Chinese Aviation Industry

A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Though, if (or more like once) the Y-30 becomes an actual thing, it will succeed the Y-9, and not fit in between the Y-9 and Y-20. In principle, we don't expect the Y-30 to be significantly way bigger than the Y-9 to warrant a seperate airlifter category of its own.
Click to expand...

If we don't expect Y-30 to be significantly way bigger could it be designed to have only two bigger engines, maybe jet ?

Hard to replace the Y-9 if it's doing his job with a comparable aircraft.. would be better to put better engine in Y-9 at this rate. So many young systems are build around that airframe.

And If Y-30 is a bigger aircraft using 4 bigger engines, it's filling other shoes... Y-20 is not that far from that. There's a Y-7 replacement coming along to fill the lower end of Y-9 usage while the Y-30 would fill the upper end ?
 
L

luncheonham

New Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
That's true.

Though, we could be reaching (if not already) the ultimate limits of the Y-9 (considering the Y-9's lineage, which can be traced all the way back to the An-12 from the mid-Cold War). Hence, a much better, more capable and clean-sheet design will eventually be needed.

Important for sure, though may not be as urgent as replacing the Il-76s and expanding the large airlifter fleet in the PLAAF with Y-20s.



Depends.

Though, if (or more like once) the Y-30 becomes an actual thing, it will succeed the Y-9, and not fit in between the Y-9 and Y-20. In principle, we don't expect the Y-30 to be significantly way bigger than the Y-9 to warrant a seperate airlifter category of its own.
Click to expand...
PRC need both AN-22 type transport and a "Super Guppy" type transport.
 
L

luncheonham

New Member
Registered Member
Deino said:
For what? None of them would be - even more so with props - useful in modern aerial warfare or the transportation role against a true heavy weight transport
Click to expand...
It'll be utilize for both civilian and military purposes. For Humanitarian missions to transporting large volume object ala "Super Guppy".
 
G

GiantPanda

Junior Member
Registered Member
Perhaps we to establish what exactly is the Y-30. From what I read, it was always proposed as a larger transport that can play role between the Y-9 and Y-20.

The base lift capacity are these:

1) Y-9 : ~25K KG
2) A400M: ~37K KG
3) Y-20: ~60-66K KG (higher end with WS-20)

I used the A400M because that the aircraft I hear most often cited when I come across Y-30 news. I have never seen Y-30 cited as a replacement for the Y-9 so the articles calling it a new air lifter for a new role that matches the A400 specs seem logical. The gap between 25K and 60/66K is pretty substantial and makes sense to create a new type to fill it.

But for this to work practically you need a much more powerful engine than the AEP500 to differentiate from any uprated, updated Y-9.

I have not seen any engine development towards such an engine. Maybe one can be developed from the AEP500. But I think it still needs to be a new engine. Just like the CJ-2000 is a different engine from the CJ-1000. The thrust differences are too great.
 
T

THX 1138

Junior Member
Registered Member
The U.S. Military has settled on operating only 3 tiers of air lifters

Airlifter​
Max Payload​
In Service (approx)​
C-130​
19,000 kg​
270​
C-17​
77,500 kg​
222​
C-5​
127,500 kg​
52​

They could've added something that sits between the C-130 and C-17, but chose not to. At least not in any appreciable numbers. It's probably because the benefits of such an airlifter wasn't enough to justify the added logistics cost of maintaining another model.

I'm guessing the PLA has already reached the same conclusion. The Y-9 is their C-130, and the Y-20 is their C-17. The lack of progress on the Y-30 tells me the PLA is not enthusiastic about it. From what I understand, the Y-30 is a proposal by Xi'an Shaanxi, and not something the PLA requested. If it ever gets built, it'll probably be just for the export market.

Replacing the Y-9 with Y-30 doesn't make sense either. The C-130 remains one of the most popular airlifters around the world because it hits a sweet spot for size and efficiency. Many new C-130 variants have been introduced since its introduction in the 1950s. But the U.S. has resisted the urge to needlessly upsize it.
 
Last edited:
L

luncheonham

New Member
Registered Member
THX 1138 said:
The U.S. Military has settled on operating only 3 tiers of air lifters

Airlifter​
Max Payload​
In Service (approx)​
C-130​
19,000 kg​
270​
C-17​
77,500 kg​
222​
C-5​
127,500 kg​
52​

They could've added something that sits between the C-130 and C-17, but chose not to. At least not in any appreciable numbers. It's probably because the benefits of such an airlifter wasn't enough to justify the added logistics cost of maintaining another model.

I'm guessing the PLA has already reached the same conclusion. The Y-9 is their C-130, and the Y-20 is their C-17. The lack of progress on the Y-30 tells me the PLA is not enthusiastic about it. From what I understand, the Y-30 is a proposal by Xi'an Shaanxi, and not something the PLA requested. If it ever gets built, it'll probably be just for the export market.

Replacing the Y-9 with Y-30 doesn't make sense either. The C-130 remains one of the most popular airlifters around the world because it hits a sweet spot for size and efficiency. Many new C-130 variants have been introduced since its introduction in the 1950s. But the U.S. has resisted the urge to needlessly up
Click to expand...

THX 1138 said:
The U.S. Military has settled on operating only 3 tiers of air lifters

Airlifter​
Max Payload​
In Service (approx)​
C-130​
19,000 kg​
270​
C-17​
77,500 kg​
222​
C-5​
127,500 kg​
52​

They could've added something that sits between the C-130 and C-17, but chose not to. At least not in any appreciable numbers. It's probably because the benefits of such an airlifter wasn't enough to justify the added logistics cost of maintaining another model.

I'm guessing the PLA has already reached the same conclusion. The Y-9 is their C-130, and the Y-20 is their C-17. The lack of progress on the Y-30 tells me the PLA is not enthusiastic about it. From what I understand, the Y-30 is a proposal by Xi'an Shaanxi, and not something the PLA requested. If it ever gets built, it'll probably be just for the export market.

Replacing the Y-9 with Y-30 doesn't make sense either. The C-130 remains one of the most popular airlifters around the world because it hits a sweet spot for size and efficiency. Many new C-130 variants have been introduced since its introduction in the 1950s. But the U.S. has resisted the urge to needlessly upsize it.
Click to expand...
PRC need a handful of heavy lifters (eg. C-5 / An-22) ...as the Boeing 747 cargo variant isn't capable of landing/take-off on unpaved runways.
PRC also need a couple of "Super Guppy / Beluga" to airlift oversize cargos.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
THX 1138 said:
I'm guessing the PLA has already reached the same conclusion. The Y-9 is their C-130, and the Y-20 is their C-17. The lack of progress on the Y-30 tells me the PLA is not enthusiastic about it. From what I understand, the Y-30 is a proposal by Xi'an Shaanxi, and not something the PLA requested. If it ever gets built, it'll probably be just for the export market.

Replacing the Y-9 with Y-30 doesn't make sense either. The C-130 remains one of the most popular airlifters around the world because it hits a sweet spot for size and efficiency. Many new C-130 variants have been introduced since its introduction in the 1950s. But the U.S. has resisted the urge to needlessly upsize it.
Click to expand...
Y-8/9’s design has lots of issues: wings too small, de-icing system suck, etc,
 
P

pesoleati

New Member
Registered Member
THX 1138 said:
The U.S. Military has settled on operating only 3 tiers of air lifters

Airlifter​
Max Payload​
In Service (approx)​
C-130​
19,000 kg​
270​
C-17​
77,500 kg​
222​
C-5​
127,500 kg​
52​

They could've added something that sits between the C-130 and C-17, but chose not to. At least not in any appreciable numbers. It's probably because the benefits of such an airlifter wasn't enough to justify the added logistics cost of maintaining another model.

I'm guessing the PLA has already reached the same conclusion. The Y-9 is their C-130, and the Y-20 is their C-17. The lack of progress on the Y-30 tells me the PLA is not enthusiastic about it. From what I understand, the Y-30 is a proposal by Xi'an Shaanxi, and not something the PLA requested. If it ever gets built, it'll probably be just for the export market.

Replacing the Y-9 with Y-30 doesn't make sense either. The C-130 remains one of the most popular airlifters around the world because it hits a sweet spot for size and efficiency. Many new C-130 variants have been introduced since its introduction in the 1950s. But the U.S. has resisted the urge to needlessly upsize it.
Click to expand...


I question the conclusion drawn here on why US still using C130. It is no longer hitting the sweet spot as the size and weight of the typical cargo has changed comparing when C130 was the sweet spot. US is still using it because the supplier got them.

US may not be that golden standard!

30T class tactical transporter make perfect sense now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top