Sebastien Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 An-70 ??......... Il-76 ??..... Ken Antushin 73 ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 I'm reminded that it's 20 years ago that BAe put the FLA mock up at Farnborough, and the discussion was whether the FLA or C-130J should replace the first tranche of RAF C-130Ks. I bet no-one thought the FLA (as was) would replace the C-130J!! http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1994/1994%20-%202278.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Looks similar - just a lot smaller, can carry less cargo, slower, a shorter (unrefuelled) distance. And the An-124 carries much more than the C-17. Ergo, it must be better? Different role; different size. regards, J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 And the An-124 carries much more than the C-17. Ergo, it must be better? Different role; different size. regards, J. The RAF is buying the An-124? The comparison was being made between the size of the (RAF operated) C-17 and the (soon to be RAF operated) Atlas C.1: whilst similar looking, they did not offer the same capabilities. I didn't say 'better'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeronut Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The RAF is buying the An-124? No they are not, BUT the AN124 was seriously looked at, including official visits to the factory in Kiev, whilst Airbus proposed their Beluga for the requirement that led to the lease and then purchase of the C-17. I know because I was on the project, I was also on the A400M project and helped write its specification (cargo hold), hence I have a bit of a soft spot for the old Fat Lass. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The RAF is buying the An-124? The comparison was being made between the size of the (RAF operated) C-17 and the (soon to be RAF operated) Atlas C.1: whilst similar looking, they did not offer the same capabilities. I didn't say 'better'.... My general point was that you had focused on some performance figures but not others in order to make your comparison. The A400M will, for example, have a much better short field capability than the C-17. Since it's not like for like in terms of operational role, it's not surprising that the headline figures are different. regards, Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radleigh Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Saw this the other day... now with wing pods. https://www.flickr.com/photos/florent_peraudeau/14834795834/in/faves-104637344@N05/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feldr Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 looks likely to be for a tanker test... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Cornes Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Or some sort of towed array? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) The underwing stripes would indicate tanker, which is interesting (if it is ZM400) as the RAF A400Ms are not supposed to be allowed to use their tanker capabilites (part of the AirTanker PFI deal). EDIT: It's miscaptioned by the looks of things, and is in fact EC-404: https://www.flickr.com/photos/florent_peraudeau/14650510819/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/florent_peraudeau/15216658482/ Edited September 30, 2014 by Dave Fleming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feldr Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 apparently, one was test refuelling an Italian Tornado recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 The A400M has been designed from the outset as a tanker as well. But not, as Dave points out, by the RAF which is seemingly why we only ordered 22 rather than the stated requirement for 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomastmcc Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 The A400M has been designed from the outset as a tanker as well. But not, as Dave points out, by the RAF which is seemingly why we only ordered 22 rather than the stated requirement for 25. I wonder 3 less than what the requirement was ,are they thinking of getting more C17's ?.. Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 More likely a cost element Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It was directly linked to the use of the Atlas as a tanker. I remember reading at the time that because the AirTanker contract stipulated that they would be the SOLE supplier of IFR facilities to the RAF (excepting operational requirements etc) the RAF would only purchase 22 Atlases rather than the 25 originally stated. Rather daft, as it would make more sense to have an Atlas down at Mount Pleasant rather than a Voyager, of which we haven't got many anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 All that aside, it is a lovely, rugged-looking aircraft. Still grey & boring though!! Need to do something about that !! Would look nice in the Raspberry Ripple finish! Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Maas Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 My general point was that you had focused on some performance figures but not others in order to make your comparison. The A400M will, for example, have a much better short field capability than the C-17. Since it's not like for like in terms of operational role, it's not surprising that the headline figures are different. regards, Jason The better short field capability vs the C-17 is not actually true. It does have a better short field landing distance on paper, being 830m vs 1060m, but the C-17 is rated for 1060m at 77 tons max payload, while the A400M is rated for 830m at 27 tons payload (not its max payload of 37 tons). The reality is that the C-17 can get in and out of the same fields with the same payload, but C-17 operators would rarely bother since they also have C-130's for most of that mission (yes, the C-130J only hauls 19 tons, but in most cases you send 2 C-130's and don't risk the more expensive bird you have less of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirfixAndy Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Any idea what that panel is to the left of the door in the photo that Radleigh posted ? https://www.flickr.c...-104637344@N05/ Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Doesn't that extend out and deflect the wind for paratroopers to jump out? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eng Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Riff Raff, I believe you are partially correct regarding the panel to the left of the paratroop door, the side door deflectors were added to the development aircraft after initial tests with the rear ramp and side doors open resulted in high noise and turbulence inside the cargo hold. I guess if they cut down on the turbulence then it must be easier for the troops to exit the aircraft. Rgds, Eng 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The inner and outer props rotate in opposite directions in order to reduce turbulence and to aid paratroop drops. I wonder if it doesn't work as well as expected?? - hence the addition of deflectors. Just a thought.... Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard E Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Riff Raff, I believe you are partially correct regarding the panel to the left of the paratroop door, the side door deflectors were added to the development aircraft after initial tests with the rear ramp and side doors open resulted in high noise and turbulence inside the cargo hold. I guess if they cut down on the turbulence then it must be easier for the troops to exit the aircraft. Rgds, Eng The inner and outer props rotate in opposite directions in order to reduce turbulence and to aid paratroop drops. I wonder if it doesn't work as well as expected?? - hence the addition of deflectors. Just a thought.... Ken The C-130 Hercules is fitted with a similar panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The C-130 Hercules is fitted with a similar panel. My point was that I thought the differential props on the Atlas were supposed to produce a benign airflow for paradropping - eliminating the need for deflectors. As they are being fitted - I wondered if the airflow wasn't as smooth as had been expected ?? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard E Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 My point was that I thought the differential props on the Atlas were supposed to produce a benign airflow for paradropping - eliminating the need for deflectors. As they are being fitted - I wondered if the airflow wasn't as smooth as had been expected ?? Ken Ahhh - understood: thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Pulfrew Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 T7 The A400M has been designed from the outset as a tanker as well. But not, as Dave points out, by the RAF which is seemingly why we only ordered 22 rather than the stated requirement for 25.Nothing to do with AAR, all to do with cost growth in the programme. A few years ago Airbus went to the initial customers and said the price was going up, which meant Defence needed to find more cash (LOL) or take a smaller number, so our order was cut from 25 to 22!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now