3:22 The main thing that’s different over what anyone has done is the volume of research prototypes that I’ve done. In 45 years, we did manned flight testing on 46 different types of airplanes. (*amount of experimentation, just like James Dyson) 5:17 “I enjoyed experimenting.” 5:43 “I always took the risk instead of took the easy path.” 9:00 The Canard Design - two lifting surfaces 9:21 Monocoque structure 9:50 Unconventional designs 10:40 Purpose-driven functional design 14:52 If you go out and do something, even if it seems illogical, you are the one that’s likely to stumble into a breakthrough; creative guy. So. I’m not going to criticize you for doing something different, because I know that I’ve made a success primarily because I’ve tried different things. (*Steve Jobs here’s to the crazy ones)
The efficiency gain from the lifting horizontal stabiliser in a canard design is overrated. The reason it is not as good as you'd think is that the canard creates a strong downwash, substantially reducing the efficiency of the main wing. Look at Rutan's most recent designs. They are unusual, but they are not canards any more. The main reason his early design were canards was also not efficiency, but safety. And the reason the designs were so efficient was not their canard layout, but the tandem seating (very low cross-sectional area) a very smooth surface, a generally very good aerodynamic layout and low weight. Note that Rutan himself was astonished that the Boomerang had half the fuel flow of the Defiant at the same speed, even though the Boomerang is not a canard and has a traditional negative lift tailplane. (Although you couldn't really call the Boomerang "conventional".)
Spot on Pink. Thanks for the honesty. There is hope people can understand that his canards are not more efficient but actually less with same frontal area.
Canards pull a much to large main wing trough the air in order to stay stable. Speed and efficiency suffer. I liked the early VaryEze very much until I gained the knowledge to calculate airplanes. I still like many aspects of the design but I cant hear those fairy tales about canards anymore!
@@tinolino58 I used to fly a canard jet the Gripen, which is the first unstable fly by wire canard design...believe me it can be more efficient than the conventional layout...no surprise even the Eurofighter came to be a canard...the F35 did not for other reasons... I think what you mention "too large wing" is intentional engineering choice to accommodate for CG migration and builder errors...and giving more margins. If you were to make a single seat type certified canard with precision and quality control than it is possible to slim/downsize it by lift area/cross section/airfoil type...but you can not release a plan like that to the homebuilt community who will customize/experimentalize it out of the envelope accidentally...
@@electricaviationchannelvid7863 thats no true. In order to gain dynamic stability you need a much lower load per square feet/meter on the main wing. It’s about 30%. Therefore Canards are inherently inefficient.
You can make a "conventional" airplane have a lifting tail if you know what you are doing. My avatar picture of the Sea-Era high wing can be made to have all surfaces lifting. It is 3.3 square feet of flat plate drag (wind tunnel data), as compared to an ICON with 9.6 and Searey with 12.5. Canards are NOT more efficient. They are LESS with same frontal area and landing speed requirement. Notice the boomerang is more efficient and it is NOT a canard. Also, notice that the SkiGull did not make the goal of making it to Hawaii and fly the oceans and live in the Pacific. Why? The airfoil needed a droop and it caused more drag. Yeah, Burt does not like airports! I like this guy! My new design does not need airports either. Yes, it can fly the Pacific. New engine is key.
