The technically-minded will enjoy Prof. Bill Mason's inside detail regarding his time as one of the principal aerodynamicists on the X-29: <a href="http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/AnX-29StoryV3.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/AnX-29StoryV3.pdf</a><p>Also, NASA's e-book on the program is far more useful than these superficial enthusiast articles: <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/sweeping_forward_detail.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/sweeping_forward_detail....</a><p>For anyone wondering, one of the main reasons forward-swept wings never became commonplace, the configuration is at odds with low radar observability.<p>Dr. Norris Krone, the principal DARPA instigator behind the program, recently passed away: <a href="https://aero.umd.edu/news/story/distinguished-umd-alumnus-and-faculty-member-dr-norris-j-krone-jr-passes-at-88" rel="nofollow">https://aero.umd.edu/news/story/distinguished-umd-alumnus-an...</a><p>Some other nitpicks:<p>- The article indicates thrust-vectoring obviated the need for FSW, but you'll note no thrust-vectoring on western jets outside of the F-22 and experimental aircraft.<p>- They make a big deal about the degree of instability, but talk about that with respect to longitudinal static stability, not dynamic stability or stability about other axes.<p>- Both TACIT BLUE and HAVE BLUE were quite unstable as well, and HAVE BLUE, unstable in all three axes, flew well before the X-29.<p>I'm not going to go find numbers, just pointing out the article sounds very hyperbolic. Artificial stability requires vastly less computational power than the breathless words tend to imply. We should be more impressed with control systems theorists, and flight control design has come a long way since then.