Before you point Gripen’s STR, you’d better count its wing load is the highest in all Eurocanards.

The F-15 Active and Su-33 and its derivatives are two very important designs in terms to understand why the F-22 and T-50 do not use canards.

The F-15 Active does have canards and Tailplanes, besides thrust vectoring nozzles.
The Su-33 evolved into the Su-35 and much later Su-37.

As you know the Su-27 does not need canards to do the cobra, its LERXes shed vortices like a canard and move the center of pressure forward.
Its LERXes generate hysteresis and make the aircraft stable at 120 deg of AoA causing a pitch down force.

It is known that LERXes can make the aircraft stable or unstable at high AoA depending in their size and shape.
If the Su-27 was modified with canards does not mean the LERX and tailplane combination is inferior, it simply means the LERX has limits in terms of size and area, tailplanes also have limits in size and position.
Adding a canard was the right decision to increase lift and add some extra control, but the most important aspect is its stability at high AoA.
up to what i know a Su-37 uses its tailplanes at post stall AoA while the canard are used in lower AoA, this explains why the Su-35 and Su-37 still have tailplanes but also we have to see the most important aspect is stability at post stall AoA which has to be stable in order to return the aircraft to level flight.

You are really cute. The Cobra not is everything in modern air combat. Yes post-stall maneuver based on Cobra, but most of post-stall maneuver done successfully not because of tail-plan but TVC and canard. Except Cobra Su-27 did nothing impressive and its Cobra must be under many precondition to do not like others.

The F-16MATV proved for the americans TVC alone is enough to have post stall gains, the Americans designed the F-22 with excellent stability at Yaw,
On aircraft like the F-5 forebody vortices were found to create a suction effect that stabilized the noze during nose slips when the forebody vortices had asymmetries.
(On aircraft like the F-18, X-29 or X-31 the americans found that canard and LERXes interact with forebody vortices generating asymmetries that can lead to wing rock or wing drop basicly unstabilities)

This led to the F-22 chines to generate vortices that made the aircraft stable at yaw at high AoA and worked like the Su-27 LERXes.

The Su-33 and derivatives do still have canard downwash and extra drag by the addition of a canard.

The americans thought the canard was not needed simply thanks to the F-22 Chines vortices and TVC and due to drag and steath considerations canards were deemed unnecesary; the Russians knew that canards do bring advantages on a triplane configuration like the one of the Su-37, they knew the LERX has some limits it can not be deflected like a canard in that you are right, however canards do add a downwash and are not easy to adapt to stealth, further more in order to have stability at post stall regimes you still use tailplanes so a canard would had only added more complexities, so they came with a very smart idea called LEVCON.

The TVC is the most advanced device for modern maneuver, but canards still hold advantage of trim in flight even beat TVC at this aspect. Yes, LEVC is a kind innovative design created by Russia, but I doubt this concept also stolen from French who originally prefer the canard rather than LERX.
Otherwise, that X-29 and X-31 which did many amazing maneuver you mentioned here was not tailed aircraft but canards. Thus you beat youself again.

The evidence is not against me, i am telling what the page says, what happens is you are unwilling to see that canards have trade offs.
You are imaging that they do not have trade offs and they will turn any fighter without drawbacks and cons.

I didn’t insist there is no trade offs for canard configuration, I had pointed out that canard was not suitable for AoA above 45 degrees and canard was good for stealth compare to LERX.

If you read you know they are saying canards do have some advantages in terms of making structurally the aircraft less complex, also you are unwilling to see that even with those disadvantages some companies will try to fix that with other elements such as a high TWR, relaxed stability, HMS, advanced avionics and weaponry.

High TWR does any a/c better not only CANARD, and with relaxed statics, canard performed better than tailed a/c which is known widely very much.

These solutions can render an aircraft like a Eurofighter a very competitive design and making it quit agile and effective.
However other design bureauxs won`t use canards because they think their cons will affect negatively their aircraft and render it less capable to the requirements they have to fill in example the t-50 that uses a LEVCOn instead of a canard.

Please don’t let mind going mad and don’t let matter going mess.
The LEVcon factually is a canard not a LERX. The idea came from France to sublate the disadvantage of element which LERX contained because of surface fixed. Checking many many PAK FA photos you can find the so-called by layman LEVC works same as canard, when take-off the surface deflect up, when being High AoA the LEVC deflected down, whereas a LERX won’t works like that. Don’t understand any concept literally, you’d better know a canard can modify the angle, intensity and position of vortex raised by LERX that is why Eurocanard fixed strakes so small and why canard being ahead of strakes on Eurocanards.

The F-16, MiG-29, Su-27, F-18, F-22 and T-50 are some examples where LERXes and/or relaxed stability fixed the tailplane drawbacks.

In other words, the tail are so weak that needs LERX help it:p

In aircraft like the Su-33, Su-34 or Su-30MKI canards were used because the designers thought they could give an edge.

All of then originally were LERX a/c but why refitted with canards? See what does that mean?:diablo:

All designs have trade offs Rafale does, the Gripen does but by adding other elements in the designs the designers think the trade offs are worthed.

I didn’t say canards is a terminal configuration.:D

In total lift tails have the edge, whatever you try to change the topic or pretend you win the graph shows tails with better lift even the article it selfs says it.

Are we talking about science or religion?
If all we concerned was science, then the logic and graph would be the most important key to prove each own opinion, of course if you are just superstitious in tailed elevator, whatever you posted here will be against youself in public.

Wing/aft-tail combinations achieve generally lower drag than wing/canard systems of equal weight and area. If the section CLmax is constant over all sections, aft-tail configurations exhibit greater maximum lift capability than canards of moderate aspect ratio. Relaxing static stability results in canard and aft-tail designs with very similar performance
The differences between aft-tail and canard configurations’ maximum lift capability is again related to the trim constraint. There exists one position of the center of gravity for which each surface carries maximum lift. This optimal static margin is shown in figure 11. Nearly neutral stability is required for canard designs while static instabilities from 0 to 20% are necessary for aft-tail designs.

Ho Dear: Blacked each letters won’t change anything, not even your failure.
My image which uploaded previously has already exhibited the advantage of trim belong to canard. Now your graph betrayed yourself showing advantage of Cl also be part of canard. All you done merely was repeat same words, so I have to question are you boring?

you can go around and around but the article says it too

see what they say too
The relative importance of these two performance indicies (CLmax and drag) depend on the aircraft’s design mission. A design intended for high speed flight with a strict stalling speed constraint would be strongly affected by the maximum lift capability of the design while the comparisons of relative drag with fixed area applies more directly to an aircraft constrained by climb rate requirements.

Thus, the optimal design is influenced by the intended mission — especially for canard designs with their greater sensitivity to aspect ratio changes and the large difference between the design with highest CLmax and the design with least drag.

Your word stands with me again!

A typical compromise might consist of a canard design with equal wing and canard aspect ratios with bt/bw = .5. This design would achieve a CLmax of 72.5% that of an aft tail design with the same wing and tail areas and with bt/bw = .4. The drag of canard and wing would be 107% that of the wing/tail combination.This design would achieve a CLmax of 72.5% that of an aft tail design with the same wing and tail areas and with bt/bw = .4. The drag of canard and wing would be 107% that of the wing/tail combination. Savings in propulsion system integration, fuselage layout, control system simplicity, etc., could conceivably lead one to favor the canard configuration, but in this example the initial aerodynamic compromise is large. http://aero.stanford.edu/Reports/MultOp/multop11.gif
http://aero.stanford.edu/Reports/MultOp/multop.html

OK, ok！
Here is your bt/bw=.5

the latitude line of canard still is higher than tailed if ARt/ARw was small.
You may say why only small ARt/ARw was selected?
The answer simply is the number of ARt/ARw trend to high the number of drag will be large too.
Surely you can choose your tail like something on Berkit for high Cl, BUT you will certainly loose your trim force rapidly which this graph no showing it.

It does not change the fact the tails are getting more lift at their best total lift and the advantage is more evident in the lower ARt/ARw graphs at all aspect ratios that you did not mention

The higher the number of ARt/ARw, the more the drag of surface.
Notice: with same span ratio and ARt/ARw your tail’s Cl is at less 0.7
See the blue line in graphe below:

[QUOTE=kiwinopal;1584689]
let us see why the Delta wing is not the best for agility at low speeds

The low-aspect delta planform has disadvantages inlanding because of its low lift curve slope. Large pitch attitude is required to generate desirable values of lift for landing. On approach, pitch attitudeis constrained by pilot visibility and ground geometry clearance, and unless very low wing loading is employed, high approach speeds are required
I’d rather pick an aircraft which hard to landing but more capable to shoot you down.
Besides, have you estimated how difficult EuroCanards to land is?

Now Why they use near neutral stability?

[B]The high-speed performance of this canard aircraft is strongly affected by the tradeoff between stability and performance. determined by the wing/fuselage pitching moment. therefore requires that the c.g. be located such that zero or low positivetail loads are needed. provide positive pitch stability, adequate control power for more wheel lift-off, and for maneuvering at supersonic speeds. Subsonic trim drag is determined by the wing/fuselage pitching moment, Optimum subsonic trim drag For an aft-tail fighter aircraft, the tail is sized to provide positive pitch stability , adequate control power for more wheel lift-off, and for maneuvering at supersonic speeds The same sized tail placed forward at the same moment arm provides similar control power for more wheel lift-off; however, pitch stability has changed sign. Thus, the canard operating in the upwash of the wing is destabilizing and the c.g. must be moved forward for a stable significant proportion of the total lift, roughly 155, with a corresponding induced drag penalty.

The upwash flow out of canards is the very vortex through main wing leading to a higher lift main wing desired.

Going to supersonic speeds, the aerodynamic center moves aft approximately 15% mean aerodynamic chord for this wing planform. This increase in stability further increases the up-load requirement of the canard, with severe trim and maneuver drag penalties. If the c.g. is located for minimum supersonic trim drag (approximately C = 01, the aircraft becomes highly unstable upon returning to subsonic flight. The obvious solution is to provide artificial pitch stability, a feature not provided in the Viggen control system.
[/B]

This is the very moving which makes trim drag of canards smaller than tail, if not, the canards will stay at down deflection that cause trim drag you blame to.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bIjqSNhAI9AJ:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.pdf+canard+aerodynamics+viggen&cd=37&hl=en&ct=clnk

So too much pitch up will render the aircraft difficult to trim.
A modern aircraft like Rafale will do okay with artificial pitch stability

Yes, I admitted that push nose down would be hard for a canard aircraft.
By watching this video you can feel the typical canard jet Rafale flying with an invisibly huge lift a head of its CoG, if there is no canrad to suppress, its nose will pitch up till stall, which means a canard aircraft being subsonic would easily gets lift and arm force of pitch up with reducing the downward deflection of canard.

Now does supersonic speed create downwash?
the answer is yes. see

The canard lift distribution began about 15 feet behind the nose. Although the main panels of the wing were well aft of the canard, the central wing section, which began 63.0 feet aft of the nose, was entirely within the canard’s downwash field. With so much area affected, the wing required an additional increment in angle of attack to generate it’s contribution to the cruise lift. This, unfortunately, generated an incremental drag-due-to-lift penalty.

see the solution to reduce the effects of the downwash

To be of significant value as a low-boom feature, the canard would have to be moved forward closer to the nose. In this more forward location, it’s downwash effects would be somewhat reduced, though not eliminated. Moreover, it’s lift would be a little more effective as a rotation-inducing force during takeoff and low-speed flight. As a result, it might be possible to reduce the configuration’s size and weight
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fq3bZSG0jN8J:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060005154_2006004319.pdf+canard+wing+distance&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk

Finally I realized you were talking about T-4 or B-70.:D
Yes, being supersonic, a stable aircraft’s CoL moving far more away from canard and CoG to both, that’s why causing more trim drag, but this is only suitable for stable layout not Eurocanards today. You missed your target.

as you can see the Eurofighter has canards designed more for supersonic cruise like aircraft in the kind of the XB-70 or Sukhoi T-4

see here the contradiction, Rafale is using a canar closer to the wing so the vortices shed by the canard re-energize the wing, but also this has supersonic implications, the Eurofigher uses canard a bit more forward for better supersonic performance but losses it vortex optimun distance so it uses strakes.
So there is no such thing downwash does not operate at supersonic speeds as you claim.

:confused::confused::confused:Where did I claim a downwash operate at supersonic speed to help a canard aircraft gets more superior performance?
Do you know that strake only used to transfer vortex while Typhoon being high AoA?
What a funny it is you are going mad to forget all Eurocanard today are unstable design!

EF being 45° AoA

This broken the arbitrary claim canards couldn’t stay at AoA over 30°

Start from 35 beginning

Termination at the end of 36

This was only three seconds for Rafale changing its about 180° turn direction.

Rafale turns 90° being climb only cost 2 seconds