This manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of an extreme wind gust event associated with a quasi-linear convective system (QLCS) in Beijing on 30 May 2024. The study leverages a high-resolution observational mesonet, including radar wind profilers, a meteorological tower, and multi-source remote sensing data, to elucidate the multi-scale dynamical processes involved. The findings provide valuable insights into the mechanisms of convective gust generation and have potential implications for nowcasting and model improvement. Thus, I recommend the publication of this paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after the following points have been addressed:

Major comments:

The manuscript would benefit from a detailed description about the conceptual model in Figure 10. A discussion about key findings of this observed mechanism compared with those in previous QLCS studies, especially from other terrain regions, would also enhance this study.

Minor comments:

1. The acronym "RWP" is defined early on, but "QLCS" is used in the abstract before being spelled out in the introduction. Please ensure all acronyms are defined upon first use.
2. The study relies heavily on RWP-derived parameters (e.g., divergence, vorticity, frontogenesis). The uncertainty associated with these calculations should be quantified and discussed.
3. For the frontogenesis calculation, surface observations are implied for gradients of θ_e. Please comment on the potential implications of using surface data to represent low-level processes, and any associated limitations.
4. Line 286: Hiamwari -> Himawari.
5. Why you choose the 95th percentile of 10-m wind speed in the triangle rather than the maximum value or another percentile?
6. Section 4.4: The link between IEC and gust intensity is intriguing. but needs more physical explanation.
7. The use of “jet” should be more cautious. According to the definition, wind speed should be greater than a certain threshold to be called a "jet".
8. Ensure all cited references are included and formatted in accordance with ACP guidelines.

This manuscript presents a very nice detailed analysis of intensive

observations made of an extreme surface wind event produced by a

quasi-linear convective system (QLCS), that occurred in Beijing. The

QLCS was associated with a Mesoscale Convective System (MCS). The

observational facilities included a network of 7 radar wind profilers, a

325-m meteorological tower with 7 ultrasonic anemometers, 2 sounding

sites, 250 automated weather stations, and the national radar network.

Himawari-8/9 satellite data are also used.

Detailed comments

My only main criticism is the conjecture that is not supported by

evidence. Mainly that is wording. I have made quite a few suggestions

below. I hope (most of) these are useful.

L46-48. It would be helpful to say what these valuable insights are.

L47. Specify RWP on L33.

Abstract. Would it be useful to mention the record-breaking surface gust

wind event that occurred on 30 April 2021 described by Chen et al, 24?

L54. It would perhaps be useful to mention the work of e.g. Browning et

al, in considering the concept of transporting high momentum downwards

to give damaging surface winds, even though the underlying systems were

different. The paper by Browning et al 2010 (Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc.

136: 354–373, DOI:10.1002/qj.582) is also worth considering. It provided

an in-depth analysis of an MCS. It may be relevant (your L86-89) because

of one of their conclusions: "The absence of strong winds at the surface

within the MCS is consistent with the failure of the rear-inflow jet to

reach the ground and produce a strong cold pool."

L68-74. Please explain the role of the various interactions

on these wind gusts. Otherwise the sentence does not provide any

information.

L90. Significant progress?

L121-128. It would be better (here and later) to put the details (such

as coordinates) in the caption.

L137. Is there any evidence that the mountains affect the soundings made

at Zhangjiakou?

L150-154. Does this mean that the maximum reflectivity in a pixel column

is shown? How long does a volume scan take? Is there confidence that the

maximum reflectivities are between 60 and 65 dBZ?

L155-156. Mention the radar at BWO in the caption to Fig 1?

L157-160. Are the AWSs in the valleys? There will be limited radar

information in the valleys.

L241-242. In my opinion, it would be helpful to show the radar plots in

Fig 4 at this stage. Also two questions, what does a downhill

thunderstorm really mean and secondly, is there a single thunderstorm

involved, or is it the MCS?

L245. There are also high winds shown in Fig 2a before 1400. And... is

it possible to place some height contours on Fig 2.

L247. Mark the Qianling Mountain site on Fig 2?

L249-250. Again, referring to the radar plots would be helpful. This is

the first mention of the merger of two convective segments and formation

of the squall line.

L251. Similarly here. Also, the size of the dots are just as large in

Fig 2c and there are maximum radar echoes before 1500, at 1448 and

possibly 1436. Why is the squall line mature during 1500-1529?

Fig 3. What do the black contours represent?

L262. Likely dynamic contribution?

L268-272. What is the mountaintop level? What are the orographic effects

due to the interaction of the strong northwesterly winds and the

mountains? It is not clear what point is being made and in what way the

citations are relevant.

L277-280. What do you mean that the dry column provided a favorable

environment for the evaporation of precipitation particles? Do you mean

the humidity below the LCL indicated on the skew-T diagrams?  It may be

the case that there is a favorable environment that affect

a fraction of the precipitation. However, it isn't right to use the words

"intense evaporative cooling" and "thus leading to".  It really is

conjecture as stated.

L282. What "heat release" do you mean?

L283-284. The sentence doesn't make sense as written.

L297-298. It is an impressive set of temperature data shown in Fig 5. Is

there evidence that the sub-cloud air was dry?

L306-308. The radar reflectivity is 50 dBZ or greater at 1424 (and

actually well before that time), which is indicative of heavy

precipitation. It is important to know what is actually shown in Fig 4.

Fig 2 shows the accumulation of rain in a 30 min period.

L323. Please state the time.

L376-378. Is this conjecture at this stage?

L395. Should this be Fig 5?

L431. Incorrect figure numbers.

L466. I think there is value in showing Fig 8 earlier. It helps to put

some things into perspective clearly.

L540. It would be useful to refer to previous studies in this section.

L591-593. The sentence is a bit ambiguous. An important novelty is the

high density of multiple observations. Is that correct?