What I am going to tell you is that canard contributes a positive lift during speed over sonic but without tail F-16 will loose an arm force of pitching up during same speed, which meanwhile gives a negative lift.

Notice how the distance between center of gravity & tail/canard center of lift is greatest on the F-16. 🙂

Actually is Typhoon whereas F-16 is almost same as Rafale.;)

The LERX already is reducing the shift, same as a canard, and the tailplane is more swept than the canard reducing its drag and increasing its moment arm.

[B]This comparation you make takes canards and tailplanes of the same size and forms and further more similar moment arms to be valid but you forget the tailplane will be more swept and its position will be farther from the wing since in this way increases its moment arm;

Some one said was exactly right, just like a donkey running around a mill.

This image I posted at 15th page and you forgot it totally, make a comparison of Euro Typhoon and F-22.

the canard is constraigned to be less swept than its wing or at least with the same angle of swept.
The tailed aircraft with LERXes will have the amount of shift further reduced so will need less deflection[/B]

Swept angle is nothing to do with moment arm, moment arm is related with aspect ratio.

There is no reason why a tailplane will be at the same distance of the wing as a canard because the canard needs to be close to the wing and reduce its size to reduce downwash drag on the wing

Tail would be affected much more by wing than wing affected by canards.

here is a graph that shows the real lift obtained and you can see tails alwasy get the most lift

Your “always” is showing an extremely slight advantage of aft-tail, which requiring moi remind you of this very little advantage would be cut down by two factors, one is tail would be affected by wing’s downwash; and two is that aft-tail’s Cl will be reducing along with the a/c penetrating to sonic region.

That is not accurate.
Now when flying at supersonic speeds both the Rafale and MiG-29 need to trim one uses canards the other taiplanes however any deflection will add drag the main diffence is while the Rafale kills wing lift, the MiG-29 does not kill wing lift just adds drags due to tailplane deflection at trimming

I had posted principle of this but you have no memory, for your remember, here is a form to help you keeping it easily

The MiG-29 and F-16 have LERXes which basicly add a lifting surface ahead of the wing and have the same function of the canard, so the LERX is basicly doing the same thing the Gripen`s canard is doing, reducing the supersonic aerodynamic center of shift movement thus reducing trim drag; in the case of the F-16, it has considerable forebody lift and has relaxed stability thus reducing even more trimming needs.

First condition, more lift given by LERX along with the speed increasing. This is true.
Second condition, for unstable configuration, tail elevator is upwards so that cause a trim drag, the more angle deflected, the more trim drag being there.
Now let’s see you conclusion how funny it is.
Because the speed of supersonic is higher than transonic or subsonic, therefore, LERX contributes more lift, but for unstable a/s, during supersonic, its CoL will be moving rearwards so that reducing its angle of up deflected tail elevator which also decreasing its trim drag was caused by this deflected angle.
However, the LERX you emphasized contributes an additional lift at this wrong time when be in supersonic and wrong place where be ahead of wing, which delay the lift moving rearwards, in other words delay the trim drag decreasing.
This is the key point why we say trim drag of normal layout is higher than canards.

In the case of the MiG-29 its tailplanes are quit far from the center of gravity and have higher swept than the wing reducing trimming needs further.
Now what are the visible advantages of the Gripen?
well the delta makes for a big wing area with respect the small size it has and up to a degree offsetting thrust needs.
Now since this aircraft are not designed for supercruise the max speed up to a level is not as important, however let us go to its known performance.
The MiG-29 is faster than the Gripen and both the MiG-29 and F-16 have higher STR than the Gripen, the Gripen is smaller and has a higher ITR, this makes the Gripen economical in fuel comsuption and difficult to spot visually but it can not keep sustained maneouvres with both the MiG-29 and F-16 and very likely it won`t out accelerate the MiG-29

Before thus, there is some one post a video in which showing Gripen can do STR more than 20°/s, meanwhile, we have to point out that TWR of Gripen is lower than both of MiG-29 and F-16.

The images does you no good if your reasoning are going wrong direction.:D:diablo:

The Eurofighter has with the F-22 other features.

The F-22 due to stealth considerations has its tailplanes and wings with the same leading edge sweep however the F-22 has its tailplanes the farthest from the center of gravity by the fact of being located aft of the nozzles and main body section; the T-50 adds LERXes and considerable forebody lift.
Eurofighter has its canard well ahead of the wing but still below the cockpit further more they are relatively big inducing more drag and reducing the positive effects of canads vortices over the wing besides its canard has less sweep than the wing.
Both the F-22 and Eurofighter have relaxed stability.

If you have no idea about why should the tail be put far from CoG, certainly you will have no knowledge of what advantage long-coupled canards has.
Relatively, “the tail should stay at base”:cool:

Known facts the F-22 has a much higher supercruise ability and a much higher STR and very likely higher ITR
Now ask your self this do you think the americans made the F-22 with tailplanes because it has worse flight characteristics than the Eurofighters with canards at Mach 1.6?

All Eurocanards announced they can do supercruise.
F-22 got something special like CERET inlet and diamond shape wing.
And we have to say, you made a double standard again.
Thousands mistakes will never be right.

That is just an excuse, is like people say this aircraft is better even having not stealth and supercruise who needs supercruise? my aircraft does not have it and its alright

STRs are needed because any other aircraft will turn to avoid being shot, and it is not like you are saying the Mirage 2000 is pointing the nose like a Su-27 in the bell, it is simply banking, it means the aircraft rolls fast but can not turn as fast.

Once it starts turning it loses the initial advantage, by the way the F-16 has other speeds where it will beat the Mirage 2000, however that graph is selective even does not meantion STR simply because it will show the Mirage has a lower STR than the F-16 at any altitude.

This is an off-topic reply because F-16 is a tailed all-moving elevator a/c whereas Mirage 2000 is a no all-moving surfaced a/c.

Only the F-35 and F-22 can say are supersonic, most fighters fight at Mach 0.7 pretty much turning at those speeds is what is needed. Rafale and even the Eurofighter will dogfight at Mach 0.9, the Su-35BM and Eurofighter might be able to dogfight at Mach 1.3 but at those speeds turn rates diminish that basicly is only to give better kinematics to a BVR AAM.

At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22.

That is a poor excuse, then you admit a tailess delta is in disadvantage and canards are useless in the kfir to increase STR and ITR to beat a regular interceptor like the MiG-23

First with canards, Mirage-cheetah or Mirage 50’s turn rate and climb rate are better than its without canards, so this already refuted your opinion of which canards are useless.
Second, you repeatedly violated the same condition principle.
Thirdly, MiG-21 would be a more pure interceptor than MiG-23. Objectively, MiG-23 was between MiG-21 and MiG-19 as a reverter having 2Mach speed without loosing capability of dogfight MiG-19 owned.

That is not a cobra. is a banking recovery due to lack of efficient lateral stability

Cobra just is a banking recovery due to lack of efficient lateral stability.

Also you have vertical agility or Loops the F-16 must be a better aircraft too in that due to higher TWR.

This is a double standard judgment.
To compare two objects you must put them en same condition.

By the way the MiG-23 was not a dogfighter if you get a F-5 versus Kfir you will see canards are not of much help for the Kfir.

If F-5 was an a/c with fixed tail I would admit Kfit lost.

Well up to what i have read, the Mirage 2000 and F-16C are even in turn performance, the Mirage 2000 has a better ITR in most altitudes but lower STR in all altitudes.
see page 43 of this PDF document
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/081125_is_syria_air_sam.pdf
see that they are saying F-16C with a STR of 20 deg/s and since there are so many F-16 blocks well let us say it might change with different version

Now this document shows the Kfir was not a real threat to at least the MiG-23 and F-4

The manual’s authors claim that in comparison with the F-4E (though whether they mean the slatted or non-slatted sub-version of the Phantom is not clear), the MiG-23MLD has superior sustained turn performance throughout the entire envelope, excluding the range between 377 and 540kts (700 and 1,000km/h) below 21,000ft (6,400m). It also has the edge over the Phantom II in zoom climb performance at all altitudes and speeds, excluding the true airspeed range between 485 and 647kts (900 and 1,200km/h) above 18,000ft (6,000m). Compared with the F-15A, the MiG-23MLD’s only notable advantage is in zoom climb performance at speeds above 620kts (1,150km/h). However, the manual asserts that compared with the F-16A, the Soviet swing-wing fighter produces a somewhat better sustained turn performance above 15,000ft (5,000m), at speeds close to the maximum, as well as better zoom climb performance at true airspeeds exceeding 590kts (1,100km/h). However, as comparative tests have shown, using the Syrian MiG-23MLD(Export) which defected to Israel in October 1989, the swing-wing fighter demonstrated, somewhat surprisingly, that it had better acceleration than the escorting F-16s. This would seem to indicate that in ‘real world’ conditions the MiG-23MLD would have a slight edge over the early F-16s in acceleration and energy manoeuvrability at true airspeeds above 485kts (900km/h). The IAI Kfir C.2, as assessed in the manual, is said to be inferior to the MiG-23MLD in sustained turn performance at airspeeds above 540kts (1,000km/h), and in zoom climb performance at true airspeeds below 540kts (1,000km/h). However, at altitudes below 12,000ft (4,000m) the MiG-23MLD has the edge in energy manoeuvrability throughout the entire speed range.

http://www.xairforces.com/analyses/mig-23.html

You wasted your time very much again, the Kfir according to my investigation was a fix-surface canards a/c. If your MIG-23 is fixed tail, that will be fair.

If it is true the F-16A has a 21.5 deg/s STR then it can force the Mirage 2000 into a turn fight and the Mirage 2000 will be in disadvantage.

Especially, in modern air combat directing nose to foes a/s in a very moment for launching missile is much common than run circles like a mill donkey.

Otherwise, this data showing quite clear the disadvantage of low swept wing: faster speed, worse maneuver.