Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

The Pansh A15, an A18 review

For all foil kite riders


Kiter_from_Germany
Medium Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:39 am
Kiting since: 4
Local Beach: Northern Sea, Netherlands
Style: intermediate Twin, beginner Wave
Gear: Tubes: North Dice 10,ozone catalyst 14, Slingshot Turbine 17m and others
Foil: pansh A15 12m, 18m
Gear: Anton MTrain, (strapless) Directionals
Brand Affiliation: none

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby Kiter_from_Germany » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:08 am

double post
Last edited by Kiter_from_Germany on Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

Kiter_from_Germany
Medium Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:39 am
Kiting since: 4
Local Beach: Northern Sea, Netherlands
Style: intermediate Twin, beginner Wave
Gear: Tubes: North Dice 10,ozone catalyst 14, Slingshot Turbine 17m and others
Foil: pansh A15 12m, 18m
Gear: Anton MTrain, (strapless) Directionals
Brand Affiliation: none

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby Kiter_from_Germany » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:14 am

foilholio wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:51 pm
You raise an interesting point for extra support in the thin part of the profile, but both Inflatables and singles skins have less support there. maybe trying to hold less camber it is important. Your drawings give a good idea to the balances of forces on the mixer and can see clearly why moving B back reduces bar pressure. But also remember center of lift and forces on a wing are not static.
...
Mixer design is far from settled, mixers with an extra ratio are the new thing.
exactly right. Main Point from me, getting an extra 25% of AoA based on a given bar throw has dramatic impact in possibilities.
kitexpert wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:38 am

If "backweighted mixer" is tried on a kite which is designed for normal 1:2:4 mixer it produces high bar pressure and drastic decrease of camber when sheeted in. Not very reasonable and completely against what you try to explain.
exactly right. This works just in special placement of anchor (connection-) points, which are geometrically placed (geomitrically = ideally 0% ... 50% ... 75% ... 100%, in reallity: 5-10%..50%..75%.. 90-95%).

In gerneral:
So one point is that you can use this for kite design.

Let's clarify my position:

Assume a Kite with geometric connection points
Any procection area works but lets use a big one to make it clear: 18m2, 21m, 25m!
You take a conventional mixer (A0:B1:C2:Z4 parts of 4, we name it 0:1:2:4, like FS does internally)
On a given bar and a given bar throw you will find the given agility (by measurement). Lets name it ALEPH
Now you change the bar to backweighted (A0:B2:C3:Z4 parts of 4, we name it 0:2:3:4, like FS does internally). But Fore! Now you have to increase A length first by a quarter of the Barthrow.
Now you make the agility check again. What will you find?
125% ALEPH!
At this point you can decide:
Whether you sell a more agile kite ...
...or get rid of you 60cm bar product at all in yr product line
... or take this advantage and make a new, deeper profiled kite which has the advantage of beeing much more long term stable because a deeper profile at a given projection area leeds to a narrower width. Narrower width kites have more fabrication tolerance in cloth and lines...
...or just use your race bar! :o :D :D :D ).

I've never seen this, the conjunction of geometric connection points at the kite and a 1:2:3:4 mixer to improve the leverage between barthrow and AoA with a fixed A and a steered Z.
All this gear improvement efforts I know are mainly based on a pulleyd Z (steering line on C, which here in forum called malabar) which have dramatic disadvantages which disallow their use (tried them and rejected, because reverse start option is lost, and ugly unrestorable backflips happend on the water...) . 2:1 bar is out of scope for all, I hope...

just to get in my actual world...

In Special:
I use it for pansh, because it has the ability (geometric designed connection points in the center) to use it. Pansh's A15's original performance is (my personal opinion) so lousy, that that it can definately need a goood tweak. Potential is there I feel.
We all searching for that in this thread.

foilholio
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:20 am
Kiting since: 1337
Local Beach: Ventura Beach
Favorite Beaches: Tarifa
Style: Airstyle
Gear: Foils
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby foilholio » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:39 am

Just to clarify the backweighted mixer with extra pulley on B will be 0:1:2:3, I just write it as 321. Lets call it backweighted-.

To list the various mixers and with WAC

normal 421 plus WAC 310
backweighted 432 plus WAC 210
backweighted- 321 plus WAC 210

I'll standardize the numbers for comparison

normal 12:6:3 plus WAC 12:4:0
backweighted 12:9:6 plus WAC 12:6:0
backweighted- 12:8:4 plus WAC 12:6:0

Brings an interesting fact when using WAC. The ratios for both backweighted mixers will be the same, but because of the reduced movement of B on the backweighted- it will have a shorter bar travel when WAC engages and lower overall bar force. When using WAC brings the possibility of more similar bar throw between both backweighted mixers but lower bar force on one. Physics of that don't make sense though.

Deleting C would seem to offer a crazy camber increase possibility.

kitexpert
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: many kites, also diy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby kitexpert » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:13 am

@KfG By "geometric points" you mean line row locations which change AoA of the kite without distortions for certain mixer pulley ratios, or just about evenly spaced ones for "linear" mixer 1:2:4?

Pairing line row locations with used mixer is basic approach but some fine tuning of locations make it possible to have some benefits. For years ago FS presented "triple depower" (not entirely correctly describing name) in which (one third of it) line row locations were selected to get a bit higher cambered airfoil on high AoA's and respectively original lower cambered and more stable airfoil when back line rows are not engaged as much (bar sheeted out).

It is also very common to locate Z at about 95%, then TE of the kite is pulled slightly more than if Z was at 100%. Earlier B line row was quite often pulled less than line row location "needed", for example 1:8 with an added pulley. This limited movement and having C pulled normally 1:2 resulted a camber increase in that area and also made bar pressure lighter.

Because A is fixed it is the fulcrum point in which locations of other line rows are measured. If it is at ca. 10% and rest 90% of the chord is divided respectively then line row locations are "correct" for 1:2:4 mixer. Typical values for that mixer could be something like A 9% B 30% C 58% and Z 96%, designer just decides if certain point is pulled more or less.
Kiter_from_Germany wrote: Now you have to increase A length first by a quarter of the Barthrow.
Sounds suspicious to me. You are trying to counter non matching mixer/line row locations by making a fixed correction. Good luck with that, I'm getting a headache for just trying to think that mess :D
Kiter_from_Germany wrote: and make a new, deeper profiled kite which has the advantage of beeing much more long term stable because a deeper profile at a given projection area leeds to a narrower width. Narrower width kites have more fabrication tolerance in cloth and lines...
This means low AR kite. In big sizes they are grunty slow kites which have inferior L/D compared to high AR ones.
Last edited by kitexpert on Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

kitexpert
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: many kites, also diy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby kitexpert » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:38 am

deleted double posting

Kiter_from_Germany
Medium Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:39 am
Kiting since: 4
Local Beach: Northern Sea, Netherlands
Style: intermediate Twin, beginner Wave
Gear: Tubes: North Dice 10,ozone catalyst 14, Slingshot Turbine 17m and others
Foil: pansh A15 12m, 18m
Gear: Anton MTrain, (strapless) Directionals
Brand Affiliation: none

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby Kiter_from_Germany » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:54 pm

Much input to think through.
Will take a little, thanks.

Today a static ev session here next to river rhine.
Very turbulent 0-7kn, different thermal influenced directions.

Static checks showed, restauration of bridle lines was successful.
Indeed B78 was wrong calculated, value is 17(..20cm) instead of 46cm noted in documentary post.
Gonna correct that the next days.
z5678 was shortend further (no +6cm any more), does work in general. Gonna recheck that in laminar wind.
Checked getting rid of the resleeving procedure, recognized a loss if stability, needs further reinvestigation of trim.
Downloop: Needs 25m lines. Not working at 10m lines without gripping in steering lines. No surprise, this would be a high end feature.
Kite generates good pull/depower, nice control.

Over all: I‘m back on track...

foilholio
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:20 am
Kiting since: 1337
Local Beach: Ventura Beach
Favorite Beaches: Tarifa
Style: Airstyle
Gear: Foils
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby foilholio » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:02 am

I tried disabling C and then removing it. I saw a slight decrease in stability, particularly on the tips, nothing I don't think can be tuned out easily. The kite lost some turn tightness and reactivity or response. The kite camber looked increased particularly at the tips, which explains less stability. With C bridles removed kite seems slightly faster and balance pitches less back with slack lines, drift may be improved, balance is more neutral. I think now balance is a benefit of moving the bridles back I didn't see before. Tested relaunch and it seems fine.

Now I do have with a shorten Z and early WAC quite a bit different kite than stock, camber is quite extreme. Already I have C bridles going slack in places. I can say at least on my setup C does not seem necessary. I think looking at the tips new shape powered and combined with the slight loss of stability, turn and response, most likely the attachment points on the tips are not quite correct for this setup. I could try move B to C or making new bridles there even with rings. Ultimately I "may" need to add (or move) new attachments to be happy. I am happy enough to now move onto a 3:1 mixer, and then retune. After I am expecting enough improvement to turning response and stability I may be even less concerned with the tips.

BTW the C bridles weigh 54grams, no small amount lost. Still to remove extra pulley lines, lcls, and shorten the mixer. Attachment points would weigh a little too.

I have a quite good feeling about the direction this is going. Thanks for the ideas Kiterfromgermany.

Kiter_from_Germany
Medium Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:39 am
Kiting since: 4
Local Beach: Northern Sea, Netherlands
Style: intermediate Twin, beginner Wave
Gear: Tubes: North Dice 10,ozone catalyst 14, Slingshot Turbine 17m and others
Foil: pansh A15 12m, 18m
Gear: Anton MTrain, (strapless) Directionals
Brand Affiliation: none

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby Kiter_from_Germany » Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:00 am

Great news...
there are many ways to Rome!

I‘m impressed how much is able with the kite itself - and how lousy original bridles are.
I think if pansh would focus a little more RND in their bridles they could get pretty great, but they are unfortunately not aware about that...aeolus the thame, btw. what a pitty!
So will perhaps the big companies stay alone or conceptairs pulsion steal the show?

kitexpert
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: many kites, also diy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby kitexpert » Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:56 pm

Kiter_from_Germany wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:00 am
Great news...
there are many ways to Rome!

I‘m impressed how much is able with the kite itself - and how lousy original bridles are.
I think if pansh would focus a little more RND in their bridles they could get pretty great, but they are unfortunately not aware about that...aeolus the thame, btw. what a pitty!
So will perhaps the big companies stay alone or conceptairs pulsion steal the show?
Both A15 and Pulsion have some suspicious things in their bridle and also in design which relates to bridle (cell count, attachment points). These issues are not critical but weird and annoying to look at. Of course when fixed some benefit would be expected because of less drag and better usability.

FS is a clear technical leader in foil kites again (if they ever were anything else), for example when comparing Soul to Hyperlink there is a considerable gap. Pulsion is kind of "primitive" design but it has its own design logic and own intended use. It is difficult to suggest any improvements to Soul, in that respect it is like one of the top race kites. Perhaps bridle could be shorter, but it would need testing to find out. For lesser kites it is quite evident what could be improved.

kitexpert
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: many kites, also diy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby kitexpert » Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:01 pm

Image

This is how the bridle of Pansh18m should have been done. Simpler, cleaner, shorter and less draggy.

The general design of A15 is ok though, it looks most balanced of their depowerable kites.

Area of this model is 17.5m, based on center chord, wingspan and the 2-D shape of the kite from Pansh homepage. AR is 5.1 .


Return to “Foil Kites”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests