Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus A400  
User currently offlineAirworldA320 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Q1. Does anyone know when the A400M is due its first flight?
Q2. Will the A400 be sold/available to civilian operators as maybe a replacement for the Hercules?


Pull off kid, it ill go.
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

According to the EADS site the first flight is supposed to take place sometime in the 4th quarter of 2007. I'm not sure if they've cut any metal yet. Deliveries are supposed to begin in 2009.
http://www.eads.com/
I don't see why the A400 shouldn't be available for civilian operators, although they'll probably have to wait for deliveries.



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineAGM114L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

At www.airbusmilitary.com you would think the A400 is already flying. Talk about some good graphic artists.

Quoting the site,

On May 27th 2003, a contract was signed between Airbus Military and OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Matière d'Armement), representing Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey, and United Kingdom for a total of 180 aircraft. The industrial programme was formally launched on May 31st 2003. This will lead to a first flight in 2008 and a first delivery in 2009.

Germany - 60
France - 50
Spain - 7
UK - 25
Turkey - 10
Belgium - 7
Luxembourg - 1


User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 2):
At www.airbusmilitary.com you would think the A400 is already flying. Talk about some good graphic artists.

 eyepopping  That main...photo? artwork? is really sharp. Think the could slip one past our photo screeners here? LOL!



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting AirworldA320 (Thread starter):
Will the A400 be sold/available to civilian operators as maybe a replacement for the Hercules?

It depends on the economics of the aircraft.

There isn't a huge market for civilian speciality freighters, and what there is seems divided up between Russian products and ex-military Hercules aircraft at the moment. Boeing proposed the BC-17X based on the C-17 and this died a quiet death after a lack of interest. The operational economics and purchase cost of a civilian version were just not there for operators who need such a lifter.

The Hercules is probably the outstanding design success of the latter half of the 20th century when you consider it has spent over 50 years in production (er...well almost if not more! I'm sure it first flew in the late 1940s as a prototype). Achieving that balance of economics, cost and durability would not be easy to replicate and the A400M could be more tailored to its military role and not adapt easily to civil requirements.


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirworldA320 (Thread starter):
Q1. Does anyone know when the A400M is due its first flight?

Tuesday. Month and year not specified. Seeing that this program has been ongoing for 25+ years now, this isn't too flippant. Originally, it was supposed to replace the C-130, but it grew to become a C-17 competitor.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 4):
The Hercules is probably the outstanding design success of the latter half of the 20th century when you consider it has spent over 50 years in production (er...well almost if not more! I'm sure it first flew in the late 1940s as a prototype).

The C-130 first flew in 1954. Jack Real, the flight engineer on the first flight, died a couple of weeks ago.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 5):
Seeing that this program has been ongoing for 25+ years now,

Not really. Development of the A400M started in May 2003.

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 5):
Originally, it was supposed to replace the C-130, but it grew to become a C-17 competitor.

The A400M is much closer to the C-130 and does not really compete with the C-17.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:

Components have been in production for some time, however it is true that the political aspects of the programme were protracted, at one point, the UK left in disgust.
However, since coming under the wing of Airbus, things have started moving.

Simply put, the C-130J, which has the same fuselage cross section of legacy C-130's, has too many limitations in what it can carry (in recent times, both the UK and US have dropped a 'C-130 portable' requirement for new armoured vehicles).
C-17 has great capability, but at a very high cost, European airforces seeking a long overdue airlift enhancement could not afford them, not in any reasonable kind of numbers.

So, the A400M seems to be the answer, more capability the C-130J, at an affordable cost.

US complaints that European NATO airforces have poor airlift capabilities are fair comment, A400M should redress this somewhat.
Of course, the RAF with it's very heavy 'out of area' tasking, has leased C-17's, which they will buy, they will supplement and give more capability than the A400M's.

I understand South Africa is also a customer, certainly A400M is attracting attention beyond the nations involved in it's building, C-130J seems to go in and out of favour with the USAF, threatening long term production prospects, plus the unacceptably protracted delays in getting C-130J's fully operational, as the RAF have found.


User currently offlineAGM114L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 2):
Spain - 7

That should be 27 orders for Spain. Sorry about the disinformation.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 6):
Not really. Development of the A400M started in May 2003.

The A400M is the result of the Future Large Aircraft project which began in 1993.
Airbus won that competition with its A400M entry (vs. C-17 and C-130J) in 1999.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3521 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

There are many parallels between the crisis of the Eurofighter project and the "FLA (= A400M)".

Germany is responsible for the delays, as we considered buying the Ukrainian Antonov prop transporter (don't know the exact number). Only after pressure was applied, Germany committed to the A400m, if I remember correct.

While there is no doubt that Germany needs a replacement for its C160 fleet which is getting more and more work, I still think that buying some C17s or IL76 could have been a good idea. The A400m is a good aircraft, we need it, but we should also have bought some heavy lifting capability as well...


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 6):
Not really. Development of the A400M started in May 2003.



Quoting Thorny (Reply 9):
The A400M is the result of the Future Large Aircraft project which began in 1993.

FLA was the outgrowth of the Future International Military/Civil Airlifter project which started in December 1982. The partnering was originally BAe, Lockheed, Aerospatiale and MBB. Not quite 25 years, but still a long time wasting money.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 6):
The A400M is much closer to the C-130 and does not really compete with the C-17.

A400 max payload is 69,445 lbs. C-17 max payload is 169,000 lbs. C-130J max payload is 41,790 lbs. The A400 is 1.6x times a C-130J and .4x of a C-17, so the A400 really falls in the middle.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The engines seem to be delayed a few months.
http://www.flightinternational.com/A.../A400M+engine+testing+delayed.html

I you are interested how 4x11.000 shp props sounds:
http://www.planestv.com/vidclips/bearmidas.wmv

The A400 is a different league then Hercs & Transals..

The An70 mentioned above, also an impressing prop, why nobody buys it, dunno..
http://www.flightlevel350.net/viewer.php?id=2599


User currently offlineAR1300 From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 2):
Germany - 60
France - 50
Spain - 7
UK - 25
Turkey - 10
Belgium - 7
Luxembourg - 1

Add 4 for Chile to that list.The FACH just ordered them a few weeks ago.

Mike



They don't call us Continental for nothing.
User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
The An70 mentioned above, also an impressing prop, why nobody buys it, dunno..
http://www.flightlevel350.net/viewer...=2599

There's a long, storied history of gearbox troubles in aircraft with coaxial counterrotating props. They may well have it sorted on this aircraft, but that history would tend to make potential customers uneasy, I would think.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3521 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
The An70 mentioned above, also an impressing prop, why nobody buys it, dunno..

Germany wanted to buy it, but they came under huge pressure to "buy european". So it was considered as an alternative to the A400M. Therefore, much time was wasted, but one thing is for sure now, a new airplane is needed fast, as the C160s are starting to age...


User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 13):
Add 4 for Chile to that list.The FACH just ordered them a few weeks ago.

According to the following article they will buy "up to 3 aircrafts".



http://www.airbusmilitary.com/pressrelease.html#182005

pelican


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 32767 times:

German interest in the AN-70 was much more about politics than the needs of the services.
It looked good, but accidents and other problems have somewhat changed this, plus sticking western avionics in it, as well as other NATO standard equipment, would not have been cheap.

It taken too much time to be sure to get to A400M, but we'll likely get a good aircraft out of it, with good export prospects.


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I'm beginning to wonder if it might have been a better deal all round to buy the C-17K for the RAF instead.

Boeing proposed a British tailored version, with a possible re-engined version avaliable which used RB211 powerplants. It would certainly have been a much faster process. The proposed C-17K would have featured the long refuelling probe required by the RAF for strategic operations like the VC-10 and Nimrod have attached, plus an option for the aircraft to carry two outboard refuelling pods for light tanker duty.

I am also dubious about the engine supplier for the A400M. Whilst another Euro consortium may have been politically ideal, why not just place the contract with Rolls Royce? RR have decades of turboprop experience after all, many being high power models and the most successful military props in the world over at their Allison division.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3521 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 18):
I am also dubious about the engine supplier for the A400M. Whilst another Euro consortium may have been politically ideal, why not just place the contract with Rolls Royce? RR have decades of turboprop experience after all, many being high power models and the most successful military props in the world over at their Allison division.

No doubt that Rolls Royce makes great Turboprop engines, but this was a compromise. On the other hand, take the Eurojet engine for the Eurofighter. It is a really great engine, so maybe this is not as bad as it sounds.

But I agree that, while it is a good idea to develop the A400M, it would be smarter to have more C-17s.

The same applies for the GAF. Every day the GAF charters IL76 to supply the German troops in Afghanistan. Sometimes I ask myself why we don't have such a capacity ourselves, as we obviously need it!


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I agree with Whitehatter, we should have brought 10-20 C-17K, replacing the most worn C-130K's, refurbishing maybe 30-40 of the rest, skipping C-130J entirely, replacing the C-130K's remaining with A400M.

User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 10):
While there is no doubt that Germany needs a replacement for its C160 fleet which is getting more and more work, I still think that buying some C17s or IL76 could have been a good idea.

Pardon me for getting off on a tangent, but this is the first I heard the IL-76 and Luftwaffe mentioned together. Was this ever seriously considered? Ignoring NATO interoperability considerations for a moment, the IL-76 is a real workhorse. I presume you are referring to "new builds" with the PS-90A-76 engine? Russian and German relations seem to be good (for the moment) and it would have been a real coup for the Russian aviation industry--Germany could have driven one h*ll of a good deal!

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 19):
Every day the GAF charters IL76 to supply the German troops in Afghanistan. Sometimes I ask myself why we don't have such a capacity ourselves, as we obviously need it!

Is the charter done through Volga-Dnepr or some other outfit?

Sorry for getting OT.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3521 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 21):

Pardon me for getting off on a tangent, but this is the first I heard the IL-76 and Luftwaffe mentioned together. Was this ever seriously considered? Ignoring NATO interoperability considerations for a moment, the IL-76 is a real workhorse. I presume you are referring to "new builds" with the PS-90A-76 engine? Russian and German relations seem to be good (for the moment) and it would have been a real coup for the Russian aviation industry--Germany could have driven one h*ll of a good deal!

No, of course it was not seriously considered, and the GDR unfortunately did not have those either... But I think it is strange that we charter several IL76 a week to support our troops. So it obviously is suitable for the job. But this is just an idea brought out by me, so its not worth serious discussion  Wink...

The last GDR equipment left the Luftwaffe last year when we gave the Mig-29 away, so now we only have western equipment left...


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
I agree with Whitehatter, we should have brought 10-20 C-17K, replacing the most worn C-130K's, refurbishing maybe 30-40 of the rest, skipping C-130J entirely, replacing the C-130K's remaining with A400M.

I just want RAF Lyneham to remain open  Sad

Its going to be a sad sad day when those Hercs stop flying low over my house. They will be sorely missed.


User currently offlineAR1300 From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Pelican (Reply 16):
According to the following article they will buy "up to 3 aircrafts".

my mistake.Sorry.thx  Smile


Mike



They don't call us Continental for nothing.
25 Prebennorholm : This sort of programs often need a long time to gain momentum. One of the best examples is probably the C-17 itself. I took ages to evolve through th
26 Prebennorholm : RR is probably the world's only really successful producer of coaxial counterrotating prop engines. That includes the Avro Shackelton and a single en
27 TheSonntag : BTW, what about Denmark? Denmark has a long tradition of buying American equipment as far as I remember, so you bought the C130J, correct? Do you kno
28 WhiteHatter : The civilian AN-22 is a regular performer around the world, and are you forgetting the Bear? Another aircraft with contra-rotating props which has be
29 RichardPrice : The UK RAF has had a number of C-130J aircraft delivered and have experienced a lot of problems with them. As posted in another thread, the aircraft
30 Prebennorholm : Right Sonntag, Denmark went for the C-130J. But I'm not sure we ever had a tradition of buying American. During the Cold War, however, we had a "trad
31 Post contains links David L : The Fairey Gannet? "The Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba coupled turboprop engine boasted two independent power sections driving separate propellers."
32 Post contains links and images AeroVodochody : niiiiice cockpit!
33 MD-90 : The only plane that has been in continuous production longer is the Beech Bonanza, which first flew in 1947.
34 Post contains links Lumberton : According to this article, Malaysia is considering the A400. Airbus Expects A400M Major Contract Perhaps I should post the question on civil aviation,
35 Post contains links and images Keesje : Airbus sees sales of A400M military plane doubling EADS unit Airbus said it has the potential to export another 200 of its new A400M military cargo pl
36 Post contains links Dougloid : They're a great bunch of people in Indy, too. That was a good buy for RR. One time I was trying to locate a display engine, PWC had one but they didn
37 Keesje : If C-17 production stops and the new -J Herc's continue to receive mixed appreciation and remain at low production rates what will the options for an
38 Post contains links and images Kukkudrill : Or the Seafire Mk 47, which had this sort of arrangement: View Large View MediumPhoto © John Myers[Edited 2006-02-14 14:52:28]
39 Post contains links Sabenapilot : That's a pretty old article you dig up there! In the mean time,the Royal Malaysian Air Force ordered 4 A400Ms for delivery in 2013, bringing the tota
40 Dougloid : What it means is they better get their ass in gear and figure out what they're going to need ten years down the road and order it now.
41 David L : Yes, on reflection, the Gannet had twin engines with co-axial props... as stated in the snippet I quoted. Oops!
42 Columba : Taken from an Airbus press release: Airbus Military has today achieved its fifth contractual milestone on schedule with the successful demonstration r
43 RayChuang : Mind you, it took quite some time to get that engine to work reliably, though.
44 Dougloid : The Double Mamba sounds like a drink with one a those little parasols in it. Howevuh. I did dig out my copy of Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion by G.
45 Post contains links and images Keesje : At present, the production of 750 engines is envisaged for 180 A400Ms, which have already been ordered by the Nations taking part in the Consortium.
46 CX747 : Keesje brings up a valid point. If C-17 production ends, and the J model continues to get mixed reviews, what will Air Forces replace their older mode
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus A400
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...
Airbus Is In The Tanker Game posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:25:04 by Justloveplanes
Report: A400 Deliveries Delayed 18-24 Mos posted Wed Jul 19 2006 10:21:33 by Lumberton
Airbus A319 MPA posted Tue May 30 2006 14:30:52 by Flying-Tiger
Tanker Study Opens Boeing, Airbus Competition posted Sat Jan 28 2006 07:41:17 by Jacobin777
US Congress Removes Ban On US Mil Buying Airbus posted Fri Dec 30 2005 15:16:01 by UAL747-600
Airbus A400M posted Fri Dec 16 2005 14:22:08 by AirbusA346
Rnlaf Airbus A340 Awacs posted Fri Sep 30 2005 13:01:52 by Boeing777/747
Airbus A400 posted Sun Sep 25 2005 15:22:58 by AirworldA320
Airbus Plant In The U.S. For KC-135 Repacement. posted Sat Sep 24 2005 02:24:14 by 747400sp
Canada - Air Force Airbus CC-150 Polaris (A310-304 posted Sun Aug 14 2005 07:59:18 by DFORCE1
AirBus 330 - 243, Training Flight? posted Tue Mar 13 2012 11:46:36 by readytotaxi
France To Purchase Airbus A330MRTT posted Mon Jan 9 2012 19:33:02 by Stitch
Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money? posted Sat Dec 3 2011 08:24:14 by B17GUNNER24
Iran Forbid Overflight Of German Air Force Airbus posted Mon May 30 2011 23:09:43 by wilco737
Airbus C295 AEW posted Wed May 18 2011 14:31:48 by 328JET
A400 Cuts Coming? Eads Warns Don't Go Below 170 posted Fri Aug 6 2010 11:58:39 by Lumberton
(Airbus) C 295 ASW posted Fri Jul 23 2010 05:36:37 by 328JET
Airbus A400M Export Campaigns posted Tue Jun 22 2010 07:19:56 by keesje
Airbus Tanker Bid Pullout - Implications? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 05:46:19 by AirbusA6
Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400 posted Sun Jan 31 2010 05:33:23 by CMB56

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format