ORIGINAL: adam_one
Maybe, so I changed it to: up to 30
Is still too much?[8D]
The problem is the methodology. Usually these handy dandy correlations originate from someone who goes through a whole bunch of model designs, plots them on a graph, determines some simplified correlation or trend through the buckshot data & then reports the findings as though that is a design parameter.
The problem is, it ignores many significant & fundamental parameters of which loading is only one. For example, I could take a lightly loaded nice trainer with a forgiving semisym 15% airfoil & stick on a 5% thick sym airfoil with an aft placed high point position & make the same trainer a very nasty model in terms of stall characteristics, takeoff & landing speeds because the airfoil polar sare completely different. Yet the thin winged version satisfies the same weight/wing area loading as the thick winged version.
By the same token, pylon racers have rules governing many aspects depending on the class, the wing dimensions, nominal area, planforms, nominal loading (such as in FAI rules). The airfoils they use are
a result of optimization withinthese boundaries to be legal. But the speed by & large comes from the available thrust. A typical Q500 model is reallly a very tame plane at 1/2 throttle.