I took two of your posts that you tried to explain the relationship between the center of gravity to the center of lift and presented in a way that most people could understand. I reached a wider audience than you did.
Not a statement, but I perceive the intent is there -- to cast the JF-17 in as negative a light as possible.
You do it in a sneaky way by hiding behind the math you know would go beyond the laymen. You are saying that since no one can provide the math for the JF-17's claim of relaxed stability, the J-17 does not have it.
You think you brought on anything new about the F-16 that I have not seen before ?
Buddy, I was on the jet for five yrs doing things with the jet that you could only dream of. I do not need to see the math from GD to have complete trust that the F-16 was designed with relaxed stability. One of the things that I have seen were avionics test station data, the kind that GD and contractors designed for technicians to use to troubleshoot the jet's FLCC. I do not need the Internet, kid.
Never said you did. Stop being so defensive. I only mentioned my experience to show that speculations are necessary in any investigative process, something that you have not denied and it is telling.
First...You dismissed my post 253 as worthless speculation.
Then...When presented with situations that you know involve speculations, you avoided acknowledging them.
You are probably correct.
I got out of the USAF in 1992, probably either before you were borned or when you were still soiling your diapers. Then I worked as a field engineer, for a company that shall remain nameless, designing radar tests to defeat 'autonomous low altitude subsonic' aircrafts. We were calling them 'drones' long before the Internet became popular. I was doing radar range equations in my head in the field while you were still learning algebra. Then I had a career change into semiconductor manufacturing.
But that does not mean I have forgotten the foundations of what I know of aviation. I do not need to know the math to recognize when someone is violating the laws of physics, like plenty have done on this forum.
Then why do you insist on seeing the same from the JF-17's designers ?
True. And that mean GD could have lied all these yrs, correct ?
It is difficult in the sense that I live in the US. Not Pakistan nor China.
But if you can take GD's word for the F-16, why not take PAC-CAC's word on the JF-17 ?
This is exactly what I caught you -- with your pants down.
First...You
INSISTED through several posts that you will accept no less than the math from PAC-CAC. No one else.
Then...When you got caught in the trap of your own creation after I presented the F-16, you allowed third party analysis for your own argument.
I have no interests in proving the JF-17 than I do for the F-16. But what I am doing is defending the role of speculation in the investigative process. As far as I am concerned, I have no problems accepting PAC-CAC's claim that the JF-17 is pitch only relaxed stability.
And I did. By observing behaviors instead of insisting on something that probably we will never have -- the math from PAC-CAC.
How is what I posted as illogical ?
Here is what I said of those behaviors in post 253...
Here is a visual example of those behaviors...
Note the horizontal stabs position relative to the body on each aircraft in the pitch up maneuver. The F-15's horizontal stabs are displaced leading edge down to a greater degree to its body while the F-16's horizontal stabs is relatively parallel to its body.
The F-15 was not designed with relaxed stability, which mean it should have it CGrav in front of CLift. If the horizontal stabs returns to neutral, the F-15 should begin to pitch nose down.
The F-16 was designed with relaxed stability, which mean it should have its CGrav behind its CLift. Once the jet achieve its desired pitch nose up attitude, the horizontal stabs returns to neutral to its body. Since CGrav is behind CLift, the jet remains pitch nose up.
If the JF-17 was designed with pitch relaxed stability, it should exhibit this behavior and the best way to verify this is not only thru a photograph but thru video.
Most likely, we will never have the math from any manufacturer so behaviors are the only clues we have.
Here is what an F-16 pilot on f-16.net said...
Is the F-16 unstable? - F-16 Design & Construction
I am not the only F-16 guy who know this behavior.
IN FACT, EVERY FUCKING PILOT SINCE THE CREATION OF THE F-16 WITH ITS RELAXED STABILITY KNOW OF THIS BEHAVIOR AND EVEN MANY TECNICIANS ON THE F-16 KNOW OF THIS BEHAVIOR.
You may know the math but it looks like you know jack-shit about the behaviors of the algorithms you produced.
So effectively, you are saying that the statement from PAC-CAC to the Pakistani Air Force is not good enough.
Why the hell should the Pakistani Air Force care if PAC-CAC publish for the public ?
In your zeal to cast doubt on this Pakistani-Chinese product, you get more and more inconsistent as time and posts goes by.