Quote:

For any better intel we better tie down John Holgate, though I suspect he doesn't know either or is sworn in a blood pact to absolute secrecy!

He doesn't know!! I have asked Steffen on several occasions about the Ultra Star but he's never mentioned them to me apart from saying they were more like the Peak - but that was a year or two ago.

To give you an idea about brake input while in motion - at one point I had the two trailing edge bridle sets connected to a pair of brake lines on a bar with no z bridle. The wind pressure at 40kph on the brake lines was enough to pull some brake on and the NS2 went backwards - while I was doing 40kph in the other direction. After that, I started rigging the Z bridles up and made sure there was a little slack in the 'extra' brake lines.

I've used the z bridle on handles and the bar and while it works fine, I just don't see any advantage over the three line bar. The NS's park nicely on their nose and I haven't felt the need to use brakes. The NS's will launch from inverted with a determined tug so I like to keep things as simple as possible. The Long Stars will not recover from an inverted position without brakes so your basically stuck with needing all five lines for them.

Quote: Originally posted by 3shot

Makes sense John. Thanks I've haven't flown my Stars on handles. On the bar, they set deep in the window already. I just imagine that with brake tension on handles, it would fall even further back in the window for almost perpendicular side pull or even flying backwards.

The brake tension on the handles can make it fall far enough back in the window to cause it to fly backwards which is where the delicate dance of balance between the drive and the brakes comes in very much like flying Rev's. That perpendicular side pull is mathematically/ geometrically the ideal direction for pull/ power but it is very hard to achieve and maintain.

Interesting stuff, but hearing the experience from Mr. Holgate, I will be keeping my NS3s as factory set up.

Got my Z-bridles from Steffen. Glad I ordered them from him. Nice and long and well constructed. Exactly like the picture Sean showed in the "pigtails for z-bridles" thread I started in the Wanted section.

I rigged up my 1.5, 2.5, and 3.2m NS3s with the Z-bridles. Steffen supplies a picture with the pigtails to show which lines to put in the brakes and which to keep in the power system. Today is pretty windy round my house with base winds in the teens and gusts going well up into the 20s. Launched (for the first time ever) my 1.5 and flew it off of 20m lines. I have a strop set upon this particular set of handles and I flew it free hand and stropped in.

Kite flew superbly well with this bridling system, exactly as advertised. Reverse launches went smoothly and you can easily park the kite on the ground nose up by hooking the brake lines behind a kite stake. I am supremely happy with this set up. You can get the kite to spin on its edge with a touch of brake on that side or bring the kite about normally.

Now.. the 1.5m. Calling it a "wasp on a string" doesn't quite describe it. This kite is fast, fast, fast (wholly mackerel that kite is fast). I think I'd be pretty scared to fly it from the buggy when the wind is blowing strong enough that it is the right choice (say, 30+ winds). The slightest adjustment sends the kite screaming through its turns and I could see getting OBEed really easily. I appreciate that this is a confidence and skill thing, but man, I'd have to be on my toes to control that little bugger. Heck of a lot of fun to fly static.

Steve I find the the small sizes handle the gusts better so you might be pleasantly surprised. Obviously I haven't flown this particular size though so only guessing. Have you incorporated any type of release? I would be hesitant without.

I'm with Spencer for the time being. I've rigged the z bridle up on all my ns2's and didn't care for it as opposed to the stock bar. I might plan on handles with no z bridle on the 7m when I use it for street kite to help eliminate backwards flying in light wind.

Quote: Originally posted by ssayre

Steve I find the the small sizes handle the gusts better so you might be pleasantly surprised. Obviously I haven't flown this particular size though so only guessing. Have you incorporated any type of release? I would be hesitant without. I'm with Spencer for the time being. I've rigged the z bridle up on all my ns2's and didn't care for it as opposed to the stock bar. I might plan on handles with no z bridle on the 7m when I use it for street kite to help eliminate backwards flying in light wind.

No, I haven't got a release worked out. At this point I'm only looking to my three small NS3s as static flyers, not buggy (etc.) engines. If I get into trouble my "release" will be just that, letting go.

It was fun flying the 1.5 this way. I could send it into a back fly with too much brake pressure but it turns so quickly I would just nose it around and take off again. I drilled it into the ground at about 50 mph just for fun, you know, because I could! :karate:

Ah, I see. Yes if I was using strictly or mostly static I would definitely go handles. Just for fun you should try 4 line without z bridle. That's the most enjoyable option for static flying them for me personally. I would still go z bridle before bar for static fly.

Quote: Originally posted by ssayre

Ah, I see. Yes if I was using strictly or mostly static I would definitely go handles. Just for fun you should try 4 line without z bridle. That's the most enjoyable option for static flying them for me personally. I would still go z bridle before bar for static fly.

Nice idea. At some point I'll try disconnecting the criss-crossing pigtail. Next on my list, however, is flying my Peak2s from handles. :karate:

Quote: Originally posted by Windstruck

Quote: Originally posted by ssayre   Ah, I see. Yes if I was using strictly or mostly static I would definitely go handles. Just for fun you should try 4 line without z bridle. That's the most enjoyable option for static flying them for me personally. I would still go z bridle before bar for static fly. Nice idea. At some point I'll try disconnecting the criss-crossing pigtail. Next on my list, however, is flying my Peak2s from handles. :karate:

Peak on handles sounds like a great plan! I've been wanting a peak handle session but haven't had the time and wind for quite awhile.

Quote: Originally posted by ssayre

Quote: Originally posted by Windstruck   Quote: Originally posted by ssayre   Ah, I see. Yes if I was using strictly or mostly static I would definitely go handles. Just for fun you should try 4 line without z bridle. That's the most enjoyable option for static flying them for me personally. I would still go z bridle before bar for static fly. Nice idea. At some point I'll try disconnecting the criss-crossing pigtail. Next on my list, however, is flying my Peak2s from handles. :karate: Peak on handles sounds like a great plan! I've been wanting a peak handle session but haven't had the time and wind for quite awhile.

I had the time and plenty of wind on Sunday, but alas, not the rig kite. My 4m P2 is out for some post-Ivanpah repairs and I didn't dare launch my 6m for a maiden voyage with winds gusting over 20 mph.

Quote: Originally posted by John Holgate

Quote: For any better intel we better tie down John Holgate, though I suspect he doesn't know either or is sworn in a blood pact to absolute secrecy! He doesn't know!! I have asked Steffen on several occasions about the Ultra Star but he's never mentioned them to me apart from saying they were more like the Peak - but that was a year or two ago. To give you an idea about brake input while in motion - at one point I had the two trailing edge bridle sets connected to a pair of brake lines on a bar with no z bridle. The wind pressure at 40kph on the brake lines was enough to pull some brake on and the NS2 went backwards - while I was doing 40kph in the other direction. After that, I started rigging the Z bridles up and made sure there was a little slack in the 'extra' brake lines. I've used the z bridle on handles and the bar and while it works fine, I just don't see any advantage over the three line bar. The NS's park nicely on their nose and I haven't felt the need to use brakes. The NS's will launch from inverted with a determined tug so I like to keep things as simple as possible. The Long Stars will not recover from an inverted position without brakes so your basically stuck with needing all five lines for them.

Does anyone know if the ns3 is the same as the ns2 for setting up handles? The website shows the ns2 instructions so I can only assume it's the same. If you look close, I think on picture shows the bottom 4 pair of bridles going to the brakes while another picture shows the bottom 2. It's been awhile since I converted on to 4 lines. How many pair of bridles are you guys putting on the brakes?

disregard. I found it.

Quote: Originally posted by ssayre

disregard. I found it.

When I bought my Z-bridles from Steffen a few weeks back he sent me a piece of paper with the NS3 bridle splits. This picture applies for smaller NS3s. Larger NS3s have additional bridling that would need to be accounted for.


[img][/img]

dang. I just spent a good long while splitting the bridles and it what I found on his website did not match this. I only have the bottom 2 pair in the brake along with the servo bridle and the first set on the outside tips which this shows in with power.

Thanks Steve. I'll give it a whirl how I have it now and change If needed.

Quote: Originally posted by ssayre

dang. I just spent a good long while splitting the bridles and it what I found on his website did not match this. I only have the bottom 2 pair in the brake along with the servo bridle and the first set on the outside tips which this shows in with power. Thanks Steve. I'll give it a whirl how I have it now and change If needed.

I have to say, intuitively I'd add the tips to the brake lines. Depending on the size of the NS3 I suspect a little experimentation will be necessary.

I tried it both ways. The method shown on your drawing worked better. You would think the bottom bridles on the wing tips should go to brakes but in practice it doesn't fly as nice and doesn't seem to be necessary. It will fly either way but was a definite improvement set up like your diagram.

Quote: Originally posted by ssayre

I tried it both ways. The method shown on your drawing worked better. You would think the bottom bridles on the wing tips should go to brakes but in practice it doesn't fly as nice and doesn't seem to be necessary. It will fly either way but was a definite improvement set up like your diagram.

Good to know. That was Steffen's drawing so it figures he would know !

Quote: Originally posted by Windstruck

When I bought my Z-bridles from Steffen a few weeks back he sent me a piece of paper with the NS3 bridle splits. This picture applies for smaller NS3s. Larger NS3s have additional bridling that would need to be accounted for. [img][/img]

It was way past time to bring this Born-Kite worship thread back up to the top of the heap where it belonged! :evil:

At IBX last week I had a chance to shake the cobwebs off my remaining three small NS3s (1.5, 2.5, and 3.2m). Winds were quite high one afternoon and I got to buggy with the 1.5m for the first time. It was bloody fast! Wholly mackerel it was fast. Strong armed from handles (no strop and harness) really required strong concentration on my part to keep it from darting around like the proverbial furious wasp on a string people refer to. Flying this small NASA on handles really brought home for me the essence of buggying and I loved the raw, direct feeling it gave me and the connection I had with wind as motive power. Clearly, I had spent too much time disconnected from the wind with my DP setups. As the wind died down I was able to progress through the 2.5m and eventually the 3.2m. By the time I got to the 3.2m it seemed so delightfully slow and smooth and I was able to relax a bit. Eventually as the light faded from the sky I hooked in to my 3-line bar and did a few long relaxed runs with the 3.2m without the strain on my arms, essentially controlling the kite with 1 pinkie. NASA bliss!

As some may know I used to own a complete (and I mean complete) quiver of NS3s but either sold or gave to good friends all but these smallest three kites. In retrospect I dug too deep and I just re-ordered a 4.0m NS3 from Steffen, again with his z-bridles. Oh well. This four-kite NS3 quiver should have me dialed in for what I want to do in the buggy with NASAs.

I know the NASAs are simple little SS kites, but I love them! Steffen makes a sturdy kite and mine have withstood many a pile driving into the unforgiving surface of Lake Ivanpah and are doing great. Long live the NASA Star! :karate:

So not wanting to start a new thread on DFOs, I just wanted to ask a few questions about the DFO I just got. Its a depower 9.
How does it compare to the NS?

Is it more like the 2 or 3, or completely different?

I bought the depower bar with it and strangely from what I can tell its actually a Born bar. The included leaflet on set up
was in German and pictured the NS kite. I orderd this kite before I bought Seans quiver. Looks like I duplicated bars and kites. Guess you cant have too much kite stuff.

If by DFO, you are referring to the Dutch Flying Object, I'm not sure you'll get much response. I don't know that anyone on this forum has flown them.

Quote: Originally posted by oldben

Guess you cant have too much kite stuff.

The rule is N+1

For those interested in NASA kite design I thought I'd forward on some interesting things about Born NASAs. It turns out Steffen has a patent on how his third line actuates and functions. Got to love how Steffen continues to innovate in the SS world; there's not nearly enough of that going on IMHO.

The Attachment is the first page of the 3rd line patent, issued a few years back in Germany.

Attachment: DE102010052081A1_1.pdf (14kB)
This file has been downloaded 272 times

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

I've never seen a NS1 in the flesh, but I now know that he had an adjustable bridle system that affected the trailing edge of the NASA Star. He didn't stay with that design because supposedly every Nasa shape loses its dimensional stability as the trailing edge moves up, resulting in considerable deterioration in traction. I can attest to that with first hand experience. I have my NS3s strung with Z-bridles which essentially do this exact action when I put enough tension on my brake lines to actuate the Z-bridles. I have all four of my NS3s like this (1.5, 2.5, 3.2, and 4.0m) and the deterioration of the flying characteristics seems to amplify with each step down in kite size. Once I'm flying the 2.5, and especially the 1.5m, this change in flying characteristics really gets pronounced.

Finally, it appears that DFO may be infringing on Steffen's patents with their 3rd line. I'd leave final judgement to patent attorneys of course; from experience I know that such decisions lie in detailed examinations of claims language, predicate art, etc. Good times; lawyers get richer and inventors tend to get poorer and angry. Been there.

Someone should call and tell uncle Donald T that it's a N.A.S.A. original design. That way he can re classify it as military technology and probably sanction Germany, maybe bomb Holland if someone will show him whwere it is on a map.



Thanks for the info, if I want any DFO I better push up my schedule while it's still available.

Quote: Originally posted by Ed Cline

Someone should call and tell uncle Donald T that it's a N.A.S.A. original design. That way he can re classify it as military technology and probably sanction Germany, maybe bomb Holland if someone will show him whwere it is on a map. Thanks for the info, if I want any DFO I better push up my schedule while it's still available.

Steady on Sally, steady on. Let's not head down the political rabbit hole and ruin PKF. :moon:

Sorry Doc, No Politics, thanks for the call down.
I'll try not to show my butt.....as often.

I think the NASA wings were always in the public domain. All of the reports that they produced with the wind tunnel tests, etc seem to have been made public. I don't think, however, that NASA ever thought anyone would be make kites out of them to move buggies around. (In fact, I'm not even sure that kite buggies had been invented in the 1950's and 60's). Below is rather interesting article about the NASA program. Though it deals more with paragliders, the NPW's were part of the same program and ended up with the same fate. The paraglider in the article featured an inflatable wing which arguably presaged with LEI kites that made kitesurfing the sport it is today.

https://www.popsci.com/paraglider-how-nasa-tried-and-failed-...

Quote: Originally posted by Randy

I think the NASA wings were always in the public domain. All of the reports that they produced with the wind tunnel tests, etc seem to have been made public. I don't think, however, that NASA ever thought anyone would be make kites out of them to move buggies around. (In fact, I'm not even sure that kite buggies had been invented in the 1950's and 60's). Below is rather interesting article about the NASA program. Though it deals more with paragliders, the NPW's were part of the same program and ended up with the same fate. The paraglider in the article featured an inflatable wing which arguably presaged with LEI kites that made kitesurfing the sport it is today. https://www.popsci.com/paraglider-how-nasa-tried-and-failed-...

Just read the article. Cool! I was born in 1961 so I got double the pleasure with this time piece. Thanks for posting Randy!

My impression is that it seems to me like Steffen isn't necessarily putting patents on the kites so much as the methods of bridling, controlling and depowering them.

Am I wrong?

Quote: Originally posted by soliver

My impression is that it seems to me like Steffen isn't necessarily putting patents on the kites so much as the methods of bridling, controlling and depowering them. Am I wrong?

Yes, Spencer, I believe you have it right. In the biotechnology drug world we refer to such patents as Method Patents, as compared to Composition of Matter patents. Translating (I think) to the kite world, that would mean he isn't attempting to patent kites (centuries of predicate art); rather, as you said, patenting methods of controlling kites to change their behavior or give them (perceived) desirable characteristics that meaningful change the way they fly, improve on safety, etc.