First A400M Rolled Out

columba · Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:51 pm

Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 32):
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by the photographs, isn't that beauty just begging to be stretched???

Just like every aircraft Airbus has rolled out the last few years Smile

Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 32):
Wouldn't mind seeing one in USAF livery! I think she'd fit in quite nicely in between the C-130 and the C-17!

Agreed, would not mind to see it in Canadian and Australian colors as well.

I am looking forward to the sound of the four engines getting started and gaining power Smile

Although I am not a huge fan of military aircraft I have to say I really like it. It is very interesting looking. The props are truly unique and it will be nice to see an aircraft sticking out of the rest. 4 props 4 long haul Smile

Hope it will be the legitimate successor of the fabulous C130 and serve its customers just as good.

Any idea for a nick name: We have the C5 Galaxy, the C17 Globemaster III, the C 130 Hercules and the C 160 Transall, what would be a cool name for A400M ?

keesje · Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:15 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 50):
Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 32):
Wouldn't mind seeing one in USAF livery! I think she'd fit in quite nicely in between the C-130 and the C-17!

Agreed, would not mind to see it in Canadian and Australian colors as well.

474218 · Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:31 pm

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 42):
The A380 wasn't a empty shell it had a minimal interior with technical stuff and a complete cockpit.

The A380 may have had a complete cockpit (flight station) the appears that the A400 flight station still has some work left.

See reply 17 of https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/231466/

In the picture you can see wire bundles still in their bags and that the glare shield is not in place.

misterdsdan · Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:25 pm

there looks to be a different direction of rotation of the propellors depending on where they are (anticlockwise/clockwise)? noticeable because of the heavy 'screw' of them. Is that unique to the A400M or is it just that I've not noticed that before becuase I've never seen props quite like those?

i agree with all the above...those are some mighty fine props!

Nicoeddf · Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:54 pm

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 49):
Armored props? Really? Am I missing the sarcasm?

"armored" not to withstand a 120mm tank shell Wink

But I had the impression, that todays military props do withstand small-arms fire.
Or is that only true for helis? or not true at all?
boggled

enlighten me Smile

GDB · Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:10 pm

The diagram Auto Thrust posted shows well how A400M is between the C-130J and C-17, almost perfectly in fact.
Not really a competitor to either unless you are a smaller AF.

KC-135 Top Boom, don't you mean 'empty shell' as in the 787 at rollout? But both A400M and A380 have the proper fasteners too!

Horribly delayed programme of course, (perhaps inevitable when so many nations are involved), though none of them on their own could have done it either.
Let's hope once in service, it does rather better than the apalling delays the C-130J had to actually be able to conduct a range of missions.

Nicoeddf · Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:41 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 55):
Horribly delayed programme of course

nah...ich would say quite acceptable for a program of such complexity and investion!

GST · Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:04 pm

Given the usual delays in producing new aircraft types, why is anyone even bothered? I suspect manufacturers always make their timescales too tight, to appear more ferocious to the competitors.

fridgmus · Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:28 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 51):

As usual, great job Keesje! bigthumbsup

Thanks.

Can you show us one in USAF Grey please???

F

tpa36r · Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:53 am

Ok I'll ask...

What the HELL is the pointy thing for? (I promise I read the thread!) Here's to hoping it won't stay there after testing! devil

mark5388916 · Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:10 am

Quoting TPA36R (Reply 59):
What the HELL is the pointy thing for

Mid-Air Refueling probe... Used to stick into the re-fuel hose.

Mark

r2rho · Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:50 am

Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 32):
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by the photographs, isn't that beauty just begging to be stretched???

I was gonna say the same thing. But it would sacrifice runway performance which was a key design driver. Also, stretching it may have too much of a range penalty. But I agree that, from a purely structural point of view, the possibiliy of a stretch seems to be there.

Quoting Hypersonic (Reply 39):
Why did the Antonov fail to capture the market?

At the time the An-70 was released, the Soviet Union had fallen apart and what remained of it was in economic total chaos. It was a far too risky choice. But the aircraft is still good, and if you could get some western avionics and systems manufacturers on it, plus the interest of a couple Air Forces, there is a potential to resurrect it, in which case it would compete head-on with the A400M.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Does it have anything inside it, or is it a shell, like the first A-380 was?

Huh??? Flight test aircraft are never fully cabin equipped, A380 MSN1 is not to this day, and never will be. Just a lot of heavy flight test equipment, water tanks, miles of wiring, etc. An in any case, being a military cargo plane there's not much cabin to the A400M anyway. I'm sure there's still some interior work left to do in the next three months, but at least the plane isn't held together by temporary fasteners......

Quoting Columba (Reply 50):
Any idea for a nick name: We have the C5 Galaxy, the C17 Globemaster III, the C 130 Hercules and the C 160 Transall, what would be a cool name for A400M ?

I'm surprised they haven't come up with one yet, it's always good for marketing and promotion purposes. I guess it'll just be a matter of time.

Rheinbote · Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:16 pm

Nose-high attitude on ground makes me wonder whether there are any engines fitted yet... duck

GST · Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:38 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 62):
y

Or perhaps it is just naturally nose high to bring the cargo door closer to ground level?

L-188 · Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:27 pm

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 9):
The nose looks like a C-141

The tail looks like a C-17

The rest looks like a C-130

DeltaGuy

Now I knows what happens when a C-17 and a C-130 have sex.

planewasted · Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:31 pm

Good looking plane! I think it will look even better in the air. Smile

slz396 · Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:21 am

With all the attention the 787 roll-out got, it may be worth mentioning Airbus does things differently in the run-up to a roll-out event...

Whereas Boeing basically rolled out just an empty hull (embarrassingly even held together with temporary fasteners) when they did present their 787, the A400M has already been powered up prior to its roll-out!

What you see here is thus not a mock up which will subsequently disappear into a hangar for more than 1,5 years, but a fully functioning plane which is basically set to take to the skies as soon as its engines have been ground tested.

First flight is expected in about 100 days...

brendows · Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:48 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 66):
With all the attention the 787 roll-out got, it may be worth mentioning Airbus does things differently in the run-up to a roll-out event...

The 87 would probably have been powered up if Boeing could have gotten it ready for power up prior to the roll out event. The fact that it wasn't close to being ready doesn't mean that Boeing has another way of doing things. You know that, deep inside Wink

Anyway, congratulations to Airbus Military for getting one step closer to getting this bird into the air wave

One question: why the black color on the radome?

slz396 · Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:13 am

Quoting Brendows (Reply 67):
The fact that it wasn't close to being ready doesn't mean that Boeing has another way of doing things. You know that, deep inside.

What I feel deep inside is totally irrelevant; what matters is what the companies demonstrate the world to be doing.

Boeing may or may not have had the intend of doing things differently than EADS, but they definitely did things quite differently, didn't they?

Whereas EADS has always rolled out a real plane which is basically ready to fly, Boeing seems to be rolling out whatever it has at hands to show the audience, even if just a plastic mock-up with 787 painted on its side.

Now I ask you, who's fooling the audience?

[Edited 2008-06-30 01:17:25]

dragon6172 · Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:54 am

Eh, its a wash really. One has all the delays before roll out, the other has the delays after roll out.

slz396 · Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:31 pm

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 69):
Eh, its a wash really. One has all the delays before roll out, the other has the delays after roll out.

ALL the delays? We know the 787 has had 3 (al least), not counting the years of additional delays individual customers may have to face to get delivery of their planes AFTER the EIS, but just how many delays does the A400M have?

Besides, I wouldn't call it a wash!

One company announces its unfortunate delays as they find out about them and they immediately adjust their public actions accordingly, whereas another company tries to keep snowballing delays in-house and meanwhile let's the PR machine steam ahead at full speed as if all is perfect...

I am pretty sure posters would fall over each other to say how immoral and how unethical that later company is and how they should be held accountable... if it were EADS... unfortunately for them, the later company it is their beloved -can't do no wrong- Boeing.

dragon6172 · Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:00 pm

All perspective I suppose. I do not have a vested interest in either project or company, so delays do not bother me. If the advertised performance goals are met, then when they are delivered does not matter to me.
Its technology growing pains, and everyone knows it. People who have pride in their company are going to defend it no matter what. The issue comes about when they do not admit to themselves that there is in fact problems that need to be addressed. (I am talking a.netters here). Companies should divulge their problems, but only when they have their solution and course of action figured out.

norcal · Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:38 pm

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 70):
One company announces its unfortunate delays as they find out about them and they immediately adjust their public actions accordingly, whereas another company tries to keep snowballing delays in-house and meanwhile let's the PR machine steam ahead at full speed as if all is perfect...

Sounds like the A380 delays......

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 70):
I am pretty sure posters would fall over each other to say how immoral and how unethical that later company is and how they should be held accountable... if it were EADS... unfortunately for them, the later company it is their beloved -can't do no wrong- Boeing.

The 07/08/07 roll out thing was a huge mistake, but you have a very short memory if you think only Boeing is guilty of this.

BlueSky1976 · Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:06 pm

Quoting Hypersonic (Reply 39):
Given that it beats the A400M in every department, what is so wrong with the AN-70 that practically no-one bought it?

Well, here is the story:
- Russia bought the An-70 (I think about 200 of them, give or take a few), the production started rolling, but as the plane is made in Ukraine, the Russians cancelled the order as a "penalty" for the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and their turn toward more integration with NATO and EU;
- Germany wanted to buy it, but politics killed that idea. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the Germans who put heavy influence on A400M project to make it as much comparable to An-70 as possible. Heck, replace the T-tail with a conventional one and you basically have An-70 made by Airbus...

The only hope for An-70 remains to be China or India. Sad but true...

2H4 · Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:04 am

Quoting Columba (Reply 50):
Any idea for a nick name: We have the C5 Galaxy, the C17 Globemaster III, the C 130 Hercules and the C 160 Transall, what would be a cool name for A400M ?

I vote "Eurocules".

2H4

keesje · Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:56 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 73):
Quoting Hypersonic (Reply 39):
Given that it beats the A400M in every department, what is so wrong with the AN-70 that practically no-one bought it?

Well, here is the story:

If we look from a distance and only look at payload maybe. But does the An-70 beat the A400M in anything other then payload?

Is it a good tanker ? does it have terrain following capabilities? Integrated maintenance monitoring system, a strong maintenance supply chain, does it also have a civil certified 2 man cockpit? how reliable are the engines? Are they noisy? fly by wire? composites? russian avionics?

How realistic is this all? Would the USAF/ Congress go along? I think the AN-70 looks attractive if you dont look good.

slz396 · Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:51 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 75):
I think the AN-70 looks attractive if you dont look good

Very good point you make here, Keesje.

People keep pointing out the payload-look similarity of the A400M and the An-70, but they completely forget about other factors which are very important: operating cost and reliability.

Is it because this is the miliary forum they completely forget about it, I don't know, but fact is they not only matter to commercial airlines, they definitely matter to airforces too, which is why the A400M simply outclasses the An-70; it is not in the looks, nor in its payload, it is in its expected reliability, flexibility, versatility, environmentality (sic) and lower operating costs.

LifelinerOne · Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:33 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 74):
Quoting Columba (Reply 50):
Any idea for a nick name: We have the C5 Galaxy, the C17 Globemaster III, the C 130 Hercules and the C 160 Transall, what would be a cool name for A400M ?

I vote "Eurocules".

2H4

I heard rumours that it will become Atlas.

Cheers! wave

N328KF · Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:42 pm

Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 77):
I heard rumours that it will become Atlas.

That one's already been used, sort of:

GST · Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:45 pm

Or maybye, to up the cheese factor, "Globoprop"

Oroka · Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:48 am

A400M Atlas II? If you can have a Globemaster III, Atlas II is acceptable.

Nicoeddf · Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:38 pm

Atlas sounds soooo boring bored

N328KF · Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:43 pm

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 81):
Atlas sounds soooo boring

Why not? It goes with 'Hercules' and 'Spartan' quite well.

LifelinerOne · Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:16 pm

I do like Atlas as well... However, there were plans to give the plane a name during the roll out presentation. This obviously didn't happened, so I don't know the status of the plan.

Cheers! wave

columba · Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:03 pm

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 81):
Atlas sounds soooo boring

Quoting N328KF (Reply 82):
Why not? It goes with 'Hercules' and 'Spartan' quite well.

True and Atlas carried the weight of the world good name for a military transport aircraft Smile

Nicoeddf · Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:29 pm

I still don't like it boxedin

Acheron · Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:38 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 76):
which is why the A400M simply outclasses the An-70; it is not in the looks, nor in its payload, it is in its expected reliability, flexibility, versatility, environmentality (sic) and lower operating costs.

As the An-70 never ended its development cycle and tests runs, any comparisson is just a speculation(at best) on your part since there are not any definitive numbers on the An-70's perfomance.

GST · Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:14 pm

From this weeks Flight International, there is a centre spread info/advertisment for the A400M, calling it the "Loadmaster"

Devilfish · Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:51 pm

Quoting GST (Reply 87):
From this weeks Flight International, there is a centre spread info/advertisment for the A400M, calling it the "Loadmaster"

This.....? Smile

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Devilfish · Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:56 pm

.....Or Ayres' LOADMASTER.....?

See Reply 24 in this thread.....

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...6046&searchid=70313&s=COIN#ID70313

[Edited 2008-07-04 13:58:36]

[Edited 2008-07-04 14:01:31]

TSV · Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:24 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 50):
Any idea for a nick name: We have the C5 Galaxy, the C17 Globemaster III, the C 130 Hercules and the C 160 Transall, what would be a cool name for A400M ?

Super Belfast

Belfast II

.....

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net