Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!reo
From: reo@teltone (R. E. Overby)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Wing-loading
Message-ID: <167@teltone.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Jul-83 12:59:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: teltone.167
Posted: Tue Jul 12 12:59:07 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Jul-83 17:04:59 EDT
Lines: 63





AIRCRAFT			SOURCE			lbs/sqft
Grumman AA-5B (Tiger)		POH-1979		17.1
Messerschmitt ME-262		USAF Int. Rpt.		44.5
Beech F-33A			POH			18.8
Folke-Wulf FW-190		Janes (War Max.)	54.8
North American F-51D		TO-01			49.75
Boeing KC-135A			Janes			110.97
Convair F106A			Janes			52.9
Douglas A4D			Janes			84.6
Lockheed F104C			Janes			107.3
MIG-21				Janes			64 (est)
Boeing B52-G			Janes			120 (est)
Cessna C-177-RG			POH-1978		16.1
Cessna C-182-Q			POH-1979		16.9
Piper PA28-161 (Warrior)	POH-1978		13.7
Piper PA28-181 (Archer)		POH-1978		15.0


NOTES: Data from Janes should be regarded as typical since
mission and specific configuration will affect gross TO weight
and therefore, the wing loading.

  I agree with Alan on the
Grumman line they are relatively fast gliders yet the glide
range per the POH is better than some of the Pipers.

 Since 15 Meters is a common international class sail-plane
I would estimate wing loadings at *less* than 4.5 lb/sqft.

 It is always dangerous to generalize in Aero. Eng. but in its
simplest form, *a given airfoil* at *a given angle of attack*
has lift proportional to the *square* of the velocity of the
air flow. Therefore to support a heavy load *you gots to go fast*

 The approach speeds on many *hot* turbine powered aircraft
are above REDLINE for a C-172/ C-182. USAF Jet-Jock buddy
quotes approach in F-106's at aprox 185 KTS depending on landing
weight.

 In any given aircraft higher weight means higher
stall speeds and therefore higher landing speeds. Conversely,
a C-182 light and 5 KTS hot will take 4000 ft to finally
quit flying. The old 'add 5KTS for wife and 2KTS per kid'
is a formula to make widows on short runways!

 For more information on why General Aviation A/C have relatively
low landing (and stall) speeds see FAR Part 23 which sets the
standards for receiving a type certification. These have been
considerably toughened in past 10 years, too. Example anti-
siphoning filler necks, stiffer gust loadings (in effect for
stronger *Higher *G*) airframes etc.


 P.S. My favorite XC bird is the C-182. It is one of the few
General Aviation A/C whose range at 75% exceeds mine.


				Robert Overby
				!teltone reo