Originally Posted by Turbine D
However, in the BEA Update, dated May 27, 2011, The weight of the aircraft was again reported at around 205 t, but the balance was changed to 29%, or in other words moved forward 8% or so.
TD, I have partially addressed your question
here.
As the take off CG was very much forward (23.3%), and despite the aft fuel transfer, I figure the ideal target of around 38% for fuel saving could have been approached only toward the late stage of the cruise phase, not after 3 hours of level off.
To have a CG more fwd than aft should help for the handling, and stall recovery as well ...
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Really? How else am I to interpret at least 5 years of posts demanding that Airbus return to interconnected yokes and introduce a big red "Direct Law" button (as in the 777), not to mention continued belief in a conspiracy surrounding AF296 @ Habsheim?
I don't demand much, just criticize what, IMO, deserves such.
You, obviously, do not tolerate such critics to be made. Fine with me.
As you're not willing to publicly discuss Habsheim, despite my invitation, why can't you quit mentioning it ... ?