Sci.aeronautics is dead, it seems, so allow me to ask here.
At least it's not about climate, politics or removing X signs.

Why are there so few planes with canard wings? It seems to
me an obvious way to gain a few percent of efficiency: The
tail of an ordinary plane needs to have negative lift for
stability, which needs to be compensated for by extra wing
lift. A canard, on the other hand, contributes positive lift,
so I'd expect less overall drag for the equivalent total lift.
So why are there so few that do this?

Jeroen Belleman

On a sunny day (Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:27:04 +0200) it happened jeroen
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <u9re0a$1hd3h$1@dont-email.me>:

>Sci.aeronautics is dead, it seems, so allow me to ask here.
>At least it's not about climate, politics or removing X signs.
>
>Why are there so few planes with canard wings? It seems to
>me an obvious way to gain a few percent of efficiency: The
>tail of an ordinary plane needs to have negative lift for
>stability, which needs to be compensated for by extra wing
>lift. A canard, on the other hand, contributes positive lift,
>so I'd expect less overall drag for the equivalent total lift.
>So why are there so few that do this?
>
>Jeroen Belleman

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_(aeronautics)

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:27:04 +0200, jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please>
wrote:

>Sci.aeronautics is dead, it seems, so allow me to ask here.
>At least it's not about climate, politics or removing X signs.
>
>Why are there so few planes with canard wings? It seems to
>me an obvious way to gain a few percent of efficiency: The
>tail of an ordinary plane needs to have negative lift for
>stability, which needs to be compensated for by extra wing
>lift. A canard, on the other hand, contributes positive lift,
>so I'd expect less overall drag for the equivalent total lift.
>So why are there so few that do this?

As I understand it, canards are mostly used for maneuverability, at
the level needed in fighter aircraft. But there are lots of options
to obtain the needed level of agility, and while canards are always
considered, they don't often win the tradeoff studies in aircraft. One
does see them in air-to-air missiles, where the key is to be able to
out-maneuver the intended target, often itself a fighter aircraft.

Joe Gwinn

Off-topic troll...

--
jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: OT: Why so few airplanes with canards?
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:27:04 +0200
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 12
> Message-ID: <u9re0a$1hd3h$1@dont-email.me>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 15:27:06 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ac8c11e1f04e7b6319584fa672dc1f4c"; logging-data="1619057"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+AYtHFSTdW6Dg38wQQfe+s"
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:8L52cB2nwKauFvjCFHwZMCOGMJU=
> X-Received-Bytes: 1487

Off-topic troll...

--
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Why so few airplanes with canards?
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:01:07 GMT
> Message-ID: <u9rg03$bejt$1@solani.org>
> References: <u9re0a$1hd3h$1@dont-email.me>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; ISO-8859-15
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:01:08 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: solani.org;
> logging-data="375421"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
> User-Agent: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (Linux-5.15.32-v7l+)
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:GTCcdGNINY0R/U46+anzXVAA/OM=
> X-Newsreader-location: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (c) 'LIGHTSPEED' off line news reader for the Linux platform
> NewsFleX homepage: http://www.panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/ and ftp download ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/system/news/readers/
> X-User-ID: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLfIUhB5rGv4TdHU/NW5En4/AwbwfgEaNviYJjSrdlpomA0K7aJzZjBGQZvmksbb5x/QF8exaY
> X-Received-Bytes: 1917

Off-topic troll...

--
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:03:37 +0000
> From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Why so few airplanes with canards?
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:03:37 -0400
> Message-ID: <3ng2cipd0g30q0jt3cdheua44bokcbpfpu@4ax.com>
> References: <u9re0a$1hd3h$1@dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 22
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace: sv3-9l9SYguMLxTiFv2nb9KAUv2c2LpgKnMwW2t6swVNVaPuXah3W3VHw/Y/+f/zyBoHqyAyZYfxQhMtDb5!254Yd/1iD8UpjbXBA+sR+DdXlzoI6W/IjoYsBCRtRuYqyPIuDdd7wWdzCmiPZnOXyecHYWs=
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> Bytes: 2085
> X-Received-Bytes: 2285

On 2023-07-26 18:03, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:27:04 +0200, jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please>
> wrote:
>
>> Sci.aeronautics is dead, it seems, so allow me to ask here.
>> At least it's not about climate, politics or removing X signs.
>>
>> Why are there so few planes with canard wings? It seems to
>> me an obvious way to gain a few percent of efficiency: The
>> tail of an ordinary plane needs to have negative lift for
>> stability, which needs to be compensated for by extra wing
>> lift. A canard, on the other hand, contributes positive lift,
>> so I'd expect less overall drag for the equivalent total lift.
>> So why are there so few that do this?
>
> As I understand it, canards are mostly used for maneuverability, at
> the level needed in fighter aircraft. But there are lots of options
> to obtain the needed level of agility, and while canards are always
> considered, they don't often win the tradeoff studies in aircraft. One
> does see them in air-to-air missiles, where the key is to be able to
> out-maneuver the intended target, often itself a fighter aircraft.
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

It is possible to design planes that are marginally or entirely
unstable with either the usual configuration or with canards,
which is useful when exceptionally agility is needed.

My interest was more in passenger or transport aircraft, where
the usual target is economy. It's quite possible to design stable
aircraft with canards. It's a matter of where you put the centre
of gravity w.r.t. the centre of lift. I'm just wondering if such
a plane could not also be made more economical.

I've read arguments against canards because they would disturb
airflow over the wings. I think that argument doesn't hold water.

Jeroen Belleman

Off-topic troll...

--
jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Why so few airplanes with canards?
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 19:27:54 +0200
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <u9rl2s$1i50g$1@dont-email.me>
> References: <u9re0a$1hd3h$1@dont-email.me> <3ng2cipd0g30q0jt3cdheua44bokcbpfpu@4ax.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:27:56 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ac8c11e1f04e7b6319584fa672dc1f4c";
> logging-data="1643536"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/CXW9WMzVTdXFK/OxH75et"
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:g1/i9MT3oz3Tn/gbn68XwEiiwV4=
> In-Reply-To: <3ng2cipd0g30q0jt3cdheua44bokcbpfpu@4ax.com>
> X-Received-Bytes: 2832

On 7/26/2023 20:27, jeroen wrote:
> On 2023-07-26 18:03, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:27:04 +0200, jeroen <jeroen@nospam.please>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sci.aeronautics is dead, it seems, so allow me to ask here.
>>> At least it's not about climate, politics or removing X signs.
>>>
>>> Why are there so few planes with canard wings? It seems to
>>> me an obvious way to gain a few percent of efficiency: The
>>> tail of an ordinary plane needs to have negative lift for
>>> stability, which needs to be compensated for by extra wing
>>> lift. A canard, on the other hand, contributes positive lift,
>>> so I'd expect less overall drag for the equivalent total lift.
>>> So why are there so few that do this?
>>
>> As I understand it, canards are mostly used for maneuverability, at
>> the level needed in fighter aircraft.  But there are lots of options
>> to obtain the needed level of agility, and while canards are always
>> considered, they don't often win the tradeoff studies in aircraft. One
>> does see them in air-to-air missiles, where the key is to be able to
>> out-maneuver the intended target, often itself a fighter aircraft.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>
> It is possible to design planes that are marginally or entirely
> unstable with either the usual configuration or with canards,
> which is useful when exceptionally agility is needed.
>
> My interest was more in passenger or transport aircraft, where
> the usual target is economy. It's quite possible to design stable
> aircraft with canards. It's a matter of where you put the centre
> of gravity w.r.t. the centre of lift.  I'm just wondering if such
> a plane could not also be made more economical.
>
> I've read arguments against canards because they would disturb
> airflow over the wings. I think that argument doesn't hold water.
> > Jeroen Belleman

I'd expect they have experimented, blown in tunnels etc., whatever
they do and decided against it? May be whirlwinds (if this is the
correct word) or whatever lead to more losses. Or just friction
if these additional wings mean larger total surface.
But I have read about this less than you have, knew nothing about it
even a few decades ago when I liked to build flying models... Did not
understand the "canards" word, had to look it up.

Off-topic troll...

--
Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: OT: Why so few airplanes with canards?
> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 23:40:28 +0300
> Organization: TGI
> Lines: 47
> Message-ID: <u9s0bt$1j93q$1@dont-email.me>
> References: <u9re0a$1hd3h$1@dont-email.me> <3ng2cipd0g30q0jt3cdheua44bokcbpfpu@4ax.com> <u9rl2s$1i50g$1@dont-email.me>
> Reply-To: dp@tgi-sci.com
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 20:40:29 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fdbdc9792aba4c438022b9a0022cf0dc"; logging-data="1680506"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+i7aw850l2Te3edlIqPBzA"
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:wpxA4a5pqGvfiDxfG7OPcjtQV04=
> In-Reply-To: <u9rl2s$1i50g$1@dont-email.me>
> Content-Language: en-US
> X-Received-Bytes: 3474