For the embodiments that employ predominately the kiting principle: yes.

When blades are motor-driven or jet-driven with no kiting occurring: no. 

Consistent safety communications trumps scenting investors, politicians, or elitist separatism. 

Safety would keep all concerned parties informed that a kite system is at play where tether dynamics distinguish the involved system from free-flying rotorcraft that lift and drag also.  On the radio, the aircraft control tower is not just to say: "rotorcraft lifting device" but tell airmen that a hard-to-see tether of a kite system is in the airspace taking up its needed play space.  The safety issue is more important than informative consistency in patent text; but lawyers, designers, builders, and users would be well served if they did not have to ever struggle with the question, "Is this a kite or is it not a kite."  The FAA will see the "kite" in the play. 

===================================================================

"rotorcraft lifting device"  is also a "rotorcraft drag device." Either phrase tends to slight the elephant in the room that is a kite system..  The SkyMill rotorcraft kite system spectrum has some embodiments with an auxiliary option of powered blade hub or jet-powered blades; if the tether is severed at the wing for autorotation gliding or for enlisting onboard powered blades in order to have an untethered rotorcraft lifting device, then a different game starts.

K3 will best occur when the "K" is fully and well appreciated.   K was adequate to found aviation in the roots of Cayley, Lilienthal, Wright, and Hargrave.   That some powered airmen practiced some puffery accompanied by some loss of respect for "kite" should not rule K3 unfolding.  The kite sector of AWE is huge whereas the untethered RATs part of AWE is to stay honored.  The SkyMill patent predominately focuses on the kiting principle, but wrestles with its identity. 

Just how the future will unfold relative to K or hiding-K will be interesting. My guess is that investing will be stronger and steadier by investors who clearly understand and appreciate and honor the kite: wing sets that are coupled by a tether set (here allowing that buoys and anchors are specialized wings).  Hiding K will slow the conversation and perhaps cost awareness and management of safety-critical matters.

In support of Gabor's references: 

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/conversations/messages/799

and

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/conversations/messages/94

and

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kitepatents/conversations/messages/799

and

http://www.aweconsortium.org/public/downloads/resources/roberts_et_al.pdf

Note: An object intended to operate as a glider may for some while be a kite for launching reasons. While the wing involved is the wing of a kite system, then such wing is a part of a kite system. Once the tether and resistive set is separated, then the wing involved becomes a glider. When the focus is on the ultimate intended use in gliding, common parlance will fuzzily not make such distinction. "I was in my glider during tow."   Instead of "I was in a wing of a kite that upon detaching from the tow will be my glider."  Airspace controllers want to know if kiting is at play, that is, there is a coupling of a wing via tether with a towing device. Other aircraft in the vicinity want to know the hardcore facts about a tether employment; it can be crucial whether there is just a glider occurring or a kite occurring. Big difference. "Glider under tow by a powered aircraft!" uses the fuzzy term "glider" in such scenario; without the "under tow" declaration, then severe damages may result.    Kites are not just its wing set parts, not just its tether-set parts, not just its resistive or reaction-set parts; a kite is an object that has wing set, tether set, and resistive or reaction set parts; a kite is most often placed in fluids where the kiting principle may play.   When that kiting play is specially designed for energy production and task fulfilling, then K3 flowers. 

600. Crosswind Kite Flying #1      by David Loyd   Discuss: _______
601. Crosswind Kite Flying, #2  by David Loyd, April 10, 2012      0:32
602. Crosswind Kite Flying #3    0:25
603. Crosswind Kite Flying #4     0:38
604. Crosswind Kite Flying #5    0:34
605. Crosswind Kite Flying #6    0:36

Thanks, Robert.     Time will tell. Compare and contrast.  ROI as Rod notes. 

Thoughts: 

As yet it seems Sintrix is pultruded or longitudinally focused.   I am wondering if the silica spheres will play in hollow tubes that are wrapped with optimum angles.   And how the silica spheres might play with grahene complexes for hollow tubes.   

Added Sintrix® to the growing Spars folder.   Other spar ideas and notes are welcome for the growing folder.

Perhaps related: 

Nanolayered carbon/Silica Superstructures via Organosilane Assembly
http://www.mse.ncsu.edu/research/zhu/papers/CNT/Peng.CNT-Silica%20AdvMat.pdf

I am guessing that strands of CNT in surface region of a hollow tube complex filled with carbon fiber and hollow microspheres might be a winner one day. 

http://www.energykitesystems.net/WeatherField/index.html

Will this set bring you something, Rod: 

http://tinyurl.com/crosswindladdermillsearch

http://www.energykitesystems.net/AirborneArchitecture/index.html

Purposes, sites, scale, COTS, availability of solutions and materials, assembling, decommission, ..

http://www.energykitesystems.net/Anchors/index.html

Included in the options are water bags. 

Underwater Kites

The Z wing

http://www.guigomarine.com/zoom_article.php?i=91   for details. 

Patent in PDF format: 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8246293.pdf

Folder: 

http://energykitesystems.net/Minesto/index.html

Full paper:

Energy production control of an experimental kite system in presence

of wind gusts.

Rogelio Lozano Jr, Jonathan Dumon, Ahmad Hably and Mazen Alamir

"IX. CONCLUSIONS

This paper shows that the reverse pumping is possible as

long as the L/D ratio and a max speed are great enough. The

kite system does not have stability and aeroelasticity problems.

One of its important knowledge brought by this paper is

that theoretical and practical work can give quite different

results when the practical part has problems. It reminds us the

importance of developing simple prototypes that are as close as

possible to the theoretical model, or the importance of studying

accurate models. The paper provides general information that

could be seen as a basis for more detailed studies. Every

different phase can have many ways of being optimized, the

most important and innovative part seems to be the kinetic

transfer phase. Future work shall be done on more performant

kite systems."

 This photo is a close-up detail of the hardware necessary to make a stock parafoil loop under a pilot kite:

1. the colored rope (and yellow nylon strap) was anchored to the ground

2. this was connected to a heavy duty swivel

3. which was joined to the plywood hardware plate with a steel link

4. the hardware plate spreads 4 pieces of red and white polyester rope 

5. the lines were further spread with the use of (in this case) a PVC pipe spreader -- very important detail!

6. finally the kite's 4 lines were lark's headed onto the knots tied into the red and white rope

Not shown is a fifth load bearing line that ran from one side of the hardware plate up to the pilot kite. On one corner of the parafoil a solid brass ring was attached by way of a short leader.  The load line went through this brass ring. It is around this point that the parafoil looped...

As described in the original post, all four 500 lb. test spectra lines snapped.  This photo reveals how the two inner brake lines snapped close to the hardware plate  while the steering lines snapped up close to the kite's briddle. We are unsure how exactly this happened, as it happened so fast!

cc by 3.0 (attribution kPower)

E-volo’s 18-rotor electric Volocopter makes maiden flight