Auto Sweptback Wing Based on Low Scattering Demand for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in Phase Flight
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The overall level of the article is satisfactory. Authors have provided nice presentation of the model used, comparisons and the overall presentation of the work done, results and conclusions is on a high level. However, it is recommended that authors check the English language, elaborate more on the motivation and general background of the topic and amend sources to provide wider overview of the topic and at the same time achieve lower percentage of self-citation.
Author Response
Dear Editors,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Auto sweptback wing based on low scattering demand for an unmanned aerial vehicle in phase flight” (ID: aerospace-2034763). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #1:
- The overall level of the article is satisfactory. Authors have provided nice presentation of the model used, comparisons and the overall presentation of the work done, results and conclusions is on a high level. However, it is recommended that authors check the English language, elaborate more on the motivation and general background of the topic and amend sources to provide wider overview of the topic and at the same time achieve lower percentage of self-citation.
Response:
As suggested by the reviewer, we checked and revised the syntax and writing of the full text sentences.
At the same time, we have read more literature, and cited and discussed in the appropriate places of the manuscript (such as sections 3 and 4). In addition, we supplement the results comparison of different search algorithms in the appendix.
In the introduction, the research motivation is further elaborated. The total number of literatures has increased, and the self-citation rate has decreased
Special thanks to this reviewer for the suggestions. Your comments make this article rich and professional. Thanks again!
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Zeyang Zhou, Jun Huang
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an auto sweep scheme based on an electromagnetic scattering evaluation. The authors execute the concept on a sample unmanned aerial vehicle concept and show various cases of optimal sweep for different azimuth angles. The concept is interesting if implemented for UAV applications, though I would like to see some minor points addressed before recommending publication. Specifically, here are points for the authors to consider:
Abstract: the authors should describe the search algorithm used in the abstract, ie. what is it being improved against?
Third paragraph of the introduction: I can't tell if the authors are describing previous literature or describing their own work from the wording style. For example: "Bayesian network is used to predict the minimum separation distance between different aircrafts" is vague on whether this is the authors work or someone's work. This should be clarified.
Section 2.2: I suggest the authors clarify if the improved particle swarm optimization is a method that they derived for this work or is from previous work. If the latter, then I recommend the authors cite the method and then explain how it applies to their work.
For the UAV shown in the analysis, does airfoil shape or fuselage cross section have an impact on the results?
Final paragraph of section 2.3: The PO+ MOM(method of moment) /MLFMM (multilayer fast multipole method) are mentioned for the first time here. I recommend clarifying what these methods are based on earlier in the paper and how they compare to the presented method.
In addition, please review grammar and writing style in a few places as noted below:
Line 10: do you mean "to discretize" instead of "to discrete"?
Line 31-33, 109, 129: This is a fragment sentence, consider revising.
Line 63-64: This sentence is a bit confusing to read. I recommend perhaps: "More importantly, how to control the wing sweep angle to minimize the RCS of the target in a specific phase of flight is a difficult problem."
Author Response
Dear Editors,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Auto sweptback wing based on low scattering demand for an unmanned aerial vehicle in phase flight” (ID: aerospace-2034763). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #2:
- The paper presents an auto sweep scheme based on an electromagnetic scattering evaluation. The authors execute the concept on a sample unmanned aerial vehicle concept and show various cases of optimal sweep for different azimuth angles. The concept is interesting if implemented for UAV applications, though I would like to see some minor points addressed before recommending publication. Specifically, here are points for the authors to consider:
Response:
As suggested, we have comprehensively revised the manuscript, including the introduction, research methods, result analysis, as well as the result discussion in Appendix A.
We have also supplemented relevant descriptions and explanations. In addition, we have added some references.
- Abstract: the authors should describe the search algorithm used in the abstract, ie. what is it being improved against?
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the source of improvement of search algorithm needs to be pointed out. Therefore, we supplement the search algorithm (improved particle swarm optimization algorithm) in the abstract.
- Third paragraph of the introduction: I can't tell if the authors are describing previous literature or describing their own work from the wording style. For example: "Bayesian network is used to predict the minimum separation distance between different aircrafts" is vague on whether this is the authors work or someone's work. This should be clarified.
Response:
According to the suggestion, this sentence is really not clearly described. The author's intention is to state that the researchers in the literature used this method (Bayesian network) to do the research.
We have made a detailed description of this process. Please refer to the third paragraph of the introduction in red font.
- Section 2.2: I suggest the authors clarify if the improved particle swarm optimization is a method that they derived for this work or is from previous work. If the latter, then I recommend the authors cite the method and then explain how it applies to their work.
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have made more explanations for the search algorithm presented here.
The improved PSO algorithm here has unique practicability, that is, it aims at the wing sweep angle change of this manuscript. It cannot be directly used for other searches. If it needs to be used for other purposes, the framework, operator setting and definition domain need to be redrafted. Because different algorithm designs and settings will affect the global and local search capabilities.
- For the UAV shown in the analysis, does airfoil shape or fuselage cross section have an impact on the results?
Response:
According to the suggestion, the influence of airfoil and fuselage is of practical significance, which is also the original intention of our automatic sweep scheme. Using the same chord length and thickness distribution of airfoil, the optimal solution of wing sweep angle in this paper has certain reference value. The shape of the fuselage section affects the mean level of the RCS indicator.
The advantage of the automatic sweep scheme is that it can carry out specific and in-depth research according to different airfoils, wings and fuselage.
- Final paragraph of section 2.3: The PO+ MOM(method of moment) /MLFMM (multilayer fast multipole method) are mentioned for the first time here. I recommend clarifying what these methods are based on earlier in the paper and how they compare to the presented method.
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, these methods need to be supplemented with more explanations. Therefore, we have made more descriptions of MOM, MLFMM, PTD and other methods. Here, MOM has the characteristics of high calculation accuracy and is suitable for general electrical size and electrical small size problems. MLFMM is used to assist MOM. The calculation speed of PO is fast, which is suitable for electrically large size problems.
- In addition, please review grammar and writing style in a few places as noted below:
Line 10: do you mean "to discretize" instead of "to discrete"?
Response:
Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, there is a problem with this statement. According to the modification suggestions given, we have completed the change in the summary (line 10).
- Line 31-33, 109, 129: This is a fragment sentence, consider revising.
Response:
According to the suggestion, the description of these sentences is worth improving. Therefore, we will change the coordinate clauses into passive descriptions with adverbial. Please refer to the new lines 48-52 in the introduction.
The original statements in lines 109 and 129 have also been modified. Please refer to Section 2.
- Line 63-64: This sentence is a bit confusing to read. I recommend perhaps: "More importantly, how to control the wing sweep angle to minimize the RCS of the target in a specific phase of flight is a difficult problem."
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, this sentence sounds a bit confusing.
Therefore, the author has improved this statement according to the modification suggestions. Please refer to the penultimate paragraph in the introduction.
Special thanks to the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. Your suggestions make the presentation of this article clear and understandable. Thanks again!
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Zeyang Zhou, Jun Huang
Reviewer 3 Report
The variety of wing sweep design can change the lift and drag characteristics of the aircraft, and then implement different flight missions. It’s of great importance to determine a suitable sweep angle. The authors presented a method to effectively learn the optimal sweep angle of the aircraft when low scattering characteristics are required during phase flight.
The methodology is clear. The authors give a thorough description of all the components, which makes it easier to understand. I believe this work still lays a solid foundation. The idea presented in the paper represents a sizeable effort to extend and develop the tool for determining a suitable sweep angle.
Author Response
Dear Editors,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Auto sweptback wing based on low scattering demand for an unmanned aerial vehicle in phase flight” (ID: aerospace-2034763). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #3:
- The variety of wing sweep design can change the lift and drag characteristics of the aircraft, and then implement different flight missions. It’s of great importance to determine a suitable sweep angle. The authors presented a method to effectively learn the optimal sweep angle of the aircraft when low scattering characteristics are required during phase flight.
Response:
After understanding the advantages and disadvantages of variable swept wing aircraft, we considered many future development directions of the high aspect ratio UAV.
This paper attempts to consider whether the variable swept wing can be used to reduce the electromagnetic scattering characteristics of the high aspect ratio UAV, and then the search algorithm is used to determine the swept angle of the wing.
- The methodology is clear. The authors give a thorough description of all the components, which makes it easier to understand. I believe this work still lays a solid foundation. The idea presented in the paper represents a sizeable effort to extend and develop the tool for determining a suitable sweep angle.
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have made more supplements to the description of the method, including search target, search algorithm and RCS calculation method.
Special thanks to the reviewer for his/her comments and suggestions. Your suggestions make the presentation of this article more understandable. Thanks again!
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Zeyang Zhou, Jun Huang
Reviewer 4 Report
The work present an interest problem but it should be improved. Some issues are:
- In mathematical statement (Section 2), there are some probability conditions such as, there are some random numbers but there is not a mathematical description about them. That is, what is the probability distribution related with the numbers?
- In same section 2, the important relations are not developed or they are not included some cited literature. See (4, 5, 6, 7, 9) equations.
- The work has pointed ouy that the PO, MOM, PTD, MLFMM methods are used but, some are not clearly described, such as, MOM, MLFMM.
The suggestions are:
- It should be completed the mathematical statement.
- For the mentioned equations, they should be included some literature references or the develop of them.
- It should be included a description of the mentioned methods.
Author Response
Dear Editors,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Auto sweptback wing based on low scattering demand for an unmanned aerial vehicle in phase flight” (ID: aerospace-2034763). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #4:
- The work present an interest problem but it should be improved. Some issues are:
In mathematical statement (Section 2), there are some probability conditions such as, there are some random numbers but there is not a mathematical description about them. That is, what is the probability distribution related with the numbers?
Response:
As suggested, As suggested by the reviewer, the random number of search algorithm has not been described in detail. Therefore, we have added some new equations and explanations to explain how these parameters are generated. This includes the generation of random numbers and the dependence of different learning factors. These changes make the method description clearer.
- In same section 2, the important relations are not developed or they are not included some cited literature. See (4, 5, 6, 7, 9) equations.
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have made more explanations for the presented search algorithms, including the new equations, method descriptions, and comparison of different search algorithms (see Appendix A for the consistency of optimal solutions under different search methods).
- The work has pointed ouy that the PO, MOM, PTD, MLFMM methods are used but, some are not clearly described, such as, MOM, MLFMM.
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, some details about RCS calculation method are not described, including PTD, MOM, MLFMM. Therefore, we have supplemented the relevant explanations of MOM in Section 2.3. The role of MLFMM is also described. In addition, equations and explanations are added for PO and PTD in terms of surface current with edge feature areas.
- The suggestions are:
It should be completed the mathematical statement.
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, relevant mathematical description needs to be supplemented. Therefore, we have made more improvements and explanations, including some operators, learning factors, and the relationship between these factors and the sweep angle range.
- For the mentioned equations, they should be included some literature references or the develop of them.
Response:
According to the suggestion, we have supplemented the reference number of the relevant equation of the search algorithm at the appropriate location. In addition, we continue to learn the development and new applications of particle swarm optimization algorithm. Considering the change of wing sweep angle and the need of radar cross-section reduction, the search algorithm presented here is established. In the appendix, this search method is compared with the simulated annealing algorithm.
- It should be included a description of the mentioned methods.
Response:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the description of these methods needs to be supplemented. Therefore, we have made relevant descriptions and explanations for MOM, MLFMM and PTD. As in Section 2, these new descriptions and explanations are marked in red font.
Special thanks to the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. Your suggestions make the presentation of this article understandable and rich. Thanks again!
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely,
Zeyang Zhou, Jun Huang
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The work has been improved.
