As part of certification the Boeing 747-800 Cargo undergoes stall tests to certify a natural, helping and controllable aircraft reaction under stalled condition
@realDominik586; 747 has so many millions of miles, very few aircraft-related fatalities, and, as a Pax, many, many flights, even though (maybe because of) it's very old design, it's very comfortable to fly in, more comfortable in turbulence than any other that I've traveled in...so, the comfort and confidence that I feel, as a Pax, seems reflected in crew feeling.
It's construction, and that was back in the day when Boeing engineering meant something, apparently that has all changed. We as cabin crew had Stickers on our suitcases, "IF IT'S NOT BOEING, I'M NOT GOING !!" Now? ......
Aircraft like this tend to "mush" on slow speed stalls. The wings have stopped flying, but there is still forward momentum. Failing to correct the stall and continuing to pull back on the stick would creating a higher rate of descent with a nose high attitude. Autoslats and such technology kick in as you approach the stall, then stick shaker, then wings stalled. Stalling doesn't involve any "plummeting" unless you fail to recover correctly. Its also a bit misconceiving as they lost some height during this test, but due to the aircraft's size its not that obvious. Furthermore, aircraft like this are aerodynamically designed to behave well in these situations. In a light aircraft you can lose 300-400ft in stall practice, and 600-700ft in spin practice.
But there’s even bigger profit margins to be made by cutting costs and using cheaper materials! Sure, you’ll have to pay out millions in legal settlements because people will get hurt, but you make back BILLIONS!
I used to know a Boeing engineer who flew on many test flights before delivering the planes to the customers. He said the rides were "wild" to say the least.
I dont know why, i really like to see planes stall up high like this. Im oddly fascinated in how it looks. It started with the F6F Hellcat stall demonstration, i just couldnt stop watching.
@@JustSayN2Ogravity holds the air around earth creating the atmosphere, that we need to produce wings and lift. However in theory without an atmosphere you can fly with rockets and have no drag. You wouldn't be able to use control surfaces to steer tho you would need like gyroscopes and shit to spin and orient the craft. And it's less fuel efficient. Cuz normal planes also need the air to use in the engines to burn their fuel. Rockets have to carry oxygen in some chemical form with them, which adds weight and so is way less efficient. Airplanes get "infinite" oxygen when flying in the atmosphere.
It should actually be the other way around because when the Stall is developed, the aircraft is no longer “gravity-defying” but rather in Gravities grasp until recovery…😉
Same was true for the similarly massive C5. Thing recovered impressively well in these scenarios. Wonder if it's due to these planes' massive wing surface areas?
The C5 was wild to fly in. Sitting backwards seemed odd. Smooth flight. The size is probably a big part of both. It was crazy how many helicopters and other vehicles that fit inside of one. Good times.
You can force a stall by pulling back (applying "back pressure") on the control column without increasing power. When the aircraft stalls, you stop pulling back (relax back pressure) and just let the control column return to its centre position, its "neutral column" position. A well balanced aircraft will recover from the stall without any dramatic movements. Does that help?
Another example of this light touch control, not the same physics/forces involved, is when you're driving and make a U-turn. When you pull through the turn to roughly 140 degrees or so, common practice by experienced drivers is to relax hand pressure on the steering wheel along with light pressure on the gas pedal (thrust), and the car tires will return to a nearly straight path forward. The driver then makes final correction inputs to resume forward direction of travel.
And such a fantastic job, still a fine aircraft, too bad that cheap and nasty win out in the world of "shareholder value"... And, before people jump up and tell me that I wouldn't pay more, I *HAVE PAID MORE* for a long-haul flight on 747, when given the choice... even pay more to fly LH or KLM, instead of United or Delta (also because I hate having USA customs grill me as if I want to sneak into the USA, even though I'm in transit... The whole experience makes me happy to pay more to avoid that!
I remember having to stall my plane ( power on and off ) for flight checks and saying to myself why would I ever fly like that ? Most stalls occur on landing and , as it has it , are unrecoverable from.
The stall horn is blaring for what feels like an eternity on the 172 before it ever stalls. And doing a power on you can barely feel it break. I would recover as soon as I heard the horn, I would never wait that long.
What a load of nonsense. Newer Boeing planes are perfectly safe, maybe you should stop falling for the lies. The MAX family and the 787 are fantastic planes and will continue safe operation far into the future.
@@NecessaryDramaAddictionNDA 1 plane out of thousands LOL. Millions of people will continue to fly on these planes each year. I'm flying on one next week and not worried about it at all. I choose not to live in fear, aviation is the safest it's ever been and will continue to be safe even if the media keeps stirring up a bunch of drama for clicks.
@@waterboy74Run like hell to the farthest emergency door they can get to at back of plane to be clear of engines, by then they would be at a safe altitude to jump. Or if the 747's have a rear cargo door like military planes have to load vehicles in, if its possible to make it back in time that would be the best place to jump from.
@@allananderson949 Im just just going from the assumption that would be the safest thing incase any of them have power and you get sucked into the front. Even if they weren't on the fan would probably still be spinning just from moving through the air and I'd still be scared of getting chopped up by the blades
The stick shaker is only a warning that you are close to a stall. Many swept wing planes twist the tips down. Look at the missile rails on an FA-18A from the side. This allows the forward part of the wrong, closest to the fuselage, to stop generating lift first. The tips still have airflow over the ailerons and the nose can be lowered to get air over the wing again. Without the twist, the tips lose lift first. No aileron control and the lift generated near the fuselage makes it difficult to get the nose down.
@@ronaldkonkoma4356 thank you for the details, very interesting. What about the elevator during a stall, does it have sufficient authority to push the nose down?
You can hold a high AOA with it and maintain the stall if you enter it gently enough. As he said, reduce back pressure, and AOA lowers enough to get air flow over the wing again. The only time you need forward pressure is the original swept wing planes. Without the wing twist, the lift would be forward of center of gravity, so the nose will not come down on its own. But then you enter other problems with roll and yaw because at the time, the engines weren't powerful enough at certain throttle settings to get back up to speed.
A T-tail (at the top of the vertical stabilizer) can get into the turbulence of the main wing in a deep enough stall. That will cause it to lose effectiveness.
It's already been done, survivably, thanks to the sheer balls of a British flight deck crew. The secret lies in the British sang-froid: Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Captain speaking. We have a slight problem in that all four engines appear to have stopped working! We are currently working on the problem....
@@mro9466 yeah, sometimes you just need the right amount of altitude to do dangerous things like a full stall test and because if it was a full stall test, the fuselage might snap due to how powerful the drag is or because it might like British airways that kept on stalling and didn’t’t recover.
Well, a controlled stall, a test stall, a practice stall like these guys were doing is hardly ever what happens in real flight. Their test only simulates a perfectly simultaneous two engine failure with wings level. What happens with a 1 engine sudden flame out, a take off stall, wrong flaps and speed and elevation stall, hydraulic failure loss of control, EEC failure.
@@stevebeegreat Nonsense. There are innumerable videos and crash analyses where stalls are unforeseen, unmanageable, unrecoverable. It all depends on the cause and what methods/tools are available to counter a stall warning. I doubt that either autopilot or manual operation fairs better under the whole range of possibilities. Autopilot can only do so much automatically. Pilots can only do so much manually. Besides, a stall is usually preceded by other warnings which point to a stall condition approaching -- and sometimes may not, if the pilot does not notice his settings anomalies If early warnings are not seen, and/or cannot be countered, the stall may end up being non-recoverable. Eg, engine flame out is very different to blade loss or whole engine ripped off. My original post still stands correct. Rehearsed stalls prove nothing.
These aren't proper stalls, as in what happens when pilots become confused and make mistakes, ie, pull up until the plane falls out of the sky. They don't test these type of stalls because they put the plane and pilots in extreme danger.
Playing MSFS2020, the 747 is my favourite aircraft. Flew a lot of different types of planes and especially the lighter, single prop planes are tricky. But the 747 is a very 'instinctive' flying plane. Couldn't stall this plane by accident. It just wants to fly. This made landing properly a challenge at first though.
0:18 “ I merely relaxed pack pressure on the column, to neutral column, and the airplane recovered fine” It’s a disgrace that the flying pilot of the Air France A330 that fell into the Atlantic from 35 thousand feet didn’t have this understanding.
A different situation and scenario. The A330 had unreliable airspeed indications but that said had they flown the aeroplane using pitch attitude and thrust they would have survived rather than killing everyone on board......
@@JML272 As far as I understand the control system of the AirFrance aircraft had reverted to the most basic of modes, with the elevator deflection being directly proportional to the side stick position. As such if the pilot flying had just let go of the side stick at first sign of the stall the aircraft would have recovered itself. The entire industry has changed the stall recovery and jet upset technique training, even for basic non fly by wire aircraft such as Boeing 737s and 767s etc.
@@mitseraffej5812 All true. But, far too simplistic a summation in my view and makes the whole event seem so bloody easy to fix. There was a LOT going on in that cockpit and much of it was all at once. Do you fly the Bus? Did you read the CVR? YES, we've changed the way we teach these days and a lot of that is a direct result of the AF crash.
@@lbowsk Nope, I’m Boeing through and through. The outfit I work for is going Airbus but I’m thinking I will be retired or out because of medical before it’s my turn. Kind of hope so as I’m not that keen on learning anything new after all these years, unless it’s a new fishing knot or rig.
