Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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".

1

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.

2

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!

1