I expect J-10A will still beat J-16 even equip with TVC. Canard design is a modern design giving it far superior aerodynamic than conventional tail design lay out while rectifying the shortcoming of old delta design.
I'm going to pull your chain just a little bit, in the spirit of brotherly love, Wilbur and Orville invented the aeroplane, and the Wright gliders and the Wright Flyer were all canards with front rudders, wanna try that out for modern designs. A close coupled aeroplane with mass centralization will always turn better than a longer bird with less mass centralization all other things being equal, canards have a number of benefits, also a number of problems or complications. Bottom line is a short high performance fighter J-10, F-16, F-22 will always outturn a longer high performance fighter, Su-27, Grumman F-14, J-20 simple physics. A short wheelbase sportbike with mass centralised design turns much much quicker than a longer wheelbase cruiser, which is optimised for directional stability and comfort. TVC is a game changer, or we wouldn't have spent the time/ money to develop it.
Same apply to fighter jet. Su-35 or J-16 no matter how you modify it. It still can't break away the physical limitation it inherit during its 70's era.[/QUOTE]
The Su-35 with canards and TVC is amazing, the Russian boys put on a fantastic demonstration of its manueverability, much of it post stall, similar is the F-22, J-10, Rafael, Typhoon, it is in no way hampered by its "conventional configuration", and may well be marginally enhanced by the canards, the jury is still out on that as many Flankers don't have them, in any respect canard are archaics, draggy, and greatly multiply the complexity of the flight control system for negligible benefits add to that weight, heavier structure, and reduced visability and it looks like a looser to me? Bottom line for the old Brat is, when you show me a bird with its tail in front, I "might" change my mind.
I'm going to pull your chain just a little bit, in the spirit of brotherly love, Wilbur and Orville invented the aeroplane, and the Wright gliders and the Wright Flyer were all canards with front rudders, wanna try that out for modern designs. A close coupled aeroplane with mass centralization will always turn better than a longer bird with less mass centralization all other things being equal, canards have a number of benefits, also a number of problems or complications. Bottom line is a short high performance fighter J-10, F-16, F-22 will always outturn a longer high performance fighter, Su-27, Grumman F-14, J-20 simple physics. A short wheelbase sportbike with mass centralised design turns much much quicker than a longer wheelbase cruiser, which is optimised for directional stability and comfort. TVC is a game changer, or we wouldn't have spent the time/ money to develop it.
Same apply to fighter jet. Su-35 or J-16 no matter how you modify it. It still can't break away the physical limitation it inherit during its 70's era.[/QUOTE]
The Su-35 with canards and TVC is amazing, the Russian boys put on a fantastic demonstration of its manueverability, much of it post stall, similar is the F-22, J-10, Rafael, Typhoon, it is in no way hampered by its "conventional configuration", and may well be marginally enhanced by the canards, the jury is still out on that as many Flankers don't have them, in any respect canard are archaics, draggy, and greatly multiply the complexity of the flight control system for negligible benefits add to that weight, heavier structure, and reduced visability and it looks like a looser to me? Bottom line for the old Brat is, when you show me a bird with its tail in front, I "might" change my mind.
