PDA

View Full Version : Someone explain wing loading to me please



Xnomad
02-15-2004, 02:59 PM
Here's one for all you aeronautical engineers.

Ok, I understand that the larger the wing is the less pressure on it, but I don't undertand how less pressure can increase your turning ability. I would have thought that a larger wing would give you more lift but would make it harder for you to roll and thus turn.

Why did the Bf 109 have such small wings and thus a higher wing load? What are the advantages of this? Is your roll rate faster or what?

I know the Bf 109 was given thinner wings to increase it's speed however the Spitfire Mk I was more or less the same size as the Emil and was 1 MPH faster even with the large wings and low wing loading and 70 horse power less.

The Emil could climb faster, I would have thought a bigger winged aircraft would have more lift and would climb faster like the Spitfire. Also the Emil could dive faster, and that is something I would expect for a plane with less wing area.

Why didn't Messerschmitt build a larger wing to increase maneuverability? They could then have incorporated the landing gear into the wings as well and solved the difficult landing/takeoff problem as well.

Does a larger wing really sacrifice speed that much? In that case what about that Spitfire then eh? Or was it simply more aerodynamically efficient and for what it sacrificed in speed, in terms of a large wing, it made up with a sleeker body?

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Xnomad
02-15-2004, 02:59 PM
Here's one for all you aeronautical engineers.

Ok, I understand that the larger the wing is the less pressure on it, but I don't undertand how less pressure can increase your turning ability. I would have thought that a larger wing would give you more lift but would make it harder for you to roll and thus turn.

Why did the Bf 109 have such small wings and thus a higher wing load? What are the advantages of this? Is your roll rate faster or what?

I know the Bf 109 was given thinner wings to increase it's speed however the Spitfire Mk I was more or less the same size as the Emil and was 1 MPH faster even with the large wings and low wing loading and 70 horse power less.

The Emil could climb faster, I would have thought a bigger winged aircraft would have more lift and would climb faster like the Spitfire. Also the Emil could dive faster, and that is something I would expect for a plane with less wing area.

Why didn't Messerschmitt build a larger wing to increase maneuverability? They could then have incorporated the landing gear into the wings as well and solved the difficult landing/takeoff problem as well.

Does a larger wing really sacrifice speed that much? In that case what about that Spitfire then eh? Or was it simply more aerodynamically efficient and for what it sacrificed in speed, in terms of a large wing, it made up with a sleeker body?

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-15-2004, 03:07 PM
I don't have the answers but I have read that the Spitfire's eliptical wing was extremely aerodynamically efficient and that despite the fact that it looks good its actually probably one of the best shapes they could have given that wing.

In thing in general the bigger the wing the more lift you're generating and the more sustained turn you can manage. But I better let the experts handle that one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

JtD
02-15-2004, 03:22 PM
I am not an expert but I'll do my best:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ok, I understand that the larger the wing is the less pressure on it, but I don't undertand how less pressure can increase your turning ability. I would have thought that a larger wing would give you more lift but would make it harder for you to roll and thus turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number of actual importance is lift loading. Basically the weight of the aircraft devided by the amount of lift the wing creates. Since there are some limits from all that aerodynamic stuff, the wing area strongly influences the total lift. What you need in corners is the most lift at the least speed. This will give you the best turning. Simple physics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why did the Bf 109 have such small wings and thus a higher wing load? What are the advantages of this? Is your roll rate faster or what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it is. I also have problems of understanding the good sides of small wings, but one obvious advatage is good high speed maneuverability. BTW, the 109's wing a a far higher lift factor than the Spitfire, so both aircraft had very similar turning abilities.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I know the Bf 109 was given thinner wings to increase it's speed however the Spitfire Mk I was more or less the same size as the Emil and was 1 MPH faster even with the large wings and low wing loading and 70 horse power less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this is much to simple. The wings aren't really the most important factor for drag, the fuselages drag ist much higher than the wings drag. Also, the engines performance differed, it wrong to assume that both aircraft reched there top speeds with maximum power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Emil could climb faster, I would have thought a bigger winged aircraft would have more lift and would climb faster like the Spitfire. Also the Emil could dive faster, and that is something I would expect for a plane with less wing area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now climb has very little to do with lift. It's basically power-weight ratio. As long as the wing's lift does carry the airplane, it's fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why didn't Messerschmitt build a larger wing to increase maneuverability? They could then have incorporated the landing gear into the wings as well and solved the difficult landing/takeoff problem as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maneuverability is one of the least important aspects of plane design. Most fighter pilots never saw the plane that shot them down. Speed an vision are much more important. A larger wing will reduce both. Also, maneuverability is not turning. A larger wing makes a plane slower to react and therefore less maneuverable. That's why they chopped the wingtips on later Spitfires. It sacrifieced wing area but gained a lot of maneuverability.
The Bf 109's landging gear was in the fuselage (as opposed to the one in the Spitfire) and this allowed changing wings with the aircraft standing on it's own gear. That is important, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Does a larger wing really sacrifice speed that much? In that case what about that Spitfire then eh? Or was it simply more aerodynamically efficient and for what it sacrificed in speed, in terms of a large wing, it made up with a sleeker body?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you ask me aero engeneering is quite complex. There is a tradeoff for everything. The 109 and the Spitfire were on very even terms during there entire lifespan even though they had very different designs. This says a lot.
If you compare later Spit's with later Messerschmitts (post E) you will find the 109 to be about as fast with less power. This is mostly due to the small size of the 109.

p1ngu666
02-15-2004, 04:27 PM
its weight/wing area isnt it?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Chuck_Older
02-15-2004, 05:43 PM
Most old references seem to give wing surface area and combat turn time as guides for manuevering ability.


One big advantage of a smaller wing is speed.

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash