Cool New Canard Designs

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by rv6ejguy, Jul 27, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Sep 11, 2019 #41

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,785
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    I think we've clearly established that this design won't accelerate at 3Gs now... I'm looking forward to seeing it fly with any powerplant.

    I hope it's successful. Will be nice to see a new canard kit with minimal build time come to market.
     
    wsimpso1 likes this.
  2. Sep 13, 2019 #42

    Andy_RR

    Andy_RR

    Andy_RR

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I don't get the canard fetish though. It seems as mythical as a flying wing - promising much and delivering disappointing compromises in reality.
     
    BoKu and flyboy2160 like this.
  3. Sep 13, 2019 #43

    Voidhawk9

    Voidhawk9

    Voidhawk9

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    Timaru, NZ
    Every configuration is a compromise. Clearly I don't see the canard compromises as disappointing at all!
     
  4. Sep 15, 2019 #44

    Edwood

    Edwood

    Edwood

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South Africa
    Hi all.

    I'm kinda new to this forum and I do not like to through my 2 cents worth anywhere, that being said I think people must stop trying to judge design of planes, my dad built a plane from scratch (cloth and pipe ultralight) was butt ugly but out flew everything that came close.
    Everybody laughed and judged just to be slammed in the face. Give these guys a chance and eat the pudding then judge. Respect to anybody that start and finish such a project, fail or win, THEY TRIED. Stop being a armchair builder and do something useful for the community. Take flight forward.

    PS. I think this is a real sexy little plane, looking forward to it being in the air.
     
  5. Sep 15, 2019 #45

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,623
    Likes Received:
    5,275
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    The larger issues are two-fold: Over-hyping from the canard community (much less now, but especially back in the '70's and '80's), and lots of failed examples that were designed and built by people who had no business (meaning, actual knowledge) designing something as difficult as a canard aircraft. In this way, you're quite correct: the same two issues have bedeviled the flying-wing community for even longer than they have canards.

    Canards have certain distinct properties that can be used to advantage in certain design efforts. They also have certain distinct properties that can be viewed as shortcomings. Whether or not the tradeoff is "worth it" for any given design depends a lot on what that design is intended to do. Canards, like flying wings, are not a panacea.

    Also much like flying wings, canard configurations are extremely good at exposing incompetency and lack of knowledge on the part of the designer. If you don't really know what you're doing, don't try. The odds of failure are extremely high, and you'll just end up contributing to the mythology that the design type is "worthless" or "dangerous." By the same token, doing one successfully and then suggesting that the feature is a panacea for all potential missions (or even all particular missions in that particular subset) is probably just as much to blame for the errant reputations that both types have developed.

    Do a canard or a flying wing because it makes sense for the mission goals at hand, not just because someone said, "it's better."
     
  6. Sep 15, 2019 #46

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,959
    Likes Received:
    1,953
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    IMG_8102.JPG IMG_8103.JPG
     
    wsimpso1 likes this.
  7. Sep 16, 2019 #47

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,772
    Likes Received:
    3,000
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    As I had pointed out earlier, you measure its weight with the Kibble Balance, then divide by local gravitational acceleration to finish getting mass.

    As to weight being the enemy, it is. Weight times change in height is the energy stored in climb that must come from the engine, weight times the rate of climb is the climb power in excess of power required for level flight at climb speed, weight ties g's must be carried by lift at the price of induced drag to fly at all, and weight times g's is the major loads on the airframe for flight and landings. The one condition where mass all by itself is acceleration in the direction of flight, but multiply mass times the acceleration to get the thrust required in excess of the steady state thrust.

    And since we can not usually measure mass, but instead measure weights, then weight really is the enemy we can measure.

    Now if you have gadget that really measures the mass of your airplane parts, then by all means, do mass control in your design and build. The result is the same....

    Billski
     
  8. Sep 16, 2019 #48

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    rv6ejguy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,749
    Likes Received:
    2,785
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    I got to meet and talk to Jeff for a bit at Reno. Cool design and nice, no nonsense guy. Best of luck with this project Jeff.
     
    TarDevil and Topaz like this.
  9. Sep 21, 2019 #49

    Urquiola

    Urquiola

    Urquiola

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Madrid, Spain
    Anyone who could provide a way to get building plans for Thompson Boxmoth?

    Patent US 3930624, 1976 It's rather a Tandem than a Canard, but flight was reported very stable. Thanks.
    Salut +
     

Share This Page

arrow_white