Comparison of Aircraft Wing Loadings

[column5 62]

My mind was idle tonight, and rather than hit the whiskey I decided to calculate and compare the wing loading of several aircraft at combat weight. Wing loading is a factor in an aircraft's maneuverability and can be used as a predictor although other factors are involved. Therefore the chart below is not a direct comparison of maneuverability but in light of many discussions here about the F-8 vs. F-4, the fighter potential of the F-101 and F-105, etc., it is interesting.

 

 

The numbers were calculated by dividing the combat weight of the aircraft in pounds (as best as I can determine using semi-reliable Internet sources) by the wing area in square feet.

 

The F-14A has an * because I don't know if the wing area figure I used is for max or min sweep, or mid-sweep. I think the latter, so the wing loading would decreas a bit at full sweep.

 

Some surprises are the F-102's extremely low wing loading and the F-106 close behind. Both of these aircraft are said to have had excellent instantaneous turn performance, though. The F-100D fared better than I expected and I was surprised to see the F-15 down in the area with the A-4 and F-8.

 

As for the F-111B...well Adm. Connelly did say that all the thrust in Christendom would not make that aircraft a fighter.

 

Description of wing loading here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

 

Next step is to work up thrust to weight ratios dry and wet for each aircraft.

[column5 62]

As a companion to the above chart, here are the dry and wet thrust to weight ratios for the same aircraft (at combat weight). Note that I installed the J52-P-408 engine in the A-4E for a more interesting comparison.

 

 

Now...let's see...Kentucky Straight Rye Whiskey...

[Lt. James Cater 62]

I'm really amazed that the Deuce has a wing loading as small as it does. Who'ed have figured it?.

 

That being said, i did find that the plane modeled in NF could certainly make for some severe over-shoots by a displaying very deceptive manuverability for a plane it's size.

 

Did a quick search and found that delta wings are noted for low wing loads. Damn, feel silly not to have known this. LOL!

Edited May 18, 2010 by Lt. James Cater

[Guest rscsjsuso5]

very amazing charts, as a china and taiwan fighter jet expert i can say that taiwan chose the f-5e rather than the f-5a for better of all around performance in the aircraft and the charts has answer that and all relevance. hope you can do soviet aircraft as c5s site is nato vs ws.

 

great work nice charts. have a great week

[+Gunrunner 313]

C5, you're our own Boyd (not sure you'll take that as a compliment though).

And it's no surprise to see the F-15 there, it was a large part of its definition, and the late-game "gold-plating" couldn't overcome it.

The F-102 though sure is a surprise, I never realised it had such a low wing loading.

[DWCAce 19]

Neat stuff man, thanks for posting!

[Fubar512 1,350]

I'm really amazed that the Deuce has a wing loading as small as it does. Who'ed have figured it?.

 

That being said, i did find that the plane modeled in NF could certainly make for some severe over-shoots by a displaying very deceptive manuverability for a plane it's size.

 

Did a quick search and found that delta wings are noted for low wing loads. Damn, feel silly not to have known this. LOL!

 

 

Delta wings = large lift surfaces with comparatively low drag. Another benefit of the delta-wing design, is that it makes for an aircraft with predictable and benign handling characteristics.

[JediMaster 451]

Did your F-14 info include the fuselage area for lifting surface? I know that made a large difference in its handling and would probably move it to the left on the chart if it wasn't available for you to include.

[+Dave 2,319]

In DACM a lot of aggressor pilots got a serious rude awaking when they were getting chased by F-106's and they were hanging with them. The F-102 and the F-106 were good dogfighters.

[column5 62]

Did your F-14 info include the fuselage area for lifting surface? I know that made a large difference in its handling and would probably move it to the left on the chart if it wasn't available for you to include.

 

I did not take that into account for the F-14, or the F-16.

 

If we conservatively estimate that 20% of the F-14s lift comes from the fuselage (I've heard as high as 40%) then the loding becomes more comparable to the F-5.

[Derk 265]

In DACM a lot of aggressor pilots got a serious rude awaking when they were getting chased by F-106's and they were hanging with them. The F-102 and the F-106 were good dogfighters.

 

.... but on the other side losing speed VERY quickly if pulled really hard, just like Mirages, Drakens and even MiG 21's up to a certain extent. Instantenious turn rate very good, sustained turn rate rather less spectacular..... Other effect of low wing loading is relatively good handling at very high altitudes. Try out the Vulcan at 60.000ft+ in this game for a taste of that ......

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

Edited May 18, 2010 by Derk

[column5 62]

Updated tables with tweaked F-14 info. Added A-5A and F-14B.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Surprised by F-102 F-106 wing loading haha. I saw one of the last 106 flying at airshow. Blotted out the sun.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Other effect of low wing loading is relatively good handling at very high altitudes.

 

And increased susceptibility to being bounced around by updrafts and air currents when flying fast at low altitudes. High wing loading's the reason why the F-104, F-105, and F-111s are so damned stable at high subsonic and low supersonic speeds, while flying down "in the weeds".

[Derk 265]

And increased susceptibility to being bounced around by updrafts and air currents when flying fast at low altitudes. High wing loading's the reason why the F-104, F-105, and F-111s are so damned stable at high subsonic and low supersonic speeds, while flying down "in the weeds".

 

 

Right so, be sure to see your dentist before you go fast low down........

(sorry, no other intentions in this statement ...... )

 

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

[column5 62]

This chart compares the aspect ratio of the various aircraft's wings. All else being equal, a wing with a higher aspect ratio will produce a lower roll rate. For variable geometry wings, the blue bar is the fully swept AR and the red bar is the full extended AR.

 

[JediMaster 451]

Of course there's no way a swept F-111 could roll faster than an F-16.

[DWCAce 19]

Here's some follow up info from James Perry Stevenson's 'Grumman F-14 Tomcat (Aero Series #25).

 

"[including all lifting areas] The actual wing loading is 44lbs. per square foot at 20 degrees [wing sweep] and 48lbs. per square foot at 68 degrees*."

 

*([he Navy uses60% fuel and combat stores (gun, ammo and 4 Sparrow missiles) to compute weight for the wing loading solution.]

 

[column5 62]

Here's some follow up info from James Perry Stevenson's 'Grumman F-14 Tomcat (Aero Series #25).

 

Very interesting, DWCAce. I have not seen that info before!

 

I updated the wing loading chart with that information. Given that the info is creditied to Grumman, it seems safe to accept it. To get the numbers to come out right, it means that a full 45% of the Tomcat's weight is being borne by the fuselage rather than the wings. That is pretty impressive.

[+Crusader 2,066]

Don, make some room in your PM folder....quick!!!11

[column5 62]

Don, make some room in your PM folder....quick!!!11

 

Done!

[DWCAce 19]

That book is one of the first ones on the Tomcat (I think), first out in 1975. I think MJ took care of what I was going to ask you, so moving on, ask JData @ sunset, he'd probably be a good source of info too, or Hoser for that matter!

[+Crusader 2,066]

hehe

[Caesar 305]

Looks like Jon and Crusader beat me to it; Mr. Stevenson's book indicates the Tomcat has 1008sqft of lift total (WS 20), 565 from the wings, 443 from the fuselage/pancake. If its kept clean (no phoenix/rails) or with AIM-7's, the aircraft has a humongous boost in lift. The fuselage also stalls at a different speed than the wings; Skogs and Magic (IIRC) over at the sunset site talk about how, with the pancake clean, you could keep the F-14 flying with both wings stalled thanks to the fuselage (saying something to the effect of "it wasn't pretty, but the plane was flying and totally controllable").

 

'Fraid I can't comment on the other aircraft...not enough research.

[+SkippyBing 8]

I remember a book my Dad had years ago which basically had the wing-loading and thrust to weight ratio of various aircraft types done as a scatter graph.

I.e. Wing-loading on the Y axis, thrust to weight on the X Axis, the further right and up the aircraft was on the graph the better a dog fighter it was. Basically it combined the first two graphs, which makes comparing types easier, might be worth trying as you've already got the data?