:: Ontario, Québec, Nunavut, and Western Australia enter the chat ::
Today, the Royal Canadian Mint unveiled the picture of the King that will now grace Canadian coinage.
tangent: when not pregnant - 2 periods per month …???
(poor wifey, poor husband)
Maybe both at once.
It’s cool that Chuck’s D(o)g Rex also gets a mention.
If the aircraft’s speed drops, the horizontal stabilizer creates less downforce, and the wings create less lift. For the stability calculation to work, it seems to me that the plane needs a stabilizer that’s more sensitive to speed and pitch changes than the wing.
I can certainly believe that’s possible. I’ve seen diagrams of different airfoils and know that their properties have been studied and documented. How much the lift changes with changes in airspeed or angle-of-attack seems like it would be useful for the designers to know.
What I haven’t figured out is why they can’t reverse the situation for a canard airplane. Use a wing shape that’s more sensitive to changes than the canard. If the plane pitches up slightly, the canard generates a bit more lift, and the wing generates comparitively more lift than the canard, which counteracts the pitch change. Wouldn’t that be a stable configuration, too?
Is that a base canard, or a special version? (I’m sorry, I know nothing about planes but a perverse spirit seized me. I’m not even sure the joke makes sense.)
A speed reduction causes a reduction in lift from the wing…which means the aircraft begins descending, resulting in an increased angle of attack for the wing and a decreased angle of attack for the H-stabilizer. Descent angle increases until the wing’s AoA is such that lift once again matches the weight of the aircraft, but now H-stabilizer (due to its decreased AoA) is less than it used to be, so nose will pitch down.
Some airplanes are designed with a small wing in the front, and the main wing behind that. That smaller front wing is called a canard.
They’ve never been very popular, though; I’ve heard different arguments about why. I don’t want to take a full course in aeronautical engineering, but I am a little curious about how the pitch stability works.
The horizontal stabilizer in the rear is typically not an airfoil that creates lift in horizontal flight. Moving a flap on the rear of the stabilizer creates upward or downward pressure on the tail to control the plane’s attitude well behind the center of lift. Occasionally there are ‘all moving’ types where the entire stabilizer tilts up or down… The plane will be close to balanced on the center of lift on the wings. As noted above it will be balanced a little aft of that point so that it is nose heavy.
A canard is a an airfoil that generates lift to balance the plane at point well forward of the center of lift on the main wing. A flap on the canard increases or decreases lift and is trimmed for horizontal flight. The neutral point only uses slight changes in generated lift to trim for horizontal flight. A large change in canard lift to tilt the plane upward like done at takeoff can lead to over rotation of the plane because the canard is continuing to lift the nose relative to the wings.
Variations of both methods of horizontal attitude control can morph into each other and can be combined. At some point the plane becomes a tandem wing with forward and rear wings that can be independently controlled.
Because the dang plane’s flyin’ backwards dagnabit!
I’m not so sure each uterus would be subject to the same hormones, since they are connected to different placentas.
They (canards) are a feature on a number of fighter aircraft. SAAB Gripen and Viggen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Sukhoi-30MKI and -34, Chinese J 20…
Canards were also used on several of Burt Rutan’s designs. I was just at a museum a few days ago that has some of his planes.
There are plenty of canard designs in the history of aviation, but they’re far outnumbered by conventional-tail aircraft.
This is one reason that canard designs are not popular. Pilots aren’t used to the concept and need to learn new skills to fly them. On small planes it doesn’t seem to be greatly different and difficult to learn but fighter jets depend on electronic controls to use canards at high speeds for high maneuverability and use independent tail surfaces in combination with the canard. In commercial aircraft the additional engineering required to prove safety and to get certified are a hindrance to any new design concept.
It’s still “pull to go up”, right?
How different are the skills for flying a canard? The main difference I’ve heard is that canards are more difficult, or even impossible, to stall. Anything else?
It’s more like pull to go up but push it back to keep from over rotating. Mainly you increase air speed to climb, and descending is supposed to be a bit more difficult if you don’t have a long approach path to descend. And they can stall, in one reported case at the wrong attitude the plane started dropping like a brick and the pilot had to raise the canopy and step out on the nose of the plane to get the nose to drop. They don’t have the simpler point and shoot handling of conventional tail designs.
“Is it still pull to go up?” is a quote from Cabin Pressure, so I thought I’d slip that in while I had the chance.
Interesting that the handling is so different. Thanks.
Re: new Canadian coins with Charles III on them -
What’s missing is the monarch’s name in Latin - e.g. Carolus (or “CAROLVS”) III. The King Georges always had “GEORGIVS” on them, and Edward VII had “EDWARDVS”. “VICTORIA” needed no change, but there was no Latin equivalent for “ELIZABETH”.
Mister Ed, the Talking Horse from the 60s sitcom, is buried just north of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, near state highway 82. The gravesite is on private property, but visitors are welcome.