Jac Mac

Jon & Rick, Good to see that I have sparked some interest, I think that there are probably many more who have asked themselves the same Questions. I agree that we are looking at a fresh design here probably incorporating the best of many feature's including a few from the 'backward canards'. To get you on the same train of thought that I'm on think along these lines, I will use the Europa as an example not because I like them but it does contain a few of the feature,s I have mentioned. Chop the Fuselage off @ the trailing edge of the wing, and again @ the firewall. Now graft the Firewall Fwd components on to the rear of the main wing complete with pusher prop. This would have the prop c/l at the same height as the top of the canopy. Now graft the old Tailcone ( Minus vertical fin and with the Horizontal Stabiliser reversed to become your canard ) on to the old Firewall. Add your vertical fin/s to your wingtips or on two tailbooms with inverted 'V'. Put some sweepback if desired ( not too much, we should all know why). The ' Main' Monowheel will now have to be moved slightly rearward in the centre 'Tunnel' and the nose wheel [steerable] mounted so that in a taxi configuration the a/c has a definite nose down attitude. With this setup I know we are getting close to a Flying wing rather than canard, however the undercarriage system described would allow the landing / takeoff distances to be shortened considerably. On touchdown the a/c could immediately be 'pushed over' on to the nosewheel ,killing the lift on the main wing and allow hard braking if required. At takeoff the flying attitude should be able to be assumed earlier also. Flap,s may be able to be incorporated that only work during the takeoff phase . The Canard would need some arrangement where the range of movement (limits) could be controlled by a load sensor or linkage on the U/C. Hows that for a starter. I had better go earn some $$ now , catch you later. Jac Mac

Sorry Marc, When I joined last week our Broadband ' dropped' me ,as I was about to do the profile thing. I'm from New Zealand, way down south. Im not locked in to either basic canard configuration ( If you consider the Q2/ Dragonfly one type & the LE , E-Racer etc the other type ). Take the Q2/ -D/fly setup for a start, Fit a large monowheel ala Europa & retain some small/light wheels in the canard tips for taxi purposes. Use thicker airfoils,& or longer spans to achieve the speed goals as reqd. In this configuration the goals may be more achievable due to the similar size of canard & main wing whereas the L.E. has a large size difference between canard/main wing and harder to balance for flight @ both ends of the speed range. With these we would have to arrange weight in order to keep fuel /passenger at the cof g. Jac Mac

Cheers Jac Mac

Hi Folks, Is there anyone on here that has looked into an airfoil that would allow slower speeds on these aircraft, even at the cost of top end either in actual scale models or real aircraft. I,ve read 'Riblett' and feel it can be done as long as the canard is balanced to the main wing. The main reason to do so comes from the need to operate from grass strips & shorter runways. Obviously the landing gear ( wheel dia ) would need a rethink ( perhaps along the lines of the Mono-wheel ). I would like to place the canard low @ the front and the main wing high at the rear similar to a dragonfly in side profile, but with the L- E, Velocity etc configuration in plan form with pusher prop etc. With the prop c/l up high the Mono wheel configuration would not necessarily have to be retacted. Not looking for 200 mph here, 160/170 mph would be plenty on say 125/140 hp. Stall or min S/L to comply with our LSA would be slow enough. Any thoughts? Jac Mac

" Colin Chapman Lotus Engineering" the book by Hugh Haskell has chapter on this a/c. There are also a couple of paragraphs in the 'Bert Rutan'- reinventing the airplane- pg 139 & 255. Jac Mac

Probably old news but was this not the 'Discovery"? or something very similar. Jac Mac