Rabbit - You are vastly overcomplicating the subject, where members in here think articulation substitues for knowledge.
Simply put a plane has design limitations, generally predicated on G force, as G force is a static number, given a varying airspeed. So 2 gs at 300 kts = 2 gs at 100 kts. Weight is weight. Certainly the input at 300 kts equal to the imput at 100 kts will provide more Gs.
But all things equal we are not talking about a plane flying through tops at Vmo with the pilots standing on the rudders, but a departure, slow speeds, well under Va. So a tail coming off at such slow speeds defies logic, unless, ofcourse, it's a carbon fibre/aluminum hybrid, that can't be Xrayed for fissures, but none the less, after the accident was fortified.
That said, the fallacy that one right rudder load for instance at a given acceptable load factor, then swinging the other way, at an acceptable load factor, has some mysterious exponential effect is pure baloney.
We aren't talking about building up resonance frequencies that need occilations on the order hundreds of hz, that typically happen well past Vne.
People can say all they want that test pilots can't account for every action that a pilot will possibly pull in an plane, but there is a reason why test pilots go up and slam everything up and down, back and forth, side to side, then bring it down for the engineers to see if the math was right.
Pure baloney to consider that any pilot moving the rudder three times will in any way exceed what a test pilot would do over thousands of hours, with much more rigourous flight imputs.
This is a simple case of carbon fibre mated with alluminum, resulting in Airbus fortifying the structure, after the fact, then trying to sell it to the authorties that anything can happen in a plane, at anyspeed, with any control input...effectivelly making many of your Vspeeds completly unreliable. This is just the recalibration going on in the industry right now where water isn't wet, the sky isn't blue, grass isn't green, and Va doesn't mean full deflection but rather, a worthless number, because you know, Airbus says so. The FAA has swallowed this hook line and sinker the same way they were convinced that an ATP wasn't required of prospective airline hires, putting 200 hour ab initio pilots in the cockpit 'because they have a special training program that meets or exceeds ATP requirements'.
Sure.
Last edited by Teldorserious; 28th Sep 2013 at 17:15.