See also my Kites Home Page for results of my Flowform Survey.
You may also be interested in Harald Prinzler's comparison of various different flowforms.
(This page was last updated Sept 2004.)
From: pat@cs.strath.ac.uk (Pat Prosser)
Subject: FlowForm
Message-Id: <10925@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:58:39 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
Originator: pat@kelvin-02
FLOW FORM (Enlargement)
>>I've had a close look at the big flowforms Art Ross from Vancouver
>>builds. He has built a few in the 500-1500 square foot range, along
>>with smaller sizes.
>1500 feet^2? That's a BIG kite.
Yes .... I suppose it is. On Sunday (8th) I was flying in Gourock.
I put my FlowForm up at 12.00 and ATTEMPTED to bring it down at
17.00 It took two of us to walk it down on 400' of line. My FlowForm is from
Rawlings book and is 2m by 1.5m (approx). So its not big,
but in a strong wind it pulls like a horse. In a medium wind I fly
it on 600lb line.
However, 500 to 1500 sq feet is not unusual. Look at the festival
kites, and in particular Martin Lester's MegaLegs. They are about 50' long.
>>The main change is to make the airfoil thinner and move the high point
>>forward. There's not a lot of science necessary; flowforms are
>>relatively forgiving about cross-section. Guessing from only having
>>seen his kites, the body proportion is roughly 3-4 units span to 5 units
>>chord. He also uses longer "legs" than the book plans show, partly for
>>stability and partly for effect.
>By legs I suppose you mean the keels?
No, he means legs. The FlowForm has a "sort of" U shaped trailing edge.
The centre of the "U" is open, and the two ends are (generally) closed.
In Lester's legs (and Natelie's legs) these sections are extended, and
the "heel" on each foot is open.
>5:4 sounds like most of the flowforms I've seen; mostly but not quite square.
>(sort of like a TV screen)
Mines approx 4:3, so it is relatively high aspect ratio. It is also
"flat" rigged (as apposed to "crown" rigged).
>>Cell width (the spacing between ribs) doesn't scale linearly for either
>>flowforms or parafoils. For 30 square feet it shouldn't be a problem,
>>but for larger foils you need to put the ribs proportionally closer
>>together to get the cross-section to keep its shape.
I don't agree on this. The FlowForm (lets call it an FF) scales up without any
problems. Again, refering back to the MegaLegs there are only 3 keels and 5 risers.
There appears to be no attempt to increase the number of risers to improve the section.
In my FF I have 5 keels and 9 risers. I feel confident that I could scale this
up to probably 2 or 4 times the dimensions (4m x 3m or 8m x 6m) without having to alter the
the shape, or increase the number of keels or risers. However, I rekon that the 4mx3m would
require at least 4 people to land it in a strong wind. I have thought about building a
4mx3m, but it might be too much of a problem to manage on the site ... but I'll probably do
it anyway ... in black!
I strongly recommend the FF in Jim Rowlands book on soft kites. I think that his FF
is the best flying soft kite that I have. Of all the soft kites that I have
(1 FlowForm, 3 parafoils that I have built, 1 TakoTako, 1 MantaRay, 1 small foil) the FF flies
in the least wind, is the most stable, and flies in the highest wind (I have not
yet found an upper limit). Next year I expect that the FF will become my regular
"travelling" kite with 500lb dyneema (at present it is the small 1.5m x 1m foil with 300lb
spectra).
>Got any suggestions (Pat, are you out there? This means you!) for dealing
>with, laying out, cutting, etc., the large pieces of fabric for the
>top and bottom of the kite? I mean this in terms of laying it out, marking,
>cutting, etc. I'm not really used to huge pieces of fabric, but I have
>no interest in a little flow form...;-)
My 1st suggestion would be to buy Jim Rowland's book. His FF looks something
like the plan below.
Leading Edge
-------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |-------------------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
------------- -------------
In his plan he has three pieces for the back, and 3 pieces on the front.
I use 4 pieces. That is, where JR uses 1 piece for the centre section I divide this in 2.
This makes it more manageable, easier to scale up, and improves the build quality (because
it is neater to join the risers to the top and bottom surfaces when you are also
joining together two pieces of cloth anyway).
I also work from left to right. That is, I do not do the top (sewing the top sections together,
with their risers) and then do the bottom (join top to bottom with keels), neither do I do the left
half then the right half then join them (I used to do this but there is a neater way). What I now
do is start from the left, all the way to the right, and when I get to the last seam (lets say top
left to last risers) I turn the kite in on itself, so that I make that last seam inside out. When I
do this the whole FF is contained within a single cell. I then turn that inside-out, and close off
the trailing edge. So, when it is finished there are no outward facing seams, and the kite looks
excellent (and everyone wonders how the hell you built it, as it appears to defy solid geometry).
I have now used this technique twice, one on the 100sqft foil, and on the FF. The result is
fantastic.
Building a parafoil is a huge pain in the ass, and building a FF is a pain in the ass.
The reason the FF is less of a pain is because there are less parts (only 5 keels above, only
9 risers, in the parafoils I have 13 risers and 21 keels). It is largely a repetitive task, so
make templates for: the risers, the keels. When you make the keels make sure that you get the weft
and weave in the correct orientation. That is
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
Assume that the / is the trailing edge of a keel. Cut the cloth such that the natural length of the
cloth lines up with /. You should then cut a strip of ripstop (again lengthwise) and hem the
leading edge \ of the keel with that strip. That way you will have a keel that will not distort
under load, and will be durable (and you will have a nice kite for a long time :-).
So, this is obviously expensive. You dont do a "best fit" to maximise usage when cutting cloth.
You do a "best fit" that maximises the orientation/strength of the finished product. In my FF
which is 2m by 1.5m (approx 3m square) I need 12m of ripstop. If I double the size I expect I would
need about 20m (and that still corresponds to great value as far as I am concerned).
You need to cut holes into the back and front surfaces. I hot cut with a soldering iron. To get
circles of the correct diameter I measured all the cups, glasses, saucers, soup plates, dinner
plates, my pizza plate, pots, pans and medicine bottles in the house, until I identified the closest
matches. I then used these objects as templates.
If you work left to right, and think things out well in advance, YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE MORE THAN 2
CELLS TO THE RIGHT OF THE NEEDLE AT ANY TIME. Therefore, it is not really the width of the FF (or
parafoil) that is a problem, but the length. And length really isnt a problem (is it Boys :-).
To accomodate the width I sometimes put a chair to my left to rest the material on, or I roll it up
and weigh it down with some large object (and that is my Phd thesis, I knew it would come in
handy).
The bridle is a dawdle, but expensive. I think I used in excessive of 120' of line for the FF,
and more than 250' on a parafoil.
In summary ..... do a bit of reading, do a bit of thinking, make you templates, cut your cloth,
hem all the parts, and then assemble. Give yourself lots of time (templates one day,
cloth cutting some other day, hemming on a Sunday (good therapy), assembly on Saturday, rig and fly
on Sunday). You might feel like giving up after cutting the cloth (I certainly felt that way on
each of the parafoils I built). When you start hemming everything you definately swear that you
will NEVER do this again. Assembly is great fun. You see a parafoil/FF appearing before your very
eyes. It is as if it grows out of the sewing machine, getting bigger, and bigger, and .....
and the room is full of material. I love it! And then you finish it, fly it, and say
NEVER again. And then someone asks how did you do it, and you tell them, and then you think "I bet
I could make it AT LEAST twice as big, and in black".
Get me out of here. Look what you've done to me.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: salanne@convex.csc.FI (Simo Salanne)
Subject: Re: FlowForm
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:25:38 GMT
Message-Id: <1992Nov16.092538.7621@nic.funet.fi>
Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET
Organisation: STACK Finland
In <10925@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> pat@cs.strath.ac.uk (Pat Prosser) writes:
> FLOW FORM (Enlargement)
... a lot of good text deleted...
>Get me out of here. Look what you've done to me.
Pat, you just sold me a new project! Look what you've done to me:-)
Simo
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka)
Subject: FlowForm
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:43:00 EST
Message-Id: <18146@umd5.umd.edu>
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
I just finished building my first parafoil/flowform/single-line (well, the
first single line since I was a kid--and the first since I really started
to sew) and it was really quite fun to do. It's an 8 square-foot kite,
based on the plans in Margaret Gregor's _Kites for Everyone_. The
plans are very easy to follow, and the kite was actually quite simple. My
biggest mistake was in deciding to make an applique'd kite the first
time through. My second biggest mistake was in not measuring the tops of
the outside cell-walls before cutting the top of the kite. Gregor calls
for a piece of fabric 42" long, but due to the way I drew my airfoil section,
this length was actually 44". This I have a 2" wide strip sewn to the
front! This is a definite hint for anyone planning to make a parafoil:
measure that top! The bottom isn't a problem, as it's simply the chord.
This was also my first experience with binding edges, and that went reasonably
well. The binding I used was a bit stretchy, and got tautened a bit
while I sewed it on, so the fabric is very lightly bunched up in places,
but it doesn't seem to have effected the kite.
It was quite a thrill to finish the kite and fly it--more of a thrill than
most of the dual line kites I make these days. Perhaps it was just because
it's so different from most of my kites, maybe because it's my first
single line. The kite flew beautifully the first time I launched it!
I'm rather excited at the prospect of making a bigger FlowForm when I
can afford the fabric.
I highly recommend the experience to anyone who hasn't built such a beasty
yet. FlowForms are much easier than most other parafoils (fewer ribs, etc.)
and I was surprised at how easy it all went together. It's quite neat
to watch it take shape under the needle!
Jeff
--
|Jeffrey C. Burka | "Fairies are the perfect people to do this |
|(suffering Bad Grammar) | sort of work. Biologically, their upper |
|jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu | bodies are strong enough to wield a pickaxe...." |
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: andrew@tug.com (Andrew Beattie)
Subject: Re: FlowForm
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:30:41 EST
Message-Id: <C1ILJ6.A5p@tug.com>
Organization: Negligible.
In article <18146@umd5.umd.edu> jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:
>This was also my first experience with binding edges, and that went reasonably
>well. The binding I used was a bit stretchy, and got tautened a bit
>while I sewed it on, so the fabric is very lightly bunched up in places,
>but it doesn't seem to have effected the kite.
I had a similar problem when sewing the fabric onto the vent of my 15m foil.
I measured the vent to size, because the vent fabric is very stiff and easy
to measure, then just sewed the skin fabric onto it. On one seam, I was sewing
with the ripstop on top and the vent underneath. On the other seam, I was
sewing with the vent on top and the ripstop underneath. The difference in
fabric tension resulted in the "vent-on-top" seam consuming 60cm more
ripstop along the 15m seam. Just to make things worse, I did a re-inforcing
zig-zag, before deciding that it was no good and un-picking it all. :-(
A full report on designing, constructing and flying this kite when it
is finished...
Andrew
--
Andrew Beattie PO Box 109, Basingstoke, RG24 0YB, UK.
Email:andrew@tug.com Phone:+44-256-464912
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: eric.curtis@homebase.com (Eric Curtis)
Subject: Re: flowform
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 09:42:00 -1000
Message-Id: <b1.967.7016.0N55B0C9@homebase.com>
Organization: Home Base BBS - St. Thomas, Ontario - (519)633-7253
jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:
JE>*Who *owns* the rights to the Sutton? Does Steve Sutton still have 'em and
JE>he just licenses the Air Affairs people to produce the kites, or did he
JE>actually sell them the rights?
Throwing in my two cents worth:
>From talking to the Air Affairs people when we were all in Italy this
spring, my understanding was that they are licensed by Steve Sutton to
produce the flowform. They had apparently just negotiated a new deal
that runs for several more years. For what it's worth....
Eric Curtis & Anne Sloboda Boreal Kites
eric.curtis@homebase.com Sparta, Ont., Canada
* OLX 2.1 TD * "Remember-- what the dormouse said...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: Dan Weinreb <dlw@odi.com>
Subject: Re: Soft Kites and Windsocks Flowform pattern
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:36:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199701211636.LAA13218@tundra.odi.com>
Received: (dlw@localhost) by tundra.odi.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13218; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:36:38 -0500
To: pleriche@dumbo.uk03.bull.co.uk
Cc: davidl@nordicsoftware.com, kites@das.harvard.edu
In-Reply-To: <9701210905.AA05933@ dumbo.uk03.bull.co.uk > (pleriche@dumbo.uk03.bull.co.uk)
Reply-To: "Dan Weinreb" <dlw@odi.com>
Status: RO
Sure, here's what I posted.
Errata for Rowlands Flowform
Dan Weinreb (dlw@odi.com), January 1997
In "Soft Kites and Windsocks" by Jim Rowlands (St. Martin's Press,
1992), beginning on page 57, is a set of plans for a Flowform, with a
sail area of just over 18 square feet. While building one of these in
December 1995, I found several errors in the plans. For the beenfit
of anyone else who might want to build a Rowlands Flowform, here's
what I know about the errors and what I decided to do about them, as
well as some general experience and tips.
The main problem is his description of the shape of the airfoil-style
curve at the back edge of the outer and inner ribs. The most obvious
error is in figure 6-11b ("Inner rib"). Look at the height
measurement on the left, labelled "23 cm", and then look at the one on
the right, labelled "22.5 cm". The "23 cm" is obviously drawn much
smaller than the "22.5 cm"! So it's obvious that something is amiss.
Next, try taking a piece of graph paper, and plotting a curve based on
the numbers in Table 1 ("Aerofoil"). The resulting curve does indeed
look like an airfoil, but it does not look much like Figure 6.11a.
Table 1's airfoil is flatter. So, which one is right?
If you measure the length of the airfoil curve itself, from leading
edge to trailing edge, the length of the Table 1 airfoil is about
137.5 cm. For the Figure 6.11a airfoil, the length is about 141.5 cm.
Now, this curve is going to get sewn to the edge of the back of the
flowform. Figure 6.10a says that the length of the edge of the back
is 142 cm. Since this closely matches the Figure 6.11a airfoil, I
decided to treat Figure 6.11a as correct.
Also, if you look at the length of the curve on the back edge of the
inner rib in Figure6.11b, it comes out to 114.5 cm, which is
satisfyingly close to the 115 cm that it ought to be in order to match
the stitching lines on the back of the kite in Figure 6.10b (142 cm -
27 cm). I consider this further evidence that the drawings are right
and the table is wrong.
Here are new entries for Table 1, which produce the shape of Figure
6.11a.
0 22.5
5 26.0
10 29.5
15 32.0
20 34.7
30 37.48
40 38.86
50 39.21
60 38.17
80 31.23
100 20.13
120 4.34
125 0.0
(Alternatively, you could use the original Table 1 and adjust the rest
of the kite. I have no idea whether this would produce a
better-flying or worse-flying kite.)
That's all for errata.
I can report that the five back bridle lines (the ones nearer to the
trailing edge) don't actually seem to do anything. They hang slack,
while the front five lines take all the tension. I have asked around
about this. Some people feel that the back lines are entirely
superfluous; the classic Flowform design uses only three bridle lines
in all, and seems to work fine. Others have suggested modifying the
rigging arrangement to allow the flyer to shorten or lengthen the
secondary lines, so that you can pull in on or let out all five back
bridle lines. Others have suggested that they come into play (become
tense) in heavy winds, although I haven't noticed this myself. I am
still experimenting. Most recently I just rebridled mine with only
the front five lines, and it seems to fly just as well as it ever did.
Also, there's less tangle to worry about.
I have found that except in very light winds, I need drogues.
Originally I used a spinning "Diablo drogue" from the same book, since
the spinning is pretty, but more experienced kite flyers have advised
me that a non-spinning drogue would work better (I'm not sure I
understand the issues here). I have also taken to using two drogues
instead of one with a Y-bridle. Finally, and probably most important,
the drogues I'm using are adjustable, because sometimes you really
want a lot of drag from those drogues. So, see page 84,
"Variable-drag drogue", and make two of them. So far I've just
attached each one on a simple line. I've been told that using an
H-shaped bridle is a good idea, but I have not tried this yet.
See also Pat Prosser's rec,kites posting of 11 Nov 92, which I found
in the rec.kites archives under the name "flow.form", for some ideas.
From: Andrew Beattie <gaffer@tug.com.NO.SPAM.PLEASE>
Subject: Re: Jim Rowlands Flow Forms errata
Date: 9 APR 1997 05:31:21 +0100
Message-Id: <5if62p$9n$1@tako.tug.com>
Newgroups: rec.kites
In article <3349AF69.71A7@ntx.city.unisa.edu.au>,
Graeme Poole <Graeme.Poole@UniSA.edu.au> wrote:
>I know there was discussion recently on rec.kites about some errata in
>the Rowlands flowform plans.
When cutting the middle ribs, the measurement for how much to cut off the
trailing edge is dodgy.
Make them longer than necessary. Build the kite, then trim to suit.
Hint: If you can use *wide* fabric, you can build the one (or was it both?)
of the skins from one panel, not three.
Andrew
From: JLWsch <jlwsch@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rowlands Multitube - errata?
Date: 23 FEB 1997 12:43:02 GMT
Message-Id: <19970223124300.HAA16274@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Newgroups: rec.kites
I've built a mutitube exactly as described in the book. The fins are
shorter, and all seems OK when sown together. It is a very stable kite.
John L.W.
From: JLWsch@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rowlands Multitube - errata?
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:30:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <970224172951_1449619710@emout07.mail.aol.com>
To: pleriche@dumbo.uk03.bull.co.uk
Status: RO
Philip,
Dimensions exactly as in the book (53cm)! You will notice that the colour
photo shows the fins are shorter, but I can see the confusion if you look at
the lone drawing only.
John
From: jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka)
Subject: FlowForms (was Re: Single Line Report)
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 05:41:52 -1000
Message-Id: <245r80$825@umd5.umd.edu>
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
References: <23thao$5gt@kelvin-02.cs.strath.ac.uk> <240te8$dht@umd5.umd.edu> <24595c$5re@kelvin-02.cs.strath.ac.uk>
In article <24595c$5re@kelvin-02.cs.strath.ac.uk> pat@cs.strath.ac.uk (Patrick Prosser) writes:
>Actually, the flowform in Rowland's book is a Sutton design. I believe
>that Sutton is also a crass North American :-)
Exactly. I'd originally written "I'm a crass American" when I remembered
that Steve Sutton is from Canada (Toronto, I believe). So I ammended myself.
>As far as I am aware, your FF has a number of triangular shaped
>keels. This means that you only have roll adjustment, not pitch.
>I don't like that, because if you get the shape of the keels
>wrong then the whole thing is wrong. Its basically the same as
>building a delta; get the keel right or it wont fly.
Yup. I have the keels right. Therefore, I don't have a problem.
>I make templates from wall paper, or relatively stiff paper from an
>Art shop.
Good idea. I never thought of using wallpaper.
I make templates for the keels and the risers only.
I had a funny feeling about that. When I did my 16 pattern, I quickly
concluded that it was stupid to do a pattern for the top and bottom...instead,
I made a pattern for the cut out in the tail.
>I then use tailor's chalk to draw around the template, then I cut
>using scissors. I cut out all the pieces before I start construction.
Ever have any fraying problems on the seams where the risers are attached
to the top and bottom?
>When I cut I sometimes do not incorporate a hem allowance, as sometimes
>I put a binding on the edge, made from ripstop, so that the dimensions
>remain unchanged.
All of my flowforms have been fully edgebound. I've been using a cotton
single fold edgebinding tape. It's not too expensive (maybe $5 worth in a
T-16)and has proven strong enough when folded over and sewn to be used
in the bridle loops. For a bigger kite, I'd probably use grosgrain ribbon.
I have enough problems convincing myself to cut out a 2" wide leading edge
strip. I'd never convince myself to cut enough narrow, long strips for a
parafoil
(I eventually gave up on cutting leading edges and now buy 2" strips from
Hang 'em High)
Jeff
(waiting for the day he can build a *much* bigger FlowForm. perhaps he'll
do it this winter...)
--
|Jeffrey C. Burka | "When I look in the mirror, I see a little clearer/ |
|SAFH Lite [tm] | I am what I am and you are you too./ Do you like |
|jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu | what you see? Do you like yourself?" --N. Cherry |
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: SLane33399 <slane33399@aol.com>
Subject: Kites and Windsocks - Jim Rowlands
Date: 20 JUN 1997 21:06:10 GMT
Message-Id: <19970620210600.RAA10544@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Newgroups: rec.kites
Status: RO
I made the Flowform from this book with great success, so I went for broke
and made the Rainbow Parafoil. Two weeks work, and 18 months of
rebridiling later I finally got to speak to the "designer".
His comments - Don't make the rainbow it will never fly, the profile shape
is wrong!!!!
This book is still on sale without any warning or correction, BEWARE bad
plans
From: Nathan Sendan <drachenfly@geocities.com>
Subject: Re: Flowform Junior FIX?
Date: 1997/07/29
Message-Id: <5rlih5$bki$1@gte1.gte.net>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
I have a solution!
get three yards more ripstop and build the bigger flowform. its a great
kite and all the dimensions seem to match up. I have a couple and really
enjoy them.
I havn't built the junior. Don't like the way it looks, and besides,
the dimensions don't match up :-)
good luck,
Nathan Sendan
Laughing Gecko Kite Co. � Kauai, Hawaii � U.S.A.
almost finished website @ http://home1.gte.net/sendan/lg.html
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Subject: Re: Flowform Junior FIX?
Message-Id: <DLW.97Jul29175410@tundra.odi.com>
Date: 1997/07/29
Newsgroups: rec.kites
On the big Rowlands Flowform, I decided that the shape of the airfoil
was the problem. I decided to ignore the numbers in his table, and
instead just scale up his drawing. Then the back curves of the
airfoils matched the back of the kite.
From: Hprinzler@aol.com
Subject: Re: Flowform survey
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:34:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <971002023406_860503271@emout19.mail.aol.com>
To: pleriche@dumbo.uk03.bull.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.13206.emout19.mail.aol.com.875774045"
Status: RO
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.13206.emout19.mail.aol.com.875774045
Content-ID: <0_13206_875774046@emout19.mail.aol.com.1427>
Content-type: text/plain
Hi Philip,
here I am again. I just finished a file for someone with informations about
flowforms from Kites and Windsocks. I think you are interest in this
informations, too. Take a look to the following file FF_ERR.TXT.
You like to build the frog?
I heard from someone (I really do not know who it was) that there is an error
in the plan and the sold frogs are different from this plan.
That is it for the moment.
Bye til next time
Harald.
Known errors and informations about the book
============================================
Flowform junior
---------------
I have not build that kite, only noticed those errors.
Page 54:
- Figure 6-2a:
change length 95cm to length 85cm. But leave it longer =
for sewing the trailing edge.
- Figure 6-2b:
change length 94cm to length 84cm.
- Figure 6-3:
change length 94cm to length 84cm
=0D
Flowform
--------
I have build this kite in original size and it flies
very well. For more lifting power in slow wind it is =
better to make it upscaled to 1.5.
Page 57:
- Front means the bottom side of the canopy.
- Figure 6-9a:
Leave the fabric longer for sewing the trailing edge.
Page 58:
- Back means the top side of the canopy.
- Figure 6-10a:
Calculate the position of the vents to the leading edge. =
Leave the fabric longer for sewing the trailing edge.
- Figure 6-10b:
The length of the fabric is 142cm.
Leave the fabric longer for sewing the trailing edge. =
After finishing all the sewing you make the jet chute
by cutting off fabric and hem the edge.
- Figure 6-11b:
change the height of the trailing edge from 23cm to 13cm.
The end of the upper line is about 2cm left from the end
of the lower line. (My height of the trailing edge of the
center rib is about 12cm). I think this point is not so
critical.
Page 59:
- Figure 6-13:
The most difficult think is to fix the inner flare and the =
inner rib to the bottom centre of the canopy.
Make all sewings with start from the leading edge, even if
it is much easier to start with the trailing edge. All =
mistakes will go to the trailing edge and will disappear by =
hemming the trailing edge.
(I have not used binding tape for the trailing edge on any =
of my flowforms. I hem these edges.)
Page 60:
- Figure 6-15:
This kind of briddling is better to set the correct flying =
angle.
The 4 chambers in the middle are open at the trailing edge.
I have cut the upper side of the canopy round like on the
picture.
The bottom side of the canopy is straight.
=0D
Whale
-----
This kite I build in original size. It is not a stable flier, =
but funny to see. I have tried to use the kite without spare =
in the flukes, but it was not successful.
Page 63:
- Figure 7-2a:
Distance flukes from trailing edge I choosed 7cm.
Distance flippers from leading edge I choosed 75cm.
From: gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip J. Le Riche)
Subject: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 14 Sep 1997 08:41:14 GMT
Message-Id: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 39
Reply-To: gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip J. Le Riche)
NNTP-Posting-Host: kanga.ins.cwru.edu
I'm about to start building the Rowlands Flowform, having cut out the
templates. I think I'm in posession of most of the discussion on it in
r.k, (see http://www.kites.org/zoo/fferr.html) but I still have a
question or two.
Main one: what orientation of the ripstop should I use for the flares?
Rowlands only gives guidance for triangular parafoil flares (unless
there's something under the Flowform Jr - I'm working from a photocopy).
Since they are an irregular 4-sided shape, there are various
possibilities. I'm inclined to align the fabric with the leading edge,
but I imagine so long as I edge-bind it strongly it may not be that
critical. (I rather fancy edge-binding them in a contrasting colour.)
Secondly, I've got Dan Weinreb's modified figures for the profile of the
risers but these still don't quite correspond to fig 6.11b (inner rib)
at the back (Andrew Beattie has commented that this is dodgey). Has
anyone used the original figures (giving a flatter profile with the
highest point nearer the front) and reducing the length of the back to
fit? My guess is that Rowlands made one version then decided to modify
the profile and made another, and that they've got muddled up. Has
anyone, having maybe made one, got any comments about whether the other
might fly better?
Finally, comments seem to vary on how it flies, in particular whether it
needs a drogue. Maybe this is because small errors in the build make a
significant difference to its characteristics. But I wonder whether the
key may actually be the elasticity of the bridle. I'm wondering how much
difference it would make to fork ot the extra for dyneema. (After Andrew
showed me how he converted his Chevron from high to low power with about
an inch adjustment in the bridle, I'd believe anything. (And it *still*
blew me away on low power!))
Thanks in anticipation - Philip
--
=============================================================================
Philip Le Riche gf164@cleveland.freenet.edu
(Malgre son nom, ce brave homme ne parle pas Francais)
============{PS Anti-spam auto-responder on above address - =================
From: Richard Bettis <rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:36:27 +0100
Message-Id: <219362319wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Organization: Health & Safety Lab
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Reply-To: rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-User: rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-Path: punt-2.mail.demon.net!fats.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.9.1
Lines: 61
In article: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Philip J. Le Riche) writes:
> Main one: what orientation of the ripstop should I use for the flares?
> Rowlands only gives guidance for triangular parafoil flares (unless
> there's something under the Flowform Jr - I'm working from a photocopy).
Naughty!
> Since they are an irregular 4-sided shape, there are various
> possibilities. I'm inclined to align the fabric with the leading edge,
That's what I did!
> Has
> anyone used the original figures (giving a flatter profile with the
> highest point nearer the front) and reducing the length of the back to
> fit?
Did that, too!
> Finally, comments seem to vary on how it flies, in particular whether it
> needs a drogue. Maybe this is because small errors in the build make a
> significant difference to its characteristics. But I wonder whether the
> key may actually be the elasticity of the bridle. I'm wondering how much
> difference it would make to fork ot the extra for dyneema.
Mine was fairly badly made ( quite a bit out on the seams, I still think about
starting it again and seeing what a properly made one is like).
I extended the bridle lengths by something like a factor of two, which made the
whole thing more stable, and fiddled about with them a bit (easier with 10
lines than 40) and the kite now flies quite well, so I don't think it is that
critical. I, too, considered a less elastic line than the nylon "light pull"
cord I originally bridled the kite with, but I didn't pursue this and haven't
noticed significant problems.
I've flown the kite with and without a drogue (and with a couple of "Peter
Powell" tubular tails), but I can't say I've noticed an amazing difference in
stability. In a decent (quality) wind it certainly flies (and lifts) ok.
Last flight it caught a tiny, but unexpected, gust in a light wind which just
plucked the reel out of my hand. A rapid chase across my flying field ensued,
as the slowly collapsing flowform continued to pull the reel away.
When I'd pounced on the reel and stopped it unwinding, the kite re-inflated
pointing down at about 45 degrees, maybe 50 feet off the ground and on about
100 yards of line. Letting out some line, it landed gently enough but the
resulting "mega-walk of shame" almost made me wish I was flying tricks on short
lines.
Almost... :)
--
+=============================================================================+
| Richard Bettis | "I make no warranty with respect to this |
| <<rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk> | statement and disclaim any implied/explicit |
| | suggestions of usefulness for any purpose" |
+=============================================================================+
From: Thomas-Michael Rudolph <thomiru@berlin.snafu.de>
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:48:21 +0200
Organization: Redaktion Fang den Wind
Lines: 14
Message-Id: <341E47D5.386A@berlin.snafu.de>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <219362319wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: n163-169.berlin.snafu.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold [de] (Win95; I)
Hi,
I 've built nearly all of the flowforms and parafoils of Rowland's book,
and, with a new bridle and little modifications, all them fly very well.
Take a look at my homepage (gallery) to see some of them.
If someone has questions or problems to a special kite - mail me !
Thomas
------------------------------------------------------
tmr`s kite site of life : http://www.snafu.de/~thomiru/
http://www.kites.org/tmr/
email: thomiru@berlin.snafu.de
tmr@kites.org
------------------------------------------------------
From: s.lane@virgin.net (Steve Lane)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:44:54 +0100
Organization: Virgin Net Usenet Service
Lines: 21
Message-Id: <MPG.e8792853a8a6669989688@news.virgin.net>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p33-grouse-gui.tch.virgin.net
X-Newsreader: Anawave Gravity v1.10
Hi
I made mine straight from the book and it flies great. No drogue.
A friend made one at the same time, it won't fly without one. Mine's in
balloon fabric, his is in ripstop. I think the elasticity of the fabric
helps in this case.
Only now found the suggestions re alternative profiles so can't comment
there.
The only problem with THIS plan of Mr. Rowlands is the details re the
trailing edge. I allowed extra fabric for that edge and made a folded
hem. About 3cm extra gives a good hem.
Best of luck.
--
Partner in Thermal Hunters, Kite Retailers
"Happiness is on the end of a piece of string"
From: Dan Weinreb <dlw@atiq.odi.com>
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 1997/09/15
Message-Id: <x6pvqanxi4.fsf@atiq.odi.com>#1/1
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <MPG.e8792853a8a6669989688@news.virgin.net>
Organization: Object Design Inc., Burlington, MA
Newsgroups: rec.kites
s.lane@virgin.net (Steve Lane) writes:
I made mine straight from the book and it flies great. No drogue.
Whereas mine definitely flies better with a drogue.
A friend made one at the same time, it won't fly without one. Mine's in
balloon fabric, his is in ripstop. I think the elasticity of the fabric
helps in this case.
I have suspected for some time that one reason mine doesn't work all
that well is because it's made of (regular crinkly) ripstop. Since I
built it, I've noticed that every commercial soft kite I've seen is
made of out softer stuff, which I assume is "balloon fabric". If
anyone else has knowledge or opinions about whether using softer
fabric is a big help for soft kites, please let us know; thanks.
From: diviacco@elettra.trieste.it (bruno diviacco)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:27:07 +0300
Organization: sincrotrone trieste
Lines: 19
Message-Id: <diviacco-1609970927070001@mac-diviacco.elettra.trieste.it>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <MPG.e8792853a8a6669989688@news.virgin.net> <x6pvqanxi4.fsf@atiq.odi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-diviacco.elettra.trieste.it
Dan Weinreb wrote:
> I have suspected for some time that one reason mine doesn't work all
> that well is because it's made of (regular crinkly) ripstop. Since I
> built it, I've noticed that every commercial soft kite I've seen is
> made of out softer stuff, which I assume is "balloon fabric". If
> anyone else has knowledge or opinions about whether using softer
> fabric is a big help for soft kites, please let us know; thanks.
I had a similar experience with another plan from Rowland's book.
I've built the small 2-cell parafoil using heavy (60 g/m^2) ripstop
nylon.It had never flown decently: starts going up, then leans on
one side and eventually points to the ground. I've tried using a drogue,
or a tail, but it doesn't help. Then, looking again at the plan, I noticed
that the suggested material is 'ballon nylon'. I guess this is the
key point. The only problem is that I can't find a souce of this
soft fabric. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Bruno Diviacco
From: gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip J. Le Riche)
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 1997/09/16
Message-Id: <5vlefv$a29@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>#1/1
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <MPG.e8792853a8a6669989688@news.virgin.net> <x6pvqanxi4.fsf@atiq.odi.com> <diviacco-1609970927070001@mac-diviacco.elettra.trieste.it>
Reply-To: gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip J. Le Riche)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
In a previous article, diviacco@elettra.trieste.it (bruno diviacco) says:
>I had a similar experience with another plan from Rowland's book.
>I've built the small 2-cell parafoil using heavy (60 g/m^2) ripstop
>nylon.It had never flown decently: starts going up, then leans on
>one side and eventually points to the ground. I've tried using a drogue,
>or a tail, but it doesn't help. Then, looking again at the plan, I noticed
>that the suggested material is 'ballon nylon'. I guess this is the
>key point. The only problem is that I can't find a souce of this
>soft fabric. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
>
Dunstable Kites has plenty (23 Great Northern Rd, Dunstable, Beds LU5 4BN,
UK - phone +44 582 662779)
- Philip
--
=============================================================================
Philip Le Riche {PS Anti-spam auto-responder on reply address -
use pleriche at uk03 dot bull dot co dot uk}
(Malgre son nom, ce brave homme ne parle pas Francais)
From: davidl@nordicsoftware.com (David Larson)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:40:43 -0500
Organization: Nordic Software, Inc.
Message-Id: <davidl-1609971140430001@lin-tc1-029.inetnebr.com>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <MPG.e8792853a8a6669989688@news.virgin.net> <x6pvqanxi4.fsf@atiq.odi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lin-tc1-029.inetnebr.com
Lines: 20
In article <x6pvqanxi4.fsf@atiq.odi.com>, Dan Weinreb <dlw@atiq.odi.com> wrote:
> I have suspected for some time that one reason mine doesn't work all
> that well is because it's made of (regular crinkly) ripstop. Since I
> built it, I've noticed that every commercial soft kite I've seen is
> made of out softer stuff, which I assume is "balloon fabric". If
> anyone else has knowledge or opinions about whether using softer
> fabric is a big help for soft kites, please let us know; thanks.
I made a Parafoil 2 from Soft Kites and Windsocks from crispy ripstop and
I get the same impression. It only flys with a drouge. It seems that it
takes a huge amount of wind to actually fill out the kite so that it is
smooth. The stiffness of the ripstop seems to work against smooth
inflation. I have been thinking about washing it in the washing machine
with fabric softener.
What is balloon quality ripstop and where can you buy it?
Dave
From: Alan Mackie <alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 01:21:34 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk [193.237.18.154]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.03a <mLIPcvpuTZ3Kv$0X+3+vdf7+0w>
Lines: 94
In article <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, "Philip J. Le Riche"
<gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> writes
Philip :>
>I'm about to start building the Rowlands Flowform, having cut out the
>templates.
>Main one: what orientation of the ripstop should I use for the flares?
It's best to have the fabric grain running along the vertical leading
edges of the flares. This way the pull of the lines is transferred
direct to the lower leading edge. If the fabric here is cross-grain it
will simply pull out of shape.
Check the measurements /carefully/. I made a few from his book a year or
so back and they don't all fit together.
What annoyed me particularly was a section in the introduction. Hang on,
it's in the hall cupboard.....
From "Kites and Windsocks" by Jim Rowlands - ISBN 0 7134 6705 3
"thanks .... to Dave Green for re-introducing me to parafoils and
teaching me the basic construction techniques."
My interpretation of this, and other parts of the preface, is that he
got his pal to show him how to make soft kites and then set out to write
a book about it.
Frankly, hardly any of the designs are correct, many of the sizes and
specifications are wrong, and his suggestions for line strength are
fanciful, to say the least.
As to the flowforms, the small one needs pick-up points for the lines a
great deal further forward than he has them. There was a problem with
the bigger one as well, but I'm afraid to say I forget what.
If you're still in doubt, take a look at the photos in the book of the
kites in action, such as they are. The only one of the flowform in
action is with a woman holding it ten feet off the ground (page #88),
and in fact she's flying it by the bridle lines, an action which
suggests to me that the kite won't fly on the lines without constant
adjustment. In point of fact, this kite flies perfectly well without the
rear lines attached at all! None of the photos appear to be of the kites
actually flying more than a few feet up and they all show problems with
slack flares and so on.
If you read the preface carefully, you'll appreciate that this is a book
of developmental designs and added to the disclaimer on page 4 makes it
clear to me that the book frankly isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Only one man's opinion, of course. Others may disagree.
>Finally, comments seem to vary on how it flies, in particular whether it
>needs a drogue.
It doesn't make any difference, in my experience.
>Maybe this is because small errors in the build make a
>significant difference to its characteristics.
Not really, it's because it's a badly designed aerofoil section. Both
the flowforms as shown in the book tend to fall over if they get more
than a few degrees off horizontal. Basically, the kite leans over a
little, as is natural in the wind, the flares try to keep it pointing
straight into the wind and this means the kite twists round to face away
from the line; so the air is now running /across/ the wing at an angle
rather than from back to front. At the critical point the lift fails,
the wing effectively stalls (it's a form of tip-stall, which in a plane
runs from the wing-tip inward towards the fuselage) and the kite simply
falls over to one side. Makes a nice thumping nise when it hits and does
no damage, but it's annoying, to say the least.
>But I wonder whether the
>key may actually be the elasticity of the bridle. I'm wondering how much
>difference it would make to fork ot the extra for dyneema.
No difference at all. A little stretch in the line, in my experience, is
essential in virtually all single-line kites. Others will disagree, of
course, but I fly single-line kites all the time and Dyneema tends to
make them twitch and jump about too much. Fine for a stunter, of course,
excellent product and so on.
>Thanks in anticipation - Philip
Nae borra.
(That's an old Glasgow expression meaning ... eh .. nae borra?)
--
Alan
... another good way to annoy people is to insult their wives.
From: gaffer@tug.com (Andrew Beattie)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 15 Sep 1997 19:26:14 +0100
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.
Lines: 20
Message-Id: <5vjuk6$gg$1@tug.com>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.tug.com
Alan Mackie <alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"thanks .... to Dave Green for re-introducing me to parafoils and
> teaching me the basic construction techniques."
>
>My interpretation of this, and other parts of the preface, is that he
>got his pal to show him how to make soft kites and then set out to write
>a book about it.
No. I've learned all the basics from other people too. It's only by standing
on the shoulders of giants that you get to see further than before.
Building a Rowlands soft kite is just one of the rights of passage. Don't get
steamed up about it, learn from it...
Andrew
--
I offer free advice by email on all aspects of traction kiteing. Whether
you want to design and build, find something obscure, buy or sell used
equipment or are looking for a good deal on something new, drop me a line.
Purveyor of fine traction kites and associated equipment.
From: Alan Mackie <alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:12:37 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <1gcYoDAlJxH0Ewki@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <5vjuk6$gg$1@tug.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk [193.237.18.154]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.03a <mLIPcvpuTZ3Kv$0X+3+vdf7+0w>
Lines: 23
In article <5vjuk6$gg$1@tug.com>, Andrew Beattie <gaffer@tug.com> writes
Andrew :>
>>My interpretation of this, and other parts of the preface, is that he
>>got his pal to show him how to make soft kites and then set out to write
>>a book about it.
>No. I've learned all the basics from other people too. It's only by standing
>on the shoulders of giants that you get to see further than before.
Indeed, but I'm pretty sure you weren't charged 15 quid a go for the
privilege! If he wants to learn to do it right in private, fair enough,
but he's got a bit of a check passing on /his/ mistakes to others, for
money, wouldn't you say?
>Building a Rowlands soft kite is just one of the rights of passage. Don't get
>steamed up about it, learn from it...
I did. I learned not to buy kite books written by prats.
--
Alan
From: Richard Bettis <rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:55:46 +0100
Organization: Health & Safety Lab
Message-Id: <530581444wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-User: rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-Path: punt-1.mail.demon.net!fats.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.9.1
Lines: 56
In article: <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> Alan Mackie
<alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk> writes:
> If you're still in doubt, take a look at the photos in the book of the
> kites in action, such as they are. The only one of the flowform in
> action is with a woman holding it ten feet off the ground (page #88),
> and in fact she's flying it by the bridle lines, an action which
> suggests to me that the kite won't fly on the lines without constant
> adjustment.
Sorry to rain on your tirade, but if you look at the book again, you'll find 2
of the colour photos and one B&W in the body of the book show flowforms in
flight. The colour photos even show that their was more than one of the things
built when the book was written. There are more photos of the flowforms than
any of the other kites.
The photo you mention is in the section on "how to launch a soft kite", where
Rowlands recommends holding the front bridle lines till the kite gets in the
air. (Works for me...) This is difficult to do without "flying it by the bridle
lines".
In point of fact, this kite flies perfectly well without the
> rear lines attached at all! None of the photos appear to be of the kites
> actually flying more than a few feet up and they all show problems with
> slack flares and so on.
You have good, close-up photos of kites at 100 feet? The B&W photo on page 61
shows all the graininess of over-enlargement. All kite books I've seen with
pictures of individual kites actually flying are only "a few feet up"!
> If you read the preface carefully, you'll appreciate that this is a book
> of developmental designs and added to the disclaimer on page 4 makes it
> clear to me that the book frankly isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
That's the bit that says "...they have been built, tried and tested in a
variety of conditions by me and by a number of my friends and colleagues."?
I read the preface carefully, and I don't see how Rowlands could have said
anything else without claiming that this was the ultimate soft kite book and
no-one could ever design another soft kite again.
What would you like to see as a disclaimer "If there's a single typo in this
book you make sue me for every penny I've got"?
I've never met the guy, and I'm not claiming that the Rowlands version of the
flowform design (or his book) are the pinnacle of kite plans, but I really
don't think he deserves this level of criticism/abuse.
Did he steal your lollipop when you were a child?
--
+===========================================================================+
| Richard Bettis | "My lines and life are free; free as the |
| <rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk> | road, loose as the winde. |
|Kite Fliers Quotes (maybe): | George Herbert (1593 - 1633) |
+===========================================================================+
From: bflikite@aol.com (BfliKite)
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 1997/09/20
Message-Id: <19970920230500.TAA22991@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1
References: <530581444wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
SnewsLanguage: English
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.kites
After reading all the postings, have to add my 2 cents:
Scaled the pattern to about a 6 foot wide kite; modifying the rib profile
just a bit (about 1/2 way between the book and the varies errata that I
have seen.) Flies in good wind without any additonal drag. In higher, or
choppy Denver winds like this morning, I use a 4" diameter tube of about
15' -- that's it. By adjusting the lower bridle set to carry mure of the
pull, it does not over-fly. In light wind, it flys on just the top set of
bridles. The kite was flown on numerous days at WSIKF last month.
I agree with the bad rep on the flowform Jr relative to the pattern, but
the full flowform worked out real well for me.
at home :>) BfliKite@AOL.com
at work :<( mike.shaw@state.co.us
From: Dan Weinreb <dlw@atiq.odi.com>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 22 Sep 1997 16:25:42 -0400
Organization: Object Design Inc., Burlington, MA
Lines: 6
Message-Id: <x6pvq1w0xl.fsf@atiq.odi.com>
References: <530581444wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
<19970920230500.TAA22991@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: atiq.odi.com
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
bflikite@aol.com (BfliKite) writes:
> I agree with the bad rep on the flowform Jr relative to the pattern, but
> the full flowform worked out real well for me.
What kind of fabric did you use (e.g. "soft" or "crinkly")? Thanks!
From: Alan Mackie <alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:12:03 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <JwWXMBAz1BI0Ewa$@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <530581444wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk [193.237.18.154]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.03a <mLIPcvpuTZ3Kv$0X+3+vdf7+0w>
Lines: 90
Richard, how's by you? :>
>Sorry to rain on your tirade,
Feel free. Not that we need it in Ayrshire....
>but if you look at the book again, you'll find 2
>of the colour photos and one B&W in the body of the book show flowforms in
>flight. The colour photos even show that their was more than one of the things
>built when the book was written. There are more photos of the flowforms than
>any of the other kites.
Indeed. And in particular the green and yellow flowform in the colour
section seems, according to the curves in the centre section, to be
different from the drawings and plans. Is it, I wonder, the same design?
Seems mighty wrinkly to me, as well. Not to mention the apalling shape
of the trailing edges. This was built by a professional, you think?
>In point of fact, this kite flies perfectly well without the
>> rear lines attached at all! None of the photos appear to be of the kites
>> actually flying more than a few feet up and they all show problems with
>> slack flares and so on.
>You have good, close-up photos of kites at 100 feet? The B&W photo on page 61
>shows all the graininess of over-enlargement. All kite books I've seen with
>pictures of individual kites actually flying are only "a few feet up"!
Yep, as a matter of fact I do, taken with a 200mm lens. Certainly at a
lot higher than arm's length, at which any kite can be flow regarless
off how unstable it might be higher up. The proof of a good stable kite
isn't at ground level, as we all know. Besides, surely a book publisher
would employ a professional photographer?
>> If you read the preface carefully, you'll appreciate that this is a book
>> of developmental designs and added to the disclaimer on page 4 makes it
>> clear to me that the book frankly isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
>That's the bit that says "...they have been built, tried and tested in a
>variety of conditions by me and by a number of my friends and colleagues."?
No, that's the bit that says, on page 7, "to Dave Green.... for teaching
me the construction techniques." If the author of the book has to be
taught by a friend how to make them where does he get off then claiming
to be an expert himself? Beginner, possibly, but certainly not a person
on who's advice I would rely.
>I read the preface carefully,
?
>and I don't see how Rowlands could have said
>anything else without claiming that this was the ultimate soft kite book and
>no-one could ever design another soft kite again.
What he ought to have done is make it clear that these are development
ideas, in cases where they are. Surely a book of this type, to a
beginner kitemaker, are taken as gospel and ought to be totally
accurate.
>What would you like to see as a disclaimer "If there's a single typo in this
>book you make sue me for every penny I've got"?
Nope, that would be unreasonable. Oddly though, according to a few folk
I know who have the book, it's now in it's third edition and still has
several well-known measurement faults in it. Reasonable, you think?
When I first turned up at a club meeting with one of his designs, and it
wouldn't fly properly, I was told "Yeah, there's a fault in the plans
for that one." Handy, huh? Still, who cares, it was only time and money.
>I've never met the guy, and I'm not claiming that the Rowlands version of the
>flowform design (or his book) are the pinnacle of kite plans, but I really
>don't think he deserves this level of criticism/abuse.
Firstly, it's not Rowland's version of a flowform, it's Sutton's. It
says so in the preface that you read so carefully(!) Secondly, it
doesn't bear much resemblance to the Sutton design. Odd?
Think of it not so much as a personal tirade against him as a tirade
against the book in general. I wonder how many people have been turned
off making kites because of the well-known problems with these designs.
Is this a good thing?
>Did he steal your lollipop when you were a child?
Nope. Not as far as I know, Maybe he was too busy tickling your tummy...
See elsewhere for more....
--
Alan
From: jburka@Glue.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka)
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 1997/09/15
Message-Id: <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu>#1/1
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Newsgroups: rec.kites
In article <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk>,
Alan Mackie <alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[many complaints about the Rowlands flowform]
I'm rather surprised there hasn't been more support from that insane
European contingent which continues to insist on the superiority of the
Rowlands kite over a more traditional Sutton...
(perhaps they're too busy cutting patterns from _Kites for Everyone_?)
>>But I wonder whether the
>>key may actually be the elasticity of the bridle. I'm wondering how much
>>difference it would make to fork ot the extra for dyneema.
>
>No difference at all. A little stretch in the line, in my experience, is
>essential in virtually all single-line kites. Others will disagree, of
>course, but I fly single-line kites all the time and Dyneema tends to
>make them twitch and jump about too much. Fine for a stunter, of course,
>excellent product and so on.
Uh, the question was whether spectra/dyneema would be good for the bridle,
not for the flying line.
For what it's worth, I've got a 16 square foot sutton bridled with 150#
spectra (3 keels/bridle lines) which has been flying extremely well
for...uh...I think it'll be 5 years come February. Of course, I fly it
from your typical braided dacron or polyester...
jeff
--
|Jeffrey C. Burka | moving to jburka@cqi.com -- come say hi |
|http://www.cqi.com/~jburka | at the new digs...now up and running! |
From: Alan Mackie <alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:17:40 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <zwwZsEAUOxH0EwE8@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk [193.237.18.154]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.03a <mLIPcvpuTZ3Kv$0X+3+vdf7+0w>
Lines: 40
In article <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu>, "Jeffrey C. Burka"
<jburka@Glue.umd.edu> writes
Jeffrey :>
>[many complaints about the Rowlands flowform]
Many? That's putting it lightly.
>I'm rather surprised there hasn't been more support from that insane
>European contingent which continues to insist on the superiority of the
>Rowlands kite over a more traditional Sutton...
Not really my scene these days, I'm afraid. I learned about flowforms
and parafoils, found out what I wanted to know about them, and moved on.
But I'd by happy to play DA if you think it might help?
>(perhaps they're too busy cutting patterns from _Kites for Everyone_?)
Heavens! You suggest that's not a good thing to do? Deary me.
>>No difference at all. A little stretch in the line, in my experience, is
>>essential in virtually all single-line kites. Others will disagree, of
>>course,
>Uh, the question was whether spectra/dyneema would be good for the bridle,
>not for the flying line.
Whoops. Quite right. No, seems to cover it?
>For what it's worth, I've got a 16 square foot sutton bridled with 150#
>spectra (3 keels/bridle lines) which has been flying extremely well
>for...uh...I think it'll be 5 years come February. Of course, I fly it
>from your typical braided dacron or polyester...
I wonder then if the bridling material makes any difference. Frankly,
I'd doubt it. Though I admit the colours are prettier and maybe it's a
bit slippier.
--
Alan
From: "Bernhard Malle" <bernhard.malle@decrc.mail.abb.com.Please-Edit>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 16 Sep 1997 05:22:55 GMT
Lines: 23
Message-Id: <01bcc260$91c97800$295ede8a@malle>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: decrc.abb.de
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Jeffrey C. Burka <jburka@Glue.umd.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu>...
> [many complaints about the Rowlands flowform]
>
> I'm rather surprised there hasn't been more support from that insane
> European contingent which continues to insist on the superiority of the
> Rowlands kite over a more traditional Sutton...
If the Rolands design was better than anything, than the Sutton flowform
would have to be
compeletly crap...
I can only state that we from n@r.k have made four Rowland flowforms, from
which three are judged
to fly VERY BAD, no matter what we do with the bridles or whether we attach
one or more drogues.
Just my 0.02 DM....
Bernhard
PS Any comments Simo?
From: Richard Bettis <rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:45:34 +0100
Organization: Health & Safety Lab
Message-Id: <725255263wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu> <01bcc260$91c97800$295ede8a@malle>
Reply-To: rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-User: rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk
X-Mail2News-Path: punt-2.mail.demon.net!fats.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.9.1
Lines: 40
Berhard wrote:
> I can only state that we from n@r.k have made four Rowland flowforms, from
> which three are judged
> to fly VERY BAD, no matter what we do with the bridles or whether we attach
> one or more drogues.
Alan Mackie wrote:
> I made a few from his book a year or
> so back and they don't all fit together.
and
> ... it's because it's a badly designed aerofoil section. Both
> the flowforms as shown in the book tend to fall over if they get more
> than a few degrees off horizontal.
Steve Lane wrote:
> I made mine straight from the book and it flies great. No drogue.
Thomas-Michael wrote:
> I 've built nearly all of the flowforms and parafoils of Rowland's book,
> and, with a new bridle and little modifications, all them fly very well.
I'm reminded of a comment in Stunt Kites II on the "quality" of a given kite
design. (While being a bit critical of their own SpeedWing plan...) Nop and
Servaas point out that a successful commercial design is one that can suffer a
few small changes (errors?) in construction and setup and yet still fly
reasonably. Other designs may be as good, if not better, when they are made and
set-up "spot-on" but small changes in panel sizes, lengths or bridle
settings can ruin them completely.
I guess that the Rowlands flowform design is in the latter category, once
you've fixed the trailing edge problem you may or may not have a good
kite depending on your accuracy (or luck?).
--
+===========================================================================+
| Richard Bettis | "My lines and life are free; free as the |
| <rbettis@fats.demon.co.uk> | road, loose as the winde. |
|Kite Fliers Quotes (maybe): | George Herbert (1593 - 1633) |
+===========================================================================+
From: Alan Mackie <alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:16:57 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <HQ8UkHAZ6BI0Ew46@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu>
<01bcc260$91c97800$295ede8a@malle> <725255263wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk [193.237.18.154]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.03a <mLIPcvpuTZ3Kv$0X+3+vdf7+0w>
Lines: 22
Richard :>
I think this says a lot:
>Thomas-Michael wrote:
>> I 've built nearly all of the flowforms and parafoils of Rowland's book,
>> and, with a new bridle and little modifications, all them fly very well.
In other words, build it accurately, use the published settings for the
bridles and it won't fly properly. You need experience to know where and
how to modify the designs before they work. Catch 22, mibbe?
>I guess that the Rowlands flowform design is in the latter category, once
>you've fixed the trailing edge problem you may or may not have a good
>kite depending on your accuracy (or luck?).
I see that as agreeing with me. To paraphrase, once you alter the design
and change the measurements, it might fly. Is this a book that you feel
that you can recommend?
--
Alan
From: Thomas Dorf Nielsen <dorf@geordi.cs.auc.dk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:07:16 +0200
Organization: Department of Computer Science at Aalborg University
Lines: 24
Message-Id: <xyzraaot7gb.fsf@geordi.cs.auc.dk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu>
<01bcc260$91c97800$295ede8a@malle> <725255263wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: geordi.cs.auc.dk
X-Trace: sunsite.auc.dk 874501704 24590 dorf 130.225.194.78
X-Complaints-To: news@sunsite.auc.dk
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Just for the record:
Jim Rowlands himself recommends making the nose of the flowform 1cm
higher. Ie. increasing it from 22cm to 23cm. You should overlook the
second point at (5,26)cm, if you do this.
I have a PostScript file of the profile I would be happy to mail to
anyone interested. When printed, it gives you 14 pages (A4) to glue
together and - voila! - you got a full size template.
Yes, I mailed him a letter (c/o the publisher) instead of just
slandering him here or making wild guesses. :-)
Also he said that the flowform was "basically ok", although he
admitted to it having a few kinks. He claimed to have been under a lot
of time-pressure from the publisher. Not that it excuses anything, but
it *does* explain it.
Sorry, 'just couldn't hold it back anymore...
/dorf
---
Loon'n'Laugh at:
http://www.cs.auc.dk/~dorf/Kites/kitesbetter.html
From: Alan Mackie <alanmackie@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:24:03 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <$z6qMKADBCI0Ewtp@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu>
<01bcc260$91c97800$295ede8a@malle> <725255263wnr@fats.demon.co.uk>
<xyzraaot7gb.fsf@geordi.cs.auc.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk [193.237.18.154]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.03a <mLIPcvpuTZ3Kv$0X+3+vdf7+0w>
Lines: 48
Thomas :>
>Just for the record:
Thanks, I could do with a bit of help over here....
>Jim Rowlands himself recommends making the nose of the flowform 1cm
>higher. Ie. increasing it from 22cm to 23cm. You should overlook the
>second point at (5,26)cm, if you do this.
Hmmm. That, from memory, will make it more like a Sutton, which it is,
of course.
>I have a PostScript file of the profile I would be happy to mail to
>anyone interested. When printed, it gives you 14 pages (A4) to glue
>together and - voila! - you got a full size template.
Thanks, but no. I eventually followed the construction methods and built
my own designs based on airfoils taken from a set of designs for model
gliders. (Very similar operating speeds.) They all work fine.
>Yes, I mailed him a letter (c/o the publisher) instead of just
>slandering him here or making wild guesses. :-)
Slander? Interesting word, more later. I too wrote to the publisher,
nicely, and was ignored.
And not wild guesses. These are conclusions drawn after serious thought
and effort. As well as having the evidence in print, of course.
>Also he said that the flowform was "basically ok", although he
>admitted to it having a few kinks. He claimed to have been under a lot
>of time-pressure from the publisher. Not that it excuses anything, but
>it *does* explain it.
Ha! So even /he/ admits it's faulty? And as you say, there's no excuse
for publishing what is basically a /wrong/ design.
Now, how do you suggest that I slandered him? He and his publishers seem
still to be making money from this book. Is that reasonable, do you
think?
>Sorry, 'just couldn't hold it back anymore...
Been there, worn the nappy.
--
Alan
From: jwdob@euronet.nl ( Jan-Willem Dob)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform questions
Date: 17 Sep 1997 17:47:33 GMT
Organization: EuroNet Internet
Lines: 46
Message-Id: <342215ab.970789@news.euro.net>
References: <5vg7va$1ct@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <Cmm1JBAO+HH0EwjP@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <5vkvvl$idb@z.glue.umd.edu> <01bcc260$91c97800$295ede8a@malle> <725255263wnr@fats.demon.co.uk> <xyzraaot7gb.fsf@geordi.cs.auc.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p026.nij.euronet.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390
On 17 Sep 1997 15:07:16 +0200, Thomas Dorf Nielsen <dorf@geordi.cs.auc.dk> wrote:
>Just for the record:
>
>Jim Rowlands himself recommends making the nose of the flowform 1cm
>higher. Ie. increasing it from 22cm to 23cm. You should overlook the
>second point at (5,26)cm, if you do this.
>
>I have a PostScript file of the profile I would be happy to mail to
>anyone interested. When printed, it gives you 14 pages (A4) to glue
>together and - voila! - you got a full size template.
>
>Yes, I mailed him a letter (c/o the publisher) instead of just
>slandering him here or making wild guesses. :-)
>
>Also he said that the flowform was "basically ok", although he
>admitted to it having a few kinks. He claimed to have been under a lot
>of time-pressure from the publisher. Not that it excuses anything, but
>it *does* explain it.
>
>Sorry, 'just couldn't hold it back anymore...
>
>/dorf
>---
>Loon'n'Laugh at:
>http://www.cs.auc.dk/~dorf/Kites/kitesbetter.html
Ok here come's my bit....
I made the big (?) flowform (8 cells) with the Carrington stuff
No i didn.t use 'Balloon quality' and i left the trailing edge longer
as wat the book said.
Then sew the whole thing together
Later on i cut the trailing edge back to wat it should be SO NO PROBLEM!
(Always check the drawing before cutting, in doubt draw it on scale it works for me)
And the thing flies like hell (positive mented)
I atached a drogue and a long tail, not that it was necassery but i like the sight
of a 60ft tail.....
O yes i also lift my camera rigg with it, works great
And YES i bought the book so perhaps im not objective :-)
(Xcuse my bad English)
(Lets get some wind together and fly a kite.....)
From: gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip J. Le Riche)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Rowlands Flowform: 1st test flight
Date: 17 Oct 1997 16:43:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 22
Message-Id: <6284jh$ajo@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Reply-To: gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip J. Le Riche)
NNTP-Posting-Host: kanga.ins.cwru.edu
The reason I haven't got around to posting the results of the Flowform
Survey yet is because I've been too busy building my own! First test
flight today - results not brilliant.
The wind was pretty gusty, ranging between 2 - 15mph I'd guess. The main
problem seemed to be that the tops of the inlets, especially on the
middle section cells, tended to fold inwards rather than staying fully
open, as though it needed stiffer edge binding or even a bit of thin
fibreglass to keep it open. My edge binding is 5 layers thick, which is
similar to several survey respondants with well behaved kites.
Is this a generic problem with gusty winds? That's how they come round
here! I'm going to try somewhere a bit smoother on Sun if weather and
wind holds, but so far, results not too encouraging.
- Philip
--
=============================================================================
Philip Le Riche {PS Anti-spam auto-responder on reply address -
use pleriche at uk03 dot bull dot co dot uk}
(Malgre son nom, ce brave homme ne parle pas Francais)
From: bflikite@aol.com (BfliKite)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform: 1st test flight
Date: 18 Oct 1997 00:57:30 GMT
Lines: 10
Message-Id: <19971018005700.UAA00521@ladder02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: <6284jh$ajo@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
>The main
>problem seemed to be that the tops of the inlets, especially on the
>middle section cells, tended to fold inwards
I see the same response to gusty wind -- not a problem when in steady wind.
Putting a tad more pull on the lower set of bridle lines helps, but easy to
over adjust. The problem does not cause a crash, but does result in changes
in flight angle.
at home :>) BfliKite@AOL.com
at work :<( mike.shaw@state.co.us
From: Thomas Dorf Nielsen <dorf@geordi.cs.auc.dk>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform: 1st test flight
Date: 20 Oct 1997 16:37:42 +0200
Organization: Department of Computer Science at Aalborg University
Lines: 11
Message-Id: <xyzyb3o8pqh.fsf@geordi.cs.auc.dk>
References: <6284jh$ajo@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: geordi.cs.auc.dk
X-Trace: sunsite.auc.dk 877358262 15715 (None) 130.225.194.78
X-Complaints-To: news@sunsite.auc.dk
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip J. Le Riche) writes:
> The wind was pretty gusty, ranging between 2 - 15mph I'd guess. The main
> problem seemed to be that the tops of the inlets, especially on the
> middle section cells, tended to fold inwards rather than staying fully
> open,
Maybe this is the reason why Rowlands has suggested a 1cm increase at
the nose...?
/dorf
From: Dan Weinreb <dlw@odi.com>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Re: Rowlands Flowform: 1st test flight
Date: 22 Oct 1997 16:15:52 -0400
Organization: Object Design Inc., Burlington, MA
Lines: 34
Message-Id: <x6vhyp4kqv.fsf@nanook.odi.com>
References: <6284jh$ajo@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<xyzyb3o8pqh.fsf@geordi.cs.auc.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nanook.odi.com
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Thomas Dorf Nielsen <dorf@geordi.cs.auc.dk> writes:
>
> gf164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Philip J. Le Riche) writes:
>
> > The wind was pretty gusty, ranging between 2 - 15mph I'd guess. The main
> > problem seemed to be that the tops of the inlets, especially on the
> > middle section cells, tended to fold inwards rather than staying fully
> > open,
>
I just tried my Rowlands Flowform again recently (at the AKA
Convention soft kite mass ascension), in similarly gusty winds. It
didn't fly well, and I think I was seeing the same problem. The whole
leading "inlet" collapses sometimes.
> Maybe this is the reason why Rowlands has suggested a 1cm increase at
> the nose...?
>
> /dorf
I'm inclined to agree with this. The tops of the inlets should be
"further back", so to speak, and everything else should be adjusted
correspondingly. Unfortunately, it's not easy to retrofit this
change.
The commercial flowforms I've seen don't seem to have any stiffening,
or particularly heavy edge binding, at the leading edge.
I also still suspect that using softer fabric, instead of "crinkly"
ripstop, would help a lot, although it's purely a guess.
Unfortunately it apparently isn't easy to get such fabric in the USA
from the usual suppliers, but I'll keep looking around.
From: "Barry Whiffin" <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net>
Subject: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 07 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book "Soft Kites
and Windsocks"? I am 50% through building one and wondered how it performs?
I intend to use it for photography. All opinions welcome.
Thanks
Barry
From: hprinzler@aol.com (Hprinzler)
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 08 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <1998060806413000.CAA12597@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Im Artikel <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>, "Barry Whiffin"
<barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net> schreibt:
>Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book "Soft Kites
>and Windsocks"?
Hi Barry,
once there was a mail on rec.kites, that the crown rigged parafoil would never
fly.
I can�t say at the moment, who it was.
Harald.
From: Nathan Sendan <lgecko@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 08 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <6lgr7c$p61$1@gte1.gte.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net> <1998060806413000.CAA12597@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Organization: Laughing Gecko Kites
X-Auth: DA0B82115C8C84D016918491
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Hprinzler wrote:
>
> Im Artikel <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>, "Barry Whiffin"
> <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net> schreibt:
>
> >Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book "Soft Kites
> >and Windsocks"?
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> once there was a mail on rec.kites, that the crown rigged parafoil would never
> fly.
> I can�t say at the moment, who it was.
>
> Harald.
I havn't built the kite, but at least one person has gotten the kite to
fly....
Jim Rowlands manages to have pictures of the crown rigged parafoil in
his book. In flight, in the days before photoshop was any good ;-)
--
Nathan Sendan
Laughing Gecko Kite Co. [Summer Sale!]
website @ http://home1.gte.net/sendan/lg.html
reply to: lgecko@gte.net - 1-925-686-9108
From: Alan Mackie <awm@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 08 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <YzJj8CATkCf1Ew05@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net> <1998060806413000.CAA12597@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6lgr7c$p61$1@gte1.gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk:193.237.18.154
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 897329703 nnrp-03:7267 NO-IDENT skyshots.demon.co.uk:193.237.18.154
Organization: Skyshots Aerial Photography
Newsgroups: rec.kites
>I havn't built the kite, but at least one person has gotten the kite to
>fly....
>Jim Rowlands manages to have pictures of the crown rigged parafoil in
>his book. In flight, in the days before photoshop was any good ;-)
There's a picture of /a/ rainbow foil, yes, but it has some very odd
lines lying loose at the right and seems to be not greatly crown-rigged.
And it's not shown to be in flight, as you suggest.
Now, I haven't built this kite, but follow this from observations made
by putting the dimensions given in the book into a drawing package.
I drew the shape of each cell at the highest point, as seen from the
front, added on the 'B' flares and then copied, rotated and positioend
each piece to form a curve, as per the dimensions in the plans.
Then I added in the lines to the 'B' flares. The outer ones failed to
reach the flares by varying amounts up to about 35cm. In short, the foil
doesn't have enough fabric in the top surfaces to bend enough to allow
the lines from each set of flares to be same length. If you allow for
the fact that I was assuming /flat/ fabric, not bowed out by the air, it
makes the top even narrower and even less able to curve properly.
The plan is wrong OR the line lengths are wrong OR both.
As to your photoshop observation, I find the perfect tone of sky and the
edges of the image in every picture a clear indication that they've been
manipulated to make the sky a constant tone. No harm in that at all.
As I said previously on this topic I always prefer to see shots of kites
flying high, small though they may be on the page, rather than just
inflated a few feet above the ground with the anchor point (hand held?)
out of the shot...
But then, my opinions on the book are already well known.
--
Cheers,
Alan
From: "Tom Stuart" <tsstuart@midcoast.com.au>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 12 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <35812e11.0@job.acay.com.au>
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net><1998060806413000.CAA12597@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6lgr7c$p61$1@gte1.gte.net> <YzJj8CATkCf1Ew05@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: Telstra Internet Browse Server
Newsgroups: rec.kites
In fact I am not aware of your thoughts on the book. If you don't like it
what book on the same topic do you recommend. I was about to embark on
trying my hand at making some soft kites.
Tom Stuart
tsstuart@midcoast.com.au
Gloucester, NSW, Australia
Alan Mackie wrote in message ...
>
>As I said previously on this topic I always prefer to see shots of kites
>flying high, small though they may be on the page, rather than just
>inflated a few feet above the ground with the anchor point (hand held?)
>out of the shot...
>
>But then, my opinions on the book are already well known.
>--
>Cheers,
>
>Alan
From: Alan Mackie <awm@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 17 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <ji69ICAqfDi1Ewr6@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net> <1998060806413000.CAA12597@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6lgr7c$p61$1@gte1.gte.net> <YzJj8CATkCf1Ew05@skyshots.demon.co.uk> <35812e11.0@job.acay.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: skyshots.demon.co.uk:193.237.18.154
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 898125589 nnrp-08:10594 NO-IDENT skyshots.demon.co.uk:193.237.18.154
Organization: Skyshots Aerial Photography
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Tom :>
Sorry about the delay getting back to you. The dreaded flu struck over the
weekend.
>In fact I am not aware of your thoughts on the book. If you don't like it
>what book on the same topic do you recommend. I was about to embark on
>trying my hand at making some soft kites.
I seem to have come across harder than I had planned. Oops?
Frankly, I've looked at several books on soft kites and can't really
recommend any of them as being foolproof.
Which is, I agree, totally negative. Are you in a club? Can you get direct
advice on how to alter a published design to make it work properly?
I do have plans to put my money where my mouth is and make one or two of my
plans for soft kites available fairly soon, but other than that I'd be stuck
to suggest anything other than build something, learn from it, and then build
it better.
This is what many of us have had to do, of course, which is why I want to
ease that load on new builders a little, when time permits.
Anyone else got any soft kite plans that work out of the box?
--
Cheers,
Alan
From: Mike Dallmer <mdallmer@arserrc.gov>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 09 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <357D215D.896E289B@arserrc.gov>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>
To: Barry Whiffin <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: usda
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Barry Whiffin wrote:
> Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book "Soft
> Kites
> and Windsocks"? I am 50% through building one and wondered how it
> performs?
> I intend to use it for photography. All opinions welcome.
> Thanks
> Barry
I built one a few years ago and tried flying it a few times without
much success. Problem is it has a tendency to fall off to either side. I
tried various drogues I had in my bag at the time and none seamed to
work. It has been in the bag for a couple of years, maybe it is time to
get it out again. i know this didn't help much, sorry. Good WInds....
Mike
--
*
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * Up with kites, down with bears (but only with a chute)
* *
* *
*
*
******** Mike Dallmer (P.A.W.S.)
mdallmer@arserrc.gov
From: "Barry Whiffin" <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 09 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <6ll306$661$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net> <357D215D.896E289B@arserrc.gov>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Thanks to all for the input on the rainbow.
Mike, you have me worried now! I don't want to spend all that time, just to
have it lie on the bottom of my kite bag. Maybe if you are near San
Francisco we can get the two of them together and compare notes? Have you
built any other good sized parafoils with more success?
Barry
Mike Dallmer wrote in message <357D215D.896E289B@arserrc.gov>...
[snip]
> I built one a few years ago and tried flying it a few times without
>much success. Problem is it has a tendency to fall off to either side. I
[snip]
>Mike
[snip]
> mdallmer@arserrc.gov
From: Mike Dallmer <mdallmer@arserrc.gov>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 10 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <357E6706.28D1736C@arserrc.gov>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net> <357D215D.896E289B@arserrc.gov> <6ll306$661$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>
To: Barry Whiffin <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: usda
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Barry Whiffing wrote:
> Thanks to all for the input on the rainbow.
> Mike, you have me worried now! I don't want to spend all that time,
> just to
> have it lie on the bottom of my kite bag. Maybe if you are near San
> Francisco we can get the two of them together and compare notes? Have
> you
> built any other good sized parafoils with more success?
> Barry
Hi Barry, I hope I didn't mislead you but I was talking about the crown
rigged parasol from Rowlands, is that the same as the rainbow. No San
Francisco plans but if you are in the Philadelphia area we could get
together. I'm still looking for a good set of plans for a larger
parafoil also.... Mike
--
*
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * Up with kites, down with bears (but only with a chute)
* *
* *
*
*
******** Mike Dallmer (P.A.W.S.)
mdallmer@arserrc.gov
From: "Mark Pelletier" <markp99@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 14 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <6m156n$29t@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net> <357D215D.896E289B@arserrc.gov>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: ICGNetcom
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jun 14 11:36:07 AM PDT 1998
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Hello Barry,
Yes, I have build the crowned-rigged rainbow! I built an accurately
scaled-down version (80%) with great success. The face of my parafoil is a
complex geometry of intersecting triangles...I think it looks great.
This kite was a bit of work, further complicated by the geometric graphics.
The bridling in the book did not seem to work properly, but the "crowned"
nature of the rigging makes adjustments very easy. I simply added a leader
to the common point of each equidistant row of bridles adjusting the leader
length until I had the angle to the wind I wanted and then fine-tuned until
I had ~equal tension on each row of bridle lines.
I added 3 - 50 foot tube tails which I made from all of the scrap I have
accumulated. This kite with these tails is quite a site. I've had this
kite fly so high that low flying aircraft at the beach have diverted their
paths to avoid this monster (looks a bit like a multicolor octopus).
When the wind is light I remove one or 2 of the tails. I do not trust the
kite with no tail as it seems to tend to roll out of the window.
This kite flies every time I go to the beach!!
Go for it...it will fly...may take adjustment...but it will fly!!
Mark
Mike Dallmer wrote in message <357D215D.896E289B@arserrc.gov>...
>Barry Whiffin wrote:
>
>> Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book "Soft
>> Kites
>> and Windsocks"? I am 50% through building one and wondered how it
>> performs?
>> I intend to use it for photography. All opinions welcome.
>> Thanks
>> Barry
>
> I built one a few years ago and tried flying it a few times without
>much success. Problem is it has a tendency to fall off to either side. I
>tried various drogues I had in my bag at the time and none seamed to
>work. It has been in the bag for a couple of years, maybe it is time to
>get it out again. i know this didn't help much, sorry. Good WInds....
>Mike
>
>--
> *
> * *
> * *
> * *
> * *
> * *
> * * Up with kites, down with bears (but only with a chute)
>
> * *
> * *
> *
> *
> ******** Mike Dallmer (P.A.W.S.)
> mdallmer@arserrc.gov
>
>
From: "Barry Whiffin" <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 21 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <6mkach$dg4$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Thanks again to all for the input on my original question (Had anyone built
one?).
I can now answer my own question. YES it's finished. It has just returned
from it's third outing, this time at Berkeley Marina. It FLIES just GREAT!
It is very stable once in flight. I used approx. 150-175 feet of line. It
does require some kind of tail ( I used 4 shop towels and 30 feet of string
(zero style points).
It was built completely to the plan in the book except for one error in the
plan which places the rear "D" "flares" 11cm too far towards the rear of the
kite. If built to plan they would hang out the back. This also effects the
length of the rigging lines. To any who are thinking of building the kite,
pay careful attention to the way the "D" flares attach. The "fig 5.28" is
incorrect, in that it shows the hypotenuse of flare "D" attached to the
kite, the same as flares "A", "B" & "C". This is incorrect, the 40cm side of
the "D" flare should be attached to the kite, see "fig5.24.
I hope this encourages those who have built this kite to try flying it
again. Let me know how it goes.
Barry
Barry Whiffin wrote in message <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book "Soft Kites
>and Windsocks"? I am 50% through building one and wondered how it performs?
>I intend to use it for photography. All opinions welcome.
>Thanks
>Barry
>
>
From: indianhead@mail.telepac.pt (Joao Carlos Ribeiro)
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <6n1e4u$m1t@brown.telepac.pt>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net> <6mkach$dg4$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Forget about it, the kite is unsteady. IIt was most of all a big waste of=20
time,but I learned a loT about bridle tunning :-)
>
>Barry
>
>Barry Whiffin wrote in message <6lfqsk$tnu$2@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>>Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book "Soft Kites
>>and Windsocks"? I am 50% through building one and wondered how it perform=
s?
>>I intend to use it for photography. All opinions welcome.
>>Thanks
>>Barry
>>
>>
>
>
Joao Carlos Ribeiro =20
Av.Republica 1787 1=BAA =20
2775 Parede =20
Portugal
Team ADVANCE Kites-Portugal =20
http://www.advance-kites.com
Tel/fax/voice: 351 1 457 69 25
Mobile: 0931 990 23 34
ICQ N=BA 5552928
E-mail: indianhead@mail.telepac.pt
From: "C.K.C." <cpmt@dot.net.au>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 15 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <01bd97ff$dbeae160$db7516cb@number-5>
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Originator: mss@minuet.das.harvard.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Whiffin <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net>
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: Monday, 8 June 1998 14:57
Subject: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
>Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book
"Soft Kites
>and Windsocks"? I am 50% through building one and wondered how
it performs?
>I intend to use it for photography. All opinions welcome.
>Thanks
>Barry
Barry, I saved this post when it was first posted on rec.kites to
show my mate Chris who was in the middle of one. Sorry, it's not
good news.
Celia
From: Chris Brent <cbrent@orix.com.au>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <3585AE3C.903ABA2B@orix.com.au>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <01bd97ff$dbeae160$db7516cb@number-5>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Magna Data - Internet Solutions Provider
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.kites
C.K.C. wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Whiffin <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.kites
> Date: Monday, 8 June 1998 14:57
> Subject: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
>
> >Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book
> "Soft Kites
> >and Windsocks"? I am 50% through building one and wondered how
> it performs?
> >I intend to use it for photography. All opinions welcome.
> >Thanks
> >Barry
>
> Barry, I saved this post when it was first posted on rec.kites to
> show my mate Chris who was in the middle of one. Sorry, it's not
^^^^^^^^
Hey that was Simon not me! I never *start* single line projects let
alone stop half way through. He'd cut the profile already too... out of
1/2 once icky. Yes I know why would you use 1/2 once icky, you have to
meet Simon to understand.
> good news.
>
> Celia
Chris
> >His comments - Don't make the rainbow it will never fly, the
> profile shape
> >is wrong!!!!
> >
> >This book is still on sale without any warning or correction,
> BEWARE bad
> >plans
The more I hear about this book the more I realise its only a set of
*guides* not plans per se :)
From: "Tom Stuart" <tsstuart@midcoast.com.au>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <35865648.0@job.acay.com.au>
References: <01bd97ff$dbeae160$db7516cb@number-5> <3585AE3C.903ABA2B@orix.com.au>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: Telstra Internet Browse Server
Newsgroups: rec.kites
So does anyone know where to obtain or purchase plans for soft kites (seems
I have to add the descriptor "good" soft kite plans). My preference is
toward power kites.
Thanks
Tom Stuart
tsstuart@midcoast.com.au
Gloucester, NSW, Australia
Chris Brent wrote in message <3585AE3C.903ABA2B@orix.com.au>...
>C.K.C. wrote:
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Barry Whiffin <barrymwANTISPAM@ANTISPAMpacbell.net>
>> >Has anyone built the crown rigged Rainbow from Rowland's book
>> "Soft Kites
>> >and Windsocks"?
>> >Barry
>>
>The more I hear about this book the more I realise its only a set of
>*guides* not plans per se :)
From: "C.K.C." <cpmt.nojunk@dot.net.au>
Subject: Re: Anyone built Rowland's Rainbow?
Date: 18 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <6ma2cl$7ue$1@ns.dot.net.au>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <01bd97ff$dbeae160$db7516cb@number-5> <3585AE3C.903ABA2B@orix.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Organization: Dot Communications Ltd, Australia, +612 9281-1111
Newsgroups: rec.kites
>> Barry, I saved this post when it was first posted on rec.kites to
>> show my mate Chris who was in the middle of one. Sorry, it's not
> ^^^^^^^^
>Hey that was Simon not me! I never *start* single line projects let
>alone stop half way through. He'd cut the profile already too... out of
>1/2 once icky. Yes I know why would you use 1/2 once icky, you have to
>meet Simon to understand.
Sorry, Chris, honey bunch, sweetie pie, I realised after I sent it that it
was Simon and not you. His rainbow profiles turned into a bol, didn't they
? And I think you and I *both* know why Simon used the 1/2 oz icky, don't
we ? ;-)) Wasn't it just because it was there ? <g>
Celia
PS. I think you gave me your cold over the phone, you b*****d. <g>
From: Philip Le Riche (pleriche@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE)
Subject: Rowlands Frog experience?
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1998/09/25
>Heck, I've decided I've just gotta build it. The conic waldof, the pely
box, the serpent, the mk2 circo and a few other will just have to wait.
Anybody got any experience? Rowlands describes it as very hard to build
but I can't see anything that looks insuperable. Just one thing - he
seems to imply that you have to finnish attaching the legs with the
thing the right way out (i.e. not inside out to get the seam on the
inside). Strikes me you should be able to do it inside out if you finish
with the foot. Any obvious dimensional inaccuracies?
- Philip
--
=============================================================================
Philip Le Riche Voice: +44 1442 884390
(Malgre son nom, ce brave homme Fax: +44 1442 884854
ne parle pas Francais) Email: pleriche@uk03.bull.co.uk
=============================================================================
From: Dan Weinreb (dlw@handcuff.odi.com)
Subject: Re: Rowlands Frog experience?
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1998/09/26
I haven't built the Rowlands frog, but I did build the whale. Like
the infamous flowform, the whale plans are not quite right; I
recommend that you go over the sizes of the pieces of the frog
carefully before you start to build, and see if they all make sense.
My whale never flew well; it was wildly unstable even in clean wind.
I don't know why. It may very well have been my fault in any number
of ways. But after being disappointed by two soft Rowlands kites,
I decided that I'd had enough. I once saw a commercial frog kite
which looked quite similar to the Rowlands frog, and it flew pretty
well although not superlatively.
-- Dan
From: pleriche@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Philip Le Riche)
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Subject: Hey! I axeled my Rowlands Frog!
Date: 31 Oct 1998 21:10:07 GMT
Organization: Bull Information Systems Ltd.
Lines: 106
Message-Id: <71fubf$3pc1@mailnews.uk03.bull.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alcyone.uk03.bull.co.uk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Well, maybe not quite, but it flew! In fact, it dived and ducked and
looped (sometimes with a diameter less than its height, sometimes
not). But my lunchtime flying site is dreadful for variable winds -
my first test flight with the flowform there was a disaster, but
given one fine day yesterday in a week of gales and rain, and worse
forcast for the weekend, I had to try it. My impression was that the
bridle needed adjustment, but that will have to wait for some better
weather and a better flying site.
Various people have posted experiences with 2 or 3 of Rowlands' kites
(from his book "Soft Kites and Windsocks") but nobody has reported on
the Frog. So here goes.
Jim Rowlands describes construction of the frog as very difficult,
and likely to be a real test of your skills. I've built a few stick
kites, a few ram-air sleds, and the Rowlands Multitube and Flowform,
and so consider myself an intermediate builder. Nevertheless, I
couldn't see anything in the plans that seemed greatly beyond what
I've done before, and indeed, it didn't present any difficulties of
the order Jim seemed to be indicating. Unless, that is, you're aiming
for professional accuracy, which would certainly be well beyond my
abilities, and harder to achieve with the frog than, say, the
flowform.
As with most of the designs in Jim Rowlands' book, there are a number
of errors. In the case of the frog, they all become obvious at the
stage of making the templates, and are easily corrected. For the
record, these are the errors I found, and other comments:
1. Materials - I can't see how Jim used 7m of fabric unless his was
somewhat narrower than mine. Using 1.5m wide, you should only need
about 5m, but if you can't cut 5 ribs or 4 legs from a width you'll
need more. I used 2 shades of green - a leaf green for the front and
undersides of the ribs and a dark slimy green for the sides and back.
I did the fronts of the eyes red with a black pupil shaped like a
rectangle with concave sides.
2. Several figures in Table 1 (Rib Shape) are wrong as follows
(erroneous figures in brackets):
20.0 23.5(24.0) 1.0
25.0 24.0 0.5(0.0)
30.0 24.5 0.0(blank)
65.0 28.5(29.0)
112.0(102.0) 0.0
3. The length of the back is about right - mine came out 0.5cm too
long. As with most parafoils and flowforms it seems to be a good idea
to cut the back long and trim after sewing the ribs.
4. The shape of the body pieces is not specified. You have to adjust
them to get the right lengths of the outer curved edges.
5. I couldn't see why the outer body pieces were made in two then
sewn together before sewing to the outer ribs. Why not just cut the
outer body pieces as single pieces? However, if you sew them each to
the outer ribs first, you can sew them on with the hem on the inside.
You can then join them together, inside out, again getting the hem on
the inside. Incidentally, Fig 7.13 shows an upper body piece for one
side and a lower for the other. To get a set for one side, one of
them should have been shown as its mirror image.
6. Sewing on the eyes I found about the hardest part. After a lot of
thought, I just went ahead and did it. My hems around the backs of
the eyes where they join onto the back are a bit wonky, but you
wouldn't notice it in flight!
7. The tops of the legs are shown curved in an S shape but no
dimensions are given for the curve. I did mine straight, and used a
straight hem where the legs join the back and front, only using
curved hems where they join the outer body parts. That seemed to work
ok.
8. The 75 degree angles shown on Fig 7.14 refer to the leg centre
line, not one of the edges. (Obvious? It took me a few minutes to
realise.)
9. Jim's method of sewing on the legs leaves the last bit of hem on
the inside thighs as an outside hem. It's easy to eliminate this,
giving a tidier result, as follows:
Sew the upper and lower leg pieces to the body, with them folded back
over the body, to get the hem on the inside. With the leg pieces
still folded back over the body, sew the upper and lower leg pieces
together (inside out) down to the knees. Now turn the legs the right
way out, plunge your arm down the poor creature's throat, grab a leg,
and pull it (inside out) through the front opening. You can now sew
it down to the foot. The only disadvantage is that you may find you
haven't got the upper and lower leg pieces properly lined up
so the knee and foot bends don't quite line up between the upper and
lower pieces. If I were building another, I'd put marks at the same
place an inch or two down each side of each leg piece, and make sure
they were lined up before starting to sew the thighs.
9. Whilst sewing on the legs and down the thighs, it's very easy to
get an extra layer of fabric from somewhere under the needle - take
care!
- Philip
(P.S. I'll archive this posting on my Rowlands errata page at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/6767)
--
=============================================================================
Philip Le Riche Voice: +44 1442 884390
(Malgre son nom, ce brave homme Fax: +44 1442 884854
ne parle pas Francais) Email: pleriche@uk03.bull.co.uk
=============================================================================
From: Dan Weinreb (dlw@handcuff.odi.com)
Subject: Re: Hey! I axeled my Rowlands Frog!
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1998/11/04
>pleriche@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Philip Le Riche) writes:
>
> Well, maybe not quite, but it flew! In fact, it dived and ducked and
> looped (sometimes with a diameter less than its height, sometimes
> not).>
That sounds like what my Rowlands Whale does. Anyway, congratulations!
From: Baz Thrower (bthrower@intertain.co.au)
Subject: Rowlands soft kites
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1999/01/23
>Has anyone built either the 'caterpillar' or the 'raspberry twist'
from the Rowlands Soft kites and Windsocks book.
Knowing of mistakes in some of the plans in this book, I'd feel
happier if I knew they worked out for someone else.
All the best.
Baz
From: Nathan Sendan (lgecko@gte.net)
Subject: Re: Rowlands soft kites
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1999/01/23
>
many years ago i built a pair of catapillars. Its a pretty simple
windsock, not much you can do wrong with it. A lot of sometimes pretty
boring work. but kids loce to watch them in flight.
If i were to build one again, i'd make it about 10 times as big, as we
all know, bigger is better.
one construction insight.
I found it to be easiest to sew each set of segments together, leaving
the final seam undone, then sew all the sets together, sew the final
seam all the way down the windsock, then turn the thing rightside out.
It was way easier to do it that way than sewing all the sections
completely and then sewing the complete sections together...
have fun,
--
Nathan Sendan
Laughing Gecko Kites *Bay Area, California, USA*
website: http://home1.gte.net/sendan/lg.html
email: lgecko@gte.net - (510) 435-1081
(sneak peek --> new quadline http://home1.gte.net/sendan/typhoon.jpg )
From: Baz Thrower (bthrower@intertain.co.au)
Subject: Re: Rowlands soft kites
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1999/01/24
>
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:43:49 +0000, Nathan Sendan <lgecko@gte.net>
wrote:
>many years ago i built a pair of catapillars. Its a pretty simple
>windsock, not much you can do wrong with it. A lot of sometimes pretty
>boring work. but kids loce to watch them in flight.
>
>If i were to build one again, i'd make it about 10 times as big, as we
>all know, bigger is better.>
I am considering making it bigger, perhaps twice as big since I don't
have any big lifting kites.
I assume just doubling all measurements would be OK.
>
>one construction insight.
>I found it to be easiest to sew each set of segments together, leaving
>the final seam undone, then sew all the sets together, sew the final
>seam all the way down the windsock, then turn the thing rightside out.
>It was way easier to do it that way than sewing all the sections
>completely and then sewing the complete sections together...>
This sounds like really good advice.
Many thanks
All the best
Baz
From: Hprinzler (hprinzler@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Rowlands soft kites
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1999/01/26
>
Hi Baz,
Im Artikel <36a981a5.77495@news.intertain.com.au>, bthrower@intertain.co.au
(Baz Thrower) schreibt:
>Has anyone built either the 'caterpillar' or the 'raspberry twist'
>from the Rowlands Soft kites and Windsocks book.>
The caterpillar I built upscaled (I think it was factor 2 or 3). The drag is
not too much, so even with small kites you can lift it.
The raspberry twist I build in original size. It is more difficult to build. It
was an expirience for me. I haven´t used it often.
>Knowing of mistakes in some of the plans in this book, I'd feel
>happier if I knew they worked out for someone else.>
At the moment I don´t know any problems about these pieces. Only the bottom
surface of the diabolo drogue is difficult to create on fabric. There are no
datas for it.
Sorry, no more help at the moment.
Regards
Harald.
From: Baz Thrower (bthrower@intertain.co.au)
Subject: Re: Rowlands soft kites
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1999/01/26
>
On 26 Jan 1999 07:35:25 GMT, hprinzler@aol.com (Hprinzler) wrote:
>
>Hi Baz,
>
>Im Artikel <36a981a5.77495@news.intertain.com.au>, bthrower@intertain.co.au
>(Baz Thrower) schreibt:
>>
>>Has anyone built either the 'caterpillar' or the 'raspberry twist'
>>from the Rowlands Soft kites and Windsocks book.>
>The caterpillar I built upscaled (I think it was factor 2 or 3). The drag is
>not too much, so even with small kites you can lift it.
>The raspberry twist I build in original size. It is more difficult to build. It
>was an expirience for me. I haven´t used it often.
>>
>>Knowing of mistakes in some of the plans in this book, I'd feel
>>happier if I knew they worked out for someone else.>
>At the moment I don´t know any problems about these pieces. Only the bottom
>surface of the diabolo drogue is difficult to create on fabric. There are no
>datas for it.
>
>Sorry, no more help at the moment.
>Regards
>Harald.>
Hi Harald
Thank you for your reply.
I've decided to build the Caterpillar and double all the measurements
on the plan. I decided that perhaps the 12' delta would do the lifting
if the 2m Rok wasn't up to the task.
All the best
Baz
From: Dan Weinreb (dlw@handcuff.odi.com)
Subject: Re: Rowlands soft kites
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 1999/01/28
hprinzler@aol.com (Hprinzler) writes:
> At the moment I don´t know any problems about these pieces. Only the bottom
> surface of the diabolo drogue is difficult to create on fabric. There are no
> datas for it.>
I built a diablo drogue a few years ago. Yeah, you have to trace out the
pattern. I didn't have any problems.
From: René Hinloopen (prosa@tref.nl)
Subject: Jim Rolands Frog-kite :(
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/19
>
Hello Kiters,
Did someone in the world flew the "Le Frog" kite?
And if so, how did you modified the kite so it flew in the air in stead of
diving to the ground?
Regards,
René
From: Toerag (toerag-too@bigfoot.com)
Subject: Re: Jim Rolands Frog-kite :(
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/19
Ive got the 6ft Le Frog and to be honest Ive had no problems flying it, a
steady 10-15 ml wind seems to inflate it Ok then it flies fairly low to the
ground for the length of line that released i.e. about 150ft of line gives
around 75ft of height. All I can think of is maybe one of your bride lines
is set incorrectly.
Tony
Tight Lines
From: Dave (davlin.holt@cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Jim Rolands Frog-kite :(
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/19
>
René Hinloopen wrote:
>
> Hello Kiters,
>
> Did someone in the world flew the "Le Frog" kite?
> And if so, how did you modified the kite so it flew in the air in stead of
> diving to the ground?
>
> Regards,
> René>
I also own one of these kites and have had no trouble at all unless the
wind is to strong, when it will weave about and eventually hit the deck.
Try adding a small drogue maybe, for added efect, in the shape of a
tadpole or do as i did and scaled it up to twice its size. It seams the
bigger it is the easier it flies, even in stronger wind. Regards, Dave.
--
The Aeroplane Kite Site http://www.womack.u-net.com/daveholt/
>
From: Philip Le Riche (gr75@bcs.org.uk)
Subject: Re: Jim Rolands Frog-kite :(
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/20
>
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Ren Hinloopen wrote:
> Hello Kiters,
>
> Did someone in the world flew the "Le Frog" kite?
> And if so, how did you modified the kite so it flew in the air in stead o f
> diving to the ground?
>
> Regards,
> Ren >
I built the frog a year or two ago. Yes, it's quite hard to fly. Whenever
it starts to dive, give it some slack line and it may right itself before
it hits the ground. Whenever it points towards the sky, pull the line and
get some height. I did once get it to fly, staked to the ground, for long
enough to take a couple of photos. Maybe a bit of fiddling with the bridle
would help.
You can find my archive of Rowlands-related posings under
www.geocities.com/p leriche
- Philip
=========================
=========================
=========================
==
Philip Le Riche Voice: +44 1442 884390
(Malgre son nom, ce brave homme Fax: +44 1442 884854
ne parle pas Francais) Email: pleriche@uk03.bull.co.
uk
=========================
=========================
=========================
==
From: TOMVCR (tomvcr@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Jim Rolands Frog-kite :(
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/30
>
>
>Did someone in the world flew the "Le Frog" kite?
>And if so, how did you modified the kite so it flew in the air in stead of
>diving to the ground?
>>
we have a frog also and find it most tempermental!!
we did shorten the center bridel lines a little to give it a sharper v belly
and it seems to help a little but we have never really been happy with it.
when it does fly it is sure a crowd pleaser.
It never flies high always rather low.
any suggestions would be apreaciated.
From: simon lupton (simon@luptons.freeserve.co.uk)
Subject: Flowform.
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/28
>Hi Kiters,
Has anyone made the Jim Rowlands Flowform Junior?.
Do you have any tips on construction or any better plans?.
--
Best regards
From: windcheetah@my-deja.com (windcheetah@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Flowform.
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/29
In article <8jdliq$g7m$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"simon lupton" <simon@luptons.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Kiters,
>
> Has anyone made the Jim Rowlands Flowform Junior?.
> Do you have any tips on construction or any better plans?.
>
> --
> Best regards
>
> Simon>
Hi,
first stop would have to be HTTP://MEMBERS.AOL.COM/HPRINZLER/
for very comprehensive information on flowforms.
FWIW, I've headed towards the, dare I say it, more American / Sutton
type of flowform, which for me are a more stable animal.
Construction is quite staightforward, although you should consider
using any of the kite fabrics and not balloon fabric as the latter has
too much stretch which may compound any instability inherent in the
design. You should consider drogue attachment points as mandatory.
Regards, Roger Parry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Hprinzler (hprinzler@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Flowform.
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/29
Hi Simon,
Im Artikel <8jdliq$g7m$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "simon lupton"
<simon@luptons.freeserve.co.uk> schreibt:
>Has anyone made the Jim Rowlands Flowform Junior?.
>Do you have any tips on construction or any better plans?.
>
>>
I got information about successful building and flying by some builders. But
remark the errors in the book.
Look for the flowform comparison
http://members.aol.com/hprinzler
If you build this kite, please tell me your expiriences.
Nice breezes
Harald.
From: simon lupton (simon@luptons.freeserve.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Flowform.
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2000/06/29
Thank you all for your information.
I will report back on the success of this project.
Best regards
Simon.
"Hprinzler" <hprinzler@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000629045039.10818.00016661@nso-fi.aol.com...
> Hi Simon,
>
> Im Artikel <8jdliq$g7m$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "simon lupton"
> <simon@luptons.freeserve.co.uk> schreibt:
>>
> >Has anyone made the Jim Rowlands Flowform Junior?.
> >Do you have any tips on construction or any better plans?.
> >
> >>
> I got information about successful building and flying by some builders. But
> remark the errors in the book.
>
> Look for the flowform comparison
> http://members.aol.com/hprinzler
>
> If you build this kite, please tell me your expiriences.
>
> Nice breezes
> Harald.
>>
From: Peter & Ann-Maree (bargholz@bigpond.com)
Subject: Multitube
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2001-07-05 17:20:46 PST
>I finaly finished the Flowform - hooray!
Has any one made a multitube from Jim Rowlands book 'soft kites and wind
socks'?
Peter.
--
From: Philip Le Riche (gr75@bcs.org.uk)
Subject: Re: Multitube
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2001-07-20 09:37:02 PST
Yes, I've built both. The multitube looks good but the fronts of the tubes
don't always stay open in gusty winds, and it tends to turn itself inside
out. But for a mere evening's work - go for it!
Have you seen my stuff on the Rowlands Flowform and other kites at
www.geocities.com/p_leriche ?
- Philip
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Peter & Ann-Maree wrote:
> I finaly finished the Flowform - hooray!
>
> Has any one made a multitube from Jim Rowlands book 'soft kites and wind
> socks'?
>
> Peter.
> --
> - Carpe Ventus -
>
>
>
>
>
Simon
From: Nia (Nia@thewinebar.fsworld.co.uk)
Subject: Re: QUESTION: How To Make A "Small" Parafoil?
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2002-03-02 12:09:08 PST
Hi,
Jim Rowlands book "soft kites and windsocks" has a few small parafoils in.
One is 29 inches wide by 31 Inchess long. Its easy to make and flies well in
a moderate breeze, though it needs a small drogue. Its called the three
cell, though is has three pairs of cells, split by four sets of flares.
There are twelve flares in an all.
There is a smaller parafoil that has two pairs of cells and a total of six
flares. It is 18 inches wide and 29 inches deep. I have not built this one
and am not sure how it flies.
The book is well worth getting as the plans are easy to follow and the kites
start of simple and get more difficult, but that said, anyone proficient
with a sewing machine could make them.
see a picture of the 29" 31" parafoil as well as two other kites from the
book at
http://www.thewinebar.fsworld.co.uk/kitesoft.htm
.......................................................................
Kites and aerial photography
http://www.thewinebar.fsworld.co.uk/
........................................................................
From: Nicola Foster (Nia_bored@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Doug Hagaman Parafoil
Newsgroups: rec.kites
Date: 2001-10-30 12:08:51 PST
Hi
Thanks for your posting. Yes, my partner (especially) and I have
visited your website a great deal in the past, mainly when my partner
was just getting interested in KAP. The first kite we used was a
bought flowform of the molar shaped variety. It worked quite well and
was our favourite for a while, until I made the Rowlands flowform from
the "soft kites and windsocks" book. It's very stable and just about
the right size for a small camera rig. Since then I have made several
single line kites (two rokakus, which were my introduction to aplique,
a snowflake and a mini parafoil) but I prefer to make soft kites, I
can't be doing with sewing pockets and such, and I'd rather spend the
money saved from not having to buy carbon on material and make the
kite bigger!
All in all as far as flowforms go I actually prefer the Rowland's
style flowform to the molar-shaped one my partner bought (not being
biased at all) because it looks solid (well-inflated) in the air.
Although I'm sure kites like the American flowform are good flyers, I
think they look somewhat baggy in comparison. Which is probably why
the Hagaman parafoil caught my eye. I have seen the Rowland's whales
scaled up and to some extent "flying" do you know if it is possible to
scale up the flowform or if there is a similar flowform plan on a
larger scale.
A friend of mine has a stratoscoop 4 and is to attempt to fly video
equipment with it, although it sounds quite challenging to make a
similar kite I don't fancy the idea of flying such a monster!
Thanks again
Nicola