Talk:Embraer C-390 Millennium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Argentine participation

In this aticle is written that the Argentina will help to contruct, but from some brazilian sources, the Brazilian government isn't acepted the interest in the project yet. --Cypher3 (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"some sources" (??). Both presidents already states this in the aeronautics memorandum signed by both countries but the AR mindef is still negotiating FAdeA participation quote [1] --Jor70 (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In spite of our subcontinent mourning, someone still working down here EMBRAER ANNOUNCES DISCUSSIONS ON PARTNERING WITH ARGENTINA IN THE KC-390 PROGRAM --Jor70 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Portugal's participation in KC-390 project

hi Fnlayson

I'm not understanding why are you editing my humbled contribution in this article??? please answer me. (Keep It Simple & Stupid please). thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhoto (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Operators sections is for users with aircraft and users with aircraft on order (see WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS). Brazil is the only nation with a firm order (on contract) now. The others are planning to order KC-390s now. Project participation and manufacturing involvement is covered in article text. -fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ok Fnlayson, I've understood, thank you. it didn't make sense because when you deleted it you maintained Argentina on the orders list. and before my appearance here Colombia, Chile, and another one appeared too, so I resolve to put Portugal too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhoto (talk • contribs) 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the Argentina entry before. This stuff will be updated as things develop. -fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Partnerships and manufacturing

Any reason why we have to detail every equipment supplier, it is not something we normally do as it tends not to be encyclopedic ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like too much coverage. A list of suppliers and what they are supplying is enough, like in Boeing 787 Dreamliner#Manufacturing and suppliers, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think the best way now, is to start a diferente article: List of KC-390 suppliers.

• A list article such as that would probably not be notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Three years later, and I'm noticing this is still a significant problem with the article. I'm willing to take a try at improving it in the next few days, per Fnlayson's suggestion above, but wanted to post here first before unilaterally making a fairly large change to this article. Any other thoughts? Cheers, Skyraider1 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at it a bit further, a table with manufacturer and subsystem/component might be the best way to succinctly capture this info and make it easily digestible by the reader. I'm not sure this (a table of manufacturers) has been done before in any other aircraft article though- any objections to a table format? Cheers, Skyraider1 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My objection is to the list itself, as others mentioned above. I meant to remove it myself before now, but kept forgetting. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nearly all if not all of the suppliers section can probably just be deleted, any aircraft project is going to be supplied from all over the place it is the nature the business so most of it is just not notable, the company is buying foo bits from a foo bit company doesnt really stand up, its not up to an encyclopedia to list the obvious. Now if they were buying tyres from a computer company that may be notable! MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a bold edit, taking into account the opinions above, and replaced the section with a paragraph including major components. I'll admit the definition of "major components" is subjective, but I think this is more in line with the Boeing 787 article. Any further effort to improve is of course welcome! Cheers, Skyraider1 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Embraer Defense and Security

My edit has been reverted (as "unnecessary"). At least the subject was introduced and, sometime, it will be understood. Military aircraft are designed and manufactured by business unit Embraer Defense and Security (physically separated from Embraer by 360 kilometres (220 mi)) and whose President and CEO is Jackson Schneider, successor of Luís Carlos Aguiar, whose name is spelled as Luís Carlos "Aguilar" in article.
Are few recent information in article. Most sources have more than three years.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This detail is not omitted. The Embraer business unit is listed in the Infobox. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary was accidentally cut off by my tablet before I had fininshed typing. What I was trying to say was that the details you were adding are unnecessary in this article, especially in the Lead section, which should focus on the aircraft itself. The main article is at Embraer, which covers the entire company, not just one location. "Embraer Defense and Security" isn't even mentioned by name in that article. I left "Embraer Defense and Security" in the infobox, which is sufficient for this article. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, although I think relevant to the text. However it is not listed among the subsidiaries in article "Embraer" to the correct link in infobox.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• A business unit is not necessarily a subsidiary of a corporation. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fnlayson:Please take a look on page 35 of this report.PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not needed. Mine was only a general comment. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Antonov 178

Sorry for this edit without discussing here. Was rather obvious to me. As additional information, I searched about it on Antonov website and found this an this recent news.
Thanks!PauloMSimoes (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

references

Lots of bare URLs used for references to be sorted out to regain B-class--Petebutt (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That does not mean the text is unreferenced though. The project banner checklists are only asking if the text is suitably referenced., e.g. WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

KC-390 Cost Differs

Upper right hand corner box states the plane cost 85 million. In the origins paragraph it states 50 million. Is it 50 or 85 million per airplane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3632:D980:3C76:B242:CCAE:A600 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The article does say that the 50 million was a 2007 estimate, the infobox figure is from this year. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows; my guess is around $80-100M if you factor in training, maintenance and support for a few years. I am keeping an eye on Hungarian sources, sooner or later it must come out how much was the contractual amount at least (e.g. annual budgeting summary in Parliament's relevant committees), we can probably do some educated guesswork from there. (The $300M the Brazilian press mentioned here and there is an absolutely clueless guess, a ridiculously high price for only two planes - I highly doubt Hungary would pay the price of essentially two A400M Atlas (!) the Germans already offered them, standard across entire EU, for two Milleniums when the whole point in Embraer's pitch is lower cost/higher ROI, starting with lower initial investment.) HTKA.hu kamm (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Orders

The Orders and potential customer evaluations section says that the Colombian Air Force announced that it would acquire a fleet of KC-390s to replace its Lockheed C-130 Hercules fleet, however the given source[2] makes no mention of this nor can I find any article about it online.

Meanwhile, the Orders section states that "a total of sixty units were ordered" while no orders for the aircraft have been placed by any other country than Brazil. The source given for this is only about manufacturing partnerships and possible intentions of purchase.

Best regards, Get_It (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The text says that is a planned acquisition by the Colombian Air Force, not a firm order. It is just the intent to make an order. Colombia already had an agreement to order some KC-390s as part of joining the KC-390 program in 2010. According this article there are 32 aircraft on firm order by Brazilian Air Force; the others are just agreements/planned orders. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes and the wording on the article doesn't reflect that. Could you please fix the article? Best regards, Get_It (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don;t know about that. The closest text I could find to what you refer says "commitments for 60", which seems clear enough already. I did remove the word "signed" before that to remove possible confusion. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Added Hungary; please, refrain from editing unless you are intimately familiar with the details of the Hungarian deal - I'll keep updating it as more facts come out (price etc.) Thank you! HTKA.hu kamm (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't tell Wikipedia users not to make valid edits. Also, Wikipedia REQUIRES reliable published sources to be cited, and this even applies to people who are "intimately familiar with the details" of whatever they are adding. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems my polite euphemism clearly didn't get through on your end, here's it again, this time in rather plain English: my careful wording was referring to people who are actually both native in Hungarian and English i.e. they can read and understand the original sources (either in Hungarian or Portuguese in Brazil) and properly translate it to English (as opposed to google-(mis)translated dog-English.) How about asking first next time, before you jump the gun again so quickly, telling other people what not to ask from other people...? You're welcome. :) HTKA.hu kamm (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A New Zealand order? Saw a comment on Facebook the RNZAF will get the aircraft. Chwyatt (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Orders and potential customer evaluations section cleanup

This section is getting a little unwieldy, and it's readability, IMHO, is poor. Each paragraph is only a sentence or two, and most of them start with a repetitive "On month/year, ...." Nomenclature is an issue too. Is there a precising meaning to "interested in" vs "intends to" vs "plans to"? If a country is reported to be simply "interested in" an aircraft, it's unlikely it will be reported if the country loses interest (unless it's a contender in a major competition...but to me, that's more than just "interested").

My recommendation would be to review this section, and remove any country/paragraph where there's no mention of anything official (a Memorandum of Understanding, a Request for Information (RFI), an actual contract, etc). Then clean up prose/formatting/etc. And is "operational history" really the best place for this info, or would it make more sense under "design and development"? Thanks for your feedback. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think most of it can be culled, showing interest and discussion is part of the standard practice of trying to sell you aircraft, only if it moves to a MoU or order is it really noteworthy. If we were to mention everytime an aircraft salesman turned up somewhere we would have some very long articles of trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Advertisement tag

I cannot cite a specific sentence, but this article is not clean enough as a factual reference for the story of the KC-390. Especially regarding its development and potential operators, the article sounds consistently like self-promoting updates. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Name change

This article has been renamed today to add "Millennium" but it omits a manufacturer name per standard WP:Aircraft convention. The name change needs to be mentioned in the article body including the previous KC-390 name, which has been the main variant of this aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

IMHO the article rename was anticipated too early, the JV is not even approved or finalised. Anyway, it should include the manufacturer name, which is still Embraer.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Marc. I suggest renaming this article to "Embraer C-390 Millennium" since Embraer is the majority (51%) owner of the "Boeing Embraer – Defense" joint venture. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, until the JV is finalized at least.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the editors above, the manufacturer's name should definitely be in the article title. Now moved to the correct title. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Politically motivated pictures

The two pictures show a politician. I erased and it was reversed and accused of bias, with the justification that it is a good picture of tge cockpit. So accidentally there is a present time politician in it? Isn't it relevant? Let's wise up this website please. If it is going to be used 'by accident' for political propaganda it will be the end of Wikipedia THE PICTURE IS BIASED, NOT THE REMOVAL OF IT. IF YOU SAY THE REMOVAL IS BIASED YOU ARE ONLY PROVING THAT THE PICTURE IS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Do you understand better in capital letters? HM7Me (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not shout and please do not edit war, this is an article about an aircraft and somebody has choosen a good image that shows the flightdeck. The inclusion of somebody in the image has no relevance, most readers would not have a clue who it is as it is not mentioned in the article (and not relevant). You need to make a rationale case why a random person on the flightdeck is cause for it to be removed and gain a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not edit war it is not how we behave, next time you are likely to be blocked from editing. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note User:HM7Me has been blocked for two weeks for continuing to remove the image without gaining a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

From what I can find from the images available in Wiki Commons, the image in question is the only one providing a view of the cockpit instrumentation. If HM7Me or someone else could find an image with the right license showing the same instrumentation without the politician, we could just replace it and that would make everyone happy right? --McSly (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with MilborneOne and McSly on this. Given that 2 separate IP addresses have now removed the image, perhaps it's time to semi-protect the article. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The user or a connected user has replaced the image with a copyrighted image from this article and uploaded to Commons under a creative commons license. I'm looking for a tag there... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

i changed the photo with one of my rights, and we solved the problem. Carvalhocosta. 10:59, 12 August

Just for information User:Carvalhocostajf has been blocked for evading the current block. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)