China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

Schumacher said:

Hmm... I think it goes the other way around.

Click to expand...

Precisely, the fact Y-20 looks nothing of antonov advise and Chinese official source mention nothing of cooperation between AVIC and foreign source for Y-20 project. The hardworking is on yours, not me. Prove it antonov make a major contribution, if not case closed. Y-20
Is a Chinese effort.

Lion said:

Over big ambition? Lol.. My opinion is build up based on facts. While most of your speculating is based on steretyping of china not able to build a transport plane that big because its their first time. China has demonstrated it did not need to build F-117 stealth plane first before moving on to something like J-20. So why can't china build a Y-20 by herself with the first start?

Since you already can't bring any evidence. My stance is valid. Facts that Y-20 looks nothing of any Advise from antonov based on their main line product of An-70. It has to be a Chinese effort. Ilyushin ,airbus and Boeing consultant will be out of question. Since sither they are rival or embargo to help. The Advancement of Chinese technology is amazing but not unexpected. Y-9 gives China a very good head start for Y-20.

Click to expand...

Again and to admit I BEG YOU ... You have Your opinion – that’s fine – and I have my understanding of the background and that’s also fine and time will tell as such there's no need to argue any longer !

But I also beg You to consider: I'm not sure if You know me well enough and if You really think I'm a China-basher, who denies that China has a very well developed and modern Aviation Industry, that can develop and manufacture nearly everything alone, then You know me wrong. I think I'm one of the greatest enthusiast of China's progress - maybe the biggest at least in Germany - but especially this view from the outside helps not to be blinded by success, by pride by enthusasm and maybe by ignoring certain facts ... and that's exactly what You do.

Why is it so hard to accept that there was assistance, well known assistance ? Why is there only black and white in Your view ? Is it a matter of disrespect to take all parts of that puzzle together and make obvious conclusions ?

I know I need to admit I can't proof, but knowing several Antonov designs (even some paper-projects and studies), knowing the publications since years in that regard and even more knowing the well established cooperation between Chinese and Russian/Ukrainian - esp. Antonov - helps me to see that type a bit with less emotional eyes ...

Anyway I don't want to offend You but Your arguments are false ... only that I can't proof my "Black version" doesn't
make Your "White version" valid !! ... there are some colours in between called GREY.

Have a nice day,
Deino

Deino said:

Anyway I don't want to offend You but Your arguments are false ... only that I can't proof my "Black version" doesn't
make Your "White version" valid !! ... there are some colours in between called GREY.

Have a nice day,
Deino

Click to expand...

Since you can't prove it but claiming my statement as false is already as good as zero. My claim is never based on emotion and stereotyping but facts.

Lion said:

Since you can't prove it but claiming my statement as false is already as good as zero. My claim is never based on emotion and stereotyping but facts.

Click to expand...

NO ... and finally don't lie to Yourself ! ... where are YOUR facts ?? Only that Antonov is'nt mentioned in the press relesaes for the first flight - one that can everybody understand quite well - does not make that type a 100% indeneniously developed type especialyl when several other - including Chinese official releases like flateric posted say different.

And now I simply act as a moderator: You won't persuade me as I won't persuade You ... we both have our opinions and at least I don't want to do a "crusade" on that. End of debate !

Let's discuss, but leave the others to their opinion ...

Deino

Deino said:

NO ... and finally don't lie to Yourself ! ... where are YOUR facts ?? Only that Antonov is'nt mentioned in the press relesaes for the first flight - one that can everybody understand quite well - does not make that type a 100% indeneniously developed type especialyl when several other - including Chinese official releases like flateric posted say different.

And now I simply act as a moderator: You won't persuade me as I won't persuade You ... we both have our opinions and at least I don't want to do a "crusade" on that. End of debate !

Let's discuss, but leave the others to their opinion ...

Deino

Click to expand...

Fact that Y-20 looks nothing advise or incorporate from mature An-70 which is antonov similar product to Y-20. From head, body to tail plus wing? Nothing look like An-70. These are facts and can be see from my earlier illustration. L-15 advance trainer is fine example of advise and assistance sought from a experience company. AVIC also admit help sought from Yakovlev. These are facts and great example how an critical assistance is provided. Everybody can see L-15 share many similar features with Yak-130.

The interview with chief designer of Y-20 makes no mention that foreign help is sought. Your view is based on Y-9 project and stereotyping china is weak in these sector and therefore impossible to do it alone. J-20 is an great example where the impossible is done. It china first attempt and they build a real stealth shaping fighter jet. Why can't Y-20 be the same? China has proved overhaul many IL-76 and build Y-9. i will not say they are that novice when comes to big transport plane. its possible within their limit to build Y-20 by themselves without any help.

I say again. Show me prove to debunk my facts.

flateric said:

Antonov worked with AVIC II as well, rigidly pushing An-70 and steroided turbofan-powered An-70-600 (which I guess was a loosing competitor from Shaanxi Aircraft Corporation) and then re-assigned forces to XAC, the winner

Russia and Ukraine unveiled a decision in June 2000 to build a Chinese An-70 version with co-operation from China. The two nations jointly financed the development of An-70 in 2002 as part of a 50:50 risk sharing deal. The Chinese version was displayed at MAKS Air Show held in Russia in 2003. Russia, however, withdrew from the project in April 2006, due to financial crisis and rigid political relationships between Russia and Ukraine. China and Ukraine jointly built the An-70-600 in 2008.

Click to expand...

I don't think that Y-8F600 was "a priority project in the 11th Five-Year Plan", yes?

Click to expand...

Are there any images available of this An-70-600, An-77 (also sometimes mentioned) ... ??

Thanks in advance,
Deino

In case you want hard proof, here the photo for comparison. Y-20 is just too different from C-17.

Lion said:

I am calm. The problem is your perception is based on stereotyping and not hard facts. First, the appearance, aerodynamic and structure is far off from your speculation that antonov is providing consulting for Y-20. This already debunk any contribution of antonov.

Second,Deino claim antonov -70 will be a success if adequate funding is provided. So that means antonov is very confident of its design. If china ask for consultation. Logic sense will be offering their an-70 as a base design, just like case of L-15 which is advise by yakovlev. I do not see the logic of antonov offering a C-17 design for Y-20 which is out of their design range. Does this means an-70 is a lousy design that antonov needs to offer a radical design to suit china? I do not see the logic..

The only conclusion is Y-20 is a own domestic effort. Because speculating Boeing offering help is as good as zero.

Click to expand...

Antonov has experience with turbofan powered transport, remember An-124 and An-225. But An-70 would only be acceptable to China if it had the capability to produce the gearboxes between the engines and propellers, as well as the engines and the propellers. Those gearboxes are a real problem. It is likely to be the main problem with the helicopter situation in China. The Soviet Union invested massively in gearbox design and production, which let in the 'fifties to the Tu-20 bomber and the Mi-6 helicopter.
Remember also how just more than a century ago the British used gearboxes between the steam turbines and the propellers in HMS Dreadnought, but the US was forced to use electrical generators and motors between the steam turbines and propellers in their battleships and the first aircraft carriers because they were then not able to provide gearboxes.

Lion said:

Since you can't prove it but claiming my statement as false is already as good as zero. My claim is never based on emotion and stereotyping but facts.

Click to expand...

Lion you are a valuable member, but lets see it this way, we will never know how much input anyone has unless the Cheif designer or whoever comes out and claims it

some things are more obvious than others, Antonov may have helped China build this aircraft and had some sort of input, its a aircraft there is so many things they can help on, the overall design was probably so its meets the current needs of the PLAAF so the two might not be interlinked, Ukrainians are really good people and always supply designs and equipment as good customer, they are good to do business with and helped Pakistan develop Al-Khalid MBT even although 100% its produced in Pakistan by H.I.T, and sold really good IL-78 tankers to PAF, simply because Ukraine inherited a vast military industry, so them helping China is not 100% out of the question, the same way they probably helped with Liaoning

so i say, its a great design, a good looking aircraft and has great capabilitys, the job of designing is done and we look forward now to a WS15 equipped Y-20 and more test flights with rear cargo door etc etc

asif iqbal said:

Lion you are a valuable member, but lets see it this way, we will never know how much input anyone has unless the Cheif designer or whoever comes out and claims it

some things are more obvious than others, Antonov may have helped China build this aircraft and had some sort of input, its a aircraft there is so many things they can help on, the overall design was probably so its meets the current needs of the PLAAF so the two might not be interlinked, Ukrainians are really good people and always supply designs and equipment as good customer, they are good to do business with and helped Pakistan develop Al-Khalid MBT even although 100% its produced in Pakistan by H.I.T, and sold really good IL-78 tankers to PAF, simply because Ukraine inherited a vast military industry, so them helping China is not 100% out of the question, the same way they probably helped with Liaoning

so i say, its a great design, a good looking aircraft and has great capabilitys, the job of designing is done and we look forward now to a WS15 equipped Y-20 and more test flights with rear cargo door etc etc

Click to expand...

That is merely a perception and stereotyping.. I have good view of Ukraine and their technology but sometimes is overstate of their contribution to China military advancement.

China no doubt has make massive technology advancement that needs world recognition. Sending man to space, doing module docking. Somebody claim that's 40 years old technology but let me ask them back. How many country can do it?
Only 3 countries can do it.

How many countries can build a working GPS system? Only 3 countries prove that.

I still keep my view. Y-20 is a Chinese effort until proven wrong. I do not see anything wrong with Y-20 complete build by Chinese own expertise and technology. I do not believe its so out of their scope that they need any foreign help.