Wing loading

In aerodynamics, wing loading is the total weight of an aircraft

divided by the area of its wing.[1] The stalling speed of an aircraft
in straight, level flight is partly determined by its wing loading.
An aircraft with a low wing loading has a larger wing area
relative to its mass, as compared to an aircraft with a high wing
loading.

The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift can be produced by each
unit of wing area, so a smaller wing can carry the same mass in The Monarch Butterfly has a very low
level flight. Consequently, faster aircraft generally have higher 0.168 kg/m2 wing loading

wing loadings than slower aircraft. This increased wing loading

also increases takeoff and landing distances. A higher wing
loading also decreases maneuverability. The same constraints
apply to winged biological organisms.

Contents
Range of wing loadings
Effect on performance
The North American X-15 has a high
Effect on takeoff and landing speeds
829 kg/m2 maximum wing loading
Effect on turning performance
Effect on stability
Effect of development
Water ballast use in gliders
Design considerations
Fuselage lift
Variable-sweep wing
Fowler flaps
See also
References
Notes
Bibliography
Notes
External links

Range of wing loadings

 Wing loading examples[2]

Aircraft Type Introduction MTOW Wing area kg/m2 lb/sqft

Monarch
Animal Cenozoic 0.168 0.034
Butterfly
0.20–
birds[a] Animal Cretaceous 1–20
4.10[3]
bird flight upper
25 5.1[4]
critical limit

Ozone Buzz Z3 75–95 kg (165– 2.9– 0.59–

Paraglider 2010 25.8 m2 (278 sq ft)
MS 209 lb) 3.7 0.76[5]

Wills Wing Sport 94.8–139.8 kg 6.6– 1.4–

Hang glider 2004 14.4 m2 (155 sq ft)
2 155 (209–308 lb) 9.7 2.0[6]

220 kg (490 lb) 12.2 m2 (131 sq ft)

upper limit Microlift glider 2008 18 3.7[7]
max. min.[b]

microlight wing 450 kg (990 lb) 18 m2 (190 sq ft)

UK CAA 25 5.1[8]
loading limit max. [c] min.[d]
Schleicher ASW 850 kg
Glider 1981 16.7 m2 (180 sq ft) 50.9 10.4
22 (1,870 lb)

Piper Warrior General aviation 1960

1,055 kg 15.14 m2 69.7 14.3
(2,326 lb) (163.0 sq ft)
Beechcraft General aviation 2,313 kg
1960 18.5 m2 (199 sq ft) 125 26
Baron twin (5,099 lb)

Supermarine
Fighter (WWII) 1938
3,039 kg 22.48 m2 135 28
Spitfire (6,700 lb) (242.0 sq ft)

Beechcraft Airliner
1968
4,727 kg 25.99 m2 182 37
Airliner (commuter) (10,421 lb) (279.8 sq ft)

Learjet 31 Business jet 1990

7,031 kg 24.57 m2 286 59
(15,501 lb) (264.5 sq ft)
Fighter
17,800 kg 34.16–37.35 m2 477– 98–
MiG-23 (Variable- 1970
(39,200 lb) (367.7–402.0 sq ft) 521 107
geometry)

General Fighter
1978
19,200 kg 27.87 m2 688.9 141.1
Dynamics F-16 (mutlirole) (42,300 lb) (300.0 sq ft)
Airliner 19,773 kg
Fokker F27 1958 70 m2 (750 sq ft) 282 58
(turboprop) (43,592 lb)
McDonnell Fighter (air 30,845 kg
1976 56.5 m2 (608 sq ft) 546 112
Douglas F-15 superiority) (68,002 lb)

Fokker F28
Airliner
1969
33,000 kg 78.97 m2 418 86
(Regional Jet) (73,000 lb) (850.0 sq ft)

Boeing 737-300
Airliner (Narrow-
1984
62,820 kg 91.04 m2 690 140
body) (138,490 lb) (979.9 sq ft)

Boeing 737-900
Airliner (Narrow-
2001
84,139 kg 124.6 m2 675 138
body) (185,495 lb) (1,341 sq ft)

Boeing 767
Airliner (Wide-
1982
142,882 kg 283.3 m2 504 103
body) (315,001 lb) (3,049 sq ft)
Concorde Airliner 1976 187,000 kg 358.2 m2 522 107
(supersonic) (412,000 lb) (3,856 sq ft)
 Rockwell B-1B Bomber 1983
148,000 kg 181.2 m2 818 168
(326,000 lb) (1,950 sq ft)

Boeing 777
Airliner (Wide-
1995
247,200 kg 427.8 m2 578 118
body) (545,000 lb) (4,605 sq ft)
Airliner (Wide- 333,000 kg
Boeing 747 1977 511 m2 (5,500 sq ft) 652 134
body) (734,000 lb)
Airliner (Wide- 575,000 kg
Airbus A380 2007 845 m2 (9,100 sq ft) 680 140
body) (1,268,000 lb)

Effect on performance
Wing loading is a useful measure of the stalling speed of an aircraft. Wings generate lift owing to the
motion of air around the wing. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative
to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have a lower stalling speed. Therefore, an aircraft with lower
wing loading will be able to take off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load).
It will also be able to turn at a greater rate.

Effect on takeoff and landing speeds

The lift force L on a wing of area A, traveling at true airspeed v is given by

where ρ is the density of air and CL is the lift coefficient. The lift coefficient is a dimensionless number
which depends on the wing cross-sectional profile and the angle of attack.[9] At take-off or in steady
flight, neither climbing nor diving, the lift force and the weight are equal. With L/A = Mg/A =WSg, where
M is the aircraft mass, WS = M/A the wing loading (in mass/area units, i.e. lb/ft2 or kg/m2, not force/area)
and g the acceleration due to gravity, that equation gives the speed v through[10]

As a consequence, aircraft with the same CL at takeoff under the same atmospheric conditions will have
takeoff speeds proportional to . So if an aircraft's wing area is increased by 10% and nothing else is
changed, the takeoff speed will fall by about 5%. Likewise, if an aircraft designed to take off at 150 mph
grows in weight during development by 40%, its takeoff speed increases to = 177 mph.

Some flyers rely on their muscle power to gain speed for takeoff over land or water. Ground nesting and
water birds have to be able to run or paddle at their takeoff speed before they can take off. The same is
true for a hang glider pilot, though they may get assistance from a downhill run. For all these, a low WS
is critical, whereas passerines and cliff dwelling birds can get airborne with higher wing loadings.

Effect on turning performance

To turn, an aircraft must roll in the direction of the turn, increasing the aircraft's bank angle. Turning
flight lowers the wing's lift component against gravity and hence causes a descent. To compensate, the
lift force must be increased by increasing the angle of attack by use of up elevator deflection which
increases drag. Turning can be described as 'climbing around a circle' (wing lift is diverted to turning the
aircraft) so the increase in wing angle of attack creates even more drag. The tighter the turn radius
attempted, the more drag induced; this requires that power (thrust) be added to overcome the drag. The
maximum rate of turn possible for a given aircraft design is limited by its wing size and available engine
power: the maximum turn the aircraft can achieve and hold is its sustained turn performance. As the
bank angle increases so does the g-force applied to the aircraft, this having the effect of increasing the
wing loading and also the stalling speed. This effect is also experienced during level pitching
maneuvers.[11]

As stalling is due to wing loading and maximum lift coefficient at

a given altitude and speed, this limits the turning radius due to
maximum load factor. At Mach 0.85 and 0.7 lift coefficient, a
wing loading of 50 lb/sq ft (240 kg/m2) can reach a structural
limit of 7.33 g up to 15,000 feet and then decreases to 2.3 g at
40,000 feet. With a wing loading of 100 lb/sq ft (490 kg/m2) the
load factor is twice smaller and barely reaches 1g at 40,000
feet.[12] Load factor varying with altitude at 50
or 100 lb/sq ft
Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained
turn performance because they can generate more lift for a given
quantity of engine thrust. The immediate bank angle an aircraft can achieve before drag seriously bleeds
off airspeed is known as its instantaneous turn performance. An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing
may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly
to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited. A classic example is the F-104 Starfighter,
which has a very small wing and high 723 kg/m2 (148 lb/sq ft) wing loading.

At the opposite end of the spectrum was the large Convair B-36: its large wings resulted in a low
269 kg/m2 (55 lb/sq ft) wing loading that could make it sustain tighter turns at high altitude than
contemporary jet fighters, while the slightly later Hawker Hunter had a similar wing loading of
344 kg/m2 (70 lb/sq ft). The Boeing 367-80 airliner prototype could be rolled at low altitudes with a wing
loading of 387 kg/m2 (79 lb/sq ft) at maximum weight.

Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at
speed v in a circle of radius R accelerates towards the center at . That acceleration is caused by the
inward horizontal component of the lift, , where is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second
law,

Solving for R gives

The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn.

Gliders designed to exploit thermals need a small turning circle in order to stay within the rising air
column, and the same is true for soaring birds. Other birds, for example those that catch insects on the
wing also need high maneuverability. All need low wing loadings.

Effect on stability
Wing loading also affects gust response, the degree to which the aircraft is affected by turbulence and
variations in air density. A small wing has less area on which a gust can act, both of which serve to
smooth the ride. For high-speed, low-level flight (such as a fast low-level bombing run in an attack
aircraft), a small, thin, highly loaded wing is preferable: aircraft with a low wing loading are often
subject to a rough, punishing ride in this flight regime. The F-15E Strike Eagle has a wing loading of
650 kg/m2 (excluding fuselage contributions to the effective area), whereas most delta wing aircraft (such
as the Dassault Mirage III, for which WS = 387 kg/m2) tend to have large wings and low wing loadings.

Quantitatively, if a gust produces an upward pressure of G (in N/m2, say) on an aircraft of mass M, the
upward acceleration a will, by Newton's second law be given by

decreasing with wing loading.

Effect of development
A further complication with wing loading is that it is difficult to substantially alter the wing area of an
existing aircraft design (although modest improvements are possible). As aircraft are developed they are
prone to "weight growth"—the addition of equipment and features that substantially increase the
operating mass of the aircraft. An aircraft whose wing loading is moderate in its original design may end
up with very high wing loading as new equipment is added. Although engines can be replaced or
upgraded for additional thrust, the effects on turning and takeoff performance resulting from higher wing
loading are not so easily reconciled.

Water ballast use in gliders

Modern gliders often use water ballast carried in the wings to increase wing loading when soaring
conditions are strong. By increasing the wing loading the average speed achieved across country can be
increased to take advantage of strong thermals. With a higher wing loading, a given lift-to-drag ratio is
achieved at a higher airspeed than with a lower wing loading, and this allows a faster average speed
across country. The ballast can be ejected overboard when conditions weaken to maximize glider cross-
country speed in gliding competitions.

Design considerations

Fuselage lift
A blended wing-fuselage design such as that found on the F-16 Fighting Falcon or MiG-29 Fulcrum
helps to reduce wing loading; in such a design the fuselage generates aerodynamic lift, thus improving
wing loading while maintaining high performance.

Variable-sweep wing
Aircraft like the F-14 Tomcat and the Panavia Tornado employ variable-sweep wings. As their wing area
varies in flight so does the wing loading (although this is not the only benefit). When the wing is in the
forward position takeoff and landing performance is greatly improved.[13]
Fowler flaps
Like all aircraft flaps, Fowler flaps increase the camber and hence
CL, lowering the landing speed. They also increase wing area,
decreasing the wing loading, which further lowers the landing
speed.[14]

See also The F-15E Strike Eagle has a large

relatively lightly loaded wing
Disk loading
Lift coefficient

References

Notes
1. "Wing Loading Definition" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wing-
loading). Merriam Webster:.
2. Henk Tennekes (2009). The simple science of Flight: From Insects to Jumbo Jets (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=lt4PQPDhX5YC). MIT Press. ISBN 9780262513135., "Figure 2:
The great flight diagram" (http://mitpress.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451e4b669e2017616acf6
f2970c-800wi).
3. Thomas Alerstam , Mikael Rosén, Johan Bäckman, Per G. P Ericson, Olof Hellgren (17 July
2007). "Flight Speeds among Bird Species: Allometric and Phylogenetic Effects" (http://journ
als.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050197). PLoS Biology.
4. Meunier, K. Korrelation und Umkonstruktionen in den Größenbeziehungen zwischen
Vogelflügel und Vogelkörper-Biologia Generalis 1951: p403-443. [Article in German]
5. Gérard Florit (23 January 2016). "Ozone Buzz Z3" (http://www.para2000.org/wings/ozone/b
uzzz3.html). P@r@2000.
6. "Sport 2 / 2C" (https://www.willswing.com/hang-gliders/sport-2/). Wills Wing.
7. "Sporting Code Section 3: Gliding" (http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/SC3_2016).
Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. 12 October 2016.
8. "Microlights" (https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/T
ypes-of-aircraft/Microlights/). UK CAA.
9. Anderson, 1999 p.58
10. Anderson, 1999 pp. 201-3
11. Spick, 1986. p.24.
12. Laurence K. Loftin, Jr. (1985). "Chapter 11 - Aircraft Maneuverability". Quest for
Performance - The Evolution of Modern Aircraft (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch11-6.ht
m). NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch.
13. Spick, 1986. p.84-87.
14. Anderson 1999, pp.30-1

Bibliography
Anderson, John D. Jnr. (1999). Aircraft Performance and Design. Cambridge:
WCB/McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-116010-8.
 Spick, Mike. Jet Fighter Performance-Korea to Vietnam. 1986. Osceola, Wisconsin.
Motorbooks International. ISBN 0-7110-1582-1

Notes
a. 138 species from 10 g to 10 kg, from small passerines to swans and cranes
b. at max weight
c. for a two seat landplane
d. at max weight

External links
Laurence K. Loftin, Jr. (1985). "Chapter 7:Design Trends - Stalling Speed, Wing Loading,
and Maximum Lift Coefficient". Quest for Performance - The Evolution of Modern Aircraft (ht
tps://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch7-3.htm). NASA Scientific and Technical
Information Branch.
Earl L. Poole (1938). "Weights and wing areas in North American birds" (https://sora.unm.ed
u/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v055n03/p0511-p0517.pdf) (PDF). The Auk.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wing_loading&oldid=930734796"

This page was last edited on 14 December 2019, at 15:34 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.