Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M- First Tail Plane Delivered.  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4609 times:

The reception of the first A400M Horizontal Tail Plane took place today at the EADS CASA final assembly line in San Pablo (Seville).

This Horizontal Tail Plane was sent from the EADS CASA facilities in Tablada where it is produced, to the structural test facilities of the Final Assembly Line, where it will undergo a series of tests before its assembly on the aircraft.

Today’s event represents a special milestone for EADS CASA since this Horizontal Tail Plane is the first A400M component delivered to the Final Assembly Line where assembly, final integration, and flight test of the A400M will take place. This is a further demonstration that the A400M programme is continuing to fully meet its targets.

The Horizontal Tail Plane is constructed mainly of Carbon Fibre Composite Material and incorporates the most advanced materials, technologies and manufacturing processes resulting from the vast experience of EADS CASA in developing stabilizers. It has been designed and manufactured by EADS CASA in collaboration with Airbus Spain together with a number of other industrial partners including SACESA, SK10 and ICSA CTRM. The assembly and installation of the various systems is undertaken at Tablada using the most advanced jig systems, tooling and assembling processes.


http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/...20Aircraft/20061220_mta_a400m.html

http://www.eads.com/web/pressdbdata/en/1024/content/OF00000040950509/3/88/41512883.jpg

Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4543 times:

that's impressive... when are they going to fly one? they have the balls to sue canada to keep them from buying the C-17. will they finally offer and airplane that flys?


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4514 times:

Is A400 a thing between C-130 and C-17? Is it closer to C-17 than to a C-130? If you realy need a C-17,could you realy replace it with a A400?


It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineFilton From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 2):
Is A400 a thing between C-130 and C-17? Is it closer to C-17 than to a C-130? If you realy need a C-17,could you realy replace it with a A400?

C-130J

Payload: 41,790 lb (18,955 kg)
Range: 2,835 nm (5,254 km)
Cruise: Mach .58

A400M

Payload: 81,500 lb (37,000 kg)
Range: 1,800 nm (3,300 km)
Cruise: Mach .72

C-17

Payload: 170,900 lb (77,520 kg)
Range: 2,400 nm (4,440 km)
Cruise: Mach .77

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_airlift

Nearly twice the payload of a C-130J and half that of the C-17. A fair bit faster than the Herc, not much slower than the C-17 - not bad from a turboprop. You can also set the A400M down in a lot of places you couldn't put a C-17.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4509 times:

Quoting Filton (Reply 3):
You can also set the A400M down in a lot of places you couldn't put a C-17.

Right, though the A400M is still pretty much tactical (despite protestations from EADS) and the C-17 is definitely considered a strategic bird. And the C-17 can lift an M1 (or things of that caliber), far beyond what an A400M can do.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4464 times:

Quoting Filton (Reply 3):
Nearly twice the payload of a C-130J and half that of the C-17. A fair bit faster than the Herc, not much slower than the C-17 - not bad from a turboprop. You can also set the A400M down in a lot of places you couldn't put a C-17.

Not so bad for a turboprop indeed,Thank,s  Smile



It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3684 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4411 times:

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 2):
Is A400 a thing between C-130 and C-17?

As answered before, correct

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 2):
If you realy need a C-17,could you realy replace it with a A400?

If you need to get a MBT like a Leopard 2 or M1 into the battlefield, no.

I think C-17s and A400M complement each other perfectly. I think the US should buy some A400Ms, and Europe should buy more C-17s. Placing some C-17s under NATO command, like it is done with the AWACS, would be a great thing if you ask me.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4400 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 6):
I think C-17s and A400M complement each other perfectly. I think the US should buy some A400Ms, and Europe should buy more C-17s. Placing some C-17s under NATO command, like it is done with the AWACS, would be a great thing if you ask me.

Not a bad idea at all. With the FCA being procured in significant numbers, the USAF could use a larger tactical airlifter that would fill the gap between the FCA/C-130 and the C-17/C-5. However, with the WTO case heating up, given the reality of the politics involved is that, in my very humble opinion, no EADS aircraft--including the tanker--will be procured until this thing is settled.
Edit: Yes, I'm fully aware that EADS won the UH-72 competition. With the democrats in control of the Congress, the price of poker just went up--a lot!

[Edited 2006-12-21 01:30:04]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4359 times:

payload aside, the range simply sucks. it would have to be staged in-theater to get the most use out of it as a tactical xport. then again, with air-to-air refueling you can fly anywhere.


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

Quoting Cancidas (Reply 8):
payload aside, the range simply sucks. it would have to be staged in-theater to get the most use out of it as a tactical xport. then again, with air-to-air refueling you can fly anywhere.

The A400M's rage as stated above, refers to range at max payload, while the 5400km of the Herc seem a bit high. Maybe ferry range?. Additionally the A400M is capable of receiving fuel in the air. Hence the range isn't really a shortfall of the A400M ...


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 9):
Additionally the A400M is capable of receiving fuel in the air.

For that matter, so does the C-130. However, for some tactical operations, maybe you wouldn't be able to get refuelled in the air. Plus that's assuming that the operator has a large enough fleet of tankers (or any at all) to make it happen.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 9):
while the 5400km of the Herc seem a bit high.

Yes, the Lockheed spec sheet has it at 3,700nm max and drops it to 2,380nm with a 40,000lb load.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
For that matter, so does the C-130

Is it a factory option tho? The RAF fleet was delivered without refueling system installed and the RAF are installing and certifying it at the moment on the J models.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

Quoting Filton (Reply 3):
Nearly twice the payload of a C-130J and half that of the C-17. A fair bit faster than the Herc, not much slower than the C-17 - not bad from a turboprop. You can also set the A400M down in a lot of places you couldn't put a C-17.

A400M from wiki
Tactical Takeoff Distance: 940 m (3 080 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
Tactical Landing Distance: 625 m (2 050 ft) (see above)

C17 from wiki
The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,000 ft (900 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although this is rarely done due to the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft).

When I worked in product development on the C17 we were told that the mission of the C17 is to place a ready to fight MBT or equivalent cargo on a 5,000 foot unimproved airstrip. Point of fact, I was there during the entire construction of the first one through first flight, even though I didn't get over that side of the plant as often as I would have liked. And remember friends, it's a Douglas C-17. The only thing Boeing about it is the dataplate.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 9):
Additionally the A400M is capable of receiving fuel in the air. Hence the range isn't really a shortfall of the A400M ...

As long as you've got someone who can provide in flight refueling, right? Who you gonna call?


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4194 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 12):
The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,000 ft (900 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although this is rarely done due to the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft).

And then there's the proposed C-17B, which according to the WSJ (quoting Boeing), would be capable of landing on packed-sand beaches.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 2):
Is A400 a thing between C-130 and C-17? Is it closer to C-17 than to a C-130? If you realy need a C-17,could you realy replace it with a A400?

No



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4135 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 12):
Quoting PADSpot (Reply 9):
Additionally the A400M is capable of receiving fuel in the air. Hence the range isn't really a shortfall of the A400M ...

As long as you've got someone who can provide in flight refueling, right? Who you gonna call?

I forgot to add to this that, in such cases, it's not nice to piss off your Uncle Sugar....we got the flying gas stations.

Feliz navidad, y'all.


 Wink  Wink  Wink


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4130 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 15):
I forgot to add to this that, in such cases, it's not nice to piss off your Uncle Sugar....we got the flying gas stations.

So do the UK, Germany, France, Australia.........


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4094 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 16):
So do the UK, Germany, France, Australia.........

What's the count?


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4090 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
What's the count?

Enough to do what we want with them.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 18):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
What's the count?

Enough to do what we want with them.

So you say....what I was looking for, of course, was something with a little more depth than your answer offers....like a number.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4079 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 19):
So you say....what I was looking for, of course, was something with a little more depth than your answer offers....like a number.

The RAF has 26 air to air refuelers - 18 VC-10s and 8 Tristars. A large proportion of our 44 strong C-130 fleet has the ability to be converted quickly to tanker roles as well.

The RAAF has 4 B707 refuelers.

The Luftwaffe has 4 A310 MRTT refuelers.

The Royal Netherlands Airforce has 2 KC-10s.

France operates the KC-135, but I have been unable to determine exactly how many.

Italy has 4 B767 MRTT on order.

We arent dependant on the US airforce to supply us with fuel.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4078 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 20):

We arent dependant on the US airforce to supply us with fuel.

Who is "us"? Certainly not the non-U.K. forces you listed. Only the U.K. has sufficient air tanker assets to conduct more than token power projection.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4063 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 20):
France operates the KC-135, but I have been unable to determine exactly how many.

To answer my own - the French have 12 C-135FRs.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 21):
Who is "us"? Certainly not the non-U.K. forces you listed. Only the U.K. has sufficient air tanker assets to conduct more than token power projection.

How many of those airforces are likely to operate in a continued force projection mode outside of an American led theatre engagement? Dougloids comment had the tone of 'only the US can provide gas and therefor you are all reliant on the US' regardless of the situation, and thats what I took offence at.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4039 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
How many of those airforces are likely to operate in a continued force projection mode outside of an American led theatre engagement? Dougloids comment had the tone of 'only the US can provide gas and therefor you are all reliant on the US' regardless of the situation, and thats what I took offence at.

Don't take offence....you must learn the value of laughter.

It was a response to PADspot's comment about how range didn't matter with the A400M because it had in flight refueling capability.

I'd probably compare your list with the list of folks who are in line to get the A400M if the wikipedia list is accurate

Date Country EIS Orders
May 27, 2003 Germany 2010 60
May 27, 2003 France 2009 50
May 27, 2003 Spain 2011 27
May 27, 2003 UK 2010 25
May 27, 2003 Turkey 2009 10
May 27, 2003 Belgium 2018 7
May 27, 2003 Luxembourg 2017 1
December 15, 2004 South Africa 2010 8
July 15, 2005 Chile 2018 3
December 8, 2005 Malaysia 2013 4
Total: 195

That seems to suggest that there are a large number of A400s going to air forces without inflight refueling capability, as well as several countries on your list that have not ordered the A400M but who do have in flight refueling capability. Of course there are countries who have neither.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 23):
It was a response to PADspot's comment about how range didn't matter with the A400M because it had in flight refueling capability.

To cut a long story short, it's enough to say that all A400M are also designed as 3-point-tanker (including a 12ton add-on tank), i.e. once you have two you can potentially refuel yourself.

But as Richard said, A400M users have either themselves air tankers or have plenty of allies (even aside from the US) to provide sufficient air refueling capacity ... not really an issue.


25 Baroque : Just a question, how many tactical ops are going to need a range of more than 1800nm?
26 Dougloid : well, that's true if you know what 'sufficient air refueling capacity' is in every context, and that's far from a given for some of the people wh've
27 PADSpot : I can only think of South Africa and Malaysia in that context. And those are not really the countries who will regularly use their A400M in a more st
28 TheSonntag : In any case, the A400M is much better than the C-160 it replaces. My grandfather piloted one. He retired 1981, one year before I was born. When it was
29 Dougloid : The folks doing the A400M remind me of the coelacanth. That was a fish that was thought to be extinct for hundreds of millions of years because it ha
30 Baroque : But presumably, for longer distance flight, refueling missions could be mounted. So the range does not seem likely to impinge on many tactical operat
31 PADSpot : ... which is a 100% political problem. The development process of the A400M itself is amazingly fast, similar to that of the B787. Nice story though,
32 Dougloid : Pretty much self explanatory. When you're going about your business and keeping your own counsel and never promising things that maybe you can't deli
33 PADSpot : Ok, and who is now acting like this or supposed to act like this? Airbus? Sorry I am a bit slow on the uptake today ...
34 Post contains images Gary2880 : Alas i can't find a link but i'm sure i read an article not long ago regarding the USAF thanking the RAF for always being there for them with our infl
35 Post contains images Dougloid : I can think of a lot of things that would justify my arguments that I heard somewhere, just can't remember where or when....
36 Post contains links RichardPrice : What Gary is talking about is more a better match between our tankers and the US Navy borne aircraft than the US forces can provide - http://www.publ
37 Baroque : The quotes given by RP are probably the source, but I read similar material in Air International.
38 Spacepope : Seriously doubt it was the USAF. Unless the RAF has some boom equipped VC-10s hiding somehwere. USMC or USN maybe?
39 Post contains images Gary2880 : Pitty that ain't it? Thank you for the help Richard.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A400M- First Tail Plane Delivered.
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...
Poland's First F-16s Delivered (at Last...) posted Fri Nov 10 2006 16:20:54 by L410Turbolet
First 4 Eurofighters Delivered To Fighter Squadron posted Wed Jul 26 2006 23:50:47 by TheSonntag
First EH101 Delivered To Jap Marit. Self Def Force posted Fri Mar 3 2006 15:48:38 by 777
First Iris-T Serial Production Missile Delivered posted Tue Dec 6 2005 01:41:51 by TheSonntag
Turkey To Design & Manufacture First Plane posted Wed May 11 2005 10:22:44 by Virgin744
First Launch From Mid-Atlantic Spaceport posted Sat Dec 16 2006 05:08:48 by TZ757300
Mossie As Close In Support Plane? posted Sat Dec 16 2006 04:18:34 by MD11Engineer
US Army Receives First UH-72A Lakota posted Tue Dec 12 2006 21:08:40 by UH60FtRucker
First C5 Galaxy Arrives At It's New West Va. Home posted Mon Dec 11 2006 22:55:22 by Mainrunway
F-35 First Flight Imminent posted Wed Dec 6 2006 17:34:49 by RichardPrice

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format