Next Article in Journal
Thermal Impact Analysis and Electric–Thermal Coupled Modeling of Photovoltaic/Battery Space Power System with Different Surface Coatings
Next Article in Special Issue
Computational Fluid Dynamics Analyses of a Wing with Distributed Electric Propulsion
Previous Article in Journal
ProgNet: A Transferable Deep Network for Aircraft Engine Damage Propagation Prognosis under Real Flight Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Atomization Characteristics of Special-Design Pneumatic Two-Fluid Nozzles for Helicopter Main Reducers: A Numerical and Experimental Investigation
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Experimental and Numerical Studies on the Effect of Airflow Separation Suppression on Aerodynamic Performance of a Ducted Coaxial Propeller in Hovering

by Junjie Wang, Renliang Chen * and Jiaxin Lu
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Submission received: 25 November 2022 / Revised: 13 December 2022 / Accepted: 19 December 2022 / Published: 23 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fluid Flow Mechanics (2nd Edition))

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting article. The papers showed a numerical simulation of airflow separation of the ducted coaxial propeller in hovering. The introduction presents a review of the literature on experimental and numerical research on the Ducted coaxial propeller. The Methods section describes the model, meshing and numerical methods used. Then, the results of model validation and the analysis of the results along with their discussion were presented. In my opinion, the discussion on the results should be supplemented with reference to the results of other authors. The conclusions are supported by research results. I have a few comments:

1.    No information about the size of the mesh used in Fluent CFD calculations.

2.    There is no information about the results of the measurements.

3.    No information about the error analysis of the study method. Could you write some information about uncertainty in your study? Do you consider the impact of the uncertainty on the results of your work?

4.    In the discussion of the results, there are no references to studies of similar systems by other authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

I appreciate your thorough editing of the paper. I believe your manuscript is interesting and scientifically sound and can be accepted for publication. I wish you rewarding scientific studies and every success with your future publications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for explanation. I have no more comments

Back to TopTop