GoldenDragonMy colleague were in China on a business trip as late as last year. At that time, most chinese citiziens were not allowed to move around freely within China – even less going abroad. I don’t believe that things have changed so much since then.
Chinese civilians were not allowed to legally reside in different cities apart from the place stated by their residency papers (1) but are not restricted from traveling between cities and regions. In fact, “Golden Week” or Chinese New Year is greatest mass movement of people on earth with air travel along domestic routes in China being massively overbooked.
As for people allowed abroad, read my reply post and its associated notes. China has the largest “outbound” tourist market in Asia. There are more Chinese tourists traveling to foreign nations than any other country in Asia.
I thought that most foreign tourists use their own countries airlines? For example, when people go to Russia it isn’t all that common to use Aeroflot if I may say so. .
Foreign tourists can fly those of their own airlines that are allowed into China. The US to China routes are heavily over-subscribed because only two selected US airlines (United and Northwest) are allowed to fly to China on a limited amount of flights. The rest must fly Air China and China Southern directly into China or Cathay Air to Hong Kong and then from there to China.
When there is demand for flights to a country, that country’s airlines WILL get their share. (2) The China carriers will get a share even when people obviously prefer Western airlines.
BTW, if you follow the airline industry, the greatest battle in years for US carriers was for the new US-China routes. American Airlines won a third spot.
Castor, I post articles and footnotes, please read them before replying, thanks.
————————————————————————–
Notes:
(1) The system of restricting residency ( not travel) of rural workers into China’s cities is actually under attack in China and there are major changes over this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,560903,00.html
New deal for China’s migrant millions
“China has begun to ease restrictions on the millions of migrant workers in the cities and says it needs to build thousands of new towns to provide them with work.”
(2)http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0503150078mar15,1,3213253.story?coll=chi-business-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
” United tries to divert rival’s flights
American Air says United fears China route competition
In February federal regulators granted tentative approval to Continental Airlines and American Airlines to fly nonstop to China. Under terms of a new agreement with China U.S. transportation officials could award only two carriers permission to begin serving China.
The potential value of the new routes set off months of lobbying by most of the nation’s largest carriers.
At present, United and Northwest Airlines are the only U.S. carriers allowed to fly to China. United has 28 weekly round-trips flights to Shanghai and Beijing from Chicago and San Francisco. Northwest flies 20 round trips to China each week, while three Chinese carriers combine for 25 weekly round trips to the U.S.”
GoldenDragonresorting to certain defense mechanism or side-tracking the issue here by bringing in news on tourism.
:rolleyes:
The question was posed by Castor: “people aren’t allowed to move around freely within China as well?”
Hallo replied that there are a two million people fluctuation in Shanghai alone.
Secondly, the issue is whether China has the air traffic required to support the development of large planes – not whether there are two million flyers out of Shanghai (a deliberate sidetracking of the issue on your part.)
Tourism figures are absolutely critical to the market for airlines and therefore the market for airliners.
Now, Mao clone, you can either debate the issue or continue making snippy remarks about people’s “defense mechanism” or what not.
GoldenDragonThe Kunlun engine. This will be the latest turbojet slated for the J-7s and J-8s. The Kunlun III will be a turbofan based on this core.
GoldenDragonActually, you can. Just look at regular Herculeses and RAF Herks, or Tu-22R/Tu-22RD, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Being an external glue-on piece of kit, removing the probe is very straightforward. Removing the actual piping is something different (especially if the plumbing is internal), but you can’t really see that on photos like this.
I have doubts whether you can for the Il-76 (though the question is now moot since we see the boom in later pictures.) I find it hard to believe that a large boom which needs to be structurally sound enough to not bend under the slipstream and stay sealed for the intake of fuel is a simple glue-on.
If the boom can be taken off easily, I would assume they would take it off for the KJ2000 testbed since the aerodynamics are already under stress from the rotordome.
GoldenDragonFisher is well known as a major drumbeater of the “China threat” and as such is looked at with some suspicion in Chinese forums.
But that said, Fisher gets very good information. He wrote that the SD-10 seekerhead had nothing to do with AGAT a year early by talking directly with the Chinese manufacturer Louyang before Jane’s made its correction.
He also wrote about the J-11B and an oncoming Chinese decision to discontinue Russian kit deliveries before it actually happened. Unlike other “China threat” proponents, like Bill Gertz, who depend entirely on US DOD reports, Fisher actually do visit Zhuhai airshows and far more understanding of the Chinese indutsry.
GoldenDragonBut the overwhelming majority of those people living in the suburb don’t commute to work by plane on a daily basis. We aren’t talking about train here. 🙂
That’s a totally different question on air traffic and that was already answered by the fact that China has the largest inbound and outbound tourist traffic in Asia. (1)
You questioned whether Shanghai “have 2 millions people coming to and leaving the city each day.” Shanghai most certainly does because the two million number isn’t even particularly high for a commercial hub like Shanghai.
Please excuse me my lack of foresight to handle your fragile psyche with more tender care.
Mao clone, you’ve hardly been here long enough to start off with insults over argument of semantics.
—————————————————————
Notes:
(1)http://www.chinatour.com/data/data.htm
Chinese Tourism Industry Booming
Xinhua News, China October 20, 2004 – The world’s largest credit union VISA says China has become the largest tourist source in the Asia-Pacific region. Visa International Service Association’s latest report shows China attracted 11.5 million inbound tourists last year. These tourists spent UD$10 billion using their VISA credit card in China. The organization expects China’s tourism revenue will reach US$60 billion by 2008. By 2020, China will become the largest tourism destination and the fourth largest tourist source in the world.
You need planes to bring foreign tourists in and planes to take Chinese tourists out.
For comparison, India which has a comparable sized population had an inbound tourist market of 8 million in 2004 while China has one of over 100 million.
http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp?Article=2333&CategoryID=7
” . . . other Asian countries like Singapore and Malaysia as a tourist destination. Malaysia drew 15.7 million tourists in 2004, Singapore attracted 8.3 million while China received 109.4 million tourists.”
GoldenDragonCome to your senses, shanghai does not have 2 millions people coming to and leaving the city each day. That figure could well mean total number of non-resident residents in shanghai.
A very reasonable number, flux for large cities like New York and Tokyo numbers in the millions because huge amount of people live in the suburbs.
In fact, some smaller cities like Hartford, Boston and Philadelphia actually double in size during the work day or during the school year.
GoldenDragonCivilian-wise, Boeing and Airbus are really the only choice if you want a professional carrier system that is expected carry a huge amount of traffic (before the 1990s it was just Boeing.) This is the same for every major air travel market in the world outside the US and Western Europe. Any airline that isn’t using Airbus and Boeing is considered “bush.”
But there is little doubt that Y-10 could have flown on as the Y-8 or the Y-7 if China continued with the project and if China had forced its airlines to buy the Y-10. The Y-10 flight-time wasn’t a few testflight circles around the proving grounds but 130 full-fledge flights carrying passengers and cargo between cities.
The usual Boeing and Airbus domination of China’s international/domestic long haul flight fleet aside, China has a large feeder system filled with a range of homebuilt turbo-prop transports (Y-12, Y-7/MA60 and Y-8.)
As far as air passengers, China has the fastest growing air travel market in the world as well as being the major market in Asia for aircraft sales. Both Airbus and Boeing depends heavily on the Chinese market for the success of the A380 and 787 respectively. The reason is China already has Asia’s largest inbound and outbound tourist market (in laymen’s term, more people enter and exit China than any other country in Asia) and it hasn’t even reached its main growth cycle yet.
GoldenDragonChina has been building Y-8 transport aircrafts for a long time as well as flying Boat aircraft (sorry, the name escapes me), as well as lisence building Tu-16’s.
They’ve recently unveiled plans for another transport aircraft. I do not think they currently have the need for long range strategic aircraft as most of their primary security concerns are next door.
The flying boat is the SH-5. China has the ability to build 707 sized aircraft since the late 1970s with Y-10. As stated above the Y-10 was no paper project. There were three planes and they flew 130 times – and not just test flights around the local airspace but long range flights to multiple cities including the high altitude airport at Lhasa.
The second 180 seater which China made was the one that killed off the Y-10 in the 1980s and that was the local assembly of the MD-80.
GoldenDragonThose who actually studied the Chinese aircraft industry would know about the Y-10 which was a 180 seater which was designed in the 1970s by Shanghai aircraft.
Let me repost a previous reply I made:
The Y-10 was a technical success. Three were made by Shanghai Aviation which from 1980 to 1984 flew 130 times times. Among the cities graced by the Y10 were Beijing, Harbin, Urumqi, Zhengzhou, Hefei, Guangzhou, Kunming, Chengdu as well as the home city of Shanghai. It flew seven times to Lhasa along so-called “Route of Death” because of the high altitude and the landing and takeoff requirements in thin air.
It could carry up to 179 passengers. There were many PLAAF plans for it including an AWACS configuration.
There was a long article posted on the Y10 in the chinese forum lamenting the fate of the Y10 (this year being the 24th anniversary of first flight.)
Quoted from the article, “the Chinese commercial aviation industry is the ultimate killer of the Y10.”
In the 1980s, airline officials in China wanted Western aircraft. They wanted to split the airlines from being tied to the state aircraft industry. They actually fought tooth and nail against the Y10 because they were afraid they would be required to buy it.
Worse, Shanghai Aviation made a horrible mistake in destroying the Y10 assembly lines when they tied up with McDonnell Douglas in assembling the MD-80.
I couldn’t blame the airlines, especially if you look the size of the Chinese carrier industry today. Flying western aircraft has made them world-class airlines in two short decades (Air China, China Eastern and China Southern have some of the best safety records in the world.)
But many said that if the government had made companies buy at least a few Y10s they would have kept a great technical base.
This plane flew and flew quite well. It wasn’t as modern as Western aircraft at the time. But it could have survived just as the Y-7 has survived as a Chinese feeder line aircraft.
But to the Chinese airlines, West was best and that was that. Though I would doubt something like what happened to the Y10 would happen today. The ARJ21, China’s latest commercial carrier project already sold 35 airplanes before the first prototype has flown.
But it is important to recall that the 1980s was a special period where there were a lot of Western/Chinese tie-ups – the J8II Peace Pearl project, Super 7, Speys for the JH-7, talks of China buying Harriers, the Aspide from Italy, etc. Politically, the US and China were allied against the USSR in Afghanistan. All of those ended after 1989.
GoldenDragonGoddam, Hyper! Now, I’ll get that queasy feeling whenever looking at a refueling probe. (Actually. the boom and receptacle in the USAF system very similar to mating among large herbivores.)
Unless, the poster was able to PS on multiple pictures we never seen before and was able to do it from multiple angles, that is mostly likely real. Now whether it is a new plane or just the first one repainted and altered, it’s hard to say.
You can’t haphazardly take out the probe on a large machine like the Il-76. But they could decide to do so if it affects the aerodynamics (in combination with the radar housing.)
GoldenDragonThe story said the designer created “magic weapons” to counter RoC “secret offensive weapons.”
This is typical HK press. They take a small bit of news (such as an Egyptian delegation to China) and then expands it to a sensational story (“Egypt buys new Chinese super plane.”)
I wouldn’t put too into unless it is corroborated by a mainland news source.
GoldenDragonUnless im mistaken, the source of claim was a sukhoi official and not china. Following is a link which confirms this, though im sure u can find many more.
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/reports/mair1.htm
This individual also confirmed comments by a Sukhoi official at the 2002 Zhuhai show that Shenyang J-11s have a better production finish than those made at the KnAAPO factory in Komsomolsk
The better finish was repeatedly stated by Russian officials not Chinese. So guess how bad the original Su-27 were or the MKK or MKI.
If some CHINESE had posted a walkaround of the J-11 number 620 and pointed out the imperfections, they know about the problem. I’d be more worrieed about a VVS machine which no one had done so yet.
How does one prove mere speculation (please refer to ur own post where u refer to it as its my “speculation”)? I would think that one needs solid hard evidence to gain some merit for one’s speculation…or r u saying that lack of solid evidence in itself is a proof for ur speculations???
PS. In my humble opinion, its not a matter of presence/lack of evidence but rather hyper patriotism which leads to self-deceit…let me quote Demosthenes who said Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. This is probably the reason that while so many on one side of the border consider projects like LCA and Arjun to be a failures, many on the other side thought that J-10 was a mere figment of chinese imagination (even in 2003) and that FC-1 first flight pictures were nothing more than great photoshops (August 2003). 🙂
Let’s all have a final word on this before it turns into another flame fest.
First, we all speculate. But it is one thing state your thoughts on the project because you’re genuinely interested in it and it is another, as Vikas said, to repeatedly “speculate” on supposed virtue or faults on a project to gratify one’s hyper patriotism. The first in speculation, the second is flamebaiting.
Secondly, there is actually little guesswork on the FC-1 than the J-10. The FC-1 right now is flying with the RD-93 and will carry a Chinese radar in its first production examples. It’s main weapon will be the SD-10 and its design philosophy is modular in which engine, radar and even FCS are expected to be different as the plane develop into latter and seperate versions. These are all laid out in various official Chinese articles.
The open avionics fit has become a bludgeon for posters intent on flaming to ask repeatedly in order to for them to say the following:
“So you admit there is no avionics system picked right now.”
“Yes, so you admit you haven’t picked an avionics system right now.”
“Okay, you admit there is no avionics system right now.”
Entirely childish.
Everyone knows the systems are still liable to changes. The FC-1 was built so quickly after 1999 because avionics was decoupled from flight parameter in the specs.
We also know that the companies which have openly offered to equip FC-1’s avionics fit are from France (Thales), Italy (Grifo) and Russia (Phazatron), who repeatedly mentioned the FC-1 as a plane to be built in the hundreds which could be a massive windfall for Russian manufacturers.
I see no one truly interested in the FC-1 claiming anything more. The people asking questions about the avionics also know this but they’re more interested getting the obvious response and then making a nationalistic comment.
Asking the same question over and over and knowing exactly what the reply would be is not speculation but goading.
If you are smart, don’t be goaded into making a reply that everyone already knows, including the flamer, but which he is waiting for so he could say:
“So you admit there is no avionics system right now.” :rolleyes:
GoldenDragonDeino might be interested in this.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, China worked on a long range bomber design based on the H-6. It had six wing mounted engines and capable of reaching Moscow.
A H-6 was converted to carry two engines (512-5W turbofans) on the wings as a testbed.
GoldenDragonAs with the FC1 data, why not outsource the guesswork to the indians until we know more about it?
Just don’t bother to argue at this moment.
It’s not work outsourcing so much as an psychological balm for them. But true, there’s never a need to reply to an Indian attempting to flame in this thread.
Same apply to the J10. And I said many times at CMF, the J10 is only a movie prop.
You’d think that they would have nothing to worry about with a prop. But this unofficial aircraft draws attention from people who aren’t really interested in the plane itself but as an imagined opportunity to satisfy their misguided and misplace sense of “rivalry.”
Sign In
