reo@teltone (R. E. Overby) (07/12/83)
< wing.loading !<wing.loading
reo@teltone (R. E. Overby) (07/12/83)
AIRCRAFT SOURCE lbs/sqft Grumman AA-5B (Tiger) POH-1979 17.1 Messerschmitt ME-262 USAF Int. Rpt. 44.5 Beech F-33A POH 18.8 Folke-Wulf FW-190 Janes (War Max.) 54.8 North American F-51D TO-01 49.75 Boeing KC-135A Janes 110.97 Convair F106A Janes 52.9 Douglas A4D Janes 84.6 Lockheed F104C Janes 107.3 MIG-21 Janes 64 (est) Boeing B52-G Janes 120 (est) Cessna C-177-RG POH-1978 16.1 Cessna C-182-Q POH-1979 16.9 Piper PA28-161 (Warrior) POH-1978 13.7 Piper PA28-181 (Archer) POH-1978 15.0 NOTES: Data from Janes should be regarded as typical since mission and specific configuration will affect gross TO weight and therefore, the wing loading. I agree with Alan on the Grumman line they are relatively fast gliders yet the glide range per the POH is better than some of the Pipers. Since 15 Meters is a common international class sail-plane I would estimate wing loadings at *less* than 4.5 lb/sqft. It is always dangerous to generalize in Aero. Eng. but in its simplest form, *a given airfoil* at *a given angle of attack* has lift proportional to the *square* of the velocity of the air flow. Therefore to support a heavy load *you gots to go fast* The approach speeds on many *hot* turbine powered aircraft are above REDLINE for a C-172/ C-182. USAF Jet-Jock buddy quotes approach in F-106's at aprox 185 KTS depending on landing weight. In any given aircraft higher weight means higher stall speeds and therefore higher landing speeds. Conversely, a C-182 light and 5 KTS hot will take 4000 ft to finally quit flying. The old 'add 5KTS for wife and 2KTS per kid' is a formula to make widows on short runways! For more information on why General Aviation A/C have relatively low landing (and stall) speeds see FAR Part 23 which sets the standards for receiving a type certification. These have been considerably toughened in past 10 years, too. Example anti- siphoning filler necks, stiffer gust loadings (in effect for stronger *Higher *G*) airframes etc. P.S. My favorite XC bird is the C-182. It is one of the few General Aviation A/C whose range at 75% exceeds mine. Robert Overby !teltone reo
hamilton@uiucuxc.UUCP (07/19/83)
#R:teltone:-16700:uiucuxc:10800002:000:453
uiucuxc!hamilton Jul 18 23:43:00 1983
i don't fully understand the drift of this wing-loading discussion,
but just for fun, the statistics for my parachute are:
weight area glide
160lb 180sqft 2?:1@20mph
.89 lb/sqft
mine is a rather small canopy (and an old one as well), and i am a
very light jumper. more typical figures would be gross weights
around 170lbs, wing areas 200-220sqft, and glides 3+:1 at 30mph.
wayne ({decvax,ucbvax}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!)hamiltonrmiller@ccvaxa.UUCP (07/20/83)
#R:teltone:-16700:ccvaxa:5100009:000:1066 ccvaxa!rmiller Jul 18 22:15:00 1983 i knew i should not have gone off to the world championships without leaving someone to watch for speculation! most standard and 15 meter racing sailplanes now fly at between 7.5 and 10 pounds per square foot wingloading. if you want anything more specific, i can go directly to the flight test results. open class ships are now up in the 11-12 pounds per square foot range (they are also running with 24.5 METER spans now too!). all contest ships now fly with water ballast to allow heavier wing loadings (9-10 range) during the strong parts of the day and then dump it if weather gets weak. the reason is that the glide ratio (L/D) does NOT change due to weight (but the speed for a given ratio is higher). glide ratios for standard class (15 meter span max, NO flaps) are in the 39-41 range, 15 meter racing class (15 meter span max) gets 42-45, and the open class (no restrictions) reaches 60:1. all of these ratios are obtained at between 55 and 70 knots depending on the sailplane type. the big ships can still hit 30:1 at 130 knots! uiucdcs!ccvaxa!rmiller