Originally posted by Lyman:
You are correct, the Tail tanks were full at the time of a/p loss (2:10:04.6). 10.5 thousand pounds of fuel. Initially the Cg computed by BEA was released to be right at the margin for flight (37.6?). Later, that value was retracted and replaced with ~ 28.7. In turbulence and experiencing rolling and pitching moments, the Cg may have been well aft, and exacerbated the inability to recover from the initial upset at a/p quit.....
So as not to confuse everyone here, especially the new posters, here is the CG chart for the A-300-200. The red dot indicates where the CG was on AF447. It wasn't unusual for the weight of the aircraft.
Here is a statement regarding this:
The use of wing sweep and stability augmentation on modern commercial airplanes makes them more fuel efficient. However, flight crews must understand the effects of CG and altitude on performance and handling qualities. For example, operating at an aft CG improves cruise performance, but moving the CG aft reduces static longitudinal and maneuvering stability. Many modern commercial airplanes employ some form of stability augmentation to compensate for relaxed stability. However, as long as the CG is in the allowable range, the handling qualities will be adequate with or without augmentation. An understanding of static and maneuvering longitudinal stability is an essential element of flight crew training.
It comes from Boeing, not Airbus.