When designing an aircraft there are so many trade-offs to consider.
Do you want speed, range, fuel economy, short-takeoff-and-landing capability, or low cost? Well, most buyers of aircraft say "Yes" and they mean it, they want it all.
Of course, often aircraft manufacturers with pre-prototype models claim they will deliver, but few do.
Then every once in a while an aircraft does make the grade as is more efficient that foretold or predicted.
Let's talk.
The reason being is that when an aircraft does deliver on the promise or exceeds expectations, generally there is a long production run, sometimes spanning decades, and I can think of several such aircraft.
How about the Boeing 747, 737 and 777? What about the F-16, Hawker Harrier, and the C-130? What about the B-52 or the Cessna 172? Now then the C-130 has been around for forever and a day hasn't it.
We still have C-130A and B models even with their 100s of thousands of flight hours still flying after 55-years, most have the wing spar box conversion and upgrades hopefully by now.
Of course, Lockheed has bettered this aircraft with each subsequent generation and today's C-130J is a whole new airplane with unbelievable capability for speed, range, load, STOL, and fuel savings.
In the 2013 Dubai Airshow official magazine (Day 1) I saw an interesting article which seemed to promote the Airbus Military cargo plan, the A400M, over the C-130J by Lockheed.
The article was titled; "Airbus Military Bullish Over New Heavy-Lifter," by Jon Lake.
Airbus claims their cargo aircraft version is "Right-Sized" because the C-130J is narrow, as its original frame was designed in the 1950s, C-130A model for the type of cargo being hauled at the time.
If the Airbus A400M sales team really has the best of class aircraft now, and can build it for less cost and guarantee uptime maintenance reliability up and beyond the C-130J model, then I say let them prove it without trashing one of Lockheed's most successful aircraft and one of the most successful aircraft of all times.
Sure, to its credit the A400M is wider and can take wider loads, which is a plus, but that alone isn't sufficient to invest in such an expensive aircraft with an unknown track record.
Can you imagine how many 100s of millions of hours of Airframe time the accumulated C-130s in the world have now? Because that is proof of reliability, not talk.
Talk doesn't fly like the C-130J and I think Airbus needs to put their money and reputations where their mouths are in my view.
Prove it, show me, and then if you do, we will all be believers, if not, you won't be alone in aircraft designs which were decent but by no means revolutionary.
Please consider all this and think on it.