The Water-Enhanced Turbofan as Enabler for Climate-Neutral Aviation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting manuscript which study the climate impact caused by WET, a revolutionary concept of the geared turbofan. The reviewer would expect the following concerns be taken into account before its publication.

 

1 Line 23-24: There are too much keywords. 3-5 keywords are enough.

 

2 Line 174: The meaning of the numbers, such as 2, 21, etc., should be indicated in the figure 1.

 

3 Line 259: The meaning of the numbers, such as 1, 2, etc., should be indicated in the figure 4. If the numbers in the figure 4 is not necessary, they should be deleted.

 

4 The equation 8 in figure 6 was not shown in the manuscript. It should be added.

 

5 Line 559: Table 3: T₃₇, p₃₇ , NOT T₃, p₃

 

6 Line 617-618: The overall achievable climate impact reduction with the WET concept is more than 40%. How come to this result? What is the evidence for the 40% reduction? The authors should discuss it in detail.

 

7 Line 634: In Figure 7, the relation between the reduction of O3, CH4 and the reduction of NOx should be explained in the manuscript. The reduction of O3, CH4, CH4-O3 was not mentioned in the text.

Author Response

See pdf

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reports the WET configuration and cycle. It is an interesting study aiming to estimate influence of WET concept on climate change. The reductions of CO2 and NOx are predicted. The reviewer think the paper includes sound information and the latest research, and it can be accepted in the current form after a slight modification.

 

1.       In Table 1, the Fan diameter and Thrust specific fuel consumptions is separated with a line.

2.       The style of Table 3 seems to be different from others.

3.       The quality of Fig. 7 should be improved to make it more clearly.

4.       In the conclusion, the last two paragraph “WET concept is now in a proof-of-concept phase… and Aditionally, … “ is the current state of the project and the future work. It is recommended to use them as research expectations instead of conclusion.

Author Response

See pdf

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments.