ORIGINAL: dick Hanson
One would think that the "wing Volume " formula would have quickly caught on and become widely accepted .
Did it ?
Nope
why
...The value of an idea is really only as good as it's acceptance .
Why? Because people like you make comments like that.
Why not accept it since it's actually MUCH simpler than trying to remember acceptable wing loading ranges for different size planes. One simple formula can apply to any model. How is that more complex? Just because it hasn't caught on doesn't mean it's not a better idea - inertia is king.
I've been using volume loading to estimate performance since September '89 and it's a pretty good first approximation method. Full-scale aerodynamic formulae take volume loading into account, so the problem is avoided (in other words, they've known about it for many years). Seems only some modelers have trouble accepting the idea.
Why do you so steadfastly oppose those who offer better (or just different) approximations than those you proffer? Sure, your methods are good enough for your purposes, but that doesn't mean someone can't be satisfied using different methods to achieve the same results.