Talk:Airbus A400M

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has been selected for the Aviation Portal selected aircraft queue. Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force

Contents 1 Speed 2 Update? 3 Turboprop 4 Hey the ukranians! 5 Max Operating Speed 6 What is EIS ? 7 Controversy

[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)

[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)

[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.

[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)