Why don't all fighters have low Wing Loading?

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

"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