WING LOAD
07-02-2004, 05:39 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Crete,
IL
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: WING LOAD
Just as an added note, wing loading is usually stated per square foot so you would need to take the .205 from the above example and multiply it by 144. 
08-08-2004, 11:15 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Deep River, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,299
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: WING LOAD
There is no universal optimum wing loading. Having too little wing loading is not good, nor obviously, is too much -- sooo optimal wing loading is specific to each aircraft type & use. 16 lbs/sq ft would be very light for a warbird & perhaps too heavy for a park flier.
08-08-2004, 11:25 AM
#7
RE: WING LOAD
16#/sq. ft. would be extremely heavy for any model. 16 oz/sq. ft would be light for a .40 size trainer. In .40 size trainer or sport, I try for less than 20 oz/sq. ft. A glider or slow flyer would be much less while a warbird would be more.
08-08-2004, 12:27 PM
#8
RE: WING LOAD
Unless you are flying a light weight fun fly plane you will have a hard time getting much under 20 oz/sq-ft. The NexStar trainer from the Tower flier is listed at 722 sq in and 6.5 #. This is 20.75 oz/sq-ft. Most all sport planes will have a higher wing loading than this.
Generally, wing loading is size dependent. Smaller planes need a lighter wing loading to fly well than do larger planes. Sport planes in the .40-.61 size will be in the 20's. Over 30 and they are going to start feeling heavy. .91-1.20 size planes will go into the 30's. The bigger planes will tolerate higher values. Large warbirds can be in the 40's and fly OK. In a .46 sized plane, this would be a crash waiting to happen.
A math short cut is to divide pounds weight by wing area in square inches, then multiply this result by 2304.
Generally, wing loading is size dependent. Smaller planes need a lighter wing loading to fly well than do larger planes. Sport planes in the .40-.61 size will be in the 20's. Over 30 and they are going to start feeling heavy. .91-1.20 size planes will go into the 30's. The bigger planes will tolerate higher values. Large warbirds can be in the 40's and fly OK. In a .46 sized plane, this would be a crash waiting to happen.
A math short cut is to divide pounds weight by wing area in square inches, then multiply this result by 2304.
08-08-2004, 01:43 PM
#9
RE: WING LOAD
My Thunder Tiger Stick, stock, with a Thunder Tiger Pro46, and Futaba radio was under 5 1/2 pounds for a wing loading of 17 oz/sq ft. The trainer was slightly less than that. My Balsa USA Stick 40+ with a Thunder Tiger GP42 has a wing loading of just under 20 oz/sq ft because of the smaller wing area. The Sig Citabria has a wing loading of 20.4 oz/sq ft. These are what my statement is based on. From my experience, most .40 size trainers should come out between 5 1/2 and 6 pounds dry.
08-09-2004, 11:48 AM
#10
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: grayslake , IL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: WING LOAD
I'm new to wing loading calculation, I've listened to many opinions, seems I got it wrong. I think I've got it now; Divide the wing area by 144 to convert square inches to square feet, then divide the weight ( ounces ) by the wing area ( in square feet )= ounces per square feet.
