Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## [ksurf] Re: Better upwind kites (more stuff)

Expand Messages
• ... The aspect ratio of a wing is traditionally given as related to the projected area. Thus a folded up kite, such as Wipika, has a much lower
Message 1 of 7 , Jun 1 10:10 PM
>The aspect ratio of the Wipika is not to bad but so much of the area pulls
>in the wrong direction - out to the sides.

The "aspect ratio" of a wing is traditionally given as related to the
"projected" area. Thus a "folded up" kite, such as Wipika, has a much
lower "projected" aspect ratio than one with similar dimensions but flown
flat. Further, useable area of a kite is similarly related to projected
area, so a 8.5 m Wipika is somewhat "smaller" than a 8.5 meter (other
brand) kite flying flat.

>I would guess the efficiency of the Wipika
>to be around 4.
>
>I guess the efficiency of the F-One and the Concept Air Ex's to be around
>6. I have not yet tried the C-Quad but it's efficiency might be around 7.

To "guess" the L/D of any kite, and especially of one kite over another
is useless conjecture at best (sorry, Arnulf!) You can measure these
things, and you should. Further, one absolutely must take line drag into
account, also kite altitude. One can lose 2, 3 even 4 'points" of kite
efficiency to line drag. A kite which can fly at an L/D of 7 on its
bridles alone might fly at an L/D of 5, even 4 if put on lingish lines.
This is especially true of very efficient kites. A kite capable of L/D =
10 (very, very few are) might be degraded to 7, even 6 through line drag.
Also, a kite flown on very short lines (bridles only, to perhaps 3 meters
+ bridles) will suffer efficiency losses, through dirty air near the
surface, or to flying too far overhead (necessary by definition, for
instance, if flying on the bridles alone). By the way, does anybody here
do this--fly only on bridles? Sometimes landsailors (buggies) will go
faster on bridles alone (less line drag), but they are hard to control.
Anybody?
>
>The efficiency of the board is a lot less than the kite, so there is a lot
>more to gain here.

OK, you're in *my* territory, now. ;-)

Yes, most boards have poor L/D's. Theoretically, a hydrofoil board, such
as the AirChair will have better efficiency, but in practice, this
particular device does not (the shape and section of the foil isn't
optimized--necesssary for control, I suspect, plus cheaper to
build/harder to break, etc.). There is much room for improvement in the
AirChair model, I am certain. Perhaps Cory will use some of the foil
sections I sent him to explore this? (Need more?)

Another way to improve the board's efficiency would be to increase its
aspect ratio (yes, a board or ski has one). In this case the AR is very
small; a fraction. If the wetted surface is, say 1 meter long, and the
average width is .33 meter, then the board has an AR of 1/3 or 0.33.
Improving this to even 0.5 will offer a marked improvement, but your
rough water performance will suffer. Further improvements will be a
compromise, as efficiency increases but ride gets worse and worse.
Sailboards must make similar compromises. Yellow Pages Endeavour (a boat)
uses planing hulls, and her wetted surfaces are about 1.3 meters wide, by
0.25 meter long, at speed. Thus she has very efficient planing hulls, but
cannot go fast in any chop higher than 100 mm. She is the world speed
record holder, at 46.5 knots.

Another approach is to use "hooked" chines, which bend or curve down,
trapping water under the board or ski. These increase the lift, and
reduce drag sources caused by spray (spray is a dead loss of energy--pure
drag). This will work, but will make the board hard to turn. A variation
of this is the tunnel bottom--which most boards/skis/windsurfers use to
some extent. Truely hooked chines are more efficient, but very "soft"
tunnels/chines are most maneuverable. You take your choice... (YPE has
heavily hooked chines...)

Many years ago, Bruno Legaignoux and I (separately, but at the same time
period, by chance) investigated putting additional fins under water skis,
in an attempt to ride the ski flat, while gaining all sideforce from the
more efficient fins. There is no doubt this gives better overall
efficiency, but again, performance suffers (in my case, the ski became
very "squirrelly" and hard to run straight)

Last, of course, is to consider displacement hulls, rather than planing
ones. (as with catamarans). At most any boatspeed below about 15-20 kts,
a displacement hull, getting all sideforce form an efficient fin or
daggerboard, will be more efficient than any planing hull. Since most
windwared work is below this speed (or would be, if you could get the
angle you want!), displacement hulls are king. The problem is, without
planing lift, the hull(s) must be very large, containing enough volume to
support both itself and the crew. This is fine for boats, but you guys
don't like the idea of carrying 4-5 meter catamarans about for your
flysurfing! Sorry, but for the forseeable future, the larger displacement
baots, such as I build, are going to be more efficient to windward than
your stuff. So race me on reaches only!

--
Dave Culp Speedsailing dave@... http://www.dcss.org/speedsl
Kite powered boats, high speed sailing, proas and more. Check it out!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/kitesurf
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.