A400 Grizzly

[barnstormer1968]

How long has the A400 been called the grizzly?

PPRuNE posters had come up with so many apt names, and then it is called Grizzly!

[vecvechookattack]

I don't think that the Grizzly is the NATO codename for the A400....purely the name of the development aircraft.....Someone told me that Airbus were naming it the Grizzly....but only the Airbus Aircraft....

Named after Spidermans arch enemy.....?????


However.... Names stick

[Wycombe]

Perhaps it's the noise that gives it the name - it came over my gaff on its way to Fairford after validating at Farnborough on Friday pm, and when I heard it approaching I had to go outside to look, as it just sounded "different" to anything else - more jet roar than turboprop drone, but definately a bit of both - something like a roar/growl??

And it was nipping along too - I get a lot of Q400's in the overhead here (Flybe's in and out of Southampton) and it looked noticeably quicker than those.

[L J R]

So lets start a naming thread......Dave got its name here didn't it??

How about .......

Wilma

[vecvechookattack]

Marvin..............


Colin ................



Wayne............

[wiggy]

it came over my gaff on its way...... I heard it approaching I had to go outside to look, as it just sounded "different" to anything else - more jet roar than turboprop drone, but definately a bit of both - something like a roar/growl??


Sounds about right :E - they've been doing a lot of flight testing of the beast(s) over chez nous :) this summer and it's bleedin' noisy...it's no whispering giant :rolleyes:

[Finnpog]

The PR team at EADS must have been tasked to come up with a Gucci, ruffty-tufty name for the A400M which could then be 'leaked' as having come from the crew.

This is a multi €/£/$ Bn contract - they are not going to let a little thing like the Branding go amiss, as it "muscles in" on the Herk and perhaps eyes the US marketplace.

My ideas:

Gaston...

Tamara...

Lindsay...

[TBM-Legend]

Leonard
Lionel
Duncan
Clydesdale
Dakota 11
or
Humpty Dumpty:E

[BEagle]

Grizzly was the nickname given to the A400M by the flight test crew.

At Farnborough, there are yellow bear paw prints everywhere on the pavement, all leading towards the aircraft - you can 'Get up and close to a Grizzly'.

Yesterday's display was much more restrained than the ILA Berlin display, I thought. But it is certainly more 'jet' than 'turboprop' in sound. Pretty quiet most of the time - although the sideline noise on landing was quite significant.

Incidentally, I though the stupid 'Dave' nonsense dreamed up by spotters had died out...:* The same people who temed the Buccaneer 'The Brick' and who kept insisting that the F-4J(UK) was the 'Phantom F3'...:rolleyes:

[Stretchwell]

It's Brian

[rock34]

The White Elephant?

The Ghost? When I see it in service I'll believe it......... :\

The Divorce? Half of what you wanted and it's hideously expensive....... ;)

[Windy Militant]

Rodney.....................Dave's brother!:}

[barnstormer1968]

Beags
Don't forget those who insist the strikemaster is the strikemouse (despite it saving British lives in action)
and that all UAV's are drones!

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I thought the USN's EA-18G community had the mortgage on 'Grizzly'....hope an A400M doesn't want to trap on a carrier anytime soon?!?!?!:E

[BEagle]

EA-18G is surely the 'Growler'?

Strikemaster has always been Strikemaster - only the 3 camouflaged JPs at Brawdy were somtimes nicknamed 'Strikemouse' because one of the earlier nicknames for the JP had been 'Mickey Mouse Jet' years earlier.

But drones are definitely drones.

[Gainesy]

Its no longer the Dave BEags, the RN F-35 variant will be known as the Sea Noff.

[E L Whisty]

Since C-130's nickname is Fat Albert (taken from a Bill Cosby animated TV programme) perhaps another name from the show might be appropriate. I submit 'Weird Harold'.

Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Albert_and_the_Cosby_Kids)

[Rovertime]

A few pics from rather Grizzly skies on Sunday at RIAT

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4815059194_2b6b54d132_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4814446755_686e3fcc7d_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4139/4815078844_e6de742123_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4815086658_d98c07721c_b.jpg

[Jig Peter]

Great shots, Rovertime - More ????
Nice to see a transport pulling wing-tip trails (with a lot of help from the weather) and also the flight control angles - like the graded extension of the roll spoilers.
Thanks for posting ! :ok:

[500days2do]

How much do these aircraft cost ?

I'm sure the trukkie fleet are looking forward to receiving them!!

How many do you think we will get...?

Will they cover all the roles expected?

Does the 'J' have the legs and the role equipment to fill the gap left by the retirement of the 'K'..?

So many questions....so few answers...

5d2d

[forget]

I know I'll regret asking this - but curiosity has won. Why wasn't this door moved aft a few feet. As it is, it's all compound curves, interferes with the wheel sponsons, and I'm struggling to see how it works - as a door. And in the other pics, is that a towel rail ADF sense antenna? Shirley not.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/A400.jpg

[FJJP]

GROWLER sounds a much better nickname....

Sound positively evil!

[forget]

Hercules, followed by .............................. Atlas. Does it for me.

[dead_pan]

What the the Goblin? Appropriate given what it can swallow (or how much it cost to build).

[cornish-stormrider]

A grizzly implies a menacing, dangerous type. this thing looks more like - -

Yogi

Is that a picinic basket I see before me Boo Boo?

[fallmonk]

With regard the door,
surely that's for the para's and the covert boys (and girls) to hit there head off as the leave the aircraft ?

[forget]

fallmonk, stop writing nonsense on here, please. And learn to spell FFS.

[Data-Lynx]

FJJP. In my world, a growler is a small iceberg or ice floe just large enough to be hazardous for shipping, so any allusion to navigating the Titanic could be unfortunate. It can also be any container used to sell a measured amount of beer so it could also be something like a jug. What price a pair in formation in these emancipated times?

[Jimmy Macintosh]

It appears that the intention of the door is to use the sponson as a step for those exiting the aircraft. In front of it you can also see a flow disrupter.

My concern is the control lock on the rudder being completely ineffective :}

(I know it's actually a piece of flight test instrumentation)

[forget]

OK, got it; if the door's solely for exiting paras.

[fallmonk]

Isn't that what I sayed ?

Hey "forget" go get a life , who made you the spelling police ?
And using FFS ! Do you have to reduce yourself to foul language ???
How very adult off you

[VX275]

Re the para door, when I left the programme they (Airbus) still hadn't figured out how the step (hinged part of the fairing) was going to retract. It should be the first action as the door is unlatched otherwise its going to be a blockage if the door is to be cleared as an emergency exit. The last idea I saw was you opened the door and then unlatched and lowered the step. NO NO NO. I even suggested they should look at the drag penalty of flying with it permanently down to avoid the problem
That said, with the door open and the air deflectors out (they may not be needed, so it might only appear on the prototypes) I reckon the step could be a nice place for sitting out on patio furniture.:\

[Ken Scott]

'Does the 'J' have the legs and the role equipment to fill the gap left by the retirement of the 'K'..?'

Err, yes. Outside of the SF role (in which the K continues) and the lone aircraft in the Falklands, the K has done little meaningful tasking for a number of years due to a lack of airframes, the bulk of C130 tasking having been done by the J. The J is now in the Falklands & while it may not have the External tanks it seems to be coping & may get them yet.

When I flew Ks the external tanks were only of so much use - they add weight even before you fill them with fuel, which reduces the load you can carry, particularly when it's hot/ high which is where most of the job is now. Don't recall filling them up much when we flew around the Middle East so they were only so much dead weight.

The J has been here for a decade, and doing a fine job.

[LFFC]

Grizzly? Not likely, RAF tells A400M bosses (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE66K5SV20100721?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=401).


But Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Britain's top air force officer, delivered a blunt veto from the RAF.

"It's absolutely appalling," he told Reuters.

"It has no provenance, no acceptance and it will enter RAF service with that name over my dead body."

[mr fish]

can anyone tell me the purpose of the "roundel" aft of the rear door?

[StopStart]

What about the Epilepsy* CMk1?

* Epilepsy was known as 'Hercules sickness' for over 2000 years because Hercules was known to suffer from it...... Seems apt...

[mystic_meg]

Say it like it is Boss!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grizzly? Not likely, RAF tells A400M bosses.


Quote:
But Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Britain's top air force officer, delivered a blunt veto from the RAF.

"It's absolutely appalling," he told Reuters.

"It has no provenance, no acceptance and it will enter RAF service with that name over my dead body."

Good. At last, someone who appears to have addressed this cringeworthy marketing exercise before it gets completely out of hand. So, the Airbus suits and snake-oil purveyors fall over themselves/slap each other on the back/buy each other big Cuban cigars (delete as appropriate) satisfied that they've got a 'punchy' (yeah, right...) name for the aircraft.
Question to Airbus: When, exactly, was the decision made to drop the previously chosen name of the A400M - Loadmaster?
Surely you can't have 2 names for it, can you? Or is there such a thing as a 'Grizzly Loadmaster?' :E

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

'Grizzly' is the nickname given to the Growler when shooting off and trapping on aircraft carriers - avoids potential mix ups with the heavier 'Prowler' when setting the strain on the cat and the wires. Same as the Super Hornet was nicknamed 'Rhino' (to the chagrin of many a Phantom driver) when at the boat to avoid mix ups with the legacy Hornet.

[Big Tudor]

Question to Airbus: When, exactly, was the decision made to drop the previously chosen name of the A400M - Loadmaster?

Not sure that decision has even been considered never mind made MM. According to information on these hallowed pages, Grizzly is a nickname that is used by the A400M flight test crews. Seems the press have picked up on it and the story has grown legs.

[BEagle]

I can just imagine it - the Air Box will have dreamed up some inspiring name such as 'Odysseus', 'Ulysses' or 'Trojan' :ooh: (don't anyone tell them what that is in American!) and Orders will then be crapped down from On High stating that on no account must the aircraft be referred to as the 'Grizzly'....:bored:

Remember, these are the people who wanted to call the Hawk the 'Tercel'...:rolleyes:

[Biggus]

ACM Sir Stephen Dalton won't be CAS when the A400M finally comes into RAF service........

[Gainesy]

Well he gets my vote, about time someone spoke his mind and to hell with the huggyfluffs.

Now, what was that Teddy Bear in Brideshead called?:)

[Clockwork Mouse]

How about calling it the A400? Short, catchy and unambiguous. There's even precedent in the RAF, like VC10 for example.

[FJJP]

fallmonk - it's 'their' and not 'there'.

And I still think that Growler is good...

[Mr Angry from Purley]

At Farnborough on Media Day on Monday there was a short annoucement and some champagne spraying over the Grizzly. The name was given by the Test Pilots i believe.

[Low Flier]

Call it Half-Fast.

A worthy successor to the Belslow, only without the 4,500 mile range or the 36 tonne payload or the 5-berth cabin.

[US Herk]

How 'bout the C17's original nickname?

Buddha

It's big, it's fat, it sits around and does nothing, but everyone worships it! :ok:

[EODFelix]

Well continuing the strongman theme from ages page past how about Obelix - Asterix's oversized buddy?

[mystic_meg]

Not sure that decision has even been considered never mind made MM

I think that you will find that there are Official Airbus Military A400M stickers/zaps in circulation with the annotation "The Loadmaster" upon them, and possibly publicity posters too - there certainly were some around not that long ago. So, Airbus, what'll it be? Grizzly or Loadmaster, or are we waiting for the next throwaway comment regarding its looks/similarities? :ugh:

[Blighter Pilot]

How about 'the soon to be cancelled post SDSR'?:ok:

[JFZ90]

But Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Britain's top air force officer, delivered a blunt veto from the RAF.

"It's absolutely appalling," he told Reuters.

"It has no provenance, no acceptance and it will enter RAF service with that name over my dead body."

He might not like the name, but there are ways of saying so - and the above is not it. I'm not a great fan of the name for in service use, but I think it kind of works for today, and things like the paw prints across farnborough were witty and clever.

The way he's scorned what is a rather harmless and fun flight test name of Grizzly is IMO "absolutely appalling". Ed S must be mortified. High profile negative PR for a product entering RAF service. Well done. I fear his ego has overriden what little media training he may have had. What a.....

[Thelma Viaduct]

A400 Steve :ok: * or Graham after my mate Graham.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The C-17 is 'Barney' isn't it?

Well, the C-5 is 'Fred' after all...:ok:

[GreenKnight121]

So C-130 is Wilma, A400M is Betty, C-27J is Pebbles, and C-295 is Bam-Bam?

Or is it that C-40 is Wilma, C-130 is Betty, C-27J is Pebbles, and C-2 is Bam-Bam?

[Two's in]

But Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Britain's top air force officer, delivered a blunt veto from the RAF.

"It's absolutely appalling," he told Reuters.

"It has no provenance, no acceptance and it will enter RAF service with that name over my dead body."

Translation - Please don't call me "Ginger"

What an uncirmcumcised penis.

[galaxy flyer]

FA18

Not bad, but never heard it. We did have a guy who looked exactly like a human Barney Rubble and was called that.

GF

[XR219]

So C-130 is Wilma, A400M is Betty, C-27J is Pebbles, and C-295 is Bam-Bam?

I think you'll find this is a Betty:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Mitsubishi_G4M_Betty.jpg

:ok:

[LowObservable]

The name Grizzly might be exactly right for the US market after November 2012...

(cue screams from liberal Dems)

[Dengue_Dude]

To be honest, it should be called the latest iteration of BUF,

Big
Ugly
F - use your imagination

Looks like it should have been built by the Russians.

[barnstormer1968]

"Looks like it should have been built by the Russians."

Seeing it in the flesh, I thought exactly the same thing!

[zero1]

Well I like the bear name but others to consider are:

"Scimitar" - refers to prop design but also cutting edge :ok:

"Blackhole" - works on many levels :=

"Atlas" - Follow on from the C130:ok:

"Paid for three but get only one" - Alright not a name but i suspect it's near the truth :=

At the end of the day assuming the boys in blue get the aircraft the nickname will come from those who fly or look after her in service. I just hope the services don't get short changed again following Octobers review.

[GreenKnight121]

To be honest, it should be called the latest iteration of BUF,

Big
Ugly
F - use your imagination

BUFF = B-52; Big Ugly Fat Fellow (or other F-word)

For A400M...
BUFFET = Big Ugly Fat French Expensive Transport

[Jig Peter]

Nice acronym, GK121 ... Pity that it's a total misfit. The A400(M) is assembled in Spain from components made in Germany, France, the UK and Spain, of course. It's a European product, designed to serve European armed forces, and later for service with countries whose needs have outgrown the capability of the C-130 and can also operate from strips the C-17 cannot.

As far as "naming" it goes, why not follow the example of airlines worldwide who happily fly 737s, 747s, A320s? Simple, really, and it saves time wasted in discussion of non-essential and also the costs of those whose misfortune it is to suggest such things. The A400 will no doubt get a nickname from its users, but the Airships in their mental stratosphere don't like what the "lower ranks" might get up to - after all, it might be "rude" !

Could vent more spleen, but won't !

[Wander00]

"Waterloo"?

I'll get my coat

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Jig,

Instead of getting hissy get your 'arris back to Spain and crack the whip a bit, not sure if you have noticed but "what ever we might eventually call it" is a quite a bit on the late side :p

[Jig Peter]

Wot, me go to Spain? I'm well retired, ta vm and comfortable where I am!
Nevertheless, the esteemed ACM Dalton must have been pretty harassed to talk about "provenance" - my Shorter Oxford (yes, I had to look the word up) tells me it means "The fact of coming from some particular source or quarter; derivation", so his reported reply seems inapposite at the least, but quite possibly only part of the conversation got into the Reuters gent's report.
It's to be hoped that the RAF will manage this time to avoid the diplomatic blunder of naming the Eurofighter "Typhoon". Nice name, but across the Channel/North Sea it was a reminder of rocket-firing tank and train-busters in WW2 which our NATO allies could well have done without. But when UK's current Prime Minister seems to think that the US was our staunch ally in 1940, and Britain was then (already) the "junior partner" ...

What official name the RAF gives to the A400M its users at the sharp end will certainly call it something else anyway, but the upper reaches of the hierarchy will probably never know ... :ok::ok:

[philrigger]

;)

But Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Britain's top air force officer, delivered a blunt veto from the RAF.

"It's absolutely appalling," he told Reuters.

"It has no provenance, no acceptance and it will enter RAF service with that name over my dead body."

By the time we get it, it probably will be over his dead body !

[StopStart]

diplomatic blunder of naming the Eurofighter "Typhoon"

Nice name, but across the Channel/North Sea it was a reminder of rocket-firing tank and train-busters in WW2 which our NATO allies could well have done without.

Utterly irrelevant O/T point I admit, but I put it you that invading Poland is slightly more of a "diplomatic blunder" than naming a 'plane....:hmm: They should think themselves lucky we didn't name the ground attack variant the "FGR1 Dresden"

[BEagle]

....diplomatic blunder of naming the Eurofighter "Typhoon"

Actually, the EF2000 Euroblighter was named 'Typhoon' after a meeting between the 4 major European partners some years ago..........

UK: "We need a name for this new jet. We don't think that ‘Spitfire II’ would be terribly suitable, so we suggest following on the 'wind' tradition started by Tornado. How about 'Tempest'?"

Germany: "Nein! Ve are with this not happy being. Verdammte Englanders did my father in his Me262 mit ein Hawker Tempest shoot down. Ve suggest Sturm!"

UK: "No, sorry old chap. Too many memories of Storm Troopers goose-stepping across Europe..... We'd prefer 'Hurricane'"

Germany: "Nein! This is not possible."

UK: "OK - something else then. How about 'Typhoon'.....?"

Germany: "Nein! You also those in the Second Weltkrieg had. Ve do NOT vant unser aircraft so named being"

UK: "Ah - but you had a 'Typhoon' or rather 'Taifun' as well. Bf 108 Taifun, if you recall. In fact Lufthansa still have one in the Deutschen Lufthansa Berlin-Stiftung....along with a Ju 52!"

Germany: "Himmel! Sie haben recht. Ve did indeed. Perhaps ve can consider this?"

UK: "OK - perhaps. Or what about 'Cyclone'? No-one has ever had any aeroplane called 'Cyclone'?"

Germany: "Hmm. Sehr interesting. Zis ist perhaps OK. Ja - ve are liking 'Cyclone', oder, wie sagt man auf Deutsch, 'Zyklon'. Ve can für das Singleseaterflugzeug 'Zyklon A' have, und für das Doppelseaterjagdbomberflugzeug, vielleicht 'Zyklon B'......"

UK: "Ahhh - we don't think that would be a terribly good name. We want to sell our jet overseas. We don't think that 'Zyklon B' would go down terribly well with some of our potential Middle Eastern customers......"

Germany: "Ach so. Perhaps then ve should agree on 'Taifun'!"

UK: "Yes. ‘Typhoon’ it is then. Spot of lunch, old chap?"

Germany: "Danke"

Italy: "Lunch? Si, we agree."

Spain: "¿Qué?"

[Jig Peter]

Nicely put, sir !
However, you might have continued ...
German (sotto voce): "But das T-Wort vill ve not use ennyvay ... und kann your Flugzeug ze Grount Attack do, like ze von mein Vater problems with did have ?"
Brit: Oh no dear chap, at least not for years, after all, it's a Fighter. And after your wanting to mess about with MiGs from the ex-DDR, it's going to be late too ... Another Apfelstrudel with custard ???"


Mods: Very sorry for thread drift ...
J:ok::ok::ok:P

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Late............. no thread drift at all Jig P :ok:

[Jig Peter]

Agreed it's late - the causes are well known, from the lack of supervision by previous Airbus management (not only on this programme, and for which heads did roll) to possible excess of confidence in Spain and a "misunderstanding" on the part of a member of the engine consortium ... and so on. The question of "Where do we go from here?" is being answered; the product seems to be doing well in flight tests so far, and customer pilots will, it seems, soon be able to handle it for themselves.

Britain's new government, with President Obama's help, may well have got out of Afghanistan before the A400 goes into RAF service (after the French and German air forces), but that's a possible obstacle much further down the road. For the time being it seems to be holding to the new schedule.

Across the Atlantic, Boeing's newest and finest is late too, as you will also be well aware, and they're having troubles on the tanker front as well.
Nobody's perfect!

:)

[BEagle]

Across the Atlantic, Boeing's newest and finest is late too...

Would that be the 7-late-7 Dreamchaser or the P-late Poseidon?

And as for the KC-767I farce......:uhoh:

[Jig Peter]

Should have put inter alia there, I suppose, as the 747-8's not on time either, but my point was really that keeping to a schedule over many years is very sensitive to Mr. Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns", or Mr. MacMillan's "events, dear boy".
In the end, it's whether the aircraft can do the job it was intended to do. From my seat well away from the action, the A400 seems to be promising to do what it said on the original tin, though "events" (like getting disentangled from the Afghan business) may make some customers less keen on the numbers they've signed up for only recently. But don't knock it for being late !
As for the original subject of this thread, "A400" goes down very well in every language of the participants. "Grizzly" is OK as a nickname, in English, and is particularly apposite with the increasing numbers of (brown) bears on both sides of the Pyrenees but how that translates into e.g Turkish, is "problematical", as they say ...

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

But don't knock it for being late !

If you had even one scintilla of an idea of the absolute chaos the "lateness" has caused you might just reconsider posting such throw away lines in future :=

[Roadster280]

The last time this came up, I proposed MUFF:

Medium Ugly Fat F***er.

It doesn't really matter what it's officially called. I don't suppose Lockheed said "Let's call it Fat Albert", or "F***ing Ridiculous Economic Disaster". These things just happen along.

[Hedgeporker]

Well since we've already got Fat Albert, how about Fat Alfred? Fat Osbert is rather euphonious. Or just Bunter by itself?

Wait...

I've got it . . .

The A400 Tardis!

[aviate1138]

The A400 Turgid ? :oh:

[ORAC]

I'll stick by my original suggestion, the A-400M Obelix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelix) :cool:

[sycamore]

Just call it the Argosy 2....

[Blighter Pilot]

Doesn't matter what you want to call it after it's been cancelled:eek:

[maximo ping]

Unfounded speculation B P or a proper rumour???

[ORAC]

The likely result of cancelling the A400M purchase would be the loss of any future EADS work, such as wing components, in the UK.

With BAe out of EADS future work isn't guaranteed, the Spanish in particular (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6232K420100304)angling to take over all UK work share, an A400M pullout would greatly strengthen their hand.

So I would suugest that, politically, it isn't likely to happen; and we're much more likely to be able to sell on our C-130Js than the A400M poroduction slots.

[Jig Peter]

When, a few months ago, the A400M contract(s) were revised, ALL the governments involved also agreed NOT to cut their orders "substantially", i.e. below the reductions agreed in those negotiations. Unilateral cancellation by HMG would involve compensation payments, but also get right up the noses of our partners in the programme. With Mr. Cameron's stated objective of being more effectively active within the EU, the ensuing ruckus could be loud and embarrassing.
And, as ORAC says, there would also be the knock-on effect on EADS work in UK. Broughton and Filton could feel very cold winds a-blowing ...
Also, there's the apparently good progress in proving the aircraft's ability to meet its specs to consider, which would remove the only legally sound reason to cancel ....

[Squirrel 41]

Have to agree with Jig-P and ORAC here: if the UK wanted to get out of this, then the opportunity to do so was missed at the time of the renegotiation last Christmas when Airbus was in contractual default and we could've walked away without (economic) penalty.

I presume that for industrial and political reasons - quite apart from the fact that the A400M Atlas C. Mk. 1 could be very useful - it was decided not to cancel. But gawd help Airbus (not to mention the RAF) if it get further delayed, price increases, (or realistically, both :hmm: ).

Never mind, we can always save some dosh by leaving refueling kit and DAS off - or in yukspeak, "fitted for but not with" - until we need it... because then we can just buy it off the shelf. Simples! :ugh:

S41

[Blighter Pilot]

The question is though - with a planned withdrawal from the East as advertised by the Govt will we really need to introduce 22 new Tac AT / Strat Minus platforms within the reduced UK military?

What will our role be? - if numbers and rumours are to be believed then surely 10 C17s (extra airframes to be procured - second hand?) and 30 C130Js (extra platforms purely for specific roles) will be more than enough airlift for UK PLC?

Especially as we are tied in to an expensive PFI for FSTA - there's your Strat AT and AR platform.

Is the A400M required for Britains future reduced defence role?

I don't think it will be.

[Less Hair]

Using this thread for some newsbit:
The A400M successfully completed it's ultimate load test on july 22nd.

my source is a german site with picture:

Airbus A400M besteht Flügeltest - FLUG REVUE (http://www.flugrevue.de/de/militaer/fluggeraet-hersteller/airbus-a400m-besteht-fluegeltest.29058.htm)

You can click on the pic to expand it.

[Zoom]

Samson any good?

[ORAC]

Why not Sisyphus... :p

[stumpey]

ORAC you owe me a keyboard. I thought you'd wrote syphilus!

[Hedgeporker]

The question is though - with a planned withdrawal from the East as advertised by the Govt will we really need to introduce 22 new Tac AT / Strat Minus platforms within the reduced UK military?

What will our role be? - if numbers and rumours are to be believed then surely 10 C17s (extra airframes to be procured - second hand?) and 30 C130Js (extra platforms purely for specific roles) will be more than enough airlift for UK PLC?

Especially as we are tied in to an expensive PFI for FSTA - there's your Strat AT and AR platform.

Is the A400M required for Britains future reduced defence role?

I don't think it will be.The A400M Tardis is expensive and late but it doesn't seem to be a turkey. Better to go with it than throw all that cash away.

We're growing out of the C-130 fast. Even with the imminent pruning it would be better to stick to A400M for it's size and performance/through-life cost benefits over C-130J/C17. Not to mention that although C17 can do rufty-tufty landings like the best of them, its jet engines generally don't like it very much at all.

I would like to see the government tear up the FSTA contract - there must be a hole in it somewhere, or perhaps some sort of overriding national expediency that takes precedent? - and use the A400 for AR while FSTA is robustly renegotiated. Yeah, that's right. Get all RN-SHornet on 'they ass!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

It's hardly a feckin Tardis and stand by to stand by on the cancellation front:=

Imagine how they must be wishing they had built it on time and on budget :rolleyes:

[glad rag]

You know, there some real cunninglinguists who post on here. :ugh:

As JP intimated,

And, as ORAC says, there would also be the knock-on effect on EADS work in UK. Broughton and Filton could feel very cold winds a-blowing ...Airbus already have a downer on the UK period.

But when was the last time REAL UK employment mattered to the government when they could massage both the figures and reporting to the MASS media.

GR( into the eighth month and counting.)

[TBM-Legend]

A400M "Beverley 11" sounds good....:hmm:

[Hedgeporker]

It's hardly a feckin Tardis and stand by to stand by on the cancellation front

Imagine how they must be wishing they had built it on time and on budget

As in Tardy . . . geddit?

[Blighter Pilot]

22nd October 2010


A400M order to be cancelled as UK Armed Forces restructure for a post - Afghanistan posture.


A400M scrapped to pay for independent nuclear deterrent.

Possible headlines?

[AR1]

Its called Grizzly because like its namesake, there's virtually no chance of encountering one in the UK.
And if you do - run downhill.

[Blacksheep]

"Its just the sort of silly name you'd expect them to give it"
R.J. Mitchell

[LowObservable]

Blacksheep wins 2 internetz.

I had forgotten that quote.

[Jig Peter]

Flightglobal reports that the No.3 A400M successfully performed fast taxi runs in July on a surface covered in chalk pellets (as a preliminary to full rough-field trials later this year) on a recently closed former C-160 Transall base south-west of Toulouse - one of several French Air Forces already closed down in their own "cuts" programme.
FG also says that Airbus Military and Thales have been invited to negotiate for an A400M training programme for both air and ground crew. Contract signature due in October 2011. The programme is due to run till 2030. They also mention that UK and France are looking at having a joint training programme, the Armée de l'Air being the first to take delivery of the aircraft.
This, plus the "Telegraph" unconfirmed report may indicate "good things" for the programme. Within UK government, however, the department concerned may well be just going ahead till told to do otherwise, of course ...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[GreenKnight121]

Airbus says more order cuts would undermine A400M (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-50687920100806)

Airbus said on Friday that further cuts in orders for its A400M military transport planes, as one politician from Germany's ruling coalition suggested this week, would mean production would no longer be worthwhile.

The manufacturer cannot afford to build fewer than 170 of the A400M planes, a company spokesman said on Friday after a German politician called for a further cut in Germany's order.

"There would be no economic foundation for the A400M programme with under 170 planes," an Airbus spokesman said.

Juergen Koppelin, defence expert for the Free Democrats, coalition partners of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives, said Germany should reduce its order by 20 planes to 40.

Airbus parent company EADS reached a deal in March with seven European NATO nations, including Germany, that allows them to cancel up to 10 of the planes they ordered in total.
They had originally ordered 180 A400M planes and Koppelin's suggestion would reduce that to 160 without taking into account cancellations by any other countries.

[moosemaster]

To get back to the original thread, all official documentation still bears the name "A400M Loadmaster"

(Well, it did when I left the office yesterday at least)

What each Air Force decides to call it is up to them, but I really don't think it'll matter. I seriously doubt anyone on the line will call it a "Loadmaster" as it would get too confusing, so just like the C17 not regularly being called a "Globemaster", it'll just be called an A400!

As for it being cancelled, ask 2 questions;

1 - Where is A400 going to be based?
2 - Who's constituency is it in?

(for the "not-so-on-the-ball", here's the answers....)
1 - "Future Brize"!
2 - PM Cameron.

[StopStart]

Er, so what? The comings or goings of the A400 will absolutely no bearing on the PM's constituency.

[Jig Peter]

Wasn't it a German politician who managed to hold up the Eurofighter/Typhoon programme by suggesting that surplus Mig29s from the former East German Air Force would be a more economical and equally effective way of defending united German airspace?
Talk about spanners in works (or foot in mouth?): anything to embarrass the other party in the governmental coalition, of which the gentleman (ie, his party) is supposed to be a member. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Less Hair]

Wasn't that SecDef Rühe back then? Not Mig-related IIRC.
He wanted to modify the Eurofighter to make it cheaper. Finally that took more time and money.

[ORAC]

AW&ST: Germany Confirms A400M Agreement (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/10/26/01.xml&headline=Germany%20Confirms%20A400M%20Agreement)

FRANKFURT — Germany will take only 53 of the 60 Airbus Military A400Ms originally on order, German government sources indicated on Oct. 25.

A400M customers continue to chip away at the commitment of 180 units that was negotiated as part of a general settlement reached in March. With the U.K. planning to cut its commitment by three aircraft, the total program now totals 170 aircraft.

French avionics specialist Thales will have to cover possible additional expenses for flight management system (FMS) changes, according to the sources. But a German defense ministry letter to leading Bundestag defense committee members says that industry has to come to a final agreement on the FMS matter.

Defense State Secretary Thomas Kossendey writes in the statement obtained by AVIATION WEEK that implementation of the March 31 heads-of-terms deal with the A400M nations turned out to be more challenging than expected. In his view, that is mainly due to the lengthy search for a compromise on the industry side and reworked planning for the FMS.

But the letter concludes that “significant progress has been made” since then, and negotiations on Oct. 1 “should finally have led to a breakthrough. After tough negotiations so far, an agreement with regards to critical aspects, particularly the financial ones, could be found according to the view of the nations.” Kossendey refers to talks involving the nations, the Occar arms procurement agency and Airbus Military.

An EADS official did not confirm the letter or any of the details, but said he was confident a deal could be reached before the end of the year.

The defense ministry believes that changes and additions to the 2003 industrial contract and further negotiations on the FMS will take the remainder of October. The German defense committee could then deal with the altered terms at a December meeting, according to the letter.

[BEagle]

But a German defense ministry letter to leading Bundestag defense committee members says that industry has to come to a final agreement on the FMS matter.

At least the BfV letter didn't demand a 'final solution'....:\

[gareth herts]

It was apparently also revealed today that the A400 will be a Brize for its initial tanker trials before the end of this year.

[BEagle]

Given that the UK's A400M will not be operated as a tanker (except, presumably, for some of the 90+ helicopters the RAF will eventually operate...), are you sure you meant to type 'A400M'? Or did you mean 'A330' ?

[gareth herts]

Hi Beagle

Perhaps my wording was misleading....

As posted by FlightGlobal earlier yesterday (Defence Correspondent was on a visit to Airbus Military).

A400M to do receiver trials with RAF VC10 tanker late this year from Brize Norton. Dry contacts only. Test fleet now done over 200 flights.

Gareth

[GreenKnight121]

A400M receiving fuel, not giving it.

[BEagle]

A400M to do receiver trials with RAF VC10 tanker late this year from Brize Norton. Dry contacts only. A400M doing neither - damp contacts (hose primed) only, by the sound of it.

Somewhat ambiguous tw@tter comment - it isn't clear whether the VC10K is 'from Brize Norton' or whether the A400M will be flown from Brize. To me it would seem rather odd to send a test aircraft, plus spares and support crew, across to Brize rather than just flying the VC10K to a suitable French AARA and flying the Grizz from Toulouse.

Unless, of course, it's going to be doing more than just some receiver trials.

[Algy]

The info released yesterday was that Grizzly 1 will visit BZN, probably in last couple of weeks of the year, to perform dry contacts as a receiver from VC-10. The purpose is to assess handling qualities and in particular the effect of the tanker downwash.

Grizzly 1 is also being fitted with refuelling pods (same as MRTT pods) but at the moment primarily with an eye to assessing aerodynamic effects. Wet contacts not until mid-2011.

In terms of flight envelope the A400M is capable of refuelling fast jet, rotary, and anything happy with hose and drogue in between. All aircraft ordered so far have internal provision for refuelling specified (ie everything that needs fitting during manufacture), however I don´t think any customers have so far made public their precise intentions regarding fielding the capability. In practice there will obviously be a spectrum of equipage from fully tanker-ready just requiring the conversion from transport to tanker on the day, to basic provision-only.

Lots of info released yesterday which will no doubt turn up in the usual locations over the next week or two. And an interesting year ahead.

[ORAC]

Hmmm, isn't the HDU hose always wet? So even if the pump is off you get the content actually in the hose itself??

Apologies if I disremember, it has been over 15 years since I controlled any AAR. :sad:

[BEagle]

The centreline should be primed even for 'dry' prods, so that the hose 'flies right' rather than 'straightening up'. Once the receiver makes contact, even with the 'tanker end' closed off, the hose will usually empty even if just into the receiver's probe and AAR inlet gallery. Unless, that is, there's a method of closing off the receiver's probe completely.

Hence my reference to 'damp' (or 'moist'...:\) contacts!

There's also a slightly esoteric reason for such contacts not to be completely 'dry' - involving the HDU fuel valve and the normal light sequence for the receiver. But there's no universal STANAG (yet) for this.

Not necessary for wing hoses though - and usually not even possible (except for a pointless modification on one tanker type...:rolleyes:) ). If receivers miss a wing hose, they'll often call for the wing hoses to be 'primed' as they think that the tanker is at fault..... Such calls are usually met with "Roger" and nothing is done - but it keeps the frustrated FJ prodder happy!

[Jig Peter]

Years ago when the Victor 1 was just a very young pup, the then rumour network talked about a trial AAR contact (receiving) during which the Victor's rear crew were very cross about getting more than a bit "damp"...
AAR was pretty new then as well, so it's not surprising (if the rumour had any foundation in fact) that some "unknown unknowns" were encountered.
Some of us larfed (quietly) ...


PS. Nice to see that there's also progress on the Grizzly front, though the mighty Europrops haven't exactly been thundering in the skies south of Toulouse for a while.

[BEagle]

Then there was some steely-eyed matelot in a Navy Bucc, which had recently been fitted with a probe. Find a passing Victor, join, plug in, fuel flows....but nothing shows on the gauges...:confused: So, muttering curses about the incompetence of the tanker crew, he pokes off and lands.

Being a Navy jet, they fold the wings - then someone swings the radome open and about 200 lb of Avtur gushes forth...:eek:

Yes, the jet had been fitted with a probe - but the other part of the mod. hadn't yet been completed - so as yet there was no pipe 'twixt probe and tanks.

I hasten to add that this tale is secondhand, so whether it's actually true or belongs with the 'Shackleton making an approach on a carrier' folklore, I cannot say!

[Madbob]

Can someone explain why the VC10K should be used in this trial?

The A400M or Grizzley or whatever it's to be called, (I personally like "Airtruck" as it is a freighter, and it goes well with "Airbus" - the version used by SLF!) is not going to be in service for years - 2016 perhaps??

The VC10 ought to (at last!) have been put "out to grass" before then so testing compatability would be better with two platforms whose service lives are going to coincide. Wouldn't it be more representative to use an A330T, KC767 or whatever?

The VC10 is also known for being a rather benign "donor" as far as tankers go and less of a challenge to the "receiver" than say a Tristar or KC-135. Perhaps this is the reason?

Just curious....

MB

[ORAC]

The KC-135 only has a centreline boomso is not capable (BDA is a non-starter). The Tristar goes out of service about the same time as the VC-10, and, as it can still carry pax on the airbridge, can less easily be spared for the task.

As for the KC-330: Second RAF FSTA Takes Off On Post-mod Test Flight (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a7eec5363-d647-47c0-93eb-1f01a8ac02fe&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The second Future Strategic Transport Aircraft derivative of Airbus’s A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) for the UK Royal Air Force made its first post-modification test flight from Madrid yesterday (Oct 26).

Airbus Military says that the crew reported that the aircraft, its systems, and Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines performed entirely satisfactorily during the 2 hr flight from Getafe.

Meanwhile work is progressing on the installation of the Cobham-supplied fuselage refuelling unit (FRU) system on FSTA number one in Getafe, says Gabriel García Mesuro, Airbus head of flight operations and test.

“There was a delay in the delivery of the system from the supplier but we have now received it,” says Mesuro.

This aircraft performed around five flights prior to going into the workshop. Early next year will be used for refuelling qualification tests in the UK with various RAF aircraft including the Eurofighter Typhoon. Mesuro says the aircraft may also fly some refuelling trials with the Airbus Military A400M. Formal deliveries to the RAF are due to begin towards the end of 2011, says Airbus.

Meanwhile the first MRTTs for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are due to make the first post-modification test flights from Getafe early next year.

Pictures: Airbus Prepares Next Two A400Ms in Seville (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6947c17b-e642-44a4-8fb0-fa63dc7b1d0f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Video: A400M minimum unstick and rough-strip trials (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8d331429-1935-4b5c-97b0-90ff6b5afa18&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[Xercules]

I think you will find that these trials at Brize are more to do with aircraft handling than intended to provide a clearance for refuelling. There is a good report on overall progress with the flight test campaign at A400M close to first air drop, refuelling tests, says Airbus (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/28/349074/a400m-close-to-first-air-drop-refuelling-tests-says.html)
in which it is mentioned that the tests are to de-risk later trials with MSN4 next year which will, presumably, be much more about whether the receiver system works and how the crew needs to do it.

[Algy]

For all those interested, I can tell you officially that the A400M refuelling activity with the VC10 will be performed from Toulouse and not BZN. The AvWeek (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/10/28/awx_10_28_2010_p0-266014.xml&channel=defense) and Flight (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/28/349074/a400m-close-to-first-air-drop-refuelling-tests-says.html) reports were entirely correct on the basis of the briefing they received (which I attended) - but the briefing language was incorrect in implying that the flying would be performed from BZN as opposed to the aircraft simply being based at BZN. Pure cock-up not conspiracy - trust me. (And why wouldn't you as I'm an Airbus Military spokesman.):O

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: A400M Partners Reach Contract Accord: French Minister (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4999164&c=EUR&s=AIR)

TOULOUSE, France - France said Nov. 5 that the seven countries due to buy the troubled A400M military transport had drafted a new deal to fund the program and that it would receive its first plane in 2013. The A400M contract has been a difficult one for the manufacturer Airbus and its parent company EADS, with delivery of the planes already running four years late and a massive 5.2-billion-euro cost overrun.

"I have very, very good news for you - the conclusion of an agreement on the A400M," Morin said, on a visit to EADS subsidiary Airbus' plane-making plant outside the southern French city of Toulouse. "It only remains for the seven customers to begin national ratification procedures. This November 5 is a great day for the European defense industry," he told reporters covering his factory tour.

In a statement, EADS said the draft deal was the same as had been agreed in principle with the client countries in March, which would see the firm agree to cover 1.8 billion euros in cost overruns itself........

"The A400M flight test program is making excellent progress and demonstrates the soundness of the product," said Domingo Urena, managing Director of Airbus Military, in an EADS statement. "We are very proud of the achievements so far and are now moving towards the series production by the end of the year," he added.....

[Less Hair]

First para drop from "grizzly three".

picture:
Airbus A400M setzt erste Fallschirmspringer ab - FLUG REVUE (http://www.flugrevue.de/de/militaer/fluggeraet-hersteller/airbus-a400m-setzt-erste-fallschirmspringer-ab.34159.htm)

[VX275]

Tell me when they've done max weight sim stick para wedge at low level and some proper heavy supply drops and I might just be impressed.

[BEagle]

Bit of a silly comment VX275, one normally expects to walk before running...:rolleyes:

At least this puts to bed that daft rumour that the A400M couldn't fly slow enough to jettison meat bombs safely.

[ZH875]

The late, overbudget MRA4 could fly, but will not enter service, the same may still happen to this late, overbudget white elephant.

[Q-RTF-X]

This has a little more detail on the first para drop .....

PICTURE: First paratroops jump from Europe's A400M (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/08/349448/picture-first-paratroops-jump-from-europes-a400m.html)

[moosemaster]

The fact that the MR2 has been grounded for months sealed the fate of MRA4.

Has anyone actually missed it, therefore do we need to replace it?

Playing devil's advocate here btw.


A400M doesn't have that problem as there will always be a need for AT assets, and our current fleet is overworked, to the extreme.

For all those who doubted, we're still going and we're on target for 2013 delivery. Expect to see one at your local "superbase" by 2014, on schedule (albeit the revised, revised, revised schedule. :ok: )

[BEagle]

...our current fleet is overworked, to the extreme.

And getting pretty shagged out, no doubt.

A400M is a complex programme, but seems to be making remarkable progress now that it's flying. Far more so than the Boeing 7-late-7 or the KC-767I, both of which are years overdue - and are arguably far simpler.

[Jig Peter]

While the news seems to be pretty good about Grizzly testing, I was a bit surprised by Mr. Morin's statement that first deliveries aren't due for another 3 or 4 years: I know that it's going to be able to do a whole heap of things, but some years back Airbus (no "Military" then) used to deliver a "ready to go" new civil type one year after first flight, and was then in the process of getting "the family" up and operating - A310, A300-600, A320, A330, A340 - in less than 15 years, which included getting a whole new production system in place as well. (The A380 came later)
Not really a criticism of what promises to be an outstanding military transport, though ... Just that it's badly needed by the RAF, the Armée de l'Air and the Luftwaffe, who all have to wait what seems to be a looooong time. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

PS. Agreed (before the flak artists get their guns pointed) that comparing military and civil transport testing is a bit of an "apples & oranges" affair,
but it's clear that there isn't a lemon among 'em .

[VX275]

BEagle, I know full well that one has to be able to walk before you can run, I have after all had several years conducting military parachute test work.
I also know that at one time the tests that Airbus are making a fuss about were going to be ALL they needed to certify the A400M for parachuting. So I say again, lets see something useful like sim stick para wedge before getting too excited.

[JFZ90]

BEagle, I know full well that one has to be able to walk before you can run, I have after all had several years conducting military parachute test work.I also know that at one time the tests that Airbus are making a fuss about were going to be ALL they needed to certify the A400M for parachuting. So I say again, lets see something useful like sim stick para wedge before getting too excited.

You seem a bit negative.

Do you motivate and encourage your team by belittling their achievements?

[ORAC]

Ares: What You Can Learn Reading (French) Parliamentary Reports (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab7bb733d-47e5-48ee-b655-81e50429c83b&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

..........Regarding the discussions on the A400M which were successfully concluded on November 5, Collet-Billon said: “There is a delicate technical point concerning the flight management systems (FMS) made by Thales. Airbus and Thales are proposing a solution which would increase the number of standards of the aircraft ... . Contractual financial dispositions, taking the form of retention of payments, are under negotiation in order to guarantee that the manufacturer will upgrade all the aircraft to the successive standards ... . The first delivery of an A400M to the French air force is scheduled for 2013 at the first operational standard. The standards will then move up until 2018; the last standards will concern functions specifically requested by the Luftwaffe [German air force].”.......

[Trumpet_trousers]

the last standards will concern functions specifically requested by the Luftwaffe [German air force] ... presumably the ability to lay beach towels on the sun loungers in the early hours without being detected? :E

[Jig Peter]

The test with 6 parachutists was, I expect, one of the sensible small-scale checks that are being done on the A400M (Algy will correct me if my surmise is wrong ...), like the rough runway check made earlier with a length of runway covered in chalk pellets. Full-up tests on a really rough runway are scheduled later, and the full parachuting tests are (or were last time I looked at the web-site) due to be held in Turkey (consortium partner), presumably in 2011.
Mods were done, I read recently, after the side doors and ramp were opened in flight earlier in flight testing, with noise and buffeting mentioned. These mods seem to have cleared the air for this test, avoiding the need to develop excrescences such as those applied to the unfortunate Beverley. Seems a reasonably cautious approach, with a fair chance of the later "full" tests going through smoothly - but the carpers are never satisfied ...

[StopStart]

something useful like sim stick para wedge
Useful? Wedge? You'll have it towing Horsas next..... :bored:

[The Equivocator]

Depends what you define as wedge Stoppers. The current system, I agree, is of little utility, but the A400M RAS (think wedge) is a different thing with much more potential. Think four containers off the ramp....

[BEagle]

... presumably the ability to lay beach towels on the sun loungers in the early hours without being detected?

For you, TT, it's lampshade time!

BTW, have you NB'd there's been a bit of a 'Nacht der langen Messer' at a location you and I know well.....:uhoh:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Depends what you define as wedge Stoppers. The current system, I agree, is of little utility, but the A400M RAS (think wedge) is a different thing with much more potential. Think four containers off the ramp....

With Stoppers here as wedge is a wedge irrespective of how many containers and it's something we have only ever practiced with the thought of doing something along the lines of Market Garden but we should be way beyond that old school stuff now.

Why block the ramp with that daft contraption when you could dispatch folk along with a whole bunch of really really useful stuff via that chuffin great opening, if wedge is still something we are looking to achieve then we really are not thinking very big at all.

[Bannock]

Moosemaster,
I take issue with your comments of -

'The fact that the MR2 has been grounded for months sealed the fate of MRA4. Has anyone actually missed it, therefore do we need to replace it?'

This is typical of the ignorance that those within the publicly visible fleets often display.

When your local Pub has accepted US$, Canadian$, Euro bollox and Norgie dib dobs as a matter of routine several times in six months then you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that someone else is wiping your own arse.

Again ISK VAS is working overtime.

No offence mate but Big Picture !

[StopStart]

Wedge is wedge. SPM & combo are a different matter. 4 containers off the ramp is fine but to be fair you could put 4 CDS containers followed by static line jumpers out the back of a J (if someone could come up with a cogently written requirement) :) Not a Herc vs A400 dig by the way, just a comment on the utility of different airdrop loads. :ok:

Good to see the A400 progressing through its trials though. Here's hoping that when it comes into RAF service it gets crewed by the right folk early on who can set the ethos and drive its development as a TacAT platform.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Are we seriously building a 21st Century state of the art transport aircraft that is being funded for a ****in Wedge platfrorm :confused:

If we are those involved should be hanging their heads in shame.

[Algy]

A400M friend and foe alike will enjoy this. (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/PressRelease/tabid/133/ArticleId/111/Airbus-CEO-and-OCCAR-Programme-Manager-join-parachutists-in-jump-from-A400M.aspx)

[Trim Stab]

“It was an enormous pleasure for me to experience the excellent qualities of the A400M for paratroop operations. Paratroopers serving with our customer nations can be confident that the A400M will provide a far superior platform for their operations in future.”


Hmm, what does a self-proclaimed "sport parachutist" know about paratroop operations?

Maybe his comments might be valid if was accustomed to mustering at 1900 for an 0400 drop, spending several hours packing kit and "hurrying up to wait", getting loaded up with so much kit that he cannot climb the ramp unaided, sitting so cramped he is unable to even extend a leg for several hours of low-level insertion while the drivers make half the pax puke, then jumping with ninety odd others playing aerial bumper-cars with directionally unstable chutes.

[Clockwork Mouse]

And what, pray, has any of that got to do with the qualities of the aircraft?

[Algy]

Not sure why you're quite so sceptical given Tom Enders well-documented record, but for the record he has 1,000+ jumps of all kinds and is a former German Army paratrooper and subsequently reservist.

[Rengineer]

Clockwork,

it means that someone with a salary of >1M€ feels happy to jump out of the thing. That's something. The other is, you first have to do some jumps to tell about the quality of the aircraft for releasing paras, so that's what they're doing. So no provocation please.

[StopStart]

Rengineer, he was referring to the comments of Trim Stab :hmm:

[Rengineer]

Oh, was he indeed? Sorry, in this case.:\

[Clockwork Mouse]

No problem!

[Trim Stab]

Not sure why you're quite so sceptical given Tom Enders well-documented record, but for the record he has 1,000+ jumps of all kinds and is a former German Army paratrooper and subsequently reservist.


The press release should have been better drafted then. Even if he is a former para, I am surprised that he thinks that one jump with a sport parachute off the back ramp on a sunny day at 6000' is enough to pass such sweeping praise on the A400 as a para-dropping aircraft.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Oh dear, 2 posts and both incorrect - why not go for the hat-trick? or better still, take your foot out of your mouth and get back to grinding your axe.

[Trim Stab]

TT - not sure what your point is, nor the reason for your animosity - care to explain?

I suspect that the A400 will turn out to be a very good paratroop aircraft (not that it is a valid role any more) given the consultation in the design process with experienced paratroopers - but there will be a lot more trials before that is proven. Sport jumping off the back ramp has virtually no relevance at all to the reality of mass static-line operational paratroop drops out of the side-doors.

[Brain Potter]

Are you familiar with the purpose of this activity in the flight test development programme? No one is suggesting that these are certification or qualification tests.

[Trim Stab]

No one is suggesting that these are certification or qualification tests.


The press release seemed to!


“It was an enormous pleasure for me to experience the excellent qualities of the A400M for paratroop operations. Paratroopers serving with our customer nations can be confident that the A400M will provide a far superior platform for their operations in future.”


Making such confident conclusions on the basis of a very superficial test does not give much credibility to other A400 press releases, which is why I thought it was a poor press release.

[Brain Potter]

Whilst there is no doubt that Tom Enders involvement in this test was a PR stunt, surely nobody can blame the company for wringing the maximum publicity from any positive news in what has been a troubled programme.

However, to describe this stage of the development process as "superficial" indicates a clear lack of understanding of the nature of flight test. Would you really expect the early stages of a test campaign to include the kind of parachuting activity that you have described? The findings of the these tests allow the careful and incremental opening of the envelope towards the intended capability. Moreover, isn't the freefall dropping of small groups from the ramp a more operationally relevant activity than mass static-line drops?
To put it another way, your comments appear akin to describing the initial weapon release tests of a new combat as not significant because they did not take place with live ordnance and in night IMC conditions.

Of course these tests are not representative, but they are a crucial stepping-stone to bigger things.

[Trim Stab]

Would you really expect the early stages of a test campaign to include the kind of parachuting activity that you have described?


No not at all. The they carried out was an entirely appropriate first test.

But the press release should have reflected the cautious conclusions that could be drawn from such a preliminary test, rather than making an impetuous extrapolation to a grandiose claim about the A400's as yet unproven capability as a paratroop aircraft.

[VX275]

Just what were the test points from this publicity stunt? The aircraft can fly with its ramp and cargo door open at an altitude that dosen't require suplimental oxygen. Well woopydo. The only thing being tested in this senario is the parachute.
Now if it was a drop from 35K plus, that would be testing the aircraft's ability to depressurise and repressurise whilst the crew were on supplimentary O2. Oh hang on whilst its on Civil Cert testing EASA won't let it carry an O2 system that would allow that will they.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti A400M, but I am anti EASA's head burying attitude to civil testing of aircraft that will be military operated. Then there is Airbus making big claims for little steps on a project that has been delayed due to some dubious management decisions within Airbus.

[JFZ90]

Trim Stab and VX275, found some patches for you...

MSM Fun Sponge Patch (Full Color) MSMPATCH-0077COLOR on eBay (end time 12-Dec-10 03:20:30 GMT) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MSM-Fun-Sponge-Patch-Full-Color-MSMPATCH-0077COLOR-/170486741667?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27b1cd3aa3)

[Jig Peter]

Quite a lot of the A400M programme's problems were caused by what one could call "the old team", and Mr. Enders and his new team have had to spend a lot of time and effort clearing the stables - don't knock their glee that things seem to be going well at last.

PS. Also, don't forget the time lost through a member of the engine consortium's inability to get the software right, within certificators' parameters ...

[Xercules]

I agree that 6 and then 10 parachutists having jumped from Grizzly does not prove anything other than to provide some information to the development and clearance teams. However, perhaps the fact that Tom Enders has done it can be seen as a corporate gesture of confidence in the product - a thought to be modified by any sane aircrew man's view of jumping out of any serviceable airframe.

In the old days when some engineering work led to the requirement for an air test it was common for the techy(ies) concerned to fly on that air test as a gesture of solidarity (and, no doubt, pour encourager) - could not TE's jump be seen in a similar light?

[LowObservable]

I'd have thought it was a bigger gesture of confidence in the parachute.

[ORAC]

I'd have thought it was a bigger gesture of confidence in the parachute. Well if it was, did it let him down? ;)

[LowObservable]

Boom Boom!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/images/childrens70s_basil_brush_gal.jpg

[dogle]

Baron Gilbert expressed some strong views in the recent Lords debate, together with the hope that Hansard would not (again) mince his words ... which appear to have remained unminced:

Lords Hansard text for 12 Nov 201012 Nov 2010 (pt 0003) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101112-0003.htm)




(I have to admit it was that jolly sailor (yes, him) who drew my attention to the debate:

New RAF transport plane is 'Euro-w*nking makework project' ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/19/a400m_euro_onanism/) )

[Jig Peter]

The Noble Lord certainly has it in for the A400M, as does The Register, apparently. While short on facts, his (unabbreviated) sentences remind me of how, in days of yore, columnists and others used to write (rather more moderately, for they were not writing in a "privileged environment") about Airbus civil projects, leading to the supposition that they were being fed material by a certain company then based on the upper west coast of the US.
As the A400M is designed to carry loads that the C-130 can't, perhaps the anti-Grizzlies are being "talked to over lunch" by people from (or near to) ... ???
With the growth of military loads, it was reasonable to see a "market opportunity" and get together to supply a need that would grow - after all, the quoted numbers of C-130s "out there" make a reasonably-sized target to aim at. The numbers ordered so far are those by the "launch customers", so "1600 Herks versus 170 Grizzlies" is an apples & oranges affair, as other figures he quoted would seem to be.
There is a market out there, and it's worth going for British Noble Naysayers or no !

[JFZ90]

It makes you wonder.

I find it irritating in the extreme how some of these characters talk with such apparent authority and condescending arrogance, when in reality they have little or no grasp of key facts which should influence their views.

As an example, he tries to make a point about there being 2500+ of C130s around in the world, which is therefore good for commonality and interoperability, whilst being seemingly completely ignorant of the fact that the UK C130Js* are very different to the huge numbers of 1950/60s generation of C130 he refers to - and only 200 or so C130Js have been built so far - about the same as A400M orders today. Some more C130Js are on order, but this is 10-15 years after its introduction.

It is not possible for Gilbert to argue this is a trivial error in his facts - it shows a fundamental lack of understanding that is key to his argument.

Given he demonstrably has poor subject knowledge - one can only speculate as to why he therefore seems to care about C130 vs A400M vs C17 (the latter of which isn't a practical tactical option for the UK anyway). Either in Boeings pocket, or perhaps Marshalls in Cambridge, whose nice line in the C130J support business looks less certain post SDSR.



* obviously the Ks are irrelevant in this debate

[JliderPilot]

there is a lot of heated discussion about the A400m, some of it misguided IMHO. Having operated on C130's (J+K) for 20yrs I for one am looking forward to the 'atlas' (think that's what it will be called) coming into service. From now on, we have to be smart about procurement, we need the most modern and capable ac (=better bang for the buck) and the A400m is the only viable option.

Our american friends may well realise how much better than the Herc it is and buy them also; that is after they stop wasting money flying SKE constantly. Times are changing and following a recent brief by CAS I am not sure there is a place for many of us, experience seems to be unimportant. He gave reasons why the cuts have been made but papered over the future. He is a very bright chap but was more concerned with 'how to get promoted to 1*' rather than the troops.

Slightly off topic there, sorry. Rant over.

[herkman]

I am rather surprised by your comments and have some concerns with them.

The C130K was basically an E model and the main changes if I recall correctly was the floor change which allowed the RAF to use AD systems from obsolete transports.

I also understand that the intergration of the Auto pilot was a night mare as was some problems with the radios.

No where before have I seen statements that the J models were delivered in a non standard situation.

Could you please table the changes made to the J.

Thanks

Col

[JFZ90]

Gilbert referred to the benefits to us of interoperability with "2500 C130J s" in the world.

I admit that he wasnt that clear on what he actually meant by interoperability, though I interpreted it as support related - I.e easier to support around the world with many operators. Obvious C130J differences to C130"classics", such as totally new engines and avionics render this argument rather meaningless.

[billynospares]

Col the UK c130j was delivered with a different cargo handling system to standard, different ramp ads arms , different software standard and different digital maps to the standard US off the line models at the time. We just have to be different ! Oh and you can jump with a sports chute from the top of a building but that doesnt make it a good ad platform ?

[LowObservable]

Robin Williams described Parliament as "Congress with a two-drink minimum".

[Agatha]

Hot rumour has it that the MOD has finally come up with its own name for the A400M - ATLAS :D

Definitely an improvement on the Airbus nickname!! :ugh::yuk:

[BEagle]

The new transport aircraft...AT LASt?

[VX275]

Just to correct billynospares; As launch customers for the J the UK aircraft were the standard. It could be said that it was the US that took them non standard. Admittedly the standard of J the UK accepted wasn't up to much, but for once you can blame the Lockheed accountants who designed it (to quote a Lockheed engineer) rather than the UK MOD.
Having gone through the painful birth of the J it was sole destroying to watch Airbus make the same mistakes.

[VX275]

Of course that should read soul destroying, although I did use quite a lot of sole leather walking around Tolouse, Hamburg and Bremen whilst Airbus created tons of paperwork as a way of avoiding designing or building anything.

[Jig Peter]

While some people were "walking around Toulouse, Hamburg and Bremen ...", the paper being generated was possibly in response to communications with OCCAR, or even directly with individual members of the consortium. The pre-launch and actual launch phases did tend to generate lots of paper, which e-mail might have reduced, but inter-factory communications as well as with customers still have to take place, plus of course the usual before and after meetings stuff .
Meanwhile, the factories concerned (and others) were indeed very busy, and getting busier, building very successful single- and twin - aisle famiies, and even (depending on when the walk-abouts took place) designing the A380.
Thus, I trust that your comments were made with tongue in cheek ... The end-product seems to be well worth the wait.

PS. Care to expand on the "same old mistakes" bit ???

[US Herk]

As launch customers for the J the UK aircraft were the standard. It could be said that it was the US that took them non standard. Admittedly the standard of J the UK accepted wasn't up to much, but for once you can blame the Lockheed accountants who designed it (to quote a Lockheed engineer) rather than the UK MOD.

I think you'll find that the C-130J was designed and developed to US specs by Lockheed with no military involvement or requirement. And it was in fact the MoD who changed from the "as delivered / sales brochure" specs - things like cargo floor & avionics primarily. MoD actually wanted to put that damn Beverly floor in the J and Lockheed said "No - the furthest 'backward' we'll go is the US-spec dash-4 floor", UK-spec avionics to prop up BAE and others, etc. To add salt to the wound, the MoD paid to convert "trade-in" Mk3 K-model Beverly floors to dash-4 floors on delivery to the US.

The UK did bear much of the development brunt and pains that go with being a launch customer, no doubt, but that certainly wasn't Lockheed's fault, nor the UK MoD, really - it is what it is. Although there were certainly issues with avionics compatibility early on.

Speaking of the floor and the 364L pallet system - RAF didn't care for that much in the beginning. But once C17 was online and the pallets went from Herk to Moose w/o being torn down and rebuilt, as roll-on/roll-off, the light bulb went on! ;)

[VX275]

Ah the Dash4a in the J saga, what a SNAFU that was. Dash 4a rails being butchered to fit out of tolerance airframes. Aircraft being flown without structurally important bolts etc.
Oh and by the way Skydel wasn't Beverley it was Argosy, Britannia, VC 10, Andover as well as K Herc and funnily enough shared a common origin with Dash4a - yes Dash4a and Skydel are as old as each other.
I believe that the RAFs J should have had ECHS from the start going for Dash4a was as backward a step as Skydel.

[melmothtw]

The name ATLAS is no longer a "hot rumour". Just had it offically confirmed by the MoD.

[forget]

A400 Grizzly
Posted By forget. 21st Jul 2010.

Hercules, followed by .............................. Atlas. Does it for me.

They do listen after all. :p

[green granite]

They might have found something original to call it:

http://hpbimg.hemaridron.com/nord2501%2004012005.jpg

NORD ATLAS

[mick2088]

Good idea to rename it the Atlas. There was also an RAF army co-operation in service in the 1930s called the Atlas (Armstrong-Whitworth), while one of the RAF's Shorts Belfast transporters was nicknamed the same. But what is original these days, most aircraft names seem to be recycled and have been used at one time or another.

[Jig Peter]

I've got a lingering memory of the Fairchild Packet lookalike, the Nord Aviation Noratlas being originally a Gothawerke design intended (by the Nazi occupiers) for production in France, where the workers' deliberate slowness greatly delayed production until after WW2.
Which reminds me also that an Aerospatiale veteran once said that the "skills" learned during such deliberate delaying actually helped in getting the Caravelle into fairly rapid production - they just had to do the opposite of what they'd done during the occupation (like having lavatories close to the line, instead of hundreds of metres away).

(Apologies for thread drift)

[F3sRBest]

Of course that should read soul destroying, although I did use quite a lot of sole leather walking around Tolouse, Hamburg and Bremen whilst Airbus created tons of paperwork as a way of avoiding designing or building anything.

From my experience the reason that it took so long and cost so much was the fact that the Customers could a) not agree what they wanted and b) not stop interfering and let Airbus get on with it!....... SOPs!

I really enjoyed working with AIrbus Military.. it was the Customer-side that was the frustration!

[Loadmaster]

My vote for the A400 name still sits firmly with 'Womble C.Mk1'

But is the short field performance good enough to get one into Wimbledon common (and having got there, back out again) ??

[Flarkey]

So we go from "Fat Albert" to "Fat Lass"...??

:hmm:

[BEagle]

Fat Lass - brilliant, Flarkey! I can see that catching on!

Will the first 3 RAF Atlas C Mk 1s be named 'Sharon', 'Tracy' and 'Vicki'?

Yeah, but, no but yeah....

[Trumpet_trousers]

So, the operating crew gets to enter via the front, whilst the paratroops etc. get to enter via the rear... hmmm... seems about right! :E

Disclaimer: Not both at the same time, obviously...

[Green Flash]

Disclaimer: Not both at the same time, obviously...

Spitroast C Mk1?












:E

[TEEEJ]

Atlas was one of the names put forward on the following. Looks like someone took note!

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/415749-name-a400m.html

TJ

[ORAC]

Defense News: Germany May Pare A400M Acquisition - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5534626&c=EUR&s=AIR)

BONN - The German government has agreed to stay with the troubled A400M airlifter program, but its Air Force might end up with 20 planes fewer than planned.

In November, the German purchase was reduced from 60 to 53 planes because of program cost increases. Now, say officials with the coalition government, Germany will try to sell 13 of the aircraft to foreign customers. That would leave just 40 for the Air Force.

"This will not only lead to a relief of the defense budget over the long run, but it is also an adaption to the realistic necessity for the Bundeswehr," FDP member Jürgen Koppelin said in a Jan. 25 press statement. FDP is the coalition's main reporting member in the budget committee for the Defense Department's budget.

Alexander Bonde, spokesman on budgetary policy for the opposition Green Party, criticized the plan as a gift to EADS that could cost the state between 2 billion and 2.5 billion euros ($3.4 billion) and shift risk to taxpayers.

A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment until the parliament made a decision. Its budget committee will decide Jan. 26 whether to continue the A400M program and change the contract.

[Madbob]

My vote is for the A400 M being called the "Airtruck".

As we already have the Airbus (for SLF) why not the Airtruck for the non-SLF?

MB

[GreenKnight121]

The RAF name seems fixed.

Note the last 2 paragraphs:
PICTURES: Cameron welcomes RAF's last C-17 to Brize Norton (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/21/352196/pictures-cameron-welcomes-rafs-last-c-17-to-brize.html)

The C-17 fleet will from late this year be joined at Brize Norton by the RAF's first of 14 Airbus A330-200-based Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. The base will also eventually house 22 Airbus Military A400Ms, with the type to be named the "Atlas" in UK service.

The RAF expects the A400M to achieve its in-service date during 2015, with the milestone to be declared with the availability of its seventh aircraft.


Atlas C.1, it seems.

[Brian Abraham]

My vote is for the A400 M being called the "Airtruck".Sorry, already patented. :=

PL-11 Airtruck

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/ZK-BPVa.jpg

[Nomorefreetime]

Atlas.

Will confuse ATC when the Movers want to move an Atlas (New Loader) across the active to Load another Atlas.

Or

Atlas has dink with Atlas.

[LFFC]

Airbus pulls 'Grizzly' out of Paris Air Show (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8585437/Airbus-pulls-Grizzly-out-of-Paris-Air-Show.html)


Airbus was forced to abandon the public debut of the A400M, the troop carrier running four years late and developed at a cost of more than €20bn (£17.6bn) for Britain, France, Germany and four other nations.

The flypast, scheduled for today, would have been one of the highlights of the week-long show but the gearbox problem in one of the huge turbo-props is the latest setback for a project plagued by delays and squabbles which have extended to a row over the name.

Airbus has nicknamed the plane "Grizzly" but an indignant RAF intends to call the aircraft Atlas to reflect its endurance capabilities when it makes its debut at Farnborough next month. Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton has said "Grizzly" would be accepted "over my dead body."

There are doubts about whether Atlas will be cleared for take off in time for the British air show following the discovery of the gearbox problem. Domingo Urena-Raso, Airbus Military chief executive, said that "flight test requirements are very demanding at the moment."

The long development delays have exasperated politicians and air forces while engineers have wrestled with the technical challenges posed by the advanced turbo-prop technology. The programme was on the brink of cancellation last year but Britain and other buyers reluctantly agreed to stump up another €3.5bn to get the plane into service.

[Lonewolf_50]

Grizzly? That's a North American critter. Why can't Airbus name it for a European Critter? (Hmm, Destrier? Percheron? Big, strong horses that carry a lot of war kit ... )

Or how about a European superhero, like Perseus? Or Bellerophon? (OK, there was HMS Bellerophon, him what flew Pegasus ... but it has too many syllables for Air Force types ... :E)
EDIT: oops, just realized the French would veto Bellerophon, as Bonaparte surrendered himself to the Captain ... :O:O

Since the C-130 is the Herc, why not name the A400M Megara? :E

Atlas ... Ok, name it after some mountains on another continent, that'll work! :ok:

[keesje]

I think there is a "risk" everybody calls it Grizzly already for years before and also after its officially named Atlas..

[VX275]

I like Atlas as name for the A400M.
We are happy to call the Herc 'Fat Albert' so I see no reason not to call its replacement the fAT LASs because lets face it, compared to Albert she is a big bird.

[jamesdevice]

surely, given the project history the best classical name would be "Icarus"

[ARRAKIS]

Atlas ... Ok, name it after some mountains on another continent, that'll work!
Well, someone has probably in mind the guy, who supported the heavens...wait, wasn't he the one tricked at some point by Hercules :E.

Arrakis

[Clockwork Mouse]

I can't see what's wrong with calling it Grizzly. Fits the image. Why Atlas? Daft name with French overtones.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Grizzly is probably more acceptable than "Late, very late, in fact years and years late and a hugely over budget thing that is still no closer to being good to go" which is way more accurate than any suggested name I have seen to date :ok:

[DADDY-OH!]

As it's also replacing the C-160, how about the TRANSports-sodALL....?

I'll get my coat. :ok:

[airsound]

Airbus pulls 'Grizzly' out of Paris Air Show (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8585437/Airbus-pulls-Grizzly-out-of-Paris-Air-Show.html)That piece from the Torygraph (by Roland Gribben) is so full of errors that I felt obliged to dispatch a harrumphogram to their letters column. Since it is, as yet, unpublished, I won't quote it here - but basically the A400M had its public début at RIAT last year, with more at Farnborough the following week. And the idea that an appearance at Farnborough "next month" is another début is clearly nuts, since there is no Farnborough this year. (It's getting its naming at RIAT)

And finally, he can't spell 'marshal'.

Harrumph

airsound

[Willard Whyte]

Who calls the C-17 'Globemaster III'?

Fairly sure many, perhaps most, folk will call A400 the A400, or perhaps the '400.

[Halton Brat]

Not to be confused with my 'baby' the mighty B747-400...........

I have christened my car satnav 'Cynthia', after a female friend. They both exhibit the same trait of uttering 50% crap..........

HB

[aviate1138]

Are the Airbus pics of the A400 and A380 [also said to be not flying] at the Paris Air Show yesterday fakes then?

[airsound]

Don't know about yesterday, but here's what happened today, courtesy of Flight Daily News (apologies for thread drift)
PARIS: PICTURE - Korean A380 spares Airbus's blushes at Le Bourget (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/20/358410/paris-picture-korean-a380-spares-airbuss-blushes-at-le-bourget.html)

Also, I posted this in another thread
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/455066-bad-day-airbus-eads-le-bourget-2.html
I just watched the Korea Air A380 do its customary display in the hands of Airbus test pilots. The display includes the extraordinary manoeuvre, called 'circonflex', where it does a TOGA climbing turn at near max aoa (16º-ish), with stick full back, and then, on the far side of the field, they select flight idle, put the gear down and 'bunt' the aircraft from about 25º pitch up to 15º pitch down. Apparently it goes to about 0.3g during the manoeuvre.

Sad to say, the commentators were busy talking about range, passenger numbers, sales figures, and other technical details, so they weren't able to point out to the spectators what was happening. But it still looked fantastic. airsound