Sounds like you ought to join EAA. Many of the design concepts you cite are used in owner-built aircraft.
Burt Rutan designed several canard-pusher aircraft. His Long-Eze is one of the most popular homebuilts. These are very efficient, fast aircraft with low-HP engines, but they are also very small. Larger ones, like the Cozy Mk. IV and Velocity, don't seem to be as popular probably due to their expense. They are all composite designs.
The canard design makes sense for a pusher, since you are going to have the mass of the engine in the back (unless you use a long shaft), so you need your main lifting surface towards the back. For the same reasons, a tractor/canard doesn't seem practical.
Putting the prop in the back means it is operating in the wake of the fuselage and wing roots. It doesn't see "clean" air, so it operates less efficiently, and sounds funny. It also experiences more alternating stresses than a tractor prop. That is why you see wood or composite props, not metal, on the pusher homebuilts- they are more resistant to fatigue. Likely for the same reason, most canard homebuilts use a fixed pitch prop. With that, you run into all the usual compromises on how to pitch the prop- climb or cruise? Since the Rutan designs are aerodynamically slick, they can go very fast with a cruise prop. But their takeoff performance is anemic. For this and other reasons, they are not short/soft field performers (nor are they designed to be).
There are experimental aircraft builders using gasoline-fueled Wankel rotary engines- usually a highly modified Mazda 13B design. The wankel is a small, fairly light, low parts count, low vibration, high RPM motor. It is insensitive to low octane fuel and detonation. It also requires a propeller speed reduction unit (PSRU) and a radiator, both of which add weight. It is less thermally efficient than a piston engine (look a the lousy mileage the latest RX-8 gets), so you have to carry more gas. Running very lean mixtures and turbocharging can help. A bunch of tradeoffs, as you can see. The best source of information on Wankels in airplanes is Tracy Crook, Real World Solutions, www.rotaryaviation.com.
Diesel Wankels have not been successful. The rotor geometry is such that 10:1 is about the highest compression you can get; not high enough for a Diesel. Rolls-Royce experimented with a compound diesel rotary in the 70's, with an eye toward military vehicles, but that apparently didn't get far.
Burt Rutan designed several canard-pusher aircraft. His Long-Eze is one of the most popular homebuilts. These are very efficient, fast aircraft with low-HP engines, but they are also very small. Larger ones, like the Cozy Mk. IV and Velocity, don't seem to be as popular probably due to their expense. They are all composite designs.
The canard design makes sense for a pusher, since you are going to have the mass of the engine in the back (unless you use a long shaft), so you need your main lifting surface towards the back. For the same reasons, a tractor/canard doesn't seem practical.
Putting the prop in the back means it is operating in the wake of the fuselage and wing roots. It doesn't see "clean" air, so it operates less efficiently, and sounds funny. It also experiences more alternating stresses than a tractor prop. That is why you see wood or composite props, not metal, on the pusher homebuilts- they are more resistant to fatigue. Likely for the same reason, most canard homebuilts use a fixed pitch prop. With that, you run into all the usual compromises on how to pitch the prop- climb or cruise? Since the Rutan designs are aerodynamically slick, they can go very fast with a cruise prop. But their takeoff performance is anemic. For this and other reasons, they are not short/soft field performers (nor are they designed to be).
There are experimental aircraft builders using gasoline-fueled Wankel rotary engines- usually a highly modified Mazda 13B design. The wankel is a small, fairly light, low parts count, low vibration, high RPM motor. It is insensitive to low octane fuel and detonation. It also requires a propeller speed reduction unit (PSRU) and a radiator, both of which add weight. It is less thermally efficient than a piston engine (look a the lousy mileage the latest RX-8 gets), so you have to carry more gas. Running very lean mixtures and turbocharging can help. A bunch of tradeoffs, as you can see. The best source of information on Wankels in airplanes is Tracy Crook, Real World Solutions, www.rotaryaviation.com.
Diesel Wankels have not been successful. The rotor geometry is such that 10:1 is about the highest compression you can get; not high enough for a Diesel. Rolls-Royce experimented with a compound diesel rotary in the 70's, with an eye toward military vehicles, but that apparently didn't get far.