Tandem wing for high efficiency? Case Proteus

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by karoliina.t.salminen, Aug 13, 2011.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Sep 20, 2011 #161

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,453
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Neat idea! A blend of Solidworks and X-plane. Give it 5 years and there will be just such an app for the iPad VI. Download for $4.95 (adjusted for inflation of course)
     
  2. Sep 21, 2011 #162

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Autodidact

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    799
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Don't ask me; I've got the $4.95 for the iPad app though! :lick:
     
  3. Jun 5, 2013 #163

    erdal

    erdal

    erdal

    Guest

    Hello,
    Not sure if anyone is still checking this post, but I have a question:
    When we use tandem wing, lift generated by canard contributes to total lift force. But in conventional configuration tail force is downward, hence we loose that much amount of force from wing lift.
    Total Lift = Lift_Wing + Lift_Canard for canard configuration
    Total Lift = Lift_Wing - Lift_tail for tail configuration
    Has anyone ever considered this loss of lift force and how significant it could be? İt looks like canard has a relative advantage in this regard.
     
  4. Jun 5, 2013 #164

    timberwolf8199

    timberwolf8199

    timberwolf8199

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    Grand Rapids area, MI, USA
    Same goes for a lifting tail and is part of the reason for the higher efficiency associated with tail draggers.
     
  5. Jun 5, 2013 #165

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    If you look at them isolated; yes. But the down wash of the canard is hitting the wing, resulting in a significant penalty. With a conventional plane on the other hand, the down wash of the wing hits the tail which is beneficiary.
     
  6. Jun 5, 2013 #166

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,974
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Yes, it has been discussed and debated in great detail here. Canards have the advantage you mention, but some would argue that the net effect is negative, saying that the trim drag of the canard is higher than the trim drag of a tail and that the conventional configuration allows the designer to optimize the airflow for the wing.

    One thing for certain is that you will have a higher landing speed for a canard (all other things being equal) because you will not be able to use big flaps on the wing and you can't bring the wing up to the stall AOA (i.e. - maximum lift coefficient).
     
  7. Jun 5, 2013 #167

    captarmour

    captarmour

    captarmour

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    Roseau, Dominica.
    with a close coupled canard you get beneficial interference and 'slot' effect that increases lift much more than just the increased area. also the local flow on the leading edge of the wing has a vertical component which tilts the canard's lift vector forward creating some 'thrust'. the Saab delta canards have STOL capabilities and fly as fast as mach 2.

    although this is a very lightweight model, when compared to other models it seems to be very good.

    Flite Test - JA 37 Viggen (Scratch Build EDF) - REVIEW - YouTube

    "The aim was to produce a robust aircraft with good short-runway performance that could be operated from numerous specially prepared roads and highways to reduce the vulnerability to attack in the event of war.[SUP][2][/SUP] Other requirements includedsupersonic ability at low level, Mach 2 performance at altitude, and the ability to make short landings at low angles of attack (to avoid damaging improvised runways)."
    Saab 37 Viggen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  8. Aug 29, 2014 #168

    sigrana

    sigrana

    sigrana

    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    His name s Darrel, (not Darrol)

     
  9. Aug 29, 2014 #169

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    370
    Location:
    Zagreb HR

    Attached Files:

Share This Page



arrow_white