Dear Authors,

As you can seen, Reviewer 1 is happy with the revised manuscript. However, the other reviewer has some remaining serious concerns that I think are justified, and should be addressed - at least in a thorough discussion in the manuscript; if feasible with some further grid convergence (within reason - please properly justify if not possible). I should note that the reviewer sent us an additional message to correct his review:
"Just a quick followup on my last review. I realized that I made a mistake in my quick estimate of the difference in power for the two meshes based on the estimated difference in peak wake deficit of approx. 5%. Power is of course the integrated over the rotor area, so the difference will not be 15%. I don't know if this should be conveyed to the authors, in order to avoid confusion."
However, in my opinion, this does not change the legitimacy of the reviewer's concern.

Finally, I noticed regarding point 3 of reviewer 1, that you simply followed the reviewer's suggestion. However, if I'm not mistaken, there was no problem with your original equation. Given CT=4a(1-a) and CT'=4a/(1-a), you can use the second equation to eliminate a, and insert in the first to obtain CT = 16CT'/(4+CT')^2. There is no requirement for a to be 1/3. Therefore, I would suggest to change back to the original formulation as it provides a direct relation between CT' and CT, which has also been used in other papers already.

Best regards,
Johan Meyers

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing the final comments raised by the reviewer. I have now accepted the manuscript for publication. Congratulations on a nice piece of work.

Kind regards,
Johan Meyers