Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums

Wing Loadings

Aviation Discuss Wing Loadings in the World War II - Aviation forums; Can you post any wing loadings of planes you know please, hopefully we can get a list together...............


Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Aviation

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-13-2005, 12:36 PM   #1
Master of Ewes
 
the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:
Send a message via MSN to the lancaster kicks ass
Wing Loadings

Can you post any wing loadings of planes you know please, hopefully we can get a list together............
__________________

"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
the lancaster kicks ass is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 02:34 PM   #2
JCS
Senior Member
 
JCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nicholson, PA
Posts: 673
Country:
Send a message via AIM to JCS
Heres some....

Bristol Bulldog IVA----------12.6 (306 sq. ft)
Polikarpov I15bis------------15.7 (243sq. ft)
Polikarpov I16 type 6-------23.5 (156sq. ft)
Fokker D.XXI-----------------26.0 (174sq. ft)
Polikarpov I16 type 10------24.2 (156sq. ft)
Gloster Galdiator Mk.II------15.1 (323sq. ft)
Fiat G.50----------------------26.9 (196sq. ft)
Polikarpov I153 (M-62)-------17.7 (238sq. ft)
Polikarpov I16 type 18-------25.9 (156sq. ft)
Morane Saulnier MS.406------31.7 (172sq. ft)
Arado Ar240-------------------330kg/mē
Messerschmitt Bf108---------87.5 kg/mē
Messerschmitt Bf110---------173 kg/mē
Heinkel He111----------------129 kg/mē
Focke Wulf TA152H------------202.1 kg/mē
Heinkel He219------------------305.4 kg/mē
Messerschmitt Me163B-1-----213 kg/mē
Focke Wulf FW189-------------103.9 kg/mē
Junkers Ju88-------------------161.1 kg/mē
Junkers Ju188E----------------258.9 kg/mē
Junkers Ju288B----------------324 kg/mē
Blohm & Voss BV141----------60.2 kg/mē
Fieseler Fi156-------------------48.5 kg/mē
Mitsubishi A5M-----------------93.7 kg/mē
Mitsubishi J2M5-----------------174 kg/mē
Nakjima Ki44-IIB---------------200 kg/mē
Nakajima Ki84-Ia--------------172 kg/mē
Mitsubishi Ki67-Ib--------------208 kg/mē
Nakajima B5N2----------------101kg/mē
__________________
JCS is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 02:36 PM   #3
Konfused with a 'K'
 
cheddar cheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:
Send a message via AIM to cheddar cheese Send a message via MSN to cheddar cheese
Ive never quite got this, is a higher or lower wing loading better?
__________________

with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt...
cheddar cheese is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 04:24 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,504
The less you have, the better is. Higher wingload often limits the agility of the plane. But for a general statment you have to take powerload into calculations, too.
__________________
---delcyros---
delcyros is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 06:53 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
DaveB.inVa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 224
At 105,000lbs the B-29 has a wing loading of 61.4 pounds per square foot.
__________________
Fighter pilots make movies....
Bomber pilots make history!
DaveB.inVa is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2005, 01:26 AM   #6
Anonymous
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by delcyros
The less you have, the better is. Higher wingload often limits the agility of the plane. But for a general statment you have to take powerload into calculations, too.
Umm... lower wingloading tends to improve climbrates and turn rates. It can adversley effect "agility", making a plane roll sluggishly. In general, at lower speeds low wingloading is good, at higher speeds however you do not want as low a wingloading figure - a higher wingloading implies less drag. There is an optimal wingloading for a given speed range to balance turn/climb vs roll and quickness of response.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2005, 10:09 AM   #7
Master of Ewes
 
the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:
Send a message via MSN to the lancaster kicks ass
cool thanks, anyone got anymore??
__________________

"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
the lancaster kicks ass is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
   

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86