Talk:Large aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Avoiding the trivial

There's a problem with when its worth starting the count. Looking at airships, the early years amount to little more than a list of Zeppelins, each one a smidge larger than its predecessor. With aircraft, the current list starts with Ilya Muromets, which seems sensible, otherwise one has to start with the Wright Flyer (or not, according to point of view) & then get involved with uninteresting trivia.TheLongTone (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree that entries should be historically significant (i.e. noted as such in reliable sources). But what about Hiram Maxim's flying machine tested in 1894? It is historically significant and was renowned for its size - span 110 feet (34 m), weight 3.5 tons - even though it was not suited to free flight. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put Maxim's machine in under the history section rather than the list. Going for a large "aircraft" in that case seems to have been a necessity borne of using two steam engines for propulsion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists Section

I have hidden the Lists section, as there seem to be no inclusion criteria or any attempt for it to make sense. For example, what makes a B-29 a "largest aircraft"? The Messerschmitt 323 had a greater wingspan and a higher fin; and there were a fair few aircraft with greater wing area. YSSYguy (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A working set of criteria for entry is given in the leading paragraph to the table, and refinement is under active discussion, e.g. see the above topic. What do you mean by "make sense"? Without explanation, your remark makes no sense - what sense yo you want it to make? Your example is spurious, the B-29 has already been fact-tagged in preparation for removal, that is no reason to trash the whole thing. FYI much of this list has been culled from the List of large aircraft, which is in an even worse state. Would you care to blank that whole page? I would, but first I thought it would be courteous to copy across (and where appropriate fact-tag) any entries which might at least have a case to make. You can find some further background discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#List_of_large_aircraft. I trust that your grounds for peremptory blanking-out are now disposed of? [update] I really would appreciate being able to see what we are talking about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

Definition

I appreciate that a definition is needed, but the recent add of a definition of anything over 12,500 lbs max take-off wt seems unfeasibly low: seems more like a bar for what isn't a small aircraft. By this criterion the Westland Wyvern is a 'Large Aircraft', as are most types of Learjet (the Learjet 23, interstingly, has a max. t-o wt of 12,499 lbsTheLongTone (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC

I agree. However, it is there. I do not think it hugely significant here, so I relegated it to an appropriate section. It has also been used as the criterion for inclusion in the List of large aircraft. The logic there is that we add all types conforming to the criterion to that list. I think that in the longer term that might help some of us gain a more realistic perspective on how encyclopedic the list - and the criterion - are. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Large aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407082008/http://www.airshipmarket.org/?q=node%2F98 to http://www.airshipmarket.org/?q=node%2F98

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of largest aircraft

The Lists of largest aircraft section was cut in this edit last year, without any consensus discussion. The claim was that it belonged in the list of large aircraft. I disagree with that. This set of lists of largest types is short enough to fit in this article, while a merely large aircraft (as opposed to largest) is so broadly defined that that list will end up with hundreds of entries and the nature of this list was already lost in its current state. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been reformatting the lists with more informative columns. A bit experimental and unfinished, so I'd appreciate any comments. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]