And we know after your teaching session, that a tailless fighter is crap.:diablo:

All configurations have trade offs, if you think canards do not have you are wrong, but after also LERXes have trade offs as well as tailess.
I have never say things as you are trying to imply.
That is the reason you have aircraft like the F-16AFTI, F-16XL, F-16VISTA and Lavi.
Each aircraft had its strong points, from the point of view of a company modifications can bring more cost effective products and more profit see it in the Su-27 family.

are you sure?
see this other view of the aircraft concept from below

see what the article
says
Boeing is betting that something will be a clean-sheet,tailless fighter design. Concepts displayed at Navy League show off a 40,000lb-class fighter for carrier decks. The air force would likely need an airframe at least 50% larger to replace the 60,000lb-class F-22. If the airframes are not common, the air force and navy would likely be pressured to share the cockpit avionics and — possibly — engines.
from the same article
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-plots-return-to-next-ge.html

They are tailess with a compound wing

The F-18 has a wing design that ARE prone to the Supersonic speed performance..
You cant just say that the wing fuselage blending/LERX makes all the different here, there are many other thing to consider in the world of aerodynamics.

As far as the LERX creating stability and high AoA on the Su-27.. yes but its just a small part of it.
Here are some other resons for that:
The huge lift by the wide engine placement.
The long nose section merged with the Lerx is feeding the air into the wing and the wing design itself is wery important.
And finaly the two huge stabilazors all contribute to the impressive stability of the Su-27.

I’m not sure how much better performance the Su-35S will be over the Su-27SM.
Sergey Bodgan Sukhois test pilot in the Su-35 “901” said:
“you can feel the extra thrust pressing you into the seat, its more manuvreble and easier to handle etc”..

Thanks

I agree with you but what i am trying to say, is according to what i have read, to do the Cobra you need these conditions.
A) good lateral stability, this is obtained by good control of forebody vortices and the use of aerodynamic controls. In aircraft with canards and LERXEs also means controling the interaction their vortices have with forebody vortices

B) relaxed stability
C)Good pitch control

All the explanations mention Hysteresis as the main element behind it due to the very fast pitch up and pitch down the maneouvre represents and the differences seen in steady pitch up conditions and the unsteady ones.

When we go to the aerodynamic aspects of canards up to what i know and i have read the high aspect canard and low aspect delta wing configuration obtains the least drag and good lift.
Relaxed stability is a must
The wing increases the most its lift by having the canard above its own level
All the modern high performance delta canard fighters follow these conditions.
These include the Eurofighter and Rafale; now when i see the real stealth aircraft with canards like the X-36 or JSF with canards concept they do not follow all of these conditions due to stealth.

Stealth aircraft with canards have low aspect canards at the same level of the wing

With respect Tailplanes vs Canards well both have advantages and disadvantages, the canard has added drag and less lift, the tailplane relatively speaking more sensibility to supersonic center of lift shifts.

About LERXs vs Canards, there is no evidence canards are better, since basicly both generate vortices and add lift ahead of the center of gravity , in the case of the LERX this is due to wing fuselage blending that starts at the apex of the LERX

Now with respect the F-22, we have no evidence it does not satisfy the conditions to do the Cobra on aerodynamic controls alone such as good lateral stability and good pitch control besides hysteresis but at least we know it has relaxed stability.
However we know it can do the Cobra and it has a 28 deg/s STR, in my opinion the F-22 has excellent aerodynamics.

In terms of your theory, Rafale with that rooting extension of forebody and LERX of wing will win more powerful lift than F-16, and EF also has its own air strake aside the fuselage, so does Gripen as well.
If there is no canards, their performance will just same as F-16, thanks by canards they get the advantage.

My whole point is the americans experimented even with canards or strakes in the F-16, however the settled for what we call LERXes, the reality is LERXes and Canards pretty much do the same, but the difference is this.
Canards are mostly used on deltas, so the combination is high aspect canard with low aspect main wing, the LERXes are low aspect delta wings (forebody strake) with a high aspect main wing, so its only mission driven the choice aerodynamists take

The Canard works as a control surface, the LERX does not because you have a tailplane but pretty much they do the same.

Rafale is a good fighter because it has a huge wing thanks to a large delta with a well position canard and new materials, that is the reason is better but basicly there is nothing inferior to the tailplane-LERX-wing combination.
Canard will enhance a delta and most wings but are not utterly superior to a tailplane they also have trade offs and disadvantages.

Now without considering forebody vortices is hard to dismiss the F-22 agility as a pure TVC trick, it is more than just TVC, its agility is a result of a well thought configuration.

Strake is strake, LERX is LERX, don’t mess them…..

The LERX is called forebody strake i am not wrong, what you want to pretend to dismiss is the fact the LERX is a wing it does produce lift as well as vortices.
The MiG-29 as well the F-16 have enough fuselage lift, the LERX has lift but contrary to a canard it is not a separate unit from the wing.

You are trying to portrait the F-16 as a Mirage F1, the Mirage F1 has a single wing and the lift is mainly around the center of the aircraft, the MiG-29 and F-16 have lift in their forebodies due to their LERXes and fuselage-wing blending.
The MiG-29 has a fuselage producing 40% of its lift, if you want to consider the wing as the part with leading edges flaps, ailerons and flaps you are separating the lift produced by the LERXes.
the thing is this, a LERX does produce lift in the forebody section very close to the radome and around the cockpit area.

Now if you consider the wing as a single unit then the wing and LERX are a compound wing.

Now the F-16 has lift almost at same longitudinal location a Rafale has with its canard.
For study considerations, LERXes are think as separate elements of their wings that is the reason they say the wing has its aerodynamic center shifted forward.
But if you consider the wing-LERX unit as a single element then it does not move forward but as a single unit is the center of lift new to the LERX wing unit that is thought to move forward.
You are calculating the aerodynamic center of the F-16 as if it was one on a Mirage F1 and without considering the lift it has in its forebody.
in few words due to great fuselage lift, the F-16 is not nose heavy as you want to portrait and with relaxed stabity it does well with supersonic aerodynamic center shifts

😀

Nothing proved.

.

I will explain you why a triangular canard is less effective with these two tail planes. see these two tailplanes
If you see the MiG-29 tailplanes they are not triangular but trapezoidal with its center of lift the farthest from the gravity center

if you make them like the X-36 canards triangular they will get closer to the center of Gravity
same is with the F-18 tailplanes they are the farthest from the center of gravity by if you make them triangular its center of lift will change and will get closer to the center of gravity.

The F-22 has no triangular tailplanes
see

It is easier to make the tailplane stealthy than a canard

From the frontal view the F-22 has its tailplanes hiden by the wing and from the lateral view it plansform with the engine nacelles so it is at the same level of its wing to keep planforming and stealthiness