Talk:Airbus A400M Atlas/Archive 1

Technical specification
Technical specification differs in the English, German and French site (max. altitude, speed...) On the french site there is the fact, that stealth materials are used —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.250.130 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it might be a misunderstanding or mistranslation of "composite" materials. There is absolutely nothing stealthy about this aircraft shape or other features. Roger (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Speed
speed seems to be incorrect: Rabauz 23:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The speed cited there is 300 knots, which is about 552 km/hr by my calculations. Eliminating insignificant figures, that rounds to 550 km/hr, or the statistic given in the article.  It doesn't matter much, though, because it's just an estimate.   Ingoolemo   talk 02:59, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

No, the value of 300 kt makes sense, because the site says it's 300 kt CAS. The True Airspeed TAS is higher than the calibrated airspeed as CAS is not taking compressibility into account. Furthermore, it is computed using density at sea level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.89.172 (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is something very wrong here. Airbus Military's latest post (13/6/08) claim a cruising speed of "up to" 430 kt. or about 795 km/h. This is about M 0.67, which is in line with the data entered so I think we need an edit.TSRL (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done that now, using the slightly lower speed of 780 km/h that was already in the specs list but not displayed. This is a cruise speed: I don't think we know the max speed so have left it blank. Of course thses are still estimates.TSRL (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Turboprop
Any idea why the military want turboprop transports rather than normal jets? Plugwash 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Turboprops have better fuel efficiency and performance at low speeds. The most important advantage comes in their excellent STOL performance which is handy when using unprepared or improvised foreign airstrips. -Lommer | talk 17:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * boeing c-17 globemaster III has STOL capacity with jet engines, but this is only achieved though use of "blown-flap" technology : the engine's flow is deviated by the flaps to provide extra lifting force. This is a very complicated technology. Boeing abandonned the civilian C-17 variant because it was too difficult to certify this technology to FAA standarts.


 * Also, the airliners went to jets because of confort of quietness. These are much less important factors for a militaryt lifter. Note than dispite its propellers, the A400M is almost as fast as the C17 (only a few knots slower) --84.103.33.214 16:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * C-17 cruise speed is around 830km/h. A400M is around 560km/h. Seems to be a little more than a few knots. 70.129.16.56 (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See speed above. The difference is around 40 km/h, about 5%.TSRL (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

turboprobs can also be put in reverse to allow reversing on the ground which makes it great for short airstrips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.242.65 (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jets can also be put to reverse thrust, but not so efficiently and less quickly. Unfortunately jets are prone to get damaged on slow speed since debris and sand will be sucked into engine intake at slow speeds (below 70-80kts) when reverse is used. About speeds and profiles, I think we should wait for flight tests to complete before we can estimate speeds and altitudes it can take. I personally consider it will be slower than C17 but maybe overall efficiency is be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.27.194 (talk • contribs)

Hey the ukranians!
There is not a mention of the An-70, athough the Airbus seems to be a more or less copycat of that.


 * Given the function of the aircraft, it is going to look similar to aircraft that does the same job.Just look at passenger aircraft, there has been very little change since the 707 from the 1950s. Matchrthom 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, where's the similarity? High wing? Shared with every other mil cargo plane. Fat fuselage? Ditto. Tailplane? The A400M has a C-17 style T-tail, rather than the conventional An-124-mimicking tailplane of the An-70. Even the engines are different, with the A400M opting for turboprops rather than the An-70's propfans. Besides, the A400M's design actually emerged from the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) group, started in 1982, whilst the An-70's design emerged only in the 1990s. Therefore, claiming that the A400M is in any way, shape or form a "copycat" of the An-70 is pretty much ludicrous. &mdash; Impi 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Max Operating Speed
What is "Max Operating Speed"? It's there on the Airbus Military website, but whatever it is, it's rather a lot less than the cruise speed. Also, I imagine it's a template question, but shouldn't all the speeds be in a single consistent set of units? --Ethelred 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not a specialist, but the "Max Operating Speed" is probably the maximum speed which can safely be obtained with the aircraft.
 * The cruise speed is normally the optimal speed, where motors work at their most efficient regime -- there is also a "cruise altitude", because the motors are dimensioned to be optimal for a particular temperature and pressure; for instance, an aircraft taking off, going at a very low speed and at ground level, is catastrophic in terms of efficiency :p
 * For the units, yes they should be in the International System of units. Rama 08:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Has the AN70 not been cancelled? Seb

Indeed the maximum speed (of any sort should be greater than the the cruise speed! With the the revision noted in "speed" above, it now is. Units are a pain, but pilots use kt and km/h and m.p.h. are widely used by the rest of us so aviation specs need to quote all three.  As a physicist I'd much prefer m/s, but that will take a while to be universal TSRL (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What is EIS ?
In the Orders box there is a column whose name is EIS. What means that? GastonSenac 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Estimated In Service dates. &mdash;  Imp i  00:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Entry Into Service is also used I think. Mark83 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, excellent point. I think you are correct, "Entry Into Service" is most probably the correct meaning for "EIS". They both mean the same thing though (just to avoid confusing the original poster). &mdash;  Imp i  13:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely Entry into Service.

There's some interesting info about the A400M in this article (in Spanish): http://www.diariodesevilla.com/diariodesevilla/articulo.asp?idart=3244277&idcat=1168

Controversy
Two points : Firstly shouldn't there be more about the risks of this programme, with primary customers such as the UK already buying ( or thinking about doing so ) the rivil Globemaster? Secondly how can you have 'primary users' for an aircraft that isn't even flying yet? 145.253.108.22 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right : the more the programme is delayed the more customers will buy Globemasters or divert the money to other high priority programmes. 145.253.108.22 14:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think their is any evidence that the programme has been delayed!, I cant recall any of the target dates being moved. The Globemaster is a strategic airlifter the A400M a tactical airlifter not the same job. MilborneOne 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well firstly, the UK's 1998 Strategic Defence Review identified a shortfall in strategic airlift and launched the short term strategic aircraft project. This was before the UK committed to the A400M. I'm not sure it's clear why they were purchased; it could be argued that the RAF feels they are invaluable, worries about delivery of the A400M or because of the extremely high operational tempo of UK Armed Forces. As for other countries dumping the A400M for the C-17? At nearly twice the price I can't see many nations wanting (or able) to make that jump. Secondly I haven't heard about any major delays. -- Mark83 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The A400M may cost half as much but it isnt even flying yet ( and the cost is only an estimate based upon an assumed large production run ) and it is years away from entering service. Certainly the reported reason the RAF went for the C-17 was it was available and they were so pleased with it they went ahead to purchase it. 85.216.31.171 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet the RAF still plans to purchase a fair number of A400Ms and is not replacing those ordered with C-17s. To my mind, this indicates that the reason for the C-17 purchase was that the RAF (faced with two far-away wars) had a need for strategic airlifters far sooner than the planned in-service date of the A400M, not because of any delays. Hence the small C-17 purchase, which will be augmented in service with the A400M. Nothing controversial about it, IMHO. &mdash; Impi 21:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Euroflag to Airbus?
When and how did ownership of the A400M project pass from the Euroflag consortium to Airbus? Roger 07:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For when see the airbus military entry (founded to takeover running in 1999 and reformed once contracts signed in 2003) as to why im unsure but possibly because they moved from a shell co-op development company during research into a more rigid investment shareholder structuring once fabrication began. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maximum Take-Off Weight
The MTOW given here is wrong, according to the Airbus Military website it is 141,000 kg.--80.143.89.172 (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So then why don't you change it? Roger (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Status
In the status box, this aircraft is marked "Early Assembly", but the Boeing 787 is marked as "Production", even though they both are in the same state -- they've unveiled the first model out to the public, but haven't had the first flight yet. Shouldn't they both have the same status (e.g. 'pre-first flight testing' or something?) --Craigas (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WPMilHist assessment
Demoted to "Start", as more inline citations are needed. Ejosse1 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Loss of sales due to delay
There is only one mention of sales losses to other aircraft (Canada), and it is unstated whether it was due to delay or for other considerations. The A400M's delays have resulted in sales to the UK, if not other nations, and this fact should be mentioned, as well as the reasons. Furthermore, there is no mention of the controversy behind engine selection, which is a chief reason for the delay. 65.166.89.2 (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Canadian bid was lost before any delays, it was not ordered because they preferred something else, as far as I know no other sales have been cancelled or lost. Not sure what you mean by the delays have resulted in sales to the UK, the UK ordered the type a long time ago. Not sure that engine selection is the cause of the delay, certification and problems with the engines is one cause of delay as mentioned in Into production other problems are mentioned in 2009 Technical Problems. MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture of landing gear
The photo of the landing gear is actually just a photo of the trade fair-mockup of an early design of the landing gear, the current design looks very different. My suggestion is to remove it or replace it by something better. --Iediteverything (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree but remember the image was added in good faith as it was all that was available, suggest an addition to the caption for the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added place image was taken and year to caption to clarify some. Add further info as needed.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Update?
Well the "update to new standard" has messed this up big time. Can someone put it back how it was with the infobox please. This guy's other entries for military aircraft don't remove infoboxes so maybe he's a vandal. 11:42, 26 July


 * See WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey for current attempts to revise the standard, including the question of whether it should be an infobox or list. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft since some of the discussion is on the talk page of the main project page.  Gene Nygaard 12:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look and wow some people take Wiki way to seriously. No way I'm joining that discussion. I say let them make the Wiki layout even more bland than it already is if that's what they want.

hey i think its a mess there airbus says that it has a speed of 0.62 to 0.72 mach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.93.86 (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No mess and that's not quite right. A400M specs list Mach 0.68–0.72, which is listed in the specs table of this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Orders table and SA's cancellation.
I think it would be best to remove the line about South Africa's cancelled order from the table - then the total will make better sense. Roger (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have tweaked the table - any better ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Thanks Roger (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cost
I don't edit these pages so I don't want to muck up the good work of others. I just wanted to take issue with the 100 million Euro unit cost for the aircraft. The most recent news has EADS asking for an addition 5 billion Euros or reducing the orders to 140 (and maintaining the original price). Additionally, EADS is already planning for over 2 billion in losses on the program. Based on these numbers, unit cost is at 138 million Euros and rising. So when the additional funding gets approved, and it will, the old unit cost has got to go. EADS will never sell this aircraft for 100 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.17.94 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What ever figure is used, it needs to be cited from a reliable source. Also, it need to be clear on what type of unit cost is being quoted, the two main types being "flyaway cost" and "unit procurement cost". User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs is an essay designed to help editors understand the differences. While each method of caculationg costs is legitimate, one needs to now which method is being used in order to make meaningful comparisons. - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm the unsigned commenter above. Just want to say that this cost issue is probably the most important aspect of the aircraft. This is turning out to be a great aircraft with a ton of innovative ideas. But cost is going to dog EADS and the A400M customers for years to come. The outside audit of the aircraft put cost over-runs (known and predicted) at over 10 billion Euros. That puts unit cost (and I'm just dividing program cost by the number of aircraft) at about 150 million Euros, or about 220 million USD. That puts the A400M in the same ballpark as the C-17 (I know, I know, they aren't the same aircraft). But if you are the UK and you've already taken on the C-17 as an interim solution, the main reason for continuing to purchase the A400M is to extract future job guarantees for future collaborative aircraft projects. So, I apologize for turning this into a discussion board about the aircraft; what I mean to say in the end is that the A400M page really needs a big section dealing with cost and the politics of paying for this. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.17.165 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to comment on your line C-17 as an interim solution the C-17 and A400M dont do the same job so the C-17 is a strategic airlifter while the A400M is a tactical airlifter - different jobs. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The C-17 is mainly strategic but can do both. It has shorter takeoff and landing capability for tactical transport (direct delivery).  -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned commenter from above back again. Wow. March 8th now and that was an amazing two months of negotiations. From Reuters, the original customers have about a 10% increase in purchase price, plus they made a 1.5 billion Euro loan that is supposed to be repaid through future export sales. This latter provision may make it very difficult for EADS to ever profit from the aircraft, and it is not clear how export orders would ever have a sufficiently large profit to ever cover a 1.5 billion Euro loan. Really the only way would be through a USAF purchase. Anyway, if someone wants to take a stab at calculating new price/cost data for the aircraft, the best revised data that I could find with a breakdown by country is: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6271UA20100308?type=usDollarRpt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.112.167 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Counter-rotating propellers
"As an aviation first, the propellers on each wing of the A400M turn in opposite directions, (...)" The "aiation first" bit was removed, but i think it was correct. The only other plane with more than two engines and counter-rotating propellers that i can find is the Messerschmitt Me 323, and the (three) engines of a single wing where turning in the same direction there.

"(T)he tips of the propellers (are) advancing towards the midpoint between the two engines." From this description i don't know which way the engines are turning. My suggestion would be "The tips of the propellers are moving down between the engines" (which is mentioned a bit later in the article) (or "up" if i am wrong). This would make both outer engines non-critical--ospalh (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The sweep of the blades as seen in the photo makes it obvious which way the propellers turn. Roger (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this image (already linked in the article) makes it totally clear. It's just that i think the wording isn't very clear. I'm just not sure that i (as a non-native speaker) can come up with something better. Maybe. Maybe i'll add a link to critical engine as well.--ospalh (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree the wording should be made clearer. What is particularly unusual (and thus notable) about this aircraft is that the propellers on the same wing rotate in opposite directions. Normally multiple propellers on each wing rotate together - descending on the side towards the fuselage. Roger (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Counter-rotating propellers? See Counter-rotating propellers and the following aircraft have counter-rotating propellers:


 * Piper PA-31 Navajo
 * Piper PA-34 Seneca
 * Piper PA-39 Twin Comanche
 * Piper PA-40 Arapaho
 * Piper PA-44 Seminole
 * Cessna T303 Crusader
 * Beech BE-76 Duchess
 * Lockheed P-38 Lightning
 * Heinkel He 177 Greif (fourth prototype onwards)
 * Messerschmitt Me 323 Gigant transport
 * de Havilland Hornet
 * The Wright Flyer

Plus:

"In designing the Lockheed P-38, the decision was made to reverse the counter-rotation such that the "tops" of the propeller arcs move outwards, away from each other. Tests on the initial XP-38 prototype demonstrated greater accuracy in gunnery with the unusual configuration. The German World War II Henschel Hs 129 ground attack aircraft, Heinkel He 177 heavy bomber and Messerschmitt Me 323 transport's counter-rotating powerplants used the same rotational "sense" as the production P-38 did."

--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The A400 seems to be the only plane with counter-rotating propellers (crp) ON EACH WING - Me323 and He177 have same-rotation propellers on each wing (clockwise on port, counterclockwise on starboard). Tu-95, by the way, have two CRP on each engine axis, which is very different. I presume that the above small planes have similar configuration as He177, but do tell if not. TGCP (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Subcontractors
recent edit linked to a list of subcontractors, an essential part of modern aircraft production. It seems reasonable to include http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=A400M TGCP (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont not think the website adds any value to the article per WP:EL and I am not sure that it a reliable source. If any sub-contractors are that notable then we should be able to find a reliable source to establish that notability. Appears also you need to subscribe to get any detailed information. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, it was an external link - OK. But as a reference it should be among the most reliable, as it is an industry magazine closer to the source than most popular magazines, and the list is updated daily as well. Well, the link is here on talk page for people to use next time. TGCP (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Advertising Material
The following quote was copied straight from the promotional site www.a400.com, and pasted into the article no less than three times:
 * With the use of composite materials and powerful turboprop engines, the aircraft is intended to support short soft field and long-range, high-cruise speed operations.

Exactly what informational value does this provide? Composite materials and turboprop engines are entirely unremarkable, long-established technology. What an aircraft is intended to do, according to the company's public relations department, is irrelevant, compared to what it eventually will do under operational conditions. The A400M has already failed to deliver on many of its manufacturer's promises. So why do some contributors think Wikipedia has to rehash advertising copy from a non-NPoV source? This is hardly encyclopedic material. Textor (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In an article introduction you can either write: "This aircraft does A and is planned to do B" or you can write about failed orders and delays. I gather from your tone and your editing actions that you would prefer the second option, but calling the second option a neutral point of view is simply disingenuous.
 * The source of the quote is actually from the "A400M design" section in this page. The site in question seems pretty neutral to me. Stating the intended capabilities and characteristics for the aircraft is also natural given that the prototypes have not confirmed the design goals yet.
 * Whether turboprop and composites are well-known technologies or not is irrelevant. They are both valid description of the aircraft and both are characteristics that defines it and should thus be included. The goal here is to produce an article that states a bit more that "its an aircraft" - right? Supa Z (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That quoted text does Not appear on the a400m.com capabilities page. The quoted text was only in the article in one place.  That was reworded already anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You lift 30 tons and what do you get?
A crater at the end of the runway it seems as the aircraft can actually only lift 29 tons. Can this be corrected or noted in the performance section please? Hcobb (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You get "Grizzlilla"! - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. That means it can't takeoff with that payload and full fuel load.  And its range is reduced. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Very few aircraft types can in fact fly with a full fuel and cabin "payload". In fact to speak of payload separately from fuel load is incorrect because payload includes fuel. I don't know why WP usues a non-standard definition of payload. Roger (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, fuel isn't a paying load (except to the extent that the vehicle is used as a tanker). Payload would normally cover the things that a vehicle is used to carry from A to B. If something is actually an input required to get from A to B then it's probably not payload. Crew are not payload, for instance.
 * Of course the difference between an aircraft's empty weight and MTOW might be accounted for by varying proportions of fuel, cargo, passengers &c - but I have not yet seen the difference between empty weight and MTOW defined as "payload".
 * bobrayner (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Confusion between "payload" and "useful load" - see Payload (air and space craft) Roger (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Grizzly 2
As I appear to have been accused of bring funny or vandalism by using the caption "Grizzly 2 in 2010" for an image that show Grizzly 2 in 2010! As I was up close to the second A400M yesterday it is called "Grizzly 2" in at least two places on the nose. If you take the trouble of looking through the 40 A400M images I have just added you can see it clearly on some showing the nose markings. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hence "Grizzlilla"! - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just an over-eager user who wasn't paying attention. Anyway, thanks for the images! Much appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"a tactical airlifter with strategic capabilities"
What does that mean? That the plane is big? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.54.216 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. Tactical airlifter means it can operate near the battlefields and strategic refers to long range capability.  See the Tactical and Strategic airlift sections at Airlift. -fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change infobox image
This photo of A400M is more colourful and has a more body visibility than current one. Therefore I propose to change it.--Cerian (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the current one - but then I would. It shows the fuselage better and the aircraft is in a more natural pose. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer the current image. Chwyatt (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I like this one.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

An improvement to the current image in mind, I took some photos at ILA 2012. I find the current one to be really foggy and dark. Do you think any of these photos could work for the infobox?

--Julian H. ( talk  ) 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Table
Why would we want to include a canceled order in the operators section? South Africa canceled their order, therefore they will not become operators, therefore they shouldn't be in the table. --John (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)--John (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No idea. To be redundant and take up more space, maybe?  -Fnlayson (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably because it is a list of orders not operators, we dont have any operators yet. When aircraft are delivered they will be a list of operators perhaps the order list should be moved into its own orders and sales section. MilborneOne (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with most of that. But South Africa no longer has an order. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Atlas name
Is the Atlas name going to be part of the UK designation? These articles, imply it is mainly a British name. The Grizzly name has been an Airbus name/nickname at least for the early aircraft, as I understand it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should reflect what sources say, generally. Sometimes "official" names displace unofficial nicknames, sometimes not. If folk continue to use a name which is not backed by officialdom, it's still reasonable to include that name in the lede. Otherwise we might as well move Burma to Republic of the Union of Myanmar... bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was not suggesting getting rid of the mention of "Grizzly" in the article, just that context is needed on "Atlas". Both can be mentioned with some explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware Atlas is just the official British name and Grizzly was just used as a callsign and individual names for the prototypes. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

MilborneOne seems to be right, but the matter is moot as the aircraft is now officially the "Atlas", as per refs in article. See also the July 6, 2012 edit summaries.--220  of  Borg 22:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC).

In-flight refuelable?
It would improve the article to indicate if the aircraft is in-flight refuelable. This is an important feature which allows an aircraft to perform long range missions with heavy loads.--TGC55 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really notable most large transport aircraft have this facility, for example the C-17 article make no mention it can be refuelled. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions aerial refuelling in two seperate sections. I don't really think it's necessary to further emphasis this. Kyteto (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article mentions that the A400M can be equipped to can give fuel, but I don't see anything about receiving fuel. A few added words should not be a problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added a few words under design. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

French sales
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-airbus-a400m-idUSBRE9710MX20130802 "I haven't yet decided what will happen after 2019. The number of A400M aircraft within the total requirement has not yet been fixed," he told a news conference.

Sounds like France is at least considering selling off a good fraction of the aircraft they're forced to swallow. Hcobb (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Speculation and a bit crystal ball-ish so we dont need to even mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is "Defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian", so his speculations are somewhat notable. Hcobb (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No it is still speculation being the defence minister doesnt make his "yet decided" notable. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

But it is already known that the top levels of French defense are already undecided about the number of aircraft that they will eventually keep. Hcobb (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airbusmilitary.com/pressrelease.html#182005
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airbusmilitary.com/powerplant.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airbusmilitary.com/PressRelease/tabid/112/smid/491/ArticleID/14/reftab/76/t/First-A400M-ferried-from-Seville-to-Toulouse/Default.aspx
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airbusmilitary.com/PressRelease/tabid/112/smid/491/ArticleID/30/reftab/76/t/Second-Airbus-Military-A400M-runs-all-four-engines/Default.aspx
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Aircraft/A400M/A400MAbout.aspx
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.airbusmilitary.com/LatestNews/tabid/176/ArticleID/205/ArtMID/681/A400M-ATLAS-naming-ceremony-at-RIAT.aspx
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Airbus Group CEO not notable on horror
Airbus Group CEO Tom Enders has called the A400M a "horror", and "I am determined, at least for my company, not to ever again walk into such a program". A400M: The Horror, The Horror] Is the problem that Mr. Enders is too biased in favor of his products? Hcobb (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is that WP is still not a news source. It's an interesting quote, but it's really not relevant to the aircraft itself. It's not about the aircraft's quality or perfomance, just that Airbus isn't going to be involved in such a procurement program again. He didn't even address the cost overruns, which are the real horror for the governments involved, and what almost lead to most of the nations pulling out of the program. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Bit misleading - it wasnt the aircraft he called a horror but multi-national procurement programmes in general of which the A400M programme was just one example, still nothing to do with the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So it's more on topic for the AirBus article? Hcobb (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, because it's not really about an event but an attitude expressed in an interview. European multilateral defence procurement might be better place for it. - BilCat (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

South Africa again?
A report about a German offer to South Africa for some of the "surplus" German A400s - http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36453:south-africa-could-get-back-into-the-a400m-hangar&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107 - not "solid" enough yet to include in the article but definitely something to watch for possible further developments. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thinking out loud... (fastest prop aircraft)
Will this be the fastest ever prop driven aircraft? I realise we don't know -- yet -- it's top speed. It's cruising speed is given as 420 kts compared to 415 kts for the TU-114 which Wiki says here is officially the fastest prop driven aircraft. Possible of course the A400M's cruise speed is already close to its top speed anyway, whereas the Tupolev's top speed of 470 kts was 13 percent higher than the cruise. Just wondering. Moriori (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of prop planes that are faster. XP-47J did 437 kts during WW2, XF-84H has been claimed to as high as 556 kts (thought that is disputed), RareBear and a couple other race planes are faster, but the most obvious is the Tu-95 at 510 kts.Nwilde (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The TU-114 is a civilian deravaitve of the TU-95, - listed as a maximum speed of 510 kts- much higher - but that is MAXIMUM speed not cruising speed. Wfoj3 (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to forget the Dornier Do 335... -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why propellers?
As an ordinary reader I like to know why as well as what. So an explanation of the benefits of propellers versus jet engines for such a large aircraft would improve the article. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nearly all tactical airlifters use propellers, they are lot more efficient at low-speed and for short-distance landing and take-off, it also had advantages on unprepared strips where it is not so effected by soil, sand and anything else thrown up into the engines as a jet engine would be. If I find a reliable ref for that then perhaps we can add it somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, they are JET engines driving the propellers, though not FAN-jet engines.EditorASC (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Production / Quantity Built
For the information box, which as I write states Number build as 11, and no "as of date" listed, nor a reference, this information needs to be added. Wfoj3 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I'm back. In October 2019 - now states 87 built. and matches the column for deliveries in the Operators section - which in include reference dated in 2019. An improvement. This time - at first I wast thinking a surprisingly slow rate of production - but seeing additional past information - does now seem as a decent rate of production. BUT _ currently seems to me - if NO production slow down, and no additional orders, likely to complete production in 2022 to 2023. Wfoj3 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Canada and US under "operational history"
The Operational History section includes a paragraph on Canada's selection of the C-17 and C-130 over the A400M, and a paragraph on a dated proposal from Airbus to the US for 118 aircraft. A non-sale and a proposal that didn't seem to go anywhere aren't exactly relevant to operations....or even to the article as a whole. Any objections to the removal of the material? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection. MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Material removed. Skyraider1 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Counter rotating as opposed to conventional props
No need to require a citation in that section. Nearly all prop and jet engines turn one way. The new advent of counter rotating props required an additional gearbox that was considered unnecessary. Oceaxe (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Losses in infobox
Why aren't losses covered in the info box. Surely this is a valid statistic of the aircrafts safety record and good for quick reference? (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Because they have never been seen as a notable feature in aircraft type articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)