Frequency-Domain Lifting-Line Aerodynamic Modelling for Wing Aeroelasticity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting topic has been chosen to study while they are several major problems.

1. the abstract has not clarified the results and comparison or validation.

2. very poor introduction and needs to be improved with at least 20 recent research. the articles have been cited are outdated. following manuscripts are presented a review:

-https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033460

-https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1998-597

-https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.03.033

-DOI 10.1007/s12206-022-0722-5

-https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C036562

-https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-1268

-https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00162-021-00578-8

and many similar recent researchers that easily can be found 

 

3. the validation (comparison needs to be a separate part. missing the most important of your research cant be accepted. it must be clear and detailed discussed.

 

4. All figures must be improved

 

5. the author's affiliations are the same and neednt to be repeated.

 

Goodluck

 

Author Response

see submitted file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a well written paper regarding lifting line methods for wing aeroelasticity in the frequency domain.

The methodological approach have similarities with strip theory and/or blade element methods. These similarities and the differences that do exist should be commented on.

The verification of the method lacks in camprison with experimental results. Especially when the validation data is computational (BEM) aquired throught self citation. The original BEM papers must have experimental validation data, yes? Bring the experimental tata in from the references instead (or possibly in addition to) computational BEM data.

Author Response

see submitted file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend it for publication after a minor revision.

1- In the introduction section, the author should give more details about the background. Moreover, the literature review is weak and should be enriched by adding references that refer to aerodynamic modeling for wing aeroelasticity.

2 - The text should be checked for some minor typing errors.

Author Response

see submitted file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the reviewer's recommendation has not been considered and responded properly.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a case against comparing the proposed method against experimental data. I still think it would be appropriate to have some form of experimental validation in the paper.