Wing Loading

[Rich]

Occasionally here someone will make a reference to the DA40's "low wing loading". The DA40 actually has a slightly higher wing loading than a current production Cessna 182, throughout possible loading scenarios. Using my plane (typical of the older, lighter examples) compared to the 182's advertised numbers, I show the wing loadings at two points: A minimum reasonable takeoff weight and at max takeoff weight.

C-182 (wing area 174 sq. ft.):
MTOW 3100 Min reas. TOW: 2300 WL: 17.8 / 13.2 (lb/sq ft.)
N40XE (wing area 147 sq. ft.):
MTOW 2646 Min reas. TOW: 2000 WL: 18 / 13.6 (lb/sq ft.)

Span loading is a different story and the airfoil behaviors are quite different. But the crude measurement of wing loading is not outside of the norm.

However, different wing loadings on a given flight for a given plane does make a difference in riding turbulence. Yesterday I made a flight to take a couple of passengers from Prineville to Bend to drop them off (so to speak). Outbound weight was about 2435 (four adults) (16.6 lb/sq. ft.), return (wifey and me) weight was about 2135 (14.5 lb / sq. ft.). Summer desert afternoon in both cases. (An aside: 5500+ DA at both airports.) The ride back was notably more obnoxious than the outbound. I may start putting ballast in the plane for the short afternoon jaunts

[CFIDave]

In my experience, ride issues in the DA40 (especially in the summer with thermals) are caused not by wing loading, but by the longer wing that creates a greater yawing motion than some other aircraft.

[Rich]

In my experience, ride issues in the DA40 (especially in the summer with thermals) are caused not by wing loading, but by the longer wing that creates a greater yawing motion than some other aircraft.

There is something to this argument. I think length/span ratio is illuminating.

Cessna 182: .80
DA40: .67

But a 10% reduction in weight does have an effect for certain types of gusts.