Y20 thread

[Levsha]

I don't think the the focus of the either the Il-476 or Y-20 are foreign sales, it's not a category of aircraft that sets the market on fire. How many foreign sales have there been of the Il-76 and C-17 in the last 10 years. The focus is on fulfilling the immediate needs of the Russian and Chinese military I should think.

[Trident]

Russians are betting they will be a critical 3-4 years quicker to market.

A pretty daring bet, considering how the project managed to accumulate several years of delays before it even flew, despite being a so-called 'established type' (which it is in terms of performance, but not certification). This may have been the original plan, but I doubt it is still feasible now.

There is huge lead. The Il-476 flight program will be much quicker owing to it being an established type and it will be reengined with PD-14's much faster than the Y-20 will get CJ-1000A's.

Again, commonality (such as it is) with the Il-76 did not result in particularly smooth and quick progress to date, so it seems a bit optimistic to expect this to change in the coming programme phases. As you say, engines remain an Achilles Heel for the Y-20, but its likely superior aerodynamics will go a long way toward compensating - new engines on the Il-476 will always be lipstick on a pig. From the outset, the Y-20 will be hot on its heels and sooner or later it will end up being superior - the question is not if, but when.

Huge lead? I don't think so!

The logic works like this. With D-30's its not outperforming the Il-476 so nothing to worry about.

With better aerodynamics it will already come pretty close to matching it though, so 'nothing to worry about' is a bit complacent, like Boeing saying the A320NEO was nothing to worry about (we all know how that ended).

The Il-476 itself will be reengined for PD-14's by 2017-18. The Chinese dont expect series production of the CJ-100A until 2020! The PD-14 is much further along. Figure 2 more years to reengine the type for the engine which takes you to 2022 and that's optimistic. The PD-14 engined Il-476 will hit the market at least 3-4 years sooner which given the age of the outstanding commercial Il-76 fleets will be right at the time when their operators will be getting most desperate for replacements. By the time the Y-20 becomes competitive they should have the Il-76 operators all sown up with new contracts.

Two issues with this rose-tinted vision:

1. What about the An-70? If it is not interfered with (production delayed, funding cut, inferior financing offered etc.) it should take a decent slice of that market. Similarly, for military operators with relatively deep pockets (say, Algeria) the A400M is very much a realistic option - and the Il-476 is no match for either of them.

2. There is NO reliable info on China's engine development schedule, so all of your above considerations could turn out to be founded on hot air.

Nonetheless, yes - propulsion will likely remain a disadvantage for some time, but as I said the Y-20 will probably be able to give competitive performance even with somewhat inferior engines.

That's a bit disingenuous - saying that the Il-476 is 'only' 4 months older than the Y-20 ....

The Il-476 has years of operational history behind it - and has had lots of time to iron all the bugs out - it's a mature design.

A mature design does not require a repeat of full scale static structural testing and does not rack up several years of delays (it was originally supposed to enter service last year, a milestone it will not now reach before 2014).

I'm not saying that the Y-20 isn't a fantastic achievement - but it is only at the start of a long journey from first flight to operational service - something that the Il-76/476 has had under its belt for years.

As far as performance goes writing Il-76(TD-90)/476 is indeed perfectly accurate, but in terms of testing effort required for certification it is almost a new aircraft. That's precisely why it is such an ill-conceived project - it incurs most of the cost and time disadvantages of a clean-sheet development but offers practically none of the performance benefits in return.

It's a procurement blunder on the scale of the Nimrod MRA4 and similar Western mistakes - only you don't hear about it because it's Russian, so the Western press is neither interested nor competent.

[Trident]

I don't think the the focus of the either the Il-476 or Y-20 are foreign sales, it's not a category of aircraft that sets the market on fire. How many foreign sales have there been of the Il-76 and C-17 in the last 10 years. The focus is on fulfilling the immediate needs of the Russian and Chinese military I should think.

Fair enough in the case of the Y-20, still doesn't explain the Il-476 though. If you have access to a combination of An-124s and An-70s (which Russia did, if only the political will existed) there isn't really a niche left for the Il-476. While on paper it does sit in the payload gap between the two Antonovs, its obsolete design makes it too inefficient to justify its considerable development cost over occasionally flying An-124s half empty or An-70s with a stopover for fuel.

[Roovialk]

I think taking into account that You only have 3 posts I suggest You to think about ... otherwise if You would be a long-time member with a certain altitude someone could easily misunderstand this stupid remark as a simple atte,pt to troll !

Deino

Do you want to call me "stupid" for asking a simple question? All I asked was what yardstick is being used to consider the Y-20 such a remarkable achievement? How many posts do I need to ask such a question? I have seen you on other boards and your direction is clearly understood. That being said if you want to brand my question as "stupid" I say that it is uncalled for. I showed you nor this board any disrespect in asking this question.

[Sheogorath]

I find the similarities between the Y-20 and C-17/C-2 empenage to be quite...curious...

[mack8]

A-400M's is about the same. And that new russian-indian MTA project seems it has the empennage quite similar too, same for KC-390. So what if they look like the one on C-17?

[Devils Advocate]

I read someone post how the empennage on the Y-20 when it first came out was a sign of poor overall aerodynamic design. What does that say of the C-17 then?

[latenlazy]

Do you want to call me "stupid" for asking a simple question? All I asked was what yardstick is being used to consider the Y-20 such a remarkable achievement? How many posts do I need to ask such a question? I have seen you on other boards and your direction is clearly understood. That being said if you want to brand my question as "stupid" I say that it is uncalled for. I showed you nor this board any disrespect in asking this question.

The Y-20 is a remarkable achievement given the state of China's aerospace industry 20 years ago, when it was inconceivable that they could put something in the air weighing more than 100 tons. It's also a remarkable achievement because it fills a critical gap in the PLA's logistical capabilities. For a country as large as China, with its military needs and aspirations, having heavy lift capability is vital, and it's far better to depend on your own indigenous design to supply that need than to depend on another country. Finally, being able to demonstrate that they can design their own heavy weight aircraft opens potentia doors in commercial aviation.

[J-31 Penguin]

It's also remarkable for the sheer number of projects that Chinese have going on. Stealth fighter, carrier borne fighter, another stealth fighter, UAVs, MPAs and now a large military transport. It's as if somebody in Beijing has a list for everything a first rate aviation power needs to have and they just work down that list, methodically ticking off all those boxes.

A-400M's is about the same. And that new russian-indian MTA project seems it has the empennage quite similar too, same for KC-390. So what if they look like the one on C-17?

Because it's obviously a c***. There, I said it.

[Blitzo]

It's also remarkable for the sheer number of projects that Chinese have going on. Stealth fighter, carrier borne fighter, another stealth fighter, UAVs, MPAs and now a large military transport. It's as if somebody in Beijing has a list for everything a first rate aviation power needs to have and they just work down that list, methodically ticking off all those boxes.




Because it's obviously a c***. There, I said it.

Somewhere down the line there has to be "stealth bomber"...

A strategic bomber seems a while away, if we're lucky we might have "long range stealth striker" though.

[Roovialk]

The Y-20 is a remarkable achievement given the state of China's aerospace industry 20 years ago, when it was inconceivable that they could put something in the air weighing more than 100 tons. It's also a remarkable achievement because it fills a critical gap in the PLA's logistical capabilities. For a country as large as China, with its military needs and aspirations, having heavy lift capability is vital, and it's far better to depend on your own indigenous design to supply that need than to depend on another country. Finally, being able to demonstrate that they can design their own heavy weight aircraft opens potentia doors in commercial aviation.

Okay. I figured that the yardstick was internal

[foxmulder]

Okay. I figured that the yardstick was internal

Not really. It is pretty much universal.

[thinkplum]

It's also remarkable for the sheer number of projects that Chinese have going on. Stealth fighter, carrier borne fighter, another stealth fighter, UAVs, MPAs and now a large military transport. It's as if somebody in Beijing has a list for everything a first rate aviation power needs to have and they just work down that list, methodically ticking off all those boxes.

Disclosure policies of the millitary have greatly changed since the unveiling of J-10, when they recognized such projects cant be kept secrects anymore simply because of the internet and simply no need to be shy anymore.

[thinkplum]

I find the similarities between the Y-20 and C-17/C-2 empenage to be quite...curious...

I dont want to play my Chinese conspiracy theory here,but:

1)Chinese domestic airliner Y10 project was cancelled due to Amercan offer to produce MD-82 under Sino-US partnership.
2)MD-82 is a product of McDonnell-Douglas
3)McDonnell-Douglas is the chosen contractor for C-X project which resulted in C-17 globalmaster.
4)try comparing the tails

[Bager1968]

I suppose there is some degree of resemblance... but there are only so many ways to engineer a "T-tail", and the British & German commercial T-tail designs were also similar.

[Sheogorath]

I suppose there is some degree of resemblance... but there are only so many ways to engineer a "T-tail", and the British & German commercial T-tail designs were also similar.

A-400M's is about the same. And that new russian-indian MTA project seems it has the empennage quite similar too, same for KC-390. So what if they look like the one on C-17?

As mentioned by thinkplum, I wasn't referring to the T-tail layout itself, but the shape of the horizontal stab, the shape of the fairing behind the horizontal stab, overall shape of the vertical stab and even more importantly, the double slotted rudder.

[Deino]

Somewhere down the line there has to be "stealth bomber"...

A strategic bomber seems a while away, if we're lucky we might have "long range stealth striker" though.

[Flanker_man]

A strategic bomber seems a while away, if we're lucky we might have "long range stealth striker" though.

It was on display at the Xiaotangshan museum in 2010......





Ken

[Deino]

[Bager1968]

Over on PPRuNe, there has been some "concern" expressed about the amount of flexing in the vertical tail after landing in the video. Anyone here notice that?

[Blitzo]

Over on PPRuNe, there has been some "concern" expressed about the amount of flexing in the vertical tail after landing in the video. Anyone here notice that?

C-17 features it too, fairly standard occurrence on harder landings and when thrust reversers are used.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q7NIa2ItL8

[Devils Advocate]

I was just about to post that video.

Here's another at an airport. You don't see it as it touches the ground because the camera doesn't catch it but as it rolls down the runway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRKgBaz9HJM

[Bager1968]

So it's just showing the ground it is friendly by wiggling its tail?

[Schorsch]

I suppose there is some degree of resemblance... but there are only so many ways to engineer a "T-tail", and the British & German commercial T-tail designs were also similar.

Right so. Still the Chinese apparently encountered very similar problems. The VTP is also quite large.

For a country as large as China, with its military needs and aspirations, having heavy lift capability is vital, and it's far better to depend on your own indigenous design to supply that need than to depend on another country.

Why?
China could by any Russian type and have it in 2 years. The Y-20 will need probably 6 years or more to EIS.

Fair enough in the case of the Y-20, still doesn't explain the Il-476 though. If you have access to a combination of An-124s and An-70s (which Russia did, if only the political will existed) there isn't really a niche left for the Il-476. While on paper it does sit in the payload gap between the two Antonovs, its obsolete design makes it too inefficient to justify its considerable development cost over occasionally flying An-124s half empty or An-70s with a stopover for fuel.

And why don't the Russians push the development? There seems to be something sour. The AN-70 is sold to me as being "ready" for production. But the shear lack of orders from the now quite solvent Russia makes me think there is something not working.

With better aerodynamics it will already come pretty close to matching it though, so 'nothing to worry about' is a bit complacent, like Boeing saying the A320NEO was nothing to worry about (we all know how that ended).

What is so aerodynamically advanced on the Y-20? Better wing profile helps drag at design Mach number. Apart from that, I can't see a big improvement.

Nonetheless, yes - propulsion will likely remain a disadvantage for some time, but as I said the Y-20 will probably be able to give competitive performance even with somewhat inferior engines.

I think the Y-20 will be severely MTOW-limited until it gets a new engine. Basically useless. This indicates that the Chinese aiming at a rather long test campaign.

[Deino]

Why?
China could by any Russian type and have it in 2 years. The Y-20 will need probably 6 years or more to EIS.

At what price ??? An even longer dependence, most likely again the same problems with deliveries, cost, .... see several other similar contracts or the already done Il-76/-78 contract some years ago.

What is so aerodynamically advanced on the Y-20? Better wing profile helps drag at design Mach number. Apart from that, I can't see a big improvement.

Even if my layman-eya can't judge that like You, but is that necessary to be a revolulionary design ?? Like I said I probably can't decide if the aerodynamics are much more advanced or only 'on par', but actuall I can't think of performances lower or worse than the Il-76MD.

I think the Y-20 will be severely MTOW-limited until it gets a new engine. Basically useless. This indicates that the Chinese aiming at a rather long test campaign.

Yes, but again, why means limited = "basically useless" ?? Especially if it offeres similar or only slightly better - as You say - performances even with the interim engines and only slightly improved airframe. Anyway I can't think of lower performance in comparison to the standard Il-76MD, especially since it uses the same engines ...

IMO the most important aspect is the wider fuselage ...

Deino

[Trident]

Why?
China could by any Russian type and have it in 2 years. The Y-20 will need probably 6 years or more to EIS.

Not the case - certainly not the Il-76 and everything else is pretty much made by Antonov (An-124? Production line exists, but is inactive. An-70? No large scale production line available). Not for lack of effort though, they've been trying to acquire up to 40 new Il-76s since 2005, but have now settled for 10 used ones in the interim - that's just how incapable Russia is of fulfilling orders. Production at TAPO in Uzbekistan has all but broken down the late-1990s, which combined with the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (which made the An-70 politically untenable) led Russia to move production to their own territory - the Il-476.

Trouble is, they apparently miscalculated in some way, despite the fact that the Il-476 is little more than a Il-76TD-90 with a strengthened wing and further modernised avionics, it has accumulated 2 years of delays already. Perhaps the final assembly line was not actually the only problem in the supply chain, maybe they underestimated the effort required for one or more of the changes they planned to introduce - no idea.

And why don't the Russians push the development? There seems to be something sour. The AN-70 is sold to me as being "ready" for production. But the shear lack of orders from the now quite solvent Russia makes me think there is something not working.

There is something sour, and it's politics. Not long ago the An-70 was effectively dead, with Russia having pulled the plug completely in favour of the wholly domestic Il-476 - which, despite its inadequacy, appears to have gained a fairly powerful lobby in the meantime. If the An-70 was a lost cause, fundamentally flawed or at least facing very serious technical hurdles - why would Russia perform the blatant and rather embarrassing about-face of ordering it again?

Many high-ranking people in the Russian aerospace industry probably have little interest in allowing the An-70 to poach Il-476 orders, and many military and political figures will likely be reluctant to be seen reversing their own decisions. Support is likely nowhere near as generous as Russia could theoretically muster or as would be desirable, because there are parties trying to work against it.

What is so aerodynamically advanced on the Y-20? Better wing profile helps drag at design Mach number. Apart from that, I can't see a big improvement.

What more does it need (or more to the point, what more could there even be)? Should be plenty to have a noticeable impact, accounting for engine differences. Though not aerodynamics-related, there's also the bigger cargo hold cross section, which makes the Y-20 far more practical than the Il-76 in real world operations.

I think the Y-20 will be severely MTOW-limited until it gets a new engine. Basically useless. This indicates that the Chinese aiming at a rather long test campaign.

Depends - the basic Il-76 is a useful machine and does not gain a great deal of MTOW with PS-90 engines, not even in new-built, structurally strengthened form (Il-476 MTOW increase is little more than 10%).

You should look into the political side of the Il-476/An-70 story a bit more - it's actually quite fascinating and very instructive if you believe procurement disasters are an exclusively Western problem - a classic case of Sydney Camm's fourth dimension!

[thinkplum]

So it's just showing the ground it is friendly by wiggling its tail?

also, i am guessing the tail uses composite material. it is painted differently and airbuses & boeings use composite material tails because they handle less presure in the air.

u know, composite materials are basicly...plastic.

[Schorsch]

At what price ??? An even longer dependence, most likely again the same problems with deliveries, cost, .... see several other similar contracts or the already done Il-76/-78 contract some years ago.

All large tactical/strategic transports have one thing in common: they came out much more expensive than expected. I don't think the Chinese version will be any different, especially as many solutions are new for the Chinese.

Even if my layman-eya can't judge that like You, but is that necessary to be a revolulionary design ?? Like I said I probably can't decide if the aerodynamics are much more advanced or only 'on par', but actuall I can't think of performances lower or worse than the Il-76MD.

No, it doesn't have to. It needs to do a job. Aerodynamics are just a tool. I just don't like this bla-bla or "aerodynamically advanced" without knowing what that practically means. Military transports are by definition no efficient cruise aircraft, and each meter less field length costs a nautical mile range (at constant MTOW).,

Yes, but again, why means limited = "basically useless" ?? Especially if it offeres similar or only slightly better - as You say - performances even with the interim engines and only slightly improved airframe. Anyway I can't think of lower performance in comparison to the standard Il-76MD, especially since it uses the same engines ...

If the margin between MTOW and OEW is so limited that you can only carry 20t, it becomes basically useless. But we neither know MTOW or OEW, but one can make an educated guess ...

IMO the most important aspect is the wider fuselage ...

Yes, but a wide fuselage is expensive. See A400M, which compromised towards a smaller fuselage. Only few payload demand a C-17, and most of the time an aircraft flies palettes.

Not the case - certainly not the Il-76 and everything else is pretty much made by Antonov (An-124? Production line exists, but is inactive. An-70? No large scale production line available). Not for lack of effort though, they've been trying to acquire up to 40 new Il-76s since 2005, but have now settled for 10 used ones in the interim - that's just how incapable Russia is of fulfilling orders. Production at TAPO in Uzbekistan has all but broken down the late-1990s, which combined with the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (which made the An-70 politically untenable) led Russia to move production to their own territory - the Il-476.

Do not underestimate the time required for the Y-20 to go into production. Chinese track record is not that stellar in this respect.
Is the ARJ-21 in service? > No.
Has flown when? > 2008
But it is ... ? > ... essentially a DC-9 with new wing.
So, 5 years, and that is without changing the engine half way in the test phase. The Chinese aim at a very long development schedule.

Depends - the basic Il-76 is a useful machine and does not gain a great deal of MTOW with PS-90 engines, not even in new-built, structurally strengthened form (Il-476 MTOW increase is little more than 10%).

And this MTOW-increase more or less cancels out the OEW increase. but staring at MTOW is no useful way of determing capability.

The new engines reduce fuel burn and take-off run.
So the aircraft can get out of restricted fields with more MTOW and fly further on the same MTOW. Depending on the actual payload and field, the IL76-PS90 can dramatically improve performance, and make missions possible that have been off limits with the old engines. Further, the PS90 should be less restricted in hot&high conditions.

For the time being the Y-20 is stuck with an interim engine, but more or less the OEW of the "final version". I doubt strongly that the Chinese even intend to put it into service before the new engine is fitted. And if, rather as pubilicity stunt than due to true capability.

[Deino]

...
If the margin between MTOW and OEW is so limited that you can only carry 20t, it becomes basically useless. But we neither know MTOW or OEW, but one can make an educated guess ...

But just one question ... why do You expect the capacity of only 25 t ??? It uses the same engines like the Il-76MD, it has a "similar, maybe not much improved or more modern aerodynamics" ... so why s´do You expect it to fall so low in comparison to the Candid ?

Deino

[Schorsch]

But just one question ... why do You expect the capacity of only 25 t ??? It uses the same engines like the Il-76MD, it has a "similar, maybe not much improved or more modern aerodynamics" ... so why s´do You expect it to fall so low in comparison to the Candid ?

Deino

Empty mass estimation.