New RAF Transport [Archive]

SET 18

18th Nov 2014, 01:25

To reply to simply the beast...

I have a memory of the time when the designs for the aircraft were being distributed around. There was a very similar design to this one, which had the elevators in-line with the wings. This aircraft had prop engines.

An alternative version had jet engines and, consequently, the elevators were lifted above the wing line. Of course, because a committee decided on which design was better they decided that they liked the present aircraft but wanted prop engines!

I seem to remember it was the Germans who insisted that their design was used ( ie a high tail) but ( stupidly, I think) not with jet engines. In the Herc, one had greatly increased elevator authority at slow speeds because of the prop wash over them. This was particularly handy during para drops or tactical landings.

Not sure why they have dispensed with this; maybe because modern fly-by-wire systems can cope much better?

BATCO

18th Nov 2014, 03:15

Nutloose
"Finally something to take the capability void left by the Belfast, a mid range lifter that slots in between the Herc and a C17."

Only in RAF service it doesn't slot in there. To help fill the 'Defence black hole' our A400 are not complementing the Herc capability but replacing it.

Got an important (to you) load? Too much for a CH47? You'll soon have to wait until the next A400 is filled.

Regards
Batco

30AB

18th Nov 2014, 03:58

Front of the jig perhaps?

Tankertrashnav

18th Nov 2014, 08:51

From the comments on the link

That looks the nads that does :ok:

Brian May said

What a gopping looking aeroplane

Personally I incline more to the "gopping" than "the nads" myself, but who cares if the thing works? Great to see the RAF getting some new kit.

Willard Whyte

18th Nov 2014, 08:59

Front of the jig perhaps?

We were told something of that ilk as to the reason why 'Flight Station 245' was so named on the '130.

I seem to recall it was 245 inches back from the start of the jig, or whatever gubbins sat forward of the 'frame, during construction.

Willard Whyte

18th Nov 2014, 09:10

Once asked about repairing battle damage on a composite wing. Didn't get an answer.

BEagle

18th Nov 2014, 09:47

Earlier designs of the A400M (or rather 'FLA' as it was then known) had a significantly different fin and tailplane design:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Clipboard01_zps2f0b12dd.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/Clipboard01_zps2f0b12dd.jpg.html)

When I sat in the mock-up at Farnborough around 20 years ago, one feature I considered to be excellent - the lower flight deck windows allowed excellent 'forward and down' observation. So I was rather surprised to note that these haven't made it into production.

The Oberon

18th Nov 2014, 10:05

Willard, I don't think you will get one.

I have had first hand experience of alloy airframe BDR during Corporate, Harrier and Victor, and I have often wondered about composite airframe BDR. Like yourself, I haven't been able to get an answer.

Mechta

18th Nov 2014, 10:16

Years ago the Science Museum in South Kensington, London, had an exhibit all about battle damage repair methods to be used on the composite AV-8B Harrier wing.

I can imagine Airbus and the MOD not wanting share information about the techniques they intend to use on the A400M, for both commercial and military reasons, but its a 'dead cert' that they know the sequence they will be using when the need arises.

uffington sb

18th Nov 2014, 10:20

Had one flying over Peterborough the other week. Apparently Tom Cruise was strapped on the side, although it was at low level, I didn't see him.

Q. Looking at the head on flare shot, do engines 1 & 3 rotate in the opposite direction to 2 & 4?

BEagle

18th Nov 2014, 10:38

TP400 rotation direction is 'down between engines'.

Hence viewed from the front, propellers of odd-numbered engines rotate in an anti-clockwise direction and even-numbered in a clockwise direction.

Lord Spandex Masher

18th Nov 2014, 11:01

Is there a particular reason for that? Handling wise it would make sense, to me, to have all the downward movement inboard as much as possible.

NutLoose

18th Nov 2014, 11:02

Stn 0 aint nothing to to do with probe and from reading your posts you are a tornado man where was stn 0 on a gr1

Tornado.... TORNADO!!!!! Oooh you do know how to insult a man.. :O

Boudreaux Bob

18th Nov 2014, 12:00

Hence viewed from the front, propellers of odd-numbered engines rotate in an anti-clockwise direction and even-numbered in a clockwise direction.

Along comes SAC Murphy and we all know the result of that!

uffington sb

18th Nov 2014, 12:17

Thanks for the explanation Beags.
I must admit it looked mighty good flying around, made a strange noise though, prop like one moment then sounding like a jet the next. There again, it might have been Tom screaming!

VX275

18th Nov 2014, 13:49

It may be purely co-incidental but the size of the A400M tailplane grew after Boscombe Down supplied Airbus with a trace of a Hercules HSP drop that showed a transient MAC of over 100% at the point the load left the ramp. :eek:

Rhino power

18th Nov 2014, 15:28

Seems there's still quite a bit of work to done be yet...

Airbus confident on A400M deliveries despite capability shortfall - 11/14/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-confident-on-a400m-deliveries-despite-capability-406093/)

-RP

Sir George Cayley

18th Nov 2014, 17:22

A400M Atlas aka Fat Lass :ooh:

SGC

Brian W May

18th Nov 2014, 17:23

. . . still think it's gopping.

Whether it works or not - fortunately beauty is in the eye of the beholder . . . so don't be sticking piccies of your wives here then :p

Xercules

18th Nov 2014, 18:15

Most of the comments so far seemed as much based on ignorance as anything else.

The position of the horizontal stabiliser (HS)(or tail plane) is relatively easily explained. As it is an all flying tail plane ( as with most modern aircraft) it needs a motor to drive it. This motor is normally at the base of the fin but, because of the opening back end, the door goes into the space at the tail of the aircraft and there is insufficient structure to house the motor. It is, therefore necessary to move the HS up the fin. Once you have moved it up there are then aerodynamic reasons to go all the way just as in the C17.

Propeller rotation - again aerodynamics plays a role but also noise. The inboard rotation is as it is to reduce noise inside the cargo bay and induce a flow round the tail which helps the paratroops to not get swept underneath to wrap round those from the other side exit. The outboard rotation also has an aerodynamic effect especially for the engine failure case - with this arrangement there is, in effect, no critical engine for the engine out case other than an outboard being not as good as an inboard. The combined effect is also improved flow drag characteristics which helped reduce the size, and therefore the weight, of the of the fin and the HS which also helps with fuel consumption/range for a given fuel.

Both, as with all else in the design, were the result of long and detailed studies and wind tunnel testing. I hope this explanation helps.

tonker

18th Nov 2014, 18:47

I remember going to an RAF do in Brighton of all places, where the imminent arrival of the FLA was announced to much Euro applause. That was 1992!

smujsmith

18th Nov 2014, 19:16

Like with the introduction of the C130 way back, the looks of the aircraft bear little relevance to its capability in service. With the years spent in development and test, it's to be hoped that for once the RAF receive a credible result of their Operational Requirement. Someone has already stated that in its infancy Albert was no beauty, but many of us love the beast to this day. Good luck to this aircraft in service, it's crews and those who support it.

Smudge:ok:

dragartist

18th Nov 2014, 19:29

Xerc, Appears odd having to do airdrop and parachuting at altitude with the wheels down in an effort to control the vortices. prevent crossover and being dragged under. This was not picked up during all the FEA and CFD they did down in Toulouse and academia to my knowledge. I am guessing it was one of VX275s mates who came up with the solution.

Taken a long time in development but I do think it will be a great machine in a few years time.

On Frame Stations: Years back each metal hoop was given a number some started at the front and others in the middle with minus numbers forward +ve aft. Not sure if the mercans started using inches. FS 0 on the Chinook was in fresh air quite a way out front.

Can anyone tell me if the stn numbers on A400 are in metric. I seam to recall that the tie downs were on a 20" grid. I left all my data sheets behind when I left.

KenV

18th Nov 2014, 19:41

I like it's looks. Congrats to Airbus and the RAF.

I've got two questions:

1. Will the RAF call it an Atlas? Or is that just an Airbus name?

2. What were the drivers for the cargo floor dimensions, especially the width? The 13 ft width seems like an odd choice to me, but I'm clueless about the requirements that drove that choice.

tdracer

18th Nov 2014, 19:45

Not looking to start a pi$$ing match here, but if the A400 costs nearly as much as a C-17, what is the advantage of the A400 to justify the multi-billion Euro development costs (rather than just buying more C-17s)? Or was it mainly nationalism/NIH/politics?

dragartist

18th Nov 2014, 20:01

Ken, I hope I can give the authoritive answer: In 1995 when it was a paper airplane the proposed width was 6" narrower. The driver was two landrovers side by side. I was at JATE at the time. A new version of the landrover had been introduced which carried the spare wheel on the side not the bonnet as was traditional. The manuals we were working to required access down each side. You know it was a long time ago and I cant recall if the side seats had to be down for carrying troops as well as carrying the vehicles.

I really am pleased it finished up as wide as it did as there is adequate space to walk down each side outboard of the 108" rails.

Xercules

18th Nov 2014, 20:09

I should remember the story without notes but it is a long time since I talked about this part of the aircraft in that kind of detail but....

The dimensions of the cargo bay were driven by the loads the Nations wanted to carry. Each provided its longest, widest, tallest and heaviest.

The payload of 32 tonnes was driven by the Warrior recovery vehicle then at 31.5 tonnes. Then an extra 5 tonnes was allowed for additional military gizmos: defensive aids and other extras.

Height was driven by the Patriot missile system.
Width was driven by2 Landrovers side by side plus passengers in the sidewall seats and other items.
Length was driven by ??? (Can't remember)

You have to remember that increasing the cross-section, especially, of the cargo bay increases weight and drag leading to a need for more power and more fuel which in turn means more weight. The net result is increased cost in both production and operating.

VinRouge

18th Nov 2014, 20:24

Range I believe is pretty poor up close at max ZFW.... am I correct that east coast at max ZFW is pretty much the limit?

these (FRES SV (http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.co.uk/2014/09/fres-sv-has-contract.html)) fit well when MZFW is considered, think range is pretty poor though...

KenV

18th Nov 2014, 20:31

The position of the horizontal stabiliser (HS)(or tail plane) is relatively easily explained. As it is an all flying tail plane ( as with most modern aircraft) it needs a motor to drive it. This motor is normally at the base of the fin but, because of the opening back end, the door goes into the space at the tail of the aircraft and there is insufficient structure to house the motor. It is, therefore necessary to move the HS up the fin. Once you have moved it up there are then aerodynamic reasons to go all the way just as in the C17.

I can't speak for the A400, but I can for the C-17 and that was not the reason the C-17 went with a T-Tail.

Putting the horizontal stabilizer on the fuselage was not feasible on the C-17 because there was no place to put the carry-thru structure. The C-17 (like the A400 and C-130) has a large upward opening door aft of the downward opening ramp. On the C-17 the area above the door is presssurized, is accessible in flight, and is used to store mission equipment (ramp toes, center line troop seats, roller conveyors, etc, etc.) So there's no place to put carry thru structure in the rear of the fuselage. I'm assuming that the Atlas uses that space the same way. The An-124 (like the C-5 and C-141) has petal doors aft of the ramp and this area is unpressurized and inaccessible in flight, so it's possible to put the horizontal stabilizer on the fuselage. And the Russians/Ukranians did.

The C-17 and A400 both have swept/raked vertical fins, so the horizontal stabilizer moves aft as it moves up, providing greater moment arm and therefore greater pitch control authority. Note that the A400's stabilizer is highly swept aft. It does not fly at jet speeds so that is not necessary aerodynically as it is on the C-17. But sweeping the stalizers aft further moves their center of pressure aft, which further increases control authority.) That is very important because both aircraft are designed for heavy cargo airdrops where there is a HUGE shift in CG and hence necessitates a very powerful stabilizer and elevator. The C-5 and C-141 also had T-tails for that reason, even though they had the available fuselage volume for a fuselage mounted stabilizer. To the best of my knowledge, the An-124 was not designed for airdrop operations and so did not have to deal with a big CG shift while in flight.

The C-130 does not have a swept/raked vertical fin, so moving the stabilizer up had no advantage. In addition, on the C-130 the entire empennage is attached to the unpressurized "beaver tail" structure aft of the cargo door. I don't know if it could properly be called part of the fuselage.

KenV

18th Nov 2014, 20:33

dragartist

18th Nov 2014, 20:41

length probably driven by a number of 463L Pallets including one (or was it two) on the ramp.

or two 24 ft Type V airdrop platforms at 16 tonnes each with parachutes for split sticks between them. Did not leave much room.

KenV

18th Nov 2014, 20:46

Aaah, thanks,

On the C-17 the floor width was driven by three factors:

1. Ability to carry two rows of 463L pallets (in the 88 inch wide direction.) but that was possible with less than 16 feet of width.

2. Ability to carry two rows of 463 pallets or two rows of HMMWVs and carry drivers/troops on the sidewall seats.

3. Ability to carry two rows of 8x8 and 10x10 HEMMTs with room only for the drivers on the sidewall seats.

That drove the C-17's width to 16 ft.

C-17 cargo floor length was driven by 14 463L pallets on the main floor plus 4 more on the ramp.

A400's 13 ft seemed odd to me because 13 ft does not enable two rows of 463L pallets, which seemed pretty important to me, and does not allow two rows of HMMWVs, never mind room for drivers and troops. But Landrovers are not nearly as wide as HMMWVs, so now I understand the 13 ft width. Do France and Germany also operate narrower vehicles like the Landrover?

diginagain

18th Nov 2014, 21:00

Do France and Germany also operate narrower vehicles like the Landrover? Yes, Mercedes Wolf and Peugeot P4.

VX275

18th Nov 2014, 21:48

NWSRG

18th Nov 2014, 21:50

Davef68

18th Nov 2014, 22:18

1. Will the RAF call it an Atlas? Or is that just an Airbus name?

Atlas is the RAF name. Airbus just calls it the A400M (The prototypes were given the nickname 'Grizzly')

ASRAAM

18th Nov 2014, 23:02

Folks, I think all of you who have come up with the technical explanations regarding the tail assembly are overthinking it.

They just went to the boneyard and removed as many C141 tails as was required in order to save money. ;-)

falcosubbuteo

18th Nov 2014, 23:32

Here is my first post, so go easy on me! I am an aerodynamicist not aircrew by trade, so maybe I will be banned, but on the other hand you may occasionally find it mildly entertaining to read my ramblings.

Prop rotation partly covered by xherc previously, but could add the following:
The choice of prop rotation direction was a long and involved story with advantages and disadvantages for each possibility. The only decision made early on I believe, was NOT to have all the props rotating in the same direction. This is, I believe, the case for the Herc and it does have some advantages including only a single prop and gearbox type which must be cheaper, less spares etc, however the downside aerodynamically is enormous. You basically have an asymmetric wing loading due to the influence of the prop wash on one wing being mostly upwash while on the other being mostly downwash. This must be a nightmare for low speed stall characteristics as well as poor for high speed drag and I imagine it gave Lockheed a massive headache to get the C130J to an acceptable low speed performance when they stuck those bigger engines on it......would be interesting to hear any views on this angle from any C130J crew.

The next decision for A400M was prop rotation direction. If you get your paper and pencil out and to some front-view sketches, you will realise there are lots of options. For high speed cruise, the lowest drag config was likely to be inboard-up rotation on all props. This is because the wing in general then experiences the most upwash. This reduces vortex drag significantly. I would guess it is one reason why the Osprey props also rotate inboard-up...or maybe just a happy co-incidence. Same reason birds fly in a V formation...to catch that free upwash.

Noise is lower if props on same wing do not cross each other.....you can probably imagine the shearing going on if they do, so lower noise if 'up between engines' or 'down between engines'.

Best for low speed was something else again.

Final config was the best compromise.

The Filton boys certainly put alot of effort into the wing design and did a thorough job. Hope it all comes good for the end user.

GreenKnight121

19th Nov 2014, 01:38

Probably a really silly question for those in the know...but how do you get the inboard and outboard engines to rotate props in different directions ie. one clockwise, one anti-clockwise? Is it simply a gearing issue?

Yes.

ALL turboprop/turboshaft engines have a gearbox between the engine and the propeller/rotor, which reduces the RPM of the engine to the proper speed for the prop/rotor.

Boudreaux Bob

19th Nov 2014, 02:32

There I was thinking you just had to change the firing order on the pistons!:uhoh:

DCThumb

19th Nov 2014, 07:12

NutLoose

19th Nov 2014, 11:00

and does not allow two rows of HMMWVs, never mind room for drivers and troops. But Landrovers are not nearly as wide as HMMWVs, so now I understand the 13 ft width. Do France and Germany also operate narrower vehicles like the Landrover?

Yes, I believe the HMMWVs wide track was designed to match that of the Abrams M1 battle tank and allow the Humvee to drive in it's track footprint over potentially mined/ booby trapped areas. Sensible design thinking really.

KenV

19th Nov 2014, 13:22

Has the cost changed? Back in the 90s when the J was first announced, I seem to remember the cost ratio was 3 FLAs to 1 C17? I guess the C17 is also cheaper now as they do the end of line special editions!

Cost projections very rarely match cost realities. The real cost of the FLA went up relative to the projections, and the real cost of the C-17 went steadily down. The devlopment costs of the C-17 have essentially already been fully amoritized, while the first 100 or so of the A400 will be burdened with the development costs. And the development cost of the A400 (like the C-17) went WAAAY above projections. A fully equipped C-17 apparently costs marginally more than a partially equipped A400.

But keep in mind that the A400 is a different airplane with different capabilities. It could be that A400's capabilities are worth the cost. It's biggest advantage relative to the C-17 is its soft field capability. I've seen figures as low as CBR 6 for the A400, which seems unlikely. To put this in perspective, a twin-engine C-27J (one fourth the size of an A400) has a CBR of 6 and the venerable Herc (half the size of the A400) has a CBR of 8/9.

KenV

19th Nov 2014, 14:59

Before I attended the FLA (as it was then) meetings to decide the specification I'd had the task to assess the C-17 cargo hold in co-operation with a Loadie from JATE. Together we described the C-17 cargo floor as 'Bombproof', as it was obvious that the C-17 had been designed around the cargo hold out and the only weight saving had been the removal of the gold plate.

The C-17 was indeed designed from the cargo hold out.
Cargo floor and ramp width and length were determined by the width and length of two rows of 463L pallets, HMMWVs, or HEMTTs.
Cargo hold "shoulder" was determined by width and height of US Army Expansible Van.
Height under wing was determined by AH-64 Apache rotor head height (no Longbow radar)
Height aft of wing was determined by CH-53 height with rotor removed.
Strength of floor and ramp was determined by weight of M1A1 Abrams tank.

The cargo floor also had integrally designed into it:
-flip up bi and omni directional rollers
-flip up logistics rails w/powered locks compatible with 463L pallet system
-hinge up airdrop rails w/powered and digitally adjustable variable restraint locks (VRL) compatible with standard airdrop platforms
-integral load equalization system to equalize pallet loads on VRL system
-CDS rails/locks compatible with standard CDS bundles/pallets
-25,000 lb capacity omni-directional tie down eyes on a 20 inch grid
-powered winch with power to pull a disabled Abrams tank up the ramp
-lights in cargo floor "curb" to facilite chaining down vehicles
-individual fold down troop seats above the floor curb.
-provisions for attaching centerline seats and stretcher stanchions

Only until all of the above (and more) was designed into the floor was the fuselage designed around that floor with a wing of sufficient span attached to provide the specified range with the specified engines. The original span could not meet the on-ground requirements of fitting three C-17s into a defined small austere field (relates to MOG). The original solution was to add folding wing tips, but that was simplified to having "permanent" folded wingtips in the form of large blended winglets.

We 'suggested' a similar concept for the FLA; flip over roller, built-in side guidance, power operated locks, underfloor built in winch etc but as the A400M design progressed it was depressing to watch a pennypinching PT and a clueless Airbus strip capability from the cargo hold.

Wow. I always assumed that the A400 had a modern fully integrated cargo handling and airdrop system built into it the way the C-17 did. I'm amazed to hear that such a critical part the airplane was lost to the penny pinchers.

And the first cargofloor delivered from the American sub contractor was described by one German engineer as being "built by an apprentice on his first day at work".

The first dozen or so C-17s had the same problem. But that was because the floor used extruded forms to build up the floor which is typical of nearly all airplane construction. The C-17 solution was to go from hundreds of extruded parts bolted and riveted together to about a dozen parts machined from a solid billet of aluminum. So the C-17 cargo floor is a single piece over its entire length. No splices. The machined parts that come in to the factory are MUCH more expensive than the extruded parts, but by eliminating lots of assembly and (inevitably) rework in the factory, the cargo floor that leaves the factory is actually less expensive.

And incidentally, the C-17 is built the same way it was designed: from the floor up. The floor is literally built first, then the fuselage is built around the floor, and then the wing is aligned to the floor and attached to fuselage fittings.

KenV

19th Nov 2014, 15:21

Yes, I believe the HMMWVs wide track was designed to match that of the Abrams M1 battle tank and allow the Humvee to drive in it's track footprint over potentially mined/ booby trapped areas. Sensible design thinking really.

Actually, no. The HMMWV has a tire track of around 88 inches. HMMWV was designed to fit on a standard 463L pallet in the 88 inch wide direction. The Abrams has a MUCH wider track, around 109 inches if memory serves. On US roadways anything over 102 inches wide is considered "oversize" and requires special handling/clearances. The US Army's tank transporter (HETS) has a 102 inch width and the Abrams' tracks overhang it significantly. The Abrams' overall width including the track skirts is 144 inches, but the skirts can be removed for transport.

KenV

19th Nov 2014, 15:38

Yes, Mercedes Wolf and Peugeot P4.

Wow, that's interesting. The Germans have literally thousands of Unimog based vehicles and they are only marginally narrower than a HMMWV. The French also have large numbers of Unimogs. I find it odd that the A400 did not give consideration to loading two rows of those vehicles. Looks like yet another example of differing priorities between different militaries.

KenV

19th Nov 2014, 15:52

Probably a really silly question for those in the know...but how do you get the inboard and outboard engines to rotate props in different directions ie. one clockwise, one anti-clockwise? Is it simply a gearing issue?

The engines are all identical and only the props turn in opposite directions. The engines drive the propellers thru a gearbox which reduces the high engine RPMs to the low RPMs needed by the prop. Half the gearboxes include an extra gear to reverse the output RPM. Simple and effective and it enables the various air forces to only stock one engine.

Heathrow Harry

19th Nov 2014, 15:53

Yeah but the Germans don't send much of their Army overseas so they really don't need to worry about air freighting them

KenV

19th Nov 2014, 16:01

Yeah but the Germans don't send much of their Army overseas so they really don't need to worry about air freighting them

True enough. But isn't that the point of the A400, to give the French and Germans a self-deploy capability and thereby making at least SOME of their forces expeditionary? So is the A400 designed to support a sort of "heavy" Special Operations Force as opposed to supporting a true expeditionary ground force?

BEagle

19th Nov 2014, 18:44

OCCAR (The Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d'Armement) agreed the specification for the A400M; the aircraft meets that specification.

:rolleyes:

dragartist

19th Nov 2014, 19:28

Ken,
I am sorry mate but the idea of two rows of Unimogs would have made the aircraft wider than it was long. It would have looked more of a pig. As stated previously it was made at least 6" wider than the original paper.

Welcome Subeuteo player- I am sure you will not be banned (this week at least!!)

I share VX275 sentiments having worked with him on the early working groups after contract award. unfortunately I am not able to comment on the execution.

I certainly recall the Y guides with integral X locks were to pop up out of the floor on jacks (the term flip over was used) The x locks translate into the VRL all setable from the Loadmaster Workstation dependent upon mass etc.

I don't ever recall any proposal to have a pop up CDS centre guide. It was always to be the CVRS as Capewell supply to the C130 (Inc our J model). like wise the BSA was role fit equipment.

I recall discussion over the robustness of the rollers with the man from Airbus. This was at the time when MSP was still in the Exhibit A contract document. He would not accept that his flimsy lightweight rollers were up to the job. (MSP only used two tracks) Some months later they went into weight reduction mode and threw out so much of the good stuff we really needed.

Someone above also talked of a C130 replacement. I understood this was never the intention and we would have a mixed fleet C130J and A400M. No SF requirement in A400M. I don't know if this remains true.

I don't believe C17 would ever compete with A400M on soft field and turning circle. I remember Ed S showing us some overlays of Brize with unprepared strips marked when he cam to talk to us at Cambridge RAeS a few years back. Ken; C17 and A400M are different altogether. why keep trying to compare them?

blandy214

20th Nov 2014, 15:55

I was told th RAF A/C have a heavier floor to carry Terrier Engineer vehicles.

It does look the biz in those Fighter Control photos ... just one question though ....

I notice the port side 'main' door has the usual flag and RAF 'corporate' logo either side of it (I assume for those 'being in the news with someone famous getting out' moments) - fair enough.... However on the starboard side the flag & logo are on the same places, howeve the (rarely, if ever, used?) door is a meter or 2 further aft so they are in the middle of nowhere so to speak.

Is this deliberate or a result of a handing cock up with the paint schemes?

Stitchbitch

20th Nov 2014, 20:13

From a link on the A330 thread above..

France's 50 Airbus A400M Atlas aircraft also possess a dual tanker/transport capability, being fitted with wing mounted air-to-air refuelling pods.

Do the RAF versions have the same capability?

BEagle

20th Nov 2014, 20:25

Stitchbitch, regrettably the RAF versions do not have an AAR capability. A great pity as otherwise the aircraft would be able to meet all mission requirements at MPA and there would be no need to keep a Voyager down there wasting its time.....

Something to do with the AirTanker contract, I understand.....:rolleyes:

KenV

20th Nov 2014, 20:42

I don't believe C17 would ever compete with A400M on soft field and turning circle. I remember Ed S showing us some overlays of Brize with unprepared strips marked when he cam to talk to us at Cambridge RAeS a few years back. Ken; C17 and A400M are different altogether. why keep trying to compare them?

I am not trying to compare them. I stated from the beginning and repeated it a few times that C-17 and A400 are different airplanes designed to solve a different set of problems for different militaries. I know what drove the C-17 dimensions and am simply asking what drove the A400 dimensions. Clearly moving Unimogs was not a priiority for A400. Which is NOT "bad", just different.

The C-17 was sized internally to be able to move nearly any US Army unit and then the wing was sized to be able to move that unit from the US Atlantic coast to Central Europe. That was a basic design point for the C-17. As the C-17 went into service, moving the US Army to Central Europe kind of became a moot point with the collapse of the UUSR. So from P71 on (the 71st production aircraft) C-17 had center wing tanks added for increased range. That came in handy when the US attacked Afghanistan after the WTC attacks on 9-11.

Europe obviously has different forces with different equipment that need to be delivered to different places than the US Army. So clearly a European airlifter would have a different design point. I'm just curious. Given the A400's design specs, what British, German, and/or French units was the A400 designed to move and where to? Of course that presupposes Europe used the same general approach to setting A400 specs. It could very well be that Europe used an entirely different approach. I'm just curious what it is.

Stitchbitch

20th Nov 2014, 20:51

BEagle what a missed opportunity, this addition would have added some spare tanker capacity as well as potentially allowing some 'proper' AAR assets to concentrate on (non MPA) FJ tanking, etc in the future. Presumably our A400Ms will be able to refuel from French/German A400Ms if needed?

KenV

20th Nov 2014, 20:54

regrettably the RAF versions do not have an AAR capability. A great pity as otherwise the aircraft would be able to meet all mission requirements at MPA and there would be no need to keep a Voyager down there wasting its time.....

I hafta wonder about that. Usually, when one needs lots of air transports, one also need lots of air tankers. Having Voyagers frees up the A400 to transport combat units while the Voyagers transport fuel. And the A400 only has 111,300 lbs of fuel capacity, so it would make a mediiocre air tanker at best. MRTT carries 245,000 lbs, so more than twice as much. I think RAF made a wise choice.

TBM-Legend

20th Nov 2014, 21:00

US Marines like their KC-130J's....

BEagle

20th Nov 2014, 21:04

Stitchbitch, the RAF's Atlas will of course be able to receive fuel from the Voyager KC3. But it will not be fitted with either pods, cargo bay tanks or a palletised FRU under current proposals.

dragartist

20th Nov 2014, 21:16

Did the Andover Ferry tanks get put back into storage. they came in handy back in 82!

Boudreaux Bob

20th Nov 2014, 22:53

Europe obviously has different forces with different equipment that need to be delivered to different places than the US Army.

Places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Kosovo, and a few other places I guess. I don't suppose under a NATO agreement that RAF aircraft would ever be moving US Army Units at some time.

The Falklands does seem a unique requirement that the US Army will not stick its nose into any time in the near future.

If the UK Military shrinks anymore.....A Shorts Sky Van would be far more appropriate and cheaper.

GreenKnight121

21st Nov 2014, 04:31

US Marines like their KC-130J's....

The USMC also has more refuel-able combat aircraft than the RAAF, RN, and British Army combined. Many of those are slower than is optimal for jet tankers (CH-53Es & MV-22Bs) and the KC-130R/J are perfect for those.

ancientaviator62

21st Nov 2014, 07:39

dragartist,
those Andover tanks did a great job in the 'parts bin' C130K tanker.
We ran it on for a good few years after Op Corporate both 'down south' and in the UK. No lack of FJ customers as I recall. It really does seem shortsighted not to have at least the capability for the A 400 to be easily converted.

NutLoose

21st Nov 2014, 11:20

those Andover tanks did a great job in the 'parts bin' C130K tanker.

And the Chinook, :) Did they ever use them in the Andover lol

KenV, thanks for putting me right, I read that info somewhere.

ancientaviator62

21st Nov 2014, 13:33

KenV,
I assume your A400M fuel figure is wing tanks alone. The 'K' had 'only 63000 lbs until we put in the Andover tanks. Then we had an extra 28000 lbs 'downstairs'.

BEagle

21st Nov 2014, 14:04

The A400M's nominal wing fuel load is around 50 tonne. It was always the intention to include provision for up to 2 additional cargo bay tanks of 7200 litre each, giving a total fuel load of 62.1 tonne (about 136868 lb).

However, I do not know whether the CBT option is currently being offered.

KenV

21st Nov 2014, 14:07

KenV, I assume your A400M fuel figure is wing tanks alone. The 'K' had 'only 63000 lbs until we put in the Andover tanks. Then we had an extra 28000 lbs 'downstairs'.

That is correct. The cited fuel capacity was for wing tanks only.
Perhaps a better solution would be to make the centerwing section "wet". My understanding is that the A400, like the C-17, was designed with a dry centerwing section (the wing section directly over the cargo bay.) From P71 on, C-17's centerwing tank is wet and can contain fuel. The center tanks are true ER (extended range) tanks that cannot feed the engines, but the fuel can be transferred outboard to the main tanks which in turn feed the engines. A centerwing tank would seem to be a much neater solution than putting fuel tanks in the cargo bay, but that's just my opinon.

BTW, the C-17 has hardpoints and plumbing in the wings to accommodate wing hose & drogue pods. So far no one has exercised that option. Douglas did a LOT of studies for also installing a boom, but any kind of fuselage mounted boom would severely degrade the C-17's cargo utility. So Douglas dusted off some earlier DC-8 based tanker designs which included wing mounted booms. Nothing came of those. The C-17 is a STOL aircraft that can go pretty slow, but the air behind the aircraft when in STOL mode is pretty dirty. So Douglas looked at putting a hose/drogue at the top of the T-tail for refueling helos and maybe UAVs.

BEagle

21st Nov 2014, 15:22

Excluding any additional CBTs, 23.4% of the A400M's fuel capacity is carried in the centre wing box tank.

KenV

21st Nov 2014, 15:45

23.4% of the A400M's fuel capacity is carried in the centre wing box tank.

Wow! That's fascinating! It was a HUGE effort and hassle to get permission from the certification authorities to make the centerwing section wet in the C-17. They were insistent in not permitting fuel above the passengers' heads, and ours was a military certified airplane. I would have thought that that would be even more difficult in a civilly certified airplane. We even used the example of the BAE-146 airliner which had a high wing and wet wing center section as an argument to allow it in the C-17.

Thanks for the update.

sycamore

21st Nov 2014, 15:47

Must be a load of ex-VC-10 tanks around....

snippy

21st Nov 2014, 17:16

Re VC10 tanks.

Yes there are loads about....in Boots the chemist under "Mens Shaving Products"......

VinRouge

21st Nov 2014, 17:24

No mention yet of deck angle in the cruise? :E

biggins

21st Nov 2014, 17:28

No mention yet of deck angle in the cruise? :E

Why does that matter? :confused:

Xercules

21st Nov 2014, 17:53

BEagle is correct in that the RAF's Atlas aircraft will not be equipped as a tanker in that the RAF is not procuring any pods for the role. However, every aircraft comes with capability as a wing pod tanker in-built. The hard point for the pods, the fuel piping and the electrics etc in the wing are all included in the basic aircraft. If you want a centre-line hose, CCTV monitoring or CBTs they can be provided as extras but, for ease and lower cost, would be included in the original build.

Probably, as BEagle has said because of the AirTankers contract,the RAF has not bought pods and denies the need to exercise any of the tanker capability.

cobalt42

21st Nov 2014, 18:43

If you want a centre-line hose, CCTV monitoring or CBTs they can be provided as extras but, for ease and lower cost, would be included in the original build.

That's a real gem. The Centreline Hose Drum Unit (HDU) is Role Fit. Goes on the Rear Ramp on an Interface Frame. It's (going to be) a pig to do the re-role; the ramp has to be taken apart, the HDU and its fairings fitted followed by Pressurisation checks. It'll take hours! The re-role back to box-mover will be the same - a real pain for the maintainers.

Current customers for the HDU? single figure numbers for France and Germany. the Pods - WARP in current nomenclature - are going to France, Germany, Spain and Malaysia... and good luck to 'em.

ancientaviator62

22nd Nov 2014, 07:58

KenV,
on the RAF 'K' tanker we could not feed the HDU direct from the fuselage tanks but had to pump the fuel up into the wing tanks first.

dragartist

22nd Nov 2014, 13:47

C'mon guys someone must have an answer for Vin on the Deck Angle. I am interested too.

I did not mean to pi$$ Ken off re his double row of Unimogs honest. Apologies Ken.

Drag

chevvron

25th Nov 2014, 16:23

Last few evenings, I've heard a very heavy sounding turboprop heading east in the Woking area on odd nights. Could these be A400s? They sound totally different to Hercules.

cessnapete

25th Nov 2014, 16:38

Russian turbo props out of EMA, went over Reading at 7/8000 ft.

chevvron

25th Nov 2014, 16:41

Ah yes; probably contra rotating props causing the throbbing noise.

Rhino power

25th Nov 2014, 21:51

Ah yes; probably contra rotating props causing the throbbing noise.

No, just ordinary turboprops, it's An-12's that have been in and out of EMA recently...

-RP

smujsmith

26th Nov 2014, 17:33

Any truth in the rumour that since its arrival, the new aircraft has refused to start, with the computerised systems spewing out copious amounts of fault codes ? Despite being ex Herc, I'm looking forward to this beast showing up in the local area, and hopefully showing that it is not simply a C130 replacement. Bad news if the "technicalities" are creating hardware problems. The story is doing the rounds in the area, as many ex transport fleet people regularly meet and beat gums. Let's hope it's just a rumour, more appropriate to ARRSE than this forum. I apologise in advance if I've spoken out of turn, but I am curious, and you guys seem to be in the know.

Smudge:ok:

KenV

1st Dec 2014, 16:09

I did not mean to pi$$ Ken off re his double row of Unimogs honest. Apologies Ken.

And my apologies if I gave the impression I was "pi$$ed off". I was just trying to clarify my intent when I posed my questions regarding A400 design points.

KenV

1st Dec 2014, 16:37

I don't believe C17 would ever compete with A400M on soft field and turning circle.

I personally doubt that A400 and C-17 would ever actually "compete" any more than the C-130 and C-17 compete. They are different designs intended to accomplish different things for different services.

But you nevertheless make a good point about soft and/or narrow field capability. Using "assault" procedures C-17 routinely puts a max payload into an unpaved 90 ft x 3000 ft runway. The C-17 can turn around on that 90 ft wide runway with 5 feet of margin on either side (i.e. 80 ft effective turn width) and safely operate from 60 foot wide taxiways.
C-17 ground flotation is actually pretty good for such a large aircraft, with a CBR of 12 at assault landing weight. That's not that much higher than a C-130's CBR of 8/9. I have no idea what the A400's CBR and short field numbers are.

VX275

1st Dec 2014, 17:22

I can't recall what the A400M Specification CBR is but I do recall a meeting where someone noted it and queried why it was so low. Why do we want to operate off a bog? The reply from the Boscombe boffin who knew about these things was "Its the German's idea, they don't want to get stuck when they invade Russia again." :D

Shackman

1st Dec 2014, 18:10

I look forward to seeing the first one stuck in the mud at Chetwynd!

Xercules

1st Dec 2014, 21:52

I should be able to quote this without reference to any books but the main design criterion was CBR6 but also with 10 visits on a CBR4. At 6, however, landing with fuel for a 500nm transit and delivering a payload of 25tonnes/55000lbs it would make 40 visits before repairs to the surface are necessary.

By now, these figures should have been confirmed by flight test so there may be some variation in the RTS On the Squadron at Brize.

AARON O'DICKYDIDO

2nd Dec 2014, 10:02

This is from A400 course notes from a few years ago.

One of the key elements of the A400M´s versatility is its all-new, specifically designed three-shaft turboprop engine with eight bladed propellers. The 11,000 shp TP400- developed by Europrop International (EPI), a consortium comprising Rolls Royce, Snecma, MTU and ITP, is the most powerful turboprop in production. It allows a wide range of speeds and flight levels and offers extremely efficient fuel consumption. Powered by four of these turboprops, the A400M can cruise at altitudes as high as 37,000 ft at speeds up to Mach 0.72. This will permit the aircraft to fly above adverse medium level weather conditions and to be integrated into the commercial aircraft airspace. At the other end of the speed / range envelope, the A400M will be capable of flying at 110 kt and 5,000 ft to refuel helicopters, or even lower to drop equipment and supplies.

The down between the engines counter-rotation of the propellers, which turn in opposite directions, allows a structural weight reduction. The arrangement preserves the symmetry of the aircraft when the four engines are operating, and reduces the adverse yaw in case of an engine failure, allowing in turn a reduction in the size of the tail fin by 17 per cent, hence reducing weight and drag. Another consequence has been the possibility to improve by four per cent the lift at low speed and thus to simplify the slats and, as a result, reduce by eight per cent the surface of the horizontal stabilizer. Furthermore, it also reduces the level of vibrations and therefore the noise inside the aircraft.

I have miss placed most of my notes but they must be in the loft somewhere!!

Aaron.

GreenKnight121

2nd Dec 2014, 14:20

Xercules - I don't know about CBR4, but this verifies the CBR6 info you mentioned: The Airbus A400M Atlas ? Part 2 (What is So Good about It Anyway) - Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a400m-atlas-part-2-what-is-so-good-about-it-anyway/)

The A400M has been designed not just to land and take off from rough and soft surfaces but to do so repeatedly. On a CBR 6 surface it can land, unload and take off 40 times before the runway is unusable without improvement with a mixed fuel/payload load of 30 tonnes. On a CBR 8 surface this raises to 225 missions.

It can land 27 tonnes onto an 830m soft strip

Lyneham Lad

2nd Dec 2014, 16:25

From Flight Global:-
Lead aircraft ZM400 was formally revealed at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 27 November, some 10 days after it arrived on its delivery flight from Airbus Defence & Space's final assembly site in Seville, Spain.

It was flown again the day after its receipt, before remaining on the ground due to an undisclosed technical fault, the RAF says. The transport was used to support ground-based training during this period, but is due to be returned to flight status by the end of the week, the service adds.

The first of 22 A400Ms on order for the UK, production aircraft MSN15 will be followed swiftly by several other RAF examples, with two more expected to be handed over before year-end. The second aircraft was transferred to Airbus's Getafe site near Madrid on 26 November to have its defensive aids system equipment installed, the service says, while a first flight date will soon be set for its third example.

Despite a roughly two-month delay to ZM400 arriving at Brize Norton, programme officials still expect the RAF to be able to declare initial operational capability with the transport in March 2015, following the acceptance of its first seven aircraft and the availability of sufficient trained crews to operate them. (My bold/italics)

Hopefully no-one has misread their PERT chart... ;)

smujsmith

2nd Dec 2014, 17:33

Lyneham Lad,

That might explain the rumours I've heard re serious computer problems preventing the aircraft starting. Of course, if they have let trainees loose, without doing a course, there's no end of trouble that can arise:eek:

Smudge:ok:

KenV

2nd Dec 2014, 18:14

On a CBR 6 surface it can land, unload and take off 40 times before the runway is unusable without improvement with a mixed fuel/payload load of 30 tonnes. On a CBR 8 surface this raises to 225 missions.

Yowza, 120 passes on a CBR 6 field with 66,000 lbs of fuel and cargo is impressive. That's actually better than the C-130 and nearly as good as the C-27, which is one fourth the size of an A400. C-17 needs a CBR 10/11 field to get 120 passes, but would be limited to 40,000 lbs of fuel & cargo. With 66,000 lbs of fuel & cargo aboard and 120 passes would require a CBR 12 field.

In Afghanistan C-17s delivered two USMC LAV-25 brigades (MOWAG Piranha family) to an unpaved field outside Kabul. The field had a CBR 14 gravel runway and was longish (just under 6000 ft). The first C-17 load delivered four road graders. Each night C-17s delivered equipment continuously until daybreak. Only half the runway was used until it was rutted beyond safety levels, and then the other half of the runway was used. Deliveries were continuous all night long until day break. During the day the roadgraders smoothed out the ruts in the runway and then deliveries began again at night fall. This went on for several days until both brigades were delivered along with large quantities of fuel trucks. Typical load was many troops plus four LAVs, or 2 LAVs and 2 fuel trucks, or 2 LAVs and several HMMWVs. The fuel trucks were filled with fuel after arrival directly from the C-17s.

It's obvious that the European services have a very different mission in mind for the A400 than USAF has for the C-17. Apparently the A400s are going to be used more for special operations forces than for conventional forces. Clearly the A400 is intended for a very different concept of operations than the C-17.

Denham

2nd Dec 2014, 20:17

Of course, if they have let trainees loose, without doing a course, there's no end of trouble that can arise:eek:Smudge:ok:

Really SmuJ? They have let completely untrained crews and engineers on the aircraft?? :eek:

Can you tell us how many and what they are doing operating the A400M with no training? You seem to know a lot about it.

KenV

2nd Dec 2014, 20:39

I can't say what the A400's cruise deck angle is, but I can provide some info why deck angle could be important. Deck Angle is an important consideration when doing airdrops and there are different kind of airdrops requiring different deck angles. The C-17 flight manual includes charts that provide required flap deployment angles to achieve different deck angles at different speeds. The A400 almost certainly has equivalent charts.

BEagle

3rd Dec 2014, 14:01

Nice to see the RAF's Atlas humming around the local area today!

It'll be a worthy successor to the venerable C-130, although it wouldn't surprise me if the RAF will decide to retire the C-130 earlier than planned, once the Voyager and Atlas fleets are at full strength.

smujsmith

3rd Dec 2014, 19:27

Denham,

Perhaps if you are going to quote, then you should look at the post in perspective, and not selectively pick fault.

"That might explain the rumours I've heard re serious computer problems preventing the aircraft starting. Of course, if they have let trainees loose, without doing a course, there's no end of trouble that can arise"

The post was querying rumours I have picked up, re computer problems with the first delivery. This involved the fact that "as rumour had it", the aircraft could not be started due to the numerous fault codes generated by the onboard computers. The reference to trainees, no course etc was merely a jocular attempt at humour as emphasised by the :eek: Obviously not something you recognise. Meanwhile, Beagle makes a good point, and I, like him hope that the aircraft soon enters service and is as successful as the C130 was, though I suspect it's a bit more to offer than Albert.

Smudge :ok:

Think Defence

3rd Dec 2014, 22:09

I know brochures and sales presentations often do not match reality but there is some information on CBR and multiple passes at these links

http://www.ndtahq.com/documents/futureairtecheads.pdf
http://c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/A400M_Pocket_Guide.pdf
http://gp01aero.free.fr/Conf_A400M/conference_a400.pdf

This one is in German but some good images of the early concepts FLA

http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2001_11_29_A400M.pdf

What do people think about air despatch (is that the right term?) from the A400M, good, bad?

Will we ever air drop a vehicle or is it pallets and bundles only from now on?

LowObservable

4th Dec 2014, 11:18

A million years ago I attended an SAE conference where a guy who was then at Boeing (pre-Macs-merger) explained two things about airlifters: They almost inevitably cubed-out before they weighed-out, except in the rare instances where they were carrying armored vehicles, and they don't usually have enough wheels so their ground loading is too high. He was using the standard of battalion-days needed to build an airfield for sustained operations.

In his view the 12 wheels of the C-17 were barely adequate and the two tandem pairs of the C-130 were a weakness. His comparison was to the C-7, which required very little preparation.

Design plays a part, but wheel count is a pointer: the A400M is half the size of the C-17 but has the same number of mainwheels. The Russians had got the point too: the Il-76 has 2x as many wheels as the C-141 and the An-124 has 20 big-a$$ mainwheels.

By the way, the Russians consider CBR for fighters as well. Hence the offset-tandem gear on the MiG-31.

KenV

4th Dec 2014, 13:22

He was using the standard of battalion-days needed to build an airfield for sustained operations.

And there's the key. He's talking about a fully prepared and paved field. "Sustained Operations" means more than 100,000 flights with 3 passes per flight if there is no parallel taxiway and 2 passes per flight with a parallel taxiway. CBR applies ONLY to unpaved fields and cannot be applied to paved fields. For paved runways LCN (Load Classification Number) or LCI (Load Classification Index) applies. That's an entirely different animal.

For clarification, CBR relates to how quickly and deeply an UNPAVED surface is rutted as it is used, which is generally determined by the aircraft's "flotation". "Flotation" is predominantly determined by the number, size, and pressure of the tires. C-17 for example has different tire pressures depending on the surface it will be operating from. Rutting is acceptable on an unpaved runway up to a point. At that point the surface needs to be re-graded.

By contrast, ZERO amount of rutting is permitted on a paved field because that means the surface has failed. The operational criteria for a paved field is surface cracks and surface conditions, which is heavily related to the type and thickness of the underlaid roadbed (in other words the structural stability of the roadbed). LCN/LCI relates to flotation, the total weight, AND the layout of the tires. If all else is equal, tires lined up in a row, like C-130 and A400, tend to put extra stresses on paved fields. But the high flotation of those aircraft tends to mitigate the problems of tires lined up in a row.

Russian aircraft must operate from fields above the arctic circle. Those runways, although paved, are built over permafrost which is inherently unstable. Their large aircraft tend to resolve the runway strength problem with high flotation, which means lots of large tires. Fighters, which are much more weight and volume limited, resolve the problem with unusual tire layouts, as you pointed out.

Hope this clarified.

OmegaV6

4th Dec 2014, 13:54

CBR

What it is ..

California bearing ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_bearing_ratio)

One way it's measured ..

http://www.humboldtmfg.com/manuals/HS-4210_man_0113.pdf

HTH

:)

Think Defence

4th Dec 2014, 14:06

Don't come around here with your poncy new fangled digital kit :)

The MEXE Probe was a particularly cutting edge and innovative piece of equipment (at the time)

Soil Assessment Cone Penetrometer (SACP) (http://www.lab-quip.co.uk/soil-assessment-cone-penetrometer-sacp)

MEXE of course, is the Military Engineering Experimental Establishment that used to be at Christchurch, famous for among other things, the Bailey Bridge and MEXE Pads

LowObservable

4th Dec 2014, 16:22

Rutting is acceptable on an unpaved runway up to a point.

That point being determined by whether or not the Staish's missus is involved.

KenV

4th Dec 2014, 16:44

Rutting is acceptable on an unpaved runway up to a point.

That point being determined by whether or not the Staish's missus is involved.

Good one!

It's bad enough that English is not my first language, but I keep forgetting that American English and the Queen's English are different.

dragartist

4th Dec 2014, 21:12

TD,
I believe that the French (with UK observers or participants in attendance) have dropped vehicles on platforms from the A400M.

As you will have read and perhaps even blogged about the aspirations were?are? to drop two 16 ton 24 ft Type V (US origin) platforms.

I admit to ribbing Airbus reps at meetings over there computer generated simulations showing linked ULLA platforms falling from about 50 ft.

It was good to see the French using our (UK) SC15 parachutes for their CDS (1 ton Bundles) trials a month or so back.

Think Defence

5th Dec 2014, 07:44

Thanks Dragartist,

Did I read correctly that the MSP is not compatible with the A400 and therefore if we want to remain in the platform business, we are going to have to go shopping for the Type V, or is that complete nonsense and completely out of date, the MoD finding some cash down the back of the sofa and the Type V's already purchased and in service :)

Actually, I ask because am about half way through a series on the glamorous world of pallets, boxes and containers and wanted to end with a look at air despatch. A fascinating subject, reading about dropping millstones in Al Amara in 1916 at the minute, where it all started apparently.

The one on aircraft pallets and containers is here

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/11/military-pallets-boxes-containers-part-6-aircraft-pallets-containers/

Be gentle!

Trumpet_trousers

5th Dec 2014, 08:51

I believe that the French (with UK observers or participants in attendance) have dropped vehicles on platforms from the A400M
No they haven't

BEagle

5th Dec 2014, 09:06

Hi TT - what are you up to these days?

Good to see the results of your work humming around British West Oxfordshire over the last few days!

haltonapp

5th Dec 2014, 16:28

Why does the A400 not have winglets, is its speed too slow to benefit from them?

dragartist

5th Dec 2014, 20:15

TD, You are absolutely correct about MSP not being compatible with 108" which includes the J.

That said there was a design that goes back to around 2001 to fit extensions. Never got into service. However it did get off the ground as was dropped from a K one time only.

As for Type V - I am not sure what the latest is in the UK these days. We did mess with the Indero Siren GRP over Wood frame filed with foam with extrusions down the sides a bit like Type V. These were 108 x 70 and could be linked. I think this is what is being used on A400M for time being. TT will know for sure.

Lyneham Lad

7th Dec 2014, 18:54

The Swiss have their own, much cheaper version of the A400M! (Scroll down the link for the video (http://theblnkt.com/the-rc-airbus-a400m-is-the-king-of-fully-functional-scaled-military-aircraft/) - very impressive).

Think Defence

8th Dec 2014, 07:32

Thanks dragartist

Had a stab at writing about air despatch with a bit of history

Military Pallets, Boxes and Containers ? Part 7 Air Despatch - Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/12/military-pallets-boxes-containers-part-7-air-despatch/)

There is not a great deal of information about online, I suppose its not as interesting to most as fast jets and shooty stuff

ancientaviator62

8th Dec 2014, 08:38

Think Defence,
as someone who was involved in airdrop at the coal face for many years I found your article very interesting. Have you looked at the airdrop pics and tales on the 'Global Aviation 60 years of the Lockhed Hercules thread' ?
If not you may find it chimes with your article very well.

dragartist

8th Dec 2014, 19:38

Well done TD, Good article. I think this makes you the resident AD expert on PRuNe now! I had a hand in some of the more modern stuff described in your article.

I hope that the A400M becomes capable of doing some of these things quite quickly. As I understand the French have the lead on things stores dropping an the Turks personnel. In the early days MSP was on the list we called Exhibit A. I am not sure how/when it fell off. It was probably about the time they were going through a weight saving exercise and could not / would not beef up the rollers and floor to take the loads over two tracks of roller. Due to the airbags four track roller as used by Type V was not appropriate. The initial rollers proposed would have melted at the weights and extraction speeds associated with what we called reefed mains extraction. the Electronic X locks would never have been certified to the required safety target( again with Reefed mains extraction). UK was the only partner with this requirement.

VX275

8th Dec 2014, 20:59

Dragartist. The MSP and HSP were quietly dropped from the A400M exhibit A as 108 inch side guidance was always the way to go and the UK platfirms could always be made to fit or new designs built. In the meantime the Type V (Its American so it must be good :ugh:) took hold, after all who wants to drop at low level 500-600ft anymore when you drop from 1200 ft just like the Americans. I think I'm right but the big exam question raised by the MSP verses Type V has never been fully answered. Can you get the same load on a Type V as an MSP ie 105mm plus prime mover and spare ammo? It OK having to use twice as many aircarft to get the same amount of kit on the ground if you're the American armed forces but with the limited number of aircraft available to the UK you need to maximise your loads.

Think Defence.
Interesting article but I think you need to check your CLE container identification and if you are going to show video of SOE drops you might like to mention that the SOE used containers which weren't CLE types even though they look similar.
The Airborne Pannier and harness pack weren't improvised, they were developments of the pre-war supply drop system of which the cruciform harness, as still used today, has changed very little; the material the webbing is made of has changed but that's about it.

Think Defence

8th Dec 2014, 22:13

Gents, thanks all for your kind comments. All I have done is hoover up material that is out there to try an produce an interesting article on a subject that very rarely gets a nod yet has a rich British military and industrial history so your freely given input is invaluable, thank you again.

Have updated the post with your feedback, am still a little unclear on a few things; are the images of CVR(T) on a platform the heavy or medium, what SBADS actually looks like and how it is related to MCADS (PRIBAD and PURIBAD)

The one thing I did think was pretty amazing was that Paratechnicon, great name as well!

Ancientaviator, will have a look at that thread, am sure there is some fantastic stuff on there

dragartist

8th Dec 2014, 22:17

TD check your PMs and I will put you right on boats. Not for A400M!

KenV

9th Dec 2014, 14:26

KenV

9th Dec 2014, 14:39

...the big exam question raised by the MSP verses Type V has never been fully answered. Can you get the same load on a Type V as an MSP ie 105mm plus prime mover and spare ammo?

Not knowing the details of your 105 load I can't answer your questoin dierectly, but if your 105 load will fit on a platform of 32 ft length or less and is not heavier than 42,000 lbs, a single point platform extraction is possible using Type V platforms. Higher weights are possible using Type V. For example, C-17 airdropped an M2 Bradley (about 63,00 lb platform weight, 106" load width , and 136" load height). I doubt your 105 load exceeds any of those parameters, in which case the answer would be yes.

As for high altitude vs low altitude, the Type V is rated for LAPES. You can't get any lower altitude than that. After that, it all depends on how your extraction vs recovery parachutes are rigged, and not on the platform.

ancientaviator62

9th Dec 2014, 14:42

Think Defence,
I dropped the Scorpion with the Jaguar petrol engine (very fast and huge fun until the army wanted it back) and I am sure we used the MSP with an overload clearance. When the diesel heavier engine version came into service I think the HSP was used but after my time at JATE. I have lost many of my pics of the era but perhaps dragartist could shed some light on this matter.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m19/ancientaviator62/BLACKANDWHITEMSPALMVIEW_zpsef460ef1.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/ancientaviator62/media/BLACKANDWHITEMSPALMVIEW_zpsef460ef1.jpg.html)

Just a sample of what is on the 'Hercules thread I mentioned.'

KenV

9th Dec 2014, 18:43

This may be a stupid (or emotionally charged) question, but could the A400 perform the mission below?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raf-c-17-aircraft-depart-for-mali-mission

dragartist

9th Dec 2014, 20:03

Ken V,
What VX alludes too was we could drop a 105 Gun + a truck to tow it around the rough ground and a shed load of ammo all on one MSP. we could get two in a C130K put them down a small hundred yards apart in one pass.

All from around 800 ft AGL using Reefed mains extraction.

Not sure of the payload as I don't have access these days to my books.

I don't believe you could do that with two 24ft type Vs from a J or A400M.

We did a demo of Reefed Mains on a type V from one of your dash 4a equipped kites out of Bragg in 99.

Because we had airbags that were 4ft tall that dropped out form under the MSP after extraction we could stack trucks on top of guns and ammo and still clear the hogs trough and door frame. Type V used stacks of cardboard several feet high to attenuate the same energy on landing. Not having to carry the main chutes on the platform also gave volume for warlike stores. Ammo was tied to the sides and base without need for honeycomb.

In general we could drive vehicles straight off the platform without having to chop away the honeycome or use winches and chains wrapped around wheels. (I said in general not always!)

I would have a stab and say yes you could get it all on a 32 ft type V but you could only get one in a short C130 or A400M.

Re your last. I thought we had agreed that C17 and A400M had different capabilities. Did the French not deploy their A400M to Africa?

Drag

KenV

9th Dec 2014, 20:42

Thanks for all the background info on the MSP. I'm totally clueless on that system. Sounds interesting, especially the airbags. Are the airbags inflated before or after extraction? I'm guessing after. I know reefed mains have been used by USAF to extract and recover Type V platforms at low altitude, but that is not MAC's preferred method. I'm not sure why, but I believe it's because of too many bad experiences with the reefed mains combination.

As for the A400 to Africa, A400 has not yet reached operational status so it would seem extremely unlikely to be deployed. And yes, C-17 and A400 are very different with each designed to do different missions. I'm very familiar with the C-17 mission set, but not so with the A400. That's why I'm asking. Would a Mali type mission be in the A400's mission set? Or would that be more of a "strategic" mission with the A400 more optimized for a "tactical" mission? Perhaps another way of saying that is maybe the A400 is intended to be more of a Herc on steroids, rather than a scaled down Globemaster. .

BEagle

9th Dec 2014, 20:51

The French first used the A400M in OP SERVAL almost a year ago now.....

French Mali mission gives A400M operational debut - 1/6/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/french-mali-mission-gives-a400m-operational-debut-394565/)

:ok:

KenV

9th Dec 2014, 21:07

Wow, that is truly remarkable. They accept their first A400 in August and then that December they send one to Africa. And with the Fench equivalent of SECDEF aboard! Very impressive.

But this does seem to answer my original question. If the French have operational A400s and it could do the job, why would they bother borrowing UK C-17s and crews to do the Mali mission shown in the link? The simple answer would be that the A400 could not do what the UK C-17s did. The full answer may be more complex and may be as much related to an aircraft and flight and maintenance crews that are not quite ready for prime time yet. But I don't know.

Uncle Ginsters

9th Dec 2014, 21:30

KenV,

I think that's the difference that a few months make in the FAF A400 programme - The RAF C-17 lifts started in mid-Jan 13; the first FAF A400M wasn't delivered until Aug 13.

In this case, it was purely down to timeliness, although i think it will be interesting to see how the practical comparisons work out in due course. It wouldn't surprise me if the C-17's width, and capacity for a variety of vehicles to be loaded 2-abreast will make a big difference.

It seems that, so far, A400M's USP is a few points of CBR on unprepared or semi-prepared strips...that will only make a difference in a minority of missions.

Still, we can only wait and see how she develops with proper time and effort.

Xercules

9th Dec 2014, 21:32

KenV

Look at the date of the MoD announcement - 14 Jan 2013. That was some months before the French took delivery of the first A400M. The French announcement was after that delivery. Therein lies the answer to your question.

The A400M can do the same mission but not with such a large load and landing at Bamako can hardly be deemed sexily/aggressively operational - it is an international airport with a French military main base on one side. The first A400M was delivered with a full capability for strategic missions of this kind. The other more sexy missions will follow on. I seem to remember the J being issued with similar progressive capabilities as its "block" upgrades provided additionally.

With all of these it is then as much about what you are willing to let your crews do. AD&S will demonstrate, and to some extent prove, increasing capabilities as flown by their test crews. It's then up to the operators to put them into operational use - but it was ever thus.

I remember visiting Charleston in the fairly early days to be told that when the C17 had arrived there it was initially limited to a 25 nm radius from base - not very useful for any transport ac, either tactical or strategic.

KenV

10th Dec 2014, 16:39

Thanks for pointing out the timeline issues. I missed that. It would appear that the big driver for the UK Mali missions on behalf of France was that the A400 had not yet been delivered to FAF.

With all of these it is then as much about what you are willing to let your crews do. AD&S will demonstrate, and to some extent prove, increasing capabilities as flown by their test crews. It's then up to the operators to put them into operational use - but it was ever thus.

I remember visiting Charleston in the fairly early days to be told that when the C17 had arrived there it was initially limited to a 25 nm radius from base - not very useful for any transport ac, either tactical or strategic
It was those early C-17 operational limitations I had in mind. the USAF crews were EXTREMELY limited on what they could do the first year or so. Those were not limitations imposed by Douglas, but by USAF and that was why I earlier stated I was impressed that FAF performed an intercontinental mission just months after delivery of the first A400. Either USAF was much much too cautious, or FAF was a bit reckless. I personally believe it was the former. In defense of USAF, C-17s started arriving shortly after MAC (Military Airlift Command) became AMC (Air Mobility Command) and the new leadership was skittish and over cautious.

In any event the VAB and VBCI armored vehicles used by France in Mali are compaitible with the A400 and cleary the A400 has the range to transport large payloads from France to Mali. It would take more sorties to move all the equipment using A400s than C-17s, but that's a pretty minor point. Cleearly, A400 meets the needs of FAF.