Cosmick Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 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
kgwilson Posted January 26, 2017 Posted January 26, 2017 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 . 2
facthunter Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 % 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
Guernsey Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 ....and for your information a Lighthouse is one made of cardboard. Alan.
Nobody Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 Some of my friends think of a 737 as a light aircraft.... An A380 or 747 being a heavy....
old man emu Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 ....and for your information a Lighthouse is one made of cardboard. Alan. If tin whistles are made of tin, what are fog horns made of? OME
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now