Dynamic stall Dynamic stall is a non-linear unsteady aerodynamic effect that occurs when airfoils rapidly change the angle of attack. The rapid change can cause a strong
vortex to be shed from the leading edge of the aerofoil, and travel backwards above the wing. The vortex, containing high-velocity airflows, briefly increases the lift produced by the wing. As soon as it passes behind the trailing edge, however, the lift reduces dramatically, and the wing is in normal stall. Dynamic stall is an effect most associated with helicopters and flapping wings, though also occurs in wind turbines, and due to gusting airflow. During forward flight, some regions of a helicopter blade may incur flow that reverses (compared to the direction of blade movement), and thus includes rapidly changing angles of attack. Oscillating (flapping) wings, such as those of insects like the
bumblebee, may rely almost entirely on dynamic stall for lift production, provided the oscillations are fast compared to the speed of flight, and the angle of the wing changes rapidly compared to airflow direction.
Deep stall being used for deep-stall research by
NASA over the
Mojave Desert in 1983. A
deep stall (or
super-stall) is a dangerous type of stall that affects certain
aircraft designs, notably jet aircraft with a
T-tail configuration and rear-mounted engines. In these designs, the turbulent wake of a stalled main wing, nacelle-pylon wakes and the wake from the fuselage "blanket" the horizontal stabilizer, rendering the elevators ineffective and preventing the aircraft from recovering from the stall. Aircraft with rear-mounted nacelles may also exhibit a loss of
thrust. T-tail
propeller aircraft are generally resistant to deep stalls, because the prop wash increases airflow over the wing root, but may be fitted with a
precautionary vertical tail booster during
flight testing, as happened with the
A400M.
Brian Trubshaw gives a broad definition of deep stall as penetrating to such angles of attack \alpha that pitch control effectiveness is reduced by the wing and
nacelle wakes. He also gives a definition that relates deep stall to a locked-in condition where recovery is impossible. This is a single value of \alpha, for a given aircraft configuration, where there is no
pitching moment, i.e. a trim point. Typical values both for the range of deep stall, as defined above, and the locked-in trim point are given for the
Douglas DC-9 Series 10 by Schaufele. These values are from wind-tunnel tests for an early design. The final design had no locked-in trim point, so recovery from the deep stall region was possible, as required to meet certification rules. Normal stall beginning at the "g break" (sudden decrease of the vertical
load factor BAC 1-11 G-ASHG, during stall flight tests before the type was modified to prevent a locked-in deep-stall condition, descended at over and struck the ground in a flat attitude moving only forward after initial impact. show how the aircraft attitude in the deep stall is relatively flat, even less than during the normal stall, with very high negative flight-path angles. Effects similar to deep stall had been known to occur on some aircraft designs before the term was coined. A prototype
Gloster Javelin (
serial WD808) was lost in a crash on 11 June 1953 to a "locked-in" stall. However, Waterton states that the trimming
tailplane was found to be the wrong way for recovery. Low-speed handling tests were being done to assess a new wing. It had been clearing the fixed droop leading edge with the test being stall approach, landing configuration, C of G aft. The brake parachute had not been streamed, as it may have hindered rear crew escape. The name "deep stall" first came into widespread use after
the crash of the prototype
BAC 1-11 G-ASHG on 22 October 1963, which killed its crew. This led to changes to the aircraft, including the installation of a
stick shaker (see below) to clearly warn the pilot of an impending stall. Stick shakers are now a standard part of commercial airliners. Nevertheless, the problem continues to cause accidents; on 3 June 1966, a
Hawker Siddeley Trident (G-ARPY), was
lost to deep stall; deep stall is suspected to be cause of another Trident (the
British European Airways Flight 548 G-ARPI) crash – known as the "Staines Disaster" – on 18 June 1972, when the crew failed to notice the conditions and had disabled the stall-recovery system. On 3 April 1980, a prototype of the
Canadair Challenger business jet crashed after initially entering a deep stall from 17,000 ft and having both engines flame-out. It recovered from the deep stall after deploying the anti-spin parachute but crashed after being unable to jettison the chute or relight the engines. One of the test pilots was unable to escape from the aircraft in time and was killed. On 26 July 1993, a
Canadair CRJ-100 was lost in flight testing due to a deep stall. It has been reported that a
Boeing 727 entered a deep stall in a flight test, but the pilot was able to rock the airplane to increasingly higher bank angles until the nose finally fell through and normal control response was recovered. The crash of
West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 in 2005 was also attributed to a deep stall.
AirAsia Flight 8501 is yet another notable example of an unrecoverable stall. The
2024 Saurya Airlines Bombardier CRJ200 crash has been attributed to a deep stall caused by improper rotation during takeoff. Deep stalls can occur at apparently normal pitch attitudes, if the aircraft is descending quickly enough. The airflow is coming from below, so the angle of attack is increased. Early speculation on reasons for the crash of
Air France Flight 447 blamed an unrecoverable deep stall, since it descended in an almost flat attitude (15°) at an angle of attack of 35° or more. However, it was held in a stalled glide by the pilots, who held the nose up amid all the confusion of what was actually happening to the aircraft.
Canard-configured aircraft are also at risk of getting into a deep stall. Two
Velocity aircraft crashed due to locked-in deep stalls. Testing revealed that the addition of
leading-edge cuffs to the outboard wing prevented the aircraft from getting into a deep stall. The Piper Advanced Technologies PAT-1, N15PT, another canard-configured aircraft, also crashed in an accident attributed to a deep stall. Wind-tunnel testing of the design at the
NASA Langley Research Center showed that it was vulnerable to a deep stall. In the early 1980s, a
Schweizer SGS 1-36 sailplane was modified for
NASA's controlled deep-stall flight program.
Tip stall Wing sweep and taper cause stalling at the
tip of a wing before the root. The position of a
swept wing along the
fuselage has to be such that the lift from the wing root, well forward of the aircraft center of gravity (c.g.), must be balanced by the wing tip, well aft of the c.g. If the tip stalls first the balance of the aircraft is upset causing dangerous nose
pitch up. Swept wings have to incorporate features which prevent pitch-up caused by premature tip stall. A swept wing has a higher lift coefficient on its outer panels than on the inner wing, causing them to reach their maximum lift capability first and to stall first. This is caused by the downwash pattern associated with swept/tapered wings. To delay tip stall the outboard wing is given
washout to reduce its angle of attack. The root can also be modified with a suitable leading-edge and airfoil section to make sure it stalls before the tip. However, when taken beyond stalling incidence the tips may still become fully stalled before the inner wing despite initial separation occurring inboard. This causes pitch-up after the stall and entry to a super-stall on those aircraft with super-stall characteristics. Span-wise flow of the boundary layer is also present on swept wings and causes tip stall. The amount of boundary layer air flowing outboard can be reduced by generating vortices with a leading-edge device such as a fence, notch, saw tooth or a set of vortex generators behind the leading edge. ==Warning and safety devices==