Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Flight Test Program  
User currently offlineKmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

Hi,

maybe I have missed something. But wasn't the A400M flight test program supposed to start a couple of days after first flight? Have there been flights since then?
Thanks for some Info!

kmz

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6376 times:

I think this is discussed in other threads, but here it is.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Airborne%20At%20Last&channel=awst

I believe a second flight by MS-001 has already taken place. the flight test program is going to take 3 years.


User currently offlineKmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6338 times:

thanks for the info. the article says "A further couple of flights are targeted before the Christmas break, with a second flight slated for as early as Dec. 19 or 21. The second flight will clear the aircraft likely up to 30,000 ft."
Maybe there have been follow-on flights, but I find it strange that I haven't been able to find any Information (including plane-spotter-pics) on them. Especially the next flights should be interesting as they will show if everything runs smooth or where problems have to be solved.

well, i guess time will show
 yawn 


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12716 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6327 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...=awst

The article says Aircraft MSN001, 003 and 006 will be based at Toulouse; MSN002 and 004 will be at Seville. so there should be plenty of spotting opportunities.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineOvercast From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6114 times:

Here you go, this just in on FI
Looks like good progress so far, next flight in January.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...envelope-on-2nd-flight-airbus.html


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 6099 times:

I think a three year flight test progrm looks very long compared to commercial aircraft. But if one releases the flight tests include;

- basic flight operations for an entirely new aircraft (props, fbw, etc)
- militairy + civil operations certification
- tactical operations from dirt, short hot runways
- refuelling, receiving, helicopters & fast jets
- low attitude automatic flight
- operations under extreme environmetal conditions
- airdrops of freight, paratroops

it doesn't seem so out of range.

http://www.key.aero/central/images/news/1329.jpg


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6033 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
I think a three year flight test progrm looks very long compared to commercial aircraft. But if one releases the flight tests include;

- basic flight operations for an entirely new aircraft (props, fbw, etc)
- militairy + civil operations certification
- tactical operations from dirt, short hot runways
- refuelling, receiving, helicopters & fast jets
- low attitude automatic flight
- operations under extreme environmetal conditions
- airdrops of freight, paratroops

it doesn't seem so out of range.

The C-17 did all of that, too (except the civilian certification) and its USAF flight test program began in Sept 1991 (1 year late) and ended in Apr 1993 with the delivery of the first operational aircraft to Charleston AFB, SC. That is a flight test program of just 20 months.


User currently offlineEvomutant From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 503 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6029 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):

The C-17 did all of that, too (except the civilian certification) and its USAF flight test program began in Sept 1991 (1 year late) and ended in Apr 1993 with the delivery of the first operational aircraft to Charleston AFB, SC. That is a flight test program of just 20 months.

Well the civil parts are amongst the stringent. The 787 will take, what, a year? Add a year onto 20 months and you have something approximating what the the A400M will take.


User currently offlineJalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 355 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5964 times:

How many planes will be involved in the flight test program and when is the 2nd due to take the skies?

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5961 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
The C-17 did all of that, too (except the civilian certification)

Well, no.

I will look up the C-17 milestones.


User currently offlineKmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5900 times:

could it not make sense to split the certification process into batches, lets' say military certification before civilian certification? this could give them the chance to start production earlier and deliver a/c to their customers,no? they can at least use the first ac/c for training...

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

Quoting Evomutant (Reply 7):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):

The C-17 did all of that, too (except the civilian certification) and its USAF flight test program began in Sept 1991 (1 year late) and ended in Apr 1993 with the delivery of the first operational aircraft to Charleston AFB, SC. That is a flight test program of just 20 months.

Well the civil parts are amongst the stringent. The 787 will take, what, a year? Add a year onto 20 months and you have something approximating what the the A400M will take.

No the B-787 flight certification testing is scheduled to run from this month to October 2010, a total of 10 months. Also many of the civilian certs the A-400M will get will be also duplicated by some of the mil.certs. In other words, there will be some test that kill two birds with one stone, and some will have to be flown seperately.

BTW, the entire A-400M flight test program, for all certifications is scheduled to have about 1200 flying hours, compared to 3200 flying hours for the B-787.

[Edited 2009-12-24 07:13:16]

User currently offlineOvercast From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5820 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
BTW, the entire A-400M flight test program, for all certifications is scheduled to have about 1200 flying hours, compared to 3200 flying hours for the B-787

Not quite true, 1200Hrs is for MSN1.
Total is over 4300Hrs for 5 test aircraft, Somewhat more than the B787.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...a400ms-debut-flight-test-plan.html


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5799 times:



Quoting Overcast (Reply 12):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
BTW, the entire A-400M flight test program, for all certifications is scheduled to have about 1200 flying hours, compared to 3200 flying hours for the B-787

Not quite true, 1200Hrs is for MSN1.
Total is over 4300Hrs for 5 test aircraft, Somewhat more than the B787.

That would make more sense. I had read it was only 1200 hours, and I didn't think that was near enough time. But 4700-4800 hours makes much more sense.

Do you know where the cold weather testing will take place? Somehow I think Canada and Alaska are ruled out.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5786 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Do you know where the cold weather testing will take place? Somehow I think Canada and Alaska are ruled out.

Why is that KC135TopBoom? The A380 went very well.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=11460


User currently offlineCtr From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5751 times:

I would wager the A400M never gets civil certification. There is little added value in attaining it for a military transport aircraft. Plus if your program is over budget and you are looking for places to cut...

I would also bet that in the rush to get back on schedule much of the software documentation and testing procedures were shortcutted. Nothing unsafe, but not adequate to satisfy certification authorities.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5745 times:



Quoting Ctr (Reply 15):
I would wager the A400M never gets civil certification. There is little added value in attaining it for a military transport aircraft. Plus if your program is over budget and you are looking for places to cut...

The reason for civil certification is militairy transport using civil airways. Together with its M0.72 speed / ceiling it will be able to use those, contrary to the Hercs /Transalls now in use. A huge operational advantage.

Quoting Ctr (Reply 15):
I would also bet that in the rush to get back on schedule much of the software documentation and testing procedures were shortcutted. Nothing unsafe, but not adequate to satisfy certification authorities.

The delay was caused mainly to restore civil software certification. The engine itself was running fine. It shows how important this civil certification is..


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5659 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Do you know where the cold weather testing will take place? Somehow I think Canada and Alaska are ruled out.

Why is that KC135TopBoom? The A380 went very well.

Because neither Canada nor the US are going to order the A-400M. My guess is cold weather testing will take place in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, or Finland.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
Quoting Ctr (Reply 15):
I would wager the A400M never gets civil certification. There is little added value in attaining it for a military transport aircraft. Plus if your program is over budget and you are looking for places to cut...

The reason for civil certification is militairy transport using civil airways. Together with its M0.72 speed / ceiling it will be able to use those, contrary to the Hercs /Transalls now in use. A huge operational advantage.

First, airways are not the shortest or most direct routes, great circle navigation is. Second, military aircraft do not need a civil certification to use airways. Airspeed and ceiling restrictions because of type are not limitations to a civil certification, and finally, a version of the C-130, the L-100, already has a civilian certification.

Using airways is not a huge operational advantage, as you say. It is limited by the VORTACs the aircraft will fly. Airways have very little tactical or strategic value because they depend on ground based nav-aids. R-NAV or GPS NAV are much shorter and faster routes..

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The delay was caused mainly to restore civil software certification. The engine itself was running fine. It shows how important this civil certification is..

It is still a cost that can be cut from the program that has not been spent, yet. They can always go back and get the certification later, if really needed. All a civilian certification gets you is the ability to use civilian parts, maintenance, and possible future sales to civilian airlines.

You may already know, the C-17 was originally planned to also get a civilian certification, so the (then) MD-17, now called the BC-17 could be sold to civilians. That certification was put on hold as a budget cut back in 1990. No BC-17s have been sold, but if one is ever sold, it will need a civilian certification flight test program.

Lockheed did get a civilian certification for the C-141A, the civilian version was called the L-300. But none were ever sold. I don't see any civilian sales to commericial airlines for the A-400M, either. Most of the L-100s are no longer flying either.


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

You all need to take a look at the AN-124. The Russians/Ukrainians are on the verge of putting up serious capital to restart production. Out size cargo transport has been growing at 30% per year (if you believe the numbers put up by the 124s only operator). Yes C-17s are very expensive and not great econonmics but if hauling something that just won't fit in anything else is your business then that is what you buy. What would be the estimated cost of a BC-17? The numbers I have seen to restart the AN-124 is 500 million US$ just to get the factory going again. Would that pay for a civil cert of the C-17? The really big jobs will go to the Antonov, maybe we will eventually see A-400s in the commercial world too. This is just the start, don't count anything out yet.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5592 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Because neither Canada nor the US are going to order the A-400M.

So that is related to choosen a cold weather site !? I learned something new..

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Using airways is not a huge operational advantage, as you say. It is limited by the VORTACs the aircraft will fly. Airways have very little tactical or strategic value because they depend on ground based nav-aids. R-NAV or GPS NAV are much shorter and faster routes..

Well, European ATC doesn't work like that..

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 18):
the 124s only operator

There are a few more.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124#Operators

Civil certification doesn't have much to do with a civil variant.. it is about being allowed to use civil corridors. Regulations will change in the future.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=31998

[Edited 2009-12-25 12:42:10 by keesje]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 5553 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 19):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Because neither Canada nor the US are going to order the A-400M.

So that is related to choosen a cold weather site !? I learned something new..

EADS/Airbus has been that petty before, why not now?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 19):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Using airways is not a huge operational advantage, as you say. It is limited by the VORTACs the aircraft will fly. Airways have very little tactical or strategic value because they depend on ground based nav-aids. R-NAV or GPS NAV are much shorter and faster routes..

Well, European ATC doesn't work like that..



Quoting Keesje (Reply 19):

Civil certification doesn't have much to do with a civil variant.. it is about being allowed to use civil corridors. Regulations will change in the future.

My KC-135 flew airways, on occasions, while in Europe. Has something changed? But, as I said before, flying airways is not an advantage and is based on ground based nav-aids.


User currently offlineCargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 160 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 5495 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
The reason for civil certification is militairy transport using civil airways. Together with its M0.72 speed / ceiling it will be able to use those, contrary to the Hercs /Transalls now in use. A huge operational advantage.



Quoting Kmz (Reply 10):
could it not make sense to split the certification process into batches, lets' say military certification before civilian certification? this could give them the chance to start production earlier and deliver a/c to their customers,no? they can at least use the first ac/c for training...

I've been trying to understand some of this civil vs military certification stuff...are you guys talking RVSM and RNP? Does anyone have a good link where I can read about it? I know that the C-130J is not yet RVSM compliant, thus it cannot use European airways between FL 290 and 410. But it is in the process of getting that ceritification. The C-17 and KC-135 comply with all requirements to operate over Europe (RVSM, RNP) at any altitude and we ALWAYS fly on the airways when crossing Europe. I have not seen separate military or civilian airways, or airways that I'm not permitted to fly on because I'm in a military plane.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 5444 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
EADS/Airbus has been that petty before, why not now?

?!? The A380 was cold weather tested in Canada, do you really think they expect AC or TS to order it? High-altitude testing was carried out in ADD and MDE. Does Airbus really expect ET or AV to order the A380? The A346 high altitude tesing was carried out at LPB, do they expect a Bolivian airline to order it?

Your theory is absurd, to say the least.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 5413 times:



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 21):
I've been trying to understand some of this civil vs military certification stuff...are you guys talking RVSM and RNP?

I cannot speak for others, but I thought we were talking about RVSM.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...vice_units/enroute/rvsm/status_ww/

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...es/ato/service_units/enroute/rvsm/

But if Keesje and others were talking RNP, or even R-NAV, there is not a civil cert required for military aircraft to fly RNP (or R-NAV), or RVSM, in Europe, or anywhere else where RVSM is implamented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Required_Navigation_Performance


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 5360 times:

If you want a link to the leading edge in Air Traffic Control go to the EuroControl website and start fishing around. The Europeans are years ahead of the FAA in this area. Second choice would be the FAA website and look at the Next Gen ATC links and descriptions there.

25 KC135TopBoom : It does not really matter, Europe still lets USAF KC-135s, C-17s, C-130s, C-5s B-52s, F-15s, etc. to fly in that airspace. None of them have a civili
26 CMB56 : Quite correct. Military aircraft that have the correct equipment mix with commercial traffic everyday. The civilian certification opens up the market
27 KC135TopBoom : US Military aircraft cannot compete with commerical aircraft for revenue flights by federal law.
28 CMB56 : Thank you for that clarification, it makes sense in our system here in the US. This may not be the case in other countries, I simply do not know. I kn
29 KC135TopBoom : There will be a new Chinese cargo jet that is slightly bigger than the A-400M in production by the time the C-17 line closes. Also we don't know, yet
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A400M Flight Test Program
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...
A400M Flight Test Thread posted Sat Jan 8 2011 11:27:46 by moderators
A400M Flight Test Prototypes posted Mon Jan 4 2010 08:48:13 by Keesje
ABL Starts Flight Test Program posted Mon Dec 6 2004 17:46:32 by SATL382G
Spacex Flight Test Thread posted Fri Aug 20 2010 15:43:21 by ZANL188
Fantastic Dassault Rafale Flight Test Article posted Mon Nov 9 2009 19:06:40 by 2H4
"Secretive" Flight Test For A400 Engine Next Week posted Fri Dec 12 2008 15:29:49 by Lumberton
Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08 posted Sat Dec 6 2008 00:23:59 by KC135TopBoom
TP400-D6 (for A400M) Completes First Test Flight posted Wed Dec 17 2008 05:51:36 by Zeke
A400M First Flight Dec 11th posted Wed Dec 9 2009 04:22:50 by R2rho
Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects posted Tue Nov 17 2009 01:13:44 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format