A400m
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
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
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from highveldtdrifter
show me an aeroplane project that is not overweight at the late design/protoype stage and I'll be astounded!
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.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: rourkes drift
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moggi
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 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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..................?
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..................?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Actually, the explanation concerning the reason for needing prop braking on the A400M has been most useful. Thanks to AbiW and hvd for that.
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.
Last edited by Hueymeister; 11th Nov 2004 at 09:02.
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
Sorry - can't find the ACN! But it's been designed from the outset for soft field (Calif Brg Ratio 6) operation.
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!
It just so happens that I'm doing some A400M work right now, so it's not difficult to answer the odd general question!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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????
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????