Please elaborate on these points in the manuscript based on the text in response to review. This text inserted is insufficient. You have inserted non-quantitative sentences when you could be both specific and quantitative (as you have been in the response). Thank you.
1) Based on the results from Hasager et al. (2020) one can assume that at this rain intensity the tip speed will be reduced around this value. (This sentence needs work, the meaning is unclear, use quantitative responses)
2) Bech et al. (2018) propose to reduce the tip speed during severe precipitation events to limit erosion and to extend blade lifetime. (by how much, to what effect, see also response to 2nd review).
3) Raindrops have diameters up to 8 mm, although raindrops with 10 mm have been observed in tropical areas (Jones et al., 2010). (Not detailed enough).
4) As mentioned in point (2) it is difficult to define a general applicable worst-case scenario. Furthermore, it is shown that profit is already gained by reducing the tip speed at rain intensities around 1 mm/h. As our intention is to show frequent occurring rain conditions, we do not see a need to re-calculate the theoretical fall time for more extreme values. (Not quantitative/detailed enough 1mm/hr is light rainfall. Its reasonable to ask what happens in heavy rainfall, please be specific about dropsize/amounts)
4) Furthermore, the use of C- and S-band based weather radars, which are usually installed onshore, includes some limitations, e.g. precipitation does not fill completely the scanned volume, height of radar beam is above precipitation and reflections caused by the wind farm infrastructure wrongly indicate precipitation. These limitations can be corrected only to some extend and lead to some uncertainty in the precipitation parameters.
(Check for typos, expand using the detailed text in response to reviewers)

-

Congratulations with this short communication.

Jakob Man, Editor-in-Chief