Still trying to figure out if you're just a troll or actually believe the crap you write. If you limited aircraft X to 6.5 Gs and allowed the F-35 it use it's full potential (9gs) you'd get exactly the same result, with aircraft X on the short end. Is this too difficult for you to understand or do you just not wish to acknowledge the fact?
From F-16.net:
"More to the point, the testing was towards for example, resulting recommendations. Tweaking the onset rate of high AoA, addressing 20-30 deg AoA transistion behavior. These are tests, intended to provide real data, with results/recommendations for such things as software changes. The tests were framed/set up to those purposes. I am guessing such things as maintaining energy using a Hi Yo Yo was out of scope, for example? The instructions were to pull high AoA. In fact finding those EM boundary conditions was likely an objective that was specifically aimed at exceeding otherwise prudent manuever options, to get that data.
I can imagine it would be a bit tough as a test pilot to keep driving into "mushy," when the setting was "dogfight." But someone needs to find (and tweak) "mushy" before operational pilots go there. See the evolution of the F-22 tactics and pilots backing off using as much as Thrust Vectoring heavy manuevering as the new toy shine had earlier encouraged.
I could be wrong but I suspect the test pilot if he came forward would refocus his critical comment towards the purposes he meant them.
All that said, yes "high SA" multi-ship environment engagements, is the target goal over a rare if ever, "high AoA" 1 v 1 yank and bank. That doesn't mean they aren't going to tweak and maximize high AoA yank and bank. They will. That means there should be more tests intentionally driving the aircraft into "mushy." The insight I got from the report was for example, that they need to, and no doubt will, crank the onset rate up some, since airframe limits were not stressed, and adjust transition behavior some. That's the meaningful type info here."
