Hah, you're not alone on this one. I've felt like this on multiple occasions. I suspect there's a certain bias due to the amount of (not un-respectable, mind you) work they've put into the publications. I *could* say something, but it'll go round and round until we agree to disagree, or I just lose interest in continuing to argue a super niche topic.
However, in this case I would say it's an animation error - for personal edification either imagine some sort of attachment/hangar that does fit the size, or pretend it's some other class that's similar. If I were an animator I'm not sure I'd go back and "correct" such things. It's just not that important, except to a very small subset of people.
The "same size" argument counting only the length is a little disingenuous though, I agree.