Thank you Gums and Hazelnuts39 :
PPrune has the best specialists !
Reading you, Gums, i understand that it is airspeed (or an equivalent information as dynamic pressure) who determine the gains and not kinetic speed . It seems to me very logic.
Reading Hazzelnuts39 i don't understand that A330
(edit : add "does not use", del "used") does not use standby gains in case of loss of dynamic pressure, unlike the F-16. And that VCO=1200 KT.
The biggest thing we did not have was the airspeed feedback loop. The Nz and body rates ruled! Only thing dynamic pressure did was provide values for the "gains" that determined how much the control surfaces moved to produce the commanded Nz or roll rate ( gear up). AoA was much more important than speed, and it limited us from about 15 deg to 27 degrees with respect to gee. Figure about 15 degrees at 9 gees and 27 degrees at 1 gee ( draw the line yourself).
but on the F-16 HUD (this of Gilbert Klopfstein) you have the speed vektor himself.
You are right to say and repeat that airspeed is not very important, much more is the Angle of Attack with adequate training.
But AF447 lost the PF (and the headdown Pilot managing !) without speed nor AoA. (Sure they still had pitch and power who were enough to save their lifes : but i let to other the Rosay discussion about the pitch, despite having had an ice-clogged pitot tube I guess for the "do-nothing" not written in the procedure).
It seems easy for engineers to explicite and display anywhere the inertial speed information in UAS case. K/s is not very expensive...
I will try to find the Favre's book and understand better why this C*,seems so unusefull and inadapted to transport aircraft.
Still a question, gums : why had the Pelican F-16 finally a PIO/APC