which number is correct? 36 or over 60, there's a big difference!

C-17 36

A400m 66

k1rb5,
Thanks. :ok:

Oh for goodness sakes, the C-17 quote of 36 should include another 54 walking wounded, plus the A400M figure of 66 has 22 triple strecher packs jammed in there. I'm sure if you jammed em into a C-17 in that density the figure would be considerable larger. This is just another example of the desparation to prove value in the A400M. You'll be renaming it the TARDIS next!

Anyone have any idea of when the first flight of the TP400 on Snoopy will be? That seems to be a bit more relevant to the development schedule which must be running a bit more than a few months late!:suspect:

Who owns Snoopy? Once it's finished with the TP400 prog can it be coverted into a useable cab? Gawd knows we need as many as we can get our hands on!

Gents

I have been out of the circuit for 3 years, however, for planning purposes the medics will never carry more than 40 stretchers (not litters -ugh) on any ac capable of carrying more (VC10,Tristar, C130k/J, A400M) Just not feasible. So arguments are academic.

Been discussed several times, the structural modifications are so extensive that, after the test programme, Snoopy will be scrapped, presumably after having been stripped for spare parts for sale.

Good news. I was in MSN1 near Sevilla and its looks pretty complete. Wings, tail, and many other assemblies are on. I & others were pretty much impressed.

Spanking new, clean, light, grey & yellow assembly plant, Beluga´s drive into the main hall, huge robots put the fuselage sections together. EADS are in the process of integrating tons of test equipment.

Huge cargo deck, 4 x 11.000 hp, A380 type flightdeck, fbw, fast, good range, tanker ability.

If it proves as reliable as the A380 and EADS doesn´t C17 the price I think I met an aircraft that few large air forces will a be able to ignore.

Having seen the A346 & A380 routines at airshows, looking at the A400M empty weight, lift generating engine power, and FBW I have the feeling the A400 will become an airshow favourite in the not to distant future..

Folks upgrading to these machines should get their salaries cut for compensation.. ;)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1197647593

P.S. I saw some are thinking the engine isn´t running, well it has been running fo a long time.. http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=h-V5jzSslZo

the A400 will become an airshow favourite in the not to distant future

Just what we need!:ugh:

Unfortunately it doesn't run for very long before entering self destruct mode. :uhoh:
You can't keep changing engines after a days flying.

Don't think they can afford to do that at this stage, do you?

http://airbusmilitary.com/press.html :ok:

mystic_meg thnx for the pictures, I wasn't allowed to take any.

I have the feeling the problems on the negine tend to get a bit overated here.

"
The 300,000-lb. A400M is twice the size of a C-130J and half the size (and price) of a C-17. With an 81,500-lb. payload and twice the volume of a CC-130J, the A400M will haul loads that are too large for the C-130, including a pair of Tiger helicopters with their rotor heads in place or modern infantry fighting vehicles.

Although the A400M has propellers, its maximum cruising speed--Mach 0.72--is not much less than that of the turbofan-powered C-17. The engines are fuel-efficient, which, combined with 105,000 lb. of fuel tankage, gives the aircraft a robust ability to trade payload for range. With a 44,000-lb. load, the A400M has an oceanic range of 3,450 naut. mi.

Noteworthy design features include the main landing gear, with three independent twin-wheel units on both sides. Many airlift designers have skimped on the wheels to save weight. "It's not a question of whether you can land on a soft field, but how many times you can do it before you chew the field up," says one Airbus military adviser. The A400M is geared for 1,000 passes on a wet field.

A400M designers spent a lot of time trying to forestall the propeller-airframe interaction problems that plagued the C-130J. One result: the "down between engines" design. The inboard and outboard propellers will be opposite-handed with the downward blades between the engines. This means that engine-out handling is more symmetrical, leading to a 15-20% reduction in the size of the tail, and a more benign airflow past the side doors.
"
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...rategic%20Lift

I'm not saying the A400M is not having start-up problems (like all aircraft these & past days..) but it seems a state of the art right sized working horse, being born late but born at the right time. This article kind of supports this feeling.

Personally I can see demand surface for an early production ramp up, possibly requiring addition capacity in a "dollar economy" :cool:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1197905233

Keesje.

Are Airbus paying you? You seem to be a major A400M fanboy.

No offence intended by the way.

On_The_Top_Bunk

I'm not related to EADS but had the opportunity to visit the first A400m in production last week, took a look at the specs & market afterwards and smell business.

Apart from that; the fact its high tech, powerfull & from europe makes it suspect automatically with many people & I have a natural habit of trying to balancie threads a bit then ;)

btw : I think Aviationweek is a widely respected source

rgds

Lovely picture. Is it real?

Thought not.

As real as pictures of ANY aeroplane before its first flight.

What a dumb comment, minigundiplomat.

More importantly - can we now afford to buy A400M with all the correct kit on for current and future ops?

I don't think we can - hearing rumours of it never fully operating in the TAC AT role (no airdrop?)

With the retirement of the C130K in just over 4 years and the C130J fleet using up airframe fatigue life at the rate over over 3 times the planned usage, me thinks that various user units are going to be poorly supported post 2012.

Or have we just agreed to buy another expensive strategic transport aircraft that we will have to make do with in various roles and theatres?

Dear Santa

Please can I have 6 more C17s plus and upgrade of the remaining C130 fleet to Super H/CC130-J

My little brother, who has been naughty, would love a big white elephant toy aeroplane that doesn't actually fly. (PS he lives in Germany)

:ok:

Yadda Yadda Yadda. I was a lot, lot younger when the FLA (as i was) was first mooted. I've seen mock ups, artists impressions, and computer generated images.

I've yet to see one at KAF waiting to convey me to the UK. I suspect it wil be a long long time before I do. Lets not start getting too excited.

A400 Capacity
 

In my experience once the first day or two of operations are over the main role of AT ad nauseam is to sustain the force which generally means moving predominantly palletised kit (stuff) where bulk is the real issue not payload. In this respect the A400 seems to have missed a trick. The fuselage is 4 metres wide which means that the standard pallet which is 2.74m x 2.23m will only singley down the freight bay. Given a 4.5m or thereabouts fuselage width it would have been able to carry a double row of pallets greatly increasing its ability to move stuff. As it is, with a full load of pallets there will be between 22 and 30sq metres of empty floorspace and to utilise this space stuff will have to either be loose loaded by hand greatly extending turn rounds or go on the next flight. The good news is that there will be plenty of legroom for passengers!

I think the cargo deck can accomodate civil 125 inch pallets efficiently.

Civil / derivative cargo haulers play an increasingly important role in theatres like Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/media/a400m_4.jpgI

Like the C-17 it would mainly be used for transporting heavy loads from regional logistic centers into operation areas.

Apart from that it is dimensioned for transporting light armed vehicles and helicopters.

http://www.army-technology.com/proje...ges/VBCI_3.jpg