Airbus A-400 First Flight

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:40 pm

Airbus is quite probably the funniest thing since George Carlin died. They continue to shoot themselves in the foot and then want to blame everyone else for it. The dance on an ant hill that the 400M has become just points to what would happen if the USAF had to rely on Jerry Lewis to provide equipment or EADS were to win the contract for the tanker, all it would take in one french official to get a knot in his beret to shut the program down for months or years while the finer points of wearing dark blue socks with a yellow tie were debated ad nauseum after years of negotiating the size and shape of the conference table. And I strongly believe that someone in EADS would make certain that the entire shipload of ground pepper was meticulously gone over one grain at a time if anyone found one speck of fly poop in it.

The XB-70? sure, designed and built to USAF specs and wants at the hottest point in the cold war, did an admirable job of advancing double sonic flight issues. Cancelled by the USAF when it was discovered by the USAF that they had specified a high altitude bomber then discovered that the Russians (pesky devils!) had developed an entire family of high altitude very accurate and deadly aircraft killing missles called SAM, good call to not wear a gasoline suit to a bon fire!

The CONVAIR SEADART? sure, spec'd by the U.S. Navy in the late 1940's as a hedge against not having land based runways to fight from, in the same time frame as the vertical turboprop fighters spec'd by the very same Navy. The Navy thinking that it would really difficult to blow a long lasting hole in the ocean. The British also gave the idea a try with a couple of projects, everyone gave the idea up around the same time as reality started to settle in, this was in the same time frame that the French were still doing coastal patrols in a 1939 designed biplane patrol seaplane.

Iclo, you seem like a nice enough guy, but you really should take off the EADS blinders, they do build some fine, if somewhat odd aircraft, but I'm hard pressed to think of a major U.S. project that's gone on as long as the A-400 without bearing fruit, the key word is MAJOR, I'm certain that there are some smaller things that continue to milk the budget but not to the tune of $20+ Billion Dollars over what span of time for the 400M? Go calculate the return on investment vs. time expended for a limited production soon to be outclassed box hauler (see BELFAST, BEVERLY, ARGOSY, NORATLAS). I understand your loyalites, but that's why I like the C-17 and beat the drum for the KC-767-

Iclo · **Posted:** Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:54 pm

i'm not an Airbus or an EADS fans, simply a citizen of a country tired to see two "guys" (i'm polite) bashing everything on the little reason that it's not US made.
You are not discussing or criticism Airbus product, simply bashing.
With people of the same style of you in Europe, when a B-747 simply lost its engines in Netherlands, we will have forbidden the European airspace to crappy "Boeing products" for decades.

You last message was so rascist and xenophobic, that I wonder how many time you went out of your beautifull country (except during you serve in the army) ?

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Iclo wrote:

Always the same bashing of Airbus. Guys, you are not tired ?
Can you speak to us about the XB-70 fiasco or the stupid project of bulding a jet fighter seaplane ?

I thought the Brits did that? At least I saw one in the Southampton Hall of Aviation. Apparently it performed quite well. I'm no expert on the Sea Dart either though, but I don't think either were offered commercially.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Iclo wrote:

i'm not an Airbus or an EADS fans, simply a citizen of a country tired to see two "guys" (i'm polite) bashing everything on the little reason that it's not US made.
You are not discussing or criticism Airbus product, simply bashing.

I've tried to be nice and thoughtful on this topic in the past, but apparently it hasn't gotten through to some. Allow me to be very direct...

When I worked for the Douglas Aircraft Company, a division of McDonnell Douglas, I became familiar with and supported Douglas products. Surprisingly enough Iclo, back then my friends and I sat around at lunch and discussed the merits of the Douglas product compared to the Boeing and Lockheed products at the time (what you call "bashing"). Each of those three companies had a distinctly different design methodology and management culture.

Now, the A-400M is nearly a direct competitor to the program I work on. Not exactly the same, but those who don't buy A-400Ms, for whatever reason, are likely to buy the aircraft I'm associated with. That helps me to support my family. While I don't wish anyone ill will, I wish to keep my job rather than have someone in Europe (or China, or wherever) get a job in my place. So in that respect I share your view on things, although I directly work for one of the companies involved and on that exact product line. Although I am more than just a citizen in this discussion, I still am interested in your comments with respect to Airbus products. I am not however interested in a discussion of everyone's motives since I don't really know you and you don't really know me.

And finally, this is a discussion group. I would like to discuss the merits of the Sea Dart and other odd aircraft designs (remember, at one time monoplanes without wire bracing were considered odd) as well as the A-400M. I'm not going to be able to convince anyone NOT to buy an A-400M, nor am I going to convince the Pentagon to not buy an EADS tanker. Instead of asserting that we are racists that don't like Europeans, why not offer some evidence supporting your point of view that EADS products and management are as good or better than the American equivalents?

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:34 am

Iclo wrote:

Always the same bashing of Airbus. Guys, you are not tired ?
Can you speak to us about the XB-70 fiasco or the stupid project of bulding a jet fighter seaplane ?

Well... let's see here... the XB-70 project wasn't a fiasco, especially since it was cancelled artificially, it's prices were inflated artificially (kinda hard to say it's the fault of the project that the costs skyrocket when it depends on other programs to help share the cost and then they're canceled "because").

The "jet fighter seaplane" wasn't a failure. Yes, it wasn't practical, but it prove the points it needed, it came in fairly close to budget, and the one accident that occurred was because they didn't have the advanced programs they have now to be able to predict the problems they encountered.

Add to that - they were both projects completed in the 1970's and not the 2000's, it's a whole different world of production and knowledge.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Looks like some competition for the A400 is on the horizon.

Quote:

Brazil unveils airlifter programme partner strategy, timetable

By: Keith Campbell
19th February 2010
TEXT SIZE Brazilian aerospace company Embraer has revealed more details about its plans concerning international partners for its KC-390 military tanker and transport aircraft programme. South Africa's Denel Saab Aerostructures (DSA) is known to be interested in becoming one of the industrial partners in the KC-390.

The Brazilian company has revealed that it seeks to have four or five international industrial partners in the programme and that it plans to decide who these will be by the middle of next year. Embraer executive vice-president: defence market Orlando Neto has indicated that the selected partners could produce parts of the airframe (aerostructures) such as the tail, or systems such as the undercarriage.

The intent is that these industrial partner companies will be selected from the countries which order the KC-390. In return for the orders, these companies will receive a share of the work on the aircraft.

This means that the Brazilian company is adopting the same approach as Airbus Military did with its A400M programme. However, the KC-390 programme will benefit from the fact that it has one lead country and one lead customer, the Brazilian Air Force, unlike the multinational A400M programme.

Moreover, Embraer intends to acquire existing avionics and engines for the KC-390, and
has already issued Requests for Information and Requests for Proposals for these systems. (The KC-390 will employ a fly-by-wire flight control system and will be powered by two turbofan engines). Thus, whereas the A400M programme has involved the development of a new airframe, new engines and a new flight control system, the KC-390 will involve the development of a new airframe only, greatly reducing the risk and cost of the project.

It is already clear that Embraer would like Portugal to be one of the partner countries for the KC-390. The Brazilian company owns 65% of Portugal's main aerospace company, Ogma, and is currently building new facilities for its Portuguese subsidiary at Evora, in a $207-million project that was launched last July and will be completed in 2012. This new facility could be used to produce carbon fibre parts for the new aircraft. Another 18 Portuguese companies which could serve as suppliers to the programme have reportedly been identified by Embraer.

Government-to-government talks between Brazil and Portugal on the KC-390 also started in July. The Portuguese Air Force operates six Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules transport aircraft, which will need replacing. Interestingly, Portugal, like South Africa, was once a member of the A400M programme, but pulled out back in 2002 due to rising costs. South Africa withdrew from the A400M programme late last year, for exactly the same reason.

Regarding DSA, this company is a manufacturer of aerostructures - parts of the fuselages, wings and tail surfaces of aircraft, both fixed-wing and helicopters. It currently produces major components for the Saab Gripen fighter and for the A400M, tail planes for the Gulfstream G150 business jet. It has also produced aerostructures for the AgustaWestland A109 helicopter and the BAE Systems Hawk fighter-trainer.

It is now clear that, if DSA wants to participate in the KC-390 programme, it must have the explicit and full support of the South African government, and that this support must include an order for the KC-390. The time in which to make a decision is limited. The South African Air Force still needs to replace its elderly (although much upgraded) C-130B Hercules airlifters.

The KC-390 will be a smaller aircraft than the A400M, with a maximum payload of 19 t as against the A400M's 37 t capacity; the KC-390 will have an internal fuselage width of 3,2 m while that of the A400M is 4 m. The KC-390's main rival, the Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules II, has a maximum payload of 21 t.

Embraer wants the first prototype KC-390 to fly in 2013 with the first deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force in 2015. The Brazilian Air Force will order at least 20 KC-390s, in addition to three prototypes. But this number could increase to more than 30.

Highlights

SA's Denel Saab Aerostructures would like to be a partner in Brazil's KC-390 aircraft programme

KC-390 developer Embraer says countries wishing to partner in project must buy the aircraft

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/articl ... 2010-02-19

The Inspector · **Posted:** Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:26 pm

Now the home for production line homebuilts is going to try to build a tanker!!??!! Has anyone ever known someone or personally worked on any Embraer airframes? No two are alike, thats why they are referred to as production line homebuilts, Logistically they would be a nightmare along the same lines as supporting and maintaining a fleet of METTROLINER lawn darts. :lol:

Oh, yeah, one more thing be sure and keep an eye on the empennage. :shock:

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:37 am

You mean that all those ex-pat Boeing engineers, working for Empressa, that designed those aircraft and introduced the Brazilians to the Briles rivets?

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:27 am

Yeah, but engineers are as bad as aircraft mechanics as far as being gypsies. Always off in search of the next challenging job or a few more bucks an hour. Back when MikeyD's was still in business (before they won in the merger with Boeing) they used a Navy program called 'Total Quality Management System' or 'TQMS' where everyone like sat around in like a circle man, and like, you could criticize like anyone or any process and get, like no repercussions about it, it was like a really cool thing. The engineers @ MD referred to it as 'Time to Quit and Move to Seattle' as there was a virtual dust cloud up and down I-5 between So. Cal and Seattle (don't believe it? ask anyone familiar with both the DC-10 and the 767 and their systems and design philosophies). The thing with engineers tho is they are sort of the mountain men of aviation, in a new, unexplored area first, scout out everything, take all the prime pelts and move along when the sod busters start showing up. :lol:

Warbird Information Exchange

Airbus A-400 First Flight

Who is online