A400M engine problems.

[Rhino power]

A400M hit by fresh powerplant problems | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/59254/a400m-hit-by-fresh-powerplant-problems)

-RP

[MPN11]

How sad.

I'm not going to make any snarky comments, I just hope they can get these issues resolved. We NEED this aircraft.

[John Farley]

We do indeed need this aircraft.

Development of airframes and engines takes time - sometimes a very long time. At least they have the engine and are not faced with a hole in the ground.

The future service of the aircraft will be made safer and better because this problem has been recognised.

[glad rag]

Are these the gearbox manufacturing issues?

[KenV]

We do indeed need this aircraft.
Development of airframes and engines takes time - sometimes a very long time. At least they have the engine and are not faced with a hole in the ground. Sadly, the fully developed and fully mature C-17 is no longer an option. And while the C-17 is only about 20% bigger, it has nearly 100% greater payload and almost 200% greater range with the same payload, about 100% greater cargo volume, and yet similar short austere field performance.

[Hueymeister]

I think the USAF would flog us a couple of theirs...

[KenV]

I think the USAF would flog us a couple of theirs... There's still one last white tail that Boeing has not sold.

[melmothtw]

To be fair though, the A400M is billed a competitor to the C-130J rather than the C-17, so you could swap out C-17 in your post with A400M to get the same argument as to how the A400M is much better than the C-130J.

As you say though, the C-17 is no longer an option so a moot point really.

Is it right that they have similar short austere field performance? Genuine question.

The C-17 supposedly has a CBR of 12

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-boeing-going-for-the-transport-gap-225865/

While I have seen the A400M quoted as a CBR of 6.

[KenV]

To be fair though, the A400M is billed a competitor to the C-130J rather than the C-17, so you could swap out C-17 in your post with A400M to get the same argument as to how the A400M is much better than the C-130J.Excellent point. On the other hand C-17 was billed as a competitor to both the C-130 and the C-5. There was no A400. C-17 was designed to land at 90+% of the airfields a C-130 could land on, and deliver a C-5 dimensional payload, and nearly a C-5 mass payload to the C-130 runway, at strategic range. It's what USAF called direct delivery. Instead of delivering large/heavy loads from a large base to another large base in or near the theater, where the load was broken down for further forwarding using C-130 and if oversize by driving overland, the C-17 could deliver literally any combat equipment in the US Army inventory (including fully armed M1 tanks which the C-5 could not carry) over a strategic range directly into an austere forward base in the theater.

Is it right that they have similar short austere field performance? Genuine question.Short field performance is similar in that the takeoff distance with little or no load is the same for both (2500 ft) and the landing performance with a 60,000 lb load is also the same (under 2800 ft). With a full assault load the C-17 needs more runway than A400M (3100 ft vs 2800 ft). C-17 also needs stronger runways than A400M, as you said CBR 12 vs CBR 6. But CBR 6 is about equivalent to a plowed field and while very impressive, does not sound to me like a likely real world tasking. To me, if a force needs to go into a plowed field, they'd use helicopters, not a fixed wing airlifter. But I don't know how the British Army operates, so maybe a bad assumption. By comparison the C-27 also has CBR 6, but its 1/4 the size of A400 and in US service never used that capability.

Also C-17 CBR 12 is for 12 passes (or four sorties, where each sortie requires one landing pass, one back taxi pass, and one take off pass. This assumes landing and takeoff into the wind in the same direction. And like tubro props with reversible propellers, C-17 can back under its own power, in C-17 case at MTOGW up a 2% slope.) A400M CBR 6 is for 24 passes. Don't know how many passes at CBR 12. On the other hand C-17 delivers more payload per sortie, so fewer sorties (and thus passes) are required. There are too many variables for a head to head comparison.

Don't get me wrong, the A400 is an impressive airplane for what it was designed to do. I just don't understand its design requirements. C-17 design requirements were based on the following US Army loads:
payload weight: fully armed M1 tank with supporting fuel truck
payload width: two HEMMT 8x8 heavy trucks side-by-side
payload height: AH-64 Apache helo with rotor mast installed under the wing and CH-53 with rotor mast removed behind the wing
payload length: 18 463L pallets.
And all the above must be deliverable over strategic range into an austere, unpaved field of 3500 ft or less.

There were of course many other requirements but the above drove the wing size/loading, fuel capacity, cargo floor width and length, cargo floor strength, cargo compartment height, installed thrust, and high lift systems. I've asked many times but no one seems to know what the requirements drivers were for the A400. Can anyone help out there? What is the A400 design trying to accomplish other than carrying twice a C-130 payload over a slightly greater range? It clearly does that and seems to do it well (at least so far), but what else was it designed to do?

[tdracer]

Apologies for the thread drift, but does anyone know if/when there will be a report issued on the A400 that crashed on it's first flight?

As an engine guy, I've already received a number of questions along the line of 'what happened - how could they load the wrong s/w' and 'how do you know we (Boeing) couldn't have the same thing happen'? It's particularly difficult to answer the second question when you don't know the answer to the first.


This isn't idle curiosity - it's vitally important that all aircraft makers have the information on how Airbus fouled up so that we can take whatever measures are necessary to be sure we are not susceptible to the same foul up.

[sandiego89]

KenV.... but what else was it designed to do?


Create jobs for the partner nations ;) .....runs away and stands by for incoming.....

[glad rag]

Create jobs for the partner nations ;) .....runs away and stands by for incoming.....


wSClJltT-TQ

[VX275]

I've asked many times but no one seems to know what the requirements drivers were for the A400. Can anyone help out there?

I'll plead guilty for trying to get the A400M cargo hold to look like a clone of the C-17, but I don't know who specified the CBR figure. However, when I questioned it with the SME from Boscombe who attended the meetings where it was decided he replied along the lines of "The Germans want to reinvade Russia."

[BEagle]

The A400M specification was agreed by the participating nations and coordinated through OCCAR.

The aircraft will carry items which won't fit in a C-130 at speeds greater than those of a C-130 to places where a C-17 cannot go.

It is the best overall solution.

And it's NOT American!!

[Turbine D]

And it's NOT American!!
If the engine problems aren't fixed soon, you might wish the engines were American designed and made...:ok: :p

[bvcu]

Turbine ....... its just info thats in the public domain , some difficult issues with a few american engines at the moment, but only a little in the public domain , look at P&W issues with new engine on A320. Most people have forgotten the history of the PW2000 that started as a disaster on the 757 but as a mature engine on the C17 is totally different now

[Turbine D]

bvcu,
Just some humor for BEagle. I understand there are growing pains with new engines, but I can tell you there is quite a bit of information in the public domain regarding the P&W geared turbo fan engine for the A-320neo here in the states...

[riff_raff]

Are these the gearbox manufacturing issues?From what I have read it seems there are a couple recent issues with the TP400-D6. One being a quality problem found in some of the gearbox epicyclic output stage ring gears. The gearbox is manufactured by GE/Avio. If it simply turns out to be a manufacturing issue, then the problem can likely be resolved fairly quickly.

The TP400-D6 turboprop is an all new design and more powerful than any turboprop engine produced in the past couple decades outside of Russia. The teething problems it has experienced are fairly typical for a project of this scope. Unfortunately, the aircraft industry has become a victim of its own success, and the general public now expects no serious problems when developing new aircraft designs.

[stilton]

Last I read there are still two important tasks the A400 cannot do with no solution
in sight.


Air refueling of helicopters due to wake issues.


Simultaneous paratroop drops out the side doors without them being swept together and hitting each other in the airstream behind the aircraft.



While it's other attributes are impressive these seem like serious limitations in a tactical airlifter and the reason why the French just ordered five C130-J's.

[HeliHenri]

there are still two important tasks the A400 cannot do

these seem like serious limitations in a tactical airlifter


Indeed but in reality, how many countries are doing operational helicopters refueling and paratrooper air drop ?
.

[2805662]

The A400M specification was agreed by the participating nations and coordinated through OCCAR.

The aircraft will carry items which won't fit in a C-130 at speeds greater than those of a C-130 to places where a C-17 cannot go.

It is the best overall solution.

And it's NOT American!!

Okay, so the specification was agreed. But what was it?

Not American? How's that working out for you so far?

[BEagle]

You can find the Type Certificate Data Sheets on the EASA website. If you have further queries, try contacting OCCAR.

Incidentally, by 'It's NOT American' I meant that, for once, the European Aviation industry has developed an excellent product to meet military requirements provided by the customers - not to decry the C-17 or C-130 which are also excellent in their own rights.

Although I gather that helicopter refuelling from the A400M is proving difficult to resolve at the current time.

[KenV]

The aircraft will carry items which won't fit in a C-130 at speeds greater than those of a C-130 to places where a C-17 cannot go.Once again, I am NOT knocking the A400. It does what it was designed to do. My questions is, what was it designed to do? Was the requirement just to carry stuff a bit bigger than a C-130, but not really big or heavy stuff, and carry it a little faster than a C-130? What kind of stuff do the European armies have that are just a little too big for C-130, but still small/light enough for an A400?

Edit: When spec'ing the C-17 cargo floor we found that any Army stuff that was "outsize" for the C-130/C-141 (they have the same cargo hold cross section), things got really big. The 10 ft wide cargo floor of those two aircraft is a natural sweet spot. Small increments in width resulted in smaller increments in capability. It was not until C-17's cargo floor got to 18 ft wide that it reached another sweet spot. Another sweet spot is at 19 ft, which is the width of the C-5 cargo floor. But that was for US Army and USMC equipment. Is European military equipment that much different than US equipment that there's a sweet spot at 13 ft?

As for going where the C-17 can't go, the C-17 goes to 90+% of the places a C-130 can go. So of the less then 10% of places that C-17 can't go (relative to C-130), how many can A400 go to? And what drives that? Field length does not seem to be the driver keeping the C-17 out because A400 and C-17 have essentially the same field length requirements. Is it CBR? Are there that many airfields 3000 ft or longer with a CBR less than 12?

[KenV]

You can find the Type Certificate Data Sheets on the EASA website. If you have further queries, try contacting OCCAR.Type Certificate Data Sheets tell you nothing about what military equipment the A400 cargo compartment was designed around nor what runways the A400 was designed to operate into and out of. CBR 6 is all well and good and is a fantastic capability if you're going into a permafrost runway in Siberia in summer, but other than that, what does CBR 6 get you?

[KenV]

Last I read there are still two important tasks the A400 cannot do with no solution in sight.
Air refueling of helicopters due to wake issues.
Simultaneous paratroop drops out the side doors without them being swept together and hitting each other in the airstream behind the aircraft.C-17 had both those issues. The wake problem for helos had a solution but since no one ever bought a C-17 tanker version, that was mooted. The troop drop issue was driven by the width of the C-17 and was thoroughly resolved. The A400 is less wide than the C-17 so it should have a less severe problem in that area than C-17 so the C-17 solution should work for A400. On the other hand the turbo props result in a very different flow field behind the aircraft than C-17 and if that is the primary driver, then a very different solution would be needed, assuming there is one. Maybe run the outboard engines to max power while running the inboards at a much lower power setting during the drop?

How many countries are doing operational helicopters refueling and paratrooper air drop?Does it matter how many? If the primary customers (UK, France, and Germany) have those requirements and the aircraft cannot meet them, then what is the point of the program? Other than being a jobs program of course.

[ancientaviator62]

Ken the RAF spent years trying to resolve the C130K sim stick para collision problem. As for throttling the inboards back during the drop, that is exactly what we used to do on the Hastings. On the 'call of 'troops gone' the inboards were banged up again just as we were manually retrieving the para bags !

[VX275]

The Hastings had staggered para doors which helped with reducing crossover. We suggested this could be considered for the A400M but Airbus knew better (never having designed a tactical transport) and proposed the handed propeller solution.

[HeliHenri]

Does it matter how many? If the primary customers (UK, France, and Germany) have those requirements and the aircraft cannot meet them, then what is the point of the program? Other than being a jobs program of course.


Yes it matter.
The point of the program is a military transport aircraft.
The primary customers wanted all and everything but for what oprational purpose in reality ?
The French have only 4 operational helicopters that can be air refueled and in the last years, they've done only one paratroop drop in war zone.
.

[2805662]

Yes it matter.
The point of the program is a military transport aircraft.
The primary customers wanted all and everything but for what oprational purpose in reality ?
The French have only 4 operational helicopters that can be air refueled and in the last years, they've done only one paratroop drop in war zone.
.

Doesn't that answer your own question? "Only one" para drop. You're talking about Op SERVAL? I'd call that a mass para drop. Seems like the ability to do that is pretty important. Where would they be if they had lacked that capability?

Don't forget the numerous, smaller, SF parachute insertions, too.

[Forrest Black]

Remember that the A400M will replace smaller C-130s and C-160s in Europe. So there absolutely is a gain in strategic capabilities. The C-17 is too large and costly for most of the tasks the A400M was made for.

The A400 was designed to transport modern (that is 1990s/early 2000s) quick reaction forces. Heavy tanks were considered less important than they used to be in massive cold-war age conflicts. Other armoured vehicles have become heavier and more bulky than the ones the C-130 was designed for. Within Europe, heavy tanks will usually be transported by by train.

The A400M's range circle around Paris contains much of the French zone of influence in Africa. Heavy tanks aren't that important to the French strategy, less so in Africa.
The A400M also carries larger helicopters than the C-130. French Tiger attack helicopter in Afica transported by an A400M:
Première : Un A400M Atlas rapatrie un hélicoptère Tigre du Sahel - Air&Cosmos (http://www.air-cosmos.com/l-a400m-atlas-rapatrie-un-helicoptere-tigre-du-sahel-69437)

What kind of stuff do the European armies have that are just a little too big for C-130, but still small/light enough for an A400?
Bradley, VBCI, Puma, Boxer, Stryker with slat armour, M109, NH-90, Blackhawk, Tiger AH, Apache ...
You'll find much of this information at the Airbus web site: Military Aircraft Airbus DS | A400M (http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/aircraft/a400m/a400mabout.aspx)
Even the US army has some of that stuff.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/November/Pages/AirbusEyesOpeningIntoUSMilitaryAirliftMarket.aspx

However, when I questioned it with the SME from Boscombe who attended the meetings where it was decided he replied along the lines of "The Germans want to reinvade Russia."
Funny. At the same time it's too small (for heavy tanks required for a huge invasion) and too large (for peace-loving Central Europeans supposed to stay at home and build family cars).

And it's NOT American!!
It's built in Europe and it was also designed to create jobs there, but dozens of the suppliers are American.

[riff_raff]

Why would France spend huge amounts of money to turn the A400 into an aerial tanker capable of in-flight refueling for just a couple helicopters, when there is an existing option in the C-130?

Airbus Targets Helo Refueling, Paratrooper Airdrops for A400M (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2015/11/02/airbus-targets-helo-refueling-paratrooper-airdrops-a400m/74843730/)

The US had a need to ferry helos over long distances, so the C-130 tanker with its wing mounted hose/drogue system was developed.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sadly, the fully developed and fully mature C-17 is no longer an option. And while the C-17 is only about 20% bigger, it has nearly 100% greater payload and almost 200% greater range with the same payload, about 100% greater cargo volume, and yet similar short austere field performance.
Ken, I have difficulty getting my head around your percentages as they could be referring to apples and pears.

20% bigger I can grasp in that it is one fifth larger but in which dimensions?
100% greater payload - double? 100% greater cargo volume - double?

But as mentioned later, volume isn't everything, length, breadth and height all have critical values.

200% greater range at same payload - 4 times? Looking at Wiki I find that hard to believe. Care to quote comparative figures - X payload Y range?

[Heathrow Harry]

and they're not buidling any more C-17's so you'll have to buy A400's is you want new in future.............................

[KenV]

Ken, I have difficulty getting my head around your percentages as they could be referring to apples and pears.

20% bigger I can grasp in that it is one fifth larger but in which dimensions?
100% greater payload - double? 100% greater cargo volume - double?
About 20% more wing span and overall length & about 15% more overall height
About double max payload of A400 (38T/75T)
Less than double cargo volume (340 sqm/620sqm)

200% greater range at same payload - 4 times? Looking at Wiki I find that hard to believe. Care to quote comparative figures - X payload Y range?
Each at respective max payload (A400=38T/C-17=75 T) 58% more range (1,700 NM/2,700 NM)
Each at 38T payload (A400 max) nearly triple the range (1,700 NM/5,000 NM)
Each at 20T payload (C-130 max) less than double the range (3,500/5,800)
All the above assume MIL-C-5011B reserves, still air, ISA

[KenV]

Remember that the A400M will replace smaller C-130s and C-160s in Europe. So there absolutely is a gain in strategic capabilities.......The A400M's range circle around Paris contains much of the French zone of influence in Africa. I guess that's part of the problem, the difference in definition of "strategic". For European nations "strategic" is one end of Europe to the other. For the USA its East Coast USA to Central Europe (Frankfurt, Germany)

Heavy tanks were considered less important than they used to be in massive cold-war age conflicts.....Within Europe, heavy tanks will usually be transported by by train.C-17 was used to transport an entire USMC LAV brigade to an unpaved field in Afghanistan and three M1 Abrams tank companies with support units into an austere field in Iraq. The US considers armor to still be very much relevant even in "regional conflicts" at strategic ranges.

The A400 was designed to transport modern (that is 1990s/early 2000s) quick reaction forces. I think this may answer it. Apparently Europe's only expeditionary forces are "quick reaction forces" which are by definition light. The vast preponderance of European forces are garrison forces and neither designed nor equipped to be expeditionary (deployed overseas). This explains well the European military reaction to the Kosovo/Bosnia conflict.

In the US we have some garrison forces, but a lot (most?) are expeditionary. Indeed the entire USN and USMC are expeditionary and a big chunk of USAF and US Army are expeditionary.

A400 does seem to fit well in a European force structure which finally helps me make sense of its design. I was viewing this too much from a US perspective and US expeditionary forces mindset. This also helps explain why the UK, Australia, and Canada acquired C-17s. The UK is an island nation and the only remaining European power with globally deployed military forces, and Canada and Australia potentially have to move large/heavy units across big bodies of water also. It's finally coming together for me. THANKS!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Thank you Ken, that reads better and makes more sense.

Of course factor in the C17 is effectively an ocean away from the European TOO so needs that extra reach.

[KenV]

Of course factor in the C17 is effectively an ocean away from the European TOO so needs that extra reach. I think its two factors:
1. US "strategic" airlifters need to cross an ocean. European ones don't.
2. US force structure includes many heavy units that are expeditionary. Europe's heavy units are all garrison forces and its expeditionary forces are light rapid reaction forces.

The requirements are quite different and thus the airplane that results is quite different.

[Heathrow Harry]

ken - we're also a lot closer to areas where we need to go - Balkans. N Africa, Middle East

the USAF wouldn't need a vast fleet of C-17's if you were mainly concerned with C America, & Canada...................

[Pontius Navigator]

Repetition

[Heathrow Harry]

1 point to you and you have the subject.............. 28 seconds left.......

[FJ2ME]

If we are playing that game,

"Deviation!" the lot of you!

I thought we were discussing the recent gearbox issue, not whether we should buy the damn@d thing or get something else, since we've already bought it and all? Or are we operating under a "benefit of the doubt"?

1 point to Heathrow Harry as we enjoyed his interjection. You have the topic, 25 seconds left...

[Exvacert]

Unfortunately everytime A400m comes up on this forum all we hear is the "if its not american its crap" brigade. Theres a lot of people who work very hard to keep them flying and whos jobs depend on it and its quite soul destroying hearing some of the uninformed rubbish that is written on here.

[KenV]

I thought we were discussing the recent gearbox issue, not whether we should buy the damn@d thing or get something else, since we've already bought it and all? 1 point to Heathrow Harry as we enjoyed his interjection. You have the topic, 25 seconds left... I think the A400M has a fine gearbox. Sadly, a few components in half of them (the gear boxes are handed and apparently only one hand has the problematic gears) apparently suffer from faulty heat treatment, limiting their life. Since its a service life issue not a safety of flight issue it won't affect deliveries, but that means an expensive fix later on. Who pays for that fix? I don't know, but if the contract was written correctly, Airbus/Safran will have to pay.