Dear Authors,

After a second review of your manuscript, both referees have now expressed their support for publishing this paper. However, reviewer 1 provided some additional minor comments (see below). I hope you will readily incorporate them, so that I can proceed with formally accepting your paper.

Sincerely,
Johan Meyers

Reviewer 1: The revised paper is of significantly higher quality than the first version. Most of the original comments and questions have been addressed by the authors. The reviewer recommends the paper to be accepted with just a few minor comments, see below:

- The term ‘far field’ is mentioned first in the introduction, it should be explained at first use, instead of later in the text.
- 3.1: The authors mention the integral length scale. How was it measured? Was it measured by integrating the autocorrelation of a hot-wire time signal and by applying Taylor's hypothesis? In that case it would make more sense to directly mention the integral time scale, instead of applying Taylor's hypothesis to find the length scale from the time scale and then inverse applying Taylor's hypothesis in the text to go back to the time scale.
- Throughout the text, the authors should round numbers (e.g. estimates for uncertainty) to only the significant digits. For example, an uncertainty of 1% instead of 1.12%.
- P13L21: typo ‘walls was take into account’
- P14L22: Can the authors add a reference or short description to the mention of a ‘Linear regime’ ?
- Equation (1): add units, degrees or radians?
- P17L5 typo: ’wirer’
- ‘However, the comparisons between measurement and calculation will be done anyway’: this sentence can be removed.
- P25L14-15: If the absolute value of the incoming velocity is very similar with and without blockage, do the authors have any ideas/suggestion what is causing the larger difference for the angle of attack from blockage?
- P30L14-15 This sentence isn’t entirely clear to the reviewer.

Congratulations on the nice work. Best regards, Johan Meyers