Way cool, Ray. 

I finally am getting back to finishing my Sky Streak swept forward flying wing (don't need no stinkin' canards!) 

I for one, am very confident in both you guys! I know if anyone can get these planes going good enough for the rest of us to copy or purchase it is you boys !!  Sounds like some great potential for articles in the new 1/2a magazine.   

I don't want to hijack Ray's thread, so see the new one on the SkyStreak.

The cat looks too comfortable.  My demented poodle, Sandy, would cure that.  Her and the legal mexican chihuahua have a ball with my daughters over size orange cat out in the back yard.  Now back to planes.  The engine is in the wong place on the canard.  Look at the Wild Goose by Sarpolous.  

Latest move:  Fuselage installed: Over LE, under spars, over TE.  Solid, anyhow.

Snowman looks like he is drowning

Current state of the swept canard:

Elev. joiner with linen patches (ignore the little patterns on it; it was a pillow case).

Next: elevator booms.  1/16" ply; will have 1/16" ply. doublers at the wing, giving me 1/8" ply. to support bolts for wheel axles.

Ray , I love it!!  Just watchin your usual great work.  Keep it going!   

     Ray there is interest  just not a lot of comments yet.  It looks like we will have a long wait for a flight report  !
        Bill

OK fellas, didn't realize there were so many of you lurkers!  I'll keep updating...not in a hurry building because as stated,
Spring is a long ways off!

Bill, I can put together a QB for you any time.  Also, re: your comments about not shoveling rain:  One of our weathermen commented about the latest system coming in, "Looks like it'll be more rain than snow; but anyhow that's easier to shovel."

PerttiMe,  I'm totally confident it'll fly...the straight-wing version flew pretty well after loading about half again its weight on the tail.  Hopefully this one will be much lighter and fly just that much better.

 Flying over deep snow would be safer for the plane, true; problem is I'd have to be standing in it too.  I'm strictly an over-50d. flier.

Thanks for the comments, all of you.

If there are still balance issues, don't forget going with a forward swept canard to ge more area forward around the engine. Also, if you run backplate pressure, you could mount the tank pretty far back and still get decent fuel delivery.  Cox and Norvel pressure backplates are available, and between them, those will fit Medallion, Tee Dee, Norvel and AP Wasp engines.  Brodak engines would have to be modified from scratch, but it isn't that hard.

Anyway, the fans are watching, waiting, and at some time want to exhale!  Keep those photos coming!!

Where's the bellcrank and leadouts going to be on this one?

Bellcrank will be mounted on a ply. platform on the inboarde "web" next to the fuse (see the original, top of thread); leadout guides will be built into the inboard boom and be adjustable (again, re: the original). I just haven't got that far yet.

Doesn't that get the lines pretty close to the wing tip?

In this case, yes...when I get to that point, I'll take whatever measures I need to, to avoid any interference for the lines. 
You've got a pretty good eye; not sure that potential problem would have occurred to most people. 

We'll see when we get there...process in the engineering world is called "design-build", both proceeding at once. And it happens more often than you think.

Finished frame (well, almost, a few details to add);

Control system, and adjustable guides;

wheels.

Thanks Larry, that geodesic wing construction tickled me too.  A little bit complex but it does make a rigid wing! (pic, for those who wonder what we're talking about.)

Kit the swept canard?  Gotta see how it flies first, that'll be in the Spring...up here that's like 3 or 4 months away [sigh].

yah, it's a VA I was breaking in.  Flew it once with it; you're right, it was kinda overwhelming to that small airframe.  Your HH might be similarly over-robust; I imagine the Fox would be a better match.

Oh...a surgical-tube pressure bladder inside that film canister.  Mine would run on suction but the needle was practically falling out, and I knew it would never work with the "g"s in flight. So I used pressure.   they run like gangbusters!  keeps up with my Norvel .061s on combat wings.

Ray,

When you say AME, do you mean the brand name engine, or the AME ported Norvel engines that came later?

I have several of the AME ported Norvels, but none of the original engines. Haven't tried to use any of the AME ported Norvel engines, because I've heard they don't draw fuel well (as Larry commented).

Bill

???I don't know where I said AME at all; a few posts back I did mention a VA???

 But to answer your question nonetheless, the only AMEs I know about are the Norvels.  Didn't know there was a separate brand by that designation.  I do have one Norvel AME, I think .061 but not sure now, haven't had it out in awhile.  it does run better on pressure.

Hi Frank, no, no connection with the wingtip (not yet anyhow).  As presently located they will be ahead of the wingtip, albeit not by much.  If it turns out I have to move them back then I may look into a guide on the wingtip after all. 

I'm busily breaking ribs, tips, etc. as I try to sand the thing...anyone else have such destructive tendencies with sandpaper? So far I've broken 3 ribs, 1 spar, 1 tip and the rudder off.  I sand awhile, and glue awhile...

I was thinking, too, that leadout guides near wing tips would be needed to ensure enough leverage for keeping the plane aligned, tangent to the circle. (I have no numbers to support this: just a feeling)

O.K. Ray-------I'm still trying to accept that the leadout setup you have will work. However I defer to your expertise. I would like to see it fly though. I think that would remove the last of my doubts.
BTW---how does Otto Jr. fly?

Hi Ray
My name is Ed (or Eddie) Culver.  I have been playing with c/l canards since 1998.  I like designing my own as it looks like you do too.  I started experimenting with canards to get the gyroscopic precession closer to the CG so that it had less effect on maneuvers.  I find it interesting that the canard I see you have plans for on this thread shows the engine clear out front.

Anyway, I am interested in your history with canards, your successes and failures.  And if you want what I have found I am always willing to share. 

I have made 6 different designs and I am currently building my 5th design again because it was such a good flier.

Thanks for your time - Ed
  Canard 1 - made from a broken Ukey 35.  Highly adjustable for testing.  Flew in 1 contest after all adjusting.

  Canard 2 - Manta - canard surface area too large. Crashed early in testing.

  Canard 3 - Manta II - fuel tank too small - would do all of the pattern but took 2 tanks.  May build another.

  Canard 4 - Trooper - Pushed the sweep way forward but made the booms too flimsey crashed on first flight.

  Canard 5 Mallard - Great flier competed in contests with it.  Making a new one with ST.60 instead of OS .46LA on a pipe.

  Canard 6 - Trooper .60 - same plan as Trooper with strong booms and ST .60 power.  Still flight testing.

Actually the stagger wing came from looking at photos of Bob Hunt's 1/2 A canard - then deciding that I did not want to experiment with 1/2 A's.  No offense intended but I think bigger flies better.  So the broken Ukey 35 gave me an opportunity to play for free.  Had I swept the wings I would have had a 1/2 A sized airplane from cutting the sweep at the center and the tips.  So I had this epiphany that I could achieve the same effective CG to CP ratio if I used the stagger, and better yet my leadouts are inside the wing with no binding caused by a sweep back in the wing....

One advantage to having the engine behind the canard is that a smaller surface is used.  It is always in clean air - NO PROPWASH!!!  Also gyroscopic precession has less affect on all of the maneuvers..

As far as damage control, I like the canard in front of the engine.  With that big bumper out there I have never hurt an engine on a canard, even when I did a figure 9 into pavement.

Finally starting is a breeze.  Hold the elevator in the up position and you not only have a great handle for starting, but you have plenty of clearance to flip the prop.  I think it is safer than holding the fuselage while you flip a prop.

Me more serious than you?  Man, I am just having fun at a hobby I have done since I was 3 years old!!! To me it is a lot of fun finding new and interesting airplanes there in the depths of our brains..

Current state of building on my new canard.  ST .60 power.

BTW  - My Dad has built an RC version of this airplane.  I can hardly wait to see how it flies this spring.
Later - Eddie

I've always wanted to have a canard. Now that you guys are carrying on about them I'm really close to building one.
I have plans for a .35 size canard designed by Dick Sarpoulos. The "WILD GOOSE".
I also have a Chris Rigotti  green box Nobler foam wing. And just this week I picked up a roll of two sided carpet tape (Gorilla Brand) which is a very lite adhesive membrane that looks just right to stick balsa onto the wing with.
HMMMMMMMM......................do either of youze have any experience with the WILD GOOSE?

Boy, nothing new under the sun, huh...here I thought my forward-swept canard would be unique. Now it seems it's been done over and over.  Well, I'm still the only one with the engine out front.  Maybe.  Some yahoo'll probly come up with an old pic of that too!

My personal preference is don't.  Mr Sarpolous is a great designer in my eyes, dont get me wrong about that.  But to get the Wild Goose to fly well you have to have leadout guides ahead of the leading edge of the inboard wing and the leadouts enter slots in the leading edge.  The leadouts then act as turbulators for the inboard wing only and subtract strength in your leading edge stock.

That is one reason I always use the swept forward wing or the stager wing configuration you saw in my previous pictures.

If I remember the Wild Goose is old enough for classic, so if that is your goal - go for it.  Otherwise I suggest a different design.

Just my opinion though - Eddie

PS - I also don't like the idea of flaps on a canard.  It detracts from the main good flying characteristic of the canard i. e. no tail drop when doing a square maneuver  -  the airplane just follows the canard.
Later - Eddie

Ahem...

quote--"there's a guy here whose canards seem to fly OK"

That one.

Occum's Razor seems like a nice design. Putting the prop and engine on a gas model was problematic. But electric make it a breeze.
Question is how big and what size prop ?

Occum's Razor seems like a nice design. ...
Question is how big and what size prop ?

The only tech detail I can find about the Occam's Razor is that it first had a 1/2A engine. I am sure I've seen a picture of wing for a bigger one but I cannot find it now.

They are more like line drawings (full sized).  I made mine with foam wings so you would have to cut the cores or extrapolate ribs from the center and tips.  

I do have a set of instructions written and a powerpoint slide show showing most of the construction (at least to the point of where I am right now).

If you want to, you can post your instructions and drawings here ... unless you want to publish them in a magazine, or something.

Looks like you cannot post PowerPoint and there's a size limit:
"Allowed file types: txt, doc, pdf, jpg, gif, mpg, png, MPEG, mp3, DOC
Maximum attachment size allowed: 1000 KB, per post: 20 "

To add attachments, click the Preview button below the Quick Reply box, and then Additional Options to get the Browsing choices.

edit:
If you go into details about your canards, it would surely be worth a separate thread, either in the Open  or the Stunt design area.

That's good, no problems.  I'm enjoying seeing the pictures.  Occam's Razor is a real good looking plane.

   Sorry to all for going so farrrrrr off topic - I was just thrilled that someone else was playing with canards...

The only design that I have that would work with a .35 is the Trooper design that was made for a .25 but would work for a .35.  Unfortunately, no plans for that one, just sketches and measurements from my designing days..

And my bad on saying the Wild Goose is Classic - I got planes mixed up - I think the Wild Goose was late 70's maybe '78...

Later - Ed

The only tech detail I can find about the Occam's Razor is that it first had a 1/2A engine. I am sure I've seen a picture of wing for a bigger one but I cannot find it now.

Bob Hunt was showing his Occam's Razors at Brodak 2000. At that time the small one was sporting a NORVEL (AME .049, I think). He felt that placing the tank near the C/G would allow it to fly the same as the tank emptied, if I remember the conversation correctly. He also had a larger one (~.35 size, if I remember correctly). Shortly after that, I believe he started using electric power. Not sure if he went any further with the larger 'Razor.

George