Talk:Airbus A400M Atlas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.

Thinking out loud......[edit]

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)

Proposal to change infobox image[edit]

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)

A400M.jpg
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[edit]

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[edit]

Is the Atlas name going to be part of the UK designation? These articles [1], [2] 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Why propellers ?[edit]

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)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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 \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.airbusmilitary.com/pressrelease.html#182005
    Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.airbusmilitary.com/powerplant.html
    Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html
    Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b 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 \bairbusmilitary\.com\b 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 \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Aircraft/A400M/A400MAbout.aspx
    Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.airbusmilitary.com/LatestNews/tabid/176/ArticleID/205/ArtMID/681/A400M-ATLAS-naming-ceremony-at-RIAT.aspx
    Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b 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)

 Resolved 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

Production / Quantity Built[edit]

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)

Canada and US under "operational history"[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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)

RAF To Test A400M National Capabilities[edit]

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. Twobellst@lk 10:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous cruising speed[edit]

The cruising speed information displayed on the Airbus A400M official page [1] 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 [2]. 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 [3] 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 [4] 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)

References

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Airbus A400M Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Airbus A400M Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Airbus A400M Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Airbus A400M Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Size comparison[edit]

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

@Maury Markowitz: 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 Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content, "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#Background and design phase 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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Airbus A400M Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus A400M Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Airbus A400M Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)