## 5 Discussion
Sensors can also be fused together (i.e., sensor fusion) to provide better decision-making in the control subsystem, as a result of the data-dense outputs. Regardless of the different available power sources for UAVs, as surveyed in this paper, classic batteries are still the best form. For instance, Droneport is an innovative idea, but it lacks experimental validation under severe operating conditions, and it serves only in recharging/replacing a UAV's existing battery. With the stated unreliability of PV supplies and dangers of gasoline motors, the optimum UAV power supply is an optimized Li-I battery [304]. In comparison with other UAV reviews, the contributions of this paper are shown in Table 8.  
Figure 11: Statistics of the current review. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Ref.} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{C Criteria} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Control} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Computing} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Communication} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Sensory} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Power} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Navigation**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Target** \\ **Tracking** \\ \end{tabular} }} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Payload** \\ **Integration** \\ \end{tabular} }} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**SBCs**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**SoM**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**LoRa**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Wi-Fi**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**BLE**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**LTE-M**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Environmental**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Vision**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Position**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Battery**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**PV-Batt**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Gasoline-Batt**}} \\ \hline This work & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline
[305] & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
[306] & X & X & X & X & X & X & X & X & X & X & ✓ & ✓ & & X & X & \\ \hline
[307] & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
[308] & X & X & X & X & X & X & X & X & ✓ & ✓ & & & & & & \\ \hline
[309] & X & X & X & X & X & X & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & & & & \\ \hline
[310] & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Assessment of this paper in regards with other similar publications. In addition to the compared literature presented in Table 8, more narrow reviews exist in the field, but they are denser in the sense of the exploited UAV aspects. For example, the dedicated review in reference [311] focuses mainly on the control of hybrid and convertible UAVs. With a technical modus operandi, emphasizing around vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) UAVs, the presented review investigates commonalities and differences in guidance, modeling, and control allocation for each type (e.g., Tail-sitter, Tiltrotor, etc.) of hybrid VTOL UAVs. Unlike the methodology presented in this work concerning the control assessment, the work in [311] outlined four main components of a successful flight control system for VTOL UAVs, depicted by a physical model, generation of reference trajectories, flight controllers, and allocation of actuator control. Additionally, the work in reference [312] outlines a UAV-type addressed review, with a core focus on flight modeling techniques, along with flight control strategies. The review began by assessing the flight's success for different miniature UAVs based on the control techniques. Moreover, further analyses were conducted based on the mechanical structure of the UAV and its corresponding control feature (e.g., tail-sitters with hovering control). As a major observation, the work conducted in [311,312] sheds light on the differences between their control sets and the one held in this paper.