Towards Efficiency and Endurance: Energy–Aerodynamic Co-Optimization for Solar-Powered Micro Air Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article carries out the optimization of energy and aerodynamic characteristics of solar powered micro air vehicles, which is of great significance for related engineering applications and is the research direction of the preface in this field. The author used modeling and experimental methods to study the object and obtained relevant conclusions, which are consistent with the argument. Overall, it is an excellent paper. This article has some minor issues:
1. Can the introduction analyze the current development trend in conjunction with Table 1? The innovation and work summary in the last part of the introduction are somewhat strange, similar to a Chinese narrative, and expressed differently from high-level journals.
2. The grid in Figure 4 (b) is not clear and cannot display the grid quality.
3. What are the tools for numerical simulation and how is the accuracy of numerical simulation ensured.
4. What is the error of wind tunnel testing, and can some key parts of the experimental results be magnified and displayed.
5. What does a superscript in Table 3 mean.
6. Have the simulation results been compared with the experimental results?
7. The writing style of this article is somewhat similar to a thesis, not quite like a journal article. It is recommended to unify the style.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the language is Chinglish and needs to be modified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an analytical/computational/experimental investigation into the efficiency and endurance of solar powered MAVs under different conditions and placement of their solar panels. The paper is well-written, and while the results may not be ground-breaking, the consistent approach of the authors and the variety of results is well-worth publishing in the journal. There are some minor issues which should be addressed by the authors, related to the set up of their modeling efforts:

A basic introductory figure is needed, showing the angles and directions referenced in the dynamic equations. In fact, the authors should substitute their current figure 1 (what is its purpose really?) with one that show the details of their mathematical model.  

The V&V studies are mentioned in the text, but not explained in any detail, and results from these studies are not presented. Grid independence would be challenging in the 3D configuration, so some results should be presented and critically discussed by the authors. Depending on the metric that has already been used for V&V, the claim of the authors to capture the complex fluid dynamics using CFD, should be quantified.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper is well-organized and written but needs a proof reading for spell-check and terminology. There seem to be spelling errors like "drug" instead of "drag", "lift to drug ratio" instead of "lift to drag ratio", "income flow" instead of "incoming flow". Terminology like "modeling shine of the sun" should instead be modified to "modeling solar irradiance"

2. Several equations are improperly notated. Eq. (2)–(4) express jerk (third derivatives) instead of acceleration, replace dḦ/dt, etc., with Ḧ. I suggest a careful review of all equations for mathematical correctness. 

3. It would be greatly beneficial to the reader if the literature review included would also touch up on prior optimization/co-optimization efforts in MAV or general UAV space to understand the importance of the work.

4. Calrify acronyms like NSGA, SOC, etc on first use in the text. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the article has been revised with all the opinions and is a high-level article. I suggest publishing it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all issues raised during review