A400M Handling
I too must declare an interest as I do work for Airbus.
That said, since joining the A400M Team some 12 years ago, I have been amazed at the amount of effort which goes into developing an aircraft - not just the immediately obvious of what structure in what shape. Airbus is still doing wind tunnel testing both to look ahead and to confirm what has already passed. The "Down Between the Engines" propeller rotation was one result of fairly recent testing.
There were 2 problems - aerodynamics and internal noise. Improving one seemed to worsen the other. The DBTE rotation cures both to some extent. As far as handling is concerned, it provides symmetrical flow across the aircraft with no super-critical engine failure (a la C130) and smooths out the flow across the tail for the poor s*ds who jump out the back - there should be no crossing over and tangling.
One of the old canards was that a FBW aircraft with protection could never equal the capabilities of the 2-winged master race (and I used to be one). 2WMR wanted to be able to pull like a b*st*rd when approaching a hill or ground to get out of the impending crash. A long time ago they set up a 320 with 400 flight control laws and flew a bunch of test pilots to simulate such manouevres. The result was agreement that the computer can fly a much tighter turn than an unprotected flight control system because it can fly accurately just below the buffet.
The actual handling qualities will not be proved until we get to fly it and will, no doubt, need some tweaking before it goes into service. I am confident that ultimately it will do what it says on the box and that is one of the reasons for the current delays - as the flight test go ahead the design will be refined to incorporate what is learnt.
Moosemaster above talks a load of sense. I remember visting Charleston in the C17's very early days. It was restricted to a 25 mile radius of base - not very useful for an airlifter either tactical or strategic.