Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis and summary of over 500 large-eddy simulations representing submissions from 12 distinct numerical solvers and three distinct grid topologies submitted to the Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulations Technology Focus Group of the 5th High Lift Prediction Workshop (HLPW-5) are provided. The focus is on assessing the potential of wall-modeled large-eddy simulations (WMLESs) to accurately predict aerodynamic loads on high-lift aircraft configurations under landing and takeoff conditions. The simulations were based on the NASA High-Lift Common Research Model (CRM-HL) ecosystem and explored several distinct model geometries, including a “clean-wing” configuration, as well as a typical “landing configuration” with extended flaps, slats, and a nacelle with a chine/vortex generator intended to increase the maximum lift ([Formula: see text]) and extend the onset of aerodynamic stall to higher angles of attack. The results are encouraging; “blind” numerical simulations showed favorable agreement with experimental data obtained by Mouton et al. (“Test Summary of the Full-Span High-Lift Common Research Model at the ONERA F1 Pressurized Low-Speed Wind Tunnel,” AIAA Paper 2023-0823, 2023) at ONERA, with reasonable agreement in both flow-separation patterns and the integrated force and moment coefficients. While some coarse-grid outliers were observed, most submissions were within 2–3% of each other for [Formula: see text] prediction for the most complex case studied (slats, flaps, and nacelle) at three different Reynolds numbers ([Formula: see text]) ranging from a subscale value of [Formula: see text] through a flight-scale value of [Formula: see text], although differences of this magnitude may still be important for WMLES utilization toward certification by analysis. However, some challenges remain—most notably the prediction of laminar-to-turbulent transition under high pressure gradients. Simulations employing fully turbulent wall-stress closures everywhere appear to show large sensitivity to grid resolution, numerical discretization, as well as SGS closure when predicting clean-wing flows. Evidence of this is seen in disparate stall onset mechanisms predicted for clean-wing flows as well as premature slat transition and the subsequent loss of lift at [Formula: see text] in some simulations. Low-[Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] predictions on configurations with extended flaps also remain a challenge, with some simulations underpredicting the extent of flap separation and others showing some degree of error cancellation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kiris et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: