A400M on its wheels
 

No wings, obviously, but wheels are a pretty good start.

Don't care about the delays and politics, there is something magical about watching a new aircraft take shape...

Now we can see what it really is...... a piggy bank.
You can see the slot in the top for putting the large amounts of cash in.

Useful trailer if you can get a couple of prime movers to haul it - replace a whole fleet of Bedfords.....

A400
 

Is it me or does it just look like a big Herc ??

I think it looks like a cross between one of those less successful alternatives to the Hercules - G222, Transall etc - and a Merlin (bear with me, it hasn't got wings yet). New, shiny, untested, could be quite good if we'd bought the optional blah blah blah...

And the first flight is next year, into service with the French in 2009, first RAF crew starting training in 2009...yeh..right!

Also, is it me or does this thing look a lot smaller than in all the lovely computer graphics?

Oh, and does anyone know if the 11,000shp engines have been run with the props on yet?

Still, at 100 million Euro each they are a bargain!:cool:

RS30 - The answer is YES. In 2006...

Hi Beags, any idea when the engines will be flight tested?

Looks similar to the C-17, planform, side view etc even the cockpit/nose area is similar.
Looks quite small in that picture though... is the fuselage longer than the C-130?

TP-400 first flight
 

TP-400 finally delivered to Marshall's - only 12 months late - now got to fit it to the Herc. testbed - first flight now tentatively due early 2008

Bloody waste of money. We should bin the A400M and used the cash saved to buy more C-17s and C-130Js, saving enough to add all the required bells and whistles for those.

A400M is being bought purely because it will help European aerospace and the capability it brings is not worth the additional support costs for a third AT type. If the Army start bitching about FRES, tell them they can stick it on a C-17.

:mad:

Absolutely and that in turn will help in keeping the “British” military aircraft industry alive- something we desperately need to do.

Why, so that they continue to churn out wonders like the MRA4? The need to earn the opportunity to be awarded contracts by producing capabilities we need, not relying on IPTs who have gone native allowing them to get away with murder.:ugh:

Pointless argument, no way out even if we wanted to. Personally I believe it will be a quality bit of kit after the teething troubles are sorted.

C17 is unaffordable in the numbers required.
C130J does not meet the required spec.

Whether we like it or not, we will get A400M and it will work. Has to, there is no other option.

SB,

I don't doubt it'll work. My point is that the cost of A400M would be better spent on additional C-17s and C-130Js so that we can have an easier to support AT fleet.

From info on t'internet
A400M Length 45.1 mtr Wing Span 42.4 mtr Height 14.7 mtr
C130J Length 29.3 mtr Wing Span 39.7 mtr Height 11.9 mtr
Certainly bigger externally.

Yep but that would require procurement decisions to be based on sound information like through life costs. Would all be a whole lot more transparent and we were grown up about it and said 'buying British/European will pump this much cash back into the economy so we can afford to pay this much more for them over an off the shelf alternative'. At least then we would all understand....

Boldface

Sorry, but I will bite….......again.

The British (and European) aircraft industries are more than capable of producing a top quality product that will sell around the world both in the civilian and military markets). This will secure jobs and expand on technology that benefits us all.

In my experience (and I have several years of working with Mod PE, DLO, DPA, etc etc) it is penny pinching, goal post changing and general interfering from non experts on 2/3 year tick in the box tours within the Mod that result in delayed, over budget and inferior products.

Boldface,

Love the C-17, but like it or not it is 2 x A400M in weight and will cost more-or-less accordingly in purchase, maint and fuel. (Although I will bet that with the dollar where it is, and the production line where it is, if you went to Boeing and said you wanted 70 of them in the next four years, they'd give them away.) 600,000 pounds does not a tactical system make.

C-130... Grandpa, you've had a long career, but it's time to step aside. The problem is box size and payload, versus the increasing weight of military equipment. MRAPs and FRES and FCS and Strkyers don't fit.

A400M will have its problems. Just give thanks this Thanksgiving day that it is an aeroplane in existence, not what the US has today - an Army-driven requirement for a 30-ton-lift VTOL (:mad: nonsense) that will soak up hundreds of millions and several years before it is scrapped.

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.