China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

J

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Regarding engines, I think there are three available choices for the Y-50:

1. High-bypass version of the WS-15 engine;
2. Enlarged version of the WS-20 engine; or
3. CJ-2000 engine adopted from the civilian version.

For #3 would be rather direct. For instance, the C-5M are using the same CF-6 engines as the 767, A300, A310 and MD-11. So I don't really see any problem with using CJ-2000 on both the C929 and Y-50 (depending which one is ready first).

For #1, WS-20 is a close-to-ready product, so it would be easier to start deviving a larger version from it. For #2, meanwhile, we might have to wait for quite some time, since the initial low-bypass version of WS-15 is still undergoing testing.
Click to expand...

Actually, for China's case, the CJ-2000 might be the least favorable choice out of the three. CJ-2000, I believe, is primarily for the C-929, which is a commercial product. You don't want to give the US an excuse to ban your product, based on the allegation of "military application". In fact, as I understood, based on a few of Shilao's podcast, Chinese leadership is reluctant to showcase new satellite guided weapons on major news like the CCTV7, precisely because it will complicate international community's perception of the Beidou Navigation system.

From the same logic, I think your listed option #1 and #2 are perhaps better choices, in the eyes of Chinese decision makers.
 
T

tonyget

Senior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
A more suitable target for referring the 747F would be the C929F, but even that would prove to be a stretch, considering airlines today (both passenger and cargo) prefers twin-engined planes over three- and four-engined planes for fuel efficiency and easier maintenance. 767F, 777F, A330F and A350F would be better choices for C929F's reference.
Click to expand...

Higher fuel efficiency = longer cruise range

I don't see anything wrong with this direction
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
tonyget said:
Higher fuel efficiency = longer cruise range

I don't see anything wrong with this direction
Click to expand...
You mean WRT the Y-50 or the C929F?

Jingle Bells said:
Actually, for China's case, the CJ-2000 might be the least favorable choice out of the three. CJ-2000, I believe, is primarily for the C-929, which is a commercial product. You don't want to give the US an excuse to ban your product, based on the allegation of "military application". In fact, as I understood, based on a few of Shilao's podcast, Chinese leadership is reluctant to showcase new satellite guided weapons on major news like the CCTV7, precisely because it will complicate international community's perception of the Beidou Navigation system.

From the same logic, I think your listed option #1 and #2 are perhaps better choices, in the eyes of Chinese decision makers.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose that's the limitation that China has to work with, as long as the West isn't yet largely displaced from their throne of the global civilization.
 
J

Jingle Bells

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
You mean WRT the Y-50 or the C929F?


Well, I suppose that's the limitation that China has to work with, as long as the West isn't yet largely displaced from their throne of the global civilization.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has to do with that. Chinese aviation industry is in a very different place as when the US developed the C-5. The US's goal was to save resources, in order to make competition with the USSR in the military tech field, and the competition with the then rising European civil aviation industry less costly. China is in a very different place, as it is both trying to catch up with military technology, and to facilitate a steady rise of it civil aviation industry. Those are two different strategic phases in development. In simpler words, the US were the "defending champion" back when C-5 were being introduced, Chinese today is a rising new star. So both need to be cautious, but in very different ways.
 
sunnymaxi

sunnymaxi

Major
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Although, sadly, China does not own any An-124 for detailed study,
Click to expand...
Yang Wei, J-20 chief designer said. now we are in the free roam phase of weapon design. we can build whatever we want.

study AN-124 or study AN-225. absolutely no need. China reached at certain point, where they can design and produce any type of machines.

ACuriousPLAFan said:
Right after the An-225 was destroyed by Russian missile strikes at Hostomel in late February 2023, recall that someone on the Chinese socmed mentioned of an aviation component salvage(?) and recycling(?) company that was set up in Shanghai in early March 2022?

Those who posted about this claimed that the company is going to retrieve An-225's wreckage from Ukraine for "recycling and disposal purposes" in China. Now, I wonder how that went.
Click to expand...
i also heard those rumors. but so far no authentic news.

Antonov once said, we have lost AN-225 major chunk of work. we have only few drawings and some documents left.

one Ukraine based media news outlet break this news in 2016, Antonov already shared all AN-225 drawings with AVIC. China get what they wanted. again can't confirm this news.

ACuriousPLAFan said:
Regarding engines for the Y-50, I think there are three viable choices:

1. High-bypass ratio version of the WS-15 engine;
2. Enlarged version of the WS-20 engine; or
3. Adopting the CJ-2000 engine from the civilian version.

For #3, it would be pretty direct. For instance, the C-5M are using the same CF-6 engines as the 767, A300, A310 and MD-11. So I don't really see any problem with using CJ-2000 on both the C929 and Y-50 (depending which one is ready first).

For #1, WS-20 is a close-to-ready product, so it would be easier to start deviving a larger version from it. For #2, meanwhile, we might have to wait for quite some time, since the initial low-bypass ratio WS-15 is still undergoing testing at this time.
Click to expand...
bro all options are interesting.

CJ-2000 will be ready only in 2030.

WS-15 core is heavy so Shenyang can definitely derive high bypass engine from WS-15's core.

basically Y-50 will be build on Y-20 foundations. same suppliers for subsystems/parts. so cost will be less this time. you just building Enlarged version of Y-20.
 
R

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
Jingle Bells said:
Actually, for China's case, the CJ-2000 might be the least favorable choice out of the three. CJ-2000, I believe, is primarily for the C-929, which is a commercial product. You don't want to give the US an excuse to ban your product, based on the allegation of "military application". In fact, as I understood, based on a few of Shilao's podcast, Chinese leadership is reluctant to showcase new satellite guided weapons on major news like the CCTV7, precisely because it will complicate international community's perception of the Beidou Navigation system.

From the same logic, I think your listed option #1 and #2 are perhaps better choices, in the eyes of Chinese decision makers.
Click to expand...
If sanctions are what concerns them, they will need to spin the engine into a new version called WS-21 or something, using the same concept. Maybe optimize for the Y-50. Actually, the sanctions do not have anything to do with military civilian use. TikTok was threatened with sanctions. The most effective sanctions on Wawei was not their communication side, but the cell phone side which was mainly civilian used. There is no need for an excuse. As long as someone inside the U.S.(in this case Apple), see you as a threat, that is enough. However, the C919 was not sanctioned because Boeing still is selling a lot of planes to China. I don't expect using the CJ-2000 will draw sanctions for the reason that Boeing will lobby to prevent it.
 
by78

by78

General
Transporting a HQ-22 SAM TEL.

52633452638_8642f7333d_k.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top