holy smokes YouTube landing

That no damage resulted to the Genesis will come as no surprise to those
familiar with Jim Marske's simular designs. These are all very strong
gliders. The strength comes mainly from the shape and not from robust
structure although the Genesis is, in fact, very robust.

It's interesting to ask whether the 1-26 with its well respected out landing
capability would have done as well. Certainly, Genesis owners have less
reason to fear out landings than the typical glider owner with a fragile
tailboom.

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

Bill Daniels


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 29, 2:31 am, Colin Field
wrote:
On Jun 28, 7:40 pm, wrote:

I sat there happy to be in one big piece, happy my
glider was in one big piece but mostly feeling stupid......

Don

I suppose the glider would have required an internal
check, expecially of the main spar and wing fixings.
Was there any damage at all, or is the Genesis really
THAT tough?


A fairing for the tip spoiler actuator came off during the ground
loop.. It had been held in place with double sided tape. I found it
the next morning on the runway. It was undamaged and got taped back
on. The runway was very wet and slippery. The soil is sandy at CCSC. I
have a feeling that the same landing on a dry hard runway would have
put more loads into the glider. I have lots of experence working on
fiberglass gliders (A&P since 1974) and there was NO structural
damage. The Genesis is built tough. (And Short)

Don