50% of what? Max Gross Weight? 50% of Internal fuel, oil and ammo? Quoting or believing Wing Loading in comparison, or as a 'standard', is useless unless the boundary conditions are stated.įor example, there is in '50% loading standard'. Lower span loading means better margin way up high. Span loading (pound per foot of span) generally affects higher-altitude operations. SHOULD mean higher top speed, but does not always mean so due to a variety of reasons. Higher power loading usually means better acceleration and climb. A lot depended on luck and whoever else was flying about with ammunition remaining and feeling friendly toward YOU. Generally, to me, it means that with equal pilots, the "better" plane would usually, but not always, win. If the power or wing loadings were farther apart, then the lower wing-loading, higher weight to power ratio was "better," whatever that means. I'd say if the wing loadings were within, say, 5 psf of one another and the power loadings were not more than 10 - 15% apart, they were close. What constituted "close" can be debated endlessly. Call it "high rate of climb for the installed power level." Generally, if the wing loadings of two fighters were close and power loadings were close, they were quite evenly-matched, assuming decent planes and pilots. Low wing loading also implies decent climb, even though power loading will affect that a LOT. Did they HAVE a fighter-bomber version? Yes, but it wasn't a day fighter that could live in a fighter environment. But it wasn't a true fighter in any sense of the word, regardless of intent. A bomber Mosquito at 18,100 lbs was in the 39 psf range, close to the lesser-turning fighters, and better than some. They DID that.īombers were much more heavily loaded than fighters, and their span loading was probably more important than wing loading as they weren't trying to turn with the fighters anyway. The intention of the Bf 109 slats, however, was NOT more lift, but to keep the ailerons effective in the stall. The Bf 109 was in the 38 psf range, but had automatic slats that helped 1/3 of the wing generate more lift. Early Spitfires were in the 25 psf range. The thing is, all WWII designers were tying for the best fighter, and their coefficient of lift variance from one another was not all that great, so wing loading is a very good yardstick of maneuverability, though not always strictly correct. Higher meant a larger turning circle in general, but not specifically since the lift is related to the aerodynamic coefficient of lift rather than the area. WWII fighters ranged from a low of about 25 lbs/ sq ft to a high in the 45 lb/sq ft range. The area includes the fuselage area of the wing in general. The loading tells us how much weight is being lifted per square foot (meter) of wing surface. Wing loading is expressed in pounds per square foot of kilograms per square meter.Īlso, 1 lb/sq ft = 4.882 kg/ sq m or 1 kg/sq m = 0.2048 lb/sq ft. Also this is the case with the maximum allowed g-force load which is limited in peace-time operations.Bristol Bulldog IVA-12.6 (306 sq. These are less than the maximum possible to keep airframe fatigue low. Note that the specifications given on speed, altitude and weight resemble only the design spcifications. One F-14 variant is not specifiedīelow, the original F-14B with its Pratt & Whittney 401 engines. Between 19 Grumman produced some 710 F-14s all in all with the last one being an F-14D on 20 July 1992. On this page you will find some specifications of the different F-14 variants that were The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!