breiz
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

A400M Certification Update

Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:44 am

It is reported that the A400M has now clocked 2,100 hours in more than 680 test flights.
The hot tests were carried out at Sevilla recently.
And the first high speed-low level flight is done.

The civil certification (from EASA) is now planned for the end of the year.

The present tests concentrate on the breaks (Toulouse and Istres), manoeuvrability and input to the flight manual.
MSN 006, the first one to be equipped with a standard cargo hold, will join the fray in December, a bit later than anticipated.

Still one remaining headache: the engine incident in June is not yet fully explained (design or fabrication?).

The first delivery to the French AF in for late 2012-early 2013. In 2013, 4 deliveries planned: 3 off for France and 1 off for Turkey.

Source: air-cosmos.com/defense
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:56 pm

If the June engine incident is not resolved soon, I expect the deliveries to slip another 3-6 months, or so.
 
breiz
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:21 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
If the June engine incident is not resolved soon, I expect the deliveries to slip another 3-6 months, or so.


In June, the CEO of Airbus Military, Domingo Urena, said "We have problems with the gearbox, but the test aircraft keep flying. We have very demanding flight-test requirements at the moment" meaning that the issue with the gearbox of the Europrop International TP400-D6 was not serious.

At the end of July, it was said that "...Europrop International (EPI) - the joint venture of Rolls-Royce, Snecma, MTU and ITP - has not yet identified the root case of an inflight pinion failure. The component is made by Avio."
It was then commented that "a major indicator of the effect the engine problem will have on the program is whether MSN6 - the fifth flight-test aircraft - begins trials as planned in October."
We now know that the fifth ac (MSN 006) will fly on December 22nd, 2011.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:20 pm

Well a pinion failure in the gearbox can become a dangerous situation, depending on what that pinion drives. But I have not seen much information on this incident to do more than guess.

EADS military does like to down play incidents involving test flights for military aircraft. We have this A-400M engine incident, and we also have the RAAF KC-30 Boom loss incident that was not fully explained.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:17 pm

Well, its been a while since we had an update...

The Article does cover the engine issues to date.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ne%20Issues%20To%202012%20Fielding
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:15 pm

Over 20 years in development, a unit price tag of $136 million each.

Compared to the C-130J, very much modernized, very well proven airplane, for $65 million a pop.

The A400 is a tiny bit faster, has about the same range, and carries about 50% more cargo. Is it worth double the price?
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:33 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
Over 20 years in development

That's some unusual counting. Will it be applied consistently?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
unit price tag of $136 million each

They will need to get more orders. Sadly this is not unusual at this stage. C17 had a unit price close to 0.5BUSD in today's money for a while.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
breiz
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:51 am

The A400M has now clocked more than 2,400 test flight hours covering 70% of flight control and avionics, 80% of electrical and hydraulic systems and 100% of capabilities. About 60 pilots from EASA, France, the UK, Germany and Turkey have handled the ac.
The civilian certification by EASA is on track for the end of this year/early next.
Rolls-Royce has identified the engine problem related to premature wear of the blades of the HP compressor linked to some acoustic resonance. The problem occurs only on the ground at low power. The solutions are a re-design of the flow in that part of the engine and a sotware twick to prevent the engine to enter the specific vibration settings.
The other issue which had prevented the A400M to fly at the Le Bourget airshow is also linked to acoustic vibration causing failure of a gear. Avio has now designed a stronger gear.
Spotters in Santiago and La Paz will be able to see the A400M during the FIDAE 2012 (March-April) and the hot and high tests to be carried out just after.

[Edited 2011-10-27 03:53:49]
 
Skyscribbler
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:04 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:42 pm

One more (icing) test flight to go before initial EASA Type Certification - according to interview with A400M Chief Test Pilot here....

http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospa...012/01/27/video-ed-strongman/6175/
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Sun May 20, 2012 11:12 pm

Its been a while since we have had any news on the A400M program... It recently received its RTC issued on 30 april 2012.

http://easa.europa.eu/certification/...A.169_Airbus_A400M-01-30042012.pdf

After reviewing this document, I noticed some differences in the original specs published by Airbus??

Now, I don't know if this is because of it being a "Restricted -type-certificate" Or if it is in fact changes to the A/C specs?

I checked AB's website and there appears to be some information missing (that was provided in the past) regarding some of the specs? In the past the AB website and Wiki were stating the same numbers... Now, the new EASA document has some different specs... Like:

MTOW before = 141,000 kg. MTOW in RTC now = 137,500 kg. Difference = 3,500 kg. less.
MLW before = 122,000 kg. MLW in RTC now = 117,700 kg. Difference = 4,300 kg. less.

OTOH, the AB website has kept the original payload and range numbers that were first published, before production started and any weight issues came up??

Does anyone have any new info regarding these weight changes?
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Sun May 20, 2012 11:28 pm

Quoting breiz (Reply 7):
The civilian certification by EASA is on track for the end of this year/early next.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
It recently received its RTC issued on 30 april 2012.

Well, an RTC is a little short of a full civilian certification, and it is about 5 months late. Is there a problem?
 
jollo
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Mon May 21, 2012 5:40 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
Now, I don't know if this is because of it being a "Restricted -type-certificate" Or if it is in fact changes to the A/C specs?

Well, the RTC also says "No other occupants apart of the minimum flight crew are allowed on board" and "No loads shall be carried in the cargo compartment", but I believe we shouldn't read these as spec revisions...

 
 
jollo
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue May 22, 2012 1:41 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Well, an RTC is a little short of a full civilian certification, and it is about 5 months late. Is there a problem?

Just published on Flightglobal:

Quote:
"We will fly extensively to recover some delay," says Cedric Gautier, Airbus Military's head of A400M programme, who expects the function and reliability activity to conclude in late June or early July. This should enable full civil type certification of the type to also be secured during July and initial operational capability to follow in August or September.


Looks like the delays are confirmed, but Airbus suonds confident they can catch up some.

Good news   
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue May 22, 2012 1:45 pm

Quoting jollo (Reply 11):
Well, the RTC also says "No other occupants apart of the minimum flight crew are allowed on board" and "No loads shall be carried in the cargo compartment", but I believe we shouldn't read these as spec revisions...

Well, I guess Tom Enders won't be allowed to jump out of one now.

Isn't the flight test equipment in the cargo compartment? The no occupants apart from minumum crew and no loads in the cargo comp. implies a structual design problem. But I have not heard of any.

France is scheduled to get 3 A-400Ms next year (it has slipped from late this year, again) and Turkey is scheduled to get 1.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue May 22, 2012 2:40 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
France is scheduled to get 3 A-400Ms next year (it has slipped from late this year, again) and Turkey is scheduled to get 1.

KC, where did you get that delivery has slipped from this year? This AW article has it as “late, late” 2012 handover."

"Despite delays in starting function and reliability testing because of problems with the TP400D engine, Airbus Military still believes it can deliver the first A400M airlifter to the French air force (MSN7) this year. The delivery process is to start in November, following a first flight nominally planned on August 23.

The delay in F&R testing was due to an engine change because of high vibration, which was linked to a problem in balancing the powerplant. Gautier sees that incident as a minor issue.

Of greater concern is a propeller gearbox failure that caused an engine shutdown on MSN4. The failure is different than one last year on the same component that set back flight testing. The root cause of the new event is still underway, but Gautier does not see the issue delaying first aircraft delivery.

The company has a contractual requirement to hand over the first aircraft before April 2013, but Gustavo Garcia Miranda, vice president for market development, says “we are pretty confident” delivery will take place this year.

That view is echoed by Antonio Rodriguez-Barberan, senior commercial vice president, who suggests it could be a “late, late” 2012 handover."
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Fri May 25, 2012 7:24 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 14):
KC, where did you get that delivery has slipped from this year? This AW article has it as “late, late” 2012 handover."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/fla.htm

the 5th paragraph under A400M Cost and Schedule;

"A total of 184 aircraft had been ordered as of 2009 by Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. In November 2009 South Africa cancelled a multi-billion dollar contract for eight A400Ms, citing escalating costs and delivery delays. The aircraft was due to enter service with air forces in 2009, but this has now been put back to 2013. "
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Sat May 26, 2012 12:47 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
If the June engine incident is not resolved soon, I expect the deliveries to slip another 3-6 months, or so
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
EADS military does like to down play incidents involving test flights for military aircraft. We have this A-400M engine incident, and we also have the RAAF KC-30 Boom loss incident that was not fully explained
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Well, an RTC is a little short of a full civilian certification, and it is about 5 months late. Is there a problem?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The no occupants apart from minumum crew and no loads in the cargo comp. implies a structual design problem.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
France is scheduled to get 3 A-400Ms next year (it has slipped from late this year, again

Boy, you must be really really hating this thing . . . . so much negativerty from one poster in a thread of only 15 replies.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
the 5th paragraph under A400M Cost and Schedule

Note sure if a two year quote is really helpful here.

Just to make myself clear. I really do appreciate your very constructive posts when techinical merits of many US (military) aircraft are discussed. It's a real shame that not even a very tiny portion of that constructivity could be applied to foreign aircraft.

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
jollo
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Mon May 28, 2012 11:56 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Well, I guess Tom Enders won't be allowed to jump out of one now.

Isn't the flight test equipment in the cargo compartment? The no occupants apart from minumum crew and no loads in the cargo comp. implies a structual design problem. But I have not heard of any.

I take these remarks as strictly tongue in cheek: of course test flights aren't subject to RTC restrictions. The RTC wording only implies that the A400M isn't yet cleared for any meaningful civil commercial operations.

The RTC is however an important intermediate milestone in the course to full certification, and also means that a A400M could now file a regular (non-test) flight plan, provided it's just hauling itself and a two-pilot crew. Not really useful, but no mean feat in itself.

On the other hand, in my opinion the article quoted by TopBoom is still remarkably accurate two years after publication: "late, late 2012" sounds pretty close to 2013. I take it to mean that Airbus Military finally acted up on this programme and isn't building up fresh delays (catching up on previous delays would be much more difficult, but nobody really expected them to).

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):
I really do appreciate your very constructive posts when technical merits of many US (military) aircraft are discussed.

+1
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue May 29, 2012 2:14 pm

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):
Boy, you must be really really hating this thing . . . . so much negativerty from one poster in a thread of only 15 replies.

No, I don't hate the A-400M, I just don't see any real need for an airlifter that fits between the C-130J and the C-17A. BTW, if you read many of my F-35 program replies, you will see I am not a fan of that program, either. Both the A-400M and F-35 programs are troubled, both are extremely late and over costs for minimal gain in capability.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):the 5th paragraph under A400M Cost and Schedule
Note sure if a two year quote is really helpful here.
Quoting jollo (Reply 17):
On the other hand, in my opinion the article quoted by TopBoom is still remarkably accurate two years after publication: "late, late 2012" sounds pretty close to 2013.

The 2 year old story still seems to be accurate. Also, an EASA RTC was never planned for the program, it was suppose to get a full civilian certification late in 2011, and a military certification by late this year. Now that schedule seems to be delayed, again. That means the A-400M program is still, at least 4 years late, double the delay of the A-380 and 25% longer than the B-787.

Quoting jollo (Reply 17):
The RTC is however an important intermediate milestone in the course to full certification, and also means that a A400M could now file a regular (non-test) flight plan, provided it's just hauling itself and a two-pilot crew. Not really useful, but no mean feat in itself.

I agree, it is not very useful to have a RTC. Since the program was never planned to get an RTC, it does make one wonder just what is going on.
 
chuchoteur
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:17 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue May 29, 2012 2:30 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
No, I don't hate the A-400M, I just don't see any real need for an airlifter that fits between the C-130J and the C-17A. BTW, if you read many of my F-35 program replies, you will see I am not a fan of that program, either. Both the A-400M and F-35 programs are troubled, both are extremely late and over costs for minimal gain in capability.

...at least there is light at the end of the tunnel for the A400M? The F35 still seems a fair way away from that...

For those who can't afford both the C130J and the C17A, there is sense in having the A400M.
If it comes at the right price, so the number of export sales it can achieve will be how the overall success of the program is measured.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue May 29, 2012 5:33 pm

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 19):
If it comes at the right price, so the number of export sales it can achieve will be how the overall success of the program is measured.

The right price left the building years ago. So did its market when the vehicles that it was supposed to carry either got too fat, too heavy, or too canceled for the A400M.

The brutal fact that while it made some sense if you were looking to develop your own native airlift program back in the day, its no longer that day. Price per frame has climbed while performance has fallen. So instead of splitting the C130 and C17 market you are now providing less than 1/2 a C17 payload for more than 1/2 the cost.
 
chuchoteur
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:17 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Tue May 29, 2012 10:00 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
The right price left the building years ago. So did its market when the vehicles that it was supposed to carry either got too fat, too heavy, or too canceled for the A400M.

...we shall see, only time will tell.

Do not confuse the current per-airframe price paid for by the partner nations (which includes all the NRC et al to amortize the program) and the price it could be sold at export (which would be far less - especially if volume can be achieved).

No-one outside of the program and the partner nations really knows the production cost of the aircraft... and that would give a better idea of the price it could be offered to new buyers...
 
Eagleboy
Posts: 1699
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Wed May 30, 2012 9:12 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
Over 20 years in development, a unit price tag of $136 million each.
Compared to the C-130J, very much modernized, very well proven airplane, for $65 million a pop.

The A400 is a tiny bit faster, has about the same range, and carries about 50% more cargo. Is it worth double the price?

And still looking financially safe when compared to the JSF program.



Having just read a history of Col. John Boyd and the book Pentagon Paradox (about the F-18 program) I have no confidence in the US military procurement process.
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Wed May 30, 2012 11:27 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
That means the A-400M program is still, at least 4 years late, double the delay of the A-380 and 25% longer than the B-787.

It's not really fair to compare a civilain programme with a military one, I'm not sure I can think of a recent military programe that wasn't ridiculously late or eventually cancelled. We've already mentined the F-35 but there's also the Nomrod MR4 that was also called the Nimrod 2000 ( that being the expected EIS date) this was eventually scrapped in 2010 with no aircraft delivered.....
 
jollo
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Wed May 30, 2012 12:19 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
Since the program was never planned to get an RTC, it does make one wonder just what is going on.

Not a secret: the first production-standard specimen (and last of the development fleet), MSN6 aka "Grizzly 5", was delayed for a couple of months by an engine problem (first flight planned for october 2011, took place in late december 2011), so the 300-hours endurance test flight programme required for full certification has slipped to mid-2012. But the paperwork was ready, so I guess Airbus preferred to get a RTC asap rather than waiting till July sitting on empty hands.

A p.r. exercise? I don't know. A worrying new development? Not at all: the delay was already known since the end of last year, and the claim that it will have no impact on (the latest re-scheduling of) delivery date is (still) credible.

Besides, 2 months hardly register on the program-management-crap-o-meter on top of a 4 years delay....

BTW, RTC is still a relatively new concept for EASA (introduced in 2010) and not many aircraft are currently flying under one, but it's definitely useful in some specific cases.

[Edited 2012-05-30 05:44:20]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Wed May 30, 2012 11:18 pm

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 19):
...at least there is light at the end of the tunnel for the A400M? The F35 still seems a fair way away from that...

  

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 21):
Do not confuse the current per-airframe price paid for by the partner nations (which includes all the NRC et al to amortize the program) and the price it could be sold at export (which would be far less - especially if volume can be achieved).

Also do not forget each newly ordered A-400M for an export customer will carry at least an E5 MILLION Euro price addition to help repay the loaned E600 MILLION Euro for export orders (the first 120 exported airplanes).
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:20 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 16):

Boy, you must be really really hating this thing . . . . so much negativerty from one poster in a thread of only 15 replies.

      It is really annoying all this bashing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):

No, I don't hate the A-400M, I just don't see any real need for an airlifter that fits between the C-130J and the C-17A.

You don't believe that yourself. Tell that to the country's who bought it wanted it that way for some billions.

It's not that Airbus just made a design for pleasure. The C-130 is a obsolete platform, and the C-17 is too big for some operators.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:18 pm

posting this link on a problem with testing is not intended as bashing...
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...400m-has-rough-time-during-la.html

basically it says there was a problem with the unpaved runway trials and either the field wasn't prepared properly, or it was too wet... ?
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:24 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 26):
The C-130 is a obsolete platform

Now thats just silly!

Perhaps, you were referring to a specific model... C-130A/B/E??

You couldn't mean the C-130J, C-130J-30, AC-130J, EC-130J, HC-130J, KC-130J, MC-130J or WC-130J.   


If you are do, maybe you should inform... India, Iraq, Israel, South Korea, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Tunisia, Qatar and the USAF & USMC that they have "Obsolete" A/C on order.

And tell LM to skip the proposed 7% fuel burn improvement project as it would likely be a waste of their time??  
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:56 am

Quoting mffoda (Reply 28):
Perhaps, you were referring to a specific model... C-130A/B/E??

You couldn't mean the C-130J

It is obvious they are all obsolote up to the J.   That's why they are no longer in production.

Even the J is not really up to date(some updated Systems, Glass Cockpit, Carbon Fiber Blades that's all), and why it was not a option for Germany, France, Spain, UK, etc..
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:57 pm

Hi


Airbus posted a video of a little publicity stunt performed by the 5 A400M test aircraft flying in formation over Toulouse yesterday :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u64TKSbPYdw

It may be too big/too small/too fast/too slow/too expensive/too not-certified/too certified/too european/too french/too-whatever-you-want (    ), but at least it can make some cool videos !   
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:26 pm

Sweden went for the C17, the A400 wasn't that great for our needs, wonder why?
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:05 pm

Just noted the link I posted looks strange (https), but too late to edit it
Here is another link to the same vid :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u64TKSbPYdw
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: A400M Certification Update

Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:28 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The no occupants apart from minumum crew and no loads in the cargo comp. implies a structual design problem.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
the new EASA document has some different specs... Like:

MTOW before = 141,000 kg. MTOW in RTC now = 137,500 kg. Difference = 3,500 kg. less.

You are reading way too much into the RTC. An RTC is, as the name says, restricted. It allows to operate with restrictions, among which are apparentyl a lower MTOW and no cargo. Likely because the full envelope of max brake tests, MLW landings etc have not been completed, the cargo loading system is not yet certified, etc. Nothing to do with structural problems.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
an EASA RTC was never planned for the program, it was suppose to get a full civilian certification late in 2011, and a military certification by late this year.

That is true. Missing the original certification milestone of end 2011, I guess Airbus wanted to get some type of certification out, which at the current status could only be a restricted one.

Quoting jollo (Reply 24):
the 300-hours endurance test flight programme required for full certification has slipped to mid-2012. But the paperwork was ready, so I guess Airbus preferred to get a RTC asap rather than waiting till July sitting on empty hands.
Quoting jollo (Reply 17):
The RTC is however an important intermediate milestone in the course to full certification, and also means that a A400M could now file a regular (non-test) flight plan,

Correct. The RTC is probably 50% PR, but the other 50% is quite important from an engineering & certification perspective. It means the overall design of the aircraft is validated, meets EASA rules and can perform normal, non-test flights (even if without any useful functionality yet). This allows to tick off a lot of boxes and close a lot of paperwork in the certification program. Airbus no longer needs to "prove the aircraft can fly" and can concentrate on certifying the functionality of all the systems that make it a cargo aircraft rather than an empty test frame.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:18 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 27):
or it was too wet... ?

So, it will be able to operate from unprepared fields when it rains?

Quoting autothrust (Reply 26):
The C-130 is a obsolete platform, and the C-17 is too big for some operators.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 28):
Now thats just silly!Perhaps, you were referring to a specific model... C-130A/B/E??You couldn't mean the C-130J, C-130J-30, AC-130J, EC-130J, HC-130J, KC-130J, MC-130J or WC-130J. If you are do, maybe you should inform... India, Iraq, Israel, South Korea, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Tunisia, Qatar and the USAF & USMC that they have "Obsolete" A/C on order.
Quoting autothrust (Reply 29):
It is obvious they are all obsolote up to the J. That's why they are no longer in production.Even the J is not really up to date(some updated Systems, Glass Cockpit, Carbon Fiber Blades that's all), and why it was not a option for Germany, France, Spain, UK, etc..

Wrong, the UK was the launch custoer for the C-130J and C-130J-30. LM has not been sitting on their hands for the C-130J. I take it you have not heard about Harvest Hawk? I take it you don't know the C-130J and -30 have 14 international customer in addition to the USAF, USMC, and USCG ither on order or already delivered? There have been more than 300 C-130Js ordered and about 238 delivered, as of 31 Dec.

There rae more customers and orders for the C-130J than for the A-400M. Even the C-17 has out sold the A-400M, with 262 ordered, plus 6 options (for India) with some 230 already delivered.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:35 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
So, it will be able to operate from unprepared fields when it rains?


wasn't able to extract a definite yes/no out of the article... however I can see the Generals pondering "do we send in La Grizzlette and get stuck, or send in those damn American planes.."   
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Certification Update

Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:49 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 35):
however I can see the Generals pondering "do we send in La Grizzlette and get stuck, or send in those damn American planes.."

              

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests