PDA

View Full Version : A400M engine - hey, it works!


Algy
11th Jun 2008, 15:15
Stand well back... (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2008/06/europrop-engine.html)

Tyres O'Flaherty
11th Jun 2008, 15:25
Look at the size of the prop on that beasty

That's going to shift some air

mr fish
11th Jun 2008, 15:45
put four on that herky and turn it into a fighter (maybe)!!!

SirToppamHat
11th Jun 2008, 15:50
"Yes, Chief, the new engine looks good and sounds good, but airframe keeps yawing to the right - any idea what's causing it?"

"Err, requirements drift?"

Sorry, wrong thread - I'll get me coat.

STH

Green Flash
11th Jun 2008, 16:23
Bl00dy hell!:ooh: I'm not surprised they've got it clamped to the ground. Jees, that looks a bit meaty. Hope they don't firewall it or it'll rip the wing off! Poor old Snoopy will be wondering whats hit her.

Madbob
11th Jun 2008, 16:53
Here's a comparison of the predicted performance of the A400 versus those venerable workhorses of the air which in design terms date from 50 (yes 50!) years ago. The max payload of the A400 is 82,000 lbs, C 133 110,000 lbs, Belfast 80,000 lbs and the Herc (C130 H) 45,000 lbs. Max cruise speeds are very similar, 350 mph, 359 mph, 358 mph and 336 mph respectively.

The range of the A400 with a 20 tonne payload (btw this woul be a full load for a Herc) is projected at 3,753 nm for the A400 and with 23.5 tonnes the C133 could go 3,560 nm, the Belfast could do about 3,600 miles and the Herc only 2,050 nms.

The A400 has 4 x 11,000 shp, the C 133 4 x 7,500 shp, the Belfast 4 x 5,730 shp and the C 130 4 x 4,300 shp.

The real question is what would each aeroplane cost to build in today's prices and whether the A400 really is giving us value for money for what might seem a modest improvement in performance.

General characteristics - A400M

Crew: 3-4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)
Capacity: 37,000 kg (82,000 lb), 116 fully equipped troops / paratroops, up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
Length: 43.8 m (143 ft 8 in)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
Height: 14.6 m (47 ft 11 in)
Empty weight: 70 tonnes (154,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 130 tonnes (287,000 lb)
Total Internal Fuel: 46.7 tonnes (103,000 lb)
Max. Landing Weight: 114 tonnes (251,000 lb)
Max. Payload: 37 tonnes (82,000 lb))
Powerplant: 4× EuroProp International TP400 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroProp_International_TP400)-D6[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M#cite_note-9) turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,000 hp) each Performance

Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno): 300 knots CAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibrated_airspeed) (560 km/h, 350 mph)
Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc):Mach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number) 0.68 - 0.72 ()
Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Take-Off_Weight): 9,000 m (29,000 ft)
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): at Max. payload: 3,300 km (1,782 nmi) (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,800 km (2,592 nmi)
Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,950 km (3,753 nmi))
Ferry range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry_range): 9,300 km (5,022 nmi)
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29) 11,300 m (37,000 ft)
Tactical Takeoff Distance: 940 m (3 080 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
Tactical Landing Distance: 625 m (2 050 ft) (see above)
Turning Radius (Ground): 28.6 m
General characteristics - C133 Cargomaster

Crew: six (two pilots, two engineers, navigator, loadmaster)
Capacity: Designed as a logistics transport, the C-133 carried only small numbers of passengers, usually associated with the cargo.
Payload (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29): 110,000 lb (50,000 kg)
Length: 157 ft 6 in (48.0 m)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 179 ft 8 in (54.8 m)
Height: 48 ft 3 in (14.7 m)
Wing area: 2,673.1 ft² (248.34 m²)
Empty weight: 109,417 lb (49,631 kg)
Loaded weight: 275,000 lb (125,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 275,000 lb (C-133A) / 286,000 lb (C-133B) (125,000 kg (C-133A) / 130,000 kg (C-133B))
Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney T34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratt_%26_Whitney_T34&action=edit&redlink=1)-P-9W turboprops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop), 7,500 shp (5,586 kW) each
* Cargo deck : 86 ft 10 in (26.47 m) Performance

Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno): 312 kt (359 mph / 578 km/h)
Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 280 kt (322 mph / 519 km/h)
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): 3,560 nm with 52,000 lb (23,587 kg) payload (4,097 mi / 6,590 km)
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29) 32,300 ft (9,800 m)
General characteristics - Belfast C Mk 1

Crew: Basic aircrew 4 (two pilots, engineer & navigator/radio operator) plus reserve crew
Capacity: 11,750 cu. ft.
Payload (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29): 80,000 lb (36,288 kg)
Length: 136 ft 5 in (41.70 m)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 158 ft 10 in (48.1 m)
Height: 47 ft (14.33 m)
Wing area: 2,466 ft² (229.1 m²)
Empty weight: 130,000 lb (59,020 kg)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 230,000 lb (104,300 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Tyne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Tyne) R.Ty.12, Mk. 101 turboprops, Hawker Siddeley Dynamics 4/7000/fully-feathering airscrews of 16 ft. diam., 5,730 ehp (4,270 kW) each Performance

Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 358 mph (576 km/h)
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): 5,200 miles (8,368 km) with capacity fuel load of 80,720 lb
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29) 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
Rate of climb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_climb): 1,060 ft/min (323 m/min)
Range with maximum payload: 970 miles (1,560 km)
General characteristics - C 130 H

Crew: 4-6: at least 2 pilots,1 flight engineer (eliminated in the J variant, replaced by crew chief), and 1 loadmaster; additional loadmaster and navigator are usually part of the crew
Capacity:

92 passengers or
64 airborne troops or
74 litter patients with 2 medical personnel
Payload (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29): 45,000 lb (20,000 kg) including 2-3 Humvees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Mobility_Multipurpose_Wheeled_Vehicle) or an M113 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113) Armored Personnel Carrier
Length: 97 ft 9 in (29.8 m)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 132 ft 7 in (40.4 m)
Height: 38 ft 3 in (11.6 m)
Wing area: 1,745 ft² (162.1 m²)
Empty weight: 83,000 lb (38,000 kg)
Useful load: 72,000 lb (33,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 155,000 lb (70,300 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Allison T56-A-15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_T56)turboprops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop), 4,300 shp (3,210 kW) each Performance

Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno): 329 knots (379 mph, 610 km/h)
Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 292 knots (336 mph, 540 km/h)
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): 2,050 nm (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29) 33,000 ft (10,000 m) Whatever your feelings the sooner we get some new assets the better. Cracks in the wings of the "classic" Hercs, much abuse of the J's and with no replacements for operational losses the boys at Lyneham certainly get my sympathy. :D

I hope the new engine (and new prop) live up to expectations and no further delays are encountered by all concerned.

MB

ARINC
11th Jun 2008, 17:49
Great engine..pity the projects 2 years late and counting. The irony is Airbus have just sent the guy responsible for the A380 down to sort it out......:}

Nopax,thanx
11th Jun 2008, 20:23
But not the first time an eight-blade prop has been installed on a C-130...

http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123089573

Squirrel 41
11th Jun 2008, 20:59
MB,

Very many thanks for this - I'd not thought of a Belfast v A400M comparison before and it looks very similar. However, I thought that the Belfast could carry a Cheiftan MBT - which implies a 60t (ish) load - something that the A400M can't do, putting it in the Super-Hercules rather than strat transport role group.

Grateful for Pprune setting me straight on this....

And v good to see the TP400 running (finally). Guess we can put the NK-12MV order on hold, then..... :E

S41

Razor61
11th Jun 2008, 21:41
Does anyone the clearance between the props and the fuselage of Snoopy?

pjvr99
12th Jun 2008, 05:58
six (6) inches

BEagle
12th Jun 2008, 06:07
Madbob - you do know the difference between CAS and TAS, I trust?

A400M having similar performance to a Belslow? I belive the geek expressions are YGTBSM and ROTFLMAO?

Love to see a Belslow try to reach M0.72 at F370. Or any other of the old relics with which you've compared the A400M.

Last encounter I had with a Belslow was in around 2002 when I heard one pottering along at around FL160 on its way back from Dakar to the UK. Hope they made it before scurvy broke out!

Madbob
12th Jun 2008, 09:20
I do know the difference between IAS, TAS, CAS and Mach No. I used the mph figures as these were what dear old Wikipedia used which were in common to all four types.

I wouldn't for one minute compare a Belfast with an A400 without refererring to the HUGE disparity in engines. Just imagine what the difference would be if the Belfast had nearly double the thrust, 5,730 shp versus 11,000 from the A400's state of the art jobbies.

All I wanted to say was that in 50 years of ac and eng/prop design the additional performance gains are really not that significant.....

Call it nostalgia if you like but I can remember seeing the likes of Belfasts, Argosies, Andovers, Britannias, VC10's and even Hastings (115 Sqn?) wearing roundels, when the RAF still has a "full set of clubs" to play with. With more than 100 airframes available meant proper flexibility and allowed the movers to do more than one thing at a time, ie allow "tactical" ops and "strategic" ops simultaneously AND allow training to continue on the OCU's. Personnell also could be rotated between home and away postings.

MB

Someone Different
12th Jun 2008, 10:09
"six (6) inches" (pvjr99)

Ah, don't you love it when someone confidently states something......that's completely wrong!!

Nice one ;-)

Green Flash
12th Jun 2008, 10:15
And the correct clearance is ?

Lou DeCrosse
12th Jun 2008, 10:16
Ball park, roughly twice that.

Lou

Green Flash
12th Jun 2008, 10:22
Does anyone know when Snoopy is due to fly? It would certainly be something different for this years shows!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
12th Jun 2008, 17:17
In fairness though, six inches is not always ... six inches

Someone Different
12th Jun 2008, 17:51
Aaaaa....aargh - Um, I have no idea what you mean, no - and it was cold, very cold indeed.......... Ahem...

pjvr99
12th Jun 2008, 17:58
.... and the infinite wisdom of Someone Different still does not give the answer, although correct in his statement: I did not check my information, and therefore made a wrong statement - my apologies to the forum. The info I have has the clearance at 25cm/10 inches .....

Seldomfitforpurpose
12th Jun 2008, 20:41
An easy mistake for a guy as I have often thought my 6 inches actually looked like 10.............:E

fastener
13th Jun 2008, 06:51
So thats why pilots always go out with women with small hands!!!!

aviate1138
13th Jun 2008, 09:55
Better still, small hands and no teeth. :rolleyes:

Raymond Ginardon
13th Jun 2008, 09:56
pjvr,

Often people close to a project have access to information that, while not Earth stoppingly secret (as in this case), is nevertheless covered by some kind of protected caveat. To be the one to disclose this puts one in a delicate position.

Remaining silent on the number is perhaps ‘infinitely wiser’ than pulling one out of the air and posting it.

The actual clearance is tw………..

< Mr Ginardon has been taken to a secure facility for de-brief, please carry on as if normal…..>

pjvr99
13th Jun 2008, 10:09
Thank you ......

Seloco
13th Jun 2008, 10:12
....at what point does an advanced turbo-prop become a prop-fan? Is it based on number of blades? Does a prop-fan necessarily have more than one "fan" stage? Are we heading towards some sort of fusion here or is there a more fundamental difference involved?

BEagle
13th Jun 2008, 10:26
No, for fusion you'd need a flux capacitor....

cwatters
13th Jun 2008, 11:07
Just wait till they twist it vertical..

http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/images/photos/2005-04/Hi-Res/Osprey1.jpg

FTE Pruner
13th Jun 2008, 12:13
"....at what point does an advanced turbo-prop become a prop-fan? Is it based on number of blades? Does a prop-fan necessarily have more than one "fan" stage? Are we heading towards some sort of fusion here or is there a more fundamental difference involved?"

At a guess, but I don't know for a fact as I am in no-way an expert, an un-ducted fan engine would have a fixed blade angle like any other fan stage in an engine (optimised for the cruise condition). Whereas this monster prop is clearly variable pitch. But I could well be wrong so I stand by to be shot down in flames.

Good job on getting the big donk going chaps, I wish I could have seen it running!

LowObservable
13th Jun 2008, 21:32
My take on a few questions...

There is no bibbedy bobbedy boo that defines a prop-fan or a propeller. They're essentially the same thing. Most "classic" props, though, are designed for Mach 0.6 or less. The A400M prop is designed for Mach 0.72, and the prop-fans that everyone made a great fuss over in the 1980s were aimed at Mach 0.8 and higher. All three are points on a continuum.

The A400M versus Cargomaster, C-130 and Belslow comparison as presented misses some of the key points. On the Belslow, check out "range with max payload". Ewww! The Cargomaster claims a not dissimilar range at about 20 tonnes, but it was emphatically not a STOL or off-runway aircraft (neither was the Belslow) and had neither the power nor the Mach capability to get anywhere near the A400M's normal cruise speed. And the C-130, while light and efficient, doesn't have the speed or the capacity of the A400M.

Krystal n chips
14th Jun 2008, 09:10
:hmm: An 8 bladed prop....OK.....well I hope for all who are involved with the beast that it doesn't produce the same problems as a certain 6 bladed prop does on the ATP.....fine when it's working...does the job rather well in fact....however...in terms of ( nasty word here ) maintenance.......a :mad:nightmare when it goes for a can of worms.

ZH875
14th Jun 2008, 11:57
My take on the A400M, C-130H, Belfast and Cargomaster.

The C-130H, Belfast and Cargomaster have flown, whereas, only a computer model of the A400M has 'flown'.

The C-130H, Belfast and Cargomaster have all entered service, whereas pictures of the A400M have entered service crewrooms.

porch monkey
15th Jun 2008, 08:18
How true ZH........ Bit like getting all excited about how good the thing is supposed to be - compared to a 50 year old design. It'd F:mad:ing wanna be better, wouldn't it? Now, lets just see how long it takes to actually arrive:rolleyes:

Jig Peter
17th Jun 2008, 16:39
Nice shot from Marshall's - does anyone know whether the struts from the nacelle to the Herk's fuselage are to keep that powerful beast tied to the airframe or are there for data-gathering cables and such ... ?
It'll be good to hear that a) the Herk's really started flying the Donk, and b) that the four now in Madrid are ready to get the A400M airborne at last - the airframe has been waiting for quite some time, and the "production spec" TP400 will be available for airframe set 7 (or so I hear).
Big Donk ... Biiiiig Problems ...:eek:

BEagle
17th Jun 2008, 18:42
Actually, MSN001 now has engines and propellers fitted.

And it's at Seville, not Madrid.

But since you gave your location as Toulouse, you probably missed all that because you were having lunch at the time.....as per usual for that place.

My overriding memory of numerous trips to Airbus Toolooze is of hundreds of black suited grenouilles enjoying 2 hour lunch breaks.......

Sook
18th Jun 2008, 11:51
does anyone know whether the struts from the nacelle to the Herk's fuselage are to keep that powerful beast tied to the airframe or are there for data-gathering cables and such ... ?

The cabling runs aft and then down the leading edge of the wing. The struts have oleo dampers built in to stop the engine wobbling too much.

Jig Peter
18th Jun 2008, 17:01
@ BEagle ...
Being long-retired retired and not far from the mountains, long lunches aren't part of my day, really, despite what people across the Manche think ...
(Not mine, anyway ...)
I seem to remember that guests got long lunches, but fer us workahs, 30 mins were enuff, even though the canteen food was very good ...
Hope the A400M roll-out/presentation towards the end of the month goes well - at Seville, as I stand corrected ... but I have serious doubts whether Farnborough will see it this year (cries of "Shame" - directed at the engine people ???).

Jig Peter
18th Jun 2008, 17:05
@ Sook,
Tks for the info ... Getting this beastie fitted to the Herk must have been an engineer's nightmare, specially in view of the vibrations reported some while ago ... Does this installation represent a true "down between engines" fit, as the A400M will have ???
:}

billynospares
21st Jun 2008, 09:10
All i can say is poor Snoopy. What a waste of low hours airframe and wings that could have been put to good use somewhere else. Lets hope they dont wreck her completely !

Madbob
18th Aug 2008, 17:28
Does anyone know yet if the A400M engine (and prop) testbed has flown? Marshalls must be getting close......

MB

Porrohman
19th Aug 2008, 02:56
Earlier in this thread there were questions raised about the efficiency of the A400M. This issue was discussed back in April '07 (in posts 40 to 43 of the http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/247279-other-airbus-stuff-2.html#post3218446 thread) when Airbus announced the first delay to the project. It was subsequently discussed in a lot more detail in this thread last August; http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/289699-a400m-will-not-make-2009-a.html

philrigger
19th Aug 2008, 08:17
;)

Porrohman

That does not answer Madbob's question.

I will repeat on Madbob's behalf;
"Does anyone know yet if the A400M engine (and prop) testbed has flown?" Marshalls must be getting close......





'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

mick2088
19th Aug 2008, 08:43
The C-130 testbed. When is anybody's guess. I believe that Marshall Aerospace have to do 30 hours of ground tests before it takes to the skies. Given there has been reported problems with the TP400 again, it looks like it will be delayed for a while (and the first A400M was due to fly in October... pah!) with Flight Global reporting at the beginning of August that the C-130 had only undertaken four hours of ground tests.

Porrohman
19th Aug 2008, 08:50
To the best of my knowledge it hasn't flown yet. According to various reports in the press there were some issues that arose during ground testing the new engine on the C-130 that are now being worked through. Apparently nothing too unexpected but the press reports I read didn't go into detail. A certain amount of successful ground running has to take place before it takes to the air on the C-130. I'm sure that when it does fly, there will be a press release.

Here are some recent press reports;
Hamilton Sundstrand A400M Propeller System Fully Functional On C (http://www.aerospaceonline.com/article.mvc/Hamilton-Sundstrand-A400M-Propeller-System-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO)
A400M set for take off at last (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/14/225291/a400m-set-for-take-off-at-last.html)
FARNBOROUGH 2008: A400M engine tests present 'no issues' for Europrop team (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/17/225804/farnborough-2008-a400m-engine-tests-present-no-issues-for-europrop.html)

mick2088
19th Aug 2008, 10:10
There were problems at the beginning of August with the engine's gearbox and other problems were found during water ingestion trials during ground testing being undertaken by Airbus or Europrop International not Marshall Aerospace. That delayed further ground testing with the C-130 test bed .

mr fish
19th Aug 2008, 15:37
i mean jeez, its not like we could use the extra airlift capacity right now:(

Green Flash
19th Aug 2008, 18:27
GF pulls pin from grenade marked 'TP400 fails to deliver' and casually drops it in to your mess tins.

So, what if the TP goes tits and a mahoosive delay follows? Are there any other super donks out there that could be bolted on? Or is it TP or bust?

Roland Pulfrew
19th Aug 2008, 18:44
They could always give it a bit of a stretch, put some jet engines on instead of the big props and call it a .........................................









C17:E

Gadget freak
19th Aug 2008, 20:24
Duff gen from Mick in post 46. Those two problems, which were mentioned in the press, have not led to additional delays to the Flying Test Bed programme.

mick2088
19th Aug 2008, 20:35
Yeah you are right. I assumed that it would affect the flying test bed, but appears not. Nevertheless, it was supposed to fly in mid-August and clearly hasn't.

I found this most recent article from Aviation Week that talks about what was going on at the end of July.

Ares Homepage (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A6e4406a2-b8cd-460f-857f-ce3bfa2c4cbc)

Porrohman
19th Aug 2008, 22:17
I wonder what the performance/payload/range of the A400M might be with, say, 4 x CFM56 instead of 4 x TP400-D6?

Jig Peter
29th Aug 2008, 15:16
I seem to remember that there was a study for 4xCFM 56s on the project that became the A400M, but the Mighty Turboprop solution was judged to give far better field performance, through practically full-span flap-blowing.
The Europrop proposal was chosen in preference to one from P&W Canada which could perhaps be resuscitated (with massive delays) or, of course, a call to the lads and lasses who do/did the Donk for the Bear - I jest. I've always suspected that the selection was very political - perhaps another of the highly-political Mr. Forgeard's master-strokes ? "... the evil that men do lives after them ..."
Whatever the truth, it's clear that the Eurodonk seems to be in the running for the Most Silent Aero-engine of the Year Award ... But all will be resolved when they get the FADEC sorted, I've read - and that'll be about October at the earliest.
Is this a case of "no news is bad news"? The silence from Cambridge, Toulouse and Seville is deafening.
G'night all... :sad:

RETDPI
29th Aug 2008, 18:15
And to think it was in about 1984 I got hauled in for my first U.K. industry FLA (Future Large Aircraft) briefing ........................

Squirrel 41
30th Aug 2008, 00:34
NK Engines, NK-12.

Tell Swiss Des to send a check, 4 x 15,000eshp NK-12MA by return of post.......

S41

(edited for Spollink)

mary_hinge
30th Aug 2008, 10:47
Jig Peter
Is this a case of "no news is bad news"? The silence from Cambridge, Toulouse and Seville is deafening.
G'night all... http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

Rumour round here is a software issue with a 1st planned flight now in Mid-November http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Jig Peter
30th Aug 2008, 11:11
For Mary Hinge ... The "Cambridge rumour" seems to confirm that the silence will continue till the software people have got all their wriggly Amps lined up ... Which would put the A400M's first flight well into '09 ...
Oh dear, oh dear ...
:*

Jig Peter
31st Aug 2008, 08:21
This is a late reply to Seloco's question about propfans and turboprops - sorry, but the memory banks seem to be on a go-slow ...
I think that the term "propfan" is/was a GE (registered?) name for their engine with rear-mounted contra-rotating propellers. The blades were, to put it crudely, extensions of the "shrouds" of the two contra-rotating power turbine stages, but I don't remember (and haven't got the documentation) that they had a pitch-change mechanism.
While significant SFC advantages were claimed over conventional turbofans, noise was a severe problem (as Shackleton crews will remember from the contraprops on their piston engines) which GE tried to alleviate by varying the number of blades in each bank.
The layout was suitable for rear-engined aircraft like the DC-9 on which it was tested, but the aft-prop layout made wing-mounting a problem - at the time there were some exotic layouts proposed, but there were other ways to get overall efficiency increases and until the price of a barrel of oil went rapidly north-east, the concept was dormant.
A decided advantage over layouts like P&W's Geared Turbo Fan is that there's no gearbox, which gives the Propfan a significant weight advantage. Perhaps with the rear-engined all-wing airframe layouts both Boeing and, much earlier, Aerospatiale have shown, the concept might make a come-back, though those only showed high bypass turbofans ...
:8

kiwibrit
31st Aug 2008, 09:11
I thought that the Belfast could carry a Cheiftan MBT - which implies a 60t (ish) load ..

I think not. My first operational posting, as a very junior engineering officer, was to Line servicing Squadron at Brize. I remember Scorpions (or similar) being loaded - and they needed load support struts fitted to prevent the aircraft from tipping during the loading process - but nothing the size of a MBT.

Old Fella
31st Aug 2008, 12:06
The comparisons shown earlier between the A400M, the C133, the Belfast and the C130 are really not comparisons at all. Nothing compares with the Lockheed C130. None of the other types have come even close to the multi-role capability of the Lockheed legend. A total of only 10 Belfasts were built, 50 C133's were produced and to date the A400M has not even flown. The C130 on the other hand has been in continuous production for well over 50 years, has been used in numerous roles and has even performed landings and unassisted take-offs from an aircraft carrier. More than 2000 examples have come out of Marietta and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

As I said, no comparison at all. Lockheed still flies on, the Airbus could yet be "still-born".

BEagle
31st Aug 2008, 12:14
As I once said: "If you think you can design a better Herk, first try designing a better Dak!"

Although once the TPA400 software has been sorted out, I do believe that the A400M will turn out to be first rate airlifter.

Single level control, 8 blades and with a power/speed/altitude envelope which is very large, getting the noise lever to communicate with engine and propeller throughout the entire flight regime, yet confer carefree handling, will be a hugely challenging task.

Jig Peter
31st Aug 2008, 16:17
The wise BEagle is right - the control thing ("single-lever" ??? Oh migaaahd !!!) is certainly a problem/challenge/stumbling block which is clearly making the whole A400M project miss milestone after milestone. I only hope that the latest team to get at the software problem manages to sort the thing out, otherwise ...
On another track - what kind of e.s.h.p. does P&W's Geared Turbofan develop at the gearbox output? It looks like a half-way house to the Big Turboprop, which if the A400M were offered at a later date for USAF use, could become the core of a fully-fledged turboprop*, and an acceptable "indigenous" power unit if the US military liked the aircraft but needed a home-grown donk ...
Just letting a wandering mind gather its hayseeds ...
:8
*like the P&W Canada proposal which Airbus didn't select, but the work could have been useful in PW's move towards the GTF ...

PS Sorry if all this is somewhat off thread ...

gar170
31st Aug 2008, 17:09
26 June 2008
First A400M military transporter rolled out
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout01_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout01.jpg)Airbus Military has today rolled out the first complete A400M military transport aircraft from the Final Assembly Line at the EADS Military Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD) facility in Seville, Spain.
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout02_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout02.jpg)Presented to the customers, the world’s press and presided over by His Majesty Juan-Carlos I, King of Spain, the new aircraft heralds a new era in military airlift capability.
Designed to a recognised requirement for a new airlifter for European air forces, the A400M incorporates state-of-the-art materials and technology that are being continuously perfected in today’s civil aircraft fleets. Features such as electronic flight controls, carbon composite structures and an automated handling system will bring new standards of operability and safety to military aircrews.
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout03_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout03.jpg)Launched under a single contract in 2003 with 180 orders for seven European launch customers, the A400M represents the most ambitious military procurement programme ever undertaken in Europe. The launch customer nations, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom were subsequently joined by Malaysia and the Republic of South Africa, which recognised the potential of the new airlifter for their own requirements and brought the total number of commitments to 192.
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout04_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout04.jpg)"Today is a great day for our industry," said Carlos Suarez, CEO of Airbus Military and Head of MTAD: "This is the result of the combined effort and determination of those that have been involved in this programme. It has been supported by the national governments - our customers, the industrial partners, the suppliers, and all the employees who have worked to produce the aircraft. I would like to thank and congratulate them all."
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout05_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout05.jpg)The overall contract, worth some 20 billion Euros was signed with a single interface between Airbus Military and OCCAR, (Organisation Conjointe de Cooperation en matière d’ARmement), the contractual body representing all seven European customer nations.
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout06_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout06.jpg)"It is our joint determination to show that EADS can design and manufacture a long-range transport aircraft which will set new standards in the military airlift world and on the international markets", said Louis Gallois, CEO of EADS
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout07_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout07.jpg)Versatility is the characteristic that best describes the A400M, it being conceived with both tactical and strategic capability. With a payload of up to 37 tonnes over ranges of up to 4700 nm, the A400M is designed to carry all loads and vehicles in the European Staff Requirement (ESR) inventory, serve as an aerial delivery platform and act as an in-flight refueller for both fast jets and helicopters.
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout08_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout08.jpg)Important challenges are still ahead, like the engine first flight on the FTB within the engine flight test programme or the MSN001 first flight.
The A400M is the first truly new military transport aircraft of its category designed in over 30 years, with twice the capacity and twice the payload of the current aircraft types that it will replace. It is all set to become the new standard in military airlift.
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout09_t.jpg (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/images/1strollout09.jpg)

GreenKnight121
31st Aug 2008, 18:00
Gar170... old news. We already knew all that.

That was 2 months ago, that they "rolled out a completed aircraft"... complete with engines that STILL haven't been run-up in flight... not on the C-130 test-bed and certainly not on the PR-display they rolled out with such fan-fare.

And it looks likely that that PR display model will continue gathering dust "well into '09"... more than half a year after the so-called "first complete aircraft" was shown off.

Not due to "scheduled testing", though I expect that statement from the PR word-twisters any day now, but due to not getting the engine controls sorted out.

And what if, as does sometimes still happen in this day of "computer simulations are better than test flights", they find that something (airflow wakes/turbulence due to prop design, engine intake airflow at speed, etc) isn't like they thought it would be, and they have to modify something?


I think their great fanfare event was well premature.

KiloB
1st Sep 2008, 11:49
Interesting that on this A/C the stabiliser has considerably more sweep-back than the wing. Why would that be? (Other than looking modern / sexy)

twochai
1st Sep 2008, 14:22
Interesting that on this A/C the stabiliser has considerably more sweep-back than the wing. Why would that be? (Other than looking modern / sexy)

Because the incremental moment arm of a swept tailplane reduces the total surface area required?

Charles Rolls
1st Sep 2008, 20:35
Right chaps, time to wind up some of this unmitigated merde wafting up in here. I don't want to give the game away entirely, but the more capable amongst you may note that a chap with a name like mine might have an affinity for flying ladies on the front of cars.

I have it on good authority that those clever whirly-blade-loud-noise types are working day and night on this FADEC stuff down in Toulouse. I've been told that there has been an issue with, and pardon my technical lingo, the (C)hannel (H)ealth (E)stimation and (E)rror (S)ystem (E)xpansion stream. Apparently it hasn't quite been going to plan. In fact, even the bloody (LO)gic (N)odal (G)rid (L)ook(U)p and (N)on-functional (C)hannel (H)ybrid system hasn't really been coming up to scratch either.

One might say it's those bloody French types again, but I digress...

The word from Toulouse is that 'our Germans are better than their Germans' and that the (W)ide (I)ntegratio(N) (E)xperts are hard at work on getting the project back on track.

So, all in all, the chaps in Toulouse are working up the CHEESE and LONG LUNCH case, with progress bounding forward under the influence of WINE.

Pip pip :8

Porrohman
5th Sep 2008, 14:48
From Defense News on 4th September;

On Europe's stalled A400M airlifter program, [Air Marshal Sir Barry Thornton, the Ministry of Defence's Chief of Material (Air)] said the British were looking at ways to plug the capability gap if the aircraft was delayed beyond its current delivery date of 2011.
Extending the life of its C-130K fleet, leasing aircraft or chartering capacity were three possible options, he said.
The Airbus airlifter development program has been dogged by problems with the Europrop International-developed TP400-D6 turboprop. An engine fitted to a C-130 test-bed aircraft modified by Marshall Aerospace in the U.K. has yet to fly even though the A400M itself has been rolled out.
Thornton said the C-130 was expected to fly in October. One industry executive said he thought that was optimistic.

Full article here; RAF Details Purchase Plans - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3707962&c=EUR&s=AIR)

LowObservable
5th Sep 2008, 15:53
Probably the only encouraging aspect of the A400M program is that every other military airlifter since the C-141 turned out to be more difficult than expected. The C-5 needed a new wing. The AMST was trashcanned because nobody had realized that slow, straight-wing jets were horribly inefficient in the cruise. The C-17 was late and over-cost and was an inch from cancellation before McD got its act together and leaned out the production line.

My guess is that the A400M will turn out like the C-17 - all right, eventually.

Jig Peter
9th Sep 2008, 14:06
Saw a report recently that Lockheed-Martin is "looking at" giving the C130 a fuselage wide enough for the newer military vehicles ...
If P&W did a propeller version of the Geared Turbo Fan and that went on the "C-130 Wide", the A400M's FADEC difficulties could mean that the its Unique Selling Point will no longer be "Unique" ...
I suppose that it all depends on whether the FADEC can be untangled before the end of the year*, and how far along L-M is with their "Fat Herc" look-see ... But time is getting very, very short, and the alligators are (perhaps) beginning to stir for the very promising but so far disappointing project that is the A400M and its super-powerful, single-lever-controlled mighty turboprop...

* and whatever oddities crop up in the engine's flight trials and the A400M's testing too .

mary_hinge
9th Sep 2008, 14:33
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/09/315627/a400m-schedule-at-risk-as-key-engine-test-slips-to-october.html

"But persistent poor weather conditions in the UK could still affect this objective, and potentially mean that the A400M will remain on the ground until late next month or early November, says another industry source."

mick2088
10th Sep 2008, 08:42
Whatever came over those folks at Europrop/Airbus. Test an engine that requires good, clear sunny weather to be able to be flown and choose Britain. :rolleyes:

Jumping_Jack
10th Sep 2008, 12:50
"Fat Herc".....A Belfast then? :}

Tricorn
10th Sep 2008, 14:27
"Fat Herc".....A Belfast then?


Excellent............:D:D:D

Madbob
10th Sep 2008, 15:37
Marshalls should fly Snoopy out on three engines at light weight (perferctly possible IMHO) and land at Boscombe, they have a long long runway, add some fuel and go south to somewhere warm and sunny! Spain perhaps?? If Cambridge is too short they can always use JATO for help getting airborne!

Doesn't anyone realise that there's a war on and the K's have got NO FI left?:ugh: Time is of the essence......so pull out ALL the stops, please.

MB

time expired
11th Sep 2008, 12:20
It seems to me when one makes comparisons with the
Belfast and other heavy lifters, that had the RAF got
them 40 years ago,and if a sufficient number had been
aquired,say 70+ they would have still be flying today.
They would have course have vastly uprated engines
probably external fuel tanks a la Hercs,and who knows
maybe they would have been exported to foreign air
forces,stranger things have happened.Also we would
have saved a huge amount of money and maybe,
because we still had the expertise,developed a follow
up model and been one of the leaders in the heavy-lift
field.
Just another missed chance thanks to our politcal
masters.
Regards

RS30
11th Sep 2008, 17:20
I see a Belfast is still operational. I wonder whether it could be the alternate engine test bed airframe?

The lack of information on engine progress is raising some justified questions on the validity of this whole program. Considering that first flight was promised for 2008 and the first crew training courses were slated to start next year it is getting beyond a joke. As I said before, it would be laughable, if our deployed forces were not on the end of a tenuous airbridge on which the A400M is supposed to be operating in a couple of years.

Is there a plan B?

Photos: Short SC-5 Belfast C1 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/HeavyLift-Cargo-Airlines/Short-SC-5-Belfast/1385269/L/)

mary_hinge
17th Sep 2008, 20:39
A400M gets a boost, as TP400 engine hits full power (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/17/316118/a400m-gets-a-boost-as-tp400-engine-hits-full-power.html)

"Originally scheduled to make its flight debut early last year, the C-130 testbed will conduct vital risk reduction work ahead of the A400M's debut sortie using four of the 11,000shp (8,200kW) TP400 engines (above). The latter milestone is expected to happen around late October or early November, according to industry sources."

So, 50 Test Flight hours needed on the C130 test bed, which has yet to fly, by early November.

Err Good Luck I guess!

Porrohman
17th Sep 2008, 22:13
Latest from AINonline;
.....unanticipated problems integrating the 11,000-shp powerplant on the C-130 have further delayed the A400M program.

AIN understands that the problems have included vibration in the fuselage from the eight-blade propellers, and the need to protect the C-130’s rear wing and flap from the much greater heat produced by the TP400.

......In the 14 weeks since the TP400 was first ground-run on the C-130, only six hours have been logged.

.....The testbed is unlikely to fly before mid-November......

Full article is at;
Testbed Problems Add To A400M Delay: AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/testbed-problems-add-to-a400m-delay/)

First flight in November? The article doesn't say which year :rolleyes:

Porrohman
17th Sep 2008, 22:36
RS30 asked;
I see a Belfast is still operational. I wonder whether it could be the alternate engine test bed airframe?
As well as the operational Belslow in Oz there's another parked at Southend (G-BEPS) which until recently was being considered for return to service by Heavylift Oz. Photos: Short SC-5 Belfast C1 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/HeavyLift-Cargo-Airlines/Short-SC-5-Belfast/1375495/L/) I understand that it had been re-wired and had four serviceable engines and three serviceable props fitted. Work then stopped whilst they tried to find another prop. At that time I wondered if it was maybe being considered as a TP400 testbed. Eventually, a fourth prop was located, the aircraft was washed and a team arrived from Oz to bring it back to airworthiness but after several more weeks work the effort was abandoned earlier this year, possibly due to certification issues? I believe it has now been stripped of useful parts and is likely to be scrapped very soon (if it hasn't already been scrapped).

I wonder whether the Belslow would have been a practical testbed for the TP400? It would certainly give the engine a lot more weight and drag to work with. The extra power wouldn't have done the Belslow any harm (assuming it didn't pull the wings off) - might even have turned it into a Belfast, especially if they eventually fitted four of the TP400s :ok:

ORAC
20th Sep 2008, 22:02
DefenseNews: EADS May Freeze A400M Production for 7 Countries (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3734593&c=EUR&s=AIR)
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

BERLIN - Aerospace giant EADS has threatened to freeze production of its Airbus subsidiary's flagship military airlifter if clients do not drop penalty clauses for late delivery, a German news report said Sept. 20.

Der Spiegel weekly, trailing its Sept. 22 publication, cited a letter sent by Louis Gallois, the French chief executive of both companies, to the governments of seven countries who have ordered the A400M plane.

In the letter, Gallois is quoted as saying the military carrier is "a heavy lossmaker" that is creating "considerable difficulties" at EADS, weighing down on the group's financial performance.

The "anticipated profits" from 180 orders on Airbus' books have already been "invested," with Gallois adding in the letter that the present position could become "untenable" within months unless a deal is agreed that "keeps everyone happy."

EADS wants clients to waive their contractual right to reductions in their bills due to late delivery, but Der Spiegel said Germany's defense ministry would be "standing firm," and Berlin is of the view that "financial concessions" should only be discussed upon receipt of the planes.

Business daily Financial Times Deutschland also reported this week that Gallois sent a letter pleading for "understanding" on the A400M.

Last week, Gallois said the plane's first flight would take place "before the end of the year," but the French press reported soon afterward that costs had risen astronomically and that the first flight was being put back to 2009.

Germany has ordered 60 A400Ms, making it the biggest customer.

Airbus has been struggling with four important delay announcements having been made since 2006 on delivery of its A380 superjumbo civil airliners.

aw ditor
25th Sep 2008, 15:34
Just heard/seen the engine being run-up in the test-bed Herc. at Marshalls', seemed to be going on all day! Very distinctive "crackle" on the new engine/prop. combination.

Porrohman
25th Sep 2008, 16:20
DATE:25/09/08
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
EADS has announced another, as yet unquantified, delay to the programme;
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/25/316499/eads-announces-new-a400m-first-flight-delay.html

On_The_Top_Bunk
26th Sep 2008, 14:30
A400M Transport Plane Faces New Delay (http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1222432011.html)

More indefinate delays.

Porrohman
30th Sep 2008, 21:33
Here's the latest in this saga, according to Flightglobal;
A400M reveals new cracks between Airbus and customers, suppliers (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/30/316568/a400m-reveals-new-cracks-between-airbus-and-customers.html)
Looking at the extent of work that needs to be completed ahead of a first flight of the A400M and the technical/project risks involved, it's easy to understand why Airbus won't commit to a first flight date or a delivery plan. It sounds like the blame game is gathering momentum.

Porrohman
4th Oct 2008, 19:07
Source: Engineering News;
?20bn military aircraft programme under strain (http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=143704)

European media have reported that EADS CE Louis Gallois - EADS owns Airbus, of which Airbus Military is a subsidiary - has written to the governments of seven of the countries which have ordered the aeroplane, appealing to them not to enforce the penalty clauses for late delivery of the A400M.

The reports quote Gallois as writing that the A400M is "a heavy lossmaker" which is causing "considerable difficulties" for EADS, in terms of the group's financial performance. The "anticipated profits" from the sale of the first 180 aircraft have already been "invested" and the current situation could become "untenable" in a matter of months, unless an agreement can be concluded that "keeps everyone happy." If such a deal cannot be reached, and if the customer countries refuse to waive the penalty payments for late delivery, EADS is warning it will freeze production of the A400M.

Initial reports state that Germany is unsympathetic, taking the view that "financial concessions" can only be debated once the aircraft have been delivered. The reactions of the other countries were not known at this publication's deadline. Britain has already bought Lockheed Martin C-130J new generation Hercules tactical, and Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic, transports because of delays in the A400M programme.
Given the country's heavy commitment to combat operations in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, it is not in conceivable that it could respond by reducing its order for A400Ms and acquiring more of the American aircraft, which are already serving with great success.

RS30
4th Oct 2008, 23:29
I told yer so!:cool:

Porrohman
29th Nov 2008, 09:09
Perhaps this thread should be re-titled "A400M engine - still doesn't work". Here's the latest news which is also confirmed in the aviation press;
EADS warns of delays to military aircraft - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/3534597/EADS-warns-of-delays-to-military-aircraft.html) . I think the Telegraph meant to say A330 rather than A380 :ugh:

Porrohman
29th Nov 2008, 09:30
Post 79 on 17th September;


Testbed Problems Add To A400M Delay

Latest from AINonline;

Testbed Problems Add To A400M Delay: AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/testbed-problems-add-to-a400m-delay/)

First flight in November? The article doesn't say which year :rolleyes:



It seems I was right to question what year they were referring to. This was always going to be a high risk project selecting an unproven propulsion system. I wonder if Airbus / the customer governments will now consider substituting CFM56s for the initial batch of aircraft and retrofit them later when/if they manage to sort out the problems with the TP400 propulsion system.

On_The_Top_Bunk
30th Nov 2008, 00:13
17 x C17 or 25 x A400M?

Which would you have in your inventory? Both options the same price.

Tyres O'Flaherty
30th Nov 2008, 01:06
17 x C17 or 25 x A400M?

Which would you have in your inventory? Both options the same price.


Not the same option at all really, except price wise.

I think the C17's are an exceptional & underrated machine, which the U.K. should have more of. Definitely.

We also need the next generation Tac /to strat transport.

All that is on the board is the A400m at the moment.

RS30
30th Nov 2008, 11:05
17 C17 or 25 A400M?
Niether!
What we need NOW is just 3 reliable 200-250 seat strat pax/cargo airlifters, with the range to get to and from the 'Stan non-stop and equipped to keep our lads and ladettes safe during in-theatre arrival and departure. You can run a daily schedule with just two servicable, with surge capacity and enougth seats leftover for all to get their mid tour RnR.
And we do need this NOW, not in 2012 or 2015 or whenever the FSTA PFI expects to provide us with replacements for our 40 year old strat AT fleet.
Have we go the finance to do this? Probably not, as its all gone on the A400M moneypit already.:{
Oh, and we could do with a few more movers as well!

phil gollin
30th Nov 2008, 11:41
Why the obsession to fly directly from the UK into what is effectively a combat zone ?

Why not fly perfectly ordinary planes into a neighbouring country and then use military transports for the hop into Afghanistan ?

YES, there would be the extra operational costs of having a detachment in the transit country, but it would be offset by not having to rack up vast numbers of flying hours on rare transports.

.

helimarshaller
30th Nov 2008, 12:17
Why not fly perfectly ordinary planes into a neighbouring country and then use military transports for the hop into Afghanistan ?

Lets think about this.

1. Name a neighbouring country which is going to grant diplomatic clearance for this longterm activity without making itself become a target?
2. An operation like this would further drain the limited resources of movers having to be based in a neighbouring country to ensure the smooth flow of pax between the military transport & perfectly ordinary planes, whatever they are.

Personally, I would not want to get on one plane in UK, unload and stand around in a neighbouring country, waiting for my next lift to arrive before re-boarding and continuing my journey.

Motleycallsign
30th Nov 2008, 16:13
Maybe the Shorts Belfast could be rebuilt in it's original spec 4x jets and a Vee tailplane. Keep the spending at home in these fund tending times!!!!

Pontius Navigator
30th Nov 2008, 16:31
Phil,

It is really the same, or similar argument to flight refuelling. It is easier to get planes from A to B in one hop rather than rely on several aircraft/hops.

A direct flight will do the point to point in 2-3 hrs less, and probably much more, than staging.

May I ask another question of you?

You plan a fortnights holiday in Orlando. Do you look for a direct flight from Gatwick or one from a regional airport to Schipol to Detroit to Orlando?

The direct flight is cheaper in costs too. Only one start-up and one climb on the one segment rather than 2.

Farfrompuken
30th Nov 2008, 18:31
"What we need NOW is just 3 reliable 200-250 seat strat pax/cargo airlifters, with the range to get to and from the 'Stan non-stop"

How about we buy a few of BA's 744s that they're looking to offload; we did just that in the early '80s when they ditched the TriStar (partly as a result of a clerical error) for peanuts.

Would suit both players & we'd have a modern, reliable decent-sized Strategic transport.

Would look good on the CV too...

VinRouge
30th Nov 2008, 19:18
You are working off the basis that supplying troops is the priority in terms of defense strategy for the next 30 years.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but it is not. AT generally however is. The assumption we could be a rapidly deployable force with the introduction of FRES with 6 C-17 and 24 Herc J is a little farcical.

Having said that, defence is in prime territory for defense cuts, even if that means reducing our commitment in the Stan. Keeping woolies/Royal ban k of scotland/Long term Doleite Scum in existence is far more important in terms of votes to Labour than occupying a land a quater way around the globe ever would have been.

Helimarshall, Quatar have been doing it for years. As for whether the lads would like to do it that way, since when has that been factored in the equation?

herkman
30th Nov 2008, 23:48
The whole situation is very sad, both the RAF, RCAF and RAAF apears to have greatly under estimated their uplift requirements.

!965 I believe saw the RAF buy was it 60 C130K's and the RAAF buying 12 C130E's. If we presume that the RAF got the figure correct, how can today the MOD be happy with a few very tired K models, and the J models running life out on the mainplanes quicker thjan you can wink.

As I have said before thank goodness the RAAF did not fall for the A400M sales pitch.

An unknown design in both airframe and engines. With a company that has no military support experience, and a product which is very expensive to buy and maybe the same to operate.

We the RAAF have fallen for the RAF trick, and not bought enough of the C17, so still we are short of uplift capacity, with no real short term fix for the problem.

Hope Kevin looks in his till and see if he has change for the fix of more C17's.

Caribou now out of service next year with no replacement, with every chance that the remaining C130H's will go too.

Things not looking good, and will be even worse if the Airbus fails to meet the need.

Regards to all for Christmas.

Col

proteus6
1st Dec 2008, 19:02
"An unknown design in both airframe and engines. With a company that has no military support experience, and a product which is very expensive to buy and maybe the same to operate"

If there is no current airframe then you have to design a new one, if there is no current engine that will fit the new airframe you have to design a new one.


The product is not expensive, in fact the fixed price contract is a real problem.

In time the A400M will become the workhorse of the european defense force

GreenKnight121
2nd Dec 2008, 04:01
The product is not expensive, in fact the fixed price contract is a real problem.

I'm sorry, isn't that exactly the point? Didn't I read earlier in this very thread where Airbus is threatening to not build any more A400s unless the fixed-price part of the contract is removed so it can charge more?

collbar
2nd Dec 2008, 10:15
Doing the stan direct is a great idea....but... the fuel costs 4 times more than at Muscat. Thats a lot of Cash, then try telling the poor sods on the ground they can't heat thier tent because the Timmy used it all.:=

South Bound
2nd Dec 2008, 13:06
The product is not expensive, in fact the fixed price contract is a real problem.

The fixed price contract was what Airbus insisted upon to get the programme off the ground and commercially viable. The flip side to that was that they had to deliver the aircraft to spec and on time. The fact that they cannot deliver the aircraft as promised is the issue and they are now trying to renogotiate the contract no doubt threatening all sorts of european job losses if we stick to the terms and enact the penalty clauses.

Joys of mixing politics and procurement.

And I am a fan of the programme!

proteus6
3rd Dec 2008, 16:19
Politics forced the choice of engine supplier on Airbus, they shouldn't be held to account for this.

The airframe was ready on time and at the agreed price, had the engines been delivered the flight testing would be well under way.

There will be advantages to having a european military transport supplier that will improve the capibility of our armed forces and our industrial base

South Bound
4th Dec 2008, 08:59
Politics forced the choice of engine supplier on Airbus, they shouldn't be held to account for this.

Tosh. Airbus agreed to the Nations' choice and kept to the original contract. One could argue that politics forced the choice of Airbus in the first place - they wanted the contract, they got it and need to live with it.

I don't recall the C17s being late - oh but that is because we did not let politics interfere and bought a low-risk, off the production line aircraft. Subsidising European technological advancement in aircraft/engine design is all very well, but the risk to ISD of engine/platform integration was well-known and this was not a surprise to anyone except Airbus who kept promising it would happen on time and put our military capability at significant risk.

Bottom line is Airbus knows it is not goin to be held to account because it knows how to pass the pain onto the workers in the partner Nations. A400M was a political buy that will cost us far more than we ever expected. It will work one day and should be very capable, but by then we will have a growing fleet of C17s to fill the gap caused by the delay.

moosemaster
4th Dec 2008, 11:21
When in development the C17s were seriously late, and incredibly over-budget.

Luckily the USAF stuck with it and now, 10+ years on it is a wonderful AT asset.

Provided the A400 project is continued and not de-railed by speculation and suspicion, it too will be a wonderful AT asset.

(RS-30. It isn't a money pit for the customers either, seeing at it is a FIXED PRICE contract :ugh:. It may well be a money pit for Airbus, but that's another, corporate matter and has no bearing on the MRTT/FSTA project. That project is in limbo because of nothing other than political inertia.)

BEagle
4th Dec 2008, 12:58
Low speed characteristics for air drop, tactical flight and helicopter AAR...

How are those coming along, Moosemaster? Must be a heck of a challenge to give the specified low speed characteristics with a M0.72 wing, no slats and no blown flaps.....:ooh:

South Bound
4th Dec 2008, 13:29
When in development the C17s were seriously late, and incredibly over-budget.

Agreed Moosey, the C17 was a dog when it started and still has some serious design issues - thrust reverse is a mare and the undercarriage is fragile, both are serious support issues. I am a fan of both programmes, I was just saying that the smart thing to do would have been to invest in a known product at an off-the-shelf price, rather than allow politics to decide the solution as it is politics that has caused most of issues (including ecu selection).

The C17 was not late into RAF service is my point - if we want to subsidize the euro nations playing at building aircraft, we should accept the inevitable delay and cost over-runs, it would just be nice if someone factored them in at the start - they always happen! Military will suffer unless someone now does an interim panic buy to fill the gap.

A400M will work one day, but those that say the delays were unpredictable are clearly mad and a cause of some of the barking procurement decisions that have been made. It was never going to arrive on time - does not make it a bad aircraft, just means that we will need something to fill the gap.

Green Flash
4th Dec 2008, 16:23
Its good, the engine rotational configaration helps, nice and stable

I aint no engineer but what if it looses a donk - how does that affect things ie one wing effectively 'half-blown'?:confused: And what if you lost 2 donks?!:eek: (Warning - I could be talking b0ll0x)

proteus6
4th Dec 2008, 17:17
If you lose one the f.b.w. will restrict the AOA, the inboard will not have the same effect as the outboard, if you lose two out of four again the f.b.w will keep things as good as possible

GreenKnight121
4th Dec 2008, 19:37
As the FBW flies you into the trees.

Think I've seen that before from an Airbus FBW?

glad rag
4th Dec 2008, 19:49
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

On_The_Top_Bunk
4th Dec 2008, 23:15
Can we have a block on the Airbus Fanzone posting their "Airbus is great" twaddle?

Some of the posters are so up Airbus A$$ it's just a joke,

If you work for AB just say so.

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Dec 2008, 01:49
OTTB,

When they have a vested interest in it then they are bound to "big" it up, but I am with you it is rather tiresome when the likes of the ex funbus captain goes on and on and on and on about how great it will EVENTUALLY/MAYBE be :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Dec 2008, 15:05
"Personally, I'd rather listen to the biased view of an Airbus driver "

As would I if it actually reflected what is currently going on and having spoken face to face with some of those "directly" in the know me thinks what we often see typed in here is not exactly the full story...........:=

BEagle
5th Dec 2008, 18:03
I agree, saddamsfatporpoise!

Some mumblings I have heard throw doubt on certain aspects of the A400M's fitness for purpose, which are more than just mutterings about the TPA400 software.

And I really hope they are just bolleaux!

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Dec 2008, 22:19
Oh dear oh dear, it would seem that some one doesn't do criticism very well :rolleyes:

BEagle
6th Dec 2008, 05:49
I do. mate....:ok:

South Bound
8th Dec 2008, 08:54
Really weird, but no matter how many times I read this I can't find anyone saying that Airbus is great. It reads to me that people are saying that all technically challenging projects suffer setbacks, but that Airbus should be able to sort it out and get the thing flying with time. No big surprise there. I can't think of any manufacturer I would like to see defended in these forums as few have ever delivered a major product to time/spec/budget.

Having worked on the project, I found AMSL and Airbus naiive to military expectations and our approach equally naiive in understanding the commercial approach. Partnerships are talked about often in procurement circles, but they are rarely what they pretend to be.

I neither defend Boeing, nor laud its C17 unnecessarily. I support the approach that bought a suitable product off the shelf, making it low-risk and affordable. It (initially) was delivered to time/budget and with potential for greater performance than actually required. It is that kind of flexibility of thinking that actually provides support to the military, rather than promises of technological wonders (how big is that engine?) at considerable risk. Unfortunately, politics gets in the way and we are directed to accept a solution from a bidder inexperienced in what we do. C'est la vie.

taffman
9th Dec 2008, 16:44
With or for AMSL Southbound ?

South Bound
10th Dec 2008, 13:00
With AMSL, I am still serving.

taffman
10th Dec 2008, 16:22
This is good :)

Hydroman400
11th Dec 2008, 12:04
...FF this weekend, for those near Cambridge watch the skies!!!

Sook
11th Dec 2008, 14:56
It'll be the thing that looks like a Herc going round and round in circles (only to the right mind you!)

taffman
11th Dec 2008, 16:05
Yes, watch the skies, snow this weekend :p

Flyingblind
13th Dec 2008, 01:26
ANALYSIS-Airbus A400M engine test key for project credibility - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/12/12/2008-12-12T165955Z_01_LC600329_RTRIDST_0_EADS-A400M-ANALYSIS.html)

Lets hope for the good of the project and those waiting all goes to plan.

FTE Pruner
13th Dec 2008, 20:23
"ANALYSIS-Airbus A400M engine test key for project credibility - Forbes.com"

I love it that when they don't know the facts, they just make it up!

BEagle
15th Dec 2008, 10:31
...FF this weekend, for those near Cambridge watch the skies!!!

Well? Did it fly??

mick2088
15th Dec 2008, 11:58
Given that good weather is reportedly needed for the flight, rain and even snow showers over the weekend would have made it impossible. Wednesday will supposedly be a fine day, so maybe that is the one to watch the skies if it is indeed going to happen this week.

moosemaster
15th Dec 2008, 12:13
SFFP;

What appears on these fine pages is NEVER the full story, regardless of topic, hence the "Ru" in the name :hmm:

South Bound;

As you suggest, I doubt you'll ever find anyone saying Airbus is great. The customer always wants to receive more "stuff" for less money, and the supplier always wants to give less for more money. It's economics and Airbus is in it to make a profit, just like every other defence contractor out there. There will be differences of opinion and there will be gaps in understanding between partners. It was/is inevitable.

OTTB;

I will "fess up" to being directly involved in the project, although not directly employed by Airbus/AMSL. I will also admit to having served on both C130 and C17, so I think I am qualified enough to comment here.

The A400M will never be the aircraft that the C17 is, but it isn't meant to be.
It is meant to be a C130/C160 replacement, not a C17 replacement, so that's where its capabilities lie. Why create something to compete with the C17 when it already has the market share. Why not create something which is actually needed instead? Face it, the C130 is just too small, and realistically speaking there is no replacement currently available. The C17 is just too big for some of the tasks the C130/C160 fleets undertake.

The A400M WILL meet the requirements that have been laid out for it, and I am confident, from my vantage point anyway, that it will do so admirably. There may well be bits we would like to do differently, but at the end of the day it will enable the air forces involved to do more than they can do with their current kit.

It was a risky move to incorporate so much new technology into the design, and to a large extent it hasn't paid off, but if the right tools for the job don't exist, do you wait for someone else to create them, or do you go and make them yourself?

I know my answer, hence I'm "involved" rather than bleating on PRuNe.

BEagle,

Sorry, can't comment knowingly on the low speed characteristics, not being the piloty sort, but the cargo hold is looking good :ok: . I'll get the business end sorted and let folk cleverer that wot I is sort the rest.:8

Xercules
15th Dec 2008, 15:37
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.

Hydroman400
17th Dec 2008, 10:47
Today at 1140!!!!

Pictures to follow!

BEagle
17th Dec 2008, 11:14
At last!

Is the plan to run the TPA400 on this flight - or is it just a systems shakedown prior to the flight test campaign proper?

Algy
17th Dec 2008, 12:36
A400M: EPI TP400 engine takes off
Ref: AM/C info. 17/12/08 (1/2)
The TP400 power-plant developed for the A400M by EuroProp International (EPI) took to the air for the first time on 17th December 2008 on the Lockheed C-130K flight test-bed. The TP400 is installed on the inner left engine mount of the C-130K which is otherwise powered by three of the usually four Allison T56 turbopropellers The aircraft took off at 10h44 local time from Cambridge airfield (UK) where Marshall Aerospace, which is conducting the flight test-bed trials, is based, and touched down at 11h59 local time. The flight lasted one hour and 15 minutes.
During the flight, various flight characteristics such as aircraft basic handling and TP400 response at a thrust equivalent to the maximum power generated by each of the other T56 engines were tested to satisfaction in several aircraft configurations up to a speed of 165kts and an altitude of 8,000ft. This was a first step in the aircraft envelope opening. It will allow progress towards the completion of the approximately 50 flight test hours planned to reach sufficient maturity for the engine itself. Once this is achieved and sufficient maturity and satisfactory integration is also reached for the global propulsion system, it will be able to subsequently fly on the A400M.
EPI, which comprises Rolls Royce, SNECMA, MTU and ITP, started testing the TP400 in October 2005. More than 2,100 hours of ground testing have been performed with three engines on the ground test bench. To complete the trials, Marshall Aerospace was contracted by Airbus Military to perform the Flying Test Bed trials on a Lockheed C-130K. The aircraft was specifically modified to accept the new engine which develops about twice the power of the C-130K’s standard T56 engine.
“The successful completion of this first flight of the TP400 engine is a significant step in the A400M programme development”, says Rafael Tentor, Head of the A400M programme. “This and the subsequent flights will comfort us in the performance of the new engine itself, as well as its reliability, in a real flying environment. This objective also applies to the global propulsion system,” he added.
EADS and Airbus Military are still in negotiation with their customers. The time schedule of the A400M is not yet determined.
The EuroProp International (EPI) TP400 engine is a three shaft free turbine turbopropeller which drives an eight bladed five-metre-diameter propeller. Developing 11,000 SHp at take-off, it is the most powerful turboprop ever built in the western world. It allows for the wide range of speeds and flight levels required, while reducing fuel burn and weight. Powered by four of these, the A400M can cruise at altitudes as high as 37,000 ft at speeds between Mach 0.68 and 0.72 while retaining the capability of flying at speeds as low as 110 kt at 5,000 ft. The arrangement of the propellers, which turn in opposite directions inboard and outboard on each wing, allows a structural weight reduction, and improves, amongst other things, the lift at low speed.
The A400M is an all new military airlifter designed to meet the needs of the world’s Armed Forces in the 21st Century. Thanks to its most advanced technologies, this excellent aircraft will be able to fly higher, faster and further, while retaining high maneuverability, low speed, and short, soft and rough airfield capabilities. It combines both tactical and strategic/logistic missions. With its cargo hold specifically designed to carry the outsize equipment needed today for both military and humanitarian disaster relief missions, it can bring this material quickly and directly to where it is most needed. Conceived to be highly reliable, dependable, and with a great survivability, the multipurpose A400M can do more with less, implying smaller fleets and less investment from the operator. The A400M is the most cost efficient and versatile airlifter.

mary_hinge
17th Dec 2008, 15:33
More Here:

PICTURES: Airbus A400M's engine becomes airborne for first time (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/17/320258/pictures-airbus-a400ms-engine-becomes-airborne-for-first-time.html)

Jig Peter
17th Dec 2008, 17:42
Nice set of photos - and congratulations to all concerned, specially in getting them onto the Net so quickly .
Nice way to end the year and a hope that (at last - sorry, Airbus !!!) the A400M propgramme will be able to get moving as hoped ... Roll on '09, the end of the C-130 phase and the A400M flight test programme proper ...

Why nobody's had good words for Airbus I can't understand - see what they've done in the civil field, starting from ZE-RO way back in the early '70s. Perhaps the A400M was a move into uncharted territory that many inside Airbus would have preferred not to have been made, but the market for a C-130 replacement hasn't gone away ... And learning curves are just that - for learning. And learning's something that Airbus has historically been very, very good at ...
BTW - It's over a decade since I retired from Airbus, but I'm still as proud of the company as I was when I joined (for the A310 programme) and look forward to seeing the whingeing naysayers confounded once again (on both shores of the Atlantic and the Channel) as they have been so often in the past.
Happy Holidays and a Good New Year to all,
Jig Peter
:8

Jig Peter
17th Dec 2008, 17:58
Green Knight raises the "FBW flies you into trees" story. Off thread, I know, but the pilot concerned was a) doing "display flying" for which he had no experience, b) well below his agreed minimum hieght, c) hadn't properly reconnoitered the field he was to display at - nor had he properly rehearsed the routine,and d) didn't realise that a CFM56 takes a longish time to spool up from idle.
It was said later that in fact the A320's FBW actually prevented this totally avoidable accident from being worse than it was ...

RS30
17th Dec 2008, 19:03
Is it just me...or does there seem to be an element of tokenism in this flight? It would have been a very bleak 2008 for Airbus Mil had none of the hardware got airborne before the end of the year.
I truly hope that the issues with the new engine can be solved and real progress made towards getting the A400M into service. However, the lack of public domain information on this program leaves one feeling that a lot problems are being covered up and may still prove insurmountable within the existing contract. Maybe I missed it but are the end user governments still standing by the penalty clauses? Or are we about to witness yet another credit crunch bailout of Airbus that will save industry jobs but cost us military capability!
That said, well done to the crew and engineers responsible for the flight, gutsy move. You deserve your Christmas bonuses.:ok:

proteus6
17th Dec 2008, 19:29
"another credit crunch bailout of Airbus "?
When was the first one? Airbus has invested millions in this project, why can't you just be happy that the UK has a good part of this high tech aircraft, if you think that the world would be better place if we all flew american aircraft you are sadly misguided

FTE Pruner
18th Dec 2008, 17:46
RS30

Is it just me...or does there seem to be an element of tokenism in this flight?

I am not sure how achieving first flight could be "tokenism", what were you expecting them to do, clear out to the edge of the envelope on the first flight.

I do agree with you your second from last sentence, well done to all at Marshalls for getting the new engine airborne (and the other companies that work with them). I wish I had been able to see it fly!

Hydroman400 - Are you going to post your photos?

herkman
21st Dec 2008, 07:56
My understanding is that Snoopee flew last week for 90 minutes with no problems.

Anyone hear anymore?

Regards

Col

GreenKnight121
21st Dec 2008, 23:56
Just that they restricted the "wonder-engine" to matching the T56s' power levels.

This makes sense... work out how the big nacelle changes handling, and how the big prop affects airflow over the wing (and along the fuselage) before trying higher (and asymetrical) power settings.

Wind tunnels & computer simulations (which are totally dependant on the data [guesses] entered) only tell you so much... flight tests always tell you things the other methods didn't.

Hydroman400
23rd Dec 2008, 11:50
Photos......sorry on holiday now ;) will see what I can get when I return! There seem to be quite a few out there already though!

Congratulations to all at Marshall! To whoever it was that postulated it was just a token flight....get a grip - we've been waiting months for it and need 50 hrs before MSN1 can fly, so not a token flight by any means!

Merry Christmas and let's hope 09' is a good one

Hydie 400

Madbob
8th Apr 2009, 14:10
Does anyone have any idea as to how the test flying is going? For instance, how many hours have been accumulated on the new engine/prop, how long will it take to analyse all the data collected and when might a first flight of the A400M be expected?

Marshalls must be making some progress now given the good wx......

MB

RS30
8th Apr 2009, 19:30
Mmm..guess it was a token effort after all.
Still more chance of Vulcans flying than A400Ms.
What was plan B again? :suspect:

FTE Pruner
8th Apr 2009, 20:34
There doesn't seem to be anything about it in the media at the moment, but I am sure they must be well into flying by now.

Pruner

On_The_Top_Bunk
8th Apr 2009, 21:15
There doesn't seem to be anything about it in the media at the moment, but I am sure they must be well into flying by now.

Pruner

And what have you been smoking lately?

Martin the Martian
8th Apr 2009, 22:47
http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss166/merlin824/2009-03-31014.jpg

Droning over the top at Marham last week.:ok:

Someone Different
9th Apr 2009, 09:32
I've seen it go up at least 4 times since flight 1. It's no great secret, I guess the subsequent flights don't generate as much publicity.

SD

Squirrel 41
9th Apr 2009, 18:18
From The Economist: Airbus's troubled military transport | Heavy going | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13447375&amp;subjectID=348873&amp;fsrc=nwl )

Interesting stuff.

T

herkman
10th Apr 2009, 00:02
I bet the Americans are watching this closely. The path that Airbus is walking is into the unknown, where delays and setbacks are common. Who in their right mind would
want to walk that path, we are certainly seeing all the costs blow out.

However we can hope for the best, but at the end of the day the politics will rule. In the mean time the air forces of the world wait, just hope they are not waiting in vain.

The giant leaps in progress seem to come at a great cost of money and time.

Regards

Col

mick2088
10th Apr 2009, 09:11
Of course the Americans are watching closely. You can imagine the companies with alternative options rubbing their hands with glee as they wait for A400M customers to voice concerns or that they are considering buying something else. Take the example of Lockheed Martin, as soon as something else is printed about the A400M in the mainstream media, their PR dept issue a press release out of the blue saying how wonderful the Super Hercules is.

StopStart
10th Apr 2009, 20:49
how wonderful the Super Hercules is

That's because it is :hmm:
Just wish they'd stop dicking about and buy some more.

mary_hinge
14th Apr 2009, 09:21
A400M Engine Testbed Faces Tight Schedule | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/FADEC040909.xml&headline=A400M%20Engine%20Testbed%20Faces%20Tight%20Schedule )

EADS before July is hoping to reach its 50 flight hour target on the Marshall Aerospace C-130 serving as the flying testbed for the A400M's TP400D turboprop engine.
The goal to reach that milestone in the second quarter is not easy, though. So far the testbed has flown about 15 hours since its first flight in mid-December. Improving weather should allow the pace of flight testing to increase, however

mystic_meg
14th Apr 2009, 09:27
Interesting that the photo in post #150 shows an AAR probe on 208, I wonder why?

mary_hinge
14th Apr 2009, 09:32
Handy place too add additional sensors for the flight test programme. I believe that you can also see a “basket” be dragged along in the same photo, again, part of the flight test fit. (some one more technical would know what sensors)

Green Flash
14th Apr 2009, 10:00
Mary and mysty

Note also the external tank under the starboard wing, but not the port (presumeably something to do with the extra prop wash from the test donk - or maybe to counterbalance the bigger motor - over to you, techno-persons?!) Also the airframe was extensively wired for many external sensors when she was Snoopy.

ArthurR
14th Apr 2009, 11:44
Possibly the probe is not an AAR probe, if its the same one that was fitted to the Tri-Star, it houses Alpha and Beta vanes, + pitot and static sensors.

FTE Pruner
15th Apr 2009, 21:04
I suspect it isn't an AAR probe but probably for measuring air data like this http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061109-F-9999X-012.jpg

Sook
16th Apr 2009, 11:44
Maybe it's both! An AAR probe that's been converted to carry sensors!

billynospares
16th Apr 2009, 11:54
Snoopy had none of the AAR probe plumbing in place so it wont be useable. It will be an AAR probe being used for sideslip vanes and other fti sensors. It has been done many times before

Madbob
14th Jul 2009, 07:55
This thread last got an update in April so hence this post.

What's the latest news on how the engine/prop trials are going for the A400? They must have got 50 hours on the clock by now and if so, when's the first flight of the much delayed (and badly needed) A400M going to be?

MB

Madbob
24th Jul 2009, 17:38
Given the reprieve the the varoius EU partners in the A400M programme have today given Airbus to the end of the year, does anyone know how the test flying is going at Marshalls and most importantly, when will the new engines / props be cleared for flight on the A400?

Marshalls must have logged a fair number of hours by now unless there have been major snags identified.

MB

sedburgh
24th Jul 2009, 21:30
Given the reprieve the the varoius EU partners in the A400M programme have today given Airbus to the end of the year, does anyone know how the test flying is going at Marshalls and most importantly, when will the new engines / props be cleared for flight on the A400?The latest report in Flight ("A400M partners head for latest crisis meeting") (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/23/330048/a400m-partners-head-for-latest-crisis-meeting.html)says
But risk-reduction activities using a modified Lockheed Martin C-130 testbed (above) in the UK have failed to add to a pre-Paris total of 12 flights and 35 flight hours; some 15h short of a planned programme total which EPI officials had expected to conclude by mid-July.

Bob_Loblaw
22nd Oct 2009, 10:59
Not wanting to break from tradition with the A400M programme, a last minute notice for all...

Tonight the Marshall Aerospace flight-test gang will be giving a presentation on their Flying Test Bed efforts; An unholy combination of the TP400 and C130...

RAeS Headquarters, Hamilton Place, London - 17:30 for 18:00.

The A400M Powerplant Flying Test Bed is a
C130K Hercules modified to accommodate
the TP400-D6 turbo-prop engine in place of
the original left inboard engine.

http://www.raes.org.uk/conference/PDFs/FTOct09.pdf.

:8

FNU_SNU
22nd Oct 2009, 13:00
They may as well stick 4 on all the Hercs and forget about the A400M airframe altogether ;)

CirrusF
22nd Oct 2009, 13:26
Anyone who owns any property near Lyneham should sell up now. The noise from Snoopy with just one A400 engine could be heard all over Cambridge. Nobody will want to live near Lyneham once (if?) there are fleets of them flying around.

FNU_SNU
22nd Oct 2009, 13:42
Nice and stealthy then for TALO etc! Yet another reason to buy C-17 instead.

ORAC
22nd Oct 2009, 14:06
Nobody will want to live near Lyneham once (if?) there are fleets of them flying around. Why not? They're going to based at Brize after all.....

Guzlin Adnams
23rd Oct 2009, 19:42
Indeed, it will be very quiet around Lyneham from 2012 onwards......as things stand at the moment.;)

NutLoose
6th Nov 2009, 01:29
South Africa canceled an order to buy eight Airbus A400 military transport aircraft after the costs soared.

South Africa Cancels Airbus Order After Costs Soar (Update1) - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agrJ5syfioug&pos=5)

Kerosene Kraut
27th Nov 2009, 13:26
A400M first flight now announced for calendar week 50 by senior Airbus Military management. That's between december 7 and 13.

Source:
Airbus: A400M könnte in der 50. Kalenderwoche starten - FLUG REVUE (http://www.flugrevue.de/de/militaer/fluggeraet-hersteller/airbus-a400m-koennte-in-der-50-kalenderwoche-starten.15826.htm)

mick2088
27th Nov 2009, 13:47
Seems so. I just read the same thing on Aviation Week's website as well - so not that far off from the original rumoured date/week.

Uncle Ginsters
27th Nov 2009, 14:26
The Americans have got loads of C17, so they must use it exactly like a C130...

Well, Equivocator, that's not toooo far from the truth, actually!

If we had enough C17s so that they weren't all working max chat on the airbridge then they might be allowed to train up for some of the other roles for which the jet is so well designed!

The 'customers' want it, the crews want it, it just needs a little greater asset:task ratio!

In a kind of Field of Dreams way - if you task them, they will perform!

Uncle G

Kerosene Kraut
27th Nov 2009, 14:34
Would the UK's leasing deal allow you to use your C-17 in any wilder ways? I heard it's no gravel no paradrops and nothing beyound the standard airport rwy to airport rwy.

Uncle Ginsters
27th Nov 2009, 14:42
They're not leased any more - the UK bought out the lease on the original 4 last summer along with UK 5 & 6.

The only stopper is the workload elsewhere.

mick2088
27th Nov 2009, 15:45
And in regards to the C-17.

Britain In Talks With Boeing For Another C-17 - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4394666&c=EUR&s=AIR)

Chainkicker
27th Nov 2009, 16:32
I see from the link above it's turning into the usual fiasco "the revised timing and cost of the program, which is currently three years late and hugely over cost". Almost like buying from BAe or whatever their name is this week :ugh:

Kerosene Kraut
9th Dec 2009, 09:02
A400M's first flight is now officially announced to take place friday december 11th.

Airbus Military kündigt A400M-Erstflug für 11. Dezember an - FLUG REVUE (http://www.flugrevue.de/de/militaer/fluggeraet-hersteller/airbus-military-kuendigt-a400m-erstflug-fuer-11-dezember-an.16148.htm)

Trumpet_trousers
9th Dec 2009, 09:48
Mods: can we merge this thread with the other A400M one please, as patently the engines do indeed work :ok: