Here’s an interestung one. A model of a Xi’an development. Looks like Y-7 transport with canards!

They even divulge to visitors from the US the J-10’s from the FTTC are used in air defense of Beijing.

First time I heard this, Rick!

No no, i dont live in one, i just went to have one lesson, i reside in a flat.

No, you qualify. You reside in the forum and has one lesson more than just about everyone else.

All I have is a quarter million frequent flyer miles so I qualify as a resident “passenger” not “pilot.”

That’s bullsh1t. I’ve spent a lot of time communicating with pilots on other forums.

AFM is the one of the premier aviation pubs globally. Now why wouldn’t pilots come here if they go to ANY forum (aside, of course, from the .mil and veterans sites)?

Sir, it’s not that there are fewer pilots at this forum than others but there are simply fewer people willing to pretend that they’re pilots here.

(On the one paw, I didn’t expect the J-10 or just its model kits to have so many international fans.

On the other paw, I’m surprised the Chinese company that makes the J-10 model kits hasn’t been arrested and closed down by the (IMO paranoid) Chinese national security ministry for disclosing national military secrets.)

Well, it’s a very weird thing. Mainland magazines are allowed to quote foreign publications – Jane’s, AFM, AI – about the J-10. In fact, if you read Chinese news, they always start with “according to English publication Jane’s” or “Hong Kong’s Wen Po” the J-10 is estimated to be “so and so.” The WZ-10 is mentioned in the same way.

So it is not illegal to quote foreign sources about China projects. Trumpeter can very well say they are modeling the J-10 according to descriptions in Western media.

I point your attention to a great series at the Seattle Times. Seattle, of course, is the home of Boeing (though the headquarters had moved to Chicago.)

It is a three-part series on Boeing’s dependence on the China market and its affect on the company. Part one is Boeing initia dominance in the China market and subsequent stumbles. Part two is Airbus rapid invasion and ascendance.

Part three is the most relevant story to this thread as it details the Boeing and Airbus battle that is benefiting China with technology and jobs. But at the same time, it also highlights how China state firms are forces to change as they are punished by bright engineers who rather work for foreign firms in China than the old China state companies like Harbin.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002319842_boeingchina07.html

In China, the heated competition between Boeing and Airbus for nearly $200 billion in sales over the next two decades hinges not just on prices and politics. The more willing Boeing and Airbus are to share technology and provide local jobs, the more likely they are to win Chinese orders.

Along the way, investments by the two airplane builders are helping China become a global aviation manufacturing center. A third of all Boeing planes now flying have major parts and assemblies built in China.

…

Like China itself, the aviation industry is going through the upheavals of modernization. Factories are facing pressure to improve their efficiency, quality control and management.

Some Puget Sound families have several generations who’ve spent their careers working for Boeing. By contrast, in China, it’s hard to train good workers fast enough or hold on to them for long.

The aviation industry is losing its appeal for talented young people like Zhou Xianfeng. Young engineers leave state-run aircraft companies the first chance they get, he said. Low salaries, inefficiency and nepotism drive them away.

Zhou, an engineer with experience at state-run and private companies, grew up in the far northeast and spent the first years of his career working for Hafei Aviation in Harbin. When an offer came from the repair division of German airline Lufthansa, he moved to the southern boomtown of Shenzhen at the opposite end of the country. Last year, he moved again when he was hired by MID American Supply, a small U.S. company in Tianjin.

Articles in the series:
Boeing stumbles in race for China
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002307265_boeingchina05.html

Courting China: Airbus makes all the right moves
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002315713_boeingchina06.html

As competition heats up, jobs fly into China
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002319842_boeingchina07.html

California is considered a friendly fellow People’s Republic so its units have open access to Chinese airspace.

Are you telling me the Chinese consider California a different country than all the other 49 states?

I’m sorry, but that just sounds rather ridiculous. By that logic an F-16 from the Texas ANG, could fly in with California markings on the tail. The pilot could get on the radio and shout “Whoa, dude I need to land.” And the Chinese would let him land anywhere he pleases……

An F-16 from Texas would never be able to fly to China.

Neither would a F-16 from California for that matter. But that is why the KC-10 is in Beijing. It flies out of Beijing’s Nanyuan AFB or Yangcun AFB (in Tianjin) to top off Californian F-15s or F-16s enroute to China.

Why else do you think a Golden Bear Republic tanker would be in China?