A400M
Is the A400M an ambitious enough design? I have compared the A400M to the Shorts Belfast from 40 plus years ago with surprising results.
According to Wikipedia, the empty weight of the A400M is about 11 tonnes more than that of the Shorts Belfast. They both carry approximately the same maximum payload (36.3 Belfast vs. 37 tonnes A400M). I expected that the weight of the mission equipment etc in the A400M would be more than offset by weight reductions as a result of technology and materials improvements in other areas but this doesn't seem to be the case. Granted, the A400M has 800nm more range at max payload but it needs twice the power and 14 tonnes more fuel to carry out a max payload mission because of the 11 tonnes of extra empty weight and the higher fuel consumption. At Max payload and Max TOW, the Belfast flew 107.9 miles per tonne of fuel whilst the A400M only manages 77.5 miles per tonne of fuel; the Belfast therefore flew 39.3% further per tonne of fuel. The Belfast could carry significantly more troops and had a slightly longer ferry range than the A400M, albeit at a lower cruising speed and altitude.
I don't doubt that the A400M's survivability in a hostile environment would be much better than a Belfast's, but how often would the A400M be deployed in such a way? I don't doubt that the higher cruise speed of the A400M will increase productivity. But do the mission equipment and 800m range increase and higher cruising speed/altitude justify the 11 tonne increase in empty weight and much higher fuel consumption vs. the Belfast?
Given the advances in so many technologies and materials that have taken place over the past 40 years or so (FBW, composite materials, digital electronics, aerodynamics, engines etc), I had expected much better weights and performance figures for the A400M. Or am I being unfair in my comparisons?
Last edited by Porrohman; 28th August 2007 at 12:06.
Reason: typo