"relaxed static stability" et al
I'll go out on my normal limb and tell all that the FBW system on the 'bus can't provide "simulated" or "apparent" static stability. The jet is either stable or not, and it is not like that little thing I flew long ago which was actually unstable until 0.95 M and depended upon HAL to keep the pointy end forward.
If we are talking about little or no speed stability because HAL is trimming for a gee versus an AoA ( just like the Viper), then you may think you have "neutral" static stability, but you don't. The 'bus has positive static stability throughout a good combination of cee gee versus center of aero pressure, but never has inherent aerodynamic negative static stability.
I agree with those here stating that it would never have been certified within any realm on the charts indicating negative static stability. Even AF447 showed positive static stability at 40 degrees AoA or whatever the exact value was. Push forward and eventually recover. What we DID SEE was an AoA and cee gee that allowed it to remain fairly stable while stalled, courtesy of HAL, which was constantly commanding nose up and trimming the THS to reach the nominal one gee command, hands on or hands off. Only forward stick and maybe manual THS trimming could have enabled a recovery.
God, but I would love to get some of you in my old jet and show you the differences between the older jets and one with a FBW system with all the "limits"/"protections" and fly it to the limits. Knowing a lot more about the 'bus now than two years ago, I would relish the oppo to do the same thing in the beast. As Doze is fond of reminding me, our jet was designed with different goals/missions. Nevertheless, it was the first one with FBW, no mechanical back up, and we all became test pilots for a year or two, even after 4 or 5 years of development and testing at Edwards.
out,