China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

CMFDan

New Member
Registered Member
What you said already came to pass in a way. An-124 and even 225 was delivering PPE supplies all over the world last year.

But as pointed out before, this is just more efficient than using 2 Y-20’s, not really an increase in capability. PLA was fine with flying Y-20 round the clock in Wuhan. All other times, you’d prefer having more Y-20 going to different places.

In terms of self-reliance, then you are suggesting to do mostly domestic operations which makes the case for such a plane even less sensible. The government can easily marshal up road and rail resources which can help increase capacity as well. Again, this was going on in Wuhan last year.
Not meant for the PLAAF. For Civilian aeronautics. And why rent or charter ... when you can be Self-reliant with your own "An-22" or a "Super Guppy".
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
That is substantial improvement before Y20 come in service the total PLAAF transport is only 30 IL-76 including MD variant That is 80 % addition Still not enough they need to produce at least 100-200 Y20 to be in ball park of US transport fleet
Yeah, US has a head start engaging in various wars. China will catch up.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Not meant for the PLAAF. For Civilian aeronautics. And why rent or charter ... when you can be Self-reliant with your own "An-22" or a "Super Guppy".
I’m going to preface this by saying this will be getting into the realm of off topic then and might be better served in the civilian aviation industry thread.

However, I am interested in the topic and would like to learn more myself.

My amateur opinion... For civil applications, it’s really tough to justify XL sized planes, look at the failure of the A380. The huge population of Asia was supposed to be the ideal market, but it just didn’t work out that way in practice. On the cargo side, it’s significantly cheaper to get used 747 or 767 than a whole new plane. The efficiency of a larger plane simply can’t match the savings in up front capital cost. Even from the military standpoint, there was a desire for Boeing to keep building C-17 (though not enough firm orders), but no one is saying more C-5’s are needed.

If you think of it this way, self reliance is not simply the ability to do everything yourself. There is also economic self reliance and whether the cost is justified or you could be better off spending that money elsewhere.

Going back to the military side now. Right now it is more critical to spend the money in getting WS-20 right, and CJ-1000 off the ground. These have more practical and immediate applications, so are probably even more important from a self reliance standpoint.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
But as pointed out before, this is just more efficient than using 2 Y-20’s, not really an increase in capability. PLA was fine with flying Y-20 round the clock in Wuhan. All other times, you’d prefer having more Y-20 going to different places.

Depends on what criteria you are using. Efficient per flight a route? Certainly.

But as a whole, when considering maintenance, pilot training, service, engines etc its not that efficient if you have a token number platform . Usually having a single aircraft type is better.

So unless China has this pressing need to transport oversized cargo, I don't think a bigger aircraft would be created.
 

by78

General
Airframe #13:
50964004061_3d52fc95d8_k.jpg


20140 again in the new low-visibility markings:
50963293938_14cec76948_k.jpg
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
It appears that you are completely oblivious to a pertinent fact that many – if not most – of us here have known for a long time.
You have repeatedly posted same images of planes, ships etc [lost images], but no one complaints.
Yet when I said that this low-invisibly paint to be used for all Y-20 for commonality and ease of maintenance, you spit the dummy.
Show me when and where your pertinently had suggested what I just said....a long time ago!
 
Top