Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nadt770

Dihedral canard-why?

Recommended Posts

The theory is that by doing this the ailerons will have more undisturbed air crossing them, which will increase the roll rate/authority. However, the theory is not yet a proof and most are keeping their canards straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory is that by doing this the ailerons will have more undisturbed air crossing them, which will increase the roll rate/authority. However, the theory is not yet a proof and most are keeping their canards straight.

That may have been the original theory, but the folks that have the dihedral canards say that they can't tell any difference whatsoever from the straight one. Mostly, it's for looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly, it's for looks.

But... what about those that don't think it looks better? I, for one, am not smitten with the look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But... what about those that don't think it looks better? I, for one, am not smitten with the look.

I'm with you - I think it looks like crap, but that's what makes the world go round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jon and Mark. The wings are straight, why a dihedral canard, just does not follow any form as I see it.

 

Jack Morrison

E Racer 113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vance Atkinson (Cozy III) is on record in the CSA newsletters as saying:

1. The dihedral canard is more complex to build.

2. Takes longer to build.

3. He saw NO performance gains from his previous straight canard.

4. Would never do it again, wasn't worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rutan's airfoil guru is the one that came up with it. I've got one so I'm one that is all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no idea that people had constructed AND flown with dihedral canards?

Has anyone experimented with swept canards to anyones knowledge, and if so, the results/comments?

 

Cheers,

 

Bruce. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A swept canard would be significantly more complex to build. It could be done, and it might look snarky, but it wouldn't be faster.

 

You'd have to do a different canard attach system, since it would put torque on the current lift tab system. Since the elevators would no longer be in line you'd have a more complex way of activating them. Since span would be reduced you'd be creating more induced drag for the same lift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any substance in the theory that the dihedral Canard reduces the wash over the strakes/wings and therefore reduces drag?

 

Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any substance in the theory that the dihedral Canard reduces the wash over the strakes/wings and therefore reduces drag?

 

Bruce.

No performance difference has ever been measured on any aircraft that has changed from a straight to a dihedral canard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no idea that people had constructed AND flown with dihedral canards?

Has anyone experimented with swept canards to anyones knowledge, and if so, the results/comments?

 

Cheers,

 

Bruce. :)

yes, the beech starship and the zunni at chino have sweep canards. done to shift center of lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No performance difference has ever been measured on any aircraft that has changed from a straight to a dihedral canard.

In theory, there's a clear advanatage for the dihedral canard. By raising the tips, the canard wingtip vortex passes over the strakes with more clearance.

 

Now, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice - Marc's correct. Any difference in performance is not measurable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory, there's a clear advanatage for the dihedral canard. By raising the tips, the canard wingtip vortex passes over the strakes with more clearance.

 

Now, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice - Marc's correct. Any difference in performance is not measurable.

there was a study on a long eze done by a collage student and that study deterined that the tips needed to be 14" higher to make a difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there was a study on a long eze done by a collage student and that study deterined that the tips needed to be 14" higher to make a difference

I think you're referring to these two "reports":

 

http://users.wpi.edu/~stay1or/INTROW.html

 

and:

 

http://users.wpi.edu/~stay1or/canard2.htm

 

We've discussed these a couple of times here, once a year and a half ago at:

 

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11252&postcount=74

 

and again a month ago at:

 

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16827&postcount=53

 

I wouldn't use any of the "conclusions" that were drawn in these papers (and I couldn't find any reference to a 14" canard height above the main wing in them, but I didn't kill myself looking) as an indication of what anyone should or shouldn't do regarding full scale aircraft (or even models, for that matter). As I said, these were interesting undergrad experiments, but they're far more useful as a learning experience in how to use wind tunnels for the experimenter than they are as information sources for aerodynamicists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×