Design
sd666
Hmmm.... The "performance as designed" is not in dispute. The THS did in fact, perform as designed. Clear? Because you like many others are stuck on "Design", and 'right' or 'wrong'.
It is, out the gate, quite possible, even likely, that the THS and the PF BOTH performed to "spec".
Fundamentally, the question is this.
The THS lay dormant for a time when the PF was attempting to climb the a/c. It is not programmed to TRIM NOSE UP when the airframe is experiencing g accelerations above, let us say, 1.25g.
The a/c, when the THS came back on line, was climbing, even rotatiing further NU. If unexpected, this could certainly create a "Zoom". A radical PITCH UP, and an unwanted extension of time in aspect (Climb).
So the THS started to TRIM NU from -3 to -13+ without stop, as the PF was still "stick back". Energy, both aerodynamic and ballistic, paid off and the a/c STALLED. Now, the THS is fully NOSE UP, and remained that way till impact. Insufficient ND from PF? Possibly. Stall warning when A/C was close to recover at each ND excursion? So we are told.
Finally, what is the a/c specific performance in Pitch with the elevators free and the THS full NU?
Elevators are sheltered from airflow in this configuration when deflected NOSE DOWN.
They are fully exposed to airflow in this configuration when deflected NOSE UP.
The THS in FULL NOSE UP is in and of itself a very powerful fixed full up Angle of INCIDENCE.
I can frame the question any of a number of other ways. It is meant to be clear and straightforward. Your thoughts?
Please do not feign exasperation to escape answering, as others do.
Again, the THS is not being questioned either as to Performance, or DESIGN.