But planeform should point in the same direction, you should only have one peak and not multiple peaks or near indefinitely peaks caused by twisting. This contradicts planeform.;)

Maybe look again on a Typhoon inlet and you see no 90°, the same at a Rafale.
A Typhoon and a Rafale are not copareable whit a vintage F-15.:rolleyes:

what you are saying has some truth by its own, the best stealthy platform will be the one with less elements such as flying wing or something like the aircraft envisioned by Lippisch in the 1940s

and that is what the americans did with the bird of prey

Less elements mean you can concentrate the radiation in one direction away from the source.

However aerodynamics do not go well with that.
The Eurofighter was built for performance. its canards are for performance and are not compromised as the canards of the X-36.
Also you have the inlets which interrupt the basic aircraft configuration as a clean performer.
you need also control surfaces if you want to have highly agile fighters look at the MiG-1.44 it has more control surfaces than the Eurofighter same is with the Su-30MKI or Su-47.

In the F-22 they are content with rear, frontal, upper and lower reduction of RCS.
In the T-50 this has been done with lower, upper and frontal but rear is not so important like in the F-35.
The Eurofighter only included stealth design with very little compromise with aerodynamics.
In fact with TVC and Supercruise the Eurofighter can beat in dogfight a F-22 once it has stablished visual contact.
That is what the Russians have done with the Su-35BM

Whit planform has you a RCS peak in the planform direction.
The YF-22 has a greater wing sweep angle therfor is this peak wider outwarts as for the F-22. Then is a twisted leading edge better for the worst chase scenario, Radar wave 90° towards the leading edge. 😉
Another place with non planform is the outer wing trailing edge and the tail of the stab. The F-22 use clear no real planform. 2D and 3D geometry two different things.

Maybe sould you use better photos?!

The leading edge are for interrest and not the shadows.:diablo:

Then use maybe a lienal first then see you that the fin and the airframe use different angles.
It’s simple pointless use planform at this point. We have not a plan geometry, we have the the fin profile a straigth side panel.
Then point the leading egde of the fin in up the inlet and differter leading edge points in down direction. Where is this planform?!

Planform alignment is a fact in the F-22, you might deny it or dislike it but it does exist in 3D in the F-22, you picture analysis is highly subjective, due to the fact the angle the picture was taken can distort the view, now it is true the F-22 has some compromises, the aircraft has wing fuselage blending and same is with the boom tailplane blending, like any aircraft aerodynamics have to be prioritized, same is with the PAK FA T-50 from the rear it is not as stealthy, in fact the nozzles it has at the moment are as stealthy as the Su-27`s nozzles any one can see the round nozzles of the T-50 are not stealthy.
In that sense the F-22`s 2D flat nozzles are far ahead of the 3D TVC nozzles in the T-50 and same is with the T-50 engine rounded engine nacelles.
Now no aircraft will be invisble to radar all aircraft reflect radio waves, what they try to do with planform alignment is make the aircraft stealthy in the most combat used attack angles such as frontal RCS, the T-50 has excellent frontal RCS and the same is the F-35, even the Rafale and Eurofighter have taken some measures to do the same.
All aircraft need planes or large flat or near flat surfaces like wings, canards or vertical fins, these are radar signature hot spots, but from some angles they can be disguised and weaken like frontal and rear angles and aircraft also use RAM to weaken the reflected radiation.

Not really, Maxwell, Sommerfeld are more important.
Ufimtsev mathematics allowed only the estimation of the RCS.

Always short coupled and the only long coupled US Canard ends in a fiasco.;)

What is whit the diadral of the F-22 wing?

The F-22 planform dump not all reflection to the same point. Simpel the leading edge of the wing is twisted and inlets pointed down. The leading edge of the fins and inlet points in different direction. Inlets down and leading edge up. 😉

Really, and what with this differents angle?

Your problem, we are in the optical behavior (HF) and for this point is continuous curvature the better choice.

The YF-22 did not have the wing twist
see

In my opinion that must be aerodynamic tweaking to improve the model since stealth does not go always well with aerodynamics, besides the F-22A`s fin does planform with the inlet lips, radome fore and aft fuselage. that is very similar to the F-15 wing and it is done to keep the wing tip in an lower AoA

in this picture you can see they really have planforming

Canards have all the benefits of LERX’s and more, as they can be trimmed and “stowed away” when not needed, = less drag penalty.

The AoA limit set for the Eurocanards FCS does not tell the AoA limit of the airframe. The Gripen for example has been flown to more than 110 degrees AoA without problems during testing.

Except here the canards are movable and able to control the amount of lift needed, enough to make the aircraft highly unstable when they are used.

A stable delta canard pushes the tail down killing lift in order to turn and maintain a turn, just like a stable aircraft with a conventional tail arrangement.

THE most aired clip in the history of Swedish television.

When this accident occured the FCS wasn’t ready. This was the first machine delivered to the RSwAF. Several changes was made to the FCS after this accident. The video is not a good example if you want to show what an FCS failure would look like on an operational aircraft.

Sure it does. Tail pusher = larger elevator inputs. Canard = small inputs. It speaks for itself I think.

i think you are over reaching the abilities of canards, first of all no aerodynamic configuration is the best in everything.

everything depends in what you need and what are you willing to sacrifice.

In the F-22 they were willing to sacrifice some degree of agility and you can see it in the fact the T-50 has returned to the Su-27 basic configuration and has added a LEVCON which is niether a canard or a LERX but a hybrid of both however the F-22 it is a simplier stealth platform.

the Su-35, Su-33 and Su-34 wanted to have the good qualities of both worlds they had canards plus tailplanes but that also means a lot of drag and a poor stealth platform.

the J-10, Rafale, Lavi, Typhoon and Gripen lost some advantages of tailplanes.

The X-32 was a very good compromise of stealth like the B-2 is, a simple delta wing in the case of the X-32 or a flying wing in the B-2s both are excellent stealth platforms.

If you compare fighters like the F-16 and Gripen or MiG-29 and Typhoon you will find out there is not total superiority in having canards and delta wings or tailplanes and LERXes

The MiG-29 and F-16 will enjoy better sustained turns than the Typhoon and Gripen but will have worse instantaneous turn rates.
Having tailplanes doest not make the Su-27 do not make the pugachev`s cobra and 120 deg of AoA

The F-22 with TVC is very agile without it is not, take the Su-35BM too remove its TVC and it is a regular first generation Su-27B.
The F-22 will be ultra expensive compared to the J-10 or Gripen but these aircraft are very agile and at a cheaper price.
A regular Su-33 is not much better than the Su-29K and the Su-35 is better than the Su-27B also it depends in the flight control system

Price is another factor the Su-35 without TVC is not a bad aircraft is quit agile and cheaper than the new Su-35BM but all comes with a price it has more drag, in the other hand the Su-35BM has less drag and better engines and the same agility and more.

Compare the YF-23 with the T-50 PAK FA, basicly both aircraft are basicly the same concept but the T-50 has been improved with levcons and tailplanes, but the YF-23 is a cleaner configuration for stealth