Wrong, the first plane ever flew by mankind was a canards layout. Nobody here think canards will take advantage just because it is more futuristic or exotic. Perhaps you think so then put your idea on others brain.

10 pages gone but I still didn’t see anyone bring out any evidence to prove what disadvantage of canards has been forgotten, but I saw you admitted that Su-35 fitted with canards was more agile and nimble than original Su-27, also no need moi point out that MFI 1.44 designed as Canards to overwhelming the layout Fulcrum and Flanker used on aerodynamics.

I could not see any risk of canards to be aircraft layout, too many airplane in history used canards as designation not even jet but also propeller.

There is either a double-standard somebody glade to use
When they want something is deemed good, they say it advanced, when they want sth is deemed bad, then regardless how advanced it is they say it is risky!:D

:diablo: Compare to the TVC at that time, canards was much less risky……

By the exception of the B-2, X-32 and F-117, all of them are no-tailplan aircraft!:dev2:

The Su-35 has also tailplanes like the Su-33 and the Su-47 has too tailplanes and the MiG-1.44 has a very innovative control surface between the tailbooms and the fuselage that basicly work like tailplanes, their configurations are more complex than the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen even the ventral fins in the MiG-1.44 were hinged, what i can tell you is if you look at the F-15 and F-22 their aerodynamics are quit similar with trapezoidal tailplanes


but the X-36 and Gripen have a different shape, the gripen has trapezoidal canards while the X-36 triangular,


the same seen in the F-22 and F-15 is repeated in the PAK FA and Su-27, even the T-50 has very similar tailplanes to the Su-27

remember the only pure canard-wing tailess aircraft are fighters with delta wings.

The fact the canard designs are more different than the tailed designs between the stealthy aircraft and the conventional proof the F-22 retains an aerodynamic configuration more suited for air combat than the designs with canards

You guys should either go to school and get your Aero degree, or really, just stop. I can’t believe the amount of BS I’ve seen in this thread, although em475 has tried to educate along with a few others. Let’s try this again. What’s better, the canard or the conventional tail? The answer: Neither.

The mission defines the airplane, not the other way around. The reason American aircraft don’t have canards is because the conventionally tailed designs met the design requirements better than canards did. That’s it. It isn’t magic. It isn’t knowledge limited (Grumman and many of the other companies have years and years of wind tunnel, flight test, and design studies I’m not going to reference here, and yes I do possess them, though you guys did forget the McDD F-15 STOL demonstrator.) It isn’t because of what designers are used to designing.

The same goes for the Euro-Canards. The reason they have canards is because they met their requirements better than a conventional tail. I remember studying the engineering back then on the euro canards and one of the main reasons given for using them was that they could get “better” performance in parts of the flight envelope over a conventionally tailed design at a lower weight. Also, since weight translates into cost, that meant lower cost. Cost has always been a much larger design driver in Europe than in the U.S. (Just witness the JSF 😉 )

So, let me say this again; The mission drives the design, not the other way around. Any aero engineer who decided that a fighter must have canards or a conventional tail based on “belief” wouldn’t be employed very long on either side of the Atlantic. Also, just as a reference, anyone who has studied the Gripen knows that what appeared to be the best design was the conventionally tailed model 2107, but they thought the dorsal inlet was too risky. They said it actually had lower weight than the canard configuration, which I “think” is due to how they were able to greatly simplify the airframe/engine integration issues by minimizing the weight penalty of the inlet.

So what’s better for the mission? Put up your mission requirements, set up your design space and run the trade studies, etc., and that will tell you if you need a canard or a conventional tail. And they all lived happi…all hell, who am I kidding, this is key forums. Back to your regularly scheduled belief systems.

I guess most people think having canards has to be better than tail planes just because they look more futuristic and up to a degree more exotic and modern than regular tailplanes.
Also fighters like the Mirage III and Su-27 that were highly improved with canards have given the idea of performace improvers to canards and the idea that regular back tails and LERXes can not do the same.
Before i thought in that way, now i guess i do not favour niether configuration in terms of aerodynamic performance.
true some aircraft like the Su-27K aka Su-33 improved greatly after getting canards and the Su-35 with canards was more agile and nimble than the original Su-27B, most people forget the disadvantages of canards too.
I guess in a fighter like the F-22 tailplanes were deemed less risky technologically speaking than the V tail YF-23 and the very early configurations of the YF-22 with canards were simply not even been built due to the complexities of building such aircraft.

Same is with the YF-35 and X-36 aircraft, canards were considered too complex and relatively unwanted.

But up to now canards are not being used in stealth aircraft that have been built.
By the exception of the B-2, X-32 YF-23 and F-117 all the current stealth aircraft feature tailplanes and none has ever used canards

All of tail plane inferior more than canards in terms of your list, but Harrier is something different, which set engine coincided with CoG making LERX more lift during turn and tail surface more trim free.

My list included the F-15 too.
I think you misundestand me, first i have never said canards are not good, or fighters with canards are inferior to fighters with tailplanes.
Fighters are a combination of physical parameters among them are thrust and lift counter balanced by drag and weight.
Inertia coupling will be a second factor affecting the turn of a fighter.

The F-15 has a turn of at least 16 deg/s STR and 21deg/s ITR up to what i have read, the Viggen pilot acknowledged he would not like to mingle with an F-15 in a dogfight.

the F-15 has a big wing that equates lots of lift and it has lots of thrust that equates to small turn rates.
Also the F-15 wing is not so swept as a delta making for a relatively good sustained turn rate and low drag.

When a design bureau builds a fighter they try to balance the main parameters to be included in the fighter`s performance.

You are equating that canards are superior to tailplanes, that is not true, niether of both are superior, everything depends in what you need.

The F-15 is better than the Viggen because of its big wing and excess thrust, is not because it has tailplanes.
The Kfir is not better than a F-4 or MiG-23 even having canards and this has nothing to do with the fact it has canards it is simply the product of its stability and low thrust .

Modern fighters have canards because they have mostly delta wings and delta wings bleed energy fast, this makes for fighters with good speed due to low drag, relatively fast turns but not very good sustained turn rates.

The Eurofighter certainly has better turn rates than the F-15, more or less is on par with the MiG-29 and Su-27.

But it has a lot to do with its thrust and the fact it is an unstable machine.

The F-22 is an agile machine, of course its TVC makes it more agile but its big wing and high thrust have to do a lot with its agility.

Canards and LERXes are used just to improve the lift in some types of wings and allow for wings more adaptable for different flight regimes.

Sure a moveable moustache or a very close coupled Canard.:diablo: But this is more a moveable differter the sweep angle is not great enough to produce a usefull leading-edge vortex.;)

One benefit obtainable from a control-canard is avoidance of pitch-up. An all-moving canard capable of a significant nose-down deflection will protect against pitch-up. As a result, the aspect ratio and wing-sweep of the main wing can be optimized without having to guard against pitchup.

Daniel P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Section 4.5 – Tail geometry and arrangement.

The fact it is moveable LERX makes it able to control the vortex, and contrary to a canard wont have the added drag and reduction of lift to the wing and blends perfectly with planforming and stealth

The T-50 has LERXes and a LEVCON but no canards

But a LERX is not stealth compatible and a F-22 had no LERX and the tail planes are greater as a Canard shown that the tail plane is less effective as a Canard.
The F-22 tail is direct positioned in wing slipstream, sacrifice aerodynamic for RCS. The F-22 show that the YF-22 had a traveling wave problem at the tail. Now the F-22 tail leading and trailing edge point in the same direction and sacrifice in the rear quarter a low RCS.;)

The T-50 uses LERXes see

right above the inlets

The JA37 Viggen can pull 7G’s, and fly at close to 30 deg AoA before the engine starts to complain.

Also, the F-4 and Viggen does not belong to the same generation. The F-4 is more comparable to the Draken here.

If the youtube vid I posted is anything to go by the Viggen makes a sustained 360 in 22 seconds. The average turn rate would then be 16.36 deg/sec.

The difference is not as great, both are third generation aircraft, the difference in turn rate is substantial of around 2.6deg/s at Mach 0.6, the MiG-23 will be similar with 14.1deg/s sustained turn at 780km/h and 16.7 deg/s instantaneous, however see the early Harrier variants could not pull more than 15 deg/s instantaneous but once LERXes were added it pulled 20deg/s instantaneosu and 17-18 deg/s sustained much superior to the Viggen which shows you using tailplanes is as good as Canards and in stealth tailplanes are easier to adapt to planforming.
See that the Kfir wont go beyond 10deg/s sustained and 18 deg/s instantaneous turn rates so canards are not the inherently superior to tailplanes

But the AJ-37 can thing do that a F-15 can’t do. The AJ-37 lands on small ordinary highways whit carrier like rates of descent. A big wing alone make not a good fighter or a B747 would be the master of dog fight. The JA-37 intercepts the SR-71 routinely. ;)The Saab Viggen (Thunderbolt) is a short coupled fixed Canard. The flaps on the Viggen Canard is used for STOL purposes only and not for steering input.:diablo:

Is the angle of attack increases the leading edge of the delta-wing generates a vortex which remains attached to the upper surface of the wing, giving the delta a very high stall angle. A normal wing built for high speed use is typically dangerous at low speeds, but in this regime the delta changes over to a mode of lift based on the vortex it generates.

The Mirage 2000 prototyp without Canards achieve easily a AoA of 26° at 110 knots and outclassed the F-16 at the Farnborough Airshow 1978.
At higher AoA inertia coupling can appears a F-16 problem and less steering autority can caused a super stall.

What happens on a conventional wing at higher AoA without LERX?
Pitch-Up (Sabre Dance).

The phenomenon of pitch-up is directly related to inherent properties of all swept wings. The wingtips of a swept wing aircraft operate at a higher local lift coefficient than inboard sections of the wing so the wingtips are more heavily loaded than inboard sections. In addition, swept wings tend to generate spanwise flow of the boundary layer (along the length of the wing from root to tip rather than across the wing from front to back). The combination of these factors means that at a high angle of attack the wingtips stall before the rest of the wing.

Of course , the Mirage 2000, Eurofighter and Rafale have been optimized for some flight regimes, same is any other aircraft.

The Mirage 2000 does exhibit some degree of parity with the F-16 at some flight regimes, but in others is the other way around the F-16 is superior.
The F-15 and Viggen only show how a design does not exhibit inherent superiority just because it has taiplanes or canards.

The Viggen was optimized for STOL but it does not mean it was not build as a fighter or fighter bomber.
The F-15 was a better design because it has higher thrust to weight ratio and a very big wing the F-15 even has not wing leading edge control devices, a Flanker or Fulcrum are two designs which basicly are vastly superior to the Mirage 2000.
In Europe the delta wing has been used to make relatively compact designs, the canard delta wing configuration allows them to create relatively small designs.

The Russians and Americans have created aircraft with compound wings and tailplanes and have fighters with very high thrust to weight ratios in the F-22 is far far higher than a Gripen and the Su-35BM alone is more powerful than even the Eurofighter in terms of thrust.

This allows them to achieve excellent turn rates even without the use of canards.
The russians have experimented with canards and even other types of control devices like in the MiG-1.44 and PAK FA.

The Delta wing has its regimes where is more efficient but at low speeds it is not as efficent as a straight wing.

But since aircraft are designed to fly at several speeds and heights then you need to compromise and the canard is a type of solution to the inherent deficiencies of the delta wing