Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES16664to16715 Page 228 of 440.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16664 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2015
Subject: Ramlal Tien's Sentinelle Self-Launching Kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16665 From: Rod Read Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: Steering Sleds by Camber Effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16666 From: Rod Read Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: How the Ninja-Star Rotor was Invented, and its Theory-of-Operati

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16667 From: Rod Read Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Tall blade swaying, pumping and/ or spinning all under isotropic mes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16668 From: dougselsam Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16669 From: dave santos Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16672 From: edoishi Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16673 From: edoishi Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16674 From: dave santos Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: kisa flugfeld

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16675 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16676 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16677 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16678 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: AWES Cousins in Space

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16679 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16680 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: FAA UAS FPG (v3) with sample PPG answers

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16681 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16682 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16683 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16684 From: Rod Read Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS FPG (v3) with sample PPG answers

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16685 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16686 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16687 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: Steering Sleds by Camber Effect

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16688 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16689 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16690 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16691 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16692 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2015
Subject: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16693 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/28/2015
Subject: Some media files

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16694 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/28/2015
Subject: Hmmm? Is that the group playing AWES?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16695 From: David Lang Date: 1/28/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16696 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2015
Subject: Bell Stability-Instability, Bell Matter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16697 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16698 From: Rod Read Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell Stability-Instability, Bell Matter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16699 From: dougselsam Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16700 From: dougselsam Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16701 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16702 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16703 From: David Lang Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16704 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell Stability-Instability, Bell Matter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16705 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16706 From: Rod Read Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16707 From: Rod Read Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell Stability-Instability, Bell Matter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16708 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16709 From: Rod Read Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16710 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16711 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16712 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Jalbert Kite-Matter

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16713 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Kite Vehicles on Roadways

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16714 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/29/2015
Subject: Re: WO2013173196 (A1) - AIRBORNE PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR DEVICE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16715 From: Rod Read Date: 1/30/2015
Subject: Windswept and Interesting new rig




Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16664 From: dave santos Date: 1/25/2015
Subject: Ramlal Tien's Sentinelle Self-Launching Kite
Intended to emotionally evoke alien invasion, the Ramlal's Sentinelle has the best self-launching dynamics of any kite I know of. It would be ideal for unattended AWES cascaded launch-land sequences, where a small self-launcher initiates larger kite stages. This kite consists of three lobes that act as wings and keel and also legs to poise the kite in breeze. If the kite is oriented wrong, it tumbles easily into its launching pose.

Thanks to Robert Brasington for the kite attribution. Years ago I witnessed Sentinelles self-flying launch-land cycles in sucker-wind, at WSKIF; but was unable until now to track down the kites' origins. The kites I saw where probably made at a Fort Worden kitemakers retreat, according to Robert.

The Sentinelle is a good high wind kite too, and would be cool to leave out for months at a time, to see it flying in every wind, with no human intervention. Perhaps the principles of this kite still work well at somewhat higher AR, for slightly earlier launch in even lower wind-




Ramlal is a kite designer to reckon with, the creator of several iconic kite types. Not linked below are his planetoid kites, which would be great in the same sky as Bazzer's Comets and Asteroids-


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16665 From: Rod Read Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: Steering Sleds by Camber Effect

Actually in my remote control lifter kite test I also had the camber induced steering response. (video http://youtu.be/Q1o4mw0ug14)

Peter Lynn gave me a demonstration of tuning the outer B lines to provide camber based stability. Field adjustment Is made easier because he makes the webs so that each bridle line is 3.1m long. Using a double sheet bend, setting the individual bridle lengths at the webs is made easy. All the webs normally bunch together when held and pulled against the bridle. Therefore you can see instantly how much you have adjusted any side.

Works really well ....up to a point.. Testing out in his back yard he has good flukey tricky wind to deal with.

Seeing how the latest SSSL spills wind from it's trailing edge as it powers up was really impressive. This allows the kite to change the relationship between centre of pressure and lift ... thus stopping the kite angle of attack (not just line angle) from entering a new regime.(as described on Peter Lynn Himself - Pilot Tuning   ) This way, balance is still held in the camber settings.

His real focus has been on getting the best low wind performance out of a kite. Show kites reliability has been his drive and the result is impressive. He could build you a bullet proof kite. It would survive the hurricane which just killed some massive tower turbines here on Lewis. You wouldn't get many paying punters to come and look at it though.

From his website

What then, are desirable characteristics for a pilot?

  • Stable over a wide wind range- without adjustment (wind often starts light then gets stronger. and having to haul an entire train down to adjust an increasingly unstable pilot is definitely to be avoided).
  • Good flying angle.
  • Strong lift in light winds but then increasing at less than the square of wind speed (auto de-power).
  • Cheap; so that the risk of loss doesn't much influence the decision to fly in difficult places and winds.
  • Safe: Soft form, (preferably no frame), and inclined to undercorrection rather than violent looping if the wind gets too strong.
  • Easy to launch, and with good self recovery from turbulence induced collapses.
  • As light as possible (less overweight baggage) - and easy to pack.
  • No tails or trailing drag devices to tangle and snag- with other pilots especially.

(personally (Roddy's comment) I reckon a small smart controller at the bridle may even help the self recovery from turbulence and be able to fit these criteria)

But why do kites tend to lean to one side or the other- why can't they be made so as they fly straight to start with?
Both lift and drag forces increase with the square of wind speed, but a kite's weight, it's upward (downward, same difference) pointing force, stays the same and will eventually be overwhelmed. For even a (mythical) perfectly symmetrical kite there would be a wind speed at which it destabilises, if it doesn't break first. For real world kites even unmeasurably small asymmetries will start to have their wicked way by 60km/hr or so. So, tuning systems are necessary- but it's also sensible to avoid all obvious asymmetries during manufacture.

Even on a well set up walking foot machine, misregistration of 20mm/metre is common- more than enough to permanently skew the kite unless all sewing is managed symmetrically

(I'm really glad he mentioned this misregistration of 20mm / metre.. makes me feel a whole lot more confident)

Other asymmetries come from differential bridle stretch (fixable) and fabric stretch - from heavy wind flying, trawling through water and pulling from trees- not fixable.

A small robust controller is recoverable... I will be able to test mine on my PL kites, Same as I did with the Joker 36 sled)


Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
UK
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16666 From: Rod Read Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: How the Ninja-Star Rotor was Invented, and its Theory-of-Operati
Buying a Ninja Star from the UK seems very hard. Even finding a picture of one is hard.
Do you think the roots of Ninja Star blades could be ring mounted?

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
UK
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16667 From: Rod Read Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Tall blade swaying, pumping and/ or spinning all under isotropic mes
I don't think we've realised the potential of isotropic mesh assisted AWES operations yet.

If we mix the technologies of either  flip-wing sails or sweep pumping stacks or Ring kite generation onto  isotropic meshes inside tension lines...
It seems that all of those standard approaches could benefit from being set underneath a taught lifting form with aggregate stability.

Given that this lift layer is likely controllable (toward straight lifting or complimentary x winding) Whole set swaying becomes available.
Foot power take off from swaying stacks or tall tacking sails on carts or ground based ropeway PTO systems seems quite achievable.
Reliably launched non tangling ring kite trains (bottled tornadoes) seem doable.

I'm very keen to be involved in testing this area. Need to convince a large enough institution (or public mass) brave enough to let me try.

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
UK
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16668 From: dougselsam Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation
Thanks for finding the quote, Pierre: "explains Schmehl. “Wubbo Ockels’ idea was beautiful as a concept, but probably 40 years ahead of its time."  I think I am done posting here. Obviously a bad idea.  Oh well.  Have fun everyone! :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16669 From: dave santos Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation
Its grasping at straws to imagine Roland was specifically endorsing the original LadderMill in the quote Doug hangs his hopes on. In fact, almost thirty years have a passed, and Roland, as Wubbo's direct successor, is not known to be doing anything with the idea.

We have Wubbo's own unambiguous 2005 testimony in his co-authored paper, that the PumpingMill supercedes the LadderMill. Finally, we have Wubbo himself proudly presenting his most advanced concept of a PumpingMill, the SpiderMill, to a large assembly of AWE peers, before he died. Roland is not a better source than Wubbo, on Wubbo.

If Doug cannot feel thankful for Wubbo quoted directly, since it undercuts his bias, at least he seems to feel vindicated enough by the vague Roland quote to let this SpiderMill topic conclude as such; with no one but Wubbo having identified the SpiderMill AWES. Indeed, Roland would likely agree that Wubbo's SpiderMill thinking was his fina conceptual peak, so far ahead of EU's current reelgen status quo. Doug should try to fly small LadderMills for himself, if he is a serious R&D player.


On Monday, January 26, 2015 8:18 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16672 From: edoishi Date: 1/26/2015
Subject: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide
Attachments :
    Here is a cut and paste version of the file the Joe upload. This is courtesy of the Warm Springs Test Range in Oregon.



    Pan-Pacific UAS Test Range Complex
    Flight Planning Guide
     
    Purpose
    The purpose of this flight planning guide (FPG) is to identify information regarding the proposed operation and control of a specific UAS in the Test Range. While the capability to execute UAS operations is must be flexible enough to recognize that each system, sub-system, ancillary piece of equipment, and their required readiness procedures are different, there are several basic flight safety provisions that must be followed.
     
    This FPG will remain a “living guide” regarding the operation of each system in that it is recognized that there are presently no standard FAA approved FPG procedures for any UAS which ensure that UAS flight operations are conducted in a safe manner and in accordance with operating procedures established by the Test Site and the FAA. This FPG will set forth procedures designed to identify system capabilities & vulnerabilities and verify that adequate safeguards exist to protect against the National Airspace System (NAS)
     
    Because of the nature of UAS being relatively new to aviation, the uniqueness of each vehicle and mission is designed such that this document will undergo continuous changes as it adapts to both the NAS and the individual system needs.
     
    Instructions
    An FPG will serve as the Mission Planning Guide as it is designed to adhere to each systems limitations and capabilities as it administers changes to the NAS.  The FPG will be developed for each mission and will be submitted to the FAA NLT 30 days prior to each mission date.
     
    The Mission Commander shall ensure the FPG is developed in concurrence with all applicable FAA rules and regulations.
     
    As subsequent missions are performed and the FPG develops further, subsequent versions will be submitted to the FAA as they evolve.  Changes to the FPG will be documented in a cover letter as each subsequent version is submitted.
     
    Required Information
    1.      Mission:  Provide a brief overview of the UAS mission(s) and capabilities.
    1.1.   Objectives
    1.2.   Description
    1.3.   Explain whether the proposed test will, or is expected to, exceed limitations used to predict mean time between failure or other safety models.
    1.4.   Develop then provide fault trees and/or failure mode effects analysis.
    1.5.   Capabilities
     
    2.      Vehicle
    2.1.   User Handbook –
    2.1.1.      Is UAS user handbook available? Please attach.
    2.1.2.      Is sub-system user handbook available?  Attach
    2.1.3.      Is Ancillary system user handbook available? Attach
    2.2.   Physical Characteristics
    2.2.1.      Measurements - wingspan, fuselage length, body diameter
    2.2.2.      Composition
    2.2.3.      Weight - empty and max load
    2.2.4.      Fuel - type and capacity
    2.2.5.      Landing style/type
    2.3.   Propulsion System
    2.3.1.      Engines –
    2.3.1.1.            type,
    2.3.1.2.            number,
    2.3.1.3.            manufacturer,
    2.3.1.4.            horsepower rating,
    2.3.1.5.            electrical power source
    2.3.2.      Fuel Volume and Consumption Monitors
    2.3.3.      Limitations and Failure Modes
    2.3.3.1.            By environmental conditions (temperature, icing, dust)
    2.3.3.2.            Confirmed by test data
    2.3.3.3.            Considered in test plan
    2.4.   Performance Characteristics
    2.4.1.      Performance Charts
    2.4.2.      Takeoff and Landing
    2.4.2.1.            Distances for maximum weights
    2.4.2.2.            Maximum crosswind tolerance
    2.4.3.      Maximum Altitude
    2.4.4.      Maximum Endurance
    2.4.5.      Maximum Range
    2.4.6.      Range vs. Altitude (Comm Link)
    2.4.7.      Airspeed –
    2.4.7.1.            cruising,
    2.4.7.2.            maximum,
    2.4.7.3.            minimum
    2.4.7.4.            stall
    2.4.8.      Rate of Climb (degrees)
    2.4.9.      Rate of Descent (degrees)
    2.4.10.  Weather Minimums (?)
    2.4.10.1.        Clouds
    2.4.10.2.        Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions
    2.5.   Flight Reference Data
    2.5.1.      On-board sources of position, altitude, heading, altitude, and airspeed information to the UAS operator or autopilot
    2.5.2.      Backups
    2.6.   Transponder - Does the UAS have an on-board transponder with Mode C altitude reporting?
    2.7.   ADS-B?
    2.8.   TCAS?
    2.9.   Payload Options - What payload(s) will be used on the UAS during operations?
    2.10.                    Hazardous Materials - List all materials that require special handling, such as flammable, toxic, energy storage, or ordinance. Include flight termination system if applicable.
     
    3.      Command and Control Systems: Brief paragraph that describes the systems/methods used to control the UAS during flight; include frequencies where appropriate.
    3.1.   Control Method - primary and secondary
    3.2.   Satellite or Line of Sight
    3.3.   Frequency Allocation - Is there a frequency allocation for all RF links? On what frequencies do the UAS systems operate? What is the effect of radio frequency interference on the command and control system?
    3.4.   Command Link Range - What is demonstrated range of primary command and control (C2) transmitter and receiver
    3.5.   Backup –
    3.5.1.      Is there a backup C2 transmitter and receiver?
    3.5.2.      Does the backup have the same effective radiated power?
    3.5.3.      Is the backup link sufficiently protected from spurious command signals?
    3.6.   Link Analysis
    3.6.1.      Briefly explain how RF link analysis was performed to verify that both primary and backup transmitters can communicate with vehicle at furthest point of planned operation?  
    3.6.2.      Does link analysis address all RF links?
    3.6.2.1.            Uplinks from primary and backup ground stations
    3.6.2.2.            Secondary uplinks from each ground station
    3.6.2.3.            Downlinks to primary and backup ground stations
    3.6.2.4.            Flight termination link
    3.6.2.4.1.                  Is there at least 12 dB of signal excess in FTS link?
    3.6.2.4.2.                  Explain how it was determined that the vehicle primary and backup command and control receivers and FTS receivers are operating at specified sensitivity?
    3.6.3.      Did our link analysis consider the RF horizon?
    3.6.4.      What is the maximum range for each link?
    3.6.4.1.            List each link separately here
    3.6.5.      Briefly explain how we determine if the primary and backup transmitters are radiating manufacturers specified output power?
    3.6.6.      Frequency Masking
    3.6.6.1.            Are there any nulls in the C2 transmitter antenna pattern?
    3.6.6.2.            Are there areas of RF masking due to location of antennas on the UAS relative to their position and to ground station antennas? (during turns or pitch?)
    3.6.6.3.            Are there any RF null spots in the C2 link based on the position or orientation of the UAS relative to the control station?
    3.6.6.4.            Do the operators know where these nulls are and have mission profiles been designed to avoid these nulls?
    3.6.7.      Multipath
    3.6.7.1.            What is the link susceptibility to multipath?
    3.6.7.2.            What is the system response if multipath is experienced?
    3.7.   Takeoff and Landing - What is method?
    3.8.   Navigation System - What is the source of navigation information for the operator? Are there redundant sources?
     
    4.      Operations
      @@attachment@@
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16673 From: edoishi Date: 1/26/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

    My apologies, somehow the 2nd half of the text was cut off. Here is the full text:


    Pan-Pacific UAS Test Range Complex

    Flight Planning Guide

     

    Purpose

    The purpose of this flight planning guide (FPG) is to identify information regarding the proposed operation and control of a specific UAS in the Test Range. While the capability to execute UAS operations is must be flexible enough to recognize that each system, sub-system, ancillary piece of equipment, and their required readiness procedures are different, there are several basic flight safety provisions that must be followed.

     

    This FPG will remain a “living guide” regarding the operation of each system in that it is recognized that there are presently no standard FAA approved FPG procedures for any UAS which ensure that UAS flight operations are conducted in a safe manner and in accordance with operating procedures established by the Test Site and the FAA. This FPG will set forth procedures designed to identify system capabilities & vulnerabilities and verify that adequate safeguards exist to protect against the National Airspace System (NAS)

     

    Because of the nature of UAS being relatively new to aviation, the uniqueness of each vehicle and mission is designed such that this document will undergo continuous changes as it adapts to both the NAS and the individual system needs.

     

    Instructions

    An FPG will serve as the Mission Planning Guide as it is designed to adhere to each systems limitations and capabilities as it administers changes to the NAS.  The FPG will be developed for each mission and will be submitted to the FAA NLT 30 days prior to each mission date.

     

    The Mission Commander shall ensure the FPG is developed in concurrence with all applicable FAA rules and regulations.

     

    As subsequent missions are performed and the FPG develops further, subsequent versions will be submitted to the FAA as they evolve.  Changes to the FPG will be documented in a cover letter as each subsequent version is submitted.

     

    Required Information

    1.      Mission:  Provide a brief overview of the UAS mission(s) and capabilities.

    1.1.   Objectives

    1.2.   Description

    1.3.   Explain whether the proposed test will, or is expected to, exceed limitations used to predict mean time between failure or other safety models.

    1.4.   Develop then provide fault trees and/or failure mode effects analysis.

    1.5.   Capabilities

     

    2.      Vehicle

    2.1.   User Handbook –

    2.1.1.      Is UAS user handbook available? Please attach.

    2.1.2.      Is sub-system user handbook available?  Attach

    2.1.3.      Is Ancillary system user handbook available? Attach

    2.2.   Physical Characteristics

    2.2.1.      Measurements - wingspan, fuselage length, body diameter

    2.2.2.      Composition

    2.2.3.      Weight - empty and max load

    2.2.4.      Fuel - type and capacity

    2.2.5.      Landing style/type

    2.3.   Propulsion System

    2.3.1.      Engines –

    2.3.1.1.            type,

    2.3.1.2.            number,

    2.3.1.3.            manufacturer,

    2.3.1.4.            horsepower rating,

    2.3.1.5.            electrical power source

    2.3.2.      Fuel Volume and Consumption Monitors

    2.3.3.      Limitations and Failure Modes

    2.3.3.1.            By environmental conditions (temperature, icing, dust)

    2.3.3.2.            Confirmed by test data

    2.3.3.3.            Considered in test plan

    2.4.   Performance Characteristics

    2.4.1.      Performance Charts

    2.4.2.      Takeoff and Landing

    2.4.2.1.            Distances for maximum weights

    2.4.2.2.            Maximum crosswind tolerance

    2.4.3.      Maximum Altitude

    2.4.4.      Maximum Endurance

    2.4.5.      Maximum Range

    2.4.6.      Range vs. Altitude (Comm Link)

    2.4.7.      Airspeed –

    2.4.7.1.            cruising,

    2.4.7.2.            maximum,

    2.4.7.3.            minimum

    2.4.7.4.            stall

    2.4.8.      Rate of Climb (degrees)

    2.4.9.      Rate of Descent (degrees)

    2.4.10.  Weather Minimums (?)

    2.4.10.1.        Clouds

    2.4.10.2.        Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions

    2.5.   Flight Reference Data

    2.5.1.      On-board sources of position, altitude, heading, altitude, and airspeed information to the UAS operator or autopilot

    2.5.2.      Backups

    2.6.   Transponder - Does the UAS have an on-board transponder with Mode C altitude reporting?

    2.7.   ADS-B?

    2.8.   TCAS?

    2.9.   Payload Options - What payload(s) will be used on the UAS during operations?

    2.10.                    Hazardous Materials - List all materials that require special handling, such as flammable, toxic, energy storage, or ordinance. Include flight termination system if applicable.

     

    3.      Command and Control Systems: Brief paragraph that describes the systems/methods used to control the UAS during flight; include frequencies where appropriate.

    3.1.   Control Method - primary and secondary

    3.2.   Satellite or Line of Sight

    3.3.   Frequency Allocation - Is there a frequency allocation for all RF links? On what frequencies do the UAS systems operate? What is the effect of radio frequency interference on the command and control system?

    3.4.   Command Link Range - What is demonstrated range of primary command and control (C2) transmitter and receiver

    3.5.   Backup –

    3.5.1.      Is there a backup C2 transmitter and receiver?

    3.5.2.      Does the backup have the same effective radiated power?

    3.5.3.      Is the backup link sufficiently protected from spurious command signals?

    3.6.   Link Analysis

    3.6.1.      Briefly explain how RF link analysis was performed to verify that both primary and backup transmitters can communicate with vehicle at furthest point of planned operation?  

    3.6.2.      Does link analysis address all RF links?

    3.6.2.1.            Uplinks from primary and backup ground stations

    3.6.2.2.            Secondary uplinks from each ground station

    3.6.2.3.            Downlinks to primary and backup ground stations

    3.6.2.4.            Flight termination link

    3.6.2.4.1.                  Is there at least 12 dB of signal excess in FTS link?

    3.6.2.4.2.                  Explain how it was determined that the vehicle primary and backup command and control receivers and FTS receivers are operating at specified sensitivity?

    3.6.3.      Did our link analysis consider the RF horizon?

    3.6.4.      What is the maximum range for each link?

    3.6.4.1.            List each link separately here

    3.6.5.      Briefly explain how we determine if the primary and backup transmitters are radiating manufacturers specified output power?

    3.6.6.      Frequency Masking

    3.6.6.1.            Are there any nulls in the C2 transmitter antenna pattern?

    3.6.6.2.            Are there areas of RF masking due to location of antennas on the UAS relative to their position and to ground station antennas? (during turns or pitch?)

    3.6.6.3.            Are there any RF null spots in the C2 link based on the position or orientation of the UAS relative to the control station?

    3.6.6.4.            Do the operators know where these nulls are and have mission profiles been designed to avoid these nulls?

    3.6.7.      Multipath

    3.6.7.1.            What is the link susceptibility to multipath?

    3.6.7.2.            What is the system response if multipath is experienced?

    3.7.   Takeoff and Landing - What is method?

    3.8.   Navigation System - What is the source of navigation information for the operator? Are there redundant sources?

     

    4.      Operations

    4.1.   Crew

    4.1.1.      Requirements - Please list the total number of personnel involved in the mission and their associated job functions.

    4.1.2.      Experience - Detail the crew’s flight qualifications, experience, and currency with this UAS. How recently did each crewmember fly this type of UAS?

    4.1.3.      Safety - What information does the crew have to make safety related decisions?

    4.2.   Pre-Flight

    4.2.1.      Set-up Time - Upon arrival, how much set-up time is required to prepare for initial flight?

    4.2.2.      Pre-Flight Checks -- Describe typical ground checks for the UAS and control system.

    4.3.   Launch - Please describe the takeoff procedure and handoff method in detail.

    4.4.   Recovery - Please describe the recovery and landing procedure in detail.

    4.5.   Turnaround Time - Describe any required post-flight maintenance and the turnaround time between missions.

     

    5.      Failure (Risk) Management

    5.1.   Safety History

    5.1.1.      Flight history

    5.1.1.1.            Estimated total system hours based on this UAS

    5.1.1.2.            Approximate hours logged by all PPUTRC operators

    5.1.2.      Mishap history - List the mishap history of the UAS

    5.1.2.1.            Identify for the record major failure modes.

    5.1.2.2.            List known system-fault crashes or failures have occurred with this UAS?

    5.1.2.3.            List known system-fault crashes or failures have occurred while a test system

    5.1.2.4.            List crashes or failures attributed to human error

    5.1.3.      Corrective actions taken to correct for past mishaps, crashes or failures

    5.1.3.1.            Corrective actions implemented to circumvent any known system-fault crashes or failures

    5.1.3.2.            Corrective actions implemented to circumvent any human error caused crashes or failures

    5.2.   Demonstrated Reliability

    5.2.1.      Estimated time between equipment failures

    5.2.1.1.            Calculated from analytical or empirical data

    5.2.1.2.            Environmental and performance limitations used to estimate reliability figures

    5.3.   Hazard Analyses –derived from overall Safety Review of system vs. mission

    5.4.   Software

    5.4.1.      Explain how we implement and ensure our software safety program

    5.4.2.      Software controlled components - What flight critical components are software controlled?

    5.4.3.      Analyses - Have any software safety analyses been performed?

    5.5.   Loss of Command and Control (C2) Link

    5.5.1.      Describe in a paragraph what happens when the C2 link is lost. Include UAS actions and flight crew actions.

    5.5.2.      Describe how the UAS responds if the command link is never re-established?

    5.5.3.      Recognition of loss - Operator and UAS

    5.5.3.1.            Explain how the operator recognizes loss of the command link? 

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16674 From: dave santos Date: 1/26/2015
    Subject: kisa flugfeld
    An early autonomous kite field, as art-


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16675 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/26/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16676 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

    Legend:

    Meta concerns about aircraft systems safety:

    • Hazard to users of the national airspace system?
    • Hazard to the public?
    • Threat to national security?
    • Will airworthiness certification be needed for the system?
    • Will operators/pilots need certifications of operational and control skills and readiness?
    • Will certificate of waiver be required for operation/flight?     COW
    • Will certificate of authorization be required for operation/flight?   COA
    • Grants of exemption
    • "Safe and legal" operating?
    • Insurance?
    • Incident transparency?
    • Traffic control?
    • Conspicuity?
    • Physical description?
    • Control systems?
    • Failure modes?
    • Limitations?
    • Capabilities?
    • Communications?
    • Current status?
    • Training?  All crew? Is certification required?  Health? Currency?
    • Safety Reviews?
    • Changes to the NAS?  Current NAS?
    • Each mission?
    • Immediate operations?
    • Data management and access?
    • Risk management?
    • Flight Commander
    • Rules and Regulations
    • System handbook  (current and available)?
    • Sub-systems handbooks  (current and available)?
    • Ancillary systems handbooks (current and available)?
    • Weather range?
    • Instrument Flight Rules
    • Payloads?
    • Hazardous materials?
    • Takeoff and Landing
    • Navigation system?
    • RF systems check, including backups, tests, nulls, multipath cares, etc.

    • ETC.  ... study Flight Planning Guide, FARs, and documents pertinent to mission safety and control ...
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16677 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

    Some tail of the document for direct forum view was still truncated. (Go to full document also).  We cure the cut tail hereon:

    ___________________________________________________________________

    5.5.3.2. Explain how the UAS recognizes loss of the command link?
    5.5.4.Backup
    Command and Control How
    is backup control initiated?
    5.6. Loss of navigation
    5.6.1.Explain how the UAS and vehicle autopilot respond to a loss of navigation signal.
    5.6.2.Explain how primary navigation loss is indicated to the ground station and operator.
    5.6.3.Backup
    navigation
    5.6.3.1. Is there a secondary navigation system? (briefly describe)
    5.6.3.2. Does the UAS operator have access to any external sources of position information
    that could serve as a backup (radar, IFF, binoculars)?
    5.6.4.If the UAS operator loses primary position information, is control also lost?
    5.7. Return home modes
    5.7.1.Conditions that cause return home mode
    5.7.2.Describe location point, path, and altitude
    5.7.2.1. Selection
    5.7.2.1.1. Safeguards to prevent erroneous selection
    5.7.2.1.2. Ability to update inflight
    5.7.2.2. Intermediate waypoints
    5.7.2.3. Multiple points
    5.7.2.4. Airspace boundaries and compatibility
    5.7.2.5. Line of sight from control station
    5.7.3.Vehicle action and sequence of events upon reaching return home point
    5.7.3.1. In event operator does not regain control
    5.7.3.2. Failsafe
    events
    5.7.3.3. Landing
    5.7.4.Navigation during return home mode
    5.7.4.1. In event GPS is unavailable or jammed
    5.7.5.Preflight
    check
    5.8. Loss of Flight Reference Data How
    does the vehicle respond to loss of primary sources for
    position, altitude, heading, and airspeed and what are the indications of these losses to the
    UAS operator?
    5.9. Unresponsive Flight Controls
    5.9.1.What will happen if a servo or flight control sticks or becomes unresponsive?
    5.9.2.How does the autopilot respond?
    5.9.3. Is there a backup?
    5.9.4.How quickly will the UAS operator recognize this?
    5.9.5.What happens if the throttle is stuck?
    5.9.6.How will the UAS operator recognize this condition?
    5.9.7.Is there a recovery procedure?
    5.10. Loss of Propulsion
    5.10.1. How does UAS respond to engine or motor failure?
    5.10.2. Can engine or motor be restarted in flight?
    5.10.3. Is electrical power lost if engine or motor stop during flight?
    5.10.4. Will there be sufficient linkcontrol
    and electrical power for “controlled ditch” or
    “deadstick
    landing”?
    5.11. Loss of Electrical Power –
    5.11.1. Describe UAS response if electrical power is lost.
    5.11.2. Describe C2 response if GCS electrical power is lost
    PAN-PACIFIC UAS TEST RANGE COMPLEX H-6/R-0.1/08-18-14
    FLIGHT PLANNING GUIDE
    5.11.3. Describe backup
    electrical systems and expected operating time.
    5.11.4. Describe what happens if the UAS is too far away to make it back before this time?
    5.11.5. Battery
    5.11.5.1. Expected time life
    5.11.5.2. Life meter
    5.11.5.3. Log
    5.11.5.4. Bus Are
    there essential buses for reduced power operations and are all
    flight essential systems on this bus?
    5.11.6. Uninterruptible power source for ground operations
    5.11.7. Backup command and emergency systems protection
    5.11.8. Does load shedding occur if power is lost?
    5.11.9. Are there any effects on the flight termination system?
    5.12. Subsystem Failure
    5.12.1. Failures that result in abort
    5.12.2. Failures that result in UAS unable to fly
    5.13. Flight Termination System (FTS)
    5.13.1. FTS function (briefly explain)
    5.13.2. FTS activation (briefly explain)
    5.13.2.1. How is the FTS activated? (briefly explain)
    5.13.2.2. Does it activate if battery backup fails? (briefly explain)
    5.13.2.3. Does it operate on independent battery circuit? (briefly explain)
    5.13.2.4. Activation authority (briefly explain)
    5.13.3. Flight termination criteria
    5.13.3.1. Tracking data (briefly explain)
    5.13.3.2. Lack of containment in operating range (briefly explain)
    5.13.3.3. Return home failure (briefly explain)
    5.13.4. UAS below RF horizon
    5.13.5. Sequence of events after activation (briefly explain)
    5.13.5.1. Propulsion terminated
    5.13.5.2. Tumble or glide
    5.13.5.3. Parachute
    5.13.6. Monitoring
    5.13.7. Transmitter
    5.13.7.1. Location
    5.13.7.2. Range (exceed maximum flight range)
    5.13.8. Testing and certification
    5.13.9. Independence from other vehicle systems
    5.13.9.1. Antenna
    5.13.9.2. Receiver
    5.13.9.3. Signal processing
    5.13.9.4. Power supply
    5.13.10. Fail Safe Mode
    5.13.10.1. Activation criteria
    5.13.10.2. Sequence of events upon activation
    5.13.10.3. Time delay between activation and sequence of events
    5.13.11. Parachute
    5.13.11.1. Deployment altitude
    5.13.11.2. Impact and drift rate
    PAN-PACIFIC UAS TEST RANGE COMPLEX H-7/R-0.1/08-18-14
    FLIGHT PLANNING GUIDE
    5.13.11.3. Rate of descent at max weight
    5.13.11.4. Deployment limitations
    5.13.11.4.1. Altitude
    5.13.11.4.2. Airspeed
    5.13.11.4.3. Attitude
    5.13.11.5. Weightongear
    inhibit
    5.13.11.5.1. Testing
    5.13.11.5.2. Status telemetry to ground
    5.13.11.6. Engine shutoff
    5.13.11.6.1. Requirement
    5.13.11.6.2. Failure of engine shutdown
    5.13.11.6.3. Can propeller cut shroud line?
    5.14. Ditching
    5.14.1. Criteria
    5.14.2. Preplanned
    locations
    5.14.2.1. Selection and criteria
    5.14.2.2. Free of population
    5.14.2.3. Attainable from any point in flight path
    5.15. Collision Avoidance: Describe procedures utilized for collision avoidance, including UAS
    response time to flight change commands.
    5.15.1. Airspace
    5.15.1.1. Exclusive or shared
    5.15.1.2. Compatibility with other aircraft or missions
    5.15.1.3. Risk reduction to other aircraft (explain avoidance strategy)
    5.15.1.4. Manned aircraft communication
    5.15.1.5. ATC communication
    5.15.2. Flight Routes
    5.15.2.1. Consideration of published standard approaches and departures
    5.15.2.2. Standoff distances
    5.15.2.2.1. Densely populated areas
    5.15.2.2.2. Hazardous sites
    5.15.2.2.3. Civilian airfields
    5.15.2.2.4. Surface structures (includes vessels, roads, power lines, pipelines, etc.)
    5.15.2.2.5. Published or known airways
    5.15.3. Means of Detect, Sense and Avoid (DSA) (explain total risk mitigation strategy)
    5.15.4. Collision Prevention Markers (lights, strobes, highvis
    paint scheme)
    5.15.5. Loss of IFF
    5.15.5.1. Procedure
    5.15.5.2. Notification of ground operator
    5.15.6. Chase Aircraft
    5.15.6.1. Type of flight following (parallel, Sturns,
    high or low offset)
    5.15.6.2. Standoff distance
    5.15.6.3. Continuous surveillance and procedure if observer loses sight of UAS
    5.15.6.4. Communications between PIC, chase pilot and ground safety
    5.16. In the Event of a Crash:
    5.16.1. Could crash cause a fire?
    5.16.2. Could crash cause a hazardous materials release incident?
    5.16.3. Could crash cause an explosive reaction?
    PAN-PACIFIC UAS TEST RANGE COMPLEX H-8/R-0.1/08-18-14
    FLIGHT PLANNING GUIDE
    5.16.4. What warnings (if any) do Public Safety First Responders need to know before
    approaching the UAS? (explosive bolts, hazmat leaks, poisonous gasses, etc.)
    6. Ground Support
    6.1. Ground control stations (GCS) Please
    describe the ground stations involved in the UAS
    operations. Include mission control stations, launch/recovery stations and payload control
    stations as appropriate. For each GCS list:
    6.1.1.Function of station
    6.1.2.Desired placement location (i.e., in hangar, on runway)
    6.1.3.Power and infrastructure requirements
    6.1.4.What happens if power is lost?
    6.2. Logistics Support For
    each item below, please list exact requirements and how
    facility/equipment will be used:
    6.2.1.Hangar facilities (in square feet)
    6.2.2.Office space
    6.2.3.Telephone requirements (number of lines)
    6.2.4.Computer equipment (number of workstations, printers, internet access)
    6.2.5.Handheld communications (number of units and channels required)
    6.2.6.Fuel
    6.2.7.Tow/support vehicles
    6.2.8.Portable generators
    6.2.9.Classified handling/security provisions
    7.0 Configuration Management
    7.1. All changes to the UAS will be logged.
    7.2. Any changes to the UAS will be evaluated by the range Aeronautical Safety Engineer to
    determine if the airworthiness statement is still valid.
    8.0 Air Traffic Service Provider Coordination/Communication
    A specific plan for communicating with the controlling and adjacent Air Traffic Service providers
    will include contingency plans, phone numbers and any other pertinent information
    as designated by the parties involved.

    =============End. But keep up with version changes ...

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16678 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: AWES Cousins in Space

    This topic thread is offered to collect technologies from space efforts that may bless AWES in some manner.

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


    Start:

    Those and other "cousins" to AWES are up for study and discussion in this thread; branched topic threads are expected.   The aim hereon is still AWES RAD, not a distraction.


    ~ JoeF

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16679 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide
    For all serious US AWES developers, this UAS Flight Planning Guide is our first formal exam. We must first earn our wings in order to then perfect energy harvesting. The rest of the world can expect an almost identical framework. Over the years, the AWES Forum anticipated every critical topic, with many solutions proposed to now apply. It should finally be clear to all that low-complexity AWES is overwhelmingly favored in safety and reliability, and that high-complexity AWES architectures will take quite a while to catch up, no matter ho abundantly capitalized.

    Open-AWE will now cooperatively master this FPG better than any single venture can. A first industry task is to create a general AWES User Manual from which to derive specific manuals for each specific AWES. We need to build on the best general UAS guides we can find. Initial Open-AWE FPs will naturally concentrate on low-complexity soft-kite AWES architectures; leaving the high-complexity ventures to struggle with high-complexity plans that we can study and adapt as the technology matures.

    This FAA framework really is intended to discourage an unprepared mob from flying; lives will be saved, and the technology will advance more soundly. If FAA airworthiness documentation is too daunting for any worthy small developer focused on a narrow AWES aspect, just partner with a lead regulatory player (like kPower).  Aviation experts in AWE recognize the customary level of aviation diligence, and will Ace the process.

    Note Range Managment estimate of about 90-120 days for flight approvals for UAS developers who complete the FPG paperwork satisfactorily. There are several specific paths to NAS flight authorization, to be covered in a follow-up post. Meanwhile, anyone can still test at toy-scale, under a legacy hodge-podge of hobbyist group norms, in a legal-limbo between commercial, research, and recreational motivations. The one golden FAA FAR is that no flight operator can act in an unsafe manner...


    On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:32 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16680 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: FAA UAS FPG (v3) with sample PPG answers
    Another offering of the FAA UAS FPG, with a draft powered-parafoil example helpfully supplied-


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16681 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)


    GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

    • AGL Above Ground Level
    • AOI Area of Interest
    • ATC Air Traffic Control
    • ATO Air Traffic Organization
    • C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
    • COA Certificate of Authorization
    • FAA Federal Aviation Administration
    • FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
    • GCS Ground Control Station GPS
    • Global Positioning System
    • LOL Loss of Link
    • NAS National Airspace System
    • NOTAM Notice to Airman
    • PIC Pilot In Command
    • RTH Return To Home
    • Section 333 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) Section 333
    • SOP Standard Operating Procedures
    • UA Unmanned Aircraft
    • UAS Unmanned Aircraft System
    • VFR Visual Flight Rules
    • VLOS Visual Line of Site
    • VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions
    • VO Visual Observer
    • VTOL Vertical Takeoff and Landing
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16682 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)

    An example of an application for exemption by one company might be instructive to some AWES teams:


    http://www.energykitesystems.net/FAA/Range/AgScanIncExemptionRulemaking.pdf

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16683 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide

    UND

    ... first COA for use of one of the six test sites in USA:

    UND is key player in federally mandated UAS testing program | 04 | 2014 | Features | UND: University of North Dakota

     

     ... toward safe integration of UAS in NAS




    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16684 From: Rod Read Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS FPG (v3) with sample PPG answers
    This is great for preparation. Thanks for finding and sharing.
    3.6 might be tricky for us too...
    3.6 How many dB of signal does a pulled string telephone give?
    I have never seen that antenna pair run through a pathloss analysis yet.
    But I'm going to guess losses are very low.
    Loving this keep designs simple malarky.

    Rod Read

    Windswept and Interesting Limited
    15a Aiginis
    Isle of Lewis
    UK
    HS2 0PB

    07899057227
    01851 870878


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16685 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide (part 2)
    JoeF,

    A legal petition for UAS exemptions to FARs under FMRA Section 333 is different strategy than the ideal of full FAR compliance. AgScan represents a small start-up's faith in aviation lawyers, with risk of adverse rulings. They are only seeking to fly 5.5lbs, with no intent to develop large UAS tech like AWE. 

    I spoke to the company CEO (JoshB) , and he was unaware of many practical possibilities and business advantages to not depending on provisional waivers and exemptions, nor aware of kite platforms as a competitive UAS tech for the Ag-scanning apps he is developing. We wish him the best without necessarily following his legal path- 


    daveS


    On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:50 AM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16686 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide
    Test Sites

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16687 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: Steering Sleds by Camber Effect

    Close to topic?

    Gomberg Kites: Tuning

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16688 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide
    kPower has been leaning toward an Experimental COA , consistent with the top applicable purposes, but will let our Range Manger make the call as to which flight permitting path is most expedient (we meet later this week). Experimental COA is a stepping-stone to provisional and production COA. Emerging UAS regs do not fully square yet with the legacy rules, so there is some uncertainty how best to go (like AgScan chasing the new 303 sUAS rules), especially with AWES-

    § CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates.
    Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
    (a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.
    (b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.
    (c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.
    (d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.
    (additional purpose clauses do not apply)



    On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:24 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16689 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide
    Pendleton UAS

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16690 From: dave santos Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide
    Adding to Joe's roll call of UAS test ranges for AWE R&D (having covered TX last year), Warm Springs Reservation is looking like a top contender for kPower's home-range, with tribal heritage and a challenging mix of winds and terrain (with TX ranges lagging). The other two Oregon ranges, Pendleton and Tilamook, have higher service cost structures assumed, with bigger corporate clients targeted. Warm Springs presents itself as a cooperative UAS tech-frontier incubator, where the Wild West endures-


     


    On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:17 PM, "joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16691 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/27/2015
    Subject: Re: FAA UAS Test Range Flight Planning Guide
    UAS Test Ranges - FAA Approved

     

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16692 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2015
    Subject: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure



    Historical technology is properly understood within its complex context. In reviewing Alexander Bell's classic paper on kite structure, we see the real Alec Bell building solidly upon Hargrave, almost in real time.* We also see him casting his mind far into the future we live in, but vaguely. He does not quite grasp Galilean Relativity in his primitive kite physics (uncertain how to account for "vis-viva"), but anticipates Bucky, and modern space-frame engineering, with his obsession with cellular tetrahedral structure. He even anticipates our current interest in kite isolattices, so we count him as a spiritual ancestor. 

    Bell's blindspot was to not anticipate purely tensile (soft-kite) cellular structure, so he was never able to scale his cell kites greatly, without excessive rigid mass. It was sad to see Saraceno and TUDelft, in our time, also unable to see tensile tetrahedral structure (of "guys", not Bell's "braces") as the ready means to make a large-scale Bell geometry actually fly. Future AWES isodomes may look as if Bell himself drew them first, but based on guyed, not "braced", cellular structure (disregarding our advanced view of ground itself as ideal megascale kite bracing medium (anchor field).

    * " ...kites constructed on the same general model as the Hargrave Box Kite, but with triangular cells instead of quadrangular, seem to fly as well as the ordinary Hargrave form, and at as high an angle.  
         Such kites are therefore superior, for they fly substantially as well, while at the same time they are stronger in construction, lighter in weight, and offer less (drag)."



    (Reprint from National Geographic Magazine Vol. XIV, No.6, June 1903)

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16693 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/28/2015
    Subject: Some media files

    Some media files:

    KiteLab Group

    Plenary presentation abstract for AWEC2011 at KU Leuven:

    Toward Gigawatt-Scale Kite Energy

    Kite stacks, trains, & arches are dense-array models for aggregated capacity with enhanced safety & reliability. Testing these methods led KiteLab Group to an Airborne Latticework concept validated in numerous scale-prototype experiments. Dense-arrays mitigated cubic-mass scaling penalty, boosted stream-tube efficiency, & maximized energy extraction by volume, with reduced surface sprawl & integrated control. "Minimal-mass-aloft" by ground-based actuation & avionics favored high-altitude operation, persistence in calm, & inherent stability. Persistent flight was shown by phased radial tugs or towing. Launching & landing succeeded by self-cascaded sequences. High L/D kiteplanes & turbines resisted mishap flown semi-captive in arrays. Self-oscillating power wingmills on ganglines & halyards "fired" in passive synchrony; a means to drive the largest generators. Hotswapping, depowering, & "killing" elements was shown. Arrays were assembled mid-air & towed into place. No critical barrier seems to prevent scale-up of kite energy, even legacy power plantsretrofitted as kite hybrids. Aviation regulations offer a basis for large automated operations supervised by a Pilot-In-Control & Visual Observer, rotated in watches. Utility airborne energy in 2025 will involve Super-Density Operations (SDO) in NextGen Airspace.

    Experiments (Media Files)

    Wingmills
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/wingtail01.avi
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/wingtail02.avi
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/wingtail03.avi
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/wingmillplus.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/SputnikSystem.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/DaveSantosSputnik.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/hisweep.mpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/hotwing3.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/hotwing4.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/hotwing5.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/hotwing6.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/hotwing8.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/thicket.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/TailedWingMill.AVI
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/waterwingmill.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/wingmillvehicles.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/2009febDaveSantos.avi
    http://www.energykitesystems.net/DaveSantos/2009feb/action.avi
    http://www.energykitesystems.net/DaveSantos/2009feb/action2.avi
    http://www.energykitesystems.net/DaveSantos/2009feb/action3.avi
    http://www.energykitesystems.net/DaveSantos/LiftedWorker/aframe.mpg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy6FESqLVZI

    Paravanes
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/KiteLabUnderwaterKiteMuseumDaveSantos.jpg

    Looping Foil under a Pilot Kite
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/tripodtether.mpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/wsikfwing.mpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/driventripod.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/MVI_0532.AVI
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/MVI_0532_dvd.mpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/eddyloop.mpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/kitechip.mpg

    Spragged Generator Groundstation
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/SpragGen.jpg

    FlyGen Turbine under a Pilot Kite
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/WSIKF2009Augustflygen.jpg

    Scrap Kites
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/scrapkite.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/anarchkite.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/styrokite.jpg

    Crosswind COTS AWECS
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/awecs01.jpg

    BlueFin Model
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/bamboofin.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/bluefin.jpg
     
    "Chariot" Turret
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/turret_x.jpg

    Aggregate Stability (Kite Arches)
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/deltarch.mpeg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/lifterline.jpg

    Lightweight Fairlead
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/donutpulley.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/doublebetz.jpg

    Surf Zone Power
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/dragfloat01.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/dragfloat02.jpg

    Fire Fighting Kite Experiment
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/firekite01.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/firekite01.mpg

    Wingmills
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/flipwings.jpg

    Dutch-Roll Power Tandem
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/nemo.mpg


    Lever-Based AWECS
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/skyengine01.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/flylever01.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/folktoy.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/seiko1.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/seiko2.AVI

    Cableway Turbines
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/gondola_turbine01.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/gondola_turbine02.jpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/gondola_turbines.AVI
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/tetheredturbine.jpg

    Slow Current Hydropower
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/spiraldc.mpg
    http://energykitesystems.net/KiteLab/hydrospintail.mpg



    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16694 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/28/2015
    Subject: Hmmm? Is that the group playing AWES?
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16695 From: David Lang Date: 1/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    On Jan 28, 2015, at 11:46 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    ….exactly how did Bell's "lack of grasp of Galilean Relativity" affect his kite physics?

    DaveL
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16696 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2015
    Subject: Bell Stability-Instability, Bell Matter
    During the Golden Age of Kites, Alexander Bell correctly identified specific kite aggregate-stability factors, which we can properly call "Bell-Stabilities". This is a nice original reference to match to KiteLab's extensive validating findings with modern "unit winged cell" soft-kites, which are megascalable.

    Quoted from Bell 1906, writing for NatGeo Mag-

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16697 From: dave santos Date: 1/28/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    Hi DaveL,

    Bell took the pre-Galalean Relativity view that the ground does not move, only the wind does; so he was having a hard time precisely equating a glider or powered aircraft in still air with a kite in wind (as JoeF has done so well), but futzing. The partial obsolete "vis viva" concept seems inherent to his muddled thinking about kinetic energy and accounting for momentum. In fact a kite tethered to earth can be said to share the earth's momentum with regard to wind.


    Bell: "Of course in other respects the two cases are not identical. A kite sustained by a 20-mile breeze possesses no momentum, or rather its momentum is equal to zero, because it is stationary in the air and has no motion proper of its own; but the momentum of a heavy body propelled at 20 miles an hour through still air is very considerable. Momentum certainly aids flight, and it may even be a source of support against gravity quite independently of the pressure of the air. It is perfectly possible, therefore, that an apparatus may prove to be efficient as a flying-machine which cannot be flown as a kite on account of the absence of vis viva.  
         However this may be..."


    On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 3:35 PM, "David Lang SeattleDL@comcast.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16698 From: Rod Read Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell Stability-Instability, Bell Matter
    It might be a stretch but there's an amount of similarity to be seen in nature ...
    e.g.
    The booted racket tail hummingbird (video) Extremely manoeuvrable and stable birds.
    For stability they use short yet high AR speedy wings and 2 extending tail quills with a paddle at the end.
    Although constantly twitching and quivering responsively, the overall dynamic is extremely smooth.

    Rod Read

    Windswept and Interesting Limited
    15a Aiginis
    Isle of Lewis
    UK
    HS2 0PB

    07899057227
    01851 870878


    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16699 From: dougselsam Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation
    Dave S said: "the PumpingMill supercedes the LadderMill."  *** Let me present an alternate viewpoint:  A pumping mill is the first AWE idea that occurs to one flying a kite:  "This kite can pull, therefore this reel could power a generator."  After that, one imagines a stack of kites as more powerful, since a stack has more pull. The next thought is how to achieve steady-state operation, where one imagines a loop so the retraction cycle does not interrupt power output.  So it goes like this:

    pulling kite =
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16700 From: dougselsam Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    I agree, and also, Bell's assertion that the triangular configuration is "superior" to the biplane configuration was never bourne out in aviation.  The kites we made when I was a kid combined a triangular box kite with two triangular wings above.  (Maybe someone should try an airplane or hangglider shaped like that) I think the main advantage is placing more weight below the wings, making it inherently more stable.  But I agree with Bell that it gave up a lot of lift that would have been there if his trianglar boxkite had been a biplane.  Sometimes a certain configuration is adopted for the simple reason that it works, regardless of how many theories are applied.  If it doesn't crash, the urge is to build another one.
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16701 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation
    Doug failed to quote in context. The full sentence was, "We have Wubbo's own unambiguous 2005 testimony in his co-authored paper, that the PumpingMill supercedes the LadderMill."

    Even Doug has in the past claimed the LadderMill was superceded (by the ST). He finds Wubbo's SpiderMill and its branching kite train analogs "confusing". He confesses to be "too lazy" to even test a LadderMill (or branching kite trains), but not too lazy to misquote in vain, wasting the time of those who do test these ideas.




    On Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:18 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16702 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    Doug is incorrect to suggest that it was "never borne out" that triangular kite cell designs are better than rectangular cell designs, as Bell promoted for kite aviation. In fact, triangular cells in stick kites became and remain far more common than rectangular cells (like the Conyne kite Doug seems to describe, which even predates Bell), and remain in play for technical kites (a new kite altitude world record is being planned around delta-Conyne train kites, as the best design option (rectangular cells are not even a close option). Doug is a very unreliable non-expert source of kite or broader aviation knowledge, for lack of diligent study and practice. He even has a hard time understanding kites as real aviation, or seeing biplanes as. What a pain to have to always correct his gross misrepresentations, or let nonsense stand.

    Bell's triangular cell structure is in fact seen here and there in many modern aircraft, more so than vintage biplanes are now seen. Triangle wing struts and V-tails are common modern examples, and AWES soft-kite aviation platforms can similarly incorporate the basic triangle idea, even fully tensile versions of Bell's iconic forms.


    On Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:46 AM, "dougselsam@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16703 From: David Lang Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16704 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell Stability-Instability, Bell Matter
    Yes, the long hummingbird tail in the video would in principle contribute to flight stability, but in this case its more of a courtship display, and the tail is too bendy to act strongly. Ordinary hummers do not need stabilizers of this sort. We see the stability physics of spread mass or reaction forces everywhere, where a larger moment of inertia causes slower angular momentum (like a figure skater spinning). In the flying case, aerosurfaces entrain extra inertia from the air mass, but its the same effect.

    "Bell Stability" is intended to specifically apply to kite design; for example, the hole in the Korean Fighter kite gives a bit of needed stability to an otherwise too unstable design. Bell discusses the role of an empty center kite geometry for higher stability, but I did not quote those passages. Multiple mechanisms work together for Bell Stability, from exotic many-connected cellular-array kite topology to common widely-spread stabilizer geometry (which ordinary aircraft and flying animals share).


    On Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:44 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16705 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    DaveL,

    We can generally say that Bell's "19th century" aerodynamics explain why his aircraft failed to compete into higher Re regimes (higher velocities and larger scales). By replacing his presumption of sparred structure (and mistaken linear scaling law) with more modern tensile soft-kite methods, we can finally take Bell's good ideas far further than he could.

    I guess you see where his stationary Earth presumption neglected Galilean Relativity. Its not that the best science is always required for a working tech; after all some NASA scientists wryly developed a working aerodynamics based on "lift-demons" :)  Similarly, kite-Earth momentum can be overlooked by a classic kite designer, but formally is the total momentum of the Earth itself, with momentum transfer severely constrained by the low tensile limit of kiteline. Building a more strictly correct kite physics than Bell's should help us sooner or later.

    The angular momentum of the rotating earth-kite is quantifiable like this-


    daveS
     


    On Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:37 AM, "David Lang SeattleDL@comcast.net [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16706 From: Rod Read Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation

    I have to admit, what I understand as the description of a spidermill so far...  It seems an improbable AWES.
    If the whole line pumps in sync fine. I  get that. A bit like Pierre's ortho kite bunch.
    How to collect pull / pump from a collected line of branching kite trains with chaotic phases... I have no idea. I imagine it's really inefficient.

    Is there a better description link somewhere?

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16707 From: Rod Read Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell Stability-Instability, Bell Matter

    Don't be fooled by the cute little birdy.
    They're actually vicious wee bastards!
    Their aerobatic prowess is used for territorial battling.
    Also the only bird known to be able to out maneuver attacks from multiple bees.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16708 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    HHHGSS001.jpg
    The upper triangular cell is from an A. G. Bell drawing. The down-tube extensions and the rigging of the skis without base bars were added by JoeF. No rights reserved; have at it freely!
    HHHGSS001.jpg (27.54 KiB) Viewed 9 times

    High-Hat Joined-Wing Bell-Faust Hang Glider or 
    High-Hat Joined-Wing Bell-Faust Wing Running Apparatus

    A joined-wing HG is shown. The hang loop is indicated. 
    The Safe-Splat skis are in red; they may be widened near the front and then width tapered to smaller toward the rear, as wanted.
    The span may be altered; the dihedral of the lower wing may be changed. Want thick airfoils? Have fun! 
    The above is not tetrahedral, but triangular-prism based. 

    No rights reserved; have at it freely. :!: :wave: ~ JoeF
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16709 From: Rod Read Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure

    It's the earths inertia you need to know as the wind will blow all sorts of directions.
    It's a big number.
    Kite lines being big enough over long enough in one direction to make a detectable difference...
    Give Bell a break.

    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16710 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: SpiderMill AWES Documentation
    Rod,

    The best way to judge the general flight properties of the SpiderMill is to fly a branching-train of toy kites (with tri-swivels from fishing stores). It is not be inherently inefficient, since modern kites and lines can be quite fine, and our unloaded trains fly at a high angle. Control may be as simple as a single timing pulse, with all kites pumping together, wherever they happen to be in the chaos. Pumping can be simple as every unit toggling a wing-flap, or as complex as multi-phased diving across the window, to build a strong peak load velocity pulse from top-to-bottom.

    One could as well conclude that trees themselves are somehow structurally inefficient; but they succeed anyhow. To properly suppose a kite energy system is inefficient, one identifies specific dispersive factors between the fine kite and the groundgen. In the SpiderMill case, there are no big hidden theoretic losses I can see; the whole scaled-up mess of wing and string seems capable of aggregate efficiencies comparable to simpler kite AWES, despite the amazing self-solutions the kites fly. The Spidermill is highly scalable compared to most AWES architectures, if efficiencies-of-scale count.

    A dogsled rigged like a SpiderMill is a good 2D model. It works at "long-stroke" frequency, and there is a practical limit to how many units can be crowded crossways, with greater cosign losses and excess solidity-factor eventually reducing efficiency. Tall SpiderMills in 3D will not greatly suffer these effects,

    daveS


    On Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:46 AM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16711 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: Bell's Classic Paper on Tetrahedral Kite Structure
    Rod,

    We "give Bell a break" by extending his best insights into our tensile iso-lattices. We only extend his greatest ideas here by cutting away the conceptual limitations of his time (no soft-kite scaling path). Its no favor to Bell to insist his work remain unfulfilled, by an ongoing lack of critical effort.

    Bell is highly honored for his humanitarian record, which far exceeds that of most scientists. He hardly needs us to "give him a break" in any moral sense of the phrase,

    daveS




    On Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:03 PM, "Rod Read rod.read@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16712 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Jalbert Kite-Matter
    We have defined Bell Kite-Matter as consisting of sparred triangular cells. Bell based his  kite-matter on Hargrave-Matter*, which can be defined as sparred rectangular cells. We can also see cellular kite matter in traditional kites, like Chinese dragon/centipede designs. The great Jalbert gets credit for creating modern soft-cellular (non-sparred) kite matter (celled parafoils), which we can call Jalbert-Matter. 

    These exciting kite forms of engineered matter are fundamentally characterized by their specific repeating (nearly) identical structural units, with unique metamaterial dynamics.

    -------------------------
    * he "gave [Hargrave] a break" :)
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16713 From: dave santos Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Kite Vehicles on Roadways
    Last night, here in Ilwaco, the Washington State Parks authority held its first public presentation on the opening of vast public beaches to wind powered vehicles, which are currently banned. The ban originated by the beaches being officially regulated highways for cars, in combination with morbid social fears over outlaw wind daredevils.

    Starting in May, we will have miles of beaches to legally enjoy with our kite sports (and land yachts), after many years of ignoring the ban (as outlaw daredevils). Most of the world has not passed thru this cycle of banning and legalizing kites, but its sure to recur.

    What if we could do as those German kite-car pioneers did in crossing Australia, and operate kite-electric hybrids in kite mode on public roads, whenever conditions safely allow? The Germans were clearly ahead of any kite-car ban, and we have formal legal rights emerging here on the US NW Coast, with the world's first official car-kite highway, so we have tasted freedom. 

    Much like AWES in shared airspace, graceful kite integration into road traffic depends on the right location and safety culture. Wind vehicle legalization in practical terms means higher safety standards than the outlaw era, enforced from within user-groups (self-regulation).
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16714 From: joe_f_90032 Date: 1/29/2015
    Subject: Re: WO2013173196 (A1) - AIRBORNE PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR DEVICE
    Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 16715 From: Rod Read Date: 1/30/2015
    Subject: Windswept and Interesting new rig
    Attachments :

      The newest version of Daisy kite design looking like it's coming together nicely...
      See the photo.
      Can't wait to get it to test soon

        @@attachment@@