A400M first flight
Commercial contract
I cannot see how Airbus can wriggle any more money out of their buyers.
A friend works for Airbus and he has said time and time again that this time Airbus have used a standard commercial contract for the A400M, there is to be no delays due to the customer changing his mind half way through the programme. They will deliver what was ordered on day one. Any mods that are required eg strengthened floor can be done but will be done after delivery as a separate programme.
They cannot have their cake and eat it! The delay is all of their own making, for once the MoD changing the goalposts is not the reason for the delay, therefore no way the taxpayers should pay more. Airbus can learn from the experience and undoubtedly will do better next time.
A friend works for Airbus and he has said time and time again that this time Airbus have used a standard commercial contract for the A400M, there is to be no delays due to the customer changing his mind half way through the programme. They will deliver what was ordered on day one. Any mods that are required eg strengthened floor can be done but will be done after delivery as a separate programme.
They cannot have their cake and eat it! The delay is all of their own making, for once the MoD changing the goalposts is not the reason for the delay, therefore no way the taxpayers should pay more. Airbus can learn from the experience and undoubtedly will do better next time.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 52
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of room at Brize........the VC-10s and tristars will be long gone before whats left at Lyneham transfers
Don't think there will be enough space on the pan, never mind in the hangars!
Just as well the A400M will be nearly 3 years late then
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M is the airlifter of choice if:
You require an advanced tactical transport in a few years and money is of no concern;
You do not operate fleets of C130J's or C-17's and
Your procurement decisions are led by Euro political considerations.
However, if you urgently need a proven airlifter, already have C130J's, C-17's and no money....
You require an advanced tactical transport in a few years and money is of no concern;
You do not operate fleets of C130J's or C-17's and
Your procurement decisions are led by Euro political considerations.
However, if you urgently need a proven airlifter, already have C130J's, C-17's and no money....
Too late, too exspensive and too slow.
The 300KCAS speed was defined by the European Staff Requirement for a future military transport aircraft.
MSN001 achieved that speed on its first test flight.
Presumably, the window-lickers on this thread will accuse the ESR of being somehow 'led by Euro political considerations'?
Incidentally the 'jet' option was binned from the specification years ago as it was too inefficient for the ESR specification.
Beag's, old boy
Just looking to see who's cage I could rattle. Looks like it was yours.
Plane looks fine, sure it will fly just fine as well.
a little bit faster if it had jets tho...
Just looking to see who's cage I could rattle. Looks like it was yours.
Plane looks fine, sure it will fly just fine as well.
a little bit faster if it had jets tho...
Westie, it's interesting to compare the 'Euroflag Solution 20' concept version of the 'FLA' (which had 4 turbofans) with the its descendant, the A400M.
Both were designed for a 300/M0.72 max speed requirement.
The jet version had a smaller cargo bay (length, width and height all smaller), it had a 32% smaller max payload, a 22% smaller MTOW, carried about 12 tonne less wing fuel....
I think the chaps with the computers have optimised the present design pretty well - the FLA Solution 20 concept was rather a dog.
Both were designed for a 300/M0.72 max speed requirement.
The jet version had a smaller cargo bay (length, width and height all smaller), it had a 32% smaller max payload, a 22% smaller MTOW, carried about 12 tonne less wing fuel....
I think the chaps with the computers have optimised the present design pretty well - the FLA Solution 20 concept was rather a dog.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
3 questions.
What is the max altitude with cabalt restrained to 8K?
what is the expected Mach in the cruise at this level?
Do you think eurocontrol are going to have A400M holding up civilian traffic at this mach and alt, or do you think it will get held down like the J does?
3 questions.
What is the max altitude with cabalt restrained to 8K?
what is the expected Mach in the cruise at this level?
Do you think eurocontrol are going to have A400M holding up civilian traffic at this mach and alt, or do you think it will get held down like the J does?
.72!!!!
I back out of my driveway faster than that.
Really, I always thought the C17 was larger.
Oh, that version.
I back out of my driveway faster than that.
The jet version had a smaller cargo bay
Oh, that version.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the real issue with the A400 is the price.
If the original price was 100MEuros, and now will go up (UK looking at getting 19 for the same money as originally supposed to be 25), then projected price now is 131MEuros. That is only 10% cheaper than a C-17. And who believes that Airbus will stick to current projected price.
Europe makes good stuff at times but mostly (always) too expensive?
If the original price was 100MEuros, and now will go up (UK looking at getting 19 for the same money as originally supposed to be 25), then projected price now is 131MEuros. That is only 10% cheaper than a C-17. And who believes that Airbus will stick to current projected price.
Europe makes good stuff at times but mostly (always) too expensive?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And not forgetting the cost of tidying up any extra snags that are yet to be ironed, cost of training infrastructure, cost of admin (IPT, logistics) cost of seperate eng sections and associated executive....
I would really like the 400M in service, but it doesnt exactly look cost effective at a time we are seriously short of moolah.
I would really like the 400M in service, but it doesnt exactly look cost effective at a time we are seriously short of moolah.