On May 13, 4:49*pm, "JR Weiss"
wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:
this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.
http:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.p*df

[URL corrected]

If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.

. . .

So larger tumbles means better fighters.

. . .

Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.

?!? *Absolute nonsense!

NOTHING in that article supports ANYTHING you say!

Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is disgusting.

?!? *They built a canard airplane. *It flew. *What is "disgusting" about that?

The article was a review article that supports a contention. The US
policy is to not use canards. This was one of my contentions in one
reply in this thread.

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.

And in the article a particular shortfall of the canard was it ability
to tumble. And tumble as a benefit was ignored. A canard can overcome
this shortfall by a properly sized rudder and vertcial stabilizer. And
perform one of the manuvers I suggest without failing. A 45 degree
banked Condor maneuver.