Hi Monty

How I detest these sorts of 'discussions'. They too frequently descend to a pointlessly puerile "Nah..nah...I'm right and you're wrong!" level, and take up an inordinate amount of what essentially amounts to wasted time. However as you've taken the courtesy to respond at length, it's only courtesy that I offer you the same consideration. If we only achieve civility as a standard and observe mutual respect, they will suffice as the goal.

I concur that WAS what the thread originator literally said. But by what he said and how he said it, it's fairly apparent that not only did he not really understand what he was saying, what he literally said was clearly not the question he intended to ask. And one can hardly blame him given the further example in here by those who should be more erudite with correct terminology by convention.

An aircraft's "maximum wing loading" is a structural limitation which presents for practical purposes only as an academic exercise in the modelling world, and is totally moot insofar as the sport flyer and beginner is concerned. I don't know of any (?) who are going to conduct the destruction tests necessary in order to determine it. Do you?

Hence we can dispense with "max. wing loading" acording to its definition by convention immediately.

As we both surmised, he was most probably really asking how to determine the 'highest wing loading beyond which performance starts to deteriorate rapidly such that a model will fly like the proverbial dog', a performance 'limitation' and point on the wing loading efficiency curve which is improperly referred here to as "max. wing loading". Failing observation of terminology convention, interpretation must be employed. I expect to have to do that with beginners or the lesser informed R/C flier, but am disappointed that it has to be clarified those who present themselves with credential importance. So any argument claiming the high ground based upon what the enquirer actually said doesn't hold a lot of water per se.

Which to reiterate, is fairly apparent he doesn't really want to know. And to wit, your reference to volumetric formulae based loading still doesn't provide. Do the math and get the sandbags out if you want to determine "max. wing loading".

OK. A few things should be clarified here.

Actually I neither said nor implied any such thing considering it in the context of what the following paragraphs should make clear, and considering the proper understanding what max. wing loading definitively represents.

Firstly, following the thread to that point and to wit I relied in that context, no mention had been made of "wing volume loading" pseudo theory. The post in which I said what you've quoted was a response to Geistware whose own post was a semi-comprehensible nonsense, with and without privy to the later introduction into the discussion of "wing volume loading".

Secondly. As it was most apparent by way of analogy the thread originator was asking about algebra without having an understanding of the basic conventions of arithmetic, it was important to establish the concept of wing loading an essential foundation in order to deny the nonsense propagated in the aforementioned post. Pretty clearly from blue_meliz's question he neither understood what wing loading was, nor what he referred to either by way of convention or in any meaningful sense.

In this I consider we have found the the common ground.

Actually its not, and therein lies the essential problem. Referring to "max wing loading" when that's not what is meant is like saying multliply when you mean add. Now that sort of thing coming from an average sport flyer or newbie is understandable in the R/C community, but hardly expected from an "Chief Flying Instructor" who should be able to tell the difference between and apple and an orange.

We all have to interpret in the case of a question as presented by blue_meliz, but despite our common interpretation of what we both surmised he was truly after, you're still incorrectly referring to it as "max. wing loading". I do however agree with your two paragraphs above, and was I interpreted what he was looking for as well.

Literally. See my previous re maximum wing loading.

No contention there. I think we've both said that, and that's an accepted known involving more than merely variance in wing loading.

No ones placing aspersion on your experience, though your understanding and observance of conventional terminology could use a brush up.

That's an aerodynamic influence unrelated to wing loading per se. For a given model of the same wing loading, changing those things will change handling characteristics yet stall speed and its related characteristics I mentioned in the previous post will remain very similar. By way of example a tendency referred to as "tip stalling" by modellers which can mean anything from the tendency to enter a violent approach config stall to an excessive throw induced snap roll can designed in by changing several aerodynamic factors such that even with the same wing loading, the model can no longer safely be flown at the same Vs+n safety speed. We can go on ad infinitum about other aspects of design such as high/low wing et al, but the bottom line is that wing loading determines certain characteristics of a model all else being equal, and as such is a useful and meaningful datum.

I think I've already covered that in the previous paragraph.

Actually not quite. I think you're misunderstanding what was saying either there, or more probably originally. Essentially and simply put, it's a given or known which should be unnecessary of elaboration in our discussion that wing loading is part of the whole (design). It is however an extremely useful predictor of certain aspects of performance and most useful datum.

To analogise it simply, talking about wing loading out of the overall context of the model design is like talking about handling performance of a motorcycle based upon its pure spec. engine power output without any consideration for its charateristic power curve, frame, suspension, brakes or tyres which you can further take it down to pressure in tyres, spring rates et al if you so wish.

I see where you're coming from. In the case of beginnners, that's accepted, however in conversation with someone such as yourself, I would have considered 'spelling out the knowns' a lesser prerequisite.

Spoken with an unexpected ignorance. But it does you see, for to get there we don't just assume an air of authority re aeodynamic theory and design. We have to prove understanding both in principle and practice.

Unlike your good self, modesty forbids me from presenting pointless self-aggrandisment beneath my nick, preferring what I have to say be taken on its merit alone. Suffice to say, you're observably now speaking well beyond your 'ken.

Ad hominem isn't my style. I think its a shame you feel it necessary to become yours. I think this not only ends further 'discussion between us, but on a rather disapointing note.

all the best

sigrun