Airbus A400 crashes on maiden flight

[Skåning]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-a400m-transport-plane-crashes-in-spain-1431177546

"An Airbus Group NV military transport plane crashed near Seville, southern Spain, killing four of the people on board, the Spanish government said Saturday.

A government official in Seville said the aircraft was carrying six people and crashed in a field about a mile north of Seville’s airport, catching fire upon impact. Two people were sent to the hospital with very serious injuries, she said.

An Airbus spokesman confirmed the crash of an A400M transport plane on its first flight. The aircraft, which was due for delivery to the Turkish air force in June, took off at 12:45 p.m. local time and crashed about 15 minutes later, Airbus said.

The Spanish air-accident authority, or CIAIAC, is leading the probe into the cause of the crash. Airbus said it had dispatched technical experts to the scene to support the investigation.

All six on board were Airbus employees and Spanish nationals, the company said in a statement. Airbus personnel typically perform a series of test flights before aircraft are delivered to customers."

 

[Minuteman]

Dang.

It seems like the A400 is a good design on paper, but I've heard rumots of terrible build quality.

 

[Seggy]

...but I've heard rumots of terrible build quality.

More specifics please?

 

[pullup]

More specifics please?

Nope, it would compromise investigations.

 

[Hacker15e]

More specifics please?

Because Airbus.

 

[RDoug]

I'll give specifics. Both the UK and France have taken possession and placed in service A400M examples that did not come close to meeting contractual requirements based on promises that things will get fixed at some future date. Turkey (ironically) actually refused delivery last year of at least one, and got absolutely and very publicly castigated by Airbus CEO Tom Enders.

Turns out Turkey was right.

 

[Minuteman]

More specifics please?

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...78/airbus-promises-to-fix-a400m-problems.html

"In 2014, delivery of non-compliant A400Ms was refused by Turkey for several months, but at the time [Airbus Group CEO Tom] Enders took a less conciliatory tone and instead expressed frustration at Turkey’s refusal to accept the third production aircraft."

At the time, Airbus claimed that Turkey's refusal of the aircraft was a bargaining tactic to delay payment … which it may have been if there was any question about the aircraft.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/23/us-airbus-group-a400m-germany-idUSKBN0KW21U20150123

"German military inspectors checked the first A400M plane in November [2014] and listed 875 defects, including missing insulation of electric cables and leaked hydraulic oil on the main landing gear and tires, Spiegel reported, citing internal documents."

Of course, being zee Germans, they likely had little tolerance for variation in the product they paid for (which results in a better thing in the long-term). France and the UK have been mostly quiet about their deliveries so far.

The project is five years late and has been expensive for Airbus, so I would speculate there is an increasing preference to discount issues as they are discovered the further one travels up the management chain at this point and just deliver the minimum-viable product already why don't you? I'm not asserting that the program is fundamentally flawed, just suggesting that this is the "A-model" phase of an aerospace project.

 

[mshunter]

Looks like Airbus has some esplaining to do.

 

[Itchy]

So does this thing have a lot more performance/capability over current c130's?

 

[BobDDuck]

So does this thing have a lot more performance/capability over current c130's?

No. Just a cheaper unit cost.

 

[Cruise]

No. Just a cheaper unit cost.

And now we know why it's cheaper. Well, sort of anyway....

 

[mshunter]

No. Just a cheaper unit cost.

Apparently, that comes at a cost too. It honestly sounds like Airbus just doesn't care about the product they deliver to the military. I wonder what Boeing and others product is like.

 

[NewYorkophile]

No. Just a cheaper unit cost.

Based on what, I'm curious?

Compared to the C-130J-
420 knots (100kts faster)
80k payload (~20k more)
9 pallet positions (1 more)

It's *way* more expensive initially than the J, at $170m compared to $70m.

As invested as the USAF is in the J, I don't see them changing over just for those numbers, when the C-17 supplements the J so well. If you're a smaller country still flying the C-130H and have no strat airlift capability, I could see you running the numbers to afford it as a dual purpose strat/tac airlift asset.

Personally, I don't like the size of it- the 130 is already a large platform to get in/out of small locations quietly, and A400 is massive. For the USAF, it also doesn't make much sense to include the air refueling capability. You're still limited on duty day, and on combat missions you won't augment crews anyway, so why add an extra 2-3 hours of flight time for all that extra training/maintenance cost?

 

[BobDDuck]

Based on what, I'm curious?

Compared to the C-130J-
420 knots (100kts faster)
80k payload (~20k more)
9 pallet positions (1 more)

It's *way* more expensive initially than the J, at $170m compared to $70m.

As invested as the USAF is in the J, I don't see them changing over just for those numbers, when the C-17 supplements the J so well. If you're a smaller country still flying the C-130H and have no strat airlift capability, I could see you running the numbers to afford it as a dual purpose strat/tac airlift asset.

Personally, I don't like the size of it- the 130 is already a large platform to get in/out of small locations quietly, and A400 is massive. For the USAF, it also doesn't make much sense to include the air refueling capability. You're still limited on duty day, and on combat missions you won't augment crews anyway, so why add an extra 2-3 hours of flight time for all that extra training/maintenance cost?

I didn't phrase that well. Cheaper per ton of cargo.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Why couldn't it crash when Tom Cruise was strapped to it!?

 

[Hacker15e]

Interesting article here (unfortunately, a poor Google translation) that reports the two pilots who survived say there were "multiple engine failures".

https://translate.google.com/transl...werkschaden-a-1033103.html&edit-text=&act=url

The downed employees of Airbus reported a multiple engine failure shortly after takeoff.

 

[Hacker15e]

More Google translate, more ugly news:

https://translate.google.com/transl...bwerken-des-A400M-ausgefallen.html&edit-text=

Failed three out of four engines of the A400M

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Insert obligatory anti-Airbus comments here.

 

[flymike]

Dadgum puters killin all muh injuns

 

[drunkenbeagle]

More specifics please?

Open any copy of Aviation Week from the last 5 years or so.

But the short of it - project way over budget, governments not coughing up more cash, Airbus pushing the things out the door either way.