Stability of canard aircraft

The stability criteria for a canard or tail-first configuration aircraft (Fig. 11.8) are essentially the same as for a conventional one. When the aircraft is trimmed, the forward wing (foreplane) should be arranged to generate a higher lift coefficient than the rearward wing (main-plane). The foreplane is therefore usually set at a higher geometric incidence than the main-plane, thus giving lon­gitudinal dihedral. On a canard it is the larger rear wing surface that generates

Fig. 11.8 A stable canard arrangement

The aircraft has to be trimmed with the foreplane generating a higher lift coefficient than the main-plane. The foreplane is therefore normally set at a higher incidence.

most of the lift, so it follows that on a stable canard, both surfaces must be producing lift.

Since both surfaces on a canard produce positive lift, the overall wing area, total weight, and drag can all be lower than for the conventional arrangement. Also, as we have already mentioned, pitch control is achieved by lifting the nose by increasing the foreplane lift, rather than by pushing the tail down. This shortens the take-off run, and generally improves the pitch control character­istics. The manoeuvrability of the canard configuration is one of the features that makes it attractive for interceptor aircraft (see Figs 10.1 and 10.8).

Another claimed advantage of the canard is, that since the foreplane is at a higher angle of attack than the main-plane, the foreplane will stall before the main-plane, thus making such aircraft virtually unstallable. Unfortunately in violent manoeuvres, or highly turbulent conditions this may not be true, and once both planes stall, recovery may be impossible, because neither surface can be used to produce any control effect.

The main problems with the canard configuration stem from interference effects between the foreplane wake and the main wing. In particular, the down – wash from the foreplane tilts the main wing resultant force vector backwards, thus increasing the drag. By careful design, however, the advantages can be made to outweigh the disadvantages, and highly successful canard designs by Burt Rutan such as the Vari-Eze shown in Fig. 4.20 provoked renewed interest in the concept.

For forward-swept wings, as on the X-29 shown in Fig. 9.20, the foreplane interference can be a positive benefit, as the downwash suppresses the tendency of the inboard wing section to stall at high angles of attack.

For pressurised passenger aircraft, the canard arrangement has the added advantage that the main wing spar can pass behind the pressure cabin, as in the Beech Starship shown in Fig. 4.10. A problem remains in that, unless there is a rearward extension of the fuselage, the fin (vertical stabiliser) may have to be large to compensate for the fact that it is not very far aft of the centre of gravity.