The paper, overall, is well done on a technical level.

However, organizationally it is lacking in

a couple aspects.
For one, this reviewer believes the document needs to follow standard ASME format, which
can be found on the ASME website. The length is a excessive (72 pages). The program used
to create this document appears to be a typical word document instead of Latex . I encourage
the authors to trim excessive details to reduce length. If other readers would like additional
details I believe that getting in touch with a point-of-contact for the paper for those details
would be appropriate.

The number of figures also is excessive. This reviewer believes a short description of control
logic is all that is required rather than large figures which require a lot of space. That space is
better spent on technical result plots. Further many of these plots could simply be comb ined,
such that a single figure contains multiple sub-plots.
This reviewer only has some questions and comments on the technical content. These may
provide additional clarity to the article. First, figure 22 does not contain any indication of
cooling flows, was that simply due to the engine the analysis was based on? Second, it
seems the polar moments of inertia were simply stated without context of why they were
chosen or if they are even engine relevant. The authors also mention that "it is usual to use
the modified power and thrust coefficients," why is that so? What advantage do they offer?
Later the authors also mention a particular methodology of using a "unique propeller map
which disregards the effects of compressibility..." what are the limitation of utilizing this
approach, if any? Lastly, the description of the mission profile seems to only indicate some
fuel flow rate changes over time, can the authors provide further description of what this
mission is and why this fuel flow rate vs time is relevant to the engine architecture? There is
also some repetitive information when presenting details between Geared and Direct Dirve
CROR.