Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 68: 27–39, 2002.

27
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Effects of Gurney Flaps on a NACA0012 Airfoil

YACHEN LI, JINJUN WANG and PANFENG ZHANG

Institute of Fluid Mechanics, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100083,
People’s Republic of China

Received 8 August 2001; accepted in revised form 28 January 2002

Abstract. Experimental measurements of surface pressure distributions and wake profiles were
obtained for a NACA0012 airfoil to determine the lift, drag, and pitching-moment coefficients for
various configurations. The addition of a Gurney flap increased the maximum lift coefficient from
1.37 to 1.74, however there was a drag increment at low-to-moderate lift coefficient. In addition, the
boundary layer profile measurements were taken using a rake of total pressure probes at the 90%
chord location on the suction side. The effective Gurney flap height is about 2% of chord length,
which provides the highest lift-to-drag ratio among the investigated configurations when compared
with the clean NACA0012 airfoil. In this case, the device remains within the boundary layer.

Key words: Gurney flap, lift enhancement, NACA0012 airfoil, wind tunnel tests.

Nomenclature
C = chord length
Cd = drag coefficient
Cl = lift coefficient
Cm = quarter chord pitching moment coefficient
Cp = pressure coefficient
u/U = measured/freestream velocity
x, z = streamwise and normal directions
α = angle of attack

1. Introduction
The Gurney flap is a simple device, consisting of a short strip, on the order of
1–5% of the airfoil chord in height, fitted perpendicular to the pressure surface
or the chord-line along the trailing edge of a wing (Figure 1). The most common
application of this device is in racing-car spoilers, where it is used to increase the
down-force.
Liebeck [1] conducted wind tunnel tests on the effect of a 1.25%C height Gur-
ney flap on a Newman airfoil, which resulted in an increase in lift and a slight
reduction in drag. Larger lift increments were observed for greater flap heights,
but the drag increased noticeably beyond heights of approximately 2%C. Liebeck
[1] also hypothesized on the changes in the trailing edge flow field caused by the
28 Y. LI ET AL.

Figure 1. Gurney flap configuration.

Figure 2. Hypothesized trailing edge flow conditions of an airfoil with a Gurney flap [1].

Gurney flap (Figure 2), and this assumption was based on the trailing edge flow
field for a clean airfoil reported by Kuchemann [2]. When a tufted probe was used
by Liebeck [1], a considerable turning of the flow over the back side of the flap was
observed.
Giguère et al. [3] studied the effect of Gurney flaps ranging in height from 0.5
to 5%C. The tests were conducted on two airfoils, LA203A and Göttingen797, at a
relatively low chord Reynolds number of 250,000. Based on their results as well as
a review of past studies, they found that the Gurney flap significantly increased the
lift with very little penalty in drag, and that the optimum Gurney flap height scales
with the boundary layer thickness.
Experimental wind tunnel investigations of the Gurney flap were also conducted
on racing-car wings by Katz and co-workers [4, 5]. In both investigations the wings
tested used end plates to structurally fix the elements in place as well as to increase
the lift curve slope. The Gurney flaps were located on the trailing edge of the
most aft wing element in both studies. Katz and Largman [4] reported that using
a 5%C Gurney flap increased the lift coefficient of the wing above the baseline
EFFECTS OF GURNEY FLAPS ON A NACA0012 AIRFOIL 29

wing by about 50%. However, the drag increased to such an extent that the L/D
was decreased at the design angle of attack range of the wing (between 2 and 12
degrees). In the second investigation, Katz and Dykstra [5] found that adding the
Gurney flap, on the order of 2%C, increased the wing lift coefficient as well as
the drag coefficient. Wing L/D with the Gurney flap, again, was lower than the
baseline in this study.
More recently Jeffrey et al. [6] conducted laser Doppler anemometry (LDA)
measurements downstream of a Gurney flap. The LDA data show that the wake
consists of a von Kărmăn vortex sheet of alternately shed vortices. The vortex
shedding increases the suction at the trailing edge on the suction side of the airfoil;
on the pressure side of the airfoil the Gurney flap decelerates the flow and thus
increases the pressure. The pressure difference that results across the trailing edge
generates the increase in the airfoil’s circulation. Bloy and Durant [7] examined
the effects of different flap shapes. They found that the performance of an airfoil
with a 45-deg trailing-edge flap is superior to the same airfoil with a similarly
sized Gurney flap. Storms and Jang [8] obtained the pressure distributions and
wake profiles on an airfoil equipped with Gurney flaps. They observed that at high
lift coefficients there was less drag, but more drag resulted at low to moderate lift
coefficients.
The objective of the present study was to obtain detailed measurements of the
effect of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 3% chord height Gurney flaps on a NACA0012 airfoil.
The extent of the quantitative information obtained during the course of this project
include: (1) airfoil pressure distributions, (2) wake measurements, and (3) bound-
ary layer profile measurements. The present paper discusses the general effect of
Gurney flaps with detailed emphasis on the 2%C height Gurney flap under pre-stall
conditions.

2. Experimental Setup
The experiment was conducted in the NF-3 low speed wind tunnel at the Center
for Aerodynamic Design Research of Northwesten Polytechnical University. This
facility is a direct-circuit wind tunnel incorporating a test section 8 m long with a
constant height of 1.6 m and a width of 3 m. The test section turbulence intensity
level is less than 0.045%, and the maximum speed of the wind tunnel is 130 m/s.
All data was obtained at a chord Reynolds number of 2.1 × 106 , and the boundary
layer thickness at zero angle of attack is about 15 mm.
The NACA0012 airfoil used in this experiment had a chord length of 1 m,
spanning and the 1.6 m height of the wind tunnel (Figure 3). A total of 62 surface
pressure taps locating at midspan on upper and lower sides of the airfoil were avail-
able for airfoil pressure distribution measurements. The lift and pitching-moment
coefficients were determined by an integration of the centerline pressure distribu-
tion. The drag coefficient was determined by an integration of the static and total
pressure measured with a rake situated 0.7 chord downstream of the airfoil trailing
30 Y. LI ET AL.

Figure 3. NACA0012 airfoil in NF-3 wind tunnel.

Figure 4. Wake probes located at 70% chord behind the trailing edge of the airfoil.

edge (Figure 4). The rake which located horizontally at the midspan of the airfoil
was composed of 91 total and 4 static pressure probes distributed averagely over
0.9 m. In addition, boundary layer measurements were taken with a boundary layer
rake consisting of a series of miniature total pressure probes as shown in Figure 5.
The rake was located at 90% chord location, 70 degree sloped from normal direc-
tion in order to shorten the space between each probe. All pressures were scanned
electronically using Pressure Systems Inc. (PSI) 8400 Industrial System Processor.
The Gurney flaps were mounted to the trailing edge perpendicular to the chord-
line on the pressure side of the airfoil, and the height were of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and
EFFECTS OF GURNEY FLAPS ON A NACA0012 AIRFOIL 31

Figure 5. Boundary layer probes located at 90% chord on the upper side of the airfoil.

3.0% chord length. The airfoil was pitched about its quarter chord location using
the motor-driven base plates on the two-dimensional wall inserts.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 6 shows the lift and drag coefficient results. The effect of Gurney flap is to
substantially increase the maximum lift coefficient as shown in Figure 6a. Com-
pared with the clean NACA0012 airfoil, the maximum lift coefficient is increased
10, 11, 18, 21, and 27% for the 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 3% height Gurney flaps, respec-
tively. The figure also shows that the stall angle is decreased while the zero lift
angle of attack appears to become increasingly more negative as a larger Gurney
flap is utilized. These results suggest that the effect of the Gurney flap is to increase
the effective camber of the airfoil.
Note that Figure 6a indicates a different kind of stall (much more abrupt) for the
2 and 3%C heights as compared with the lower values. This might be caused by a
leading-edge bubble burst rather than a gradual separation starting from the trailing
edge. Unfortunately, this phenomenon might have been masked by the separation
of the tunnel wall boundary layers. The width/chord ratio of the model is rather
small and the pressure gradient near separation might cause a separation of the
top and bottom wall boundary layers that affect the flow in the middle of the test
section. For that reason, further tests with tuft and oil flow visualizations will be
performed to look for a possible effect of the tunnel wall boundary layers, e.g. by
putting on the model close to the walls a kind of fence in streamwise direction that
‘shields’ the effects of a tunnel wall boundary layer separation.
Also shown in Figure 6 is the drag polar for the same configurations. The sig-
nificant increase in lift coefficient for the 3% height Gurney flap comes at the price
32 Y. LI ET AL.

Figure 6. Lift and drag coefficients.

EFFECTS OF GURNEY FLAPS ON A NACA0012 AIRFOIL 33

Figure 7. Lift-to-drag ratio versus lift coefficient.

of substantially increased drag as shown in Figure 6b. This is in agreement with

Liebeck [1] who concluded that flap heights larger than 2% chord will significantly
increase the drag.
Figure 7 presents the polar of lift-to-drag ratio versus lift coefficient. At low-to-
moderate lift coefficients, there is a drag penalty associated with the Gurney flap
which increased with flap height. At higher lift coefficients, however, the lift-to-
drag ratio is significantly increased. As a result, the effect on the maximum lift-to-
drag ratio is small, but the lift coefficient for a given lift-to-drag ratio is significantly
increased. It is also noted that the 0.5%C Gurney flap provided an increased lift-to-
drag ratio than the clean airfoil when the lift coefficient exceeds 1.0. When the lift
coefficient is about 1.35, the maximum increment of lift-to-drag ratio, approximate
35%, was obtained by the 2%C Gurney flap. Some previous studies [1, 4] have
shown a reduction in drag overall using the Gurney flap. But unfortunately, like
in [3], the overall drag reduction was not found in this experiment. Because of
the drag penalty at lower lift coefficients caused by the Gurney flap, it would be
desirable to close the flap during cruise in aircraft applications.
Figure 8 shows that nose-down pitching moment is increased with the Gurney
flap. This again suggests that the effective camber is increased with the use of a
Gurney flap.
Pressure distributions for the clean airfoil and the 2%C height Gurney flap at
three different angles of attack are shown in Figure 9. Using the Gurney flap, Fig-
ure 9 shows that the increased suction is evident everywhere on the upper surface
34 Y. LI ET AL.

Figure 8. Quarter chord pitching moment versus angle of attack.

while the lower surface experiences increased pressure. This results in the substan-
tially increased lift coefficient with the Gurney flap which was discussed earlier.
Note the adverse pressure surface due to the presence of the Gurney flap. Such an
adverse pressure region is to be expected in front of the flap, and was found in all
previous studies with pressure distribution measurements [3–5]. Liebeck [1] has
theorized that a recirculating vortex may be associated with this adverse pressure
region just upstream of the flap on the lower surface.
Figure 10 shows wake velocity profiles based on rake probe measurements
taken at 70% chord length downstream of the airfoil. The figure shows that the
wake momentum deficit is deeper and wider with the Gurney flap than with the
clean airfoil. This means that the drag is increased with the Gurney flap compared
with the clean airfoil at the same angle of attack. This is in agreement with the drag
coefficient results of Figure 6b. The figure also shows that there is a downward
shift in the wake position with the Gurney flap. This is consistent with the flow
visualization results of previous studies [1, 5] where a downward turning of the
flow was observed behind the Gurney flap. Furthermore, such a vertical shift in the
wake is to be expected for an airfoil with increased camber.
Figure 11 shows the boundary layer velocity profiles based on rake probe mea-
surements taken at chord location of 90%. The results are shown in normalized
forms. 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
EFFECTS OF GURNEY FLAPS ON A NACA0012 AIRFOIL 35

Figure 9. Pressure distribution comparison.

36 Y. LI ET AL.

Figure 10. Wake velocity profile.

the velocity profiles are compared, Figure 11 shows that the Gurney flap profile is
much fuller than the clean airfoil profile. This is consistent with the airfoil pressure
distribution results of Figure 9 where the clean airfoil case has a more adverse
pressure gradient near x/C = 0.9 than the Gurney flap case. Figure 11a shows that
the boundary layer thickness is about 1.5% of chord in height near the trailing edge
(on the upper surface at zero angle of attack). Thus, a Gurney flap with a height
EFFECTS OF GURNEY FLAPS ON A NACA0012 AIRFOIL 37

Figure 11. Boundary layer velocity profiles taken at x/C = 0.9.

38 Y. LI ET AL.

of about 2%C or less would not significantly increase the drag since most of the
device remains within the airfoil boundary layer. This is indeed consistent with the
drag coefficient results as shown in Figure 6b.

4. Conclusion
The present wind tunnel study of Gurney flap effects on NACA0012 airfoil at a
chord Reynolds number of 2 × 106 has led to the following conclusions:

1. A significant increase in lift is provided with in some cases little cost in drag.
The maximum lift coefficient compared with the clean airfoil increased by 10,
11, 18, 21, and 27% using the 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 3% chord height Gurney flaps
respectively.
2. The 0.5%C height Gurney flap provided an increased lift-to-drag ratio than
the clean airfoil when the lift coefficient exceeds 1.0. When the lift coef-
ficient is above 1.2, Gurney flaps of all investigated height ranges provided
increased lift-to-drag ratio, although the maximum lift-to-drag ratio decreased
with an increased Gurney flap height. In this case, the device remains within
the boundary layer.
3. Airfoil pressure distribution results show that the Gurney flap increases the
upper surface suction and the lower surface high pressure, this is the reason
why the lift can be enhanced.
4. Wake velocity profiles show that the addition of the Gurney flap results in a
downward turning of the flow behind the airfoil, so that the Gurney flap works
by increasing the effective camber of the airfoil.
5. The Gurney flaps should be used at moderate-to-high lift-coefficient conditions
such as takeoff and landing, and should not be used at low lift-coefficient
condition such as cruise. In order to utilize the Gurney flap efficiently, it is
suggested that the Gurney flap should be closed at cruise.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Professor R.X. Zhou, Professor Y.X. Shangguan, Mr.
C.S. Xiao, and the NF-3 Wind Tunnel Stuff for their valuable contributions dur-
ing the course of this experiment. Financial support from CADR of NPU is also
gratefully acknowledged.

References
1. Liebeck, R.H., Design of subsonic airfoils for high lift. J. Aircraft 15 (1978) 547–561.
2. Kuchemann, D., Inviscid shear flow near the trailing edge of an airfoil. Z. Flugwiss. 15 (1967)
292–294.
EFFECTS OF GURNEY FLAPS ON A NACA0012 AIRFOIL 39

3. Giguère, P., Lemay, J. and Dumas, G., Gurney flap effects scaling for low-speed airfoils. AIAA
Paper 95-1881 (1995).
4. Katz, J. and Largman, R., Effect of 90 degree flap on the aerodynamics of a two-element airfoil.
J. Fluids Engrg. 111 (1989) 93–94.
5. Katz, J. and Dykstra, L., Study of an open-wheel racing car’s rear-wing aerodynamics. Paper
presented at the SAE International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, February 27–March 3.
SAE Paper 890600 (1989).
6. Jeffrey, D., Zhang, X. and Hurst, D.W., Aerodynamics of Gurney flaps on a single-element high-
lift wing. J. Aircraft 37 (2000) 295–301.
7. Bloy, A.W. and Durant, M.T., Aerodynamic characteristics of an aerofoil with small trailing edge
flaps. Wind Engrg. 19 (1995) 167–172.
8. Storms, B.L. and Jang, C.S., Lift enhancement of an airfoil using a Gurney flap and vortex
generators. J. Aircraft 31 (1994) 542–547.