It might have looked something like this! Gotta wonder how that would have worked.
Given the fact that control surfaces were often shot-through during the bombing raids, I do wonder if it would have resulted in more or less stability in damaged aircraft. I’m not a zero (no aviation pun intended) when it comes to the understanding of aircraft controls but I’d be interested to know what an aeronautical engineer might say . . .
Best regards,
Mooney252
I’m not an aeronautical engineer either but having the big wings in the middle means that the centre of gravity doesn’t change overly when you drop your bombs.
All well and good, but didn’t the B-17 fly first in 1934 (refering to the caption on the picture) ?
I think they should have turned the engines around and made them pushers.
Damn you! That’s what I was going to say.
IANAAE either. (I did think about building a Long EZ once, and went to the factory; and I ran into Burt Rutan in a park once.)
IIRC, canard designs where the canard is significantly smaller than the wing require a higher rotation speed. I think this would be made even higher by having the engines in front of the wings. Putting the engines aft of the wings would lower the rotation speed (I think) and also help the CG with a heavy bomb load. Of course, the langing gear would have to be longer so that the props wouldn’t hit the runway on rotation.
Now, about that CG… I don’t remember what the typical bomb load was; but having it as it is in the photo, I think that the aircraft would have had a very aft CG when they were dropped. Aft CG beyond limits can make it impossible to recover from a stall, since you wouldn’t be able to get the nose down. Remember that the Vari Viggen, Vari Eze, and Long EZ do not jettison the pilot or passenger; so they will remain within limits.
I tried to make a new picture with my PhotoImpact program, but I decided I don’t have the time to mess with it. I was going to make a B-17 along the lines of the Quickie (Quickie, Q-2, Q-200 – the Quickie was also a Rutan design). With equal-sized wings, CG shouldn’t have been an issue. 
Bailing out wouldn’t have been fun.
No, Rutan would never have designed a bomber like that. For the reasons others have mentioned:
- You don’t want your heavy bomb load sitting way in front of the wing.
- Bailing out with propellers behind you is contra-indicated.
- Canard aircraft cannot make full-stall landings, and have to be flown onto the runway, increasing landing requirements. The also have higher takeoff speeds.
I don’t know whether a canard would survive battle damage as well as a traditional tail, but I suspect it wouldn’t. The airfoil on a canard is rather critical.
Often, the decision to use a canard or not comes down to mundane structural and packaging problems. Things like propellers smacking the ground on rotation, whether the landing gear can be located well, etc.
Ok, here’s an attempt at a Quickie B-17
I don’t know, man, I’m thinking that it needs a bullseye painted on the underside of that thing.
Given its service record, wouldn’t you kinda be nuts to change it? 
Who’s Burt Rutan?
Hee hee! Now if you can move the rear wings forward and give them more dihedral, and give the front wings some anhedral and put the undercarriage on the wingtips, I think we’d have a winner!
I think it’d be kinda redundant. the fuselage and wimgs look like crosshairs from below.
Oh, nobody really. He designed a few homebuilt airplanes that sold pretty well, plus the Beech Starship prototype and some proof-of concept aircraft. And he designed the Voyager, the first airplane to fly around the world without refuelling.
Oh, yeah. He designed Space Ship One, the first civilian manned craft to reach space.
Other than that, I guess he hasn’t done much of note.
Maybe I’ll tackle this again tomorrow after a good night’s sleep.
That might be a small negative transfer from conventionally configured airplanes, where the wing pushes up and the horizontal stab/elevator generally push down, and the CG is usually forward of the wing (modern fighter jets sometimes being the exception).
With a canard, the wing pushes up, and generally so does the canard. There are ideally no aerodynamic surfaces pushing down. The CG needs to be somewhere between your two lifting surfaces, and as long as you have that then your CG concerns should only be whether your canard gives sufficient pitch authority for everything you want to do (i.e. takeoff, cruise, maneuver, land), not whether you have static pitch stability. Hence, assuming CG stays between wing and canard both with and without bombs, I suspect pitch stability is not necessarily a concern with this concept.
:wally Who said anything about bailing out? War is Hell and ought to stay that way.