Bassakwards

[Oldbaldguy]

It’s the end of the weekend, I’ve mopped and polished all my floors, drunk the last of a tedious bottle of Pinot noir and now I’m bored, so I have a question:  If the Wright brothers were actually the first to fly powered heavier than air things (something I doubt) and were the benchmark for all who came after, then why are there so few canard airplanes, like the Wright Flyer, flying around?  Outside of the homebuilt Rutan designs, I can’t think of a single one that has met with any degree of success.  Or did I miss something?

[LSP_Ron]

There are too many to count

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Martinnfb]

The key words in this post are Pinot Noir

 

Edited March 10 by Martinnfb

[Martinnfb]

look Mom , no hands  canards

 

[Martinnfb]

somehow relevant article

https://www.a-e-g.org.uk/the-canard---its-rise-and-fall-and-rise.html

[Droopy]

Edited March 10 by Droopy

[Christa]

7 hours ago, Oldbaldguy said:

drunk the last of a tedious bottle of Pinot noir 

Maybe saving a capful for analysis would have been good? 'Canard' is foreign for duck, I believe.

[MikeC]

My thoughts are that the Wright Brothers were (obviously) still in the early stages of powered flight, and the technology had not been developed very far; so what they had worked, but what came after worked better, and/or was more practical to produce and operate with the developing knowledge.

Where I volunteer (and was on duty yesterday) we have many old aeroplanes (including a 1909 Bleriot, the oldest airworthy aircraft and aero-engine in the World, as well as some WWI and 20s types), and it's interesting to see just how design has evolved.  And yes, they are all airworthy and do regularly fly.

https://www.shuttleworth.org/

 

 

[Oldbaldguy]

13 hours ago, Martinnfb said:

somehow relevant article

https://www.a-e-g.org.uk/the-canard---its-rise-and-fall-and-rise.html

Good article.  Much of the information I’d already read.  Rutan lived on the very tip of the spear for quite some time.  Definitely one of the greats who was not at all afraid to defy the status quo.  Much of the popularity of his designs came from his pioneering moldless composite construction - foam hacked into shape with a bread knife and cheese grater then covered in fiberglass which carried most of the loads.

[thierry laurent]

10 hours ago, Christa said:

Maybe saving a capful for analysis would have been good? 'Canard' is foreign for duck, I believe.

Indeed, in French, duck is translated by canard.

[Oldbaldguy]

I guess the bigger question pertains to why canards simply have not caught on.  They obviously work and offer some distinct advantages over tailed airplanes but, when given the choice and with few exceptions, most customers seemed to pick what they are used to.  I would have thought that new builders from the Wright brothers’ day would have tried to improve on their tail-forward design but, as far as I know, only Curtiss in the US tried in the very early days with everyone else going with more conventional planforms.  The idea is out there and several companies have tried but only a handful of canards have made it to serial production over the years as opposed to the multitudes of tailed airplanes.

 

[Tony T]

Probably need FBW/FBL computer control on otherwise unstable - very manoeuvrable - designs.

It also seems more of a European favourite on fast-movers, America avoiding them as these compromise radar signature. 

Better to put the snappier control in thrust-vectored nozzles.

 

But there are exceptions, like the pop-out glove vanes on early F-14As for greater stability during supersonic flight. That's when supersonic was important. No longer, as supercruise heating compromises heat signature. LERX or whatever are better for high AOA stability. 

 

Just my tuppence worth.

 

Tony 

[Landrotten Highlander]

15 hours ago, Christa said:

Maybe saving a capful for analysis would have been good? 'Canard' is foreign for duck, I believe.

Not only is it foreign, it is also French...

[D Bellis]

10 hours ago, Oldbaldguy said:

I guess the bigger question pertains to why canards simply have not caught on.

A simple answer would be stall characteristics. A true canard configuration stalls completely, and consequently the recovery requires a lot more altitude than a conventional configuration. 

 

Full-stall a J-3 Cub, and it almost recovers itself with very little loss of altitude. Full-stall a Rutan Quickie, and it needs a thousand feet or more to recover. 

 

Easily Googleable for anyone that wants to look it up. 

 

Just to clarify, adding little "canards" to delta designs (or the B-1) does not convert the airframe into a canard configuration. A true canard's forward surfaces are lifting surfaces, not airflow control devices. 

 

HTH,

D

[MikeC]

13 hours ago, Oldbaldguy said:

 I would have thought that new builders from the Wright brothers’ day would have tried to improve on their tail-forward design but, as far as I know, only Curtiss in the US tried in the very early days with everyone else going with more conventional planforms.

Bristol Boxkite, Farman Longhorn, to name but two.

13 hours ago, thierry laurent said:

Indeed, in French, duck is translated by canard.

It also has another meaning in English: "a false report or piece of information that is intended to deceive people" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/canard )