Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:25:57 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mailout3-eri1.midsouth.rr.com ([24.165.200.8] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP id 1983263 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:12:03 -0500 Received: from clax (cpe-066-061-049-200.midsouth.rr.com [66.61.49.200]) by mailout3-eri1.midsouth.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id h0EKC1a26877 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:12:01 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Message-ID: <006b01c2bc08$fb410da0$7300a8c0@midsouth.rr.com> From: "Chuck Lax" X-Original-To: Subject: Wing loading X-Original-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:10:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0068_01C2BBD6.B00F8DC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C2BBD6.B00F8DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Howdy Boys, "wing loading" is an aerodynamic term used mostly in determining the = performance of an acft and is simply the AIRCRAFT'S WEIGHT divided by = the SURFACE AREA OF THE WING. =20 It is not a structual term and has nothing to do with the STRENGTH of = the wing. =20 Your acft has a higher wing loading at Max Gross Wt than it does when it = is just you and 10 gal of gas on board. Designers can design in a = higher wing loading by making the wing SMALLER. Why? DRAG, baby, = DRAG. Less wetted area primarily. The higher wing loading makes for = higher speeds. Max endurance, max glide,etc all occur at higher speeds = than a lower wing loaded acft. Down side? Higher stall / approach = speeds, less ability to generate G-loads, larger turn radius, and = overall less maneuverability. Look at the F-104 vs the F-15. The F-15 has a huge wing (two huge = motors to move it thru the air too) and will turn on a dime. The F-104 = had a tiny wing and went like a scalded ape on a whole lot less power = and took the state of texas to turn around in. Viola. Wing loading. Nice to know stuff. Chuck Lax 235/320 ------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C2BBD6.B00F8DC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Howdy Boys,

"wing loading" is an aerodynamic term = used mostly=20 in determining the performance of an acft and is simply the AIRCRAFT'S = WEIGHT=20 divided by the SURFACE AREA OF THE WING.

It is not a structual term and has = nothing to do=20 with the STRENGTH of the wing.

Your acft has a higher wing loading at = Max Gross Wt=20 than it does when it is just you and 10 gal of gas on board. = Designers can=20 design in a higher wing loading by making the wing SMALLER. =20 Why? DRAG, baby, DRAG. Less wetted area = primarily. The=20 higher wing loading makes for higher speeds. Max endurance, max = glide,etc=20 all occur at higher speeds than a lower wing loaded acft. Down = side? =20 Higher stall / approach speeds, less ability to generate G-loads, larger = turn=20 radius, and overall less maneuverability.

Look at the F-104 vs the F-15. = The F-15 has a=20 huge wing (two huge motors to move it thru the air too) and will turn on = a=20 dime. The F-104 had a tiny wing and went like a scalded ape = on a=20 whole lot less power and took the state of texas to turn around = in.

Viola. Wing loading. Nice = to know=20 stuff.

Chuck Lax

235/320

------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C2BBD6.B00F8DC0--