airplane with wings in front??


#1

hi, i seen a plane with wings in the front, i have NEVER seen it before until today. Does anyone know what type of plane this was? and if possible have a link to show pictures so i can compare em? this was a wierd lookin plane. it flew over durin broad daylight so i know it couldnt have been an experimental plane. i figured i’d ask on here since theres real pilots that’s on here and i’m sure someone else has seen this plane also, thnx


#2

Piaggio Avanti or Beech Starship, both of which are piloted by members of this forum.

Avanti:
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/piaggio/images/1-private-jet.jpg

Starship:


#3

Was it a single or twin? Some others that I can think of are the original Cirrus (I think it was called the Cirrus VK), Long-EZ, VariEZ.


#4

I call it the catfish - cause that’s what it looks like to me!!! :smiley:


#5

Piaggio Avanti is a lovely plane, one that only italians can design!!!

Twice the price that i can afford… sadly


#6

The “wings” in front are actually tailplanes and are called canards.

There’s quite a few aircraft that have these. See the article referenced above for a list of them.


#7

Try this fish moolelo.com/shark-hammerhead.html


#8

Burt Rutan has a number of designs which incorporate canards.

http://www.mojaveairandspace.com/images/products/stan-stokes-burt-rutan-voyager-longEZ-boomerang.jpg

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/configuration/images/image13_25.gif

Who knew!?!


#9

Well - I see we have taken the design from a two fish now & then Rutan (Burt - we should have known he was ahead a long time ago). :laughing:


#10

Hey Dami, in the case of canards, wouldn’t they be noseplanes?


#11

Only if they have nose hair :slight_smile:


#12

[quote=“damiross”]

And boogers for passengers… :laughing:

Haven’t you ever had a booger on your plane - now really - admit!!! 8)


#13

In the Piaggio, it is not a tailplane ahead of the main wing. While some, as well as wikipedia consider it a canard, I still disagree. We refer to it as the forward wing. We have a conventional empennage with horizontal stab and elevator, and vertical stab and rudder. The forward wing is a non-movable surface, except for the fact that the rear portion is equipped with a flap that extends with the extension of the main wing flaps.

The starship is different, it does not have a tail, the rudders are at the ends of the wings, and all elevator function is controlled by the forward canard.


#14

You have a right to disagree. Don’t forget, Wikipedia identifies itself as “The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”.


#15

There are also fighter aircraft like the SU-35/37 or the Eurofighter Typhoon who possess canard foreplanes. Not all canards move up or down with the aircraft’s control surfaces (be also careful not to confuse canards with the forward wing of three-surface aircraft [see Burt Rutan’s creations]). One thing to keep in mind is that canards produce an up-force to help in keeping the aircraft level, while classic elevators must produce a down-force (which has a negative impact on the aircraft’s total lift).

Usually, canards are used with pusher-type engines and are beneficial in control because they’re placed in undisturbed flow (which translates into increased maneuverability for fighter aircraft, especially when the canards can be placed at variable incidence). For aircraft like the Piaggio however, placing a surface in front of the main wing allowed the engineers to reduce the aircraft’s length by reducing the empennage, which translates into significantly less drag, and thus increased performance.

I love them Italian engineers, and I love the Piaggio. Never seen one though…


#16

The starship is different, it does not have a tail, the rudders are at the ends of the wings, and all elevator function is controlled by the forward canard.

Close, but not quite true. Our forward wing is a true canard in that it does have a primary flight control as you noted; however, it is not our only means of elevator control.

We don’t have ailerons on the Starship – we have Elevons. During our last 10 deg. of elevator travel on the forward wing will cause what are normally ailerons on the main wing to act as elevators. It works very similarly to the Ruddervators found on V-Tailed Bonanzas.

Also, I don’t believe the definition of canard in the aerodynamic sense means that it has to be variable as opposed to fixed. While the Starship’s forward wing is a variable sweep lifting surface, it is a canard because of its primary flight control attached.

I agree with James that the P180 that it is not a true canard – however, it is IMHO because it has a secondary flight control, not a primary flight control, is attached. It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that the P180 is a three-lifting surface aircraft, or that its forward wing is fixed not variable.

Chris


#17

ISide…you and I were writing at the same time. You said it better than I did.

Thanks, and good job!

Chris


#18

The engineers created the forward wing on the P180 (which is not a true canard) to reduce the size/area of the horizontal stabilizer, reducing its need to generate negative lift, allowing for a significant drag reduction. Fuselage/Empennage drag is controlled not by “reducing its length” but by the design of the constantly changing cross section which actually generates a little lift due to its shape generating some laminar flow. The rest of the empennage is still quite significant with a large vertical tail for lateral stability and the use of ventral/delta fins for increased lateral stability and improved stall characteristics.


#19

The engineers created the forward wing on the P180 (which is not a true canard) to reduce the size/area of the horizontal tail, reducing its need to generate negative lift, allowing for a significant drag reduction

Not quite… There are many forms of drag at play here. The drag reduction does not really come from the reduction of the tailplane’s requirement to produce negative lift (this contribution, if any, is marginal), it stems from the fact that the tail’s moment arm has been reduced in accordance (thanks to the canard’s contribution), and therefore the empennage (which you are right, does contribute to total lift) has been reduced in length, which greatly diminishes the total drag on the aircraft (compared to what it would have been without the canards).

Fuselage/Empennage drag is controlled not by “reducing its length” but by the design of the constantly changing cross section which actually generates a little lift due to its shape generating some laminar flow.

You are partially right when you say that fuselage drag is controlled by its shape which is designed to keep the flow laminar (are you familiar with Reynolds numbers ?): this is the case for form drag. Reducing the empennage length will have a beneficial impact on friction drag. And by the way, lift isn’t consequential to the flow staying in the laminar region; the lift force is created through a pressure gradient.

And I still think that the foreplanes on the Piaggio are canards :smiley:


#20

ISide, apparently you aren’t very familiar with the design concepts of the P180. Alessandro Mazzoni, Piaggio’s chief designer, and Dr. Gerald Gregorek with whom he collaborated would beg to differ with you.

I’m familiar with the design from the very thorough introduction we received when the gentleman I work for was considering buying one. And the father of a very good friend of mine works for Piaggio America as a delivery/test pilot. Further, I have some experience with the Starship, as a former employer operated three of them. I am fortunate enough to have logged several hours in NC-14.

If you don’t want to believe what i’ve said, ask cfijames…or check out the Sept. 07 issue of Business & Commercial Aviation. I’m sure that you’ll find it very enlightening and that it corroborates my comments.