Research on Modeling and Fault-Tolerant Control of Distributed Electric Propulsion Aircraft

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting research in a decently drafted manuscript that needs some mild revisions.

• The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are current (mostly within the last 5 years with some from Drones in the last 12 months validating the authors’ currency in the field, particularly true for DEP, less-so for FTC). The manuscript is scientifically sound, and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis. The manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. The figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate and properly show the data with some necessary revisions. They are easy to interpret and understand. The data is interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

 

1. Abstract is okay but is not likely to entice the readership to continue reading the rest of the manuscript.

• Highest quality expression of main conclusions or interpretations is quantitative results discussed in the broadest context possible, e.g., percent performance improvement compared to a declared benchmark. “Better control … without overshoot” and “…takes 0.3 seconds for adjustment with outstanding control effort…” are very weakly stated. Better control compared to what? Claim of no overshoot is seemingly refuted by graphic data displays in the manuscript, each of which indicate the presence of overshoot and settling. How does 0.3 seconds compare to alternative methods? Which figure validates this claim?  What is the nature of “outstanding control effort”, and how does the control effort achieved compare to alternative methods?  Is the assessment of “outstanding” based on thrust or power (the two closest avatars presented in the manuscript’s figures)? 

1.  
2. Introduction is very well done with some omitted very recent literature, particularly pertaining to the leading modern alternatives.

• While MPC (from the 1980’s) is presented as the most modern instantiation, deterministic artificial intelligence would seem to be the most recent novel option for FTC and has been proposed separately by Cornell University’s Shah (2021), Koo (2022), and Osler (2022) for unmanned autonomous vehicle control as well as actuator control where elimination of overshoot and settling were demonstrated following challenging square wave commands (e.g. figure 4 in this manuscript) and target tracking in general (e.g. Figures 4,5,6,9). Such leading alternatives should be described in the literature review and comparison to MPC presented here should be offered as future research to urge continuation of the research lineage created by the reviewed manuscript.

3. Equations are scientifically sound and well presented, enhancing the manuscript quality.

Figures are decently done with some mandatory improvements to ensure the readership has access to the content.

• Internal font size is occasionally too small. Please notice the smallest font size permissible in the manuscript template (to ensure legibility by the reader) is the figure caption which provides a conveniently proximal prototype for sizing figures.  Figure 3 is substantially illegible. Figure 8 contains several illegibly small fonts.
•  
•  
•  
• Line styles and sizes are identical in figures 4,5,6,17,18 rendering the disparate data indistinguishable when the manuscript is read in printed hardcopy (particularly in black and white) negating the value of the figures due to reliance on colors.
• If the assessment of “outstanding control” claimed in the abstract is based on thrust or power (the two closest avatars presented in the manuscript’s figures), please indicate on the figures a line displaying the “threshold” of being “outstanding”, so the readers can ascertain the goodness of the proposed methods.

1.  
2.  
3.  
4. Tables of quantitative results are omitted completely leaving only qualitative presentation of results. Particularly for displays of target tracking ability, each of those figures should be accompanied by a table of standard figures of merit (e.g., mean, and standard deviation of errors) to provide the readers with quantitative results.
5. Inclusion of a table defining variables and acronyms in an appendix is welcome and effective. Please add such.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.Please see the attachment for detailed revisions and responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is relatively complete but overly extensive - a lot of detailed information and individual charts - therefore there is a potential to limit the volume of work.

Research design could be more elaborate - compared to the rest of the text, it accounts for a relatively small share.

Small editorial notes in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.Please see the attachment for detailed revisions and responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx