Lead Balloon, you wrote:
" demonstrated crosswind limit" actually means the crosswind that an aircraft has been demonstrated as being able to land without structural failure, if the pilot applies no control inputs to counteract the crosswind in any way.
I say cobblers.
As has already been stated in this thread, I do laugh at those who seem to be suggesting that the certification basis for aircraft that have been around for decades is ascertainable against contemporary test guidance...You seem to be suggesting that that is the certification basis for every aircraft ever certified, from Tiger Moth to A380.
Don't be silly. This thread was specifically started on the basis of the demonstrated x-wind in the AFM. So that's a clue that we are actually talking about the situation where the aircraft was indeed tested to asses its x-wind performance during the certification process. I quoted the AC 23 Flt Test Guide because it is so clearly the most relevant doc in the context of this thread - being appllicable to GA and commuter aircraft.
So, just to be clear, are you now saying that your original post in this thread:
" demonstrated crosswind limit" actually means the crosswind that an aircraft has been demonstrated as being able to land without structural failure, if the pilot applies no control inputs to counteract the crosswind in any way.
...didn't apply to the Metro of the OP and you were actually referring only to aircraft certified before the 0.2 Vso became a requirement? Also when was that out of interest?