Yet another RAF whitewash- A400 is simply unfit for purpose.

[artee]

Originally Posted by Bergerie1

I think he had a lesson from Sir Humphrey

Indeed! Sir Humphrey Beagle.

[common toad]

Look at the author’s credentials… “”a passionate AVGeek … editor-in-chief”

https://aviationsourcenews.com/news/...t-enjoying-it/

[SASless]

I would like to see the Powerpoint Flow Chart graphic for Beag's simple explanation.

Anyone brave enough to post one?

[dervish]

Originally Posted by SASless

I would like to see the Powerpoint Flow Chart graphic for Beag's simple explanation.

Anyone brave enough to post one?

That's probably what got us into the mess in the first place!

[MAINJAFAD]

Originally Posted by common toad

Look at the author’s credentials… “”a passionate AVGeek … editor-in-chief”

https://aviationsourcenews.com/news/...t-enjoying-it/

In other words he is a plane spotter!!!

[Two's in]

The original post and the link should be placed in the 'Offal" section of PPRune, as an example of top quality tripe. Corrosion control is a routine part of aircraft maintenance, and what a shocker, it appears to be worse in that funny bit where the wet and muddy rubber bits hide. There may be accelerated corrosion around metallic couplings and fittings, especially with carbon composite structures, but this should be addressed with a robust inspection and rectification regime. Making this a "save the C-130" pitch is as predictable as it is ridiculous, and linking it to the Airbus A350 issues just confirms the vacuousness of the "reporter". The A350s are experiencing paint separation and cracking around the air data probes, which are surrounded by a copper mesh layer for lightning protection. Airbus and EASA say its cosmetic, Qatar Airways are chasing after money. Whatever the answer, it is not related to this Jackanory nonsense about preventable corrosion on the A400.

[tubby linton]

Interesting though that a C-17 was used today to fly Her Majesty to London rather than an A400

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

Interesting though that a C-17 was used today to fly Her Majesty to London rather than an A400

Ground noise/speed/comfort ?

[Ken Scott]

If I was selecting an ac for the task from the Brize inventory it wouldn’t be the C130J (living pax comfort and the optics of using an ac about to be withdrawn from service) or the A400M (even if Airbus could provide a serviceable one the odds of it breaking at Edinburgh would be too high) so I would have chosen the C17 as well!

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by Ken Scott

If I was selecting an ac for the task from the Brize inventory it wouldn’t be the C130J (living pax comfort and the optics of using an ac about to be withdrawn from service) or the A400M (even if Airbus could provide a serviceable one the odds of it breaking at Edinburgh would be too high) so I would have chosen the C17 as well!

There's been a Brize based, Belfast built Skyvan knocking about Leeming today. Seems the obvious choice was overlooked (based on the reasoning in recent posts... )

[tubby linton]

The serial of the C-17 used was ZZ177. Invert it and make the numbers into letters. BZ to whoever tasked that airframe.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The A400 is the EU F35. Beholden to so many special interests that it can't be allowed to fail. It will inevitably bumble along never fully mission capable and costing far more than is reasonable, but hey since when has actual operational capability mattered in a government military procurement program.

The good news, Canada almost bought this POS. Fortunately we got the C 17 instead .

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

There's been a Brize based, Belfast built Skyvan knocking about Leeming today. Seems the obvious choice was overlooked

I believe the Skyvan was considered.

But it was concluded that carrying the Queen on an aircraft normally used for parachuting was tempting Providence ...

[Diff Tail Shim]

I think I will ask a mate of mine that is an AGE on the A400M if the airframe is a bag of nails before reading the ****e on here. He is highly experienced on many types. I will ask him and reply back in a King Charles sort of way.

[unmanned_droid]

Originally Posted by Ken Scott

If I was selecting an ac for the task from the Brize inventory it wouldn’t be the C130J (living pax comfort and the optics of using an ac about to be withdrawn from service) or the A400M (even if Airbus could provide a serviceable one the odds of it breaking at Edinburgh would be too high) so I would have chosen the C17 as well!

Interestingly, there was an A400M holding just outside the firth of forth and another routing over Glasgow (IIRC) as the C-17 was taking off....also a Chinook with an odd callsign leaving a field in Berwick just after lift off too...

Perhaps they were otherwise engaged.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

The A400 is the EU F35.

Airbus will certainly be hoping so - the F-35 has won every tender for which it has competed.

[a_ross84]

That's ite looks like it has absolutely zero credibility looking at other articles.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

Airbus will certainly be hoping so - the F-35 has won every tender for which it has competed.

I predict a lot of buyers remorse when the realty of owning an airplane that is so expense to operate even the USAF and USN is cutting back F 35 orders in favor of F 15's and F 18's ; sets in......

In any case the USAF made a huge mistake by not doing a follow on order for more C 17's to keep the production line going.

[henra]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

I predict a lot of buyers remorse when the realty of owning an airplane that is so expense to operate even the USAF and USN is cutting back F 35 orders in favor of F 15's and F 18's ; sets in......

Well looking closer at the matter USAF and USN have been reducing F-15 (80 instead of 144) and F-18 (None at all any more if they could have decided on their own) orders lately.
They don't really want more of the 'old stuff'. If anything they are waiting for F-35 Block IV and NGAD.

In any case the USAF made a huge mistake by not doing a follow on order for more C 17's to keep the production line going.

It is not the Job of the USAF to keep manufacturers happy. If they have enough Transport capacity why would they want to spend money they could use elsewhere on unneeded capability?!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by henra

It is not the Job of the USAF to keep manufacturers happy. If they have enough Transport capacity why would they want to spend money they could use elsewhere on unneeded capability?!

The USAF is already way ahead of projected average airframe hours for this time in service for the C17 fleet. Low rate production would have kept the line alive for a measured recapitalization of the fleet. Unfortunately having the main manufacturing effort in California did not give it enough political pull to keep the line alive. The F35 however has a significant footprint in 31 states ensuring it is un-killable no matter how badly the program is going. Personally I think any airplane that is not full mission capable 17 years after first flight and still has over 100 seriously deficiencies is the very definition of failure