What if the Airbus A400M was a passenger plane? 

I expect the parachutes would be an additional charge. Best to bring your own?

And they’d drop you a few kilometers from the target lol😂

​@@caribbb More like a couple of hours by bus.

I'm surprised Ryanair still offer seats on their planes.

​@@fe9143Ryanair CEO has wanted to have standing passengers on UK-Ireland flights. EASA denied him the right to do so due to safety regulations

It would never make a profit until it is used and 20+ years old. Those are the kinds of aircraft used to haul freight in Alaska. Most of the big freight operators currently use DC-6s, DC -9s and old 737s. Most freight going to Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut and Kaktovik gets trucked to Prudhoe Bay and then flown to these places.

what airline uses A400s in Alaska?

The STOL ability would certainly be useful in some occasions. The airliner industry is highly competitive in regards to fuel burn, turn around times etc. The A400M to be civilian would need modification: 1 The extremely raked up rear tail and heavy rear loading ramp take up an enormous amount of space and weight. They whole tail section needs to be replaced with a conventional tapered section of lower drag, weight and space. It will fit many more passengers due to the extended deck from the conventional tail. 2 It can't afford a upper deck and can only afford a mid deck. You need that for the luggage compartments on the lower so that the aircraft can fit normal LD3 profile containers. The new tail will allow more passengers to the rear but I suspect the nose section can be lengthened. The rear area will provide space for a Galley. 3 The aircraft will be easy to load and can carry its own stairs fairly easily. 4 An A320 is a very effective aircraft and with half a fuel load can get of a run way if a reasonable distance so this A400C aircraft has to be good.

@@williamzk9083 There are a few companies that use the Hercules when heavy freight needs get hauled to remote airstrips. We call them Herc strips and they are all over Alaska made to support oil exploration years ago. There are drill rigs and camps made specifically to fit in this aircraft.

I could also see them doing Antarctic resupply missions

Imgine an Oerlikon gun from Rheinmetall on it🥶

Just play turboprop flight simulator 😂

Hell Yeah!!!

Good call!!!

⁠@@accsonix8729Rheinmetall 🥶 🥶

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught that!

Guy's been making aviation videos for waaaay too long.

I was not aware the Boeing 737 had a double deck variant. Are you sure this wasn't the 747-200?

@@jackielinde7568 737 Combis are split fore and aft. Cargo is loaded into the front half through a large hinge-type cargo door and the passenger cabin is in the back.

so the front shouldnt fall off either?

@@irvo44 There is hope for Alaska Airlines and United then - A400MAX, anyone??

Lockheed engineers aren't doing enough Coke and LSD. I think in this day and age it would be more fitting for them to just go on Adderall binges and by day 3 or 4 of no sleep or food they would be coming up with some really cool shit.

was looking for this comment

A military aircraft flying in comfort and luxury? I mean, the German military procurement is posh and has very stupid priorities, but that's probably not even their level of incompetence.

More to come!

Great point! It would likely be terrible economically

Correct

Haha that’s a good one

Not to mention that passenger capacity is already possible with the A330 Neo and with 2 engines + higher cruise speed

It is a very noisy plane I hear them flying out past the VOR near me and can tell what it is 10 miles away, mostly prop noise.

Almost the entire video is none sense, even the idea of it in the first place lol.. The disregard for passenger safety and comfort was excluded even their luggage in this video. if somehow there is actually room somewhere for luggage and adding a second level for total of 300 seats. The weight would have been a problem (assuming all passenger weight 90kg and 40kg luggage).

Boeing 747 was originally made as a Military Transport plane, with the cockpit and nose lifting up for the cargo to roll into the front. The ‘bump’ or the second floor, was meant for the military cabin crew. Boeing lost the contract against Lockheed, they converted the body as Passenger plane, being a the first commercial plane with 2 levels.

You can modify hulls to convert passenger and cargo to the other roles. A lot of older 737's and 747's get the cargo treatment (Lowered decks and new cargo doors cut into the airframe) all the time. But it means that Airbus would have to design, test, and build a few converted aircraft so civil aviation authorities could do their own certifications. And a converted passenger A400M would have the same issues converted freighters have, namely a reduced airframe lifespan compared to like variants that were purposely built. But without those changes, you'd run afoul of industry limits on passenger evacuation time limits. (I think it's 90 seconds, but it could be 3 minutes.) Sure, dropping the tail ramp opens the aircraft up, but as the A400M pilot pointed out, you'd still have issues evacuating the upper deck. You'd really need doors to the outside on the second deck to safely have a second deck.

Everyone just runs down the ramp.

Such things exist, though single floor only. Think of a master pallet with 8-12 seats on it and a container module with some toilets. But remember that airlifters usually have seats along the fuselage wall as well. There also exist trailer-like modules that can be loaded on an airlifter that are basically VIP accomodations.

Right on!! Haha yea what’s funny is it’s always Europeans complaining when I use American units, never the Americans!!

Yeah, Japan uses 777 for 1-hour flights

Because China has a large well known military base in the gulf of Aden. Long range is not needed for Africa

They have the Y20A, it is bigger but has similar capabilities

They stole the C-17 drawings from Long Beach Boeing and copied that.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Turboprop are still required for short landing airstrip.

@@123dodo4 yes, you’re correct. I should have realized that. I live next to a municipal airport 🤪

The a400 would probably cost more to buy and operate than the total value of trade generated by small island countries!.

Er there was and it didn't, the L100 30/40

@@muzmason3064 Which was the point I was making. Very few military cargo planes are required by the civil market. The likes of FedEx etc prefer standard airliner variants because they were designed around the palatised systems for land transport convenience. Armstrong Whitworth got a handful of sales to specialist operators for the Argosy and the Belfast fleet was used by other specialised 'large object' duties with a few operators.

Kiddo, what exactly machine gun will do against ship armor? Turn brain on, and that's without considering dozens of 37 mm cannons that would turn that bomber into Swiss cheese...

@@KuK137 Chuckle. Not saying it was a good idea. I suspect that's one of the reasons why the Japanese military dropped Project Z. And a drawback our Found & Explained host would point out.

Same

Patreon and members get it early!!

@@FoundAndExplained cool

116*, sorry xD Btw, normalized pax weight by EATC is 90kg

The replacement “Air Force One” aircraft are derived from 747-8i’s, designated as VC-25B.

@@jacksons1010 I am aware that there was talks of replacing the aircraft with those originally slated for delivery to Transaero however, it is my understanding that they have yet to actually be delivered and I have heard numerous reasons as to why ranging from budget issues to Boeing not being able to complete the retrofit contract due to manpower shortages. If you have many further insight into the matter please do share.

@@HypnoticChronic1 It's not a case of "there were talks..."; the contract was signed and work on the aircraft has been underway for several years. True that Boeing is very unhappy, given that they grossly underestimated the costs and the project is yet another loss maker for them, but there has been no suggestion that they won't fulfill the contract. The consequences of reneging on a USAF contract would be catastrophic for Boeing - they would never risk it. Mentour Now! did a video discussing all this not too long ago: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lMmET2XA1vQ.htmlsi=PJOt4k6JlXdqxRZe

So Mil-Spec doesn't mean superior durability than Civilian ?

@@nuevision8 Not necessarily better. Just more suited. They are made on different requirements. You can't absolutely quantify what is better. What matters is their suitability for it's use.