China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft - esp. Y-20/YY-20

[wssth0306]

May I ask if there's any evidence to support this claim? Or is it simply assumed that because it's the successor to the An-12, it inevitably inherits the same issues?

Since Y-9 didn't change the engine from the Y-8 , I think it is fair to use the Y-8 estimates.

1-Based of Y-8 estimates by the US army,which itself is based on the assumption of the realiabity of the engine to be around 3000 hours in between overhouls , that number is based of the Canadian PW150B that is used as a replacemnt of the old soviet engine.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2-Curiously ,Baidu itself list the engine used for the Y-8 as WJ-6,
with the time in between overhalls as 3000h for the newer improved WJ-6.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

3-Another Chinese source ,the poster is known to be an insider from shenyang aircraft corporation,says that Y-8 , and Y-9 has an reputation to require alot of maintaince due to the engine troubles.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The claim didn't came from the assumption of inherited flaws ,
it came from avaliable time between overhaul on the engine used on the Y-8 stated by Chinese.

 

[Confusionism]

Can you be more specific? I.E. outline your reasoning by pointing at the design features of the plane that make it unsuitable?

No. Just stop right there.

The wings on the Y-15 are straight, whereas the wings on both the A400M and C-2 are obviously rear-swept.

Straight wing aircrafts excel at low speed flying and maneuvering, which is especially useful for operations from short, austere, hot-and/or-high runways/strips. However, this means that the aircraft won't be flying as fast as non-straight wing aircrafts. This is in contrast with rear-swept wing aircrafts, which excel at higher speeds but have relatively poorer low-speed handling performances.

The PLAAF certainly has emphasized the focus of the Y-15's design on the need to operate from shorter, hot-and/or-high airstrips (namely, in the Xizang Plateau and the SCS), hence the straight wing design we see on the Y-15 today.

This is apart from the fact where turboprop engines have higher fuel efficiencies while operating at lower speeds at relatively lower altitudes, whereas turbofan engines fare worse in similar conditions. This is among the key reasons for turbofan-powered aircrafts to fly faster and higher than turboprop-powered aircrafts.

Also, an airlifter that can still take-off with 4x WJ-6C/G/J/X (or WJ-10) engines will not be comparable to the A400M and C-2, as both of them have different weight categories to begin with.

Sorry to rain in your parade, but the engineers at Shaanxi and Xi'an are very much focused on meeting the needs and demands of the PLAAF as their primary mission, not to engage in a rat race with the C-2 and A400M. Any export orders for the Y-15 would be an added benefit, and not the dominant driver of the Y-15's design choices.

In fact, this is a very thorough summary, but I don't understand why the opposite conclusion was reached.

 

[Tomboy]

this photo is taken from the video.. its Y-15 a medium category class airlifter from Shaanxi Aircraft. which was anticipated for years.

it has way better and efficient Engines, better material , better manufacturing process than any Y-8/Y-9 series aircraft.

PLAAF is not happy with Y-8/Y-9 family include their old engines. this is the major reason why Shaanxi designed Y-15..

While it's no doubt a major improvement over Y-9 in reliability, fuel efficiency and range. I still kinda if doubt the suitability of a turboprop tactical transport as a AEWC, while endurance is no doubt excellent, it's ability to get there and back from combat zones is compromised by the fact that it's very slow compared to a turbofan powered aircraft. It is ideal with first island chain operations but beyond that I would imagine a turbofan powered platform will be better suited

Also, its LOUD unless some serious sound damping has been installed in the cabin.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Well, to be fair - There have been tiny bits and pieces of rumors pointing towards an effort towards developing a common platform for next-generation special mission aircrafts for the PLA that is in the 100-ton MTOW category, using a high-wing configuration and powered by two turbofan engines (likely WS-20).




However, there has been nothing more substantial on this development coming to light for the time being, and the veracity of such rumors cannot be ascertained.

On the other hand - If this platform doesn't exist (and that having C919 fully indigenized within reasonable timeframe for military application is deemed impossible) - Then the Y-15 is the only available option for the PLA.

 

[MeiouHades]

I hope this does make it into production soon enough. A Sino P-8 Poseidon would be really nice to see. Even Pakistan, last I read, is transitioning to a turbofan-based MPA.

 

[Mekconyov]

Right... How about you learn to be coherent first instead of spouting all those hilarious mumbo jumbo?

Time would tell whose information turns to be true. PLAAF is eager to develop twin engine WS-20 based Airlifter to be used as AWACs, special purpose aircraft and medium size cargo aircraft. It is Y-15 version or Y-30 whatever PLAAF designates it.

 

[ismellcopium]

Also, nacelle seems more akin to MA700 instead of Y-9.

Aren't the intakes clearly the rounded WJ-6C type not flat style of WJ-10 though?

 

[sheogorath]

Aren't the intakes clearly the rounded WJ-6C type not flat style of WJ-10 though?

Doesn't look that way. The spinner seems flush with the nacelle with a big intake underneat

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I like Thomas Newdick's warning at the end...

Given the rate at which new Chinese aircraft designs are appearing, it would be wise not to bet against further revelations before this year is out.

 

[BoraTas]

Y-20 would move to 100 ton load capacity with in 2020-27. And twin engine WS-20 (or it's derivative) Y-15 would have higher speed than Y-20. It would be better suited for 40-45 ton capacity. It all depends upon the dynamics of circumstances in defense environment.

I will be kind. You should read more on aviation. None of these here are possible. You cannot increase the payload by 50% stretching the fuselage. You cannot just replace the engines let alone go from turboprops to turbojets without many second and third order effects. A twin WS-20 would not reach the speed of the Y-20 because the Y-15 has straight wings which suck over M0.7. Furthermore, increasing the thrust doesn't increase the payload on its own because the aircraft's structure has to be able to cope with increased stress.