Structural Design of a Large-Scale 3D-Printed High-Altitude Propeller: Methodology and Experimental Validation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is generally well written and of an interesting subject matter, with a nice blend of theory and application. However, there are some areas which could use clarification to help readers understand the approaches and the value. Overall a strong paper, but I would recommend clarifying the intent behind it (as well as some other points as noted in the attachment), to ensure that the value you are bringing is properly emphasized.

Please see the attachment for further details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. In the introduction part, the author does not need to dwell on the mechanical properties of 3d printing products. This does not seem to be very relevant to the theme of this article. The research paper should have a clear theme, highlight the core content, and be accurate and concise.

2. Isn't the topic of this article about structural design? Why is there almost no description of this aspect in the introduction. So what is the theme of this article?

3. The authors claimed that they presented a novel approach for the numerical modeling. But after reading the article, I can't see where the "novel" lies.

4. The author lists a lot of results, but as a research paper, what is the author's argument? What scientific problems have been solved in this paper?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

the reviewer believes that the contents of the work are very well presented, technically accurate and relevant to the scientific community. 

The reviewer believes that the work can be accepted and is worthy of publication in Aerospace.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It can be accepted at the present form.