Performance Estimation of Fixed-Wing UAV Propulsion Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors could explain in more detail the dependences of the profile of the fixed wing, sweep of the fixed wing and other parameters, so that it is clear to the unfamiliar reader.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs minor grammatical corrections

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. While we appreciate the importance of understanding the dependencies of fixed-wing profile and sweep, these aspects fall outside the primary scope of our current study. Our focus in this paper is on the optimization of the propulsion system rather than on the detailed aerodynamic design of the fixed-wing itself. Expanding on these parameters would require a broader discussion that goes beyond the intended objectives of our research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research on performance estimation of Fixed-Wing UAV propulsion systems has a good background of aeronautics. However, the paper needs to be modified to be suitable for the requirements of the Journal.

1.As for the rationality of the experimental method, it is necessary to supplement the comparative verification of the experimental and calculation results of standard model.

2.There is too little elaboration on the research of motor and propeller CFD in introduction. This needs additional introduction.

3.For the rationality of CFD method, it is necessary to supplement comparative verification, flow field analysis and references.

4. Lack of analysis of flow mechanism, it is suggested to add the flow mechanism of typical case with calculation and experiment.

5.There is a lack of special analysis on the motor and its energy. It is suggested to increase the analysis of typical cases through calculation and experiment.

6.The CFD domain of propeller is too little, and the calculation results may be incorrect. The interference and uncertainty of numerical simulation need to be analyzed.

7.The quantifiable results should be given in Conclusion and Abstract.

8.It is suggested to supplement references on propeller/motor matching performance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some technical terms are inaccurate. Author contributions are not given reasonably.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposed a comprehensive theoretical UAV propulsion system assessment to assess both static and dynamic performance characteristics via an integrated simulation model. The proposed analytical model estimates propeller and motor combination performance with the overarching goal of enhancing the overall efficiency of the aircraft propulsion system before expensive costs are incurred. The method proposed in the paper has certain theoretical significance and engineering application value, but there are still some problems:

1. The abstract did not mention the effects of introducing the proposed new model.

2. The citation of references is not standardized. For example, the citations of references 1 and 2 in line 19 and references 6 and 7 in line 45 are inconsistent.

3. The use of regular and italic fonts in formulas is not standardized. For example, the usage of Cl and Cd in Section 3.1.2 is inconsistent with the subscripts in Figures 4 and 5.

4. What is the significance of using flat plate theory to obtain aerodynamic parameters at high angles of attack? How to verify accuracy?

5. A full stop should be added before "However" in Line 143.

6. The legend of the last subfigure in Figure 16 is unclear.

7. The legends of the second and third diagrams in Figure 17 are misaligned, and the distance between the horizontal coordinate title and the scale of the graphics is too small. Figure 18 also has the same problem as Figure 17.

8. Some sentences in the conclusion need to be rewritten. For example, items 2-4 in the original statement merely describe a process without drawing any conclusive words.

9. Detailed Author Contributions need to be provided.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences need to be strengthened. For example, the usage of the word "However" in the third line of the abstract and the 143rd line of the main text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the manuscript in its current state is acceptable. That's a good work.