Dear authors,

I had the pleasure to read your study and found it very well organized and complete (both in terms of theory formulation and data analysis). As far as I could check, I did not find any technical issue to be fixed. My only comment is that a little bit more discussion should be added on the switch to the unsteady formulation. Are you expecting it to perform as well as a LLT or an ALM? If it is indeed true that the compuational cost is lower and comparable to BEM, the other two methods are known to perform well in dynamic mode and can be also easily coupled with a structural solver.

The study proposes a computationally efficient model that improves the load prediction for swept blades by coupling a near-wake representation with a far-wake vortex cylinder model, while modifying the coupling factor to enhance numerical stability and accuracy; validated under steady-state conditions, the model demonstrates accuracy comparable to high-fidelity methods (such as free-wake lifting-line models and RANS simulations) but with significantly lower computational cost. The overall work is innovative, methodologically rigorous, and represents a high-quality contribution in the field of wind turbine aerodynamic modeling.

Only two minor improvements suggested.

1. As Helical Angle phi is not defined nearby Eqs. (15-17) and not shown in Fig. 1, it is better to difine this variable nearby rather than below Eq. (22).

2. In the Author contribution part: AL performed computations of using the RANS CFD solver, ...

 If 'of' is deleted, the paper is more perfect.