How the kite performs when on the ground in high winds gusty wind is almost is nearly as important as how it is in the air in regards to speed. Unless you have a support team to help in speed sessions things can happen with a high AR kite that can kill the session. A bowtie and you may miss the perfect moment.

Also, the emphasis on a fast flying kite is misplaced in my opinion. Going back to something Cheddar said a long time ago about the Chrono in regards to speed. It will be faster but in lighter winds than a lower AR. Grunt carries as much weight in my opinion (and experience) as flying speed. I learned this flying the F-arcs.

A small Chrono would be interesting to play with. Given the surprisingly good gust handling and depower the Chrono has I think it would be a viable option.

But grunt is what gets the job done more often than not. Many of my fastest speeds have been on surfaces that were not conducive to fast speeds by virtue of raw power and my ability to translate that power into forward speed.

Ian: I have the most modern versions of the Reactor(2013) 3.5, 5.5, and 8.6. I also owned the 8.0m Toxic for nearly a year. I really enjoyed the Toxic. That kite was the kite that made me fall in love with big fixed bridle kites. That being said; it is not a jumping kite any more than the Reactor is. I have no clue why they market it that way. I have jumped twice the height with my 8.6m Reactor. The Reactor is in my opinion a beginner kite, not intermediate. I say this for one main reason. You cannot overfly this kite unless you are a skilled pilot and know how to purposely overfly any kite. The way that the Reactor is bridled, once you bring it to zenith, or to the side of the window it has a rocker effect that rolls the whole kite back a few degrees. Anyone with a Reactor will confirm this. If you do not keep enough tension on the lines, the kite rocks back and drifts back into the window where it pulls the lines taught again and changes its AoA back to the normal angle. The bridle almost works as a hinge for this to happen every time. I think this is most likely by design to aid in stability.

The most difficult part of flying higher aspect "intermediate" to "advanced" kites is that they fly so well they will fly to the edge of the window and just keep going until they get negative AoA and collapse and often invert from the pressure being reversed suddenly. My 8m Toxic would do this every time if you let your attention lapse for a moment. Overall, to be honest, I like my Reactors better than the Toxic. Keep in mind that my 8.6m Reactor cost about $200 more than the Toxic 8.0m. That is not a negligible price difference.

I can honestly say, because of the Toxic quirks i.e. overflying ( I cannot speak to the instability of the smaller sizes because I only owned and flew the 8.0 and it tracked like it was on rails ) I became a better pilot than if I had gotten a Reactor first and never had to deal with overfly issues.

If you are not concerned with the price difference, go for the Reactor. If you want 90% of the performance, at 25% less cost, get the Toxic. The Toxic will teach you more anyway.

Great info, Demoknight and thanks for the really good insight into the rather subtle differences between these two kites. I have come to a similar conclusion about the Toxic after Soliver pointed out that the Toxic and Reactor have the same A/R, so the handling seems to come down to the slightly different shapes and bridle setup.
Anyway, I must have caught your positive 'Toxic' vibrations as I've just grabbed a new 5m Toxic that was AU$140 less than a 5.5m Reactor II. We don't seem to have a great deal of choice of kites that are in-stock here in OZ, plus the Ozzie $ has nose-dived again.

Is a high A/R, race-type kite like a Vapor, Prodigy, etc, going to be worth putting up with lower stability and other handling problems when used in a general buggying situation? I love the look of a high A/R kite and their higher performance, but read some bad things about abrupt power deliveries, overflying and lifting OBE's.
Thanks for the info.
Cheers, Ian

Quote:

Is a high A/R, race-type kite like a Vapor, Prodigy, etc, going to be worth putting up with lower stability and other handling problems when used in a general buggying situation?

I pretty quickly gave up using my Ozone Methods in the inland wind I get in central Vic. In gusty conditions (normal here) they tended to stall, crumple into a ball, fall back into the middle of the window....and you know what's coming next! And the Method's are way more tame/friendly than Vapors and Prodigys. If your winds are smoothish, you may do alright with 'em. I did have a really good paddock session with a Century II once, but that was in smooth late afternoon winds.

I've gone the opposite route and use the super low AR Nasa Star 2's - much nicer to fly in gusty conditions. And in my situation, I can't really go above 40kph in the paddock so I'm not missing the performance of a race kite.

Whereabouts are you flying them?

I would say if you don't have the space or surface to get above 30mph, don't bother with high aspect kites. You would most likely benefit more from something mid to low aspect with more grunt that doesn't require the same apparent wind to generate power. It depends on your space and surface. If you had a regular buggy spot on a coast that is hard pack sand and gets onshore breeze often, I would fly nothing but high aspect quick kites. If you were in a cow pasture surrounded by trees that gets double speed gusts, I would do as John suggests and look into a couple Nasa Stars or invest in an appropriate size Ozone Access.

+1 on mid range Aspect Ratio Kites inland. The Reactors are awesome and will beat any other kite in stability for their particular AR, but something with a Mid AR (3.7-3.9) will be MORE stable AND provide you with quality upwind ability for inland conditions. Some of the better Mid-High AR kites that I've used are no longer manufactured but can still be found. Peter Lynn Core, and Viper/Viper S were both great choices in that arena. I ALWAYS hear greatness about the Flexifoil Rages too. Lower down on the list is the Ozone Octane (3.65 AR I think), EXTREMELY stable but mine never pulled quite as strong as my Viper or Core. ... I'm actually looking to get into a set of NASA stars myself if someone would just buy my Reactors

Quote: Originally posted by Ian D

Is a high A/R, race-type kite like a Vapor, Prodigy, etc, going to be worth putting up with lower stability and other handling problems when used in a general buggying situation? I love the look of a high A/R kite and their higher performance, but read some bad things about abrupt power deliveries, overflying and lifting OBE's. Thanks for the info. Cheers, Ian

It really depends on your wind conditions. If typically your winds are clean and stable then a race kite might give better performance but not always. The stability of a lower AR kite can move you on.

I'd be inclined to avoid flying race kites in anything less than ideal conditions and unless you're actually competing in a race and are aiming specifically for a maker then for the rest of us a lower or just slightler AR kite is going to be a more fun kite to fly in less than ideal conditions, and anyway let's face it, riding upwind is the slow boring bit, it's the pedaling uphill on a bike before turning around and heading back downhill again and even the very best performing kites on the market aren't going to make it any less boring. Sure you might make one or two less tacks upwind but really?

If you're short on experience then a race kite is sure to slow your progression. There's nothing more testing or infuriating than having to stop every two minutes to untangle your kite and lines, to constantly shake out wing tuck and bow ties. Trust me I know. I flew almost every make of race kite inland for a decade, convinced that my next purchase would be better.

Looking back now, the problem is clear to me. Here's what you really need to know, it's not all about your choice of kite. You need to bring the buggy into the equation here too, as one affects the other more than you may think.

Take me, back in the early days I was using a very lightweight 14Kg buggy, when really for my conditions I should have been riding a heavier bug whilst flying a larger kite to match.

Buying a heavier bug was a great improvement all round. It was faster, more stable, it was able to hold much more power that resulted in faster, more direct upwind travel.

Sometimes for fun, my friend would jump on the back axle to catch a ride. Providing there was good supply of wind, the extra weight on the rear axle together with the bugs momentum would point the kite upwind to almost ridiculous angles.

Obviously for practically reasons you wouldn't want a teenager hanging off the rear axle, for one thing, with all that weight over the back your ability to slide to a stop is all but gone but the point is made. Anyway, I'm rambling on. I guess what I'm saying is, consider the buggy in regards to performance. Kite and buggy have a direct relationship to one another. A lower AR kite in a heavier bug may result in better all round performance than a high AR kite in a lighter bug. Something to consider maybe.

VERY WELL SAID RED!

What's under you can be as important as what's above.

Valuable advice and thanks for your input guys. A very good point about the buggy weight, RedSky. I was looking at a lightweight P/L, but may expand the list a bit after reading that.
John, I'm inland at Wagga Wagga,Southern NSW, but get to the coast areas (NSW & VIC) quite often. I don't like to fly inland very much because of the turbulence and wind speed variations mentioned above, so intend to do most of my buggying on a beach.
It sounds like I'll stay with the medium A/R's that I've got for now.
Thanks for the brilliant videos you produce, John, as well as the excellent music.
Stay upright.
Cheers, Ian

Many thanks, Ian. Your Zebra should be a pretty good gust muncher too - everyone I've known that has one thinks very highly of them. Duke of Kent Park looks like a pretty good space with not too many trees around it. Keep an eye on the XK site for events you may be interested in. There's usually a trip to Yeppoon around Easter. Sandy Point (southern Vic) Melb Cup week and Labor Day (a little before LD this year due to tide times). There's the odd trip to Lake George, ACT - you may be able to interest some of the ACT boys into a trip. And JD's still pretty active around Sydney. Kingston SE's a brilliant trip too - Tiger and BobM may be coming down from ACT next year for it.

I think IMK (Iain) picked up a Zebra buggy from Briskites - I seem to recall that being quite comfy and solid, much more so than the similarly priced PL. Vmax is a little better again but more $$. Sysmic's are pretty good although I find them a little too low and a tad harder to get in and out of.

Quote: Originally posted by Demoknight

Ian: I have the most modern versions of the Reactor(2013) 3.5, 5.5, and 8.6. I also owned the 8.0m Toxic for nearly a year. I really enjoyed the Toxic. That kite was the kite that made me fall in love with big fixed bridle kites. That being said; it is not a jumping kite any more than the Reactor is. I have no clue why they market it that way. I have jumped twice the height with my 8.6m Reactor. The Reactor is in my opinion a beginner kite, not intermediate. I say this for one main reason. You cannot overfly this kite unless you are a skilled pilot and know how to purposely overfly any kite. The way that the Reactor is bridled, once you bring it to zenith, or to the side of the window it has a rocker effect that rolls the whole kite back a few degrees. Anyone with a Reactor will confirm this. If you do not keep enough tension on the lines, the kite rocks back and drifts back into the window where it pulls the lines taught again and changes its AoA back to the normal angle. The bridle almost works as a hinge for this to happen every time. I think this is most likely by design to aid in stability. The most difficult part of flying higher aspect "intermediate" to "advanced" kites is that they fly so well they will fly to the edge of the window and just keep going until they get negative AoA and collapse and often invert from the pressure being reversed suddenly. My 8m Toxic would do this every time if you let your attention lapse for a moment. Overall, to be honest, I like my Reactors better than the Toxic. Keep in mind that my 8.6m Reactor cost about $200 more than the Toxic 8.0m. That is not a negligible price difference. I can honestly say, because of the Toxic quirks i.e. overflying ( I cannot speak to the instability of the smaller sizes because I only owned and flew the 8.0 and it tracked like it was on rails ) I became a better pilot than if I had gotten a Reactor first and never had to deal with overfly issues. If you are not concerned with the price difference, go for the Reactor. If you want 90% of the performance, at 25% less cost, get the Toxic. The Toxic will teach you more anyway.

I have 4 and 5m Toxics and they are both as steady and stable as any kite I've ever flown. Wide wind range as well. If a Toxic is overflying the edge, especially in the larger sizes, then it needs a little bridle tweak. A tiny adjustment can make a huge difference in the enjoyment of flying a misbehaving kite.

Very true. I have always wondered why people will drop $1000+ on a kite but balk at spending more than $500 on a buggy. A really good buggy will cost more than that in just raw materials before the work gets put in to build the damn thing. When I switched from my PL Comp XR+ to Van's custom buggy, my mind was blown. If you ever find yourself having to hold onto the buggy with one hand while riding, it is time for a better buggy.

Quote: Originally posted by BeamerBob

I have 4 and 5m Toxics and they are both as steady and stable as any kite I've ever flown. Wide wind range as well. If a Toxic is overflying the edge, especially in the larger sizes, then it needs a little bridle tweak. A tiny adjustment can make a huge difference in the enjoyment of flying a misbehaving kite.

This is just static flying that the 8m likes to overfly. In motion on the buggy, it will happily park and ride with or without brakes.

Quote:

Very true. I have always wondered why people will drop $1000+ on a kite but balk at spending more than $500 on a buggy.

This is probably mainly due to already spending a lot of money on kites and being desperate to get some wheels under you for the least amount of money to get rolling. At least this was the case for me. Then, upgrade down the road. I like my light weight buggy because it's easy to throw in the truck and go. Also, I'm short so that helps with a smaller buggy. If your 6'+, then most would find the pl buggies too small I would guess.

I started on the Comp XR+ and I loved it. The problem is when you are on any kind of bumpy surface, you have to hold onto the buggy to keep it under your butt. That was one of the reasons I stopped flying quads on handles for the buggy. I have started flying on handles again now that I have a much larger and heavier buggy, because I can take the bumps without having to hold onto the buggy constantly.

Thanks for the event advice, John. I'll definitely try to make some of them. Kingston SE looks awesome, thanks to your videos. I passed through there two years ago on a road trip, but didn't get to see that brilliant beach. Good points about the Zebra buggy, but how important is stainless in the rust/corrosion equation?
I appreciate your thoughts about the low height of the Sysmic. They look the ducks nuts, but I'll have to try all of them first. Being of older persuasion, super low isn't always the best.

BeamerBob & DemoKnight. Thanks for your words about Toxics, especially now that I've got both 4m & 5m. I've been reading your posts for a while now and your words always seem to make sense.

DemoKnight. Good thoughts about the cost/quality of the buggy. That adds up as well. The short wheelbase and light weight of a P/L Comp+ seems like it may mean some twitchy handling, particularly at speed?

ssayre. Another good point. I'm 5' 11" so maybe the lager/heavier buggies would suit better. As always, I'd like to keep the cost down, but not at the expense of something that causes me grief. I read that heavier is better.
Sorry for getting off the thread a bit, guys, but your info on kits has been great and now some buggy info is brilliant.

Thanks for all the responses. Really good stuff.
Cheers, Ian

Heavier may be better up to a point. Possibly the nicest buggy I've been in is Clive's Libre Majestic - but it sure is a big sucker to handle and I'd hate to have to haul it up the 13th Beach dune by myself. Never had a SS buggy, but I can tell you my Vmax (which I think is just powder coated steel) is over 5 years and 8000km old - not a single problem with it. One buggy I would stay away from is the steel sysmic - one of the local guys had one and the black finish chipped off and looked really terrible in a very short time so if you go with a sysmic, make it the stainless version.

There was a s/h Vmax going in Penrith NSW a little while ago. May still be available?? Try here: http://www.extremekites.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&...

Thanks John. More good advice that helps with the choice.
Cheers, Ian

This is an interesting thread. It's been a long time since I've posted, but DemoKnight, I think your analogy in your Feb 6 reply is incorrect:

"I think this is attributed to a higher volume of air passing over the high AR airfoil from LE to TE. The air makes that trip faster, because the total distance is shorter. Along with the air making the trip faster, it is a wider wing, allowing more air to pass at the same time. Imagine a two-lane road, with a 55mph speed limit, that is 5 miles from start to finish. Now imagine a four lane road, with the same speed limit of 55mph, but the length of this road is only 2.5 miles. You will be able to get way more cars from start to finish on the four-lane road. The cars are air molecules "

For kites of equal area, but different aspect ratios, flying at the same velocity, the air mass affected by either NOT INCLUDING the affects of induced drag, will be the same. The difference in efficiency is due to the reduction of spanwise flow from the high pressure side to the low pressure side on a wing of higher aspect ratio. Less distortion of the flow from a chordwise direction to a spanwise direction is more efficient. Less 'tip leakage' so to speak - fewer 'cars drifting off the road' if you will - because there is less tip chord vs surface area on high aspect kite vs. a low aspect kite.

The flip side is, because a lower aspect ratio wing operates at an angle of attack that is effectively lower than that of a high aspect ratio wing, it means it can operate at up to a higher angle of attack before it back stalls. This generally makes them more 'grunty' and more stall tolerant (less finicky in gusty winds).

In this regard, kites don't deviate from general wing theory, despite all the nuances of designing bridled foils vs. rigid wings.

Cheers,

Chris Krumm