A400m

[moggiee]

Just looking at the detailed articles on the A400M in this weeks issue of "Job Hunter" (sorry, "Flight International").

I couldn't help thinking how nice it will be to see the Belfast back in production, albeit with a different name!

[The Gorilla]

Isn't that a bit like saying that it would be nice if the Beatles got back together?

:p

[BEagle]

And your point is....?

FLA (A400M) is not just a Funny Looking Albert!

[moggiee]

It just made me think of it as a 21st century Bel-slow and made me wonder how far we've come in 40 years.

[BEagle]

Well, the Belslow could only around 10 tonne on a 3600 nm stage. It had a MAUW of 104.7 tonne, but its economic cruise was a mere 275KTAS at 24000ft. Flat out it was 300KTAS at 28000ft.

Over 3600 nm, the A400M will carry 20 tonne. It has a MAUW of 130 tonne and will cruise economically at 400KTAS at 31000ft. Or, if you really want, at up to M0.72 and 37000 ft.

[MrBernoulli]

BEagle, sorry, but this aircraft is still only a drawing. Once, and if, it flies there is bound to be some blessed limitation on its performance. 37 000 ft? I don't wish to be wilfully contrary but I don't think so. If dropped by a B52 it might pass 37 000 ft on the way DOWN. Cruise up there with a useful load? Nah!

[Tonkenna]

Not just a drawing Mr B, they did build a wooden mock-up that I saw at Farnborough a few (lots of) years ago;) .

.74 at 37000', that'll fit in well with the GAT. Still, nice to have a 2/3rds Airbus fleet at Brize in a few years time:ok: :ok: :hmm:

Tonks:)

[BEagle]

Just for you, MrB:

The A400M is a natural expansion of the Airbus aircraft family into the military sector. Specifically designed to meet the needs of European NATO nations, this all-new military transport provides a versatile and cost-effective solution to the world's military airlift requirements in humanitarian or peace-keeping operations. Airbus, which has a 64 per cent work share in the A400M, is fully responsible for the A400M's programme management.

The A400M is an economical, high-speed turboprop aircraft with a cruise speed of Mach 0.68-0.72 and the highest initial cruise altitude in its class, enabling integration into commercial traffic patterns. Designed for both strategic and tactical roles, it is capable of operating into unprepared landing strips completely independent of ground support.

With a 20 tonne payload the A400M has an unrefuelled range of 3,550 nm./6,600 km., enabling it easily to reach central Africa or Middle Eastern destinations non-stop from Europe. It is also fully equipped for air-to-air refuelling as a receiver and can be converted to a tanker role in just two hours. The A400M has a maximum payload of 37 tonnes and can accommodate all of the loads specified by the European Staff Requirement.

This military aircraft programme will use the same centres of competence, the same integrated engineering organisation and the same certification processes as any other Airbus programme. The first flight will take place in 2008 with first deliveries beginning in 2009.

The launch nations' orders for the A400M are Belgium (7), France (50), Germany (60), Luxembourg (1), Spain (27), Turkey (10) and the United Kingdom (25), a total of 180 aircraft. The fact that these seven European countries have contracted with Airbus Military to develop the A400M is a remarkable measure of Airbus' credibility, earned in the civil arena. It shows their confidence that the Airbus system can deliver an advanced and reliable military transport product, on time and on budget. The programme also breaks new ground in offering military customers direct access to the exceptional Airbus product support organisation.

In addition to the launch customers nations Airbus Military has identified a number of potential export markets and confidently expects to sell up to 200 more of the new military airlifters.

The A400M programme development will be centralised first in Toulouse and, as work progresses, will move to Spain, with the assembly line and delivery centre located in Seville.

I remember having a good nose around that wooden mock-up, Tonks. In the back was a day glo orange 'goal post' (whatever one of those might be). I asked what it was - it turned out to be the dimensions of the C-130 fuselage. Which looked tiny in comparison. The flightdeck layout is very gucci indeed - streets ahead of the C-17 as it uses all-A380 technology but with military requirements added.

Oh - and if you fitted both cargo bay tanks and 2 pods, it'd offer about the same time on task on a North Sea towline as a K4 at the same assumed offload rate.

[Tonkenna]

Well I do hope we get it, but, much like FSTA, I will believe it when I see it.

Tonks:cool:

Vickers fun bus forever :ok: (it would appear;) )

[BEagle]

Really? And for how just much longer can they really keep the old girls going?

Seems the HDUs are getting a bit weary as well....??

[Tonkenna]

Might be more of a case of how long will they have to keep them going rather than how long can they :sad:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

A400M................yeah right:rolleyes: It's still a picture and, most probably always will be. You never struck me as naive Beags so please dont shatter that illusion by telling me you ACTUALLY believe all that old tosh you have cut and pasted:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Trumpet_trousers]

...have they decided which engine is this week's choice yet? Nice to see that all the 'gucci' kit is going upstairs......most important in a transport aircraft, of course, let's get the priorities right from the outset, eh?:{

[BEagle]

The A400M ALM's 'multi-purpose workstation' is, perhaps not inappropriately, situated on the lower deck. But even better than that, it is situated in line with the 2 commercial standard unisex toilets.

"Downstairs by the bogs for you, Baldrick. 'Cos upstairs is Hossifer country"

I have actually been asked to locate a suitable ALM who would be interested in heading up a project team working on the A400M tactical requirements; the ideal candidate has hopefully now been identified. Ex - C-17, naturally.

The engines will be the EPI TP400-D6 with over 10 000 shp driving 8-bladed 17.5 ft diameter Ratier propellers all controlled by dual channel FADEC. And the outer part of each composite prop blade has a nickel anti-FOD guard.

And the only thing likely to slow progress on the A400M is that Airbus Toolooze are diverting all available manpower to work on the A380 Megabus.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Beags,
check yr. PM's:ok:

[Pureteenlard]

Is there any major advantage in buying the, as yet non-existant, A400m, rather than looking at, for example, the Antonov AN-70?

[moggiee]

Now what have I started?

As for it being a "paper" plane, don't they all start off that way? It's no less real than the 7E7 (wet)dreamliner, after all.

[BEagle]

An-70 is looking increasingly like a dead duck.......

Interesting that those making gibbering noises about the use of composites in the A300 and any possible connection to the fin failure on the AA aircraft don't seem to be quite so concerned about the extensive use of composites in Boeing's plastic fantastic Binliner...

[highveldtdrifter]

The A400 programme is so far reasonably on track. If it performs as advertised it wil be a good ac. However, I am surprised bleegle accepts the manufacturers blurb so readily. The ac is over wt at present and the fuel load vague, so I wouldn't go firm on any payload/range predictions just yet.

The engine development is proceding with the first run due next year - but don't stand near it in a wind (no prop brake).

The avionics are superb, as one would expect being based on the 380. However, it remains to be seen how easy it will be to graft on the military add ons.

I doubt if beags knows any Tac ALMs, I know the guys who are actually assisting with the Tac development and they are not from Brize. That said the very excellent mover involved is.

[Razor61]

Beagle,

Have you by any chance been given 'cash' by Airbus?

:D

[BEagle]

Razor 61 - no.

There has been much comment about the lack of a prop brake - but why do you need one?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Try fitting engine intake blanks and covers when it's windy, or walking under the wings in the dark.....................

If you come up with some sort of "makeshift" prop restraint how do you stop the thing spinning in the wind initially?

2004....No prop brake.....wonder what other really usefull things will get left off once the "clever" people have finished putting all the bells and whistles in the front?

J model.....aft of 245....shambolic thanks to "Drivers Airframes" and bean counters. What odds on the "paperplane" going the same way..........if it's ever built:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[BEagle]

Fitting intake blanks and conducting field maintenance would seem to dictate that prop brakes are needed. If not 'brakes' in the conventional sense, then at least a method of stopping the propellers from turning when required......

Walking under the wings is a lesser need - in any case, with an 8-bladed prop there's always going to be a considerable blade area presenting a ground hazard even when the prop is not rotating.

[moggiee]

from highveldtdrifter

The A400 programme is so far reasonably on track. ....... The ac is over wt at present and the fuel load vague, so I wouldn't go firm on any payload/range predictions just yet.

show me an aeroplane project that is not overweight at the late design/protoype stage and I'll be astounded!

[highveldtdrifter]

My point exactly, the signs are it is only going to get heavier. Unless they increase the TOM, then the salesmans range figures will have to reduce.

Beagle must be a car salesmans dream.

The prop brake will be required for H&S reasons, the outboard tips being well below head ht. Stopping the blades in a wind could be a problem, perhaps we could adapt the old Akrotiri ceiling fan trick.

[BEagle]

highveldtdrifter, please do not bring down what was a reasonable A400M debate with puerile character attacks. It doesn't achieve a thing.

One of the ESR baselines was 2000nm range with a 25 t payload. The brochure figures which you clearly deride claim that A400M will offer a 35% improvement, that's 2700 nm with 25t. Also the max payload at 2.25g required by the ESR is 32 t. A400M claims to be able to carry 37 t, so even if it was 5 t overweight (which I doubt), it would still meet the ESR...

And incidentally I screwed an excellent deal out of the last car salesman I dealt with!

[Father Jack Hackett]

Moggiee, Beags et al (whoever al is),

I was very interested to hear your debate over A400M/Belfast similarities.

I know for a fact (because I worked there at the time) that the finest of all the East Belfast area aerospace companies received a visit from some chaps belonging to EuroFLAG (precursor of Airbus Military).

These gentlemen were very interested in having a look at/borrowing the old Belfast drawings. That's not surprising really as this is the only ac of it's kind to be built in Europe - no point completely reinventing the wheel, is there?

I doubt that much of the specific design has been carried across but I am in no doubt as to what the conceptual start point for A400M is, i.e. a Belfast with some decent engines.

As a footnote, back in the 70s, said East Belfast aerospace company mooted a Belfast development involving swapping the wing and engines with those of a C141. Sounds barking but you can see where they were coming from. Wasn't the original FLA supposed to be a jet..................?

[moggiee]

I must admit that I always thought that the medium term plan for the Belfast was to give it jet engines. Imagine what a fantastic airlifter that would have been.

[BEagle]

I think that FLA went through over at least 58 'solutions' until the final design was frozen. Well, as frozen as a slush puppy, perhaps.

Yes, the earlier ones (certainly Solution 20) were proposed with jet engines, but that was about 10 years ago. I still have the drawings somewhere. And yes, it does look indeed very much like an 83% scale version of Shorts SC5/45 submission for AST364 - a large transport aircraft which was required to be capable of carrying 45.5 t of payload over 5000nm. Much, much bigger than A400M! It was a hybrid Belfast fuselage/C141 winged design intended to be powered by 4 x Super Conways of 25000 lb thrust each - which would have been some whisperjet! Shorts had earlier proposed SC5/40 for the still-borne OR351 programme which finally settled upon the HS681 only to have it axed by Wilson's Labour government in 1964. And the RAF ended up with the C130 instead.

But AST364 was binned when the Labour government dreamed up its East of Suez policy and withdrew from the Far East commitment.

[Good Mickey]

Hey Beegs,

you just couldn't do it could you mate...you couldn't ignore the sooo obvious banter, you had to rise to the bait. You'll be getting compared to ABIW next!! Classic stuff guys keep it up.

GM

[BEagle]

Actually, the explanation concerning the reason for needing prop braking on the A400M has been most useful. Thanks to AbiW and hvd for that.

[Father Jack Hackett]

Beags,

Brain the size of a planet fella!

Every day's a school day.

[Hueymeister]

Given that the Germans are closing at least one transport base because, amongst other things, that the aircraft is now going to be too heavy for the taxiways, runways and hard standings, it would seem that they are expecting the aircraft to come in over weight etc.

[BEagle]

Well, given that A400M is designed with soft-field operation in mind, it must be a pretty tatty transport base that's being closed - unless it just operates helicopters or similar?

More likely that the hangarage would need improvement to accommodate the A400M on the rare occasions it needs to be inside.....

The European Staff Requirement was accepted by all customers - if the GAF base wasn't adequate for that, then it's hardly any fault of the A400M!

[moggiee]

Hueymeister - might it not be the case that they want to close a tranpsort base anyway (let's face it, everyone is doing it) and that it therefore makes sense to close the one with the LOWEST load bearing capabilities?

If it's too weak to support an A400M then it is too weak to support any really large aeroplane and therefore makes sens to close that one.

BEagle - could you enlighten us as to the max weight (sorry, MASS) and mass footprint of the A400M relative to say a 777, 747, C5 etc.?

Edit: Sorry BEagle - crossed posts and you pretty much answered my question!

[BEagle]

MTOM is 130 tonne; each main landing gear system consists of 3 twin wheel assemblies plus a twin wheel nose landing gear, giving a total of 14 wheels.

Sorry - can't find the ACN! But it's been designed from the outset for soft field (Calif Brg Ratio 6) operation.

[T_Handle]

beAGS

You need to get out more!!!!!

T

(no offence meant.... but take some if you want, there is plenty to go round!):}

- Happiness is.... 70 tons, a HUD and a Hobnob!:ok:

[Hueymeister]

I did say...amongst other things......

[BEagle]

Well, today was a day spent tapping away on the computer with my foul cold - and the odd dip into PPRune now and again when not working. Which takes mere seconds on 24/7 always-on broadband.

It just so happens that I'm doing some A400M work right now, so it's not difficult to answer the odd general question!

[Vage Rot]

"The A400M is an economical, high-speed turboprop aircraft with a cruise speed of Mach 0.68-0.72 and the highest initial cruise altitude in its class, enabling integration into commercial traffic patterns."


In the old DH Comet with a bomb bay, we used to cruise at M 0.69 and could manage M 0.72 without too much penalty. Still not fast enough to integrate with the civvy traffic and usually got us held down to lower than FL280 when crossing the pond !!

Must try harder/faster!!

What's wrong with a fleet of Hercs and C17s????

[moggiee]

by vage rot:

What's wrong with a fleet of Hercs and C17s????

the fact that they don't keep European aerospace technology up with the crowd. Once you get behind, you never recover.

[TAC Queen]

Beags
Just out of interest what is the back end going to be like. I was at a meeting last year and was told it would be able to air-drop all the platforms as the C-130K. So does this mean we are keeping the old Skydell system we had on the belfast-C130K?
As a current ALM I don’t really care if there is a crew station for the ALM but it would be nice if the back end was designed with current technology and not the stuff designed in the 1950’s.
Combine all the good things from the C17 and other well designed cargo bays and look at what the future holds and give us a really multi role cargo bay. It’s all well and good having spanking new avionics and faster higher longer but if it can’t carry what the army has and will buy in the future there is not much point. Also it’s not always about amount of weight you can lift it is usually about the amount of weight you can physically fit in. For example the VC-10 can carry the weight of a 4 toner in the rear hold but it cannot physically fit one in. I really hope that the A400 has the cargo bay that we need and not a cost saving exercise which the C-130J has been lumped with.

All spelling mistakes are because I cant spell.

[BEagle]

Well, TAC Q....

The cargo floor has retractable side rails and rollers, plus tie -down points. The cargo compartment is wide enough to carry 9 108 x 88 military pallets (7 flat, 2 on the ramp). The rolller and restraint system for these pallets is fully integrated with the cargo floor and can be stowed easily and quickly wihtout needing any power systems to do so. The miltary standard roller system is prepared to facilitate airdrops using parachute extraction, low-level drops using LAPES or ULLA, or simple gravity/manual dispatch.

There is a heavy duty winch system controlled by the ALM and the system is designed for pallets and containers to be loaded/unloaded by a single ALM without any assistance needed from the movers.

The ramp has hydraulically powered toes which are removable when not required as are 3 roller trays to assist palletised loading. Stabiliser struts are incorporated into the basic a/c design.

Options include a 5 tonne rail crane capable of loading/unloading fully-loaded 96" high military pallets. It would be controlled by the ALM using remote control. Roller/restraint kit for civil 125" wide pallets can also be installed using the tie down oints as the supporting structure.

Cargo bay dimensions are min height 3.85m, floor width 4.00m, flat floor length 17.71m, ramp length 5.40m. Gross cargo hold volume is 356 cu m and the max payload is 37 tonne (2.25 g limit) or 31.5 tonne (2.5 g limit).

One of the most impressive features of the C-17 is the consideration given to the back-end users' requirements. I'm sure that lesson won't have been ignored by Airbus Military.........

[Vage Rot]

the fact that they don't keep European aerospace technology up with the crowd. Once you get behind, you never recover.

This is true for cutting edge military technology but a Tac Transport????? We have a perfectly healthy European aircraft industry -

just that our bankrupt country hasn't got a national aerospace industry and I don't want my tax paying for development of cr4p to feather the pockets of some chairman or shareholders when an off the shelf solution is available and cheaper and right now.

[moggiee]

vage rot - there is technology transfer between mil and civ aerospace and vice versa. There is more to it than "it's OK - we participate in building A320s".

[Vage Rot]

Mog,

I know there is some transfer of technology. I spent 6 years working with industry and 3 with MoD PE. However, these days the transfer is more civil to military (COTS is the most used term in any military aircraft spec these days)

I'm not saying don't develop it or buy it but just that one has to justify it on better grounds than 'if we don't buy then we won't have an industry left'

Also, the increased cost of operating a diverse fleet must be taken into account. like it or not, if you have a civil derivative then spares are easily found anywhere in the world. Have a specific military type and you are on your own!!

[BEagle]

Just as long as your military customer is allowed to use such spares and hasn't been thumb-tied by some engineering idiot from the Bull$hit pavilions....

Ever heard of the TriStar which had a u/s nose tyre in the USA? It could have used one available locally, but instead some numpty insisted on dispatching a Herc all the way from the UK with an RAF-owned tyre......:rolleyes:

"Access to the global Airbus support network is available to all A400M customers, through which they may receive operational, technical and engineering support from Airbus Military, its partners and suppliers for the life of the aircraft"

Assuming, of course, that some Wyton w*nk*r doesn't stick his oar in....

[TAC Queen]

Thanks for the info Beags
Sounds good but will we ask for all the kit to be taken out to save money as we did the J.
You don’t have to be incompetent to work in procurement but it helps.

[globefan]

I would just like to comment on a couple of posts on this forum. Apart from the very capable and experienced mover associated with the C-17 there has been diddly squat input from ALMs current on that aircraft. (I hasten to add, this is because they haven't been asked, not because they don't want to) In my view this is a massive oversight and one which unless corrected could be to the detriment of the A400 programme. The Herc lads involved are good genuine chaps - but they do not have access to, or detailed experience of large, well thought out, ergonomically designed end-user friendly platforms - such as the C-17 of course, (and I don't think anyone out there will put the J in such a bracket) To my knowledge no-one has been approached to fill in this missing knowledge base although one chap has attended a meeting or two. Shame the project team hasn't looked further than the wiltshire airbase and comments such as there is no C-17 tac experience therefore no suitable candidates from there is hogwash. My fear is that some of the mistakes made during the J developmental process will be repeated on the A400M - albeit to a lesser degree, hopefully.

[NURSE]

Belfast II would be a nice name for the A400m Just to remind Politicians/ Senior officers how useful heavy lift transports are.

retire and aircraft you owned then rent it from a civilian company were any of the RAF Chaps who decided this major share holders in Heavy lift Cargo?

[flyboy007]

Call me a pessimist, but show me a current day success that the UK military has procured from scratch/design stage! Why will this be any different????? OFF THE SHELF!!!!! Tried and tested.

[DuckDodgers]

And how many Loadmasters are on the Project Team then? ZERO! The C17 is such an excellent machine because the Project Team, non-engineers, consisted 95% of Loadmasters. Makes sense really...

[BEagle]

The C-17A is indeed an excellent aeroplane - because beyond the basic aeroplane specification requirements, the practical needs of the end-user were taken into account during the design process.

If the RAF's A400M IPT aren't taking experienced ALM 'back end' views into consideration at an early stage in the programme, that would be very regrettable indeed. The lesson was learned when the C-17 was being developed; it remains equally valid for the A400M.

[Good Mickey]

Beags,

the A400M IPT are in fact taking ALM views into consideration and have been ever since this aeroplane was first talked about. The ignorance of certain posters on this thread is staggering (you listening Globfan). In fact the back end is being designed by ALMs from all the nations involved and in the RAFs case ALMs, AD, PJIs and movers all have an input. Furthermore, this body of people (known as the Cargo and Aerial Delivery Working Group) work side by side with Airbus in order to get the best possible cargo hold so that it can compete with the C-17 and C-130J. It won't have anywhere near the load carrying capacity of the C-17 or the sheer power and awesome avionics of the J because that would make it too expensive and therefore it will never compete. In fact one could argue that with a combination of Js and 17s why do you need A400m, but that has already been done to death elsewhere on this forum.
In fact, the RAF ALMs take the lead role in many areas during the working groups with airbus because of their expertise with 3 man ops during tactical missions. No other nation has this experience and certainly no ALM on 99Sqn has this experience (unless 99 have been flying outside of the lease conditions). Of course when I mention tactical operations I obviously mean aerial delivery/NVG type missions not your bog standard A-B strat mission that has a punchy load down the back so is therefore classed as a TacAT mission.
I think that the C17 is the RAFs finest asset and look forward to the day when we own one (unless Qinetiq get their hands on it). It does have its weaknessess in areas where the J shines and this powerful combination of airlift capability is going to be impossible to match, even though ALMs from all the nations involved are committed to making the A400M a worthy competitor.

...and another thing, the aim of the working group is to design the cargo hold that is very similar to 2 best cargo holds in the world. Anyone know what they are? Ok, I\'ll give you the C17 but the other is the ECHS (enhanced cargo handling system) of the J model. This system is the daddy of cargo handling systems and is a more modern version of the C17s. I have personnaly used it in the airdrop role and it is truely awesome. I believe the RAF/IPT paid to have this feature removed from the Brit Js, in fact I know it. It was probably the same clown that decided not to buy external tanks for the J. Anyway, the point is, the A400M is going the same way, unfortunately the A400M IPT are already committed to not buying into certain features that you would think are essential for a freighter. ALMs from all the nations are aiming high, believe me, but the w**kers with the money are aiming low and dragging this procurement project to the depths that the J project sank to.

GM

[betty_boo_x]

Crikey Good Mickey,
let me get this right,the C130J has the best cargo hold known to Loadmaster except........we dont have it! (fancy cargo handling not J).
And the J has "sheer power" and the C-17 is the finest airlifter known to man.
Now all this may be true but the C-17 came within a whisker of been cancelled for the unheard of "mismanagement and cost overuns and ongoing technical problems" (20 April 2001 Proj on Govt Oversight)
The C130J is a fine aeroplane due in no small part to the work done by the people involved since its procurement(before anyone starts!)
But the C-17 was around $230million a copy(2001) and Lockheed Martin are a bunch of sharks that almost went to the wall. To retrospetively fit a winch/enhanced cargo handling/flir/rwr/sense of humour is so fearsomely expensive it is not politically viable.
Now the A400 should be a fantastic aeroplane but we will not have it until the end of the decade,in the meantime we will have a fudge and less people will be asked to do more, until were doing everything with nothing
Apologies for the rubbish typing ,its been a long day.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Of course when I mention tactical operations I obviously mean aerial delivery/NVG type missions

.......somebody better pass that on to the C-17 boys then so that they can hand all their gogs etc. back in and spend less time chasing a BTR tick.....:ok:

It was probably the same clown that decided not to buy external tanks for the J

...Ermm....I stand to be corrected, but wasn't it (isn't it?) the case that the 'mighty' J is/was supposed to offer the same range/endurance without external tanks?

It does have its weaknessess in areas where the J shines

...yeah, it can only carry 18 pallets as opposed to 8.....:mad:

(Edited for correct J pallet numbers...d'oh!)

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Tut Tut Audi:rolleyes:

Not still picking at that J v K "festering pustule" are we:rolleyes:....let go fella..let go

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Trumpet_trousers]

Not still picking at that J v K "festering pustule"


...Try reading the post again, you @rse...exactly where does it mention ANYTHING about a K?......w@nker:mad:

[Good Mickey]

ABIW,

TT has got a point y'know!! Where the f*ck is the K mentioned in the 'debate.' Or has everyone subconsciously assigned it to the scapheap?

TT,

J can carry as many as 8 pallets, sweet f*ck all I know, but its about getting your facts right!

GM

[betty_boo_x]

Beaten to it,
where on earth did the K get mentioned? My point was contractual/political wrangling about "add ons" after initial contract. If someone would be so kind as to clarify the further/faster/higher argument with no external tanks I would be grateful. It would be funny were it not so true.
This is a debate about A400 which hopefully will not be late and over budget and not the C130J or C-17 which both were.

[Trumpet_trousers]

which hopefully will not be late and over budget and not the C130J or C-17 which both were.


...Granted the J was, and possibly the first delivery of the C-17 to the USAF was, but the first RAF C-17 was delivered one year and one day after the decision to lease, IIRC...:ok:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Audi,

Bit rude fella..... however I apologise for offending your sensibilities but posting facts is always a good start:rolleyes:

all spelling misatkes are "df" alcohol induced

[Trumpet_trousers]

however I apologise for offending your sensibilities

...or even my sensitivities, not that you could do either, by the sound of it...:mad:

'orl speling misaktes are "fd" alkuhol indooced'

(Let's hope your maths is better than your grasp of basic English, for the sake of the rest of your crew)

...when is the first metal due to be cut for the A400? I guess that there\'s already a FSM or 2 knocking about, but what of the real thing? Beags? Anybody?

[betty_boo_x]

No debate about when the RAF got the C-17 as it was bought "off the shelf" (or hired!) as it were.
Do a google search for the long and familiar convoluted history of its entry to service. It was late and over budget.
As was/is C130J/Nimrod 2000/Eurofighter/FSTA . Now A400 is going to break the trend,got to go now Father Christmas is at my front door with some Gucci kit and a sense of perspective for ABIW.
Perhaps he would post the "facts" of how his wonder truck goes so well with less fuel. Anyone from LM how much for leather seats/sat nav/external tanks/winch/metallic paint/sports wheels?
Before the argument loses its point,the C-17 is now a fantastic aeroplane.

[propulike]

The ‘J’ has phenomenal avionics capability but with a small, elderly design of freight bay and a restrictive MTOW for its performance. The C-17 has a fantastic freight bay, but with avionics that are at least a generation old for a true 2 man flight deck – stay in your seat and reset a CB anyone? What lessons can be learned to take to the A-400 I wonder....

It's not difficult to see a wish list of what would make a world beater – C-17 standard of freight bay, C-130J standard of avionics if not the next generation, C-17 / C-130J short field performance when full and a freight bay that’s no smaller than a Belfast’s. In fact, a Belfast with a new flight deck, engines and cargo handling system!

Unfortunately it would appear to me that the A-400 is suffering from having some of the wrong people as advisors, people who were not exactly at the cutting edge of prop, avionics or cargo handling technology before getting there, but who are expected to give an input. How can they be analytical on matters that they’re not even familiar with?

And will anyone, please, ANYONE associated with the project convince the accountants that a decent DAS is NOT an optional extra?

[Trumpet_trousers]

The C-17 has a fantastic freight bay, but with avionics that are at least a generation old for a true 2 man flight deck – stay in your seat and reset a CB anyone?

.....Hmm.. not quite sure where you get your info from, but I think that you will find that the CRITICAL CBs on the C-17 are within easy reach from either pilots seat....other than that, the J may have the better radar and a wider field of view HUD, but the 2 otherwise are broadly comparable - toys-wise - for the stick monkeys upstairs...:ok:

[propulike]

OK - I don't want to start a 17 - J - K argument, so IMHO the wish list is correct!

[BEagle]

Current Airbus philosophy is that any c/b which trips after taxying shall not be reset..... The a/c systems are sufficiently reliable and have sufficient redundancy to remove any need for 'critical' c/b reset - unless its crew-initiated trip-and-reset to re-boot certain avionic items.

A400M is being designed with the 'lower deck' very much in mind. Plus DASS, advanced cargo handling and every other item resulting from lessons learned in recent conflicts.

So it's up to the customer to convince his bean counters that what is available is essential.

Oink oink, flap flap......

[Trumpet_trousers]

I don't want to start a 17 - J - K argument

...Neither do I, there's enough 'willy waving' on other threads.

A possible reason why the J back-end received so little attention could be the fact that LMAS went for joint Military/FAA certification from the outset, perhaps concentrating too much on the latter at the expense of the former, but it also has to be said that the right people, i.e. backenders, were not consulted enough, if indeed at all.

[Echo 5]

Wilts,

" Try reading the post again, you @rse...exactly where does it mention ANYTHING about a K?......w@nker "

Methinks Audi and Bill O' Average may have graduated from the same charm school !!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

E Bloke,

You are probably right, but lets not go down that road, I apologised, she corected a mathmatical error and all is now sorted:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Trumpet_trousers]

.....corected a mathmatical error

....corr ected and mathe matical......Oxford Concise Dictionary refers...

...you should spend less time drinking your 'df' meths and back-slapping your chum E5, and more on basic English revision....:mad:

[Echo 5]

TT,

My last post was intended as a bit of light banter after a long day and a fairly generous nightcap of Mr Tesco's finest Brandy.

Your last opener however........ " A Blindingly Incompetent W@nker... " came over a bit strong and wasn't really in the " spirit " of things. Lighten up and have one on me ( duty paid ).

Regards to all,

E5. :)

Edited to correct spelling error.

[OBNO]

It's all very well for these efficient Turbo Props such as C130J and A400 to be able to cruise in the FL 300's plus, but at the speeds they fly it often does/will not fit in with ATC and " Faster following Traffic".

[NURSE]

so will the RAF operatete a 3 aircraft Cargo transport fleet
ie C17,C130J and C17 or will a type be chopped? Personaly I think we should get some more C17's and bring the fleet up to 9-10 airframes. And see which is better the 400m or the J and concentrate on the Better Aircraft.

[Good Mickey]

Nurse,

Not sure about 3 ac types being C17, Js and C17s again?? However, I do agree with your sentiments but write off the K at your peril as the beancounters will prefer it over the J every time. I think I've already said that with a fleet of 17s and Js what more could you possibly want! As an aside, the Brits had the A400M contract re-written in order to stop the Germans 'pulling out', its now so watertight that we (the UK) are also committed 'till the bitter end even if we did want to pull out (which we probably do owing to the overwhelming success of the C 17)!!

In answer to your question, I believe that the wish is to operate 2 ac types in the tactical airlift role ie. perm any 2 from Js, Ks, C17s & A400Ms.

GM

[juliet]

regarding turbo props in the upper air. have heard the comment been mentioned repeatedly that although some turbo props can make it to the higher levels, FL300 and above, they arent allowed up there due to their speed. really not sure where this comes from. the J model herc can cruise quite comfortably at all levels up to about FL320 or so and maintain 320 to 340tas. this only relates to about M0.6 or a touch less. even so, i have never had a problem with controllers restricting my flight, not letting me up or forcing me down. even though we are quite a bit slower than anything else up there we manage to fit in. the only problem i have encountered regarding upper air is when we get in to RVSM. the RAF hercs do not currently have RVSM certification and so may be held down or given vectors to keep required separation. this has only ever been a problem over france who are quite picky about it for some reason, everyone else is happy for us to be up there.

[BEagle]

Would whoever it was who sent me a PM regarding the ALM subject matter expertise for A400M please send me another. Trumpet trousers, was it you? Senility and Glenfiddich have degraded my memory cells!

I've been asked to trawl for an experienced tactical fixed wing ALM who might be available to work on the A400M programme in Hamburg - and whoever it was definitely expressed an interest.

[Carnage]

Apparently Airbus has released brand new pictures of the A400M...

When is it going to be more than just computer generated?:confused:

[Good Mickey]

Beags,

why Hamburg? All the freight bay development is being done at Bremen at the Airbus factory with a bit on the side at Toulouse. Whats at Hamburg?

GM

[BEagle]

Airbus Deutschland GmbH, that's who!

Maybe I should have said "I've been asked to trawl for an experienced tactical fixed wing ALM who might be available to work on the A400M programme by Hamburg..."

[Trumpet_trousers]

....Plse check yr PMs :ok:

[BEagle]

T-t, I have but there's nothing there from your good self. Please retransmit!

A400M should fly in 2008 from Seville, by the way.

[BEagle]

And now it seems that Seth Efrika is committed to 8-14 A400Ms in exchange for work share and technological assistance...and a few Rand, of course!

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Beags

Have to sit tight and hope the rand doesn't crash. ....... unless the frogs take boerewors. The SAAF is slowly being degraded by the loss of qualified aircrew as well so not sure if there'll be anyone to fly the things. Probably have to get the crew of Thabos new BBJ to do a bit of moonlighting.:E

[BEagle]

I was going to say "You can teach monkeys to fly an Airbus" after seeing that A320 'pilot' in 'Bomber Pilot' whose stick-and-rudder skills were considered inadequate to fly a traditional aeroplane - but perhaps in the context of SA that might be incorrectly construed as a racist slur.

OK then - you do not need the world's best stick and rudder skills to fly an Airbus satisfactorily. And the FCOM spells out what to do in very basic "Monk.... Sorry, "Blokey see, blokey do" manner.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Beags,

Thought we had "Mr, no longer Master "W", an extremely experianced Tac/AT ALM as part of the design team.

A very cool calm and collected individual who, despite my best efforts:E I never managed to extract the same reaction as I get from the "petulant one":rolleyes:

What has happened to him? Heard he had a heart scare but was not aware that that was endex for the poor fellow.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced :oh:

[Trumpet_trousers]

..ABIW...mate, I'd ask for your money back....it's clearly not working, is it?

experianced

OCED refers....:} @rse:ok:

[Good Mickey]

ABIW,

you're right Airbus Military already employ an experienced Tac AT ALM who has an impressive track record. He did have a heart attack recently but has now made a full recovery and is once again fully engaged in the design of the freight bay and associated systems.

I'm surprised that Beagle didn't give you the information though as he seems to think that he knows eveything else about this project!!

GM

[BEagle]

Personally I prefer not to comment about specific individuals on an open site, AbiW.

Anyway, my search for a suitably-qualified expert to join the A400M programme seems to have borne fruit....

[MrBernoulli]

Solid Rust Twotter says above:

"The SAAF is slowly being degraded by the loss of qualified aircrew as well so not sure if there'll be anyone to fly the things."

Hmmm ..... now where did I see an identical thing happen ..... in a similar part of that continent ...... ah yes ..... Zimbabwe!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

GM,

Thanks for the info, we had heard that Al had suffered with ticker prob's but glad to see he has made a full recovery and grate to seem him back at his "nice little earner":ok:

Which is pretty good news as I am not sure Beag's "candidate" would have had the mental stamina to deal with our "Auf Deutch" partners as stamping ones feet is not seen as a positive trait :E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Trumpet_trousers]

Here we go......

http://airbusmilitary.com/pressrelease.html#262005

....that's some milling operation!