I meant to say the market for a larger C130 is out there. I forgot the there.

As you point out the A400 main problem is its cost it should have been built using existing technology and not as a back door subsidy to Airbus by having its fly by wire system being used for A350. No need for composites skin when aluminum is a better choice for unpaved landing strips. Using Canadian engines instead of French one in order to secure a Canadian order for the plane making the project less European and more International.

Those poor choices led to A400 being half the capability of C17 at 75% of cost with no real chance of sales as long as C17 is in production.

Rgrt 😉

But have a look at MGTOW and Empty weights. Or Cruise altitude and ceiling. You’ll see that the “half capacity” is just paper. Just as is the strategic cap with a descent load without having a tanker for wingman.

No. C130 + palletised aircargo (airliners) = Better and cheaper A400

The tactical use of a 150M€ A400 to carry a 30t payload at close proximity of the battlefield is doubtful to say the least. Similar is its strategic capabilities with less than 20t while being a rare asset, at a low available number, maintenance incentive (non matured technology all over the airframe) at high cost of maintenance (EADS parts – EADS certified specialists – EADS blablabla… for a less than two hundred airframe).

It’s a fiasco. That the new team in power managed to get it certified and accepted by their customer is the only real impressive achievement so far.

A potentially good airplane. Yes. Do we have a thread for this beast ?

@Siddar:
You are spot in. Except that the market is not out. The C130J is a dedicated answer to large users like the USAF with Historics, tactical and budgetary variables playing hard on it.

Less demanding users (in term of nbr of sorties/year) and specific markets might re-invent the style with their own specifications. For example in Brazil, by switching to civil a turbofan design, they simply compensate the economy margin of a turboprop as viewed by their longer average flight distance per mission, less dedicated manpower cost and less turnaround overall time (if we consider that maintenance is a direct function of flight hours).

So the Herc is still reining on the market and thanks to EADS blind stray into its segment, a still very profitable product for LM (Just imagine how LM would have had a hard time competing only with Antonov and Chinese design). 😉

@Cherry: No. I was thinking at the A400.

The C160 was a clever design much in line with the C123 Provider. But it has nothing in common with EADS. Just like referring to the F4 as a Boeing design.

Aaarf…. We are OT. Sry.

It’s terrible when Ukrainian soldiers shell towns, & civilians flee to escape the fighting.

It’s entirely justifiable when Russian soldiers shell towns, & assist in the forcible expulsion of a couple of hundred thousand people.

Or so some posters here seem to believe.

Horror is not gradable Swerve. It’s a stepping stone into the unknown.

I fear that we are back to the dark hours of the siege of Sarajevo and yet another example of the failed Eu alliance on foreign policy.

It’s not a plane, it’s a functionality made product.

All of the specifications for range, load and operating conditions were formidable, but the most daunting was the ability to fly with a full load with one engine out. In the past, twin-engine aircraft, especially those operating out of short fields in forward areas, often could not survive the loss of an engine on a heavy-weight takeoff.

Willis Hawkins, then head of preliminary design for Lockheed, put together a team of veteran Lockheed engineers that included Eugene Frost, Art Flock and Dick Pulver, all of whom had worked together on previous projects. Notably absent from the team was Lockheed’s most well-known engineer, Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, who was deeply involved in the F-104 project, and who perhaps regarded a cargo carrying transport as too pedestrian for his interests.

By June, 1951, Hawkins’ team brought the completed proposal for the new Model 82 aircraft to Hall Hibbard, Lockheed’s chief of engineering. (The entire proposal was less than three-quarters of an inch thick, an amazing contrast to today’s multi-volume, multiple thousand page submissions.) Hibbard asked “Has Kelly seen this?” and when Hawkins said no, asked that Johnson come in.

Kelly went through the drawings, glanced at the model Hawkins had provided, and said “Hibbard, if you send that in, you’ll destroy Lockheed.”

Source:

http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/

I will never understand why EADS went after the same niche without any breakthrough in hand (stealth, VTOL or whatever)…

I bet it has nothing to do with TVC, it rebounded because it… eh, bounced off.

Better video (select 1080p): http://www.odnoklassniki.ru/video/5651367178

What I intends to say is that AFTER the rebound, TVC helped to level the wing. You can see that on the rear shot picture. 😉

Something was lost in translation I guess.

Thrust vectoring is your friend! The speed at which she wing leveled after the rebound is noteworthy. Good vid

I guess that the full price of the plane can be added to the credit of the technology (I remember some saying that it worth nothing and canard can do the trick better 😉 )