24/05/2026
๐๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฆ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐น๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐: ๐ง๐ฎ๐
๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐บ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐
Back in the earliest days of KiteLines magazine, a surprisingly deep debate began unfolding across its pages. It was not about festivals, competitions, or even kite plans. The discussion was about something much more fundamental:
๐๐ผ๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐๐๐ถ๐ณ๐ ๐ธ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐?
The conversation began in Spring 1977, in Volume 1, Issue 1 of KiteLines, when ๐ช๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐๐ฟ๐๐บ๐บ๐ถ๐๐ (remember him?) published an article titled โ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฒ๐: ๐๐ฎ๐ป ๐ช๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐พ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ?โ
Brummitt โ one of the foundational voices of early American kiting and a ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป in Ocean City โ explored the growing difficulty of organizing modern kite designs into neat categories.
At first, the problem seemed simple enough: flat kites, bowed kites, box kites, sleds, parafoils, parawings, and deltas. But almost immediately the boundaries began to blur. Was a bowed kite simply a modified flat kite? Did a parafoil behave more like a wing? Were delta boxes and deltas separate categories? What happens when designs combine characteristics from multiple forms?
Brummitt realized something important very early: kite design was evolving faster than the language being used to describe it.
Then, one year later, the discussion exploded further.
In Volume 2, Issue 1 of KiteLines (1978), ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฑ๐น๐ฒ๐๐ โ known to many of us today from the legendary Piney Mountain Air Force Data Letters โ published a spirited and often humorous rebuttal titled โ๐๐ฟ๐๐บ๐บ๐ถ๐๐โ๐ ๐๐น๐ฎ๐๐ฝ๐ต๐ฒ๐บ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฏ๐๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฑ.โ Aydlett challenged Brummittโs classifications, poked holes in the logic, defended rotor kites, referenced Bernoulli, autogyros, rotating blades, and fluid mechanics, and essentially argued that kite categories were becoming far too tangled and contradictory to fit neatly into rigid definitions.
And then something remarkable happened.
Immediately following Aydlettโs rebuttal, on the very next page, Valerie Govig published an ambitious article by English kitebuilder and designer ๐๐ผ๐ต๐ป ๐ฆ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ titled: โ๐ง๐ผ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ง๐ฎ๐
๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐บ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐.โ
At first glance, Spendloveโs article looks almost intimidating โ diagrams, structural trees, cellular forms, fins, vanes, wings, compound extensions, layered classifications. But underneath all of that was a fascinating question:
๐๐ฎ๐ป ๐ธ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐๐๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐บ๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ?
Spendlove believed kite terminology had become inconsistent and often confusing. Some kite names described shape, others described structure, others described flight behavior โ and many overlapped depending on who was using them. So he attempted to create a true classification system for kites based on their physical and aerodynamic characteristics.
His taxonomy examined questions such as whether a kite was stable on its own or required stabilization, whether it was framed or frameless, single-surface or cellular, and whether it relied on fins, tails, vanes, wings, or airfoils. As the article progresses, the classifications become increasingly detailed, especially when Spendlove explores cellular and compound kites. The diagrams begin to resemble evolutionary trees of kite design itself.
And that may be the most fascinating part of this entire historical thread.
What these early kite thinkers were really wrestling with was not simply:
โWhat is this kite called?โ
But:
โHow are all kites related?โ
Reading these articles nearly fifty years later feels remarkably modern because kitebuilders today still blur categories, hybridize ideas, borrow structures, and invent forms that resist rigid classification. Maybe that is why no system ever fully succeeds โ creativity constantly reshapes the boundaries.
But perhaps the most remarkable part of all of this is that KiteLines preserved the conversation itself.
Not just the kites, but the theories, disagreements, experiments, personalities, and evolving ideas behind them. Without Valerie Govig and the pages of KiteLines, contributors like Wyatt Brummitt, Guy Aydlett, and John Spendlove โ and the fascinating debates they sparked โ might have slowly faded from kite history altogether.
And interestinglyโฆ the Spendlove story does not end here.
A few years later, KiteLines would again feature Spendlove โ this time not as a theorist of classification, but as the designer of a remarkable cellular kite known as the Tetracaideca, or โ41-D Box Kite.โ Many kitebuilders may recognize that name immediately.
Decades later, the Tetracaideca would become a popular and much-discussed design on Kitebuilder.org, where builders continue exploring the same geometric cellular ideas and structural experimentation that Spendlove was wrestling with back in the late 1970s.
In some ways, the conversation never really ended.
It simply moved forward into the next generation of kitebuilders.
-sf
---
Further Reading / References:
โข KiteLines Vol. 1 No. 1 (Spring 1977)
Wyatt Brummitt โ โKite Categories: Can We Divide and Conquer?โ
โข KiteLines Vol. 2 No. 1 (1978)
Guy Aydlett โ โBrummittโs Blasphemies Rebukedโ
โข KiteLines Vol. 2 No. 1 (1978)
John Spendlove โ โTowards a Taxonomy of Kitesโ
โข KiteLines Vol. 3 No. 3
John Spendlove โ Tetracaideca / โ41-D Box Kiteโ
โข The Penguin Book of Kites โ David Pelham
โข Piney Mountain Air Force Data Letters โ Guy Aydlett
โข Kitebuilder.org forum discussions on the Tetracaideca and advanced cellular kite construction: https://www.kitebuilder.org/searches?query=Tetracaideca
Ive included copies of the original KiteLines articles in the comments below (and for those interested, the reconstructed transcript of Spendloveโs โTowards a Taxonomy of Kitesโ article).
---
Love Kites? Fly with AKA. Share the Joy.
American Kitefliers Association
๐ช๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ... ๐๐๐!
---