APPENDIX C2: Design of Canard Aircraft

This appendix is a part of the book General Aviation

Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and Procedures by
Snorri Gudmundsson, published by Elsevier, Inc. The book
is available through various bookstores and online
retailers, such as www.elsevier.com, www.amazon.com,
and many others.

The purpose of the appendices denoted by C1 through C5

is to provide additional information on the design of
selected aircraft configurations, beyond what is possible in
the main part of Chapter 4, Aircraft Conceptual Layout.
Some of the information is intended for the novice
engineer, but other is advanced and well beyond what is
possible to present in undergraduate design classes. This
way, the appendices can serve as a refresher material for
the experienced aircraft designer, while introducing new
material to the student. Additionally, many helpful design
philosophies are presented in the text. Since this appendix
is offered online rather than in the actual book, it is
possible to revise it regularly and both add to the
information and new types of aircraft. The following
appendices are offered:

C1 – Design of Conventional Aircraft

C2 – Design of Canard Aircraft (this appendix)
C3 – Design of Seaplanes
C4 – Design of Sailplanes
C5 – Design of Unusual Configurations

Figure C2-1: A single engine, four-seat Velocity 173 SE just before touch-down. (Photo by Phil Rademacher)

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 1

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
C2.1 Design of Canard Configurations
It has already been stated that preference explains why some aircraft designers (and manufacturers) choose to
develop a particular configuration. In other situations such partiality is absent and the selection of the
configuration actually presents an organizational conflict. However, while the selection of a particular tail
configuration (e.g. conventional, T-tail, etc.) may pose a challenge, whether to place the horizontal tail in front of
or aft of the wing is usually not up for debate. In either case, the location of the horizontal tail is indeed of primary
importance and this calls for a deep understanding of the implications of its selection. Most frequently, the
configuration options consist of a conventional tail-aft, canard, or a three-surface configuration. Figure C2-2 shows
the layout of a typical canard aircraft. The configuration is unique in appearance and offers some good properties.
This appendix discusses various issues that must be kept in mind when designing a canard aircraft. The canard
configuration was discussed in some detail in Section 11.3.12, Canard Configuration. This section picks up where
that discussion left off.

Figure C2-2: A small canard configuration.

C2.1.1 Pros and Cons of the Canard Configuration

The first question to consider regarding the canard configuration has to do with stability and control. A horizontal
lifting surface placed forward of the main wing results in a destabilizing pitching moment, which would render the
vehicle unstable were it not for the forward placement of the CG. In fact, the CG must be placed far forward of the
aerodynamic center of the Mean Geometric Chord in order to produce a stabilizing moment. This renders the
aircraft stable, in other words, yields a Cm < 0. The challenge for the designer is to determine the geometry of the
canard, which includes an airfoil selection, such that two conditions are satisfied: (1) the Cm is indeed negative
and (2) Cmo is greater than zero. The former is controlled using the CG location and the latter using geometry,
canard incidence angle, and airfoil selection.

While downwash generally reduces the stability of a tail-aft aircraft (as it results in a nose-up pitching moment), it
allows the HT to be installed at a much smaller Angle-of-Incidence (AOI) than possible with a canard (assuming
symmetrical airfoils – cambered airfoils will be discussed later). Consider a canard featuring a symmetrical airfoil
(i.e. Clo = 0). In order to satisfy condition (2) above (i.e. Cmo > 0) this airfoil would require a large AOI (or TED
elevator deflection) to allow the aircraft to be trimmed at an AOA that generates positive C L. One of the reasons
for this is the limited upwash in front of the main wing. This would hold even at modest Static Margin. This
predicament is generally solved by selecting a highly cambered airfoil (which has Clo >> 0) and high AR planform
shape (whose CL >> 0).

Figure C2-3 highlights the difference in the location of the stick-fixed neutral points of a conventional tail-aft and a
canard aircraft. Each configuration has two icons that represent the stick-fixed neutral point and CG location that

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 2

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
yields a 0.10 Static Margin. Note that adding a fuselage to would destabilize both configurations and push all
points (neutral and, thus, the CG) forward.

Figure C2-3: Comparing the stick-fixed neutral points and CG locations required for a Static Margin of 0.10 of a
conventional tail aft (left) and canard (right) configurations. The neutral points were determined using potential
flow theory. Note the numbers only apply to this specific geometry.

Finally, since the CG is in front of the wing, moving it farther forward both shortens the balancing tail arm and
increases the wing arm. Since the wing lift force is much greater than that of the canard, the CG cannot move too
far forward before an uncontrollable nose-pitch down moment is generated. This limits the practical CG envelope
of the configuration. For instance, the twin engine Beech Starship required a swing-wing style canard to increase
its nose pitch-up authority when deploying flaps. Another issue is that the chord length of the canard is usually
small enough to be subject to Reynolds number effects. One of the consequences can be a diminished pitch
authority at low airspeeds, when the small-chord airfoil is subject to early flow separation that reduces its lift curve
slope. This can also lead to noticeable longitudinal trim changes when flying in precipitation, as is reflected in a
1
caution, placarded in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the Rutan Long-EZ . The caution states that when
entering visible precipitation, the Long-EZ may experience a significant pitch trim change, as experienced in the
Long-EZ prototype (N79RA). It goes on to state that owners of Rutan’s earlier canard aircraft, report either nose up
or nose down pitch changes. Builders are warned that each aircraft may react differently. It is recommended that
airspeed above 90 knots be maintained in rain as this allows the aircraft to be trimmed with hands off the control
stick.

In spite of these shortcomings, many existing canard aircraft are well designed in the view of this author, including
the Rutan LongEz, and the AASI Jetcruzer, the first aircraft to have been certified in the US under 14 CFR Part 23 as
“spin-resistant.”

C2.1.2 Modeling the Pitching Moment for a Simple Wing-Canard System

Figure C2-4 shows a simple Wing-Canard system, intended to derive a few longitudinal static stability methods that
are helpful when sizing a canard configuration aircraft. The longitudinal static stability of the configuration can be
represented using Equation (11-10), repeated here for convenience:

Cm  Cmo  Cm    Cm  e (C2-1)

e

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 3

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
Where: Cmo  Coefficient of moment at zero AOA
Cm  Change in coefficient of pitching moment due to AOA
Cm  Elevator authority; change in coefficient of pitching moment due to elevator deflection
e

Figure C2-4: Wing-Canard system used to derive Equation (C2-4).

Both of the above terms can be determined for this system using the following expressions:

Cmo  VC  CL0  CmoAC  CmoW (C2-2)

C

Cm  VC  CL  Cm 

hAC  h C
LW (C2-3)
C AC
CMGC

Where: CMGC = Mean Geometric Chord

hn = Physical location of the CG at which Cm = 0; i.e. the stick-fixed neutral point
hAC = Physical location of the Aerodynamic Center
lC = Arm between the aerodynamic center of the canard and CG
lCW = Arm between the aerodynamic center of the canard and the wing
S = Reference wing area
SC = Planform area of the canard
S C  lC S  l  h  hAC 
VC = Canard volume   C CW
S  CMGC S  CMGC
Cmo AC  Longitudinal stability contribution of components other than the wing
CmoW  CL0 hAC  h  Wing pitching moment due to airfoil camber
CL0 = Canard lift coefficient at zero AOA
C

C m = Longitudinal stability contribution of components other than the wing

AC

C L = Lift curve slope of the canard

C

CL = Wing lift curve slope

W

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 4

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
Note that the term C m refers to the stabilizing effects of components such as the fuselage, nacelles, landing
AC

gear, the wing itself, and so on, as a function of the AOA. If the sum of these moments acts to rotate the LE down,
then M AC  0 (has a negative sign and is stabilizing). If it acts to rotate LE up, then M AC  0 (has a positive
sign and is destabilizing). The sign ultimately depends on the aircraft configuration. Note that the destabilizing
effects of fuselages and nacelles can be estimated using the so-called Munk-Multhopp method, which is presented
in Appendix C1.6, Additional Tools for Tail Sizing.

DERIVATION:
It is imperative to keep the orientation of the M AC in mind for the following derivation. Also note that the subscript
“C” refers to the canard, but it contrasts “HT” in the derivation for Equation (11-26). Also, by default, it is assumed
that the elevator deflection is neutral, i.e. e = 0°.

First, determine the sum of moments about the CG. For static stability, this must equal zero. Taking nose down
moments to be negative and treating all distances as having a positive value (although if the CG in Figure C2-4 is to
the right of the LE, then h < 0), this requires:

M CG  0   LW hAC  h  LC  lC  M AC  0 (i)

Note that the sign for MAC here is “+”. Therefore, if MAC is stabilizing ( M AC  0 ) we will get   M   M
AC AC
, where |.| stands for the absolute value.

The definitions of wing lift is LW  q  S  CLW , the lift of the canard is LC  q  SC  CLC , and additional
moments, M AC  q  S  CMGC  CmAC . Insert these into Equation (i) and divide through by q∙S∙CMGC, as shown
below:

 q  S  C LW hAC  h   q  SC  C LC  lC  q  S  CMGC  CmAC  0

 
hAC  h  C 
S C  lC
 C LC  CmAC  0
S  CMGC
LW
CMGC
 
VC

Where VC is the canard volume. Note that it depends on the CG location through lC. This can also be represented in
terms of the fixed distance between the two lifting surfaces, l CW, as shown in the text above. Next, insert the
definitions for C LW and C LC :


hAC  h C  
 CL   VC  CL0  CL  C  CmAC  0  (ii)
L0W
CMGC W C C

Note that unlike the derivation for Equation (11-26), the canard will not be presumed to feature a symmetrical
airfoil. This is necessitated by the fact that canards typically feature highly cambered airfoils to ensure the zero-
alpha lift coefficient is not zero; i.e CL0  0 . Also note that since the canard sits in the wing upwash, its AOA is
C

increased slightly. However, this effect can be ignored if the canard is relatively far ahead of the wing, as is usually
the case. Therefore, it is assumed that the AOA of the canard is equal to that of the wing. In other words: C = .

Next, expand Equation (ii):

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 5

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
 
hAC  h C 
hAC  h C   VC  CL0  VC  CL   CmAC  0
L0W LW
CMGC CMGC C C

Let CmoW 
hAC  h C and recall that Cm AC  Cmo AC  Cm   . Insert these and simplify by gathering
L0W
CMGC AC

contributions that do and do not change with the AOA:

VC  CL0  Cmo AC  CmoW

 h  h  C   0
 VC  CL  Cm  AC LW 
C  
C AC
CMGC 
Contribution that does not change with AOA 
Contribution that changes with AOA

The contribution that does not change with AOA (constant terms) are typically denoted by Cmo, whereas
contribution that changes with AOA is denoted by Cm. This convention is maintained here as well.
QED

EXAMPLE C2-1:
Estimate the Cmo and Cm for the canard configuration in Figure C2-3 and plot for AOAs ranging from -5° to 20°,
using the following data. Note the Angle-of-Incidence (AOI) for the wing and canard.

MAIN WING CANARD OTHER

CMGC = 2.0 ft CC = 1.0 ft hAC = 0.25∙CMGC = 0.5 ft
b = 20.0 ft bC = 6.0 ft h = 0.783 ft (ahead of wing LE)
S = 40 ft² SC = 6.0 ft² lC = 8.25 – h – hAC = 6.967 ft
CL0  0.35 CL0  0.0 (symmetrical airfoil) Cm0 AC  0
W C

CL = 5.012 per radian C L = 4.247 per radian Cm 0

W C AC

AOI = 0° AOIC = 0°

Assume the wing airfoil is NACA 4415, which was also the subject of Example 11-1, and that the canard has a
symmetrical airfoil. Note that the lift curve slopes were calculated using Equation (9-57). Assume that the 3-
dimensional C L0 is the same as that of the airfoil.
W

SOLUTION:
SC  lC 6.0  6.967
Begin by calculating the canard volume: VC    0.5225
S  CMGC 40  2.0

Cl for the NACA 4415 from Table 8-5 is 0.106 per degree or 6.073 per radian. Cl for a typical symmetrical airfoil is
0.100 per degree or 5.730 per radian. Assuming low subsonic airspeed (M  0) and using Equation (9-57) to
estimate the 3D lift curve slope of the wing (AR = 10) and canard (AR C = 6), yields a CL  5.012 and
W

CL  4.247 , respectively. The C L0 can be estimated using Equation (9-61) and data from Table 8-5, where
C W


the ZL = -4° for the NACA 4415 airfoil. Therefore, CL
0
  ZL CL   4  5.012  0.350 .
W W
180

CmoW 
hAC  h C 
0.5  0.783 0.35  0.2245
Then calculate L0W
CMGC 2.0

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 6

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
By plugging and chugging Equations (C2-2) and (C2-3) we get:

Cmo  VC  CL0  CmoAC  CmoW  0.5225  0  0  0.2245  0.2245

C

Cm  VC  CL  Cm 

hAC  h C
W L
C AC
CMGC

 0.5225  4.247  0 
0.5  0.783 5.012  0.9961 per radian
2.0

The resulting graph can be seen in Figure C2-5. It shows that the above prediction places the pitching moment
curve below the horizontal axis for AOAs > 0. This means that in this configuration (i.e. featuring a symmetrical
canard airfoil at an AOI = 0°), the airplane cannot be trimmed at an AOA that generates a positive lift coefficient.
To fix this, an additional positive pitching moment must be generated. For instance, if we wanted to trim the
aircraft at an AOA of 10°, the Cmo must by shifted up by a magnitude of 0.398, or to Cmo = +0.174. This additional
moment is typically provided by playing with the variables of Equation (C2-2). This is discussed further in Section
C2.1.4, Requirements for the Trimmability of the Canard.

Figure C2-5: The pitching moment coefficient calculated for the arbitrary value of h = 0.783 ft (solid curve). The
dashed curve represents how the solid curve must be shifted to allow the vehicle to be trimmed at a = 10°. The
upward shift can be accomplished by deflecting the elevator TED or using a cambered airfoil (or a combination
thereof).

C2.1.3 The Stick-Fixed and Stick-Free Neutral Points of a Canard Configuration

Similar to Equation (11-26) of Section 11.2.6, The Stick-Fixed and Stick-Free Neutral Points, the stick-fixed neutral
point for a canard configuration can be obtained from Equation (C2-3) when the slope of the moment curve
becomes zero, i.e. Cm = 0:

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 7

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
 lCW  hAC  S  h
 C L  S   Cm  AC C L


C
hn C MGC  C MGC 
C AC W
(C2-4)

C MGC S  C L  S C  C L
W C

Note that Equation (C2-4) returns a value that is measured from the leading edge of the MGC forward toward the
canard (as shown in Figure C2-4). See Example C2-2 for more details. Refer to Figure C2-4 for physical dimensions.

DERIVATION:
Equation (C2-3), repeated below for convenience, is the slope of the pitching moment curve:

Cm  VC  C L  Cm 
hAC  h C (C2-3)
LW
C AC
CMGC

Note that VC is a function of h, where the distance between the two lifting surfaces at all times is constant, l CW, as
shown in Figure C2-4, and is given by:

lCW  lC  h  hAC  lC  lCW  h  hAC (i)

The neutral point, by definition, occurs when Cm = 0, i.e.:

S C  lCW  h  hAC  h  h C  0
 C L  Cm  AC (ii)
S  CMGC
LW
C AC
CMGC

This depends primarily on the location of the CG, denoted by h. By renaming the CG location as hn and expanding
Equation (ii) and dividing through by the lift curve slope of the wing leads to:

lCW  hAC   SC   CL
C h  S  C LC Cm AC
 n  C  
h h
 AC  n  0
  (iii)
C MGC  S  C LW C MGC  S  C LW C L
W
C MGC CMGC

Then, solve Equation (iii) for hn to determine the stick-fixed neutral point as a fraction of the MGC:

hn  S  CLW  SC  CLC  l  h   S  CL

  CW
Cm h
AC
 C  C
 AC
 AC (iv)
CMGC  S  CL  CMGC  S  CL CL CMGC
 W  W W

Apply some simple algebraic aerobatics to yield:

lCW  hAC  S  h
 C L  S   Cm  AC C L


C
hn C MGC  C MGC 
C AC W

C MGC S  C L  S C  C L
W C
QED

EXAMPLE C2-2:
Determine the stick-fixed neutral point of the canard of Example C2-1 (and Figure C2-3), using the same data
presented in that example.

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 8

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
SOLUTION:
By plugging and chugging Equation (C2-4) we get:

lCW  hAC  S  h
 C L  S   C m  AC C L


C
hn C MGC  C MGC 
C AC W

C MGC S  C L  S C  C L
W C

8.25  0.5 6  4.247  40 0  0.5 5.012 

 

2.0  2.0   0.2152
40  5.012  6  4.247 
This places the stick-fixed neutral point some 0.2152 x 2.0 ft = 0.430 ft ahead of the leading edge of the MGC. Note
that if hn < 0, then the neutral point is aft of (to the right of the LE in Figure C2-4).

C2.1.4 Sizing the Canard based on Requirements for the Trimmability

One of the most important tasks in canard design is the sizing of the canard itself. This involves selecting an airfoil
for it and determining a suitable geometry (span, chord, and tail arm) and AOI that allows the airplane can be
trimmed at some desired airspeed, typically cruising speed, with the elevator in trail (i.e. e = 0°). To make this
possible, we have to resort to the longitudinal stability theory derived in Equations (C2-1), (C2-2), and (C2-3). This
is done below. Note that the sizing method should also be used while considering other conditions; for instance
balked landing at forward CG. Then the tail geometry that satisfies all the flight conditions considered should be
selected.

Figure C2-6 shows a standard Cm versus  curve, here representing a canard configuration aircraft. Effectively, it is
a “cleaner” version of Figure C2-5. If the canard airfoil is symmetrical and, assuming neutral elevator deflection,
the curve tends to be in a location below the horizontal axis, as indicated by the dashed curve. This was illustrated
in Example C2-1.

In order to trim the configuration at some desired AOA (denoted by trim) and given a longitudinal stability
derivative, Cm, we want to size the canard so it generates enough lift to shift the pitching moment curve to the
point Cmo, allowing it to be trimmed at a positive AOA. This, as we recall from Section 11.2.1, Fundamentals of
Static Longitudinal Stability, is necessary so the airplane can be trimmed at an AOA that results in a lift force vector
that points in the opposite direction from the weight vector. It is a fundamental requirement for static stability.

To solve the issue with the low sitting Cm curve, we have to look at Equation (C2-2), which when combined with the
elevator contribution can be written in the form shown below:

CmoW SC  lC
Cmo  Cm  e  Cm0 AC    CL0  Cm  e (C2-5)
e
CMGC CMGC  S C e

The problem is complicated by the fact that playing around with the variables may change the slope of the pitching
moment curve as well. This is given by Equation (C2-3), repeated below:

Cm  Cm 
SC  lC h  h C
 CL  AC (C2-3)
CMGC  S
LW
AC C
CMGC

The possible solution approaches are listed below:

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 9

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
(1) Cm0 AC  Longitudinal stability contribution of
components other than the wing. This means fuselage,
nacelles, landing gear, and others. This contribution is
not easily estimated unless the designer knows the
geometry well in advance. It may well place the Cmo
lower or higher and, thus, it is necessary to estimate
this contribution before the canard is sized. However,
while the contribution may help, it should not be
considered a possible solution.

(2) CmoW  CL0 hAC  h  Wing pitching moment

W
due to wing airfoil camber. Due to the location of the
CG forward of the aerodynamic center and the negative
sign in front of the ratio in Equation (C2-3), this can only
increase Cmo if a reflexed airfoil (i.e. one whose camber
is negative) is featured. This does not help with the
sizing of the canard, although some remedy is to be had
by selecting a main wing airfoil that does not have a Figure C2-6: A pitching moment for a stable canard
large positive camber (of course as long as the lift with a symmetrical canard airfoil, mounted at a zero
capability of the aircraft is not compromised. AOI, as a function of AOA

SC  lC
(3) VC   Canard volume. There are a number of options provided here, although these demand a
S  CMGC
cambered airfoil or an AOI greater than zero to be used in the canard design (as this results in a C L0  0 ). This
C

way, the designer can increase the canard arm ( lC ) or planform area ( S C ). Playing around with the product
S  CMGC is also possible, albeit harder, as this will affect the total lift of the aircraft.

(4) C L0  Canard lift coefficient at zero AOA. This gives the designer two additional tricks up the sleeve; airfoil
C

camber and AOI. Recall that this is the lift coefficient of the canard at zero AOA and this contribution can be
adjusted using a combination of the zero-AOA lift of the airfoil and the canard’s AOI.

(5) Cm  e is the contribution of the elevator deflection. The designer should use this parameter dependent on
e

 e  12 (TED). When evaluating

a particular flight condition. For instance, for balked landing case this could be
the canard size for the design mission weight and CG-location, then the elevator should be in trail (i.e.  e  0 ).
This contribution is used to accommodate off-design flight and weight. Remember that no flight condition should
lead to the pilot running out of elevator deflection.

(6) C L  Canard lift curve slope. By increasing the lift curve slope of the canard (i.e. increasing its AR), the
C

designer can reduce stability (destabilize the aircraft), i.e. make Cm shallower. This, in turn, requires less Cmo to be
established. For this reason, the AR becomes an important design parameter.

EXAMPLE C2-3:
Assume the canard of Example C2-1 (and Figure C2-3) is to be operated at a cruise condition that calls for a trim
AOA of 5° with the CG located at the previous position (h = 0.783 ft). Evaluate the following:

(a) The canard arm, lC , given the airplanes fixed initial planform area of 6 ft² and,

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 10

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
(b) The planform area, S C , given the airplanes fixed initial canard arm (lCW) of 8.25 ft that will allow for this, by
assuming airfoils that have a C L0 of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4.
C

Note that these factors will change the Cm as well, so include this effect as well.

SOLUTION:
This problem can be tackled by plotting the complete Cm curves while holding all but the cited variables constant.

(a) First consider how changing the canard arm will affect the pitching moment curve, as the initial planform area
of 6 ft² is held constant. The resulting trends are shown in Figure C2-7. It shows that, for canard airfoils that result
in C L0 ranging from 0.1 to 0.4, the required canard arm, lC , ranges from about 9 ft to 14.75 ft. A sample
C

calculation at  = 5° for lC  2 ft and CL0  0.4 is shown below:

C

CmoW S C  lC 6 2
Cmo  Cm0 AC    C L0  0 
0.513
 0.4  0.1966
CMGC CMGC  S C
2.0 2.0  40

Cm  Cm
S l
 C C  CL  AC
h  h  C
CMGC  S
LW
AC C
CMGC

0
6 2
4.52  0.5  0.783 5.15  2.626
2.0  40 2.0

 Cm  Cmo  Cm   0.1966  2.626  5   180  0.4258

(b) Then, the effect of changing the canard planform area while holding the initial canard arm of 8.25 ft constant is
shown in Figure C2-8. It shows for the same canard airfoils that the required canard planform area, S C , ranges
from about 9 ft to 14.75 ft. It indicates that for the given arm of 8.25 ft, a C L0 in excess of 0.2 is required. A
C

sample calculation at  = 5° for lC  2 ft and C L0  0.4 is shown below:

C

CmoW S C  lC 6 2
Cmo  Cm0 AC    C L0  0 
0.513
 0.4  0.1966
CMGC CMGC  S C
2.0 2.0  40

Cm  Cm
S l
 C C  CL  AC
h  h  C
CMGC  S
LW
AC C
CMGC

 0
6 2
4.52  0.5  0.783 5.15  2.626
2.0  40 2.0
 Cm  Cmo  Cm   0.1966  2.626  5   180  0.4258

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 11

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
 Figure C2-7: The pitching moment coefficient plotted in terms of the canard arm, constant SC = 6 ft², and
considering four airfoil options. This reveals that the example aircraft will need a highly cambered airfoil if the
goal is to keep the length of the fuselage down. Note that SM = 0.10 and  = 5°.

Figure C2-8: The pitching moment coefficient plotted in terms of the canard planform area, constant lC = 8.25 ft,
and considering four airfoil options. This reveals that the example aircraft will also need a highly cambered
airfoil to keep the size of the canard down. Note that SM = 0.10 and  = 5°.

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 12

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
C2.1.5 Achieving Stall Proofing in a Canard
Designing stall-proofing is a challenge and must be done with utmost care. It can be solved using a combination of
specially selected airfoils, AR, AOI, and even sweep and Taper Ratio. Stall proofing requires the stall AOA of the
canard to be lower than that of the wing. Following are important effects to keep in mind:

(1) The canard airfoil should have gentle stall characteristics to avoid too abrupt a nose drop. This can be achieved
using a highly cambered airfoil. The preceding discussion shows that highly cambered airfoils have a side-benefit in
its higher zero AOA lift coefficient, required to allow the vehicle to be trimmed at the mission design airspeed with
zero elevator deflection.

(2) The magnitude of the AR affects the AOA of stall. A large AR reduces the AOA of stall, while a small AR does the
opposite. Another benefit of the high AR is a steeper lift curve slope that produces higher lift at a given AOA. This
allows for a smaller canard than otherwise and an installation at a lower AOI.

(3) High AR results in a short chord with a low Re. This may result in undesirable characteristics at low speeds, such
as the formation of a laminar separation bubble (or a spanwise vortex) along the surface that may yield
detrimental stall characteristics. High AR canards are also sensitive to surface contamination; for a small chorded
airfoil, a squished bug is akin to a mountain on a plain. Even precipitation will affect its characteristics. Both the
VariEze and LongEz have a reputation of nose-drop when flying in precipitation, as pointed out in Section C2.1.1,
2
Pros and Cons of the Canard Configuration. Additionally, using experimental data, Yip demonstrates that the lift
curve of the canard is greatly affected by Reynolds numbers.

(4) AOI can be used to further fine tune the AOA at which the canard begins to stall. This is demonstrated in
Reference 2.

(5) Sweepback will modify the lift curve slope in a similar manner as a reduction in AR. However, it will also tip load
the canard and lower its stall AOA. A similar effect is achieved with a high taper. Both are possible tools to control
the stall (and lift) characteristics, although the designer should keep in mind that most of the successful canard
aircraft have straight constant chord canards.

C2.1.6 Rutan VariEze in the Wind Tunnel

In 1985 NASA released Technical Paper 23822, which presented the results of a wind-tunnel test conducted on a
full scale Rutan Varieze. The airplane was tested in the now leveled 30x60 foot Langley Full Scale Tunnel (LFST) in
Langley, Virginia (see Figure C2-9). The paper provides the designer with a wealth of knowledge on what actually
takes place on a canard as its AOA increases. If you are designing a new canard you would be well adviced to
familiarize yourself with its content. The paper reveals the secret behind the stall characteristics of canards.

Consider Figure C2-10, which shows the lift curve for the VariEze. The left graph shows the lift curve for the
complete airplane and the canard, while the right one shows the lift of the canard only. Both lift curves are based
on the wing area of the aircraft, which is 53.6 ft². This explains why the lift curve for the canard in the left graph
appears so much lower than that of the main wing. This is remedied in the right graph, which effectively zooms in
on the lift curve for the canard only.

The left graph of Figure C2-10 shows the main wing stalls at  = 23.5°. However, the lift curve for the canard in the
right graph shows its CL is sharply reduced at  = 13.5°. Adhering to NACA’s definition of stall as the first peak in
the lift curve, the canard is technically not stalled (even though it is called so in the reference). Rather it eventually
stalls at  = 23.5°, the same as the wing! The change in slope is most likely caused by a sudden flow separation
along the trailing edge of the highly cambered airfoil, which operates at a relatively low Reynolds Number. It is this
behavior of the GU25-5(11)8 airfoil used for the canard that has a lot to do with the gentle stall characteristics of
the airplane. A comparatively abrupt stall of the typical airfoil would likely cause the airplane to drop its nose far
more aggressively. Later models of the VariEze were equipped with a “cuff” or a leading edge extension on the
outboard portion of the swept aft main wings, installed to improve the airplane’s roll stability at stall.

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 13

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
 Figure C2-9: An image from Reference 2, showing the Rutan VariEze mounted in the wind tunnel at the LFST.

Figure C2-10: The lift curves for the entire aircraft and the canard. The right graph shows the lift curve of the
canard in detail. (Reproduced from Reference 2)

Now consider Figure C2-11. The pitching moment is plotted as a function of the AOA with and without a wing cuff.
The dashed vertical lines denotes  = 13.5°, which is where the canard’s lift curve slope changes suddenly, and  =
23.5°, where the main wing stalls. The change in the slope of the pitching moment curve (C m) becomes even more
negative at the former AOA, due to the reduced “growth” in the stabilizing force of the canard. This helps to force
the nose down, preventing the aircraft’s main wing from stalling. Since the slope of the canard’s lift curve is

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 14

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
reduced, rather than becoming negative for the AOA range from 13.5° to 23.5°, the result is a gentle nose drop,
the reason for the airplane’s renowned stall recovery characteristics.

The designer of canards should be aware of these

effects, and carefully consider airfoils with
aerodynamic properties similar to that of the GU25-
5(11)8 airfoil used for the VariEze. The relatively low
operational Reynolds Number of canard airfoils must
also be considered, as this will influence the stall
characteristics of the canard.

Figure C2-11: The pitching moment for the Rutan

Varieze with and without leading edge droops (cuffs).
(Reproduced from Reference 2)

C2.1.7 Configuration Comparison

A common claim among laypeople holds that the canard configuration is superior to the tail-aft configuration. They
point at the Rutan LongEz, a truly efficient aircraft, and compare it to other less efficient airplanes familiar to them,
such as a Cessna 152 or Piper PA-38 Tomahawk. The astute ask then, if this is true, then why are there not more
canard configurations around? For instance, why aren’t most sailplanes of a canard configuration?

The fact is that any such comparison must be done on a level playing field. The LongEz is not more efficient than
the 152 or PA-38 because it is a canard, but rather because of the mission of the airplane. The LongEz is not a
primary trainer like the other two, but a touring aircraft. In fact, its take-off and landing characteristics (high speed)
make it all but unfit as a primary trainer, not to mention it is unsuitable for gravel runways. Additionally, there is
difference in wing area (LongEz has 82 ft², Cessna 152 has 160 ft² and PA-38 has 125 ft²) and gross weight (LongEz
is 1325 lbf, Cessna 152 and PA-38 are 1670 lbf), although power is similar (LongEz has 115 BHP, Cessna 152 has 110
BHP and PA-38 has 112 BHP). The comparison is thus unfair and without a foundation.

This section is intended to inspire the designer to conduct realistic “apples-to-apples” comparison on the
candidate configurations. One method is to compare a basic tail-aft configuration (Configuration A) to a basic
canard configuration (Configuration B), for instance using potential flow theory. This approach is implemented
below. Both configurations (see Figure C2-12) have the same wing and stabilizing surface geometry (including
elevators), the only difference is that Configuration A has the HT aft of the wing and B ahead of the wing. Both tail
arms are equally long (8.25 ft). For simplicity there is no provision made for a fuselage. Both have the CG at
position such the Static Margin (SM) is 0.1 and both are assumed to weigh 400 lb f. The wing airfoil is NACA 4415
and the stabilizing surface has a symmetrical airfoil, which as shown earlier is problematic for a canard
configuration.

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 15

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
Here, consider the following scenario. If
both configurations are trimmed at 100
KCAS at S-L, the following questions are of
interest:

(1) What is the difference in AOA and

elevator angle to trim (e) at a given
airspeed?
(2) Which configuration generates higher
lift-induced drag at that airspeed?

The answer to these questions is key in

understanding the difference between the
two configurations. And this calls for more
powerful tools than classical analysis –
here potential flow modeling will be used.
This improves accuracy as it subjects both
Figure C2-12: The two VL models. The conventional configuration is
configurations to a reasonably accurate
to the left and canard to the right.
distortion of the flow field and this is
fundamental to their capabilities.

The code used here is a commercially available code called SURFACES and it uses the Vortex-Lattice Method (VLM).
The reader can download free VLM solvers like Mark Drela’s AVL and perform a similar analysis. However, all talk
of potential flow theory should spur questions of validation: How accurate is it when compared to experiment? To
address this question a detailed model of the VariEze was prepared, using the geometry presented in Reference 2.
This is addressed in Figure C2-13, which shows a VLM model used to evaluate prediction potential and how its lift
and longitudinal stability predictions compare to that of the experiment. Note that deviations from the straight
line predictions of the VLM code are due to various viscous effects not being modeled by such programs. It can be
seen that at least for this model, there is a good agreement between theory and experiment in the linear region.

Figure C2-13: Comparing lift and pitching moment of a validation model to experiment.

In order to keep the complexity of the models to a minimum, both wings are constant chord and straight (see
Figure C2-12). The two models do not feature vertical stabilizers, as the purpose is only to compare their lifting and

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 16

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
longitudinal stability properties. Additionally, since the purpose of this appendix is to qualitatively compare
properties rather than demonstrate how these were determined (which would require considerably larger space)
these are omitted. Instead, the basic geometry is provided for the interested reader who may want to construct
own models for comparison.

Differences in Lift, Drag, and Longitudinal Stability

The properties of the two configurations in Figure C2-
12 are shown in Table C2-1 and Figure C2-14 and
Figure C2-15. Recall that both configurations weigh
400 lbf and are trimmed at 100 KCAS at S-L. The table
reveals a number of very interesting differences.

(1) The lift-induced drag of the two configurations was

predicted using Prandtl-Betz integration on the
Trefftz plane. The results indicate this drag is less
for the canard configuration than the tail-aft
configuration over a range of airspeeds between 40
and 85 KCAS, but actually greater at higher
airspeeds. The variation ranged from 14 drag
counts at low airspeeds to -10 at high airspeeds.
Naturally, these are theoretical predictions and
they may be off. However, they highlight that the
efficiency of a particular configuration is indeed
mission related.
Figure C2-14: Comparing lift-induced drag of the
conventional and canard configurations.
(2) The canard requires lower AOA to generate the
same lift as the tail-aft configuration (-1.09° versus -
0.39°) at the 100 KCAS airspeed (see Table C2-1).
This means that the canard is also at a lower AOA
and calls for a larger elevator deflection than
otherwise.

(3) Note the position of the neutral points shown in

Table C2-1. These will both move forward with the
introduction of a fuselage.

(4) The elevator deflection required to balance the

canard configuration is substantially greater than
that of the tail-aft configuration, or 10.99° versus
1.24°. Recall that the canard is the subject of
Examples C2-1 through C2-3. The tail conventional
configuration is located in the downwash from the
main wing, so its angle of attack is higher than
indicated by the incidence angle. Consequently, it
requires less elevator deflection to balance the Figure C2-15: Comparing AOA and elevator deflection
airplane. The canard, on the other hand, is in a required to trim the conventional and canard
modest upwash. It has to make up for the configurations at the given airspeed.
deficiency by the extra deflection. Again, this
highlights why highly cambered airfoils have to be
considered for the canard.

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 17

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
Table C2-1: Properties of the Two Models

Property Description Conventional Canard

Wing span 20 ft 20 ft
Wing chord, root 2 ft 2 ft
Wing chord, tip 2 ft 2 ft
Wing Aspect Ratio 10 10
Wing airfoil NACA 4415 NACA 4415
Angle of incidence 0° 0°

HT span 6 ft 6 ft
HT chord, root 1 ft 1 ft
HT chord, tip 1 ft 1 ft
HT Aspect Ratio 6 6
HT airfoil Symmetrical Symmetrical
Tail arm 8.25 ft -8.25 ft
Elevator chord fraction 33% 33%
Angle of incidence 0° 0°

Weight 400 lbf 400 lbf

CG-location at 10% static margin 1.239 ft -0.783 ft
Airspeed (100 KCAS) 168.8 ft/s 168.8 ft/s
Neutral point – Absolute 1.239 ft -0.583 ft
Neutral point - %MGC 61.95% -29.15%
AOA to trim at 100 KCAS at S-L -0.39° -1.09°
e to trim at 100 KCAS at S-L 1.24° (TED) 10.99° (TED)
Lift coefficient 0.295 0.295
Lift-induced drag coefficient 0.00236 0.00324

Differences in Distribution of Section Lift Coefficients on Wing and Stabilizer

Figure C2-16 shows the distribution of the lift on the main wings of each configuration. Trimmed at 100 KCAS, the
maximum section lift coefficient on the conventional configuration is 0.331 in the plane of symmetry (typical for a
constant chord or “Hershey bar” wing), and 0.333 for the canard. Note the drop in section lift coefficients over the
middle of the main wing of the canard configuration, caused by the downwash from the canard. For this reason,
the AOA of the canard configuration is always (slightly) higher than if this effect was absent.

Figure C2-16: Distribution of section lift coefficients on the wing.

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 18

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
The distribution of the section lift coefficients is also of great importance. The maximum section lift coefficient on
the HT is -0.041 and +0.539 on the canard at the same condition (trimmed at 100 KCAS). This shows that the
canard must be loaded much more severely in order to generate a balancing force than the HT. Table C2-2 shows
the difference in lift generated by the wing and the stabilizing surfaces. Note that the lift coefficient for the HT and
canard are based on the reference wing area.

Figure C2-17: Distribution of section lift coefficients on the stabilizing surfaces.

Table C2-2: Lift Generated by the Two Models

Property Description Conventional Canard

CL generated by main wing 0.3009 0.2228
CL generated by horizontal tail -0.0055 0.0726
Lift coefficient, total 0.2954 0.2954

The analysis shows that the main wing of the conventional configuration must generate lift in excess of what is
required for level flight. This is caused by the horizontal tail having to generate balancing lift that points downward
and the main wing must carry this force in addition to the weight. The magnitude of this additional lift increases as
the CG moves forward. Generally, as a rule-of-thumb, the larger the HT load the higher is the AOA required for the
configuration and, therefore, the higher the lift-induced drag. The opposite holds for the canard configuration. The
main wing of the canard configuration generates less lift than the conventional configuration and the magnitude of
the balancing force generated by the canard is larger than that of the HT and it points in the opposite direction
and, therefore, contributes indeed to the total lift.

The bottom line is that the designer of efficient airplanes should attempt a careful study of proposed
configurations and the mission design conditions in order to justify as particular geometry and configuration. While
it is possible that one configuration leads to a more efficient aircraft than another one, this is does not constitute a
rule-of-thumb.

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 19

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.
 REFERENCES

1 nd
Rutan Aircraft Factory, Long-EZ – Owner’s Manual, 2 Ed., October 1981.
2
NASA TP-2382, Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a Full-Scale Canard-Configured General Aviation Airplane, Yip, Long
P., 1985.

GUDMUNDSSON – GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT DESIGN APPENDIX C2 – DESIGN OF CANARD AIRCRAFT 20

©2013 Elsevier, Inc. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission from the Publisher.