0
$\begingroup$

Can anyone point me to why Burt Rutan's Voyager is a canard?

In other words, what reasoning could be behind it. What problems Burt Rutan might have tried to solve by using Canard configuration in this specific aircraft and why those problems may not be solvable or less feasible in a conventional configuration?

For comparison I would prefer to use predator or global hawk.

I believe this is because noticeable CG shift during flight and possibly has some advantage in relation to dynamic responses.

But I would like to get a second thought from you guys.

PS: English is not my mother language so apologies in advance if Im not clear enough. Unfortunately the answers I've got so far are either not very well thought or incorrect.

|improve this question
$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by SMS von der Tann, kevin, Federico♦, Ralph J, mins Jun 19 '17 at 18:23

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

3
$\begingroup$

The canard is a design which stabilizes in front but also adds lift, whereas elevators at the back actually subtract lift. As the Voyager needed to take energy efficiency to the extreme, this would be a prime design choice. His motivation may be in the book written about the Voyager, but a significant number of his designs were canards.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ As mentioned, the Prandtl optimized lift curve favors canard configuration with high aspect ratio wings. The long, heavy fuel booms needed mechanical connection other than the wings for which the canard configuration was better. Avoiding tail to ground impact on takeoff and landing with minimum weight and drag worked out better this way. $\endgroup$ – Jim Horn Jun 21 '17 at 23:03
  • $\begingroup$ Further, Burt Rutan has no bias against conventional non-canard design and has done many (e.g. the new StratoLifter, etc.). But he's eminently qualified to evaluate conventional vs. canard vs. tailless biplane vs. tripteron for any design to pick what works best, having excelled with all of those. $\endgroup$ – Jim Horn Jun 21 '17 at 23:05
0
$\begingroup$

Canard Stall tend to be self correcting and often less unstable than a more conventional design. For long range. fairly slow flights this could be an advantage.

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.