Wing area and E management

[MANDOBLE]

Isn't wing area the main E draining factor when performing hard turns acting like a large air brake ?

Is the follwing correct for the same plane with two different wings?

- Larger wing area -> slower stall speed and faster E lose in hard turns.

- Smaller wing area -> higher stall speed and less E lose in hard turns.

[WildBlue]

Well, I can't give the scientific answer you want, but one thing to also consider... the engine! The La's, are simply unbelievable with the way they can make serious speed, but still hold in a turnfight and just power away if they get in trouble. The engine makes the difference there. I agree with you about wing shape and area, The Hellcat and turkey (tbm) have big wings, and they will retain some level of manouverability down to 100! I have made big turns with the turkey at below 100! But both planes have big wings and lose energy fast if you don't watch it. The yak... as an arguement, it still handles at low speeds, 120, with those little stubby wings, but still keeps e fairly well... hmmm. Something tells me I'm about to get a lesson here...

[MANDOBLE]

WildBlue, my questions, initially, are only about the SAME plane with different wings (larger and smaller), so same engine and fuselage. We can even suppose same weight even with the smaller wing compensating with some more fuel.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Isn't wing area the main E draining factor when performing hard turns acting like a large air brake ?

Is the follwing correct for the same plane with two different wings?

- Larger wing area -> slower stall speed and faster E lose in hard turns.

- Smaller wing area -> higher stall speed and less E lose in hard turns.

Its not quite as simple as that...... whilst wing provides drag it also provides lift which is true for level and turning flight.

In a turn the elevator forces the angle of flight out of the plain of the prop, which then requires the wing to over come not only G but the "forward" prop component.

This means that the lift generated by the wing is used to help the turn........ a smaller wing generates less lift forcing the  pilot to apply more elevator for the same turn rate........ creating an even greater out of plain component from the prop. (and  a smaller component in the actual turn direction)

When the combined drag of the air craft  is greater than the "in plain" component of the prop the AC loses speed (e).

A Good comparson is the Spit and the La.

The SpitIX has a sophisticated wing offering high lift and low nominal drag. Its engine is in fact significantly less powerful than the La but well balanced to the in terms of its weight and propulsive components. (when not loaded with bombs/drop tanks)

The La is a "little brute"... its engine to wing ratio is much higher and its weight wing loading ranges from being much higher when both are  lightly loaded to lower when both AC are fully loaded. It relies heavily upon thrust for all it perfomance characturistics plus fairly massive control surface areas for turning. The La has a massive out of plain thrust component when turning and a big elevator to hold it there. It will drain e at a very high rate. It will also recover e quickly for even short extensions.


SpitIX > La comparison

Tilt

[HoHun]

Hi Mandoble,

>Is the follwing correct for the same plane with two different wings?

Assuming an identical wing of different area:

Larger wing area: Lower stall speed, better instantaneous turn, better sustained turn, better climb

Smaller wing area: Higher top speed

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Otto]

Any two conventional aircraft flying at the same speed and angle of bank have the same turn radius  (turst me)

Good news:

A a low wing loading (area/weight) allows an aircraft to maintain  a higher bank angle for a longer time.  (turns better)


Bad news:

 More wing area equals more lift as speed increases.  More lift equals more drag.   More drag equals slower top speed.


 There's a little chatter in this but covers the important stuff. (I think)  

[whgates3]

a lot of the warbirds that were converted to racers had the wings cut down, but always at the wingtips, never the chords...

[funkedup]

Induced drag is proportional to the square of angle of attack.  Ceteris paribus, the plane with smaller wings will need a higher angle of attack and will generate more induced drag.

[dtango]

(1) As funked says AoA effects induced drag...

Induced drag is proportional to the square of angle of attack. Ceteris paribus, the plane with smaller wings will need a higher angle of attack and will generate more induced drag.

(2) Induced drag is also inversely proportional to the Aspect Ratio of the wing.  AR = wing span^2 / wing area.  It is not quite as simple as saying greater wing area = greater induced drag.  As funkedup points out above a wing with smaller area can have greater induced drag than a wing with more area.  This is also true with respect to AR impact on induced drag.  Run some numbers and you will find that shorter wings (smaller area, smaller wing span) actually has more induced drag vs. a wing with greater area and wing span.

(3) Both these factors can be observed in the following induced drag coefficient relationship.

Cdi = Cl^2  / (pi * oswald eff. * AR)

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Angus]

Wing design is a fascinating thing, but twisty as well.
While a bigger wing generally creates more drag, it also generates more lift, so its a two sided coin.
Wing width is also important, for a wider wing comes with worse aspect ratio, so in order to say how a bigger wing performs, the answer depends slightly whether it is longer with the same basic shape, or wider. A bigger wing does thereby not nececcarily have to have worse aspect ratio if the wing is just made bigger by increasing the span.
Typical planes to compare in this sector are the Spitfire and the 109, - while not the same plane, they are in many ways similar. Similar in weight, size and power output, the wing sizes and shapes are totally different. The Spitfire has a wide wing, sacrifizing the aspect ratio to some 10% worse than the 109 (if my memory serves me right), but for almost 50% more wing area.
The 109 has more acceleration, while the Spitfire holds better in turns, so between those two, the bigger wing and worse aspect ratio of the Spitfire still more than balances it with its higher lift.
As the Spits were chopped and cropped for better rollrates, they also became faster, but worse at turnfights.
Very many sides of this indeed:)