23.10.2009, 04:40
A smaller wing area means a higher wing loading (weight per area of wing surface). This has various implications including a longer take off run, since a smaller wing needs to be travelling faster to generate the same amount of lift. With a lightweight racing aeroplane, this might be offset to some degree. However (and I'm speculating here) the Finns were very keen of aeroplanes that could operate in and out of short fields, something they specialised in and a matter of disbelief and horror to the more cautious German personnel they got the 109G's from.
Also, the climb rate might suffer. Whilst the Caudron was designed to travel forward as quickly as practicable, this doesn't mean the wings are going to generate enough lift to give the aeroplane a spectacular climb rate, a very useful commodity in combat and essential for interception. Off hand, I'm not sure how the roll rate will be affected, as this is also influenced by such things as wingspan, aileron size, and so forth.
On the plus side, higher wing loadings usually produce smoother flight.
For info from people who know more than me....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
Also, the climb rate might suffer. Whilst the Caudron was designed to travel forward as quickly as practicable, this doesn't mean the wings are going to generate enough lift to give the aeroplane a spectacular climb rate, a very useful commodity in combat and essential for interception. Off hand, I'm not sure how the roll rate will be affected, as this is also influenced by such things as wingspan, aileron size, and so forth.
On the plus side, higher wing loadings usually produce smoother flight.
For info from people who know more than me....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading