The troubled A400 finally gets off the ground. Striking to me how much it looks like a C-17.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
A400M Makes Maiden Flight.....Finally
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
Very much so.
Carnal knowledge between C-130J and C-17?
4 years late and big cost overruns. Interesting article at Bloombergs.
Holy cow, the "savior of NATO" finally takes wings! I remember when I was on a NATO staff, it was amusing to listen to them talk about how great the A400 was going to be and how independent it was going to make them, dissolving the oppressive chains of their C-130/C-17 slave masters...mheh.
Hahaha @ how their insistence on using a European company to do the engine work instead of UTX resulted in a lot of the delays. The buyers can cancel their orders if they want to and get a refund because March was a deadline for it's first flight, wouldn't that be nice. Hopefully Boeing can capitalize on EADS (EuropeAn Designed Shit) mistakes and put a hurting on their A350 (787 first flight next week?).
Isn't their breakeven point on the A380 over 500 aircraft, and they've only sold just over 200? They violate free trade rules and they still can't get it right.
Isn't their breakeven point on the A380 over 500 aircraft, and they've only sold just over 200? They violate free trade rules and they still can't get it right.
I have very little knowlege on military transport planes but why would newer military transports continue to have prop engines? It seems to me (speculation) that jets would increase range and speed of the aircraft significantly both of which seem to be very important for transport aircraft. Again I really dont know and that is why I am asking.
At the end of that clip as the thing was flying away, it looked just like the 17. In fact, i'm convinced that aft of the wings it is a C-17...
Silly Airbus.
Props are better at low altitudes and generally, burn much less fuel than jets.
There's also the small/unimproved airfield scenario, where props tend to have a slight edge.
Props have a ten-fold advantage over turbofans when it comes to bypass ratio, which has an big affect on propulsive efficiency. When you want to go above M=0.6 or relatively high, props lose their advantage over jets. Also, props have much more of their thrust available at zero velocity, making STOL easier.
If you want to get there really fast: turbojets.
If you want to get there fast, turbofans are the way to go.
If you want to go slow/land short/save gas, turboprops.
If you want to go really slow/land really short/be a real man, helos.
READ: they ... (the "real men", in the post above) .... don't like to wear underwear/U-Trou ... they went 'commando' before anyone conjured up the term ... as NONE of our HELO-guys overtaxed the ship's laundry w/ u-trou ... and just to make a point: they liked to 'un'zip their Zoom Bags (low & slow bags for HELO-guys???) down to the navel (not Naval) ...
:yuck_125:Plus ... they were always 'sweaty' ... :yuck_125:
Hey!!! This post makes as much sense as 50% of the other posts on this thread ...
READ: they ... (the "real men", in the post above) .... don't like to wear underwear/U-Trou ... they went 'commando' before anyone conjured up the term ... as NONE of our HELO-guys overtaxed the ship's laundry w/ u-trou ... and just to make a point: they liked to 'un'zip their Zoom Bags (low & slow bags for HELO-guys???) down to the navel (not Naval) ...
Plus ... they were always 'sweaty' ... :yuck_125:
Hey!!! This post makes as much sense as 50% of the other posts on this thread ...
This is the second post I've seen from you regarding the undergarment choices of unrestricted naval aviators from years past. There must be some deeply disturbing story behind all of this... so I must ask: when they failed to wear u-trou and let the zippers fall to the navel, did you doubt they were men?
Then you are reading wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-ay too many of my posts ...This is the second post I've seen from you...
'What goes on cruise ... stays on cruise.'
We coined that phrase 3-4 decades before Vegas ever had a clue ...
Then you are reading wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-ay too many of my posts ...
'What goes on cruise ... stays on cruise.'
We coined that phrase 3-4 decades before Vegas ever had a clue ...
And even that marketing ploy CREATED by the Board of Tourism in Las Vegas marketing isn't entirely accurate. I mean even Tiger was foolish enough to believe "What happens in Vegas -stays in Vegas". WRONG!
end threadjack break.
We'll never learn how many billions of $$ EADS will lose on this aircraft. I think it is 150% over-budget & they have ~ 150 sold. All because their silly european pride wouldn't let them buy a turboprop engine not made in Europe. Between this & the A380, this company would already be in Chapter 11 if it were a U.S. manufacturer.