A400M Crash in Spain

[Old Geek]

Four fatal, two serious injury, aircraft totally destroyed. First flight of the aircraft from the production facility.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/engine-fuel-system-focus-a400m-crash-probe

The A400M is a four turboprop heavy lifter built to replace the C130 in Europe. This is the first time in a long while that I can recall where a brand new big non-fighter/attack aircraft crashed on its first flight.

 

[AcroGimp]

This was first flight on a production flight test, not first flight ever, the A400M has been in production for a while now.

Troubling part is the report is multiple engine failure and only a few minutes into the flight. Will be very interesting to learn more as info comes out.

Prayers to those lost/injured.

'Gimp

 

[StinkBug]

Could it be as simple as contaminated fuel? I guess we'll find out. I don't know anything about planes of this size, but to lose multiple engines I can't imagine what else it would be.

 

[RV10flyer]

My guess is on the fly-by-wire flight controls, four control computers or they were not in "normal flight law" with flight envelope protection.

 

[Velocity173]

My guess is on the fly-by-wire flight controls, four control computers or they were not in "normal flight law" with flight envelope protection.

German news was reporting multiple engine failures. I agree though, sometimes over automation can be a bad thing. It's happened before.

 

[DavidWhite]

Could it be as simple as contaminated fuel? I guess we'll find out. I don't know anything about planes of this size, but to lose multiple engines I can't imagine what else it would be.

Not sure how the engines on one of those fancy planes work, but if it's anything like a PT6 if you throw the igniters on the thing will pretty much burn whatever.

 

[airheadpenguin]

I'm not all that familiar with the differences between a turboprop and a turbofan, what's the rationale for building a massive 4 engine turboprop these days?

The only thing I can think of is improved shortfield performance since you're not counting on ram air effect for pushing air into the engine.

 

[Old Geek]

I'm not all that familiar with the differences between a turboprop and a turbofan, what's the rationale for building a massive 4 engine turboprop these days?

The only thing I can think of is improved shortfield performance since you're not counting on ram air effect for pushing air into the engine.

That and better fuel economy at lower altitudes.

 

[weilke]

I'm not all that familiar with the differences between a turboprop and a turbofan, what's the rationale for building a massive 4 engine turboprop these days?

Design by committee.

 

[RV10flyer]

Another reason or two...Lower noise levels and lower maintenance cost/time to repair. Very important operating away from their home base. I used to overhaul small turbojet/turboprop engines. Compressor blade damage can be a very expensive and lengthy repair compared to propeller blending or replacement.

 

[kyleb]

I'm not all that familiar with the differences between a turboprop and a turbofan, what's the rationale for building a massive 4 engine turboprop these days?

The only thing I can think of is improved shortfield performance since you're not counting on ram air effect for pushing air into the engine.

It really comes down to low speed thrust. Per pound of fuel burned, a turboprop (i.e. a propeller) generates much more thrust than a turbofan at low airspeed. The downside is that props become less and less efficient at higher airspeeds, which limits their cruise speed to substantially less than that of turbofans. (Unless you're willing to put up with the noise and efficiency sacrifices of supersonic prop tips).

 

[Old Geek]

Design by committee.

Worse than that. Design by politics. Much of the aircraft's problems centered around the engine selection. The engine was originally spec'ed as a Pratt and Whitney Canada PW800. Political pressure caused it to be dumped and replaced with a Europrop TP400, which had lots of integration and FADEC problems.

 

[weilke]

Worse than that. Design by politics. Much of the aircraft's problems centered around the engine selection. The engine was originally spec'ed as a Pratt and Whitney Canada PW800. Political pressure caused it to be dumped and replaced with a Europrop TP400, which had lots of integration and FADEC problems.

Typical european defense boondoggle. The idea was to have one airlifter to do everything . The C160s it is to replace dont have the range and payload for out of area missions but the replacement still had to be able to land on a soccer field. After the committe is done, the politicians get in on the act with nonsense like the engine fiasco.

Had they ordered a bunch of C17s and Alenia Spartans their entire fleet would be replaced already.

 

[JimNtexas]

My first thought was a software memory leak, such the one that shuts down the B787 flight control system after 248 days.

 

[N801BH]

My first thought was a software memory leak, such the one that shuts down the B787 flight control system after 248 days.

That would surely do it.....

 

[JHW]

I'm not all that familiar with the differences between a turboprop and a turbofan, what's the rationale for building a massive 4 engine turboprop these days?

The only thing I can think of is improved shortfield performance since you're not counting on ram air effect for pushing air into the engine.

think of it like a supercub vs a mooney. For the cub you want a long prop for low speed grunt to get you off the ground quick, but it's draggy at high speeds. Vice-versa for the mooney. The prop on a turboprop is a bigger and longer prop than the "prop" inside the nacelle of a high-bypass turbofan.

 

[Old Geek]

Aviation Week is reporting that this particular aircraft had new engine control firmware installed that would allow military takeoff maneuvers. A bug in the firmware is suspected.

 

[German guy]

Aviation Week is reporting that this particular aircraft had new engine control firmware installed that would allow military takeoff maneuvers. A bug in the firmware is suspected.

'Firmware' and 'Aircraft' should not be mentioned in the same sentence...