Airbus A-400 First Flight

[jdvoss]

Just watching DW (Deutch Welle) TV and there was footage of today's maiden flight of the A400. Like the 787, it too is 2.5 years behind schedule and of course millions over budget (700M euros for the A400). According to the announcer the two hour long fist flight was flawless (yeah, right ...a blank squawk sheet was submitted). We'll see. Have they thought about buying more C-17's for near instant delivery??? Afganistan and Iraq won't wait for Airbus.

[mustangdriver]

Just be happy this Airbus first flight didn't end up in the woods at the end of the runway like one of their others.

[CAPFlyer]

None of their first flights ended in the woods Chris. The accident you're talking about was a fly-by during an airshow. The accident "investigation" was a sham and people were sent to jail for doing nothing wrong. The best accounting of the events can be found here.

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigatio ... f296.shtml

[rreis]

well, I hope they succeed, it will mean one more kind of bird in the air and a lot of jobs around. I also hope with time Airbus will shake the shackles of it's history, abandoning the need to appease all these different governments with they national agendas an truly become an pan-european company. The imperious need to impose this engine on Airbus was the main problem in this project.

[Robbie Stuart]

Not trying to be an a-hole, but what type Warbird is this??

[Holedigger]

It has an "A" prefix, must be for ground attack, but it can carry a lot of ordinance!

[262crew]

This airplane looks like a C-17! Just wondering why they are using turbo props and not a high bypass? Rolls Royce has the Trent 1000 that wold work real well on this bird. Is this airplane meant to compete with the C-17?

[Iclo]

No this plane is a STOL, to replace C-130 Hercule and C-160 Transal, so the use of turboprop.

I see this thread was moved from the WIX Hangar. I agree it does not belong in the WIX Hangar which is for vintage "warbird" type aircraft which this is not, however the "Military" forum is described as being for "Non-Aviation related" things.

Maybe we need a new forum for Current/Modern Military Aviation so this type of subject can be discussed without being lost in forums that talk about non-aviation military things. Just a thought.

OR - Change the description of Military Matters to include "Aviation and Non-Aviation......"

[bdk]

This airplane looks like a C-17! Just wondering why they are using turbo props and not a high bypass? Rolls Royce has the Trent 1000 that wold work real well on this bird. Is this airplane meant to compete with the C-17?

No this plane is a STOL, to replace C-130 Hercule and C-160 Transal, so the use of turboprop.

Just to avoid confusion, the C-17 qualifies as a STOL aircraft by most definitions and can takeoff and land on semi-prepared runways (and does so daily):

"During normal testing, C-17s set 22 world records, including payload to altitude time-to-climb, and short takeoff and landing (STOL) mark in which the C-17 took off in less than 1,400 feet, carried a payload of 44,000 pounds to altitude, and landed in less than 1,400 feet."

http://www.globemaster.de/c-17/c17records.html
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... 11128n.htm

C-17 Globemaster sets 13 new records at Edwards
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFMCNS) – Demonstrating the Air Force’s newest cargo aircraft’s capabilities, a C-17A Globemaster III crew here broke 13 altitude and payload world records Nov. 27.
A crew from the 418th Flight Test Squadron, set the dozen plus aviation world records that brings the C-17’s total world records to 33.
"These records highlight the capabilities of the C-17, which is providing crucial airlift support to our country’s worldwide operations," said Capt. Chris Morgan, mission commander on one of the historic flights. "It was not an extraordinary effort, with the exception that we flew to within a few knots of the stall speed, something an operational crew would not normally do."
The crew flew three sorties to set maximum altitude records for payloads ranging from no payload to 88,200 pounds. Maximum altitudes were achieved by first burning down to the minimum fuel required to return to base and land and then climbing the aircraft as high as possible.
An observer from the National Aeronautic Association, the governing body for U.S. record attempts, was on board for all three sorties to verify the records.
One altitude record set was steady horizontal flight in which the aircraft had to maintain a constant airspeed and altitude for at least 90 seconds. The aircraft maintained an unofficial level altitude of 44,430 feet with a 22,100-pound payload. Altitudes of 43,820 and 45,500 feet were also reached carrying 88,200 and 22,100-pound payloads, respectively.
According to test pilot Maj. Chris Lindell, the aircraft was ready to keep going.
"The maximum altitude achieved for the lower weights attempted was 45,500 feet, which was based on an operating restriction for the engines," Lindell said. "The aircraft could have gone higher."
On Nov. 26, the NAA representative monitored the official aircraft weighing at Edwards. The payload used to reach the required weights consisted of large blocks of concrete chained to pallets.
The C-17 loadmasters, weight and balance hangar staff, and airdrop shop personnel worked together to make sure the loads and placement in the aircraft were optimized for the flight.
"This effort took a great deal of coordination among multiple Team Edwards organizations," said Maj. Mark Foringer, C-17 Test Team director. "Overall, it was a huge success."
The record-setting crew consisted of test pilots Lindell, Morgan, Maj. Todd Markwald and Boeing test pilot Norm Howell along with loadmasters Tech. Sgt.Tom Fields and Gary Briscoe of Boeing.
The records broken at Edwards Nov. 27 were reported to the Federation Aeronautique International, or FAI -- the official record keeper for all aviation and space world records and oversees national aviation organizations of all member countries. World-class records are defined as the best international performances for specific classes and categories recognized by the FAI.
The C-17 records were set in the category designated for landplanes with jet engines and a takeoff gross weight between 330,693 and 440,924 pounds.

http://www.mcchordairmuseum.org/REV%20B%20OUR%20HISTORY%20%20C-17%200171.htm

Also, the A-400M does compete with the C-17 on many mission profiles. When the A-400M was having problems the UK leased C-17s as an interim replacement (which they will subsequently purchase if they haven't already) and a number of other countries were entertaining the idea as well.

[Iclo]

hum, I doubt the C-17 was develloped to doing the same job than C-130, operating on the same thing of runway.

[rreis]

There is something about Airbus that doesn't affect the US companies (so much?): Governments. For good and for worst. Generally worst. if it wasn't for European governments meddling Airbus would be a healthier company. And if it wasn't Government meddling also (imposing this powerplant) the A400M would have flown much sooner, agree? The irony, if you had it the Airbus way, it would be a US P&W powering it.

[CAPFlyer]

If it wasn't for governments, Airbus would probably be healthier, but I have doubts as to what would actually be flying. Most of it's "success" comes because of the government's no-risk "loans" to its programs and more than favorable worker subsidies that allow them to offer aircraft with a much lower actual overhead than other manufacturers. These subsidies may have made sense when Airbus was small and just getting going, but since they had success with the A300, A310, and start of the A320, those subsidies should have been ended. Once that occurred, how the company would have fared and what they would have offered is up to speculation as some of the aircraft, like the A380 were reaches that for a company like Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, or BAe, would have been "a little too far" since they wouldn't have those subsidies to help keep them from failing when the delays hit.

This is not an "anti-Airbus" statement, it's just one of reality - much of where they are today is because of their extremely favorable financial situation which allows them to take risks that other companies probably wouldn't because they couldn't survive the "delayed profit" that Airbus's current structure generates where the aircraft itself doesn't create much profit, the after sales service and parts do.

[bdk]

hum, I doubt the C-17 was develloped to doing the same job than C-130, operating on the same thing of runway.

Maybe Brad can comment on this? He's been a loadmaster on both.

[CAPFlyer]

The C-17 was designed to do what the C-141 never could and the C-5 can, but never does - strategic airlift into tactical airfields. When the US Air Force spec'd the C-5, it wanted a strategic airlifter that could deliver main battle tanks directly to the battlefield. It delivered the capability, but due to the wing problems, it doesn't do it. In addition, being as limited in number as they are, there are much more pressing needs for their airlifting capabilities. As the C-141 was never really designed for tactical operations, the USAF had a need for something that could operate out of tactical airstrips of length similar to what the C-130 could, but transport more stuff and do it at jet speeds and distances. What they got was the YC-14 and YC-15, however neither aircraft was better than an updated C-130 (which lead to the C-130H and then the C-130J). A few years later, however, technology had progressed and a larger aircraft was capable of being built and meeting the performance needs, leading to the C-17 (which is in many ways just a scaled up YC-15).

The A-400M fits in between the C-130 and C-17 in size and overall performance. The problem is that it's only a little cheaper than the C-17 and a lot more expensive than the C-130, instead of "in the middle" where it was originally. Whatever you think the reasons for the cost escalation is, that problem is what will restrict its sales. If they'd been able to keep the cost "in the middle" then it would have been much more appealing to a lot more potential customers. As it is now, they're wondering whether it's better to spend the smaller amount of extra money to get the C-17 versus the increase in payload or get C-130J's and accept the reduction in payload.