Dynamic Analysis and Numerical Simulation of Arresting Hook Engaging Cable in Carried-Based UAV Landing Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
specific questions
- What are some of the previous research efforts in modeling the interaction between the arresting hook and deck during the collision process, and what are the limitations associated with the idealized assumptions made in these studies?
- What are the key elements involved in establishing an accurate model for both the aircraft and the arresting cable in order to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the hook cable engagement process?
- What are some of the different methods and software tools used to model cable dynamics and perform simulations for the performance analysis of aircraft landing and arrest?
- How does the novel rigid-flexible coupling model of carrier-based UAV for the arresting engagement, based on the FEM-MBD approach, account for factors such as aerodynamic load and engine thrust during the hook engagement process?
- What valuable insights can be gained from the simulation results obtained through the proposed method, including capturing the process of UAV arresting hook engagement, analyzing the hook's rebound motion, cable bending, and stress distribution, and how can these insights be used to improve the design and techniques for carrier-based UAV landing?
These questions cover various aspects of the research, including previous studies, modeling methods, simulation tools, the novel rigid-flexible coupling model, and the insights gained from the analysis.
- What are some of the previous research efforts in modeling the interaction between the arresting hook and deck during the collision process, and what are the limitations associated with the idealized assumptions made in these studies?
- What are the key elements involved in establishing an accurate model for both the aircraft and the arresting cable in order to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the hook cable engagement process?
- What are some of the different methods and software tools used to model cable dynamics and perform simulations for the performance analysis of aircraft landing and arrest?
- How does the novel rigid-flexible coupling model of carrier-based UAV for the arresting engagement, based on the FEM-MBD approach, account for factors such as aerodynamic load and engine thrust during the hook engagement process?
- What valuable insights can be gained from the simulation results obtained through the proposed method, including capturing the process of UAV arresting hook engagement, analyzing the hook's rebound motion, cable bending, and stress distribution, and how can these insights be used to improve the design and techniques for carrier-based UAV landing?
These questions cover various aspects of the research, including previous studies, modeling methods, simulation tools, the novel rigid-flexible coupling model, and the insights gained from the analysis.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for the valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous manuscript, the response are listed in the file.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is the third review of the paper “Dynamic Analysis and Numerical Simulation of Arresting Hook Engaging Cable in Carried-based UAV Landing Process”.
The Reviewer comments in review round 3 are in blue font. In general, the authors did not respond to the main points raised in the second review round.
Point 1: The proposed system is building a landing gear system for an aircraft landing. The main target of a general landing gear system is absorbing the landing energy in order to improve safety and make comfort for the passenger. Thus, the absorbing ability of the landing gear system is a standard to verify the landing gear system. There are too many standards for example, Following FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR) part 25, the minimum energy the landing gear system must be absorbed is 75% of the total energy during landing. Moreover, following FAR part 25, the maximum sink speed of aircraft during the drop test is only 3.05 m/s. The author didn’t follow any standards, they researched based on the image data of carrier aircraft landing “on the Internet”. Thus, the results of this research are deemed unreasonable due to the absence of a known reference.
Response 1: Carrier based aircraft usually land in the form of a collision. The sinking velocity of carrier based aircraft is greater than land-based aircraft when landing. The reviewer did not investigate the special field of carrier-based aircraft landing, and FAR part 25 is not applicable to the study of this paper. References 1-15 provide valuable insights into the aircraft state during the carrier landing process, with particular emphasis on reference 14, which extensively discusses various aspects of the aircraft's state during this critical phase. The simulation of collision rebound was conducted to verify the rebound of arresting hook after colliding with the deck. The simulation conditions including the sinking velocity, horizontal velocity and arresting hook configuration are consistent with the collision rebound test in reference[14].
Revision round 3 comments: The author's response is unacceptable. Due to the subjective design by the authors, it is very difficult to verify this manuscript. Some parameters are ambiguous. For example, the UAV's empty mass in this research is 16500kg, which is similar to a mass of a Beoing 777-300ER. I saw a 1500 kg UAV in real, but I have never seen a 16500kg UAV. More ever, it touches down at 60m/s. Are the authors sure about this? Moreover, the authors mentioned that “By adjusting the spring and damping parameters of arresting hook longitudinal buffer, the collision rebound height and distance are matched to the test in references.” How the authors can verify that the experiment in reference and the proposed simulation are set up in the same condition?
Point 2: The title of the paper involved “dynamic analysis”. It means that the manuscript that contains the relationship of unbalance force and the motion of aircraft. Force-mass-velocity and free-body diagram are the most important diagram that is used to analyze the dynamic of the body. This manuscript didn’t show any kind of diagrams. The authors show only the 3D model figure. Moreover, the authors detailed very clearly the aircraft body, which is assumed a rigid body. It’s unnecessary.
Response 2: The simulation in this paper is based on finite element model and calculated by the central difference method. The basic theory are specifically supplemented in Section 2.1 in this return draft. Figure 1 is added to describe the integrate aircraft and arresting gear system model. The carrier based aircraft model and arresting system model are emphasized in Figure 3 and Figure 7 respectively. In the revised manuscript, the parameters of the simulation case are supplemented in Section 4.1.
Revision round 3 comments: The author's response is inadequate. The authors used the finite element method (FEM) for “dynamic analysis”. In section 2.1, the FEM is used to solve numerically the different Eq. 1. However, this equation is not the collision dynamic equation. Thus, it’s very difficult to understand what the authors have done.
Point 3: According to the reference of the paper, there are only 3 manuscripts, which are an author’s paper in 2021 and two papers in 1954 and 1982, that have the same topic. It seems to be only authors study this topic. There is no new ref that relates to this manuscript.
Response 3: We have checked the literature carefully and added more references in the revised manuscript. Due to the special application background, there are not many researches closely related to the content of this paper, especially the dynamic simulation of landing process of the arresting hook engaging with the arresting cable.
Revision round 3 comments: The author's response is acceptable. The authors added more references. However, many Refs are written in Chinese, so, it’s difficult to understand.
Point 4: The authors used the FEM method for analysis. According to figures 17-18, I guess the authors didn’t use computing software (such as Matlab, Mathematical,…), the authors maybe used engineering simulation software (such as ANSYS, Abaqus,…). The authors detailed wildly the FEM problem by copying the software screen. Moreover, the conditions of the experiment in Ref 14 are totally different from the conditions of the simulation in this paper. But the results are not too much different. There is a huge doubt about what the authors have done.
Response 4: The finite element analysis in this paper is not calculated by commercial software, an in-house developed code and a combination of tools was utilized. The revised manuscript has made a statement on the detailed setting of the calculation example, and the important changes are marked in red.
Revision round 3 comments: The author's response is insufficient. We don’t know the numerical method that the author used to solve the different equations Eq.1. Moreover, the authors did not prove that the condition of the simulations is similar to the conditions of the experiments. Thus, the reader may doubt the results of the simulation.
Point 5: And, the authors' response in the review is not presented in a good format. The authors simply answered with 'We did' and expected the reviewers to find the modified parts on their own.
Response 5: The modification are marked in red in the revised manuscrip.
Revision round 3 comments: The author's response is unsatisfactory. Please follow the author’s instructions on the journal website for more information.
Point 6: There are also many errors in English styles and grammar. All equations and symbols, which are inside sentences, are still in the wrong format such as lines 113,114, ...
Response 6: I have meticulously checked for grammar and spelling errors in the article and made the necessary corrections. I have also taken note of the concerns raised by the reviewers in this regard and made appropriate modifications.
Revision round 3 comments: The author's response is insufficient. There still have many grammar errors or English style, for example, in lines 93-96…
Addition Questions: Ref [29] has the same title as this paper. Could the authors determine the difference between this manuscript and ref [29]?
[29] Liu C., Wang B., Dynamics Modeling and Simulation Analysis of Coupled Carrier-Based Aircraft and Arresting Gear System, J. Nanjing Univ. Aeronaut. Astronaut 2016 48(3): 418-425.
Generally, the manuscripts produced the finite element method to solve the collision dynamic problem. But, it’s difficult to understand the method that the authors used. Furthermore, the results of this research are deemed unreasonable due to the absence of a known reference. After careful reconsideration, I don’t recommend this manuscript to the journal.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
There still have many grammar errors or English style, for example, in lines 93-96…
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
This paper has made a relatively pioneering work on the dynamic simulation method of the landing arrest process of carrier-based aircraft, but I am sorry that the last two revised manuscript still do not meet your requirements. First of all, thank you for your careful consideration of my response. I appreciate your efforts in supplementing and improving the paper I hope you can reconsider the research presented in this paper.
If you continue to focus on similar topics in the future, I would be delighted to engage in further discussions and exchange ideas to contribute to the advancement of our knowledge in this field. Please feel free to reach out to me anytime for any specific queries or discussions.
Below is our response to your comments, and the corresponding revisions have been indicated in blue font in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1.The abstract can be more concise.
2.The introduction around accurate simulation method for studying the arresting hook engaging arresting cable needs to be more comprehensive.
3. The analysis of each component can be more specific in this paper, such as the relationship between the force of the landing gear and the attitude Angle, so as to make the overall verification process more convincing.
4. The statement in 4.3 of the influence of tire rolover and tire hitch on arresting motion is too simple , and more statements should be made.
In terms of language expression, some sentences are not smooth and the expression is not complete enough，such as “Roll angle of UAV causes one side of the landing gear to touch the deck”.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your serious and professional suggestions, this revised manuscript has made a comprehensive revision of the grammar and contents. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed in the file.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors answered all the questions.
Minor editing of the English language required
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
Minor editing of English language required
