A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wing Loading / climb rate



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 13th 17, 07:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Wing Loading / climb rate

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:50:31 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

If the lifting force exactly matched the weight of the glider then, in
still air, wouldn't the glider not lose altitude? Or are you saying
that the sink rate of the glider is cause by drag?

On 2/13/2017 6:46 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le lundi 13 février 2017 04:52:04 UTC+1, Jim a écrit :
Yes, I have enjoyed slower-flying thermal-working too. It's lots of
fun.

My curiosity about wing loading and climb rate really is limited to
non-thermalling, non-turning flight. I was wondering about the
possible relationship of wing loading to lifting force. Likely an
unrealistic circumstance in actual flying though. Just a curiosity.

Well, on a good soaring day, about 70-80% of the flight is
non-thermalling, non-turning flight.
And the lifting force always matches the weight of the glider,
regardless of wing loading.


Lift generated must equal the glider's weight. If it didn't, the rate of
sink would not be a constant relative to the air mass for a given trim
setting and airspeed.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
  #32  
Old February 13th 17, 08:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Wing Loading / climb rate

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:50:39 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
If the lifting force exactly matched the weight of the glider then, in
still air, wouldn't the glider not lose altitude? Or are you saying
that the sink rate of the glider is cause by drag?

On 2/13/2017 6:46 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le lundi 13 février 2017 04:52:04 UTC+1, Jim a écrit :
Yes, I have enjoyed slower-flying thermal-working too. It's lots of fun.

My curiosity about wing loading and climb rate really is limited to non-thermalling, non-turning flight. I was wondering about the possible relationship of wing loading to lifting force. Likely an unrealistic circumstance in actual flying though. Just a curiosity.

Well, on a good soaring day, about 70-80% of the flight is non-thermalling, non-turning flight.
And the lifting force always matches the weight of the glider, regardless of wing loading.


As I'm sure you know, lift = weight is exactly true for a powered aircraft in straight and level flight.

It's only an approximation for a glider, where in fact lift plus drag together exactly equal weight. But as the lift is typically 40 - 60 times the drag we usually take a shortcut and ignore that.

In a glider with airbrakes deployed and in a steady speed 45 degree dive lift and drag are equal and both 70.71% of the weight. But that's not how we fly when trying to maximize performance.
  #33  
Old February 13th 17, 08:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Wing Loading / climb rate

I think this is exactly what originally asked. Thus, equal weight gliders, the one with bigger wing area (reduced wing loading) can fly slower and gain altitude better in weaker thermals compared to the glider with a heavier wing loading.
Then again, you WANT wing loading in the case of a ridge where a heavier wing loading glider helps. This from a guy that has time on the PA ridges at max @9lbs in a ASW-20 A and C, vs. heavier 20 B's.
Bigger wing area also adds to surface drag which hurts performance. There is a reason the term "light wing floater" was coined.
  #34  
Old February 13th 17, 08:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Wing Loading / climb rate

That's what I was thinking. Ignore the small part of the sum. Thanks,
nice refresher!

On 2/13/2017 12:01 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:50:39 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
If the lifting force exactly matched the weight of the glider then, in
still air, wouldn't the glider not lose altitude? Or are you saying
that the sink rate of the glider is cause by drag?

On 2/13/2017 6:46 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le lundi 13 février 2017 04:52:04 UTC+1, Jim a écrit :
Yes, I have enjoyed slower-flying thermal-working too. It's lots of fun.

My curiosity about wing loading and climb rate really is limited to non-thermalling, non-turning flight. I was wondering about the possible relationship of wing loading to lifting force. Likely an unrealistic circumstance in actual flying though. Just a curiosity.
Well, on a good soaring day, about 70-80% of the flight is non-thermalling, non-turning flight.
And the lifting force always matches the weight of the glider, regardless of wing loading.

As I'm sure you know, lift = weight is exactly true for a powered aircraft in straight and level flight.

It's only an approximation for a glider, where in fact lift plus drag together exactly equal weight. But as the lift is typically 40 - 60 times the drag we usually take a shortcut and ignore that.

In a glider with airbrakes deployed and in a steady speed 45 degree dive lift and drag are equal and both 70.71% of the weight. But that's not how we fly when trying to maximize performance.


--
Dan, 5J
  #35  
Old February 13th 17, 09:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Wing Loading / climb rate

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:16:11 PM UTC+3, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
I think this is exactly what originally asked. Thus, equal weight gliders, the one with bigger wing area (reduced wing loading) can fly slower and gain altitude better in weaker thermals compared to the glider with a heavier wing loading.


*Only* because at the slower speed it can turn tighter and the thermal might be stronger in the middle.

Note that low wing loading doesn't equate to low sink. Sink comes from the drag and modern construction gives low drag despite high wing loadings.

That classic floater the K8 has a min sink of 132 fpm at 32.4 knots with 4.48 lb/sq ft.
The 1-26 has min sink of 174 fpm (at a speed I couldn't find) with 4.38 lb/sq ft.

An LS8 has min sink of 116 fpm with 6.56 lb/sq ft (dry, 190lb pilot). ASW28 110 fpm. Diana claims 88.6 fpm despite a high wing loading.

  #36  
Old February 13th 17, 09:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Wing Loading / climb rate

Oh, I agree. I also noted that the increased wing area adds to drag. We stated the same thing in different ways.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Isn't Vx The Best Rate Of Climb? RandyL Piloting 18 September 28th 06 07:50 PM
figuring Rate of Climb Michael Horowitz Home Built 1 June 19th 05 03:16 AM
Newbie question on Rate of Climb Wright1902Glider Home Built 0 August 17th 04 03:48 PM
Rate of climb Dillon Pyron Home Built 3 May 8th 04 01:08 PM
Climb Rate for DG-600M Steve B Soaring 5 August 25th 03 08:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.