Big wings

[chornedsnorkack]

Does anyone know things like

root chord
root thickness
total enclosed volume
total structural weight of wing
total MTOW of the plane
for the following planes:

Spruce Goose

Spruce Goose had wingspan about 97,6 m, area around 1000 square metres, thus mean chord about 10 m. The root chord allegedly 15,5 m and again allegedly the biggest - but see some other planes.

The root thickness allegedly 3,5 m.

Who has an idea about the enclosed volume, wing structural weight and MTOW supported?

B-36

Convair B-36 seems to be the biggest mass-produced piston propeller plane. Jets were optional.

Wingspan was about 70 m. Wing root thickness about 2,3 m.

Does anyone know the wing enclosed volume, the wing structural weight and MTOW?

B-747-400

B747 is the biggest civil jet now in mass service. Wingspan 64,4 m.

Can anyone quote root chord, root thickness, total weight of wing and volume enclosed?

An-225

An-225 is the biggest landplane. Wingspan 88,4 m.

Does anyone know the root chord, root thickness, total enclosed volume and structural weight of the wing?

Ai-380-800

Airbus 380-800 is a big plane now having several flying, so pretty much in a decided shape.

Wingspan 79,8 m. Does anyone know the root chord, root thickness, enclosed volume and the weight of wing?

Concorde

Concorde had a delta wing, with root chord of 29 m or so.

What was the root thickness, enclosed volume and structural weight of wing?

[Felix/FFDS]

IS this a knowledge test, or do you need the information to model the aircraft?
(Not that for flight sim purposes enclosed volume is a factor....)

[alrot]

It seems like Air-Ed-software parameters,

chornedsnorkack are you opening*. AIR files from models? just for asking us?it

[Falcon500]

i agree that this sounds like air file editing but, there aint no need for total enclosed volume nor, the wings weight?

[chornedsnorkack]

Looking from the first principles at the real big planes:

Smaller planes are not infrequently short of space in wing. Many times their "extended range" or even baseline versions feature fuel tanks in underbelly or elsewhere in fuselage.

Big planes would not necessarily have to have any higher wing loading than small planes. After all, increasing wing loading increases takeoff and landing speeds, length of runways and energy to be dissipated in brakes.

So... a plane with a big, thick wing should have plenty of space left inside the wing even after the fuel is placed there. (2,3 m of B-36 was enough to walk upright inside)

Also, sometimes it is alleged that the size of airplanes is limited by the square-cube rule. If this is the case, then the big airplanes ought to have large OEW relative to MTOW and have limited payload and range. Whereas at least Convair B-36 clearly had greater range and payload than smaller bombers... How big can you make a wing before its structural weight really starts to cut into its carrying capacity?

[Falcon500]

it really depends on what type of airfoil you have, what the materials your making it from, how fast you want to go, what type of loads your putting on it (carrying heavy loads, or pulling high G's) what type of engine  you plan to put on it (in the case of the B-36 six PW r4360's put a different ratio of wieght and propulsion than two or four immense turbofans.


All variables my lad  ;D

[chornedsnorkack]

it really depends on what type of airfoil you have, what the materials your making it from, how fast you want to go, what type of loads your putting on it (carrying heavy loads, or pulling high G's)

Indeed.

This makes one wonder what the MTOW of the Spruce Goose might be. OEW you can weigh and break up in components, incl. wing structural weight, but what defines MTOW?