All of Eurocanards own a better instantaneous turn rate than nornmal layout such as Su-27 and F-15.

That is true however the F-22 and T-50 must have very high instantaneous and sustained turn rates, the F-22 has 28 deg/s sustained turn rate, that is very high and the instantaneos must be higher than even the eurofighter`s.
The T-50 must be the same.

It is not the fact they have canards or tailplanes but the amount of lift and thrust what matters.
Also is not that canards can not be used for stealth they can be used but performance losses and trade offs must not be worthed since the F-22 and T-50 both use tailplanes and the same is for the F-35.

and the others the B-2, F-117, YF-23 and X-32 show that basicly for stealth no tail either back or ahead of the wing is the best for stealth aircraft but if you want to use flaps and high AoA, then a tail or a canard is needed

Kanwa said based on an interview with sukhoi that the Russians are still sending the components and China is accepting them. So, nothing is really cancelled. This is from either April or March edition of it this year.
They already paid the money for the rights to produce 200 flankers, whether or not they decide to use those components, that’s not up to Russia. The problem is that China is not telling Russia anything about what it’s producing exactly and how many it is producing. But let’s just say that the Russians are making a lot of noise, but the story behind it is more complex than it’s shown.

China doesn’t need it. It would like have it to get the naval pilots start training asap, but if it doesn’t get it. It will just wait a couple of more years. It’s not preferred, but you can’t allow another country to control your operational sovereignty.

China does not have any desire to join the Russian 5th gen project, that’s why it didn’t join. The reason is that it believes that it can develop its own plane even if it comes a few years later. And also, it wants the new plane to be developed to its requirements rather than Russian requirements.

how is Su-30MKI superior to J-11B?
J-11B is equipped with higher thrusted engines, it’s lighter (so better T/W ratio).
J-11B can make use of combination Chinese + Russian AAMs, PGMs and AShMs. Whereas Su-30MKI is currently configured to just use Russian ones.
J-11B has a more advanced cockpit, uses holographic HUD, IRST/LR that’s improved upon the one for export version of Su-35, UV band MAWs, fiber optic cable for data transmission, more recently developed mission computer.

What people normally use as support for mki over j-11B are TVC engine and Bars. Well, you can either have 2D TVC or better T/W ratio. As for Bars, it has better multi-engagement capability due to electronic scan but in terms of detection range and such, it’s not better than what’s on J-11B.

The Su-35BM has supercruise, TVC and new missiles of long range.
The MKI has improved capabilitied can do the Cobra, cobra turn, Kulbit, bell and hook and Israeli, french, indian and Russian avionics.
The T-50 is flying now, it has supercruise, stealth and TVC.
the Su-34 is stealthier than the JH-7 and has better flying handling at low altitude

All this talk about China fielding a Stealth fighter in 2-3 years can be believeable only if they have a engine with supercruise and TVC, Russia is still struggling but all ready has flown it in two aircraft the T-50 and Su-35BM China still is a rumour a gossip.

Russia will field the T-50 in 5-8 years from now, China very likely in 10-15 at the earliest if they have an engine in the class of the AL-40?117s if they can not get the engine well a 20-25 years mark is believeable

well the J-11B is not flying with Russian components a that has been reported by the Russians

Read about hysteresis before claiming anything, the fact the Su-27 can not fly more than a few seconds at 120 degrees shows that the Su-27`s wing will stall, but its controlability is due to stability and where its vortices are bursting, of course the Center of Gravity does play a part in the recovery because of pitch up and pitch down forces, but that pitch down force is related to aerodynamic forces, to return to level flight the Su-27 is still using its tailplanes.

The centre of lift moves back during a Pugachev cobra maneuver???
What lift are we talking about at 100 degrees from the horizontal??
At this point its a flat plate moving through the air on momentum alone since the thrust vector is perpendicular to the line of flight and no wing produces lift perpendicular to the line of flight. Do I need to prove basic physical laws???
The wing, being set back on the fusilage acts as an air-brake at this point, and slows the back end of the fusilage faster than the front end, resulting in the pitch foreward, there is NO lift involved in this part of the maneuver.

I stand by all of my comments, since I said an LERX MAY even produce downforce in level flight. Disregard the blended wing/body LERX of the MiG-29 and Su-27 and look at the LERX of the F-18 in level profile. Are you sure they are producing lift? Or do you need appreciable AoA to produce vortex lift?

The Cobra is possible because of the way the vortices behave, as the AoA increases the vortices usually burst forward of the wing trailing edge stalling the wing and causing aircraft pitch up, however the Pugachev`s Cobra is a delay of vortex bursting and allowing a pitch down movement and reward vortex burst, this allows controlability of the Su-27, everything is related to vortex bursting, however as you can see this delay in Vortex bursting is brief so the Cobra has to be done fast.

The LERXes of the Su-27 have been countoured in a way that allow Hysteresis, canards can also do it but the vortices in LERXs are usually stronger, the Su-35 uses canards because tailplane control is not enough due to tailplane size limits but the Su-35 is even more agile than the Su-27 and can do the Cobra turn otherwise known as KULBIT.

You are right on most points but one; at a stall, once the flow becomes turbulent and detaches , the centre of lift does not move back and pitches the wing foreward and down. If this happened all stalls would be self correcting.
What actually happens in a stall, when flow becomes turbulent and detached, is loss of speed of local flow over the wing, resulting in increased pressure on top of the wing and loss of lift ( lift depends on difference of airflow speed between top and bottom and according to Bernoulli, the difference in pressure). Sometimes the plane drops like a stone!!
If you manage to keep the airflow energized, at speed that is, even if not laminar, you maintain the difference in speed and in pressure. One way of doing this is, is a vortex flow over the wing. All wings generate a tip vortex where the high pressure underneath rolls over the top of the wing to the lower pressure. The more highly swept the wing is, the more pronounced is this effect. Delta wings have a good amount of vortex flow over all of the leading edge and so tend to stay stable to higher alphas than conventional wings. We can get the same effect on a conventional wing by having sharply swept extensions ahead of the wing, ie. LERXs, or a sharply swept canard foreplane. If you remove the LERXs from an F-18 it would not have any higher alpha capability than an F-104 or a T-38.

In the Su-27 and MiG-29 it does go back in the Pugachev`s Cobra the lift load moves back pitching the aircraft down and recovering from the past stall maneuvre. In a SU-27 the post stall maneuvre means it becomes highly stable at high AoA

The Leading Edge of LERX is highly sharp, with this leading edge highly swept, it becomes side edge alike, but this does not change basic point.
Some LERX could be called compound wing just like F-18C/D’s, but this also does not change F-5A/B also fitted with Leading Edge Rooting Extension.

That is what wing needed.:cool:

No point.
The canards also produce upwash and downwash flow to the wing.

The Black words didn’t match what you want to directed: “why canards are more difficult to adapt to stealth“.

Both canards and Horizontal tailplan trimming the CL not only canards, what we research here is what is better.

All of above you posted didn’t get any further meaningful point, sorry.
I have posted some advantage of Canards before but nobody were able to rebut them.
Please think before write.

The LERX is a compound wing.
The horizontal taiplane does not affect the wing as the canard for two reason first they are highly swept and second they are behind the wing.
The total lift in a tailplane wing configuration is higher than a canard wing configuration.
The horizontal and vertical tail surfaces are generally highly swept in order to make their effective moment arms as long as possible, while also helping to maintain their critical Mach numbers higher than that of the wing.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ca2BbzK1zMYJ:www.mae.ufl.edu/~sforza/EAS4700/Wing%2520and%2520Tailplane%2520Design%252008-05.doc+tailplane+types+aerodynamics&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk

Consider that all fighter with canards have high aspect canards and trapezoidal in shape why? a triangular canard is low aspect and has its center of lift in a more limited geometry since retangular shapes are twice than a triangular shape just by math, that is the simple reason all modern fighters have trapezoidal canards and not triangular, besides the canards have less swept than their wings, a stealthy canard will have more drag, a smaller area and will more compromised as an moment arm

The wing is swept forward because unswept wings at subsonic speeds have better lift/drag coefficients. in few words straight wings are better at subsonic speeds that is the reason subsonic aircraft do not use delta wings.
In fact the F-14 won`t need higher AoA with the swept forward wings at landing because it has enough lift but with the wings swept back you will need higher AoA in order to get the same lift.
Delta wings are used for supersonic speeds and because they produce relatively good drag lift coefficient eliminating the need for Variable Geometry wings.
The SST example is a good one concord used a doble delta wing not a VG like Boeing`s STT, variable goemetry wings have the problem of mechanical complexities and added weight besides they are stable at supersonic due to supersonic aerodynamic shift of the center of lift.
A delta wing has vortices that increase lift but as AoA increases vortex breakdown appears stalling the wing, this is fixed with Canards or cranked wings/double delta wings. Canards eliminate that problem by keeping the vortex attached and the center of lift forward eliminating the need for trimming at supersonic speeds.