Introduction

1.
The first human-powered flight was achieved by a canard-configured
aircraft (Wright Brothers). Although other canard concepts were flown with
varying degrees of success over the years, the tail-aft configuration has
dominated the aircraft market for both military and civil use.
2.
Early canard concepts suffered adversely in flight behavior because
of a lack of understanding of the sensitivities of these concepts to basic
stability and control principles.
3.
Modern canard designs have been made competitive with tail-aft
configurations by using appropriate handling qualities design criteria in
terms of stability and control, handling qualities, and operating problems.
Historical Overview
1.
The popularity of canard concepts has fluctuated over the years. At
the start of powered flight, most new aircraft copied the Wright Brothers
canard design; however, only tail aft configurations were produced during
the WW I years, 1914-1918, and only a few copies of canard designs
invaded the market for the next 50 years.
2.
In those early days of flight, most aircraft were designed and built
without the benefit of wind tunnel tests, and documentation of stability and
control characteristics did not exist. The first systematic stability and control
flight test results were conducted by NACA5 in 1919 using a Curtiss JN4H
aircraft. Handling qualities measurements correlated with pilot opinion did
not take place until the late 1930s.
3.
Although a great number of canard-equipped aircraft have flown
throughout the years, it is only recently that stability and control data have
become available to provide a clearer understanding of the relative merits
of this concept. As a result, only a select few of the many canard concepts
that have demonstrated successful flight are reviewed.
4.
In the early struggles to achieve powered flight, the canard concept
proved to be popular. The Wright Brothers designed their 1903 canard
"Flyer" by appropriately blending knowledge of structures, power plant, and

aerodynamics to construct a machine that had enough power to offset the

drag and sufficient control to trim over a wide AOA range.
5.
They did not, however, understand or appreciate the need for stability
and this was reflected in problems encountered in developing their concept.
Not only was their aircraft unstable longitudinally and laterally, but also the
elevator hinge moments were overbalanced, and large adverse yaw
complicated turn entries.
6.
Foremost is the use of the foreplane, which led to the configuration
coined "canard," a French word duck. In fact, their accomplishment of
powered flight was not completely believed until Wilber Wright
demonstrated their aircraft in many European countries in 1908. The
reason for the choice of the canard control was not based upon measured
data (the Wrights' wind tunnel tests did not include pitching moment), but
more upon intuitive reasoning. Good control was uppermost in their minds.
Wilber had expressed a concern that an aft tail configuration had an
intrinsic danger that was associated with Lilienthal's loss of control and
death while flying his glider in 1896.
6.
A wide variety of canard designs have been proposed and flown over
the years with varying degrees of success. Recently, the canard
arrangement has shown a sharp rise in popularity, starting in the horne-built
(experimental category) and carrying on to military fighters and short-haul
commuter designs.
7.
There may be several reasons for a change in popularity of a
particular aerodynamic concept, including (1) the potential for increased
performance in terms of an expanded high/low speed operating range or
increased maneuverability (tied in with mission requirements); (2) newly
available structural materials that favor a specific design layout (use of
aeroelastically tailored composites); and (3) potential improvements in
handling qualities for safer operating characteristics (better stall behavior).
Canard Design
1.
Canard design results in an alternative utilization of aerodynamic
forces and corresponding flight characteristics that differ from traditional
planes. There are two types of horizontal stabilizers currently used on most

planes. The stabilizers are either rearward mounted of the primary wings or
forward mounted of primary wings. The rearward mounted are called
horizontal tail wings, elevators, or rear stabilizers. The forward mounted are
called canards or close-coupled canard.
2.
The position of the stabilizers determines the overall behavior and
effect they have on the plane. Both types of stabilizers are symmetrical and
seen in pairs on most aircraft in history. Canards versus rear mounted
stabilizers have certain advantages and disadvantages over each other.
3.
While many people erroneously believe that a canard is just like a
regular airplane, but with the tail installed up front, there are actually some
notable aerodynamic differences between the two design configurations.
Whereas a standard horizontal stabilizer produces negative (downward) lift,
a canard generates positive (upward) lift in conjunction with the main wing.
Without the balancing effects of a tail-down force, the main wing must
develop a correspondingly greater amount of lift than an equivalent,
conventional-design wing in order to provide the necessary longitudinal
stability. For these reasons, canards enable airplanes to produce a higher
total lift while also sharing the aircraft load with the primary airfoil.
4.
Before you accept canard configurations as a superior design,
remember that nothing in aviation is free. The positive lift produced by the
canard also spawns downwash through which the main wings must fly.
This downwash disrupts the wings local relative wind and shifts the
resultant lift vector aft; therefore increasing induced drag. In contrast, wing
downwash onto a negative-lift-producing horizontal stabilizer actually shifts
the lift vector forward, which serves to diminish the amount of induced drag.
5.
As a result, the higher induced drag inherent to the canard design
effectively offsets the extra lift production. Overall, the total difference in
lift/drag ratio between conventional and a canard design is insignificant.

Conclusion
1.
Among the most notable characteristics of canard airplanes are there
docile stalling tendencies. These aircraft are built so that the canard
will always stall before the main wing, thereby preventing the primary wing
from reaching its critical angle of attack (AoA).
2.
By design, a stalling canard will automatically reduce the planes
angle of attack, which further contributes to longitudinal stability. In addition,
since the main wing will not stall, the pilot of a canard plane will have roll
control throughout a canard stall.
3.
Despite these positive attributes, canard configurations come at a
price. Because the wing can never reach its critical AoA and, therefore,
never produce its full lift potential, other steps must be taken to
compensate for this reduced lifting capability. This essentially requires
increasing the wing surface area, which increases both weight and drag.
4.
Another drawback is the higher minimum flight speed, which
necessitates higher takeoff & landing speeds and, therefore, longer
runways than comparable conventional planes would require.
5.
The message seems to be clear: the selection of a canard vs. a tail
is both configuration and mission dependent.
6.
As with any other configuration decision, use of a canard offers tradeoffs. The desired performance characteristics drives all configuration
decisions, some of which are well-suited to a canard, while others are not.