Mach 0.72 at just 63.5% power !!! - I'm sure during testing the A400M has been pushed to full engine power & gone FULL jet speeds (M 0.76+???)!! The service ceiling is now 40k feet ! ... And i bet she was pushed a fair bit higher whilst maintaining stable flight. She's now a Superb Plane.
Like all aircraft, it was designed for engine-out performance at full MTOW at takeoff and still had to climb, that gives you a TON of excess power. Also in this case, the aircraft was empty. It definitely has some incredible power though. Full power in 4 seconds really surprises me, that has to be better than the CFM56s or conventional high bypass turbofans.
Galaxy- tks. for post it !..... Really enjoyed the flight - pushing this machine off the limits / professional comments I'm following this A400M from it's early concept
3:49 The throttles don't move on AT? "to provide visual and tactical queues of system operation" - what does that mean? Isn't it good to know the autothrottle position if you can't see the screen? (due to, say, engine vibration after a malfunction)
+Pieter van Zelst Typical Airbus throttle operation. Their tactile feedback ideology is that the pilot should have to positively select each autothrottle mode via detents along the throttle's travel itself. Therefore if the pilot wants TOGA thrust, he pushes the throttles full forward and he gets TOGA thrust. If he no longer wants that, he pulls it back to FLX/MCT or CRZ. By intentionally selecting any of those detents the pilot has positive control over the autothrottle's mode. This contrasts with Boeing, where you engage the autothrottle on the MCP and then tell it what to do. For TOGA you have buttons just below the knobs on the the lever that you push, and then the levers advance to the programmed takeoff thrust. After a certain altitude is reached it will automatically change to climb thrust and then later on to cruise. The throttles move relative to the thrust commanded by the autothrottle, and modes are not selected by the pilot but instead automatically by the computer. To put it simply, Airbus wants the pilot to have to input what he wants the autopilot to do at the cost of the plane providing input back to him on what it's doing. Boeing's philosophy is to have the computers automatically progress through the different stages of flight without the pilot's input other than configuration and MCP/FMC management, but the plane will always be giving feedback on what it's doing both through the flight controls and the displays.
It’s more of a throttle “setting” than a throttle “position” if that makes sense. There are plenty of actual thrust / throttle indications on the displays - it’s actually easier that way and provides better situational awareness. As the other poster said, this is typical for an Airbus FBW design. From the pilots I’ve talked to, it’s VERY intuitive.
Er, according to wikileaks, its max lift is 34 tons to hercules 20 ton max. with a speed increase over the hercules of 300km an hr, with greater range,requiring less runway than a C17. RNZAF have given it the once over already, as a replacement for our hercules when our RFI /tender is due, this year.
U wot m8? That was a version with rockets attached which allowed the hercules to land on the ship,I’m sure with reverse thrust props and the same rocket modification,an a400m could recreate the landing with less space needed.
I Would Like to See the AIRBUS A-400M Turned into a GUNSHIP Like the A/C-130 H Model With the 105mm Howitzer and 40mm Bofo Gun and 25mm Gatling Gun 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
? en France on a acheté des C130 en plus des A400M tout simplement parce que ce n'est ni le même usage, ni la même charge utile: le C130 peut se poser sur des terrains plus petits que l'A400M, comme le Transall...L' A400M est conçu comme un avion de transport longue distance tout en conservant pleinement la capabilité tactique, capable de vitesses élevées, utilisable dans les couloirs civils, ce qui n'est pas le cas du C130, ni d'ailleurs du C17 du fait de sa motorisation réacteur inadaptée à l'usage "hors piste"
Jonny I agree, there is no way it can achieve such a performance.the A400M is a fantastic airplane,but the B747-8F can land on any 2000m runway even at Max gross weight ( 345 tons) with Max braking setting at Vref+5kts of around 170 to 175kts, which is quite impressive.Regards from the French Alps.
and if you land your beloved B747 on a unpaved rough streep you crash it... you cannot compare a rugged tactic capable aircraft with a fragile commercial aircraft...
@@avoidingtrees6692 Airbus made the europrop from scratch and it has lots of electronics, it is indeed expensive but the production has finally take off and as other aircraft it will probably become cheaper the more they sell and optimize production cost. Salud
Impressive. But $170m per copy? That's a little salty. Not saying it isn't worth it, but for the love of Pete, that is the definition of salty. But for $215m for a C17 Globemaster III and $67m for the C-130J Super Hercules. Is the extra payload, speed and range worth and additional $100m ? Well, I am not sure. That is over twice the price, so by logic it should have twice the capability (roughly) and it does not. But the mission flexibility and additional capability make the price tag meaningless. If it allows you to accomplish a mission that otherwise could not be achieved, it is priceless.
Danny Criss Twice the price does never result in twice the capability. Prices rise exponentially when enhancing. A 400k dollar racing car will not do double speed compared to a 200k car.
Danny Criss The difference between the A400M and the C-130 is more than the payload capability, speed and range as you could have seen in the video. There is a pretty nice list to justify it's $100 million higher price tag. Also, the C-130 is so cheaper due to it's age and our technological advances in.. well... everything.
More than 30 billion dollars R & D? Why that's more n' what NASA spent on the Apollo program and what I'm ah looking at on the screen is ah gussied up C-130 with real purdy props and ah instrument panel that lights up all fancy like like ah Christmas tree. Talk about puttin' lipstick on a pig!
This is one of the single best explanations I have seen. Well done!
Mach 0.72 at just 63.5% power !!! - I'm sure during testing the A400M has been pushed to full engine power & gone FULL jet speeds (M 0.76+???)!! The service ceiling is now 40k feet ! ... And i bet she was pushed a fair bit higher whilst maintaining stable flight. She's now a Superb Plane.
Like all aircraft, it was designed for engine-out performance at full MTOW at takeoff and still had to climb, that gives you a TON of excess power. Also in this case, the aircraft was empty.
It definitely has some incredible power though. Full power in 4 seconds really surprises me, that has to be better than the CFM56s or conventional high bypass turbofans.
nice! a400M is beautiful!
The cockpit is used in Turboprop Flight Simulator.
I recorded a loud A400M at a height of 34,000ft today!!
Galaxy- tks. for post it !..... Really enjoyed the flight - pushing this machine off the limits / professional comments
I'm following this A400M from it's early concept
3:49 The throttles don't move on AT? "to provide visual and tactical queues of system operation" - what does that mean? Isn't it good to know the autothrottle position if you can't see the screen? (due to, say, engine vibration after a malfunction)
Pieter van Zelst Though I have to say I love the plane and this video.
+Pieter van Zelst Typical Airbus throttle operation. Their tactile feedback ideology is that the pilot should have to positively select each autothrottle mode via detents along the throttle's travel itself. Therefore if the pilot wants TOGA thrust, he pushes the throttles full forward and he gets TOGA thrust. If he no longer wants that, he pulls it back to FLX/MCT or CRZ. By intentionally selecting any of those detents the pilot has positive control over the autothrottle's mode. This contrasts with Boeing, where you engage the autothrottle on the MCP and then tell it what to do. For TOGA you have buttons just below the knobs on the the lever that you push, and then the levers advance to the programmed takeoff thrust. After a certain altitude is reached it will automatically change to climb thrust and then later on to cruise. The throttles move relative to the thrust commanded by the autothrottle, and modes are not selected by the pilot but instead automatically by the computer.
To put it simply, Airbus wants the pilot to have to input what he wants the autopilot to do at the cost of the plane providing input back to him on what it's doing. Boeing's philosophy is to have the computers automatically progress through the different stages of flight without the pilot's input other than configuration and MCP/FMC management, but the plane will always be giving feedback on what it's doing both through the flight controls and the displays.
@@JohnMaxGriffin Thanks for the explanation!
It’s more of a throttle “setting” than a throttle “position” if that makes sense. There are plenty of actual thrust / throttle indications on the displays - it’s actually easier that way and provides better situational awareness.
As the other poster said, this is typical for an Airbus FBW design. From the pilots I’ve talked to, it’s VERY intuitive.
Goes faster and further than a hercules , and carries an extra 5 tonnes . That should come in handy :-)
Er, according to wikileaks, its max lift is 34 tons to hercules 20 ton max. with a speed increase over the hercules of 300km an hr, with greater range,requiring less runway than a C17. RNZAF have given it the once over already, as a replacement for our hercules when our RFI /tender is due, this year.
Awesome review. Thanks !
This airplane has great capabilities. I hope to fly it some day.
The AviationWeek Test Pilot Has Also Tested the GULFSTREAM-650 Aircraft 🛩🛩👍
metric please!
A400 metres.
👍👍👍👍👍🍾🍾
great video!!
Max. takeoff weight 141,000 kg (310,852 lb)
God damn!!!!! what a short landing!!!!! i thought the C-130 was better on that....obviously i was wrong!
femipieds paluche
U wot m8? That was a version with rockets attached which allowed the hercules to land on the ship,I’m sure with reverse thrust props and the same rocket modification,an a400m could recreate the landing with less space needed.
It is state of the art
My rocket has been modified with reverse thrust.
impressive aircraft
Very interesting and impressive aircraft.
Looks like a mix of a c130 and a c17
I Would Like to See the AIRBUS A-400M Turned into a GUNSHIP Like the A/C-130 H Model With the 105mm Howitzer and 40mm Bofo Gun and 25mm Gatling Gun 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
You must be American... 🙄
Jean Roch what part of that comment made you think that🤔
Wow, surprised at how close to the ground the cockpit is.
awesome
dommage que la Belgique à acheter des avions à 400m de Airbus et plus des c130 américain il vont nous manque nos c130 belge
? en France on a acheté des C130 en plus des A400M tout simplement parce que ce n'est ni le même usage, ni la même charge utile: le C130 peut se poser sur des terrains plus petits que l'A400M, comme le Transall...L' A400M est conçu comme un avion de transport longue distance tout en conservant pleinement la capabilité tactique, capable de vitesses élevées, utilisable dans les couloirs civils, ce qui n'est pas le cas du C130, ni d'ailleurs du C17 du fait de sa motorisation réacteur inadaptée à l'usage "hors piste"
re-upload?
what is the Max takeoff wt for this aircraft?
I always get a bit nervous when there are no analogue instruments as a backup! Tech is amazing...but does go wrong.
That's nearly half the price of a B747-8 freighter
A 747-8 freighter can't do loops and stop at 600 meters though.
Jonny
I agree, there is no way it can achieve such a performance.the A400M is a fantastic airplane,but the B747-8F can land on any 2000m runway even at Max gross weight ( 345 tons) with Max braking setting at Vref+5kts of around 170 to 175kts, which is quite impressive.Regards from the French Alps.
and if you land your beloved B747 on a unpaved rough streep you crash it... you cannot compare a rugged tactic capable aircraft with a fragile commercial aircraft...
@@avoidingtrees6692 Airbus made the europrop from scratch and it has lots of electronics, it is indeed expensive but the production has finally take off and as other aircraft it will probably become cheaper the more they sell and optimize production cost. Salud
Max Flight level 310 ? Is it because of turboprops ?
Yes
Ethan:Benji~open the door!!!!
Tactical plane for special ops too !
NIce!
personally I do no like the single stick control on each side. I prefer the stick for each pilot. thanks
Are you a pilot? . . .
A380 has 10 screens.
0:49 bizim Şanlı bayrağımızı gören :)
Джойстик вместо штурвала, странное решение. (Р.У.С.)
So it's called Atlas.
We ride a400m in tfs lol
Impressive. But $170m per copy? That's a little salty. Not saying it isn't worth it, but for the love of Pete, that is the definition of salty. But for $215m for a C17 Globemaster III and $67m for the C-130J Super Hercules. Is the extra payload, speed and range worth and additional $100m ? Well, I am not sure. That is over twice the price, so by logic it should have twice the capability (roughly) and it does not. But the mission flexibility and additional capability make the price tag meaningless. If it allows you to accomplish a mission that otherwise could not be achieved, it is priceless.
Danny Criss Twice the price does never result in twice the capability. Prices rise exponentially when enhancing. A 400k dollar racing car will not do double speed compared to a 200k car.
Danny Criss The difference between the A400M and the C-130 is more than the payload capability, speed and range as you could have seen in the video. There is a pretty nice list to justify it's $100 million higher price tag. Also, the C-130 is so cheaper due to it's age and our technological advances in.. well... everything.
More than 30 billion dollars R & D? Why that's more n' what NASA spent on the Apollo program and what I'm ah looking at on the screen is ah gussied up C-130 with real purdy props and ah instrument panel that lights up all fancy like like ah Christmas tree. Talk about puttin' lipstick on a pig!
false: the value from the Apollo era $ is more than 8 time higher as the actual $ value (1$= ~8.3 actual $), due to inflation...
Gay