Dropzone Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 The C-17 is not a Boeing, its Douglas! What......? Douglas no longer exists ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 What......? Douglas no longer exists ! It was designed by the McDonnell Douglas Corp. which merged with Boeing in 1997. Ya, the CF-18 is a Northrop Grumman, McDonnell Douglas and now Boeing too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 un May 10, 2015 2:31pm EDTRelated: WORLD, AEROSPACE & DEFENSE, SPAIN Spain retrieves black boxes on crashed A400M aircraftPARIS/MADRID Spain said on Sunday it had found the two black boxes from the crashed Airbus A400M military aircraft that plowed into a field north of Seville airport in its maiden test flight on Saturday, killing four of the six test crew.The black boxes had been handed over to investigators, the government said in a statement. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy late on Saturday asked for maximum transparency from Airbus during the investigation into the cause of the crash.Britain and Germany grounded their fleets' A400Ms, Europe's new troop and cargo carrier, after the first crash involving Europe's largest defense project which has already been marred by delays and costs.France will keep its six A400Ms in operation for now but will limit their use, its defense minister said on Sunday."Only flights of extreme importance for operations will be allowed," Jean-Yves Le Drian said.RELATED COVERAGE› Airbus to continue A400M test flights following crashThe Turkish military has grounded its two A400Ms as a precaution, the state-run Anadolu news agency said on Sunday, citing an order from the commander of the air force.The planes, which cost just over 100 million euros ($112 million) each, are assembled in Seville.Two of the Spanish test crew remain in hospital with serious injuries.Airbus is investigating the causes of the crash, as is a team sent by the Spanish government.(This story refiles with a dropped definite article in the fifth paragraph)http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/10/us-spain-crash-france-idUSKBN0NV0H520150510?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews(Reporting by Chine Labbe in Paris and Sonya Dowsett in Madrid, additional reporting by Tulay Karadeniz in Ankara, writing by Leigh Thomas, editing by William Hardy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Resurrecting a nine year old thread. Is that a record? Thanks for the info.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Looks like we were really smart not to purchase the A400M Airbus seeks fresh talks to ease burden of A400M 22 February, 2017 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com BY: Craig Hoyle London Airbus has written to its customers for the A400M military transport in a bid to reduce its financial exposure to programme delays, after the company’s charges on the programme hit €2.2 billion ($2.3 billion) last year. Announcing its group results for 2016 on 22 February, Airbus said it was taking an additional €1.2 billion charge against the A400M in the second half of the year, adding to a €1 billion provision detailed last July. Speaking during an online results briefing, Airbus chief executive Tom Enders described the project as “painful” and “frustrating”, and conceded that the company had made a serious mistake by agreeing to its original development and production contract. Referring to its launch deal with the governments of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and the UK via Europe’s OCCAR defence procurement agency as an “original sin”, Enders says: “It was clearly too short on budget and too short on timeline, plus we made an incredible blunder: we took responsibility, liability for the engine. A huge portion of the problems we have had with this aircraft is due to immaturity issues of the engine, and that is not entirely solved.” The discovery of a propeller gearbox flaw on the Europrop International TP400-D6 last year resulted in operating restrictions and delivery delays which saw Airbus hit with penalty clauses which had been agreed with its customers during a contract revision in 2009. “We are operating in an environment that is heavily penalising us,” he says. “Customers keep cash back. Some put liquidated damages on top of that, because we have delays in the delivery schedule. All that adds up to a significant financial burden, on top of the additional costs we have through the industrial ramp-up.” Enders says the company wrote to its customers on 22 February about the current situation. “We are asking them to re-engage with us in serious discussions to mitigate [penalties] and achieve a win-win situation, because the losses are unacceptable,” he says, describing the latter as putting “a huge financial burden on Airbus”. While not attempting to hide from Airbus’s own shortcomings on the A400M, Enders points to the multinational deal as being hindered by “a lot of red tape and bureaucracy that limits our flexibility and the progress of certain military capabilities”. One of the board-level signatories of the customer letter, Airbus chief operating officer Fabrice Brégier, used the same results presentation to compare damaging A400M penalties with a different set of operating conditions at a “proper company”: US rival Boeing. “I don’t want to be part of a group which is obliged to use the revenues and earnings of commercial [aircraft] to invest in loss-making in defence,” he says, adding: “We need a level playing field.” Enders says the requested discussions cover seven or eight items, including addressing “entirely inappropriate” financial penalties. Combined, these are intended to fix “lopsided risk-sharing between governments and industry”, and “give our customers more confidence in the delivery schedules and military capabilities”. “Not every customer will like that, but it’s absolutely necessary, to continue with this important programme,” he says. “I have no reason to be pessimistic about the outcome – otherwise we would not enter into negotiations.” Despite the A400M’s significant challenges, Enders says Airbus is “making good progress with giving it the military capabilities that our customers need”. It also is deploying its “best people” – including from its commercial and helicopters business areas – to address outstanding issues as a “top priority”, he adds. “I’m absolutely convinced that it’s worth the effort, because we are building and delivering the world’s best-performing aircraft once it is mature, and once it has a mature engine,” Enders says. Airbus Defence & Space delivered 17 A400Ms in 2016, up from 11 the previous year, and Enders expects this to climb above 20 aircraft in 2017 “if we’re not hit by another unexpected thing”. Half of the delivered aircraft have now received interim fixes to the propeller gearbox issue, but Enders says other challenges exist, including with the transport’s aerial delivery capabilities and defensive aids subsystems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 An update re the engines: TP400 engine fix nearing completion: MTU 24 February, 2017 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com BY: Michael Gubisch Munich German engine specialist MTU expects that a final fix for the power gearbox issues on the Airbus A400M’s Europrop International (EPI) TP400-D6 engines will be installed from September. At a press briefing in Munich on 23 February, MTU programme chief Michael Schreyogg said the modification comprised a “handful” of changes to the gearbox, which were designed when EPI’s shareholders met with the component’s supplier, General Electric-owned Avio Aero, in 2016. Alongside MTU, EPI’s members include Safran, Rolls-Royce and the latter’s Spanish subsidiary ITP. Schreyogg says development work for the modified gearbox continues, but that rig tests have been completed. While the gearbox can be retrofitted to existing engines, he says the intention is to install it on new powerplants only, because it is “not necessary” to modify engines that received an interim fix introduced last year. That solution, says Schreyogg, fulfils the engine’s specifications and will allow an increase of the gearbox’s service life to more than 1,000 flight hours. When the interim fix was introduced, the component was limited to 650h of operation. The objective for the final fix is that the gearbox will perform in line with the engine’s other components, without causing premature overhauls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 A 1000 hour life limit ... wow, talk about expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.