Why don’t you turn this around? If your airline pilot friend and aeronautical engineer friend are so knowledgeable, let them proof BMS wrong.
You don’t have to waste your precious time defending BMS. You know it’s as accurate as accurate can be on a desktop PC. You have nothing to prove. If someone doubts BMS, let them provide evidence as to where BMS isn’t accurate.
And while they are trying to figure that out, you just get airborne and waste some bandits.
Well, who makes a claims has to proof it, it is the classical burden of proof thing. They are just doubting it. They are more sceptical then doubtful actually. The pilot knows Falcon 4.0, but stopped there. He knows it’s pretty good, but don’t thing it’s THIS good. But so far this thread gave me a lot of info. Those papers and manuals were what I was looking for!
My engineer friend said, for instance, that real flutter test on this types of aircraft are very secretive and doubted that BMS developers had access to real data. But Mav-jp gave me exactly this (below)! As the title says, it’s a theorical prediction, but I doubt that would be far from the test data. He knows to trust simulation data (when well done) as he works with it.
Well this one is pretty basics because this is supposed to be read by pilots (end user style)
NASA tp1538 is more interesting , more engineering orientated
The documents I used for LCO simulation are even more interesting
Dowell, E. H., Thomas, J. P., Hall, K. C., and Denegri, C. M., Jr., “Theoretical Predictions of F-16 Fighter Limit Cycle Oscillations for Flight Flutter Testing,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1667-1672.
BTW, Thanks a lot for this Mav-jp!