China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
its because the vendor for ARJ21 Rockwell Collins didnb;t have a side stick and besides they asked suppliers to do everything as normally possible on ARJ21... really didn;t know what to do. They tried to use the same supplier on E-170/190 hoping they can get the same thing but... no.
on the C919... they used the same french supplier as Airbus A320 I believe, but bit off more than they can chew.
they will chew it eventually but it would require some throw ups and nasty regurgitation
superdog
Junior Member
Rockwell Collins do have side-sticks now, I don't know if they make it then. But it's not like Comac had to limit themselves to one vendor and then determine what types of control to use based on what that vendor can supply. Besides, if they want to get the same stuff on Embraer then they forgot the most obvious feature which is the yoke.
Same applies to the C919, if they don't want to go with side-stick control then they won't choose Ratier-Figeac/UTC, the decision doesn't go backwards. It's not like they copied A320 down to the blueprint that it has to be the same component from the same supplier. I think what you might be right is that on ARJ21 they played safe and used what they're familiar with, and on C919 they decided that side-stick is the future. On Y20 the military wanted consistency from other transport planes they have.
Y20 is a different story as all suppliers are domestic so let;s leave off that.
----
On ARJ they closely watched Embraer on Ejet and try to get same suppliers... but failed miserably.
They wanted to go sidestick on C919 because they think "strategically" it is de future... however they have never thought through the consequences of their decision down to certification. as they have never learned it on ARJ21. now they are paying the big price.
But that;s not the biggest technical issue on C919 right now. or will not nearly be the biggest problem.
btw, don't read Aviation Week's articles on C919. it's all clueless non-technical semi-insider telling some muddle headed aviation journalist some 3rd hand stories.
---
as far as copying A320 down to the b;ue print... no they didn;t ... but they did (past tense) copy some part of de flight manual down to the the specific speeds . "
---
on selecting suppliers....
program managers are all about "de-risk" at the beginning of the program. so old supplier seems "safe", does not matter their actual performance on these past programs. A known quantity, however bad, is a known quantity.
btw Embraer did not even invite E-jet suppliers for its flight control system to its new E-2 Program. You should know why
Last edited:
superdog
Junior Member
I'm not sure why you assume my reply is related to Aviation Week, I was just replying with common sense and educated guesses, plus some supplier information from the airframer database. I'm not involved with Comac so that's all I know. It sounds like you know a lot more about the program to reach those conclusions, so I'm curious where did you get the facts from -- if you know some 'reliable' insiders, if you are the insider, or if those are just some other speculations.Y20 is a different story as all suppliers are domestic so let;s leave off that.
----
On ARJ they closely watched Embraer on Ejet and try to get same suppliers... but failed miserably.
They wanted to go sidestick on C919 because they think "strategically" it is de future... however they have never thought through the consequences of their decision down to certification. as they have never learned it on ARJ21. now they are paying the big price.
But that;s not the biggest technical issue on C919 right now. or will not nearly be the biggest problem.
btw, don't read Aviation Week's articles on C919. it's all clueless non-technical semi-insider telling some muddle headed aviation journalist some 3rd hand stories.
---
as far as copying A320 down to the b;ue print... no they didn;t ... but they did (past tense) copy some part of de flight manual down to the the specific speeds . "
---
on selecting suppliers....
program managers are all about "de-risk" at the beginning of the program. so old supplier seems "safe", does not matter their actual performance on these past programs. A known quantity, however bad, is a known quantity.
btw Embraer did not even invite E-jet suppliers for its flight control system to its new E-2 Program. You should know why
If you're at liberty to answer, then I hope you can shed some light on how the ARJ is miserable failure, and how could the C919 copy specific speeds from the A320 instead of having to get it through test flights.
I am not directing the Aviation weeks comments at you.
just commenting on the general state of aviation joournalism on the subject of COMAC.
Here's some screncaps from that CCTV program about transport aircraft a while back.
It had some good shots inside the Y-8C and Y-9 which we hadn't seen before, I thought it would be nice to have them down as easy to access images.
I think we can see the Y-9's cargo bay simply looks that much more modern than the Y-8C, as it should. The FLIR ball detail is also nice. The Y-8/9 family really is the PLA's C-130 equivalent, and they use it in arguably as many roles as the USAF/USMC does, if not more, considering it will also act as the platform for a burgeoning number of ASW GX planes.
With its size, endurance, range, reliability, proliferation, and likely relatively low cost, the Y-8/9 really is the PLAAF's swiss army knife for special missions, from ECM/EW, AEWC, to MPA/ASW and ELINT.
Now they just need to give it an air refuelling capability and maybe develop a gunship variant for the hell of it and it'll truly be the PLAAF's hercules.
Y-8C:
Y-9:
It had some good shots inside the Y-8C and Y-9 which we hadn't seen before, I thought it would be nice to have them down as easy to access images.
I think we can see the Y-9's cargo bay simply looks that much more modern than the Y-8C, as it should. The FLIR ball detail is also nice. The Y-8/9 family really is the PLA's C-130 equivalent, and they use it in arguably as many roles as the USAF/USMC does, if not more, considering it will also act as the platform for a burgeoning number of ASW GX planes.
With its size, endurance, range, reliability, proliferation, and likely relatively low cost, the Y-8/9 really is the PLAAF's swiss army knife for special missions, from ECM/EW, AEWC, to MPA/ASW and ELINT.
Now they just need to give it an air refuelling capability and maybe develop a gunship variant for the hell of it and it'll truly be the PLAAF's hercules.
Y-8C:
Y-9:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Ok that's enough to transport a fully loaded and battle ready main battle tank into a combat zone
I always believed this would be the minimum requirement for the Y-20 very good news
I always believed this would be the minimum requirement for the Y-20 very good news
ladioussupp
Junior Member
Someone said that CFTE put four WS-20s on this test bed.
