Interesting point re: the high lift devices... Although, they get pretty simple when they get smaller. I wonder if that couldn't be done?
Your fuel explanation seemed to be discounting the possibility of a trim tank in the canard (only one 'n', got it thanks). With an airbus style C of G fuel management system, wouldn't that solve that part of the equation?
And hang on a minute...
"If a canard configuration is to have the same lifting area (canard and wing) in cruise as a conventional design (wing and h. tail), the canard configuration will need to have the same high lift devices fitted on the canard as the wing. "
Why would you need any high lift devices in cruise?
Assuming a same wing area as a conventinal a/c the "lifting area" would in fact be greater, simply because the stab normally cancels some and the canard will in fact add some...
The stability question puzzles me. But I do know there are a lot of birds with computers handling some pretty tricky aspects of flying.
I haven't heard of any deep stall troubles with a canard, I thought because of a higher angle of incidence on the canard it was impossible to stall the mainplane. And if you dropped one in the air at 0 kts wouldn't it drop it's nose anyway? I've never seen a lawn dart fall tail first.
I'm hard on Boeing for their stubborn insistance on continuing to do things as they always have. But I guess I must admit, the last few new ones out of Seattle have shown signs of trying a few things the other guys do.