Cool New Canard Designs

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
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.
 

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
297
Location
Timaru, NZ
Every configuration is a compromise. Clearly I don't see the canard compromises as disappointing at all!
 

Edwood

New Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
1
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.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
13,989
Location
Orange County, California
I don't get the canard fetish though. It seems as mythical as a flying wing - promising much and delivering disappointing compromises in reality.
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."
 

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
6,289
Location
Saline Michigan
And this is now how a Kg is now defined - with a Kibble balance. No more need for a chunk of metal to be kept in isolation.

And to keep this HBA related - the Homebuilt version for getting very accurate mass measurements of our parts:

https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/nist-do-it-yourself-kibble-balance-made-lego-bricks

If "Weight is the enemy" then it doesn't matter how much mass we use to build our planes, we just need to fly higher. :oops::p
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
 

Urquiola

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
61
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 +
 

BillDavis

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
6
Location
Tampa
I was following along on the prototype build on revelaero. They were putting updates on Facebook under x project almost daily and now it has been over a month since the last update. Also the website is no longer revelaero.com? Anyone know what happened?

thanks
Bill
 
Group Builder
Top