Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Certification Update  
User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1914 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15265 times:

It is reported that the A400M has now clocked 2,100 hours in more than 680 test flights.
The hot tests were carried out at Sevilla recently.
And the first high speed-low level flight is done.

The civil certification (from EASA) is now planned for the end of the year.

The present tests concentrate on the breaks (Toulouse and Istres), manoeuvrability and input to the flight manual.
MSN 006, the first one to be equipped with a standard cargo hold, will join the fray in December, a bit later than anticipated.

Still one remaining headache: the engine incident in June is not yet fully explained (design or fabrication?).

The first delivery to the French AF in for late 2012-early 2013. In 2013, 4 deliveries planned: 3 off for France and 1 off for Turkey.

Source: air-cosmos.com/defense

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15003 times:

If the June engine incident is not resolved soon, I expect the deliveries to slip another 3-6 months, or so.

User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1914 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14930 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
If the June engine incident is not resolved soon, I expect the deliveries to slip another 3-6 months, or so.


In June, the CEO of Airbus Military, Domingo Urena, said "We have problems with the gearbox, but the test aircraft keep flying. We have very demanding flight-test requirements at the moment" meaning that the issue with the gearbox of the Europrop International TP400-D6 was not serious.

At the end of July, it was said that "...Europrop International (EPI) - the joint venture of Rolls-Royce, Snecma, MTU and ITP - has not yet identified the root case of an inflight pinion failure. The component is made by Avio."
It was then commented that "a major indicator of the effect the engine problem will have on the program is whether MSN6 - the fifth flight-test aircraft - begins trials as planned in October."
We now know that the fifth ac (MSN 006) will fly on December 22nd, 2011.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 14652 times:

Well a pinion failure in the gearbox can become a dangerous situation, depending on what that pinion drives. But I have not seen much information on this incident to do more than guess.

EADS military does like to down play incidents involving test flights for military aircraft. We have this A-400M engine incident, and we also have the RAAF KC-30 Boom loss incident that was not fully explained.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13255 times:

Well, its been a while since we had an update...

The Article does cover the engine issues to date.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ne%20Issues%20To%202012%20Fielding



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13194 times:

Over 20 years in development, a unit price tag of $136 million each.

Compared to the C-130J, very much modernized, very well proven airplane, for $65 million a pop.

The A400 is a tiny bit faster, has about the same range, and carries about 50% more cargo. Is it worth double the price?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13158 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
Over 20 years in development

That's some unusual counting. Will it be applied consistently?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
unit price tag of $136 million each

They will need to get more orders. Sadly this is not unusual at this stage. C17 had a unit price close to 0.5BUSD in today's money for a while.


User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1914 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12944 times:

The A400M has now clocked more than 2,400 test flight hours covering 70% of flight control and avionics, 80% of electrical and hydraulic systems and 100% of capabilities. About 60 pilots from EASA, France, the UK, Germany and Turkey have handled the ac.
The civilian certification by EASA is on track for the end of this year/early next.
Rolls-Royce has identified the engine problem related to premature wear of the blades of the HP compressor linked to some acoustic resonance. The problem occurs only on the ground at low power. The solutions are a re-design of the flow in that part of the engine and a sotware twick to prevent the engine to enter the specific vibration settings.
The other issue which had prevented the A400M to fly at the Le Bourget airshow is also linked to acoustic vibration causing failure of a gear. Avio has now designed a stronger gear.
Spotters in Santiago and La Paz will be able to see the A400M during the FIDAE 2012 (March-April) and the hot and high tests to be carried out just after.

[Edited 2011-10-27 03:53:49]

User currently offlineSkyscribbler From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2011, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11133 times:

One more (icing) test flight to go before initial EASA Type Certification - according to interview with A400M Chief Test Pilot here....

http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospa...012/01/27/video-ed-strongman/6175/


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9035 times:

Its been a while since we have had any news on the A400M program... It recently received its RTC issued on 30 april 2012.

http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...A.169_Airbus_A400M-01-30042012.pdf

After reviewing this document, I noticed some differences in the original specs published by Airbus??

Now, I don't know if this is because of it being a "Restricted -type-certificate" Or if it is in fact changes to the A/C specs?

I checked AB's website and there appears to be some information missing (that was provided in the past) regarding some of the specs? In the past the AB website and Wiki were stating the same numbers... Now, the new EASA document has some different specs... Like:

MTOW before = 141,000 kg. MTOW in RTC now = 137,500 kg. Difference = 3,500 kg. less.
MLW before = 122,000 kg. MLW in RTC now = 117,700 kg. Difference = 4,300 kg. less.

OTOH, the AB website has kept the original payload and range numbers that were first published, before production started and any weight issues came up??

Does anyone have any new info regarding these weight changes?



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9028 times:

Quoting breiz (Reply 7):
The civilian certification by EASA is on track for the end of this year/early next.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
It recently received its RTC issued on 30 april 2012.

Well, an RTC is a little short of a full civilian certification, and it is about 5 months late. Is there a problem?


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8822 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
Now, I don't know if this is because of it being a "Restricted -type-certificate" Or if it is in fact changes to the A/C specs?

Well, the RTC also says "No other occupants apart of the minimum flight crew are allowed on board" and "No loads shall be carried in the cargo compartment", but I believe we shouldn't read these as spec revisions...

 


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8635 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Well, an RTC is a little short of a full civilian certification, and it is about 5 months late. Is there a problem?

Just published on Flightglobal:

Quote:
"We will fly extensively to recover some delay," says Cedric Gautier, Airbus Military's head of A400M programme, who expects the function and reliability activity to conclude in late June or early July. This should enable full civil type certification of the type to also be secured during July and initial operational capability to follow in August or September.


Looks like the delays are confirmed, but Airbus suonds confident they can catch up some.

Good news   


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8632 times:

Quoting jollo (Reply 11):
Well, the RTC also says "No other occupants apart of the minimum flight crew are allowed on board" and "No loads shall be carried in the cargo compartment", but I believe we shouldn't read these as spec revisions...

Well, I guess Tom Enders won't be allowed to jump out of one now.

Isn't the flight test equipment in the cargo compartment? The no occupants apart from minumum crew and no loads in the cargo comp. implies a structual design problem. But I have not heard of any.

France is scheduled to get 3 A-400Ms next year (it has slipped from late this year, again) and Turkey is scheduled to get 1.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8616 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
France is scheduled to get 3 A-400Ms next year (it has slipped from late this year, again) and Turkey is scheduled to get 1.

KC, where did you get that delivery has slipped from this year? This AW article has it as “late, late” 2012 handover."

"Despite delays in starting function and reliability testing because of problems with the TP400D engine, Airbus Military still believes it can deliver the first A400M airlifter to the French air force (MSN7) this year. The delivery process is to start in November, following a first flight nominally planned on August 23.

The delay in F&R testing was due to an engine change because of high vibration, which was linked to a problem in balancing the powerplant. Gautier sees that incident as a minor issue.

Of greater concern is a propeller gearbox failure that caused an engine shutdown on MSN4. The failure is different than one last year on the same component that set back flight testing. The root cause of the new event is still underway, but Gautier does not see the issue delaying first aircraft delivery.

The company has a contractual requirement to hand over the first aircraft before April 2013, but Gustavo Garcia Miranda, vice president for market development, says “we are pretty confident” delivery will take place this year.

That view is echoed by Antonio Rodriguez-Barberan, senior commercial vice president, who suggests it could be a “late, late” 2012 handover."



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8272 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 14):
KC, where did you get that delivery has slipped from this year? This AW article has it as “late, late” 2012 handover."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/fla.htm

the 5th paragraph under A400M Cost and Schedule;

"A total of 184 aircraft had been ordered as of 2009 by Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. In November 2009 South Africa cancelled a multi-billion dollar contract for eight A400Ms, citing escalating costs and delivery delays. The aircraft was due to enter service with air forces in 2009, but this has now been put back to 2013. "


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8177 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
If the June engine incident is not resolved soon, I expect the deliveries to slip another 3-6 months, or so
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
EADS military does like to down play incidents involving test flights for military aircraft. We have this A-400M engine incident, and we also have the RAAF KC-30 Boom loss incident that was not fully explained
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Well, an RTC is a little short of a full civilian certification, and it is about 5 months late. Is there a problem?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The no occupants apart from minumum crew and no loads in the cargo comp. implies a structual design problem.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
France is scheduled to get 3 A-400Ms next year (it has slipped from late this year, again

Boy, you must be really really hating this thing . . . . so much negativerty from one poster in a thread of only 15 replies.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
the 5th paragraph under A400M Cost and Schedule

Note sure if a two year quote is really helpful here.

Just to make myself clear. I really do appreciate your very constructive posts when techinical merits of many US (military) aircraft are discussed. It's a real shame that not even a very tiny portion of that constructivity could be applied to foreign aircraft.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7863 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Well, I guess Tom Enders won't be allowed to jump out of one now.

Isn't the flight test equipment in the cargo compartment? The no occupants apart from minumum crew and no loads in the cargo comp. implies a structual design problem. But I have not heard of any.

I take these remarks as strictly tongue in cheek: of course test flights aren't subject to RTC restrictions. The RTC wording only implies that the A400M isn't yet cleared for any meaningful civil commercial operations.

The RTC is however an important intermediate milestone in the course to full certification, and also means that a A400M could now file a regular (non-test) flight plan, provided it's just hauling itself and a two-pilot crew. Not really useful, but no mean feat in itself.

On the other hand, in my opinion the article quoted by TopBoom is still remarkably accurate two years after publication: "late, late 2012" sounds pretty close to 2013. I take it to mean that Airbus Military finally acted up on this programme and isn't building up fresh delays (catching up on previous delays would be much more difficult, but nobody really expected them to).

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):
I really do appreciate your very constructive posts when technical merits of many US (military) aircraft are discussed.

+1


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7595 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):
Boy, you must be really really hating this thing . . . . so much negativerty from one poster in a thread of only 15 replies.

No, I don't hate the A-400M, I just don't see any real need for an airlifter that fits between the C-130J and the C-17A. BTW, if you read many of my F-35 program replies, you will see I am not a fan of that program, either. Both the A-400M and F-35 programs are troubled, both are extremely late and over costs for minimal gain in capability.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):the 5th paragraph under A400M Cost and Schedule
Note sure if a two year quote is really helpful here.
Quoting jollo (Reply 17):
On the other hand, in my opinion the article quoted by TopBoom is still remarkably accurate two years after publication: "late, late 2012" sounds pretty close to 2013.

The 2 year old story still seems to be accurate. Also, an EASA RTC was never planned for the program, it was suppose to get a full civilian certification late in 2011, and a military certification by late this year. Now that schedule seems to be delayed, again. That means the A-400M program is still, at least 4 years late, double the delay of the A-380 and 25% longer than the B-787.

Quoting jollo (Reply 17):
The RTC is however an important intermediate milestone in the course to full certification, and also means that a A400M could now file a regular (non-test) flight plan, provided it's just hauling itself and a two-pilot crew. Not really useful, but no mean feat in itself.

I agree, it is not very useful to have a RTC. Since the program was never planned to get an RTC, it does make one wonder just what is going on.


User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7591 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
No, I don't hate the A-400M, I just don't see any real need for an airlifter that fits between the C-130J and the C-17A. BTW, if you read many of my F-35 program replies, you will see I am not a fan of that program, either. Both the A-400M and F-35 programs are troubled, both are extremely late and over costs for minimal gain in capability.

...at least there is light at the end of the tunnel for the A400M? The F35 still seems a fair way away from that...

For those who can't afford both the C130J and the C17A, there is sense in having the A400M.
If it comes at the right price, so the number of export sales it can achieve will be how the overall success of the program is measured.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3390 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7539 times:

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 19):
If it comes at the right price, so the number of export sales it can achieve will be how the overall success of the program is measured.

The right price left the building years ago. So did its market when the vehicles that it was supposed to carry either got too fat, too heavy, or too canceled for the A400M.

The brutal fact that while it made some sense if you were looking to develop your own native airlift program back in the day, its no longer that day. Price per frame has climbed while performance has fallen. So instead of splitting the C130 and C17 market you are now providing less than 1/2 a C17 payload for more than 1/2 the cost.


User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7500 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
The right price left the building years ago. So did its market when the vehicles that it was supposed to carry either got too fat, too heavy, or too canceled for the A400M.

...we shall see, only time will tell.

Do not confuse the current per-airframe price paid for by the partner nations (which includes all the NRC et al to amortize the program) and the price it could be sold at export (which would be far less - especially if volume can be achieved).

No-one outside of the program and the partner nations really knows the production cost of the aircraft... and that would give a better idea of the price it could be offered to new buyers...


User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7419 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
Over 20 years in development, a unit price tag of $136 million each.
Compared to the C-130J, very much modernized, very well proven airplane, for $65 million a pop.

The A400 is a tiny bit faster, has about the same range, and carries about 50% more cargo. Is it worth double the price?

And still looking financially safe when compared to the JSF program.



Having just read a history of Col. John Boyd and the book Pentagon Paradox (about the F-18 program) I have no confidence in the US military procurement process.


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3373 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7386 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
That means the A-400M program is still, at least 4 years late, double the delay of the A-380 and 25% longer than the B-787.

It's not really fair to compare a civilain programme with a military one, I'm not sure I can think of a recent military programe that wasn't ridiculously late or eventually cancelled. We've already mentined the F-35 but there's also the Nomrod MR4 that was also called the Nimrod 2000 ( that being the expected EIS date) this was eventually scrapped in 2010 with no aircraft delivered.....


User currently offlinejollo From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7375 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
Since the program was never planned to get an RTC, it does make one wonder just what is going on.

Not a secret: the first production-standard specimen (and last of the development fleet), MSN6 aka "Grizzly 5", was delayed for a couple of months by an engine problem (first flight planned for october 2011, took place in late december 2011), so the 300-hours endurance test flight programme required for full certification has slipped to mid-2012. But the paperwork was ready, so I guess Airbus preferred to get a RTC asap rather than waiting till July sitting on empty hands.

A p.r. exercise? I don't know. A worrying new development? Not at all: the delay was already known since the end of last year, and the claim that it will have no impact on (the latest re-scheduling of) delivery date is (still) credible.

Besides, 2 months hardly register on the program-management-crap-o-meter on top of a 4 years delay....

BTW, RTC is still a relatively new concept for EASA (introduced in 2010) and not many aircraft are currently flying under one, but it's definitely useful in some specific cases.

[Edited 2012-05-30 05:44:20]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7365 times:

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 19):
...at least there is light at the end of the tunnel for the A400M? The F35 still seems a fair way away from that...

  

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 21):
Do not confuse the current per-airframe price paid for by the partner nations (which includes all the NRC et al to amortize the program) and the price it could be sold at export (which would be far less - especially if volume can be achieved).

Also do not forget each newly ordered A-400M for an export customer will carry at least an E5 MILLION Euro price addition to help repay the loaned E600 MILLION Euro for export orders (the first 120 exported airplanes).


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1587 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6984 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):

Boy, you must be really really hating this thing . . . . so much negativerty from one poster in a thread of only 15 replies.

      It is really annoying all this bashing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):

No, I don't hate the A-400M, I just don't see any real need for an airlifter that fits between the C-130J and the C-17A.

You don't believe that yourself. Tell that to the country's who bought it wanted it that way for some billions.

It's not that Airbus just made a design for pleasure. The C-130 is a obsolete platform, and the C-17 is too big for some operators.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

posting this link on a problem with testing is not intended as bashing...
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...400m-has-rough-time-during-la.html

basically it says there was a problem with the unpaved runway trials and either the field wasn't prepared properly, or it was too wet... ?


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6867 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 26):
The C-130 is a obsolete platform

Now thats just silly!

Perhaps, you were referring to a specific model... C-130A/B/E??

You couldn't mean the C-130J, C-130J-30, AC-130J, EC-130J, HC-130J, KC-130J, MC-130J or WC-130J.   


If you are do, maybe you should inform... India, Iraq, Israel, South Korea, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Tunisia, Qatar and the USAF & USMC that they have "Obsolete" A/C on order.

And tell LM to skip the proposed 7% fuel burn improvement project as it would likely be a waste of their time??  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1587 posts, RR: 9
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6780 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 28):
Perhaps, you were referring to a specific model... C-130A/B/E??

You couldn't mean the C-130J

It is obvious they are all obsolote up to the J.   That's why they are no longer in production.

Even the J is not really up to date(some updated Systems, Glass Cockpit, Carbon Fiber Blades that's all), and why it was not a option for Germany, France, Spain, UK, etc..



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6518 times:

Hi


Airbus posted a video of a little publicity stunt performed by the 5 A400M test aircraft flying in formation over Toulouse yesterday :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u64TKSbPYdw

It may be too big/too small/too fast/too slow/too expensive/too not-certified/too certified/too european/too french/too-whatever-you-want (    ), but at least it can make some cool videos !   



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6482 times:

Sweden went for the C17, the A400 wasn't that great for our needs, wonder why?

User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6407 times:

Just noted the link I posted looks strange (https), but too late to edit it
Here is another link to the same vid :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u64TKSbPYdw



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6005 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The no occupants apart from minumum crew and no loads in the cargo comp. implies a structual design problem.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
the new EASA document has some different specs... Like:

MTOW before = 141,000 kg. MTOW in RTC now = 137,500 kg. Difference = 3,500 kg. less.

You are reading way too much into the RTC. An RTC is, as the name says, restricted. It allows to operate with restrictions, among which are apparentyl a lower MTOW and no cargo. Likely because the full envelope of max brake tests, MLW landings etc have not been completed, the cargo loading system is not yet certified, etc. Nothing to do with structural problems.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
an EASA RTC was never planned for the program, it was suppose to get a full civilian certification late in 2011, and a military certification by late this year.

That is true. Missing the original certification milestone of end 2011, I guess Airbus wanted to get some type of certification out, which at the current status could only be a restricted one.

Quoting jollo (Reply 24):
the 300-hours endurance test flight programme required for full certification has slipped to mid-2012. But the paperwork was ready, so I guess Airbus preferred to get a RTC asap rather than waiting till July sitting on empty hands.
Quoting jollo (Reply 17):
The RTC is however an important intermediate milestone in the course to full certification, and also means that a A400M could now file a regular (non-test) flight plan,

Correct. The RTC is probably 50% PR, but the other 50% is quite important from an engineering & certification perspective. It means the overall design of the aircraft is validated, meets EASA rules and can perform normal, non-test flights (even if without any useful functionality yet). This allows to tick off a lot of boxes and close a lot of paperwork in the certification program. Airbus no longer needs to "prove the aircraft can fly" and can concentrate on certifying the functionality of all the systems that make it a cargo aircraft rather than an empty test frame.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5833 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 27):
or it was too wet... ?

So, it will be able to operate from unprepared fields when it rains?

Quoting autothrust (Reply 26):
The C-130 is a obsolete platform, and the C-17 is too big for some operators.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 28):
Now thats just silly!Perhaps, you were referring to a specific model... C-130A/B/E??You couldn't mean the C-130J, C-130J-30, AC-130J, EC-130J, HC-130J, KC-130J, MC-130J or WC-130J. If you are do, maybe you should inform... India, Iraq, Israel, South Korea, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Tunisia, Qatar and the USAF & USMC that they have "Obsolete" A/C on order.
Quoting autothrust (Reply 29):
It is obvious they are all obsolote up to the J. That's why they are no longer in production.Even the J is not really up to date(some updated Systems, Glass Cockpit, Carbon Fiber Blades that's all), and why it was not a option for Germany, France, Spain, UK, etc..

Wrong, the UK was the launch custoer for the C-130J and C-130J-30. LM has not been sitting on their hands for the C-130J. I take it you have not heard about Harvest Hawk? I take it you don't know the C-130J and -30 have 14 international customer in addition to the USAF, USMC, and USCG ither on order or already delivered? There have been more than 300 C-130Js ordered and about 238 delivered, as of 31 Dec.

There rae more customers and orders for the C-130J than for the A-400M. Even the C-17 has out sold the A-400M, with 262 ordered, plus 6 options (for India) with some 230 already delivered.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
So, it will be able to operate from unprepared fields when it rains?


wasn't able to extract a definite yes/no out of the article... however I can see the Generals pondering "do we send in La Grizzlette and get stuck, or send in those damn American planes.."   


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5828 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
however I can see the Generals pondering "do we send in La Grizzlette and get stuck, or send in those damn American planes.."

              


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A400M Certification Update
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 Update posted Tue Oct 29 2002 09:00:41 by LMP737
Easa Grants Initial A400M Type Certificate posted Thu May 3 2012 11:09:31 by RebelDJ
C-5M Update For Travis AFB posted Thu Apr 19 2012 18:23:57 by hawaiianhobo
Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money? posted Sat Dec 3 2011 08:24:14 by B17GUNNER24
A400M Maintenance Contract Hurdle posted Thu Oct 27 2011 03:32:46 by breiz
DO-178B Certification For .. Spacecraft? posted Tue Jul 19 2011 18:47:20 by boacvc10
A400M TP400-D6 Turboprop Gets Civil Certification posted Sat Jun 4 2011 11:27:56 by Revelation
General A400M Discussion Thread posted Sat Jan 8 2011 11:29:42 by moderators
A400M Flight Test Thread posted Sat Jan 8 2011 11:27:46 by moderators
Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M? posted Sat Sep 11 2010 00:29:10 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format