ChristiaanJ
Roger, wilco and out.
It's still an open question whether the A330 was ever taken well into a full stall during flight testing and certification, or whether they just 'nibbled at the edges of the envelope'.
That answers your "no simulators please" remark as well....
'Nibbling at the edges' does not provide useful data for behaviour in a full stall, and extrapolating those 'nibbles at the edges' does not make for a useful behaviour of the sim.
The values for the A310 are available.
Upset recovery training
Load down the referenced zip, there are tested envelopes for a lot of common air transport aircraft.
Bolding by me
There are issues associated with differences between simulator training and aircraft recoveries. A simulator can provide the basic fundamentals for upset recovery, but some realities such as positive or negative g’s, startle factor, and environmental conditions are difficult or impossible to replicate. These limitations in simulation add a degree of complexity to recovery from an actual aircraft upset because the encounter can be significantly different from that experienced during simulator training. Therefore memory checklists or procedural responses performed in training may not be repeatable during an actual upset situation. The limitations of simulators at the edges of the flight envelope can also cause fidelity issues because the simulator recovery may or may not have the same response characteristics as the aircraft being flown. However, provided the alpha and beta limits are not exceeded, the initial option responses and instrument indications of the simulator should replicate airplane responses.
The Alpha and Beta values are depicted in Appendix 3 for a lot of aircraft, from AB the A300/A310.
In short with flaps up flight validated from 0° AOA up to 12 AOA,
Wind tunnel / analythical from -5°AOA up to 12 ° AOA
Extrapolated for simulator from -5° AOA up to 30° AOA
What would us make believe, that for A320 / A330 the envelope was expanded despite better protections?