MILAVIA Forum

Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: AVIATOR on August 02, 2009, 01:50:12 AM

Title: Wing Loading
Post by: AVIATOR on August 02, 2009, 01:50:12 AM
Now you thought I was going to give another lecture on stuff I know nothing about.
Wrong.It's just a photo that a friend sent me that I wanted to share with members.

Now this is 'wing loading'.

(http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn101/Pictures77_2008/WingLoading.jpg)
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: F-111 C/C on August 02, 2009, 05:22:27 AM
Cool picture!!
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: valkyrian on August 02, 2009, 09:12:07 AM
Haha! Now i see why Boeing is building commercial aircraft.....

......and i was preparing to clean the dust on my aerodynamics books...
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: Webmaster on September 17, 2009, 02:42:48 AM
B-52 wings can easily take those guys  :P ... reminds me of this picture I have in my archives, now this is wing loading...
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: AVIATOR on September 17, 2009, 03:36:36 AM
Hawker Typhoon. Well when you come to think of it, the load on those wings at nearly 500 mph in a powerdive would be many tonnes more than the weight of the guys. But interesting shot.
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: Webmaster on September 17, 2009, 03:59:35 AM
Hehe, I knew you were gonna say that  ;) I just found the Typhoon one a nicer picture. I'm sure more of these should be floating around.
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: AVIATOR on September 17, 2009, 05:06:18 AM
A remark I will make here is that it has always mystified me why that aircraft with that massive  2260 HP engine had only a three bladed prop. Spitfires had three blades then four blades, five blades, six blades and even nine blades not to mention the one with contra rotation, as the HP increased in different models.
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: Webmaster on September 17, 2009, 05:56:16 AM
Well, I don't know, but first thing that comes to mind is that it seems to have longer, wider/bigger blades... which probably wasn't possible on the "lower" Spitfire design, so when engine power increased they had to add blades.

Trade-off game really, rotational speed probably also comes into play...maybe if they Typhoon would have acquired an even more powerful engine later on, you would have seen more blades...
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: shawn a on November 04, 2009, 11:27:25 AM
Nine blades??
That's more than I carry when I go anywhere near the Hatfields turf!!
Any photos of that?
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: AVIATOR on November 04, 2009, 11:06:07 PM
I searched for sometime to even get a static photo of the contra rotating six bladed prop model. All photos I have found are in flying mode.
I once read of a triple row contra set up making nine in total but I can't find any photos.
The conta set up was never successful as there was a lot of trouble with the actual propeller unit and it was very much kept in the background of Spitfire history.
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: shawn a on October 22, 2010, 08:09:04 AM
zhou, may a virus fatally infect you
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: RecceJet on October 22, 2010, 12:16:03 PM
That account is just a SPAM account. I doubt it will be used for any more contributions to the forum!
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: Raptor on December 02, 2010, 06:17:37 PM
6-bladed contra-rotating propeller on the Spitfire XIX. =) From flickr, not mine, sadly.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/50/162495638_d22a98374c.jpg?v=0)
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: Webmaster on December 03, 2010, 09:20:41 PM
It's probably not flickr's either.  ;)

Nice to see you pop in again, Raptor.
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: Raptor on December 04, 2010, 06:12:13 AM
Haha, probably ripped of some poor fellow's website.

Nice to see some familiar profiles.. :) Wonder what happened to Viggen and the lot though...
Title: Re: Wing Loading
Post by: vanaheim on March 07, 2011, 12:13:16 PM
I'm pretty sure only an effectively limited batch of early Typhoons had a three-blade prop. Two service evaluation squadrons were made operational out of desperation because nothing else could catch FW hit and run raiders at low altitude in 42 but it wasn't cleared for mass production and general service yet, some changes were made and the decision arguably led to some non-combat losses. I thought some engine improvements were also made at some point, so early Typhoons might be 2000hp motors and a Tempest V in 1945 might be a 2200hp motor. I think the Tempest II started at about 2350hp and there was a postwar batch of overseas stationed Tempest V running their original engines at around 2400hp in Egypt I think (though Tempest II was the premier postwar version and got to 2600hp IIRC).

Anyway mostly four-bladed prop was used on that motor, particularly by the time it was significantly topping 2000hp. And it wasn't a small one.