Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/37006/

Topic: Airbus A400
Username: AirworldA320
Posted 2005-09-25 15:22:58 and read 32767 times.

Q1. Does anyone know when the A400M is due its first flight?
Q2. Will the A400 be sold/available to civilian operators as maybe a replacement for the Hercules?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: MissedApproach
Posted 2005-09-25 22:18:26 and read 32767 times.

According to the EADS site the first flight is supposed to take place sometime in the 4th quarter of 2007. I'm not sure if they've cut any metal yet. Deliveries are supposed to begin in 2009.
http://www.eads.com/
I don't see why the A400 shouldn't be available for civilian operators, although they'll probably have to wait for deliveries.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: AGM114L
Posted 2005-09-25 22:41:29 and read 32767 times.

At www.airbusmilitary.com you would think the A400 is already flying. Talk about some good graphic artists.

Quoting the site,

On May 27th 2003, a contract was signed between Airbus Military and OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Matière d'Armement), representing Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey, and United Kingdom for a total of 180 aircraft. The industrial programme was formally launched on May 31st 2003. This will lead to a first flight in 2008 and a first delivery in 2009.

Germany - 60
France - 50
Spain - 7
UK - 25
Turkey - 10
Belgium - 7
Luxembourg - 1

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: MissedApproach
Posted 2005-09-26 02:06:40 and read 32767 times.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 2):
At www.airbusmilitary.com you would think the A400 is already flying. Talk about some good graphic artists.

 eyepopping  That main...photo? artwork? is really sharp. Think the could slip one past our photo screeners here? LOL!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: WhiteHatter
Posted 2005-10-10 15:24:17 and read 32767 times.

Quoting AirworldA320 (Thread starter):
Will the A400 be sold/available to civilian operators as maybe a replacement for the Hercules?

It depends on the economics of the aircraft.

There isn't a huge market for civilian speciality freighters, and what there is seems divided up between Russian products and ex-military Hercules aircraft at the moment. Boeing proposed the BC-17X based on the C-17 and this died a quiet death after a lack of interest. The operational economics and purchase cost of a civilian version were just not there for operators who need such a lifter.

The Hercules is probably the outstanding design success of the latter half of the 20th century when you consider it has spent over 50 years in production (er...well almost if not more! I'm sure it first flew in the late 1940s as a prototype). Achieving that balance of economics, cost and durability would not be easy to replicate and the A400M could be more tailored to its military role and not adapt easily to civil requirements.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: AeroWeanie
Posted 2005-10-10 16:41:55 and read 32767 times.

Quoting AirworldA320 (Thread starter):
Q1. Does anyone know when the A400M is due its first flight?

Tuesday. Month and year not specified. Seeing that this program has been ongoing for 25+ years now, this isn't too flippant. Originally, it was supposed to replace the C-130, but it grew to become a C-17 competitor.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
The Hercules is probably the outstanding design success of the latter half of the 20th century when you consider it has spent over 50 years in production (er...well almost if not more! I'm sure it first flew in the late 1940s as a prototype).

The C-130 first flew in 1954. Jack Real, the flight engineer on the first flight, died a couple of weeks ago.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: NoUFO
Posted 2005-10-10 18:32:15 and read 32767 times.

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 5):
Seeing that this program has been ongoing for 25+ years now,

Not really. Development of the A400M started in May 2003.

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 5):
Originally, it was supposed to replace the C-130, but it grew to become a C-17 competitor.

The A400M is much closer to the C-130 and does not really compete with the C-17.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: GDB
Posted 2005-10-10 19:08:04 and read 32767 times.

Components have been in production for some time, however it is true that the political aspects of the programme were protracted, at one point, the UK left in disgust.
However, since coming under the wing of Airbus, things have started moving.

Simply put, the C-130J, which has the same fuselage cross section of legacy C-130's, has too many limitations in what it can carry (in recent times, both the UK and US have dropped a 'C-130 portable' requirement for new armoured vehicles).
C-17 has great capability, but at a very high cost, European airforces seeking a long overdue airlift enhancement could not afford them, not in any reasonable kind of numbers.

So, the A400M seems to be the answer, more capability the C-130J, at an affordable cost.

US complaints that European NATO airforces have poor airlift capabilities are fair comment, A400M should redress this somewhat.
Of course, the RAF with it's very heavy 'out of area' tasking, has leased C-17's, which they will buy, they will supplement and give more capability than the A400M's.

I understand South Africa is also a customer, certainly A400M is attracting attention beyond the nations involved in it's building, C-130J seems to go in and out of favour with the USAF, threatening long term production prospects, plus the unacceptably protracted delays in getting C-130J's fully operational, as the RAF have found.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: AGM114L
Posted 2005-10-10 20:24:43 and read 32767 times.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 2):
Spain - 7

That should be 27 orders for Spain. Sorry about the disinformation.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Thorny
Posted 2005-10-10 21:44:05 and read 32767 times.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 6):
Not really. Development of the A400M started in May 2003.

The A400M is the result of the Future Large Aircraft project which began in 1993.
Airbus won that competition with its A400M entry (vs. C-17 and C-130J) in 1999.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: TheSonntag
Posted 2005-10-10 21:59:28 and read 32767 times.

There are many parallels between the crisis of the Eurofighter project and the "FLA (= A400M)".

Germany is responsible for the delays, as we considered buying the Ukrainian Antonov prop transporter (don't know the exact number). Only after pressure was applied, Germany committed to the A400m, if I remember correct.

While there is no doubt that Germany needs a replacement for its C160 fleet which is getting more and more work, I still think that buying some C17s or IL76 could have been a good idea. The A400m is a good aircraft, we need it, but we should also have bought some heavy lifting capability as well...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: AeroWeanie
Posted 2005-10-10 23:27:10 and read 32767 times.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 6):
Not really. Development of the A400M started in May 2003.



Quoting Thorny (Reply 9):
The A400M is the result of the Future Large Aircraft project which began in 1993.

FLA was the outgrowth of the Future International Military/Civil Airlifter project which started in December 1982. The partnering was originally BAe, Lockheed, Aerospatiale and MBB. Not quite 25 years, but still a long time wasting money.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 6):
The A400M is much closer to the C-130 and does not really compete with the C-17.

A400 max payload is 69,445 lbs. C-17 max payload is 169,000 lbs. C-130J max payload is 41,790 lbs. The A400 is 1.6x times a C-130J and .4x of a C-17, so the A400 really falls in the middle.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Keesje
Posted 2005-10-11 00:06:54 and read 32767 times.

The engines seem to be delayed a few months.
http://www.flightinternational.com/A.../A400M+engine+testing+delayed.html

I you are interested how 4x11.000 shp props sounds:
http://www.planestv.com/vidclips/bearmidas.wmv

The A400 is a different league then Hercs & Transals..

The An70 mentioned above, also an impressing prop, why nobody buys it, dunno..
http://www.flightlevel350.net/viewer.php?id=2599

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: AR1300
Posted 2005-10-11 07:07:01 and read 32767 times.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 2):
Germany - 60
France - 50
Spain - 7
UK - 25
Turkey - 10
Belgium - 7
Luxembourg - 1

Add 4 for Chile to that list.The FACH just ordered them a few weeks ago.

Mike

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: LeanOfPeak
Posted 2005-10-12 01:25:08 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
The An70 mentioned above, also an impressing prop, why nobody buys it, dunno..
http://www.flightlevel350.net/viewer...=2599

There's a long, storied history of gearbox troubles in aircraft with coaxial counterrotating props. They may well have it sorted on this aircraft, but that history would tend to make potential customers uneasy, I would think.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: TheSonntag
Posted 2005-10-12 10:54:30 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
The An70 mentioned above, also an impressing prop, why nobody buys it, dunno..

Germany wanted to buy it, but they came under huge pressure to "buy european". So it was considered as an alternative to the A400M. Therefore, much time was wasted, but one thing is for sure now, a new airplane is needed fast, as the C160s are starting to age...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Pelican
Posted 2005-10-12 16:41:55 and read 32767 times.

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 13):
Add 4 for Chile to that list.The FACH just ordered them a few weeks ago.

According to the following article they will buy "up to 3 aircrafts".



http://www.airbusmilitary.com/pressrelease.html#182005

pelican

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: GDB
Posted 2005-10-12 19:12:07 and read 32767 times.

German interest in the AN-70 was much more about politics than the needs of the services.
It looked good, but accidents and other problems have somewhat changed this, plus sticking western avionics in it, as well as other NATO standard equipment, would not have been cheap.

It taken too much time to be sure to get to A400M, but we'll likely get a good aircraft out of it, with good export prospects.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: WhiteHatter
Posted 2005-10-13 12:38:27 and read 32767 times.

I'm beginning to wonder if it might have been a better deal all round to buy the C-17K for the RAF instead.

Boeing proposed a British tailored version, with a possible re-engined version avaliable which used RB211 powerplants. It would certainly have been a much faster process. The proposed C-17K would have featured the long refuelling probe required by the RAF for strategic operations like the VC-10 and Nimrod have attached, plus an option for the aircraft to carry two outboard refuelling pods for light tanker duty.

I am also dubious about the engine supplier for the A400M. Whilst another Euro consortium may have been politically ideal, why not just place the contract with Rolls Royce? RR have decades of turboprop experience after all, many being high power models and the most successful military props in the world over at their Allison division.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: TheSonntag
Posted 2005-10-13 12:58:37 and read 32767 times.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 18):
I am also dubious about the engine supplier for the A400M. Whilst another Euro consortium may have been politically ideal, why not just place the contract with Rolls Royce? RR have decades of turboprop experience after all, many being high power models and the most successful military props in the world over at their Allison division.

No doubt that Rolls Royce makes great Turboprop engines, but this was a compromise. On the other hand, take the Eurojet engine for the Eurofighter. It is a really great engine, so maybe this is not as bad as it sounds.

But I agree that, while it is a good idea to develop the A400M, it would be smarter to have more C-17s.

The same applies for the GAF. Every day the GAF charters IL76 to supply the German troops in Afghanistan. Sometimes I ask myself why we don't have such a capacity ourselves, as we obviously need it!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: GDB
Posted 2005-10-13 20:27:53 and read 32767 times.

I agree with Whitehatter, we should have brought 10-20 C-17K, replacing the most worn C-130K's, refurbishing maybe 30-40 of the rest, skipping C-130J entirely, replacing the C-130K's remaining with A400M.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2005-10-15 14:33:22 and read 32767 times.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 10):
While there is no doubt that Germany needs a replacement for its C160 fleet which is getting more and more work, I still think that buying some C17s or IL76 could have been a good idea.

Pardon me for getting off on a tangent, but this is the first I heard the IL-76 and Luftwaffe mentioned together. Was this ever seriously considered? Ignoring NATO interoperability considerations for a moment, the IL-76 is a real workhorse. I presume you are referring to "new builds" with the PS-90A-76 engine? Russian and German relations seem to be good (for the moment) and it would have been a real coup for the Russian aviation industry--Germany could have driven one h*ll of a good deal!

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 19):
Every day the GAF charters IL76 to supply the German troops in Afghanistan. Sometimes I ask myself why we don't have such a capacity ourselves, as we obviously need it!

Is the charter done through Volga-Dnepr or some other outfit?

Sorry for getting OT.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: TheSonntag
Posted 2005-10-15 15:28:16 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 21):

Pardon me for getting off on a tangent, but this is the first I heard the IL-76 and Luftwaffe mentioned together. Was this ever seriously considered? Ignoring NATO interoperability considerations for a moment, the IL-76 is a real workhorse. I presume you are referring to "new builds" with the PS-90A-76 engine? Russian and German relations seem to be good (for the moment) and it would have been a real coup for the Russian aviation industry--Germany could have driven one h*ll of a good deal!

No, of course it was not seriously considered, and the GDR unfortunately did not have those either... But I think it is strange that we charter several IL76 a week to support our troops. So it obviously is suitable for the job. But this is just an idea brought out by me, so its not worth serious discussion  Wink...

The last GDR equipment left the Luftwaffe last year when we gave the Mig-29 away, so now we only have western equipment left...

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2005-10-15 15:59:08 and read 32767 times.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
I agree with Whitehatter, we should have brought 10-20 C-17K, replacing the most worn C-130K's, refurbishing maybe 30-40 of the rest, skipping C-130J entirely, replacing the C-130K's remaining with A400M.

I just want RAF Lyneham to remain open  Sad

Its going to be a sad sad day when those Hercs stop flying low over my house. They will be sorely missed.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: AR1300
Posted 2005-10-17 07:24:12 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 16):
According to the following article they will buy "up to 3 aircrafts".

my mistake.Sorry.thx  Smile


Mike

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Prebennorholm
Posted 2005-10-18 00:58:48 and read 32767 times.

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 5):
Tuesday. Month and year not specified. Seeing that this program has been ongoing for 25+ years now, this isn't too flippant. Originally, it was supposed to replace the C-130, but it grew to become a C-17 competitor.

This sort of programs often need a long time to gain momentum. One of the best examples is probably the C-17 itself. I took ages to evolve through the YF-14 and YF-15 until the C-17 finally was frozen and took to the air. And even then the production was delayed over and over again which became a mojor stepping stone to the demise of MDD.

At least after 2003 the A400M seems to be on track even if the program may still run into political setbacks.

When talking about slow momentum of such programs, then we hardly need to mention the An-70. And I really don't know if I dare to mention the KC-135 replacement.

Well, the KC-135 was partially replaced some 25 years ago. But that was just as much a rescue mission for a certain, suffering plane manufacturer in CA as anything else.

Seen in the history books the evolvement of the FLA into operational A400M fleets that program may be one of the faster ones. And BTW, the initial name FLA - Future Large Aircraft - indicates that from the beginning it was not considered a rush program.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Prebennorholm
Posted 2005-10-18 01:25:53 and read 32767 times.

Quoting LeanOfPeak (Reply 14):
There's a long, storied history of gearbox troubles in aircraft with coaxial counterrotating props. They may well have it sorted on this aircraft, but that history would tend to make potential customers uneasy, I would think.

RR is probably the world's only really successful producer of coaxial counterrotating prop engines. That includes the Avro Shackelton and a single engine carrier combat a/c the name of which I have forgotten.

It is no easy task, but exactly RR has millions of reliable in-service counterrotating hours under their belt.

I don't know how reliable the Soviet NK-12 engines are or were. But the fact that we nowadays don't see any An-22 mix with the An-124, and that the An-12 and even the An-8 seem to have outlived the An-22, it could indicate that the NK-12 was a somewhat troubled powerplant.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: TheSonntag
Posted 2005-10-18 18:37:42 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 25):

BTW, what about Denmark? Denmark has a long tradition of buying American equipment as far as I remember, so you bought the C130J, correct? Do you know whether it is working as it should?

Michael

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: WhiteHatter
Posted 2005-10-18 19:29:27 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 26):
I don't know how reliable the Soviet NK-12 engines are or were. But the fact that we nowadays don't see any An-22 mix with the An-124, and that the An-12 and even the An-8 seem to have outlived the An-22, it could indicate that the NK-12 was a somewhat troubled powerplant.

The civilian AN-22 is a regular performer around the world, and are you forgetting the Bear? Another aircraft with contra-rotating props which has been in service for decades.

The Shackleton was not without its share of difficulties concerning its contraprop gearing, but the Russians seem to have had much more success with that format than anyone else. Reliability figures for the Bear are probably still a military secret so obviously no overall judgment can be made by anyone outside of the Russian Air Force. However their phenomenally large operating radius and those legendary North Atlantic to Cuba and back patrols would have pushed the engine/prop design hard.

Recent design thinking is away from contraprop anyway. Just like the way in which large turbofan engines have evolved, current engineering is pointing towards changing the profile of the prop blades for greater efficiency and performance. The old flat paddle appearance blades are becoming a thing of the past.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: RichardPrice
Posted 2005-10-18 20:59:37 and read 32767 times.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 27):
BTW, what about Denmark? Denmark has a long tradition of buying American equipment as far as I remember, so you bought the C130J, correct? Do you know whether it is working as it should?

The UK RAF has had a number of C-130J aircraft delivered and have experienced a lot of problems with them. As posted in another thread, the aircraft is pretty much a full redesign from the ground up, and it comes with all the problems normally associated with a fully new type.

Quite a few times the availability of the C-130J in RAF service has dropped below 70% of operational norm, due to unscheduled maintenance.

The problems will get sorted out, and Im sure it will prove to be as good a workhorse as the rest of its series.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Prebennorholm
Posted 2005-10-19 22:30:39 and read 32767 times.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 27):
BTW, what about Denmark? Denmark has a long tradition of buying American equipment as far as I remember, so you bought the C130J, correct? Do you know whether it is working as it should?

Right Sonntag, Denmark went for the C-130J.

But I'm not sure we ever had a tradition of buying American. During the Cold War, however, we had a "tradition of getting a lot of gifts from Uncle Sam". Quite natural considering that we were a friend which geography had placed right on the frontline. Loads of F-84G, RF-84F, F-86, F-100, F-104, PBY-5A/-6A, DC-3 and God knows what were dumped on us. Later we participated in F-16 development and bought some 75 copies. That was the best plane available at that time.

But over the years we bought with own money Gloster Meteor, Hawker Hunter, SAAB Draken, Aleuette and Lynx choppers. And right now we are spending a lot of money on a load of EH-102 helis, 14 if memory serves me well. Taking Denmark's small population into account that would compare to Germany buying 220-230 such large choppers.

For 20+ years the Danish Air Force transport fleet was just three C-130H. In the beginning they did the job, but then came our participation in the Gulf War 1991, the Balcan conflict etc. Not only was our transport capability strained beyond limit, but we had to hastily modify them with armored cockpits and other self defence items such as charff and flares dispensers etc.

The ever growing empty weight with these mods made them a lot less suitable for day to day ops in Greenland, since payload/range capability went down.

We had the money and could not wait for the the A400M. In addition I doubt that the A400M would be the right plane for Greenland ops - it's too big.

So we bought four C-130J - long version - including the most modern self defence suite.

As RichardPrice stated in reply #29 the J is almost an entirely new plane sharing very little but the outer appearance with the earlier Hercs. And it has far supperior performance figures compared to the H. They had their problems in the beginning. We chose to let the delivery slip and let Lockheed sort out the bugs, and today about one year after delivery they are great performers.

What I have heard (which may be very incomplete info) is that a lot of the bugs were related to the intergrated flight management, warning and defence software and systems - things which were totally absent on the older Hercs or supllied later as separate and quite rude add ons. While the a/c itself was a great flying machine right from the prototype.

Originally we bought only three with one option, and that option was later firmed up. But I'm not sure it has been delivered yet.

Lockheed took our old H-Hercs back, and I have been told that they now do great service in Egypt.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: David L
Posted 2005-10-22 02:37:18 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 26):
and a single engine carrier combat a/c the name of which I have forgotten.

The Fairey Gannet?

"The Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba coupled turboprop engine boasted two independent power sections driving separate propellers."

http://www.warbirdalley.com/gannet.htm

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: AeroVodochody
Posted 2005-10-22 21:37:58 and read 32767 times.

niiiiice cockpit!

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery/a400mcockpit1024.jpg

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: MD-90
Posted 2005-10-30 02:52:57 and read 32767 times.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
The Hercules is probably the outstanding design success of the latter half of the 20th century

The only plane that has been in continuous production longer is the Beech Bonanza, which first flew in 1947.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2005-10-30 14:05:08 and read 32767 times.

According to this article, Malaysia is considering the A400.

Airbus Expects A400M Major Contract

Perhaps I should post the question on civil aviation, but there is a large narrow body order pending from MAS. In the past, the GOM has been sensitive to where they source their major aerospace purchases, preferring not to rely on one source. If the A400 purchase goes through, would this give the 737NG a "leg up"?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Keesje
Posted 2006-02-13 22:35:08 and read 32767 times.

Airbus sees sales of A400M military plane doubling

EADS unit Airbus said it has the potential to export another 200 of its new A400M military cargo plane to various buyers, with Chile about to sign a contract for some.

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/02/13/afx2520399.html

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery/a400mhighsun1024.jpg

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Dougloid
Posted 2006-02-14 01:33:31 and read 32767 times.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 18):
I am also dubious about the engine supplier for the A400M. Whilst another Euro consortium may have been politically ideal, why not just place the contract with Rolls Royce? RR have decades of turboprop experience after all, many being high power models and the most successful military props in the world over at their Allison division.

They're a great bunch of people in Indy, too. That was a good buy for RR. One time I was trying to locate a display engine, PWC had one but they didn't know where it was and didn't seem interested in helping out one of their prime vendors. I called Indy cold and two days later it was on the Delavan loading dock.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 25):
And even then the production was delayed over and over again which became a mojor stepping stone to the demise of MDD.

What's your source of information for production delays in the C17 being instrumental in the demise of Douglas?

I don't doubt that there were delays but as far as leading to the demise of Douglas the C17 program was and is a government funded, stand alone program that has its own production facility, staff and tooling. By the time of the takeover-and make no mistake it was a takeover/buyout and not a failure of the company-C17s were rolling off the line on a regular basis.

In fact, I was there for the first flight, as I was for the first flight of the MD11. I did some product development inspection work on the C17 program. I believe everyone who had a hand in it was very proud of the product. It was and is a single purpose airlifter of great specificity. The floor and ramp are built to handle at least 1 Abrams class MBT and haul it in and out of a 5,000 foot unimproved dirt airfield. That's the mission it was built around. The other stuff was bells and whistles.

The program is still up and running but I am sure that with Boeing's policy of eliminating anything resembling a knowledge base that could build commercial aircraft in competition with it in Long Beach or in the Southland, the doom is upon the C17 and its workers at least in its present form.

What we constantly heard out of el Norte was a 20th century version of "Carthago delenda est" as old Cato had it.

At least for now. Look for it to be shut down for a while until the air force gets its head out of its patoot and orders some more a few years down the road.....they will be built somewhere north of the Columbia River.

And you know? Nothing would make me happier in a few years to come back here and eat some public crow on this subject. But the chances are not likely.

Read about the demise of Carthage. It's significant.

http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/punicwar/17.shtml

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Keesje
Posted 2006-02-14 11:42:31 and read 32767 times.

If C-17 production stops and the new -J Herc's continue to receive mixed appreciation and remain at low production rates what will the options for an airforce requiring a serious transporters in the next 10 years, replacing the zillions of old Hercs everywhere?

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Kukkudrill
Posted 2006-02-14 14:39:11 and read 32767 times.

Quoting David L (Reply 31):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 26):
and a single engine carrier combat a/c the name of which I have forgotten.

The Fairey Gannet?

Or the Seafire Mk 47, which had this sort of arrangement:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Myers



[Edited 2006-02-14 14:52:28]

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Sabenapilot
Posted 2006-02-14 15:33:25 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 34):
According to this article, Malaysia is considering the A400.

That's a pretty old article you dig up there!

In the mean time,the Royal Malaysian Air Force ordered 4 A400Ms for delivery in 2013, bringing the total number of firm orders for the A400M to 192 aircraft.

In return Malaysian industry will receive high-technology work packages from Airbus, worth about 400 million Euros, considerably enhancing their aerospace technology and capabilities. Malaysian contractors will initially design, and then manufacture airframe components for all A400M aircraft to be delivered worldwide.

Francisco Fernandez-Sainz, Managing Director of Airbus Military said that the decision had opened up major new opportunities for partnership both in the military and civil sector and will substantially enhance the enduring relationship Airbus has with the Malaysian Government.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/pressrelease.html#081205

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Dougloid
Posted 2006-02-14 15:49:22 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 37):
If C-17 production stops and the new -J Herc's continue to receive mixed appreciation and remain at low production rates what will the options for an airforce requiring a serious transporters in the next 10 years, replacing the zillions of old Hercs everywhere?

What it means is they better get their ass in gear and figure out what they're going to need ten years down the road and order it now.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: David L
Posted 2006-02-14 18:34:43 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 38):
Or the Seafire Mk 47, which had this sort of arrangement:

Yes, on reflection, the Gannet had twin engines with co-axial props... as stated in the snippet I quoted. Oops!

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Columba
Posted 2006-02-28 19:30:16 and read 32767 times.

Taken from an Airbus press release:

Airbus Military has today achieved its fifth contractual milestone on schedule with the successful demonstration run of the First Engine with Propeller for the A400M military airlifter.

The demonstration to the customer, which took place at the Snecma engine test facility at Istres in southern France under the technical responsibility of the engine and propeller suppliers, Europrop International (EPI) and Ratier-Figeac respectively, was the most spectacular event yet in the on-going A400M aircraft development programme.

The powerplant consists of EPI�s TP400-D6 engine fitted with Ratier-Figeac�s
FH386 propeller. The three-shaft, high-performance gas turbine engine and the 5.3 metre diameter, eight-bladed, composite propeller, give a combined power output of some 11,000 shaft-horsepower. The TP400-D6 / FH386 combination constitutes the most powerful turboprop power plant in the western world and will enable the A400M to attain cruising speeds and altitudes equivalent to today�s jet powered aircraft.

The choice of a turboprop engine design to power the A400M was made on the basis of providing optimum performance and fuel economy across the wide spectrum of operational tasks that the aircraft will be required to carry out. These range from low speed, low altitude aerial delivery to high speed, high altitude refuelling of fast jets whilst retaining the capability for autonomous ground manoeuvres as well as fast, intercontinental logistic deployment.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2006-03-01 22:44:03 and read 32767 times.

Quoting David L (Reply 31):
The Fairey Gannet?

"The Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba coupled turboprop engine boasted two independent power sections driving separate propellers."

Mind you, it took quite some time to get that engine to work reliably, though.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Dougloid
Posted 2006-03-02 17:05:46 and read 32767 times.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 43):
Quoting David L (Reply 31):
The Fairey Gannet?

"The Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba coupled turboprop engine boasted two independent power sections driving separate propellers."

Mind you, it took quite some time to get that engine to work reliably, though.

The Double Mamba sounds like a drink with one a those little parasols in it.

Howevuh. I did dig out my copy of Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion by G. Geoffrey Smith (5th ed. 1951), and a grand book it is, if you can get your hands on a copy.

There's a cutaway of the Double Mamba on p. 139 showing the gearbox.

The Mamba was a 1270 shp geared affair with a planetary gear reduction case-one wonders what trouble that caused. It had a ten stage axial front end and a two stage power turbine. The accessory drives were taken off via a spur gear train from the planetary gear case to an accessory gearbox.

I guess the Double Mamba was just two of everything. which means about 2500 shp. It reveals a predilection for complexity which had to have made it an expensive proposition to get dialed in.

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: Keesje
Posted 2006-03-04 13:24:24 and read 32767 times.

Quoting Columba (Reply 42):
Airbus Military has today achieved its fifth contractual milestone on schedule with the successful demonstration run of the First Engine with Propeller for the A400M military airlifter




At present, the production of 750 engines is envisaged for 180 A400Ms, which have already been ordered by the Nations taking part in the Consortium. Finally, the possibility of export is very attractive, as confirmed by contacts that are already underway.

http://www.skycontrol.net/industry/t...nnected-to-the-enormous-propeller/

Topic: RE: Airbus A400
Username: CX747
Posted 2006-03-04 21:41:40 and read 32767 times.

Keesje brings up a valid point. If C-17 production ends, and the J model continues to get mixed reviews, what will Air Forces replace their older model C-130s with? The easiest answer would be A400Ms!!!! That being said, the A400M isn't exactly cheap. While it does have a drastic increase in range and payload, most of the time money talks and everything else walks.

It now seems that Austalia and the Netherlands are going to order C-17s. This along with England's additional purchase should help momentarily. I do not forsee production of the C-17 ending any time soon. Congress will not allow it.

That being said, there are rumors that the Air Force is looking for its own C-130 replacment starting in the 2010-2012 time frame. One could expect Boeing and Lockheed to bring a brand new and fresh design to the table. That in and of itself might kill massive orders to the A400M. Another rumor that has recently surfaced is that instead of redoing the cockpit of C-130Es and C-130Hs, the Air Force is going to buy J models to replace them. Only time will tell though.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/