AirworldA320 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 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?
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 17 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.
AGM114L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 16 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.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 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.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12708 posts, RR: 80 Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours 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.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 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.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 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...
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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.
LeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
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.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 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...
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12708 posts, RR: 80 Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours 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.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 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.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 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!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12708 posts, RR: 80 Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 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.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 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".
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 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 ...
The last GDR equipment left the Luftwaffe last year when we gave the Mig-29 away, so now we only have western equipment left...
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 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
Its going to be a sad sad day when those Hercs stop flying low over my house. They will be sorely missed.
AR1300 From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 8 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
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 David L: The Fairey Gannet? "The Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba coupled turboprop engine boasted two independent power sections driving separate propellers."
33 MD-90: The only plane that has been in continuous production longer is the Beech Bonanza, which first flew in 1947.
34 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 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 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
39 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 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
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
That main...photo? artwork? is really sharp. Think the could slip one past our photo screeners here? LOL!
From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7796 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, 
... 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
