This paper presents an optimisation model that can be used for estimating important performance parameters in an AWES, as well as for making certain design choices. Although the model is subjected to certain assumptions and limitations, they are clearly outlined and discussed by the authors. 

The model and the results presented are valuable. However, the current submission does not highlight some of the key capabilities of the model. A revision could improve this aspect by addressing the following:

- The abstract suggests that this paper simply showcases the capability of the model by running a number different of analyses. This approach of just showing what the model can do is reflected throughout the paper. On the other hand, the results presented do have valuable insights that can be of interests to other researchers. A few examples: excluding gravity does not always give more optimistic results, optimal reel in is achieved by balancing the aerodynamic forces with gravity, thin tethers perform better at low wind speed and thick tethers perform at high wind speeds, etc. In my opinion, changing the focus of the paper to highlighting these new insights (noting that they were derived from the new model presented) would make the paper more interesting.

- In the background section, lines 63-98 could be split into smaller paragraphs. I can see that the authors are describing how this paper improves on previous formulations. Since this cover a wide range of topics (model fidelity, gravity effects, etc.). Splitting them into different paragraphs, with each focusing on how improvements are required could further highlight the value of this paper.

Finally, a few editorial suggestions:

- Lines 132-133 ('the wind vector vw is orthogonal to the kite’s tangential motion component'): I don't think Figure 4a shows that vw is orthogonal to the tangential motion.

- Line 240 ('It states the maximum force it can handle per unit wing area'): repeated use of 'it'.

- Line 265 (equation 23): this is quite an important equation. Is it feasible to show the derivation immediately below or in the appendix? I guess this is related to doing a simple integration with respect to dl, then relate the l*g*cos(beta) terms to the tether area and mass. I imagine that equations like this will be adopted by many preliminary studies in the future, hence the need to show the working.

- Line 307: suggest removing 'the effect of'.

- Line 346 (equation 35): it would be helpful to plot this relationship on a graph.

- Please move the figures to the relevant sections in the paper. One example: figs. 14 and 15 should be placed within section 3.1.1.

- Please check the y-axis label in figure 17.

- Line 487-488: suggest rewriting to 'one without the effect of gravity' (i.e., removing 'including').

General comments

The article is rather well written and structured. It deals with a very relevant subject that is not so easy to define. Basically, the aim is to develop a tool or, more precisely, a framework of tools for optimising and sizing the design of fixed-wing, ground-generated airborne wind energy systems. If one type of these keywords into Scholar, you will come across the Sommerfeld et al 2022 article, which is cited in references. The novelty of the present study is to propose a simpler “quasi-steady” model to avoid the difficulty of the kite control, which is very influential on performance according to the Sommerfeld conclusions.  The modelling framework proposed in this paper is therefore better adapted to the first stages of the design. The correlative question, which I don't think I've seen addressed here, is the following: Are the trajectories proposed in this study really feasible for a real servo-controlled system?

I also think that the title of this document could be replaced by Sommerfeld's and vice versa. The title of this study should then be changed to emphasise the novelty compared with Sommerfeld's study.

specific comments

The second section describes the system under study and the parameters of the flight configuration. Simplification assumptions are also set out. A simple point-mass model is used. An optimisation problem where the net electrical cycle power is maximised for given wind conditions. An optimisation problem is set, in which the net electrical power of the cycle is maximised for given wind conditions. Finally, the list of influential parameters to be studied is given. Subsection 2.1 presents an initial highly simplified model based on the zero-mass hypothesis in a truly clear and didactic manner. Highly technical considerations are considered, such as minimum and maximum flight altitudes in terms of safety, as an example. The assumptions are sometimes very approximate, as is the case for the tether's contribution to aerodynamic drag.

Section 2.2 proposes an original model for estimating kite mass. Which is presented as a key novelty of the present study.

Section 3 shows some results for specific applications. The first is a 150-kW system based on the 150 kW AP3 prototype developed by Ampyx Power. This case has the advantage of having been widely documented and referenced in the scientific literature. With this dataset, the simplified model developed in the current study is compared to results obtained using the 6-DoF simulation framework developed by Ampyx. The Ampyx model is presented as a high-fidelity class. This comparison demonstrates that the current work represents a significant improvement compared to the basic zero mass model from (Loyd 1980). Hence the sensitivity to various design parameters and environmental variables such as gravity are investigated. The proposed model seems to give sensible results. Comparison with a more sophisticated model (the Ampyx model) also provides an estimate of the accuracy of the present model. Various parameter optimizations studies are then proposed to explore the ability of this model. The results analysis seems relevant and logical in terms of the influence of the various physical parameters involved (wing surface, tether diameter, weight, etc.). The section concludes with a discussion that does not overlook the limitations of the proposed model.

However, the reader misses details to really appreciate the difference between the so-called high-fidelity method by Ampyx and the present study model. The authors should provide more details on the differences between the two codes.

technical corrections

L12-13 In the abstract, we read several times “.., and…”. I feel the commas could be deleted.

The language is sometimes too technical, which makes for tedious reading. The full names of technical variables should be preferred to symbols in the text, as in the sentences on lines 272 and 273 by way of example. This would make for smoother reading.

L265 Equation (23), which is presented as original in the paper, should be referred to (Houska and Diehl 2006) who first proposed it.

L 346: The reference from which equation (35) is taken is not given. Please specify.

L432 QSM acronym is used in Figure 13 legend and caption but is not explain in the text nor in the Nomenclature

L530-535 Several places in the text refer to losses due to “inertia effects”. This seems very vague to me. Insofar as it is a key point in justifying this study. The authors should take the time to explain these phenomena in detail?