Aeronautical Engineering Group Assignment:

Canard Aircraft

Group #14

David Dunk 1120811

Craig Gerrard 1113867
Richard Hillan 1113893
Grace Hynd 1086473
Mona Lippmann 1152040

[Goebel, 2006]

1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5
2 History................................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 The Pioneers of Flight: ............................................................................................... 6
2.2 Historical Canards ...................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 The Wright Flyer ................................................................................................ 7
2.3 Elbert Rutan: ............................................................................................................ 11
2.4 Current Canard Designs ........................................................................................... 12
2.4.1 Velocity ............................................................................................................ 12
2.4.2 Voyager ............................................................................................................ 14
2.4.3 Beech Starship.................................................................................................. 15
2.4.4 SU-47 (Berkut) ................................................................................................. 17
3 Statistics: .......................................................................................................................... 19
4 Materials........................................................................................................................... 23
5 Structure ........................................................................................................................... 25
6 Aeroelasticity ................................................................................................................... 28
6.1 Flutter ....................................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Divergence ............................................................................................................... 28
6.3 Solution Methods ..................................................................................................... 28
7 Aerodynamic Performance............................................................................................... 29
7.1 Effect of Canard on Steady-State Aerodynamics..................................................... 29
7.1.1 Vertical position ............................................................................................... 30
7.1.2 Deflection Angle .............................................................................................. 30
7.1.3 Downwash ........................................................................................................ 31
7.2 Canard and Wing Vortex Interaction ....................................................................... 32
7.2.1 Deflection Angle .............................................................................................. 33
7.2.2 Vertical Position ............................................................................................... 34
7.2.3 Deflection Angle .............................................................................................. 34
7.3 Effect on Wing Vortex Breakdown.......................................................................... 34
8 Longitudinal Stability Comparison .................................................................................. 36
8.1 Derivation of Neutral Point of Conventional, Canard and Three Surface Aircraft.. 37
8.1.1 Sum of Moments about the Aircraft CG .......................................................... 38
8.1.2 Coefficient Form ( ÷ qSwc )............................................................................... 38
8.1.3 Static Pitch Stability ......................................................................................... 39
8.1.4 Neutral Point – Aeroplane Aerodynamic Centre ............................................. 40
8.2 Applications ............................................................................................................. 41
9 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 43
9.1 Advantages: .............................................................................................................. 43
9.2 Disadvantages: ......................................................................................................... 43
10 REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 45
11 Appendix A: Aerodynamic Performance: Vertical Position........................................ 48
11.1 A-1: Lift.................................................................................................................... 48
11.2 A-2: Drag.................................................................................................................. 48
11.3 A-3: Pitching Moment.............................................................................................. 49
12 Appendix B: Aerodynamic Performance: Deflection Angle ....................................... 50
12.1 B-1: Lift.................................................................................................................... 50
12.2 B-2: Drag.................................................................................................................. 50
12.3 B-3: Pitching Moment .............................................................................................. 51
13 Appendix C: Aerodynamic Performance: Surface Contributions................................ 52
13.1 C-1: Lift.................................................................................................................... 52
13.2 C-2: Pitching Moment .............................................................................................. 52

2
14 Appendix D .................................................................................................................. 54
14.1D-1: Lift.................................................................................................................... 54
14.2D-2: Lift Contributions............................................................................................. 55
15 Appendix E: Canard and Wing Vortex Interaction:..................................................... 56
15.1 E-1: Secondary Separation Line............................................................................... 56
15.2 E-2: Interacting Vortices .......................................................................................... 57
15.3 E-3: Pressure Distribution Vertical Position ............................................................ 58
15.4 E-4: Vertical Position ............................................................................................... 59
15.5 E-5: Low-Canard Vortex Interaction ....................................................................... 60
16 Appendix F................................................................................................................... 61
16.1 F-1: Deflection Angle............................................................................................... 61
16.2 G-1: Vortex Burst..................................................................................................... 62

Table of Figures
Figure 2:1: The Wright Flyer [Aeroplane Co.] .......................................................................... 8
Figure 2:2: 1901 Wright glider in flight [Aeroplane Co.].......................................................... 9
Figure 2:3: The Wright Flyer [Aeroplane Co.] ........................................................................ 10
Figure 2:4: Rutan's VariEze [Hansen, 2004]............................................................................ 11
Figure 2:5: Velocity [Sebastian 1998] ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 2:6: Voyager [Air Racing History 1999] ...................................................................... 14
Figure 2:7: 2000 Starship [Seaman 1996]................................................................................ 15
Figure 2:8: SU-47 [FlyMig 2002] ............................................................................................ 17
Figure 2:9: SU-47 [Aerospaceweb, 1997]................................................................................ 18
Figure 3:1: Dassault Rafale C [Fighter Aircraft directory 2001] ............................................. 19
Figure 3:2: EF-2000 Eurofighter [Harnisch Gallery, 2001]..................................................... 19
Figure 3:3: Saab Gripen [Military Analysis Network 1999].................................................... 19
Figure 3:4: F-22 Raptor US Navy 1997].................................................................................. 19
Figure 3:5: F/A-18C/D Hornet [US Navy 1997] ..................................................................... 19
Figure 4:1: Long EZ [Hansen 2004] ........................................................................................ 24
Figure 5:1: Airflow over an Aerofoil at Different Angles of Attack [Denker, 1996].............. 25
Figure 5:2: Extended Plain Flap [Wikipedia, 2006]................................................................. 26
Figure 5:3: Canard Structure [Zenith Aircraft Company 2000]............................................... 27
Figure 11:1: Lift comparison for high, mid and low-canard.................................................... 48
Figure 11:2: Drag comparison for high, mid and low-canard.................................................. 48
Figure 11:3: Pitching Moment for high, mid and low-canard.................................................. 49
Figure 12:1: Effect of canard deflection on lift........................................................................ 50

List of Symbols
Mcg = moment about centre of gravity
Lw = lift on wing
Xcg = length to cg
Xacw = length to wing aerodynamic centre
MW = moment on wing
Mwδf = moment caused by wing flap
δf = wing flap deflection
Mfus = moment on fuselage
Lh = lift on tail wing
Xacl = tail aerodynamic centre
T = thrust
zt = vertical distance from cg
3
Fp = force produced by prop
Xp = distance to prop
Lc = lift on canard/winglet
Xacc = length to canard/winglet aerodynamic centre
Mc = moment on canard/winglet
q = dynamic pressure at canard
Sw = wing span
qc = dynamic pressure at canard
Sc = canard span
cw = wing MAC chord

4
1 Introduction
One key component of aircraft stability is pitch, which is almost invariably controlled with the
aid of horizontal stabilisers. Canard wings are horizontal stabilisers which are located in front
of the main aircraft wings. Since the Wright Brothers’ first flight in 1904, canards have been
used as an alternative to the more conventional horizontal tail configuration. Although
traditionally considered to be inherently unstable, canards can be designed such that the
aircraft is both statically and dynamically stable. The benifits of canards over the now more
conventional tailplane configurations have been researched and debated extensivly. In
particular, for the past 30 years, the use of canards in many advanced aircraft for control and
improved aerodynamic performance has been the topic of continued research. The influence
of canards on wing aerodynamics can often result in increased maximum lift and decreased
trim drag. In many canard-configured aircraft, the main benifits of canards are realized
during maneuver or other dynamic conditions. Therefore, the detailed study and
understanding of canards requires the accurate prediction of the non-linear unsteady
aerodynamics of such configurations. There are also unique dynamic performance
characteristics for canard-configured aircraft coupled with the capability of present day
automatic control systems. The reduced or even negative static stability of canard
configurations can lead to improved aircraft agility and maneuverability. Canards are seen
more often today as the need for both greater performance characteristics and also better
efficiencies force us to seek out alternative designs in order to meet our needs. This report
intends to address the effects of canards on aircraft stability, as well as the factors which need
to be taken into account when designing a canard aircraft.

5
2 History
2.1 The Pioneers of Flight:
In the late 18th and early 19th century, several people were making good progress attempting
to invent a flying machine. George Cayley in 1799 sketched what is now known as a
conventional aircraft (Culick, 2001). Cayley realised that producing lift to overcome the
weight is separate from producing thrust, common knowledge to today’s aeronautics.
Alphonse Pénaud was anther pioneer in flying, using Cayley’s design he was the first person
to fly a powered mechanical flying machine. It was Pénaud who had the idea to use bent
rubber strips, a propeller, still common today, for powering his machine. His machine also
had a horizontal tail for pitch stability, which he was the first to document the reasoning
behind, in 1872 (Culick, 2001). Toward the end of the 19th century, it appeared nearly all was
known to undertake the first piloted powered flight, largely thanks to the work of Cayley and
Pénaud. A light weight internal combustion engine had been invented, so propulsion was
taken care of. Although the current had propellers offered poor efficiency, improved versions
were soon to be invented. However, it was only the Wright brothers who appreciated the fact
that there was much to learn and overcome before a successful flight, primarily stability and
control of the aircraft. Unfortunately, their design of an aircraft was a canard configuration,
thus increasing the already complex task of stabilising the machine. Having said that, one
man, J.J. Montgomery, invented warped wings to assist in controlling the roll, although
Montgomery did not document his findings. Although he planned to design, build and fly a
powered aircraft, he was killed in a flying accident before he could face the difficulties of
three axis stability. The Wright brothers later independently conjured there own warped
wings, on a bi plane, opposed to Montgomery’s monoplane. Where the the Wright brothers
really stood above the rest, was their capacity to successfully overcome the setback of three
axis stability leading to the powered flight of their canard aircraft, discussed later in depth.

6
2.2 Historical Canards
As the canard configuration inherently has difficulties in stability and controllability there are
not many aircraft which use this configuration. Most of them are either home-built small
aircraft for private use or fighters which use the canards together with additional features of
control.

2.2.1 The Wright Flyer

In hindsight, it appears that selecting a canard configuration to attempt to overcome the
difficulties of stability for a powered flight would greatly enhance the complexity of the
challenge. However the Wright Brothers, particularly Wilbur Wright had a number of logical
reasons for their decision. For one, Lilienthal, who was the first hang glider pilot, was also the
first flight fatality, killed in his unstable conventional aircraft. One other rational reason was
that Wilbur took comfort in the fact that he would be able to see his stability mechanism
during flight, due to the canard location. Also, He believed the canard set up would actually
be more stable due to previous experimentations. The reason for this notion was that in earlier
experiements in 1899 with his kite, Wilbur appeared to have more pitch control when a
canard configuration. However, Wilbur mistaking belived this becuase due to the kites
instablility, it was highly senstive to his control inputs (Engler, 2001). In England 1904, two
aeronautics, Bryan and Williams discovered and documented that having the smaller surface
aft is more stable, unfortunately this paper was not known to the Wright brothers before their
work on the canard design.

During earlier tests around 1901 on gliders, Wilbur Wright made some surprising discoveries.
He had great difficulty when flying his glider, controlling the pitch (there were no problems
as yet in the roll and yaw because there was no attempt to turn the glider yet). It was planned
that when Wilbur deflected the canard, the nose would rise and fall accordingly, however this
was not the case. When Wilbur reduced the angle of attack, the centre of pressure actually
headed aft, dipping the nose further. It was therefore established that there was still much to
learn before the first successful piloting of a powered aircraft.

The Wright brothers faced another problem with their stability, the position of the centre of
gravity (COG). The tendency was to have it too close to the rear of the plane. Their 1903

7
plane, the Flyer, required the COG closer to the front of the plane for improved stability
(Culick, 2001). The vertical tail at the rear was already light, having minimal affect of the
COG position, thus there were only a small number of ways it could be altered. The obvious
one would be to move the engine and pilot toward the front of the plane; the other option, to
add ballast (mass) to the canards. Adding ballast results in a faster aircraft, but obviously
more power is required. The Wright brothers made their best attempts to shift the COG,
adding up to 30kg to the canards, but accepted they would have an unstable aircraft in the
1903 Flyer (Culick, 2001). Future designs by the Wright brothers would have an improved
COG position, thus improved stability.

Figure 2:1: The Wright Flyer [Aeroplane Co.]

Built by the Wright Brothers in 1905 the “Flyer 3” (Figure 2.1) was the first practical aircraft.
However the way to this invention went through many unsuccessful experiments, errors and
crashes. Inspired by the work of Otto Lilienthal, Wilbur and Orville Wright searched for a
feature to make an aircraft controllable for the pilot. Through the observation of birds and a
box that accidentally fell into Wilbur's hands, the idea of twisting wings was born. The
intention was to set one wing to a positive angle whereas the other would automatically turn
into the other direction and thereby change the direction of flight.

In 1899 the Wright Brothers built their first glider, a biplane with non-fixed wing chord to
allow a warping and an additional elevator in front of the wings, the first canard. They
believed this configuration to be easier to control and also considered the canard as a kind of
protection shield in case of crash. Although this glider was unmanned and could thereby only
be controlled from the ground the controls proved to be quite useful. The only problem was
the lack of lift which made it impossible to really estimate the impact of the features.

8
To solve this the brothers almost doubled the wing surface in their next glider (Figure 2.2),
but still it used to stall and crash, badly injuring its pilot. In conclusion they agreed that the
data Lilienthal had collected during his life and that all their experiments were based on were
wrong and started to build a wind tunnel to record their own measures of lift and drag for
different wing shapes. What they found was that Lilienthal’s data was in fact correct, but the
coefficient of the pressure of air, that had been set 150 years before was incorrect, thus the
shape of the wings Lilienthal had used were inefficient.

Figure 2:2: 1901 Wright glider in flight [Aeroplane Co.]

In their next glider the Wright brothers included the newly designed wing shape as well as an
initially fixed tail. When this design proved to increase the problem of uncontrolled spiral
descent, a moveable tail which coupled with the control of the wing warp was included. The
canard was placed further ahead to make it more effective as a control feature. With this
configuration the success of a fully controllable aircraft was complete as pitch (canards), roll
(warped wings) and yaw (tail rudder) could be regulated. However these gliders were not at
all stable and needed a good pilot to control them.

The next step was to power the aircraft. As there was no literature on propeller design
available and no engine company that would develop a gasoline engine to fit the requirements
of the Wright brothers’ calculations, they started developing an engine themselves. The first
attempt to fly this propeller driven aircraft “Flyer 1” in December 1903 was successful. The
plane actually took off and only crashed because it was mounted too fast and stalled. After
more flights the brothers got used to the control of the canard, and for the majority of their
flights were able to keep the aircraft from pitching up and down. Computer simulations
nowadays show that this was in fact the greatest effort of all, because the hypersensitive
elevator was extremely hard to control.

9
In the “Flyer 2” one of the few changes was to move the pivot point of the elevator to reduce
its sensitivity. But as the test ground was Ohio instead of the coast, the “Flyer 2” couldn’t
produce enough speed to take off. To overcome this obstacle the Wright Brothers constructed
a catapult to give the aircraft the last kick it needed. In the air again they successfully began to
do controlled turns and in September 1904 flew a whole circuit and landed safely. But still the
problem of poor pitching controllability caused a number of serious accidents. In consequence
the “Flyer 3” in October 1905 had an elevator that was a lot larger and located further
forward. This step solved the problem, resulting in the final configuration (Figure 2.3). The
brothers were now able to fly multiple circles, keeping the plane in the air for over half an
hour and even running it out of fuel. This made the “Flyer 3” the first practical airplane and in
the same moment the first one to use a canard confuguration.

Figure 2:3: The Wright Flyer [Aeroplane Co.]

10
2.3 Elbert Rutan:

Figure 2:4: Rutan's VariEze [Hansen, 2004]

Elbert ‘Burt’ Rutan was an Aeronautical Engineer, born in Oregon 1943. After several years
working on different Air Force research projects, Rutan designed and built his own plane, the
VariEze in 1974. The result was a small canard aircraft that would transport two adults over
1100km at 290km/h (Lee, 2002). The fact VariEze was a canard appealed to most for a
number of reasons; some people simply like the unusual appearance. Rutan’s theory behind
making a homebuilt aircraft in a canard configuration was that it more difficult to stall,
benifitting to the amateur flyer. Similarly, although the aircraft looks elaborate, the
components and ability to fly are simple.

Rutan had a number of elements that minimised the mass of his VariEzy. He studied existing
high performance sail planes and their surface finish, which were made of foam covered with
fibreglass and glue, before deciding to construct his own plane of a simplified composite,
allowing him to manipulate the shape more easily. Also, the wingtips had winglets, which
served multiple services. They reduced drag, increasing the rate of climb and speed of the
aircraft. Rutan also used them as vertical stabilisers, controlling the yaw. It was the immideate
success of his first VariEzy that led to the design and construction of VariEzy for amateur
pilots to homebuild and fly. Rutan successfully sold around 3000 plans of his VariEzy, with
minimal problems for buyers (Lee, 2002). However, he started a new company, Scaled
Composites, which began to require much attention, thus he had to cease the selling of the
plans for the VariEzy.

11
2.4 Current Canard Designs
2.4.1 Velocity

The Velocity is a 4-seat, home-built aircraft that is based upon the design of the Long-EZ, a 2-
seat canard aircraft successfully developed by Burt Rutan in 1970. The Velocity prototype
first flew in 1985 and has since then been continually developed and enhanced. In 1992 the
long wing version of the Velocity was established. The gull-wing doors introduced in 1995
soon became part of the standard model [Sebastian 1998]. The next extensions were the XL
and XL-5 which offered many extras such as an additional seat and a larger fuselage to
provide room for a 260 hp engine.

Figure 2:5: Velocity [Sebastian 1998]

All Velocity models have rear mounted propellers and are generally easy to build at home in a
2-car garage. The airplane is said to perform best at an altitude of 7,000 ft to 12,000 ft
[Sebastian 1998].

Specifications [Sebastian 1998]

(Velocity SE –RG Lyc IO-360 200hp)

• Length: 5.8 m

12
• Height: 2.4 m

• Wingspan: 8.96 m

• Canard Span: 4.16 m

• Main Wing Area: 9.5 m²

• Canard Wing Area: 1.84 m²

• Empty Weight: 5782 kg

• Wing Loading at Gross: 28.1 kg/m

• Rate of Climb at sea level: 365 m/min

• Ceiling: 6096 m

13
2.4.2 Voyager
The Voyager is a canard aircraft famous for being the first plane to circumnavigate the world
without refuelling. It was built by Burt Rutan without any governmental support. The project
was financed by private investment and with the help of a few sponsors. Construction began
in 1982 and the design of the aircraft served only one purpose: sufficient efficiency to achieve
the set goal. In consequence the plane was made from very light composite material and
included 17 fuel tanks between which fuel could be pumped up in order to maintain balance
during the flight.

On December 14, 1986 it took off to cover 40,211 km and arrived at the point it had started
from without any stop for fuel.

Figure 2:6: Voyager [Air Racing History 1999]

Specifications [Experimental Aircraft Association 2006]

• Length: 8.9 m

• Height: 3.1 m

• Wingspan: 33 m

• Wing Area: 33.63 m²

• Empty Weight: 1020 kg

• Lift-to-Drag Ratio: 27 /1

• Ceiling: 6400 m

• Max Speed: 240 km/h

14
2.4.3 Beech Starship
In the mid 1980’s, Rutan and Beech Aircraft designed and built a high performance aircraft,
the Beech 2000 Starship. It is the only transport aircraft in a canard configuration that was
actually sold to serve as such. It can carry eight passengers plus two pilots. Initialized by the
Beech Aircraft Corporation and designed by composite and canard expert Burt Rutan, the
development began in 1982 first building a smaller model that was used to collect data. The
all-graphite composite airframe of the Starship created a new field of exploration and required
lots of tests before the actual configuration was found. The full-size prototype did not fly until
1986. Like the VeriEzy, this was a canard configuration, lacking any form of conventional
tail, the vertical stabilisers on the wingtips controlling the yaw of aircraft. This aircraft is stall
free and at the time was able to fly at speeds similar to small business jets. It is propeller
pushed with the engine mounted in the aft to reduce noise in the passenger cabin.

Figure 2:7: 2000 Starship [Seaman 1996]

Although the Starship was designed to be sold as a business transport aircraft not more than
53 planes have been sold and most of them have been bought back to be scrapped
(Guillemette 2003). With a relatively high price and low power it was unable to compete with
similar aircrafts.

15
Specifications:

Specifications [Sherer 2006]

• Length: 14.01 m

• Height: 3.69 m

• Main Wing Span: 16.6 m

• Canard Wing Span: 6.43 m

• Main Wing Area: 26 m²

• Main Wing Loading: 55.5 kg /m²

• Canard area: 5.7 m²

• Canard Wing Loading: 108.15 kg/m²

• Empty Weight: 44,860 kg

• Rate of Climb at Sea Level: 837.6 m/min

• Max Speed: 620 km/h

• Service Ceiling: 10,911 m

16
2.4.4 SU-47 (Berkut)
The SU-47 is a one-seat experimental fighter designed by the Russian Sukhoi Aviation
Company in competition with the American Grumman X-29. In 1997 the SU-47, also known
as “Berkut” (Golden Eagle), was developed taking over many of the features of the pre-
models. Being a tandem tri-plane the configuration includes vertical and horizontal tail
planes, forward-swept main wings and canard wings.

Figure 2:8: SU-47 [FlyMig 2002]

The forward sweep angle of the main wings offers a number of advantages, such as lower
wave drag, higher lift to drag ratio, higher manoeuvrability, improved stability at high angle
of attack and shorter take-off and landing distance. This makes the Berkut an excellent dog-
fighter which maintains stability and controllability during all kinds of manoeuvres. The
downside of forward-swept wings is the induced twist that, especially at high speeds, tries to
rip the wings from of the fuselage. Although modern composite materials were used in the
construction of the Berkut, it is still limited to a maximum speed of Mach 1.6.

The canards in the front of the aircraft are small but fully moveable to add to the aircraft’s
controllability.

Although the Russian government sponsored work on the SU-47 there has only been one
aircraft built and demand was poor.

Specifications [Berkut 2001]

• Length: 22.6 m

• Height: 6.3 m

17
• Wingspan main wing: 15.16 to 16.7 m

• Empty Weight: 24,000 kg

• Max Speed: Mach 1.6

• Service Ceiling: 18,000 m

• Rate of climb: 230 m/s

Figure 2:9: SU-47 [Aerospaceweb, 1997]

18
3 Statistics:
There are a variety or aircraft which utilise canards to enhance aerodynamic performance and
controllability. Aircraft flying today can be found with canards which are fixed or movable,
located at various longitudinal and vertical positions, and coincident or deflected with respect
to the wing. Below is a table comparing three differnt canard configeration military aircraft,
the Saab Gripen, Dassault Rafale C and the EF-2000 Eurofighter along side two traditonal
configeration militarly aircraft, the F/A-18 C/D Hornet and the F-22 Raptor.

Figure 3:1: Dassault Rafale C [Fighter Aircraft directory 2001]

Figure 3:2: EF-2000 Eurofighter [Harnisch Gallery, 2001]
Figure 3:3: Saab Gripen [Military Analysis Network 1999]

Figure 3:4: F-22 Raptor US Navy 1997]

Figure 3:5: F/A-18C/D Hornet [US Navy 1997]

The Dassault Rafale C has the maximum take off weight of 21.5 tonnes of the canard
configerations, well above the Saab Gripen at only 12.7 tonnes (Keijsper, 2003), however the
Hornet and Raptor are considerably above at 25.4 and 36.3 tonnes respectivly. The
Eurofighter easily has the greatest thrust of the canard aircraft, at 180kN, Dassault the next
highest at 146kN, again, the Saab Gripen had the lowst value, at 80kN (Keijsper, 2003), but
they do not compare to the Hornet and Raptor, both just over 300kN. The maximum thrust for
the Eurofighter corresponds with it having the minimum take off distance, at only 295m,

19
while the Saab Gripen and Dassault were both above at 395m (Keijsper, 2003). Primarily due
to its excessive weight, the Hornet has a much longer take off distance of 700km. The Saab
Gripen has the smallest wing area, as expected due to the minimal thrust required, of 30.7m2,
it may have been expected the Dassault would have the greatest wing area of the canard
aircraft due to it having the maximum take off weight, however its wing area is 46m2, behind
the Eurofighter at 52.4m2 (Keijsper, 2003). The Hornet is in the same range at 37m2, but the
Raptor is a much larger aircraft, with a wing area of 78m2. As expected from the above
comparisons, the Dassault and Eurofighter are more expesnvie than the $30million Saab
Gripen, each costing $51million (Keijsper, 2003). The F/A-18 C/D Hornet, which was
desinged in the 1970s and been in operation since 1987, costs $39.5million. The Raptor,
which is a new generation air superiority fighter, costing far more, at $137million per unit.
Two important characterisics, the thrust to weight ratio and wingload are displayed below as a
graph, for visial comparison.

20
Table of results, comparing Canard military planes to the F/A-18 C/D Hornet: [Keijsper 2003]

Saab Dassault EF-2000 F/A-18 C/D F-22

Gripen Rafale C Eurofighter Hornet Raptor

Max take off

weight,
tonnes 12.7 21.5 21 25.4 36.3

Normal take
off weight,
tonnes 9 15.2 15 - 27.2

Max external
load tonnes Ca4.5 8 6.5 - -

External
hardpoints 7 14 13 9 all internal

Thrust, kN 80 146 180 314 311

Thrust to
weight ratio 0.94 0.98 1.23 0.95 1.17

Wing area, m2 30.7 46 52.4 37.16 78

Wingload,
kg/m2 293 330 286 453 470

Max g-load, g 9 9 9 - 9.5

Take off
distance, m 395 395 295 700 -

Landing
distance, m 490 395 490 1005 -

Max speed,
mach 2 1.8 2 1.8 2.42

In service 1993 2002 2003 1987 -

Price per unit,

US$(millions) 30 51 51 39.5 137

21
 Graph Comparing Thrust to Weight Ratio

Thrust to Weight 1.4

1.2
1
Ratio

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Saab Gripen Dassault Rafale C Eurofighter F/A-18 C/D Hornet F-22 Raptor

The above graph shows a comparison between the thrust to weight ratio of the different
aircraft. Not surprisingly, it is the two most modern aircraft, the Eurofighter and Raptor, that
have the highest thrust to weight ratio. The higer the thrust to weight ratio, the better the
performance of the aircraft, as it has improved fuel effiecincy and acceleration. Comparing
canard configuration to conventional configerations, there is negligable difference in their
thrust to weight ratio. This is as expected as the thrust to weight ratio is independent of the
positioning of the horizontal stabilisers.

Graph Comparing Wingload

500
Wingload (kg/m2)

400

300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5
Saab Gripen Dassault Rafale C Eurofighter F/A-18 C/D Hornet F-22 Raptor

The above graph compares the wingload of the different aircraft. It is clear that the two
conventional aircraft have the greater wingload, each around 460kg/m2, thus they must be
designed to withstand far greater stresses during operation. This is a logical result that the two
conventional aircraft that had the higher wingload, as canards produce positive lift, thus the
loading would decrease relative to the mass of the aircraft. Having said that, the large
difference in wingload is also likely to be partly due to the greater mass of the Raptor and
Hornet compared to the others, thus they would require greater lift, resulting in an increased
loading requirement.

22
4 Materials
For an aircraft to fly effectively it is essential that aircraft materials are selected based upon
their physical properties. These physical properties include weight, strength and rigidity and
must be compromised with cost when deciding on an appropriate material. The weight of the
material is important, since the greater the weight of the aircraft the greater the fuel
requirements. An aircraft’s materials are required to have a high strength in order to prevent
failure during flight. High rigidity is also an important physical property, as it desirable that
the aircraft be able to resist movement and deformation. The canard’s structure can be
constructed using light weight metals or composites.

Lights weight metals include aluminum and titanium. These materials are used in the
construction of aircraft as they have high strength, light weight and are easily manufactured.
By using aluminum alloys, the benificial properties of aluminum and another metal can be
combined. These properties include fracture toughness, stiffness and strength. Aluminum-
Lithium is the most successful of these alloys and is approximately 10% lighter than pure
aluminum. A flaw in an aluminum canard can be easily detected and a damaged component
can be easily replaced or fixed. Aluminum and other metals are tolerant to impacts and will
not immediately fail when damaged due to their high strength. An aluminium canard can
withstand dents and punctures, and still maintain its strength and be capable of flight. Due to
the durability of aluminum, a canard of this material can is able to be repaired more easily and
would be more suitable for an aircraft which requires less maintenance, such as a commercial
aircraft.

Composites have a high strength and a lower weight compared to metals. The Long EZ as
seen below and the Burkut are examples of aircraft with composite canards. Composites such
as fibre-glass have a comparable impact resistance to steel and titanium and are a fraction of
the weight. However, producing composites is more complex compared to the manufacture of
metals, and will therefore be more expensive due to the laboring and machinery requirements.
An advantage to using composites over metals for the structure of a canard is that rivets will
not be required in the joining of two components. By eliminating the need for rivets, the
surface of the canard will be smoother, resulting in a more efficient airflow and less drag.
However, fiber reinforced composites can absorb moisture and can be hard to inspect for
flaws. On an aircraft, this would be highly undesirable as any flaws in the canard would need

23
to be repaired in order to prevent failure. Unlike metal aircraft, composite aircraft are unable
to operate with damage. A fractured composite canard would require immediate replacing.
This can be difficult and expensive. A canard made from composites requires a large amount
of maintenance. However, repairs may not always be possible depending on location and
material requirements. As a result, a composite canard would be more suitable to aircraft
which are constantly being maintained, such as military aircraft.

Figure 4:1: Long EZ [Hansen 2004]

24
5 Structure
During flight, an aircraft’s canard structure is subjected to varying levels of stress. These
stresses are a result of the airflow and their effects on the canard’s surface. To ensure that the
canard does not fail during flight, it is required that the structure be capable of withstanding
these stresses. To avoid failure of the structure, the maximum yield point of the canard’s
materials must be greater than the maximum stress being applied to the canard.

Figure 5:1: Airflow over an Aerofoil at Different Angles of Attack [Denker, 1996]

The canard’s structure is similar to that of the structure of the main wing. It has an aerofoil
shape enabling it to produce positive lift. Lift is caused due to changes in the air’s
momentum. When air flows around the canard’s aerofoil shape, it is diverted downwards.
This motion of the air is called downwash and can be seen in figure 4:1.

From the diagram above, it can be observed that downwash has a vertical and horizontal
component. It is the vertical component of the downwash that contributes to the lift of the
canard. Due to Newton’s Second Law, as the canard’s surface is exerting a downward force
on the air, the air is exerting an upward force on the canard. This results in positive lift
(Uskent, 2004).

25
When the air first encounters the canards leading edge, the air moving over the top surface of
the canard initially travels in an upwards direction. This upwards motion of the air is called
upwash and contributes to negative lift created by the canard’s surface. In order to
compensate for this negative effect, the canard’s surface must be designed so that the positive
lift due to the downwash of air is greater than the negative lift due to the upwash of the air.
This can be accomplished by increasing the angle of attack of the canard and extending the
trail edge flaps. Both techniques will divert a greater amount of air downwards and increase
the vertical component of the downwash momentum.

Figure 5:2: Extended Plain Flap [Wikipedia, 2006]

When the air travels across the surface of the canard structure, the air above it is forced to
travel in the same direction. This process can be seen in figure 4:1 and is due to the fact that
air is a fluid and has a viscosity. Despite the viscosity of air being relatively small, it is still
great enough for the air molecules to have a tendency to bond with adjacent air molecules and
the surface of the canard. It is required that the shape of the canard’s structure be that the
curve is not tight enough for the air molecules to leave the path of the canard’s surface at the
aircraft’s maximum velocity. This would result in the air separating from the surface and
would not allow the maximum amount of air to be diverted downwards. This would be highly
undesirable as the amount of lift created would be greatly reduced.

The lift of the canard is proportional to the amount of air diverted downwards and the
downward velocity of the air. These factors of the lift produced by the canard are dependent
on four features. These features include the air density, the airspeed, the surface area of the
canard and the lift coefficient. The positive lift created by the canard can be summed together
with the positive lift created by the main wing to give the total lift of the canard aircraft. The
positive lift created by the canard is the primary advantage of the canard configuration.

The canard’s structure must be designed to maintain its aerodynamic shape. The metal canard
structure consists of a frame composed of spars and ribs covered by the visible surface of the
canard. The spars run along the length of the canard perpendicular to the fuselage.
Depending upon the size of the aircraft and the canard, one of two spars can be required. The
26
ribs are positioned perpendicular to the spars and can be categorized as either forming or
compression. Forming ribs support the surface of the canard and have an aerofoil shape. Due
to their shape, when the surface of the canard is attached to the frame, the material will take
on the aerofoil shape of the ribs. During flight, the forces are exerted upon the surface of the
canard. From the surface, the force is then transmitted into the compression ribs and then into
the spars

Spars

Ribs

Figure 5:3: Canard Structure [Zenith Aircraft Company 2000]

Canard’s made from composites, such as the Long-EZ and the Berkut have an entirely
different structure. These canard structures consist of a solid styrofoam core covered with a
composite skin. The styrofoam core can be cut to create any aerofoil shape required. The
composite skin is formed in a mold and is usually constructed from fiberglass or carbon-fiber.
The mold can be made to give the composite skin any required shape. The infinite amount of
possible aerofoil shape able to be created is one of the main advantages of a composite
canard. A composite canard of this structure is light, yet is able to withstand the forces of
flight.

Canard aircraft designs are designed so that the canard surface stalls before the main wing.
In order to achieve the correct lift curve slope on the canard relative to the main wing a high
aspect ratio canard surface is required. Hence a narrow chord, large span canard is required.
In most flight conditions, the canard is highly loaded, so a lot of structural depth and hence a
thicker canard aerofoil is common. When the canard stalls, the nose of aircraft will pitch
downwards and will therefore lower the angle of attack. Lowering the angle of attack will
prevent the main wing from stalling and the aircraft will be more statically stable.

27
6 Aeroelasticity
Aeroelasticity is the interaction between aerodynamic and elastic forces on an aerodynamic
structure, which can generate small deflections. This can cause the nature of the forces
generated by the components to be altered, thereby changing how the overall structure
performs. In aircraft, this is primarily observed in the wing sections: that is the main wing,
tail wings and canards.

6.1 Flutter
The dominant form of aeroelasticity in canards is flutter. This is a self-starting effect in which
a generating force causes a component to deflect, and in deflecting, the force itself is reduced.
The elasticity of the component then restores it to its original shape, hence the force is also
restores, and the cycle begins again. This results in a continued vibration, which can
eventually lead to fatigue failure. This effect also has additional disadvantages in canards, as
they are used as the control surface in aircraft to maintain longitudinal stability. Vibrations
can cause variation in the stabilising force generated, thereby making the aircraft difficult to
control.

6.2 Divergence
Another potentially hazardous form of aeroelasticity in aircraft is divergence. This effect is
similar to flutter, except instead of the force diminishing as a component deflect, it grows
larger, or move such that a twisting force is created. This can lead to the structure being
placed under stresses it was not designed to withstand, which can lead to failure within that
particular component.

6.3 Solution Methods

Prediction and resolution of aerodynamic elasticity issues is usually accomplished with the
aid of computer modelling and simulation. The structure can be modelled as a series of
springs and damper couples, and by altering the stiffness and mass distributions at a small
number of critical locations, the problem can be removed.

28
7 Aerodynamic Performance
7.1 Effect of Canard on Steady-State Aerodynamics
The unsteady aerodynamic performance associated with the canard-wing interaction is of
particular interest. The presence of a canard in close proximity to the wing results in a highly
coupled canard-wing aerodynamic flowfield which can include downwash/upwash effects,
vortex-vortex interactions and vortex-surface interactions. For unsteady conditions, these
complexities of the canard-wing flowfield are further increased.

The effect of changing the position of the canard or deflecting the canard can drastically alter
a canard-wing aerodynamic interaction. For example a canard positioned with a vertical offset
from the wing will have varying locations of the canard wake and leading-edge vortex relative
to the wing, both of which can significantly change the canard-wing flowfield from that of the
coplaner canard case. For the canard with a positive deflection angle, the stronger canard
downwash and modified canard trailing edge location will also change the wing flow field
relative to that of the coplaner case. All of these flowfield changes can potentially affect both
the aerodynamic performance as well as the stability and trim characteristics of a
configuration, and need to be fully understood.

Additional flow features contributing to the complex flow structure of typical canard
configurations include secondary, trailing-edge, and tip vortices, as well as regions of shock-
induced or boundary-layer seperation. A strong primary cortex often causes the formation of a
strong secondary vortex which, from the resultant induced velocities, will significantly affect
the surface pressures near the canard or wing leading edge. Furthermore, trailing-edge and tip
vortices can interact with the leading-edge vortex as it convects downstream. Boundary-layer
separation due to high angles-of-attack or induced by a strong recovery shock is also
influenced by the presence of these vortices.

In general, the characteristics of static canard configurations are adequately represented by

steady-state aerodynamics. At high angles of attack, some of the conditions which may result
in unsteady aerodynamics include large regions of separated flow and vortex breakdown. For
a configuration undergoing body motion with a fixed or moving canard, the unsteady effects
can be quite significant. In particular, the downwash of the canard and the interaction between
the canard and wing vortices can exhibit highly non-linear unsteady aerodynamic
characteristics.

29
The following discussion aims to develop an understanding of the steady and unsteady flow
field about canard-wing body configurations in the high-subsonic and transonic flight
regimes. The discussion is based on results from a study by Eugene L. Tu at the Ames
research Center, Moffett Field, California in 1996. The geometry of the aircraft on which the
study was based can be seen in figure 5.

Figure 7:1: Close coupled canard-wing geometry [Rayner 1992]

7.1.1 Vertical position

The vertical height of the canard wing will affect lift, drag and pitching moment of an aircraft.
At high angles of attack a high-canard configuration aircraft will experience greater lift than a
mid and low-canard configuration. At low angles of attack the lift experienced by the canard
wing is not dependent on vertical configuration of the canard (Appendix A-1). Alternatively a
low-canard configuration will experience less drag at the same level of lift (Appendix A–2),
and a lower pitching moment at the same angle of attack, than the mid and high-canard
configuration (Appendix A-3).

7.1.2 Deflection Angle

Changes in canard deflection angle will affect lift, drag and pitching moment curves of an
aircraft. At low angles of attack a deflected canard will experience greater lift than a level
canard while at a high angle of attack a level canard will experience greater lift than a
deflected canard (Appendix B-1). At all attack angles a level canard will generate less drag
(Appendix B-2) and less pitching moment than a deflected canard (Appendix B-3).

30
Depending on aircraft geometry it is common that only very small changes in the angle of
canard deflection are required to trim an aircraft for moderate changes in angle of attack
(Appendix B-4).

7.1.3 Downwash
The different contribution each of the wing surfaces has to lift and pitching moment can
reveal information about the aerodynamic behaviour of the canard aircraft. The canard vortex
will induce an upwash on the wing outboard of the canard span. At the same time this canard
tip vortex will induce a downwash on the wing inboard of the canard span. This will result in
poor induced drag behaviour of the wing and will increase the root bending moment of the
wing. These effects can be diminished by locating the canard forward and below the wing,
applying opposite camber and twist to the wing at the wing station and canard span or by
implementing close coupled canard. In this case it is possible to use the canard wash to
enhance wing lift and reduce induced drag.

At low angles of attack the canard surface contributes greater lift than the main wing, which
may even experience negative lift (Appendix C-1), even though the main wing has a greater
surface area. This is a result of the downwash present in the canard wake (Figure 7:2). At
higher angles of attack the direction of downwash is changed and the effect is not as
significant. These issues are discussed later. Depending on the shape of each aerofoil, the
canard surface will usually have a greater pitching moment than the main wing surface
(Appendix C-2), suggesting that it is the canard surface which causes longitudinal instability
in the aircraft.

Figure 7:2: Downwash on a wing in canard wake

31
7.2 Canard and Wing Vortex Interaction
Canard-induced downwash will weaken or delay formation of the wing leading edge vortex.
The presence of a canard will eliminate the wing vortex breakdown. At low to moderate
angles of attack, the fixed high-canard configuration exhibits improved steady-state lift and
drag over the mid-canard case. However, due to the interaction between the low-canard vortex
and the wing surface, unfavourable lift and drag characteristics for the low-canard
configuration are evident as angle of attack is increased. At low angle of attack, the low-
canard vortex passes under the wing surface and can induce lower pressures on the wing
lower surface. At higher angles of attack, the canard vortex is split by the wing surface into
upper and lower vortices. Toward the outboard wing, the wing vortex induces a large inward
movement of the canard upper-vortex.

When the fixed canard is positively deflected, a pronounced effect on aerodynamic

performance parameters is observed, particularly for wing lift and configuration pitching
moment. Visualisation of the canard-wing-body flow field shows a complex flow structure
consisting of several interacting canard and wing vortices. Specifically, at significantly large
canard deflection angles, effective wing angle of attack transitions from negative to positive
values causing the formation of both lower and upper surface leading-edge vortices.
Furthermore, due to the strength of these vortices, secondary vortices are present indicating
strong viscous effects.

Many of the complex nonlinear behaviours of various canard configurations can be attributed
to the canard and wing vortical flow fields. Most configurations are dominated by leading
edge vortices from both wing surfaces. Strong vortex strength will result in adverse pressure
gradient induced separation and may cause strong secondary vortices. The canard leading
edge vortex has direct influence on the surface pressures over the main wing and indirectly
through its influence over the leading edge vortex. Any effect the canard may have over the
main wing will be highly influenced by modifications in canard vertical height and deflection
angle.

As the attack angle of an aircraft increases the secondary separation line moves inboard,
indicating the upward and inward movement of a wing vortex. In the presence of a canard
surface there is a delay in the formation of the main wing vortex and the main wing vortex is
further outboard and aft than with out the canard surface (Appendix E-1). This is due to the
interaction of the two vortices.

32
The main mechanism for canard-wing interaction is the canard’s influence on the wing
leading edge vortex, which involves the influence of canard downwash and canard leading
edge vortex. Both will have a significant effect on the formation and trajectory of the wing
leading edge vortex.

Outboard of the canard-tip span line the leading edge vortex is the primary mechanism for
influence over the flow field about the main wing. As the canard leading edge vortex passes
over the main wing it will interact with the main wing leading edge vortex (Appendix E-3).
The two vortices will rotate counter clockwise and induce a relative downwards and inwards
motion of the canard vortex and, in turn an outwards motion of the main wing vortex. Had the
canard not been present the main wing flow field would be much less complex. The wing
vortex trajectory would be expected to follow an upwards and outwards path. The flow field
may be further complicated by a counter clockwise rotating secondary vortex.

7.2.1 Deflection Angle

At higher deflection angles the influence of downwash in reducing lift on the main wing is
increased. This is because a canard at a greater angle of deflection creates more lift and hence
the effect of the downwash in the canard wake is increased. The downwards directional
change in the angle of effective airflow over the main wing will be greater and hence the
change in the effective angle of attack of the main wing will be greater, resulting in less
effective lift.

Wing lift has been related to canard deflection in the previous paragraph. However the
pitching moment on the main wing surface is not affected by a change in canard deflection
(Appendix D-1). This suggests that the effective centre of pressure of the main wing must be
shifting with respect to canard deflection. The canard downwash has greater effect on the
inboard section of the wing, hence shifting the wing centre of pressure outboard and aft. The
effect is increased with an increase in canard deflection angle (Appendix D-2).

The presence of a canard surface will result in a modified flow field around the main wing,
primarily a delay in the formation of wing vortex. The canard surface has significant influence
on surface pressures of the aircraft body. The leading edge vortices create a low pressure
region which will move inboard as angle of attack increases (Appendix E-1).

33
7.2.2 Vertical Position
The presence of the canard surface also has significant influence on the surface pressures
acting on the main wing surface. The canard trailing edge vortex creates a low pressure region
atop the main wing surface. This region moves inboard and therefore has greater effect, as
aircraft attack angle increases (Appendix E-2). The effect is more pronounced in a high
canard configuration due to the position of the canard trailing edge vortices relative to the
main wing surface. The region will have a substantial contribution to lift on the main wing
surface and is therefore an advantage of the high canard configuration.

The canard vortex will travel under the main wing in the low-canard configuration (Appendix
E-4). This will contribute to an unfavourable low pressure region under the wing. At higher
angles of attack the low-canard vortex will interact directly with the wing and will split into
two vortecies with different trajectories (Appendix E-5). The lower vortex will have
proximity with the wing lower surface and will move inboard while the upper vortex is
influenced by the wing vortex and will move inwards.

7.2.3 Deflection Angle

Changes in the deflection angle of a canard wing will create additional variations in vortex
structure. Changes in the deflection angle will affect the strength of the canard vortex and
downwash, the location of the canard trailing edge relative to the wing and the vortex
trajectory path.

As the deflection of a canard surface increases there is an upward and inwards shift in the
canard vortex. The secondary separation line will form near the apex of the canard but it’s
formation will be inhibited on the wing inboard. As canard deflection increases the near
leading edge lower surface pressure will change from positive to negative. At higher
deflection angles a strong suction peak will dominate the lower surface pressure distribution
(Appendix F-1) and a high pressures will be present on the upper surface. The effect is more
extreme at higher angles of attack.

7.3 Effect on Wing Vortex Breakdown

Vortices can offer additional lift on a low aspect ratio wing. The additional lift is limited by
vortex bursting or breakdown and allowable angle of attack. Vortex bursting occurs because
of adverse pressure gradients acting on the vortex. Vortex burst on the wing will cause
significant drop in lift and turbulence. A canard has the potential to delay or eliminate vortex

34
breakdown (Appendix G-1). A study by Gloss and Washburn (Calarese W, 1984) revealed
that vortex burst commonly occurs at an angle of attack of 13 degrees in a conventional
configuration, while in mid canard configuration no vortex burst occurs before an attack angle
of 20 degrees.

35
8 Longitudinal Stability Comparison
Longitudinal analysis of an aircraft can be isolated from lateral analysis as changes in angle of
attack have no influence on roll or yaw. A comparative longitudinal stability analysis of the
conventional, canard wing and three surface aircraft will illustrate any variances that exist
between the configurations. Figure 1 illustrates the main contributors to pitching moment in
the three configurations.

In each configuration the wing will contribute to pitching moment in two ways. Any camber
in the wing will create a pressure distribution on the lifting surface which will create a
moment about the wings aerodynamic centre. The lift on the wing will also contribute a
moment about the aircraft centre of gravity. The canard wing in the latter configurations and
tail wing will contribute to pitching moment in a similar way. The contribution to pitching
moment by each of the wings will alter if the flap elevation is changed.

In each configuration the thrust force created by the engine will contribute to pitching
moment, as will the force caused by turning of the freestream airflow. Any prop wash will
alter the angle of attack of an aft-wing and hence influence its contribution to pitching
moment. Any moment acting on the fuselage will be influenced by upwash and downwash
and must be calculated from wing tunnel data.

Each of these contributions is accounted for in the following calculations. The equations for
canard and three surface have been adapted from equations related to conventional
configurations in Rayner, (1992).

36
8.1 Derivation of Neutral Point of Conventional, Canard and Three
Surface Aircraft

Figure 8:1: Longitudinal Pitch Moments derived from Rayner 1992

37
8.1.1 Sum of Moments about the Aircraft CG
From Figure 1, the following pitching moment equation about the aircraft’s centre of gravity
can be obtained. Some forces are negligable, as mentioned before, and have been ignored in
the second equation.

Conventional

Mcg = Lw( Xcg − Xacw ) + MW + Mwδfδf + Mfus − Lh( Xach − Xcg ) − Tzt + Fp ( Xcg − Xp )

Mcg = Lw( Xcg − Xacw ) + Mw − Lh( Xach − Xcg )

Canard

Mcg = − Lw( Xacw − Xcg ) + Lc( Xcg − Xacc ) + MW + Mc + Mwδfδfw + Mcδfδfc + Mfus − Tzt + Fp ( Xcg − Xp )

Mcg = − Lw( Xacw − Xcg ) + Lc( Xcg − Xacc ) + MW

Three Surface

Mcg = − Lw( Xacw − Xcg ) + Lc( Xcg − Xacc ) + MW + Mc + Mwδfδf + Mcδfδfc + Mfus
− Lh( Xach − Xcg ) − Tzt + Fp ( Xcg − Xp )

Mcg = − Lw( Xacw − Xcg ) + Lc( Xcg − Xacc ) + MW − Lh( Xach − Xcg )

8.1.2 Coefficient Form ( ÷ qSwc )

In order to non-dimensionalise these values the pitching moment equation can also be
expressed in lift coefficient form. Since the moments include the moment arm, which is a
length, they must be divided by a quantity of length as well as by the dynamic pressure and
wing area (qSwc). This length quantity is the wing mean aerodynamic chord of the pitching
moment c. As a result the pitching moment equation in lift coefficient form can be obtained.

Conventional

Cmcg = CL( Xcg − Xacw) / c + Cmw − (qhSh / qSw )Clh ( Xach − Xcg ) / c

Canard

Cmcg = −CL( Xacw − Xcg ) / c + (qcSc / qSw )Clc ( Xcg − Xcan ) / c + Cmw

38
Three Surface

Cmcg = −CL( Xacw − Xcg ) / c + (qcSc / qSw )Clc ( Xcg − Xcan ) / c − (qhSh / qSw )Clh ( Xach − Xcg ) / c + Cmw

For static trim to occur the total pitching moment about the aircraft cg. must equal zero. The
above equation can be set to zero and solved for trim by varying some parameter, typically
horizontal stabiliser area, horizontal stabiliser lift coefficient or sometimes cg. position. The
change in stabiliser will change the aircraft total lift, which must equal the weight of the
aircraft. Therefore, as the tail lift changes, the aircraft angle of attack must change. This
would be solved by a computer iterative process.

8.1.3 Static Pitch Stability

For static stability any change in angle of attack must generate a moment to oppose the
change, thus the derivative of pitching moment with respect to angle of attack must be
negative. The derivative terms account for propeller, wing and canard upwash and downwash.
Wing and canard pitching moment and thrust terms are constant with respect to angle of
attack and hence have been neglected. The canard and tail wing angles of attack do not vary
directly with aircraft angle of attack because of downwash effects. A derivative term can
account for the effect of wing, and propellar downwash effects in a conventional aircraft. A
canard will obviously experience no downwash from the wing, but its own downwash will
influence the wing. The estimation of the effect of canard downwash on the wing is difficult
because the downwash varies across the canard span and because the canard tip vortices
actually create an upwash on the wing outboard of the canard. The effect of canard downwash
on the wing may be crudely approximated by assuming that the downwash uniformly effects
the wing inboard of the canard tips.

Conventional

Cmα = CLα ( Xcg − Xacw) / c − (qhSh / qSw )Clαh(∂αh / ∂α )( Xach − Xcg ) / c

Canard

Cmα = −CLα ( Xacw − Xcg ) / c + (qcSc / qSw )Clαc(∂αc / ∂α )( Xcg − Xacc ) / c

Three Surface

Cmα = −CLα ( Xacw − Xcg ) / c + (qcSc / qSw )Clαc (∂αc / ∂α )( Xcg − Xacc ) / c
− (qhSh / qSw )Clαh(∂αh / ∂α )( Xach − Xcg ) / c

39
8.1.4 Neutral Point – Aeroplane Aerodynamic Centre
The aircraft pitching moment will change with the location of the cg. There exists a cg
location for which aircraft pitching moment will not change with respect to angle of attack.
This is the neutral point and is the critical point of stability of the aircraft. The following step
solves for the neutral point of each configuration. The pitching moment derivative is then
expressed in terms of the distance in perent MAC from the neutral point to the cg. This
percentage is known as the static margin.

Conventional

Xnp / c = [CLαXacw / c − (qhSh / qSw )Clαh(∂αh / ∂α )Xach / c] /[CLα − (qhSh / qSw )Clαh(∂αh / ∂α ) ]

dCM / dCL = − dCL / dCα ( Xnp − Xcg ) / c

dCM / dCL ≤ 0

Canard

Xnp / c = [CLαXacw / c + (qcSc / qSw )Clαc(∂αc / ∂α )Xacc / c]/[CLα + (qcSc / qSw )Clαc(∂αc / ∂α ) ]

dCM / dCL = − dCL / dCα ( Xnp − Xcg ) / c

dCM / dCL ≥ 0

Three Surface

Xnp = [CLαXacw − (qcSc / qSw )Clαc (∂αc / ∂α ) Xacc / c − (qhSh / qSw )Clαh(∂αh / ∂α ) Xach / c] /
[CLα − (qcSc / qSw )Clαc (∂αc / ∂α ) − (qhSh / qSw )Clαh(∂αh / ∂α )]

dCM / dCL = − dCL / dCα ( Xnp − Xcg ) / c

dCM / dCL ≤ 0

If the cg. is ahead of the neutral point a positive static margin is present and the pitching
moment will be negative, giving a stable aircraft. If the cg. is behind the neutral point a
negative static margin is present and the pitching moment will be positive giving an unstable
aircraft.

40
8.2 Applications
The equations reveal much about the stability of the aircraft. It can be seen below that for the
pitching moment derivative with respect to angle of attack to be negative (required for static
stability) the pitching moment derivative with respect to lift must be negative, as the lift
derivative with respect to angle of attack is always positive (before stall).

dCM / dCα = dCM / dCL dCL / dCα

Figure 8:2: Positive lift derivative for moderate α

Figure 8:3: Pitching moment for stable and unstable aircraft

The neutral point equations show that the static margin in a conventional and three surface
aircraft can be made positive, resulting in a negative pitching moment lift derivative and a
stable aircraft. If a small change in the pitch of the aircraft occurs, the inherent stability of the
aircraft will reverse the change. In the case of the canard configuration, there are no

41
mechanisms availiable to make the static margin positive, resulting in a positive pitching
moment lift derivative and an unstable aircraft. If a small change in the pitch of the aircraft
occurs, the inherent instability of the aircraft will increase the change. To conrol the canard a
pilot will be required to physically correct the change. Alternativly, an automatic control
system can be implemented to control the stability.

As automatic control capabilites are at a standard where they can achieve stability in an
unstable aircraft, it must be noted that stability in an aircraft is not necassarily a good thing. If
a pilot is attempting to perform a change in pitch and the aircraft inherently reverses this
change the aircraft will be sluggish and unresponsive. Especially in the case of military
aircraft, manoeuvrability is very important. The stability of an aircraft will thus be designed to
meet the needs of the aircraft.

Simply designed aircraft with less need for manoeuvrability, such as homebuilt, propellar
driven and agricultural planes will often have a high static margin of 10% of the MAC. These
aircraft often feature the conventional or three surface configurations. As an aircraft’s
manoeuvrability requirments increase the static margin designed into the aircraft will
decrease. Aircraft used as business jets, military trainers, fighters and supersonic cruise
airplanes fit into this catagory and will often have a static margin of 5%. For even greater
manoeuvrability requirments a negative static margin is implemented. These aircraft could be
designed using a canard configuration.

In summary, a canard design, which is inherently unstable, would be well suited for military
or recreational applications for this reason. Alternativly a conventional aircraft is usually
designed with inherent stability. Due to its inherent stability this configuration is more suited
to cruising and hence would be suited for longer flights with less frequent takeoff and landing.
The three surface configuration can be designed with or without stability. The design has
greater lift capabilities because of the greater lifting area, and would feature low fuel
consumption. The design would also be suited to a business jet or passenger liner. The three
surfaces allow the configuration to be adapted to allow for alternative fuselage configurations.
The configuration would thus also be suited to a large transport aircraft or other utility
aircraft, such as a crop duster.

42
9 Conclusion
Canards, while seen as unconventional, have been employed in the past and are used today in
several aircraft designs. Most notably are Rutan’s EZ type recreational aircraft, and the new
generation European fighters, particularly the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Placing the horizontal stabiliser in front of the aircraft’s main wing generates a variety of
positive and negative effects on the performance and handling of the design.

9.1 Advantages:
• Canards can produce positive lift, as opposed to most horizontal tails which produce
negative lift to balance the moment of the wing. This serves to reduce the total
amount of drag.

• By designing the canards such that they stall before the main wings, it is possible to
make a stall-proof aircraft.

• Canards allow for greater control of the aircraft at large angle of attacks, providing
fighter aircraft with greater control during combat manoeuvres.

• Induced instabilities caused by canards can, when coupled with an artificial control
system, provide the aircraft with far greater manoeuvrability than would otherwise be
possible.

• Canards can achieve better trimmed L/D ratio if designed correctly.

9.2 Disadvantages:
• Vortexes shed by the canard, as well as downwash generated leads to the main wing
operating at less than optimal efficiency, requiring a larger surface area to generate the
same amount of lift as a conventional design.

• Careful design is required to maintain static stability, often requiring complex control
systems to aid the pilot in maintaining stability and control of the aircraft.

• Canard sizing is much more critical than aft tail sizing. Aircraft performance will be
severly affected by too large or small canard design.

43
Although not commonly seen in current model aircraft, canards are emerging as an alternative
to rear tail configurations in both recreational and military aircraft. The enhanced
performance characteristics are appealing to combat aircraft designers, enabling aircraft to
push new boundaries. Whether or not this tend will also extend to commercial aircraft, either
passenger or freight is yet to be seen.

44
10 REFERENCES
Aerospaceweb, 1997, SU-47, viewed 4th October 2006, <http://aerospaceweb.org/>

Aircraft directory 2001, viewed 4th October 2006, <http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/rafale-

01.jpg&imgrefurl>

Budack W. (08/2006) Suchoj Su-47, viewed at <www.suchoj.com/ab1953/Su-

47/home.shtml> on 10/09/06.

Bleck, M. (03/2006), Starship History, viewed at

<www.bobscherer.com/Files/Starship%20History.pdf> on 10/09/06.

Calarese W, (1984) Close Coupled Canard-Wing Vortex Interaction, Journal of Aircraft,

AIAA

Culick, F (2001), Wright Brothers First Aeronautical Engineers and Test Pilots, California
Institute of Technology, viewed at www.wrightflyer.org/Papers/SETP01_Culick.pdf on
22/0/06.

Denker, J 1996, See How It Flies, Springer Verlag, Chicago

Engler N, (2001), The Wrights 1902 Glider—Its Construction, Design and Flight
Characteristics, 37th Joint AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference Paper
AIAA-2001-3384.

FlyMig, 2002, SU-47, viewed 4th October 2006, <http://www.flymig.com/>

Guillemette R, (2003), Rutan Aircraft Designs, U.S Centennial of Flight Commission, viewed
at www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/GENERAL_AVIATION/rutan/GA15.htm on 28/09/06.

Hansen, J 2004, EZ Squadon, viewed 1st October 2006, <http://www.ez.org>.

Harnisch Gallery, 2001, viewed 4th October 2006,

<http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://harnisch-gallery.ch/albums>

Keijsper, G, (2003), Saab Gripen, Midland Publishing: England

Lee R, (2002), Rutan VariEze, National Air and Space Museum, viewed at
<www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/rutan_eze.htm> on 28/9/06.
45
Military Analysis Network, 1999, JAS 39 Gripen, viewed 4th October 2006,
<http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/gripen.htm>

No identifiable author, (4/08/06), Sukhoi Su-47, viewed at

<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47> 10 Sept 2006.

Goebel, G, (2006) Eurofighter Typhoon, In the Public Domain, viewed at

<www.vectorsite.net/aveuro3.jpg&imgrefurl> on 08/10/06.

Onkst, D.H., Dick Rutan, Jeana Yeager, and the Flight of the Voyager, viewed at
<www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Explorers_Record_Setters_and_Daredevils/rutan/EX32.h
tm> on 10/08/06
Sept 2006.

Rayner DP, (1992) Aircraft Design: Conceptual Approach, AIAA.

Roskam, J. (1985) Airplane Design: Part II, Preliminary Configuration Design and
Integration of the Propulsion System, University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas.

Seaman, R, 1996, Airshows and Aircraft Museum, The Flying Kiwi, viewed 2nd October
2006, <http://www.richard-seaman.com>

Sebastian, FL 1998, Velocity Aircraft, Velocity Inc., viewed 3rd October 2006,
<http://www.velocityaircraft.com/contact.html>

The History of Air Racing and Record Breaking, Air Racing History, viewed 3rd October
2006, <http://www.airracinghistory.freeola.com/>

Uskent, S 2004, The Theory of Flight into the Free Skies, viewed 2nd September 2006
<http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/articles/The-Theory-Of-Flight-Into-The-Free-
Skies.asp>.

Unofficial US Navy Site, viewed at <navysite.de/planes/f18.htm> on 3/10/06.

US NAVY, Aircraft Characteristics Overview, viewed at

US Navy 1997, Office of Information, viewed 3rd October 2006,

<http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/>

<www.uscost.net/AircraftCharacteristics/acfa18.htm> on 4/10/06.

46
Velocity Inc, (1998), About the Airplane Itself, viewed at
<www.velocityaircraft.com/airabout.html> on 10/09/06.

Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company, (08/2006), Inventing the Airplane, viewed a at

<www.wright-brothers.org/History/Wright%20Story/inventin.htm> on
10/09/06.

Wikipedia, F-22 Raptor, viewed at <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Characteristics> on

4/10/06.

Wikipedia, F/A-18 Hornet, viewed at <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18_Hornet> on

4/10/06.

Wikipedia, viewed 2nd October, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_%28aircraft%29>.

Zenith Aircraft Company, 2000, Stol Ch 701 Construction,viewed 28th September 2006,
<http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-construc.html>.

47
11 Appendix A: Aerodynamic Performance: Vertical
Position
11.1 A-1: Lift

Lift curves for the high and low configurations are linear and equal for angles of attack less
than 4°. Beyond this point the high configuration experiences greater lift than the mid and low
configurations.

Figure 11:1: Lift comparison for high, mid and low-canard

11.2 A-2: Drag

Figure 2 shows that the low-canard configuration experiences less drag for a given level of
lift.

Figure 11:2: Drag comparison for high, mid and low-canard

48
11.3 A-3: Pitching Moment

Figure 3 shows the low-canard configuration with a lower pitching moment at a given angle
of attack.

Figure 11:3: Pitching Moment for high, mid and low-canard

49
12 Appendix B: Aerodynamic Performance: Deflection
Angle
12.1 B-1: Lift

Each of the figures shown in this section is based on the mid-canard configuration. Figure 1
shows that at a low angle of attack (α < 7.5°) a deflected canard (10°) will experience greater
lift than a level canard. At a higher angle of attack (α > 7.5°) a level canard configuration will
experience greater lift than a deflected canard.

Figure 12:1: Effect of canard deflection on lift

12.2 B-2: Drag

Figure 2 illustrates that a level canard configuration aircraft will experience less drag than a
deflected canard configuration.

Figure 12:2: Effect of canard deflection on drag

50
12.3 B-3: Pitching Moment

Figure 3 demonstrates that a deflected canard will experience a larger pitching moment than a
level configuration.

Figure 12:3: Effect of canard deflection of pitching moment

Figure 3 shows the pitching moment acting on an aircraft for varied attack angles and canard
deflection angles. The figure demonstrates that when moderate changes in aircraft angle of
attack create a pitching moment on the aircraft only a small change in canard deflection angle
will return the aircraft to a trimmed configuration.

Figure 12:4: Configuration moment for varied angle of attack and canard deflection

51
13 Appendix C: Aerodynamic Performance: Surface
Contributions
13.1 C-1: Lift

Each of the figures in this section are based on a canard deflection of 10°. Figure 9 illustrates
that at lower angles of attack (α < 7.5°) the negative lift provided by the wing will cancel out
the lift on the canard, creating negligible total lift. Any negative lift experienced by the wing
is caused by deflection of air in the downwash on the canard surface. The presence of
negative lift in the wing shown in figure 1 illustrates the significance of the downwash created
by the canard on the wing.

Figure 13:1: Contribution of wing and canard to configuration lift.

13.2 C-2: Pitching Moment

Figure 2 shows that a wing is statically stable in the presence of the canard. It is the pitching
moment of the canard surface that causes instability in the total configuration.

52
Figure 13:2: Canard and Wing Vortex Interaction: Deflection Angle

53
14 Appendix D
14.1 D-1: Lift

Figure 14:1: Lift changes with deflection [Author, Date]

Figure 1a compares the main wing contribution to lift for different canard deflection angles,
and shows that a canard at a greater angle of deflection will result in less effective lift on the
main wing. Figure 1b shows that wing portion lift decreases with increasing canard deflection
angle and that the effect is greater at a higher angle of attack. Figure 1c shows that the
pitching moment on a canard wing is greater for a canard wing at greater deflection angle.
Figure 1d demonstrates that the pitching moment on the main wing surface is not effected by
the deflection angle of the canard surface.

54
14.2 D-2: Lift Contributions

Figure 14:2: Mach 0.85; angle of attack 4.27deg

Figure 2a shows the lift contribution of each wing surface. At greater canard deflection angles
lift on the canard surface is greater but the canard downwash reduces lift on the main wing.
Total aircraft lift is relatively unchanged with changes in canard deflection angles as lift on
canard and wing surfaces cancel each other.

55
15 Appendix E: Canard and Wing Vortex Interaction:
15.1 E-1: Secondary Separation Line

Figure 15:1: Upper surface flow pattern on given angles of attack for conventional and
canard configurations [Author, Date]
Figure 1 demonstrates movement of the line of secondary separation inboard for increasing
angle of attack. It also shows the significance of the presence of a canard wing surface. The

56
secondary separation line is further outboard and aft in the presence of a canard surface in
each case and the formation of the main with leading edge vortex is delayed.

15.2 E-2: Interacting Vortices

Figure 15:2: Outboard flow field in canard wake

Figure 2 compares the outboard flow field around the main wing on the presence of and
absence of a canard surface.

57
15.3 E-3: Pressure Distribution Vertical Position

Figure 3 compares the pressure distribution on the main wing surface in the presence of a high
and low canard configuration. The figure illustrates the advantages of a high canard
configuration created by the leading edge vortex of the canard aircraft.

Figure 15:3: Comparison of wing surface pressures for high and low configurations

58
15.4 E-4: Vertical Position

Figure 15:4: Development and convection of canard and wing vortices high and low
wing comparison.
Figure 4 compares the development of both canard and main wing vortex development in a
high and low-canard configuration. The canard leading edge vortex is seen to trail under the
wing in a low-canard configuration and above the wing in a high-canard configuration.

59
15.5 E-5: Low-Canard Vortex Interaction

Figure 15:5: Visualisation of the separation of the canard vortex

Figure 5 illustrates the formation of two vortices from the one leading edge canard vortex.

60
16 Appendix F
16.1 F-1: Deflection Angle

Figure 16:1: Effect of canard deflection on wing surface pressure

61
Figure 1 demonstrates the pressure low experienced by the highly deflected canard
configuration at lower span.

16.2 G-1: Vortex Burst

Figure 16:2: Particle traces of wing vortex for conventional configuration

Figure 16:3:Particle tracers of canard and wing vortices in canard configuration

(undeflected, mid-canard).
Figures 2 and 3 show a lower swept canard surface will result in canard vortex burst further
upstream than the wing vortex burst, relative to its trailing edge. The wing vortex is stable and
vortex breakdown does not occur in the presence of the canard.

62