Wing Loadings (was SR22 discussion)

SR22 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 23.5 lb/sqft
PA32-300 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 19.5 lb/sqft
Bo G33 max gross 3300 lbs wing loading (not found*)
C182R max gross 3100 lbs wing loading 17.8 lb/sqft
PA32-236 max gross 3000 lbs wing loading 17.6 lb/sqft

* neither the G33 POH nor the FAA TCDS contain the wing area nor wing
loading information. If anyone has the information, please add it.

I tried to use the comparable weight aircraft and performance.
As is evident, as a four seater, the SR22 is a "pig".
Although a retract, the G33 Bonanza is a good comparison given its
cruise speed and max gross. It's lower wing loading gives it better
landing preformance.
Useful load may offer a different perspective, but that can vary widely
by individual aircraft, so is not a valid comparison item.
Can anyone provide the gross weight and wing loading for a new Mooney?

High wing loading = pig is kind of missing the point if a 'pig' is a bad
thing.

A high wing loading tends to give a good ride in turbulence which can
make it easier to handle things, especially in the soup. Take off roll
will be longer, stall higher, approach speeds higher but with 5,000'
runways all over the place, maybe a good tradeoff for many. Just put a
big engine on it and go!

I'll bet the Bo is in the right place on your list.

Signed,
Puddle jumping, butt dragging, turf loving, pork barbecue eating
Mauledriver who has never flown any of them.

john smith wrote:
SR22 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 23.5 lb/sqft
PA32-300 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 19.5 lb/sqft
Bo G33 max gross 3300 lbs wing loading (not found*)
C182R max gross 3100 lbs wing loading 17.8 lb/sqft
PA32-236 max gross 3000 lbs wing loading 17.6 lb/sqft

* neither the G33 POH nor the FAA TCDS contain the wing area nor wing
loading information. If anyone has the information, please add it.

I tried to use the comparable weight aircraft and performance.
As is evident, as a four seater, the SR22 is a "pig".
Although a retract, the G33 Bonanza is a good comparison given its
cruise speed and max gross. It's lower wing loading gives it better
landing preformance.
Useful load may offer a different perspective, but that can vary widely
by individual aircraft, so is not a valid comparison item.
Can anyone provide the gross weight and wing loading for a new Mooney?

SR22 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 23.5 lb/sqft
PA32-300 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 19.5 lb/sqft
Bo G33 max gross 3300 lbs wing loading (not found*)
C182R max gross 3100 lbs wing loading 17.8 lb/sqft
PA32-236 max gross 3000 lbs wing loading 17.6 lb/sqft
Can anyone provide the gross weight and wing loading for a new Mooney?

3368 lb and the very high teens (19.6 or so).
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

Maule Driver wrote:
High wing loading = pig is kind of missing the point if a 'pig' is a bad
thing.

I agree. I think the F-16 has a pretty high wing loading also. Is it a
pig? :-)


Matt

High wing loading = pig is kind of missing the point if a 'pig' is a bad
thing.

I agree. I think the F-16 has a pretty high wing loading also. Is it a
pig? :-)

Okay, pig is probably the wrong choice of words. :-))

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:08:15 GMT, john smith wrote:

SR22 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 23.5 lb/sqft
PA32-300 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 19.5 lb/sqft
Bo G33 max gross 3300 lbs wing loading (not found*)

Depending on year, the gross weight, and mods: The early Deb ran 2900
gross while the gross in the F33 went to 3400 in about 1972 so pick a
number between 16 and 19.

Wing area 181 sq ft. for the V35
I don't have the area for the 33 series, but the wing is about 6
inches shorter and there are some variations in length through the
years.

3300/181=18.23
2900/181=16.022
My Deb: 3100/181=17.12
1972 F-33 3400/181= 18.78

The F33C (Aerobatic model had another 100# of useful load, but I don't
have a gross weight for it.

C182R max gross 3100 lbs wing loading 17.8 lb/sqft
PA32-236 max gross 3000 lbs wing loading 17.6 lb/sqft

* neither the G33 POH nor the FAA TCDS contain the wing area nor wing

Just call it a 33, or F33 as they only made the G model one year. They
have the 260 HP IO-470N mislabeled as 250 HP in the book (Used
Aircraft Guide)

loading information. If anyone has the information, please add it.

I tried to use the comparable weight aircraft and performance.
As is evident, as a four seater, the SR22 is a "pig".

Not in the performance field. It's a hot rod!
OTOH if you compare it to a Glasair III with near 30# (29point
something) per square foot it's fairly lightly loaded.

Although a retract, the G33 Bonanza is a good comparison given its
cruise speed and max gross. It's lower wing loading gives it better
landing preformance.
Useful load may offer a different perspective, but that can vary widely
by individual aircraft, so is not a valid comparison item.
Can anyone provide the gross weight and wing loading for a new Mooney?

Gross varies a bit from model to model, but the TLS is listed at 3368
Gross. I come up with 175 sq ft for the Eagle/Bravo and M20J to M20S.
IF the wing is the same then 3368/175=19.25, or slightly heavier
loading than the Bo and about 3# per sq ft less than the SR-22

I don' think (which means I don't know for sure) that the Mooney is
that much different from the Bo. They fly much the same, or at least
appear to do so to me. The main difference is the wing is much closer
to the ground when setting on the gear. As I recall it's well less
than half the distance between the bottom of the wing to the ground
than that of the Bo and those things will float like crazy with excess
air speed.

I spent one afternoon flying as safety pilot with a Mooney pilot
shooting approaches in his plane and then he served as safety pilot
for me in mine.
We were turned in to intercept the localizer and then asked to keep
the speed up as long as practicable as there was a DC-9 about 5 miles
behind us. I held 180 down the ILS (which didn't take much power
clean) then S-Turned at the MM, to dump speed, and extended the gear
as flaps as soon as speed would permit and only used a fraction of the
runway. My safety pilot said he'd have never been able to stop the
Mooney coming in like that even using the whole 8,000 foot plus
runway. Not flying as much lately I don't think I could do it now,
either.

The big difference I saw was my ability to slow down quickly and the
3-blade prop probably helped a lot there.

One other difference is the Bo does not change pitch with changes in
flap settings, but air speed changes require a major retrim.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

I have to agree with MD. The Cessna 172 and 182 both have wing areas
of 175 square feet, with gross weights of 2400 and 3100 lbs., if I
recall correctly. The 310 has wing area of 179 square feet, including
the effects of the tip tanks and nacelles. The 310K has gross weight
of 5200 lbs. If high wing loading equates to being a "pig", then I'll
take it on an approach. :-)

Brian

Maule Driver wrote:
High wing loading = pig is kind of missing the point if a 'pig' is a bad
thing.

A high wing loading tends to give a good ride in turbulence which can
make it easier to handle things, especially in the soup. Take off roll
will be longer, stall higher, approach speeds higher but with 5,000'
runways all over the place, maybe a good tradeoff for many. Just put a
big engine on it and go!

I'll bet the Bo is in the right place on your list.

Signed,
Puddle jumping, butt dragging, turf loving, pork barbecue eating
Mauledriver who has never flown any of them.

john smith wrote:
SR22 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 23.5 lb/sqft
PA32-300 max gross 3400 lbs wing loading 19.5 lb/sqft
Bo G33 max gross 3300 lbs wing loading (not found*)
C182R max gross 3100 lbs wing loading 17.8 lb/sqft
PA32-236 max gross 3000 lbs wing loading 17.6 lb/sqft

I tried to use the comparable weight aircraft and performance.
As is evident, as a four seater, the SR22 is a "pig".

"FlyWithTwo" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have to agree with MD. The Cessna 172 and 182 both have wing areas
of 175 square feet, with gross weights of 2400 and 3100 lbs., if I
recall correctly. The 310 has wing area of 179 square feet, including
the effects of the tip tanks and nacelles. The 310K has gross weight
of 5200 lbs. If high wing loading equates to being a "pig", then I'll
take it on an approach. :-)

I'm not clear on what it is that you are trying to say. Is it that you like
high wing loading for landings, or that you like how a 310 lands compared to
a 172 or 182, or what?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"FlyWithTwo" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have to agree with MD. The Cessna 172 and 182 both have wing areas
of 175 square feet, with gross weights of 2400 and 3100 lbs., if I
recall correctly. The 310 has wing area of 179 square feet, including
the effects of the tip tanks and nacelles. The 310K has gross weight
of 5200 lbs. If high wing loading equates to being a "pig", then I'll
take it on an approach. :-)

I'm not clear on what it is that you are trying to say. Is it that you like
high wing loading for landings, or that you like how a 310 lands compared to
a 172 or 182, or what?
--
Jim in NC

I've been away for a week, so just got back to your response. What I
meant was that higher wing loading makes for a more stable approach, as
in "less like a kite". That would go also for other planes with higher
wing loading like the Baron/Bonanza, etc. Based on experience, the 310
doesn't land better or worse, just require more advance planning. I
think the impressions on this thread of whether a plane handles like a
"pig" or is more or less stable are all rather subjective. I like 'em
all. To paraphrase, "There are no bad airplanes, just airplanes that
are poorly selected for the mission."

Brian