Neat!  When you get it dialed in, could you post a photo showing with a pointer at the CG location?

Unless you're a better man than I, you'll need to fiddle with those tail weights -- make 'em adjustable!

Congratulations on a nifty project.  Going to kit it?   

Your plane name reminds me of the country song
"Slim Chance and the Can Hardly Playboys"

Ray, wonder if you could use a pusher prop and try flying clockwise!   

SECOND FLIGHT REPORT:

I bit the bullet and added the full 3/4 oz. tailweight, and moved the LO back about 1/4":

Much, much better; CG now about where the front LO was (and is again; reason following).  Stability still OK; it will now perform round maneuvers pretty well--no square corners though!  It does fly smoothly, very pretty lazy eights.

Still had quite an outward yaw, so I moved the LO back to their orig. position--now the CG and LO guides are in about the same place; when hanging by the leadouts it hangs level; yaw in flight is lessened but still there.  I'm thinking I need to remove some or all of the rudder offset.

Interesting phenomenon: When the engine quits, the glide is flat and will not flair nor stretch.  It lands where it wants to land.  Not hard, but it refuses to raise the nose for a flair or for nursing a longer glide, even with full "up".  I don't believe it is a balance issue, but something peculiar to canards.  I'm not an aeronautical engineer, don't know the terminology, so the following will sound like I'm an ignoramus (come to think of it, I am an ignoramus so I guess that's all right):

In a standard planform, the elevator has lots and lots of leverage to raise the nose, sitting at the opposite end from the engine; in a canard (esp. the layout I'm using) it doesn't have nearly so much.  In fact the mechanical advantage is negative, since "down" is "up"--it's not pushing the nose up by dropping the tail, but trying to lift it by itself.  While the engine is running it's fine; perhaps prop blast helps, or perhaps just engine pull helps the elevator lift the nose.  But on its own, deadstick, seems like the elev. becomes fairly ineffective. I guess the wing doesn't help pick up the nose nearly so much if at all.  So I'm thinking, maybe a canard needs more elevator area to gain the leverage needed; or maybe my specific planform, with the engine in front of the stab/elev., exaggerates the problem. 

My solution (experiment) is to rebuild the stab/elevator, same position, same shape, but with the hingeline 1/2" further forward--that will put the elevator that much closer to the weight (engine) it's trying to lift, as well as give it more area to work with.  At the same time I may add just a skosh more tailweight to bring the CG back just a little more--as I said, it's still plenty stable and smooth, no twitchiness at all. Oh, and take out some rudder offset.

So what'chall think? Surgery is pending...

I think you should add some flaps to the wing!   

Ok here's what I've done:  Upon further reflection, I decided to postpone changing the stab/elev. ratio for now.  Added another 1/4 ounce of lead to the tail, bringing it up to a full ounce, which moved the CG back another 1/4", which is 1" behind the original location (from 2 3/4" ahead of the LE to 1 3/4" ahead).  I'm not comfortable moving it in any bigger increments than that now. Also, I moved the LO guide back to stay with the new CG. 

Then, I reduced the rudder offset by the simple expedient of reducing its size!  Trimmed it down to a more pleasing shape while I was at it. Area of the offset fin probably reduced by 50%, that should help cut down the yaw. 

Ray, I don't think a wing flap is the answer.  I really like the feel of the plane now, very smooth and predictable; don't want to make any fundamental design changes at this point, just fine-tuning what I have.  It may well be just a matter of getting the CG right.  It's an interesting project.

I can see from it5s layout It should be nose heavy. Consider any modern canard has the enginer or engine built atop the wing with the exhause behind the traling edge slightly. while the fuse might extent 20 feet foward thats a lot of weight/and structure at the back.  You might consider the next build to extend ther fuse maybe slightly behind the wings t/e to build a box  and contain any lead for weight.

Here's a comparison of the original, and trimmed, rudder shape.  Angles aren't quite the same but maybe close enough to give the idea.

Good analysis, makes sense.  I'm thinking the square corners may be beyond this design; but the round maneuvers were very nice, smooth and steady and pretty, even with it still kinda nose heavy; so it's gonna be a worthwhile sport model for sure.

Sure hope that yaw is gone; if not, next step will be to move LO ahead of the CG! Doesn't seem like it should have to be, but they are exactly together right now,  and I can see the full length of the TE in flight. The reduced fin area may solve it--next test flight pending.

Yup, when I first read that I thought "that's a really inefficient prop!"--but what do I know?

It could be checked easily enough I suppose.  If the pitch = inches forward per revolution (ideally--through a solid, no slippage) then measuring the rpm in the air with an acoustic tach, x pitch, would give you theoretical distance moved per minute. In inches.  Work it out to mph, then compare with a clocked lap.  Difference = slippage?  Seems right.

I'd do it but don't really care that much one way or the other; I stick a prop on, start 'er up, she flies, I'm happy. I understand low pitch and large dia. = low gear; high pitch and small dia. = high gear.  I tinker with different props till I get it to my liking.  With my 1/2As, I use diameters from 4" to 6"; pitch from 2" to 4".  That doesn't leave room for a whole lot of tinkering!  Knowing the efficiency wouldn't help that process much. 

Hum, I just diddled a little on my calculator; 15000 rpms with 3" pitch works out to 42.7 mph w/no slippage! is that right?  But I have planes that clock nearly twice that (well, 75mph) and I know they're not turning 30,000 rpms! Maybe 20 or a little more at best.  
OK 20000 at 3" pitch = 56.8 mph???  I'm doing something wrong.  Oh, maybe that's per blade; should be doubled for hypothetical speed?  then assuming 75 mph in real world, that works out to maybe 35% slippage.  Hum.  My head's starting to hurt.  Wish you guys hadn't brought it up...I'm going back to "I don't care".

How odd -- I've been flying on 35' lines, 2.5 second laps, with a 6-2 prop and a Golden Bee that ain't doing any better than 20000 or I'm a monkey's uncle.

So the math doesn't work out for me, either.

Argh.

Your 2.5 sec. lap = about 60 mph.  I think the math figures have to double--ea. blade is pulling the 2", so 1 revolution = 4"--maybe.  So 20000 rpms at 2" pitch = 76 mph theoretical, huh, that's not much slippage. Well, 21% I guess. that may actually be pretty close.

Someone who knows, help us out here?

But it doesn't add that way!

Well, it's beyond me.   I stand on (return to) my original statement:  I don't care!

Sounds great.

Another thing to consider is that on a conventional model. The elevator is away from the wing ,while on the canard it is nearer the wing. again reducing the moment arm from the c/g. If your c/g is forward of the l/e it is even closer to the pivot point.

Don't forget, the elevator is generating downwash (when giving "up") that effects the lift of the wing reducing it's lifting capability.  In addition there is probably a lot of turbulence when the elevator is deflected.  A conventional wing is flying in clean air coming straight at it.

On the speed question,  15000rpm/60sec/min = 250rev/sec and 3" pitch is 1/4foot, so we are going 62.5 ft/sec.  On a 35 ft RADIUS circle, you have a circumference of 220 ft.  this gives a lap time of 3.5 seconds.  All this seems right to me.

Since props are airfoiled, the aerodynamic pitch is higher than the usual measurement of the back of the blade.  Then there is unloading of the engine, but the blade has to "fly" at some angle of attack to generate lift (thrust).  Unravelling these effects would take a great deal of research, but they tend to balance out, so the straight calculation is probably as good as you will get.

Here is a thought:
     Cement the elevator to the stabilizer and add a new elevator to the trailing edge of the wing.  I have seen this work quite well.
Larry

This thread does bring up interesting questions.
Why do some planes easily fly through 8's and loops after the engine quits, while others tumble out of the sky?
Is the the total lack of aerodynamic smoothness that causes most of the smaller block models I built that had the landing  quality of a brick? While I had seen the Stunt machine effortlessly do loops and 8's on a windy day?

I think that the quality of a canard is that the elevator stalls before the wing. Perhaps so far before that it makes no noticed difference to the AoA of the wing to present a noticed change in direction.
Perhaps you need to put the horizontal above or below the wings position to keep both the wing in clear  air as well as the elevator. You might also try extending the booms further from the wing to see how the position affects flight.
You could try making the booms with holes in it and bolt on the elevator as an assy using different holes and a new push rod to extend it further till you find the right location.

After reading this again, I am thinking of doing a 1/2A version of the Wild Goose.

I've been reading this thread and thinking just that all along.

Starting has to be a chore, though.

Swept-forward wings would certainly do it.

I recall reading somewhere* that airplanes fly more efficiently if the front wing has more aspect ratio than the back wing.  That's OK when the big wing is in front, but inconvenient in a canard.  This is why all the "Rutan-style" canards that you see, other than Dick Rutan's first one, have really long skinny elevators**.  So you may get better performance with a high aspect ratio stab/elevator, if you can find room for it.  Getting at least some of the elevator out of the prop wash may help, too.

Swept-forward wings would certainly look cool.

* I have a really good memory for remembering what I read, and a really bad memory for where it is, which gets frustrating at times.

** It's also a serious contributor to the problems they can have landing in the rain -- those long skinny elevators have a low Reynolds number.  The original airfoil that they used was great until it got raindrops on the top surface, but then bam the limiting coefficient of lift went through the floor, and the elevator would stall on landing.  Apparently there's a fix that involves a different airfoil in the front -- but I digress.

Why not e-mail Bob Hunt on details of his canard designs.  He certainly touted them as being superior with the exception of looking "right" to the judges.  Why not start out with something that a truly world class flyer deems exceptional?

Why not e-mail Bob Hunt on details of his canard designs.  He certainly touted them as being superior with the exception of looking "right" to the judges.  Why not start out with something that a truly world class flyer deems exceptional?

Larry, I'm just vain enough to want to create this myself, from the ground up...for me, it's not nearly as satisfying to "bash" an existing design.  Yeah, I'm re-inventing the wheel on a lot of it; but it keeps me busy and out of trouble, and brings much satisfaction along with it, when I see the thing--all mine from beginning to end--fly as well as it does now.

I know others derive equal satisfaction (maybe more) in perfecting an existing design, or furthering its evolution into something yet better; and we all profit from that work.  But that's just not me.  I build others' designs once in awhile, when I run across one that strikes my fancy and I want one of my own (even kit a couple: Snapper, Queen Bee); might even change it a little to suit my tastes, but it's not to improve on what they've done.

So yeah, I'm ignoring a lot of pioneering work on canards...wrestling with problems already solved by others.  So I'm crazy but happy!

Will I build another "new and improved" version?  Maybe. Meanwhile I'll enjoy flying this one till I get tired of it, or one of its idiosyncrasies destroys it.

P.S. The .049 Hornet runs really well, thanks for all your help.

So, what is the Hornet going on?

Hmm, what if you made your canard a twin by putting a second engine just ahead of the wing?   

So, what is the Hornet going on?

Hmm, what if you made your canard a twin by putting a second engine just ahead of the wing?   

The Hornet is currently on one of my SkyWriters, and pulls it like a champ. Still having a little fuel draw difficulties.  I think I'll replace the backplate gasket, and maybe try to stop down the venturi just a hair.  I may end up putting it on bladder pressure.

Re: Your suggestion on the Canard...what a nightmare!  Which one would you start first?  The back one? but then where (how) would you hold it to start the front one?  Front one first?  no way I'm leaning over a spinning prop to try to flip another one!

Maybe I'll do it, and then challenge you to come over and start 'em for me...