Germany to pull out of the A400 program
Well I dont think its unreasonable that the C-17 line would not have been sitting half as idle if the Grizzly hadnt been in anyone's pipeline projection. I imagine plenty European nations must have looked at C-17 whilst still on the drawing board and thought it would be nice to have, but sadly too expensive.
Well look where we are now. Given the humble sales numbers that C-17 attained, is it not equally arguable that A400 will most likely end up in the same situation? Certainly if Germany cancels. Being different for the sake of being different (and supporting airbus jobs), both sides end up with eye wateringly expensive development costs which are tough to be profitable on.
Much though C-17 was initially deemed to be a stop gap solution for the RAF, if one follows subsequent history, is it not about time we started accepting the writing on the wall. Which is that we have become increasingly dependent on larger usually US led programmes (Airseeker/P8/F35) in pursuit of economies of scale.
Or shall we continue the Mod Procurement /MRA4 route
Well look where we are now. Given the humble sales numbers that C-17 attained, is it not equally arguable that A400 will most likely end up in the same situation? Certainly if Germany cancels. Being different for the sake of being different (and supporting airbus jobs), both sides end up with eye wateringly expensive development costs which are tough to be profitable on.
Much though C-17 was initially deemed to be a stop gap solution for the RAF, if one follows subsequent history, is it not about time we started accepting the writing on the wall. Which is that we have become increasingly dependent on larger usually US led programmes (Airseeker/P8/F35) in pursuit of economies of scale.
Or shall we continue the Mod Procurement /MRA4 route
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems someone else may be hedging their bets:
First Freefall Parachute Trial Sees RAF C-17 Jump into the Tactical Arena
First Freefall Parachute Trial Sees RAF C-17 Jump into the Tactical Arena
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, what does the US have planned to replace the C17s?
And interestingly, while RAF leased C-17s as in interim mesure until enough A400s were acquired, that has changed. Until recently RAF C-17s were "offically" strictly strategic transports with no tactical mission. But RAF has used them tactically many times and is now making that official. All RAF C-17s have been upgraded to the latest block 19 standard (not even USAF has that.) and RAF will be using all of the C-17's capabilities for the first time. This is a big deal because the UK's airdrop equipment is not compatible with C-17, so a lot of new airdrop equipment will need to be purchased to accomplish that. And RAF C-17 crews will need to be trained not only for these tactical missions, but also boom refueling, which was (as I undersand it) not part of the original lease agreement. I don't know what this means for A400 which was supposed to be the premier tactical airlifter.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I dont think its unreasonable that the C-17 line would not have been sitting half as idle if the Grizzly hadnt been in anyone's pipeline projection. I imagine plenty European nations must have looked at C-17 whilst still on the drawing board and thought it would be nice to have, but sadly too expensive.
Interesting development:
UPDATE 1-Indonesia to buy Airbus A400M military transport planes -minister
It's the ultimate aircraft designed by committee, with compromises to suit particular people. I can't remember if it was the French or Germans who forced the original FLA design to be props rather than jets, or why, but that was the start of the slide IMO.
UPDATE 1-Indonesia to buy Airbus A400M military transport planes -minister
It's the ultimate aircraft designed by committee, with compromises to suit particular people. I can't remember if it was the French or Germans who forced the original FLA design to be props rather than jets, or why, but that was the start of the slide IMO.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,114
Received 2,954 Likes
on
1,260 Posts
It's the ultimate aircraft designed by committee, with compromises to suit particular people..
The Jaguar at least only had a committee of 2, 3 if you count Dassault as the reluctant co-optee that would do anything to scupper the project. Tyhoon and Tornado both also suffered politically if not technically from being multi-nation projects.
I wonder if anyone has strolled down to the old file cabinet at Lockheed Marietta and dusted off the Fat Hercules (or fatter?) file , the C-130XL. Around 2008/2009 two or three versions were being looked at, a lesser change version that moved the wheel wells out giving a constant cross section, moving the wing higher atop the fuselage, and a full blown new fatter fuselage. Wings, engines, cockpit, tail pretty much J, giving some compatibility with the regular C-130 fleets.
I do wonder about Coochycools idea for a Dornier 328 type engine swap to turbofans. Surely that would only be a last resort if the engine issues can't be fixed, and would be a majorly expensive and time consuming process for the A-400- but intriguing. Maybe that would reduce turbulence and help resolve the inability to pass fuel to helicopters and the concerns about paradrops as well?
I do wonder about Coochycools idea for a Dornier 328 type engine swap to turbofans. Surely that would only be a last resort if the engine issues can't be fixed, and would be a majorly expensive and time consuming process for the A-400- but intriguing. Maybe that would reduce turbulence and help resolve the inability to pass fuel to helicopters and the concerns about paradrops as well?
IIRC the FLA ( Future Large Aircraft) c.1982 was originally envisaged as going to be a turbofan.
Then there was the love affair with " unducted fans" etc. in the mid 80's. The turbofan idea got downgraded on FLA as it evolved ( to fund "civil" UDF production ?) . I remember the horrific noise of the DC-9(?) UDF flying test bed at Farnborough in '86 followed by a general loss of interest in UDFs for the civil market . Apart from the (abortive) An 70, has this type of engine/Propfan propulsor had any other potential applications ?
Then there was the love affair with " unducted fans" etc. in the mid 80's. The turbofan idea got downgraded on FLA as it evolved ( to fund "civil" UDF production ?) . I remember the horrific noise of the DC-9(?) UDF flying test bed at Farnborough in '86 followed by a general loss of interest in UDFs for the civil market . Apart from the (abortive) An 70, has this type of engine/Propfan propulsor had any other potential applications ?
Last edited by Haraka; 11th May 2016 at 20:10.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an A400 pootling about at medium level over the N York Moors and Scarborough at this moment. Noisy blighter. Visible Periodically through gaps in the cloud cover and seems to be flying a racetrack, unless there is more than one of them. Any idea what it might be up to?
@Haraka, yep
Yes, one of the group (I'm sure either France or Germany) insisted it had to be a prop, either for tactical reasons (Being able to reverse on rough ground springs to mind) FOD or economics.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,114
Received 2,954 Likes
on
1,260 Posts
Gas turbines can reverse as well, the Vicky Ten used to do it on reverse thrust.
Well remember while on BOAC Command Course, backing up the VC10. Although not a company approved procedure we all did a three point turn at Prestwick, on the disused runway, in the event of being stuck without a tug for push backs etc. Reversed easily with quite low power, F/Eng was on long lead ic, head out of forward door giving directions. Main thing to remember, feet on floor and stop by selecting forward thrust!
DC-9 and MD-80 could readily back with reversers - some operators did use that as SOP back in the 1980s (I was on an MD-80 more than once that used the reversers to back out of the gate). In addition to not needed the tug, since the aircraft was under control of the captain they didn't need as many ground crew spotters so there was a significant labor savings. However it did present a FOD risk and is pretty abusive on the engine in general - I think the operators quickly realized the increased engine maintenance cancelled out the labor savings.
Most commercial jets can back up with their reversers provided the ground is reasonably level - I was on a test on a 767 ~25 years ago where we demonstrated backing with the reversers. But it's so abusive to the engines and is such a FOD risk that no one does it unless it's an emergency.
The YC-14 could readily back using the reversers (and with the engines above the wing there was minimal FOD risk), - I suspect the C-17 can as well.
Most commercial jets can back up with their reversers provided the ground is reasonably level - I was on a test on a 767 ~25 years ago where we demonstrated backing with the reversers. But it's so abusive to the engines and is such a FOD risk that no one does it unless it's an emergency.
The YC-14 could readily back using the reversers (and with the engines above the wing there was minimal FOD risk), - I suspect the C-17 can as well.
It would be interesting to consider a "coaler" style solution for turbofans rather than the props. Unfortunately you would need a new wing, and maybe an even bigger tail design if you were to move away from the prop driven option. Say approx 3 years of solid work from aero concept to production.
The prop flow has to be a huge factor in the loads/aero.
I had the 'pleasure' of working on the wing. Glad it was only a fleeting visit.
I'm also glad I wasn't one of the guys drilling out fake battle damage in their NBC kit, inside the box, in summer. Full respect for them for cracking on with it.
The prop flow has to be a huge factor in the loads/aero.
I had the 'pleasure' of working on the wing. Glad it was only a fleeting visit.
I'm also glad I wasn't one of the guys drilling out fake battle damage in their NBC kit, inside the box, in summer. Full respect for them for cracking on with it.