Originally Posted by
exrivofrigido
I do wonder, given the evident difficulties with making the A400 suitable for dropping, if Airbus didn’t take it as seriously as other aspects of the design. And given the rather small fleet we’ve purchased and the fact that we seem to be accepting it without too much squealing about the failure to meet Spec, perhaps they had a point - arguably we aren’t really serious about military parachuting beyond very specialised applications.
Interesting debate, and no doubt it will continue.
Airbus did take it all quite seriously in the beginning. Every nation had competing needs. There was quite a lot of customer engagement. They even employed a good few knowledgeable staff from those customers. Regular working groups were held in Bremen to discuss things such as the air deflectors, parachute step, the seating, the Loadmasters workstation and the cargo handling system. (Latches and Roller floor) and the parachutists oxygen system. One group had engagement over the use of CFD (computational Fluid Dynamics) to try to predict the airflow around the back with those big whirling bananas. The Airbus party line was always it will alright on the night. They were fighting against aircraft weight growth and had to make compromises. Our UK experience developing parachute and airdrop systems for the C130J should have given sufficient warning that this was a more complex issue on the A400M.