Z-20 (all variants) thread
- Thread starter delft
- Start date
Let's be honest here, we all know that you choosing to use that choice of name has some negative connotations.
For all you want you could've just as suitably called it "Chinahawk" or even "Superhawk" given it is essentially a modernized and moderately enlarged Blackhawk.
So I hope you will excuse us for not accepting your choice of loaded name without any eye rolling on our behalf.
MwRYum
Major
Like I've said, there's no stopping the Yanks to splatter the "Copyhawk" all over it.
You see, if we put a baseline UH-60 model and an equally baseline Z-20 side by side, omit all insignia and stuff, park them side by side for comparison, I dare to bet with anyone here for a crisp new Benjamin, that at least 7 out of 10 the general population either can't tell the difference, or thought the Z-20 is just a derivative model of UH-60.
Hell, if in the future they'd mount gatling guns (Norinco already have them in export catalogue) on the side like the US do...those non-initiated won't be able to tell the difference either.
Remember guys, most people ain't like us, who'd tell the difference by:
1. different number of main rotor blades;
2. different tail rotor blade shape
3. tail landing gear
4. subtle yet obvious difference in fuselage shapes
I feel like mention the lack of wirecutter, lack of IR signature suppression exhaust and bigger SATCOM dome on Z-20 in the reference guide, but those ain't exactly defining feature for baseline model, aren't they?
It actually reminds me of the Dongfeng Mengshi, which has been dubbed as "Humvee clone", but that didn't stop it having a televised début special programme, which include a walkaround with camera and driving experience, and of course wide adoption by PLA in all of its branches.
In any case, I'd love to see its official début soon, and more so for it to take over from the Z-9.
antiterror13
Brigadier
You keep using "offensive" words ... you had been suspended 2 months ago ... it seems you haven't learned the lessons. Regarding your word "Copyhawk" what actually you know the definition ? you just can't judge from the external appearance. Please keep your "negative" and "offensive" opinions to yourself, we don't need it ... we are all adults and professional here
"Copy" is often nothing more than a word used by those intellectually lazy people possessing tendencies towards asininity and not-so-very-hidden agendas. The Z-20 is clearly derived from the Sikorsky S-70 based on PLA's experience with it over the years, this point no one will dispute. But this helo on closer inspection is far more modified than a Z-8 or even the AC313 is from the Super Frelon, or the Z-9 is from the Dauphin. On the spectrum of "100% cloned copy" to "100% indigenous design", the Z-20 is clearly more along the lines of a "derivation" of the S-70 rather a direct copy, though still clearly not indigenous. But this subtlety is lost on the lazy or stupid, and "copy" becomes not only far more expedient but also sounds far more condescending, dismissive, and denigrating, which I'm certain was the intended insinuation here.
Last edited:
There is copy. And there is copy.
Not all reverse engineering is created equal.
It is wide spectrum. From one end of the spectrum, you have 'see concept, take concept', which can be called 'copy' only in most lose of sense. Most often cannot even prove the continuity of ideas, as often there has already been existing lines of thought. Common example - StG-44 and AK-47. Some say it is copy, even though internal workings completely different.
Then you have something like the Japanese copying of Jumo 004B - legend has it, from low-quality photograph.
Then - spying. Copying of blueprints.
Then, has copy for study - example Tu-4 and B-29.
Then, has copy, but for reference - such as - MiG-23s in China.
Then, licenced production, without a full range of ToT - from (low level of ToT) J-11, to high level of ToT - Su-30MKI.
Then, transfer of production line, though that is sometimes only extreme spectrum of above. Because licence production involves often transfer of part of line, and production of modern weapons barring most simple has so many different parts and components (Su-27 - 16 major bureaus for supplies alone, spread across time zones 6 hours apart) it is often completely unrealistic if not impossible to transfer entire line.
______________________________________
At every step of the way, like with design and prototype and testing and create manufacture protocol for item, there are so many ways to fail.
To completely walk through the entire process - congratulations, you have already mastered the industrial process from design to mass production.
_______________________________________
One way to look at it - the AK-47 mentioned above. Produced in half the world. Millions of copies. Design - is not complicated. Yet, you have anything from superior copies, designs which except parts of innards share next to nothing with original... From Czechs and Americans... to absolutely atrocious copies which barely can hit barn. When firing from inside. And if it does not burn soldier firing it is consider great success.
________________________________________
Even most crude "Copying" is involved process.
-Taking item apart (not all items designed for easy disassembly, without skilled technician. You can destroy your copy easily. I won't even know where to start taking apart aero-engine)
-Put back together (like first step. But harder. It is easy to break things)
-Create model of item (simply because can take apart and put back together does not make this part easy. Measuring everything is a pain - not all components in simple, easy to measure shapes. in fact most components are not)
-Understand model - this part can take years.
-Set design tolerance and requirements of parts - easier said than done.
-Create industrial process for every such part. Manufacture to the specs and tolerance that would make whole item work - again easier said than done. Often some components may have some specific requirements - such as shear strength or tensile at particular angle - that is very hard to anticipate
Congratulations. Now you have a (hopefully) working copy. Now you can begin testing and optimisation of production and assembly.
And this is talking about machines that can be taken apart and measured. When you start to deal with computers, IC boards, electronics... software (millions of lines of code for modern systems!) Complexity becomes ridiculous.
That is why to say 'is copy' without detailed context is almost completely pointless, and even if it is classical example of copy, a 'successful' copy ipso facto implies industrial and engineering expertise on par with original design and manufacturer. Again I remind gentlemen of AK-47. Manuals and blueprints practically given away, and yet quality of 'copy' - extremely wide spectrum.
Not all reverse engineering is created equal.
It is wide spectrum. From one end of the spectrum, you have 'see concept, take concept', which can be called 'copy' only in most lose of sense. Most often cannot even prove the continuity of ideas, as often there has already been existing lines of thought. Common example - StG-44 and AK-47. Some say it is copy, even though internal workings completely different.
Then you have something like the Japanese copying of Jumo 004B - legend has it, from low-quality photograph.
Then - spying. Copying of blueprints.
Then, has copy for study - example Tu-4 and B-29.
Then, has copy, but for reference - such as - MiG-23s in China.
Then, licenced production, without a full range of ToT - from (low level of ToT) J-11, to high level of ToT - Su-30MKI.
Then, transfer of production line, though that is sometimes only extreme spectrum of above. Because licence production involves often transfer of part of line, and production of modern weapons barring most simple has so many different parts and components (Su-27 - 16 major bureaus for supplies alone, spread across time zones 6 hours apart) it is often completely unrealistic if not impossible to transfer entire line.
______________________________________
At every step of the way, like with design and prototype and testing and create manufacture protocol for item, there are so many ways to fail.
To completely walk through the entire process - congratulations, you have already mastered the industrial process from design to mass production.
_______________________________________
One way to look at it - the AK-47 mentioned above. Produced in half the world. Millions of copies. Design - is not complicated. Yet, you have anything from superior copies, designs which except parts of innards share next to nothing with original... From Czechs and Americans... to absolutely atrocious copies which barely can hit barn. When firing from inside. And if it does not burn soldier firing it is consider great success.
________________________________________
Even most crude "Copying" is involved process.
-Taking item apart (not all items designed for easy disassembly, without skilled technician. You can destroy your copy easily. I won't even know where to start taking apart aero-engine)
-Put back together (like first step. But harder. It is easy to break things)
-Create model of item (simply because can take apart and put back together does not make this part easy. Measuring everything is a pain - not all components in simple, easy to measure shapes. in fact most components are not)
-Understand model - this part can take years.
-Set design tolerance and requirements of parts - easier said than done.
-Create industrial process for every such part. Manufacture to the specs and tolerance that would make whole item work - again easier said than done. Often some components may have some specific requirements - such as shear strength or tensile at particular angle - that is very hard to anticipate
Congratulations. Now you have a (hopefully) working copy. Now you can begin testing and optimisation of production and assembly.
And this is talking about machines that can be taken apart and measured. When you start to deal with computers, IC boards, electronics... software (millions of lines of code for modern systems!) Complexity becomes ridiculous.
That is why to say 'is copy' without detailed context is almost completely pointless, and even if it is classical example of copy, a 'successful' copy ipso facto implies industrial and engineering expertise on par with original design and manufacturer. Again I remind gentlemen of AK-47. Manuals and blueprints practically given away, and yet quality of 'copy' - extremely wide spectrum.
Blackstone
Brigadier
For your sensitivities, Bltizo, and in this specific case, can we agree the Z-20 is at minimum inspired by the Blackhawk, and more likely a copy of it, with some modifications and innovations? I'd still call it a Copyhawk, but I don't object to the term "Chinahawk". Call it "Superhawk" is right out, because the only thing "super" about it is the super Xerox machine they used on it.
Just in case you think I'm anti-Chinese inventions, innovations, and creations, nothing could be further from the truth. I just want to call it as it is, good or bad.
Lol you can call it whatever you want, just realize that whatever name you use or however you choose to phrase things has its own connotations, and other people are not stupid and will recognize what you're trying to convey.
I'm going to call it Z-20.
You can call it whatever you like, inspiration or copy, but nobody is going into a bargain with you to accept something they don't believe in. You should insist whatever you like, and accept the fact that many in this forum disagree with you. In the mean time, you should also be prepared to be rebuffed by many if you insist on what you are doing.
BTW, inspiration was a word that many here including myself have been using, nothing further for us (excluding you) to agree than we already admitted. You did NOT really offered anything in the deal even if we wanted to make a deal?.
P.S. as you mentioned Xerox "copy machine", will you also call HP, Canon and RICOH COPY "copy machine"? Just so we all understand what you mean by COPY.
Nobody here really care about whether you are "anti whatever", for that many of us already know pretty well from past interactions.
Let's all just be ourselves.
Last edited: