Airbus A400M TP400-D6 Engine Test

The EuroProp International TP400-D6 is the all-new powerplant for the Airbus Military A400M, when it enters service it will be the most powerful turboprop in the Western world.(approx.11,000 brake horse power.) This video made at Istres, France shows the engine at a test run.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• A400M
• TP400-D6
• Airbus
• Engine
• powerful

[KimmurielBaenre]

Pretty cool, description reads most powerful in the western world. Does that mean the ones on the Tu-95 Bear still the most powerful?

[techdefined]

@KimmurielBaenre

Yes the NK-12 from the Tu-95 produce 4000hp more then the TP400.

However the TP400-D6 uses the most advanced turboprop technology and is highly efficient.

[stahlwerke]

why do aircraft like the C130 and A400 have props instead of jets like C17? Never really understood that.

[techdefined]

There are a lot of reasons like maintenance costs,aquisition costs, lifetime, but the most important one is fuel efficiency. A turboprop always is more efficient then a turbofan up to a determinated size and weight. And the TP400 is overall the most advanced and efficient turboprop in the world. Look at the costs(not only aquisition costs) of a C17 compared to a A400M which will even match the overall costs of a C130!!

[youngpilot234]

Looks Like Airbus Took The Same Prop Design As The ATR series

[techdefined]

It maybe looks like but the TP400 is totally a diffrent design and much more powerful and much bigger then the PW120 family.

[JexPAuk]

It's spinning so fast OMG

[toddi1971]

at lower speeds they are more effective than jets

[hltibbs]

@KimmurielBaenre Yes, the NK12 engines have them by about 4000hp but also, they are turning 8 bladed contra rotating props (14-15' diameter) at supersonic speeds. I actually think that if they mated the TP400-D6 engines to the TU-95, you might see comparable performance because of the advanced technology and slower turning props.

[Helge129]

@oiseautempete Don't forget that the C-17 costs half a billion dollars, while the A-400M is much cheaper than that.

[oiseautempete]

@seidelp

For a tactic military transport is the turboprop better as a jet but the pop give: much better acceleration (shoter roll distance at take off), much better climb rate, much better "aerodynamic braking" in tactic landings, smaller fragility zone=much better protection from light weapons shots, high placed on the wing= less wearing or damage from sand,stones and debrits ingestion.

As comparision, this 2 points are the achilles heel from the C17...

[brendonnz1964]

@techdefined You would be correct, however the Tu -95 was developed in the early 1950's, 60 years ago. To date the Tu-95 is still classified as the fastest propellor driven aircraft produced.

[seidelp]

@techdefined In actuality, it has nothing to do with cost or maintenance...fuel efficiency is a byproduct. The real reason props are still in use is their low altitude/low airspeed performance. Nothing in the turbojet/turbofan can match the performance you get from a prop. This is more important when you want a cargo aircraft capable of short field operations. I'm a retired C-130 flight engineer.

[davetileguy]

@DrTruffaldino Ussr has a problem ,they have brilliant people and a stupid government ,therefore they can't consistently make machinery in large quantities OR have the infrastructure to maintain them. so a one time prototype means very little. tip work on your Law-political system.

[DrTruffaldino]

Impressive engine: I found a similar on in Wikipedia:

Progress D-27, designed by Ivchenko-Progress Design Bureau Progress (USSR, for AN 70). First run in 1992.

Power 14,000 horsepower

Power-to-weight ratio: 6.33 kW/kg

Maximum compression rate: 30

Specific fuel cionsumption: 0,170 kg/hp*hr (0,231 kg/KW*h)

which one has better performance?

[falaqdad15]

holy crapazoids