Talk:Wing loading

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading#Effect_on_climb_rate_and_cruise_performance
the first paragraph is almost completely wrong. 
* A lighter loaded wing will have a superior rate of climb compared to a heavier loaded wing as less airspeed is required to generate the additional lift to increase altitude.
The climb performance depends on the amount of energy the motors can provide minus the amount of energy required to stay in the air divided by the weight of the plane. For example, a guy put a propellor and some bike pedals under his paraglider. Motor power (human power) was less than the power required to stay airborne. So he had very bad "climb performance" but still a low wingloading (as is normal with paragliders). So the wingloading DOES play a role, but it is not the main factor. 
* A lightly loaded wing has a more efficient cruising performance because less thrust is required to maintain lift for level flight.
This is completely wrong. The wingloading does not play a role at all. The amount of energy required to transport a weight over a distance is the weight * distance / glide ratio. Nowhere does the wing loading play a role. 
Suppose I build an exact (1:1) copy of the 747 which is 100 times lighter. It will have a 100x lower wingloading, it will have 10x slower flightspeed, but the same glide ratio (about 14). To transport 1kg with either the real 747 or the copy takes the same amount of energy. Of course, to transport a ton of payload the original 747 will have to transport a whole 747 from A to B as well, so the lighter airplane will be more efficient. But that's because it's lighter and not because it has a lower wingloading. 
-- REW jan 31 2010.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.47.159 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: effect on performance

message: I would really like to see some discussion of wing loading in flying animals. All the discussion ignores animals altogether, and perhaps the article should be reworded to reflect the fact that wing loading applies to more things than man-made aircraft. John.Conway 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes maybe someone could start with the Eagle family. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal flight 

message: This page really needs some references, and sections would help it's readability. John.Conway 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had a go at tidying this article, it is not quite right but I believe that it is much better than it was. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This needs another look: there are many lower and higher values than quoted here and the impression is given, wrongly, that only fighters have high wing loadings.  To pull out a couple of data, the little Cessna 152 has a WL of 51 kg m-2, and the Boeing 747 740 kg m-2.  The data is on WikiP, but it would be nice to have a table: lowest (-ish) typical that, typical this - biggest (-ish) to give a better feel for the numbers.  The intention of what we have is right but not the detail.
I think it might help, too, to spend a bit longer on wing loading and level fight, before getting into the manoeuverability issues.  Needs a bit of thought and perhaps even a formula.TSRL (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Range of values

message: Aircraft climb as a result of "excess power" not lift!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.221.252 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed so.  That was the point I was making in the last para of the 13:09, 30 January note above, but I got it wrong in the article (last line on climb) by forgetting about the motor!  I've changed it now, with both upward components included.TSRL (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also had the feeling that it got confusing there. I'm no specialist, but what I've always been taught in flight school is that a low wing loading allows for a greater angle of climb, not rate of climb. Angle of climb is basically how much altitude an aircraft gains while covering a certain ground distance, and it depends largely on the lift/drag ratio. Climb rate is basically how much altitude an aircraft gains in a certain time, that is, how "fast" and aircraft climbs, and that is the one that benefits from excess power. Since it also benefits from lower drag, it's taught that airplanes with a small wing area relative to their mass, that is, with a high wing loading, will have a higher rate of climb, while airplanes with a large wing area and a low wing loading will have a higher angle of climb. Cpt Vidal (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How aircraft climb! 

message: The entire section titled Effect on climb rate and cruise performance is unsourced. In its entirety, it is technically unsound. It appears to have been written using nothing but intuition. For example, it implies that for an aircraft to climb requires that lift exceed weight. That is incorrect - climbing requires that thrust exceed drag. See Rate of climb and Angle of climb.
I am happy to re-write the section, based on reliable published sources. But first I will erase the entire section. It is worse than misleading. Dolphin (t) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have erased the offending section. See my diff. Dolphin (t) 05:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climb rate and cruise performance