Aerodynamic Modeling and Performance Analysis of Variable-Speed Coaxial Helicopter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study presents an analysis of the aerodynamic performance of variable speed coaxial helicopter the compares the required power of variable pitch coaxial helicopters and variable speed coaxial helicopters. However, I want to give some suggestions for improving this manuscript as follows:

The authors should evaluate the previous studies to determine the research gap and how to bridge this gap.

The authors should review the published works in recent years.

It is better to present the contributions and innovations of this study.

Please explain why the empirical coefficient, k, is different when analyzing the interference of the lower rotor to the upper rotor and reverse.

Please explain in more detail how the rotor speed of trim and the required power was calculated.

The authors should present the limitations and future works of this study.

There are a lot of typos, such as lines 15, 20, 50, 62, 76, 100, 102, 152, and 176…

In lines 49, 83, and 84, the authors should explain the abbreviation “BRMT”, “PID”, and “ADRC” at the first use.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The problem raised in the article from a research perspective is important. The subject matter is generally known, however, from the point of view of mathematical considerations, the article is valuable and deserves to be published. 

The literature for the studied issue was selected correctly and here I have no objections.

As for Interest to the readers the article is average because the phenomena addressed are known however their mathematical description deserves praise and here I believe that the article deserves to be published.

I have minor comments on the presentation of the results:

figures 2, 3, 4 should be improved - the descriptions in the boxes must be clear.

I recommend the article for publication after improving figures 2, 3, 4.

Well done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The language needs to be cleared up significantly. I could not evaluate the scientific merit as I didn't understand what was written.

Examples:
Line 13: Should it be "Blade element theory"?
Line 13-15: Run on sentence, which method are you proposing?
Line 17: What is obtained?
Line 29-33: A five line sentence? Shorten and make clearer.
...
And so it goes on.
Good research I assume, but you need to show it better.

 

Author Response

The authors have taken the above-mentioned comments sincerely and looked upon the whole manuscript for similar errors and corrected them accordingly and highlighted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made some improvements to the original manuscript. I think it could be published after some polish and refinement.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for their comments and incorporated the suggestions given in the review. This will be helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript.

The authors have taken the comment sincerely and polished the manuscript, corrected a few grammatical errors accordingly and highlighted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

There is still a mention of "leaf element.." in the conclusions.
Should probably be "Blade element..."

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for their comments and incorporated the suggestions given in the review.

The authors have taken the above-mentioned comment sincerely and looked upon the whole manuscript for similar errors and corrected them accordingly and highlighted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx