Z-8 and Z-18 transport helicopter - family & versions


Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Hi Deino,

The joy of being a PLA watcher, its like what Forrest Gump will say " The PLA is like a box of chocolate , you never know what you will see" sorry for the corny joke :cool:

No need to apologise ... that's in fact the fun of being a PLA watcher; at least for me.
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hi jimmyjames30x30,

Added cost and complexity?
True, true. I mean that's the most obvious reason.
I guess my question was what other than cost and complexity justify the lack of retractable landing gears? Why Are these deemed unnecessary? Is it related to the role of the Z-18 Wide Body? Does this imply that Z-18 as it is will not carry out roles that other similar platforms like S-92 or AW-101 would do. etc
 

ansy1968

Junior Member
Registered Member
True, true. I mean that's the most obvious reason.
I guess my question was what other than cost and complexity justify the lack of retractable landing gears? Why Are these deemed unnecessary? Is it related to the role of the Z-18 Wide Body? Does this imply that Z-18 as it is will not carry out roles that other similar platforms like S-92 or AW-101 would do. etc
Hi jimmyjames30x30,

Yup I know what you mean, Its always half way when PLA does something, Z8L looks so sleek and modern why not put a retractable landing gears to make it complete. But I think the priority is to put it in service first and then the improvement.
 

Pba_target

New Member
Registered Member
True, true. I mean that's the most obvious reason.
I guess my question was what other than cost and complexity justify the lack of retractable landing gears? Why Are these deemed unnecessary? Is it related to the role of the Z-18 Wide Body? Does this imply that Z-18 as it is will not carry out roles that other similar platforms like S-92 or AW-101 would do. etc
It is quite common for "battlefield utility" helicopters to have fixed gear - too many opportunities to fail to lower the gear, too much risk of damage to the mechanism and unnecessary weight which reduces payload. UH-60, CH-47, Z-20, Mi-171 are all fixed gear.
 

Totoro

Captain
VIP Professional
It seems to me the length and height of cabin are roughly the same as the were on older model. The floor is visibly thinner so the cabin sits lower to the ground. And the ramp is longer so the overall ramp slope seems much gentler when ramp is lowered down.

I wouldn't be surprised if the huge side sponsoons are designed to act as lifting surfaces. So at high enough speeds they provide lift. So the rotor can be unloaded to some extent, less power used and less fuel burned.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It seems to me the length and height of cabin are roughly the same as the were on older model. The floor is visibly thinner so the cabin sits lower to the ground. And the ramp is longer so the overall ramp slope seems much gentler when ramp is lowered down.

I wouldn't be surprised if the huge side sponsoons are designed to act as lifting surfaces. So at high enough speeds they provide lift. So the rotor can be unloaded to some extent, less power used and less fuel burned.
Indeed ... so IMO the designed a new fuselage by getting rid of the tall underfloor fuel tank and placing this into the side sponsons thus making the fuselage overall flatter, more streamlined.

Z-8L vs Z-8G +.jpg
 

Top