Line 51: Too absolute, since LES are often used to validate lower-order models and, in theory, can still be employed despite their high computational cost.

Line 91: A brief explanation of the sensor systems would enhance the clarity and interpretability of the presented results.

Line 113: Why is it suitable to use an already simplified model and the small-angle approximation in this context?

Line 116: Unit

Line 131: How was vertical mixing quantified? How was the airborne campaign designed to capture measurements at multiple altitudes, or were the data obtained from a different sensor?

Figure 1: Explanation for higher wind speeds on coast?

Line 149: It seems to suggest a comparison regarding data that the SAR is unable to collect.

Line 154: Quantification of agreement?

Figure 3: At what height were the airborne measurements taken? Was it also at hub height?

Line 217: LaTex Citation Error

Line 297: Are the black lines determined analytically or by manual placement?

The manuscript summarizes flight measurements around wind farms. This is a highly relevant and exciting study program with clear added value for the scientific community.

Regarding the manuscript specifically, it states (lines 64-65) “that are already published, and adds new aspects, which have not yet been published so far.” However, it is not clear which results are new and which have been previously published (there is no central place where this is summarized). It is unclear to what extent it should be seen as a review of the authors' previous work and how much is new. For figures 5, 6, and 7, it is clearly stated that they are obtained from previous work. Is it correct to assume that Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 have not been previously published? What does "Powered by Esri" in Figures 1,2, and 4 mean?

* line 34: including a different visual appearance (Ladenburg, 2009),

* Line 115-116: Does the uncertainty depend on the main wind speed, and if so, how strong is this dependence?

* Line 115-116: What is the uncertainty in the velocity fluctuations?

* Figure 2/4: Can you indicate the main wind direction? Is it correct to assume the flight paths are always perpendicular to the shown flight paths?

* Figure 2/4: Can you indicate some characteristic times of the measurements in the figure

* Figure 2/4: How much is the variation in the wind direction over the measurement duration of the flight? What is the potential impact of wind direction variations during the measurements?

* Figure 2/4: Can you also indicate the wind farm names in this figure? It is a bit confusing that the view of this figure differs from that in Figure 1.

* Line 162: Can you comment on the uncertainty in the SAR data due to the extrapolation towards hub-height?

* Figure 3: How long does each measurement (T6, T7, T8) individually take?

* Figure 3: Some SAR data seems missing; i.e. the yellow lines have some gaps. Can you comment and explain this?

* Figure 3: What is the turbulence intensity of the wind signal measured by the airborne measurements? What is the approximate uncertainty in this?

* line 177-178: "In addition, a wind farm not in operation does induce downstream turbulence, even if the wind speed is not reduced significantly" --> This statement seems out of context here. Do you know how large the effect is?

* Line 185: "Particularly, the engineering model coupled with WRF—" --> this is unclear: please specify further. 

* Line 188: Statements here are not really in a logical order. 

* Section 3.2: This section overall can benefit from better structuring and division in some paragraphs, and some more details to provide context to the reader. 

* Figure 5: Do you know why the effect is observed for only part of the x-range of the wind farm?

* Line 217: A citation is missing. 

* Line 232: "measurements are a suitable tool to study these effects of coastal transition." --> Can be removed here: This is more what is generally outlined in abstract, conclusion, and introduction, but does not need to be repeated throughout the manuscript. 

* Line 254-255: The two lines are very vague and do not form a proper paragraph.

* Figure 7: Please increase the font size of labels in this figure. 

* Figure 8: Can you explain the "red lines" at North displacements of 6 km (49 km panel), 8 km (70 km panel), and 22 km (76 km panel)

* Figure 8: What is the black in panels 70 and 76 km?

* Figure 9: What confuses me in this figure is the mismatch in locations shown in the first panels. I.e Panel (b) indicates latitudes: 54.2 to 54.65, which does not seem to clearly correspond to what is shown in panel (a). Similar for the longitudes in panel c, which do not correspond to panel a.