Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROJECT REPORT
ON
“EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FORWARD SWEPT AND SWEPT BACK WINGS
WITH GURNEY FLAPS”
Submitted to
Belagavi-590018
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
In
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
Submitted by
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work entitled ―EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FORWARD
SWEPT AND SWEPT BACK WINGS WITH GURNEY FLAPS” is a Bonafide work carried
out by
KALLA SAI KUMAR 1MJ11AE020
KEVIN SAVIO SWAMY 1MJ11AE022
NAFISH IMTIYAZ ABIR 1MJ11AE029
PONNADA BHASKAR 1MJ11AE033
In partial fulfillment for the award of degree of ―Bachelor of Engineering‖ in Aeronautical Engineering of
the Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi, during 2014-2015. It is certified that all the
correction /suggestions indicated for internal assessment have been incorporated in the report & the
project report has been approved as it satisfies the academic requirement.
External Viva:
2.
i
DECLARATION
We, KALLA SAI KUMAR, KEVIN SAVIO SWAMY, NAFISH IMTIYAZ ABIR AND
PONNADA BHASKAR hereby declare that the entire work titled “EXPERIMENTAL
ANALYSIS OF FORWARD SWEPT AND SWEPT BACK WINGS WITH GURNEY
FLAPS” embodied in this report has been carried out by us during the 8th Semester of BE
Degree at MVJCE, Bangalore, under the guidance of Prof.S.C.Gupta, HOD, Department of
Aeronautical Engineering, MVJ College of Engineering affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological
University, Belgaum. The work embodied in this dissertation is original and it has not been
submitted in part or full for any other degree in any University.
Signature
Date:
Place:
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We express our sincere gratitude to our internal guide Prof. S C Gupta, HOD, Department of
Aeronautical Engineering, MVJ College of Engineering, Bangalore for sharing his knowledge
and providing constant academic and moral support during the work on this project. We are
deeply touched by his transparent approach and whole hearted co-operation for execution of our
report
We are thankful to PRINCIPAL, MVJ College of Engineering for his constant support and co-
operation
We thank Mr. Babu for his advice and constant support during the design and fabrication
process.
We thank all the professors at the Department of Aeronautical Engineering, MVJ College of
Engineering, Bangalore, for their permission to carry out the project work and for their constant
support and motivation.
PONNADA BHASKAR
iii
ABSTRACT
Aircrafts have changed their form dramatically since the first flight by the Wright
Brothers. Development of various aircraft subsystems have been made to make human flight
more efficient and safe. In the past decade more interest has been taken in improvement of flight
efficiency
One of the important developments is the application of Gurney Flaps in aircraft along
with conventional flaps. Effects of these flaps to moderately swept wings with an aspect ratio of
6-7 have been studied in the project. The project intends to analyze the effects of Gurney flaps on
Forward Swept Wings and Backward Swept Wings. A model of the wing having Span 900mm,
Aspect Ratio 6, shall be tested in the wind tunnel (In-house). Data from the pressure ports
combined with tuft flow visualizations and smoke flow visualization shall provide ample data for
analysis. Basic parameters such as CP v/s X/C plots, CL plots, ∆CL plots can be plotted using the
MATLAB Program that shall be generated.
The project intends to provide a credible and ample data for a complete comparison of
the lift parameters of the Forward Swept Wing with Gurney Flaps as compared to its Backward
Swept counterpart.
iv
CONTENTS Page No
CERTIFICATE i
DECLARATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
REFERENCES 154
LIST OF FIGURES
FIG NO NAME OF FIGURE P
4.1 CATIA INTERFACE 10
4.2 TOP VIEW OF FORWARD SWEPT WING 12
4.3 ISOMETRIC VIEW OF FORWARD SWEPT WING 12
4.4 TOP VIEW OF SWEPT BACK WING 13
4.5 ISOMETRIC VIEW OF SWEPT BACK WING 13
5.1 OPER CIRCUIT WIND TUNNEL 16
5.2 CLOSED CIRCUIT WINF TUNNEL 16
5.3 SAMPLE OF CP v/s X/C GRAPH 17
5.4 WING GEOMETRY OF FORWARD SWEPT WING 18
5.5 WING GEOMETRY OF SWEPT BACK WING 19
WING GEOMETRY WITH PORT LOCATION FOR FORWARD
5.6 20
SWEPT WING
WING GEOMETRY WITH PORT LOCATION FOR SWEPT
5.7 21
BACK WING
WING CONTOUR OF SWEPT FORWARD AND SWEPT BACK
5.8 22
WING
5.9 FINAL MODEL OF FORWARD SWEPT WING 23
5.10 FINAL MODEL OF SWEPT BACK WING 24
6.1 WING GRID GENERATED FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING 26
6.2 WING GRID GENERATED FOR SWEPT BACK WING 27
6.3-6.6 CP v/s X/C FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING 88-91
6.7-6.10 CP v/s X/C FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING (2%30%) 92-95
6.11-6.14 CP v/s X/C FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING (4%30%) 96-99
6.15-6.18 CP v/s X/C FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING (5%30%) 100-103
6.19-6.22 CP v/s X/C FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING (2%50%) 104-107
6.23-6.26 CP v/s X/C FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING (4%50%) 108-111
6.27-6.30 CP v/s X/C FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING (5%50%) 112-115
6.31-6.34 CP v/s X/C FOR SWEPT BACK WING 116-119
6.35-6.38 CP v/s X/C FOR SWEPT BACK WING (4%30%) 120-123
6.39-6.42 CP v/s X/C FOR SWEPT BACK WING (5%30%) 124-127
6.43-6.46 CP v/s X/C FOR SWEPT BACK WING (5%30%) 128-131
6.47-6.50 CP v/s X/C FOR SWEPT BACK WING (2%50%) 132-135
6.51-6.54 CP v/s X/C FOR SWEPT BACK WING (4%50%) 136.139
6.55-6.58 CP v/s X/C FOR SWEPT BACK WING (5%50%) 140-143
7.1 FORWARD SWEPT WING AT 0 AOA 145
7.2 FORWARD SWEPT WING AT 12 AOA 145
7.3 FORWARD SWEPT WING (4%30%) 0 AOA 146
7.4 FORWARD SWEPT WING (4%30%) 13 AOA 146
7.5 SWEPT BACK WING AT 0 AOA 147
7.6 SWEPT BACK WING AT 8.5 AOA 147
7.7 SWEPT BACK WING (4%30%) AT 0 AOA 148
7.8 SWEPT BACK WING (4%30%) AT 11 AOA 148
CL v/s AOA FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING WITH GURNEY
8.1 150
FLAP OVER 30% SPAN
CL v/s AOA FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING WITH GURNEY
8.2 150
FLAP OVER 50% SPAN
CL v/s AOA FOR SWEPT BACK WING WITH GURNEY FLAP
8.3 151
OVER 30% SPAN
CL v/s AOA FOR SWEPT BACK WING WITH GURNEY FLAP
8.4 152
OVER 50% SPAN
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO NAME OF TABLE PAGE NO
4.1 AIRFOIL COORDINATES 11
5.1 GURNEY FLAP DIMENSIONS 24
6.1 GRID AREA FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING 28
6.2 GRID AREA FOR SWEPT BACK WING 28
NOMENCLATURE
SL NO SYMBOL
1 AOA ANGLE OF ATTACK
2 MAC MEAN AERODYNAMIC CHORD
3 2%30% GURNEY FLAP OF 2% MAC OVER 30% SPAN
4 4%30% GURNEY FLAP OF 4% MAC OVER 30% SPAN
5 5%30% GURNEY FLAP OF 5% MAC OVER 30% SPAN
6 2%50% GURNEY FLAP OF 2% MAC OVER 50% SPAN
7 4%50% GURNEY FLAP OF 4% MAC OVER 50% SPAN
8 5%50% GURNEY FLAP OF 5% MAC OVER 50% SPAN
9 CL COEFFICIENT OF LIFT
10 CP COEFFICIENT OF PRESSURE
11 Q DYNAMIC PRESSURE
12 L LIFT
13 X/C RATIO OF POSITION TO CHORD
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Experimental Analysis of Forward Swept and Swept Back Wing with Gurney Flaps
INTRODUCTION
The addition of high-lift devices on aircraft wings has effectively improved the flight envelope of
modern civilian and combat aircrafts. Extensive research has been conducted to study the
performance characteristics of various types of flaps. The Gurney Flap, first used by Dan
Gurney, found its application in automobiles. The addition of Gurney Flaps improved the
downward force on the car and allow for tighter turns at higher speeds. Gurney Flaps were
subsequently used experimentally in aircrafts for studying their performance and to quantify the
improvement in wing efficiency. The lack of experimental data has motivated extensive wind
tunnel testing of various wing-flap combinations to obtain the optimum combination of Gurney
flaps. The complex three-dimensional flow over a wing when combined with the presence of a
Gurney Flap produces an intricate flow pattern. This flow pattern produces an improvement in
lift by deflecting the flow over the bottom surface downwards and consequently lowering the
static pressure over the upper surface near the trailing edge.
The effects of span wise flow over swept wing –both forward and backward—produce a
variation in flow patterns which are visible in the CP v/s x/c graph. Based on the data available, it
is found essential to have a comparative study of the effects of forward and backward swept
wings with and without the presence Gurney Flaps
The primary aim of the project is to demonstrate the advantages of using Gurney Flaps on
swept forward and swept back wings
Provide a feasibility report on the application of these flaps on aircraft requiring high C L
values at low angle of attack i.e. aircrafts demanding extended range
Provide a graphical representation of the variation in CL and Lift values with various
Gurney Flaps combinations
LITERATURE SURVEY
Experimental Analysis of Forward Swept and Swept Back Wing with Gurney Flaps
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
An extensive literature survey has been conducted to gather as much information as
possible on the effect of Gurney Flaps on aircraft wings. Many papers have been published
explaining the effect of Gurney Flaps on Straight Wings, but data on its effects on swept wings
have not been found. Some of the papers that have been instrumental in understanding the
relationship between the length, span wise width and thickness of Gurney Flaps to the lift
enhancement produced have been cited below
Provides the basic relationship between Gurney Flap height, thickness and span to the lift
produced. It also provides data on the variation in CL with angle of attack in the presence and
absence of Gurney Flaps. It also provides graphical data on the effects of Gurney Flaps of
various dimensions in a NACA 23012 straight wing
Provides smoke flow visualization data on the NACA 4412 with Gurney Flaps of height
2-6% of MAC. The smoke flow visualizations show the behavior of the downwash in the
presence of the Gurney Flap
[1]
=Wind Tunnel Test of Gurney Flaps and T-Strips on an NACA 0009 Wing.
[2]
= Visualization of Flow Fields about an airfoil with Gurney Flaps
{3}
= Pressure measurements on a forward-swept wing-canard configuration
The details of the flow within the boundary layer are very important for many problems in
aerodynamics, including wing stall, the skin friction drag on an object, and the heat transfer that
occurs in high speed flight. Unfortunately, the physical and mathematical details of boundary
layer theory are beyond the scope of this beginner's guide and are usually studied in late
undergraduate or graduate school in college. We will only present some of the effects of the
boundary layer at this time. From the conservation of mass in three dimensions, a change in
velocity in the stream wise direction causes a change in velocity in the other directions as well.
There is a small component of velocity perpendicular to the surface which displaces or moves
the flow above it. One can define the thickness of the boundary layer to be the amount of this
displacement. The displacement thickness depends on the Reynolds number which is the ratio of
inertial (resistant to change or motion) forces to viscous (heavy and gluey) forces and is given by
the equation : Reynolds number (Re) equals velocity (V) times density (r) times a characteristic
length (l) divided by the viscosity coefficient (mu).
Re=V*r*l/mu
Boundary layers may be either laminar (layered), or turbulent (disordered) depending on the
value of the Reynolds number. For lower Reynolds numbers, the boundary layer is laminar and
the stream wise velocity changes uniformly as one moves away from the wall, as shown on the
left side of the figure. For higher Reynolds numbers, the boundary layer is turbulent and the
stream wise velocity is characterized by unsteady (changing with time) swirling flows inside the
boundary layer.
The external flow reacts to the edge of the boundary layer just as it would to the physical surface
of an object. So the boundary layer gives any object an "effective" shape which is usually
slightly different from the physical shape. To make things more confusing, the boundary layer
may lift off or "separate" from the body and create an effective shape much different from the
physical shape. This happens because the flow in the boundary has very low energy (relative to
the free stream) and is more easily driven by changes in pressure. Flow separation is the reason
for wing stall at high angle of attack. The effects of the boundary layer on lift are contained in
the lift coefficient and the effects on drag are contained in the drag coefficient.The significance
of boundary layer in the analysis of Gurney Flaps is very high because it acts as limiting factor to
the height of the Gurney Flaps.
The presence of Gurney Flaps basically deflects the flow of the downwash. This
phenomenon is clearly shown by Y.Takakura, T.Kobayashi&M.Takagi in their research paper
“Visualization of Flow Fields about an airfoil with Gurney Flaps”.
In the presence of Gurney Flaps the downwash is deflected below its normal path thereby
improving the overall lift generated during cruise phase. Along with enhanced lift the Gurney
Flap also produces interference drag. This must be kept to a minimum to ensure optimum
performance. If the Gurney Flap length is less than that of the Boundary Layer the interference
drag produced is negligible compared to the magnitude of lift produced by it. When the length of
the Gurney Flap is comparable to that of the Boundary Layer, flow separation begins to occur
and small eddies are produced. This increases the interference drag produced. Thus, the limit of
the length of the Boundary Layer must be determined to have the best length of Gurney Flap
installed to produce highest lift enhancement. Thus determination of the thickness of Boundary
layer over the airfoil in the absence of the flaps is an essential part of the project.
WING MODELING
Experimental Analysis of Forward Swept and Swept Back Wing with Gurney Flaps
About CATIA V5
The models required for this project have been made in the V5 version of CATIA. The models
are made in the part design module.
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
Experimental Analysis of Forward Swept and Swept Back Wing with Gurney Flaps
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
A number of important parameters can be deduced using suitable equipment in the wind tunnel.
The Primary method of finding the lift and drag values are using pressure ports. The value of lift
over a given body can be calculated in the wind tunnel using the difference in the freestream
static pressures and the pressure values of the body. A dimensionless quantity ―C P-Co-efficient
of Pressure is used specifically is case of airfoils to calculate the total lift generated and the value
of the Normal and Axial Forces.
The values of CP can be analyzed over various series of ports over the wing and the local C L
values can be found by summing up the values of CP.
The values of CP are calculated using the MATLAB program generated (mentioned in Appendix
I).
From these values the behavior of the wing in the presence and absence of Gurney Flaps can be
effectively analyzed. Various graphs showing the change in Lift and Drag can be plotted using
the available data from the experimental analysis.
Wing Details
Semi-Span :450 mm
Root Chord :200 mm
Tip Chord :100 mm
Aspect Ratio :6
Leading Edge Sweep :17.14o
Trailing Edge Sweep :27.95o
Wing Details
Semi-Span :450 mm
Root Chord :200 mm
Tip Chord :100 mm
Aspect Ratio :6
Leading Edge Sweep :22.76o
Trailing Edge Sweep :11.14o
Location of the pressure ports and the number of pressure ports are also an important aspect.
Sufficient number for ports must be placed at the right location to obtain accurate and relevant
data.
The model is made up of an epoxy resin. The fuselage is hollow allowing for the pressure port
tubes to exit the model and connect to the manometer.
Fig 5.6: WING GEOMETRY WITH PORT LOCATIONS FOR FORWARD SWEPT WING
The Location of Pressure Port Series on The Wings are as shown above:
Fig 5.7: WING GEOMETRY WITH PORT LOCATIONS OF SWEPT BACK WING
The Wing Contours with port distance from Leading Edge are as shown below:
1 150 3.1
2 150 6.2
3 150 8
4 225 3.1
5 225 6.2
6 225 8
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Experimental Analysis of Forward Swept and Swept Back Wing with Gurney Flaps
The experiment was conducted at the Low Speed Subsonic Wind Tunnel at MVJ College of
Engineering. The ambient pressure was 1.01324 Bar, temperature 32 C and the air density 1.224
Kg/m^3.
The lift generated by the wing was calculated using the data obtained over the pressure ports.
The pressure port data obtained are attached below. The co-efficient of pressure value is
calculated over the individual ports using a MATLAB program generated. The planform of the
wing is divided into a sequential grids, over which the static pressure difference is calculated and
the corresponding lift value is obtained.
The areas of the grid generated for the forward and swept back wing are as follows:
Table 6.1 Grid Area for Forward Swept Wing (in mm2)
Table 6.2 Grid Area for Swept Back Wing (in mm2)
The Cp vs X/C curve is computed using the below mentioned program in MATLAB
% Tunnel Speed
Po=1.03125e5;
Ho=0.002;
Hf=0.034;
RHOair=1.225;
RHOal=789;
rho=(RHOal/RHOair);
Vt=sqrt(2*rho*9.81*(Hf-Ho))
Qt=(0.5*RHOair*Vt*Vt);
Pt=Po-Qt;
% Array Generation
Hoa=Ho*(ones(1,9));
Poa=Po*(ones(1,9));
Pta=Pt*(ones(1,9));
Qta=Qt*(ones(1,9));
% Upper Surface
Husa=[ 26 57 56 56 55 54 51 49 41] .*10^-3;
Husa1=[ 18 63 63 62 61 60 58 55 44] .*10^-3;
Husa2=[ 21 85 78 69 61 56 51 48 41] .*10^-3;
Husa3=[ 24 80 80 75 66 58 53 50 41] .*10^-3;
Husa4=[ 27 96 88 70 58 52 49 48 44] .*10^-3;
Husa5=[ 27 106 64 57 52 50 49 49 51].*10^-3;
%series 1
Vusa=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Husa(1:9)-Hoa));
Qusa=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vusa.*Vusa));
Pusa=Poa-Qusa;
Cpusa=((Pusa-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 2
Vusa1=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Husa1(1:9)-Hoa));
Qusa1=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vusa1.*Vusa1));
Pusa1=Poa-Qusa1;
Cpusa1=((Pusa1-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 3
Vusa2=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Husa2(1:9)-Hoa));
Qusa2=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vusa2.*Vusa2));
Pusa2=Poa-Qusa2;
Cpusa2=((Pusa2-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 4
Vusa3=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Husa3(1:9)-Hoa));
Qusa3=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vusa3.*Vusa3));
Pusa3=Poa-Qusa3;
Cpusa3=((Pusa3-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 5
Vusa4=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Husa4(1:9)-Hoa));
Qusa4=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vusa4.*Vusa4));
Pusa4=Poa-Qusa4;
Cpusa4=((Pusa4-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 6
Vusa5=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Husa5(1:9)-Hoa));
Qusa5=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vusa5.*Vusa5));
Pusa5=Poa-Qusa5;
Cpusa5=((Pusa5-Pta)./(Qta));
% Lower Surface
Hlsa=[ 26 23 27 30 32 33 34 36 41] .*10^-3;
Hlsa1=[ 18 22 26 30 28 30 31 33 44] .*10^-3;
Hlsa2=[ 21 18 23 26 27 28 28 28 41] .*10^-3;
Hlsa3=[ 24 17 22 25 25 27 25 26 41] .*10^-3;
Hlsa4=[ 27 20 23 26 27 27 27 25 44] .*10^-3;
Hlsa5=[ 27 20 25 29 30 29 28 25 51].*10^-3;
%series 1
Vlsa=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Hlsa(1:9)-Hoa));
Qlsa=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vlsa.*Vlsa));
Plsa=Poa-Qlsa;
Cplsa=((Plsa-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 2
Vlsa1=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Hlsa1(1:9)-Hoa));
Qlsa1=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vlsa1.*Vlsa1));
Plsa1=Poa-Qlsa1;
Cplsa1=((Plsa1-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 3
Vlsa2=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Hlsa2(1:9)-Hoa));
Qlsa2=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vlsa2.*Vlsa2));
Plsa2=Poa-Qlsa2;
Cplsa2=((Plsa2-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 4
Vlsa3=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Hlsa3(1:9)-Hoa));
Qlsa3=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vlsa3.*Vlsa3));
Plsa3=Poa-Qlsa3;
Cplsa3=((Plsa3-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 5
Vlsa4=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Hlsa4(1:9)-Hoa));
Qlsa4=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vlsa4.*Vlsa4));
Plsa4=Poa-Qlsa4;
Cplsa4=((Plsa4-Pta)./(Qta));
%series 6
Vlsa5=sqrt((2*rho*9.81).*(Hlsa5(1:9)-Hoa));
Qlsa5=((0.5*RHOair).*(Vlsa5.*Vlsa5));
Plsa5=Poa-Qlsa5;
Cplsa5=((Plsa5-Pta)./(Qta));
% Lift Force
PusaF=Pusa(2:8);
PusaF1=Pusa1(2:8);
PusaF2=Pusa2(2:8);
PusaF3=Pusa3(2:8);
PusaF4=Pusa4(2:8);
PusaF5=Pusa5(2:8);
PlsaF=Plsa(2:8);
PlsaF1=Plsa1(2:8);
PlsaF2=Plsa2(2:8);
PlsaF3=Plsa3(2:8);
PlsaF4=Plsa4(2:8);
PlsaF5=Plsa5(2:8);
Pres=PlsaF-PusaF;
Pres1=PlsaF1-PusaF1;
Pres2=PlsaF2-PusaF2;
Pres3=PlsaF3-PusaF3;
Pres4=PlsaF4-PusaF4;
Pres5=PlsaF5-PusaF5;
% Area Matrix
Area=[2542 1701 1915 2023.5 1973 2292.5 6441.5; 2292 1573.5 1669 1753 1729
1929.5 5721; 1555.125 1096.5 1090.5 1137.375 1137 1208.625 3817.875; 958.75
691 650.25 673.5 682 692.25 2320; 896.25 659.25 588.75 605.75 621 601.5 2140;
1227 929.25 767.625 781.875 817.125 731.625 2872.125].*(10^-6);
Lift=Pres.*Area(1,1:7);
LiftS1=sum(Lift);
Lift1=Pres1.*Area(2,1:7);
LiftS2=sum(Lift1);
Lift2=Pres2.*Area(3,1:7);
LiftS3=sum(Lift2);
Lift3=Pres3.*Area(4,1:7);
LiftS4=sum(Lift3);
Lift4=Pres4.*Area(5,1:7);
LiftS5=sum(Lift4);
Lift5=Pres5.*Area(6,1:7);
LiftS6=sum(Lift5);
TotalLift=LiftS1+LiftS2+LiftS3+LiftS4+LiftS5+LiftS6
Cl= TotalLift/(0.5*RHOair*Vt*Vt*0.0675)
% Plots
plot(Loc,Cpusa,'m-');
hold on;
plot(Loc,Cpusa1,'y-');
plot(Loc,Cplsa,'m--');
plot(Loc,Cplsa1,'y--');
plot(Loc,Cpusa2,'r-');
plot(Loc,Cplsa2,'r--');
plot(Loc,Cpusa3,'g-');
plot(Loc,Cplsa3,'g--');
plot(Loc,Cpusa4,'b-');
plot(Loc,Cplsa4,'b--');
plot(Loc,Cpusa5,'w-');
plot(Loc,Cplsa5,'w--');
legend('Series 1 Upper' ,'Series 2 Upper' ,'Series 1 Lower' ,'Series 2
Lower' ,'Series 3 Upper','Series 3 Lower','Series 4 Upper','Series 4
Lower','Series 5 Upper','Series 5 Lower','Series 6 Upper','Series 6 Lower')
hold off;
xlabel('X/C');
ylabel('Co-efficient of Pressure');
title('Cp v/s X/C for 9o Angle Of Attack (2%-50%)');
set(gca,'YDir','Reverse');
Cp vs X/C CURVES
Fig 6.3.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 0o AOA
Fig 6.4.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 3o AOA
Fig 6.5.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 6o AOA
Fig 6.6.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 9o AOA
Fig 6.7.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 0o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.8.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 3o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.9.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 6o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.10.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 9o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.11.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 0o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.12.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 3o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.13.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 6o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.14.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 9o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.15.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 0o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.16.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 3o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.17.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 6o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.18.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 9o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over
30% Span
Fig 6.19.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 0o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.20.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 3o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.21.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 6o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.22.CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 9o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.23 CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 0o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.24 CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 3o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.25 CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 6o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.26 CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 9o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.27 CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 0o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.28 CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 3o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.29 CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 6o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.30 CP v/s X/C plot for Forward Swept Wing at 9o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over
50% Span
Fig 6.31 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 0o AOA
Fig 6.32 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 3o AOA
Fig 6.33 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 6o AOA
Fig 6.34 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 8o AOA
Fig 6.35 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 0o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.36 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 3o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.37 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 6o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.38 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 8o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.39 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 0o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.40 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 3o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.41 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 6o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.42 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 8o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.43 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 0o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.44 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 3o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.45 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 6o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.46 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 8o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over 30%
Span
Fig 6.47 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 0o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.48 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 3o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.49 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 6o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.50 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 8o AOA with 2% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.51 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 0o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.52 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 3o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.53 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 6o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.54 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 8o AOA with 4% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.55 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 0o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.56 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 3o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.57 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 6o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Fig 6.58 CP v/s X/C plot for Swept Back Wing at 8o AOA with 5% Gurney Flap over 50%
Span
Ttuft flow visualization was conducted to verify the increase in stall angle or the increase in
value of CLmax after the addition of Gurney Flaps. The increase in the value of maximum lift co-
efficient is clearly shown by the comparison of data made in the subsequent sections.
CONCLUSION
Experimental Analysis of Forward Swept and Swept Back Wing with Gurney Flaps
Based on the experiments conducted, the following conclusions can be made from the extracted
data,
Fig 8.1 CL v/s Angle of Attack for a forward Swept Wing with Gurney Flap over 30% Span
Fig 8.2 CL v/s Angle of Attack for a forward Swept Wing with Gurney Flap over 30% Span
The presence of Gurney Flaps provides a CL value a 0o angle of attack in both cases
Based on Fig 11.1 and Fig 11.2, the plain wing produces the lift as expected from a
NACA 0009 airfoil. The deflection due to the presence of Gurney Flaps of various
dimensions is clearly visible by the increment in CL values obtained
Gurney Flap of 4% MAC produces CL values intermediate of 3% and 5%, converging at
about 7.5o-8o angle of attack in forward swept wing with Gurney Flaps over 30%
In case of forward swept wing with flaps over 50% span, the convergence occurs at lower
angles of attack
Beyond this convergence point, at higher angle of attacks, 2% Gurney Flap provides
marginally higher CL values in case of wings over 30% span, but in case of 50% span the
maximum CL is subsequently provided by the Gurney Flap of 5% MAC
The forward swept wing with Gurney Flaps over 50% span provides higher CL at 0o
Angle of Attack as against its 30% counterpart
Fig 8.3 CL v/s Angle of Attack for a Swept Back Wing with Gurney Flap over 30% Span
Fig 8.4 CL v/s Angle of Attack for a Swept Back Wing with Gurney Flap over 30% Span
The 0o Angle of Attack characteristics remain the same, with an increase in CL value
The wing with Gurney Flap over 30% span, provides maximum CL with 5% MAC
Gurney Flap, although the 4% MAC Gurney Flap eventually converges with the 5%
Gurney Flap at higher angles of attack
For the wing having Gurney Flaps over 50% span, the graphs display a linear behavior
For higher angle of attacks, the slope reduces for 4% MAC Gurney Flaps over 50% span
SCOPE
The forward swept wing is seen to provide higher stall angle and higher CL values as
compared to the swept back wing of similar aspect ratio, motivating further use and
research on the performance of forward swept wing
Along with appropriate deployment mechanisms, the installation of Gurney Flaps can
provide improved flight performance at low to moderate angle of attacks (0o-5o)
The installation of Gurney Flaps is recommended for civilian, military cargo and deep
penetration attack aircrafts and which require high efficiency during cruise phase
resulting in extended range
Detailed CFD simulations and accurate wake survey shall provide drag variation and
open up avenues for installation of Gurney Flaps in combat aircrafts having a larger
operational flight envelope.
REFERNCES
3. www.wkipedia.org