C130J Getting nowhere fast?
Pass-A-Frozo sayeth
'If we don't even start the engines imagine how long they'll last for!! '
The ultimate answer is 28 Days +/- a few days.
pass the scrap bucket
'If we don't even start the engines imagine how long they'll last for!! '
The ultimate answer is 28 Days +/- a few days.
pass the scrap bucket
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
" A400M - designed by a team who know what they are doing"!!!!!!!!
You obviously have not been to a 400 meeting then!!
as I understand it the lack of comprehension of what is required of a Tac airlifter is staggering....... but atleast they are keen to learn, even if the 350 different nations and agendas involved can't agree on anything!
But if you are happy with the vorsprungdirk technik pipedream then that is fine
T
" A400M - designed by a team who know what they are doing"!!!!!!!!
You obviously have not been to a 400 meeting then!!
as I understand it the lack of comprehension of what is required of a Tac airlifter is staggering....... but atleast they are keen to learn, even if the 350 different nations and agendas involved can't agree on anything!
But if you are happy with the vorsprungdirk technik pipedream then that is fine
T
The A400M has been through many iterations in its gestation. Various design 'Solutions' appeared and were rejected or modified. But the Common Standard Aircraft design has now been frozen and the first aircraft is in the course of being constructed.
I have no doubt that the aircraft will appear on time and that it will meet performance estimates and specifications; however, what may take longer is international clearance for all the many roles which the aircraft will operate in. It will be a quantum leap over the C130J in terms of both technology and capability.
It's trendy to poke fun at the A400M; however, that is no longer fair. There's nothing wrong with the aeroplane - if you want to poke fun at anything, choose the politicians who delayed the programme with their vacillation.
I have no doubt that the aircraft will appear on time and that it will meet performance estimates and specifications; however, what may take longer is international clearance for all the many roles which the aircraft will operate in. It will be a quantum leap over the C130J in terms of both technology and capability.
It's trendy to poke fun at the A400M; however, that is no longer fair. There's nothing wrong with the aeroplane - if you want to poke fun at anything, choose the politicians who delayed the programme with their vacillation.
Alright then Westie, there's nothing wrong with the aeroplane design.
'Not invented here' syndrome at work? Boeing may think that they rule the world, but actually they don't. Same goes for Lockheed Martin.
The C130 is old, old, old. 1950s technology digtally remastered into the 130J will be comprehensively outclassed by the A400M; yes the C-17A is an excellent aeroplane but too big and expensive for many nations who need a capability better than that offered by the 130 but not as much as the C-17 provides. A400M will comfortably meet both their needs and budgets.
'Not invented here' syndrome at work? Boeing may think that they rule the world, but actually they don't. Same goes for Lockheed Martin.
The C130 is old, old, old. 1950s technology digtally remastered into the 130J will be comprehensively outclassed by the A400M; yes the C-17A is an excellent aeroplane but too big and expensive for many nations who need a capability better than that offered by the 130 but not as much as the C-17 provides. A400M will comfortably meet both their needs and budgets.
If the plane is ever buit and lives up to manufacturers claims, then you can roam the streets screaming to the heavens, drunk with glee.
Do you think LockMart also put out the proverbial glossy brochure touting all its capabilities? Sounds like you got ahold of the one for the A400.
I could care less if its built here or there because as with you, I will be retired. Or at least I will by the time the first block one aircraft flies.
Do you think LockMart also put out the proverbial glossy brochure touting all its capabilities? Sounds like you got ahold of the one for the A400.
I could care less if its built here or there because as with you, I will be retired. Or at least I will by the time the first block one aircraft flies.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez BE, ease up a bit. Of course the A400 will outclass the C130 whatever model. It is after all 40 years newer!! The decision to get the C130J was taken well before the A400 could ever have been considered as likely to even get off the drawing board.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this wingeing about the A400 !!! At least you will (?) get a new aircraft. Think about the poor s***s at Kinloss and the chances of them get a nice shiney new aeroplane fit for task. An updated MR2 perhaps, if they are lucky.
But at least I am not there any more.
But at least I am not there any more.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glimmer of hope or cruel joke?:
A little bird told me (while it was over taking us as we were flying at LRC) that new turbines, made of a similar compound to those in the tornado, may be replacing the current fit. Could be a solution to getting our precious 30 or so knots back?
Anybody aware of such a plan being seriously considered?
A little bird told me (while it was over taking us as we were flying at LRC) that new turbines, made of a similar compound to those in the tornado, may be replacing the current fit. Could be a solution to getting our precious 30 or so knots back?
Anybody aware of such a plan being seriously considered?
Champagne anyone...?
Not heard of that one.
Last I heard they were waiting for RR to come up with a max temp figure against which a new cruise regime could be established....
Still, new turbine blades would be nice, then we could use that nice little detente and also Max Continuous, er, continuously.
Last I heard they were waiting for RR to come up with a max temp figure against which a new cruise regime could be established....
Still, new turbine blades would be nice, then we could use that nice little detente and also Max Continuous, er, continuously.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M
Beags
I accept your words on some things but not others. The A400 'team' have never built a military airlifter but can easily demonstrate on a screen that their product will do x, y and z.
If this was Peugot, for example, about to launch a new product into the 4WD market in 6 years time for example - would you:
a. Place an order early to be the first with one on the drive. or
b. Stick with a tried and trusted version of whatever Land Rover are producing at the time.
I know where I would place my money!
One other minor criticism - why do pilots always choose the freighters? We end up with nice flight-decks and a back-end from the 50's without a winch. I would be interested to know what the composition of the C-130J selection team was.
I accept your words on some things but not others. The A400 'team' have never built a military airlifter but can easily demonstrate on a screen that their product will do x, y and z.
If this was Peugot, for example, about to launch a new product into the 4WD market in 6 years time for example - would you:
a. Place an order early to be the first with one on the drive. or
b. Stick with a tried and trusted version of whatever Land Rover are producing at the time.
I know where I would place my money!
One other minor criticism - why do pilots always choose the freighters? We end up with nice flight-decks and a back-end from the 50's without a winch. I would be interested to know what the composition of the C-130J selection team was.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put the 'J' into perspective, Lockheed's bid was one of many responding to an MoD requirement to keep the C130 freight bay flying for another 25 years while the A400 (as it has become known) was being thrashed out. The requirement didn't ask for improvements to that freight bay or its systems, but did ask for improvements in reliability, maintainability and cost of ownership of the entire system.
I don't intend to get into arguments about the success or otherwise with which those aims have or have not been achieved, but just wish to point out that the acquisition of the C130J was never intended to represent an increase in capability - that's an assumption that crept in later. The improvements to the front end, and the loss of two crew, were purely in response to the cost and maintenance issues. Remember, the competing bids were revamps of the existing K airframes - no other aircraft were ever involved.
I don't intend to get into arguments about the success or otherwise with which those aims have or have not been achieved, but just wish to point out that the acquisition of the C130J was never intended to represent an increase in capability - that's an assumption that crept in later. The improvements to the front end, and the loss of two crew, were purely in response to the cost and maintenance issues. Remember, the competing bids were revamps of the existing K airframes - no other aircraft were ever involved.
Scroggs,
Absolute b*ll*cks!
The competitor for the C-130J for the first tranche of the C130K replacement WAS the A400M!
It was a huge political scrap with Airships being paid by both sides to boost their own proposal.
You are dead right on the "no increase in capacity", but so way off the mark with the "no competitor" that it's laughable.
Tranche one was to replace half the existing 60 a/c K fleet, tranche two was for the other half. Lockheed won tranche one, Airbus won tranche two.
Absolute b*ll*cks!
The competitor for the C-130J for the first tranche of the C130K replacement WAS the A400M!
It was a huge political scrap with Airships being paid by both sides to boost their own proposal.
You are dead right on the "no increase in capacity", but so way off the mark with the "no competitor" that it's laughable.
Tranche one was to replace half the existing 60 a/c K fleet, tranche two was for the other half. Lockheed won tranche one, Airbus won tranche two.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne thankyou for that. As I remember, the competition was held once it was accepted by both the military and political machines that the A400 could not be in service within its original projected timescale. Therefore a 'low cost' solution to maintain tactical airlift capacity was sought while the wranglings over the A400 continued. At the time, there was no certainty that the A400 would ever pitch up, so the two-tranche competition was decided upon - I think this was an effort to apply some pressure to Germany to get its ducks in a row over the A400 so that the thing would have a reasonable chance of existing in the Tranche 2 timescale.
The Tranche 1 timescale required the aircraft (which, as I say, was only intended to maintain capability, not enhance it) to be in service by, I think, 1996. We all know now that that didn't happen, but the timeline made it obvious that the only solution was either a remanufactured C130K or a new-build C130H or J. Lockheed forced the issue by undercutting the rebuilt-K bids and announcing that the H would cease production forthwith.
Perhaps you are aware of some secret plan to have got the A400 into service in 1996? Apart from over-optimistic BAe, MoD and Airbus statements of the early '90s, that was never a player. A competitor has to exist - or have a reasonable prospect of existing - to compete. The A400 did, and could, not - at that time.
The Tranche 1 timescale required the aircraft (which, as I say, was only intended to maintain capability, not enhance it) to be in service by, I think, 1996. We all know now that that didn't happen, but the timeline made it obvious that the only solution was either a remanufactured C130K or a new-build C130H or J. Lockheed forced the issue by undercutting the rebuilt-K bids and announcing that the H would cease production forthwith.
Perhaps you are aware of some secret plan to have got the A400 into service in 1996? Apart from over-optimistic BAe, MoD and Airbus statements of the early '90s, that was never a player. A competitor has to exist - or have a reasonable prospect of existing - to compete. The A400 did, and could, not - at that time.
Would I wish to buy another vehicle built by Landrover with 1940's technology but a better engine and a few more electronics - NO!!
Would I trust another manufacturer who had already built a winning series of vehicles to come up with a new 4x4, why not? BMW did and so have Volvo.
Airbus have a much better rack record of getting their products out on time then anyone else. Whilst I'm certain that A400M will fly on the planned date, what isn't so certain is how long the trials organisations will take to obtain the clearances for every role......
.......and its cargo handling system is rather better than just a winch, you'll be pleased to note!
Would I trust another manufacturer who had already built a winning series of vehicles to come up with a new 4x4, why not? BMW did and so have Volvo.
Airbus have a much better rack record of getting their products out on time then anyone else. Whilst I'm certain that A400M will fly on the planned date, what isn't so certain is how long the trials organisations will take to obtain the clearances for every role......
.......and its cargo handling system is rather better than just a winch, you'll be pleased to note!
Champagne anyone...?
Mr BEagleBus, sir
Didn't Landrover just win some award for having produced the best vehicle ever in the history of vehicles (or something equally bonkers)?
Hmmm.
As for the 1940s technology - I'm pretty sure they took most of that out when they replaced all the avionics and engines. I think the cables that attach the flying controls to the surfaces are probably 1940s technology though....
You're right about the freight bay though. I think the funding priorities must have been set by a committee of pilots. For us stick monkeys in the front (gear down - banana please
) it's marvellous, with lots of toys to play with. For the pallet monkeys in the back though, no money was spent at all. Given that it's a trash hauler, that's where the money should've been spent first - built in winch, flip floor, electric locks etc etc. What was then left over should then have been spent on the toys up front. Hey ho.
PS. 1940s technology? The flight deck of that C17 thingy... Blimey - that was quite scary. Far too many buttons and not enough screens. Their HUD is very sweet though
Still, I admire your confidence in the BEagleBus 400M. It'll come in on time, on spec, on cost with the latest avionics and high technology engines - two pigs strapped under each wing.
Didn't Landrover just win some award for having produced the best vehicle ever in the history of vehicles (or something equally bonkers)?
Hmmm.
As for the 1940s technology - I'm pretty sure they took most of that out when they replaced all the avionics and engines. I think the cables that attach the flying controls to the surfaces are probably 1940s technology though....
You're right about the freight bay though. I think the funding priorities must have been set by a committee of pilots. For us stick monkeys in the front (gear down - banana please
) it's marvellous, with lots of toys to play with. For the pallet monkeys in the back though, no money was spent at all. Given that it's a trash hauler, that's where the money should've been spent first - built in winch, flip floor, electric locks etc etc. What was then left over should then have been spent on the toys up front. Hey ho.PS. 1940s technology? The flight deck of that C17 thingy... Blimey - that was quite scary. Far too many buttons and not enough screens. Their HUD is very sweet though
Still, I admire your confidence in the BEagleBus 400M. It'll come in on time, on spec, on cost with the latest avionics and high technology engines - two pigs strapped under each wing.
Ahh - but Stoppers, old bean, have you seen the .jpg s of the A380 flight deck? Well, the A400M will be getting the same technology. Less buttons and several gucci screens......!!
Good luck on the digitally re-mastered 130. Who says you can't polish a turd?
Good luck on the digitally re-mastered 130. Who says you can't polish a turd?
Return of the J