Turns are the results of =LIFT + THRUST
The F-18 lacks thrust, compare it to a MiG-29, F-16 or Su-27 it is underpowered besides has little wing fuselage blending compare to the three former aircraft.

Now LERXes do have advantages and disadvantages.

among the advantages are some share with canards:
Reduced transonic lift center shift, giving lower supersonic trim drag at high g and increase in max lift for less wing area,
At low angles of attack, the LERX has little effect At higher angles of attack a vortex, formed from the leading edge of the LERX, flows over the wing.
The vortex helps to energize the upper surface boundary layer, delaying separation.
LERX vortex stabilizes wing leading edge vortex and prevents it from separating
LERX vortex and wing leading edge vortex exist side by side and support each other

the disadvantages are
Tendency to cause pitchup at high angles of attack
Increased drag at low angles of attack
Structural fatigue of vertical stabilizers buffeted by flowfield
When angle of attack becomes sufficiently large and vortex breakdown progresses ahead of wing trailing edge

The Su-27 shows a very well designed LERX; the F-18E a design that was hastled by economic considerations resulting in a aircraft with the adverse features of LERXes

Now canards have similar advantages and disadvantages.

The Mirage 2000 might have less drag and relatively better thrust making an equal of the F-18 but it won`t surpass the MiG-29 and F-16

You’ve wasted your time, we are talking about canard and tail:cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACDGkNa77Rs
3:31~3:47
Gripen did 360 degrees turn within 16 or 17 seconds, which means approxi 21°/s in sustain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJDn8DNfI-o
See 00:28 ~ 00:42
The Gripen back flip 90° then keeping the airframe to be reversed and falling then roll 180° in falling.
Completely an amazing unnamed maneuver.

The STR of the Gripen is known it is 20 deg/s lower than the F-16`s 21.6 deg/s and 21 deg/s of the Su-27 most used STR figure for the MiG-29A is 22 deg/s, taken from ex-Warsaw pact machines.

Will be 22°/s of MiG-29’s STR is implausible, even this, average of these three is 21.5°/s, average of all three Eurocanards will be 22.4°/s, needless say that ITR.

You are just following the idea the canard delta is better but you forget the lower sweep in the Harrier`s wing allows for higher lift and less powerful wintip vortices allowing higher lift and less drag than a delta wing; combine this with LERXes to allow for more lift you get better sustained turn rates.
Deltas have more powerful wingtip vortices so a small delta LERX is beneficial only as a vortex generator but the main wing should be of higher aspect ratio then you get better sustained turn rates.

More lift?
Let me tell you what does lift mean:
Rafale (Maks 2009/08/21)


only 2 seconds Le Rafale has changed its nose if not almost 90degs at least 80 degrees with no altitude dropping.

Here is doing like this above again but exactly 90° at least:

Then lets see your small swept wing is able to do this if it is possible, no matter Harrier or your favorite S.H.

A canard delta configuration use high spect ratio canards that generate less powerful vortices and low aspect wings that generate powerful wintip vortices, then you get lower sustained turn rates, that combination offers a good wing for high speed and canards to reduce its low speed drawbacks

This thread is going funny, do you know a wing like diamond or say F-22 used will be much less aspect ratio than a rectangular wing which F-18 or P-51 used? Are you going to say a delta wing or even a diamond wing causing low STR because its stronger wingtip vortex? Do you know only moment arm of LERX will be stronger than Canards but lift?

Here is not of generations, you claim the canard will always give the advantage, the LERXed Harrier is better than the Viggen and Kfir, the Gripen STR is lower than the one of the MiG-29, Su-27 and F-16 why?

Yes that’s what I said and I don’t want to withdraw my claim. Do you have evidence to show the STR of MiG-29, Su-27 and F-16 superior more than Gripen?

The Eurofighter`s STR of 23.3 deg/s at seal level is lower than the MiG-29C`s 23.5deg/s at 3000 meters and 50% of weight why?
the MiG-29C is stable longitudinally and flying higher
Rafale will do 23.9 deg/s at sea level too in combat weight of 50% weight
the Eurofighter STR at 3000 meters is 22deg/s Rafale must have similar figures
The MiG-29M`s sustained turn rate at 3000 meters and combat weight is 22.8 deg/s both MiG-29M and MiG-29C must have higher STR at sea level.

Ok, what STR of MiG-29 will be at see level?

Rafale did not do the cobra in 1986 when the Su-27 did it.

Not each Su-27 can do Cobra at any condition, only F-22 can do it without limit but by TVC for prevent stability when be in High AoA.

The Cobra can be used as the Hook and bell in combat by the Su-27.
F-22 can get 28 deg/s STR.
The F-22 will achieve that thanks to better lift/drag ratio and higher TWR

No one told you even F-15canards promoted STR by TVC? How could you image STR higher to be 28d/s without TVC using?

In the Falklands the Argentine Kfirs (Daggers) were not better than the Harrier, in 1982 Israel Used the Kfirs as fighter bombers leaving the air superiority role to F-15s and Syria were flying MiG-21s and MiG-23MFs why?
The Viggen pilot said the F-15 is more agile than the Viggen.

At least the Viggen with partial-moving canards can achieve STR surpass the Harrier, and Viggen and F-15 is not same generation fighter as known commonly.

I’ve yet to see a Rafale perform some of these manuevers-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ti0z_T0H9g

i havent seen the rafale or the sh show the ability to out maneuver aam’s

The Barrel Roll have done by Rafale and Eurofighter several times on public air show.

That is not correct the Rafale has a higher TWR and lower wing loading and a much bigger wing; the F-18 lacks wing fuselage blending as the one seen in the MiG-29

Be in dogfight, both of F-18C and Rafale got total 14.5 ton thrust, weight of Rafale M is 10.5 ton for empty and half internal fuel 2250kg, weight of F-18C is 10.5 ton for empty and half internal fuel for air combat is also 2250kg, why and where did you get underpower?

I was cheated, the Harrier2 only got 12°/s turn rate. How can this be superior than Kfir and JA-37!?

LERXes have some design constraigns too, however each aircraft has different characteristics which can render different results.

One Pugachev Cobra wouldn’t cover the all advantage of Canards. The LERX keep the aircraft being stable while it’s within Hi AoA, but most maneuver accompany by a very small AoA in which canards provide more Cl than LERX especially when the speed under M3.

The F-18C/D is the worst aircraft in 4th generation maneuvarability, Its duel-butterfly shaped LERX gives a stronger force arm of pitch, but because the span ward of its LERX is narrow too much eago its lift is not as better as expert expected even within a very high AoA. That’s why we saw S.H. now was enlarged primary extension at span-ward, and even LERX big like this, F/A-18EF is still not good at maneuver compare to other contemparory jets. The main reason is its wing’s aspect ratio is too enormous to achieve High G performance.