Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Engine problems could delay A400Ms
Softwar    9/24/2007 9:00:06 AM
Engine problems could delay seven A400Ms Aviation Week & Space Technology 09/24/2007, page 40 A400M service entry date in flux as engine flight continues to slip Delivery of the first flight-test TP400 engine will now be nearly a solid year behind schedule at best, and the effects of this delay are starting to reverberate throughout the European A400M airlifter program. At least a half-dozen of the Airbus Military transports are expected to be handed over late. The Europrop TP400-D6 had originally been due in November 2006 at Marshall Aerospace, with flight testing to begin in early 2007. That U.K. facility is modifying a Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules for the role. Ten months later, Marshall has yet to receive the flight-test engine. An executive from Europrop International, the consortium developing the engine, says: “A dummy engine is at Marshall Aerospace facilities being used for installation checks. . . . The actual engine . . . for the TP400-D6 first flight is [now] scheduled to be delivered by the end of October 2007.” He adds that the aim is “to try to fly on the C-130 in December 2007.” French Defense Minister Herve Morin recently suggested that the first A400M would not be handed over on time. Now, however, German and other government officials on the multinational program suggest that the delays will extend beyond the first aircraft. Nine nations have ordered a total of 192 of the type; France was slated to receive the first in late 2009, but that will now not happen until 2010 at the earliest.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
reefdiver       9/24/2007 11:48:32 AM
When was the last time - other than JDAM - that anything military was really delivered on time. The entire military/vendor relationship sees the military and vendors competing to see first who can come up with the most new ideas and changes after the contract is awarded, and then to see who will take the blame for the enevitable delays. With enough lobbying by both sides, the taxpayers will generally bend over and take it. Everyone knows it would be more expensive to start over.
 
So why worry? The A400-M is no doubt assured a long and profitable run. Given the life-span of such aircraft, a few years delay probably isn't that critical - except for Airbus's bottom line. And that can probably be dealt with by a few friendly politicians.
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       10/17/2007 2:29:33 PM
Well, its been announced - the A400 will be 6 months or so late.  The A380, the 787, now the A400 - and don't forget the F-35 - seems no one can deliver an aircraft on time anymore... Maybe they should just start planning on being late, add a couple of years to their original dates and deliver "early". At least it would be more honest for customers and stockholders.
 
Quote    Reply

streaky bacon       10/18/2007 3:41:56 AM
Good point reef diver I know that we are dealing with high tech stuff but when you compare what the aircraft engineers were able to do in the 50s and 60s surely it should not take 25 years to develop a plan like the Eurofighter????? I feel that Governments are take for rides sometimes to preserve companies profits! It now even takes over 5 years to develop a new family of IFV for the British Army! Whats really going on????
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       10/23/2007 10:09:59 AM

Good point reef diver I know that we are dealing with high tech stuff but when you compare what the aircraft engineers were able to do in the 50s and 60s surely it should not take 25 years to develop a plan like the Eurofighter????? I feel that Governments are take for rides sometimes to preserve companies profits! It now even takes over 5 years to develop a new family of IFV for the British Army! Whats really going on????


Whats going on is that military aircraft designers are constantly coming up with new ideas that add costs (and profits...), and the Pentagon guys want the newest tech that is constantly changing during the development cycle. Thus the "blueprints" for the aircraft (and indeed any military system), change daily.  Add some more processors and you need some more power. Add generator weight and suck power from engines requiring engine redesign. The added electronics generate more heat that requires more power well - you can see the visicious circle you get in.  As you're doing this you realize your weight is growing and now you have to spend a bunch of time redesigning the airframe to lose weight. On projects like the F-35, managers at all levels spend most of their time re-bidding. This is an expensive undertaking which they get do do whenever the government or some other sub-contract changes specs on them. Its absolutely amazing they can actually deliver an aircraft or any system for that matter. I personally blame the military for not having the appropriate discipline.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics