4 ms·

"84 meters ... 88 meters ... 250 tons ... 300,000 lbs"

by to3m 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago
The US also operates a fleet of larger cargo planes than the one chosen for the comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy (I think the typical reader will have little intuition for the cargo capacity of the C-17, so the more instructive comparison looks at the most capable operational US plane.)
- stangles1 10y ago
  The comparison to the C-17 rather than the C-5 seems rather deliberate to me (along with using lbs instead of tons for the unit). It's more sensational if a future Chinese military cargo plane "beats" a US cargo plane in cargo capacity by XXX,000 of anything.
  - to3m 10y ago
    Any time they don't translate between units, or mix different types together, I assume the writer is not only functionally innumerate, but also just repeating what somebody else has told them to say... Also note that (according to Wikipedia) the capacity is 250,000kg - so 275 tons, or 551,155 lbs. The C-17's cargo capacity (again, from Wikipedia) is 77,500kg - so 85 tons, or 170,858lbs. That looks a lot more like a difference of 380,000lbs than 300,000lbs to me, which, with some journalistic licence, could surely become "almost 400,000lbs more". You may well be correct about the sensationalism aspect, and here they are leaving some of that on the table. So I don't really know what's going on. Like I said, functionally innumerate... (Though of course, calculation error at this end is always a possibility! But nobody's paying me to do this, so I'm going to go with my gut here.)
- pcurve 10y ago
  side by side photo. http://www.avionale.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy_vs_Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_Size.jpg http://www.avionale.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lockheed_... c5 Galaxy is massive. Interestingly, Boeing 747-8F is even bigger, heavier, and carries more load. Antonov 225? Well, it can carry the same load as both of those planes combined, which really put things into perspective.
ksrm 10y ago
For those wondering: 250 tons = 227 tonnes (227,000 kg) 300,000 lbs = 136 tonnes Why the second figure wasn't just given as 150 tons I have no idea.
- to3m 10y ago
  In fact the An255 can carry 250,000kg... (My initial complaint was just with the units mismatch. But, as is often the case, this is just the tip of the iceberg. My rule of thumb remains in force: any time an article mixes up metric/imperial/US Customary units, you can basically ignore that part of it.)

"84 meters ... 88 meters ... 250 tons ... 300,000 lbs"

by to3m 10y ago

"84 meters ... 88 meters ... 250 tons ... 300,000 lbs"

The US also operates a fleet of larger cargo planes than the one chosen for the comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy (I think the typical reader will have little intuition for the cargo capacity of the C-17, so the more instructive comparison looks at the most capable operational US plane.)

stangles1 10y ago
The comparison to the C-17 rather than the C-5 seems rather deliberate to me (along with using lbs instead of tons for the unit). It's more sensational if a future Chinese military cargo plane "beats" a US cargo plane in cargo capacity by XXX,000 of anything.
- to3m 10y ago
  Any time they don't translate between units, or mix different types together, I assume the writer is not only functionally innumerate, but also just repeating what somebody else has told them to say... Also note that (according to Wikipedia) the capacity is 250,000kg - so 275 tons, or 551,155 lbs. The C-17's cargo capacity (again, from Wikipedia) is 77,500kg - so 85 tons, or 170,858lbs. That looks a lot more like a difference of 380,000lbs than 300,000lbs to me, which, with some journalistic licence, could surely become "almost 400,000lbs more". You may well be correct about the sensationalism aspect, and here they are leaving some of that on the table. So I don't really know what's going on. Like I said, functionally innumerate... (Though of course, calculation error at this end is always a possibility! But nobody's paying me to do this, so I'm going to go with my gut here.)
pcurve 10y ago
side by side photo. http://www.avionale.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy_vs_Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_Size.jpg http://www.avionale.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lockheed_... c5 Galaxy is massive. Interestingly, Boeing 747-8F is even bigger, heavier, and carries more load. Antonov 225? Well, it can carry the same load as both of those planes combined, which really put things into perspective.

ksrm 10y ago

For those wondering: 250 tons = 227 tonnes (227,000 kg) 300,000 lbs = 136 tonnes Why the second figure wasn't just given as 150 tons I have no idea.

to3m 10y ago
In fact the An255 can carry 250,000kg... (My initial complaint was just with the units mismatch. But, as is often the case, this is just the tip of the iceberg. My rule of thumb remains in force: any time an article mixes up metric/imperial/US Customary units, you can basically ignore that part of it.)