A400M engine - hey, it works!
Just heard/seen the engine being run-up in the test-bed Herc. at Marshalls', seemed to be going on all day! Very distinctive "crackle" on the new engine/prop. combination.
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
EADS announces new A400M first flight delay
DATE:25/09/08
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
EADS has announced another, as yet unquantified, delay to the programme;
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ght-delay.html
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
EADS has announced another, as yet unquantified, delay to the programme;
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ght-delay.html
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
A400M reveals new cracks between Airbus and customers, suppliers
Here's the latest in this saga, according to Flightglobal;
A400M reveals new cracks between Airbus and customers, suppliers
Looking at the extent of work that needs to be completed ahead of a first flight of the A400M and the technical/project risks involved, it's easy to understand why Airbus won't commit to a first flight date or a delivery plan. It sounds like the blame game is gathering momentum.
A400M reveals new cracks between Airbus and customers, suppliers
Looking at the extent of work that needs to be completed ahead of a first flight of the A400M and the technical/project risks involved, it's easy to understand why Airbus won't commit to a first flight date or a delivery plan. It sounds like the blame game is gathering momentum.
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
€20bn military aircraft programme under strain
Source: Engineering News;
?20bn military aircraft programme under strain
?20bn military aircraft programme under strain
European media have reported that EADS CE Louis Gallois - EADS owns Airbus, of which Airbus Military is a subsidiary - has written to the governments of seven of the countries which have ordered the aeroplane, appealing to them not to enforce the penalty clauses for late delivery of the A400M.
The reports quote Gallois as writing that the A400M is "a heavy lossmaker" which is causing "considerable difficulties" for EADS, in terms of the group's financial performance. The "anticipated profits" from the sale of the first 180 aircraft have already been "invested" and the current situation could become "untenable" in a matter of months, unless an agreement can be concluded that "keeps everyone happy." If such a deal cannot be reached, and if the customer countries refuse to waive the penalty payments for late delivery, EADS is warning it will freeze production of the A400M.
Initial reports state that Germany is unsympathetic, taking the view that "financial concessions" can only be debated once the aircraft have been delivered. The reactions of the other countries were not known at this publication's deadline. Britain has already bought Lockheed Martin C-130J new generation Hercules tactical, and Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic, transports because of delays in the A400M programme.
Given the country's heavy commitment to combat operations in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, it is not in conceivable that it could respond by reducing its order for A400Ms and acquiring more of the American aircraft, which are already serving with great success.
Given the country's heavy commitment to combat operations in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, it is not in conceivable that it could respond by reducing its order for A400Ms and acquiring more of the American aircraft, which are already serving with great success.
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
Perhaps this thread should be re-titled "A400M engine - still doesn't work". Here's the latest news which is also confirmed in the aviation press;
EADS warns of delays to military aircraft - Telegraph . I think the Telegraph meant to say A330 rather than A380
EADS warns of delays to military aircraft - Telegraph . I think the Telegraph meant to say A330 rather than A380
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
Post 79 on 17th September;
It seems I was right to question what year they were referring to. This was always going to be a high risk project selecting an unproven propulsion system. I wonder if Airbus / the customer governments will now consider substituting CFM56s for the initial batch of aircraft and retrofit them later when/if they manage to sort out the problems with the TP400 propulsion system.
Testbed Problems Add To A400M Delay
Latest from AINonline;
Testbed Problems Add To A400M Delay: AINonline
First flight in November? The article doesn't say which year
Latest from AINonline;
Testbed Problems Add To A400M Delay: AINonline
First flight in November? The article doesn't say which year
Last edited by Porrohman; 29th Nov 2008 at 13:32.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxenfforrdde
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re on the top bunk
17 x C17 or 25 x A400M?
Which would you have in your inventory? Both options the same price.
Not the same option at all really, except price wise.
I think the C17's are an exceptional & underrated machine, which the U.K. should have more of. Definitely.
We also need the next generation Tac /to strat transport.
All that is on the board is the A400m at the moment.
Which would you have in your inventory? Both options the same price.
Not the same option at all really, except price wise.
I think the C17's are an exceptional & underrated machine, which the U.K. should have more of. Definitely.
We also need the next generation Tac /to strat transport.
All that is on the board is the A400m at the moment.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 C17 or 25 A400M?
Niether!
What we need NOW is just 3 reliable 200-250 seat strat pax/cargo airlifters, with the range to get to and from the 'Stan non-stop and equipped to keep our lads and ladettes safe during in-theatre arrival and departure. You can run a daily schedule with just two servicable, with surge capacity and enougth seats leftover for all to get their mid tour RnR.
And we do need this NOW, not in 2012 or 2015 or whenever the FSTA PFI expects to provide us with replacements for our 40 year old strat AT fleet.
Have we go the finance to do this? Probably not, as its all gone on the A400M moneypit already.
Oh, and we could do with a few more movers as well!
Niether!
What we need NOW is just 3 reliable 200-250 seat strat pax/cargo airlifters, with the range to get to and from the 'Stan non-stop and equipped to keep our lads and ladettes safe during in-theatre arrival and departure. You can run a daily schedule with just two servicable, with surge capacity and enougth seats leftover for all to get their mid tour RnR.
And we do need this NOW, not in 2012 or 2015 or whenever the FSTA PFI expects to provide us with replacements for our 40 year old strat AT fleet.
Have we go the finance to do this? Probably not, as its all gone on the A400M moneypit already.
Oh, and we could do with a few more movers as well!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the obsession to fly directly from the UK into what is effectively a combat zone ?
Why not fly perfectly ordinary planes into a neighbouring country and then use military transports for the hop into Afghanistan ?
YES, there would be the extra operational costs of having a detachment in the transit country, but it would be offset by not having to rack up vast numbers of flying hours on rare transports.
.
Why not fly perfectly ordinary planes into a neighbouring country and then use military transports for the hop into Afghanistan ?
YES, there would be the extra operational costs of having a detachment in the transit country, but it would be offset by not having to rack up vast numbers of flying hours on rare transports.
.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somerset
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not fly perfectly ordinary planes into a neighbouring country and then use military transports for the hop into Afghanistan ?
1. Name a neighbouring country which is going to grant diplomatic clearance for this longterm activity without making itself become a target?
2. An operation like this would further drain the limited resources of movers having to be based in a neighbouring country to ensure the smooth flow of pax between the military transport & perfectly ordinary planes, whatever they are.
Personally, I would not want to get on one plane in UK, unload and stand around in a neighbouring country, waiting for my next lift to arrive before re-boarding and continuing my journey.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Phil,
It is really the same, or similar argument to flight refuelling. It is easier to get planes from A to B in one hop rather than rely on several aircraft/hops.
A direct flight will do the point to point in 2-3 hrs less, and probably much more, than staging.
May I ask another question of you?
You plan a fortnights holiday in Orlando. Do you look for a direct flight from Gatwick or one from a regional airport to Schipol to Detroit to Orlando?
The direct flight is cheaper in costs too. Only one start-up and one climb on the one segment rather than 2.
It is really the same, or similar argument to flight refuelling. It is easier to get planes from A to B in one hop rather than rely on several aircraft/hops.
A direct flight will do the point to point in 2-3 hrs less, and probably much more, than staging.
May I ask another question of you?
You plan a fortnights holiday in Orlando. Do you look for a direct flight from Gatwick or one from a regional airport to Schipol to Detroit to Orlando?
The direct flight is cheaper in costs too. Only one start-up and one climb on the one segment rather than 2.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What we need NOW is just 3 reliable 200-250 seat strat pax/cargo airlifters, with the range to get to and from the 'Stan non-stop"
How about we buy a few of BA's 744s that they're looking to offload; we did just that in the early '80s when they ditched the TriStar (partly as a result of a clerical error) for peanuts.
Would suit both players & we'd have a modern, reliable decent-sized Strategic transport.
Would look good on the CV too...
How about we buy a few of BA's 744s that they're looking to offload; we did just that in the early '80s when they ditched the TriStar (partly as a result of a clerical error) for peanuts.
Would suit both players & we'd have a modern, reliable decent-sized Strategic transport.
Would look good on the CV too...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are working off the basis that supplying troops is the priority in terms of defense strategy for the next 30 years.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but it is not. AT generally however is. The assumption we could be a rapidly deployable force with the introduction of FRES with 6 C-17 and 24 Herc J is a little farcical.
Having said that, defence is in prime territory for defense cuts, even if that means reducing our commitment in the Stan. Keeping woolies/Royal ban k of scotland/Long term Doleite Scum in existence is far more important in terms of votes to Labour than occupying a land a quater way around the globe ever would have been.
Helimarshall, Quatar have been doing it for years. As for whether the lads would like to do it that way, since when has that been factored in the equation?
Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but it is not. AT generally however is. The assumption we could be a rapidly deployable force with the introduction of FRES with 6 C-17 and 24 Herc J is a little farcical.
Having said that, defence is in prime territory for defense cuts, even if that means reducing our commitment in the Stan. Keeping woolies/Royal ban k of scotland/Long term Doleite Scum in existence is far more important in terms of votes to Labour than occupying a land a quater way around the globe ever would have been.
Helimarshall, Quatar have been doing it for years. As for whether the lads would like to do it that way, since when has that been factored in the equation?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole situation is very sad, both the RAF, RCAF and RAAF apears to have greatly under estimated their uplift requirements.
!965 I believe saw the RAF buy was it 60 C130K's and the RAAF buying 12 C130E's. If we presume that the RAF got the figure correct, how can today the MOD be happy with a few very tired K models, and the J models running life out on the mainplanes quicker thjan you can wink.
As I have said before thank goodness the RAAF did not fall for the A400M sales pitch.
An unknown design in both airframe and engines. With a company that has no military support experience, and a product which is very expensive to buy and maybe the same to operate.
We the RAAF have fallen for the RAF trick, and not bought enough of the C17, so still we are short of uplift capacity, with no real short term fix for the problem.
Hope Kevin looks in his till and see if he has change for the fix of more C17's.
Caribou now out of service next year with no replacement, with every chance that the remaining C130H's will go too.
Things not looking good, and will be even worse if the Airbus fails to meet the need.
Regards to all for Christmas.
Col
!965 I believe saw the RAF buy was it 60 C130K's and the RAAF buying 12 C130E's. If we presume that the RAF got the figure correct, how can today the MOD be happy with a few very tired K models, and the J models running life out on the mainplanes quicker thjan you can wink.
As I have said before thank goodness the RAAF did not fall for the A400M sales pitch.
An unknown design in both airframe and engines. With a company that has no military support experience, and a product which is very expensive to buy and maybe the same to operate.
We the RAAF have fallen for the RAF trick, and not bought enough of the C17, so still we are short of uplift capacity, with no real short term fix for the problem.
Hope Kevin looks in his till and see if he has change for the fix of more C17's.
Caribou now out of service next year with no replacement, with every chance that the remaining C130H's will go too.
Things not looking good, and will be even worse if the Airbus fails to meet the need.
Regards to all for Christmas.
Col
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M
"An unknown design in both airframe and engines. With a company that has no military support experience, and a product which is very expensive to buy and maybe the same to operate"
If there is no current airframe then you have to design a new one, if there is no current engine that will fit the new airframe you have to design a new one.
The product is not expensive, in fact the fixed price contract is a real problem.
In time the A400M will become the workhorse of the european defense force
If there is no current airframe then you have to design a new one, if there is no current engine that will fit the new airframe you have to design a new one.
The product is not expensive, in fact the fixed price contract is a real problem.
In time the A400M will become the workhorse of the european defense force
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The product is not expensive, in fact the fixed price contract is a real problem.