Dear Authors,
Thank you for your updated manuscript and response to referees and Peter Spichtinger. There are a few areas which still need attention, and are described below.
Kind regards,
Claire Ryder

Please note that the general format for replying to referee responses at AMT should follow the format: (1) state referee’s comment, (2) respond to comment, (3) list changes in manuscript. Please note that (3) makes it straightforward for the editor to determine whether the manuscript has accounted for the referee’s comment and author’s response, on a point by point basis. Since this has mostly not been done in your response, it has made it difficult to check where, and to what extent, responses from the authors have actually been incorporated into the manuscript.

1. Please ensure that all responses to the referees’ comments are actually included in the manuscript itself. The referees’ comments serve to improve the manuscript and also answer questions which other readers may have when reading the manuscript. Specifically, the following two points should be dealt with:
a. The response to both referees regarding the effects of the fuselage do not appear to have been accounted for in the manuscript. This should be actioned by the authors.
b. Likewise, the angle of attack (AOA) comments, although dealt with acceptably in the response to reviewers, does not appear to have been justifiably transferred to the manuscript. This should be done.
c. Instrument geometry – impact of hemispherical domes vs actual probe design – please ensure your response to reviewers is reflected in the manuscript, explaining why no need for specific instrument geometry is required in this study.
2. Figure 12 has been changed to show observations from a different campaign. This is different to it being ‘extended’ or ‘including additional measurements’ as stated in the authors’ response. Perhaps this is an oversight by the authors. The swap of data/campaign must be properly stated and justified, or both the original and new images should be shown in Figure 12, with the text discussing both datasets.
3. Regarding the CAPS temperature sensor ‘installed at the back’ – add further clarification to the manuscript itself.
4. Respond to Referee 2’s comment about p14L28 from the original ACPD manuscript in more detail, fully explaining the apparent inconsistency. (regarding the 200 micron droplets).
5. Figure 14 – the top panel (greyscale and droplets) appears distorted

Thank you for making the requested changes.