HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 06, 2013, 01:52 AM
who has rabbit ears down
Captain Canardly's Avatar
United States, MN, Buffalo
Joined Jan 2007
3,588 Posts
The Pro 7 build is available now, so My work is now public
Captain Canardly is offline Find More Posts by Captain Canardly
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Doin' What come naturally!
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 10, 2013, 02:11 PM
Registered User
cracksmeup's Avatar
United States, IL, Joliet
Joined Jun 2009
3,386 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickchud View Post
Dereck
I'm in California right now. I want to say that people here are much more encouraging and interested in model plane experiments than I find in England. While I'm at it, baseball is definitely more boring than cricket. So there.

I use to playbase ball all through school as a catcher but could never sit in the stands and watch a game. .joe
cracksmeup is offline Find More Posts by cracksmeup
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 04:35 PM
Registered User
Joined Jun 2005
2,462 Posts
Equaduck Build

My fear was that the vertical stabilizer would warp since it was less than 1/8" thick after sanding. It turned out true probably because of the thin film covering.
The landing gear will be next, then fuselage finishing and main wing.

Charles
canard addict is offline Find More Posts by canard addict
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 04:49 PM
Registered User
cracksmeup's Avatar
United States, IL, Joliet
Joined Jun 2009
3,386 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by canard addict View Post
My fear was that the vertical stabilizer would warp since it was less than 1/8" thick after sanding. It turned out true probably because of the thin film covering.
The landing gear will be next, then fuselage finishing and main wing.

Charles
I made my vertical stabilzers out of balsa but if i use foam i give them a couple coats of minwax water based poly to stiffen them up without adding any extra weight or cut a slot in the foam for some flat carbon fiber strips. joe
cracksmeup is offline Find More Posts by cracksmeup
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2013, 09:16 PM
What could possibly go wrong?
nickchud's Avatar
Market Harborough
Joined Apr 2006
3,695 Posts
Charles!

Good to see progress on your Equaduck. A really interesting, unusual project. I'm looking forward to the maiden flight.

Good luck Charles!

nickchud is online now Find More Posts by nickchud
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 05:29 AM
Registered User
Joined Sep 2006
60 Posts
Just out of interest, are canards easier or more difficult to fly than a standard aircraft design (elevator at the rear of the main wing).

Thanks

Tom
corkyo4 is offline Find More Posts by corkyo4
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 08:18 AM
Registered User
Don Stackhouse's Avatar
United States, OH, Bradford
Joined Jun 2005
4,027 Posts
That depends on the details of the design, could go either way. If the canard aircraft is designed and set up properly, it will not stall, which is usually a plus. However, this is not an inherent characteristic of a canard, it's something that has to be designed in. And, if it isn't designed in properly, the plane's stall characteristics could be astonishingly vicious!

Furthermore, it is very possible to design an aft-tailed layout to be stall resistant or stall proof, for about the same amount of effort or less on the part of the designer.

So, as I said, in actual practice it can go either way. However, the ones (of either type) that have truly awful characteristics fairly quickly tend to remove themselves from the "gene pool" via "natural selection".
Don Stackhouse is offline Find More Posts by Don Stackhouse
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 10:22 AM
Registered User
Joined Jun 2005
2,462 Posts
Nickchud
Quote:
Good to see progress on your Equaduck. A really interesting, unusual project. I'm looking forward to the maiden flight.
The maiden should be less nerve wracking since the Equaduck is identical to the twin in design details. My main turn on or interest in the model is that it has two wings well separated from each other with the CG at the center of the fuselage which means that the payload can be spread equally from front to back. Also all control surfaces have good leverage about the CG. Why can't all passenger and load carrying planes have this feature rather than putting all the load on a central wing which has no protection from stalling? The Boeing Sonic Liner seems like an ideal passenger plane.
canard addict is offline Find More Posts by canard addict
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 11:42 AM
Registered User
Don Stackhouse's Avatar
United States, OH, Bradford
Joined Jun 2005
4,027 Posts
Ah, but it is NOT a good thing to have "equal loading from front to back". The front surface is smaller and less efficient than the back one, and its downwash distorts the inflow into the aft wing, hurting its efficiency some more, over and above the basic penalty of its having to fly in a downdraft created by the canard. Having half the load carried by that smaller canard hurts the aircraft's efficiency. Airliners commercially live and die by their efficiency.

With today's instrumentation, training, and flying protocols, stalling is not the hazard it used to be (at least for that class of aircraft), other than some highly abnormal situations.

Furthermore, properly designed an aft-tail layout can have protection from stalling, and a canard layout does not inherently have protection from stalling (it has to be DESIGNED in, and doing so usually includes some performance compromises), as I have pointed out a number of times before, including in this thread.
Don Stackhouse is offline Find More Posts by Don Stackhouse
Last edited by Don Stackhouse; Mar 17, 2013 at 11:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 12:55 PM
Registered User
cracksmeup's Avatar
United States, IL, Joliet
Joined Jun 2009
3,386 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by corkyo4 View Post
Just out of interest, are canards easier or more difficult to fly than a standard aircraft design (elevator at the rear of the main wing).

Thanks

Tom
Tom i think they are almost the same to fly but i had to get use to the watching the different outline of a canard while flying it. After flying planes for so long with the elev in the rear it looks funny with it in the front flying them. My first canard i built and flew was 25 years ago with a 25 nitro motor and i bashed a foam kit to build my first one. I have not built another one until now but i have always wanted another one ,they kinda get in your blood . joe
cracksmeup is offline Find More Posts by cracksmeup
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 01:06 PM
What could possibly go wrong?
nickchud's Avatar
Market Harborough
Joined Apr 2006
3,695 Posts
The Long EZ layout is easy to fly, bearing in mind Don's points. Not really challenging aerobatically however. Rutan meant it to be safe and efficient, I think and it is a very successful format.

Getting the CG right is the key to flying canards IMHO. You can have quite an exciting time if you want one, just by moving the CG back a little.

Nick
nickchud is online now Find More Posts by nickchud
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 01:23 PM
Registered User
cracksmeup's Avatar
United States, IL, Joliet
Joined Jun 2009
3,386 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickchud View Post
The Long EZ layout is easy to fly, bearing in mind Don's points. Not really challenging aerobatically however. Rutan meant it to be safe and efficient, I think and it is a very successful format.

Getting the CG right is the key to flying canards IMHO. You can have quite an exciting time if you want one, just by moving the CG back a little.

Nick
You got it right on the cg Nick ,the first one i built long ago i guessed on the cg and was wrong . It took off and went nose up and over into the ground. I kept moving the cg forward and rebuilding my plane untill it flew good but he first 4 flights were very exciting but the bad kind of ecxciting . lmao Most at my club field were laughing about it till i got it dialed in then they all wanted one. joe
cracksmeup is offline Find More Posts by cracksmeup
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 03:23 PM
What could possibly go wrong?
nickchud's Avatar
Market Harborough
Joined Apr 2006
3,695 Posts
Quote:
till i got it dialed in then they all wanted one. joe
Yes, it can be a race to get it set up while it's still fly-able.
Don't forget to remove the uncertainty by going to the CoG calculator.

I think another reason for the success of the LongEZ format is that everything - motor and wings - is in the same plane, horizontally. So no need to worry about incidence except for the canard, which we want to lift a little more than its share.

nickchud is online now Find More Posts by nickchud
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 03:37 PM
Registered User
cracksmeup's Avatar
United States, IL, Joliet
Joined Jun 2009
3,386 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickchud View Post
The Long EZ layout is easy to fly, bearing in mind Don's points. Not really challenging aerobatically however. Rutan meant it to be safe and efficient, I think and it is a very successful format.

Getting the CG right is the key to flying canards IMHO. You can have quite an exciting time if you want one, just by moving the CG back a little.

Nick
My company shop is across the street from a small airport and there is a couple long EZ there ,when our club is having our cook out every year they do flybys and rolling flybys for us. joe
cracksmeup is offline Find More Posts by cracksmeup
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2013, 07:18 PM
What could possibly go wrong?
nickchud's Avatar
Market Harborough
Joined Apr 2006
3,695 Posts
Don
Quote:
Having half the load carried by that smaller canard hurts the aircraft's efficiency. Airliners commercially live and die by their efficiency.
I've read in several places that the Long EZ is faster and more fuel efficient than other small planes with similar loads.

Fuel efficiency and lift to drag are important for some model flying applications, I agree. Luckily for us, we can often pay attention to the ratio of fun to fuss instead of miles to gallons.

nickchud is online now Find More Posts by nickchud
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools