But again, why do you still persist equalling Valphamax and stalling speed ... ?
And if you do think Valphamax is Vs1g at 110 then what is Vstall ?
This has been discussed extensively earlier in the thread. The Special Conditions for certification of the A320 (published by the FAA and linked earlier on this thread) define Vs1g as Valphamax. The certification requirements consider the airplane stalled when the longitudinal control is held on the aft stop during 2 seconds and there is no further increase of angle of attack. Vs1g is published in the AFM and the FCOM. There is no requirement to determine Vstall, assuming that you mean the speed corresponding to the maximum lift coefficient calculated at 1g. 'Vstall' is not published anywhere,
AFAIK.
True that all these speeds, all of them, including Vls Valphaprot, should have been published in the report for the weight config altitude at the time ... Where are they ?
All these speeds are irrelevant to the accident, and I can't see any need for the accident report to publish them. The report publishes alphaprot, alphafloor and alphamax, which are relevant.
For the graph, things don't add up.
How do they or you get identical speed traces from so different attitudes ?
An obvious penalty on the speed there must be by pulling the nose up ... but also a benefit to the altitude ... Where are the ?
IAs and pitch attitude have been read the graphical presentation of Bechet's simulator exercise. AoA has been determined as the difference between pitch attitude and flight path angle. The vertical speed can be determined from the trace of radio altitude, and FPA is determined from VS and TAS. If there is anything that doesn't add up, please be more specific.