Overview

The manuscript presents laboratory characterization of a new version of Nevzorov probe with respect to the measurements of liquid water content under the conditions including supercooled large droplets. Those conditions, challenging to measure with the existing instrumentation, are relevant for aviation safety which constitutes a solid motivation for the study. Experiments performed at three icing wind tunnels provided a valuable, comprehensive dataset. Accurate analysis of the collected data reached the objectives posed: to derive collision efficiency for a new sensor for small droplets, to verify the suitability of a new sensor for measuring LWC composed of large droplet size range. Some improvements in the presentation of the research and the results will be beneficial for the readers. Therefore, I recommend publication after minor revisions resulting from considering the comments below.

General comments

1. Please clarify whether the new Nevzorov probe featuring a 12 mm cone was developed within your study presented in the manuscript. If so, I consider that as an advantage of your work. Please provide details about the geometry and design of the probe then. If not, please provide information about the producer and whether there were any tests or experiments involving this probe preceding yours.
2. Section 2 introduces two research projects and three wind tunnel facilities. In my opinion, the information about the facilities is very important in this manuscript. Therefore, the section should focus primarily on the facilities participating in the current study rather than on the scope of broader projects. I suggest emphasizing the capabilities of the wind tunnels which justify their choice in the light of the objectives of this study and the differences between the wind tunnels which explain the advantage of using three facilities instead of one.
3. Please explain the choice of conditions for your test cases. As stated in section 4, many of them lie outside the range specified in Appendix C and Appendix 0 and some even feature above-zero temperatures. Is such a choice motivated by the limitations of the droplet generation systems, the limitations due to sampling statistics, the intention to explore the region outside Appendix 0 to allow for a possible extension of icing safety standards in the future?
4. MVD is not a particularly meaningful measure in the case of bimodal DSD, as you pointed out in section 7. Therefore, I suggest additionally including (e.g. in Table 3, at least for bimodal cases) the parameter you actually used to distinguish between FZDZ and FZRA, i.e. the diameter corresponding to the position of the maximum of the largest mode in LWC distribution. For unimodal cases, it is presumably close to MVD because the only mode is obviously the largest one. However, for bimodal cases it might give useful information concerning SLD in the DSD.
5. Figures 5, 6, 8. The range of the vertical axis is inappropriate for the presented results. Please refine the range accordingly so that the differences in position between the data points are visible.

Specific comments

1. Line 11. The sentence implies that the form of the curve was experimentally derived. I suggest mentioning that a specific function was assumed.
2. Line 113. Did you actually use Eq. (3) instead of Korolev’s value? Please specify.
3. Line 124. Which particular collection efficiencies from the literature did you use for the 8 mm cone in your analysis? Please specify and provide relevant references.
4. Section 4.1 and 4.2. At RTA, there were multiple reference instruments applied to measure LWC and DSD. How are those measurements combined to produce final estimates? With a similar procedure as you described for CDP and CIP? And what sampling statistics is considered sufficient while selecting the threshold size (line 180)? Did you follow any method described in the literature?
5. Section 4.3. As far as I understand, the estimated uncertainties of LWC measurements are valid only in the size range corresponding to Appendix C conditions, i.e. small droplets. Did you find any quantitative information about the uncertainties in SLD conditions?
6. Line 191. I assume here you give an estimate of the uncertainty of LWC measurements with a 8 mm collector cone. Please clarify.
7. Section 4.4. The number of test points documents extensive experimental work. Please consider whether it would be helpful for the reader to conceive the range of conditions explored if the test points and the regimes (SDS, FZDZ, FZRA) are illustrated in a figure, e.g. a scatter plot LWC vs. diameter of the largest mode (the parameter mentioned above in general comment #4 which you used to distinguish between FZDZ and FZRA). The overall LWC limits of Appendix C and Appendix 0 can then be marked for the respective regimes.
8. Lines 258-259 and Fig. 4. What collision efficiency correction did you use? Please provide a reference. Is such a selection of the sensor depending on MVD recommended in existing literature? If so, please cite a relevant source.
9. Table 5. Providing a 2 sigma interval is rather unusual. Typically, just 1 sigma is reported and it is understood in the context of estimated standard deviation of the distribution of the results. This remark regards reporting of uncertainties and does not interfere with the point you make in line 285 where even the 3 sigma test criterion can be applied.
10. Line 286. Please specify explicitly how you calculate LWC_12. Is it just measured LWC multiplied by a factor f(MVD) or does the computation involve DSD spectrum?
11. Line 304. How do you know that droplet coincidence was present? Is it simply implied by the high droplet concentration?
12. Section 7. I suggest modifying the section title to mark contrast to section 6, e.g. “Application of collision efficiencies in bimodal SLD conditions” or similarly.
13. Lines 350-354 and Figure 8. Please specify explicitly whether those results were obtained by applying the MVD approximation or by resolving the entire DSD.
14. Table 6. The values of epsilon_12 are not explained and commented on in the text. Do they result from the integration of DSDs multiplied by collision efficiency curve or represent a value f(MVD) of MVD approximation? If the latter, please explain why they do not agree with Fig. 4.

Minor issues

1. Please ensure the consistency and specificity among symbols.
1. K is used for thermal conductivity and the droplet inertia parameter.
2. T is used for temperature and test points.
3. Droplet diameter is denoted by d and D.
4. S is used for sensor surface and sum of squared residuals.
2. Line 9. Please rewrite the sentence so that it is clear whether Hotwire is a part of the Nevzorov probe or a separate instrument.
3. Line 33. “than” is missing.
4. Lines 34 and 36. I assume “they” refers to the last citation given in the text. Then another citation at the end of the sentence is confusing. Please be specific about which reference you mean.
5. Line 86. “PSD” was not defined. I suppose you mean “DSD” here.
6. Line 94. There should be a dot instead of a colon or a part of the sentence is missing.
7. Line 117 and Eq. (6). Please use either S_c or S for the collector sensor area.
8. Lines 173 and 176. I suppose “from” is not needed.
9. Table 3. The last FZDZ record for BIWT. Should the temperature be +5 deg or a star is erroneously given here?
10. Line 250. According to Table 4, Group 1 contains measurements from two wind tunnels. Please clarify.
11. Line 278. Just an integer index j is enough to denote the test points. The summation goes then from j=1 to n.