the tailplane version is prefered i guess just because canards have more constraigns at the moment of being design, the best canard position is above wing level, its best shape is high aspect ratio with a trapezoidal form.
There is another thread named canards and stealth take a look at it you might guess why the tailplane version is prefered

the only reason is because kiwinopal have a personal agenda against canards….not that anyone else cares 😉

Just one litle remark: the 26.000 F 414 is EPE (enhanced performance engine). The D in EDE is from durability, and this variant has the same thrust asthe vanilla F 414.

But I agree, a Gripen with a 26.000 lbs engine would be a beast.

i thought EPE was potential for even 29000lbs?!

Youre ideas about the fighter market are only true on this forum and not in the real world. 3rd world countries are not going to buy the Rafale or Eurofighter, end of story. Both the Rafale and Eurofighter cost twice as much as an F-16 and yet niether have a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio as the F-16 does. Hardly anyone wants to buy F-16s because the US will slap an embargo any time it feels like.

The Gripen’s NG improvements make it comparable to its contemporaries, not make it stand out above them.

any ideas of an engine mod?

This will undoubtedly match it with the Gripen-NG/Demo/IN.

Undoubtedly?! please stop this nonsense… Looking at wiki data on max cruise, Number of hardpoints and empty weight will not make a good comparison. then you could throu a Draken,a Mig-21 and a f-104 in the comparison as well.
But it would be nice to see a exercise in the future…

Maskirovka, the older JA 37 Viggen in the Swedish Air Force has a max. service ceiling of 59,000 ft. as compared to only 50,000 ft. for the newer JAS 39 Gripen.
Its top speed is mach 2.1 at 11 km altitude, whereas Gripen is known to only touch mach 2 at it’s lower altitudes

So, pray tell us when the Gripen flies lower and slower than Viggen, why did Sweden develop an inferior Gripen fighter after all ? Don’t say simply because it carries better payload or has better avionics — even the Tejas beats the MiG-21 in that..

In wiki, it seems strange, but in real life and real figures (50000ft+) it matches
and goes beyond. I talked to a gripen pilot who said a viggen could not manover at these heights, aboat 16000m(52 493ft), but there was no problem for Gripen.
As for the max cruise figures, Viggen was a “afterburner” i a big sense, and it did go fast in a straight line, the same goes for draken (the one suppose to designed to beat MIG-21).
A gripen A was designed to beat f-16 and MIG-29, in a fraction of the cost, and manovering and avionics/RCS was thou more important.

not familiar with that, got a link?

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/JSF15_ERIC_GRIPEN_DEMOROLLOUT2008.pdf

You are not using mathematics; the calculations to see how much TVC changes STR are higher mathematics and have been done based upon experimental data.

You are not even proving it with mathematics, serious studies have come to the conclusion it will be no more than 5% the increase of turn rate and 15% reduction of turn radius.

In the kulbit is different the aircraft is turning on its on axis but at low speeds and is bleeding speed very much.
But in a turn losing speed means lower turn rates since basicly decreasing your turn rate means losing speed..

5% is maybe aerodynamic efficiency and therefor less energybleed.

9G is 9 G and is an effect of newtons second law. TooCool_12f has right at a given G rate and speed, there is a given turnrate.

I know and my post was not directed at you. 😉

USS.

😎

Quadbike,

Source that says MiG-35 cleared the trials? Makes sense, but a source would clear things up.

Re. FBW on the LCA.

Stop the rubbish – nowhere does it say that an unstable design required a DFBW. Analog ones will do just fine. IIRC, even the vaunted “electric jet”, the F-16, which was unstable, had analog FBW in the early models – till the blk-40s iirc.
So no, D(igital)FBW is not mandatory for relaxed stability design. IIRC, the Mirage 2000 also has a relaxed stabiity design and uses FBW; the very same that was offered for the LCA, which the ADA did not want!

USS.

I was being sacastic…