One more. Dan

I forgot to mention that my Canards have always had two rudders. I use the Knife Edge maneuver to decide on when a CG adjustment is needed. Once, when I was more adventurous, I move the CG back further and further in order to be able to do a loop while in Knife edge. I had reached the 50% loop level, but I wanted to go all the way. The next thing I knew, while the plane was at least 4 mistakes high, the Canard went into an inverted flat spin and I was unable to recover it. It was just too tail heavy.

Hi guys, thanks a lot for sharing your plans and viewpoints but now is vacation time and I leave home tomorrow morning and will be out for 2-3 weeks. So do not expect any more Load factors until I´m back.
Meanwhile you can "chew" on some load factors for published designs that I have calculated as follows:
Gannet, .40 pusher, low wing RCM, Sept-83 Lf=142 %
Dragon, .40 pusher, shoulder wing RCM, May-79 Lf=156 %
Sweepee, .40 tractor FSW, low wing MA, Aug-89 Lf=172%
Basic Canard, .40 pusher, low wing, twin fin MAN, Jan-85 Lf=188 %
Scat Twin.40 push pull .40-.46, low wing RCM, July-89 Lf=227 %

Quite a span with you Villa on the “low end” at 110% and the Scat Twin at a whopping 227%. I have an article in RCMW Nov. 2001 stating that the Scat Twin “…needs 10 degrees nose up elevator for level flight.” Not surprising at that Load factor.
Cheers for now../Harald

Canardlover,

Nice models!

Hey! Does this have potential?