In terms of 3D flight, I'm getting that the wing load (oz/sq.ft.) is an extremely significant factor. Less seems to be better. Yet the wing load of the larger 3D planes seems to be relatively greater when compared to the wing load of the smaller 3D planes. How come? thx Jim

They're bigger! LOL Part of the reason is the engines aren't proportional in their weight, nor is the other equipment necessary to run a larger plane.

Al: That funny, huh?

If all that is true...and apparently it is...it would seem to that the smaller planes would be much more able in terms of the quality of 3D maneuvers, especially in a situation with no wind. It would also suggest that larger 3D planes cannot be proportional to the smaller ones. Then again I don't know much about aeronautics. thx Jim

For 3D lighter wingloading is always better. So if you compare 2 planes of similar sizes the one with less wingloading is going to fly a bit better 3D wise.

However as you get larger and have more wing area and more mass..you wouldn't be able to achieve the same type of numbers as you can with a small plane. For example.. a foamie can get numbers of under 10oz wing loading... A 25% plane can get wingloading numbers of under 25 oz.. and a 40% can get numbers 33 oz wingloading. All of these randomly picked numbers would be good for a plane that size.

If you watch a foamie or a small plane fly you can do super tight loops and flips and whatnot... but you won't find a larger plane doing that because with that much deflection you would just stall the plane. Larger planes fly much different the smaller ones.. but because they are bigger they are smoother and fly much better overall.

When you have a large plane super light wingloading is not as neccessary because there is so much wing flying it offsets the need for very light wingloading.

I have a problem with too light of a wing loading. The plane flies great, but with a wing loading of only 19oz, it makes it hard to land when there is a breeze. The plane won't quit flying. The last time I had it out, I had to land it elevator style. I guess it's worth putting up with though because it's such a great flyer.

There is something called Cubic loading that reflects better than wing loading the lightness of any size plane in air, I don`t have the ecuation but you can think about the relationship between a fluid (air) and an object; it relates to Reynolds numbers and it depends on the fluid viscosity and the lengh of the object; it is like moving a spoon in the soup and then in the air, same ocurs with planes but the viscosity of air is constant and the diferent size of the plane can make a similar effect

Maybe someone would provide the way cubic loading can be calculated

hope this helps

Put in a mix of up aileron with a little down elevator (not always needed) and it will take the float out of the wings. Be careful though, that plane has a lot of drag. BTW the Cubic loading formula is, factor the wing area by 1.5 and divide that by the weight.

I have spoilerons set up and when I hit the switch, it goes into a harrier and stays locked in. Fool proof.

Less wing load is what we want. But it is not everythnig. In most of the cases the the 100cc and 150 cc class planes have more wingloading then 50cc class planes. But they fly much better and even like foamies. Why is that? It totaly is due to the volume of the airplane. Think of the plane as a ship floating in the air instead of water. As the plane dimension become bigger the total volume of the plane grows not only the wing area.This means the density of the plane decreases. And it is not the wing only that makes a lift. The plane floats as a whole.This means more lift. And that is the answer to your question. As the plane grows the wing loading increases but the density(weight/cubic inch) decreases. So wing loading means a lot but not everything.