gums,
Machinbird, and
OleOle,
If this thread is supposed to be about the search, I guess you could be regarded as straying off-topic.
But, in the increasing tedium above (without wishing to detract from some notable exceptions), you've got my vote. Not sure I've much useful to contribute with my level of aerodynamics, save just a few comments.
Yes, the A330/A340, like the A320, are referred to as "relaxed (longitudinal) stability" aircraft. Unlike the A320 family, they increase this relaxation at cruise altitudes by despatching fuel aft. In the "
A330 – Longitudinal Stability" thread (see
OleOle's link)
Brian Abraham quoted some static-margin (longitudinal stability) figures for a range of types. (The P-51 Mustang's was surprisingly low for a long-range fighter, I thought.) Presumably these are for a typical CG? We don't have comparable figures for the A330-200 in the cruise, but I suspect it is very different from
gums's F-16. So, even though they share a low-mounted horizontal stabiliser, I'm not convinced that the characteristics at high AoA are comparable.
There seems to be a presumption that AF447 became stabilised in a deep stall.
gums's graph of pitching-moment versus AoA for the F-16 shows a very unfortunate situation at around +50 (and -50) degrees AoA, where full forward (back) stick is unable to create a useful corrective pitching moment. The question is: would the "relaxed stability" of the cruising A330 still have sufficed for AF447 to drop its nose at the normal-stall AoA? If so, how would a deep stall have been achieved?
Then there is the question of dynamic stability, raised by
john tullamarine on that thread. I think many of us have managed to achieve mild phugoid oscillations, hand-flying in normal line flying, without necessarily recognising same. Perhaps we could have avoided them with the benefit of an AoA indicator. AF447 not only lacked that, but also any reliable ASI.