Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

Was the B-29 the WWII wing-loading champ?

Wikiposts
Search
Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Was the B-29 the WWII wing-loading champ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13th Apr 2010, 15:56
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Was the B-29 the WWII wing-loading champ?

The B-29 had a wing loading of 69 pounds per square foot at max gross, which was way out there at the time (1945). Does anybody know of another airplane that actually flew in service during WWII that had a higher wing loading?
stepwilk is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 17:39
  #2 (permalink)  
TRC
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to a note to the RAE test flights of captured German jet aircraft in October 1945, here. The wing loading of the Me262 at take-off (less ammunition) was 65 lbs/sq.ft.

Whether these test were flown at MAUW is not clear, it just reports the take-off weight of the test aircraft.

I know that's under the 69 of the B-29, but it's getting close.

(It's interesting reading as it partially compares the Me262 with the Meteor of the day)
TRC is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 19:31
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 56
Posts: 1,062
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
B-32?

Well wiki lists the B-32 Dominator at just over 70lbs, not exactly a well known aircraft, but it did serve during the period. Logical as it was designed around a similair specification as the B-29.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2010, 22:38
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting. The B-32 had pretty much the same high-aspect-ratio Davis wing as the B-29 but at 100,000 pounds gross was substantially heavier, so that makes sense.

The B-32 Dominator, popularly known as the Terminator since it crashed so often, reportedly flew 18 WWII missions.
stepwilk is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 13:44
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you class the Bochum Natter as an aircraft and not just a piloted missile then the loaded weight of 4920lbs carried by 51.7sqft of wing comes out at just over 95lb/sqft of wing loading.

If this is valid then we need to look at the figures for the piloted V1 and the Japanese Baka.
dakkg651 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2010, 14:25
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting thought, but I think I'll fiddle it by specifying "conventional aircraft" or something of the sort. As I remember, all together these three "piloted missiles" made very few flights. But yours is certainly a valid consideration.
stepwilk is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 07:39
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK I'll try again.

The Habicht glider in it's modified form, the Stummel Habicht, used for training Me163 pilots, had a wing area of just under 100sqft. With a loaded weight of 770lbs this equates to a wing loading of 77.36lbs/sqft.

I bet it didn't thermal or ridge soar very well!
dakkg651 is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 09:56
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,820
Received 98 Likes on 71 Posts
I've read stories about the Martin B26 Marauder having high wing loading but don't know exact figures.
chevvron is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 10:10
  #9 (permalink)  
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: is everything
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having seen pictures of the Bachem Natter in the past but not knowing its name, this thread prompted me to do a quick search, which turned up this four-part video:
YouTube - Bachem Ba 349 Natter teil 1 0f 4
Bushfiva is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2010, 12:54
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North Wales
Posts: 330
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Like Chevvron, I would have suggested the Marauder but was surprised to find that the initial short-span version was only 53 lb/sq ft. According to Wiki, anyway.
Atcham Tower is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 12:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,671
Received 70 Likes on 45 Posts
Dakk651,go and stand in the corner in the Maths classroom...!
sycamore is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 12:38
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Will do.

(Stepwilk didn't notice though)
dakkg651 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 13:06
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 9,764
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
The B-29 had a wing loading of 69 pounds per square foot at max gross,
But eventually reached approx. 81 pounds per sq. ft ?...

Noyade is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2010, 06:19
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the other ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
Posts: 1,853
Received 51 Likes on 22 Posts
Regarding the Marauder, among other names it was called 'the prostitute', because it had no visible means of support!
Captain Dart is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2010, 19:40
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Grand Slam Lanc?
Mike7777777 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2010, 22:34
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mike: If the numbers I have got from Google are correct it would be 54.6 lbs/sq.ft
henry crun is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.