NASA/TM—2014–216641

 

Analysis of Low-Speed Stall Aerodynamics 

of a Swept Wing with Laminar-Flow Glove 

Trong T. Bui

Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California

 

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

January 2014
NASA STI Program ... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated 

to the advancement of aeronautics and space 

science. The NASA scientific and technical 

information (STI) program plays a key part in 

helping NASA maintain this important role.

The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. 

It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and 

disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI 

program provides access to the NASA 

Aeronautics and Space Database and its public 

interface, the NASA Technical Reports Server, 

thus providing one of the largest collections of 

aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, 

which includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant 

phase of research that present the results of 

NASA Programs and include extensive data 

or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of significant scientific and technical 

data and information deemed to be of 

continuing reference value. NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal professional 

papers but has less stringent limitations on 

manuscript length and extent of graphic 

presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, 

e.g., quick release reports, working 

papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and 

technical conferences, symposia, seminars, 

or other meetings sponsored or 

co-sponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, 

often concerned with subjects having 

substantial public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and 

feeds, providing information desk and personal 

search support, and enabling data exchange 

services.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page 

at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443-757-5803

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at 

443-757-5802

• Write to:

STI Information Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

This page is required and contains approved text that cannot be changed.
NASA/TM—2014–216641

 

Analysis of Low-Speed Stall Aerodynamics 

of a Swept Wing with Laminar-Flow Glove 

Trong T. Bui

Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California

 Insert conference information, if applicable; otherwise delete 

Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

 Enter acknowledgments here, if applicable. 

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Dryden Flight Research Center

Edwards, CA 93523-0273

January 2014
Click here: Press F1 key (Windows) or Help key (Mac) for help 

Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

443-757-5802
1

Abstract

Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis

was conducted to study the low-speed stall aerodynamics of a GIII aircraft’s swept wing 

modified with a laminar-flow wing glove. The stall aerodynamics of the gloved wing were

analyzed and compared with the unmodified wing for the flight speed of 120 knots and altitude 

of 2300 ft above mean sea level (MSL). The Star-CCM+ polyhedral unstructured CFD code was 

first validated for wing stall predictions using the wing-body geometry from the First American 

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop. It was 

found that the Star-CCM+ CFD code can produce results that are within the scattering of other

CFD codes considered at the workshop. In particular, the Star-CCM+ CFD code was able to 

predict wing stall for the AIAA wing-body geometry to within 1 degree of angle of attack as 

compared to benchmark wind-tunnel test data. Current results show that the addition of the 

laminar-flow wing glove causes the gloved wing to stall much earlier than the unmodified wing.

Furthermore, the gloved wing has a different stall characteristic than the clean wing, with no 

sharp lift drop-off at stall for the gloved wing.

Nomenclature

AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

AoA angle of attack

CD coefficient of drag

CL coefficient of lift

CM coefficient of pitching moment

CFD computational fluid dynamics

DRE discrete roughness elements

ERA Environmentally Responsible Aviation

LE leading edge

MAC mean aerodynamic chord

MSL mean sea level

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

RANS Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes

SA Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model

SARGE Subsonic Aircraft Roughness Glove Experiment

SCRAT SubsoniC Research AircrafT

T/C thickness to chord ratio

y+ normal distance to the wall in boundary layer wall units

Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Dryden SubsoniC Research 

AircrafT (SCRAT) aircraft tail number 804 is pictured in figure 1. This modified Gulfstream 

Aerospace Corporation (Savannah, Georgia) GIII aircraft is being proposed for use as the flight 

testbed for the Subsonic Aircraft Roughness Glove Experiment (SARGE) (ref. 1) project. A 

collaborative effort between NASA and Texas A & M University (College Station, Texas), 

SARGE proposes to conduct flight research on the effectiveness of the discrete roughness 

elements (DREs) in increasing the laminar-flow region on a generic subsonic transport swept 

wing for flight conditions representative of modern subsonic jetliners. The SARGE project 

directly supports the goal of the NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project of 
2

enabling new technologies for the purposes of increasing aircraft efficiencies and reducing the 

adverse effects that aviation has on the environment. There are several reasons that SARGE is 

a good fit for the NASA Dryden SCRAT aircraft. First, the flight environment provides the very 

low freestream turbulence levels required to demonstrate the effectiveness of the DRE 

laminar-flow technology. Also, DREs have been found to produce significant increases in

laminar-flow regions of a swept wing test article in flight at lower Reynolds numbers and Mach 

numbers (ref. 2). The Dryden SCRAT aircraft can help by expanding the flight research of the 

SARGE laminar-flow wing glove to higher Reynolds numbers and Mach numbers representative 

of typical full-scale jetliners.

 ED12-0191-12c_800-600

Figure 1. NASA Dryden GIII SubsoniC Research AircrafT (SCRAT).

A conceptual sketch of the GIII aircraft modification is shown in figure 2. The SARGE DRE 

laminar-flow wing glove would be mounted only on the left wing of the SCRAT aircraft, resulting 

in an asymmetric aircraft configuration. The glove spans approximately 30 percent of the half

span of the aircraft wing, occupying the midwing section, away from both the wing root as well 

as wing tip. The location of the glove was chosen to be away from the region of influence of the 

aircraft engine near the wing root for better flow quality over the glove, as well as away from the 

aircraft aileron, which is located towards the wing tip to avoid potential interference with the 

aerodynamic effectiveness of the left aircraft aileron. Micron-sized DREs mounted near the 
3

leading edge of the wing glove provide the spanwise-periodic roughness variation that controls 

the unstable crossflow vortices and delays the transition to turbulence on the wing glove. The

actual DREs are not directly modeled in the present computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

simulations.

Figure 2. Conceptual sketch of the SARGE DRE laminar-flow wing glove mounted on the NASA 

Dryden SCRAT aircraft's left wing.

All of the proposed SARGE flight-test points will be done around trimmed aircraft cruising 

flight conditions for the SCRAT aircraft. Hartshorn (ref. 3) has found that the wing glove 

produces very small changes in aircraft aerodynamics at aircraft cruising flight conditions. 

Laminar-flow wing glove flight testing has been conducted extensively in the past using a wide 

variety of aircraft such as the JetStar (Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, Maryland), Learjet (Learjet,

now Bombardier Aerospace, Wichita, Kansas), Boeing 757 (The Boeing Company, Chicago, 

Illinois), F-111 (General Dynamics, now Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, Maryland), F-14

(Grumman, now Northrop-Grumman Corporation, West Falls Church, Virginia), F-15 (McDonnell 

Douglas, now The Boeing Company, Chicago, Illinois), and F-16XL (General Dynamics, now 

Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, Maryland). A preliminary literature search has found no mention of 

stalls as significant issues in all of these previous flight research efforts. The laminar-flow wing 

glove proposed for the left wing of the SCRAT does not represent a significant departure from 

these previous laminar-glove flight research efforts. Therefore, it is not expected that modified 

aircraft stall characteristics would present serious problems for conducting the SCRAT aircraft 

SARGE wing glove research flights at high-speed cruising flight conditions. However, low-speed 

stall aerodynamics of the gloved wing need to be analyzed in order to ensure flight safety for the 

takeoff and landing portions of the SARGE glove test flights.

The laminar-flow wing glove introduces many significant physical modifications to the left 

wing of the SCRAT aircraft, as listed below:
4

• Modifications of the basic wing airfoil section for 30 percent of the half span of the 

aircraft wing include: smaller leading edge (LE) radius, longer chord length, a smaller

thickness over chord (T/C) ratio, and modified airfoil camber line.

• There are two leading-edge snags introduced by the glove extending beyond the LE 

of the unmodified aircraft wing.

• Four standard aircraft wing vortex generators (out of a total of 31) are removed to 

make room for glove installation on the left wing. The right wing retains the full 31 

vortex generators.

The DREs are expected to provide significantly more laminar flow over the wing glove than 

the equivalent area on the unmodified GIII aircraft wing. Also, the laminar-flow airfoil design of 

the wing glove modifies the transonic flow over the wing as compared to the normal GIII aircraft 

wing airfoil. For example, at an aircraft Mach number of 0.75, the shock wave on the upper 

surface of the wing in the laminar glove area is further downstream compared to the shock 

location of the clean wing at the same flight Mach number.

Finally, the glove is mounted only on the left wing, resulting in an asymmetric aircraft 

configuration. This asymmetric mounting of the glove on the left wing only could create 

undesirable asymmetrical forces and moments should the gloved left wing stall earlier than the 

unmodified right wing. The main objective of the current analysis effort is to determine if the 

addition of the laminar-flow wing glove to the left wing causes left wing stalls to occur before the 

unmodified right wing of the airplane.

In this report, the Star-CCM+ polyhedral unstructured CFD code is first validated for 

low-speed wing stall predictions using the wing-body geometry from the First American Institute 

of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop (ref. 4). The effects 

of grid sizes and turbulence models on the accuracy of the CFD stall predictions are quantified.

Finally, the low-speed stall aerodynamics of the gloved wing are presented and compared with 

the unmodified wing aerodynamics.

CFD Code Validation Study

Steady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) CFD simulations have been found to be 

qualitatively accurate for predicting low-speed wing stalls in the First AIAA CFD High-Lift 

Prediction Workshop (ref. 4). An assessment of the prediction capability of twenty-one 

participants from eight countries using a variety of different structured as well as unstructured 

CFD codes was made in this workshop. Although there was significant scattering in the CFD 

predictions as compared with the benchmark wind-tunnel test data, it was shown in reference 4 

that the angle of attack (AoA) of the wing at stall could be predicted with reasonable accuracy.

Since the CFD code Star-CCM+ was not considered in this workshop, it is necessary to conduct 

a CFD code validation study to ensure that the Star-CCM+ high-lift results are reliable.

Figure 3 illustrates the First AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop Configuration 1 

wind-tunnel geometry that was used for the present validation study. In this figure, contours of 

pressure coefficient on the wing-body surface and the plane of symmetry are shown together 

with the flow streamlines, illustrating the post-stall separated flows over this AIAA wing-body 

configuration. The selected configuration is one of the two configurations considered by the 

AIAA workshop. In this configuration, the LE slat is deflected by 30 degrees and the flap is 
5

deflected by 25 degrees. The Star-CCM+ meshes were created incorporating the guidelines 

and best practices provided in references 5 and 6. Some of the more useful guidelines include:

• Far-field located at a distance of ~100 reference chords (ref. 5).

• Surface grid spacing should be approximately 0.3 percent of the airfoil chord (ref. 6).

• Initial y+ wall spacing normal to the wing surface should be less than one (ref. 5) or 

equal to one (ref. 6).

• Geometric stretching ratio not more than 1.2 (ref. 6).

Figure 3. Geometry for the First AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop configuration 1.

The Star-CCM+ code validation study was conducted at a free-stream Mach number of 0.2 

and a Reynolds number based on the mean aerodynamic chord of 4.3 million as specified by 

the AIAA workshop. All runs were conducted fully turbulent. From a turbulence models 

sensitivity study, it was found that, using the same mesh with the same initial y+ normal wall 

spacing values less than 1, the automatic y+ turbulence modeling option in Star-CCM+ caused

the wing-body CFD simulations to stall too early, and the low-y+ option produced more accurate

stalled AoA predictions in better agreement with the AIAA workshop results.

As can be seen in figures 4 to 6 below; the lift, drag, and pitching moment coefficients 

computed from the Star-CCM+ CFD simulations quantitatively agree with the wind-tunnel data

from the First AIAA CFD High-Lift Workshop. Results using the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence 

model are shown for three different mesh sizes: coarse (22 million cells), medium (30 million 

cells), and fine (46 million cells). It can be seen that the Star-CCM+ results are within the 

bounds of scattering of the results from most of the CFD codes used in this workshop. There

was even more scattering in the CFD codes considered in the workshop comparison than 

indicated by the green boundaries in figures 4–6, and the green boundaries in these figures

exclude the outliers found in the workshop’s results.
6

Figure 4. Star-CCM+ CFD code validation results for lift coefficient, Mach 0.2, Reynolds number 

based on mean aerodynamic chord of 4.3 million.

Figure 5. Star-CCM+ CFD code validation results for drag coefficient, Mach 0.2, Reynolds 

number based on mean aerodynamic chord of 4.3 million.
7

Figure 6. Star-CCM+ CFD code validation results for pitching moment coefficient, Mach 0.2, 

Reynolds number based on mean aerodynamic chord of 4.3 million.

Although there are disagreements with the wind-tunnel test data, it can be seen that the 

Star-CCM+ CFD results are within the scatterings of most of the CFD codes considered in the 

workshop and tend to follow the trends of the other CFD codes well. For example, most of the 

codes including Star-CCM+ under predict both the drag coefficient as well as the pitching 

moment coefficient (less negative), as shown in figures 5 and 6, respectively. Most importantly, 

for the objective of the current work, it can be seen in figure 4 that Star-CCM+ is capable of 

predicting wing stall to within 1 degree of AoA of the wind-tunnel test data. The wind-tunnel lift 

coefficient data in figure 4 shows that wing stall occurs at an AoA of 36 degrees. The 

coarse-grid Star-CCM+ CFD result shows a stall AoA value of 35 degrees. Both the 

medium- and fine-grid Star-CCM+ results show a stall AoA of 37 degrees, indicating grid 

convergence for this particular result.

Laminar-Flow Gloved Wing Stall Analysis

Figures 7(a) and (b) show the CAD models for the Star-CCM+ CFD swept wing simulations.

The clean wing is shown in figure 7(a), and the gloved wing is shown in figure 7(b). Only one 

wing on a plane of symmetry was modeled in the current CFD simulations to concentrate as 

many grid cells as possible on the wing. The vortex generators can be seen as a row of small 

dots toward the wing tip in these figures. For clarity, only the mesh on the symmetry plane is 

displayed in figures 7(a) and (b). There is such fine mesh spacing on the wing surfaces that 

these wings would appear solid black if the wing mesh is turned on in figures 7(a) and (b). 

Figures 8(a) and (b) illustrate a closed-up view of both wing configurations in the vicinity of the 

vortex generators near the wing glove location, with the surface mesh turned on. It can be seen 

that four vortex generators are missing in the gloved wing in figure 8(b) as compared to the 

clean wing in figure 8(a). The appropriate number of vortex generators was gridded for both the 

clean wing (31 vortex generators total) as well as the gloved wing (27 vortex generators total).
8

As discussed in the introduction section above, four standard aircraft wing vortex generators are 

removed to make room for glove installation on the left wing. Two different mesh sizes were 

considered: medium (35 million cells) and fine (45 million cells). All of these results were 

obtained using the low-y+ turbulence modeling option in Star-CCM+ with the first y+ value from 

the wall being approximately 0.1. It was found in the CFD code validation study section above 

that this y+ option produces the most accurate stall results. All CFD runs were conducted fully 

turbulent. Although there is flow transition on the laminar glove, it is likely that the flow rapidly 

transitions to mostly turbulent as soon as the AoA is increased above the design angle for the 

laminar-flow glove due to the off-design pressure gradient over the upper surface of the glove at 

higher AoA.

Approximately 19 prism layers were used in the boundary layer over the wing with an overall 

prism layer thickness of 0.055 m. Far-field boundaries are placed approximately 100 times the 

mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) away from the wing. For the medium mesh, surface target 

mesh size is 0.3 percent MAC with a minimum surface mesh size of 0.075 percent MAC. Both 

of the surface mesh grow rate and volume cell grow rate are set at 1.2. All of the simulations 

were started at a low AoA of just below 6 degrees then gradually increasing until past lift stall. 

The converged solution at a lower AoA is used to start the next higher AoA calculation.

Convergence is achieved when forces and moments, as well as all of the residuals become 

either constant for fully attached wing flows or periodic for the separated, post-stalled wing 

flows.

Figure 9 summarizes the Star-CCM+ CFD wing lift coefficient stall results for the clean wing 

as well as the gloved wing for the low-speed, low-altitude flight conditions of 120 knots and 

2300 ft above mean sea level (MSL), which is approximately ground-level at Edwards Air Force 

Base (Edwards, California). Before stalls, the gloved wing is seen to have slightly higher lift than 

the clean wing. Hartshorn (ref. 3) has shown that the airplane can compensate for this small 

difference in lift with no problems. The gloved wing stalls much earlier than the clean wing. 

Furthermore, the stall characteristic of the gloved wing is different from the clean wing. When 

the clean wing stalls at an AoA of approximately 17 degrees, there is an abrupt loss of lift. 

However, when the gloved wing stalls at an AoA of approximately 10.5 degrees, there is no 

abrupt loss of lift. Instead, the lift remains more or less constant at its value at AoA of 

10.5 degrees. Although not captured in these steady RANS CFD simulations, the post-stall 

flows over the wing are likely very unsteady for both the clean as well as gloved wings. 
9

a) Clean wing.

b) Gloved wing.

Figure 7. Star-CCM+ CFD CAD geometry for the clean wing and gloved wing.
10

a) Clean wing.

b) Gloved wing (4 vortex generators missing).

Figure 8. Closed-up view of the Star-CCM+ CFD grid for the clean wing and gloved wing with 

vortex generators.
11

Figure 9. Star-CCM+ CFD wing lift coefficient stall results, 120 knots, 2300 ft above MSL.

Four vertical gray dotted lines in this figure denote the trimmed AoA for four flap 

configurations for the normal (ungloved) wing of the clean airplane. When no aircraft flap is used 

(0-degree flap), it can be seen that the trimmed AoA of the clean airplane is actually higher than

the stall AoA of the gloved wing. Since the left gloved wing stall occurs before the normal 

aircraft trimmed AoA, asymmetrical wing stall can occur without warning if no flap is used. When 

the aircraft flaps are deflected to 10, 20, or 39 degrees, the trimmed AoA values of the aircraft

can be reduced to below the gloved wing stall AoA, possibly allowing aircraft operation at this 

low-speed, low-altitude flight condition. Note that the laminar-flow glove would likely change the 

stall characteristics of the wing with flap deflected, and an analysis of gloved wing stalls with flap 

deflections will be needed before flap deflections can be considered as mitigation. In addition to 

flap deflections, higher takeoff and landing speeds could be considered to increase the gloved 

wing stall margins.

Figure 10 compares the flows over the clean wing, figure 10(a), and the gloved wing, figure

10(b), at the aircraft AoA of just below 12 degrees. As shown in figure 9 above, at this AoA the 

clean wing still provides lift with plenty of stall margin while the gloved wing has stalled. It can be 

seen that the flow remains smooth and fully attached for the clean wing, while for the gloved 

wing; the flow over the glove is separated causing the gloved wing to stall earlier than the clean 

wing. A possible explanation for the different stall characteristic of the gloved wing seen in figure

9 is provided by examining figure 10(b). Only the flow over the glove and its vicinity is stalled, 

with the rest of the flows over the wing remaining attached and providing some lift. Therefore, 

there is no sharp lift drop-off at gloved wing stall as compared to the clean wing stall. 
12

a) Unstalled clean wing.

b) Stalled gloved wing.

Figure 10. Comparison of flows over unstalled clean wing versus stalled gloved wing at an AoA

of just below 12 degrees, 120 knots, 2300 ft above MSL.
13

Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics (CFD) 

analysis was conducted to study the low-speed stall aerodynamics of a swept wing modified 

with a laminar-flow wing glove. The stall aerodynamics of the gloved wing were analyzed and 

compared with the unmodified wing at one low-speed and low-altitude flight condition. First, the 

Star-CCM+ polyhedral unstructured CFD code was validated for wing stall predictions using the 

wing-body geometry from the First AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop. It was found that 

the Star-CCM+ CFD code can produce results that are within the spread of other CFD codes 

considered at the workshop. In particular, the Star-CCM+ CFD code was able to predict wing 

stall for the AIAA wing-body geometry to within 1 degree of angle of attack (AoA) as compared 

to the benchmark wind-tunnel test data. Current analysis results show that the addition of the 

laminar-flow wing glove causes the modified and gloved aircraft wing to stall much earlier than 

the unmodified wing. The gloved wing also has a different stall characteristic than the clean 

wing, with no sharp lift drop-off at stall. These results have important flight safety consequences, 

since the left gloved wing could stall prematurely before the right clean wing, producing a 

serious asymmetric aircraft configuration issue. It is possible to use flap deflections in order to 

reduce the aircraft’s trimmed AoA to values below the stall AoA of the gloved wing, potentially 

allowing the laminar-flow gloved wing aircraft to operate at the low-speed flight condition under 

consideration. However, an analysis on gloved wing stalls with flap deflections needs to be done 

before this can be considered as mitigation. In addition, higher aircraft takeoff and landing 

speeds might be used to increase the gloved wing stall margin.

Only 0-degree flap was considered in this work. The addition of the laminar-flow wing glove 

could change the stall characteristics of the wing with deflected flaps. Also, ground effects were 

not considered in this study and could potentially modify the stall characteristics of the gloved 

wing. Both of these issues should be analyzed in future studies before the gloved wing aircraft 

could be flown.

It is further recommended that the modified gloved wing lift, drag, and moment results 

obtained in this report need to be used in a 6-degrees of freedom GIII flight simulation software

to determine gloved wing aircraft stall margins during takeoffs and landings.

References

1. Belisle, Michael J., Matthew W. Roberts, Thomas C. Williams, Matthew W. Tufts, Aaron A. 

Tucker, William S. Saric, and Helen L. Reed, “A Transonic Laminar-Flow Wing Glove Flight 

Experiment: Overview and Design Optimization,” AIAA-2012-2667, 2012.

2. Carpenter, Andrew, William S. Saric, and Helen L. Reed, “Laminar Flow Control on a Swept 

Wing with Distributed Roughness,” AIAA-2008-7335, 2008.

3. Hartshorn, Fletcher, “Analysis of Asymmetric Aircraft Aerodynamics Due to an Experimental 

Wing Glove,” AIAA-2011-3352, 2011.

4. Rumsey, C. L., J. P. Slotnick, M. Long, R. A. Stuever, and T. R. Wayman, “Summary of the 

First AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 48, No. 6, 

November-December 2011, pp. 2068-2079.
14

5. Slotnick, Jeffrey P., Judith A. Hannon, and Mark Chaffin, “Overview of the First AIAA CFD 

High Lift Prediction Workshop (Invited),” AIAA-2011-862, 2011.

6. Moitra, Anutosh, “Issues in 2-D High-Lift CFD Analysis: A Review,” AIAA-2003-4072, 2003.