Einhverfir,
Well, there are a couple problems with that, still. Note, I am not discounting entirely the possibility of a spin. I am just saying it is not consistent with the findings of the report.
Agreed. It seems also that your arguments against a flat spin [not a normal spin] are based entirely on the credence you give to the report. You have accepted mentally that the fin separated from the rest of the structure in the manner that they surmised -forward on impact. Even they only surmised - you are taking it as fact.
Where would the Board get the time to make a thorough scientific analysis of the recovered VS and where would they physically do that? On an island off the coast of Brasil? On the deck of a ship? Did they fly it back to France before the report?
If you had a spin from altitude, I would expect the plane to hit at a near vertical vector with very little forward/backward acceleration. Also unless the rotation was very, very slow, the sideways inertial forces would still be a major (rather than minor) component to the tail failure. However the report found that the rudder failed forward with a slight left-ward twisting element (it is possible that this element could have been sufficient to throw it clear of the fuselage).
At 4 secs per rotation in a flat spin from altitude, I would expect sideways and forces to be a substantial fraction of the vertical forces and the forward deceleration to be negligible. Hence the VS would have failed sideways (perpendicular from the fuselage) with perhaps some other slight vector added representing what little was left of the original fight vector. Remember that the VS is close to the extremity of the spin, so the centrifugal forces are very high there.
All of that is quite logical but again, you are basing it on the VS being attached to the rest of the airplane during the flat spin. Is there some reason why you have decided that it could not have separated before that flat spin began and thus caused the flat spin? Is it impossible that the forces on it after the upset could have caused its rearmost attach point to fail first? What if the horizontal stabilizer failed downwards and tore loose from it then causing it to come off? There are so many possibilities.
On the other hand I am suggesting that there would not be a flat spin if the VS remained attached. What would cause the flat spin would be the failure of the entire tail cone [aft of the pressure bulkhead], or of the VS alone. In turn, either one of those would likely cause the engines to leave their mounts. What was then remaining would be the fuselage and the wings. They would then fall near vertically, somewhat like a leaf, with very little rotation, until impact.
On the other hand, in a low altitude stall, we would expect strong forward and vertical forces, along with some minor twisting as the airframe hits the water not quite level (due to wind). This seems most compatible with the findings to date. Not that the findings are infallible at this juncture.
How do you get the airplane from where it was in cruise,
high altitude, to the point at which this
low altitude stall occurs? Does it just glide or fly on down smoothly? If so, why; and wouldn't that take about 90 miles? Are the engines running in your scenario or are they flamed out? What exactly do you mean by
low altitude - how low?.
If it did not stall all the way down from FL350, why would it suddenly stall at low altitude? If it made a last minute pull up into an accelerated stall - how did the pilots manage to see the ocean and judge when the should pull up? Was it diving at very high speed before this happened?
There are just too many IF's for me.