You have some point there, I agree defining "state-of-the-art" for kites is at least to some degree subjective. For me it is that wow-effect some kite are able to deliver because of their high performance (for me at the top of the list is one very high AR 6m race kite, but it has of course problems/difficulties of its own). For sure I'm not impressed by any low AR wave foil kite no matter how light material it has or how stable it is (trivial for low AR kite, like it is using expensive light weight material).foilholio wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 5:29 amI strongly disagree with Kitexperts outlining of state of the art. First you need to select into which style of riding the kite will be used. Because for somethings they may be less important and for others they are more important. For example in Race stability is less important to L/D, off which high AR is a help. Where as for wave it is opposite.
In foils we have state of the art technologies, being seen in single skins, hybrids, the various race kites and various other kites. Things like semi rigid LE, unsupported tips, 3 row bridles, mixed ratio wing, PA change, changing bridle cord locations. I think if you could get your head around them then you could truly make something very interesting.
I have some some bad experiences with three line rows with Speed4dlx. When I worked with one I couldn't get wingtips smooth like there just wasn't enough support with three line rows, and when I observed one other Speed4dlx I saw it there too. So I'm not sure if it has ever been good even on a new kite. Also possibilities to adjust kite and to have variable camber is more limited with three line rows. For high AR (short chord) three line rows is more natural, but even with them only FS uses it.
For me state-of-the-art kite has to be very high performance kite in a traditional sense. But because I don't want to start competing race kites (like FS 13-13-13 kite) because of many reasons I see now a mid AR kite with very high specs most interesting try. Goal is to have very high performance kite with good usability.foilholio wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 12:13 amI have some distortion at the tip on the A15. It is mainly at the transition from C to B as that is quite large. I use the C positions for B at the tip because they work much better. The positions I think are definitely not optimal and I think I will move at least the transition bridle attachment so it is smoother.
Despite the slightly off look of the tip, the increase in performance is considerable and as I said I have no downside, but actually considerable upside. The fact is I have removed 1/4 of the entire bridling and a pulley line. That has to definitely offer some L/D improvement, which is what I observe. Then also my changes to Z also improve that as well. Improvements to turn I put mainly down the change of ratio on B from 1:4 to 1:3.
I think the speed4dlx at AR 4.85 vs A15 which I guess at 5.5 might be the difference to the effectiveness or even viability of 3 rows. My thinking from a mechanical perspective is the shorter the cord the less need for 4 rows. Hence why I am surprised that with all the race foils it is not seen more. The thickness of the structure surely plays a part too.
I read it mentioned that 3 rows is quite common on high performance paragliders. I have seen paragliders with 3 rows, but I think there AR is even higher than kites.
You are correct about the camber advantage that 4 rows offers. I think the sole play between A and B give a lot of the good depower behavior that foils have. I have previously played with pulleys on B C together and that did not work at all, huge stability problems and bit weird as I remember. Maybe static links would work, but I have seen that done and the kites were not successful. I think you just have to weigh advantages vs disadvantages, it may seem worse in someways visually but overall is it better?
Sure Flysurfer abandoned the speed4dlx, but that may be because it was too ambitious having both high PA change and just 3.1 rows. I hope designers start at least trying some of these things out. They are at least somewhat proven and having extra attachments on prototypes seems common. From my experience moving bridles and altering their lengths is a cheap way to test things out. My higher hopes are with hydrid foils. Perhaps kites with just part of the TE single skin. My ideas are to improve depower ,weight and drift. I know it most likely is out of your realm of interest but I know I am not the only one interested in kites with these properties.
6m2 size is good for diy. But to try compete against kite like Sonic2 is very very ambitious. And to make very similar kite I don't think it is worth it, some own idea/concept should be had. Trying to copy existing kite just by making it to look same is not at all guaranteed to be a success, for a high aspect kite far from it. Only way to copy a kite reliably is to undo it completely and make precise copies from every part of it and so on.Rein de Vries wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 8:49 amThank you all for sharing ideas! Quite clear also that since so many parameters influence the end result it is not trivial or even personal what a state-of-the-art kite should be.
Despite this however I think and hope we should meanwhile be able to define some baseline plans which approach commercial state of the art. I remember from years ago allready a book that presented plans of the kites from those days. The authors made some educated choices I think, and I had a lot of fun with it!
So to answer the why question. For me because it adds significantly to the fun surfing around using a DIY kite.
I was thinking about trying a 6m2, in performance similar to e.g. Sonic 2. So using similar AR, canopy, bridles, etc. Would be a sensible starting point I think, since the succes is obvious. A plan for something like that could become a baseline I guess. But how to get it in detail, would be my next question.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests