holy smokes YouTube landing

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?

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

wrote:
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,

Good deal :-)
Thanks for sharing your inside-the-cockpit analysis.
I've had a couple landings in really hairy conditions, and I agree with
you, best to avoid T-storms!



Shawn

On Jun 29, 7:45?am, wrote:
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

Don,

I was standing by the gate down where you landed and remembered
thinking we were watching a beautiful plane getteing torn up.....and
being amazed when everything held together and the canopy came up. I
don't remember seeing the gear touch until you were facing back up the
field. Great job of flying on your part with gusts, sheeting rain,
massive lightning, planes in front, behind and besides. Then joking
with you out on the grid Monday when you found the fairing. You
certainly earned the Lime Crew's nickname for your plane that day
("Donkey Kong"). Probably one of the most exciting days I can think
of at the "Creek". As we say here in Kentucky "Ya done good, boy".

Gary Adams

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

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

Just idle fun speculation, of course. Clearly, a conventional rudder like
the Genesis wouldn't work with a 31 meter span. But, it would take only a
tiny amount of drag at the wing tip acting through a 15 meter moment arm to
produce huge yaw moments. I've run this calculation a few times and the net
drag of tip drag rudders would acutally be less than a conventional rudder.
A trailing edge elevator would work fine regardless of the span. The
Genesis "T" tail is actually a hinderance.

As for the control moments to control engine thrust and "P" factors, yes,
that is a challenge. A few prople have suggested lowering the thrust line
so it passes through the CG and aerodynamic center. The rear propeler could
fold back somewhat like a Carat and be pulled into a tube in the rear
fuselage. Not sure how the landing gear would work with a low thrust line.

Obviously there would be some weight reduction to the 'non lifting parts'
that would roll through the wing spar calculations allowing a lighter wing.
Probably not a huge weight reduction but every bit helps the wing bending
moment.

Turning flight might be easier. The short fuselage could be kept aligned
with the local airflow easier than the very long one of the ETA.

Obviously, something like this isn't a 'cut and paste' sort of design. Each
aspect of the design would break new ground and have to be carefully thought
through. Each design change would affect everything else.

Bill Daniels


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:nmkji.6642$wu5.6324@trndny03...
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

"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message
. ..

(really important stuff snipped)

The
Genesis "T" tail is actually a hinderance.
Bill Daniels




I bet not nearly the "hindrance" as would occur if you attempt to fly the
Genesis without that horizontal stab.

bumper
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink"
QV and MKII

"bumper" wrote in message
...

"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message
. ..

(really important stuff snipped)

The
Genesis "T" tail is actually a hinderance.
Bill Daniels




I bet not nearly the "hindrance" as would occur if you attempt to fly the
Genesis without that horizontal stab.

bumper
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink"
QV and MKII

Of course, an existing Genesis won't fly without the tail. But the Genesis
CONCEPT could have as evidenced by Jim Marske's designs.

Bill Daniels

On Jul 6, 8:56 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Just idle fun speculation, of course. Clearly, a conventional rudder like
the Genesis wouldn't work with a 31 meter span. But, it would take only a
tiny amount of drag at the wing tip acting through a 15 meter moment arm to
produce huge yaw moments. I've run this calculation a few times and the net
drag of tip drag rudders would acutally be less than a conventional rudder.
A trailing edge elevator would work fine regardless of the span. The
Genesis "T" tail is actually a hinderance.

As for the control moments to control engine thrust and "P" factors, yes,
that is a challenge. A few prople have suggested lowering the thrust line
so it passes through the CG and aerodynamic center. The rear propeler could
fold back somewhat like a Carat and be pulled into a tube in the rear
fuselage. Not sure how the landing gear would work with a low thrust line.

Obviously there would be some weight reduction to the 'non lifting parts'
that would roll through the wing spar calculations allowing a lighter wing.
Probably not a huge weight reduction but every bit helps the wing bending
moment.

Turning flight might be easier. The short fuselage could be kept aligned
with the local airflow easier than the very long one of the ETA.

Obviously, something like this isn't a 'cut and paste' sort of design. Each
aspect of the design would break new ground and have to be carefully thought
through. Each design change would affect everything else.

Bill Daniels

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message

news:nmkji.6642$wu5.6324@trndny03...



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" atwww.motorglider.org- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill,

Didnt one of the early flying wings use this for yaw control? small
spoilers at the tip of the wings. im imagining a long wing with a pod
on front and a boom back to just an elevator. sure would look cool