Numerical Investigation of Gurney Flap in

Martian Atmospheric Condition

Parinita Goud Lingala1*, Paneeru Nandini2 , Hrithika Marie3, B Aslesha4
1,2,3
UG Scholar, Institute of Aeronautical Engineering, Hyderabad,
Telangana, India
4
Assistant Professor, Institute of Aeronautical Engineering, Hyderabad,
Telangana, India

*Corresponding author(s). E-mail(s): [email protected];

Contributing authors: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract
Exploration of Martian atmospheric conditions present numerous challenges, par-
ticularly regarding the aerodynamic performance of aerial vehicles. This study
investigates the impact of Gurney flaps on airfoil behavior under static stall
conditions in a Martian environment. Computational analyses are conducted to
evaluate how the presence of a Gurney flap influences stall characteristics. Var-
ious Gurney flap sizes, expressed as percentages of the airfoil chord length, are
examined. Simulations are performed at angles of attack (AOA) of 5°, 10°, 15°,
and 20° for both clean airfoil configurations and airfoils equipped with Gurney
flaps. The corresponding lift (CL) and drag (CD) coefficients are recorded and
analyzed through graphical representation. Results indicate that, for angles of
attack between -10° and approximately 10°, both the clean airfoil and the
air- foil with a Gurney flap exhibit a similar trend, with the lift coefficient
increasing as the angle of attack increases. However, the 1% chord Gurney flap
configuration consistently yields slightly higher CL values compared to the
clean airfoil. As the angle of attack approaches 15° to 20°, both configurations
demonstrate a peak in CL, highlighting the Gurney flap’s influence on stall delay
and overall lift enhancement.
Keywords: Computational analysis, Gurney Flap, Static Stall, Angle of
Attack (AOA), Martian Atmosphere

1
1 Introduction
Dan Gurney was a scientist who invented the gurney flap and first used it in 1971.
Gurney flap is a small flat plate which is attached to the trailing edge of the airfoil.
It is typically set at right angle to the pressure size surface of the airfoil and it is up
to 1% to 2% of the wings chord length as shown in Figure 1. The flap is made up
of a very light material like aluminum and fiber. It is widely used in aviation in order
to increase lift, decrease drag, and improve the performance. The flap increases the
lift by altering the Kutta condition at the trailing edge.

Fig 1: Gurney flap [1]

The Martian atmosphere has low density and pressure; thus, low Reynolds number
flows interact with airflow to enhance the probability of stall. The Martian atmospheric
condition is tremendously thinner than Earth’s. It consists of carbon dioxide
nitrogen, a little oxygen and water vapor. But the concentration of car- bon dioxide
on Mars is high. It has a cold and dry environment, and the atmospheric pressure at
the surface is around 610 pastels, which is about oh point six percent of Earth’s
atmosphere. On March, there is a high fluctuation of temperature happening
continuously. The. temperatures can be around 80 degrees Fahrenheit and again
swing back to minus 195 degrees Fahrenheit. It has been observed through
numerical simulations that adding a Gurney flap to the airfoil of a thick, Reynolds
number design significantly influence its aerodynamic performance when integrated
with a wind turbine. [2] [3] M.G. Meena compares the aerodynamic force characteristics of
gurney flap between two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses, focusing on
time averaged

2
flow characteristics. [4] C.P. v. Dam et al. investigated the advanced techniques
like PIV were used to measure vortex dynamics, and numerical simulations of
the delta wings provided various predictions of the aerodynamic performance
of delta wings under different conditions. [5] The aerodynamic enhancements of a
NACA 0012 airfoil were studied by adding a Gurney flap, resulting in an increase
in maximum lift coefficients ranging from 19% to 45%, with the optimal flap
height found to be 2% of the chord length. [6] L.W. Traub conducted a study on
the pressure characteristics and aerodynamic effects of attaching a Gurney flap to an
S8036 airfoil in a low-speed wind tunnel. Additionally, the frequency of vortex
shedding decreased as the angle of attack increased, following the typical pattern
observed in bluff-body shedding frequencies. [7] L. Daniel study found that the
lift increase from the Gurney flap is influenced by the extent to which the lift-
curve slope is modified. For larger Gurney flaps, the drag penalty decreases as
aspect ratio increases. [8] Gurney flaps can enhance lift and delay stall, with
power increases of over 20% reported across various configurations. [9] Gurney
flaps significantly boost lift with minimal drag penalty, making them ideal for
airfoils with simple geometric shapes. [10]

2. Methodology
This study employs a computational approach to examine the influence of a Gurney
flap on static stall behavior of an airfoil in conditions representative of the
Mar- tian atmosphere. The investigation focuses on changes in aerodynamic
performance parameters such as lift, drag, and stall angle, using validated CFD
techniques. Mars’ atmospheric properties—namely a low surface pressure around
610 Pa, average temperatures near 210 K, and a primarily carbon dioxide
composition—are used to model the flow environment. The simulations are
conducted on a conventional airfoil NACA 0012-34 with Gurney flaps of 1%
height placed perpendicular to the trailing edge. A computational domain shaped in
a C-configuration extends far enough to minimize boundary effects, and a fine
mesh with enhanced resolution near the wall is employed to capture boundary
layer phenomena. Simulations are performed across a range of angles of attack.
Boundary conditions are adapted for Martian flight by assigning appropriate inflow
velocities and static pressures. The solver operates until residuals drop below a
threshold and force coefficients stabilize.

3. Geometry Configurations
The 2D airfoil profile is drawn using line and arc tools, with the airfoil’s data coor-
dinates directly inputted from airfoil specifications. The chosen airfoil is the
NACA 0012-34, with a chord length of 50 mm, as shown in Figure 2. A 1%
flap is added at the trailing edge of the airfoil, with a height of 1 mm and a length
of 0.5 m. Next, define the large volume around the airfoil as the computational
domain for fluid flow. This domain is represented by a rectangular box that
extends beyond the airfoil in all directions. It is crucial to ensure that there is
enough distance from the inlet and outlet boundaries. The dimensions of the
computational domain are 500 mm in length and 800 mm in depth, as shown in
Figure 3.

3
 Fig. 2: Geometry of Gurney flap Fig. 3: Domain of the gurney flap

3.1 Meshing
Inflation is an effective tool for generating a precise mesh, particularly in the region
around the airfoil. It creates a smaller domain around the airfoil, where body influence
methods are applied, as shown in Figure 4(a) allowing for the assignment of
different element sizes to each body for more accurate control over mesh quality. The
orthogonal quality is maintained at 0.3, with the airfoil’s chord length set at 50 mm
and the flap length at 1%. Under these design conditions, the computational domain
has a length of 800 mm and a height of 500 mm. For body sizing, the element size
is set to 0.9 mm, with a growth rate of 1.2 and a first layer height of 0.11 mm, and a
maximum of 7 layers. The airfoil is divided into 4000 sections as shown in Figure
4(b). Edge sizing for the right side of the flap has 50 divisions, for the flap length
there are 20 divisions, and for the left side of the flap, there are 32 divisions as
shown in Figure 4.

(a) Mesh with Body of influence (b) Mesh around the airfoil

Fig. 4: Grid generation of an airfoil with Gurney Flap

3.2 Boundary Conditions

Following are the input parameters for CFD analysis.
• Fluid: Air
• Viscous Model: SST k–ω (Shear Stress Transport model)

4
• Temperature: 210 K
• Density: ρ = 0.0167 kg/m3
• Velocity: U = 171.25 m/s
• Dynamic Viscosity: µ = 1.3 × 10−5 Pa · s

3.3 Solver Setup

The viscosity model must be selected, specifically the SST k–ω model. During
the meshing process, the airfoil, inlet, outlet, and walls need to be specified,
followed by defining the corresponding boundary conditions. These boundary
conditions include setting the airfoil surface, defining far-field conditions such
as velocity and pressure, and specifying other conditions for the far-field
boundaries and walls. Next, solver parameters must be configured, including
the method for initiating the pressure- velocity coupling, spatial discretization,
and under-relaxation factors. Once these parameters are set, hybrid
initialization is performed. The simulation is then conducted for different
angles of attack, starting from the lowest angle and gradually increasing it in
the steps. Following this, post-processing is carried out to analyze the results for
each angle of attack. This includes evaluating lift coefficients, drag coeffi-
cients, flow separation, and determining the stall angle. Once the results are
obtained, it is important to verify mesh independence by refining the mesh and
comparing the results. Finally, graphs of lift coefficient (CL) and drag coefficient
(CD) versus angle of attack, along with flow separation visualizations and any
other relevant data, should be included.

4.Results and Discussion

4.1 Velocity Contour
4.11 Naca0012-34 without flap in Martian atmospheric conditions

Fig. 5: Velocity Contour of 5◦ AOA Fig. 6: Velocity Contour of 10◦ AOA

The leading edge, a stagnation point is visible where the incoming airflow is
brought nearly to rest. This stagnation region is from the point where the
airflow splits into two paths — one moving over the upper surface and the other
along the lower surface. The airflow over the upper surface accelerates
significantly, as shown as in Figure 5.
5
This acceleration aligns with Bernoulli’s principle, where increasing velocity results in
decreased pressure, a critical factor in generating lift. The shape of the airfoil’s upper
surface encourages this acceleration, which helps in creating a pressure difference at
both the surfaces that aids lift production. Meanwhile, considering the airfoil region
of the lower surface experiences slower-moving the particular airflow, indicated main-
taining relatively higher pressure. As the airflow converges near the trailing edge, the
velocity gradually decreases. At the leading edge, the stagnation point is noticeable,
where the incoming air is brought to rest. The airflow over the upper surface speeds up
significantly, indicating regions of higher velocity as shown in Figure 6. This accel-
eration leads to a pressure drop, following Bernoulli’s principle, which is crucial in
generating lift. Conversely, the airflow along the lower surface maintains a relatively
slower speed, as depicted in corresponding to higher pressure. As the airflow reaches
the trailing edge, it slows down and forms a distinct wake extending downstream. The
sharp change in velocity near the airfoil’s surface reveals the boundary layer, a region
where frictional effects play a significant role.

Fig. 7: Velocity contour of 15◦ AOA

At the leading edge, a stagnation point is clearly visible, where the incoming airflow
comes to a near halt as shown in Figure 7. From this point, the airflow divides into two
paths representing increased velocity. This acceleration leads to a pressure drop, which
plays a crucial role in generating lift. As the two streams meet at the trailing edge, the
velocity decreases, forming a wake that extends downstream. This wake, signifies
energy loss and possible turbulence, contributing to drag. The sharp shift in velocity
near the airfoil surface highlights the boundary layer, where frictional forces are
prominent.

4.1.2 Naca0012-34 with 1% flap

The airflow initially behaves like that of a standard airfoil, with a stagnation point
forming at the leading edge where the airflow splits. The air moving over the upper
surface accelerates rapidly, indicating higher velocities and reduced pressure as shown

6
 Fig. 8: Velocity Contour of 5◦ AOA Fig. 9:Velocity Contour of 10◦ AOA

in Figure 8. On the lower surface, the airflow behaves differently due to the Gurney
flap. As the air nears the flap, it decelerates and forms a recirculation zone or vortex
directly behind the flap. This is usually representing slower-moving air and turbulent
behavior. At the same time, airflow deflected over the flap speeds up, creating a
jet-like effect that increases circulation around the particular airfoil. This improved
circulation enhances the pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces,
ultimately increasing lift. However, the turbulent wake formed behind the flap also
introduces additional drag. On the end at the lower surface, the airflow pattern is
notably different due to the presence of the Gurney flap. As the airflow nears the flap,
it decelerates and creates a recirculation zone or vortex just downstream of the flap
that indicate slower, turbulent flow. Additionally, air being deflected upward over the
flap produces a jet-like effect, enhancing circulation around the airfoil as shown in
Figure 9. This increased circulation leads to a greater pressure difference between
the upper and lower surfaces, which effectively enhances lift.

Fig. 10: Velocity contour of 15◦

In the plot, the airflow accelerates as it moves over the upper surfaces which signifies higher
velocity and low pressure. On the lower surface, the airflow behaves differently

7
due to the presence of the Gurney flap. As the air reaches the trailing edge, the flap
causes a flow disturbance, resulting in a recirculation zone or vortex, representing
slower and more turbulent flow as shown in Figure 10. This improved circulation leads
to a stronger pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces, ultimately
increasing lift.

4.2 Pressure Contours

4.2.1 Naca 0012-34 without flap in Martian atmospheric condition

Fig. 11: Pressure Contour of 5◦ AOA Fig. 12: Pressure Contour of 10◦ AOA

At the leading edge, indicates an area of high pressure as shown in Figure 1 1 .

This occurs at the stagnation point, where the oncoming airflow directly strikes the
airfoil’s surface, causing the air to decelerate and build pressure. As the airflow splits
to move over the upper and lower surfaces, a pressure difference becomes evident.
Over the upper surface, the airflow accelerates, resulting in a significant pressure drop.
Conversely, the lower surface significantly exhibits relatively higher pressure, which
further contributes to the lift force by maintaining a pressure imbalance between the
two sides. Toward the trailing edge, the pressure gradually equalizes as the airflow
stabilizes, forming a more uniform distribution in the wake region. At the leading
edge, represents a region of high pressure as shown in Figure 12. This occurs at the
stagnation point, where the oncoming airflow makes direct contact with the airfoil’s
surface, causing the air to decelerate and resulting in elevated pressure. From this
point, the airflow separates and moves along the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil.
Over the upper surface, the pressure decreases significantly as the airflow accelerates.
This low-pressure zone plays a key role in generating lift. This pressure difference
between the upper and lower surfaces creates the lift force that enables the airfoil to
sustain flight. As the airflow progresses toward the trailing edge, the pressure gradually
equalizes, and the wake region stabilizes.

8
 Fig. 13: Pressure contour of 15◦AOA

At the leading edge, the region represents a high-pressure zone formed at the
stagnation point where the incoming airflow directly meets the airfoil’s surface,
causing the air to slow down and pressure to build up as shown in Figure 13. As
the air moves across the upper surface, the specific pressure decreases
significantly. This low-pressure region is essential for producing lift by
establishing a pressure imbalance between the upper and lower surfaces.
Meanwhile, the lower surface shows a comparatively higher pressure, primarily
illustrated by green shades. This pressure difference between the two surfaces is
what drives the generation of lift.

4.22 Naca0012-34 with 1% flap

Fig. 14: Pressure Contour of 5◦ AOA Fig. 15: Pressure Contour of 10◦ AOA

At the leading edge, a high-pressure region is observed. As the airflow travels

over the upper surface, the pressure decreases noticeably, which indicates a low-
pressure area crucial for generating lift as shown in Figure 14. On the lower
surface, the required pressure remains comparatively higher, contributing to a
favorable pressure difference essential for lift generation. As the air moves along
the upper surface of the airfoil, the pressure drops, representing low pressure that
contributes to lift generation. On the lower surface, the pressure remains
comparatively higher, maintaining a pressure difference essential for lift as
shown in Figure 15. Furthermore, the Gurney flap induces small vortices at the
trailing edge, promoting better pressure recovery in the wake region. This

9
 This pressure distribution highlights the role of the Gurney flap in improving lift by
enhancing the pressure.

Fig. 16: Pressure contour of 15◦AOA

As the flow progresses along the upper surface, the pressure shown will then sig-
nificantly decreases, that represent lower-pressure regions as shown are critical for
generating lift as shown in Figure 16. Meanwhile, the lower surface shows a relatively
higher-pressure distribution. The presence of the Gurney flap at the trailing edge causes
a visible pressure increase just downstream of the flap. This pressure buildup results
from the airflow disruption caused by the Gurney flap, which induces small vortices
that enhance pressure recovery. This intensified pressure difference between the upper
and lower surfaces effectively boosts the lift generation capabilities.

4.3 Computational Graph

Fig. 17: Graph comparing without flap and 1% flap

10
The graph presents the relationship between the lift coefficient (CL) and the angle of
attack (Alpha) for two configurations: one without a flap and one with a 1% Gurney
flap. The x-axis represents the angle of attack, while the y-axis represents the lift
coefficient as shown in Figure 17. Both configurations exhibit an increasing trend in
CL as the angle of attack rises. However, the configuration with the 1% Gurney flap
generally produces a higher CL than the no-flap case, particularly in the mid-range
angles of attack (approximately 10-15 degrees). This indicates that the Gurney flap
enhances lift performance. At lower angles of attack, the difference in CL between the
two cases is minimal, but as the angle increases, the flap-equipped airfoil demonstrates
better lift characteristics. At higher angles of attack (above 15 degrees), the CL values
of both cases start to converge, suggesting that the effect of the Gurney flap reduces
near the stall region.

5. Conclusion
Gurney flaps, by stating their efficiencies in a different Martian environment, give
excellent inputs for some aerospace design considers for Mars. The Gurney flaps thus
help counter the problems brought up by low air density so that necessary lift while
keeping equality stability in control is maintained during flight. The application of
such innovative aerodynamic elements will be pivotal in assuring that such vehicles
perform effectively in Mars’ harsh atmospheric conditions cool gurney flap exhibits
at a good performance at different angle of attacks. In conclusion, now it is generally
accepted that the best gurney flap application occur for an angle equal to only 1%
of the flap size. For angles of attack from -10° to around 10°, both configurations fol-
low a similar trend, with CL increasing as alpha increases. The 1% flap configuration
appears to provide slightly higher CL values than the no-flap configuration at most
angles of attack. Around 15° to 20° angle of attack, both configurations show a peak
in cL. The presence of the 1% Gurney flap improves lift performance across various
angles of attack. The Gurney flap is particularly effective in increasing C L at moderate
angles of attack. Overall, this analysis demonstrates that the use of a Gurney flap
provides an effective means of increasing lift, making it valuable for applications
in aviation and wind energy systems. Delving into the static stall characteristics of
Gurney flaps under Martian atmospheric conditions through computational studies
presents an exciting and potentially groundbreaking avenue for future aerospace and
planetary exploration technologies. The insights gained from such research could prove
invaluable in the context of designing efficient flight systems for use in extraterrestrial
environments. Gurney flaps—small, vertical tabs attached to the trailing edge of
airfoils—have already demonstrated their versatility across numerous aerodynamic
applications. Their potential extends far beyond conventional aircraft design, offering
rich opportunities for further investigation and interdisciplinary integration. Several
promising directions for future research may include: Assessing how Gurney flaps can
improve lift-to-drag ratios and influence stall behavior in advanced airframe designs,
which is particularly relevant for next-generation aircraft seeking enhanced
aerodynamics.

11
 References

[1] Iqbal, Y. a. S. S. a. H. and A. , "CFD Analysis of NACA-0012 Airfoil with Various Porous
Gurney Flap Geometries," pp. 231-236, 08 2019.
[2] Zhao, W. a. L. . P. a. Z. J. a. Q. and Q. , "Numerical investigation of flow control on
performance enhancing by mounting gurney flaps of a large horizontal wind turbines,"
2011 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Management Science and
Electronic Commerce (AIMSEC)},, pp. 4111-4114, 2011.
[3] W. Zhao and J. Z. a. P. L. , "Experimental Investigation of Flow Control on Performance
Enhancing by Mounting Gurney Flaps on Vertical Axis Wind Turbines," in 2012 Asia-
Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, Shanghai, China, 2012, pp. 1-4.
[4] M. G. Meena and . K. T. , "Airfoil-Wake Modification with Gurney Flap at Low Reynolds
Number," AIAA Journal, vol. 55, pp. 1348-1359, 2018.
[5] C. P. v. Dam, D. T. Y. and P. M. H. W. V. , "Journal of Aircraft," Gurney Flap Experiments
on Airfoil and Wings, vol. 36(2), pp. 484-486, 1999.
[6] "Numerical Investigation for the enhancement of the aerodynamic characteristics of an
airfoil by using a gurney flap," International Journal of Geomate, vol. 12, no. 34, pp. 21-
27, June 2017.
[7] L. W. Traub, "Examination of Gurney Flap Pressure and Shedding Characteristics," Journal
of Aircraft, vol. 54(5), pp. 1990-1995, 2017.
[8] L. Daniel and d. L. W. T. , "Effect of Aspect Ratio on Gurney-Flap Performance," Journal
of Aircraft, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1217-1225, 2013.
[9] A. Bianchini, F. B. D. D. R. and G. F. , "On the use of Gurney Flaps for the aerodynamic
performance augmentation of Darrieus wind turbines," Energy Conversion and
Management, vol. 184, no. 0196-8904, pp. 402-415, 15 March 2019.
[10] P. Gigukre, J. L. and G. D. , "Gurney flap effects and scaling for low speed airfoils," 13th
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 1995.

12