Wing loading and its flying characteristics

[blueangel]

Wing loading :

Wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing.

The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading.

Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher. The high wing loading also decreases maneuverability.

Wing loading is a useful measure of the general manoeuvring performance of an aircraft.

Wings generate lift owing to the motion of air over the wing surface. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift at any given speed.

Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take-off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to turn faster.

As such, can I say that the GWS range of foamies :

40 - 36.9 ( g/dm2 )
T6 - 29.1
Spitfire - 28.2
F4U - 28
P51D - 26
Zero - 25.7
Estarter - 23.4
ME109 - 22.9

So does that mean ME109 can fly much more easier than the other GWS planes in the above list, except the Estarter of course, since that is a high wing.

OK got to admit I still like warbirds... going to be another blue color this time..

[baby_zyklon]

I think how good and easy the plane will fly is a lot more than just looking at wing loading. Things like moment coefficient, center of pressure, neutral point, static margin, tail-main wing ratio and the camber will affect the flight characteristic.

It doesn't neccessarily mean that a lower wing loading will require a lower flight speed for take off, landing or steady level flight, although generally, it might be true.

The amount of lift that a pair of wing can produce is also dependent on the lift coefficient, which is dependent on factors like camber, circulation and vorticity. There are a few simplified ways of calculation of lift coefficient which are relatively easy to understand, for instance, the potential flow thoery, the elliptical wing distribution or even just using the camber equation and then doing a fourier series on it. Do note that airfoil and finite wing have quite different implications in aerodynamics and different theory have different assumptions. If interested, you can look at
aerodynamics for engineers by bertin
intro to aerodynamics by anderson
intro to flight by anderson

[blueangel]

Of course there are more than to it instead of wing loading. But for a comparison sake, using same design team from GWS, I took the simpler way out to make a point thats all.

Obviously if we want to compare that with a very high wing loading of a EDF such as F5E or F18 eg, their wing area is so small compared to a standard trainer plane, it would definitely need a much higher speed for taking off and landing since going any slower will stall the plane due to low lift generated at the small wing area, no matter how much lift it can create for that wing's design.

Here is a simpler and easier way to understand something about wings. Good for planes and good for car's with wings at their boot..

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/FoilSim/index.html

[blueangel]

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/foil2.html

Java.

[joe yap]

At the quick glance, by camparing the wind loading to other models of the same size, you can almost conclude that the Me109 should be easier to handle than the rest of the warbirds. However, this only means that it is able to be flown at lower speeds than the rest,and provided that they share more or less the same airfoils and stall characteristics.

If you have another model with higher wingloading but with better airfoil and wing design suited for flying at lower airspeed, it is possible that the heavier model can even fly better than the lighter one.

The amount of wing dihedral and the tail moment arm also play a lot of lateral and longitudinal stabilities, respectively. More dihedral will increase the model to self correct during the flight and make the pilot's job easier. Longer tail moment arm can dampen the pitch oscillations. All these factors, plus some others will change the characteristics of the model.

In a nutshell, by comparing models that varies so much in airframe designs and with such little difference in windloading, you can't simply jump into such conclusion. And unfortunately, you have to own and fly all of them to have a fair comparison.

[blueangel]

At the quick glance, by camparing the wind loading to other models of the same size, you can almost conclude that the Me109 should be easier to handle than the rest of the warbirds. However, this only means that it is able to be flown at lower speeds than the rest,and provided that they share more or less the same airfoils and stall characteristics.

If you have another model with higher wingloading but with better airfoil and wing design suited for flying at lower airspeed, it is possible that the heavier model can even fly better than the lighter one.

The amount of wing dihedral and the tail moment arm also play a lot of lateral and longitudinal stabilities, respectively. More dihedral will increase the model to self correct during the flight and make the pilot's job easier. Longer tail moment arm can dampen the pitch oscillations. All these factors, plus some others will change the characteristics of the model.

In a nutshell, by comparing models that varies so much in airframe designs and with such little difference in windloading, you can't simply jump into such conclusion. And unfortunately, you have to own and fly all of them to have a fair comparison.

Thanks for that layman's explaination.
Hope ME109 is manageable .. because ... its now in my room...

Most important rule for new bird is to make it as light as possible..so small lipo, small outrunner and no extra stuffs such as wheels and such...

[blueangel]

Fresh from the box and a overlaid comparison with the GWS Estarter.

The wings are narrower and the stabilizers shrunked.