A400m New strategic and tactical airlifter for the RAF

[Eric Mc]

The A400 is quite a bit bigger than the C-130.

[onyx39]

Eric Mc said:

The A400 is quite a bit bigger than the C-130.

It is

[Dr Jekyll]

onyx39 said:

Eric Mc said:

The A400 is quite a bit bigger than the C-130.

It is

Roughly the same size as a Short Belfast isn't it?

[tuffer]

Dr Jekyll said:

onyx39 said:

Eric Mc said:

The A400 is quite a bit bigger than the C-130.

It is

Roughly the same size as a Short Belfast isn't it?

First picture I have seen of all three side by side, did not realise the A400M was that big, was expecting it to be closer to the C130 than the C17. Awesome looking.

[Yertis]

It looks more bigger than the C130 in that pic because of that perspective thing.

[tuffer]

Talksteer said:

tuffer said:

Andy ap said:

First picture I have seen of all three side by side, did not realise the A400M was that big, was expecting it to be closer to the C130 than the C17. Awesome looking.

It is also closest to the camera.... :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

In payload range terms it is twice the size of the Hercules and half the size of the C17. Note I don't think a C17 costs twice as much to purchase, the RAF would have probably prefered more C17s and C130s.

Yeah, someone said that last time.

[Eric Mc]

Dr Jekyll said:

Roughly the same size as a Short Belfast isn't it?

Yes.

It's slightly smaller but probably more capable as the technology in it is a half century later. It's nice to see the RAF get its big turboprop transport back.






Comparative lengths -

Belfast 158 feet
A400M - 148 feet
C-130J Hercules - 97 feet 9 inches

[Dr Jekyll]

Does make you wonder what the Belfast would have been like if it had been developed the way the C130 was. (I appreciate it shouldn't really have been built in the first place)

[onyx39]

A400 not doing too well in the reliability stakes by all accounts.

[Eric Mc]

Early days.

[onyx39]

very true Eric.
But since delivery its made 1 flight.
Reading stuff on Facebook, some of which apparently comes from people working at Brize, it's a little more than "teething troubles"

[anonymous-user]

Yertis said:

It looks more bigger than the C130 in that pic because of that perspective thing.

yup.

[anonymous-user]

And another.

[Eric Mc]

onyx39 said:

very true Eric.
But since delivery its made 1 flight.
Reading stuff on Facebook, some of which apparently comes from people working at Brize, it's a little more than "teething troubles"

Define "teething troubles".

As ever, there will always be a learning curve process when a fairly radical new design first enters service. It is still "on trial" as far as I am aware. Has it been through Boscombe Down for acceptance - which is what I always thought the A & AEE was for.

[Yertis]

I'm having dinner with one of the chaps responsible for the design of A400 on Friday, I'll raise all your concerns with him.

[maffski]

el stovey said:

Yertis said:

I'm having dinner with one of the chaps responsible for the design of A400 on Friday, I'll raise all your concerns with him.

Then can you ask why they didn't give it retractable landing gear? It'll ruin the performance that.

[onyx39]

Eric Mc said:

Define "teething troubles".

As ever, there will always be a learning curve process when a fairly radical new design first enters service. It is still "on trial" as far as I am aware. Has it been through Boscombe Down for acceptance - which is what I always thought the A & AEE was for.

My understanding from the people who have been sitting outside Brize waiting for it take off is it was delivered, and flew on one subsequent day and has been grounded ever since. I would have expected it to do better than that.

[Eric Mc]

Delivered for what purpose?

Testing?
Familiarisation?
Full operational service?
Technical instruction?
A bit of PR?

Most brand new aircraft have to go through quite extensive acceptance trials before they are ready for operational use. I'm not sure where the A400M is regarding these trials as far as RAF service is concerned.

[AlexIT]

maffski said:

Then can you ask why they didn't give it retractable landing gear? It'll ruin the performance that.

It must surely be a



Right?

[maffski]

AlexIT said:

maffski said:

Then can you ask why they didn't give it retractable landing gear? It'll ruin the performance that.

It must surely be a



Right?

Right back at ya, I thought it was that obvious a would be insulting...