Airbus A400M

[Clayton Bigsby]

What's the deal with different engines on the same airframe?

They're not really different engines, they just turn differently to offset torque issues. #1 and #3 spin one way, 2 and 4 another.

Thing is instead of leaving that up to the reduction gearbox, I believe the engine designs are mirrored/reversed, so the whole damn thing spins another direction.

[Dead Last]

They're not really different engines, they just turn differently to offset torque issues. #1 and #3 spin one way, 2 and 4 another.

Thing is instead of leaving that up to the reduction gearbox, I believe the engine designs are mirrored/reversed, so the whole damn thing spins another direction.

Yeah so instead of having one type of engine on an airplane to replace when it breaks, the mx package will have to carry twice the amount of engines/props etc when they deploy. I think it's a way of forcing the potential customers to have to buy more equipment. Oh well the Herk's done it the old way for the past 50 plus years and it seems to be working that's all I care about.

[busdriver]

So it's more a logistics/MX supply issue than a concern for the operator?

[FlyinGrunt]

easy solution: use rudder. Don't suck. Profit.

[JarheadBoom]

is this a contest to see who can fit the most blades on a prop?

The Navy's new E-2D Hawkeye has 8-bladed props.

At least the A400M's props look proportional - the E-3D's look nearly like a solid mass near the spinner...

[Gravedigger]

The Navy's new E-3D Hawkeye has 8-bladed props.

At least the A400M's props look proportional - the E-3D's look nearly like a solid mass near the spinner...

What's the difference between an E-2C with 8 blades and an E-3D? I have seen the E-2 Hawkeyes at NAS ATL with the 8 bladed props, but haven't heard of a E-3D.

[StoleIt]

What's the difference between an E-2C with 8 blades and an E-3D? I have seen the E-2 Hawkeyes at NAS ATL with the 8 bladed props, but haven't heard of a E-3D.

I think he meant E-2D Hawkeye. Then their is the P-3 Orion. Its the Navy's land based ASW asset. The P-3 has 4 engines while the E-2 only has 2. And I think they are working on new props for it too.

Picture of E-2D:

Edited July 1, 2008 by stoleit2x

[JarheadBoom]

Sonofa...

Yep, I meant E-2D.

After looking at the pic stoleit posted, I must be remembering something else. Those props (I believe they're calling them NP2000's) aren't as solid-looking near the spinner as I was originally thinking...

[TacAirCoug]

Here they are on a Herk. This is the WY bird down at Edwards for the flight test:

[LockheedFix]

easy solution: use rudder. Don't suck. Profit.

Shack. Seems to me that the biggest problem with props is the adverse yaw when you lose an engine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how counter-rotating props solves that.

[okienav]

Here they are on a Herk. This is the WY bird down at Edwards for the flight test:

Flew with an AFMC stan/eval guy yesterday, he said the climbout power is better; but at cruise the newer props are minimally better than the current props.

[Herk Mafia]

Flew with an AFMC stan/eval guy yesterday, he said the climbout power is better; but at cruise the newer props are minimally better than the current props.

This is one of our tails. Our pilots that have flown the thing say its quiet enough in the cockpit that you can take your headset off and have a normal conversation.

[zrooster99]

Am I missing something, or is it only wide enough for a single row of pallets? Hmmm...inbetween a 130 and 17 in size...single row of pallets....T-tail...is anyone else thinking 141 with props?

[amcflyboy]

Flew with an AFMC stan/eval guy yesterday, he said the climbout power is better; but at cruise the newer props are minimally better than the current props.

Yup, and we're next in line to get em at the end of August. We sent a crew there last month to fly the WY bird, and they said it was awesome to fly.

[Guest regularjoe]

That is one big plane.

[polcat]

Yeah, love the new -15 VMCAs! So much lower, makes deciding whether or not to continue takeoff on an LZ easier after losing an engine.

[Clayton Bigsby]

That is one big plane.

Right between the -130 and -17 in size. Honestly I think the US would be smart to pick up a couple...does it have a tanker capability, to pump gas, like the old Transall does?

[jango220]

Aviation Week has an update on the jet...

Cliff Notes:

-Engine computer system isn't completed yet, slipping the testing timeline

-Weight creep, dropping at least 7 tons from max payload, now below 30 tons

-Engine gearbox cracks (possibly due to harmonic vibrations? pure speculation on my part but with odd-shaped huge f-ing props, it seems likely)

-Unable to fly the steep approaches favored by a certain cabinet secretary to avoid hostile fire...

Link

A400M Problems Range Far Beyond Engines

Jan 23, 2009

By Jens Flottau

Airbus is facing much more than just contractual and schedule challenges in its A400M military airlifter program, as the aircraft may need massive re-engineering work to achieve its performance targets.

In turn, numerous issues threaten to make the A400M a less attractive and capable aircraft for its customers, industry sources tell Aviation Week. They come in addition to the well-publicized delays in the flight-test program that are linked to the lagging engine full authority digital engine control (FADEC) development (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 25, 2008).

One key area of concern appears to be the A400M being overweight, which would negatively affect the aircraft’s payload and range capabilities. Sources close to the program say the aircraft is significantly heavy in its current development status. The first six units to be used in the flight-test program are 12 tons heavier than planned, those sources say. A weight savings campaign has identified a reduction potential of 7 tons. Early production aircraft will only incorporate reductions of 5 tons at the most, leaving payload below the 30-ton mark.

Airbus officials suggest the main performance criteria aren’t at any particular risk. Executive Vice President for Programs Tom Williams says the more he has reviewed the program, the more certain he has become “this is still going to be a bloody good airplane.” The aircraft is beating its short field performance and load targets, he says.

Yet, industry sources say the weight problem could well turn out to be the primary issue with the aircraft, rather than engine software. One observer believes the A400M payload will end up 3-4 tons below the original target even after all possible design changes, which could include the introduction of carbon fiber in noncritical areas. The three-year time frame proposed by EADS between the first flight and first delivery at the end of 2012 at the earliest would suggest that modifications to some parts of the aircraft structure also are possible.

Sources close to the Europrop International engine consortium say that FADEC issues with the TP400 are expected to be resolved by June. The EADS chief executive said earlier this month that once an acceptable standard FADEC was provided, the A400M could fly around one month later. But in addition to software, there are also hardware issues surrounding the engines. Because of unexpectedly high loads, cracks were found in some of the original design engine gearbox casings. Those needed to be partially strengthened. The sources say that upgraded casings already have been delivered to the Sevilla, Spain, final-assembly line and will be installed to replace the original parts.

Some special operational performance goals also are in doubt, according to people familiar with the details. The A400M may not be able to fly “Sarajevo profile” steep approaches because of possible flutter issues with the propellers.

Finally, some systems may be rejected by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), people familiar with the program say. The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given EASA approval needed for the planned civil certification.

An EASA official says the agency does not comment on ongoing certification processes.

[Guest ATC]

I think he meant E-2D Hawkeye. Then their is the P-3 Orion. Its the Navy's land based ASW asset. The P-3 has 4 engines while the E-2 only has 2. And I think they are working on new props for it too.

Picture of E-2D:

I doubt they are working on new P3 props. I talk to P3 drivers almost daily, and I am told the P3 is going to be retired shortly in favor of a B-737 based replacement. Just what I have heard - I have no solid info.

[M2]

I doubt they are working on new P3 props. I talk to P3 drivers almost daily, and I am told the P3 is going to be retired shortly in favor of a B-737 based replacement. Just what I have heard - I have no solid info.

If there is anything left to retire! The old Orions are falling apart as fast and as bad as some of the USAF's older inventory...

Cheers! M2

[HiFlyer]

Yep, the first one or two of the new P-8s are off the line at Boeing's Renton plant and being outfitted for flight test as we speak. The plan is for 108 airframes to work alone or in conjuction with the BAMS high altitude componant (a Navy funded Global Hawk variation with sensors optimised for the maritime surveillance mission).

[HiFlyer]

By the way, the A400M (in my opinion) is a classic example of what happens when your military requirement becomes a politically-charged "jobs program"! Purpose and mission capability suffer in order to keep the voters working!

[StoleIt]

Yep, the first one or two of the new P-8s are off the line at Boeing's Renton plant and being outfitted for flight test as we speak. The plan is for 108 airframes to work alone or in conjuction with the BAMS high altitude componant (a Navy funded Global Hawk variation with sensors optimised for the maritime surveillance mission).

108 airframes? Damn! Didn't think any branch of the military could get that many of a plane. I am surprised the Navy isn't getting 10 and told to make it work, because thats what I seriously expected.

[HiFlyer]

108 airframes? Damn! Didn't think any branch of the military could get that many of a plane. I am surprised the Navy isn't getting 10 and told to make it work, because thats what I seriously expected.

Yeh, but consider they're replacing a P-3 fleet that had probably 500+ airframes at full strength!

[hobbitcid]

The Airbus A400M finally has its first flight. Looking at the video you'd think the huge collection of politicians and airbus leadership had just launched a ship to the moon. Interestingly the aircaft claims to take the place between the C-17 and the C-130 though its expected performance to date (overweight - reduced range and payload) make it look more like a very expensive C-130J. In fact, the program is so far behind schedule and over budget that any thought of profitability is long gone. Further, most of its customers are now using penalty clauses to demand rebates and reduced costs, which is kind of stupid since Airbus is heavily subsidized by most of those same countries (FR, UK, GE, LX etc). Any losses the consortium realizes in lack of sales have to be made up by the nations themselves... So they will be "robbing Peter to pay Paul"... To add insult to injury, South Africa, one of the only non-European countries to contract the A400M in decent numbers has cancelled the order because it is so late to need. Meanwhile the UK has ordered yet another C-17 bringing their numbers to seven.

Still it looks cool...