Flight Speed Evaluation Using a Special Multi-Element High-Speed Temperature Probe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper dealing with an useful topic.

 

The paper is well written and has a substantial technical content.

 

This said the writing style is sometimes somewhat florid. One such example is the case of the introduction section. Personally I think that the style is distracting to the reader and that therefore the paper could benefit from a review of the less focused text sections.

 

For example, the author wrote: “Now, one question that can be asked is whether there is another way to eliminate the need to know the temperature of the fluid. The answer is yes, there is, and it is the subject of this paper. If we use two temperature probes with different recovery factors.” This last sentence appears grammatically incomplete.

 

The paper ought to have a nomenclature section. In line 100 K, the correction factor, is written in italics and in line 102 is not. Please review the symbols for consistency.

 

Is the author using restitution and recovery factor interchangeably? I suggest that he should stick with an expression consistently.

 

Line 149 - 1.69

 

Table 1 - Delta Pdýza?

 

Figure 4 preceded Figure 3 in the paper. The legend of Figure 3 is essentially invisible. Personally I think these CFD simulation results raise more questions than they answer. Was the mesh resolution of the near wall region sufficient to yield trustworthy results? I have my doubts looking at these figures. Was the flow steady? Turbulence modelling information? More to the point, the author included these two figures but, other than saying what they portray, there is no specific commentary regarding the information they convey. The author ought to guide the reader as to the meaning of the two plots.

 

After a discussion section I would have expected a Conclusions section wrapping up the paper key findings, qualitatively and quantitatively maybe presented in a crisp bullet point format.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your insightful comments on the presented article, to which we have responded as follows:
- The writing style of selected parts of the text has been simplified (modifications are marked in blue),
- nomenclature has been added and the consistency of symbols has been corrected,
- the term "restitution" has been replaced by "recovery" throughout,
- Table 1 has been corrected,
- Figure 3 and Figure 4 have been replaced directly by results arising from numerical simulations, which is also more useful for other researchers. Details on selected terms of the CFD analyses have been added to the text,
- Conclusions chapter was added.

I hope, all of your comments were addressed and the paper is now closer to its publication.

Sincerely,
Michal Schmirler.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Referee Report on Aerospace-1619251

A temperature probe for measuring the flight speed of subsonic aircrafts is described in the manuscript. It is a valuable work and the paper is clearly presented. However, there should be a major revision before considering for publication.
(1) The title of the manuscript should be modified since the main focus is not on the flight speed evaluation, but the design of temperature probe.
(2) Defend the essential difference of this work and Ref. [4], as well as Ref. [11]. Otherwise, the innovation of this paper will be greatly discounted. From the current description, the mechanism of the so called “multi-element temperature probe” is the same as that of Double-probe Recovery Temperature Anemometry.
(3) Do not claim that the probe can also be used for supersonic speed because it is another challenging topic.

Some other detailed comments.
(4) Line 106: “factor fA, respectively fB. ” should be “factor fA and fB, respectively.” 
(5) Line 130: “the subsonic/subsonic flow must also be ...” should be “the subsonic/supersonic flow must also be ...”?
(6) What does [1] means in the axis labels of Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and Fig 7. Maybe they should be removed?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful comments on the presented article, to which we have responded as follows:

(1) The author is well aware of the general concept of the article in relation to the development of the probes described. However, one of the aims of the paper is to open this method of velocity measurement to further research and application in the field of aviation. The author would therefore like to retain the current title of the paper. We respectfully trust that this position will be understood by the reviewer.

(2) Thank you for that comment. Some of the published results have been replaced by new ones that are also more useful to other researchers in this area of interest. These are, for example, the findings presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Thus, only some general information concerning the principle and testing of probes has been used from [4], but in my opinion, the presentation of these is necessary for a complete description of the research.

 

(3) We totally agree with this comment. It has been added to the text in this way. The use of the probe in supersonic flow will be part of further research.

 

Formal comments (4), (5) and (6) have been corrected (in orange in the text).

We hope, all of your comments were addressed and the paper is now closer to its publication.

 

Sincerely,

Michal Schmirler.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my comments have been addressed in the revision and I recommend it for publication in Aerospace.