LS-1; http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/1810 -0.21Cm@10° -0.135@0° alpha0L=-5° GU; http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/1391 -0.26Cm@10° -0.155@0° alpha0L=-6.5° As you can see, the GU (Glasgow University) airfoil has about 1.61° less incidence than the LS-1 at what I'm assuming is 10% of the semi-span from the canard's root. If you look at the charts for these two airfoils on World of Krauss you'll see that they have about that amount of difference in their respective zero lift angles. The LS-1 airfoil has an alpha0L of approx. -5° making the actual angle of incidence approx. 6.68°. The decalage measured from the airfoils datum and not the zero lift line is actually pretty trivial and is a result of individual airfoil charactaristics. The decalage is set by computation and is what it will be depending on the needs of the design; you can't copy it from one plane to another. The importance of the airfoil chosen would be its lift/drag charactaristics since for a specific PLANFORM and cg location, the angle of its zero lift line w/respect to the fuselage datum would be about the same regardless of airfoil as evidenced in Hot Wings post (also partly dependent on the main wing's moment coefficient). Here's an interesting article: Design of two Airfoils for a Canard Airplane I really think you should have started your own thread, since this one is about whether the tandem wing is the best configuration for aircraft efficiency and not about what airfoil is best for tandem wing efficiency. Perhaps if there is some growth in the direction DangerZone has gone in the moderators will start a new thread for us. This is an excellent subject in my opinion and I would like to see a good discussion in a dedicated thread where it is not muddled by older, semi-related questions.