A400M will not make 2009
The A400M should indeed require fewer maintenance inspections than current AT types (although I though the C check interval was 15 months?).
But will the spanner branch really allow that? Or will it be over serviced to death like most other RAF aircraft?
Some airlines allow a 25 minute turnround time for flights with fare paying passengers. Yet when I was flying the FunBus, the engineers at group were insisting on 2 hour turnrounds for something similar. Most of which was filling out all their infernal servicing paperwork and checking things which had just worked quite happily for the previous 5 hours.....
But will the spanner branch really allow that? Or will it be over serviced to death like most other RAF aircraft?
Some airlines allow a 25 minute turnround time for flights with fare paying passengers. Yet when I was flying the FunBus, the engineers at group were insisting on 2 hour turnrounds for something similar. Most of which was filling out all their infernal servicing paperwork and checking things which had just worked quite happily for the previous 5 hours.....
The Belslow/A400M comparison's a bit of a red herring. As Beagle has pointed out, the A400M is much faster and stressed for tactical operations. It also flies higher and has a sensible crap-runway landing gear (three times as many wheels as a C-130, as many as the twice-the-size C-17). And if you look at the Belslow's payload-range performance and use the noggin a bit, you can see that it is a steep plummet from 80000 pounds at 970 sm to a mere 20000 pounds (MTOW minus OEW minus max fuel) at 5200 sm... even at 40000 pounds paylod, you can only carry 75 per cent fuel.
As for the C-17 - Boeing will offer you a good end-of-the-line price and the dollar's value helps. But it's a big aircraft, so think about the maintenance, the fuel burn and all that entails.
As for the C-17 - Boeing will offer you a good end-of-the-line price and the dollar's value helps. But it's a big aircraft, so think about the maintenance, the fuel burn and all that entails.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't disagree that the A400M is faster and has a longer range than the Belfast. I just struggle to understand why its empty weight is 11 tonnes more than the Belfast and why the Belfast could travel almost 40% further per tonne of fuel whilst carrying almost the same payload. Given the huge technological advances that have taken place in the last 40 plus years I am yet to be convinced by any of the arguments put forward so far that the A400M design is particularly ambitious or efficient, especially when used in a long-range strategic airlift role where it lacks the range, payload and speed to be particularly effective.
The Airbus Military website http://www.airbusmilitary.com/missions.html#RAPID illustrates my point perfectly. It shows a couple of typical A400M missions, both of which could be predominantly strategic in nature and would probably be better served using C5Ms, C17ERs or B747 Dreamlifters for outsize cargo and A380Fs or B747-8Fs for the rest, with A400Ms, C130Js and helicopters being used for the final short hop to the front line.
The Middle East mission envisages setting off from Paris with a fuel stop outbound in Cyprus. Departing from the UK instead of Paris, the duration of the outbound flight is probably 10.5 hours by A400M (I've added 1 hour for a fuel stop and another hour for departing from the UK rather than Paris). A B747-8F or A380F could fly the same sector non-stop in just over 6 hours carrying four or five times the payload. Why use a tactical airlifter and tactically trained aircrew to perform what is clearly a strategic airlift task? In any case, would the RAF have sufficient aircrew to be able to achieve the levels of aircraft utilisation envisaged by this two week A400M operation? I suspect not.
The payload / range / speed capabilities of the A400M would be even less appropriate if the Far East humanitarian operation illustrated on the Airbus Military website had required transportation of substantial quantities of relief supplies from Europe. The Airbus scenario envisages ferrying the aircraft from Denmark to Australia with minimal payload and it takes 32 hours to complete the trip. With a 30 ton payload, and departing from the UK rather than Denmark an extra stop would be needed and the total journey time might be about 35 hours. A B747-8F or an A380 could complete this journey in about 19 hours whist carrying 120 or 150 tonnes of relief supplies. By ferrying the aircraft out with minimal payload, the scenario painted by Airbus implicitly accepts that the A400M is not a suitable vehicle for delivering cargo across such long ranges, and that it is better suited to delivering the final short hop from Australia to Timor.
The A400M would certainly be a very useful asset to the RAF in the tactical transport role. In the short range tactical mission it might be even more useful if it could carry more than 37 tonnes payload in exchange for less fuel. According to the Airbus specifications, this doesn’t appear to be possible though.
It’s obvious for all to see that the RAF needs a major boost to its airlift capability and I don’t disagree that the A400M would be a useful addition to the short range tactical airlift fleet. I have yet to be convinced however that it’s a particularly efficient design, especially when used in the long range strategic airlift role.
The Airbus Military website http://www.airbusmilitary.com/missions.html#RAPID illustrates my point perfectly. It shows a couple of typical A400M missions, both of which could be predominantly strategic in nature and would probably be better served using C5Ms, C17ERs or B747 Dreamlifters for outsize cargo and A380Fs or B747-8Fs for the rest, with A400Ms, C130Js and helicopters being used for the final short hop to the front line.
The Middle East mission envisages setting off from Paris with a fuel stop outbound in Cyprus. Departing from the UK instead of Paris, the duration of the outbound flight is probably 10.5 hours by A400M (I've added 1 hour for a fuel stop and another hour for departing from the UK rather than Paris). A B747-8F or A380F could fly the same sector non-stop in just over 6 hours carrying four or five times the payload. Why use a tactical airlifter and tactically trained aircrew to perform what is clearly a strategic airlift task? In any case, would the RAF have sufficient aircrew to be able to achieve the levels of aircraft utilisation envisaged by this two week A400M operation? I suspect not.
The payload / range / speed capabilities of the A400M would be even less appropriate if the Far East humanitarian operation illustrated on the Airbus Military website had required transportation of substantial quantities of relief supplies from Europe. The Airbus scenario envisages ferrying the aircraft from Denmark to Australia with minimal payload and it takes 32 hours to complete the trip. With a 30 ton payload, and departing from the UK rather than Denmark an extra stop would be needed and the total journey time might be about 35 hours. A B747-8F or an A380 could complete this journey in about 19 hours whist carrying 120 or 150 tonnes of relief supplies. By ferrying the aircraft out with minimal payload, the scenario painted by Airbus implicitly accepts that the A400M is not a suitable vehicle for delivering cargo across such long ranges, and that it is better suited to delivering the final short hop from Australia to Timor.
The A400M would certainly be a very useful asset to the RAF in the tactical transport role. In the short range tactical mission it might be even more useful if it could carry more than 37 tonnes payload in exchange for less fuel. According to the Airbus specifications, this doesn’t appear to be possible though.
It’s obvious for all to see that the RAF needs a major boost to its airlift capability and I don’t disagree that the A400M would be a useful addition to the short range tactical airlift fleet. I have yet to be convinced however that it’s a particularly efficient design, especially when used in the long range strategic airlift role.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM,
The post above is what I was trying to get at and whilst I fully aggree with your sentiments surely the purchase of more C17's and more C130J's would make sense, both tried and tested and currently performing well.
The A400 is already late and the cynic in me see's it only ever slipping further to the right therefore not solving the very problems you allude to
The post above is what I was trying to get at and whilst I fully aggree with your sentiments surely the purchase of more C17's and more C130J's would make sense, both tried and tested and currently performing well.
The A400 is already late and the cynic in me see's it only ever slipping further to the right therefore not solving the very problems you allude to
PM,
I quite agree that a slower turboprop will outperform the best jet (edit: or quasi-jet-speed aircraft) in MPG, and that's partly because it does weigh less, so both your observations are correct. To take a simple, comparable example, a Bombardier Q400 turboprop - with not much more advanced tech than the Belfast - is more effiicient than the same company's similarly sized CRJ.
However, the Belslow is just that, which has a special meaning in military airlift where the figure of merit is tons/aircraft/day. If the aircraft is half as fast then you need twice as many to deliver X amount of kit in Y hours.
As for the converted civvy freighter: an idea that Boeing tried to pursue on many occasions, including a 747 derivative with a long nose ramp and a kneeling front gear that looked like a giant puking dog.
The problem here is utility. The Civvy freighter can't be unloaded without large specialized pieces of equipment (scissor lifts). It's confined to large airports with major taxiways and 10,000 foot concrete runways. Absent those things its utility declines to zero.
I quite agree that a slower turboprop will outperform the best jet (edit: or quasi-jet-speed aircraft) in MPG, and that's partly because it does weigh less, so both your observations are correct. To take a simple, comparable example, a Bombardier Q400 turboprop - with not much more advanced tech than the Belfast - is more effiicient than the same company's similarly sized CRJ.
However, the Belslow is just that, which has a special meaning in military airlift where the figure of merit is tons/aircraft/day. If the aircraft is half as fast then you need twice as many to deliver X amount of kit in Y hours.
As for the converted civvy freighter: an idea that Boeing tried to pursue on many occasions, including a 747 derivative with a long nose ramp and a kneeling front gear that looked like a giant puking dog.
The problem here is utility. The Civvy freighter can't be unloaded without large specialized pieces of equipment (scissor lifts). It's confined to large airports with major taxiways and 10,000 foot concrete runways. Absent those things its utility declines to zero.
Last edited by LowObservable; 30th Aug 2007 at 16:52.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dissapointed here.
When I read of comparisons between the A400 and the Belfast, I was anticipating a lot of banter, I feel sadly let down. There have been no guide lines to ignore Wikipedia, or tales of how the Belfast could often have a speed of under 100knots, while flying in windy conditions.
I will admit that when seeing Belfast's fly overhead on my way home from primary school, I used to think they were stunning (certainly more exciting than Argosy's and Brittania's). But not really a serious rival in speed to either C130 or A400.
So (and sorry for further thread creep), as the Belfast is now very old, and the RAF has sold them on (and re chartered them recently), why don't we buy them back, and upgrade them in true British make do and mend tradition. how about composite wings, and modern turbo props, or more realistically, the same wings, and engines, but a nice new paint job (done privately), with a shiny Royal Air Force logo near the passenger doors. surely the snazzy new logo will add 200kts all by itself.
Sorry for my above nonsense, but most of the replies seem to be too serious in regards to true PPRuNe tradition.
OK. getting coat, and off to take medication here.
I will admit that when seeing Belfast's fly overhead on my way home from primary school, I used to think they were stunning (certainly more exciting than Argosy's and Brittania's). But not really a serious rival in speed to either C130 or A400.
So (and sorry for further thread creep), as the Belfast is now very old, and the RAF has sold them on (and re chartered them recently), why don't we buy them back, and upgrade them in true British make do and mend tradition. how about composite wings, and modern turbo props, or more realistically, the same wings, and engines, but a nice new paint job (done privately), with a shiny Royal Air Force logo near the passenger doors. surely the snazzy new logo will add 200kts all by itself.
Sorry for my above nonsense, but most of the replies seem to be too serious in regards to true PPRuNe tradition.
OK. getting coat, and off to take medication here.
I was waiting for this to get posted...
"Belfast XB 225 arrived serviceable at Changi, ex Gan, at 1745 GMT, flight time 11 hours 56 minutes. No signs of scurvy amongst the crew".
"Belfast XB 225 arrived serviceable at Changi, ex Gan, at 1745 GMT, flight time 11 hours 56 minutes. No signs of scurvy amongst the crew".
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
barnstormer1968; I now have a picture in my mind of a Belslow with go-faster stripes... Come to think of it, didn't the original transport command colour scheme have go-faster stripes?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0792090
They obviously didn't work!
By the way, there's an almost airworthy Belslow at Southend (G-BEPS ex XR368 Theseus) which has been refurbished and is just minus one prop at the moment. Maybe someone should try fitting some TP400s to it to see what happens? That would be interesting. Maybe it would finally become a Belfast.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0792090
They obviously didn't work!
By the way, there's an almost airworthy Belslow at Southend (G-BEPS ex XR368 Theseus) which has been refurbished and is just minus one prop at the moment. Maybe someone should try fitting some TP400s to it to see what happens? That would be interesting. Maybe it would finally become a Belfast.
OK I’ll bite. I’ve stood back while ignorant insults have been poked at the totally lovely Long Belslow, Queen of the Skies, and the envy of lesser trucky mortals throughout Transport/Air Support Command. I had the inestimable privilege of being the last Flt Cdr Ops on 53 Sqn (the Belfast sqn) until an ungrateful and ignorant government disbanded the sqn and sold the fleet of 10 aircraft to Heavylift - only to find they had to rehire them in order to keep the airbridge to Ascension going during the Falklands Unpleasantness. So I’m not biassed at all.
Anyway, where to start. 53 was a great outfit, shared a sqn building at Brize with 10, then the sole VC-10 sqn. Amongst the sqn bon mots,
. And the great thing about Belfast ops was that there were no schedules, no slip crews, just ‘specials’, where you went off down the route as a crew, nightstopping all sorts of interesting places en route (and some less interesting) and brought the beast back similarly.
One of the good things about the Belfast was that it had no doors that could be opened in flight. Hence none of that nasty brutish tactical stuff. Interestingly, although these days we’ve moved into the sunlit uplands of C-17 ops, RAF C-17s are not actually used for tactical ops as far as I know - too expensive, or something. I’m not even sure that the USAF really uses C-17s in the TacT role. So, maybe there is still a role for Strat T, even though the C-17 boasts its cross-role capabilities.
Incidentally, 53 would have been a much better number for the C-17 sqn than 99 - 53 dated back to the first world war, had a distinguished second world war record with Liberators et al, and, of course, had been a heavy-lift transport sqn in its most recent incarnation, rather than a sqn of mere ex-airliners like 99’s Britannias.
I’m not sure I buy the arguments about speed either. When you need to get a big, bulky load, or quite a lot of troops, into a theatre where normal airliner ops aren’t feasible, I don’t believe that mach number is necessarily significant. Often the important thing is to get the load there within a day or two, rather than instantaneously.
Another good thing about the Belfast was the size of the flight deck. I’ve seen 16 people comfortably fitted in, in flight. Not quite sure why that’s a good thing, but it seemed fun at the time. Especially when you could use the Smith’s Flight System (very advanced for those days) to demonstrate to a visiting pongo (Major) that it was an ‘audio auto-pilot’, and if he just used the correct tone of voice and command, the aircraft would do as he said. We only realised afterwards that his RSM had been standing at the back of the flight deck falling about laughing at his boss’ antics. The Major’s sense of humour failure warning light began flashing rapidly when he cottoned on......
I could go on.....
airsound
Anyway, where to start. 53 was a great outfit, shared a sqn building at Brize with 10, then the sole VC-10 sqn. Amongst the sqn bon mots,
Four good screws are better than a blow job any day
One of the good things about the Belfast was that it had no doors that could be opened in flight. Hence none of that nasty brutish tactical stuff. Interestingly, although these days we’ve moved into the sunlit uplands of C-17 ops, RAF C-17s are not actually used for tactical ops as far as I know - too expensive, or something. I’m not even sure that the USAF really uses C-17s in the TacT role. So, maybe there is still a role for Strat T, even though the C-17 boasts its cross-role capabilities.
Incidentally, 53 would have been a much better number for the C-17 sqn than 99 - 53 dated back to the first world war, had a distinguished second world war record with Liberators et al, and, of course, had been a heavy-lift transport sqn in its most recent incarnation, rather than a sqn of mere ex-airliners like 99’s Britannias.
I’m not sure I buy the arguments about speed either. When you need to get a big, bulky load, or quite a lot of troops, into a theatre where normal airliner ops aren’t feasible, I don’t believe that mach number is necessarily significant. Often the important thing is to get the load there within a day or two, rather than instantaneously.
Another good thing about the Belfast was the size of the flight deck. I’ve seen 16 people comfortably fitted in, in flight. Not quite sure why that’s a good thing, but it seemed fun at the time. Especially when you could use the Smith’s Flight System (very advanced for those days) to demonstrate to a visiting pongo (Major) that it was an ‘audio auto-pilot’, and if he just used the correct tone of voice and command, the aircraft would do as he said. We only realised afterwards that his RSM had been standing at the back of the flight deck falling about laughing at his boss’ antics. The Major’s sense of humour failure warning light began flashing rapidly when he cottoned on......
I could go on.....
airsound
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said airsound
That's more like the spirit. as I said earlier, I used to love to watch the Belfast's as a child, and yes, in the old "go faster stripe" colours. Belfast's used to seem to be a nicer looking cousin (sort of) of the C133.
I would hazard a guess that the Belfast is still in service, but can't say the same of the C133.
Anyway, I still could not resist the urge to ask for banter, and have to admit that I can read the "no sign of scurvy in the crew" over and over, and it still brings a smile.
Barnstormer1968
I would hazard a guess that the Belfast is still in service, but can't say the same of the C133.
Anyway, I still could not resist the urge to ask for banter, and have to admit that I can read the "no sign of scurvy in the crew" over and over, and it still brings a smile.
Barnstormer1968
Airsound:
You should start a thread..."Flew the Belfast?" I'll bet lots of good stories. At the end of position report, "and no signs of scurvy."
The amazing thing is, in the end very little tonnage is moved by air. Desert Storm, air was only about 4% of tonnage and only half by C-5. And we were flat-out most of the time. It is all the high-value stuff that moves by air. On the C-5, our biggest customer was AF tactical units or huge Navy stuff that wasn't urgent, just only feasible by air. Moved many Navy loads because moving overland was just impossible. A400 is just a modern (?) Belfast.
GF
You should start a thread..."Flew the Belfast?" I'll bet lots of good stories. At the end of position report, "and no signs of scurvy."
The amazing thing is, in the end very little tonnage is moved by air. Desert Storm, air was only about 4% of tonnage and only half by C-5. And we were flat-out most of the time. It is all the high-value stuff that moves by air. On the C-5, our biggest customer was AF tactical units or huge Navy stuff that wasn't urgent, just only feasible by air. Moved many Navy loads because moving overland was just impossible. A400 is just a modern (?) Belfast.
GF
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galaxy flyer:
Not really true. The A400 is really optimised for Tac Stuff (Low-level, soft natural surface TLZs at night, air-drop etc), and is actually not very big (wingspan only 6ft more than C130). The Belfast was a big slow strategic transporter- as someone pointed out, you couldn't even open a door in flight in the belfast let alone drop anything out.
Just because it's got 4 turbo-props and similar lifting capacity doesn't make the two aircraft the same.
You might as well say "The C-17 is just a modern Boeing 707".
A400 is just a modern (?) Belfast.
Just because it's got 4 turbo-props and similar lifting capacity doesn't make the two aircraft the same.
You might as well say "The C-17 is just a modern Boeing 707".
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the last Belfast is no longer in service with Heavylift, but would be happy to be proved wrong.
They're looking at bringing Southend's G-BEPS (ex Theseus - RAF Serial XR368) back into service and I read that it had been rewired and three of the four engines refitted and tested. I believe it's just waiting for a serviceable prop for the fourth engine. http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1192370
If you're a fan of 4 x Tynes, there's a thread in the Freight Dogs forum in PPRuNe regarding the CL-44O Guppy, currently at Bournmouth, that you might be interested in. http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1250447
Last edited by Porrohman; 31st Aug 2007 at 09:23.
You should start a thread..."Flew the Belfast?" I'll bet lots of good stories. At the end of position report, "and no signs of scurvy."
Just to say, though, before I go - although the Belfast was nowhere near as big as your ginormous Galaxy, we could do one thing you couldn’t (I think!). Our freight bay cross section was 12ft x 12ft, which meant you could put a Sea King in without taking the rotor head off, and we often did, for instance taking a VIP version of SK down to Cairo for President Sadat. (Obviously, you folded the blades......)
airsound
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for using C5, A380, C-17 or B747, then transferring to a 'tactical' aircraft - that's precisely what the A400M is designed to overcome! It has the payload/range/speed of a strategic transport (but not the outsize capability of the An124, for example) - plus the characteristics necessary for a modern, rugged, tactical transport.
Taking the Iraq example, I suppose they could put a fresh crew on in Cyprus who would then undertake the tactical delivery to Iraq and return to Cyprus, but I suspect that the A400M would need to be air-to-air refuelled along the way back from Iraq to Cyprus and it’s going to be a long and tiring round trip for a tactical aircrew to undertake. I would have thought it would make a lot more sense to fly the cargo by strategic airlifter to a suitable base in the Gulf region, then use the tactical airlifters (C-130Js and/or A400Ms) to move the kit the last few hundred miles.
The problem here is utility. The Civvy freighter can't be unloaded without large specialized pieces of equipment (scissor lifts). It's confined to large airports with major taxiways and 10,000 foot concrete runways. Absent those things its utility declines to zero.
In the 60’s the RAF used Comets, VC10s, Britannias and Belfasts to carry out the strategic airlift role. Then Beverleys, Twin Pins, helicopters etc to move cargo from the strategic bridgehead to the front line. Nowadays for the strategic airlift role, the RAF uses lots of “DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage” to augment their own Tristars, VC10s (both of which are obsolete) and C17s. As far as I know, the C17s are only used in the strategic airlift role, being seen as too expensive an asset to put in harms way (especially as they’re leased, not owned).
Why don’t the RAF lease or buy some modern, "bog-standard" commercial widebodies as FSAs (Future Strategic Airlifters) to replace the VC10s, Tristars and “DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage” in the transport role? There’s more than enough work to keep a fleet of new widebodies heavily utilised these days and they would require far less fuel and maintenance per tonne/km than the current fleet. I see this role as a completely separate requirement from the FSTA; FSAs would be far more efficient without all the plumbing and other mission equipment that are necessary for FSTA but unnecessary for FSAs. I’m sure Airbus in particular would offer a great deal on A380s, A330s or A340s at the moment. FSAs would be far more efficient at shifting the bulk of the cargo and troops than the fleets that are used at present. Much greener too. This would free the tactical airlift fleet and their crews to perform the tactical role they’re trained for rather than spending much of their time trucking up and down the airways. It would allow the VC10s and Tristars to focus on their tanking role until the FSTA arrives (the sooner the better). It would free the C17s to focus on shifting outsized loads and it would allow the RAF to cut down on the amount of “DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage” which goes thundering over BEagle’s house "at 0003 local, incapable of following the RW08 SID".
Last edited by Porrohman; 1st Sep 2007 at 08:48. Reason: typo
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don’t the RAF lease or buy some modern, "bog-standard" commercial widebodies as FSAs (Future Strategic Airlifters) to replace the VC10s, Tristars and “DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage” in the transport role? There’s more than enough work to keep a fleet of new widebodies heavily utilised these days and they would require far less fuel and maintenance per tonne/km than the current fleet.
Why not just outsource that to Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc.?
Why not just outsource that to Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc.?