Performance Analysis of the Thermal Automatic Tracking Method Based on the Model of the UAV Dynamic Model in a Thermal and Cubature Kalman Filter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would divide the evaluation of the study into two parts.
1. Introduction, theoretical background
The authors should expand the theoretical basis. The number of literature reviewed should be increased and the number of citation inaccuracies corrected. Maybe 2db cited literature is from 2018 the rest are older, I know the mathematical basis does not change but quite a lot of studies have been published on the topic of drones in recent years. It would be useful to go into the study of others in more detail, even if they are not exactly the same way or method of study. This would help to establish the importance of the subject.
2. Model, studies, simulation
The approach is logical, well structured and easy to follow. Figures and tables complement the text well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors proposed a pitching moment model of UAVs in thermals. They also conducted simulation showcase the improvement of convergence speed and accuracy of thermal center positioning compared to conventional methods. Overall the design and results are clearly presented. I would recommend publish the manuscript its present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented work aims at improving the estimation of the state parameters of thermals by UAVs in real time by including a pitching moment model of the UAV. Fixed-wing UAV is assumed throughout the paper, but it is never stated explicitly. The work is interesting and seems to be worth publishing, but it is not clear how much improvement has been obtained over the previous methods. The authors mention the improvements many times in the text but they actually never discuss those improvements quantitatively and leave for the reviewer to estimate them from the included graphics. The obtained results must be thoroughly discussed. Also in l. 188, before the results are presented, superiority of the proposed method is already assumed. The bibliography is missing journal names in all journal references.
The paper needs a thorough copy editing:
• equations, e.g. Equation (3) contains unknown symbol S_{ht}; is C_L in (2) the same as c_L in (3)?, dot (scalar product) used in place of multiplication; the th italicized subscript (there more of them) is misleading - In its current form it means “t times h”,
• non-breaking spaces missing, • some equations, e.g. (8)-(10), (15), (16) are not part of any phrase,
• no spacing between numbers and units,
• dot is used in Figure references, such as “Figure.5,
• different graphical symbols are used for apostrophe, e.g. l. 104 “tail’s aerodynamic center and the plane's center of gravity:”
• tildes in bibliography
• the paragraph after (3) proceeds as it were a continuation of the previous phrase.
Some specific questions:
l.42 "However, in some special flight path cases, the algorithm cannot estimate thermal state parameters as expected" – the problem is not explained
The meaning of the axes in Figure 1 is not explained. Notation used in (1) and the accompanying text starting on l. 65 is different from that appearing in Figure 1. Currently these are completely unrelated. You say that the model is shown in Figure 1 and it uses three assumptions. Where can we see those assumptions or their consequences in Figure 1?
l. 77 “The UAVs roll moment model is the model [6]” Do you mean the UAV’s roll model used in your study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the paper as corrected by the authors, and the manuscript is now acceptable in this form.
