Why don't all fighters have low Wing Loading?

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.

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

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)

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.