rtfm
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that. I see what you mean. However, two pylons at the rear for the rear wing wouldn't be the end of the world. It would be interesting to model all three.
I thought I'd sought out every canard plane on the web, so this was a pleasant surprise. Thank you. A very interesting design. Is that canard wing able to pivot? Looks like it. But then again, he's fitted it with fowler flaps, so maybe not.
Also interesting (to me) are:
Cool site.
- Rudders inboard (7'2" apart, allowing the outer panels to be removed.
- No rear wing sweep (All Rutan-inspired rear wings have quite large sweep)
- Rear wing dihedral
I thought I'd sought out every canard plane on the web, so this was a pleasant surprise. Thank you. A very interesting design. Is that canard wing able to pivot? Looks like it. But then again, he's fitted it with fowler flaps, so maybe not.
Also interesting (to me) are:
Cool site.
- Rudders inboard (7'2" apart, allowing the outer panels to be removed.
- No rear wing sweep (All Rutan-inspired rear wings have quite large sweep)
- Rear wing dihedral
The major benefit of the flapped canard is that the a flapped airfoil will stall at a substantially lower angle of attack than an unflapped one. If you tried to get that level of margin between a wing and an all flying canard then you'd really have to load up the canard, which would make it stall at a fairly high speed, which in turn would make for very fast landing speeds.
On the subject of the fore wing:
- Most canard-equipped planes employ elevators on the fore wing. But what are the benefits (other than ease of building) of a all-flying canard (like Hugh Lorimer's Iolaire)? If any...
Flaps?
I understand that the forward pitching moment produced by the deployment of flaps can easily overpower the lifting ability of the fore wing, but if one had an all-flying fore wing mechanically linked to the flaps, this might resolve this issue?
[EDIT] I think I've answered my own question in the preceding paragraph. On the other hand, one could mechanically link flaps to the canard elevator?
This is the Beech Starship.The idea I've seen somewhere was to use the variable-sweep canard - it is swept at cruise and then 90 degrees to the fuselage at landing...
I'm designing a small, light, simple canard. This is way overkill for me.The idea I've seen somewhere was to use the variable-sweep canard - it is swept at cruise and then 90 degrees to the fuselage at landing...
This is a successful canard.
View attachment 113772
For the canard-gurus:
Rear swept wings look stunning. However, the greater the rear sweep, the less need for dihedral to the point where the rear wing can actually have negative dihedral. Mostly, though, the rear wing has zero dihedral, which to my eyes looks naff.
On the subject of a canard plane's rear wing:
On the subject of the fore wing:
- A non-swept wing is a LOT easier to build and to mount to the airframe, and it allows a bit of dihedral which looks "proper".
- Aesthetically speaking, I also don't much care for the exaggerated wing-tip winglets/rudders + it makes it very difficult to fold the wings, because those winglets get in the way
- Placing the rear wing high seems to me to be the optimal configuration, since it keeps the downwash of the fore wing well away from the rear wing, even though one has to contend with the interference drag of the two wing masts required to raise the wing above the rear fuselage. I'm not sure, but the lessened canard downwash may compensate for the added drag of the wing masts. Dunno, but it seems possible.
- I'm not convinced that strakes are a great idea. Yes, it provides space for fuel tanks, but (1) they are destabilising, and (2) they are difficult to build. The Apollo, for example, dispenses with them altogether for these reasons.
Flaps?
- Most canard-equipped planes employ elevators on the fore wing. But what are the benefits (other than ease of building) of a all-flying canard (like Hugh Lorimer's Iolaire)? If any...
[EDIT] Ihave just come across this summary from Orion (2003)
I understand that the forward pitching moment produced by the deployment of flaps can easily overpower the lifting ability of the fore wing, but if one had an all-flying fore wing mechanically linked to the flaps, this might resolve this issue?
[EDIT] I think I've answered my own question in the preceding paragraph. On the other hand, one could mechanically link flaps to the canard elevator?
On the subject of take-off/landing speeds:
I'm still unclear about why canard planes have such high take-off/landing speeds. Some have suggested this is because the fore wing floats in ground effect. This might explain faster landing speeds, but not faster take-off speeds. Others have suggested that canard planes have no way of slowing down because they have no flaps.
Question: if one had two quite closely spaced rudders (like on the Revelaero), could one not have split rudders with each rudder splitting into two leaves to act as a speed brake?
Regards,
Duncan
Hi. The main reason I'm embarking on this canard design exercise is because I saw the Revelaero designs, and it was love at first sight. So this is great.I will be employing the inner 1 foot of the trailing edge of the outer wing panel , inboard of the aileron. as a split speed brake. This will provide a little over 300 sq inches of area deflected.
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: