In the answers offered to questions today (well, yesterday now), I just wanted to preface generally that I've formed a scenario of known failure events combined with the forces necessary to cause them. As I came across more clearer pictures, I had more events and had in part to modify the scenario.
My following answers or comments on the questions raised are based on making the my answer fit the scenario I put together as it now stands, slightly different from 2 days ago. If I had to change the scenario thinking again tomorrow, my answers now might wind up somewhat off the mark.
bia botal
By trajectory, I assume you must mean the angle of descent into the water just prior to contacting the water itself. I would have to say no, other than that the wings were approximately level. I had originally accepted per Report #2 that the rudder had pulled the arm downward in breaking it; only I thought the force was less. It was only when I saw that the arm(s) had pulled up on the rudder, in a later more clear picture, that I realized the break could not be the indicator of vertical deceleration on hitting the water. So any trajectory would fit, up to the point of being so steep as to cause 10 g's of vertical deceleration.
bearfoil
Yes, you are right that I am assuming that the break in "arm 36" is a fresh break. Which is to assume that the investigators did look for that, could confirm it, and would not have pointed to the break as evidence otherwise. But they didn't say that in so many words; instead they said their paragraph (I imply this from the preface) could now be put in final form. The things omitted from these reports make it awkward for the outsider.
mm43
1. It does not matter where this damage occurred.* It does matter that the damage to the fin at the rear attachments occurred at altitude.* It may matter that the rudder continued to work (the report said that it was stop-limited to 7.9 deg. IIRC) if the posited upset was such that the rudder was required to exit from it.
2. I suspect the WNG does have some significance. There has been some discussion. I had to deal with control systems and their reliability to some extent; all I can add is to say that fully testing a system with multiple states and inputs rapidly becomes very difficult. That is because each input or state increases a factorial parameter for tests. This factoral is equal to the number of machine states; plus the number of inputs, taken once for each of their individual states; plus who knows what for comparing 3 computers. Factorals increase very rapidly.
One could assume that WNG has occurred because the rudder lock has moved to not be at its most restrictive limit; and has done that at a time when the computers cannot know if speed and altitude permit that position. Obviously if fin damage at altitude is required,* it may be explained by excess rudder travel being available.
In your paragraph following these items: Flutter-- Normally one would like to have all the operating regime below the onset of flutter, analogous to the design of engine crankshafts in regard to torsional vibrations. But I have no idea what the margin is, or how it is affected by the variable configurations and attitudes of the airframe. Damage-- Agree; my eyes see lateral shift damage on one side, and tension damage on the other, both up in the carbon-composite area; and that the VS composite shell overall has not retained any obvious premanent distortion from the forces that caused this damage.
henra
I think that the scenario* I proposed is not compatible with more than 10 g's downward impact, because then the aluminum rod have broken before the VS broke loose, by the downward pull of the rudder, leading to a deformation of the standoffs different from that seen. I also am also uncomfortable imputing damage to this robust tailcone area from underneath by a slapping impact, seeing the minor damage to the recovered rack of flimsy cubicles.
JD-EE
Your suggestion of the lower longerons in the tailcone being broken by the pull of the VS fin on the attachment points, with resultant release of those points is interesting. There may be a substantial wedging action there. I don't see any conflict there with the senario I am using, which only requires that the pull from the fin pulls the attachment clevises loose.
My scenario* would only limit the attack angle such that the impact at the tail would not exceed 10 g's.
*Note for all comments: Means "scenario" as described in the second paragraph. That is, possible but not necessarily what actually happened. Omitting to qoute the question immediately above my comment or answer (to save bandwidth) is, on rereading, a little awkward in 2 or 3 spots. But the questions are right above in order on the same page & I am too tired to re-do the post.
OE