Both reviewers agree that this manuscript presents useful work on the field of power and loads curves assessment, and that the manuscript provides a fair assessment of the advantages and limitations of the method. However, I also agree with both reviews that the manuscript has numerous grammatical, spelling, and similar errors - reviewer 2 generously itemized some of them, but there are many others. Because of the extent of such required revisions, as well as the need to:
- give examples of applications of the method where the induction compensation is not necessary
- refer to a method to compensate for the presence of the turbine using an aerodynamic mode
I will reconsider the manuscript after the authors complete major revisions.

The authors have addressed the substance of the scientific suggestions from the reviewers. However, two issues remain.

First, there is no data statement included in the manuscript, as required by https://www.wind-energy-science.net/about/data_policy.html.

Second, the manuscript would benefit from a careful editorial revision to improve the readability of the manuscript. Some suggestions are listed here:

1. Abstract line 27: “i.a.” should become “i.e.”
2. page 3 line 10 and throughout: please consider using hyphens to make phrases like “met mast based 30 s mean observations” more readable. For example, “120 s mean values” should be “120-s mean values”. Similarly, “Figure 22 (a) shows the power observations from a 10 minutes period based on 600 s, 120 s and one revolution mean values” should be “Figure 22 (a) shows the power observations from a 10-min period based on 600-s, 120-s and one-revolution mean values.” Please correct throughout. Similarly, “using pitot based instead of met mast wind based speeds” should be “using pitot-based instead of met-mast-wind-based speeds”.
3. Figure 4 caption: should this be u_p instead of u for consistency with the text?
4. Section 3.2, page 5, what is the missing bullet point?
5. Why does wind speed switch from u (equations 1, 2) to v (equations 3), and then from lowercase v (bottom of page 6, caption of Figure 7) to uppercase v (equations 4+)?
6. Section 4.2, line 28, no comma needed between “time” and “results”
7. Color table used for Figure 12, 13, 15 etc. is ambiguous if reproduced in black and white (i.e. if it was printed out on a black-and-white printer). Similarly, the one red point in Figure 16 should have a different plotting symbol to make it stand out.
8. Section 5.5, page 22: an itemized list is proposed: “By comparing time series of the different periods, some observations were made:” but then the following text is not organized well. Are bullets required here? Some small effort in organizing the presentation will make this long text much more readable.

Thank you for your efforts to improve the readability of the manuscript.

Dear authors,
Thank you for the improved paper.
I would like you to improve some details of the manuscript before publication:
1) Many of the references are incomplete. Please go through all of them carefully. (examples: second Kragh reference is published in http://iopscience.iop.org/issue/1742-6596/555/1, find pages, link, etc. No link or report number for first Larsen reference, Antoniou: no journal/report number or link., ...)
2) Please provide y-axis labels on Figure 19 (subplot), 20
3) Fig 18. It is called The North Sea, not The Northern Sea.

Best regards, Jakob Mann