You're saying the stick can be forward and the wing can be flying at a high angle of attack? Please explain. Also, of course, horizon has nothing to do with this conversation. I'm surprised at how many people here are conflating the horizon or banking with angle of attack.
I never claimed that the stick had to be full back for a stall to occur. I would claim, however, that if there is ample elevator authority, then a stall is guaranteed at full back stick position, at least if we stipulate calm air (i.e., no gusts at just the right angle).
Stall is not a matter of horizon or stick position. You can absolutely stall in a stick forward position just as you could absolutely not-stall with the stick full back.
Stall is a matter of the the “relative wind.” In practice this means the direction we’re flying in but in reality you can get a strong windshear that will create a relative wind that exceeds the angle of attack at just about any pitch attitude and elevator position.
If the stick is forward and you are descending at 100mph in calm winds you have a relative wind of 100mph directly at your nose and your angle of attack is equal to the angle of incidence of your wing minus the angle of descent. If you were to get a 100mph updraft from a relative direction of 90 degrees beneath your wing, you would end up with a relative wind that is creates an angle of attack of 45 degrees plus the angle of incidence minus the angle of descent. Hence critical angle of attack could in theory be exceeded in a descent with forward elevator pressure.
Similarly, you can have the stick full back and not stall provided you have enough thrust. Military fighters are prime examples of this. Their wings are generally installed with 0 degree angle of incidence and their wings naturally produce very little lift yet they are perfectly capable of climbing nearly vertical just after takeoff because they create their own relative wind and rely primarily on thrust.
You can also see this by watching a military jet turn and you will see the application of ailerons does very little without back pressure on the stick; this is because the angle of attack with zero back pressure and zero wind is again equal to the thrust vector plus the angle of incidence (which is 0). The application of back pressure is required in order to create an angle of attack on the wings and adjust the lift vectors.
So with sufficient thrust/speed you could absolutely fly with full back elevator even if the elevator moved a full 90degrees without stalling.
The issue you would encounter is 3 fold:
1) your thrust needs to be able to counter the effects of gravity in the vertical
2) your thrust needs to be able to counter the effects of drag of your elevator at full deflection
3) the normal prevailing wind patterns (updrafts and downdrafts notwithstanding) move parallel to the earth’s surface and you would therefore have to have no wind or sufficient speed to counter the change in relative wind created by the earth’s winds and your relative pitch attitude.
In practice most of us dont have planes with sufficient thrust to create enough relative wind to fly in this manner.
How does G loading affect the angle of attack at which a wing stalls?
If you read the posts of others on here, it has been explained that G loading results in a stall at a smaller angle of attack. The easiest way for us to replicate G load is through steep turns at 45 degrees of bank but ultimately this is no different than overloading your aircraft.
If you were to double the max gross weight of your plane, you would be at 2g of the design weight of the wing. The wing will require more airflow over the wing to generate sufficient lift (assuming its capable at all; for a non-aerobatic aircraft it should be capable up to 3.3g) and the aircraft will therefore stall at a higher airspeed and lower angle of attack than if you were loaded appropriately. [Error: See post below for correction]
Funny how your original post said you’ve gotten less argumentative as you get older yet all you’ve done here is argue. I think you meant to say, like most people in society today, you prefer to argue from behind the anonymity of a keyboard.
I also have to agree with the United pilot that the elevator position does not necessarily determine the angle of attack though again as others have already stated it may appear that way in most flight scenarios.
