About 41:20’’ (in French language) from the start of the video about exploring a volcano crater https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRi54nYJ92c: “the drone has limits when wind speed is above 8 m/s, while the kytoon can operate with higher winds”.
From this information can we deduce something for AWES, and with various Reynolds number values?
If a drone means quadcopter there may be some limitations, but a drone could look like a plane and in that case wind is a non issue. The kytoon is nice, but its just different tools for different tasks. For non wind related applications I expect the drone would win in most cases due to the intermittency of wind as a fuel.
I dont think there are any general assumptions to be made based on these observations.
I think we (the world) know enough by now to evaluate any concept pretty well on paper. You can’t generalize into a good concept. Making a good concept is like designing a sailboat or architecture for a building. It takes knowledge, skill and talent. But if you could describe a working system, many people should be able to verify its feasibility.
I dont believe kytoons have a place in >MW AWE, due to practical issues of keeping it inflated, and also the availability of gas at scale
What I find instructive in the explanations of the video is the fact that a drone does not hold up with wind, and that it would have destroyed itself under conditions where the kytoon operated.
This ties in with the AWE drone crashes which have been reported, even in a different context, AWES being tethered unlike the drone described on the video.
I do not see how a tethered drone could produce MW reliably and over time regardless of the conditions, whether it is a quadcopter or a plane or both for VTOL operations.
We can therefore deduce from all this a poor future for AWE drones whatever they are, unless spectacular progress related to control.
It is perhaps not for nothing that we do not see a tethered drone when the power kites are legion.
The lesson to be learned is that AWES should limit themselves to what already flies well.
That’s a very bold deduction from one remote data point. The counter arguments in control and capability of other drones is very strongly in favour of them being able to be applied to AWES. … maybe not in the primary generation role but certainly in support of short term airborne tasks if untethered and long term tasks if power is provided.
Thank you for your response, more nuanced than mine.
I will try to give an example of difficulty: we will use VTOL tool when sufficient wind is announced at altitude by taking account of a high cut-in wind speed for a rigid plane or drone; but on the other hand this takeoff mode (and also the transition and the power mode that follow) is difficult in windy conditions, which the video can indirectly confirm.
I’m afraid that this rather favorable concept has nevertheless given its limits, and this under particularly favorable conditions (investments, skills, previous small prototypes…).
OK We’re talking about McBlarney as it relates to the flygen/skygen kite-lifted turbine(s) in general, and I don’t think it would be accurate to say McBlarney disproved that whole entire design or conceptual space, only that their particular final implementation seemed very disappointing. Not sure about their earlier, smaller versions. Just because they chose to do it a certain way, doesn’t mean that’s the only way. They went down one road - doesn’t mean it’s the only path that could be taken. OK this is reminding me of the words to Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin…
Did Windlift do better? It’s hard to know until after full reports.
Perhaps there is some solution by modifying my old FlygenKite (flexible flygen kite system) by using lighter blades like for Daisy.