Address reviewer 3 comments

[petebachant]

1. In the title, please use “Hydrokinetic turbine” instead of only “turbine”
2. Consider adding sample time histories of torque and drag force for extreme cases (high and low lambda).
3. In Figure 10 Cp is plotted versus lambda for a stationary case. If U is zero how does Cp or even Lambda is defined?
4. In line 123, it should be “… dependence were…” instead of “… dependence of was…”
5. In line 151, Fig. 4 should be Fig. 3.
6. In lines 303 and 304 refer to Fig. 9 again to help the reader follow the discussion easier.
7. In line 314, refer to Fig. 11 before Fig. 12.
8. In line 320, refer to Fig. 13 before Fig. 14.
9. In line 360, it must be “…likely due to…” instead of “…likely to due…”.
10. In Fig. 1, show c and R in the plot.

[petebachant]

I'm not sure if I like number 1. The title is already pretty long, and long titles draw less readers. Then again, maybe "hydrokinetic" will be a good keyword.

[wosnik]

Response to reviewer: We would prefer to leave the word “hydrokinetic” out of the title to attract more readers from the wind energy community. The results presented here are equally applicable to cross-flow wind turbines, and it is clear from the abstract and the description of the RM2 turbine that model study was performed with a hydrokinetic turbine in water.

[wosnik]

See comments below.

1. In the title, please use “Hydrokinetic turbine” instead of only “turbine” – not a good idea, for reasons stated in separate response.
2. Consider adding sample time histories of torque and drag force for extreme cases (high and low lambda). - should we include this? Or at least state that this is available as part of the dataset?
3. In Figure 10 Cp is plotted versus lambda for a stationary case. If U is zero how does Cp or even Lambda is defined? Valid question, was explained in revised manuscript.

[wosnik]

You can also add: “if the referee insists, we can add the word “hydrokinetic” to the title. However, we believe that this would reduce readership.”