Talk:List of large aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Although I rewrote the list, I cannot at the moment see the point about it. We need some inclusion criterions for this. As the phrase 'large aircraft' is very subjective, I'd personally prefer to scrap the exisisting list, and replace it with something alon the line of 'aircraft firsts', containing a list of various records, or if there isn't concensus for this, to at least use something along the line of 'largest aircraft' for a specific period. The term 'large aircraft' is subject to change, similar to the term heavy bomber, which at some point was used to describe the B-17, the B-29, the B-50 and the B-52. For each new model, the previous was more or less degraded to medium bomber. At the moment, everone is more or less free to add any aircraft they think is large, even though it has no specific merit of being either the largest upon it's introduction, or largest when designed. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 01:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC) ogcb 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A shorter list of current airplanes is available at User:TGCP/VLA. Requirements are minimum 416 passengers, 100 tonnes or special features. TGCP (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this talk might be a bit of a dead thread (on the subject of specification) but I'll throw out some thoughts anyway:

  1. I like the idea of records / firsts (thats what I expected to find in this article).
  2. May be useful to add previous record holders (I just added the B748 as the longest aircraft as it recently superseded the A346 but left the former record holder for its still notable length)
  3. It may also be helpful to break out aircraft by type (airliner, military transport, etc) as the intended mission is what, in my opinion, make an aircraft's size ordinary or remarkable. (i.e. A B737-sized fighter jet would be more remarkable than an A380 freighter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruskj (talkcontribs) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Largest flying boat?[edit]

The current revision lists the Saunders-Roe Princess, JRM Mars and Spruce Goose all as the largest flying boats ever. They can't ALL be the largest ever, so something needs changing here! Julianhall (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed this. There were indeed multiple contradictory claims, particularly with the flying boats, as to who is "largest". Future editors might like to take note: The Antonov An-225 is the heaviest and the longest. The Spruce Goose has the largest wingspan (i.e. is conventionally recognised as ‘the largest’ of all). So be sure to check against these two planes in particular if making any claim of being "the largest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


Why Concorde is not on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not one of the world's largest aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


If this is about the world's largest aircraft, where are the dimensions? With the exception in the illistration, which only covers four aircraft, nothing is listed about loaded and empty weight, wingspan, etc. ((User:retrograde62)) 19:59, 3 December 2011 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Define 'largest'[edit]

What metric does this use? Wingspan, length, or weight? Maybe volume or capacity? As it currently stands it's not very useful; it needs to at least say how it orders large. Cthulhu Inc (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is still a serious problem. It's an arbitrary list with no obvious criteria, which has inevitably led to bloat - it's very long and almost completely unsourced. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
HAV-3 should be added. This is now said to be the world's largest aircraft.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've got the impression that this list does not want to list any aircraft of a dimension over a particular number, but wants to list those aircraft that were record holder at some point, referring to any dimension.
BTW, the most common definition for the "largest" aircraft is that of the MTOW, see an article from "ask a rocket scientist".--FlugTurboFan (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-160[edit]

This page states that the Tupolev Tu-160 is the "Heaviest combat aircraft ever built". However, the Tupolev Tu-160 page states that the B-70 was heavier. Further, according to both pages, the B-52 was heavier than either. Unless someone has comments to the contrary, I'll be changing this sooner rather than later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Aviation[edit]

I don't think a note has been posted here yet, to say that this article is under discussion here and to invite participation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


When this article was first created in 2006, it said at its introduction "This is a list of notably large aircraft". I've changed the introduction to read that again. The descriptions of the aircraft listed explain why each is notable. Dream Focus 10:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And of course, the criteria for notability are part of the 'articles for deletion' discussion, as notified at the top of the article itself and currently ongoing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


The {{giant aircraft}} template is at TfD. I'm not bothered about that but the essential details may be useful here as a checklist:






Rotary wing[edit]

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

This list has no valid criteria for inclusion. The original idea was that the craft should be "notable". But all the aircraft on Wikipedia are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. What makes a given aircraft notable as a "large" one? The original idea seemed to be to make the case ad hoc for each individual entry. But that simply begs the question, what criteria do we apply to those individual claims? Despite much discussion, nobody could break that circle. Then somebody produced a definition used by the American aircraft leasing industry for legal purposes, a definition which is wholly inappropriate outside of that narrow field. It sits there in the article lead looking out of place because nobody is dumb enough to take it as a serious criterion for inclusion in the list. For example the advocate who posted it has singularly failed to add any of the hundreds of frankly rather small types which snitch in at just over the defined weight limit. No, that definition is worthless as a criterion for inclusion. So we are back to the problem of justifying those notes explaining why each type is notable. Just what are the criteria for justification? For example, can I add every Zeppelin that ever flew? Most of then were, at the time they flew, the largest aircraft ever made. If I can add them, why? If not, why not? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Despite your constant tiresome argument to the contrary, we did agree on a valid criteria for inclusion already. The Federal Aviation Administration are the authorities on what defines a large aircraft. We can go with that definition just fine can't we? The purpose of a list article is to help with navigation, and show more information than a category could. If its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and it meets the FAA definition, then it should be on the list. If the list ever gets too long, it can be broken into separate list articles, as is common. Dream Focus 02:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The FAA are a authority with their criteria, what about other national authorities? To go with a single organization's stance might be a case of POV or nation-centric worldview.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Do other countries use a different classification system? Post some links. Otherwise its not even an issue. Dream Focus 10:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
"We can go with that definition just fine can't we?" well, by way of illustration I just added some examples that meet that criterion. Are you happy for every aircraft above 12,500 lb. to be listed? That's less than half the weight of the Douglas Stiletto - and an awful lot of aircraft, especially once I open my Jane's 1908. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have always described the Hawker Typhoon as a large aircraft... PS found one on-line source - of dubious quality - that repeats the information as "12,5000 lb" GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The Hawker Typhon is listed as having Weight (Empty): 8,801lbs (3,992kg) and Weight (MTOW): 13,250lbs (6,010kg). [1] We don't include the weight of its bombs though, since that'd be like including the weight of luggage a civilian aircract could have. 198 Wikipedia articles use the website I'm getting that information from.[2] Dream Focus 19:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It was a older FAA doc that I found but it said 12,500 "certificated" MTOW so all-up was what counted. Apologies - I did not mean to suggest your source was flaky. I did find this FAA publication on ATC which refers to a aircraft weight class and gives "Large. Aircraft of more than 41,000 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight, up to but not including 300,000 pounds. Which would at least move the bar up, though still including a lot of aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The FAA document referenced in the article now [3] list the legal definition of the term "large aircraft". The TERMINOLOGY section says mentions "Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and the Federal Aviation Regulations" is being what they reference there. That document is from 1978. We need to see if the FAR changed their legal definition of the term since then. Is what you link to based on FAR regulations or any laws passed to identify things this way? Or are they just using the words small, large, and heavy, for other reasons, not as an official legal term? Somewhere on the FAA website should be something to clarify this. Whether every aircraft that has a Wikipedia article is listed on the page for small aircraft or large aircraft, or all together in one really large list where you can click something and just search for them by size if you want to see that, doesn't really matter. Just need a list like this to help people find what they are looking for, and see information presented in nice orderly boxes, easy to find and search for. Dream Focus 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────'The FAA document referenced in the article now [4] list the legal definition of the term "large aircraft".' No. It lists one legal definition within a specific context, viz. the legal/financial framework for aircraft leasing in one particular country. A slightly fuller quote from that other source reveals:

a. Heavy. Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or more whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.

b. Large. Aircraft of more than 41,000 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight, up to but not including 300,000 pounds.

where "Heavy" is closer to what is apparently targeted by the creators of the present List. Perhaps we should move it to List of heavy aircraft? But again, that applies only to the policy for organizing air traffic in one specific country: perhaps we should stop dancing on pinheads and seek a reality check based on something both with international relevance and also relevant to the actual aircraft rather than the regulatory environment? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The FAA has a page for all of its legal definitions at "Large Aircraft. Aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight." Dream Focus 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    and you are really happy that I have added the Cessna Citation II executive jet, which has the massive wingspan of 51 ft 8 in and can carry a whole 10 passengers? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    I don't really care what you add. You are clearly being WP:POINTY and rather immature about it though. You failed at the AFD you started to delete this article and redirect it to the article you created, and now you are just arguing nonstop here, with the same arguments that you used in the AFD. Dream Focus 12:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    That's not very encyclopedic of you. Wikipedia is all about building the content that you suddenly now "don't care about", not the personalities you choose to find "pointy" and "immature". You mind what I delete but not what I add? That sounds to me more like defence of your own edits than building an encyclopedia. More significantly, the AfD discussion did not resolve the issue of inclusion criteria, which is why the present discussion is needed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    The inclusion criteria was established, and many editors did agree with it. As long as it meets that requirement, anyone can add it to the list, no need to talk about every single item you add just to try to prove some ridiculous point of yours. Dream Focus 19:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought there was guidance or policy on large lists. So far I've found that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists says that "However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." but that means drop items that don't warrant an article to keep the size down. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Notability standards, as mentioned above that, explains those items have their own Wikipedia article. It says if there are ten things that have Wikipedia articles and two things that aren't, then to list it, since then two more wouldn't matter, but if there are hundreds of things making a long list, then a lot of things that doesn't have its own article can be eliminated. Note that it links to the "best list on Wikipedia" and that includes List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. Long list are fine, as long as they aren't mostly red. Dream Focus 20:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
"The inclusion criteria was established". No. The discussion reached no consensus. Having questioned whether this list is to stay, I am now questioning what sort of a list it should be. I am sorry again that you find community processes so ridiculous, you are of course free to unilaterally leave this discussion if you so wish. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Just a technical whinge on my behalf but the website is by the Aviation Safety Bureau, Inc. and is in their own words provided "as a service to the public." and "no guarantee is given that the information provided on these websites is correct, complete, and/or up-to-date." GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Scope of FAA Certification[edit]

This article currently uses the FAA Certification definition of a "large aircraft" as its only criterion for inclusion. Would it be sensible to list only those types that have been certified as such? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the European Aviation Safety Agency has a similar definition with the same cut-off weight but [probably] in metric units. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Though looking at the CAA webpages, the EASA definition of a large aircraft as > 5,700 kg also includes "or a multi-engine Helicopter." making the 3-tonne (6,400 lb) Eurocopter EC135 a large aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The criteria is anything above that weight, including those in made before the FAA existed which are on the list now. Dream Focus 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
But surely it is WP:OR to claim that an aircraft meets a given national authority's classification criterion unless and until it has been certified as such by that authority? For example the class would not be relevant to say a Russian type flying in another jurisdiction and that was never submitted to the FAA or the EASA. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to find a definition[edit]

I see your desperate search for a definition of large aircraft.

First of all, you should have a close look at the definitions of the FAA and EASA. Do you really think that 7.5 tonnes are the number we need for this list? In this case, nearly all airliners (and many, many private planes) would be included in this list! And what do we need another list of all airliners for? Even 75 tonnes would be a too little number if we do not want this list to explode.

I've got the impression that this list does not want to list aircrafts of a particular dimension greater than a specific number, but wants to list those aircraft that were record holder at some point, referring to one out of many dimensions. That means: all those aircrafts that were the longest (for a significant period), and the heaviest, and probably with the largest wingspan, and probably the most powerful, or with the biggest volume, or some other dimension I did not mention.

Please consider this definition: "Aircraft was a record holder for a significant era", which in my opinion is the definition which fits best to this list.

I still consider to be bold and to simply remove the first two definitions (FAA and EASA) because in my opinion they do not help at all for this list. --FlugTurboFan (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If the list needs to be longer, so be it, make it longer. There is no shortage of space on Wikipedia. If it gets too massive, we can divide it into different pages like other list at: Dream Focus 23:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul Allen's giant satellite launch plane, called Stratolaunch[edit]

New photos reveal mammoth structure of Paul Allen’s six-engine Stratolaunch

Inside The Roc's Lair

AJRG (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)