Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Design and Optimization of an Aeroservoelastic Wind Tunnel Model
Previous Article in Journal
Suction Flows Generated by the Carnivorous Bladderwort Utricularia—Comparing Experiments with Mechanical and Mathematical Models
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fluids
Volume 5
Issue 1
10.3390/fluids5010034
Review Report
fluids-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Full-Span Flying Wing Wind Tunnel Test: A Body Freedom Flutter Study

Fluids 2020, 5(1), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5010034
by Pengtao Shi 1, Jihai Liu 2, Yingsong Gu 1,*, Zhichun Yang 1 and Pier Marzocca 3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Fluids 2020, 5(1), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5010034
Submission received: 31 January 2020 / Revised: 25 February 2020 / Accepted: 10 March 2020 / Published: 16 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Flow and Aeroelastic Control)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is very well written, and is organized in different sections, that are in an excellent order.

Would like to recommend the paper for its publication in the ''Fluids" journal.

Would like to suggest the following minor comments for the improvement of this paper:

  1. the title of section 2 needs to be clarified and keep its initial title: 'Theory of aeroelastic modeling' and remove 'structural modeling' from the title.
  2. sub-section 2.1 should be included as we see only the title of sub-section 2.1
  3. the authors should be sure of including the refs. for sub-sections 2.1 and 2.2 as equation in these sub-sections are classical
  4. think that Table 2 including UAV dimensions should be put in the beginning of the paper (section 3.1)
  5. please explain the section 4.3 on the 'updated model' 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an experimental study of a HARFFW configuration. The starting points of the study are computational models of the structure and aerodynamics. The structural model is corrected based on the GVT results. Subsequently, a quasi-free-flying suspension system is developed and the wind tunnel flutter test is performed. Moreover, a sensitivity study with respect to the nose mass balance is carried out. Even though the study does not provide significant scientific novelty, it is worth for publication due to experimental results which might be interesting for the scientific community.

Nevertheless, some corrections are necessary to improve the quality of the paper.

General: The paper has shortcomings in terms of language style which should be revised.

P.1: The abstract shouldn’t contain any abbreviations.

P.2: The state of the art is not sufficiently addressed. The flight demonstrator X-56A MUTT is not mentioned at all. Moreover, several reverences are publications in Chinese journals, which are only available in Chinese. In the interest of the international reader, authors should provide references that are available in English.

P.7: The quality of Fig. 5 is not sufficient to discern the modal deformations.

P.14: Please specify the unit of error - % in Table 6. Moreover, the error of flutter velocity for the additional mass of 0 kg is wrong. Please correct.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop