JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Vol. 50, No. 4, JulyAugust 2013

Effect of Aspect Ratio on Gurney-Flap Performance

Libin Daniel and Lance W. Traub
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, Arizona 86301
DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

A low-speed wind-tunnel investigation has been undertaken to establish the effect of wing aspect ratio on Gurneyflap performance. Characterization is accomplished using a force balance and flow visualization. The Gurney-flap lift
increment due to a shift in the zero-lift angle of attack was observed to scale with that of the lift-curve slope for different
aspect ratios. As the aspect ratio reduced, a Gurney flap of greater height was required to maximize aerodynamic
efficiency. The dependence of aerodynamic parameters (zero-lift angle of attack, minimum drag coefficient, and
lift-curve slope) on the Gurney flaps height-to-chord ratio was also examined.

to a delay of the onset of the laminar separation bubble, caused

probably by the end flow [3]. Some of the consequences of wing-tip
vortices are a nonlinear lift-curve slope and very high values for the
stall angle [4]. The lift generated by low-AR wings can be modeled
to be composed of two different sources: linear and nonlinear. The
linear source represents the presence of bound circulation. The
nonlinear source embodies the presence of the wing-tip vortices,
which cause strong crossflow on the upper surface of the wing,
leading to a reduction in pressure and generation of additional lift at
moderate and high angles of attack [4]. The lift-curve slope is no
longer a constant value for moderate to high angles of attack. An
increase in nonlinearity of the lift-curve slope and an increase in the
stall angle were observed by Torres and Mueller [4] with a decrease in
aspect ratio. On a slender (delta) wing, such nonlinearity has been
associated with the loss of leading-edge (LE) suction [5].
Mission performance is directly related to the maximum range and
endurance or the payload capabilities of the UAV. An increase in the
lift capability can provide an increased payload capability. One of the
simplest lift augmenting aerodynamic devices is a Gurney flap. A
Gurney flap is a small rectangular flap (0.5 to 1.5% of the chord)
attached to the lower surface of a wing/airfoil. It is generally placed at
or near the trailing edge of the wing/airfoil and perpendicular to the
surface. The Gurney flap functions by increasing the downward
deflection of the trailing-edge flow. In essence, it violates the Kutta
condition at the trailing edge by creating a finite pressure difference
between the upper and lower surfaces. The final pressure recovery
would then occur off surface, which is analogous to a violation of the
Kutta condition [6]. The Gurney flap increases the effective chord
and camber of the airfoil, thereby increasing the circulation. Liebeck
[7] suggested a flow pattern in which a virtual cusped trailing edge is
formed downstream of the Gurney flap from the shear layers
merging downstream of the flap. It has been documented that Gurney
flaps, of appropriate height, provide lift augmentation without much
effect on drag production [8]. In some cases, a drag reduction has
been observed. It has been theorized that if the Gurney flap stays
within the boundary layer, no increase in drag is observed [8]. Some
of the main benefits of a Gurney flap include no serious structural
modifications, no significant drag increase, and significant lift
augmentation.
It would be of value to the community to ascertain the effect of
aspect ratio on Gurney-flap performance as this is a topic that has
received little attention. This study is a step toward such an
understanding. Most studies on Gurney flaps have been conducted on
airfoil profiles [68]. This study focuses on low-aspect-ratio
(AR 3) wings, which is consistent with the aspect ratio of small
UAVs in operation.

Nomenclature
a0
AR
c
CD
CD min
CL
CL CD
CL max
CL
C32
L CD
CM
Cp
h
hc

LDmax
Rec
a.c.c

stall
ZL
ZL

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

two-dimensional lift-curve slope

aspect ratio
chord
finite wing drag coefficient
finite wing minimum drag coefficient
finite wing lift coefficient
finite wing lift-to-drag ratio
finite wing maximum lift coefficient
finite wing lift-curve slope
endurance parameter
finite wing pitching moment coefficient
center of pressure
Gurney-flap height
ratio of Gurney-flap height to chord
finite wing maximum lift-to-drag ratio
chord Reynolds number
aerodynamic center position relative to chord
angle of attack
stall angle of attack
zero-lift angle of attack
shift in zero-lift angle of attack

Introduction

HE driving force behind the ever-increasing use of small

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can be attributed to their
utility and cost effectiveness. The creation of educational degrees that
focus on UAVs supports the ever-increasing demand in this field [1].
Today, UAVusage is diverse, ranging from military search and rescue
and reconnaissance to urban highway traffic monitoring [2]. The size
of a UAV is defined by its application. With a focus on localized
surveillance, UAVs are generally diminishing in size. However, if the
wings are scaled down, the effective Reynolds numbers become very
low. To attain a higher Reynolds number, the wings need a higher
chord length. If the wing area is constrained, this implies a lower
aspect ratio (AR).
Zimmerman [3] observed a reduction in the maximum lift
coefficient with a decrease in aspect ratio. However, this trend
reversed at aspect ratios below 1.5. The effects of a low aspect ratio
(below 1.5) include an increase in the maximum lift coefficient, due

Received 2 October 2012; revision received 28 January 2013; accepted for

publication 1 February 2013; published online 13 June 2013. Copyright
2013 by Lance W. Traub and Libin Daniel. Published by the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. Copies of this
paper may be made for personal or internal use, on condition that the copier
pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 1542-3868/13 and
$10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
*Undergraduate Student, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Department.

Associate Professor, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department.

Member AIAA.

Equipment and Procedure

Wind-tunnel tests were conducted in Embry-Riddles 2 by 2 ft
blower wind tunnel. This facility has a measured turbulence intensity
of 0.5% and a jet uniformity better than 99% in the jet core. Forcebalance measurements were undertaken using a six-component NK
1217

1218

DANIEL AND TRAUB

flaps were attached to the pressure side trailing edge using tape that
spanned the length of the flap, as shown in Fig. 2. The length of the
side that was attached to the trailing edge was kept constant for all the
cases at 0.25 in. Each Gurney flap spanned the respective model.
Wind-tunnel tests were carried out for ARs of 1, 2, and 3 and for
Gurney flap heights of 1, 2, and 4% of the chord along with a clean
configuration case. The Rec was kept at 2.5 105 for each test case
by setting a test section velocity of 35 ms. This resulted in a total of
12 different test cases. A repeatability test was also carried out for an
AR of 3 and Gurney-flap height of 4%. The pitching moment
reference location was the quarter chord.

1.4

AR = 3
h/c = 4%

1.2
1.0

CL

biotechnical sting balance. A dedicated interface coded in Visual

Basic 6 was written for this balance. Balance output voltages were
digitized using a National Instruments 16 bit A/D board. Voltages
were converted to loads using an internal calibration matrix. Each
presented data point is the average of 5000 readings. Uncertainties for
the lift, drag, and pitching moment coefficients were estimated as
0.01, 0.005, and 0.01, respectively. The reference area used to obtain
the aerodynamic coefficients corresponded to the wings projected
area.
The models angle of attack was set and measured using a feedback
loop in conjunction with a Midori angle sensor. Angle-of-attack
repeatability was established as better than 0.1 deg. Wall corrections
were not applied as the tests were comparative in nature. Wind-tunnel
testing was conducted at a freestream velocity of 35 ms, yielding a
Reynolds number of 2.5 105 based on the reference chord length of
0.127 m. During testing, the models were pitched from 6 to 28 deg
in 2 deg increments.
The variable-aspect-ratio wind-tunnel model was rapid prototyped
from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene using Embry-Riddles rapidprototyping facilities, as shown in Fig 1. The airfoil section was a
S8036 with a thickness of 16%. Gurney flaps as shown in Fig. 2 were
constructed using thin brass shim stock and were bent and cut to
shape using a metal bender and shear. The angle was kept as close to
90 deg as possible to maintain commonality with other studies. The

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-5

10

15

20

,deg

0.0

-0.1

Cm

Fig. 1 CAD drawings (in inches) and model image showing spanwise
extents of the removable panels.

Repeatability plots for AR  3 and a Gurney-flap height of 4% are

shown in Fig. 3. The repeatability is seen to be good. The baseline
configuration refers to that with no Gurney flap (hc  0%).
For all cases, lift augmentation is observed with the incorporation
of the Gurney flap, as shown in Fig. 4. A negative shift in the zero-lift
angle of attack suggests that the Gurney flap adds camber to the
airfoil profile. However, unlike a normal trailing-edge flap, no
significant impact is observed on the stall angle. The lift-curve slope
for the Gurney-flap configurations is observed to be higher than that
of the baseline configuration. A Gurney flap violates the Kutta
condition at the trailing edge and reduces the adverse pressure
gradient on the suction surface [9]. This may reduce the uppersurface boundary-layer displacement thickness leading to a reduced
decambering effect, at moderate angles of attack [10]. Additionally,
the thinning of the lower-surface boundary layer with may make the
Gurney flap more effective with incidence [9]. The lift curves for
AR  1 are notably nonlinear. This can be attributed to the vortex lift
produced from the side-edge sheets [5]. It is also of note that the
AR  1 wing did not stall for any configuration. This is characteristic
of low-AR wings [3,4].
The effect of the Gurney flap on drag depends on the height of
the Gurney flap [7], as shown in Fig. 5. The dashed line represents the
drag-due-to-lift component assuming elliptical loading, in which the
Oswald efficiency factor is assumed to be 1, for hc  0%. It can be
seen that the majority of the drag is this drag-due-to-lift component as

-0.2

-0.3
0.4

RUN 1
RUN 2

0.3

CD

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

Results and Discussion

0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CL

Fig. 2

Gurney flap on the wing model with AR
1.

Fig. 3 Data repeatability.

1.2

1.4

1219

DANIEL AND TRAUB

0.3

1.4
1.2

AR=3

AR=3

1.0

0.2

CD

CL

0.8
0.6
0.4

0.1

0.2

100% LE Suction

0.0
-0.2

0.0

1.4

0.4

1.2

AR=2

1.0

0.3

h/c=4%
h/c=2%
h/c=1%

AR=2

h/c=0%

CD

CL

0.8
0.6

0.2

h/c=4%

0.2

0.1

h/c=2%

0.0

h/c=1%

-0.2
1.4

0.0
0.6

h/c=0%

1.2

0.5

1.0

AR=1
0.4

CD

0.8

CL

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

0.4

0.6
0.4

AR=1

0.3
0.2

0.2
0.1

0.0
-0.2
-5

Fig. 4

10

15

, deg

20

25

0.0
-0.2 0.0

30

Effect of Gurney-flap height and aspect ratio on lift coefficient.

opposed to airfoil pressure drag. The 1% Gurney-flap configurations

have a lower minimum drag than the baseline configurations
(yielding a drag curve lower than that for 100% leading-edge suction)
for AR  2 and 3. This could be attributed to the height of the Gurney
flap being less than that of the boundary-layer thickness. Also, the
Gurney-flap configurations are at a lower angle of attack as compared
to the baseline configuration for the same lift coefficient. This may
result in a sectional pressure drag benefit. However, a drag penalty is
observed for a 4% Gurney-flap configuration. This may be due to an
increase in the base drag because a 4% Gurney flap probably does not
stay within the boundary layer.
The 4% Gurney flaps drag penalty is observed to diminish with a
reduction in the aspect ratio, as shown in Fig. 5. With a reduction in
aspect ratio, the spanwise pressure gradients are more pronounced.
Consequently, the flowfield near the trailing edge for a small-aspectratio wing could be highly three dimensional. Three-dimensional
(3-D) disturbances have been observed to lead to a decrease in the
drag values for Gurney-flap configurations as observed by Meyer
et al. [11]. Gurney flaps on an airfoil have been associated with the
periodic shedding of a von Karman vortex street [12]. At low aspect
ratios, this three dimensionality of the flow may serve to disrupt the
periodic shedding from the Gurney flap, leading to a decrease in base
drag.
Figure 6 summarizes longitudinal moment-based characteristics.
The effect of the Gurney flaps on the pitching moment coefficient is
shown in Fig. 6a. A cambering effect due to the Gurney flap can
be observed in all the cases. The nose-down pitching moment
magnitude increases with an increase in the Gurney-flap height, a
characteristic of an increase in camber. With greater aspect ratios, a
reduction is observed in the change of the pitching moment curve
slope (dCm dCL ) with flap attachment. A more negative pitching
moment curve slope is indicative of the rearward movement of the
aerodynamic center.
For AR  1, nonlinearity in the pitching moment is observed. This
can be attributed to the vortex lift from the wing-tip sheets, which
varies with sin2 [13]. The increase in loading due to a Gurney flap

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

CL

Fig. 5

Effect of Gurney-flap height and aspect ratio on drag coefficient.

would increase the gradient in the spanwise load distribution near the
wingtips and, thus, the strength of the trailing vorticity. Figure 6b
shows the correlation between the pitching moment and lift
coefficient increments for a given , a dependence theoretically
established in [14] for an airfoil. The increment is with respect to
hc  0%. As seen, the correlation with the sectional thin airfoil
theory results of Liu and Montefort [14] (denoted as TA where
CL  4Cm ) improves as AR increases, a consequence of the
diminishing impact of 3-D effects on the location of the wings
aerodynamic center, as will be clarified.
Figures 6c and 6d present the calculated location of the wings
center of pressure and aerodynamic center (a.c.). The addition of the
flap is seen to move the center of pressure aft for all ARs compared to
hc  0%. For a given flap dimension, the center-of-pressure
location is weakly affected by AR for moderate to high CL . The Cp
initially moves forward rapidly at low CL and then levels off at higher
loadings. The aerodynamic center, Fig. 6d, shows a moderate aft shift
with the addition of the Gurney flap. The height of the flap does not
appear to have a marked impact on the a.c. location. Note that, for
AR  1, the a.c. moves progressively back with increasing CL . This
is shown with greater clarity when the a.c. is presented as a function of
the angle of attack. Also, for AR  1 and 2, hc  0% shows an a.c.
location in front of the quarter chord (the moment reference), whereas
for hc > 0, the a.c. is located aft of the quarter chord. Accounting for
the a.c. deviation from the quarter chord and its movement (i.e.,
multiplying this deviation by CL accounting for the sign of the
imposed moment) yielded a correction to the moment increment data,
shown in the right-hand-side plot of Fig. 6b. As seen, the correlation
with the two-dimensional theory of Liu and Montefort [14] is
improved.
The lift-to-drag ratio and the endurance parameter are shown in
Figs. 7 and 8. It can be observed that the 1% Gurney flap provides the
highest lift to drag ratio and endurance parameter value for aspect
ratios of 2 and 3. For AR  1, a 2% Gurney flap provides a slightly
higher value for the lift-to-drag ratio and endurance parameter than
the 1% Gurney flap. This is due to the small CD min penalty observed

1220

DANIEL AND TRAUB

-0.2
AR=3

Cm

-0.1
h/c=4%

-0.2

h/c=2%
h/c=1%

-0.3
0.0

CLChange

h/c=0%

Cm

-0.1

-0.2

AR=1

-0.3
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
CL

1.00

AR=3

AR=1

-0.09

-0.06
-0.03
CMChange

0.00

0.9
AR=2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.9
Data corrected for
AR=1
a.c. movement
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.12
-0.09
-0.06
-0.03
CMChange

0.00

0.5

h/c=4%
0.5

a.c./c

1.0

h/c=1%
AR=1

0.00
1.00

h/c=4%
AR=2

h/c=2%

0.75

h/c=1%

0.50

h/c=0%

0.00
1.00

h/c=0%

1.5
a.c./c

0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.50

AR=1

0.50
0.25
0.00

0.0

CL

h/c=0%

0.75

0.00

0.0

h/c=1%

0.50

0.00
1.00

AR=1

0.25

0.0

h/c=2%

0.25

0.75

1.0

h/c=4%
AR=2

0.75

0.25

h/c=2%

0.50
0.25

a.c./c

0.00
1.00

1.5

0.0
2.0

0.50
0.25

AR=2

AR=3

0.75
a.c./c

1.0

0.0
2.0

1.00

AR=3

0.75
a.c./c

Cp/c

1.5

Cp/c

AR=2

a.c./c

2.0

c)

AR=3

h/c=1%

b)

a)

Cp/c

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

AR=2

CLChange

-0.3
0.0

h/c=2%

CLChange

Cm

-0.1

TA Theory
h/c=4%

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.12

CLChange

CLChange

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
CL

0.8

1.0

8
, deg

12

16

d)

Fig. 6 Effect of Gurney-flap height and aspect ratio on longitudinal moment-based characteristics: a) pitching moment, b) moment increment, c) centerof-pressure location, and d) aerodynamic center location.

for the 2% Gurney flap coupled with lift augmentation. A 4% Gurney

flap generally provides attenuated performance. This can be
attributed to the drag penalty associated with this flap. The 1%
Gurney flap leads to an increase of 13, 19, and 17% and an increase of
4, 12, and 9% in the maximum lift-to-drag ratio and the maximum
endurance parameter for aspect ratios of 1, 2, and 3, respectively,
compared to the baseline configuration. The minimum drag
coefficient benefit of some flap configurations yields Gurney
geometries with CL CD and C32
L CD ratios greater than that with
100% suction (which are based on CD min for hc  0%).

The variation of the maximum lift-to-drag ratio versus the Gurneyflap height-to-chord ratio is shown in Fig. 9. The greatest increase is
observed for a 1% Gurney flap. The drag penalty associated with the
4% Gurney flap reduces its maximum lift-to-drag ratio. It is observed
to be comparable to the baseline configuration. For an aspect ratio of
3, a 1% Gurney flap has a greater maximum lift-to-drag ratio than a
2% Gurney flap. However, as the aspect ratio is reduced, the 2%
Gurney flap is observed to be comparable to the 1% Gurney flap.
Within the realm of the data collected in this experiment, it can be
suggested that, with a reduction in aspect ratio, the height of the

1221

DANIEL AND TRAUB

14

14

AR=3

12

AR=3
AR=2
AR=1

CL/CD

10
8

12

6
4

(L/D) MAX

2
0
10

AR=2

CL/CD

6
4

h/c=4%

h/c=2%

0
6

h/c=1%

h/c=0%

AR=1

Fig. 9

CL/CD

Effect of Gurney-flap height on maximum lift-to-drag ratio.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

CL

Effect of Gurney-flap height and aspect ratio on lift-to-drag ratio.

Gurney flap that provides the greatest lift-to-drag ratio is observed to

increase.
Liu and Montefort [14] suggest a benefit parameter, which
evaluates the performance of an aerodynamic effecter accounting for
its impact on both the lift and drag. The relation is given by
10

AR=3

3/2

CL /CD

Benefit Margin, g

2
0
8

AR=2

3/2

CL /CD

6
4

h/c=4%
2
0
4

AR=3

4
3
2
1
0
-1
6

Benefit Margin, g

0.0

Benefit Margin, g

-2

AR=2

5
4
3
2

h/c=4%

1
0

h/c=2%

-1
6

h/c=1%
AR=1

5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
0

10

h/c=1%

15

20

, deg

h/c=2%

Fig. 10 Effect of Gurney-flap height and AR on the benefit margin.

h/c=0%

AR=1

100% LE Suction
3/2

h/c, %

Fig. 7

100% LE Suction

CL /CD

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

10

g

6 CD 9 CL

7 CD
7 CL

(1)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8
CL

1.0

1.2

1.4

Fig. 8 Effect of Gurney-flap height and aspect ratio on endurance

parameter.

where the differences are with respect to hc  0%. A gvalue greater

than zero indicates a net benefit. As seen in Fig. 10, flap heights of 1
and 2% show a net benefit, which decreases with incidence. The 4%
flap, despite its significant lift increment, is hampered by its drag
penalty such that g is greater than zero for low to moderate incidence
only.
In this study, the stall angle is defined as the angle in which the lift
coefficient has an identifiable maximum. For a Gurney-flap height of

1222

DANIEL AND TRAUB

25

0.04
AR=3
AR=2
AR=1

20
0.03

D
min

STALL,deg

15

AR=3

10

CL

AR=2

0.01

-5

10

15

, deg

20

25

30

0.00
0

0
0

h/c, %
Fig. 11 Effect of Gurney-flap height on stall angle.

AR=3
AR=2
AR=1

-2

ZL (deg)

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

0.02

Stall Angle

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2

-4

-6
0.00

0.05

0.10

(h/c)

0.15

0.20

0.5

Fig. 12 Effect of Gurney-flap height on normalized zero-lift angle of

attack.

less than 2%, the stall angle is observed to remain unaffected

compared to the baseline configuration as shown in Fig. 11, as
initially observed by Liebeck [7]. The 4% Gurney flap reduces the
stall angle. A Gurney flap leads to a higher leading-edge suction peak
and a lower adverse pressure gradient [9]. A 4% Gurney flap may lead
to such an increase that the adverse pressure gradient is not attenuated
[9].
The zero-lift angle of attack was calculated by extrapolating the lift
curve. Data points from 4 to 4 deg were used for the extrapolation.
Because the lift curve was observed to be nonlinear for AR  1, a
second-degree polynomial fit was used to obtain the zero-lift angle of
attack. For the remaining cases, a linear curve fit was used. An almost
linear decrease in the zero-lift angle of attack is observed with
an increase in thepGurney-flap
height, as shown in Fig. 12. A









dependency upon hc as well as upon hc has been documented
[1416]. This behavior is seen to be preserved for finite-AR wings
and Gurney flaps of moderate length. The aspect ratio does not seem
to affect the change in zero-lift angle of attack significantly because

h/c, %

Fig. 13 Effect of Gurney-flap height on minimum drag coefficient.

all three cases are observed to have a similar slope, as shown in

Fig. 12.
The minimum drag coefficient also reduces with an increase in the
aspect ratio, as shown in Fig 13. This is corroborated by the data
obtained by Zimmerman [3]. An explanation by Zimmerman
suggests a penalty associated with tip drag. As the aspect ratio
decreases, the penalty due to tip drag contributes more toward the
total drag. Because the tip drag values do not change with aspect ratio,
at a lower aspect ratio, the total drag coefficient obtained is higher. A
reduction in minimum drag coefficient is obtained for the 1%
Gurney-flap configuration, as shown in Fig. 13, supporting the
inference that it lies within the boundary layer and does not contribute
significant base drag. For Gurney-flap heights greater than 1%, the
slope of the line increases with an increase in aspect ratio. A similar
increase in the minimum drag coefficient was observed by Traub for
an annular wing equipped with a Gurney flap [15].
Two different theoretical approaches were used to estimate the liftcurve slope for the clean configurations. The Lamar code [17] and
Helmbolds equation [13] were used to obtain the percent difference
in the computed and experimental lift-curve slopes. The lift curve for
a small-AR wing can be calculated using a simplified equation due to
Helmbold [13]:
CL 

1 

a
 0
a0 2 12
AR 

a0
AR

Table 1 Comparison of computed and

experimental lift-curve slopes
AR1
AR2
AR3
CL values, 1 deg
Experimental
0.0259 0.0426 0.0555
Helmbolds equation 0.0259 0.0454 0.0587
Lamar code
0.0259 0.0442 0.0598

Table 2 Percent difference between computed

and experimental lift-curve slopes.
Method
AR1, % AR2, % AR3, %
Helmbolds equation
0
6.57
6.72
Lamar code
0
3.75
7.74

(2)

1223

DANIEL AND TRAUB

increase in Gurney-flap height, a moderate increase in the lift-curve

slope is also observed. This increase in lift-curve slope can be
considered to be a viscous effect due to the relative displacement
thickness of the upper and lower surfaces and the thinning of the
pressure side boundary layer with , as explained before [10]. The
thinning of the boundary layer on the pressure side also makes
the Gurney flap more effective, as the angle of attack increases [9].
The observed variation in the lift-curve slope is small, as presented
in Fig. 14. For a given shift in the zero-lift angle of attack, the change
in the lift coefficient can thus be computed as

AR=1

-5
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2

10 15
, deg

20

25

0
0.0

30

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

CL
8
6

AR=2

CL/CD

CL

AR=1

CL/CD

CL

where a0 is the theoretical lift-curve slope, often assumed to be

0.11 deg1 or 2 rad1. Helmbolds equation was chosen because it
is valid for all relevant ARs.
Tables 1 and 2 give the CL values obtained and the percent
difference when compared to the experimental results. The difference
did not exceed 8%.
The variation in the lift-curve slope with Gurney-flap height, as
compared to the baseline configuration, is shown in Fig. 14. With an

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2

4
2
0
AR=2

-2
-5

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2

10

15

, deg

20

25

-4
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
CL

30

12
10

AR=3

CL/CD

8
6
AR=3

4
2
0
-5

10

15

, deg

20

25

30

(3)

This shows that, with an increase in the AR, the change in the lift
coefficient, for a given Gurney flap, increases because of a larger liftcurve slope. This may be observed in Fig. 4. With an increase in the
aspect ratio, the lift augmentation of the Gurney flap, at a given angle
of attack, increases. Consequently, the effect of a Gurney flap may be
estimated using sectional data to ascertain ZL in conjunction with the
finite wings lift-curve slope.
For all the clean configuration cases, at the angle for the maximum
lift-to-drag ratio, a deflection is observed in the lift curve, as shown in
Fig. 15. This deflection coincides with the angle or CL in which

CL CD max is achieved. A study by Lee and Pereira [18] infers that,
at the maximum lift-to-drag ratio, the axial tip vortex switches from
being a wakelike to a jetlike vortex. It may thus be inferred in this
study that the vortex lift becomes more predominant after the tip
vortex switches to a jetlike vortex structure.
To further understand the dependency of aspect ratio on the
Gurney-flap performance, flow visualization was performed using a
mixture of titanium dioxide, linseed oil, and paraffin at angles of
attack of 2 and 10 deg. An AR  2 clean configuration and a 2%

Fig. 14 Effect of Gurney-flap height on lift-curve slope.

CL

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

CL  CL
ZLhc0 ZLhc 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

CL

Fig. 15 Angle in which vortex switches from wakelike to jetlike.

1.0

1.2

1.4

1224

DANIEL AND TRAUB

h/c=0%

Attached
Laminar Flow

h/c=2%

Wing tip

Laminar
Separation
Bubble

=2

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

Attached Turbulent
Flow

a)

c)

Attachment
Line

Tip Vortex
induced sidewash
Separation
Line
=10

b)

d)
Fig. 16 TiO2 flow visualization pictures for AR
2 (flow is from top to bottom).

Gurney-flap configuration were used for the flow visualization. With

an increase in the angle of attack, a forward shift in the bubble is
observed, as shown in Figs. 16a and 16b. Unusually, the bubble
seems to increase in size as well. Side-edge vortices are also observed
to be larger with more pronounced sidewash, yielding to a stronger
crossflow over the wing. The Gurney flap is observed to strengthen
the crossflow over the wing, as shown in Figs. 16a and 16c. This can
be observed by the stronger tip-vortex-induced sidewash and a more
pronounced attachment line for Gurney-flap configurations. This
further implies that the increased loading due to a Gurney flap
intensifies the side-edge vortices. Similar trends were observed for
aspect ratios of 1 and 3, as well.

[2]

[3]
[4]

[5]

IV.

Conclusions

A low-speed wind-tunnel investigation was undertaken to explore

the effect of aspect ratio on the aerodynamic characteristics of a
Gurney flap. At a given angle of attack, the lift augmentation due to
the flap increased with aspect ratio. It was seen that the Gurney flap
lift increment, referenced to the shift in the zero-lift angle of attack,
scales well with the lift-curve slope change due to aspect ratio. The
increase in the lift-curve slope and the shift in the zero-lift angle of
attack due to a Gurney flap were independent of the aspect ratio. The
drag penalty due to a large Gurney flap was observed to reduce with
aspect
ratio. The shift in zero-lift angle of attack was observed to have
p








a hc dependency. The height of the most aerodynamically
efficient Gurney flap was noted to increase as the aspect ratio
decreased.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the associate editor and reviewers,
whose comments and suggestions improved the clarity and focus of
this article.

[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]

References
[1] Bossert, D. E., Royer, G. E., Rathbun, T., Schorsch, T., White, A.,
Patrey, J., and Pack, D., Teaching Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

[12]

Concepts at the Undergraduate Level: One Approach, AIAA Atmospheric

Flight Mechanics and Exhibit, AIAA, Austin, TX, 1114 Aug. 2003; also
AIAA Paper 2003-5619.
Ro, K., Oh, J., and Dong, L., Lessons Learned: Application of Small
UAV for Urban Highway Traffic Monitoring, 45th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reno, NV, 811 Jan. 2007; also
AIAA Paper 2007-596.
Zimmerman, C. H., Characteristics of Clark YAirfoils of Small Aspect
Ratios, NACA TR-431, 1933.
Torres, G. E., and Mueller, T. J., Aerodynamic Characteristics of Low
Aspect Ratio Wings at Low Reynolds Numbers, Fixed And Flapping
Wing Aerodynamics For Micro Air Vehicles Applications, edited by
Mueller, T. J., Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 195,
AIAA, Reston, VA, 2001, pp. 115139, Chap. 7.
Polhamus, E. C., Predictions of Vortex-Lift Characteristics by a
Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 8, No. 4,
1971, pp. 193199.
doi:10.2514/3.44254
Traub, L. W., and Agarwal, G., Aerodynamic Characteristics of a
Gurney Flap at Low Reynolds Numbers, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45,
No. 2, 2008, pp. 424429.
doi:10.2514/1.28016
Liebeck, R. H., Design of a Subsonic Airfoils for High Lift, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 15, No. 9, 1979, pp. 547561.
doi:10.2514/3.58406
Giguere, P., Dumas, G., and Lemay, J., Gurney Flap Scaling for
Optimum Lift-to-Drag Ratio, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 35, No. 12,
1997, pp. 18881890.
Maughmer, M. D., and Bramesfeld, G., Experimental Investigation
of Gurney Flaps, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2008,
pp. 20622067.
doi:10.2514/1.37050
Traub, L. W., and Agarwal, G., Exploratory Investigation of Geometry
Effects on Gurney Flap Performance, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44,
No. 1, 2007, pp. 351353.
doi:10.2514/1.28385
Meyer, R., Hage, W., and Bechert, D. W., Drag Reduction on Gurney
Flaps by Three-Dimensional Modifications, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 43, No. 1, 2006, pp. 132140.
doi:10.2514/1.14294
Jeffrey, D., Zhang, X., and Hurst, D. W., Aerodynamics of Gurney
Flaps on a Single-Element High-Lift Wing, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37,

DANIEL AND TRAUB

Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C032140

No. 2, 2000, pp. 295301.

doi:10.2514/2.2593
[13] Thwaites, B., Incompressible Aerodynamics, Dover, New York, 1960,
p. 341.
[14] Liu, T., and Montefort, J., Thin-Airfoil Theoretical Interpretation for
Gurney Flap Lift Enhancement, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 2,
2007, pp. 667671.
doi:10.2514/1.27680
[15] Traub, L. W., Effect of Gurney Flap on Annular Wings, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2009, pp. 10851088.
doi:10.2514/1.43096

1225

[16] Cavanaugh, M. A., Robertson, P., and Mason, W. H., Wind Tunnel Test
of Gurney Flaps and T-Strips on an NACA 23012 Wing, 25th AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA, Miami, FL, 2528 June 2007;
also AIAA Paper 2007-4175.
[17] Lamar, J. E., Extension of Leading-Edge Suction Analogy to Wings
with Separated Flow Around the Side Edges at Subsonic Speeds,
NASA TR-R-423, Oct. 1974.
[18] Lee, T., and Pereira, J., Nature of Wakelike and Jetlike Axial Tip Vortex
Flows, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 6, 2010, pp. 19461954.
doi:10.2514/1.C000225