Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear

The aircraft configuration analysed in the paper is close to science-fiction and about very doubtful reasonability However from the scientific perspective it is something new and interesting. In my opinion it is not always required from the scientific problem  to have practical application. If only theoretical background, approach and other components of the scientific research are correct the whole work could be fruitful and profitable.

That situation is exactly in this case. I read the paper few times. There could be some remarks regarding simplifications in modelling process but some must be made to create the mathematical formulas.

In general the paper is so great abstraction that it is difficult to discuss on the details. It should be rated as a whole. From this perspective there are no significant lacks. So the paper should be published.

The detail questions:

-       Matrixes P and Q in LQR should be selected by the expert mainly. Could you more detail explain how these are selected.

-       notation “sat(u)” – what does it mean? I suppose meaning but is not explained and “sat” it is not a standard mathematical operator.

-       Why this matrix norm is selected to define the error?

 

Editorial remarks

-       Graphs lose focus, lines and fonts are fuzzy and muzzy.

The paper because of it specific could be interesting for narrow group of readers.

Only minor corrections are recommended

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback that we have used to improved our previous manuscript. We have addressed the comments and made modifications and supplements to our manuscript.

Please see the attachment for point by point responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest to add list of symbols to the paper - it consists many equations and symbols, so it would meke the paper more user friendly.

Line 138 - Table 1 - I suggest to add description to all parameters in the first column

Line 276 - Table 2 and the paragraph before - Conditions 1 and 3 (and also 2 and 4) are practically identical, but you have different agles of attack for enach of them (4 degrees for 1, 0.806 degrees for 3, and similarly 5.481 degrees for 2 and 0.926 degrees for 4). This is very strange for fixed wing aircraft and should be explained.

 

Generally, I find the design and the control system of the described MAV quite interesting and I hope that there will be more research in this area. The paper is easy to read and I find the language OK (but I am not a native speaker). I would suggest to add a paragraph with the description of the MAV control forces and moments - i.e. how you replace ailerons, elevator and rudder at the classical fixed-wing aircraft configuration. You have detailed description by equations but I am missing more simple description of the idea how to control the MAV.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback that we have used to improved our previous manuscript. We have addressed the comments and made modifications and supplements to our manuscript.

Please see the attachment for point by point responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf