CFD Simulation Study on the Performance of a Modified Ram Air Turbine (RAT) for Power Generation in Aircrafts
and Djamal Hissein Didane 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Don't use abbreviation in titles or abstract as much as you can. For simplicity, add a list of abbreviation before introduction section.
- In line 104- Page 3, enhance the research gap and your contribution.
- Please, check the definition of all variables in the paper equations.
- Update discussion and conclusion sections with more deep comments
- Check typo errors
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. How does the author determine that the simulation has reached steady state? 2. Could the author give more information about Fig.13? Since the author simulated steady state, is it meaningful to give unsteady state velocity stream line? 3. How does the author calculate optimum axial distance between the rotors? 4. Please address the limitation of SST turbulence model. Will LES improve the predication?Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The present paper entitled “CFD Simulation Study on the Performance of a Modified Ram Air Turbine (RAT) for Power Generation in Aircraft” deals with the study of the possibility of dispensing an auxiliary power unit (APU) in an aircraft powered by fossil fuels to reduce air pollution.
In this sense, it is interesting for this Journal, but some considerations are provided by this reviewer before publication.
Abstract. This section is well presented, nevertheless in this reviewer opinion, authors should state the novelty of the work indicating the interest for readers.
Introduction. This section is well presented. In this reviewer opinion, references are adequate and well described, but it would be interesting to see in this section the main objectives of the research.
Materials and Methods. This section is adequate, with the main parts of a CFD simulation analysys: description of equations, geometry, boundary conditions and solver setup. A question about the mesh refinement sensitivity arises. Have authors considered other meshes? Why Standard k-ω SST as turbulence model? Have authors considered other options?
Results and Discussion. This section is interesting, presenting as a first stage the validation of the previous model. In this reviewer opinion, this should be part of the previous section, as validation is part of the modelling methodology.
Results are interesting, taking classic aspects of profiles analysis. In this reviewer opinion, a deeper analysis of the comparisons with high altitude behaviour would be welcome.
Conclusions. In this reviewer opinion, the main novelty of the research and the degree of accomplishment of objectives.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further notes about the revised version.
