Some comments:
1. Again rewrite the abstract section.
2. Add some recent research papers in introduction section related to the topic.
3. The authors have provided the information related to the geometric parameters
of fluid film conical hydrodynamic bearings in Section 3.1. Why authors specifically choose these values for the parameters. If they have taken these from the any previous published studies, Then, they should properly cite.
4. Improve the quality of Figure 2.
5. Authors validated their numerical results with their experimental results. But, authors not properly explain the experimental part i.e. material of conical bearing and shaft; radial & axial load; accuracy of pressure sensors, grade of the lubricant, calculation of dynamic viscosity etc. Authors should provide this information in the manuscript.
6. Authors should provide the photographic images of unworn & worn conical journal bearings for more clarity.
7. Authors mentioned in abstract section (purpose) that the conical journal bearing is most suitable where combined radial and axial load acts on bearing. So, why authors only investigated the performance parameters ( pressure, stiffness etc) with the variation of Radial loads?
8. Author validated their results with experimental values (Figure 4 Validation of results for Speed (N)= 1500rpm, Radial Load (𝑊𝑟) = 1500N & Axial Load (Wa) = 100N with Analytical results). From the figure caption of Fig.4, it is observed that the shaft was rotating at 1500 rpm, when both radial and axial loads are acted on conical bush. How authors introduced the effect of axial load in their numerical coding (FEA analysis), explain.
9. The presented results are good, but not discussed very well. Authors should try to discuss them more in the light of the existing research literature.
10. Authors should try to shortened and streamlined the conclusions.

Some minor suggestions to authors:
1. Again check the figure caption (Instead of Hydraulic, its hydrodynamic)
2. Improve the qualities of figures 2 & 5.