foilholio wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:54 am
Collapsing suggests camber increased, most likely C was engaging before Z, without C then Z freely engages earlier. Did you try extending Z to compensate?
Hello, I don't wanna give to many remarks as long I am not able to get some Vids of a nice flying kite back to the community
Getting Rid of C may be a good way to get away with the problem of weak Z. Engauging and loosing could be worth an effort.
Indeed FS did that with S4 some days ago using a three bridle system (I document just for others may be able to follow)
One remark here: I took the resleaving Idea (resleaving B78 to A89) from this to get a stable front for the kite like they did with ab lines.
Look at the way back B connection points in Kites center. Would be a good idea to take a closer look at s4 in reality, but in lineplan it looks like bejond 50% for B.
I had a try and demounted C completely. Not too difficult with the lineplan and measurements.
The collapsing I saw was initiated by a flipping of the kites achterliek (backtail). It looked like the brake effekt you see at powerkites.
Complete collapsing of kite stalling was a result of this, I would say.
I myself stoppt at this point, but a tweaking of lines may help as in every area we are facing.
Just to summarize my thoughs with the profile thickness and neccessary support points:
Obviously A and B is able to stand the high amounts of deltaP (under- and over- pressures) in the front region of the profile.
Getting rid of C makes it nessessary to hold the integral of dPs between B and Z, C is no more.
The stability of the profile itself may be to weak to stand the force between the two anchorpoints (B and Z) because of the reduced thickness of profile resulting in breaking the profile (flipping of Z area)...
So I came up with the idea that it may be a good idea to treat more support points the thinner the profile is in this part of profile,
which is a Characteristic of the backweighted mixer.
Just my thoughts...