On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:08:58 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:57:45 +0800, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

I read once that a computer program exploring optimum biplane and
canard setups popped out the optimum setup as one where the forward
canard was 5 times the span of the rear one with the cg at 25% of the
chord of the forward canard.

Actually, that was contained in an article called "Canard Canard" in
AEROSPACE AMERICA magazine, back in the early '90s. I've posted about it
here in RAH several times, that's probably where you remember it from.
Used to have the article rattling around the office, somewhere.

Canard designs are just a different approach to the compromises necessary
for aircraft development. What they gain in eliminating the horizontal
stabilizer downforce, they lose in other areas.

Wanttaja Ron

see we remember what you write ron. :-)

back to the guys original question, I take it that the "lose in other
areas" is why you dont see them as racers mixing it with the less
compromised.

Stealth Pilot