"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...

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.

The article does NOT support that contention. If you think it does, post the
appropriate citation.


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

It does NOT! It discusses the Wright Flyer as ONE example in a "Historical
Overview"! Post the specific citation that you claim supports your statement.


And in the article a particular shortfall of the canard was it ability to
tumble.

It did NOT! It cited the behavior of a SPECIFIC DESIGN -- the XP-55!


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.

Say what?!? How does a rudder and vertical stabilizer relate to a pure PITCH
response?!?

Also, how can a canard "overcome this shortfall" if you believe a canard CAUSED
this "shortfall?!? You're again talking absolute NONSENSE!