Pansh Aurora III vs A15

[Herman]

Thanks for all the good diagrams Pugetsoundkiter. But I am not sure that I have understood the jackomixer. Assuming acute angles because the actual mixer is much more elongated than the diagram and ignoring the trigonometry, looking at the diagram, sheeting in will pull C down by let’s say n. This will pull B down half, n/2. The green line will also be pulled down n but z will not come down n because the distance is reduced by the movement of B which is n/2. Therefore the mixer is n-n/2 : n : n/2. Or in simple ratios 1 : 2 : 1, for Z:C:B.

I may well have missed something as I am newish to playing with mixers but is this why it suits pulling camber out of low aspect foils as long as the C row is not too far aft??


PS Similarly the Malabar looks 2 : 2 : 1, as in Z:C:B, to me as A is the non moving datum. Or am I missing something??

[kitexpert]

Functionally Jackomixer is same as usual 1:2:4 mixer with a pulley bar. It is logical mixer in that sense it does not distort kite any more than original mixer.

I am afraid it is not true. Jackomixer is not equivalent to standard 1:2:4 mixer, and so not equivalent to a pulley bar. Jackomier is 1:2:3 as far as i remember : it decreases profile camber when pulled in (versus standard 1:2:4 mixer)

OK, I meant of course "Malabar". LOL all of these weird mixers you can remember them wrong.

Decreasing camber when powering up is pretty much opposite how it should be.

So Malabar is twice as efficient as usual 1:2:4 mixer and it is equal to usual mixer with a pulley bar. Malabar and usual mixer are straight and logical mixers, but it is questionable why Malabar should be used. For most kites it is completely unnecessary.

Other mixers presented here are more like weird than anything else. Good kite gets only worse when used with them because they distort kite shape causing excessive drag and less lift.

Pulling ratios of Malabar are D 2:1, C 1:1, B 1:2. When it is written shortly (similarly to usual manner) you can get 2:1:2 which may be bit confusing. More clear way to write it is 2:1:0,5.

Worst possible way to write Malabar is 4:2:1, like in diagram above (which is pretty bad for its written part). Then it is very easy to mix it to usual two pulley mixer and also pulling ratios are wrong.

[kitexpert]

Thanks for all the good diagrams Pugetsoundkiter. But I am not sure that I have understood the jackomixer. Assuming acute angles and ignoring the trigonometry, looking at the diagram sheeting in will pull C down by let’s say n. This will pull B down half, n/2. The green line will also be pulled down n but z will not come down n because the distance is reduced by the movement of B which is n/2. Therefore the mixer is n-n/2 : n : n/2. Or in simple ratios 1 : 2 : 1.

I may well have missed something as I am newish to playing with mixers but is this why it suits pulling camber out of low aspect foils as long as the C row is not too far aft??


PS Similarly the Malabar looks 2 : 2 : 1, as in Z:C:B, to me as A is the non moving datum. Or am I missing something??

Jacko is like Malabar but D is pulled less because other end of its line is moving down instead of being fixed. And because this other end is pulled 1:2 it decreases pulling ratio of Malabar D 25%, resulting 1.5 ratio. C and B are same for both Jacko and Malabar.

So we get pulling ratios for Jacko: D 1.5:1 C 1:1 B 1:2. It is best not to get rid of that fraction because 3:2:1 gives wrong real pulling ratios. It is much more important to understand pulling ratios than relations between them.

I don't see much practical use for these weird mixers which distort kite shape and even worse do it wrong direction.