F-22 it is the best looking

and the F-35 is not bad looking

The T-50 is okay but …….uhmm still there are things i do not like and until i do not see the production version i would say it is tied with the F-35

The higher the number of ARt/ARw, the more the drag of surface.
Notice: with same span ratio and ARt/ARw your tail’s Cl is at less 0.7
See the blue line in graphe below:

In total lift tails have the edge, whatever you try to change the topic or pretend you win the graph shows tails with better lift even the article it selfs says it.

Wing/aft-tail combinations achieve generally lower drag than wing/canard systems of equal weight and area. If the section CLmax is constant over all sections, aft-tail configurations exhibit greater maximum lift capability than canards of moderate aspect ratio. Relaxing static stability results in canard and aft-tail designs with very similar performance

The differences between aft-tail and canard configurations’ maximum lift capability is again related to the trim constraint. There exists one position of the center of gravity for which each surface carries maximum lift. This optimal static margin is shown in figure 11. Nearly neutral stability is required for canard designs while static instabilities from 0 to 20% are necessary for aft-tail designs.

you can go around and around but the article says it too

see what they say too
The relative importance of these two performance indicies (CLmax and drag) depend on the aircraft’s design mission. A design intended for high speed flight with a strict stalling speed constraint would be strongly affected by the maximum lift capability of the design while the comparisons of relative drag with fixed area applies more directly to an aircraft constrained by climb rate requirements.

Thus, the optimal design is influenced by the intended mission — especially for canard designs with their greater sensitivity to aspect ratio changes and the large difference between the design with highest CLmax and the design with least drag. A typical compromise might consist of a canard design with equal wing and canard aspect ratios with bt/bw = .5. This design would achieve a CLmax of 72.5% that of an aft tail design with the same wing and tail areas and with bt/bw = .4. The drag of canard and wing would be 107% that of the wing/tail combination.This design would achieve a CLmax of 72.5% that of an aft tail design with the same wing and tail areas and with bt/bw = .4. The drag of canard and wing would be 107% that of the wing/tail combination. Savings in propulsion system integration, fuselage layout, control system simplicity, etc., could conceivably lead one to favor the canard configuration, but in this example the initial aerodynamic compromise is large.

http://aero.stanford.edu/Reports/MultOp/multop11.gif
http://aero.stanford.edu/Reports/MultOp/multop.html

Whether or not they have some camber is not the issue.

The problem is your statement that camber is necessary to generate lift. This is a common mistake due to popular (but incorrect) theories about how lift is generated.

See http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

The canards on the Gripen, Lavi and J-10 do have camber, however even a symmetrical airfoil will have downwash, it won`t change that, because As may be expected, symmetric airfoils will have zero lift at zero angle of attack. Thus, a0 is zero for symmetric airfoils. increasing the local AoA of the canard will create a downwash, no matter how symmetrical it is.

Kiwi, what does the cambering have to do with the ability to generate lift?
Cambering only allows a profile to generate a lift at alpha 0°.
Supersionic aeroprofiles like missile’s wings and fast fighter planes have very little (supercritical) to NONE cambering.
You don’t loose the ability to generate lift without cambering, but you loose the ability to generate lift at canard’s alpha 0°.
Those two are very different things!
C’mon man…these are basics.

LOL, you must have an 100/100 vision to be able to see that from those pictures.
Do you know what cambering is?

Too bad and frankly I don’t overly care…however, I don’t want other posters to create a false image of these concepts, so I’m trying to sort this mess of yours, out.

i do see cambering it is easily spotable

see in this picture and i will explain

The canad has some degree of deflection but if you look at the inlet there is the wing profile of the canard on the wall of the inlet, this print is very easily spotable as a fairing print of the canard wing profile, same is the J-10

It is not basics Cola, it is simply you are wrong, a canard without lift is plain drag, the canard of course was not a Me-109 wing profile but it has camber.

No, Kiwi.
First of all, learn what downwash and upwash are.
Second, when you learn how does the wing work, you’ll understand that it doesn’t matter if the wing is at 0° or 15° alpha, since it produces lift in the same way and that’s the pressure difference.
Once the pressure difference becomes sufficiently small the wing stalls.
So, lower pressure above the wing means air passes over longer route chordwise, meaning it must move faster to “catch up” with high pressure air from below the wing, producing low pressure.
Now, if you have a canard (or some other body) blowing over the wing, what you essentially do is increase the amount of air passing through the lower pressure zone reducing the pressure even further, thus increasing pressure difference against high pressure zone and therefore INCREASE the lift.

You don’t get it…Look, first of all, control canards like Rafale’s, Gripen’s etc, are most probably not cambered at all, meaning they have no lift per se, at alpha 0° and therefore no downwash.
This is why I emphasized difference between Viggen’s lifting and Eurocanard’s control canards.
So, such non-cambered canards produce lift only during alpha increase and their wake behaves differently than normal cambered profile’s.

Now, check where the tip vortex from even as low canarded plane as the EF is, blows.
It blows way over the stagnation point.

EF doesn’t even have a problem with this, so where should those canards be put to kill the lift?
Below the wing level?
Never saw that, except in F16AFTI, but those were way below the wings.

Ok, slow down…
Wing twist is something completely else and is used to manage stalling characteristics and is present in all wings beginning in 1930s.

Not accurate at all.

If the canard is uncambered them you lose all the stability advantages of a canard you are losing the extra lift ahead of the center of gravity, now you are not even sure if they are cambered or not showing you are just making up an explanation that does not go well with you basic concepts,

Now having a canard that does not produce lift is just adding drag without any benefit just plain downwash and turbulance

see this picture the J-10 has a very easily to spot cambered canard

Gripen is the same

So my friend i do not believe your explanation

Ok, we have arrived to the source of the problem.
It really isn’t your fault for being misled by such unclear expression and in short, it’s simply wrong and now I see where does your misconception come from.

When the canard’s stream blows over the wing it reduces local alpha indeed, BUT by delaying boundary flow separation (energizing), meaning increasing speed of the flow in the low pressure area and thus even more increasing the pressure difference, which increases the wing’s lift, not the other way around.

Following the logic of alpha/Cl reduction, one may arrive to the conclusion that canard’s stream reduces lift, but this is purely semantic fallacy.

Otherwise, the document is fairly accurate and handy, since it features many relevant principles and data in one place.

The documents are right, the only way it will increase lift is at an AoA beyond 5 degree, when canard upwash vortices re-energize the wing upward vortices but at level flight there is an important reduction of wing lift by canard downwash.
high set canard achieve the best lift but at a higher drag, why? well higher the lift, higher the downwash, this also applies to canard deflections, which increase the lift coefficient of the canard but at the same time its downwash.

Low set canards will shed their upwash at the bottom of the wing at high AoA therefore reducing lift.

Some sweptback and forward swept wings use wing twist do reduce downwash effects.