Hi dear
@gambitI was not here in city hence did not see your comment. What you just described in your comment above classify as speculation,i can not take it as a definite proof for it needs sound mathematical framework. I am sure you'd have read my comments and seen that i dont indulge in speculations.
My main contention was and it still is- JFT lacks a RSS because the designer have no where mentioned that it has instability- particularly in longitudinal plane.
You may not like to speculate, but fortunately for most of us who were, or still are, in the defense related fields, speculations are necessary.
No, speculations are not proofs and no one ever said they are. But if you see in front of you components of a pistol, what would or should be a logical path, if not a speculation ? Likewise, behaviors are manifestations of rules, or at least influences into an established framework of rules, and if you look at these behaviors as components of a final product, avoidance of speculation will get you nowhere. Or to put it another way: Speculations <=> Progress.
I call to your attention the defection of of Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko with a MIG-25 to the West (Japan) back in 1976. You can bet your next yr's salary that there were plenty of speculations from examinations of the aircraft's various parts once we disassembled it. There were confirmations of some speculations, and dismissals of others.
Your explanation (that you composed as a reply to mine, seems very practical and useful for a laymen who might not be able to appreciate the beauty of lets say various algorithms that are used to find set of equilibrium points in R8 or R12(where the length of state space vector is either 8 or 12,more traditionally 8))- i suspect is user's(pilot's) point of view? Mine on the other hand was more academic(researcher's point of view),on the lines similar(albeit no where close) to works of mc'ruer,blakelock et al. I would love to carry forward this discussion.
Here is my take on how came across: airheaded.
And I said that kindly.
Am not saying you are stupid. I will take you at face value on who/what you claimed to be. But from an instructor's perspective, and I have been in that position in/out of the military, laymen would be much more appreciative if a learned person in a certain field would speak to them in language they could relate to. Some may decided to enter that field and in that case, you will have gained converts. Kudos to you. But most will walk away with deeper general insights about that particular field as to how it affects their daily lives in any degree.
I was never a 'researcher' of any kind but an executor of those frameworks of rules created by researchers. On the aircraft, I made sure it behaved exactly as its designers intended. In the classroom, I showed people the principles that formed the foundation of those rules and expect my trainees to obey those rules. For those of us who have the burden of instructions, any 'researcher' who ventured out of his venue and stands in front of an audience not educated in his field, but take no responsibilities on learning how to talk to laymen, generally do more harm than good to his field of expertise.
Am going to give you two examples of the importance of learning how to instruct: Top Gun and Fighter Weapons School.
Either patches are not awarded unless the pilot passed the instructor course. There is a saying that is intended to be derisive towards teachers: Those who cannot do, teach.
The USAF and USN completely destroyed that insult. If a pilot want to wear either patch, he must be able to do and teach. What he learned, either at Top Gun or Fighter Weapons School, he must have the instructional skills to disseminate to his fellow pilots at the squadron level. The reasoning is that if most of the squadron is lost in combat, then the ace pilot is no good to the war. That is why back in WW II, the US military sent its top flyers home after X number of combat missions so they can teach others on how to fight and win. The result was that the overall quality of new pilots from the US, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan differs wildly with the US have the advantage. The US is far less interested in producing aces than we are at raising the bar for everyone. That is why a sergeant in the USAF have the authority and responsibilities equivalent to that of an officer in other air forces.
This little corner of the Internet is not even a classroom. Even an Internet-based course, the instructors have some kind and level of personal rapport with his/her students. This forum is not it. You storming in here with your arcane math matrixes and language are not enlightening to most. In short, if you do not have the skills of instructions, or the personal inclinations to learn how to instruct, do not venture out of the lab.
