Mmmm, I suspect you may have undermined your credibility immediately with that little nugget!:rolleyes:

Yea you are probably right.

Mind you my defence is that I was posted in with no choice and the word “working” was not a true word……..I attended for several years :}

'Back when' the A400M was still the 'FLA', I wound them up at Farnborough by saying that 'FLA' actually just stood for 'Funny Looking Albert'...:E

Whereas C-130J was J for 'Just another Herk' - or 'J for Joke' as it certainly was at the time when Lockheed Martin was having all the problems. Though it isn't nowadays, of course, as we all know.

The TPA400 needed beefing up in certain areas, I understand. But delivered the beans pretty well.

It must have a very clever engine/prop computer to have a single lever idle-max, 0/0 to M0.72/FL370 range to sort out!

I heard they started designing the aircraft as per the requirement list.....

Heated seats, check

Rapid boil water heater, check

gucci glass cockpit, check

wings......... sorry, we've run out of money

(any C130 wings kicking around in stores we could use, or have they been leaned?)

Airbus' intention is for 85 days maintenance over 12 years for the A400M.

Can the C17 or C130J match that?

It may be a pipe dream at the moment but I imagine that they will get pretty close to it. The hours flown will be nothing like a civil airline operator and some Airbus' are doing two years between C Checks.

If they can achieve that then the running costs will be quite favourable.

Civvy flying hours is one thing tactical AT is another ! Do those 85 days include battle damage repair or recovery after rough strip ops ? How many hours at low level or airdropping ?

I suppose I have to declare that I am an A400M sceptic. I am unconvinced by claims for performance and servicability for an aircraft that has yet to have its wings attached and relies on unproven engines to provide more than twice the power of any existing western turpboprop. Granted the computer graphics look very realistic, but so did the Millenium Falcan in Star Wars! At Euro 100 million a piece they don't compare well with the C-17 ($200 millionish each for the Aussies) which can deliver substantially greater range, speed and 3-4 times the loads in a proven aircraft.

Unfortunately we are locked into a programme for 25 of these white elephants so the money is gone.

As for keeping the European aircraft industry alive, I thought we were trying to keep the British soldier alive and properly supplied in a far foriegn field. He is still waiting and will do for some time yet. I wager there will be more Vulcans flying in 2010 than A400Ms! This farce would be funny if the ramifacations weren't so deadly serious.

Hmmm... lets see: A400M max payload = 37 metric tonnes, or roughly 81,400 lbs.
C-17 max payload = 170,400 lbs
170,400/81,400 = 2.09

I thought a A400 engine had allready been installed on (ex)Snoopy?

Meg..do the numbers for any useful route leg, say UK to 'Stan. Thats when I bet the C-17 will pull the big lead in load carrying. Anyway, as I said, A400M performance figures are fantasy UNTIL IT GETS OFF THE GROUND.

Greeny..check out the Marshalls web site, Snoopy's still in bits in the latest pics. Maybe their PR people just havn't got around to photographing the wonderous sight of that big fan on an Albert.

How 'bout a honkin big rotor mast instead of the wing? Would look a lot like those Russian heavy lift helicopters if it did. Where's all those photoshop guru's when you need them?

RS30 - ta.

Snoopy in bits! :{

The wonderous new all powerful engine cant be fitted to snoopy until it has stopped blowing up gearboxes on the test bed !

Yep, done them thanks, but still can't make 2.09 = 3-4:mad:

Meg..Lets say we put 20 tonnes in an A400M and 40 tonnes in a C-17. As the C-17 has longer legs it can carry its 40 tonnes further. At some stage the A400M will have to swap load for fuel to keep up. I would imagine that at a certain range the C-17 still carries 40 tonnes while the Super Albert can only cope with 10. Remember, the A400Ms range figures are only good if it can climb to its optimum altitude. Unfortunately it will be too slow and restricted, like the J, to a lower less efficiant level.

Just my guess, but we all know that stated max loads are only good for limited range. We are clearly not getting a strategic airlifter on par with the C-17, however, I don't think (even if/when it flies) that the A400M represents a value for money airlift solution for our deployed forces.

I do hope that I will be proved wrong, cos there's no going back and I suspect there's no money left for plan B!

I seem to remember the TSR2 was on its wheels too, as indeed was the Canadair Arrow, or am i just being cynical in my old age ;)

Perhaps that's all you get for the planned budget.......... wings, engines and all the other bits come on the options list :}

BUT they should be commended with the forethought and presence of mind to produce an aircraft with a greater payload than the ubiquitous Hecules...

Oh wait a moment, where have I seen one of those before? :p

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/aircraft...es/belfast.jpg

Europrop International delivers first TP400 engine for Airbus Military A400M
 

Well now it can! See article in Flight Magazine for info and picture of the first engine delivered to Marshalls.

Flight article

The Millenium Falcon was not CGI - it was done with proper models made by real people.

Nit-picking aside,remember the sceptics saying the A380/MR4/Vulcan would never fly? Do you own a rose bush which could donate some buttock-jewelry?

Seeing as you're asking, over 60 compared to the C-17 which is 40-something..... your point being?

And you still don't. It's 36. (Now you do:})

Thankfully, the C-17 (in my short experience) carries no more than a handful of litter patients at one time. Most of the 100/month mentioned I'm guessing are seated. The 'my jet carries more than your jet' pi$$ing contest is therefore largely irrelevant here but I guess the nights are drawing in.