ORIGINAL: MajorTomski
Guys long ago the full scale convention was to include any area covered by the fusealge just to keep the computations simple and to have one standard.
In your discussions here you've already implied that now we need yet another standard to determine at what point do we include or disallow the area under the fuselage.
Then take a more extreme example, both the F-4 and the F-106 have "coke bottle" fuselages, do you do the caluculs to determine the exact area of the curved wing surface that occupies the open area created by the coke bottle curve?
The A-4 Skyhawk has inlet duct overhanging the wing to body area. Is that portion of the wing lifting or not? Do I count it or not.
Remember the purpose of wing area is to give you a number to work from, it is a generalization. You are aparently trying to apply a micrometer to an inexact number.
MYC YMMV
Tom S
Aero Engineer
Hi Tom and all readers,
I do not see any problems with having more than one method of figuring the wing loading if we know which standard is in use.
I even have doubts about the validity of any method in these modern times.
With delta wing designs and all kinds of stuff hanging under the wings or at the wing tips such as extra fuel tanks, bombs, missiles and with the high thrust of powerful engines, the wing loading becomes irrelevant.
The importance these days particularly for modelers is the "thrust to weight" ratio.
I was at the flying field yesterday with my new "Radian pro sailplane". A machine that really flies "so called 'on the wings' while all otherfliers had models that could climb straight up vertically and flew "so called on the engine" .
My next post will show the calculations based on the dimensions given in the first post.
Wishing that all readers enjoy their flying.
Zor