Rag-and-tube canard?

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by cluttonfred, Sep 28, 2014.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Sep 30, 2014 #21

    revkev6

    revkev6

    revkev6

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    91
    Location:
    massachusetts
    there is an interesting story behind the geebee ascender. the brothers were trying to make a plane that was as easy to drive as a car. it had a borrowed wing... the controls were all setup to mimic a car as much as possible. I don't really know why they decided to use the canard platform for this project though.
     
  2. Sep 30, 2014 #22

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,350
    Likes Received:
    2,215
    Location:
    World traveler
    According to Pete Bowers in Unconventional Aircraft, "The Gee Bee Ascender of 1930 was built from the major components of a standard American Aeronca C-2 lightplane."

    Well, while the Aeronca C-2 does have a certain charm, that does go a long way to explain why the Ascender was so ugly. ;-p
     
  3. Sep 30, 2014 #23

    flyoz

    flyoz

    flyoz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Near Sydney
    What about a slightly smaller version of the Lockspeicer LDA
    The original one had an 85 HP engine and it had a rag and tube fuselage
    The canard and main wing were the same section and the control surfaces the same size
    An amazing concept - beauty is in the eye of the beholder !
    The aircraft had an a large C of G range as long as it was on its wheels it was ok to fly
    Maybe a good utility ultralight ?
    Flyoz
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Oct 1, 2014 #24

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,350
    Likes Received:
    2,215
    Location:
    World traveler
    Thanks, flyoz, I am a big fan of the Lockspeiser LDA-01 as you'll see if you do a search. The high wing canard configuration has a lot of appeal and I definitely like the simplicity of identical and interchangeable control surfaces and the same airfoil on the canard and main wing, which makes for predictable handling if the wing loading on the canard is kept high enough to ensure it's always working harder than the wing in order to stall first.

    Following the same general configuration as the LDA-01 would make for a good tandem two-seater with the passenger on the CG and perhaps an adjustable seat for the pilot to account for varying pilot weights. If the length can be kept under 18' and the canard span to 7' that would allow a main wing span of about 26-28' with wings folding forwards hinged at the main spar and strut. Then the whole thing could fit in a 20' ISO shipping container.
     
  5. Oct 1, 2014 #25
    I was always fascinated by the Miles M39B which looked pretty good from some angles - yet extremely horrible from others.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Oct 1, 2014 #26

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,049
    Likes Received:
    3,327
    Location:
    Australian
    So can anyone remind me again why a canard is no good for STOL please? I read it somewhere but forgot why.
     
  7. Oct 1, 2014 #27

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,350
    Likes Received:
    2,215
    Location:
    World traveler
    The issue with canards and tandems and STOL performance is whether or not you can get the main wing (or both wings for the tandem) to their maximum lift coefficient before you run out of control authority and/or stall the other lifting surface. It's worse with canards because of the disparate size of the two lifting surfaces so it's easy to overpower the little one.

    That said, the big plus in STOL operations of a well designed canard or tandem -- if designed right and not all are -- is freedom from stall/spin worries, so even if you can't fly as slow as an equivalent conventional design in theory, you can operate at the ragged edge with more safety and confidence in practice.

    Also, it may be a question of perception. The vast majority of canard designs seem to be intended for wow factor and speed, I have yet to see one other than the Lockspeiser LDA-01 and a few ultralights that seemed optimized for low-speed operations. I don't think I've seen any stall/takeoff/landing distance figures for the Lockspeiser, it would be interesting to see those compared with a Cessna or Piper of the same gross weight and power.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2014
  8. Oct 1, 2014 #28

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,049
    Likes Received:
    3,327
    Location:
    Australian
    Oh yeah, I have certainly noticed that.

    Thanks.
     
  9. Oct 2, 2014 #29

    flyoz

    flyoz

    flyoz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Near Sydney
    Cluttonfred
    Scale Lockspeiser ? ( Lockspieser Lite ? )
    It would just about fit into a 20 ft container but the canard tips would have to be removable
    The main wing struts could stay in place and the outer wing panels could attach there
    75 ft2 all up area not too bad as all surfaces are lifting
    All main wing and canard are ( 2300 ) 7.5 Ft sections
    Would need to be somewhere near 275 - 300 Kg empty ( 605- 660 Lbs )
    All flat ( 1 plane bent ) cockpit window panels - only the nosecone and some engine covers could be composite
    May be possible
    Flyoz
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Oct 2, 2014 #30

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    cluttonfred

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,350
    Likes Received:
    2,215
    Location:
    World traveler
    Neat, flyoz. I'm not sure what dimension you used for the container, but 18' x 7' x 7' will allow enough clearance to get through the doors (narrower than the interior) and close the doors. If really tackling such a design, I think I'd give the wing and canard longer chords and shorter spans, and perhaps move the canard forward almost flush with the nose cone, to keep the canard span to 7'. I think I'd also raise the wing up above the level of the canopy, to allow the wings to hinge at the forward face of the spars, in line with a hinge at the root of the strut, so you just lift up a little fairing on the center section and fold the wings forward 90 degrees over the cockpit. I might also go with a rectangular section fuselage with doors and flat windows rather than a canopy and a flat wrap front windscreen.
     
  11. Oct 2, 2014 #31

    Jan Olieslagers

    Jan Olieslagers

    Jan Olieslagers

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2014
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Haacht, Belgium
  12. Oct 2, 2014 #32

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,630
    Likes Received:
    4,648
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Oops... can't even blame that on autocorrect. :emb:


    Technically, you are correct, but it was a far better picture than any I could find of the true canards.


    drawing-voisin.jpg
     
  13. Oct 2, 2014 #33

    Jan Olieslagers

    Jan Olieslagers

    Jan Olieslagers

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2014
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Haacht, Belgium
    Well, I did be aware I was being rather strict, perhaps even severe - but then, I felt I had to, on our resident _official_keeper_of_terminology_and_definitions_ ;)
     
    bmcj likes this.
  14. Oct 2, 2014 #34

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,434
    Likes Received:
    5,142
    Location:
    Orange County, California
  15. Oct 2, 2014 #35

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,630
    Likes Received:
    4,648
    Location:
    Fresno, California
  16. Oct 2, 2014 #36

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,434
    Likes Received:
    5,142
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    No, he had an earlier foot-launched sailplane design. Different aircraft, much lighter.
     
  17. Oct 2, 2014 #37

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    509
    Location:
    Justin, TX
    Vipor_GG and bmcj like this.
  18. Oct 2, 2014 #38

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    799
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I like this one:

    fw19_ente_3v.jpg
     
  19. Oct 3, 2014 #39

    crytes

    crytes

    crytes

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2014
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN / USA
    That Focke-Wulf F-19 is better looking but still a bit odd. Is that an open cockpit with a closed passenger compartment?
     
  20. Oct 3, 2014 #40

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    799
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Yeah, typical early airliner. Except for the canard part.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white