This paper describes in situ microphysics observations of intense pyroconvection for a large wildfire in Idaho from an airborne platform. Content includes both dry (mainly smoke/ash) and moist (pyroCu) pyroconvective plumes. A variety of parameters are presented to showcase microphysics data for the diameter range of 10 μm to 6 mm.  This is supplemented with weather instrumentation and a cloud radar onboard the aircraft, along with ground-based weather radar. Results from this study fill a critical gap in measurements of pyroconvection, especially for pyroCu. The content is well organized, the figures are of high quality, and the narrative is generally easy to follow. I recommend publication after addressing the minor edits below.

The hardest part for me to follow was in the last few paragraphs on the pyroCu discussion (Lines ~460-490). The fine details of the Nevzorov probe clutter the messaging about cloud droplets, cloud ice vs. pyrometeors. Perhaps some rearrangement of the sentences might help. Think of readers less familiar with the details of the instruments, who want to know what’s going on inside a pyroCu.

The differences for penetration #3 compared with the other pyroCu data is interesting. Might the biomass/vegetation be different in that part of the fire front?  It’s the only penetration along the eastern part of the fire front.  Perhaps being a bit lower in altitude was enough of a factor?

Is there anything you can say in the conclusions on how these data might be used in fire-scale modeling work?

Anything you can say on the potential for precipitation development should these pyroCu continue developing into a pyroCb?  Are there any existing observations of traditional cumulus clouds for a direct microphysics comparison with the pyroCu? Ideally, this would be in a similar thermodynamic environment.

You may consider making the figure letters a bit larger for some of the panels.

Overview

This study evaluated airborne in situ and remote sensing and ground-based remote sensing measurements of wildfire-induced pyroconvection. The authors analyzed the shape and size of particles with diameters ranging from 10 um to 6 mm. They make a distinction between a penetration that appears to be primarily composed of ash (pyrometeors) and penetrations composed of a mixture of pyrometeors and hydrometeors. This manuscript does an exceptional job of relating their unique and novel results to past literature and placing it in the context of auxiliary measurements. The manuscript is also exceptionally well-written, concise, and the figures are of very high quality. I recommend this manuscript be accepted for publication upon addressing a few minor comments listed below.

Minor Comments:

• Fig. 1b: What is the dBZe threshold used to define echo top?
• Fig. 1: panel labels (a-d) should be bigger
• Lines 292-294: I do think it is interesting that the distribution shapes of N^ and A^ are different, but can you really say anything about comparing the order-of-magnitude ranges when the units are not the same? I’m not sure that yields any relevant information.
• I understand to some degree the interpretation of TWC vs. LWC in terms of collection efficiency from the Nevzorov probes. However, lines 473-475 are a bit confusing. I don’t understand why an overestimate of cloud droplet effective radius by the PVM-100 probe leads to a smaller collection efficiency. Is this a reasoning that’s due to the different techniques of PVM-100 vs. the Nevzorov probes or are you using the PVM-100 as a supplement to your conclusion? This reasoning in general could stand to be restructured as it is also hard to understand the paragraph that starts on line 480 regarding IWC without a little more context.

Line-specific comments:

• Line 128: Maybe mention what the native sampling resolution is
• Lines 165-167: Where did this 18 dBZe threshold come from?
• Line 212: “…and a large as…” should be “…and as large as…”
• Lines 279-280: This sentence is worded awkwardly because there is no overlap between the 2D-P and the other instruments. I would reformat the sentence to immediately imply a lack of overlap.