|
surely....
After 8 years and 1,250 odd posts you "surely" should be familiar with thread drift by now, it normally happens by about the 4th post! Perhaps nobody has any "new news" on A400M testing to impart - no doubt when they have, they will!! :ok: |
Until we have some more news released or some journo goes to report on the program, we might as well continue talking about Anglo-American language.
Like the fact that when I listen to my neighbour, who was born near Richmond, Virgina, I am unaccountably reminded of some of my Hampshire aunties... |
Oh boy, I had a look at this thread because I thought it had updates on the A400M Flight tests..................but after the opening page it has changed into somebody complaining about a lot of wittering about words!!
Anybody able to get the thread back onto its topic! :E |
Attitude change
At a recent ceremony in Toulouse, La Dépèche du Midi newspaper reported Louis Gallois as saying, (inter alia) that he expected A400M sales to reach 400 - 500. This is, I think, a bit of a change in EADS' attitude, as until now, their top managers have been saying, rightly but rather stiffly, that their main focus is on producing the 170+ at present on order, without mentioning any efforts to go for any further sales.
GO GRIZZLY !!!! PS - Nearly back on thread ? It's nice to hear the distinctive note of the A400's engines quite regularly in the TLS area, as it indicates that flight testing is making progress. Quite possibly we won't get much more news about it until Le Bourget in about 6 weeks, so this thread will stay quiet ... |
video coverage fuel transfer with VC-10 and mission preparation
Last week the TP400 engines received certification A400M gets a lift, as EPI engine secures civil certification http://content.ll-0.com/tmcm/a400m-engines2.jpg |
The consortium has previously outlined a target of mid-2012 to also receive military certification for the engine |
Gets very difficult I would imagine when dealing with FADEC and the like. Plus, ruggedisation.
Anyone know why bus are going for the joint certification? Are they looking at an A400F civilian variant at some stage? |
Nice VC10 video with a certain ppruner on it
::E |
Quote: The consortium has previously outlined a target of mid-2012 to also receive military certification for the engine Could someone please explain why the military need a separate certificate for the engine? Why not accept the civilian certificate and save a few million? Or at least just test the bit that not covered by the civy one? They will clearly gather the clearance data for the civil role earlier in the programme. Since it is highly likely that Airbus will try to target the civil market, it seems logical to apply for that certification ASAP and then the military certification afterwards (which would be the same package of data plus the extra mil delta). Otherwise they will have to retrospectively apply for a civil clearance by deconstructing the mil package and deleting the mil elements, which would probably take more time. Also, it is no doubt good press to tell the world that the engine already meets the stringent civil cert requirements, which will be confidence boosting for their customer (and future customers). FTEP |
Anyone know why Airbus are going for the joint certification?
So that HeavyLift will have an easier time when they buy the A400M fleet from the RAF just after they have been nicely run in. Another Belfast lesson learned. |
Could someone please explain why the military need a separate certificate for the engine? The civil certification of the TP was the reaso for months of delay. Some folks neglected the paperwork and lots had to be done all over. |
Civil Cert is the prefered way to go with the manufacturers and the PT who think that just because the process works with airliners it should work with military transports, which let's face it, spend a lot of time in airways flying routes.
The A400M is not novel in going down this route, the J Herc was built as a civil cert aircraft and then militarised the same process the A400 is going through. The big problem with this process is that the civil authorities will not certify an aircraft system that has redundant capability ie a more demanding military role, so following civil certification a lot of systems will be ripped out and replaced with the military kit and the process begun again. :ugh: |
The big problem with this process is that the civil authorities will not certify an aircraft system that has redundant capability ie a more demanding military role, so following civil certification a lot of systems will be ripped out and replaced with the military kit and the process begun again. Please clarify your argument. |
A typical Civil cert nonsense is having to install a civil crew Oxygen system that is only designed to keep the crew alive whilst they carry out an emergency descent to a safe altitude. Whereas the military system would keep them alive whilst flying straight and level depressurised at 40K ft plus as required by the aircraft specification.
If you had a cargo hold full of paras/passengers and had a pressurisation problem at altitude the military Oxygen system would still allow the emergency descent as its a more capable system EASA insisted that for civil cert of the A400M only a 'civilian' Oxygen system was allowed on the aircraft. Other military equipment/systems were required removed by EASA as the 'covered or inhibited during civil cert testing' option was not an option. So rather than a civil certification falling off the back of a military one we waste money testing an aircraft no one has bought - a civilian cargo aircraft. |
I think you've all missed the point that EADS/Airbus/Airbus Military/EC/EC Military/CASA are all based on the methods of building civil aircraft and the military models are almost a by-product of their civil-based profits and expertise. They will, naturally, develop any airframe for export/multiple uses first.
Welcome to "proper" design and continued airworthiness management. I believe that only line maintenance is to be let out to the customer units and that any base maintenance (Part 145) needs will be approved/controlled from EADS/Airbus Mil as the maintenance managers (Part M). Only a token appropriately ranked signatory needed for a "PT" then? |
I'm guessing the civil cert is to enable flight test in what is a multi country programme , otherwise which military system would you use. It will obviously be eventually be certified by each countries own military. C130J was done to FAA cert , i'm guessing because US wasnt lead cutomer.
|
Nice VC10 video with a certain ppruner on it Tonks :ok: |
A typical Civil cert nonsense is having to install a civil crew Oxygen system that is only designed to keep the crew alive whilst they carry out an emergency descent to a safe altitude. Whereas the military system would keep them alive whilst flying straight and level depressurised at 40K ft plus as required by the aircraft specification The civilian certification requirements are MINIMUM standards required. If a manufacturer wishes to install systems that have BETTER performance then there would be no objection from the certifying authorities. In your example the oxygen system would be superior to civilian certification standards, so there would be no certification issues at all. I still don't understand why the need to meet civilian certification standards is a problem. |
there would be no objection from the certifying authorities |
Vmcg test video
|
That's just an Airbus Military video straight from youtube:
|
Airbus cold weather video added two weeks ago..
|
Following on from the IOC configuration, which equates to an aircraft suitable for basic logistic transport tasks, comes SOC1. To be declared in late 2013, this will add basic aerial delivery to the A400M's performance range. Each following after roughly one-year gaps, the subsequent 1.5 and 2 standards will respectively add full aerial delivery and tanker capability and enhanced tactical mission management and new functions such as polar navigation and time-on-arrival management, says Airbus Military. Arriving in late 2017, SOC2.5 will deliver "enhanced tanker capabilities and search-and-rescue patterns". The final, SOC3 standard will bring in advanced capabilities including low-level flight functionality. The company plans to start proving the aircraft fully to its customers next year. "Our objective for just after SOC1 is that we'll have demonstrated all the capabilities," says Airbus chief test pilot military Ed Strongman. "All the functionality on the aircraft will be there, but the full FMS and human/machine interface will come later." Ureña says this will give the air forces "the confidence that when they take the aircraft they can operate it". .... Test pilots will soon perform a so-called "ultimate flight", during which the aircraft will be tricked into thinking that it has lost all onboard power by switching off one of its engines after isolating power generators to the other three, which will be run as normal throughout. June should also see water ingestion trials conducted at the French military's Istres test centre, plus maximum brake energy rejected take-offs. ... By mid-May, 55 pilots had flown the A400M, with 12 of them drawn from a core team from Airbus and Airbus Military. Recent additions have included operational air force personnel from partner nations France, Germany, Turkey and the UK, with others from Spain and Malaysia to follow soon. "All of them are coming back with a smile on their face," says Strongman. Program update presentation: An Update on the A400M Program | SLDInfo |
Whenever I see that guy's name, I imagine him checking into a hotel anywhere is Asia, and all the half-suppressed filthy giggles from the receptionists...
|
New livery & camera to monitor ice forming..
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace...est-flight.JPG High resolution photo via Flightglobal Airspace: http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace...eglo-marks.jpg . |
We have competition Airbus thought it was nice to have their own test A400M test flight page :)
Crew |
Prop configuration on A400
Judging from the curve of the prop blades (as shown from the close up photos in post 62), the rotation of props one & four would appear to be supra-convergent, which is what one would expect if the designers had the luxury of specifying the engine/gearbox/prop configuration.
But why do props two & three appear to be supra-divergent? If the A400 had a conventional tail, I would guess that it could be to reduce drag from the horizontal tail surface. But with a high T-tail, what benefit does this give? |
It was to avoid asymmetric swirl affecting the airflow over the wing - as had been painfully experienced by another four-engine, six-blade-prop transport just before the A400M finished preliminary design.
|
It was to avoid asymmetric swirl affecting the airflow over the wing - as had been painfully experienced by another four-engine, six-blade-prop transport just before the A400M finished preliminary design. |
He is talking about the C130J which had problems in this rea
regards Col |
Yes, I can see that the C130J would have asymmetric problems as all four props rotate clockwise - presumably it was too expensive to make props 3 & 4 rotate anticlockwise.
But if the designer has the luxury of choosing the direction of prop rotation on a multi, you generally make the props supra-convergent to minimise P-factor* What I don't understand on the A400M is that 2 & 3 are supra divergent. I guess I'll have to ask on the Flight Test forum. * Exceptions being multis designed as ground attack aircraft such as P-38 Lightning, Henschel 129 & OV-10A Bronco where supra divergent props gave greater stability as a gun platform. |
This page Technology has a diagram showing the 'engine rotation' ( I assume they mean propellor rotation) with a brief explanation. I thought I read some time ago that another advantage was that the airflow at the left and right paratroop doors was consistent.
|
It is a complicated argument, which one day I'm going to get someone to sit with me long enough to go through, but meantime this will help a bit.
|
Potential hold-up
Over the week-end -end July - I saw a note in AvWeek to the effect that, while A400M flight testing is continuing, engines destined for later aircraft are having to be used on the test fleet while Avio tries to find out what's causing the problem with the gearboxes.
This, says the paper, could lead to delays, as the problem has already eaten up the advance that had been gained when things were going well ... Pity ... |
Still going pretty well actually. 18 flights on four aircraft last week.
|
That sounds pretty good, Algy. I've been trying to find news of the icing and other tests recently, but the world press, and certainly Airbus PA, seem to have gone on summer break where the A400M is concerned.
In any case, the rumours that that gear would be the most tricky part of new technology for the plane seem to be not so unfounded after all. It certainly must be the lightest gearbox of its class by far. BTW, the other wild speculation I heard was that the freight handling system would make difficulties. How's that coming along? |
I don't think any manufacturer provides running commentaries on flight-test, for well-documented reasons. Been quiet lately just because the nature of the flying has been relatively routinely hitting the gzillion test points for certification, including civil certification of course. Gets more interesting in the autumn.
|
Originally Posted by Algy
(Post 6614520)
Still going pretty well actually. 18 flights on four aircraft last week.
|
AIRSHOW-New engine glitch hampers A400M Paris debut | Reuters
I know this goes back to Jun but there is a rumbling out there that says there is more to this than is being let on :confused: |
The current four flight-test aircraft have logged a combined 684 flights totalling just over 2100 hours by 4 September. Flight test activities being conducted from Toulouse and Seville, are "progressing steadily", and involve sorties flown with crews from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Three aircraft are routinely available and are each flown up to twice per day, while a fourth is typically undergoing work to upgrade it to the latest equipment standard. Currently the focus is on the completion of the handling qualities, performance and systems certification tests. It's hoped to secure civil type certification from EASA before the end of this year. The programme's fifth and final development aircraft, MSN6, is expected to join the flight-test campaign in late 2011. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:15. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.