Germany to pull out of the A400 program

[Alber Ratman]

A400 just flown over my house into NWi..

[Brian W May]

It might be capable when it works, many aircraft are . . .

However, it really looks like it should have been made by the Russians, it's one of the ugliest aircraft I've ever seen.

Remember the old adage, 'if it looks right, it flies right' - well they forgot when they designed this pachyderm of a very light grey hue.

[KenV]

I think the Ukrainian A400, the An-70, is rather pretty and those wide chord contrarotating propellers look badass. I really hope Antonov figures out a way to put the airplane in production.

[tdracer]

Oops

Airbus Confirms Cracks Found In 48 Engines Of A400 Aircraft

Apparently all clockwise rotating engines are affected

This is, in two of the four engines fitted to the aircraft and the European consortium that manufactures Europrop. The other scenario is that all 48 engines mounted on the 24 aircraft delivered to customers have to be repaired

.

[recceguy]

One of the reasons, 15 years ago, of not choosing the An-70 which was already flying (or a re-engined Il 76 with a sort of CFM-56) was the perceived " lack of industrial quality " of Russian products (in any case, that aircraft would have been built in Europe, only the plans would have been bought from the Russians ) !!!!!
And now we have that thing ....

By the way, who had the brilliant idea of building from scratch the military brand of Airbus in ... Spain ?? but 15 years ago that country was the "new frontier of Europe" full of promises ... and real estate bubbles, along with industrial vacuity

[turboshaft]

Germany not considering scrapping A400M transport plane-gov't source

...though additional "temporary" lift will be sought, "through leasing and other bilateral options with France, Britain and the United States."

[KenV]

Germany to Seek Compensation for Delayed Airbus A400M Deliveries

Germany will seek compensation from Airbus Group SE for delays in delivering the A400M military plane and warned the country may to turn to rival manufacturers to help meet its growing need for transport aircraft.

“We have an airtight contract in which compensatory damages are clearly spelled out,” Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said at the Berlin Air Show on Thursday. “We will make sure this entitlement to damages is carried out.” The Defense Ministry will decide later this year whether to buy or lease aircraft from Airbus competitors after completing a review of its transport needs and getting a report from the manufacturer detailing the A400M’s technical issues, said Jens Flosdorff, von der Leyen’s chief spokesman.

Germany, the largest customer for the A400M, has grown increasingly frustrated with the delays, which threaten to hamper plans to expand its military reach globally. The country has thus far received just three planes, and a schedule that called for nine deliveries in 2016 is in question amid technical problems including fuselage cracks and faulty engine gearboxes. The A400M -- first ordered by Germany, six other European nations and Turkey back in 2003 -- is already more than four years late and 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) over budget. Germany currently relies on more than 40-year-old planes.

Von der Leyen, who walked past the A400M plane at the show without stopping, said Airbus is required to pay penalties for every day the aircraft is delayed. Her harsh words come a day after Airbus Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders visited the event and told reporters the plane is “worth waiting for.” Together with suppliers, Airbus is working “intensely” on resolving production issues, and is seeking solutions in the foreseeable future, he said.

LINK

[ancientaviator62]

As I recall Lockheed's 'simple' upgrade of the C130 into the 'J' was over two years late and well over budget. Doe not excuse the A400 woes but these things do happen.

[KenV]

As I recall Lockheed's 'simple' upgrade of the C130 into the 'J' was over two years late and well over budget.

Part of that was due to the certification issues. Since the J was a company funded effort certification was civil. The upgrades from H to J were sufficient that the FAA would not "grandfather" the many faults/problems of the old Hercules to the new one. So a lot of the delay and expense was to solve problems with the old airplane that were no longer considered acceptable. Stall characteristics were bad and required addition of (among other things) a stick pusher. Icing characteristics were bad and required many changes, including the addition of an anti-ice system on a section of the vertical fin/dorsal. Fire suppression in the engine nacelle was inadequate and required changes. Going to a two man cockpit required the addition of lots of automation, but the crew workload was excessive during emergencies and the avionics required lots of rework. In short, the "simple" upgrade was not at all simple and the original budget and schedule were woefully over optimistic. And even with all this hindsight, there were lots of unexpected issues when applying the C-130J upgrades to the C-27A to make it a C-27J. The 737MAX is a "simple" upgrade of the 737NG, but it still requires lots and lots of engineering and testing. The same with the A320neo. Indeed the problems there have been sufficient that Qatar has decided to walk away from their A320neo order. Pretty drastic action for a launch customer. In today's environment, there is no such thing as a "simple" upgrade for a new airplane.

LINK
LINK2

[t43562]

In today's environment, there is no such thing as a "simple" upgrade for a new airplane.

Isn't this a bit of an excuse? If it's not simple, then presumably that's because it was grossly underestimated.

[rjtjrt]

Germany reported to be considering small C-130J buy.

Germany Eyes Joint C-130 Fleet With Allies

[EAP86]

Originally Posted by t43562

Isn't this a bit of an excuse? If it's not simple, then presumably that's because it was grossly underestimated.

Unfortunately while the rules are fairly clear, the interpretation can still be complex - EASA offer a 2 week course on their regs on this. EASA will provide advice (presumably so will the FAA) but this is often seen as encouraging additional risk so some companies don't do it. In my experience the accountants have an undue influence on this. Personally I see this as adding uncertainty but there you go...

EAP

[ancientaviator62]

KenV,
thank you for the informative comments on the woes of the 'J'. According to my A320 pilot grandson the word is that it is the problems with the P and W engines that has most upset QATAR. Apologies for the thread drift but it is useful to see a bigger picture.

[KenV]

KenV, thank you for the informative comments on the woes of the 'J'.

You're welcome.

According to my A320 pilot grandson the word is that it is the problems with the P and W engines that has most upset QATAR. Apologies for the thread drift but it is useful to see a bigger picture.

That is also my understanding. The P&W engine uses an entirely new technology (a fan with reduction gears) and it is experiencing all sorts of early teething problems. It'll be interesting to see if the reduction gears really do provide the claimed/hoped for fuel burn reduction to justify the weight, drag, and complexity penalties. Time will tell. Boeing was more conservative and stuck to only GE LEAP engines on the 737MAX (and besides, the P&W engine with the larger diameter fan would not work on the 737 anyway) and thus avoided this added risk and complication. On the other hand, the A320neo is currently outselling the 737MAX, so maybe the risk was justified. We won't know until both the Airbus and the Boeing airplanes are in full rate production.

But the bottom line is that there really is no such thing anymore as a "simple" upgrade to generate a new airplane.

[tdracer]

But the bottom line is that there really is no such thing anymore as a "simple" upgrade to generate a new airplane.

I first became a DER in 1988, and KenV is spot on. The certification efforts required have mushroomed, and they've made life so unpleasant for DER types (I'm now an "Authorized Representative" or AR, but that's just the delegated equivalent of a DER) that I don't think I'd encourage a young engineer to follow the DER/AR career path.
Worse, it has almost nothing to do with safety. Less than 10% of the additional effort is going towards actual improved safety, most if it is bureaucratic BS

[Tourist]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Less than 10% of the additional effort is going towards actual improved safety, most if it is bureaucratic BS

That statement covers pretty much everything since Haddon-Cave......

[Arclite01]

Well if you get in a Lawyer rather than an Engineer that is what you get..........

'The Law is an Ass......' I believe is the saying.

Seems to be the trend nowadays to get in someone who knows nothing about the subject to give a full and unqualified binding decision..........

Arc

[JFZ90]

Originally Posted by KenV

You're welcome.

That is also my understanding. The P&W engine uses an entirely new technology (a fan with reduction gears) and it is experiencing all sorts of early teething problems. It'll be interesting to see if the reduction gears really do provide the claimed/hoped for fuel burn reduction to justify the weight, drag, and complexity penalties. Time will tell. Boeing was more conservative and stuck to only GE LEAP engines on the 737MAX (and besides, the P&W engine with the larger diameter fan would not work on the 737 anyway) and thus avoided this added risk and complication. On the other hand, the A320neo is currently outselling the 737MAX, so maybe the risk was justified. We won't know until both the Airbus and the Boeing airplanes are in full rate production.

But the bottom line is that there really is no such thing anymore as a "simple" upgrade to generate a new airplane.

I used to think these new geared fans were a totally "new" technology but was intrigued to learn that the old BAe-146 has had them for over 30 years - they are effectively Chinook engines with geared fans stuck on them to create a high bypass turbofan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_ALF_502

[airsound]

France to Receive First Fully-Capable A400M

France to Receive First Fully-Capable A400M

PARIS --- The French air force will soon receive the first A400M military transport aircraft fully equipped with self-protection and air-drop capabilities, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced today. ........

Separately, the Paris news website La Tribune reported June 14 that the consortium that supplies the A400M’s turboprop engines had found an interim fix for the fault in the propeller gear box (PGB) that has limited the aircraft’s operations by requiring inspections every 20 flight hours. .....

The A400M has suffered multiple delays and capability shortfalls which has limited its operational capabilities to straightforward transport missions, excluding more complex, low-level tactical missions that are required for operational use. .....

The German government has called for the Airbus group to produce a specific plan to solve the problems of the A400M, after the recent appearance of new faults in the engines as well as cracks in the fuselage.

Wonder when the first "fully capable" one will arrive at Brize.....

airsound

[Chugalug2]

tdracer:-

Less than 10% of the additional effort is going towards actual improved safety, most if it is bureaucratic BS

Tourist:-

That statement covers pretty much everything since Haddon-Cave......

That statement covers pretty much everything in Haddon-Cave......