Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:03 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
If you didn't have a FADEC, you could not even start it !!!

My point exactly. So are the issues faced with the FADEC also the C-130's fault?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
Well its not flying is it ? so something it wrong with the test bed (which just happens to be a C-130H).

Are you sure there's something wrong with the test bed and not, in fact, with the engine and/or the FADEC?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 99):
It has to be a problem with the one off modification/integration of that engine into the test frame.

Are you certain that's the only plausible cause?

But, let's say that is the cause. If PW tried to mount their new GTF on a Gulfstream G-IV  Wow!, and the frame could not withstand it (which obviously it couldn't), I suppose that would point to a problem attributable to the G-IV. But then that would beg the question: who's the moron that picked the G-IV as a test bed in the first place and not a larger and more robust airframe? So I guess we should be wondering why the C-130 was picked for this monster powerplant and not, say, an An-12 or even an An-70?

Oh, I forgot: I'm in the peanut gallery and it's easy to criticize after the fact.  Big grin
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:31 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 100):
So I guess we should be wondering why the C-130 was picked for this monster powerplant and not, say, an An-12 or even an An-70?

I'm wondering if the TP400 could have been tested on the Airbus A343 testbed?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:55 pm



Quoting A342 (Reply 101):
I'm wondering if the TP400 could have been tested on the Airbus A343 testbed?

unlikely..

 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:22 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 102):
unlikely..

Hm, after all, they managed to test the Trent 900 on the A343. Of course the TP400 propeller has a much larger diameter, but part of it would be above the wing.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:46 pm

Zeke,

The problem is not with the airframe (as cobbled together as it is), it is with the engines and "related systems".

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...myUJRbRvfmY3sCYHKBOADibGAD93DTKM84

The podcast I linked to confirms this.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16419
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:19 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 100):
My point exactly. So are the issues faced with the FADEC also the C-130's fault?

Who said it was the fault of the FADEC ? that is the line you seem to be pushing.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 100):

Are you sure there's something wrong with the test bed and not, in fact, with the engine and/or the FADEC?

I dont, but the engine back in March has complete over 1000 hrs of ground testing, and still kept on being tested. It is not like this is the first time it has run.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 100):
Are you certain that's the only plausible cause?

When you hook up an analogue aircraft to a digital engine as a one off modification for one of the 4 powerplants only, it would seem to me as being the reasonable explanation.

Quoting A342 (Reply 101):
I'm wondering if the TP400 could have been tested on the Airbus A343 testbed?

Size I guess, the prop is 5.33 m in diameter, the Trent 900 was about 3 m, and it only just fit. I am not sure if you could have mounted it on the nose like pratt does, it is a big engine, and you need a lot of structure to hold it on.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 104):

That article is exactly what I had been thinking, "but that there have been delays integrating the engine with the aircraft's propeller and electronic system. Desclaux said this integration was the responsibility of Airbus Military, the EADS unit overseeing the program."

Which seems to me it is more about getting the testbed to talk to the engine, and its mounting, not the actual engine. The C-130H other engines are not FADEC, so all the prop/thrust control etc for the test engine needs to be interfaced into digital form for the FADEC and back again, and this is a one off mod just for that engine on that test bed.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:13 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 105):
Which seems to me it is more about getting the testbed to talk to the engine, and its mounting, not the actual engine. The C-130H other engines are not FADEC, so all the prop/thrust control etc for the test engine needs to be interfaced into digital form for the FADEC and back again, and this is a one off mod just for that engine on that test bed.

Sorry Zeke, the issue is not the airframe. No one is saying the airframe is responsible (or even a contributing problem). As I indicated, everyone involved is saying the issue is the engine and engine related components. It sounds to me that the issue involves the controllers not talking to the actuators correctly in all phases of the test. This is why the engine will start but not respond correctly to all inputs. Remember everytime they change any part of the code, the entire code has to be retested before they can go forward.

It is a software issue and nothing to get hung up on. This is part of the testing process and the exact reason why they have the testbed in the first place. This should have been expected, but for whatever reason Airbus seems to have been caught out by the process.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:52 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 105):
but the engine back in March has complete over 1000 hrs of ground testing, and still kept on being tested.

"And still kept on being tested"? Why do they keep testing it if it's running perfectly as you claim after 1,000 hours of tests?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 105):
Who said it was the fault of the FADEC ?

Look at Gsosbee's link in Reply #81 and listen to the conference call. They discuss the FADEC issues at about 3 minutes in.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 105):
When you hook up an analogue aircraft to a digital engine as a one off modification for one of the 4 powerplants only, it would seem to me as being the reasonable explanation.

Interesting. So, despite all the reports that Airbus is grappling with powerplants, FADEC software, and weight issues you're of the very strong opinion that those reports are complete fabrications and the REAL issue holding up everything is the C-130?

I never realized the peanut gallery had such expert opinions and sage insights.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:32 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 105):
Size I guess, the prop is 5.33 m in diameter, the Trent 900 was about 3 m, and it only just fit.

See here:

Quoting A342 (Reply 103):
Of course the TP400 propeller has a much larger diameter, but part of it would be above the wing.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 105):
I am not sure if you could have mounted it on the nose like pratt does, it is a big engine, and you need a lot of structure to hold it on.

That would have been interesting to see!


BTW, here's a picture of the An-70's cockpit. Doesn't seem outdated to me.

 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:06 pm

Some Interesting information about the AN-70 in this Blog..
(Actually DASA sent teams to Ukrain for evaluation and were quite pleased wit the aircraft. it even uses a NATO compliant data-bus for the electronics..


http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/02/antonov-70.html
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:50 pm



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 109):
Some Interesting information about the AN-70 in this Blog..
(Actually DASA sent teams to Ukrain for evaluation and were quite pleased wit the aircraft. it even uses a NATO compliant data-bus for the electronics..

If possible everyone should follow the link. Don't was your time on the blog instead look at the 3 videos.

Impressive airplane, but unfortunately no "western" politician or air force representative would ever sign off on the purchase because the risk is not worth the reward. The risk: (1) while Ukrainian, still considered Soviet; (2) purchasing anything from a financially suspect company; and (3) lack of heavy servicing stations. Perhaps after the Ukraine has been in NATO for several years, the political reasons will go away and AN will become an option.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:49 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 107):
Interesting. So, despite all the reports that Airbus is grappling with powerplants, FADEC software, and weight issues you're of the very strong opinion that those reports are complete fabrications and the REAL issue holding up everything is the C-130?

I remember the endless reports of technological problems, weight explosions end numerous cancellations on the A380 very well. Afterwards it seems most were using each other as sources.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 107):
I never realized the peanut gallery had such expert opinions and sage insights.

I think there are forums providing a better platform for comments of this level.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:59 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 111):
I remember the endless reports of technological problems, weight explosions end numerous cancellations on the A380 very well.

I also remember in the end the technological problems, weight issues, and cancellations all proved to be true.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 111):
I think there are forums providing a better platform for comments of this level.

So true...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 93):
Easy to criticize from the peanut galley with hindsight.

 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 1:24 pm

It now appears EADS/Airbus wanted to go with PW Canada, or so they imply, and that they were forced into a political choice for a powerplant is why they are faced with delays.

Quote:
Airbus's industry supporters say it was forced to work with an untested combination of rival European enginemakers for political reasons, rather than being allowed to select a viable alternative from one supplier, Pratt & Whitney Canada.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7842929
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16419
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:13 pm



Quoting A342 (Reply 108):
See here:

It would have needed to be mounted about 1m above the wing to fit, i.e. all of it.

Quoting A342 (Reply 108):

BTW, here's a picture of the An-70's cockpit. Doesn't seem outdated to me.

Behind the pilots seats you have three more crew (comms, navigation, and flt engineer) stations on both sides of the cockpit, one of the reasons for the observation window on the starboard side of the forward fuselage.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 112):
I also remember in the end the technological problems, weight issues, and cancellations all proved to be true.

Actually, most proved unfounded.
E.g. A380 will never be able to evacuate the people safely
A380 wing will break
A380 will always need to be landed by autopilot
A380 will not be able to use normal airports/gates/delays in boarding/offloading/baggage problems etc

Weight
Less than 1% of MTOW at launch, the 787 has grown more than that during development, it is meeting/exceeding its performance specs

Cancellations:
Where are they ? even Fedex and UPS are still interested in the A380F when Airbus recommences development. From what I understand more have been ordered than canceled.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:44 pm

Zeke, where've you been? These long absences you take (I assume because of your travel cycles) give me heartburn knowing there is no one who argues as good as you or is as aggravating as you are (sometimes). Oh, the humanity! ....

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
Quoting A342 (Reply 108):

BTW, here's a picture of the An-70's cockpit. Doesn't seem outdated to me.

Behind the pilots seats you have three more crew (comms, navigation, and flt engineer) stations on both sides of the cockpit, one of the reasons for the observation window on the starboard side of the forward fuselage.

But to convert it to a two-man flight deck should not be too difficult from a technological standpoint, especially since the plane is pretty much still in development. Similar feats have been done in the past (e.g., DC-10 -> MD-10).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 112):
I also remember in the end the technological problems, weight issues, and cancellations all proved to be true.

Actually, most proved unfounded.

Many rumors proved unfounded. However, the specific ones that Keesje mentioned were based in fact. Weight was and continues to be (regardless of how minor that remains) an issue. Cancellations proved true (UPS, FedEx) and certainly many more were actually threatened in the dark days when the magnitude of the delays became known. And it was the technology that ultimately proved the Achilles Heel of the project (have you forgotten the wiring mess???).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
Cancellations:
Where are they ? even Fedex and UPS are still interested in the A380F

Where are they??? FedEx and UPS DID CANCEL. Certainly, they may re-order someday, but that doesn't negate the fact that they did CANCEL.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:00 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 115):
Where are they??? FedEx and UPS DID CANCEL. Certainly, they may re-order someday, but that doesn't negate the fact that they did CANCEL.

No need to get angry. UPS & FEDEX canclled after Airbus decided to delathe A380 until 2014 soonest. They needed the capasity earlier so had to cancel. A business decision confirmed by http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...hind-airbus-a380-cancellation.html Some here however prefer a story line orders were first cancelled and then the program postponed..

Some 787 orders were cancelled for the same reasons (capasity timing). No reason to make a fuss.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:07 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 116):
No need to get angry.

No anger was expressed, just astonishment. My apologies if the tenor of my text is mis-interpreted.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 116):
UPS & FEDEX canclled after Airbus decided to delathe A380

A cancellation is a cancellation. Regardless of the reasons, the orders were canceled. Period. If Airbus hadn't encountered the problems that they did, those orders would still be on the books.

As for your comments on the 787 cancellation, you are absolutely right. And by the same token, I would not try to spin that cancellation (or any others that may yet happen) any other way regardless of the reasons.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16419
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:23 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 115):
But to convert it to a two-man flight deck should not be too difficult from a technological standpoint, especially since the plane is pretty much still in development. Similar feats have been done in the past (e.g., DC-10 -> MD-10).

The MD-10 is the MD-11 cockpit in the DC-10, if/when they develop a 2 crew AN-70 they maybe able to retrofit the 5 man cockpit AN-70s. The MD-11 cockpit upgrade was not a trivial exercise (3->2), imagine 5->2..

Who knows, one day we might see this, the TP400 on the AN-70 with a 2 man cockpit. The current AN-70 engines are not that efficient (a generation behind), they have been around for about 15 years now, and basically lacked funding for any significant advancement.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 115):
Weight was and continues to be (regardless of how minor that remains) an issue.

"Airbus engineers claim they can take up to 2 tonnes out of the A380 in a stepped weight-reduction program to 2012 and EK's initial aircraft, although still overweight, is 1 tonne lighter than anticipated."

from ATW Sept issue, http://www.atwonline.com/channels/ai...eFocus/article.html?articleID=2446

The weight is not preventing operators doing sectors that they asked Airbus to deliver, the aircraft is exceeding its performance requirements.

When weight has gone down, it hardly makes the news, I cannot remember the number of threads we had about the aircraft being overweight. In comparison, the much smaller 787 is more overweight than the A380 (in absolute terms and as a fraction of MTOW or MWE).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 115):
Cancellations proved true (UPS, FedEx) and certainly many more were actually threatened in the dark days when the magnitude of the delays became known.

You will find very little talked about the freighter cancellations until they happened, all the talk was about passenger frames, and none of them came to fruition.

Fedex and UPS were both happy to wear the initial delays Airbus announced (amounted to 4 years in some cases), then that was doubled, they pulled out. I think once the A350XWB is flying in about 3 years, resources will go back to the A380F.

We continue to see A380 orders, and I understand a number of new and follow on orders are being negotiated at the moment.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 115):
And it was the technology that ultimately proved the Achilles Heel of the project (have you forgotten the wiring mess???).

That was not what the technology problems that people cited as being the "Achilles Heel" or the project as being form the beginning, that only came to light when the delays were announced. You are talking with hindsight.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 115):
Where are they??? FedEx and UPS DID CANCEL. Certainly, they may re-order someday, but that doesn't negate the fact that they did CANCEL.

Not becuase they did not want it, it was becuase Airbus stopped development of it, both were to get all their frames between 2008 and 2012, and Airbus told them 2015. They are both still interested in the new build and passenger conversions. As Fedex said, one A380F to them is equivalent to two of their MD-11Fs.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16419
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:28 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 117):

No anger was expressed, just astonishment.

If one wanted to get picky, no A380s have been canceled, only A380Fs.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:52 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 114):
Behind the pilots seats you have three more crew (comms, navigation, and flt engineer) stations on both sides of the cockpit, one of the reasons for the observation window on the starboard side of the forward fuselage.

Not necessarily. From http://www.antonov.com/products/air/transport/AN-70/its.xml :

"Crew, pers. 3 - 5 "

Quoting Zeke (Reply 118):
the TP400 on the AN-70

Not powerful enough.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 118):
The current AN-70 engines are not that efficient (a generation behind)

In some aspects, yes. But they are propfans - a generation ahead of everyone else.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:13 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 118):
The MD-11 cockpit upgrade was not a trivial exercise (3->2), imagine 5->2..

I would think (though I admit I don't know for certain) that the An-70 cockpit is flyable with a 3-man crew (Pilot, CP, FE). Having separate Nav and Comm stations is a tradition and hold-over from the old Soviet days when labor efficiency was not of paramount concern. How difficult would it be to distribute those tasks and control in-puts to the primary 3, especially with all the glass that's already in the cockpit? So for me, it would be an issue of consolidating the cockpit from 3-man configuration to a 2-man configuration. I realize it's not easy, but it's also not as much of a herculean effort as it would sound when saying it has to be converted from a 5 down to a 2.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 118):
Who knows, one day we might see this, the TP400 on the AN-70

IF the An-70 ever became a viable option for the same market, I suspect an engine other than the TP400 will be used (PW Canada?). The TP400 is a uniquely political concoction for a uniquely EADS/Airbus requirement. If Antonov ever decides to eat Airbus' lunch in that market, they will find a different powerplant (assuming they even have to). For every An-70 that were to be sold will only take away from the A400M. Until and if Airbus gets a bunch more sales in the pipeline, I just don't see them allowing anything to happen that would put at risk what they've gotten so far.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 118):
You will find very little talked about the freighter cancellations until they happened, all the talk was about passenger frames, and none of them came to fruition.

Fedex and UPS were both happy to wear the initial delays Airbus announced (amounted to 4 years in some cases), then that was doubled, they pulled out.

A cancellation is still a cancellation.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 118):
I think once the A350XWB is flying in about 3 years, resources will go back to the A380F.

I thought the development costs were already expended for the F and the only reason they "postponed" the model was to avoid further delays to the passenger version? But even if there are development cycles yet to be completed, didn't Airbus take the plunge into pulling the plug because the demand for the F version was not very strong outside of these two primarily volume carriers?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 118):
That was not what the technology problems that people cited as being the "Achilles Heel" or the project as being form the beginning, that only came to light when the delays were announced. You are talking with hindsight.

What were the technology issues outside of the wiring that people claimed (realistically) would sink the project? I can remember well reading A.net threads from years ago when people were questioning the wisdom of switching to aluminum bundles. Airbus itself stated on several occasions how the wiring was so complex, in particular for each customer's unique configuration requirements, that it was causing them a lot of headaches. Perhaps my own hubris emanates from hindsight, but these discussions have filled many threads on A.net going back many years.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 118):
Not because they did not want it, it was because Airbus stopped development of it, both were to get all their frames between 2008 and 2012, and Airbus told them 2015. They are both still interested in the new build and passenger conversions.

A cancellation is still a cancellation.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 119):
If one wanted to get picky, no A380s have been canceled, only A380Fs.

If one wanted to get picky, an entire model of airplane was canceled.  Wink
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:32 pm

France & Germany are asking Airbus to pay for the delays.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/02/business/airbus.php

Quote:
France and Germany said Thursday that they were seeking compensation from Airbus for delays to two of the biggest European military and industrial projects.

The French defense minister, Hervé Morin, said European Aeronautic Defense & Space, the parent of Airbus, was resisting paying full penalties for late delivery of the A400M, a €20 billion, or $27 billion, project to supply airlift capacity to seven NATO countries. EADS has tried to pass the payment to its engine makers.

The penalties would come on top of commercial fines paid to airlines for a two-year delay in the A380, the Airbus superjumbo passenger jet.

"EADS is telling us, 'You can't make us pay all that,' and we are saying, 'We'll see"' Morin said after talks between European Union defense ministers in Deauville, France.


EADS earlier threatened to freeze production if the clients don't drop the penalties for late delivery.

[Edited 2008-10-02 12:51:24]
 
astuteman
Posts: 7453
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:55 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 115):
Weight was and continues to be (regardless of how minor that remains) an issue

Given the current and projected performance of the aircraft, I might suggest that weight is more of an opportunity for the A380, than an issue...  Smile

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:32 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 121):
Who knows, one day we might see this, the TP400 on the AN-70

IF the An-70 ever became a viable option for the same market, I suspect an engine other than the TP400 will be used (PW Canada?). The TP400 is a uniquely political concoction for a uniquely EADS/Airbus requirement. If Antonov ever decides to eat Airbus' lunch in that market, they will find a different powerplant (assuming they even have to). For every An-70 that were to be sold will only take away from the A400M.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 113):
It now appears EADS/Airbus wanted to go with PW Canada, or so they imply, and that they were forced into a political choice for a powerplant is why they are faced with delays.

Quote:
Airbus's industry supporters say it was forced to work with an untested combination of rival European enginemakers for political reasons, rather than being allowed to select a viable alternative from one supplier, Pratt & Whitney Canada.

- no usefull 11.000 hp alternative exists
- I think the PW's A400 proposal is overrated here on a.net. It was just paper, untested.
- I think RR is a market leader on big turboshafts including C-130J, PC3, C-27 and Osprey

Add the succesfull civil trackrecords of Snecma (CFM56) and Rolls (Trents) and the involvement of MTU in many (PW GTF) international programs and I won't say dreamteam but not there aint a lot of competition.

PW worked for 20 yrs on the GTF and was kicked out of the civil market (PW6000 anyone). Its a strong company in militairy turbofans but succes on a big prop was not guaranteed to say it mildly.

On Germany not being allowed to buy the superior AAn-70, people start repeating it, also in the press now obviously. So it will probably become truth for many  Sad

In June 2000 it was reported that Russia and Ukraine will build the new-generation Antonov 70 transport aircraft, not with Germany, but with China as had been planned. Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev said that negotiations with Berlin had resulted in the Germans saying they would not support the joint Ukrainian-Russian An-70 project, Interfax reported. ''We won't try to win over the Germans, but will complete the project with China," Sergeyev said. A Chinese military delegation visited Ukraine and expressed an interest in the AN-70 transport aircraft.

At the Zhuhai airshow in November 2000, Antonow tried to market the An-70 in China. This would likely involve co-production with AVIC II. The Antonov Design Bureau offered cooperation to the Shansiy aircraft building corporation to build a new airplane using Antonov An-70 as a basic model. The Chinese side left the offer unanswered, although the proposition was negotiated during Li Peng's visit to Ukraine in the middle of 2000.



Uncertainty surrounding the Antonov An-70 increased with the wheels-up emergency landing of the only operable prototype in the morning of 27 January 2001. Earlier reports blamed immature D-27 engines designed by ZMKB Progress and manufactured by Motor-Sich (with counter-rotating propellers supplied by Stupino), as the cause of the crash.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/an-70.htm
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:46 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 124):
- no usefull 11.000 hp alternative exists
- I think the PW's A400 proposal is overrated here on a.net. It was just paper, untested.

Agreed, but that is not to say that the TP400 is a good option for the An-70. I just don't think it's an option at all. So if Antonov has to re-engine their bird, they will have to go with a powerplant that is an all-new build and that, so far, exists only on paper. That is what Airbus did with the A400M/TP400 and they are still muddling through the powerplant development process. Antonov may suffer the same fate, but I don't think (IMO) they will have any choice. This is assuming, of course, that they make a concerted and strong effort to chase the A400M.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:18 pm

Ignoring the AN-70 for a moment, what are the prospects that EADS will "freeze" production if Germany and France demand penalties?

Politically speaking, I don't see where France and Germany (or Spain for that matter) have a real alternative.

Public posturing sounds tough, though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7842929

Quote:
Top customer Germany has taken a tough stand on penalties.
"For me it's the principle of pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be respected). I can only urgently demand that the industry does its utmost to respect treaties," Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung told journalists on Wednesday.
The amount of compensation at stake has not been disclosed.
The A400M is being built at a total cost of 20 billion euros to provide urgently needed airlift capacity to seven European NATO nations -- France, Germany, Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey. Malaysia and South Africa are also buyers.
EADS last year took a provision of 1.4 billion euros related to the A400M delays.
As test planes remained grounded, a row erupted last week between EADS and a consortium of European engine suppliers over who is to blame for the delays to the A400M project.

How 'bout that AN-70, huh?

[Edited 2008-10-02 16:28:21]
 
texl1649
Posts: 1954
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:01 pm

A chinese built AN-70 derivative could very truly become the next generation C-130, in that it would become ubiquitous since it would be so cheap to produce.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:12 pm



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 127):
A chinese built AN-70 derivative could very truly become the next generation C-130, in that it would become ubiquitous since it would be so cheap to produce.

Probably will not happen. Europe and the USA will not be to keen to purchase an airplane from a potential adversary.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7533
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:01 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 126):
what are the prospects that EADS will "freeze" production if Germany and France demand penalties?

Well, EADS' boss had allegedly "hinted" at "cancelling" the program.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-between-airbus-and-customers.html

Quote:
"Before the delay announcement, Louis Gallois, chief executive of Airbus parent EADS, reportedly hinted to customers that enforcing penalties for delays could cancel the programme. Industry sources suggest Airbus is unhappy at having to pay the penalties after the customer nations effectively forced it to accept a pan-European engine solution, which has proved unwieldy to manage through the development phase."

If the Governments involved play hardball, then EADS would be backed into a corner. Somehow I don't see them wanting the billion Euros they have sunk into the program go down the drain, jeopardize local jobs and further delay deliveries of their much anticipated for airlifters.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:57 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 129):
Somehow I don't see them wanting the billion Euros they have sunk into the program go down the drain, jeopardize local jobs and further delay deliveries of their much anticipated for airlifters.

I agree completely. I do not see where the major participants have a viable political alternative.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 126):
Politically speaking, I don't see where France and Germany (or Spain for that matter) have a real alternative.

What are they going to do? In the end, I predict that this will be worked out in EADS' favor.

[Edited 2008-10-04 09:58:03]
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:16 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 130):
In the end, I predict that this will be worked out in EADS' favor.

Only in the sense that France and Germany stay in the program. The financial hit to EADS will be high - either directly or indirectly.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26981
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:37 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 124):
- no usefull 11.000 hp alternative exists
- I think the PW's A400 proposal is overrated here on a.net. It was just paper, untested.



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 129):
"Before the delay announcement, Louis Gallois, chief executive of Airbus parent EADS, reportedly hinted to customers that enforcing penalties for delays could cancel the programme. Industry sources suggest Airbus is unhappy at having to pay the penalties after the customer nations effectively forced it to accept a pan-European engine solution, which has proved unwieldy to manage through the development phase."

This would suggest that EADS felt there was a viable alternative, and the history of TP400 suggests there may have been some wisdom in choosing that alternative. I highly doubt EADS would actually cancel the program, but the fact that they are even suggesting it suggests to me that there is deep anger within EADS about the entire program.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:03 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 132):
This would suggest that EADS felt there was a viable alternative, and the history of TP400 suggests there may have been some wisdom in choosing that alternative. I highly doubt EADS would actually cancel the program, but the fact that they are even suggesting it suggests to me that there is deep anger within EADS about the entire program.

I, too, doubt EADS would actually cancel the program. If they were to do so it would destroy their credibility as a military supplier and all but assure that they will never have a chance at winning any large and lucrative military contracts (DoD). On the other hand, I'm not sure if the alternative to the TP400 was/is any more "viable". It could just be EADS trying to pin the blame for the delays on the TP400 so that they have a means to avoid any late penalty payments. The engine was, after all, a political decision and it gives EADS something to kick back at the governments that are now seeking compensation. The recent spat between EADS and the powerplant manufacturers would indicate there is a level of incredulity on the part of Europrop members for being made the scapegoat for the delays on the A400M.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:45 pm

I am sure they are trying to find a way to blame George Bush, or at least an American. LOL

On a more serious note, the delay penalties are serious coin and if the TP400 contract is separate from EADS, any contractor would be trying desperately to avoid paying penalties. On future DOD contracts, it is asked if you paid penalties for being late on a military procurement. It makes a huge difference in the scoring for EADS if the TP400 contract paid penalties but EADS did not.
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:33 am

Continious problems with the engines make the production stop inevitable..
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...UtilitiesNews/idUSL436237520081104
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:19 am



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 135):
Continious problems with the engines make the production stop inevitable..
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...81104

Similar to 747-8i, it is much to quiet around the A400M in my opinion. There should have been scores of mile stones during the last 4-6 months. The latest news on the airbus militairy web site is the june roll-out..

The test Herc with the TP400 still hasn't flown, I have even heard of it taxiing. All sounds like a serious technical snag. I hope it has to do with the TP400 - Herc test combination. Maybe the integration of an old Herc and a big 11 k hp prop was underestimated..

September news on Marshall web site.


A400M Engine Test Bed reaches Full Power at Marshall Aerospace, Cambridge UK

On Wednesday 10 September, the Integrated Project Team comprising Airbus Military, EPI, Ratier-Figeac and Marshall Aerospace completed successful full power powerplant runs on the A400M TP400 Flight Test Bed during approximately 2 hours of ground runs at MA’s Cambridge facility, UK. This represented the first proper shakedown of both TP400 powerplant and propeller at full power.

Subsequent testing will further assess prop stress and powerplant stability, and expand into crosswind conditions. Further testing is planned this week. Another 3 to 4 such trials are to take place, and, depending on the results, taxi trials can then start, to be followed by flight trials when all ground and taxi trials are complete.



No further major development issues have occurred following the first fullpower run. Approximately 40GB of data has been recorded on the MA data acquisition systems providing service results to Airbus Military which is currently being assessed by the partners.


http://www.marshallaerospace.com/news/newsArticle33.php
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:15 pm

I repeat my assessment that a deal with Antonov modernizing the AN-72 would have been much,much easier and rewarding for the customers..
The engine deal has been criticized by many as a pure political tool to include all kinds of European manufactuers for sheer political reasons.The shit has hit the fan since a long time and it will cost European tx-payers millions of tax-funds to compensate those delisrious dreams of an all-European engine.
They should have attributed the design to one company-full stop !
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:16 pm



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 137):
I repeat my assessment that a deal with Antonov modernizing the AN-72 would have been much,much easier and rewarding for the customers..

Well the USAF can jump into the An-70 opportunity! Boeing, LM and congress would likely take no issue.

Now if only the AN-70 would have had no engine problems..

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/an70_2_crash_07.jpg

(fyi it crashed due to double D-27 engine failure after take-off)
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:24 pm

The Airbus A330 also crashed during test flights..
So what ?? - does that make the aircraft a risky plane ?
I said "modernized" version of the AN-72 -that does imply some major rework and adaptation to Nato-standards.
The test-engine for the A400-M has not even been tried on the testbed aircraft...
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:44 pm

The German Airforce expecting more than 12 months delay for the A400 M..
http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSBAT00248520081105
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:10 pm



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 139):
The test-engine for the A400-M has not even been tried on the testbed aircraft...

Well it has, question is why it has not flown. I think there is a good chance the TP400 is ok and the A400M is ok, but the Herc-TP400 test combi is a problem causing these delays.

The first A400M seems ready for take-off, all test equipment being installed. This must be very frustrating for everyone involved.

The engine has been tested hundreds of hours on various test rigs for yrs now, if something was wrong (some hick-ups were solved) I guess it would have surfaced long time ago..

 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:48 pm

But if they fear the Herc wing could break under the load/energy vibrations from the new engine,why not test it on the new aircraft ?
The A400M wing is designed to support the four engines mounted under full load-it's easier and less dangerous to test four in a balanced way on the new aircraft than in an unbalanced way on a Hercules not build for that task.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:02 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 141):
I think there is a good chance the TP400 is ok and the A400M is ok, but the Herc-TP400 test combi is a problem causing these delays.

I seriously doubt it. The extra bracing takes care of the weight in space issues. I highly doubt if Airbus would have used a Herc if there was any question as to its suitability as a test bed.

The issues sound like the engine software does not function properly in all phases of flight. If they cannot quickly resolve these types of issues, they will have to decide whether or not to rewrite the entire code.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14777
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:46 pm

As expected the A400M will be delayed. The silence around tests that should have been completed recently not being executed were the writing on the wall...


Airbus Says A400M Test Flight Delayed Until Second Half of 2009

By Sabine Pirone

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS, the world’s biggest maker of commercial aircraft, said the first flight of its A400M military-transport plane is unlikely to take place before the second half of next year as it struggles with engine difficulties.

The A400M’s test flight has been delayed by continuing problems with the Fadec engine-control system, for which Airbus is awaiting a new plan from engine manufacturers, Tom Williams, head of aircraft programs, said today at a briefing in Filton, England.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...100&sid=alZD6hMhjhsg&refer=germany

Must be very frustrating for the assembly line in spain and the supply chain who has been working hard and now will propbably have to hald production to prevent aircraft, components and sub assemblies piling up..
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:24 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 144):
The A400M’s test flight has been delayed by continuing problems with the Fadec engine-control system, for which Airbus is awaiting a new plan from engine manufacturers, Tom Williams, head of aircraft programs, said today at a briefing in Filton, England.

[emphasis added]

It sounds like this may not be the last of the announced delays. Airbus must have taken a page straight from Boeing's 787 play book.  duck 
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26981
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:14 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 144):
The A400M’s test flight has been delayed by continuing problems with the Fadec engine-control system, for which Airbus is awaiting a new plan from engine manufacturers

Hard to make sense of this thread. In various places we read of thousands of hours of time on test rigs, and the Herc doing full-power runs, yet on the other hand we hear of enormous software difficulties with the FADEC.

I would have imagined that software designs and implementations for FADECs are well known in the industry: why is this one so different?

I guess the FADEC was good enough for test runs, but not good enough to fly?

When Williams says he's waiting for a new plan, does that mean getting the bugs out of this FADEC, or replacing it with some other type of FADEC?
 
columba
Posts: 5279
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:20 am



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 137):
I repeat my assessment that a deal with Antonov modernizing the AN-72 would have been much,much easier and rewarding for the customers..

it would have been much easier to follow UK´s example and lease some C17s and C130Js.....
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:43 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 146):
I would have imagined that software designs and implementations for FADECs are well known in the industry: why is this one so different?

Will it really take six months to rectify the software issues? Might there be something else that's not being spoken about that is at the heart of the flight test delays?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A400M Delivery Schedule

Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:58 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 148):
Will it really take six months to rectify the software issues? Might there be something else that's not being spoken about that is at the heart of the flight test delays?

Don't know, but Enders seems somewhat irritated over the whole engine program.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Quote:
The second question from the floor “what about the A400M?” elicited the following comment from Enders: “right now we are asking when can we fly the damn thing! If it had reliable engines we could have flown it in September.” He added later that the engine test-bed – a C-130 with three of its own engines and one of the A400M's – would fly in the next three to four weeks in Britain. In response to persistent questioning about whether or not the A400M had an engine, he responded that once the engine was qualified then the A400M would be considered as having one.

Enders said “we are no longer daredevils as they were in the early days of aviation and we need some proof that this engine can fly.” He added that the FADEC electronic engine control was the problem. The A400M, he said, was a very complex airplane, “more complex than the Eurofighter or the Rafale,” and he refused to put any date at all on a possible first flight.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 13 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