I agree. It's a good idea to move this page to AT-400. Optimist33gta 19:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


should we have a size comparison between the at 400 and the andromada? Candymanyyyy 22:28, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Unknown glitch?

First of all, I'm not good at english, there should be some typo or incorrect expression.

So, I was driving AT-400 and I accidently broke left wing of plane, so I decided to just commit suicide (dying wasn't problem to me) by crashing plane into ground. I crashed into ground and suddenly screen started to circle around (at very fast speed) at my dying spot (Instead of moving left and right). after WASTED screen gone and I respawned, my entire game screen became black void. I paused game (by ESC) and I tried to click on Map but it did not showed me map. it stayed on pause menu. I tried to click few more times but game ignored clicking. my friend suggest to use Enter key. I pressed enter key while pointing at Map, and it finally showed me map, but I wasn't in LV hospital, or any of hospital, or any place I can recognize. I wasn't in land, I was in middle of ocean, which says San Andreas, exact same message displayed when cursor pointing at out of map. I unpaused game and some kind of 'afterimage' of pause menu displayed. I'm sorry but I'm not familliar with english so I don't know proper word for that situation but it was some kind of 'afterimage' with weird bright color. wait, it would be easier to understand if think about LSD. I was like "What the hell am I watching..." so I turned on Trainer, tried to teleport to random location. and game displayed "Loading..." and screen was stayed at 'afterimage'. I switched back to Map screen and tried to teleport somewhere, try to shoot gun but nothing happened. so at that point I load a game and it was fine after all. I'm pretty sure this bug wasn't by AT-400 though, but I don't know where to inquire this. I also took picture but I don't think that would solve this glitch. Kevin J.R. 09:55, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

It is highly likely that the glitch which you experienced was a one-off issue that may never occur again. Might I ask what platform (Xbox, PC, iPad, Xbox 360, etc.) this glitch occured on?

TAlim 1994 (talk) 05:20, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Is it in gta v

hey look at this picture isn't this the same plane  

Actual 1356323955

the front end of a At 400

Zombotech Corporation (talk) 00:09, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, we don't know. That could be a military carrier jet, a jumbo jet, a plane based on a 737, etc. And if it is a commercial airliner, I doubt it's named the AT-400 anymore. --Zulu2065 (talk) 00:57, December 27, 2012 (UTC)--

The front actually looks more similar to a 747 (Even although there are two separate windows dividing the middle of the cockpit, while in an actual 747 there is only one that passes through the middle), but for all we know until now, that might as well be a regular commerical jet or maybe even a military plane like the Andromada. It might be easier for us to simply name it "AT-400" for now, though. (Henriquedematos (talk) 22:08, January 22, 2013 (UTC))

yea for all we know it could even be a space shuttle Im not saying it is though Zombo-tech (talk) 00:22, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Hah, indeed fella, I also thought about the space shuttle when I say it for the first time. But to be very honest, after some more careful analysis, it looks way more like an Andromada than a space shuttle or an AT-400, taking in account it seems to be grey and has the split front cockpit window. (Henriquedematos (talk) 14:02, January 28, 2013 (UTC))


Honestly, is there a real point in putting primary and secondary colors in the infobox? The color is not that important at all, and also, there shouldn't be a "variant" line too, just "related" is okay, IMO this is better, makes the infobox much lighter, the capacity, the vehicle type and the aka has a point, but the colors don't (AndreEagle17 (talk) 15:51, October 8, 2014 (UTC))

I agree with the colors (I am gonna remove it) but I kinda like the variant line, it makes a difference between the variants and the similar vehicles. RainingPain17-New-Signature (Talk - Edits) 16:01, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

That I can agree,like the Bloodring Banger,they're modified versions of the Oceanic and Glendale (AndreEagle17 (talk) 16:10, October 8, 2014 (UTC))


Doesn't the AT naming denote it an Antonov? --Tayd0gta (talk) 03:28, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be applying real world naming conventions to the fake world name. smurfy (coms) 03:50, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

No, first because Antonov is a single word name, second because the AT-400 has absolutely nothing to do with an Antonov. The name most likley means it is the successor of the Airtrain, probably meaning Air Train 400. EagleIcon AndreEagle17 PS3 Triangle PS3 Cross PS3 Circle 13:53, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

Also, Antonov is "An" (e.g. An-124, An-225), not "AT". Aside from the fact Antonov most likely does not exist in the GTA universe, the AT-400 has nothing to do with any Antonov plane. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 15:26, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

The AT-400 is not a B737

I know quite a lot about aviation, so I can point out a few little tidbits of the design.

First of all, the cockpit window lacks Airbus's signature "clipped corner", and the angled bottom panel clearly shows that the cockpit (and presumably also the nose) is from any generic Boeing design.

The main wings and elevators are so generic, I can't possibly pinpoint the exact plane they came from.

The rudder, however, has the 737's signature leading edge extention, which shows that the front of the tail came from a 737, but the back of the tail is perfectly vertical, which is very unusual for an airliner, and does not come from any airliner I know of.

This aircraft is easily a mid-size airliner due to its massive size, comparable to the 767, A300, 787, etc. The 737, however, is a small-sized airliner. The AT400 fuselage is clearly too large to be a 737, so it may be based on any mid-size airliner, especially those that I mentioned just earlier.

The fuselage (body) of the plane is unsusually wide for any airliner, making it easily a wide-body. Airbus and Boeing both make wide-body airliners.

However, because of the Boeing nose, the body is most likely also from a Boeing. Boeing has two mid-size airliners (the 777 is a large), the 767 and 787. Of course, the brand-new 787 wasn't even invented when GTA SA came out (2004), so that leaves us with one option left; the B767.

The correct assumption would be to call it "a 767 with some traits from a 737".

P.S, This means it is also the first wide-body airliner in GTA.

P.P.s, The Nevada is also an airliner, it even clearly says "Juank Air" on the side! Don't forget about the DC-3! It, however, is a narrow-body airliner.

Can someone update the AT-400 Wikia article to include this information?

You've basically pointed out the Tiniest of details, However, what you've pointed out is true, and I agree. I'll change it now :) Monkeypolice188-Signature-2Monkeypolice188-Signature-4Monkeypolice188-Signature-3 12:45, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

It does have some huge windows, though... Seriously, take a look at the Airtrain's windows, then look at those of the AT-400.

Speaking of the AirTrain, that thing is pretty much an accurate Boeing 727.


I was playing SAMP the other day, and I just noticed that other players couldn't get in as passengers (not because of the door's height). Also, if I'm not wrong, GSF dudes don't even try to get inside one. Do we have any sure source that it can seat 8? GLTh3Pr0 (talk) 16:13, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

The AT-400 and it's real life counterpart

In the earlier post above it is being claimed that the AT-400 is not a B737. Indeed it is not a B737 and not even a 767. It is a fictional plane based on the B737. Like any other vehicle in GTA SA or any other title, it is not meant to be an exact simulation of it's real life counterpart. I can now give many more of the even tiniest of details. Below I've included links to pictures to both the B737 and 767 so you can see which one is the closest to the AT-400:

Boeing 737-400:

Boeing 767-300ER:

It is odd to say that the AT-400 is mainly based on the Boeing 767 as it has nothing of a B767 except for the cockpit windows, however the cockpit windows of the AT-400 still have the typical pointy 1950's/60's Boeing cockpit window design/style for jets. This cockpit window design was used for the B707, 727 and 737. Also the back cockpit windows of a B767 are just a bit too short to meet those of the AT-400. The nose/head of the AT-400 also has the typical pointy 1950's/60's nose/head design for Boeing jets. So the nose of the AT-400 is too pointy to be compared to that of a B767. Also the configuration of the B767 is higher than the 737 which is relatively low like the AT-400. The tail and fuselage of the AT-400 are B737-like and so are the landing gears. The left and right main landing gears of a B767 have 2 rows of 2 wheels so a total of 4 wheels each while both the left and right main landing gears of a 737 only have 1 pair of wheels each, like the AT-400. The AT-400 however has only 1 wheel attached to each of it's main landing gears but then again, the configuration is closer to the B737 than to the 767, and the 767 is too long to be compared to the AT-400. It is way too simplistic to name what type of aircraft the AT-400 was based on just by looking at the size. Eitherway I can't see how the AT-400 is that big. Yes the 737 is a small sized aircraft but so is the AT-400. It isn't long or wide and doesn't have a long row of cabin windows. It has an even shorter row of cabin windows than a B737-100, which is the smallest of the entire Boeing 737 family. I can however imagine that the AT-400 gives some people the impression of a huge plane when standing near to it. But don't get fooled by this as a B737 (and any Airbus or Boeing jet) would also give the impression of a huge plane when viewed from nearby. And measurements/scalings of aircraft and airports in GTA SA are incorrect. A simple example is that the wing span of the AT-400 is a fair bit wider than any runway of any airport in the game. This is highly unrealistic. Even GTA V runways are less wide than the aircraft wing span. In real life the average runway is wider than the aircraft wing span. Another problem is that the airports in GTA SA are not big enough for the AT-400. This means that if you would park a few AT-400's here and there on any of the GTA SA airports you would have a lack of space to taxi. GTA III in example has a mess of Airtrains parked on the tarmac. I'm pretty sure that none of those aircrafts is ever going to be able get out of there. However the earlier post above also says that the AT-400's tail is perfectly vertical, and that that's unusual for an airliner and that it does not come from any known airliner and that the main wings and elevators are so generic, that there is no exact plane to be pointed were they came from. That ofcourse is perfectly normal because once again it is a fictional aircraft based on real aircraft. Please remember that the GTA world is a reimagining of the real world in a fictional way, and that it's nowhere meant to be an exact simulation of it. There is a reason why the AT-400 and all other GTA vehicles use fictional names instead of real ones. So yes it is based on a Boeing 737 with some fictional elements here and there. And by the way the 787 project sure was on the roster in 2004 but just not produced yet. The original name of 787 was 7E7. It's not about 2004 anyway as the game is set in 1992. The B777 was also mentioned as an option in the earlier post. Even if the B777 wouldn't have been a large size airliner the AT-400 couldn't have been based on it because the 777 roled out in 1994, 2 years after the story of GTA SA. Anyway once again please remember that it's just a game and that it's vehicles and scenery are not meant to be an exact simulation of there real life counterparts. So the AT-400 is not an exact simulation of a B737 but just a reimagining of a B737. It's just based on it taking it's appearance. So the AT-400 Wikia article was correct when it said that the AT-400 is based on a B737. So it would be a good thing if it could be changed back to that.

If there where something that I would call "a 767 with some traits from a 737" than it would be this GTA V example:


One extra difference between the Airtrain and an actual Boeing 727, is that the third engine is situated in the tail at height of the other engines and not in the tail fin.

Have a look at the link below it shows a blueprint of the 727 and indicates where the third engine sits:

As someone with a family business in aviation, I hope this helps a bit.