wj9eh t1_j4ha4je wrote
"Largest" is a bit of a vague term. Aircraft are usually measured by their maximum takeoff weight and, from what I can find, this one's is 590,000 kg compared to the 225's 640,000 kg. They mean longest wingspan.
No denigration of the subject aircraft is present in this comment.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j4hj2lm wrote
So according to that article, it's currently the largest until Russia is forced to pay to restore the 225.
green_meklar t1_j4hmhmr wrote
Somehow I doubt Russia is going to be able to afford to pay for restoration of much of anything.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j4hwd9p wrote
Russia without the current regime would be much, much richer.
Oligarchs get their money from somewhere.
I think Germany finished paying reparation debts in 2010.
Russia could take the same amount of time or much, much, less to pay for rebuilding Ukraine.
It all depends who is in charge and where Russia's money goes.
Severe-Archer-1673 t1_j4henwv wrote
I could be wrong, but I’ve always understood that they measure aircraft size, in terms of wingspan. I’ve never heard of takeoff weight being used as a ranking measure, in terms of size.
Zakluor t1_j4hidss wrote
You're both right. Take-off weight is an important measure since cargo (passengers count in this context) is often measured that way.
Wingspan and, to a lesser degree, length, of the aircraft are often considered, too. Sometimes when they say 'largest' they talk about the width or diameter of the fuselage, as well, but that's usually in relation to an aircraft designed specifically to carry certain things. The Super Guppy and other cargo aircraft would fall into this category.
It really is context-dependent.
wj9eh t1_j4hkktn wrote
Well as an aviation professional I can tell you that more or less everything is based on MTOW. If you're more interested in wingspan, that's of course absolutely fine. The only time that tends to come into play day-to-day is whether a plane can fit down a certain taxiway or a certain parking position or not.
wooltab t1_j4ivsph wrote
Is the word "large" used in aviation to refer to takeoff weight?
wj9eh t1_j4jwoaq wrote
Yes. A "large aircraft" for example is, in the regulations, anything over 5,700 kg MTOW. Any time anyone refers to size, it would be MTOW that one would think they're referring to. Otherwise we'd say "wingspan" or "length".
Severe-Archer-1673 t1_j65mdel wrote
Using this logic, the space shuttle would be the largest aircraft, would it not? I get it, though, wingspan and takeoff weight are arbitrary methods of gauging an aircraft’s largeness.
I was a crew chief on C-5s, so I’m obviously biased toward wingspan. They’re all big, and it’s a small miracle they can fly in the air at all.
wj9eh t1_j666xla wrote
Well I can speak for commercial aviation, where takeoff weight does have a few non-arbitrary consequences such as what sort of approaches and turns you can make and how much wake you produce. Also, wingspan has already reached its maximum in terms of what can fit in an airport, so now it's just about how heavy planes can get within that limit. But yes, it's as arbitrary as anything.
The space shuttle would be biggest but I'd argue it took off with a rocket, which isn't lifting off using the air but rather in spite of it. Then on the way down, it could only glide and not support itself straight and level. Again, as arbitrary as you like. It's all a miracle they can fly!
ChronoFish t1_j4l1n15 wrote
Well for years the worlds largest airplane (as it was popularly known) was the spruce goose .... Measured by wingspan.
It held the title till the stratolauncher.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments