection 30 deg.
centerlme deflects downward with angle of attack and Flap + Main Gurney
this deflection is greater for the Gurney cases as shown
in Figs. 48 and 49. The velocity defect in the wake is
also significantly larger for this flap deflection. Note 10.00 —
that the wakes from the main and flap elements are
Angle of Attack
comipletely merged in this case (i.e., no double dips).
7.50 —
-4.0 deg.
1500
GA(W)-2, Test Run 50 -Eh 0.0 deg.
Flap deflection 30 deg. 5.00 -
—£— 4.0 deg.
12.50 - Main Gurney

2.50-
10.00

0.00 ———————————————————————————
Angle of Attack
7 50 - 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
-4.0 deg V / Vfree stream
Fig. 47 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream of
0.0 deg.
5.00 — the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
4.0 deg. flap; Flap+Main Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 30
deg. flap deflection.

r 15.00-
GA(W)-2, Test Runs 39, 46, 49, 50
0.40 0.60 1.00
V / Vfree stream Flap deflection 30 deg.
Fig. 45 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream of 12.50 -
Angle of attack 0 deg.
the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
flap; Main Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 30 deg.
10.00 •
flap deflection.

15.00 c 7.50 -
GA(W>2, Test Run 46
Flap deflection 30 deg.
Flap Gurney 5.00 - Clean, Run 39
Main Gurney, Run 50
2.50- Flap Gumey, Run 46
Flap+Main Gumey, Run 49
7.50 - 0.00- 1
' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' '
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1,20
V / Vfree stream
5.00 -
Fig. 48 Comparison of wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord
downstream of the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil
2.50- with 25% slotted flap; a =0 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2
million, 30 deg. flap deflection; Clean, Main Gurney,
Flap Gurney, Flap+Main Gurney.
T
o.oo 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Comparisons of the wake profiles for the
V / Vfree stream
"Clean" configuration with the three Gurney
Fig. 46 Wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord downstream of
configurations at a given angle of attack (see Figs. 48
the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% slotted
and 49) indicate that the baseline produced the smallest
flap; Flap Gurney, M=0.13, Re=2.2 million - 30 deg.
wake deficit while the "Flap+Main Gurney" produced
flap deflection.

15
 the largest velocity deficit and downward shift in the and "Flap + Main Gurney" configurations. When
wake centerline. the Gurney Flap was attached to the main element
only (Main Gurney) the increase in Cl was
significantly smaller than for the other two Gurney
GA(W)-2, Test Runs 39, 46, 49, 50 arrangements and in some cases the maximum lift
f I coefficient was reduced compared to the "Clean"
Flap deflection 30 deg. i I
Angle of attack 8 deg. El
El airfoil.
i I
Clean, Run 39 ii
il
11 3. The addition of a 1% chord Gurney flap to the main
10.00 -\ Main Gurney, Run 50 El
element was found to have an adverse effect on the
Flap Gurney, Run 46
slotted flap pressure distribution. The suction peak
7.50 -\ Flap+Main Gurney, Run 49 was considerably reduced.

5.00 H
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
V I Vfree stream
Fig. 49 Comparison of wake velocity profiles 1/2 chord
downstream of the trailing edge for GA(W)-2 airfoil with
25% slotted flap; a =8 deg., M=0.13, Re=2.2 million, 30
deg, flap deflection; Clean, Main Gurney, Flap Gurney,
Flap+Main Gurney.
Conclusions
The application of 1% airfoil chord Gurney
flaps to a GA(W)-2 airfoil with 25% chord slotted flap
was studied experimentally. Flow conditions included
Mach Number of 0.13 and a Reynolds number of 2.2
million. Flap deflections of 0, 10, 20 and 30 degrees
were considered. For the 10, 20 and 30 deg. deflections
of the slotted flap four configurations were investigated.
These included the baseline airfoil, and three Gurney
configurations. Gurney flaps were attached to the
trailing edge of the main element, the trailing edge of the
flap and to the trailing edges of both elements. Based on
the experimental results presented the following
conclusions are made:
1. For the single element case (flap nested) the use of a
Gurney flap at the trailing edge of the airfoil
produced a 0.2 to 0.4 increment in the lift
coefficient over the range of angles of attack
considered in this investigation.
2. For the two element configurations the Gurney flaps
exhibited similar performance for all deflections of
the slotted flap. In all cases the largest increment in
lift coefficient was provided by the "Flap Gurney"
4. In general, the three Gurney configurations tested
with each flap deflection produced higher suction
pressures over the upper surface of the main
element. However, only the "Flap Gumey"
increased the suction pressure over the flap with
respect to the clean configuration.
5. The pressure difference between the upper and
lower surfaces near the trailing edge of an airfoil
element with a Gurney flap attached to its trailing
edge was increased.
6. For the 30 deg. flap deflection the "Flap Gurney"
and "Flap+Main Gumey" configurations resulted in
flow separation over the flap at an angle of attack of
12 deg. Flow separation was not observed for the
"Clean" and "Main Gurney" configurations at this
angle.
7. Wake mean-velocity profiles indicate that for all
flap deflections the Gurney configurations produced
a larger velocity defect, a larger downward shift in
the wake centerline, and a greater wake width
compared to the baseline configuration.
8. The application of a Gurney in the cove region of a
slotted configuration requires optimization of the
slot gap with the Gurney present. If a Gurney is
attached in the slot region of an existing
configuration without re-sizing the slot gap the
performance of the flap may be adversely affected.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Beech Wind
Tunnel director Bonnie Johnson and her staff for their
assistance with all aspects of the wind tunnel tests.
Thanks are also due to Ismael Heron for his participation
in the experiments and to Laura Myers for her assistance
in processing the experimental data.

16
References
1. Liebeck, R.H., "Design of Subsonic Airfoils for High
Lift," AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 15, No. 9, 1978,
pp. 547-561.

2. Jang, C.S., Ross, J.C. and Cummings, R.M.,

"Computational Evaluation of an Airfoil with a Gurney
Flap," AIAA Paper 92-2708-CP, June 1992.

3. Neuhart, D.H. and Pendergraft, O.C., "A Water

Tunnel Study of Gurney Flaps," NASA TM 4071, 1988.

4. Kentfield, J.A.C. and Clavelle, E.J., "The Flow

Physics of Gurney Flaps, Devices for Improving Turbine
Blade Performance," Wind Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1,
1993, pp. 24-34.

5. Storm, B. L. and Jang, C. S., "Lift Enhancement of an

Airfoil Using a Gumey Flap and Vortex Generators,"
AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1994, pp. 542-
547.

6. Ross, J. C., Storms, B. L. and Carrannanto, P. C.,

"Lift-Enhancing Tabs on Multi-Element Airfoils," AIAA
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 3, 1995, pp. 649-655.

7. Katz, J. and Largman, R., "Effect of 90 Degree F] on

the Aerodynamics of a Two-Element Airfoil," Journal of
Fluids Engineering, Vol. I l l , March 1989, pp. 93-94.

8. Storms, B. L. and Ross, J. C., "Experimental Study of

Lift-Enhancing Tabs on a Two-Element Airfoil," AIAA
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 5, September-October
1995, pp. 1072-1078.

9. Rogers, E.J., Wentz, W.H., and Ostowari, C.,

"Experimental Studies of Pressure Distributions and
Flow Fields on the GA(W)-2 Airfoil Incorporating a
Flap and Spoiler," AR 79-4, Wichita State University,
July 1979.

10. Johnson, B.L., Leigh, J.E., and Moore, K.A., "Three-

Dimensional Force Data Acquisition and Boundary
Corrections for the Walter H. Beech Memorial 7 x 10
Foot Low Speed Wind Tunnel," Wichita State University
Report AR 93-2, June 1993.

11. Papadakis, M., Myose, R.Y., Heron, I., and Johnson,

B.L., "An Experimental Investigation of Gurney Flaps
on a GA(W)-2 Airfoil with 25% Slotted Flap," AIAA
Paper 2437, June 1996.

17
Copyright ©1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.