39 views

Uploaded by Fauzi Hussin Leo

save

You are on page 1of 7

D. I. Greenwell

∗

City University, London, England EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom

DOI: 10.2514/1.46610

A parametric low-speed wind-tunnel study has been undertaken of the effects of Gurney ﬂap height on the

aerodynamic characteristics of delta wings with sweep angles of 40, 60, and 70

**. Flap effects on lift and drag are
**

consistent with previous two-dimensional data when wing geometry is accounted for by using the change in zero-lift

incidence rather than lift and using the relative ﬂap area rather than ﬂap height. Flap deployment primarily affects

the attached-ﬂow potential lift on delta wings, with vortex lift being almost unchanged. Induced-drag factors are

considerably reduced as ﬂap height is increased, but this is due to the use of ﬂat-plate models with near-zero leading-

edge suction. For control applications, pitch/lift ratios are similar to those for delta wings with conventional trailing-

edge ﬂaps, but the trim-drag penalties are much higher. An aft shift in loading associated with Gurney ﬂap

deployment leads to large aft movements of the aerodynamic center, which signiﬁcantly reduces control capability.

Nomenclature

a

0

= lift-curve slope at zero lift

AR = aspect ratio, b

2

=S

b = wing span

c = mean aerodynamic chord

c

r

= root chord

C

D

= drag coefﬁcient, D=qS

C

Dmin

= minimum drag coefﬁcient

C

DV

= vortex (induced) drag coefﬁcient

C

D0

= drag coefﬁcient at zero lift

C

L

= lift coefﬁcient, L=qS

C

L

= lift-curve slope, dC

L

=d

C

M

= pitching-moment coefﬁcient, M=qcS

C

M0

= pitching-moment coefﬁcient at zero lift

C

N

= normal force coefﬁcient, N=qS

C

NP

= potential ﬂow component of normal force

C

NV

= vortex lift component of normal force

D = drag

h = projected ﬂap height (measured from lower surface)

K

P

= potential lift factor, ÷ C

L

K

V

= vortex lift factor

k = induced-drag factor, (C

D

÷ C

Dmin

)AR=C

2

L

L = lift

q = dynamic pressure,

1

2

V

2

q = lift increase factor on ﬂap height

S = wing area

S

f

= ﬂap frontal area, hb

t = wing thickness

= angle of attack

0L

= zero-lift angle of attack

0P

= zero-lift angle of attack for potential lift component

0V

= zero-lift angle of attack for vortex lift component

= leading-edge sweep angle

I. Introduction

M

any recent unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) and micro

air vehicle (MAV) concepts are tailless conﬁgurations with

delta or diamond wing planforms of relatively low (40–50

·

) sweep

angle. In terms of ﬂow characteristics, these planforms sit between

low-aspect-ratio slender delta wings with a leading-edge vortex

system over the wing and conventional medium-aspect-ratio swept

wings with fully attached ﬂow. The resulting aerodynamic and ﬂight

dynamic behavior is complex and still not fully understood,

particularly at low Reynolds number [1]. For these tailless conﬁg-

urations, pitch control using conventional trailing-edge ﬂaps causes

difﬁculties due to the coupling of pitching moment with lift. Sellars

et al. [2] postulated that using tangential trailing-edge blowing on a

delta wing could generate pitching moments without any change in

lift, due to the interaction between the potential and vortex lift

components. This turned out not to be the case [3], but results

presented by Li et al. [4] indicated that a Gurney ﬂap could have

favorable pitch control characteristics when applied to a nonslender

delta wing. The published data on Gurney ﬂaps on delta wings is

of rather limited extent, and somewhat contradictory, so an

experimental study was undertaken to clarify the effects of sweep

angle on the changes in lift, drag, and pitching moment due to ﬂap

deployment.

II. Gurney Flaps Applied to Delta Wings

AGurney ﬂap is a small trailing-edge ﬂap (typically less than 5%

chord), deﬂected at 60–90

·

to the chord line. The wake ﬂow behind

the ﬂap directly alters the trailing-edge Kutta condition [5], leading to

a large lift increment despite its small size (for example, a C

L

of

~0:8 for a 5%ﬂap on a 2-Dairfoil [6]). There is anassociated parasite

drag penalty, of the order of the frontal area of the ﬂap, but this is

dependent on the ﬂap height relative to the local boundary-layer

depth and can be negligible for ﬂaps of 2% height or smaller [7].

The vast majority of experimental and theoretical work on Gurney

ﬂaps has been on 2-D airfoils, along with a small number of experi-

mental investigations of medium-aspect-ratio (5–6) rectangular

wings. Comparatively little work on delta wings with Gurney ﬂaps

has been published, with the literature consisting of three relatively

comprehensive data sets presenting lift, drag, and pitching moment

[4,8–11], along with a handful of papers reporting more limited

results [12–14].

Traub and Galls [8] report on a very thorough study of a number of

leading-edge and trailing-edge ﬂap conﬁgurations on a 70

·

delta

wing. A thin ﬂat-plate wing model was used, with a thickness/chord

ratio t=c

r

of 0.38%and a blunt leading edge. Constant-height Gurney

ﬂaps with height/chord ratios h=c

r

of 0.5 and 0.95% were tested at a

Reynolds number based on root chord of 1:12 × 10

6

. Traub and Galls

also present a detailed comparison with a range of previous studies on

70

·

delta wings, giving a high level of conﬁdence in the experimental

arrangements and data-reduction procedures. The effects of the

0.95% ﬂap on lift, drag, and pitching moment also correspond very

closely to the data presented later in this paper.

Presented as Paper 3468 at the 25th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics

Conference, San Francisco, CA, 5–8 June 2006; received 7 August 2009;

accepted for publication 29 September 2009. Copyright © 2009 by the

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

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, MA01923; include the code 0021-8669/

10 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.

∗

Reader in Flight Dynamics, School of Engineering and Mathematical

Sciences, Northampton Square; d.greenwell@city.ac.uk.

JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Vol. 47, No. 2, March–April 2010

675

Buchholz and Tso [9] summarize a project study [10] of a range of

larger Gurney ﬂaps on a 60

·

delta wing. Aﬂat-plate wing model was

used, with a thickness/chord of 3% and a 45

·

lower-surface beveled

leading edge. Constant-height ﬂaps with height/chord ratios of 1, 2,

3, and 5% were tested at a Reynolds number based on root chord of

8:6 × 10

5

. However, when the results presentedin [9] were compared

with previous data for 60

·

delta wings (e.g., [15]), it became clear that

the basic wing lift-curve slope was far too high, by a factor of around

÷30%. An analysis of the entire data set [16] showed that dividing all

lift, drag, and pitching-moment measurements by 1.3 gave a more

reasonable agreement with published 60

·

wing data and with the

effects of ﬂap height reported later in this paper. This suggests a

possible error in the dynamic pressure measurement; whatever the

error source, this data set is clearly unreliable.

Li et al. [4,11] present work on a cropped 40

·

delta wing in two

complementary papers. A ﬂat-plate wing model was used, with a

thickness/chord of 1.6% and a 60

·

symmetric beveled leading-edge.

Constant-height ﬂaps with height/chord ratios of 1, 2, 3, and 5%were

tested at a Reynolds number based on root chord of 2:5 × 10

5

. When

the results presented in [4,11] were compared with previous data for

40

·

delta wings (e.g., [1,17]), it was noted that the lift-curve slope

was too lowby a factor of ÷20%(allowing for taper ratio) and that the

aerodynamic center was misplaced. No obvious reason could be

found for these discrepancies, so again this data set must be con-

sidered unreliable.

Figure 1 illustrates the typical effects of Gurney ﬂap deployment

on lift, drag, and pitching moment, using data from the sole

remaining reliable and comprehensive data set [8]. Lift at zero

incidence C

L0

and maximum lift C

Lmax

both show a signiﬁcant

increase, along with a small increase in lift-curve slope (Fig. 1a).

Zero-lift drag C

D0

increases, but induced-drag factor k reduces

(Fig. 1b), leading to a reduction in maximumlift/drag ratio (L=D)

max

and an increase in the lift coefﬁcient for minimumdrag (Fig. 1c). Flap

deployment gives a nose-down change in zero-lift pitching moment

C

m0

, combined with an aft shift in aerodynamic center (Fig. 1d) as

dC

m

=dC

L

becomes more negative. Pitch/lift ratio C

m0

=C

L0

is

negative and of a similar magnitude to conventional trailing-edge

controls.

Most explanations of the effects of Gurney ﬂaps suggest that the

change in the trailing-edge Kutta condition due to ﬂap deployment

leads to a change in effective camber [18,19]. In addition, the

pressure difference between upper and lower surfaces at the trailing

edge due to the separated wake of the ﬂap [20] leads to an aft shift in

loading and hence to an increase in effective chord [21,22]. The 3-D

wing behavior shown in Fig. 1 suggests that both factors are

operating. The increase in lift, maximum lift, and nose-down

pitching moment are all consistent with an increase in effective

camber. However, the drag polar remains symmetric about zero lift,

presumably because the increase in drag is due directly to the

separated wake ﬂow behind the ﬂap, rather than to an incidence-

dependent change in proﬁle drag. The increase in lift-curve slope and

aft shift in aerodynamic center are consistent with an increase in

effective chord, but the reduction in induced-drag factor is less

straightforward. Reference [8] suggests that since the lift-dependent

induced drag is equal to C

L

tan for a ﬂat-plate delta wing with zero

leading-edge suction, an increase in lift at ﬁxed incidence leads to a

reduction in induced-drag factor.

III. Experimental Arrangement

Three sharp-edged ﬂat-plate delta-wing models with leading-edge

sweep angles of 40, 60, and 70

·

were tested in the Bristol

University 0:8 × 0:6 m Low-Turbulence Wind Tunnel [23]. This

tunnel is of conventional closed-circuit design, with a large con-

traction ratio and ﬂow control screens to give turbulence levels well

below 0.1%. Model planform area S was held constant at 0:072 m

2

,

giving a model/tunnel area ratio of 0.15 and a root chord c

r

of 0.246,

0.353, and 0.436 m, respectively. Models were made of 3 mm

aluminumsheet, with leading edges beveled on the lower surface at a

20

·

included angle (Fig. 2) and with a blunt trailing edge. Flaps were

made of 1 mm aluminum sheet and attached to the lower surface of

the wing. Forces and moments were measured using an AeroTech 3-

component overhead balance, with the models mounted inverted on a

single strut plus a pitch pushrod (Fig. 3). A small underwing fairing

covered the strut and pushrod attachment points.

Gurney ﬂap heights of 1, 3, and 6%of root chord were tested, with

ﬂap height h measured from the wing lower surface. Tests with

a)

b) c)

d)

Fig. 1 Typical effects of Gurney ﬂap on delta-wing aerodynamics (data

from [1]).

Fig. 2 Delta-wing model geometry.

676 GREENWELL

inverted (i.e., upper surface) ﬂaps established that the underwing

fairing had no signiﬁcant effect on trends in aerodynamic behavior

with ﬂap height. Tests were carried out at a constant Reynolds

number based on root chord of 0:7 × 10

6

. Pitching moments were

nondimensionalized using the mean aerodynamic chord c (2c

r

=3)

and taken about a moment reference center at the quarter-chord point

(0:5c

r

). Solid and wake blockage were corrected for using the

method of [24], with downwash corrections from [25]. Balance

accuracy was estimated at better than 0.15%in lift, drag, and pitching

moment, with pitch angle set to better than 0.1

·

. Further details of the

experimental arrangement can be found in [26,27].

In order to verify the accuracy of the experimental procedure and

data reduction, the baseline delta-wing data was compared with a

range of published results for similar wings. Figure 4 compares the

basic 60

·

sweep wing results with data from Flygtekniska

Försöksanstalten (FFA) in Sweden [28]. The FFA wing had a very

similar geometry (a strut-mounted ﬂat-plate model with an under-

body fairing) and was tested at the same Reynolds number of

0:71 × 10

6

. Figure 4 also shows normal force data from the seminal

study of delta-wing aerodynamics by Wentz and Kohlman [15] and

the theoretical normal force given by the leading-edge suction

analogy (LESA) [29]. Angle of attack is given relative to the zero-lift

incidence

0L

, to allow for the effect of different leading-edge

chamfer angles [30] and support interference. Normal force and

pitching moments compare very well, with identical lift-curve slopes

and aerodynamic centers at low incidence. A similarly good agree-

ment with published data was obtained for the clean 40 and 70

·

wings

and for the 70

·

wing with a 1% ﬂap [16].

IV. Effect of Gurney Flap Height

A. Lift

Looking ﬁrst at the effect of ﬂap height on lift, Fig. 5 shows the

increment in lift coefﬁcient at zero incidence C

L0

as a function of

relative height h=c

r

(following previous convention in using the root

chord as a reference length for 3-D wing data). The ﬁlled symbols

denote increments derived from the Bristol data of [26,27], and the

open diamond symbols denote a rectangular wing with an aspect

ratio of 6 [31]. The crosses show data for a range of 2-D airfoils with

Gurney ﬂaps [6,7,32–34]. The same symbols are used in the

following ﬁgures.

On the basis of thin-airfoil theory, [19] proposes that the lift

increment due to a Gurney ﬂap is

C

L0

=q(h=c)

n

(1)

where q is supposedly a function of Reynolds number (varying

between 2 and 4) and n =0:5. However, plotting the data of [19] and

Fig. 5 in log–log form indicates that the variation for both 2-D and

3-Dwings is closer to n =0:7 (with q ranging between 3 and 6). The

experimental data reviewed in [19] also shows no systematic

variation of q with Reynolds number. The difference between the

2-D and 3-D data in Fig. 5 can be attributed to two factors: 1) the

effect of aspect ratio on lift-curve slope and 2) the effect of taper ratio

on the relative ﬂap height. The effect of variations in lift-curve slope

a

0

can be accounted for by replacing lift increment C

L0

with

change in zero-lift incidence

0L

~÷C

L0

=a

0

. The effect of taper

ratio can be accounted for by weighting the ﬂap height by the local

chord. For the constant-ﬂap-height data of Fig. 5, the most

straightforward weighting method is to use the relative ﬂap area

S

f

=S =(hb)=S. Figure 6 demonstrates that applying both factors

collapses the scattered 2-D and 3-D lift increment data of Fig. 5

reasonably well onto a single trend:

0L

~0:9(S

f

=S)

0:7

(2)

For the speciﬁc case of delta wings, where the lift may be split

into potential (or attached) and leading-edge vortex (or separated)

ﬂow contributions [29], the question arises as to the relative effect

of a Gurney ﬂap on the two lift components. Off-surface ﬂow

Fig. 3 Model mounted in the Bristol Low-Turbulence Tunnel.

Fig. 4 Comparison of basic 60

**wing with theory and results from
**

Torlund [28] and Wentz and Kohlman [15]. Fig. 5 Effect of ﬂap height on lift increment at zero incidence.

GREENWELL 677

measurements and visualizations reported in [8] indicate that a 1%

Gurney ﬂap on a 70

·

delta wing has a negligible effect on the strength

of the primary leading-edge vortex and on the variation of vortex

breakdown position with angle of attack, but that the height of the

vortex core above the wing surface was reduced slightly. The

reduction in vortex height at a given angle of attack would be

expected to increase the vortex lift component. An indication of the

relative magnitudes of the potential and vortex lift components can

be obtained by ﬁtting the LESA lift model [29]

C

N

=C

NP

÷C

NV

=K

P

sin() cos() ÷K

V

sin

2

() (3a)

to the experimental normal force data. Following the lead given by

Fig. 6, good agreement was obtained by modeling the effects of a

Gurney ﬂap as shifts

0P

and

0V

in the effective incidences of the

potential and attached-ﬂow components

C

N

=K

P

sin( ÷

0P

) cos( ÷

0P

)

÷K

V

sin( ÷

0V

)[ sin( ÷

0V

)[ (3b)

as demonstrated in Fig. 7. This shows the variation in normal force

for a 70

·

delta wing with 1 and 3% Gurney ﬂaps, compared with

Eq. (3b). The corresponding lift factors K

P

and K

V

and zero-lift

offsets

0P

and

0V

, as determined from a nonlinear least-squares ﬁt

to the data, are shown in Table 1. Although the results of ﬁtting a

nonlinear equation to experimental data should be treated with

caution, it is clear that the Gurneyﬂap has a much greater effect on the

potential lift component than on the vortex lift, with the change in

zero-lift incidence

0P

of the order of six times bigger than the change

in the vortex zero-lift incidence

0V

. At a given incidence, the change

in lift due to ﬂap deployment is largely due to the change in potential

lift, with a small contribution from the vortex lift. This is consistent

with the results reported in [8]. At lowangles of attack, the reduction

in local potential lift-curve slope

dC

NP

d

=K

p

cos(2)

as the potential lift curve moves to the left is counterbalanced by the

increase in the vortex lift-curve slope

dC

NP

d

=K

v

sin(2)

giving a small increase in local lift-curve slope at low incidences.

B. Drag

Figure 8 shows proﬁle drag penalties for 2-D airfoils and 3-D

wings as a function of ﬂap height. Plotting the change in minimum

drag C

Dmin

against relative ﬂap area S

f

=S collapses 2-D and 3-D

data onto a single linear trend. As one might expect for a bluff-body

wake ﬂow, the increase in parasite drag area D=

1

2

V

2

for both 2-D

and 3-D wings is approximately equal to the frontal area of the ﬂap

hb, giving

D

min

1

2

V

2

=C

Dmin

S ~hb ÷C

Dmin

~

hb

S

=

S

f

S

(4)

Figure 9 shows that Gurney ﬂap deployment also has a signiﬁcant

impact on induced drag for ﬂat-plate delta wings, due to the loss of

leading-edge suction for a sharp-edged wing. Applying the analysis

of [8], the lift-dependent drag component of the normal force

becomes

C

Di

=C

N

sin() =C

L

tan() (5)

so that the induced-drag factor k is

k =AR

C

Di

C

2

L

=AR

tan()

C

L

(6)

Since the effect of a Gurney ﬂap on a delta wing is to increase lift C

L

at a ﬁxed incidence , Eq. (6) shows that the corresponding induced-

drag factor must reduce as ﬂap height increases. For the LESAmodel

of Eq. (3), the induced-drag factor is a nonlinear function of

incidence, with a limiting (maximum) value at zero incidence of

k

÷0

=

AR

K

P

(7)

Equation (7) gives induced-drag factors rather higher than those

shown in Fig. 9, due to the effects of nonzero incidence and partial

recovery of leading-edge suction, but it does indicate the general

effects of wing planform. As sweep angle is reduced, the induced

drag increases, because the increased aspect ratio outweighs the

effect of increased lift-curve slope.

Fig. 6 Effect of ﬂap area on zero-lift incidence.

Fig. 7 Effect of Gurney ﬂap height on potential and vortex lift

components for a 70

delta wing.

Table 1 Modiﬁed LESA ﬁt to Fig. 7

h=c

r

K

P

K

V

0P

0V

0 1.75 3.14 ÷0:5

·

÷0:5

·

1% 1.75 3.14 ÷4:5

·

÷1:0

·

3% 1.75 3.14 ÷9:5

·

÷2:0

·

678 GREENWELL

The corresponding effects of ﬂap on lift/drag ratio (e.g., Fig. 1c)

follow directly from Fig. 8 and 9, since

L

D

max

·

1

C

D0

k

_ ; C

Lmd

·

C

D0

k

r

(8)

The lift coefﬁcient C

L;md

for maximum L=D ratio increases rapidly

with ﬂap deployment, as zero-lift drag C

D0

increases and induced-

drag factor k reduces. The effect on (L=D)

max

depends on whether

C

D0

increases more rapidly than k reduces, which in turn depends on

the clean-wing proﬁle drag. For the data presented here, (L=D)

max

is

always reduced by ﬂap deployment.

It should be noted that for practical wings with rounded leading

edges, partial recovery of leading-edge suction leads to markedly

lower levels of induced drag [35], and so reductions in k due to ﬂap

deployment will be much smaller. For example, the rectangular wing

with a NACA23012 airfoil section reported in [31] shows very little

variation in induced-drag factor with ﬂap deployment. Gurney ﬂaps

on a UCAV-type planform with an airfoil cross section are therefore

likely to have a much more adverse impact on L=D than that

suggested by tests on ﬂat-plate wings [8,10,16].

C. Pitching Moment

The ratio of pitching-moment change to lift change (pitch/lift

ratio) is a critical parameter for a control effector on a tailless aircraft.

In order to illustrate the effect of wing and ﬂap geometry on this

parameter, Fig. 10 plots zero-lift pitching-moment change C

m0

against change in lift at zero incidence C

L0

for a range of wings

with Gurney ﬂaps (symbols as Fig. 5). Figure 11 shows the corre-

sponding trim-drag penalty C

Dmin

as a function of lift increment.

Two-dimensional thin-airfoil theory gives a limiting maximum

value for pitch/lift ratio C

M0

=C

L0

of ÷0:25. For 2-Dairfoils with

Gurney ﬂaps [6,7,32–34], Fig. 10 indicates that the pitch/lift ratio

tends to be slightly less than this theoretical value. For 3-D wings

with Gurney ﬂaps, the ratio is greater than 2-D theory predicts and

increases with reducing aspect ratio up to about ÷0:35 for a 70

·

delta.

This is the opposite of the trend predicted by [36] for wings with fully

attached ﬂow.

For comparison purposes, Fig. 10 also shows pitch/lift ratios for

two delta wings with trailing-edge ﬂaps: a 41

·

delta with a split ﬂap

[17] and a 63

·

delta with a trailing-edge ﬂap [37]. These two wings

are not directly comparable with the data reported here, since they

had airfoil cross sections and were tested at much higher Reynolds

numbers; however, published data for simple delta wings with

Fig. 8 Effect of ﬂap height on increment in minimum drag.

Fig. 9 Effect of ﬂap height on induced-drag factor.

Fig. 10 Pitch/lift ratio for conventional controls and Gurney ﬂaps.

Fig. 11 Trim drag for conventional controls and Gurney ﬂaps.

GREENWELL 679

trailing-edge ﬂaps is remarkably scarce. Bearing in mind the different

test conditions, these two data sets indicate that Gurney ﬂaps on delta

wings have pitch control characteristics similar to conventional

trailing-edge ﬂaps. However, the associated trim drag is on the order

of four to ﬁve times higher (Fig. 11).

The most signiﬁcant way in which Gurney ﬂaps differ from

conventional trailing-edge controls is in their effect on aerodynamic

center, as shown in Fig. 12. For both 2-Dand 3-Dwings, Gurney ﬂap

deployment gives a signiﬁcant aft shift of the aerodynamic center

relative to the clean wing. The magnitude of the shift is roughly

proportional to the lift increment. Figure 12 indicates that

conventional trailing-edge controls on delta wings can also cause an

aft shift in aerodynamic center, but the magnitude is much smaller,

and the shift changes sign at higher control deﬂections. The cause of

the aerodynamic-center movement with Gurney ﬂap deployment

appears to be an aft shift in chordwise loading distribution, due to the

ﬁnite pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces

induced by the ﬂap wake at the trailing edge [20].

V. Conclusions

A parametric wind-tunnel study has demonstrated that the effects

of Gurney ﬂap deployment on lift, drag, and pitching moment are

similar for delta wings with sweep angles of 40, 60, and 70

·

,

spanning vortex ﬂowtypes fromnonslender to slender. The effects of

ﬂap height on lift and proﬁle drag are also consistent with the

extensive literature on 2-DGurney ﬂaps, when appropriately param-

eterized. The inﬂuence of wing aspect ratio can be accounted for by

using the shift in zero-lift incidence

0L

rather than the increase in

lift C

L

, while the effect of wing taper can be accounted for by using

the relative ﬂap area S

f

=S rather than the height/chord ratio h=c

r

.

Fitting experimental data to the LESAmodel indicates that on a delta

wing the Gurney ﬂap acts primarily to change the zero-lift incidence

of the attached-ﬂow potential lift component, with a much smaller

effect on the separated-ﬂow vortex lift component. The Gurney ﬂap

generates a bluff-body wake, giving an increase in proﬁle drag C

D0

that is approximately equal to the relative frontal area S

f

=S of the

ﬂap.

For the simple ﬂat-plate delta-wing models tested here, Gurney

ﬂaps give very large improvements in induced drag, which tends to

counteract the increase in proﬁle drag due to ﬂap frontal area and

hence gives a relatively small reduction in L=D. This is due to the

nearly 100% loss of leading-edge suction on a ﬂat-plate wing with a

sharp leading edge, which results in unrealistically high induced-

drag factors for the clean wings. The induced-drag reduction with

ﬂap deployment for a ﬂat-plate wing is essentially a geometry effect,

as normal force is increased at a ﬁxed incidence. For practical UCAV

and MAV wings with rounded leading edges, the clean-wing

induced-drag factors (and hence the relative improvements due to

Gurney ﬂap deployment) will be much smaller, and so adverse

effects on L=D are likely to be much larger.

Pitch/lift ratios for delta wings with Gurney ﬂaps are similar to

those for delta wings with trailing-edge control surfaces and are

signiﬁcantly more negative than for conventional wings with

attached ﬂow. Gurney ﬂaps would appear to have a similar pitch

control capability to conventional ﬂaps, but this is offset by a much

higher trim-drag penalty and by an associated aft (stabilizing) shift of

the aerodynamic center.

The usual effective camber explanation of the effects of Gurney

ﬂaps on 2-D airfoils has some shortcomings when applied to delta

wings. The observed increases in lift, maximum lift, and nose-down

pitching moment are all consistent with a change in effective camber.

However, the drag polars remain symmetric about zero lift, and the

vortex lift component is relatively unaffected. The large aft shift in

aerodynamic center is due to the local separated-ﬂoweffects near the

trailing edge, where the pressure difference between upper and lower

surfaces at the trailing edge due to the ﬂap wake leads to an aft shift in

loading and hence to an increase in effective chord.

Data comparisons have highlighted a number of issues with the

limited literature on delta wings with Gurney ﬂaps. In general, many

papers do not clearly specify the moment reference center, the

moment reference length, or the point from which ﬂap height is

measured, which makes comparisons and assessments of trends very

difﬁcult. More speciﬁcally, two out of three of the most compre-

hensive data sets available have lift, drag, and pitching-moment data

that are clearly in error, but because no comparison was made with

other (readily available) experimental data sets for delta wings, or

with simple theoretical predictions, these errors were not recognized

before publication.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Patrick Wichert, Chris Dance, Louise

McFarlane, and David Delamore-Sutcliffe for their assistance with

the experimental work and data analysis.

References

[1] Gursul, I., Gordnier, R., and Visbal, M., “Unsteady Aerodynamics of

Non-Slender Delta Wings,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 41,

No. 7, 2005, pp. 515–557.

doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2005.09.002

[2] Sellars, N. D., Wood, N. J., and Kennaugh, A., “Delta Wing Circulation

Control Using the Coanda Effect,” AIAAPaper 2002-3269, June 2002.

[3] Harley, C. D., Wilde, P. I. A., and Crowther, W. J., “Application of

Circulation Control Manoeuvre Effectors for Three Axis Control of a

Tailless Flight Vehicle,” AIAA Paper 2009-146, Jan. 2009.

[4] Li, Y. C., Wang, J. J., Tan, G. K., and Zhang, P. F., “Effects of Gurney

Flaps on the Lift Enhancement of a Cropped Non-Slender Delta Wing,”

Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2002, pp. 99–105.

doi:10.1007/s003480200010

[5] Liebeck, R. H., “Design of Subsonic Airfoils for High Lift,” Journal of

Aircraft, Vol. 15, No. 9, 1978, pp. 547–561.

doi:10.2514/3.58406

[6] Gai, S. L., and Palfrey, R., “Inﬂuence of Trailing-Edge FlowControl on

Airfoil Performance,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 40, No. 2, March–

April 2003, pp. 332–337.

doi:10.2514/2.3097

[7] Giguere, P., Dumas, G., and Lemay, J., “Gurney Flap Scaling for

Optimum Lift-to-Drag Ratio,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 12,

Dec. 1997, pp. 1888–1890.

doi:10.2514/2.49

[8] Traub, L. W., and Galls, S. F., “Effects of Leading and Trailing Edge

Gurney Flaps on a Delta Wing,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 4,

July–Aug. 1999, pp. 651–658.

doi:10.2514/2.2507

[9] Buchholz, M. D., and Tso, J., “Lift Augmentation on Delta Wing with

Leading-Edge Fences and Gurney Flap,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37,

No. 6, Nov.–Dec. 2000, pp. 1050–1057.

doi:10.2514/2.2710

[10] Buchholz, M. D., “Lift Augmentation on Delta Wing via Leading-Edge

stabilizing

Fig. 12 Aerodynamic-center shift due to Gurney ﬂap deployment.

680 GREENWELL

Fences and the Gurney Flap,” M.Sc. Thesis, California Polytechnic

State University, Dec. 1992.

[11] Li, Y., and Wang, J., “Experimental Studies on the Drag Reduction and

Lift Enhancement of a Delta Wing,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 40, No. 2,

March–April 2003, pp. 277–281.

doi:10.2514/2.3120

[12] Langan, K. J., and Samuels, J. J., “Experimental Investigations of

Maneuver Performance Enhancements on an Advanced Fighter/Attack

Aircraft,” AIAA Paper 1995-0442, Jan. 1995.

[13] Zhan, J., and Wang, J., “Experimental Study on Gurney Flap and Apex

Flap on a Delta Wing,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 6, Nov.–

Dec. 2004, pp. 1379–1383.

doi:10.2514/1.4044

[14] Greenblatt, D., Kastantin, Y., Nayeri, C. N., and Paschereit, C. O.,

“Delta Wing Flow Control Using Dielectric Barrier Discharge

Actuators,” AIAA Paper 2007-4277, June 2007.

[15] Wentz, W. H., and Kohlman, D. L., “Vortex Breakdown on Slender

Sharp-Edged Wings,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 8, No. 3, March 1971,

pp. 156–161.

doi:10.2514/3.44247

[16] Greenwell, D. I., Dance, C., McFarlane, L., Wichert, P., and Delamore-

Sutcliffe, D., “Gurney Flaps on Slender and Non-Slender Delta Wings,”

AIAA Paper 2006-3568, June 2006.

[17] Demele, F. A., “Effects of a Leading-Edge Slat and a Trailing-Edge

Split Flap on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Wing –Fuselage

Combination Having a Nearly Triangular Wing of Aspect Ratio 2.9 at

Mach Numbers from 0.60 to 0.92,” NACA RM A57H19, Jan. 1954.

[18] Wang, J. J., Li, Y. C., and Choi, K.-S., “Gurney Flap—Lift Enhance-

ment, Mechanisms and Applications,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences,

Vol. 44, No. 1, 2008, pp. 22–47.

doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2007.10.001

[19] Liu, T., and Montefort, J., “Thin-Airfoil Theoretical Interpretation for

Gurney Flap Lift Enhancement,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 2,

March–April 2007, pp. 667–671.

doi:10.2514/1.27680

[20] Jeffreys, D., Zhang, X., and Hurst, D. W., “Aerodynamics of Gurney

Flaps on a Single-Element High-Lift Wing,” Journal of Aircraft,

Vol. 37, No. 2, March–April 2000, pp. 295–301.

doi:10.2514/2.2593

[21] Traub, L. W., Miller, A. C., and Rediniotis, O., “Preliminary Parametric

Study of Gurney-Flap Dependencies,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43,

No. 4, July–Aug. 2006, pp. 1242–1244.

doi:10.2514/1.13852

[22] Thompson, B. E., and Lotz, R. D., “Divergent-Trailing-Edge Airfoil

Flow,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 5, Sept.–Oct. 1996, pp. 950–

955.

doi:10.2514/3.47040

[23] Barrett, R. V., “Design and Performance of a New Low Turbulence

Wind Tunnel at Bristol University,” The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 88,

No. 873, March 1984, pp. 86–90.

[24] Shindo, S., “Simpliﬁed Tunnel Correction Method,” Journal of

Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 1, Jan. 1995, pp. 210–213.

doi:10.2514/3.46705

[25] Pope, A., Rae, W. H., and Barlow, J. B., Low-Speed Wind Tunnel

Testing, Wiley, New York, 1999.

[26] Wichert, P., “Experimental Investigation of Gurney Flaps on Low

Aspect Ratio Delta Wings,” M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Stuttgart, Stuttgart,

Germany, and Univ. of Bristol, Bristol, England, U.K., July 2004.

[27] Dance, C., and McFarlane, L., “Gurney Flaps on Delta Wings,”

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Univ. of Bristol, Project

Rept. 1123, Bristol, England, U.K., May 2005.

[28] Torlund, P.-A., “Wind Tunnel Force Measurements and Visualisation

on a 60

·

Delta Wing in Oscillation, Stepwise Motion and Gusts,”

Manoeuvring Aerodynamics, CP-497, AGARD, Paper 10, Neuilly-sur-

Seine, France, May 1991.

[29] Polhamus, E. C., “A Concept of the Vortex Lift of Sharp-Edge Delta

Wings Based on a Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy,” NASA TN-D-

3767, Dec. 1966.

[30] Ericsson, L. E., “Explanation for Huge Differences Between Measure-

ments of Vortex Breakdown on 65

·

Delta-Wing Conﬁgurations,” AIAA

Paper 1999-1410, Aug. 1999.

[31] Cavanaugh, M. A., Robertson, P., and Mason, W. H., “Wind Tunnel Test

of Gurney Flaps and T-Strips on an NACA 23012 Wing,” AIAA

Paper 2007-4175, June 2007.

[32] Li. Y. C., Wang, J. J., and Zhang, P. F., “Effects of Gurney Flaps on a

NACA0012 Airfoil,” Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, Vol. 68,

No. 1, 2002, pp. 27–39.

doi:10.1023/A:1015679408150

[33] Myose, R., Papadakis, M., and Heron, I., “Gurney Flap Experiments on

Airfoils, Wings and Reﬂection Plane Models,” Journal of Aircraft,

Vol. 35, No. 2, March–April 1998, pp. 206–211.

doi:10.2514/2.2309

[34] Guzel, G., Sankar, L. N., and Rhee, M., “Computational Investigation

of the Effects of Gurney Flap on the Aerodynamic Performance of VR-

12 Airfoil,” AIAA Paper 2005-4960, June 2005.

[35] Carlson, H. W., and Mack, R. J., “Studies of Leading-Edge Thrust

Phenomena,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 17, No. 12, Dec. 1980, pp. 890–

897.

doi:10.2514/3.57981

[36] “Aerofoil and Wing Pitching Moment Coefﬁcient at Zero Angle of

Attack Due to Deployment of Trailing-Edge Plain Flaps at Low

Speeds,” ESDU International, Data Item 98017, Nov. 2003.

[37] Stephenson, J. D., and Amuedo, A. R., “Tests of a Triangular Wing of

Aspect Ratio 2 in the Ames 12-Foot Pressure Wind Tunnel 2—The

Effectiveness and Hinge Moments of a Constant-Chord Plain Flap,”

NACA RM A8E03, Sept. 1948.

GREENWELL 681

. by a factor of around 30%.11] were compared with previous data for 40 delta wings (e. Tests with III.g. with a thickness/chord of 1. and 5% were tested at a Reynolds number based on root chord of 8:6 105 . 2 Delta-wing model geometry.6% and a 60 symmetric beveled leading-edge. Flaps were made of 1 mm aluminum sheet and attached to the lower surface of Fig. combined with an aft shift in aerodynamic center (Fig. and 70 were tested in the Bristol University 0:8 0:6 m Low-Turbulence Wind Tunnel [23]. the pressure difference between upper and lower surfaces at the trailing edge due to the separated wake of the ﬂap [20] leads to an aft shift in loading and hence to an increase in effective chord [21. Pitch/lift ratio Cm0 =CL0 is negative and of a similar magnitude to conventional trailing-edge controls.246. 3. and pitching moment. and nose-down pitching moment are all consistent with an increase in effective camber. In addition. Most explanations of the effects of Gurney ﬂaps suggest that the change in the trailing-edge Kutta condition due to ﬂap deployment leads to a change in effective camber [18. Gurney ﬂap heights of 1. However. with leading edges beveled on the lower surface at a 20 included angle (Fig. [4.17]). so again this data set must be considered unreliable. This tunnel is of conventional closed-circuit design. 2. it became clear that the basic wing lift-curve slope was far too high. an increase in lift at ﬁxed incidence leads to a reduction in induced-drag factor.11] present work on a cropped 40 delta wing in two complementary papers. [15]). [1. with a thickness/chord of 3% and a 45 lower-surface beveled leading edge. and 5% were tested at a Reynolds number based on root chord of 2:5 105 . 1b). using data from the sole remaining reliable and comprehensive data set [8].. drag. Flap deployment gives a nose-down change in zero-lift pitching moment Cm0 . The increase in lift-curve slope and aft shift in aerodynamic center are consistent with an increase in effective chord. rather than to an incidencedependent change in proﬁle drag. 1a). leading to a reduction in maximum lift/drag ratio L=Dmax and an increase in the lift coefﬁcient for minimum drag (Fig. and pitching-moment measurements by 1. However. No obvious reason could be found for these discrepancies.. This suggests a possible error in the dynamic pressure measurement. 1c). 2. When the results presented in [4. Constant-height ﬂaps with height/chord ratios of 1. Lift at zero incidence CL0 and maximum lift CL max both show a signiﬁcant increase.1%. Forces and moments were measured using an AeroTech 3component overhead balance. The 3-D wing behavior shown in Fig. A ﬂat-plate wing model was used. and 0.353. 3. An analysis of the entire data set [16] showed that dividing all lift. drag. the drag polar remains symmetric about zero lift. Models were made of 3 mm aluminum sheet. presumably because the increase in drag is due directly to the separated wake ﬂow behind the ﬂap. giving a model/tunnel area ratio of 0. A ﬂat-plate wing model was used. 1 suggests that both factors are operating. and 6% of root chord were tested. Figure 1 illustrates the typical effects of Gurney ﬂap deployment on lift. Zero-lift drag CD0 increases. respectively. along with a small increase in lift-curve slope (Fig.19]. 0. with the models mounted inverted on a single strut plus a pitch pushrod (Fig. but the reduction in induced-drag factor is less straightforward. Li et al. whatever the error source. Constant-height ﬂaps with height/chord ratios of 1. The increase in lift. Model planform area S was held constant at 0:072 m2 .676 GREENWELL Buchholz and Tso [9] summarize a project study [10] of a range of larger Gurney ﬂaps on a 60 delta wing. 60. but induced-drag factor k reduces (Fig. Reference [8] suggests that since the lift-dependent induced drag is equal to CL tan for a ﬂat-plate delta wing with zero leading-edge suction. Experimental Arrangement Three sharp-edged ﬂat-plate delta-wing models with leading-edge sweep angles of 40.3 gave a more reasonable agreement with published 60 wing data and with the effects of ﬂap height reported later in this paper. with ﬂap height h measured from the wing lower surface. 1d) as dCm =dCL becomes more negative. 3). maximum lift.22]. with a large contraction ratio and ﬂow control screens to give turbulence levels well below 0. 2) and with a blunt trailing edge. a) b) c) d) Fig. the wing. it was noted that the lift-curve slope was too low by a factor of 20% (allowing for taper ratio) and that the aerodynamic center was misplaced. 1 Typical effects of Gurney ﬂap on delta-wing aerodynamics (data from [1]).436 m.g. when the results presented in [9] were compared with previous data for 60 delta wings (e. A small underwing fairing covered the strut and pushrod attachment points.15 and a root chord cr of 0. this data set is clearly unreliable. 3.

1 . Fig. Balance accuracy was estimated at better than 0. Normal force and pitching moments compare very well.32–34].27]. Solid and wake blockage were corrected for using the method of [24]. Lift Fig. the question arises as to the relative effect of a Gurney ﬂap on the two lift components.7. In order to verify the accuracy of the experimental procedure and data reduction. with pitch angle set to better than 0. Figure 4 compares the basic 60 sweep wing results with data from Flygtekniska Försöksanstalten (FFA) in Sweden [28]. The difference between the 2-D and 3-D data in Fig. where the lift may be split into potential (or attached) and leading-edge vortex (or separated) ﬂow contributions [29]. 5. The crosses show data for a range of 2-D airfoils with Gurney ﬂaps [6. 5 in log–log form indicates that the variation for both 2-D and 3-D wings is closer to n 0:7 (with q ranging between 3 and 6). Off-surface ﬂow Fig. The effect of variations in lift-curve slope a0 can be accounted for by replacing lift increment CL0 with change in zero-lift incidence 0L CL0 =a0 . inverted (i. with downwash corrections from [25]. Figure 6 demonstrates that applying both factors collapses the scattered 2-D and 3-D lift increment data of Fig. Figure 4 also shows normal force data from the seminal study of delta-wing aerodynamics by Wentz and Kohlman [15] and the theoretical normal force given by the leading-edge suction analogy (LESA) [29]. drag. Tests were carried out at a constant Reynolds number based on root chord of 0:7 106 . and the open diamond symbols denote a rectangular wing with an aspect ratio of 6 [31]. IV. A similarly good agreement with published data was obtained for the clean 40 and 70 wings and for the 70 wing with a 1% ﬂap [16]. 5 reasonably well onto a single trend: 0L 0:9 Sf =S0:7 (2) For the speciﬁc case of delta wings. with identical lift-curve slopes and aerodynamic centers at low incidence. The experimental data reviewed in [19] also shows no systematic variation of q with Reynolds number. upper surface) ﬂaps established that the underwing fairing had no signiﬁcant effect on trends in aerodynamic behavior with ﬂap height. The same symbols are used in the following ﬁgures. 5 can be attributed to two factors: 1) the effect of aspect ratio on lift-curve slope and 2) the effect of taper ratio on the relative ﬂap height. [19] proposes that the lift increment due to a Gurney ﬂap is CL0 q h=cn (1) where q is supposedly a function of Reynolds number (varying between 2 and 4) and n 0:5..15% in lift. The FFA wing had a very similar geometry (a strut-mounted ﬂat-plate model with an underbody fairing) and was tested at the same Reynolds number of 0:71 106 . 5 shows the increment in lift coefﬁcient at zero incidence CL0 as a function of relative height h=cr (following previous convention in using the root chord as a reference length for 3-D wing data).27]. Fig. Pitching moments were nondimensionalized using the mean aerodynamic chord c (2cr =3) and taken about a moment reference center at the quarter-chord point (0:5cr ).e. the baseline delta-wing data was compared with a range of published results for similar wings. 3 Model mounted in the Bristol Low-Turbulence Tunnel. and pitching moment. Further details of the experimental arrangement can be found in [26. 5 Effect of ﬂap height on lift increment at zero incidence. 4 Comparison of basic 60 wing with theory and results from Torlund [28] and Wentz and Kohlman [15]. the most straightforward weighting method is to use the relative ﬂap area Sf =S hb=S. The effect of taper ratio can be accounted for by weighting the ﬂap height by the local chord. Effect of Gurney Flap Height A. to allow for the effect of different leading-edge Looking ﬁrst at the effect of ﬂap height on lift. plotting the data of [19] and Fig. However. For the constant-ﬂap-height data of Fig. The ﬁlled symbols denote increments derived from the Bristol data of [26. Angle of attack is given relative to the zero-lift incidence 0L . . On the basis of thin-airfoil theory.GREENWELL 677 chamfer angles [30] and support interference.

An indication of the relative magnitudes of the potential and vortex lift components can be obtained by ﬁtting the LESA lift model [29] CN CNP CNV KP sin cos KV sin2 (3a) Fig. the induced drag increases. giving Dmin hb Sf 1 2 CD min S hb ! CD min V S S 2 (4) as demonstrated in Fig. with a small contribution from the vortex lift.75 Modiﬁed LESA ﬁt to Fig. Following the lead given by Fig. the lift-dependent drag component of the normal force becomes CDi CN sin CL tan so that the induced-drag factor k is k AR CDi tan AR 2 CL CL (6) (5) Since the effect of a Gurney ﬂap on a delta wing is to increase lift CL at a ﬁxed incidence . 7. it is clear that the Gurney ﬂap has a much greater effect on the potential lift component than on the vortex lift. the increase in parasite drag area D= 1 V 2 for both 2-D 2 and 3-D wings is approximately equal to the frontal area of the ﬂap hb. measurements and visualizations reported in [8] indicate that a 1% Gurney ﬂap on a 70 delta wing has a negligible effect on the strength of the primary leading-edge vortex and on the variation of vortex breakdown position with angle of attack. For the LESA model of Eq. good agreement was obtained by modeling the effects of a Gurney ﬂap as shifts 0P and 0V in the effective incidences of the potential and attached-ﬂow components CN KP sin KV sin 0P cos 0V j sin 0P 0V j (3b) Figure 8 shows proﬁle drag penalties for 2-D airfoils and 3-D wings as a function of ﬂap height. (3b). dCNP Kv sin 2 d giving a small increase in local lift-curve slope at low incidences. Although the results of ﬁtting a nonlinear equation to experimental data should be treated with caution. At a given incidence. Eq.75 1. As sweep angle is reduced. due to the effects of nonzero incidence and partial recovery of leading-edge suction. The corresponding lift factors KP and KV and zero-lift offsets 0P and 0V . This is consistent with the results reported in [8]. the induced-drag factor is a nonlinear function of incidence. are shown in Table 1. as determined from a nonlinear least-squares ﬁt to the data. 7 Effect of Gurney ﬂap height on potential and vortex lift components for a 70 delta wing.14 0P 0:5 4:5 9:5 0V 0:5 1:0 2:0 Figure 9 shows that Gurney ﬂap deployment also has a signiﬁcant impact on induced drag for ﬂat-plate delta wings. but that the height of the vortex core above the wing surface was reduced slightly. B. Applying the analysis of [8]. with the change in zero-lift incidence 0P of the order of six times bigger than the change in the vortex zero-lift incidence 0V . 6.678 GREENWELL Fig. because the increased aspect ratio outweighs the effect of increased lift-curve slope. (6) shows that the corresponding induceddrag factor must reduce as ﬂap height increases. . Plotting the change in minimum drag CD min against relative ﬂap area Sf =S collapses 2-D and 3-D data onto a single linear trend. compared with Eq. As one might expect for a bluff-body wake ﬂow. The reduction in vortex height at a given angle of attack would be expected to increase the vortex lift component. (3). At low angles of attack.14 3. with a limiting (maximum) value at zero incidence of k!0 AR KP (7) Equation (7) gives induced-drag factors rather higher than those shown in Fig. Drag to the experimental normal force data. the reduction in local potential lift-curve slope dCNP Kp cos 2 d as the potential lift curve moves to the left is counterbalanced by the increase in the vortex lift-curve slope Table 1 h=cr 0 1% 3% KP 1. the change in lift due to ﬂap deployment is largely due to the change in potential lift. 9.14 3.75 1. but it does indicate the general effects of wing planform. due to the loss of leading-edge suction for a sharp-edged wing. This shows the variation in normal force for a 70 delta wing with 1 and 3% Gurney ﬂaps. 6 Effect of ﬂap area on zero-lift incidence. 7 KV 3.

The effect on L=Dmax depends on whether CD0 increases more rapidly than k reduces. 8 and 9. For 3-D wings with Gurney ﬂaps. It should be noted that for practical wings with rounded leading edges. since L 1 / p . These two wings are not directly comparable with the data reported here. as zero-lift drag CD0 increases and induceddrag factor k reduces. which in turn depends on the clean-wing proﬁle drag. Gurney ﬂaps on a UCAV-type planform with an airfoil cross section are therefore likely to have a much more adverse impact on L=D than that suggested by tests on ﬂat-plate wings [8. The corresponding effects of ﬂap on lift/drag ratio (e. Fig. however. 1c) follow directly from Fig. the ratio is greater than 2-D theory predicts and increases with reducing aspect ratio up to about 0:35 for a 70 delta. This is the opposite of the trend predicted by [36] for wings with fully attached ﬂow. Fig. 8 Effect of ﬂap height on increment in minimum drag. For example. and so reductions in k due to ﬂap deployment will be much smaller. D max CD0 k CLmd r CD0 / k (8) The lift coefﬁcient CL. .. 5). Fig. L=Dmax is always reduced by ﬂap deployment. Fig. published data for simple delta wings with Fig. Fig. 10 indicates that the pitch/lift ratio tends to be slightly less than this theoretical value. Two-dimensional thin-airfoil theory gives a limiting maximum value for pitch/lift ratio CM0 =CL0 of 0:25. since they had airfoil cross sections and were tested at much higher Reynolds numbers.g.32–34].GREENWELL 679 Pitching Moment C. the rectangular wing with a NACA23012 airfoil section reported in [31] shows very little variation in induced-drag factor with ﬂap deployment. 10 plots zero-lift pitching-moment change Cm0 against change in lift at zero incidence CL0 for a range of wings with Gurney ﬂaps (symbols as Fig. Fig. For 2-D airfoils with Gurney ﬂaps [6.md for maximum L=D ratio increases rapidly with ﬂap deployment. In order to illustrate the effect of wing and ﬂap geometry on this parameter. The ratio of pitching-moment change to lift change (pitch/lift ratio) is a critical parameter for a control effector on a tailless aircraft. For comparison purposes. 10 also shows pitch/lift ratios for two delta wings with trailing-edge ﬂaps: a 41 delta with a split ﬂap [17] and a 63 delta with a trailing-edge ﬂap [37]. For the data presented here.7. partial recovery of leading-edge suction leads to markedly lower levels of induced drag [35]. 9 Effect of ﬂap height on induced-drag factor.16]. Fig. 11 Trim drag for conventional controls and Gurney ﬂaps.10. Figure 11 shows the corresponding trim-drag penalty CD min as a function of lift increment. 10 Pitch/lift ratio for conventional controls and Gurney ﬂaps.

“Application of Circulation Control Manoeuvre Effectors for Three Axis Control of a Tailless Flight Vehicle. 2. J. June 2002. 15. two out of three of the most comprehensive data sets available have lift.. N.” Journal of Aircraft. Gordnier. Tan. Wood.” Journal of Aircraft. maximum lift. F. S.002 [2] Sellars. 11). Dumas.2514/2. The cause of the aerodynamic-center movement with Gurney ﬂap deployment appears to be an aft shift in chordwise loading distribution.49 [8] Traub. J. The usual effective camber explanation of the effects of Gurney ﬂaps on 2-D airfoils has some shortcomings when applied to delta wings. I.–Dec. No. C.680 GREENWELL stabilizing Fig. which tends to counteract the increase in proﬁle drag due to ﬂap frontal area and hence gives a relatively small reduction in L=D. 651–658. R. P. spanning vortex ﬂow types from nonslender to slender.” Journal of Aircraft.. “Design of Subsonic Airfoils for High Lift. No. and Crowther. “Inﬂuence of Trailing-Edge Flow Control on Airfoil Performance.” AIAA Journal. Bearing in mind the different test conditions. P. and pitching moment are similar for delta wings with sweep angles of 40. and pitching-moment data that are clearly in error. 40. the drag polars remain symmetric about zero lift. [3] Harley.. giving an increase in proﬁle drag CD0 that is approximately equal to the relative frontal area Sf =S of the ﬂap. The most signiﬁcant way in which Gurney ﬂaps differ from conventional trailing-edge controls is in their effect on aerodynamic center.. D. The observed increases in lift. However. “Effects of Leading and Trailing Edge Gurney Flaps on a Delta Wing. and Lemay. 99–105. “Lift Augmentation on Delta Wing via Leading-Edge V. Data comparisons have highlighted a number of issues with the limited literature on delta wings with Gurney ﬂaps.2514/2. However. “Gurney Flap Scaling for Optimum Lift-to-Drag Ratio. W. Figure 12 indicates that conventional trailing-edge controls on delta wings can also cause an aft shift in aerodynamic center. trailing-edge ﬂaps is remarkably scarce. 4. 36.” AIAA Paper 2002-3269. and David Delamore-Sutcliffe for their assistance with the experimental work and data analysis. and MAV wings with rounded leading edges. Vol. The Gurney ﬂap generates a bluff-body wake. drag.1007/s003480200010 [5] Liebeck. while the effect of wing taper can be accounted for by using the relative ﬂap area Sf =S rather than the height/chord ratio h=cr . 1.. J. References [1] Gursul. 32.. which makes comparisons and assessments of trends very difﬁcult. No. doi:10.2514/2. No. and Zhang.. No. these errors were not recognized before publication. Vol. For the simple ﬂat-plate delta-wing models tested here. Dec. as normal force is increased at a ﬁxed incidence. and Visbal. 12 Aerodynamic-center shift due to Gurney ﬂap deployment.” Progress in Aerospace Sciences. Gurney ﬂaps would appear to have a similar pitch control capability to conventional ﬂaps. Fitting experimental data to the LESA model indicates that on a delta wing the Gurney ﬂap acts primarily to change the zero-lift incidence of the attached-ﬂow potential lift component.. In general. 547–561.1016/j. 41.. The large aft shift in aerodynamic center is due to the local separated-ﬂow effects near the trailing edge. drag. 37. “Effects of Gurney Flaps on the Lift Enhancement of a Cropped Non-Slender Delta Wing. The magnitude of the shift is roughly proportional to the lift increment.. H. and Kennaugh.58406 [6] Gai. “Delta Wing Circulation Control Using the Coanda Effect... No. and Galls. July–Aug. pp.09. 1997. doi:10. J. R. with a much smaller effect on the separated-ﬂow vortex lift component.. doi:10. More speciﬁcally. doi:10. but because no comparison was made with other (readily available) experimental data sets for delta wings. G. and the shift changes sign at higher control deﬂections. many papers do not clearly specify the moment reference center. I. M. 12.3097 [7] Giguere.2005. which results in unrealistically high induceddrag factors for the clean wings. S. doi:10. when appropriately parameterized.” Experiments in Fluids.” AIAA Paper 2009-146. F... 515–557. [4] Li. Nov. N. doi:10. but the magnitude is much smaller. 2009. Vol. D. but this is offset by a much higher trim-drag penalty and by an associated aft (stabilizing) shift of the aerodynamic center. 1999. and Tso. and Palfrey.2710 [10] Buchholz. “Lift Augmentation on Delta Wing with Leading-Edge Fences and Gurney Flap. Vol. L. pp. 2005. G. J.2514/2. L. A. 6. due to the ﬁnite pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces induced by the ﬂap wake at the trailing edge [20]. and 70 . Gurney ﬂaps give very large improvements in induced drag. The induced-drag reduction with ﬂap deployment for a ﬂat-plate wing is essentially a geometry effect. where the pressure difference between upper and lower surfaces at the trailing edge due to the ﬂap wake leads to an aft shift in loading and hence to an increase in effective chord. pp. W. No. D. as shown in Fig.. 7. P. M. or the point from which ﬂap height is measured.. pp. Wilde. Gurney ﬂap deployment gives a signiﬁcant aft shift of the aerodynamic center relative to the clean wing. “Unsteady Aerodynamics of Non-Slender Delta Wings. 9.2514/3. pp.. This is due to the nearly 100% loss of leading-edge suction on a ﬂat-plate wing with a sharp leading edge. Y. D. Louise McFarlane. or with simple theoretical predictions. 60. For both 2-D and 3-D wings. Conclusions A parametric wind-tunnel study has demonstrated that the effects of Gurney ﬂap deployment on lift. For practical UCAV . Vol.. the moment reference length. 2002. the clean-wing induced-drag factors (and hence the relative improvements due to Gurney ﬂap deployment) will be much smaller. pp.. pp. Wang.” Journal of Aircraft. Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank Patrick Wichert.paerosci. doi:10. Jan. 332–337. March– April 2003. The effects of ﬂap height on lift and proﬁle drag are also consistent with the extensive literature on 2-D Gurney ﬂaps. Chris Dance. the associated trim drag is on the order of four to ﬁve times higher (Fig. M. 12.. J. Pitch/lift ratios for delta wings with Gurney ﬂaps are similar to those for delta wings with trailing-edge control surfaces and are signiﬁcantly more negative than for conventional wings with attached ﬂow. The inﬂuence of wing aspect ratio can be accounted for by using the shift in zero-lift incidence 0L rather than the increase in lift CL . Vol... C. 1888–1890. and the vortex lift component is relatively unaffected.2507 [9] Buchholz. 1978.. R. 2000. 35. A. Vol. and nose-down pitching moment are all consistent with a change in effective camber. and so adverse effects on L=D are likely to be much larger. K. 1050–1057. these two data sets indicate that Gurney ﬂaps on delta wings have pitch control characteristics similar to conventional trailing-edge ﬂaps.

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Fences and the Gurney Flap.2514/3. and Rediniotis.2514/3. and Mason. March–April 2007. No. Zhan.. W. L. J.” Progress in Aerospace Sciences. Wentz. J. R.. H. of Bristol. W.” Manoeuvring Aerodynamics.. England.. “Gurney Flaps on Delta Wings. Vol.2309 Guzel. 1948.. 1. and Heron. R. Y. Wichert.. P. 2002. Thesis.2514/2. Jan..1023/A:1015679408150 Myose. H..10.. Vol.Sc. Sept.” The Aeronautical Journal. “Experimental Studies on the Drag Reduction and Lift Enhancement of a Delta Wing. L. 1123.K. 890– 897. pp. July 2004. No. No. M. 1. “Tests of a Triangular Wing of Aspect Ratio 2 in the Ames 12-Foot Pressure Wind Tunnel 2—The Effectiveness and Hinge Moments of a Constant-Chord Plain Flap.2593 Traub. England. 88. Jan. Vol.2514/2. Wang. “Thin-Airfoil Theoretical Interpretation for Gurney Flap Lift Enhancement. Project Rept. and Kohlman.” Journal of Aircraft...” Journal of Aircraft. Stephenson.. Sept. “Simpliﬁed Tunnel Correction Method. I.. pp.. C.1016/j. Li. “Gurney Flap Experiments on Airfoils. Dance. Vol. 1996. doi:10. 40. L. 8. Rae.... March 1984.” AIAA Paper 1995-0442. C. Vol. D. and McFarlane. 1999. and Paschereit. doi:10. “Divergent-Trailing-Edge Airfoil Flow. Torlund. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. pp. and Samuels. No. No. No. M. pp. “A Concept of the Vortex Lift of Sharp-Edge Delta Wings Based on a Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy. D. 27–39.. 2. Mechanisms and Applications.” Flow. May 2005. Aug. 1995. C.2514/3. pp.” AIAA Paper 2006-3568. pp. Vol.” M. and Univ.-A.9 at Mach Numbers from 0. J. A.3120 Langan.. Stuttgart. doi:10. “Gurney Flaps on Slender and Non-Slender Delta Wings. J. 1980.57981 “Aerofoil and Wing Pitching Moment Coefﬁcient at Zero Angle of Attack Due to Deployment of Trailing-Edge Plain Flaps at Low Speeds.–Oct. Demele. No. 4. 17. March–April 2003. Turbulence and Combustion. 6. P. and Hurst. “Experimental Investigation of Gurney Flaps on Low Aspect Ratio Delta Wings.2514/1.” NACA RM A8E03.. pp. 277–281.. S.” Department of Aerospace Engineering.. March–April 1998. F. Miller. A. U. J. No. W. O. and Barlow. Stepwise Motion and Gusts.. Neuilly-surSeine.. 1. and Wang. 68. W. 37.. C. Dance. A. Wiley. L. J. 1995.. 2. Shindo. F. “Effects of a Leading-Edge Slat and a Trailing-Edge Split Flap on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Wing –Fuselage Combination Having a Nearly Triangular Wing of Aspect Ratio 2. pp. 873.” Journal of Aircraft. “Effects of Gurney Flaps on a NACA0012 Airfoil. March–April 2000. K. H. of Bristol. “Preliminary Parametric Study of Gurney-Flap Dependencies.2514/3. E. D. R. “Wind Tunnel Force Measurements and Visualisation on a 60 Delta Wing in Oscillation... 156–161. No. W. pp. 86–90.” AIAA Paper 2005-4960. “Gurney Flap—Lift Enhancement. Vol. Sankar.. 1379–1383. doi:10.60 to 0. Wang.2514/2.. Robertson.. “Studies of Leading-Edge Thrust Phenomena.47040 Barrett. pp..” NACA RM A57H19.” M. J. T. “Aerodynamics of Gurney Flaps on a Single-Element High-Lift Wing.. “Vortex Breakdown on Slender Sharp-Edged Wings. Dec. 2. 2.” AIAA Paper 1999-1410. June 2007.. June 2007. Vol. L. 44. K.2514/1. 1999. E.” Journal of Aircraft.13852 Thompson. AGARD.GREENWELL 681 Wind Tunnel at Bristol University. H. P. and Zhang. doi:10. Nov.paerosci. May 1991.” Journal of Aircraft.” AIAA Paper 2007-4175. Univ.. and DelamoreSutcliffe. Y. and Lotz.. and Choi. and Montefort. Dec. M. and Rhee. B. Vol. 12.” Journal of Aircraft. D. “Explanation for Huge Differences Between Measurements of Vortex Breakdown on 65 Delta-Wing Conﬁgurations. D. 22–47. July–Aug. McFarlane. C. “Design and Performance of a New Low Turbulence [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] . Carlson.. New York. No. J. Univ. U. 950– 955. doi:10. and Mack. No. G. 2008. D.-S...4044 Greenblatt. pp.27680 Jeffreys. Bristol. doi:10. E. X. doi:10. of Stuttgart...” ESDU International. California Polytechnic State University. doi:10. Y. R.” Journal of Aircraft. 32. C. I.” NASA TN-D3767.. D. Wings and Reﬂection Plane Models.. 1966. No. 43. Vol. J. J.K. N. V. Vol. N. CP-497. Nayeri.” AIAA Paper 2007-4277.92..2514/1. doi:10. O. Nov. B. Zhang. Germany. “Wind Tunnel Test of Gurney Flaps and T-Strips on an NACA 23012 Wing. Polhamus.. Cavanaugh.. and Amuedo. Dec. March 1971.001 Liu. Papadakis.. J.. D. Jan. 2003..44247 Greenwell. L. pp. A. C..2007. doi:10. 44. Li.. and Wang. Bristol. 33. pp. P.” Journal of Aircraft. Vol.” Journal of Aircraft. J. 1242–1244.. P. 206–211.. 5. R. June 2005. Thesis. 1954. “Experimental Investigations of Maneuver Performance Enhancements on an Advanced Fighter/Attack Aircraft. 2004. Y..Sc.. “Delta Wing Flow Control Using Dielectric Barrier Discharge Actuators. 35. 2006. Data Item 98017. Kastantin. 667–671. W. 210–213. 3. C. J. “Experimental Study on Gurney Flap and Apex Flap on a Delta Wing. Ericsson. 1992.46705 Pope.. Wichert.. Li.. A. doi:10. 41.. France. J.. No. June 2006. 295–301. “Computational Investigation of the Effects of Gurney Flap on the Aerodynamic Performance of VR12 Airfoil. Vol. Paper 10.” Journal of Aircraft.– Dec.

- Article - 2015.07.08Uploaded bySagar Dasgupta
- Joukowski Airfoil at Different ViscositiesUploaded byAntonio Martín Alcántara
- foilsim overviewUploaded byapi-202153663
- XFOIL 6 Guia de UsuarioUploaded bytorups99
- 06_phak_ch4Uploaded byjaylen gardner
- Flying Wing Calc July 2009Uploaded byrcpilot
- Slipstream TheoryUploaded byPallab Banik
- Test Module BansUploaded byCristian Casas
- AIAA-1996-62-382Uploaded byPrabhakar Gidda
- Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of Propellers for Mini-remotely Piloted Air Vehicles - Volume 1Uploaded byMusteizer
- Ndpaper KunzUploaded byEnrico Lagona
- MAE4242_Ch02_Nomenclature and Aero ReviewUploaded byMatthew Austin
- Advanced Aerodynamic Control EffectorsUploaded byAnthony Ji
- Aero Introductory PhysicsUploaded byShirat Mohsin
- Derakhshandeh, J.F. (2016)Uploaded byFernando Augusto Alves Mendes
- Prerequisites QuizUploaded byedmundac
- Naca Arr l5f23Uploaded byricky.pigazzini
- FSI Simulation of HALE UAVUploaded by783255
- Tedrake09Uploaded bySHOOTER31745
- AD II 3 INTUploaded byManiyarasu Oppilamani
- 2d Airfoil Characteristics of Four Naca 6a-Series Airfoils at Transonic Mach NumbersUploaded byKarkhia Lorissa
- xfoil_doc.txtUploaded byjosefalgueras
- ME163 Aerodynamics Project 2Uploaded byNhan Thanh
- Angle of Attack and Pitch AngleUploaded byAna Ranto
- Aerodynamics SlidesUploaded byAbhinil Mathew
- Preliminary+DesignUploaded bySardar Yousaf Gurchani
- 1.4790882.pdfUploaded byAntonio Martín Alcántara
- Aerodynamics Course Notes v3Uploaded byusakalamba
- Hydro NotesUploaded byVipul Kumar
- Aircraft Design 3Uploaded byHemanth Siva Kumar

- CFD Analysis of Discharge Gas Flow in Rotary Compressor for OCR rUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- ACOUSTIC DIAGNOSTICS OF AN AUTOMOTIVE HVAC SYSTEM.pdfUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- Airfoil CalculatorUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- Microbeads_Science Summary_EN.pdfUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- vgsUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- An Investigative Study of Gurney Flaps on a NACA 0036 AirfoilUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- Racun Tersembunyi Dalam Tuala WanitaUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- Control of Wing VorticesUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo
- LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AN AIRCRAFT MODEL WITH AND WITHOUT WINGLETUploaded byFauzi Hussin Leo

- AIAA-2005-5086-424Uploaded byarash0000
- polhamusUploaded byNayicci Yoris
- Change in the Design of Fixed Wing AircraftUploaded byBob
- Pitch upUploaded byRafli Saputra
- Elegance in FlightUploaded bycavok22
- Mirage 2000Uploaded byمحمد على
- progaerosci_adaptivewingflowUploaded byalna2608
- Essays on AerodynamicsUploaded byVyssion
- Datta 2016Uploaded bykalyan1492
- NASA's Contributions to Aeronautics - Volume 1 (Gnv64)Uploaded byulys1922
- F-22-Janes1997Uploaded bybring it on
- 鹤之旅Uploaded byche.macbook
- Aerodynamic of Finite WingUploaded bychbeggy
- 561.pdfUploaded byewiontko
- ADP1 Final Prinabable Report.pdfUploaded bySowmya Raghu
- Applications of MEMS Devices to Delta Wing Aircraft From Concept Development to Transonic FlightUploaded byAlvaro Rodriguez
- 1973 - 2290Uploaded bysnbanihashemi
- Wing-Airfoil.docxUploaded byChegrani Ahmed
- Analysis of Aircraft Wing with Different Materials using ANSYS SoftwareUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Full Text 01Uploaded byPrabu Bala
- NASA Aeronautics History ~ Vol 1Uploaded byAviation/Space History Library
- Basic AerodynamicsUploaded byMohamed Arif
- Aerodynamics II - Lecture NotesUploaded bytherealslim
- AVIA 305Uploaded byBrennan Beikert
- Types of WingsUploaded byAbu Dawood
- Wing ConfigurationUploaded byKarnanRagav
- Concorde (Avion)Uploaded bydokumento
- F-104 Lockheed StarfighterUploaded bytommy shart
- Literature Review Flow VisualizationUploaded byEmmanuel AeroEng Zingapeta
- Conception Aero FighterUploaded bydhruv pramanik