I redid some very rough calculations (see in the end of this post). For the same power and elevation angle (providing L/D ratio at turbine height, see tangent), Kiwee and Daisy will need an equivalent lifter kite (surface area and other characteristics).
This can be understood intuitively: Daisy has a much lower elevation angle (30-35 degrees) than Kiwee (60 degrees) for power output several times higher, using a slightly smaller lifter kite (3 m², if I recall) than Kiwee’s (4 m²). Without the lifter kite, Daisy rotor lift would be zero, but with the lifter kite, Daisy rotor adds a significant lift.
After that, there may be some interesting configurations for Daisy, or for Kiwee.
Comparison between Daisy and Kiwee:
Daisy rotor 10 m² + lifter kite 3 m², elevation angle 35°, L/D = 0.7. If D coefficient is 1 for the 10 m² rotor, and L coefficient is 1 for the lifter kite (its D coefficient being 0.5, elevation angle kite alone being 63°), that leads to (3 (kite) + 5 (rotor))/(1.5 (kite) + 10 (rotor)) = almost 0.7. So the rotors bring some lift. With no rotor lift, that would lead to 3/11.5, so an elevation angle of less than 15°, which is not the case. Power about 1 to 1.5 kW with a wind of 10 m/s and more.
Kiwee, power turbine = 210 W with a wind of 10 m/s, turbine 1 m², lifter kite 4 m² (D coefficient = 0.5, and lift coefficient = 1), leading to 4/3 leading to elevation angle of 52°30’. If D coefficient of the kite is only 0.33 while L coefficient is 1.2, we have 4.8/(1 + 1.33), leading to an elevation angle of 64°. An elevation angle of 35° would be achieved (on the same basis as just previously) with a lifter kite of 0.733 m², leading to 0.88/ (1 + 0.24444). With a Daisy’s lifter kite of 3 m², the power could be 4x, so 840 W, so a power comparable (a little less) to that of Daisy.
We should also take account of the position of the lifter kite in regard to the position of the respective rotors then the position of the respective rotors in regard to the ground.