Canard Aerodynamics: Why You Might Not Want a Canard Airplane 

Your videos are just way more interesting bro...easier to watch.. it doesnt feel like a classroom

Just like with your montage clarification video I have huge respect for you Scott that you strive to rather have the correct info out rather than ego boost. Kudos

Interesting video. My buddy in an early Velocity during testing did stall the rear wing. He went to full right aileron, full right rudder, full nose down, and full power. Eventually the plane started dropping off to the right and into a knife edge, gained speed and started flying again. Took 5000 feet tho. But even with the rear wing stalled the plane is dropping at a slow decent rate and likely survivable.

Very interesting to hear your corrections, thanks for including the original takes. Hearing the misconceptions said out loud and then the explanation of why they're incorrect is actually a lot more information than just hearing correct facts

Thank you for uploading this. I was excited to hear what he shared with you!

Great job on making such a detailed follow up video with multiple rounds of corrections. The world would be a far better place if more people were a like you.

As a total fan of the canard design airplanes I appreciate this video 📸 excellent work ty 🛬🛬🛬

I appreciate the effort you put into making sure your facts were right.

Informative basic breakdown.

Nicely done!

Great explanation of the pros and cons of a canard.

I watched your video again and probably answered my own questions😅 cheers for the knowledge

IDK how I came across this vid, but glad I did. Absolutely fascinating comparisons. I'm not a pilot (wish I was) but have a keen interest in fluid dynamics & aviation. Can't wait to watch ur other vids!

The whole thing with the swept wing and aspect ratio comes down to one simple concept...spanwise flow is inefficient so avoid it if at all possible. Higher aspect ratio wings have less chord so spanwise flow is reduced and thus provides a higher lift:drag ratio. Sweeping the wings back increases spanwise flow because even at zero AOA, there is spanwise flow equivalent to the angle of the sweep. The more sweep or AOA you give it, the more spanwise flow you'll get. Take it to the extreme and imagine a 100% swept wing, basically folded all the way back like a kitfox in transit. In that configuration, you have 100% spanwise flow and your wings are almost useless (they'll still make some lift, but not much). The other extreme is AOA with a low aspect ratio (imagine a wing with the same chord as its span), keep increasing AOA of this wing all the way to 90deg, the air will hit the center of the wing and flow in all directions....forward to the leading edge, back to the trailing edge, and out to the wingtip all at the same time, this could also be considered 100% spanwise flow as the air simply radiates outward from the center of the wing. Your wing is useless as anything but an airbrake at this point. Decrease the AOA of this wing to say 45deg and you'll notice that all the air is flowing rearward and spanwise at around 45deg, tons of air spilling over the wingtip which is very inefficient but making some lift. Swap that wing with a high aspect glider wing at 45deg and you'll see that the air is still traveling out at 45deg but very little of it is actually able to spill over the wingtip, now you're making the same lift but with far less drag. This is how aspect ratio and swept wings affect aerodynamic efficiency. Swept wings are only an efficient gambit when you're talking transonic and supersonic flight regimes, and it's not because spanwise flow reduces at those speeds, it's because the shape delays transonic flow and shock waves from being created. It becomes less important to gain efficiency from aspect ratio and more important to gain efficiency by reducing shockwave buildup the faster you go. As you mentioned, swept wings in slower speed canard aircraft are only there to get the vertical and rudder far enough back to effect a positive change and inherent stability in that axis. As for canards not being able to use flaps...well that's not entirely true. If you could aerodynamically balance the flaps with leading edge slats then there would be no change in pitch moment and no need for elevator input. You'd gain considerable lift and the flaps wouldn't act like elevators that pushed the nose down, giving you either slower stall speeds or more efficiency by not needing as big of a wing.

You may not want a Canard Airplane because it will spoil you. Your C182 flying friends will ask what your fuel burn and cruise speed is and say the F bomb.

Jolly interesting, thanks very much.

Great information!!!! I enjoy still learning new things about things thought i thoroughly understood. I work on my friends velocity from time to time and i have a never ending joke of "It goes through the prop." Loose cowling screw?... "It goes the prop". FOD? "it goes through the prop". Money? "it goes through the prop". I have seen some battle scars of canard planes and things pinging off the props too. Anyways, nice videos thanks for another one.

Thanks for the great video! I think a follow-on video comparing the canard to the Piaigo Avanti aerodynamics. All the best, M-

I 'love' the way you talk! I am a sheetmetal worker/engineer and you have told me so much in a short space 😅

I just love this video so much, you really taught me so much from your pilot based experience for want of a better explanation 😅 am so glad I found you, by the way my goal is to make my own jet pack, or even jump jets, so I value your experience and way with words 😮

In my case you are talking to a non-pilot of limited technical background. I found it to be informative in a manner I was able to follow. Anytime you have alternatives you will find people telling everyone why this new idea is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Probably the most significant thing you said in the whole video is "there is no free lunch." I want speed and efficient fuel use. You pointed out where the lunch is paid for, higher takeoff and landing speeds and a longer runway needed. I am not going to be trying to land in little back-country meadows. I also liked how you mentioned to not try to compare this plane with a Cessna 172. All in all, a great presentation.

Great breakdown. You even threw in things that I wasn't aware of as well. I love the physics of it all! When you spoke about CG I've in the past talked about that to some folks when it comes to driving a car. It's more like CP (center point) they way I explain it. Heh See, some have formed the habit of if they have to turn they go slightly the opposite way (if they have to make a right turn they go slightly left then right) then make the turn. If they knew the CP then they'd realize that's not necessary. Especially since the wheelbase length isn't like some long van or truck that has to do things like that. If you're in a regular size car, just setup for the turn. And realize your CP is before the rear wheel. I know none of that has to do with flying but when you were talking about that it just all seemed the same, but different. I hope that all made sense. Still, I wonder if this plane isn't as popular because of the maybe "conditioning" of what regular flight is known to be. I find it interesting that the Wright Brothers basically flew a Canard. But, somewhere in there things got changed to what we know as flight now. I wonder why. Anyhoo, as I typed on the intro video before this, I'm a simmer. I will get my license eventually. So, I like to look at planes that would fit what I'm trying to accomplish. Which is a lot of personal flights. That includes Experimental planes. Thanks a lot for this video! It was a lot of fun for me. I'll be checking out more of your videos in the future. Cheers! ✌🏾

I had a Varieze and sold it and I have been kicking myself ever since. Perhaps a velocity or a standard cozy is in my future. Canards aren’t popular because of its configuration but if a standard pilot could fly one for 5-10 hours opinions would change. Very safe efficient airframe.

Unfortunately the propeller is also flying through disturbed air causing a lot of stress and inefficiency. It's also prone to damage from rocks and debris.

I respect that you admit your mistakes. I think others would go on the defensive and get into attack mode.

Kudos for correcting your correction video. Few creators do that. Now I am off to Marc's channel in search of his treatment (if any) of "three lifting surfaces" design, that is, Piaggio P.180.

Double bonus points for putting out a correction video! But now you have to make another one. You can have a vortex or vorticies, but not a vorticie :(

Because you seem to like the technical details - that 'optimal wing shape is an ellipse' thing has a whole lot of assumptions baked in, its not merely an aerodynamic argument, its how to maximise efficiency with a mechanical spar with weight and stress limitations such that the extra lift at tips doesnt disproportionately add to bending moments at the root. Different spar designs and overall weight distributions have very different optimal wing shapes.

Great audio for being in a hanger during a windy rainstorm.

in regards to a conventional C.L.T. S.E. tractor prop- cruciform aircraft configuration, there are usually a built in nose down incidence on the horizontal stab of those with a fixed horizontal stab, the main wing usually has a nose up incidence, of which, both are based off the level line along the aircraft's fuselage.. So therefore when you apply engine power you have to add forward trim or aft trim as you decrease power in order to maintain level flight during power changes.

I own a canard and I think that every airplane is a compromise in design. These aircraft are designed to optimize for good cruise performance, that pilots really like. This optimization results in choices that reduce drag like less wing area and less frontal area. I think if they had more wing area the takeoff and landing speed they could be more comparable to other light aircraft but that would also increase weight and drag and also reduce cruise speed. Another factor is weight growth. Since these are homebuilt people can add items that add weight like avionics and upholstery and really nice paints that can make them heavier also reducing their takeoff performance. One plus of these is the overall simplicity of the design. I had a instructor once show me how you can make a steeper final approach at a slightly reduced power and on landing flair the speed can be bleed off faster making a shorter landing distance. It works but you have to make sure you keep your speed up to a safe level to avoid a hard landing. Overall the increased speed is very impressive and perhaps worth the tradeoffs.

Well . . . I still want one. A canard configuration is still the coolest looking airplane!

Seems to me flaps are doable but you would need to trim the canard for them , in effect having flaps on the canard. Or something like that. I remember building an RC aircraft like that and it cam in a a steep angle of attack.

The rear stabilizer in a conventionally configured aircraft is an upside-down wing. Inverted. It's lift component is downwards. It counteracts the CofG which is forward of the Main wings centre of pressure.

1. This video would apply only to Eze and derivatives. These were designed to a set of requirements. C172 were designed to other requirements. Some of the requirements overlap, and many don’t. The pilot has to decide which plane’s requirements best match his needs. No plane does all. 2. Landing Speed/flaps. Canards can and do have flaps. Clever is the Rutan/Beech Starship. Here the flaps and canard are linked. Flaps deployed-canard straight; flaps up-canard swept. Sweeping the canard flattened its lift curve slope obeying the “canard stall first rule”. 3. An Eze main wing sweep moves the Aerodynamic center further back. If Rutan had used a straight wing, the engine would be further forward relative to the AC. It would have needed a driveshaft. The wing vortillon (?) are aerodynamic fix that came some years after the Eze debut. Aerodynamic bandaids are hardly new or unique to canards. 4. A swept wing provides dihedral effect. The EZEs rudder winglets an added bonus.. 5. The canard wake affecting the wing is not necessarily bad. Rutan’s location may have improved pitch stability by increasing the wings stall AoA. 6. Modern fly by wire jets have all surfaces lifting..like a canard. The only plane to circumnavigate the planet was a canard. So canards have a few virtues.

Nice video.

I built and fly a Cozy IV I love the plane the way it flys and I enjoy blowing the doors off Cessnas It does have its limitations but all in all it is a great plane. I liked my first plane a Longeze better it was more of a pilots plane. It had an 0235 which limited it a bit. Thanks for your video.

Love this kind of content! Plenty of learning going on. I suggest watching talks given by the late John Ronz for aerodynamic concepts. He was brilliant.

High Scott! Very ilustrative explanation you gave. On detail that you mentioned in conventional planes does not entirely true.. but is valid for your explanation. The vertical force in a Tail horizontal surface in a conventional configuration plane could be upward, cero or downward.. For example when take of at high CLift the main wing moment ia very high and nose-up so a tail will probably will get a upward force specially is cg is at rear limits. Also depending of the position of the cg related to the main wing lift. In a case that the plane has a very effective tail volume and neutral point is at the very rear, then the cg can be behind the main wing line of lift and in this case the tail hirizotal will trim the plane with an upward force

Pretty good teacher.

1 point you missed is that the canard design looks f-ing cool, do the disadvantages don't really matter

You over control on the first take off. That is what newbies remember. After the first take off you never think about it again.

I’m going to watch the videos you suggested. This video was awesome. I would really like to talk to you and Mark about the design of the cozy I have taken on. The canard on mine has the ability to adjust the angle of sweep.

Scott Hey, Jeff here! I just had to make a comment because the two major things I love right now is aviation, for years I've been a pilot for a while and my Honda goldwing! And I was watching your video and I was thinking I know that voice!..... And I think I finally figured it out did you host goldwingdocs? If so, I never realized you were into aviation also! Your Gold Wing and mine I think are almost exactly the same! Glacier white! Well, I just wanted to say hi and I'll keep watching your video and I always had a love for kennard aircraft also. I know it's someday here I do want to build a kit I just find out that life gets in the way LOL

Forces, Leaver Arms, Moments, Mass, Moment of Inertia, Center of Gravity, Aerodynamic Center, Angle of Attack, Angle of Sideslip, Angle of Incidence, Wing Twist, Wing Strakes, Vortex Generators....and Trailers? Your talk is just all over the place, bouncing around, focusing various things, glossing over...some true, some not so much, like a stream of consciousness video about Burt Ratans radically different design. Grade=C Maybe scripting out your stream of consciousness to stay focused oh smaller chunks of the many unique design features of Burt's creation. Great RU-vid Video, have fun flying

Scott I still love the Cozy and the Long EZ, despite your warning...hahaha. I do have one question, why can't you put flaps on that type of wing design? Great video!!!

Love the canard design and your cozy is amazing. Two main questions…. I’d like to know your opinion on the Dutch Roll susceptibility due to the swept wing. Do you think it is any more pronounced in your Cozy compared to a C172 or conventional pusher/wing design? Seems like that is a major design and performance difference for a canard/swept wing designed plane. Second, is the useful load more or less than the comparable conventional designed planes? Thanks!

Ten seconds in, subbed.

Love canards, but they require lots of runway. That's the biggest shortcoming IMO. After test flying several I went with an RV8 for my mission.

So, the horizontal stabilizer of a conventionally-tailed aircraft can generate lift. It depends on how stable the vehicle is. In unstable designs like an F-16, the deflection on the all moving tail will actually be greater than the angle of attack during straight and level flight. On very stable aircraft like a Cessna 172, this is correct. In between, you can have situations where the tail generates net lift but the elevator itself does not.

My thoughts: It's not technically a Canard; it's a twin-wing configuration, meaning there's another set of wings contributing to lift. Canards usually function similar to elevators but positioned in front, making the aircraft inherently unstable. That's why they're often seen in jets designed for agility (requiring fly-by-wire systems). The horizontal tail (HT) generally provides a moment arm, not necessarily 'better lift' than the main wing. For instance, in stable trimmed flight, when a gust upsets the plane, the change in angle (AoA) on the HT generates lift (a moment arm) to stabilize the plane. The center of gravity (C.G) doesn't need to be ahead of the center of lift for the wing (not considering the entire plane's aerodynamics center of lift), it is also known as the center of pressure (CP). In this case of a twin-wing setup, yes, it MUST be ahead because of the additional set of lift-generating wings in front (which is why it's not called a canard). However, the model plane you're using is not a twin-wing but a typical tailed airplane. Thus, the C.G can fall within a certain range, depending on the size of the plane's tail. For instance, in a typical configuration like the model you're holding, the CP might be around 25% from the leading edge (LE). Depending on the tail size and distance, the C.G typically ranges from around 20% to 35% LE. Moving the C.G further forward enhances stability but also makes it more prone to being head-heavy and challenging to pitch up.

About the Downwash from Canard over Main Wing, any comment about the Saab Viggen approach, Canard located well higher than Main wing? A chart is in Homebuilt Aircraft Site. Blessings +

Every airplane is a compromise, interesting points about the canard airframe. I don't think there is any one design that checks all the boxes that we all seem to want in an aircraft. And even if there was, it still would not fit everyone's idea of the mission they want an airplane to fly.

5:27 The induced drag is a result of span loading, not at all related to the aspect ratio, defined as span²/wing area.

OK . . . l am just learning the rudiments about canards, and flying in general. Not sure if l ever will fly, due to chronic vertigo. Hoeever, it doesn't hurt to do cerebral gymnastics. Question that comes to mind is (drumroll) . . . why is/are there no wing flaps? -- iz this a buggerment regulation? -- or is there some sort of aerodynamic reason? Thanks in advance.

My internal little boy really wants that red model plane.

Longitudinal stability is NOT about stalling one of the aerodynamic surfaces! It is the ability of the airplane to return to level flight after a disturbance, e.g. a gust. This happens at small AoAs; you don’t stall the canard every time you encounter a small gust. If the overall AoA is increased by a gust, both the canard’s and the main wing’s list are increased. This results in a pitching moment around the aircraft’s center of gravity which is it’s mechanical center of motion. In order to return to level flight, this pitching moment needs to counter the initial disturbance, hence be nose down. This is the case if the sum of the added lift acts aft of the center of gravity. The point where this combined lift acts upon is the airplane’s neutral point. (This is valid not only for canard airplanes) Static longitudinal stability is when the airplane returns to level flight after a disturbance with the elevator fixed. Dynamic longitudinal stability is with the elevator free.

You mentioned downwash (or maybe largely turbulent air) at the main wing because of the canard - is that less an issue with the Q200 because of the greater vertical offset between the canard and main wings?

yeah the config looks cool but I don't like the configuration over conventional because it's more complex for little to no benefit. If we look at the really high performance designs that gliders are, they are very conventional. As for the elegance of rear propulsion, that's one of several reasons why I'm advocating for getting small turbofan jet engines in GA. For light planes they can be so small that they can be very cheap and a big surprise to many is that if you take them to altitude they will give you both extreme speed and fuel efficiency that you can't beat with piston props. World distance record belongs to rutan's global flyer which is a glider design with an off the shelf Williams FJ44-4 jet engine and it did 40000km at 500km/h without refueling. Try that in a Cessna 172 :) Light GA planes with great aero and tiny turbofan jet engines can just have borderline magical performance. Fighter jet agility, private jet freedom but LSA fuel economy. A polish carbon fiber glider plane called Gekon weighs 69kg with gear and avionics. That means a personal jet doesn't need to weigh the 3300kg that a Phenom 100 does. Or even the 1600kg of an Eclipse 500. Low weight and high glide directly translates to fuel efficiency. An Eclipse actually beats a Baron 58 for fuel economy so imagine how great a light tandem 2 seater could be. And when designed for high speed it can actually have quite a small wing. So it can actually be cheaper to make.

Hi Scott. Many thanks for a fascinating video. Wonderful to get the aerodynamic perspective. What I still don’t quite understand is why the Canard doesn’t have flaps. The rear wing needs to have more lift than the front stabilisers at low speeds to give a nose down configuration to land. Surely flaps would give the main (rear) wing more lift and hence the required nose-down configuration - or am I missing something?

The swept wing design is to reduce drag and give the aircraft better handling in slow flight. The performance is best in class. If there is a complaint about this aircraft (Velocity XL-RG) it is that pilots with experience in Cessnas, Pipers or even Mooneys and Cirrus have to deal with far higher performance specs. And no-flap, flat landings requiring longer, paved runways.

From my limited knowledge Burt Rutan is the real guru of canard craft😅 haven't finished your video yet but am sure it will teach me something lol

I'm no expert on aerodynamics but please check me on this. There are some disadvantages from having prop wash over lifting surfaces as it would be in a conventional engine-in-front airplane. As the prop wash flows over lifting surfaces it causes an increase in dynamic pressure and changes the local angle of attack. This can result in many different effects including an altered lift distribution, increased control surface authority, and changes in the aircraft stability. If the vertical stabilizer is directly behind the prop as in many conventional airplanes, it also creates some yaw torque from the spiraling air generated by the prop. We don't have that problem in our canards. No prop wash over vertical stabilizers and wings means only clean air over those surfaces making for a much smoother ride on the ground (where it's most noticeable) and in the air. Canardists are not very concerned about adverse yaw, P-factor, or Torque effects. During transition training we pretty much forget all about that nonsense. TGFT

I love you man anybody inviting a critique or a comment or a correction especially is the top of the mountain to me. I love to watch people with money that have a disaster from being stupid because I'm poor from being stupid and my whole life is a disaster to look up from for a minute when someone buys an airplane. How does the kennard airplane respond to being overloaded? Most airplanes will fly straight overloaded and if you turn them even a little bit it's too much and they crash easy spin in. How does the kennard Wing respond to this pilot error have taken off with too much weight

The SAAB Viggen has flaps on the canard, and a conventional elevator on the trailing edge of the main wing.

Enjoyed this thanks. Unfortunately your explanation of the rotation forces about the main gear is incorrect. The part you got right: blown horizontal tail is more effective than canard. If you calculate the CG location relative to the main gear (moment arm) it is similar to a conventional aircraft, and is not why the rotation requires more speed .

Re: aspect ratio, efficiency and lift and stall-resistance. Efficient sleek planes that are stall-proof and super STOL have been proven. They are not used solely because they violate "If it looks right, it'll fly right" (even more than a canard). They look funny. Aspect ratio is not a simple comparison between span & chord. It is span^2 divided by area. Expressed as an integer, not a ratio. There have been very many very-low aspect-ratio planform planes that have done very well. First, see the Arup planes from Indiana in the '30s. Aspect ratio under 2 ("Air"+"Up") The trick they have is that at such low aspect-ratio, when flown very slowly with very high "A" (above 25° has been demonstrated), the wing-tip vortices wrap around above it capturing a "bubble" of low pressure above the wing, amplifying the lift they get at such slow speeds. At the same time, it traps air from the front over the top of the wing, keeping it from separating and giving strong smooth flow to the trailing edge controls. Such wings do not stall, as in losing all lift due to separation of flow and losing control surface effectiveness. They'll "mush" down if they're kept flying in such a way, but they don't depart. They are not always burdened with carrying around all this extra drag: The vortex-driven "parachute lift" is elective and temporary, in order to fly slowly and not stall. Many of the type have proven to be sleek and quick on available power when flown normally. If these very-low aspect-ratio planes are supposed to be inefficient and have lots of induced drag, what is this supposed inefficiency, if it does not manifest in power vs speed or fuel vs range? Because many of the sort have been excellent. Charles Zimmerman worked for NACA in the '30s, saw the Arup S-2 fly for NACA, and later copied the very-low aspect-ratio and it's ability to be stall proof at very slow speeds very high "A", as the starting pint for his work with Vought and the Navy into a VTOL tail-sitter. He wrote about the "parachute lift" effect for UAC and NACA. Barnaby Wainfan also wrote extensively about for NASA when they were looking at the Facetmobile. The "Parachute lift" effect and stall-proof nature of it is a known phenomenon. Arup S-2 and S-4 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Nxz1UF67EQI.htmlsi=Vf_lHaIBwL200EMg ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_XrSFVDa3mY.htmlsi=Ur6PD3w6fJKd2HrN The S-2 from 1934 was 780 lbs, flew 85 knots on 37 hp, with landing speed under 18 kts. It would not stall. Video shows it to be nimble and yet stable, with 45° climb. The Arup S-4 was 1150 lbs, dual control side by side. flew 100 kts on 70 hp. Between the two, they flew several seasons at air shows, frequently carrying advertising because nobody but _nobody_ wanted to buy or invest. They flew on until the age of the airframes retired them. The only incident was a fuel leak and fire an fatal crash of the similar Hoffman/Younghusband plane, which had many successful flights, demonstrating the same sorts of performance. Next, see the Nemeth "parachute plane" of the '30s. Built on the fuselage of an Alliance Argo biplane, with a 15' diameter circular wing parasol on struts. Faster than the original, stall-proof, super-STOL, 45° climb, 60° super-slow descent with practically zero landing roll with any wind. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mw7hPbTSdME.htmlsi=Z-EjTj-Yx6NvWBDN ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0lMik-MkUlE.htmlsi=cegLX6BwghPZNtD7 Then there's the similar Farman 1020. Like the Nemeth, built on the fuselage of a known successful (monoplane) Stall-proof, faster than the original. The '40s Eshelman, commonly known as the "flying flounder". Aspect ratio under 1. Super-STOL and stall-proof, 156kts on 110 hp. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JpV68abt8uc.htmlsi=zB734mtnraibffd0 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-idsA1dUD9QA.htmlsi=xTFn0X3ejIZmjd0f In the '80s, The Hatfield "Little Bird" by one who flew the original Arup planes. Sleek and efficient, STOL, stall proof. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zK63GJ0saBA.htmlsi=uJQL3KF9-Wx_NqzY and other videos. Hatfield openly challenges the "conventional wisdom" which says they glide poorly and are draggy and difficult. since 2015, the Rowe "UFO" from Aus. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_-u0Y7cDngM.htmlsi=NkS0IO4he0hsRzl2 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_-u0Y7cDngM.htmlsi=NkS0IO4he0hsRzl2 Next, the '90s Wainfan "Facetmobile". Wainfan also challenges the status quo about such things. They're misunderstood, and much maligned, but fly very well and should be more accepted. 740lbs max weight, 100kts on 47hp, with 340 lb useful load. Won't stall. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LK7FhK5eL70.htmlsi=Z_Ebe3sLBXp1gDtZ Oshkosh 2023 Airventure Low Aspect Ratio Forum on Low Aspect Ratio Sport Airplanes - Barnaby Wainfan ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tzokRT3rbB0.htmlsi=8t4X1kX8OIT4XzQn

Why has no one put leading edge flaps on the Canard wing to increase lift on takeoff and landing?

Thanks. Sounds like very few positives

Amazing aircraft out of the mind of one man , Burt Rutan - yes the aerodynamics on the Rutan Canard are hard to explain - another really complex one is Piaggio Avanati with the same engines can cruise 100KTAS ( 25% )faster than the Starship with similar power plants but to many the Boomarang was the one Rutan actually wanted to commercialize - great discussion

OK lets draw triangles here. Where the body is one side (A) and the tip to tip of the wings form 2 triangles, so one tip to the body is (B) as the leading edge of the wing is the hypotenuse of each (C). If a straight wing has the same length as the (C) then yes the swept wing has less lift. But if we take a straight wing that is the same length as (B) then slice it up and set the slices off set to each other to create a chunky type of swept wing (as though it where made with building blocks) then do we have a similar lift ratio ? but with the swept dynamically stable behavior your talking about here ( 6:10 ) ? I think is how the lift expectation of a swept wing is miss understood as (B) is actually the angle of attack Hens the use of Vortilons and so the wing should be considered in size as the length of (B) not the length of the leading edge ?

I'm no aircraft engineer, but I was wondering if an all-moving canard could help with the stall recovery. Having it rotate far enough to let the nose drop straight down when needed.

A senior (possibly retired by now) MIT aerodynamics prof listed the three rules of aircraft design as "No canards, no canards, and no canards".

You may like having a look at 'Canards, design with care' (Burns?), also, in french: 'Des couacs chez les canards', Blessings +

Actually, you can add fowler flaps to a canard aircraft, but you will have to add them to both the main wing and to the canard itself. The size of the flaps will have to be around 20% larger for the canard than for the main wing due to the fact that the flaps will tend to move the center of lift rearward as they extend.

I thought this was about canards because the title said so. However, most of the negative points mentioned only apply to his particular aircraft type.

7:35 i think you meant static stability. Dynamic is over time. Static is immediate first reaction.

10:22 that is NOT correct. Your span wise lift distribution is moved out and bending moment increases as if the winglets were folded down making the wing longer. NO free lunch. The winglet reduces induced drag but reducing the wasted energy form wing tip vortices. The reasons airliners use winglets are two fold. One is span of wing and gate area at terminal is limited. Two it is great for a logo. Some of the latest airliners do not use winglets and just use longer wings and accept their gate access at a terminal will be limited.

Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year However the plain in question did claim the life of a well known musician and that is the only reason why I will always look past them

(16:50) _“We can´t have flaps in this design.“_ By “this design“, do you mean (just) the Cozy? The Cessna Starship, a canard design, has flaps, made possible because the canard wings translate forward, thus compensating for the change of the center of lift of the main wing when they are actuated.

G'day, Yay Team ! Mate, you really are a brave man. This was hilarious...! I'm totally bedazzled by your willingness to illustrate the gap between your ability to be loudly and confidently WRONG about so many features of your own Aeroplane - as to have been making and posting Videos of all the stuff which you thought that you knew what you were talking about...; And, then, with Jump-Cuts featuring Tell-Tale Costume changes - you've edited in the Corrections...; which effectively illustrates the depth of the Dunning-Kreuger Effect which was involved in making the earlier, uncorrected versions... Not many people have the intestinal fortitude required to use themself so, as an illustrative example of that phenomenon. I dips me lid to ye ! (Olde Colonial Vernacular..., a Slang way of saying that I take my hat off - to salute you !). Most YouTubularosities jealously edit their own Comment-Threads while trying to manipulate their own image the better to project a self-confected impersonation of idealised Perfection....; and they only stick their very best Takes into the end-result of a lot of Post-Production Editing... That said - I couldn't disagree with any of the corrected points you made..., and I'm considered quite the cantankerous and pedantic old Aeroplanologist...(!) ; so, well done. When all is said and all is done, and the Compromises are all allowed for..., a few points regarding Canards sort of stick out, at least in my view they do. Having the Stabilisor out in front with a positive AOA, and thus lifting it's share of the Airframe - at least on a "Gut-level" has always struck me as being inherently more efficient, theoretically...; than having it trailing along behind at a Negative AOA, effecting a philosophically delightful Stable Dynamic-Instability which prevents the Wing from becoming a Tumblestick and making Bull-Roarer noises as it otherwise Autorotates around it's Spanwise Axis....(!). The "Conventional" layout obliges the Wing to be designed with sufficient extra Area as to be able to always carry the entire Weight of the trailing Stabilisor - which contributes nothing but Downforce on the Rear Fuselage's Moment-Arm..., And the Drag incurred while generating that Downforce.... Pushing Up is helpful, when chasing Efficiency...; whereas Pushing Down is convenient - IF absolute Efficiency matters less than ease of Trimability (?) ! And, anything which has it's Airscrew behind the Trailing-Edge of the Wing is going to be Unpleasantly LOUD....; As the Propeller Blades are constantly having to Impact & Chop through the Wake-Turbulence Interface, between the Relatively Lower-Pressure Airflow atop the Wing, & the Higher-Pressure below. Converting Fuel to Torque, and Torque into Helical Airspeed through a Rotating Blade Array, while attempting to accelerate the Airflow going backwards through the Disc - in order to generate "Thrust" In Reaction to the accelerated Airflow Transmitted to the Airframe at the Engine-Mounts...; is a process which is in no way at all assisted by WASTING Torque..., in the creation of a Twice-Per-Blade-Per-Rotation BUZZZZZ-SAW Impersonation Roaring away slightly behind the Wing. Cessna Skymasters do it, Lake Buccaneers do it (chopping through the Pylon's pillar of Turbulent Drag...!), Vari-Ezes do it....; They all Turn Petrol into loud penetrating snarling Noises, Which greatly annoy everybody, but the particular Nut Gripping the Throttle...(lol !). My guess is that WHATEVER the Theoretical gain in Aerodynamic Efficiency to be had from a Canard Stabilisor actually Lifting, versus having a Trailing Stabilisor only contributing Drag & Weight...; is going to be completely offset - and maybe more so, by the reduced Propulsive Efficiency involved in Chopping all that Wake-Turbulence into endless Tight-packed Atmospheric Compression Waves of Pure bloody NOISE....(!). So - welcome to Roundabouts & Swings..., Snakes & Ladders, in the Reality whereinat Nobody Has any kind of monopoly On what Works BEST... For Everybody. People who like Canard Aeroplanes are very happy with them, and people who like their Stabilisor to follow along behind them, pushing down on it's Lever of a Fuselage can't imagine there being any reason to change doing what they're used to. Basically, it's Mainly a matter of Marketing-Jism, and Fashion. Though I (Perhaps cruelly) note that in the history of Aeroplanology there have been almost Zero Commercially successful Production Canard Designs of anything which Actually works for it's living. No Canard Crop-Dusters, no Canard Water-Bombers, no Canard Airliners, no Canard Air-Cargo Freighters, no Canard Glider-Tugs, no Canard Aerobatic Display Aircraft... There are some Canard Jet-Fighters There've been a couple of very expensive and doubtfully financially viable Luxury Executive Twin TurbineTransports (but the Piagiot claims to be not quite a true Canard, and the Beech Starship was recalled from service)..., There was a Canard SuperSonic Transport Airliner - but not only did the Koncordski crash in Paris well before the Concord(e) finally got around to so doing..., but neither one of them ever covered their own Operating Costs from Passenger-Ticket sales, or Freight-Rates on Cargo hauled. Owning and flying a Canard is basically an Affectation..., it's a Fashion-Statement - among an already tiny minority of Humanity...; We, The Aeroplane Owners. My own 22-hp VJ-24w Ultralight Motorglider, in it's covered Trailer, still awaits my getting around to beginning the rebuild required to make good the damage incurred in 1992 when I flew it inverted, backwards, 3 ft above the Fence it failed to clear - when I tried to take off Downwind in a too-small Paddock and landed upside down in the adjacent Potato Patch. Oopsie ! My first Aeroplane though, hangs from the Ceiling on a Chain in a Museum, it features in, "The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft...!", So, make of that what you will - regarding my own personal taste in Fashionable Hairygoplanes (!). Each to their own, eh - what ; By Jove (!). ("What would Biggles say, eh ?") ! Take it easy. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

Too much talking in the beginning. I wrote a long, scathing review, but in the end, just wrote this. I have yet to produce a YT vlog, so I have no idea what or how I would do at this... So, with that being said, I get it. I LOVE canard acft, so I will be watching some of your other videos. In today's day in age, it takes a lot to admit mistakes, so kudos for you for making a correction vlog. best of luck to you and safe flying!!

14:00 - You could just put the canard a foot lower fairly easily and not interfere with the main wing. I higher back wing is very common in conventional designs. Even if the front canard didn't produce a net positive lift, at least it's not producing a negative lift like a conventional tail. So it's really not a wash at all.

Boeing leased an airplane to Dutch royalty who then leased it back to Boeing so they could come up with a mod to add winglets to the 737- 200. When they conducted the first flight test it's climb rate was so great it bordered on being uncontrollable. So they dialed out some of the lift and she flew fine after that.

Question: should Boeing have added canards on nose heavy 747?

hey.. you are trying hard and doing a good job explaining canard stability but you know the front wing doesnt have to stall to create stability. its the lift curve slope and zero lift angle. the lift curve slope is bigger for the big wing because its big so the plane is stable. the stable point is a positive angle because of the incidence of the front is greater. you fly the plane in pitch axis by adjusting the pitch stable point by changing the canard control surface. you should play around with xflr5 or AVL and see the numbers and stability love your discussion though

I have always thought that a canard was more efficient. When you pull back the stick in a conventional aircraft you push the tail down - the reverse of your desire to increase altitude. With a canard the control causes the nose to rise - the very direction you desire.

Maybe you should discuss this with Burt Rutan. After all, he designs very capable and efficient canard A/C.

Your explanation is great at the 6minute mark😅

Why can't you have flaps? Is this because of how it comes, cause I would just add them myself 😅or is the canards supposed to do this job? Love to hear your input cause a lot of videos don't cater to the layman

Canard downwash - Dragonfly better? Traditional airplane - to reduce loss due downward tail force, could you have moveable CG? Put more weight on the tail during cruise?

Hey buddy we need more canard boulevard,

add wind break to slow down the plane when landing.

Suggestions: less talk, more demonstrations in flight. Good comments by experienced pilots.

Some of these things are due to canards, some of these things are due to pusher prop, some of this is due to landing gear geometry, the angle that it rolls down the runway at.. So really all airframes behave different. Some have tails and canards believe it or not, so I mean, I wouldn't group all this under canard aircraft.

He's right the landing speed alone makes this plane dangerous for a low time pilot that just flies on the weekends....

To the Author, could making the canard bigger account for some of the lost lift you need?

My defiant doe 20mpg at 155kts

someone said if you want to be a good folk singer play 3 cords and tell the truth. bravo you have passed the test i think it means keep it simple

Forward swept make wing more efficient.