Hansen Aerosports wrote:IMHO, the current strutless inflatable configuration is akin to 'painting oneself into a corner.' Certain compromises are required to compensate for the inherent lack of structure. Namely, a highly conical geometry with a tight, low-stretch trailing edge to maintain canopy inflation and flatter foil profiles to reduce luffing/bubbling/flapping. Combined, these attributes create a low AOA / sheeting range with sensitive handling and compromised range / VMG. Added complexity such as LE battens, TE battens, full battens, larger tubes, bridles, ram-air skins, etc. can ameliorate the compromises but when progressively applied also progressively negate the simplicity and low weight / cost. Ultimately, one must accept that (given the present state-of-the-art materials) it is a self-limiting construct. My 2¢...
to BRM for going ahead with it..
No it is not like painting oneself in a corner. I am glad some brands are doing something new and that they dare to go to market with it.
I actually think having this kind of attitude is exactly what painting yourself in a corner looks like. Remember this when you are asked to make one for Switch. I am glad to see you guys finally build a three strut one...maybe someday a two strut or no strut too...huh? (sorry for that little dig).
When you say conical shapes, how do you explain that the Naish and BRM kite looks very different?
When you are talking about battens etc...do you see many of them in the designs just launched?
When you say compromised range...compared to what? The range presented by people that have actually flow them seems huge to me.
This all depends on the design goals. There is no golden standard.
You present this as if not any design is a compromise between many variables. Well it is and you know it.
What really matters is what is the goal of the kite. Does it really matter of it has a few wrinkles when very depowered? It is not like any of the kite shapes are 100% areodynamic anyway.