It seems to me the choice is high front wing with Flea pitch control (a proven stall proof method) or low wing canard elevator pitch control (not so stall proof).
I've had thoughts along those lines. Though in my case, it focused on the fact that using full-span elevons on the the low fore wing meant that control runs would be simple. The stick would be mounted right where nubs at the base of it could plug right into the elevon control horns.Uh oh, here we go again. ;-)
Actually, front wing low or high and pitch control on the front or rear wing can all work and provide stall resistance or at least docile low-speed handling. The key is using identical or at least very similar airfoils and chords and respecting the "150% rule" for loading the front wing more than the rear so it always has to stall first.
I have often wondered about using inboard elevators and outboard ailerons all on the front wing and no control surfaces at all on the rear one, or perhaps tapered elevons on the front wing that would force a progressive root-first stall at high angles of attack. The effect would be something like the Gatard Statoplan, which looks like a conventional monoplane but climbs and descends using flaps with a fixed horizontal stabilizer moving only slightly for trim purposes.
Yep. Rutan make some, but his always had the little canard so the lift efficiency suffered.Yes a delta rear wing would ensure that the rear stall was delayed, It is sort of becoming a delta canard.
And if you used the forward wing on the rear position and my preferred narrow fuselage?Having the high aft wing be a delta seems like a good match to me.
A delta needs to be lightly loaded for a good L/D ratio and the aft wing on a tandem needs to be loaded lightly for stall prevention and pitch stability. The needs line up.
The delta being high combined with it's swept leading edge gives enough effective dihedral that the lower front wing can be straight.