Wing Loading
Hi all,
F4U5 is right I did right an article on this topic, in fact I have written several, all with the same concept in mind, which is to free us modelers from the chains that have been wraped around us in terms of limitations based upon completly and utterly outdated therories concerning. . . Wing Loading!
The jist of the article that I presented is very simple. Modelers are "brought up" believing in "magic numbers" that are reputed to give us good flying results. This is pounded into our heads from the moment we begin flying at our local club fields by the club Gurus and continues being echoed by manufacturers that produce models that are aimed at the vast majority of us modelers.
Why is ounces per square foot even considered as an attribute that needs consideration when selecting a model when other attributes such as pounds per horse power are ignored? Well it all started "way back when" and I am not sure of "when" that was but I for one have experienced a few things since "then" and have come to a a few conclusions of my own.
First of all, I do not care what the wing loading of any model is, period. I have arrived at this conclusion after seeing for my self some of the numbers that are supposed to suggest catastrophe being proven completely false. Secondly, I prefer heavy models over light ones, they fly much better when you as a pilot are capable of doing so. About seven years ago I did a model review in MAN on a foriegn kit of a FW 190D9. It was from a company called VZ from the Chec. republic I think. It was a glass and foam model with a wing span of just 57 inches. I loaded the model up with details and finish and installed a Satio 90. The model weighed just shy of 13 pounds....DRY! It flew great. After flying in front of people and then telling them what it weighed they where dumbfounded and probably didn't beleive me, in fact some of you probably don't either, oh well.
I have flown models in the high 80's (ounces per square foot that is) and felt just as at home as with a 60 sized model. Some of the jets I fly would have truly excessive wing loadings compared to those unfamiliar with the type but still fly wonderfully. If full scale pilots had the same limiting criteria, I don't think aviation would be where it is today. Some full scale examples for you to think about.
I am told that a fully loaded C5A approaches 220 pounds per square foot! Thats 3520 OUNCES per square foot, or roughly 100 times more that the "Comfort Zone" we seem to think is the norm. So you may be saying "yeah but thats full scale and we're talking models here". So tell me, what is the difference? We should ask ourselves, where is the line drawn? Is it 50 feet? 200 Feet? 12 feet? 30 feet? How do we explain a Lockheed F 104 starfighter? (32 feet and and approx. same wingloading as the C5A?) And when we figure this out, lets bring our note books so we can take some notes. . . . we're gonna need em, because there is no break between model and full scale but rather a constant curve. This is where wing volume comes into play. The term we typically see as "wing loading" is a descripition of our wings size in only two dimensions. As model size and wing size is increased we are increasing these sizes in 3 dimensions. The "Magic Number" theory fails to recognise this and is therefore useless once you leave the size of model for which that assertion is based - 40 sized models. Lets grow modeling into the 21st century and leave some of the cob webs behind:-)