This study introduces an optimization-based approach to determining the optimal number and

positioning of pressure sensors required for accurately deducing pressure distribution. The findings

indicate that this optimization procedure offers a more cost-effective and space-efficient sensor

layout compared to the traditional cosine spacing method.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the authors for conducting this study. The method-

ology presented here has a potential to greatly benefit the wind energy and aerodynamics commu-

nities by enabling the cost-effective placement of pressure sensors. However, for the future work

it would be interesting to write full CFD analysis version of the paper. Xfoil is a great tool but it

has it’s limitations. The paper is well-written and easy to read.

I believe this paper fits well within the scope of Wind Energy Science and has significant potential

for publication.

However, I would like the authors to consider the following comments and make the necessary

adjustments to the manuscript.

General:

Very good paper, with a relevant topic.

The paper has clear descriptions of the methods and clear presentations of the results. The conclusions wraps up the study in a good way and make relevant suggestions for further studies.

As the estimated pressure Cd is very sensitive on the used (discrete) pressure distribution, a note on the predicted Cd from the optimised distribution would be very informative and enhance the understanding of the usefulness of the optimised distribution. It is mentioned as future work, but just a small paragraph/figure to show how bad/good it is would be very beneficial.

Only a few smaller corrections are suggested

Detailed comments:

Eq. 2: Check these expressions, I think there is a typo; the factor on the exp-function should be pi*Uinf/Uavg^2?

Line between Eq (3) and (4), give the value for CT2 as you do for Ct1

Figure 3: Do you include the controller in the simulations?

Table 1: High Re, is this an issue for XFoil?

Section 2.4.2: I am missing a reference to a general description of the GA algorithm

Eq (15): Perhaps emphasise that the objective function is an integral and not a summation of the pressure difference at the discrete points, where the objective function would be zero. I was a little confused during the first read through, as my mind was focused on a discrete distribution. It is a good comment about the potential of improving the Cl prediction by using other interpolation functions.