190A5 vs 190A8

[Angus]

"Completely dependent on other design considerations.  Don't confuse span loading with wing-loading.  Span loading is typically a function of wing design.  Wing loading is nothing more than the weight of the aircraft in a specific configuration divided by the wing area.  Ultimately, wing-loading has no impact on the structural qualities of a wing.  It does however, impact the aerodynamic qualities."

A higher span heads to less G-tolerance, while chord at the root does not. Just wondering.....

[Stoney]

A higher span heads to less G-tolerance, while chord at the root does not. Just wondering.....

I'm not sure I understand the question...

[Angus]

I am thinking of the wing spar. See how wings fluctuate at G if it is a long long wing

[Stoney]

Well, you can make a long span very strong, its just going to increase weight proportionally. 

[Angus]

Precicly
But weight also "increases" with G, so I wonder where the trade-off with span and chord occures. Which brings you to the form of the wing (tapering and thickness) and all the possibilities for stiffening the wing without making it able to break so easily.
But in general, the wing will take the most G at the root, and flex the more at the tip. Interesting how the trade-offs were done.

[Stoney]

Precicly
But weight also "increases" with G, so I wonder where the trade-off with span and chord occures. Which brings you to the form of the wing (tapering and thickness) and all the possibilities for stiffening the wing without making it able to break so easily.
But in general, the wing will take the most G at the root, and flex the more at the tip. Interesting how the trade-offs were done.

Well, trade studies are conducted that consider aspect ratio, weight, structural strength, etc.  There is some sort of aerodynamic goal the designer has in mind and when doing wing design, for example, they could set up a "carpet plot" to see how changing the various characteristics impacted the design goals.  The design goal may prioritize aerodynamic efficiency or weight, or strength.  I've got some formulas that will take span, aspect ratio, taper ratio, design load, and will give you estimated weights for the wing as a result.  Its pretty interesting to see how those various characteristics affect the theoretical weight.

[Charge]

As per topic I remember reading awhile ago that FW's wing weighed 400-450kg and fuselage something like 350kg IIRC. Dunno if that's a normal weight distribution between those two parts (two because FW has a solid spar so the whole wing is in one piece).

-C+

[Bronk]

As per topic I remember reading awhile ago that FW's wing weighed 400-450kg and fuselage something like 350kg IIRC. Dunno if that's a normal weight distribution between those two parts (two because FW has a solid spar so the whole wing is in one piece).

-C+

I thought it was built in 2 halves then bolted together?
  Edit: think this is wing halves ...

[JOACH1M]

The Focke Wolfe 190A8 has a bigger and heavy motor then the A5, which makes it slower and less of a climber and the A8 has a way heavyer wing loading then the A5.

[STEELE]

The Focke Wolfe 190A8 has a bigger and heavy motor then the A5, which makes it slower and less of a climber and the A8 has a way heavyer wing loading then the A5.

The last few sites I've visited that deal exclusively with the 190 state that after the A6, subsequent models had an Enlarged and Lightened wing to help offset any weight increases. I have yet to find the square footage of the A5 wing compared to the A8, though. (Or wing weights)