After digging a bit I can tell you only that it is indeed overweight.
The *****1 have been **********2 to compensate.

1: when a man proposes to a woman he is supposed to give her a **** (say it like a politically incorrect oriental)

2: upon performing an act prohibited by a placard which you have not noticed someone might tell you to **** the ****, except due to their rich cultural heritage they don not say the, they say da.

There, that shouldn't come up in any searches in a hurry. If you can figure out what that says please oblige me not to post the correct words to that sequence. If you don't understand, tough luck.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by CloudySkye]

Originally posted by waynos
There are other issues too, it is suggested, but not confirmed that the aircraft is 20 tons overweight and 13 tons light on payload.

Originally posted by waynos
According to Flight International it is 'only' 12 tons overweight and 3 tons light on payload so maybe my figures got lost in translation. Still seems a lot of weight to be accounted for though.

Nah, reverse those figures.

3 over and 12 light would sound much more like it to me (although I wouldn't rule out 20 light to be honest).


Simply put, they are lacking the two things you need to lift stuff into the air. The first, everyone knows about, the second... well, it shouldn't be hard to figure out.

This weeks AWST has a bit on how France is trying to exert politcal pressure to save the aiframe in light of recent comments by the UK and others about the deal.

EADS admitted that delays to the program COULD lead to OCCAR canceling the A400 program. They think that it's unlikely that it will, but they have a contractual right to cancel their orders on 1 April, if all the member nations agree.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
EADS admitted that delays to the program COULD lead to OCCAR canceling the A400 program. They think that it's unlikely that it will, but they have a contractual right to cancel their orders on 1 April, if all the member nations agree.

Its a bluff IMHO they are trying to milk more money out of member nations. It will be interesting to see the more vocal critics at the MOD in the UK either decide to pull out which may drive the final nail in the coffin of the program, or they cave in and offer up more $$$$ for the airframe.

Its just deserts IMHO given the general shadyness that revolved around the engine selection.

The last C-17 the UK RAF brought was £130 million ($267 million) contracted at end of 2007, The UK RAF price is always a lot more the than the USAF I assume because the USAF per plane price doesn't include the develpment cost and I think some of the system cost is listed seperate.
Since the £ has nosed dived since then it would now be about £190 million in euros that's about 205 million. The £ hasn't fallen as far against the euro.

Also depends on if you need plane numbers or payload, probably would need a mix of C-17 and C-130J.

The C-17 was bought at $202.3 million at fiscal 1998 constant dollars for the USAF. That was for 174 aircraft.

The C-130J runs about $45-70 million per aircraft. A mix of the two would come out to a better deal than the A400 as it currently stands in my opinion.

Just read through an AWST article about the A400.

French officals are looking at intern transport needs and say the that search will "Priviledge European Solutions"

This is exactly the same attitude towards "a European Engine" that basically had Airbus telling the competiton what Pratt Canada had offered and allowed them to rebid the contract.

Funny when the US congress says no to an Airbus tanker we get all this anti US rancor but when fortress Europe does it its all fine and dandy

If its good for the goose...............................

The difference is , this is just france who were the ones to benefit most from the europrop crap - i do believe the UK wanted the P&W engines because it works.

Also would of been interesting to think if P&WC would of created the same delay in the engine tests that put the program almost 8 months behind alone.

Originally posted by FredT
This is exactly the same attitude towards "a European Engine" that basically had Airbus telling the competiton what Pratt Canada had offered and allowed them to rebid the contract.

Funny when the US congress says no to an Airbus tanker we get all this anti US rancor but when fortress Europe does it its all fine and dandy

The engine is being used as an excuse to cover other problems....


Because Airbus didn't build the engines.


(I'm NOT saying there are not problems with the engines - but they aren't even the most significant problems with the aircraft)

All four engines have been run, and low speed taxi tests completed. The pilots said that the aircraft was "extremely responsive" during taxi tests. It was taxied at 20kts, with turns, and backed up with no problems. Airbus is looking at around mid-December for first flight (week 50).

There is a press conference on the first flight tomorrow. At the same time the German media group Focus is claiming the entire program is facing cancellation in the face of overruns as high as $8B.

Congratulations to Airbus on a successful first flight.