A400M rollout photo

[Trigger]

You left out C-141. The radome & cockpit side windows are definitely C-141.

That's because I didn't think of it. It did look familiar and I was thinking C-160, but I wasn't certain. Fuji and I were discussing this last night and when he suggested the CASA for the nose, that confirmed it for me. But now that you mention it, I do see the likeness to the C-141 too (last time I saw a Starlizard was 10 years ago at Charleston AFB, I'd almost forgotten it). An-70? At first glance I thought so, but not as much the more I look at the -70 (maybe the A400M's wing & sweep, it's hard to tell from that rollout photo. Propellers? An-70 uses the counter-rotating prop system the Russians have historically prefered to produce symmetrical airflow/counter torque (BEAR, Ka-32, Ka-50, An-70 and I'm sure I'm leaving at least one other aircraft out...) but as Flankerman pointed out, the A400M uses a system previously utilized on the Mosquito correction, de Havilland Hornet, to achieve this (probably the most radical design element of the A400M).

It's a low-risk design (though I am curious as to how Airbus proposes to handle engine maintenance with what looks like two different sets of props and transmissions, that might be a headache for customers) and a safe business decision for Airbus. All of the cargo aircraft it resembles that have been discussed have had successful careers, so for them to try to go a totally new route would be much like reinventing the wheel. Same reason most pick-up trucks look the same.

It's funny that some people get so bothered at comparisons. It's a brand-spanking new design to a well-established market and expectations from clients, so you better believe potential customers are going make similar observations and ask questions. This isn't art, it's not like someone copied a Picasso and tried to sell himself off as an innovative painter; this is engineering. The basic configuration is well established and it doesn't speak against Airbus engineers for looking at other aircraft for any particular design elements may have helped to make that design successful, it shows that they did their homework. If this were horse racing, this would be known as its pedigree.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Trigger

[Flankerman]

Propellers? An-70 uses the counter-rotating prop system the Russians have historically prefered to produce symmetrical airflow/counter torque (BEAR, Ka-32, Ka-50, An-70 and I'm sure I'm leaving at least one other aircraft out...) but as Flankerman pointed out, the A400M uses a system previously utilized on the Mosquito to achieve this (probably the most radical design element of the A400M).

It was the de Havilland Hornet - not the Mosquito - that had counter-rotating props (and different Merlins rotating in opposite directions).

As for 'most radical design element' - surely its the wings ??

Much is made on my local TV news reports is the fact that the wings are entirely(?) carbon fibre - and made in Bristol.

Anyone know if the A-400M wings are the largest CF structures/wings yet used ????

Ken

Edited June 28, 2008 by Flankerman

[RotorheadTX]

All you A-400 bashers are late to the party.

I recall reading in Air International (or was it Air Enthusiast?) that when a cheezy life-sized mockup of the then-named Future Large Airlifter 'FLA' was displayed at the Paris Airshow, it was lambasted as the "Farcically Large Airfix"!

[Trigger]

It was the de Havilland Hornet - not the Mosquito - that had counter-rotating props (and different Merlins rotating in opposite directions).

Sorry about that. Thanks for the correction.

As for 'most radical design element' - surely its the wings ??

Using CF in the 21st century is radical? I'm still thinking of using two sets of engines (transmissions)/propellers on an aircraft.

Anyone know if the A-400M wings are the largest CF structures/wings yet used ????

Probably so. I know the 787 will have a CF wing and I think (?) parts of the fuselage. Don't now the percentage or the size difference between the two types to know if that will remain the case or not.

[Jason C-C]

It would seem to me that having counter rotating props instead of contra-rotating ones puts a totally unnecessary strain on the spares and aquisition system that wouldn't exist if there were a standardised prop for all four engines. For each aircraft you have to have more props in stock as spares, resulting in more space taken up to store them etc and so it goes on down the line.

Perhaps you should work through that logic again.

As long as you have blades rotating in opposite directions, it really doesn't matter whether they're on a single engine or two different engines. You'd still have to stock two types of blade. Same for the Antonov as it is for the A400M. As for the rest of the spares situation, the TP400's are completely identical apart from an idler gear in the propeller gearbox. That's one extra part.

Counter rotating props are nothing new. The P-38 had them, and it's been extremely common on post war multi-engine aircraft. As mentioned above, the A400M is slightly unusual in having the counter rotation on the same wing.

[EDIT] More photos here:

http://coppermine.luchtzak.be/displayimage-11077.html

regards,

Jason

Edited June 28, 2008 by Jason C-C

[janman]

An-70? At first glance I thought so, but not as much the more I look at the -70 (maybe the A400M's wing & sweep, it's hard to tell from that rollout photo.

I wasn't referring to the looks of the aircraft, but more to its origin, its very similar size and basic layout. The An-70 was a strong contender for Luftwaffe's new transport and originally their FLA was going to be based on the An-70. There have also been claims that some A400 features really were borroved from the An-70 and in fact that shouldn't have been too hard because the German DASA was part of the Luftwaffe An-70 program and after its cancellation worked on the A400 program as well.

"Who's copying who" debates are usually quite childish, but I was also trying to say that the inspiration didn't necessarly come from the other side of the pond (and especially the C-130J comparisons are pretty far-fetched this belonging to a totally different generation), but from the east. Yeah, sounds quite unbelievable, doesn't it...

I'm very pro-European, but this time the wheel was truly invented twice. There's a was flying aircraft that was able to fill all the requirements of both Germany and France and there was a similar aircraft on paper that clearly was going to be much more expensive. These two transport aircraft have very similar dimensions and performance figures. Without going into politics, the politics really killed the Euro version of An-70. Clearly the "Eastern" manufacturer wasn't welcome to the home market of Airbus.

On the other hand, I'm happy to see the Europeans were able to achieve the A400M in the first place. The path must have been rocky, but the end product looks pretty good.

Edited June 28, 2008 by janman

[Flankerman]

Janman,

Like you, I wish that the An-70 had been adopted - it would have 'killed two birds with one stone' as we say.

It would have met the transport needs of the Europeans - and it would have given work to the Ukraine and helped it come into the EU/NATO fold.

But - and its a big but.......

The An-70 wasn't just Ukrainian, it had a lot of Russian input.

And... there are lots of issues with certificating a type from a country that has no history of meeting western airworthiness requirements.

I am no expert, but was talking to a guy from EADS - they were trying to help Beriev sell the Be-200 in the west.

He told me that they had to do a study of ALL the component manufacturers and suppliers of parts for the Beriev - and have a complete audit trail for every single component.

Supplies were also proving to be a problem - guaranteeing supplies plus the need for them to provide fully documented safety/testing/QA etc trails.

He said that there was nothing wrong with the Be-200 - in fact it was an excellent machine.

It was just proving very difficult 'westernising' the supplier trail.

Didn't EADS Germany also recommend DOZENS of airframe/systems changes that would be required to the An-70 for it to meet western airworthiness standards - quite apart from the strict documentation.

Ken

[Trigger]

I wasn't referring to the looks of the aircraft, but more to its origin, its very similar size and basic layout.

That's fine. I was looking at the A400M from an engineering and design perspective. That whole political debate about the An-70 vs. A400M, and reinventing the wheel twice, I'm not going anywhere near. I'll let y'all on that side of the pond sort that out.

[janman]

That's fine. I was looking at the A400M from an engineering and design perspective. That whole political debate about the An-70 vs. A400M, and reinventing the wheel twice, I'm not going anywhere near. I'll let y'all on that side of the pond sort that out.

Well I guess the point is already clear, so I can chop up my once-used ten foot pole I had reserved for this thread.

[ross blackford]

Perhaps you should work through that logic again.

As long as you have blades rotating in opposite directions, it really doesn't matter whether they're on a single engine or two different engines. You'd still have to stock two types of blade. Same for the Antonov as it is for the A400M. As for the rest of the spares situation, the TP400's are completely identical apart from an idler gear in the propeller gearbox. That's one extra part.

Counter rotating props are nothing new. The P-38 had them, and it's been extremely common on post war multi-engine aircraft. As mentioned above, the A400M is slightly unusual in having the counter rotation on the same wing.

regards,

Jason

I have worked through the logic again and I still believe that what I said before is true. I was talking more about the psares situation in an operating or maintenance squadron situation, not a depot level or stores depot situation. For instance, one spare prop per An-70 would do the trick, but for the A400M you'd need at least two. Same for the engine situation as the engine with the LH rotation geabox output shaft would have a different part no. and ident no. from the other one and one doesn't just pull a gearbox off an engine and throw it on another engine as you would with a car. All those things have to be documented and controlled. Not only that, but how many hours would it take to change that gearbox from one engine to another in the field when time is of the essence. As for the prop blades I don't recall mentioning that side of the equation, I was more concerned with the built up engine and prop assembly side of things, the side that wastes most space, time and thus money. At most operating level squadrons, and certainly all the ones I have worked in space was at a premium, so we couldn't afford to carry a huge spares holding. If an A400M were to be deployed away for an extended period of time would one spare engine and one spare prop do the trick as it would with most other multi engine military transports? I doubt it, and as a result the aircraft would be fuller of its own spares support than would an aircraft with common engines and props right across the wing.

,

Ross.

[Flankerman]

For instance, one spare prop per An-70 would do the trick, but for the A400M you'd need at least two.

,

Ross.

Not quite Ross - on the An-70 each engine has a 14-bladed contraprop - with eight in front and six behind.....

So there are 'left handed' and 'right handed' props - so you'd still need two spare props.

Engines and gearboxes are the same though - I assume ???

Lets say the A-400M did not have counter-rotation - and any purchaser bought, say 20 spare gearboxes.

On the counter-rotating version, the same purchaser would still only buy 20 gearboxes - but they would be 10 left hand and ten right hand.

They wouldn't need to buy twice as many - assuming LH gearboxes need the same spares as RH gearboxes

It would be even simpler if the LH/RH difference in rotation was achieved through software, or a simple switch - is that possible ??

Or - is my logic flawed ???

Ken

[Jason C-C]

As I said, 'LH' and 'RH' gearboxes are exactly the same, except that one of them has an additional idler gear fitted to reverse prop rotation. So you wouldn't need to stock two types of gearboxes. The engines themselves are likewise identical, and all rotate in the same direction. No need for any fancy software.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Jason C-C

[Midnight Storm]

Kinda funny, I didn't even know this plane was being built since America has no interest in it.

Very cool looking. I wonder how it sounds?

[Aggressor Supporter]

Interesting. Looks like a shorten C-141 with a C-17 backside and C-130J's props.

[launnie]

Interesting. Looks like a shorten C-141 with a C-17 backside and C-130J's props.

And jet it stills reminds me from something else:

source

gr. launnie

Edited July 2, 2008 by launnie

[AnthonyWan]

This photo just put up on Airliners.net

A front shot....

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbus-Indu...400M/1369816/L/

-AWan

[F106A]

A few photos a buddy just e-mailed me. Amazing!

Mark

[dylan]

thats a really big prop on that thing.

[kuman]

Good to see a familiar flag on the side of this plane :D

and i believe they're getting 4 of this beast...

myself and a friend was talking about this plane a few weeks ago... now i can show him the rollout pictures.. :D

thanks

kuman :D

[FAR148]

Wow...

Imagine all that money to "Re-Imagine" the C-130J...

I'm just sayin'

I'm hearing yeah. After 26 years and how much money......:D

Steven L :D

[GCA333]

Beautiful!

Most aircraft are variations on other designs.

A300 and 767?

A300, first widebody twinjet!

[Aggressor Supporter]

Nice pics your friend e-mailed to you Mark. I'm liking this plane!

[tomcatter727]

Hmmm… :P

:o

edit: Just a friendly jest based on appearance only, folks.

NICE