A400M maiden flight today

[RTHolmes]

C130 engines, mini-C17 body, C141 cockpit.  Come on, all Airbus could do to reply to US transports was to take three and glue them together?   

Someone was telling me some of the specs earlier this week, it really isn't all that impressive as they say it is, it was supposed to be a rival to the C-17 but it only carries about 3/4 of the payload, and even though it can't carry as much, it can't climb or stop or do much anything much faster, if at all faster than a C-17. You COULD try to compare it to a C-130, but even then things look pretty much in American favor in a lot of aspects. Besides, I've flown on a C-17, and the name sounds cooler anyway 

wow, almost everything in this post is factually wrong. I could go through and correct it but cant be bothered, how about you go spend 15mins on wikipedia and have another go at it ...

[Rich46yo]

There is nothing wrong with the "specs" of the airplane. On paper the A400M is a winner, and it will probably end up as one anyway. The problem with such an advanced airplane is it was extremely difficult getting it from computer screen to actual flying. They lost a lot of orders due to the delays and problems. We Yanks experienced this with the Boeing 787. The A400M has a lot of advanced features and had a lot of teething problems.

But as a system its perfect for many air forces of the world. All the "other guys" have no need for a C-17 or a C-5 type cargo aircraft. There are what? Only 3 or 4 C-17 operators in the world? Airbus's customers for this lifter will be those who have to replace their old C-130s, including NATO countries. It is a step up even from the latest C-130, but is it worth the $ ?

[pritchy]

As a former employee of Airbus and even a member of the A400M marketing team, I am very proud to see it actually fly.

Its a great plane.  It was designed to meet a common European specification that didn't require it to perform on a par with the C-17.  Still, it can pretty much carry anything but a main battle tank both strategically and tactically.

Key problem was that the engine technology was slightly too immature.  2 years in the grand scheme of things isn't that bad.
Worth waiting for.  Those engines engines allow it to cruise at genuine jet speeds (40kts slower than a C17!) with all the tactical and economic advantages of a prop.

When the C-17 production line shuts down in the near future and the C-130 starts showing its age it will be the only significant tactical / strategic transporter in production.  I even believe the US will build it under license and use it themeselves!

 

[stephen]

Somone needs to tell the french we allready came out with the C-17....lol good for them.

[RedTeck]

It's just good business to recognize a need and fill it. C-17 is capable of a 170,900lbs payload. C-130J is good for 42,000lbs payload. There's a pretty good gap that the A400 will fill nicely with an 82,000lbs payload. Why do people by mid-size trucks when full-size trucks can carry more? They're either froogle, or they've determined they don't need the extra capacity. All in all it looks like a good solid airplane.

[RTHolmes]

out of interest what are the plans for the galaxy? even the 2nd batch ('80s?) are getting pretty old by now, does it have a major refurb program or is there a replacement on the way? Ive seen them at Brize and Upper Heyford, dam they big!

I think theres a militarised version of the A380-800 on the way, but its a double deck so not good for those really big parcels (eg. like bits of space shuttle )

[RedTeck]

Air Force is planning on using the C-5s until 2040.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5m.htm

[RTHolmes]

wow 70 years service for a military aircraft type, thats got to be a record

[RedTeck]

Pretty sure C-130 does, and probably will, hold that record.


EDIT*
"The C-130 family has the longest continuous production run of any military aircraft in history. In 2007, the C-130 became the fifth aircraft—after the English Electric Canberra, B-52 Stratofortress, Tupolev Tu-95, and KC-135 Stratotanker—to mark 50 years of continuous use with its original primary customer."

B-52 holds it apparently, and the Air Force is planning on keeping them until 2040 too.

[Spikes]

54 years on the 1st of Jan this year.

[xbrit]

Reminds me of a Belfast on roids !!


I know many of my old RAF squad mates have been talking about this addition to the fleet for a long time, hope it does what it's hyped up to be.

[Ex-jazz]

WTG  A400M 

[SDGhalo]

A400M is too big, but Aussie needs a replacement for it's DHC-4 Carbou what an amazing aircraft and history of operations with the RAAF.

(Image removed from quote.)


<S>...-Gixer

well just to let you know the DHC-5 Buffalo which is the turbo prop and bigger version of the Caribou seize production by Dehavelland canada a while back but now a company in BC called Viking Air bought the right to rebuild them and there coming back into service so if the RAAF is looking for something the same just a bit up to date but able to land anyware like there older cousin just give them a call.