Is lower wing loading safer?
Looking at the ultralight specs in Canada, they call for a max wing loading of 12psf. In fact, amateur built aircraft in Canada cannot have a wing loading over 20psf,I'm told.
While in the US, we see aircraft like Rutan's Boomerang at about 42psf.
Seems many GA aircraft seem to be stuck at 14-17psf range
With VG's or slats and flaperons (full length flaps) and then slatted (junkers flap(?)), Zenith is getting a nice cl of about 3.0, about double a typical ultralight
Why not higher wing loading? This would lead to smaller wings, better aspect ratios, less drag, which means smaller engines, which means more affordable GA aircraft.
In fact, Rutan's motorglider (solitaire(?)), had a top speed of about 200(?) mph, with just a 4 cycle 18hp industrial engine ( rated for continuous duty), the kind you can buy at a big box store for $500.
I understand M. Coulumban, the designer of the cri-cri, just switched to low cost industrial honda engines as well.
On a saturday morning 1,000 mile cross-country trip ( pretty routine for the long-eze crowd)and have engine problems? No problem. Just go to a big box store and buy a new one and install it in an hour. Might as well make it an inline twin for that low of an engine price. Rutan's twin Defiant could take off from either engine alone, or both. Seem's pretty foolproof to me.
Seems like pretty good economics for GA aircraft in my mind.
So..... why limit ultralights to 12psf. I assume lower wing loading means it's safer. Lot's of wing means it's harder to stall.
Is this correct?