Tina

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!

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.

On Jun 10, 2:14 pm, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voi...@INVALIDiki.fi>
wrote:
> Tina wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 1:09 pm, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voi...@INVALIDiki.fi> wrote:
>
> >>Tina wrote:
>
> >>>One point about the lift fairy sitting on the tail I'd like to
> >>>understand is this -- actually a serious question. As I understand
> >>>it, nearly aways the tail is exerting a downward force, since theI
> >>>center of lift is aft of the center of gravity on general aviation
> >>>airplanes (that is true, isn't it -- that the cg is forward of the
> >>>center of lift?). If so the tail really is imposing an increased load
> >>>on the airplane, adding to its effective weight. The question I have
> >>>is, how many pounds of weight is imposed aerodynamically for an
> >>>airplane that might be loaded with its CG at the forward limit? I
> >>>don't know where the center of lift is on ga airplanes -- a third of
> >>>the way aft of the leading edge of the wing is an ok approximation,
> >>>but a few inches error on an airplane weighing what ours does at max
> >>>could make a huge change in the required force to overcome the nose
> >>>heavy moment.
>
> >>A rule of thumb is that the force on the horizontal tail
> >>is 5 to 10 per cent of the wing lift. This translates
> >>to a loss of 10 to 20 per cent of the raw gross lift
> >>availbale from the horizontal airfoils.
>
> >>>I'm obviously thinking about increased efficiency -- extra weight
> >>>added because of either fat people, full fuel, or aerodynamically
> >>>imposed, all cost horsepower (OK, watts for you purists) to move
> >>>around.
>
> >>This is the reason why modern military aircraft are designed
> >>aerodynamically unstable, and the electronic gnomes of the
> >>flight control system have to work all they can do.
>
> >>The loss of gross lift is the proce to pay for simple and
> >>safe longitudinal stability.
>
> >>--
>
> >>Tauno Voipio
> >>tauno voipio (at) iki fi
>
> > Thanks for the rule of thumb, Tauno. I have watched how busy the
> > flippers are on fighters when they are in the flare -- no human pilot
> > is working that hard for control. I knew the fighters are designed to
> > be aerodynamically unstable.
>
> > So the aerodynamic longitudinal stability the tail provides might
> > cost us 5 to 10%, The obvious question is, do canards buy back that
> > fraction? They would be offering positive lift, and if they stall
> > first would provide the same sort of longitudinal stability, wouldn't
> > they?
>
> Yes - they do bring back some, and this is the reasoning behind
> e.g. Rutan's Voyager,
>
> The price is that the canard (front wing) has to stall first
> unless you want to fall to ground in reverse when the thing
> stalls. The rumours are that the canards are a PITA to land
> nicely.
>
> --
>
> -Tauno