One thing I've learned about commercially available kites - the listed sizes are not always completely accurate, or measured in the same way. So, I'm posting a few pictures to compare a 5.5 M NS2 with a 5.0 NPW 21 I just completed. I am quite certain of the size of the NPW 21 built from plans with the measurements for all the panels exact adding up to 5.0 m^2.

So - which kite is bigger? Please post any other interesting comparisons you might be able to show.

Not that square inches is the only comparison that matters, but it would be nice to see a full disclosure on the Born sizing. DFO has one. Please get that square inches May not be the perfect criteria to judge kite performance but we need some number to go by.

I'm sure it's not any kind of deception. A little more cloth wouldn't make a lot of price difference, so if it was just a matter of materials they would be happy to oblige us.

I'm thinking how easy is the argument that better design trumps square inches.
Is the DFO bigger for any given size than the Star? I think so but...
Is the DFO profile as flat as a star in the air? I don't think so.
I think the Star is quicker, and loops faster, the DFO seems more steady and stays where I put it better.

I guess I'll just have to buy all the sizes of both kites to be sure. First I'll need a lucky sweepstakes number though.

I think projected area is more important than square area. You could take a 5m kite and bridle it such that it only offers 4 or 3 or 2 meters of usable sail to the wind. IMO that is why the MAC Bego was the most powerful kite per SqM. That kite presented nearly its full 4 and 6 meter sail to the wind as it was high A/R and flat bridled. A 6.6 blade had no advantage over a 6m Bego and a 4.9 Blade was about as powerful as a 4m Bego.

For sure - there are a lot of variables - but manufactures often focus on just one number, and advertising does as well. I'm just showing that the area of kites is not always accurate - so what we know about projected area is probably even more sketchy. Also, you can't say much when comparing types - the area may be the same between a NPW and a foil, but doesn't tell much about comparing the two. Still - there is no wind today, and I'm trying to stir up some conversation.

In one of the earlier threads on the small Peter Lynn Skin kite - the area was in doubt 2.5-3.0? In part because in some places different sizes were listed for it. Here is a comparison of a 2.9 M NPW 21 I built with the small Skin. It covers most of the NPW with room to spare, except for a tiny part of the wing tips. I think 3.0 is a pretty fair area. BTW - I think this kite and the larger one I have are definitely more powerfull than a NPW of the same area.

We generally accept that sport kites are measured by wingspan. Trainer kits are pretty often "anything goes" from what I can tell.

Here is an HQ Rush 200 compared to a 2.0 M^2 foil I built. In this case, the 200 refers to the span, and in HQ's documents the actual and projected areas are listed. So I think this is pretty fair.

Here is a Sensei III - adverstised as a 3.0 M^2 kite. In fairness the manufacturer doesn't say that anywhere I can find, but the retailers do. Here it is compared to a 2.9 M NPW 21 again. I can't see where the 3m comes from - it is not the area or wingspan. It's pretty much a square - I get something around 2.5 m for both the span and area in a quick and dirty measurement. That is a very good size for a 2 line trainer.

Just to show, I'm not picking on this kite. I actually like this kite a lot. It takes very little wind to fly, in enough wind I've used to pull my buggy, boat and skateboard. It has a unique way to relaunching itself without use of a 3rd line. I just wish I could get an even bigger one.

Ed what is your secret? I can't get PKF to let me post any picture bigger than 250kb....:D