General comments:

This paper provides promising 80 hours of data for environmental research to improve the understanding of the interaction between the surface and cloud layer. The authors presented a very useful payload for the atmospheric study and demonstrated new perspectives the data offer. In addition, the data is high quality, and the manuscript is well-written. Thus, I recommend the publication with several minor suggestions.

Specific comments:

P4, lines 95-115,  The Vaisala sensors resolution and repeatability are not under the flight condition (60-70 km/hr). What is the uncertainty for the temperature and RH data using this sensor? Will you please comment on the aerodynamic effect of the flow distortion caused by the aircraft and the sensor on the measured temperature? Or how much different will it be related to the static air temperature? Figure 6 shows the air temperature. Is it static air temperature?

P4, line 124, the SHT-85 sensor was logged at 250 Hz. Does this sampling rate reflect the actual measured value, or is it based on the electronics response time? Do you have any spectral analysis or reference to confirm the actual response rate of the sensor?

P5, line 139-141, Are the system accuracies under the 50 Hz sampling resolution? Or 1 Hz sampling resolution? Data from the VN-300 were logged at 50 Hz resolution. How many variables recorded are real measured values? It will be great to share more experience on how to use VN-300 under higher time resolution reliably.

P9, section 4, what are the error propagation to the TAS estimation and the wind estimation?

The report and  corresponding dataset provide a unique and interesting set of observations in support of the ATOMIC campaign.  The authors do a good job of describing their systems and quality control process, and provide intercomparison results which provide confidence in the quality of the data available.  The report itself is well written and mostly complete.  However, I do have some small comments that should be addressed before publication:

- epsilon is usually provided as the greek symbol and not spelled out.  If the authors do not wish to use greek symbols, for the limited use of 'epsilon', it would seem to me that using the phrase `turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate'  would be sufficiently descriptive

- in equation (3) p₀ is not defined.  Presumably it is the dynamic pressure measured by the central hole of the MHP?

- When referring to the optimization of the wind estimates from the MHP, the authors state the 'small adjustments are made to the individual parameters'.  Which parameters are adjusted, and is there a rationale behind the adjustment?  Or is this a multivariate optimization process?

- The authors provide nice detail about the sensors and which data is provided from the sensors.  However, it would be convenient for those  accessing the data if there were a summary table listing the variables provided in the dataset, the units provided, and possibly the sensor(s) used to produce that variable.