Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

A400M Flight Testing Progress

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

A400M Flight Testing Progress

Old 9th Apr 2011, 10:40
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
surely....

After 8 years and 1,250 odd posts you "surely" should be familiar with thread drift by now, it normally happens by about the 4th post! Perhaps nobody has any "new news" on A400M testing to impart - no doubt when they have, they will!!
Biggus is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2011, 15:17
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,543
Until we have some more news released or some journo goes to report on the program, we might as well continue talking about Anglo-American language.

Like the fact that when I listen to my neighbour, who was born near Richmond, Virgina, I am unaccountably reminded of some of my Hampshire aunties...
LowObservable is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2011, 16:39
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: arrrrrrrgh
Age: 51
Posts: 147
Oh boy, I had a look at this thread because I thought it had updates on the A400M Flight tests..................but after the opening page it has changed into somebody complaining about a lot of wittering about words!!

Anybody able to get the thread back onto its topic!
Really annoyed is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2011, 14:23
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
Thumbs up Attitude change

At a recent ceremony in Toulouse, La Dépèche du Midi newspaper reported Louis Gallois as saying, (inter alia) that he expected A400M sales to reach 400 - 500. This is, I think, a bit of a change in EADS' attitude, as until now, their top managers have been saying, rightly but rather stiffly, that their main focus is on producing the 170+ at present on order, without mentioning any efforts to go for any further sales.

GO GRIZZLY !!!!

PS - Nearly back on thread ?
It's nice to hear the distinctive note of the A400's engines quite regularly in the TLS area, as it indicates that flight testing is making progress. Quite possibly we won't get much more news about it until Le Bourget in about 6 weeks, so this thread will stay quiet ...

Last edited by Jig Peter; 12th Apr 2011 at 15:19. Reason: Add source + PS
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 12th May 2011, 23:29
  #45 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
video coverage fuel transfer with VC-10 and mission preparation


Last week the TP400 engines received certification

A400M gets a lift, as EPI engine secures civil certification


Last edited by keesje; 12th May 2011 at 23:57.
keesje is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 07:45
  #46 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
The consortium has previously outlined a target of mid-2012 to also receive military certification for the engine
Could someone please explain why the military need a separate certificate for the engine? Why not accept the civilian certificate and save a few million? Or at least just test the bit that not covered by the civy one?
green granite is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 09:57
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,073
Gets very difficult I would imagine when dealing with FADEC and the like. Plus, ruggedisation.

Anyone know why bus are going for the joint certification? Are they looking at an A400F civilian variant at some stage?
VinRouge is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 10:04
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bed
Posts: 185
Nice VC10 video with a certain ppruner on it

:
sangiovese. is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 12:18
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Quote:
The consortium has previously outlined a target of mid-2012 to also receive military certification for the engine
Could someone please explain why the military need a separate certificate for the engine? Why not accept the civilian certificate and save a few million? Or at least just test the bit that not covered by the civy one?
I expect it is due to the military role requiring different requirements to that of the civil role. For example, the engine may use a different control law whilst in the AAR role or at low level than it does during in normal civil type ops???

They will clearly gather the clearance data for the civil role earlier in the programme. Since it is highly likely that Airbus will try to target the civil market, it seems logical to apply for that certification ASAP and then the military certification afterwards (which would be the same package of data plus the extra mil delta).

Otherwise they will have to retrospectively apply for a civil clearance by deconstructing the mil package and deleting the mil elements, which would probably take more time.

Also, it is no doubt good press to tell the world that the engine already meets the stringent civil cert requirements, which will be confidence boosting for their customer (and future customers).

FTEP
FTE Pruner is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 17:31
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 84
Anyone know why Airbus are going for the joint certification?

So that HeavyLift will have an easier time when they buy the A400M fleet from the RAF just after they have been nicely run in. Another Belfast lesson learned.

Last edited by Rory57; 13th May 2011 at 17:34. Reason: Wrong quote
Rory57 is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 17:36
  #51 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
Could someone please explain why the military need a separate certificate for the engine?
Doesn't it have to do with A400M being allowed to operate civil airways above busy Europe in the future? I believe that's also behind the M.7 cruising speed.

The civil certification of the TP was the reaso for months of delay. Some folks neglected the paperwork and lots had to be done all over.
keesje is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 20:52
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 64
Posts: 562
Civil Cert is the prefered way to go with the manufacturers and the PT who think that just because the process works with airliners it should work with military transports, which let's face it, spend a lot of time in airways flying routes.
The A400M is not novel in going down this route, the J Herc was built as a civil cert aircraft and then militarised the same process the A400 is going through.
The big problem with this process is that the civil authorities will not certify an aircraft system that has redundant capability ie a more demanding military role, so following civil certification a lot of systems will be ripped out and replaced with the military kit and the process begun again.
VX275 is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 21:31
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,729
The big problem with this process is that the civil authorities will not certify an aircraft system that has redundant capability ie a more demanding military role, so following civil certification a lot of systems will be ripped out and replaced with the military kit and the process begun again.
Huh? Civilian certification is about flight testing to establish that an aircraft has performance that meets or exceeds minimum performance requirements decreed by civilian authorities. If an aircraft exceeds those performance requirements, then it will be certified. Having "redundant" capability is irrelevant.

Please clarify your argument.

Last edited by Trim Stab; 13th May 2011 at 22:07.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 14th May 2011, 20:49
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 64
Posts: 562
A typical Civil cert nonsense is having to install a civil crew Oxygen system that is only designed to keep the crew alive whilst they carry out an emergency descent to a safe altitude. Whereas the military system would keep them alive whilst flying straight and level depressurised at 40K ft plus as required by the aircraft specification.
If you had a cargo hold full of paras/passengers and had a pressurisation problem at altitude the military Oxygen system would still allow the emergency descent as its a more capable system
EASA insisted that for civil cert of the A400M only a 'civilian' Oxygen system was allowed on the aircraft. Other military equipment/systems were required removed by EASA as the 'covered or inhibited during civil cert testing' option was not an option.
So rather than a civil certification falling off the back of a military one we waste money testing an aircraft no one has bought - a civilian cargo aircraft.
VX275 is offline  
Old 14th May 2011, 22:08
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,910
I think you've all missed the point that EADS/Airbus/Airbus Military/EC/EC Military/CASA are all based on the methods of building civil aircraft and the military models are almost a by-product of their civil-based profits and expertise. They will, naturally, develop any airframe for export/multiple uses first.

Welcome to "proper" design and continued airworthiness management.

I believe that only line maintenance is to be let out to the customer units and that any base maintenance (Part 145) needs will be approved/controlled from EADS/Airbus Mil as the maintenance managers (Part M).

Only a token appropriately ranked signatory needed for a "PT" then?
Rigga is offline  
Old 14th May 2011, 22:46
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wales
Posts: 447
I'm guessing the civil cert is to enable flight test in what is a multi country programme , otherwise which military system would you use. It will obviously be eventually be certified by each countries own military. C130J was done to FAA cert , i'm guessing because US wasnt lead cutomer.
bvcu is offline  
Old 19th May 2011, 18:56
  #57 (permalink)  

Pilot Officer PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Nice VC10 video with a certain ppruner on it
... and it was useful to prove to Mrs T that I did do some work out there!

Tonks
Tonkenna is offline  
Old 19th May 2011, 19:14
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,729
A typical Civil cert nonsense is having to install a civil crew Oxygen system that is only designed to keep the crew alive whilst they carry out an emergency descent to a safe altitude. Whereas the military system would keep them alive whilst flying straight and level depressurised at 40K ft plus as required by the aircraft specification
.

The civilian certification requirements are MINIMUM standards required. If a manufacturer wishes to install systems that have BETTER performance then there would be no objection from the certifying authorities. In your example the oxygen system would be superior to civilian certification standards, so there would be no certification issues at all.

I still don't understand why the need to meet civilian certification standards is a problem.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 19th May 2011, 21:37
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Old Hampshire
Age: 64
Posts: 562
there would be no objection from the certifying authorities
That's not the EASA I recognise.
VX275 is offline  
Old 20th May 2011, 12:17
  #60 (permalink)  
"The INTRODUCER"
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Posts: 434
Vmcg test video

Airbus Military video via Aviation Week.
Algy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.