sept 24: today is my birthday. a happy anniversary with my grand daughter and family. as she is very much into learning spanish too, she mixes words of english and spanish. 1 of them is saying happy verde instead of happy birthday, as verde (green) sounds close, so now we all are using these mixes as part of our everyday conversation (by the way, happy verde is also a frog of her-a toy).
just like james bond is 007 (double o7), now am double 7. close enough!
i started early, as usual, and at the park, even if no wind, everything went wrong: 1 motor went south, a servo died on another plane, on another the cell kept sliding out and hanging, the tx batt required replacement (i had the spare), moskitos were the worst ever, but still, nothing could spoil my day. just think about it: if this is the worst i can have, how could i complain?
after that, i had breakfast with my son and his wife and daughter-see pic.
life is good, don't you think?

canards are not as simple as conventionals. they are more sensitive to changes in trim and angle of attack, and as they are not symmetrical, are not so good for aerobatics. are more fragile-and/or heavier. you have to reinforce that front wing.
and, with few exceptions, are ugly. "weird", is the best i can say.
but then, why am doing them?
well, for 2 reasons: i like pushers, and they seem the most practical solution for pushers, for this size of planes. and when i saw the firefox and the superjet, that look good to me, i decided to give'em a try.
with them, as the canard needs considerable angle of attack, even if you use sym wing, loops are quite a challenge, and when inverted, hard to give enough signal to stay, due to that positive angle of attack of the canard. even with elevator on the canard. but it's a pleasure to watch them flying. look like jets. and if you try to use a high lift airfoil on the wing, well, the cg goes out of the range used on most of them as suggested on the cg calculations chart. you have to try and play with it until you find it.

Once i learned where the cg goes, i developed Snowgoose MkII to compare response with the Mk I. it has moving elevator and the ailerons are operated with the rudder stick and linked with a sukhoi bellcrank. it's lighter as components are better placed to avoid extra weight of ballast to balance. same motor/gearbox, rx.
the Mk I and Mk II planes are so close that i will have to paint some colors to differentiate them. and this version with elevator on front makes better rolls. the Mk I didn't compensate so well with 'down' signal when going through the inverted part of the roll.
more details here:
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show....php?t=1507498

conclusions on AR6400 receiver/brick

after extensive field testing it, i have reached the following conclusions:

excellent performance when using it for small planes (park fliers); the range is all that i need; precise response at all times; the capability of programming the receiver besides the transmitter is a great advance.

still, there are 2 things that i would like to have:
1.-the connector for the motor is too small and the pressure too light: sometimes it gets loose and the motor does not run-or stops. to me, it should have a tighter grip. the smallest that i would like to see should be something like this:
https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...airs_bag_.html
these are the same that come with this esc that i use:
https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...idProduct=9667
2.-considering how advanced it is, with features as programming the receiver besides the transmitter, it should have the means to let us see if the channels are on normal or reverse, like what we have with the DX6 or DX6i transmitter, where we can see that. otherwise it is a nightmare to learn if the channels are on normal or reverse.

this is my personal opinion, based on my experience