Air_is_a_liquid

Nevermind... admin please delete this posting.. there are plenty of threads around on this topic.

What do you mean by flat-flush? Is it like adding maple skids on the nose, in leiu of nose landing gear? How does this help with interior space?

I think that making it bigger does not mean scaling everything by x percent... at that point, it's like you have to design a whole other aircraft from scratch!

If only I could build everything 1.13% larger with the same Reynolds number.... now i might as well be slinging a neuse or purchasing a Starship off of rutan...

Can anyone here imagine what it was like for me in a Cessna 150 in my solo-ing days?

I am also looking at the Cozy IV, as I stand 6'5" tall and weigh 250lbs. Is there another make I should be looking at due to my size and weight? Will the Cozy be a problem for me?

I guess I'll have to try some out at Oshkosh this year.

Hi Everyone;

Newbie here. Wondering why so many people are building Canards? I've managed to find short lists of the advantages and disadvantages of Canards in general, however, what made you choose a canard over a traditional design for your home-built?

Here's a list from Desktop Aero:

Advantages

Possibility for very good stalling characteristics without elevator stops.

Sometimes a desirable layout from the packaging standpoint: Main wing carry-through behind cabin, pusher engine installation simplified.

Synergistic use of winglets for directional stability.

In certain cases a simplified control linkage is possible.

When wing flaps are not desired (for simplicity as in ultralights, or competition rules as with standard class sailplanes for example) the CLmax of a canard may exceed that of an aft-tail airplane.

For unstable aircraft, canard designs may have a CLmax and/or drag advantage.

Control authority is larger for unstable canard aircraft at high CL than for unstable aft-tail designs.

Disadvantages

Fuel center of gravity lies farther behind aircraft c.g. than in conventional designs. This means that a large c.g. range is produced or that the fuel must be held elsewhere (e.g. strakes near the wing root.)

CLmax problems with flaps or margin on the entire wing: Flaps produce a larger pitching moment about the c.g. on a canard aircraft. This results in the need for both large canard aerodynamic incidence change and high maximum canard lift coefficient. Note that since the value of a S is usually larger for canard designs, Cm0 has a greater impact on L than it does on aft-swept designs.

Induced drag / CLmax incompatibility: Canard designs can achieve equal or better CLmax values than conventional designs, and similar values of span efficiency. However, the configurations with high CLmax values have terrible values of e and those with respectable e 's have low maximum lift coefficients.

Directional stability: The distance from the aircraft c.g. to the most aft part of the airplane is usually smaller on canard aircraft. This poses a problem for locating a vertical stabilizer and may result in very large vertical surfaces. (Note, however, that winglets may be used to advantage in this case.)

Wing twist distribution is strange and CL dependent: The wing additional load distribution is distorted by the canard wake.

Power effects on canard - deep stall: Accidents have been associated with tractor canard configurations for which the propeller slipstream has prevented canard stall before wing stall. The result is a possible deep-stall problem.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. By choosing a canard which is somewhat too big or too small the aircraft performance can be severely affected. It is easy to make a very bad canard design