darkjedi wrote:actually it's not the canards that make it unstable. it's the rear center of gravity (engines in the back, wing in the back) and a small movement of the elevator will easily change pitch. it's much like a rear engined car.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Regardless of where your control surfaces are, they need to be appropriately sized with appropriate throws. And the exact same thing can be said for planes with a front mounted tractor prop and traditional empennage, they have a forward center of gravity and their elevators are deliberately as far back as possible, for that matter look at a sailplane. Elevators (and rudders) are
supposed to be a long way from the CG, that's how they work; a small movement creating a small amount of additional drag and a small increase/decrease in lift force which, by virtue of it's distance from the cg, creates an adequate pitching moment.
What you're talking about is Gain, and that's almost completely separate from stability provided that is sufficiently low. No aircraft designer in his right mind will put such touchy controls in an aircraft that the pilot continually overshoots his intended pitch, bank or heading. It doesn't matter where the control surfaces are in this regard, it doesn't happen unless someone has f'ed up, and the many, many people who should have noticed f'ed up just as badly. What do you think test pilots get paid for?
Stability is the aircraft's tendency to return to straight and level flight after a disturbance given a lack of control inputs. As in, the pilot momentarily pulls back on the stick a bit without intending to, the aircraft pitches up a little and then gradually returns to level flight with no input from the pilot needed. In an unstable plane, after the pilot nudged the controls the plane would pitch up, then pitch up more and faster until it had stalled or looped or ripped its wings off. In an unstable plane the pilot, or in the case of modern fighter jets the flight control computer, has to constantly work to keep the aircraft balanced and level.
If you still don't beleive me, here's a quote from a 1980
review of Burt Rutan's Long-EZ, a canard-pusher that is about as rear-cg'd as a plane can get:
Budd Davisson wrote:As the speed built up, the stick pressures increased only slightly, if at all, but the stability began to approach that of a living room sofa. At slower speeds it seemed stable, but you still had to pay attention to it. At cruise speeds, you forget about it. Flat forget it! I ran it up to twenty mph over cruise speeds, quickly releasing the stick. The nose came back up, overshot, then back down, then stabilized at the end of the second cycle. It was equally stable on the other two axis. It appears to move only if you ask it to, otherwise it will keep on trucking straight ahead forever or until it runs out of gas, whichever comes first.