A400m news

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

And here's the YC-14 write-up from GlobalSecurity.org Part II -
______________________________________________

By December 1975, Langley had negotiated with Boeing to obtain full-scale data on a USB high-lift system. Boeing conducted full-scale powered ground tests of a complete YC-14 wing-flap-fuselage segment at its Tulalip test facility to evaluate the effectiveness and noise levels of its powered system. During the tests, sound levels and pressure distributions were measured by Boeing over the USB flap and the fuselage next to the flap. These data were made available to Langley under the special research contract. Langley's interest was stimulated in part by the fact that the engine nozzle of the YC-14 design incorporated a D-nozzle (a semielliptical exit shape), which differed from the high aspect-ratio rectangular nozzles that had been used at Langley in the full-scale Aero Commander tests previously discussed. With the full-scale YC-14 data in hand, Langley proceeded with a test program to determine the adequacy of subscale models to predict such information, including the development of scaling relationships required for the various technologies involved.

A 0.25-scale model static ground tests of the Boeing YC-14 powered lift system were conducted at the outdoor test site near the Full-Scale Tunnel for correlation with full-scale test results. The model used a JT-15D turbofan engine to represent the CF6-50D engine used on the YC-14. The tests included evaluations of static turning performance, static surface pressure and temperature distributions, fluctuating loads, and physical accelerations of portions of the wing, flaps, and fuselage. Results were obtained for the landing flap configuration over a range of fan pressure ratio for various ground heights and vortex generator modifications.

The USAF YC-14 prototype STOL aircraft, first flight tested in 1976, successfully implemented optical data links to exchange data between the triplex computers. Optical coupling was selected to maintain inter-channel integrity. Each sensor output is coupled t o the other channels so that each computer has data from each of the sensors. Identical algorithms in each computer consolidate the data enabling equalization and fault detection / isolation of the inputs. The computers are synchronized to avoid sampling time differences and to assure all computers are receiving identical data inputs. The optical communication medium was used to eliminate electromagnetic interference effects, electrical grounding loop problems, and the potential propagation of electrical malfunctions between channels.

The behavior of pressure fluctuations measured on the airframe of a prototype high lift jet transport (YC-14) are characterized in terms of a particular jet exhaust flow field idealization, jet mixing noise, and exhaust shock noise. Generalized spectrum shapes and scaling relations for peak level and frequency of peak level were developed, and the frequency is found to depend on jet exhaust velocity and aircraft velocity. Comparisons are made with near-field engine exhaust noise of a conventional jet, and results suggest that the same two exhaust noises are important for both aircraft types. Surface fluctuating pressure data are assessed, and results suggest that the jet mixing and exhaust shock noise source characterizations for the YC-14 have useful applicability to conventionally configured jets.

One quarter scale static ground tests of the Boeing YC-14 powered lift system were conducted for correlation with full scale test results. The 1/4 scale model utilized a JT-15D turbofan engine to represent the CF6-50D engine employed on the YC-14 advanced medium STOL transport prototype aircraft. The tests included evaluation of static turning performance, static surface pressure and temperature distributions, fluctuating loads, and accelerations of portions of the wing, flaps, and fuselage. Results are presented for the landing flap configuration over an appropriate range of fan pressure ratio as affected by several variables including ground height and vortex generator modifications. Static turning angles of the order of 60 deg were obtained. The highest surface pressures and temperatures were concentrated over the upper surface of the flaps in the region immediately aft of the upper surface blown nozzle.

Flow turning parameters, static pressures, surface temperatures, surface fluctuating pressures and acceleration levels were measured in the environment of a full-scale upper surface blowing (USB) propulsive-lift test configuration. The test components included a flightworthy CF6-50D engine, nacelle and USB flap assembly utilized in conjunction with ground verification testing of the USAF YC-14 Advanced Medium STOL Transport propulsion system. Results, based on a preliminary analysis of the data, generally show reasonable agreement with predicted levels based on model data. However, additional detailed analysis is required to confirm the preliminary evaluation, to help delineate certain discrepancies with model data and to establish a basis for future flight test comparisons.

The YC-14 prototype's first flight occurred on August 9, 1976. YC-14 and YC-15 airplane capabilities were evaluated in a flight test program at Edwards Air Force Base in early November 1976. By the end of April 1977, the very successful YC-14 Program had exceeded all its projected goals in terms of flight hours, test conditions accomplished, and data accumulated. The performance goals were met in terms of maneuvering, field length, and touchdown dispersion. Following the flight test program, Boeing demonstrated the YC-14 to U.S. forces in Europe, including an appearance at the Paris Air Show in June. The airplane impressed the crowds at the air show, performing maneuvers formally considered impossible for a medium-sized transport. After the European tour, the YC-14 arrived for a demonstration at Langley Air Force Base on June 18, 1977, where its outstanding STOL capability and crisp maneuvers stunned not only the Air Force observers but many of the NASA-Langley researchers who had participated in USB studies that helped contribute to the design and success of this remarkable airplane.

The YC-14 flight test program ended on August 8, 1977, exactly 1 year after it began. Unfortunately, the anticipated mission of the AMST did not meet with Air Force funding priorities at the end of the flight evaluations (the B-1B bomber was by then the top Air Force priority), and the AMST Program ended. In 1981, the Air Force became interested in another transport, one having less STOL capability but more strategic airlift capability than the AMST YC-14 and YC-15 airplanes. That airplane was ultimately developed to become today's C-17 transport. The two YC-14 prototype aircraft were placed in storage at the Davis Monthan Air Force Base, and one was later moved to the Pima Air Museum in Tucson, Arizona, where it is displayed next to one of the YC-15 aircraft.
 
Denmark should've saved its money for purchasing the A400M instead of the C-130's it recently bought. A mistake IMO, but not a huge one as the C-130 still is a good transport a/c.

As for looks, well the A400M looks pretty sexy :cool:

I hope it'll be capable of what the C-17 is, which is a challenge.
 
A challenge indeed...

C-17
_________________________
Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster
Capacity:

102 troops or
36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients
Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo and vehicles
Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Pratt Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
Fuel capacity: 35,546 US gal (134,556 L)
Performance
Cruise speed: Mach 0.76 (450 knots, 515 mph, 830 km/h)
Range: 2,420 nmi (2,785 mi, 4,482 km)
Service ceiling 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
Max wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277

A400M
________________________________
Crew: 3 or 4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)
Capacity: 37,000 kg (82,000 lb)
116 fully equipped troops / paratroops
66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
Empty weight: 70 tonnes (154,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 141 tonnes (310,852 lb)
Total Internal Fuel: 46.7 tonnes (103,000 lb)
Max. Landing Weight: 114 tonnes (251,000 lb)
Max. Payload: 37 tonnes (82,000 lb))
Powerplant: 4× EuroProp International TP400-D6[11] turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,000 hp) each
Performance

Cruise speed: 780 km/h (420 kt,485 mph Mach 0.68 - 0.72)
Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 f)
Range: at Max. payload: 3,300 km (1,782 nmi) (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,800 km (2,592 nmi)
Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,950 km (3,753 nmi))
Ferry range: 9,300 km (5,022 nmi)
Service ceiling 11,300 m (37,000 ft)
Tactical Takeoff Distance: 940 m (3 080 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
Tactical Landing Distance: 625 m (2 050 ft) (see above)
Turning Radius (Ground): 28.6 m

C-130J
_________________________________
Crew: 4-6 (at least 2 pilots, crew chief, and 1 loadmaster; additional loadmaster and navigator are usually part of the crew)
Capacity:
92 passengers or
64 airborne troops or
74 litter patients with 2 medical personnel
Payload: 42,000 lb (19,090 kg) including 2-3 Humvees or an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
Wing area: 1,745 ft² (162.1 m²)
Empty weight: 75,562 lb (34,274 kg)
Useful load: 72,000 lb (33,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 155,000 lb (70,305 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 turboprops, 4,637 shp (3,458 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 362 knots (417 mph, 671 km/h)
Cruise speed: 348 knots, 644 km/h (400 mph, 643 km/h)
Range: 2,835 nm (3,262 mi, 5,250 km)
Service ceiling 28,000 ft, 8,540 m (8,615 m)
 
Note that basic airlift performance of each is half as you move down the scale of C-17, A400M, C-130J.

So depending upon your mission, each may be perfectly suitable. But the raw airlift comparison between C-17 and A400M is silly. Just as is the A400M vs C-130 is equally silly.
 
The C-17 is also capable of switching its engines in reverse right upon landing, which looks very impressive. I for one was impressed when I firsthand for the first time saw how short its take off landing roll was.

Emmidiately after taking off the C-17 can commence a flight attitude I previously thought impossible for such an a/c. And after landing it just reverses into its parking space, which means it requires very little space to operate compared to for example a C-130.
 
Soren, you too have seen the high performance take-off and landing o fthe C-17? I have mentioned this many times, but at a local show at McChord AFB, the demonstration was nothing short of draw dropping for an aircraft that large.
 
Yup, saw it a couple of years back. Really impressive! Took off on a stretch I normally would associate with a high powered Cessna! The take off landing roll of that a/c is just amazing. And then there's the flight attitude, again am I looking at a transport a/c here ? I think jaw dropping is a good expression Matt!

And then there was the engine reverse, a really nice feature.

Like I said, I was impressed.
 
How you managed to get "jaw dropping" from my stupid "draw dropping" typo is beyond me. :lol: Another time where my mind and my fingers are not cooperating.
 
Hey scr*w the typos, as long as we understand each other! :D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back