Talk:Airbus A400M

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal. Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force

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 Wikipedia: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)

Thinking out loud......

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)

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. [1] [2]

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

A400M "Grizzly 2" at the 2010 Farnborough Air Show

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)

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)

"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)

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 [3], [4] 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)