Could this be the 737 Replacement?
#11
The canard can prevent this by stalling and pitching down before the wing reaches a critical AOA, as in the Rutan designs.
#12
Yes, but...
Tom:
True, Rutan avoids an aft-wing stall by purposely limiting the amount of "up" lift the canard can generate. This does prevent an aft-wing stall, but also limits the aft-wing from generating anything close to CL-max. This means you need even more wing, or more flaps, to get a reasonable approach or takeoff speed. More wing or more flaps equals more complexity and more weight, which equals more cost. (Both to acquire and to operate). Minor consideration on a homebuilt; more on an airliner.
If the canard (or foreplane) can be made to have a huge range of motion, an aft-wing stall with this configuration could be made recoverable by making the canard lift go to zero, or even a negative value, which would drive the nose (and AOA) down. On all supersonic fighters that I can think of there is an all-moving stabilator (instead of a horizontal stab and elevator), to achieve the required control moment-arms with the large center of lift-ranges generated from approach speed through supersonic flight.
All-moving slabs haven't been used on airliners because, I believe in part, they are more responsive, and would make for a rougher ride in an airliner. This same characteristic makes them perfectly applicable to fighters, where rapid g-onset (and pulling to CL max) is often a necessity.
Rick mentioned fly-by-wire. You don't have to make it that way (as above), but to get maximum benefit from a FSW jet with a canard, you would probably want to. A FBW system would make an all-moving canard stabilator easy to adopt without sacrificing ride quality.
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 777 Left
Posts: 347
It seems Boeing would make a mistake by introducing a platform to transport category that is "unstable" by design. Airbus avoided doing this with the fbw on the 320 and for good reason.
I also think the canards would be a problem in ground handling.
I also think the canards would be a problem in ground handling.
#14
Maybe a flying saucer is relevant for Delta in the future, but for now, this is merely hangar talk.
Besides, any new airliner from Boeing / Airbus will be used by more than just Delta, or US airlines, for that matter.
When there is a concrete plane for Delta to buy, and Boeing and Delta are ready, willing and able.... then you have a story about Delta.
#15
UAL T38 Phlyer,
Thanks for the explanation. I was curious about the lack of interest in scaling up canard designs for larger aircraft. For transport aircraft, static instability may offer unneeded advantages at the price of unwanted problems.
Thanks for the explanation. I was curious about the lack of interest in scaling up canard designs for larger aircraft. For transport aircraft, static instability may offer unneeded advantages at the price of unwanted problems.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post