Thread Tools
May 21, 2019, 04:02 PM
Registered User
It'll be interesting to see someone try flaperons on the V3. That should help with lowering the landing speed. The "look" is outstanding. I hope that's not the high point though...

Almost all of the FW and FL planes have relatively high wing loading. FMS provides as much, or more detail and rugged construction and they do it without high wing loading and adverse flying characteristics. So, my guess is that if they had built the new F-35 we would be having a whole other conversation.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
May 21, 2019, 04:22 PM
Registered User
fredmdbud's Avatar
Re: wingloading - Numbers, give numbers ….
Latest blog entry: Digital LED Voltmeter
May 21, 2019, 05:25 PM
Registered User
.

Ha ha
Shall we call the F35 a. V3 as " The look"?
Just kidding..
;-)

.
May 21, 2019, 06:03 PM
Registered User
edwen303's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19000rpm
It'll be interesting to see someone try flaperons on the V3. That should help with lowering the landing speed. The "look" is outstanding. I hope that's not the high point though...

Almost all of the FW and FL planes have relatively high wing loading. FMS provides as much, or more detail and rugged construction and they do it without high wing loading and adverse flying characteristics. So, my guess is that if they had built the new F-35 we would be having a whole other conversation.
Eflite EDF (~ FMS EDF), low wingloading + AS3X/SAFE, better flight characteristics.

Assume all scale models have the same proportion, then

Relative wingloading = Flying weight (with battery) divided by Square of Wingspan

It is not too hard to compile those numbers to compare Eflite/FMS and Freewing:
64mm F-15
80/90mm F-4
70mm F-16
70mm Yak

Those flying sport jets can comment on Futura, Viper, BAE hawk.

Eflite F-4 80mm claimed over 5 minutes flight time on stock 6s power system; Freewing F-4 maxed out at short of 4 minutes on stock 6s 5000mah, if throttle management in perfection.

Not to be critical of anyone but just some facts: I flew Freewing Folke Wolfe 190 for a friend once, almost crashed with almost everything looking normal, puzzled at its bezaare manner compared with other familiar parkflyers (GWS 190, Parkzone 190, etc.). Then owned and flew Freewing F-15 90mm since, puzzled by the weight too. Not all models from certain developer behave perfect, that is why we modify them to our liking.

Eflite foam EDF seems softer than Freewing (perhaps is the reason for lighter airframe?)

my 1 cent.
May 21, 2019, 06:15 PM
Registered User
.

For model aircraft, wing loading is expressed as ounces per square foot (oz./ft2).

Why Wing Loading is Important
Wing loading is the only indicator of how "heavy" an aircraft is. The actual weight of an aircraft is meaningless.

A 50 lb model having as many square feet of wing area is a lightweight. A 6 lb model having 2 square feet of wing is very heavy and will fly like a sledgehammer (or maybe not quite that well).

The lighter the wing loading, the slower the aircraft can take-off, fly and land. It will also have a better climb.

A larger model can have a higher wing loading and fly comparably to a smaller aircraft having a lower wing loading due to differences in the aerodynamics of different size aircraft.

For example, let's say we have two aircraft that are absolutely identical except for physical size. The smaller model has a 36" wing span while the larger aircraft has a 108" wing span.

The smaller model may have a wing loading of 8 oz./ft2 and the larger aircraft may have a wing loading of 35 oz./ft2. Both of these aircraft may perform nearly identically at substantially different wing loadings due to the difference in size. Note that these figures are off the top of my head and not meant to be taken literally.

It is a good idea to inform the person who is test flying your model as to the wing loading so they have an idea of how long of a take off run it will need to build air speed. This is something that comes with experience because there are no stall warning indicators in model aircraft as there are in full-scale aircraft..


.
May 21, 2019, 06:23 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwen303

Relative wingloading = Flying weight (with battery) divided by Square of Wingspan



my 1 cent.

Sorry but....
Beg to disagree .
Wingloading = AUW / wing area.
:-)

.
May 21, 2019, 06:53 PM
Registered User
kenelder's Avatar
Should look up cubic wing loading. V3 may be heavier but I believe it is also larger and I'd bet they took that into account. What contributes to fast landing speeds is most manufacturers show the CG foward of where it should be. A forward cg contributes to speed buildup when circling to land. Proper balance plus low speed trimming will really slow down landings.

Until folks acquire the V3 and play with set up we will not know how it really lands.
May 21, 2019, 07:27 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenelder
Should look up cubic wing loading. V3 may be heavier but I believe it is also larger and I'd bet they took that into account. What contributes to fast landing speeds is most manufacturers show the CG foward of where it should be. A forward cg contributes to speed buildup when circling to land. Proper balance plus low speed trimming will really slow down landings.

Until folks acquire the V3 and play with set up we will not know how it really lands.

Observing some videos . Look like the F35 v3
Is really heavy, cant slowdown at all, even
When landing. The FW F35 is smaller than
The FW 70mm F16 and heavier for sure.


.
May 21, 2019, 07:52 PM
Registered User
edwen303's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by flylow2011
Sorry but....
Beg to disagree .
Wingloading = AUW / wing area.
:-)

.
I mentioned as RELATIVE WINGLOADING, not absolute as the formula you gave. RELATIVE WINGLOADING is much easier to compute and often accurate enough for nonprofessional discussion. If you are familiar with geometry, you will find my formula to calculate RELATIVE WINGLOADING gives the same result as ABSOLUTE WINGLOADING, assuming all scale model has the same proportion (aspect ratio, etc.).
May 21, 2019, 07:57 PM
Registered User
edwen303's Avatar
V3 is just a hair larger than V2 (wingspan 820mm vs 800 mm). But yes, the airframe might be quite a bit different between V2 and V3, with V3 being more scale.
May 21, 2019, 08:50 PM
Hugo Flynow's Avatar
Found a representation of the V3 wing loading!
May 21, 2019, 09:17 PM
Fly and let Fly!
Cocg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo Flynow
Found a representation of the V3 wing loading!
No gear? Flaps? (oh, flaperons)
May 21, 2019, 10:55 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo Flynow
Found a representation of the V3 wing loading!

Be Frank, we can build a light wingloading F35 V3. Not bad at all. Around 2000gr AUW. Use light Lipo pack.

They use 6s 5000, 6s 5500 that is the case.

.
May 22, 2019, 10:39 AM
Flying R/C since 1964
kallend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by flylow2011
Sorry but....
Beg to disagree .
Wingloading = AUW / wing area.
:-)

.
TRUE, but he could have made it clearer that he was comparing relative values from planes with the same planform from different sources (EFlite/FMS vs Freewing F4, F-16, etc.) in which case he is correct too.
May 22, 2019, 10:40 AM
Flying R/C since 1964
kallend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredmdbud
Re: wingloading - Numbers, give numbers .
You provide the wing areas and I'll give you numbers.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Idea X-Flight EDF-55 F-22 w/Thrust Vectoring MidNiteCM Foamy EDFs 4 Feb 07, 2008 05:24 PM
Build Log Mig-35 Twin EDF w/ Thrust Vectoring tailslide5_0 Foamy EDFs 23 Aug 27, 2007 09:20 PM
Video Mini-Raptor W/ thrust vectoring LLoo Electric Plane Talk 0 Aug 19, 2007 10:57 PM
Discussion Foamie EDF w/ thrust vectoring? Elvis48 Electric Warbirds 2 May 09, 2007 08:16 PM
Idea Mr. Boogies JSF F-35 with thrust vectoring tow Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 26 Jan 16, 2006 08:45 PM