Wouldn't it be nice - particularly on Tech Log - to see a dispassionate debate on the causes of an accident in which one or more of the main contributors, usually of dubious credentials and having lost the logical part of the argument, didn't resort to the usual accusations of corruption and collusion on the part of the manufacturer/regulator/investigator? I'm not holding my breath.
For those who haven't flown big jets yet, and who may be impressed by all the derring-do being pedalled by some contributors here, here's my humble line-pilot experience - for what it's worth.
In the period (1971 - 2001) that I flew six different types of swept-wing big jets for a living on boring, public-transport operations, I never used the rudder except to:
(1) keep the a/c straight on T/O (backed up, if necessary, with into-wind aileron but without "cracking" the roll spoilers);
(2) to help induce a mild sideslip just before the flare when using the wing-down crosswind-landing technique (not on the B707!);
(3) to decrab, as necessary, on a crosswind landing;
(4) to keep the a/c straight during the landing run;
(5) to counter asymmetric thrust following an engine failure.
Note that only (1) and (4) involved rapid reversal of input, and only on the ground at low airspeeds. There were one or two colleagues who would use a bit of rudder to increase the rate of entry into a turn (usually when they were trying to captutre the ILS localiser), but this was frowned upon because it involved sideslip. Except in (2), and a little bit in (5), you do not induce sideslip on a big jet, partly because it is uncomfortable for the passengers and cabin crew. But in any case, it is simply bad flying. We do not need full rudder to pick up a wing in a stall because:
(a) IIRC, certification demands that aileron is usable (and recommended) in the recovery from a simple stall;
(b) we do not stall the aeroplane in public transport ops. However, in the extreme case, a stall normally occurs at a low airspeed.
Can I repeat another point I tried to make in a previous post? The A300-600 flight controls and tail-assembly structure are similar to the A310 I flew in the 1980s, although the VS dimensions may be slightly different.
Despite what flarepath would lead us to believe, there is a rudder travel limiter which becomes effective above a certain IAS (a bit above minimum-clean speed, IIRC). That limiter is a fuction of two computers called FACs. If it fails, the ECAM system (which was pioneered on the A310), announces something like "F/CTL: Rudder travel Limit INOP. Use rudder with care above xxx kt." This is accompanied by a master-caution W/L and a SC (single chime). Very similar to the A320 and its successors.
What the above-mentioned contributors are also in denial about is that, despite being reminded by tdracer and others, Boeing has quite clearly recognised the need to warn pilots not to cycle the rudder from stop to stop on its own airplanes. But who ever did?
Owain, I'm wondering if the B52 may have ailerons and elevators that use balance panels like the B707? In which case loss of hydraulics with the rudder, which may have an hydraulic booster like the B707, would not affect them. The main point about that a/c was that, as Armchairflyer says and you would know far better than I do, there was enough of the fin left to provide some degree of directional stability (unlike that B747 in Japan, caused by a botched repair to the rear pressure bulkhead).