Wing Loadings

Discussion in 'Flight Test Data' started by the lancaster kicks ass, Mar 13, 2005.

  1. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Can you post any wing loadings of planes you know please, hopefully we can get a list together............
     
  2. JCS

    JCS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    United States Marine
    Location:
    Nicholson, PA
    Heres some....

    Bristol Bulldog IVA----------12.6 (306 sq. ft)
    Polikarpov I15bis------------15.7 (243sq. ft)
    Polikarpov I16 type 6-------23.5 (156sq. ft)
    Fokker D.XXI-----------------26.0 (174sq. ft)
    Polikarpov I16 type 10------24.2 (156sq. ft)
    Gloster Galdiator Mk.II------15.1 (323sq. ft)
    Fiat G.50----------------------26.9 (196sq. ft)
    Polikarpov I153 (M-62)-------17.7 (238sq. ft)
    Polikarpov I16 type 18-------25.9 (156sq. ft)
    Morane Saulnier MS.406------31.7 (172sq. ft)
    Arado Ar240-------------------330kg/m²
    Messerschmitt Bf108---------87.5 kg/m²
    Messerschmitt Bf110---------173 kg/m²
    Heinkel He111----------------129 kg/m²
    Focke Wulf TA152H------------202.1 kg/m²
    Heinkel He219------------------305.4 kg/m²
    Messerschmitt Me163B-1-----213 kg/m²
    Focke Wulf FW189-------------103.9 kg/m²
    Junkers Ju88-------------------161.1 kg/m²
    Junkers Ju188E----------------258.9 kg/m²
    Junkers Ju288B----------------324 kg/m²
    Blohm Voss BV141----------60.2 kg/m²
    Fieseler Fi156-------------------48.5 kg/m²
    Mitsubishi A5M-----------------93.7 kg/m²
    Mitsubishi J2M5-----------------174 kg/m²
    Nakjima Ki44-IIB---------------200 kg/m²
    Nakajima Ki84-Ia--------------172 kg/m²
    Mitsubishi Ki67-Ib--------------208 kg/m²
    Nakajima B5N2----------------101kg/m²
     
  3. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    Ive never quite got this, is a higher or lower wing loading better?
     
  4. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    The less you have, the better is. Higher wingload often limits the agility of the plane. But for a general statment you have to take powerload into calculations, too.
     
  5. DaveB.inVa

    DaveB.inVa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    At 105,000lbs the B-29 has a wing loading of 61.4 pounds per square foot.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Umm... lower wingloading tends to improve climbrates and turn rates. It can adversley effect "agility", making a plane roll sluggishly. In general, at lower speeds low wingloading is good, at higher speeds however you do not want as low a wingloading figure - a higher wingloading implies less drag. There is an optimal wingloading for a given speed range to balance turn/climb vs roll and quickness of response.

    =S=

    Lunatic
     
  7. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    cool thanks, anyone got anymore??
     
Loading...

Share This Page