New canard designs?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,983
Location
Rocky Mountains
I always thought this was a very interesting design. I look forward to hearing more about the plane and it's designer.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Then you've clearly never met French girls, wine, seen the landscape, or seen their cities :gig:

Concerning aircraft though you're completely right. Having repaired a Pegase and seen the construction and finish of many French aircraft, well, I guess they have a "light" version of the nasty aspects of physics.


Back ontopic:
Any progress, or expectations for first flight?
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,752
Location
Orange County, California
Then you've clearly never met French girls, wine, seen the landscape, or seen their cities :gig:...
Well, they do make beautiful girls and landscapes. A beautiful country, visually. Their wines? Eh. I've had good ones there, and I've had as good or better here. Their cities, beautiful to look at. Not very welcoming, however.

I'm as gracious and courteous to everyone as is possible to be when abroad, the absolute antithesis of the "Ugly American". The French were universally rude and dismissive to myself and my friend when we were travelling in their country in 2002, and on an earlier trip in 1981. We were actually refused service in a restaurant once they found out we were American. The Scots and English were wonderfully welcoming, as were the Swiss and Germans on a previous trip, as well as in Mexico and some of the Carribean islands. The only times I've been treated rudely abroad were the two times I was in France. IMHO, they absolutely live up to their reputation.

The French capacity to produce thoroughly ugly aircraft is legendary. How the same people can produce such amazingly beautiful sculpture and such horrific aircraft is beyond me. That canard pictured a few posts up is an abomination aesthetically, IMHO.
 

Attachments

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
IMHO, they absolutely live up to their reputation.
Well, language and environment are the big difference. In a touristic region, friendliness isn't that much around, and service - originally a French word - certainly isn't well known. In the less touristic regions (ie, if you're not around the Eiffeltower, so basically 99% of the country) people are really friendly and helpful, though a bit more distant as the average Yank or Dutchman, maybe comparable to English or Germans. Language is the second problem; they expect you to speak French (and don't speak any other language their selves, young students included). That Isn't too strange, and in fact they share many ideas (and especially their nationalism and proud) with Americans, though both countryman will deny ;)

The French capacity to produce thoroughly ugly aircraft is legendary. How the same people can produce such amazingly beautiful sculpture and such horrific aircraft is beyond me. That canard pictured a few posts up is an abomination aesthetically, IMHO.
Actually in this I think it's quite the contrary. All major recent French aircraft are - to me - beautiful. The Rafale, Mirage est Etendard, all Socata's, Jodel, Falcons etc don't really qualify as ugly, do they?
But I would still love a Falcon 900.
I would rather spend that much money to maybe a Mustang (both types), huge swimming pool and a nice island in the Caribbean :gig:
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,752
Location
Orange County, California
Well, language and environment are the big difference. In a touristic region, friendliness isn't that much around, and service - originally a French word - certainly isn't well known. In the less touristic regions (ie, if you're not around the Eiffeltower, so basically 99% of the country) people are really friendly and helpful,...
I was in the Normandy region, not Paris, in 2002. The café where we were refused service was well off the tourist track, a few km from St. Mère Eglis. We tried to order in French, as best we could. We were refused service after we were asked if we were American, and answered that we were.

My other experience was on the Swiss border in 1981. Also well off the usual tourist hangouts.

The people in the larger, more "touristy" towns and cities were even worse. The lady at the car-rental agency in Cherbourg almost wouldn't talk to us. Said a total of about twenty words to us through the whole transaction, then took our money and told us to "go find the car" (she wouldn't even leave her chair to point it out on the lot), and with a final admonishment to "not damage it."

By contrast, two Scots we met on the train from London to Glasgow found out that we hadn't yet booked accomodations in the latter town. They got out their own cell phones to call around and help us find a wonderful hotel at an amazingly good price. And stopped with us in the railway station to make sure the cab driver knew exactly where to take us. These guys were on their weekly commute home from work in London, and not only took time out to talk with a couple of tourists, but really helped us out. It's the most amazingly welcoming experience I've ever had abroad.

Actually in this I think it's quite the contrary. All major recent French aircraft are - to me - beautiful. The Rafale, Mirage est Etendard, all Socata's, Jodel, Falcons etc don't really qualify as ugly, do they?
Well, the Rafale and the later Mirage fighters are pretty nice looking, but I prefer the looks of the Su-34 or the Saab Gripen myself, if we're talking jet fighters. The F-22 has a cold efficiency to its looks, which works for me in a fighter. I've yet to see a Jodel that I cared for, frankly, including the newer ones. In kitplanes I think the Lancair IVP and Glassair III were some of the best-looking, myself. I always thought the Socata Tobago was a beautiful airplane, but nothing beats a Lear on looks in the biz-jet class. Nothing. Something about those windscreens... And I have a personal letch for the Piaggio P.180. If there ever was a "price is no object" real-world airplane for me, that's it.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Hugh Lorimer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
298
Location
Stair, Ayrshire, Scotland.
This e go design, can't help asking why? as a design of pleasaant aero shapes it is very nice. But, and there is always a but, if it is for a one off the time, effort and expense would be prohibitive and if commercial? the cost of manufacture of moulds etc. would be no no. The two main criticisms of the layout as far as I can see, the canard is too low and would invite serious ground effect and the prop ground clearence is too small to allow for rotation on take off? I also like the idea of a banal section on the canard, i.e. a neutral pitching moment sutch as NACA 0012.. forget high lift devices. See www.hughlorimer.co.uk for more and www.afors.com no. 13669.
 

tony bishop

New Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
4
Location
Cambridge UK
The e-Go is certainly not a one-off; we're tooling up for production. We've found ways to keep the pattern and mould costs very low whilst working to a very high standard.

We've done extensive CFD and tunnel work on the design, and don't expect any aerodynamic problems. We've also examined the dynamics during take-off, and should have plenty of prop clearance. You may also note the long main wheel fairings, which are designed to limit rotation.

The canard does have a 'benign' profile, to help ensure that it always stalls before the main wing.

You can keep an eye on our progress with the prototype on www.e-Go.me. And do sign up for the newsletter on this website.

Tony Bishop
e-Go aeroplanes
 

Mac790

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,529
Location
Poznan, Poland
We've done extensive CFD and tunnel work on the design, and don't expect any aerodynamic problems.
Tony,

I was wondering about CFD results vs tunnel results. Most people here describe CFD results as only colorful pictures, not really useful special for GA airplanes, I have a little bit different opinion about it, and I'm wondering about your experience. Did you notice noticeable difference between those results?

Seb
 

orion

R.I.P.
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
5,800
Location
Western Washington
Since I'm the one who's said something similar in the past, maybe I should clarify. Simply what I try to get across to folks is that CFD is a tool - it's an excellent tool but it does require one's clear and in-depth understanding of its capabilities and limitations. Furthermore, it is an analysis tool, not a design tool, although it can be an aid within the design process. And most important, it is only a tool, not a substitute for design experience.

If a designer has said experience it is unlikely that he needs the CFD tool to aid in the design of a GA product, unless of course he's designing something unique and/or out of the ordinary where past experience may not be sufficient and some verification is necessary to quantify the design.

As a corollary, given the amount of data out there, an experienced designer really wouldn't need a wind tunnel either. Recently I've ran into several development programs where the organization has developed a relatively conventional configuration but goes on in great lengths about the wind tunnel and/or CFD modeling they used in the process. When questioned in more detail it is clear that they did not understand what either tool is really used for (at least not in depth), which essentially tells me that they didn't really know what they were doing and someone simply took their wallet for a ride. Yes, the results make pretty pictures in the brochures but they could've done as much for a lot less time and money if they simply got someone who knew what he was doing.
 

GCD89

Active Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
38
Location
Largo, FL
I love canards and wonder why they aren't more widely used. Any aerobatic planes with canards out there?
 

djschwartz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
982
Location
Portland, Oregon
I love canards and wonder why they aren't more widely used. Any aerobatic planes with canards out there?
Canard designs are not suitable for aerobatics other than the large smooth positive G looping and rolling maneuvers typically refered to as "gentleman's" aerobatics. Canard designs rely on careful balancing of the design of the canard and main wing to ensure that the main wing never stalls. If the main wing stalls the aircraft enters a divergent regime that is unrecoverable. Among the many tradeoffs that result from this design requirement are limited pitch, roll, and yaw control authority. The limited pitch authority comes from the aforementioned requirement that the main wing not be allowed to stall. The limited roll could be addressed but most canard designs also choose to use a relatively high aspect ratio main wing in order to achieve better takeoff, climb, and high altitude cruise performance. The limited yaw authority comes from the short tail moment. Again, most canard designs are also pushers. Also, large yaw angles could result is a stall of the main wing, which as has already been mentioned, is a really bad thing in a canard.

One other result of the "no main wing stall" requirement and of the general stability requirements is that the airfoils of the canard and main wing must be carefully chosen to result in a steeper lift slope and higher stall angle of attack for the main wing than for the canard. This generally precludes the use of symmetrical airfoils, especially for the Canard. This is what Burt Rutan figured out and was able to put into practice with the help of Jon Roncz.
 
Last edited:
Top