News A400 first flight.
- Thread starter Notebook
- Start date
tl8
Addon Developer
It flies!!!!
Although with Globemasters so cheap now it is a little bit useless.
Although with Globemasters so cheap now it is a little bit useless.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Quiet? They not only celebrated the first flight but also combined it with the demand from the "customers" to put more money into the project for overcoming EADS's failures.
At least in Germany.
---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 PM ----------
The Globemaster III has a slightly different profile though.:lol:
But you are right, I would have preferred a Globemaster III or even a An-70 order anytime over a A-400M, that has only the advantage of being a pure European solution.
sputnik
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 425
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 33
- Location
- Palmdale
- Website
- www.worldof2001.com
Hey wow, pigs CAN fly! 
Seriously, great news, at least for everybody who's spent a lot of money on the thing.
Seriously, great news, at least for everybody who's spent a lot of money on the thing.
irnenginer
NASSP vAGC Guru
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Being that I worked on that program and saw that it flew here first, I would say that they kept first flight subdued. It may be related to the fact that the work I did was completed 2 years ago.
E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
Just a comment...
No matter how many times I see it, that instant when the thin line of light appears between mother earth and the main wheels is always either satisfying, special, moving or sometimes downright gulpy... I cannot place it.
No matter how many times I see it, that instant when the thin line of light appears between mother earth and the main wheels is always either satisfying, special, moving or sometimes downright gulpy... I cannot place it.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
The plane is also meant to support parachutist operations and do low level flight, for this kind of profile, it is better to use turboprops as they are more effective at low speeds. Also, one operational aspect from the 1990s is the Sarajevo departure, a steeper than usual take-off and ascent, which the C-17 for example can not do - while it has low enough take-off speed to compete with turboprops, it can't do a similar steep ascent at low altitudes.
Also, you have to remember a political aspect - the Future Large Aircraft program started already in 1981. The major design was already frozen in 1991. The program switched to the Airbus company in 1995 as A-400M, before that it was done by the FIMA consortium. Before 1995, it was especially designed to replace the C-130. When FIMA got to the end, Lockheed Martin left the FIMA group and developed the C-130J.
E
ex-orbinaut
Guest
Add a tiny bit to this...
Do you mean jets as in turnbines or turbofans? Anyway, in addition to the already stated above, the aircraft is probably designed with short haul in mind. There are two considerations here...
1). Pound for pound, turboprops are more "efficient". What this translates into is that for a similar weight aircraft, you can have a slightly smaller, less powerfull "jet" (ie, consumes less fuel per hour) driving that propeller than if it were a pure jet. As time is not such a great factor on the short haul, (the difference between a turboprop and a jet flying between Quito and Guayaquil for example, is about 5 to 10 minutes) it becomes a cost saving incentive.
2). Because turboprops are therefore smaller, generally, making the wear and tear a little less than on a big jet, their maintenance can be done on an hours interval schedule. Jets, however, have their maintenance done on a cycle basis. Just to correct a misconception about cycles... a cycle is an engine start, power up to takeoff thrust, and shut down (most people think of a cycle as an actual flight of the aircraft, but you can do a cycle without ever leaving the ground). Anyway, on the short haul routes, a jet builds up cycles very quickly, increasing its maintenance periodicity and thereby cost to the operator, wheareas turboprops plod on until they reach their hours (with a few exceptions that are out of the scope of this description). Therefore, they are a cost saver in this sense, too.
Hope that helped.
Brycesv1
Crash Test Expert
that plane just looks wrong to me. i dont like it. the tail is too tall, the wings are too high, and the gear is too short as well as too wide for the body... its just an ugly plane IMHO
Last edited:
tl8
Addon Developer
Well all military cargo planes look like that. It is not unique at all in the looks department.
And personally, I like the look of it myself.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
It has a beautiful landing gear in the moment you want to land a Puma tank in the middle of nowhere on a dirt strip or evacuate injured civilians out of a combat zone from a field.
The landing gear is not wide for fun, it is for reducing the ground pressure.
dansteph
Addon Developer
And it was made to be efficient not to satisfy some fashion design or what peoples think should be a plane.
For me it look great for it's purpose.
Dan
For me it look great for it's purpose.
Dan
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
If it's half as successful as the 5-decades-old-and-still-going-strong Hercules it'll do just fine.
Evil_Onyx
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,045
- Reaction score
- 61
- Points
- 63
Another reason for turbo props over jets is the IR signature and radar signature are smaller (which is usefull for helping countermeasures confuse SAM's and other anti-aircraft weapons),
And a battle damaged turboprop can be shutdown and feathered to reduce drag, where a shut down jet is just a big hunk of metel with losts of drag.
Look at all the other aircraft that are capable of doing the job it is designed to do and you'll find thay all have similar characteristics.
Last edited:
Notebook
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,964
- Reaction score
- 765
- Points
- 188
tl8
Addon Developer
Well when you could get a C-17 or 3 C-130Js for the same price, the whole plane becomes a bit surplus
Brycesv1
Crash Test Expert
i know its functionally and practically beautiful but it just doesn't fit my personal tastes.
