Thank you!! You are far to kind! 😃

@@MentourPilot More like 11/10. If I don't get my renewable energy engineer job then commercial airline pilot is my alternative. Cheers mate!

@@MentourPilot Definetely you are, sir! You really deserve it!

@@MentourPilot, wrong. It is well deserved, Sir.

Sure it's quality content. The ads turn your 10/10 to 3/10. Downvoted

LOL

Awesome!

Reman1975 brilliant, love it :)

Epic comment, thx for doing my morning lol

This would actually possibly work.

To avoid the stall,you must fell the stall..😜

Yeah compare stalling a cessna to an airliner

@@andreighitescu586 I've never flown an airliner, lol.

I remember when my instructor was basically saying the same thing as they were bringing the engine to idle

@@sr-dt3pl kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkm

@@snackler6102 sponsored by the angel of death

@@snackler6102 Pilots may have been wishing they had worn their pull ups that day.

@@snackler6102 that has to be the best comment haha. Providing you meant pull ups as in the nappies

"don't sink"

yeah, this dogs are brilliant

I think he also lost power.

Lol

Or he entered a super stall just above the couch and never recovered it. lol

He was trying to activate the stick shaker.

Elli P Interesting story! The Virgin Galactic spacecraft uses a similar tailboom stabilising mechanism during descent.

Had something similar.... a 'bungy' based launch system, which would trigger the rudder so that the glider would circle. And then a thermal fuse which would trigger the stall after a length of time.

That is definitely a good mechanism to in stall.

Interesting application. I guess it can be useful as long as the plane is unmanned.

That's really cool!

@Agent J agreed. This applies to so many aspects of life.

RIP Chuck Yeager. My first hero.

Funny enough, one of his closest calls was in a plane that was notorious for getting in to a deep unrecoverable stall - the F-104 Starfighter.

Yea...but think of passenger aircraft,like a320... passengers will fly like another aircraft inside fuselage.

@@sr-dt3pl They should be wearing their seat belts. I rarely take mine off, I trust the airline and the pilots, but no turbulence.

Suggest respectfully that you go for more lessons: spins and spiral dives are different things-with different recoveries. Hence the need for lessons. Happily I’m both a flying instructor, and I have a Pitts S2a, an ideal platform for such lessons! Cheers, Paul Stanley

That man was shitting bricks 😂

This showed up after i looked up the pulova 621 cvr. It was a super stall and you can hear the pilots panicking and screaming as they are about to hit the ground

@Homo Quantum Sapiens Ah those people who never read the manual!

@Homo Quantum Sapiens I wish I had such a great sense of humor as you do

@@AngelCanseco1 I don't know anything about this..........was it a happy ending? ....

Stephanie no, horrible screaming

Wow why would he not speak to you ? Was he too embarrassed

The problem with school is when you don't see the relevance of how you'd ever use that in real life. Sometimes you need to be given some "fun" examples to keep the child's attention.

maybe if teachers got paid like successful youtubers... ;)

@@scrrification Yep maybe. But I had some extraordinarily good teachers that weren't paid that much.

Ok wash. Try not to get a reaver spear thrown through you

@@Demonslayer20111 going by Mentour's explanation I'd be more likely to hit the ground first :/

Oooh, that's a good one comrade!

And technically correct

@@christhirion9474 I'm pretty sure airflow doesn't "defect" like some Soviet pilots did.

I don't understand how a lot of pilots managed to ignore all this when found out during a crash

@@FutureBoyWonder Depends on a lot of factors. Fatigue is one I know of. Example: Colgan Air Flight 3407, where an exhausted flight crew was mentally unable to correctly interpret the warnings, and ended up causing the Stall themselves.

MCAS: _Nothing to see here_

@@joez.2794 indeed, nothing to see here - avoidable crashes.

*laughing in Airbus alpha protection*

The F14 issue was mainly at low speed during approach to landing. It would get a compressor stall if slipped or skidded on the turn to final, while also being below single engine maneuvering speed(which was high due to wide engine placement), so quickly adding power to the good engine would actually cause or increase a spin. All while 200 feet above the water.

The general unreliability of the TF30 didn't help much in that area, either.

I'm sure I read "flying sheep" in that comment.

On this channel I always try and teach something new!

There's a few; T-Tails can blank their elevators with their wings, and planes with perfect centre of gravity can flat spin with no ability to correct.

@@TheEDFLegacy Uähh... Flat spins, this is what i'm afraid of! I do some glider aerobatics and sometimes i spin the glider, the SZD-59 for example, spins realy nice. But a flat spin, this is pure horror!

@@TheEDFLegacy And not just tails. In the trijet days, sometimes the inlet for the rear engine would fall into the aerodynamic shadow of the plane, rendering it unable to perform. If I am not mistaken, Gulfstream made the tails on their jets taller to avoid this over the years.

Yeah, the bathroom stall.

i read that just as he said , it .

I need to research this more.. It certainly would makes sense in a logical first-pass. I presume increased drag is the rational behind their lack of use?

@@topiasr628 Canard are aerodynamically complex and take a lot of careful design to function properly. In general the benefits are not seen to warrant the increased design / construction / maintenance costs.

Hi Daniel! That makes me so happy to hear! Welcome to the channel.

He is too good. Thanks for noticing.

When I go to the practice area and play, uh, practice stalls I want to be at least 3000' AGL.

747, no. Just me?

Low and slow make's the warning lights Glow 😏

The second sentence was intentionally omitted. I'll reinsert it for clarity...... "The aircraft will fly like a leaf ... to the ground. It will then act like a bomb."

GaryNumeroUno I have heard that assertion, and it has an element of truth!

I think you'll find that every aircraft with a stick pusher, the crew were advised of its existence and how to manually override it (pull harder) and cancel it, as part of their type training.

cr01 Precisely the difference from MCAS.

Turn to tight and the inner wing will stall before the outer, this is why pilots are taught let it slip around turns at low level rather than use too much rudder :)

Your relaxed pooches help create a soothing atmosphere for the subjectively tense and technical presentation of aviation mishaps.

dragonex814 then you will stall from the bottom to the top ....stall to Mars or the moon

Thank you!!

he "took you for a spin" -well that can be dangerously misinterpreted

lol stay in school kiddo

Theoritically you can do this. Practically you will have to get the passengers quickly moving up a slope in rough conditions without panic. Quite a challenge.

I, as a passenger in this situation, would be willing to try this.

@@jimbeaux4988 It is not so much about will. more about implementation.

@@roichir7699 "Free drinks in first class for everybody!!!"

probably too expensive or wouldn't be useful enough to justify fitting them

They did WHAT

@@232K7 I kid you not.

Link?

@@matejlieskovsky9625 You're not going to believe this but occasionally there are no links to things that happened well before the Internet. As well, I once read a verified report of a Globe Swift (IIRC) that had a propeller blade depart and shortly thereafter the engine followed the propeller's example. The pilot was able to regain control during the ensuing loop and successfully got the aircraft on the ground intact (or what remained of it). I once, by virtue of faultless stupidity, managed to half snap roll a Cessna 150 upside down at no more than 50 feet off the ground. I did not crash, and went on to a long career of less stupid aviation. I have no link I can send you but it did happen.

I'm a year late but I have to say, I love the way you write. It is very entertaining and to the point. I would imagine that people like listening to you speak irl. :)

Eli Wesley haaaaaa🤣🤣🤣! I have one with valley girl accent too... Liiiiiike i think wee R gonna totally stall!!!

@Kyros - actually, it wocks

Welcome to British English

Eli Wesley Ya got a stall goin on ofver dare... pull up doont ya know!

@@cranjismcbasketball2118 push down, push down

Indeed. It is a popular and dangerous misconception which seems to be taught that "only T-tailed aircraft can enter a deep stall" and I even noticed one experienced pilot commenting on the AF447 incident that "the aircraft was not in a deep stall because it is not a T-tailed aircraft". Any aircraft can enter a deep stall if the horizontal stabiliser is stalled in addition to the wings. I'll repeat that. Any aircraft can enter a deep stall! The combination of a swept-wing and T-tail is most susceptible to a stall, due to the poor stall characteristics of the swept-wing as described here (alongside the shift forwards of the centre-of-pressure as the AOA increases on most wing designs, not mentioned here) and the turbulent flow over the horizontal stabiliser reducing elevator authority. However, any T-tail or swept wing is susceptible to a deep stall and even a non-swept wing craft under the right conditions could experience a deep stall. As Ralph mentioned, vertical sheer/extreme updrafts which result in an abrupt change to the angle of attack can in theory stall the horizontal stabiliser and it is possible that this is what was encountered by both AA8501 and AF447 since both planes climbed beyond their performance capabilities at high altitudes, suggesting that they encountered updrafts which resulted in a high vertical speed (this is mentioned in the reports as a possibility but NOT directly linked with a necessary change in the AOA). This type of stall is doubly dangerous as the abrupt transition from normal flight to a deep-stalled condition would not result in a stall-buffet as the airflow would detach from the entire upper surface of the wings and canards at once. This makes the deep-stalled condition even more difficult for pilots to diagnose. We may never know if AA8501 and AF447 were in deep-stalled conditions, as the pilots flying failed to recognise the stalled condition at all until too late. The response of AF447 to side-stick inputs and rudder commands by the FO during the final seconds of flight indicate that a deep-stall was probable and had the SO pushed forward on the stick it may have had no effect whatsoever, but since he didn't we can only speculate. Nevertheless, it seems shocking to me that so many pilots believe the myth that not all craft can enter a deep-stall. Modern aircraft are returning to designs where the body and nacelles produce a significant fraction of the total lift. In a stall-condition, this lift is a stabilising factor which helps to prevent rolling and yawing motion during the stall which could lead to a spiral descent. However, in a deep-stalled condition, this lift can stabilise the craft in a gliding descent with nose-up attitude, keeping the horizontal stabiliser in a stalled condition. Tricky business...

I agree with what you are saying. Flying should be illegal. It’s just too dangerous

Steve; Were those super stall recovery parachutes installed on production passenger carrying Tridents or were the pilots just told "Don't do that!"?

No, they only used them one time AFAIK at Hawker Siddeley during the proving phase of the development. I knew someone who was involved in the testing.

One of the saddest accidents I have read about. Because of the lack of C.V.R, we can only guess as to who exactly retracted the droops. Due to the probable incapacitation of Captain Key, the aircraft did not reach flap-retraction speed, and the lack of visible cues and experience of the 1st and 2nd officer did not help either.

​@@Vincent_Sullivan The Tupolev 104, being based on bomber, had a parachute to help it stop as its brakes were dire and had no reverse thrust. It also had swept wings and wing fences to stop the lateral air drift...

It is pretty much similar, but much better executed

Great! I’m so happy you liked it!

Stalled a glider at low altitude when landing - once only. That was a nervous few moments! Paid more attention after that :-(

Thank you!! I’m so glad you like it!

No, thank YOU sir. Your the absolutely fantastic one here! 😊

P51 was the first plane with laminar flow wings. It was the secret of its huge range (=low drag) but a real problem when the flow ceases to be laminar ...

Thank you! You too!

I'm transitioning to a PA28 next month. I hear they have very nice stall behavior, at least the older models without any wing taper.

Indeed, deep stall was discovered on the BAC 1-11 after a fatal crash during flight tests, and a number of other aircraft have crashed during flight testing due to deep stalls.

yeah i'll just enter a flat spin to set up procedures to get out of it if I'm not completely absolutely without question totally beyond any meaningful help overwhelmingly (duck)ed

Jordi Tribo Everything about MCAS on the MAX touches on points addressed in this video, longitudinal stability, horizontal stabiliser, and elevator effectiveness.

Gordon Richardson And undermounted engines that are too large and throw off the center of gravity

Can't help but think the "sticky pusher" could have been a better alternative to the MCAS, but it would have required pilots training...

@@woongah someone tried to save cost then...... 🤔

@@roku_nine - Not so simple, much more roundabout and sneaky than simple penny saving. Using a sticky pusher would have made the 737 pretty much a different aircraft, in terms of certification process. It meant adding years to the MAX time-to-market, leaving too many companies tempted to buy the Airbus A320 NEO, which could be an issue down the road as most small companies tend to use planes from a single manufacturer, because it simplifies logistics. So, once an Airbus is inside a company... Boeing was so much in a hurry that they went with a botched automatic system that used a single AOA sensor, something that they likely knew had to be re-implemented down the line - as they did with a somewhat similar system used in the NG - but at the moment sped things up, as a single sensor system could be certified much faster. We all know how that turned out. If Boeing had accepted the inevitable delay and just went with a dual-input MCAS from the start - i.e. the fix that they are developing - we'd would all be just in awe of how gorgeous the MAX looks with his badass big engines...

Les Turner correct, on aircraft that have the horizontal stabilizers behind and slightly above the wing (the sheer majority), upon any major upset, the stabilizer will be freed from wing wash. If i’m not mistaken, however, the horizontal stabilizer can itself stall, rendering the elevator’s up authority ineffective. Note the Saab 340 and Metro’s that have the ‘cruciform’ tail. Can be deep stalled, at a higher angle than on a low mounted stabilizer, yet far lower than a T Tail (the purpose of which is either to clear tail mounted engines, or clear turbulent and highly variable prop blast.

And if I also recall, the propwash won't be hitting the horizontal stabiliser then either. But, I'm not 100% certain

Upsetraygun2 T Tail in deep stall? I would doubt it, the prop wash would still be blown roughly parallel to the engine’s axis, though would also be blown backwards with the still forward speed of aircraft, though the differental of prop blast speed to rearward speed would be so high, would likely pass behind the aircraft well below the stabilizer. The advantage of propellor over turbofan engine is that a turbofan can get compressor stall, and even be completely blocked, by high angle of attack at low airspeeds, a propellor however, being completely unconfined, really doesn’t care from which direction the air is coming, given that it is sitting completely unconfined, in it.

@@jaysmith1408 That's what I meant sorry bad phrasing. With the horizontal stabiliser directly aft of the prop, such as a c172 for example. You should be able to increase your throttle to create lift over the elevators. Where as with T-tails you can't.

Upsetraygun2 no worries, if i’m not mistaken, there is an advantage to having the stabilizer in the clear of prop blast, clear undisturbed air, less blown debris, not behind any fuel, oil, ice, other miscellaneous parts that have grown tired of being attached to the aircraft. However, primarily, this is disputed for extra weight, control complexity, and as you said, does not have the advantage of prop blast. The downside to the C172 method, is similar to the issue with the lockheed electra’s wing. The electra has massive propellors, and a fairly small wing. On good days, the propellors spin, effectively creating its own lift. On bad days, the propellors create drag, no thrust, and highly turbulent air, where the aircraft would almost fly better with the entire engine missing. Once the propwash is gone, so is the gross majority of the lift. At this point it’s the Ford/FCA/GM debate, six of one, there are different methods, they all work, depends on the application. As well, as demonstrated with flow separation, the advantage of being downstream of the propwash, is just that, only when directly downstream, minimal angle of attack. At a higher angle of attack, the stabilizer will no longer be downstream of the propellors, the flows from the propellors, and over the stabilizer, would be parallel, and adjacent.

Richard Reed There are similarities, which Boeing were denying, because a stick pusher requires more certification changes, and type specific training.

@@gordonrichardson2972 very true. I bet they wish they could turn back time and pay out for that training now!

Add to this that when you stall the wings and stabilizers you also stall the engines… So it's even less possible to recover from that.

And 1985 as well. It’s sad that Tu-154 never had yoke pusher installed, it could have prevented the deadliest disaster in history of the Soviet Union

you mean Pulkovo 612? Yeah, that was horrifying, a super stall and a subsequent flat spin.

737 max proved you correct

@@jrgenramdahl123 not sure the max crashes were due to stalling, quite the opposite actually.

If it happens in the flare you've just landed.

@@dr_jaymz No it does not , if it did you would came down with one hell of a bang ! In effect drop out of the sky . This is not recommended by the manufactures . :-)

@@welshpete12 yeah falling out of the sky voids your warranty 😬🤣

A stall at less than 1000 feet will only give you time to become religious, no matter the plane.

​@@bogdan_n I've recovered dozens of stalls with only 100ft of altitude lost, with and without flaps and power from full to idle,(starting at 2000ft) but I agree its best to avoid stalls near the ground. The design and loading of the plane matters quite a lot, a swept wing plane usually needs closer 1000ft because they tend to stall near the wingtips and because the higher airspeed typical of a swept wing design just increases the rate of everything including descent. Also flown tens of miles at the edge of stall, mushy controls due to low airspeed and the warning horn can get annoying, this is to simulate being too slow on approach or departure. Both are a standard part of training for all levels of pilot certification in the USA.

@@mytech6779 i didn't mean an "approaching stall", a "near stall", a "hint of stall". I meant a stall, a total loss of lift, and pitch authority.

@@mytech6779 : "dozens of stalls" Me: Remind me never to fly with you. Also I would say, Note to self: don't stall to begin with.

@@kyle333halfevil it's a part of flight training. There actually fun