Hi Scott-
I was exaggerating for effect- However, my understanding is that canards are
theoretically more efficient because the canard provides a lift component as
opposed to a horizontal stabilizer that has to create negative lift. In both
cases the aircraft is balanced so the nose drops during a stall. In practice,
the canard *has* to stall before the main wing. The “deep stall” experienced
during a flight test on the Velocity is a case in point. That plane entered a
stable vertical descent- I think it was 500 FPM- and couldn’t be gotten out of
it. The pilot actually opened the door and tried to shift CG by leaning forward.
Fortunately it landed in water and the pilot survived with back injuries. The
factory did some innovative testing to try to understand what happened.
I had one of the first Velocity kits (a very early RG), and after
some time we received cuffs that we were told to put on the elevator LE. I
wasn’t thrilled- I already had everything built and carefully adjusted. I never
heard an explanation, just that it was to adjust the gap and decrease the lift
of the canard. From this, I’d speculate that during the incident the main wing
partially stalled while the canard kept flying. Under those circumstances the
nose couldn’t drop and the wing couldn’t regain lift. So the fix was a
compromise that reduced efficiency in return for an extra margin of
safety.
I never finished mine as I saw enough fatalities over the years and found
too many construction aspects that I didn’t like. In the end I decided the plane
was too limited in terms of fuel capacity and payload so I abandoned it. My
understanding is that as a stall approaches the canard stalls first due to
higher loading, dropping the nose and regaining airspeed. If the conditions
continued, the process would repeat. -Bill Wade
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:36 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice
LNC2
Bill,
Recently there have been many canards on this list - Oh, maybe you meant
aircraft with canards. I challenge your statement that they are more
efficient. However, they do operate well in the ETE as long as the canard
remains clean as a smutty canard causes loss of lift on that crucial
wingy-thingy. Only Klaus has an efficient canard aircraft although you may
have to find out how much power he wrings out his engine and what that funny
skinny prop is doing. BTW, they are good airplanes that avoid main wing
stalls and just mush on down.
Grayhawk
In a message dated 1/12/2013 12:18:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com writes:
In this discussion I’m surprised that Canards haven’t been
mentioned. It’s well known they’re more efficient- surely that’s due to the
fact that they were designed from the ground up to fly backwards.
Also, given the fact that there’s a reversal of the Coriolis
effect between the two hemispheres why hasn’t there been a discussion of ETE-
Equitorial Transition Effect? That’s the warping of the space/time continuum
as you approach the Equator and then experience the reversal during passage.
This is distinct from ETA- Everyone’s Talking Australian, a spatial and
temporal dissonance caused by situations such as:
What’s a Goanna- is that what’s eating my Marmite (a cute, fuzzy
marsupial).
Is it polite to play your Didgeridoo in public or it only for consenting
adults?
You get the idea... Cheers- Bill Wade