China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

You guys do know David Axe most likely frequents this site. My friend told me he's registered over at CDF. Notice in his latest article he's taking more swipes at the internet China watchers? I hope I contributed to his insecurities which was by design. Bruuuhahahahha! The guy can't take what he dishes.

What kinda name is david axe??

no_name said:

Just the following snippet on cjdby:



However the guy did not provide a link, and I cannot find anything on the web.

Btw some bashers says the Y-20 don't have cargo door... reminds me of the J-20 don't have weapons bay thing again.

Click to expand...

you mean they meant front clamshell door? that would be a BIG mistake if they design the Y-20 without the front loading door.

no_name said:

Just the following snippet on cjdby:



However the guy did not provide a link, and I cannot find anything on the web.

Btw some bashers says the Y-20 don't have cargo door... reminds me of the J-20 don't have weapons bay thing again.

Click to expand...

Aside from naming at least 3 different planes the Y-20 is "obviously a direct copy of", most of the criticism I've read about is focused on the wobbling of the tail.

kyanges said:

Aside from naming at least 3 different planes the Y-20 is "obviously a direct copy of", most of the criticism I've read about is focused on the wobbling of the tail.

Click to expand...

Read over at Key Aviation forum and there are youtube videos of the C-17 wobbling. I believe "wobbling" is actually a good thing because it says the stress energy is being absorbed. If it wasn't it would more likely snap. It's like designing skyscrapers for earthquakes. They design them to be flexible because again the energy is being absorbed. You wouldn't want to be in the skyscraper during the earthquake because the swaying will be worse than the actual earthquake.

AssassinsMace said:

Read over at Key Aviation forum and there are youtube videos of the C-17 wobbling. I believe "wobbling" is actually a good thing because it says the stress energy is being absorbed. If it wasn't it would more likely snap. It's like designing skyscrapers for earthquakes. They design them to be flexible because again the energy is being absorbed. You wouldn't want to be in the skyscraper during the earthquake because the swaying will be worse than the actual earthquake.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. I would have thought this to be pretty obvious, especially to military forum regulars, even if they are generally laymen, like myself. Anyone who's been on any commercial flight these days and got to see the wings on your typical commercial airliner would have seen the flexible wings.

I did read a few comments that pointed out this, and the C-17 example. The instant retort was that while the C-17 tail did wobble, it was "not that much, despite being under rougher landing conditions."

I read that thinking, "And before today, who would have guessed 'tail wobble' would be the latest metric in ego stroking?"

kwaigonegin said:

you mean they meant front clamshell door? that would be a BIG mistake if they design the Y-20 without the front loading door.

Click to expand...

Lol no they actually said the Y-20 don't have back loading door.

Everyone that's ever been on a commercial flight knows that the wobbling of the wings, etc are probably normal and designed.

another vid:

kyanges said:

Yes, exactly. I would have thought this to be pretty obvious, especially to military forum regulars, even if they are generally laymen, like myself. Anyone who's been on any commercial flight these days and got to see the wings on your typical commercial airliner would have seen the flexible wings.

I did read a few comments that pointed out this, and the C-17 example. The instant retort was that while the C-17 tail did wobble, it was "not that much, despite being under rougher landing conditions."

I read that thinking, "And before today, who would have guessed 'tail wobble' would be the latest metric in ego stroking?"

Click to expand...

Well it's exactly like how they think Chinese always miss something important. I read a comment somewhere and the guy seem informed but was actaully just parroting what he's read and not understanding because the guy in the end commented the Y-20 paint scheme was horrible.

"Rougher landing conditions?" Their criticism says it's not suppose to happen at all. One of the videos posted in Key Aviation showed the C-17 landing on a normal runway and the tail was wobbling all the way down. Or look at the comments on David Axe's article. It mentions an article I saw too about the airline companies with the worst records on accidents. China Airlines was number one and the commentor used that to insult China. China Airlines is Taiwanese.

AssassinsMace said:

Read over at Key Aviation forum and there are youtube videos of the C-17 wobbling. I believe "wobbling" is actually a good thing because it says the stress energy is being absorbed. If it wasn't it would more likely snap. It's like designing skyscrapers for earthquakes. They design them to be flexible because again the energy is being absorbed. You wouldn't want to be in the skyscraper during the earthquake because the swaying will be worse than the actual earthquake.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Wobbling indicates flexing of the vertical tailplane which indicates the energy is being distributed. If there is no flexing, all the stress would be concentrated at the joint at the base, resulting in fatigue. People who pick bones out of an egg only betray their own ignorance.