You're missing the point of the modern canard. They were developed to be a
stall/spin-proof alternitave to the conventional wing-tail layout. An
example: two friends built glass airplanes, one a Glasair with a 150 hp Lyc
and the other a Long-EZ with a 150 hp Lyc, both with fixed-pitch wood
props.. Flat out, the Glasair was faster, but only slightly -- 215 vs. 210
mph. Seems to me to be a small price to pay for an aircraft that won't
stall or spin. And if the engine quits, you want to be in the Long-EZ, not
the Glasair -- it glides much better.

Fred in Florida

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
news
On 15 Nov 2003 09:17:59 -0800, (Jay) wrote:

Apart from the Quickie group of planes why aren't there more fast
biplanes? The quickies aren't exactly biplanes I know. It would
appear that 2 short wings can be built lighter than one long one since
the moment arm is half as long for the shorter wing pair. No struts
used because of drag, just short cantilever wings. You'd have a more
compact airplane that way with less weight that had the same drag as
an equal wing area monoplane.


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.
I accept that that maybe an urban legend but put with the success that
mike arnold experienced with his AR5 you might just have an answer.

as well have a look at formula 1 aircraft designs. they are about as
competitive as you can get and on basically the same engine they are
now 100mph faster than 50 years ago.
havent seen a canard or biplane last very long among them.

Stealth Pilot