A400M 1st Flight Tomorrow ( Dec 11th 09 )

Steyr

http://www.flightglobal.com/sectionhome/sectiondefault.aspx?NavigationID=190&CategoryID=10252&SlotID=5

DATE:09/12/09
SOURCE:Flight InternationalAirbus confirms A400M first flight this Friday
By Craig Hoyle

Airbus Military has confirmed that its A400M transport is scheduled to make its first flight on 11 December, with aircraft MSN001 due to lift off from San Pablo airport near Seville around 10am local time.

The manufacturer's flight plan was confirmed on 9 December in an invitation addressed by Airbus Military managing director Domingo Ureña.

The correspondence says the debut sortie will last "between one hour and three, depending on the progress of this very first test flight". Airbus last week outlined its intention to conduct a flight of about 3h, during which the aircraft will reach an altitude of around 15,000ft (4,570m) and a maximum speed of 300kt/M0.72.

The milestone event will be attended by officials including EADS chief executive Louis Gallois and Airbus chief executive Tom Enders.

great

Davidth88

Thats odd , why no winglets ?

I suppose because it's doing the same job it looks very similar to a C130 or a C17 with props.

Can't get a sense of scale , how would it compare to a C130H ( stretched herc as used by the RAF ) ?

vulcan57

Looks really nice.

Dacian

Davidth88 wrote: »

I suppose because it's doing the same job it looks very similar to a C130 or a C17 with props.

Can't get a sense of scale , how would it compare to a C130H ( stretched herc as used by the RAF ) ?

Perhaps its wing is as efficient as the C-17 with winglets, although why not add thme to increase efficiensy. Maybe they increase radar returns?

Would like to see a comparison of the C-17, C-130J and the A400M. Hvae seen the first 2 in reality,as above hard to get a sense of scale.

BravoMike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX-kIUYRyDk

View Profile

Davidth88

Can't get a sense of scale , how would it compare to a C130H ( stretched herc as used by the RAF ) ?

She's BIG!

Turbulent Bill

The Wikipedia entry on the A400M is pretty damning. 12 tons overweight, loss-making and hugely delayed?! With two strong competitors already on the market, I'm surprised Airbus hasn't canned this already...

Dacian

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

The Wikipedia entry on the A400M is pretty damning. 12 tons overweight, loss-making and hugely delayed?! With two strong competitors already on the market, I'm surprised Airbus hasn't canned this already...

Well the wiki entry could very well be written but a Boeing employee/supporter. No question that the A440M is late, I believe the delay is the reason the UK increased their order for C-17s to 8 from the original 4.

Just looking at the excellant comparison chart above; not many countries will have the need for the sheer size of the C-17. (Think UK, Canada, Oz and Qatar are the only export customers) And the C-17 will be closing down soon enough. Seems to me that the A400M may be seen as a larger alternative to the C-130. The C-130 has been going for many years now. So there is a definite market there for an alternative military transport.

Turbulent Bill

Dacian wrote: »

Well the wiki entry could very well be written but a Boeing employee/supporter. No question that the A440M is late, I believe the delay is the reason the UK increased their order for C-17s to 8 from the original 4.

Just looking at the excellant comparison chart above; not many countries will have the need for the sheer size of the C-17. (Think UK, Canada, Oz and Qatar are the only export customers) And the C-17 will be closing down soon enough. Seems to me that the A400M may be seen as a larger alternative to the C-130. The C-130 has been going for many years now. So there is a definite market there for an alternative military transport.

True, Wikis aren't always reliable but I don't see Airbus rushing to the defense of the A400M. I get the impression that they would cancel it only for the fact that they've sunk so much money into the programme already, and are under political pressure to deliver something, anything.

Customers who have deserted the A400M seem to have bought mixes of the C-17 and C-130J to cover their requirements, both of which are proven and available now. The C-17 has had a chequered past too, but at least the bugs have been sorted out, while air forces have decades of experience with the Hercules.

I'm not trying to bash the A400M (it's great to see new aircraft!), but it looks like Airbus have missed the boat.

Dacian

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I'm not trying to bash the A400M (it's great to see new aircraft!), but it looks like Airbus have missed the boat.

Perhaps they were mistaken in the timeline of the development. Its their first military aircraft (can't think of another) Didn' they get a bit screwed by the engine manufacturer being late on the new engines? It could very well of gotten a jump on the C-130J if it had of been delvered on time. Now it just looks unreliable while the C-130, as you say has decades of reliablity.

And politics has to play a part. Too many groups/money involved to pull the plug.

Dacian

Just found a thread on the A400M on airliners.net.
Heres some stats to compare:

Max payload (kg): Max Cruise(kph):
A400M 37000 645
C130J 20000 545
C17 77115 830
C390 19000 820
C27J 11500 500


The A400M seems to have a significant increase in capacity from the C130. The proposed C390 from Embraer seems more of a direct competitor to the Herc.

EchoIndia

Dacian wrote: »

Max payload (kg): Max Cruise(kph):
A400M 37000 645
C130J 20000 545
C17 11500 830
C390 19000 820
C27J 11500 500

The C-17's max payload is in the region of 77,000kg, so there is a big difference between it and the A400M.

As fuselage width is also a consideration for transport of military equipment, Lockheed are reported to be considering a wide-body C-130, the Herk's cargo bay being too narrow for some vehicles to be used by the US military:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/08/315626/lockheed-looks-to-widen-hercules.html

Davidth88

How does it compare to the Belfast ?

According to WIKI ( who's credentials are firmly put in their place within this thread ) that could carry around the same payload ( 36.2k )

The RAF were operating them way back in the 70's.

EchoIndia

There were only ten Belfasts built and they have been described as effectively handbuilt aircraft. While their weightlifting characteristics were impressive, the type seems to have been regarded as quite slow and I am not sure if the quoted maximum speed of 300 knots would have been attained in normal operations.