Next Article in Journal
Emerging Biomedical Applications of Carbon Dot and Polymer Composite Materials
Previous Article in Journal
Soil Salinity Prediction and Its Severity Mapping Using a Suitable Interpolation Method on Data Collected by Electromagnetic Induction Method
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Secondary Combustion on Thrust Regulation of Gas Generator Cycle Rocket Engine

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10563; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010563
by Sohaib Khan 1, Muhammad Umer Sohail 2,*, Ihtzaz Qamar 2, Muzna Tariq 3 and Raees Fida Swati 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10563; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010563
Submission received: 16 September 2022 / Revised: 3 October 2022 / Accepted: 15 October 2022 / Published: 19 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Aerospace Science and Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please acknowledge the funding body/organization.

Author Response

All authors acknowledge the reviewer's motivational response 

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors has addressed all Reviewer Comments & Suggestions in the attached file for kind consideration, please

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study conducted CFD simulation of a gas generator cycle rocket engine, and tested the gss generator. The topic is old and limits interest. However, there are some problems, and the following issues must be addressed before accepting it for publication. The reasons are shown as following:

1.       The manuscript didn’t give details of the test devices. Please supplement the detailed introduction of measuring instruments, measuring instrument accuracy and experimental uncertainty.

2.       The author should give details of specification of the experimental apparatus in a Table, such as the sensitivity.

3.       More details of the CFD model mesh should be given.

4.       The CFD simulation model should be verified by the experimental data.

5.       There is no experimental result error analysis.

6.       The author only presents a simple comparison of CFD results, but there is no more further analysis on the reason.

7.       The manuscript is like an engineering report more than an academic paper.

8.       The clarity of presentation of this manuscript is not good. The English grammar needs improvement.

For these reasons, I personally find the manuscript does not meet the standards for a journal article, it is my opinion that it should be rejected.

 

Author Response

Authors have addressed all reviewer comments & suggestions in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on the revision, the manuscript has been improved. I agree that the revision is ok and can be accepted. 

Back to TopTop