Talk:Airbus A400M

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This 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.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Speed

speed seems to be incorrect: [1] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. — Impi 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. — Impi 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). — Impi 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

[edit] 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. — Impi 21:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)