No one mentions that the tow point (where front line is attached to bridle) is not a fixed point.
Still if you add all vectors in a (non accelerating) node they should equal zero in the 3d space AND in every 2d projection of it.
Well, I just want to learn and I do so by challenging the things that don't seem logical to me and get convinced from those that give me a better understandingBushflyr wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 9:40 pm^Dude. You obviously just want to argue.
That's not how kites work. Go tie your kite to a solid object, fully power it up near the ground, go ping the lines. You'll see that they're pretty equally tensioned. Then come back and whine about how the experiment is invalid.
Yes, agree with you there, but have you considered the possibility that the Reo bridle diagram isn't a true front-view projection of a 3D CAD model of LE and bridle, but instead a sketch or schematic of the bridle, arranged for easy interpretation but far from the real geometry? The wingtip / steering line has definitely been altered from true geometry.
Your thinking is correct. But...Sandras wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 7:58 pmreo.JPG
My understanding may be wrong and I welcome you to correct it.
I paste the bridle of Reo as an example of a non pulley kite.
1) For pulley less kites only one of the A1,A2,A3,A4 carries the load of the front lines (the rest have a very small load that just keeps the shape of the kite)
A1 (and the back lines) is carry the load at the maximum sheet in and A4 carries the load when fully de-powered.
2) A bridle with pulleys, because it can move it divides the load in the bridle lines.
My though is that a bridle with pulleys is less sensitive to stretch/shrinking exactly because the pulley can move and redistribute the load. That is that even if +/- a bit it would still work better than a pulley less bridle.
Is this thinking correct? If not, what's wrong?
Users browsing this forum: TBBUK and 9 guests