The NACA0012 work is a proving ground for the workflow, not the intended endpoint. Future projects should reuse the same evidence discipline while changing geometry, physics or deployment need.
Another airfoil, bluff body, wing or vehicle configuration can test geometry transfer and larger parameter spaces.
Pipe networks, thermal management, rotating machinery or other CFD domains can test how much of the workflow is truly reusable.
These are exploratory directions rather than committed roadmap items. Each would stress a different part of the current CFD → reduced-model → deployment framework.
Extend the workflow to bluff-body and automotive aerodynamics: drag, lift/balance, wake structures, underbody flow and sensitivity to operating or geometry parameters.
Potential focus: geometry variation · yaw / ride height · wake ROMs · fast aerodynamic explorationUse deforming aerodynamic geometry as a harder generalization problem where the surrogate must respond to both operating conditions and shape changes rather than interpolate only one scalar parameter.
Potential focus: shape parameterization · mesh deformation · geometry-aware ROM/AI · design-space explorationStudy flapping-wing flow in the low-Reynolds-number regime, where leading-edge vortices, wake capture, phase-dependent forces and strongly unsteady fluid-structure kinematics create a very different dynamics problem from the current fixed airfoil.
Potential focus: periodic / multi-frequency dynamics · moving mesh · force reconstruction · bio-inspired flightEach future case should start from an engineering question and a controlled CFD/experimental evidence plan. Model complexity is introduced only when the simpler reference fails on a measurable requirement.
← Back to NACA0012