Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
First A400M Delivery Suffers Fresh Slip  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12840 posts, RR: 25
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7612 times:

Meanwhile, back in Tolouse:

First A400M delivery suffers fresh slip

Quote:

Airbus Military has slipped its delivery schedule for Europe's first A400M transport, with the French air force now expected to receive aircraft MSN7 during the second quarter of 2013. It had been contractually due to hand over the aircraft by 31 March 2013.

Looks like the champagne will need to be kept on ice till some time in Apr-Jun 2013.

The functionality and reliability tests were halted when metal chips were found in the engine, and the root cause was determined to be a crack in a cover plate, which is "a mechanical piece isolating elements within the propeller gear box", ergo the slip in the schedule as the fault was found and the cover plates were replaced on all engines.

As for the near future:

Quote:

While the French air force's first aircraft will be delayed, its manufacturer says it remains on track to hand over a total of four A400Ms next year: three for France and a first example for Turkey. This will follow the type's expected receipt of full civil type certification and initial operating capability status in the first quarter of 2013.

Airbus Military says its fleet of "Grizzly" development aircraft has so far amassed more than 3,700h during almost 1,250 flights. This marks a roughly 300h increase since its most recent figures, released in mid-June.

The company has, meanwhile, yet to disclose when it expects to perform the first flight of aircraft MSN7 from Seville, Spain. A previously-planned target date of 23 August was dropped as a result of the TP400 engine issue.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1603 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7361 times:

Really dissapointing. I am a big fan of the TP600 however with all this delays i have to ask if it wouldn't have been better to buy a PW engine even if it's less powerful and less efficient.


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7289 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 1):
Really dissapointing.

Your post made me think of the fact that Airbus calls their test birds Grizzly, which means grey-haired!

Given the problems they are having with them, perhaps they should be called Gristly instead?

Oh, well, they will get built sooner or later.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
Given the problems they are having with them, perhaps they should be called Gristly instead?


Maybe they should have called them "grisly" - same pronunciation as "grizzly", after all..   


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6855 times:

Wouldn't it have been easier, faster, and cheaper to send someone from the engine OEM with the new cover plates to replace them in Spain, rather than shipping the engines back to have the work done? For a program this late and overbudget you would think they would try to save some time and money.

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6653 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 1):
Really dissapointing. I am a big fan of the TP600 however with all this delays i have to ask if it wouldn't have been better to buy a PW engine even if it's less powerful and less efficient.

The PW engine could have been optimized. They didn't give it a chance.

NS


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6551 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 5):
Quoting autothrust (Reply 1):Really dissapointing. I am a big fan of the TP600 however with all this delays i have to ask if it wouldn't have been better to buy a PW engine even if it's less powerful and less efficient.

The PW engine could have been optimized. They didn't give it a chance.

Correct. The French government didn't want to loose any of the jobs to Canada, or any where other than the EU. It turn they lost a possible sale to Canada, who bought both the C-17A and the C-130J.


User currently offlineGRIVely From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6367 times:

Does anyone know what happened to our friend Keesje? He was always commenting on A400M developments but haven't seen him for awhile.

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6342 times:

Quoting GRIVely (Reply 7):
Does anyone know what happened to our friend Keesje? He was always commenting on A400M developments but haven't seen him for awhile.

Oh you don't have to worry about Keesje!

He is still banging the EADS/ A400m drum pretty hard... In fact he has comments today on one of the other websites that he frequents. And some funny replies to his comments...  

I'd post them, but I don't know if its allowed in the rules here...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6258 times:

So we know the first French airplane is delayed (France was scheduled to get 3 by thye end of 2013), Turkey was scheduled to get one airplane next year too. Is that also delayed, along with first deliveries to Germany, UK, Spain, etc.?

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6082 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 1):
Really dissapointing. I am a big fan of the TP600 however with all this delays i have to ask if it wouldn't have been better to buy a PW engine even if it's less powerful and less efficient.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 5):
The PW engine could have been optimized. They didn't give it a chance.

I would think if Airbus Military had stuck with the PWC 180 the A400M might well be in service today. Since it was based on an existing core it would not have had the protracted development issues that have plagues the Europrop engine. A purely political decision which may have cost Airbus an order from the CF (instead of the C-17/C-130J).



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6051 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
I would think if Airbus Military had stuck with the PWC 180 the A400M might well be in service today.

I agree with this statement. And I believe that more time and resources could have been utilized in other problem area's that were promised to begin with this A/C... Now, it's just a super expensive box carrier with no bells and whistles that were originally promised.



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1603 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5722 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 5):
The PW engine could have been optimized. They didn't give it a chance.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):

I would think if Airbus Military had stuck with the PWC 180 the A400M might well be in service today.

That could be the case, however the PWC 180 is neither so efficient, powerful or advanced as the TP400-D6.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5701 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 12):

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):

I would think if Airbus Military had stuck with the PWC 180 the A400M might well be in service today.

That could be the case, however the PWC 180 is neither so efficient, powerful or advanced as the TP400-D6.

A working engine in the air is better then a superior one in the shop.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5420 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 12):
That could be the case, however the PWC 180 is neither so efficient, powerful or advanced as the TP400-D6.

We will never know that because the PW-180 was not selected. My guess is if it were, the engine would have been upgraded in fuel burn and power. Still mich cheaper and less developement time than starting from one sheet of paper, from a JV that didn't exsist before about 2003, to form a company with just one product to one customer.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1603 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5026 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
We will never know that because the PW-180 was not selected. My guess is if it were, the engine would have been upgraded in fuel burn and power.

Again, the TP400 has the most advanced combustion system of any prop in the world, also the fuel efficiency is unmatched.

If you equip on a 737 this engine it would lower the fuel consumption to -30% at marginally lower service ceilling and speed.



“Faliure is not an option.”
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic First A400M Delivery Suffers Fresh Slip
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 Delivery Schedule posted Tue Apr 22 2008 10:11:12 by RedFlyer
The First A400M For Usaf Topic, Jan 2008 posted Wed Jan 30 2008 07:03:23 by Keesje
First A400M Composite Wing Complete posted Wed Nov 29 2006 16:32:37 by RichardPrice
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
TP400-D6 (for A400M) Completes First Test Flight posted Wed Dec 17 2008 05:51:36 by Zeke
First Turkish AF PEace Eagle On Delivery +pics posted Fri Nov 9 2007 00:03:00 by RobK
A400M- First Tail Plane Delivered. posted Wed Dec 20 2006 12:23:55 by WINGS
USAF Accepts Delivery Of First C-5M posted Wed May 24 2006 03:46:16 by KC135R
F-35 Milestone - First Successful Weapons Drop posted Thu Aug 9 2012 21:14:19 by ThePointblank

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format