Talk:Airbus A400M Atlas/Archive 2

RAF To Test A400M National Capabilities
The RAF is to start training with the A400M for SF high altitude parachute deployment, boat drops, ship and submarine rendezvous, as well as low-flying down to 150 feet day and night tactical deployments. Here is the open cite: http://www.janes.com/article/52734/uk-to-begin-testing-national-a400m-capabilities-shortly, regards. Twobells''t@lk 10:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous cruising speed
The cruising speed information displayed on the Airbus A400M official page is contradictory: on the one hand, it lists 300 kts or 555 km/h as the maximum cruising speed, while also listing Mach 0.68 - 0.72 as the cruise speed range. This is a contradiction, since even if we consider the lower boundary of Mach 0.68, it will still lead to a speed between 833 km/h at sea level and 716 km/h at the aircraft's maximum ceiling of 12,200 m, both of which are much higher than the 555 km/h listed, hence the error. The number Mach 0.72 (780 km/h at 10,000 m) as the top cruise speed (not the same as maximum speed) is more reliable than the 555 km/h figure, since this is also listed by numerous other sources, including by Rolls-Royce (which is a partner for the A400M's engines) at. The 555 km/h value is misleading, as this most likely refers to the max speed at sea level (which is not the same as the cruise speed which happens at high altitude) or it may refer to the maximum operating speed achieved during early flight testing in 2010. Generally, it makes most sense to use the official information, unless of course that info is erroneous, which I just proved here that it is. Any aviation experts among the Wikipedia editors are welcome to chime in.AxPetre (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We would need a new ref before removing a manufacturer’s spec from the article. You can't just calculate your own cruise speeds and replace the manufacturer's data with them, as it is WP:OR. I have read the ref I think you are reading too much into what it says. It says:


 * Maximum Operating Altitude 40 000 ft 12 200 m
 * Maximum Cruise Speed (TAS) 300 kt 555 km/h
 * Cruise Speed Range 0.68 – 0.72 M


 * It does not say that all those numbers coincide, that 300 kts is 0.68 – 0.72 M at FL400. What it does say is that the maximum TAS is 300 knots, that the maximum altitude is 40,000 feet and that the normal cruise speed range is 0.68 – 0.72 M. Most aircraft are limited by Mmo or by maximum indicated airspeed (IAS), not by TAS, so that "max TAS" may just be representative of cruise performance at some unspecified altitude and not limiting. - Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, here is a new reference from a credible source which is already included in the main article as number [81]. In it, the cruise speeds are listed between Mach 0.68 at 37,000 ft equivalent to 390 KTAS, and Mach 0.72 at 31000 ft equivalent to 422 KTAS. Which means between 722 km/h and 781 km/h, nowhere near the 555 km/h (I hope you don't consider simple conversion from kt to km/h as WP:OR).


 * You said: that "max TAS" may just be representative of cruise performance as[sic] some unspecified altitude and not limiting. But that's exactly the problem. It is very misleading when there is a non-specific value as a parameter which on Wikipedia is used for comparing different aircraft. For example, on its page, the C130J has a cruise speed of 643 km/h. Are we to conclude that the C130J is faster than A400M? An aircraft parameter on Wikipedia must mean the same thing between various models if that parameter has the same name. You shouldn't put that 555 km/h value unless you know in which conditions is achieved and those conditions are mentioned. Maybe that value of 555 km/h is at sea level, or with 2 engines operable, or flying up-side down with a jeep strapped to its belly, who knows? The mishap that the Airbus site editors made shouldn't translate to an equal mishap on Wikipedia. - AxPetre (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't repeat errors, but it is a matter of figuring out which numbers are right, the TAS or the Mach. It is also possible that the TAS quoted should actually be IAS, which would make more sense. The AW&ST ref you linked to tends to support this notion and I think we would be better off using the figures from that article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Mach 0.72 figure is more strongly referenced, including on the official A400M presentation page where it is mentioned three times as the maximum cruising speed. The value of 300 kt (that TAS? thing) is only mentioned once in the section "Airdrop", when referring to approching the drop zone for paratroopers, but this isn't mentioned as a cruise speed, and also, the speeds and altitudes for paratroopers airdrops are usually below those for cruise.


 * Furthermore, the 300 kt TAS is even more misleading, since in the official A400M game (which can be downloaded from the same page I mentioned), there is an option called "Explore" and in its section "Performance" it lists "Max. Cruise Speed TAS 422 kt", "Max. Cruise Speed CAS 300 kt" and "Max. Cruise Speed Mach 0.72 M". As, you can see, the 300 kt is mentioned as TAS on the site and CAS in the official game. If both are true then the only cicumstance in which TAS == CAS is at sea level in ISA conditions, so not the actual cruise speed as is normally understood (maybe we could add another specification parameter called "Cruise speed at sea level"?).


 * So, please let me know how you want this done. - AxPetre (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sea Level cruise is a pretty useless measure by any standard! I would go with the AW&ST ref, as it is the most consistent and based on manufacturer’s data and written up by someone who at least understands it! - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. I made the changes. I didn't put the Mach value because the template doesn't have it. - AxPetre (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

German Luftwaffe states Mach 0.68 at 31k feet. --Denniss (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but there are two problems with referencing that article:
 * The speed isn't expressed in any absolute value (km/h, mph, kn, m/s), which means that in order to display those in Wikipedia, they have to be calculated by using equations which take in altitude, air temperature and speed of sound in that environment, and doing that is WP:OR.
 * Most of the other sources (see above) list Mach 0.72 as the maximum cruising speed (not the same as maximum speed, which so far seems to be unknown). - AxPetre (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Size comparison
This article could really use one of those size comparison images. Any takers? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There you are, see images #1 and #2:


 * In December 2016 I added image #1 to the article and replaced image #3 with it, which had been there for almost two years. Now suddenly, my image was removed as "we dont normally do comparisons and they are not all like for like" and "as original research/synthesis". For two years, there had been a comparison that grossly misrepresented the proportions, as the A400M looked as if it was even larger than the C-17. This didn't seem to be a problem for those who now removed the image that reproduces the proportions in a much more realistic way. Now what's the issue? The measurements are freely available without any "original research". I also added the image close to a paragraph that already compares the three aircraft types. According to Image use policy, "the purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." That's what Maury Markowitz requested, and that's what I tried to do. Everybody compares the A400M, the C-130 and the C-17, so why shouldn't we? There's a lot of talk out there about one of these planes replacing another, they all three coexist in the RAF. To say "we don't do comparisons" is far from the reality in this case. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @ BilCat, "original research": This doesn't make sense at all. My images consist of original photographs that are available at Commons. There is much less original research involved in combining these than in creating from scratch sketches like File:Airbus A400M silhouettes.png, File:C-130H Line Drawing.svg or File:B737Familyv1.0.png (oops, a comparison) that, needless to say, remain uncontested in many articles. --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, thank you, this is precisely what the article needed. Secondly, BillCat, there is not the slightest hint of OR here and your use here strikes me as regulatory ratcheting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And worth mentioning: before seeing this image I had no idea the Transall was so close in size to the early 130s, nor that the later 130s were so close in length to the 400. The later is particularly interesting because it shows so clearly why the US ditched things like the C-14 in favour of a 130 stretch. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, large portions of the article, equivalent to more than three printed pages, lack any image at all now. There is little will recognizable to keep this article up to date and attractive. --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Dont think we need these comparison images for a number of reasons, we dont normally do comparisons and if we did why pick a random bunch of transport aircraft that dont have the same role or carrying ability. If we started to do comparisons then we need to include the An-70, An-12, An-24 and others to be neutral and also would have to include the Belfast which is the nearest to role and size to the Atlas. So really random comparison images are not neutral unless we include every transport aircraft ever built. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sadly you don't address any of the above arguments. Did you even read my text, or is my English that bad? This is not a random selection, but a direct reference to the text that specifically mentions these three types. Unlike the other aircraft you named, these are all western types currently in use (they were already during the process of selection), and they are used side by side in the RAF. A combination of C-130s and C-17s was under consideration by other nations as well (e. g. France and Germany) instead of the A400M, but the A400M was built to replace the C-130 in several air forces and, to some extent, fulfill the role of the C-17 as well. To say they are not in the same role is simply ignorant.
 * On the contrary, since these were considered to be in the same role, the image is required to show the differences that exist. You may take these differences for granted, but my experience shows they aren't.
 * The only other type that has some relevance in this context is the AN-70, since it was also under consideration to be selected instead of the A400M, at least in Germany. But that's long ago and, with only two machines built, the AN-70 doesn't play a big role today. --Sitacuisses (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry we dont do comparisons between random or in fact any aircraft types, for the article to be neutral you would have to include other and non-western types. The C-17 is not the same size or role if you are comparing aircraft of different sizes then why not the C-27 as well. We dont have a comparison image in the C-17 article or the C-160, or the C-130 which shows it is not relevant here and not a neural if we include here. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * MilborneOne, you still keep ignoring every argument posted above and just repeating the same talk. The only random thing here is your own selection of aircraft that you toss in. Contrary to the other types, there is no specific link between the C-27 (which is even smaller than the C-130) and the history of the A400M. I posted several reasons why the C-17 should be included here. As long as you simply ignore this, you are not neutral. Please devote yourself more to the history of the A400M before you form an opinion. Your only argument seems to be "we don't do this", but based on what? I showed you that there do exist comparisions. Even in Boeing C-17 Globemaster III there is an image of the McDonnell Douglas YC-15. If there are no images of relating aircraft in other articles, this may be because there is no specific reason to add them. The reasons to add such an image to this article have been stated, and as long as you simply ignore them, there is no constructive conversation. Maury Markowitz called this "regulatory ratcheting", but what rule do you actually refer to? --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont think you need to do personal attacks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not looked at this page in ages (presumably over a year) and I came here and was pleasantly surprised to see this comparison picture. I think that it is very helpful. FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Denel stops manufacturing parts for A400M
Perhaps worth mentioning in the article somewhere. It seems the partnership with Denel (and subsequently South Africa) is a little rocky. I'm not sure what to do with this information and where to put it in the article if at all so I'll just drop it here: https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/denel-parts-airbus-a400m/ Jurryaany (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Background is in 2004/5 South Africa ordered 8 aircraft and negotiated workshare so Airbus outsourced some part manufacturing to South Africa and helped them set up the industrial base to manufacture aircraft structures but in 2009 South Africa cancelled the order over rising unit price but Denel (the SA state owned Military services and munitions company) retained the workshare. Now Denel is heavily indebted and losing money after a failed attempt to break into the international arms market during the 00's and refocusing on its core business of providing services to the SA military and have negotiated to return their aero structures work back to Airbus. WatcherZero (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Belgium
msn 106 goes to Belgium and completed test flight in Airbus Sevilla Youtube jyt2h8Sg0pY  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.192.54 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A400M's Max Payload
The Airbus website advertises a maximum payload of 37 tons, but https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/defence/military-aircraft/a400m

OCCAR lists it as 32 tons. http://www.occar.int/programmes/a400m

It can also be seen in recent news reports that they are operating at a maximum of 32 tons. https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/news/defense-aviation-news/2020/august/6517-german-air-force-62-transport-squadron-tests-loading-of-boxer-armored-vehicle-in-a400m.html

If we can't expect any improvement unless there are drastic improvements and engine upgrades, we might as well change the maximum payload in the catalog specs to 32 tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.193.128.196 (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Airbus lists it as 37 tons, that equates to 33.6 tonnes. I don't know why a European organisation decided to use Imperial, but to be consistent I suggest that it should be 33.6 tonnes and not 37 tons. E x nihil (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The capacity in this article's specifications section lists 37,000 kg (37 tonnes). The Airbus specs web page lists "Up to 37 tons" and "4,800 nm (8900 km)" with the US/English unit first. This ordering does not make much sense to me either. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to argue that the overweight problem (References:17 or https://aviacaonoticias.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/airbuss-a400m-may-face-design-overhaul-to-meet-performance-targets/) mentioned in [Delays and problems] in the main body of the article has not been fully resolved yet, and I suspect that Airbus is still using the catalog specs as they were at the time of the announcement, and that the aircraft is actually being introduced with lower catalog performance and no hope of improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.193.128.196 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is purely speculative unknown IP address but overlooks the fact that it is currently operated with a range of 6,400Km at 20-tonne payload, a range of 4,500Km at 30-tonne payload, and a range of 3,300Km at what we must assume is 37 tonnes as the max payload because that is all that Airbus has given us to work with. And there is always hope for improvement. E x nihil (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Without additional development expenditure it seems difficult to find hope.An examination of pre-2007 articles shows that the A400M was originally planned to have a lighter body of 70 tonnes and a longer ferry range.The actual calculations show that the OCCAR maximum payload approximates the MZFW (109.6t) minus the EmptyWeight (76.5~78.5t).I also found an interesting article on the subject. It seems that the load capacity of the A400M is divided between the standard 32 tonnes and the optional 5 tonnes.The difference in the maximum payload between OCCAR and Airbus, and the fact that Germany claims to be unable to load the Puma IFV and has not made any progress in its load testing, may be due to the different standards of measurement between Airbus and other organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.193.128.196 (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Occar has always listed it as 32 tonnes, regardless of the weight gains during development (Web archive 2007). A presentation from 2005 by a member of the German procurement authority named 32 tonnes (32,000 kg) as guaranteed payload at 2.25g (or 25,000 kg at 2.5g). So this seems to be a contractual matter related to the customers' specific requirements, and not actually the airframe's max. payload. 32 tonnes is also named as the maximum weight for individual vehicles; this also seems to be the loading capacity limit of the ramp. Nonetheless, various sources have named the 37-tonne max payload, before and after all the weight gains. Airbus, RAF, Luftwaffe. The website of the French Airforce says 35 tonnes . I guess that anything above 32 tonnes will only work under favourable conditions, i.e. long runways, no hard braking etc., which limits the military application of the higher payload. Consult the pilot's manual for a final answer, unfortunately I don't have access to it. Since the operator nations have their individual military certifications in addition to the EASA A400M certification, the accepted limits may even vary from country to country? -- A related issue is the empty weight, which the article currently lists as 76,500 kg. This is from the development period and does not take into account the last weight gain. The Luftwaffe says 78.6 tonnes. --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @61.193.128.196: The MZFW (109.6t) you gave is from the civilian EASA TCDS that gives the MTOW as 137,500 kg. These values are meaningless in practice, the figures relevant in operation can be found in the additional military certificate. I've seen an unconfirmed copy with a much higher MZFW and the known MTOW of 141,000 kg. The articles that you took as a reference for a capacity "divided between the standard 32 tonnes and the optional 5 tonnes" are actually describing the capacities of the motorized winch (32 tonnes, in accordance with the maximum weight of individual vehicles) and the optional loading crane (5 tonnes). I think it's just a coincidence that theses numbers add up to the max. payload of 37 tonnes. Where did you read that "Germany claims to be unable to load the Puma IFV"? I'm not sure they've even tried, as it hadn't reached its combat capability until recently, and its aerial transport may not be a priority . --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)