The downwash from the canard wake, as it streams over the wing, reduces the effective angle of attack locally, and hence the local lift on the wing behind the canard

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.

Cola before arguing you should just try to understand why i say things, i am not against canards niether i think the eurocanards are bad aircraft.

Well, you sure didn’t sounded that way few pages ago…
Anyway, it’s not being pro or con, but understanding working mechanics behind it.
Unfortunately, the amount of wrong claims and assertions you wrote in this thread is almost legendary and I’ve only jumped in, 5/6 or so, pages ago.

In order to understand why the USA studied canards and later simple used tailplanes for its operational aircraft you have to see advantages and disadvantages, design philosophy and military budgets.

The point being is US went for less advanced (more conservative) way in flight mechanics sense and that’s it.
For all fanboys out there, does it mean USAF will loose next air war because of that?
I don’t know and I don’t care.

Russia also has used canards and in fact two operational fighters have canards, the Su-34 and Su-33, however the russian aircraft have also tailplanes. You need to figure out why at least know why they use both control systems in a single aircraft.

Yes, because both needed reduced take off/landing strips, hence canards.
Not very flattering for elevators.

Europe uses canards all with delta wings ask your self why?
The main factor in Europe is size, most european fighters flying today are smaller than their Russian and American counterparts

Yes but that’s because average European country is small and its interceptors have much less time to react than US’ or Russian’s, so they need superior performances.

Everything is related to what design philosophy exists in each nation.
If you go and see history you will see the MiG-23 started in production in 1971 and was the main production soviet fighter in the 1970s, the MiG-21 and MiG-23 were the main reason why the F-16 exists today but the MiG-21 by 1974 was not the real threat in numbers and by 1974 was obsolete.
Thinking canards are hated in the US or the americans are blind to their advantages is something people guess but the reality is the americans have studied canards and have found both their pros and cons and chosen to use tailplanes for their needs.

Well, you’re wrong again, at least according to all US’ published material on F16’s origins up until now, that I’ve managed to find.
F16 was designed to beat Mig21 across the board, which it did.
Mig23 is something else and if it was a catalyst for F16 IOC I can’t tell, but it wasn’t a benchmark the F16 was designed around.

Man the Gripen has no STR of 22.5deg/s it has one of only 20 deg/s however a turn is the result of ITR and STR, in a turn the Gripen will start with an advantage that will evaporate as the turns developes, the F-16 will start slower but will surpass the Gripen`s rate at the end.
The end result is the parity of both designs.

How about taking a stopwatch and measure each quarter of a turn.
In a video posted by Sign, Gripen does last quarter in roughly 4 seconds, so your assertion doesn’t hold water.

Ok, now this starts to turn into cheap demagogy and again you’re very wrong on most points.

In Europe the trend is similar to their cars, basicly economic and small.

LOL, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Mercedes, Audi, etc…

Aircraft like the Mirage 2000 were designed with simplicity in mind and the same is Gripen.

Really?
How come US constructors didn’t think of that, if it’s so simple?

SAAB knew the Gripen chosen configuration sacrificed STR but in general it offered a good ITR and small size using a single engine with less power than any engine used on F-16s and MiG-23s.

Again, that’s true on Academic level, but in reality Gripen outperforms F16 in anything but vertical climb, since it’s the only performance in which wing system isn’t important.

single engine fighters are easy to manufacture, the F-16 was a response to the MiG-23, both were produced in really high numbers.

Well, as far as I can remember, F16 was designed in response to Mig21.

all Eurocanards are still in small numbers,

On full strength, EU should have about 1200 Eurocanards fielded.
How is this a small number? Let’s wait and see, how will US sell it’s F35 is current economic conditions…it’s not 1970s, anymore.

…by that time the Gripen concept was outdated for american standards.

Then maybe Americans should revise their standards, because SAAB devised a way to produce high performance aircraft at really affordable production cost.

What has been removed?

Wing tank’s self-sealing valves, that has been admitted by LM, so far. 😀

SWAT was so successful that the team has stated that it has identified FURTHER weight reduction which have not been implemented but were not deem necessary.

Why then the LM’s engineers throw important stuff out of the plane?

No, I repeatedly have to correct peple who post the incorrect weight numbers.

You HAVE to?! 😀

According to LM (I am simply posting ITS numbers) AA-1 came in VERY close to its projected weight (which was the pre weight reduction 29,036 lbs) & POST WEIGHT REDUCTION F-35A weight is 26,664 lbs. Despite the weight difference the designed structural load limits are much the same.

Well pfcem, LM’s numbers from 2008 say 29036 and I’ve never seen a 26664 figure apart from that brochure you posted from 2007.
2007 was before 2008.

Battle damage isn’t structural load, as you incorrectly assume and can’t be equalized, as you do.
So again, how do you know that allegedly 2.5k heavier AA-1 will have the same damage characteristic like “lighter” AF-1.
It’s the other way around, but I think the AF-1 is very close in weight (structure) to AA-1, hence no need for separate test.

…i have presented sources, given evidence…

You only think you did that.

From the very same page of a NASA document you used to “prove” you point, just a few sentences farther >
While the results of this analysis seemed to indicate the canard was not very effective as a
reduced-boom lifting surface on this configuration, they did not indicate that a lifting canard
would be of little or no value on all configurations..

So you don’t know what kind of a configuration NASA was researching, but more importantly you don’t know what were they testing, in the first place and yet, you manage to claim the canards are killing the lift!
My point > once you decide to go against fundamentals, I’d advise bringing a 20 tome encyclopedia (and then some), if you want to get away with it. 😉
This type of “proving” and misunderstanding of published documents, seem to became a common practice, as of lately.

…it is already proven the canard on configuration loses lift and only at high AoA the canard does improve lift due to canard`s vortex interaction on the wing.

Who proved that?? YOU??

Apparently, AA-1 was/is scheduled to be “executed”.
Now, since this is a different plane than AF-1 which is supposed to be delivered (in structural terms primarily), how will AA-1’s test results have any merit regarding AF-1?

The Viggen uses a low aspect canard and the Eurofighter one of high aspect, that is all, in the Eurofighter they know the canard is killing wing lift the best canard shape then will be high aspect, if it is fully moveable of has a different cambered profile or moment arm has nothing to do with the fact it is high aspect to reduce drag.

Kiwi, high aspect aeroprofile (canard, wing, whatever), with other parameters being equal, produces LARGER wave drag than low aspect one.
It’s only under alpha increase, that the higher AR profile, produces less drag, than the lower AR, because it’s physically smaller.
This is why F16 got high aspect wings, as opposed to, let’s say, Mirage III.
Momentum arm is important here, because the larger it is (canards as far fwd, as possible), the less trim a low AR wing requires during turning, something a high AR wing is inherently better for.
Even in straight flight, longer momentum arm controls require less trimming input, making plane less draggy in almost all flight profiles.

By trigonometry you should know that if the wing leading edge is the hypotenuse, and the trailing edge the opposite side then there is a physical limit size on the opposite side size at a given angle, this limits a low aspect canard to be small, so in order to make an effective low aspect canard it has to be big because as the opposite size grows the angle increases and then the adjacent side diminishes, so the only way to make the opposite side bigger is upscaling the canard or changing to a larger angle.

Yes, low AR wing has larger area for the same span than high AR one. So?

You statement was a canard is smaller than a tailplane but you have forgotten that the ideal canard for lift is big, making a high aspect limits many aspects of the canard among them the supersonic number and the vortices generated.

Look, you’re mixing things again.
Eurocanards have control canards, not lifting ones and so the requirement for the lifting properties are different.
You can’t just throw all of them together, because they’re all “canards”.
And yes, canards are generally smaller (in area sense) than elevators, due previously stated reasons.

The Viggen has canard ideal for lift because of its shape not because it has a tab or not, even it is possible they just made it a tab because being fully moveable the drag would had increased and become a real hindrance to the aircraft`s lift it self

True, but I used a difference between tab and slab canard, to illustrate the difference in requirements.
Apparently Viggen’s small tab was enough for what SAAB had in mind for it, plus it makes canard’s stalling alpha fixed, which immediately simplifies controls, etc, etc…