pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.14397 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-16 · 💻 cs.LG · physics.flu-dyn

SuperWing: a comprehensive transonic wing dataset for data-driven aerodynamic design

Yunjia Yang , Weishao Tang , Mengxin Liu , Nils Thuerey , Yufei Zhang , Haixin Chen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG physics.flu-dyn
keywords transonic wing datasetaerodynamic surrogate modelingmachine learning aerodynamicsRANS flow solutionszero-shot generalizationwing shape parameterizationdata-driven design
0
0 comments X

The pith

SuperWing supplies 4,239 parameterized transonic wings and 28,856 flow solutions so machine-learning models can predict surface aerodynamics on unseen shapes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper creates an open dataset of swept transonic wings whose shapes are built by varying airfoil sections, twist, and dihedral independently along the span. This approach generates greater geometric variety than methods that start from a single baseline and add small changes. Transformer models trained on the data reach a 2.5-drag-count error on held-out cases and transfer directly to standard test wings such as the DLR-F6 and NASA CRM without additional fine-tuning. The work therefore supplies both the raw examples and evidence that data-driven surrogates can move beyond narrow families of wing shapes.

Core claim

SuperWing contains 4,239 wing geometries generated with a parameterization that controls spanwise airfoil shape, twist, and dihedral, together with 28,856 RANS solutions spanning typical transonic Mach numbers and angles of attack. Two state-of-the-art transformer architectures trained on the dataset accurately reconstruct surface flow and achieve an average drag error of 2.5 counts on held-out samples. The same models, without retraining, produce useful predictions on complex benchmark wings such as DLR-F6 and NASA CRM.

What carries the argument

SuperWing dataset generated by a spanwise-parameterized geometry model that independently varies airfoil shape, twist, and dihedral at multiple stations.

If this is right

  • Pretrained models can be dropped into design loops for new transonic wings without running fresh flow simulations for each candidate.
  • The dataset supports direct comparison of different machine-learning architectures on the same large, diverse collection of three-dimensional cases.
  • Zero-shot transfer to established benchmarks indicates that the data distribution already covers features needed for practical wing families.
  • Open release of both geometries and flow fields allows other groups to train or fine-tune additional surrogate types.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same parameterization could be extended by adding free parameters for sweep angle or thickness distribution to increase coverage further.
  • Success on DLR-F6 and CRM suggests the dataset already encodes enough physics that similar generalization may appear on other transport wings not yet tested.
  • Integration of SuperWing into optimization frameworks could reduce the number of high-fidelity simulations required to reach a target lift-to-drag ratio.
  • Future work might test whether models pretrained here also accelerate predictions for off-design conditions such as buffet onset.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen spanwise variations in airfoil, twist, and dihedral are enough to represent the essential aerodynamic behavior of real transonic wings.

What would settle it

Train the same transformer architecture on SuperWing and measure whether its drag and surface-pressure predictions remain within 3 counts of RANS results on a new set of 20 swept wings whose planform and section details lie outside the parameterization ranges used in the dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14397 by Haixin Chen, Mengxin Liu, Nils Thuerey, Weishao Tang, Yufei Zhang, Yunjia Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three-view diagram of a typical kink wing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spanwise distribution of parameters for typical kinked wings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Airfoil shapes and their thickness and camber distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spanwise control points and the variables to generate distributed wing parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of several wing shapes in the dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Surface computation mesh of the wings 0.5 1 1.5 ·10−4 200 205 210 N −2/3 C D (count) Ours Lyu et al. [38] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mesh convergence study of the CRM wing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of flow fields around wings in the dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transferring surface mesh and quantities from simulation mesh to reference mesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Surface flow prediction of ViT for three wings in the test dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Surface flow and aerodynamic coefficients prediction of ViT for benchmark wings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Machine-learning surrogate models have shown promise in accelerating aerodynamic design, yet progress toward generalizable predictors for three-dimensional wings has been limited by the scarcity and restricted diversity of existing datasets. Here, we present SuperWing, a comprehensive open dataset of transonic swept-wing aerodynamics comprising 4,239 parameterized wing geometries and 28,856 Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes flow field solutions. The wing shapes in the dataset are generated using a simplified yet expressive geometry parameterization that incorporates spanwise variations in airfoil shape, twist, and dihedral, allowing for an enhanced diversity without relying on perturbations of a baseline wing. All shapes are simulated under a broad range of Mach numbers and angles of attack covering the typical flight envelope. To demonstrate the dataset's utility, we benchmark two state-of-the-art Transformers that accurately predict surface flow and achieve a 2.5 drag-count error on held-out samples. Models pretrained on SuperWing further exhibit strong zero-shot generalization to complex benchmark wings such as DLR-F6 and NASA CRM, underscoring the dataset's diversity and potential for practical usage.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents SuperWing, an open dataset consisting of 4,239 parameterized transonic swept-wing geometries and 28,856 RANS flow solutions. The geometries are generated via a parameterization allowing spanwise variations in airfoil shape, twist, and dihedral. The authors benchmark Transformer models for predicting surface flow fields, reporting a 2.5 drag-count error on held-out data, and demonstrate zero-shot generalization to benchmark configurations such as the DLR-F6 and NASA CRM.

Significance. If the performance claims and generalization results hold, this dataset would represent a valuable contribution to data-driven aerodynamic design by providing a large, diverse set of 3D wing simulations that could enable more robust ML surrogates for practical wing design applications. The open release and zero-shot results on established benchmarks are particularly noteworthy strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Geometry parameterization] The zero-shot generalization to DLR-F6 and NASA CRM assumes these complex wing-body configurations lie within the spanwise variations of airfoil shape, twist, and dihedral. No quantitative assessment of the fitting error (e.g., for planform, camber, or junction effects) is provided, which is load-bearing for interpreting the generalization results as true zero-shot rather than extrapolation from a restricted shape family.
  2. [Benchmarking results] The reported 2.5 drag-count error lacks details on mesh convergence, turbulence model selection, data splitting procedure, and statistical significance, undermining confidence in the central performance claim despite the abstract stating concrete metrics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Specify the exact definition of 'drag-count error' and the baseline drag values for context.
  2. [Methods] Provide more details on the Reynolds number range and flow conditions to enhance reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Geometry parameterization] The zero-shot generalization to DLR-F6 and NASA CRM assumes these complex wing-body configurations lie within the spanwise variations of airfoil shape, twist, and dihedral. No quantitative assessment of the fitting error (e.g., for planform, camber, or junction effects) is provided, which is load-bearing for interpreting the generalization results as true zero-shot rather than extrapolation from a restricted shape family.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the parameterization focuses on isolated swept wings with spanwise variations and does not explicitly model wing-body junctions or full planform complexity of the DLR-F6 and NASA CRM. The reported zero-shot results show transfer of learned aerodynamic features, but we agree a quantitative assessment is needed to clarify the degree of extrapolation. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection that projects the benchmark geometries onto our parameterization, reports L2 fitting residuals for camber, twist, dihedral, and planform parameters, and quantifies the resulting aerodynamic discrepancy on a subset of cases. This will allow readers to evaluate the generalization claim more precisely. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Benchmarking results] The reported 2.5 drag-count error lacks details on mesh convergence, turbulence model selection, data splitting procedure, and statistical significance, undermining confidence in the central performance claim despite the abstract stating concrete metrics.

    Authors: We agree these details are required for reproducibility. The revised manuscript will expand the methods and results sections to include: (i) mesh-convergence studies confirming drag coefficients converge to within 0.5 drag counts across the dataset; (ii) explicit statement of the turbulence model (Spalart-Allmaras); (iii) data-splitting protocol (80/10/10 split performed at the unique-geometry level to prevent leakage); and (iv) statistical significance via mean and standard deviation of the 2.5 drag-count error computed over five independent random seeds. These additions will directly support the reported metric. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper consists of dataset generation via a described geometry parameterization followed by RANS simulations, then standard supervised learning benchmarks on held-out samples plus zero-shot tests on external wings. No derived quantity is defined in terms of a fitted parameter that is re-used as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation or self-definitional loop. The central results are empirical evaluations against independent benchmarks, making the work self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the representativeness of the chosen geometry parameterization and the adequacy of RANS solutions for the intended surrogate-model use case; both are standard domain practices rather than new postulates.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations with the chosen turbulence model and mesh settings produce flow fields sufficiently accurate for training surrogate models
    Invoked implicitly when the authors treat the 28,856 solutions as ground truth for model training and evaluation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5502 in / 1329 out tokens · 57982 ms · 2026-05-16T21:45:39.412290+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AeroJEPA: Learning Semantic Latent Representations for Scalable 3D Aerodynamic Field Modeling

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AeroJEPA applies joint-embedding predictive learning to produce scalable, semantically organized latent representations for 3D aerodynamic fields that support both field reconstruction and downstream design tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Application of deep learning based multi-fidelity surrogate model to robust aerodynamic design optimization.Aerospace Science and Technology, 92:722–737, 2019

    Jun Tao and Gang Sun. Application of deep learning based multi-fidelity surrogate model to robust aerodynamic design optimization.Aerospace Science and Technology, 92:722–737, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Deep learning methods for reynolds-averaged navier–stokes simulations of airfoil flows.AIAA Journal, 58(1):25–36, 2020

    Nils Thuerey, Konstantin Weissenow, Lukas Prantl, and Xiangyu Hu. Deep learning methods for reynolds-averaged navier–stokes simulations of airfoil flows.AIAA Journal, 58(1):25–36, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Jichao Li, Mohamed Amine Bouhlel, and Joaquim R. R. A. Martins. Data-Based Approach for Fast Airfoil Analysis and Optimization.AIAA Journal, 57(2):581–596, February 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Data-based approach for wing shape design optimization.Aerospace Science and Technology, 112:106639, May 2021

    Jichao Li and Mengqi Zhang. Data-based approach for wing shape design optimization.Aerospace Science and Technology, 112:106639, May 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Numerical investigation of minimum drag profiles in laminar flow using deep learning surrogates.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 919:A34, 2021

    Li-Wei Chen, Berkay A Cakal, Xiangyu Hu, and Nils Thuerey. Numerical investigation of minimum drag profiles in laminar flow using deep learning surrogates.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 919:A34, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Fast Buffet-Onset Prediction and Opti- mization Method Based on Pretrained Flowfield Prediction Model.AIAA Journal, 62(8):2979–95, August 2024

    Yunjia Yang, Runze Li, Yufei Zhang, and Haixin Chen. Fast Buffet-Onset Prediction and Opti- mization Method Based on Pretrained Flowfield Prediction Model.AIAA Journal, 62(8):2979–95, August 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Mohamed Amine Bouhlel, Sicheng He, and Joaquim R. R. A. Martins. Scalable gradient–enhanced artificial neural networks for airfoil shape design in the subsonic and transonic regimes.Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 61(4):1363–1376, April 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Ashwin Renganathan, Romit Maulik, and Jai Ahuja

    S. Ashwin Renganathan, Romit Maulik, and Jai Ahuja. Enhanced data efficiency using deep neural networks and Gaussian processes for aerodynamic design optimization.Aerospace Science and Technology, 111:106522, April 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Novel Pressure-Based Optimization Method Using Deep Learning Techniques.AIAA Journal, 62(2):708–724, February 2024

    Jiehua Tian, Feng Qu, Di Sun, and Qing Wang. Novel Pressure-Based Optimization Method Using Deep Learning Techniques.AIAA Journal, 62(2):708–724, February 2024. 15

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    A curated dataset for data-driven turbulence modelling.Scientific data, 8(1):255, 2021

    Ryley McConkey, Eugene Yee, and Fue-Sang Lien. A curated dataset for data-driven turbulence modelling.Scientific data, 8(1):255, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    High-reynolds-number turbulence database: Aeroflow- data.Scientific Data, 12(1):1500, 2025

    Weiwei Zhang, Xianglin Shan, Yilang Liu, Xiao Zhang, Zhenhua Wan, Xinliang Li, Xinguo Sha, Junbo Zhao, Hui Xu, Chuangxin He, et al. High-reynolds-number turbulence database: Aeroflow- data.Scientific Data, 12(1):1500, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    An Assessment of Reduced-Order and Machine Learning Models for Steady Transonic Flow Prediction on Wings

    Rodrigo Castellanos, Jaime Bowen Varela, Alejandro Gorgues, and Esther Andr´ es. An Assessment of Reduced-Order and Machine Learning Models for Steady Transonic Flow Prediction on Wings. In33rd Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Science, Stockholm, Sweden, September 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Multi-fidelity prediction of fluid flow based on transfer learning using Fourier neural operator.Physics of Fluids, 35(7):077118, July 2023

    Yanfang Lyu, Xiaoyu Zhao, Zhiqiang Gong, Xiao Kang, and Wen Yao. Multi-fidelity prediction of fluid flow based on transfer learning using Fourier neural operator.Physics of Fluids, 35(7):077118, July 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Steady-State Transonic Flowfield Prediction via Deep-Learning Framework.AIAA Journal, 62(5):1915–1931, May 2024

    Gabriele Immordino, Andrea Da Ronch, and Marcello Righi. Steady-State Transonic Flowfield Prediction via Deep-Learning Framework.AIAA Journal, 62(5):1915–1931, May 2024

    work page 1915

  15. [15]

    Predicting Transonic Flowfields in Non-Homogeneous Unstructured Grids Using Autoencoder Graph Convolutional Networks, May 2024

    Gabriele Immordino, Andrea Vaiuso, Andrea Da Ronch, and Marcello Righi. Predicting Transonic Flowfields in Non-Homogeneous Unstructured Grids Using Autoencoder Graph Convolutional Networks, May 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Graph neural networks for the prediction of aircraft surface pressure distributions.Aerospace Science and Technology, 137:108268, June 2023

    Derrick Hines and Philipp Bekemeyer. Graph neural networks for the prediction of aircraft surface pressure distributions.Aerospace Science and Technology, 137:108268, June 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Flow field modeling of airfoil based on convolutional neural networks from transform domain perspective.Aerospace Science and Technology, 136:108198, May 2023

    Jiawei Hu and Weiwei Zhang. Flow field modeling of airfoil based on convolutional neural networks from transform domain perspective.Aerospace Science and Technology, 136:108198, May 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Deep Learning Models for the Evaluation of the Aerodynamic and Thermal Performance of Three-Dimensional Symmetric Wavy Wings

    Min-Il Kim, Hyun-Sik Yoon, and Jang-Hoon Seo. Deep Learning Models for the Evaluation of the Aerodynamic and Thermal Performance of Three-Dimensional Symmetric Wavy Wings. Symmetry, 16(1):21, December 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Neural fields for rapid aircraft aerodynamics simulations.Scientific Reports, 14(1):25496, October 2024

    Giovanni Catalani, Siddhant Agarwal, Xavier Bertrand, Fr´ ed´ eric Tost, Michael Bauerheim, and Joseph Morlier. Neural fields for rapid aircraft aerodynamics simulations.Scientific Reports, 14(1):25496, October 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Prediction of pressure distribution and aerodynamic coefficients for a variable-sweep wing.Aerospace Science and Technology, 155:109706, December 2024

    Yuqi Lei, Xiaomin An, Yihua Pan, Yue Zhou, and Qi Chen. Prediction of pressure distribution and aerodynamic coefficients for a variable-sweep wing.Aerospace Science and Technology, 155:109706, December 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Transferable machine learning model for the aerodynamic prediction of swept wings.Physics of Fluids, 36(7):076105, July 2024

    Yunjia Yang, Runze Li, Yufei Zhang, Lu Lu, and Haixin Chen. Transferable machine learning model for the aerodynamic prediction of swept wings.Physics of Fluids, 36(7):076105, July 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Flow3DNet: A deep learning frame- work for efficient simulation of three-dimensional wing flow fields.Aerospace Science and Tech- nology, 159:109991, April 2025

    Kuijun Zuo, Zhengyin Ye, Xianxu Yuan, and Weiwei Zhang. Flow3DNet: A deep learning frame- work for efficient simulation of three-dimensional wing flow fields.Aerospace Science and Tech- nology, 159:109991, April 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Hasan, S

    M. Hasan, S. Redonnet, and D. Zhongmin. Aerodynamic optimization of aircraft wings using machine learning.Advances in Engineering Software, 200:103801, February 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Transfer learning from two-dimensional supercritical airfoils to three-dimensional transonic swept wings.Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 36(9):96–110, April 2023

    Runze Li, Yufei Zhang, and Haixin Chen. Transfer learning from two-dimensional supercritical airfoils to three-dimensional transonic swept wings.Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 36(9):96–110, April 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Rapid aerodynamic prediction of swept wings via physics-embedded transfer learning.AIAA Journal, 63(6):2545–2559, 2025

    Yunjia Yang, Runze Li, Yufei Zhang, Lu Lu, and Haixin Chen. Rapid aerodynamic prediction of swept wings via physics-embedded transfer learning.AIAA Journal, 63(6):2545–2559, 2025. Publisher: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Transolver: A Fast Transformer Solver for PDEs on General Geometries

    Haixu Wu, Huakun Luo, Haowen Wang, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Transolver: A Fast Transformer Solver for PDEs on General Geometries, June 2024. arXiv:2402.02366 [cs, math]. 16

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Poseidon: Efficient foundation models for PDEs

    Maximilian Herde, Bogdan Raoni´ c, Tobias Rohner, Roger K¨ appeli, Roberto Molinaro, Em- manuel de B´ ezenac, and Siddhartha Mishra. Poseidon: Efficient Foundation Models for PDEs, November 2024. arXiv:2405.19101 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Self-supervised learning based on Transformer for flow reconstruction and prediction.Physics of Fluids, 36(2):023607, February 2024

    Bonan Xu, Yuanye Zhou, and Xin Bian. Self-supervised learning based on Transformer for flow reconstruction and prediction.Physics of Fluids, 36(2):023607, February 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    PDE-Transformer: Efficient and Versatile Transformers for Physics Simulations, May 2025

    Benjamin Holzschuh, Qiang Liu, Georg Kohl, and Nils Thuerey. PDE-Transformer: Efficient and Versatile Transformers for Physics Simulations, May 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Unisolver: Pde-conditional transformers are universal pde solvers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17527,

    Hang Zhou, Yuezhou Ma, Haixu Wu, Haowen Wang, and Mingsheng Long. Unisolver: PDE- Conditional Transformers Are Universal PDE Solvers, July 2025. arXiv:2405.17527 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    MMET: A Multi-Input and Multi-Scale Transformer for Efficient PDEs Solving, May 2025

    Yichen Luo, Jia Wang, Dapeng Lan, Yu Liu, and Zhibo Pang. MMET: A Multi-Input and Multi-Scale Transformer for Efficient PDEs Solving, May 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recogni- tion at Scale, June 2021. arXiv:2010.11929 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Development of a Common Research Model for Applied CFD Validation Studies

    John Vassberg, Mark Dehaan, Melissa Rivers, and Richard Wahls. Development of a Common Research Model for Applied CFD Validation Studies. In26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Con- ference, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 2008. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    A Wing-Body Fairing Design for the DLR- F6 Model: A DPW-III Case Study

    John Vassberg, Anthony Sclafani, and Mark DeHaan. A Wing-Body Fairing Design for the DLR- F6 Model: A DPW-III Case Study. In23rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 2005. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    work page 2005

  35. [35]

    Cruise Performance Optimization of the Airbus A320 through Flap Morphing

    Martin Orlita and Roelof Vos. Cruise Performance Optimization of the Airbus A320 through Flap Morphing. In17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Denver, Colorado, June 2017. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Pressure distribution feature-oriented sampling for sta- tistical analysis of supercritical airfoil aerodynamics.Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 35(4):134– 147, April 2022

    Runze Li, Yufei Zhang, and Haixin Chen. Pressure distribution feature-oriented sampling for sta- tistical analysis of supercritical airfoil aerodynamics.Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 35(4):134– 147, April 2022

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Mader, Gaetan K

    Charles A. Mader, Gaetan K. W. Kenway, Anil Yildirim, and Joaquim R. R. A. Martins. ADflow: An Open-Source Computational Fluid Dynamics Solver for Aerodynamic and Multidisciplinary Optimization.Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, 17(9):508–527, September 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Zhoujie Lyu, Gaetan K. W. Kenway, and Joaquim R. R. A. Martins. Aerodynamic Shape Op- timization Investigations of the Common Research Model Wing Benchmark.AIAA Journal, 53(4):968–985, April 2015. 17

    work page 2015