Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In a canard, the horizontal stabilizer, being forward of the wing, the CoG, and the CoL, counters the pitch down tendency by generating positive lift, thereby relieving the wing of some of its load. This makes for a more efficient flying machine.
A canard design is less stable. For the Wright brothers this might have had the advantage that they were even more aware of the importance of being able to steer on all axis.Theoretically, I understand everything you write. But if such planes are more efficient, why didn't everybody build planes this way during the First and Second World Wars? I don't believe the story that everyone wanted to "bypass" the Wright Brothers patent. During the war, no one cares about patent rights (and the Soviet Union didn't even care in peacetime).
Wiki: Static canard designs can have complex interactions in airflow between the canard and the main wing, leading to issues with stability and behaviour in the stall.
Well, now I don't understand anything. So this Canard gives better stability or worse?
As in everything else in aviation, the devil is in the details. Only a tiny fraction of the development effort in aviation over the years has been devoted to canards, so they are way behind conventional airplanes in terms of evolution.Well, now I don't understand anything. So this Canard gives better stability or worse?
Only a tiny fraction of the development effort in aviation over the years has been devoted to canards
A canard design is less stable.
In this, as in all other aspects of life, there is seldom unanimous consensus. You only have to read a few threads on this forum to see that.Why If theoretically such machines are more efficient and defense from stalling themselves?
Gentlemen, work out one common version! XD
No, I agree.That's my take on it, but everybody here will have a different narrative
in the frenzied growth of aviation during WWI the conventional tractor biplane emerged as ruler of the skies over the battlefield .
The plane in the OP was in answer to a request for new and novel ideas for flight. I think the front canard was to solve CoG issues on a flying wing bomber. It may have had some plus points but it had two accidents too.No, I agree.
Aircraft development, unlike the automobile, was accelerated due to it's martial value.
While there were some experiments, the main focus was on tried and proven arrangements until the jet age, because the time between concept and production was critical.
If it weren't for WWI and WWII, the technology of flight might have taken much longer to maturate.
I also remember the conversation with the constructor of the EM-11. He said the push engine is always "less efficient" and this drawback of his plane is inevitable (but has other advantages, he says). But why is the rear propeller less efficient?
When running with the front engine shut down, the Cessna Skymaster overheated its rear engine.When running on only one engine the Do 335 was faster as a pusher than it was as a tractor.
When running on only one engine the Do 335 was faster as a pusher than it was as a tractor.
When running with the front engine shut down, the Cessna Skymaster overheated its rear engine.
Theoretically, I understand everything you write. But if such planes are more efficient, why didn't everybody build planes this way during the First and Second World Wars? I don't believe the story that everyone wanted to "bypass" the Wright Brothers patent. During the war, no one cares about patent rights (and the Soviet Union didn't even care in peacetime).
Wiki: Static canard designs can have complex interactions in airflow between the canard and the main wing, leading to issues with stability and behaviour in the stall.
Well, now I don't understand anything. So this Canard gives better stability or worse?
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 wing fold would have been interesting to see. Perhaps the wings would fold forward towards the canards?Looks like its a Miles M39 Libellula. Initially designed with a potential to be used on Carriers but never went into production.
The experimental carrier type looked like thisThe wing fold would have been interesting to see. Perhaps the wings would fold forward towards the canards?
Was the Lysander going to serve as COD? That seems the role for the Albacore.The experimental carrier type looked like this
View attachment 603688
There was also a tandem wing Lysander like this, from here Westland P.12 Tandem "Wing" Lysander
View attachment 603690
I don't know anything other than from wiki "P.12 Lysander Delanne (Unofficially referred to as the Westland Wendover)[24] Adaptation of a Lysander II as a turret fighter, its standard wing retained but with a twin tailed Delanne type rear wing and 4-gun Nash & Thompson power-operated tail gun turret replacing the empennage. It flew well but did not proceeded past trials with turret mock-up.[25]" I was just pointing out that not all of these planes are "canard" designs, tandem wings and Delanne wings are similar but different.Was the Lysander going to serve as COD? That seems the role for the Albacore.
One of my favourite what ifs for FAA special purposes aircraft is the Boulton Paul Sea Balliol fighter
Those remind me of Burt Rutan's old Quickie airplane.The experimental carrier type looked like this
View attachment 603688
There was also a tandem wing Lysander like this, from here Westland P.12 Tandem "Wing" Lysander
View attachment 603690