AIM-91-3214-CP

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON SPOILER EFFECTS

* **
A. M. Al-Bahi and M. A. Ghazi
Ying Abdulaziz University,
P.O.Box 9027, Jeddah 21413, Saudi Arabia

Abstract State University to obtain a complete set

of experimental data on single and multi-

The effect of different spoiler element air €oils.’ Flow field measurements
configurations on an aircraEt model is including wake and boundary layer
experimentally studied. Outboard as well characreistics, were reported in Refs.
as inboard and ground spoilers are 5-7. Another extensivs program was carried
installed, arld individually tested in out by Stanford University and Boeing
order to simulate realistic aircraft
flight stages. The lift and pitching Airplane Company.’ The published results
moment coefficients are investigated at include flow visualization and surface
diEEerent spoiler deflections, aircraft
angles o f attack and free stream Reynolds pressures ’-lo and mean velocities of the
numbers. The study reveals that spoilers flow field together with detailed boundary
introduce evident lift reduct ion
accompanied by a nose up pitching moment layer and wake profiles. 11-12
particularly at very small angles of
attack. It is found that spoiler angles Parallel to these experimental
have practically no effect on the aircraft researches around airfoils with spoilers,
stability margin. Meanwhile, spoilers can several mathematical models describing the
be arranged to obtain the trimmed flow field have been proposed since the
conditions and, therefore, may be used as
longitudinal control devices. work of Woods4 i n 1956. In his early
attempt Woods used a linear perturbation
Eree streamline potential theory which
limited the method to small spoilers at
Introduction
low incidences. Rarnes13 modified Woods
theory through a set of empirical
Spoilers are used on modern transport
aircraft as lateral controls, speed brakes relationships to account for spoiler
and liEt dampers during various stages of effective height and base pressure. 5
flight. The use of spoilers for roll
control dates as early as 1934.l Interest
Parkinson et d4 used conformal mapping
to analyze arbitrary two dimensional
in the subject persisted in Germany and airfoils with arbitrary spoilers.
USA during the thirties, and wind tunnel Nevertheless, the method failed in
data were reported on different spoiler pr ed i ct ing the p r e s s 11r e d i str ibu t ion
around the spoiler hinge with sufficient
characteristics for roll control. 2-3 accuracy. During the seventies Roeing
Nevertheless spoilers were not widely Aircraft Company extensively used the
utilized over the next two decades until panel method as a fairly effective
their usefulness was stimulated by the separated flow model to analyse single and
advent of sweep-back and flexible multi - element airfoil characteristics
geometry, the discovery of the aileron
reversal phenomenP n and the requirement of beyond stall. Yore cecently Pfeiffer and
large span flaps.
Xumwalt1’ proposed a spoiler flow model
Experimental research on airfoils with that matches an outer potential flow
solution around an effective closed wake
spoilers goes back to the mid-fifties. 4 body and an inner solution that uses a
In 1974, NASA initiated a series of turbulent jet mixing analysis to simulate
experimental research programs at Wichita the average flow within the wake. Whereas,

* Lee and BodapatilC presented a method

Assistant ProLCessor, Aeronautical Eng. base8 on simple vortex tracing methods to
**Dept. calculate the unsteady flow field of an
Associate Professor, Aeronautical Eng. airfoil with deflected spoiler.
Dept., Member AIAA.
Copyright 0 by the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
109
 Investigations on Einite wings with
spoilers, and on the interaction between
the complete aircraft and the spoiler
system are meagre, and hence represent a
serious gap in the open literature. There
does not seem to exist satisfactory
theoretical tools capable of addressirlg
the complicated geometry and the flow
field involved. The flow field itself is
exceptionally complex, and includes
sepa r a t ion, reattachment and vortex
shedding. The shedding vortices froin the
spoiler tip interacts with the finite wing
vortex system, resulting in a highly
turbulent oscillatory wake which affects
both spoiler flap system and the
effectiveness of the airzraft tail control
system.
The effect o f geometrical and flow
conditions on an aircraft model, fitted
with different spoilers conEigurations is
experimentally investigated in the present
study. The lift and pitching moment
coefficients are studied at different
angles of attack, spoiler deflections a n d
Reynolds numbers. Tn an efEort to
s i !nulat e reali5tic aircraEt
configurations, outboard as well as
inboard and ground spoilers are installed,
and individually investigated.
Experimental Setup and Measurements
A low speed open type wind tunnel of
7 0 cm x 5 0 cm cross section and 5 0 m/s
maximum airspeed is employed. The aircraft
model f?atures a 0 . 4 4 m fuselage length,
2
0.465 m sweep back wing span, 0.42315 m
wing area and 0 . 0 0 7 2 m 2 zero incidence
horizontal tail area. The vertical
stabilizer is 5 cm top chord, 8.5 cm
bottom chord, and 1 0 . 2 5 cm height. The
finite wing has a basic NACA 2 3 0 1 2 airfoil
section with an aspect ratio of 5.11 and a
taper ratio of 0.328. The root, tip, and
mean aerodynamic chords are 0 . 1 3 7 m , 0.045m
and 0.099m respectively. The root and tip
incidence is 1 . 5 deg, while the sweepback
angle at 0.25 of the chord length is 3 2 . 5
deg.
The aircraEt lnodel was fitted with
spoilers and tested in the following three
spoiler group configurations:
- Sroup 1 : aircraft with all spoiler.;,
- Group 2 : aircraEt with outboard
spoilers only, and
- Group 3 : aircraft with inboard and
ground spoilers.
The spoilers are inclined Elat plates
mounted in a similar pattern on a liqe
located 2 cm from the finite wing trailing
edge. The ground spoiler, which h a s 1 . 3
cm inclined length and 2 cm spanwise
length, is located 2 cin from the fuselage
110
and 1 cm from a 1.2 cm x 2 cm inboard
spoiler. The outboard spoiler is 3 cm f a r
from the inboard spoiler and has a 0 . 7 5 cm
inclined length and 6.S cm spanwize
length. The ground, inboard and outboard
spoiler thicknesses are 0 . 6 5 , 0.6 and
0 . 3 7 5 cm respectively.
A three component wind tunnel balance
systein is used for direct measurement of
lift and pitching moment. An HP-85
personal computer, a data acquisition
system 3421A, and a sensi!-.ive pressure
diEferentia1 electronic micrometer for
measuring the free stream velocity, are
used for gathering the relevant data.
The uniform undisturbed wind tunnel
speed ( I J ) was vsried between 1 5 and 3 5 :n/s
at a step of 5 ! n / s ; corresponding to
Reynolds number ( Re ) of 0.97~10' 5,
0 and 2 . 2 7 ~ 15 0 ' ~
1 . 3 0 x 1 O 5 , 1.62x105, 1 . 9 4 ~ 1 5
respectively. At each velocity, three
aircraft angles of attack ( 0 1 ) 3re used;
namely 0, 5 and 1 0 deg. The tested
deflection angles ( 5 ) for each group of
spoilers are 0, 15, 3 0 , 4 5 and 9 0 degrees.
Results and Discussion
Three types of curves are presented in
order to demonstrate the spoiler effect on
the aerodynamic characteristics of the
aircraft model:
- variation of the liEt coefficient, L :t
with spoiler angle,s for difEerent
Reynolds numbers, Re,
- variation o f the pitching moment
coefficient, Cy with spoiler angle
Eor different Reynolds numbers, an3
- the pitching moment coefficient
versus lift coefficient f o r dif Eerent
spoiler deflections.
The study also includes the effect OF the
aircraft angle of attack,= .
spoiler effect on lift coefficient
Figure 1 exhibits the variation of the
lift coefficient, C L , with spoiler angle,
8 , for the first spoiler group (aircraEt
with all spoilers) at diEferent aircraft
angles O E attack. The main observation in
this figure, is the remarkable reduction
of the liEting force coefficient as the
spoiler angle increases, specially at
small angles of attack. The curves
portray two linear relationships, with two
different gradients, between the lift
coefficient and the spoiler angle. The
first relationship holds up to 3 0 degrees
 la
a Re - 97000

--
1
Re
o
a
REI = 97000
Re 182000
II

+ Re - 182OOO
227000
+ Re 227000
I"

f 6 3 0 4 8 7 6 m
Spoller Rngle
Fig. 2 Lift coefficient versus spoiler
QglL d u i 3 1 4 5 m m m angle - Aircraft with outboard spoilers.
Spollrr Rnglr

Fig. 1 Lift coefficient versus spoiler

angle - Aircraft with all spoilers. R e = 182000
Rs - 227000
of spoiler deflection and possesses the
highest lift reduction gradient while the
second, with a smaller gradient, extends
over the 3 0 - 9 0 degrees range.
other hand the lift reduction due to
On the
'"t
spoilers, particularly in the 0-30 spoiler Oa-
angle range, becomes less pronounced as
the angle of attack increases. For this rlphr - 1 0
spoiler angle range, the reduction in lift
coefficient at zero angle of attack is
793, whereas it is only 10% at an angle oE
attack of 10 degrees.
Figure 1 also reveals that the
rieynolds number has a slight eEfect o n the
curves of liEt coefficient versus spoiler
angles. For high angles of attack this
eEEect appears to be more exaggerated
ulhile, at zero angle of attack, the
tendency of this effect is reversed for
spoiler angles above 4 5 degrees.
Figure 2 represents the effect of
flight or outboard spoilers (group 2 )
rhile Figure 3 presents the contribution
of inboard and ground spoilers (group 3 ) .
It seeins that the lift reduction of the d f 6 3 0 4 i m X m
first group is the algebraic sum oE the Spaller Angle.
contributions o € the second and the third Fig. 3 Lift coefficient versus spoiler
group. It is also noticed that €light
spoilers produce slightly less lift angle - Aircraft with inboard and ground
spoilers.

111
reduction compared to inboard and groond
spoilers. Nevertheless, the two groups
have the same general trend where, in both
cases, the percentage of liEt reduction
decreases as the angle of attack
increases. On the other hand, the effect
of Reynolds number is nore pronounced in
the case of inboard and ground spoilers
where the 1i:ting force is higher €or
higher Reynolds numbers. Meanwhile,
Reynolds number has no effect on the
amount oE liEt reduction caused b y inboard
and ground spoilers at the same angle of
attack, as shown in Fig. 3. For flight
spoilers, the efEect of Reynolds number on
lift reduction is intensified f o r zero and
small angles of attack, see Pig. 2.

Spoiler effect on pitching moment

coefficient

Fig. 4 exemplifies measurement result.; 0 1 6 m 4 i m i s m

that elucidate the effect oE all spoilers Spoller Angle
on pitching moment coefficient of the
airzraft model at different angles of Fig. 4 Pitching moment coefficient versus
attack and various Reynolds numbers. The spoiler angle -Aircraft with all spoilers.
figure demonstrates that the pitching
moment increases, i.e. a nose-up pitching
moment is produced, when spoilers are ?'ig:ires 5 and 6 demonstrate the effect
operated. The rate at dhich this pitching of flight spoilers (group 2 ) and inboard
moment is added, at the sane angle of and ground spoilers (grou? 3),
attack, is higher for spoiler angles respectively. It appears that the
between 0 and 30 degrees. Meanwhile, pitching moment varies in a way similar to
spoiler angles between 3 0 and 4 5 degrees that oE the liEt reduction. T n other
have, practically, no effect on the words it can be stated that the nose up
pitching moment variation. pitching moment produced by the first
spoiler group i.; the algebraic sum of the
Figure 4 also illustrates that a more contributions of the second and the third
nose down pitching moment persists as the group.
angle of attack increases. On the other
hand the rate at which the nose up
pitching moment per spoiler deflection is
added, decreases as t:he angle of attack
increases for spoiler angles between 0 and
3 0 degrees , whila it remains approximately
constant with the angle oE attack for the
4 5 - 9 0 degrees spoiler deflection range.
In fact as the spoiler angle increases
from 0 to 3 0 degrees at 3 fixed Reynolds
5
number oE 0 . 9 7 ~ 1 0 , the pitching moment
coeEficient increases by an amount of 0 . 2 5
at zero angle of attack, while this
increase is limited to 0.1 at an angle of
attack of 10 degrees.
In addition, the figure indicates that
Reynolds number has liktle effect on the
curves representing the variation of the
moment coefficient with spoiler angles.
For example , at zero angle of attack , the
figure discloses that, up to a spoiler
angle of 4 5 degrees , higher Reynolds
numbers are accompanied by slightly higher
-t I .
nose down pitching moment. At an angle of 0 1 6 m a m m m
attack of 5 degrees, Reynolds numbers seem Spoller Angla
to have a negligible effect on pitching
moment coefficient, while, at an angle of Pig. 5 Pitching moment coefficient versus
attack oE 10 degrees, the effect is spoiler angle - Aircraft with outboard
somewhat exaggerated. spoilers.

112
 o -- e7000 -
+\.
RB 02
a Re
t Re - le2000
227000 c
c 0.0 - .
m
' I 0
u 4.2 -
r

x
t
m -0.4-
E
0

a-
~0 &delta

0
*
l t a -

* I t a
-
--
1 6
0

30
\
+ &ita
delta
- 48
m -

Fig. 7 Pitching moment coefficient versus

lift coefficient at Reynolds number of
227000 - Aircraft with all spoilers.

0.0
Fig. 6 Pitching moment coefficient versus +\
spoiler angle - Aircraft with inboard and 'c

ground spoilers.
c
m 4.2 -
0
V
It is a l s o noticed from Figs. 5 and 6 # -0.4-
that flight spoilers produce a pitching t
moment coefficient higher than inboard and 0
ground spoilers. In addition, the figures p't O

indicste that the gradient oE the produced. r 0

nose-up pitching moment is lower for
spoiler angles between 30 and 4 5 degrees.
.I
: - m
Figures 4 , 4 and 6 also demonstrate -0.2 0.0 0.2 a4 0.0 0.0 ID
that the produced nose-up pitching moment L l f t Coeff.
decreases as the angle of attack
increases. On the other hand, for the Fig. 8 Pitching moment coefficient versus
case of flight spoilers (group 2) and all lift coefficient at Reynolds number of
spoilers (group 11, Reynolds numbers seem 227000 - Aircraft with outboard spoilers.
to have a reasonable effect on the curves
of pitching moment coefficient at zero
angle o f attack. FOK these two groups,
the produced nose-up pitching moment .
increases as the Reynolds number 0.0
increases.
+\
Pitching moment coefficient versus lift m
0
u -0.4.
coefficient
*r
S
-0.0-
Variation oE the pitching moment 6 0 de I t a - 0

---
coefficient with lift coefficient is shown 0 A de I t a - 1 6
in Fig. 7, 8 and 9 for difEerent spoiler =-* 0 do Ita 30
angles and various spoiler groups at a * delta 46
+ deita m
fixed Reynolds number of 2.27~105 . The -I 0
figures revealed a surprising phenomenon:
the spoiler angle has practically no
effect on the slope of the linear
relationship between the pitching moment Fig. 9 Pitching moment coefficient versus
coefficient and the lift coefficient. In lift coefficient at Reynolds number of
other words, the spoiler angle has no 227000 - Aircraft with inboard and ground
effect o n the aircraft stability margin. spoilers.

113
 Figure 9 indicates that inboard and
ground spoilers deflections have no effect
on either the airoraft stability margin or
the value of the lift coefficient required
€or trim. On the other hand, it is
concluded from Figures 7 and 8 that the
deflections of first or second spoiler
groups result in a slight effect on the
trim conditions, while the effect on
aircraft stability margin remains
unnoticeable. These figures indicate that
the effect of spoilers is to displace the
pitching moment - lift line such that
spoilers could be arranged to obtain the
trimmed condition. Spoilers may,
thereEore, be used as a longitudinal
control device and, in this domain,
outboard spoilers play a dominant role,
see Fig. 8.
Conclusions
From the present investigation an
insight has been gained into the effect of
spoilers on the lift and pitching moment
of an aircraft. The main conclusions
which can be drawn are:
1) As the spoiler angle increases a
reinarkable reduction of lift coefEicient
takes place. The gradient of this liEt
reduction is highec for spoiler deflection
angles between 0 and 30 degrees and for
small angles of attack and is slightly
affected by the Reynolds number. The
effect of Reynolds number is more
pronounced for the case of inboard and
ground spoilers.
2) Operating spoilers produces a nose
up pitching moment. The rate at which
this nose up pitching moment per spoiler
deflection is added decreases as the angle
of attack increases for spoiler angles
between 0 and 30 degrees while it remains
approximately constant for the 45-90
degrees spoiler angles range.
3) Flight spoilers produce sliqhtly
less lift reduction compared to inboard
and ground spoilers. Meanwhile they
produce a pitching moment coefficient
higher than inboard and ground spoilers
for the same deflection angle.
4) For both lift and pitching moment,
the effect of deflecting a11 spoilers
seems to be equal to the algebraic sum of
the effects of deflecting €light spoilers
and inboard and ground spoilers
separately.
5) Spoiler angle has practically no
effect on the aircraft stability margin
represented by the varistion of the
pitching moment coefficient with the lift
coefficient.
114
6) spoilers can be arranged to obtain
the trimmed condition and, therefore, may
he used as longitudinal control devices.
In this domain outboard spoilers play a
dominant role.
References
Roskam, J., Wentz, W . H . , and Kohlman,
D.L., " Spoilers €or R o l l Control of Light
Airplanes," AIAA Paper 74-861, 1974.
Weik, F.E. and Wenzinger, C.J., "
Preliminary Investigation of Rolling
Moments Obtained with Spoilers on Both
Slotted and Plain Wings," NACA TN 415,
1932.
Weik, F.E. and Wenzinger, C.J., "
Wind Tunnel Research Comparing Lateral
Control Devices Particularly at High
Angles of Attack. VII. Handley Page Tip
and Full-Span Slots With Ailerons and
Spoilers," NACA TN 443, 1932.
Woods, L.C., "Theory of Airfoil
Spoilers," British R&Y 2969, 1956.
Mack, W . D . , Seetharam, H.C., Yuhn,
W.G., and ?right, J.T., " Aerodynamics of
Spoiler Control Devices," AIAA Paper 79-
1873,1979.
fi Seetharam, H.C., and Wentz, W.H., "
Experimental Studies of Flow Separation
and Stalling on Two-Dimensional 3irEoil
at Low Speeds," NASA CR-2560, 1975.
'Wentz, W.H., Ostowari, C.
Seetharam, H.C. , " Effects of Design
and
Variables on Spoiler Control
Effectiveness, Hinge Moments and Wake
Turbulence," AIAA Paper 81-0072,1981.
Rodapati, S., Mack, M.D. , and
Karamcheti, k., "Basic Studies of the Flow
Fields of Airfoil-Flap- Spoiler System,"
AIAA Payer 82-0173, 1982.
Ayoub, A., Rodapati, S . , Yaramcheti,
Y. and Seetharam, H.C. , "IJnsteady F l o ~
,
Patterns Associated with Spoiler Control
Device," AIAA Paper 82-0127, 1982.
l o McLachlan, R.G., Karamcheti, K. ,
Ayoub, A . , and Hadjidaskis, G . , "9 Study
of the Unsteady Flow Field of an Airfoil
with Deflected Spoiler," AIAA Paper 83-
2131,1983.
Lee, C . S . , and Rodapati, S . , "Flow
Field Measurements of an Airfoil With
Deflected Spoiler," AIAA Paper 83-0365,
1983.
l2 Lee, C. s., and Rodapati , 5. ,
"Experimental Investigation of the Flow
Field of an Airfoil With Spoilers," AIAA
Journal, Vo1.25, No.11, 1987.
 l3 Barnes, C.S., " A Developed Theory of
Spoilers on Airfoils," British ARC CP887,
,July 1965.
l4 Parkinson, G.V., Brown, G.P., and
Jandali, T., " The Aerodynamics of Two-
Dimensional AirEoils with Spoilers," AGARD
CP-143, April 1974.
PfeiEEer, N.J. and Zumwalt, G . W . ,
"Computational Model f o r Low Speed F l o ~
Past Airfoils with Spoilers," AIAA
Journal, V01.20, N0.3, 1982.
l6 Lee, C.S. and Bodapati, S.,
"Calculation of the Unsteady Flow Field of
an Airfoil with a Deflected Spoiler by
Vortex Method," Joint Institote for
Aeronautics and Acoustics, Tr-62, Stanford
'Jniv., CA, 1985.

115