In another tech/ops thread I'm involved in, another poster mentioned that the canard mounting point is a "busy" area of the plane's structure. I could see how putting an engine in there would just make things a mess.
It seems in the case of the Beech Starship, they *could* have used a tractor configuration, although the engine nacelles would have to have been longer to keep the props from hitting the swept leading edge of the wing. Then the aircraft would have benefitted from induced lift due to the prop wash. Then again, it is a product of Burt Rutan's mind.
Interesting. That one's new to me. Having intimate knowledge of the Cessna 182 nose area, I'm wondering how the canard interfaces structurally with the airframe. The only relatively beefy part up there is the engine mount
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1677 posts, RR: 49
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4608 times:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 3): A canard must have its center of gravity much further back than an ordinary plane. That would be hard with a heavy engine up front.
This is the answer. The more forward the CG, the higher the share of the lift being carried by the canard. Since the canard is generally already the limiting surface (since it rarely has high lift devices), you really want your CG as far back as you can get it.
KPWMSpotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 474 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4450 times:
In the designs you reference, the aircraft aren't pusher-configuration to fascilitate canard installation, the canard design was actually driven by the desire for a pusher engine configuration.
When you're powering an aircraft with a propeller, it is desirable to install the propeller in a pusher configuration. Tractor propellers are inherently destabilizing, and forward mounted engines are much harder to fair for aerodynamic efficiency. Pusher propellers are stabilizing, and allow a much more streamlined nose.
The Long-EZ configuration is just one which "works". It's aerodynamically efficient and all of the pieces are in the right place. If you shuffled the flying surfaces around to a conventional configuration (wing forward), the CG would be way too far aft. With the Starship, sure you could mount the engines the other way around, but then you would lose the stabilizing and aerodynamic benefits of a pusher propeller.
The only tractor canard aircraft I'm aware of are STOL conversions (like the Robertson STOL C182 posted above). In this case, the canards aren't true lifting surfaces, they are installed to supplement the elevators and allow more control authority at low airspeeds. In this case it's a good thing to have the canards in the prop wash, giving more control effectiveness.
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1954 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4367 times:
A lot of people don't care for the thought of debris off the wheels getting kicked up into their $3,000 props. But canards are almost stall proof. If you read the final version of the John Denver report, he had to work pretty hard at crashing his Long-Ez.
Not to get bogged down in semantics, but the Quickie series and the Grizzly aren't truly canard aircraft, they are tandem wing aircraft (since the forward surface contributes a significant percentage of the total lift).
There's nothing *wrong* with installing a tractor propeller on a canard aircraft, but the configuration certainly does make it easy to install a pusher propeller (and why not install the pusher propeller when you can, it being aerodynamically superior).