Airbus A400M

If the stupid British Airmen are piloting it, then I can only see 2 chances: either it will, or it won't.

Back to the question at hand, the project was delayed/idled while problems were resolved, but my understanding is it is cranking along again.

And there wasn't any great rush to flight given the need is a very long term item, so better to get it right.

Is it just me, or is there either no point in the new galaxy, or there is no point in this, because the Hercules has one of the best safety records, and is old, but still reasonably cheap to maintain and is reliable, and the galaxy is too big to be used anywhere that doesn't have a long runway?

The C_5 Galaxy is huge, needs a long runway and expensive, but a well needed and used transport.

The US has the C_130 Hercules and the new C_5 Globemaster. From everything I've read, the C-5 has been a wonderful aircraft.

The C_130J Super Hercules is still in production, I believe.

I never see any Galaxys' flying into fairford, I thought there would be more of them, there are about 6 C 130 Hercules' a day that fly in!

Oops! That would be the C 17 Globemaster III (not C 5), but who's being that nit-picky?

The reason I really replied is to tell you that C 124 Globemaster II's used to fly in and out of Donaldson Air Force Base in Greenville, SC.

From Wikipedia:

"Donaldson Air Force Base is a closed facility of the United States Air Force. Currently known as Donaldson Center, the former Air Force Base is located south of Greenville, South Carolina.

Donaldson was used by the United States Army Air Force Third Air Force as a B-25 Mitchell medium bomber training airfield during World War II. It was the home to C-124 Globemaster II transports and called "The Airlift Capital of the World" for its role in the Berlin airlift, Korean War, and Cold War, being assigned to both Tactical Air Command and the Military Air Transport Service. It was closed in 1963."

My brother and I used to enjoy going there to watch them load, take off, land and occassionally unload something like a bunch of Jeeps.

The C-5 has been around since hmmmm '69, but is getting avionics upgrades.

The C-17 I had my doubts about, as I do love a propeller, but performance has apparently exceeded expectations.

And yes, I have friends who just finished one of the variants of C-130 upgrades.

If there was one I would want to look into with an eye toward retirement, maybe the C-141 - but I don't know how the mission profile is unique, so .....

And old C-130s - cheap to maintain, but a lot of them out there flying have tie-down chains from the ramp attach point to the wing root to keep the ass attached.

From wiki:

On 16 September 2004, the C-141 left service with nearly all active duty USAF units, being confined to Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units for the remainder of its operational service life. As of 25 September 2005, there were only eight C-141 aircraft still flying, all from the Air Force Reserve's 445th Airlift Wing (445 AW) at Wright-Patterson AFB). In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the C-141s assigned to the 445 AW participated in missions to Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly for the medical evacuation of wounded service members. The last eight C-141s were officially retired in 2006.

You work for Airbus in this project? You are too good

I don't work for Airbus. However we do forge some of the larger structural frame parts and landing gear for them.

Press forging

Press forging is variation of drop-hammer forging. Unlike drop-hammer forging, press forges work slowly by applying continuous pressure or force. The amount of time the dies are in contact with the workpiece is measured in seconds (as compared to the milliseconds of drop-hammer forges). The press forging operation can be done either cold or hot.^[6]

The main advantage of press forging, as compared to drop-hammer forging, is its ability to deform the complete workpiece. Drop-hammer forging usually only deforms the surfaces of the workpiece in contact with the hammer and anvil; the interior of the workpiece will stay relatively undeformed. Another advantage to the process includes the knowledge of the new parts strain rate. We specifically know what kind of strain can be put on the part, because the compression rate of the press forging operation is controlled. There are a few disadvantages to this process, most stemming from the workpiece being in contact with the dies for such an extended period of time. The operation is a time consuming process due to the amount of steps and how long each of them take. The workpiece will cool faster because the dies are in contact with workpiece; the dies facilitate drastically more heat transfer than the surrounding atmosphere. As the workpiece cools it becomes stronger and less ductile, which may induce cracking if deformation continues. Therefore heated dies are usually used to reduce heat loss, promote surface flow, and enable the production of finer details and closer tolerances. The workpiece may also need to be reheated. When done in high productivity, press forging is more economical than hammer forging. The operation also creates closer tolerances. In hammer forging a lot of the work is absorbed by the machinery, when in press forging, the greater percentage of work is used in the work piece. Another advantage is that the operation can be used to create any size part because there is no limit to the size of the press forging machine. New press forging techniques have been able to create a higher degree of mechanical and orientation integrity. By the constraint of oxidation to the outer most layers of the part material, reduced levels of microcracking take place in the finished part.^[6]

Press forging can be used to perform all types of forging, including open-die and impression-die forging. Impression-die press forging usually requires less draft than drop forging and has better dimensional accuracy. Also, press forgings can often be done in one closing of the dies, allowing for easy automation.^[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forging

Every once in a blue moon, a topic comes up that I actually know something about, even if I have to go OT to say it.

thought the c 17 or 117 was to supercede the mission profile of the 141...

but maybe thats what i get for think`n

shouda been read`n more as well

Recently, over my house, I live near to Fairford Air Base, there has been the Hercules which has jet turbines and a slightly more angular visual appearance. Does anyone know what this is? Is it replacing the propeller Hercules?

Airbus - Hmmm - give me a Boeing or a Douglass any day of the week. Don't trust them Airbus. Hate to even fly in them. I've worked on many a C-141, C-130's and a few C-5's. They're all a labor of love. God, I miss the flightline.

A400 is not a technically sound idea especially when most countries are being blackmailed OPEC and Greedy Oil companies. It neither represents fuel efficiency nor a design excellency. Just for A400 most Airports have to expand their runaways and accomodate them with a lot of money on their own. Plus serving passengers, contamination, pollution, oxygen and using toilets will be a nightmare. Sorry I am not impressed--

You are confusing the A400M with the A380.

The A400 is a military transport. The A380 is the very large civilian passenger aircraft, with the problems you describe.

Thanks----Yes I confused with A380.

Do you even know what an Airbus is? Please read up on some spec's and you will see more people is buying them becuse they are cheaper to keep in the air and on fuel. As for the oil thing...Airbus is not made in the USA!!!

The grammar, spelling and syntax of the majority of the responses make me question if ANY OF YOU KNOW

WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

They should rename this A/C... the A400(MP) Money Pit!!!