MFS
In your 23 March 03:51 post you completely and purposely neglected to factor in (to the couples at work or "in play") the nose-down cumulative effects of spoilers, reverse and braking (as well as the c of g position that's tending to keep the nose on the ground).
.
If you go back to the beginning of this thread, the original (and very reasonable) postulate was that
sufficient backstick could be progressively fed in so that the nose would stay down and the main-gear benefit
from the aerodynamic downforce of the horizontal stabilizer under backstick - thus gaining considerable
braking traction upon contaminated runways at higher speeds (i.e. not long after nosewheel on).
.
Using convoluted math that excludes the most significant factors or (like LEM) hypothesizing with completely
imaginary figures and drawing bogus conclusions from them, is to cobble together an "argument" without any useful
substance.
.
There may well be weight transference that's cumulatively in favor of the technique, but there is also (quite unquestionably) an aerodynamic downforce (on the maingear) courtesy of the backstick.
.
I suggest that you should now reflect upon the fact that backstick braking is a proven methodology - and then
drive yourself even maddder trying to figure out WHY.
