Chinese Aviation Industry


Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
Given the big tub of the fuselage and the high positioned wing, i don't see why engines still could not fit under the wings.
 

Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
The engine in that position rather than under the wing is likely for aerodynamic reasons.
Point still stands. If a tube with wings could have engines at the back and high up - it would have. But wait, we already had such planes. Various DC planes and even the tri-engine planes with the third engine on top of the fuselage. And we gradually saw those designs disappear and saw engines moved under the wing.

Aerodynamics wise AND ingesting air into the engine wise, having engines under the wing is the best solution. Air is unobstructed when fed into the engine. Having engines at the back (and up) doesn't influence aerodnaymics directly but makes up for a lot of added weight away from center of lift. Which makes the whole plane quite draggy, indirectly, as the plane needs to compensate for that weight at the back with trim, creating drag. Placing engines where center of weight and lift is - which is under the wings, is overall a better solution. While there is SOME loss of lift due to the pylons, that's not much, and certainly the decades of aeroplane designs around the world showed it's a good compromise.

Now, I would understand placing the engines on top if the fuselage was thin and if it was a true flying wing, with very little clearance to the ground. But here we're seeing blended body wing designs which show ample room, as the wings are positioned up high. I dare to say that the clearance shown is bigger than on A320/B737 series planes.

And again, I am not saying that placing the engines under wing is better. I am asking WHY isn't it done. And hoping for a *detailed* reply which would make me understand the benefits.
 

Quickie

Major
Point still stands. If a tube with wings could have engines at the back and high up - it would have. But wait, we already had such planes. Various DC planes and even the tri-engine planes with the third engine on top of the fuselage. And we gradually saw those designs disappear and saw engines moved under the wing.

Aerodynamics wise AND ingesting air into the engine wise, having engines under the wing is the best solution. Air is unobstructed when fed into the engine. Having engines at the back (and up) doesn't influence aerodnaymics directly but makes up for a lot of added weight away from center of lift. Which makes the whole plane quite draggy, indirectly, as the plane needs to compensate for that weight at the back with trim, creating drag. Placing engines where center of weight and lift is - which is under the wings, is overall a better solution. While there is SOME loss of lift due to the pylons, that's not much, and certainly the decades of aeroplane designs around the world showed it's a good compromise.

Now, I would understand placing the engines on top if the fuselage was thin and if it was a true flying wing, with very little clearance to the ground. But here we're seeing blended body wing designs which show ample room, as the wings are positioned up high. I dare to say that the clearance shown is bigger than on A320/B737 series planes.

And again, I am not saying that placing the engines under wing is better. I am asking WHY isn't it done. And hoping for a *detailed* reply which would make me understand the benefits.

It just looks out of place to put the engines under the small wings (relative to the engine size). The relatively huge engines could minimize the effectiveness of the wings' control surfaces, which is much smaller relative to the wings of the usual commercial airplane design. It also looks out of place to put the engines (the main thrusting force) at other places other than as being shown if you consider the center of mass of the whole design.
 

timepass

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to Buy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Turboprop Aircraft from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
....




Xian Aircraft Industrial Corporation under the parent company Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) is working on a shoulder-winged turboprop-powered airliner known as Modern Ark 700 (MA700) with the ability to operate in complex flight environments.

Pakistan, among other countries, like Bahrain, Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, etc. is already lined up to acquire the $25 million MA700 which will available in 2022.

The 86-passenger capacity aircraft can reach a maximum speed of up to 640 km/h and has a range of up to 2700 km. The medium-range twin-engine aircraft is a direct competitor to French ATR 72, Ilyushin IL-114, and Canadian Bombardier Q Series and the company aims to capture 20% share of the global turboprop regional aircraft market by 2026.

The aircraft’s capabilities make it ideal for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
’s domestic flights. Pakistan Army’s aviation wing and Pakistan Air Force can also make use of an aircraft that’s built to operate in difficult situations.

According to the Global Times, the company has already received 285 intended orders from 11 clients including Pakistan for its third member of the MA series – that also boasts MA60 and MA600



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

asif iqbal

Brigadier
Pudong production like opened in March 2019

first ARJ21 rolled out In September 2019

it’s has a capacity of 30 units per year and can accommodate a second production line

ARJ21 is now ramping up fast

one question has remained can China mass produce aircraft and scale up production of modern large units, I would now say yes

also same for Y9 and Y20
 

xyqq

Junior Member
Registered Member
Quite interesting, it differs a bit - since it lacks the cheek sensors - to a similar aircraft spotted already in April 2017.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Based on the article above, there are 6 versions of the MA60 remote sensing platform: 1) basic type (with SAR at the belly only), 2) radome type, 3) truss type, 4) truss radome type, 5) external tank type, and 6) external tank small radome type.
Looks like the one with cheek sensors is the "truss radome type", and the other one in the previous post is the "truss type".

MA-60-SAR-Truss.jpg
 
Last edited:

xyqq

Junior Member
Registered Member
Here are the 6 configurations of MA60 remote sensing platform:
1) Basic type with SAR at the belly only

MA-60-SAR.jpg 2) With additional cheek radomes
MA-60-SAR-Radome.jpg

3) With additional trusses
MA-60-SAR-Truss.jpg

4) With cheek radomes and trusses


5) With external tanks
MA-60-SAR-Tank.jpg
6) With cheek radomes, trusses and external tanks

MA-60-SAR-Truss-tank.jpg
 

Top