Experimental Research on Cavitation Evolution and Movement Characteristics of the Projectile during Vertical Launching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript proposes a study on cavitation evolution of vertical launching.
The authors clearly showed on cavitation evolution experiences and the results are well organized.
Here are some minor comments on improving readability:
Figure 1: what is shown in the diagram? please improve the caption
Figure 2,3: same comment as 1.
Eq. 1: can you give a reference?
Figure 4: please add subfigure labels (a) (b) (c) and explain what is shown briefly in each of them in the caption.
Figure 8: same as 4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached report for comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article Experimental Research on Cavitation Evolution and Movement Characteristics of the Projectile During Vertical Launching is in the opinion of the reviewer an original work. The article describes the experiment based on the model. The authors in the Abstract indicate Aiming at the problem of unsteady cavitation during the projectile's vertical water-exit process, scaled model experiments were carried out based on the self-designed underwater launch platform and high-speed cameras, which focus on changes in cavitation shape and projectile posture.
In my review at the beginning, I state that the article contains: abstract, keywords, 5 parts and references. According to the reviewer, the article has the generally correct structure, which is in line with the template for writing articles adopted by the MDPI. All editing elements have been preserved in the reviewed article.
I do not engage in polemics and discussions on the considerations adopted by the Authors because it determines the originality of the issue in the article. Taking into account the proposed solutions I accept it with appreciation.
Only one following observation require to draw attention and response from the Authors:
- The introduction section does not include the composition and content of individual sections of the article, which is usually the case in the last sentences of this section. This description of the content of the article is used in MDPI publications. (Introduction Section).
In my review, I do not include more comments other than those presented in the review form. In the article, the Authors have used 32 items of references. Most of the publications come from research conducted in recent years. Thus, from 1955-2010, 16 publications were used, and from 2011-2021, 17 publications were used. The text of the article is clear. The article requires some editorial changes, which will I accept with appreciation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
