holy smokes YouTube landing

"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message
. ..
The advantage to most of us, should the designer begin to try flying
wings, is that it would be an exciting thing to see after all these years
of look-alike pod and boom designs.

Bill Daniels


Which most are you referring to? I haven't seen a flying wing that
approaches the grace and beauty of some of the current designs which are
just about the prettiest things flying . . . right after some of the
feathered critters.

bumper
ASH26E - - pod, boom, and gorgeous
Minden NV

It proved to have similar performance to contemporary standard class
gliders.Some advantage in efficiency being generally lost to handling
induced inefficiency. So - There was no compelling efficiency
advantage.

It should be noted that most all hang gliders are flying wings. The
reason for this has more to do with portability than with performance.
The handling quality of many hang gliders since, say the early '80, are
quite pleasant - remember, this is weight shift contol.

Tony V

At 17:42 06 July 2007, Bumper wrote:

'Bill Daniels' wrote in message
(really important stuff snipped)

The Genesis 'T' tail is actually a hindrance.
Bill Daniels

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

bumper

I don't agree that the Genesis elevator on the tail
is a hindrance.
Like everything else in engineering it is a trade off.
Putting the
all-flying elevator on a 'T' tail keeps it out of ground
effect so the
control feel is the same during landing as during flight.
The moment
arm of the Genesis elevator allowed the designers to
move the
cockpit forward so the pilots head is in front of the
wing leading
edge giving much better visibility than would occur
if the pilot has to
sit on the cg. The chord at the wing root on the Genesis
is quite
large but the trailing edge is just as robust as the
rest of the glider
so handling the 140 Lb. wing isn't a problem.
With a large elevator at the trailing edge there could
be an
assembly/disassembly issue. Would it be separately
removable
or fixed to the wing? The elevator on the Genesis
weighs less than
10 Lbs. and is short enough that you can stick it under
your arm or
carry it off with one hand. The Genesis has a cockpit
large enough
for a 6'10' 255 Lb. pilot to move around in. I think
just the size of
it is as great a 'hindrance' to performance as any
other trade off.

6'10'? 255lbs? What are the load limits for this
glider?

At 05:12 11 July 2007, Steve Davis wrote:
At 17:42 06 July 2007, Bumper wrote:

'Bill Daniels' wrote in message
(really important stuff snipped)

The Genesis 'T' tail is actually a hindrance.
Bill Daniels

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

bumper

I don't agree that the Genesis elevator on the tail
is a hindrance.
Like everything else in engineering it is a trade off.
Putting the
all-flying elevator on a 'T' tail keeps it out of ground
effect so the
control feel is the same during landing as during flight.
The moment
arm of the Genesis elevator allowed the designers to
move the
cockpit forward so the pilots head is in front of the
wing leading
edge giving much better visibility than would occur
if the pilot has to
sit on the cg. The chord at the wing root on the Genesis
is quite
large but the trailing edge is just as robust as the
rest of the glider
so handling the 140 Lb. wing isn't a problem.
With a large elevator at the trailing edge there could
be an
assembly/disassembly issue. Would it be separately
removable
or fixed to the wing? The elevator on the Genesis
weighs less than
10 Lbs. and is short enough that you can stick it under
your arm or
carry it off with one hand. The Genesis has a cockpit
large enough
for a 6'10' 255 Lb. pilot to move around in. I think
just the size of
it is as great a 'hindrance' to performance as any
other trade off.

Nyal Williams wrote:
6'10'? 255lbs? What are the load limits for this
glider?

The Sailplane Directory gives 298 kg (!) and shows no provision for
water ballast, so presumably that's all pilot.

This seems a bit unlikely; can it be right?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

At 06:06 11 July 2007, Nyal Williams wrote:
6'10'? 255lbs? What are the load limits for this
glider?
Genesis Flight Manual, Section 2.9
The Genesis 2 glider is a single seat aircraft. Unless
lead trim weights are used the cockpit load is limited
to the following range: 154 lbs. to 242 lbs. (70 kg
to 110 kg)

While also staying within the other parameters, Max.
TO
weight without water ballast: 807 lbs., Max. weight
of all
non-lifting parts: 531 lbs., you could get up to 255
- 260.

Still, the Genesis 2 wing, assuming a 310 lb. load
(260 pilot and 50 gear), was tested to 19g. before
breaking.
There was discussion that perhaps the test fixture
failed,
concentrating the force and causing the wing to snap.
I can
imagine that, given the unique shape of the Genesis
wing and
the fact that most glider wings will fail at 10 to
12g, rolling or
twisting forces could have occurred causing the spar
to break
at 'only' 19g. Perhaps that explains why the Genesis
2 in the
video had no damage to the wing.

The Genesis 2 can hold 26 gal. of water in each wing.
Max. TO weight with water ballast is 1157 lbs. (525kg)

At 14:06 11 July 2007, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
6'10'? 255lbs? What are the load limits for this
glider?

The Sailplane Directory gives 298 kg (!) and shows
no provision for
water ballast, so presumably that's all pilot.

This seems a bit unlikely; can it be right?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |