Fractured Axel

jr wrote:

Stephen Hoath wrote:

Secondly, NASA spent $millions and $millions developing a writing utensil that would work in the zero G of space, the Russians took a pencil!

Er, no they didn't, but you can still buy one for £14.95: http://www.fisherspacepens.co.uk/acatalog/History_of_the_Space_Pen.html

and here's a bit more
http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1601

and it's expensive to be honest....

Er, no they didn't, but you can still buy one for £14.95: http://www.fisherspacepens.co.uk/acatalog/History_of_the_Space_Pen.html


OK so you got me on that one (cool link by the way) Did you know that 80% of stats are made up on the spot?

Did you know that 80% of stats are made up on the spot?

Actually it's currently standing at 82.20426705%.



Mark

Jest_of_EVE wrote:

I think that Rev flyers kind of shunned it for not being Rev-enough.

The other side is that it was perhaps not tricky enough to entice the sport kite crowd. Although it can be made to trick impressively, you need Goff skill or SL7 determination.

I still have mine and it's staying put. But as you say, it isn't flown often.

Mark

Is it that the dual line kites are so good at tricks now that there is no need for a quad trick kite? What could it do that is different and unique to a kite with more than two control lines? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. As the most impressive tricks seem to work best when the lines are slack, the use of extra lines would seem to reduce the options not increase them?

That may account for the slow take up of the Airbow by the more "hardcore" trick fliers out there.

Another question, both Carl and Ramlal fly Revolutions to a very high level and both are outstanding sport kite designers so why have they not developed something to fill the gap?

Final point from me, there has been a huge developement in 4 line kites over the last 10 years. Just take a look at the buggiers and boarders next time you go out and fly.

Dunno Stephen, but when discussing with ABW the history of a 3-line sport kite, the feeling was that the 3rd line induced extra line-binding that was undesirable vs. the results.

Kites along the lines of the Airbow are, IMO, underexplored. True they could be refined somewhat, as dualies have been over many years; but I wonder what I'd be flying or making now if I'd not discovered kiting in 2004 but 2014?

Did that make sense? Dunno, time to go to bed!

Mark

Me not nowing nuffink bout fforliners
whassiss?
http://www.kitehouse.de/index.php?site= ... racheninfo

That's not Rev-like.... the LE is sitting on the side...

I'm sure you've all seen this: http://www.invento-hq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=391&Itemid=42

And of course, there's still this: http://www.invento-hq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=42

And this: http://www.newtechkites.com/ntk_products.php?SubCategoriesID=15

So there is some choice out there, as well as the Airbow for something different.

Stephen Hoath wrote:

Firstly I may not be entirely unbiased in this discussion as I am rather partial to the Revolution in all it's forms.

Not to mention being a member of The Flying Squad who are "proud to be supported by Revolution Kites", as they themselves put it.

However, two things spring to mind. Firstly the Porsche 911 has been pretty much the same thing for years and years. They may use better materials etc now but basically it is the same.

Hmmmm..... OK as you brought it up, let's run with that simile.

The 2008 and 1988 911 have virtually no components in common. Whilst the name has remained the same it has gone through 4 major redesigns, gained 4WD, a change to the cooling system..... and more. They may share a common layout and form but that's where the similarity ends. I'd say that was more accurately applicable to dualline kites, no ?

I think I could whip up a more apropos automotive simile for the Rev. based on the Caterham Seven if needed....

This is not because cars cannot be better it is just that it is really really good at what it does, there is still a big demand for what it does and so it continues to be what it is.

Not arguing that point at all. And like I said, Rev-flyers/quadliners do seem to be a conservative bunch who know what they like and stick with it. If I was Rev. (the company) I'd be pushing new sails and variants onto you people until you pop.

I don't think the patent has stifled development.

You've still got your "sponsored by Revolution" cap on perhaps C'mon now.... not even a teensy bit ?

In the days of old we quite often quad lined our dual line kites, why has this not been developed?

'Cos it interferes with tricks. I have put a TC Ultra (when I owned one... two) through a Backspin or two but it brought a whole new dimension to tipwrap horror. It's an interesting dead end. Like the Precision-only kite.

I think the reason we have not seen the multitude of variations is that there just hasn't been the need or demand.

I can think of at least two reasons for this:-
a) the Rev. is perfect (I've got to admit it's a possibility)
b) back to the conservative nature of the flyers.

Having said that, there are some fantastic kite builders and designers on this forum let's see what we can come up with.

Simple question for ya, as a pretty hardcore quadista:- what do you want to do ? You see I think part of the problem, if it is a problem, is that quadline flyers aren't really quadline flyers, they're Rev. flyers. They've already got all they want or can imagine wanting (part of the reason why I don't think the AirBow did as well as it might have done).

If someone does come along with something genuinely new but all it gets is "yeah.... but it's not a Rev." then there isn't a lot of point. You've seen Steffen's Knockout I'm sure - it does non-Rev. things - interested or not ?

Mike.

What has happened to this forum? I used to think this was a nice place to visit. I was always aware that us quad-liners were considered a bit odd but there was always at least the illusion of respect and we used to be able to have an intelligent discussion here without resorting to personal insults.

It was clear from the start of this thread that somebody was looking for a fight, and now things have deteriorated to the point where everyone wants to have their say but hardly anyone is prepared to listen. This debate is going nowhere apart from round and round in ever decreasing circles.

I’ve had enough I’m off to bed for a good nights kip, then tomorrow I’m of to fly my over priced, over protected, branded, American made Revs.

Good night.

Stone in Shoe Bob wrote:

What has happened to this forum? I used to think this was a nice place to visit. I was always aware that us quad-liners were considered a bit odd but there was always at least the illusion of respect and we used to be able to have an intelligent discussion here without resorting to personal insults.

It was clear from the start of this thread that somebody was looking for a fight, and now things have deteriorated to the point where everyone wants to have their say but hardly anyone is prepared to listen. This debate is going nowhere apart from round and round in ever decreasing circles.

Have you actually read any of Mike's (Zippy8) post's

See see, I was right!!!

Anyone done any of the following?



Quads with standoffs. It's what made dualies trickable, isn't it?

Or maybe just adding more drive and dualie-style pull turns without losing quadish brake and spinnyness.

Or of no real benefit at all, of course. I can't see I'd have much trouble making, say, the third; but I'm not an experienced enough quad flyer to know what it was I'd done....

Idea developed from top-right to bottom left, from Rev-ish things to most-likely over-floppy dualies with too many strings. I think you'd want more frame across the middle to stiffen it up to make a more trickable quad.


Image to be considered prior art for patent purposes, assuming no-one else got there first. This being a possibly useless statement intended to prevent patent-happy readers running off with the idea.

Slow Dog wrote:

Anyone done any of the following?

Interesting (at which point someone should say "no it's not" as apparently we're all just spoiling for a fight here ) but the difference twix duallies and Revs./quads is directionality (yes.... real word).

Duallies fly in a specific direction and generate lift to fly by going in that direction using AeroDynamics™.
Quads/Revs. are usually just sails getting in the way of the wind. They are, in general, about as aerodynamic as a barn door. There are 3D-profile quads out there (Deca, AirBow, Flame, etc.) though.

From my experience with converted-to-quadline duallies they really struggle to do anything other than go "forwards". You can slow them down, speed them up, spin them (and fly them like a duallie) but reversals were Not Good.

The TC Ultra (also subject to a patentBTW) was really a redesigned Tracer to be more suitable for quadlining. There were better dedicated duallies and better dedicated quads. Not without charm but.... nah.

Mike.