fly828 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9789 times:
Honestly, even if it did get benefit from it's intelligent capability, it's still nothing shame but a great achievement for Chinese aviation industry. Let's be honest, either USSR or USA, who wasn't interested to steal technology from each other through their own spying act? MIG 15 vs F86, Concord vs Tu-144,VC-10 vs Il-62.....,this is the game played always in that way. It's just the matter now china becomes a player more and more apparently. It does not matter we like the fact or not, it's happening. We here often blame Chinese as a copy car of anything, but the other side is you have to respect Chinese has strong and even super capability in its very balanced industrial base and solid education base in science and engineering to support------when they produce something like airplane, we blame them copy cat, when they have world' no 1 dam, we blame them destroying environment, when they have the world's #1 high speed network completed in the shortest time period, we blame something else.....but never fairly admit their achievement in the matter itself.
The Y-20 is at it's very early stage as the project, the Chinese government is openly announcing spending billions of dollar to conquer the engine challenge, that is, to develop a reliable new engine to power it's large aircrafts. D30 is just a temporary solution before the new home developed engine gets certified. Eventually, Y-20 will be stretched in length to be more capable as well.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9552 times:
Quoting Acheron (Reply 5):
I know they are blurry pictures, but from here it seems they are using the Il-76's D30 engines on it.
You appear to be correct. It would be interesting to see fuselage dimensions, however it certainly appears to be a derivative of their Y-8/AN-12 projects (Y-8 is still in production, 2 were just delivered to Venezuela). Almost like they mixed an AN-12 with an IL-76.
To be clear, I was just thinking the nose looks like their AN-12 knockoff. I saw rough drawings later today suggesting that the fuselage was IL-76 length but wider, sorta fitting in the C-2 to A-400M size sweet spot. I think we will see better pics pretty soon, if the J-31 is any indication.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 4032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 9209 times:
I don't think it looks like a C-17, more like an An-70 with jets.
And it's not like there's a wide choice of design options when it comes to military airlifters with rough field capability.
The basic design is always the same: high wing, negative dihedral, T-tail, landing gear in pods, rear ramp, etc...
I am guessing there was some help from russian or ukranian manufacturers.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
neutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 569 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8593 times:
Transport aircraft really can't be to different in design, although I'm sure China copied many elements of both US and Rus aircraft. You could design an airplane to load a tank from the side and be completely different from established designs, but why?
Aesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 7611 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5773 times:
Well, we'll see if it has that much capability when a tank will be flying in it. What China's and Russia's industries lack the most are competitive engines, and a first flight with an old engine (just like their new fighter) doesn't give much confidence in their ability to close the gap.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1860 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5626 times:
Quoting fly828 (Reply 7): Honestly, even if it did get benefit from it's intelligent capability, it's still nothing shame but a great achievement for Chinese aviation industry. Let's be honest, either USSR or USA, who wasn't interested to steal technology from each other through their own spying act? MIG 15 vs F86, Concord vs Tu-144,VC-10 vs Il-62
I would disagree, the Mig 15 was a shock to the US, I don't think there was any copying involved, with the exception of the British engines. The VC=10 vs the Il-62, the Concorde vs the Tu-144, and many others, yes. Hell I even read some stories that when the Tu-4 was copied, that nobody was brave enough to "not copy" the rudder pedals, so they even said "Boeing" on them. Coping is fine to "catch up" but by the time you "catch up" the world has pasted you by. This sort of looks like the YC-15 in my opinion. Its one thing to copy, but another to design your own. The US does copy, however, we also reverse engineer it to see why it is better. I think that is why our defense spending is so much. We do look at what else everybody is making, see how we can improve it, and call it our own(Carrier decks anyone?). But I don't think there has been anything that we "copied". If China thinks that they can "copy" their way to be a global power, then they have a rude awaking coming. To think they can send their best and brightest minds here to learn, but to never let them be free thinkers(which would be the down fall of communist China) is just asking for the best set of copiers in the world
Quoting fly828 (Reply 7): We here often blame Chinese as a copy car of anything, but the other side is you have to respect Chinese has strong and even super capability in its very balanced industrial base and solid education base in science and engineering to support
Thing is, for every thing USA or the Soviets copied from each other, there were dozens of original designs, solutions and materials, unlike China, where pretty much the entirety of their hardware its either a derivative of a foreign design or an outright copy.
This guarantees they stay behind on the curve, as shown by their issues with the WS-10 engine, a derivative made out of a copy of a CFM56 core and their Flanker clones, who despite being more modern, haven't been able to match the originals in Chinese service and even their own J-10A.
Of course, most of it being a copy of an existing design allows for quick development times that look impressive to the outside world.
fly828 From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5095 times:
'It does look familiar indeed. There is some of the 'form follows function' to that, and I also believe that the C-2 borrowed some design cues from the C-17 as well, didn't it?'
---when we discuss any military project in China, such as Y-20, we should always keep another thing in mind that is, you may use "borrow" the design from US, because countries like Japan and India....do have the access to matured US technology to intergrate to "their" own product, look at Japan's F-2---do we call it a copy to F-16? when we look at India's LCA, from avitronics to engine, how much were really developed by itself? and we are openly "share"technology with these countries.
what about China? how much we can openly sell to China, or really, how much China can openly buy from us? then, if not, for a country as major as China is, would give up it's ambition to acquire some equiptment simply because somebody else has already inovated some concept proved to be successful? of course not, reverse engineering is certainly the result of many policies of our own.
when saying copy, honestly I don't think aircraft will be something easy to copied, it can only be copied or, reverse engineered by some country who itself has very solid tech and engineering capability, which China is certainly at the top of that group.
My whole point is, Y-20 seems to be a real success for chinese aircraft engineering, and we should all welcom it to the stage. With very limited access to the resource and support from the west, it's take off deserves a big congratulation.
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1784 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4886 times:
Quoting fly828 (Reply 34): do have the access to matured US technology to intergrate to "their" own product, look at Japan's F-2---do we call it a copy to F-16? when we look at India's LCA, from avitronics to engine, how much were really developed by itself? and we are openly "share"technology with these countries.
The F-2 is a copy/derivative of the F-16. The LCA is a completely different matter.
Thing is, unlike China, neither Japan nor India go around trying to convince everybody that their aeronautic industry is "generations ahead of that of Russia and the US" while churning out copies of 50's and 60's designs, nor do they try to convince people that their copies are completely "indigenous design".
Quoting fly828 (Reply 34): when saying copy, honestly I don't think aircraft will be something easy to copied, it can only be copied or, reverse engineered by some country who itself has very solid tech and engineering capability,
It isn't easy, but it is far more easy than doing your own R&D for materials, designs, etc. as shown by their many issues with the WS-10 engine(despite having a CFM56 core).
Quoting fly828 (Reply 34): With very limited access to the resource and support from the west, it's take off deserves a big congratulation.
Thats why they resort to "unwilling support" from the west, like hacking. Also, they get plenty of support from Israel and France.