>1. Why are there only 8 registered in the US (some of which have been sold to museums and such). Why did it 1) sell so poorly and/or 2) so few get successfully built?

1a: The market for do-it-yourself gliders is/was/always will be small.

1b: The SSA Soaring Mar 84 report by Enevoldsen & Bohn-Meyer may well have 'killed' a lot'a interest, a typical remark: "[Solitaire] ... in comparison to the I-26 and I-36 will not climb as well at small radii." Such comments pretty-well eliminate any chance for a 'mine is bigger than yours' swagger.

1c: Two further problems may have beset Solitaire, a law-suit against Rutan (over a different design, the suit widely considered to have been all of unfair, malevolent & frivolous and although it was ultimately dismissed, it nevertheless had an extreme negative impact), then Rutan's subsequent withdrawal from the market. Also along the way, there were problems with a fabricator/supplier.

>2. My understanding is that the Solitaire was sold as a partial kit, consisting of the fuselage shells, and the rest was plans built using the usual moldless foam core composite construction. Is that correct?

2: Yes. Also in the kit were the wing spars. The major pre-manufactured bits were considered to be a bit too hard for the 'normal' back-yard constructor.

>3: I've read vague references to the Solitaire being an excellent sailplane, except for high sink rates in tight turns (required for climbing in small thermals). Is that correct? Wasn't that anticipated in the design? Was that why it sold so badly?

3: See (1). Further comment: too many glider pilots try to fly at extreme bank angles for questionable return. Depends on what one wants, I suppose. Solitaire was conceived more for fun than competition, and there was always the motor to do a 'save' or get home with...

>4: Is there anything "wrong" with the design, beyond the sink rate?

4: Not that I know of & IMHO the sink rate is OK for most purposes. The design point was 32:1 and I suppose that something close to that is achieved in 'real life'.

-=*=-

There appears to be some serious (& possibly misinformed) prejudice against canards in general.

The point is (validly) made that canards can't land slowly enough (compared to what?) because the main wing cannot deliver max. lift, since it (the main wing ) can't be brought to the stall point.

Well, yes! But that's the whole point of the Rutan canard revival, to avoid a stall.

It has also been (validly) remarked, that any aeroplane is nothing more than a lot of compromises flying in close formation. In the canard case, the dominating compromise is in the direction of safety as opposed to max. performance, which in the case of GA is (usually) speed or payload etc, and in gliding it's 'thermalling' or glide ratio.

In 'real life', the various EZs etc don't do too badly on performance, and neither does the Solitaire. Because of the demand for performance, the designs are optimised for cruise, and the lower max. lift coefficient available means a faster landing. Then, in Rutan's case, having lived his entire 'plane building life on horizon to horizon concrete, his wheels are just too small & flimsy for a lot'a the rest of us.

Any other questions?

regards, Phil.

-=*=-

PS

It comes down to a question of philosophy; just about all conventional 'planes (with 'unnatural' exceptions like Ercoupe) will stall/spin, and stall/spin can be a real killer, 'specially if it happens too low down for any chance of a successful recovery.

The intention of Rutan's canard designs is to eliminate (well, greatly reduce) this characteristic. Just how successful the designs are is still a bit controversial, with 'deep stall' being perhaps the biggest potential problem, although the general thought is that deep stalls may only occur due to such provocations as mis-loading (i.e. pilot error).

Paraphrasing Murphy: "If something can happen then it eventually must," so I suppose that even Solitaire (& Ercoupes) could end up upside-down or spinning; then it's a question of what happens next. If a design is 'friendly' a recovery will be possible, and I expect Rutan considered this since his underlying intention is more safety rather than less. Enevoldsen & Bohn-Meyer again: "The stalling & spinning behaviour of the Solitaire are unexcelled. There are no expected problems."

So, your "Wasn't that anticipated in the design?" is answered thusly: IMHO, Rutan knows exactly what he's doing and he did a great job on Solitaire. People interested in increased safety vs. max performance could be interested in Solitaire, remembering always that perfection may only ever be approached.

A last comment: flying is dangerous, or so the press/media incessantly screech. Safer designs could tempt more people into sampling flying & give reassurance to the doubters. I think there's room for a Solitaire per se, and perhaps as well, a similar type in the FAR Part 103 Ultralight class optimised more for rugged practicality than outright performance, i.e. built more for comfort and less for speed; a self-launching relaxed floater.