LYKA,
1. Not quite as simple as that. It is easy to confuse the geometric body angle (as in what the ADI says) with the aerodynamic situation. About all you can say is that, with the altitude and speed constrained, the increased CL for a given alpha (with high lift devices extended) will require a reduction in aerodynamic angle of attack with a corresponding reduction in ADI pitch attitude. To go beyond that you would need to have a look at the particular situation.
TE flaps tend to "lift" the basic wing's CL-alpha curve to a higher CL value at each alpha. LEDs tend to extend the basic wing's curve (with or without TEDs, as appropriate) to higher values of both CL and alpha before the separation roll off becomes evident. This is seen clearly in any basic text, as you would be aware.
3. Declared data is a matter for what the airport authority wishes to permit within the requirements of airports Design Standards.
Generally, clearway will permit an increase in RTOW up to a point where the declared TORA becomes limiting (at which stage additional clearway is of no use). V1 depends on what the intention is for the takeoff analysis and an assessment of all the story, not just the runway declared distances. However, if you were looking to compare the situation between, say, a runway with and without clearway but with the same declared TODA, then you would normally expect to see a lower V1 used in the case with clearway declared.
4. Stopway is nomally included in ASDA, and TODA by virtue of clearway. Generally, the clearway declared will extend beyond the stopway declared and result in an increase in TODA above ASDA.
5. Service ceiling normally is defined as the level where the aircraft has a small residual climb capability, absolute ceiling is of little practical interest.
6. A jet does not usually demonstrate the significant difference which you may see with a propeller aircraft between engine failures on one wing compared to the other. For practical piloting purposes, there is usually no critical engine as such.
The main concern with crosswind during the takeoff is in respect of what is happening in the region of min V1 (which relates to Vmcg). Although there are differences depending on which rules are in vogue for a particular certification, the declared Vmcg relates to light wind conditions.
If there is a strong crosswind, then the directional stability of the aircraft will provide either a stabilising (in the event that the failure is on the lee side) or destabilising (failure on the windward side) yawing moment. So, from a practical pilot's viewpoint, the worry is with a failure on the windward side during a takeoff predicated on V1 being around V1min.
The early 125s had some problems with directional characteristics and the previous post comment is acknowledged. Those aircraft, as I recall, also had Va predicated on rudder input rather than elevator.
The real concern is looking to see whether you can structure the operation to avoid the need for a min V1 takeoff in conditions of strong crosswind.
As a rule of thumb, the declared Vmcg will increase by around half the crosswind.
In the situation where the aircraft takeoff is based on minV1 in strong crosswind conditions, a critical speed failure during the takeoff might well result in the aircraft being directionally uncontrollable unless the operating thrust is reduced. In practice, if control proved to be inadequate, the only reasonable option would be to initiate an RTO.
If the scheduled V1 is greater than the wind corrected Vmcg by any appreciable margin, then the problem becomes progressively insignificant.
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 06 July 2001).]