2
$\begingroup$

Just looked at the Lamac ( light aircraft manufacturers association of Canada) specs. If I remember correctly, They want to see a maximum of 3 psf wing loading for Vc of 60mph, rising to a maximum of 12psf for Vc of 120mph and above.

Why only 3 psf? Looks to me they just want standard wings with a cl max of 1.5.

The Zenith 701 stol has a wing loading of about 10 psf, yet has a Vc of about 60mph, with a cl of about 3.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It's a design standard to set minimum wing area for the airplane's intended speed range using "unassisted" Clmax as the basic parameter. And most low speed wings have a Clmax without enhancement of somewhere around 1.5/1.6.

The 701 gets its low speed range with small wings using both slats and slotted full span flaps to get its 3+ Clmax, so it doesn't really fall within the definition.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I assume they want larger wing area at slower speed for safety? With a partially stalled smaller wing, there is more chance of a crash. Is this correct? $\endgroup$ – Fred May 29 at 17:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not more chance of a crash, just that there is more energy which can to put you in the hospital for a longer stay. Traditionally the "safety" of ultralights has always depended on the low energy of the potential crash making up for very unreliable 2 stroke engines. Ironically the biggest danger of very low loading ultralights is actually because of the low mass/large area;when the engine quits they tend to just stop (well not quite) and you have to aggressively nose down to maintain airspeed.Stall spin accidents on climbout when the rotax wingy-dingy thing stops wingy-dingying is the big one. $\endgroup$ – John K May 29 at 19:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.