![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 11, 12:45 am, Ron wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Tina wrote: Thanks again. My intelligent but ignorant guess is designing canards so that they stall first should not take a genius, but there may be traps I don't see. The world is safe, though, since I don't design airplane. The landing issue you raised is pretty neat, since most of us -- especially Mooney drivers -- are careful about airspeed on final and in the flare, and like to land with the wings almost stalled. But in the case of a canard if that stalls first I think the airplane would very enthusiastically want to pitch forward hard enough to bend the nosewheel! I haven't flown a canard, but my son has done a lot of flying in one that was under development. You are right... you don't want to stall the canard on landing. You fly it all the way to the ground. Three problems with the canard, as my son saw it, was lack of forward visibility on landing, drag from the canard in cruise flight (a fixed canard has to have its AOA greater than the wing and enough surface to generate lift) and ice shedding off the wings through the propelllor. Piaggio solved the drag problem, partially, with a three surface aircraft and a relatively small canard. I believe Beechcraft attempted to solve it with a variable sweep canard, but I could be wrong. At least with the stabilizer still flying the nose might be able to be put down more gently. You've provided some nice insights, thanks. My son says canard landings are like the "Little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead"... when they are good, they are very very good, but when they are bad they are horrid. :-) Ron Kelley Yes, it seems to me (again, ignorant of the reality) that the airplane has to be flown onto the runway, rather than stalled onto it. When we land the airplane is done flying, period, but flying it on means it's fast enough to take off again. The higher angle of attack causing drag in cruise trade-off is a bit of a surprise since what is gained is aerodynamic positive lift from those little wings in front of the airplane, instead of the negative lift from those wings most of us have on the back end that are increasing the aerodynamic load. Fun discussion, thanks. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F-100 detail | Pjmac35 | Aviation Photos | 0 | July 26th 07 10:29 AM |
Finding "Neutral" Position on Piper Elevator/Trim Tab | [email protected] | Owning | 10 | December 7th 06 01:43 PM |
Detail pops in too late in FS2004 | CatharticF1 | Simulators | 0 | August 27th 03 03:25 AM |