Aerodynamic Performance Analysis of VTOL Arm Configurations of a VTOL Plane UAV Using a Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have the following comments on the paper:

Line 62-64 – angle of attack and sideslip angle are defined strictly in aerodynamic coordinate system (not just to „reference line “) – please correct it

Line 88 - I did not notice the explanation of the abbreviation DRO in the text – I think it should be DR&O

Line 177 – 181 - I miss the definition of AR

Line 198 – in Figure 5, Figure 8, Figure 10 and line 237, line 248, line 248………. - unify abbreviations CG and CoG

Line 207 and next - I did not notice the explanation of the abbreviation MAC in the text

Line 637 - I recommend changing the statement “enough” to “sufficient”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is quite a well written article and most of the important points are covered.

The problem is novelty! With a very brief search of the internet I find companies prepared to sell exactly these designs as finished UAV models with all the tail-plane structures mentioned in this paper. Please see for example,

https://www.jouav.com/products/      

https://www.gy-uav.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAyMKbBhD1ARIsANs7rEHUNWNy5F2ApWNwTPyIrU_obL90soKGk2QOkCVPyWjQaRuRrLiMUBcaAjt5EALw_wcB

This worries me in that it seems the important configurations in this paper are already realized and quite mature. I do appreciate that this should not stop further research but the paper found that one of the realized configurations was in fact the best from their research.

Perhaps a paragraph to explain the overlap between their research and what is already on the market would be appropriate before publication.

Or a simple rebuttal to explain your position may also be appropriate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

You would need to tighten up the English a little, eg. you use the word could when it should be can. There are a few of these little mistakes which of course takes the polish of the paper. Try to repair.

The results given are interesting and relevant.