A400M engine - hey, it works!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doing the stan direct is a great idea....but... the fuel costs 4 times more than at Muscat. Thats a lot of Cash, then try telling the poor sods on the ground they can't heat thier tent because the Timmy used it all.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The product is not expensive, in fact the fixed price contract is a real problem.
Joys of mixing politics and procurement.
And I am a fan of the programme!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M
Politics forced the choice of engine supplier on Airbus, they shouldn't be held to account for this.
The airframe was ready on time and at the agreed price, had the engines been delivered the flight testing would be well under way.
There will be advantages to having a european military transport supplier that will improve the capibility of our armed forces and our industrial base
The airframe was ready on time and at the agreed price, had the engines been delivered the flight testing would be well under way.
There will be advantages to having a european military transport supplier that will improve the capibility of our armed forces and our industrial base
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politics forced the choice of engine supplier on Airbus, they shouldn't be held to account for this.
I don't recall the C17s being late - oh but that is because we did not let politics interfere and bought a low-risk, off the production line aircraft. Subsidising European technological advancement in aircraft/engine design is all very well, but the risk to ISD of engine/platform integration was well-known and this was not a surprise to anyone except Airbus who kept promising it would happen on time and put our military capability at significant risk.
Bottom line is Airbus knows it is not goin to be held to account because it knows how to pass the pain onto the workers in the partner Nations. A400M was a political buy that will cost us far more than we ever expected. It will work one day and should be very capable, but by then we will have a growing fleet of C17s to fill the gap caused by the delay.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When in development the C17s were seriously late, and incredibly over-budget.
Luckily the USAF stuck with it and now, 10+ years on it is a wonderful AT asset.
Provided the A400 project is continued and not de-railed by speculation and suspicion, it too will be a wonderful AT asset.
(RS-30. It isn't a money pit for the customers either, seeing at it is a FIXED PRICE contract
. It may well be a money pit for Airbus, but that's another, corporate matter and has no bearing on the MRTT/FSTA project. That project is in limbo because of nothing other than political inertia.)
Luckily the USAF stuck with it and now, 10+ years on it is a wonderful AT asset.
Provided the A400 project is continued and not de-railed by speculation and suspicion, it too will be a wonderful AT asset.
(RS-30. It isn't a money pit for the customers either, seeing at it is a FIXED PRICE contract
. It may well be a money pit for Airbus, but that's another, corporate matter and has no bearing on the MRTT/FSTA project. That project is in limbo because of nothing other than political inertia.)
Low speed characteristics for air drop, tactical flight and helicopter AAR...
Last edited by BEagle; 5th Dec 2008 at 17:54.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When in development the C17s were seriously late, and incredibly over-budget.
The C17 was not late into RAF service is my point - if we want to subsidize the euro nations playing at building aircraft, we should accept the inevitable delay and cost over-runs, it would just be nice if someone factored them in at the start - they always happen! Military will suffer unless someone now does an interim panic buy to fill the gap.
A400M will work one day, but those that say the delays were unpredictable are clearly mad and a cause of some of the barking procurement decisions that have been made. It was never going to arrive on time - does not make it a bad aircraft, just means that we will need something to fill the gap.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Its good, the engine rotational configaration helps, nice and stable
And what if you lost 2 donks?!
(Warning - I could be talking b0ll0x)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you lose one the f.b.w. will restrict the AOA, the inboard will not have the same effect as the outboard, if you lose two out of four again the f.b.w will keep things as good as possible
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we have a block on the Airbus Fanzone posting their "Airbus is great" twaddle?
Some of the posters are so up Airbus A$$ it's just a joke,
If you work for AB just say so.
Some of the posters are so up Airbus A$$ it's just a joke,
If you work for AB just say so.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTTB,
When they have a vested interest in it then they are bound to "big" it up, but I am with you it is rather tiresome when the likes of the ex funbus captain goes on and on and on and on about how great it will EVENTUALLY/MAYBE be
When they have a vested interest in it then they are bound to "big" it up, but I am with you it is rather tiresome when the likes of the ex funbus captain goes on and on and on and on about how great it will EVENTUALLY/MAYBE be
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Personally, I'd rather listen to the biased view of an Airbus driver "
As would I if it actually reflected what is currently going on and having spoken face to face with some of those "directly" in the know me thinks what we often see typed in here is not exactly the full story...........
As would I if it actually reflected what is currently going on and having spoken face to face with some of those "directly" in the know me thinks what we often see typed in here is not exactly the full story...........
I agree, saddamsfatporpoise!
Some mumblings I have heard throw doubt on certain aspects of the A400M's fitness for purpose, which are more than just mutterings about the TPA400 software.
And I really hope they are just bolleaux!
Some mumblings I have heard throw doubt on certain aspects of the A400M's fitness for purpose, which are more than just mutterings about the TPA400 software.
And I really hope they are just bolleaux!
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really weird, but no matter how many times I read this I can't find anyone saying that Airbus is great. It reads to me that people are saying that all technically challenging projects suffer setbacks, but that Airbus should be able to sort it out and get the thing flying with time. No big surprise there. I can't think of any manufacturer I would like to see defended in these forums as few have ever delivered a major product to time/spec/budget.
Having worked on the project, I found AMSL and Airbus naiive to military expectations and our approach equally naiive in understanding the commercial approach. Partnerships are talked about often in procurement circles, but they are rarely what they pretend to be.
I neither defend Boeing, nor laud its C17 unnecessarily. I support the approach that bought a suitable product off the shelf, making it low-risk and affordable. It (initially) was delivered to time/budget and with potential for greater performance than actually required. It is that kind of flexibility of thinking that actually provides support to the military, rather than promises of technological wonders (how big is that engine?) at considerable risk. Unfortunately, politics gets in the way and we are directed to accept a solution from a bidder inexperienced in what we do. C'est la vie.
Having worked on the project, I found AMSL and Airbus naiive to military expectations and our approach equally naiive in understanding the commercial approach. Partnerships are talked about often in procurement circles, but they are rarely what they pretend to be.
I neither defend Boeing, nor laud its C17 unnecessarily. I support the approach that bought a suitable product off the shelf, making it low-risk and affordable. It (initially) was delivered to time/budget and with potential for greater performance than actually required. It is that kind of flexibility of thinking that actually provides support to the military, rather than promises of technological wonders (how big is that engine?) at considerable risk. Unfortunately, politics gets in the way and we are directed to accept a solution from a bidder inexperienced in what we do. C'est la vie.
