Go with the Flow: Estimating Wind Using Uncrewed Aircraft

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper technically good written and application oriented.

1.       In the title, the sentence “go with flow” seems incorrect for a technical journal paper.

2.       The abstract is not written well. Remove the introductory part (from line No 9-16) from the abstract and elaborate briefly on what has been done in the paper.

3.       In table, the glide angle is 4.3 deg. Why not integers?

4.       In the whole paper, very limited mathematics has been shown to be very simple geometry. If possible, put some mathematical proof to justify the proposed method.

5.       Is the estimated wind continuous in nature? Did the wind shear is considered in the paper?

Improve the English, for example, in an abstract section 'We call this the Wind- 18 Arc method'. 

'We' can not be used here. 

Author Response

Please see uploaded MS Word document with detailed responses to each comment. Thank you for your feedback. This paper is better as a result of these inputs.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper describes an interesting research study on estimating wind with uncrewed aircraft, which, in my opinion, has been conducted relatively complete. However, the presentation of the work does not match the criteria for publication.

I have two major remarks concerning the "substance" of the presented work that I would like the authors to address:

a． It is essential to provide a clearer explanation of the practical value compared to Direct Flow Measurement with On-Board Flow Sensors and Thrust and Drag Force Estimation While Rejecting Wind. In other words, whether the test accuracy, speed and stability of the Wind-Arc method can be compared with other methods.

b．The purpose of the research should be clearer, whether the method is for the study of wind field change, or for the safer flight of drones. If the authors

Additionally, I would like to ask the authors to consider and address the following comments.

1. The Abstract of this article is inappropriate. The purpose, objectives, methods and results of the authors` work should be expressed concisely. The authors say “Most of these locations have no wind measurements and wind estimation by Uncrewed Aircraft is a technology gap for both UTM and AAM”, but there is no clear explanation for why this is the technology gap.

2. In the Introduction section, this study revisits previous research on Estimating Wind, but, the introduction of this paper should focus on the development of wind estimating technology related to the topic of this paper. In addition, the general organization of the Introduction section should be corrected.

3. Figure 2 looks like hand-drawn picture and lack academic rigor.

4. In the part of results, the authors should make more comparisons between the wind-arc method and the existing methods, but the results do not reflect the superiority of this method. In addition, whether the wind-arc method can replace the existing wind speed estimating methods. In other words, whether the efficiency and accuracy of wind speed obtained by wind-arc method can be guaranteed.

5. The language needs to be more formal and improved.

The language needs to be more formal and improved.

Author Response

Please see uploaded MS Word document with detailed responses to each comment. Thank you for your feedback. This paper is better as a result of these inputs.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

There are no fatal mistakes.

Author Response

Please see uploaded MS Word document with detailed responses to each comment. Thank you for your feedback. This paper is better as a result of these inputs.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the said comments (Except point No1, regarding the title of the paper) have been addressed, the paper can be accepted in the preset form. 

If the Editor is ok with the paper title (Comment No 1), then modifying the title of the paper is not required.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

The paper is improved because of your efforts and I appreciate your professional interaction.

Marc Compere

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, Figure 2 should have been more elaborate even though it was drawn in cartoon style. This article is a scientific research paper, and needs to maintain academic rigor.

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

The co-authors and I have reviewed the cartoon figures again and we cannot determine ways to improve them without considerable change to the style. The intent is to convey simple, compelling, and still professional imagery that conveys a simple meaning. Our goal is to present very high quality imagery and we appreciate your inputs.

The paper is improved because of your efforts and I appreciate your professional interaction.

Marc Compere

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors explain the proposed method with sufficient explanation and the use of figures. The readers can understand the validity of the proposed method.

Please check the grammar carefully to be an excellent paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

The paper is improved because of your efforts and I appreciate your professional interaction.

Marc Compere