On known data, you can calculate a couple of things. For example, the f-22 is given to be a 9g aircraft, if I’m not mistaken. Which means that no matter how hard the pilot pulls on the stick, the FCS limiter won’t allow it to go over 9G. Since it won’t pull more than 9G, you can take the 28deg turn rate and calculate the speed at which it turn that much by pulling 9G. The result is 347kts maximum. Above that speed you’d have to pull more than 9G to reach such a turn rate. Under that speed, the slower you go the less G you need to turn that much.

Now, when the f-22 gets slower, it uses it elevators as additional lifting devices visible on pics from airshow demos, some even posted in this thread, onlypossible only because TVC does the “pitch control job”. Removing TVC would not only reduce f-22 lift but also pose controllability issues, as the tail is used differentially to help the big thing roll when TVC does the “pitch control”.

Basically, you remove TVC, and the f-22 will loose a good chunk of its controllability under G-load. And have reduced lift, especially at lower speeds, resulting in lesser ability to “pull G’s” and therefore lesser turn rate

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.
You can not use your opinion without any real data and mathematical models to come to conclusions and try to contradict them.
I can see the Indians were lying when they said the Su-30MKI has a better STR when the US pilots claimed the Su-30MKI has a STR of 23 deg/s, the studies show something right at Max Lift coefficient and thrust on a max ITR turn, thrust won`t be the main vertical pitch vector as you claim because it will be mainly the horizontal.

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..

Wing area of Rafale is larger than Mirage? I will put mony on what you said would be reference area not an exposed area of wing.

What i am trying to say is Rafale is a pretty good aircraft not because it has canards but mostly because Dassault has used its experience in creating an aircraft with a wing area of close to 46 square meters in a very light airframe with two good jet engines.
The Mirage 2000 is a very good example of simplicity but very well designed, so good it can beat a Viggen and is as good as the Gripen and F-16, from my point of view the Mirage 2000 even without having canards like the Gripen or LERXes like the F-16 is an excellent fighter however the Mirage 2000 has a large wing bigger than the F-16`s wing and Gripen`s wing.

With this i am saying you is not canards or tailplanes what matters most comparations we have done are based upon the fact the tailplanes and canards are of the same shape and size and have the same wing.

This is not realistic, most aircraft will have different shapes in canards and tailplanes and different wings, TWR will also differ, the fuselages are going to have different inlets and forebody fuselages so in general terms we can only compare aircraft with same aerodynamics.

All aircraft have trade offs so while the F-16 for example has better STR than the Mirage 2000 it has lower ITR.
The Gripen despite is consider newer than the Mirage 2000 it has almost the same ITR and STR.

The F-22 and T-50 are designs that have been designed with little drag when carrying weapons, with huges wings in fact the largest wings on modern fighters, the T-50 has even fuselage lift and extensive fuselage-wing blending.
If they are better than the Rafale or Eurofighter is not a product of having tailplanes but having huge wings and being clean aircraft without external weapons clutter.
Their stealth treatment and new types of engines make them even much superior.
Rafale has canards because it is the best configuration for its needs and type of wing, it makes it better than fighters like the F-16 and F-14 not because of canards but newer technologies lighter weight and high Lift coefficient product of a large wing.

The Rafale has a huge wing larger than the MiG-29`s wing of equal size and equal to the one on the F-18E but on a lighter airframe and with better TWR.

Even comparing the MiG-21 and Kfir is hard, in this case we only can say the Kfir has bigger wings and canards; this we could even say does not make it better than the MiG-21 having a very small wing and tailplanes but the reality we are forgeting the general differences in inlet and tails.

what part? probably a very big part…

little question to you: do you have any idea of the speed at which a fighter like a F-22 can reach 28° turn rate?

Based upon what? mathematics? released statements or just you own opinion?

the speed was not released by Colonel Fornof but the altitude was of 20000ft or around 6000 mtrs, you can even expect higher STRs at lower altitudes.
Studies show the F-18HARV only had an increase of 5% in max STR, or only 1 deg/s to 2 deg/s in net increase in max turn rate at all speeds

back to cobra? again running circles I see…

this is pointless.. you are proven wrong, you change subject, and a few pages later, when proven wrong on another subject, you jump back with misconceptions that were proven wrong several pages ago…

you really look like a little kid arguing with his fantasies, and jumping all over the place to keep saying “‘I’m right, I’m right”…

I do not think so, tell me of that 28 deg/s STR how much do you think might be the result of TVC? most people who have not read reports and studies think it will be at least 5 deg/s so the F-22 must be an equal of Eurofighter but most of people who dismiss the STR of the F-22 as a TVC trick, will think the F-22 must have a STR of 18 deg/s and with TVC it gets to 28 deg/s.

However they forget TVC means only an aid to lift and most of the burden for its STR is carried by its wings.

Saddly for those who think the F-22 is a brick specially because has no foreplanes, it is unaccurate. the F-22 achieves its very high STR due to its wing and little drag and its TVC only will help it in a minor way.
Thrust is mostly the horizontal vector and when it is vectored it is in a very small deflections in order to keep speed and direction.

TVC in a turn is not working as when it flies at high AoA or does the kulbit.

You are really cute. The Cobra not is everything in modern air combat. Yes post-stall maneuver based on Cobra, but most of post-stall maneuver done successfully not because of tail-plan but TVC and canard. Except Cobra Su-27 did nothing impressive and its Cobra must be under many precondition to do not like others.

The TVC is the most advanced device for modern maneuver, but canards still hold advantage of trim in flight even beat TVC at this aspect. Yes, LEVC is a kind innovative design created by Russia, but I doubt this concept also stolen from French who originally prefer the canard rather than LERX.
Otherwise, that X-29 and X-31 which did many amazing maneuver you mentioned here was not tailed aircraft but canards. Thus you beat youself again.

TVC is not as many think a way to increase a turn rate 200% or more, the reality is TVC will only increase the turn rate 5% or less and the increases will be in the region of 1 deg/s or 2 deg/s, this might surprise you but it is true, the F-18 was fitted with TVC too and they found it barely increased its turn rate only 5% and reduced its turn radius only 15%.

Most of a turn`s vertical vector is lift, and thrust even with TVC represents the horizontal vector in a turn, in a turn thrust is not the vertical component, in Take off and Landings it can become the only vertical vector like in a Harrier, but while turning it is still mostly the horizontal vector in order to keep speed and horizontal direction.

What i am trying to say to you is The F-22 even using TVC won`t increase its STR more than 5%. if you see this you will see that a STR of 28deg/s will mean only 1-2 deg/s increase by use of TVC.

With this i mean the F-22 has excellent aerodynamics and a very high STR without TVC.
TVC only increases the vertical vector or lift in a very small manner.

I didn’t insist there is no trade offs for canard configuration, I had pointed out that canard was not suitable for AoA above 45 degrees and canard was good for stealth compare to LERX.

High TWR does any a/c better not only CANARD, and with relaxed statics, canard performed better than tailed a/c which is known widely very much.

Please don’t let mind going mad and don’t let matter going mess.
The LEVcon factually is a canard not a LERX. The idea came from France to sublate the disadvantage of element which LERX contained because of surface fixed. Checking many many PAK FA photos you can find the so-called by layman LEVC works same as canard, when take-off the surface deflect up, when being High AoA the LEVC deflected down, whereas a LERX won’t works like that. Don’t understand any concept literally, you’d better know a canard can modify the angle, intensity and position of vortex raised by LERX that is why Eurocanard fixed strakes so small and why canard being ahead of strakes on Eurocanards.

In other words, the tail are so weak that needs LERX help it:p

All of then originally were LERX a/c but why refitted with canards? See what does that mean?:diablo:

I didn’t say canards is a terminal configuration.:D

The LEVCON is niether a canard or a LERX, it is a new deviice which controls the Vortex shed by the leading edge, the leading edge vortex controller or LEVCON, is basicly a flap on a LERX.
It has no trailing edge and has not control function like a Tailplane or Foreplane (canard).

The Su-30MKI, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35, Su-37, S-37, F-15 ACTIVE are interesting designs since have both canard and tailplanes.
But this has more to do with stability aspects and limits on the tailplane size

But the American and Russian at the end opted for F-22, F-35, T-50 and S-35BM without canards and these are their most advanced designs.

Are we talking about science or religion?
If all we concerned was science, then the logic and graph would be the most important key to prove each own opinion, of course if you are just superstitious in tailed elevator, whatever you posted here will be against youself in public.

Ho Dear: Blacked each letters won’t change anything, not even your failure.
My image which uploaded previously has already exhibited the advantage of trim belong to canard. Now your graph betrayed yourself showing advantage of Cl also be part of canard. All you done merely was repeat same words, so I have to question are you boring?

Your word stands with me again!

OK, ok！
Here is your bt/bw=.5

the latitude line of canard still is higher than tailed if ARt/ARw was small.
You may say why only small ARt/ARw was selected?
The answer simply is the number of ARt/ARw trend to high the number of drag will be large too.
Surely you can choose your tail like something on Berkit for high Cl, BUT you will certainly loose your trim force rapidly which this graph no showing it.

that is quit unacurate.

since there is a big difference between lift and drag in canards you can not get both at the same time, either is least drag and least lift or more lift and more drag, you are trying to modify what are facts.

That is what happens, designers know that, is choosing between a large low aspect ratio canard to get more lift at the expense of more drag or least drag with a small high aspect canard but at the expense of lift.
always the canard pays with less wing lift at level flight and this is due to downwash.

You still are fighting with realities which you do not want to admitt.