In the end an unstable canard layout was adopted, as it would give the greatest benefits to performance, as it gives a high onset of pitch rate and low drag enabling the aircraft to be faster, have longer range and carry a larger useful payload.
2102
2105
2108For an instability of 5-10% at subsonic speeds, which was desired, Saab decided that a canard layout would entail a lower technical risk as the canard can be weathercocked turning the aircraft into a slightly stable one. This cannot be done with an unstable aft tail configuration.
Other advantages with a canard is more lift during take
off and landing, 10% better supersonic turning performance
and lower supersonic drag. Also envisioned was the
possibility to point the nose off the direction of travel.
The canard can also be used as an air brake after
landing.
2107
2111-4Note the leading edge flap on the canard, the double slotted leading edge flaps on the main wing and the small control surfaces near the engine nozzle.
Span was 9% greater than for 2105, sweepback 10% less,
wing area 13% less but weight 3% greater. It was cancelled
in 1982 as at that time it wasn't possible to manufacture
it with the correct aeroelastic properties.
2110
This is a three view plan from SAAB.
(Back to) more on JAS 39 Gripen.
Aerodynamic
highlights of a fourth generation delta canard fighter
aircraft - The ingress of this document is in
Swedish, but the main part is a very interesting article
about Gripen's aerodynamics.
Of relevance to this subject, see for example the
the image of different planforms
tested.
Document
created 1995 June 29,
one paragraph added 2000 Aug 16,
external links added 2002 May 30
by Urban Fredriksson