wing loading?
05-23-2003, 03:47 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Grovetown, GA
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wing loading?
Hi :
I have been building and flying for a long time and really never gave wing loading too much consideration..........up til now!!
I've built a GP Super Skybolt 60 and most posts I've read say it weighs 10+ lbs.
I just weighed mine and it came to 9.2 lbs.
930 square inches wing area....is the wing loading 9.2 lbs times 16 divided by the wing area?
If so, should be around 16oz per square inch!!
Is this a good number with a OS1.08 on the nose?
Tom
I have been building and flying for a long time and really never gave wing loading too much consideration..........up til now!!
I've built a GP Super Skybolt 60 and most posts I've read say it weighs 10+ lbs.
I just weighed mine and it came to 9.2 lbs.
930 square inches wing area....is the wing loading 9.2 lbs times 16 divided by the wing area?
If so, should be around 16oz per square inch!!
Is this a good number with a OS1.08 on the nose?
Tom
05-23-2003, 04:31 AM
#2
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mars, PA
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wing loading?
IFLy
By your calculations:
(9.2 lbs * 16 oz/lb)/930 Sq in = 0.15828 oz/Sq inch
For models, wing loading is usually in oz/Sq Feet, so multiply your result by (12 in/ft) * (12 in/ft) to convert the parameters to Square feet, and you get
(0.15828 oz/sq in) * (144 sq in/sq ft) = 22.79 oz/Sq ft
which is a lot better than 16 oz/sq in (each square inch has to lift a pound in order to fly). That's a pretty fast landing.
Couldn't tell you about the OS tho'
By your calculations:
(9.2 lbs * 16 oz/lb)/930 Sq in = 0.15828 oz/Sq inch
For models, wing loading is usually in oz/Sq Feet, so multiply your result by (12 in/ft) * (12 in/ft) to convert the parameters to Square feet, and you get
(0.15828 oz/sq in) * (144 sq in/sq ft) = 22.79 oz/Sq ft
which is a lot better than 16 oz/sq in (each square inch has to lift a pound in order to fly). That's a pretty fast landing.
Couldn't tell you about the OS tho'
05-23-2003, 01:40 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bloomington, MN,
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wing loading?
iflircaircraft,
Unfortunately, I can't tell you how that is as a wing loading, although it seems to be well in the range of most sport planes. What I can tell you is that the engine choice and the wing loading are pretty much independent. You want the wing loading to be suitable for your purposes, such as slow landing speed and/or maneuvering, and you want the engine to be suitable for your purposes, such as unlimited vertical, if that's your thing.
banktoturn
Unfortunately, I can't tell you how that is as a wing loading, although it seems to be well in the range of most sport planes. What I can tell you is that the engine choice and the wing loading are pretty much independent. You want the wing loading to be suitable for your purposes, such as slow landing speed and/or maneuvering, and you want the engine to be suitable for your purposes, such as unlimited vertical, if that's your thing.
banktoturn
05-23-2003, 03:54 PM
#4
wing loading?
That engine will pull it great. I don't know any of the wing loading ststistics on it, but regardless, the GPSB is not a floater!
Practice a few slow flyby's with some altitude to get a feel for it's stall speed. Check out this video of a landing:
http://204.96.183.34/Skybolt/Videos/Landing.mov
Mine flys hotter than most due to the extra weight of the smoke system and the 4-stroke, and this was a faster than usual landing anyway. You will be able to land slower, but don't expect it to float in.
Practice a few slow flyby's with some altitude to get a feel for it's stall speed. Check out this video of a landing:
http://204.96.183.34/Skybolt/Videos/Landing.mov
Mine flys hotter than most due to the extra weight of the smoke system and the 4-stroke, and this was a faster than usual landing anyway. You will be able to land slower, but don't expect it to float in.
05-24-2003, 01:27 AM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
wing loading?
wing loading of 16-22 oz/sq ft=good all round sport/aerobatic plane.23-32 oz/sq ft hot landing scale type aircraft.33-39 oz /sq ft
really hot on landings fly it down to touch down.over 40 oz/sq ft flying brick hope the engine doesn't quit.these wingloading do not apply to the larger 1/4 scale type aircraft
really hot on landings fly it down to touch down.over 40 oz/sq ft flying brick hope the engine doesn't quit.these wingloading do not apply to the larger 1/4 scale type aircraft
05-30-2003, 08:38 PM
#7
My Feedback: (11)
wing loading?
Actually, a 23-24 oz. wing loading is quite light for a 60-size model. Many trainers are in that category. The PT-40 has about a 21 oz. wing loading. A .60-.90-size warbird I'm familiar with flies quite nicely with a 30-oz. wing loading, and it's not that hard to land.
The main reason the model sinks rapidly when the power is reduced is not due to wing loading but to drag. The cabanes, interplane struts, and landing gear all combine to add drag. High drag airplanes will come down steeply because in order to keep their speed up.
The Skybolt won't float on landing much because as soon as you flare and cut the throttle, the high drag slows it down quickly.
bax
The main reason the model sinks rapidly when the power is reduced is not due to wing loading but to drag. The cabanes, interplane struts, and landing gear all combine to add drag. High drag airplanes will come down steeply because in order to keep their speed up.
The Skybolt won't float on landing much because as soon as you flare and cut the throttle, the high drag slows it down quickly.
bax
05-31-2003, 02:24 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ravensdale, WA,
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wing loading?
You also have to take in the efficiency of the wing or wings. Although a biplane may have more wing area, the lift generated is not the same as a monoplane with the same area due to the proximity of the two wings. I'm sure there is a formula to calculate the difference but I'm not sure what it is.
I am one of the Skybolt owners, if you figure the wing loading from wing area it you don't get a realistic idea of how it will glide. Because it doesn't. Recently after weighing all my planes I figured the wing loading for each of them. I figured the Skybolt using only 75% of the wing area. I think my results using this formula was more representative of how it flies. Anyone know if 75% is a good number for this?
MinnFlyer, I just watched your video and want to compliment you on your braking system you've incorporated on your Skybolt. What size prop do you run on it?
I am one of the Skybolt owners, if you figure the wing loading from wing area it you don't get a realistic idea of how it will glide. Because it doesn't. Recently after weighing all my planes I figured the wing loading for each of them. I figured the Skybolt using only 75% of the wing area. I think my results using this formula was more representative of how it flies. Anyone know if 75% is a good number for this?
MinnFlyer, I just watched your video and want to compliment you on your braking system you've incorporated on your Skybolt. What size prop do you run on it?
