Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Will Be A Sitting Duck At Farnborough  
User currently offlinekatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11328 times:

Quote:
Airbus is pulling Europe's A400M airlifter out of flying displays at next week's Farnborough Airshow due to continued engine problems, forcing it to sit out popular annual stunts for the second year running, industry sources said.
http://news.yahoo.com/engine-woes-ag...mo-sources-185411080--finance.html

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11215 times:

They slid first delivery to March 2013 as well.

They had only made it half way through the endurance testing when they had to stop due to metal chips found in the Avio gear box. They are on hold until they find the cause.

This continues to be a very troubled program. Good luck to them. Sounds like they need it.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...re-as-a400m-delivery-slips-to-2013


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10979 times:

The troubled A-400M military aircraft program is only challanged with delay after delay, cost increase after cost increase, and reduction in capability by the equilly failed F-35 program.

User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10820 times:

Lets see now.
During WWII the B-29 was designed, brought into production, and went into combat in less than 3 years. How many crews were lost because of unreliable engines, including Boeing's chief test pilot. Granted that was war and a different time. But the complexity of the R3350 in that day has to be similar to the engine and prop combination on the A400 today. Those early R3350s maybe lasted 50-100 hours. It was not considered unusual at all to change an engine. Not so today, these engines are expected to stay on wing for thousands of hours. How often does an engine on a C-130 get changed because the chip detector showed metal in the gear box? No body is watching those aircraft with this kind of attention. As I recall the JT-9 engines on the original 747s were a nightmare in development but ultimately ended up being very reliable engines.
The standards today are much higher and the bar is being raised every day. In the past you would have simply changed the engine and continued on, now it is considered a failure. Not so, product develpment at this level and these standards is incredibly challenging. If the auto industry had to meet these standard we would all be walking or riding bicyles. A simply family car would cost a million dollars.
I can't think of a single new aircraft that has launched in the last 15 years that came on line early and under budget. Everybody just better get used to it or lower your standards.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10640 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
and reduction in capability by the equilly failed F-35 program.

On the A400M it remains to be seen.

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 3):
The standards today are much higher and the bar is being raised every day. In the past you would have simply changed the engine and continued on, now it is considered a failure. Not so, product develpment at this level and these standards is incredibly challenging. If the auto industry had to meet these standard we would all be walking or riding bicyles. A simply family car would cost a million dollars.

Very well said.   

Some people still don't understand how much new technology on the A400 can be found and how complex it is.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 10569 times:

The biggest mistake was to develop the engine, the politicians went against Airbus on this and now Airbus is paying the price. This whole program smells of political stupidity, it will never get repaid.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10510 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):and reduction in capability by the equilly failed F-35 program.
On the A400M it remains to be seen.

It will never have the low level TFR Germany wanted for terrain following missions. It's tanker air refueling capability has been puch back several years, and to get that capability it needs more developement money.

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
The biggest mistake was to develop the engine, the politicians went against Airbus on this and now Airbus is paying the price. This whole program smells of political stupidity, it will never get repaid.

Correct. EADS originally wanted to put a Canadian built engine on the A-400M, but the French politicians wanted (demanded) the engine be buit in Europe. At the time, the consortium that built the engine didn't exsist, nor was there any engine built in Europe that could be improved to power the A-400. Europrop, the consortium put together to develope and build the engine originally proposed the TP400-D1 engine until it was proven to be to heavy and the SFC was higher than what EADS wanted. So, Europrop with on the develope the TP400-D6 engines (11,000 shp) we have today on the A-400.

Pratt & Whitney Canada originall proposed a 10,000 shp turboprop engine called the PW-180, which was a version of the PW-10X program. This engine has been further developed into what is now called the PW-800 series engines, which has been further developed into the PW-1000G family of GTF engines.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10481 times:

Here are some more details about the issue and its impact:

Quote:

“We found metallic chips in one of the gearboxes and the origin is not yet identified,” said Maggie Bergsma, a spokeswoman for Airbus Military.

The discovery of shavings has interrupted testing, pushing back a multi-week production trial required for the European Aviation Safety Agency to certify the aircraft. Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautics, Defence & Space Co., aimed to deliver its first A400M to France this year.

Airbus already revised its delivery schedule to its lead customer to the end of March after initial setbacks. The latest gearbox problem arose on one of the four engines on the A400M undergoing a 300-hour function and reliability endurance flight test. Airbus has completed 160 hours of the program so far. The troubled engine has been replaced, though the test can only resume once the cause of the problem is determined.

Ref: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-a400m-delivery-slips-to-2013.html

The timing is most unfortunate.

A week ago, Airbus announced both A380 and A400M would be in the flying demonstration at Farnborough.

Now they have to pull out the A400M on the eve of the air show, just like they did last year at Paris.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10110 times:

AFAIK the A400M engine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest turboprop engine ever built. It is by far not trivial to design a gearbox, which on one hand can handle the torques and speeds involved and on the other hand be as light and compact as possible.

I think though that Airbus should have let the Canadians in to provide for an alternate engine instead of betting the house on the one RR engine. IMO it was mostly politics involved there, to save / create jobs at RR.

Jan


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7221 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10060 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 4):
Some people still don't understand how much new technology on the A400 can be found and how complex it is.

Let's see, this is still an engine turning a propellor, the basic of this is essentially unchanged since first designed, the biggest change has been turbines, so methinks they are trying to complicate things too much. ATR's and Bombadier props fly the world over every day, they appear to be re-inventing the technology rather than perfecting.

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
The biggest mistake was to develop the engine, the politicians went against Airbus on this and now Airbus is paying the price. This whole program smells of political stupidity, it will never get repaid.

A contributing factor no doubt

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
AFAIK the A400M engine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest turboprop engine ever built. It is by far not trivial to design a gearbox, which on one hand can handle the torques and speeds involved and on the other hand be as light and compact as possible.

The Russians had a very large turbo-pro pax a/c that did trans-continental runs with contra-rotating props to boot, it was probably just as large.

Personally, I think engineers today want to prove their mettle with each and every thing that they do, imagine how easy it would be to design the Concorde or the SR-71 today with all the high speed computers and software available, should be out the gate within 12 months, the longest thing would be the actual building of the a/c and the engine. Today with all this technology the design phase takes just as long as long as building the initial a/c, go figure.


User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9996 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
AFAIK the A400M engine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest turboprop engine ever built.

Actually the Russian Kuznetsov NK-12MV used on the Tu-95 and Tu-142 is the most powerful turboprop engine ever produced. It is rated at 15,000 ehp.

That being said I'm sure its on-wing time is nowhere close to what Europrop is striving for in the TP400.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9941 times:

Politics aside, my intent was to point out how difficult product development in aerospace has become. There certainly were other choices available like the Antonov or a combination of C-130/C-17. The EU partners decided to spend their people's money at home even if it ended up costing more in the end the money stayed in the EU. This is a very basic economic principle keep the money local don't spend it overseas or even the next town over.

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9888 times:

I'm not too sure about the name change either. Didn't Hercules make a fool out of Atlas?


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9887 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
AFAIK the A400M engine is one of the biggest, if not the biggest turboprop engine ever built. It is by far not trivial to design a gearbox, which on one hand can handle the torques and speeds involved and on the other hand be as light and compact as possible.

And it seems that the Soviets where the only ones who have ever gotten counter-rotating technology to work correctly.

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 10):
Actually the Russian Kuznetsov NK-12MV used on the Tu-95 and Tu-142 is the most powerful turboprop engine ever produced. It is rated at 15,000 ehp.

That's the one.......maybe the EU should have bought a de-rated version for the A-400 

Actually I am sure they are going to be eventually kicking themselves for not going with a turbofan.

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 11):
The EU partners decided to spend their people's money at home even if it ended up costing more in the end the money stayed in the EU. This is a very basic economic principle keep the money local don't spend it overseas or even the next town over.


Funny how they scream that the US is doing it with their tanker contract at the 767, but it is ok for them and the A400.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9828 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):

Let's see, this is still an engine turning a propellor, the basic of this is essentially unchanged since first designed, the biggest change has been turbines, so methinks they are trying to complicate things too much.

If you had noticed that high pitched vacuum cleaner noise when you were near a turbine, you might have thought that the gearbox needs to deal with a very big difference in revolutions per minute.

I suppose in your world everything scales in a linear fashion and the answer is to just make it bigger and everything will be fine, but that's not true.

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
Personally, I think engineers today want to prove their mettle with each and every thing that they do, imagine how easy it would be to design the Concorde or the SR-71 today with all the high speed computers and software available, should be out the gate within 12 months, the longest thing would be the actual building of the a/c and the engine.

I suspect engineers always have always wanted to prove themselves.

The main issues is that the bar has been raised.

You mentioned the Concorde, but didn't mention the Tu-144 "Concordeski".



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):

Never one to miss an opportunity, eh?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
Now they have to pull out the A400M on the eve of the air show, just like they did last year at Paris.

Have they? One was flying at RIAT today and probably tomorrow. Don't see why it can't fly 100 miles to Farnborough on Monday.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6661 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9737 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
Funny how they scream that the US is doing it with their tanker contract at the 767, but it is ok for them and the A400.

Well, it's the US that gives lessons in free markets, allow us not to follow but to still point out the hypocrisy. Of course outside of military stuff the EU is actually the most open market there is, and we're being screwed big time for that.

Besides, the A330 and 767 are much closer airplanes than the A400M is of either the C130 or C17. And do you think the US manufacturers/politicians would have agreed to put assembly lines in the EU, like Airbus was prepared to do in the US (and is actually doing anyway) ?

As for designing planes being longer now, it's easy enough to understand, we're doing incremental stuff instead of revolutionary, while demanding extreme efficiency and low maintenance, some things the first jets or the Concorde are not really renowned for.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9725 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 4):
Some people still don't understand how much new technology on the A400 can be found and how complex it is.

And the same can be said about the F-35.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9721 times:

People seem to think that, because we have super computers, designing, building, testing, and then producing a new airplane ought to be pretty straightforward. The problem is super computers can compute huge volumes of numbers and statistics at phenominal rates but they can't solve the technical problems that go hand in hand with advanced technology. Bear in mind that advanced technology means stepping out with a determination to leapfrog what should have been the next logical technical gain. In other words, advanced technology means we're exploring uncharted territory and though we suspect we understand what we'll find, the truth often proves how very wrong we were.

Keep in mind too that building a highly advanced military airplane isn't nearly the same as producing the next year's model new car, allowing that the new car is a complete remake of the existing model or is an entirely new design.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the farther we reach in our attempts to make technological gains, the greater the danger that the uncharted ground will be very unforgiving.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9696 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

looking at Farnborough pictures, it looks wet, so the problem (reported in a deleted thread) of landing on wet soils may be in play as well.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7221 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9686 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
If you had noticed that high pitched vacuum cleaner noise when you were near a turbine, you might have thought that the gearbox needs to deal with a very big difference in revolutions per minute.

Well I did mention turbines in my initial post, guess it was missed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
The main issues is that the bar has been raised.

Yes, no new supersonic pax a/c and the SR-71 is still unmatched, and the advances on the 787 are in simple form scaling up existing tech.
I have watched shows of sea planes in Alaska - Beavers - being converted to turbines, it is well established tech.
How much are they raising the bar on the turbine engines being deployed in the A400M, will other a/c that presently use turbines be able to benefit from the new technology?

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 18):
People seem to think that, because we have super computers, designing, building, testing, and then producing a new airplane ought to be pretty straightforward.

Well if we follow the last two major aviation programs - A380 and 787 - the software worked like a charm, the folks using the software were the problem, none of the delays were due to the software having difficulty completing its tasks.


User currently offlineB737200 From Malta, joined Feb 2005, 225 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9619 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
Well if we follow the last two major aviation programs - A380 and 787 - the software worked like a charm, the folks using the software were the problem, none of the delays were due to the software having difficulty completing its tasks.

Yes because the software crunches numbers, the people using the software need to see if what is coming out is making any sense and if the assumptions taken are valid, when you are dealing with new technology, with limited experience and understanding (because it is new) then this becomes harder.



Lady Guinness is ready to fly...
User currently offlineEZYAirbus From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2460 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9546 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
it looks wet, so the problem (reported in a deleted thread) of landing on wet soils may be in play as well.

Farnborough is a hard runway.....was pissing down at RIAT yesterday but it still got airborne and did a flypast with the RAF heavies then did a couple of solo passes



http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7221 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9505 times:

Quoting B737200 (Reply 21):
Yes because the software crunches numbers, the people using the software need to see if what is coming out is making any sense and if the assumptions taken are valid

Which becomes more difficult when the people in control of the software decide to use one version in one location, and another version in another location and expect the parts designed and influenced by the software to fit seemlessly when bought together.
Let's not talk about ensuring that all sites are working on the same templates, that for another thread.  


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9383 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 15):
Have they? One was flying at RIAT today and probably tomorrow. Don't see why it can't fly 100 miles to Farnborough on Monday

I was wondering about the same thing.

Quoting EZYAirbus (Reply 22):
was pissing down at RIAT yesterday but it still got airborne and did a flypast with the RAF heavies then did a couple of solo passes

The newly named Atlas (After the Greek giant) A400M (with the same origin as the name Hercules) performed well yesterday. It did a nice flyby and landed and used the propellers to stop the plane shortly after landing. So the issue with the gearbox cannot be the that pressing. Otherwise Airbus would not have flown it complemented with a relatively short landing.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently onlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3766 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9528 times:

Quoting oykie (Reply 24):
So the issue with the gearbox cannot be the that pressing.

I'm guessing a few bugs still need ironing out, but they'd rather simply not take the risk of having to cut a demo short and land with a feathered prop in such a public and internationally renowned show... They've suffered enough bad press as is.

I'm one of those who find the engine decision ridiculous though.
This is what happens when politicians have a go at building an aircraft.
Europrop is a political baby, born from the brains (reluctant use of the word) of European politicians who all wanted a piece of the pie. They first determined what percentage of the engine was going to be built by their local company and only then did they let them try to sort it out within the boundaries that had been defined for them.

Now all four of these companies have to somehow build a single, functioning, reliable, highly complex piece of technology by combining four different design philosophies from four different countries. It must have been a nightmare and probably came out being orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive than if it had been done in the normal industrial fashion...
Are the extra billions spent on the program really worth the relatively few jobs that were created? And since this is such a niche market, what will these companies gain from it when it is all over?

Anyway. They're still a bunch of really smart people. They'll sort it. Eventually.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9301 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):

It will never have the low level TFR Germany wanted for terrain following missions. It's tanker air refueling capability has been puch back several years, and to get that capability it needs more developement money.

Source please?



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9403 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 25):
Are the extra billions spent on the program really worth the relatively few jobs that were created? And since this is such a niche market, what will these companies gain from it when it is all over?

It helps the politicians to get votes in their district. They can show off how they created jobs.

Jan


User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1647 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9227 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 3):
I can't think of a single new aircraft that has launched in the last 15 years that came on line early and under budget.

The Boeing F/A-18 E/F.
The Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota. On time and under budget but not a "New" aircraft.



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9078 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 15):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
Now they have to pull out the A400M on the eve of the air show, just like they did last year at Paris.

Have they? One was flying at RIAT today and probably tomorrow. Don't see why it can't fly 100 miles to Farnborough on Monday


As per the thread starter:

Quoting katekebo (Thread starter):
Airbus is pulling Europe's A400M airlifter out of flying displays at next week's Farnborough Airshow due to continued engine problems, forcing it to sit out popular annual stunts for the second year running, industry sources said.

So it shall be flying the 100 miles, but it shall not be doing the "popular annual stunts for the second year running", sayeth the "industry sources".

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
If you had noticed that high pitched vacuum cleaner noise when you were near a turbine, you might have thought that the gearbox needs to deal with a very big difference in revolutions per minute.

Well I did mention turbines in my initial post, guess it was missed.

I guess the other point being missed is that not everything scales linearly. Many things like heat scale to the second power, not the first, and many other effects scale to even higher powers, so simple scaling just doesn't work.

If it did, we'd just scale the Cessna 150 up to the Airbus A380 and be done with it.

It'd be a first: 600-across seating!

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
Yes, no new supersonic pax a/c and the SR-71 is still unmatched, and the advances on the 787 are in simple form scaling up existing tech.

And the American SST never got past wooden mock-ups despite government support, and the Concordeski crashed twice before being relegated to supersonic cargo duty, and the FR/UK Concorde only flew due to massive government support that was never repayed. The stark reality is that while the idea of a SST is wonderful, the Concorde could only carry a 738's worth of passengers for not even 757 range while gobbling huge amounts of fuel and creating so much noise that it had to be exempted from noise regulations.

The SR-71 has been replaced because satellites and drones and the U2 perform its mission better and cheaper.

The bar has been raised.

The technology exists for nuclear powered aircraft and plans were being drafted, but saner minds prevailed.

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
I have watched shows of sea planes in Alaska - Beavers - being converted to turbines, it is well established tech.
How much are they raising the bar on the turbine engines being deployed in the A400M, will other a/c that presently use turbines be able to benefit from the new technology?

No idea, but I'm sure the makers would love to have someone come along with a new application for the engine and would be willing to pay as much as the EU taxpayers are paying for the engine.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9034 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 16):
Besides, the A330 and 767 are much closer airplanes than the A400M is of either the C130 or C17. And do you think the US manufacturers/politicians would have agreed to put assembly lines in the EU, like Airbus was prepared to do in the US (and is actually doing anyway) ?

Why would we build a plant in the EU just to build planes to then have to fly back to the US? Airbus isn't building this A320 plant for Asian or African or European airlines... They are building it for the airlines of the America's, but more importantly because of the greatly lower cost to build them here rather than in the EU.

If a European customer wanted enough planes that an entire production plant could sustain the production plus others, I have no doubt a US company would do it... But the climate for that to happen isn't there...

Also, the C-17 and C-130 are very late in their production lives. Additional line would be able to be sustained so there would be no gain to it.

And I remind you, this plant will be built, what, 5 to 10 years after it was supposed to be for the tanker program?



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
As per the thread starter:

Yes, I did read that.   

I also asked a perfectly reasonable question. If the A400M is performing "popular stunts" at another air show immediately before Farnborough, why it can't perform them at Farnborough?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
So it shall be flying the 100 miles, but it shall not be doing the "popular annual stunts for the second year running", sayeth the "industry sources".

As it happens, it's only 50 miles from Fairford to Farnborough, my bad. One also has to question "industry sources" that don't know that Farnborough runs every other year (so is not an annual event) and that the A400M DID fly at the last Farnborough show.

Anyway, I'll be there tomorrow and will report.

[Edited 2012-07-09 14:27:04]


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8941 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 31):
Yes, I did read that.  

  

Quoting scbriml (Reply 31):
I also asked a perfectly reasonable question. If the A400M is performing "popular stunts" at another air show immediately before Farnborough, why it can't perform them at Farnborough?

The various articles above seem to distinguish between simple fly-bys versus much more strenuous "flying demonstrations" which presumably the "stunts" are a subset of.

I think many of us have seen videos (if not the real deal) of such "flying demonstrations" and know they are a lot more than fly-bys.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...riat-a400m-reborn-as-atlas-373861/ says that A400M was on "static display" at RAIT.

Do you know if it did more than fly-bys at RAIT?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 31):
One also has to question "industry sources" that don't know that Farnborough runs every other year (so is not an annual event) and that the A400M DID fly at the last Farnborough show.

The 2nd sentence of the article says:

Quote:

The move repeats a decision at last year's equivalent event outside Paris, but is not expected to disrupt plans to deliver it to its first customer, France, around the end of the year.

So the "second year running" statement gets clarified shortly thereafter.

Hope you enjoy Farnborough tomorrow!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 12):
I'm not too sure about the name change either. Didn't Hercules make a fool out of Atlas?

Why did they change the name?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A J Best




Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):
Do you know if it did more than fly-bys at RAIT?

It certainly looked like it to me through the rain, yes. It seemed to be the normal demo, then it participated in a flypast with the RAF.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8739 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 33):
Why did they change the name?

Not really a change. It didn't have an official name before.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10898 posts, RR: 37
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8718 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
looking at Farnborough pictures, it looks wet, so the problem (reported in a deleted thread) of landing on wet soils may be in play as well.

Beautiful pictures of yesterday's official opening ceremonies at Farnborough with the mighty XH558 Avro Vulcan now named 'The Spirit of Great Britain' doing a flypast with the Red Arrows.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-Arrows-Farnborough-Airshow.html

Show and tell: David Cameron was shown around an Airbus A400M airlifter by chief test pilot Edward Strongman

It did not look too wet. The storms stayed out of the area it seems.
I will be there Friday, maybe Saturday also. I hope nothing will keep XH558 from flying at the air show this weekend.

     



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 35):

Grizzly was pretty official. Press releases etc.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8609 times:

Apparently she made it there and is sat on the tarmac.

Quote:

The first production model of Airbus Military's A400M tactical airlifter is on display at the Farnborough Air Show in England.

Airbus Military, headquartered in Spain, said the aircraft – designated the MSN6 – will be on static display, which will allow potential customers to view its cargo hold.

The aircraft will not participate in flight demonstrations because of recent engine issues which are under investigation.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec.../UPI-76621341850064/#ixzz20Dn1utKu

As above, incredibly unfortunate timing two years in a row.

This can't be helping potential sales campaigns.

I wonder if the lessons learned about pricing via the Eurofighter "loss" in India will be applied to the A400M.

It's hard to see how, with the current plan of paying back some loans via revenue from future export sales.

[Edited 2012-07-10 05:23:00]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8466 times:

I still say the A400M was always an odd mix of requirements and goals. It looks like and is equipped like a very big tactical air-lifter. Like an overgrown C-130 class plane. But it has weights much more along the lines of a C-141. Russia is doing (or has been trying to do) something similar with the AN-70 but it has been an on and off program at best, though they did just order the thing again I suppose. For a group of nations that really had not built a plane anything like this it just seems like building a jet-engined transport would likely have been a good bit simpler.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6661 posts, RR: 11
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8385 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 30):
Why would we build a plant in the EU just to build planes to then have to fly back to the US? Airbus isn't building this A320 plant for Asian or African or European airlines... They are building it for the airlines of the America's, but more importantly because of the greatly lower cost to build them here rather than in the EU.

If a European customer wanted enough planes that an entire production plant could sustain the production plus others, I have no doubt a US company would do it... But the climate for that to happen isn't there...

Well, we were talking about European customers buying a bunch of C-130 and C-17 instead of making the A400M. Airbus was going to build the tanker for the US in the US (and EADS is building copters in the US for the US), so my question is would Boeing and Lockheed have built C-130 and C-17 in Europe for Europe ? Because if not, then that's a non starter.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 33):
Why did they change the name?
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 37):
Grizzly was pretty official. Press releases etc.

Maybe because that animal is north american ? Canada was offered the plane but bought in the US instead.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 39):
For a group of nations that really had not built a plane anything like this it just seems like building a jet-engined transport would likely have been a good bit simpler.

The A400M Atlas will replace the Transall C-160 which was built by France and Germany.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8338 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 39):
For a group of nations that really had not built a plane anything like this it just seems like building a jet-engined transport would likely have been a good bit simpler.

Wiki sez:

Quote:

The project began as the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) group, set up in 1982 by Aérospatiale, British Aerospace (BAe), Lockheed, and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) to develop a replacement for the C-130 Hercules and Transall C-160.[10] Varying requirements and the complications of international politics caused slow progress.

So the starting point was replacing the C-130 (i.e. a intra-theater airlifter) rather than going for something like a C-141 or C-17 (inter-theater airlifter). At the time, the customer's primary needs were based on the NATO - Warsaw Pact type of cold war scenarios. Now they find themselves in the unhappy scenario of buying an system to fight the last war, not the next one, and there's no backing away from it (although they could have called Airbus's bluff to walk away from it a few years ago).

I think one of the reasons the UK is so happy with its C-17s is that their roles in the Middle East needed an inter-theater airlifter. Of course they're also happy that the USAF shook out all the bugs, unlike their unhappy early days with the C-130J.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8312 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
Apparently she made it there and is sat on the tarmac.

Yes, it didn't fly, which, given it's the very same aircraft that DID fly at RIAT two days ago, all the more confusing. In EADS position, I would have rather had it in the static at RIAT and flying at Farnborough. I don't know why they didn't ask me.  

In the static display it was close by a C-130J and made it look pretty small. It does look a beast.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8279 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):

So the starting point was replacing the C-130 (i.e. a intra-theater airlifter) rather than going for something like a C-141 or C-17 (inter-theater airlifter). At the time, the customer's primary needs were based on the NATO - Warsaw Pact type of cold war scenarios. Now they find themselves in the unhappy scenario of buying an system to fight the last war, not the next one, and there's no backing away from it (although they could have called Airbus's bluff to walk away from it a few years ago).

Nah, I know what it was originally going to do but there were no orders until 2003 so up until then they could have respecified the thing. It was 2002 before they knew they were going to need a new, bigger engine at which point I would think one might ask the question of if we are approaching this right. The need to build a new and unique engine for the thing has caused a lot of problems. Once you went to that size I think you have to consider something with jet engines you could have bought off the shelf.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8218 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 42):
Yes, it didn't fly, which, given it's the very same aircraft that DID fly at RIAT two days ago, all the more confusing. In EADS position, I would have rather had it in the static at RIAT and flying at Farnborough. I don't know why they didn't ask me.

I'm still not sure what kind of flying it did at RIAT.

The source I listed above said it just did flybys, which are in essence circuits displaced a bit, not the max-g loading you'd see in a "flying demonstration".

Quoting scbriml (Reply 42):
In the static display it was close by a C-130J and made it look pretty small. It does look a beast.

I'm sure it's a wonderful aircraft to crawl around.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 43):
Nah, I know what it was originally going to do but there were no orders until 2003 so up until then they could have respecified the thing.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 43):
It was 2002 before they knew they were going to need a new, bigger engine at which point I would think one might ask the question of if we are approaching this right.

Not really, IMHO. Four different governments would all have to agree to change direction at the same time.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 43):
The need to build a new and unique engine for the thing has caused a lot of problems. Once you went to that size I think you have to consider something with jet engines you could have bought off the shelf.

I don't know what the tradeoffs would be. I guess the turboprops have better short field performance but I could be wrong on that.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8168 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
EADS originally wanted to put a Canadian built engine on the A-400M, but the French politicians wanted (demanded) the engine be buit in Europe.

I seem to remember that is exactly what you and many US politicians advocated in regards to USAF tankers.

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
Let's see, this is still an engine turning a propellor, the basic of this is essentially unchanged since first designed, the biggest change has been turbines, so methinks they are trying to complicate things too much. ATR's and Bombadier props fly the world over every day, they appear to be re-inventing the technology rather than perfecting.

The basic technology is the same but the requirements are drastically different.They need to scale up power without scaling up fuel, maintenance, etc. Actually they are required to improve them despite that all low hanging fruit has been picked long time ago. Thus they need significantly more advance technology to reach the acceptable performance levels. It is the way it should be but it is not simple. Certainly not just scaling well known technology.

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
The Russians had a very large turbo-pro pax a/c that did trans-continental runs with contra-rotating props to boot, it was probably just as large.

But very noisy, horrible fuel consumption and I expect unacceptable maintenance requirements.

Quoting par13del (Reply 9):
Personally, I think engineers today want to prove their mettle with each and every thing that they do, imagine how easy it would be to design the Concorde or the SR-71 today with all the high speed computers and software available, should be out the gate within 12 months, the longest thing would be the actual building of the a/c and the engine. Today with all this technology the design phase takes just as long as long as building the initial a/c, go figure.

Designing to the same technology level would be done in no-time. Design to acceptable technology level is as big or bigger challenge today.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 40):
Well, we were talking about European customers buying a bunch of C-130 and C-17 instead of making the A400M. Airbus was going to build the tanker for the US in the US (and EADS is building copters in the US for the US), so my question is would Boeing and Lockheed have built C-130 and C-17 in Europe for Europe ? Because if not, then that's a non starter.

Several US fighters used by European air-forces have been built in Europe. Many in Netherlands, some in Finland. I expect there are more examples.


User currently offlinegphoto From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 24
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 8095 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
I think one of the reasons the UK is so happy with its C-17s is that their roles in the Middle East needed an inter-theater airlifter. Of course they're also happy that the USAF shook out all the bugs, unlike their unhappy early days with the C-130J.

A fair swap maybe   We got fully matured C-17's from the off and we took the pain on the C-130J development for everyone else.

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Several US fighters used by European air-forces have been built in Europe. Many in Netherlands, some in Finland. I expect there are more examples.

Belgium, Italy and Germany have also produced US fighters in the past.

A number of American helicopter types were built over here as well. Many Sikorsky products were fully built or at least assembled in Europe. Apache's were assembled at Westland too, so not just transport types.

Sikorsky never seemed to have any problems with licensing their products to European contractors. Boeing seem much more reluctant (as is their right).

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8013 times:

Quoting gphoto (Reply 46):
Boeing seem much more reluctant (as is their right).

Boeing has two core competency. Large Aerospace System Engineering/Integration and Large Aerospace System Manufacturing. They would more likely fabricate their product using an in-country partner than license the product out right.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I seem to recall some planes or choppers being manufactured in Italy under Boeing license.

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7863 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 48):

Do you mean this?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...licopter-for-presidential-contest/

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 49):
Do you mean this?


no the other way around.. they were assembling Chinooks or something... and I could be wrong


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7672 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 50):
no the other way around.. they were assembling Chinooks or something... and I could be wrong

Augsta assembled Chinooks for the Italian Army and the Iranians.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7590 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 51):
Quoting kanban (Reply 50):
no the other way around.. they were assembling Chinooks or something... and I could be wrong

Augsta assembled Chinooks for the Italian Army and the Iranians.
http://www2.l-3com.com/wescam/pdf/me...oks%20-%20defence%20helicopter.pdf

"Italian Army Aviation received its first Boeing
CH-47C Chinook transport helicopters in August
1972 with deliveries from Elicotteri Meridionali
(EM) – a Frosinone-based Agusta affiliate –
which, in 1968, acquired from Boeing the right
to the co-production, marketing and servicing
of the helicopter for customers in Italy and
certain foreign countries."

Ah, 1968 . . . even for me, it's ancient history  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 53, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7532 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 52):
Ah, 1968 . . . even for me, it's ancient history

Yah, and I was spending my third year at Boeing


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A400M Will Be A Sitting Duck At Farnborough
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...
IR Footage Of F-22 At Farnborough posted Sun Jul 25 2010 10:34:23 by LimaNiner
Eye Catching Russian Display At Farnborough posted Tue Jul 15 2008 11:37:50 by GDB
Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough posted Thu Jul 3 2008 18:04:39 by EBJ1248650
Russian Part Of ISS Will Be Delayed posted Fri Apr 11 2008 07:11:04 by TheSonntag
Tornado Boys Will Be Boys posted Tue Dec 11 2007 19:43:37 by Cheshire
CNN V-22 At Farnborough Video... posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:25:52 by AirRyan
Why No KC-30 At Farnborough? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:14:36 by Solnabo
What Will Be The Next Heavy Transport Helicopter posted Thu Dec 23 2004 22:49:03 by Keesje
MMA Will Be 737-800ERX posted Sat Jun 19 2004 07:31:15 by N328KF
IAF: Phantoms Will Be Grounded posted Fri Jan 3 2003 18:41:42 by LY772

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format