02/03/2019 Wing loading - Wikipedia

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 level flight.
Consequently, faster aircraft generally have higher wing loadings than The Monarch Butterfly has a very
slower aircraft. This increased wing loading also increases takeoff and low 0.168 kg/m² wing loading
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
Effect on takeoff and landing speeds
Effect on turning performance
Effect on stability
The North American X-15 has a
Effect of development
high 829 kg/m² maximum wing
Water ballast use in gliders loading
Design considerations
Fuselage lift
Variable-sweep wing
Fowler flaps
See also
References
Notes
Bibliography
Notes
External links

Range of wing loadings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading 1/7
02/03/2019 Wing loading - Wikipedia

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
Paraglider 2010
75–95 kg 25.8 m2 2.9–3.7
0.59–
MS (165–209 lb) (278 sq ft) 0.76[5]

Wills Wing
Hang glider 2004
94.8–139.8 kg 14.4 m2 6.6–9.7
1.4–
Sport 2 155 (209–308 lb) (155 sq ft) 2.0[6]

220 kg (490 lb) 12.2 m2

upper limit Microlift glider 2008 18 3.7[7]
max. (131 sq ft) 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
sailplane 1981
1,023 kg 16.7 m2 61.3 12.6
ASW 22 (2,255 lb) (180 sq ft)

Piper Warrior
General
1960
1,055 kg 15.14 m2 69.7 14.3
aviation (2,326 lb) (163.0 sq ft)

Beech Baron
General
1960
2,313 kg 18.5 m2 125 26
aviation twin (5,099 lb) (199 sq ft)

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

Beechcraft Regional
1968
4,727 kg 25.99 m2 182 37
Airliner airliner (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)

Variable-
17,800 kg 34.16–37.35 m2 477–
MiG-23 geometry 1970 (367.7– 98–107
(39,200 lb) 521
fighter 402.0 sq ft)

General
Multirole fighter 1978
19,200 kg 27.87 m2 688.9 141.1
Dynamics F-16 (42,300 lb) (300.0 sq ft)
turboprop 19,773 kg
Fokker F27 1958 70 m2 (750 sq ft) 282 58
airliner (43,592 lb)

McDonnell Air superiority

1976
30,845 kg 56.5 m2 546 112
Douglas F-15 fighter (68,002 lb) (608 sq ft)

Fokker F28 Regional Jet 1969

33,000 kg 78.97 m2 418 86
(73,000 lb) (850.0 sq ft)

Boeing 737- Narrow-body

1984
62,820 kg 91.04 m2 690 140
300 airliner (138,490 lb) (979.9 sq ft)

Boeing 737- Narrow-body

2001
84,139 kg 124.6 m2 675 138
900 airliner (185,495 lb) (1,341 sq ft)

Boeing 767
Wide-body
1982
142,882 kg 283.3 m2 504 103
airliner (315,001 lb) (3,049 sq ft)

Concorde
Supersonic
1976
187,000 kg 358.2 m2 522 107
transport (412,000 lb) (3,856 sq ft)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading 2/7
02/03/2019 Wing loading - Wikipedia

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

Rockwell B-1B Large aircraft 1983

148,000 kg 181.2 m2 818 168
(326,000 lb) (1,950 sq ft)

Boeing 777
Wide-body
1995
247,200 kg 427.8 m2 578 118
airliner (545,000 lb) (4,605 sq ft)

Boeing 747 Large aircraft 1977

333,000 kg 511 m2 652 134
(734,000 lb) (5,500 sq ft)

Airbus A380 Large aircraft 2007

575,000 kg 845 m2 680 140
(1,268,000 lb) (9,100 sq ft)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading 3/7
02/03/2019 Wing loading - Wikipedia

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 while with a wing loading of
100 lb/sq ft (490 kg/m2) the load factor is twice smaller and barely reach
1g at 40,000 feet.[12]
Load factor varying with altitude at
Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained turn
50 or 100 lb/sq ft
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading 4/7
02/03/2019 Wing loading - Wikipedia

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- The F-15E Strike Eagle has a large
sweep wings. As their wing area varies in flight so does the wing loading relatively lightly loaded wing
(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
Disk loading
Lift coefficient

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading 5/7
02/03/2019 Wing loading - Wikipedia

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://books.google.com/book
s?id=lt4PQPDhX5YC). MIT Press. ISBN 9780262513135., "Figure 2: The great flight diagram" (http://mitpress.typ
epad.com/.a/6a00d83451e4b669e2017616acf6f2970c-800wi).
3. Thomas Alerstam , Mikael Rosén, Johan Bäckman, Per G. P Ericson, Olof Hellgren (July 17, 2007). "Flight
Speeds among Bird Species: Allometric and Phylogenetic Effects" (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=1
0.1371/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 Jan 2016). "Ozone Buzz Z3" (http://www.para2000.org/wings/ozone/buzzz3.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/Types-of-aircraft/Microl
ights/). 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.htm). 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 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4
68/ch7-3.htm). NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch.
Earl L. Poole (1938). "Weights and wing areas in north american birds" (https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/jou
rnals/auk/v055n03/p0511-p0517.pdf) (PDF). The Auk.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wing_loading&oldid=882165628"

This page was last edited on 7 February 2019, at 07:06 (UTC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading 6/7
02/03/2019 Wing loading - Wikipedia

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading 7/7