My kite 2.0 was a total failure, except in that it taught me some important things about box kites.
It appears that the rigidity of the structure is an important component of its ability to fly. I used balsa struts that were half as thick as the ones used in Kite 1.0, the idea being to try to shave off weight wherever I could since I was going for a double-box concept. I also made two cross struts instead of three – meaning there was no structural support at the very ends of the box. The three strut design had rigidity and support from the cross braces which were attached at the ends and at the middle of the longitudinal struts.
I know this would benefit from some illustrations but I’m typing this on my phone.
Anyway, the two cross braces were attached to the longitudinal struts a few inches away from the ends. This meant that the thin struts – which were very flexible – were free to bend and flap violently when placed in an air current and so, I imagine, causing excessive turbulence which made flying the double box design pretty difficult.
There is a need for additional experimentation regarding the attachment points for the string. Improper setup of the bridle (the string that attaches to the kite, which is in turn attached to the long flying string) can make the kite meet the wind at less than ideal angles for flight.
Side note: I should really learn some of the proper terminology for kite parts.
Finally, the thin struts meant that upon the first or second hard landing there was irreparable damage to the structure – in other words, the struts snapped like the thin little twigs they were.
I had no such structural issues with Kite 1.0 which leads me to believe the added strength of a thicker balsa wood may be worth the trade-of of the added weight (which on a single box kite may be negligible, but as I enlarge the design may become an issue? Kite 3.0 will have the answers).
