I agree. I ’ve never understood the canard system, now it’s done. 😊 The only problems, you need a taxiway built in strong material, and it must have a very short time of answering when you turn or dive. 😮 (excuse my english).
As a Cozy builder, you did an outstanding job of giving a concise explanation of the comparisons and contrasts between conventional horizontal stabilizer, and canard aircraft. Well done keeping it as short as it needs to be, while hitting the important points. I would not change anything. Obviously you and I could have sat for hours and gone down the rabbit hole of Burt Rutan canard designs, but that would make a boring video for most. An idea for your next video subject, maybe talk about the history of Burt Rutan's Long EZ and Nat Puffer's Cozy?
I never thought about the complexity of this aircraft. When I lived in Santa Barbara, I remember a good friend of mine that already passed, building a cozy in his backyard. I never figured out how to fly it but I swore to myself never to get in. Now I know how fascinating it results this canard thing. Thank you for sharing.
I've had a spot in my heart to do this very thing for a long time. I was a crew chief on AC-130U for 6 years and owned an SQ-1000 (E-Racer derivative.) I love these aircraft and Burt Rutan blazed a trail for us. Thank you for this contribution to GA!
I fell in love with the Cunard design when I saw the Quickie flying out in Mojave, CA back in the 1980's. It was maneuvering like an F-16 with only a Volkswagen engine. But I've since learned it had it's own problems too. With it's landing gear out at the wing tips, hard landings could fracture the wing spar. But it sure was a sleek plane to look at.
There may be many people who know more about aviation than you do, but I'm definitely not one of them. So thank you for those very informative explanations! I have always wondered why some airplanes employ the "duckwing configuration" and since there must be a reason for it, why not more planes do it. Now I understood.
Thank you for the excellent description. Good details to make your points. These are the kind of educational videos that TH-cam, Rumble, Odyssey and the rest need. Liked and subscribed!
The reason the rear tail plane pushes down in not to balance the engine weight. Rather, it is because of the forward moment of lift produced by the main wing. That is why if you throw a model aircraft wing, it tumbles forward.
In a way, it's both... the center of lift is usually a bit forward of mid-chord INCLUDING the weight of the engine. As he explains for the canard craft, add a payload up front, and on a conventional-stabilizer plane, you need to balance it with down-force behind the center of lift. On the canard plane, the extra lift compensates for payload.
@@KutWrite The rear tailplane also pushes down on a glider. The displaced (relative to C of G) centre of lift is the cause of the tail needing to push down. Yes, the more weight you have at the front, the more it needs to push down - or, the further the tail needs to be situated away from the Cof G to increase the moment arm.
@@johnelliott8630 Some do..true. But lifting tails are speed sensitive and require a very aft CG. Go too fast and the tail makes excess lift…which raises the tail…increasing speed. The “tailplane takeover” phenomenon is known and can dive a plane into the ground. I had a RC model once that had a flat bottomed (Clark Y) tail airfoil…normal flight was fine…but in a dive it would suddenly tighten up into a steep drop that needed a lot of up elevator to correct. And yep…the OP is spot on, wings without stabilisers tumble. Flying wings have reflex airfoils or sweep to get surface behind the CG.
Nice job! I built N36LV, this plane’s big brother. She has 370HP, comfortably seats 5, cruises at 195 kts and sips 13.5 gallons per hour. Sadly, retirement and insurance costs caused us to part ways. I learned a few things during our six years (11 counting the build time) of flying. Watch out for extended descents with lowish fuel levels. If the tanks are plumbed like a Velocity, you can unport the fuel pickups. Make sure those cowling fasteners are really good quality because everything, and I mean EVERYTHING back there goes through the propeller arc. I used screws at first but got tired of patching the prop with JB Weld. Take a look at Skybolt C Locks. Never had one come off. That canard stall is known as a Pitch Buck. I could climb at 3000 fpm with the stick full aft and the nose hammering up and down. Fun but kind of violent in a Velocity and passengers don’t like it at all. Like the V, it will probably make one really good water landing in an emergency. They can float for days. You will know you are a proficient canard pilot when you can perform 3 consecutive touch-and-go’s without letting the nosewheel hit the tarmac. Enjoy.
N36LV is a beautiful machine! Curious about the choice to put the exhaust forward - is that to keep it away from the prop arc? I have not heard of Cozy's unporting the fuel pickups except in a slip at low fuel levels (which can happen in most any airplane, really). I'll look into it, but I have not heard/read of this issue in the Cozy. The cowling fasteners are currently MS24694-S50 screws and yes, after losing one through the prop, my preflight now includes checking tightness of all of the cowl fasteners. I had a look at the Skybolt C fasteners, I will add them to my list! Thanks for writing!
@@agusbahagia5122 no. You have to be careful not to over-rotate for this exact reason. Not normally an issue however. You also don't flare when landing, you just round out the descent and then let it fly onto the ground, kind of like a jet.
@@CanardBoulevard Another silly question, do you yell “clear prop!” just before cranking up for engine start? Do you start the engine with canopy still open or closed? I know it sounds so silly but that engine is in the back, out of sight.
thankyou for going in depth about the shape of the plane and concept of canards and their part in making the plane airborne. I was initially not that interested but then I was hooked.
And that’s exactly why these days you will see 600 RVs at Oshkosh and a handful of canards. They are extremely labor intensive to build. RVs aren’t “easy”, but they are a lot more prefabricated than composite airplanes and no 1000 hrs of sanding. They are also a much more versatile airplane with better field performance. They might not be quite as efficient, though they are pretty close, but with over 12000 built and flown clearly the homebuilt community has decided they don’t much care about efficiency.
I've been subscribed form the start of this channel. Never herd of a Canard before. I think it's a really cool looking airplane. I like watching this channel. I find it very interesting.
Fantastic video and content sir. Thank you for posting. Fun fact. Curtis Wright made a similar craft in the 40,s called assender.... during stall tests a test pilot stalled one and fell 18,000 feet a...ah..rear end first..he bailed and survived. The plane was then known as ass ender. One prototype exists at Kalamazoo air Zoo in ...you guessed it.. Kalamazoo MI.
That was the 14BIS from the actual father of aviation Alberto Santos Dumont not the wright brothers hahaha…jokes aside his plane was actually the first one to fly on its own power not being catapulted into the air. I love the velocity airplane and hope to one day be able to buy one
I enjoyed this video. I don't know if you mentioned it (I can't remember) but another plus of our canards is that we don't have to worry much about maintaining a "coordinated turn"! Also, you didn't mention that instead of flaps we have an air brake to slow the airplane during landings if needed. I say "if needed" because it's all in speed control. The approach will be a bit shallower without it but doable, for me that's SOP. Another advantage of canard designs: it's been so long that I haven't had to deal with "Adverse Yaw" that I can't even remember what that was all about. 😉
I find that the landing brake doesn't slow me a huge amount, but what it does do is STABILIZE the airspeed. Without it, it's really hard to maintain a consistent airspeed on final, it's very sensitive to pitch and power. With the brake deployed, it dampens those excursions and makes it much easier to maintain a constant airspeed.
@@CanardBoulevard Yes, 100% agree, very, very sensitive to pitch and power and it's very noticeable on approach. I've learned to land mine without the speed brake but it's just like you say, very difficult to stabilize the speed. I've tried slowing it down with rudders and by slipping but that's not very effective either. It's a slippery devil. What does work for me is pitching up early on approach, wait for speed to bleed out and maintain with power. I had to learn to land that way because when I did my transition training the speed brake would not stay down, I've fixed it since but I still do my landings the same way I learned initially. I will experiment more with the speed brake now that you've given me some new insight on its use.
Best video I have seen on canard aircraft. I was sold until 12:00 where we learn the aircraft can be stalled, something all the other videos I watched did not cover or stress.
Just about anything that flies can be stalled. What is different about a canard airplane is that even if it's stalled it will not become uncontrollable like most other airplanes. That's what makes a canard safer and more "stall and spin proof."
This was a great video! Thanks for such a simple way to explain what this unique plane is all about. I'm just a simmer but this plane is so unique I wanted to know more. SUB!
a VELOCITY or flat out ''rebuilding a BEECH STARSHIP 2000'' all new building techniques and watnot NEW STRONGER COMPOSITS.... oh my if it can be pressurized too now.... oh ... yesssssss... ummm I have liked the platform for DECADES :)
I enjoyed the explanation. Thanks. A couple of things that I wonder about. 1. How do you avoid hitting the prop on the ground? 2. How do you not end up with a nose strike on landing? I can imagine speed being your friend in both answers, and as you mentioned in the video, but can you expand on that?
The only time you're concerned about prop strike is during takeoff, or when the airplane is parked. The rule of thumb is to keep the canard below the horizon (from the pilot's perspective) during rotation and liftoff. The only other time is when it's parked on the ground. Since the airplane is rear-end heavy (that's where the engine is) it can flip on it's back and there's the potential for prop strike. This is why these airplanes are parked with their nose down in a praying mantis position. You wouldn't end up with a nose strike on landing unless you forgot to deploy the front landing gear. This has happened to many canard pilots (including me) but it's entirely survivable, the nose of the airplane may be a bit scuffed on the bottom but it's repairable, most of the time the damage is only cosmetic. In addition, a front gear-up landing is a safety feature by design to help stop the airplane on a short runway in an emergency, if needed.
@@msnpassjan2004 CG is critical in ANY airplane. A "deep-stall" that may not be recoverable can happen if the CG is grossly aft of it's normal range. A Long-EZ (a 2-seater tandem cousin of the Cozy) can handle a wide range of payload arrangements and be within a normal CG range. A typical example: pilot weight can be anywhere from 140 - 350 lb, with or without passenger, baggage, and with fuel tanks full or nearly empty without needing to adjust or even calculate the weight and balance between flights. As long as the total weight does not exceed the allowed weights for takeoff and landing you hardly need to worry about weight and balance calculations between flights. The Cozy is a little more finicky.
Really interesting video, i'll will perhaps purchase a cozy mk4 project to finish here in France, and your explanation are really interesting, thank you. Hard to wait until the next video 😅
I probably will never going to be capable of buying not even flying a canard plane, those are the planes of my dreams the velocity xl specially, but this video got me on the edge of my seat learning a lot and enjoying your explaination of this beautiful bird. Thanks a lot!
Aviation is pretty new to me, but I have a question. I’m used to loading trailers and adjusting loads for axle weigh, tongue weight, and attempting to get the best overall performance when towing. Just before minute 13, you said that cargo loading can essentially cause lift issues at the canard and/or main wing. With this being a 3 wheel landing system, would using scales under each wheel allow for proper cargo adjustment? Wouldn’t those numbers show if the plane is loaded to far aft or forward and assist in shifting loads from front to back to prevent potential loss of lift on the main wing and spark a crash?
Excellent question, and the answer to your question is YES, that would do exactly what you say - and it's essentially how it's done. The airplane is weighed when it's empty, and its total weight and C/G (center of gravity) are determined. That's called the Basic Empty Weight, or BEW. When preparing for a flight, when things (fuel, people, baggage, etc) are added in, the weight of those things, along with their distance from a given point on the aircraft, all goes into a calculation that, along with the BEW, will tell you the total weight of the aircraft, and whether or not the C/G is within limits. So while you COULD use scales to weigh your airplane every time you load it up, it's far easier to just do this once to get the BEW, then use calculations to derive your weight and C/G from that point forward. Of course, whenever anything is permanently added, removed or changed on the aircraft, the BEW has to be changed accordingly, and after a while, you really need to re-weigh the aircraft just to do a "reset" on what you know the BEW to be. I'm planning to do this on my airplane soon.
1st time viewer - good job. a bit boring to those of us that have been canard fans for decades, but your energy is infectious do flying wings next - look into getting a Mitchel Wing style aeroplane...
0:26 14 Bis is a Brazilian airplane piloted by Santos Dumont (a Brazilian), first person to fly without being catapulted (like Americans forget to mention about their "first manned airplane") in that same airplane
From reading comments here, it's obvious that there's a lot of misunderstanding about this type of airplane in general. You did a good job of trying to explain the differences compared to conventional airplanes but your comments about CG may have scared a few. The Cozy is more finicky about this than the Long-EZ, VariEze, Berkut, but unfortunately most people don't know the difference.
Your video explained a lot I did not know about Canards. The CG and why Canards don't have flaps was very interesting. As well as weight limits for the front seats. I am a very big guy and would have to fly alone in the front seat. I liked the Cozy I seen one a EAA in 2006 But it is a little small for me. I would like to get a Verlocity XL.
Glad you covered the aft CG stall issue. Canards always look attractive on paper, but get them in unfamiliar attitudes outside the normal flight envelope like inverted or over speeding and watch out. They can do unpredictable things that can be not only hard to recover…but the method of recovery may be let’s say, not intuitive.
Even though they were not explicitly designed for aerobatics, canards can and ARE used for it. At least a Long-EZ, VariEze and Berkuts can easily do barrel rolls, loops, etc., without any modification. Any airplane will be over-stressed when over-speed so what's your point? A deep stall due to a grossly aft CG can be difficult to recover from but that requires gross pilot error in configuring the airplane before flight and as he explained in the video it's happened in canards on very few occasions. Other variants of canards such as Long-EZ, VariEze, Berkut are generally not susceptible to aft CG issues.
Well done, on your explanation. I think those planes are neat as all get out. But I'm a Cessna guy thru and thru. The Cozy and EZ probably require more focus than I have. I'd probably end up like John Denver. Blue skies!
Excellent overview. The only things that I would add are: A) that Burt Rutan was very unhappy with what Beech made him do to the Starship. Adding the flaps and sweeping canard added so much mass, drag, and complexity that it ate up nearly all of the efficiency benefits. Instead of building a stylish and economically competitive business turboprop, it became an aviation pariah that gave the wrong impression of canards as a whole. B) mentioning that the Wright Flyer is a proto-canard is always a fun little factoid.
Yeah, I almost mentioned the Wright Flyer, but I thought that I would just concentrate on the actual source of the name itself. The Starship was a victim of its execution. It would have been fabulous if they had stuck to the original vision.
At that time there was no fly-by-wire-complex-control-hydro-mechanical-computer systems so the only way to do it was Mr. Rutans solution to achieve a lower and safer approach and landing speeds...way ahead of its time what they got...
Ummmmm, no! The only problem with the Starship was the FAA. They forced Beechcraft to increase the thickness of the fuselage because the chickenshit bastards at the FAA are technical miscreants. The sweeping canard was always part of the design. The FAA added almost a ton of weight to the fuselage because there was no known criteria at the time for how thick the fuselage should be. That, and that alone, is what ate into the Starships stellar performance figures as was designed. The underachievers at the FAA did not have the depth of expertise to carry through with the certification process and chose to cover their incompetent asses instead!
Burt Rutan désigner this airplane back in the seventies... I almost bought one for about 7.000 dollars... You got a classic there my friend... The Cozy and VELOCITY and several fighters are it's brothers.. Go fly it!!...🐦🐦🐦 You will love it!!!
Really interesting, and I learned a lot about the physics of canard airplanes. The one thing that I'm a bit skeptical about is your statement that horizontal stabilizers always have negative lift. There's no reason that that would have to be true, depending on the position of the cg vs the center of lift. If it's always true, that's a choice made by designers, not a requirement. Is my understanding correct?
So with any cambered airfoil you generate 3 forces: you have your coefficient of lift, of drag, and of *moment*. This last one causes the airfoil to want to twist, pushing the nose down. The HSTAB l, generally speaking, is a symmetrical airfoil with a negative angle of incidence to push the nose back up and counterbalance the Cm. Hope that helps!
Yes, your understanding is correct. It's not uncommon in practice for typical conventional horizontal stabilizers to produce upward lift. There's an unspoken assumption in these descriptions that we're talking about the most critical point for the stabilizer in the envelope, which is nose-up command: rotation/flare/climb/stall. That regime determines your airplane's max gross, and at _that_ point, conventional tailplanes push down, canards push up. It's theoretically possible to imagine a conventional horizontal stabilizer that both produces pitch stability and positive lift near stall. However, the math of pitch stability requires that the stabilizer be more heavily loaded than the main wing - and that in turn means it will stall first. Net result, the positive lift from the tailplane goes away and the airplane drops its tail, stalls fully and permanently, and falls ass-first out of the sky the first time it stalls. I don't know examples but I wouldn't be surprised if like five of the aerodynamic crackpots in the nineteen-teens and -twenties built planes with this property "for efficiency", and were then killed when their prototypes fell ass-first out of the sky.
That early airplane in France was Santos Dummont flying his 14 bis. Brazilians actually consider him as the inventor of the airplane because, well.. he was Brazilian.
The horizontal stabilizer is a symmetrical airfoil and is mounted parallel to the longtitudinal axis of 172s. Therefore there is no down lifting force on the horizontal stab. of a 172.
That's exactly what was done when developing the prototype of this airplane. However, that would mean you're still carrying the weight when you've slid it backwards, which means more fuel use and less available load. Far better to just remove the weight from the front when it's not needed.
There was a starship sitting behind the evergreen hangar in McMinnville Oregon last time I checked. Just laying there on the ground like a derelict behind the spruce goose. Very sad. Cool video though.
The horizontal stabilizer on the back end of that Cessna does not exert Force downward unless you have the horizontal flap on it in the upward position. In neutral position it doesn't exert force in either direction, because it's not designed as a wing. It doesn't become a wing unless the moving portion of the horizontal stabilizer goes in the upper position creating a downforce or in the lower position creating a lifting Force. Kind of the reason why it actually exists.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. You clearly are not a pilot and don't know aerodynamics (obviously, if you're calling the control surface a "horizontal flap"), so why are you trying to correct a 30+ year commercial pilot who clearly DOES know about airplanes and aerodynamics? You're just making yourself look silly.
Also check out my follow-up to this video: th-cam.com/video/LCmaUveNifQ/w-d-xo.html
Brother 🙌🏻 this was the most comprehensive video I've seen on a canard airplane ✈️ I salute 🫡 you
O9😊
I agree. I ’ve never understood the canard system, now it’s done. 😊
The only problems, you need a taxiway built in strong material, and it must have a very short time of answering when you turn or dive. 😮 (excuse my english).
Agree very concise.
As a Cozy builder, you did an outstanding job of giving a concise explanation of the comparisons and contrasts between conventional horizontal stabilizer, and canard aircraft. Well done keeping it as short as it needs to be, while hitting the important points. I would not change anything.
Obviously you and I could have sat for hours and gone down the rabbit hole of Burt Rutan canard designs, but that would make a boring video for most.
An idea for your next video subject, maybe talk about the history of Burt Rutan's Long EZ and Nat Puffer's Cozy?
Good idea!
What are quantities of fiberglass and epoxy to build cozy?
What a well-spoken, intelligent, humble person. Excellent video! You sir are a great ambassador for the canard aircraft and flying in general!
Thank you for your very kind words!
truly enjoyed your presentation...you packed more info into 15 minutes than most do in 2 hours.
Dude I learned a lot about Canards! Thank you. I was sold until I learned about the CG and stall characteristics…
Exactly what I was thinking.
I never thought about the complexity of this aircraft. When I lived in Santa Barbara, I remember a good friend of mine that already passed, building a cozy in his backyard. I never figured out how to fly it but I swore to myself never to get in. Now I know how fascinating it results this canard thing. Thank you for sharing.
You could have made a short from this by simply saying " Why did i buy this airplane? Because it is frigging cool, that's why!" END... 😄
This is the best summary of how a canard plane solves problems. Thank you
Well done and informative thanks so much, liked and subscribed
I've had a spot in my heart to do this very thing for a long time. I was a crew chief on AC-130U for 6 years and owned an SQ-1000 (E-Racer derivative.) I love these aircraft and Burt Rutan blazed a trail for us. Thank you for this contribution to GA!
This was great and understandable. I definitely "liked" and "subscribed."
Hey!!!! Just got airborne in my Cozy MK3 for the first time today! What an absolute WOW!
That's FANTASTIC!! Congratulations!!!!!
I fell in love with the Cunard design when I saw the Quickie flying out in Mojave, CA back in the 1980's. It was maneuvering like an F-16 with only a Volkswagen engine. But I've since learned it had it's own problems too. With it's landing gear out at the wing tips, hard landings could fracture the wing spar. But it sure was a sleek plane to look at.
There may be many people who know more about aviation than you do, but I'm definitely not one of them. So thank you for those very informative explanations! I have always wondered why some airplanes employ the "duckwing configuration" and since there must be a reason for it, why not more planes do it. Now I understood.
-- Great video! Very informative! 😊👍🛩️
Thank you for the excellent description. Good details to make your points. These are the kind of educational videos that TH-cam, Rumble, Odyssey and the rest need. Liked and subscribed!
Outstanding technical explanations of a canard aircraft . Thanks.
The reason the rear tail plane pushes down in not to balance the engine weight. Rather, it is because of the forward moment of lift produced by the main wing. That is why if you throw a model aircraft wing, it tumbles forward.
In a way, it's both... the center of lift is usually a bit forward of mid-chord INCLUDING the weight of the engine. As he explains for the canard craft, add a payload up front, and on a conventional-stabilizer plane, you need to balance it with down-force behind the center of lift. On the canard plane, the extra lift compensates for payload.
@@KutWrite The rear tailplane also pushes down on a glider. The displaced (relative to C of G) centre of lift is the cause of the tail needing to push down. Yes, the more weight you have at the front, the more it needs to push down - or, the further the tail needs to be situated away from the Cof G to increase the moment arm.
it's both.
Most free flight model gliders have rear lifting tails and they seem to fly well.
@@johnelliott8630 Some do..true. But lifting tails are speed sensitive and require a very aft CG. Go too fast and the tail makes excess lift…which raises the tail…increasing speed. The “tailplane takeover” phenomenon is known and can dive a plane into the ground. I had a RC model once that had a flat bottomed (Clark Y) tail airfoil…normal flight was fine…but in a dive it would suddenly tighten up into a steep drop that needed a lot of up elevator to correct. And yep…the OP is spot on, wings without stabilisers tumble. Flying wings have reflex airfoils or sweep to get surface behind the CG.
Nice job! I built N36LV, this plane’s big brother. She has 370HP, comfortably seats 5, cruises at 195 kts and sips 13.5 gallons per hour. Sadly, retirement and insurance costs caused us to part ways. I learned a few things during our six years (11 counting the build time) of flying.
Watch out for extended descents with lowish fuel levels. If the tanks are plumbed like a Velocity, you can unport the fuel pickups.
Make sure those cowling fasteners are really good quality because everything, and I mean EVERYTHING back there goes through the propeller arc. I used screws at first but got tired of patching the prop with JB Weld. Take a look at Skybolt C Locks. Never had one come off.
That canard stall is known as a Pitch Buck. I could climb at 3000 fpm with the stick full aft and the nose hammering up and down. Fun but kind of violent in a Velocity and passengers don’t like it at all.
Like the V, it will probably make one really good water landing in an emergency. They can float for days.
You will know you are a proficient canard pilot when you can perform 3 consecutive touch-and-go’s without letting the nosewheel hit the tarmac.
Enjoy.
N36LV is a beautiful machine! Curious about the choice to put the exhaust forward - is that to keep it away from the prop arc?
I have not heard of Cozy's unporting the fuel pickups except in a slip at low fuel levels (which can happen in most any airplane, really). I'll look into it, but I have not heard/read of this issue in the Cozy.
The cowling fasteners are currently MS24694-S50 screws and yes, after losing one through the prop, my preflight now includes checking tightness of all of the cowl fasteners. I had a look at the Skybolt C fasteners, I will add them to my list!
Thanks for writing!
Wonder if canards have tail skid to prevent the prop to hit the ground during take off rotation or landing flare. Thanks for the video.
@@agusbahagia5122 no. You have to be careful not to over-rotate for this exact reason. Not normally an issue however. You also don't flare when landing, you just round out the descent and then let it fly onto the ground, kind of like a jet.
@@CanardBoulevard Another silly question, do you yell “clear prop!” just before cranking up for engine start? Do you start the engine with canopy still open or closed?
I know it sounds so silly but that engine is in the back, out of sight.
Careful about the water landing. We're still not sure what happened at Half Moon Bay except none of them made it out.
Great video. Very clear explainations from a canard lover. I really hope sooner or later to own and fly a Long EZ.
thankyou for going in depth about the shape of the plane and concept of canards and their part in making the plane airborne. I was initially not that interested but then I was hooked.
This was a really nice explanation of the basics. Well done.
Alway had an interest in aircraft from an early age and know a bit but learnt so much from your explanation of this type of aeroplane. Thank you.
This was a fantastic explanation of a canard aircraft. Thank you.
Excellent information! Thank you!!
I absolutely love the Cozy MKIV. I would love to have one, but I really don't want to build it. Great video.
And that’s exactly why these days you will see 600 RVs at Oshkosh and a handful of canards. They are extremely labor intensive to build. RVs aren’t “easy”, but they are a lot more prefabricated than composite airplanes and no 1000 hrs of sanding. They are also a much more versatile airplane with better field performance. They might not be quite as efficient, though they are pretty close, but with over 12000 built and flown clearly the homebuilt community has decided they don’t much care about efficiency.
I've been subscribed form the start of this channel. Never herd of a Canard before. I think it's a really cool looking airplane. I like watching this channel. I find it very interesting.
The Wright Flyer had Canard on it. That was over 100 years ago.
@@wayneyd2 The original "canard" !
I am glad I watched your video, thought it would be boring but learned something I never knew regarding "canards".
Fantastic video and content sir. Thank you for posting. Fun fact. Curtis Wright made a similar craft in the 40,s called assender.... during stall tests a test pilot stalled one and fell 18,000 feet a...ah..rear end first..he bailed and survived. The plane was then known as ass ender. One prototype exists at Kalamazoo air Zoo in ...you guessed it.. Kalamazoo MI.
I think the ascender was a design of the Granville brothers, not Glen Curtis
Pilots called it the "Ass Ender"
What a great explanation, 15 minutes was over before I knew it.
Subscriped of course.
You have given me a much more appreciative opinion of that plane thank you
That was the 14BIS from the actual father of aviation Alberto Santos Dumont not the wright brothers hahaha…jokes aside his plane was actually the first one to fly on its own power not being catapulted into the air. I love the velocity airplane and hope to one day be able to buy one
This is wonderful information. I've always enjoyed the Cunard configuration and wondered why it hasn't become more popular. Now I know.
Canard. Cunard is something else altogether... 😁
Fantastic explanation about this wonderful airplane
This video is really interesting Thank you I have always wondered about that design
I have always loved the Rutan Long EZ!!! Now I know more about it!
Thank you. I'm not at all an aviation guy but I found this very interesting. Good luck with you channel.
A very good explanation of the pros and cons of canard planes!
I enjoyed this video. I don't know if you mentioned it (I can't remember) but another plus of our canards is that we don't have to worry much about maintaining a "coordinated turn"! Also, you didn't mention that instead of flaps we have an air brake to slow the airplane during landings if needed. I say "if needed" because it's all in speed control. The approach will be a bit shallower without it but doable, for me that's SOP. Another advantage of canard designs: it's been so long that I haven't had to deal with "Adverse Yaw" that I can't even remember what that was all about. 😉
I find that the landing brake doesn't slow me a huge amount, but what it does do is STABILIZE the airspeed. Without it, it's really hard to maintain a consistent airspeed on final, it's very sensitive to pitch and power. With the brake deployed, it dampens those excursions and makes it much easier to maintain a constant airspeed.
@@CanardBoulevard Yes, 100% agree, very, very sensitive to pitch and power and it's very noticeable on approach. I've learned to land mine without the speed brake but it's just like you say, very difficult to stabilize the speed. I've tried slowing it down with rudders and by slipping but that's not very effective either. It's a slippery devil. What does work for me is pitching up early on approach, wait for speed to bleed out and maintain with power. I had to learn to land that way because when I did my transition training the speed brake would not stay down, I've fixed it since but I still do my landings the same way I learned initially. I will experiment more with the speed brake now that you've given me some new insight on its use.
Great breakdown, thanks.
Best video I have seen on canard aircraft. I was sold until 12:00 where we learn the aircraft can be stalled, something all the other videos I watched did not cover or stress.
Just about anything that flies can be stalled. What is different about a canard airplane is that even if it's stalled it will not become uncontrollable like most other airplanes. That's what makes a canard safer and more "stall and spin proof."
Excellent episode! I learned a lot :)
This was a great video! Thanks for such a simple way to explain what this unique plane is all about. I'm just a simmer but this plane is so unique I wanted to know more. SUB!
Thanks so much! I just posted a follow-up to this video you should check out: th-cam.com/video/LCmaUveNifQ/w-d-xo.html
@@CanardBoulevard Awesome! 👍🏾
Love your talking videos. Please more hangar talk.
Fantastic education on Canard aircraft
thanks for the explanation about how critical the c.g. is
Love the video and your explanations is perfect. Thank you.
Excellent explanation. Thankyou!
Oh boy, had my list of potential airplanes down to 3. Now I have to consider canards! Excellent video.
a VELOCITY or flat out ''rebuilding a BEECH STARSHIP 2000'' all new building techniques and watnot NEW STRONGER COMPOSITS.... oh my if it can be pressurized too now.... oh ... yesssssss... ummm
I have liked the platform for DECADES :)
Very informative! Thanks 🙏
Good video. BTW, the Wright Flyer was also a canard.
He said the French plane is how that type got the name Canard, not that it was the first canard plane.
We had a plane like that based in Farmington MO for a few years. It was fun to watch it fly.
I think Burt Rutan needs to be mentioned anytime these types of aircraft are discussed.
God bless you.
I agree. I made my comment before seeing yours. 🫡
Thank you for the great info. ... keep em coming
Good refresher on canard design and it's boatload of aerodynamics advantages - but the narrow CG would be a bit scary for me.
Very interesting. Great job!
I enjoyed the explanation. Thanks. A couple of things that I wonder about. 1. How do you avoid hitting the prop on the ground? 2. How do you not end up with a nose strike on landing? I can imagine speed being your friend in both answers, and as you mentioned in the video, but can you expand on that?
12:00 main wing stalls from bad cg load are not recoverable. CG is critical in a canard aircraft. Very informative video. Thanks for sharing the cons.
The only time you're concerned about prop strike is during takeoff, or when the airplane is parked. The rule of thumb is to keep the canard below the horizon (from the pilot's perspective) during rotation and liftoff. The only other time is when it's parked on the ground. Since the airplane is rear-end heavy (that's where the engine is) it can flip on it's back and there's the potential for prop strike. This is why these airplanes are parked with their nose down in a praying mantis position. You wouldn't end up with a nose strike on landing unless you forgot to deploy the front landing gear. This has happened to many canard pilots (including me) but it's entirely survivable, the nose of the airplane may be a bit scuffed on the bottom but it's repairable, most of the time the damage is only cosmetic. In addition, a front gear-up landing is a safety feature by design to help stop the airplane on a short runway in an emergency, if needed.
@@msnpassjan2004 CG is critical in ANY airplane. A "deep-stall" that may not be recoverable can happen if the CG is grossly aft of it's normal range. A Long-EZ (a 2-seater tandem cousin of the Cozy) can handle a wide range of payload arrangements and be within a normal CG range. A typical example: pilot weight can be anywhere from 140 - 350 lb, with or without passenger, baggage, and with fuel tanks full or nearly empty without needing to adjust or even calculate the weight and balance between flights. As long as the total weight does not exceed the allowed weights for takeoff and landing you hardly need to worry about weight and balance calculations between flights. The Cozy is a little more finicky.
Really interesting video, i'll will perhaps purchase a cozy mk4 project to finish here in France, and your explanation are really interesting, thank you. Hard to wait until the next video 😅
I probably will never going to be capable of buying not even flying a canard plane, those are the planes of my dreams the velocity xl specially, but this video got me on the edge of my seat learning a lot and enjoying your explaination of this beautiful bird. Thanks a lot!
That is one of the best designs you can get your hands on.
very good information, Thanks
Nicely done video. - Love Canard aircraft!
Aviation is pretty new to me, but I have a question. I’m used to loading trailers and adjusting loads for axle weigh, tongue weight, and attempting to get the best overall performance when towing. Just before minute 13, you said that cargo loading can essentially cause lift issues at the canard and/or main wing. With this being a 3 wheel landing system, would using scales under each wheel allow for proper cargo adjustment? Wouldn’t those numbers show if the plane is loaded to far aft or forward and assist in shifting loads from front to back to prevent potential loss of lift on the main wing and spark a crash?
Excellent question, and the answer to your question is YES, that would do exactly what you say - and it's essentially how it's done. The airplane is weighed when it's empty, and its total weight and C/G (center of gravity) are determined. That's called the Basic Empty Weight, or BEW.
When preparing for a flight, when things (fuel, people, baggage, etc) are added in, the weight of those things, along with their distance from a given point on the aircraft, all goes into a calculation that, along with the BEW, will tell you the total weight of the aircraft, and whether or not the C/G is within limits.
So while you COULD use scales to weigh your airplane every time you load it up, it's far easier to just do this once to get the BEW, then use calculations to derive your weight and C/G from that point forward.
Of course, whenever anything is permanently added, removed or changed on the aircraft, the BEW has to be changed accordingly, and after a while, you really need to re-weigh the aircraft just to do a "reset" on what you know the BEW to be. I'm planning to do this on my airplane soon.
1st time viewer - good job.
a bit boring to those of us that have been canard fans for decades, but your energy is infectious
do flying wings next - look into getting a Mitchel Wing style aeroplane...
Best explanation I’ve seen of the canard design. Thanks. Why did you choose the Cozy over the Velocity?
The Velocity is beautiful, but it's double or triple the price, pretty much the same speed, and uses more fuel than the Cozy.
Wow, great explanation.
like already stated, awesome video!!!! I haven't decided on a COZE or Velocity yet... but am leaning to the Cozy! Thanks
This is the best video I've seen to date on canard design personal aircraft. I'm interested.
Thanks so much! I just posted a follow-up to this video you should check out: th-cam.com/video/LCmaUveNifQ/w-d-xo.html
0:26 14 Bis is a Brazilian airplane piloted by Santos Dumont (a Brazilian), first person to fly without being catapulted (like Americans forget to mention about their "first manned airplane") in that same airplane
From reading comments here, it's obvious that there's a lot of misunderstanding about this type of airplane in general. You did a good job of trying to explain the differences compared to conventional airplanes but your comments about CG may have scared a few. The Cozy is more finicky about this than the Long-EZ, VariEze, Berkut, but unfortunately most people don't know the difference.
What a great presentation
Your video explained a lot I did not know about Canards. The CG and why Canards don't have flaps was very interesting. As well as weight limits for the front seats. I am a very big guy and would have to fly alone in the front seat. I liked the Cozy I seen one a EAA in 2006 But it is a little small for me. I would like to get a Verlocity XL.
The Velocity is a great airplane, but at double or triple the cost of a Cozy...
Outstanding job!
Amazing video keep up the good job
Great explanation.
Excellent channel!
You are very articulate!
Very Interesting always wondered what the heck is the story behind one of those planes 👍
Glad you covered the aft CG stall issue. Canards always look attractive on paper, but get them in unfamiliar attitudes outside the normal flight envelope like inverted or over speeding and watch out. They can do unpredictable things that can be not only hard to recover…but the method of recovery may be let’s say, not intuitive.
Even though they were not explicitly designed for aerobatics, canards can and ARE used for it. At least a Long-EZ, VariEze and Berkuts can easily do barrel rolls, loops, etc., without any modification. Any airplane will be over-stressed when over-speed so what's your point? A deep stall due to a grossly aft CG can be difficult to recover from but that requires gross pilot error in configuring the airplane before flight and as he explained in the video it's happened in canards on very few occasions. Other variants of canards such as Long-EZ, VariEze, Berkut are generally not susceptible to aft CG issues.
Great video! I did not get to build mine sadly.
Thank you sir. Hats off
Well done, on your explanation. I think those planes are neat as all get out. But I'm a Cessna guy thru and thru. The Cozy and EZ probably require more focus than I have. I'd probably end up like John Denver. Blue skies!
Excellent overview. The only things that I would add are:
A) that Burt Rutan was very unhappy with what Beech made him do to the Starship. Adding the flaps and sweeping canard added so much mass, drag, and complexity that it ate up nearly all of the efficiency benefits. Instead of building a stylish and economically competitive business turboprop, it became an aviation pariah that gave the wrong impression of canards as a whole.
B) mentioning that the Wright Flyer is a proto-canard is always a fun little factoid.
Yeah, I almost mentioned the Wright Flyer, but I thought that I would just concentrate on the actual source of the name itself.
The Starship was a victim of its execution. It would have been fabulous if they had stuck to the original vision.
At that time there was no fly-by-wire-complex-control-hydro-mechanical-computer systems so the only way to do it was Mr. Rutans solution to achieve a lower and safer approach and landing speeds...way ahead of its time what they got...
Ummmmm, no! The only problem with the Starship was the FAA. They forced Beechcraft to increase the thickness of the fuselage because the chickenshit bastards at the FAA are technical miscreants. The sweeping canard was always part of the design. The FAA added almost a ton of weight to the fuselage because there was no known criteria at the time for how thick the fuselage should be. That, and that alone, is what ate into the Starships stellar performance figures as was designed. The underachievers at the FAA did not have the depth of expertise to carry through with the certification process and chose to cover their incompetent asses instead!
Burt Rutan désigner this airplane back in the seventies...
I almost bought one for about 7.000 dollars...
You got a classic there my friend...
The Cozy and VELOCITY and several fighters are it's brothers..
Go fly it!!...🐦🐦🐦
You will love it!!!
Actually Nat Puffer designed this airplane, but it was based on the Long EZ design, which WAS a Burt Rutan design.
Really interesting, and I learned a lot about the physics of canard airplanes. The one thing that I'm a bit skeptical about is your statement that horizontal stabilizers always have negative lift. There's no reason that that would have to be true, depending on the position of the cg vs the center of lift. If it's always true, that's a choice made by designers, not a requirement. Is my understanding correct?
So with any cambered airfoil you generate 3 forces: you have your coefficient of lift, of drag, and of *moment*. This last one causes the airfoil to want to twist, pushing the nose down. The HSTAB l, generally speaking, is a symmetrical airfoil with a negative angle of incidence to push the nose back up and counterbalance the Cm. Hope that helps!
Yes, your understanding is correct. It's not uncommon in practice for typical conventional horizontal stabilizers to produce upward lift. There's an unspoken assumption in these descriptions that we're talking about the most critical point for the stabilizer in the envelope, which is nose-up command: rotation/flare/climb/stall. That regime determines your airplane's max gross, and at _that_ point, conventional tailplanes push down, canards push up.
It's theoretically possible to imagine a conventional horizontal stabilizer that both produces pitch stability and positive lift near stall. However, the math of pitch stability requires that the stabilizer be more heavily loaded than the main wing - and that in turn means it will stall first. Net result, the positive lift from the tailplane goes away and the airplane drops its tail, stalls fully and permanently, and falls ass-first out of the sky the first time it stalls. I don't know examples but I wouldn't be surprised if like five of the aerodynamic crackpots in the nineteen-teens and -twenties built planes with this property "for efficiency", and were then killed when their prototypes fell ass-first out of the sky.
That early airplane in France was Santos Dummont flying his 14 bis. Brazilians actually consider him as the inventor of the airplane because, well.. he was Brazilian.
The horizontal stabilizer is a symmetrical airfoil and is mounted parallel to the longtitudinal axis of 172s.
Therefore there is no down lifting force on the horizontal stab. of a 172.
Depends on the position of the elevator and trim!
Wings Airfoil Symmetrical Have Planes Aerobic . Attack Of Angle On Depends
thumbs up and a sub from me, and I hit the bell too. I really like the canards, I just think they're cool. mike
Very nuanced CG issues. Great video overall.
I love Canards... i have always wanted a long ez
really interesting, thanks
Great details, thanks!
Amazing aeronautical class 💪😎✌️
Thanks! A follow up to this is coming...
What’s the longest cross country you’ve done in this so far? Thanks for the videos 👍 Liked and subscribed, best wishes with the channel 😊
The trip to Maine was 650 miles each way, that's the farthest one so far. That took 3 hours and 15 minutes to get there, about 3:45 to come back.
Burt Rutan really likes this design.
Something that might be useful would be in internal pulley to slide a weight forward and back to move the CoG
That's exactly what was done when developing the prototype of this airplane. However, that would mean you're still carrying the weight when you've slid it backwards, which means more fuel use and less available load. Far better to just remove the weight from the front when it's not needed.
@@CanardBoulevard Not if the weight was water that could be jetisoned if not needed. Or perhaps fuel.
There was a starship sitting behind the evergreen hangar in McMinnville Oregon last time I checked. Just laying there on the ground like a derelict behind the spruce goose. Very sad.
Cool video though.
Very good article and now I know why most aircraft are of conventional design
The horizontal stabilizer on the back end of that Cessna does not exert Force downward unless you have the horizontal flap on it in the upward position. In neutral position it doesn't exert force in either direction, because it's not designed as a wing. It doesn't become a wing unless the moving portion of the horizontal stabilizer goes in the upper position creating a downforce or in the lower position creating a lifting Force. Kind of the reason why it actually exists.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. You clearly are not a pilot and don't know aerodynamics (obviously, if you're calling the control surface a "horizontal flap"), so why are you trying to correct a 30+ year commercial pilot who clearly DOES know about airplanes and aerodynamics? You're just making yourself look silly.
I found the talk about the CG interesting.