Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Another Look: AN-70 Vs A400M  
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 21843 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)

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 21763 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.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 21751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2921 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 21744 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.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21735 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".
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21723 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.

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21721 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



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21713 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 3):
But.. What does this exactly have to do with Russia.

Evidently nothing. I thought they were Russian. So just ignore everything but the last paragraph.  Smile


User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21707 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)



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 21695 times:



Quoting Autothrust (Reply 8):
Nothing you would get on a AN-70.

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



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 21687 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.)


User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21594 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

[Edited 2009-01-27 01:34:50]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 21539 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.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 21457 times:



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 1):
TexL1649



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.  bigthumbsup 

Here come the USAF Antonov / Lockheed An-70 !





Can't wait to see her  cloudnine 


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2921 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 21440 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!



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21350 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



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21329 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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg/746px-YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21320 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...."

interesting readin in this blog,that speaks in detail about the history of the Western Forces to consider converting the Antonov 70 into a western Standard plane..
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache...luftwaffe&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=fr



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21317 times:

Tugger

IMO there is little prospect of Airbus blocking a USAF purchase of AN70 for 2 reasons;

1. It could hinder residual hopes of the KC330.

2. Given the problems of getting it into service, least said the better.

However, I suspect that Boeing and LM may have views, and relevant Senators.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 21308 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
I was just jooking.

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



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 21278 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,
*

Audio: audio management system, wireless intercom, cockpit voice recorder, passenger address system,
*

Emergency locator transmitters (ELTs),
*

Communications security equipment (voice encryption/decryption, data encryption/decryption, and frequency hopping),
*

Data Links: optional MIDS (multifunctional information distribution system) and optional FANS A (future air navigation system), and
*

Identification: identification friend or foe (IFF), Mode S transponder

Surveillance:

*

Weather radar with turbulence/windshear detection and ground mapping,
*

Optional military radar,
*

Traffic alert collision avoidance system (TCAS),
*

Enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS),
*

Optional tactical ground collision avoidance system (T-GCAS), and
*

Optional formation keeping system

Navigation:

*

Three inertial reference systems with embedded air data systems,
*

Two military GPS receivers,
*

Navaids with auto-tuning: VOR, DME, Tacan (tactical air navigation),
*

Optional automatic direction finder (ADF),
*

Multimode receiver with ILS, microwave landing system (MLS) and two civil GPS receivers,
*

Two radar altimeters,
*

Optional digital terrain referenced navigation (TRN) system, and
*

Optional terrain masking low-level flight (TMLLF) system

Flight/Mission Management:

*

Two flight management system (FMS) computers and
*

Two military mission management system (MMMS) computers

Displays:

*

Two foldable, wide-angle HUDs,
*

Seven 6-by-8-inch head-down displays, including two MCDUs (multipurpose control and display units), and
*

One optional MCDU and controls for a third crew station

Defensive Aids Subsystem (DASS)

*

Central processor,
*

Radar warning receiver (RWR),
*

Passive/active missile warning systems,
*

Chaff/flare dispensers,
*

IR detection systems,
*

Direct energy IR countermeasures (DIRCM)
*

Laser warning system, and
*

Towed radar decoy



Quote:

As a tactical transport, the A400M carries a lot of military equipment such as the Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS) for self-protection,

SOURCE: Airbus Military

Quote:


Software and hardware
development of the Military Mission Management
Systems and Defensive Aids Sub-System

http://www.a400m-countdown.com/index.php?v=1&spage=3

Do you want more sources??

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.

TP400 test run
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-V5jzSslZo

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.

My fault, agree fully with that.

[Edited 2009-01-27 11:01:20]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 21269 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)


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 21250 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

Meets future noise and emissions
regulations



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 21175 times:

D-27 information from the Ivchenko-Progress website...

http://www.ivchenko-progress.com/welcome.do?id=46

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


More information on the engine is available here;

http://www.ivchenko-progress.com/welcome.do?id=168



What the...?
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21109 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

[Edited 2009-01-27 15:17:12]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 21082 times:

[img] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qlx0g_dMJs...mw4rYszm4Q/s1600-h/AN-70-A400M.jpg
[/img]

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.


 Wink


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 21304 times:



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 25):
TexL1649

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.



User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 21311 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.)


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 28, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21247 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



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 29, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 21163 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".
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2921 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 21107 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 29):
Wasn't Boeing exploring the possibility of a JV with Antonov a few years back

Yes, but it was for the AN-72, in competition with the C-27J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 20863 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.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 32, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 20767 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..



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineTexl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 20703 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.


User currently offlineTexl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (5 years 7 months 22 hours ago) and read 20491 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?


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 35, posted (5 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 20375 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.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 36, posted (5 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 20257 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.



What the...?
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 20154 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.


User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13997 posts, RR: 62
Reply 38, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 20073 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.

Jan


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 20018 times:

Seem like Antonov is looking east, PRC want´s build a version with turbofans instead of the current engines, called An70-600.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Another Look: AN-70 Vs A400M
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Russia Pulling Out Of An-70 Project posted Sat Apr 8 2006 10:36:04 by EHHO
XB-70 Vs. Original B-70? posted Fri Oct 15 2004 06:01:07 by Lehpron
Antonov An-70 posted Sun Nov 16 2003 10:10:17 by Flyf15
Antonov An-70 posted Sun Oct 7 2001 09:59:58 by YKA
Another Case Of The Bear Vs. The Eagle posted Wed Mar 26 2008 22:07:36 by 787seattle
C-5 Vs AN-124 posted Wed Aug 1 2001 07:17:45 by Dahawaiian
Ssme Vs RS-68 Exhaust Color posted Fri Nov 14 2008 13:02:59 by SCAT15F
Usaf Vs IAF At Red Flag/War-Games posted Tue Oct 14 2008 20:42:52 by Blackbird
Another Crash For Canada’s Snowbirds. posted Fri Oct 10 2008 07:38:03 by KrisYYZ
F-100 Super-Sabre Vs. F8U/F-8 Crusader posted Fri Aug 22 2008 21:34:30 by Blackbird
Antonov An-70 Rising From The Grave. posted Thu Aug 5 2010 07:15:42 by keesje
Russia, Ukraine Sign AN-70 Protocol posted Wed Aug 19 2009 07:00:26 by NCB
Stephen Trimble: Antonov Looking For An-70 Revival posted Tue Jun 16 2009 05:25:12 by VirginFlyer
Antonov An-70 Production To Finally Go Ahead? posted Thu Jun 12 2008 09:50:47 by A342
Russia Pulling Out Of An-70 Project posted Sat Apr 8 2006 10:36:04 by EHHO
XB-70 Vs. Original B-70? posted Fri Oct 15 2004 06:01:07 by Lehpron
Antonov An-70 posted Sun Nov 16 2003 10:10:17 by Flyf15
Antonov An-70 posted Sun Oct 7 2001 09:59:58 by YKA
Another Case Of The Bear Vs. The Eagle posted Wed Mar 26 2008 22:07:36 by 787seattle
C-5 Vs AN-124 posted Wed Aug 1 2001 07:17:45 by Dahawaiian

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format