A400M Update

NoUFO · Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:35 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 49):
If I remember correctly the first "unprepared runway" landing went bad because it wasn't prepared correctly (seems it was too wet).. so the test was revised to minimally prepared runways..

That's just one of those numerous bogus arguments that have accompanied the introduction of the A400M. It is not that test pilots or manufacturers say: "Let's land the bird on that field down there and see what happens. If we do well, the plane gets its unprepped runway certificate."

Instead, there are different CBR runway indexes that measure e.g. strenght / durability and flexibility of unprepared runways. A CBR 3 runway is less durable than a CBR 8 runway. If you need a CBR 6 qualification but the airstrip you chose is too wet and therefore qualifies as a CBR 4 or 5 runway, then you actually have to prepare the runway so you can do the unprepared runway tests. You know what: That's normal!

The A400M can land and take off carrying 30 tons of payload or fuel to/from a CBR 6 runway at least 40 times before you need to improve the runway. To my knowledge there is no other airlifter that can do that.

jollo · Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:56 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 49):
while they may have loaded the puppy up on one test, and flown till the tanks were empty on another test, those are carefully orchestrated events

I get it: actual operational capabilities are a different kettle of fish and cannot be inferred directly from test campaign data. Stll, my question is: does anyone know (approximately) what is the maximum payload that was actually test flown on an A400M? And what was the longest tested range?

In other words, is Airbus' "37t max payload, 4500km@30t" commercial claim supported by successful test flights, no matter how carefully orchestrated?

kanban · Tue Dec 30, 2014 5:46 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 50):
The A400M can land and take off carrying 30 tons of payload or fuel to/from a CBR 6 runway at least 40 times before you need to improve the runway. To my knowledge there is no other airlifter that can do that.

First, thanks for refreshing my memory.. it was in one of those "short term memory holes".

Second (due to the same memory hole), did they actually perform the 40 landings and take-offs with a 30 ton payload on a CBR 6 runway, or was it extrapolated from other test data?

One should remember that testing and hazardous theater operations are two different scenarios.. the first involves solo flights and debriefings/data analysis, maintenance checks, while the other may be continuos operation with only refueling.

NoUFO · Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:46 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 52):
did they actually perform the 40 landings and take-offs with a 30 ton payload on a CBR 6 runway, or was it extrapolated from other test data?

To my knowledge they did land the A400M on field strips that qualified as CBR 4, 6 and 8 (at least) but I do not know the mil specs in detail. The field strip capability was one capability that made the A400M interesting for the Britons who already operate C17s and C130s. The RAF consider their C17 strategic airlift and do not use them for low-level flight, paradrops or field landings. At least in theory, the C17 is capable of doing all this but the Britons are acquiring A400Ms as a third airlifter instead.

Certainly a real theater is different from test environments but only the latter one is controllable and therefore suitable to provide evidence that customers get what they have paid for. Apparently, the tactical qualities of the C17 are not good enough (or not affordable enough) for the Britons, "combat proven" or not.

kanban · Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:28 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 53):

I think it's going to be a good plane.. and wonder why Airbus keeps so much hidden (same as their commercial planes testing)

kc135topboom · Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:44 am

Quoting jollo (Reply 48):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):The first A-400M has been in service for over a year now and it has not fully demonstrated its 37 tonne capability, or its range capability with a significant load. Why is that?
Besides any criticism: how much is the actual proven (during test flights) cargo capacity of the production standard A400Ms?

Quoting kanban (Reply 49):
I think what TopBoom is getting at is while they may have loaded the puppy up on one test, and flown till the tanks were empty on another test, those are carefully orchestrated events. Doing so in real conditions is better proving grounds.. Yes they have been using the planes but not a capacity in favor of more flights.

If I remember correctly the first "unprepared runway" landing went bad because it wasn't prepared correctly (seems it was too wet).. so the test was revised to minimally prepared runways..

Flight testing is not the same as operational military flying. Flight testing does not establish capabilities used by the military, but it does establish aircraft limitations for a given "G" force. The A-400M is designed to be a 3G airplane, but it will not always be flown to 3Gs. It will, most likely be flown at 2Gs, some 99% of the time. It is here where militarys will establish cargo weight and ranges, as well as landing runway limitations. To my knowledge, the neither French, Turks, nor Brits have flown the airplane to its full military capability.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 50):
The A400M can land and take off carrying 30 tons of payload or fuel to/from a CBR 6 runway at least 40 times before you need to improve the runway. To my knowledge there is no other airlifter that can do that.

The C-17 can, and has into combat areas.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0LEVzvwSqNUTSoAX5ZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZGk2Z2FqBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDA3N18x?p=C-17+operations+from+unprepared+runways

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...policy/army/fm/5-430-00-2/Ch12.htm

Max Q · Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:11 am

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 53):
At least in theory, the C17 is capable of doing all this but the Britons are acquiring A400Ms as a third airlifter instead.

The RAF has stated in the past they eventually plan to replace the C130 with the A400, I doubt, with their budget issues they
would be able to afford to operate all three simultaneously despite their different 'niches'

NoUFO · Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:56 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 55):
The C-17 can, and has into combat areas.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0LEVzvwSqNUTSoAX5ZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZGk2Z2FqBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDA3N18x?p=C-17+operations+from+unprepared+runways

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...policy/army/fm/5-430-00-2/Ch12.htm

As the graph clearly shows, you can turn a C17 once (= 1x landing + 1 x take-off) on unprepared runway of the CBR 8 category. For CBR 6 strips (or lower) you would need to put down mats first.

The videos show take-offs and landings from runways that are obviously dirty but otherwise look quite rigid.

Don't get me wrong - the C17 is certainly a very capable aircraft but with a higher weight and turbofans it appears to be obvious that it cannot land where leighter turboprops can go - or at least not as easily.

chuchoteur · Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:39 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 45):
So is the plane not capable, or is it they just haven't had an opportunity for grand PR displays?

I think initially at least the french A400M aircraft have been prioritised in support of operational needs, none of which either had the cargo density or mission distance to display the specific max range/payload points mentioned.

Aside from now routinely flying down to the Republic of Central Africa and Mali, they have transported scheduled replacement helicopters to martinique and french guyana, they have supported the deployment of Rafale aircraft out to the UAE, they have performed several low level flight campaigns in Djibouti, projected to La Reunion island, and done some cold weather validation in Canada and Norway...

... if anything, at least the aircraft reliability and availability is pretty good as far as military programmes go...

I suspect max loads/range may well be demonstrated operationally by the RAF first, the french have not projected any armoured vehicles with the A400M yet as most have gone by sea to Africa...

kanban · Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:51 pm

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 58):

That's probably the best and most realistic summation of usage to date... thanks, I'm content to wait for the Brits or Germans to put the extremes to a test.

ivanpaneque · Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:49 pm

Does anyone know when the flight tests of airbus 400 Malaysian begin?

KarelXWB · Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:00 pm

Regarding soft runways, the A400M will soon resume unprepared runway landings in Niger.

http://www.air-cosmos.com/2015/01/07...este-sur-terrain-sommaire-au-niger

breiz · Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:57 pm

Supply chain problems are reported to cause delays in the delivery of further A400Ms.
The defense minister of Germany is bitching about it, and the Turks are moderately unhappy.
The OCCAR organization broke the news.
Airbus plans to issue a new delivery timetable at the end of Februay.

mffoda · Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:17 am

Quoting breiz (Reply 62):
The defense minister of Germany is bitching about it

I'll say... she doesn't seem happy at all.

" "The Airbus announcement of further A400M delays hits us at the most inconvenient time," Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen told Der Spiegel magazine in excerpts of an interview to published in Saturday's edition.

"At stake is not just the image of the company, but also Germany's reliability as an alliance partner," she added.

"Airbus seems to have a serious problem with its understanding of product quality."

The minister said she expected Airbus to make every effort to minimise the impact of the delays on the armed forces.

German military inspectors checked the first A400M plane in November and listed 875 defects, including missing insulation of electric cables and leaked hydraulic oil on the main landing gear and tires, Spiegel reported, citing internal documents."

edit: include link.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...400m-germany-idUSKBN0KW21U20150123

[Edited 2015-01-24 18:19:03]

Nicoeddf · Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:48 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 41):

Quoting mffoda (Reply 63):
" "The Airbus announcement of further A400M delays hits us at the most inconvenient time," Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen told Der Spiegel magazine in excerpts of an interview to published in Saturday's edition.

"At stake is not just the image of the company, but also Germany's reliability as an alliance partner," she added.

"Airbus seems to have a serious problem with its understanding of product quality."

What a blabla.

If Germany was able to be a reliable alliance partner until now with the Transall, I can't see how a little (further) delay of the A400M is questioning that.
Further, indicating that Airbus has a serious problem in understanding of product quality is a bit ridiculous considering hundreds of excellent planes in the commercial sector.

What I do give her, however: She is customer and customers can obviously put pressure on the supplier - normal business.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 63):

German military inspectors checked the first A400M plane in November and listed 875 defects,

Having dealt with the Luftwaffe on another project and knowing the administrative process behind it, I recon that of those 875 defects only 200 were really something to talk about. And that would be perfectly in line with what we see as a customer at every manufacturer taking over brand new planes, commercial ones that is.

Rgrds

breiz · Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:08 pm

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 64):
What a blabla.

It was quite a statement about Airbus' understanding of product quality.
IMO she is reacting that violently due to political pressure. It was made public recently that the Luftwaffe is not capable of doing its share in the joint European military transportation (EATC) and NATO.
From Reuters: "von der Leyen (Defence Minister) was forced to acknowledge that so much military equipment was in a state of disrepair that Germany was unable to meet its NATO commitments.
Nice to deflect the attention towards a supplier.

Nicoeddf · Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:34 pm

Quoting breiz (Reply 65):
Nice to deflect the attention towards a supplier.

Yes exactly!

Quoting breiz (Reply 65):
IMO she is reacting that violently due to political pressure. It was made public recently that the Luftwaffe is not capable of doing its share in the joint European military transportation (EATC) and NATO.
From Reuters: "von der Leyen (Defence Minister) was forced to acknowledge that so much military equipment was in a state of disrepair that Germany was unable to meet its NATO commitments.

You know what? As much as I disagree with the American way of "easy-going-to-war" I cannot understand how the German forces are neglected. If you are in a military alliance make sure you do you fair share.
One cannot bitch about "die Amis" and at the same rely on their equipment.

But with that said: the late delivery of the A400M surely is not to be made responsible. 20 years of saving wherever you can, are.

kc135topboom · Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:15 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 63):
German military inspectors checked the first A400M plane in November and listed 875 defects, including missing insulation of electric cables and leaked hydraulic oil on the main landing gear and tires, Spiegel reported, citing internal documents."

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 64):
Having dealt with the Luftwaffe on another project and knowing the administrative process behind it, I recon that of those 875 defects only 200 were really something to talk about. And that would be perfectly in line with what we see as a customer at every manufacturer taking over brand new planes, commercial ones that is.

While I agree nearly all airplanes delivered have a list of defects, very few are considered serious, most are cosmetic.

But defects like "missing insulation of electric cables and leaked hydraulic oil on the main landing gear and tires" are very serious problems. These are not supplier issue problems, but are manufacturing problems that should be directly attributed to Airbus.

That said, I also fail to see how an in-production airplane is having "supplier issues", even if the production is only at about 8 airplanes per year. This is just a poor excuse to hide other problems within the A-400M program. Airbus is not even meeting the re-negotiated contract deliveries, and want to deflect blame for their failure by pointing to unnamed suppliers.

moo · Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:17 pm

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 66):

Let's not forget they never wanted to take delivery of the Eurofighter either, for monetary reasons (but didn't want to give up manufacturing share).

Nicoeddf · Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:19 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
While I agree nearly all airplanes delivered have a list of defects, very few are considered serious, most are cosmetic.

But defects like "missing insulation of electric cables and leaked hydraulic oil on the main landing gear and tires" are very serious problems. These are not supplier issue problems, but are manufacturing problems that should be directly attributed to Airbus.

Yeah,...no, I cannot confirm that. I have had cargo doors which were so misaligned that you could see daylight from the inside, seriously leaking Main Landing Gears, forgotten cable installation, misfitted wing spars which had to be redone (twice!) that was all one manufacturer on an in-production widebody - and very recently at that.

So, attributing that to the A400M specifically? No, certainly not.

I agree with:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
That said, I also fail to see how an in-production airplane is having "supplier issues", even if the production is only at about 8 airplanes per year.

That should not happen but I hardly believe Airbus is pointing the finger without reason. A Boeing-style Supplier-mismanagement maybe, but an outright lie? No, don't think so.

Quoting moo (Reply 68):
Let's not forget they never wanted to take delivery of the Eurofighter either, for monetary reasons (but didn't want to give up manufacturing share).

"They" as in Luftwaffe? I can't really believe that as at some point the Phantom would have needed replacement in any case. Reduction of acquisition numbers? Yeah, true.

All in all - the A400M is a hard lesson learned for European heavy military transport designing capability. It will be worth it at the end - in the meantime Europe and Airbus must accept the bashing and the buying nations a bit of delay

moo · Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:17 pm

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 69):
"They" as in Luftwaffe? I can't really believe that as at some point the Phantom would have needed replacement in any case. Reduction of acquisition numbers? Yeah, true.

They as in the reunified German governments- specifically Helmut Kohl and Volker Rühe, who wanted to cancel their purchase of the Eurofighter in 1991 but found themselves bound in. They eventually reduced their buy by nearly half, but were forced to order an additional 40 aircraft to retain their workshare.

[Edited 2015-01-25 10:18:32]

Nicoeddf · Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:30 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 70):
They as in the reunified German governments- specifically Helmut Kohl and Volker Rühe, who wanted to cancel their purchase of the Eurofighter in 1991 but found themselves bound in. They eventually reduced their buy by nearly half, but were forced to order an additional 40 aircraft to retain their workshare.

If thats how it was (I really can't remember) it would have been shortsighted anyway. They would've had to buy Typhoon at a later point to kick out those F4Fs...

KarelXWB · Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:38 am

Meanwhile the first Malaysia A400M has been painted.

First Airbus A400M airlifter for Malaysia rolled out of paintshop by Airbus Group, on Flickr

tommy1808 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:20 am

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 71):
If thats how it was (I really can't remember) it would have been shortsighted anyway.

It was almost like that. Germany wanted to get out of the Eurofighter in favor of a cheaper design ("EFA-light") because the EF was too much aircraft for what the government considered the Luftwaffe requirements (we don´t need range like the Brits e.g.) and they didn´t want to pay for what they didn´t need, They studied 7 different configurations to replace the Eurofighter in the procurement plans. Five of these turned out to be more expensive than proceeding and the two cheaper ones where so inferior in performance that they held no advantage over the Mig-29 and Su-27 and where therefore too expensive in the bang/buck category.
So, yes, Germany at some point didn´t want the Eurofighter, but changed its mind when they figured out that it was the best available option.
The Luftwaffe was always very outspoken, saying that the only alternative for the Eurofighter would be less of them.

best regards
Thomas

Nicoeddf · Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:04 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 73):
It was almost like that.

Thanks - I did not want to imply that I don't believe Moo, but I now see it can be read like that. Sorry!

And many thanks for explanation!

r2rho · Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:17 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 63):
"Airbus seems to have a serious problem with its understanding of product quality."

This is just her playing Al Baker

Blabla to heat up the atmosphere before the negotiation table.

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 64):
German military inspectors checked the first A400M plane in November and listed 875 defects,

Having dealt with the Luftwaffe on another project and knowing the administrative process behind it, I recon that of those 875 defects only 200 were really something to talk about. And that would be perfectly in line with what we see as a customer at every manufacturer taking over brand new planes, commercial ones that is.

Agree. The other 675 were likely the Luftwaffe's own defects. They have a habit of wanting to take each aircraft they receive apart and wanting to re-certify the whole thing themselves; they have built up that reputation over the years. Continuing with my analogy, probably even Al Baker is a less annoying customer. Furthermore this comes from der Spiegel, a source with a known anti-Airbus background.
That's not to say the A400M's are all perfect. But the two sources being cited are heavily biased.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
. This is just a poor excuse to hide other problems within the A-400M program. Airbus is not even meeting the re-negotiated contract deliveries, and want to deflect blame for their failure by pointing to unnamed suppliers.

Agree. Announcing new delays on top of the already huge delays that everyone has accepted...something more may be going on, by this stage Airbus should have had production well set-up.

Quoting moo (Reply 70):
They as in the reunified German governments- specifically Helmut Kohl and Volker Rühe, who wanted to cancel their purchase of the Eurofighter in 1991 but found themselves bound in. They eventually reduced their buy by nearly half, but were forced to order an additional 40 aircraft to retain their workshare.

Yes, I remember that. German governments were all but a reliable partner on the Eurofighter program due to their constant hesitation and frequent changes of mind. They certainly have their good share of responsability in delays and cost overruns for the program.

KarelXWB · Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Because of the new A400M delay's, Executive Vice President of Military Domingo Ureña-Raso has to quit his job and will make place for Fernando Alonso.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unt...taerflieger-zurueck-a-1015632.html

angad84 · Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:26 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 76):
and will make place for Fernando Alonso.

But Alonso begins testing the new McLaren MP4-30 at Jerez on 1 Feb, and his contractual obligations have already limited his opportunities outside F1. Not sure a high-stakes job at Airbus is going to work out for him.

On a serious note, this is pretty heavy, but it's important to note that Mr. Raso is stepping aside as EVP Military Aircraft, not leaving Airbus altogether. According to WSJ, Airbus is looking for a new position for him — most likely a sideways move that may or may not dead-end his career at AB.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-r...f-amid-a400m-plane-woes-1422540910

Cheers
Angad

Revelation · Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:46 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 75):
This is just her playing Al Baker

Well, she seems to have claimed at least one scalp, and now has Enders grovelling:

Quote:

"Certainly we’ll have to pay penalties. We’ll have to undertake commitments with certain timelines, which if we don’t fulfill, we will owe our customers money," Enders said. "But this time around I will not go to our customers and request additional funding. That was necessary and appropriate in 2010. This time around this will not happen. It is the company that needs to fix it."

Enders described the situation as "significant," but "not a catastrophe," and said the company will persist with the program despite the difficulties.

"There is no single program underway, certainly not in the western world, that rivals A400M," he said. "That said, we have delays in deliveries, in upgrading military functionalities. It’s embarrassing to the company to a certain extent."

Earlier this week, Enders apologized for the delays at an event in London, and said there would be "management and organizational consequences." It appears Ureña-Raso is the highest-profile victim of those changes. He will "pursue other activities within the group," the memo says.

The article ( http://aviationweek.com/platforms-pr...icial-forced-out-over-a400m-delays ) suggests SOC 1.5 capabilities are about a year behind schedule, which was more than enough excuse (this time) for heads to roll.

Reuters ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0m-statement-idUSKBN0L21LV20150129 ) describes some political aspects of the problems:

Quote:

Airbus insiders say Germany's insistence on unusually advanced features for a transport carrier, including ground-hugging navigational software more akin to missile technology, were partly driven by a desire to protect domestic high-skilled jobs and ended up hindering the project.

Germany has long argued Airbus should meet its promises.

Urena-Raso "is a good manager but he was caught between the complexities of the German specifications, Spanish concerns over control, and Airbus in Toulouse who are fundamental to the whole project," a person familiar with the program said.

Urena-Raso is likely to stay in Europe's largest aerospace company but the move is a setback for one of its most respected and charismatic executives, who was once seen as a candidate to run the Airbus & Space Division, now headed by Gerwert.

One analyst, asking not to be identified, said however that Enders had "missed a chance" to resolve the A400M problems once and for all by uprooting it from Spain, which has had the lead on military transporters since folding its CASA business into a mainly Franco-German merger that created Airbus Group in 2000.

I wonder how many more stumbles it will take for the program to be yanked away from Spain?

kanban · Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:49 am

Maybe they should sell the production line to Boeing and move it to St. Louis

kc135topboom · Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:49 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 78):
I wonder how many more stumbles it will take for the program to be yanked away from Spain?

I'm not sure Airbus can do that. Spain is a full partner in the A-400M program.

Quoting kanban (Reply 79):
Maybe they should sell the production line to Boeing and move it to St. Louis

Boeing would close down the program after the contract obligations were met.

MD11Engineer · Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:10 am

Quoting r2rho (Reply 75):
Furthermore this comes from der Spiegel, a source with a known anti-Airbus background.

I assume that many of the Spiegel upper management are having mansions in Blankenese, a wealthy district of Hamburg. Unfortunately for them the Airbus factory is just across the river Elbe from there and the extended runway center line goes right over their houses. The people from Blankenese have since a long time tried to lobby against Airbus.

Jan

N14AZ · Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:33 am

Quoting r2rho (Reply 75):
Furthermore this comes from der Spiegel, a source with a known anti-Airbus background.

And - if I may add this - extremely poor quality. Essentially, the Spiegel is like Bild-Zeitung (let's say The Sun) for lleftwingers. I read their article about the A400M in their weekly journal about two weeks ago. It included a nice picture of the only Luftwaffe A400M sitting in its hangar - it hasn't flown since arrival shortly before Christmas 2014.

The title was "Too fat to fly" and is of extremely poor quality. I am referring to the way how they try to explain technical issues, horrible.

Quoting md11engineer (Reply 81):
I assume that many of the Spiegel upper management are having mansions in Blankenese, a wealthy district of Hamburg. Unfortunately for them the Airbus factory is just across the river Elbe from there and the extended runway center line goes right over their houses. The people from Blankenese have since a long time tried to lobby against Airbus.

Reasons like this are my only explanation + the fact that these guys are sitting in their offices and desperately looking for bad news exclusively. No one would be interested to read "everything works fine with the A400M".

Revelation · Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:25 pm

On one had we have

Quoting Revelation (Reply 78):
Enders described the situation as "significant," but "not a catastrophe,"

And on the other:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 82):
The title was "Too fat to fly"

I suspect the truth is in the middle.

Do we know why the German a/c hasn't flown for over a month? I could imagine some local customization and/or training has to happen, but it doesn't leave a great impression to not be flying.

tommy1808 · Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:29 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 82):
And - if I may add this - extremely poor quality.

if it is Spiegel and about Airbus, Windpower or military. .. it is not worth the time in an otherwise decent magazine. .

Best regards
Thomas

N14AZ · Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:38 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 83):
Do we know why the German a/c hasn't flown for over a month? I could imagine some local customization and/or training has to happen, but it doesn't leave a great impression to not be flying.

I just read that 54 + 01 has been flying yesterday, February 04, 2015. This was the first flight since the aircraft arrived in Wunstorf.

Revelation · Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:16 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 85):
I just read that 54 + 01 has been flying yesterday, February 04, 2015. This was the first flight since the aircraft arrived in Wunstorf.

Great news. It's going to be a great asset for the German Air Force.

kc135topboom · Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:26 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86):
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 85):I just read that 54 + 01 has been flying yesterday, February 04, 2015. This was the first flight since the aircraft arrived in Wunstorf.
Great news. It's going to be a great asset for the German Air Force.

Gotta start those aircrew training flights sometime. I'll guess it spent most of the sortie in the traffic pattern and flying touch and gos.

Revelation · Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:12 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 87):

Gotta start those aircrew training flights sometime. I'll guess it spent most of the sortie in the traffic pattern and flying touch and gos.

I agree, but I also read that some German crew were able to train at TLS on the prototypes and on the simulator too, so they won't be starting from scratch. I read the prototypes will be heading to the museum when Airbus is done with them so they might as well put the hours on them while they still have them.

KarelXWB · Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:30 am

One of the prototypes is already sitting in long term storage.

bunumuring · Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:40 pm

Hey guys,
I heard today that an A400M has been confirmed as flying to Australia next month to participate in the Avalon Air Show. Can anyone confirm which A400M will fly down under?
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

angad84 · Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:18 pm

We had a French A400M in Yelahanka (Bangalore) a day or two ago, as support ship for the 3 Rafales displaying at Aero India 2015. Not sure if it's staying for the show though.

Cheers
Angad

mffoda · Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:22 pm

Looks like the refueling capability is in question now...

From defense-aerospace.com:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...artners-due-to-meet-in-berlin.html

"Customers also have found lapses in quality control. and delivered aircraft do not meet all contractual specifications. France has found several hundred deficiencies on its A400Ms, Collet-Billon said, although these are of varying gravity and range from nicks in the paint to serious capability shortfalls.

For example, the aircraft is not yet cleared to drop paratroopers through its side doors, although paras can jump through the rear ramp. It looks unlikely that the A400M will ever be able to refuel helicopters in flight, Collet-Billon said, because of the strong propwash and induced instability generated by its large, contra-rotating turboprop engines. This is however a contractual requirement, and the capability should be delivered by 2017 or 2018."

I wonder what "Plan B" is now... KC-130J?

mrg · Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:35 pm

@ mffoda

Let's wait and see. It's quite possible that Blackhawk/NH90 sized helicopters will have a problem with the propwash, but perhaps it 'll possible to manage that by reducing the engine/propeller settings. Or perhaps limiting smaller helicopters to using the fuselage mounted hose unit.

I would think that Chinook/CH-53 sized helicopters would not have a problem.

One thing is for sure though- the A380, A400M and NH90 programmes have been anything but well-run.

Revelation · Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting mrg (Reply 93):
One thing is for sure though- the A380, A400M and NH90 programmes have been anything but well-run.

Imagine the fuss if someone with a US flag next to their username said this?

On the other hand, the B787, C-17 and VH-71 programs were not examples of excellence either!

mrg · Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:54 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 94):
Imagine the fuss if someone with a US flag next to their username said this?

Oh, come on! Most Euro fan bois can take relevant and fair criticism from your side of the pond on the chin

I don't know why more and more aircraft programmes go off the rails. Everything is computer-aided nowadays.

The F-16: first flight in 1974. Four years later first flight of an F-16 built on another continent. IOC one month later. They just don't build them like they used to.

Acheron · Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:13 pm

Quoting mrg (Reply 95):
The F-16: first flight in 1974. Four years later first flight of an F-16 built on another continent. IOC one month later. They just don't build them like they used to.

Probably the fact that most started as single-mission aircraft which got the multirole capability tacked later on helped with that; instead of trying to cram so much crap into the platform from the start.

Revelation · Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:24 pm

Quoting mrg (Reply 95):
I don't know why more and more aircraft programmes go off the rails. Everything is computer-aided nowadays.

You may have answered your own question!

My theory is that in the old days they didn't intentionally try anything more complicated than the humans themselves could manage. Nowadays no one person can keep a grip on things, they presume "the computer" is doing that.

Quoting mrg (Reply 95):
The F-16: first flight in 1974. Four years later first flight of an F-16 built on another continent. IOC one month later. They just don't build them like they used to.

The original U2 program ended up with a budget surplus! IIRC Kelley Johnson used the funds to produce an extra U2 for USAF/CIA use.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 96):
Probably the fact that most started as single-mission aircraft which got the multirole capability tacked later on helped with that; instead of trying to cram so much crap into the platform from the start.

Perhaps, but the F/A-18 had both from the start and had none of the drama of the F-35.

angad84 · Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:24 pm

Quoting Acheron (Reply 96):
Probably the fact that most started as single-mission aircraft which got the multirole capability tacked later on helped with that; instead of trying to cram so much crap into the platform from the start.

Except if you think about it, most contemporary programmes also entered service with a single role. Typhoon and Rafale entered service as A2A birds, and slowly got updated to full multirole status. That's what they're doing with the F-22 as well, as best they can.

Cheers
Angad

r2rho · Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 76):
Because of the new A400M delay's, Executive Vice President of Military Domingo Ureña-Raso has to quit his job and will make place for Fernando Alonso.

Strange move as Alonso is a flight test and engineering guy, not a manufacturing guy. But he did successfully steer to an end the initially troubled A380 flight test campaign, and ran an A350 test campaign that will be appear in textbooks one day....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 78):
I wonder how many more stumbles it will take for the program to be yanked away from Spain?

What does it have to do with Spain? FAL is there and a lot of the engineering, yes, but the program is ultimately managed from TLS, components sourced from all partner nations, including for example a very major part of the fuselage as well as the cargo loading system from Germany. So it is not just a Spanish problem, even if some would like to make it so. Having said that, Spain does risk losing influence within Airbus if the program further screws up, regardless of whose fault it is.
And on a sidenote, if it weren't for the former CASA that EADS absorbed, Airbus would have no military products at all (except a part of Typhoon).

Quoting angad84 (Reply 98):
Except if you think about it, most contemporary programmes also entered service with a single role.

Correct, but not because they were planned like that, but because eventually one had to accept reality. As per initial contract, those aircraft had to be able to do everything from day one, then came too late the realization that it was impossible, the cost overruns & delays, etc etc. We know the story....

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net