Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The news reports (I know I'm silly to believe em) classed the Mallad involved in yesterdays accident at Perth as a "Light Aircraft" but its a hell of a lot bigger than my Rag n Tube.

 

So where do you draw the line in description light Vs heavy

 

 

Posted

The accepted definition seems to be an aircraft that has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 12,500 lb (5,670kg) or less. Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, page 308. Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2. This covers plenty of aircraft but the Grumman G-73 Mallard is not among them. It has a MTOW of 14,000lb (6,350kg). Wiki has already posted the Perth crash in its incidents section of the Mallard .

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted

% wise it's not far above the defined upper limit which is technically correct. If you are at an airport with heavies etc you might be asked to follow the" light twin" on short final, Do you have that aircraft sighted? They might also use Beech Baron in lieu of the generic term but not everyone knows what a Beech Baron looks like. The refinement of "short Final" helps avoid confusion, which is still possible. Nev

 

 

Posted

Some of my friends think of a 737 as a light aircraft.... An A380 or 747 being a heavy....

 

 

Posted
....and for your information a Lighthouse is one made of cardboard. 095_cops.gif.448479f256bea28624eb539f739279b9.gif087_sorry.gif.8f9ce404ad3aa941b2729edb25b7c714.gif Alan.

If tin whistles are made of tin, what are fog horns made of?

 

OME

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...