F4
A neutral stick in the bus commands a loadfactor of 1g, and would therefore force the aircraft in a decreasing speed environment due to power reduction in a higher AOA
You have a stick that commands 'g' instead of attitude??? Who invented that idea? Anyway, surely that is not true in alternate law, it must default to attitude. Yes, no? Surely it must.
But what I said stands true for conventional controls. A good aircraft should always lower its nose in the stall even with the stick neutral. If not, you have the CofG - CofL couple incorrectly positioned. (But see also below.)
Ratherbe:
The pushers were required in these a/c because the stall was unrecoverable. Pushers are not required in a/c that can recover with standard pilot actions.
But this is the question. Is the stall recoverable if the thrust has been left at maximum?
The stall is certainly
not recoverable on the 737 (for instance), at low altitude with the engines at max, as was amply demonstrated a few years back on an ILS approach. But what about at high altitude? Ok, thrust may have degraded to about 1/4, at 35,000 ft, but that is still a lot of pitch-couple for the elevators to overcome. So will it recover from the stall at 39,000 ft, with engines at max? My last sim run at this a few years back demonstrated that an underslung twin was reluctant to unstall at full aft CofG at best, and that was not using full chat (we had reduced power, to create the stall).
And if the stall is not easily recoverable with engines at max thrust, then why no stick pusher? (Or why no auto thrust reducer....?)