Please see attached pdf.

Dear Stephan Bansmer,
thanks for the clarifying comments!

I only have one point left where I would suggest to keep the sentence you removed now from the manuscript (starting "The particle sizes in the wind tunnel..."):
p20, l2-6:
"... Shattering of large particles is a function of IWC, see Field et al. (2006). The particle sizes in the wind tunnel were rather small (MMD around 80 µm) thus the fraction of shattered particles is expected to be less than 1%. Since furthermore hardly any particles were larger than the full array width, see the results in section 4.6.4, we argue that large particles that would have caused shattering artefacts are not present in the icing wind tunnel. Therefore the shattering treatment was turned off."

Maybe you could reduce potential confusion by rephrasing the second removed sentence similar to:
"Additionally, the high concentrations in the wind tunnel would have rendered an interparticle time analysis difficult because the inter-particle times of the wind tunnel particles are generally small and hard to distinguish from those of possible shattering artefacts."
That information could be kept before the sentence starting "Therefore, the shattering treatment...", I leave this up to you.

Good work!
Wiebke Frey