Ozone and Fone seem to place the B row slightly closer to A than to C, which should move the location of the main camber along A-B-C slightly forward when sheeting out, and back when sheeting in. Total camber along A-B-C should stay about the same, though. Elf spacing looks rather even.jakemoore wrote:Front/back chord wise position of the bridle insertion also has something to do with how the kite changes camber as it depowers. So 4:2:1 only has a constant camber if the bridle insertion is spaced harmonically.
But you write like a one You have built a mixer, you understand pulley ratios and the meaning of line row locations. There is not much more there...jakemoore wrote: But I'm just an amateur, not a kite expert.
I don't see P4 and Pulsion very similar kites at all. P4 is very technical kite with jet flaps, inner structures and triple depower, especially with biggest changing PA than any kite. Pulsion is a light weight kite with simple construction.Regis-de-giens wrote:concept air Pulsion ? not so far from this requirements, with a thinner airfoil thickness leading to good performance.
AOA I agree with, but camber I'm not convinced about. My understanding is that the only substantive camber changes with a 4:2:1 mixer and close-to-even row spacing (current race kites) would be initiated by Z, especially with the Diablo line. This cambers the back of the foil more (B-C-Z), but keeps A-B-C substantially unchanged.kitexpert wrote:4:2:1 has become the standard because it is simple and works well. It makes possible to change AoA of the foil kite as much as it is usually needed and it allows to increase the camber at higher AoA.
Slower AOA change along A-B is a good point, especially in very overpowered conditions with C and Z slack. A 50% larger bar stroke would be needed to cause the same A-B AOA change, compared to 4:2:1. However, at least some of this larger gust depower throw should be compensated by a flatter profile & thus less drag and power with 6:2:1, which would let the kite adjust its position in the window more quickly. Positioning B slightly closer to A (as done by Ozone and Fone) should also improve gust response in very overpowered conditions.kitexpert wrote:You can say 6:2:1 changes camber more, pulling less B, but this can be understood as well lesser AoA change in that region. Here of course line row locations must be known for understanding what happens.
I'm not sure I understand what do you mean "substantive camber change", but there is just different pulling ratios (between the mixers) and different line row locations. 4:2:1 mixer is a linear one, so if line rows are located similarly (evenly from A), there will be no camber change when AoA changes. But if line row locations are chosen uneven manner it is possible to control camber when AoA changes.gwicke wrote:My understanding is that the only substantive camber changes with a 4:2:1
When overpowered and sheeted out foil kite flies very much on A lines only. Then only chosen airfoil defines how much camber there is. Usually it is quite low ("flat profile"), otherwise depower and stability are not available. I have test flied some of my kites with A line bridles only, it is the ultimate test for kite stability and depower.gwicke wrote:Slower AOA change along A-B is a good point, especially in very overpowered conditions with C and Z slack.
Users browsing this forum: KVL and 2 guests