Peer-Review Record
Clocking and Potential Effects in Combustor–Turbine Stator Interactions
Aerospace 2021, 8(10), 285; https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8100285
Reviewer 1:
Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Aerospace 2021, 8(10), 285; https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8100285
Submission received: 7 September 2021
/
Revised: 17 September 2021
/
Accepted: 19 September 2021
/
Published: 2 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Technologies for Future Distributed Engine Control Systems)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall the paper is of good quality. Following is a list of improvements that must be implemented by the authos before the paper can be accepted for publication.
- figure 1 includes fonts which are almost impossible to read. Please provide adequate modifications;
- In paragraph 2, it is being stated that swirlers do not have vanes or blades downstream. Please provide a justification for this;
- The description of the combustor simulator lacks of details: precise indications on pressure, Mach no. distributions and turbulent levels must be provided in order to demonstrate that the simulator is a representative of a real lean combustor in terms of flow quality; moreover, the targeted temperature is not be decleared.
- "The apparent order p, approximate relative error ea, extrapo-242 lated error eext ... ", use Scientific notation for the symbols;
- Quantities in table 2 are not clear enough and units seem to be missing
- It is beyond my knowledge how a person can judge upon mesh independency from data in table 2. I think overall this data must be explained;
- As the main objective of the study is to infer upon interference between combustor and NGV, validation based on simulation of the combustor alone is questionable. This limitation must be clearly underlined.
- line 309, isolated text there;
- line 315, isolated period there;
- In the conclusion section, the affects of clocking must be underlined better using quantitative considerations.
Author Response
The responses to the review were prepared in a PDF file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall interesting work and a wel-written paper. A few minor comments:
- Vortex evolution (fig 12) could be better presented with the streamwise vorticity instead of the two-color z vorticity. Also would be useful to discuss the interactions with passage vortex development, which might also vary with different clocking.
- Experimental data in Figures 6,7,8,9 better be illustrated with dots instead of continuous line.
- Table 1 caption is missing.
- Figures 2,3, 6, 7,8,9: label (a) and (b) instead of left and right (easier for readers)
Author Response
The responses to the review were prepared in a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
