A400M engine - hey, it works!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANALYSIS-Airbus A400M engine test key for project credibility - Forbes.com
Lets hope for the good of the project and those waiting all goes to plan.
Lets hope for the good of the project and those waiting all goes to plan.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that good weather is reportedly needed for the flight, rain and even snow showers over the weekend would have made it impossible. Wednesday will supposedly be a fine day, so maybe that is the one to watch the skies if it is indeed going to happen this week.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP;
What appears on these fine pages is NEVER the full story, regardless of topic, hence the "Ru" in the name
South Bound;
As you suggest, I doubt you'll ever find anyone saying Airbus is great. The customer always wants to receive more "stuff" for less money, and the supplier always wants to give less for more money. It's economics and Airbus is in it to make a profit, just like every other defence contractor out there. There will be differences of opinion and there will be gaps in understanding between partners. It was/is inevitable.
OTTB;
I will "fess up" to being directly involved in the project, although not directly employed by Airbus/AMSL. I will also admit to having served on both C130 and C17, so I think I am qualified enough to comment here.
The A400M will never be the aircraft that the C17 is, but it isn't meant to be.
It is meant to be a C130/C160 replacement, not a C17 replacement, so that's where its capabilities lie. Why create something to compete with the C17 when it already has the market share. Why not create something which is actually needed instead? Face it, the C130 is just too small, and realistically speaking there is no replacement currently available. The C17 is just too big for some of the tasks the C130/C160 fleets undertake.
The A400M WILL meet the requirements that have been laid out for it, and I am confident, from my vantage point anyway, that it will do so admirably. There may well be bits we would like to do differently, but at the end of the day it will enable the air forces involved to do more than they can do with their current kit.
It was a risky move to incorporate so much new technology into the design, and to a large extent it hasn't paid off, but if the right tools for the job don't exist, do you wait for someone else to create them, or do you go and make them yourself?
I know my answer, hence I'm "involved" rather than bleating on PRuNe.
BEagle,
Sorry, can't comment knowingly on the low speed characteristics, not being the piloty sort, but the cargo hold is looking good
. I'll get the business end sorted and let folk cleverer that wot I is sort the rest.
What appears on these fine pages is NEVER the full story, regardless of topic, hence the "Ru" in the name
South Bound;
As you suggest, I doubt you'll ever find anyone saying Airbus is great. The customer always wants to receive more "stuff" for less money, and the supplier always wants to give less for more money. It's economics and Airbus is in it to make a profit, just like every other defence contractor out there. There will be differences of opinion and there will be gaps in understanding between partners. It was/is inevitable.
OTTB;
I will "fess up" to being directly involved in the project, although not directly employed by Airbus/AMSL. I will also admit to having served on both C130 and C17, so I think I am qualified enough to comment here.
The A400M will never be the aircraft that the C17 is, but it isn't meant to be.
It is meant to be a C130/C160 replacement, not a C17 replacement, so that's where its capabilities lie. Why create something to compete with the C17 when it already has the market share. Why not create something which is actually needed instead? Face it, the C130 is just too small, and realistically speaking there is no replacement currently available. The C17 is just too big for some of the tasks the C130/C160 fleets undertake.
The A400M WILL meet the requirements that have been laid out for it, and I am confident, from my vantage point anyway, that it will do so admirably. There may well be bits we would like to do differently, but at the end of the day it will enable the air forces involved to do more than they can do with their current kit.
It was a risky move to incorporate so much new technology into the design, and to a large extent it hasn't paid off, but if the right tools for the job don't exist, do you wait for someone else to create them, or do you go and make them yourself?
I know my answer, hence I'm "involved" rather than bleating on PRuNe.
BEagle,
Sorry, can't comment knowingly on the low speed characteristics, not being the piloty sort, but the cargo hold is looking good
. I'll get the business end sorted and let folk cleverer that wot I is sort the rest.
A400M Handling
I too must declare an interest as I do work for Airbus.
That said, since joining the A400M Team some 12 years ago, I have been amazed at the amount of effort which goes into developing an aircraft - not just the immediately obvious of what structure in what shape. Airbus is still doing wind tunnel testing both to look ahead and to confirm what has already passed. The "Down Between the Engines" propeller rotation was one result of fairly recent testing.
There were 2 problems - aerodynamics and internal noise. Improving one seemed to worsen the other. The DBTE rotation cures both to some extent. As far as handling is concerned, it provides symmetrical flow across the aircraft with no super-critical engine failure (a la C130) and smooths out the flow across the tail for the poor s*ds who jump out the back - there should be no crossing over and tangling.
One of the old canards was that a FBW aircraft with protection could never equal the capabilities of the 2-winged master race (and I used to be one). 2WMR wanted to be able to pull like a b*st*rd when approaching a hill or ground to get out of the impending crash. A long time ago they set up a 320 with 400 flight control laws and flew a bunch of test pilots to simulate such manouevres. The result was agreement that the computer can fly a much tighter turn than an unprotected flight control system because it can fly accurately just below the buffet.
The actual handling qualities will not be proved until we get to fly it and will, no doubt, need some tweaking before it goes into service. I am confident that ultimately it will do what it says on the box and that is one of the reasons for the current delays - as the flight test go ahead the design will be refined to incorporate what is learnt.
Moosemaster above talks a load of sense. I remember visting Charleston in the C17's very early days. It was restricted to a 25 mile radius of base - not very useful for an airlifter either tactical or strategic.
That said, since joining the A400M Team some 12 years ago, I have been amazed at the amount of effort which goes into developing an aircraft - not just the immediately obvious of what structure in what shape. Airbus is still doing wind tunnel testing both to look ahead and to confirm what has already passed. The "Down Between the Engines" propeller rotation was one result of fairly recent testing.
There were 2 problems - aerodynamics and internal noise. Improving one seemed to worsen the other. The DBTE rotation cures both to some extent. As far as handling is concerned, it provides symmetrical flow across the aircraft with no super-critical engine failure (a la C130) and smooths out the flow across the tail for the poor s*ds who jump out the back - there should be no crossing over and tangling.
One of the old canards was that a FBW aircraft with protection could never equal the capabilities of the 2-winged master race (and I used to be one). 2WMR wanted to be able to pull like a b*st*rd when approaching a hill or ground to get out of the impending crash. A long time ago they set up a 320 with 400 flight control laws and flew a bunch of test pilots to simulate such manouevres. The result was agreement that the computer can fly a much tighter turn than an unprotected flight control system because it can fly accurately just below the buffet.
The actual handling qualities will not be proved until we get to fly it and will, no doubt, need some tweaking before it goes into service. I am confident that ultimately it will do what it says on the box and that is one of the reasons for the current delays - as the flight test go ahead the design will be refined to incorporate what is learnt.
Moosemaster above talks a load of sense. I remember visting Charleston in the C17's very early days. It was restricted to a 25 mile radius of base - not very useful for an airlifter either tactical or strategic.
At last!
Is the plan to run the TPA400 on this flight - or is it just a systems shakedown prior to the flight test campaign proper?
Is the plan to run the TPA400 on this flight - or is it just a systems shakedown prior to the flight test campaign proper?
"The INTRODUCER"
Thread Starter
Airbus statement
A400M: EPI TP400 engine takes off
Ref: AM/C info. 17/12/08 (1/2)
The TP400 power-plant developed for the A400M by EuroProp International (EPI) took to the air for the first time on 17th December 2008 on the Lockheed C-130K flight test-bed. The TP400 is installed on the inner left engine mount of the C-130K which is otherwise powered by three of the usually four Allison T56 turbopropellers The aircraft took off at 10h44 local time from Cambridge airfield (UK) where Marshall Aerospace, which is conducting the flight test-bed trials, is based, and touched down at 11h59 local time. The flight lasted one hour and 15 minutes.
During the flight, various flight characteristics such as aircraft basic handling and TP400 response at a thrust equivalent to the maximum power generated by each of the other T56 engines were tested to satisfaction in several aircraft configurations up to a speed of 165kts and an altitude of 8,000ft. This was a first step in the aircraft envelope opening. It will allow progress towards the completion of the approximately 50 flight test hours planned to reach sufficient maturity for the engine itself. Once this is achieved and sufficient maturity and satisfactory integration is also reached for the global propulsion system, it will be able to subsequently fly on the A400M.
EPI, which comprises Rolls Royce, SNECMA, MTU and ITP, started testing the TP400 in October 2005. More than 2,100 hours of ground testing have been performed with three engines on the ground test bench. To complete the trials, Marshall Aerospace was contracted by Airbus Military to perform the Flying Test Bed trials on a Lockheed C-130K. The aircraft was specifically modified to accept the new engine which develops about twice the power of the C-130K’s standard T56 engine.
“The successful completion of this first flight of the TP400 engine is a significant step in the A400M programme development”, says Rafael Tentor, Head of the A400M programme. “This and the subsequent flights will comfort us in the performance of the new engine itself, as well as its reliability, in a real flying environment. This objective also applies to the global propulsion system,” he added.
EADS and Airbus Military are still in negotiation with their customers. The time schedule of the A400M is not yet determined.
The EuroProp International (EPI) TP400 engine is a three shaft free turbine turbopropeller which drives an eight bladed five-metre-diameter propeller. Developing 11,000 SHp at take-off, it is the most powerful turboprop ever built in the western world. It allows for the wide range of speeds and flight levels required, while reducing fuel burn and weight. Powered by four of these, the A400M can cruise at altitudes as high as 37,000 ft at speeds between Mach 0.68 and 0.72 while retaining the capability of flying at speeds as low as 110 kt at 5,000 ft. The arrangement of the propellers, which turn in opposite directions inboard and outboard on each wing, allows a structural weight reduction, and improves, amongst other things, the lift at low speed.
The A400M is an all new military airlifter designed to meet the needs of the world’s Armed Forces in the 21st Century. Thanks to its most advanced technologies, this excellent aircraft will be able to fly higher, faster and further, while retaining high maneuverability, low speed, and short, soft and rough airfield capabilities. It combines both tactical and strategic/logistic missions. With its cargo hold specifically designed to carry the outsize equipment needed today for both military and humanitarian disaster relief missions, it can bring this material quickly and directly to where it is most needed. Conceived to be highly reliable, dependable, and with a great survivability, the multipurpose A400M can do more with less, implying smaller fleets and less investment from the operator. The A400M is the most cost efficient and versatile airlifter.
Ref: AM/C info. 17/12/08 (1/2)
The TP400 power-plant developed for the A400M by EuroProp International (EPI) took to the air for the first time on 17th December 2008 on the Lockheed C-130K flight test-bed. The TP400 is installed on the inner left engine mount of the C-130K which is otherwise powered by three of the usually four Allison T56 turbopropellers The aircraft took off at 10h44 local time from Cambridge airfield (UK) where Marshall Aerospace, which is conducting the flight test-bed trials, is based, and touched down at 11h59 local time. The flight lasted one hour and 15 minutes.
During the flight, various flight characteristics such as aircraft basic handling and TP400 response at a thrust equivalent to the maximum power generated by each of the other T56 engines were tested to satisfaction in several aircraft configurations up to a speed of 165kts and an altitude of 8,000ft. This was a first step in the aircraft envelope opening. It will allow progress towards the completion of the approximately 50 flight test hours planned to reach sufficient maturity for the engine itself. Once this is achieved and sufficient maturity and satisfactory integration is also reached for the global propulsion system, it will be able to subsequently fly on the A400M.
EPI, which comprises Rolls Royce, SNECMA, MTU and ITP, started testing the TP400 in October 2005. More than 2,100 hours of ground testing have been performed with three engines on the ground test bench. To complete the trials, Marshall Aerospace was contracted by Airbus Military to perform the Flying Test Bed trials on a Lockheed C-130K. The aircraft was specifically modified to accept the new engine which develops about twice the power of the C-130K’s standard T56 engine.
“The successful completion of this first flight of the TP400 engine is a significant step in the A400M programme development”, says Rafael Tentor, Head of the A400M programme. “This and the subsequent flights will comfort us in the performance of the new engine itself, as well as its reliability, in a real flying environment. This objective also applies to the global propulsion system,” he added.
EADS and Airbus Military are still in negotiation with their customers. The time schedule of the A400M is not yet determined.
The EuroProp International (EPI) TP400 engine is a three shaft free turbine turbopropeller which drives an eight bladed five-metre-diameter propeller. Developing 11,000 SHp at take-off, it is the most powerful turboprop ever built in the western world. It allows for the wide range of speeds and flight levels required, while reducing fuel burn and weight. Powered by four of these, the A400M can cruise at altitudes as high as 37,000 ft at speeds between Mach 0.68 and 0.72 while retaining the capability of flying at speeds as low as 110 kt at 5,000 ft. The arrangement of the propellers, which turn in opposite directions inboard and outboard on each wing, allows a structural weight reduction, and improves, amongst other things, the lift at low speed.
The A400M is an all new military airlifter designed to meet the needs of the world’s Armed Forces in the 21st Century. Thanks to its most advanced technologies, this excellent aircraft will be able to fly higher, faster and further, while retaining high maneuverability, low speed, and short, soft and rough airfield capabilities. It combines both tactical and strategic/logistic missions. With its cargo hold specifically designed to carry the outsize equipment needed today for both military and humanitarian disaster relief missions, it can bring this material quickly and directly to where it is most needed. Conceived to be highly reliable, dependable, and with a great survivability, the multipurpose A400M can do more with less, implying smaller fleets and less investment from the operator. The A400M is the most cost efficient and versatile airlifter.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoo-RAY !!!
Nice set of photos - and congratulations to all concerned, specially in getting them onto the Net so quickly .
Nice way to end the year and a hope that (at last - sorry, Airbus !!!) the A400M propgramme will be able to get moving as hoped ... Roll on '09, the end of the C-130 phase and the A400M flight test programme proper ...
Why nobody's had good words for Airbus I can't understand - see what they've done in the civil field, starting from ZE-RO way back in the early '70s. Perhaps the A400M was a move into uncharted territory that many inside Airbus would have preferred not to have been made, but the market for a C-130 replacement hasn't gone away ... And learning curves are just that - for learning. And learning's something that Airbus has historically been very, very good at ...
BTW - It's over a decade since I retired from Airbus, but I'm still as proud of the company as I was when I joined (for the A310 programme) and look forward to seeing the whingeing naysayers confounded once again (on both shores of the Atlantic and the Channel) as they have been so often in the past.
Happy Holidays and a Good New Year to all,
Jig Peter
Nice way to end the year and a hope that (at last - sorry, Airbus !!!) the A400M propgramme will be able to get moving as hoped ... Roll on '09, the end of the C-130 phase and the A400M flight test programme proper ...
Why nobody's had good words for Airbus I can't understand - see what they've done in the civil field, starting from ZE-RO way back in the early '70s. Perhaps the A400M was a move into uncharted territory that many inside Airbus would have preferred not to have been made, but the market for a C-130 replacement hasn't gone away ... And learning curves are just that - for learning. And learning's something that Airbus has historically been very, very good at ...
BTW - It's over a decade since I retired from Airbus, but I'm still as proud of the company as I was when I joined (for the A310 programme) and look forward to seeing the whingeing naysayers confounded once again (on both shores of the Atlantic and the Channel) as they have been so often in the past.
Happy Holidays and a Good New Year to all,
Jig Peter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get it Straight !!!
Green Knight raises the "FBW flies you into trees" story. Off thread, I know, but the pilot concerned was a) doing "display flying" for which he had no experience, b) well below his agreed minimum hieght, c) hadn't properly reconnoitered the field he was to display at - nor had he properly rehearsed the routine,and d) didn't realise that a CFM56 takes a longish time to spool up from idle.
It was said later that in fact the A320's FBW actually prevented this totally avoidable accident from being worse than it was ...
It was said later that in fact the A320's FBW actually prevented this totally avoidable accident from being worse than it was ...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me...or does there seem to be an element of tokenism in this flight? It would have been a very bleak 2008 for Airbus Mil had none of the hardware got airborne before the end of the year.
I truly hope that the issues with the new engine can be solved and real progress made towards getting the A400M into service. However, the lack of public domain information on this program leaves one feeling that a lot problems are being covered up and may still prove insurmountable within the existing contract. Maybe I missed it but are the end user governments still standing by the penalty clauses? Or are we about to witness yet another credit crunch bailout of Airbus that will save industry jobs but cost us military capability!
That said, well done to the crew and engineers responsible for the flight, gutsy move. You deserve your Christmas bonuses.
I truly hope that the issues with the new engine can be solved and real progress made towards getting the A400M into service. However, the lack of public domain information on this program leaves one feeling that a lot problems are being covered up and may still prove insurmountable within the existing contract. Maybe I missed it but are the end user governments still standing by the penalty clauses? Or are we about to witness yet another credit crunch bailout of Airbus that will save industry jobs but cost us military capability!
That said, well done to the crew and engineers responsible for the flight, gutsy move. You deserve your Christmas bonuses.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RS?
"another credit crunch bailout of Airbus "?
When was the first one? Airbus has invested millions in this project, why can't you just be happy that the UK has a good part of this high tech aircraft, if you think that the world would be better place if we all flew american aircraft you are sadly misguided
When was the first one? Airbus has invested millions in this project, why can't you just be happy that the UK has a good part of this high tech aircraft, if you think that the world would be better place if we all flew american aircraft you are sadly misguided
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tokenism?
RS30
I am not sure how achieving first flight could be "tokenism", what were you expecting them to do, clear out to the edge of the envelope on the first flight.
I do agree with you your second from last sentence, well done to all at Marshalls for getting the new engine airborne (and the other companies that work with them). I wish I had been able to see it fly!
Hydroman400 - Are you going to post your photos?
Is it just me...or does there seem to be an element of tokenism in this flight?
I do agree with you your second from last sentence, well done to all at Marshalls for getting the new engine airborne (and the other companies that work with them). I wish I had been able to see it fly!
Hydroman400 - Are you going to post your photos?