It is a scaled down Lancaster with the wings turned backwards and the tail glued in the wrong place, the other tail was claimed by a carpet god.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It is a scaled down Lancaster with the wings turned backwards and the tail glued in the wrong place, the other tail was claimed by a carpet god.When assembling your aircraft please pay careful attention to the instruction booklet.
And, if you've ever seen a video of one of the early Wright canards in flight, you wouldn't even think of accusing it of pitch stability. The pilot was constantly sawing at the control stick to thwart its attempts to deviate from equilibrium.The Wright Flyer was a Canard, or at least had the elevators forward of the wings.
I think the Wright system on the first flyers was just to het the thing in the air with almost zero power.And, if you've ever seen a video of one of the early Wright canards in flight, you wouldn't even think of accusing it of pitch stability. The pilot was constantly sawing at the control stick to thwart its attempts to deviate from equilibrium.
I always thought those old films were funny until I went for a ride in a KR2 homebuilt that had been misrigged by its builder and was negative stable. The guy flying it (a KR2 owner-builder himself and low time pilot) was overwhelmed by its squirrelly handling and got panicky, and I wound up taking over the flying and got us back on the ground at the cost of a broken propeller and two flat tires. Awkward from the right seat in a plane built to be flown only from the left. My dreams of building and flying a KR2 myself came to a screeching halt. Ken Rand was 5'6" tall; I'm 6'5", and this plane had been stretched for its 6'1" builder, but I almost couldn't fit in it. Another lesson learned.
And, if you've ever seen a video of one of the early Wright canards in flight, you wouldn't even think of accusing it of pitch stability. The pilot was constantly sawing at the control stick to thwart its attempts to deviate from equilibrium.
I always thought those old films were funny until I went for a ride in a KR2 homebuilt that had been misrigged by its builder and was negative stable. The guy flying it (a KR2 owner-builder himself and low time pilot) was overwhelmed by its squirrelly handling and got panicky, and I wound up taking over the flying and got us back on the ground at the cost of a broken propeller and two flat tires. Awkward from the right seat in a plane built to be flown only from the left. My dreams of building and flying a KR2 myself came to a screeching halt. Ken Rand was 5'6" tall; I'm 6'5", and this plane had been stretched for its 6'1" builder, but I almost couldn't fit in it. Another lesson learned.
It is possible that your memory is confusing "canard" with "forward-swept wings" such as the Grumman X-29 had. The X-29 was indeed highly unstable and required computer assist, but canards such as the Rutan VariEze are extremely stable.
No, but they go great with orange sauce.Canards don't make an aircraft unstable.
Basically. However, I think it is more an apocryphal tale.Is the French word for the bird the same as the word duck meaning bow or dropping down?
Having the elevators ahead of the mainwings was a standard theory of the day.I think the Wright system on the first flyers was just to het the thing in the air with almost zero power.
First there was lift. (Cayley) Then there was control. (Wrights) And then there was stability. (Curtiss and those who came after)Still, the Wright Flyer was the most stable aircraft at the time.
LOL
The Draken (AJ-37/J-37) was quite stable and didn't use computer controls at all. Of course, it flew as a delta with elevons, so the canard was essentially static.BTW, I read that planes with canards are unstable in flight and a flight correction computer is needed (even multiple times per second). On the other hand, such planes were built in the pre-computer age. So... what's the truth?
The Wrights saw their patent as much broader in scope than the Patent Office and the courts did.The tail in back was one of the ways of getting around the Wright patent. Ailerons, if course, were the main element.
The Draken was the J35, and not actually a canard, more like a "double delta". The canard was the J37 Viggen, and an awesome piece of machinery, besides being the inspiration for several homebuilt designs, most notably Burt Rutan's Vari-Eze and Long-Eze, as well as the Beechcraft Starship.The Draken (AJ-37/J-37) was quite stable and didn't use computer controls at all. Of course, it flew as a delta with elevons, so the canard was essentially static.
The idea that a canard causes instability is itself a canard. Currell
If the horizontal surface and elevator are at the rear, they push the tail down for level flight. If they are in the front they provide upward lift to keep the nose up. If set up correctly, they stall or lose lift before the wing and the nose drops. preventing the main wing from stalling. Unless you really want to stall the main wing that is.
Considering that the Dunne D.8 swept-wing tailless biplane was inherently stable, anything can be ...
No, and canards don't have their rudders at the front either, only their horizontal stabilizers and elevators. The vertical stabilizer is analogous to the feathers on an arrow, since the only force involved is a yaw deflection from streamline flight and the correcting effect of the fin.I still find it a little hard to believe that this Canard provides stability. This is counterintuitive (but of course science can be counterintuitive). Have you ever seen a boat with a rudder at the front?