Thursday, January 11, 2007

A400M engine: "Propping Up TP400"

This certainly is confidence-building (full text subscriber only):
Snecma and its partners are moving to commit more resources to the powerplant for Europe's A400M to prevent the engine effort, and the airlifter program itself, from falling behind schedule [emphasis added].

Marc Ventre, the new head of Snecma's propulsion business, says the EuroPropulsion consortium building the A400M's TP400-B6 turboprop has met all milestones to date, but has fallen behind on total accumulated hours on the bench. EuroPropulsion comprises Snecma, Rolls-Royce, MTU and ITP of Spain.

To deal with the problem, the consortium is adding two test articles to the nine units already earmarked for the test bench program, and increasing the number of benches to six from five. Ventre says the move is related to an unspecified production hiccup, and no design glitches have been encountered.

He asserts that all performance targets, including engine mass and fuel consumption, are "right to spec," and that the consortium should meet the first-quarter 2007 schedule for the first flight on board a C-130 flying testbed.

It has long been recognized that the 11,000-hp. TP400--the most powerful Western turboprop ever built--represents one of the greatest risk areas of the A400M, and any slippage in development is likely to impact the program itself.

An audit of the project recently turned up the need to urgently target more engineering and other resources to a number of high-risk program areas, including the powerplant, to avoid impacting the schedule, which has already absorbed all available margin (AW&ST Dec. 11, 2006, p. 20). The aircraft is slated to make its first flight in March 2008.

3 Comments:

Blogger Chris Taylor said...

Interesting find, Mark. I have a quick question for you.

the A400M's TP400-B6 turboprop has met all milestones to date, but has fallen behind on total accumulated hours on the bench.

What exactly does that mean in ordinary layperson English? How can they have met all milestones while simultaneously lagging behind in total hours committed?

Is it a matter of beginning the next phase of testing/development before you have completed all the anticipated hours on the previous one, or what?

Doesn't that smell funny? Or is that not unusual for this stage of development?

6:02 p.m., January 11, 2007  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

Chris: I don't have a technical clue but I do have a great deal of trust in AW&ST's reporting.

What I find suggestive is that the aero-engine company is a consortium that, as a one-off, is trying to build the most powerful turboprop ever on time.

Just as Airbus has never built a military transport before.

You pays your money and you takes your (Euro) chances.

Mark
Ottawa

9:05 p.m., January 11, 2007  
Blogger Chris Taylor said...

Thanks, etl, that is kind of what I was speculating... but wouldn't a responsible project plan also include the endurance figures as milestones in their own right? Which would, then, not be met? Meaning that they were, actually, realistically, behind sched? Granted at certain stages of the project, endurance would not be a critical-path milestone (yet), but it would definitely be designated as a milestone within some part of the powerplant validation process, as you note.

I think it is a matter of EADS playing with semantics. They are not behind sched yet because the powerplant endurance milestones are further along in the calendar year and haven't gone past-due yet.

8:40 a.m., January 12, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home