Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 22:22:15 -1000 From: gaffer@plx.com (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: <1993Jul16.082215.6508@plx.com> Organization: PLEXUS Software, a division of REI Subject: Re: Flexis & Peels >Sounds like a parapent. A parapent is a type of parachute designed to >generate sufficient lift for soaring. You need a mountain to jump off >to use them properly, though I've seen people towed up in a similar >manner to hang gliders. They are popular in the Alps. Power kiting >taken to an extreme I suppose. I'd like to get my hands on one of these, to try rigging it as a kite. Anyone got a non-airworthy one? I'm also looking for a scrap tandem jump chute but had no luck yet anyone got one of them? >>Want to relax? Buy Quick-release handles, park the kite above you and >>lie down. The limit for doing this for me was the 15m^2 peel at about 15mph >>on 200' lines. On a normal peel, you shouldn't have any problem. >>The ability to go easily upwind is too valuable to loose. > >Going upwind in a buggy is one thing, being able to do so on foot is >quite another. I imagine lying down is about the only way to stay >stationary with a 15m^2 kite. Sorry, I wasn't clear. You only go easily upwind on a buggy, but to do this you want maximum pull at the edge. Loosing the ability to relax is a small price to pay for this performance. >According to Buggies, Boats and Peels (downloaded from the FTP site) >the 3.5 metre Peel (2.5 sq metre) is only slightly larger than the Q2 >(2 sq metre Quadrifoil). So perhaps I've already got the low end >covered. I bought the Q2 because I thought it would be easier to fly >on my own, an interesting alternative and good fun. It is all of >these things, and more powerful than a single 10' Flexi, though less >powerful than two. Better for buggying, when I get a chance to try it. I read that as "the Q2 is even smaller than the small peel". You want so much power for buggying that the small peel is hardly any use in anything less than a gale. >It would be interesting to see how the larger Peels compare with the >larger Quadrifoils. Any idea? The information I got when I bought my >Q2 suggests that the Q4 and Q5 should only be used for buggying and >that the Q5 should be reserved for the strongly built, whatever that >means. It sounds from what you say as if the Peels are easier to >handle. The quad seems to be a dual line parafoil with a couple of lines added. I've not played with a big quad, but just looking at the design, I'd say: For: The 4-line steering allows good turning performance in a low-aspect ratio format. Easy relaunch. (can anyone re-launch a Quad after smashing it into the sea?) Against: High drag (low top speed) open front design. (the peel and the flexi have a gauze vent for a damned good reason.) No attempt to tackle max-min power ratio problem.o Unsophisticated bridle - area for future improvement 4-line problems - unequal stretch when used at sea, Quick-release 4-line handles not developed, possible wrist control strength problems on big kites? worse tangles :-) Unsmooth power? It's fine to pull the power off with a flick of the wrists, but doesn't that just pull the kite closer to the middle of the window, where it will come back on with an overpowering surge? The Quad shows no signs of development for buggy racing other than being made bigger. On the otherhand, I understand that a 4-line Peel is not a very able 4-line kite. >How does the 5m^2 Peel >compare with three Flexis? Last time I thought I could get away with 3 10' flexies for buggying, I couldn't - I had to put up 6. Even then, upwind performance is still pathetic - I walked part of the way back to my bag :-( Andrew -- Work: gaffer@plx.com Phone: +44 793 614 110 Fax: +44 793 614 297 Play: andrew@tug.com Phone: +44 256 464 912 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 18:01:47 -1000 From: jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) Message-Id: <22d6bb$aec@umd5.umd.edu> Organization: University of Maryland at College Park Subject: Re: Flexis & Peels In article <1993Jul16.082215.6508@plx.com> gaffer@plx.com (Andrew Beattie) writes: >I read that as "the Q2 is even smaller than the small peel". You want >so much power for buggying that the small peel is hardly any use in >anything less than a gale. For what it's worth at the buggying event that transpired a week or two ago associated with the UP Sports festival, I've heard that the buggyers were using Quadrifoil Q-25s (which I guess is what's meant by a 'Q2') because anything else was too big for the wind. Top speeds with the Q-25 were about 41mph. No, sorry, I can't tell you what the wind speed was, I never heard... >The quad seems to be a dual line parafoil with a couple of lines added. >I've not played with a big quad, but just looking at the design, I'd say: >Against: > High drag (low top speed) open front design. (the peel and the flexi > have a gauze vent for a damned good reason.) I guess Steve Shapson's new toys haven't made it across the pond yet. I've heard them referred to as "Powerfoils" (ads) and "Windskiers" (printed on the carrying case). Steve first told me he was working on a redesigned Quadrifoil back in March '92. While the bridle is basically the same, he's flattened out the profile a bit, narrowed the open front, and added screening. Word is that for traction purposes, they're much faster than Quadrifoils. They're available in 4 sizes: 30, 48, 72, and 101 square feet. Jeff -- |Jeffrey C. Burka | "When I look in the mirror, I see a little clearer/ | |SAFH Lite [tm] | I am what I am and you are you too./ Do you like | |jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu | what you see? Do you like yourself?" --N. Cherry | = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 23:11:35 -1000 From: andrew@tug.com (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: Organization: /usr/lib/news/organisation Subject: Re: Flexis & Peels jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes: >anything else was too big for the wind. Sorry Jeff, I maintain that there is no such thing as a kite that is too big or or such a thing as too much wind. There are however, fields that are too small :-) >Steve Shapson's [...] "Powerfoils" [...] "Windskiers" > >While the bridle is basically the same, he's flattened out the profile >a bit, narrowed the open front, and added screening. Word is that for >traction purposes, they're much faster than Quadrifoils. Sounds like he's making a serious attempt to build a useful traction kite. Martin Leicster is also playing with soft foils that work equaly well forwards and backwards. Andrew -- Work: gaffer@plx.com Phone: +44 793 614 110 Fax: +44 793 614 297 Play: andrew@tug.com Phone: +44 256 464 912 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 00:13:49 -1000 From: ye79@gec-mrc.co.uk (ye79) Message-Id: <1993Jul20.101540.23207@das.harvard.edu> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: Flexis & Peels Andrew Beattie writes: (Brief description of parapents deleted) >I'd like to get my hands on one of these, to try rigging it as a kite. >Anyone got a non-airworthy one? I'm also looking for a scrap tandem >jump chute but had no luck yet anyone got one of them? You can get tandem parapents too. Now they are *really* large. >>How does the 5m^2 Peel >>compare with three Flexis? >Last time I thought I could get away with 3 10' flexies for buggying, >I couldn't - I had to put up 6. Even then, upwind performance >is still pathetic - I walked part of the way back to my bag :-( How do three Flexis compare with the 5m Peel in the middle of the power zone? I've still got jumping in mind (at the moment). Are there any plans for buggies available? They don't look too difficult to build. (Not if you have a father who can weld ;-) Chris = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 00:17:33 -1000 From: ye79@gec-mrc.co.uk (ye79) Message-Id: <1993Jul20.101849.23312@das.harvard.edu> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: Flexis & Peels Jeffery Burka writes: >For what it's worth at the buggying event that transpired a week or two >ago associated with the UP Sports festival, I've heard that the buggyers >were using Quadrifoil Q-25s (which I guess is what's meant by a 'Q2') because >anything else was too big for the wind. Top speeds with the Q-25 were >about 41mph. No, sorry, I can't tell you what the wind speed was, I never >heard... The Q2 is a 2 sq metre Quadrifoil, that is about 25 sq feet. The European manufactured Quadrifoils are made under license by Papagaios in Portugal. They come in 2, 3, 4 and 5 sq metre sizes. I'm told that they're made to a higher standard (and higher price) than the American ones. It's certainly true that my Q2 is better made than a Q-25 owned by a friend (tags at the bridle attachment points, better quality cloth, nice anodised aluminium handles). >I guess Steve Shapson's new toys haven't made it across the pond yet. >I've heard them referred to as "Powerfoils" (ads) and "Windskiers" (printed >on the carrying case). Steve first told me he was working on a redesigned >Quadrifoil back in March '92. > >While the bridle is basically the same, he's flattened out the profile >a bit, narrowed the open front, and added screening. Word is that for >traction purposes, they're much faster than Quadrifoils. > >They're available in 4 sizes: 30, 48, 72, and 101 square feet. I've not heard of these, but they sound interesting. Can anyone do a review? Chris -- Chris Willis (ye79@uk.co.gec-mrc) GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Essex UK = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 03:24:17 -1000 From: puc@aber.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) Message-Id: <1993Jul20.132417.6393@aber.ac.uk> Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth Subject: Re: Flexis & Peels In article <1993Jul20.101540.23207@das.harvard.edu> ye79@gec-mrc.co.uk (ye79) writes: >Andrew Beattie writes: > >(Brief description of parapents deleted) > >>I'd like to get my hands on one of these, to try rigging it as a kite. >>Anyone got a non-airworthy one? I'm also looking for a scrap tandem >>jump chute but had no luck yet anyone got one of them? > I know of a local scrapstore that collects de-commissioned (p'foil -type) chutes from the makers and sell them for 15-30 quid each. Will pass on the no. if your interested. >>>How does the 5m^2 Peel >>>compare with three Flexis? >>Last time I thought I could get away with 3 10' flexies for buggying, >>I couldn't - I had to put up 6. Even then, upwind performance >>is still pathetic - I walked part of the way back to my bag :-( > >How do three Flexis compare with the 5m Peel in the middle of the >power zone? I've still got jumping in mind (at the moment). I had a chance to compare (just by looking) various traction kites at the Wales kite fest. recently. Most pathetic was the (local ) spider modular syst system as it wouldnt stay up even in decent wind, they even tried stringing two togeter at one stage using 3 pilots but that was even worse. Euro-stack of 12 6ft. flexis provided power but werent easy to control. Prize goes to two peel pilots who p****d on everything else - one white with multi coloured aerofoils and a weeping eye design and the other a nice black/purple(?) split scheme. Shame about their lack of protective gear though but the kites were so controllable it was hardly necessary. A 5m peel is on my Christmas list, if only to grin as much as the two lads at Monmouth. >Are there any plans for buggies available? They don't look too >difficult to build. (Not if you have a father who can weld ;-) > >Chris Paul (puc@decb.aber.ac.uk or puc@aber.ac.uk) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 21:19:22 -1000 From: gaffer@plx.com (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: <1993Jul21.071922.9136@plx.com> Organization: PLEXUS Software, a division of REI Subject: Re: Flexis & Peels > Can I? I realy want to buy scrap kit this big. I have tried the UK parachute centres without joy. If anyone knows of a big parapet or tandem square jump chute, going for scrap anywhere in the world, please let me know! >How do three Flexis compare with the 5m Peel in the middle of the >power zone? I've still got jumping in mind (at the moment). Although I've flown both many times, I've never had both set up at the same time in the same wind (on the same lines - that's important) to do that comparison. They will be in the same ballpark, but I'll check it out for you. >Are there any plans for buggies available? They don't look too >difficult to build. (Not if you have a father who can weld ;-) They probably arn't difficult to build but they are difficult to design right. I don't expect Peter Lynn to give away the considerable R&D that he has invested in. I have seen rip-offs that look right, but they are generally too heavy, have messed up the geometry in some subtle but important way and are not portable (my buggy fits in my suitcase). BTW, I understand that much of the cost is in the wheels, anyway. Andrew -- Work: gaffer@plx.com Phone: +44 793 614 110 Fax: +44 793 614 297 Play: andrew@tug.com Phone: +44 256 464 912 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 20:59:17 -1000 From: andrew@tug.com (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: Organization: /usr/lib/news/organisation Subject: Re: Flexis & Peels puc@aber.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes: >Prize goes to >two peel pilots who p****d on everything else - one white with multi coloured >aerofoils and a weeping eye design and the other a nice black/purple(?) split >scheme. Shame about their lack of protective gear though but the kites >were so controllable it was hardly necessary. A 5m peel is on my Christmas >list, if only to grin as much as the two lads at Monmouth. The weeping eye is a special belonging to Ken Knight. It is had a white skin with multi-colour ribs. Aside from the weeping eye graphic, it is also unusual in that it has something like twice as many ribs, this changes the performance thus (Peter Lynn's words): 1. Higher L.D.R. (goes further around the edge, and over head, has less pull at its equilibrium over head position than standard models) 2. Faster 3. Smoother skin less wrinkles, especially along trailing edge. 4. Marginally more liable to collapse - thinner, has less compressive strength from internal air pressure. 5. Less liable to "clap hands" - thinner mid section has relatively less drag, wing tip drag doesn't change as much. 6. For buggying, generally slower around the course. Top speed , especially on reaching legs, is higher. 7. A problem is that, the weight of ribs approximates to the weight of the lower (or upper) skin. I have thought that this significant overall weight increase would have dramatic and damaging effect on light wind performance and on that very critical situation in stronger turbulent winds when the kite flies into a "hole". From experience flying wet kites, (rigid frame single skin, soft or semi soft) kite handling characteristics deteriorate alarmingly. More recent tests seem to be showing that flying characteristics are more dependent on how weight is distributed rather than the total, and that wet kites lose performance more because the fabric becomes soft and sticky than because of increased weight. It is also the kite upon which several people expected me to loose my manhood at Washington last year (with the help of a large marquee stake) My money says that Ken gave the Weeping Eye to someone else to fly :-) Ken is a real nice guy. He used to be the only person in the UK selling Peels and buggies. Look out for his old red van at UK festivals. I reccommend that if you want to buy a Peel and/or buggy in the UK, then this is the guy to buy it from. Andrew -- Work: gaffer@plx.com Phone: +44 793 614 110 Fax: +44 793 614 297 Play: andrew@tug.com Phone: +44 256 464 912 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =