Talk:Canard
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Naval Canards
[edit]Just as a sugestion for expansion of this article: Submarines use canards to control "flight" through water without noisy variation in balast. Large cargo vessels use retractable canards to stabelize in rough seas.
hoax (linguistic)
[edit]"In English, canard also means hoax (but, in contemporary French usage, it means newspaper as in Le Canard Enchaîné)." No. In English a canard is a cheap shot, a conscious untruth, a deceptive fabrication meant to discredit a person or an idea. --Wetman 10:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Canard (Wiktionary) — A deliberately false story. — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- All very fine, and Dab pages can link to Wiktionary, but may not otherwise provide dictdefs for terms that don't at least correspond to article titles. I did leave a link to duck, on the the only moderately lame theory that some uses may not be sure it is a foreign when they see it on a swanky menu, and may get via Duck to the recipe they saw. (But i won't stand up for even that entry if it's challenged.)
--Jerzy•t 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- All very fine, and Dab pages can link to Wiktionary, but may not otherwise provide dictdefs for terms that don't at least correspond to article titles. I did leave a link to duck, on the the only moderately lame theory that some uses may not be sure it is a foreign when they see it on a swanky menu, and may get via Duck to the recipe they saw. (But i won't stand up for even that entry if it's challenged.)
armchair aero
[edit]- The canard surface normally produces positive (upwards) lift which adds to the overall lift, whereas a conventional tailplane normally produces a downforce, partially cancelling the lift from the main wings.
The vast majority of tailplanes and canards can produce either upwards or downwards force, either with elevators or whole-surface rotation (stabilators). Their "normal" behavior is irrelevat; both are used to provide either an upward or downward force to adjust the vehicle attitude. This "advantage" of a canard is silly and demonstrates a juvenile understanding of aircraft aerodynamics. In addition, it would be trivial to design a tailplane that produced lift "normally" by setting its pitch higher. The position of a canard lends to its "default" lift attribute, because it lies in front of the CG. A tailplane has an opposite requirement because of its position behind the CG. This assumes constant attitude flight of course. In BOTH situations, the tailplane/canard moment is canceled out by the CG and wing lift.
signum of the lift force
[edit]The canard surface normally produces positive (upwards) lift which adds to the overall lift, whereas a conventional tailplane normally produces a downforce, partially cancelling the lift from the main wings.[citation needed]
I've moved the text above from the "Advantages" section here just because the signum (or direction) of the lift force depends solely on the profile of the wing and not on its placement. PLZ, point me a credible source, if I'm wrong. Maybe, the talk was on the "momentum", and not "force"??? --jno 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
by 'normal' read 'trimmed for level flight'
[edit]In order to fly straight and level the aircraft must be trimmed nose up, so that the mainplane is at positive incidence. With a statically stable tail configuration, the trim requires downward tail lift, in opposition to the main wing lift. If the aircraft were statically unstable, the tail lift would have the same sense as the wing lift, but the aircraft would be a classic 'whiteknuckles special' to fly, without an autopilot. For a statically stable canard configuration, trim is achieved with the canard lift acting in the same sense as the wing lift. It's true that canards may deflect downwards, when say performing a bunt, but it is reasonable to refer to straight and level as the 'normal' condition for the aircraft. Gordon Vigurs 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This Could Get Awfully Big
[edit]With the addition of "antisemitic canard," I think we swing the proverbial barn door WIDE open by now listing every single combination of noun or adjective with the word "canard." I don't think this is really what we want to do, is it? Computing canard, naming canard, etc....if one's going to include one, seems like we would include 'em all. Maybe it's just me, but I see no special meaning in the juxtaposition of "antisemitic" and "canard." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchandra (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)