Rutan Catbird

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,109
Location
Orange County, California
The canard would carry a fair bit of the load. The forward swept wings (all 3), 5 seats... It pretty much needs to be that way to balance and for typical canard deep stall resistance.

Curious how controls are worked... Hstab could be just trim? It's pretty small as mentioned...
The canards on most of Rutan's designs are fairly highly loaded. Catbird seems to have been the exception. In fact, the story goes that many years ago one side of the canard was damaged at an airshow and they just cut it off and flew the airplane home without it. I believe it actually flew with "half a canard" for some significant amount of time.

The (rear) horizontal tail contained the primary pitch controls (elevators) and were also the pitch trimming surfaces. As far as I know, the canards on Catbird had no movable parts or surfaces at all.
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,706
Location
YMM
I'd never looked close... So what's the canard for then? Just to make it obviously rutan?

OSH13_Rutan-Catbird_-Evening-Wide-Angle-Right-Front.jpg
No hingeline no evidence it changes incidence... Dang.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,109
Location
Orange County, California
It would allow the main wing to be slightly farther aft than it would be otherwise, without increasing trim drag from the aft tail. The canard probably also reduces total trim-related aerodynamic loads on the main wing to zero. A conventional airplane has a horizontal tail that lifts down, adding load to the main wing. On Catbird, the canard lifts up, aft tail lifts down. If the loads are managed correctly, they cancel each other out. This would result in a reduction of induced drag. While minor at cruise compared to lower airspeeds, it's still a drag reduction. The fact that the canard has no movable surfaces would make this effect strongest at one airspeed, probably the design cruise speed.

There was a brief craze of three-surface designs with very small canards during this period, with the canard included as a "stall fuse" to give an otherwise conventional wing-tail combination some measure of stall resistance. Unfortunately, some of them proved capable of being put into a "deep stall" where the airplane stabilized in a stalled condition and lacked enough pitch control power (with the horizontal tail stalled) to get the nose far enough down to exit the stall. I very much doubt that Catbird is one of these, and I doubt it's trying to get much, if any, stall resistance from the canard itself. The long tailcone holding the horizontal tail should keep it out of the "deep stall" regime. Most of the susceptible designs were rather short-coupled between the main wing and horizontal tail.
 
Last edited:

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,706
Location
YMM
And it would dampen horizontal pitching moments I'd imagine. Interesting...
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,109
Location
Orange County, California
And it would dampen horizontal pitching moments I'd imagine. Interesting...
Dampen dynamic pitching motions (phugoid), certainly.

Something that I always wondered about was how it affected stalling behavior, assuming the main wing is actually allowed to stall. The positioning of the canard would make it operate as a big-but-distant "slat", and probably delay root stall on the wing to some degree. You wouldn't want the tip to stall first (always bad), so it seems like the stall break must start just inboard of the canard tips on the main wing. Does that make a roll-off in stall more likely, or stronger than it might otherwise be?

I don't know. I've never read a pirep on the aircraft.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,109
Location
Orange County, California
You can get a better idea of the (small) size of the canard on the Catbird in this picture. I know we have several people here on HBA that worked for Scaled. Any of you during the Catbird era? What was it like, and what was the motivation behind the configuration?

Cat top by Chris Van Pelt.JPG
 

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
322
Location
Timaru, NZ
[QUOTE="Hephaestus, post: 493136, member: 32093"So what's the canard for then? Just to make it obviously rutan?
[/QUOTE]
That would be a very un-Rutan thing to do. :D
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,855
Location
Memphis, TN
Efficiency. Rutan is about Efficiency. He can make you anything if you got the money. Patey built a kit and stuck a big engine on it. Catbird has a Lycoming 360 in it. The Lancair Legacy with a 360 is about the same speed, with three less seats.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
370
Location
San Rafael, California
Somehow I get the picture that none of the Rutan aeroplanes were really fast..but endurance was his thing.
The catbird, flew 8.5 hrs nonstop from Oshkosh to tehapai. That’s some endurance at 200 knots.

All due respect to Mike, Mike just stuck a really big engine into a small plane. Rutan likes odd stuff a small engines. The catbird has from 180-210 hp engine (depending upon what generation it was in of its life)

Oh, Rutan designed and built his own plane.

He did build a Reno air racer, once again odd as all hell, had it not been for the oddball power it would have been something amazing..
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,113
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
The catbird, flew 8.5 hrs nonstop from Oshkosh to tehapai. That’s some endurance ...
Don’t know what the winds were, but most of that flight was at high altitudes, with ground speeds (I think ground speeds) of 200 mph or slightly less for most of the trip. Data from one of the flight trackers,
He did build a Reno air racer, once again odd as all hell, had it not been for the oddball power it would have been something amazing..
IIRC, Rutan did not define the configuration; Mr. Pond did. I have doubts that it would have been successful as an Unlimited category racer back when there were some serious unlimiteds.


BJC
 
Last edited:

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,706
Location
YMM
You know... Looking for the pond racer picture.

Anyone remember this rutan paper design?
122-01.jpeg

The "popular mechanics scorpion" ?
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
370
Location
San Rafael, California
Don’t know what the winds were, but most of that flight was at high altitudes, with ground speeds (I think ground speeds) of 200 mph or slightly less for most of the trip. Data from one of the flight trackers, IIRC, Rutan did not define the configuration; Mr. Pond did. I have doubts that it would have been successful as an Unlimited category racer back when there were some serious unlimiteds.


BJC
It was far ahead of its time. Had they not insisted upon the V6 Nissian motors it would have succeeded I feel.

Of course today unlimited racers are a static display as it’s priced itself out of reality with the limited engine parts available and the limited aircraft supply they simply can’t afford to risk a 2mil plane at a under paying race event.
 
2
Top