Aerodynamics Expert

$60–130/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting aerodynamics specialists to write, review, and critique technical content that trains frontier AI models on fluid dynamics reasoning. Work is remote, output-based, and paid per accepted task, with observed rates in the $80–130/hr range depending on task complexity and throughput.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You'll spend most of your time producing and evaluating technical artifacts in aerodynamics, CFD, and thermofluids. In practice that means writing worked problems with full derivations, critiquing model-generated solutions for physical and mathematical errors, and explaining why a wrong answer is wrong — boundary layer assumptions misapplied, a turbulence closure used outside its validity range, compressibility effects quietly dropped, or a mesh independence claim that isn't supported. A second stream of work is peer review: reading other experts' submissions and holding a consistent bar on rigor, notation, and clarity.

The rubric matters more than the answer. Reviewers look for whether your feedback identifies the reasoning failure rather than just the numeric discrepancy, and whether your explanations hold up for a reader who knows engineering but not your subfield. Sourcing conventions — citing standard references, stating assumptions explicitly, flagging where the literature genuinely disagrees — are part of the deliverable, not optional polish.

What the screen looks for

micro1 runs an AI-led interview before any human review. It probes verifiable specifics: which codes you've actually run, what problems you validated against experiment, where your published or internal work sits. Expect follow-ups that go one or two layers deeper than your first answer — the screen is calibrated to distinguish genuine depth from fluent summary. Credentials in scope are a PhD in AE/ME with a thermofluids or aerodynamics specialization, or a BS plus roughly eight years in aerospace-specific roles.

Logistics

Fully remote, asynchronous; you choose your hours.
Compensation is per accepted task, not hourly — the $80–130/hr band reflects observed effective rates and is not guaranteed.
A weekly minimum task submission applies; confirm the number before accepting.
Roles are typically filled within 48 hours, with first tasks expected 24–48 hours after onboarding.

What they look for

aerodynamics
computational fluid dynamics (cfd)
technical writing
verbal communication
peer review
aerospace engineering
mechanical engineering
thermofluids
experimental methods
technical documentation
knowledge distillation
collaboration
remote teamwork
workflow optimization
critical analysis

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold a PhD in aerospace or mechanical engineering with specialization in aerodynamics/thermofluids, or a BS/BE in aerospace/mechanical engineering plus at least 8 years of aerospecific professional work?
Advanced degree or equivalent experience in aerodynamics · required
Have you personally conducted or analyzed CFD simulations and/or experimental aerodynamic testing (wind tunnel, flight test, or bench-scale measurements)?
Practical CFD and experimental methods experience · required
Can you provide examples of technical writing you authored—such as technical reports, journal articles, design documentation, or thesis chapters—for review?
Technical writing portfolio · required
Are you able to work remotely and available to start your first tasks within 24–48 hours of onboarding completion?
Remote work availability · required
Can you commit to submitting the minimum number of assigned tasks per week on an ongoing basis?
Weekly submission capacity · required

0 of 5 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Can they articulate the fundamental aerodynamic principles at play and distinguish between theoretical modeling and experimental/computational verification? This separates practitioners from those who've only studied the subject.
A strong answer: They name a concrete project (aircraft design iteration, wind-tunnel campaign, CFD analysis validation), explain the aerodynamic phenomenon involved (separation, shock interactions, drag reduction), and describe how they confirmed the solution worked—through flight test, CFD correlation, or measurement.
Where people lose it: Vague answers about "improving efficiency" without naming the specific aerodynamic mechanism, or describing only the administrative/project-management side of a challenge rather than their technical role in solving it.