SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 12875 times:
Given further troubles with the A400M that go beyond engine software, particularly weight problems and rate of descent issues with the props (recent Aviation Week article), Antonov should be sitting in a very good position with a flying, proven alternative to the A400M that is equal in nearly all performance areas, superior in some, comes at a lower price, and is available now.
A400M (from Airbus website)
Cruise Speed Range Mach 0.68 - 0.72 (448-475 mph)
Max. Operating Speed 300 kt CAS
Initial Cruise Altitude at MTOW 29 000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude - Normal ops 37 000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude - Special ops 40 000 ft
Max. Take-off Weight 141 t
Max. Landing Weight 122 t
Empty weight 70 tonnes
Max Payload - 37 tonnes
Range at Max. Payload * 1780 nm
Range at 30-tonne Payload * 2450 nm
Range at 20-tonne Payload * 3450 nm
Ferry Range * 4700 nm
Tactical Take-Off Distance ** 914 m
Tactical Landing Distance ** 822 m
** Conditions: Aircraft weight 120 t, all engines operative, ISA+15, sea level.ov
AN-70 (from Antonov website)
Maximum cargo capacity, 47 tonnes
Required runway length (tactical); 600m takeoff - 700m landing
Max T.O.W., 145 tonnes
Empty weight, 66 tonnes
Service range, km (nm):
with 47 t cargo 3 000 (1650 nm)
with 35 t cargo 5 100 (2800 nm)
with 20 t cargo 6 600 (3620 nm)
ferry flight 8 000 (4400 nm)
Speed, km/h
cruising 700 - 750 (440-470 mph)
maximum 780 (488) mph
Cruising altitude, m 9 000 - 12 000 (40,000 ft)
TexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12791 times:
The only thing Antonov lacks is political influence. It's kind of important to major defense programs.
For 1/1000th what has been spent on the A-400M Antonov could have worked out and proven beyond any reasonable doubt the production/safety of it's design.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22936 posts, RR: 78 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12782 times:
Well the EU does import a not-insignificant amount of their energy, especially natural gas, from Russia.
Of course, Russia enjoys the cash this relationship brings them, so I don't expect them to try and use it for leverage, but it's not quite accurate to say that Russian companies (especially State companies) don't have any political influence in the EU.
And as has already been noted by Aviation Week, the four major customers are all politically and economically (though partners and contractors) committed to buy and fly the A400M no matter what other foreign-sourced product is available and/or comparable. The C-17 is enough of a step beyond the A400M in capacity and range to allow a partial buy to happen, but there would be no possibility of any serious, much less complete, replacement purchase in terms of quantity.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2456 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12774 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): Well the EU does import a not-insignificant amount of their energy, especially natural gas, from Russia.
But.. What does this exactly have to do with Russia. The announcement last week was that Antonov, a Ukrainian company, was going ahead with the AN-70 alone, without any financing from Russia. The Antonov plants are in Ukraine, the Motor Sich plants are there too.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12765 times:
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 1): The only thing Antonov lacks is political influence.
Well there are the engines. IIRC, those engines on the AN-70 haven't been proven either. I'd love to be shown otherwise.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 12754 times:
The AN-70 never fully matured, the engines also had problems. But still it seems like a potent freighter. It would be worthwhile to reevaluate the aircraft. Maybe the aircraft fits new requirements better then the other available aircraft. Problems could be worked out, logistics and long term support guaranteed. Critical parts could be build by local partners. Maybe they can get support from Congress (Dicks, Tiahrt), for this project for future purchases.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3284 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 12752 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4): Well there are the engines. IIRC, those engines on the AN-70 haven't been proven either. I'd love to be shown otherwise.
You know the ultimate show of friendship and cooperation between the EU and the Ukraine would be to develop the AN70 but using the EuroProp TP400 engines.
Unfortunately the political fallout would be HUGE, Russia would punish Ukraine somehow for edging closer to the EU and the West and the Airbus consortium would flex their own muscle to punish those in the EU that consider this and Ivchenko in Ukraine would not be happy (don't know how much pull they have).
Impossible, I know. Still it would be intriguing.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
Autothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1242 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 12737 times:
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 1): For 1/1000th what has been spent on the A-400M Antonov could have worked out and proven beyond any reasonable doubt the production/safety of it's design.
The A400M will be always much more fuel efficient as its engines have integrated some of the newest technologies available.
Airbus claims it will have the life cycle costs similar to the C-130.
The A400M will get a very sophisticated package of Integrated Modular Avionics using a 100-megabit/sec avionics full-duplex (AFDX) switched Ethernet flight data communications network, with a Ethernet onboard file server, military mission management system (MMMS) and the DASS System with LWR,direct energy IR countermeasures (DIRCM) system,Towed Radar Decoy, PMWS, RWR, MIDS (optional FANS) A etc..
A400M pilots will be able to graphically overlay tactical information on the NTD(navigation and tactical display), such as threat corridors–the designated areas where aircraft can remain out of range of particular threats–and drop zones. The NTD’s tactical display format fuses data from the defensive aids subsystem and the MIDS data link, allowing the presentation of correlated and consolidated threat information.
Nothing you would get on a AN-70.
Yes it is expensive, it is late and overbudget like many other aircraft programs(A380/787), its not the biggest or fastest military airlifter but once flying in duty, a great plane, worth to wait for IMO.(like the 787/A380)
However, with what you describe there is nothing that couldn't be installed on an AN70. Adding the TP400 engines and the avionics would be not much more difficult than what is being done (proposed) with the EADS/NG KC45 tanker.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
TexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12718 times:
I don't think towed decoys, quad-duplexed avionics (the An-70 is FBW I believe) or fancy maps/servers etc. built into the system justifies the cost at this point, but we can respectfully disagree. Ultimately, it's a quad-prop transport. The fanciest mission management software and terrain/threat maps won't likely save even a single frame over it's service life. The delay getting adequate modern tactical airlift might cost lives though.
Data/software systems can be and are upgraded in SAC/MAC (types of) aircraft as they mature (see: KC-135, B-52, etc.)
Autothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1242 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 12625 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 9): However, with what you describe there is nothing that couldn't be installed on an AN70. Adding the TP400 engines and the avionics would be not much more difficult than what is being done (proposed) with the EADS/NG KC45 tanker.
With this argumentation you could say what i described is nothing that couldn't be installed on a DC-3. The point is the A400m feature this while the An-70 not. The integration of the TP400 is quite difficult as they produce a lot of vibrations. Thats why the A400M has a monolithic CFRP Wing.
Wrong, the A400M technology is based on the A380, unlike the KC45. Besides Antonov or any other russian/ukranian company doesn't have such technologies and would never get it from EADS.
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 10): Ultimately, it's a quad-prop transport. The fanciest mission management software and terrain/threat maps won't likely save even a single frame over it's service life.
Says who? Germany,Spain, UK etc.. have soldiers in Afghanistan. I guess its to early to say how useful this systems will be.
If i had to fly to Afghanistan/Iraq give me an A400M anyday over the AN-70 because i know i'm protected by the DASS system. The same DASS system used by the Eurofighter
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12568 times:
Whilst the AN70 does not have DASS, it is possible that DASS or a similar system is/could be fitted.
If Airbus are now talking of operational service in 2013, then there is more likelihood of further delays than it arriving sooner.
Consequently you are making a false comparison until then. It is C130J/C17 or AN70.
It is hard to know what the situation will be by 2013. What we do know is that the C130K/C160 will be 4 years older, and they are heading towards 40 already.
Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter): Antonov should be sitting in a very good position with a flying, proven alternative
Quoting Tugger (Reply 6): the ultimate show of friendship and cooperation
Europe is already covered, but it seems a fantistic opportunity for the USAF to fill the upcoming Army Future Combat Systems lift requirements!
I think Lockheed can stop thinking about upgrading the C130 and join Antonov in creating a customized version of the great An-70. Why make something new if the right platform is already available ?! It would be the ultimate new Europe / new USA brotherhood cooperation ! Away with the Fat Herc,
Can anyone make a An-70 in USAF scheme pls ? Man this will be so cool.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2456 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 12469 times:
Quoting Autothrust (Reply 11): With this argumentation you could say what i described is nothing that couldn't be installed on a DC-3.
Argumentum ad absurdum.
Quoting Autothrust (Reply 11): If i had to fly to Afghanistan/Iraq give me an A400M anyday over the AN-70 because i know i'm protected by the DASS system.
In addition to the fact that nno, it's not protected by DASS, I'd take the A400M because I know I wouldn't actually get there till 2015, if ever!
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3284 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12381 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 13): Europe is already covered, but it seems a fantistic opportunity for the USAF to fill the upcoming Army Future Combat Systems lift requirements!
I think Lockheed can stop thinking about upgrading the C130 and join Antonov in creating a customized version of the great An-70. Why make something new if the right platform is already available ?! It would be the ultimate new Europe / new USA brotherhood cooperation ! Away with the Fat Herc,
For strategic reasons I would absolutely support something like this. The hard part would be Congress UNLESS Lockheed or Boeing came up with the idea and partnered with Antonov to make a US version of the 70. It would absolutely improve ties between the West and Ukraine and not be any meddlesome "political" treaty solution.
Sadly the engines would be a big issue as the US would not use the Ukraine's engines and essentially new engines would need to be developed for it. I just don't see anyone being brave enough to propose something like that, AN-70 airframe, new engines, Boeing or Lockheed developed avionics suite and control systems.
Also I rather suspect that our EU friends would complain loudly and want to know why we don't use the A400M.
Quoting Autothrust (Reply 11): The integration of the TP400 is quite difficult as they produce a lot of vibrations. Thats why the A400M has a monolithic CFRP Wing.
Did not know about that, but then the TP400 is very powerful engine and does not have the counter-rataing design of the Ivchenko engines.
Quoting Autothrust (Reply 11): Wrong, the A400M technology is based on the A380, unlike the KC45. Besides Antonov or any other russian/ukranian company doesn't have such technologies and would never get it from EADS.
I was not implying that the tech was based on the MRTT330/KC45's, that is relatively inconsequential. Nor was I saying that Antanov would or should be given such technologies.
I was saying that just like with the Northrop Grumman program, you could take the basic airframe and integrate all the systems you need into it at a site in your home countries. The KC45 program, while it would have used many Airbus systems as they are an industry standard, would have also had numerous revisions that Airbus would not be allowed to do for national security reasons. Most of the radios/comm and nav systems are classified and so only available though American companies. I would assume the same with EU requirements as well.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12360 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 15): I just don't see anyone being brave enough to propose something like that, AN-70 airframe, new engines, Boeing or Lockheed developed avionics suite and control systems.
I was just jooking. I cannot imagine the An-70 being rebuild for USAF purposes. The technology, integration, certification & maintenance systems would be so totally different and would probably end up re engineering the aircraft completely.
What would seem a credible scenario is Lockheed or Boeing buying into the A400M program, adjusting parts for specific use and set up their own supply chain and assembly in the US. I expect European production capasity to be fully covered for a long time. A USAF order would simply not fit in. Transfer of technology would be much easier because many systems are already US build and the same processes are used to design / develop the aircraft. A bit like the McDonnel / BAE AV-8B Harrier II. McDonnel / Marines developped their own variant much of what was later put back on the European ones.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 34 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12351 times:
".......In 1999, Germany wanted to buy the AN-70 for the Luftwaffe (they have already gotten over the fear and the prejudices directed at the Soviets). It contracted DASA to go to Kiev and study the design and its compatibility with JAR-25 norms and with NATO requirements. The DASA study concluded that the AN-70 met the European Future Large Aircraft requirements, met JAR-25 specifications, as long as western avionics were installed and the aircraft was converted to a 2-man cockpit...."
I understand, and I know it is nigh impossible and likely not making economic sense, but as a STRATEGIC move regarding the Ukraine and bringing them closer to "the west" it could be a good idea. I am only commenting on this for the strategic benefits.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
Autothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1242 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12309 times:
Quoting Spacepope (Reply 14): In addition to the fact that nno, it's not protected by DASS, I'd take the A400M because I know I wouldn't actually get there till 2015, if ever!
Absurdum, exactly the word i would use to describe your post.
You sound exactly like the naysayers which predicted the A380 would never fly or the program would be canceled.
Quote:
A400M Avionics Systems
Communications:
*
Radios: HF, VHF and UHF, Selcal (selective call) and optional Inmarsat satcom,
*
Quoting Tugger (Reply 15):
Did not know about that, but then the TP400 is very powerful engine and does not have the counter-rataing design of the Ivchenko engines.
Exactly, its the most powerful engine in the western world. And while its not counter rotating like russian engines, Airbus adopted Down-Between-Engines (DBE) counter-rotation characteristic, whereby the propellers of each pair of engines turn towards each other.
Quoting Tugger (Reply 15): I was saying that just like with the Northrop Grumman program, you could take the basic airframe and integrate all the systems you need into it at a site in your home countries. The KC45 program, while it would have used many Airbus systems as they are an industry standard, would have also had numerous revisions that Airbus would not be allowed to do for national security reasons. Most of the radios/comm and nav systems are classified and so only available though American companies. I would assume the same with EU requirements as well.
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12300 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 15): Did not know about that, but then the TP400 is very powerful engine and does not have the counter-rataing design of the Ivchenko engines.
While the TP400 enghine may be slightly more advanced, I'd be willing to bet the 8 blade prop is less efficient than the counter rotating design on the Ivchenko engines (they are also more powerful- 14,000 shp vs 11,000 shp)
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1242 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12281 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 21): While the TP400 enghine may be slightly more advanced
Not slightly, it is much more advanced. The Progress D-27 is very noisy and a fuel guzzling engine developed in the 80's. A bit honesty towards the capabilities the A400M and TP400 have would be nice from time to time..
-Newest combuster technology
-Pressure/compression ratio: 25
- 5 stage unit with no variables
• High Pressure Compressor
- pressure ratio 7
- 6 stage unit
• Combustor
• High Pressure single stage Turbine
• Intermediate Pressure single stage Turbine
• Low Pressure three stages uncooled Turbine (Power Turbine)
• Offset Propeller Gear Box* compliant with two senses of rotation
for the propeller
Intermediate Pressure Compressor
- pressure ratio 3.5
- 5 stage unit with no variables
High Pressure Compressor
- pressure ratio 7
- 6 stage unit
Combustor
- Single stage cooled High Pressure Turbine
- Single stage cooled Intermediate Pressure Turbine
- Three stage uncooled Low Pressure Turbine (Power Turbine)
The Engine is designed for optimum Maintainability by:
- Full module interchangeability
- Quick LRU replacement
- Dedicated on wing boroscope ports
- FADEC built-in test functions
- NBC requirements taken into account
- Engine replacement within 4 hours
TP400-D6 is tailored for A400M mission requirements:
- Cycle optimised for A400M mission performance and growth potential
- Component technology based on best in service military and commercial practice
- Proven three shaft architecture
- Moderate temperatures for long life
- Modular design for maintainability and low life cycle costs
Designed to power high fuel efficient passenger and transport airplanes with improved takeoff and landing characteristics. Installed on An-70 military transport aircraft. Meets the environmental requirements of ICAO standards.
Performance
Takeoff (SLS, +30оС, 730 mm Hg)
Equivalent power, ehp 14,000
Specific fuel consumption, kg/ehp∙h 0.170
Max cruise (H 11,000 m, M 0.7, ISA)
Equivalent power, ehp 6,750
Specific fuel consumption, kg/ehp∙h 0.130
Propfan efficiency 0.9
Propfan diameter, m 4.5
Dimensions, mm 4198.5x1259x1370
Weight, dry (without propfan), kg 1,650
Assigned service life, h 18,000
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1242 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12140 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 23): Meets the environmental requirements of ICAO standards.[/quote]
Today's standards, but not future standards.
Performance
Takeoff (SLS, +30оС, 730 mm Hg)
Equivalent power, ehp 14,000
Specific fuel consumption, kg/ehp∙h 0.170
Max cruise (H 11,000 m, M 0.7, ISA)
Equivalent power, ehp 6,750
Specific fuel consumption, kg/ehp∙h 0.130
The TP400-D6 can cruise up to 0.72m.
Overall pressure ratio 25:1
With the FH386 propeller the TP400 provides enough cruise thrust for a 737/A320 sized airliner with a thrust specific fuel consumption benefit of 15-20%.
take-off / max climb
Power SFC lb/hr/lbf 0.42 / 0.31
Thrust SFC lb/hr/lbf 0.19 / 0.52
Find this one very interesting:
Comparison between counter-rotation propellers vs single rotation propellers
Contra rotating propellers :
-Are more efficient at high forward speeds
-Recovery of energy lost in outlet swirl
-Can be smaller diameter for a given power
-Result in low torque reaction through mounts and aircraft structure
-May require more complex gearbox
-Are potentially very noisy
Single rotating propellers
High power turboprops with single rotation propellers result in
-High levels of exit swirl which can affect aircraft aerodynamics
-High levels of torque which must be reacted through the wing structure
-To minimise these two effects, the A400M uses Down-Between-Engines
-Same turbomachinery, two standards of gearbox
Source:
Turboprop Technology
John Martin CEng FIMechE
Chief Performance Engineer -EPI EuroPropInternational
It's pretty easy to see what get's some folks so upset. There are some fragile ego's out there.
In fact the AN-70 was built according to Ukraine’s new AP-25 standards, standards that were streamlined with western JAR-25, FAR-25 and CAR-525 standards. It can be certified to Canadian civilian certification standards.
It does not have NATO compatible avionics.
True, but the Antonov 70 was built with a NATO standard MIL-1553B compatible digital data-bus like all NATO aircraft, a technology that allows seamless and easy installation of any NATO standard avionics or military electronics.
Specific fuel consumption (kg/ehp∙h 0.130) for the miraculously wonderful/modern TP400 vs. .17 on the ancient/outdated D27. Now, if that is entirely accurate (and let's face it; though not insignificant both figures should be considered largely speculative), that .04 gap in specific fuel consumption won't ever (EVER) offset the price delta between the aircraft. It smacks of desperation to argue even that the rationale for sticking with a renegotiated, lengthened A400M development would be "well, it's more fuel efficient."
As to how easy it is to remove/substitute a TP400, I find that an incredulous claim; (a) you need a replacement motor on hand at both ends of the mission in a tactical airlifter to really benefit from this functionality, and (b) the D27 is rated at a 18,000 hour assigned service life.
It's a weak argument that the A400M will have much lower maintenance requirements. As between Antonov and Airbus Military; I'd bet the new Antonov would run more reliably. Just a hunch.
Do you think it will be a good option for the USAF?
I think the An-70 also had some minor engine issues (double failure) leading to some damage to the fuselage but it was repaired quickly hopefully everything is just fine now.
TexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12318 times:
I do think it would look spiffy. Also, although I know that's your favorite rebuttal argument against the Antonov product, that picture also reflects one great point in their favor; at least they were able to get it in the air.
Since 1982 the original FIMA group hasn't even made a high speed taxi of their baby! (*unless you count Lockmart; the C-130J could arguably be the only product of the original collaboration, I suppose.)
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 34 Reply 28, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12254 times:
From "Flugrevue - 1999"
"...Airtruck promotes An-70 in Germany
An-70-Angebot erhält Unterstütung von Airtruck
Airtruck, a newly formed German company based at Lemwerder, aims to boost the chances of the Antonov An-70 to win a NATO military transport order. It will act as the western focal point to modify and support the aircraft according to the demands of the request for proposals issued by Germany and other NATO nations. Airtruck shareholders include ASL Aircraft Services Lemwerder, engine-maker BMW Rolls-Royce and suppliers Aerodata, Autoflug, Bodenseewerk Gerätetechnik, ESG, Liebherr Aerospace and VDO. There is interest by other companies to join. Dr. Nicolas von Mende is the first managing director. Airtruck is partnered with the Medium Transport Aircrat consortium, which includes Antonov of the Ukraine and important suppliers from Ukraine and Russia.3 http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frnews99/FR990530.htm#An-70
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 24 Reply 29, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12170 times:
Wasn't Boeing exploring the possibility of a JV with Antonov a few years back with an eye towards co-production of the AN-70 for the USAF?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Autothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1242 posts, RR: 8 Reply 31, posted (3 years 2 weeks ago) and read 11867 times:
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 25): Specific fuel consumption (kg/ehp∙h 0.130) for the miraculously wonderful/modern TP400 vs. .17 on the ancient/outdated D27.
Do you ever read the nonsense you post? The D-27 burns 0,130kg/ehp/h not the TP400-D6.
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 25): that .04 gap in specific fuel consumption won't ever (EVER) offset the price delta between the aircraft. It smacks of desperation to argue even that the rationale for sticking with a renegotiated, lengthened A400M development would be "well, it's more fuel efficient."
Where do you got the 0.17 figure?
takeoff
Tp400 0.42 lb/hr/lbf
D-27 0.170 kg/ehp∙h
max cruise
TP400 0.31 lb/hr/lbf
D-27 0.130 kg/ehp∙h
In case you haven't noticed it this are two diffrent units. kg/Effective horsepower /h vs
pound /h/ pound-force
The D-27 has not an overall pressure ratio of 25:1 it has around 18:1, which means lower efficiency.
I see your bias against the A400M or Airbus makes you loose all objectivity.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 34 Reply 32, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11773 times:
Autothrust-thanks for your qualified inputs and comparative data..!
But comming back to the very core of the misery- I think most European airforces have missed the boat some years ago,when the threat-scenario for Europe changed completely .The traditional East-West conflict scenario became obsolete and was replaced with worldwide terror-threats,UN missions,relieve-programs for desaster events,worldwide crisis management...
Those tasks did require significantly more airlift demand and capabilities by aircraft and helicopter.( you wonder what the Generals at the "Führungs-akademie " in Hamburg tought to their officers..) This change in scenario became visible more than ten yeras ago but nobody seemed to implement that in the fleet-planning.
I'm still convinced a modernized Antonov 70 under a joint-venture deal would have been better than what we have to pay for with the A400M..
I do not compare the actual Antonov 70 with the future A400M but would rather like to compare the A400M with a modernized ,re-engined A70..
BMW was interetsed to join the deal ...and many other significant companies wanted to go ahead..well-it's too late now -but I think we missed a great opportunity to make a first class aircraft joint-venture..
Texl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11710 times:
If my numbers really are off, then what are the actual comparable numbers, autothrust? Do you think the TP400 is more efficient at takeoff, cruise, or both, per hp/hrs.
Pressure ratios are important but surely you could state a specific fuel efficiency advantage since I am so wrong?
I would be that the Airbus, if it works as advertised, drinks about 5% less fuel than the now 20 year old Progress engine.
Texl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days ago) and read 11497 times:
Oh come on folks, surely one of you A400M fans can make a round estimate about how much more efficient she'll be than an AN-70 hauling, say, 25 tons 500 miles (a fairly typical tactical mission)?
What happened here, I thought we were dead sure this thing is so much more efficient due to it's greater pressure ratio, composite hull, etc?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 35, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11383 times:
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 1): The only thing Antonov lacks is political influence.
And add to that list, an aircraft that has been certified despite 10 years of flight testing, an aircraft that is still flying, and an aircraft that is a decade behind. reminds me of the TU-144.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4193 posts, RR: 22 Reply 36, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11265 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 35): Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 1):
The only thing Antonov lacks is political influence.
And add to that list, an aircraft that has been certified despite 10 years of flight testing, an aircraft that is still flying, and an aircraft that is a decade behind. reminds me of the TU-144.
Probably the most important things to add to that list are money and customers. I imagine it would be finished a lot quicker if it was getting even a fraction of the cash going towards the A400.
Antonov is seriously broke...like most of Ukraine...and with the russian withdrawal from the project, it's in even more trouble.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 37, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11161 times:
Quoting Spacepope (Reply 3): But.. What does this exactly have to do with Russia. The announcement last week was that Antonov, a Ukrainian company, was going ahead with the AN-70 alone, without any financing from Russia. The Antonov plants are in Ukraine, the Motor Sich plants are there too.
Correct, seem like Russia has taken it´s hand of this design. Personally I think a new version
of the AN-22 would been better, with FBW and other upgrades, bigger, yes I know.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 12350 posts, RR: 69 Reply 38, posted (3 years 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11080 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 15): Also I rather suspect that our EU friends would complain loudly and want to know why we don't use the A400M.
Actuallyquite a few Europeans are getting annoyed with Airbus's antics. To us it looksas if Airbus is now trying to milk the European tax payer in a similar way as Boeing tried to do in the US with their KC-767, relying on a quasi monopoly.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2456 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1242 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 5743 posts, 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4193 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 12350 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}