Dozywannabe,
Did you read "the" post?
The possible alternative to your interpretation is that the poster simply didn't recall accurately the FCOM text, or Takata's posted data, and posted information as he best could remember, at the excitement of his momentous recollection and inspiration. .... It is an opinion, with a number of disclaimers, as clearly stated by the author ...
Misinterpretation of data, lapses in memory are not uncommon even on official corporate or inter-corporate industry wide, or international standardization body forae, or mailing lists, on which the membership is very strict, and the technical level and content is as high as it can be.
They are in abundance on this Forum, and nobody gets or should be kicked out or censored for that, IMO.
This is a public domain Forum for discussion, with Aviation focus, with an open membership that is a lot wider than the professional variety of the Aviation industry in itself, which is very wide as it is, so stricter technical guidelines for information than those specified by the rules of the Forum do not seem to fit.
So personally, I don't have one bit of worry that anyone could intentionally hijack this thread and drive it into the ditch by injecting certain information. At the rate of posting, at the number and technical level of contributing members, and with the open public availability of Airbus documents and BEA reports, that's out of question. And of course don't worry, with someone that posts under what I perceive an enthusiastic drive to find explanations, rather than a mischievous intention to cause damage.
Ignoring, if bothered, is in such a Forum case a choice, IMO a lot less polluting, or image harmful than personal attacks.
Hm.... I am warming up, it's probably enough of a personal opinion.... so, can we relax now?
and enjoy the technical dialog on the Forum?
Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
@airtren - The point is that the high-g number to which Lyman/Bearfoil/Will Fraser referred to is false and he was misrepresenting Takata's post (which was a very cheeky move, seeing as takata has not contributed since the 5th thread and as such was not here to refute the claims that our prolific water-muddying poster was making).....
Either way, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that our prolific friend is looking more like the kind of sciolist that the big red letters at the bottom of every page caution us all about with every post he makes, and I'm hoping the mods will do some digging of their own to confirm or refute that idea. I may not be a pilot, but at least I'm honest about my intentions.
There were several posts several pages back on this thread, based on data from Airbus documentation and the BEA report, including some graphs, with a discussion on the effect of the Elevator ND deflection, depending on the THS NU, Neutral or ND position, which I think captured well the effects of the THS.
It won't autotrim any further nose-up over 1.25g, but the only limit for no autotrim whatsoever is 0.5g. If what you say is correct, and the FDR values indicate 1.65g max and 0.6g min, then there was nothing stopping autotrim from commanding the THS *nose-down* at any point......