A-400 Airbus

[Birdie]

and the fourth picture of the first row : already nine ( 9) operator countries !!!

Here you go :

http://www.superfighter.hu/AIRSHOW/ILA2010/ILA2010AIRBUSA400/index.html

Heard from an insider that ,despite the delays , this A/C is a gem. After the Russian " Bears " , the engine is the most powerfull prop in the world.

But actually this isn't really true because Bears have two engines in line , the one after the other. The Bear engine concept ( Contra propllers )has also 8 propeller blades but it is already decades old , so don't let Us compare apples and pears. We are not talking about the same technology. What really counts : these 4 babies BOOOOOOOST that plane like hell.

Look at picture 5135 , the size of the persons in front of the prop ...

Never thought a cargo airplane could have a sexy look.

Greetz

Birdie

[Ro-Gar Hobbies]

huh, just realized that the props on the inboard counter rotate to the outboard engine on the same wing. It's not a bad looking plane, but it has a more brutish look to it compared to the C-130.

Robert

[Berkut]

I am not impressed by it. Cost twice as much as Il-76, and lifts much less. And Il-76 cost twice as little, or more even, 126 mill euro (iirc) is A LOT for a transport plane that actually has nothing groundbreaking.

[Birdie]

Al russian planes cost only half if not more than half less than their Western Counterparts. That does not even impress me.

A 10 year old child with basic aircraft knowledge knows this.

But I'm the first to admit they do greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat job for few dollars.

Ere wie ere toekomt !

Birdie

[mawz]

Frankly, it's yet another attempt to replace the C-130 which is going to fail outside of a few countries that need both strategic and tactical airlift but can't afford 2 platforms (or can't buy from the US, or are funding EADS). However the A400M can only offer C-130 performance when carrying C-130 payloads (or less, given the aircraft is 12000kg overweight) s o it's no better a tactical lifter than the C-130. And while it can offer more performance when restricted to hard runways than the C-130, it's still well below the capability of a true strategic airlifter like a C-17. And it's essentially the same price as a C-17 which almost doubles the A400M's payloads. Realistically a C-130+C-17 mix will provide far more capability than a pure A400M fleet. And you can buy more aircraft that way.

for example, assume a 20 aircraft A400M fleet, with a flyaway price of $185 million USD per aircraft (130 million euros). That's $3.7 billion.

Now you need 10 C-17's to match the payload of those 20 A400M's for strategic lift. At $191 million per, that's $1.91 billion. With the leftover you can buy 28 C-130J's at $62 million per, with the same tactical airlift capability per-airframe as the A400M and the strategic lift of about 14 A400M's (given that the non-tactical load of a A400M is about twice the C-130J's). That gives you the strategic lift capability of 34 A400M's and the tactical lift capability of 28 A400M's for the cost of 20 A400M's. And with 38 airframes you have more flexibility in destinations, especially since you have 20 A400M's worth of strategic lift left when all of your tactical lift is tasked out (and vice versa).

As to the payload numbers:

C-17: 77 tons

A400M: 37 tons, but sub-1000m takeoffs require a max weight of 100 tons on an aircraft with an empty weight of 76.5 tons, meaning a maximum of 23.5 tons of payload+fuel

C-130: 19 tons and a 935m takeoff roll at normal 70 ton Take-off weight.

Edited August 13, 2011 by mawz

[Litvyak]

It's pretty, I'll give it that.

[martin_sam_2000]

Also, the countries listed is inaccurate. South Africa Cancelled its order a few years ago, and I have heard that Malaysia may cancel its also.

Sean

[pminer]

and the fourth picture of the first row : already nine ( 9) operator countries !!!

Here you go :

http://www.superfighter.hu/AIRSHOW/ILA2010/ILA2010AIRBUSA400/index.html

Heard from an insider that ,despite the delays , this A/C is a gem. After the Russian " Bears " , the engine is the most powerfull prop in the world.

But actually this isn't really true because Bears have two engines in line , the one after the other. The Bear engine concept ( Contra propllers )has also 8 propeller blades but it is already decades old , so don't let Us compare apples and pears. We are not talking about the same technology. What really counts : these 4 babies BOOOOOOOST that plane like hell.

Look at picture 5135 , the size of the persons in front of the prop ...

Never thought a cargo airplane could have a sexy look.

Greetz

Birdie

Who cares about the inner business deals/problems? It's built. It looks mean & beautiful. It's a super freighter. Or..at least it looks like one. LOL.. It's freakin awesome. All that really matters is Revell's release later this year. 1/72nd huge!!

[Berkut]

Al russian planes cost only half if not more than half less than their Western Counterparts. That does not even impress me.

A 10 year old child with basic aircraft knowledge knows this.

But I'm the first to admit they do greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat job for few dollars.

Ere wie ere toekomt !

Birdie

I don't want to drag this however. But, explain, how does it do better job than C-130, An-70 and Il-76?

Last two aircrafts lift 10 tons more than it.

It has second worst fuel usage (with full load, out of the three other aircrafts i picked out), being after Il-76. C-130J and An-70 is comparable in that regard. The only good thing about it is the internal space, being at 360m², An-70 is however 400 m². Cruiser speed is more or less alike between all of them, with C-130 lagging behind at 620km/h.

It is pretty. That is all it is. And expensive.

[Dndieje]

All that really matters is Revell's release later this year. 1/72nd huge!!

According to the Revell website the model will be 626 mm long with a span of 588 mm.

Parts count is 210.

Also says it will retail at €45,- ! :banana: :banana:

Date has slipped to 12/2011 though, don't see it happening this year to be honest.

[Juergen Klueser]

Every plane is developped with a set of requirements. It is quite needless to compare so different planes. The A400M is not just a transporter, it is a battle zone transporter - with some requirements similar to the old C-130.

If you have seen it flying, you will understand why it is different

Regards Juergen

[Birdie]

He guys , guess some of you are missing the point. I didn't claim or made a prophecy of any requirements or performances of this A/C.

Let me put it this way :

If I were going to describe how Beautifull Britney Spears is ( and I mean : SUPPOSE I did ) I have no intention to discuss or open a debate on how expensive her fake **** are.

Neither am I comparing her performance with another lady.

Get the point?

I just say : The A-400 is nice looking. Pe-ri-od. If someone feels the urge to start a fire on subjects that are not included in my topic : go ahead.

But not here. Start yourself a new topic with the appropriate title.

[Juergen Klueser]

Hi Birdie,

thanks for the clear words. I totally agree: It is very nice.

I have seen it on an airshow as well as in the test flight center in Toulouse. And every time I am more than impressed

Regards

Juergen

[Prop Duster]

...Here you go :

http://www.superfighter.hu/AIRSHOW/ILA2010/ILA2010AIRBUSA400/index.html

...Look at picture 5135 , the size of the persons in front of the prop ...

Never thought a cargo airplane could have a sexy look.

Greetz

Birdie

NOTE: the following IS NOT a serious statement so :D darn it

UH Birdie? is the silver duct tape on the forward fuselage (photo # 11_201006_CDC_GYZ_MF_5143.JPG) there to hold the electric extension cord used to start the engines??

Seriously thanks for posting the pictures, plane looks amazing

[Birdie]

NOTE: the following IS NOT a serious statement so :D darn it

UH Birdie? is the silver duct tape on the forward fuselage (photo # 11_201006_CDC_GYZ_MF_5143.JPG) there to hold the electric extension cord used to start the engines??

Seriously thanks for posting the pictures, plane looks amazing

Not sure . I was really surprised to see that on an A/C which is presented to the big crowd. My 2 C : If it was to start the engines , there is no need that it would be needed in flight :

to start the engines all hardware stays on ground IF not fully incorporated in the wings or fuselage. So , following this think path : No honest , I really don't know but I don't think this is engine starter stuff. Would think it should be near the engines then. This is a question for the future A-400 experts. Please do not mix " future A-400 experts " with those people who commented above your reply. Those are the "so-called" -" would be very hard " experts.

[pigsty]

After the Russian " Bears " , the engine is the most powerfull prop in the world.

But actually this isn't really true because Bears have two engines in line , the one after the other.

That's news to me. The NK-12 is a single-shaft turboprop, and there's only one in each nacelle. Having a contra-prop at the front does not mean you have more than one engine behind it. For example, the Shackletons that my dad flew had four engines and, if you like, eight propellers.

[pminer]

He guys , guess some of you are missing the point. I didn't claim or made a prophecy of any requirements or performances of this A/C.

Let me put it this way :

If I were going to describe how Beautifull Britney Spears is ( and I mean : SUPPOSE I did ) I have no intention to discuss or open a debate on how expensive her fake **** are.

Neither am I comparing her performance with another lady.

Get the point?

I just say : The A-400 is nice looking. Pe-ri-od. If someone feels the urge to start a fire on subjects that are not included in my topic : go ahead.

But not here. Start yourself a new topic with the appropriate title.

I'm with you Birdie. I could care less about all the problems with this A/C....and there's been a TON. But there is with every new generation of A/C technology. Airbus saw a Market and an opportunity. They ain't dumb you know. They made the plane like it is for their Market.

Anywhooo...we're modelers anyhow. All I care about is the Revell release. And....I'll pay whatever they ask. It's a freakin awesome A/C.

[mawz]

I'm with you Birdie. I could care less about all the problems with this A/C....and there's been a TON. But there is with every new generation of A/C technology. Airbus saw a Market and an opportunity. They ain't dumb you know. They made the plane like it is for their Market.

Anywhooo...we're modelers anyhow. All I care about is the Revell release. And....I'll pay whatever they ask. It's a freakin awesome A/C.

Airbus had little to do with finding a market, the development of the A400M started long before Airbus got involved (it was originally Aerospatiale, MBB, BAE and Lockheed looking at the C-130 and C-160 replacements). It only ended up being an Airbus project after Lockheed dropped out due to requirement mismatches in the late 80's and Alenia and CASA joining (which formed Euroflag as the development consortium). Euroflag ended up getting folded into Airbus as Airbus Military.

Fundamentally it exists because Germany and France were unwilling to buy a tactical or strategic transporter they weren't involved in developing or building.

[Birdie]

That's news to me. The NK-12 is a single-shaft turboprop, and there's only one in each nacelle. Having a contra-prop at the front does not mean you have more than one engine behind it. For example, the Shackletons that my dad flew had four engines and, if you like, eight propellers.

Just to give you an idea , take a look at : http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/troph3.shtml with the following text " The simplest way to provide the characteristics the new power plant required was to combine two TV-2 engines with a single reduction gear power transmission"

+ also the fact that on each picture from the underside of the TV engines , one can see two separate exhausts. If this was only one complete engine , why does it have 2 ( smaller ) different exhausts ?

also here : http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aero-Engines/Kuznetsov-NK-12-Russian-Federation.html "By coupling two of these engines into a common gearbox, Kuznetsov produced the 2TV-2F, rated at 9,200 kW (12,333 shp). This ran in September 1951 and was qualified in December 1952"

And then, to be honest I see pictures of this engine that make me believe it is only one unit. I would like to get a clear cut away view to see the real stuff.

G's

Birdie

[Flankerman]

I can't give a definitiv answer, Birdie, but I have just been browsing the Aerofax book on the Tu-95/-142.

The following are from there....

The TV-2 evolved from the Junkers Jumo 022.

Because of powerplant delays (the TV-10 & TV-12), they used the older, smaller TV-2F in a paired configuration with a common gearbox. The resulting powerplant was designated 2TV-2F at 8,952kW (12,000shp).

Only the first prototype used this engine - it crashed due to gearbox failure.

The second prototype utilised the Kuznetsov TV-12 (later called NK-12)

The description of the NK-12M as fitted to the Tu-95 reads.....

"The exhaust pipe system consists of a tail exhaust pipe (attached to the stub extension off the turbine casing and then bifurcated so that two exhaust ports are provided for each engine).

HTH

Ken

[RRTRENT]

That's news to me. The NK-12 is a single-shaft turboprop, and there's only one in each nacelle. Having a contra-prop at the front does not mean you have more than one engine behind it. For example, the Shackletons that my dad flew had four engines and, if you like, eight propellers.

DITTO

[RRTRENT]

DITTO

Anyone needing any clarification on the construction of the NK-12 engine should refer to BIll Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines.

[Birdie]

I can't give a definitiv answer, Birdie, but I have just been browsing the Aerofax book on the Tu-95/-142.

The following are from there....

The TV-2 evolved from the Junkers Jumo 022.

Because of powerplant delays (the TV-10 & TV-12), they used the older, smaller TV-2F in a paired configuration with a common gearbox. The resulting powerplant was designated 2TV-2F at 8,952kW (12,000shp).

Only the first prototype used this engine - it crashed due to gearbox failure.

The second prototype utilised the Kuznetsov TV-12 (later called NK-12)

The description of the NK-12M as fitted to the Tu-95 reads.....

"The exhaust pipe system consists of a tail exhaust pipe (attached to the stub extension off the turbine casing and then bifurcated so that two exhaust ports are provided for each engine).

HTH

Ken

Thanks for this explanation. I always tell myself in the mirror : So you think you already knew ? Big mista

[Birdie]

Damn button ! As I said before : my mirror always tells me that I still can learn every day something new.

Thanks for the info.

Always amazing what a crowd with common intrests can dig-up.

Appreiate it guys.

Thank you

G's

Birdie

[ross blackford]

:D, While all of the above discussion is true the world could have had a bigger, faster, longer ranging airlifter that was originally designed to operate from the worst airfields possible for less than half the price. The billions that have been wasted on the A400M could have been put to much better use elsewhere in the French and German aircraft industries. Airlifters aren't designed to look sexy, they're designed to do a very important job. I can't even begin to see a C-130 as being sexy, even though I worked on them for 5 years. They're a solid aircraft designed to do a solid job.

We don't seem to have learned much in the last 65 years really, or at least that's the case from my perspective. With all the financial problems the world is experiencing at the moment perhaps we should be a lot more circumspect in our purchases, not only for military purposes but also for civilian reasons as well. South Africa has cancelled its order and Malaysia may well follow suit. In my opinion it would have been better for all the nations purchasing the A400M to have purchased the An-70 they would have saved a great deal of money and some of the barriers betweeen East and West may have been broken down. Whilst I'm aware that for this to happen, the paper trail on component manufacture would need to be transparent, I think the companies producing those components would be willing to do that for the greater number of items they would sell.

Depite my feelings towards this bird, I'm one who is eagerly awaiting Revell's release. I'd also like to see Amodel release the An-70 because it would also be on my radar.

,

Ross.

Edited August 15, 2011 by ross blackford