"Are you sure that the principles that applying to sails apply to kites of this type? They appear to be quite different tech."
Absolutely shilly. I was trying to say (and failed) was that both (sail and kite) working in conjunction would be the best of both worlds of fuel savings. The kite is a great advance.
"Nope. A beam-reach, or perpendicular to the apparent wind, is the best point of sail. Close hauled is 2nd best. Down-wind is the least effective."
Popeye, you are correct. Thank you.
This is a great start but not the whole answer. The position of the kite allows it to only work with the wind coming from abaft of beam. (from behind)Also creating a "lee-helm", driving her nose down wind. To get the 20% fuel savings (I am guessing closer to 15%, from experience) 50% of the time, a second kite would be needed amidships.
The wind would in fact be much stronger at altitude, But with little to block it 100 feet above sea level, I believe a schooner rig would be as productive, more often. "Down-wind" is not the best point of sail. "Close-hauled" is. Where the wind comes from either side of the bow. Creates an airplane wing effect that sucks ship forward. (Positive to negative) With kite alone, the ship would lose a lot of energy trying to stay on course due to rudder angle. Under perfect conditions, this will work great. Just not often. I am retired from the U.S. Merchant Marines and have worked and sailed on many tankers and schooners. I do believe we tossed sail aside to quickly. Amazing, free and renewable energy.
Slashdot Mirror
"Are you sure that the principles that applying to sails apply to kites of this type? They appear to be quite different tech." Absolutely shilly. I was trying to say (and failed) was that both (sail and kite) working in conjunction would be the best of both worlds of fuel savings. The kite is a great advance.
"Nope. A beam-reach, or perpendicular to the apparent wind, is the best point of sail. Close hauled is 2nd best. Down-wind is the least effective." Popeye, you are correct. Thank you.
This is a great start but not the whole answer. The position of the kite allows it to only work with the wind coming from abaft of beam. (from behind)Also creating a "lee-helm", driving her nose down wind. To get the 20% fuel savings (I am guessing closer to 15%, from experience) 50% of the time, a second kite would be needed amidships. The wind would in fact be much stronger at altitude, But with little to block it 100 feet above sea level, I believe a schooner rig would be as productive, more often. "Down-wind" is not the best point of sail. "Close-hauled" is. Where the wind comes from either side of the bow. Creates an airplane wing effect that sucks ship forward. (Positive to negative) With kite alone, the ship would lose a lot of energy trying to stay on course due to rudder angle. Under perfect conditions, this will work great. Just not often. I am retired from the U.S. Merchant Marines and have worked and sailed on many tankers and schooners. I do believe we tossed sail aside to quickly. Amazing, free and renewable energy.