A600M

lordarpad · Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:47 pm

It strikes me that Europe could use a bigger airlifter eventually. Would a 6 engine Atlas work? Basically an Atlas + 50% ?

WIederling · Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:05 pm

That would be three twins, right?

I'd see an A200M as a slight upgrade to the Transall.
Twin with same engines and similar systems to the A400M

Ozair · Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:02 am

lordarpad wrote:
It strikes me that Europe could use a bigger airlifter eventually. Would a 6 engine Atlas work? Basically an Atlas + 50% ?

Surely a jet makes sense when you start getting into that size range? Then you have to find a customer, I don't think France or Germany are interested in a larger transport, who do you see acquiring it?

WIederling wrote:
That would be three twins, right?

I'd see an A200M as a slight upgrade to the Transall.
Twin with same engines and similar systems to the A400M

The twin market is already pretty congested, I'm not sure there would be a business case for a twin A200M as it were, would also place it in competition with the C-295.

WIederling · Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:46 pm

C-295 ... is a 9t payload airframe.
A400M nominally 40t ( they'll get there :-)

A 20+t lifter would fit in well imho. ( The Transall has been in heavy use all around.)

VSMUT · Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:31 pm

IMHO, a simple stretch of the A400M makes more sense if a bigger airlifter is needed. Cooperation with Embraer on the KC-390 would be a better choice for a 20 ton freighter.

SCAT15F · Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:33 pm

VSMUT wrote:
IMHO, a simple stretch of the A400M makes more sense if a bigger airlifter is needed. Cooperation with Embraer on the KC-390 would be a better choice for a 20 ton freighter.

Yes. Perhaps the addition of blended winglets would help too. Not that I don't think it would be cool, but six-engine transport would have to be pretty large to justify 6 engines given the fact that we are no longer limited by engine size these days. Even in the 1950's the capability existed for 20,000 hp turboprops (P&W T-57 growth versions). For instance, the Antonov An-225 today could easily be powered by four engines in the GE9X class...

Ozair · Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:48 am

WIederling wrote:
C-295 ... is a 9t payload airframe.
A400M nominally 40t ( they'll get there
A 20+t lifter would fit in well imho. ( The Transall has been in heavy use all around.)

Sure but what is the business case to develop a shortened version? Given how financially unviable the A400 has become for Airbus I cannot see them putting funding to this.

They would rather upsell customers to an A400 instead of competing with the C-130, KC-390 etc.

aviationaware · Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:29 pm

Maybe get the A400M going properly before discussing something even bigger.

WIederling · Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:48 pm

Ozair wrote:
They would rather upsell customers to an A400 instead of competing with the C-130, KC-390 etc.

"America First" will shove quite a bit of competing products into the markets.
( As most everybody will switch over to Us First. )

Ozair · Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:02 pm

WIederling wrote:

"America First" will shove quite a bit of competing products into the markets.
( As most everybody will switch over to Us First. )

It would be foolish of Airbus to invest 3-4 billion dollars into a program on the basis of a likely single term President. 4 years from now the pendulum will likely swing back and Airbus will be saddled with more A400 associated costs they will be unable to recover...

WIederling · Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:25 pm

Ozair wrote:
WIederling wrote:

"America First" will shove quite a bit of competing products into the markets.
( As most everybody will switch over to Us First. )

It would be foolish of Airbus to invest 3-4 billion dollars into a program on the basis of a likely single term President. 4 years from now the pendulum will likely swing back and Airbus will be saddled with more A400 associated costs they will be unable to recover...

I am not certain. But at the moment my judgement is that Trump ( actually the topping from the bottom minions behind him) will trash enough established patterns that the world will not be same after this experience. No return.

Nean1 · Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:13 pm

What if the troublesome A-400 turboprops were replaced by the PW GTF?

mxaxai · Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:58 am

Nean1 wrote:
What if the troublesome A-400 turboprops were replaced by the PW GTF?

Or two Trent XWB. :duck:

As with any reengine, you would need to redo some structural elements. Due to the change Prop -> Jet flight characteristics would likely change as well, it may also be that they cannot handle dirt ingestion or unusual maneuvers as well as the TP-400 is supposed to.
One large problem would be the lack of airflow over the wing caused by the engines, which really helps to achieve the STOL characteristics.

mjoelnir · Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:25 pm

Nean1 wrote:
What if the troublesome A-400 turboprops were replaced by the PW GTF?

the trouble on the Europrop TP-400 is on the way to getting solved. The problem is the prop gear supplied by the GE subsidiary Avio Aero. A redesigned gear is on the way.
It is always easy to say that Airbus should have gone with P&W's PW180 but that was also not a running engine, but just a design. P&W has not a very good track record of delivering on time and without problems.

Other problems with the A400M are also getting solved, as there are, jumping off the A300M with parachutes, parachute delivery of loads, defensive suits, operation from unimproved airstrips and refueling of helicopters. I do not know if the cracking issue is solved.

WIederling · Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:54 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The problem is the prop gear supplied by the GE subsidiary Avio Aero. A redesigned gear is on the way.

Still wondering why that did not come up on the prototype engines.

Slug71 · Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:07 pm

WIederling wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The problem is the prop gear supplied by the GE subsidiary Avio Aero. A redesigned gear is on the way.

Still wondering why that did not come up on the prototype engines.

The only thing I could think was, that the redesign of other parts has caused some sort of imbalance to the gear in question.

Slug71 · Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:19 pm

WIederling wrote:
That would be three twins, right?

I'd see an A200M as a slight upgrade to the Transall.
Twin with same engines and similar systems to the A400M

I could see something like this to replace the C-295. And Transall.
With a internal weapons bay for the MPA variant.

lordarpad · Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:53 am

Ozair wrote:
lordarpad wrote:
It strikes me that Europe could use a bigger airlifter eventually. Would a 6 engine Atlas work? Basically an Atlas + 50% ?

Surely a jet makes sense when you start getting into that size range? Then you have to find a customer, I don't think France or Germany are interested in a larger transport, who do you see acquiring it?

That would have to be for a joint EU airlift command IMO

Mortyman · Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:05 pm

Shame the C-17 isn't built anymore ...

iamlucky13 · Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:30 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Shame the C-17 isn't built anymore ...

The European nations had 20+ years to buy C-17's.

The UK bought 8. The rest concluded the A400M would be sufficient for their foreseeable needs. It would be a pretty significant reversal to suddenly decide they need a bigger aircraft.

Dutchy · Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:01 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
Shame the C-17 isn't built anymore ...

The European nations had 20+ years to buy C-17's.

The UK bought 8. The rest concluded the A400M would be sufficient for their foreseeable needs. It would be a pretty significant reversal to suddenly decide they need a bigger aircraft.

NATO airlift has 3, based at Pápa Air Base in Hungary.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50105.htm

seahawk · Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:21 am

Oh yes, I am sure everybody will wanting another Airbus product after the experience with the A400M (grounded After 400 Minutes)

JetBuddy · Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:41 am

seahawk wrote:
Oh yes, I am sure everybody will wanting another Airbus product after the experience with the A400M (grounded After 400 Minutes)

The A400M is doing pretty good, isn't it? Indonesia and Egypt are the latest customers I believe. I know it's got issues, but all new aircraft models do. They'll get it sorted. A stretched "Super Atlas" might be viable, but I agree that they should fix all the issues with the current model first.

Grizzly410 · Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:51 am

JetBuddy wrote:
The A400M is doing pretty good, isn't it? Indonesia and Egypt are the latest customers I believe.

Not so fast with the Indonesian deal even if it looks like a safe bet, for Egypt it's nothing more than a rumor.

seahawk · Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:34 am

JetBuddy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Oh yes, I am sure everybody will wanting another Airbus product after the experience with the A400M (grounded After 400 Minutes)

The A400M is doing pretty good, isn't it? Indonesia and Egypt are the latest customers I believe. I know it's got issues, but all new aircraft models do. They'll get it sorted. A stretched "Super Atlas" might be viable, but I agree that they should fix all the issues with the current model first.

It is not about the sales, it about the way the project was run. If Airbus will ever venture in this field again they will want to handle it like a commercial project, with critical components going to the best bidders and not going to bidders based on the percentage of the budget each partner nation does provide. I think Airbus would be even more against this than the partner nations.

Aesma · Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:47 pm

We don't plan to invade countries with tanks, in fact we're not sure why we still have tanks, so no need for that plane.

Ozair · Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:13 am

Aesma wrote:
We don't plan to invade countries with tanks, in fact we're not sure why we still have tanks, so no need for that plane.

Not only that but there remains no viable business case for a stretch or shrink of the airframe. Enders would by sacked to even propose spending billions and developing either version in an already congested light and medium transport market.

Slug71 · Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:47 am

Slug71 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
That would be three twins, right?

I'd see an A200M as a slight upgrade to the Transall.
Twin with same engines and similar systems to the A400M

I could see something like this to replace the C-295. And Transall.
With a internal weapons bay for the MPA variant.

The business case for this might have just got a little better. From the Civil AV section, it appears there might be a market for a 100 seat turboprop.

Channex757 · Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:06 am

The C-295 is already a pretty good platform, and doesn't really need much doing beyond a re-engine to make it last just as the C-130 has had midlife refresh work without changing the basic layout of the aircraft. An update with newer avionics and some upgrading of propulsion would cover the proposed A200M band of capability.

There are also things that could be done with the ATR family for a lot less money than a clean sheet design.

Slug71 · Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:11 am

Channex757 wrote:
The C-295 is already a pretty good platform, and doesn't really need much doing beyond a re-engine to make it last just as the C-130 has had midlife refresh work without changing the basic layout of the aircraft. An update with newer avionics and some upgrading of propulsion would cover the proposed A200M band of capability.

There are also things that could be done with the ATR family for a lot less money than a clean sheet design.

Agreed.
But a major benefit from a "A200M", would be a wider fuselage. The C-295 now falls short against the newer C-27J, KC-390, C-1/C-2..etc. A 20t payload would also make it competitive with the C-130.
Another platform using the TP400 engines should also help with engine cost as well as development.

seahawk · Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:10 am

Nobody would want the TP400 engine at the moment. Maybe when it has a few trouble free years under the belt, but at the moment it would be a "stay away" reason for any potential buyer.

keesje · Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:32 am

An A200M makes little sense with the KC390 so close. It will be interesting what the USAF will buy now that requirements have outgrown the fifties C130 and the C-17 is out of production. P&WC is now testing a new turboprop engine up to 8000shp.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/2016/05/12/pratt-whitney-completes-ngrt-phase-2-testing/

Channex757 · Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:47 pm

Unfortunately a lot of people in the defence industry fail to understand that good ideas don't often get born in a bath full of cash. The standout ones come from inspired engineers, often just working with what they have on the shelf (KC390 is a prime example of this).

The TP400 is a joke. One contractor, either Safran or Rolls Royce, should have been the sole builder and only subcontracts that the manufacturer is happy with would be allowed. There are good collaborations out there (like CFM and IAE) but all too often they fall to pieces as there just isn't the joined-up thinking that lead contractors or builders bring to the job.

The ideal A200M would have been something like the original proposals for a STOL aircraft that became the BAE 146. Anything heavy gets lifted by the C-130 or A400M, whilst the 146 operates as an agile people-mover or adaptable platform. Again, off the shelf and development costs shared with the civil program.

ssteve · Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:02 pm

keesje wrote:
It will be interesting what the USAF will buy now that requirements have outgrown the fifties

Giant drone octocopters with development costs shared with Amazon.

Dutchy · Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:57 pm

on a side note, will the A200M not be the A410M? A4XX for the military series, like the A3XX is for the civilian line?

Andre3K · Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:07 pm

keesje wrote:
An A200M makes little sense with the KC390 so close. It will be interesting what the USAF will buy now that requirements have outgrown the fifties C130 and the C-17 is out of production. P&WC is now testing a new turboprop engine up to 8000shp.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/2016/05/12/pratt-whitney-completes-ngrt-phase-2-testing/

As someone who works at Marietta, I can say with confidence that we are going to be making C-130's for a LONG time. So I wouldn't hold your breath wishing us out of a job.

keesje · Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:25 pm

Andre3K wrote:
keesje wrote:
An A200M makes little sense with the KC390 so close. It will be interesting what the USAF will buy now that requirements have outgrown the fifties C130 and the C-17 is out of production. P&WC is now testing a new turboprop engine up to 8000shp.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/2016/05/12/pratt-whitney-completes-ngrt-phase-2-testing/

As someone who works at Marietta, I can say with confidence that we are going to be making C-130's for a LONG time. So I wouldn't hold your breath wishing us out of a job.

I would think the generals also have a say here, not only the congressman :wink2:

https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-joins-ohio-congressional-delegation-in-urging-air-force-to-upgrade-c-130s-at-the-youngstown-air-reserve-station

https://www.defensetech.org/2010/10/25/so-the-air-force-wants-a-c-130-replacement-by-2024/

Dutchy · Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:51 pm

keesje wrote:
Andre3K wrote:
keesje wrote:
An A200M makes little sense with the KC390 so close. It will be interesting what the USAF will buy now that requirements have outgrown the fifties C130 and the C-17 is out of production. P&WC is now testing a new turboprop engine up to 8000shp.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/2016/05/12/pratt-whitney-completes-ngrt-phase-2-testing/

As someone who works at Marietta, I can say with confidence that we are going to be making C-130's for a LONG time. So I wouldn't hold your breath wishing us out of a job.

I would think the generals also have a say here, not only the congressman

https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-joins-ohio-congressional-delegation-in-urging-air-force-to-upgrade-c-130s-at-the-youngstown-air-reserve-station

https://www.defensetech.org/2010/10/25/so-the-air-force-wants-a-c-130-replacement-by-2024/

Huh? A replacement for a C-130 is a C-130, I think it is by law

Andre3K · Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:19 pm

Dutchy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Andre3K wrote:

As someone who works at Marietta, I can say with confidence that we are going to be making C-130's for a LONG time. So I wouldn't hold your breath wishing us out of a job.

I would think the generals also have a say here, not only the congressman

https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-joins-ohio-congressional-delegation-in-urging-air-force-to-upgrade-c-130s-at-the-youngstown-air-reserve-station

https://www.defensetech.org/2010/10/25/so-the-air-force-wants-a-c-130-replacement-by-2024/

Huh? A replacement for a C-130 is a C-130, I think it is by law

No all that different from the civilian world really. Sometimes an A320 is the best replacement for an A320 and same for 737 ect. Sometimes it's not, but even A400M countries have ordered the C-130. Don't try to fix something that isn't broken. That being said, they are working on things here they wont even tell us about (but I've seen models of for visiting VIP's) so the best replacement for a C-130, might be a derivative that doesn't exist yet.

SCAT15F · Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:30 am

The C-130 Next gen which was proposed a few years back would be a long step towards the future and addresses the C130's high drag cockpit/nose/front-end with a completely new design, further upgraded engines and winglets to boot.

aviationaware · Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:44 pm

The A400M is not of a design quality that you'd want to design & scale it up.

Channex757 · Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:03 pm

Andre3K wrote:
As someone who works at Marietta, I can say with confidence that we are going to be making C-130's for a LONG time. So I wouldn't hold your breath wishing us out of a job.

Sometimes,and it's not that common, you just hit the sweet spot and there isn't any point moving from it.

Why bother after all? Just do with LM have been doing and consolidate your lock on that sweet spot. The only other aircraft that comes close is the 737 in the civil market.

The A400M works because it sits just between the C-17 and the C-130. The KC-390 works because it will be faster than the C-130. Every other aircraft is really in the halo around the C-130, which is the yardstick by which you define transport needs.

I'm a fan.

Andre3K · Sun Aug 27, 2017 8:11 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
The C-130 Next gen which was proposed a few years back would be a long step towards the future and addresses the C130's high drag cockpit/nose/front-end with a completely new design, further upgraded engines and winglets to boot.

From what little I have seen hints of here, that would be a downgrade from what's being planned.

neutronstar73 · Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:21 pm

C-30 forever! One of the greatest aircraft ever built, and one of my favorites. Anyone who thinks it is going away is fooling themselves. It will be the DC-3 of the modern era, still flying from some remote location a 100 years from now.

WIederling · Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:50 am

neutronstar73 wrote:
C-30 forever!

you really think a small gyro copter would cut it in the transport department :-)

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=1907

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net