A400m New strategic and tactical airlifter for the RAF

[Dr Jekyll]

AER said:

Same thing really. It's all about foiling the plans of Mr Reynolds, so to speak.

At low Re, which means slow-moving aerofoils or in viscous fluids, increasing the chord is the only tool one has left to combat laminar separation bubbles which is one of the key drag mechanisms at this aerodynamic scale.

Getting OT here. But after over 100 years of aeronautical propellers what has changed all of a sudden? Materials? Rotation speed? Design techniques?

[mph1977]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

KieronGSi said:

Why lease and not buy?

Oh buy by choice.

I was under the impression that we had leased our C17s.

IIRC the first 4 were leased on the basis of a gap filler to expand capacity while watiting for A400s , the little sandpit exploits made a case to buy those 4 and the extra 4 because the C17 (as a strategic lifter than can do tactical) can do things that the A400 can't ( as a tectical lifter that can do some strategic) (CCAST for example) and the 'airliner' types can't do either ( as they have little or no tactical capacity even if they have the DAS for theatre entry)

[AER]

Dr Jekyll said:

AER said:

Same thing really. It's all about foiling the plans of Mr Reynolds, so to speak.

At low Re, which means slow-moving aerofoils or in viscous fluids, increasing the chord is the only tool one has left to combat laminar separation bubbles which is one of the key drag mechanisms at this aerodynamic scale.

Getting OT here. But after over 100 years of aeronautical propellers what has changed all of a sudden? Materials? Rotation speed? Design techniques?

Kinda. Low Re aerofoils have really only begun to be studied in detail relatively recently, driven in part by wind turbine development.

[davepoth]

DMN said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

I am not biased. As an ex-AT Captain I want to see the best AT that we can have. Dear gods I spent several years and 2000+ hrs working in AT. I knowb how Albert works FFS!

Unfortunately a small fleet of A400 vs a Large fleet of C-130 plus C-17 just does not promise us that.

Which is exactly what the people who operated the Vimeys said way back when.

Tomorrows wars should be fought with tomorrows kit; not yesterdays.

I have a very good answer to that.



Every single time they've tried to replace the B-52 (which would be with the XB-70, the B-1, and the B-2) they've found (after ridiculous expense) that the kit they had was better for what they needed to do.

For example, the C130J needs less runway than the A400m. Less runway means less time in the most dangerous phase of the operation. There's no point having a plane that can travel faster and carry more stuff if it can't be used to get into the required airfields.

[Beyond Rational]

davepoth said:

For example, the C130J needs less runway than the A400m. Less runway means less time in the most dangerous phase of the operation. There's no point having a plane that can travel faster and carry more stuff if it can't be used to get into the required airfields.

Isn't the short field performance quite close though?

[Godalmighty83]

Beyond Rational said:

Isn't the short field performance quite close though?

A few different sets of numbers around but most suggest that the A400m takes about 25m more to take off although that does seem to be at a higher weight.

[stevesingo]

According to Wikipedia

Tactical take off distance

A400m 980M @ 100,000kg all up. Given the empty weight is 76,500kg that would be 23,500kg fuel/payload.


C130J 953M at 70,300kg all up. Given the empty weight is 34,274kg that would be 36,026kg fuel payload.



So

A400m=980m with 23,500kg fuel/payload!

C130J=953 with 36,026 fuel/payload!

I'd say the C130J out performs the A400m in the tactical take off.

[Beyond Rational]

It would seem that Wikipedia and Airbus use different figures, unless we're looking at different surfaces.

http://c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/A400M_Pocket_Gui...

[Mave]

Yep, Wikipedia says soft field for the A400m tactical take off numbers. Brochure says about 128 tonnes for 1000m ie 52 tonnes payload which makes more sense.

[onyx39]

Rumour has it, there's one over the South West coast as I write, about to be delivered..
Anyone confirm?

[anonymous-user]

onyx39 said:

Rumour has it, there's one over the South West coast as I write, about to be delivered..
Anyone confirm?

It's on FR24 just landed at St Athan from Seville

Edited by el stovey on Tuesday 28th October 13:43

[tuffer]

Oh goody, it will probably make an appearance at Boscombe in the near future so regular flights over my house and a nice view from my office.

[rkem]

Once again, the black and white numbers are not the be-all and end-all for whether a tactical airlifter is fit for purpose or not.

Depending on which Sqn Ginetta G15 Girl was on when she was flying Albert she will agree that whilst a C-17 or A400M may have similar or better numbers than Albert, there's no way that they would be able to land on some of the strips that we've been to in the past and subsequently be able to turn around and get out again!

Having stood next to an A400M whilst it's taxi'd past it's a noisy fecker even when in the ground range so god knows how noisy it is through the air. Being bigger means you'll attract more SAM attention in terms of both IR signature and Radar Cross-Section. The Uk has absolutely wrecked its C130J fleet thanks to the recent couple of campaigns, I suspect that the serviceability will be a lot better on the A400M because it won't have as much to do!

[Eric Mc]

It generates quite a snarly noise and is definitely louder than any of the C-130 variants.

[onyx39]

apparently the one that flew into the UK this week has been used by a certain Mr Cruise for a film.
Not sure if it's going back or not, but I am guessing that, as its not in RAF colours, it wont be staying.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/tom-...

[Boatbuoy]

The aircraft that was here for filming at RAF Wittering was one of the development aircraft, not an RAF/'customer' aircraft.

[onyx39]

[djc206]

I worked one last week. It was a breezy day so it was doing about 500kts over the ground, we asked them and they were cruising at .71 which beats a fair few other aircraft that fly around at big boy levels so they have my blessing!!

[RWD cossie wil]

The beauty of C-130 is that it Is a rugged, proven bit of kit that was designed to be a field operated & maintained aircraft from the 1st line on the design sheet.. You cannot buy experience, and the RAF having operated the type since 1967 knows then inside out, plus the global support for them means you can beg steal & borrow bits to keep them flying. They can fly with a huge amount of faults, and have huge system redundancy built in, personally I never felt safer than when being flown about in a venerable old "K".

The J, whilst not quite as strip friendly as the k (due to the composite props) is still a superb aircraft for tactical work, the climb performance & landing is spectacular for such a large aircraft. The other thing to consider is the C-130 can be roled to pretty much any task, from aeromedical to boat dropping to para drops to airlift & anything in between, no doubt the 400M will be a great aircraft, but it would be foolish to discount & lose the abilities of such a flexible aircraft as the C-130!

[onyx39]