This site uses flawed logic. They start by stating that "ranking" of aircraft is denoted by weight (which makes sense for many reasons). But then, they jump to the conclusion that greater ranking denotes greater size.Originally Posted by Andrey
Weight is a measure of mass * gravity. Size is a measure of physical dimensions, independent of mass. In space, planes would all be weightless. Which would be the largest then? The same that is largest now. Because Ukrainian airplanes are more dense
doesn't make them bigger. It makes them less efficient!
By the logic presented at aerospaceweb, a 1 meter diameter sphere of gold is BIGGER than a 1 meter diameter sphere of copper because it weighs more.You and I know they are exactly the same size.
Everyone knows that SIZE is a measure of VOLUME (in a 3-dimensional object), or LENGTH (in a 2-dimensional object). A 12" steel ruler is not longer than a 24" wood ruler because it weighs more.
Hughes' H-4 Hercules has the largest wingspan (2-dimensional measurement of size) of any aircraft ever, AND the largest interior volume (3-dimensional measurement of size) of any aircraft ever. So it's still the "largest".
I don't care what brainless scientist wants to convince us that weight is indicative of dimensional size. They're idiots - applying their KNOWLEDGE improperly. They KNOW that something is classed as a "greater" airplane, but are incapable of accepting multiple classifications of greatness, so they have to devise a singular measurement thereof.
Despite her brainless, baseless technobabble, the author can't complete the article without adding a nod and including a reference to the greatness of the Hercules, thereby disqualifying her own assertion that the Ar-225 has the sole record for greatness based upon a singular subjective measurement.
Instead, the article leaves the reader drowning in ambiguity.
Reply With Quote