Five Years with Jim Marske: 1999-2005

There is no doubt left in my mind that the forward swept flying wing has the potential for great performance advantages in soaring aviation but the real issue present is that there is no formal flight test documentation of forward swept wings and that the soaring community is extremely skeptical of any flying wing. As in most things the politics and superstitions plays more in the minds of pilots than do aerodynamics or flight tests. And to compare the latest and greatest tailed ships to the fledgling flying wings is just not appropriate.

When I started hang gliding, they flew just fine and I used a lot of my spare time flying them to great satisfaction. However one thing did occur to me.... and that was a need for a little more performance... namely a higher L/D but with that comes complexity, weight , speed and cost.

I have flown both the Monarch and Pioneer, designed by Jim Marske, persevered with understanding the flight qualities and worked to improve the performance and handling of these flying wing designs from about 1999 to the year 2005.

The years 2005- 2006 was devoted to writing down all I know about the subject and publishing my documentation.

The sad part of this venture is that Jim Marske and myself are no longer friends. We had worked together quite successfully for about 5 years. The probable cause of our separation was probably due to my outspoken nature on all subjects and especially criticism of the US government. Jim for his part seemed jealous of my abilities and kept himself alienated from the practical aspect of flying and working as a team member. He tended to exist more in his stories about how well his designs flew rather than getting out and actually testing them. Jim has never actually flown a Pioneer (If pressed, his claim to have flown the pioneer was one small hop lasting a few seconds in Bob Micheners old Pioneer on a car tow at least 25 years ago) but he will sadly not mention that aspect but prefer to lead people to believe that he has recently flown from the stories he tells.

What upset me most was that Jim just adopted my registered name of the business "Marske Flying Wings" for his independent web site without consultation with me and proceeded to use my pictures directly from my site for his wiohtou asking. This angered me greatly. I would gladly have shared any aspects with him if he had only asked permission and preceded his web page decisions with discussion with me. I had wanted a friendly separation with continued friendship and joint development of various projects. But Jim likes to feel the world is against him and here was an excellent opportunity to manifest itself.

Jim's basic understanding of the flying wing was quite good in many ways and frequently came up with brillant ideas but all of the flying and refinement was left to myself with Mike Couts my friend and very able advisor, in the Pioneer II revisions and Monarch series. For the Pioneer IId, I designed the front hinging canopy, the moving weight system, the aileron and elevator mass balances and was mainly responsible for their execution, but it should be noted that Mike Couts and I worked as a team. One would come up with the idea and the other would criticize and improve upon it so that although one of us may have had the main idea it was refined by our persistent critiques. Mike was invaluable in every aspect and I would not have been able to do as well without his influence. Mike took the major part in giving birth to the idea and making the trailer for the Pioneer. It was his initial idea that got us thinking of the assembly jig and wing stand combination that made the trailer possible.

The pioneer III, which Jim initiated, had a great deal of potential but without a team effort and the fact that Jim has not flown a Pioneer, some of his ideas and executions are misguided. The basic changes from the previous Pioneer II D are a newer sleek fuselage sporting a high aspect rudder and a higher aspect wing with a new airfoil.Models built by others seem to confirm that it does fly but I have not seen any real flight tests performed.

Flying the Pioneer II it is very apparent that the rudder is everything and in this case I feel that a 1/4 scale fully tested would have helped determine the size and aspect ratio to aid in the handling. In flying the Pioneer IId the rudder needs constant attention and any turns are begun by a strong rudder movement. If flying without the yaw string straight back, flight became very inefficient and was very noticeable from the pilots point of view as the glider seemed to fall out of the air. This was particularly noticeable just after release from the tow plane since the rudder now needed correction for off tow flight and if left uncorrected one seemed be out of control until that yaw string was tamed.

The spoiler system for the Pioneer III seems quite a theoretical improvement since the old barn door style on the Pioneer was next to useless. These schemp-Hirth style spoilers also needed some research as to how well they open in the air. Sealing the spoilers with a taper fit and opening from the front first, to aid in opening in the air should have been considered on the Pioneer III.

The sliding weight system came about because of my difficulty with holding a cruise at 80 mph between thermals and the theoretically less drag advantage to the reflex in high speed cruise. I believe that bob Michener had a moving weight as well in his Pioneer. This moving weight mechanism addition to the Pioneer III is a good idea but the method Jim devised for moving the weight will confuse the pilot. In the Pioneer III design the pilot just grabs a rope and pulls it which can be very confusing when actually in flight. For Mike, Tim and I , the extensive development we did to devise the moving weight with indictor on the Pioneer IId really paid dividends in the air with its ease and dependability in use. The Position indicator we devised for the weight is extremely useful but not present in the Pioneer III layout.

The biggest error in the prototype Pioneer III was the use of the taper pin arrangement for the attachment of the wings to the carry though. It was very typical of Jim to scrounge old parts and try cut corners which inevitably made for poor workmanship, much more work and in the end was not a satisfactory solution. It will cause endless hours of trying to get the wings on and off. How Jim is going to put the wings on and fly the glider in the space of one day without a team of interested persons is beyond me. If Jim had worked in a team environment in the develpoment, I'm sure the aspect of taking an hour or more to mount the wings and hook up the controls would have been dismissed by those who actually fly the glider.

As of July 2005 the Pioneeer III fusleage sits in a hangar with a set of unfinished wings hanging above it. I doubt Jim will ever get it done. It needs a canopy, the wings covered and painted. By himself even putting on the wings will take most of the day leaving little time for flying. Jim missed a great opportunity to work with experienced builders and flyers who would have made this project possible.

Jim has never worked well in a team. Mike, Tim and I had a very difficult time trying to get him to work in a team. For example, the original cockpit layout was just plain poorly designed from a safety point of view. Jim wanted a side opening canopy because it was simple and the instrument panel was fixed so that it was impossible to get out in case of an emergency. We all convinced him to basically copy the forward hinging canopy design that I did for the Pioneer, but the forward hinged is a vast improvement in safety and function over his original design.

Jim never wanted to share in the experiences of the Pioneer III although he readily received our volunteer help in making the fuselage and dtube parts. I never really knew the complete story behind the Pioneer III until late in 2004 when I discovered that Bob Michener had paid Jim about $12,000 for it. Jim is also never up front on these matters.
.
I owned the business "Marske flying Wings" and I concentrated on running the business, building and flying and especially improving upon the designs which were untested and in need of refinement. It did cost me a lot of money, Jim seemed to have no desire to improve the design through his own practical flying and testing once he had finished a design. He instead relied on rosy stories told to him by amateur flyers which he then would repeat as gospel.

I built a Monarch F, flew it extensively with Mike Couts, built a Monarch G for testing and then flew that extensively. I heard the stories that Jim told about the Pioneer and at the time did not think for one moment to question if he had ever flown or tested one. I purchased a badly built Pioneer IId from Lloyd Watson. Mike Couts (mostly Mike) and I drove all the way to Texas from Ohio to pick it up. When we finally looked at it we were appalled at the condition..... but it was at least a start. Despite the recent airworthiness certificate we went over everything and to our horror found many things badly done... the airworthiness was simply a fraud! How could anyone have charged $350 for this! There where bolts missing... nuts missing , certainly not in my opinion a airworthy aircraft.

Mike actually was the first to try an aerotow of the Pioneer in the late fall of 2003. Sadly it had a bad warp in one wing which caused a noticeable left turn.

The pioneer then went through many revisions and additions each year. These did not really seem to interest Jim he seemed more interested in getting his drawing published and telling stories. And it did not seem to bother him that these aircraft had never been throughly tested. What I could not see was his disinterest in actually flying the aircraft and there was always an excuse why he would not fly. Sadly he missed the most exciting part of building an aircraft.... flying and testing it!

One of the things I have discovered in developing an aircraft was that it is important to work as a team. It is impossible to do everything oneself . Mike Couts, Tim Tanquay and myself made a very good team and I miss that process!

Of note is that Jim has never documented any of his building or flying. I have tried to document everything in print, photos or Video and take nothing undocumented ....especially stories as truth.

In February of 2005, I purchased a workshop in Port Burwell, located in Canada on the north shore of Lake Erie and have since expanded into another large building.A lot of my time now is concerned with sustainable living and energy conservation but I do spend at least some time every day in the shop.

The Early Monarch F:

Forward:

When I first encountered Jim's Monarch I was disappointed that it looked poorly constructed. I did also not realize the very difficult circumstances that Jim had constructed it nor the work he had done to construct the forerunners of this design. The cosmetic looks of the glider disturbed me. But upon my first flights in a Monarch E, I was sold on the design but was very disappointed when after making an Monarch F and flying it, I discovered that it had horrendous yaw problems. It was not until 2004 that I finally realized that Jim had never flown a Monarch F and yet he had sold many plans and kits for it! And here I had thought we could make a business out of Monarchs!... we had a lot of work ahead to make it comfortable to fly.

As far as I know there are no Monarch F's flying except my own. We sold one F kit which is still being built.(2005).

The Monarch for me was the most fun glider I had flown. In concept it is light, relatively inexpensive to build and most of all easy to launch by autotow.

Mike and I spent many evenings launching and flying the glider I built. We also started on cross country with flights of about 15 miles ....one way. Because of the light wing loading, it was a hard glider to go upwind, although I did attempt it on one flight. It was on a cross country that I had done that we discovered that a good trailer was really an asset. I had landed out in a field and Mike was already there for me with the trailer. But to my horror the glider would not fit in the trailer and it took the better part of 4 hours in 90 degree weather to get the glider back those 8 or so miles to the airport. Mike was not a happy camper.This initiated the idea of a good trailer.

Jim had kept things very simple on the Monarch series but perhaps had forgotten that putting it together every time one flew was a real chore in its present configuration that requires three people. More time designing a glider that could be put together easily by one person would have been very much appreciated.

This glider especially needed a partner to help put it together... not only to put it together but to launch it. Mike and I used my old truck and I had an electronic tension meter built to achieve these launches in which we never had an incident.

The construction of the Monarch F

For the 1950's this set of plans would have been just what the customer wanted but to have created it in the 1970's was just a little too late. The basic idea was brilliant though and Jim suffered through a number of early experiments with an overhead stick, an overly heavy fiberglass construction and towing difficulties. In the end he got most everything right but did not go on to refine things until Mike and I started flying the Monarch F.

The Drawings for the Monarch had been drawn by Jim and the paper he used was subject to great variations due to the humidity.

The use of wood and fiberglass seemed like a good idea for the home builder in the 1950's but that era has long gone with the FAA bowing to the manufactured kits in which the time to glue parts together outweigh the time it took to fabricate the basic part in a mold. The modern interpretation does little justice to the original intention of the rule, which is so like government when pressured by big business or special interest groups..

Aerodynamic principles
The real asset of this craft was the airfoil. Basically the 43012 with a slightly modification to the underside to make it a reflexed airfoil. As we found out on the Monarch F, that reflex was just too much! Again if it had been test glown this would have become apparent early on..

It had a very high camber so that the laminar flow was about 8 percent and efficient flight was really only possible at slow speeds. This very short high camber section lent itself well to the light weight design requiring a small amount of fiberglass in the wing construction, the remainder being of light fabric.

Struts.
As soon as one sees struts one immediately thinks of high drag which is quite true. However this glider already had an excellent glide ratio and the struts actually added greatly to the ground handling which was actually quite important because of its light weight..

Construction details of the Monarch F
The molds for the Dtubes and fuselage of the Monarch F where patched, revised polyester molds that made very poor quality parts. Joining the fuselage parts was quite a chore as they really did not fit together very well.

The Metal parts for the Monarch F where meant to be hand cut and welded. This resulted again in very poor quality parts.

Epoxy was a learning process for Jim, he had used a west system epoxy which had a very low transition temperature which resulted in a deformed wing on one hot day on his model E dtube. His basic research did reveal the basic needs of a good epoxy system and I have certainly benefitted from his experimentation.

Launching the Monarch F:
I have never experienced a more fun glider to launch... and yes a 1000 ft tow is usually plenty to get away but even a sled ride is one hell of a blast!

Problems with the Monarch F
The wing loading was too low for pilots weighing under 190 lbs when flying in any wind.
Before my invention of the yaw damper, the adverse yaw was unacceptible and made a pilot feel very uncomfortable. Tall pilots had problems with getting in and out and headroom was sometimes difficult.
The wood on the ribs was a brilliant idea at the time but made the building the ribs a long process. Ribs from molds are a lot faster to make.

The control mechanics where very difficult to install in the fuselage.

The assembly of the glider took three people and that needs serious revision.
Designed without the windscreen, at altitudes of say 3000 agl the cold makes the eyes water and the cold settles in making it very uncomfortable flying after 30 minutes. I made two variations of the windscreen which made use of the radio possible. It is also impossible to hear a radio without a windscreen.

Thermally weather really makes this a bear for flying with the light wing loading, it is strictly a fair weather machine and most suitable for evening flying.

Assets of the Monarch F:
The concept is brilliant and this is shows the gifted creative side f Jim Marske.

With the very light wing loading evening flights where always enjoyable.. The extra wing area in calm conditions helped prolong the flights.

The Yaw dampers I persisted in developing made the control in light evening thermals a great joy to fly.

At the end of the first season of flying the F model Monarch, I removed the yaw dampers and tried to fly it... what a disaster it was to fly it without the yaw dampers!

Mike and I spent many wonderful evenings just loving the flying we had on the Monarch. He would often phone his wife and tell her that he had a steering problem... the van would just all of a sudden veer towards the airport and he just followed along!

This is one of the easiest gliders to fly in calm weather and those that have flown it comment on this.

The Monarch G Fiberglass version

Forward:
I was not very displeased with the basic Monarch F without the yaw dampers : I had expected a lot more from what Jim had told me about the Monarch. He had designed and evolved a glider that he had not tested or flown but sold plans and told stories about how well flying wings flew so that one believed it. This as also the case with the Windrose designed by Jim Maupin which I crashed. At any rate I pushed for a new monarch ( Jim wanted to let it die) and Jim revised the plans using a lower wing area, less reflex in the airfoil, more fuselage room and newer higher aspect ailerons with provision for yaw dampers on the ailerons. These basic changes really made a much better glider more able to handle more turbulent conditions. It actually flew quite well as designed.

Jim helped in the mold fabrication and parts and the shop built one of these gliders. Mike and I began testing it.

Construction:
Metal: I made the decision to have all the metal parts laser cut and that saved money and time and gave us a quality product. I used the acetylene torch to weld up the parts for 4130 metal

Molds: The fuselage mold was well made and it even included a joggle which Jim skillfully executed. The fuselage parts matched perfectly and made the construction much easier. The dtubes where made in Mat Kollmans Raptor dtube molds, the nose cone in the old revised mold for the Monarch F. The ribs where made in the old way with wood and corruated fiberglass sheer web. I made molds for these in a subsequent construction. Molds where also made for the Ailerons and elevators spars by Jim.

Fiberglass Parts: The parts where mostly made up from twill weave 10 oz cloth using aeropoxy resin. The only problem with aeropoxy is that it is quite thick when it gets below 72 degress Fahrenheit in the shop. The spar employed square carbon rods as designed by Jim.

Fabric. The rear section past the dtube was covered in 1.7 oz coth.

Flight Characteristics:
This was one excellent flyer and a real favorite with Mike and I. We each managed cross countries in it and having a good trailer that I designed made all the difference.

 The Carbon Monarch G
Wes Whitehurst from the Virgin islands came to me with a proposal to build a carbon version of the Monarch G that would weigh in at less that 150 lbs. This as indeed a challenge that I wanted. Many things had to be rethought....carbon push tubes for the ailerons with fittings of stainless. In fact all the metal was to be stainless.. I believe 319. Wes knew his stainless and around salt water this made quite a difference. Heavy parts such as the skid where fashioned out of foam and carbon with a kevlar top. The glider was not really built for a ballistic chute but I put one in and it fit very well.

The finished glider weighed in at 138 pounds without the parachute, well under the limit of 150 lbs.

We actually proof loaded one wing to 5 G's without failure. This was a fun machine to fly and my only wish was that I could have taken more time with it and done more flying before Wes took it to the Virgin Islands and I do not know if it flies..

Construction:

Metal. Everything was stainless 319, laser cut but the TIG welding really distorted everything and it took some doing to bring them back to any kind of shape. I liked the stainless but where things had to be welded it had a lot of problems with distortion.

Carbon: I used 5.7 oz twill weave for everything but used kevlar in the seat and lined the nose cone with kevlar. Again we used Aeropoxy epoxy for everything.

Linear bearings: Jim had made up some very good linear bearings but they where in aluminum. It was a real challenge to come up with a carbon substitute but I did.

Struts: I left the aluminum struts. I did want to have carbon ones but time and money was just not sufficient for this project. I could have saved another 10 pounds with carbon struts.

The Trailers for the Monarch and Pioneer

Forward:
There is nothing more frustrating than having a glider and no trailer. Jim had designed a trailer for the Monarch but it was not to my liking. The door was at the large end and one had to stumble over the trailer tongue to get the glider out. The wings just could not sit on their leading edge as in the normal layout for a glider trailer due to the large chord which would have made it very difficult to tow in a cross wind because they were so tall.

In designing the Monarch Trailer I laid the wings on top of each other as Jim had envisioned but used polyester end covers with wheels on the root end and hung them from a track on the roof of the polyester trailer. The Fuselage laid in on the same track and operated like a drawer and this setup worked very well indeed.

Mike and I experienced a number of cross countries using the newly designed trailer quite successfully.

The Pioneer that Mike and I purchased came with a trailer and from day one Mike looked forward to making it an equipment trailer and destroying the awful upper section. Nothing fit and we really had to move the fuselage separate from the fuselage when we had to use for transporting the glider from the shop to the airport and thank God I did not make a land out in the glider on my various cross countries before we made the new trailer!.

It was Mike that came up with the idea of the revised Pioneer trailer. His idea was to combine the assembly jig with the trailer fittings. We worked on this concept and produced a workable idea over the late fall of 2004. Again we each had a lot of input... one of us proposing and idea... The other jumping ahead with a variation and so it came together. There is nothing more enjoyable than working with someone like Mike in getting an idea to materialize.

As of July 2005 the trailer is functional..... but it is still a open trailer. On July 3 Mike made an out landing at Galion about 15 miles from Marion. I went to retrieve him and rediscovered just how well the Pioneer fits on that trailer. We unfortunately forgot the wing stand but a couple of plastic buckets served in its place. The most difficulty we had was removing the taper pins.( Mike has since made a special taper pin remover) Thanks to Mikes careful planning of the trailer, we easily brought the loaded trailer back to Marion.

We need to build the top forthe new trailer and Mike and I as of July 2005 are throwing around ideas. My desire is for a light frame covered in fabric. In October 2005 Mike decided on welded electrical conduit for the basic frame.... now for fabric... or whatever.

The Pioneer IId

Jim appears to have flown the XM1 a number of times through many variations and did some flying in the early Pioneer Series with constant cord wings. He experimented with spoilers instead of ailerons, wing tip rudders, fixed rudders, elevons and I am impressed with the experimenting that Jim did, but none of this is documented and his memory on these experiments is inadequate for those wanting to learn from his experiences and pursue the development of the flying wing.

The Pioneer II has its roots in the 1-26 with a similar airfoil and wing planform. The controls did not use ball bearings and the control system is basically copied from Jim's experience with the 1-19 schweizer, which in my mind, the controls are just too sloppy for pilot comfort: I like ball bearings.

I listened intently to Jim's stories about how well the XM1 flew and I presumed that he had also flown and tested the complete Pioneer series. Jim did talk about poor handling with the XM1 and the various methods he used to improve them but again without adequate documentation his results are largely opinions without a basis in facts. But having said that Jim does have a basically good insight into the many aspects of designing a successful flying wing but I do question his ability to refine the prototype once it has flown.

I thought the 1-26 would be a good start for comparison to the Pioneer II d (the 1-26 is the basis of the Pioneer concept). And on Mike Cout's first tests with the short wing and badly formed airfoil on our purchased Pioneer, it showed remarkable superiority over Phil Pepins 1-26 in straight runs at any speed. But in the thermals that 1-26 was a hard one to beat. So Jim's basic ideas had a lot of merit.

After Mike and Mats trip to Texas to retrieve the Pioneer the first chore was to ease up the controls and put in the linear bearings that Jim had devised. And there was the many suspect bolts and fixtures that needed attention. The original airworthiness of this aircraft was simply a fraud. The fuselage needed the most work and Mike sacrificed his garage for this purpose and spent many hours cleaning and repainting it.

The time it took to complete this basic airworthiness was disconcerting and we completely missed the soaring season by taking our first flights in the fall of that year. It was exciting though and Mike and Mat enjoyed every opportunity of flying the bird.

It became immediately apparent that we needed to upgrade the fabric covering ( it had a number of heavy coats of paint) and get a more accurate airfoil, try take out the left turn in the wing and consider wingtip extensions. Jim did a great job of designing and building the molds and parts for those wing tip extensions but it was not a team effort on his part.

Cutting the first hole in the wing panels was emotional since we all knew that there where many months ahead of us in the rebuild. I especially took an interest in redefining the airfoil but was dismayed at the impossibility of really doing a good job since the airfoil as it went out to the tips varied in angle of attack so I just did the best I could do. The trailing edge was a disaster and finding a suitable trailing edge gave us many sleepless nights thinking about it. I eventually came up with a carbon trailing edge that fitted the project well being very stiff in torsion yet flexible along the length.

The rudder and fin where obvious culprits at drag. Mike decided to re-engineer those with good results... but in the air we had a persistent buzz that plagued us for quite some time. I eventually got rid of that noise by adding felt to the fin where the rudder rubbed along with extensive covering of all holes in the rudder and wing areas with aluminum tape.

There was also the problem of the badly formed ailerons by the previous builder and Mike and I decided to use solid core foam cut on the wing with a hot wire which worked very well. Everything worked well but in our inexperience forgot to consider the aspect of possible flutter which Dave Wells discovered with a run to 130 mph, and luckily the glider suffered little damage.

We played with the spoilers.... not realizing that with the added performance of the general cleanup that the lower spoilers would prove unusable on landing. The lower spoilers now caused extremely difficult control on landing..... but that was to be the next winters revision.

The Pioneer flew again and we began in earnest to fly the bird. In 2003 I made my first cross country and was pleasantly surprised at the cross country abilities as documented in my DVD's on July 29, 2003.

Some facts emerged concerning the flying.... and the big one was the canopy which had to be handed to the pilot before take off. I often flew by myself and getting in to the cockpit while holding on to the canopy was just plain awkward and at times I was concerned that I could have broken the canopy.

Now all these changes in adding to the performance also add to the handing concerns for the pilot... the spoilers are no longer able to bring the glider down efficiently..... then there was the question of the main wheel and nose wheel in the revisions to come.

The winter of 2003-2004 Mat designed the front hinging canopy and sliding weight with valuable assistance from Mike as his constant critic, helper and adviser.

While the canopy was difficult due to a lack of room, the moving weight was the most challenging in every way.

The large wheel and brake was a real pain to put in the small space allowance.... and the one I chose just simply did not prove effective at stopping the glider. I also had to make a nose wheel which protruded out to make a lot of turbulence. It needs a retractable nose skid/wheel.... our next revision? The large wheel has helped in the grass takeoffs and landings but has meant that a large nose wheel was added which adds to drag and contributes to PIO's on landing..

A critique of Jim Marske after five years of working with him:
(1999-2004)

There is no doubt in my mind that the flying wing forward swept sailplane is the future of soaring. It holds a great promise of controllable reflexed control surfaces that will enhance L/D at high speeds with a moving weight, lack of drag producing elevators and tail boom and fabulous airfoils with light wing loadings. But we are not there yet as there are control issues and lots of testing to advance this design.

It is indeed sad that I must criticize Jim Marske but those that follow flying wings should have available to them accurate and honest information. All of my work is documented, photographed or filmed and is available online.While Jim certainly knew basic aerodynamics well and was invaluable in getting me started he never saw beyond his basic ideas. He needed to have a team of people to help in every aspect from building to flying. He somehow never understood the usefulness of a team and aspects of handling and how important it is.

On the other hand he has helped develop the Carbon rod spar and his understanding of the spar is excellent and well researched.

I owned Marske Flying Wings and supported it through the last 5 years at a personal cost of over $100,000. This does not include any of my time. I had named it Marske Flying Wings in honor of Jim and his work but in the end Jim felt I did this to give myself some recognition by associating his name with mine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I offered to work with Jim, I expected Jim's aircraft to be ready to fly as they had been around for many years. My initial flying of the Monarch E was enough to let me know that this concept held great promise. Even the basic outlay of the design was brilliant and I'm sure that Jim spent many hours working on it. But what I found was that the Monarch F was very difficult to control having tremendous adverse yaw and with later the Pioneer IId, I discovered its flight characteristics needed improvement if the general public was to fly it. Jim had never flown either. The Pioneer IId while in some ways well conceived just lacked good control, adequate testing and refinement.

Jim has not flown a modern Sailplane, not even the Genesis that he helped develop and is not a pilot that has any currency. In fact the only glider he has flown consistently (once or twice a year in the last 5 years) is the 2-33, a very much outdated machine. Jim has been very reluctant to fly anything but the 2-33. I tried desperately to get him to fly the 1-34, the 103 and the 102. I even paid for those flights! Jim should have noted the very ease of control in the 102 and tried to duplicate that control harmony in the Pioneer or at least gone into discussion and testing with the rest of us and made a lot of comparison flights.

Jim's designs gliders except perhaps the Genesis (which I have not flown) all have had control problems because of inadequate testing until I flew them and made changes. Jim's stories have little substance to them. A quick check with pilot Mike Couts will easily confirm my appraisal of the control of Jim's designs. For example if Jim had thoroughly tested the Pioneer II series he would have discovered that the bottom spoiler on the Pioneer IId made landing the glider almost impossible due to the control oscillations. I removed them which helped the handling greatly but now the upper spoilers are inadequate by themselves.

Both Mike an I feel that we just can't let anyone fly the Pioneer IId because of these control deficiencies. While I believe in flying wings Jim has still not adequately understood control issues. Both of Mike and myself have been trying to understand the issues and making fixes as we go. We have tried desperately to inform Jim but he displays little interest and Jim has not been part of this effort of testing, making changes and flying.

Jim has never adequately tested the gliders he has designed, probably due to his lack of time with having to support a family, and preferred to rely on unreliable sources for stories about how they fly. I have done all of the testing in the Pioneer IId and Monarch G and have received no recognition from Jim for my efforts and expense.

Jim has not progressed beyond the work of Fauvel except to provide a better airfoil and the only real improvement was the adverse damper ( anti servo) that I pursued, researched, built and flew.

Jim has never even flown a Pioneer and yet he talks about it in a way that people assume he is currently flying a Pioneer, without mentioning that he has never flown one, this is plain dishonest. Jim has sold plans and talked about it as a proven glider and Jim has never flown it! It would be more honest to print on his plans "I have not tested the gliders thoroughly and I have no documentation, you are the test pilot."

The Monarch F was a disappointment in control without the Yaw Dampers. Jim was completely unaware of this! I was aghast when I first flew the Monarch F; he did not mention the fact that he had not built or flown one nor did he realize the tremendous handling problems. I took it upon myself to fly it , discover the problem and find a fix for it.

Jim does not wish to pass on the understanding of the forward swept wing but instead had obvious jealousy against those who made progress in that field. He desperately wants to be recognized as a master and guards his ideas. Instead what he should have done was to share his flying wings concept and push them forward with all his strength so that everyone could have benefitted from it .

Mat Redsell November 2005