Aerodynamics Discuss the concepts of aerodynamics here

Wing Loading formula?

Old 03-22-2012, 11:49 PM
  #1  
philscho
New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 14
Default Wing Loading formula?

Can anyone direct me where to find the formula for determing the wing loading of a special RC airplane?

Thanks Phil
philscho is offline  
Old 03-23-2012, 12:23 AM
  #2  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,120
Default

weight divided by wing area... pretty simple
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 03-23-2012, 12:32 AM
  #3  
NJSwede
3D wannabe
 
NJSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,893
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
weight divided by wing area... pretty simple
The trick is usually to figure out the wing area...
NJSwede is offline  
Old 03-23-2012, 12:57 AM
  #4  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,120
Default

Originally Posted by NJSwede View Post
The trick is usually to figure out the wing area...
it's often quoted in the manufacturers specifications, failing that (for wings with straight taper or no taper): tip chord plus root chord x half of wing span

Last edited by JetPlaneFlyer; 03-23-2012 at 11:51 AM.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 03-23-2012, 09:56 AM
  #5  
Larry3215
Look out for that tree!!!
 
Larry3215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gig Harbor, Wa USA
Posts: 7,061
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
it's often quoted in the manufacturers specifications, failing that (for wings with straight taper or no taper): tip chord plus root chord / half of wing span
I think you mis-typed that final operator. Shouldnt that be a X instead?
Larry3215 is offline  
Old 03-23-2012, 11:51 AM
  #6  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,120
Default

Good catch Larry.. yes of course i meant x not /.. I'll correct it
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 04-08-2012, 03:32 PM
  #7  
Rodneh
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 753
Default

A much better indicator for how well a model flys is its "wing volume loading" sometimes called "cubic wing loading". Lots of info on using that measurement in the forums if you do a search.
Rodneh is offline  
Old 04-08-2012, 07:52 PM
  #8  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by Rodneh View Post
A much better indicator for how well a model flys is its "wing volume loading" sometimes called "cubic wing loading". Lots of info on using that measurement in the forums if you do a search.
Agreed: Wing cubic loading is much more useful. What would be a decent wing loading on a giant scale model would be so out of line in a back yard flyer, it would not get off the ground.
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 02:53 PM
  #9  
Rodneh
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 753
Default

Here is a chart to see what the wing volume loading is along with wing loading.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	WMVLOADING.jpg
Views:	878
Size:	157.2 KB
ID:	164226  
Rodneh is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 03:47 PM
  #10  
FlyWheel
Ochroma Pyramidale Tekton
 
FlyWheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blackstock, South Carolina
Posts: 3,029
Default

What is "cubic" wing loading? Is this a Bernoulli<Sp?> thing?

Posted via Mobile Device
FlyWheel is offline  
Old 11-18-2012, 06:01 PM
  #11  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,120
Default

Originally Posted by FlyWheel View Post
What is "cubic" wing loading? Is this a Bernoulli<Sp?> thing?

Posted via Mobile Device
No, nothing to do with Bernoulli

Cubic loading takes into consideration the scale effect. 'Normal' wing loading can be confusing. For example a micro model with a wing loading of (say) 12oz/sq ft might fly like a lead brick, whereas a giant scale model with exactly the same wing loading would fly like a feather.

That's because our perception of flying speed is influenced by scale. A giant scale model flying at 20mph looks super slow, but a micro doing the same speed looks fast.

Cubic loading takes into account scale effect so it gives a number that is consistent for planes of any size. For instance if you have a cubic loading of 6 then you know that plane will be capable of slow sedate flying, regardless of size.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 12-05-2012, 02:04 AM
  #12  
Bill G
Super Contrubutor
 
Bill G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West Central PA
Posts: 4,422
Default

Originally Posted by NJSwede View Post
The trick is usually to figure out the wing area...
...which is generally exaggerated with ARFs and RTFs.
The AUWs often are understated also.
Bill G is offline  
Old 01-07-2013, 08:40 PM
  #13  
BBCorvette18
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 167
Default

Originally Posted by Bill G View Post
...which is generally exaggerated with ARFs and RTFs.
The AUWs often are understated also.
I'm noticing this now that Im looking into this.

For example the Fun Cub I'm building states that it has

Wingspan: 55 in.
Wing Area: 589 sq. in.
Wing Loading: 9.8 oz./sq. ft.
Fuselage Length: 39 in.
Weight (English): 40 oz.


Now when I measure the wing in real life it's 55x9 which would be 495 sq in. and I would think you would have to subtract the width of the fuselage in the wing area equation.
BBCorvette18 is offline  
Old 01-07-2013, 08:55 PM
  #14  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,120
Default

Originally Posted by BBCorvette18 View Post
I would think you would have to subtract the width of the fuselage in the wing area equation.
No, convention is that you include the bit of the wing 'inside' of the fuselage. But you would have to make some deduction to allow for the rounding off of the tips on the cub.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 01-07-2013, 09:35 PM
  #15  
BBCorvette18
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 167
Default

Originally Posted by JetPlaneFlyer View Post
No, convention is that you include the bit of the wing 'inside' of the fuselage. But you would have to make some deduction to allow for the rounding off of the tips on the cub.
Thats the part I dont get on how multiplex is coming up with 589 cause I was using the widest part of the wing and the longest. so you would think the actual area would be less?

sometimes I think its better to not worry about all this stuff and just fly LOL
BBCorvette18 is offline  
Old 01-07-2013, 10:04 PM
  #16  
slipstick
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: N.Staffs, UK
Posts: 2,350
Default

It's always possible they're including the tailplane area as well as the wing.

I think there are still a few free flight classes that do that. I guess it's so you can't cheat by building tandem wings and claiming only one of them is the wing and the other doesn't count because it's the tailplane .

Steve
slipstick is offline  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:12 AM
  #17  
Stevephoon
Super Contributor
 
Stevephoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: White Lake, MI
Posts: 1,140
Default

I've just started down the path of wanting to understand more on aerodynamics as well. I've just come across this summary of wing loading.

http://www.eastbayrc.org/TimTips/Tim...ingLoading.htm

They go thru the numbers on some Slicks. From RC to real size.

Steve
Stevephoon is offline  
Old 01-08-2013, 02:40 AM
  #18  
BBCorvette18
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 167
Default

Originally Posted by slipstick View Post
It's always possible they're including the tailplane area as well as the wing.

I think there are still a few free flight classes that do that. I guess it's so you can't cheat by building tandem wings and claiming only one of them is the wing and the other doesn't count because it's the tailplane .

Steve
That makes alittle sense will have to bust out the tape tomorrow and see if tye numbers add up.
BBCorvette18 is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 03:05 PM
  #19  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,336
Default

So think about this one then ...

Fairly simple on a Cessna / Cub etc. where you have wing + tail area as the total LIFTING SURFACE area supporting a weight ...

What do you do with such as the F16 which has a lifting surface called a FUSELAGE ? in addition to the wing / tail.



Nigel
solentlife is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 05:14 PM
  #20  
JetPlaneFlyer
Super Contributor
 
JetPlaneFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 6,120
Default

Originally Posted by solentlife View Post
So think about this one then ...

Fairly simple on a Cessna / Cub etc. where you have wing + tail area as the total LIFTING SURFACE area supporting a weight ...

What do you do with such as the F16 which has a lifting surface called a FUSELAGE ? in addition to the wing / tail.



Nigel
yeah nothing in life is ever that simple!

Also consider that when you talk about 'lifting area' the tail on a most conventional planes 'lifts' downward. So that's why you dont usually include it in the 'wing area' calc. Arguably in fact, as it has 'negative lift' you would be more correct to deduct it from wing area rather than add it

For planes like the F-16 the fact that you project the wings to the centre of the fuselage when working out area takes some account of the lifting area of the fuselage, but it's far from an exact science.
JetPlaneFlyer is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 05:59 PM
  #21  
slipstick
Super Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: N.Staffs, UK
Posts: 2,350
Default

Not really a problem....you design modern jet fighters using computational fluid dynamics. Crude measures like "wing loading" really don't come into it .

Steve
slipstick is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 07:21 PM
  #22  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by slipstick View Post
Not really a problem....you design modern jet fighters using computational fluid dynamics. Crude measures like "wing loading" really don't come into it .

Steve
A while back, someone calculated the wing loading of a fully loaded full size jet fighter. The wing loading was something like making a frisbee out of a cast iron manhole cover!
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 01-31-2013, 10:51 PM
  #23  
BBCorvette18
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 167
Default

Originally Posted by kyleservicetech View Post
A while back, someone calculated the wing loading of a fully loaded full size jet fighter. The wing loading was something like making a frisbee out of a cast iron manhole cover!
anything will "fly" if it has enough thrust
BBCorvette18 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Larry3215
Foamies
2852
02-04-2017 02:11 PM
payne9999
Scratch and Kit Built Aircraft
98
12-28-2014 06:44 PM
wattman
WWI Era
1
11-09-2011 10:49 PM
payne9999
General Electric Discussions
23
09-23-2011 06:27 AM
FlyingBrick50
General Electric Discussions
2
01-18-2011 07:46 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Quick Reply: Wing Loading formula?


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.14679 seconds with 14 queries