High lift coefficient and biplane kite


#1

Florian Bauer (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Florian_Bauer10) has published as co-author “Power Curve and Design Optimization of Drag Power Kites” (https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:c40f14fc-b4ba-498a-84c4-f2b745b4417b?collection=research) and “Drag power kite with very high lift coefficient” (https://www.eal.ei.tum.de/fileadmin/tueieal/www/theses/Bauer/HighLiftCoefficient_20170831.pdf).
Both papers investigate the biplane configuration and very high lift coefficient.
The results are impressive:
“Power Curve and Design Optimization of Drag Power Kites” mentions: “…a 40m wing span biplane kite with a wing area of 80m2, a lift coefficient of 4 and a tether length of 370m achieves a nominal electrical power of 7 MW…”.
Some high lift elements like slots or flaps are shown on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_eMQvDoDWk&t=281s.
Perhaps that also would be suitable for the pumping mode.
I would like to know your advice. Thanks.


Kitekraft Startup
Low radius loop
#2

I do find the paper very interesting. It points at some possible optimizations that could gain the industry as a whole.

I believe some AWE actors are already using multi foil wings, look at Twingtec at 0:50 in this video, Im sure there may be more examples. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=twingtec

Now to criticise the paper a bit, I think the numbers are optimistic, and I dont think its a good thing to create too much hype at this point, until at least one actor has proven reliable production of electricity with AWE. I’d rather make conservative estimates early on and then rather deliver to exceed those later (which is probably also quite difficult as the initial estimated were not conservative enough).

First, a practical issue: If the plane is 40 meter wingspan, I’d say the loop should be at least 100 meter radius for a single wing AWE system. This is probably even too tight, as we want to avoid too much roll and also different windspeeds at either side of the wing. With a 400 meter tether you are flying at >40 m/s and just 40 m above ground (20 degree elevation stated). You can add more tether (370m to 1000 m?), but then the power ratings will probably decline a bit due to tether drag.

Next, when rating power, there are certain absolute limits that must be accounted for. I think the most apparent are winch power soaking ability, and tether force. If the wing should create 7 MW power that would be some really hefty tether/winch. Also, the generated power is not entirely constant due to gravity and the fact that you are sometimes flying towards and away from the wind. My point is that if the kite is able to hold 7 MW peak at 10 m/s wind, the average production will be far less.

In short I don’t buy the 7 MW number.

If you had instead stated 1 MW average power at 10 m/s would that not already be quite impressive according to the current state of AWE?


#3

The illustration of the abstract provides as lift and drag coefficients (CL and CD) respectively 4.6 and 0.1.
Should not the drag coefficient be far higher in regard to the lift coefficient, growing with the square of the CL?


#4

The main idea is “…the power increases cubically with CL and decreases
only quadratically with CD…”.


#5

I believe a G (L/D) value of 46 is extremely high. I would expect a high lift coefficient kite like this to have less G than a single airfoil.

The concept of high lift does have merit in the sense that increasing Cl, even if you decrease G in the process, will increase the G value of the AWE kite if you also take tether drag into account.

You might as easily just use a Cl of 1.5 (normal wing) and increase the wing area by a factor of 3 for the same effect.


#6

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/HiLiftPresPt1.pdf and some other documents seem give a maximum CL value about 3. The aerodynamic devices are well described.
Florian’s paper indicates 4.6 for a biplane kite. In some way the biplane configuration is also seen as a lift device: the 80 m² area concerns only one surface, not the two surfaces.
Such a wing or similar could be particularly suitable for my rotating reel conversion system (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-1947-0_22, see also Rotating AWE systems topic), the crosswind wings rotor or joined blades rotor becoming both powerful and not too fast to go with the ring with hydro turbines.


#7

So the 4.6 Cl value is actually just 2.3 on each wing?

Given the inherent risk of AWE itself I would not consider adding more risk by introducing this kind og wing now. That is, unless the AWE is not feasible without it


#8

I realize that power is Cl^3 and Cd^2, BUT:

Cl and Cd are connected. Increasing Cd will most likely also increase Cd. Cd will probably increase relatively more in the process. Look at that last foil in the series of four: the lift is pointing very much backwards.

Next, we realize that increasing Cl above 1.5 is not really that easy. You need multi profile or other tricks, and with these tricks your wing may not fly as well as the simpler normal wing profiles (eg stalling and nonlinearity issues, as a software guy I wouldn’t know the details?).

If we assume that Cl/Cd is fixed, the power is only proportional to the Cl. So if you can increase the Cl from 1.5 to 4.5, you will get 3x the power. In reality I expect for these profiles, Cd will scale relatively faster than Cl, and in effect we are perhaps only getting 2x the power, and a wing that is difficult to produce and control in addition.

Now there is another option that would also give us the same effect. Increase the wing area by 2x. I think if you are seriously considering going for a wing like this, you might consider that option as well. Perhaps even the wing with twice the area will weigh less, after all structural weight has been added


Kitekraft Startup
#9

Its odd to see so many Northern EU university-incubated ventures competing with similar but unproven kiteplane platforms for a market that has not yet developed. The technical claims seem like wildly speculative marketing, rather than the caution academia normally shows.

Note that high Lift Coefficient is a lower velocity flight mode where power kites excel. It won’t make much difference whether a kiteplane is a biplane or not, with a tail or not, and so on, if careful comparative testing is destined to favor the power kite.

It all may boil down which wing can crash, not kill anyone, pop right back up, and does not have an RF com link that can be jammed, plus the highest power-to-weight to-boot.

Good luck to all players who find themselves with the wrong architectural down-select, that they may somehow migrate to the winning architecture. This would be natural if everyone was cooperating more rather than competing for a quick return on a shakey investment.

Biplane kites are old hat in classic kite design, but monoplane kites dominate all high-performance kiting, for well known reasons. A bare biplane advantage over a monoplane is a slower landing velocity and stronger airframe, to not crack up quite as soon as faster kiteplanes.

Pray for third-party testing to settle the fog of AWE product claims.


Censored Content
#10

That increases also the cantilever effect, while the two wings of the biplane are held.


#11

These values are extracted from the abstract connected by the second link, the third link toward the complete paper indicating 4.1 MW.


#12

Parasite drag increases exponentially with speed. Induced drag decreases exponentially with speed. So, again, its a give and take depending on your mission statement.

Biplanes, because of their lighter wing loading, have very low induced drag. But because of the increased surface area, they need to travel very slowly to prevent parasite drag from taking over.

Which is why biplanes are not typically used anymore (outside of nostalgia) because the more powerful engines with today’s technology would increase parasite drag too much.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-aspect-ratio-of-a-wing-affect-lift-coefficient

Because AWE of the single wing type inherently struggles with tether drag, flying slower with a biplane could be more appropriate for AWE relative to regulat flight.

I think the biggest advantage of the biplane may be saving weight. When the wingspan is reduced this also rduces the weight of a beam in the wing.

The AWE biplane in question though has extremely high wing loading. Goes to show that airplane knowledge is not directly transferable to AWE


#13

http://www.energykitesystems.net/FAA/FAAfromMakani.pdf page 3, the rated power is 5 MW for the M5, the wing mass being 9,900 kg.


page 14, the utility-scale system is 11,836 kg and is rated at 4.1 MW (see page 17).

It looks that the power/mass ratio is better with the monoplane in very high scale.