PDA

View Full Version : High/low wing loading...what is it?



Scrapper_511
01-05-2007, 09:11 PM
My aviation books frequently refer to high-wingloading and low-wingloading and I never caught on to what this actually meant. Can somebody please clarify this for me? Thanks!

Scrapper_511
01-05-2007, 09:11 PM
My aviation books frequently refer to high-wingloading and low-wingloading and I never caught on to what this actually meant. Can somebody please clarify this for me? Thanks!

knightflyte
01-05-2007, 09:22 PM
I'm sure someone can give a better explanation, but it's essentially a ratio of the total weight of your airplane divided by the square foot area of your wing. That will give an answer written something like 33 pounds per square foot. (for example)

A heavy airplane with thin wing chord will have a higher wing loading than a light weight wide wing chord.


Examples of a high wing load airplane would be an FW 190 verses a Spit Mk V which would have a low wingload.

A low wingload usually makes for a more manueverable plane, thus allowing turn style fighting tactics. A high wing loading would be more suited to Boom and Zoom tactics.

Scrapper_511
01-05-2007, 11:31 PM
As I suspected it had nothing to do with how high/low the wings are mounted relative to the fusuelage.

smokincrater
01-06-2007, 04:24 AM
wing loadings have nothing to do with the position on monoplane wings. Generally speaking you want to have a bomber with high loading so that it can carry as much bombs with it. Example is the F-111 is the highest wing loaded bomber (ever?).

Flight performance usually is quite a soft ride thats why passenger airliners also have a high wingloading and also for operating costs to be at a minimum. The flip side is that the aircraft can be a bit of a handful and but with modern fly by wire controls that problem has been almost elimated.

The side of the record (yes I do remember LP`s) is low wingloading usually found on fighter aircraft. The Zero is a good example.Its low weight and huge wing area gave it a very good turn speed(plus its huge ailerons also helped!). Its ride is also very harsh because of the low wing loading and the fact that designers don`t like the wings to flex which decreases roll rate. Also the aiorcraft tends to be very reponisve to the controls. Old Zeros use to have a lot of stress cracks in their wings a fact that makes restoring them very difficult.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Shoot first and ask questions when you can. You can always say sorry later.

Scrapper_511
01-07-2007, 12:05 AM
Thanks for the info!!!

Tully__
01-08-2007, 02:41 AM
High wing load = high stall speed, poor manouverability at low speed, high best turn speed, (comparitively) low drag at high speed. Makes a good high speed and energy fighter (if it has a powerful enough engine) and has good high speed cruise economy.

Low wing load = low stall speed, good climb rate, good manouverability at low speed, good turn performance to a comparatively low speed but tends to high drag at high speed reducing potential maximum speeds.

Note that these are generalisations and there are design sacrifices that engineers can choose to make for both high and low wing loadings to accentuate or reduce both their good points and bad points.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>
http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/sig.jpg
SST X-45 profile (http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/fb.zip) | SST X-52 Profile (http://jennirivers.actewagl.net.au/fbx52.zip) | Joysticks & IL2/FB/PF (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/sticks.htm) | IL2Sticks Utility (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm#087)
Maddox Forums Moderator</center>

smokincrater
01-08-2007, 05:10 AM
Drag charactiscs are more governed by wing shape and aerofoil crossection.

Wing shape is really the only differnece between the Spitfire VIII and the P-51D. Same engine and frontal area. Slight differnce in the weight the P-51 being nearly 700kgs heavier but massive diffence in the wing. The limanar flow aerofoil crossection with its Lift\drag ratio being far better than the Spitfires classic crossection make the Mustang more than 50 km/h quicker and far more range per litre(not surprising comparing a long range escort fighter and a point defence fighter). Although in a dogfight the old girl(Spitfire) comes up trumps.

Also the lower aspect ratio the wings are (wing length : wing Cord) the quicker the roll rate. (Extra 300, pits special[mind you its a biplane]).

As Trully said above don`t fit square pegs into round holes! Every problem and solution is different in every design.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Shoot first and ask questions when you can. You can always say sorry later.

icrash
01-08-2007, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Generally speaking you want to have a bomber with high loading so that it can carry as much bombs with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm missing something here but I'm not sure what. Physics was never a strong suit. I know the B-26 had a high wing load & an evil learning curve because of it. I didn't think it carried that much in the way of a bomb load but let me do some digging thru my books. Unfortunately I'm currently trapped at work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v117/icrash/icrash4it.jpg

smokincrater
01-08-2007, 05:55 PM
Its a general statement but aircraft that carry items such as bombs,frieght or passengers,what to have as much wing loading as they can. So they can carry more of what they carry! Often bombers such as the Lancaster MK 1 Grand Slammer. Had most of the internal systems not essential for flight removed to save weight. Two turrets were removed etc etc. Beasts of burden normally have high wing loadings when loaded.

The differnece in terms of wing loading is I surppose the differnce between the B-17 and B-24. Off the top of my head I believe the 24 has a higher wing loading and handling was lousy compared to the 17 but the 24 could fly longer(because it can carry more fuel) and carry more bombs.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Shoot first and ask questions when you can. You can always say sorry later.

icrash
01-08-2007, 07:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The differnece in terms of wing loading is I surppose the differnce between the B-17 and B-24. Off the top of my head I believe the 24 has a higher wing loading and handling was lousy compared to the 17 but the 24 could fly longer(because it can carry more fuel) and carry more bombs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, I just delved into one of my reference books. The '24 had a high wing load and could fly further and pack about twice as much of a bomb load than the '17. It also said the handling was less than spectacular (esp. in formation flying) and required more skill & training on the pilot's part. OK, thanks for the help & I learned something new (I still hate physics though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v117/icrash/icrash4it.jpg

Scrapper_511
01-08-2007, 07:51 PM
Such references to the 17 and 24 lead to my confusion of what high and low wing-loading meant. I actually thought that the position of the wings relative to the fuselage of said bombers had direct influence.

Thanks for clarifying and "busting" this mental myth!

smokincrater
01-09-2007, 07:04 PM
It was once explained to me if you dont get a head ache when reading this stuff,you haven`t got it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Shoot first and ask questions when you can. You can always say sorry later.

HerrGraf
01-09-2007, 09:50 PM
The B17 had a low, thick traditional wing which allowed it to fly higher but slower than the B24. This wing was also more resilient to damage.

The B24 had a slender Davis wing which allowed it to fly farther and faster than the B17. The B24 controls were by wires, which had to be tight for the B24 to be able to fly a tight formation. (This was rarely the case.)

WB_Outlaw
01-09-2007, 11:52 PM
High wing loading does not allow a bomber to carry more/faster/farther. A fully loaded B-17G has a lower wing loading than an empty P-51B.

In general, an aircraft with a high wingloading will have a higher corner velocity than an aircraft with a lower wingloading. This means it will have to fly faster to acheive it's best performance. It's about as simple as that in the very general sense.

--Outlaw.

DustyBarrels77
01-12-2007, 12:55 PM
doesnt mean a thing in this game anyways look at the b1 me262 he162 and i16 for example vs ac that had higher cornering speeds then compair that to ac with better corning "combat turn" rates.

then compair the he111 bf110 pe2 p38 beau a20 corning radius compaired to the pig47 pig51 corsair hellcat, i come from eaw warbird i have to say this game is so off in so many areas but it looks excellent and I love the host lock settings.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:M98REgPM-RPbEM:http://www.me-air-company.de/crash_gross/005.jpg

-HH-Quazi
01-12-2007, 02:21 PM
"Off in so many areas"? Care to elaborate? I was under the impression it was the closest PC game that we can actually call a simulator than any other game on the market. Just curious, that's all.

@ Community:
I am not fishing here. If the m8 does elaborate and share his views and opinions, there's nothing wrong with a discussion. But let's keep it civil.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/HH_Beebop/Personal/HHLoGo3.jpg

Hunters' Magnum-PC House (https://magnum-pc.com/Search/External/)
So You're Interested In Water Cooling? (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70)
Welcome To The Dogz Hound Pound! (http://www.k9squadrons.com)
Mission 4Today (http://www.mission4today.com/)

smokincrater
01-12-2007, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
High wing loading does not allow a bomber to carry more/faster/farther. A fully loaded B-17G has a lower wing loading than an empty P-51B.

In general, an aircraft with a high wingloading will have a higher corner velocity than an aircraft with a lower wingloading. This means it will have to fly faster to acheive it's best performance. It's about as simple as that in the very general sense.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talk about comparing a truck to a family car!! LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But really wing loading is only one part of a entire design. Don`t get carried away with one aspect! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Shoot first and ask questions when you can. You can always say sorry later.

DustyBarrels77
01-12-2007, 05:05 PM
quazi just use ross youss il2 compair, the compair what i said to real data and in game combat turn times.

eaw had more realistic fms turntimes climb dive accelaration working rudders even tho it did not look as good graphically, even cfs had ac controls freeze up in highspeed dives before breakup speed..

this game is half do this half do that when they all should seems like a half finished product to me. Yes its still fun and looks purdy as long as you stay under 1000m but im sick of all these people saying its so realistic. Any common microbe can easily find proof of the wrong here and prove it but it is just a waste of time and gets removed or flamed by the easy to fly ac crowd.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:M98REgPM-RPbEM:http://www.me-air-company.de/crash_gross/005.jpg

WB_Outlaw
01-12-2007, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Talk about comparing a truck to a family car!! LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But really wing loading is only one part of a entire design. Don`t get carried away with one aspect! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hence the term, "...in the very general sense".

If you want to talk LOL funny, look at the following statement...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Generally speaking you want to have a bomber with high loading so that it can carry as much bombs with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since the wingloading is a FUNCTION of the gross weight (which includes the bomb load) the above statement makes no sense whatsoever. Maximum range does increase with wing loading IF you decrease the wing area to increase the wing loading. If you simply add weight (ie bombs) to increase the wing loading range will decrease.

--Outlaw.

icrash
01-12-2007, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Since the wingloading is a FUNCTION of the gross weight (which includes the bomb load) the above statement makes no sense whatsoever. Maximum range does increase with wing loading IF you decrease the wing area to increase the wing loading. If you simply add weight (ie bombs) to increase the wing loading range will decrease. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy cow, this is actually starting to make sense now. I may yet get out of going to a library for a book on the physics of flight to figure all this out.

smokincrater
01-13-2007, 10:04 AM
Please Read my posts carefully. You CAN increase the range by adding weight because instead of adding bombs you can increase your fuel load or a combination of both. But AS I KEEP SAYING DONT PIN DOWN ANYTHING TO EXACT POINTS BECAUSE EVERY DESIGN IS DIFFERENT! And in the case varaible geometry wings you can vary the wingloading in flight but thats not reason why the F-111, Tornado and Tomcat fly faster.Its because of the reduced lift of the swept wings which has the affect of reducing induced drag,which also increases range!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Shoot first and ask questions when you can. You can always say sorry later.

WB_Outlaw
01-13-2007, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Please Read my posts carefully. You CAN increase the range by adding weight because instead of adding bombs you can increase your fuel load or a combination of both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but the goal is to carry bombs, not fuel. You have simply increased range at the cost of a reduced payload by adding fuel. The resulting range increase is due to extra fuel, not due to an increased wing loading and, as I said, any extra fuel DECREASES the available bomb load (the true goal of the aircraft). The additional fuel weight, reduces the ability to, "...carry as much bombs with it"), and increases induced drag penalties without increasing payload.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
And in the case varaible geometry wings you can vary the wingloading in flight but thats not reason why the F-111, Tornado and Tomcat fly faster.Its because of the reduced lift of the swept wings which has the affect of reducing induced drag,which also increases range! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for showing my point, the extra range is not due to a higher wing loading which is what you imply in your earlier post.

--Outlaw.

NonWonderDog
01-13-2007, 06:21 PM
The idea behind swing wings is much simpler than that. Straight wings are the most efficient at low speeds and high angles of attack, so are thus very good for takeoff and landing. Straight wings usually have a limit Mach number of about 1.1-1.2, however, past which the Mach cone from the nose will intersect the wings and cause havoc. Highly swept delta wings will let you go to Mach 2 or more, depending on sweep angle, but are very poor at low speeds and high angles of attack where spanwise flow spoils lift. Swing wings can be both straight wings and delta wings, so are the best of both worlds. If the F-14 didn't have swing wings it wouldn't be able to take off from a carrier under full load; the low-speed maneuverability benefits are secondary.

Wing loading is just the amount of weight each square unit of wing has to lift. Of two planes, each with identical wing shapes, the plane with the higher wing loading would have to fly at a higher angle of attack--with more drag--at any given speed. High wing loading is thus bad, because it limits maneuverability and range.

smokincrater
01-14-2007, 12:13 AM
Thanks for showing my point, the extra range is not due to a higher wing loading which is what you imply in your earlier post.

--Outlaw.[/QUOTE]

Of course my good friend, range is worked out in the following manner.

Effort to propel the aircraft forward at a given speed = thrust. Force opposite to thrust = drag. So to keep the aircraft at a given speed thrust must equal drag. Work must be done to keep thrust going. To produce work, chemical fuel must be burnt. Rate of burning chemical fuel compared to thrust of said fuel = power. Power x speed of the aircraft x time = equals fuel consumption. Fuel Consumption x fuel storage = range.

Agree?

Aircraft with higher wing loadings can lift more fuel for a given wing size. Simple as that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Even with aircraft with the same warload. The one with the higher wing loading can carry more fuel. Cheers!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Shoot first and ask questions when you can. You can always say sorry later.

WB_Outlaw
01-14-2007, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Aircraft with higher wing loadings can lift more fuel for a given wing size. Simple as that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Even with aircraft with the same warload. The one with the higher wing loading can carry more fuel. Cheers! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wing loading is DEPENDENT on the fuel load. The statement, "...one with the higher wing loading can carry more fuel", is totally incorrect and meaningless. Wing loading does NOT determine the load carrying capability because wing loading is a FUNCTION of the gross weight of the aircraft. If my 1000 sq. ft. wing area aircraft weighs 30000 lbs when I take off and I burn 4000 lbs of fuel, then the wing loading has dropped from 30 lbs/sq. ft. to 26 lbs/sq. ft. during the flight and burning that fuel has not in any way changed the maximum gross weight the aircraft is capable of lifting (whether it's in airframe, fuel, payload, passengers, guns, ammo, etc.).

According to your logic, if the bomb load of my aircraft is 8000lbs and the wing loading with that payload is 25 lbs/sq. ft. including a full tank of fuel, I should be able to carry more fuel by adding another 8000lbs of bombs <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">even if that 8000lbs exceeds the maximum weight the aircraft is capable of lifting</span> since doing so will increase the wing loading.

Note:
Yellow text added after initial post cuz I dorked it.

--Outlaw.

smokincrater
01-14-2007, 01:54 PM
Sorry I dont follow your logic there. Seeing this going to be my last post about this topic. I will try put everything into nutshell(if I can).

Aircraft with a higher wing loading can carry more weight for a given wing size, than aircraft with a lower wing loading of the same size wing. Which depending on your loadout you can carry more bombs to the target then the latter aircraft(low wing loading) or carry the standard bombload to a further target (carry more fuel).

Classic Example is the B-52. The B-52 takes off(with a full bombload) with only enough fuel to get it to the in flight tanker were it then Fills up its tanks. So its wing loading has increased (dynamically) inflight(Swing wing aircraft can also do the same.Take off with wings fully forward and then sweep them back which increases wing loading because wing area has been reduced). But if the tanker was not an option (the tanker had been destroyed in an air raid for instance). The B-52 would have to reduce its bombload in order for it to carry fuel and still meet its MTOW. Its wing loading has been lowered(because of opertional circumstances, but still it is lower[Carrier aircarft use the same trick as well sometimes. Royal Australian Navy Skyhawks use to do it]).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Shoot first and ask questions when you can. You can always say sorry later.

WB_Outlaw
01-14-2007, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Sorry I dont follow your logic there </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that explains a lot and your decision not to post again is a good one. If you do happen to pop in to read...

The wing loading of the B-52 in question has NOT been reduced because the bombs have been replaced with an equal weight of fuel. The higher wing loading does not result in the ability to carry more fuel. The additional fuel has resulted in a higher wing loading.

If I take an empty Cessna 152 and put a 1000lb piece of lead in it I have increased the wing loading to the point that it can't even fly. I have not ADDED ANY ability to carry more fuel or payload. In fact, I have TOTALLY ELIMINATED the ability to even fly.

The differential ranges your examples show all come from changes in fuel load. The changes in wing loading are BECAUSE of the changes in fuel load and not the other way around.

--Outlaw.

affen15
02-01-2007, 08:08 AM
Hi guys, you are rigth in general but let me help you about the effects of wing loading:
As you have stated wing loading is weight per area, lbs/fot or kg/m2.
But wih respect to handling it has to be related to specific lift, that is how much lift is generated per area wing and at what speed. So an aircraft with wing loading 50 that generates 50 in lift(for level flight they obviously have to be equal) at 100 knots and 1 degree incidence will behave the similar to an aircraft which have 20 in wing loading and generates 20 in lift at 1 degree incidence and 100 knots.

This means that planes that have equal level flight speed will behave similarly wrt many situations.

This is not the case when it comes to bad weather, where a heavier plane will behave better due to the increased mass which will require more energy from the air to move it, hence be better able to penetrate turbulent air which is not to big compared to the aircraft size.

And so on.

smokincrater
02-02-2007, 04:23 AM
Interesting point!

But how can you explain for instantance a Spitfire VIII compared to a Mustang Mk 21 (P-51d without the rear fuel tank).

Spitfire MK VIII

Engine Merlin 70 (HF)
Wing area 22.48 m2 (242 sq ft)
Normal Take off weight 3541 kg (7807 lb)
Wing loading 157 kg/m2 (32.06 lb/sq ft)
Max speed 650 km/h (404 mph)

Mustang Mk 21

Engine Merlin 70
Wing area 22.30 m2 (240.06 sq ft)
Normal Take off Weight 4309 kg (9500 lb)
Wing loading 193 kg/m2 (39.57 lb/sq ft)
Max speed 703 km/h (437 mph)

Now the Spit can outclimb and outturn the Mustang. And the Spit was noted for being an easier aircarft to fly. The Mustang was 30 mph faster (via reduced drag due to its newer areofoil section) and could outdive the Spit. So generally speaking the aircraft with the lower wingloading can turn, climb better and be easier flown than a higher wing loading. Whereas the heavier wing loading tends to be able to be a a litte more sloppy on the controls, but can travel further due to its ability to carry more weight (IE FUEL) and dive away quicker.

whiteladder
02-02-2007, 05:08 AM
I think when you discussing the bombers ability to operate at a high wing loading when fully loaded is desirable, because in infers an ability to carry more consumable items (weapons and fuel).

What is confusing matters is are you considering wing loading when the aircraft is full fuelled and loaded or empty.

For a bomber you want and aircraft that has the greatest diffence between the the empty wing loading and the maximum wing loading that is safe to operate at as this gives the greatest lifting potential.

With 2 similar bombers one with an high empty wing load and one with low empty wing load, the low one will in general term be the better bomber. It will carry more further.

Aircraft such as the Tornado and F111 were designed to have a much higher wing loading than convetional bombers of their period mainly because the were design to operate a low level and high speed, a high wing loading made them less suseptable to the turbulance at low level that made the ride bumpy, which in turn decreased crew fatigue,and increased systems reliablty and accuracy of the weapons systems.

They both suffered to some extent when they moved to medium level operations after the cold war where their high wing loading when fully loaded was/is a disadvantge. Which lead to this staement

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its because of the reduced lift of the swept wings which has the affect of reducing induced drag,which also increases range! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main purpose of swept wings is primarily in the interest of minimizing transonic and supersonic wave drag. At low speeds a swept wing has high induced drag (due to small wing span or low aspect ratio), high angles of attack for maximum lift. So in certain conditions a high wing loaded swept wing has higher induced drag than the equivalent swept wing with low wing loading!

WB_Outlaw
02-02-2007, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
Whereas the heavier wing loading tends to be able to be a a litte more sloppy on the controls, but can travel further due to its ability to carry more weight (IE FUEL) and dive away quicker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is totally incorrect. Wing loading is a FUNCTION of weight. Once again, adding ballast to an aircraft will increase it's wing loading, but, all other factors being equal, it's range will be REDUCED. Increased wing loading leads to decreased range in this case. If you were to replace the ballast with fuel, then it is true that the range would increase but it's NOT because you increased the wing loading, it's because you added fuel. If you used magic fuel that was weightless your wing loading would NOT increase and your range would be even GREATER than that of standard (ie non-magic) fuel.

--Outlaw.