Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

A400 Engine Selection

Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:26 am

Dougloid's comments way down on this thread and a thoughtful exchange between another member and I via IM whetted my interest as to the specifics of the engine competition for the A400. Boeing, Lawmakers Reject Splitting Tanker Order (by Keesje Aug 7 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

I didn't have much luck on my search via Google or old threads here on a.net. I found this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/fla.htm

Quote:
The TP400-D6 fully meets the required specification. The choice of the TP400-D6 was the result of an exhaustive evaluation of two separate engine proposals submitted by Pratt & Whitney Canada and EPI. EPI is a European joint venture company consisting of Rolls-Royce, Snecma Moteurs, MTU Aero Engines and Industria de Turbopropulsores (ITP), brought together to manage the programme. The TP400-D6 will be the most powerful turbo-prop engine ever produced in the western world and, combined with the aircraft's aerodynamic qualities, will make the A400M the world's fastest new-generation turbo-prop aircraft.

And this from everybody's favorite punching bag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M

Quote:
The selection of EuroProp's engines represented a contentious issue; until the 11th hour, Pratt & Whitney Canada had been perceived as the winning engine manufacturer on technical and cost merit. However, intense last-minute pressure from European governments and industry altered Airbus' stance and forced them to go with EuroProp's proposal.

Can anyone shed more light on what took place?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
texl1649
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:36 am

Aboulafia is a bit of a divisive figure in the industry, but I agree with his brief synopsis here;

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Articl...m?issuetocid=374&ArchiveIssueID=40

Big engine, big questions
The A400M engine selection by itself speaks eloquently about the state of transatlantic defense relations. The general perception, probably accurate, is that the North American bid never had a chance, and that Airbus’s objective in encouraging this bid was to pressure European engine contractors on price. The Pratt & Whitney Canada bid was about 20% lower than the EPI bid, and although EPI did not meet Pratt’s price, it came down enough for European politicians to help make the case for a European solution.

Yet EPI has a difficult ride ahead. The company, a consortium comprising Rolls-Royce (28%), France’s Snecma (28%), Germany’s MTU (28%), and Spain’s ITP (16%), must create the biggest turboprop ever built outside the old Soviet Union. The first engine is scheduled for delivery in August 2005, with a first flight in September 2007, a very aggressive development schedule.

The TP400 will be an all-new engine, unlike the original TP400 proposal, which was based around Snecma’s M88 core and rejected because of poor anticipated performance. Developing a new geared turbine in this size class—greater than 11,000 shaft horsepower—will have numerous risks attached. It is unlikely that EPI will make any money on this $2.8-billion contract. And, of course, there is the big risk that the A400M program will be shelved. But if the program succeeds, with production of about 800 engines, this work would be a considerable boost to the European engine industry.


C-130J
Still, subcontracting this engine to a non-European company would have spread risk and costs outside Europe. Pratt & Whitney Canada had proposed a well-defined project using the core of its PW800 jet, and the company is the historic market leader in turboprop engines (although Rolls-Royce manufactures the C-130J’s 4,600-shp AE2100, currently the largest turboprop engine). Pratt’s proposed A400M engine, the PW180, would have had a high degree of European content—about 75%, according to company officials.

One of the motivating factors behind a European engine selection was the same transatlantic tension that in part engendered the A400M itself. To be fair, the U.S. market has always been difficult for European industry. Yet the appearance of favoritism in this engine selection, along with a hasty rebuff to a North American competitor, will contribute to that tension. It can safely be assumed, for example, that Pratt’s sister company, Sikorsky, will have an easier time arguing that the U.S. should ignore any bids from European helicopter manufacturers until military contracts become a two-way street.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9081
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:31 am

I think the EPI & Canadian engines were both white paper proposals.

Maybe the P&W would have been a superior, cheap, on time & super efiicient engine.

Maybe not.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
LMP737
Posts: 4945
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:24 am

You mean politics play a part in procurement decisions?  Wink
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:31 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Maybe the P&W would have been a superior, cheap, on time & super efiicient engine.

Maybe not.

Keesje, are you saying that P&W Canada ( a very experienced engine manufacturer) would have built a better, more efficent, more reliable, and cheaper engine than EPI ( a new but inexperienced engine company) can in Europe?

Of course the decision on the engines most likely cost EADS/Airbus the Canadian cargo airplane order (they ordered the C-17 and C-130J over the A-400M).
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:43 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Of course the decision on the engines most likely cost EADS/Airbus the Canadian cargo airplane order (they ordered the C-17 and C-130J over the A-400M).

While this may be true, the impact isn't that great. Canada didn't buy many C-17s and it's not likely they'd have bought that many A400Ms.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:38 am

A bit OT, but has there ever been a military aircraft project as mismanaged as the A400M? This thing is as old as the ATF (F-22) and the Eurofighter, but unlike those projects, the A400 is still a paper tiger. All they have to show for it is some computer graphics, the same as the ones I saw in an aviation magazine 12 years ago. The An-70 is ahead of this thing by about 15 years already (are the Russkies getting good at copying Western designs or what?). Coincidentally, the An-70 is exactly what the A400 is going to become: a very nice airplane with no future. Only a thousand times cheaper.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:52 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 6):
the A400 is still a paper tiger.

At least the engine is in testing.
http://www.europrop.aero/pages/tp400/default.html

Quote:
The TP400-D6 engine, which is being designed and manufactured to power the new Airbus A400M military transport aircraft, continues to undergo extensive performance and operability tests throughout Europe on EPI partners' indoor and outdoor facilities. A total of ten TP600-D6 engines will be built and tested for certification. To date, the TP400-D6 engine has logged more than 300 hours of testing.

Here's a photo from the EADS website:

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/standards.html
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
texl1649
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:35 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7):
The An-70 is ahead of this thing by about 15 years already (are the Russkies getting good at copying Western designs or what?). Coincidentally, the An-70 is exactly what the A400 is going to become: a very nice airplane with no future. Only a thousand times cheaper.

I don't think Antonov had to copy EADS concept sketches in the late 80's to build the AN-70. As Europe has become more socialist it has self evidently come closer to Soviet-era economic efficiency, as exemplified by the 1982-2007 A400M project. I think they will build about 100-200 A400M's eventually, and it will probably be a good aircraft, with a nice niche. It's crazy management of projects like this that lead to the other side of the coin arguments though, such as "we need to buy the KC-767 because we don't want to buy a european aircraft."

If everyone had agreed to buy AN-70's (or license build them) 10-20 years ago...oh well. There's a down-side to trade inefficiencies, and it isn't just 1 small-ish buy of A-400M's by Canada.

There were actually charges that Airbus stole from the AN-7x program, actually.


"The An-70 is a unique aircraft superior to any other transport plane in its class. European aerospace monopoly that is Airbus was not so much concerned over losing the FLA* contract as it was afraid of letting Antonov on Western European markets and in particular on defense markets. Today some An-70 developers allege that Airbus "borrowed" many features of the An-70 for its A400M: in the end the "evaluation" of the An-7X by the DaimlerChrysler was not a complete waste of time for the German company. Europe's EADS is actively trying to attract some of the An-70 developers to working on the A400M program. These attempts will continue and already there are reports of various distinct technical solutions developed for the An-70 being applied to the A400M to make the aircraft more affordable."
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:18 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Of course the decision on the engines most likely cost EADS/Airbus the Canadian cargo airplane order (they ordered the C-17 and C-130J over the A-400M).



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 5):

While this may be true, the impact isn't that great. Canada didn't buy many C-17s and it's not likely they'd have bought that many A400Ms.

I think the CF were going to buy the C-130J no matter what. The real debate was C-17 or not. Gen. Hillier was not a big fan, wanted more C-130Js, but the Defense Minister basically told him what to do, hence 4 C-17s.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:05 pm

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 8):
I don't think Antonov had to copy EADS concept sketches in the late 80's to build the AN-70.

I was being sarcastic.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 8):
There were actually charges that Airbus stole from the AN-7x program, actually.

Yes there were, I'm one of the many people that voiced them, including on this forum a few years ago.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
than EPI ( a new but inexperienced engine company) can in Europe?

I would hardly call Rolls-Royce, Snecma and MTU new and inexperienced...
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
than EPI ( a new but inexperienced engine company) can in Europe?

I would hardly call Rolls-Royce, Snecma and MTU new and inexperienced...

They certainly aren't, but their success of working together is as yet undetermined. This is a clean sheet of paper design.


I haven't seen anything about who's taking the lead in the project. You also forgot ITP.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:45 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 12):
You also forgot ITP.

I am not familiar with them, so that's why I didn;t mention them. Rolls-Royce, Snecma and MTU work together all the time, as well as with other manufacturers. I mean, I'm not contesting if the P&W is a better engine or not, I am not famliar with the whole subject. I'm just pointing out you should not argue that P&W is better because supposedly these European OEMs are incapable, and that is a rubbish argument to start with.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9081
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:06 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 7):
At least the engine is in testing.

It has been in testing for more then a year.



I think this thread might introduce a feeling the engine is a problem / bad idea. I think it is an innovative 10.000hp giant that has the potential to power new aircraft in the future at unsurpassed fuel efficiency. New technology includes three shafts, a 5.3m diameter 8 bladed composite propeller, the newest combuster technology, a counter rotating hpt, 10.690shp, an Overall Pressure Ratio of about 25:1 and a Rotor Inlet Temperature of roughly 1500K.

Quoting LY744 (Reply 6):
the An-70 is exactly what the A400 is going to become: a very nice airplane with no future.

 Confused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M#Orders

Some folks recently discovered a mean machine is born again at the wrong side of the Ocean but I can´t wait to see test pilots taking the Fly-by-Wire A400M in the air at Paris 2009.. The An-70 already showed what is possible with so much power installed..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:55 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 12):
You also forgot ITP.

Apart ITP is also pretty experienced, they did build alone the 3D Thrust Vectoring Nozzle of the EF for example.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:19 pm

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 15):
Apart ITP is also pretty experienced, they did build alone the 3D Thrust Vectoring Nozzle of the EF for example.

thx for the info, didn't know that. So kuddo's for TP as well then!
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4328
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:35 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 12):
This is a clean sheet of paper design.

And I think this is not a bad thing at all. Why use an outdated engine when building the first all-new transport plane for the last 25 years, except of the C-17?

The EJ 2000 engine for the Eurofighter in fact became one of the best engines ever designed in Western Europe. I have little doubt we will see a great engine once again.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:12 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 13):
I mean, I'm not contesting if the P&W is a better engine or not, I am not famliar with the whole subject. I'm just pointing out you should not argue that P&W is better because supposedly these European OEMs are incapable, and that is a rubbish argument to start with.

Fine.

Direct your criticism at the people who made the argument if anyone did. I did not.

If (as you say) you're not familiar with the subject, how can you say "Well, this is rubbish-that isnt."? I mean, if you're not familiar with it you're not familiar with it, right?

Since you bring it up, P&W Canada did make a proposal for the A400M engine project and it would have come in at 20 per cent less than the product that was ultimately selected for political reasons.

P&W Canada does know what they are doing AND their business is in large part series production of substantial turboprop engines. They have a history of developing and marketing one successful engine project after another and have built literally thousands and thousands of turboprop engines that deliver economical and robust service every day of the week. Of all the turbine engines described in my 1963 edition of Wilkinson's Aircraft Engines of the World the UACL PT6 is probably the only one still in series production in large numbers used for new installations (althought the T58 and T64 are probably still being made in small numbers).

That is what you call a "successful track record" that you can take to the bank.

Now. Europrop is a special purpose combine created to build one engine type which has no civilian counterpart. And although collectively, the partners possess extensive experience in the aero turbine engine field they have not yet worked together substantially, so the results of that collaboration are as yet undefined.

So who shot whom in the ass on the A400M engine selection? I mean, I don't care one way or the other. You're paying one dollar in every five for the privilege though. Or at least you were back when the selection was made.

No doubt the cost advantage that would have accrued is even more significant today than it was back when the engine was selected because it's in the dollar zone.

If that's a rubbish argument, take me to task.

[Edited 2007-08-28 16:27:24]
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:55 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 18):
If (as you say) you're not familiar with the subject, how can you say "Well, this is rubbish-that isnt."? I mean, if you're not familiar with it you're not familiar with it, right?

I'm not familiar with the A400M engine selection. I am familiar with 3 out of 4 companies involved in Europrop. All I was saying that KC135TopBoom had a lousy argument claiming they are inexperienced. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 18):
Now. Europrop is a special purpose combine created to build one engine type which has no civilian counterpart. And although collectively, the partners possess extensive experience in the aero turbine engine field they have not yet worked together substantially, so the results of that collaboration are as yet undefined.

So you're saying that trying something new is a bad thing? Or that cooperating with a new partner is necessarily a bad thing? Why would that matter? Companies work together all the time. New partnerships come to light all the time. According to your analogy, the only ones who should build airplanes nowadays are the wright brothers?
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:23 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
Quoting LY744 (Reply 6):
the An-70 is exactly what the A400 is going to become: a very nice airplane with no future.

Confused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M#Orders

Somehow that doesn't spell out success. If it wasn't for political BS, there would already be more examples of the An-70 in service with CIS countries than there are A400 orders. Speaking of political BS, we'll see what exactly comes out of the A400M in a couple years from now.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:58 am

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 19):
So you're saying that trying something new is a bad thing? Or that cooperating with a new partner is necessarily a bad thing? Why would that matter? Companies work together all the time. New partnerships come to light all the time. According to your analogy, the only ones who should build airplanes nowadays are the wright brothers?

Not "bad" but "unproven in practice". There is a substantial difference there.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:11 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
Not "bad" but "unproven in practice". There is a substantial difference there.

again, what does that tell you? There are many projects on the drawing boards that are still "unproven in practice" ,should for example the BWB research be canceled?
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4328
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:18 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
Not "bad" but "unproven in practice". There is a substantial difference there.

True, but so was the KC 135 design when it first came to be. Now they are still flying. I think when people are developing an all-new plane which is to be used for 40 years, it should consequently use modern technology.

However, I also agree with you that it is dangerous, if they don't manage to get it right, the defense capabilities are endangered, as these planes are needed now, not in 10 years.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:59 pm

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 22):
again, what does that tell you? There are many projects on the drawing boards that are still "unproven in practice" ,should for example the BWB research be canceled?

That's a foil. We're not talking about the BWB and I don't know a thing about it. I agree, research is nice, but that's not what we're talking about.


The development of an entirely new, special purpose, one off engine with no other uses by a consortium that, although the individual members have significant expertise have never worked together before should give pause for thought.

You and I simply have no idea how well they'll work together. I'm not saying that it bodes ill for the project but snags and delays will be part of that landscape. Rolls will make the hot end work, that's for sure, but getting the power from the output shaft through a gearbox and to a prop is a dicey business. Rolls has a bank of expertise here in the states on monster turboprops, which will come in handy, but the people doing the gearing are Fiat.

Developing a complicated new engine type is an enormously complex undertaking, even if all the constituencies work for the same employer. I did some work on the ATF3. Enough said about that.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23):
I think when people are developing an all-new plane which is to be used for 40 years, it should consequently use modern technology.

  

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):
which will come in handy, but the people doing the gearing are Fiat.

Fiat (today the're called Avio) do the gearing for every other aircraft-gasturbine in the world. All engine OEMS work with different suppliers and risk sharing partners all the time. Don't act like this cooperation is something new and risky.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):
Developing a complicated new engine type is an enormously complex undertaking, even if all the constituencies work for the same employer. I did some work on the ATF3. Enough said about that.

->

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23):
I think when people are developing an all-new plane which is to be used for 40 years, it should consequently use modern technology.

if that means certain partners teaming up, that's what's needed and it's no big deal. These people aren't stupid. There are people to manage all that. It's a separate science: it's called Systems Engineering. As long as people stick to their Gantt-charts etc.. The 787 is also built by a global team of companies who are working together for the first time.

[Edited 2007-08-29 17:12:11]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14496
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:58 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):

The development of an entirely new, special purpose, one off engine with no other uses by a consortium that, although the individual members have significant expertise have never worked together before should give pause for thought.

And yet we see it running on the test stand, do we not?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:03 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):

The development of an entirely new, special purpose, one off engine with no other uses by a consortium that, although the individual members have significant expertise have never worked together before should give pause for thought.


And yet we see it running on the test stand, do we not?

Quite true, you see *it* running on the test stand and not *them* hanging on a completed aircraft.

Just in the interests of accuracy, you understand.

Stick around for service bulletins lots of engine changes and mucho rework.

As a former engine mechanic for twelve years you can mark my words.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9081
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:16 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 27):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):

The development of an entirely new, special purpose, one off engine with no other uses by a consortium that, although the individual members have significant expertise have never worked together before should give pause for thought.

And yet we see it running on the test stand, do we not?

Quite true, you see *it* running on the test stand and not *them* hanging on a completed aircraft.

Just in the interests of accuracy, you understand.

Stick around for service bulletins lots of engine changes and mucho rework.

As a former engine mechanic for twelve years you can mark my words.

I think the succesfull CFM56, V2500, GP7000 and others prove that working together isn't always a problem, contrary best of both world's is an opportunity. ref CFM technology streaming into the GENX.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):
The development of an entirely new, special purpose, one off engine

I think that is to be seen. A compact brand new efficient 10.000 hp engine probably can play a role when fuel prices continue to rise & the A400M / C-17 are to big for the majority of the worlds airforces..

A 30ton tactical transport could use two TP400's.. A kind of large FbW high tech STOL Caribou/Transall...

I can image the A400M is too much to replace most C-130s in the US also, so probably a requirement will pop up rather sooner then later.. Probably Lockheed will form a consortium to protect it's position in this segment & a Boeing consortium will react.. Then they start looking for a real powerfull / efficient prop..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
than EPI ( a new but inexperienced engine company) can in Europe?

I would hardly call Rolls-Royce, Snecma and MTU new and inexperienced...

I would, they have never built an engine together.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 13):
Rolls-Royce, Snecma and MTU work together all the time, as well as with other manufacturers.

What engines have been built?
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:34 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
What engines have been built?

read and weep

Quote:
The EJ200 engine has been developed by Eurojet GmbH, in Munich which is owned by Rolls-Royce, MTU Aero Engines, Fiat Aviazione and ITP.

Who claimed again they never worked together?!
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5380
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:39 am

Quoting LY744 (Reply 6):
but unlike those projects, the A400 is still a paper tiger.

It's getting there.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...m-reaches-final-assembly-line.html

Quote:
"Work on the aircraft had been scheduled to start by late March, but was pushed back by five months while EADS Casa completed the assembly by July of a static test airframe at Getafe near Madrid as a risk-reduction measure. The decision to delay the start of final assembly was among several factors which have contributed to a revised schedule for the first flight of the A400M, with EADS in July confirming a new target of 'summer 2008'.

The programme's lead industrial partner has also hinted at the possibility of making late customer deliveries, although France is currently still scheduled to receive Europe's first of 180 aircraft in the fourth quarter of 2009. Late availability of the Europrop International TP400-D6 engine is also threatening the schedule for Airbus Military's flight test programme, which will be run from Seville and Toulouse, France."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:57 am

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 30):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
What engines have been built?

read and weep

Quote:
The EJ200 engine has been developed by Eurojet GmbH, in Munich which is owned by Rolls-Royce, MTU Aero Engines, Fiat Aviazione and ITP.

Who claimed again they never worked together?!

Why bother with a separate entity then?

Eurojet GmbH....are they the same as Europrop Intl? I mean, different cities, different projects, different partners.

From Europrop:

EPI Europrop International GmbH (EPI) is a Joint European Company of the four leading engine manufacturers in Europe. The shareholders of Europrop International are ITP (Spain), MTU Aero Engines (Germany), Rolls-Royce (UK) and Snecma (France).
EPI GmbH has it’s headquarter in Munich, Germany and an Engineering and Programme Liaison Office in Madrid, Spain, where the teams for engineering, programme & operations, commercial and integrated logistic support (ILS) work close together. Furthermore the location of the new office in Madrid allows EPI to have an instant contact with the customer Airbus Military S.L.* and the engine integration team led by EADS Casa.

Concentration of Airbus Military activities in Madrid led to the decision to close the EPI Liaison Office in Paris, France. Europrop International Madrid S.L. (EPI S.L.) was incorporated as a 100% subsidiary of EPI GmbH in October 2003. The object of EPI S.L. is the provision of management services on behalf of EPI GmbH, including the coordination of any engineering work and to ensure marketing activities with the customer for the TP400-D6 turboprop engine for the A400M aircraft and for other applications

EPI manages and coordinates the participating engine manufacturers' activities and has full responsibility to deliver the TP400-D6 engine to its customer, Airbus Military (AMSL). The work share allocation is based on the experience and technical capabilities of each of EPI's parent company.

The development and the production of the TP400-D6 Engine are major contributors to the evolution of the high technology aero-engine industry in Europe, and provide high value and highly skilled jobs for the participating companies. EPI is combining the best of European engine technology to meet Europe's strategic defence requirements. As a key player in the aeronautical propulsion sector, it aims to make a substantial contribution to the European defence industry.

From Eurojet:

Formed in 1986, EUROJET Turbo GmbH is the leading European military aero-engine consortium responsible for management of the development, production, support, maintenance, support and sales of the new generation EJ200 engine. The consortium comprises AVIO (Italy), ITP (Spain), MTU Aero Engines (Germany) and Rolls-Royce (United Kingdom). The company's headquarters are located in Hallbergmoos (near Munich).
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:12 am

obviously there are benefits of using this complicated organizations. I'm not a tax/organization/etc. specialist, but there most some reason
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4328
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 32):

Why bother with a separate entity then?

This is a long european tradition. Virtually all defense products in the last decades used entirely new companies, for example "Panavia" for the Tornado, Eurojet for the EJ2000, Turbo Union for the Tornado engine (which more or less is from Rolls Royce), and Eurofighter GmbH for the Eurofighter project.

I do not really know why this is the case, but I think it makes planning and organising easier. Another reason might be that the work share is different from project to project. In this case, the Eurojet GmbH might have a different ownership structure than the Panavia company.

It has simply been done this way for many years, and showed to be an efficient method...
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:01 am

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 34):
It has simply been done this way for many years, and showed to be an efficient method...

You know and I know that the road to hell is paved with "That's the way we've always done it." It's not a very good reason for anything unless it's liturgy.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4328
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:29 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 35):

You know and I know that the road to hell is paved with "That's the way we've always done it." It's not a very good reason for anything unless it's liturgy.

Certainly, but all of the projects I mentioned were succesful. It is not easy to get different countries to work together, so the legal and practical frameworks for the cooperation are complicated. Another reason ( I am only speculating at this point) for this way might be that if one partner withdraws from one project, this can be easier done if you have seperate companies for each project.

You can also see the same in the US. For example, look at the GP engine for the A380. Also there, an entirely new company was set up.

Still, the A400M and Eurofighter are not really examples of how to efficiently manage new projects. However, the Eurofighter has become a huge success, and maybe we will see the same for the A400M. Demand for airlift will rise in the next years, thats for sure.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:31 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 34):
This is a long european tradition. Virtually all defense products in the last decades used entirely new companies, for example "Panavia" for the Tornado, Eurojet for the EJ2000, Turbo Union for the Tornado engine (which more or less is from Rolls Royce), and Eurofighter GmbH for the Eurofighter project.

No company is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of THE continent,
A part of the main.
If a company be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
Each engine's birth enhances me,
For I am involved in aviation.
Therefore, send not to know
For why the company forms
It forms for thee.

(Sorry about that Mr Donne)
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:15 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 32):
Why bother with a separate entity then?

Taxation separation purposes and legal liability limitation - the individual cooperating companies are safe from litigation and pursuant of debt if it were to all go tits up.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:31 am

Quoting Moo (Reply 38):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 32):
Why bother with a separate entity then?

Taxation separation purposes and legal liability limitation - the individual cooperating companies are safe from litigation and pursuant of debt if it were to all go tits up.

See, now you're getting into my line of work and I can tell you that charade is not worth the paper it's printed on. If they stiffed the creditors nobody would do business with them again except on a cash basis.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Filton
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 4:54 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:16 am

On a related topic that doesn't warrant a new thread...

Has anyone got any pics of the C-130 that has been modified to test the A400Ms engine?

I know the aircraft was being modified by Marshalls Aerospace in the UK, but havn't been able to find any pics of it. I think it should be flying by now or at least sometime soon.

Would love to see a Herc with that mother of an engine bolted on!
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:10 am

Quoting Filton (Reply 40):
On a related topic that doesn't warrant a new thread...

Has anyone got any pics of the C-130 that has been modified to test the A400Ms engine?

I know the aircraft was being modified by Marshalls Aerospace in the UK, but havn't been able to find any pics of it. I think it should be flying by now or at least sometime soon.

Would love to see a Herc with that mother of an engine bolted on!

I may not be able to oblige you but I found this pic of an old bucket that used to be around Sky Harbor when it was AiResearch Aviation and all was right with the world.
Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 103kb
Airesearch test bed
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5380
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting Filton (Reply 40):
I know the aircraft was being modified by Marshalls Aerospace in the UK, but havn't been able to find any pics of it. I think it should be flying by now or at least sometime soon.

The latest photos of the testbed a/c available from the DB were still in its MET configuration. I couldn't find one with the TP400-6 engine mounted.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Freer - Touchdown-aviation

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
texl1649
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:18 am

Given that the B-26 was a deathtrap with one engine out (One a day in Pensacola Bay; Why is a B-26 like a Florida hooker? Because it has no visible means of support), I'm not too sure it was a great idea to throw that extra weight in the nose experimentally!
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:28 pm

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 43):
Given that the B-26 was a deathtrap with one engine out (One a day in Pensacola Bay; Why is a B-26 like a Florida hooker? Because it has no visible means of support), I'm not too sure it was a great idea to throw that extra weight in the nose experimentally!

The B26 was known to all and sundry as the Baltimore Whore for the same reasons.

I saw this old bucket a couple times in PHX. It was used as the flying test bed for the TPE331 turboprop engine and I never heard of the company having any trouble with it. Note the pitchup of the test engine.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:37 pm

France's defense minister notes a delay in the A400 reaching French forces. Engine problems.
UPDATE 1-France sees delay to European military plane

Quote:
Herve Morin's remarks, in an interview with newspaper La Tribune published on Monday, reflect growing fears that deliveries of the A400M will be hit by a flaw in its turboprop engines.
"There is a slight delay. It will reach our forces several months later than planned," Morin, who was appointed in May, told La Tribune.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:42 pm

Way off topic, but maybe of interest, Flight reports that the Russians are resuming production of the NK-12 engine!
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-for-russian-and-indian-bears.html

Quote:
Russia's Nikolai Kuznetsov's Samara Scientific Technical Complex (Kuznetsov SNTK) is resuming production of its NK-12 turboprop engine under orders from the Russian and Indian defence ministries as part of a re-engining programme for their respective fleets of Tupolev Tu-95 bombers and Tu-142 maritime surveillance aircraft.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:02 am

There are tons of examples of several European engine companies successfully working together, some of which have already been mentioned: RTM322, MTR390, Larzac, Adour, RB.199, EJ200.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
texl1649
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:11 am

Whoever designed the NK-12 should be enshrined in an aerospace museum somewhere. Incredible powerplant.

PS: I am shocked, shocked(!!), that the A400M program will be delayed further.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4328
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: A400 Engine Selection

Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:29 am

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 48):

Unlike the EF 2000, which really is nice, but not needed that desperately, the A400 is needed yesterday... Very bad that they are so slow, and hard to understand given how long they already are planning it.

I wonder what Germany will do about this, the Transalls are soon completely worn.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos