AIAA-2004-1051

Computational Investigation of Airfoils with Miniature Trailing Edge Control Surfaces

Hak-Tae Lee, Ilan M. Kroo Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Abstract
Miniature trailing edge eectors (MiTEs) are small aps (typically 1% to 5% chord) actuated with deection angles of up to 90 degrees. The small size, combined with little required power and good control authority, enables the device to be used for high bandwidth control. Recently, there have been attempts to use MiTEs as aeroelastic control devices, mainly to stabilize a wing operating beyond its utter speed. However, the detailed aerodynamic characteristics of these devices are relatively unknown. The present study investigates the steady and unsteady aerodynamics of MiTEs. In order to understand the ow structure and establish a parametric database, steady state incompressible Navier-Stokes computations are performed on MiTEs with various geometries using INS2D ow solver. In addition, to resolve the dynamic characteristics, time accurate computation is implemented.

Introduction
The Gurney ap is a small ap used to increase the lift of a wing. It was developed and applied to race cars by Robert Liebeck1 and Dan Gurney in the 1960s. Numerous wind-tunnel tests and numerical computations have been performed on airfoils with Gurney aps.1, 35, 8, 9 These studies conrm that despite their small size, Gurney aps can signicantly increase the maximum lift or the lift produced at a given angle of attack. The aerodynamic force alteration is produced by a small region of separated ow directly upstream of the ap, with two counterrotating vortices downstream of the ap eectively modifying the trailing edge Kutta condition. This
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Student Member Professor, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, AIAA Fellow

Copyright c 2004 by the authors. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

mechanism was rst proposed by Liebeck1 and later veried via ow visualization810 and CFD3 simulations. Miniature Trailing edge Eectors (MiTEs) are small movable control surfaces similar to Gurney aps, at or near the trailing edge. MiTEs are deected to large angles to produce control forces and moments that may be used for general ight control or aeroelastic control. Recently, Lee11 and Bieniawski12 designed an aeroelastic control system to suppress utter using a simple linear aerodynamic model of MiTEs. However, the experiments done by Solovitz10 and Bieniawski12 suggest that signicant nonlinear characteristics such as vortex shedding exists in the aerodynamics of MiTEs and more sophisticated aerodynamic models are required for higher performance control. Most of the previous work on Gurney aps36, 8 has concentrated on studying lift and drag, while varying the size of the ap and the angle of attack. As a control device, the focus of the current study is on the change in lift, drag, and pitching moment with fully deployed MiTEs as compared to the clean conguration. A blunt trailing edge is needed to provide a space behind the trailing edge to store the ap. For the present study, which involves a sliding rectangular plate behind the trailing edge, a blunt trailing edge with the thickness at least the same as the ap height is required. For steady state computations, the height, h, of the ap is varied for both sharp and blunt trailing edge airfoil as well as Reynolds number and angle of attack. For unsteady computations, time accurate simulation is performed for a fully deployed ap with the ow started impulsively. With this xed grid time accurate computation, transient force response and vortex shedding frequencies are investigated. Time history of lift and moment coecients are then computed with the ap sliding up and down in a harmonic motion over a range of frequencies. The latter results are obtained with moving grid computations.

1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

hf = h

wf

hf
h
wf

tTE

lTE

Figure 2: C-Grid used for sharp NACA0012 airfoil

Figure 1: Geometry of MiTEs attached to sharp and

blunt trailing edge airfoils

h = hf = lT E , tT E = 0. For a blunt trailing edge airfoil,

(1)

Flow Solver
A two dimensional Reynolds-averaged Incompressible Navier-Stokes code, INS2D2 is used. INS2D utilizes an articial compressibility scheme that requires subiterations in the pseudo time domain to ensure a divergence free velocity eld at the end of each physical time step. An upwind dierencing scheme based upon ux-dierence splitting is used for the convective terms, while a second-order central dierencing is used for the viscous uxes. The equations are solved using an implicit line relaxation scheme or generalized minimum residual method. The ow is assumed to be fully turbulent and the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model is used, since this model is well known for its good performance in separated regions away from the wall.

tT E = 0, lT E = tT E + h.

(2)

h is equal to hf for a sharp trailing edge airfoil but not necessarily the same as hf for a blunt trailing edge airfoil. In the later section, the signicance of these geometric parameters, especially for the blunt trailing edge case, is explained. For the present study, NACA0012 is chosen for the baseline airfoil and an airfoil with 1.5% thick trailing edge is constructed by linearly shearing the thickness distribution of the baseline airfoil using Equation 3. tblunt (x/c) = tsharp (x/c) + 0.015(x/c) (3)

Geometry and Grid

Figure 1 shows the geometric parameters for the aps attached to both sharp and blunt trailing edges. hf and wf are height and chordwise thickness of the ap respectively. For a blunt trailing edge airfoil, tT E is the trailing edge thickness and lT E is the overall projection thickness of the trailing edge including the ap. For both cases, h is the height of the ap measured from the airfoil surface. For a sharp trailing edge airfoil,

For sharp NACA0012 airfoil, computations were performed using a single zone C-grid as shown in Figure 2. Far eld boundaries are located 15c from the airfoil in upstream, downstream, top, and bottom where c is the chord length. Minimum grid size in the direction normal to the solid wal is set to 1.0 105 c to ensure acceptable value of y + . The aps are represented in the computational domain using the iblank function of INS2D. With iblank, any point in the grid can be specied as a no slip surface or blanked out to be a hole region. Figure 3 shows the grid around the trailing edge and the ap. Chordwise thickness of the ap, wf , is set to have the minimum possible value which is determined by the minimum grid point requirement for using iblank.

2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

A B

Figure 3: Grid near the sharp trailing edge

Nf 34 52 78 118 Cl Cd Cl Cd Cl Cd Cl Cd Coarse Medium Fine 339 x (59+N f ) 503 x (88+N f ) 749 x (132+N f ) 0.3348 0.3362 0.3365 0.01273 0.0125 0.01246 0.3354 0.3369 0.3372 0.01291 0.01269 0.01264 0.3357 0.3372 0.3375 0.01295 0.01273 0.01268 0.3359 0.3373 0.3377 0.01296 0.01273 0.01269

Figure 4: Schematic diagram of G-Grid

Table 1: Cl and Cd computed using grids of various

resolution (Re = 1.5 106 )

A grid renement study is performed on a baseline design of h = 1.5% at a zero angle of attack and a Reynolds number of 1.5 106 to nd the proper number of grid points N in direction and N in direction as well as Nf inside the ap region. Table 1 shows the Cl and Cd values computed from twelve dierent grid resolutions. From the coarsest grid of 339 by 93 to the nest one of 749 by 250, the dierence is less than 1%. Medium density with Nf = 78 is selected as the baseline resolution for steady state computations. For a ap size other than 1.5%, Nf is scaled linearly according to the ap height, h. To reduce computational time, all time accurate computations are completed with the coarse resolution and a baseline Nf of 52 for the 1.5% ap. A new gridding scheme called G-grid is devised to represent a blunt trailing edge airfoil with MiTEs. A G-grid is similar to a C-grid but, = 0 grid line meets part of = 0 grid line at the wake cut surface which is perpendicular to the chord line. Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of a G-grid. The boundary condition for MiTEs can be easily implemented by specifying no slip wall condition to both A and B segment. 3

Figure 5: The actual G-Grid used for blunt trailing edge

airfoil

Figure 5 shows the actual G-grid used for the computations and Figure 6 shows the detailed grid structure around the trailing edge. Mesh resolution for this G-grid is chosen to be similar to that of C-grid and ranges from 387 by 127 for 0.5% ap to 553 by 257 for 3.0% ap. A three-zone overset grid is used for the moving grid computations. As can be seen from Figure 7, zone I is a C-grid surrounding only the airfoil without the wake. Zone II is a rectangular region downstream of the trailing edge and contains the ap where the grid points on the ap surface are specied as solid wall boundaries and the points inside the ap are blanked out using iblank. Zone III is a small rectangular grid needed to dene the solid

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Zone I

Leak blocking tap

Zone III Solid walls

Moving flap

Zone I Zone II
Figure 6: Grid near the blunt trailing edge

Figure 8: Enlarged view of the overset grid near the

trailing edge

Zone I

Zone II

Airfoil TE thickness, tT E (%)

NACA0012 0.0, 1.5 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, (3.0)

6

Airfoil

Flap size, h (%)

Zone III

Reynolds number (10 ) Angle of attack ( )

1.0, 1.5, 2.0 5.0, 2.5, 0.0, 2.5, 5.0

Table 2: Conditions for the steady state computations Figure 7: Three zone overset grid used for moving ap
computation

wall for the blunt trailing edge. Detailed view near the trailing edge is given in Figure 8. The boundary values are updated from linear interpolation between zone I and II, and zone III and II. Note that the interfaces between zone I and III are solid wall boundaries and these two small taps block the ow between the trailing edge and the ap. Zone II slides up and down as a rigid body translation according to the motion of the ap. Grids are generated at each time step as well as the interface le that gives the information for updating the boundaries.

Steady State Computation Results

Steady state force coecients were computed for various congurations. For a sharp NACA0012 airfoil, the ap size, h, ranges from 0.5% to 3.0% and for blunt NACA0012 airfoil with trailing edge thickness of 1.5%, h ranges from 0.5% to 2.5%. The computations were also completed at three dierent Reynolds

numbers and ve angles of attack summarized in Table 2. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the color maps of stagnation pressure and streamlines near the trailing edge for sharp and blunt NACA0012 airfoils, respectively. As can be seen from both streamlines, the basic ow structures are the same. Previous research4, 6, 8, 10 suggests that the Cl and Cm remain more or less constant for moderate angles of attack. Cl is plotted with respect to angle of attack, , in Figure 11 for both trailing edge thicknesses to closely examine the eect of angle of attack on Cl . The Reynolds number is set to 1.5 106 . Cl increases as increases for every ap size for both airfoils. The variations are, however, relatively minor compared to the values of Cl . When the angle of attack is negative, the boundary layer thickens at the lower surface where the ap is attached and it is known that thick boundary layers reduce the effectiveness of Gurney aps, thus reducing the Cl . Conversely, thinner boundary layers enhanc the ap eectiveness at positive angles of attack. Figure 11 also shows that Cl is less sensitive to the angle of attack for the blunt trailing edge airfoil. For all the 4

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

0.6

0.5

0.4

Cl

0.3

0.2 h = 0.5% h = 1.0% h = 1.5% h = 2.0% h = 2.5% h = 3.0%

0.1

0 5

0 (degree)

(a) Sharp trailing edge

0.6

0.5

0.4

Cl

0.3

0.2 h = 0.5% h = 1.0% h = 1.5% h = 2.0% h = 2.5%

Figure 9: Streamline and stagnation pressure map near

the trailing edge of a NACA0012 airfoil(h = 1.5%, = 0 , Re = 1.5 106 )

0.1

0 5

0 (degree)

(b) Blunt trailing edge (tT E = 1.5%)

Figure 11: Cl with respect to (Re = 1.5 106 ) subsequent results, zero angle of attack is assumed unless mentioned specically. Cl is plotted with respect to ap height, h, in Figure 12 for both airfoils and is compared to experimental data.4, 6, 8 Cl increases monotonically as h increases while the blunt trailing edge airfoil results closely follow the values from the sharp trailing edge ones. However the eciency, dened as Cl /(h/c), consistently decreases as h increases, as given in Figure 13. Although the blunt trailing edge results generally match the sharp one closely, the efciencies for 0.5% and 1.0% ap are notably higher than those for the sharp trailing edge. For the pitching moments, the ratio, Cm /Cl is nearly constant and close to 1 4 , the value expected from the thin airfoil theory as the size of the ap approaches zero (Figure 14). The pressure prole given in Figure 15, computed at zero angle of attack to show the net eect of the ap, indicates that the increase in lift is relatively at along the chord, which also conrms the trend for the relation between Cm and Cl . It is demonstrated throughout the results that the value of Cl , and consequently the Cm for both the sharp and blunt trailing edges match very well if the ap height is dened as the distance between the 5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 10: Streamline and stagnation pressure map near the trailing edge of a blunt NACA0012 airfoil(tT E = 1.5%, h = 1.5%, = 0 , Re = 1.5 106 )

0.2 Thin airfoil theory Sharp trailng edge Blunt trailing edge 0.21

0.22

C /C

0.6
0.24

0.5

0.23

0.25

0.26

0.4 Cl (=0 deg)

0.5

1.5

Flap size (%)

2.5

(a)
0.1

Cm Cl

with respect to h

0.3
Thin airfoil theory Sharp trailng edge Blunt trailing edge

0.12

0.2
0.14

0.1

C /C

Sharp trailing edge Blunt trailing edge Jeffrey (Re = 0.75 0.89 x 1e6, E423) Storms (Re = 2 x 1e6, NACA4412) Moyse (Re = 2.2 x 1e6, NACA0012) 0 0.5 1 1.5 flap height, h (%) 2 2.5 3

0.16
l m

0.18

0.2

0.22

Figure 12: Change in the Cl at zero angle of attack with respect to ap height, h. Experimental data are plotted for comparison (Re = 1.5 106 )

0.24

0.26

10

Flap size (%, log scale)

10

Cm (b) compared to the Thin airfoil Cl theory

Figure 14:

Cm Cl

with respect to h (Re = 1.5 106 )

35 Sharp trailing edge Blunt trailing edge

30 C /(h/c) (Re=1.5 x 106, =0 deg)

25

airfoil surface and the end of the ap as indicated in Figure 1. This comparison suggests that the proper denition for the ap height should be measuring the distance from the airfoil surface rather than from any other reference line such as the chord line. Figure 16 illustrates the change in ap eciency with respect to the Reynolds number for dierent ap heights. As can be seen, the eciency monotonically increases with the Reynolds number regardless of the ap size although the variation is very small. As stated previously, smaller aps have higher eciency, but at the same time, Figure 16 shows that smaller aps are more sensitive to the Reynolds number. Figure 17 provides the drag polar for a sharp NACA0012 with 1.5% ap compared to the clean conguration. At low lift coecients, the drag penalty of the ap is apparent, but at high Cl values, the delay in the upper surface separation induced by the ap causes the airfoil with a ap to have lower drag. Drag increment, Cd with respect to h is plotted at Figure 18 for a sharp NACA0012 airfoil. Cd increases steeply as h increases. At h = 3.0%, Cd is similar to the drag of clean NACA0012 airfoil.

20

15

0.5

1.5 flap height, h (%)

2.5

Figure 13: Flap eciency,

height, h

Cl h/c

with respect to ap

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

0.01

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.2 0.4

0.002

Sharp trailing edge Blunt trailing edge (1.5%)

0.008

C (Re=1.5 x 106,=0 deg)

0.006

0.004

0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 x/c 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

flap height, h (%)

Figure 18: Cd vs h curve for a sharp NACA0012 airfoil

(Re = 1.5 106 )
0.38 0.36 0.34 INS2D (h=1.5%, Re=1.5e6) Wagner (C =0.34)
l0

Figure 15:

Pressure prole for sharp and blunt NACA0012 airfoils with a 1.5% ap

35

Sharp trailing edge h = 0.5% h = 1.0% h = 1.5% h = 2.0% h = 2.5% h = 3.0%

35

Blunt trailing edge

0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24

30

30

Cl/(h/c)

25

25

Cl

0.22 0.2 0.18

20

20

3 Ut/c

15

1.5 Re (x10 )
6

15

Figure 19: Time history of Cl for an impulsively started

1 1.5 6 Re (x10 ) 2

NACA0012 airfoil with a 1.5% ap attached

Figure 16: Flap eciency with respect to Reynolds

number

Time Accurate Computation Results

0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 Cd h=1.5% clean Re=1.5e6, h=1.5%c, NACA0012

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 17: Cd vs Cl curve for an airfoil with h = 1.5%c

ap and a clean airfoil (Re = 1.5 106 )

Time accurate computations were performed to capture the unsteady eect. First, the ow was assumed to be started impulsively for an NACA0012 airfoil with a 1.5% ap attached to its trailing edge. The Reynolds number is 1.5 106 and the angle of attack is 0 . Figure 19 shows the time history of the lift coecient along with the result expected from linear theory where the nal Cl is set to 0.34 obtained from the steady state computation. The mean value for the Cl follows the Wagner curve closely, although a high frequency uctuation exists. The high frequency oscillation suggests vortex shedding, as can be seen in Figure 20. Figure 20 presents a sequence of stagnation pressure maps and Cp proles during a single oscillation.

7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 x/c 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

case 1 tT E (%) h (%) lT E (%) Re (based on lT E )

(b)

case 2 0.0 3.0 3.0 45,000 6.0 0.18

case 3 1.5 1.5 3.0 45,000 6.0 0.18

0.0 1.5 1.5 22,500 10.5 0.158

(a)

U t c

= 0.63
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

frequency, f Strouhal number, St

Table 3: Summary of vortex shedding frequencies

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 C
l

0.4

0.5 x/c

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(c)

U t c

= 0.65
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

(d)

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 5 10 15 Ut/c 20 25 30

0.4

0.5 x/c

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(e)

U t c

= 0.67
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

(f)

Figure 21: Time history, k = /27 The frequency of this oscillation is about 10.5 Hz, which translates to the Strouhal number of 0.158 based on the height of the ap. For the ap height based Reynolds number of 22, 500, this Strouhal number agrees well with the experimental results.8 To further investigate how the vortex shedding frequency changes with the geometry, time accurate computations were performed for a sharp trailing edge airfoil with a 3% ap and a 1.5% thick trailing edge airfoil with a 1.5% ap. As summarized in Table 3, the vortex shedding frequencies for both cases are the same, while this frequency is roughly half the value from the sharp trailing edge with a 1.5% ap. This result suggests that the proper characteristic length for the vortex shedding frequency should be dened as the distance between the bottom end of the ap and the upper end of the trailing edge, lT E , as seen in Figure 1. For the moving grid computation, trailing edge thickness of 1.0% and ap height of 1.0% were selected. All computations were completed at zero angle of attack and Reynolds number of 1.5 106 using a three-zone overset grid. Grid resolutions were set at 187 by 143 for zone I, 82 by 501 for zone II, and 9 by 131 for zone III. A time step of 0.01 was used

0.4

0.5 x/c

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(g)

U t c

= 0.69
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

(h)

0.4

0.5 x/c

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(i)

U t c

= 0.71
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Cp 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

(j)

0.4

0.5 x/c

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

(k)

U t c

= 0.73

(l)

Figure 20: Vortex shedding

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

0.02

0.18

0.04

0.2

Cl

0.06

0.08 15

Cl

0.22

15.2

15.4

Ut/c

15.6

15.8

16

0.24 21

21.2

21.4

Ut/c

21.6

21.8

22

(a) Flap is near the neutral (b) Flap is near the top posiposition tion (a)

U t c

= 3.00

(b)

U t c

= 3.15

Figure 22: Time history, enlarged view

0.15

0.1

0.05

(c)
0.05

U t c

= 3.30

(d)

U t c

= 3.45

0.1

3.5

4.5 Ut/c

5.5

Figure 23: Time history, k = /3

(e)
U t c

= 3.60

(f)

U t c

= 3.75

to capture the vortex shedding and the grid le was generated at every time step to represent the ap sliding up and down in a harmonic motion. Figure 21 shows the time history of the lift coecient for reduced frequency of k = 0.116. As can be seen from the enlarged view in Figure 22, at low reduced frequencies, the vortex shedding occurs constantly regardless of the position of the ap but the intensity is higher when the ap is nearly stationary at the top or bottom end. The vortex shedding frequency decreases as the ap moves away from the neutral position and increases as the ap moves towards the neutral position. For a high reduced frequency of k = 1.05 (Figure 23) a slight vortex shedding is observed only when the ap is at the up or down position where the velocity of the ap is close to zero. Figure 24 presents the sequence of streamlines and the stagnation pressure map of the ap moving from neutral to down position with k = 1.05. The magnitude and phase delay of the response at actuation frequency is computed at ve reduced frequencies (k = 0.116, 0.175, 0.349, 0.524, 1.05). The resulting magnitude and phase delay are plotted with respect to reduced frequency in Figure 25. For comparison purpose, the magnitude and phase of the

Figure 24: Moving ap

0.25 Magnitude (C ) 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

40 Phase (deg) 30 20 10 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

moving grid computation Theodorsen C(k)

0.8

1.2

reduced frequency, k

Figure 25: Frequency response compared to the magnitude and phase of the Theodorsens function, C (k)

9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Theodorsen function, C (k ), are plotted together. As can be seen from Figure 25, the general trend in the magnitude and phase follow the results from the linear theory.

croaps, AFOSR Program Review for Year I, 1999. [8] Jerey, 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, 2000, pp. 295-301. [9] Zerihan, J., Zhang X., Aerodynamics of Gurney Flaps on a Wing in Ground Eect, AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 5, May 2001, pp. 772-780. [10] Solovitz, S. A., Experimental Aerodynamics of Mesoscale Trailing-Edge Actuators, PhD Thesis, Stanford University, December 2002. [11] Lee, H., Kroo, I. M., and Bieniawski, S., Flutter Suppression for High Aspect Ratio Flexib Wings Using Microaps, AIAA 20021717, April 2002. [12] Bieniawski, S., Kroo, I. M. Development and Testing of an Experimental Aeroelastic Model with Micro-Trailing Edge Eectors, AIAA 2003-0220, January 2003.

Conclusions
Steady and time accurate CFD simulations are performed on airfoils with miniature trailing edge aps. Steady state computations show that the lift increases as the ap height increases, but the eciency decreases. Results for sharp and blunt trailing edge airfoils are compared and the proper convention for the miniature ap sizing is suggested. Computations for the impulsive starting case conrmed the vortex shedding phenomenon, which the Strouhal number show good agreement with experiments. Finally, frequency response results are presented, resolving the dynamics of the miniature ap. Results presented in this study can provide a guideline for designing both attitude and vibration control systems using these devices.

References
[1] Liebeck, R. H., Design of Subsonic Airfoils for High Lift, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 15, No. 9, September 1978. [2] Rogers, S. E., and Kwak, D., An Upwind Differencing Scheme for the Time Accurate Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations, AIAA Paper 88-2583, June 1988 [3] Jang, C. S., Ross, J. C., and Cummings, R. M., Computational Evaluation of an Airfoil with a Gurney Flap, AIAA Paper 92-2708, June 1992. [4] Storms, B. L. and Jang, C. S., Lift Enhancement of an Airfoil Using a Gurney Flap and Vortex Generators, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 3, June 1994. [5] Giguere, P., Lemay, J., and Dumas, G., Gurney Flap Eects and Scaling for Low-Speed Airfoils, AIAA Paper 95-1881, June 1995. [6] Myose, R., Papadakis, M., and Heron, I., Gurney Flap Experiments on Airfoils, Wings, and Reection Plane Model,, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 1998. [7] Kroo, I. M., Eaton, J., and Prinz, F., UAV Aeroelastic Control Using Redundant Mi-

10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics