Chinese Aviation Industry

KFX

KFX

New Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
Leaving aside everything else that you've written, this particular paragraph makes it impossible for people to take anything else you've written seriously.

Suggesting that the FBW flight control system for MA700 would be relevant to H-20, is quite wild indeed.
Furthermore, it suggests that you either do not understand the FBW systems that would have been developed by the Chinese aerospace industry for a variety of contemporary military aircraft, or you do not think they are somehow relevant to H-20 -- both of which would be fairly ridiculous positions to take.

The fact that you've chosen not to retract that line of argument and if anything you seem to have doubled down on it, is understandably concerning.
Click to expand...
Parker’s work on MA700 is just a single, throwaway example of China leveraging foreign technology to build its industry.

It all comes down to people. The skills Chinese engineers gain from working on programs such as ARJ21, C919, MA700, and so forth can be transferred to other programmes – including military programmes.

If you walk through the Pudong R&D Center or XAC – and I suspect you’ve visited neither – you’ll observe dozens, if not hundreds, of engineers learning from the likes of Collins, Honeywell, GE Aviation, etc.

Did I write that the H-20’s FBW was a cut and paste job from MA700? Most definitely not. Are skills, techniques, and know how transferrable across programs? Indeed, they are.

My original point remains: Western support is essential - for now anyway - to keep China’s commercial aircraft programmes on track. This involves advantageous arrangements with Western suppliers, workforce development, espionage, and much else. This reliance is a weakness in the CCP’s vision for to develop a world class aerospace sector.

The fact that you don’t understand this is, understandably, concerning.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
KFX said:
Did I write that the H-20’s FBW was a cut and paste job from MA700? Most definitely not. Are skills, techniques, and know how transferrable across programs? Indeed, they are.
Click to expand...

What you wrote was:
"The issue with helping Comac on the C919 and Avic with the MA700 is that technology and skills will support China's military programmes. Parker Aerospace, to name just one supplier, is providing the FBW for the MA700. This kit is essential for military aircraft, namely the H-20."

You are directly linking the work that Parker Aerospace is doing for the MA700 as being "essential" for "military aircraft" and even specifying "namely the H-20".
Thereby, implying that if Parker Aerospace was not involved in doing FBW work for the MA700, that H-20 would be somehow to detriment or adversely affected.

The very idea that MA700's FBW system would be even be relevant to H-20 is quite a leap already, yet had suggest it would be essential to H-20.


KFX said:
My original point remains: Western support is essential - for now anyway - to keep China’s commercial aircraft programmes on track. This involves advantageous arrangements with Western suppliers, workforce development, espionage, and much else. This reliance is a weakness in the CCP’s vision for to develop a world class aerospace sector.

The fact that you don’t understand this is, understandably, concerning.
Click to expand...

Assuming the part that you wrote in bold is true -- you mention "commercial aircraft" specifically.

In that case, then why did you mention H-20? Is H-20 a commercial aircraft?


Are you sure you don't want to retract your previous suggestion about Parker aerospace's work on MA700 as being "essential for military aircraft, namely the H-20"?
As a member of the forum, I'm just saying, you have this opportunity to take a step back, perhaps to say it was a mistype or unintentional mistake, because if you don't take it, then it's basically going to hang over you for every post that you make here on the forum now. You'll always be known as that guy who argued that H-20 was dependent on Parker Aerospace's work on MA700.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
KFX said:
Did I write that the H-20’s FBW was a cut and paste job from MA700? Most definitely not. Are skills, techniques, and know how transferrable across programs? Indeed, they are.
Click to expand...

Well this simply isn't true for now. It may have been generally true back in the 1990s (as in some extremely small aspects of MA700 FBW know how could be applied to H-20 like a negligible amount. The fact that you don't understand how FBW works is concerning given how arrogantly you comment on it.

The proof is in the fact that Parker Aerospace is much less capable than AVIC in FBW. This is clear since Parker Aerospace has done zero sophisticated FBW compared to AVIC - J-20, Y-20, JF-17, C919, ARJ-21, numerous UAVs/UCAVs of far greater aerodynamic sophistication for FCS and FBW, and so on.

KFX said:
My original point remains: Western support is essential - for now anyway - to keep China’s commercial aircraft programmes on track. This involves advantageous arrangements with Western suppliers, workforce development, espionage, and much else. This reliance is a weakness in the CCP’s vision for to develop a world class aerospace sector.
Click to expand...

Not at all lol. It is up to you to prove to us that China requires western support in xyz. Prove it rather than claim it. All you've done is make the claim that China today still requires western support to develop the FBW for H-20 which was already laughably untrue for more difficult aircraft that China has already completed by itself which the West either does not have, has not done, is incapable of doing, or has not been involved in China's achievement.

There is no single aspect (engineers learning from Parker Aerospace LOL) of H-20 FBW that can benefit from any subcontracting manufacturing to western suppliers. This is as stupid as saying western tech company's engineers learn and benefit a lot from making things in China. You should remember that Parker Aerospace is only chosen as a supplier NOT because Chinese ones cannot make such a easy FBW for a basic aircraft but because the politics of involving a no name western supplier is required or benefits the MA700 program in whatever way be it for western certification or otherwise e.g. AVIC's own relevant engineers are working on plenty of other projects. After all, AVIC's FBW engineers are currently working on dozens of platforms from military to civilian.

We should keep in mind that AVIC's FBW engineers are masters whereas Parker Aerospace are novices in comparison. Show me which flying wing platform Parker Aerospace has developed. Have they ever created a canard fighter's FBW? What about heavy lifter? AVIC has already done all that and more.

AVIC doesn't need Parker Aerospace to develop FBW for MA700 anymore than BMW needs Dodge to help them develop an ECU.

So it is up to you to explain how H-20 engineers who have done great things already, can somehow benefit from a novice nobody doing something much simpler?
 
KFX

KFX

New Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Well this simply isn't true for now. It may have been generally true back in the 1990s (as in some extremely small aspects of MA700 FBW know how could be applied to H-20 like a negligible amount. The fact that you don't understand how FBW works is concerning given how arrogantly you comment on it.

The proof is in the fact that Parker Aerospace is much less capable than AVIC in FBW. This is clear since Parker Aerospace has done zero sophisticated FBW compared to AVIC - J-20, Y-20, JF-17, C919, ARJ-21, numerous UAVs/UCAVs of far greater aerodynamic sophistication for FCS and FBW, and so on.



Not at all lol. It is up to you to prove to us that China requires western support in xyz. Prove it rather than claim it. All you've done is make the claim that China today still requires western support to develop the FBW for H-20 which was already laughably untrue for more difficult aircraft that China has already completed by itself which the West either does not have, has not done, is incapable of doing, or has not been involved in China's achievement.

There is no single aspect (engineers learning from Parker Aerospace LOL) of H-20 FBW that can benefit from any subcontracting manufacturing to western suppliers. This is as stupid as saying western tech company's engineers learn and benefit a lot from making things in China. You should remember that Parker Aerospace is only chosen as a supplier NOT because Chinese ones cannot make such a easy FBW for a basic aircraft but because the politics of involving a no name western supplier is required or benefits the MA700 program in whatever way be it for western certification or otherwise e.g. AVIC's own relevant engineers are working on plenty of other projects. After all, AVIC's FBW engineers are currently working on dozens of platforms from military to civilian.

We should keep in mind that AVIC's FBW engineers are masters whereas Parker Aerospace are novices in comparison. Show me which flying wing platform Parker Aerospace has developed. Have they ever created a canard fighter's FBW? What about heavy lifter? AVIC has already done all that and more.

AVIC doesn't need Parker Aerospace to develop FBW for MA700 anymore than BMW needs Dodge to help them develop an ECU.

So it is up to you to explain how H-20 engineers who have done great things already, can somehow benefit from a novice nobody doing something much simpler?
Click to expand...
Sorry that you think I write "arrogantly." From now on I'll use an emoticon at the end of every sentence. :)

Honeywell produces FBW for ARJ21 and C919. :)
 
KFX

KFX

New Member
Registered Member
FBW
Bltizo said:
What you wrote was:
"The issue with helping Comac on the C919 and Avic with the MA700 is that technology and skills will support China's military programmes. Parker Aerospace, to name just one supplier, is providing the FBW for the MA700. This kit is essential for military aircraft, namely the H-20."

You are directly linking the work that Parker Aerospace is doing for the MA700 as being "essential" for "military aircraft" and even specifying "namely the H-20".
Thereby, implying that if Parker Aerospace was not involved in doing FBW work for the MA700, that H-20 would be somehow to detriment or adversely affected.

The very idea that MA700's FBW system would be even be relevant to H-20 is quite a leap already, yet had suggest it would be essential to H-20.




Assuming the part that you wrote in bold is true -- you mention "commercial aircraft" specifically.

In that case, then why did you mention H-20? Is H-20 a commercial aircraft?


Are you sure you don't want to retract your previous suggestion about Parker aerospace's work on MA700 as being "essential for military aircraft, namely the H-20"?
As a member of the forum, I'm just saying, you have this opportunity to take a step back, perhaps to say it was a mistype or unintentional mistake, because if you don't take it, then it's basically going to hang over you for every post that you make here on the forum now. You'll always be known as that guy who argued that H-20 was dependent on Parker Aerospace's work on MA700.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, being labeled "that guy" is better than some of the things I've been called in this stream.

FBW is, for the most part, a generic technology that can be applied across different aircraft. In the west, you find Dassault's FBW informing both the Rafale and the Falcon family of business jets - which are incidentally produced on the same line. Embraer's FBW for the KC-390 benefits from its experience both with E-Jets, but also Airbus programmes.

If China is so brilliant at FBW - as everyone in the forum casually assumes - then why use external suppliers for high profile civilian programmes? Parker in the case of MA700, Honeywell with ARJ21 and C919. Sure, certification is one reason, but learning is another. Moreover, Civil-Military fusion is a high priority across all industries in China, aerospace foremost.

So, in the case of XAC, there will be significant learnings from working with Parker on FBW. Given that engineering personnel in aerospace outfits tend to work across a number of programs - especially given that MA700 is a dead duck owing to its lack of engines, so not much going on there - it is entirely reasonable to assume that there is some interplay between military/civilian programmes.

Let's flip this around. How can you categorically, definitively state there is absolutely no FBW interplay whatsoever between the MA700 and H-20 programmes? Do you work in the HR office at XAC? Are you part of the H-20 FBW design team?
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
This fixation with foreign FBW for commercial airlines as some kind of mark of technological deficiency is really bizarre when we consider how much more challenging FBW for supersonic and hypersonic craft must be than for subsonic planes that spend most of their flight in a cruise profile.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
KFX said:
Sorry that you think I write "arrogantly." From now on I'll use an emoticon at the end of every sentence. :)

Honeywell produces FBW for ARJ21 and C919. :)
Click to expand...
It is not that the chinese cannot produce fly bywire for ARJ21 and C919 They have done so for much more sophisticated fighter J 20, J10 and transport aircraft Y20. But to shorten the design time they just used off the shelve product by Honeywell It is cheaper, faster and at the same time China learn about QA, QC of civilian fly by wire system. Which by now they already absorbed
So your statement that if the west embargo China, then suddenly civilian transport come to a halt is a pipe dream! They have all the blue print well the 3D file of the said component And they have the manufacturing to built those component. There is one or two part that the IP owner withheld but that can be RE in no time

It will take forever if china has to do every single component
 
P

PanzerGrenadier

Just Hatched
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
This fixation with foreign FBW for commercial airlines as some kind of mark of technological deficiency is really bizarre when we consider how much more challenging FBW for supersonic and hypersonic craft must be than for subsonic planes that spend most of their flight in a cruise profile.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you need to go there, he will just simply say that China copied from the West or the Russians. Why waste on an obvious troll?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top