Talk:Canard (aeronautics)

message: Strictly technically speaking, the Sukhoi-27 derivatives are NOT canards, because they also have tailpanes. In fact the russians themselves refer to these aircraft as having an "integrated tandem tri-plane" aerodynamics configuration instead. 82.131.210.162 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having tailplanes does not negate the canard aspect. Read the lead paragraph. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An aircraft with a canard AND a tailplane is a "three surfaces" aircraft, not a canard. Plxdesi2 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether term "canard" is really an adjective, as in "canard configuration" and "canard foreplane". In ordinary English a plain "canard" means a distraction or red herring (as in "flying a canard" to distract people from the truth), while ISTR that in French it often means an ill-conceived project or white elephant. Whether the term is ever authoritatively used for a three-surface foreplane is something I don't know, but unless it can be verified I would assume it has not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake the duck 

message: The P-180 does not have a canard because the front wing does not have any control surfaces on it. Piaggio specifically points this out on their website:
http://www.piaggioaero.com/en/products/aircraft/p180/efficienza.php
"The Avanti II's forward wing (which is not a canard because it has no control surfaces) "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindec (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I object... A new section should be created, and exceptions should be placed there. The new section could be named, for example, "Aircraft not considered canard aircraft". For each entry, a short note describing why it's not a canard aircraft should be included. --Henrickson User talk | Contribs 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either a special section or deleting the Avanti picture is required. If you read the article: non-moving surfaces are included as canards, so the Avanti's front surface is a canard by that definition. It is fine as it is. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piaggio P-180 should be removed from gallery 

message: This article is a great opinion essay, but is not of very much value as an encyclopedia article, because it does not cite references, with the sole exception of one general ref at the bottom. I have tagged each para to show where in-line citations are needed. Please do not remove these tags unless they are replaced with footnotes. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: What canards do is to create additional wing tip vortices which are forced towards the main wing due to the canard induced downwash. These vortices re-attach the flow of the main wing near the wing root and offer improved high alpha (high AoA) performance. A good citation of the issue is the book of Klaus Huenecke, Modern combat aircraft design.
As far as I know the canard existence does not increase the blade root drag. The total drag however could be increased due to the existence of the canards as...external elements.
georgepehli (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  canard aerodynamics 

message: With regard to the canards always/sometimes stalling before the main wings, and the main wings stalling/never stalling. I don't really know, I just noticed, and "must be designed to stall before the main wing" sounds like pure BS to me. Why must it be designed that way? By U.S. law? By some international agreement? Or is just because of good taste of the designer? ;-) --80.134.46.77 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions in the pro and con sections 

message: "This template is intended for specific passages which need citation. For articles or sections which have significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as ."  Tagging every paragraph in the article adds nothing but clutter.  Gigs (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, works for me. :P  Gigs (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of fact tags. 

message: This article is linked from the Sea_Shadow article. Could someone please explain how it applies to water vessels as well? / 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked that - just a linking error I suspect, it isn't really the right place to send readers for more info, is it? - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think they meant to link to Hydrofoil. --McSly (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hydrofoil would make sense.  Dolphin51 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluid dynamics as well? 

message: On 4 April 2009, user 208.103.75.112 added three paragraphs under the sub-heading Lifting-canard.  None of the additional information was supported by a reference or an in-line citation.
I believe most of this additional information reflects a popular understanding of lifting-canards, but unfortunately it contains a fair amount of hangar talk and it is not sufficiently accurate for Wikipedia.  I will shortly give my reasons for believing it is not accurate.
I will delete the information added by 208.103.75.112.  I have no obection to someone restoring some or all of that information, provided it is accurate and supported by a suitable in-line citation.
Here is my analysis of the additional information:
An added advantage of a lifting-canard is the prevention of stalls.
COMMENT: The canard configuration is not intrinsically immune to high-alpha stalls.  It can be designed to be spin-resistant, but so too can the conventional aft-tail configuration.  A poorly designed or operated canard aircraft can be just as vulnerable to the high-alpha stall as a conventional aircraft.  In some respects, the canard configuration requires greater attention to detail to protect against poor low-speed handling characteristics.  For example, the upwash from the vortices which trail behind the canard cause the angle-of-attack on the outboard regions of the main wing to be higher than it is on the inboard regions.  This promotes wing-drop at high angle-of-attack and so necessitates special steps to guard against wing-tip stall.
The article’s opening seems to emphasize military purposes for the canard (“…to reduce the main wing loading, to better control the main wing airflow, or to increase the aircraft’s maneuverability, especially at high angles of attack or during a stall”).  Inasmuch as a civilian aircraft devotes almost its entire lifetime aloft in level flight, the lifting canard’s support for increased useful load should not be ignored.   There must be plenty of authoritative references that make that point.  If not, have a look at http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/canards.htm#safety. Paul Niquette (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: D51: Good analysis. I agree that most of it is WP:OR or just plan apocryphal. I tagged it for refs and had it on my list to cut it all unless refs were cited within a few days. You saved me the work! - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifting-canard 

message: Fixed-pitch canards
Chines and leading edge extensions are often used as alternatives, but the current article doesn't say much about this.  Can somebody drag up some refs for the tradeoffs please?  Hcobb (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The GAO should have a report somewhere that states that canards would have more cost effective on the F-22 than LERXes, and how much using LERXes cost the US taxpayers. P: - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives 

message: I'd like to do some significant restructuring:
*Discuss lifting canards before control canards, since that was the historical development.
*Add a third class for ride control, as in the B-1 Lancer.Fixed-pitch canards
*Sub-divide the list of examples into the three classes.
Any objections or other comments? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically the key problem with this article has been uncited and speculatory text, so I would say as long as you have refs then by all means do so! - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is linking to an existing article good enough, if that article already has a decent bibliography? I do not intend to add any information that is not already present on . In fact, all but the phrase "Active vibration damping" is already in this article. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Each article really needs its own footnoting. It doesn't help readers if the refs are elsewhere, as they can't assess the accuracy of the article and also the refs may be removed from the other article or even the article deleted! You can cheat a bit and copy refs over, however. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I had a go - durned login session timed out and logged it as an IP edit. The B-1 Lancer article does not cite a specific reference for active vibration damping, but it is a well-enough known feature that it is surely covered in the docs given as general references - none of which I have, so I can't copy one across as a specific ref here. Hope it's acceptable to just link the Lancer article as my "reference". -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: Concorde has small strakes on the forward fuselage, whose purpose (IIRC) is to reduce buffet at high a-o-a by stabilising the small vortices shed by the fuselage. I'm not sure if they also act as close-coupled canards; Concorde relies on larger wing-generated vortices to direct the airflow at high a-o-a, however stabilising the fuselage vortices does help stabilise the wing vortices too. Do they really count as canards anyway, or are they just too small? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest Concorde's strakes are vortex generators rather than canards.  They are in the same class as the strake on some engine nacelles such as on Boeing 737 with CFM56 engine, visible here.  Dolphin51 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Dolphin51: I think you may well be right about that. In which case perhaps they should be mentioned in this article for sake of completeness with a link to Vortex generator. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Concorde

message: Hi,
This topic is being discussed here. I'd be grateful if you could help us reach a consensus. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the debate and left my comment.  (My diff.) Dolphin (t) 12:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canards and stability 

message: Hi again,
The discussion has now moved to
Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft) and is rapidly turning into an edit war. Please help reach consensus! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved and getting urgent

message: "in order to achieve longitudinal stability a canard surface is trimmed to increase lift as speed increases. This equates to a negative coefficient for trim drag." - GraemeLeggett  These two sentences don't make any sense. They may have made sense in some context, but that context is not represented here. "Unlike a conventional tailplane" is an oxymoron. A canard is a conventional fore plane, not an unconventional tailplane. "Tail" planes go on tails.
"in order to achieve longitudinal stability a canard surface is trimmed to increase lift as speed increases", again this statement makes no sense in itself. If you can explain what it means, knock yourself out, but don't put it in this article just because you found the words written down somewhere.--Stodieck (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "Unlike a conventional tailplane" is not an oxymoron, it is a tautology. Clancy may be showing his age, but the sentence makes perfect sense to me as it is. By all means find a clearer and more detailed way of making the point about achieving stability and negative trim drag, or even come up with a more current reference. But for now this one meets Wikipedia's standards. And no, you should be able to tell that the words are not lifted direct from Clancy because there are no quotation marks, so I have no idea what might have given you that idea. But don't just delete what you don't understand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In following this discussion I have to add the the offending para makes perfect sense to me as well and the ref seems reliable and acceptable to Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Doesn't this all only apply to lifting canards at best? Hcobb (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlike a conventional tailplane 

message: Canard has two meanings : canard configuration and canard surface. I propose "canard aircraft" (or canard design) for the concept, and "canard" alone for the foreplane.
 
Better to avoid the expression "canard wing", to prevent confusion with (main) wing. So, in the text, canard alone means the foreplane, and wing means the main wing. 
In "General characteristics", the second paragraph "However a canard design tends to be etc..." applies  ONLY to the VariEze model 31, fitted with elevons onto the canard (Ref : Nasa TM 88354). As this concept was inefficient, it was soon discarded. So the generalized comment has to be modified or deleted. Plxdesi2 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks 14 april

message: The plane built by Hiram Maxim and tested in 1894 had a clear front canard wing for pitch control (see, http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/maxim_1894_side_elev_1000.jpg ). I do not understand why the Wikipedia article about the canard wing starts with the Wright brothers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.80 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. I have added a paragraph. One cannot comment on the Maxim machine's flight characteristics, as it never flew freely. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, Maxim's rig was a three-surface type, it has no place here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Put the canard wing, used by Hiram Maxim in 1894, back in the article because otherwise the Farman 1907 plane, which was also of the three surface type, can no longer be considered as having a canard wing which is evidently not true. Farman used a front elevator (canard wing), a pair of big wings in the middle and a back horizontal stabilizer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The machine was a test rig, held down on rails because, contrary to your initial assertion, it had minimal provision for aerodynamic control. Maxim may have experimented on it with pitch control in mind, but that would need proper citation. Technically, Langley's Aerodrome was also three-surface but, because the fore and middle surfaces were of equal size with a small tail intended only for control and trim, it is invariably described as a tandem. Whatever we think of that, it illustrates how we are bound to follow usage in reliable sources (WP:RS), and the same applies to Maxim. No cites for "canard", no content. Wragg, whom I cited in my original paragraph, does not use the "c" word or discuss the nature of the experiments. Do you know any sources who do? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, there is the issue of whether any three-surface aircraft should be discussed in this article, and to what extent. Maxim's machine belongs more to that article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The canard wing was neither invented nor used for the first time by the Wright brothers 

message: In the article : "A canard foreplane may be used as a horizontal stabiliser, whether stability is achieved statically[16][17][18] or artificially (fly-by-wire).[19]"</br>
The three attached quotes (16-17-18) use the term "stabilizer" in lieu of foreplane or canard, without saying that the canard is a stabilizing surface, so are invalid quotes. Using foreplane to control pitch (as a horizontal stabiliser does) is a control function, not a pitch stability matter.Plxdesi2 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The article says "as a horizontal stabilizer" and the quotes use the term "stabilizer". Your comment about "stabilizing" is not relevant and the references are just fine. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

text: No. A wing on its own is indeed unstable and a canard may indeed added to give stability. What a thing is called is what it is called, why it is put there is why it is put there, how it works is how it works, and Wikipedia has to respect that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreplane stabilizing ?

message: There is much talk of the pros or cons of the canard in regards to stalling of the aircraft, though very few reliable citations are given in the article, and most has the feel of original research. One citation (15) actually contradicted the statement it was supposed to support. Can someone knowledgeable on this subject please provide accurate references for the claims made in this article in regards to canard aircraft and their relationship to stalling? Thank you! :D Mousenight (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The stall behaviour of canards is a highly complex subject and it is very difficult to find citable sources which give a consistent picture. Most sources assume certain design constraints, often not made explicit. So two perfectly reliable sources may appear to make quite opposite claims about stalling behaviour - all good fun for the opinionated but unenlightened Wikipedia editor. In order to untangle such a mess, one needs a third reliable source who has taken time out to lay bare the assumptions made and how they lead to different effects. This does not happen often. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stall tales 

message: Almost certainly there is an authoritative reference that supports the observation that I have offered here
http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/canards.htm#ground-effect.Paul Niquette (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us know when you find it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground effect on an elevator 

message: Not mentioned in the article is the potential reduction in greenhouse gases resulting from the canard configuration.  For an aircraft of a given weight, a reduction in requisite lift and therefore drag will save fuel, as described here
http://www.niquette.com/puzzles/canards.htm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Niquette (talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference is self-published and therefore not acceptable on Wikipedia. To add information on this subject you would need to cite a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

text: The potential reduction in greenhouse gases resulting from yadda yadda is not relevant to most articles about things that burn fuel, it is just too darn obvious. Just like most articles about aircraft don't explain about what colour the sky is either. Also, "For an aircraft of a given weight, a reduction in requisite lift..." is a contradiction in terms - the weight defines the requisite lift (pace vertical thrust). I hope your fuller piece is better written. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As you will see in the "fuller piece," elementary illustrations show that in conventional configurations requisite lift is always greater than the aircraft's weight, which is a consequence of down-force in the empennage to overcome the mandatory location of the center of gravity forward of the center of lift.Paul Niquette (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean wing lift not net lift then you need to say so. Yours is a common fallacy. It is one of the extreme conditions, in this case experienced during rotation for takeoff, which provide critical design criteria, and as such it is all over the text books and lecture notes. But it is undesirable during cruise because it is inefficient - and that is also in any good book or lecture. The so-called "lifting tail" has always been, and still is, a common design element. However the least induced drag is experienced with zero tail lift. It is the relative downforce, i.e. less lift, on the tail compared to the wing, which satisfies the center of lift condition, not their absolute values. There is a long trail of historical literature on the subject, going from contemporary sources back to before WWI. I suggest you do some more thorough background reading. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In preparing the “fuller piece,” I was unable to take up the subject in person with Orville or Wilbur; however, while doing research for A Certain Bicyclist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cycling#Bibliography), I did meet with Paul MacCready soon after his winning the second Kremer Prize (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremer_prize) to confirm that the canard configuration in the two human-powered Gossamers was indeed chosen to minimize induced drag.  Moment arm is the key.  Does that not have relevance to the subject of ‘carbon footprint’ in aviation? Paul Niquette (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How lovely, but no. Similar claims have been made for many aircraft configurations, not least the three-surface aircraft and the flying wing. By the way, "historical literature" comprises the written word, not the spoken, frankly I had thought better of you than that. Goodbye. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canard and the environment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canard (aeronautics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517202722/http://ftp.rta.nato.int:80/public/ to http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Canard (aeronautics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/EN/RTO-EN-004///%24EN-004-19.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141127200736/http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html to http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227123111/http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf to http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Canard (aeronautics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130630052932/http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3441894/mpage_2/printable.htm to http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3441894/mpage_2/printable.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120915102903/http://www.techbriefs.com/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=/Briefs/Feb01/ARC14122.html to http://www.techbriefs.com/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=%2FBriefs%2FFeb01%2FARC14122.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article currently says that "." That last sentence is at best badly misleading. The main wing just needs sharper sweepback, or simply fit a more sophisticated canard surface with its own high-lift devices. See for example the Miles M.39B Libellula. The passage cites Raymer (1999) which I do not have access to. Could somebody who has access, please sanity-check this citation? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted the offending sentence and the citation of Raymer - See my edit on 12 September 2008. I used a copy of Raymer borrowed from a friend. I recently asked the same friend if I could again borrow the book. His answer was that he had sold his copy! I will now re-double my efforts to again get access to a copy of Raymer. In the interim I will hide or delete the offending sentence. Dolphin (t) 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Good luck in your search. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the book at archive.org: Spheroidite (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Raymer actually notes that "most aircraft with lifting canards cannot use sophisticated wing flaps". He immediately then notes a couple of workarounds in use. Also, other statements he makes are over-generalisations and not necessarily true. For example he claims that a canard flap is "much closer to the center of gravity" than the equivalent tail surface. But when you look at three-surface aircraft which have both (e.g. Piaggio P.180 Avanti, Scaled Composites Triumph, Sukhoi Su-33), that is quite untrue. His words also miss the fact that a flap creates lift over much of the surface in front of it, so the centre of its force delta is usually ahead of the actual hinge line. So frankly, I cannot see Raymer as a particularly reliable source. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  At what point does a "lifting-canard" become the forward element of a tandem wing design (something like the Miles Libellula) ?GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wherever the person talking wants that point to be. There is no hard and fast rule that I ever heard of. One can talk only vaguely of "significantly smaller" or "of comparable size or lifting power." One person's small fore wing is very much another's large canard surface. For example I have seen the fore wing of the  Miles M.39B Libellula described as a canard, similarly that of the Dunne-Huntington triplane and the Payen PA-22. It is perhaps most correct to say that such an intermediate surface confers certain properties of both, and must be considered in that light. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifting canards