China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

Hendrik_2000 said:

How is it compare to Howard Hughes Flying goose?

Click to expand...

Spruce Goose was somewhat larger:
Wingspan: 97.54 m (320 ft 11 in) v. 38.8 m (127 ft 4 in)
Length: 66.65 m (218 ft 8 in) v. 36.9 m (121 ft 1 in)
Power: 8 engines of 2,640 kW v. 4 engines of 3,805 kW
Loaded weight: 400,000 lb (180,000 kg) v. MTOW: 53,500 kg (117,947 lb)
I suppose the MTOW of Spruce Goose was never determined.

I think that this plane could be a winner in the international firefighting plane market. But first i guess that it would have to prove itself in chinese hands first.

delft said:

Spruce Goose was somewhat larger:
Wingspan: 97.54 m (320 ft 11 in) v. 38.8 m (127 ft 4 in)
Length: 66.65 m (218 ft 8 in) v. 36.9 m (121 ft 1 in)
Power: 8 engines of 2,640 kW v. 4 engines of 3,805 kW
Loaded weight: 400,000 lb (180,000 kg) v. MTOW: 53,500 kg (117,947 lb)
I suppose the MTOW of Spruce Goose was never determined.

Click to expand...

Much larger.

The Spruce goose never actually flew like what we would call actual flight, that is fly hundreds of feet above ground and a fair distance on it's maiden flight, it was too heavy. What the AG 600 should be compared to is a seaplane that was in actual service past and present for size comparison.

KIENCHIN said:

The Spruce goose never actually flew like what we would call actual flight, that is fly hundreds of feet above ground and a fair distance on it's maiden flight, it was too heavy. What the AG 600 should be compared to is a seaplane that was in actual service past and present for size comparison.

Click to expand...

AG600 is not really a very large flying boat by historic standards. It only appear large now because flying boats had lost essentially all of their former roles since their heydays in 1935-1950, so no other large flying boat is being built and very few large flying boats remain in service.

But historically, British Saunders Roe princess of early 1950s had 67m wing span and 45 m length, weighted 156 metric tons at takeoff, and it definitely flew. German Blohm 7 Voss BV 238 of WWII had 60 m wingspan and 44m length, wieghed 100 tons at take off am eternally it too definitely flew. There have been other historic flying boats that flew many times or achieved operational status that were larger than the AG600. Examples includes Martin Mars, Shorts Shetland, BV 222.

The America Martin Seamaster, and soviet Beriev A-40 were jet powered flying boats that were also much heavier, longer, and far faster. Their wing spans were less because they had swept wings for high speed.

Well is this true? It is fast
World
China-built amphibious aircraft takes maiden flight - Xinhua
Reuters 1 hour 55 minutes ago

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's domestically developed AG600, the world's largest amphibious aircraft, took its maiden flight ahead of schedule on Saturday from the southern city of Zhuhai, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

The AG600 was designed to extinguish forest fires and carry out rescue missions at sea, Xinhua said on Saturday, adding that it could also "be used to monitor and protect the ocean."

The seaplane's maiden flight comes amid China's increasing assertiveness to its territorial claims in the disputed South China Sea where it is building airfields and deploying military equipment, rattling nerves in the Asia-Pacific region and the United States.

China is in the midst of a massive military modernisation programme, ranging from testing anti-satellite missiles to building stealth fighters and the country's first indigenous aircraft carrier, to add to an existing one bought from Ukraine.

Xinhua initially reported in March that the AG600 would take its maiden flight in late May.

(Reporting by Sue-Lin Wong; Editing by Ros Russell)

Hendrik_2000 said:

Well is this true? It is fast

Click to expand...

I think something got lost in translation and the taxiing test somehow turned into a flight test.
Xinhua called it a "glide test" (), is this a valid aeronautical term ?
To me this seems like it might be a mistranslation of a chinese phrase for the taxiing test that would then be interpreted as a flight test.

schenkus said:

I think something got lost in translation and the taxiing test somehow turned into a flight test.
Xinhua called it a "glide test" (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), is this a valid aeronautical term ?
To me this seems like it might be a mistranslation of a chinese phrase for the taxiing test that would then be interpreted as a flight test.

Click to expand...

Can confirm, "滑翔" can mean either gliding or taxiing. Definitely mistranslated by Xinhua.

schenkus said:

I think something got lost in translation and the taxiing test somehow turned into a flight test.
Xinhua called it a "glide test" (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), is this a valid aeronautical term ?
To me this seems like it might be a mistranslation of a chinese phrase for the taxiing test that would then be interpreted as a flight test.

Click to expand...

It is not unheard of for a new aircraft undergoing high speed taxi tests prior to the first scheduled test flight to accidentally become airborne, thus prempting the scheduled first flight.

Richard Santos said:

It is not unheard of for a new aircraft undergoing high speed taxi tests prior to the first scheduled test flight to accidentally become airborne, thus prempting the scheduled first flight.

Click to expand...

I would think that the engine will immediately be powered down and the aircraft will come back down on the runway. Unless it runs out of runway, but I doubt so.