ORIGINAL: CrateCruncher
ORIGINAL: lnewqban
It seems that high wing loading is good for wind penetration.
But I don’t believe so, or at least I don’t understand the physical reason.
I insist on that low drag is the key for good penetration.
Some birds have to glide thermals and penetrate wing, according to the circumstances.
How do they do it without adding ballast?
Modifying the area of their wings by extending o retracting them.
However, increasing the wing loading is a sub-product of reducing lift capacity and both types of drags.
A diving hawk has a tremendous penetration and diving speed, and it can also slow to zero in a few feet.
Inewgban,
One of the things I remember living near the ocean was feeding seagulls from my outstretched hand. In a stiff breeze they could effortlessly hover by changing pitch and wing area. I assume they have much better piloting skills than the average biped but I remember that to ''penetrate'' or gain ground in wind they flapped their wings. When raptors tuck in a dive its to maximize speed so drag reduction is everything. Big scavengers split their air miles between soaring in uplifts and gliding to the next one. It's during the gliding part that they need good penetration. But they also have another trick planes can't pull off. Again, they can flap! Bird physiology and planes are so different that I have trouble comparing them on specifics like this.
CrateCruncher,
Yes, the comparison was not great, but it makes my point about how nature solves the same problem of improving penetration without adding weight.
Thank you; now that I have read your mathematical explanation, I get it: heavier models have a bigger range of AOA and less pitch sensibility.
Then, there is inertia for resisting lateral gusts and drag reduction for achieving high speeds.