Reports indicate the main reason for the failure of the A400M/TP400-D6 FTB to fly is due to the FADEC. Surely when the engine was tested complete with the propellor on the outdoor test beds it would have used a FADEC that was the same as that to be used in the aircraft i.e. fully integrated with the propellor operation. Therefore, when the engine is fitted to the aircraft it would then be the simple task of connecting the engine to the aircraft throttle and propeller control systems and away you go flying. Even if the engine and propellor control system are a computerised fly by wire system it would be a simple and independant throttle increase and decrease system.
I wonder if like a lot of modern computer programmes the designer(s) try to be too smart and build in an unnessary complexity when most of the functions are never used. Maybe someone should apply the KISS policy to the A400M and its TP400-D6 engine.
John, you have raised another issue and that is the apparent lack of qualiity assurance by the major aircraft builders, Examples are the incompatibilty of the CAD programs used within EADS on the A380, the unplated nut plates installed on a significant number of Boeing aircraft, just to name two examples. There are probably many more examples.
Both of these should not occur if there is a robust central assurance program in place which would highlight these sort of "stuff ups" to occur. You can't tell me that someone didn't notice the problems before they became a very major and extremely costly issue that ultimately adds to the delays.
Surely there is someone who oversees quality assurance in these companies including the sub contracters. There is no excuse for any breakdown in the quality assuance required on these major programs.
A4K