No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong...

The maneuverability of a canard must (I think) be directly a function of the ability of the foreplanes to carry a wide range of loads....

So if I give up elevator, the effect is to try and shift the cg around the centre of lift (MAC I think would be more correct. This means that the lift being generated by the foreplanes must be increased.

In the instance given by Combattpigg obviously the foreplanes that he was working with could not generate that increased lift so, in his words they became more airbrake than control surface.

The two rules that I have been given (from many years back) are -

The foreplane must not stall before the mainplane

The foreplane must be capable of generating more lift per unit area than the mainplane.

The vector equilibrium for a canard has the foreplanes carrying considerably more ( a greater proportion) of the total lift load than does the tailplane on a conventional aircraft.

For that reason, the conventional thinking about tailplane size and lift has to be seriously abandoned if you are to get a canard to fly.




BTW I think (MHO) the Quickie is a canard.


BTW2 Canard is the aircraft type
Foreplane is the part of the aircraft
But that is just me being pedantic. Does it really matter?