The Gripen is a bit boring while the Tejas at least try to explore new solutions

Well, opinions differ no doubt. I fail to see how a Gripen can be boring, but, oh’well.

Being scrambled to intercept an aircraft that you don’t know is comming beforehand, that is flying at >20000 meters at Mach 3 is no mean feat IMO. Especially since the aircraft doing the intercept was originally designed to be an attack aircraft and not an interceptor. The Viggens radar always locked at max distance and refused to break the lock even though the SR-71 pilot tried his hardest to jam it. Closing speeds during the intercepts were Mach 5! This didn’t leave alot of time for the Viggen pilot to accelerate to speed and reach the altitude necessary to make the intercept. Yet, the Viggen did it routinely. I don’t think there were many fighters capable of doing it as “easily” as the Viggen did.

I like the look of the JF-17. Sleek and sharp. I read somewhere that one will participate at this years Farnborough. I hope it’s true!:)

The difference is not as great, both are third generation aircraft, the difference in turn rate is substantial of around 2.6deg/s at Mach 0.6, the MiG-23 will be similar with 14.1deg/s sustained turn at 780km/h and 16.7 deg/s instantaneous, however see the early Harrier variants could not pull more than 15 deg/s instantaneous but once LERXes were added it pulled 20deg/s instantaneosu and 17-18 deg/s sustained much superior to the Viggen which shows you using tailplanes is as good as Canards and in stealth tailplanes are easier to adapt to planforming.
See that the Kfir wont go beyond 10deg/s sustained and 18 deg/s instantaneous turn rates so canards are not the inherently superior to tailplanes

The F-4 was concieved at the same time as the Draken, which is a 2nd gen aircraft, according to how SAAB devides the generations. That is, aircraft with integrated weapons and avionics systems. Viggen is a 3rd gen, meaning its infrastructure is based on separate digital systems which rely on computers to achieve functionality.

It is true that in terms of sustained maneuvering capability the stable delta/canard are at a disadvantage(drag), in comparison to an aircraft with a tail.
Before SAAB had decided upon which configuration to use, they saw that a good STR was possible even with a stable tail design, however the delta/canard needed to be unstable.

Of course , the Mirage 2000, Eurofighter and Rafale have been optimized for some flight regimes, same is any other aircraft.

The Mirage 2000 does exhibit some degree of parity with the F-16 at some flight regimes, but in others is the other way around the F-16 is superior.

As a fighter the Mirage 2000 is preferable, and as an attack aircraft the F-16 is preferable. The high instantaneous turn rate of the Mirage 2000 allows it to get its nose onto the F-16 first. AFAIK, when Greek Mirage’s mix it with Greek F-16’s the Mirage is the victor 9 times out of 10. The F-16 has more power, and because of this a higher sustained turn rate. If the Mirage 2000 had the same TWR as the F-16 how much would their STR differ?

Is it safe to assume that instability offers more for a delta than it does for an aircraft with a tail?

The F-15 and Viggen only show how a design does not exhibit inherent superiority just because it has taiplanes or canards.

Not a fair comparison. The F-15 was designed to be an air superiority fighter, while the Viggen was built to be an attack aircaft. The Viggen was later modified to become a fighter, and The F-15 was later modified to be able to drop bombs. However, it is always better to start out with a fighter and modify it to be an attack aircraft than vice versa.
Had the Viggen arrived just a few years later it might have been fitted with FBW and relaxed stability. This could have completely transformed it into a much more agile and maneuverable aircraft.

The Russians and Americans have created aircraft with compound wings and tailplanes and have fighters with very high thrust to weight ratios in the F-22 is far far higher than a Gripen and the Su-35BM alone is more powerful than even the Eurofighter in terms of thrust.

So, perhaps the combination of instability and canards allows for similar or better sustained turn rates with a lower TWR? It does seem to be the case.

Forgive me if I’m way off here, but if there’s visible condensation on top of the canard, isn’t that clear proof that the there’s a low pressure area on the top, meaning positive lift?

No condensation on the pic below, but the canards clearly provide positive lift here.

Okay, so the F-16, which has a soft 25° AoA limit, must be a better, “smarter” performer than all of them. Hell, a fighter with a 10° AoA limit must be downright BRILLIANT. :rolleyes:

***removed by moderator***

:confused: They are precisely the same thing!!

If you really wanted to understand what I meant I wouldn’t have to respond to this, but oh’well. There’s a difference in how the FCS commands the control surfaces when in landing/take off mode in comparison to in flight mode.

Question: Are the canards themselves contributing to lift when/if they’re busy holding the nose down? If they aren’t, then just how relevant is any alledged “positive” effect they might have on the wings?

The stabs on unstable wing-tails LIFT the butt of the plane to keep the nose down. LERXs and slats contribute to airflow management (LERXs also add to overall lift area). It’s a win-win in terms of lift.

And what are the elevons on a canard/delta for? Contrary to tailpushers the canard/delta has more control surfaces to help achieve the best lift/drag possible. The canards work in conjuction with the elevons. You are focusing way to much on the canards.

First of all, “drag management” takes a back seat during subsonic ACM, especially if your’re a 4th gen. fighter carrying a draggy combat load. Second, if you accept the fact that unstable canard-deltas are DOWNFORCE-lift platforms, then it’s in the lift efficiency department where canard-deltas fall short compared to unstable wing-tails. The entire F-22 basically acts as a big wing. It doesn’t rely on downforce to keep its nose in check.

Drag management will always be prio, and that includes subsonic ACM. For all we know the F-22 could be a more draggy design in comparison to, for example a fully loaded Typhoon or Gripen. The F-22 has sacrificed aerodynamics to achieve a higher level of stealth than the Eurocanards. I think it’s safe to say that just like the Eurocanards falls short in the stealth department, the F-22 falls short in aerodynamics department. But, naturally you can’t believe that. The F-22 is infallible after all. :rolleyes:
And please show us the facts you have that canards provide downforce during maneuvers.

If “efficient drag management” is the goal, and if canards are so effective at controlling airflow over the wings, then why use slats at all, seeing as slats are awfully draggy when they’re extended.

If LERX’s are so effective at controlling the airflow over the wings, why use slats at all?

To say that the reason was lack of experience, fear, etc… is just BS though(not saying that’s what you’re trying to say).

You are right of course, but it’s not just black and white. As there’s quite alot of money involved in designing and producing a fighter jet, any country would prefer to go the safe route. That is, you go with what you know best. It’s undeniably so that the US are far more experienced with conventional designs than with canard/delta ones.