Review Reports - Evaluating MBSE Approaches and Tools for Aircraft Design and Certification: A Comparative Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- The paper novelty needs to be clarified. Actually, the paper lacks new theory, new methodology, new algorithm, and framework definition and is implementing well established methods and concepts.

2- In addition to the novelty, there is not quantitative evaluation. There is not comparison or metrics or KPIs to prove the reliability of the paper.

3- Most of the paper is descriptive and no analytic or experimental evaluation is provided.

4- Is there any demonstrative or proof of concept of validation?

5- Large part of the paper describes the tools and seems to be like a project report or a technical documentation rather than a scientific paper.

6- There is no formal MBSE framework, no uncertianty or sensitivity analysis.

7- regarding the application of MBSE in aerial vehicle design, you may take a look at the following paper; A unified and experimentally validated design framework for long-endurance solar UAVS using model-based multi-objective multidisciplinary optimization.

8- The result section can benefit a validation or comparison against a reference solution of numerical assessement ...

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a comparison of two Model Based Systems Engineering techniques in the scope of their research project DIGACE. The first one based on Eclipse Papyrus/SysML and Matlab/Simulink, and the second with CATIA MSoSA, based on Activity Diagrams and C++. The topic of the paper is interesting, although the paper should be extended with some more information to improve its readability and comprehensibility.

The most important flaw that I detect in the paper is that it is not defined the modelling requirements and simulations performed to get the results shown in Figures 3 and 6. Please, in the next version of the paper include the modelling requirements for the Gust and Maneuvering Flight Envelope, and how the results presented in Figs. 3 and 6 should be obtained from simulation in both environments: Matlab/Simulink and CATIA MSoSA. With this information in the paper the readership not specialized in this topic would understand really how MBSE could be applied in the aircraft certification process according to the different regulations. In addition to the text introduced to address this request, I would also suggest including some references with more details. Then, the readers could understand why using these techniques the aircraft certification could be accelerated, instead of doing real world experiments.

Other comments that I would kindly ask for address in the next version of the paper:

Please, give some more details about the C++ library used in CATIA MSoSA and for what this library is used for.
In case of using Matlab/Simulink, is it supposed that this tool generates a Simulink model from the SysML model generated from Eclipse Papyrus? Please, relate this with the description of the model requested in the second paragraph of this review report.
How Figs. 3 and 6 have been generated from simulations of the model requested in the second paragraph of this review report.
Please, explain the relation between the high-level EASA CS-23 certification requirements and the model requested in the second paragraph of this review report.