Really? Consider the following picture. Not that either represents a good aircraft design. But it does show that Wing Area tells you VERY LITTLE about how much actual "wing" there is, and much less about how much actual lift there is for the entire aircraft itself. See there problem? Wing area is a USELESS number except when used in conjunction with lift-coefficients, drag-coefficients, etc which are dimensionless values which need a standardized reference area. Together they tell you something. Alone, wing area tells you jack squat.

So... the unstable wing tail is lift-lift at subsonic crusie, the canard is downforce-lift. The unstable wing-tail and the unstable canard are both zerolift-lift at higher speeds. And you are saying the unstable canard is more efficient?

The other thing is that canard is canard and delta is delta. You can put a tail on a delta or a canard on a non-delta wing. The problem with deltas is that while they have better wave drag characteristics at say Mach 2.5, they do not exhibit significant advantages at typical fighter flight envelopes (Mach 0.5 through Mach 2.0). Pound for pound or area for area they are inferior wings, so you need bigger delta wings compared to wings with less sweep and chord for the same desired lift and maneuvering performance. Deltas fell out of favor after the 60s because of that... way before FBW, way before stealth, way before CFD, way before any of that.

The stability argument is getting a bit hard to follow, but I'll chime in and maybe clear some things up...or add to the confusion . I think what end needs to understand is that a relaxed stability design is still trimmed neutrally in level flight, but this needs to happen dynamically with relatively small control surface adjustments in response to gusts, not a permanent trim, or else the aircraft will oscillate around a point with increasing amplitude (hence the need for fbw/fcc). It's better to think of this as artificial stability rather than instability. In a turn, a canard will produce up force since it's ahead of the Cg/Cl, which generally results in better instantaneous turn performance compared to a conventional tail, which will produce downforce. As such a canard will inherently add to the instability, but at the price of lowering the efficiency of the main wing (since the canard stalls before the main wing, the wing never reaches it's max Cl and operates in the downwash of the canard)...of course, a canard is also beneficial for that reason in low speed maneuvers and produces vortexes over the wing root (you can see on the Eurofighter this effect is reinforced by a dogtooth vortex generator on the leading edge at the same distance as the canard span). But due to the lower efficiency, the main wing needs to be larger and stronger. A larger wing has some advantages like fuel volume and such, but keep in mind that wing efficiency is another factor, not just area. As with anything else in aerospace engineering, it's a design trade-off that depends on what exactly is needed in terms of perfomance goals. Neither design is inherently 'better' and it depends much on how it interacts with the rest of the airframe. A canard is more inherently instable (it would be harder to place a canard of a naturally stable aircraft, I think) but both canard and tailplanes will work on an artificially stabilized design.

Please don't ever again quote Wiki as your own...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_(aeronautics)

I am suspicious of your comprehence in terms of your post above! I've repeatly emphasised preconditins should/must be same! you don't see the wing crossed fuslage by your drawing do you? Do you understand how to compare two things? Please review the last sentence I written.

I think what he ment about deltas falling out of favor was PURE deltas, which is fairly true. Mirage 2000 is the only operating pure delta I know of, Personally I am a bit of a fan of the Canard Delta Design, or canard designs in general. Even F-16 wing is concidered a clipped delta with a tail.

The argument around aerodynamic design seems to have missed a very important point made by the Virginia Tech paper. http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf
“The selection of a canard vs. a tail is both configuration and mission dependent.”
Page 11
Pages 29-30 give the list of advantages and disadvantages of canards.

Historically the Delta's have been great interceptors F-102,F-106, Mirage and so on, but not nibble dog fighters. Again the Virgina Tech paper finding on page 11 "configuration and mission dependent" I think defines this issue.

I saw it.
Chime in more confusion is what he want to do. Voici what we called parti pris! This is not something particularly complicated but an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence and illation. F-22 treated as pivate bed to rule everything. **** any action F-22 done in air show has already done by other demonstrator before, nothing new since last centry 90's early when almost two decades passed! please don't make yourself in own circle.

This is the "wing area" you get off a specification of an aircraft. This is what 460 sq-ft on an F-35 or 538 sq-ft on a Typhoon refers to.

It will be interesting to see what Russia come up with for the PAK-FA Wing Design?

Ok...what's your point? Canard designs are always superior? Big wings are always superior? An entire professional engineering design team is 'wrong' in their solution? It seems like no matter what is said you disagree... You seem to think you have it all figured out but most of your posts seem to oversimplify things by quite a bit. dwight is right, it takes a LOT more than basic wing area and sweep analysis and you completely ignore wing efficiency, fuselage lift, vortex lift etc....

I saw it.
Chime in more confusion is what he want to do. Voici what we called parti pris! This is not something particularly complicated but an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence and illation. F-22 treated as pivate bed to rule everything. **** any action F-22 done in air show has already done by other demonstrator before, nothing new since last centry 90's early when almost two decades passed! please don't make yourself in own circle.

So you can see the aircradt with equal weight has different wing area, the wing area on canard layout is always larger than conventional layout, when the empty weight of those aircraft are equivalent.

Yes, canard designs are absolutely suprior when other conditions are same, ie you can say, canard designs are relatively superior for any sort of fly.