Which type of kite is better for low wind conditions: LEI or foil?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the debate between LEI (leading edge inflatable) kites and foil kites for low wind conditions in kitesurfing. LEI kites are characterized by their inflatable bladders, which provide buoyancy and a curved shape, while foil kites are twin-skinned and lighter, with a design that minimizes drag. Proponents of foil kites argue they perform better in low winds due to their higher aspect ratio and reduced weight, while supporters of LEIs claim they have less drag. The conversation also touches on the physics of lift and drag, with a focus on the complexities of kite aerodynamics. Ultimately, participants seek a clearer understanding of the physics involved to determine which kite type is superior in low wind scenarios.
Marshall10488
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
just wanted to say hi first as this is my first post.
I will explain the story...
There is an ongowing debate within the Kitesurfing world regarding the aerodynamics of LEI (leading edge inflateable) kites and Foil (like RAM aim parachutes) kites.

LEI Kites:
They have large inflateable 'bladders' that keep the shape of the kite and also make it float. they are single skin and the foil shape comes from the leading edge's cylndrical shape. They have only a few 'bridle' lines on the leading edge with a thickness of about 3-5mm. very curved shape so projected area is not same as surface area
http://www.boardlife.sk/userfiles/16-North_Rebel_2007_12m2_a_North_Rebel_2008_10m2.JPG.311008_122249_11.JPG
some links to LEI companies
http://www.northkites.com/public/content/index_eng.html"
http://www.naishkites.com/en/index.html"

Foil kites:
closed cell RAM air parachutes. twin skin. lots of bridles, the majority of which are about 1-2mm. then some 3-5mm and 2 5-8mm. very flat so projected area is close to surface area. very light.
http://www.flysurfer.com/gallery2_code/d/141624-2/SPEED3+Deluxe+mit+Bridles.png
main water re-launchable foil company
http://www.flysurfer.com"

Ok so the argument is that some beleave that foil kites are better in low wind as they are lighter, tend to have a higher AR. Others that LEIs are better as less drag etc.
My thinking is: Lift needed to fly it L=ma
Lα1/M
Lα V[squared]
Lα Lift coefficient
L α Area

But i need to add in the drag equation so lift needed to fly:
l=ma + 0.5 Cd ρ V[squared] a (don't know if this is right)
so by equating i get that the velocity to beed gravity and drag
v=Root[(2ma)/(ρ(Cl Ak-Cd Ab)
Where Cl is lift coefficent
Ak is area of kite
Ab is area of bridles
Cd is drag coefficient

knowing that Cl = [2(pi)(AoA)]/[1+(2pi)/AR]
AoA= Angle of attack
AR = Aspect ratio
is there another equation for Cd without simply just rearaging the drag equation?
anyone who knows more about parachute/kite physics/fluid dynamics have a definitive answer to this discussion?
Thanks
Ben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Those are cool!

I suspect your simplified analysis is not worth doing; those look like very complicated shapes (you must consider the full 3-D problem) and the wind conditions are highly variable in time. Wind tunnels are used for a reason.
 
i'm not looking for exact just estimate, to prove either way. the big problem i have is the drag from the bridles due to harmonics.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Inclined treadmills and Galilean Invariance'

This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top