![Wing loading calculator](https://kumkoniak.com/109.jpg)
![wing loading calculator wing loading calculator](https://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BALLAST-TANKS-1.png)
![wing loading calculator wing loading calculator](https://fasrpig784.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/5/1/125119316/262347151.jpg)
![wing loading calculator wing loading calculator](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QsX6vHlqs44/maxresdefault.jpg)
I realize I'm probably creating more questions than answers, but it can be a complex thing to answer without bench testing. If your aircraft flies slower than 45 MPH, you can almost ignore drag as a thrust factor. On the plus side drag is a minimal consideration until you reach around 45-60MPH. I'd recommend that your powerplant provide at least 1/2 thrust-to-weight in order to fly aerobatically. Squared, you're not going to be able to do what full-scale birds do, and fly with as little as 1/10 thrust-to-weight. * Because the lift of a wing grows cubed while the surface area grows Motocalc helps here, but a tachometer, calculator, and knowledge of the pitch of your prop will give you the answer, too. At that low of a pitch speed, you won't be doing many aerobatics, but performance will be very "scale-like". * You want a maximum pitch speed of at least double your stall speed in order to handle the aircraft comfortably in the air. Here are a few general rules that might help Do I have enough thrust to be able to accelerate quickly enough to get off the runway before I run out of tarmac? Do I have enough pitch speed and thrust to be able to overcome aerodynamic drag and the stall speed of my aircraft?Ĥ. What is the stall speed of my aircraft?ģ. Do I have enough thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag at speed?Ģ. The actual factors you are going to need to consider if you throw out the watts per pound rule are:ġ. According to my max amp draw calculations, I'm coming in well below the minimum for "aerobatic" performance, and yet this bird will loop as large as I like it, and hover (briefly) if I want it to. My E-Flite P-47D, even fiberglassed, clocks in at only 25 ounces. I will submit that the watts per pound rule doesn't apply well to very lightly loaded aircraft. In any case, you were wondering about power sources for "wing loading". I always end up tweaking prop sizes until my bird handles right. Or maybe the one you have will work well right out of the gate. Your refinements will be based on your experience with that system, and eventually you'll come up with a solution that works better. It will probably get you a power system that will "work" for what you want your plane to. The problem is that this is always just a starting point. Here in Utah, at 5000 feet elevation, I follow 100/150/200 as my starting point. 60-sized aircraft) model aircraft is 75 watts per pound for trainer-type handling, 100 watts per pound for aerobatics, and 150 watts per pound for 3D. The usual rule-of-thumb for "normal-sized" (read.
![Wing loading calculator](https://kumkoniak.com/109.jpg)