Next Article in Journal
Model Predictive Control-Based Attitude Control of Under-Actuated Spacecraft Using Solar Radiation Pressure
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Distributed Propulsion on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Blended-Wing-Body Aircraft
Previous Article in Journal
Optical Navigation Method and Error Analysis for the Descending Landing Phase in Planetary Exploration
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Evaluation of the Mass and Aerodynamic Efficiency of a High Aspect Ratio Wing for Prospective Passenger Aircraft

Aerospace 2022, 9(9), 497; https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9090497
by Anatolii Kretov 1 and Dmytro Tiniakov 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Aerospace 2022, 9(9), 497; https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9090497
Submission received: 9 July 2022 / Revised: 16 August 2022 / Accepted: 30 August 2022 / Published: 7 September 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I enjoyed reading through your work. Below my suggestions to further improve your manuscript:

1. The list of References can be further improved, I believe there is enough literature out there for the topic that you can easily reach a 40+ number on the list of references. There are also some facts/info that are presented without being supported by a reference, like your statements at the 'introduction' part. This is a constant theme throughout the manuscript.

2. Please proof read the manuscript before you submit it again, as there are quite a few syntax and grammar errors that do not make a good impression.

3. Figures need proper referencing.

4. I can see that in most cases you do explain what is each parameter you use and how it is nominated, I believe though that you should write up a 'nomenclature' section, as most of your parameters do differ from the conventional ones used in the typical aviation nomenclature and might confuse the readers.

5. Please pay attention to make a thorough discussion of your results, on how they compare to other published research and what makes you confident about the accuracy of the results. This comment is also linked to the limited list of references, ie, a good discussion of your results will also enhance the list of references and the overall credibility of your effort.

Author Response

  1. The list of References can be further improved, I believe there is enough literature out there for the topic that you can easily reach a 40+ number on the list of references. There are also some facts/info that are presented without being supported by a reference, like your statements at the 'introduction' part. This is a constant theme throughout the manuscript.

References were added.

 

  1. Please proof read the manuscript before you submit it again, as there are quite a few syntax and grammar errors that do not make a good impression.

English language correction was done.

 

  1. Figures need proper referencing.

References were added.

  1. I can see that in most cases you do explain what is each parameter you use and how it is nominated, I believe though that you should write up a 'nomenclature' section, as most of your parameters do differ from the conventional ones used in the typical aviation nomenclature and might confuse the readers.

I added a Nomenclature subsection in the paper. But, such subsection is not provided by the template of this Journal. And Editor can take solution that it is no needed.

 

  1. Please pay attention to make a thorough discussion of your results, on how they compare to other published research and what makes you confident about the accuracy of the results. This comment is also linked to the limited list of references, ie, a good discussion of your results will also enhance the list of references and the overall credibility of your effort.

Subsection Discussion was added.

 

Thank You for advices, really now our paper got better.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with the effects of aspect ratio, folding wing tips and CFRP wing structures on fuel efficiency. This is a topic of interest, however, a number of comments as listed below should be taken into account in a reviesion of the paper.

Title [MAJOR]: the title does not very well cover the objective of the paper; it should more reflect what is proposed in lines 140ff as the objective of the study.

Objective (section 2) [MAJOR]: while section 2 gives an overview on framework and state-of-the-art, the methodology of the paper does not become clear. This should be improved by outlining the steps that will follow in sections 3-7, required to achieve the aim of the study as described in lines 140ff.

Introduction (section 1) [minor]: ICAO Resolution A37-19 and ACARE goals to be included in list of references.

Line 37 [...]: "the event on February 24, 2022" --> "event" has to be named, as otherwise a majority of readers today and even more in the future will not understand what is meant with this.

Line 48 [MAJOR]: "Here it can be distinguished such major references concerning the topic as [2-4]" --> language barely understandable; the statement is too general and should be more specific: what can be found in these aircraft design books with respect to "new aircraft layout"?

Line 80 [minor]: 40% induced drag in cruise conditions is a lot. Should be more in a region of 25% for large transport aircraft. It is proposed to confirm the statement with a reference.

Line 94 [minor]: "(ARD)" --> ARC

Figure 3 [MAJOR]: propose to skip the meaningless national dimension of the points in favor of aircraft class (regional / single aisle / twin aisle / special purpose).

Line 197 [MAJOR]: "in our case k_eng = 1.1" --> what is "our case"? This relates to the comment on the objective above: at this point the reader would not know what types of aircraft are dealt with and what will follow in "our case" ...

equation (16) and related text / Figure 5 and related text [minor]: the variable "z" for a spanwise coordinate is very confusing, as z typically is reserved for vertical coordinates and y would be used for lateral coordinates.

Figure 6 [MAJOR]:
# figures too small to read the indices
# are the figures (a) and (b) taken from a reference? In this case please quote the reference.

Line 378 [minor]: "... were obtained in the research (Kretov and Tiniakov, 2022)" --> "... were obtained in the research [22]"

Conclusions [MAJOR]: The conclusions list what has been done in the study, but does not connect the research results to the aim of the study on a more general level.

 

 

 

Author Response

Title [MAJOR]: the title does not very well cover the objective of the paper; it should more reflect what is proposed in lines 140ff as the objective of the study.

Title was corrected

 

Objective (section 2) [MAJOR]: while section 2 gives an overview on framework and state-of-the-art, the methodology of the paper does not become clear. This should be improved by outlining the steps that will follow in sections 3-7, required to achieve the aim of the study as described in lines 140ff.

This subsection was adjusted.

 

Introduction (section 1) [minor]: ICAO Resolution A37-19 and ACARE goals to be included in list of references.

References were added.

 

Line 37 [...]: "the event on February 24, 2022" --> "event" has to be named, as otherwise a majority of readers today and even more in the future will not understand what is meant with this.

This sentence was corrected.

 

Line 48 [MAJOR]: "Here it can be distinguished such major references concerning the topic as [2-4]" --> language barely understandable; the statement is too general and should be more specific: what can be found in these aircraft design books with respect to "new aircraft layout"?

This sentence was corrected.

Line 80 [minor]: 40% induced drag in cruise conditions is a lot. Should be more in a region of 25% for large transport aircraft. It is proposed to confirm the statement with a reference.

Thank You it was my mistake. Induced drag can be up to 30%. Corrected in the text.

Line 94 [minor]: "(ARD)" --> ARC

Corrected.

 

Figure 3 [MAJOR]: propose to skip the meaningless national dimension of the points in favor of aircraft class (regional / single aisle / twin aisle / special purpose).

Sorry, we did not understand this. Figure 3 has only names of the real aircraft and this fact is key for our research.

 

Line 197 [MAJOR]: "in our case k_eng = 1.1" --> what is "our case"? This relates to the comment on the objective above: at this point the reader would not know what types of aircraft are dealt with and what will follow in "our case" ...

This sentence was corrected.

 

equation (16) and related text / Figure 5 and related text [minor]: the variable "z" for a spanwise coordinate is very confusing, as z typically is reserved for vertical coordinates and y would be used for lateral coordinates.

This equation and all text related to this equation was corrected.

 

Figure 6 [MAJOR]:

# figures too small to read the indices

# are the figures (a) and (b) taken from a reference? In this case please quote the reference.

This figure was corrected, references were added.

 

Line 378 [minor]: "... were obtained in the research (Kretov and Tiniakov, 2022)" --> "... were obtained in the research [22]"

It was corrected.

 

Conclusions [MAJOR]: The conclusions list what has been done in the study, but does not connect the research results to the aim of the study on a more general level.

The discussion subsection was added, where we explained results of our research.

 

Thank You for Your advices.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thanks for the enhanced version.

Some minor comments below:

- Line 86: Please make a related citation for the number of 18-19 g/(passenger-kilometers).

-You mention twice 'Figure 1' in your numbering. Please correct this and all the affected numbering of the figures in the paper.

-Figure 3 still needs a citation.

Best regards

 

Author Response

All suggestions are completed

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for having taken the review comments of the first revision into account. The only comment now remains with figure 3:

all aircraft have little symbols (stars, triangles, squares, ...) which now are related to the country/region they come from. This is a meaningless dimension in a scientific paper. It is therefore proposed to rather connect the symbols with the aircraft class (i.e. regional / single aisle / twin aisle / special purpose). This would show the size and purpose of the aircraft as an additional valuable information.

Author Response

All suggestions are completed

Back to TopTop