Conventionally meridian, RANS or URANS simulations are used in design. However, their accuracy is not always satisfactory. Higher order methods like direct and large eddy simulation have shown improved results for various case. While traditionally many direct numerical simulation (DNS) and large eddy simulation (LES) studies have been conducted using highly tailored research codes. These codes often use high order methods with both low numerical dissipation and dispersion often in conjunction with structured grids. While these features allow for high efficiency and accuracy they require a considerable effort to obtain appropriate grids. The ongoing rapid increases in available computer power have allowed commercial software packages to also include LES using lower order methods and unstructured grids. These are more flexible and robust to apply but it is not clear how they compare to the higher accuracy research solvers. In this work an initial comparison between a structured research code and an unstructured commercial code is presented.
To that end, the paper compares compressible LES conducted with a high-resolution research code and with a commercial code of a statistically 2D linear transonic high pressure turbine vane cascade. The geometry investigated is that of Arts and Rouvroit  at isentropic exit Reynolds number approximately 590,000 and isentropic exit Mach number 0.93 with a target inlet turbulence intensity of 4%. The results are also compared to Direct Numerical Simulation results, published by Wheeler et al. , for boundary layer and wake development for low levels of freestream inlet turbulence. In the research code inlet turbulence is generated synthetically while the turbulence grid comprised of bars is simulated in the commercial code. While the flow around the blade is in good agreement differences are present in the wake data.