WING VOLUME VERSES SURFACE AREA
]is cubic volume or square inches better??
10-23-2010 | 06:54 PM
#3
Senior Member
RE: WING VOLUME VERSES SURFACE AREA
You're asking for a comparison between wing loading and the "wing volume" theory, right?
Both are simply formulas that produce numbers that are then associated with subjectively based predictions.
Both work perfectly well for the purpose of predicting the results of different wing loadings. They're only as good as the subjective predictions. Which in both cases are good enough.
Both are simply formulas that produce numbers that are then associated with subjectively based predictions.
Both work perfectly well for the purpose of predicting the results of different wing loadings. They're only as good as the subjective predictions. Which in both cases are good enough.
yes wing loading.. as a plane gets larger.wing loading seems to be less important..im changing a wing span from 48 inches to 56 inches.also from an 8% airfoil to a 10% airfoil..
10-23-2010 | 08:15 PM
#5
Senior Member
RE: WING VOLUME VERSES SURFACE AREA
ORIGINAL: da Rock
You're asking for a comparison between wing loading and the "wing volume" theory, right?
Both are simply formulas that produce numbers that are then associated with subjectively based predictions.
Both work perfectly well for the purpose of predicting the results of different wing loadings. They're only as good as the subjective predictions. Which in both cases are good enough.
You're asking for a comparison between wing loading and the "wing volume" theory, right?
Both are simply formulas that produce numbers that are then associated with subjectively based predictions.
Both work perfectly well for the purpose of predicting the results of different wing loadings. They're only as good as the subjective predictions. Which in both cases are good enough.
SWAG
Scientific Wild A$* Guess. I've done some of those.
Don
10-23-2010 | 09:37 PM
#6
RE: WING VOLUME VERSES SURFACE AREA
Run a quick on-line calculation:
http://www.ef-uk.net/data/wcl.htm
Additional reading:
http://homepage.mac.com/kmyersefo/CWL/reynolds.htm
http://www.ef-uk.net/data/wcl.htm
Additional reading:
http://homepage.mac.com/kmyersefo/CWL/reynolds.htm
10-23-2010 | 09:42 PM
#7
RE: WING VOLUME VERSES SURFACE AREA
It's not that the weight or wing loading of big models becomes less important. It is VERY important. It's just that the best all around wing loading for larger models is higher than small ones. It is still just as easy to build a BIG heavy pig as a small heavy pig. The key is knowing what a good wing loading for the size and type of model you are doing is. As daRock said already this valuation is based on subjective experience by hosts of model builders of that sort and size of model that preceeded your efforts. It pays to research their results.
thanks i think i understand it alot better now. super good artical..
11-11-2010 | 06:36 AM
#9
Senior Member
RE: WING VOLUME VERSES SURFACE AREA
Personally to me as an RC flier.....I tend to fly at the 40-50 mph cuise range...........so a lighter wing loading is my preference............also, I tend to "float in for a landing"(minimal power or power-off approach) versus "fly in for a landing"(power on approach) and so heavy wing loading aircraft I avoid. I have been flying RC (glow in those days as electric was not an available option) since 1979 but I still tend to "float in or glide in for the landing". So for a modeler......wing loading as a criteria in choosing/selecting an RC aircraft is very subjective. There are those that can land smoothly a heavy RC turbine jet but I am one of those that would stay away from heavy wing loading RC aircraft because of my tendency in floating in for a landing. 'Nuff said.
Larry
Larry
