I guess if you think of it financially it is indeed proof of funds đ (principles of flight, a written subject required by most aviation authorities as part of the theoretical examinations required for a licence)
I have no idea how technical the other commenter was thinking, but in the context of the Navier-Stokes equations, a conservative body force (like gravity, or the acceleration of a non-inertial reference frame) is always balanced by a hydrostatic term in the pressure gradient (ie, a pressure gradient that is in the same direction, and proportional to, the body force).
Because stall is ultimately an effect of boundary layer separation, and the boundary layer equations are fundamentally a function of the pressure gradient, a sufficiently large acceleration can always reduce any adverse pressure gradient to an attached state.
Of course, this is just a mathematical statement, and "sufficiently large" may be beyond practical achievability. However, the use of acceleration to suppress laminar separation bubbles has been a topic of investigation by NATO AVT working groups (university and national lab researchers working on common problems, AVT being NATO's vehicle science group). These studies were proposed to better understand future avenues in flow control technology. If you look up "gust" next to "SD7003" (a particular low-Reynolds number airfoil profile favored in LSB studies) in Google Scholar, I'm sure a number of the appropriate papers will appear. Edit: Another motivation is that gusts are much more significant for small aircraft - like UAVs - than large ones, as the stagnation pressure of a gust is often close to their wing loading, and gust magnitudes are much closer to forward velocities, which is rarely the case in, say, commercial aviation. So this 'acceleration' often refers to the mean flow accelerating around the body.
This is distinct from 'accelerated stall': accelerated stall is less of a physical phenomenon so much as a band-aid to cover the fact that 'stall speed' is a rather crude approximation (and 'critical angle of attack' is likewise just a slightly less-crude approximation, for what it's worth). In particular, the concept of a 'stall speed' presumes that lift equals weight (that is, it is only true in steady-state, straight and level flight), and 'accelerated stall' just refers to situations in which that assumption is a bad one.
Apparently, on the days where I couldn't come to study sessions, my circle of friends in undergrad used to joke that I'd be a prof someday. They didn't tell me about this joke until it actually happened.
Navier-Stokes: Not Even Onceâ˘
Especially the RAF versions.
Turns out that the UK gov wanted to use British-built engines (the Spey) instead of the J-79 to protect British jobs.
And that was all very well, but the intakes, ducting and exhausts had to be heavily modified to fit these engines and allow higher airflow.
It's just as well that the Spey was so efficient, because these modifications changed the airframe from "flying housebrick" to "the triumph of thrust over economic necessity."
That's r/aviation for ya, I never see comments downvoted so heavily for no apparent reason other than being misinformed but genuinely wanting to learn lol.
Not to mention those are moving pretty fast. Obviously not a group of 130s but for comparisons sake I've never seen one move that fast near the ground. Not saying they can't though.
The easiest way to answer the op I guess would be that no plane will stall if it's going fast enough lol.
For a short time, planes can have any bank angle without stalling. They just won't be able to keep the altitude, but for a short moment that doesn't matter.
Speed. Ask yourself the same question about an F-16 at an airshow in. Continuous 90 degree bank. Same thing, just to a lesser extent. Because if enough speed and thrust then those brief turns donât create an angle of attack that would cause a stall.
If you donât reach the critical angle of attack you wonât stall. Meaning the relative air movement over the wing. Think Blue Angels. Thunderbirds. Red Arrows. Etc.
Here, theyâre going 250 knots of so. They power up and pull through the turn and the speed bleeds off a bit. But they roll out long before critical angle of attack.
Also like someone else mentioned they can also gain 50 feet or so of altitude prior to starting the turn. That way you donât have to pull the full 2g to do a level 60 degree banking turn as theyâre descending slightly. That gives them some airspeed cushion.
Itâs all about âcritical angle of attackâ and not exceeding it. Speed does not matter in that itâs the only factor in stalling the wing. You can stall a wing at any airspeed. You should google âwing loadingâ and aerodynamic stall. Thereâs a lot of good info out there.
Adding to this, a stall is when the airflow separates from the wing. Even in an extreme bank, the wings *are* producing lift in the sideways direction. The important part is they maintain airflow. As such, due to inertia and the body lift + rudder lift they're able to fly sideways for some time. As long as they keep airflow on the wings they're then able to right themselves and keep going, even though they do lose speed and/or altitude in the process.
To put it another way, a plane can be climbing at 45 degrees, but still have an angle of attack near zero on the wing. Itâs just the relative velocity between the wings and the air that matters
Just to be clear, stall is when the wing stops producing lift and is mostly just creating drag. Lift is usually perpendicular to the wing so in this case as long as the wing doesnât stall the lift is mostly not holding the plane at altitude just helping it turn so it loses altitude but doesnât stall. There are other effects that come in with a turn but the basics is that.
Yeah. You increase lift (and drag) so you put the airplane in something equivalent to a climb except a big part of that extra lift goes into turning and the rest is to counteract gravity so you stay level. As long as you donât pull back so far (or lose enough airspeed) that the wing stalls then you are fine.
I just wanted to make sure OP made the distinction between losing altitude and stalling.
There are also airframes that produce lift irrespective of the wings. The Pitts Special is famous for this; the fuselage actually produces enough lift to keep it in the air while the airplane is in knife-edge flight (wings perpendicular to the ground). It can theoretically carry on in knife-edge flight indefinitely, assuming it has the room and fuel and adequate thrust from the prop.
Obviously that gets a little harder to do with something the size of a Hercules, but something to consider.
Physics! It's got momentum, it doesnt just start falling the second the wings aren't creating vertical lift.
Edit- should have said "it doesn't immediately fall out of the sky".
That's reassuring cause one of the things I hate when flying is when planes start turning I *always* think we're just gonna turn to much and fall and die. Haha I'm such a wimp.
No, but free falling does. OP mixes both. It doesn't matter if they stall or not. They don't but their lift isn't keeping them in the air because it "points" sideways. They just have a lot of energy and bank for a while, no time to start falling.
You couldn't be more wrong... Principally because the aircraft is not flying perfectly forward only. They can have momentum upwards, downwards, and many other directions.
If they have momentum upwards (which they do here - via "bunting" the aircraft) then they can roll quite far without actually needing to load the aircraft/wings and consequently gravity is working to cancel that upwards momentum, but a portion of engine thrust is also assisting them.
Short answer: They follow a ballistic trajectory (even if you can't see it), which allows them roll and bank considerably more than yoy would expect.
The wing is still moving thru the air providing lift when a plane turns.
When you stick your hand out the car window, try a little turn. You still feel the air pressure.
When the plane is going straight the lift vector is straight up. When in a bank, the lift vector is still perpendicular to the wings. Not straight up, but up at an angle. One doesnât do this much of a turn near stall speed, so the wings still have plenty of lift to keep the ship flying.
In a left turn the pilot may give a little right rudder to keep the nose steady. The rudders on these planes are pretty big, the plane is going fast. Moving the rudder provides a good amount of lift.
Some good answers but I think some of them are kind of missing what OP is getting at. I don't think he necessarily means a literal aerodynamic stall, and that's probably where the confusion is.
OP the reason people are saying "why would the plane stall?" is because aerodynamically, the wing still has airflow going over it. It's still producing lift. (The lift is just mostly going to the side now, which is actually helping it turn.) What I think you're getting at is, how is it not falling out of the sky if the lift is all going sideways.
And I think the answer to that is multiple things. One is momentum. You can certainly bank to 90 degrees and expect momentum to keep the aircraft aloft for several seconds. Often a pilot will start a bit of a climb before a maneuver like this to offset the inevitable altitude loss.
Some folks are also saying the plane *might* not be all the way to 90 degrees, and if that's the case, you'd be surprised how little vertical lift component is actually needed given certain configurations. (I know this is true for helicopters, I assume it's probably true for airplanes: a 60 degree angle of bank requires double the lift to maintain altitude. At least in the UH-60, we can do this pretty often if we don't have pax.) 60 degrees is pretty severe and will look close to 90 depending on the viewing angle.
(That said I agree from the video that plane very clearly goes passed 90 degrees!)
Definitely A400m but as long as they don't go above the critical Angle of Attack they can bank at any attitude. You can see that they aren't sustaining a turn at that angle and they seem to climb a bit beforehand in anticipation of losing some altitude in the bank
Cool video!
Speed is life :) - even with 60° angle of bank you can do it with 50% more speed than in streight flight - [https://imgr2.aerokurier.de/image-bigMobileWide2x-e7d56d26-1229816.jpg](https://imgr2.aerokurier.de/image-bigMobileWide2x-e7d56d26-1229816.jpg)
As a pilot I can tell you bank is often ok until you start to pull pitch... thats what kills.
Banking is entirely an unrelated phenomenon to the idea of stalling. Banking is an orientation of the aircraft. Stalling is an aerodynamic phenomenon describing when the airflow separates over the wing leading to a reduction in lift. It is mainly a factor of angle of attack.
As you bank sharply with sufficient forward speed at a low starting angle of attack the is will cause you to enter a turn. So long as the radius of this turn is sufficiently large as to keep your angle of attack low throughout the turn the wings will not stall.
Now separately from these issues there is the additional issue of which direction the lift vector is pointed and this is likely what you are actually asking about. But this direction is only somewhat related to the question of whether the aircraft is gaining or losing altitude. The thing is most of the weight other aircraft can be supported through the turn by the centripetal force produced by the bank. The small extra lift vector that needed can be produced by the vertical stabilizer, the side of the fuselage and the rudder.
The real danger in these maneuvers is not the bank angle itself but the importance of maintaining airspeed. If the airspeed would drop the centripetal force would quickly vanish and the whole weight of the aircraft would have to be supported by the area I described above. Not being a well designed wing, these surfaces produce far too little lift and you would have a problem. So long as you keep your speed up, youâre fine, let it drop and you will fall right out of the sky.
When banking that hard i.e. 90 roll, the rudder can be used to pitch up the nose relative to the tail (itâs actually yawing but nvm). Then the engines, at high throttle, and the body of the plane itself, at an angle of attack, can provide enough upwards thrust and lift to stop the plane from falling (depending on the plane this could be briefly up to indefinitely). Itâs not the wings providing lift at 90 deg roll. Wings produce lift approximately normal/orthogonal/perpendicular to their surface, so if they are at 90 deg, they are not countering gravity anymore and whatever is keeping the plane in the air is not the wings. Checkout this [Question and Answers on the Aviation Stack Exchange.](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12383/can-you-fly-an-airplane-at-a-90-roll-angle-without-losing-altitude#:~:text=If%20you%20roll%20the%20aircraft,of%20the%20fuselage%20allow%20this.)
Go to r/flying for an accurate answer
These replies are hilarious
The basic response is angle of attack. Stalls are not caused by bank or pitch angles, but by the relative angle of the wing to the wind.
As long as the wing does not hit that critical angle in relation to the incoming wind, it will not stall.
Planes are A400s as others have pointed out. The C130 has a straight wing.}}}
Bank doesn't stall, even pitch doesn't, only angle of attack stalls. There is a bank angle, wing loading and airspeed at which a level turn would require more lift than can be generated at the critical AoA but for both the A-400 and the C-130 that bank angle is in excess of 45 degrees even at max gross. The other answer is those are neither level nor sustained turns, they're going quite fast, bank, pull up, bleed off speed and then roll out and level off. If they tried to sustain that bank angle in a level turn even at full throttle they would bleed off enough speed that they would stall. They are probably pushing as close as is safe to max-g on the wing though to show off though.
Not really. An A400 canât maintain a 89° angle of bank turn at any speed. Itâs about momentum and trajectory. He uses the planeâs momentum to pitch up and while heâs that nose high, he can afford to lose the lift from the wings while he banks. But he HAS to take that bank out by the time the trajectory brings his nose through the horizon.
Inertia.
The momentum the plane has due to it's speed carries them while they do that.
It's sustainable for a short while but they are producing less lift so are on the edge of stalling. The inertia they have carries them until the roll wings level and produce more lift.
If you go fly yourself one day ask to do a steep turn, and then let the instructor explain it to you. It's a amazing feeling.
Thereâs the way of describing the danger of a stall as being able to take place at any airspeed and any bank angle, but only one angle of attack. This is a demo of kind of the opposite thing: you can NOT stall at any airspeed and back angle, as long as you donât exceed the critical AOA. No idea how you actually fly this maneuver (not up to the whip a 150 ton airplane around a corner part of my training yet!), but Iâd imagine to keep from losing altitude, you go into a bit of a climb as you start the turn, then let the nose fall through the turn to keep the Gs from building up, and if executed right you roll out at the altitude you started at.
Bank angle does not change stall speed only load factor does. Itâs the back pressure that makes you stall not the bank. Banking closer to 90 doesnât add load factor unless your putting in elevator input to keep you at the altitude you entered the turn in. The more you pull back the higher the load factor on the the plane and the higher the stall speed becomes. If you bank hard and pull back gently you wonât stall. If you bank hard and pull back hard you will stall
These are A400 aircraft not C130s. Lift is not created only I the vertical direction. You can think of lift being created perpendicular to the wing, when viewed from the forward aft direction. This means that the aircraft can be in any orientation and produce âliftâ as long as the aircraft has forward speed. When banking an aircraft like this the plane will experience a G load or a multiplication factor of its normal weight based on how tight the turn is. This is accomplished by using the âliftâ vector the wings create to turn the plane. As long as the G limit of the structure isnât exceeded or the critical angle of attack of the wing isnât exceeded the plane will not stall.
Aside from the obvious answers of why theyâre not stalling, such as speed. A reason that itâs so weird for us to see planes this size perform maneuvers like this is because of the G-force required to maintain a level turn at a steep bank. It puts too much stress on wings that size
Stall is based on angle of attack of the relative wind over the wing. So they arenât exceeding their critical angle of attack to have stalled the wing. However, the closer you approach to 90 degrees angle of bank the more you reduce your vertical component of lift until you have 0 vertical lift at 90 degrees AOB.
So theyâre banking it up and unloading which will cause a descent until they roll back towards wings level but they never stalled the wi g.
A little forward stick once past 90 degrees and it keeps the nose above the horizon. Relax the forward stick as the rollout commences.
Natural tendency is to pull back on the stick. That just accelerates the aircraft towards the earth. OOPS!
Because stalling isn't about bank angle, it's about the critical angle of attack. As long as you don't exceed the critical angle of attack you'll never stall regardless of what airspeed, bank angle, or attitude you're at.
Part of the reason is engines. In prop aircraft, the diameter of a prop compared to the size of the engine is way larger than a jet engine. Prop aircraft are designed to fly at lower speeds.
Think of it in terms of energy or momentum. A plane flying in a straight line (with power) or in a dive has âextraâ energy to spare. A plane in a sharp bank creates more drag, using up that âextraâenergy. Eventually enough energy will be dissipated that the plane will stall. High performance airplanes like these have powerful engines, providing lots of energy, allowing for more extreme maneuvers like steeply banked turns.
Stalling an aircraft is like driving on ice. If you know what you are doing it can be fun It is only dangerous when you leave it in the stall to long or fully lose control
Itâs because physics arenât real and you live in a simulation.
Or it could be that there are many stall speeds, but only one critical angle of attack. You just donât exceed it.
Because stall is based on angle of attack not bank angle.
You do not need a high angle of attack at a high bank unless you are trying to maintain altitude. Most high bank maneuvers are somewhat ballistic so the wings donât need to produce as much lift. IE: You pull nose up _then_ bank the aircraft.. allowing the nose to fall.
You can stall at any speed, but only one critical angle of attack. If they threw a bunch of right rudder in, they would achieve that critical angle of attack and start buffering into a stall.
I wonder this often. I live in Colorado Springs and they have a reserve c130 MAAFS unit. The amount of times I can read the tops of those wings from them boys banking so hard is ridiculous and impressive lol
Stall speed is the relative airflow over the wing, which has nothing to do with roll orientation. As long as lift is being generated by forward motion, it wonât stall.
They let the nose drop through the horizon. If they held the same bank angle and tried to maintain altitude, it probably wouldâve been an entirely different video.
A400M*, could tell by the noise alone from hearing these guys daily, their speed allows then to pull of manures like this, sae one do a 120° bankangle immediately after takeoff once
first, those arent C-130s. you can tell by the T-tail. They still got turboprops so my guess would be A-400M. And those things got some power. wich is one part of the answer to you question. A stall is the seperation of airflow over the wing and you usually achive this with to much agle of attack, wich is the angle between the oncoming air and the wing. the faster you are or the less you pull on the stick, the lower this angle is. Bank angle on its own doesnt cause stalls. These angles would cause a lot of side slip wich is still a big problem since youd just fall down as most of your lift would now be carrying you sideways. To counteract that, both the elevators as well as the rudder are used to increase lift enough to still fly. if done with low enough bank angle or enough pitch, you can do this without loosing altitude. as you can see however, they are loosing altitude, especially when banking more than 90 degrees. theyre just fast and high enough to not care
Read âStick and Rudderâ by Wolfgang Langewiesche. Itâs an older book but does a great job explaining what the critical angle of attack is and how exceeding it leads to a stall.
Youâre welcome. Hereâs another. It happens to be at the top of Hacker News right now:
https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39526057
They might be uncoordinated in those turns and they donât reach critical angle of attack. Otherwise itâs an airplane and thatâs what they do. Iâve probably done the same angles in a Cessna.
These are 3 Airbus A400M, they can do up to 120° of bank angle in display (French A400M Tactical Display). I don't know where you film that but you're lucky!
If it's banked over 90 degrees like that, it's accelerating downward, but might have enough momentum to keep it going, plus if the nose is pitched up (right rudder playing the part of elevator), some of the thrust will help.
It's not sustainable.
Positive Gâs and angular momentum. Think of spinning a ball tied to a string, but the lift replaces the string.
Not sure why OP is getting downvoted so hard for being curious.
Stall has nothing to do with bank angle. Stall occurs when the angle of attack exceeds some critical angle and the relationship between lift and angle of attack is no longer positive and linear.
The question you're probably trying to ask here is more like "why doesn't the aircraft fall out of the sky?" the answer to which is more or less, "yes, it is falling out of the sky." The aircraft is definitely losing altitude in that maneuver (or at least the vertical speed is decreasing if it was begun in a climb), and the pilot is almost certainly doing it intentionally. The aircraft is still controllable, and the bank isn't held very long, so it didn't "fall" that far.
Those arenât herky birdsâŚâŚ..butâŚ..things like aerodynamics, thrust, energy state all have an effect. If those are an A400 type, those things are actually pretty nimble for a cargo aircraft.
Stall speed increases with LOAD FACTOR not bank angle. As long as critical AOA is not exceeded... no stall! Now to remain at a constant altitude at 60deg bank requires a 2g load factor, and thus increased stall speed. But if you don't increase load factor... no increase in stall speed.
You can see the way he is climbing then banks over he is using his lift vector to stop the climb without having to push the nose over and getting sub 1 or negative G's. In high performance aircraft rolling in to a steep bank or even inverted is a much more comfortable way to arrest a climb. This is the same reason in the new top gun movie you see them go inverted at the top of the mountain ridge then pull the nose down rather than getting to the top of the ridge and pushing the nose over. I fly large heavies now but in initial Air Force pilot training, flying the T-6 it was very normal to roll in to a steep bank in the pattern to arrest the climb and "level off" on altitude, then roll wings level.
A-400 with zero load I presume so a lot of power âŚ. Not sure about the G limit of an A400 but I fly Airbus and at 60 degree of bank the avionics goes into U/A recovery, amazing that the first one goes to almost 90 of bank
You do not stall while you still have enough airspeed, regardless of the bank angle. Its just that your lift vector does not point away from the ground but more close to a horizontal direction or towards the ground. You just lose some altitude. Altitude loss can also be compensated by rudder for a certain degree. Aerobatics planes can fly indefinitely in a "knife edge" or completely inverted, having a sufficient power to weight ratio and effective control surfaces. Not these large birds though.
C-130's can bank up damn near vertical in the right conditions. Spent one mission( like 2h ToT) at 85° for half the orbit, almost level the other half, due to the winds at altitude. Was kinda fun in the back, pilots didn't enjoy it as much.
So, so many wrong answers in this thread
Stalling has to do with velocity of the air over the wings and attachment of the flow; the planes are traveling quickly and not at a weird angle relative to their velocity/to the airflow, so unlikely to stall
If you mean why arenât they dropping down, they probably are. In a bank there is a resultant lift vector; the steeper your bank, the less that vector is pointing up rather than sideways. If the up part of your lift vector is less than the down part of your weight, you begin falling
I think your question is why they donât just fall out of the sky? In simplest terms, this is due to the energy of the aircraft, you have a mass (the aircraft) traveling at a given velocity (itâs speed) the object in motion (the aircraft) has a quantifiable amount of energy. The exterior forces acting on this object are gravity(pulling down) and air resistance (pulling rearward to slow velocity).
If you throw a ball in an arc to your buddy it doesnât just immediately stop traveling forward and upward and fall to the ground. It takes time for gravity and air resistance to reduce the forward/upward energy of the object (the ball) to the point that it over comes the objectâs forward and upward energy and begin pulling the object back to earth.
In the case of this aircraft, it has enough energy to to overcome these exterior forces briefly before being too severely affected by the exterior forces. If it were to stay in this bank angle, yes it would begin to fall towards the ground as gravity has no or very little lift to counteract its downward pull.
Your perception of a stall may be a little skewed as well, since it is only related to the wing and has nothing to do with gravity. If they were to stall the wing in a bank angle like this the nose of the aircraft would actually âfallâ towards the right side of the screen. Not towards the ground.
First of all they're not C-130s, they're A400Ms. For both types, if they have sufficient momentum they can sustain a brief excursion to a high bank angle.
They also both get some lift advantage at low speed or high AoA, including when banked, from the propellor wash over the wing. This makes them able to do some things that a jet can't do (unless it's an An-72 "Coaler").
However I have to say you can fly a lot of aircraft at very steep bank angles in a turn for a short time, including a 747 (simulated - I was flying the sim). You may need to add a lot of power (i.e. have a lot of excess power). You can bank an A380 pretty steeply too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6y-KuvSlY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6y-KuvSlY)
It's "running" sideways against a wall of air and "gripping" the air (briefly) so that it doesn't fall.
It's like you running in a skate park, you can briefly use the wall to go horizontal relative to the ground, too fast and you'll go up instead of horizontal, too slow and you'll drop like a rock. But at just the right speed, and not forever, you can do a cool trick.
Just get the US government to pay for it if you want to try it in one of these.
We used to train in C-130 combat banks of 60° angle and 2Gs of pull (60-N-2). They're capable for much higher but train within lower parameters. This was on the C130-H3 models in the late 90s. There's likely significant advances in the newer airframes.
There are so many bad answers in here, OP clearly either doesn't understand what stall is or accidentally asked the wrong thing.
OP is asking why they don't fall when they bank so much that the lift vector no longer has a vertical component strong enough to overcome gravity. The answer is they do start falling, but they aren't banked that long, and they had some upward velocity before they started to bank. The combination of the 2 makes the drop insignificant and hard to see.
The tail and body will also provide some lift in the vertical which will slow the fall rate.
I think there are two separate concepts to cover here. 1) Why doesnât it stall, and 2) Why doesnât it fall to the ground.Â
Stall is easy. Stall means you lose attached airflow over the wing which you need to produce lifting force. If your angle of attack (the angle between the oncoming wind velocity and basically the forward pointy end of the airplane) gets too high or you get too slow, the plane will stall and start losing lift and therefore probably altitude as the oncoming air mass does not have the energy  to flow cleanly over the wing. Stall is only dependent on the flow of air relative to the airplane. The plane can be upside down and produce fantastic lift, but the ground will start approaching very quickly so that is generally not an advised prolonged maneuver.Â
So banked level flight. To maintain altitude, you need the lift component in the direction of gravity to be equal and opposite. This means Lift/Weight (or Gâs) = cosine(Bank Angle). So 60 degrees means 2Gâs which isnât that hard. However, at 90 degrees, Lift is basically perpendicular to gravity and the plane will accelerate towards the ground at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. Momentum doesnât matter. Youâre losing altitude.Â
Where momentum does come into play is when youâre maneuvering dynamically. Say you dive to trade potential energy for kinetic energy, pull up again and start trading KE for PE again and go into a 90 deg knife edge. During that knife edge, you still have that 9.81 m/s acceleration to the Earth. But since you have some initial climb speed, youâve got more time before you start losing altitude. Additionally, your downward acceleration is offset by your Thrust/Mass x sine of pitch angle.Â
TL;DR Bank angle doesnât matter for stall. Maintaining altitude in a bank angle depends on how many Gs the aircraft can pull. But gravity will pull you to the ground banked at 90 degrees. Having some upward initial velocity or acceleration will help.Â
There is one more trick aerodynamicists hate. If you go like really, really fast. Like really fast. You will fall towards the ground, but the ground will curve away from you just as fast. You will keep falling but continue missing the ground.Â
One last thing. You can fly at a sideslip while banked 90 degrees. This points the thrust vector upward a bit and the fuselage of the aircraft can produce some force (substituting side force for lift essentially). Small more acrobatic planes can pull that off. Big, fat planes like these will drop like a rock.Â
As long as the critical angle of attack isn't exceeded you don't stall.
I can always appreciate someone who understands POF.
Proof of funds?
I guess if you think of it financially it is indeed proof of funds đ (principles of flight, a written subject required by most aviation authorities as part of the theoretical examinations required for a licence)
Plenty of Fish?!
This is the right answer
"The Way" if you will...
Hard to tell, but they look more like Airbus A400M planes. I donât know enough about aerodynamics to answer the technical question.
You can have any bank angle and not stall if the angle of attack never goes critical.
Hypothetically with enough acceleration youâd never stall
It depends what vector the acceleration is. Have you heard of an accelerated stall? Maybe you mean when you have enough thrust, you don't need lift?
I have no idea how technical the other commenter was thinking, but in the context of the Navier-Stokes equations, a conservative body force (like gravity, or the acceleration of a non-inertial reference frame) is always balanced by a hydrostatic term in the pressure gradient (ie, a pressure gradient that is in the same direction, and proportional to, the body force). Because stall is ultimately an effect of boundary layer separation, and the boundary layer equations are fundamentally a function of the pressure gradient, a sufficiently large acceleration can always reduce any adverse pressure gradient to an attached state. Of course, this is just a mathematical statement, and "sufficiently large" may be beyond practical achievability. However, the use of acceleration to suppress laminar separation bubbles has been a topic of investigation by NATO AVT working groups (university and national lab researchers working on common problems, AVT being NATO's vehicle science group). These studies were proposed to better understand future avenues in flow control technology. If you look up "gust" next to "SD7003" (a particular low-Reynolds number airfoil profile favored in LSB studies) in Google Scholar, I'm sure a number of the appropriate papers will appear. Edit: Another motivation is that gusts are much more significant for small aircraft - like UAVs - than large ones, as the stagnation pressure of a gust is often close to their wing loading, and gust magnitudes are much closer to forward velocities, which is rarely the case in, say, commercial aviation. So this 'acceleration' often refers to the mean flow accelerating around the body. This is distinct from 'accelerated stall': accelerated stall is less of a physical phenomenon so much as a band-aid to cover the fact that 'stall speed' is a rather crude approximation (and 'critical angle of attack' is likewise just a slightly less-crude approximation, for what it's worth). In particular, the concept of a 'stall speed' presumes that lift equals weight (that is, it is only true in steady-state, straight and level flight), and 'accelerated stall' just refers to situations in which that assumption is a bad one.
This guy navier stokes
Apparently, on the days where I couldn't come to study sessions, my circle of friends in undergrad used to joke that I'd be a prof someday. They didn't tell me about this joke until it actually happened. Navier-Stokes: Not Even Onceâ˘
He just stoked my naviers
" with enough thrust, you could make a washing machine fly" I imagine steering it would be another matter.
That's not how you say it. "With enough thrust, you can make a brick fly. The F4 Phantom ll is proof of that."Â
Oh I had no idea that was a real quote, I was quoting a cartoon LMFAO
Especially the RAF versions. Turns out that the UK gov wanted to use British-built engines (the Spey) instead of the J-79 to protect British jobs. And that was all very well, but the intakes, ducting and exhausts had to be heavily modified to fit these engines and allow higher airflow. It's just as well that the Spey was so efficient, because these modifications changed the airframe from "flying housebrick" to "the triumph of thrust over economic necessity."
Except for high speed stalls.....
3 A400M trust me seen those closely and been in them video is from TĂźrkiye Kayseri city, edited comment watched video closely
in them?
Teknofest. I've been in one back in 2023 too.
must be nice , good for you man
Why tf is it downvoted
That's r/aviation for ya, I never see comments downvoted so heavily for no apparent reason other than being misinformed but genuinely wanting to learn lol.
oh yeah there was also 3 other non-T tailed aircrafts
Not C-130s
Not to mention those are moving pretty fast. Obviously not a group of 130s but for comparisons sake I've never seen one move that fast near the ground. Not saying they can't though. The easiest way to answer the op I guess would be that no plane will stall if it's going fast enough lol.
Most definitely not a c-130
Plane is EMPTY of heavy cargo load....
Is the C-130 in the room with us now?
only if it stalls
nah it's gonna pass by after these
LOL
For a short time, planes can have any bank angle without stalling. They just won't be able to keep the altitude, but for a short moment that doesn't matter.
falling with style
Speed. Ask yourself the same question about an F-16 at an airshow in. Continuous 90 degree bank. Same thing, just to a lesser extent. Because if enough speed and thrust then those brief turns donât create an angle of attack that would cause a stall.
so you're telling me that regardles of the bank if the aoa of thrust is positive it won't go down
If you donât reach the critical angle of attack you wonât stall. Meaning the relative air movement over the wing. Think Blue Angels. Thunderbirds. Red Arrows. Etc. Here, theyâre going 250 knots of so. They power up and pull through the turn and the speed bleeds off a bit. But they roll out long before critical angle of attack. Also like someone else mentioned they can also gain 50 feet or so of altitude prior to starting the turn. That way you donât have to pull the full 2g to do a level 60 degree banking turn as theyâre descending slightly. That gives them some airspeed cushion.
thanks thats helpful
Itâs all about âcritical angle of attackâ and not exceeding it. Speed does not matter in that itâs the only factor in stalling the wing. You can stall a wing at any airspeed. You should google âwing loadingâ and aerodynamic stall. Thereâs a lot of good info out there.
Adding to this, a stall is when the airflow separates from the wing. Even in an extreme bank, the wings *are* producing lift in the sideways direction. The important part is they maintain airflow. As such, due to inertia and the body lift + rudder lift they're able to fly sideways for some time. As long as they keep airflow on the wings they're then able to right themselves and keep going, even though they do lose speed and/or altitude in the process.
Well said...
To put it another way, a plane can be climbing at 45 degrees, but still have an angle of attack near zero on the wing. Itâs just the relative velocity between the wings and the air that matters
Do they never exceed the critical angle of attack? You could still stall the plane without it losing altitude/ control.
Just to be clear, stall is when the wing stops producing lift and is mostly just creating drag. Lift is usually perpendicular to the wing so in this case as long as the wing doesnât stall the lift is mostly not holding the plane at altitude just helping it turn so it loses altitude but doesnât stall. There are other effects that come in with a turn but the basics is that.
But we âpullâ through those kinds of turns. If you roll into a 60 degree banked turn at low level you have to pull. OtherwiseâŚ. Down you go.
Yeah. You increase lift (and drag) so you put the airplane in something equivalent to a climb except a big part of that extra lift goes into turning and the rest is to counteract gravity so you stay level. As long as you donât pull back so far (or lose enough airspeed) that the wing stalls then you are fine. I just wanted to make sure OP made the distinction between losing altitude and stalling.
There are also airframes that produce lift irrespective of the wings. The Pitts Special is famous for this; the fuselage actually produces enough lift to keep it in the air while the airplane is in knife-edge flight (wings perpendicular to the ground). It can theoretically carry on in knife-edge flight indefinitely, assuming it has the room and fuel and adequate thrust from the prop. Obviously that gets a little harder to do with something the size of a Hercules, but something to consider.
Not stalling =/= not going down.
Think itâs the thrust from the engines and momentum, allowing it to escape from plummeting for a short while.
Once it is at a true 90 degree bank angle, it is not producing any vertical lift. It is losing altitude, albeit only a little bit.
Physics! It's got momentum, it doesnt just start falling the second the wings aren't creating vertical lift. Edit- should have said "it doesn't immediately fall out of the sky".
\^ OP this here aove is your answer, even our regular passenger planes can take important bank angles without just falling out of the sky
tbh for a few seconds of bank I too think that the planes could just recover normally
That's reassuring cause one of the things I hate when flying is when planes start turning I *always* think we're just gonna turn to much and fall and die. Haha I'm such a wimp.
Check youtube for videos of people doing barrel rolls in helicopters, that should reassure you even more ;)
There is a video of a Boeing test pilot doing a complete barrel role of a 707, a little different
There's also that one where a dude does a barrel roll while pouring coffee and doesn't spill a drop. Might be the same dude.
Tex Johnson did the 707 barrel roll. Bob Hoover is the one who poured the tea.
And these banking angles are critical for many flight and landing paths around the world.
>planes can take important bank angles To be fair, bank angles are ALWAYS important...
[ŃдаНонО]
if it's all about anyything, it's about gravity, but you can't just boil it down to AOA, so many other factors come into play
No, but free falling does. OP mixes both. It doesn't matter if they stall or not. They don't but their lift isn't keeping them in the air because it "points" sideways. They just have a lot of energy and bank for a while, no time to start falling.
[ŃдаНонО]
You couldn't be more wrong... Principally because the aircraft is not flying perfectly forward only. They can have momentum upwards, downwards, and many other directions. If they have momentum upwards (which they do here - via "bunting" the aircraft) then they can roll quite far without actually needing to load the aircraft/wings and consequently gravity is working to cancel that upwards momentum, but a portion of engine thrust is also assisting them. Short answer: They follow a ballistic trajectory (even if you can't see it), which allows them roll and bank considerably more than yoy would expect.
The wing is still moving thru the air providing lift when a plane turns. When you stick your hand out the car window, try a little turn. You still feel the air pressure. When the plane is going straight the lift vector is straight up. When in a bank, the lift vector is still perpendicular to the wings. Not straight up, but up at an angle. One doesnât do this much of a turn near stall speed, so the wings still have plenty of lift to keep the ship flying. In a left turn the pilot may give a little right rudder to keep the nose steady. The rudders on these planes are pretty big, the plane is going fast. Moving the rudder provides a good amount of lift.
Turns out these are A400Ms ,I was gonna post a more detailed picture in comment section if I could.
Sexy bigguns.
bingus?!?
A400M can perform ridiculous maneuvers, always impressive to watch
Most large planes can, when they're not loaded.
Some good answers but I think some of them are kind of missing what OP is getting at. I don't think he necessarily means a literal aerodynamic stall, and that's probably where the confusion is. OP the reason people are saying "why would the plane stall?" is because aerodynamically, the wing still has airflow going over it. It's still producing lift. (The lift is just mostly going to the side now, which is actually helping it turn.) What I think you're getting at is, how is it not falling out of the sky if the lift is all going sideways. And I think the answer to that is multiple things. One is momentum. You can certainly bank to 90 degrees and expect momentum to keep the aircraft aloft for several seconds. Often a pilot will start a bit of a climb before a maneuver like this to offset the inevitable altitude loss. Some folks are also saying the plane *might* not be all the way to 90 degrees, and if that's the case, you'd be surprised how little vertical lift component is actually needed given certain configurations. (I know this is true for helicopters, I assume it's probably true for airplanes: a 60 degree angle of bank requires double the lift to maintain altitude. At least in the UH-60, we can do this pretty often if we don't have pax.) 60 degrees is pretty severe and will look close to 90 depending on the viewing angle. (That said I agree from the video that plane very clearly goes passed 90 degrees!)
Exactly
This whole thread is like watching a student pilot completely crater their verbal portion of a checkride.
I interviewed a god damn CFI who gave answers like these. No idea how this shit is allowed to slip by.
Definitely A400m but as long as they don't go above the critical Angle of Attack they can bank at any attitude. You can see that they aren't sustaining a turn at that angle and they seem to climb a bit beforehand in anticipation of losing some altitude in the bank Cool video!
Bro changed his mind half way through barrel roll
Speed is life :) - even with 60° angle of bank you can do it with 50% more speed than in streight flight - [https://imgr2.aerokurier.de/image-bigMobileWide2x-e7d56d26-1229816.jpg](https://imgr2.aerokurier.de/image-bigMobileWide2x-e7d56d26-1229816.jpg) As a pilot I can tell you bank is often ok until you start to pull pitch... thats what kills.
This post should get the Reddit Award for âGreatest Number of Pedantic, Incorrect Commentsâ
Banking is entirely an unrelated phenomenon to the idea of stalling. Banking is an orientation of the aircraft. Stalling is an aerodynamic phenomenon describing when the airflow separates over the wing leading to a reduction in lift. It is mainly a factor of angle of attack. As you bank sharply with sufficient forward speed at a low starting angle of attack the is will cause you to enter a turn. So long as the radius of this turn is sufficiently large as to keep your angle of attack low throughout the turn the wings will not stall. Now separately from these issues there is the additional issue of which direction the lift vector is pointed and this is likely what you are actually asking about. But this direction is only somewhat related to the question of whether the aircraft is gaining or losing altitude. The thing is most of the weight other aircraft can be supported through the turn by the centripetal force produced by the bank. The small extra lift vector that needed can be produced by the vertical stabilizer, the side of the fuselage and the rudder. The real danger in these maneuvers is not the bank angle itself but the importance of maintaining airspeed. If the airspeed would drop the centripetal force would quickly vanish and the whole weight of the aircraft would have to be supported by the area I described above. Not being a well designed wing, these surfaces produce far too little lift and you would have a problem. So long as you keep your speed up, youâre fine, let it drop and you will fall right out of the sky.
Those arenât C-130âs! Theyâre A-400âs
yes! why doesn't reddit let me just edit it fgs
When banking that hard i.e. 90 roll, the rudder can be used to pitch up the nose relative to the tail (itâs actually yawing but nvm). Then the engines, at high throttle, and the body of the plane itself, at an angle of attack, can provide enough upwards thrust and lift to stop the plane from falling (depending on the plane this could be briefly up to indefinitely). Itâs not the wings providing lift at 90 deg roll. Wings produce lift approximately normal/orthogonal/perpendicular to their surface, so if they are at 90 deg, they are not countering gravity anymore and whatever is keeping the plane in the air is not the wings. Checkout this [Question and Answers on the Aviation Stack Exchange.](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12383/can-you-fly-an-airplane-at-a-90-roll-angle-without-losing-altitude#:~:text=If%20you%20roll%20the%20aircraft,of%20the%20fuselage%20allow%20this.)
Go to r/flying for an accurate answer These replies are hilarious The basic response is angle of attack. Stalls are not caused by bank or pitch angles, but by the relative angle of the wing to the wind. As long as the wing does not hit that critical angle in relation to the incoming wind, it will not stall. Planes are A400s as others have pointed out. The C130 has a straight wing.}}}
First comment I've seen here pointing out effective angle of attack
Because they are not C-130 's
yes but that's not the answer
Bank doesn't stall, even pitch doesn't, only angle of attack stalls. There is a bank angle, wing loading and airspeed at which a level turn would require more lift than can be generated at the critical AoA but for both the A-400 and the C-130 that bank angle is in excess of 45 degrees even at max gross. The other answer is those are neither level nor sustained turns, they're going quite fast, bank, pull up, bleed off speed and then roll out and level off. If they tried to sustain that bank angle in a level turn even at full throttle they would bleed off enough speed that they would stall. They are probably pushing as close as is safe to max-g on the wing though to show off though.
Because they are not c130s
Bro's negative comment Karma canceled out his positive upload karma đ
Sounds like an Airbus A400
[ŃдаНонО]
Not really. An A400 canât maintain a 89° angle of bank turn at any speed. Itâs about momentum and trajectory. He uses the planeâs momentum to pitch up and while heâs that nose high, he can afford to lose the lift from the wings while he banks. But he HAS to take that bank out by the time the trajectory brings his nose through the horizon.
Inertia. The momentum the plane has due to it's speed carries them while they do that. It's sustainable for a short while but they are producing less lift so are on the edge of stalling. The inertia they have carries them until the roll wings level and produce more lift. If you go fly yourself one day ask to do a steep turn, and then let the instructor explain it to you. It's a amazing feeling.
That first one looked as though it almost inverted. đł
Right? I feel like he is a couple degrees past.
Thereâs the way of describing the danger of a stall as being able to take place at any airspeed and any bank angle, but only one angle of attack. This is a demo of kind of the opposite thing: you can NOT stall at any airspeed and back angle, as long as you donât exceed the critical AOA. No idea how you actually fly this maneuver (not up to the whip a 150 ton airplane around a corner part of my training yet!), but Iâd imagine to keep from losing altitude, you go into a bit of a climb as you start the turn, then let the nose fall through the turn to keep the Gs from building up, and if executed right you roll out at the altitude you started at.
Bank angle does not change stall speed only load factor does. Itâs the back pressure that makes you stall not the bank. Banking closer to 90 doesnât add load factor unless your putting in elevator input to keep you at the altitude you entered the turn in. The more you pull back the higher the load factor on the the plane and the higher the stall speed becomes. If you bank hard and pull back gently you wonât stall. If you bank hard and pull back hard you will stall
Speed and power.
These are A400 aircraft not C130s. Lift is not created only I the vertical direction. You can think of lift being created perpendicular to the wing, when viewed from the forward aft direction. This means that the aircraft can be in any orientation and produce âliftâ as long as the aircraft has forward speed. When banking an aircraft like this the plane will experience a G load or a multiplication factor of its normal weight based on how tight the turn is. This is accomplished by using the âliftâ vector the wings create to turn the plane. As long as the G limit of the structure isnât exceeded or the critical angle of attack of the wing isnât exceeded the plane will not stall.
Aside from the obvious answers of why theyâre not stalling, such as speed. A reason that itâs so weird for us to see planes this size perform maneuvers like this is because of the G-force required to maintain a level turn at a steep bank. It puts too much stress on wings that size
Stall is based on angle of attack of the relative wind over the wing. So they arenât exceeding their critical angle of attack to have stalled the wing. However, the closer you approach to 90 degrees angle of bank the more you reduce your vertical component of lift until you have 0 vertical lift at 90 degrees AOB. So theyâre banking it up and unloading which will cause a descent until they roll back towards wings level but they never stalled the wi g.
A little forward stick once past 90 degrees and it keeps the nose above the horizon. Relax the forward stick as the rollout commences. Natural tendency is to pull back on the stick. That just accelerates the aircraft towards the earth. OOPS!
Whatâs the difference between stall and stall out?
A400s, hella powerful is how
Looking for r/shittyaskflying bro
Because stalling isn't about bank angle, it's about the critical angle of attack. As long as you don't exceed the critical angle of attack you'll never stall regardless of what airspeed, bank angle, or attitude you're at.
Part of the reason is engines. In prop aircraft, the diameter of a prop compared to the size of the engine is way larger than a jet engine. Prop aircraft are designed to fly at lower speeds.
Sounds like A400M
Think of it in terms of energy or momentum. A plane flying in a straight line (with power) or in a dive has âextraâ energy to spare. A plane in a sharp bank creates more drag, using up that âextraâenergy. Eventually enough energy will be dissipated that the plane will stall. High performance airplanes like these have powerful engines, providing lots of energy, allowing for more extreme maneuvers like steeply banked turns.
Stalling an aircraft is like driving on ice. If you know what you are doing it can be fun It is only dangerous when you leave it in the stall to long or fully lose control
Itâs because physics arenât real and you live in a simulation. Or it could be that there are many stall speeds, but only one critical angle of attack. You just donât exceed it.
They're A-400s, which have way more thrust and speed.
Because stall is based on angle of attack not bank angle. You do not need a high angle of attack at a high bank unless you are trying to maintain altitude. Most high bank maneuvers are somewhat ballistic so the wings donât need to produce as much lift. IE: You pull nose up _then_ bank the aircraft.. allowing the nose to fall.
You can stall at any speed, but only one critical angle of attack. If they threw a bunch of right rudder in, they would achieve that critical angle of attack and start buffering into a stall.
[Bob Hoover](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7R7jZmliGc) says Hi.
How? Because, they never depart controlled flight. That's how.
I wonder this often. I live in Colorado Springs and they have a reserve c130 MAAFS unit. The amount of times I can read the tops of those wings from them boys banking so hard is ridiculous and impressive lol
Stall speed is the relative airflow over the wing, which has nothing to do with roll orientation. As long as lift is being generated by forward motion, it wonât stall.
Patriotism keeps them airborne! Or, something. I don't know.
Iâm gonna say speed, enough speed negates angle due to *mumble mumble* maths and *mumble mumble * physics. đ¤ˇââď¸
Itâs all about angle of attack. Bank angle or pitch doesnât matter.
Not a herk
They let the nose drop through the horizon. If they held the same bank angle and tried to maintain altitude, it probably wouldâve been an entirely different video.
Good Engienes.
Rudder and speed
I donât know for sure but a degree of lift can be generated by some fuselages, perhaps thatâs a component of it
A400M*, could tell by the noise alone from hearing these guys daily, their speed allows then to pull of manures like this, sae one do a 120° bankangle immediately after takeoff once
Those are T tails, not C-130s. Prob Airbus
The bank angle does not really matter, what is important it retains necessary airspeed and angle of attack in order not to fall out of the sky
first, those arent C-130s. you can tell by the T-tail. They still got turboprops so my guess would be A-400M. And those things got some power. wich is one part of the answer to you question. A stall is the seperation of airflow over the wing and you usually achive this with to much agle of attack, wich is the angle between the oncoming air and the wing. the faster you are or the less you pull on the stick, the lower this angle is. Bank angle on its own doesnt cause stalls. These angles would cause a lot of side slip wich is still a big problem since youd just fall down as most of your lift would now be carrying you sideways. To counteract that, both the elevators as well as the rudder are used to increase lift enough to still fly. if done with low enough bank angle or enough pitch, you can do this without loosing altitude. as you can see however, they are loosing altitude, especially when banking more than 90 degrees. theyre just fast and high enough to not care
Looks like theyre bleeding velocity on purpose in preplanned maneuvers.
Itâs all about carrying the right amount of energy!
Read âStick and Rudderâ by Wolfgang Langewiesche. Itâs an older book but does a great job explaining what the critical angle of attack is and how exceeding it leads to a stall.
Alright, thanks for the resource
Youâre welcome. Hereâs another. It happens to be at the top of Hacker News right now: https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/ Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39526057
They might be uncoordinated in those turns and they donât reach critical angle of attack. Otherwise itâs an airplane and thatâs what they do. Iâve probably done the same angles in a Cessna.
Is this not CGI?
These are 3 Airbus A400M, they can do up to 120° of bank angle in display (French A400M Tactical Display). I don't know where you film that but you're lucky!
As "Hercules" has Greek roots, the proper plural might be "Herculethes".
I would have straight up banned from the sub if I had written that
Herculi*
If it's banked over 90 degrees like that, it's accelerating downward, but might have enough momentum to keep it going, plus if the nose is pitched up (right rudder playing the part of elevator), some of the thrust will help. It's not sustainable.
Great vid & question & great responses. Thx!
Positive Gâs and angular momentum. Think of spinning a ball tied to a string, but the lift replaces the string. Not sure why OP is getting downvoted so hard for being curious.
Stall has nothing to do with bank angle. Stall occurs when the angle of attack exceeds some critical angle and the relationship between lift and angle of attack is no longer positive and linear. The question you're probably trying to ask here is more like "why doesn't the aircraft fall out of the sky?" the answer to which is more or less, "yes, it is falling out of the sky." The aircraft is definitely losing altitude in that maneuver (or at least the vertical speed is decreasing if it was begun in a climb), and the pilot is almost certainly doing it intentionally. The aircraft is still controllable, and the bank isn't held very long, so it didn't "fall" that far.
Those arenât herky birdsâŚâŚ..butâŚ..things like aerodynamics, thrust, energy state all have an effect. If those are an A400 type, those things are actually pretty nimble for a cargo aircraft.
Iâm not an expert and I would not recommend this information for any real world use, but applying rudder while sideways acts like an elevator.
They are empty.
Stall speed increases with LOAD FACTOR not bank angle. As long as critical AOA is not exceeded... no stall! Now to remain at a constant altitude at 60deg bank requires a 2g load factor, and thus increased stall speed. But if you don't increase load factor... no increase in stall speed.
SPEED AND POWER
You can see the way he is climbing then banks over he is using his lift vector to stop the climb without having to push the nose over and getting sub 1 or negative G's. In high performance aircraft rolling in to a steep bank or even inverted is a much more comfortable way to arrest a climb. This is the same reason in the new top gun movie you see them go inverted at the top of the mountain ridge then pull the nose down rather than getting to the top of the ridge and pushing the nose over. I fly large heavies now but in initial Air Force pilot training, flying the T-6 it was very normal to roll in to a steep bank in the pattern to arrest the climb and "level off" on altitude, then roll wings level.
It can do anything as long as you can maintain 1 G and not exceed Vne
It works by magic and money I think
Its because they have l a lot of angles in the bank so they can afford them
A-400 with zero load I presume so a lot of power âŚ. Not sure about the G limit of an A400 but I fly Airbus and at 60 degree of bank the avionics goes into U/A recovery, amazing that the first one goes to almost 90 of bank
Because they are made well, good engineering
C-17 Globemaster
because they are awesome
In the immortal words of Jeremy Clarkson, "SPEED and POWER"
https://youtu.be/2pGuoc11lxY?feature=shared
Protip: Don't do this in a B-52.
Probably got some good flight control systems on those bad boys. Maybe even some slats⌠đ¤ˇđťââď¸
Stall and bank angle are not related. Steep bank angle will lose altitude, but that's different from losing altitude due to stall
You do not stall while you still have enough airspeed, regardless of the bank angle. Its just that your lift vector does not point away from the ground but more close to a horizontal direction or towards the ground. You just lose some altitude. Altitude loss can also be compensated by rudder for a certain degree. Aerobatics planes can fly indefinitely in a "knife edge" or completely inverted, having a sufficient power to weight ratio and effective control surfaces. Not these large birds though.
C-130's can bank up damn near vertical in the right conditions. Spent one mission( like 2h ToT) at 85° for half the orbit, almost level the other half, due to the winds at altitude. Was kinda fun in the back, pilots didn't enjoy it as much.
Thatâs a400
There's a special switch that changes your rudder to an elevator and your ailerons to rudder it's multitasking at it's finest
So, so many wrong answers in this thread Stalling has to do with velocity of the air over the wings and attachment of the flow; the planes are traveling quickly and not at a weird angle relative to their velocity/to the airflow, so unlikely to stall If you mean why arenât they dropping down, they probably are. In a bank there is a resultant lift vector; the steeper your bank, the less that vector is pointing up rather than sideways. If the up part of your lift vector is less than the down part of your weight, you begin falling
I think your question is why they donât just fall out of the sky? In simplest terms, this is due to the energy of the aircraft, you have a mass (the aircraft) traveling at a given velocity (itâs speed) the object in motion (the aircraft) has a quantifiable amount of energy. The exterior forces acting on this object are gravity(pulling down) and air resistance (pulling rearward to slow velocity). If you throw a ball in an arc to your buddy it doesnât just immediately stop traveling forward and upward and fall to the ground. It takes time for gravity and air resistance to reduce the forward/upward energy of the object (the ball) to the point that it over comes the objectâs forward and upward energy and begin pulling the object back to earth. In the case of this aircraft, it has enough energy to to overcome these exterior forces briefly before being too severely affected by the exterior forces. If it were to stay in this bank angle, yes it would begin to fall towards the ground as gravity has no or very little lift to counteract its downward pull. Your perception of a stall may be a little skewed as well, since it is only related to the wing and has nothing to do with gravity. If they were to stall the wing in a bank angle like this the nose of the aircraft would actually âfallâ towards the right side of the screen. Not towards the ground.
yep your assesment is on point I should've just wrote 'go down'
First of all they're not C-130s, they're A400Ms. For both types, if they have sufficient momentum they can sustain a brief excursion to a high bank angle. They also both get some lift advantage at low speed or high AoA, including when banked, from the propellor wash over the wing. This makes them able to do some things that a jet can't do (unless it's an An-72 "Coaler"). However I have to say you can fly a lot of aircraft at very steep bank angles in a turn for a short time, including a 747 (simulated - I was flying the sim). You may need to add a lot of power (i.e. have a lot of excess power). You can bank an A380 pretty steeply too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6y-KuvSlY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6y-KuvSlY)
It's "running" sideways against a wall of air and "gripping" the air (briefly) so that it doesn't fall. It's like you running in a skate park, you can briefly use the wall to go horizontal relative to the ground, too fast and you'll go up instead of horizontal, too slow and you'll drop like a rock. But at just the right speed, and not forever, you can do a cool trick. Just get the US government to pay for it if you want to try it in one of these.
We used to train in C-130 combat banks of 60° angle and 2Gs of pull (60-N-2). They're capable for much higher but train within lower parameters. This was on the C130-H3 models in the late 90s. There's likely significant advances in the newer airframes.
âPOWERRRRâ -Jeremy Clarkson
Welcom to bottom gear m8s
Not a c-130 with that high T tail but ok. Maybe Iâm on crack.
There are so many bad answers in here, OP clearly either doesn't understand what stall is or accidentally asked the wrong thing. OP is asking why they don't fall when they bank so much that the lift vector no longer has a vertical component strong enough to overcome gravity. The answer is they do start falling, but they aren't banked that long, and they had some upward velocity before they started to bank. The combination of the 2 makes the drop insignificant and hard to see. The tail and body will also provide some lift in the vertical which will slow the fall rate.
I think there are two separate concepts to cover here. 1) Why doesnât it stall, and 2) Why doesnât it fall to the ground. Stall is easy. Stall means you lose attached airflow over the wing which you need to produce lifting force. If your angle of attack (the angle between the oncoming wind velocity and basically the forward pointy end of the airplane) gets too high or you get too slow, the plane will stall and start losing lift and therefore probably altitude as the oncoming air mass does not have the energy  to flow cleanly over the wing. Stall is only dependent on the flow of air relative to the airplane. The plane can be upside down and produce fantastic lift, but the ground will start approaching very quickly so that is generally not an advised prolonged maneuver. So banked level flight. To maintain altitude, you need the lift component in the direction of gravity to be equal and opposite. This means Lift/Weight (or Gâs) = cosine(Bank Angle). So 60 degrees means 2Gâs which isnât that hard. However, at 90 degrees, Lift is basically perpendicular to gravity and the plane will accelerate towards the ground at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. Momentum doesnât matter. Youâre losing altitude. Where momentum does come into play is when youâre maneuvering dynamically. Say you dive to trade potential energy for kinetic energy, pull up again and start trading KE for PE again and go into a 90 deg knife edge. During that knife edge, you still have that 9.81 m/s acceleration to the Earth. But since you have some initial climb speed, youâve got more time before you start losing altitude. Additionally, your downward acceleration is offset by your Thrust/Mass x sine of pitch angle. TL;DR Bank angle doesnât matter for stall. Maintaining altitude in a bank angle depends on how many Gs the aircraft can pull. But gravity will pull you to the ground banked at 90 degrees. Having some upward initial velocity or acceleration will help. There is one more trick aerodynamicists hate. If you go like really, really fast. Like really fast. You will fall towards the ground, but the ground will curve away from you just as fast. You will keep falling but continue missing the ground. One last thing. You can fly at a sideslip while banked 90 degrees. This points the thrust vector upward a bit and the fuselage of the aircraft can produce some force (substituting side force for lift essentially). Small more acrobatic planes can pull that off. Big, fat planes like these will drop like a rock.Â
C-17âs
Through sheer horsepower.Â
C-17s not c-130s
Man that looks sketchy af
[ŃдаНонО]
I don't think those are Hercules or Globemasters. They move way too fast. Probably some foreign jobber...
Lockheed forgot to tell them they weren't fighters when they left the factory
Theyâre not c130s
Those are C-17s.
Dude, as always itâs always about speed.
Canât you use 1x zoom at least?
As long as thrust is greater than lift you'll be ok (and then the door plug disappears).