[Someone1234]

> But, as he knows, because he's helped develop the aircraft, the control laws are trying to be conservative.

And are based on the physical construction of the aircraft, which is why they increased the size of the control surfaces after this.

> You can criticize anything you like, but when you don't do the work to make your criticisms informed by relevant experience and knowledge, you're just another guy with an opinion and a blog.

According to you nobody that criticizes the F-35 sacred cow does their due diligence. You paint people one of two ways: You either think the F-35 is wonderful and thus are informed, or you don't know anything.

I also love how you keep going back to an article that isn't even relevant in this thread, nobody brought it up, nobody has linked it, and yet you're strawman-ing this mysterious article to death as a defense of the pilot's own criticism's of the F-35 in 2015.

[engi_nerd]

The size of the control surfaces was NOT changed after the report that you linked to. Where do you even get this misinformation?

You yourself linked the article that I'm referring to, and you mentioned it originally.

And I am informed on the F-35 and don't think it's wonderful, but I don't think it's a horrible piece of garbage, either.

[Someone1234]

> You yourself linked the article that I'm referring to, and you mentioned it originally.

I haven't linked to any article like what you're referring to, nor did I reference it. I linked to the pilot's original mission report, I also referenced the same report. You seem to be attacking some editorial, and since you haven't linked it, nobody knows which one.

> And I am informed on the F-35 and don't think it's wonderful, but I don't think it's a horrible piece of garbage, either.

Nobody was claiming it was a "horrible piece of garbage."

[engi_nerd]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-...

You linked to this yourself.

[Someone1234]

Exactly. Which is nothing but the pilot's report un-editorialized. You've been attacking some strawman editorial all throughout this thread that nobody linked or referenced here.

[engi_nerd]

I've been replying to you, not attacking some strawman editorial, as you put it.

David Axe, the guy you linked to, has a long history of misunderstanding the F-35, like also, this piece.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-...

You described that this was "covered up". You would have only gotten that idea if you read the piece I just linked to.

[Someone1234]

Glad you finally linked it, that only took almost ten posts.

But no, I've never read that.

[engi_nerd]

So why do you think this was covered up?