In aerodynamics, wing loading is the total weight of an aircraft or flying animal divided by the area of its wing.[1] The stalling speed, takeoff speed and landing speed of an aircraft are partly determined by its wing loading.[2]
The faster an aircraft flies, the more its lift is changed by a change in angle of attack so a smaller wing is less adversely affected by vertical gusts. Consequently, faster aircraft generally have higher wing loadings than slower aircraft in order to avoid excessive response to vertical gusts.[3]
A higher wing loading also decreases maneuverability. The same constraints apply to winged biological organisms.
| Wing area ! | data-sort-type="number" | kg/m2 ! | data-sort-type="number" | lb/sqft | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monarch Butterfly | Animal | data-sort-value="-66000000" | ||||
| birds | Animal | data-sort-value="-145000000" | [4] | |||
| bird flight upper critical limit | Animal | [5] | ||||
| Ozone Buzz Z3 MS | Paraglider | 2010 | [6] | |||
| Wills Wing Sport 2 155 | 2004 | [7] | ||||
| Gin Fluid 11 | 2010 | 140 kg | ||||
| upper limit | Microlift glider | 2008 | max. | min. | [8] | |
| CAA (UK) regulations | microlight wing loading limit | 2008 | max. | min. | [9] | |
| Schleicher ASW 22 | 1981 | |||||
| Piper Warrior | 1960 | |||||
| Beechcraft Baron | General aviation twin-engine | 1960 | ||||
| Supermarine Spitfire | 1938 | |||||
| Beechcraft Airliner | 1968 | |||||
| Learjet 31 | 1990 | |||||
| Mikoyan MiG-23 | Fighter (variable-geometry) | 1970 | ||||
| Lockheed F-104 Starfighter | 1958 | |||||
| General Dynamics F-16 | 1978 | |||||
| McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle | 1976 | |||||
| Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 | Fighter (Interceptor) | 1970 | ||||
| Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird | Strategic Reconnaissance Aircraft | 1966 | ||||
| Fokker F27 | Airliner (turboprop) | 1958 | ||||
| Fokker F28 Fellowship | 1969 | |||||
| Boeing 737-400 | Airliner (Narrow-body) | 1984 | ||||
| Boeing 737-900ER | Airliner (Narrow-body) | 2007 | ||||
| Airbus A321XLR | Airliner (Narrow-body) | 2024 (est) | ||||
| Boeing 767-300ER[10] | Airliner (Wide-body) | 1982 | ||||
| Concorde | 1976 | |||||
| Rockwell B-1B Lancer | Bomber (variable-geometry) | 1983 | ||||
| McDonnell Douglas MD-11 | Airliner (wide-body) | 1990 | ||||
| Boeing 777-300ER | Airliner (wide-body) | 2004 | ||||
| Airbus A340-500/600 | Airliner (wide-body) | 2002 | ||||
| Boeing 747-400 | Airliner (wide-body) | 1988 | ||||
| Airbus A380 | Airliner (wide-body) | 2007 |
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.
The lift force L on a wing of area A, traveling at true airspeed v is given by
L=\tfrac{1}{2}\rhov2ACL
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.[11] At 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[12]
| ||||
| stylev |
As a consequence, aircraft with the same CL at takeoff under the same atmospheric conditions will have takeoff speeds proportional to
\scriptstyle\sqrt{WS}
\scriptstyle150\sqrt{1.4}
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.
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.[13]
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 can reach a structural limit of 7.33 g up to 15000feet and then decreases to 2.3 g at 40000feet. With a wing loading of the load factor is twice smaller and barely reaches 1g at 40,000 feet.[14]
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 wing loading.
At the opposite end of the spectrum was the large Convair B-36: its large wings resulted in a low 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 . The Boeing 367-80 airliner prototype could be rolled at low altitudes with a wing loading of 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
| \scriptstyle | v2 |
| R |
\scriptstyleLsin\theta
\theta
| 1 | |||
| 2 |
v2\rhoCLA\sin\theta.
Solving for R gives
| styleR= | 2Ws |
| \rhoCL\sin\theta |
.
The lower 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.
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 (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
| stylea= | GA | = |
| M |
| G | |
| WS |
decreasing with wing loading.
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.
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 or prior to landing.
A blended wing-fuselage design such as that found on the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon or Mikoyan 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.
Aircraft like the Grumman 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.[15]
Like all aircraft flaps, Fowler flaps increase the camber and hence the maximum value of lift coefficient (CLmax) lowering the landing speed. They also increase wing area, decreasing the wing loading, which further lowers the landing speed.[16]
High lift devices such as certain flaps allow the option of smaller wings to be used in a design in order to achieve similar landing speeds compared to an alternate design using a larger wing without a high lift device. Such options allow for higher wing loading in a design. This may result in beneficial features, such as higher cruise speeds or a reduction in bumpiness at high speed low altitude flight (the latter feature is very important for close air support aircraft roles). For instance, Lockheed's Starfighter uses internal Blown flaps to achieve a high wing loading design (723 kg/m²) which allows it a much smoother low altitude flight at full throttle speeds compared to low wing loading delta designs such as the Mirage 2000 or Mirage III (387 kg/m²). The F-16 which has a relatively high wing loading of 689 kg/m² uses leading-edge extensions to increase wing lift at high angles of attack.