Revision Suggestions of Review Expert

Modification result

1.I cannot understand this statement written at lines 195-197. If you have any result, present it to the science community.  

 “Finally, it should be noted that through this test, the authors have obtained some experience and put forward improvement measures for the cavity and the air vehicle shape above the cavity, which can not only protect the model, but also further reduce the cavity influence in future tests.”  

Thanks for the careful examination of the first reviewer, this sentence is redundant. Deleted in the text.

2. Presentation of the Figures 9, 11, 14, 15 and formula related to the fitted curve is not acceptable and makes misunderstanding.  

Reviewer 1 and reviewer 2 both mentioned the problem of curve equation. Indeed, this problem has plagued the authors before, and we do not know how to show this work. In fact, this work is very simple, which is to express discrete data points as continuous curves. This method has appeared in many literatures. In this article, combined with the opinions of the two reviewers, and in order to avoid misunderstanding to the readers, the expression form of the equation is removed from all the pictures, and the text is deleted accordingly. This change does not affect readers' understanding of this article.

3.I cannot understand the data processing at line 244 that indicates: “It is not that experimental data processing must make R2= 1, but the fitting curve 244 obtained by some data processing can make R2= 1.” 

please provide the method of data processing 

This is also due to the confusion caused by the curve equation in the previous figure. As mentioned in the previous article, there are many ways to express discrete data points as continuous curves. In this paper, the equation in the figure is deleted, so there is no need to explain " R²=1".

4.please describe the physics of flow at figure 21.

The original figure 21 is described and explained in more detail below the original figure 21 (New Figure 17).

Revision Suggestions of Review Expert

Modification result

1. Please use appropriate tense and structure for the sentences. I would strongly recommend getting an English proofreading service by a native speaker for this manuscript, because most mistakes are in grammar, tense, and passive voice, not the abuse of the words. 

The authors sought the help of professionals to modify the grammar of this article. And provided proof.

2. Make them as concise as possible. For example, “however, if should be noted that” in line 104 is completely redundant. 

The authors sought the help of professionals to modify the grammar of this article.

3. All figures should be improved. The equations for the regression curves are not necessary. Labels should be written properly. Reduce the figures and merge them as much as possible, and explain the figure and findings at once in a single paragraph.

Reviewer 1 and reviewer 2 both mentioned the problem of curve equation in the figure. Indeed, this problem has plagued the authors before, and we do not know how to show this work. In fact, this work is very simple, which is to express discrete data points as continuous curves. This method has appeared in many literatures. In this article, combined with the opinions of the two reviewers, and in order to avoid misunderstanding to the readers, the expression form of the equation is removed from all the pictures, and the text is deleted accordingly. This change does not affect readers' understanding of this article.

Merged some pictures. And a lot of modifications have been made in this paper.