SchorschThe accuracy of pre-first flight simulation has considerably increased, for the A380 it flew like the real thing before the real thing flew. But … it might be otherwise. The good thing: handling qualities can pretty much be tuned in any direction. The A400M will be designed for highly skilled military pilots, not semi motivated line pilots from Kookonistan. It will not fly like an A320.
SchorschThe risk is that Europe would buy only high tech american product while USA buy few low tech Europe stuff
A330 and A400M are not exactly low tech. When it comes to combat systems the barriers will be higher. I doubt that future contracts will involve any industrial participation and knowledge transfer. If USA buys in Europe and vice versa, there is no need for compansation business.
SchorschMy limited knowledge was built up over many years for flying the type of mission that the A400M might be able to accomplish. I do not go trolling around books to try to get a number here and a number there… I worked along side the C-160 many times and frankly, it could barely cut it.
Your experience is undisputed. But what reason do you have to assume the A400M will have bad handling qualities in that regime? Don’t you think that other people with similar experience (pretty much all Airbus test pilots have military experience, aside those who flew Concorde) will tune the laws in a way that it “feels right”?
With the right set of gains you can virtually make the A400M any aircraft you want. And if the USAF ever thinks about it, be sure, we can even retrofit a yoke and set control law to direct in default.
SchorschThis may also increase the chance that European nations order more US stuff. The F-35 for Germany and France is thinkable, as is the Chinook for Germany. In conclusion, we might see the day where there is a real trans-atlantic open market for military equipment …
yeah, I know, a bit utopistic. 😮
BTW: When the A330 cooperation works well, creates jobs and quality is good, it may open the door for the other Airbus military aircraft: the A400M.
SchorschCongratulations to NG-EADS team for pulling off what many thought was imposible . This should create a healthy competition within the US defence industry and in doing so push each OEM to become more effeceint and better .
Having said that there is still long ways to go , I expect a long drawn out appeals process and with the elections comming up for the White house this drama aint over yet .
The 330 is a great airframe (one of my personal favs) and It would be great to see it in USAF colours .
And no-one needs to fear the loss of US jobs. EADS is eager to transfer more work in the USD-region. Thinkable that with A350 production the whole A330 final assembly goes to US. When A350-900 is available (which effectively replaces the A330-300) in 2012, the line might be transferred to USA. I would cautiously add to the 180 ordered tankers maybe 20 more from other nations and probably 150 A330-200/300F freighters. In the end EADS/Airbus/Northrop might produce more large aircraft in USA than Lockheed did.
By the way: The MRTT will be great boost for the strategic airlift capability.
SchorschF-16? We are talking A400M and An-70
We are talking about tactical airlift, and assault landings. FBW or not, The aircraft will be flirting on the edge of a stall in these conditions, you need to have feel into the input device that will let you make either large inputs or very fine, precise inputs in a fraction of a second. A side-stick just lacks that feel.If you want to bring up FBW airlines and try to compare them to a tactical airlifter (don’t, they aren’t the same) and say that the side stick has worked great for years…well OK, but then again, you are not bringing an A-320 into a 2800 ft dirt strip…where if you over correct or under correct, you and your pallet of beans are dead.
Believe me, I think that Antonov knows tactical airlift a tad better then Airbus does… They must have put a yoke in for a reason, no? The C-130J didn’t go to a side stick…Lockheed might of had a reason? The C-17 still uses a center stick with a long pivot point…
Or, does Airbus actually know what you need in a tactical airlifter better then the companies who have perfected it far well over 50 years now.
There is no company that has comparable experience in FBW for large aircraft as Airbus. It built everything from 50t to 600t with FBW and has produced close to 3000 aircraft of that kind by now. The A400M has the most advanced flight control design ever built into an (large) aircraft. It is extremely failure resistant, independent of hydraulics, and frankly, you have to aim good to hit all low-voltage FBW wires.
The handling characteristics of the A400M will be a generation beyond the C-17 or C-130. No matter what people think of Airbus, most pilots say that when you push it to the limits an A320 or A380 is agile and responsive, especially at low speeds it behaves much better than “comparable aircraft”.
By the way: in normal law you cannot stall an Airbus, at least when you don’t do non-sense things (like shutting down the engines or entering the flare mode). I guess pilots transferring from any C-130 model will hail the A400M.
SchorschNo crying over spilled milk either way..the decision has been made (and after the 5 years of protests from the loosing company, they might start flying her ….later)
anyhow, to my point.
Most of the recipients of the aircraft will be current users of the KC-135s. If the KC-767 is selected, very little change to the infrastructure will have to be changed. The hangars can all be used, as well as current parking areas…
The KC-30 is larger enough to will require new hangars, and parking areas. I am sure that is factored in as well. That would be a huge cost to take on.
Also, Why did Boeing not offer a -300 sized aircraft as well, did they just bet that the smaller size would be a plus to them?
I am rooting for Boeing, but either way, the KC-135s are tired and its about time to get a new plane for those guys(and chicks) who fly and fix’em
Not that infrastructure doesn’t count, but this aircraft will be in service for probably 30 years or more. A new hangar costs nothing compared to the life-time costs of one aircraft, and the USAF will buy 180. So, “using the existing infrastructure” is a lame argument. Infrastructure has to be adapted to the aircraft, not other way around. The A330 does not require any lengthening of the runway. Just spill some concrete somewhere, parking space is something the USA truly have in full plentifulness. USAF airbases normally don’t occupy valuable inner city areas.
The KC-135 hangars are as old as the aircraft, maybe it isn’t such a bad idea to scrap them now.
And the maintenance: as said the maintenance intensive parts will be sourced from USA. With a backlog of 180 aircraft many other parts can be sourced from USA which previously came from European companies. This deal – if it goes to Northrop Grumman and EADS, may in the long run make the USA a part of the Airbus supply chain and secure American jobs. I guess there are plenty of available people on the market as Boeing has outsourced two thirds of its airframe business to Italy and Japan.
SchorschIs anyone still buying passenger 744’s these days ? I imagine orders must have cooled off quite considerably with the A380 and 748 in the offing…
Since B777-300ER available, A380 on the horizon and fuel prices above 40 buck a barrel the B747-400 is selling like the Plague as passenger version. The last -400 passenger aircraft will have a pretty bad residual value.
I still doubt that the passenger version of the B747-8 will score many sales. I also seriously doubt the wisdom of my German flag carrier. Anyways, they got them virtually for free.
But nonetheless: The B747 is a huge success story and has revolutionized intercontinental air travel. Despite being long in the tooth now, it has survived nearly 30 years without major improvement (only new avionics and engines). A huge money making wind mill for Boeing, in the end possibly the product that caused that today Boeing and not McDonnell Douglas is the American aviation company.
SchorschThe question is not if the speed is 10 knots more or less, the question is if a comparable flight envelope can be covered without the pain of using a tiltrotor. A tiltrotor – as advanced it as may seem – is a crutch. Mechanically complex, very expensive and potentially very prone to battle damage.
SchorschIt was the biggest transport aircraft of its time, and still is (excluding one Mriya), what more would you want?
The biggest transport class aircraft is the A380. Especially when we make the product of take-off weight, speed, range, payload and divide all that by lifetime costs, we arrive somewhere no Antonov has ever been. Nobody should think that is an insult on Russian engineering capabilities, but they never truly had an edge when it came to very large (>300t) aircraft (in my opinion due to lack of investment, suitable engines and simply demand for it).
I accept the An-225 as having more MTOW and payload, while it remains a one trick pony not suitable for most operations.
SchorschLook, Schorsch. I have described you how the reality looks like in my sector today. What conclusions you draw from that depends on your estimate/experience/IQ. Not my problem.
Accepted. I appreciate that you take the time to outline your positions.
Wanna tell me about the reality? The please explain, why western designers spit out a design (Typhoon and Rafale) that goes into series in 2005 and is getting regularly beaten on export deals by 20 years old F-15E which is based on almost 40 year old design (YF-15)? Why is your latest toy only marginally better than upgraded 30 years old Flanker, if the eastern stuff is oh so damn crappy?
With the A400M you only are matching figures of An-70 good 15 years after it has rolled out… If Russian and Ukrainian economies weren’t so broke, we’d be having the 70 around every corner soon. And where is a joint european strategic airlifter that could even approach the figures of An-124? If Germans with their Gewerkschaften-type working morale were to design their own Ruslan, they would spit out a design after 80 years of Tagungen und Round-Table Sitzungen at the price of $250+ mil a piece and wonder why noone is buying.
Things are not bought for technical sophistication. What you describe is a basic phenomena of the aviation industry but doesn’t qualify as point for your argument. Something existing is always hard to beat. When one looks at the details the advantages of a Typhoon over an F-15 or Su-35 are clearly visible, but if these advantages are not really needed or are overcompensated by other advantages (cost, availability, political considerations), nobody will buy it.
Topic is the A400M. Main driver of cost is in this project is the creation of something that didn’t exist before:
All these experiences existed at Antonov before, basically paid for years before. Now it is a political decision to take these skills under contract with its pros and contras, or to built up skills on one’s own. Europe’s way forward (endorsed primarily by Germany, the UK, Spain and France –> Airbus nations) was to use these requirements to create skills within national companies.
To claim that this is flawed thinking is not valid. China and Russia, which are often praised for their new shiny products on these fora, do exactly that: they invest obscene amounts of money to get somewhere others have created years ago. In case of China the examples are J-10 (broadly comparable to an F-16C medium block) and ARJ-21 (a “Chinese copy” of the MD-90).
In case of Russia it is the Suchoi 100 (the Suchoi “Superjet”) or the uneconomic decision to keep the Tu-204 or Il-96 on the market and sell them by a mix of discounts, import tolls and political force. A product decision primarily motivated by political considerations. By the way, both Russian and Chinese industries are completely state-controlled (and have anybody ever seen a balance sheet of AVIC or Suchoi?). The Su-100 will do nothing that other aircraft cannot do. It is a multi-billion USD endeavor primarily aimed at keeping or creating skills within the industry. It would be more cost effective for Russia to satisfy its need for airliners by imports from Europe and USA and seek limited participation in design/manufacturing. The Chinese are better off (better return on investment) when they concentrate on DVD-players and other medium tech consumer products.
So, why is Western Europe doing something completely stupid when all Chinese or Russian attempts are hailed for their greatness? The time when they arrive at a position (in civil aviation for example) that exceeds the Airbus or Boeing skills is somewhere in 2020 earliest.
And where is a joint european strategic airlifter that could even approach the figures of An-124?
The Antonov 124 itself didn’t possess any technologies when it came out that were not already developed, tested and certified in the West years before.
SchorschIn the branche where I work in, two largest competitors already have done and are continuing doing so. One is a joint-venture of two German well-know concerns, another one is an American company. The No.1 (from Sweden) is planning movement of large parts of engineering and development from Western to Eastern Europe in following years.
The other two gigants are not considering because they are both located in the far east and hardly know what eastern europe is, logically 😉
Enough?
So, in consequence I can summarize your point as follows: Russian engineers will built any aircraft faster, better and much cheaper, by the way they focus on the real thing and don’t waste time for our Western crap forced upon us by Microsoft. So, if I don’t emigrate to the Eastern Ukraine in the next couple of years I will become a marginally payed “service consultant” in the local fast food store.
Just, why is reality different?
SchorschWhere to start:
XP-58B Airacobra
XP-80 Shooting Star
XP-84 Thunderjet
XF-84F Thunderstreak
XP-86 Saber Jet
XF-89 Scorpion
XF-104 Starfighter
XF-105A Thunderchief
XF2H-1 Banshee
XF3H-1 Demon
XF4D-1 Skyray
XF8U-1 Crusader
XF3D-1 SkyknightI got tired so I didn’t look up any bombers.
As I said earlier, my claim is limited to post-1962 aircraft (reformation of designation system).
SchorschLOL. They can demand, sure.. And that is where it ends.. 😉 Which company would move eastwards if the cost there were the same or even comparable?
How many companies actually moved their engineering department to the Ukraine? Please don’t hesitate to give examples!
SchorschLOL, funny that exactly you say that. Germany was right in rejecting the 70 only in terms so that people like you still have their job. Face it, Ivan from Kiev can do exactly as good as job as you can, for far less money, without all your Tagungen, Round-Table, Task-Force-Projektgruppen, PPS-Produktbesprechungen, CMT-Runden, Six-Sigma and Teambuildingtreffen nonsense which German companies love to kill their time with. I know something about it.. 😎
Do you think a westernized An-70 will come along without it? Currently the Russian/Soviet hasn’t exactly earned the reputation in delivering on cost/quality/time, either. How do you come to the assertion that engineers in the East will work for a few Euros when they basically can develop the total aircraft without any of the above? If they are so superior, they can easily demand equal payment as their Western comrades.
Sign In
