The stunt is freaking nuts! What are they hoping to accomplish?

Was there someone who wanted to buy FBC-1s (Argentina or Iran) but the idea was dropped because of political reasons.

Interesting article. The parts that really intrigue is the mindset and procedures used, which can give you an insight on how they do other projects.

Out of the expanding pack of available Soviet bloc aircraft designs, but manufactured by their Oriental friends to the far east, comes the aircraft which will undoubtedly prove to be the civilian-available Warbird “aircraft of the decade”. By modifying the original Yak 18 design from a five-cylinder, 160 hp radial, tail-wheel aircraft, the Mainland Chinese, ever mindful of their insurance rates and the basic ability of the average rice-paddy worker to transition from ox-cart to tail-dragger, transferred that third wheel to the nose, and over the years increased the size and horsepower of the power plant to nine cylinders and 285 hp. The evolution result is the sleek and spirited Nanchang CJ-6A .

The uninformed consensus of those who have yet to be introduced to foreign military aircraft is that, compared to US equipment, Soviet or Chinese aircraft would be more egg-crate in nature than bullet-proof. Wrong. Or in the case of the Chinese CJ-6A, “wong”. The Chinese have been making this aircraft from the same basic blueprint for almost 50 years. Instead of trying to evolve a space shuttle out of a two-seat trainer, they set about to redesign each part that broke so it would be disabused to do so as frequently. It would seem that after at least 15 years of this pencil and eraser engineering the probability they will have succeeded should be high. In as much as they have been at it for more than twice that long, high it is.

All these suggest two things:

– They design in such a way that any country peasant or idiot can fly them.

– They go through every aspect of a design, then redesign components so they are harder to break, or made idiot proof.

If I remember thats like a two seater Yakolev trainer right? Yes I heard it’s popular among warbird collectors.

Hopefully this thread is not repeating like the previous one, so I might just answer the question.

For two days I have been trying to search reports in the internet about the feedback, but I couldn’t find any. I think no any feedback has been published.

I think Chinese posters here are the same like you, and I don’t think anyone here has any kind of report. So, if you keep asking the same question here, it is just wasting your time.

If you really insist to know, then you might want to contact each individual user, their answer is most likely be truth.

Or you can find some kind of report somewhere, then you can create another separate thread so people who interested can discuss in there.

Since, no one has any kind of answer that you are asking, let’s move on and stick to the topic.

If you lose interest since no info about what you are looking for, then you are free to go anywhere else.

Thank you.

John

Well I did post this, the individual being Dave Sutter.

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/Fe…rivateMiGs.html

The MiG-15/17 can be considered for most intents one type. There are currently four basic varients available as follows: MiG-15 either Chinese or Polish manufactured. (single seat fighters). MiG-15UTI trainers, mainly Polish. MiG-17F either Chinese or Polish once again, and the JJ-5 trainer, a 2 seat MiG-17 manufactured only in China. Basic differences between the 15 and 17 are the wing, 10 degrees greater in sweep, much thinner and with a higher critical mach number in the 17 compared to the 15. The 17 fighter has an afterburning VK-1F engine with all of the others, including the JJ-7 MiG-17 trainer having the less powerfull VK-1 sans burner. All of these engines are really reverse engineered Rolls Royce Nene engines, the Brits having had the good grace to sell the Soviets engines at the beginning of the cold war. Having had experience with all 4 of these I observe that the nicest airplanes are the ones from China (!!). Don’t ask me why, but their stuff is of much better fit and finish than the European stuff. I know it is weard and does not fit in with most peoples pre-conceived ideas but it is true. (and my own personal MiG is a Polish Lim-5 which a MiG-17F fighter, so I have no axe to grind).

Looks to me that the entire midsection of the FC-1 04 seems differently constructed from the earlier prototypes.

PPl here just dont want to understand the difficulties involved in the process. As highsea says firstly, its impossible that any cfm56 core were unaccounted for[expect the two lost in 83]. While the comm airline engine are much diff from fighter jets.

And how many times do I have to tell you, the US military does not have the same opinion.