look at this new VELOX-- the pilot is arguably the best around - why would he choose this setup on a really extreme flying airshow plane?
I added a similar setup to my Clipped Winged EDGE - so far -I see no downside to the short span and plates--on the model

Don't tip plates/winglets help control the tip vortices? That way, you reduce the lift/drag losses caused by them and get a result that makes the wing "look" like it has more span.

Yeh -that's one thought
I looked at the setup I did this way --
I wanted to slow span flow at high AOA- (sorta like the Side Force Generator things)
But I did not want air to pile up at the aileron tip - the shape was my own idea.
So I decided that if I stopped em before the aileron LE- that would be a better compromise.
The plane lost 90 square inches ( and 8" of span) -was 97"- now 89") but no detectable increase in wing loading (weight is 23 lbs ) roll rate really did increase.
Every time I saw off span -I get a better aerobatic setup -but I start with prety low loading planes.
I am just now completing one of the GP CAPS with a Evolution 116 n tuned cans - I can't afford to try the sawed off wings till I see how the plane works first -wing loading is not low --as you know.
Then I saw the Velox setup--almost the same approach-
I don't know if the tips on the Velox were Velox's idea or Peter Besenyie's idea - or whose - anyway I was hoping someone did .

Your upper AND LOWER plates are going to stop a lot of air sliding off of the wing ends.
To me that means you get the 100% use of ALL your wing surface.
High rate axial rolls should not cause higher tip votices anymore.

Nor should vortices appear as bad with any tail sliding moves that cause 1 wing to become swept back while the other is swept foward.

Most Mig jets always had several fences along the swept back wings. They did control sliding air to the Wing tips.

Yeh--that's what I also thought - the puzzle is - if they work so well - why are they used so infrequently?
I kept mine small then flared at TE as that to me is the natural path the air will take -and the VELOX is even smaller -which I thot made sense as the efficiency of full sized stuff is better .

Why are they used so infrequently?

I would guess that for the fences like the ones used on the Mig the interference drag might be the killer. The fences were not tall, but they're pure interference from front to back and that's both sides of the fence. And from their front to back layout they'd be almost impossible to install cleanly. And for long term maintenance of a wing would be in the way of just about half the components that might require access.

We can more easily place fences on models and do it "slicker" and it won't get in the way of our maintenance men. Airlines and airforces won't see any positives about them.

As for why aren't tip plates used more in the real world? I'm guessing no commercial need. And fighter aircraft nowadays don't really "fly" do they?

fighters -- the ultimate "foamies".
the latest dseigns must give some "theorists" fits --
they fit my idea of flying perfectly - (add power as needed)

Would this setup help on a carnard wing? I have a Long EZ 46. It takes around 350 ft. of black-top to get this plane airborn. You have to get alot of speed to get the carnard wing flying. If you take off to soon the wing will stall and drop. While the main wing is still flying. I was thinking if I installed winglets it might improve lift on the carnard. What do you think?????? Any advice ? Thanks....

Southernlifttruck, I don't know if this will help,but there is a lot of good information on endplates, wingtips and stall propagation.
http://www.freewebtown.com/salil/Drag/Page8.html

On a small model - it sounds like your real problem is the old standby-- not enough speed and or too much weight.
If the canard is working and the CG is anywhere near where it should be - the nose will easily lift when speed is correct
There are no aerodynamic fixes for overweight
None
Zip
NADA
Negatory
I once sugested that if the model weighed too much - the CG did not matter
Still true and to further explain-
if the plane can not reach proper V1 ( takeoff speed) - it still does not matter .
If possible re setup power for max thrust
and set CG exactly per plans -but don't add any weight!!

Hi,
I have a Sig Tri-Star canard. It has almost the identical configuration as the Long EZ. I find that it is easiet to lift off if the weight on the nosewheel is kept very light. If not, it tends to pop off the runway suddenly and is in a very steep climb before I can react. If you don't have a really powerful engine to maintain the steep climb, it will loose speed fast the elevator will loose lift and drop as you have described. If your C.G is set corectly, then moving the main gear forward or lengthening the nose gear will help. It sounds like you might be a bit nose-heavy, though. You might first try inching the c.g back instead of the previous suggetions. The elevator will become more sensitive as you move the c.g. back and it will be easier to lift off.

Thanks for the advice....I bought this plane from a friend that was afrade to fly it....He let two so called club pros try to fly it. Thay both crashed it on take off. I think thay tried to pull it up to soon and the carnard wing stalled out. I was thinking of adding winglets and two rudders to help on the crosswind landings like the real long ez have. I was thinking that the winglets would trick the wing into thinking that it was longer by giving it more lift. That way it would not be as pron to stalling on takoff or landing. Any advice will help.....Thanks

Thanks pd1....I really soked that info in...I remimbered some of that from ams school. But that was in 1984....LOL....It is funny how your mind can mix together info and get it wrong after 23 years. I appreciate all the troble you went too . So far I have moved the fuel tank to the CG ...Moved the nose wheel where the nose is 1/4 in taller than the main wheels Moved the radio and battery to get the CG right on the mark. I still have the big chunk of steel in the nose that came with the plane. I am thinking of shimming the engine to get 2 degree insidence up to help pick the nose up. What do Ya'll think? Also I was going to put 2 small micro servo's in the wing for rudders.

To give you an idea just how lightly my Sig Tri-Star sits on its nose wheel, it will tip back on its tail if I elevate it more than 2.25". My plane has a 48" wingspan. If I scaled it up to the 57" span of the long ez 46 (that is your plane's wingspan isn't it?) then that distance would measure 2.6". That should ensure that your plane is abe to lift smoothly off the runway without too much elevator input.

I think that end plates on the canards might adversly affect lateral stability so I'd try adjusting the C.G. and the main gear location first for your pitch control problems. My canard does just great without end-plates. Heres a crappy video of it. Its hard to make out but it will even do a Lomcevak (sp?) tumbling manuver.
http://www.rcuvideos.com/view_video....6c9cb27f78994c

I wouldn't mess with the thrustline just yet because that might ruin the plane's flying qualities. My c.g. is about an inch behind its recommended c.g.. You'll have to experiment with that on your plane to your own taste. Rudder control should be fun to experiment with. I was planning on adding that to my plane someday.

My video does show a pretty abrupt an steep take-off. This happens when my nose gear gets bent back too far from a hard landing. The bent nose gear sets the plane at a negative AoA and it requires more elevator to overcome the down force created during the take-off roll. Long grass can create drag that bends my nose gear back and forces a negative AoA also (maybe yours too).