Dear Authors,

I have received one more report by Referee #1. I do not fully with the referee's comment as I think all information is needed to follow the text.
However, I have a few (minor) comments (see below) that I'd like you to consider prior to uploading your final files.

Best regards
Barbara Ervens

-------------------------------------
Referee #1:
The paper could be more reader friendly if the parts after 3.1 to 4.1 are shorten by summarizing the theoretical results.


Editor comments:

Referee #1 asked for shortening of Sections 3.1 and 4.1. However, I do not have any constructive suggestions how to reduce their length. Thus, I leave it up to you whether you concur with the reviewer’s suggestion.


- However, contrary, I think that the separation into that many subsections in Sections 3 and 4 is not always very logical and useful. Very short subsections containing only one or two sentences (such as Section 3.1 or 3.2.2) should be generally avoided. Instead, I suggest combining Sections 3.1 and 3.2 using a descriptive header, e.g. Motion in and along the vortex axis (or similar). That way you would also avoid the rather (too) short headers of sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.


- the readability and clarity may be also improved by replacing ‘below’ (as in e.g., ‘results are described in detail below’) by referring to the respective section number instead or by adding ‘in the next paragraph/following’ (or similar), respectively.


- p. 12, l. 8/9: What is the difference between the ‘first’ and ‘following’ subsection? Or do you mean the ‘first’ and ‘the one following the first’? Better refer to Section numbers to avoid this confusion. (Also note that the second ‘subsection’ in l. 9 is misspelled.)


- Your response to Referee #2’s general comment was good (“We agree with the reviewer that we use…”). However, I think these caveats and intentions should be also expressed in Section 7.