amalahama Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 At the beginning of November, first A-400M (MSN-001) has been delivered to FTC (Flight Test Center) in Seville to begin engine tests, taxi and ground runs and finally, first flight (in the middle of December I guess). Today (23rd November) the MSN-001 has completed the first ground run test. Some pictures: A-400M DELIVER TO FTC FIRST ENGINE START UP FIRST COMPLETE START UP Regards!! 3
Kusch Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Great pics, thanks :) Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)!
jpm1 Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Great news , thanks . in my mind the project was in much bad shape , glad to see i was wrong . cool . The third pic is cool now i hope to see it in the air soon SU-25 missions [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Zulu Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Hmm seems we canceled the contract a little to early To INVENT an Airplane is Nothing. To BUILD One is Something. But to FLYis EVERYTHING. - Otto Lilienthal [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
159th_Royalman Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 I wonder why they chose to make it with turboprops and not conventional jet engines... 159th Guards Aviation Regiment | We fly Su33 - Su25T - Ka50 :pilotfly:
zakobi Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Turboprops tend to give a better fuels efficiency AFAIK...
Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 I wonder why they chose to make it with turboprops and not conventional jet engines... I can't get the "jetmania" some people seem to have. Some examples of non-jet aircraft that are still very efficient? C-130J Super Hercules (or even the 'old' C-130) - no jet engines, yet one of the best (and more flexible) transport aircraft. EMB-314 (A-29, for friends :D) - no jet engine, but a very modern and comptetent attack aircraft (by the way, apparently USAF is interested in buying some of these bad boys. Any news on that?) You need a jet engine for a supersonic air superiority fighter, for example, but for a transport, good n' ol' turboprop can do the job - and for a smaller price.
amalahama Posted November 24, 2009 Author Posted November 24, 2009 Turboprops tend to give a better fuels efficiency AFAIK... I can't get the "jetmania" some people seem to have. Some examples of non-jet aircraft that are still very efficient? C-130J Super Hercules (or even the 'old' C-130) - no jet engines, yet one of the best (and more flexible) transport aircraft. EMB-314 (A-29, for friends :D) - no jet engine, but a very modern and comptetent attack aircraft (by the way, apparently USAF is interested in buying some of these bad boys. Any news on that?) You need a jet engine for a supersonic air superiority fighter, for example, but for a transport, good n' ol' turboprop can do the job - and for a smaller price. I fully agree with you guys, but the ugly truth is that in West Europe, experience with big turboprops is practically nonexistent. A pair of Trent 700 could fit very well in the design, it would be an affordable and safe solution and performance penalty would be assumable with a less expensive and traumatic design phase. In fact, A-400M is the perfect example what you must NOT do in a military aeronautical program. Fixed prices and deadlines is not the way to go for this kind of programs. However, all have to be said and technically is a nice airplane and I'm sure that, when first operational squadrons became operational, people will feel very happy with this. Regards!!
jpm1 Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 the only little default it has it can't carry heavy tanks , but it has not been designed for that . you don't bring heavy to fortune runways but to safe place only . i think the choice of the US to develop a plane able to both land on fortune runways and carry heavy payloads is mainly political , like a kind of saying to the countries if you "mess with us" we can bring heavy tanks everywhere . the A400 is a good thing for Europe because we develop our own high end military technology , the A400 is still the most powerful turboprop in the world , a nice first step . SU-25 missions [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
amalahama Posted November 24, 2009 Author Posted November 24, 2009 One more SIMULATOR PICTURE Regards!! 2
jpm1 Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 thats 1 unbelievable pit. you mean unreal or cool SU-25 missions [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
amalahama Posted November 24, 2009 Author Posted November 24, 2009 thats 1 unbelievable pit. Cockpit picture is real, although it looks like MFDs are photoshoped; however the arrangement and appearance of them are very similar to RL. Regards!!
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Cockpit looks like other Airbus cockpits. It looks good however ... Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
sobek Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Is there no prop condition lever at all? Fully automatic? Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
amalahama Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 Is there no prop condition lever at all? Fully automatic? Yep...Like everyone expects in a XXI century turboprop ;) Regards!!
eurofor Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Doesn't props have higher acceleration at the start than jets? so it should be able to use a shorter runway? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
jpm1 Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 the A400 needs 1400 m and the C-17 2300 m here you have a comparative between main cargo planes (french) . take off distance is the last line distance au dйcollage SU-25 missions [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
amalahama Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 As a picture is worth a thousand words, 30 pictures per second should be much better!!!:lol: Regards!!
jpm1 Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 they kept the South african flag , it's auspicious it seems they have confidence in themselves , i think it's very likely we'll see in the air soon SU-25 missions [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
bumfire Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) I can't get the "jetmania" some people seem to have. Some examples of non-jet aircraft that are still very efficient? C-130J Super Hercules (or even the 'old' C-130) - no jet engines, yet one of the best (and more flexible) transport aircraft. EMB-314 (A-29, for friends :D) - no jet engine, but a very modern and comptetent attack aircraft (by the way, apparently USAF is interested in buying some of these bad boys. Any news on that?) You need a jet engine for a supersonic air superiority fighter, for example, but for a transport, good n' ol' turboprop can do the job - and for a smaller price. I thought the EMB-314 / ALX or A29 was a Turbo prop ? Looking at the most reliable source on the web, wikipedia :lol:, it says that its a turboprop and by definition a turboprop is a prop aircraft powered by a jet engine, same with the 130, all 4 engines are by definition jet engines. So jetmania is all around. Although I do prefer the huge radial's of ww2 aircraft, the engine on the p47 was some piece of work. Edited November 25, 2009 by bumfire
jpm1 Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I thought the EMB-314 / ALX or A29 was a Turbo prop ? Looking at the most reliable source on the web, wikipedia :lol:, it says that its a turboprop and by definition a turboprop is a prop aircraft powered by a jet engine, same with the 130, all 4 engines are by definition jet engines... don't know where you live but in french and english definitions they say nothing similar SU-25 missions [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I thought the EMB-314 / ALX or A29 was a Turbo prop ? Looking at the most reliable source on the web, wikipedia :lol:, it says that its a turboprop and by definition a turboprop is a prop aircraft powered by a jet engine, same with the 130, all 4 engines are by definition jet engines. So jetmania is all around. Techincally... :D So it kills the argument of the first guy who decided to comment on it, anyway :music_whistling:.
bumfire Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 don't know where you live but in french and english definitions they say nothing similar technically its a gas turbine which has been made to turn a shaft, i.e the propeller. All jet engines are gas turbines.
bumfire Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Techincally... :D So it kills the argument of the first guy who decided to comment on it, anyway :music_whistling:. Yea, i miss read your post, when re-reading for the second time, i noticed you mentioned it was a turboprop, the first time i read it, i never noticed you say that and i thought you was meaning that the embraer was just a normal prop aircraft i.e similar engines to ww2 stock ;)
Recommended Posts