It exceeds the critical angle of attack. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The airplane was designed to fly and not to stall. Correct answer: The pilot. Exceeding the angle of attack is when the airplane stalls. The airplane cannot flex it's controls (even with trim) enough to stall. The nose always goes toward less angle of attack when the airplane experiences less kinetic energy of pressure airspeed, unless the pilot intervenes. Only the pilot (or nowdays a computer) can stall the airplane.

More pledge. That one is borrowed from Robert Reser, "How to Fly Airplanes."

There are many ways an airplane can stall. I know a few of them but the one thing that makes all of them fly is money.

Another pearl of wisdom.

Reminds me of the classic line in the movie "The Right Stuff":

(Loosely quoted)

Do you know what makes these birds fly?

Hell, the aerodynamics alone would take hours to explain...

Funding -- No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Loose nut behind the stick

contactflying wrote:The airplane was designed to fly and not to stall.

... and yet you can do both at once. The wing still generates plenty of lift in a stalled condition, and you can certainly 'fly' (pilot) a stalled aeroplane quite easily if you're prepared.

contactflying wrote:It exceeds the critical angle of attack. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The airplane was designed to fly and not to stall. Correct answer: The pilot.

Agreed, but without a pilot, the airplane is ALWAYS stalled...on the ground, so.....

contactflying wrote: The nose always goes toward less angle of attack when the airplane experiences less kinetic energy of pressure airspeed, unless the pilot intervenes.

What about severe aft C.G.??? Again, a pilot error because the plane can't load itself

contactflying wrote:Only the pilot (or nowdays a computer) can stall the airplane.

Agreed

bart wrote:

contactflying wrote:It exceeds the critical angle of attack. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The airplane was designed to fly and not to stall. Correct answer: The pilot.

Agreed, but without a pilot, the airplane is ALWAYS stalled...on the ground, so.....

Not necessarily.

This is the kind of flaw in the understanding of aerodynamics that occurs when instructors overemphasize the relationship between airspeed and angle of attack.

Point338 wrote:

bart wrote:

contactflying wrote:It exceeds the critical angle of attack. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The airplane was designed to fly and not to stall. Correct answer: The pilot.

Agreed, but without a pilot, the airplane is ALWAYS stalled...on the ground, so.....

Not necessarily.

This is the kind of flaw in the understanding of aerodynamics that occurs when instructors overemphasize the relationship between airspeed and angle of attack.

Agreed 100%...

Bart, I know where you're coming from man, and I know it's splitting hairs and semantics and all.... but there's one very important lesson to learn from what contact is trying to say, and by dodging it we are missing the boat....

An unloaded wing can't be stalled! and on the ground it is unloaded

Take care, Rob

bart wrote:
Agreed, but without a pilot, the airplane is ALWAYS stalled...on the ground, so.....

I beg to differ on this point, too....

Some of those piles might fly, and get all used up at the same time.

One day I took off west out of Gallup, in my Champ, when it was so gusty that I was having trouble finding steady lift on the north ridge. I decided to land in a subdivision under construction down the valley and call to stop my wife from driving to Corinado AP in Albuquerque to pick me up. I landed, ran to the nearest finished house, and used their phone (dark ages before cell.) While on the phone, a Navajo boy came in with big round eyes. "It just jumped up in the air and came down upside down!" he said. I knew exactly what had happened.