Bill Daniels wrote:
I think this incident may have an influence on future designs. The
Genesis
obtains excellent handling and quite respectable performance without a tail
boom which forces the question, " Why have one?" The 18 meter and larger
gliders would obtain even greater relative performance and damage resistance
since the fuselage size need not increase in porportion to wing span.

I suspect the increase in wing span might still require a commensurate
increase in rudder/fin and boom length, just to control yaw, even it
wasn't needed for the elevator. Also, flapped gliders have relatively
less drag from the elevator than aileron-only gliders, so I think they
would have still be better off because the wing could be more easily
optimized for performance.

I
wonder what the ETA would be like with the Genesis fuselage.

A further complication with the ETA is controlling the glider under
power. I have no idea how it would work out in practice, but I'm
guessing any advantages of the Genesis type design would be lessened by
the control requirements under power. Add in the problems of stabilizing
a floppy, high-aspect ratio wing, and I'm willing to believe the nod for
performance still goes to the conventional tail.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org