Not comparable. Totally different needs. C17 has huge cargo hold, jet engined and long range but needs airports. A400 can only a carry load up to 38 tons, and has turbo props. It can handle other missions than just cargo, such as aerial refuelling tanker, para drops, and land in places the C17 cannot. "A400 can carry what the C130 cannot and land where the C17 cannot"
At a recent international humanitarian relief in Palu, lndonesia aA400M belongs n flew by Royal Malaysian Air Force aviators, surpassed all expectation when it landed the aircraft on a slightly cracked runaway of 2000mtrs at Palu airport city. From Oct 4th, it carried 17 tons relief, the second day two oil tankers carrying each 5000 litres of fuel n on another sortie 22 tons weight excavator to the same location, all from Jakarta to Palu, Sulawesi which took 2 and a half hours flight for one way trip. Four days, non stop operation n eight sorties all together. Quite an achievement for A400M tactical air transporter n its pilots of RMAF...kudos!
It took a while, but i have completely fallen in love with the A400M... doesn’t mean that i don’t love the low-pass exercises on the C130 of our airforce anymore ...
I like them both but even though the A400 beats the C17 in nearly every stat, it still takes 2 A400s to do the job of one C17 when it comes to cargo capacity!
Well it don't win in the most important stats... load capacity directly to the battlefield and speed. Although the speed is respectable for a turboprop.
Everyone is saying you can’t compare the two because they have different purposes... can someone elaborate on that? I thought they are both cargo/troop transports. If they’re not that, what are they then? They both look similar, just the major difference that I see is one is turbo-prop and the other turbo-fan.
the A400m is a tactical plane with some strategic capabilities, the C17 is a strategic plane with some tactical capabilities what that means: A400m tactical the A400m can perform a lot of it's missions under fire, on partially destroyed, improvised or non-existant runways, has proper defensive technology and some basic protection for the flight deck, they can also perform paratrooper drops of various kinds and deliver aid without landing, they can also perform a very short combat landing, called "sarajevo approach", the turboprobs make it a tad more responsive which is helpful in these scenarios A400m strategic: on top of that is can be used as an air refueling plane and transport cargo or personnel over quite some distance but at lower speed or efficency as would be possible with a jet plane C17 strategic: Very efficen long range transport with high cargo or troop capacity C17 tactical: It can land on short runways and even inspected beaches, depending on the load, the reversers have been build specifically to blow upwards only, they can also drop cargo at various heights if neccesary
You can't compare this planes, they don't have the same mission. C17 can carry very heavy loads but only to a landing strip to another. A400M can not carry the same load but it serves the tactical deployment of units. It can arise in difficult areas (desert, ...).
Louis GERNEZ - Well, I'm a retired U.S. Air Force Loadmaster and flew my entire career on C-17s. After a few years I was initiated into the C-17 SOLL II program, which is Spec Ops Low Level II. My last station was at Charleston AFB, SC. We've landed on all kinds of air strips, in all kinds of locations, in all kinds of weather. Normally, an Airland crew would not land in severe incliment weather, but not SOLL II. We land wherever, whenever. In 2004 & 2005, the entire fleet of C-130H were grounded, because of wing box cracks where the had a few incidents. We took over their missions, because we were the only airframe that could do it. We continued flying the missions, until the E models came back online, from depot. I can't tell you any specifics on SOLL II missions as the program is a TS program and I'm bound by non-disclosure agreements. What I have told you here, you can easily get through a freedom of information act request, it is public information and is not TS, S, or classified.
1A271 Retired all types of strips, Of course, but C17 need strip, not A400M. And C17 need a strip about 1000m, when A400M need only 400m. This planes don't have the same missions, that's why USA have C17 AND C130.
This is a really bad comparison. They arenot even in the same class. You should compare the A400M to the C-130J Super Hercules or another similar aircraft. Comparing the C-17 is like comparing a regular factory production Corvette to a hand built Bugatti. Even though the both have four wheels and an engine, it is not even close to performance.
Edward Myers I stand by my statement the C-17 delivers more directly to the battlfield faster and is 25 years older technology would have been cheaper for the European countries to buy them and save on the development costs and have them decades sooner but what do I know?
Both are good. The A400M may be slightly better on fuel economy even though the turbines are rated to a massive 11,000 hp each!. You compare that to a C-130J, and your looking at more than double the hp to carry a much bigger payload. I'm sure Airbus fitted the turboprops over turbofans for a reason. The big props look pretty cool to!. Would have liked to see winglets fitted on A400. Who knows?-Airbus may even fit turbofans to it one day to play a different role in strategics!.
The Scimitar propellers have the same effect as winglets on this aircraft. The A400 can fly almost twice the distance as as the C17 on much less fuel. Fuel consumption cost for the C17 is $88 per nautical mile, it's $19 for the A400. The A400 needs half the distance for landing and take off compared the the C17. In troop carrier configuration, the C17 can carry only 13 more troops, not much of the difference here. The C17 costs twice as much to purchase and maintain as the A400. Where the C17 shines is in max load 40 tons vs 70 tons for C17
Yada, Yada the only advantage turboprops have is fuel burn everything else is in the turbofans favor. Also there is 25 plus year old tech in the C-17 engines if modern engines were used im sure the specs would be much closer in fuel burn. Also the C-17 carries nearly twice as much so you would have the calculate double the fuel burn and all costs to carry the same load slower.
Damon Bradlay Wrong, wrong and very wrong. To start with, the turbo prop has more than just fuel consumption advantage over the turbo fan on the C-17. First you need to understand what a turbo prop is, the turbo prop on the A400 is essentially is the same thing as the turbo fan on the C-17, the difference being the size difference of the main driving blades. On a turbo prop, the main blades are not limited on size to the engine housing, A turbo fan is essentially a ducted fan if you will where the main blades are fixed and thrust is determined by the rpm of the engine. A turbo prop engine runs at full rpm and thrust is determined at what variable pitch of the blades them self. A turbo fan needs to spool up and down to increase and decrease thrust which takes much longer than a turbo props instant response. Due to the fact that turbo prop blades are not limited to engine housing, you get far better fuel economy. No turbo fan will ever be able to match the fuel economy, efficiency and reliability of a turbo prop no matter how new or how you design it period! I suggest you do some research what a turbo prop and a turbo fan is before you reply!!!!!
Ok cool. Thanks Diemerstein!. Here in Australia, the RAAF selected the Globemasters. Pretty awesome bit of gear! -had the privilege to do a tour of one on a airforce open day, including climbing up in the cockpit. The Tailplane is massive and have no idea how that thing just sits in place!, considering looking up inside past the cargo door appears to be hollow fuselage.
37 ton payload of the A400M is probably as much as anyone will ever need, cheaper to run, newer design , shorter take off/ landing and on unprepared runways.
Comparison? You can't compare these two ones. They have totally different purposes. C-17 is a strategic transport aircraft and the A-400 is a tactical transport aircraft. Different roles and for different gaps.....
Thumbs down. The title has the abbreviation "vs" in it, yet there's no information, no commentary, no analysis. All I see are scattered clips of some taxiing, takeoffs, and landings. Where's the versus?
I'm curious as to why the comparison wasn't between the A400M and a C-130??? This doesn't seem like an apple to apple comparison as one is a Turbo Jet and the Other is a Turbo prop??? The only similarity I can see, just at a glance, is the body shape.. All the Specifications of the C-17 far surpass the A400M (Range, Speed, Ceiling, Payload Capacity, etc..) Just thought I'd share my findings. :-)
Howard Family C17 is not powered by turbo jets - they are turbo fans. Why draw such a divide between aircraft based on the engines anyway? The C17 engine choice gives an advantage at altitude at the cost of less thrust at low speed and low altitude. How much that matters is entirely conditional on the intended sortie profiles. A400M is significantly larger than C130, smaller than a C17, but is able to land places you couldn't land a C17.
Howard Family ...my feeling is that the C-130, although a multi-nation workhorse since 1955 is not a true comparison once you move past the turbine versus turbine issue...mission capacities are significantly different...the closest in size and mission statement would have to be the C-17 in spite of its means of propulsion.....it's like comparing a T Tail Beech King Air to a lower end cost wise corporate jet, say the original Cessna Citation...different propulsion systems and altitude capacities but same mission statement (moving 6-8 executives from point A to point B in reasonable comfort). One is more cost effective than the other but lacks the ability to climb over weather to the same capacity as the other...both can hold as many warm bodies as the other but one will get to Kansas 45 minutes before the other but the trade off is the cost per mile...
Javier Rullan Ruano ...........speedtape...allowed by the FAA for aircraft in transition from one repair facility to another as long as there are no passengers involved and the distance is specified.
+Bob Corridan The A400M doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA (yet). And even if it did, this is an experimental (military) aircraft, the rules governing those are far looser (though not less safe per se) than the rules governing commercial airlines.
+Thomas Vandermeiren ......give the FAA time...last I heard they were legislating under administrative law the permissible size of clouds below 10000 feet.
+恵勇気 Dependig on your interpretation of the word "jurisdiction", the FAA most certainly does. They don't govern military aircraft as such, but they have a say about military aircraft operating within civilian airspace. It's not like the DoD and the FAA are two branches from different trees.
+Jeffrey Thacker That is why they call it 200 mph tape! Holy shit, that did look pretty bad. It was a test and evaluation aircraft, but still...you're right.
+Six String Löve lol, I've been in two different branches of the military and the mph of this tape always seems to just scale to whatever the vehicle's speed is that's being used on. Good shit.
The A400M is not in the same class as the C-17, the C-17 is a much bigger and powerful cargo plane.A better match up would be with the 60 year old C-130's newest edition the C-130J which is smaller than the A400M but does a nice job hauling cargo and is nearly indestructible as it's longevity points out. When you get a design right C-130, B-52, Chinook, 747 and so on, you can trust those that fly everyday not to do the bad things in flight that can get you killed!
jjs4you2 The c130 indestructible? only they who was heawy structural modified after the crashes from a US and a French C130, who lose they wings...The C130 is far not the same class (but same type: tactic transport) as the A400M who is far not the same class as the C17 (Strategic transport)
leneanderthalien .........unfortunately, wrong on all points. Every aircraft, every aircraft has had or will have structural failures...that is not a measure of the aircraft...take Fat Albert, the Boeing 737...in all of its revisions over the years it is the premier workhorse of the commercial airlines industry for short to medium routes and yet look at the structural accident for Hawaiian Air or the one for Air Alaska...those two incidents, both of which were caused by lack of proper maintenance, do not by any means measure the success of the aircraft. its design, nor its quality.
Bob Corridan I think you dont' known the story: the C130 had a conception fault in central the wing box, who produce metal fatigue, so all C130 in service in France was forbidden for water bombing and max G limited , and wing box modifications applied. In France was the C130 definitively retired as water bomber after the accident... The Transall C160 whe use, THIS is a very strong aircraft: they life was prolonged up to 2023 (and probably more) after overhaul and modernisation (C160-R), despite the usage in very hard conditions (very frequent unprepared terrain use in Africa...)
leneanderthalien ..as was the I-Beam on the Boeing C-46 but it didn't invalidate it's 45 year history of completing missions...my point is one and the same....
The A400M is better for me: - it is more polyvalent (example: it is also a tanker aircraft) - it can land on a bad terrain (the c17 can't with his reactors) - it is more modern than the c17 - it is more maneuverable than the c17 - etc... The only advantage of the c17 compared to the A400M it's his transport capacity.
jamali hamilton c17 can refuel other aircraft like this? images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerobuzz.fr%2Flocal%2Fcache-vignettes%2FL455xH266%2Fa400m_helico_4-808f6.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerobuzz.fr%2Fdefense%2Farticle%2Fle-ravitaillement-en-vol-des&h=266&w=455&tbnid=zSRCSoOeQaBMUM%3A&docid=DqjfL3L7nTc_SM&ei=z0gmV--eGYe6Ub2mhqgB&tbm=isch&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=933&page=1&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=0ahUKEwivwvvjvrnMAhUHXRQKHT2TARUQMwgcKAAwAA&bih=767&biw=1536
Well one is much bigger than the other and has turbo jets , were the other has props . Even though they are used for the same thing, personally I like both . Enjoy turbo props more on video and for sound . Thanks !
It looks like the C-17 does not have a tiller meaning that the pilots used the rudder pedal when steering the nose wheel. Pretty interesting to see the rudder also turning when taxiing on an aircraft that big.
Ricky Julian you are right there 2 C-17s for $600 Million what a waste of time were 5 A400M's is a lot better they cost less and are more economical and don't cost $1 Trillion Dollars to run like the C-17 The C-17 costs $20,000 per hour were the A400M is probably half that . So the C-17 costs to much for NZ and is rather useless and a waste of time .
Ricky Julian Clear that the A400M is more flexible to use...C17 is only interresting for transport of heawy tanks or big helicopters or a big amouth of supplys ("american way of life" for US troops) form airport to airport (tactical) ...
+Julio Romeresto For intercontinential transferring of freight = yes the C-17 is the choice. However for low level in the field equipment drops or landing in less than desirable locations such as grass or desert the A400M is the boy. (A400 is touted as taking what the C-130 cant into places the C-17 cant.)
+ToonandBBfan As proven by the RCAF in Afghanistan, the C-17 or CC-177 in Canadian service can go anywhere the C-130 can from Afghanistan to resupply missions in the high Arctic the CC-177 is a workhorse. Canada chose the C-17 over the A400M because the A400M was ready for production when Canada needed it, and it couldn't fly non stop from Qatar to Kandahar, carrying a Leopard MBT.
What is stupid is that they decided to use turboprops because the turbofans Airbus intended to use were not "european" and that removed a shitton of cargo capability for the A-400M, the size of that plane is stupid for a mission that can be acomplished by a C-130J (because most of the time the thing will fly with 20 tons, not with 37) which cost 40 millions less (140 millions less in the case of Spain), a Globemaster III costs 218 million and gives you 80 tons of cargo, WTF is Spain doing?
This airplane for Malaysia air forces TUDM and this airplane will come to LIMA 15 .2015 AIR SHOW AIR FIGHTER IN LANGKAWI MALAYSIA .....NEW AIRPLANE FOR MALAYSIA
Our ministry of defense think about it... A400M VS C-17C-17's produce line already dead. another choice is A400M However A400M is not strategic military cargo. we need strategic cargo not tactic military cargo
ok chanchas ,,130 hercules,, ar buss 400 ,,jc17 boing,, a mi gusta mas hercules x qwe es bestia ya probada y otros son muy nuevos pero creo qwe tres son muy buenos ,,buenos aires argentina¿
Absolutely. Large aircraft require lift augmentation on takeoff by extending flaps partially, depending on the takeoff gross weight, pressure altitude, and runway available.
There really is not competition hereBoeing has shut down its C-17 line which you think is good news for Airbus buts its notits 2016 and no orders , more to point, Airbus hasn't gotten an A400M since 2005 further moreGermany and Spain are trying to sell 26 planes that they haven't even gottenThe issue was that the A400M cost was originally supposed to be 80 mil per plane, if Airbus had been able to keep that priceabout 95 C-130Js would not be flying right now, as well as 8 C-17shell Airbus proposed to USAF once for 118 planes ,however the price of an A400M right now is 192 millionhence why they cant sell it
Errr ... the A400M has 'gotten' 175 orders to date. And the C-17 was about 50% more expensive on paper. Not that anyone really knows who pays what. And as for Spain selling A400Ms? They are not due to be delivered until 2020...
1chish ? 175 to date and the last time anyone order one was 2005 , so please name a customer that place an order since 2005 ? 50 percent ?? the A400M costs 169 mil USD the C-17 costs 218 a difference of 49 mil which barely over 25 percent more Spain is selling 14 germany 13 and the UK cut their order by 3
verdebusterAP What I said was and I quote: "the C-17 was about 50% more expensive on paper. Not that anyone really knows who pays what." I was using the figure of $149 Mn for the A400m which against the C-17 figure of $218 Mn is a difference of $69 Mn which is 'about 50%' of $149 Mn. BUT as I clearly said no one, not you or me. knows. Do we? Its hardly an issue. What is a proven fact is the operating costs in fuel alone are 25% that of the C-17. OK before you blow a top it is carrying less but most military airlifts are volume not weight constrained. Regardless it is a factor. So the Spanish economy is in the shitter (like Italy and Greece thanks to the EU) that is hardly the fault of the aircraft. But you forgot to agree the Spanish and Germans are taking delivery from Airbus and THEN selling them (if they do). And given its all beyond 2020 what exactly IS your point? So no orders since 2005. And? Series production only began in 2011 and only 30 of the 175 have been delivered. As I said, which you missed, with more deliveries and a proven service record more orders will follow despite the US Government trying to backdoor subsidise the ageing C-130. Here is a question: How many other aircraft are available on the market with the operating cost base and capabilities of the A400M outside of Russia?
verdebusterAP What I should have added earlier is that of the 279 C-17s built only 41 were for non American Air Forces where the average sale has been 6 each. The A400M, which will of course never be purchased by the USA given its protectionist bias, has achieved an average sale of 22 for each of 8 Air Forces. To date. Just saying ....
1chish C-17 was built to replace all USAF C-141s , so naturally the USAF would be the largest operator "The A400M, which will of course never be purchased by the USA given its protectionist bias, has achieved an average sale of 22 for each of 8 Air Forces. To date." some didnt fact check at all too easy first for the A400M Germany brought 53, France 50 ,Spain 27 , UK 22. Turkey 7 , Belgium 7 , Luxembourg 1 and Malaysia 4 dividing 174 by 8 and claiming 22 per sale dumbass The A400M costs 169 mil per plane ? lets see a C-17 costs 218 per plane also the USAF has the C-5 which just leaves the C-130 the C-130J costs the US military an average of 67 per plane the A400M starting is 2.5 times more the C-130 the USAF pays 100-200 per plane for its special mission C-130s AC-130 MC-130 EC-130 the USMC plays just 72 mil for its KC-130 the KC-130 with 22 mil kit adds AC-130 capabilites ?? lemme spell it out for you the A400M cost is why the US does not bother with it. secondly the US lift capability its C-130, C-17 and C-5 the A400 does not fill a role for the US
capespring ...exactly, well said and to the point...for each aircraft there is a mission..just like the Boeing C-46 vs the Sykorski C-47...look an awful lot alike but I have been on missions on both...each has a different capacity to perform a definitive task.
capespring Not really, or show me a video where a C17 arises in the desert to deploy tactical units xD. C17 have to transport very heavy loads but on airstrips, and after US use C130 to deploy tactical units.
+capespring The A400M: - it is more polyvalent (example: it is also a tanker aircraft) - it can land on a bad terrain (the c17 can't with his reactors) - it is more modern than the c17 - it is more maneuverable than the c17 - etc... The only advantage of the c17 compared to the A400M it's his transport capacity.
For me they look same in term of size, both have four engines. A400 has helices which makes it more adaptable to any weather and climate. Plus has more class than Boeing
This video is nothing but a cut and paste, no numbers and no narrative. Beyond that, the C-17 can carry 169K lbs versus 82K lbs for A-400. These aircraft aren't in the same class, the C-17 cruises faster and farther. The C-17 can carry a main battle tank, the A-400 cannot. The only thing you're comparing is what they look like. Click bate.
This video is made from videos made by me all over Europe of the two planes, nothing is narrated, and it is only about showing the two planes in action nothing else. All the data is available in the wikipedia, Thanks for commenting
Tactical vs Strategic (and Tactical) aircraft. Strategic airlifters are more likely to make longer, higher-altitude journeys. Where jets are more fuel efficient. They are more likely to operate between airports with concrete runways where FOD is less of an issue. Tactical airlifters are more likely to make shorter, lower-altitude journeys of the sort where turboprops are more efficient. They are more likely to operate between smaller airfields where FOD may be more of an issue.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zxfEiMksZQs/mqdefault.jpg)
Not comparable. Totally different needs. C17 has huge cargo hold, jet engined and long range but needs airports. A400 can only a carry load up to 38 tons, and has turbo props. It can handle other missions than just cargo, such as aerial refuelling tanker, para drops, and land in places the C17 cannot. "A400 can carry what the C130 cannot and land where the C17 cannot"
the c17 is cheaper then the a400 and you could buy 2 c130 for the price of one a400 and still have money left over .
To make it sHort a400m is in the midlle
C17 can do paradrop and land in dirt
At a recent international humanitarian relief in Palu, lndonesia aA400M belongs n flew by Royal Malaysian Air Force aviators, surpassed all expectation when it landed the aircraft on a slightly cracked runaway of 2000mtrs at Palu airport city. From Oct 4th, it carried 17 tons relief, the second day two oil tankers carrying each 5000 litres of fuel n on another sortie 22 tons weight excavator to the same location, all from Jakarta to Palu, Sulawesi which took 2 and a half hours flight for one way trip. Four days, non stop operation n eight sorties all together. Quite an achievement for A400M tactical air transporter n its pilots of RMAF...kudos!
It took a while, but i have completely fallen in love with the A400M... doesn’t mean that i don’t love the low-pass exercises on the C130 of our airforce anymore ...
The A400 has a lot to like about it.
A400M for me! Airbus all day everyday!
And you call this a comparison? These are jsut pictures of rolling planes. And btw., you can't compare these two. They have totaly different purposes.
Yes an no. Ones a strategic, the other functions as both, but works better as a tactical.
I like them both but even though the A400 beats the C17 in nearly every stat, it still takes 2 A400s to do the job of one C17 when it comes to cargo capacity!
Well it don't win in the most important stats... load capacity directly to the battlefield and speed. Although the speed is respectable for a turboprop.
a400m can refuel aircraft aswell as get refulled from other aircraft.
Everyone is saying you can’t compare the two because they have different purposes... can someone elaborate on that? I thought they are both cargo/troop transports. If they’re not that, what are they then? They both look similar, just the major difference that I see is one is turbo-prop and the other turbo-fan.
Exactly right!
The C-17 can carry twice the payload at higher speed. Read the specs above !
the A400m is a tactical plane with some strategic capabilities, the C17 is a strategic plane with some tactical capabilities
what that means:
A400m tactical
the A400m can perform a lot of it's missions under fire, on partially destroyed, improvised or non-existant runways, has proper defensive technology and some basic protection for the flight deck, they can also perform paratrooper drops of various kinds and deliver aid without landing, they can also perform a very short combat landing, called "sarajevo approach", the turboprobs make it a tad more responsive which is helpful in these scenarios
A400m strategic:
on top of that is can be used as an air refueling plane and transport cargo or personnel over quite some distance but at lower speed or efficency as would be possible with a jet plane
C17 strategic:
Very efficen long range transport with high cargo or troop capacity
C17 tactical:
It can land on short runways and even inspected beaches, depending on the load, the reversers have been build specifically to blow upwards only, they can also drop cargo at various heights if neccesary
You can't compare this planes, they don't have the same mission. C17 can carry very heavy loads but only to a landing strip to another. A400M can not carry the same load but it serves the tactical deployment of units. It can arise in difficult areas (desert, ...).
Rest assured...on the 17, we can do tactical deployment of troops to austere dirt strips, sand strips, and ice strips...and we have.
1A271 Retired give me proof
Louis GERNEZ - Well, I'm a retired U.S. Air Force Loadmaster and flew my entire career on C-17s. After a few years I was initiated into the C-17 SOLL II program, which is Spec Ops Low Level II. My last station was at Charleston AFB, SC.
We've landed on all kinds of air strips, in all kinds of locations, in all kinds of weather. Normally, an Airland crew would not land in severe incliment weather, but not SOLL II. We land wherever, whenever.
In 2004 & 2005, the entire fleet of C-130H were grounded, because of wing box cracks where the had a few incidents. We took over their missions, because we were the only airframe that could do it. We continued flying the missions, until the E models came back online, from depot.
I can't tell you any specifics on SOLL II missions as the program is a TS program and I'm bound by non-disclosure agreements.
What I have told you here, you can easily get through a freedom of information act request, it is public information and is not TS, S, or classified.
1A271 Retired all types of strips, Of course, but C17 need strip, not A400M.
And C17 need a strip about 1000m, when A400M need only 400m.
This planes don't have the same missions, that's why USA have C17 AND C130.
We can land on paved runways, semi-prepared airstrips and unprepared surfaces, at night, and with full combat loads. I've done it.
Both are a great fit for their segments but comparing them against each other is stupid.
This really isn't an apple to apple comparison. I think the A400 has a lot of nice features that should be incorporated into the C130.
This is a really bad comparison. They arenot even in the same class. You should compare the A400M to the C-130J Super Hercules or another similar aircraft. Comparing the C-17 is like comparing a regular factory production Corvette to a hand built Bugatti. Even though the both have four wheels and an engine, it is not even close to performance.
+Six String Löve ruclips.net/video/9ZVmu51av2o/видео.html
Except that bugatti is slower and delivers less to the battlefield!
yeah but in term of technology the A400M is a way before the C17
+Damon Bradlay boi the bugatti has w 16 engine 1200 horses and quad turbos also 269 mph top speed the corvetter doesnt touch any of those specs
Edward Myers I stand by my statement the C-17 delivers more directly to the battlfield faster and is 25 years older technology would have been cheaper for the European countries to buy them and save on the development costs and have them decades sooner but what do I know?
3:28 Duct tape can fix anything
not duct tape, that's for hot temperature hitting that part and needs more protection to it
More like after thought, forgotten during design phase.
Such a shame that they have stopped production of the C-17 ... :-(
Both are good. The A400M may be slightly better on fuel economy even though the turbines are rated to a massive 11,000 hp each!. You compare that to a C-130J, and your looking at more than double the hp to carry a much bigger payload. I'm sure Airbus fitted the turboprops over turbofans for a reason. The big props look pretty cool to!. Would have liked to see winglets fitted on A400. Who knows?-Airbus may even fit turbofans to it one day to play a different role in strategics!.
The Scimitar propellers have the same effect as winglets on this aircraft.
The A400 can fly almost twice the distance as as the C17 on much less fuel.
Fuel consumption cost for the C17 is $88 per nautical mile, it's $19 for the A400.
The A400 needs half the distance for landing and take off compared the the C17.
In troop carrier configuration, the C17 can carry only 13 more troops, not much of the difference here.
The C17 costs twice as much to purchase and maintain as the A400.
Where the C17 shines is in max load 40 tons vs 70 tons for C17
Yada, Yada the only advantage turboprops have is fuel burn everything else is in the turbofans favor. Also there is 25 plus year old tech in the C-17 engines if modern engines were used im sure the specs would be much closer in fuel burn. Also the C-17 carries nearly twice as much so you would have the calculate double the fuel burn and all costs to carry the same load slower.
Damon Bradlay
Wrong, wrong and very wrong.
To start with, the turbo prop has more than just fuel consumption advantage over the turbo fan on the C-17.
First you need to understand what a turbo prop is, the turbo prop on the A400 is essentially is the same thing as the turbo fan on the C-17, the difference being the size difference of the main driving blades.
On a turbo prop, the main blades are not limited on size to the engine housing, A turbo fan is essentially a ducted fan if you will where the main blades are fixed and thrust is determined by the rpm of the engine.
A turbo prop engine runs at full rpm and thrust is determined at what variable pitch of the blades them self.
A turbo fan needs to spool up and down to increase and decrease thrust which takes much longer than a turbo props instant response. Due to the fact that turbo prop blades are not limited to engine housing, you get far better fuel economy. No turbo fan will ever be able to match the fuel economy, efficiency and reliability of a turbo prop no matter how new or how you design it period!
I suggest you do some research what a turbo prop and a turbo fan is before you reply!!!!!
Ok cool. Thanks Diemerstein!. Here in Australia, the RAAF selected the Globemasters. Pretty awesome bit of gear! -had the privilege to do a tour of one on a airforce open day, including climbing up in the cockpit. The Tailplane is massive and have no idea how that thing just sits in place!, considering looking up inside past the cargo door appears to be hollow fuselage.
Jarrod Bourne
Yes, the C-17 is indeed a fantastic cargo plane.
37 ton payload of the A400M is probably as much as anyone will ever need, cheaper to run, newer design , shorter take off/ landing and on unprepared runways.
yea 💪🏻
Of course, why not comparing a Ford F150 to a Prius
Comparison? You can't compare these two ones. They have totally different purposes. C-17 is a strategic transport aircraft and the A-400 is a tactical transport aircraft. Different roles and for different gaps.....
@@hermes6910 I r right,A400 most advanced military transport aircraft
The A400M looks a bit like a cross between A Hercules and a C17 Galaxy... not bad.
The a400 and the c130 are like the f650 and Tacoma; both trucks are fantastic.
Proud to own this 🇲🇾
I admire both planes but C17 feels clamzy on taxi and take off
Thumbs down. The title has the abbreviation "vs" in it, yet there's no information, no commentary, no analysis. All I see are scattered clips of some taxiing, takeoffs, and landings. Where's the versus?
ikr
Symbolised unconvinceble.
I love c17 Globemaster ..Total fast, unlike grizzly, is more massive and just nicer
I'm curious as to why the comparison wasn't between the A400M and a C-130??? This doesn't seem like an apple to apple comparison as one is a Turbo Jet and the Other is a Turbo prop??? The only similarity I can see, just at a glance, is the body shape.. All the Specifications of the C-17 far surpass the A400M (Range, Speed, Ceiling, Payload Capacity, etc..) Just thought I'd share my findings. :-)
true... the A400m is more tactical air lift with limited strategic where the C17 is a strategic air lifter that does limited tactical...
Howard Family C17 is not powered by turbo jets - they are turbo fans. Why draw such a divide between aircraft based on the engines anyway? The C17 engine choice gives an advantage at altitude at the cost of less thrust at low speed and low altitude. How much that matters is entirely conditional on the intended sortie profiles. A400M is significantly larger than C130, smaller than a C17, but is able to land places you couldn't land a C17.
Howard Family ...my feeling is that the C-130, although a multi-nation workhorse since 1955 is not a true comparison once you move past the turbine versus turbine issue...mission capacities are significantly different...the closest in size and mission statement would have to be the C-17 in spite of its means of propulsion.....it's like comparing a T Tail Beech King Air to a lower end cost wise corporate jet, say the original Cessna Citation...different propulsion systems and altitude capacities but same mission statement (moving 6-8 executives from point A to point B in reasonable comfort). One is more cost effective than the other but lacks the ability to climb over weather to the same capacity as the other...both can hold as many warm bodies as the other but one will get to Kansas 45 minutes before the other but the trade off is the cost per mile...
the A 400 sure has lots of tape on it. 3:31
Pete Watson Indeed, it is a test unit of Airbus
Javier Rullan Ruano ...........speedtape...allowed by the FAA for aircraft in transition from one repair facility to another as long as there are no passengers involved and the distance is specified.
+Bob Corridan The A400M doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA (yet). And even if it did, this is an experimental (military) aircraft, the rules governing those are far looser (though not less safe per se) than the rules governing commercial airlines.
+Thomas Vandermeiren ......give the FAA time...last I heard they were legislating under administrative law the permissible size of clouds below 10000 feet.
+恵勇気 Dependig on your interpretation of the word "jurisdiction", the FAA most certainly does. They don't govern military aircraft as such, but they have a say about military aircraft operating within civilian airspace. It's not like the DoD and the FAA are two branches from different trees.
I'd take the C-17 over the A400M any day!
Ummmmmm did anyone else notice at around 3:29 the MASSIVE, MASSIVE amount of speed tape around the refuel probe and top of the wings????? HOLY SHIT!!!
+Jeffrey Thacker This A400M was on several test at TLS (Airbus Military Factory at France), that is the reason
+Jeffrey Thacker That is why they call it 200 mph tape! Holy shit, that did look pretty bad. It was a test and evaluation aircraft, but still...you're right.
I saw it, and it's peeling off everywhere....
WTH?
+Six String Löve lol, I've been in two different branches of the military and the mph of this tape always seems to just scale to whatever the vehicle's speed is that's being used on. Good shit.
Lol i thought it was duct tape
Those MD cabin windows are unmistakable! So sad Douglas is no longer a thing :(
The A400M is not in the same class as the C-17, the C-17 is a much bigger and powerful cargo plane.A better match up would be with the 60 year old C-130's newest edition the C-130J which is smaller than the A400M but does a nice job hauling cargo and is nearly indestructible as it's longevity points out. When you get a design right C-130, B-52, Chinook, 747 and so on, you can trust those that fly everyday not to do the bad things in flight that can get you killed!
jjs4you2 The c130 indestructible? only they who was heawy structural modified after the crashes from a US and a French C130, who lose they wings...The C130 is far not the same class (but same type: tactic transport) as the A400M who is far not the same class as the C17 (Strategic transport)
leneanderthalien .........unfortunately, wrong on all points. Every aircraft, every aircraft has had or will have structural failures...that is not a measure of the aircraft...take Fat Albert, the Boeing 737...in all of its revisions over the years it is the premier workhorse of the commercial airlines industry for short to medium routes and yet look at the structural accident for Hawaiian Air or the one for Air Alaska...those two incidents, both of which were caused by lack of proper maintenance, do not by any means measure the success of the aircraft. its design, nor its quality.
Bob Corridan I think you dont' known the story: the C130 had a conception fault in central the wing box, who produce metal fatigue, so all C130 in service in France was forbidden for water bombing and max G limited , and wing box modifications applied.
In France was the C130 definitively retired as water bomber after the accident...
The Transall C160 whe use, THIS is a very strong aircraft: they life was prolonged up to 2023 (and probably more) after overhaul and modernisation (C160-R), despite the usage in very hard conditions (very frequent unprepared terrain use in Africa...)
leneanderthalien ..as was the I-Beam on the Boeing C-46 but it didn't invalidate it's 45 year history of completing missions...my point is one and the same....
+恵勇気 ...........what is the difference in the two formats?
The Airbus A400M can carved its own reputation to the military aviation industry
They look same with different engines
The A400M is better for me:
- it is more polyvalent (example: it is also a tanker aircraft)
- it can land on a bad terrain (the c17 can't with his reactors)
- it is more modern than the c17
- it is more maneuverable than the c17
- etc...
The only advantage of the c17 compared to the A400M it's his transport capacity.
That's their purpose!!!.........TRANSPORT!
jamali hamilton
yes but there are other arguments like those that I said
tonton charlie the c17 can do everything the a400m can do minuse the aireal refueling.
jamali hamilton
c17 can refuel other aircraft like this?
images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerobuzz.fr%2Flocal%2Fcache-vignettes%2FL455xH266%2Fa400m_helico_4-808f6.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerobuzz.fr%2Fdefense%2Farticle%2Fle-ravitaillement-en-vol-des&h=266&w=455&tbnid=zSRCSoOeQaBMUM%3A&docid=DqjfL3L7nTc_SM&ei=z0gmV--eGYe6Ub2mhqgB&tbm=isch&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=933&page=1&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=0ahUKEwivwvvjvrnMAhUHXRQKHT2TARUQMwgcKAAwAA&bih=767&biw=1536
tonton charlie i said minuse air refueling
Why are their “tail” wings sitting so high? What’s the thought behind it?
For passengers-airbus
For military-boeing
For me-both
but its not boeing its mcdonnell douglas
Well one is much bigger than the other and has turbo jets , were the other has props . Even though they are used for the same thing, personally I like both . Enjoy turbo props more on video and for sound . Thanks !
It looks like the C-17 does not have a tiller meaning that the pilots used the rudder pedal when steering the nose wheel. Pretty interesting to see the rudder also turning when taxiing on an aircraft that big.
The C-17 does indeed have tillers.
@@moosemaster13 Interesting, thanks for letting me know! Do you have any information if the tiller is connected to the rudder or not?
@@09shadowjet No. The rudder is independent.
@@moosemaster13 Thanks! I was wondering why the rudder also moved when they're turning.
The tail and the vertical stabilizer look the same!
i think is useless to comparing this two aircraft because they just a cargo plane and airborne plane.
Sin duda es más chulo el A 400M,las puntas acabadas casi en ángulo recto afea muchisimo al C 17 Globemaster 3.
The A-400 is covered with speed tape.......
C-130 beats all XD jk but a c-130 is awesme because it has airhook thats so special not the c-17
CLICKBAIT! Complete waste of time. There was no comparison, just video of both aircraft.
Where are the comparison facts?
What if Boeing convert a stretch C-17 as a passenger plane and fitted it with 4 GX -9 engines
What was with the aluminum tape around the refueling extension probe?!! On the A400M
I imagine that it was the prototype test plane of Airbus and that is why it has elements that are not usual in a normal plane
Javier Rullan Ruano well I hope it was high speed Aluminum Tape!
@@JavierRullanRuano It looks like aluminum tape repair for a leak around the base of the refueling probe. Good construction by Airbus.
A400M was like C-17 Turboprop Edition and using Metric. And obviously Airbus.
Comparar un reactor con uno de hélice es como comparar una moto con un coche.
C17 all the way
They both can fly the sky. Thats enough.
That sailboat briefly shown in intro is kick ass bro.
The video makes NO sense they are both transport aircraft yes but not for the same job all the time !
was that aluminum duct tape peeling off around the refueling boom, and parts of the upper wing on the A400M?
It's one of the test specimens, so plenty of FTI components
They put those strips on to test where most of the abuse takes place, it's a test aircraft.
New Zealand is tossing up the idea for getting either the A400M or C-17 to replace the C-130, they would be fools not to go for the the A400M
Ricky Julian you are right there
2 C-17s for $600 Million what a waste of time
were 5 A400M's is a lot better they cost less and are more economical and don't cost $1 Trillion Dollars to run like the C-17
The C-17 costs $20,000 per hour
were the A400M is probably half that .
So the C-17 costs to much for NZ and is rather useless and a waste of time .
Ricky Julian Clear that the A400M is more flexible to use...C17 is only interresting for transport of heawy tanks or big helicopters or a big amouth of supplys ("american way of life" for US troops) form airport to airport (tactical) ...
Jo Tyers @64922221
+Jo Tyers You are an idiot!
Boeing Or Airbus Is The Best Planes Ever
a400m
3:32 who the heck put duct tape on a airlifter?
C17 vs A400m... Impossible
According to a German report as of May 2017, the A400 is under serious scrutiny
Why foil tape on air force body
both are awesome...
I like C17 more than Atlas.
I like A400
A400m as bombing
yo creo que la superioridad del norteamericano se ve pero es que son de diferentes distancia y peso a transportar
Boeing obviously has the upper hand in this competition.
U can't really compare these two planes because they're different class. But the C-17 is more badass though and is a better aircraft to have
Well the C17 sounds like a 757 X2 and the A400 sounds like a generic turboprop. Both are good, but the C17 is my preferred choice.
+Julio Romeresto
For intercontinential transferring of freight = yes the C-17 is the choice.
However for low level in the field equipment drops or landing in less than desirable locations such as grass or desert the A400M is the boy.
(A400 is touted as taking what the C-130 cant into places the C-17 cant.)
+ToonandBBfan As proven by the RCAF in Afghanistan, the C-17 or CC-177 in Canadian service can go anywhere the C-130 can from Afghanistan to resupply missions in the high Arctic the CC-177 is a workhorse. Canada chose the C-17 over the A400M because the A400M was ready for production when Canada needed it, and it couldn't fly non stop from Qatar to Kandahar, carrying a Leopard MBT.
Charles Damery Lets see a C-17 fly into hostile terrority and land in the desert to resupply special forces the way the MC-130 does.
Everything around Kandahar was hostile territory.
Charles Damery Can a C-17 (as good as it is) refuel 2 Pavehawks?
A400m
Comparing c130 or c17 to a400 is stupid. Airbus fall between the two in both price and capabilities. Kawasaki c-2 vs a400 would make sense.
What is stupid is that they decided to use turboprops because the turbofans Airbus intended to use were not "european" and that removed a shitton of cargo capability for the A-400M, the size of that plane is stupid for a mission that can be acomplished by a C-130J (because most of the time the thing will fly with 20 tons, not with 37) which cost 40 millions less (140 millions less in the case of Spain), a Globemaster III costs 218 million and gives you 80 tons of cargo, WTF is Spain doing?
This airplane for Malaysia air forces TUDM and this airplane will come to LIMA 15 .2015 AIR SHOW AIR FIGHTER IN LANGKAWI MALAYSIA .....NEW AIRPLANE FOR MALAYSIA
Yes, that makes sense.
I vote for C-17
With out a doubt, C-17
No comparision
I like airbus a400m.
I prefer C 17, hopefully our government chose C 17.
Did your govt. has enough budget to buy C17 or else keeping burrowing from world bank or IMF?
@@harakiri2650 hahahaha dreaming
A400 reminds me of the Antatovs (No hate) just speculation.
It looks like the an 70
Our ministry of defense think about it... A400M VS C-17C-17's produce line already dead. another choice is A400M However A400M is not strategic military cargo. we need strategic cargo not tactic military cargo
Unfortunately, No facts, no specs of both aircraft.So... how its VISE??????Second: these Aircrafts have a different work to do . ......
C-17 is better because it's a jet. A400M is only a propeller airplane.
propeller-driven planes are always better (more ergonomic)
C17 is better
ok chanchas ,,130 hercules,, ar buss 400 ,,jc17 boing,, a mi gusta mas hercules x qwe es bestia ya probada y otros son muy nuevos pero creo qwe tres son muy buenos ,,buenos aires argentina¿
which is better for going shopping, i ask for my wife . ..
El a 400. Está lleno de parches de papel de aluminio.
Tu madre
I would think that the A400M is better
Compair the C-17 to a Antonov 225😂😂😂😂 Today no other cargo aircraft can beat the Antonov 225.
4:40 Is it normal to take off with flaps down
Absolutely. Large aircraft require lift augmentation on takeoff by extending flaps partially, depending on the takeoff gross weight, pressure altitude, and runway available.
C17!!!!! One day!
比較するのならC130とA400Mだろうに！
There really is not competition hereBoeing has shut down its C-17 line which you think is good news for Airbus buts its notits 2016 and no orders , more to point, Airbus hasn't gotten an A400M since 2005 further moreGermany and Spain are trying to sell 26 planes that they haven't even gottenThe issue was that the A400M cost was originally supposed to be 80 mil per plane, if Airbus had been able to keep that priceabout 95 C-130Js would not be flying right now, as well as 8 C-17shell Airbus proposed to USAF once for 118 planes ,however the price of an A400M right now is 192 millionhence why they cant sell it
Errr ... the A400M has 'gotten' 175 orders to date. And the C-17 was about 50% more expensive on paper. Not that anyone really knows who pays what.
And as for Spain selling A400Ms? They are not due to be delivered until 2020...
1chish
? 175 to date and the last time anyone order one was 2005 , so please name a customer that place an order since 2005 ?
50 percent ??
the A400M costs 169 mil USD
the C-17 costs 218
a difference of 49 mil which barely over 25 percent more
Spain is selling 14
germany 13 and the UK cut their order by 3
verdebusterAP
What I said was and I quote:
"the C-17 was about 50% more expensive on paper. Not that anyone really knows who pays what."
I was using the figure of $149 Mn for the A400m which against the C-17 figure of $218 Mn is a difference of $69 Mn which is 'about 50%' of $149 Mn. BUT as I clearly said no one, not you or me. knows. Do we? Its hardly an issue. What is a proven fact is the operating costs in fuel alone are 25% that of the C-17. OK before you blow a top it is carrying less but most military airlifts are volume not weight constrained. Regardless it is a factor.
So the Spanish economy is in the shitter (like Italy and Greece thanks to the EU) that is hardly the fault of the aircraft. But you forgot to agree the Spanish and Germans are taking delivery from Airbus and THEN selling them (if they do). And given its all beyond 2020 what exactly IS your point?
So no orders since 2005. And? Series production only began in 2011 and only 30 of the 175 have been delivered. As I said, which you missed, with more deliveries and a proven service record more orders will follow despite the US Government trying to backdoor subsidise the ageing C-130.
Here is a question: How many other aircraft are available on the market with the operating cost base and capabilities of the A400M outside of Russia?
verdebusterAP
What I should have added earlier is that of the 279 C-17s built only 41 were for non American Air Forces where the average sale has been 6 each. The A400M, which will of course never be purchased by the USA given its protectionist bias, has achieved an average sale of 22 for each of 8 Air Forces. To date.
Just saying ....
1chish
C-17 was built to replace all USAF C-141s , so naturally the USAF would be the largest operator
"The A400M, which will of course never be purchased by the USA given its protectionist bias, has achieved an average sale of 22 for each of 8 Air Forces. To date."
some didnt fact check at all
too easy
first for the A400M
Germany brought 53, France 50 ,Spain 27 , UK 22. Turkey 7 , Belgium 7 , Luxembourg 1 and Malaysia 4
dividing 174 by 8 and claiming 22 per sale
dumbass
The A400M costs 169 mil per plane ?
lets see a C-17 costs 218 per plane also the USAF has the C-5
which just leaves the C-130
the C-130J costs the US military an average of 67 per plane
the A400M starting is 2.5 times more
the C-130
the USAF pays 100-200 per plane for its special mission C-130s
AC-130
MC-130
EC-130
the USMC plays just 72 mil for its KC-130
the KC-130 with 22 mil kit adds AC-130 capabilites ??
lemme spell it out for you
the A400M cost is why the US does not bother with it. secondly the US lift capability
its C-130, C-17 and C-5
the A400 does not fill a role for the US
c17 - capable but expensive
a400m - more economical but not that capable
you get what you pay for
capespring ...exactly, well said and to the point...for each aircraft there is a mission..just like the Boeing C-46 vs the Sykorski C-47...look an awful lot alike but I have been on missions on both...each has a different capacity to perform a definitive task.
capespring You can't compare this planes, they don't have the same mission.
they have same mission but on different scale
capespring Not really, or show me a video where a C17 arises in the desert to deploy tactical units xD.
C17 have to transport very heavy loads but on airstrips, and after US use C130 to deploy tactical units.
+capespring
The A400M:
- it is more polyvalent (example: it is also a tanker aircraft)
- it can land on a bad terrain (the c17 can't with his reactors)
- it is more modern than the c17
- it is more maneuverable than the c17
- etc...
The only advantage of the c17 compared to the A400M it's his transport capacity.
C-400,HC-400,MC-400 👍
For me they look same in term of size, both have four engines. A400 has helices which makes it more adaptable to any weather and climate. Plus has more class than Boeing
its mcdonnell douglas
@@thermidorlevrai65 it´s both previously it was built by mcdonnell, nowadays it´s build by boeing
Was für ein bescheuerter Vergleich. Die beiden Maschinen haben vom Anforderungsprofil und der Auslegung nichts gemeinsam !
This video is nothing but a cut and paste, no numbers and no narrative. Beyond that, the C-17 can carry 169K lbs versus 82K lbs for A-400. These aircraft aren't in the same class, the C-17 cruises faster and farther. The C-17 can carry a main battle tank, the A-400 cannot. The only thing you're comparing is what they look like. Click bate.
This video is made from videos made by me all over Europe of the two planes, nothing is narrated, and it is only about showing the two planes in action nothing else. All the data is available in the wikipedia, Thanks for commenting
tes beau
The a400 isn't meant to replace the c-17... why don't you compare it to a j3-cub while you're at it too?
Tactical vs Strategic (and Tactical) aircraft. Strategic airlifters are more likely to make longer, higher-altitude journeys. Where jets are more fuel efficient. They are more likely to operate between airports with concrete runways where FOD is less of an issue.
Tactical airlifters are more likely to make shorter, lower-altitude journeys of the sort where turboprops are more efficient. They are more likely to operate between smaller airfields where FOD may be more of an issue.
11 a400m atlas and c17globemaster 3 airplane making machine I need every monthly send me farm veng district let go