New RAF Transport
I can't recall what the A400M Specification CBR is but I do recall a meeting where someone noted it and queried why it was so low. Why do we want to operate off a bog? The reply from the Boscombe boffin who knew about these things was "Its the German's idea, they don't want to get stuck when they invade Russia again." 
Soft field performance
I should be able to quote this without reference to any books but the main design criterion was CBR6 but also with 10 visits on a CBR4. At 6, however, landing with fuel for a 500nm transit and delivering a payload of 25tonnes/55000lbs it would make 40 visits before repairs to the surface are necessary.
By now, these figures should have been confirmed by flight test so there may be some variation in the RTS On the Squadron at Brize.
By now, these figures should have been confirmed by flight test so there may be some variation in the RTS On the Squadron at Brize.
Down Between the Engines
This is from A400 course notes from a few years ago.
One of the key elements of the A400Mīs versatility is its all-new, specifically designed three-shaft turboprop engine with eight bladed propellers. The 11,000 shp TP400- developed by Europrop International (EPI), a consortium comprising Rolls Royce, Snecma, MTU and ITP, is the most powerful turboprop in production. It allows a wide range of speeds and flight levels and offers extremely efficient fuel consumption. Powered by four of these turboprops, the A400M can cruise at altitudes as high as 37,000 ft at speeds up to Mach 0.72. This will permit the aircraft to fly above adverse medium level weather conditions and to be integrated into the commercial aircraft airspace. At the other end of the speed / range envelope, the A400M will be capable of flying at 110 kt and 5,000 ft to refuel helicopters, or even lower to drop equipment and supplies.
The down between the engines counter-rotation of the propellers, which turn in opposite directions, allows a structural weight reduction. The arrangement preserves the symmetry of the aircraft when the four engines are operating, and reduces the adverse yaw in case of an engine failure, allowing in turn a reduction in the size of the tail fin by 17 per cent, hence reducing weight and drag. Another consequence has been the possibility to improve by four per cent the lift at low speed and thus to simplify the slats and, as a result, reduce by eight per cent the surface of the horizontal stabilizer. Furthermore, it also reduces the level of vibrations and therefore the noise inside the aircraft.
I have miss placed most of my notes but they must be in the loft somewhere!!
Aaron.
One of the key elements of the A400Mīs versatility is its all-new, specifically designed three-shaft turboprop engine with eight bladed propellers. The 11,000 shp TP400- developed by Europrop International (EPI), a consortium comprising Rolls Royce, Snecma, MTU and ITP, is the most powerful turboprop in production. It allows a wide range of speeds and flight levels and offers extremely efficient fuel consumption. Powered by four of these turboprops, the A400M can cruise at altitudes as high as 37,000 ft at speeds up to Mach 0.72. This will permit the aircraft to fly above adverse medium level weather conditions and to be integrated into the commercial aircraft airspace. At the other end of the speed / range envelope, the A400M will be capable of flying at 110 kt and 5,000 ft to refuel helicopters, or even lower to drop equipment and supplies.
The down between the engines counter-rotation of the propellers, which turn in opposite directions, allows a structural weight reduction. The arrangement preserves the symmetry of the aircraft when the four engines are operating, and reduces the adverse yaw in case of an engine failure, allowing in turn a reduction in the size of the tail fin by 17 per cent, hence reducing weight and drag. Another consequence has been the possibility to improve by four per cent the lift at low speed and thus to simplify the slats and, as a result, reduce by eight per cent the surface of the horizontal stabilizer. Furthermore, it also reduces the level of vibrations and therefore the noise inside the aircraft.
I have miss placed most of my notes but they must be in the loft somewhere!!
Aaron.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xercules - I don't know about CBR4, but this verifies the CBR6 info you mentioned: The Airbus A400M Atlas ? Part 2 (What is So Good about It Anyway) - Think Defence
The A400M has been designed not just to land and take off from rough and soft surfaces but to do so repeatedly. On a CBR 6 surface it can land, unload and take off 40 times before the runway is unusable without improvement with a mixed fuel/payload load of 30 tonnes. On a CBR 8 surface this raises to 225 missions.
It can land 27 tonnes onto an 830m soft strip
It can land 27 tonnes onto an 830m soft strip
Optimistic?
From Flight Global:-
(My bold/italics)
Hopefully no-one has misread their PERT chart...
Lead aircraft ZM400 was formally revealed at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 27 November, some 10 days after it arrived on its delivery flight from Airbus Defence & Space's final assembly site in Seville, Spain.
It was flown again the day after its receipt, before remaining on the ground due to an undisclosed technical fault, the RAF says. The transport was used to support ground-based training during this period, but is due to be returned to flight status by the end of the week, the service adds.
The first of 22 A400Ms on order for the UK, production aircraft MSN15 will be followed swiftly by several other RAF examples, with two more expected to be handed over before year-end. The second aircraft was transferred to Airbus's Getafe site near Madrid on 26 November to have its defensive aids system equipment installed, the service says, while a first flight date will soon be set for its third example.
Despite a roughly two-month delay to ZM400 arriving at Brize Norton, programme officials still expect the RAF to be able to declare initial operational capability with the transport in March 2015, following the acceptance of its first seven aircraft and the availability of sufficient trained crews to operate them.
It was flown again the day after its receipt, before remaining on the ground due to an undisclosed technical fault, the RAF says. The transport was used to support ground-based training during this period, but is due to be returned to flight status by the end of the week, the service adds.
The first of 22 A400Ms on order for the UK, production aircraft MSN15 will be followed swiftly by several other RAF examples, with two more expected to be handed over before year-end. The second aircraft was transferred to Airbus's Getafe site near Madrid on 26 November to have its defensive aids system equipment installed, the service says, while a first flight date will soon be set for its third example.
Despite a roughly two-month delay to ZM400 arriving at Brize Norton, programme officials still expect the RAF to be able to declare initial operational capability with the transport in March 2015, following the acceptance of its first seven aircraft and the availability of sufficient trained crews to operate them.
Hopefully no-one has misread their PERT chart...
Lyneham Lad,
That might explain the rumours I've heard re serious computer problems preventing the aircraft starting. Of course, if they have let trainees loose, without doing a course, there's no end of trouble that can arise
Smudge
That might explain the rumours I've heard re serious computer problems preventing the aircraft starting. Of course, if they have let trainees loose, without doing a course, there's no end of trouble that can arise
Smudge
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a CBR 6 surface it can land, unload and take off 40 times before the runway is unusable without improvement with a mixed fuel/payload load of 30 tonnes. On a CBR 8 surface this raises to 225 missions.
In Afghanistan C-17s delivered two USMC LAV-25 brigades (MOWAG Piranha family) to an unpaved field outside Kabul. The field had a CBR 14 gravel runway and was longish (just under 6000 ft). The first C-17 load delivered four road graders. Each night C-17s delivered equipment continuously until daybreak. Only half the runway was used until it was rutted beyond safety levels, and then the other half of the runway was used. Deliveries were continuous all night long until day break. During the day the roadgraders smoothed out the ruts in the runway and then deliveries began again at night fall. This went on for several days until both brigades were delivered along with large quantities of fuel trucks. Typical load was many troops plus four LAVs, or 2 LAVs and 2 fuel trucks, or 2 LAVs and several HMMWVs. The fuel trucks were filled with fuel after arrival directly from the C-17s.
It's obvious that the European services have a very different mission in mind for the A400 than USAF has for the C-17. Apparently the A400s are going to be used more for special operations forces than for conventional forces. Clearly the A400 is intended for a very different concept of operations than the C-17.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Denham
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you tell us how many and what they are doing operating the A400M with no training? You seem to know a lot about it.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DECK ANGLE
I can't say what the A400's cruise deck angle is, but I can provide some info why deck angle could be important. Deck Angle is an important consideration when doing airdrops and there are different kind of airdrops requiring different deck angles. The C-17 flight manual includes charts that provide required flap deployment angles to achieve different deck angles at different speeds. The A400 almost certainly has equivalent charts.
Nice to see the RAF's Atlas humming around the local area today!
It'll be a worthy successor to the venerable C-130, although it wouldn't surprise me if the RAF will decide to retire the C-130 earlier than planned, once the Voyager and Atlas fleets are at full strength.
It'll be a worthy successor to the venerable C-130, although it wouldn't surprise me if the RAF will decide to retire the C-130 earlier than planned, once the Voyager and Atlas fleets are at full strength.
Denham,
Perhaps if you are going to quote, then you should look at the post in perspective, and not selectively pick fault.
"That might explain the rumours I've heard re serious computer problems preventing the aircraft starting. Of course, if they have let trainees loose, without doing a course, there's no end of trouble that can arise"
The post was querying rumours I have picked up, re computer problems with the first delivery. This involved the fact that "as rumour had it", the aircraft could not be started due to the numerous fault codes generated by the onboard computers. The reference to trainees, no course etc was merely a jocular attempt at humour as emphasised by the Obviously not something you recognise. Meanwhile, Beagle makes a good point, and I, like him hope that the aircraft soon enters service and is as successful as the C130 was, though I suspect it's a bit more to offer than Albert.
Smudge
Perhaps if you are going to quote, then you should look at the post in perspective, and not selectively pick fault.
"That might explain the rumours I've heard re serious computer problems preventing the aircraft starting. Of course, if they have let trainees loose, without doing a course, there's no end of trouble that can arise"
The post was querying rumours I have picked up, re computer problems with the first delivery. This involved the fact that "as rumour had it", the aircraft could not be started due to the numerous fault codes generated by the onboard computers. The reference to trainees, no course etc was merely a jocular attempt at humour as emphasised by the
Obviously not something you recognise. Meanwhile, Beagle makes a good point, and I, like him hope that the aircraft soon enters service and is as successful as the C130 was, though I suspect it's a bit more to offer than Albert.Smudge
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know brochures and sales presentations often do not match reality but there is some information on CBR and multiple passes at these links
http://www.ndtahq.com/documents/futureairtecheads.pdf
http://c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/A4...cket_Guide.pdf
http://gp01aero.free.fr/Conf_A400M/conference_a400.pdf
This one is in German but some good images of the early concepts FLA
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/S...1_29_A400M.pdf
What do people think about air despatch (is that the right term?) from the A400M, good, bad?
Will we ever air drop a vehicle or is it pallets and bundles only from now on?
http://www.ndtahq.com/documents/futureairtecheads.pdf
http://c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/A4...cket_Guide.pdf
http://gp01aero.free.fr/Conf_A400M/conference_a400.pdf
This one is in German but some good images of the early concepts FLA
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/S...1_29_A400M.pdf
What do people think about air despatch (is that the right term?) from the A400M, good, bad?
Will we ever air drop a vehicle or is it pallets and bundles only from now on?
A million years ago I attended an SAE conference where a guy who was then at Boeing (pre-Macs-merger) explained two things about airlifters: They almost inevitably cubed-out before they weighed-out, except in the rare instances where they were carrying armored vehicles, and they don't usually have enough wheels so their ground loading is too high. He was using the standard of battalion-days needed to build an airfield for sustained operations.
In his view the 12 wheels of the C-17 were barely adequate and the two tandem pairs of the C-130 were a weakness. His comparison was to the C-7, which required very little preparation.
Design plays a part, but wheel count is a pointer: the A400M is half the size of the C-17 but has the same number of mainwheels. The Russians had got the point too: the Il-76 has 2x as many wheels as the C-141 and the An-124 has 20 big-a$$ mainwheels.
By the way, the Russians consider CBR for fighters as well. Hence the offset-tandem gear on the MiG-31.
In his view the 12 wheels of the C-17 were barely adequate and the two tandem pairs of the C-130 were a weakness. His comparison was to the C-7, which required very little preparation.
Design plays a part, but wheel count is a pointer: the A400M is half the size of the C-17 but has the same number of mainwheels. The Russians had got the point too: the Il-76 has 2x as many wheels as the C-141 and the An-124 has 20 big-a$$ mainwheels.
By the way, the Russians consider CBR for fighters as well. Hence the offset-tandem gear on the MiG-31.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He was using the standard of battalion-days needed to build an airfield for sustained operations.
For clarification, CBR relates to how quickly and deeply an UNPAVED surface is rutted as it is used, which is generally determined by the aircraft's "flotation". "Flotation" is predominantly determined by the number, size, and pressure of the tires. C-17 for example has different tire pressures depending on the surface it will be operating from. Rutting is acceptable on an unpaved runway up to a point. At that point the surface needs to be re-graded.
By contrast, ZERO amount of rutting is permitted on a paved field because that means the surface has failed. The operational criteria for a paved field is surface cracks and surface conditions, which is heavily related to the type and thickness of the underlaid roadbed (in other words the structural stability of the roadbed). LCN/LCI relates to flotation, the total weight, AND the layout of the tires. If all else is equal, tires lined up in a row, like C-130 and A400, tend to put extra stresses on paved fields. But the high flotation of those aircraft tends to mitigate the problems of tires lined up in a row.
Russian aircraft must operate from fields above the arctic circle. Those runways, although paved, are built over permafrost which is inherently unstable. Their large aircraft tend to resolve the runway strength problem with high flotation, which means lots of large tires. Fighters, which are much more weight and volume limited, resolve the problem with unusual tire layouts, as you pointed out.
Hope this clarified.
CBR
What it is ..
California bearing ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One way it's measured ..
http://www.humboldtmfg.com/manuals/HS-4210_man_0113.pdf
HTH
What it is ..
California bearing ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One way it's measured ..
http://www.humboldtmfg.com/manuals/HS-4210_man_0113.pdf
HTH
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't come around here with your poncy new fangled digital kit
The MEXE Probe was a particularly cutting edge and innovative piece of equipment (at the time)
Soil Assessment Cone Penetrometer (SACP)
MEXE of course, is the Military Engineering Experimental Establishment that used to be at Christchurch, famous for among other things, the Bailey Bridge and MEXE Pads
The MEXE Probe was a particularly cutting edge and innovative piece of equipment (at the time)
Soil Assessment Cone Penetrometer (SACP)
MEXE of course, is the Military Engineering Experimental Establishment that used to be at Christchurch, famous for among other things, the Bailey Bridge and MEXE Pads
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rutting is acceptable on an unpaved runway up to a point.
That point being determined by whether or not the Staish's missus is involved.
That point being determined by whether or not the Staish's missus is involved.
Good one!
It's bad enough that English is not my first language, but I keep forgetting that American English and the Queen's English are different.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
I believe that the French (with UK observers or participants in attendance) have dropped vehicles on platforms from the A400M.
As you will have read and perhaps even blogged about the aspirations were?are? to drop two 16 ton 24 ft Type V (US origin) platforms.
I admit to ribbing Airbus reps at meetings over there computer generated simulations showing linked ULLA platforms falling from about 50 ft.
It was good to see the French using our (UK) SC15 parachutes for their CDS (1 ton Bundles) trials a month or so back.
I believe that the French (with UK observers or participants in attendance) have dropped vehicles on platforms from the A400M.
As you will have read and perhaps even blogged about the aspirations were?are? to drop two 16 ton 24 ft Type V (US origin) platforms.
I admit to ribbing Airbus reps at meetings over there computer generated simulations showing linked ULLA platforms falling from about 50 ft.
It was good to see the French using our (UK) SC15 parachutes for their CDS (1 ton Bundles) trials a month or so back.