@ Green Granite
 

The report on the A400 isn't just "interesting" - it's fascinating ... It will make the Eurosceptics howl with joy and regurgitate all their mantras yet again.
Nevertheless, seeing shots of the aircraft's manoeuvrability demonstrated at ILA Berlin will also impress spectatiors immensely, as well as those in UK who will see it later in the year at "the Tattoo" and Farnborough.
As a product, it seems to be a pilot's dream, and the RAF's transport and will crews will find something that they could hardly have dreamed of. The test equipment aboard represents about half its max. load and seeing it roll rapidly to angles unexpected of a staid airlifter shows that its tactical manoeuvrability will also be outstanding ...
As a product, it seems to promise well - as for the "management" set-up originally so misconceived, the less said the better - the Reuters report could have gone into more detail, but it summarises what some of us feared right from the start. Under Mr Enders' care, the programme has probably started going right, and seeing the A400M may well make people
feel it's going to be well worth the (very avoidable !) wait.

Why can't the pols keep their effin' 'ands orf ???

PS. On a cautionary note, I very much hope that the manoeuvrability being demonstrated in Berlin will NOT encourage less skilful pilots in the respective Air Forces to emulate Mr. Hasseline's behaviour with the A320 - Mr. Strongman has already said that the A400 is much more manoeuvrable than the A320.
Flight Safety officers - be very afraid !!!

AW&ST (Ares): VIDEO: F-35C Carrier Variant First Flight

After a last-minute hitch with a wiring issue, the first F-35C carrier variant, aircraft CF-1, made its first flight from Fort Worth on June 6. At the controls for the 57min flight was Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver...37a6.Large.jpg

Two more F-35C test aircraft are to fly this year, with a fourth to fly in 2012. The first three aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the US Navy's NAS Patuxent River, Md., test center by year-end. The fourth F-35C was added as part of the JSF development program restructuring earlier this year.

The F-35C has a different, bulkier look compared to the two other versions. And it is the heaviest of the three variants, with a bigger wing, horizontal stabiliser and rudders to reduce approach speed for carrier landings. The wing folds, and gear is much beefier.

Grizz does the biz!
 

Meanwhile, over on the other side of the pond, the A400M is putting on a very impressive display at ILA Berlin:

YouTube Player

More information at ILA: VIDEO & PICTURES- A400M to showcase performance range, as flight testing passes 250h mark

(Did you spot the Me-262 replica?).

The C-17 is just as manoeuvrable and far more impressive. Airbus are guilty of total plagiarism!:ok:

Can a truckie explain to me the necessity for such manoeuvrability in A400M? Does it actually need it to come up to specification/ KUR and is there a cheaper or more readily available alternative?

Genuine question. I am assuming that the manoeuvrability is to be used in tesseral type manoeuvres, but surely other platfroms can manage those? Or could you just buy a better DAS?

RTFM!

:rolleyes:

To generate excitement, so as to increase public support and generate sales.

Airbus Protection
 

Why, don't the fly-by-wire protections work in the A400M like they do in other Airbus aircraft?

I have to admit that I don't care about the manoeuvrability of the aircraft - both C130 and C17 are capable of being manoeuvred outside the sensible limits of operation for an AT aircraft. What I really really wanted was the aircraft to be delivered ON TIME, NOT 4 YEARS LATE.:{

A controversial design change to the Joint Strike Fighter made by the F-35 Joint Program Office, intended to reduce weight and save money, will render the $382 billion centerpiece of the U.S. military's tactical aviation fleet vulnerable to a "leading cause of combat aircraft loss" -- catastrophic engine damage caused by light anti-aircraft artillery, according to the Pentagon's top weapons tester.

New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.

Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, and Michael Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), last month provided answers to written questions about the JSF design change posed by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, following a March 24 hearing. “JSF live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable to threat-induced fires,” wrote Gilmore, who first raised concerns about these design changes in DOT&E's fiscal year 2009 annual report to Congress, delivered in January.

“DOT&E continues to recommend that these features be reinstated and does not view their removal as prudent,” the Defense Department's chief weapons tester wrote last month. “Historical combat data indicate that threat-induced fire is a leading cause (25 percent) of combat aircraft loss.”

@hello1
 

1) The A400's protections are similar to those on civil Airbuses, which are said to have ensured that the A320 so carelessly "demonstrated" at Habsheim at least crashed into the trees in a manner which saved most of the occupants' lives. But they couldn't prevent the accident itself. which was caused by an overconfident pilot making several basic airmanship errors (to say the least).
2) I'm sure that all of Airbus would have preferred not to have the delay in delivery of the A400M (see Yahoo report above), but after the trials and tribulations, the aircraft itself seems in good fettle.
3) Manoeuvres demonstrated at ILA Berlin (and coming soon to the RIAS Tattoo and Farnborought) are surely the sort of thing that the A400, in a tactical role, will be expected to perform ...
4) How long do you expect the RAF will have to wait beyond the JSF's "due date" ?

If accurate, this will be an interesting test of the new Military Aviation Authority's resolve, as they will surely red card the design as non-compliant with our regs - especially as (lack of) said systems featured heavily in both C130 and Nimrod cases.

The "C130 case" had nothing to do with either coolant & hydraulic shut off valves or dry bay fire suppression. :hmm:

What are the exterior noise levels like? I have head second-hand that it is very noisy.

It may not have been a design priority for current military use, but could it become an issue over the 20-30 year expected lifecycle of the aircraft?

F-35 or Grizz, Trim Stab?

As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.

StopStart

Agreed, but fire suppression, wherever and by whatever means, is in the same section of the regs. MoD ignored it.

Tuc:
Er...wouldn't it be non-compliant with the US Regs also? Anyway, given that the RAF has issued RTS's to such non compliant aircraft previously I see no reason why the F-35 should be any different in that respect, I mean what's changed? Oh, the MAA! Ah, of course, independent of and yet part of the MOD! That'll be all right then won't it...won't it?

I was asking about the A400M primarily, since I had heard (from about 1000 miles away from Seville!) that it is a noisy beast. That is not necessarily an issue when population is generally behind the military as currently, but that might change over the next 30 years or so. Even in the US, there are local opposition groups around some noisy airbases. Just curious if A400 is noisy enough for it to potentially become a long-term issue, especially as civilian aircraft are obliged to become increasingly quieter.

A400M noise
 

TS, Equivocator:

That's right, the 400M is markedly quieter than e.g. the Transall. A bit more noisy maybe than the A380. The sound itself is kind funny, all chaotic and out-of-tune when idle on ground, but in flight it's just a loud buzz. A very big, dark bumble bee! ;)

(Or should that be the Airbus Tumbledore entry for the "name the A400M" thread?)

Show-boating or ???
 

Agreed, Equivocator, that 120° AOB + 40° nose-up is a bit OTT, though highly "cool", but Mr. Strongman did say it was a "demo terrain avoidance manoeuvre" (and also that his display would be "a bit different" from a standard Airbus flypast).
It's also notably quieter (subjectively) than the C-130s I see from time to time wending their way towards the Med at fairly low level.
After 15 great years with Airbus (nearly as much as my RAF time and as long as I've been retired), I'm very glad indeed to see that the "old spirit" is still around !
Look out for it at RIAT and Farnborough and judge for yourselves eh ? :cool::cool:

Note - plural ...
 

Neat shot by Yannick Delamarre of two A400Ms over Toulouse on www.flightglobal.com today (blogs) - after ILA "grandstanding" (what's wrong with standing grand ?), perhaps there'll be a synchro pair at RIAT/Farnborough ???
:ok::ok::ok:

On a more serious note, in these days of possible cuts, even after customers' agreements NOT to drop more than 10 from the agreed total, exposure to public admiration (as in Berlin) can only help to secure this badly-needed aircraft's future.
(Yes I do know the "Back Story", but the A400M is at last a "go-er", and showing (some) of its potential in the best possible way).
Note also that Lockheed is reported to have said recently that a combined A400M/C-130J fleet could make sense.