Man understand this, the DELTA wing always bleed energy faster than other type of higher aspect ratio wings however canards adn instability increase their capability and high AoA, but the fact the Gripen has a difference of 10 deg/s between the instantaneous and sustained turn rate shows very clearly still it bleeds energy faster however now they do much betetr than the IAI Kfir or Viggen, yeah they are much better than the old stable canard delta aircraft, same see the IAI Kfirs has a big difference of 9 deg/s between its sustained and instantaneous turn rates.

The MiG-29, F-16, Su-27, F-15 F-18 do not show the same differecne becasue their wings have higher aspect ratios:D 😉

You seem to be totally unaware of the impact the TWR has on STR. I hate to be rude but you seem to be in such denial that I’m going to end it right here. No reason to discuss any further. It’s obvious you haven’t read what others have posted. Or you just choose not to take it in.

The Gripen is unstable and still can not deal with a MiG-29 in sustained turn and the MiG-29 is stable, of course if you think 20 deg/s is great but what about 23.5 deg/s of the MiG-29C? remember the MiG-29 is stable

Bla bla bla. Compare the TWR’s. Also the turn rates for the MiG seems fishy considering its draggy design.

In unstable designs when they pitch up at high AoA, canards not always have better response because since canards are smaller than tailplanes in some conditions can not pitch down the aircraft and tailplanes are better suited to do the trimming and pitch down the aircraft at high AoA due to the fact they are bigger

Sounds like wishful thinking. Canards are smaller because they don’t have to be as large as the tail surfaces of a conventional design in order to be effective. Contrary to the MiG-29 and Su-27 the delta canards have their elevators at the front. When they turn positive lift is added, in front of the aerodynamic center, giving superior pitch acceleration and control authority. The Eurocanards maneuvers are crisp and accurate. Very different from the rather sluggish behavior of the MiG and Suchoi.

Canards also reduce the main wing`s lift and vortices in unstable designs some times move the center of lift ahead of the center of gravity at high AoA increasing the need for a pitch down force and trimming.

It happens to all airplanes with swept wings not just delta/canards. The wing stall at the tips first, moving the CP forward. Having the elevators in front of the main wing is only beneficial.

canards since are smaller and reduce the max potential lift of the wing some times are uncapable of pitching down the unstable design.

In some parts of the envelope the canards can reduce the lift of the main wing, but at the same time drag is reduced also. Again having the elevators ahead of the main wing only increases the authority at high AoA.

This probably can be proven with the Su-27 and the Eurocanards, the Su-27 can do the Cobra and it seems the Eurocanards can not do it

The Gripen has been flown to over 110 deg/AoA without any problems. High AoA are no match for delta/canards. The FCS of these aircarfts do not allow this type of flying though, because maintaining E is of highest priority. Pulling flashy high AoA maneuvers looks good at airshows. But in combat all it does is kill your E and make you a sitting duck.

Robban

I mentioned before that exactly that the Gripen has better instantaneous turn rate than the MiG-29A but it has not better sustained turn rate.

Your article claims the same, canards give you excellent instantaneous turn rates but not good sustained turn rates, that is true in one of the books i have about the MiG-29 and another i have about the 5 and 4.5 generation aircraft titled super fighters they give you a few turn rate, also the one of Fomin about the Su-27 gives you a few more turn rates and effectively the Eurofighter is not better than the MiG-29A in sustained turn rate and is worse than the MiG-29C.

The Gripen has a instantaneous of 30 deg/s and the MiG-29A one of 28 deg/sec; nevertheless the sustained turn rate the gripen has is lower than that of the MiG-29A that has a sustained turn rate of 22 deg/s and much more inferior to that of the MiG-29C has a sustained turn rate of 23.5 deg/s, because the Gripen has a sustained turn rate of 20 deg/s.

And you are incorrect LERXes also have benefits that tha canards do not have, one is they are better for fuselage-wing blending specially in an aircraft like the MiG-29 since they blend the fuselage and the main wing in a single lifting body;) also the LERXes in the MiG-29 and Su-27 help the Inlets at high AoA, LERXes also help the aircraft to have more internal capacity for fuel and equipment with the least of drag and aerodynamically they do not produce a wake because they are not located in front of the wing and instead they give lift simply because they are part of the main wing and fuselage lifting body;) why do you think in the latests Su-35 they deleted the canards but not the tailplanes? also LERXes allow for a less swept wing with higher aspect ratio allowing the wing to be better suited for low speed handling

I’m sorry MiG, what you have written above has already been answered, in previous post(s).

The MiG-29 is certainly a great design, but it’s still a generation older than the Gripen. Even if you put new systems into it, it’s infrastructure and aerodynamic design is still not up to par with the newer generation which includes the Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter and F-22.

I dont think I agree with this “generation” analogy definition just by addition of “canards”.

Did I say that? Read it again please.

You forgot to mentioned this
Wind tunnel testing and project work on alternative aft tailed configurations had pointed out many advantages for that particular layout, where perhaps range and sustained turn rate were the most noticeable, granted the technological level of that time.

Reading the article it is understood that this is true if the canard/delta aircraft is built statically stable. As none of the 4th gen delta canards are stable it does not apply.

See very clearly the MiG-29 has better sustained turn rate and the Eurofighter and Rafale barely are on par, this is confirmed by practice.

When? Where?

see that also LERXes have the same physics of canards and the MiG-29 and SU-27 use flaps and tailplanes in a integral fuselage blending

Except that the LERX’s are much larger, heavier, draggier and much less flexible. And as I’ve mentioned before, tailplanes adds weight and drag as well. The delta/canards make do without them.

The LERXes have good control at AoA and this allows them to point their noses with the Cobra and tail slide in a way the Gripen or Eurofighter probably can not do since i have never hear of these aircraft doing the Cobra.

The canards has the same benefits as the LERX’s, and none of it’s weaknesses. Why shouldn’t they be able to do a cobra manouver?

This extra lift help the aircraft in a way the Eurocanards can not have since they are basicly using less fuselage blending and do not use the integral layout as the MiG-29 and Su-27 do

It’s more important to have a long slender (tailless) tail in order to achieve low drag(and reduced weight). Either way, the wing fuselage blending on the Gripen is excellent.

The cobra and better sustained turn rates is a good trade off compared to the Eurocanards

Who says the Eurocanards have lower STR’s because they have canards? Give the MiG-29 the same TWR as the Gripen and see if it can sustain a 20 deg/sec turn rate.

remember the Su-27 also uses relaxed longitudinal stability

It still has to kill lift in order to turn.

another shot using the canard as a control surface
creating drag in order to change direction

The canards are control surfaces. Control surfaces that has the same benefits as a LERX, adding positive lift ahead of the aerodynamic center. They can therefore be used as elevators, offering superior pitch acceleration and more precise manouvering compared to aircraft with a conventional tail. Contrary to the fixed LERX, they have the option to optimise lift and drag at all times. In the picture above, the plane is doing a slow speed fly-by. The canards are pretty much horizontal to the relative airflow, balancing the aircraft, giving optimum lift for this particular situation without the large drag penalty of a LERX. The control surfaces on the trailing edge of the main wing are tilted downwards adding lift. I don’t know if they can be called elevons as they are used for roll and trim only, not pitch.