« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Me-410 props?  (Read 1964 times)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Me-410 props?
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2011, 03:48:23 AM »
"Higher wing-loading doesn't mean less draggy."

So what is the point of putting small wings on a plane then? Cost?  ;)

-C+
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: Me-410 props?
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2011, 04:07:07 AM »
Quote from: Charge on August 24, 2011, 03:48:23 AM
"Higher wing-loading doesn't mean less draggy."

So what is the point of putting small wings on a plane then? Cost?  ;)

-C+

He prefaced the statement. Consider a barn door with F-104 wings, then consider a streamlined fuse with larger wings. Clearly, you could make a draggier ac with a higher wingloading. Generally, this does not obtain. I think Stoney's only point was that the wing is only one part of the overall drag picture.
Logged
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Me-410 props?
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2011, 07:27:48 AM »
Ok, with that I agree or course. I thought that as wing-loading  is calculated from wing-area to weight that would automatically mean that high wing-loading is caused by a small wing (or unnaturally great weight) and there is not really any sense to make a small wing except to counter parasitic drag, that is why the statement seemed a bit strange.

-C+
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me-410 props?
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2011, 10:05:40 AM »
As an interesting note, I recently found this on LEMB (clipped):

"There are figures for just this given in Mankau/Petrick, near the end of the book.

BK5 listed as 15kph penalty, 2x 3x WG21 : 20 kph. Abwurfanlange Mittelflugel - 4 x SC 50 od. 4 x BL-Bomben : 25 kph. Both 2x300L and 2x900L drop tank configurations : 25 kph."

The follow up asked if he meant 2x 2x or if that's the experimental 2x 3x drag.
Logged

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Me-410 props?
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2011, 12:20:34 PM »
Quote from: Charge on August 24, 2011, 07:27:48 AM
Ok, with that I agree or course. I thought that as wing-loading  is calculated from wing-area to weight that would automatically mean that high wing-loading is caused by a small wing (or unnaturally great weight) and there is not really any sense to make a small wing except to counter parasitic drag, that is why the statement seemed a bit strange.

-C+

The original statement was that higher wing loading meant less drag.  If, for example (all other things being equal), the wing area remains the same size, but the weight doubled, the drag coefficient would be the same (i.e. the plane is just as "draggy"), but the wingloading would be much higher.  Without knowing what type of thrust/power the Me410 is capable of, we can't really make a comparison of how the higher wingloading will effect the plane, one way or the other.  If the higher wingloading was a result of a smaller wing only, then we could potentially say "less draggy".
Logged
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
« previous next »