Re: Why don't all fighters have low Wing Loading?

[Chad Irby]

Hobo > wrote:

> If low wing loading is so important to a fighters maneaverability why
> don't all fighters have big wings and thus low wing loading? What are
> the drawbacks to big wings which make low wing loadings rare?

Aerodynamic drag.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

Hobo > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > Aerodynamic drag.
>
> So if the F-15 had high wing loading it would be a Mach 3 rocket?

Hard to tell. You *can* have planes with higher wing loading that have
a better turn radius (the WWII Messerschmitt 109). The aspect ratio of
the wing is very important here, too.

But if you keep everything else the same, you reduce drag (by some
amount) while also increasing the turn radius (by some amount).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:39:55 -0700, Hobo > wrote:

>
>
>If low wing loading is so important to a fighters maneaverability why
>don't all fighters have big wings and thus low wing loading? What are
>the drawbacks to big wings which make low wing loadings rare?
>
>TIA

Increased drag, a lot of increased drag.

Al Minyard

[Nele_VII]

Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>Hobo > wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> > Aerodynamic drag.
>>
>> So if the F-15 had high wing loading it would be a Mach 3 rocket?
>
>Hard to tell. You *can* have planes with higher wing loading that have
>a better turn radius (the WWII Messerschmitt 109). The aspect ratio of
>the wing is very important here, too.

Yes, but I've heard that Bf-109 was "bleeding" speed in turn much faster
than, f.e, Spitfire, so the Bf pilot had to "ease" on the stick. Something
like F-104 or MiG-21 behavior (although MiG-21 is loosing speed due to
dynamic drag of the delta-wing, not wing loading).
>
>But if you keep everything else the same, you reduce drag (by some
>amount) while also increasing the turn radius (by some amount).

Bf-109 had ot from both worlds, it seems.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
>Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
>Slam on brakes accordingly.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[Air Force Jayhawk]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:39:55 -0700, Hobo > wrote:

>
>
>If low wing loading is so important to a fighters maneaverability why
>don't all fighters have big wings and thus low wing loading? What are
>the drawbacks to big wings which make low wing loadings rare?
>
>TIA

Also, high aspect wings generate huge bending moments under high G.
The weight of the necessary structure would kill any performance
gains.

Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
USAF Flight Tester
(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)

[IBM]

"Nele_VII" > wrote in
:

> Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>>Hobo > wrote:
>>
>>> Chad Irby > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Aerodynamic drag.
>>>
>>> So if the F-15 had high wing loading it would be a Mach 3 rocket?
>>
>>Hard to tell. You *can* have planes with higher wing loading that
>>have a better turn radius (the WWII Messerschmitt 109). The aspect
>>ratio of the wing is very important here, too.

Of course the 109 had automatic leading edge devices to allow
for better performance at high AOA. Surprised no one has mentioned
this.
Basically speeds up airflow over the wing, re-energises the boundary
layer and delays the onset of separation. Gives a higher CL and
thereby tighter turns.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[steve gallacci]

Hobo wrote:
>
> If low wing loading is so important to a fighters maneaverability why
> don't all fighters have big wings and thus low wing loading? What are
> the drawbacks to big wings which make low wing loadings rare?
>
As many will observe, there is always a compromise between
drag/lift/speed. The best dogfighting wing plan/airfoil makes for a
lousy supersonic or economic cruise arrangement. There are ways to make
larger wings somewhat less draggy (swing wings/thin but very "flapped"
or variable airfoil wings) but even then there is absolute wetting area
drag which will still get you in those cases.