World’s largest paper airplane has a 65-foot wingspan 17%

By Andrew Paul22%

7/9/2026, 7:49:39 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Halo Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 35.1% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 360 faulty-reasoning hits from 291 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.8% and a BS Rank of 17% (18,157 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.00% of the article peer group.

It’s easy to craft a paper airplane capable of soaring across a classroom , but one that can travel 200 feet is a bit harder. 
A group of students from Italy’s University of Pisa not only managed to reach that distance on a single glide—they did so with the Guinness World Record holder for the largest paper airplane ever assembled. 
Built using only paper and some glue, the team’s nearly 23-foot-long creation and its over 65-foot wingspan cruised through a warehouse at Italy’s annual We Make Future expo on June 25. 
According to the university’s announcement, the students broke a record previously held since 2013 by Germany’s Braunschweig Institute of Technology. 
“It all started with [constructing] some paper airplanes between lessons, almost as a joke,” the team said in a statement. 
“We were students convinced that, with the right method, even a piece of paper could become real engineering.” 
Science YouTuber Jakidale documented the design process and testing, which highlight the hours of trial and error, CAD renderings, and experimentation needed to pull off their collective success. 
You can watch the entire exercise in a pair of videos—provided you’re fluent in Italian. 
But even if you’re not well versed in the Romance language, it’s still fascinating to watch “Project Icarus” come together. 
“In the end we managed to bring back to Italy a world record that had stood for thirteen years,” the team added. 
Don’t have the engineering know-how or enough paper to craft your own gigantic glider? 
There are still plenty of aeronautically sound paper plane schematics to attempt, including one officially endorsed by NASA . 
The post World’s largest paper airplane has a 65-foot wingspan appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.9%Andrew Paul: 2.5%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Andrew Paul: 3.0%Popular Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 3.2%Popular Science: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.8%Andrew Paul: 6.7%Popular Science: 4.6%Optimism Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 4.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Andrew Paul: 1.6%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 35.1%Andrew Paul: 5.5%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority35.1%This article: 4.8%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.7%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.9%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote6.9%This article: 4.8%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 5.2%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.5%

291 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers34%attributed speech192writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageGuinness World Record holder • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageorganization • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJakidale • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coveragePopular Science • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words35% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%Guinness World Record holder: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Guinness World Record holder: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.8 ptsWriter: 7.8%Guinness World Record holder: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Guinness World Record holder: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.