Earlier in this thread there were questions raised about the efficiency of the A400M. This issue was discussed back in April '07 (in posts 40 to 43 of the http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...ml#post3218446 thread) when Airbus announced the first delay to the project. It was subsequently discussed in a lot more detail in this thread last August; http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ke-2009-a.html

;)

Porrohman

That does not answer Madbob's question.

I will repeat on Madbob's behalf;
"Does anyone know yet if the A400M engine (and prop) testbed has flown?" Marshalls must be getting close......





'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

The C-130 testbed. When is anybody's guess. I believe that Marshall Aerospace have to do 30 hours of ground tests before it takes to the skies. Given there has been reported problems with the TP400 again, it looks like it will be delayed for a while (and the first A400M was due to fly in October... pah!) with Flight Global reporting at the beginning of August that the C-130 had only undertaken four hours of ground tests.

To the best of my knowledge it hasn't flown yet. According to various reports in the press there were some issues that arose during ground testing the new engine on the C-130 that are now being worked through. Apparently nothing too unexpected but the press reports I read didn't go into detail. A certain amount of successful ground running has to take place before it takes to the air on the C-130. I'm sure that when it does fly, there will be a press release.

Here are some recent press reports;
Hamilton Sundstrand A400M Propeller System Fully Functional On C
A400M set for take off at last
FARNBOROUGH 2008: A400M engine tests present 'no issues' for Europrop team

There were problems at the beginning of August with the engine's gearbox and other problems were found during water ingestion trials during ground testing being undertaken by Airbus or Europrop International not Marshall Aerospace. That delayed further ground testing with the C-130 test bed .

i mean jeez, its not like we could use the extra airlift capacity right now:(

GF pulls pin from grenade marked 'TP400 fails to deliver' and casually drops it in to your mess tins.

So, what if the TP goes tits and a mahoosive delay follows? Are there any other super donks out there that could be bolted on? Or is it TP or bust?

They could always give it a bit of a stretch, put some jet engines on instead of the big props and call it a .........................................









C17:E

Duff gen from Mick in post 46. Those two problems, which were mentioned in the press, have not led to additional delays to the Flying Test Bed programme.

Yeah you are right. I assumed that it would affect the flying test bed, but appears not. Nevertheless, it was supposed to fly in mid-August and clearly hasn't.

I found this most recent article from Aviation Week that talks about what was going on at the end of July.

Ares Homepage

I wonder what the performance/payload/range of the A400M might be with, say, 4 x CFM56 instead of 4 x TP400-D6?

Turbofans for A400M
 

I seem to remember that there was a study for 4xCFM 56s on the project that became the A400M, but the Mighty Turboprop solution was judged to give far better field performance, through practically full-span flap-blowing.
The Europrop proposal was chosen in preference to one from P&W Canada which could perhaps be resuscitated (with massive delays) or, of course, a call to the lads and lasses who do/did the Donk for the Bear - I jest. I've always suspected that the selection was very political - perhaps another of the highly-political Mr. Forgeard's master-strokes ? "... the evil that men do lives after them ..."
Whatever the truth, it's clear that the Eurodonk seems to be in the running for the Most Silent Aero-engine of the Year Award ... But all will be resolved when they get the FADEC sorted, I've read - and that'll be about October at the earliest.
Is this a case of "no news is bad news"? The silence from Cambridge, Toulouse and Seville is deafening.
G'night all... :sad:

And to think it was in about 1984 I got hauled in for my first U.K. industry FLA (Future Large Aircraft) briefing ........................

NK Engines, NK-12.

Tell Swiss Des to send a check, 4 x 15,000eshp NK-12MA by return of post.......

S41

(edited for Spollink)

Jig Peter
Is this a case of "no news is bad news"? The silence from Cambridge, Toulouse and Seville is deafening.
G'night all... http://static.pprune.org/images/smil...y_dog_eyes.gif

Rumour round here is a software issue with a 1st planned flight now in Mid-November http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

That fits ...
 

For Mary Hinge ... The "Cambridge rumour" seems to confirm that the silence will continue till the software people have got all their wriggly Amps lined up ... Which would put the A400M's first flight well into '09 ...
Oh dear, oh dear ...
:*

Propfan
 

This is a late reply to Seloco's question about propfans and turboprops - sorry, but the memory banks seem to be on a go-slow ...
I think that the term "propfan" is/was a GE (registered?) name for their engine with rear-mounted contra-rotating propellers. The blades were, to put it crudely, extensions of the "shrouds" of the two contra-rotating power turbine stages, but I don't remember (and haven't got the documentation) that they had a pitch-change mechanism.
While significant SFC advantages were claimed over conventional turbofans, noise was a severe problem (as Shackleton crews will remember from the contraprops on their piston engines) which GE tried to alleviate by varying the number of blades in each bank.
The layout was suitable for rear-engined aircraft like the DC-9 on which it was tested, but the aft-prop layout made wing-mounting a problem - at the time there were some exotic layouts proposed, but there were other ways to get overall efficiency increases and until the price of a barrel of oil went rapidly north-east, the concept was dormant.
A decided advantage over layouts like P&W's Geared Turbo Fan is that there's no gearbox, which gives the Propfan a significant weight advantage. Perhaps with the rear-engined all-wing airframe layouts both Boeing and, much earlier, Aerospatiale have shown, the concept might make a come-back, though those only showed high bypass turbofans ...
:8

I think not. My first operational posting, as a very junior engineering officer, was to Line servicing Squadron at Brize. I remember Scorpions (or similar) being loaded - and they needed load support struts fitted to prevent the aircraft from tipping during the loading process - but nothing the size of a MBT.

Type Comparisons
 

The comparisons shown earlier between the A400M, the C133, the Belfast and the C130 are really not comparisons at all. Nothing compares with the Lockheed C130. None of the other types have come even close to the multi-role capability of the Lockheed legend. A total of only 10 Belfasts were built, 50 C133's were produced and to date the A400M has not even flown. The C130 on the other hand has been in continuous production for well over 50 years, has been used in numerous roles and has even performed landings and unassisted take-offs from an aircraft carrier. More than 2000 examples have come out of Marietta and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

As I said, no comparison at all. Lockheed still flies on, the Airbus could yet be "still-born".

As I once said: "If you think you can design a better Herk, first try designing a better Dak!"

Although once the TPA400 software has been sorted out, I do believe that the A400M will turn out to be first rate airlifter.

Single level control, 8 blades and with a power/speed/altitude envelope which is very large, getting the noise lever to communicate with engine and propeller throughout the entire flight regime, yet confer carefree handling, will be a hugely challenging task.